STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION REGION ONE ALBANY, NY 12232

www.dot.ny.gov

Sam Zhou, P.E. Joan McDonald ACTING REGIONAL DIRECTOR COMMISSIONER

August 23, 2013

Ms. Robin Dropkin, Executive Director Parks & Trails New York 29 Elk Street Albany, NY 12207 518-434-1583 [email protected]

Re: PIN 1460.42, Route 32 Over the Mohawk Bridge Project Comment letter dated August 20, 2013

Dear Ms. Dropkin:

I received your comment letter in today’s mail. I’d like to thank you and your staff for the time and effort spent reviewing the proposed alternatives as outlined in the Draft Design Report and for your thoughtful and constructive comments. Your concerns are shared by the Capital District Transportation Committee and were expressed in a letter to me from their Executive Director Michael Franchini dated August 21, 2013. I’ve attached a copy of his letter for your information along with a copy of my response letter dated August 22, 2013.

As I said to Mr. Franchini, different bicycling advocacy groups typically don’t agree on the best approach for accommodating bicyclists. Your letter and CDTC’s letter are a good example of this. As I explained in my response to CDTC, consistency is important, as is following current design requirements.

Your proposal to establish dedicated and striped 5 foot wide bicycle lanes would meet current standards. It would also be ‘one step better’ than the currently proposed preferred 4.2 meter (14 foot) wide shared use travel lanes (as compared to the minimum required width for such lanes of 12 feet). However, your proposal to provide 10 foot wide travel lanes does not meet the applicable design requirements, which call for 3.3 meter (11 feet) lanes minimum. Therefore, in order to provide dedicated bicycle lanes a total width of 5 feet plus 11 feet, or 16 feet in all would be required. This would add 2 feet of bridge deck in each direction, for a total of 4 feet. Over the proposed 850 foot long bridge (under Alternative #6) this would require an additional 3,400 square feet of bridge deck area. Using a rough estimate of $500/SF, this would increase the cost of the bridge by $1.7 Million and so is economically not feasible.

Economics aside, from a practical standpoint providing dedicated bicycle lanes over very short distance doesn’t seem to provide a great deal of benefit, especially in locations where there is no hope of ever extending those lanes. In the Town of Waterford the area immediately north of the bridge is heavily developed and is a historic district. Substantial widening there for dedicated bike lanes is highly unlikely, ever.

Region One Executive Office, Suite 1s50 - 50 Wolf Road - Albany, NY 12232

The currently proposed 4.2 meter (+/- 14 foot) wide shared use travel lanes are a good compromise, in my opinion, between the minimum required 12 foot wide shared use travel lanes and the 16 foot width that would be required to provide dedicated bike lanes. The current proposal is also an improvement over existing conditions as well as more compatible with the existing and future width available in the Town of Waterford.

Sincerely,

Geoffrey W. Wood, P.E. Project Manager

Attachments: 1) Your 08/20/2013 comment letter 2) 08/21/2013 comment letter from CDTC 3) 08/22/2013 response letter to CDTC

cc: Project File Mr. Michael Franchini, Executive Director, Capital District Transportation Committee

Mohawk Towpath Scenic Byway Coalition, Inc. P O Box 90 Clifton Park, N Y 12065-0090 518-406-8610 http://www.MohawkTowpath.org/

August 23, 2013

Geoffrey Wood Region 1 Design 50 N Y S Department of Transportation 50 Wolf Road - Pod 2-32 Albany, New York 12232

Re: Project 1460.42 Route 32 Mohawk River Cohoes-Waterford Bridge

The Mohawk Towpath Scenic Byway, a state and federal recognized scenic byway, passes along and connects the communities of Cohoes and Waterford as part of the designated route for visitors to the Mohawk Towpath Byway. The reconstruction of the Route 32 bridge is of major interest to the MTSB as we continue to promote the many historical, cultural, natural and recreational aspects to visitors both near and far.

It appears that design alternative 6 is the preferred choice because it causes the least disruption to the communities. However, we would like to be assured that the design will safely accommodate not only the driving public, but also pedestrians and bicyclists who might choose to stop along the way. Also note that this area of the Mohawk River between the falls and the downstream dam appears to be a good fishing location. Perhaps as the construction wraps up leaving fishing access (even without dedicated parking) would be a community asset.

The Byway encourages the public to take notice of the many historical and recreational opportunities that exist along this byway that follows the route of the Erie Canal and parts of the Champlain Canal in our local communities.

The reconstruction of the Route 32 bridge, also known as the Roosevelt Bridge, is of major benefit to our municipal partners along the Mohawk Towpath Byway. We look forward to its construction and completion. If we can be of any further assistance, please contact me at 518-371-7548. Thank you for allowing commentary on this important project.

Sincerely,

Eric J. Hamilton Executive Director

STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION REGION ONE ALBANY, NY 12232

www.dot.ny.gov

Sam Zhou, P.E. Joan McDonald ACTING REGIONAL DIRECTOR COMMISSIONER

August 22, 2013

Mr. Michael Franchini, Executive Director Capital District Transportation Committee One Park Place, Main Floor Albany, NY 12205-2676 518-458-2161 [email protected]

Re: PIN 1460.42, Route 32 Over the Mohawk Bridge Project Comment letter dated August 21, 2013

Dear Mr. Franchini:

I received your comment letter in today’s mail. I’d like to thank you and your staff for the time and effort spent reviewing the proposed alternatives as outlined in the Draft Design Report and for your thoughtful and constructive comments.

We’re aware of the importance of the route as a regional bicycle and pedestrian connection, but the background information you provided to support this fact is helpful in documenting that fact. Your letter will be included in the Final Design Report.

In recognition of the importance of this route for bicycling we’ve selected the recommended 4.2 meter (14 feet) shared use travel lane width for this project rather than the minimum 3.6 meter (12 feet) width. I understand from your comments, and from my prior interaction with Ed Tremblay, Director of Community & Economic Development for the City of Cohoes, that the difference between the current proposal and your suggestion is simply the addition of a white pavement edge line 3 feet from the face of curb. You are not suggesting more pavement width, or a wider bridge. As I said during the Q&A portion of last Thursday night’s meeting, this is a final design detail that could be discussed further, after design approval, and this is what I recommend.

For now I’d like to point out that striping a 3 foot wide shoulder, with the intended purpose of that shoulder to serve as a bicycle accommodation, does not meet the guidance/requirements contained in the current version of Chapter 17, Bicycle Facility Design, of NYSDOT’s Highway Design Manual. This chapter can be found on-line here: https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/design/dqab/hdm/hdm-repository/chapt_17.pdf .

See Section 17.4.5, ‘Shoulders’, on page 17-6 for this statement: “When the scoping or Design Approval Documents indicate a need to design shoulders on a project to specifically accommodate bicycling, the shoulder width should be a minimum of 1.2 m.” This is equivalent to 4 feet, not 3. Also see Section 17.4.6, ‘Wide Curb Lanes’, on page 17-7 for this statement: “Where an edge stripe is used on a wide curb lane, the stripe should be

Region One Executive Office, Suite 1s50 - 50 Wolf Road - Albany, NY 12232

Wood to Franchini, 08/22/2103, page 2

placed as close as practicable to the curb face. However, where this has the potential for encouraging the undesirable operation of two motor vehicles in one lane, it may be preferable to place the edge stripe at the edge of the travel lane, provided that a 1.2-m wide "shoulder" space (approximate) would remain between the curb face and lane stripe.”

When it comes to pavement markings, consistency is considered to be very important so that drivers and bicyclists both know what to expect and what is required (of them and of the other). It would be problematic for me to propose a typical section in the Final Design Report which deviates from the project design criteria, our Highway Design Manual, and perhaps more importantly from our current practices for striping our State Highways to ensure consistency. Whereas the CDTC Bicycle and Pedestrian Task Force is a local group, the NYSDOT Highway Design Manual provides guidance and requirements for transportation projects state wide. Rather than advocating for specific changes to this individual project it would be more appropriate, I think, for CDTC to advocate for changes to the NYSDOT Highway Design Manual.

Regarding your comments about what the Draft Design Report has to say about proposed pedestrian facilities, thank you very much for pointing this out to me. While I’ve been directly involved with the project for many years, it’s difficult to be on top of every detail. I agree 100% with your recommendation to upgrade the existing pedestrian facilities at the northern project limits at the intersection of Route 32 with Museum Lane and Clifton Street in Waterford. I actually believe that we should also be evaluating the need to possibly upgrade the existing pedestrian facilities on all 4 quadrants of the signalized intersection at the southern project limits as well. I will be revising the preliminary plans to indicate full reconstruction ends where the Route 32 approach meets these intersections, but revising the project limits to capture the entire intersection area for the purpose of addressing pedestrian accommodation needs. I will have the wording in the Final version of the Design Report updated accordingly.

Sincerely,

Geoffrey W. Wood, P.E. Project Manager

CC: Project File The Honorable George E. Primeau Sr., Mayor, City of Cohoes Mr. Ed Tremblay, Director of Community & Economic Development, City of Cohoes

Response to Assemblyman McDonald THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEES Aging STATE OF NEW YORK Cities Mental Health and ALBANY Developmental Disabilities Real Property Taxation Tourism, Parks, Arts & Sports Development JOHN T. MCDONALD III Assemblymember 108th District

August 20, 2013

Mr. Geoffrey W. Wood, P.E. NYSDOT, Region 1 Design Group 50 Wolf Road, POD 23 Albany, NY 12232

Dear Mr. Wood:

First and foremost I would like to extend my appreciation to the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) for conducting the two community public meetings this past week as it relates to the replacement of NYS Route 32 Bridge over the Mohawk River. I found both meetings to be informative and there was active engagement of the public which I believe is helpful in regard to the final output of the project. As a former Mayor who has been engaged in this project since 2006, I am encouraged to see movement in the right direction on this effort with the understanding that we still have more to go in this process but at least there is a direction and future at this time.

I do have a few comments to make in regard to the project which I beg your indulgence. Firstly, I am supportive of Alternative #6 as it provides the alternative that has the least impacts during construction to the communities and those traveling these routes on a daily basis. Secondly, this project protects property currently under consideration for development in Cohoes which is important for both communities. Thirdly, I am pleased to see a logical and cost effective solution to the congestion of traffic caused by Shelter Enterprises. It is good policy to address this concern while at the same time reducing the potential to negatively impact a long time business at this location.

I do have two concerns that are shared with Mayor Primeau and Supervisor Lawler that I wish to share with you. The first concern is for traffic coming off the end of State Route 787. I do believe, and it was mentioned by NYSDOT staff at the meeting, that this area as well as points south become increasingly congested during peak hours. I also believe this is an opportunity to address this issue in a cost effective manner by allowing for a slip lane to be installed north of the current two lanes at the end of SR 787. This will allow for more streamlined traffic north of Cohoes which is a benefit to all. Additionally, I feel that at the southbound end of Route 32, of the three lanes that are designated in Cohoes at the confluence of SR 787, two of those lanes should be dedicated to left turning lanes onto SR 787 and the other dedicated to a right turning/straight lane. Another option, though least preferred, is to have the middle lane designated as a straight/turning lane instead of just a left turning only lane onto SR 787.

Room 417, Legislative Office Building, Albany, New York 12248 • 518-455-4474, FAX: 518-455-4727 EMAIL: [email protected] www.assembly.state.ny.us Mr. Geoffrey W. Wood, P.E. August 20, 2013 Page 2

I understand that technically this may be outside the boundary of the project design which I understand but I do not necessarily agree with. This is an opportunity to address a long term concern that improves the quality of life in the area and will also assist in smog and emission reduction as a result of minimizing the congestion of traffic. I ask that you give these comments your utmost consideration as NYSDOT reviews all comments and moves toward final decisions.

Sincerely,

John T. McDonald III Member of Assembly

ecc: City of Cohoes Mayor George Primeau Town of Waterford Supervisor John Lawler Senator Neil Breslin Senator Kathleen Marchione Region 1 Director Sam Zhou

Wood, Geoffrey (DOT)

From: [email protected] Sent: Friday, August 16, 2013 10:17 AM To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Wood, Geoffrey (DOT) Subject: NYS Route 32 over the Mohawk River Bridge Project

Categories: Urgent

Gentleman, . I would like to expand on my concerns of last night’s bridge meeting. . I was addressing the gentleman’s comment; “money is tight; finalize this before the money is gone”. Plus our Mayor’s comment; “that alternative #6 is best for Cohoes, build the bridge and we will address 787 roadway afterwards”. . My statement was; “take the money” and “adjust 787 roadway afterward” is not a good reason to spend over $20 million dollars. The $20 million dollars gives us a new bridge, which is very nice. But the bridge is not that bad in need of repair. In fact some people are wondering how this bridge was selected. There are supposingly worst bridges in the state. . Mayor, you mentioned after my remarks; “that 787 is a very safe road, not many accidents”. That was not what my comments were addressing. My concern is that with the 20 million dollars, Waterford, Troy, Clifton Park and Cohoes receive two benefits other than a new bridge; 1) the trucking business gets to back up their trucks without stopping traffic on route 32. 2) Trucks traveling from 787 to route 32 will have a larger radius to make the turn onto route 32. I was addressing the traffic jam at the intersection of 787 and route 32. . The same problem that former Mayor John McDonald was addressing in the design process, suggesting roundabouts. As I said, when the bridge is built, it’s there for 75 years and the options to improve the traffic flow from 787 to the bridge becomes very limited. You can paint it, install medians on 787 an it will not improve the traffic flow from 787 to the bridge. A bridge from Waterford’s existing entrance straight to 787 is one method to reduce the traffic jam. And I know the cost would be higher than the 20 million suggested price. But it may be worth the wait to do the job correctly. Remember Clifton Park and Waterford are growing yearly. The traffic jam will only get larger. . Why place the bridge in the same location without addressing the major problem, the traffic flow.

DOT can spin it anyway they like, their job is the bridge, but they own the highway too. As Waterford town Supervisor John Lawler stated; DOT’s management would not be doing their job, if they only look at the bridge and not address the traffic flow.” It’s funny, at the Waterford meeting the project manager and the gentleman that works on the finance part of the job, which I don’t believe was at the Cohoes meeting, said they would. . Mr. Wood, please accept this email as my “Comment Sheet” and go on record as opposing the current project as its being implemented. I also would like to state that I’m not the only one that opposes such project. The majority of the attendees of the Waterford meeting were in agreement that delaying such project until the traffic flow is addressed maybe the better way to go. . Thank you for your time,

1 . Tim Ryan 49 Amity St. Cohoes, NY 12047

2

STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION REGION ONE ALBANY, NY 12232

www.dot.ny.gov

Sam Zhou, P.E. Joan McDonald ACTING REGIONAL DIRECTOR COMMISSIONER

August 9, 2013

Alison and LeRoy S. Waltz 9 Saratoga Ave Waterford, NY 12188 518-237-1564 [email protected]

Re: PIN 1460.42, Route 32 Over the Mohawk Bridge Project

Dear Alison and Roy:

This is the letter that I promised to send to formally document and capture for the project record the email dialog that we’ve had over the past two weeks about this project and how the proposed alternatives would affect you and your property. Attached please find copies of each of the most significant messages. If there is anything that I’ve left out, please let me know. As discussed, it’s up to you if you would like to also forward a comment form, forward a letter, or make a verbal statement at one of the two public hearings for the hearing transcript. All forms of communication, including this letter and attachments, will become part of the project record.

Sincerely,

Geoffrey W. Wood, P.E.

CC: Project File The Honorable John E. Lawler, Supervisor, Town of Waterford

Attachments: 1) Email dated 8/2/2013, 12:58 PM, Subject = Reply to Initial Contact 2) Email dated 8/7/2013, 6:07 PM, Subject = Follow‐up to This Afternoon's Meeting 3) Email dated 8/8/2013, 8:19 AM Subject = Draft Cross Section 4) Email dated 8/8/2013, 11:42 AM, Subject = Signs 5) Email dated 8/8/2013, 12:37 PM, Subject = Updated Cross Section 6) Email dated 8/9/2013, 12:48 PM, Subject = Proposed Rock Slope Affect on Concolour Fir

Region One Executive Office, Suite 1s50 - 50 Wolf Road - Albany, NY 12232

Wood, Geoffrey (DOT)

From: Wood, Geoffrey (DOT) Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2013 2:40 PM To: Wood, Geoffrey (DOT) Subject: Geoff Wood to Alison Waltz via email on 8/2/2013, 12:58 PM, Subject = Reply to Initial Contact

Geoff Wood to Alison Waltz via email on 8/2/2013, 12:58 PM, Subject = Reply to Initial Contact

From: Wood, Geoffrey (DOT) Sent: Friday, August 02, 2013 12:58 PM To: 'Alison Waltz' Cc: Waltz, LeRoy (DOS) Subject: RE: 787/Route project

Dear Alison and LeRoy:

Thank you so much for contacting me. I've been hoping to have the opportunity to speak with you directly about the project. Doing so in person, separately from the upcoming public meetings/hearings, would provide more time to adequately and thoroughly explain everything to you in detail so I would welcome the chance to do that. What is your availability for next week? I would be happy to meet with you here at my office, or at another location if more convenient to you. Meeting at your property at 9 Saratoga Avenue would be better in that it would enable us to discuss things on site rather than relying entirely on the drawings.

For now, see below within your original message for responses to your initial questions. I look forward to meeting you.

Geoff

Geoffrey W. Wood, P.E. Design Supervisor, NYSDOT Region 1 Design 50 Wolf Road, POD 2‐3 Albany, NY 12232 (518) 457‐8900 [email protected] Normal hours: 7:00 AM to 3:00 PM

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Alison Waltz [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, August 02, 2013 10:36 AM To: Wood, Geoffrey (DOT) Cc: Waltz, LeRoy (DOS) Subject: 787/Route project

Good Morning Geoffrey,

I (we) have a few questions regarding this project and the effect on my property which is located at 9 saratoga Ave, Waterford:

After reviewing both plans I see that a portion of my front yard is going to be taken in order for construction of either of the 2 proposed new bridges.

1 When looking at the arial pictures of the plan, I assume that the red dot/dash lines are the current property lines. There are also white lines that appear to cut way into our from t yard ‐ beyond the scope of the actual finished project ( sidewalks, bridge etc)

1 ‐ Are these lines construction lines? Is our property going to be removed this far back to complete the construction?

RESPONSE: No, not all of the lines are construction lines. I will explain further when we meet and will then also be able to show you the project cross sections (on which the plans are based) that will provide the third dimension (elevation). The line labeled “FEE” on the plan was the initial estimation of where the new highway boundary might be established under a ‘worst case’ scenario. In reviewing the preliminary plan over the past several weeks I have requested some adjustments to the design that will enable us to revise that line significantly. At this time I’m expecting that the new highway boundary (FEE line) will be adjusted to immediately behind the proposed sidewalk. This will still require the permanent acquisition of a (smaller) portion of your property. In addition, a temporary easement would then also be needed to allow room for construction. I’m currently anticipating this ‘TE’ line will not be as far onto your property as the ‘FEE’ line that is now shown.

2 ‐ If so, is this areas going to be replaced (fill/dirts/seeded) once the project is complete?

RESPONSE: Any/all disturbed areas behind the new sidewalk will be restored.

3 ‐ Currently, the embankment from sidewalk to top of our lawn area is shale that has been slowly eroding. This lands on the sidewalk that is then removed by wheelbarrow or thrown up on our front lawn when the sidewalk is plowed. What is the proposed plan for this embankment when the project is finished? Will there be a retaining wall placed to hold back the remaining property from further decay?

RESPONSE: In order to reduce the amount of property that would need to be permanently acquired from you I recently asked our Regional Soils Engineer and a Department Geologist to make a recommendation on the need for a retaining wall in this area. Retaining walls of the height required have several issues including: 1) aesthetics (which is of concern to the State Historic Preservation Office because this is a historic district), and 2) possible supports extending behind the wall for some distance which lead to the need for the highway boundary to be set farther back in order to ‘capture’ them. Their recommendation was that the new slope in the shale ledge could be constructed to a ration of 2(vertical):1(horizontal) without the need for a wall. This treatment would retain the same aesthetics and require the use of less of your property.

4 ‐ From the drawing for proposal #6 (full replacement of the existing bridge), I see that these (?) construction lines remove our concrete steps, front lawn sidewalk and appear to remove a huge mature pine tree.

The pine tree is my major concern. If indeed the lines are construction areas, I am hoping that removal of this tree might be avoided and saved. I am not concerned so much with the steps and lawn walkway as the steps are only used to clean out and maintain the "Welcome to Waterford" sign area. I am assuming there will be no change to our driveway as it is just before the intersection of Museum Lane and Saratoga Ave.

RESPONSE: The recent adjustments to the design I mentioned above under #1 have resulted in us being able to avoid your steps. If the mature pine tree you are referring to is behind your flag pole (closer to the house than to the road) it will not be affected.

2 5 ‐ Other damage to our front lawn from this construction might be disruption of sprinkler system in the yard. I am hoping this will also be addressed and relocated as needed.

RESPONSE: Yes, if your sprinkler system is affected it will be restored in kind.

6 ‐ Would our property (house/plaster walls) be subject to cracking with the removal of the shale and current sidewalk/road in the front of our house? Will this embankment be cut back by heavy equipment or blasting ? (This occurred when the hydro electric power plant was built).

RESPONSE: Appropriate precaution would be taken to avoid such damage, which our Contractor would be responsible for – and so they certainly would not want to incur such costs.

I (we) would appreciate a response to these questions as I feel our property has the most to lose from this project. Might we be able to meet with you in your office to review actual drawings of the 2 proposals and have these questions answered? I am sure more questions will arise between now and prior to the 2 scheduled meetings ( Cohoes and Waterford ) ‐ hoping to have enough time ( might need more than 1/2 hour prior to meeting) to have our concerns addressed.

Thank you for taking the time to review this letter. I (we) look forward to hearing back from you.

Sincerely,

Alison and LeRoy S. Waltz 9 Saratoga Ave Waterford, NY 12188 518‐237‐1564

3 Wood, Geoffrey (DOT)

From: Wood, Geoffrey (DOT) Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2013 2:46 PM To: Wood, Geoffrey (DOT) Subject: Geoff Wood to Alison Waltz via email on 8/7/2013, 6:07 PM, Subject = Follow-up to This Afternoon's Meeting

Geoff Wood to Alison Waltz via email on 8/7/2013, 6:07 PM, Subject = Follow‐up to This Afternoon's Meeting

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Wood, Geoffrey (DOT) Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 6:07 PM To: Alison Waltz Cc: Rashford, Jim Subject: RE: 787/Route project

Hi Alison. Very good to meet you and Roy this afternoon. Just wanted to let you know that I've decided to summarize what we talked about today in a letter to you so that the letter can be included as part of the project record in the Final Design Report. This will help ensure the information is passed along to those working on the final design (actual construction plans) in the future, should I not be involved with the project at that point. I hope to get that letter to you this week as an attachement to an email message. I'll include the updated cross section I promised as an attachment to the letter.

Geoff

1 Wood, Geoffrey (DOT)

From: Wood, Geoffrey (DOT) Sent: Friday, August 09, 2013 12:57 PM To: Wood, Geoffrey (DOT) Subject: Geoff Wood to Alison Waltz via email on 8/8/2013, 8:19 AM, Subject = Draft Cross Section

Geoff Wood to Alison Waltz via email on 8/8/2013, 8:19 AM, Subject = Draft Cross Section

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Wood, Geoffrey (DOT) Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2013 8:19 AM To: 'Alison Waltz' Subject: RE: 787/Route project

Good morning Alison. I will summarize all points in the letter I'm planning to write to you before next Tuesday's meeting. To clarify what a 2 foot rise per 1 foot setback means, this is a description of the rate of change of the slope only. Expressed as a ratio, it's 2:1 and as a percentage 200%. This doesn't mean the slope would be stepped.

Attached is a an electronic copy of the draft cross section I left with you yesterday. The proposed rock slope is shown as a straight line labeled "200.0%". This would be a cut into the natural shale ledge, not a wall. As I mentioned, our Geologist and Soils Engineer have looked at the area and advised me that a wall is not necessary to support the slope.

Geoff

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Alison Waltz [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2013 8:08 AM To: Wood, Geoffrey (DOT) Cc: Waltz, LeRoy (DOS); Robin Gillespie; [email protected] Subject: Re: 787/Route project

Morning! Yes, it very nice to meet with you both yesterday, You both answered many questions and concerns ‐ especially the tree concern. Thank you. *Roy and I disused further the issue about the embankment : Our concern about the 2ft rise per 1 ft cutting back is that the resulting shelf will act as "steps" ( correct?) which invites kids/adults coming over the bridge to use this as a climbing wall. Possibility of many injuries and a faster deterioration of the embankment onto the sidewalk. I think we need to research other options for the finishing of this wall. Also, investigating the idea of extending the chain link fence that surrounds our property to be extended from the canal side to then finish at the sidewalk when project is completed ‐ again ‐ climbers ( like we currently have). *Flagpole can be removed/relocated ‐ will just need to cheek the condition of it once broth down. *Sidewalk in the front can be gently curved ( to match the opposite side) ‐ hate it when you fall off the sidewalk down the embankment :) Bluestone slabs would also be nice to match the rest of the walkways ‐ maybe we can negotiate this when the time comes? *Would you please mention our concern about signage and their placement/height along the front sidewalk ‐ preferring to be placed SOUTH of the front steps. We are fine with the 2 ft strip between the sidewalk and the embankment. No problem on our part if the "Welcome to Waterford" sign by the front steps moves to the beginning of the roadway ‐ this is currently owned by the Town, so you might have to check with them.

1 Looking forward to next week.

Alison & LeRoy

2 PIN 1460.42, Route 32 Over the Mohawk Temporary Bridge Project Easement 15 ft (4.6 m) Beyond Top of Cut Alternative #6 Cross Section at Centerline Station 1+640 Proposed 9 Saratoga Avenue on Right Side Highway Boundary

Existing Proposed Sidewalk Sidewalk

Note: Each square is 0.5 m x 0.5 m Wood, Geoffrey (DOT)

From: Wood, Geoffrey (DOT) Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2013 2:43 PM To: Wood, Geoffrey (DOT) Subject: Geoff Wood to Alison Waltz via email on 8/8/2013, 11:42 AM, Subject = Signs

Geoff Wood to Alison Waltz via email on 8/8/2013, 11:42 AM, Subject = Signs

From: Wood, Geoffrey (DOT) Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2013 11:42 AM To: 'Alison Waltz' Cc: Waltz, LeRoy (DOS); Robin Gillespie; [email protected] Subject: RE: 787/Route project - Signs

Hi again! Here's some follow‐up information about the existing signs along the frontage of your property and what could potentially be done with them as part of this project. I've attached a StreetView image from Google Earth for reference, though the resolution isn't very good. The below review is in order from the intersection of Museum Lane proceeding south toward the bridge:

Stop Here on Red ‐ The need for this sign can be reviewed during final design. If it is still deemed to be required, or desired, it may be possible to relocate it onto the signal pole to eliminate the separate sign post.

Begin Scenic Byway etc. . . ‐ The exact location of this sign is not critical. If the 'Stop Here on Red' sign is to remain this sign needs to be far enough south not to block the view of that sign. It could potentially be moved south of your stairs, as you desire, but would need to be positioned so as not to block your view of traffic when existing your driveway. If the 'Stop Here on Red' sign is removed, this sign could be moved north to where that sign is now. These are at least some of the options.

Solicitors Permit Required Apply Town Clerk – This sign does not belong to NYSDOT. It belongs to the Town of Waterford. You don’t need to wait for this project to go to construction to take action on this one. You could contact the Town anytime to ask them to relocate it. I’m told by my sign expert that it could probably be made smaller by using smaller text and/or reducing the wording. These changes would allow it to be mounted on a single post. NYSDOT policy for signs we affect, but don’t own, is to replace them in kind in the existing location unless agreed otherwise. NYSDOT could provide a new sign in a new location as part of this project. This would require further coordination during final design. These are at least some of the options.

Welcome Town of Waterford – This sign is also owned by the Town of Waterford, not NYSDOT. Under Alternative #8 this sign would not be affected. I’ve been told that any sign post or structure installed as part of this project must be a minimum of 2’‐0” behind the proposed sidewalk. While there is room to provide this setback for conventional metal sign posts, as they can be driven into the 2:1 shale side slope if necessary, there will not be room to install a short retaining wall as currently exists (which is not set back 2’‐0” from the sidewalk as it should be). Under Alternative #6 this sign would therefore have to be removed and relocated outside of the limits of the rock cut. We are still looking into the possibility of relocating it, or providing a new sign closer to the bridge, possibly on the opposite side of the road.

No Parking ‐ Parking on the sidewalk is illegal. Parking on the pavement between the white line and the yellow line (including any part of the vehicle) is also illegal. This sign is

1 not required in order to enforce this, so I’m not sure why it was ever installed. Unless there’s something I’m missing, this sign could be eliminated.

Town of Waterford – The Town line is actually at the center of the river/bridge. These municipal boundary signs are normally mounted close to bridges, not on them, but there is flexibility in where they are placed. Considering the other nearby signs farther north, this sign will most likely remain close to where it is now.

The 2 additional signs mounted below the Town of Waterford sign – I’m not able to read the text of these in the StreetView image, but am confident that like the above mentioned ‘No Soliciting’ signs, these are also owned by the Town of Waterford. Like with that sign, our normal practice is to replace these in kind when affected. Also as with that other sign, you could approach the Town of Waterford at an time about the need for these signs and/or their location.

I hope the above information is useful.

Geoff

2

Wood, Geoffrey (DOT)

From: Wood, Geoffrey (DOT) Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2013 2:51 PM To: Wood, Geoffrey (DOT) Subject: Geoff Wood to Alison Waltz via email on 8/8/2013, 12:37 PM, Subject = Updated Cross Section

Geoff Wood to Alison Waltz via email on 8/8/2013, 12:37 PM, Subject = Updated Cross Section

From: Wood, Geoffrey (DOT) Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2013 12:37 PM To: 'Alison Waltz'; Waltz, LeRoy (DOS); 'Robin Gillespie'; '[email protected]' Cc: Rashford, Jim; 'Mary Shannon Carrigan' Subject: RE: 787/Route project - Updated Cross Section

Hi Alison. Lots of email so far today! I haven't been copying the Town of Waterford on any of my replies so far, but did include Mary Shannon as a CC this time.

Attached is an updated copy of the draft cross section I showed you yesterday. I've changed the label from "Draft" to "Preliminary" to indicate that I've had this reviewed internally by various members of my design team, but that the project is still in preliminary design so subject to possible change. As explained yesterday, final design (when the actual construction plans will be produced) will take place at a later date, after Design Approval. This is always the case with every project. My intent is to document the things we're now discussing in the project correspondence, in the Final Design Report, and on the Preliminary Plans included in that report so that the final design team in the future is fully aware of what was discussed previously. Significant changes (such as to the proposed highway boundary) cannot be made after Design Approval without revisiting the issues with those affected and revising the report.

Here are some things to note about the attached cross section:

1) This is at the specific location where your Concolour Fir is located. Existing and proposed conditions change along the length of the frontage of your property as explained on site with you yesterday.

2) The width of the Fee acquisition needed to relocate the highway boundary to a point 2’‐0” behind the proposed sidewalk varies. The area NYSDOT needs to acquire for this purpose is triangular with the width shown in the attached occurring at only a single point. This cross section is not where the acquisition is the widest, or the narrowest, but at a point in‐ between. An updated plan view will be available to see at next week’s meeting.

3) The width of the Temporary Easement needed for construction access varies in a similar fashion, with the back edge of the TE being 15’‐0” beyond the proposed top of the excavation of the shale ledge. This property will remain yours, with the TE expiring upon completion of construction.

PS to Mary Shannon: Alison Waltz contacted me about the project late last week. I answered some initial questions via email, then met with her and her husband Roy at their home yesterday afternoon. Their main concern is about their large and beautiful Concolour Fir tree they planted 25 years ago when it was just 3 feet tall. I have taken various steps to ensure this tree will not be directly affected by this proposed project. I will continue to work with them to answer questions and do whatever I can to minimize the effects this project

1 would have on their property in general. Please feel free to share this email chain with Supervisor Lawler if you think he's interested.

Thanks,

Geoff

2

Existing Proposed Highway Highway Boundary PIN 1460.42, Route 32 Over the Mohawk Boundary Back Edge of TE Proposed Proposed 4.6 m (15 feet) Beyond Bridge Project Fee Acquisition Temporary Easement Top of Proposed Cut to (FEE) (TE) Provide Room for Drill Rig Alternative #6 Cross Section EXISTING FLAG POLE MAY BE REMOVED AND RESET IF NECESSARY at Centerline Station 1+640 9 Saratoga Avenue on Right Side 0.6 m (2 feet) offset between back of proposed sidewalk +/‐ 0.6 m EXISTING CONCOLOUR FIR TREE TO BE and bottom of proposed rock Diameter PROTECTED AND NOT HARMED. DRILL August 8, 2013 face Concolour Fir ONLY IN LOCATIONS THAT WILL NOT Geoff Wood, Design Supervisor and Project DISTURB TREE. NO TRIMMING OF TREE ALLOWED. Manager Existing Proposed Sidewalk Sidewalk

+/‐ 6.4 m branch diameter ROCK LEDGE TO BE LINE DRILLED AND at ground level MECHANICALLY EXCAVATED OR DRILLED AND BLASTED USING PRESPLITTING ONLY, NO PRODUCTION +/‐ 7.6 m to front side of BLASTING. ROCK LEDGE IMMEDIATELY tree trunk ADJACENT TO FIR TREE SHALL NOT BE DRILLED IF DRILLING WILL CAUSE ANY DAMAGE TO THE TREE .

Note: Each square is 0.5 m x 0.5 m Wood, Geoffrey (DOT)

From: Wood, Geoffrey (DOT) Sent: Friday, August 09, 2013 12:48 PM To: 'Alison Waltz' Cc: Waltz, LeRoy (DOS); 'Robin Gillespie'; '[email protected]' Subject: PIN 1460.42, Route 32 Over the Mohawk - Proposed Rock Slope at 9 Maple Ave. (Affect on Concolour Fir)

Hi Alison. As promised when we spoke on Wednesday, I sought input from our Landscape group on the proposed excavation of the shale ledge in the area of your Concolour Fir tree. Below are excerpts from my message to them and their reply. Based on their input, it appears there is reason to be concerned about the potential for construction equipment to compact the soil over the root system of your tree, leading to a recommendation to keep heavy equipment at least 10 feet away. I’ll have to coordinate further with our construction staff to see what this means to them, and whether or not there is a way to predrill the rock close to either side of the tree (north and south) without the equipment touching the ground within 10 feet of the tree. If not, it may be possible to excavate a greater length of the ledge without predrilling. These details will need to be discussed further as design of this project progresses. This does not affect the location of the proposed relocated highway boundary or the limit of the proposed temporary easement.

Geoff

From: White, Christopher (DOT) Sent: Friday, August 09, 2013 8:00 AM To: Wood, Geoffrey (DOT) Subject: RE: PIN 1460.42, Route 32 Over the Mohawk - Proposed Rock Slope at 9 Maple Ave.

From the provided information, I would have to say that the proposed cut will impact the tree’s root system. However, I don’t believe that it will be to an extent which would be detrimental to the health of the tree. White Firs are generally tolerant to some root disturbance, but they do not tolerate soil compaction well. It will be important to protect the tree during construction. Construction fencing should be installed ideally, ten feet beyond the tree’s canopy. If the roots are encountered they should be cut flush, and protected with wet burlap until they can be properly covered with topsoil to prevent desiccation of the roots. Typically, it will take the tree 1‐2 years to recover from any construction damage. During that time the property owner should perform the proper maintenance requirements, particularly during water stress times.

From: Wood, Geoffrey (DOT) Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2013 11:58 AM To: Thorne, Tanya (DOT); White, Christopher (DOT) Subject: PIN 1460.42, Route 32 Over the Mohawk - Proposed Rock Slope at 9 Maple Ave. Importance: High

I met with the property owners yesterday afternoon on site as planned. After measuring the offset to their tree I confirmed that it is closer to the road than indicated on our mapping. I updated my attached cross section accordingly (see 1st PDF). I told Mr. and Mrs. Waltz that we could work around the tree by not allowing any predrilling immediately adjacent to the tree that would harm the tree in any way. I’ve added notes to the attached cross section to indicate this and intend to add similar notes to the preliminary plans to be included in our Final Design Report.

The Waltz’s are very concerned about this Concolour Fir they planted 25 years ago when it was only 3 feet tall. I anticipate being able to work around it without any direct damage. I promised that I would also check with our Landscape group about how the proposed cut close to the tree might affect it. The attached cross section is a good representation of the relationship between the cut and the tree and the tree is also visible in the attached

1 image from Google Earth Streetview immediately left of the flag pole (no flag). Could the root system potentially be partially damaged by the proposed cut and, if so, what affect would that possibly have on the future of the tree, if any?

2 Rhodes, Michele (DOT)

From: Wood, Geoffrey (DOT) Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 11:52 AM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; Lecuyer, Tami; Cimino, Joe; Rhodes, Michele (DOT) Subject: RE: PIN 1460.42 - Route 32 Revised Design Alternative - Reply Attachments: KMBT35020101014093112.pdf

Thanks for your reply Kerry. By CC of this response I'm forwarding your (and Jeff's) comments via the attached pdf file on to the rest of the design team. I understand your preference is for replacing the bridge on the proposed parallel alignment as opposed to replacement in the same location.

Regarding your desire to have NYSDOT fill the open drainage channel on your property (notation "A"), and pipe the water through that area, the proposed project will include that work only if it is necessary to replace the bridge under the selected alternative. Based on preliminary design work completed to date it doesn't appear that work will be needed as part of the parallel alignment alternative.

Regarding your comment that the open drainage channel on the opposite side of Route 32, and partially on your property, must be piped and filled (notation "B"), the proposed project will include only whatever filling and piping is necessary to replace the bridge under the selected alternative. Based on preliminary design work completed to date it appears the parallel alignment alternative would require filling and piping only a portion of that open channel.

We'll be able to provide you with more specifics about how the parallel alignment alternative would affect these existing open drainage channels, or not, as preliminary design progresses.

Geoff

Geoffrey W. Wood, P.E. Design Supervisor NYSDOT Region 1 Design Highway Design & Consultant Management Group 328 State Street Schenectady, NY 12305‐2302 (518) 388‐0231 [email protected] Normal hours: 7:30 AM to 3:30 PM

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Kerry Myers [mailto:kmyers@shelter‐ent.com] Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 10:12 AM To: Wood, Geoffrey (DOT) Subject: FW: [Image File] Kerry,KMBT350, #694

Hi Geoff,

I finally have an answer for you. Thank you for your patience!

Kerry Myers

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: copier@shelter‐ent.com [mailto:copier@shelter‐ent.com] 1 Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 9:31 AM To: Kerry Myers Subject: [Image File] Kerry,KMBT350, #694

FROM: Image data has been attached to the E‐Mail.

2 Wood, Geoffrey (DOT)

From: Kerry Myers [[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 10:12 AM To: Wood, Geoffrey (DOT) Subject: FW: [Image File] Kerry,KMBT350, #694 Attachments: KMBT35020101014093112.pdf

Hi Geoff,

I finally have an answer for you. Thank you for your patience!

Kerry Myers

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: copier@shelter‐ent.com [mailto:copier@shelter‐ent.com] Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 9:31 AM To: Kerry Myers Subject: [Image File] Kerry,KMBT350, #694

FROM: Image data has been attached to the E‐Mail.

1

PIN 1460.42, Route 32 Over the Mohawk - Summary of Public Comments (Complete comments are included in Appendix G)

Comment Comment Name/Affiliation/Format Summary of Comment(s) Response Number Category 1 Aimee Rosecrans & Support of Would prefer to see option 6. Based in part on public input, Alternative 6 has been Robert Sousie / Alternative 6 selected as NYSDOT’s preferred solution and will be Waterford Resident/ advanced to Design Approval. Comment Form 2 Dennis Farrar / Emergency Provided the correct name and address Thank you for reviewing the project design report Waterford Resident / Responders of Fire Department having jurisdiction and providing this information. The Final Design Comment Form in the Town of Waterford. Report was updated accordingly.

3 Anonymous / Various 1) Meeting presentation materials 1) This comment was received prior to the second Comment Form contained too much ‘engineer-speak’ public meeting in Cohoes. In response, after the and told from engineer’s perspective. same presentation was given to the Cohoes audience they were told about this comment and 2) Both alternatives sound the same. asked if there were any terms or concepts presented that needed further explanation. No one spoke up 3) Proposed ‘hairpin turn’ needs to be with any questions. addressed. 2) Alternatives 6 and 8 are very similar. 4) No diversity in the audience. 3) The proposed curb line at the northeast corner of the intersection of Route 787 with Route 32 was reviewed again. It was found that matching the existing curb radius would not fully accommodate the large trucks that frequently make that turn. The proposed curb radius has therefore been changed to fully accommodate large trucks.

4) NYSDOT welcomes diversity but has no control over who chooses to attend our well advertised meetings.

Page 1 of 17 PIN 1460.42, Route 32 Over the Mohawk - Summary of Public Comments (Complete comments are included in Appendix G)

4 Bob Suppres / Various 1) Save existing bridge plaque, clean it, 1) The existing bridge plaque will be saved. A Waterford Resident / and mount on the new bridge. decision regarding what organization it will go to will Comment Form be made during final design or construction. It is not 2) Save some of the old bridge for a appropriate to mount it to the new bridge. fishing pier. 2) Both the City of Cohoes and the Town of 3) Eliminate last curve at the north end Waterford were asked if they would like to take of 787 and have 787 go straight across ownership of the existing bridge and maintain it in the river. the future for some other use. Both quickly declined for financial and liability reasons.

3) This alignment was given serious consideration during the 10+ years leading up to the presentation of Alternatives 6 and 8 to the public and was, in fact, a proposed feature of more than one of the previously eliminated alternatives. 5 Mrs. Robert Lefebvre / Construction Will construction be completed at Construction is envisioned to take place during Waterford Resident / night or during the daytime? normal working hours only. There is currently no Comment Form known reason why nighttime construction, which is more expensive, would be needed. 6 Alex Audi / Support of Prefers Alternative 6 but would like a Based in part on public input, Alternative 6 has Waterford Resident / Alternative 6 with ‘wing extension’ between 787 and been selected as NYSDOT’s preferred solution and Comment Form a suggestion bridge because semi trucks hold up will be advanced to Design Approval. The possibility traffic making the turn. of providing a right turn ‘slip ramp’ between Route 787 northbound and Route 32 northbound was investigated based on several requests supporting this idea. It was determined that a free flow right turn lane would, in fact, reduce delay for that one movement during some times of the day. However other movements at the intersection, and the overall intersection delay would get little or no relief from this change. The Department previously installed an electronic ‘No Turn on Red’ sign in this location, which illuminates during the opposing left turn arrow because right turners were being too aggressive and not yielding appropriately. Providing

Page 2 of 17 PIN 1460.42, Route 32 Over the Mohawk - Summary of Public Comments (Complete comments are included in Appendix G)

a yield condition for these right turners would most likely exasperate that past problem. A free flow yield condition would also create stop and go traffic flow which has been shown to increase the frequency of rear end accidents. Finally, free flow conditions are less favorable for pedestrians than controlled movements at signalized intersections. The Region received several public comments letting them know about the existing challenges for pedestrians to cross in this location and asking the Department to make pedestrian improvements at all four quadrants of this intersection. As a result, these improvements have now been incorporated into Alternative 6. Though a free flow right turn lane will therefore not be provided, the proposed intersection curb radius has now been revised in order to accommodate the largest trucks using this route. This change will allow trucks to make the right hand turn much more easily and should therefore help alleviate the past traffic flow problems caused by the tight corner. 7 William & Catherine Support of Prefers Alternative 6 Based in part on public input, Alternative 6 has been Labreque / Alternative 6 selected as NYSDOT’s preferred solution and will be Waterford Residents / advanced to Design Approval. Comment Form 8 John G. Madden / Support of 1) Recommends Alternative 6 1) Based in part on public input, Alternative 6 has Cohoes Resident / Alternative 6 with been selected as NYSDOT’s preferred solution and Comment Form suggestions 2) Recommends dedicated right turn will be advanced to Design Approval. lane from Route 787 northbound to Route 32 northbound. 2) The possibility of providing a right turn ‘slip ramp’ between Route 787 northbound and Route 32 3) Prefers concrete ‘Texas’ style bridge northbound was investigated based on several railing. requests supporting this idea. Please see above response to comment #6 for more information. 4) Prefers outside travel lanes to be 14 feet wide with ‘sharrow’ pavement 3) Based in part on public input, Texas style concrete

Page 3 of 17 PIN 1460.42, Route 32 Over the Mohawk - Summary of Public Comments (Complete comments are included in Appendix G)

markings (related to bicycle use), or 11 bridge rail has been selected as part of the preferred feet wide with a striped 3 foot wide solution under Alternative 6. shoulder for bicycles. 4) A 3 foot wide striped shoulder does not meet current standards for bicycle accommodations. NYSDOT Region 1 has not yet used sharrow pavement markings on a State highway but we are familiar with them and evaluate appropriateness on a project by project basis. Project lengths are often very short and so this type of pavement marking has, so far, not been considered to be appropriate. Preliminary analysis of this project yielded the same conclusion. 9 George Hebert / Support of Recommends Alternative 6 because it We’re happy to see the information we provided Cohoes Resident / Alternative 6 will; cost less, eliminate conflicts with was fully understood and absorbed by some Comment Form trucks at Shelter Enterprises Inc., help meeting attendees. Based in part on public input, reduce travel speeds due to curved Alternative 6 has been selected as NYSDOT’s alignment, and require utilities to be preferred solution and will be advanced to Design relocated only once. Approval. 10 Jeff and Kerry Myers / Support of 1) Prefers Alternative 6 1) Based in part on public input, Alternative 6 has Owners of Shelter Alternative 6, been selected as NYSDOT’s preferred solution and Enterprises (SEI) / with concerns 2) Desires various portions of existing will be advanced to Design Approval. Meeting & Email about drainage open drainage channels to be piped and truck turning and filled. 2) The existing brick arch culvert under Route 32 on movements the Cohoes bridge approach will be replaced with a 3) Curb radius from Route 32 SB to box culvert. The existing sluiceway at the culvert New Cortland Street WB is deficient. outlet will be repaired and the portion under the new highway alignment will be covered and protected. Other portions of the existing drainage system upstream of the brick arch culvert will not be affected by the project, are under the maintenance jurisdiction of the City of Cohoes, and will not be worked on as part of this project.

3) The curb radius from Route 32 SB to New Cortland Street WB will be improved so as to

Page 4 of 17 PIN 1460.42, Route 32 Over the Mohawk - Summary of Public Comments (Complete comments are included in Appendix G)

accommodate our design vehicle, which is a large tractor trailer. 11 LeRoy and Alison Waltz / Support of 1) Prefers Alternative 6 1) Based in part on public input, Alternative 6 has Owners of 9 Saratoga Alternative 6, been selected as NYSDOT’s preferred solution and Ave., Waterford / with concerns 2) Concerned about Concolour Fir tree. will be advanced to Design Approval. Meeting & Email and recommendations 3) Concerned about sloughing of shale 2) Design changes have been made to allow the slope. Concolour Fir tree to remain. Notes have been added to the preliminary plans regarding the 4) Prefers concrete railing and vintage protection of this tree. lighting. 3) Various options to prevent future sloughing of the 5) Recommends seating areas on shale slope were investigated including the bridge. installation of a retaining wall or application of shotcrete. It was determined that a wall is not necessary to support the slope and is also too costly to consider. It was generally agreed that shotcrete would be ugly and unlikely to be approved for use in the historic district by the State Historic Preservation Officer. The Town of Waterford will continue to have maintenance jurisdiction for the public sidewalk in this area.

4) Based in part on public input, Texas style concrete bridge rail has been selected as part of the preferred solution under Alternative 6. Lighting will be included on the new bridge only if either/both the City of Cohoes and the Town of Waterford agree to own and maintain it, in which case they will be able to select the lighting fixture style.

5) Seating is a good idea, but it’s too expensive to widen the bridge deck to provide it on the bridge. Benches have therefore been offered to both the City of Cohoes and the Town of Waterford and could be placed on the bridge approaches in landscaped

Page 5 of 17 PIN 1460.42, Route 32 Over the Mohawk - Summary of Public Comments (Complete comments are included in Appendix G)

areas immediately behind the proposed sidewalk, if the municipality agrees to own and maintain them.

12 Michael Izzo / Support of 1) Favors Alternative 6 1) Based in part on public input, Alternative 6 has Cohoes Resident / Alternative 6, been selected as NYSDOT’s preferred solution and Comment Form with suggestions 2) Suggested solar lighting on bridge. will be advanced to Design Approval.

3) Requested sidewalks on bridge to be 2) Lighting will be included on the new bridge (at user friendly. State/Federal expense) only if either/both the City of Cohoes and the Town of Waterford agree to own and maintain it, in which case they will be able to select the lighting fixture style. Considering the historic nature of the existing bridge and surrounding area it seems highly unlikely that the State Historic Preservation Office would approve modern fixtures that include solar panels, if the City or Town were to be interested in that.

3) The sidewalks that will be included on both sides of the bridge will meet NYSDOT design standards and will be fully ADA compliant – which should result in a ‘user friendly’ facility. 13 Tim Ryan / Opposes project 1) Believes “. . .bridge is not that bad in 1) NYSDOT structural engineers disagree with this Cohoes Resident / need of repair”. layman’s viewpoint and recommend moving Email forward to final design and construction of a new 2) Sees Alternative 6 as a benefit to bridge while continuing to monitor and maintain the Shelter Enterprises as “. . .the trucking existing bridge. business gets to back up their trucks without stopping traffic on Route 32.” 2) This is true, and is one perspective, but the impetus for Alternative 6 was to provide a benefit to 3) Expressed concern about the traffic the tens of thousands of people who drive across jams at the intersection of Routes 787 the bridge every day, not the handful of truck and 32. drivers who access Shelter Enterprise’s loading docks. 4) Wants to delay entire project until enough money can be secured to 3) This concern is understood.

Page 6 of 17 PIN 1460.42, Route 32 Over the Mohawk - Summary of Public Comments (Complete comments are included in Appendix G)

address the traffic flow issues at the intersection of 787 and 32 at the same 4) For obvious reasons bridge safety, and therefore time the bridge is replaced. bridge projects, must take precedence over system capacity improvements. As explained above in the response to comment #6, the proposed intersection curb radius from Route 787 northbound to Route 32 northbound has now been revised in order to accommodate the largest trucks using this route. This change will allow trucks to make the right hand turn much more easily and should therefore help alleviate the past traffic flow problems caused by the tight corner. 14 John McCarty / Preferred 1) Wants 90 degree bend at the north 1) NYSDOT agrees it would have been short sighted Cohoes Resident / Alternative end of 787 eliminated and believes it not to consider this. Though the two feasible Comment Form was “. . . very short sighted not to alternatives (Alt 6 and Alt 8) presented to the public consider this.” do not accomplish this, that doesn’t mean the Department did not consider the idea. This idea was 2) Realizes this idea would cost more. part of the numerous ideas studied over the past 10+ years and a feature of several of the previously eliminated alternatives. We did not present non- feasible alternatives to the public, i.e. alternatives which could not be advanced to construction due to the higher cost.

2) Yes, this idea would cost a lot more – which is why none of those alternatives are economically feasible and were not presented to the public for comment. 15 Francis R. Galorneau / Various 1) Found the public meeting held in 1) The project team is happy to hear this. Waterford Resident / Waterford to be very informative. Comment Form 2) A dialog with Shelter Enterprises was started 2) Dialog should be started with Shelter years ago and has continued up to the present time. Enterprises to determine their long The owners of this business were consulted on the range plans before developing plans development of the plans for both Alternative 6 and for the bridge. Alternative 8 and have indicated they prefer Alternative 6.

Page 7 of 17 PIN 1460.42, Route 32 Over the Mohawk - Summary of Public Comments (Complete comments are included in Appendix G)

16 John T. McDonald III / Support of 1) Supportive of Alternative 6 1) Based in part on public input, Alternative 6 has Assembly member 108th Alternative 6 with been selected as NYSDOT’s preferred solution and District / concerns 2) Concerned about traffic coming off will be advanced to Design Approval. Letter the (north) end of 787 and congestion in that area. 2) This concern is understandable.

3) Suggests a (right turn) slip lane 3) This idea was investigated. Please see above (northbound 787) be included. response to comment #6 for additional information.

4) Suggests southbound 32 should 4) While this would be a simple change to include dual left turn lanes onto 787. implement, and so was considered earlier in preliminary design, it would unfortunately favor that movement at the expense of decreased capacity of other movements within the intersection. The overall net affect is therefore poorer, rather than improved intersection capacity. 17 Robin Dropkin / Bicycle Instead of 14’-0” wide shared use Providing 10 foot wide travel lanes would not meet Executive Director, Parks accommodations travel lanes, recommends narrowing the applicable design requirements, which call for & Trails NY / travel lanes to 10’-0” and providing 3.3 meter (11 feet) wide lanes as a minimum. Letter dedicated 5’-0” wide bike lanes. Providing 5 foot wide bicycle lanes would meet current standards and would be ‘one step better’ than the currently proposed 4.2 meter (14 foot) wide shared use travel lanes (as compared to the minimum required width for such lanes of 12 feet). However, in order to provide dedicated bicycle lanes a total width of 5 feet plus 11 feet, or 16 feet in all would be required. This would add 2 feet of bridge deck in each direction, for a total of 4 feet. Over the proposed 850 foot long bridge (under Alternative #6) this would require an additional 3,400 square feet of bridge deck area. Using a rough estimate of $500/SF, this would increase the cost of the bridge by $1.7 Million and so is economically not feasible.

18 Michael Franchini / Support of 1) Supports Alternative 6 1) Based in part on public input, Alternative 6 has Executive Director, Alternative 6 with been selected as NYSDOT’s preferred solution and

Page 8 of 17 PIN 1460.42, Route 32 Over the Mohawk - Summary of Public Comments (Complete comments are included in Appendix G)

Capital District suggestions 2) Instead of 14’-0” wide shared use will be advanced to Design Approval. Transportation travel lanes, recommends striping an Committee / 11’-0” wide travel lane and allowing 2) A 3 foot wide striped shoulder does not meet Letter bicycles to use the resulting 3’-0” wide current standards for bicycle accommodations. shoulder. 3) As a result of this comment the proposed 3) Recommends ensuring pedestrian pavement reconstruction limits were held but the accommodations at all quadrants of proposed project limits were expanded to capture the signalized intersections at the the entire signalized intersection areas at the north northern and southern project limits and south ends of the project. The project now are brought up to date. proposes to upgrade, as needed, the pedestrian accommodations at all quadrants of both of these intersections. 19 Eric J. Hamilton / Support of 1) Prefers Alternative 6 1) Based in part on public input, Alternative 6 has Executive Director, Alternative 6, been selected as NYSDOT’s preferred solution and Mohawk Towpath Scenic with suggestions 2) Wants assurance the design will will be advanced to Design Approval. Byway Coalition, Inc. / safely accommodate pedestrians and Letter bicyclists. 2) Improvements to both pedestrian and bicycle accommodations are included in the project. 3) Noted the downstream dam appears Facilities provided for both will fully meet all to be a good fishing location and applicable requirements. suggested providing fishing access, even without dedicated parking 3) This project will maintain and improve the existing access road to the downstream dam, which meets Route 32 in the City of Cohoes just south of the existing bridge. This point of access is on property owned by the NYS Canal Corporation and is for their use. It would be up to the Canal Corporation to determine if public access for fishing is allowable from their access road. 20 Senator Kathleen A. Intersection of 1) Requested the installation of a 1) This concept was actually studied in depth earlier Marchione / State Route 787 roundabout at the intersection of SR in preliminary design and is our Alternative #5, 43rd Senate District / and State Route 787 and SR 32 with a second ‘Skewed Bridge with Roundabouts’. A total of four Letter 32 roundabout at the intersection of SR intersections would require major reconstruction 787 and Ontario Street be studied and under this alternative. In addition to this option, our considered. Alternative #7, ‘Parallel Bridge with Roundabout’

Page 9 of 17 PIN 1460.42, Route 32 Over the Mohawk - Summary of Public Comments (Complete comments are included in Appendix G)

included a single roundabout at the intersection of 2) Alternatively, suggested that a ‘slip Routes 787 and 32. These alternatives were not lane’ for northbound traffic from SR presented to the public during our recent public 787 onto SR 32 be considered. hearings because they were previously ruled out as non-feasible for technical, environmental, and economic reasons. The main reason Alternative #5 was eliminated from further study was due to the $32.4 M estimated construction cost, which does not include the purchase of property that would be needed. The main reason Alternative #7 was eliminated from further study was because the proposed roundabout location would be too close to nearby signalized intersections and so would not function properly. The fix for this problem with Alternative #7 is what previously led to the development of more expensive options, such as Alternative #5. In reviewing the history of the development of the numerous options previously studied for this project we reaffirmed our position that Alternative #6, ‘Parallel Bridge with Signalized Intersections – Minimized Approach Work’, and Alternative #8, ‘Online Bridge reconstruction with Temporary Bridge’ are the only two feasible alternatives.

2) This idea was investigated. Please see above response to comment #6 for additional information. 21 Jack Lawler / Intersection of 1) Concerned about the need for 1) This concern is understood. Supervisor, Town of State Route 787 capacity improvements at the Waterford / and State Route intersection of Route 32 and Route 2) The accident history for this intersection shows Email 32 787. that the overall accident rate is less than the statewide average for similar facilities. The 2) Believes the intersection is predominant types of accidents which are occurring dangerous and a serious bottleneck to are not unusual for an intersection such as this the safe and orderly flow of traffic. which is congested at certain times of the day.

Page 10 of 17 PIN 1460.42, Route 32 Over the Mohawk - Summary of Public Comments (Complete comments are included in Appendix G)

3) Clearly DOT had predetermined 3) It is correct to say that after more than ten years what this project would include, and of studying many possible options the Department what it would not include, well in determined only two of those options, Alternative 6 advance of the public hearings. and Alternative 8, are financially and technically feasible. The inherent assumption with all 4) Stands by his remarks at the public Department projects is that the public would always hearing in Waterford that spending prefer additional improvements, above and beyond $20 million to replace the bridge and to the scope of the existing project, if funding is ignore the deplorable condition of this available and the work is technically possible. Public intersection is poor public policy and input was not necessary in this case to determine poor infrastructure planning. that additional improvements the public would probably also like to see are above and beyond the 5) At the end of the day, has every level of funding we anticipate becoming available to confidence DOT will provide the best meet the primary project objective of addressing the possible replacement bridge and hopes condition of the bridge. Alternatives 6 and 8 have the project will be able to move different effects on properties located in Waterford forward. and Cohoes, and would have somewhat different affects on the traveling public during construction, and so these options (only) were presented to the public for comment prior to the Department making a decision as to which these two feasible alternatives to progress.

4) In NYSDOT Region 1, good public policy and infrastructure planning includes making decisions about how to best maintain 828 bridges and 5,300 lane miles of State and Interstate highways in the eight county area including Albany, Essex, Greene, Rennselaer, Saratoga, Schenectady, Washington, and Warren Counties. This decision making process includes, in this case, deliberately focusing on the primary needs of this specific bridge and elevating the importance of doing so above the importance of addressing other nearby, but not directly related intersection needs. While it would be nice to be able to address all nearby needs on every project,

Page 11 of 17 PIN 1460.42, Route 32 Over the Mohawk - Summary of Public Comments (Complete comments are included in Appendix G)

doing so would essentially mean arbitrarily funding some improvements based solely on proximity to the project, not based on the relative importance to similar needs elsewhere within the Region. This latter approach would truly be poor financial planning from a regional perspective considering that funding is finite.

5) The Department definitely intends to provide the best project possible project with the available funding and also hopes the project will be able to move forward. 22 George E. Primeau Sr. / Support of After careful consideration and Based in part on public input, Alternative 6 has been Mayor, City of Cohoes / Alternative 6 examination of all options, believes selected as NYSDOT’s preferred solution and will be Letter Alternative 6 clearly represents the advanced to Design Approval. best plan for the City of Cohoes and surrounding area. 23 Robert C. Martin (Chuck Support of Happy with Alternative 6 Based in part on public input, Alternative 6 has been & Sue) / Alternative 6 selected as NYSDOT’s preferred solution and will be 2 Saratoga Ave. / advanced to Design Approval. Telephone

24 Ken Sullivan / Opposes project 1) Not in favor of Alternative 6 because Existing commercial and residential development on Owner of vacant lot NYSDOT would have to acquire his both sides of the Mohawk River on the opposite between 9 Saratoga Ave., entire parcel. (west) side of Route 32 made it infeasible to Waterford and the bridge consider any options to locate a new bridge on that / Telephone 2) Not in favor of Alternative 8 because side. Existing traffic volumes on Route 32 made it NYSDOT would have to acquire an infeasible to consider closing the highway and easement of his entire parcel and detouring traffic off-site during bridge replacement. would have to remove large trees that Alternatives 6 and 8, as well as several other could not be replaced. alternatives that were previously considered, therefore propose either a permanent or temporary bridge to the east of the existing bridge. With this vacant property located so close to the river and to the existing bridge it is unfortunately impossible to avoid affecting it.

Page 12 of 17 PIN 1460.42, Route 32 Over the Mohawk - Summary of Public Comments (Complete comments are included in Appendix G)

25 Ann Marie Evetts / Bridge Rail 1) Urges use of concrete ‘Texas’ style 1), 2) Based in part on public input, Texas style Cohoes Resident / rail for safety, not aesthetic reasons. concrete bridge rail has been selected as part of the Comment Form preferred solution under Alternative 6. 2) Believes steel bridge railing has too large of a gap at the bottom and is too tempting for children to climb on. 26 Anthony LaFleche / Various 1) Wonders about the first five of the 1) This information was available prior to the public Clifton Park Resident / six alternatives and how they compare meetings / hearings by visiting the project website Statement at Waterford with what was presented. and looking at the Draft Design Report (and is still Public Hearing available there). To keep the public meeting 2) It would be logical to consider /hearing duration to a reasonable length these other having the bridge veer southeast from alternatives that were developed and evaluated Waterford to meet into 787. over the past 10+ years before being eliminated from further consideration were only mentioned 3) It would worth waiting on this briefly. project for several years and expanding it to include improvements to traffic 2) We agree this idea would be very logical and so it flow. was, in fact, one of the alternatives that was previously developed and evaluated in some detail. 4) it would be a shame to set the bridge in a way that it limits the ability 3) The existing bridge is not getting any newer as to address traffic flow issues later on. time goes by. It can take years to get through the design, real estate acquisition, and permitting processes necessary before construction can begin. If these steps are not taken before a bridge needs to be load posted, have lanes reduced, or closed altogether, the traveling public could potentially be inconvenienced for a long period of time. Waiting is therefore not without some significant risks.

4) Neither alternative presented would limit the ability to address traffic flow issues at the intersection of Routes 787 and 32 in the future. 26 Jill Hayes / Various 1) Concerned that the design of the 1) based on this and other similar comments we Waterford Resident / proposed right turn from 787 onto 32 reevaluated the proposed curb radius at the Statement at Waterford is a bit of a hairpin turn and so will northeast quadrant of this intersection and have

Page 13 of 17 PIN 1460.42, Route 32 Over the Mohawk - Summary of Public Comments (Complete comments are included in Appendix G)

Public Hearing make it even more difficult for tractor proposed additional improvements to help facilitate trailers to negotiate. large trucks making the right hand turn from 787 onto 32 toward the bridge. 2) Wonders why the top of the new bridge can’t look like it does now with 2) Based in part on public input, Texas style concrete the lighting piers. bridge rail has been selected as part of the preferred solution under Alternative 6. Lighting will be included on the new bridge only if either/both the City of Cohoes and the Town of Waterford agree to own and maintain it, in which case they will be able to select the lighting fixture style. If lighting is to be installed it may then be possible during final design to consider additional architectural details such as concrete lighting pedestals. 27 Dennis Lesmerises / Aesthetics Agrees with comments made by Jill Thank you for volunteering; however a committee Waterford Resident / Hayes. Wouldn’t mind being part of a will not really be needed for this purpose. Based in Statement at Waterford committee to provide input on what part on public input, Texas style concrete bridge rail Public Hearing the (top of) the bridge might look like has been selected as part of the preferred solution and would like this put in the public under Alternative 6. Lighting will be included on the record. new bridge only if either/both the City of Cohoes and the Town of Waterford agree to own and maintain it, in which case they will be able to select the lighting fixture style. 28 Pete Bardunias / Business The Waterford Community Business Thank you for attending the public meeting and for President and CEO of the Community Alliance asked me to attend simply to expressing the willingness of the local business Chamber of Southern Engagement say that we want to be a partner and community to participate in this process. Saratoga County based in believe the business community should Clifton Park / be engaged. The business community Statement at Waterford in Waterford does want to be a Public Hearing participant in the process. 29 Patricia Burke / Various 1) Wants to make sure the Museum’s 1) We have not seen any signs for the Museum at, or Waterford Museum / interests are not overlooked and see south of the intersection of Museum Lane so agree Statement at Waterford this as an opportunity to gain more that your current signage is not very good. Under Public Hearing visibility. Do not currently have very this project, any existing private sign in the way of good signage or visibility there. construction would be removed and replaced, or relocated.

Page 14 of 17 PIN 1460.42, Route 32 Over the Mohawk - Summary of Public Comments (Complete comments are included in Appendix G)

2) This project doesn’t seem to be taking into consideration the Local 2) There is a difference between taking into Waterfront Redevelopment Plan goals consideration local redevelopment goals and fro increasing visibility and access to implementing those goals for the locality. While the cultural tourism in the town and village Department always becomes familiar with such and at the waterfronts. This may be an goals and looks for ways to ensure the features we opportunity to recreate the towpath design and provide within our project limits are for the canal system and increase compatible, we cannot use State and/or Federal recreation and tourism opportunities. transportation funds to construct unrelated facilities for local municipalities. We can, however, consider 3) As soon as you cross the bridge into including additional proximate work in our Waterford you are in a National construction contract for local municipalities should Historic Preservation area, so this they wish to have a locally funded share. needs to be taken into consideration. 3) We are very much aware of this and are in direct contact with the State Historic Preservation Office regarding this project. 30 George E. Primeau Sr. / Support of 1) Spoke of the positive aspects of 1) Based in part on public input, Alternative 6 has Mayor, City of Cohoes / Alternative 6 Alternative 6 to the City of Cohoes. been selected as NYSDOT’s preferred solution and Statement at Cohoes will be advanced to Design Approval. Public Hearing 2) Mentioned speaking with Waterford Town Supervisor Jack Lawler about the 2) A waterline could easily be included on the new possibility of installing a water line on bridge at the request of one or both municipalities. the new bridge. Because this would be a new waterline, not the replacement of an existing waterline, one or both municipalities would need to pay for this work. At the municipality’s request, a cost estimate would be prepared during final design of the new bridge. 31 Anne Marie Koschnick / Support of Spoke in support of Alternative 6, with Based in part on public input, Alternative 6 has been Resident, City of Cohoes / Alternative 6 some specific concerns: selected as NYSDOT’s preferred solution and will be Statement at Cohoes advanced to Design Approval. Public Hearing 1) Everyone knows that if you’re coming from Waterford and want to 1) This is exactly the type of input we look and hope turn left onto 787 you have to stay for at public meetings. Not driving this route on a back (at the traffic signal) to avoid regular basis ourselves, members of the project being hit by trucks making the right design team were not aware of this problem. We

Page 15 of 17 PIN 1460.42, Route 32 Over the Mohawk - Summary of Public Comments (Complete comments are included in Appendix G)

hand turn onto 32. have now again reviewed the curb radius at the northeast quadrant of the intersection and have 2) I think the intersection is part of the proposed additional improvements to help facilitate bridge project and rather than planning large trucks making the right hand turn from 787 to build a new building at the corner of onto 32 toward the bridge. 787 and 32 some of that land should be taken to improve the turn coming 3) The above mentioned additional improvements off of 787. to the intersection radius will require the acquisition of slightly more property in that location. This small 3) I’d love a four-way stop on traffic additional acquisition will not preclude future lights to cross 787. It’s terrible to try to development of the property. walk across it. 4) As a result of all comments received it has been decided to extend the project limits to capture all four quadrants of this intersection for the purpose of ensuring pedestrian facilities are fully up to current standards. This does not necessarily mean the introduction of a fully protected pedestrian phase in the traffic signal timing sequence because stopping traffic in all directions at the same time would have a significant impact on the ability to keep traffic moving through the intersection. Many people spoke of the desire to make additional improvements as part of this project to help get more traffic through the signalized intersection quicker. Choices need to be made when deciding where the best balance is between meeting the wants and needs of motorists and pedestrians at the same time. 32 George Herbert / Support of Spoke in support of Alternative 6, Based in part on public input, Alternative 6 has been Resident, City of Cohoes / Alternative 6 mentioning that it; costs less, will slow selected as NYSDOT’s preferred solution and will be Statement at Cohoes traffic down because of the proposed advanced to Design Approval. Public Hearing turns (curves), utilities would only have to be relocated once, and it eliminates the conflicts with trucks at Shelter Enterprises.

Page 16 of 17 PIN 1460.42, Route 32 Over the Mohawk - Summary of Public Comments (Complete comments are included in Appendix G)

33 Stephen Rigney / Support of Supportive of Alternative 6 but Based in part on public input, Alternative 6 has been Resident, City of Cohoes / Alternative 6 understands Shelter Enterprise’s trucks selected as NYSDOT’s preferred solution and will be Statement at Cohoes would still have to cross southbound advanced to Design Approval. Shelter Enterprises Public Hearing traffic on Route 32 to get into and out needs to have continued access to their loading of their driveway. Wonders if they docks close to the bridge, so will require a driveway could have their own dedicated connection to Route 32 in that area. Access to those entrance on New Courtland Street to loading docks is not possible from New Courtland eliminate any disruption of traffic on Street. 32. 34 Roger Grout / Support of Strongly in favor of Alternative 6. Based in part on public input, Alternative 6 has been Owner of McDonalds in Alternative 6 Likes keeping things least disturbed so selected as NYSDOT’s preferred solution and will be Waterford/ likes keeping traffic on the existing advanced to Design Approval. Yes, your preferences Statement at Cohoes bridge during construction. Also likes for the railing type do count – which is why we Public Hearing the shorter construction duration presented two options to the public. Based on all under this option. The faster things input received, Texas style concrete bridge rail has can get back to normal the better. Also been chosen as part of the preferred solution under prefers the concrete railings if that Alternative 6. makes any difference.

Page 17 of 17

1

1 PROCEEDINGS: 8/15/13

2

3

4

5 STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 6 *********************************************************

7 In the Matter

8 - of -

9 A design public hearing held in accordance with the 10 provisions of Title 23 of the U.S. Code, Section 128 and Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 11 1500 to 1508, regarding the proposed project to replace the NYS Route 32 bridge over the Mohawk River between the 12 City of Cohoes, Albany County, and the Town of Waterford, Saratoga County. 13 *********************************************************

14 August 15, 2013 Commencing at 8:15 p.m. 15 Cohoes Community Center 16 22-40 Remsen Street Cohoes, New York 17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

LEGUIRE SHORTHAND REPORTERS Serving the Legal Profession Since 1982 www.AlbanyCourtReporters.com (518)371-4143 or (800)787-DEPO 2

1 PRESE N T:

2

3 GEOFFREY W. WOOD, P.E. Design Supervisor 4 Region 1 Highway Design Group NYS Department of Transportation 5 JAMES RASHFORD 6 Clough Harbour & Associates

7

8

9 A LSOPRESE N T:

10 Members of the Public

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24 REPORTED BY: THERESA L. KLOS, CSR, RPR

25

LEGUIRE SHORTHAND REPORTERS Serving the Legal Profession Since 1982 www.AlbanyCourtReporters.com (518)371-4143 or (800)787-DEPO 3

1 P R O C E E D I N G S

2 Notice of public hearing and notice of

3 availability of draft design report, New York State

4 Department of Transportation, PIN 1460.42:

5 In accordance with the provisions of Title

6 23, U.S. Code, Section 128 and Title 40, Code of Federal

7 Regulations, Parts 1500 to 1508; a design public hearing

8 will be held in the Cohoes Community Center, 22-40 Remsen

9 Street, Cohoes, New York, at 7:45 p.m. on Thursday,

10 August 15, 2013 on the proposed project to replace the

11 New York State Route 32 bridge over the Mohawk River

12 between the City of Cohoes, Albany County, and the Town

13 of Waterford, Saratoga County. The total length of the

14 project is 0.35+/- miles.

15 Preliminary design plans for the project have

16 been developed by the Department in coordination with

17 Federal, State and local agencies.

18 Department Engineers will be on hand starting

19 at 6:30 p.m. to discuss the project and answer individual

20 questions.A slide presentation will be given at 7:00

21 p.m. followed by a group question and answer session.

22 The public hearing, during which public statements may be

23 made, will begin at 7:45 p.m. Department Engineers will

24 remain on hand following the public hearing to continue

25 answering individual questions, if requested.

LEGUIRE SHORTHAND REPORTERS Serving the Legal Profession Since 1982 www.AlbanyCourtReporters.com (518)371-4143 or (800)787-DEPO 4

1 Tentative schedules for right-of-way

2 acquisition and construction will be discussed.

3 Department Real Estate agents will be present to explain

4 the property acquisition process and to answer related

5 questions both before and after the public hearing.

6 A Draft Design Report has been prepared which

7 accesses the project's potential effect on the quality of

8 the human environment.A hard copy of this report, along

9 with maps, drawings and other pertinent information

10 developed by the State and written views received as a

11 result of the coordination with Federal, State and local

12 agencies, are available for public inspection and copying

13 during business hours at the Office of the Regional

14 Director, Region 1, New York State Department of

15 Transportation, 50 Wolf Road, Albany, New York, 12232.

16 In addition, the Draft Design Report is also available

17 for review and printing on-line at the Department's

18 project Web site:

19 Https://www.dot.ny.gov/route32mohawkriver.

20 The project under consideration may include

21 construction which affects wetlands covered by Executive

22 Order 11990 of the President of the United States dated

23 May 24, 1977,"Protection of Wetlands."

24 All interested persons will be given the

25 opportunity to express their views concerning the

LEGUIRE SHORTHAND REPORTERS Serving the Legal Profession Since 1982 www.AlbanyCourtReporters.com (518)371-4143 or (800)787-DEPO 5

1 economic and social effects of the design plans, their

2 potential impact on the environment and their consistency

3 with the goals and objectives of such planning as has

4 been promulgated by the community. The public hearing

5 proceedings will be recorded. Persons may file written

6 statements and other exhibits in place of or in addition

7 to oral statements made at the public hearing. Written

8 statements submitted at the hearing, or mailed and

9 received on or before August 26, 2013, will be made part

10 of the record.

11 Those property owners who may subsequently

12 wish to challenge condemnation of their property via

13 judicial review under the Eminent Domain Procedure Law

14 (EDPL) may do so only on the basis of issues, facts, and

15 objections raised at the hearing.

16 Please advise this office if a sign language

17 interpreter, assistive listening system or any other

18 accommodation will be required to facilitate your

19 participation in this public hearing. Our contact person

20 is the Project Manager, Geoffrey W. Wood, P.E., whose

21 phone number is (518)457-8900.

22 (Thereupon, at 8:15 p.m., the public hearing

23 proceeded as follows:)

24 MR. WOOD: So at this point, I'm going to

25 open the public hearing and I'm going to go through the

LEGUIRE SHORTHAND REPORTERS Serving the Legal Profession Since 1982 www.AlbanyCourtReporters.com (518)371-4143 or (800)787-DEPO 6

1 speaker cards in the order that we received them with the

2 exception of the staff from the city who go first and

3 starting with the Mayor.

4 MAYOR PRIMEAU: Again, as I was saying in the

5 opening remarks tonight, you know, Alternative 6 is

6 simply something that is definitely geared to help Cohoes

7 out and make it a better approach and also correct a lot

8 of ongoing problems that we have down there with, you

9 know, the tractor trailers of Shelter Enterprise.

10 Also, it sits there and enables that property

11 down there, which is owned by DCG, to sit there and

12 actually develop down the road. So you know, the whole

13 thing, the whole concept of that area is geared to sit

14 there and, basically, you know, do some very needed

15 improvements that will sit there and actually make the

16 quality of life a lot better in that area.

17 Again,I think all along, you know, you sit

18 there and see the way the bridge is going to be built,

19 it's going to be a very pretty bridge.I think it's

20 going to be aesthetically nice. All the way around,I

21 think it's a major improvement not only for Cohoes but

22 also for Waterford.

23 You know, again, you know,I had talked with

24 Jack Lawler on the water line -- I'm going to have

25 something down the road; if we can afford to do it, we

LEGUIRE SHORTHAND REPORTERS Serving the Legal Profession Since 1982 www.AlbanyCourtReporters.com (518)371-4143 or (800)787-DEPO 7

1 will -- to sit there and basically help each other out in

2 the event of fires and whatever and shared services. But

3 the big thing is, again, this is a federally funded, you

4 know, program.I think we need a bridge. Eventually,

5 here, this bridge is getting old so we sit there and get

6 the plans together and who knows?

7 Maybe all of a sudden, funding becomes

8 available sooner where we can actually do this project a

9 lot sooner and it's going to be great, but it's

10 something, okay, that we should sit there and pursue and

11 also sit there and look at what kinds of improvements we

12 can make with 32 down in that area. So that's what my

13 feelings are.

14 I talked with my staff along with, you know,

15 members of the council, you know, just going over all of

16 this and, again,I think Alternative 6 is a great project

17 for us. Thank you.

18 MR. WOOD: Thank you, Mayor.

19 Mark Pascale.

20 MR. PASCALE:I don't have a comment to make.

21 I had a question and you made that clear.

22 MR. WOOD: Thank you.

23 Anne Marie Koschnick.

24 MS. KOSCHNICK:I have no problems with

25 Alternative 6 as a choice, but I do have a problem with

LEGUIRE SHORTHAND REPORTERS Serving the Legal Profession Since 1982 www.AlbanyCourtReporters.com (518)371-4143 or (800)787-DEPO 8

1 the way it comes off of 787 and turns. Right now, there

2 is like a 90-degree turn and if you're coming from

3 Waterford, everybody knows they have to stay back because

4 when the car makes a right there, they can go fast, the

5 trucks, and you're in danger of being hit.

6 The way they have the turn now on there to

7 come back in, it's more than a 90-degree turn. So it's

8 not a hairpin. It's a much tighter turn. And I think it

9 would be more difficult for traffic to have to come

10 around that and head back down.

11 So Alternative 6, my biggest problem is that

12 intersection. And I know that I was told that it might

13 be addressed at a later date, but I think that that's all

14 part of the bridge project. The approach to it is still

15 part of it. And rather than plan to build a new building

16 there on the corner, take some of that land and ease that

17 turn there to come off of 787. And by the way, I'd love

18 a four-way stop on traffic lights to cross 787. It's

19 terrible to try to walk across it.

20 MR. WOOD: Thank you.

21 George Hebert.

22 MR. HEBERT: The Alternate 6 plan costs less

23 money to begin with. Secondly,I think it will slow

24 traffic down because of its design. Because of those two

25 turns, it'll slow traffic considerably down to make it

LEGUIRE SHORTHAND REPORTERS Serving the Legal Profession Since 1982 www.AlbanyCourtReporters.com (518)371-4143 or (800)787-DEPO 9

1 safer.

2 Thirdly, the cost of replacing the building

3 twice in the other plan is something that is not included

4 in the funding. That comes out of our utility bills

5 every month. So when you vote for 8, that means you're

6 going to be paying twice for that service.

7 And Shelter Enterprise been a good neighbor

8 in Cohoes and Waterford as far as paying taxes, taking

9 care of the buildings and properties. They try to do

10 what they can with what's available to them.

11 Plan 6 eliminates the in and out of the

12 tractor trailers on that road. As everybody knows,

13 everybody's had to stop for them, it's a safety hazard to

14 boot. So Alternate 6 eliminates that problem.I can't

15 see how voting against 6 is going to benefit anybody.

16 Thank you.

17 MR. WOOD: Thank you.

18 John Madden.

19 AUDIENCE MEMBER: He left.

20 MR. WOOD: Okay. Thank you.

21 Stephen Rigney.

22 MR. RIGNEY:I do support Alternate 6. The

23 only thing I think may be better addressed if I saw this

24 correctly in the presentation, the shelter traffic will

25 still be cutting across the main line in and out.

LEGUIRE SHORTHAND REPORTERS Serving the Legal Profession Since 1982 www.AlbanyCourtReporters.com (518)371-4143 or (800)787-DEPO 10

1 With the easement by realigning the road, I'm

2 just wondering, and I understand cost is involved, that

3 possibly they have their own dedicated entrance beyond

4 the road more on the court in and out. This way, it

5 would eliminate basically any disruption of traffic on

6 32.

7 And I also support it, because again, it

8 would eliminate the double movement of utilities which we

9 wouldn't pay for anyway. Like he said, it would be up to

10 the State to make it whole. It would not come out of our

11 utility bill. Thank you.

12 MR. WOOD: Thank you.

13 We have Gina and the last name begins with an

14 "S".

15 AUDIENCE MEMBER: She left.

16 MR. WOOD: Thank you.

17 Ann Marie Evetts.

18 AUDIENCE MEMBER:I think she left.

19 MR. WOOD: Thank you.

20 Barbara McDonald.

21 MS. McDONALD: I'm okay.

22 MR. WOOD: Thank you.

23 June Cherniak.

24 MS. CHERNIAK: My concerns have been

25 addressed.

LEGUIRE SHORTHAND REPORTERS Serving the Legal Profession Since 1982 www.AlbanyCourtReporters.com (518)371-4143 or (800)787-DEPO 11

1 MR. WOOD: Okay. Thank you.

2 Chris Connell.

3 MS. CONNELL: I'm good.

4 MR. WOOD: Roger Grout.

5 MR. GROUT: Hi. My name is Roger Grout.I

6 own the McDonald's in Waterford.I have owned it for the

7 past 19 years and I am strongly in favor of Alternative

8 6. I think for me specifically, the idea of keeping

9 things least disturbed makes sense. Two years versus

10 maybe two and a half years. People during the

11 construction being on the current bridge and not having

12 to make changes to get over.

13 It will be a challenge. There will be

14 ongoing -- you know, we're going to be in the hot spot in

15 the TU and on-line and on every website no matter what

16 because it's a construction site. So we need to

17 hopefully eliminate and reduce the number of people that

18 are not going to come to Cohoes and Waterford. Not just

19 for me, I'll take what I can get, but for everyone, we

20 want to keep business alive in the City of Cohoes and the

21 Village and Town of Waterford and I think it's important

22 that we maintain the status quo as much as we can by

23 using the current bridge as long as we can.

24 Certainly, there's going to be some

25 challenges when it comes to tying in the entrance and

LEGUIRE SHORTHAND REPORTERS Serving the Legal Profession Since 1982 www.AlbanyCourtReporters.com (518)371-4143 or (800)787-DEPO 12

1 exit on each end. That's going to happen. Hopefully, it

2 can be done overnight to reduce those challenges. It is

3 going to be a longer bridge at the end of the day, but I

4 think the more normal we can keep things during the

5 duration of this project, the better off we are.

6 The faster we can get it back to the new

7 normal in 2020 or whenever that is,I think that's what

8 we want to do.I think we do need it. It's great that

9 we're getting some time, although it's been, as everyone

10 said, at least 10 years that we've been talking about it.

11 I think the idea is we're getting closer.

12 If the project comes a little sooner, that's

13 okay, but I think we want to be prepared nonetheless,

14 have the decision made, have all of us understand what's

15 going to happen so that when things happen, we'll be

16 prepared and, you know, make that decision for

17 Alternative 6.

18 I do prefer the concrete railings, if that

19 makes any difference.I think it aesthetically looks

20 better and is probably closer to the original look of the

21 bridge. So thank you very much.

22 MR. WOOD: Thank you. Is there anyone that

23 would like to make a statement whom I don't have a card

24 for?

25 (No affirmative response.)

LEGUIRE SHORTHAND REPORTERS Serving the Legal Profession Since 1982 www.AlbanyCourtReporters.com (518)371-4143 or (800)787-DEPO 13

1 MR. WOOD: Okay. Then, I'm going to close

2 the public hearing. Thank you.

3 (Thereupon, at 8:26 p.m., the proceedings

4 were concluded.)

5 *****

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

LEGUIRE SHORTHAND REPORTERS Serving the Legal Profession Since 1982 www.AlbanyCourtReporters.com (518)371-4143 or (800)787-DEPO 14

1

2 CERTIFICATION

3

4 I, THERESA L. KLOS, Shorthand Reporter and Notary

5 Public within and for the State of New York, do hereby

6 CERTIFY that the foregoing record taken by me at the time

7 and place noted in the heading hereof is a true and

8 accurate transcript of same, to the best of my ability

9 and belief.

10

11 12 Th eresa L. Kl os 13 THERESA L. KLOS, CSR, RPR

14

15 Dated: September 9, 2013.

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

LEGUIRE SHORTHAND REPORTERS Serving the Legal Profession Since 1982 www.AlbanyCourtReporters.com (518)371-4143 or (800)787-DEPO Public Informational Meeting & NEPA Public Hearing

City of Cohoes, NY

August 15, 2013