Town of Clarkstown—Nanuet Transit Oriented Development Zoning
Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
Volume 1 – Draft Report
Lead Agency Acceptance Date: October 9, 2018
Date of Public Hearing: November 13, 2018
Written Comments Will be Accepted by the Lead Agency for Ten (10) Days After Close of the Public Hearing
prepared for Town of Clarkstown, NY
prepared by Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 38 East 32nd Street, 7th Floor New York, NY 10016
AKRF 34 South Broadway, Suite 401 White Plains, NY 10601
date October 9, 2018 NEW YORK STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA)
Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (DGEIS)
FOR
NANUET TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT (TOD) ZONING Town of Clarkstown, Rockland County, NY
SEQR Classification: Type 1
Lead Agency: Town of Clarkstown Town Board 10 Maple Avenue New City, New York 10956
Applicant: Town of Clarkstown Town Board 10 Maple Avenue New City, New York 10956
Interested/Involved Agencies:
A copy of this document will be sent to the following:
Clarkstown Planning Board 10 Maple Avenue New City, NY 10956
Rockland County Planning Department 50 Sanatorium Road, Building T Pomona, NY 10970
Rockland County Department of Public Transportation 50 Sanatorium Road, Building T Pomona, NY10970
Rockland County Department of Health 50 Sanatorium Road, Building D Pomona, NY 10970
Rockland County Drainage Agency 23 New Hempstead Road New City, NY 10956
Rockland County Highway Department 23 New Hempstead Road New City, NY 10956 Rockland County Sewer District #1 4 NY‐340 Orangeburg, NY 10960 Nanuet Union‐Free School District 101 Church Street Nanuet, NY 10954
Nanuet Volunteer Fire District PO Box 119 Nanuet, NY 10954
Nanuet Community Ambulance Corporation 225 South Middletown Road Nanuet, NY 10954
SUEZ New York 360 West Nyack Road West Nyack, NY 10994
Orange and Rockland Utilities 390 W Route 59 Spring Valley, NY 10977
New York State Department of Transportation 275 Ridge Road New City, NY 10956
Regional SEQR Coordinator New York State Department of Transportation – SEQR Unit 4 Burnett Blvd Poughkeepsie, NY 12603
New Jersey Transit NJ TRANSIT Headquarters 1 Penn Plaza East Newark NJ 07105
Robyn M. Hollander, AICP MTA Metro‐North Railroad 420 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10170
United States Postal Service 10 Prospect Street Nanuet, NY 10956
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction ...... 1
2.0 Description of Proposed Action ...... 2 2.1 Existing Conditions ...... 2 Existing Land Use ...... 2 Maximum Capacity of Current Zoning ...... 5 2.2 Proposed Land Use ...... 6 TOD Area 1 ...... 8 TOD Area 2 ...... 10 TOD Area 3 ...... 12 Hamlet Commercial – Nanuet ...... 14 Maximum Capacity of Proposed Zoning ...... 16
3.0 Impact to Community Services ...... 18 3.1 Police, Fire, and Emergency Services ...... 18 Existing Conditions ...... 18 Potential Impacts ...... 19 Proposed Mitigation ...... 20 3.2 Schools ...... 21 Existing Conditions ...... 21 Potential Impacts ...... 23 Proposed Mitigation ...... 24 3.3 Solid Waste ...... 25 Existing Conditions ...... 25 Potential Impacts ...... 26 Proposed Mitigation ...... 27
4.0 Impact to Infrastructure ...... 28 4.1 Drainage/Flooding (Stormwater) ...... 28 Existing Conditions ...... 28 Potential Impacts ...... 29 Proposed Mitigation ...... 30 4.2 Waste/Wastewater (Sanitary Sewer) ...... 31 Existing Conditions ...... 31 Potential Impacts ...... 32 Proposed Mitigation ...... 33
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. ES-1 Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
5.0 Impact to Transportation ...... 35 5.1 Vehicular Traffic Study ...... 35 Existing Conditions ...... 38 2030 Build Conditions ...... 53 Proposed Mitigation ...... 68 5.2 Parking ...... 75 Existing Conditions ...... 75 2030 No Build Conditions ...... 77 2030 Build Conditions ...... 78 Proposed Mitigation ...... 78 5.3 Bicyclists & Pedestrians ...... 79 Existing Conditions ...... 80 Potential Impacts ...... 82 Proposed Mitigation ...... 86 5.4 Public Transportation ...... 87 Existing Conditions ...... 87 Potential Impacts ...... 89 Proposed Mitigation ...... 94
6.0 Impact to Community Character ...... 95 Existing Conditions ...... 95 Potential Impacts ...... 99 Proposed Mitigation ...... 104
7.0 Alternatives ...... 105 7.1 No Action Alternative ...... 105 7.2 Expansion of Proposed New Zoning to Include Nanuet Mall South Property ...... 106 Community Services ...... 107 Infrastructure ...... 108 Transportation ...... 109 Community Character ...... 118
8.0 Other Impacts ...... 119 8.1 Growth Inducing Impacts ...... 119 8.2 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ...... 119 Short-Term Impacts ...... 119 Long-Term Impacts ...... 120 8.3 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ...... 120 8.4 Impacts on the Use and Conservation of Energy ...... 121
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. ES-2 Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
Appendix ...... see Volume 2
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. ES-3 Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
List of Tables
Table 1: Existing Conditions Maximum Carrying Capacity Analysis Results ...... 6 Table 2: Dwelling Units Allowed by Current Zoning ...... 6 Table 3: Proposed Area, Bulk and Density Requirements for TOD Area 1 ...... 8 Table 4: Proposed Area, Bulk and Density Requirements for TOD Area 2 ...... 10 Table 5: Proposed Area, Bulk and Density Requirements for TOD Area 3 ...... 12 Table 6: Proposed Area, Bulk and Density Requirements for Hamlet Commercial – Nanuet ...... 14 Table 7: Maximum Floorspace by Proposed Action Zoning Districts ...... 16 Table 8: Maximum Number of Dwelling Units by Proposed Action ...... 17 Table 9: Comparison of Build-Out Floor Space ...... 17 Table 10: 2013-2017 Annual Enrollment: Nanuet Union Free School District ...... 21 Table 11: 2016-2017 Student Enrollment per Grade: Nanuet Union Free School District ...... 21 Table 12: 2016-2019 General Budget: Nanuet Union Free School District ...... 22 Table 13: 2017-2019 Expenditure Summary: Nanuet Union Free School District ...... 22 Table 14: 2017-2019 Revenue Summary: Nanuet Union Free School District ...... 23 Table 15: Proposed Action-Generated School Age Children – Based on Estimated Total New Children ...... 24 Table 16: Proposed Action Generated School Age Children – Based on Rental Rates ...... 24 Table 17: Nanuet TOD Estimated Solid Waste Generation ...... 26 Table 18: Impervious Surface Area by TOD Zone ...... 29 Table 19: Stormwater Runoff Volume Analysis Results ...... 30 Table 20: Existing Water Supply ...... 31 Table 21: Approximate Domestic Water Demand ...... 32 Table 22: LOS Criteria for Signalized Intersections ...... 37 Table 23: LOS Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections ...... 37 Table 24: Existing Conditions LOS Analysis ...... 46 Table 25: 2018 Existing and 2030 No Build Conditions LOS Analysis ...... 50 Table 26: Study Area Crash Summary – Intersection Locations ...... 51 Table 27: Study Area Crash Summary – Non-Intersection Locations ...... 52 Table 28: Maximum-Build Trip Generation Rates by Internal TOD Zone ...... 55 Table 29: Nanuet TOD Trip Distribution Patterns ...... 59 Table 30: 2030 No Build and Build Conditions LOS Analysis ...... 63 Table 31: 2030 No Build and Build Scenario 2 Conditions LOS ...... 67 Table 32: 2030 No Build, Build, and Mitigated Conditions LOS Analysis ...... 70 Table 33: 2030 No Build, Build, and Mitigated Scenario 2 Conditions LOS Analysis ...... 73 Table 34: On-Street Existing Parking Weekday Utilization ...... 76 Table 35: Orchard Street Existing Parking Weekday Utilization ...... 76
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. ES-4 Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
Table 36: Off-Street Existing Weekday Parking Utilization ...... 77 Table 37: Peak Period Parking Demand with Proposed Action ...... 78 Table 38: Summary of Peak 15-Minute Factors Under Existing Conditions ...... 81 Table 39: Total & Pedestrian Trip Generation by Internal TOD Traffic Analysis Zone ...... 83 Table 40: Additional Pedestrian Trips by Time of Day ...... 83 Table 41: Allocation of Additional Pedestrian Trips Based on Prospect Street Utilization and Crossings ...... 84 Table 42: Morning & Afternoon Proportions of Pedestrian Traffic ...... 84 Table 43: Additional Prospect Street Pedestrians by Peak Hour ...... 85 Table 44: Total Peak Morning and Afternoon Pedestrians ...... 85 Table 45: Non-Transit Generated Daily Pedestrian Trips by Internal Traffic Analysis Zones ...... 86 Table 46: Nanuet Inbound Morning Rail Ridership & Loading3 ...... 88 Table 47: Nanuet Outbound Afternoon Rail Ridership3 ...... 88 Table 48: Observed Passenger Boardings and Alightings at Middletown Toad and First Street Bus Stop for the TOR 93 Service ...... 89 Table 49: Total & Transit Trip Generation by Internal TOD Traffic Analysis Zone ...... 90 Table 50: Additional Transit Trips by Time of Day ...... 90 Table 51: Impact of Proposed Action to Transit Ridership ...... 91 Table 52: 2030 Projected Train Capacity at Nanuet Train Station ...... 92 Table 53: Estimated LOS for Train Station Platform Capacity ...... 93 Table 54: Alternative Action TOD Trip Distribution ...... 109 Table 55: Comparison to AM LOS for Alternative Action ...... 114 Table 56: Changes to PM LOS for Alternative Action ...... 115 Table 57: Alternative Action Additional Prospect Street Pedestrians by Peak Hour ...... 116 Table 58: Impact of Alternative Action to Metro-North Ridership ...... 117
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. ES-5 Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
List of Figures
Figure 1: Existing Zoning within the Nanuet TOD Proposed Rezoning Area ...... 3 Figure 2: Proposed Zoning within the Nanuet TOD Rezoning Area...... 7 Figure 3: Lot Bulk Layout and Conceptual Street Layout for TOD Area 1 ...... 9 Figure 4: Lot Bulk Layout and Conceptual Street Layout for TOD Area 2 ...... 11 Figure 5: Bulk Layout and Conceptual Street Layout for TOD Area 3 ...... 13 Figure 6: Conceptual Street Layout for Hamlet Commercial – Nanuet ...... 15 Figure 7: Project Study Area Analyzed Intersections ...... 40 Figure 8: 2018 Existing Morning Peak Hour Traffic Conditions ...... 44 Figure 9: 2018 Existing Afternoon Peak Hour Traffic Conditions ...... 45 Figure 10: 2030 No-Build Morning Peak Hour Traffic Conditions ...... 48 Figure 11: 2030 No Build Afternoon Peak Hour Traffic Conditions ...... 49 Figure 12: Trip Distribution Patterns by Zone ...... 54 Figure 13: Project-Generated Morning Peak Hour Traffic Conditions ...... 57 Figure 14: Project-Generated Afternoon Peak Hour Traffic Conditions ...... 58 Figure 15: Maximum Buildout Morning Peak Hour Traffic Conditions...... 60 Figure 16: Maximum Buildout Afternoon Peak Hour Traffic Conditions ...... 61 Figure 17: Proposed New Roadway Connections ...... 65 Figure 18: Existing Conditions Northbound Along Fisher Avenue ...... 95 Figure 19: Existing Conditions Along Westbound Prospect Street ...... 96 Figure 20: Existing Conditions Along Eastbound Prospect Street ...... 97 Figure 21: Existing Conditions Northbound Along Main Street ...... 98 Figure 22: Existing Conditions Southbound Along Main Street ...... 98 Figure 23: Local Example of TOD 1 Architectural Design ...... 99 Figure 24: Rendering Perspective Northbound Along Fisher Avenue ...... 100 Figure 25: Rendering Perspective of Westbound Along Prospect Street ...... 100 Figure 26: Rendering Perspective Eastbound Along Prospect Street ...... 101 Figure 27: Local Example of TOD 2 and 3 Architectural Design ...... 102 Figure 28: Local Example of HC-N Architectural Design ...... 103 Figure 29: Rendering Perspective Northbound Along Prospect Street ...... 103 Figure 30: Rendering Perspective Southbound Along Prospect Street ...... 104
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. ES-6
1.0 Introduction
The Town of Clarkstown is considering the rezoning of multiple parcels of land in proximity to the Nanuet Train Station (the Project Study Area). The proposed rezoning would support the development of a transit‐oriented neighborhood around the public transit station, a key recommendation in the 2009 Town of Clarkstown Comprehensive Plan and 2011 Commercial Corridor Transportation & Land Use Study. The parcels under consideration for rezoning are currently zoned primarily for, and developed with, commercial and light industrial uses. Through the proposed rezoning, the Town of Clarkstown aims to develop a vibrant, walkable, and aesthetically pleasing mixed‐use neighborhood that better connects Nanuet’s Hamlet Center to surrounding neighborhoods, encourages public transit use, discourages automobile dependency, and provides high‐quality, affordable, and sustainable housing especially for young professionals and families, as well as senior citizens wishing to remain in Nanuet.
The Nanuet Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Zoning (the Proposed Action), consists of three new zoning designations and an update to the Nanuet Hamlet Commercial (HC) zoning specifications. The Proposed Action, which is the subject of this Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (DGEIS), includes an amendment to the Town’s zoning map to create these new zoning districts (Nanuet TOD zones) and revisions to the requirements of the HC zone. The Town Board of the Town of Clarkstown is serving as the Lead Agency for the environmental review in accordance with procedures set forth in the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA).
A Draft Scoping document (Appendix A) for the Proposed Action was presented to the public during a Public Hearing on February 26, 2018, at which time verbal comments were recorded (Appendix B). Written public comment on the Draft Scoping document was accepted until March 2, 2018. Correspondence on the Draft Scoping document can be found in Appendix C. The Final Scoping document (Appendix D) was developed and accepted on April 10, 2018 by the Town of Clarkstown Town Board. This Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement has been prepared in accordance with the Final Scoping document. It presents and evaluates the potential environmental impacts associated with the Proposed Action and proposed mitigation measures, in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act and Part 617 of the implementing regulations.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 1
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
2.0 Description of Proposed Action
The Town of Clarkstown is seeking to rezone 72 parcels of a total size of approximately 37.11 acres. Currently, these parcels are zoned as Hamlet Commercial (HC), Community Shopping (CS), Light Industrial Office (LIO), Multi‐Family 1, and Multi‐Family 3 (MF‐1 and MF‐3). To encourage TOD around the Nanuet Train Station, the Town of Clarkstown is proposing to rezone these parcels into three new zones, as well as update the existing Nanuet HC Zoning District.
2.1 Existing Conditions
Existing Land Use
Figure 1 illustrates the current zoning within the Project Study Area:
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
Figure 1: Existing Zoning within the Nanuet TOD Proposed Rezoning Area
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 3
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
The existing zoning primarily consists of the following:
HC: Hamlet Commercial
The purpose and intent of the Hamlet Commercial (HC) District is to reinforce and protect the existing historic character of the hamlet by encouraging renovation and new construction, which is in keeping with the local historic scale and character as recommended in the Town Comprehensive Plan. Located in the Town's hamlet center, this district encourages the provision of pedestrian and bicycle amenities as well as apartments over ground floor commercial development.
Centered along Main Street, the HC District is the downtown‐style central business district for Nanuet. Unlike the larger regional shops and businesses along Route 59, the HC District contains smaller businesses and shops, and parking behind buildings. A number of these buildings also contain residential units in one or two floors above the ground level. Given its proximity to Route 59 and many strip malls and shopping centers, in its current format, the HC District struggles somewhat to be a truly vibrant and attractive mixed‐use or central business district‐style neighborhood.
RS: Regional Shopping
The Regional Shopping (RS) District allows a full range of commercial development from convenience to specialty item shopping in a location that is on or immediately adjacent to a major state highway, facilitating regional access.
For the purposes of this study, the RS District consists of the Shops at Nanuet (formerly the Nanuet Mall). This large, open‐air shopping center consists of Macys, Sears, a fitness center, movie theater, as well as multiple smaller shops and restaurants. Although the shopping center was recently re‐designed from a traditional mall to a Main Street‐style outdoor mall, the businesses are still surrounded by expansive parking lots, accessible from South Middletown Road (Main Street) and Route 59.
While the RS District was studied as part of the overall planning process, the Proposed Action does not apply to the Shops at Nanuet.
MF‐1: Multi‐Family Residential
The Multi‐Family (MF‐1) District was established to provide additional housing opportunities in attached housing developments. The zone is designed for areas which can provide local services necessary to support relatively intensive housing development compatible with the existing scale of development. As such, these zones are intended to be located in the dense portions of the town's hamlets.
Within the proposed rezoning area, the MF‐1 District does not actually contain any residential uses. Instead, this land consists of a vacant light‐industrial parcel, and a commuter parking lot owned by Rockland County for the adjacent Nanuet Train Station.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 4
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
LIO: Light Industrial Office
The purpose of the Light Industrial Office (LIO) District is to allow the development of select industrial uses on land planned and suited to such uses but at the same time protecting the character of the surrounding residential areas or planned residential areas. Manufacturing operations are allowed by right only if they are incidental or accessory to the primary operation of a plant, or allowed as a principal uses by special permit of the Town Board. The LIO district is intended for industrial land uses characterized by minimal land coverage and attractive building designs within industrial park settings featuring wide evergreen buffers to screen adjacent residential areas. The LIO District regulations promote industrial developments using the highest acceptable planning standards to properly handle any obnoxious and objectionable external effects upon the surrounding residential areas, circulation systems, drainage and other natural features.
The LIO District comprises a large portion of the proposed rezoning area. In the western portion of this study area, the LIO District consists of multiple light‐industrial facilities, some of which are vacant and underutilized, as well as a few residences on Fisher Avenue. In the eastern portion of this study area, the LIO‐zoned area consists of the Nanuet Post Office, a commuter parking lot owned by the Town of Clarkstown adjacent to the Nanuet Train Station platform, and a commuter parking lot owned by Metro‐North Railroad behind the post office.
Additional Zoning & Uses
Additional zoning districts in the study area include the Community Shopping (CS), Multi‐Family 3 (MF‐3), Residential‐10 (R‐10), and Residential‐15 (R‐15) zones. However, those parcels comprise only a small portion of the study area.
Maximum Capacity of Current Zoning
The maximum carrying capacity and build‐out analysis was conducted utilizing detailed Project Study Area parcel data, not including public right‐of‐way, inputted into a Microsoft Excel‐based model. Analysis of the existing zoning takes into account existing conditions regarding the parcel data, including lot sizes, current uses, and specifications allowed under existing zoning. Analysis of the Proposed Action builds on the existing conditions analysis through the alteration of the zoning regulations.
Based on existing zoning bulk regulations, a maximum build‐out of the 72 parcels comprising the Project Study Area would yield the following:
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 5
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
Table 1: Existing Conditions Maximum Carrying Capacity Analysis Results
Zone Parcel Area Building Floorspace (Sq.ft) (Sq.ft) HC 716,274 358,137 LIO 474,495 190,275 MF‐1 185,609 92,805 R‐15 52,177 12,001 RS 349,986 174,993 Total 1,778,542 828,210
Based on the maximum floorspace that is allowable, if the Project Study Area were to be built out to its fullest potential, the number of residential units allowed would be as follows:
Table 2: Dwelling Units Allowed by Current Zoning
Zone Number of Dwelling Units
MF‐1 93
R‐15 12
HC 94
Total 199
A maximum total of 199 residential units could be developed in the study area, pursuant to the current zoning regulations. Out a total building floorspace of 828,210 square feet, it is estimated that 183,765 square feet would be residential, with the remaining 644,445 square feet being commercial space.
2.2 Proposed Land Use
The Town of Clarkstown is proposing to rezone 37.11 acres, comprised of 72 parcels, into three new zones known as TOD Area 1, TOD Area 2, and TOD Area 3. In addition, the Town of Clarkstown is proposing to update bulk and area requirements in the HC zone. Figure 2 illustrates the proposed breakdown of zoning within the Nanuet TOD rezoning area:
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 6
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
Figure 2: Proposed Zoning within the Nanuet TOD Rezoning Area
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 7
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
TOD Area 1
TOD Area 1 is located between Fisher Avenue and Babcock Avenue/Jerrys Avenue and the Metro‐North railroad tracks, comprising parcels currently zoned for LIO (Light Industrial/Office). The area is currently occupied by light industrial and commercial uses, as well as single‐family homes.
TOD Area 1 will provide a buffer between the single‐family residential neighborhoods to the west along Prospect Street, and the denser developments (TOD Areas 2 and 3) closer to the train station. Proposed TOD 1 zoning specifications would allow for 2‐ and 3‐story walk‐up residential attached townhouses or condominiums, rising no higher than 35 feet. A total of 20 units per acre would be permitted.
The following table and figure summarize the proposed bulk and area requirements for TOD Area 1:
Table 3: Proposed Area, Bulk and Density Requirements for TOD Area 1
LOT SIZE (min.) Lot size 40,000 s.f. Lot width 150 ft min BUILDING HEIGHT (max.) Principal building 35 ft (3 stories) Accessory building 1 story SETBACK – PRIMARY BUILDING Front yard 30 ft min Side yard n/a Rear yard n/a Frontage build out min % n/a Buffer 35 ft buffer when adjacent to a residential zoned district SETBACK – ACCESSORY BUILDING Front yard 30 ft min Side yard 10 ft min Rear yard 10 ft min SETBACK – PARKING Front yard 10 ft min Side yard 0 ft min Rear yard 35 ft min LOT DENSITY AND GREENSPACE Greenspace % min 25% min Maximum floor area ratio .75 Maximum principal building(s) coverage 25.00% Maximum lot coverage 50% (including principal building(s) coverage) RESIDENTIAL DENSITY – Square feet of land area per unit 7,260 Units per acre 20 max
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 8
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
Units per building 8 max Bedrooms per unit 1 – 2 bedrooms (maximum of 75% 2 bedroom units) Unit size 850 – 1,250 sf Parking requirement 2.0 parking spaces per dwelling unit COMMERCIAL DENSITY Maximum size of 1st floor commercial Not permitted
Figure 3: Lot Bulk Layout and Conceptual Street Layout for TOD Area 1
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 9
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
TOD Area 2
TOD Area 2 is located immediately west of the Metro‐North Railroad tracks comprising parcels that are currently zoned LIO and MF‐1 occupied by vacant parcels previously used for industrial activities, and parking for the Nanuet Train Station.
TOD Area 2 would function as a transition zone between the single‐family (West Prospect Street) and townhouse‐style residential (TOD 1) neighborhoods to the west, and the proposed higher density mixed‐use TOD Area 3 and Hamlet Commercial areas to the east. Zoning specifications would allow for 3‐ and 4‐story residences with 1‐ and 2‐bedroom units, with a maximum height of 45 feet, and setbacks ranging from 5 and 15 feet from the property line and an additional 10 feet from the third floor building façade for the fourth floor of each building. Parcels are required to provide a minimum of 20 percent green space with a maximum density of 40 units per acre. An additional 10 units per acre would be allowed through the inclusion of LEED‐certified units and/or streetscape beautification efforts.
As a transition zone between residential and true mixed‐use developments to the east, TOD Area 2 would allow for limited (10% of the floor building square footage facing the Nanuet Train Station) ground‐level commercial space.
The following table and figure summarize the proposed bulk and area requirements for TOD Area 2:
Table 4: Proposed Area, Bulk and Density Requirements for TOD Area 2
LOT SIZE (min.) Lot size 10,000 s.f. Lot width 60 ft min BUILDING HEIGHT (max.) Principal building 45 ft (4 stories, with 4th floor setback at least 10 ft from the 3rd floor building façade when adjacent to a front yard or adjacent to a TOD 1 District )* Accessory building 1 story SETBACK – PRIMARY BUILDING Front yard 5 ft min – 15 ft max Side yard 10 ft min Rear yard 30 ft min Frontage build out min % At least 50% between minimum and maximum front setback Buffer n/a SETBACK – ACCESSORY BUILDING Front yard 5 ft min Side yard 10 ft min Rear yard 10 ft min SETBACK – PARKING Front yard 10 ft min Side yard 5 ft min Rear yard 5 ft min
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 10
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
LOT DENSITY AND GREENSPACE Greenspace % min 20% min Maximum floor area ratio 1
RESIDENTIAL DENSITY – Square feet of land area per unit 1,452 Units per acre 40 max (potential for up to 50 units per acre with LEED development and Nanuet beautification bonus) Units per building n/a Bedrooms per unit 1 – 2 bedrooms (maximum of 25% 2 bedroom units) Unit size 800 – 1,000 sf Parking requirement 1.5 parking spaces per dwelling unit COMMERCIAL DENSITY Maximum size of 1st floor commercial 10% of the first floor footprint and commercial frontage must face the rail line (parking and residential permitted) Parking requirement 1 parking space per 300 square feet of retail and service uses 1 parking space per 100 square feet of restaurant uses Figure 4: Lot Bulk Layout and Conceptual Street Layout for TOD Area 2
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 11
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
TOD Area 3
TOD Area 3 is an area immediately to the east of the Metro‐North Railroad tracks and along Orchard Street that is currently zoned HC. The area is currently occupied by light and industrial uses, as well as parking for the Nanuet Train Station and for nearby businesses.
TOD Area 3 is intended to function as a mixed‐use commercial area adjacent to the Nanuet Train Station and Hamlet Commercial Zoning District. Zoning specifications would allow for 3‐ and 4‐story mixed‐use buildings, consisting primarily of studio and one‐bedroom apartments, rising no higher than 45 feet, and including setbacks ranging from 5 and 15 feet from the property line and an additional 10 feet from the third floor building façade for the fourth floor of each building. A total of 40 units per acre would be permitted, with a minimum of 15% green space. An additional 10 units per acre would also be permitted through the inclusion of LEED‐ certified units and/or streetscape beautification efforts. As a mixed‐use commercial area, commercial uses or parking would be required on the first floor of each building.
The following table and figure summarize the proposed bulk and area requirements for TOD Area 3:
Table 5: Proposed Area, Bulk and Density Requirements for TOD Area 3
LOT SIZE (min.) Lot size 10,000 s.f. Lot width 60 ft min BUILDING HEIGHT (max.) Principal building 45 ft (4 stories, with 4th floor setback at least 10 ft from the 3rd floor building façade when adjacent to a front yard)* Accessory building 1 story SETBACK – PRIMARY BUILDING Front yard 5 ft min – 15 ft max Side yard 0 ft min but when provided 15 ft min Rear yard 25 ft min Frontage build out min % At least 75% between minimum and maximum front setback Buffer n/a SETBACK – ACCESSORY BUILDING Front yard n/a Side yard 10 ft min Rear yard 10 ft min SETBACK – PARKING Front yard 10 ft min Side yard 5 ft min Rear yard 5 ft min LOT DENSITY AND GREENSPACE Greenspace % min 15% min Maximum floor area ratio 1.5 RESIDENTIAL DENSITY Square feet of land area per unit 1,089
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 12
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
40 max (potential for up to 50 units per acre with LEED development and Units per acre Nanuet beautification bonus) n/a Units per building Studios and 1 bedrooms Bedrooms per unit 500 – 850 sf Unit size 1.5 parking spaces per dwelling unit Parking requirement COMMERCIAL DENSITY Maximum size of 1st floor commercial 100% (parking permitted and no residential) Parking requirement 1 parking space per 300 square feet of retail and service uses 1 parking space per 100 square feet of restaurant uses
Figure 5: Bulk Layout and Concep tual Street Layout for TOD Area 3
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 13
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
Hamlet Commercial – Nanuet
Hamlet Commercial – Nanuet (HC‐N) is an area along Main Street (Middletown Road). The area is occupied by mixed‐use ‘downtown’ commercial uses with residential on the second and third floors. Under the proposed rezoning, HC‐N zoning specifications would increase the maximum building heights from 28 feet to 35 feet, matching those of the other TOD areas, and increase the residential density from 8 to 16 units per acre.
The following table and figure summarize the proposed bulk and area requirements for Hamlet Commercial ‐ Nanuet:
Table 6: Proposed Area, Bulk and Density Requirements for Hamlet Commercial – Nanuet
LOT SIZE (min.) Lot size 8,000 s.f. Lot width 50 ft min BUILDING HEIGHT (max.) Principal building 35 ft (3 Stories) Accessory building n/a SETBACK – PRIMARY BUILDING Front yard 0 ft min – 15 ft max Side yard 0 ft or 15 ft adj commercial / 25 ft min adj residential Rear yard 25 ft min Frontage build out min % At least 75% between minimum and maximum front setback Buffer n/a SETBACK – ACCESSORY BUILDING Front yard n/a Side yard 10 ft min Rear yard 10 ft min SETBACK – PARKING Front yard n/a Side yard 5 ft min Rear yard 5 ft min LOT DENSITY AND GREENSPACE Greenspace % min 15% min Maximum floor area ratio 1.5 RESIDENTIAL DENSITY – Square feet of land area per unit 2,723 Units per acre 16 max Bedrooms per unit Studios, 1, and 2 bedrooms (maximum of 25% 2 bedroom units) Unit size 500 – 1,000 sf Parking requirements 1.5 parking space per dwelling unit COMMERCIAL DENSITY Maximum size of 1st floor commercial 100% (no parking permitted) 2nd and 3rd floor commercial Any combination of commercial and residential uses is permitted Parking requirement 1 parking space per 300 square feet of retail and service uses 1 parking space per 100 square feet of restaurant uses
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 14
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
Figure 6: Conceptual Street Layout for Hamlet Commercial – Nanuet
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 15
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
Maximum Capacity of Proposed Zoning
Based on the proposed zoning specifications, a build‐out analysis was conducted for the four proposed zoning districts (TOD 1, TOD 2, TOD 3, and HC‐N). It should be noted that the extent of the area remained the same between the existing and proposed zoning district scenarios.
The result of the maximum carrying capacity analysis is shown in Table 7 by zone and broken down by residential and commercial floorspace. As Table 7 depicts, potential maximum floorspace for residential use in the 3 TOD areas is equally distributed at about 150,000 feet per zone. While potential maximum residential floorspace is significantly higher within the HC‐N zone, much of it consists of existing commercial and mixed‐use residential/commercial land uses. Potential maximum floorspace of commercial land uses is primarily concentrated in TOD 3 at approximately 244,000 square feet. In total, approximately 30% of the total floorspace is zoned for commercial.
Table 7: Maximum Floorspace by Proposed Action Zoning Districts
Maximum Build‐Out Floorspace By Zone (square footage) Zoning/Area Residential Commercial Total Floorspace
TOD 1 152,627 ‐ 152,627
TOD 2 149,413 13,583 162,996
TOD 3 149,331 244,153 393,484
HC‐N 501,604 155,041 656,646
Total Floor Area 952,975 412,777 1,365,753
Table 8 summarizes the maximum number of allowed residential units by zone for the proposed action as compared to the dwelling units allowed by current zoning. Using the proposed area, bulk and density regulations, the proposed TOD 1 zoning district would be able to construct a maximum of 116 residential units; the proposed TOD 2 zoning district would be able to construct 150 units; the proposed TOD 3 zoning district would be able to construct 299 units; and as a result of the height allowance increase of 28 feet to 35 feet and residential density increase of 8 to 16 units per acre, the proposed HC‐N zoning district would be permitted to construct a total of 194 units. The maximum allowed number of units within the study area of 759 represents an additional 560 possible units from what is allowed under current zoning regulations.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 16
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
Table 8: Maximum Number of Dwelling Units by Proposed Action
Zone Dwelling Units Allowed by Number of Additional Maximum Number of Current Zoning Dwelling Units Dwelling Units TOD 1 12 104 116 TOD 2 93 57 150 TOD 3 0 299 299 HC‐N 94 100 194 Total 199 560 759
Table 9 summarizes a comparison of the maximum build‐out of commercial and residential uses under existing zoning and the zoning of the Proposed Action.
Table 9: Comparison of Build‐Out Floor Space
Build‐Out Floorspace by Scenario (square footage) Max Build‐Out Existing Zoning Proposed Action Difference (+/‐) Commercial 644,445 412,777 ‐231,668 Residential 183,765 952,975 769,210 Total 828,210 1,365,752 537,542
At full build‐out, implementation of the Proposed Action could result in an increase in population of 1,226 new residents, which would represent a 6.7% increase above the total population of the Hamlet of Nanuet at 18,377 residents and 1.41% increase for the Town of Clarkstown population of 86,897 residents.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 17
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
3.0 Impact to Community Services
Chapter 3 addresses potential impacts resulting from the Proposed Action and the corresponding maximum buildout, to community facilities and services including police protection services, fire protection services, emergency medical services and schools.
3.1 Police, Fire, and Emergency Services
Existing Conditions
Town of Clarkstown Police Department
The Town of Clarkstown Police Department serves the residents of New City, Congers, Valley Cottage, Rockland Lake, Upper Nyack, Nyack, Central Nyack, West Nyack, Nanuet, Spring Valley, and Bardonia, making it the largest town police force in New York State. The Clarkstown Police Department comprises multiple divisions including: Detective’s Bureau, Juvenile Aid Bureau, K‐9 Unit, Street Crimes Unit, Strategic Intelligence Unit, Warrant Squad, Critical Incident Response Team, and Emergency Management Office.
According to the Clarkstown Police 2016 Annual Report, 156 sworn officers and 70 civilians and crossing guards provide patrol and protection services to the Town’s 86,897 residents. Given the total of 156 officers for 86,897 residents, the Town of Clarkstown maintains a ratio of 1 officer for every 557 residents.
The officers are split into six patrol squads, with three larger squads staffing the day and evening shifts and 3 smaller squads staffing the overnight shift. All six squads are under the command of a Squad Lieutenant at all times. In 2016, the Clarkstown Police Department handled 54,458 calls for service. According to the Clarkstown Police 2016 Annual Report, this service call number is under reported, as many of their interactions with the public and services they perform on a routine basis do not generate a call and are therefore not “counted” towards their total calls for service.
According to the Town of Clarkstown’s 2018 Adopted Budget, the Clarkstown Police Department budget was $31,857,265 for the 2018 calendar year.
Nanuet Fire Department
The Nanuet Fire Department staffs eleven line officers and eight company officers, all of whom are volunteers. These officers make up 22% of the 87 active members of the Nanuet Fire Engine Company. Because their staff comprises only volunteers, staffing levels vary day‐to‐day. Given a population of 18,377 for the Hamlet of Nanuet, this equates to one fire department personnel for every 224 residents. The Department serves the residents of Nanuet and Bardonia and is equipped with a fleet of ten emergency vehicles that are used for firefighting, patrol, and support. The Nanuet Fire Department has two stations: a main headquarters in Nanuet and a substation in Bardonia. The Bardonia substation was constructed in the northeastern portion
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 18
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
of the District to adequately provide protection to Nanuet Fire Department’s large district. From 2013‐2017, the Department responded to an average of 620 calls per year, with a peak of 679 calls in 2015. The response time to these calls varies based on the time of the call, but can be estimated to be between 3 and 20 minutes.
Nanuet Emergency Medical Services/Nanuet Community Ambulance Corporation
The Nanuet Emergency Medical Services (EMS) is the primary 911 emergency medical provider for Nanuet, West Nyack, Bardonia, Spring Valley, and parts of New City. The Clarkstown Police Department dispatches the all‐volunteer EMS staff, which comprises seven operational officers and three administrative officers; equating to a ratio of one ambulatory personnel for every 9,192 residents (based on the Nanuet EMS service area).
Nanuet EMS is equipped with four ambulance trucks to serve their local community. In some instances, mutual aid is provided by nearby emergency service stations, such as the Rockland Paramedic Services, the Nanuet Fire Department, and the Clarkstown Police Department. In 2017, Nanuet EMS responded to 2,797 incidents, an increase of 596 incidents since 2007.
Under current zoning, the Project Study Area could be developed to a maximum of 828,210 gross floor area, including a total of 199 residential units. It is anticipated emergency services providers would adjust staffing levels, rolling stock, and equipment to address changes in conditions that may occur within the Project Study Area. Notwithstanding increases in annual budget and capital costs, which would be accommodated in the Town’s Capital Improvement Plan, no changes to the emergency service providers are anticipated in the future.
Potential Impacts
Town of Clarkstown Police Department
Because the Proposed Action and development of the Project Study Area would result in additional residential and commercial uses, it is anticipated that police service demands would increase from current demand. At full build‐out, implementation of the Proposed Action could result in an increase in population of 1,226 new residents, which would represent a 6.7% increase above the total population of the Hamlet of Nanuet and 1.41% for the Town of Clarkstown, which is a de minimis population increase that could be accommodated by the Town of Clarkstown Police Department.
Planning standards contained in the Development Impact Assessment Handbook, published by the Urban Land Institute (ULI), recommend a service ratio of two police per 1,000 residents. Given the potential for 1,226 additional residents at full build‐out, the proportion of officers to residents could decrease from 1:557 (2:1,114) to 1:565 (2:1,130). The Town of Clarkstown Police Department would likely being able to accommodate this potential small increase in demand.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 19
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
Nanuet Fire Department
The Proposed Action would allow for the development of additional residential units and commercial/retail establishments within the Project Study Area and as such, would be anticipated to increase demand for fire protection services. Any new development in the Project Study Area would be designed in accordance with all applicable New York State Building and Fire Codes – and where appropriate, would be sprinklered. The maximum height of development under the Proposed TOD 2 and 3 Zones would be 4 stories.
ULI recommends a ratio of 1.65 fire department personnel per 1,000 people. Given the potential for 1,226 additional residents at full build‐out, the proportion of fire department personnel to Nanuet residents would decrease from 1:224 to 1:239. This proportion is well within the standards set forth by ULI. Therefore, it is anticipated the Nanuet Fire Department would be able to accommodate any increase in demand, and therefore no significant adverse impacts to the Nanuet Fire Department are anticipated to result from the proposed rezoning.
Nanuet Emergency Medical Services/Nanuet Community Ambulance Corporation
At full build‐out, implementation of the Proposed Zoning could result in an increase of 1,226 new residents, representing a 1.41% increase in the population of the Town of Clarkstown and 6.7% to the Hamlet of Nanuet. This minimal population growth would be expected to add 187 calls annually.
ULI recommends a ratio of 4.1 EMS personnel per 30,000 people. Given the potential for 1,226 additional residents at full build‐out, the proportion of EMS personnel to Nanuet EMS service area residents would decrease from 1:9,192 to 1:9,315. Given that the population increase is considered de minimis, the Nanuet EMS is likely able to handle such an increase. As such, the amount of additional Nanuet EMS personnel required to bring the Nanuet EMS service area to a ratio of 4.1 personnel per 30,000 population would still remain at 2. Therefore, the adoption of the TOD Zoning is not anticipated to have a significant adverse impact on the provision of emergency medical services.
Proposed Mitigation
The Proposed Action is not anticipated to result in any significant adverse impacts to emergency service providers. Although the proposed rezoning would result in an increase in residents and commercial development, property tax revenue generated by the development would be expected to offset any additional costs to the relevant taxing jurisdictions. Based on a combine non‐homestead tax rate for Town and County taxes of $48.83 per square foot of assessed value, which includes all special districts and excludes property taxes for the school district and library, the proposed action would generate approximately $749,256.88 in additional tax revenues; as compared to a maximum build‐out under existing zoning scenario.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 20
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
Moving forward, it is recommended that a separate analysis be conducted for each individual parcel given that the Proposed Action broadly corresponds to a large number of parcels that may be assessed and taxed in varying methods.
3.2 Schools
Existing Conditions
Public Education – Nanuet Union Free School District
Enrollment:
The Project Study Area is located within the Nanuet Union Free School District (NUFSD). This District contains two elementary schools, one 5‐6 Academy of Excellence, one middle school and one high school and had a total enrollment of 2,189 students in the 2016‐2017 school year (Tables 10 and 11). According to the Nanuet UFSD School Report Card Data 2016‐2017, the Nanuet School District had a student enrollment of 2,189 in the 2016‐2017 school year, which is down from a peak of 2,314 students in the 2006‐2007 school year.
Table 10: 2013‐2017 Annual Enrollment: Nanuet Union Free School District
Enrollment 2013‐2014 Enrollment 2014‐2015 Enrollment 2015‐2016 Enrollment 2016‐2017 2,244 2,207 2,184 2,189 Source: Nanuet Union Free School District
Table 11: 2016‐2017 Student Enrollment per Grade: Nanuet Union Free School District
Group Total Students Pre‐K (Half Day) 42 K (Full Day) 142 1st Grade 131 2nd Grade 154 3rd Grade 162 4th Grade 180 5th Grade 177 6th Grade 168 7th Grade 169 8th Grade 185 9th Grade 169 10th Grade 192 11th Grade 173 12th Grade 173 Source: Nanuet Union Free School District
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 21
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
Budget:
The NUFSD school budget increased by approximately 3% since the 2016‐2017 school year with an increase of 1.5% between 2016‐2017 and 2017‐2018, and an increase of 1.7% between 2017‐2018 and 2018‐2019 (see Table 12), while District enrollment has slightly decreased. In the 2016‐2017 school year, District spending per student was $28,240, and can be assumed to have increased over the 2017‐2018 and 2018‐2019 school years. The budget increase can be explained by an increase in expenditures for the Board of Education, staff, central services, contractual expenses, administration and improvement, instruction, pupil services, pupil transportation, and employee benefits (Table 13). This budget enables the school district to provide services to students and faculty. Increases in per pupil costs have been accommodated through increased state aid and property tax levy, as shown in Table 14.
Table 12: 2016‐2019 General Budget: Nanuet Union Free School District
Year 2016‐2017 ($) 2017‐2018 ($) 2018‐2019 ($) General Fund Budget 70,919,121 71,967,897 73,216,050 Source: Nanuet Union Free School District
Table 13: 2017‐2019 Expenditure Summary: Nanuet Union Free School District
2017‐2018 2018‐2019 Change ($) % Change Budget ($) Budget ($) Board of Education 145,708 147,275 1.567 1.08% Central Administration 1,066,956 963,632 ‐103,324 ‐9.68% Staff 571,057 626,412 55,355 9.69% Central Services 5,642,077 5,884,772 242,695 4.30% Contractual Expenses 698,053 758,905 60,852 8.72% Administration & 2,114,670 2,325,382 210,712 9.96% Improvement Instruction 28,553,851 29,261,873 708,022 2.48% Instructional Media 2,740,369 2,599,499 ‐140,870 ‐5.14% Pupil Services 3,015,057 3,154,797 139,740 4.63% Pupil Transportation 2,570,896 2,709,753 138,857 5.40% Employee Benefits 17,018,738 17,654,328 635,590 3.73% Debt Service 17,500 17,500 0 0.00% Interfund Transfers 7,812,965 7,111,922 ‐701,043 ‐8.97% Source: Nanuet Union Free School District
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 22
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
Table 14: 2017‐2019 Revenue Summary: Nanuet Union Free School District
2017‐2018 ($) 2018‐2019 ($) State Aid 8,223,829 8,972,613 Federal Aid 0 0 Tuition1 160,000 160,000 Other Sources2 9,220,760 8,691,215 Tax Levy3 54,363,308 55,392,222 TOTAL 71,967,897 73,216,050 Notes: 1 Includes tuition from other districts for students attending NUFSD schools. 2 Includes income from PILOT payments, Continuing Education, Summer Enrichment, health services, interest on investments, Appropriated Fund Balance, refund of prior year expenses, etc. 3 Amount to be collected from property and business owners after all other revenue sources are calculated. Source: Nanuet Union Free School District
Cornell University’s Program on Applied Demographics (PAD)1 is home to one of the U.S. Census Research Data Centers (RDC) nationwide, and brings skills in demographics, economics, statistics, data gathering and data analysis together to provide a variety of organizations with data, information and advice, including the New York State Department of Labor and the U.S. Census Bureau. According to Cornell University’s PAD, total enrollment at the Nanuet Union Free School District (NUFSD) is expected to decline to 1,860 students by the 2026‐2027 school year. This decline in enrollment may be attributed to an aging population in the Hamlet of Nanuet as supported by the American Community Survey findings that as of 2016, 48% of Nanuet’s population was 45 or older.
In the future, without the Proposed Action, minimal additional residential development is expected to occur within the Project Study Area. Any increase in cost to the District to educate school‐aged children, would be offset by property tax revenue generated by the additional development. To ensure sufficient offsets, each proposed development project should be required to conduct a fiscal impact analysis concurrent with site plan review.
Potential Impacts
Public Education – Nanuet Union Free School District
As shown in Tables 15 and 16, the Proposed Action would result between 52 to 127 new school age children who would be expected to enroll in the Nanuet Union Free School District. These estimates are based on the Rutgers University Center for Urban Policy Research (CUPR) Residential Demographic Multipliers, June 2006, which are widely accepted as industry standard multipliers. Because full build out under the Proposed Action is anticipated to occur in 2030, it is difficult to accurately predict the types of units, rental or ownership costs, etc. and therefore this analysis provides a range of potential Project‐generated school aged children. More specifically, Tables 15 and 16 provide Project‐generated school aged children using a total
1 Conducted in cooperation with the NYS Center for Rural Schools (https://pad.human.cornell.edu/index.cfm)
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 23
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
PSAC value that calculated the total number of children added across all new units (Table 15) and a PSAC value based on rental rates for the proposed residential units (Table 16).
Table 15: Proposed Action‐Generated School Age Children – Based on Estimated Total New Children
Unit Type No. Proposed Multiplier Projected Students (total PSAC – All Values)1 Studio 257 0 0 1 bedroom 316 0.15 47 2 bedroom 186 0.43 80 Total 759 ‐‐ 127 Notes: 1. PSAC – Public School Aged Children Sources: Rutgers University Center for Urban Policy Research Table 16: Proposed Action Generated School Age Children – Based on Rental Rates
Unit Type No. Proposed Multiplier (total PSAC )1/2 Projected Students Studio 257 0 0 1 bedroom 316 0.07 22 2 bedroom 186 0.16 30 Total 759 ‐‐ 52 Notes: 1. PSAC – Public School Aged Children 2. CUPR rates ‐ 5+ Units‐ Rent, 1BR values from units at more than $1000/month, 5+ Units‐Rent, 2BR values from units at more than $1100/month Sources: Rutgers University Center for Urban Policy Research
As discussed above, the Cornell University Program on Applied Demographics has projected student enrollment for the Nanuet Union Free School District through the 2026‐2027 school year and according to their projections, enrollment is expected to decrease to 1,860 students by the 2026‐2027 school year. The additional students generated by the Proposed Action would bring the total enrollment in the 2026‐2027 school year to between 1,912‐1,987, which represents a decrease from the peak enrollment of 2,314 students in the 2006‐2007 school year and less than current enrollment of 2,189. The anticipated full project build out is projected to be 2030. Because school enrollment is projected to decline by almost 18 % over the next decade, the NUFSD would be able to accommodate the additional 52‐127 school aged children projected to be generated as a result of the proposed action.
Proposed Mitigation
The additional 52‐127 students in the Nanuet Union Free School District resulting from the development are not anticipated to create a significant adverse impact on the district. Assuming the 52‐127 students would be distributed among K‐12 grade levels, approximately 3 to 10 students would be added per grade. Utilizing the NUFSD’s 2016‐2017 assessment of District costs of $28,240 per student, the Proposed Action would require an additional
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 24
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
$1,468,480‐$3,586,480 in costs for District student spending; if added to the current enrollment of 2,189 students. However, the projected decline in school aged children in the NUFSD would naturally offset, in excess, the additional costs associated with the Proposed Action. Additionally, when compared to the maximum build‐out under existing zoning versus the Proposed Action’s zoning, the Proposed Action would increase ratables and generate approximately an additional $1,574,363.78 in School and Library taxes. This calculation was determined by using the combined non‐homestead tax rate for School and Library taxes of $106.83 per square foot of assessed value for commercial and residential parcels within the study area. The combined effect of an overall decrease in student enrollment over the next decade and increased tax revenues generated as a result of the Proposed Action may actually result in a surplus in school funding, if all spending remains constant.
Because the increase in school aged students is less than the peak enrollment of the District, it is anticipated that NUFSD could accommodate additional school‐age children generated by the proposed action. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts to the school district are anticipated as a result of the Proposed Action, and no mitigation measures are anticipated to be required. Moving forward however, it is recommended that a separate analysis be conducted for each individual parcel given that the Proposed Action broadly corresponds to a large number of parcels that may be assessed and taxed in varying methods.
3.3 Solid Waste
Existing Conditions
The Town of Clarkstown, in conjunction with the Rockland County Solid Waste Management Authority (RCSWMA), provides solid waste management services to the Project Study Area. Solid waste is collected by the Town of Clarkstown and processed at facilities owned by the RCSWMA. Rockland County’s solid waste disposal system consists of 3 transfer stations – Bowline, Clarkstown and Hillburn.
Non‐recyclable municipal solid waste from residences, businesses and government buildings in Clarkstown and Orangetown is collected by the Town of Clarkstown or private haulers and transported to the Clarkstown transfer station. The facility has a permitted capacity of 288,800 tons per year and total municipal solid waste received in 2010 was 141,732 tons.
All recyclables (mixed paper, cardboard, glass, aluminum & plastic containers) separated from municipal solid waste collected from Rockland County is delivered to the Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) located in Hillburn, NY. The MRF operates as a dual stream system for both comingled containers and mixed clean paper. The facility has maximum capacity of 76,960 tons per year. Total recyclables received in 2010 was 32,120 tons.2
There are no publicly available plans for future changes to solid waste or recycling collection services. In the Future without the Proposed Action, it is expected the Project Study Area
2 Source: Rockland County Solid Waste Management Plan
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 25
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement would continue to generate similar levels of solid waste and recycling as at present. Solid waste and recycling services would continue to be provided by Town in conjunction with the RCSWMA.
Potential Impacts
Solid waste generation rates for residential and commercial uses, which include both ‘garbage’ and ‘recycling,’ were sourced from the New York City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) Technical Manual. It is estimated that, at full build out, the residential components of the Proposed Action would be expected to generate approximately 1,128 tons of solid waste per year, including recycling, as shown in Table 17.
Table 17: Nanuet TOD Estimated Solid Waste Generation
Use Generation rate Number of Estimated solid Estimated solid (pounds per residents waste generation waste generation week) lbs/week tons/year Residential (multi‐ family and academic 17 1,226 20,842 542 housing) (per resident) Commercial – 79 per Employee 285 22,515 586 General Retails Total 1,128 Note: 1. Number of residents are estimated based on proposed number of apartment units 2. Number of commercial – General retails employees are estimated based on U.S. EIA utilization rates – Table B2, Mercantile‐ Retail other than mall (412,777SF retail area divided by 1,450 SF per worker)
Source: 2014 City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) Technical Manual. US. Energy Information Administration https://www.eia.gov/consumption/commercial/data/2012/bc/cfm/b2.php
It is anticipated the Clarkstown and Hillburn facilities would have sufficient capacity to accommodate waste and recycling generated by the Proposed Action at full build out as the available capacity at each facility exceeds the total anticipated solid waste generation for the Project Study Area.
Per the Rockland County Solid Waste Management Plan (RCSWMP) dated December 2011, last revised September 2014, the Clarkstown Transfer Station has a permitted capacity of 288,800 tons per year and total municipal solid waste received in 2010 was 141,732 tons, resulting in an available capacity of 147,068 tons per year. Per the RCSWMP, the Hillburn MRF has a maximum capacity of 76,960 tons per year and total recyclables received in 2010 was 32,120 tons, resulting in an available capacity of 44,840 tons per year. The available capacity of each facility well exceeds the total anticipated solid waste generation for the Project Study Area.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 26
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
Proposed Mitigation
The Proposed Action is not anticipated to result in a significant adverse impact on the collection and transport of solid waste as the appropriate waste transfer facilities have the capacity to serve the Proposed Action. Based on information presented in the RCSWMP, the Clarkstown Transfer Station and Hillburn MRF have sufficient capacity to receive the additional solid waste from the Project Study Area at full build‐out.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 27
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
4.0 Impact to Infrastructure
Chapter 4 analyzes potential stormwater runoff impacts resulting from the Proposed Action and development at full build‐out. The Proposed Action establishes minimum greenspace requirements for the redevelopment of each parcel within the Proposed TOD zones. In general, implementation of the Proposed Action, would result in an increase in total impervious surfaces within the Project Study Area.
It is anticipated that impacts to water quality and peak flow rate of runoff, as a result of the impervious surface increase, would be mitigated through the implementation of stormwater management practices for each project within the TOD. This section analyzes the potential impacts associated with total stormwater runoff volumes generated by an overall increase in impervious surfaces for the maximum development scenario (full build‐out) within the TOD.
4.1 Drainage/Flooding (Stormwater)
Existing Conditions
Based on existing topographic information from New York Stata GIS clearinghouse, the majority of the TOD watershed drains to a 5.9 acre United States Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory‐ (USFWS NWI‐) mapped wetland, roughly bounded by Convent Road to the south, Fremont Ave & Jerrys Ave to the west, Prospect Street to the north and the railroad tracks to the east. The wetland is a “palustrine forested seasonally flooded” wetland that discharges southwards to a culvert under Convent Road and is tributary to the Muddy Brook.
The drainage area to the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) wetland southwest of the Nanuet Train Station is approximately 40% impervious coverage under existing conditions. Refer to the Existing Conditions Drainage Area Map in the Stormwater Runoff Volume Analysis memorandum in Appendix E.
Existing catch basins and storm drainage piping are located throughout the Project Study Area and are assumed to drain to the above‐referenced wetland located southwest of the Nanuet Train Station. Conveyance capacity of the existing drainage system has not been analyzed as part of this GEIS.
Based on available aerial imagery, the project study area has not been substantially redeveloped since the issuance of the most recent NYSDEC General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activity (CGP) dated January 29, 2015 and the most recent NYS Stormwater Management Design Manual (NYSSMDM) dated January 2015. The majority of existing developments within the Project Study Area would likely not comply with the current technical standards in the CGP and NYSSMDM. The Town of Clarkstown Code, Section 249A‐ 26(C)(3), was amended on August 20, 2013 to require inclusion of water quantity and water quality controls for projects disturbing more than 10,000 square feet. Based on available aerial imagery, the Project Study Area has not been substantially redeveloped since the amendment
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 28
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement to the local law in 2013. As such, it is unlikely that stormwater management practices for water quantity and water quality control are present at parcels within the Project Study Area.
At present, stormwater runoff from the project study area enters the municipal storm drainage system, likely un‐detained and untreated, before discharging to surface waters. In the future without the Proposed Action, stormwater runoff would continue to enter the municipal drainage system un‐detained and untreated.
Potential Impacts
At full project buildout, if each parcel within the project study area maximizes impervious area to the extent allowed by the Proposed TOD Zoning, the total impervious area within the TOD would increase by 3.198 acres to a total of 21.047 acres (which is 82% of the Project Study Area). Table 18 presents a comparison of existing and proposed (i.e. max build) impervious coverage within the Project Study Area.
Table 18: Impervious Surface Area by TOD Zone
TOD1 TOD2 TOD3 HC Greenspace 25% 20% 15% 15% % Min. Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Impervious 2.946 4.377 3.313 3.210 6.116 6.398 5.474 7.062 Pervious 2.890 1.459 0.700 0.803 1.412 1.129 2.834 1.246 Total 5.836 5.836 4.013 4.013 7.528 7.528 8.308 8.308
For any project with greater than 1 acre of disturbance, the CGP requires the implementation of stormwater management practices designed in accordance with the NYSSMDM. The general permit also requires coverage for projects under 1 acre of disturbance that are considered part of a “Larger Common Plan of Development.” Additionally, Section 249A‐26(C)(3) of the Town of Clarkstown Town Code, requires that any land development activity disturbing more than 10,000 square feet include water quantity and quality controls.
The NYSSMDM requires implementation of stormwater management practices that provide stormwater quality treatment and stormwater quality control of peak runoff rates for the 1, 10, and 100 year, 24‐hour storm events. As the redevelopment of each parcel will require conformance to the NYSSMDM, no adverse impacts to stormwater quality or peak rates of runoff are anticipated as a result of the Proposed Action.
An overall increase of 18% in impervious area in the Project Study Area would result in an increase in total runoff volume generated despite the inclusion of stormwater management practices per the NYSSMDM. With increased impervious surface in the project study area, increased runoff volumes from storm events are likely to result. The increase in runoff volume to the ACOE regulated wetland southwest of the Nanuet Train Station was analyzed and
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 29
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
quantified. Refer to Figures EX‐1 and PRO‐1 as well as hydrologic routing calculations in the Stormwater Runoff Volume Analysis memorandum in Appendix E. A summary of the runoff volume analysis is included in Table 19.
Table 19: Stormwater Runoff Volume Analysis Results
Storm Event Existing Runoff Proposed Volume Volume Increase Volume Runoff Volume Increase (%) (ac‐ft) (ac‐ft) (ac‐ft) 1‐YR 22.734 23.211 0.477 2.10% 10‐YR 56.337 57.030 0.693 1.23% 100‐YR 119.026 119.860 0.834 0.70% Notes: Refer to the Stormwater Runoff Volume Analysis Memorandum in Appendix E.
Higher runoff volumes due to greater impervious surface coverage may affect the hydrologic budget of the adjacent, downstream wetland system resulting in changes to wetland types and vegetation assemblages over time. Such changes may be either adverse (e.g. increased ponding could stress existing wetland vegetation resulting in loss of forested wetland area) or they may be beneficial (e.g. provision of water quality measures upstream where none occur at present may reduce the discharge of nutrient pollutants and sediment currently stressing the wetlands that prevent them from sustaining a diverse assemblage of wetland plants).
Proposed Mitigation
Each development project within the project study area will be required to implement stormwater management practices for stormwater quality treatment and peak flow control. To mitigate for potential wetland hydrologic changes, the Town may consider requiring new developments constructed within the project study area to incorporate infiltration practices that direct some runoff to groundwater thereby lessening changes in surface water runoff volume discharged to downstream wetlands. The Town should also monitor the downstream wetlands during the build‐out period to gauge changes to flooding period, flooding heights, water quality, and vegetation assemblage. Results of this monitoring can be used to plan for wetland restoration if affects are shown to be adverse. Lastly, the Town may develop a hydrologic model extending through the downstream wetland system, taking into account its topography and surface water conveyance control structures (pipes/weirs/channels) in order to determine the potential changes to wetland hydrology in advance of development. The results of such modeling can be used to modify the stormwater management requirements in the project study area, if necessary.
The increase in total runoff volume to the ACOE regulated wetland located southwest of the Nanuet Train Station would be expected to be minor (i.e. less than a 3% increase) compared to existing conditions for the 1, 10 and 100 year storm events. As such, significant adverse impacts to the wetland are not anticipated. In any case, mitigation shall consist of wetland monitoring to determine the effects of the increase in impervious area.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 30
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
In addition, the Town of Clarkstown may consider that redevelopment projects utilize rainfall intensity data that is considerate of changing climate patterns for design of stormwater management practices to ensure future developments are capable of handling increasingly severe storms and to provide additional mitigation of potential wetland impacts.
4.2 Waste/Wastewater (Sanitary Sewer)
Existing Conditions
Water Supply
SUEZ Water New York Inc. provides water service to the Project Study Area. The Suez Water New York Inc. – Water Supply Capacity Report for 2018 dated April 16, 2018 indicates the following with respect to existing water supply:
Table 20: Existing Water Supply
Total Peak Capacity (beginning of 2018) 52.03 MGD Projected peak demand (end of 2018) 47.2 MGD Projected growth in 2018 0.08 MGD Current available peak capacity for growth 4.29 MGD
Annual Average Capacity Total Average Capacity (beginning of 2018) 34.49 MGD Projected average demand (end of 2018) 31.10 MGD Projected growth in 2018 0.03 MGD Current available average capacity for growth 3.42 MGD
Existing water mains are proximate to most parcels within the Project Study Area. There are 6‐ inch diameter mains on the north side of Babcock Avenue, Fisher Avenue, William Avenue, Demarest Avenue, Church Street, the South portion of Orchard Avenue and the West and Prospect Street. There is an eight‐inch diameter main on Prospect Street between the 6 inch diameter mains fronting the train station. There is a 20‐inch diameter main running along Old Middletown Road/Main Street.
Sanitary Sewer
Public sewer as part of Rockland County Sewer District #1 (RCSD1) currently serves the Project Study Area. Sanitary Sewer lines maintained by RDSD1 and the Town of Clarkstown connect to the Rockland County Sewer Treatment Plant in Orangeburg, NY. According to the Town of Clarkstown Economic Development Strategy (TCEDS) report dated November 2008 , the “district has a maximum capacity of 28.9 [MGD], and currently operates at 20‐21 [MGD].”
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 31
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
According to “Rockland Tomorrow: Rockland County Comprehensive Plan,” the RCSD1 plant has a design flow and permitted flow capacity of 38.9 MGD (million gallons per day) and the 2009 average flow was 19.6 MGD, 50% of the permitted flow.
According to records provided by Rockland County Sewer District #1, sanitary sewers exist in the public streets within the Project Study Area including Main Street, Prospect Street, Orchard Street, and Fisher Avenue.
Based on the TCEDS 2008 Report and the Rockland County Comprehensive Plan dated March 1, 2011, the RCSD1 treatment plant located in Orangeburg, NY is operating at approximately 70% of its 28.9 MGD capacity. The sewer district is working on reducing wet‐weather inflow sources from illegal connections and leaky manholes to control sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs). The District has committed to eliminating wet‐weather SSOs for rainfall events up to 3 inches in magnitude.
Potential Impacts
Water Supply
Implementation of the Proposed Action would increase demand on the municipal water system as compared to existing conditions. Domestic water usage rates have been estimated based on water use rates in the NYSDEC Design Standards for Wastewater Treatment Works (2014) as well as projected residential unit counts and retail space square footage for the maximum build‐out scenario. The approximate domestic water demand for the Proposed Action at full build‐out is presented in the following table:
Table 21: Approximate Domestic Water Demand
Use Units Water Use Average Daily Average Daily Demand with Rate Demand Water Saving Fixtures (20% (GPD) Reduction when applicable, GPD) Studio 242 110 GPD/Unit 26,620 21,296 1‐Bedroom 313 110 GPD/Unit 34,430 27,544 Units 2‐Bedroom 185 220 GPD/Unit 40,700 32,560 Units Retail Space 412,777 SF 0.1 GPD/SF 41,278 33,023 Total ‐ ‐ 143,028 114,423 Sources: Source: Water Use Rates are referenced to the NYSDEC Design Standards for Wastewater Treatment Works (2014).
As indicated in Table 21, Project generated average daily water demand is estimated at approximately 0.114 MGD at maximum build‐out. Based on available information from the SUEZ Water Supply Capacity Report, the current system has excess capacity to meet the potential demand resulting from the Proposed Action.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 32
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
Based on correspondence between the Town and Suez on September 20, 2018, Suez confirmed that there is available water to provide service to the Project Study Area. Suez noted that upgrades to the distribution system will be required to mitigate impacts to water pressure for the surrounding community.
It is anticipated that each development application will require a site plan review by the Town of Clarkstown, which will include an evaluation of existing water main capacity with respect to flow and pressure. Water main network improvements to support individual developments would be evaluated as part of the associated site plan review process. Improvements to water mains may be required to facilitate individual developments.
Sanitary Sewer
Per the most recently available data from 2008, the wastewater treatment plant servicing Rockland County Sewer District #1 was not operating at full capacity. As development within RCSD1 in the last 10 years has not been at the scale to utilize the remaining capacity at the treatment plant, adequate capacity at the treatment plant should exist to serve the additional sanitary flow from the Proposed Action.
At full build‐out, the Proposed Action would generate an increase in sanitary flow from residential units and retail space, and increase the demand on the existing sanitary sewer network. As presented in Table 21, the sanitary flow facilitated by the Proposed Action at full build‐out would be approximately 0.114 MGD, which – when added to the 2008 operating flow of 20‐21 MGD would be less than the available capacity at the RCSD1 treatment plant of 28.9 MGD. As such, the Proposed Action will not have any adverse impact to the RCSD1 wastewater treatment plant.
Evaluation of existing sewer main capacity with respect to flow generated by individual development project should be evaluated as part of site plan review for the Proposed Action. Improvements to sewer mains may be required to facilitate individual developments.
Proposed Mitigation
Water Supply
The 2018 SUEZ Water Supply Capacity Report indicates that there is excess capacity to support the development of the Proposed Action
As part of the site plan review process for individual development projects within the Project Study Area, water conservation strategies should be reviewed and encouraged to limit the exacerbation of water supply shortages.
Improvements to the existing water main network may be required of individual developments following a review of project specific impacts during the site plan review process.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 33
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
Sanitary Sewer
As the RCSD1 treatment plant has available capacity to receive the approximate 0.114 MGD from the Project Study Area, the Proposed Action will not adversely impact sanitary infrastructure. The capacity of existing sanitary sewer main should be evaluated in conjunction with the site plan review of individual developments within the Project Study Area.
Further evaluation of the capacity of each sewer main to serve individual projects should be competed as part of site plan reviews for individual developments within the Project Study Area. This analysis would include existing flow conditions in public sanitary sewers downstream. Analysis may include the installation of flow monitors to determine the existing conditions depth of flow in study area sewer mains. The need for proposed upgrades to sanitary sewer mains to accommodate the additional flow from proposed developments should be reviewed and memorialized as part of the site plan review of each development.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 34
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
5.0 Impact to Transportation
Chapter 5 addresses potential impacts resulting from the proposed rezoning and the corresponding maximum buildout, to vehicular traffic, parking at the Nanuet Train Station, bicycle/pedestrian traffic, and public transportation ridership. Existing conditions, potential impacts, and proposed mitigations are addressed.
5.1 Vehicular Traffic Study
This Traffic Study assesses the potential traffic and transportation impacts associated with the proposed Nanuet Transit Oriented Development (TOD) zoning amendment (the “Proposed Action”). The Proposed Action would rezone multiple parcels of land approximately bounded by Babcock Avenue to the west, Demarest Avenue to the east, Old Middletown Road to the south and New York Route 59 to the north (the “Project Study Area”). The maximum proposed build out would allow for the development of approximately 759 residential units and 412,777 square feet (SF) of commercial use.
The TIS describes existing conditions within the Project Study Area and assesses future conditions in 2030 both without the Proposed Action (the “No Build” analysis), and with the Proposed Action (the “Build” analysis). The Build analysis analyzes the potential impacts under 2 scenarios: 1) with the existing roadway network and 2) with a new roadway parallel to a portion Main Street.
Capacity Analysis Methodology
The capacity analysis methodology developed for the TIS is as follows.
Signalized Intersections
The operation of signalized intersections in the Project Study Area was analyzed by applying the Percentile Delay Methodology included in the Synchro 10 traffic signal software. This methodology builds on the methodologies presented in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM2010) for signalized intersections and evaluates signalized intersections for average control delay per vehicle and level of service (LOS).
LOS can be characterized for the entire intersection, each intersection approach, and each lane group. Control delay alone is used to characterize LOS for the entire intersection or an approach. Control delay and volume‐to‐capacity (v/c) ratios are used to characterize LOS for a lane group. Delay quantifies the increase in travel time due to traffic signal control. Delay is also a surrogate measure of driver discomfort and fuel consumption. The volume‐to‐capacity ratio quantifies the degree to which a phase’s capacity is utilized by a lane group.
LOS A describes operation with a control delay of 10 seconds per vehicle or less and a volume‐ to‐capacity ratio no greater than 1.0. This level is typically assigned when the volume‐to‐ capacity ratio is low and either progression is exceptionally favorable or the cycle length is very
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 35
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement short. If the v/c ratio is due to favorable progression, most vehicles arrive during the green indication and travel through the intersection without stopping.
LOS B describes operation with control delay between 10 and 20 seconds per vehicle and a volume‐to‐capacity ratio no greater than 1.0. This level is typically assigned when the volume‐ to‐capacity ratio is low and either progression is highly favorable or the cycle length is short. Also, more vehicles stop at the intersection than with LOS A.
LOS C describes operation with control delay between 20 and 35 seconds per vehicle and a volume‐to‐capacity ratio no greater than 1.0. This level is typically assigned when the volume‐ to‐capacity ratio is favorable or the cycle length is moderate. Individual cycle failures (i.e., one or more queued vehicles are not able to depart as a result of insufficient capacity during the cycle) may appear at this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant, although many vehicles still pass through the intersection without stopping.
LOS D describes operation with control delay between 35 and 55 seconds per vehicle and a volume‐to‐capacity ratio no greater than 1.0. This level is typically assigned when the volume‐ to‐capacity ratio is high and either progression is ineffective or the cycle length is long. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable.
LOS E describes operation with control delay between 55 and 80 seconds per vehicle and a volume‐to‐capacity ratio no greater than 1.0. This level is typically assigned when the volume‐ to‐capacity ratio is high, progression is unfavorable, and the cycle length is long. When the LOS is E individual cycle failures are frequent.
LOS F describes operation with control delay exceeding 80 seconds per vehicle or a volume‐to‐ capacity ratio greater than 1.0. This level is typically assigned when the volume‐to‐capacity ratio is very high, progression is very poor, and the cycle length is long. When the LOS is F most cycles fail to clear the queue.
A lane group can incur a delay of less than 80 seconds per vehicle when the volume‐to‐capacity ratio exceeds 1.0. This condition typically occurs when the cycle length is short, the signal progression is favorable, or both. As a result, both the delay and volume‐to‐capacity ratio are considered when lane group LOS is established. A ratio of 1.0 or more indicates that cycle capacity is fully utilized and represents failure from a capacity perspective (just as delay in excess of 80 seconds per vehicle represents failure from a delay perspective).
The control delay criteria for the range of service levels for signalized intersections are shown in the following table:
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 36
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
Table 22: LOS Criteria for Signalized Intersections
Control Delay Per Vehicle Level‐of‐Service (LOS)(1) v/c ratio ≤ 1.0 v/c ratio > 1.0 ≤ 10.0 seconds A F >10.0 and ≤ 20.0 seconds B F >20.0 and ≤ 35.0 seconds C F >35.0 and ≤ 55.0 seconds D F >55.0 and ≤ 80.0 seconds E F >80.0 seconds F F Note: (1) For approach‐based and intersection‐wide assessments, LOS is defined solely by control delay. Source: Transportation Research Board. 2010 Highway Capacity Manual.
Unsignalized Intersections
LOS for 2‐way stop‐controlled (TWSC) and all‐way stop‐controlled (AWSC) intersections are determined by the computed or measured control delay. For motor vehicles, LOS is determined for each minor‐street movement (or shared movement), major‐street left turns at TWSC intersections and for all movements at AWSC intersections. LOS is not defined for the intersection as a whole for TWSC and AWSC intersections.
The LOS criteria for both TWSC and AWSC unsignalized intersections are summarized in Table 23. Note that the LOS criteria for unsignalized intersections are somewhat different from the criteria used for signalized intersections. At TWSC intersections, drivers on the stop‐controlled approaches are required to select gaps in the major‐street flow in order to execute crossing or turning maneuvers. In the presence of a queue, each driver on the controlled approach must also use some time to move into the front‐of‐queue position and prepare to evaluate gaps in the major‐street flow. AWSC intersections require drivers on all approaches to stop before proceeding into the intersection.
Table 23: LOS Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections
Control Delay Per Vehicle Level‐of‐Service (LOS)(1) v/c ratio ≤ 1.0 v/c ratio > 1.0 ≤ 10.0 seconds A F >10.0 and ≤ 15.0 seconds B F >15.0 and ≤ 25.0 seconds C F >25.0 and ≤ 35.0 seconds D F >35.0 and ≤ 50.0 seconds E F >50.0 seconds F F Note: (1) For TWSC intersections, the LOS criteria apply to each lane on a given approach and to each approach on the minor street (for TWSC intersections). LOS is not calculated for major‐street approaches or for the intersection as a whole. Source: Transportation Research Board. 2010 Highway Capacity Manual.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 37
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
2030 No‐Build Assumptions The Future without the Proposed Action, or No Build, traffic condition is an interim scenario that establishes a future baseline condition without the Proposed Action. The No Build year is the same year as the Build year of the Proposed Action (2030). No Build traffic conditions for each of the traffic impact study are ascertained based on the following procedure:
Increase the 2018 Existing Conditions traffic volumes by 0.5% per year from 2018 (existing year) to 2030 (build year) for background growth, resulting in an overall growth rate of 6.0%. The use of 0.5% per year was based on the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council (NYMTC) Regional Transportation Plan 2045;
Include trips from pending developments (No Build projects) located in the vicinity of the Study Area; and
Considering major roadway improvements in the vicinity of Study Area.
The Clarkstown Planning Office was contacted for a list of pending or proposed development projects in the vicinity of the project site. Currently there are no pending developments necessary for inclusion in the future background conditions.
Based on the most recently published New York State Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), the NYS Route 59 Safety Improvements project planned for completion in 2018/2019 will provide improvements to signal timing, sidewalks, crosswalks and pedestrian signals. In addition, the Project will include a program of integrated transit supportive infrastructure elements (traffic signal and control upgrades, queue jump, ramp metering, and stop station improvements) along the I‐287 corridor in Rockland and Westchester Counties.
Existing Conditions
To assess the traffic impacts associated with the Proposed Action, six key intersections that might be affected by Project‐generated trips were analyzed (see Figure 7):
1. NYS Route 59 and N. Middletown Road/S. Middletown Road (signalized)
2. Main Street/S. Middletown Road and 1st Street/Market Street (signalized)
3. Main Street and Prospect Street/William Avenue (signalized)
4. Main Street and Orchard Street (unsignalized)
5. Main Street/Old Middletown Road and Church Street (signalized)
6. Prospect Street and Grandview Avenue (unsignalized)
Existing traffic conditions at the six Study Area intersections were established based on traffic counts conducted in January 2018. Manual turning movement counts were collected at all the
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 38
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
Study Area intersections during the weekday morning (7:00 AM – 9:00 AM) and weekday afternoon (3:00 PM – 6:00 PM) peak periods. Data collection sheets are provided in Appendix F.
In addition to the manual turning movement counts at Study Area intersections, Automatic Traffic Recorder (ATR) counts were conducted for one full week during January 2018 along Main Street (between Prospect Street and 1st Street) and Prospect Street (between Orchard Street and Main Street). Field inventories of roadway geometry and signal timings/phasings were also conducted to provide the appropriate inputs to the operational analyses. Signal timing plans for the intersection of NYS Route 59 and N. Middletown Road/S. Middletown Road were provided by the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT). Field inventories and traffic signal timing plans are provided in Appendix F.
To assess Study Area parking conditions, on‐street and off‐street parking utilization data were collected at the following on‐street and off‐street facilities:
1. Main Street, between 1st Street and Church Street
2. Orchard Street, between Prospect Street and Main Street
3. Clarkstown Commuter Parking Lot (also referred to as Parking Lot #1)
4. Rockland County Commuter Parking Lot (also referred to as Parking Lot #2)
5. MTA Metro‐North Parking Lot (also referred to as Parking Lot #3)
Parking utilization was collected in January 2018 during the weekday morning (7:00 AM to 9:00 PM), weekday midday (12:00 PM to 2:00 PM) and weekday afternoon (4:00 PM to 8:00 PM). Data collection sheets are provided in Appendix F.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 39
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
Figure 7: Project Study Area Analyzed Intersections
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 40
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
Roadway Characteristics
The following is a brief description of the major roadways within the Project Study Area:
NYS Route 59
NYS Route 59 is an east‐west roadway under the jurisdiction of NYSDOT and is classified by NYSDOT as a principal arterial. NYS Route 59 generally provides 3 moving lanes in each direction with additional turning lanes at major intersections. Within the Project Study Area, Route 59 varies in width between approximately 96 and 114 feet and pavement markings include crosswalks, stop lines, and exclusive turn lane markings. On‐street parking is prohibited along NYS Route 59. There are no public bus stops along NYS Route 59 within the immediate vicinity of its intersection with Middletown Road, however there are bus shelters east on NYS Route 59 at College Avenue and west at the Shops at Nanuet and Rockland Plaza serviced by Rockland’s local bus system Transport of Rockland (TOR). Traffic control along NYS Route 59 in the Study Area includes a traffic signal at its intersection with N. Middletown Road/S. Middletown Road. Pedestrian facilities are provided along NYS Route 59 including sidewalks and crosswalks.
Main Street
Main Street is a north‐south roadway under the jurisdiction of Rockland County and is classified by NYSDOT as a minor arterial. Main Street is generally one lane in either direction with turning lanes and areas of on‐street parking except in the segment between 1st Street and NYS Route 59 which generally has 2 lanes in either direction and turning lanes without on‐street parking. Within the Study Area, pavement markings along Main Street include exclusive turn lane markings, crosswalks, stop lines, and striping for parking areas. The width of Main Street varies from 36 to 80 feet. On street parking is permitted for certain areas between Church Street to 1st Street. There is a public bus stop located on the west side of Main Street just south of the intersection with Prospect Street which is serviced by the Clarkstown Mini‐Trans bus system. Traffic control along Main Street within the Study Area includes traffic signals at its intersection with NYS Route 59, First Street, Prospect Street, and Church Street. The pedestrian facilities provided along Main Street within the Study Area include continuous sidewalks and crosswalks at its intersections with NYS Route 59, First Street, Prospect Street, and Church Street.
Prospect Street
Prospect Street is classified by NYSDOT as a major collector. It traverses the Study Area in an east‐west direction and is under the jurisdiction of the Town of Clarkstown. Prospect Street generally provides one moving lane in each direction and varies in width between 20 and 40 feet. Pavement markings along Prospect Street include stop lines, railroad crossing indications, sidewalks, delineation of a pedestrian walkway for the break in sidewalk along the south side of Prospect Street from approximately Fisher Avenue to the railroad tracks and a mid‐block crosswalk at the MTA parking lot across Prospect Street. There are no public bus stops along Prospect Street and on‐street parking is not permitted along Prospect with the exception of
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 41
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
approximately 3 spaces on the south side of Prospect Street just west of the intersection with Main Street. Traffic controls along Prospect Street include a traffic signal at its intersection with Main Street and stop signs at its intersection with Grandview Avenue. Pedestrian facilities provided along Prospect Street include sidewalks, pedestrian walkways and crosswalks at the MTA parking lot and its intersection with Main Street.
1st Street
1st Street is an east‐west roadway and is classified by NYSDOT as a major collector. It is under the jurisdiction of Town of Clarkstown and generally provides one moving lane in each direction with turning lanes. 1st Street is approximately 37 feet wide and provides exclusive turn lane markings, stop lines and crosswalks at the intersection of Main Street. There are no bus stops along 1st Street and on‐street parking is not permitted. Although parking is not permitted, 1st Street does contain a pull‐off area where pick‐ups and drop‐offs are permitted. The traffic control along 1st Street within the study area includes a traffic signal at Main Street. In addition, sidewalks are provided along both sides of 1st Street.
Church Street
Church Street is classified by NYSDOT as a minor arterial and within the Study Area, it traverses in the east‐west direction. It is under the jurisdiction of Town of Clarkstown. Within the Study Area, Church Street provides one moving lane in both directions and is approximately 24 feet wide. Pavement marking along Church Street include stop lines and crosswalks. On‐street parking is prohibited and there is no public bus stop along Church Street. Within the Study Area, traffic controls along Church Street include a traffic signal at its intersection with Main Street and a sidewalk is provided along the south side of Church Street just east of the intersection.
Grandview Avenue
Grandview Avenue is a north‐south roadway and is classified by NYSDOT as a major collector. It is under the jurisdiction of Town of Clarkstown. Within the Study Area, Grandview Avenue provides one moving lane in each direction and is approximately 24 feet wide absent any pavement markings except stop lines. On‐street parking is prohibited and there are no public bus stops or pedestrian facilities provided along Grandview Avenue.
Orchard Street
Orchard Street is classified by NYSDOT as a local roadway and generally traverses in an east‐ west direction within the Study Area. It is under the jurisdiction of Town of Clarkstown. Orchard Street provides one moving lane in each direction and varies between 24 feet and 34 feet wide. Pavement markings along Orchard Street are limited to stop lines and crosswalks at the intersection with Main Street. On‐street parking is permitted along sections of Orchard Street. Orchard Street is stop controlled at its intersection with Main Street. There are no public bus stops or pedestrian facilities provided along Orchard Street.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 42
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
Old Middletown Road
Old Middletown Road is a north‐south roadway that is classified by NYSDOT as a minor arterial. It is under the jurisdiction of Rockland County. Old Middletown Road provides one moving lane in each direction. There are no bus stops or pedestrian facilities and on‐street parking is prohibited along Old Middletown Road. Old Middletown Road is controlled by a traffic signal at its intersection with Church Street.
Existing Traffic Conditions
Based on a review of all the traffic count data, the peak hours for the Study Area were determined to be 7:30 AM to 8:30 AM and 5:00 PM to 6:00 PM for the weekday morning and afternoon peak hours, respectively. Traffic volumes for the 2018 Existing Conditions peak hours analyzed are presented in Figures 8 and 9 and Table 24.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 43
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
Figure 8: 2018 Existing Morning Peak Hour Traffic Conditions
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 44
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
Figure 9: 2018 Existing Afternoon Peak Hour Traffic Conditions
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 45
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
Traffic operating conditions at each Study Area intersection were analyzed using the Synchro 10 Percentile delay and HCM2010 methodology (see Appendix F for Synchro 10 outputs for all Study Area intersections) to compute delays, v/c ratios, and LOS as described above.
Table 24: Existing Conditions LOS Analysis
Intersection Weekday AM Weekday PM Lane v/c Delay Lane v/c Delay Group Ratio (sec) LOS Group Ratio (sec) LOS Signalized Intersections NYS Route 59 & N. Middletown/S. Middletown Road Eastbound L 0.39 47.1 D L 0.59 48.4 D TR 0.53 28.4 C TR 0.73 35.0 D Westbound L 0.44 44.9 D L 0.52 48.0 D T 0.71 29.2 C T 1.25 149.7 F R 0.20 24.8 C R 0.64 38.8 D Northbound L 0.63 52.2 D L 0.65 53.6 D T 0.60 46.0 D T 0.64 46.8 D R 0.38 19.3 B R 0.30 17.3 B Southbound L 0.42 36.1 D L 0.44 39.3 D TR 0.61 41.0 D TR 0.83 52.1 D Intersection 33.2 C Intersection 82.0 F Main Street & 1st Street/ Market Street Eastbound L 0.16 29.9 C L 0.43 28.1 C T 0.27 43.3 D T 0.27 35.4 D R 0.10 30.6 C R 0.19 25.1 C Westbound L 0.23 29.9 C L 0.20 24.1 C TR 0.45 47.4 D TR 0.82 63.2 E Northbound L 0.04 3.9 A L 0.12 8.2 A TR 0.41 9.1 A TR 0.42 17.3 B Southbound L 0.06 7.8 A L 0.13 11.3 B T 0.30 13.1 B T 0.49 22.5 C R 0.04 6.9 A R 0.09 8.6 A Intersection 16.4 B Intersection 27.6 C Main Street & Prospect Street / William Avenue Eastbound L 0.74 52.0 D L 0.62 47.5 D R 0.26 7.9 A R 0.44 9.2 A Westbound LTR 0.12 29.7 C LTR 0.15 33.5 C Northbound LT 0.22 9.5 A LT 0.27 6.3 A Southbound TR 0.37 4.6 A TR 0.42 4.6 A Intersection 16.8 B Intersection 12.4 B Old Middletown Road & Main Street & Church Street/ Driveway Eastbound LTR 0.20 46.4 D LTR 0.31 48.6 D Westbound LTR 0.34 5.4 A LTR 0.63 23.1 C Northbound T 0.14 13.7 B T 0.22 15.7 B R 0.06 14.1 B R 0.13 15.3 B Northeastbound LR 0.74 54.8 D LR 0.75 55.4 E Southbound L 0.05 10.5 B L 0.09 13.4 B T 0.20 10.1 B T 0.38 14.9 B Intersection 24.6 C Intersection 24.9 C Unsignalized Intersections Grandview Avenue & Prospect Street Eastbound L 0.13 8.4 A L 0.13 8.6 A Westbound L 0.10 8.0 A L 0.22 8.8 A Northbound L 0.12 8.0 A L 0.15 8.5 A Southbound L 0.21 8.3 A L 0.26 9.5 A Main Street & Orchard Street W / Orchard Street Eastbound L 0.02 13.0 B L 0.06 15.1 C Westbound L 0.04 12.1 B L 0.06 17.1 C Northbound L 0.00 7.8 A L 0.00 8.2 A T 0.00 0.0 A T 0.00 0.0 A Southbound L 0.01 7.9 A L 0.04 8.1 A T 0.00 0.0 A T 0.00 0.0 A Notes: L = Left Turn, T = Through, R = Right Turn, LOS = Level of Service = Indicates poor operating conditions.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 46
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
During peak hours, LOS D operations are generally considered to be acceptable operating conditions for signalized and unsignalized intersections. As shown in Table 24, most of the Study Area intersection lane groups/approaches operate better than LOS D under 2018 Existing Conditions during the peak hours analyzed with the following exception:
• NYS Route 59 and N. Middletown/S. Middletown Road—The westbound through movement operates at LOS F during the weekday PM peak hour;
• Main Street and 1st Street/ Market Street—The westbound shared through/right‐turn movement operates at LOS E during the weekday PM peak hour; and
• Main Street/Old Middletown Road and Church Street—The northeast‐bound (Old Middletown Road) approach operates at LOS E during the weekday PM peak hour.
2030 No Build Traffic Conditions
Traffic volumes for the 2030 No Build Condition for the weekday AM and PM peak hours analyzed are shown in Figures 10 and 11, respectively. Table 25 presents a comparison of the 2018 Existing and 2030 No Build LOS conditions for the Study Area intersections for the weekday AM and PM peak hours. Synchro 10 outputs for the 2030 No Build scenario are provided in Appendix F.
Under the 2030 No Build conditions, the following notable changes in LOS would occur for the Study Area intersections:
• NYS Route 59 and N. Middletown/S. Middletown Road—The westbound through movement would decrease within LOS F (from 149.7 spv to 187.1 spv) during the weekday PM peak hour; and
• Old Middletown Road/Main Street and Church Street—The north‐eastbound approach decreases from LOS D to LOS E during the weekday AM peak hour.
LOS E and LOS F generally indicate congested conditions and notable delays.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 47
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
Figure 10: 2030 No‐Build Morning Peak Hour Traffic Conditions
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 48
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
Figure 11: 2030 No Build Afternoon Peak Hour Traffic Conditions
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 49
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
Table 25: 2018 Existing and 2030 No Build Conditions LOS Analysis
Weekday AM Weekday PM 2018 Existing 2030 No Build 2018 Existing 2030 No Build Lane v/c Delay Lane v/c Delay Lane v/c Delay Lane v/c Delay Intersection Group Ratio (sec) LOS Group Ratio (sec) LOS Group Ratio (sec) LOS Group Ratio (sec) LOS Signalized Intersections NYS Route 59 & N. Middletown/S. Middletown Road Eastbound L 0.39 47.1 D L 0.40 47.7 D L 0.59 48.4 D L 0.57 48.5 D TR 0.53 28.4 C TR 0.57 29.6 C TR 0.73 35.0 D TR 0.79 37.9 D Westbound L 0.44 44.9 D L 0.45 45.4 D L 0.52 48.0 D L 0.54 48.5 D T 0.71 29.2 C T 0.82 33.6 C T 1.25 149.7 F T 1.34 187.1 F R 0.20 24.8 C R 0.23 25.9 C R 0.64 38.8 D R 0.69 41.0 D Northbound L 0.63 52.2 D L 0.65 53.2 D L 0.65 53.6 D L 0.68 54.7 D T 0.60 46.0 D T 0.62 46.4 D T 0.64 46.8 D T 0.66 47.0 D R 0.38 19.3 B R 0.39 19.3 B R 0.30 17.3 B R 0.31 17.1 B Southbound L 0.42 36.1 D L 0.44 36.8 D L 0.44 39.3 D L 0.46 39.7 D TR 0.61 41.0 D TR 0.63 41.8 D TR 0.83 52.1 D TR 0.85 54.0 D Intersection 33.2 C Intersection 35.3 D Intersection 82.0 F Intersection 97.3 F Main Street & Market Street / 1st Street Eastbound L 0.16 29.9 C L 0.15 28.4 C L 0.43 28.1 C L 0.45 28.4 C T 0.27 43.3 D T 0.27 43.0 D T 0.27 35.4 D T 0.27 35.4 D R 0.10 30.6 C R 0.10 29.6 C R 0.19 25.1 C R 0.19 25.1 C Westbound L 0.23 29.9 C L 0.24 29.9 C L 0.20 24.1 C L 0.20 24.1 C TR 0.45 47.4 D TR 0.48 47.8 D TR 0.82 63.2 E TR 0.84 64.7 E Northbound L 0.04 3.9 A L 0.04 4.1 A L 0.12 8.2 A L 0.14 8.6 A TR 0.41 9.1 A TR 0.44 10.0 B TR 0.42 17.3 B TR 0.46 18.4 B Southbound L 0.06 7.8 A L 0.07 8.0 A L 0.13 11.3 B L 0.15 11.5 B T 0.30 13.1 B T 0.32 13.6 B T 0.49 22.5 C T 0.53 23.7 C R 0.04 6.9 A R 0.05 7.0 A R 0.09 8.6 A R 0.10 8.6 A Intersection 16.4 B Intersection 16.9 B Intersection 27.6 C Intersection 28.4 C Main Street & Prospect Street / William Avenue Eastbound L 0.74 52.0 D L 0.68 45.3 D L 0.62 47.5 D L 0.64 48.2 D R 0.26 7.9 A R 0.26 7.4 A R 0.44 9.2 A R 0.45 8.9 A Westbound LTR 0.12 29.7 C LTR 0.12 29.0 C LTR 0.15 33.5 C LTR 0.16 33.1 C Northbound LT 0.22 9.5 A LT 0.24 10.0 B LT 0.27 6.3 A LT 0.29 6.7 A Southbound TR 0.37 4.6 A TR 0.40 5.4 A TR 0.42 4.6 A TR 0.45 4.8 A Intersection 16.8 B Intersection 15.8 B Intersection 12.4 B Intersection 12.7 B Old Middletown Road/ Main Street & Church Street Eastbound LTR 0.20 46.4 D LTR 0.20 46.7 D LTR 0.31 48.6 D LTR 0.32 48.7 D Westbound LTR 0.34 5.4 A LTR 0.37 6.7 A LTR 0.63 23.1 C LTR 0.65 24.6 C Northbound T 0.14 13.7 B T 0.15 13.9 B T 0.22 15.7 B T 0.23 16.0 B R 0.06 14.1 B R 0.06 14.2 B R 0.13 15.3 B R 0.13 15.5 B Northeast- LR 0.74 54.8 D LR 0.77 56.2 E LR 0.75 55.4 E LR 0.78 57.1 E bound Southbound L 0.05 10.5 B L 0.05 10.8 B L 0.09 13.4 B L 0.10 13.8 B T 0.20 10.1 B T 0.21 10.4 B T 0.38 14.9 B T 0.41 15.7 B
Intersection 24.6 C Intersection 25.2 C Intersection 24.9 C Intersection 25.8 C Unsignalized Intersections Grandview Avenue & Prospect Street Eastbound L 0.13 8.4 A L 0.14 8.5 A L 0.13 8.6 A L 0.14 8.8 A Westbound L 0.10 8.0 A L 0.11 8.1 A L 0.22 8.8 A L 0.24 9.0 A Northbound L 0.12 8.0 A L 0.13 8.1 A L 0.15 8.5 A L 0.16 8.7 A Southbound L 0.21 8.3 A L 0.22 8.4 A L 0.26 9.5 A L 0.28 9.7 A Main Street & Orchard Street W/ Orchard Street Eastbound L 0.02 13.0 B L 0.02 13.5 B L 0.06 15.1 C L 0.06 15.7 C Westbound L 0.04 12.1 B L 0.05 12.3 B L 0.06 17.1 C L 0.07 18.2 C Northbound L 0.00 7.8 A L 0.00 7.8 A L 0.00 8.2 A L 0.00 8.3 A T 0.00 0.0 A T 0.00 0.0 A T 0.00 0.0 A T 0.00 0.0 A Southbound L 0.01 7.9 A L 0.01 7.9 A L 0.04 8.1 A L 0.04 8.2 A T 0.00 0.0 A T 0.00 0.0 A T 0.00 0.0 A T 0.00 0.0 A Notes: L = Left Turn, T = Through, R = Right Turn, LOS = Level of Service Indicates notable deterioration in operating conditions
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 50
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
Existing Crash Data
Table 26 summarizes the most recent 3 year’s traffic crash data for each of the Study Area intersections compiled from NYSDOT records for the period of January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2017 (see Appendix F for NYSDOT crash data records). Table 27 summarizes the most recent 3 year’s traffic crash data for each of the Study Area non‐intersection locations (i.e., road segments between Study Area intersections) compiled from the same NYSDOT records.
Intersection Crashes
As shown in Table 26, the greatest number of intersection crashes (48) occurred at the intersection of NYS Route 59 and N. Middletown/S. Middletown Road over the 3‐year period studied. With an average of 16 crashes per year, this location would be considered as a High Accident Location (HAL) as defined in the Highway Capacity Manual (any location with 5 or more crashes in a 12‐month period). The NYS Route 59 Safety Improvements project planned for completion in 2018/2019, includes improvements to signal timing, sidewalks, crosswalks and pedestrian signals.
The most commonly occurring type of crash at this location was rear end collisions. Overtaking/sideswiping and right angle left‐turn, right‐turn, and pedestrian/bicyclist collisions were other types of collisions, which occurred at the Study Area intersections. One fatality was reported at the intersection of Main Street/Old Middletown Road and Church Street in the records provided by NYSDOT during the 3‐year time period studied.
Table 26: Study Area Crash Summary – Intersection Locations
Number of Crash Trend Crashes Intersection Left Turn Right Turn 1/1/15 ‐ Personal Non Overtaking Rear Right Ped/ Avg/ Yr Fatalities Reported (against (with Other Unknown 12/31/17 Injuries Reported /Sideswipe End Angle Bike other car) other car) NYS Rt 59 and Middletown Rd 16 48 35 0 48 0 14 17 7 3 0 0 11 1 Main St and Nanuet Mall 0.67 2 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Main St and 1st Street 1.33 4 3 0 4 0 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Main St and Normandy Village 1 3 4 0 3 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 Main St and Prospect Street 2.33 7 2 0 7 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 3 0 Main St and Orchard Street 1.67 5 2 0 5 0 2 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 Main St/Old Middletown Rd and 1 1.33 4 3 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 Church St Prospect St and Orchard St 0.33 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Prospect St and Metro‐North 1 0.33 1 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Parking Lot Prospect St and Fisher Ave 0.33 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Prospect St and South Park Ave 0.33 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
Prospect St and Grandview Ave 2.0 6 2 0 6 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 Source: NYSDOT
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 51
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
Non‐Intersection Crashes
As shown in Table 27, the segments of Main Street between Orchard Street and Church Street, had the highest number of crashes (5) over the 3‐year time period examined. Fewer crashes (3) occurred along the segments of NYS Route 59 between Middletown and Dykes Park Roads, Main Street between 1st and Prospect Streets, and Prospect Street between Main Street and Grandview Avenue. The most commonly occurring types of crashes along these road segments were rear end collisions. Overtaking/sideswiping, right angle, and right‐turn collisions were other types of collisions that occurred along the road segments examined. No High Accident Locations (HALs) were identified among the road segments examined in the Study Area.
No fatalities were reported along any of the road segments studied.
No Build Crash Data
No significant changes in the Study Area crash experience are expected under 2030 No Build Conditions.
Table 27: Study Area Crash Summary – Non‐Intersection Locations
Number of Crash Trend Crashes Avg/ 1/1/15 - Personal Fatalities Reported Non Overtaking/ Rear Right Right Other Yr 12/31/17 Injuries Reported Sideswiping End Angle Turn (with other Intersection car)
NYS Route 59 between Middletown Rd and 1 3 2 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 Dykes Park Rd
NYS Route 59 between Middletown Rd and 0.33 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 College Ave
Main St between 1st St 1 3 1 0 3 0 and Prospect St 0 2 0 0 1 Main St between Prospect St and 0.67 2 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 Orchard St Main St between Orchard St and 1.67 5 1 0 5 0 2 2 1 0 1 Church St Prospect St between Main St and 1.0 3 0 0 3 0 2 0 1 1 0 Grandview Ave Source: NYSDOT
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 52
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
2030 Build Conditions
Project Trip Generation
For the purposes of the TIS, the rezoned parcels were grouped into seven zones based on proximity, access and land use type, as shown in Figure 12. The projected number of trips from each zone that would be generated by the Proposed Action was estimated using trip generation rates provided by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition. In addition, based on ITE guidance, a transit credit of 15% was applied to account for the proximity of transit to the Project Study Area. Internal trip capture, associated with the mixed‐use development of complementary residential and commercial land uses, was also estimated using methods established in the ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition. Table 28 presents the projected trips associated with the Proposed Action by zone. At full build‐out, the Proposed Action is estimated to generate approximately 559 trips during the weekday AM peak hour (261 entering, 298 exiting) and 1,350 trips during the weekday PM peak hour (669 entering, 681 exiting).
Project Vehicle Trip Distribution and Assignment
For the purpose of estimating the likely distribution of Project‐generated trips, a directional distribution of vehicle trips was created for each zone to five primary points of access/egress from the Study Area (Figure 12) based on a review of traffic patterns on area roadways. These trip distribution patterns are summarized in Table 29 and present the demand approach and departure paths to and from each zone. Figures 13 and 14 show the Project‐generated vehicle trips for the weekday AM and PM peak hours, respectively.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 53
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
Figure 12: Trip Distribution Patterns by Zone
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 54 dĂďůĞϮϴ͗DĂdžŝŵƵŵͲƵŝůĚdƌŝƉ'ĞŶĞƌĂƚŝŽŶZĂƚĞƐďLJ/ŶƚĞƌŶĂůdKŽŶĞ
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±6KRSSLQJ&HQWHUIRUWKHVSHFLILFW\SHRIUHWDLOXVH 5DWHVVKRZQIRU&RPPHUFLDOODQGXVHDUHWKH,7(DYHUDJHVRIUDWHVIRUODQGXVH±6KRSSLQJ&HQWHUIRUWKH3HDN+RXUVRI$GMDFHQW6WUHHW7UDIILF $WUDQVLWFUHGLWRIZDVDSSOLHGWRDFFRXQWIRUWKHSUR[LPLW\RIWUDQVLWWRDOOODQGXVHV 7DEOH%7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ,PSDFW)DFWRUV,7(7ULS*HQHUDWLRQ0DQXDO WK(GLWLRQ ,QWHUQDOFDSWXUHRIPXOWLXVHGHYHORSPHQWZDVGHYHORSHGEDVHGRQWKHPHWKRGVLQWKH,7(7ULS*HQHUDWLRQ+DQGERRNUG(GLWLRQXVLQJ&DSWXUH5DWHVIURP7DEOHVDQG
Figure 13: Project‐Generated Morning Peak Hour Traffic Conditions
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 57
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
Figure 14: Project‐Generated Afternoon Peak Hour Traffic Conditions
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 58
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
Table 29: Nanuet TOD Trip Distribution Patterns
Origin Destination Zone Sub Zones Residential % Commercial % A B C1 C2 C3 D E Total
1 TOD 1‐1, 1‐2, 1‐3 100% 0% 49% 5% 1% 0% 31% 11% 3% 100%
2 TOD 2‐1, 2‐2 92% 8% 48% 5% 2% 0% 31% 11% 3% 100%
3 TOD 3‐1 38% 62% 1% 5% 31% 25% 24% 11% 3% 100%
4 TOD 3‐2, 3‐3, 3‐4 54% 46% 2% 5% 34% 16% 19% 18% 6% 100% HC‐N 9, 10‐1, 10 5 HC‐N 7, 8, 11 76% 24% 2% 5% 41% 8% 20% 18% 6% 100%
6 HC‐N 4, 5, 6, 6‐1 76% 24% 1% 6% 42% 10% 28% 10% 3% 100%
7 HC‐N 1, 2, 3 76% 24% 1% 6% 43% 10% 37% 1% 2% 100%
Scenario 1: 2030 Build Traffic Conditions with Existing Roadway Network
The Project‐generated vehicle trips described above were added to the No Build traffic volumes to estimate the Build traffic volumes. Figures 15 and 16 show the 2030 Build traffic volumes for the weekday AM and PM peak hours, respectively. All other Study Area intersections not described above would operate under similar operating conditions as without the Proposed Action. Table 30 presents a comparison of the 2030 No Build and 2030 Build Conditions for the Study Area intersections. Synchro 10 outputs for the 2030 Build Condition are provided in Appendix F.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 59
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
Figure 15: Maximum Buildout Morning Peak Hour Traffic Conditions
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 60
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
Figure 16: Maximum Buildout Afternoon Peak Hour Traffic Conditions
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 61
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
Under the 2030 Build Conditions the following notable changes would occur for the Study Area intersections:
NYS Route 59 and N. Middletown/S. Middletown Road—The eastbound shared through/right‐turn lane would decrease from LOS D to LOS F during the weekday PM peak hour. The westbound left‐turn movement would decrease from LOS D to LOS E during the weekday PM peak hour. The westbound through movement would decrease within LOS F during the weekday PM peak hour. The northbound left‐turn movement would decrease from LOS D to LOS E and from LOS D to LOS F during the weekday AM and PM peak hours, respectively. The northbound through movement would decrease within LOS D during the weekday PM peak hour. The southbound shared through/right‐ turn lane would decrease within LOS D and from LOS D to LOS F during the weekday AM and PM peak hours, respectively.
Main Street and Market Street/1st Street—The northbound shared through/right‐turn lane would decrease from LOS B to LOS E during the weekday PM peak hour. The southbound through movement would decrease from LOS C to LOS F during the weekday PM peak hour.
Main Street and Prospect Street/William Avenue—The eastbound left‐turn movement would decrease within LOS D and from LOS D to LOS E during the weekday AM and PM peak hours, respectively. The northbound approach would decrease from LOS A to LOS F during the weekday PM peak hour. The southbound approach would decrease from LOS A to LOS D during the weekday PM peak hour.
Main Street/Old Middletown Road and Church Street—The westbound approach would decrease from LOS C to LOS E during the weekday PM peak hour.
All other Study Area intersections not described above would operate under similar operating conditions as without the Proposed Action.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 62
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
Table 30: 2030 No Build and Build Conditions LOS Analysis
Weekday AM Weekday PM 2030 No Action 2030 With Action 2030 No Action 2030 With Action Lane v/c Delay Lane v/c Delay Lane v/c Delay Lane v/c Delay Intersection Group Ratio (sec) LOS Group Ratio (sec) LOS Group Ratio (sec) LOS Group Ratio (sec) LOS Signalized Intersections NYS Route 59 & N. Middletown/S. Middletown Road Eastbound L 0.40 47.7 D L 0.42 51.9 D L 0.57 48.5 D L 0.64 52.8 D TR 0.57 29.6 C TR 0.70 36.5 C TR 0.79 37.9 D TR 1.08 88.7 F Westbound L 0.45 45.4 D L 0.60 50.7 D L 0.54 48.5 D L 0.84 64.4 E T 0.82 33.6 C T 0.85 38.3 D T 1.34 187.1 F T 1.39 210.1 F R 0.23 25.9 C R 0.24 28.3 C R 0.69 41.0 D R 0.71 44.7 D Northbound L 0.65 53.2 D L 0.84 67.0 E L 0.68 54.7 D L 1.40 232.4 F T 0.62 46.4 D T 0.68 50.5 D T 0.66 47.0 D T 0.81 54.6 D R 0.39 19.3 B R 0.58 23.4 C R 0.31 17.1 B R 0.68 24.8 C Southbound L 0.44 36.8 D L 0.37 36.7 D L 0.46 39.7 D L 0.44 41.5 D TR 0.63 41.8 D TR 0.69 46.5 D TR 0.85 54.0 D TR 1.06 97.5 F Intersection 35.3 D Intersection 40.9 D Intersection 97.3 F Intersection 124.2 F Main Street & Market Street / 1st Street Eastbound L 0.15 28.4 C L 0.16 28.6 C L 0.45 28.4 C L 0.46 28.6 C T 0.27 43.0 D T 0.27 42.9 D T 0.27 35.4 D T 0.27 35.5 D R 0.10 29.6 C R 0.12 29.8 C R 0.19 25.1 C R 0.22 25.4 C Westbound L 0.24 29.9 C L 0.24 29.8 C L 0.20 24.1 C L 0.20 24.1 C TR 0.48 47.8 D TR 0.48 47.9 D TR 0.84 64.7 E TR 0.84 65.2 E Northbound L 0.04 4.1 A L 0.07 4.5 A L 0.14 8.6 A L 0.34 11.6 B TR 0.44 10.0 B TR 0.63 13.1 B TR 0.46 18.4 B TR 1.07 64.1 E Southbound L 0.07 8.0 A L 0.10 8.3 A L 0.15 11.5 B L 0.34 15.6 B T 0.32 13.6 B T 0.52 17.7 B T 0.53 23.7 C T 1.17 120.2 F R 0.05 7.0 A R 0.05 7.4 A R 0.10 8.6 A R 0.11 8.8 A Intersection 16.9 B Intersection 18.4 B Intersection 28.4 C Intersection 73.7 E Main Street & Prospect Street / William Avenue Eastbound L 0.68 45.3 D L 0.86 53.7 D L 0.64 48.2 D L 0.97 68.4 E R 0.26 7.4 A R 0.26 5.6 A R 0.45 8.9 A R 0.37 5.1 A Westbound LTR 0.12 29.0 C LTR 0.09 23.7 C LTR 0.16 33.1 C LTR 0.08 22.3 C Northbound LT 0.24 10.0 B LT 0.41 15.2 B LT 0.29 6.7 A LT 3.66 1226.9 F Southbound TR 0.40 5.4 A TR 0.61 8.6 A TR 0.45 4.8 A TR 1.05 41.9 D Intersection 15.8 B Intersection 20.4 C Intersection 12.7 B Intersection 373.4 F Old Middletown Road/ Main Street & Church Street Eastbound LTR 0.20 46.7 D LTR 0.24 48.3 D LTR 0.32 48.7 D LTR 0.26 45.6 D Westbound LTR 0.37 6.7 A LTR 0.52 15.1 B LTR 0.65 24.6 C LTR 0.91 58.8 E Northbound T 0.15 13.9 B T 0.17 14.9 B T 0.23 16.0 B T 0.30 18.6 B R 0.06 14.2 B R 0.06 14.7 B R 0.13 15.5 B R 0.15 17.0 B LR 0.77 56.2 E LR 0.77 56.5 E LR 0.78 57.1 E LR 0.79 57.6 E Southbound L 0.05 10.8 B L 0.12 11.9 B L 0.10 13.8 B L 0.30 16.0 B T 0.21 10.4 B T 0.23 11.9 B T 0.41 15.7 B T 0.47 18.3 B Intersection 25.2 C Intersection 25.4 C Intersection 25.8 C Intersection 31.9 C Unsignalized Intersections Grandview Avenue & Prospect Street Eastbound L 0.14 8.5 A L 0.16 8.7 A L 0.14 8.8 A L 0.18 9.2 A Westbound L 0.11 8.1 A L 0.17 8.5 A L 0.24 9.0 A L 0.29 9.6 A Northbound L 0.13 8.1 A L 0.14 8.3 A L 0.16 8.7 A L 0.17 9.0 A Southbound L 0.22 8.4 A L 0.24 8.8 A L 0.28 9.7 A L 0.32 10.3 B Main Street & Orchard Street W/ Orchard Street Eastbound L 0.02 13.5 B L 0.03 15.9 C L 0.06 15.7 C L 0.03 15.9 C Westbound L 0.05 12.3 B L 0.06 13.9 B L 0.07 18.2 C L 0.06 13.9 B Northbound L 0.00 7.8 A L 0.01 8.1 A L 0.00 8.3 A L 0.01 8.1 A T 0.00 0.0 A T 0.00 0.0 A T 0.00 0.0 A T 0.00 0.0 A Southbound L 0.01 7.9 A L 0.02 8.1 A L 0.04 8.2 A L 0.02 8.1 A T 0.00 0.0 A T 0.00 0.0 A T 0.00 0.0 A T 0.00 8.1 A Notes: L = Left Turn, T = Through, R = Right Turn, LOS = Level of Service Indicates notable deterioration in operating conditions
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 63
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
Scenario 2: 2030 Build Conditions with New Roadway Under a secondary 2030 Build Conditions scenario, a new roadway, parallel to a portion of Main Street, would be developed to better distribute Project‐generated trips northbound and southbound throughout the Study Area. The new roadway connections would include a north/south roadway between Prospect Street and Market Street adjacent to the railroad tracks, a southbound only roadway from First Street southbound approximately 450 feet and becoming a 2‐way northbound southbound roadway to Prospect Street, and an east/west connector roadway from the new roadway adjacent to the railroad tracks to Main Street, intersecting with Main Street at approximately the Normandy Village driveway. In addition, Orchard Street West would be continued southbound adjacent to the railroad tracks to connect with Old Middletown Road with several intermediate east/west connectors to Main Street. The proposed roadway configuration is presented in Figure 17.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 64
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
Figure 17: Proposed New Roadway Connections
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 65
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
Project‐generated trips described above were modified to account for the new roadway infrastructure shown in Figure 17 and were added to the No Build traffic volumes to estimate the Build traffic volumes with the new roadway infrastructure. Table 31 presents a comparison of the 2030 No Build and 2030 Build Conditions for the Study Area intersections under Scenario 2. Project‐generated trips for the weekday AM and PM peak hours as well as Synchro 10 outputs for the 2030 Build Scenario 2 Condition are provided in Appendix F.
Under the 2030 Build Scenario 2 Conditions the following notable changes would occur for the Study Area intersections:
NYS Route 59 and N. Middletown/S. Middletown Road—The eastbound left‐turn movement would decrease from LOS D to LOS E during the weekday PM peak hour. The eastbound shared through/right‐turn lane would decrease from LOS D to LOS E during the weekday PM peak hour. The westbound left‐turn movement would decrease from LOS D to LOS E during the weekday PM peak hour. The northbound left‐turn movement would decrease from LOS D to LOS E and from LOS D to LOS F during the weekday AM and PM peak hours, respectively. The northbound through movement would decrease from LOS D to LOS E during the weekday PM peak hour. The southbound shared through/right‐turn lane would decrease from LOS D to LOS E during the weekday PM peak hour.
Main Street and Market Street/1st Street—The northbound shared through/right‐turn lane would decrease from LOS B to LOS D during the weekday PM peak hour.
Main Street and Prospect Street/William Avenue—The eastbound left‐turn movement would decrease within LOS D during the weekday AM peak hour.
Main Street/Old Middletown Road and Church Street—The westbound approach would decrease from LOS C to LOS E during the weekday PM peak hour.
All other Study Area intersections not described above would operate under similar operating conditions as without the Proposed Action.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 66
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
Table 31: 2030 No Build and Build Scenario 2 Conditions LOS
Weekday AM Weekday PM 2030 No Action 2030 With Action 2030 No Action 2030 With Action Lane v/c Delay Lane v/c Delay Lane v/c Delay Lane v/c Delay Intersection Group Ratio (sec) LOS Group Ratio (sec) LOS Group Ratio (sec) LOS Group Ratio (sec) LOS Signalized Intersections NYS Route 59 & N. Middletown/S. Middletown Road Eastbound L 0.40 47.7 D L 0.42 50.9 D L 0.57 48.5 D L 0.69 57.1 E TR 0.57 29.6 C TR 0.65 34.2 C TR 0.79 37.9 D TR 1.00 65.1 E Westbound L 0.45 45.4 D L 0.59 49.6 D L 0.54 48.5 D L 0.84 65.4 E T 0.82 33.6 C T 0.83 36.3 D T 1.34 187.1 F T 1.38 206.3 F R 0.23 25.9 C R 0.23 27.5 C R 0.69 41.0 D R 0.71 45.3 D Northbound L 0.65 53.2 D L 0.77 61.6 E L 0.68 54.7 D L 1.04 105.9 F T 0.62 46.4 D T 0.67 49.3 D T 0.66 47.0 D T 0.84 59.4 E R 0.39 19.3 B R 0.58 22.9 C R 0.31 17.1 B R 0.70 27.2 C Southbound L 0.44 36.8 D L 0.40 37.5 D L 0.46 39.7 D L 0.41 39.7 D TR 0.63 41.8 D TR 0.68 45.3 D TR 0.85 54.0 D TR 0.99 77.6 E Intersection 35.3 D Intersection 39.0 D Intersection 97.3 F Intersection 109.2 F Main Street & Market Street / 1st Street Eastbound L 0.15 28.4 C L 0.16 28.6 C L 0.45 28.4 C L 0.46 28.6 C T 0.27 43.0 D T 0.27 42.9 D T 0.27 35.4 D T 0.27 35.5 D R 0.10 29.6 C R 0.10 29.6 C R 0.19 25.1 C R 0.20 25.1 C Westbound L 0.24 29.9 C L 0.24 29.8 C L 0.20 24.1 C L 0.20 24.1 C TR 0.48 47.8 D TR 0.48 47.9 D TR 0.84 64.7 E TR 0.84 65.2 E Northbound L 0.04 4.1 A L 0.06 8.1 A L 0.14 8.6 A L 0.33 15.6 B TR 0.44 10.0 B TR 0.59 18.8 B TR 0.46 18.4 B TR 0.93 46.2 D Southbound L 0.07 8.0 A L 0.09 8.2 A L 0.15 11.5 B L 0.34 15.6 B T 0.32 13.6 B T 0.43 15.3 B T 0.53 23.7 C T 0.86 38.5 D R 0.05 7.0 A R 0.08 6.9 A R 0.10 8.6 A R 0.19 9.3 A Intersection 16.9 B Intersection 19.9 B Intersection 28.4 C Intersection 38.9 D Main Street & Prospect Street / William Avenue Eastbound L 0.68 45.3 D L 0.80 50.8 D L 0.64 48.2 D L 0.73 44.5 D R 0.26 7.4 A R 0.29 6.1 A R 0.45 8.9 A R 0.45 6.3 A Westbound LTR 0.12 29.0 C LTR 0.10 25.9 C LTR 0.16 33.1 C LTR 0.11 26.0 C Northbound LT 0.24 10.0 B LT 0.34 12.6 B LT 0.29 6.7 A LT 0.80 24.8 C Southbound TR 0.40 5.4 A TR 0.51 11.2 B TR 0.45 4.8 A TR 0.70 17.0 B Intersection 15.8 B Intersection 19.5 B Intersection 12.7 B Intersection 22.3 C Old Middletown Road/ Main Street & Church Street Eastbound LTR 0.20 46.7 D LTR 0.24 48.5 D LTR 0.32 48.7 D LTR 0.27 45.8 D Westbound LTR 0.37 6.7 A LTR 0.53 15.6 B LTR 0.65 24.6 C LTR 0.90 56.6 E Northbound T 0.15 13.9 B T 0.17 14.9 B T 0.23 16.0 B T 0.29 18.3 B R 0.06 14.2 B R 0.06 14.7 B R 0.13 15.5 B R 0.15 16.9 B LR 0.77 56.2 E LR 0.77 56.2 E LR 0.78 57.1 E LR 0.78 57.1 E Southbound L 0.05 10.8 B L 0.12 9.4 A L 0.10 13.8 B L 0.30 13.1 B T 0.21 10.4 B T 0.22 9.7 A T 0.41 15.7 B T 0.46 14.3 B Intersection 25.2 C Intersection 24.6 C Intersection 25.8 C Intersection 29.8 C Unsignalized Intersections Grandview Avenue & Prospect Street Eastbound L 0.14 8.5 A L 0.16 8.7 A L 0.14 8.8 A L 0.17 9.2 A Westbound L 0.11 8.1 A L 0.17 8.5 A L 0.24 9.0 A L 0.27 9.5 A Northbound L 0.13 8.1 A L 0.14 8.3 A L 0.16 8.7 A L 0.17 8.9 A Southbound L 0.22 8.4 A L 0.24 8.8 A L 0.28 9.7 A L 0.32 10.3 B Main Street & Orchard Street W/ Orchard Street Eastbound L 0.02 13.5 B L 0.03 14.4 B L 0.06 15.7 C L 0.10 21.4 C Westbound L 0.05 12.3 B L 0.06 13.7 B L 0.07 18.2 C L 0.11 28.2 D Northbound L 0.00 7.8 A L 0.01 8.0 A L 0.00 8.3 A L 0.01 8.8 A T 0.00 0.0 A T 0.00 0.0 A T 0.00 0.0 A T 0.00 0.0 A Southbound L 0.01 7.9 A L 0.01 8.1 A L 0.04 8.2 A L 0.04 8.7 A T 0.00 0.0 A T 0.00 0.0 A T 0.00 0.0 A T 0.00 0.0 A Railway Road & Mall Drive / Market Street Westbound L 0.00 0.0 A L 0.00 0.0 A Northbound L 0.05 8.8 A L 0.13 9.4 A Orchard Street Ext & Market Street1 Westbound L 0.02 7.3 A L 0.05 7.3 A Orchard Street Ext & New Roadway Eastbound L 0.00 0.0 A L 0.00 0.0 A Westbound L 0.00 0.0 A L 0.00 0.0 A Northbound L 0.03 8.4 A L 0.08 8.6 A Southbound L 0.03 9.2 A L 0.09 9.4 A Main Street & New Roadway Eastbound L 0.03 8.6 A L 0.09 8.9 A Northbound L 0.00 0.0 A L 0.00 0.0 A Prospect Street & Railway Road Eastbound L 0.00 7.3 A L 0.00 7.4 A T 0.00 0.0 A T 0.00 0.0 A Southbound L 0.02 8.9 A L 0.05 9.1 A Orchard Street Ext & Prospect Street Eastbound L 0.00 7.3 A L 0.00 7.5 A T 0.00 0.0 A T 0.00 0.0 A Westbound L 0.00 0.0 A L 0.00 0.0 A Northbound L 0.02 9.2 A L 0.06 9.9 A Southbound L 0.05 9.3 A L 0.15 10.2 B Old Middletown Road & Orchard Street Ext Eastbound L 0.00 8.3 A L 0.00 8.3 A Northbound L 0.00 7.2 A L 0.00 7.2 A Notes: L = Left Turn, T = Through, R = Right Turn, LOS = Level of Service 1 HCM 2000 used to generate results Indicates notable deterioration in operating conditions
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 67
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
Proposed Mitigation
Scenario 1: 2030 Build Traffic Conditions with Existing Roadway Network
For the impacted locations described in Tables 30 and 31, mitigation measures, such as signal retiming and roadway restriping, were examined as measures to improve traffic operating conditions. As the Proposed Action rezones a large area surrounding the Nanuet Train Station and allows for a variety of commercial uses and access/egress configurations, this traffic analysis should be considered generic and reflects the level of traffic that could be anticipated with such a rezoning in place. For these reasons, proposed traffic mitigation is meant to outline the types of measures, which may be needed in the Study Area. Further detailed analysis to identify specific mitigation measures should be undertaken with detailed development plans for the rezoned parcels. The State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) Manual recommends a quantitative TIS for projects that generate 100 peak hour trips or more. Furthermore, a TIS may also need to be performed for projects located in a sensitive area of the network where less than 100 peak hour trips could potentially trigger the need for improvements.
For the impacted locations along Main Street without the proposed new roadway infrastructure, mitigation measures may be needed as follows:
Main Street and Market Street/ 1st Street —Retiming the traffic signal and lane restriping.
Main Street and Prospect Street/William Avenue—Retiming the traffic signal and restriping the northbound approach to include one left‐turn lane and one through lane.
Old Middletown Road/Main Street and Church Avenue—Retiming the traffic signal.
For the intersection of NYS Route 59 and N. Middletown/S. Middletown Road restriping of the eastbound shared through/right‐turn lane to a dedicated right‐turn lane (allowing for a right‐ turn overlap) and restriping the northbound approach from one left‐turn lane, 2 through lanes and one right‐turn lane, to 2 left‐turn lanes, one through lane, and a shared through/right‐turn lane, with adjustments to signal timing would improve delays at the intersection but would not fully return operating conditions for some of the impacted movements to No Build Conditions. However, for the traffic volumes processed at this intersection of two major roadways, the increases in delay at this intersection are not considered substantial to where drivers would experience a noticeable increase in delay.
In addition and as discussed above, improvement measures are planned for this intersection including Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) infrastructure (such as Transit Signal Priority (TSP) with queue jumping, upgraded controller technology and vehicle detection, and the possibility for an Adaptive Traffic Control System), which may further improve operating conditions. Generally, Adaptive Traffic Control Systems for congested arterials have the potential to improve vehicle delay and the number of stops along an adaptive route by approximately 10% when implemented correctly. This 10% improvement would further
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 68
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
improve intersection operations and better adapt to the variations in traffic volumes throughout the day, leading to a better driver experience through the corridor.
The following additional mitigation measures may be needed and should be evaluated with a future traffic study to determine need:
Potential for traffic signal coordination along the NYS Route 59 corridor.
Widening the northbound and southbound approaches to include two left‐turn lanes, two through lanes, and one dedicated right‐turn lane.
Widening the eastbound approach to include two left‐turn lanes, three through lanes, and one dedicated right‐turn lane.
Table 32 presents a comparison of the 2030 No Build, Build and Mitigation Conditions for the Study Area intersections without the new roadway infrastructure. For the Synchro 10 outputs associated with the 2030 Mitigation Conditions see Appendix F.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 69
dĂďůĞϯϮ͗ϮϬϯϬEŽƵŝůĚ͕ƵŝůĚ͕ĂŶĚDŝƚŝŐĂƚĞĚŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƐ>K^ŶĂůLJƐŝƐ
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
Scenario 2: 2030 Build Conditions with New Roadway
With the new roadway infrastructure, there exist similar impacts to the Proposed Action without the additional roadway infrastructure. The new connections mainly provide additional access for development in Zones 1, 2 and 3 which could use the new connections to bypass Main Street to reach the Mall or NYS Route 59. However, Zones 1, 2 and 3 are anticipated to generate less traffic than the zones located on Main Street which have more commercial uses and would mostly continue to use Main Street and the NYS Route 59 intersection unless driveway access discouraged the use of Main Street. For these reasons the additional roadway infrastructure does not show sizable improvements in terms of traffic operating conditions as compared to operations with the existing roadway infrastructure.
However, it should be noted that as Zones 1, 2 and 3 contain a majority of the proposed residential uses, the additional roadway infrastructure does provide better access, route alternatives, and overall better traffic flow for residents in the area than without the additional roadway infrastructure. Furthermore, the additional roadway infrastructure provides separation from a major retail corridor, where frequent delay would be anticipated, and local residents and the community needing a route to pass through the area.
For the impacted locations along Main Street with the proposed new roadway infrastructure, the same mitigation measures identified for the existing roadway infrastructure could be used to improve operating conditions with the exception of the intersection of NYS Route 59 and N. Middletown/S. Middletown Road. As the new roadway connections would better distribute vehicles away from this intersection an additional northbound left‐turn lane would not be necessary to process the proposed traffic volumes and restriping and retiming would not be recommended for this intersection. As discussed above, improvement measures planned for this intersection may further improve operating conditions in the future.
As such, the new roadways proposed within Scenario 2 (Figure 17) should be added to the Town’s Official Map as a mitigation measure for the Proposed Action.
Table 33 presents a comparison of the 2030 No Build, Build and Mitigation Conditions for the Study Area intersections with the new roadway infrastructure. For the Synchro 10 outputs associated with the 2030 Mitigation Conditions (see Appendix F).
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 72
dĂďůĞϯϯ͗ϮϬϯϬEŽƵŝůĚ͕ƵŝůĚ͕ĂŶĚDŝƚŝŐĂƚĞĚ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽϮŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƐ>K^ŶĂůLJƐŝƐ
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dĂďůĞϯϯ;ĐŽŶƚ͛ĚͿ ϮϬϯϬEŽƵŝůĚ͕ƵŝůĚĂŶĚDŝƚŝŐĂƚĞĚ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽϮŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƐ>ĞǀĞůŽĨ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞŶĂůLJƐŝƐ tĞĞŬĚĂLJD tĞĞŬĚĂLJWD
1R$FWLRQ :LWK$FWLRQ 0LWLJDWHG 1R$FWLRQ :LWK$FWLRQ 0LWLJDWHG /DQH YF 'HOD\ /DQH YF 'HOD\ /DQH YF 'HOD\ /DQH YF 'HOD\ /DQH YF 'HOD\ /DQH YF 'HOD\ *URXS 5DWLR VHF /26 *URXS 5DWLR VHF /26 *URXS 5DWLR VHF /26 *URXS 5DWLR VHF /26 *URXS 5DWLR VHF /26 *URXS 5DWLR VHF /26 8QVLJQDOL]HG,QWHUVHFWLRQV 0DLQ6WUHHW 2UFKDUG6WUHHW:2UFKDUG6WUHHW / % / % / % / & / & / & / % / % / % / & / ' / ' / $ / $ / $ / $ / $ / $ 7 $ 7 $ 7 $ 7 $ 7 $ 7 $ / $ / $ / $ / $ / $ / $ 7 $ 7 $ 7 $ 7 $ 7 $ 7 $ 5DLOZD\5RDG 0DOO'ULYH0DUNHW6WUHHW / $ / $ / $ / $ / $ / $ / $ / $ 2UFKDUG6WUHHW([W 0DUNHW6WUHHW / $ / $ / $ / $ 2UFKDUG6WUHHW([W 1HZ5RDGZD\ / $ / $ / $ / $ / $ / $ / $ / $ / $ / $ / $ / $ / $ 7 $ / $ 7 $ 0DLQ6WUHHW 1HZ5RDGZD\ / $ / $ / $ / $ / $ / $ / $ / $ 3URVSHFW6WUHHW 5DLOZD\5RDG / $ / $ / $ / $ 7 $ / $ 7 $ / $ / $ / $ / $ / $ 2UFKDUG6WUHHW([W 3URVSHFW6WUHHW / $ / $ / $ / $ 7 $ / $ 7 $ / $ / $ / $ / $ / $ / $ 7 $ / $ 7 $ / $ / $ / % / % 2OG0LGGOHWRZQ5RDG 2UFKDUG6WUHHW([W / $ / $ / $ / $ / $ / $ / $ / $ 1RWHV / /HIW7XUQ7 7KURXJK5 5LJKW7XUQ/26 /HYHORI6HUYLFH +&0XVHGWRJHQHUDWHUHVXOWV ,QGLFDWHVQRWDEOHGHWHULRUDWLRQLQRSHUDWLQJFRQGLWLRQV
5.2 Parking
Existing Conditions
The parking utilization data, including the roadway segment and parking lot capacities and approximate number of occupied parking spaces for the weekday morning, midday and afternoon peak periods, was summarized for the on‐street and off‐street facilities described above to determine the existing parking utilization and demand. An off‐street parking facility is considered full by users if it has 85‐90% occupancy3 depending on the parking and site layout. Tables 34 and 35 present the parking utilization for Main Street and Orchard Street on‐street parking, respectively, and Table 36 presents the parking utilization for the off‐street parking facilities surveyed.
As shown in Table 34, Main Street has the highest parking utilization in the weekday midday and PM peak periods with typical utilization ranging from approximately 50‐100%. On‐street parking on Prospect Street, shown in Table 34, has lower utilization, ranging from approximately 25‐50% during a typical weekday. Orchard Street has the lowest utilization of the on‐street areas surveyed, generally ranging from approximately 25‐50% during a typical weekday (see Table 35). As shown in Table 36, the off‐street facilities surveyed also have the highest parking utilization in the weekday midday and PM peak periods. The Town Lot located on the south side of Prospect Street and adjacent to the Metro‐North Nanuet Train Station has the highest utilization between 50‐90% with an average utilization of 75% during a typical weekday. The County Lot on the north side of Prospect Street, generally used for overflow parking for the train station, has a parking utilization ranging from 40‐90%. The Metro‐North Parking Lot, also located on the north side of Prospect Street but set back behind the post office, has the most parking availability, with parking utilization ranging from 5‐30%.
3 Litman, Todd. Parking Management Best Practices. APA, 2006.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 75
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
Table 34: On‐Street Existing Parking Weekday Utilization Thursday, January 25, 2018 Time Main Street Church to Orchard Church to Orchard Orchard to Prospect Orchard to Prospect Prospect to 1st St Prospect to 1st St East side West side East side West side East side West side Capacity = 15 veh Capacity = 8 veh Capacity = 0 veh Capacity = 5 veh Capacity = 17 veh Capacity = 23 veh ApproxNo. Parking Approx Parking ApproxNo. Parking ApproxNo. Parking ApproxNo. Parking Approx Parking of Parked Utilization No. of Utilization of Parked Utilization of Parked Utilization of Parked Utilization No. of Utilization Cars (%) Parked (%) Cars (%) Cars (%) Cars (%) Parked (%) Cars Cars Weekday AM 7:00 7 50% 1 10% 0 0% 1 25% 3 20% 11 50% AM 7:30 7 50% 1 10% 0 0% 1 25% 10 60% 11 50% AM 8:00 9 60% 1 10% 0 0% 1 30% 11 70% 13 60% AM 8:30 9 60% 1 10% 0 0% 2 40% 11 70% 13 60% AM Weekday midday 12:00 11 75% 2 25% 0 0% 3 75% 17 100% 17 75% PM 12:30 11 75% 4 50% 0 0% 5 100% 17 100% 17 75% PM 1:00 11 75% 4 50% 0 0% 5 100% 17 100% 17 75% PM 1:30 11 75% 4 50% 0 0% 5 100% 13 80% 17 75% PM Weekday PM 4:00 11 75% 4 50% 0 0% 3 75% 12 75% 17 75% PM 4:30 12 80% 4 50% 0 0% 3 75% 12 75% 17 75% PM 5:00 12 80% 4 50% 0 0% 3 75% 17 100% 23 100% PM 5:30 11 75% 6 75% 0 0% 3 75% 12 75% 23 100% PM 6:00 11 75% 4 50% 0 0% 2 50% 12 75% 11 50% PM 6:30 11 75% 4 50% 0 0% 2 50% 8 50% 17 75% PM 7:00 7 50% 4 50% 0 0% 3 75% 8 50% 11 50% PM 7:30 7 50% 4 50% 0 0% 1 25% 8 50% 11 50% PM Notes: Bold = Indicates parking utilization greater than or equal to 85%.
Table 35: Orchard Street Existing Parking Weekday Utilization
Thursday, January 25, 2018 Time Prospect Street Orchard Street Main to Railroad Main to Railroad Main to Prospect Main to Prospect North side South side West/South side East/North side Capacity = 9 veh Capacity = 3 veh Capacity = 15 veh Capacity = 26 veh ApproxNo. of Parking Approx No. Parking ApproxNo. of Parking ApproxNo. of Parking Parked Cars Utilization of Parked Utilization Parked Cars Utilization Parked Cars Utilization (%) Cars (%) (%) (%)
Weekday AM 7:00 2 25% 1 50% 3 25% 0 0% AM 7:30 4 50% 1 50% 3 25% 0 0% AM 8:00 4 50% 0 25% 7 50% 6 25% AM 8:30 4 50% 1 50% 3 25% 6 25% AM Weekday midday 12:00 4 50% 1 50% 0 0% 0 0% PM 12:30 6 75% 1 50% 3 25% 0 0% PM
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 76
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
1:00 6 75% 1 50% 3 25% 0 0% PM 1:30 6 75% 1 50% 3 25% 6 25% PM Weekday PM 4:00 6 75% 1 50% 3 25% 6 25% PM 4:30 6 75% 1 50% 3 25% 6 25% PM 5:00 6 75% 1 50% 3 25% 6 25% PM 5:30 6 75% 1 50% 3 25% 6 25% PM 6:00 4 50% 1 50% 3 25% 6 25% PM 6:30 4 50% 1 25% 7 50% 13 50% PM 7:00 2 25% 1 25% 7 50% 13 50% PM 7:30 2 25% 0 0% 11 75% 13 50% PM Notes: Bold = Indicates parking utilization greater than or equal to 85%. Table 36: Off‐Street Existing Weekday Parking Utilization
Thursday, January 25, 2018 Time Metro-North Lot (Lot #3) County Lot (Lot #2) Town Lot (Lot #1) (North side of Prospect) (North side of Prospect) (South side of Prospect) Capacity = 227 veh Capacity = 168 veh Capacity = 274 veh Approx No. of Parking Approx No. of Parking Approx No. of Parking Parked Cars Utilization Parked Cars Utilization Parked Cars Utilization (%) (%) (%)
Weekday AM 7:00 AM 22 10% 84 50% 137 50% 7:30 AM 158 70% 117 70% 191 70% 8:00 AM 56 25% 134 80% 219 80% 8:30 AM 56 25% 134 80% 219 80% Weekday midday 12:00 56 25% 142 85% 219 80% PM 12:30 56 25% 142 85% 205 75% PM 1:00 PM 56 25% 134 80% 205 75% 1:30 PM 56 25% 134 80% 191 70% Weekday PM 4:00 PM 68 30% 151 90% 246 90% 4:30 PM 68 30% 142 85% 246 90% 5:00 PM 56 25% 142 85% 232 85% 5:30 PM 45 20% 117 70% 232 85% 6:00 PM 45 20% 109 65% 219 80% 6:30 PM 34 15% 92 55% 191 70% 7:00 PM 22 10% 84 50% 164 60% 7:30 PM 11 5% 67 40% 137 50% Notes: Bold = Indicates parking utilization greater than or equal to 85%.
Based on the existing weekday parking utilization data, on average there are approximately 48 and 223 parking spaces available in the on‐street and off‐street parking facilities surveyed, respectively.
2030 No Build Conditions
In the absence of any pending or proposed developments which could affect the parking supply and demand for the on‐street and off‐street parking facilities in the Project Study Area, the parking demand in the area may increase by 6%, consistent with the traffic growth projected between 2018 and 2030. Based on these estimates, existing weekday parking supply would
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 77
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
decrease by 3 and 13 parking spaces for the on‐street and off‐street parking facilities surveyed, respectively.
2030 Build Conditions
For the Proposed Action with a maximum proposed build out of approximately 759 residential units and 412,777 square feet (SF) of commercial use, the average peak period parking demand would be 1,449 spaces (Table 37). This would exceed the average available parking supply projected in the 2030 No Build condition of 255 on‐street and off‐street spaces and without additional facilities would result in a parking shortfall in the Project Study Area.
Table 37: Peak Period Parking Demand with Proposed Action
ITE Data Building Development ITE Land Use Component Size ITE Transit Net ITE # Name Independent Variable Rate1 Credit2 Rate Total Residential3 759 Units 221 Low/Mid‐Rise Dwelling Unit 1.23 0.15 1.05 776 Apartment Commercial4 412.8 K SF 820 Shopping 1,000 SF Gross Floor 1.92 0.15 1.63 673 Center Area Total Average Peak Period Parking Demand 1,449 Notes: 1. ITE Rates represent the average peak period parking demand (ITE Parking Generation Manual, 4th Edition) 2. A transit credit of 15% was applied to account for the proximity of transit to all land uses (Table B.3 Transportation Impact Factors, ITE Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition). 3. Residential peak period parking demand is based on the average rate per dwelling unit for suburban low/mid‐rise apartments. 4. Commercial peak period parking demand is on the fitted curve equation of the average peak parking demand for a non‐Friday weekday (non‐ December).
Corresponding to the peak period parking demand, parking supply is referenced based on the parking requirements within the Proposed Action. The Proposed Action would generate a minimum of 5,325 parking spaces consisting of 1,197 residential parking spaces and 4,128 commercial parking spaces. This compares to a peak period parking demand of 1,449 parking spaces.
Proposed Mitigation
The residential component of the Proposed Action is considered to be self‐sufficient in terms of parking in that on‐site parking for all units will be provided. Upon development of the commercial portions of the Proposed Action, developers and businesses will be required to provide on‐site parking as per the requirements identified in Chapter 2. Additionally, the Proposed Action calls for developing a street grid within the Project Study Area. The street grid would extend Orchard and Center Streets to the west to a new connector street to be developed directly to the east of the railroad tracks and parallel to Main Street. This new connector would eventually extend from First Street to Old Middletown Road. Each of these new streets would provide additional parking spaces.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 78
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
Additionally, the Town of Clarkstown is considering purchasing Parking Lot #3 from Metro‐ North Railroad. If this transaction occurs, the Town of Clarkstown would place a covenant on the property before allowing for TOD 3 development. This covenant would require that the developer provide at least the same amount of parking that currently exists within the lot, in addition to whatever other parking would be required to accommodate new commercial and residential development.
5.3 Bicyclists & Pedestrians
Bicyclist and pedestrian counts were conducted at and around the Nanuet Train Station to determine existing conditions and characteristics. Counts were conducted on 3 mid‐week days (Tuesday, May 22nd through Thursday May 24th) during morning and afternoon peak‐hour times (5:30 AM – 8:30 AM, 4:30 PM – 7:30 PM) specifically based upon the train times for Hoboken/New York‐bound Pascack Valley Line trains and the local area rush hour. With the exception of minor rain showers in the early evening of the first day of counts, and early morning of the second day of counts, the counts took place in nearly ideal late‐spring weather conditions. Theoretically, such weather conditions would likely generate the maximum possible bicyclist and pedestrian activity, including for work, errands, and leisurely purposes.
The traffic counter was positioned within Lot #1 (Clarkstown Parking Lot) directly adjacent to the Nanuet Train Station platform. From this location, the counter recorded bicyclist and pedestrian activity to and from the following locations:
Lot #2 (Rockland County Parking Lot) requiring pedestrians to cross Prospect Street west of the railroad tracks to access the station platform
Lot #3 (Metro‐North Railroad Parking Lot) requiring pedestrians to cross Prospect Street east of the railroad tracks to access the station platform
Main Street/Downtown Nanuet requiring bicyclists or pedestrians to travel along the side of Prospect Street to the east of the railroad tracks
Prospect Street Residential Neighborhood requiring bicyclists or pedestrians to travel along the side of Prospect Street to the west of the railroad tracks
Non‐rail‐based locations, or those pedestrians utilizing Prospect Street and crossing the railroad tracks for reasons other than accessing the Nanuet Train Station.
Pedestrian activity between Lot #1 and the station platform was not recorded since they abut one another. For the purposes of the analysis, each 3‐hour counting block was divided into 12 15‐minute intervals in order to identify peak travel conditions.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 79
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
Existing Conditions
Bicyclists
The peak hour volume of bicyclists per hour is 8, based on the maximum recorded 15‐minute total of 2 bicyclists. The 2 bicyclists were recorded during the 4:30 PM – 4:45 PM afternoon time interval. In actuality, it is highly unlikely that total hourly bicyclists would reach the maximum peak hour amount under existing conditions however. From all 6 3‐hour counting blocks, spread across 3 days, the total number of bicyclists recorded was 7. With the exception of the 2 bicyclists comprising the peak interval total, the remaining bicyclists were largely spread apart throughout the counting blocks, including morning and afternoon intervals. Lastly, it should also be noted that all 7 of the recorded bicyclists were travelling along Prospect Street between the residential neighborhood to the west and Downtown Nanuet, rather than to access the Nanuet Train Station.
Pedestrians
Pedestrian infrastructure within the proposed rezoning area is limited to non‐existent. Besides sidewalks adjacent to Lot #1 and Lot #2 and along the Nanuet Train Station, pedestrians are largely forced to walk alongside Prospect Street and adjacent parking lots. These conditions are also evident along the Prospect Street railroad track grade crossing.
Of the total pedestrians counted, only 3% utilized or crossed Prospect Street for reasons not related to the Nanuet Train Station. This pedestrian traffic was evenly spread between the morning and afternoon time blocks, with the highest recorded 15‐minute total being 3 pedestrians. This was observed during the 6:30 PM – 6:45 PM afternoon time interval, although it should be noted that most time intervals had 0 pedestrians along Prospect Street.
Approximately 97% of all recorded pedestrians were either getting to or from the Nanuet Train Station. Under accepted standards for modeling peak hour traffic, the highest 15‐minute total of pedestrians would be considered and multiplied by 4 to develop a peak hour volume. However, in the case of the Nanuet Train Station, it was observed that pedestrian traffic swelled exclusively based upon an arriving train. It was also observed that pedestrian traffic was significantly higher usually during one inbound and outbound train. During the morning inbound rush hour, this was witnessed for the 6:27 AM Hoboken‐bound express train. During the afternoon outbound rush hour, this was witnessed for the 6:20 PM Spring Valley‐bound express train. While other train runs generated notable pedestrian traffic as well, since these 2 runs are express, skipping all local stops in New Jersey before Secaucus Junction, they provide the quickest ride to Nanuet, thus making them likely the most popular amongst Rockland County commuters. Based on these travel patterns centered around only a few train runs, this analysis considers the peak 15‐minute volumes individually and not formulated into an hourly figure.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 80
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
Morning Figures
The peak morning 15‐minute volume of pedestrians crossing or utilizing Prospect Street was 55 pedestrians. This total was observed during the 6:15 AM – 6:30 AM time interval, with similar figures observed throughout all 3 days. Of these 55 pedestrians, 46 were entering the Nanuet Train Station from Lot #2, and as a result, crossed Prospect Street to the west of the railroad tracks. An additional 7 pedestrians were entering the Nanuet Train Station from Lot #3, and as a result, crossed Prospect Street to the east of the railroad tracks. It should be noted however that the peak number of pedestrians crossing Prospect Street from Lot #3 was 11, which was recorded during the 7:00 AM – 7:15 AM time interval.
During the peak hour count of 55 pedestrians, the remaining 2 pedestrians entered the Nanuet Train Station by walking along the side of Prospect Street from the residential neighborhood to the west. This was also the highest observed total volume from that location. While no pedestrians were observed to enter the Nanuet Train Station from the direction of Main Street/Downtown Nanuet during the peak total 15‐minute volume, the peak volume of such pedestrians was 2, observed during the 7:00 AM – 7:15 AM time interval.
Afternoon Figures
The peak afternoon 15‐minute volume of pedestrians crossing or utilizing Prospect Street was 125 pedestrians. This total was observed during the 6:30 PM – 6:45 PM time interval, with similar figures observed throughout all 3 days. Of these 125 pedestrians, 94 were exiting the Nanuet Train Station from Lot #2, and as a result, crossed Prospect Street to the west of the railroad tracks. An additional 30 pedestrians were exiting the Nanuet Train Station to Lot #3, and as a result, crossed Prospect Street to the east of the railroad tracks. Both of these figures were the highest observed total volumes for these 2 locations and crossings of Prospect Street.
During the peak hour count of 125 pedestrians, the remaining pedestrian exited the Nanuet Train Station by walking along the side of Prospect Street to the residential neighborhood to the west. The highest observed total volume for this location however was 2, which was recorded during the 5:15 PM – 5:30 PM and 5:45 PM – 6:00 PM time intervals. While no pedestrians were observed to exit the Nanuet Train Station in the direction of Main Street/Downtown Nanuet during the peak total 15‐minute volume, the peak volume of such pedestrians was 4, recorded during the 5:45 PM – 6:00 PM time interval.
Table 38: Summary of Peak 15‐Minute Factors Under Existing Conditions
Time Period Total Peak 15‐Minute Factor Morning Peak‐Hour 6:15 AM ‐ 6:30 AM 55 Peak 15‐Minute Factor Afternoon Peak‐Hour 6:30 PM ‐ 6:45 PM 125
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 81
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
Potential Impacts
Bicyclists
Given the location of the proposed rezoning area, the number of bicycle trips generated by the Project Study Area is expected to be low. As such, a methodology4 developed by the Virginia Department of Transportation was utilized to estimate the additional daily bicycle trips. This methodology states that for every 1,000 dense suburban multi‐family dwelling units, 6 daily bicycle trips are expected to be generated. Given a total of 759 dwelling units, approximately 4 daily bicycle trips are expected to be generated throughout the entire TOD. It is assumed that this figure would include any bicycle trips occurring to access public transit.
During the 3 days, comprised of 2 3‐hour intervals, of bicycle and pedestrian counts, used to establish existing conditions, a total of 7 bicyclists were recorded. This equates to a rate of about 1.16 daily bicycle trips within the proposed rezoning area. As such, this rate is expected to increase by 4 daily bicycle trips, to a total of 5.16 daily bicycle trips within and through the Project Study Area.
Pedestrians
Impacts to the number of pedestrians around the Nanuet Train Station were estimated through 2 separate methodologies in order to determine and aggregate transit‐ and non‐transit‐based pedestrian trips:
Vehicular Trip Generation‐Based Methodology: Transit‐Based Pedestrian Trips
The vehicular trip generation‐based methodology involves estimating pedestrian rates based on the amount of vehicular traffic generated, and applying a mode conversion rate to those figures. Using the same methodology applied in Section 5.1 – Vehicular Traffic, the entire Project Study Area was divided into 7 different zones (Figure 12). The vehicular trip generation rates for each zone are summarized in Table 28. This includes a 15% conversion rate from vehicular to pedestrian mode, based on accepted standards from the 9th Edition ITE Trip Generation Manual: Transportation Impact Factors Table for the transit mode share. This 15% mode share would be applied during both the morning and afternoon rush hour periods, representing a total proportion of 30%. As indicated in the existing condition sections for pedestrians, almost all pedestrians within the proposed rezoning area do so in order to get to and from the Nanuet Train Station, making the assumption of applying transit share to pedestrian valid and reasonable. It should also be noted that in terms of transit use, this analysis exclusively considers the Nanuet Train Station and rail travel bound for Hoboken. In actuality, there is also bus service operated by Rockland Coaches which provides service to the Port Authority Bus Terminal in New York City. Although travel patterns around this commuter service are not considered for the purposes of this analysis, it is recognized that at least some of
4 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260401878_FINAL_REPORT_RESIDENTIAL_TRIP_GENERAT ION_GROUND_COUNTS_VERSUS_SURVEYS
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 82
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
the pedestrians would walk to access this transit service, located along Middletown Road at the intersection with Route 59.
Table 39: Total & Pedestrian Trip Generation by Internal TOD Traffic Analysis Zone
Zone Sub Zones Total Traffic Pedestrian Total Trips (15%) 1 TOD 1‐1, TOD 1‐2, TOD 1‐3 118 18 2 TOD 2‐1, TOD 2‐2 111 17 3 TOD 3‐1 129 19 4 TOD 3‐2, TOD 3‐3, TOD 3‐4, HC‐N 9, HC‐N 10‐1, HC‐N 10 111 20 5 HC‐N 7, HC‐N 8, HC‐N 11 42 6 6 HC‐N 4, HC‐N 5, HC‐N 6, HC‐N 6‐1 48 7 7 HC‐N 1, HC‐N 2, HC‐N 3 36 5
Based on the methodology used to determine existing conditions, the impacts to pedestrian traffic are assumed based on the delta of pedestrians crossing Prospect Street, and in this case, to get to and from the Nanuet Train Station. As such, the following internal TOD zones would require a pedestrian to cross Prospect Street to get to and from the Nanuet Train Station located south of Prospect Street:
Zone 1: Northern Portion
Zone 2: Northern Portion
Zone 3: Entire Zone
Zone 6: Entire Zone
Zone 7: Entire Zone
Based on the proportional breakdown as a result of the traffic simulation process, the following table summarizes the total breakdown of additional trips within the morning and afternoon peak hours:
Table 40: Additional Pedestrian Trips by Time of Day
Zone Morning Peak Afternoon Peak 1 8 10 2 8 9 3 9 10 4 9 11 5 2 4 6 3 4 7 2 3
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 83
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
Next, those pedestrian trips involving utilizing or crossing Prospect Street during the morning and afternoon peak hours are extracted. This information is displayed in the following table:
Table 41: Allocation of Additional Pedestrian Trips Based on Prospect Street Utilization and Crossings
Zone % of Zone North of Prospect Corresponding Morning Corresponding Afternoon Street Peak Hour Trips Peak Hour Trips 1 73% 6 7 2 69% 6 6 3 100% 9 10 4 0% 0 0 5 0% 0 0 6 100% 3 4 7 100% 2 3 Totals 26 30
As Table 41 shows, a maximum buildout from the Proposed Action is expected to generate an additional 26 pedestrian trips during the morning and 30 pedestrian trips during the afternoon peak hour periods. However, these figures are for the entire 3‐hour time blocks (5:30 AM – 8:30 AM & 4:30 PM – 7:30 PM). In order to break them down by hour, the proportional pedestrian traffic based on existing conditions is assumed. This information is provided in the following table:
Table 42: Morning & Afternoon Proportions of Pedestrian Traffic
Morning Pedestrian Proportion 5:30 AM ‐ 6:30 AM 35% 6:30 AM ‐ 7:30 AM 37% 7:30 AM ‐ 8:30 AM 27% Afternoon Pedestrian Proportion 4:30 PM ‐ 5:30 PM 20% 5:30 PM ‐ 6:30 PM 50% 6:30 PM ‐ 7:30 PM 30%
As such, based on the maximum buildout of 759 units, Table 43 summarizes the additional number of pedestrians expected to cross Prospect Street during the morning and afternoon peak hours. This indicates a peak hour factor of 24 additional pedestrians during the morning, and 33 additional pedestrians during the afternoon.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 84
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
Table 43: Additional Prospect Street Pedestrians by Peak Hour
Additional Morning Pedestrians by Hour 5:30 AM ‐ 6:30 AM 9 6:30 AM ‐ 7:30 AM 10 7:30 AM ‐ 8:30 AM 7 Additional Afternoon Pedestrians by Hour 4:30 PM ‐ 5:30 PM 5 5:30 PM ‐ 6:30 PM 15 6:30 PM ‐ 7:30 PM 10
Lastly, the additional hourly pedestrians utilizing or crossing Prospect Street are added to the existing figures. As identified in the existing conditions section, a 15‐minute peak factor was calculated for the morning (55) and afternoon (125). This factor was not multiplied by 4 given the sporadic nature of pedestrian travel centered around the express train from Spring Valley, Nanuet, and Pearl River, to Secaucus and Hoboken. However, for the purposes of this analysis, the additional peak hour factor of ten morning and 15 afternoon additional TOD pedestrians is assumed to be evenly distributed across the four 15‐minute time intervals. Based on this information, Table 44 summarizes the total peak 15‐minute volumes expected, based on utilization/crossing of Prospect Street, and considering both existing pedestrians and those added from the proposed rezoned action. The following figure is a projection to 2030, and as such, considers a 2% increase in pedestrian traffic, primarily from the commuter parking lots, given the extra available parking capacity. This 2% increase is considered to be the Future Without the Proposed Action.
Table 44: Total Peak Morning and Afternoon Pedestrians
Additional TOD TOTAL Current 2030 Base (No‐Build) Pedestrians Pedestrians Peak Morning 15‐Minute 55 56 3 59 Factor Peak Afternoon 15‐Minute 125 128 4 132 Factor
Compared to 2030 base conditions of 56 morning and 128 peak 15‐minute pedestrians, the maximum buildout of 759 units is expected to generate 5% additional morning pedestrians, and 3% additional afternoon pedestrians.
Dwelling Units‐Based Methodology: Non‐Transit Based Pedestrian Trips
The second methodology for estimating pedestrian trips is based solely on the number of dwelling units, and does not take into account transit use. As such, these rates can be assumed to be the rate of pedestrians around the TOD independent of the Nanuet Train Station. Based
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 85
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
on a methodology developed by the Virginia Department of Transportation5, it can be assumed that every 100 dwelling units generates 4 daily pedestrian trips for the densest multi‐family sites located in suburban neighborhoods. Given a total of 759 dwelling units, 30 daily non‐ transit pedestrian trips would be generated from the entire rezoning. Proportionally based on the number of units per internal traffic analysis zone, these trips would originate as follows:
Table 45: Non‐Transit Generated Daily Pedestrian Trips by Internal Traffic Analysis Zones
Zone Daily Pedestrian Trips 1 5 2 6 3 7 4 7 5 2 6 2 7 1 Total 30
Proposed Mitigation
Pedestrians
Given the addition of 30 pedestrians to Prospect Street and surrounding areas, a number of mitigations are proposed. These mitigations are designed to increase the flow and safety of pedestrian crossings while also acting as traffic calming measures. First, each TOD zone, including the development within HC‐N will require ADA‐accessible sidewalks along the public right‐of‐way. Long‐term, a full street grid, particularly between Main Street and the railroad tracks, would be developed. The street grid would extend Orchard and Center Streets to the west to a new connector street to be developed directly to the east of the railroad tracks and parallel to Main Street. This new connector would eventually extend from First Street to Old Middletown Road. Each of these new streets would have a maximum speed limit of 25‐30 miles per hour in order to discourage thru use for automobiles and encourage use by pedestrians.
Streetscape and pedestrian upgrades are also proposed for existing and new streets. In the short‐term this includes the addition of lighting, decorative furniture, and directional signage, designed to create a more pedestrian‐friendly environment. In the long‐term proposed upgrades include the development of a median boulevard along Prospect Street, and expansions of green space in and around the existing Veteran’s Memorial Garden.
Bicyclists
Those proposed mitigations, described above for pedestrian accommodation, are also applicable to bicyclists. This includes the realization of a street grid, and a boulevard median
5 www.researchgate.net/publication/260401878_FINAL_REPORT_RESIDENTIAL_TRIP_GENERATION_GROUND_C OUNTS_VERSUS_SURVEYS
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 86
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement along Prospect Street designed to slow vehicular traffic. Along Main Street exclusive bicycle lanes/shared lane markings are also proposed. Within the TOD zones, new residential development will also require at least one bicycle rack per an established number of units.
5.4 Public Transportation
The Project Study Area is served by Transport of Rockland’s bus Routes 59 and 93, as well as the Pascack Valley commuter rail line of New Jersey Transit.
Transport of Rockland’s Route 59 (Suffern – Nyack) services Middletown Road at First Street, adjacent to the proposed rezoning. Service is operated between 6:00 AM and 12:45 AM from Monday through Saturday on 20‐60 minute headways depending on the time of the day. Service is operated between 8:00 AM and 11:45 PM on Sundays 30‐60 minute headways depending on the time of the day. Route 93 (Pearl River – Sloatsburg) services Middletown Road at First Street, adjacent to the proposed rezoning. Service is operated between 6:00 AM and 10:45 PM from Mondays through Saturdays on hourly headways, and between 8:00 AM and 8:00 PM Sundays on hourly headways. Service on Route 59 is operated on 40 foot buses which have a capacity of 38 seated passengers, 28 standing passengers, and space for 2 ADA passengers. Service on Route 93 is operated on 35 foot buses which have a capacity of 31 passengers, 23 standing passengers, and space for 2 ADA passengers.
The Pascack Valley Nanuet Train Station is maintained by Metro‐North Railroad, with service operated by New Jersey Transit. Service is operated between Spring Valley and Hoboken, with intermediate stops in Pearl River, to the south of Nanuet, as well as multiple stops in Bergen County, New Jersey, and Secaucus where passengers can transfer to New York Penn Station‐ bound trains. Service is operated between 5:00 AM and 12:30 AM Monday through Friday, and 6:00 AM and 9:30 PM on Saturdays and Sundays. Service is primarily operated around New York inbound/outbound peak rush hours. Frequencies are as often as approximately 15‐20 minutes during this time period. Outside of this however, frequencies range from 1‐2 hours, with a particularly large gap in inbound weekday service from 3:51 PM to 9:20 PM, due to the Pascack Valley Line being comprised of a single track.
Existing Conditions
Metro‐North Railroad Nanuet Train Service
Existing conditions on commuter rail ridership figures was acquired from Metro‐North Railroad. While service at the Nanuet Train Station is operated by New Jersey Transit along its Pascack Valley Line, those train stations within Rockland County along the Pascack Valley Line, including Nanuet, are owned by Metro‐North Railroad.
Existing conditions are broken out by peak morning inbound (Hoboken/New York City‐bound) rail service, and peak afternoon service bound for Spring Valley. In 2017, average inbound daily ridership from Nanuet was 644 passengers, of which, 88% (546 passengers) traveled during the
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 87
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
morning peak runs. Those inbound peak runs generating the highest average daily ridership and corresponding load capacities on the inbound trains is shown in the following table:
Table 46: Nanuet Inbound Morning Rail Ridership & Loading3
Train Destination Service Type Daily Boardings Load Factor Train # of Train Capacity Cars 6:21 AM Hoboken Express 200 86% 460 4 7:43 AM Hoboken Local 119 57% 460 4 7:16 AM Hoboken Semi‐Express 82 82% 805 7
During the same time period, average outbound daily ridership to Nanuet was 556 passenger, of which, 64% (354 passengers) traveled during the morning peak runs. Those outbound peak runs generating the highest daily ridership are shown in Table 47. Loading capacity was not recorded for outbound ridership at Nanuet given that such figures would likely be influenced by ridership at New Jersey Pascack Valley Line stations. 6
Table 47: Nanuet Outbound Afternoon Rail Ridership3
Train Destination Service Type Daily Alightings 5:32 PM Spring Valley Express 154 4:39 PM Spring Valley Local 74 6:18 PM Spring Valley Local 46
As the above figures show, morning inbound peak ridership is 200 passengers (along the 6:21 AM run), and afternoon outbound peak ridership is 154 passengers (along the 5:32 PM run). For the 6:21 AM inbound run, the loading factor was 86%. It should be noted however that certain runs, while not generating the highest ridership, did generate higher inbound loading factors. This was particularly evident along the 7:43 AM (109% loading factor) and 7:29 AM (92% loading factor). At the Nanuet Train Station however, these 2 runs only generated 20 and 39 passengers respectively. This indicates for these inbound trains that larger concentrations of passengers board at New Jersey train stations closer to Hoboken and Secaucus and that Nanuet passengers would easily be able to sit, as opposed to stand for the duration of the train ride. As such, these particular runs are not further considered as part of this analysis. It should also be noted that travel to and from Spring Valley was not considered given the low levels of such ridership.
Transport of Rockland Bus Service
Existing conditions of bus service and ridership was acquired from Transport of Rockland. During 2017, Route 59 bus service had 895,814 annual passengers, with 2,750 weekday daily
3 Note that since ridership estimates were recorded in 2017, there have been some minor adjustments in departure times for each train run. As such, 2017 ridership figures were applied according to their corresponding present-day (July, 2018) runs.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 88
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement passengers; 2,086 Saturday daily passengers; and 1,487 Sunday daily passengers. Route 93 bus service had 141,298 annual passengers, with 456 weekday daily passengers, 287 Saturday daily passengers, and 176 Sunday daily passengers.
One bus stop is located within the study area of the Proposed Action – the bus stop located at the intersection of Middletown Road and First Street. This stop location is serviced by the Route 93 that operates from Pearl River to Sloatsburg via an east‐west routing structure. Table 48 summarizes the average observed total boarding and alighting counts for eastbound (EB) and westbound (WB) services in the AM Peak (5:00 AM to 9:59 AM), Midday (10:00 AM to 2:59 PM), PM Peak (3:00 PM to 6:59 PM), the Evening (7:00 PM to service closure) and a daily total for Monday thru Saturday services. The average number of boardings and alightings per run is also provided, and is based on the number of stops in a given time period.
Table 48: Observed Passenger Boardings and Alightings at Middletown Toad and First Street Bus Stop for the TOR 93 Service
EB Boardings EB Alightings WB Boardings WB Alightings AM Peak 3 24 5 0 Average Per AM Run 1.0 8.0 1.7 0.0 Midday 3 27 14 2 Average Per Midday Run 0.6 5.4 2.8 0.4 PM Peak 9 24 33 1 Average Per PM Run 2.3 6.0 8.3 0.3 Evening 2 6 10 1 Average Per Evening Run 0.5 1.5 3.3 0.3 Total 17 81 62 4 Average Per Run 1.1 5.1 4.1 0.3
Paratransit service within the Transport of Rockland bus system is provided through Transportation Resources, Intra‐county, for Physically Disabled and Senior citizens (TRIPS). In 2017, 6,305 annual paratransit trips were generated from within Nanuet. TRIPS is operated within ¾ of a mile of each fixed route for residents with physical, mental, developmental or intellectual disabilities or senior citizens aged 60 or over. While daily figures were unavailable for TRIPS, this roughly translates to approximately 20 daily paratransit trips given TRIPS service availability from Monday through Saturday.
Potential Impacts
Metro‐North Railroad Nanuet Train Service
Impacts to rail ridership at the Nanuet Train Station are estimated based on a 15% rate of the total traffic and, based on accepted standards from the 9th Edition ITE Trip Generation Manual: Transportation Impact Factors Table. Table 49 provides the corresponding transit trip generation by internal TOD traffic analysis zone. It should be noted that for the purposes of this
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 89
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
analysis, the 15% of transit trips is expected to be applied to the Nanuet Train Station. In reality however, a number of trips may be applied along Coach USA Rockland Coaches bus service bound for the Port Authority Bus Terminal in New York, and other available transit services within the area.
Table 49: Total & Transit Trip Generation by Internal TOD Traffic Analysis Zone
Zone Sub Zones Total Traffic Transit Total Trips (15%) 1 TOD 1‐1, TOD 1‐2, TOD 1‐3 118 18 2 TOD 2‐1, TOD 2‐2 111 17 3 TOD 3‐1 129 19 4 TOD 3‐2, TOD 3‐3, TOD 3‐4, HC‐N 9, HC‐N 10‐1, HC‐N 10 111 20 5 HC‐N 7, HC‐N 8, HC‐N 11 42 6 6 HC‐N 4, HC‐N 5, HC‐N 6, HC‐N 6‐1 48 7 7 HC‐N 1, HC‐N 2, HC‐N 3 36 5
Based on the proportional breakdown as a result of the traffic simulation process, the following table summarizes the total breakdown of additional trips within the morning, afternoon peak hours:
Table 50: Additional Transit Trips by Time of Day
Zone Morning Peak Afternoon Peak 1 8 10 2 8 9 3 9 10 4 9 11 5 2 4 6 3 4 7 2 3 Total 41 51
As Table 50 shows, a maximum buildout from the TOD rezoning is expected to generate an additional 41 transit trips during the inbound morning commute and 51 transit trips during the outbound afternoon peak hour periods. However, these figures are for the entire peak morning (approximately 5:45 AM to 8:15 AM) and afternoon (approximately 5:30 PM to 8:00 PM) time periods, based around New Jersey Transit arrival and departure times at Nanuet. As indicated from the existing conditions analysis, the top 3 inbound morning and outbound afternoon trains out of and into Nanuet account for approximately 74% of peak hour ridership. The remaining 26% is then divided amongst the other morning and afternoon train runs. Based on these ridership observations, the additional transit trips during the inbound morning and outbound afternoon peak hours are assumed to be divided amongst the 3 busiest runs from both time periods, with the remaining 26% allocated to all remaining runs. The corresponding impact to transit use at the Nanuet Train Station is shown in the following table:
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 90
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
Table 51: Impact of Proposed Action to Transit Ridership
2030 Base Daily % of Peak Hour Additional Total Projected Train Boardings Boardings Riders 2030 Boardings (2030 No Build) Inbound Morning 6:21 AM to Hoboken 200 37% 15 215 7:43 AM to Hoboken 119 23% 9 128 7:16 AM to Hoboken 82 15% 6 88 Other 145 26% 11 156 Outbound Afternoon 5:32 PM to Spring Valley 154 42% 21 175 4:39 PM to Spring Valley 74 20% 10 84 6:18 PM to Spring Valley 46 12% 6 52 Other 96 26% 14 110
As Table 51 shows, a maximum buildout from the TOD rezoning is expected to generate 15 additional passengers on the 6:21 AM inbound express train and 21 additional passengers on the 5:32 PM outbound express train, the 2 busiest trains in terms of Nanuet ridership. This equates to 8% and 14% increases respectively. Outside of the 3 busiest inbound morning and outbound afternoon trains, ridership is expected to generate 11 and 14 passengers respectively across remaining peak hour trains.
While the raw numerical and percentage increases in ridership at the Nanuet Train Station are useful, actual train capacity is perhaps most important given that this would determine if Nanuet riders are able to find a seat or are forced to stand. As previously stated, this information is primary relevant for the inbound morning commute. During the outbound commute back to Nanuet, passengers would board in bulk at Hoboken or Secaucus Junction, all of which would likely vie for a seat regardless of which station they are looking to alight at. As such, any major increases or decreases to ridership at stations closer to Hoboken or Secaucus and outside the context of Nanuet, would affect the ability of Nanuet passengers to acquire a seat.
In order to determine the effects on the ability of Nanuet passengers to acquire a seat on the inbound commute towards Hoboken, the aggregate of passengers boarding at Spring Valley (the one stop before Nanuet) and Nanuet, considering 2030 estimates including the maximum buildout, are considered. This information is then coupled with current ridership capacity for each train, based on the capacity of New Jersey Transit’s rail cars, and the number cars provided for each train run. Based on data from Metro‐North Railroads, each rail car has a capacity of 115 passengers. The results are show in the following table:
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 91
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
Table 52: 2030 Projected Train Capacity at Nanuet Train Station
Train 2030 Spring Nanuet Total Spring Valley # of Capacity at Valley Projected 2030 + Nanuet 2030 Cars/Train Nanuet Ridership Boardings Ridership Capacity Station 6:21 AM to Hoboken 21 215 236 4 / 460 51% 7:43 AM to Hoboken 17 128 145 4 / 460 32% 7:16 AM to Hoboken 14 88 102 7 / 805 13%
As Table 52 shows, any projected increases in train ridership from the Nanuet TOD should not impact the ability of a Nanuet passenger to acquire a seat on their trip towards Hoboken. Taking into account those riders already on the train (from Spring Valley) when the train arrives in Nanuet, as well as the passengers boarding at Nanuet, the trains will still have abundant capacity.
Any negative effects from adding additional riders on these trains are likely to be experienced by passengers boarding at stations closer to Hoboken during the morning commute. However, these negative effects on passengers boarding at stations closer to Hoboken are likely to be reduced given that the inbound busiest run between Nanuet and Hoboken (the 6:21 AM inbound train) and third busiest run are express and semi‐express trains. As such, estimates as to the effects on capacity at stations closer to Hoboken are estimated based on the busiest inbound local train (7:43 AM) into Hoboken that stops at Nanuet. With a capacity for 460 passengers and a total of 119 average daily boardings, there is a remaining capacity of 341. Based on Metro‐North Railroad ridership statistics, this inbound run comprises 18% of total daily ridership. For the purposes of this analysis and given the availability of average daily boardings for all Pascack Valley Line Stations, it can be assumed that this particular run comprises 18% of boardings for every station. Based on this methodology, it is estimated that New Jersey Transit would encounter capacity issues beyond the Westwood Train Station, where it is estimated that 483 passengers would be onboard. Similarly on the afternoon peak‐hour commute, capacity issues would be estimated to dissipate beyond the Westwood Train Station for local trains. In terms of Nanuet passengers however, impacts would largely vary based on whether they boarded in Hoboken or Secaucus Junction, and their overall ability to obtain a seat first.
Nanuet Train Station Platform Capacity
Lastly, the effects of the maximum buildout of the TOD rezoning on the Nanuet Train Station platform are considered. The entire Nanuet Train Station has an approximate area of 6,200 square feet. In order to estimate the effects of additional passengers, a methodology developed for Transport for New South Wales was utilized.7 Similar to levels of service for vehicular traffic, the methodology proposes levels of service (translated from square meters to square feet) was assumed. These are provided in Table 53. Based on the square footage LOS in Table 52, a maximum boarding of 236 passengers waiting to board their train (projected 2030
7 http://images.smh.com.au/file/2013/09/23/4770519/trains.pdf
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 92
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
boardings for the 6:21 AM Hoboken‐bound express train), and the size of the extent of the Nanuet Train Station platform, each passenger is expected to have approximately 26 square feet of personal space. This corresponds to LOS A according to the above methodology, allowing for free circulation without the need to physically disturb other passengers. In reality, such figures are expected to be higher given that many passengers are still likely to wait in their cars or within Parking Lot #1. As such, only negligible impacts to the Nanuet Train Station are expected.
Table 53: Estimated LOS for Train Station Platform Capacity
Level of Square Feet Description Service per Passenger A > 13 Standing and free circulation possible without disturbing others. B 10 to 13 Standing and partial circulation possible without disturbing others. C 8 to 10 Standing and restricted circulation possible without disturbing others. D 3 to 8 Standing with very limited circulation possible. E 2 to 3 Almost no movement possible, with direct physical contact with others. F < 2 No movement possible, with direct physical contact with others.
Transport of Rockland Bus Service
For the purposes of this analysis, a transit‐usage rate of 9.2% for commuters in Nanuet, as defined by the U.S. Census, was used to determine transit demand. This is a slightly lower rate than the 15% transit‐usage rate assumed for commuter rail service analyses and defined by ITE. This percentage was chosen since the Nanuet Train Station serves as the primary factor in the citing of the Proposed Action as well as the expanded service area of the commuter rail service compared to the commuter bus service, and because this would be a more accurate reflection of potential bus transit demand as related to the Proposed Action.
Given an expected increase in population of 1,226, it is expected that 113 additional daily passengers could ride either Route 59 or Route 93 on a daily basis. Based on the proportions of ridership on the entire lengths of Route 59 and Route 93, it is assumed that 86% (98 total) of these passengers would use the Route 59 service and 14% (15 total) of these passengers would use the Route 93 service. On an hourly weekday basis, this would translate to approximately 5 passengers per hour for the Route 59 service (based on service operated on weekdays between 6:00 AM and 12:45 AM), and approximately 1 passenger per hour for the Route 93 service (based on service operated on weekdays between 8:00 AM and 11:45 PM).
Impacts on TRIPS paratransit service are estimated based on the proportional increase in population for Nanuet. The expected population increase of 1,226 represents an approximately 7% increase in population. Given a current total of 6,305 annual trips originating from Nanuet (20 daily trips based on six days per week of operations), it is expected that an additional 2 daily passengers would use the TRIPS service.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 93
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
Proposed Mitigation
Analysis of existing capacity at the Nanuet Train Station and ridership along Pascack Valley Line trains shows that the effects to Nanuet passengers is minimal. Any effects as a result of increased passengers from a maximum buildout of the Proposed Action rezoning are expected to be incurred more so by passengers boarding at stations closer to Hoboken where train capacity is already taken up. As such, any actions on the part of New Jersey Transit to add additional train capacity would likely have to consider increases in ridership from other stations as well. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts to the provision of transit service are anticipated as a result of the Proposed Action, and no mitigation measures are anticipated to be required by the Town of Clarkstown.
In terms of Transport of Rockland bus service, the need for mitigation is assessed based on the estimated capacity of the service’s vehicles. On Route 59, the 895,814 annual passengers translates to 17,227 weekly passengers. This weekly figure is then divided by the total number of weekly runs (consisting of 41 weekday daily runs, 29 Saturday runs, and 27 Sunday runs). The resulting total is 8 passengers per run as compared to a total vehicle capacity of 66. This indicates that the service would be able to seamlessly absorb the projected increase of 5 passengers per hour. On Route 93, the 141,298 annual passengers translates to 2,727 weekly passengers. This weekly figure is then divided by the total number of weekly runs (consisting of 16 weekday and Saturday daily runs and 9 Sunday runs). The resulting total of 3 passengers per run is compared to a total vehicle capacity of 54. This indicates that the service would be able to absorb the projected increase of 1 passenger per hour.
Additionally, it is also anticipated that the ADA service would be able to absorb the increase of 2 daily passengers. Any mitigations would come in the need for expanded vehicle capacity or vehicle operators at the further discretion of Transport of Rockland.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 94
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
6.0 Impact to Community Character
Existing Conditions
The Project Study Area consists of 37.11 acres across 72 parcels located within the LIO, MF, RS, and HC zoning districts as described in Chapter 2 of this document. This includes most of the parcels within the Nanuet central business district, and the light industrial parcels along and off of Prospect Street that serve as a buffer between the Nanuet central business district and the single family residential neighborhood to the west further along Prospect Street. At the center of the Project Study Area is the Nanuet Train Station, including an on‐site parking lot (Parking Lot #1). Two additional parking lots are located on the other side of Prospect Street within the light industrial portion of the Project Study Area.
Prospect Street, the primary east‐west artery through the Project Study Area, consists primarily of light industrial uses. To the west of the railroad tracks, Prospect Street consists of 3 light industrial buildings, and the entrances to the Nanuet Train Station Parking Lots #1 and #3. All 3 of the light industrial buildings are vacant with overgrown brush and deteriorating pavement surrounding each building. Currently, the only portion of this part of Prospect Street with sidewalks is along the Nanuet Train Station Parking Lot #1, with painted markings serving as a walkway along the southern portion of Prospect Street in front of two of the vacant light industrial offices. Sidewalks resume outside of the Project Study Area along the southern portion of Prospect Street in the residential area to the west. Fisher Avenue, located off of Prospect Street and adjacent to Parking Lot #3, contains a mix of single family residences, maintained to varying degrees, a smaller occupied light industrial building, and a large contractor yard. Imagery of this section of the Project Study area is shown in Figures 18 and 19. Figure 18: Existing Conditions Northbound Along Fisher Avenue
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 95
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
Figure 19: Existing Conditions Along Westbound Prospect Street
To the east of the railroad tracks, Prospect Street consists of the 1‐story Nanuet Post Office, and a former fire house that is currently listed up for sale (see Figure20). The Nanuet Veterans Memorial, adjacent to the Nanuet Train Station and consisting of a flagpole, monument statue, and small garden, is also located along Prospect Street. Similar to the western portion of Prospect Street, sidewalks are inconsistent, with the only continuous section being in front of the Nanuet Post Office. Prospect Street also contains the rear of the Nanuet central business district buildings and additional parking spaces for those businesses.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 96
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
Figure 20: Existing Conditions Along Eastbound Prospect Street
Main Street is the primary north‐south artery through the Project Study Area and consists of the Nanuet central business district. This portion of the Project Study Area consists of older single‐ and mixed‐use buildings with direct frontage along sidewalks, as well as a few unimproved vacant lots. Buildings range in height from 1‐ to 3‐stories, with the 1‐story buildings consisting exclusively of commercial uses and the 2‐ and 3‐story buildings consisting of mixed uses. A number of sites along the southern portion of Main Street allow for on‐site parking in between the sidewalks and actual buildings. These buildings are aesthetically maintained at varying degrees and include additional parking without any sidewalks or pedestrian amenities. Aesthetic features throughout the central business are primarily in the form of decorative lampposts, with limited landscape present at the discretion of each property owner. There is however significant landscaping in the form of bushes and trees at the northern end of Main Street alongside the Normandy Village Condominiums site. Orchard Street, behind the Nanuet central business district and connecting to Prospect Street adjacent to the train tracks consists of light industrial office buildings. A visual of this portion of the Project Study area is displayed in Figure 21 and 22.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 97
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
Figure 21: Existing Conditions Northbound Along Main Street
Figure 22: Existing Conditions Southbound Along Main Street
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 98
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
Potential Impacts
Impacts to community character are expected to occur when developers undertake construction according to the guidelines within the Proposed Action. Broadly, the results of the Proposed Action are aimed at creating a walkable, mixed‐use neighborhood around the Nanuet Train Station, with landscaping, continuous sidewalks, and other pedestrian amenities.
The Proposed Action consists of 4 new zones. TOD 1 would encompass the extreme western portion of the Project Study Area, including along Fisher Avenue. Specifications for TOD 1 are provided in Chapter 2. Under TOD 1, Fisher Avenue would consist of residential townhouses of 2‐ and 3‐stories, with a maximum height of 35 feet. Sidewalks with trees would line at least one side of Fisher Avenue, along with front and side setbacks of 35 and 10 feet respectively. The purpose of this neighborhood would be to provide a transition between the denser TOD areas to the east, and the single‐family residential neighborhood to the west. The following figures provide an example and a rendering of the type of development that would be expected to occur in this portion of the Project Study Area:
Figure 23: Local Example of TOD 1 Architectural Design
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 99
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
Figure 24: Rendering Perspective Northbound Along Fisher Avenue
TOD 2 would encompass the remaining portion of the Project Study Area to the west of the train tracks, including much of Prospect Street. Specifications for TOD 2 are provided in Chapter 2. Under TOD 2, Prospect Street would consist of attached mixed‐use buildings of up to 4 stories, with a maximum height of 45 feet. Sidewalks with trees would line both sides of Prospect Street, with smaller front setbacks of 5 feet creating for the feeling of a modern urban neighborhood. Pedestrians and drivers along Prospect Street would primarily visualize a combination of landscaping and mostly residential units of each buildings. Since 10% of the ground floor is allowed for commercial uses, businesses such as small shops or cafes would also be visible, particularly along the corners of each building. A rendered perspective of the Proposed Action in TOD 2 is displayed in the following figure:
Figure 25: Rendering Perspective of Westbound Along Prospect Street
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 100
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
TOD 3 would encompass the area of the Project Study Area to the east of the train tracks and up to, but not including the Nanuet central business district. Specifications for TOD 3 are provided in Chapter 2. Under TOD 3, new streets would be developed to form a continuous grid similar to that created by Orchard Street connecting Main Street and Prospect Street. Each street, including Prospect Street, would consist of attached mixed‐use buildings of up to 4 stories, with a maximum height of 45 feet. Sidewalks with trees and other landscaping would line both sides of each street, with smaller front setbacks of 5 feet creating for the feeling of a modern urban neighborhood. Pedestrians and drivers along Prospect Street would visualize a combination of landscaping and commercial space given the allowance of commercial space on the entire ground floor of each building. The Nanuet Veterans Memorial would remain intact within the same location, with new developments aesthetically accommodating it. A rendered perspective of the Proposed Action in TOD 3 is displayed in the following figure:
Figure 26: Rendering Perspective Eastbound Along Prospect Street
The zoning requirements within the Proposed Action are also intended to address street canopy effects. Under TOD 2 and TOD 3, which call for smaller front setbacks, the 4th floors are to be setback at least an additional 10 feet (15 feet from the actual lot line). From the perspective of a pedestrian or driver along each street, this would create the effect of each building appearing to be 1 story shorter than how it is in actuality as these top floors would not be visible from the street level.
The following figure illustrates an example of the architectural design for TOD 2 and 3.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 101
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
Figure 27: Local Example of TOD 2 and 3 Architectural Design
HC‐N would encompass Main Street and the easternmost portions of the Project Study Area, including those areas comprising the Nanuet central business district. Specifications for HC‐N are provided in Chapter 2. Under HC‐N, this portion of the Project Study Area would maintain most of its existing regulations with the primary difference being an increase in allowable building height from 28 feet to 35 feet and increased residential density from 8 to 16 units per acre. Upgrades to sidewalks and landscaping would be included when developers undertake improvements to one or more property. As such, under a full buildout of the Proposed Action, the Nanuet central business district would aesthetically look similar to the TOD 3 area, with pedestrians and drivers visualizing a combination of landscaping and commercial businesses, with residences above.
The following figures provide an example and renderings of the type of development that would be expected to occur in the HC‐N district:
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 102
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
Figure 28: Local Example of HC‐N Architectural Design
Figure 29: Rendering Perspective Northbound Along Prospect Street
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 103
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
Figure 30: Rendering Perspective Southbound Along Prospect Street
Proposed Mitigation
Zoning specifications included in the Proposed Action already consider and include mitigations for impacts to community character. This includes considerations for pedestrian amenities, landscaping, and vertical setbacks to reduce canopy effects. Furthermore, the current community character, especially around the Nanuet Train Station is considered to be negative, given a lack of economically productive uses, a lack of pedestrian amenities, and a lack of aesthetically pleasing visuals. Therefore no additional mitigations are proposed.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 104
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
7.0 Alternatives
7.1 No Action Alternative
Under the ‘No Action’ alternative, current zoning within the Project Study Area would remain the same. The 72 parcels comprising the 37 acres within the Project Study Area consist primarily of LIO, MF‐1, and HC. Assuming no changes to the specifications of these zones, an assessment of future uses and overall neighborhood character for the Project Study Area is as follows.
Within the area to be zoned as TOD 1, LIO uses are permitted. As per the Town of Clarkstown municipal code, uses allowed within LIO include industrial land uses with related showrooms and offices, research & development test laboratories, schools for industrial or business training, professional administrative, governmental or business offices, warehouses and wholesale distribution centers, public utility substations, automotive car dealerships, newspaper printing facilities, tennis clubs, health clubs, carnivals, circuses, automotive and machinery repair shops, social halls, family recreation centers, and mini warehouses. It should be noted that a small number of single family residences also exist in this portion of the Project Study Area. Based on local and regional market trends, it is expected that future uses would consist of contractor supply yards and small offices, in addition to those existing single family residences. Within supply yards and facilities, area contractors would store equipment and materials for ongoing and planned projects. Such uses may also involve the presence of small‐ to‐medium size trucks to load and unload equipment and materials during the daytime weekday and weekend hours.
Within the area to be zoned as TOD 2, LIO and MF‐1 uses are permitted. As per the Town of Clarkstown municipal code, uses allowed within LIO include industrial land uses with related showrooms and offices, research & development test laboratories, schools for industrial or business training, professional administrative, governmental or business offices, warehouses and wholesale distribution centers, public utility substations, automotive car dealerships, newspaper printing facilities, tennis clubs, health clubs, carnivals, circuses, automotive and machinery repair shops, social halls, family recreation centers, and mini warehouses. Uses allowed within MF‐1 include dense, attached housing developments. It should be noted that there is no residential development existing currently within this portion of the Project Study Area. Rather, the site zoned for MF‐1 consists of light industrial buildings and parking lots. Additionally, this portion of the Project Study Area contains the Nanuet Train Station, Town of Clarkstown commuter parking lot, and Rockland County commuter parking lot. It is expected that the Nanuet Train Station and commuter parking lots would remain ‘as is’. The remaining area zoned for LIO would likely consist of contractor supply yards and small offices. Under such uses, area contractors would store equipment and materials for ongoing and planned projects. Such uses may also involve the presence of small‐to‐medium size trucks to load and unload equipment and materials during the daytime weekday and weekend hours. The remaining areas zoned for MF‐1 could continue to remain vacant, or become parking for a contractor supply yard or facility. Given the presence of the Rockland County commuter taking up a large
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 105
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
portion of the MF‐1, it is unlikely that any residential development would occur in this portion of the Project Study area within the foreseeable future.
Within the area to be zoned as TOD 3, LIO and HC uses are permitted. As per the Town of Clarkstown municipal code, uses allowed within LIO include industrial land uses with related showrooms and offices, research & development test laboratories, schools for industrial or business training, professional administrative, governmental or business offices, warehouses and wholesale distribution centers, public utility substations, automotive car dealerships, newspaper printing facilities, tennis clubs, health clubs, carnivals, circuses, automotive and machinery repair shops, social halls, family recreation centers, and mini warehouses. Uses allowed within HC include mixed use residential, with commercial uses including agencies, banks, laundromats, funeral homes, hotels, bed & breakfasts, maintenance and repair shops, personal care, pet grooming, professional offices, veterinary services, bars, taverns, landscaping and gardening shops, and restaurants. Auditoriums, parks, cultural centers, schools, utility stations, and parking are also permitted. It should be noted that this portion of the Project Study Area contains the Metro‐North Railroad commuter parking lot and the Nanuet Post Office. It is expected that the commuter parking lot and Nanuet Post Office would remain ‘as is’. The remaining area is zoned for HC and would likely continue to consist of light industrial lots or contractor supply yards and small offices. Under such uses, area contractors would store equipment and materials for ongoing and planned projects. Such uses may also involve the presence of small‐to‐medium size trucks to load and unload equipment and materials during the daytime weekday and weekend hours. Given that most businesses comprising HC are located along Main Street, it is unlikely that new retail businesses would be established along Orchard Street or Prospect Street within this portion of the Project Study Area.
Within the area to be zoned as HC‐N, HC uses are primarily permitted. As per the Town of Clarkstown municipal code, uses allowed within HC include mixed use residential, with commercial uses including agencies, banks, laundromats, funeral homes, hotels, bed & breakfasts, maintenance and repair shops, personal care, pet grooming, professional offices, veterinary services, bars, taverns, landscaping and gardening shops, and restaurants. Auditoriums, parks, cultural centers, schools, utility stations, and parking are also permitted. It is expected that this portion of the Project Study Area would remain ‘as is’. Developers and property owners would be permitted to construct mixed‐use residential and commercial buildings up to 28 feet in height. As such, this portion of the Project Study area would continue to function as a downtown‐style central business district. Given the proximity to larger commercial and regional shopping centers including the Shops at Nanuet however, this portion of the Project Study Area would continue to struggle to attract and retain businesses.
7.2 Expansion of Proposed New Zoning to Include Nanuet Mall South Property
Under an expanded adoption of the Proposed Action, the Town of Clarkstown would consider expanding the rezoning to include 400‐460 Nanuet Mall South. The parcel, consisting of 266,874 square feet, is currently occupied by The Shoppes at Market Street shopping center,
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 106
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement adjacent to the Shops at Nanuet. Through this alternative, this set of parcels would be rezoned to TOD 3, to match the set of parcels directly to the south.
Estimations as to the impacts of this additional rezoning on community services, infrastructure, transportation, and community character are proportionally estimated based on buildout specifications for the square footage of TOD 3. Based on buildout specifications, this parcel is expected to add 306 units. Given the average household proportion of 1,226 residents projected to be added from 759 units (a proportion of 1.66), an additional 508 residents would be added to the Nanuet TOD. The number of additional residents in the Nanuet TOD would become 1,734, indicating a 9.4% increase in population, as opposed to 6.7% for the Hamlet of Nanuet. For the entire Town of Clarkstown, this would equate to a 2% increase in total population.
Based on this addition of 508 residents, the potential impacts are as follows:
Community Services
Town of Clarkstown Police Department
The additional increase in population is expected to decrease the proportion of police officers to Town of Clarkstown residents from 1:565 under the original Proposed Action to 1:568, a decrease of less than 1%. This would increase the amount of police officers required to bring the Town of Clarkstown within ULI accepted standards for police officers to residents from 18 to 20 when compared to the Proposed Action. Even with this increase, the additional change in population is still likely to be accommodated by the Town of Clarkstown Police Department. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts to the Town of Clarkstown Police Department are anticipated.
Nanuet Fire Department
The additional increase in population is also expected to increase the number of calls to the Nanuet Fire Department from 661 under the original Proposed Action (an increase of 41 calls proportionally based on the population increase) to 678. Given that the TOD 3 specifications would be applied to the rezoning expansion, all development would occur within the Town of Clarkstown’s height limit of 4 stories.
The additional increase in population is expected to decrease the proportion of fire department personnel to Nanuet residents from 1:239 under the original Proposed Action to 1:245, a decrease of under 3%. Even with this increase, Nanuet is well within those standards set forth by ULI for fire department personnel to Nanuet residents. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts to the Nanuet Fire Department are anticipated.
Nanuet Emergency Medical Services/Nanuet Community Ambulance Corporation
The additional increase in population is expected to increase the number of calls to Nanuet EMS from 2,984 under the original Proposed Action (an increase of 187 calls proportionally
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 107
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
based on the population increase) to 3,060 which accounts to an additional annual increase of 76. On a daily basis, this still accounts to less than 1 call per day on average.
The additional increase in population is also expected to decrease the proportion of Nanuet EMS personnel to service area residents from 1:9,315 under the original Proposed Action to 1:9,365, a decrease of under 1%. As such, the amount of additional Nanuet EMS personnel required to bring the Nanuet EMS service area to within ULI standards would remain at 2. As a result, the adoption of the TOD Zoning is not anticipated to have a significant adverse impact on the provision of emergency medical services. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts to the provision of emergency medical services in Nanuet.
Schools: Nanuet Union Free School District
The Alternative Action would increase student enrollment by 36 to 87 additional students to the Nanuet Union Free School District. Along with the 52 to 127 students attributed to the Proposed Action that was calculated previously; a total of range of 88 to 214 additional pupils may be added to student enrollment as a result.
Utilizing the NUFSD’s 2016‐2017 assessment of District costs of $28,240 per student, the Alternative Action could be attributed to an additional $2,485,120.00 ‐ $6,043,360.00 in costs for District student spending, and generate a total student enrollment of 1,948 to 2,074 for the 2026‐27 school year. When compared to current enrollment (2,189 pupils), the addition of the Alternative Action would still generate a net decrease in student enrollment by 12 to 6 percent. As a result, the proposed Alternative Action is not anticipated to have a significant adverse impact on the Nanuet Union Free School District.
Solid Waste
The additional increase in population is expected to generate an additional 467 tons of solid waste annually, on top of the 1,128 tons under the Proposed Action. Even with this additional increase in tonnage, it is expected that the Clarkstown Transfer Station and Hillburn MRF would have sufficient capacity available.
Infrastructure
Drainage/Flooding (Stormwater)
Under existing conditions, the Nanuet Mall South property consists of 100% impervious surface. Under the expanded adoption of the Proposed Action, the property would have a minimum of 15% greenspace, indicating a total of 85% impervious surface. Correspondingly, this would indicate a decrease of 15% in stormwater volume on the site.
Waste/Wastewater (Sanitary Sewer)
In order to determine the impacts to wastewater, the approximate daily domestic water demand rates from Chapter 4 are assumed. Those rates are 110 GPD/unit for studios and 1‐
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 108
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
bedroom units, 220 GPD/unit for 2‐bedroom units, and 0.1 GPD/SF for commercial space. For the residential portion of the expanded Proposed Action, 213 of the 245 allowed units would be 1‐bedroom/studio units. The remaining 32 units would be 2‐bedroom units. Commercial space would account for 213,499 square feet. As such, the residential components would generate 30,470 GPD of daily demand and the commercial components would generate 21,350 GPD of daily demand. This equates to a total daily demand of 51,820 GPD (0.05182 MGD). This additional MGD would still be less than the available capacity at the RCSD1 treatment plant of 28.9 MGD. As such, the additional increase in residential units and commercial space will not have any adverse impact to the RCSD1 wastewater treatment plant.
Transportation
Vehicular Traffic
The TIS conducted for the Alternative Action was not conducted to the level of detail offered previously for the Proposed Action. As such, impacts to vehicular traffic are estimated based on the residential and commercial square footage of the TOD 3 development to be allowed on the Nanuet Mall South Property. Because the new development would replace the existing Nanuet Mall South commercial development, the existing commercial square footage (71,920 square feet) was subtracted from the proposed commercial square footage. As such, the expanded adoption of the Proposed Action would yield 506 units (361,950 residential square feet) and 194,954 net square feet of commercial space (556,904 total square feet). This compares to 952,975 residential and commercial 412,777 square feet (1,365,752 total square feet) of development within the original Proposed Action. Holistically the Alternative Action would increase total square footage by 41%.
Using the TOD 3 trip generation rates, build‐out of the expanded adoption of the Proposed Action is expected to generate 1,133 weekday daily trips, consisting of 313 AM and 820 PM trips. For the lettered trip distribution zones, Table 54 below provides the breakdown of trips throughout Nanuet as depicted on Figure 12.
Table 54: Alternative Action TOD Trip Distribution
Destination
A B C1 C2 C3 D E Total
1% 6% 37% 17% 30% 7% 2% 100%
Based on the Alternative Action TOD trip distribution and an assumed 41% increase in vehicular traffic dispersed throughout each of the lettered zones, the following impacts are assumed for each of the five intersections from Chapter 5 and based on analyzed AM and PM peak time periods.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 109
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
Route 59 and Middletown Road
The Route 59 and Middletown Road intersection corresponds to trip distribution zones C1, C2, and C3. Accordingly, 84% (distributed across C1, C2, and C3) of the additional traffic (41%) will transverse the Route 59 and Middletown Road intersection. As such, the following increases in morning peak hour traffic are expected:
Route 59 East to South Middletown Road: Increase from 83 vehicles to 96 vehicles.
South Middletown Road to Route 59 West: Increase from 82 vehicles to 95 vehicles.
Northbound on Middletown Road across Route 59: Increase from 40 vehicles to 43 vehicles.
South Middletown Road to Route 59 East: Increase from 75 vehicles to 84 vehicles.
Route 59 West to South Middletown Road: Increase from 64 vehicles to 72 vehicles.
Southbound on Middletown Road across Route 59: Increase from 41 vehicles to 44 vehicles.
The following increases in afternoon peak hour traffic are expected:
Route 59 East to South Middletown Road: Increase from 220 vehicles to 255 vehicles.
South Middletown Road to Route 59 West: Increase from 228 vehicles to 264 vehicles.
Northbound on Middletown Road across Route 59: Increase from 111 vehicles to 119 vehicles.
South Middletown Road to Route 59 East: Increase from 184 vehicles to 206 vehicles.
Route 59 West to South Middletown Road: Increase from 160 vehicles to 179 vehicles.
Southbound on Middletown Road across Route 59: Increase from 106 vehicles to 113 vehicles.
Prospect Street and Main Street
The Prospect Street and Main Street intersection would be utilized to access trip distribution zones A, D, and E. Accordingly, 10% (distributed across A, D, and E) of the additional traffic (41%) will transverse the Prospect Street @ Main Street intersection. As such, the following increases in morning peak hour traffic are expected:
Main Street Northbound across Prospect Street: Increase from 80 vehicles to 83 vehicles.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 110
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
Main Street Southbound across Prospect Street: Increase from 78 vehicles to 81 vehicles.
The following increases in afternoon peak hour traffic are expected:
Main Street Northbound across Prospect Street: Increase from 211 vehicles to 219 vehicles.
Main Street Southbound across Prospect Street: Increase from 206 vehicles to 214 vehicles.
Orchard Street and Main Street
The Orchard Street and Main Street intersection would be utilized to access trip distribution zones D and E. Accordingly, 9% (distributed across D and E) of the additional traffic (41%) will transverse the Orchard Street @ Main Street intersection. As such, the following increases in morning peak hour traffic are expected:
Main Street Northbound across Prospect Street: Increase from 74 vehicles to 77 vehicles.
Main Street Southbound across Prospect Street: Increase from 79 vehicles to 82 vehicles.
The following increases in afternoon peak hour traffic are expected:
Main Street Northbound across Prospect Street: Increase from 194 vehicles to 202 vehicles.
Main Street Southbound across Prospect Street: Increase from 189 vehicles to 197 vehicles.
Church Street and Main Street/Old Middletown Road
The Church Street and Main Street intersection would be utilized to access trip distribution zones D and E. Accordingly, 9% (distributed across D and E) of the additional traffic (41%) will transverse the Church Street and Main Street intersection. As such, the following increases in morning peak hour traffic are expected:
Negligible increases in traffic are expected during the morning peak hour given the low proportion of vehicles projected to access zones D and E and minimal impacts from the original Proposed Action.
The following increases in afternoon peak hour traffic are expected:
Main Street Northbound across Church Street: Increase from 28 vehicles to 29 vehicles.
Church Street to Main Street Northbound: Increase from 85 vehicles to 86 vehicles.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 111
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
Main Street Southbound to Church Street: Increase from 87 vehicles to 88 vehicles.
Main Street Southbound across Church Street: Increase from 31 vehicles to 32 vehicles.
South Middletown Road/Main Street and 1st Street/Market Street
It is assumed that the South Middletown Road and 1st Street/Nanuet Mall intersection would incur the full 41% increase in peak traffic conditions given that this would likely be the primary exit for the development. Given that the existing TIS does not take into account the Alternative Action however, those existing figures for this particular intersection would underestimate increases in traffic, even with the 41% increase. As a result, these figures are instead estimated based on the numerical increases in vehicles analyzed throughout the adjacent Middletown Road and Route 59 and Prospect Street and Main Street intersections. Alternatively stated, the total increase in vehicular traffic at these intersections would indicate how much additional traffic is generated from this particular intersection. As such, the following increases in morning peak hour traffic are expected:
Market Street to Middletown Road: Increase from 1 vehicle to 36 vehicles (based on a total of 35 additional vehicles heading along Middletown Road towards the Route 59 intersection).
Market Street to Main Street: Increase from 5 vehicles to 8 vehicles (based on a total of 3 additional vehicles heading along Main Street towards the intersection with Prospect Street).
Main Street to Market Street: Increase from 8 vehicles to 11 vehicles (based on a total of 3 additional vehicles heading along Main Street from the intersection with Prospect Street).
Middletown Road to Market Street: Increase from 1 vehicle to 25 vehicles (based on a total of 24 additional vehicles heading along Middletown Road from the Route 59 intersection).
The following increases in afternoon peak hour traffic are expected:
Market Street to Middletown Road: Increase from 2 vehicles to 68 vehicles (based on a total of 66 additional vehicles heading along Middletown Road towards the Route 59 intersection).
Market Street to Main Street: Increase from 12 vehicles to 20 vehicles (based on a total of 8 additional vehicles heading along Main Street towards the intersection with Prospect Street). Main Street to Market Street: Increase from 12 vehicles to 20 vehicles (based on a total of 8 additional vehicles heading along Main Street from the intersection with Prospect Street).
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 112
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
Middletown Road to Market Street: Increase from 2 vehicles to 63 (based on a total of 61 additional vehicles heading along Middletown Road from the Route 59 intersection).
Next the impacts to the LOS of each intersection as a result of the expanded adoption of the Proposed Action was studied. Given that a Synchro‐based simulation was not conducted with the inclusion of the Alternative Action, impacts to LOS were proportionally estimated based on the changes to LOS between the no‐build and Proposed Action scenarios. For the purposes of this LOS analysis, Scenario 2 in which a new roadway grid is constructed throughout the Project Study Area, is assumed. In addition, this LOS analysis considers impacts to those lanes and intersections that would be impacted by the development of the Alternative Action. Similar to the above analysis of increased vehicular traffic, this LOS analysis broadly considers a 41% increase in traffic distributed throughout the different zones. Based on the distribution across each zone (A‐E), the 41% increase in traffic is considered as a 41% increase in delay in units of seconds.
The Alternative Action’s effects on the AM peak hour are shown in Table 55. It is expected that a total of 6 lane groups are expected to significantly decline, as defined by a drop in LOS letter designation. While this includes the thru and right‐turn lane along Route 59 east across Middletown Road, most of the declines are expected to occur at the Main Street and Market Street intersection. This is expected given that the Alternative Action is proposed for the Nanuet Mall South property right off of Market Street. The most significant declines are expected for the Main Street northbound and southbound lane groups through the Market Street intersection which are expected to decline from LOS A to LOS C. Lastly, the Church Street and Main Street lane group is expected to decline from LOS B to LOS C.
The Alternative Action’s effects on the PM peak hour are shown in Table 56. A total of 12 lane groups are expected to be negatively impacted, as defined by a drop in LOS letter designation. The most significant declines are anticipated for the Main Street northbound and southbound lane groups through the Market Street intersection which are expected to decline from LOS B to LOS E, and LOS A to LOS F respectively. Of the 12 projected declines in LOS, 6 are expected to decline to LOS F, including the Church Street and Main Street intersection. Given this significant increase in delays, not limited to Route 59, additional remediation in the form of signal and intersection redesigns along Main Street and Middletown Road are recommended. In this case, the Main Street and Market Street intersection would be considered a priority since the current traffic signal and intersection do not yet account for additional on‐site commercial and residential development.
Lastly, is anticipated that each development application will require a site plan review by the Town of Clarkstown, which will include an evaluation of existing roadway capacity. As such, any proposed development would need to conduct a traffic impact study and mitigate specific negative impacts.
The following increases in LOS are expected for the morning peak hour:
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 113
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
Table 55: Comparison to AM LOS for Alternative Action
Delay with Delay with LOS with Lane Proposed Alternative Alternative Group Action (Sec) LOS Action (Sec) Action Route 59 Eastbound and TR 34.2 C 39.5 D Middletown Road Route 59 Westbound and L 49.6 D 54.3 D Middletown Road Middeltown Road L 61.6 E 71.3 E Northbound and Route 59 Middeltown Road T 49.3 D 52.4 D Northbound and Route 59 Middeltown Road R 22.29 C 26.3 C Northbound and Route 59 Middletown Road TR 45.3 D 49.0 D Southbound and Route 59 Market Street Eastbound L 28.6 C 45.5 D and Middletown Road Market Street Eastbound T 43 D 43.0 D and Middletown Road Market Street Eastbound R 29.6 C 35.6 D and Middletown Road Market Street Westbound TR 47.9 D 47.9 D and Middletown Road Main Street Northbound L 8.1 A 20.8 C and Market Street Main Street Southbound R 6.9 A 20.7 C and Market Street Prospect Street Eastbound L 50.8 D 50.8 D and Main Street Main Street Northbound LT 12.6 B 15.3 B and Prospect Street Main Street Southbound TR 11.2 B 17.2 B and Prospect Street Church Street and Main LTR 15.6 B 24.6 C Street Main Street Northbound T 14.9 B 15.9 B and Church Street Main Street Southboud and T 9.7 A 9.7 A Church Street Main Street Southbound L 9.4 A 9.4 A and Church Street Notes: L = Left Turn, T = Through, R = Right Turn, LOS = Level of Service ………… Indicates notable deterioration in operating conditions
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 114
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
The following increases in LOS are expected for the morning peak hour:
Table 56: Changes to PM LOS for Alternative Action
Lane Delay with LOS Delay with LOS with Group Proposed Alternative Alternative Action (Sec) Action (Sec) Action Route 59 Eastbound and TR 65.1 E 96.7 F Middletown Road Route 59 Westbound and L 65.4 E 84.3 F Middletown Road Middeltown Road Northbound L 105.9 F 165.3 F and Route 59 Middeltown Road Northbound T 59.4 E 72.7 E and Route 59 Middeltown Road Northbound R 27.2 C 38.5 D and Route 59 Middletown Road Southbound TR 77.6 E 102.9 F and Route 59 Market Street Eastbound and L 28.6 C 112.6 F Middletown Road Market Street Eastbound and T 35.5 D 35.5 D Middletown Road Market Street Eastbound and R 25.1 C 37.8 D Middletown Road Market Street Westbound and TR 65.2 E 65.7 E Middletown Road Main Street Northbound and L 15.6 B 67.7 E Market Street Main Street Southbound and R 9.3 A 85.0 F Market Street Prospect Street Eastbound and L 44.5 D 44.5 D Main Street Main Street Northbound and LT 24.8 C 43.6 D Prospect Street Main Street Southbound and TR 17 B 29.7 C Prospect Street Church Street and Main Street LTR 56.6 E 88.9 F Main Street Northbound and T 18.3 B 20.7 C Church Street Main Street Southboud and T 14.3 B 14.3 B Church Street Main Street Southbound and L 13.1 B 13.1 B Church Street Notes: L = Left Turn, T = Through, R = Right Turn, LOS = Level of Service ………… Indicates notable deterioration in operating conditions
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 115
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
Nanuet Train Station – Parking
The additional increase in commercial and residential development under expanded adoption of the Proposed Action would increase total average peak period parking demand from 1,449 under the original Proposed Action, to 2,119 based on the methodology used in Chapter 5. However, as with the original Proposed Action, there would be parking for each residential unit. In addition, developers and businesses would be required to provide on‐street parking in order to address commercial parking needs.
Bicyclists & Pedestrians
Transit‐generated pedestrians assume a 41% in total traffic. As such, the Alternative Action is expected to generate 488 peak daily trips, of which 73 will consist of pedestrian trips. Given the location of the Alternative Action, 100% of these trips would involve crossing Prospect Street. Since a Synchro simulation of trip generation for the Alternative Action was not conducted, the breakdown of morning and afternoon peak trips is assumed to be the same as the total breakdown for the original Proposed Action of 45% morning trips and 55% afternoon trips. Based on this proportion, 33 morning pedestrian trips and 40 afternoon pedestrian trips would be generated. Assuming the hourly breakdown of trips, the following increases in morning and afternoon peak hours are expected:
Table 57: Alternative Action Additional Prospect Street Pedestrians by Peak Hour
Additional Morning Pedestrians by Hour 5:30 AM ‐ 6:30 AM 12 6:30 AM ‐ 7:30 AM 12 7:30 AM ‐ 8:30 AM 9 Additional Afternoon Pedestrians by Hour 4:30 PM ‐ 5:30 PM 8 5:30 PM ‐ 6:30 PM 20 6:30 PM ‐ 7:30 PM 12
The additional Prospect Street pedestrian figures translates to a peak morning 15‐minute factor of 3 additional pedestrians and a peak afternoon 15‐minute factor of 5 additional pedestrians. This translates to an estimated total of 62 peak 15‐minute morning pedestrians and 137 peak 15‐ minute afternoon pedestrians in 2030 based on the methodology in Chapter 5.
As for non‐transit‐generated pedestrian trips, the additional increase of 306 units is also expected to generate an additional 12 daily non‐transit pedestrian trips, given the assumption of 4 daily pedestrian trips per 100 dwelling units.
The additional increase of 306 units is expected to generate 2 additional bicycle trips, on top of the 4 bicycle trips expected to be generated under the Proposed Action.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 116
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
Public Transportation
Impacts as a result of the Alternative Action are estimated for both commuter rail and Transport of Rockland bus service. The increase in commuter rail ridership is assumed to be 15% of the 41% increase in vehicular traffic. This corresponds to 73 peak transit trips which are distributed on Metro‐North Railroad. As such, the additional riders per peak hour train and corresponding impacts to total boardings is provided in the following table:
Table 58: Impact of Alternative Action to Metro‐North Ridership
Train Total Projected 2030 % of Peak Additional Total Projected Boardings with Hour Riders 2030 Boardings Alternative Action Boardings Inbound Morning 6:21 AM to Hoboken 215 37% 27 242 7:43 AM to Hoboken 128 23% 17 145 7:16 AM to Hoboken 88 15% 11 99 Other 156 26% 18 174 Outbound Afternoon 5:32 PM to Spring Valley 176 42% 31 207 4:39 PM to Spring Valley 84 20% 15 99 6:18 PM to Spring Valley 52 12% 9 61 Other 110 26% 18 128
Given these figures for inbound morning train capacity, it is expected that there is sufficient capacity to absorb those extra passengers from the Alternative Action. Capacity issues would still however arise beyond the Westwood along the Pascack Valley Line. During the afternoon outbound commute, the ability of Nanuet passengers to receive a seat on a peak hour train would still vary based on factors such as the number of passengers travelling to and from other train lines, including based on those who transfer at Secaucus Junction.
The additional increase in population is expected to generate an additional 46 passengers to Route 59 and Route 93 on a daily basis. It is assumed that 40 of these passengers would use Route 59 and 6 would use Route 93. On an hourly basis, this would translate to approximately 2 passengers per hour for the Route 59 service (based on service operated on weekdays between 6:00 AM and 12:45 AM), and approximately 1 passenger every 2 hours for the Route 93 service (based on service operated on weekdays between 8:00 AM and 11:45 PM). The additional increase in population would also result in an additional approximately less than 1 passenger on TRIPS service on a daily basis. It is expected that both Transport of Rockland and TRIPS would be able to absorb this additional projected ridership given sufficient capacity.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 117
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
Community Character
The site of the proposed rezoning expansion currently contains a strip mall, and parking with limited landscaping or visually appealing features. Under realization of the proposed zoning, the site would be subjected to those standards associated with TOD‐3. Under a full buildout, the site would consist of attached mixed‐use buildings of up to 4 stories, with a maximum height of 45 feet, including setbacks of 15 feet from the property line for the final story. From the perspective of drivers and pedestrians, this would create the perspective that each building is actually 3 stories tall. At the street level, pedestrians and drivers would visualize a combination of landscaping and commercial space.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 118
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
8.0 Other Impacts
8.1 Growth Inducing Impacts
As indicated in this analysis, a full buildout of the Proposed Action is expected to add 1,226 new residents. The buildout would add 1,734 new residents if the alternative action of expanding the zoning to include the Nanuet Mall South property is considered. The full buildout is also expected to add 412,777 square feet of commercial space, or 679,651 square feet of commercial space if the alternative action of expanding the zoning to include the Nanuet Mall South property is considered. It is expected that the increase in population would create a long‐ term demand for goods and services. In addition, the increase in commercial space would be expected to generate activity from other nearby municipalities and neighborhoods as well, given the positive effects of clustering businesses.
New residents within the Nanuet TOD would utilize both new and existing retail, personal service, and other commercial uses located within the vicinity. The Nanuet central business district, which currently struggles to be a vibrant neighborhood, would greatly be enhanced by adjacent and on‐site development. A considerable portion of the expected spending would benefit those local businesses including supermarkets, convenience stores, eateries, convenience stores, gas stations, and beauty salons, as well as additional on‐site businesses that would locate to the TOD.
Construction of the Nanuet TOD would create a short‐term increase in construction jobs and business. It is anticipated that a sizable percentage of the construction workers would come from Rockland County and other nearby counties. Those workers would have a positive impact on the local economy by utilizing businesses in the vicinity for food service, convenience products, and gasoline.
8.2 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Buildout of the Proposed Action is expected to generate some adverse impacts that cannot be avoided regardless of the mitigation measures previously proposed. These impacts are broken out into short‐term and long‐term.
Short‐Term Impacts
Short‐term effects are expected to include the following:
The presence of construction and delivery vehicles on site and on the surrounding roads as a result of site work and building construction activities.
The localized increase in noise levels due to operation of construction vehicles and construction activities.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 119
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
Long‐Term Impacts
Long‐term effects are expected to include the following:
The overall increase in impervious surface throughout the Project Study area is expected to increase by 17% which may lead to nominal increases in urban heat island effects in the area.
Adoption of the Proposed Action may spur demand for similar projects elsewhere throughout Clarkstown and Rockland County on the part of developers, which would potentially further impact community and environmental resources.
The projected increase in residential population and commercial square footage will inevitably result in increased energy, resource, and service consumption in the Project Study Area.
8.3 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources
The man‐made resources that will be consumed and made unavailable for future use includes but is not limited to the following materials:
Lumber and wood paneling
Soils for fill
Concrete
Masonry block
Steel and Iron
Asphalt
Glass
Insulation Materials
Gypsum board
Electrical supplies
Plumbing supplies
HVAC supplies
Telecommunication supplies
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 120
Nanuet TOD Zoning Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
Flooring
Stucco and Siding
Brick and Mortar
Paint products
The use of construction equipment will additionally result in the consumption of fossil fuels and energy sources. Under buildout of the Proposed Action, residences and commercial businesses will utilize fossil fuels and energy to provide cooling, heat, lighting and other needs.
8.4 Impacts on the Use and Conservation of Energy
It is expected that buildout of the Proposed Action would contribute to the consumption of energy. While the Proposed Action would result in greater total energy use for the Project Study Area when compared to existing conditions, this energy use would be more efficient. This would be the case for a number of reasons:
Dense, multi‐family apartments in transit‐friendly neighborhoods can be up to 64% more energy efficient than conventional automobile‐oriented residences.8
Development of residences and businesses around the Nanuet Train Station will encourage use of commuter rail service, as opposed to automobiles. Overall, the denser make‐up of development will be more conducive to transit use.
Development with the inclusion of connected sidewalks and potentially including bicycle amenities will discourage use of automobiles for short trips, especially given the setting of the Project Study Area adjacent to the Nanuet central business district and the Shops at Nanuet.
Development occurring within the Project Study Area will utilize significantly more energy efficient materials compared to existing conditions.
Development of mixed commercial and residential uses will create a more compact community, reducing the need to access goods and services at other locations.
As development of the Proposed Action commences and progresses, it is expected that the beneficial impacts on the use and conservation of energy would continue to grow. Each of these outlined benefits is also expected to be permanent once residences and businesses relocate to the TOD.
8 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=11731
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 121