FINAL DESIGN REPORT / ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

March 2017

P.I.N. 8823.48 Lower Hudson Transit Link Project

in Rockland and Westchester Counties

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

For

PIN 8823.48 Lower Hudson Transit Link Project Rockland and Westchester Counties

BY

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

And

NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Submitted pursuant to 42 USC 4332(2)(c). This assessment was prepared in consultation with FHWA and has been reviewed for scope and content and is released for comment.

/ I 13/l~L Da?e Deputy Chief Engineer ·

.. ~ I Date District Engine Federal Highway Administration

ii

The following table of approximate conversion factors provides the relationship between metric and US Customary units for some of the more frequently used units in highway design. The table allows one to compute the US Customary Unit by multiplying the corresponding Metric Unit by the given factor.

Metric Unit x Factor = U.S. Customary Unit Length kilometer (km) x 0.621 = miles (mi)

meter (m) x 3.281 = feet (ft.) Area hectare (ha) x 2.471 = acres (a) square meter (m2) x 1.196 = square yards (sy) square meter (m2) x 10.764 = square feet (sf) Volume cubic meter (m3) x 1.308 = cubic yards (cy) cubic meter (m3) x 35.315 = cubic feet (cf) Speed kilometer per hour (km/h) x 0.621 = miles per hour (mph) meter per second (m/s) x 3.281 = feet per second (ft/s)

iii

PROJECT APPROVAL SHEET (Pursuant to SAFETEA-LU Matrix) A. IPP Approval: The project is ready to be added to the Regional Capital Program and project scoping can begin.

The IPP was approved by: 02/23/2016 Todd Westhuis, PE Regional Director

B. Scope Approval: The project cost and schedule are consistent with the Regional Capital Program. The scope was approved by:

Todd Westhuis, PE Regional Director

C. Public Hearing A public hearing was not required. Certification (23 USC Kevin Novak 128): Project Manager

A Notice of Opportunity was published in accordance with 23 CFR 771. A public hearing was not held.

Regional Director

D. Recommendation for The project cost and schedule are consistent with the Regional Capital Program. Design Approval:

Regional Design Engineer

E. Recommendation for All requirements requisite to these actions and approvals have been met, the Design and Nonstandard required independent quality control reviews separate from the functional group Feature Approval: reviews have been accomplished, and the work is consistent with established standards, policies, regulations and procedures, except as otherwise noted and explained.

Regional Design Engineer All requirements requisite to these actions and approvals have been met, the F. Recommendation for required independent quality control reviews separate from the functional group Design and Nonstandard reviews have been accomplished, and the work is consistent with established Feature Approval: standards, policies, regulations and procedures, except as otherwise noted and explained. NYSTA

G. Nonstandard Feature The nonstandard features have been adequately justified and it is not prudent to Approval: eliminate them as part of this project. OR, No nonstandard features have been identified, created, or retained.

FHWA

H. Design Approval: The required environmental determinations have been made and the preferred alternative for this project is ready for final design.

FHWA

iii

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

LIST OF PREPARERS

Group Director Responsible for Production of the Design Approval Document:

Michael Schaefer, PE, Regional Design Engineer, NYSDOT Region 8 OR Peter Teliska, PE, Regional Maintenance Engineer, NYSDOT Region 8 OR __(Name)_____, PE, Regional Director of Operations, NYSDOT Region 8 OR Todd Westhuis, PE, Regional Director, NYSDOT Region 8 PLACE P.E. STAMP

Description of Work Performed: Directed the preparation of the Design Approval Document in accordance with established standards, policies, regulations and procedures, except as otherwise explained in this document.

Note: It is a violation of law for any person, unless they are acting under the direction of a licensed professional engineer, architect, landscape architect, or land surveyor, to alter an item in any way. If an item bearing the stamp of a licensed professional is altered, the altering engineer, architect, landscape architect, or land surveyor shall stamp the document and include the notation "altered by" followed by their signature, the date of such alteration, and a specific description of the alteration.

This report was prepared by the following NYSDOT staff:

Kevin Novak, PE, Project Manager, NYSDOT Description of Work Performed: Prepared the _____ for the Design Approval Document in accordance with established standards, policies, regulations and procedures, except as otherwise explained in this document.

PLACE P.E. STAMP

Todd Westhuis, PE, Regional Director, NYSDOT, Region 8 Description of Work Performed: Prepared the _____ for the Design Approval Document in accordance with established standards, policies, regulations and procedures, except as otherwise explained in this document.

PLACE P.E. STAMP

iv

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

TABLE OF CONTENTS

COVER ...... i METRIC TO U.S. CUSTOMARY UNIT CONVERSION TABLE (on back of cover) ...... ii PROJECT APPROVAL SHEET ...... iii LIST OF PREPARERS ...... iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... v

CHAPTER 1 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 1-1 1.1. Introduction ...... 1-1 1.2. Purpose and Need ...... 1-1 1.2.1. Where is the Project Located? ...... 1-1 1.2.2. Why is the Project Needed? ...... 1-2 1.2.3. What are the Purpose and Objectives of the Project? ...... 1-3 1.3. What Alternatives Are Being Considered?...... 1-4 1.3.1 Alternative 1: No-Build Alternative ...... 1-4 1.3.2 Alternative 2: Build Alternative...... 1-4 1.4 How will the Alternative(s) Affect the Environment? ...... 1-7 1.5. What Are The Costs and Schedule? ...... 1-8 1.6. Which Alternative is Preferred? ...... 1-8 1.7. What are the Opportunities for Public Involvement? ...... 1-8

CHAPTER 2 - PROJECT CONTEXT: HISTORY, TRANSPORTATION PLANS, CONDITIONS AND NEEDS ...... 2-1 2.1. Project History ...... 2-1 2.2. Transportation Plans and Land Use ...... 2-2 2.2.1. Local Plans for the Project Area ...... 2-2 2.2.2. Transportation Corridor ...... 2-9 2.3. Transportation Conditions, Deficiencies and Engineering Considerations ...... 2-11 2.3.1. Operations (Traffic and Safety) and Maintenance ...... 2-11 2.3.2. Multimodal ...... 2-21 2.3.3. Infrastructure ...... 2-27 2.3.4. Potential Enhancement Opportunities ...... 2-31 2.3.5. Miscellaneous ...... 2-31

CHAPTER 3 – ALTERNATIVES ...... 3-1 3.1. Alternatives Considered and Dismissed from Further Study ...... 3-1 3.2. Alternatives ...... 3-2 3.2.2 Preferred Alternative ...... 3-31 3.2.3. Design Criteria for Reasonable Alternative(s) ...... 3-31 3.3. Engineering Considerations ...... 3-50 3.3.1. Operations (Traffic and Safety) & Maintenance ...... 3-50 3.3.2. Multimodal ...... 3-60 3.3.3. Infrastructure ...... 3-61 3.3.4. Landscape and Environmental Enhancements ...... 3-65 3.3.5. Miscellaneous ...... 3-66

CHAPTER 4 SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS AND CONSEQUENCES 4-1 4.1 Introduction ...... 4-1 4.2 Social ...... 4-1 4.3 Economic ...... 4-8 4.4 Environmental ...... 4-8 4.5 Construction Effects ...... 4-31 4.6 Indirect and Secondary Effects ...... 4-31 4.7 Cumulative Effects ...... 4-32 v

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

Appendices A Plans B Environmental Documentation C Traffic D Pedestrian Generator Checklist E Public Involvement F Rockland County List of Proposed Private Developments G White Plains Station Access Analysis H NYSDOT Lower Hudson Transit Link Program – Transit Service and Highway Performance Objectives I Agency Coordination J I-287 ICM Systems Engineering Analysis Report

vi

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

CHAPTER 1 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1. Introduction

This report was prepared in accordance with the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) Project Development Manual, NYSDOT Procedures for Implementation of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (17 NYCRR (New York Codes, Rules and Regulations) Part 15), and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Environmental Impact and Related Procedures (23 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) Part 771). Transportation needs have been identified (see Section 1.2.2), project purpose and objectives established (see Section 1.2.3) to address the needs, and a reasonable alternative developed (see Section 1.3).

The Lower Hudson Transit Link Project (“the project”) consists of specific measures to enhance the operational efficiency of the existing Tappan ZEExpress (TZx) bus transit system and Transport of Rockland (TOR), including new bus shelters, improvements to intersections and pedestrian safety, upgraded traffic signals, ramp metering, bus queue jump lanes, Transit Signal Priority (TSP), Integrated Corridor Management (ICM) and improved access to the White Plains Metro-North station. The project is state and federally funded. Studies related to the provision of dedicated bus lanes on the New NY Bridge are ongoing; however, bus lanes on the New NY Bridge are not included in the scope of the Lower Hudson Transit Link Project.

1.2. Purpose and Need

1.2.1. Where is the Project Located?

The project area extends between Sloatsburg, NY in Rockland County and the Port Chester, NY in Westchester County (see Exhibit 1.2-A and Exhibit 1.2-B).

Exhibit 1.2-A – Project Location

(1) Route number – various routes, including: NY-59, I-287, NY-119 (2) Route name – various routes including: Lafayette Ave, White Plains Rd, Tarrytown Road (3) State Highway (SH) number and official highway description – NY-59, NY-119, NY-100A (4) Bridge Identification Number (BIN) and feature crossed: N/A (5) City/Village/Township: Suffern, Airmont, Monsey, Spring Valley, Nanuet, West Nyack, Nyack, South Nyack, Tarrytown, White Plains (6) County: Rockland and Westchester (7) Length: 24 miles (discontinuous) 1-1

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

(8) From Reference Marker To Reference Marker : NY-59: Reference Marker 59 8501 1015 to 1139 NY-119: Reference Marker 119 8701 1000 to 1041, Reference Marker 100 8701 4006 to 3008 (NY 100 runs concurrently with NY-119 on that section) I-287 (East of I-87): Reference Marker 287I 8701 1000 to 1004 I-287 (West of I-87): NYSTA Milepost 27.6 to 11.5

The extents of the proposed Integrated Corridor Management System (ICMS) is shown in Exhibit 1.2-B below and further discussed in the Chapter 3 of this Report.

Exhibit 1.2-B – Extent of Integrated Corridor Management System (ICMS)

1.2.2. Why is the Project Needed?

Rockland and Westchester Counties make up the northern suburbs of New York City. The project corridor is home to distinct centers that are connected by local and state roadways, many running east-west. Since the counties are suburbs of New York City, there are a large number of Manhattan-bound commuters. However, Rockland and Westchester Counties have their own robust, local economies and shared regional economy with major employers in the centers and along the corridors on both sides of the Hudson River, with more than 200,000 daily inter-county trips. The result is traffic congestion on east- west corridors that impacts productivity, safety, and quality of life.

Transportation infrastructure in the project corridor does not support the growing demand for high-quality transit service. Bus shelters are aging and/or lacking passenger amenities such as weather protection, lighting, seating, ticket vending machines and real time passenger information. Sidewalks, crossings, and other pedestrian infrastructure are poorly designed, incomplete and sporadic throughout the project corridor. In addition, pedestrian and motorist safety remain an issue as there are more than seven accidents involving pedestrians or bicyclists per year in the project corridor.

The primary need for the Project is to address traffic congestion levels, pedestrian safety deficiencies such as a lack of crosswalks, sidewalks, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant pedestrian 1-2

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

ramps and pedestrian signals, and the lack of enhanced bus transit access to local and regional destinations, as discussed below.

A. Traffic Congestion

Level of Service (LOS) analyses of the existing traffic conditions were performed using the Synchro traffic analytical software. The LOS results compute measures of effectiveness such as delay and flow ratio to provide qualitative results of the existing traffic conditions, using letters ranging from A to F, with A being the best and F the worst. These results indicate that most intersections along the project corridor operate at LOS D or better. However one intersection, NY-59/Mountainview/Waldron/Exit 12 SB ramps in Nyack, operates at LOS E during the afternoon peak period.

Several individual lane groups also operate at LOS E or worse at other intersections during the existing morning and evening peak hours. Many of these deficiencies can be improved by introducing corridor signal progression and optimizing/re-timing the existing signal timing plans as part of ICM.

B. Safety

Five-year collision statistics (2009-2014) indicate that there were a total of 35 collisions involving pedestrians or bicyclists at the bus stops along the project’s corridor. There are a number of deficiencies at the existing bus stops and adjacent intersections. These include lack of continuous and accessible sidewalks, standard ADA-compliant ramps with detectable warning panels, crosswalks, proper signing, adequate lighting, and countdown pedestrian signals.

The NYS Routes 45 and 59 Pedestrian Safety Study, led by NYSDOT during 2015-2016, developed specific recommendations for pedestrian safety improvements along NY-59 and NY-45 with an emphasis on engineering, education, and enforcement. In particular, the roadway infrastructure related recommendations included: establishing a network of continuous sidewalks and crosswalks, providing updated pedestrian signals, signing and lighting, and providing improved pedestrian access and safe crossing opportunities at designated transit stops.

C. Transit System

The existing Rockland County transit system includes ten intra-county TOR bus routes and the TZx inter- county bus system, which provides connections to Westchester County. The TOR system, including TZx, carries approximately 3.3 million riders annually. The TOR 59 bus route that runs along NY-59 takes approximately 75 minutes to run the 12.6 miles, with an average speed of ten miles per hour along the length of the route.

1.2.3. What are the Purpose and Objectives of the Project?

The purpose of the project is to provide an enhanced bus transit system with pedestrian safety improvements, advanced bus transit access to the White Plains Metro-North Station, and Integrated Corridor Management in Rockland and Westchester Counties.

The objectives of the project are:

1. Improve the existing bus transit system by reducing travel times, improving bus stops, and optimizing routing between Rockland and Westchester Counties.

2. Address pedestrian safety at bus stop locations, adjacent deficient intersections and select corridor locations as recommended by the NYS Routes 45 and 59 Pedestrian Safety Study.

3. Allow the improved bus transit system to be managed and controlled in response to active traffic conditions within the corridor.

1-3

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

4. Implement an ICM system, including ramp metering, Variable Message Signs (VMS), and bus queue jump features to improve travel times in the corridor.

1.3. What Alternatives Are Being Considered?

Two alternatives are under consideration for this project: the No-Build Alternative and the Build Alternative, as described below.

1.3.1 Alternative 1: No-Build Alternative

The No-Build Alternative assumes no improvements in the project area other than those planned by others or implemented as part of routine maintenance. Although it does not meet the project purpose and objectives, the No Build Alternative serves as the baseline condition against which the benefits and effects of the Build Alternative are evaluated.

1.3.2 Alternative 2: Build Alternative

The Build Alternative consists of the four elements described below and in Chapter 3. This alternative would meet the project purpose and objectives.

Bus Shelter Installation/Replacement

This element would include installing new distinctive bus shelters at existing and proposed bus stop locations. All bus stop shelters are to be electrified, including lighting, advertising panels (where appropriate and permitted), and infrastructure/communication feeds for off-board ticket machines and Real-Time Passenger Information (RTPI) displays.

Safety Improvements

This element would include providing comprehensive safety improvements at bus stop locations, adjacent intersections and select locations along NY-59 in Monsey including (but not limited to):

 Installing/upgrading ADA-compliant ramps with detectable warning panels;  Installing pedestrian signal heads with LED countdown timers;  Optimizing traffic signal timing;  Limiting right-turn-on-red movements at locations with substantial pedestrian volumes;  Pavement repairs or resurfacing and installing new reflectorized pavement markings;  Installing new sidewalks and crosswalks to ensure sidewalk continuity and crosswalk/sidewalk connectivity;  Improving intersection sight distances;  Providing bike racks in the vicinity of bus shelters;  Upgrading traffic signal hardware;  Upgrading existing crosswalk markings with high-visibility crosswalks;  Providing accessible pedestrian signals (with audible tone or message where appropriate).

Improved Access to the White Plains Metro-North Station

The following concepts have been identified by the Design Team as potential strategies to improve access to the White Plains Metro-North Station:

Option 1 – Via Bronx River Park to South Broadway 1-4

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

Option 2B – Via Tarrytown Road to South Broadway Option 2C – Via Tarrytown Road to Westchester Option 2D – Via Tarrytown Road to North Broadway Option 4 – Via Exit 6/North Broadway - Return via Exit 5

The Option 2D has been selected as the preferred concept as it provides riders with closer access to the Train Station, whilst maintaining good access to key downtown destinations. This option limits the extent of new construction work, and ROW implications since all but one of the stops in downtown White Plains is at an existing bus stop for Westchester Bee Line or other regional bus service. The Option 2D alternative is similar to the existing route/circulation patterns (see Appendix G for detailed information). There will be some changes to the routing and stops in downtown White Plains. The TransCenter stops used for existing TZx service will be replaced by two new bus stops serving the Metro-North Train Station and surrounding area. The primary of these will be installed on Ferris Avenue, in the existing bus only lane across from the TransCenter (for eastbound and westbound travel) and one on Main Street approaching Bank (for eastbound travel) just east of the Metro-North railroad overpass. Access to the station from the Ferris Avenue stop is closer to the platform than the current service and the stop on Main Street will also serve the existing and future commercial and residential development south of the station area. A new service stop will be added on the eastern end of Main Street at N. Broadway for improved passenger access to and from White Plains destinations both north along Broadway and southeast toward Westchester Avenue. By placing this stop along N. Broadway (just north of Main Street) Option 2D offers a greater deal of flexibility for future service expansion to the east, by allowing eastbound buses to serve that stop before merging over to make the left onto S. Broadway / Westchester Avenue.

Exhibit 1.3.2 – Proposed location of bus stops in White Plains per Option 2D (preferred)

Exhibit 1.3.3 – Proposed location of bus stops near White Plains Metro North Station; per Option 2D (preferred)

1-5

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

Exhibit 1.3.4 – Proposed location of bus stops near Broadway per Option 2D

1-6

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

Integrated Corridor Management (ICM)

ICM features would be implemented at selected locations where reasonable, justified by traffic simulation model results and funding availability. These include:

 NY-59/NY-119 ICM utilizing adaptive signal control, TSP, and bus queue jumps;  Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL), Computer-Aided Dispatch (CAD), and RTPI provided for the transit network;  Automated Incident Detection and enhancements to Closed-Circuit Television (CCTV) video surveillance;  Motorist advisory, Lane Use Management and Variable Speed Limit Control electronic signage;  Ramp metering at selected interchanges along I-287 in the study corridor; and  Replacement of existing and installation of new VMS along I-87/I-287 and adjacent cross- arterials.

1.4 How will the Alternative(s) Affect the Environment?

Exhibit 1.4-A Environmental Summary

NEPA Classification Class III BY 23 CFR Part 771 SEQR Type: Non-Type II BY 17 NYCRR Part 15

Exhibit 1.4-B Summary of Environmental Effects

Category Alt 1 (No-Build) Alt 2 (Build)

Wetland impacts None None

100-year floodplain impact None None

Historic/Cultural Resources None No Adverse Effect Type III Noise Project (no noise Noise None analysis required) Traffic None No Adverse Effect

Visual None No Adverse Effect

Air Quality None No Adverse Effect

Impact to forested areas None None

Property impacts None De Minimis

Refer to Chapter 4 for an assessment of social, economic, and environmental conditions and consequences. Anticipated permits to be confirmed following completion of the Environmental Assessment (EA) process include:

 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) General Permit NYSDOT will coordinate review with the appropriate agencies, as necessary, which may include the following: 1-7

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

 NYSDEC  New York State Department of State (NYSDOS)  New York State Historic Preservation Office (NYSHPO)  United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)

1.5. What Are The Costs and Schedule?

Design Approval is scheduled for May 2017 and construction is scheduled to commence in October of 2017 and complete in April 2019.

Exhibit 1.5A Project Schedule Activity Date Occurred/Tentative Scoping Approval 05/2016 Design Approval 05/2017 Right of Way (ROW) Acquisition 05/2017 Construction Start 10/2017 Construction Complete 04/2019

Following Design Approval, the LHTL Project would be advanced in three PS&E/Bid Packages - 1) Bus Shelter and Intersection Improvements; 2) Integrated Corridor Management (ICM) and Ramp Metering; and 3) Route 59 Safety Improvements.

Exhibit 1.5B Total Project Cost (Millions) by Alternative

Alternative 1 (No-Build) Alternative 2 (Build) Total cost $0 $77.8M

For more detail on costs for each alternative refer to Exhibit 3.2.1.

1.6. Which Alternative is Preferred? The Build Alternative is the Preferred Alternative. See Section 3.2.2 for a discussion of this alternative.

1.7. What are the Opportunities for Public Involvement?

A Public Involvement Plan (PIP), provided in Appendix E, was developed to document efforts for informing various audiences about the LHTL project while also seeking input from stakeholders in the corridor, including federal, state, regional, and municipal governments, key employers and institutions, residents, business owners, advocacy groups and organizations, transit users, and the general public.

Outreach activities have included the development of a project website (https://www.dot.ny.gov/lhtl), production of project newsletters and fact sheets, and maintenance of a contact list to keep interested individuals informed about project progress. The NYSDOT also receives input through local advisory groups, two Technical Advisory Committees (TACs) – one in each county – and a Transit Working Group (TWG) for the entire corridor. The TACs include representatives from the counties, towns, and villages along the corridor. The TACs were organized in late 2015 and have met four times in 2016 (February, May, July, and September). The TACs will continue to meet on a regular basis (likely quarterly) throughout the duration of the project. They have been engaged to discuss topics such as traffic signal upgrades, bus station location / area design elements, and intersection improvements. The TWG was convened in Spring 2016 and will also gather on a regular basis during the project.

1-8

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

The project has held two sets of public Open House events. The first pair were held in the week of May 16, 2016, with one occurring on Monday, May 16, 2016 at the White Plains Library, and the second taking place on Thursday, May 19, 2016 at the Nyack Center. Both events were attended by approximately 20 to 30 people; attendees included staff of local elected officials or regional transportation advocates, local media, and members of the general public. Attendees of the Open Houses expressed interest in the future transit service area and general support for the improvement to the existing TZx service. Attendees also expressed interest in ramp metering and were open to the concept of ramp meters as a way to improve transit service. Some attendees provided positive comments about the ability to incorporate a transit priority lane into the Ramp Meters. Attendees expressed interest in NYSDOT adopting all of the Mass Transit Task Force (MTTF) recommendations in the future.

The second pair of Open Houses were held during the week of October 17, 2016. The first open house was held at the Nyack Library on Wednesday, October 19, and the second open house took place at the Warner Library in Tarrytown on Thursday, October 20. The materials presented at the open houses included boards on the planned routing of the new service, the planned locations of the bus stops, and the designs of both the bus stop areas and the adjacent intersections that would be upgraded. There was also a slide presentation running on a loop that showed examples of the project elements. Project staff was available to answer questions from the public. Approximately 75 individuals attended the Rockland open house and approximately 20 individuals attended the Westchester open house.

At the Rockland open house, comments were received regarding the need for more stops in South Nyack (namely at Cedar Hill and South Franklin Street); the location of the bus stops at South Franklin Street and Clinton Avenue and associated traffic congestion; service plans; and the lack of a direct connection between Lot J and Tarrytown MNR station. Positive comments were received regarding the provision of weekend service, including on Sundays. In Westchester, comments were received on the need to build out the full MTTF recommendation to provide better service within Westchester County; and routing through Tarrytown. At both events, comments were received on the type of vehicle that would be used and the expected emissions.

The Public Involvement Plan includes two more sets of Open Houses later in the project, as well as other outreach activities such as “pop-up” events at malls and public festivals to inform the community of the new service to launch in 2018. The PIP provides more detailed information on all public outreach elements – print material, websites, and events.

Exhibit 1.7 Public Involvement Plan Schedule of Milestone Dates Activity Date Occurred/Tentative Stakeholder Meeting MTTF Follow Up June 2015 Focus Group Meeting Conducted in November 2015 Meeting with Town Reps. Technical Advisory Quarterly; Kick Off February 2016 (held) Committees (TACs) Meetings with Transit Working Group (TWG) Quarterly: Kick Off April 2016 (held) Open Houses #1 May 2016 (held) Open Houses #2 Oct 2016 (held); Public Informational Meeting Open House #3 April 2017 (planned); Open House #4 Nov 2017 (planned); and Pop-Up Events in March and June 2018 (planned) Current Project Letting date 10/2017

Refer to Appendix E for the full PIP, which provides more details on outreach efforts and input from stakeholders.

Comments may be provided to:

 Project Manager:

1-9

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

Kevin J. Novak, PE

Email: [email protected]

Phone: (518) 485-7102

Address: NYS Department of Transportation, 50 Wolf Road, Albany, NY 12232

The Project’s website is https://www.dot.ny.gov/LHTL. Visitors to the Project’s website can sign up for the contact list and submit comments and questions.

1-10

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

CHAPTER 2 - PROJECT CONTEXT: HISTORY, TRANSPORTATION PLANS, CONDITIONS AND NEEDS

This chapter addresses the history and existing context of the project area, including the existing conditions, deficiencies, and needs for the project.

2.1. Project History

The LHTL Project is intended to improve regional transit links between Rockland and Westchester Counties. The following studies helped to inform aspects of the LHTL Project: i. Alternative Analysis, 2006 - a study led by the New York State Thruway Authority (NYSTA) and the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) to identify and evaluate multimodal highway and transit concepts to address the transportation needs of the 30-mile corridor from the Interstate 87 (I-87)/Interstate 287 (I-287) interchange in Suffern to the I-287/Interstate 95 (I- 95) interchange in Port Chester, including the Tappan Zee Bridge. ii. Route 59 Corridor Transit Operations Study, 2007. The Rockland County Department of Public Transportation, which operates TOR buses, called for the study because they were aware that their ability to provide good transit service along the corridor was being threatened by the increased traffic congestion associated with population growth and on-going land development in the area. The goals of the study were to understand the existing conditions, identify travel patterns and trends in Rockland County, research possible alternatives and develop preferred recommendations. iii. Central Avenue Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Assessment Study, 2009. A study commissioned by Westchester County DOT and operators of the Westchester Bee-Line to explain the benefits of a BRT system along the Central Avenue in Yonkers – one of Westchester County’s major commercial corridors – which runs from White Plains south to the Bronx. iv. Transit Mode Selection Report, 2009 – a study led by the NYSDOT, NYSTA, and MTA Metro- North Railroad (MNRR) to further refine recommendations made in the 2006 Alternative Analysis report. v. Highway Improvements Report, 2010 – a study led by NYSDOT, NYSTA, and MTA/MNRR to assess the potential highway improvements in the I-287 corridor that would have potential impacts on transit service along I-287. vi. Transit Alignment Options Report, 2011 – a study led by NYSDOT, MTA/MNRR, and NYSTA to further refine the transit alignments proposed in the previous studies for the I-287 corridor. vii. NYS Routes 45 and 59 Pedestrian Safety Study, Rockland County, 2015-2016 – a study led by NYSDOT to develop specific recommendations for pedestrian safety improvements along NY-59 and NY-45 with an emphasis on engineering, education and enforcement.

MTTF was a 31-member body formed by NYSTA and NYSDOT in December 2012 to identify a regional transit proposal and formulate a prioritized list of short-, mid-, and long-term transit recommendations for the I-287 corridor in conjunction with the New NY Bridge (NNYB), the replacement for the Tappan Zee.

The MTTF included state and local elected officials, environmental and community advocates, and transit and transportation experts. Following a 15-month planning process, the MTTF released a consensus plan, which made recommendations for improving transit in the I-287 corridor and within the region. The MTTF’s recommendations laid the foundation for the LHTL Project.

2-1

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

2.2. Transportation Plans and Land Use

2.2.1. Local Plans for the Project Area

2.2.1.1. Local Comprehensive Plans (“Master Plan”)

This Project spans two counties – Westchester County and Rockland County – and multiple municipalities.

Westchester County Westchester County developed the Westchester 2025 Comprehensive Plan adopted May 2008 and Amended January 5, 2010. It lists the following recommendations regarding land use, land acquisition and capital projects:

 Channel development to centers;  Enhance transportation corridors;  Assure interconnected open space;  Nurture economic climate;  Preserve natural resources;  Support development and preservation of permanently affordable housing;  Support transportation alternatives;  Provide recreational opportunities to serve residents;  Protect historical and cultural resources;  Maintain utility infrastructure;  Support vital facilities;  Engage in regional initiatives;  Define and protect community character;  Promote sustainable technology; and  Track and respond to trends.

The following projects in Westchester County are located within or near the project area:

 Installation of a biotechnology incubator in New York Medical College; and  Construction of the New NY Bridge (NNYB).

Under the Mobility and Transportation section of the document, there are calls for Bus Rapid Transit to offer cost-effective alternatives to auto use and also a desire for a regional east-west transit service across the I-287 corridor. Lastly, the document calls for pedestrian improvements wherever possible.

Rockland County Rockland County developed the Rockland Tomorrow: Rockland County Comprehensive Plan, adopted March 1, 2011. It contains guidance and recommendations for the following categories:

 Conservation, centers, corridors, and clusters;  Regional setting;  Demographics (young residents);  Aging (elderly residents);  Land use and zoning;  Transportation;  Natural and environmental resources;  Parks and open space;  Historic and cultural resources;  Housing;  Economic development; 2-2

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

 Infrastructure;  Services and information resources; and  Implementation.

The following projects in Rockland County are located within or near the project area:

 Redevelopment of the central business district in the village of Spring Valley; and  Renovation of the Nanuet Mall into a Main Street-type pedestrian mall.

Throughout the document, there are references to the importance of regional transportation, including the need to “ensure that regional transportation projects serve Rockland County’s interests” and the need to “increase mobility options.” The document seeks to improve sidewalks and bus shelters as a way to “ensure safety and security” by supporting walking and access to transit. Most explicitly, in the Transportation chapter, recommendations call to “support Bus Rapid Transit… in the New NY Bridge / I- 287 Corridor” and “expand and improve public transit bus service”. In general and specific ways, the Plan recommends actions in line with the LHTL program.

Town of Ramapo The Town of Ramapo’s comprehensive plan, adopted January 2004, lists the following goals and objectives:

 Preserve and protect open space, scenic and environmental resources;  Address the Town's housing needs and provide for a diversity of housing opportunities for the Town's growing and changing population;  Maintain the quality of life in the Town by enhancing and preserving the character of Ramapo’s neighborhoods and commercial corridors, maintaining the high quality of community services and facilities provided to Town residents, and providing an integrated and efficient transportation network;  Encourage improvements to meet existing and future transportation needs in the Town including: o Improvements to the roadway network that relieve areas of specific traffic congestion and/or that mitigate specific traffic hazards; o Improvements to scheduling, service and facilities of existing mass transit systems so as to promote the use of mass transit by Town residents; o Support of alternative means of transportation (including the construction of sidewalks) particularly in areas of the Town with high levels of pedestrian traffic; and o Support of land use patterns that will use transportation systems most effectively and minimize potential additional congestion.  Promote a balanced pattern of land use that primarily encourages the concentration of future development in areas with adequate infrastructure and facilities, so as to make efficient utilization of the transportation network and infrastructure, to preserve the Town’s environmental and scenic resources, and to provide a variety of additional housing opportunities in areas of the Town most appropriate for such development; and  Ensure that additional development occurs in locations that are most suitable for such development in consideration of surrounding land uses, transportation capacity, and availability and capacity of infrastructure.

Town of Clarkstown The Town of Clarkstown’s comprehensive plan, adopted on November 24, 2009, lists the following goals and objectives:

Economic Development: • Apply zoning changes to create and expand commercial and industrial development in areas that are best served by the Town’s existing infrastructure and would not conflict with existing residential uses.

2-3

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

Health, Safety & Welfare: • Develop zoning and building regulations that reduce or restrict odors, sounds, commercial traffic, light pollution and other negative environmental impacts on residential areas; and • Develop zoning that encourages and protects the safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic.

Transportation: • Provide efficient travel between the New NY Bridge/I-287 corridor, NY-59 corridor, and other parts of Clarkstown; • Add to the economic strength and quality of life in Clarkstown by coordinating with the New NY Bridge construction and other regional transportation initiatives; • Ensure that travel through Clarkstown enhances safety, lowering the number of vehicle crashes that occur in the area and minimizing conflict between travel modes; • Provide local public transportation services that promote sustainable travel options for Clarkstown residents, businesses, and visitors; • Provide for commuter transit services that are accessible, efficient and safe; • Create a walking environment that is accessible, safe, and enjoyable; • Create a cycling environment that is accessible, safe, and enjoyable; • Improve residents’ health by reducing air, noise and light pollution related to motorized travel; • Develop Hamlet Centers with transportation options and connections; and • Create diverse mixed-use development areas that allow for walking and biking and are well served by public transportation.

Town of Orangetown The Town of Orangetown’s comprehensive plan, adopted in 2003, lists the following goals and objectives:

Recreation and Open Space:  Provide additional open space and recreation facilities to serve existing and anticipated population needs and balance development and environmental preservation goals.

Residential Development:  Provide decent housing for present and future residents.

Commercial, Office, and Industrial Development:  Provide local employment opportunities, necessary tax ratables, and a broad array of services for community residents.

Transportation and Infrastructure:  Support residential and commercial development while balancing environmental preservation.  Provide sidewalks and promote traffic-calming measures in hamlet centers to enhance pedestrian safety

Community Facilities:  Maintain an adequate level of service, while concurrently planning for the projected growth in the town’s senior population, an increased level of racial and ethnic diversity, and the changes in service that these factors could generate.

Village of Airmont The comprehensive plan was recommended to the Village of Airmont Board of Trustees in 2007 and adopted with revisions in September 2011. The Plan places strong emphasis on preservation of natural resources including wetlands, streams, ground water and the natural scenic landscape and character of the Village. The Plan also provides recommendations for architectural design guidelines, green practices for ground water recharge, cluster subdivisions, enhanced landscaping and buffer requirements and improved pedestrian safety. Under the section, “Proposed Circulation Recommendation”, the Plan lists as a goal pursuing intersection improvements which will improve both traffic and pedestrian safety.

2-4

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

Village of Nyack The Village of Nyack began an update to its Comprehensive Plan in 2015. Members of the Village’s Comp Plan task force have been briefed on the LHTL project. They are aware of the LHTL project and list “support Bus Rapid Transit” and improve bus stop amenities as goals in the transportation section of the Final Draft document, which was adopted in October 2016. They also list the desire to provide thoughtful station design under the economic competitiveness section of the plan. The attentiveness to the experience of the BRT user as well as the visitor and local resident, can elevate the bus stop and service to being amenities that attract choice ridership and contribute to a more vital downtown.

Village of Tarrytown The Town of Tarrytown’s comprehensive plan, adopted March 2007, lists the following goals and objectives:

Transportation, Circulation and Parking:  Enhance traffic circulation, public transportation, and parking facilities to better serve the Village’s population in a manner compatible with the character of the community. • Prepare a Transportation Improvement Plan for the Village to include: o Examination of opportunities to improve transit, including bus service and bus-rail connections. o Examine impacts of the re-alignment of the Tappan Zee Bridge on the Village and ensure a consistent approach in all policy documents regarding this issue.

Town of Greenburgh The Town of Greenburgh’s 2015 Comprehensive Plan has not yet been adopted. It lists the following goals and objectives:

Sustainability:  Facilitate a reduction of greenhouse gases of 20 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050.  Increase sustainability on a regional level, through local planning initiatives.  Facilitate compact building design with a strong sense of place and access to a variety of transportation choices.

Transportation, Mobility and Access:  Promote safe and connected pedestrian infrastructure in appropriate areas.  Promote safe and connected bicycle infrastructure in appropriate areas.  Reduce the need for single occupant vehicle use by improving mode choices.  Support efforts to provide safe, convenient, accessible and cost effective public bus transportation.  Promote flexible standards correlated to roadway usage.  Consider future roadway circulation as part of development proposal review or transportation improvement projects.  Address roadways that experience, or are expected to experience, congestion.  Continue to identify locations with accident history.  Maximize the positive benefits of regional transportation project investments.  Continue to support initiatives consistent with the tenets of this Plan related to the New NY Bridge and potential BRT along the Rt. 119 and Central Park Avenue corridors, respectively.  Promote community character as a component of the transportation system.  Promote green transportation initiatives and energy conservation.  Ensure that transportation components of proposed future development support desired future land-use form.

Economic Development:  Improve infrastructure to make commercial corridors more business ready.  Utilize existing infrastructure assets and planned improvements to advance policies consistent with the Plan. 2-5

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

 Foster direct connections between transportation and economic development.  Facilitate enhanced investment in our commercial corridors.  Maintain a healthy economic environment in Greenburgh.  Sustain a balance of land uses that recognizes the unique qualities of Greenburgh.

Land use and Zoning:  Explore the potential for redevelopment along Saw Mill River Road (NY-9A), White Plains/Tarrytown Road (NY-119), Central Park Avenue (NY-100) and at the Hartsdale Train Station.  Strengthen development in connection with locally and regionally planned transportation improvements along White Plains/Tarrytown Road (NY-119), Central Park Avenue (NY-100) and Saw Mill River Road (NY-9A).

City of White Plains The City of White Plains’ comprehensive plan was adopted in 1997 and updated in 2006. It lists the following vision statements:

Overall Planning Principles:  High-quality, technologically advanced buildings, schools, facilities and infrastructure  Well-designed and well-maintained parks and playgrounds with a sufficient number and mix of athletic fields to meet the active recreational needs of all ages  Carefully preserved and maintained open spaces, natural environments and historic sites open to the citizens of White Plains for their quiet enjoyment and for their environmental and historical education  An open space network and trail system linking major parks, nature areas and historic sites  A safe and efficient street system and pedestrian-friendly Core Area with residents, shoppers and commuters afforded the best possible public transit options  The highest quality and most technologically advanced public safety, public works, educational and human service programs and services, easily understood and accessible to all residents

Transportation, Traffic Circulation and Parking:  Facilitate safe and efficient pedestrian movement in the Central Business District  Maximize the efficiency of the existing street system  Maximize utilization of public transit  Minimize growth in use of private automobiles through increased use of public transit  Limit the negative traffic and parking impacts of Core Area and major corridor growth on residential neighborhoods to the maximum extent feasible  Maximize utilization of Core Area public parking resources  Enhance the pedestrian experience downtown

Village of Suffern The Village of Suffern submitted a Limited Comprehensive Plan to Rockland County Planning Board for review in 2005. The Village also implemented an Urban Renewal Plan focused on Orange Avenue.

Village of Spring Valley The Village of Spring Valley developed a Downtown Urban Renewal Plan in 2002; it was amended in 2008.

The following municipalities in the project area do not have comprehensive plans or lack current comprehensive plans:

 Village of South Nyack: Current plan dates 1969. The new comprehensive plan was underway in 2010, but there is no new information available about this process.

 Village of Elmsford 2-6

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

2.2.1.2. Local Private Development Plans

The following exhibit lists recent developments in Westchester County and their current approval status.

Exhibit 2.2.1.2. Private Developments in Westchester County, NY Project Name Project Location Municipality Project Description Approval 35 Valley Ave 35 Valley Ave Elmsford Apartment building Approved Residential 290 Tarrytown Rd Elmsford 81-unit apartment Under construction Apartment Building building Avalon Green III Greenburgh Multi-family housing Completed – open Brightview Assisted 191 Old White Greenburgh Assisted living Completed – open Living Plains Rd FedEx – SunCap Greenburgh FedEx distribution Under construction Property Group facility Pepe Vehicle Prep 2269 Saw Mill River Greenburgh Car dealership Under construction Center Rd vehicle prep facility Ray Catena 50 Yellowstone Ave Greenburgh Car dealership Partially constructed The Esplanade 250 Central Park Greenburgh Apartment building Under construction Ave Westchester Square 215-299 Central Greenburgh Expansion of Proposed Shopping Center Park Ave shopping center Hackley School 293 Benedict Ave Greenburgh Health/fitness/gym Proposed Wellness complex plus 12 units Complexes and of faculty housing Faculty Housing Mack-Cali 101 Executive Blvd Greenburgh Multi-use commercial Approved building Manhattanville 2900 Purchase St Harrison Master plan for Master plan College Master Plan college expansion approved – exact square footage of future expansion not clarified Purchase Corporate 100 Manhattanville Harrison Office building Proposed Park Associates – Rd Parcel B Office Building Residences at 103-105 Corporate Harrison Proposed Corporate Park Dr Park Dr Keio Academy of 3 College Rd Harrison Student center and Proposed New York tennis courts Purchase Westchester Ave Harrison Expansion of office Proposed Professional Park park complex 120 North Pearl St 120 North Pearl St Port Chester Apartment building Under construction Post Road Iron 16 North Main St Port Chester Mixed use building Withdrawn Works United Hospital 406 Boston Post Rd Port Chester Mixed used Proposed Redevelopment development G&S Port Chester – Port Chester Apartment building Proposed “Retail D” with ground floor retail VLS Realty 314-316 Boston Port Chester Senior apartments Proposed Associates Post Rd 2-7

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

Lighthouse Landing Sleepy Mixed use – Approved Hollow apartments, townhomes, hotel, retail, and office River’s Edge (Castle 11 River St Sleepy Condominium Under construction Oil Site) Hollow apartments and retail Salvation Army 115 Wildey St Sleepy Church and Approved Community Center Hollow community center Lexington 202 160 Wildey St Tarrytown Self-storage Proposed Group LLC River House at 5 Hudson View Tarrytown Apartment building Proposed Hudson Harbor Way 55 Bank St 55 Bank St White Plains Rental apartments Approved and retail French American 800 North St White Plains New school campus Proposed School of New York on site and old golf course German School of 800 North St White Plains School expansion Under construction NY Hindu Temple of 390 North St White Plains Religious building Approved Tristate La Gianna 814 DeKalb Ave White Plains Apartment building Completed – open Metropolitan Plaza 250 Main St White Plains Retail Completed – open Metropolitan Plaza – 250 Main St White Plains Hotel Completed – open Phase II North Street 305 North St White Plains Senior apartments Assisted living Community (former and assisted living completed and St. Agnes Site) occupied. Senior apartments approved but not under construction Salvation Army 16 Sterling Ave White Plains Expansion of church Approved The Venue 120 Bloomingdale White Plains Retail building Approved Rd Westchester Church 511 North St White Plains Church expansion Under construction of Christ 60 South Broadway 60 South Broadway White Plains Mixed use Proposed development White Plains 41 E Post Rd White Plains Hospital expansion Under construction Hospital Center Westchester 116 Church St White Plains Healthcare facility Approved Healthcare Properties Winbrook 223 Martin Luther White Plains Residential building Completed – open Community King Blvd with community space The Collection 60-69 Westchester White Plains Mixed use Proposed Ave development

A full list of proposed private developments in Rockland County are provided in Appendix F. This list may not be entirely complete and does not address which developments have or have not been approved.

2-8

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

2.2.2. Transportation Corridor

2.2.2.1. Importance of the Project Route Segment

As one of three major east-west interstates connecting Pennsylvania/New York/New Jersey to New England, I-287 is a key route for regional transportation and freight movement. The closest similar east/west interstate, I-84, is located approximately 30 miles to the north.

NY- 59 from Suffern in the west to Nyack in the east serves as the primary local east-west travel corridor in Rockland County. The route connects several of the County’s largest business districts, including Suffern, Airmont, Monsey, Spring Valley, Nanuet, West Nyack, and Nyack. The intensity of commercial and residential activity along the NY-59 corridor has resulted in heavy traffic volumes and a high demand for public transit services.

NY-119 from Tarrytown in the west to White Plains in the east is a major corridor in Westchester County – it provides access to the New York State Thruway, Saw Mill River Parkway, Spain Brook Parkway and Bronx River Parkway. NY-119 runs parallel to I-287 and connects to the interstate multiple times.

2.2.2.2. Alternate Routes

I-287 and NY-59 are the only east-west highways in Rockland County and I-287 is the only east-west highway in Westchester County. Local arterials in Rockland County are the only alternative to I-287 and NY-59. Local roads run east-west in Rockland County within two miles of I-287 and NY-59, but are not continuous for the extent of the project area in Rockland County. Traveling west to east, local roads (Montebello Road / N. Airmont Road / Highview Road / W. Maple Avenue / Maple Avenue) can provide a continuous alternate east-west route from Suffern to Spring Valley where Maple Avenue terminates at N. Main Street.

The Tappan Zee Bridge, which is part of I-287, is the only connection between Rockland and Westchester Counties over the Hudson River. The nearest bridge, approximately 15 miles south, is the George Washington Bridge (I-95) connecting Fort Lee, NJ on the west of the Hudson River and Manhattan’s Harlem on the east of the Hudson River. The next-closest, approximately 20 miles north, is the Bear Mountain Bridge (NY-202), connecting Fort Montgomery, NY on the west of the Hudson River and Manitou, NY on the east of the Hudson River.

In Westchester County, approximately two miles north of I-287 and NY-119 is NY-448, which provides a continuous east-west alternate route. This route is accessed by taking Broadway north from Exit 9 from I- 287. Traveling east, NY-448 / Tower Hill Road / Neperan Road / NY-303 (Old Saw Mill River Rd) / NY- 100C (Grasslands Rd) / NY-100 (Grasslands Rd) / Virginia Road provides a connection to NY-22 south to White Plains, which is the eastern terminus of the project area.

There are no alternative routes that would be suitable as a permanent detour.

2.2.2.3. Corridor Deficiencies and Needs The I-287 corridor experiences capacity deficiencies as specified in Appendix C-4. These capacity deficiencies limit mobility for both passenger vehicles as well as bus operations under the typical peak demand condition of the AM and PM peak periods; and are exacerbated when incidents occur or weather conditions are poor. Deficiencies and poor levels of service are also frequent at the end of many weekends and during holiday travel periods due to high demand.

The NY-119 and NY-59 corridors experience capacity deficiencies as described in Section 2.3.1.7, and deficient conditions for pedestrians and bicyclists as described in Section 2.3.1.8. Many sections of these corridors lack proper sidewalks and intersection ramps. Bus and train stops on this corridor are accessed by many pedestrians and bicyclists. Additionally, traffic signals on these corridors are outdated.

2-9

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

The White Plains Metro-North Station currently provides inadequate access, namely the bus connection is from the TransCenter, two blocks from the station’s main entrance.

2.2.2.4. Transportation Plans The following projects are listed in the Plan 2040: New York Metropolitan Transportation Council (NYMTC) Regional Transportation Plan:

Tappan Zee Hudson River Crossing Project The Tappan Zee Hudson River Crossing Project is currently referred to as the New NY Bridge (NNYB) Project. The New NY Bridge provides the only interstate highway crossing of the Hudson River for the 48-mile stretch between the George Washington Bridge (I-95) and the Newburgh-Beacon Bridge (I-84). The replacement of the bridge will provide 12-ft wide travel lanes with an oversized shoulder in each direction for emergency vehicle access as well as a shared use path for pedestrians and bicycles on the northern span. It will also have improved grades and sight distance and meet current seismic design criteria. The project is sponsored by NYSTA and is expected to be completed in 2017.

I-287 Corridor Transit Enhancements The NNYB, which is part of I-287, will have four general traffic lanes and one wide shoulder suitable for future express bus service in each direction. No specific, official, funded plans yet exist to incorporate a public transportation corridor along the rest of I-287, although the concept was studied by Westchester County and was also assessed as part of NNYB Environmental Review.

The projects below are on the approved NYMTC Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).

Exhibit - 2.2.2.4a NYMTC Transportation Improvement Program TIP County Project Description Let Date Completion Number Construction and Replacement of Rockland 8TRM20 Approximately 40 Standard Bus Shelters for Pre FY 2014 ongoing Transit Operators Rockland 8TRM50 County-wide Bus Stop Improvements Pre FY 2014 Transportation Planning Consultant Funding Rockland 8TRM69 Pre FY 2014 ongoing for Various Projects Westchest Westchester County Bus Stop 882145 Pre FY 2014 ongoing er Enhancements Bee-Line Planning Funding for the Planning Westchest 882235 Activities of the Westchester County Bee- Pre FY 2014 ongoing er Line Bus System Signal Requirements: Project will consist of upgrading or installing new traffic signals as Multi- 880920 needed in the counties of Columbia, FY 2014 2014 County Duchess, Ulster, Rockland, Orange, Putnam, and Westchester Signal Requirements: Install new or upgrade Multi- 880921 existing traffic signals on state highways, FY 2014 2015 County various counties

The projects below are on the NYMTC Regional Transportation Plan, Plan 2040, adopted on September 4, 2013.

2-10

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

Exhibit - 2.2.2.4b NYMTC Regional Transportation Plan Area Activity or Project Timeframe Lower Hudson I-287 Corridor transit enhancements 2014-2018 Valley Lower Hudson Tarrytown-Port Chester local transit improvements 2014-2018 Valley Lower Hudson Tappan Zee Hudson River Crossing Project 2014-2017 Valley Advance Bus Rapid Transit and managed-use lane projects a part of a All Through 2023 regional system All Continue application of Compete Streets policies Through 2023

2.2.2.5. Abutting Highway Segments and Future Plans for Abutting Highway Segments -

There are no plans to reconstruct or widen this highway segment, or the adjoining segments, within the next 20 years.

2.3. Transportation Conditions, Deficiencies and Engineering Considerations

2.3.1. Operations (Traffic and Safety) and Maintenance

2.3.1.1. Functional Classification and National Highway System (NHS) –

Exhibit - 2.3.1.1 Classification Data Route(s) I-287 NY-59 NY-119 Functional Principal Arterial - Principal Arterial - Other Principal Arterial - Other Classification Interstate NHS Y Y Y Designated Truck Access Y Y Y Route Qualifying Y Y Y Highway Within 1 mile (1.6 km) of - - - a Qualifying Highway Within the 16 ft (4.9 m) vertical clearance - - - network

2.3.1.2. Control of Access I-287 is a fully controlled facility with interchange access only. NY-59 and NY-119 are primarily uncontrolled access facilities with portions that are partially controlled.

2.3.1.3. Traffic Control Devices There are 139 signalized intersections within the project area. For a full inventory of signals, see Appendix C.

2-11

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

Some existing traffic signs will be updated as part of the intersection improvements scope, as conditions warrant. Additionally, a total of 64 variable message signs (VMS) are proposed in the project area which include 9 upgrades to existing VMS and 55 new signs.

2.3.1.4. Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)

The majority of the operational responsibility over the corridor falls under NYSTA and NYSDOT. From the Thruway Statewide Operations Center (TSOC), located at its administrative headquarters in Albany, NYSTA coordinates the response to traffic incidents, disseminates weather information through its Winter Travel Advisory Information system (which reports on road status, and pavement and weather conditions), manages operations and shares information with other relevant traffic authorities in the region.

NYSDOT has a network of Regional Traffic Operation Centers to manage traffic locally. The project Corridor is entirely under NYSDOT’s Region 8, whose operations center, the Hudson Valley Transportation Management Center (HVTMC), is located in Hawthorne, Westchester County.

Traffic Signals The project corridor has traffic controllers from the Advanced Transportation Controller (ATC) family, of model 179 or model 2070. This outdated technology bars expansions to incorporate most functions required by an ICMS. The ATC 2070 controllers have encountered compatibility issues on recent TSP and adaptive traffic control system (ATSC) projects. NYSDOT will investigate these issues further before finalizing the signal upgrade strategy in the corridor.

There are 139 traffic signals along the corridor with the following split in ownership:

Exhibit - 2.3.1.4 Existing Traffic Signal Inventory and Ownership

Owner Amount NYSDOT 70 WDPWT 14 City of White Plains 22 Local Townships 16 Private 17 Total 139

The operation and maintenance may be delegated, as is the case with the two traffic signals on Westchester Avenue and Westerleigh Road, which are owned by NYSDOT, but maintained and operated by Westchester County. Within the Corridor, there are 16 installations with direct communication to a central office, which, combined with a state-of-the-art CCTV system, allows real time traffic monitoring and control capabilities.

CCTV The CCTV system provides surveillance capabilities by streaming live video for traffic flow and incident management monitoring. Almost all of the installed cameras “live feeds” are accessible at the HVTMC and at the TSOC. Most cameras are on the parkways and interstates (75 locations), with a smaller portion deployed on state highways, or stocked in storage. Data travel through cellular, T1 line, Fiber Optic and combination Fiber Optic/T1 line. Data transfer methods from the remaining locations are unknown.

Variable Message Signs (VMS)

2-12

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

VMS coverage in Westchester County is consistent with that for the detector and surveillance devices i.e., along the Thruway and Parkways, and non-existent on the parallel State roadways with some provision on major north-south roads.

Most VMS in Rockland County are located on the Thruway. VMS coverage in Westchester County has a much greater presence than in Rockland County as was noted for the installations of detectors and CCTV previously. All the VMS installations are addressable through remote communication.

Transmit Transmit locations consist of detection devices with associated hardware and software used to provide traffic data to a third-party (TRANSCOM) for processing and distribution to the general public. The distribution is via computer/cell phone based applications that provide a graphical representation of existing traffic conditions. There are 68 Transmit devices in the corridor.

Traffic Data Systems Traffic Data Systems (TDS) are a collection of traffic monitoring installations (detection devices with associate hardware and software) providing traffic data to the ICMS. Most are new installations, primarily to support the ICMS, while others expand and reconfigure existing traffic detectors. TDS not only expands the deployment of traffic detection within the corridor but also introduces new types of detection methods, such as radar and Automatic Incident Detection Cameras, allowing NYSDOT and other stakeholders to be more informed of traffic conditions and patterns within the area.

The primary detection methods for the project are through the introduction of radar, to provide a non- intrusive method of capturing volume, speed and occupancy, and the expansion of Bluetooth within the region, to support journey time monitoring throughout Rockland and Westchester. Inductive loops remain the primary source of detection at traffic signal intersections, and their conditions are being reviewed to ensure suitability for the introduction of adaptive signal control at selected sites.

Highway Advisory Radio Highway Advisory Radio (HAR) is a public AM radio service disseminating traffic related advisory reports, Amber alerts, etc. NYSDOT provides its input via a mobile, solar powered, trailer mounted transmitter with a five-mile transmission radius, deployed as needed. NYSDOT has no dedicated HAR signs, and uses VMS to inform drivers when they are under HAR coverage, and which radio frequency they can tune into.

HAR is not being proposed as part of ICMS, and no integration of existing HAR is being proposed into the project’s ICMS.

Asset Condition In general, the condition of the assets appear functional and adequate for the existing Traffic Management activities.

Technology Projects in the Corridor The current and proposed projects below include updates to technology in the transportation system within the project area.  Westchester County is currently deploying a new TSP system and bus queue jump lanes for the Central Park Avenue corridor to support the Bee-Line Transit service. The TSP deployment runs through the Town of Greenburgh, and the Cities of White Plains and Yonkers. The proposed corridor upgrade entails eight intersections, of which three are in Greenburgh and five are in White Plains. Westchester have selected the Opticom GPS product, which employs a local bus GPS capability to initiate a priority request that is sent wirelessly to the local signal controller.  NYSDOT upgrade of the primary HVTMC Advanced Traffic Management Systems (ATMS) CoVal, Foundation iii  NYSDOT upgrade of the HVTMC Video Wall

2-13

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

 NYSTA NNYB Project which includes a substantial ITS scope including new VMS, CCTV, Lane Control Signs, Variable Speed Limit Signs, Communications network and the delivery of a new ATMS (Kapsch Dynac) to support the management of bridge operations.

Regional Partnerships TRANSCOM is a coalition of 16 transportation and public safety agencies charged with creating cooperative approaches to regional transportation management. The organization, founded in 1986, shares information between members and coordinates region-wide transportation improvements. TRANSCOM’s Open Reach initiative collects and disseminates real-time incident and construction information to all members of the TRANSCOM network, and allows the agencies to coordinate their approach in sharing information with the public.

Another organization working to share transportation information in the area is the HVTMC, which is sponsored by NYSDOT and New York State Police (NYSP) and provides traffic information regarding seven counties in New York. The HVTMC communicates with a number of key stakeholders within New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Pennsylvania. It also disseminates information to travelers through radio, websites and VMS, and shares information with TRANSCOM.

ITS Regional Architecture The regional ITS Architecture provides a framework for planning, programming and implementing Intelligent Transportation Systems. A project ITS architecture has been developed for the ICMS using the existing Region 8 architecture as a baseline but contains elements that are missing from the current Region 8 architecture. The project architecture identifies two new centers to be added to the Region 8 Regional ITS Architecture which are both expected to be operated by personnel in the HVTMC: 1. ICMS 2. LHTL Transit Operator Central System

The defined project architecture identifies the service packages that are to be supported by the inventory elements as illustrated in the figure below

OpenReach Interface Transit Agencies Traffic Data Providers Event Operators

OpenReach Interface Foundation 3 (NYSDOT)

ATMS01 Network ATMS08 Traffic Incident LHTL Transit Operator Back office OpenReach Interface Surveillance Management System ATIS06 Transportation AD1 ITS Data Mart Operations Data Sharing TRANSCOM DFE / Spatel Servers ATMS02 Traffic Probe Surveillance

ATIS06 Transportation EM08 Disaster Response AD2 ITS Data Warehouse APTS01 Transit Vehicle APTS06 Transit Fleet Operations Data Sharing and Recovery EM08 Disaster Response ATMS04 Traffic Metering Tracking Management and Recovery

ATMS06 Traffic MC08 Work Zone APTS02 Transit Fixed APT S07 Mult i-moda l Information Dissemination Management Route Operations Coordination ICMS

MC10 Maintenance and AD2 ITS Data Warehouse ATMS07 Regional Traffic Construction Activity Management Coordination APTS04 Transit Fare APTS08 Transit Traveller Collection Management Information ATMS09 Transportation APT S07 Mult i-moda l EM08 Disaster Response Decision Support and Coordination and Recovery ATMS.now Demand Management APTS09 Transit Signal APTS09 Transit Signal ATMS03 Traffic Signal APTS05 Transit Security Priority Priority Control APTS08 Transit Traveller ATMS07 Regional Traffic Information Management ATMS07 Regional Traffic APTS10 Transit Passenger Management counting ATIS06 Transportation ATMS08 Traffic Incident Operations Data Sharing Management System Westchester / White Plains Signal Systems

APTS09 Transit Signal ATMS03 Traffic Signal Priority Control

Dynac (NYSTA new bridge ATMS) ATMS07 Regional Traffic Management

ATMS01 Network ATMS07 Regional Traffic ATMS22 Variable Speed EM08 Disaster Response Surveillance Management Limits and Recovery CARS (NYSTA)

ATMS02 Traffic Probe ATMS08 Traffic Incident ATMS23 Dynamic Lane MC08 Work Zone ATMS01 Network ATMS06 Traffic EM08 Disaster Response Surveillance Management System Management Interface Management

Surveillance Information Dissemination and Recovery

MC10 Maintenance and Interface ATMS05 HOV Lane ATMS10 Electronic Toll ATMS24 Dynamic Construction Activity ATMS02 Traffic Probe ATMS07 Regional Traffic MC08 Work Zone Management Collection Roadway Warning Coordination Surveillance Management Management OpenReach

ATMS06 Traffic ATMS18 Reversible Lane MC12 Infrastructure ATMS08 Traffic Incident MC10 Maintenance and CV006 Weigh in Motion OpenReach Information Dissemination Management Monitoring ATMS04 Traffic Metering Construction Activity Management System Coordination

Region 8 is currently in the process of updating its architecture, which will be released in April 2017. The project has been coordinating with Region 8 to ensure that the project ITS architecture is compliant with the Region 8 architecture update.

2.3.1.5. Speeds and Delay

2-14

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

The speed data for the corridor are summarized below. Detailed peak period speeds by section and time are summarized in Appendix C.

Exhibit - 2.3.1.5 Speed Data Route I-287 NY-59 NY-119 Existing Speed Limit 65 (north of Interchange 14A) Variable, 30 to 55 Variable, 30 to 45 (mph) 55 (south of Interchange 14A) Peak Period Operating 12 to 34 11 to 22 60 to 67 (65 mph section) Speed (mph) and Transcom, Oct. 2014 Transcom, Oct. 14 to 59 (55 mph section) Method Used for 2014 Transcom, Oct. 2014 Measurement Travel Speed and See Appendix C See Appendix C See Appendix C Delay Runs for Existing Conditions

2.3.1.6. Traffic Volumes

Refer to Appendix C of this report for traffic data. The traffic data were obtained in the years 2013-2015.

2.3.1.6. (1) Existing traffic volumes:

Traffic volume data were collected from a number of sources, including NYSTA permanent loops, NYSTA toll plaza data, NYSDOT Automatic Traffic Recorder (ATR) count program, County ATR counts, and ATR and Turning Movement Counts (TMC) commissioned for this project and other specific project analyses. TMCs were collected via manual observation and video processing. The peak hour for I-287 was determined to be 7:15-8:15 a.m. and 3:45-4:45 p.m., based on the Tappan Zee Bridge toll plaza data and ATR counts. NY-59 and NY-119 peak hours were determined as the most frequently occurring peak-hour volume for peak-direction travel among all intersections within the corridor. NY-59 peak hours were determined to be 7:30-8:30 a.m. and 5:00 to 6:00 p.m. NY-119 peak hours were determined to be 8:00- 9:00 a.m. and 4:45-5:45 p.m. Detailed traffic volumes are shown in Appendix C.

A discussion of the traffic count methodology, peak hour, and turning movement volumes for intersections with identified accident patterns, all major intersections, and major traffic generator driveways/entrances is included in Appendix C.

Exhibit - 2.3.1.6 Traffic Data: representative locations: Route I-287 (Tappan Zee NY-59 (@ NY 45) NY-119 (@ NY 100/Central Bridge) Ave) Directional 67% EB/33% WB AM, 49% EB/51%WB AM, 72% EB/28% WB AM, Distribution 38% EB/62%WB PM 51% EB/49% WB PM 42% EB/58% WB PM 0.99 EB (AM)/ 0.96 WB 0.86 EB AM 0.88 WB 0.91 EB (AM) / 0.94 WB Peak-Hour Factor (PM) PM (PM) 3.8% EB (AM), 4.5% WB 6.2% EB (AM), 2.1% 1.7% EB (AM), 0.7% WB % Peak-Hour Trucks (PM) WB (PM) (PM) 3.5% EB, 4.3% WB 1.2% EB, 1.4% WB % Daily Trucks 4.3% EB, 5.4% WB (Peak period) (Peak period) 2.3.1.6. (2) Future no-build design year traffic volume forecasts:

The Estimated Time of Completion (ETC)+10 design year was selected per NYSDOT Project Development Manual (PDM) Appendix 5. An ETC+30 year projection was not completed as the project is not near a bridge or large culvert. Peak-hour turning movement volumes for intersections with identified

2-15

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

accident patterns, all major intersections, and major traffic generator driveways/entrances are included for the design year(s) in Appendix C.

2.3.1.7. Level of Service and Mobility -

2.3.1.7. (1) Existing level of service and capacity analysis –

Refer to Appendix C-4 of this report for the Existing and No Build volume and LOS.

2.3.1.8. Safety Considerations, Accident History and Analysis –

An accident summary was performed for each of the three corridors in the project: I-287, NY-59, and NY- 119. Data were collected for the last three years: 2013, 2014, and 2015. Since I-287 is an interstate highway, motor vehicle accidents are more prominent than pedestrian. Alternatively, NY-59 and NY-119 are multilane highways with signalized intersections and high pedestrian activity. Data was received from the NYSDOT Safety Program Management and Coordination Bureau in the Office of Traffic Safety and Mobility within the System Development and Operations Unit.

Collisions on I-287 were summarized for the 13 ramps receiving ramp metering within an “area of influence” 0.3 miles upstream and downstream (0.6 miles total) of each ramp on the I-287 mainline. Only collisions denoted as “On Road” were included in the summary.

The ramp’s zones of influence that have the most collisions reported within the last three analysis years, in order from greatest number of collisions to least, are 12-WB, 13S-WB, 14-EB, and 11-WB, with an average of ten or more collisions per year.

Exhibit - 2.3.1.8a Collision Summary per Ramp (annual average) Route I-287, From 2013 to 2015 Ramp (area of influence) Number per year Percentage 14A-EB 3.3 4 14-WB 4.7 6 14-EB 11.3 13 13S-WB 12.3 15 13S-EB 5.0 6 13N-WB 1.0 1 13N-EB 8.3 10 12-WB 14.7 17 12-EB 4.0 5 11-WB 10.3 12 9-WB 4.7 6 1-WB 0.7 1 4-WB 3.7 4

No collisions resulting in a fatality were reported over the last three years within the zone of influence for the 13 project ramps. One severe injury was reported over the last three years at each of the ramp’s influence areas: 14-EB, 13S-WB, and 11-WB. There was a high number of non-severe injuries (approximately five per year) at ramps 13S-WB and 12-WB.

Exhibit - 2.3.1.8b Collision Severity Summary by Ramp (annual average) I-287, From 2013 to 2015 Ramp Number of Injuries Number of Severe Number of Fatalities (area of influence) Injuries

2-16

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

14A-EB 1.0 0.0 0.0 14-WB 2.0 0.0 0.0 14-EB 2.3 0.3 0.0 13S-WB 5.3 0.3 0.0 13S-EB 2.3 0.0 0.0 13N-WB 0.0 0.0 0.0 13N-EB 2.0 0.0 0.0 12-WB 4.3 0.0 0.0 12-EB 0.3 0.0 0.0 11-WB 2.3 0.3 0.0 9-WB 1.0 0.0 0.0 1-WB 0.3 0.0 0.0 4-WB 1.0 0.0 0.0

Most of the collisions occurring on I-287 within 0.6 miles of the 13 project ramps were rear-end collisions, which make up 47.0% of the total collisions per year. The second most common incident was overtaking (21.6%). The zone of influence for ramp 13S-WB saw approximately five overtaking collisions and six rear-end collisions per year over the last three years, and the zone for ramp 14-EB saw approximately seven rear-end collisions per year over the last three years. Other noteworthy locations are the areas of influence for ramp 12-WB, which had eight rear-end collisions per year, ramp 13N-EB, which had six, and ramp 11-WB, which had five.

Exhibit - 2.3.1.8c Collision Type Summary by Ramp’s area of influence (annual average) I-287, From 2013 to 2015

Ramp Total per Year (area of influence) Left Turn Overtaking Rear End Right Angle Other 14A-EB 0.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 0.3 14-WB 0.0 1.3 2.7 0.0 0.7 14-EB 0.0 2.0 7.3 0.0 2.0 13S-WB 0.0 4.7 6.0 0.3 1.3 13S-EB 0.0 0.3 3.0 0.0 1.7 13N-WB 0.0 0.3 0.7 0.0 0.0 13N-EB 0.0 1.7 6.0 0.0 0.7 12-WB 0.0 3.3 8.0 0.7 2.7 12-EB 0.0 1.7 1.3 0.0 1.0 11-WB 0.0 3.0 5.0 0.0 2.3 9-WB 0.3 2.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 1-WB 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 4-WB 0.0 0.3 2.0 0.3 1.0 % 0.3% 21.6% 47.0% 1.3% 13.7%

The NY-59 corridor has a high number of motor vehicle collisions - 873 per year - making up 90% of total collisions for this corridor in this time period. There were 17 animal collisions and 15 pedestrian collisions per year.

Exhibit - 2.3.1.8d Collision Summary (annual average) NY-59, From 2013 to 2015 Type of Collision Number per year Percentage Animal 16.7 2 Bicyclist 5.7 1 2-17

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

Pedestrian 15.0 2 Motor Vehicle 872.7 90 Other 47.3 5

Since NY-59 has substantial bicyclist and pedestrian usage, the collisions involving these two modes were summarized by mile marker to identify high hazard areas. The highest pedestrian collisions, 25 per year, occurred between mile markers 59 85011060 and 59 85011080, or otherwise known as the segment between the eastbound off-ramp to Saddle River Rd in Monsey and its intersection with S. Central Ave in Spring Valley.

Exhibit - 2.3.1.8e Bicyclist and Pedestrian Collision Summary (annual average) NY, From 2013 to 2015 From Mile Marker To Mile Marker Bicyclist Number per year Pedestrian Number per year 59 85011010 59 85011020 3 2 59 85011020 59 85011030 0 2 59 85011030 59 85011040 0 2 59 85011040 59 85011050 1 2 59 85011050 59 85011060 3 3 59 85011060 59 85011070 4 12 59 85011070 59 85011080 3 13 59 85011080 59 85011090 1 2 59 85011090 59 85011100 1 3 59 85011100 59 85011110 0 1 59 85011110 59 85011120 0 0 59 85011120 59 85011130 0 2 59 85011130 59 85011140 1 1 59 85011140 59 85011150 0 0

For NY-119, motor vehicle collisions had the most amount of incidents: 450 per year or 91% of all types of collisions. There were 19 collisions per year with pedestrians, 4% of all types of collisions.

Exhibit - 2.3.1.8f Collision Summary (annual average) NY-119, From 2013 to 2015 Type of Collision Number per year Percentage Animal 0.7 0 Bicyclist 2.3 0 Pedestrian 19.0 4 Motor Vehicle 450.3 91 Other 23.3 5

2.3.1.9. Existing Police, Fire Protection and Ambulance Access -

I-287, NY-59 and NY-119 are used by emergency vehicles. A number of emergency service providers, including police departments and fire stations, are located within the project area, including (but not limited to):

Rockland County . Suffern Police Department at 61 Washington Ave, Suffern, NY . Ramapo Police Department at 237 NY-59, Suffern, NY . South Nyack Police Department at 282 South Broadway, Nyack, NY . Suffern Fire Department at 35 Washington Ave, Suffern, NY . Tallman Fire Department at 289 NY-59, Tallman, NY . Spring Valley Fire Department at 7 W Furman Pl, Spring Valley, NY 2-18

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

. Nanuet Fire Department at 7 Prospect St, Nanuet, NY . Nyack Fire Department at 288 Main St, Nyack, NY and 68 Main St, Nyack, NY

Westchester County . Tarrytown Village Police at 1 Depot Plaza, Tarrytown, NY . Elmsford Police Department at 15 S Stone Ave, Elmsford, NY . Greenburgh Police Department at 188 Tarrytown Rd, White Plains, NY . White Plains City Police Department at 77 S Lexington Ave, White Plains, NY . Tarrytown Fire Department at 177 Sheldon Ave, Tarrytown, NY . Elmsford Fire Department at 144 E Main St, Elmsford, NY . White Plains City Fire Department at 20 Ferris Ave, White Plains, NY

2.3.1.10. Parking Regulations and Parking Related Conditions–

Parking is restricted within the project area on the majority of the major roadways, with the exception of NY-59 west of Suffern Pl in Suffern and east of N. Midland Ave in Nyack.

Parking on Interstate highways is restricted by law within the project area.

2.3.1.11. Lighting–

There is street lighting on both the existing Tappan Zee Bridge and the NNYB. There is street lighting within the NY-59 and NY-119 corridors.

2.3.1.12. Ownership and Maintenance Jurisdiction– Exhibit - 2.3.1.12 Existing Maintenance Jurisdiction Part Highway Limit Feature(s) being CL Lane Agency Authority No. s Maintained (mile) (mile) 1 Interstate-287 Mainline roadway, NYS Thruway Sec. 340-b including Highway Law pavement, shoulders, drainage system, landscaping 1-1 Ramp 14A-EB Pavement, Striping NYS Thruway Sec. 340-b Highway Law 1-2 Ramp 14-EB Pavement, Striping NYS Thruway Sec. 340-b Highway Law 1-3 Ramp 13S-EB Pavement, Striping NYS Thruway Sec. 340-b Highway Law 1-4 Ramp 13N-EB Pavement, Striping NYS Thruway Sec. 340-b Highway Law 1-5 Ramp 12-EB Pavement, Striping NYS Thruway Sec. 340-b Highway Law 1-6 Ramp 4-WB Pavement, Striping NYS Thruway Sec. 340-b Highway Law 1-7 Ramp 1-WB Pavement, Striping NYS Thruway Sec. 340-b Highway Law 1-8 Ramp 9-WB Pavement, Striping NYS Thruway Sec. 340-b Highway Law 1-9 Ramp 11-WB Pavement, Striping NYS Thruway Sec. 340-b Highway Law 1-10 Ramp 12-WB Pavement, Striping NYS Thruway Sec. 340-b Highway Law 2-19

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

1-11 Ramp 13N- Pavement, Striping NYS Thruway Sec. 340-b WB Highway Law 1-12 Ramp 13S- Pavement, Striping NYS Thruway Sec. 340-b WB Highway Law 1-13 Ramp 14-WB Pavement, Striping NYS Thruway Sec. 340-b Highway Law 2 NY-59 (S.H.) Pavement, NYSDOT Sec. 12 Lighting, Striping, Highway Law sidewalks 3-1 Hallett Place Pavement, Village of at Chestnut St shoulders, drainage Suffern Intersection system 3-2 Airmont Rd / Pavement, Rockland NY-59 shoulders, drainage County Intersection system 3-3 Main St (NY Pavement, NYSDOT 306) at NY-59 shoulders, drainage Intersection system 3-4 Franklin St at Pavement, Village of Municipal shoulders, drainage Spring Valley Plaza system Intersection 3-5 NY-59 EB at Pavement, Town of Forman Dr shoulders, drainage Clarkstown Intersection system 3-6 NY-59 at Pavement, NYSDOT Mountainview shoulders, drainage Av system Intersection 3-7 Franklin St at Pavement, Village of Artopee Way shoulders, drainage Nyack Intersection system 3-8 Broadway at Pavement, NYSDOT NY-119 shoulders, drainage Intersection system 3-9 US 9 at W. Pavement, NYSDOT Elizabeth St shoulders, drainage Intersection system 3-10 Depot Plaza Pavement, Village of Intersection shoulders, drainage Tarrytown system 3-11 Tarrytown Rd Pavement, City of White at Central Av shoulders, drainage Plains Intersection system 3-12 Main St at Pavement, City of White Bank and shoulders, drainage Plains Hamilton Av at system Ferris Av Intersection 3-13 Main St at Pavement, City of White Court St shoulders, drainage Plains Intersection system 3-14 Martine Ave at Pavement, City of White Court St shoulders, drainage Plains Intersection system 2-20

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

3-15 Main St at Pavement, City of White Broadway shoulders, drainage Plains Intersection system 4-1 Palisades Palisa Signals Town of Center Dr at des Clarkstown NY-59 Mall 4-2 Palisades Palisa Signals Town of Center Dr (Lot des Clarkstown J) Mall 4-3 Franklin St at Signals Village of Clinton St South Nyack 5 NY-119 (S.H.) Pavement, NYSDOT Sec. 12 Lighting, Striping Highway Law

2.3.2. Multimodal

2.3.2.1. Pedestrians – Existing Conditions On I-287 there are no separate provisions for pedestrians. Pedestrians are prohibited on interstate highways by law.

The sidewalks on NY-59 are fragmented throughout the project area and many intersections lack ADA- compliant features, such as ramps and high visibility crosswalk markings. The sidewalks are typically four to eight feet in width. There are plans in the NYMTC TIP for constructing additional sidewalks and pedestrian ramps on NY-59. A complete sidewalk and bicycle route on NY-59 in Rockland County is listed in the Mid-Hudson South Region Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, dated June 2001.

The sidewalks on NY-119 are fragmented throughout the project area and many intersections lack ADA- compliant features, such as ramps and high visibility crosswalk markings. The sidewalks are typically five to seven feet in width. In some areas of White Plains, the sidewalks are as wide as 35 feet. There are plans in the NYMTC TIP for constructing additional sidewalks and pedestrian ramps on NY-119. The Cross-Westchester-Rockland Link (Rte. 119-TZ Bridge) is listed in the Mid-Hudson South Region Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, dated June 2001, as a proposed bicycle-pedestrian route that follows Westchester Avenue through White Plains to NY-119 and a path on the New NY Bridge that will connect into Rockland County for a total of 13.0 miles.

A list of trailways and pathways in the project area is provided in Section 2.3.2.5.

Planned Improvements The Routes NY-59 and NY-45 Pedestrian Safety Study was conducted in 2015 by NYSDOT to develop recommendations for improved pedestrian safety along NY-59 and NY-45. The NY-59 corridor studied extends from New County Road in Tallman to S. Pascack Road in Spring Valley, which is fully within the LHTL project area. This study included the following infrastructure recommendations to improve pedestrian safety, some of which are incorporated into the Build Alternative of this project.  Provide a network of consistent, continuous, accessible and well-delineated sidewalks including corridor-wide ADA-compliant ramps.  Establish a network of safe crossing opportunities with a reasonable distance between crossings to accommodate safe pedestrian circulation and accessibility.  Provide updated roadway equipment including lighting, signing, and pedestrian signals.  Provide improved pedestrian access and safe crossing opportunities at designated transit stops.  Change the character of the roadways through reconstruction projects that incorporate features such as raised and planted medians, midblock crosswalks, and curb extensions.

2-21

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

Bicycle and pedestrian components will be part of the NNYB, linking Rockland and Westchester Counties with a new multi-use path on the north side of the bridge connecting Nyack to Tarrytown.

A pedestrian generator checklist is included in Appendix D.

2.3.2.2. Bicyclists – Existing Conditions There are no existing bicycle facilities on I-287 since bicyclists are prohibited on Interstate highways by law.

A list of trailways, pathways, and walkways in the project area is provided in Section 2.3.2.5.

A proposal for a complete sidewalk and bicycle route on NY-59 in Rockland County is listed in the Mid- Hudson South Region Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, dated June 2001.

Planned Improvements NYSDOT is developing several greenway/pathway extensions and continues to work with the East Coast Greenway effort to assist in extending a greenway from Florida to Maine through Westchester County. Rockland County has been actively working with the Hudson River Valley Greenway effort, and has dedicated over 34 miles of the Greenway Trail. The existing regional bicycle and pedestrian trailways and pathways in Westchester County consist of off-road paths, road shoulders, and bicycle routes along selected roads. Most off-road paths are multi-use, though some are restricted for pedestrian only. Paths along major roads and corridors are primarily intended for bicycle use.

The following roadways have planned bicycle routes.  NY-9: Proposed road corridor route from Dobbs Ferry to Tarrytown  NY-119: Proposed road corridor route from Tarrytown to White Plains  NY-100: Proposed road corridor route from Yonkers to White Plains  NY-22: Proposed road corridor route from White Plains to NY- 120 in Cooney Hill  Lake St: proposed road corridor route from White Plains to NY- 120 in Purchase  New New York Bridge: Proposed off-road path

2.3.2.3. Transit –

The Rockland County TZx commuter bus route operates within the project area, providing service between Suffern, Airmont, Spring Valley, Nanuet, Palisades Center, Central Nyack, and South Nyack in Rockland; and Tarrytown and White Plains in Westchester County, which are major activity centers and have train stations served by Metro-North Railroad. Rockland County TOR provides ten local bus routes throughout the county, most of which run through the project area.

There are multiple park and rides located along NY-59 within Rockland County in Suffern, Spring Valley, Nanuet, and South Nyack. There is also a park and ride at the Palisades Center in West Nyack, NY.

The Westchester County Bee-Line serves the county with nearly 60 local and express bus routes, some feeding Metro-North stations and others providing access from White Plains Metro-North Station to office parks in the I-287 corridor. Many of these routes have a transfer point at the TransCenter in White Plains. An express route, the MxM4C, provides service to Manhattan from White Plains, operating along 5th and Madison Avenues in Manhattan and terminating at 23rd Street. The entire Bee-Line fleet accepts MetroCard and is ADA-compliant. In 2009, Westchester County released its Central Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Assessment Study Final Report, which analyzed the potential for a 14.4-mile BRT route from downtown White Plains to the Bedford Park Boulevard stations of the 4, B, and D subway routes in the Bronx. Improvements are being phased in due to the varying timeframes required for implementation and different jurisdictions with responsibility for the roadway and traffic signals. The development of TSP in the Central Avenue Corridor has been completed and is currently operational.

2-22

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

The Poughkeepsie-White Plains Express Bus travels from Dutchess and Putnam Counties to the Westchester Medical Center and downtown White Plains. The Orange-Westchester Link (OWL) offers daily express commuter bus service from Orange County to various locations in Tarrytown and White Plains, with intermediate stops in Rockland County. The I-BUS, running between Stamford and White Plains, is a public service of the Connecticut and New York State Departments of Transportation, operated by CTTRANSIT. It stops at Bee-Line stops in Westchester County, including locations in downtown White Plains. Clarkstown Mini-Trans is a community transit service operated by the Town of Clarkstown in Rockland, which operates five routes that converge on the Nanuet Mall on Route 59.

A number of other private transit operators provide bus service within and from Rockland and Westchester Counties, including Coach USA (Rockland Coaches), Monsey Trails, the Spring Valley Jitney, and Red & Tan Lines. These services operate from park and ride locations and also some on- street locations in both counties. Selected employers along the Platinum Mile in Westchester County operate private shuttles between White Plains and their corporate campuses.

See Exhibit 2.3.2.3 for a map of the major local bus transit systems in the NYMTC planning area.

2-23

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

Exhibit 2.3.2.3 Major Local Bus Transit Systems in the NYMTC Planning Area (Plan 2040: NYMTC Regional Transportation Plan)

2.3.2.4. Airports, Railroad Stations, and Ports –

The Westchester County Airport is approximately four miles from I-287 in White Plains, NY. The airport is operated by Westchester County. The airport is included in the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems for 2001-2015, which categorizes it as a small hub with current and five-year primary commercial service. It reports that the airport received 893,184 revenue passengers for FY 2014, has 306 aircraft hangars, and $41M in estimated five-year improvements that are eligible for Federal development grants under the Airport Improvement Program (AIP). 2-24

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

The project area has two commuter rail entities – MTA Metro-North Railroad (Metro-North) and New Jersey Transit (NJ Transit). Metro-North recently surpassed the Long Island Railroad (LIRR) as the busiest commuter railroad in North America, servicing 120 stations distributed across five lines in seven counties in New York State. See Exhibit 2.3.2.4 for a map of the commuter rail and Amtrak networks in the NYMTC Planning area.

There are five train stations located within the project area: 1. The Suffern Train Station is located off Orange Ave, 0.3 miles from NY-59, in Suffern, NY. The station is owned by New Jersey Transit. It services the New Jersey Transit Main Line and Bergen County Line as well as the Metro-North Port Jervis Line. It provides connections to TOR and Short Line Bus services. 2. The Spring Valley Train Station is located on S. Main Street, 0.2 miles from NY-59, in Spring Valley, NY. The station is owned by the Village of Spring Valley and New Jersey Transit, leased to Metro-North Railroad. It is the terminus of the New Jersey Transit Pascack Valley Line and provides connections to TOR and Rockland Coaches bus services. 3. The Nanuet Train Station is located off Main St, 0.5 miles from NY-59 in Nanuet, NY. The station is owned by New Jersey Transit on the Pascack Valley Line. It provides connections to TOR and Rockland Coaches bus services. 4. The Tarrytown Train Station is located on Depot Plaza, one mile from I-287 in Tarrytown, NY. The station is owned by Metro-North Railroad on the Hudson Line. It provides connections to Bee-Line and TZx bus services. 5. The White Plains Metro-North station is located in downtown White Plains with access from Hamilton Ave and Ferris Ave. The station is owned by Metro-North and serves the Metro-North Harlem Line. The station is near the White Plains TransCenter, serving Bee-Line buses.

Exhibit 2.3.2.4 Commuter Rail and Amtrak Networks in the NYMTC Planning Area (Plan 2040: NYMTC Regional Transportation Plan)

2-25

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

2.3.2.5. Access to Recreation Areas (Parks, Trails, Waterways, State Lands) –

Rockland County Rockland County has been actively working with the Hudson River Valley Greenway effort, and has dedicated over 34 miles of the Greenway Trail. The longest, continuous section of the Greenway Trail runs from the north end of Hook Mountain/Nyack Beach State Parks south to Tallman Mountain State Park, and encompasses over 24 linear miles of trail.

The following trailways, pathways, and walkways are located within the project area in Rockland County:  New York State Bicycle NY-9: Statewide Route, shared roadway, running from Palisades (New York/New Jersey State Line) to Stuyvesant (Columbia/Rensselaer County Line), totaling approximately 122 miles. The route follows River Road/Piermont Avenue in Nyack, which runs below the Tappan Zee Bridge overpass in Nyack.  Conrad J. Lynn Trail: Off road, multi-use trail in the Village of Nyack (part of the Hudson River Valley Greenway Trail). Trail runs from Upper Nyack to South Nyack with various loop and spurs to the river, totaling approximately 1.7 miles.  R.G. Esposito Memorial Trail: Off-road, multi-use path in the Village of South Nyack (part of the Hudson River Valley Greenway Trail)  Esposito-Gesner Avenue Park Link Trail: Off-road, pedestrian trail in the Village of South Nyack (part of the Hudson River Valley Greenway Trail).

The following recreation areas are accessed from the project corridors in Rockland County:  Dater Mountain Nature Park in Suffern  Monsey Glen County Park in Ramapo  Frank J. and Lillian G. Schwartz Memorial Park in Ramapo  Hudson River

Westchester County The East Coast Greenway is a project aimed to create a nearly 3,000-mile pedestrian-bicycle trail from Maine to Florida. NYSDOT continues to work with the East Coast Greenway effort to assist in extending the route through Westchester County. Possible connections to the proposed Merritt Parkway Trailway via the Hutchinson River Parkway right-of-way are being studied and work on implementing the Hudson River Valley Greenway continues.

The Westchester RiverWalk is a planned 51.5 mile multi-faceted pathway paralleling the Hudson River in Westchester. When completed, it will link village centers, historic sites, parks, and river access points via a connection of trails, esplanades, and boardwalks. RiverWalk spans 14 municipalities in Westchester and is part of the Hudson River Valley Greenway system. 32.9 miles of RiverWalk’s route is publically accessible, utilizing newly constructed sections as well as existing sidewalks, paths and trails, such as the Old Croton Aqueduct, and paths within existing parks and facilities. A section of RiverWalk was completed in Tarrytown-Sleepy Hollow in summer 2010.

The following trailways, pathways, and walkways are located within the project area in Westchester County:  North County Trailway  South County Trailway: Paved, off-road, multi-use trail following the course of the former Putnam Railroad right-of-way from Eastview south to the Bronx, totaling approximately 14.25 miles. The route intersects with NY-119 in Elmsford.  Old Croton Aqueduct Trailway: Historic, unpaved, off-road trail following the route of the original Croton Aqueduct between Croton Dam and New York City, connecting to the Bronx, totaling approximately 24.0 miles. The route intersects with Sheldon Ave in Tarrytown.  Bronx River Pathway: Off-road path on the Bronx River Parkway Reservation between Kensico Dam Plaza and New York City, totaling approximately 12.8 miles. The route passes below NY- 119 in White Plains.

2-26

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

 Westchester River Walk: Off-road trail facility that will run along the entire length of the Hudson River waterfront in Westchester County. Portions will be multi-use while other areas may be pedestrian only, totaling approximately 51.9 miles. 32.9 miles are completed, 2.7 miles are in design or planning stages. The route passes below the Tappan Zee Bridge overpass in Tarrytown.  City of White Plains bicycle lanes to train station: One way pair of on-street bicycle lanes on Martin Luther King Boulevard and South Lexington Avenue to MNRR station, totaling approximately 1.6 miles.

The following recreation areas are accessed from the project corridors in Westchester County:  Tarrytown Lakes Park/Buttermilk Ridge in Tarrytown  Old Croton Trailway State Park in Tarrytown  Laguna Field in Glenville  Glenville Woods in Glenville  Taxter Ridge in Irvington  Legion Park in Elmsford  Delucia Park in Elmsford  White Plains Ave Park in Elmsford  Glenville Woods in Elmsford  Knollwood Country Club in Elmsford  Yosemite Park in Fairview  Bronx River Parkway Reservation  Town Park in North White Plains  Conservation Area of Winding Ridge in White Plains  Tibbets Park in White Plains  Delfino Park in White Plains

The following waterways are within or in the vicinity of the project area in Westchester County:  Hudson River  Sheldon Brook in Irvington  Rum Brook in Elmsford

2.3.3. Infrastructure

2.3.3.1. Existing Highway Section

Interstate 287 I-287 is typically a six-lane divided highway comprised of one auxiliary lane in the eastbound and up to two auxiliary lanes in the westbound direction, with left- and right-side shoulders of variable width for both the eastbound and westbound directions.

The eastbound and westbound directions are separated by concrete barriers with varied left shoulder widths. The horizontal alignment is primarily curved with mainly 12-foot wide travel lanes. The total highway pavement width varies from 90 feet to 140 feet. Access to I-287 is mostly through grade- separated interchanges. There no provisions for parking or non-motorized usage along I-287.

NY-59 NY-59 runs adjacent to I-287 within the project area. It consists primarily of two travel lanes in each direction (although it narrows in certain sections in Spring Valley to just one lane per direction) with dedicated turn lanes at major intersections. The segment between Hemion Road and Brookside Avenue includes a Two-Way Left-Turn Lane (TWLTL). The roadway is curbed, and includes shoulders of variable width (<1 foot to 4 feet) on each side. The total pavement width of NY-59 within the project area varies from 34 feet to 62 feet. 2-27

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

NY-119 NY-119 consists of two to three travel lanes in each eastbound and westbound direction and exclusive turn lanes. There are segments with a TWLTL and landscaped median. The roadway is curbed within the project, and includes no shoulders west of Old White Plains Road.

2.3.3.2. Geometric Design Elements Not Meeting Minimum Standards–

The table below lists non-standard features identified within the project area.

Exhibit 2.3.3.2a Locations with Existing Nonstandard Features

Existing Location Critical Design Element Standard Condition

Suffern: Hallett Pl Pedestrian HDM Chapter 18 Crosswalk, ADA and Chestnut St. Accommodation Pedestrian Ramps Airmont: Airmont Pedestrian HDM Chapter 18 ADA Pedestrian Rd. at NY-59 Accommodation Ramps Mountainview Rd Pedestrian HDM Chapter 18 Sidewalk, at NY-59 Accommodation Crosswalk, ADA Pedestrian, Curb Ramp Tarrytown: NY-9 Pedestrian HDM Chapter 18 Crosswalk, ADA and Main St./W. Accommodation Pedestrian Ramps, Elizabeth St. Accessible Parking Tarrytown: Pedestrian HDM Chapter 18 Sidewalk (Lamp Tarrytown Station Accommodation Post obstruction, Depot Plaza ADA Pedestrian Ramps Ramp 14-WB Minimum Lane Width 15’ (1 Ln) for 300’ radius and standard 13’ full depth shoulders (HDM Ex 2-9a) Ramp 14-EB Minimum Lane Width 15’ (1 Ln) for 500’ radius and standard Varies, 14’ (min) full depth shoulders (HDM Ex 2-9a) Acceleration Lane Taper 300 ft min 160’ Length (AASHTO Fig 10-69) Ramp 13S-WB Minimum Lane Width 16’ (1 Ln) for 200’ radius and standard 15’ full depth shoulders (HDM Ex 2-9a) Length of Acceleration 910 ft (highway 60 mph, ramp 30 mph, 890’ Lane 0% grade) (AASHTO Tables 10-3 & 10-4) Ramp 13S-EB Minimum Lane Width 15’ (1 Ln) for 300’ radius and standard 14’ full depth shoulders (HDM Ex 2-9a) Right Shoulder Width 6' (HDM Ex 2-10) 3’ (with guide rail) Ramp 13N-WB Minimum Lane Width 15’ (1 Ln) for 300’ radius and standard 14’ full depth shoulders (HDM Ex 2-9a) Right Shoulder Width 6' (HDM Ex 2-10) 3’ (with guide rail) Ramp 13N-EB Minimum Lane Width 15’ (1 Ln) for 300’ radius and standard 14’ full depth shoulders (HDM Ex 2-9a) Acceleration Lane Taper 300 ft min 200’ Length (AASHTO Fig 10-69)

Ramp 12-WB Ramp Design Speed and For 25 mph: 154' (e=4%); 144' (e=6%); Rmin=175’, and 2-28

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

Curve Radius 134' (e=8%) advisory speed is For 30 mph: 250' (e=4%); 231' (e=6%); 30 mph. 214' (e=8%) (HDM Ex 2-10) Ramp 12-EB Minimum Lane Width 16’ (1 Ln) for 200’ radius and standard 14’ full depth shoulders (HDM Ex 2-9a) Length of Acceleration 1428' (highway 60 mph, ramp 25 mph, 850’ Lane 3% upgrade) (AASHTO Tables 10-3 & 10-4) Acceleration Lane Taper 300 ft min 250’ Length (AASHTO Fig 10-69) Ramp 9-WB Minimum Lane Width 16’ (1 Ln) for 200’ radius and standard 15’ full depth shoulders (HDM Ex 2-9a) Acceleration Lane Taper 300 ft min 200’ Length (AASHTO Fig 10-69)

2.3.3.2.(1) Other Design Parameters -

There are no other existing nonconforming features.

2.3.3.3. Pavement and Shoulder -

The majority of the project work is limited to bus shelter installation, signal improvements, minor sidewalk construction and related activities and does not include pavement reconstruction. Therefore, a discussion of existing pavement and shoulder issues is not relevant at these locations. The ramp metering locations provided in Exhibit 2.3.3.2a do include some areas of widening/reconstruction and existing pavement and shoulder sections are assumed to be per standard NYSTA details in the absence of an available Pavement Evaluation and Treatment Selection Report (PETSR).

2.3.3.4. Drainage Systems -

The majority of the project work is limited to bus shelter installation, signal improvements, minor sidewalk construction and related activities. For intersection improvement sites existing drainage systems will be retained. For ramp metering locations that require pavement widening the existing drainage systems will either be retained or modified by the proposed work where impacted.

2.3.3.5. Geotechnical–

There are no special geotechnical concerns with the soils or rock slopes within the project area.

2.3.3.6. Structure–

New sidewalks are proposed for the following bridge structure.

2.3.3.6. (1) Description: (a) BIN 1027640 (b) Feature carried and crossed – NY-59 over I-287 (c) Type of bridge, number and length of spans, etc. – Four span highway overpass with concrete piers, steel girders, and concrete deck (d) Width of travel lanes, parking lanes, and shoulders – Two travel lanes in either direction with reduced shoulders, separated by striped median (e) Sidewalks – Curbed sidewalks provided on both sides of deck with open barrier and trash screen (f) Utilities carried – Lighting standards and fixtures, sign structures, and utility and utility supports

2-29

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

As per bridge inspection report dated 05/29/2014, the concrete sidewalk within spans 3 and 4 exhibits areas of severe scaling/spalling, several of which constitutes a tripping hazard. The rating reported for this area of the sidewalk is “4”.

2.3.3.6.(2) Clearances (Horizontal/Vertical) – Not posted

2.3.3.6.(3) History & Deficiencies – Protective screening installed under contract TANY 92-75F. This is a four span multi-girder type built in 1953. Spacing between stringers is averaged for load rated purposes. Concrete wearing surface replaced with same thickness asphalt concrete in 2002. Added 20lbs./ft. for pedestrian fence dead load to railing load under railing appurtenance. Line Girder Analysis used for ratings.

2.3.3.6.(4) Inspection –

(a) Federal Sufficiency Rating – 5 (deck, superstructure, substructure), N (channel, culvert) (b) State Condition Rating – 4 (c) 2014 by WSA Group PE-PC – Safety Flag # 14-043 issued for spans 3 and 4, TP 350 item 21, Sidewalks & Fascias, rated “4”. Bridge is oriented west to east.

Concrete sidewalk at the bridge exhibits areas of severe scaling/spalling, several of which constitutes a tripping hazard at several locations.

It was observed during the inspection that the sidewalks were frequently used by the pedestrians.

2.3.3.6.(5) Restrictions – No posted load or height restrictions

2.3.3.6.(6) Future Conditions – Refer to Chapter 3 for details of the proposed Route 59 Safety Improvements anticipated at this location.

2.3.3.6.(7) Waterway –

A Coast Guard Checklist is not required.

2.3.3.7. Hydraulics of Bridges and Culverts–

There are no bridges or culverts over waterways within the project area limits that would be impacted by the project. There are no dams in the vicinity of the project that would be adversely affected.

2.3.3.8. Guide Railing, Median Barriers and Impact Attenuators–

Existing guide railing, median barriers, and impact attenuators at select ramp metering locations will be affected by the project.

2.3.3.9. Utilities–

Existing utilities at select intersections and ramp meter locations will be affected by the project.

Exhibit - 2.3.3.9 Existing Utilities Owner Type Location/Side Length Condition/Conflict Orange and Overhead N/A N/A No known Conflicts. Rockland Gas and Electric Con Edison Overhead N/A N/A No known Conflicts.

2-30

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

2.3.3.10. Railroad Facilities–

There are two railroad tracks within the project area, as listed in the Exhibit 2.3.3.10. The project is not expected to impact the existing rail lines.

Exhibit - 2.3.3.10 Existing Railroad Tracks Owner Location Crossing Side Length Condition NJ Transit Suffern Yes Existing grade crossing (non- operational rail line, no ped gate) NJ Transit Spring Valley Transit Yes Existing grade crossing Center (operational rail line, existing ped gate)

2.3.4. Potential Enhancement Opportunities

2.3.4.1. Landscape -

Existing landscape character throughout the project corridor varies from suburban commercial along the majority of the NY-59 corridor in Rockland County to suburban with a mixture of residential and commercial in Tarrytown and Nyack to urban in White Plains. Common existing station area landscape elements include streets, sidewalks, crosswalks, bump outs, signage, light poles, parking lots, commercial development, scattered planting, and specimen trees.

2.3.4.1. (1) Terrain –

The terrain throughout the project corridor is classified as level, with exception of Hamilton Ave between Bank St and Bronx St, characterized by a relatively steep grade.

2.3.4.1. (2) Unusual Weather Conditions-

Weather conditions within the project area are typical of the Lower Hudson region of New York. While not unusual, rain, snow, and ice can impact operations and conditions at each bus stop.

2.3.4.1. (3) Visual Resources -

The visual environment consists of typical suburban commercial corridor view sheds, with the exception of White Plains. The existing mixture of land uses, signage, and varying degrees of vegetation around the station areas presents a generally chaotic visual experience. In some instances, mature vegetation mitigates negative visual conditions. The visual environment in White Plains consists of urban scale buildings with minimal vegetation.

2.3.4.2. Opportunities for Environmental Enhancements–

There are no practical opportunities for environmental enhancements in the project area.

2.3.5. Miscellaneous

2-31

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

CHAPTER 3 – ALTERNATIVES

This chapter discusses the alternatives considered and the engineering aspects for the reasonable alternatives for the project.

3.1. Alternatives Considered and Dismissed from Further Study There were a total of three alternatives considered for this Project. The potential alternative described below was considered and dismissed from further study.

Potential Alternative 1, Full Build Alternative – this potential alternative was developed based on the MTTF recommendations, but was dropped from further consideration. The proposal included a system of seven new BRT routes in Rockland and Westchester Counties along with a package of infrastructure enhancements to increase transit speeds and improve schedule reliability. The proposed routes included (see Exhibit 3-1-A):

 Three inter-county routes connecting Rockland and Westchester Counties, with intra-Rockland connections.  Three intra-county routes connecting destinations in Westchester.  One route connecting Westchester County to the Bronx via Central Ave/ NY-100.  Per MTTF recommendations, in some locations the BRT buses would run in dedicated painted bus lanes to improve travel times.

This potential Full Build alternative was determined to be unreasonable due to costs, and subsequently dismissed from further consideration. However, many components of the MTTF recommendations, such as bus queue jump lanes, ramp metering, signal improvements, TSP, modern bus shelters and amenities are being progressed as part of the Build Alternative (described below).

Exhibit 3-1-A: Potential Alternative 1 that was considered and dismissed from further study - Regional BRT network with recommended stops

3-1

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

3.2. Alternatives

Two alternatives are under consideration for this project: the No-Build Alternative and the Build Alternative, as described below.

No-Build Alternative The No-Build Alternative assumes no improvements in the project area other than those planned by others or implemented as part of routine maintenance. Although it does not meet the project purpose and objectives, the No Build Alternative serves as the baseline condition against which the benefits and effects of the Build Alternative are evaluated.

Build Alternative The Build Alternative consists of four elements: 1. Bus shelter installation and replacement – the specific measures described below that are aimed to attract new riders and improve the transit experience for current commuters. The newly branded and distinctive enhanced bus shelters, which would include weather protection, seating, infrastructure/communication feeds for off-board ticket machines, and other passenger amenities including but not limited to RTPI displays, WiFi, and bike parking where space allows, would be installed at 24 proposed bus stop locations as provided in Appendix A and summarized, as follows:

# of Bus Municipality Stop Location Comments Shelters Rockland County Suffern Chestnut Street Hallett Place at Chestnut St 1 Replace existing shelter EB – Airmont Rd (new), Airmont Airmont Rd at NY-59 Airmont Rd / NY-59 2 WB – NY-59 (re-use) Monsey Monsey Park and Ride Park and Ride Lot on NY-59 1 New shelter Spring Valley Spring Valley Transit Center Franklin St at Municipal Plaza 1 Easternmost Bay (replace) EB – NY-59 (replace), Nanuet Exit 14 Park and Ride NY-59 (just east of Forman Dr) 2 WB – (re-use) Palisades Center Park and Palisades Center Dr (northwest West Nyack 1 Rehab existing shelter Ride corner of mall) Lot J West Nyack Macy's Palisades Center Dr at NY-59 1 New shelter EB – far side (new), Nyack Central Nyack NY-59 at Mountainview Av 2 WB – near side (replace) EB – Artopee (replace), Nyack Nyack (Artopee Way) Franklin St at Artopee Way 2 WB – Franklin St (new) EB – north side curb (new) South Nyack South Nyack South Franklin Street Extension 2 WB – south side curb (new) Westchester County NB – (sign post) Tarrytown Tarrytown / NY-119 Broadway at NY-119 1 SB – (new shelter) Tarrytown Metro-North New shelter Tarrytown Depot Plaza 1 Station (next to Bee-Line). White Plains Westchester County Center Tarrytown Rd at Central Av 2 New shelters White Plains Main St at Bank St Main St at Bank 1 New shelter White Plains White Plains MNR Station Ferris St at Hamilton Av 1 New shelter White Plains Galleria Mall at Main St Main St at Court St 1 New shelter White Plains Martine Ave at MLK Blvd Martine Av at MLK Blvd 1 New shelter – near side White Plains Main St at Broadway Main St at Broadway 1 New shelter TOTAL: 24

3-2

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

2. Intersection Safety Improvements – with specific focus on pedestrian safety at bus stops, and adjacent intersections and roadway segments. These improvements include new pedestrian crossings and signals, as well as improvements to sidewalks to ensure ADA compliance. A review of pedestrian accident data along NY-59 found that the most common vehicle-to- pedestrian accidents occurred when pedestrians crossed at unmarked midblock locations, and when motor vehicle operators failed to yield to pedestrians in crosswalks while making left turns or right turns on red. The proposed safety improvement measures would include recommendations formulated by the 2007 Rockland County Department of Public Transportation Route 59 Corridor Transit Operations Study. Other intersection improvements include: revisions to geometric design to increase intersection capacity and bus queue jump lanes to provide preference to buses at critical intersections. The summary of the proposed intersection improvements, is provided in the table below:

No. Intersection Improvement Location Municipality Brief Description of Improvements Crosswalk markings, ADA-compliant ramps with detectable warning panels, 1 Hallett Place and Chestnut St Suffern new sidewalk adjacent to bus stop, on- street parking restriping, french drain, minor regrading and resurfacing Bus queue jump lane (EB / WB) striping 2 Hemion Rd and Campbell Ave and signing New signal controller, ADA ramps with detectable warning panels, signal re- 3 Airmont Rd and NY-59 Airmont timing, crosswalk markings; Bus queue jump lane (EB) striping and signing Bus queue jump lane (EB / WB) striping 4 NY-59 / Spook Rock Rd / Cherry Lane and signing Bus queue jump lane (WB) striping and 5 NY-59 / College Rd / New Country Rd signing Bus queue jump lane (EB / WB) striping 6 NY-59 / Remsen Ave / S. Remsen St and signing NY-59 / NY-306 (Main St) / Saddle River Bus queue jump lane (WB) striping and 7 Rd signing Roadway restriping, crosswalk markings, 8 NY-59 and Park and Ride driveway Monsey ADA ramps with warning panels. Bus queue jump lane (EB) striping and 9 NY-59 / Kennedy Dr signing Striping and signing, signal upgrade and 10 NY-45 and Municipal Plaza ADA ramps with detectable warning panels. Striping and signing, signal upgrade and 11 NY-45 and Lawrence/Commerce St ADA ramps with detectable warning panels. ADA ramp with detectable warning 12 Spring Valley Transit Center panel. 13 NY-59 / Dutch Lane/S Central Ave Spring Valley Intersection re-design

Bus queue jump lane. Signing and 14 NY-59 EB at Forman Dr Nanuet striping. Signal re-timing, warning panels, new pedestrian signals 3-3

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

15 Palisades Center Park and Ride 16 Palisades Center Dr at Macy's Intersection re-design, signal re-timing, new ped. signals, crosswalk markings, 17 NY-59 at Mountainview Av Nyack ADA ramps with warning panels, sidewalk and curb reconstruction, landscaping at bus stop locations Curb extensions, signal upgrades, new pedestrian signals, ADA ramps with 18 Main St and Midland Ave Nyack detectable warning panels, signing and striping Curb extensions, signal upgrades, new pedestrian signals, ADA ramps with 19 Main St and Franklin St Nyack detectable warning panels, signing and striping Bus bulb-out/sidewalk extension (for NB bus stop), roadway cross slope adjustments as necessary, crosswalk 20 Franklin St at Artopee Way Nyack markings, ADA ramps with detectable warning panels, landscaping at bus stop locations. Curb extensions, signal upgrades, new pedestrian signals, ADA ramps with 21 Franklin St and Depew Ave Nyack detectable warning panels, signing and striping New sidewalk on South Franklin Extension (south curb), roadway restriping, crosswalk markings, 22 S Franklin St extension at US 9W South Nyack landscaping at bus stop locations, (new signal at Clinton and Franklin to be provided by the NNYB SUP Terminus Project) Controller upgrade, pavement patch 23 Broadway at NY-119 Tarrytown work, ADA-compliant ramps with detectable warning panels. 24 Tarrytown Train Station Tarrytown Signal upgrades, new pedestrian 25 Wildey St and Central Ave Tarrytown signals, ADA ramps with detectable warning panels, signing and striping Crosswalk markings, ADA-compliant 26 US 9 and W. Elizabeth St Tarrytown ramps with detectable warning panels Tarrytown Rd at Central Av Pavement repairs, crosswalk markings, 27 White Plains (Westchester County Center) landscaping at bus stop locations Controller upgrade, new ADA-compliant ramps with detectable warning panels (in 28 Main St at Bank St White Plains direction of train station), sidewalk repairs, crosswalk markings Controller upgrade, access to WP 29 Hamilton Ave at Ferris Ave White Plains station

30 Main St at Court St White Plains Controller upgrade

3-4

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

3. Improved Access to the White Plains Metro-North Station

The following concepts have been identified by the Design Team as potential strategies to improve access to the White Plains Metro-North Station:

Option 1 – Via Bronx River Park to South Broadway Option 2B – Via Tarrytown Road to South Broadway Option 2C – Via Tarrytown Road to Westchester Option 2D – Via Tarrytown Road to North Broadway Option 4 – Via Exit 6/North Broadway - Return via Exit 5

The Option 2D has been selected as the preferred concept, since it provides riders with closer access to the Train Station, whilst maintaining good access to key downtown destinations. This option limits extent of new construction work and ROW implications since all but one of the stops in downtown White Plains is at an existing bus stop for Westchester Bee Line or other regional bus service. The Option 2D alternative is similar to the existing route/circulation patterns (see Appendix G for detailed information). There will be some changes to the routing and stops in downtown White Plains. The TransCenter stops used for existing TZx service will be replaced by two new bus stops serving the Metro-North Train Station and surrounding area. The primary of these will be installed on Ferris Avenue, in the existing bus only lane across from the TransCenter (for eastbound and westbound travel) and one on Main Street approaching Bank Street (for eastbound travel) just east of the Metro-North railroad overpass. Access to the station from the Ferris Avenue stop is closer to the platform than the current service and the stop on Main Street will also serve the existing and future commercial and residential development south of the station area. A new service stop will be added on the eastern end of Main Street at N. Broadway for improved passenger access to and from White Plains destinations both north along Broadway and southeast toward Westchester Avenue. By placing this stop along N. Broadway (just north of Main Street) Option 2D offers a greater deal of flexibility for future service expansion to the east, by allowing eastbound buses to serve that stop before merging over to make the left onto S. Broadway / Westchester Avenue. For passengers using the new stop on Main Street at Bank Street for inbound travel and the Ferris Street stop for outbound travel, the Option 2D travel time savings will be over five minutes in both travel directions when compared to existing TZx service For passengers with a disability, total in-vehicle and out-of-vehicle travel time from I-287 to the White Plains train station will be reduced by 1.7 minutes with Option 2D compared to the existing TZx routing and stop placement. In the outbound direction, total travel time for passengers with a disability from the station to I-287 will improve by 5.5 minutes with Option 2D over existing TZx service.

3-5

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

Exhibit 3-2-A. Proposed bus route with improved access to White Plains Metro North Station (Option 2D via Tarrytown Road to South Broadway)

Exhibit 3-2-B. Travel time comparison of four White Plains bus route concepts.

3-6

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

4. Integrated Corridor Management – this project element includes the deployment of a TSP system in the major corridors to minimize bus travel time; traffic signal equipment upgrades and associated limited intersection improvements, and signal timing optimization to reduce delays at signalized intersections; ramp metering on I-287 to better manage traffic flow on the mainline; replacement of existing and installation of new VMS, CCTV, traffic detectors and fiber communications installation in Westchester and Rockland Counties. The locations proposed for various ICM subsystems are listed in the table below:

Exhibit 3-2-C. Proposed locations for Transit Signal Priority (TSP) deployment No. ID Intersection Municipality Milepost Latitude Longitude 1 TS_001 NY-59 and US-202 (Wayne Suffern 1.4 41.11714 -74.1549 Ave.) 2 TS_002 NY-59 and US-202 (Orange Suffern 1.5 41.11636 -74.1546 Ave.) 3 TS_003 NY-59 and Chestnut St. Suffern 1.6 41.11583 -74.1524 4 TS_004 NY-59 and Washington Ave Suffern 1.8 41.11492 -74.1496 5 TS_005 NY-59 and Hillcrest Rd. Suffern 2.5 41.11255 -74.1373 6 TS_006 NY-59 and Hemion Suffern 2.8 41.11254 -74.131 Rd./Campbell 7 TS_007 NY-59 and Airmont Rd. Airmont 3.7 41.11232 -74.1143 8 TS_008 Airmont Rd. and DeBaun Airmont 41.11435 -74.1139 Ave. 9 TS_009 Airmont Rd. and I-87 EB Airmont 41.11596 -74.1133 Ramps (Exit 14B) 10 TS_010 Airmont Rd. and I-87 Wb Airmont 41.11707 -74.112 Ramps (Exit 14B) 11 TS_020 NY-59 and Kennedy Dr. Spring 6.7 41.10854 -74.0581 Valley 12 TS_021 NY-59 and West St. Spring 7.1 41.10941 -74.0504 Valley 13 TS_022 NY-59 and Madison Ave. Spring 7.4 41.10936 -74.0463 Valley 14 TS_025 NY-45 (Main St.) and Spring 3.2 41.11184 -74.0449 Municipal Plaza Valley 15 TS_026 NY-45 (Main St.) and Spring 3.3 41.11243 -74.0448 Lawrence/Commerce St. Valley 16 TS_028 NY-59 and Main St. (NY-45) Spring 7.5 41.10906 -74.0445 Valley 17 TS_030 NY-59 and Central Spring 7.7 41.10842 -74.0402 Ave/Dutch Ln. Valley 18 TS_035 NY-59 and New Clarkstown Spring 8.2 41.10428 -74.0315 Rd. Valley 19 TS_037 NY-59 and WB I-87 Ramps Spring 8.3 41.10361 -74.03 (Forman Rd.) Exit 14 Valley 20 TS_040 NY-59 and Old Turnpike Nanuet 8.6 41.10135 -74.0253 Way 21 TS_041 NY-59 and EB I-87 Nanuet 8.7 41.10079 -74.0236 Ramps/Grandview (Exit 14) 22 TS_042 NY-59 and Easement Rd./ Nanuet 8.9 41.09972 -74.0207 Home Depot (wb only) 23 TS_043 NY-59 and Hutton Ave. Nanuet 9 41.09919 -74.0195

3-7

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

Exhibit 3-2-C. Proposed locations for Transit Signal Priority (TSP) deployment No. ID Intersection Municipality Milepost Latitude Longitude 24 TS_044 NY-59 and Shops at Nanuet Nanuet 9.1 41.09823 -74.0161 (Sears Access) 25 TS_045 NY-59 and Shops at Nanuet Nanuet 9.2 41.09769 -74.0147 (Fashion Dr.) 26 TS_049 NY-59 and Middletown Rd. Nanuet 9.4 41.09704 -74.0119 27 TS_051 NY-59 and College Ave. Nanuet 9.6 41.09571 -74.0081 28 TS_054 NY-59 and Rockland Center Nanuet 10 41.09336 -74.0019 29 TS_055 NY-59 and Smith St. Nanuet 10.1 41.09252 -73.9996 30 TS_059 NY-59 and Crosfield Ave. West Nyack 11.3 41.09147 -73.9776 31 TS_062 NY-59 and Palisades Center West Nyack 12.3 41.0944 -73.9589 Dr. 32 TS_063 Palisades Center Dr. (from West Nyack 41.09536 -73.9587 NY-59) and Palisades Center Ring Rd. 33 TS_064 North Palisades Center Dr. West Nyack 41.09993 -73.9568 and Palisades Center Ring Rd. 34 TS_065 North Palisades Center Dr. West Nyack 41.10117 -73.956 and Snake Hill Rd. 35 TS_066 Palisades Center Ring Rd. West Nyack 41.09985 -73.9556 and Palisades Center Dr. (garage access) 36 TS_067 North Palisades Center Dr. West Nyack 41.10196 -73.9544 and I-87 Wb ramps (Exit 12) 37 TS_068 Palisades Center Ring Rd. West Nyack 41.09869 -73.9541 and I-87 Eb ramps (Exit 12) 38 TS_073 NY-59 and Old Nyack West Nyack 13 41.09309 -73.947 Turnpike/The Hub shopping plaza 39 TS_074 NY-59 and EB I-87 Nyack 13.6 41.09445 -73.9361 Ramp/Mountainview/Waldro n (Exit 11) 40 TS_076 NY-59 and US-9W Nyack 14 41.09244 -73.9287 41 TS_078 Main St. and Midland Ave. Nyack 41.09179 -73.9262 42 TS_081 Franklin Ave. and Depew Nyack 41.08984 -73.9219 Ave. 43 TS_082 Main St. and Franklin St. Nyack 41.09155 -73.9216 44 TS_088 Cortland St. and Main St. Tarrytown 41.07763 -73.8644 45 TS_089 Wildey St. and Tarrytown 41.08016 -73.8643 Cortlandt/Division 46 TS_090 Wildey St. and Central Ave. Tarrytown 41.07998 -73.8632 47 TS_091 US-9 (Broadway Ave.) and Tarrytown 6.4 41.06363 -73.8624 NY-119 (White Plains Rd.) 48 TS_092 US-9 (Broadway Ave.) and Tarrytown 6.5 41.06474 -73.8623 NY-119 left turn/WellsFargo 49 TS_093 US-9 (Broadway Ave.) and Tarrytown 6.7 41.06793 -73.8622 Prospect Ave. 50 TS_094 US-9 (Broadway Ave.) and I- Tarrytown 6.2 41.06048 -73.862 87 EB Ramps/Hotel (Exit 9)

3-8

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

Exhibit 3-2-C. Proposed locations for Transit Signal Priority (TSP) deployment No. ID Intersection Municipality Milepost Latitude Longitude 51 TS_097 US-9 (Broadway Ave.) and Tarrytown 7 41.0719 -73.8601 Benedict Ave. 52 TS_098 Central Ave. and Tarrytown 41.0777 -73.8599 Washington St. 53 TS_100 US-9 (Broadway Ave.) and Tarrytown 7.3 41.07626 -73.8583 Main St./Neperan Rd. 54 TS_102 NY-119 (White Plains Rd.) Tarrytown 0.2 41.06388 -73.8575 and I-87 WB Ramps (Exit 9) 55 TS_103 NY-119 (White Plains Rd.) Tarrytown 0.4 41.06416 -73.8542 and Meadow St. 56 TS_104 NY-119 (White Plains Rd.) Tarrytown 0.6 41.06432 -73.851 and Sleepy Hollow Rd/Crescent Dr. 57 TS_108 NY-119 (White Plains Rd.) Tarrytown 1.1 41.06349 -73.8413 and Tarrytown Corp Center West 58 TS_110 NY-119 (White Plains Rd.) Tarrytown 1.2 41.0632 -73.8393 and Tarrytown Corp Center East 59 TS_111 NY-119 (White Plains Rd.) Tarrytown 1.3 41.06238 -73.8375 and Benedict Ave. 60 TS_112 NY-119 (White Plains Rd.) Tarrytown 1.5 41.06123 -73.8341 and Old White Plains Rd. 61 TS_114 NY-119 Wb (White Plains Tarrytown 1.7 41.05973 -73.8297 Rd.) and I-287 WB Ramps (Exit 1) 62 TS_115 NY-119 (White Plains Rd.) Elmsford 1.9 41.05895 -73.8284 and Taxter Rd. 63 TS_116 NY-119 (Main St.) and EB I- Elmsford 2 41.05833 -73.827 287 On/Scott Dr. (Exit 1) 64 TS_117 NY-119 (Main St.) and WB I- Elmsford 2.2 41.05656 -73.8233 287 Off/Nob Hill Dr. (Exit 1) 65 TS_120 NY-119 (Main St.) and Saw Elmsford 2.4 41.05495 -73.8199 Mill River Rd. (US-9A) 66 TS_122 NY-119 (Main St.) and Lawn Elmsford 2.5 41.05437 -73.8182 Ave. 67 TS_123 NY-119 (Main St.) and Elmsford 2.5 41.0541 -73.8174 Hillside Ave. 68 TS_125 NY-119 (Main St.) and Elmsford 2.6 41.05395 -73.817 Hartsdale Rd./Mortimer Ave. 69 TS_129 NY-119 (Main St.) and Old Elmsford 2.8 41.05141 -73.8128 Rd./Van Wart St. 70 TS_130 NY-119 (Tarrytown Rd.) and Fairview 3.2 41.04764 -73.8075 Bed Bath and Beyond 71 TS_137 NY-119 (Tarrytown Rd.) and Fairview 3.7 41.04323 -73.8004 Crossroads SC West 72 TS_138 NY-119 (Tarrytown Rd.) and Fairview 3.8 41.04313 -73.7973 Crossroads SC East/Manhattan Ave. 73 TS_139 NY-119 (Tarrytown Rd.) and Fairview 4.1 41.0416 -73.7934 Dobbs Ferry Rd./Rosemont

3-9

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

Exhibit 3-2-C. Proposed locations for Transit Signal Priority (TSP) deployment No. ID Intersection Municipality Milepost Latitude Longitude 74 TS_140 NY-119 (Tarrytown Rd.) and Fairview 4.2 41.04137 -73.791 Gibson Ave./Hillside Ave. 75 TS_143 NY-119 (Tarrytown Rd.) and White 4.3 41.04085 -73.7892 Police Division Plains 76 TS_144 NY-119 (Tarrytown Rd.) and White 41.04004 -73.7846 I287 EB Off-Ramp (Exit 5) Plains 77 TS_145 NY-119 (Tarrytown Rd.) and White 41.03902 -73.7831 Bowling Alley Drwy Plains 78 TS_147 NY-119 (Tarrytown Rd.) and White 41.03779 -73.7814 Aqueduct Rd. Plains 79 TS_150 NY-119 (Tarrytown Rd.) and White 41.0362 -73.7792 Central Ave. (NY-100) Plains 80 TS_153 NY-119 (Tarrytown Rd.) and White 41.03406 -73.7776 Chatterton Ave. Plains 81 TS_156 NY-119 (Tarrytown Rd.) and White 41.03213 -73.7765 Hamilton Ave./Battle/Main Plains St. 82 TS_157 NY-119 (Tarrytown Rd.) and White 41.03167 -73.7754 Bronx St./Bronx River Pkwy Plains ramp 83 TS_164 NY-119 (Hamilton Ave.) and White 41.03261 -73.7741 Ferris/Bank Plains 84 TS_165 NY-119 (Main St.) and Bank White 41.03179 -73.774 St. Plains 85 TS_169 NY-119 (Hamilton Ave.) and White 41.03271 -73.7726 Lexington Ave. Plains 86 TS_170 NY-119 (Main St.) and White 41.0319 -73.7724 Lexington Ave. Plains 87 TS_173 Hamilton Ave. and Dr. Martin White 41.03307 -73.7702 Luther King Jr Blvd. Plains 88 TS_174 Main St. and Dr. Martin White 41.03211 -73.7698 Luther King Jr Blvd. Plains 89 TS_177 Martine Ave. and Dr. Martin White 41.03086 -73.7694 Luther King Jr Blvd. Plains 90 TS_182 Main St. and Court St./ White 41.03237 -73.7678 Renaissance Square Plains 91 TS_183 Martine Ave. and Court St. White 41.03115 -73.7674 Plains 92 TS_188 Main St. and Church St. White 41.03273 -73.7663 Plains 93 TS_189 Martine Ave. and White 41.0314 -73.7662 Mamaroneck Ave. Plains 94 TS_192 Main St. and EJ Conroy White 41.03319 -73.7651 Dr./City Pl. Plains 95 TS_196 N Broadway (NY-22) and White 41.0339 -73.7633 Main St. Plains 96 TS_197 Martine Ave. and S White 41.03264 -73.7624 Broadway Plains 97 TS_232 Hamilton Ave & E J Conroy White 41.03456 -73.7662 Dr Plains 98 TS_233 Hamilton Ave & N Broadway White 41.03535 -73.7642 Plains

3-10

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

Exhibit 3-2-C. Proposed locations for Transit Signal Priority (TSP) deployment No. ID Intersection Municipality Milepost Latitude Longitude 99 TS_234 Water St & Ferris Ave White 41.03426 -73.7742 Plains 100 TS_235 Water St & N Lexington Ave White 41.03434 -73.773 Plains 101 TS_236 Martine Ave & Dr. Martin White 41.03087 -73.7694 Luther King Jr Blvd Plains 102 TS_239 Tarrytown Rd & Battle Ave White 41.03183 -73.7763 Plains 103 TS_240 Ferris Ave & New St. White 41.0334 -73.7742 Plains

Exhibit 3-2-D. Proposed locations for traffic signal timing optimization No. Intersection Municipality 1 NY-59 / Airmont Rd Airmont 2 NY-59 / Richgold Shopping Center Airmont 3 NY-59 / Cherry Ln/Spook Rock Rd Airmont 4 NY-59 / College Rd/New County Rd Airmont 5 NY-59 / Remsen Av Monsey 6 NY-59 / Saddle River Rd Monsey 7 NY-59 / Robert Pitt Dr. Monsey 8 NY-59 / Kennedy Drive Spring Valley 9 NY-59 / West St Spring Valley 10 NY-59 / Madison Ave Spring Valley 11 NY-59 / Main St Spring Valley 12 NY-59 / S. Central Av/Dutch Ln Spring Valley 13 NY-59 /Forman Dr Nanuet 14 NY-59 / Old Turnpike Way Nanuet 15 NY-59 / EB I-87 Grandview Ave Nanuet 16 NY-59 / Easement Rd/Home Depot Nanuet 17 NY-59 / Hutton Ave Nanuet 18 NY-59 / Shops at Nanuet West D’way Nanuet 19 NY-59 / Shops at Nanuet East D’way Nanuet 20 NY-59 /Middletown Rd Nanuet 21 NY-59 / College Ave Nanuet 22 NY-59 / Rockland Center Nanuet 23 NY-59 / Smith St Nanuet 24 NY-59 / Crosfield Ave West Nyack 25 NY-59 / Palisades Center Dr West Nyack 26 NY- 59 / Old Nyack Turnpike West Nyack 27 NY-59 / Mountainview Ave Nyack 28 NY-59 / US-9W Nyack 29 Airmont Rd / I-87 EB Ramps Airmont 30 Airmont Rd / I-87 WB Ramps Airmont 31 Airmont Rd / Executive Blvd Airmont 32 Airmont Rd / Montebello Road Airmont 33 NY-45 / Funston Ave Spring Valley 34 NY-45 / Commerce St Spring Valley 35 NY-45 / Church St Spring Valley

3-11

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

Exhibit 3-2-E. Proposed traffic signal equipment upgrade No. ID Intersection Municipality Milepost Latitude Longitude 1 TS_001 NY-59 and US-202 (Wayne Ave.) Suffern 1.4 41.11714 -74.1549 2 TS_002 NY-59 and US-202 (Orange Ave.) Suffern 1.5 41.11636 -74.1546 3 TS_003 NY-59 and Chestnut St. Suffern 1.6 41.11583 -74.1524 4 TS_004 NY-59 and Washington Ave Suffern 1.8 41.11492 -74.1496 5 TS_005 NY-59 and Hillcrest Rd. Suffern 2.5 41.11255 -74.1373 6 TS_006 NY-59 and Hemion Rd./Campbell Suffern 2.8 41.11254 -74.131 7 TS_007 NY-59 and Airmont Rd. Airmont 3.7 41.11232 -74.1143 8 TS_008 Airmont Rd. and DeBaun Ave. Airmont 41.11435 -74.1139 9 TS_009 Airmont Rd. and I-87 EB Ramps (Exit 14B) Airmont 41.11596 -74.1133 10 TS_010 Airmont Rd. and I-87 Wb Ramps (Exit 14B) Airmont 41.11707 -74.112 11 TS_011 Airmont Rd. and Executive Blvd. Airmont 41.11746 -74.1114 12 TS_012 Airmont Rd. and Montebello Rd. Airmont 41.11864 -74.1103 NY-59 and Richgold Shopping 13 TS_013 Airmont 4 41.11176 -74.1082 Center/Walmart 14 TS_015 NY-59 and Cherry/Spook Rock Rd. Airmont 4.5 41.11107 -74.0998 15 TS_016 NY-59 and College/New County Rd. Airmont 5 41.11014 -74.0899 16 TS_017 NY-59 and Remsen Ave. Monsey 5.5 41.10905 -74.0808 17 TS_018 NY-59 and Saddle River Rd. (NY-306) Monsey 6.1 41.10729 -74.0696 18 TS_019 NY-59 and Robert Pitt Dr. Monsey 6.4 41.10781 -74.0646 Spring 19 TS_020 NY-59 and Kennedy Dr. 6.7 41.10854 -74.0581 Valley Spring 20 TS_021 NY-59 and West St. 7.1 41.10941 -74.0504 Valley Spring 21 TS_022 NY-59 and Madison Ave. 7.4 41.10936 -74.0463 Valley Spring 22 TS_025 NY-45 (Main St.) and Municipal Plaza 3.2 41.11184 -74.0449 Valley NY-45 (Main St.) and Lawrence/Commerce Spring 23 TS_026 3.3 41.11243 -74.0448 St. Valley Spring 24 TS_028 NY-59 and Main St. (NY-45) 7.5 41.10906 -74.0445 Valley Spring 25 TS_030 NY-59 and Central Ave/Dutch Ln. 7.7 41.10842 -74.0402 Valley Spring 26 TS_035 NY-59 and New Clarkstown Rd. 8.2 41.10428 -74.0315 Valley New Clarkstown Rd. and Perlman/Spring Spring 27 TS_036 41.10496 -74.0307 Valley Marketplace Valley NY-59 and WB I-87 Ramps (Forman Rd.) Spring 28 TS_037 8.3 41.10361 -74.03 Exit 14 Valley 29 TS_040 NY-59 and Old Turnpike Way Nanuet 8.6 41.10135 -74.0253 NY-59 and EB I-87 Ramps/Grandview (Exit 30 TS_041 Nanuet 8.7 41.10079 -74.0236 14) NY-59 and Easement Rd./ Home Depot (wb 31 TS_042 Nanuet 8.9 41.09972 -74.0207 only) 32 TS_043 NY-59 and Hutton Ave. Nanuet 9 41.09919 -74.0195 33 TS_044 NY-59 and Shops at Nanuet (Sears Access) Nanuet 9.1 41.09823 -74.0161

3-12

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

Exhibit 3-2-E. Proposed traffic signal equipment upgrade No. ID Intersection Municipality Milepost Latitude Longitude 34 TS_045 NY-59 and Shops at Nanuet (Fashion Dr.) Nanuet 9.2 41.09769 -74.0147 35 TS_049 NY-59 and Middletown Rd. Nanuet 9.4 41.09704 -74.0119 36 TS_051 NY-59 and College Ave. Nanuet 9.6 41.09571 -74.0081 37 TS_054 NY-59 and Rockland Center Nanuet 10 41.09336 -74.0019 38 TS_055 NY-59 and Smith St. Nanuet 10.1 41.09252 -73.9996 West 39 TS_059 NY-59 and Crosfield Ave. 11.3 41.09147 -73.9776 Nyack West 40 TS_062 NY-59 and Palisades Center Dr. 12.3 41.0944 -73.9589 Nyack Palisades Center Dr. (from NY-59) and West 41 TS_063 41.09536 -73.9587 Palisades Center Ring Rd. Nyack North Palisades Center Dr. and Palisades West 42 TS_064 41.09993 -73.9568 Center Ring Rd. Nyack North Palisades Center Dr. and Snake Hill West 43 TS_065 41.10117 -73.956 Rd. Nyack Palisades Center Ring Rd. and Palisades West 44 TS_066 41.09985 -73.9556 Center Dr. (garage access) Nyack North Palisades Center Dr. and I-87 Wb West 45 TS_067 41.10196 -73.9544 ramps (Exit 12) Nyack Palisades Center Ring Rd. and I-87 Eb West 46 TS_068 41.09869 -73.9541 ramps (Exit 12) Nyack West 47 TS_069 NY-303 and North Palisades Center Dr. 6.1 41.10241 -73.952 Nyack NY-303 and Palisades Center Dr./I-87 EB on West 48 TS_071 5.9 41.09861 -73.9509 ramp (Exit 12) Nyack West 49 TS_072 NY-303 and East Palisades Center Dr. 5.8 41.09702 -73.9504 Nyack NY-59 and Old Nyack Turnpike/The Hub West 50 TS_073 13 41.09309 -73.947 shopping plaza Nyack NY-59 and EB I-87 51 TS_074 Nyack 13.6 41.09445 -73.9361 Ramp/Mountainview/Waldron (Exit 11) 52 TS_076 NY-59 and US-9W Nyack 14 41.09244 -73.9287 53 TS_078 Main St. and Midland Ave. Nyack 41.09179 -73.9262 54 TS_081 Franklin Ave. and Depew Ave. Nyack 41.08984 -73.9219 55 TS_082 Main St. and Franklin St. Nyack 41.09155 -73.9216 56 TS_083 Broadway Ave. and Clinton Ave. Nyack 41.0831 -73.9201 57 TS_084 S. Broadway and Cedar Hill Ave. Nyack 41.08732 -73.9192 58 TS_088 Cortland St. and Main St. Tarrytown 41.07763 -73.8644 59 TS_089 Wildey St. and Cortlandt/Division Tarrytown 41.08016 -73.8643 60 TS_090 Wildey St. and Central Ave. Tarrytown 41.07998 -73.8632 US-9 (Broadway Ave.) and NY-119 (White 61 TS_091 Tarrytown 6.4 41.06363 -73.8624 Plains Rd.) US-9 (Broadway Ave.) and NY-119 left 62 TS_092 Tarrytown 6.5 41.06474 -73.8623 turn/WellsFargo 63 TS_093 US-9 (Broadway Ave.) and Prospect Ave. Tarrytown 6.7 41.06793 -73.8622 US-9 (Broadway Ave.) and I-87 EB 64 TS_094 Tarrytown 6.2 41.06048 -73.862 Ramps/Hotel (Exit 9) 65 TS_097 US-9 (Broadway Ave.) and Benedict Ave. Tarrytown 7 41.0719 -73.8601 3-13

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

Exhibit 3-2-E. Proposed traffic signal equipment upgrade No. ID Intersection Municipality Milepost Latitude Longitude 66 TS_098 Central Ave. and Washington St. Tarrytown 41.0777 -73.8599 US-9 (Broadway Ave.) and Main St./Neperan 67 TS_100 Tarrytown 7.3 41.07626 -73.8583 Rd. NY-119 (White Plains Rd.) and I-87 WB 68 TS_102 Tarrytown 0.2 41.06388 -73.8575 Ramps (Exit 9) 69 TS_103 NY-119 (White Plains Rd.) and Meadow St. Tarrytown 0.4 41.06416 -73.8542 NY-119 (White Plains Rd.) and Sleepy 70 TS_104 Tarrytown 0.6 41.06432 -73.851 Hollow Rd/Crescent Dr. NY-119 (White Plains Rd.) and Tarrytown 71 TS_108 Tarrytown 1.1 41.06349 -73.8413 Corp Center West NY-119 (White Plains Rd.) and Tarrytown 72 TS_110 Tarrytown 1.2 41.0632 -73.8393 Corp Center East NY-119 (White Plains Rd.) and Benedict 73 TS_111 Tarrytown 1.3 41.06238 -73.8375 Ave. NY-119 (White Plains Rd.) and Old White 74 TS_112 Tarrytown 1.5 41.06123 -73.8341 Plains Rd. NY-119 Wb (White Plains Rd.) and I-287 WB 75 TS_114 Tarrytown 1.7 41.05973 -73.8297 Ramps (Exit 1) 76 TS_115 NY-119 (White Plains Rd.) and Taxter Rd. Elmsford 1.9 41.05895 -73.8284 NY-119 (Main St.) and EB I-287 On/Scott Dr. 77 TS_116 Elmsford 2 41.05833 -73.827 (Exit 1) NY-119 (Main St.) and WB I-287 Off/Nob Hill 78 TS_117 Elmsford 2.2 41.05656 -73.8233 Dr. (Exit 1) NY-119 (Main St.) and Saw Mill River Rd. 79 TS_120 Elmsford 2.4 41.05495 -73.8199 (US-9A) 80 TS_122 NY-119 (Main St.) and Lawn Ave. Elmsford 2.5 41.05437 -73.8182 81 TS_123 NY-119 (Main St.) and Hillside Ave. Elmsford 2.5 41.0541 -73.8174 NY-119 (Main St.) and Hartsdale 82 TS_125 Elmsford 2.6 41.05395 -73.817 Rd./Mortimer Ave. North Central Ave. and Frontage St./I-287 83 TS_126 Elmsford 41.05782 -73.817 eb ramps (exit 2) North Central Ave. and White Plains Ave./I- 84 TS_127 Elmsford 41.05875 -73.8162 287 WB ramps (exit 2) 85 TS_129 NY-119 (Main St.) and Old Rd./Van Wart St. Elmsford 2.8 41.05141 -73.8128 NY-119 (Tarrytown Rd.) and Bed Bath and 86 TS_130 Fairview 3.2 41.04764 -73.8075 Beyond NY-100A (Knollwood Rd.) and Tarrytown Rd. 87 TS_132 Elmsford 41.04544 -73.8048 EB (NY-119 ramp) NY-100A (Knollwood Rd.) and Tarrytown Rd. 88 TS_133 Elmsford 41.04561 -73.8046 WB (NY-119 ramp) NY-100A (Knollwood Rd.) and I-287 EB 89 TS_134 Fairview 2.3 41.04667 -73.8042 off/on ramp (Exit 4) NY-100A (Knollwood Rd.) and I-287 WB 90 TS_135 Fairview 2.4 41.04764 -73.8036 off/on ramp (Exit 4) NY-119 (Tarrytown Rd.) and Crossroads SC 91 TS_137 Fairview 3.7 41.04323 -73.8004 West NY-119 (Tarrytown Rd.) and Crossroads SC 92 TS_138 Fairview 3.8 41.04313 -73.7973 East/Manhattan Ave. NY-119 (Tarrytown Rd.) and Gibson 93 TS_140 Fairview 4.2 41.04137 -73.791 Ave./Hillside Ave.

3-14

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

Exhibit 3-2-F. Replacement and Installation of Variable Message Signs (VMS) I. Replacement of Existing VMS signs and Structures along Interstate

No. ID TYPE Corridor LOCATION Latitude Longitude 1 VMS_158 Full Matrix RGB ‐ Walk‐in I‐87 MP 6.0 40.98463 ‐73.8532 2 VMS_159 Full Matrix RGB ‐ Walk‐in I‐287 At Int 2 41.05837 ‐73.8176 3 VMS_160 Full Matrix RGB ‐ Walk‐in I‐287 At Int. 2 41.05788 ‐73.8161 4 VMS_161 Full Matrix RGB ‐ Walk‐in I‐287 Approaching Exit 5 41.04344 ‐73.7783 Approaching Exit 7 on 5 VMS_162 Full Matrix RGB ‐ Walk‐in I‐287 ramp 41.03757 ‐73.7561 6 VMS_163 Full Matrix RGB ‐ Walk‐in I‐287 Approaching Exit 8 41.02697 ‐73.7336 7 VMS_164 Full Matrix RGB ‐ Walk‐in I‐287 At Exit 10 On ramp 41.01163 ‐73.701 8 VMS_211 Full Matrix RGB ‐ Front Access SBP North of I‐287 41.07069 ‐73.8036 9 VMS_212 Full Matrix RGB ‐ Walk‐in I‐287 NA 41.00325 ‐73.6929

II. Installation of Proposed VMS on Arterials No. ID TYPE Corridor LOCATION Latitude Longitude NY-59, West of the Hybrid - Park & Ride Sign 1 VMS_142 NY-59 Nanuet Park-and-Ride 41.10378 -74.0308 (3 modules) Lot. NY-59, East of the Hybrid - Park & Ride Sign 2 VMS_144 NY-59 Nanuet Park-and-Ride 41.1029 -74.0285 (3 modules) Lot. Hybrid - Park & Ride Sign 3 VMS_148 NY-59 S of Palisades Ctr 41.09431 -73.959 (3 modules) Hybrid - Park & Ride Sign 4 VMS_149 NY-59 S of Palisades Ctr 41.09455 -73.9572 (3 modules) Hybrid - Park & Ride Sign 5 VMS_151 NY-59 Saddle River 41.10728 -74.0688 (3 modules) Hybrid - Park & Ride Sign Between Kennedy Dr 6 VMS_152 NY-59 41.10836 -74.0603 (3 modules) and Secora Rd Hybrid - Park & Ride Sign 7 VMS_155 NY-59 NY-45 / Main St. 41.10908 -74.0449 (3 modules) Hybrid - Park & Ride Sign 8 VMS_156 NY-59 NY-45 / Main St. 41.10913 -74.0442 (3 modules) Hybrid - Travel Time Sign At the intersection with 9 VMS_166 NY-59 41.0989 -74.0178 (5 Modules) Dykes Park Rd. Between old Turnpike Hybrid - Travel Time Sign 10 VMS_167 NY-59 Rd and Grandview 41.10109 -74.0252 (5 Modules) Ave. Hybrid - Travel Time Sign NY-59, West of CR- 11 VMS_168 NY-59 41.10526 -74.0333 (5 Modules) 35. Hybrid - Travel Time Sign 12 VMS_169 NY-59 NY-59, East of CR-35. 41.10108 -74.0241 (5 Modules) NY-119 / Hybrid - Travel Time Sign 13 VMS_180 White US-9 WB 41.06354 -73.8615 (5 Modules) Plains Rd NY-119 / Hybrid - Travel Time Sign 14 VMS_181 White US-9 WB 41.06438 -73.8515 (5 Modules) Plains Rd

3-15

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

II. Installation of Proposed VMS on Arterials No. ID TYPE Corridor LOCATION Latitude Longitude Full Matrix RGB - Front 15 VMS_187 NY-59 Approaching Int. 14 41.10875 -74.0429 Access Full Matrix RGB - Front 16 VMS_188 NY-59 Approaching Int. 14SB 41.10468 -74.0322 Access 17 VMS_189 Full Matrix RGB - Walk-in NY-119 Approaching Exit 5 41.03994 -73.7839 Full Matrix RGB - Front 18 VMS_194 NY-119 at Sprain Brook Pkwy 41.05001 -73.8103 Access Full Matrix RGB - Front 19 VMS_201 NY-59 Approaching Int. 11 41.09283 -73.946 Access Full Matrix RGB - Front 20 VMS_202 NY-59 Approaching Int. 13 41.09278 -73.968 Access Full Matrix RGB - Front 21 VMS_203 NY-59 Approaching Int. 13 41.09097 -73.9951 Access Full Matrix RGB - Front 22 VMS_204 NY-59 Approaching NY-304 41.09107 -73.9937 Access Full Matrix RGB - Front Approaching White 23 VMS_205 NY-119 41.03792 -73.7819 Access Plains Full Matrix RGB - Front 24 VMS_206 US-9 Approaching Int. 9 41.04497 -73.8624 Access Full Matrix RGB - Front 25 VMS_207 US-9 Approaching Int. 9 41.06628 -73.8626 Access

III. Installation of Proposed VMS on Interstates No ID TYPE Corridor LOCATION Latitude Longitude . Hybrid - Park & Ride West of Exit 14 EB Off- 1 VMS_145 I-87 41.10225 -74.0284 Sign (3 modules) Ramp. Hybrid - Park & Ride East of Exit 14 WB Off- 2 VMS_146 I-87 41.10416 -74.0215 Sign (3 modules) Ramp. Full Matrix RGB - 3 VMS_191 I-87 Approaching Int. 15 41.12681 -74.1667 Walk-in Full Matrix RGB - 4 VMS_192 I-287 Approaching Exit 10 40.99841 -73.6808 Walk-in Full Matrix RGB - 5 VMS_193 I-87 Approaching Int. 8 41.04794 -73.8339 Walk In Full Matrix RGB - 6 VMS_196 I-87 Approaching Int. 9 41.06098 -73.8481 Walk In Full Matrix RGB - 7 VMS_197 I-87 Approaching Int. 12 41.10109 -73.9867 Walk-in Full Matrix RGB - 8 VMS_198 I-87 Approaching Int. 13 41.10126 -73.9765 Walk-in

IV. Installation of Proposed VMS on Palisades Interstate Parkway

No. ID TYPE Corridor LOCATION Latitude Longitude Hybrid - Travel Time 1 VMS_170 PIP NY-13S-EB 41.10457 -73.9951 Sign (5 Modules) Hybrid - Travel Time 2 VMS_171 PIP NY-13N-EB 41.09328 -73.9907 Sign (5 Modules) Hybrid - Travel Time 3 VMS_172 PIP NY-13S-WB 41.10776 -73.9982 Sign (5 Modules) 3-16

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

IV. Installation of Proposed VMS on Palisades Interstate Parkway

No. ID TYPE Corridor LOCATION Latitude Longitude Hybrid - Travel Time 4 VMS_173 PIP NY-13N-WB 41.09811 -73.9913 Sign (5 Modules) Full Matrix RGB - 5 VMS_199 PIP Approaching Int. 13 41.11103 -74.0012 Front Access Full Matrix RGB - 6 VMS_200 PIP Approaching Int. 13 41.08344 -73.9878 Front Access

V. Installation of Proposed Ramp Metering VMS signs No. ID TYPE Corridor LOCATION Latitude Longitude Hybrid - Travel Time At the intersection with 1 VMS_166 NY-59 41.0989 -74.0178 Sign (5 Modules) Dykes Park Rd. Hybrid - Travel Time Between old Turnpike Rd 2 VMS_167 NY-59 41.10109 -74.0252 Sign (5 Modules) and Grandview Ave. Hybrid - Travel Time 3 VMS_168 NY-59 NY-59, West of CR-35. 41.10526 -74.0333 Sign (5 Modules) Hybrid - Travel Time 4 VMS_169 NY-59 NY-59, East of CR-35. 41.10108 -74.0241 Sign (5 Modules) Hybrid - Travel Time 5 VMS_170 PIP NY-13S-EB 41.10457 -73.9951 Sign (5 Modules) Hybrid - Travel Time 6 VMS_171 PIP NY-13N-EB 41.09328 -73.9907 Sign (5 Modules) Hybrid - Travel Time 7 VMS_172 PIP NY-13S-WB 41.10776 -73.9982 Sign (5 Modules) Hybrid - Travel Time 8 VMS_173 PIP NY-13N-WB 41.09811 -73.9913 Sign (5 Modules) Hybrid - Travel Time N ROUTE 9 VMS_174 NY-12-EB 41.09656 -73.9503 Sign (5 Modules) 303 Hybrid - Travel Time N ROUTE 10 VMS_175 NY-12-EB 41.10182 -73.9523 Sign (5 Modules) 303 Hybrid - Travel Time N Palisades N Exit from Palisades 11 VMS_176 41.10127 -73.9557 Sign (5 Modules) Center Dr Center Hybrid - Travel Time 12 VMS_177 Route 303 NY-303 SB 41.10526 -73.9513 Sign (5 Modules) Hybrid - Travel Time 13 VMS_178 High Ave US-1 WB 41.09434 -73.93 Sign (5 Modules) NY-119 / Hybrid - Travel Time 14 VMS_180 White Plains US-9 WB 41.06354 -73.8615 Sign (5 Modules) Rd NY-119 / Hybrid - Travel Time 15 VMS_181 White Plains US-9 WB 41.06438 -73.8515 Sign (5 Modules) Rd Hybrid - Travel Time White Plains 16 VMS_182 US-1 WB 41.06042 -73.8324 Sign (5 Modules) Rd Hybrid - Travel Time White Plains 17 VMS_183 US-1 WB 41.05801 -73.8259 Sign (5 Modules) Rd Hybrid - Travel Time 18 VMS_184 SMP US-1 WB 41.06399 -73.8238 Sign (5 Modules) Hybrid - Travel Time KNOLLWO 19 VMS_185 US-4 WB 41.0495 -73.8024 Sign (5 Modules) OD RD

3-17

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

V. Installation of Proposed Ramp Metering VMS signs No. ID TYPE Corridor LOCATION Latitude Longitude Hybrid - Travel Time KNOLLWO 20 VMS_186 US-4 WB 41.04612 -73.8044 Sign (5 Modules) OD RD Hybrid - Travel Time 21 VMS_209 Route 303 NY-303 NB 41.10118 -73.9518 Sign (5 Modules) Hybrid - Travel Time Before Exit Ramp 14-1 22 VMS_210 GSP 41.09362 -74.039 Sign (5 Modules) EB

Exhibit 3‐2‐G. New CCTV Camera Installations No. ID Location Direction Latitude Longitude 1 CCTV_209 Broadway / TSP / BRP SB 41.06929 ‐73.7694 2 CCTV_210 I‐287 / Westchester Ave. and HRP SB 41.01368 ‐73.7176 3 CCTV_211 I‐87 / I‐287 N. of Interchange 10 (Nyack) NB 41.08212 ‐73.9229 4 CCTV_212 I‐87 / I‐287 and NY‐59 NB 41.10231 ‐74.0283 5 CCTV_213 I‐87 / I‐287 and N. Middletown Rd. SB 41.10343 ‐74.0102 6 CCTV_214 I‐87 / I‐287 Near Memorial Dr. SB 41.12186 ‐74.1379 7 CCTV_215 I‐87 / I‐287 West of Saddle River Rd. NB 41.10599 ‐74.0811 8 CCTV_216 I‐87 / I‐287 Near College Rd. SB 41.11038 ‐74.0862 9 CCTV_217 NY‐59 and W. Broadway WB 41.09496 ‐73.9387 10 CCTV_218 NY‐59 and Laurel Rd. EB 41.09263 ‐73.9437 11 CCTV_219 NY‐59 and Rt. 303 Interchange WB 41.09358 ‐73.9499 12 CCTV_220 NY‐59 and Western Hwy. EB 41.0931 ‐73.9663 13 CCTV_221 NY‐59 and Palisades EB 41.09057 ‐73.9908 14 CCTV_222 NY‐59 and Rt. 304 Interchange EB 41.09231 ‐73.9994 15 CCTV_223 NY‐59 and College Ave. WB 41.09649 ‐74.0094 16 CCTV_224 NY‐59 and S. Central Ave. WB 41.10856 ‐74.0404 17 CCTV_225 NY‐59 and West Central Ave. WB 41.10968 ‐74.0484 18 CCTV_226 NY‐59 West of Saddle River Rd. EB 41.10701 ‐74.0718 19 CCTV_227 NY‐59 and Suffern Pl. WB 41.1092 ‐74.0792 20 CCTV_228 NY‐59 and College Rd. WB 41.10995 ‐74.0881 21 CCTV_229 NY‐59 and Noe Ave. WB 41.11301 ‐74.1205 22 CCTV_230 NY‐59 and Cherry Ln. / Spook Rock Rd. WB 41.11094 ‐74.0997 23 CCTV_231 NY‐59 and Hillcrest Dr. EB 41.11239 ‐74.1372 24 CCTV_233 N Middletown Rd. and Palisades Pkwy NB 41.1214 ‐74.0076 25 CCTV_234 Dobbs Ferry Rd. and Sprain Brook Rd. EB 41.03574 ‐73.8165 26 CCTV_235 Secor Rd. and Sprain Brook Pkwy. EB 41.02769 ‐73.8211 27 CCTV_236 Western End of Line ‐ BRT SB 41.11657 ‐74.1548 28 CCTV_237 Eastern End of Line ‐ BRT SB 41.03252 ‐73.7703 29 CCTV_239 Lawrence and Memorial Pk Dr. WB 41.1119 ‐74.0417 30 CCTV_242 SB Palisades Int Pkwy. to EB I‐287 (Interchange EB 41.10149 ‐73.9916 13S) 31 CCTV_247 Route 119 Main St. to WB I‐287 (Interchange 9) WB 41.06372 ‐73.8573

3-18

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

Exhibit 3‐2‐G. New CCTV Camera Installations No. ID Location Direction Latitude Longitude 32 CCTV_249 N Palisades Center Dr. to WB I‐287 (Interchange WB 41.10044 ‐73.9534 12) 33 CCTV_251 SB Palisades Int Pkwy. to WB I‐287 (Interchange WB 41.10233 ‐73.9961 13S) 34 CCTV_252 NY‐59 to WB I‐287 (Interchange 14) WB 41.10297 ‐74.0278 35 CCTV_253 19 NY‐59, Airmont, NY 10952 EB 41.10788 ‐74.0626 36 CCTV_254 6 Franklin St., Spring Valley, NY 10977 NB 41.11135 ‐74.0438 37 CCTV_255 Forman Dr., Nanuet, NY 10954 EB 41.10277 ‐74.0305 38 CCTV_257 Approaching Int. 14 at New VMS #187 EB 41.10885 ‐74.0434 39 CCTV_258 Approaching Exit 5 at New VMS #189 WB 41.03892 ‐73.7826 40 CCTV_259 Approaching Int. 14NB at New VMS #190 EB 41.10327 ‐74.0299 41 CCTV_260 Approaching Int. 15 at New VMS #191 SB 41.1275 ‐74.1663 42 CCTV_261 Approaching Exit 10 at New VMS #192 WB 40.99852 ‐73.6809 43 CCTV_262 Approaching Int. 8 at New VMS #193 NB 41.04877 ‐73.8336 44 CCTV_263 at Sprain Brook Pkwy at New VMS #194 WB 41.04962 ‐73.8098 45 CCTV_267 Approaching Int. 13 at New VMS #198 NB 41.10126 ‐73.9761 46 CCTV_268 Approaching Int. 13 at New VMS #199 SB 41.11279 ‐74.0022 47 CCTV_269 Approaching Int. 13 at New VMS #200 NB 41.08075 ‐73.9862 48 CCTV_270 Approaching Int. 13 at New VMS #203 EB 41.09106 ‐73.9954 49 CCTV_271 Approaching NY‐304 at New VMS #204 WB 41.09101 ‐73.9925 50 CCTV_273 Approaching Int. 9 at New VMS #206 NB 41.06036 ‐73.862 51 CCTV_274 Approaching Int. 9 at New VMS #207 SB 41.06702 ‐73.8626 52 CCTV_275 Intersection of NY‐59 and Washington Ave. EB 41.11505 ‐74.1491 53 CCTV_276 Intersection of NY‐59 and Richgold Shopping WB 41.11189 ‐74.1082 Center 54 CCTV_277 Intersection of NY‐59 and Fire Station EB 41.11113 ‐74.1017 55 CCTV_278 Intersection of NY‐59 and College Rd./New EB 41.11026 ‐74.09 Country Rd. 56 CCTV_279 Intersection of Main St. and Franklin St. EB 41.09159 ‐73.9215 57 CCTV_280 Intersection of Depew Ave. and Franklin St. SB 41.08994 ‐73.9218 58 CCTV_281 Intersection of Wildey St. and Central Ave. WB 41.08 ‐73.8633 59 CCTV_282 Intersection of Wildey St. and Washington St. SB 41.08003 ‐73.8595 60 CCTV_286 I‐287 Approaching Exit 7 on Ramp at WB 41.03736 ‐73.7558 Replacement VMS #162 61 CCTV_287 I‐287 Approaching Exit 8 at Replacement VMS WB 41.02637 ‐73.7324 #163 62 CCTV_288 I‐287 at Exit 10 On Ramp at Replacement VMS WB 41.01075 ‐73.6998 #164

3-19

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

Exhibit 3‐2‐H. New Traffic Detection Systems Installations No. ID Location Type NYSDOT Latitude Longitude 1 DET_0001 US‐1 AID 630.3 40.99293 ‐73.6778 2 DET_0002 On Exit 3 WB Off‐Ramp AID 621.4 41.05281 ‐73.8092 3 DET_0003 EB NY‐59 btwn Ternure Ave and Bluetooth 6.9 41.10888 ‐74.0543 Summit Ave 4 DET_0004 NY‐59 Bluetooth 5.8 41.1092 ‐74.0792 5 DET_0005 NY‐59 Bluetooth 5.1 41.10995 ‐74.0881 6 DET_0006 I‐87 Bluetooth 26.2 41.11038 ‐74.0862 7 DET_0007 NY‐59 Bluetooth 4.2 41.1115 ‐74.1042 8 DET_0008 NY‐59 Bluetooth 3.2 41.11301 ‐74.1205 9 DET_0009 I‐87 Bluetooth 29 41.12186 ‐74.1379 10 DET_0010 NY‐59 Bluetooth 2.2 41.1124 ‐74.1309 11 DET_0011 I‐87 Bluetooth 29.6 41.1197 ‐74.1484 12 DET_0012 WASHINGTON AVE. Bluetooth 0.7 41.11751 ‐74.1482 13 DET_0013 I‐287 WB to I‐87 SB AID 11.4 41.05724 ‐73.8361 14 DET_0014 WASHINGTON AVE. Bluetooth 0.3 41.11175 ‐74.1498 15 DET_0015 US‐202 Bluetooth 0 41.10801 ‐74.1501 16 DET_0016 US‐202 Bluetooth 0.3 41.11161 ‐74.1523 17 DET_0017 NY‐59 Bluetooth 1.6 41.11628 ‐74.1545 18 DET_0018 NY‐17 Bluetooth 6 41.11527 ‐74.1612 19 DET_0019 NY‐59 Bluetooth 30.4 41.12052 ‐74.1619 20 DET_0020 NY‐17 to I‐87 SB Bluetooth 30.9 41.1275 ‐74.1663 21 DET_0021 I‐87 Bluetooth 31.9 41.14118 ‐74.1724 22 DET_0022 I‐87 Bluetooth 33.9 41.16093 ‐74.1849 23 DET_0023 Saw Mill River Pkwy. Bluetooth 12 41.06705 ‐73.8269 24 DET_0024 I‐87 AID 12.8 41.06276 ‐73.862 25 DET_0025 NY127 Bluetooth 2.1 41.02849 ‐73.7495 26 DET_0026 I‐684 SB to I‐287 SB Bluetooth 0 41.02938 ‐73.726 27 DET_0027 WESTCHESTER EB Bluetooth 0.1 41.03273 ‐73.7532 28 DET_0028 Saw Mill River Pkwy. Bluetooth 10.6 41.05012 ‐73.825 29 DET_0029 NY‐119 Bluetooth 2.7 41.05271 ‐73.8148 30 DET_0035 I‐87 AID 18.1 41.09633 ‐73.9389 31 DET_0046 I‐87 AID 16.8 41.08332 ‐73.924 32 DET_0057 NYS THRUWAY AID 13.1 41.09093 ‐73.929 33 DET_0068 N I‐287 AID 18.9 41.10032 ‐73.9542 34 DET_0079 N I‐287 AID 20.9 41.10179 ‐73.9922 35 DET_0090 I‐87 AID 22.8 41.10248 ‐74.0284 36 DET_0101 N I‐287 AID 23.9 41.09683 ‐74.0466 37 DET_0113 SO AIRMONT RD AID 27.6 41.11618 ‐74.1127 38 DET_0124 I‐87 AID 30.4 41.12052 ‐74.1619 39 DET_0157 N I‐95 Bluetooth 612.2 40.97486 ‐73.704 3-20

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

Exhibit 3‐2‐H. New Traffic Detection Systems Installations No. ID Location Type NYSDOT Latitude Longitude 40 DET_0163 I‐87 SB to 982L SB Loop 0.2 41.09655 ‐74.041 41 DET_0164 OLD NYACK TPK. Loop 0.1 41.10008 ‐74.0315 42 DET_0165 I‐87 NB to NY‐59 Loop 0.2 41.10453 ‐74.0267 43 DET_0166 I‐87 SB to 987C SB Loop 0.3 41.1005 ‐73.9955 44 DET_0167 I‐87 SB to 987C NB Loop 0.1 41.10128 ‐73.99 45 DET_0168 N I‐95 Bluetooth 613.3 40.98427 ‐73.6874 46 DET_0169 I‐87 NB to 987C SB Loop 0.1 41.103 ‐73.9958 47 DET_0170 Mountainview Ave. to I‐87 SB Loop 0 41.09503 ‐73.9359 48 DET_0171 S Broadway to I‐87 SB Loop 0 41.0821 ‐73.9216 49 DET_0172 I‐87 NB to US‐9W SB Loop 0 41.08203 ‐73.9217 50 DET_0173 SMP Exit 22 to WB I‐287 Loop 0.5 41.05868 ‐73.832 51 DET_0174 I‐287 WB to I‐87 SB Loop 0.1 41.05857 ‐73.8319 52 DET_0175 SMP Exit 22 to I‐287/I‐87 Loop 0.2 41.05953 ‐73.8274 53 DET_0176 I‐287 WB to I‐87 SB Loop 0.1 41.05849 ‐73.8319 54 DET_0177 Village of Elmsford's EB NY‐119 Loop 0.1 41.06003 ‐73.829 Ramp to WB I‐87/I‐287. 55 DET_0178 On‐ramp from NY‐119 to I‐287 Loop 0.1 41.0584 ‐73.8258 by Exit 1 56 DET_0179 N I‐95 Bluetooth 614.7 40.99092 ‐73.6633 57 DET_0180 Frontage St. EB to I‐287 SB Loop 0 41.05765 ‐73.8158 58 DET_0181 I‐287 SB to 987F SB Loop 0.3 41.05374 ‐73.8106 59 DET_0182 On SB Sprain Brook Pkwy ramp Loop 0.3 41.05371 ‐73.8101 to EB I‐287 60 DET_0183 On NB Sprain Brook Pkwy ramp Loop 0.2 41.05113 ‐73.8089 to EB I‐287 61 DET_0184 I‐287 NB to 987F NB Loop 0.1 41.05636 ‐73.8092 62 DET_0185 At NB Sprain Brook Pkwy On‐ Loop 0.3 41.05643 ‐73.8093 Ramp from WB I‐287 63 DET_0186 WB Tarrytown Rd Ramp to WB Loop 0.1 41.04158 ‐73.7876 I‐287. 64 DET_0187 Orchard St. to I‐287 NB Loop 0 41.04662 ‐73.7669 65 DET_0188 CR‐150 SB to I‐287 SB Loop 0.4 41.04092 ‐73.7627 66 DET_0189 SMRP under CWE overpass. Loop 11.3 41.05932 ‐73.8226 67 DET_0190 I‐87 Bluetooth 629.7 40.99994 ‐73.6832 68 DET_0191 US‐9W NB to I‐87 NB Loop 0 41.08221 ‐73.9214 69 DET_0192 N I‐287 Radar 0.2 41.11527 ‐74.1612 70 DET_0193 I‐287 SB to NY‐119 SB Radar 622.6 41.04485 ‐73.7913 71 DET_0195 I‐87 Radar 627 41.01814 ‐73.7256 72 DET_0197 I‐87 Radar 23.9 41.09666 ‐74.0466 73 DET_0198 I‐87 Radar 629.7 40.99994 ‐73.6832 74 DET_0199 NB I‐87 btwn Int 15 and Int 15A Radar 30.9 41.1275 ‐74.1663 3-21

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

Exhibit 3‐2‐H. New Traffic Detection Systems Installations No. ID Location Type NYSDOT Latitude Longitude 75 DET_0201 I‐87 Bluetooth 628.5 41.01075 ‐73.6998 76 DET_0203 I‐87 Radar 10.8 41.04877 ‐73.8336 77 DET_0204 I‐87 NB to I‐287 Radar 0.2 41.05721 ‐73.834 78 DET_0205 NY‐100 NB to I‐287 SB Radar 0.2 41.04243 ‐73.7861 79 DET_0206 Bloomingdale Rd. to I‐287 NB Radar 0.5 41.03608 ‐73.7531 80 DET_0207 I‐87 Radar 626.1 41.02797 ‐73.7363 81 DET_0208 I‐287 NB to Westchester Ave. Radar 625.6 41.03066 ‐73.7438 82 DET_0209 US‐9 W Radar 16.7 41.08212 ‐73.9229 83 DET_0210 I‐87 Radar 26.9 41.11356 ‐74.0993 84 DET_0212 Hutchinson River Pkwy between Bluetooth 10.7 41.0051 ‐73.7204 Exit 25 and Exit 26E 85 DET_0213 I‐87 Radar 29 41.12186 ‐74.1379 86 DET_0215 NY‐100A to I‐287 NB Radar 621.8 41.04791 ‐73.8047 87 DET_0216 I‐287 WB to I‐87 SB Radar 0.2 41.05793 ‐73.8337 88 DET_0217 I‐87 Radar 12.6 41.06128 ‐73.8574 89 DET_0218 I‐87 Radar 18.9 41.10044 ‐73.9534 90 DET_0219 N I‐287 Radar 18.8 41.09987 ‐73.9527 91 DET_0220 I‐87 Radar 0 41.10196 ‐73.9911 92 DET_0221 N I‐287 Radar 20.9 41.10149 ‐73.9916 93 DET_0222 I‐87 Radar 21.1 41.10233 ‐73.9961 94 DET_0223 Westchester Ave. to 907W SB AID 627.4 41.01423 ‐73.7207 95 DET_0224 Hutchinson River Pkwy between Bluetooth 12.5 41.0244 ‐73.7036 Exit 27 and Exit 28 96 DET_0225 N I‐287 Radar 21 41.10177 ‐73.9948 97 DET_0226 I‐87 Radar 22.8 41.10297 ‐74.0278 98 DET_0228 N I‐287 Radar 23.4 41.09822 ‐74.0381 99 DET_0229 High Ave. to I 87 NB Radar 0.1 41.09407 ‐73.932 100 DET_0230 I‐87 Radar 629.9 40.99852 ‐73.6809 101 DET_0231 WB Westchester Ave ramp into Radar 628.5 41.01075 ‐73.6998 WB I‐287 102 DET_0232 I‐684 SB to I‐287 NB Radar 626.3 41.02637 ‐73.7324 103 DET_0233 Bloomingdale Rd. to I‐287 NB Radar 624.8 41.03736 ‐73.7558 104 DET_0234 I‐87 Radar 623.7 41.04506 ‐73.7716 105 DET_0235 Between the Manhattanville Rd Bluetooth 0 41.02535 ‐73.7231 underpass and the Anderson Hill Rd overpass. 106 DET_0236 I‐87 Radar 623.3 41.04361 ‐73.7779 107 DET_0239 I‐87 Radar 620.8 41.05832 ‐73.8168 108 DET_0240 I‐87 Radar 12.2 41.06103 ‐73.8509 109 DET_0242 NY‐100 AID 9.2 41.0415 ‐73.7911

3-22

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

Exhibit 3‐2‐H. New Traffic Detection Systems Installations No. ID Location Type NYSDOT Latitude Longitude 110 DET_0243 MIDDLETOWN RD. AID 2.6 41.09717 ‐74.012 111 DET_0244 NY‐59 AID 1.3 41.11219 ‐74.1141 112 DET_0245 US‐202 AID 1.5 41.11705 ‐74.1548 113 DET_0246 I‐87 AID 627 41.01814 ‐73.7256 114 DET_0247 NY‐59 AID 1.5 41.11627 ‐74.1544 115 DET_0248 I‐87 NB to NY‐59 AID 0.6 41.10382 ‐74.03 116 DET_0249 NY‐59 AID 7.4 41.10904 ‐74.0445 117 DET_0250 NY‐59 AID 10 41.09289 ‐73.9998 118 DET_0251 NY‐59 AID 9.9 41.09317 ‐74.0018 119 DET_0252 NY‐119 AID 0 41.06359 ‐73.8625 120 DET_0253 NY‐100A AID 2.2 41.04579 ‐73.8047 121 DET_0254 NY‐100A AID 2.2 41.04538 ‐73.8049 122 DET_0255 Airmont Park and Ride Site Wireless 6.4 41.1079 ‐74.0627 Detector Card 123 DET_0256 Airmont Park and Ride Site Wireless 6.4 41.10789 ‐74.0627 Access Point 124 DET_0257 N I‐684 Bluetooth 1.4 41.03948 ‐73.7241 125 DET_0258 Airmont Park and Ride Site Wireless 6.4 41.10789 ‐74.0627 Puck 126 DET_0259 Airmont Park and Ride Site Wireless 6.4 41.10786 ‐74.0627 Puck 127 DET_0260 Airmont Park and Ride Site Wireless 6.4 41.10784 ‐74.0627 Puck 128 DET_0261 Airmont Park and Ride Site Wireless 6.4 41.10789 ‐74.0625 Access Point 129 DET_0262 Airmont Park and Ride Site Wireless 6.4 41.10785 ‐74.0625 Puck 130 DET_0263 Airmont Park and Ride Site Wireless 6.4 41.10787 ‐74.0625 Puck 131 DET_0264 Airmont Park and Ride Site Wireless 6.4 41.10789 ‐74.0625 Puck 132 DET_0265 Spring Valley Park and Ride Site Wireless 3.2 41.11134 ‐74.0438 Detector Card 133 DET_0266 Spring Valley Park and Ride Site Wireless 3.2 41.11137 ‐74.0438 Access Point 134 DET_0267 Spring Valley Park and Ride Site Wireless 0 41.11139 ‐74.0437 Puck 135 DET_0268 LAKE ST. Bluetooth 2.3 41.06209 ‐73.726 136 DET_0269 Spring Valley Park and Ride Site Wireless 0 41.11138 ‐74.0437 Puck

3-23

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

Exhibit 3‐2‐H. New Traffic Detection Systems Installations No. ID Location Type NYSDOT Latitude Longitude 137 DET_0270 Spring Valley Park and Ride Site Wireless 0 41.11136 ‐74.0437 Puck 138 DET_0271 Spring Valley Park and Ride Site Wireless 0.1 41.11166 ‐74.0436 Access Point 139 DET_0272 Spring Valley Park and Ride Site Wireless 0.1 41.1117 ‐74.0436 Puck 140 DET_0273 Spring Valley Park and Ride Site Wireless 0.1 41.11171 ‐74.0436 Puck 141 DET_0274 Spring Valley Park and Ride Site Wireless 0.1 41.11171 ‐74.0436 Puck 142 DET_0275 Spring Valley Park and Ride Site Wireless 3.2 41.11093 ‐74.0438 Access Point 143 DET_0276 Spring Valley Park and Ride Site Wireless 3.2 41.11094 ‐74.0438 Puck 144 DET_0277 Spring Valley Park and Ride Site Wireless 3.2 41.11094 ‐74.0439 Puck 145 DET_0278 Spring Valley Park and Ride Site Wireless 3.2 41.11094 ‐74.0439 Puck 146 DET_0279 Westchester Ave. EB to I‐287 SB Bluetooth 625.6 41.03066 ‐73.7438 147 DET_0280 Nanuet Park and Ride Site Wireless 8.3 41.10276 ‐74.0305 (South) Detector Card 148 DET_0281 Nanuet Park and Ride Site Wireless 8.3 41.10278 ‐74.0305 (South) Access Point 149 DET_0282 Nanuet Park and Ride Site Wireless 8.3 41.1028 ‐74.0305 (South) Puck 150 DET_0283 Nanuet Park and Ride Site Wireless 8.3 41.10278 ‐74.0305 (South) Puck 151 DET_0284 Nanuet Park and Ride Site Wireless 8.3 41.10277 ‐74.0304 (South) Puck 152 DET_0285 Nanuet Park and Ride Site Wireless 8.3 41.10283 ‐74.0304 (South) Puck 153 DET_0286 Nanuet Park and Ride Site Wireless 8.3 41.10284 ‐74.0304 (South) Puck 154 DET_0287 Nanuet Park and Ride Site Wireless 8.3 41.10285 ‐74.0305 (South) Puck 155 DET_0288 Nanuet Park and Ride Site Wireless 8.3 41.10281 ‐74.0304 (South) Puck 156 DET_0289 Nanuet Park and Ride Site Wireless 8.3 41.10282 ‐74.0305 (South) Puck 157 DET_0290 I‐87 Bluetooth 624.8 41.03736 ‐73.7558 158 DET_0291 Nanuet Park and Ride Site Wireless 8.3 41.10283 ‐74.0305 (South) Puck

3-24

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

Exhibit 3‐2‐H. New Traffic Detection Systems Installations No. ID Location Type NYSDOT Latitude Longitude 159 DET_0292 Nanuet Park and Ride Site Wireless 8.3 41.10311 ‐74.0286 (North) Detector Card 160 DET_0293 Nanuet Park and Ride Site Wireless 8.3 41.10308 ‐74.0287 (North) Access Point 161 DET_0294 Nanuet Park and Ride Site Wireless 8.3 41.10302 ‐74.0286 (North) Puck 162 DET_0295 Nanuet Park and Ride Site Wireless 8.3 41.10304 ‐74.0286 (North) Puck 163 DET_0296 Nanuet Park and Ride Site Wireless 8.3 41.10305 ‐74.0286 (North) Puck 164 DET_0297 Nanuet Park and Ride Site Wireless 8.3 41.10308 ‐74.0286 (North) Puck 165 DET_0298 Nanuet Park and Ride Site Wireless 8.3 41.10306 ‐74.0286 (North) Puck 166 DET_0299 Nanuet Park and Ride Site Wireless 8.3 41.10305 ‐74.0286 (North) Puck 167 DET_0301 On the Grant Avenue overpass Bluetooth 624.1 41.04449 ‐73.7645 with I‐287 168 DET_0312 NY‐119 Bluetooth 5.1 41.0362 ‐73.7792 169 DET_0313 I‐87 Bluetooth 623.3 41.04361 ‐73.7779 170 DET_0315 NY‐100 Bluetooth 8.8 41.03994 ‐73.7839 171 DET_0316 NY‐100 Bluetooth 0.2 41.03649 ‐73.7822 172 DET_0317 NY‐100 Bluetooth 9.3 41.0415 ‐73.7911 173 DET_0318 NY‐119 Bluetooth 4 41.04224 ‐73.7953 174 DET_0319 I‐87 Bluetooth 622.6 41.04485 ‐73.7913 175 DET_0320 NY‐100A Bluetooth 2.5 41.04867 ‐73.8027 176 DET_0321 NY‐119 Bluetooth 3.6 41.04377 ‐73.8023 177 DET_0322 NY‐100A Bluetooth 2.1 41.04368 ‐73.8053 178 DET_0323 On the interchange with W Bluetooth 621.8 41.04791 ‐73.8047 Hartsdale Ave 179 DET_0324 NY‐119 Bluetooth 3 41.04962 ‐73.8098 180 DET_0325 I‐684 SB to I‐287 SB AID 626.5 41.02473 ‐73.7301 181 DET_0326 Sprain Brook Pkwy. Bluetooth 8 41.04041 ‐73.8153 182 DET_0327 Sprain Brook Pkwy. Bluetooth 8.5 41.04629 ‐73.8137 183 DET_0328 Sprain Brook Pkwy. Bluetooth 9.5 41.06075 ‐73.8081 184 DET_0329 Sprain Brook Pkwy. Bluetooth 10 41.06702 ‐73.8054 185 DET_0330 Sprain Brook Pkwy. Bluetooth 11.1 41.08293 ‐73.8005 186 DET_0331 Sprain Brook Pkwy. Bluetooth 12.2 41.09787 ‐73.7998 187 DET_0332 I‐87 Bluetooth 620.8 41.05832 ‐73.8168 188 DET_0333 NY‐119 Bluetooth 2.1 41.0566 ‐73.8233 189 DET_0334 I‐87 Bluetooth 10.2 41.04107 ‐73.836 3-25

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

Exhibit 3‐2‐H. New Traffic Detection Systems Installations No. ID Location Type NYSDOT Latitude Longitude 190 DET_0335 I‐87 Bluetooth 10.8 41.04877 ‐73.8336 191 DET_0336 WESTCHESTER WB AID 625.1 41.03273 ‐73.7532 192 DET_0337 Village of Elmsford's Bluetooth 0.7 41.0597 ‐73.8297 intersection of EB NY‐119 with WB I‐87/I‐287 On‐Ramp. 193 DET_0338 On Bendedict Av, at the Bluetooth 0.4 41.0651 ‐73.8395 intersection with Skeggs Rd 194 DET_0339 I‐87 Bluetooth 11.8 41.06059 ‐73.8432 195 DET_0340 NY‐119 Bluetooth 0.9 41.06374 ‐73.8413 196 DET_0342 On Bendedict Av, at the Bluetooth 0.3 41.0719 ‐73.8601 intersection with S Broadway 197 DET_0343 I‐87 NB to NY‐119 Bluetooth 0.2 41.0639 ‐73.8575 198 DET_0344 I‐87 Bluetooth 12.6 41.06128 ‐73.8574 199 DET_0345 SOUTH BROADWAY Bluetooth 12 41.07619 ‐73.8582 200 DET_0346 SOUTH BROADWAY Bluetooth 11.4 41.06702 ‐73.8626 201 DET_0347 I‐87 AID 623.7 41.04523 ‐73.7717 202 DET_0348 SOUTH BROADWAY Bluetooth 10.9 41.0605 ‐73.862 203 DET_0349 US‐9 W Bluetooth 6.9 41.09 ‐73.9289 204 DET_0350 N I‐287 Bluetooth 17.4 41.09093 ‐73.929 205 DET_0351 MAIN ST. Bluetooth 0.6 41.09188 ‐73.9263 206 DET_0352 MAIN ST. Bluetooth 0 41.09301 ‐73.9243 207 DET_0353 US‐9 W Bluetooth 7.3 41.09593 ‐73.927 208 DET_0354 US‐9 W Bluetooth 7.1 41.09227 ‐73.9286 209 DET_0355 NY‐59 Bluetooth 13.6 41.09886 ‐73.9508 210 DET_0356 N I‐287 Bluetooth 18.1 41.09634 ‐73.9389 211 DET_0357 NY‐59 Bluetooth 12.9 41.09263 ‐73.9437 212 DET_0358 I‐87 AID 622.6 41.04506 ‐73.7911 213 DET_0359 NY‐303 Bluetooth 5.2 41.08962 ‐73.9502 214 DET_0360 NY‐303 Bluetooth 6.5 41.10526 ‐73.9513 215 DET_0361 NY‐59 Bluetooth 11.7 41.0931 ‐73.9663 216 DET_0362 N I‐287 Bluetooth 20.1 41.10126 ‐73.9761 217 DET_0363 NY‐59 Bluetooth 11 41.09173 ‐73.9778 218 DET_0364 Palisades Int. Pkwy. Bluetooth 6.6 41.08075 ‐73.9862 219 DET_0365 Between Exit 9E and Exit 8W. Bluetooth 0 41.09451 ‐73.9908 220 DET_0366 Palisades Int. Pkwy. Bluetooth 8.9 41.11279 ‐74.0022 221 DET_0367 NY‐304 NB to NY‐59 EB Bluetooth 0.4 41.09106 ‐73.9954 222 DET_0368 NY‐304 Bluetooth 3 41.08553 ‐74.0001 223 DET_0369 NY‐100A AID 621.7 41.04835 ‐73.8059 224 DET_0370 NY‐304 Bluetooth 3.7 41.09499 ‐73.998 225 DET_0371 I‐87 Bluetooth 21.8 41.10343 ‐74.0102

3-26

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

Exhibit 3‐2‐H. New Traffic Detection Systems Installations No. ID Location Type NYSDOT Latitude Longitude 226 DET_0372 NY‐59 Bluetooth 8.8 41.10083 ‐74.0232 227 DET_0374 NY‐59 to I‐87 NB Bluetooth 0.1 41.10382 ‐74.03 228 DET_0375 N I‐287 Bluetooth 22.8 41.10231 ‐74.0283 229 DET_0376 I‐87 NB to 982L SB Bluetooth 3.6 41.10252 ‐74.0329 230 DET_0377 SR982L Bluetooth 640.8 41.08661 ‐74.043 231 DET_0378 NY‐59 Bluetooth 7.5 41.10885 ‐74.0434 232 DET_0379 Between the Chestnut Ridge Rd Bluetooth 23.9 41.09666 ‐74.0466 Underpass and the Spring Valley Toll Barrier 233 DET_0907 Orchard St. to I‐287 NB Loop 0 41.04664 ‐73.7668 234 DET_0916 At NB 9W ramp to EB I‐287 Loop 0 41.08216 ‐73.9215 235 DET_0917 Westchester Av and Rockledge AID 628.6 41.00932 ‐73.6998 Rd 236 DET_0918 NB Sprain Brook Pkway off‐ AID 0 41.05075 ‐73.8105 ramp to SB I‐287 237 DET_0919 At the western landing of the AID 16.3 41.07627 ‐73.9207 New NY Bridge/Tappan Zee Bridge 238 DET_0920 At NY‐9A interchange with I‐287 AID 620.8 41.05843 ‐73.8162 239 DET_0921 I‐287 between Exit 14 and the AID 22.3 41.10401 ‐74.019 NJ Transit RR overpass 240 DET_0923 Interchange 14 Rt 59 to EB I‐287 Radar 0 41.10359 ‐74.0228

Exhibit 3-2-I. Proposed Ramp Meter Installation Locations

Existing Proposed Number of HOV Number of Single or Interchange Location Ramp Ramp Travel Dual Lanes Lane? Lanes Release 14A-EB NB Garden St Pkwy to EB I-287 1 No 2 Single 14-EB NY-59 to WB I-287 1 No 1 Single 13S-EB SB Palisades Int Pkwy to EB I-287 1 No 2 Single 13N-EB NB Palisades Int Pkwy to EB I-287 1 No 1 Single 12-EB Palisades Center Dr to EB I-287 1 Yes 2 Single 4-WB NY-100A Hartsdale Ave to to WB I-287 1 No 1 Single 1-WB NY-119 Main St to WB I-287 1 No 1 Single 9-WB NY-119 White Plains Rd to WB I-287 1 No 1 Single 11-WB High Ave to WB I-287 1 No 1 Single 12-WB N Palisades Center Dr to WB I-287 2 Yes 2 Single 13N-WB SB Palisades Int Pkwy to WB I-287 1 No 2 Single 13S-WB SB Palisades Int Pkwy to WB I-287 1 No 1 Single 14-WB NY-59 to WB I-287 1 No 1 Dual

3-27

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

The list below summarizes the proposed geometrical and operational improvements:

Geometry:  Ramp widening: 14A-EB (NB Garden St Pkwy to EB I-287)  Ramp widening: 13N-WB (NB Palisades Int Pkwy to WB I-287)  Ramp widening: 13S-EB (SB Palisades Int Pkwy to WB I-287)  Ramp widening: 12-WB (N Palisades Center Dr to WB I-287)  Ramp widening: 12-EB (Palisades Center Dr to EB I-287)  New Sidewalk installation: various segments of NY-59 between Monsey Heights Rd and New Clarkson Rd (for details refer to Appendix A-2)

Operational:  Upgrade of traffic signal hardware and signal retiming at signalized intersections along NY-59, NY-119 and adjacent cross-arterials including NY-45, NY-100A, NY-303, and NY-9. The two optimized signal timing plans to be implemented for the AM and PM peak periods, based on Level of Service analysis and traffic simulation results.

 New bus stop and new bus travel pattern at NY-59 and Monsey Park and Ride (just east of Robert Pitt Drive.)

 The existing shared EB through-right turn lane to be converted to dedicated right turn lane at the intersection of NY-59 with Forman Drive in Nanuet

 The existing EB exclusive left turn lane to be extended by approximately 150 feet at the intersection of NY-59 with Mountainview Road in Central Nyack

 The existing SB through lane to be converted to shared left-through lane at the intersection of NY-49 and Smith Street

 Bus queue jump lanes at the intersection of NY-59 and Hemion Road – the existing EB and WB dedicated right turn lanes on NY-59 to be utilized by buses traveling through, in order to bypass the queues.

 Bus queue jump lanes at the intersection of NY-59 and Spook Rock Road/Cherry Lane – the existing EB and WB dedicated right turn lanes on NY-59 to be utilized by buses traveling through, in order to bypass the queues.

 Bus queue jump lane at the intersection of NY-59 and College Road – the existing WB dedicated right turn lane on NY-59 to be utilized by buses traveling through, in order to bypass the queues.

 Bus queue jump lane at the intersection of NY-59 and Main Street/Saddle River Road – the existing WB dedicated right turn lane on NY-59 to be utilized by buses traveling through, in order to bypass the queues.

 Bus queue jump lanes at the intersection of NY-59 and Remsen Ave – the existing EB and WB dedicated right turn lanes on NY-59 to be utilized by buses traveling through, in order to bypass the queues.

 Bus queue jump lane at the intersection of NY-59 and Kennedy Drive – the existing EB dedicated right turn lane on NY-59 to be utilized by buses traveling through, in order to bypass the queues.

 The existing EB exclusive left turn lane at the intersection of NY-59 and Dutch Lane to be converted to WB receiving lane. The EB NY-59 approach to be reconfigured to two shared lanes: left-thru and thru-right.

 New downtown White Plains bus route, as per Option 2D (see Exhibit 3-2-1)

 Ramp metering on I-287 to better manage traffic flow on the mainline. A total 3-28

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

of 13 ramps will be equipped with signals operating with either single or dual release. Ramps in EB direction: interchange # 14A, 14, 13S, 13N, 12. Ramps in WB direction: interchange # 4, 1, 9, 11, 12, 13N, 13S, 14. Ramps 12-EB and 12-WB will include a dedicated Bus/HOV lane.

 Installation of new VMS and replacement VMS that are at the end-of-life on I-87 / I-287 and adjacent cross-arterials along the corridor from Suffern to White Plains.

 Installation of a CCTV system, which allows real-time visual monitoring of the roadways, traffic, and incidents by operators. Video feeds can notify operators of incidents, and also helps identify possible solutions for operational challenges. Additionally, video feeds are made available to the public so that drivers can determine the expected traffic conditions of roadways and possible alternatives prior to their use of the roadways.

 Installation of traffic detectors. The project contains a collection of different traffic detection technologies to provide traffic data to the ICMS. Most are new installations, primarily to support the ICMS, while others expand and reconfigure existing traffic detectors, such as GPS transponders at signal intersections, which allow for buses to gain transit signal priority at select locations. The project will also expand the deployment of Bluetooth technology within the region, in order to support journey time monitoring throughout Rockland and Westchester, while inductive loops remain the primary source of detection at traffic signal intersections.

 Fiber Communications. The proposed communications system upgrades includes the installation of fiber in support of the various sub-systems consistent with the implementation of the overall ICMS. This upgraded communications system will be installed using both aerial and trenched approaches, which will allow operators located at the HVTMC to remotely communicate with many of the subsystem devices located throughout the corridor using fiber. Locations where fiber does not exist will be modified to accommodate the communications requirements using alternative solutions (i.e. wireless or leased line). The proposed fiber locations are aerial installation on NY-59 and NY-119 as well as trenched fiber on I-684.

Control of Access:  No proposed changes to Control of Access.

Right of Way:  Some proposed improvements require ROW acquisition. These locations are listed in Section 3.3.3.1  Installation of new or relocation of the existing utility poles is being assessed.

Environmental:  Refer to Chapter 4 for details.

Cost:  Total estimated cost of this alternative is $77.8M.

Project Objectives:  This alternative meets the project objectives.

3-29

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

Exhibit 3.2.1 Summary of Alternative Costs - Million Dollars (Calculated Year) Alt 1 Alt 2 Activities No Build Build Capital Works - Shelters 1.1 - Intersections 4.1 - NY-59 safety improvements 4.0

- Ramp metering (capital works) 7.9 - Traffic signal upgrades (capital works) 0.7 - Variable message signs upgrades (capital works) 0.4 Subtotal: 18.2 Integrated Corridor Management - Systems integration (incl. decision-support system) 11.7 - Traffic signal upgrades and adaptive control (technology) 4.7 - Transit signal priority (technology) 1.3 - Ramp metering (technology) 1.1

- Variable message signs 12.6 - Traffic data systems 2.2 - Closed-circuit television (CCTV) 3.0 - Communications 3.0 Subtotal: 39.6 Misc. (for items too small to be identified /itemized at this stage) 3.6 Bridge Construction Highway SPDES Subtotal 61.4 Incidentals/Contingencies1 (15% @ Design Approval) 9.2 Subtotal 70.6 Potential Field Change Payment Subtotal 70.6 Mobilization (cost included in activity cost estimates above) Subtotal 70.6 Expected Award Amount – Inflated2 @ x%/yr to midpoint of

Construction Construction Inspection (8%) 5.0 ROW Costs 2.2 Total Cost 77.8 Notes: 1. The potential cost increase due to unknown or un-tabulated items. NYSDOT recommends standard contingencies: 25% Scoping stage, 15% Design Approval stage, 5% Advanced Detail Plans stage. 2. Use inflation rate (%) from Program Update/PSS inflation values. Questions regarding these inflation rates should be directed to the Regional Planning and Program Manager (RPPM). (See HDM 21.6.3.2 B)

3-30

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

3.2.2 Preferred Alternative

The only reasonable alternative - Alternative-2 “Build Alternative” - is the Preferred Alternative for this project.

3.2.3. Design Criteria for Reasonable Alternative(s)

3.2.3.1.A Design Standards for Safety Work and New Bus Shelter Locations

The following design guidance will apply for the safety work and the new bus shelter locations.

Work Type NYSDOT Design Guidance

Bus Shelter and Pedestrian Accommodation NYSDOT Highway Design Manual Chapter 18 Minor Pavement Rehabilitation NYSDOT Highway Design Manual Chapter 7 Drainage System Work NYSDOT Highway Design Manual Chapter 8

Other Design Parameters for Safety Work and New Bus Shelter Locations

Other Design Parameters Existing Element Standard Proposed Condition Conditions Drainage Design Storm 10 year 10 year 10 year Design Vehicle (I-287) WB-67 WB-67 Design Vehicle Design Vehicle (urban Bus-45 Alexander Dennis E500 arterials)

3.2.3.1.B Design Standards for Ramp Metering Installations

The following design guidance will apply for ramp metering installations.

Work Type NYSDOT Design Guidance

Highway Geometric Design NYSDOT Highway Design Manual Chapter 2

The ramp metering locations include added lanes on ramps and mainline and therefore will be designed using the following methodology:

3.2.3.2. Critical Design Elements -

Designs for ramp metering incorporate both stop and free-flow condition considerations to accommodate times when the ramp is and is not in operation. When a ramp meter is utilized, ramps will operate under a stop condition. During times that the ramp meter is not utilized, the ramps will operate under free-flow condition. The proposed ramp designs are based on the governing, or most conservative, design guidelines of both conditions. As such, the proposed minimum radius for ramps consider free-flow condition, and the minimum acceleration length considers a stop condition.

Exhibit 3.2.3.2.a Critical Design Elements for I-287 Mainline and Three 3-31

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

Ramp Metering Locations Not Receiving Geometric Changes PIN: 8823.48 NHS (Y/N): Yes I-287 mainline and 1-WB, 4- Route No. & Name: Functional Classification: Principal Urban Arterial (Interstate) WB & 11-WB on-ramps Project Type: Design Classification: Freeway and Freeway Ramp % Trucks: Terrain: Level / Rolling Truck Access/Qualifying ADT: Truck Access - Yes; Qualifying - Yes Hwy. Element Location Standard Existing Condition Proposed Condition Design Speed: Posted Speed Limits: Design Speed: Rural Level: 70-70mph . 55 mph (South of . 60 mph (South of Rural Rolling: 70-70mph I-287 Mainline interchange 14A) interchange 14A) Rural Mount.: 50-60mph . 65 mph (North of . 70 mph (North of Urban All: 50-70mph Interchange 14A) Interchange 14A) (HDM 2.7.1.1.A) 1-WB (direct): Not available. No Posted 1-WB: Design Speed 40 1 Design Speed1 Speed Signs mph . Loop ramp: 25 mph

. Direct connection ramp: 4-WB (direct): Not 4-WB: Design Speed 40 40 mph Ramp to I-287 available. No Posted mph . Outer connector ramp: Speed Signs 30mph 11-WB: Design Speed 30 (HDM 2.7.5.2.A) 11-WB (outer): Not mph Available. Posted Advisory Speed 30 mph 12 ft Standard width to remain: I-287 Mainline 12 ft (predominantly) (HDM 2.7.1.1.B) 12 ft

Traveled way width ranges from 12’ (1-ln) & 26’ (2-ln) Existing lane width to for R=1000’ to 17’ (1-ln) & 2 Lane Width remain: 32’ (2-ln) for R=150’. . 1-WB: 15’ Ramp to I-287 . 1-WB: 15’ 2’ can be deducted from 2- . 4-WB: 15’ . 4-WB: 15’ ln ramp width if combined . 11-WB: 16’ 11-WB: 16’ paved shoulder width ≥ 4’. (HDM Exhibit 2-9a)

Varies 10’ Right; 4’ Left Existing shoulder width to I-287 Mainline ~7 to 11 ft Right; (HDM Exhibit 2-2) remain ~5 to 11 ft Left 3 Shoulder Width Existing shoulder width to . 3’ Left 1-WB2: 3’ Lt, 15’ Rt remain: Ramp to I-287 . 6’ Right 4-WB: 4’ Lt, 6’ Rt 1-WB: 3’ Lt, 15’ Rt (HDM Exhibit 2-10) 11-WB: 4’ Lt, 10’ Rt 4-WB: 4’ Lt, 6’ Rt 11-WB: 4’ Lt, 10’ Rt Bridge 4 N/A N/A N/A N/A Roadway Width 4% I-287 Mainline 3%2 3% (HDM Exhibit 2-2) Existing grade to remain: Maximum 1-WB: 4.0%2 5 7% for 30 mph 1-WB: 4.0%2 Grade 4-WB: 3.7%2 Ramp to I-287 6% for 40 mph 4-WB: 3.7%2 11-WB: 3.5%2 (HDM Exhibit 2-10) 11-WB: 3.5%2

3-32

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

For 60 mph: Min. 1200’ (emax= 8%) Max. 1330’ (emax= 6%) Existing curve radius to I-287 Mainline For 70 mph: Varies (≥2000’2) remain Min. 1810’ (emax= 8%) Max. 2040’ (emax= 6%) (HDM Exhibit 2-2) Horizontal Design speed of 30 mph: 6 Curvature 250 ft (emax= 4%) Existing Curve radius to 231 ft (emax= 6%) 1-WB: Curve R = 800’ remain: 214 ft (emax= 8%) 4-WB: Curve R = 900’ 1-WB: Curve R = 800’ Ramp to I-287 Design speed of 40 mph: 11-WB: Curve R = 275’ 4-WB: Curve R = 900’ 533 ft (emax= 4%) 11-WB: Curve R = 275’ 485 ft (emax= 6%)

444 ft (emax= 8%) (HDM Exhibit 2-10) 8% max Existing superelevation I-287 Mainline (HDM 2.7.1.1G; ≤ 8%2 rates to remain Superelevation and Exhibit 2-2) 7 Rate 8% max Existing superelevation Ramp to I-287 (HDM 2.7.5.2G ≤ 8%2 rates to remain And Exhibit 2-2) For 60 mph: 570 ft Existing Stopping Sight I-287 Mainline For 70 mph: 730 ft ≥ 730 ft2 Distance to remain (HDM Exhibit 2-2) Stopping Sight Design speed of 30 mph: 8 Distance ≥ 200 ft Existing Stopping Sight Ramp to I-287 Design speed of 40 mph: ≥ 305 ft2 Distance to remain ≥ 305 ft (HDM Exhibit 2-10) Without barrier: 15 ft With barrier: Existing Horizontal I-287 Mainline ≥15’2 the greater of 4 ft or Clearance to remain Horizontal shoulder width 9 Clearance (HDM 2.7.1.1.I) Right side = greater of Existing Horizontal shoulder width or 6 ft. and > 6 ft (right side) Clearance to remain: Ramp to I-287 left side = 3 ft. minimum. > 3 ft (left side) > 6 ft (right side) (HDM 2.7.5.2.I) > 3 ft (left side)

16 ft over highway3 Existing Vertical Clearance I-287 Mainline (HDM 2.7.1.1.J and Bridge ≥16 ft2 to remain Vertical Design Manual 2.4.1) Clearance 10 (above traveled way) 16 ft over highway3 Ramp to I-287 (HDM 2.7.5.2.J and Bridge N/A N/A Design Manual 2.4.1)

1.5% min to 2% max Existing Cross Slope to I-287 Mainline 1.5%-2%2 Travel Lane (HDM Section 2.7.1.1K) remain: 1.5%-2%2 11 Cross Slope 1.5% min to 2% max Existing Cross Slope to Ramp to I-287 1.5%-2%2 (HDM Section 2.7.5.2K) remain: 1.5%-2%2 Existing rollover rates to 4% max between travel 4% max between travel remain: lanes; 8%max at edge of 12 Rollover I-287 Mainline lanes; 8%max at edge of 4% max between travel traveled way (HDM Section traveled way2 lanes; 8%max at edge of 2.7.1.1L) traveled way2

3-33

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

Existing rollover rates to 4% max between travel 4% max between travel remain: lanes; 8%max at edge of Ramp to I-287 lanes; 8%max at edge of 4% max between travel traveled way (HDM Section traveled way2 lanes; 8%max at edge of 2.7.5.2L) traveled way2 Structural I-287 Mainline N/A N/A N/A 13 Capacity Ramp to I-287 N/A N/A N/A LOS “D” or better I-287 Mainline Varies – See Appendix C (HDM Section 2.7.1.1N) The Level of Service comparison is inapplicable due to proposed operational change on the ramps from the 14 Level of Service existing free-flow conditions to signalized conditions LOS “D” or better Ramp to I-287 during peak periods. The delays and queues on the (HDM Section 2.7.5.2N) ramps are expected to increase to benefit the I-287 mainline operation. Refer to Appendix C for mainline Travel Time and LOS results. Full control I-287 Mainline Full control Full control Control of (HDM Section 2.7.1.1O) 15 Access Full control Ramp to I-287 Full control Full control (HDM Section 2.7.5.2O) Pedestrian I-287 Mainline 16 Pedestrians prohibited N/A N/A Accommodation Ramp to I-287 36 ft min Existing median width to I-287 Mainline 36 ft min2 17 Median Width (HDM Section 2.7.1.1.P) remain Ramp to I-287 N/A N/A N/A General Note: Values shown are minimum. 1The Regional Traffic Engineer has concurred that the use of a Design Speed of XX mph is consistent with the anticipated off-peak 85th percentile speed within the range of functional class speeds for the terrain and volume. 2 Estimated value – to be confirmed upon completion of topographic survey 3 Some exceptions apply. Refer to NYSDOT Bridge Manual, Section 2.4.1 **Denotes non-standard feature.

Exhibit 3.2.3.2.b Critical Design Elements for Ramp 14A-EB (NB GSP to EB I-287) PIN: 8823.48 NHS (Y/N): Yes Route No. & I-287 Ramp 14A-EB Functional Classification: Principal Urban Arterial (Interstate) Name: Project Type: Design Classification: Freeway and Freeway Ramp % Trucks: Terrain: Level / Rolling Truck Access/Qualifying ADT: Truck Access - Yes; Qualifying - Yes Hwy Standard No. Element Standard Existing Condition Proposed Condition Tangent segment: 40 Design Speed: mph posted speed limit Design Speed: 1 Design Speed1 40 mph, direct ramp Curve segment: 40 mph 40 mph (direct ramp) (HDM 2.7.5.2.A) advisory speed For R≥1000’ Tangent segment: 1 lane: 12 ft (if comb Tangent segment: two 13’ lanes (total 26’) shoulder width ≥ 4’) three 12’ lanes (total 36’) 2 Lane Width Curve segment: 2 lanes: 24’ total (if comb Curve segment: one 12’ lane (R=1000’) shoulder width ≥ 4’) two 12’ lanes (total 24’)

(HDM Ex 2-9a)

3-34

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

. 3’ Left . 6 ft Lt . 6 ft Lt 3 Shoulder Width . 6’ Right . 9 ft Rt . 9 ft Rt (HDM Exhibit 2-10) 4 Bridge Roadway Width N/A N/A N/A 6% for 40 mph 5 Maximum Grade 3.7%2 3.7%2 (HDM Exhibit 2-10) For 40 mph ramp: 533 ft (emax= 4%) 6 Horizontal Curvature 485 ft (emax= 6%) 1000’ 1004’ 444 ft (emax= 8%) (HDM Exhibit 2-10)

8% max 7 Superelevation Rate ≤ 6%2 ≤ 6%2 (HDM Exhibit 2-10)

Stopping Sight ≥ 305 ft 8 ≥305 ft2 ≥305 ft2 Distance (HDM Exhibit 2-10) Right side = greater of shoulder width or 6 ft. and > 6 ft (right side) > 6 ft (right side) 9 Horizontal Clearance left side = 3 ft. minimum. > 3 ft (left side) > 3 ft (left side) (HDM 2.7.5.2.I)

16 ft over highway3 Vertical Clearance 10 (HDM 2.7.5.2.J and Bridge N/A N/A (above traveled way) Design Manual 2.4.1)

Travel Lane Cross 1.5% min to 2% max 11 1.5%-2%2 1.5%-2%2 Slope (HDM Section 2.7.5.2K) 4% max between travel 4% max between travel 4% max between travel lanes; 8% at edge of 12 Rollover lanes; 8% max at edge lanes; 8% max at edge traveled way; (HDM Section of traveled way2; of traveled way2; 2.7.5.2L) 13 Structural Capacity N/A N/A N/A The Level of Service comparison is inapplicable due to proposed operational change on the ramps from the existing free-flow conditions to signalized LOS “D” or better conditions during peak periods. The delays and 14 Level of Service (HDM Section 2.7.5.2N) queues on the ramps are expected to increase to benefit the I-287 mainline operation. Refer to Appendix C for mainline Travel Time and LOS results. Full control 15 Control of Access Full control Full control (HDM Section 2.7.5.2O) Pedestrian 16 Pedestrians prohibited N/A N/A Accommodation General Note: Values shown are minimum. 1The Regional Traffic Engineer has concurred that the use of a Design Speed of XX mph is consistent with the anticipated off-peak 85th percentile speed within the range of functional class speeds for the terrain and volume. 2 Estimated value – to be confirmed upon completion of topographic survey 3 Some exceptions apply. Refer to NYSDOT Bridge Manual, Section 2.4.1 **Denotes non-standard feature.

Exhibit 3.2.3.2.c Critical Design Elements for Ramp 14-WB (NY-59 to WB I-287) PIN: 8823.48 NHS (Y/N): Yes 3-35

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

Route No. & I-287 Ramp 14-WB Functional Classification: Principal Urban Arterial (Interstate) Name: Project Type: Design Classification: Freeway and Freeway Ramp % Trucks: Terrain: Level / Rolling ADT: Truck Access/Qualifying Hwy. Truck Access - Yes; Qualifying - Yes Standard No. Element Standard Existing Condition Proposed Condition Design Speed: Posted Speed Limit: Design Speed: 1 Design Speed1 25 mph, loop ramp 30 mph 30 mph (HDM 2.7.5.2.A) For 300’ radius and full depth standard shoulders: 1 lane = 13’ 2 Lane Width 1 lane = 15’ . 1 lane = 15 (substandard width) (HDM Ex 2-9a) . 3’ Left . 11’ Left . 9’ Left 3 Shoulder Width . 6’ Right . 11’ Right . 11’ Right (HDM Exhibit 2-10) 4 Bridge Roadway Width N/A N/A N/A 7% 5 Maximum Grade 5%2 5%2 (HDM Exhibit 2-10) For 30 mph ramp: 250 ft (emax= 4%) 231 ft (emax= 6%) 6 Horizontal Curvature 300 ft 300 ft 214 ft (emax= 8%) (Free flow condition) (HDM Exhibit 2-10)

8% max 7 Superelevation Rate ≤ 4%2 ≤ 4%2 (HDM Exhibit 2-10)

Stopping Sight ≥ 200 ft 8 ≥ 200 ft2 ≥ 200 ft2 Distance (HDM Exhibit 2-10) Right side = greater of shoulder width or 6 ft. and left > 6 ft (right side) > 6 ft (right side) 9 Horizontal Clearance side = 3 ft. minimum. > 3 ft (left side) > 3 ft (left side) (HDM 2.7.5.2.I)

16 ft over highway3 Vertical Clearance 10 (HDM 2.7.5.2.J and Bridge N/A N/A (above traveled way) Design Manual 2.4.1)

Travel Lane Cross 1.5% min to 2% max 11 1.5%-2%2 1.5%-2%2 Slope (HDM Section 2.7.5.2K)

4% max between travel 4% max between travel 4% max between travel 12 Rollover lanes; 8% at edge of traveled lanes; 8% max at edge lanes; 8% max at edge way; (HDM Section 2.7.5.2L) of traveled way2 of traveled way;

13 Structural Capacity N/A N/A N/A The Level of Service comparison is inapplicable due to proposed operational change on the ramps from the existing free-flow conditions to signalized LOS “D” or better conditions during peak periods. The delays and 14 Level of Service (HDM Section 2.7.5.2N) queues on the ramps are expected to increase to benefit the I-287 mainline operation. Refer to Appendix C for mainline Travel Time and LOS results. Full control 15 Control of Access Full control Full control (HDM Section 2.7.5.2O)

3-36

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

Pedestrian 16 Pedestrians prohibited N/A N/A Accommodation General Note: Values shown are minimum. 1The Regional Traffic Engineer has concurred that the use of a Design Speed of XX mph is consistent with the anticipated off-peak 85th percentile speed within the range of functional class speeds for the terrain and volume. 2 Estimated value – to be confirmed upon completion of topographic survey 3 Some exceptions apply. Refer to NYSDOT Bridge Manual, Section 2.4.1 **Denotes non-standard feature.

Exhibit 3.2.3.2.d Critical Design Elements for Ramp 14-EB (NY-59 to EB I-287) PIN: 8823.48 NHS (Y/N): Yes Route No. & I-287 Ramp 14-EB Functional Classification: Principal Urban Arterial (Interstate) Name: Project Type: Design Classification: Freeway and Freeway Ramp % Trucks: Terrain: Level / Rolling ADT: Truck Access/Qualifying Hwy. Truck Access - Yes; Qualifying - Yes Standard No. Element Standard Existing Condition Proposed Condition Design Speed: Advisory Speed: Design Speed: 1 Design Speed1 40 mph, direct ramp 35 mph 40 mph (HDM 2.7.5.2.A) For 500’ radius and full depth standard shoulders: 1 lane = 14’ (min) 2 Lane Width 1 lane = 15’ . 1 lane = 15’ (substandard width) (HDM Ex 2-9a) . 3’ Left . 10’ Left . 9’ Left 3 Shoulder Width . 6’ Right . 11’ Right . 11’ Right (HDM Exhibit 2-10) 4 Bridge Roadway Width N/A N/A N/A 6% 5 Maximum Grade 2.5%2 2.5%2 (HDM Exhibit 2-10) For 35 mph ramp: 371 ft (emax= 4%) 340 ft (emax= 6%) 314 ft (emax= 8%) 500 ft 6 Horizontal Curvature 500 ft For 40 mph ramp: (emax= 6%) 533 ft (emax= 4%) 485 ft (emax= 6%) 444 ft (emax= 8%) (HDM Exhibit 2-10)

8% max 7 Superelevation Rate ≤ 6%2 ≤ 6%2 (HDM Exhibit 2-10)

Stopping Sight ≥ 305 ft 8 ≥ 305 ft2 ≥ 305 ft2 Distance (HDM Exhibit 2-10) Right side = greater of shoulder width or 6 ft. and left > 6 ft (right side) > 6 ft (right side) 9 Horizontal Clearance side = 3 ft. minimum. > 3 ft (left side) > 3 ft (left side) (HDM 2.7.5.2.I)

16 ft over highway3 Vertical Clearance 10 (HDM 2.7.5.2.J and Bridge N/A N/A (above traveled way) Design Manual 2.4.1)

3-37

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

Travel Lane Cross 1.5% min to 2% max 11 1.5%-2%2 1.5%-2%2 Slope (HDM Section 2.7.5.2K)

4% max between travel 4% max between travel 4% max between travel 12 Rollover lanes; 8% at edge of traveled lanes; 8% max at edge lanes; 8% max at edge way; (HDM Section 2.7.5.2L) of traveled way2 of traveled way;

13 Structural Capacity N/A N/A N/A The Level of Service comparison is inapplicable due to proposed operational change on the ramps from the existing free-flow conditions to signalized LOS “D” or better conditions during peak periods. The delays and 14 Level of Service (HDM Section 2.7.5.2N) queues on the ramps are expected to increase to benefit the I-287 mainline operation. Refer to Appendix C for mainline Travel Time and LOS results. Full control 15 Control of Access Full control Full control (HDM Section 2.7.5.2O) Pedestrian 16 Pedestrians prohibited N/A N/A Accommodation General Note: Values shown are minimum. 1The Regional Traffic Engineer has concurred that the use of a Design Speed of XX mph is consistent with the anticipated off-peak 85th percentile speed within the range of functional class speeds for the terrain and volume. 2 Estimated value – to be confirmed upon completion of topographic survey 3 Some exceptions apply. Refer to NYSDOT Bridge Manual, Section 2.4.1 **Denotes non-standard feature.

Exhibit 3.2.3.2.e Critical Design Elements for Ramp 13S-WB (SB PIP to WB I-287) PIN: 8823.48 NHS (Y/N): Yes Route No. & I-287 Ramp 13S-WB Functional Classification: Principal Urban Arterial (Interstate) Name: Project Type: Design Classification: Freeway and Freeway Ramp % Trucks: Terrain: Level / Rolling ADT: Truck Access/Qualifying Hwy. Truck Access - Yes; Qualifying - Yes Standard No. Element Standard Existing Condition Proposed Condition Design Speed1 Design Speed: Advisory Speed: Design Speed: 1 30 mph, outer connection 30 mph 30 mph (HDM 2.7.5.2.A) For 200’ radius and full depth standard shoulders: 1 lane = 15’ 2 Lane Width 1 lane = 16’ . 1 lane = 16’ (substandard width) (HDM Ex 2-9a) . 3’ Left . 4’ Left . 4’ Left 3 Shoulder Width . 6’ Right . 8’ Right . 7’ Right (HDM Exhibit 2-10) 4 Bridge Roadway Width N/A N/A N/A 7% 5 Maximum Grade 1.5%2 1.5%2 (HDM Exhibit 2-10)

3-38

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

For 30 mph ramp: 255 ft – 250 ft (emax= 4%) meets 30 mph design 6 Horizontal Curvature 231 ft (emax= 6%) 250 ft standards. 214 ft (emax= 8%)

8% max 7 Superelevation Rate ≤ 4%2 ≤ 4%2 (HDM Exhibit 2-10)

Stopping Sight ≥ 200 ft 8 ≥ 200 ft2 ≥ 200 ft2 Distance (HDM Exhibit 2-10) Right side = greater of shoulder width or 6 ft. and left > 6 ft (right side) > 6 ft (right side) 9 Horizontal Clearance side = 3 ft. minimum. > 3 ft (left side) > 3 ft (left side) (HDM 2.7.5.2.I)

16 ft over highway3 Vertical Clearance 10 (HDM 2.7.5.2.J and Bridge N/A N/A (above traveled way) Design Manual 2.4.1)

Travel Lane Cross 1.5% min to 2% max 11 1.5%-2%2 1.5%-2%2 Slope (HDM Section 2.7.5.2K)

4% max between travel 4% max between travel 4% max between travel 12 Rollover lanes; 8% at edge of traveled lanes; 8% max at edge lanes; 8% max at edge way; (HDM Section 2.7.5.2L) of traveled way2 of traveled way;

13 Structural Capacity N/A N/A N/A The Level of Service comparison is inapplicable due to proposed operational change on the ramps from the existing free-flow conditions to signalized LOS “D” or better conditions during peak periods. The delays and 14 Level of Service (HDM Section 2.7.5.2N) queues on the ramps are expected to increase to benefit the I-287 mainline operation. Refer to Appendix C for mainline Travel Time and LOS results. Full control 15 Control of Access Full control Full control (HDM Section 2.7.5.2O) Pedestrian 16 Pedestrians prohibited N/A N/A Accommodation General Note: Values shown are minimum. 1The Regional Traffic Engineer has concurred that the use of a Design Speed of XX mph is consistent with the anticipated off-peak 85th percentile speed within the range of functional class speeds for the terrain and volume. 2 Estimated value – to be confirmed upon completion of topographic survey 3 Some exceptions apply. Refer to NYSDOT Bridge Manual, Section 2.4.1 **Denotes non-standard feature.

Exhibit 3.2.3.2.f Critical Design Elements for Ramp 13S-EB (SB Palisades Int Pkwy to EB I-287) PIN: 8823.48 NHS (Y/N): Yes Route No. & I-287 Ramp 13S-EB Functional Classification: Principal Urban Arterial (Interstate) Name: Project Type: Design Classification: Freeway and Freeway Ramp % Trucks: Terrain: Level / Rolling

3-39

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

Truck Access/Qualifying ADT: Truck Access - Yes; Qualifying - Yes Hwy. Standard No. Element Standard Existing Condition Proposed Condition Design Speed: Advisory Speed: Design Speed: 1 Design Speed1 25 mph, loop ramp 30 mph 30 mph (HDM 2.7.5.2.A) For 300’ radius and ≥4 ft combined shoulders: 1 lane = 15’ 2 lanes x 14’ each 2 Lane Width . 1 lane = 15’ (substandard width) (28’ total) . 2 lanes = 27’ total (HDM Ex 2-9a) . 3’ Left 3’ - 4’ Left . 4’ Left 3 Shoulder Width . 6’ Right 3’ (w/guide rail) - 8’ Right . 6’ Right (HDM Exhibit 2-10) 4 Bridge Roadway Width N/A N/A N/A 7% 5 Maximum Grade 2%2 2%2 (HDM Exhibit 2-10) For 30 mph ramp: 250 ft (emax= 4%) 231 ft (emax= 6%) Varies: Varies: 6 Horizontal Curvature 214 ft (emax= 8%) Min 350 ft Min 330 ft (Free flow condition) (HDM Exhibit 2-10)

8% max 7 Superelevation Rate ≤ 7%2 ≤ 7%2 (HDM Exhibit 2-10)

Stopping Sight ≥ 200 ft 8 ≥ 200’2 ≥ 200’2 Distance (HDM Exhibit 2-10)

Right side = greater of shoulder width or 6 ft. and > 6 ft (right side) > 6 ft (right side) 9 Horizontal Clearance left side = 3 ft. minimum. > 3 ft (left side) > 3 ft (left side) (HDM 2.7.5.2.I)

16 ft over highway3 Vertical Clearance 10 (HDM 2.7.5.2.J and Bridge N/A N/A (above traveled way) Design Manual 2.4.1)

Travel Lane Cross 1.5% min to 2% max 11 1.5%-2%2 1.5%-2%2 Slope (HDM Section 2.7.5.2K) 4% max between travel 4% max between travel 4% max between travel lanes; 8% at edge of 12 Rollover lanes; 8% max at edge lanes; 8% max at edge traveled way; (HDM Section of traveled way2 of traveled way2 2.7.5.2L) 13 Structural Capacity N/A N/A N/A The Level of Service comparison is inapplicable due to proposed operational change on the ramps from the existing free-flow conditions to signalized LOS “D” or better conditions during peak periods. The delays and 14 Level of Service (HDM Section 2.7.5.2N) queues on the ramps are expected to increase to benefit the I-287 mainline operation. Refer to Appendix C for mainline Travel Time and LOS results. Full control 15 Control of Access Full control Full control (HDM Section 2.7.5.2O)

3-40

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

Pedestrian 16 Pedestrians prohibited N/A N/A Accommodation General Note: Values shown are minimum. 1The Regional Traffic Engineer has concurred that the use of a Design Speed of XX mph is consistent with the anticipated off-peak 85th percentile speed within the range of functional class speeds for the terrain and volume. 2 Estimated value – to be confirmed upon completion of topographic survey 3 Some exceptions apply. Refer to NYSDOT Bridge Manual, Section 2.4.1 **Denotes non-standard feature.

Exhibit 3.2.3.2.g Critical Design Elements for Ramp 13N-WB (NB PIP to WB I-287) PIN: 8823.48 NHS (Y/N): Yes Route No. & I-287 Ramp 13N-WB Functional Classification: Principal Urban Arterial (Interstate) Name: Project Type: Design Classification: Freeway and Freeway Ramp % Trucks: Terrain: Level / Rolling ADT: Truck Access/Qualifying Hwy. Truck Access - Yes; Qualifying - Yes Standard No. Element Standard Existing Condition Proposed Condition Design Speed: Advisory Speed: Design Speed: 1 Design Speed1 25 mph, loop ramp 30 mph 30 mph (HDM 2.7.5.2.A) For 300’ radius and ≥ 4 ft combined shoulders: 1 lane = 14’ 2 lanes x 14’ each 2 Lane Width . 1 lane = 15’ (substandard width) (28’ total) . 2 lanes = 27’ total (HDM Ex 2-9a) . 3’ Left 4’ - Left 4’ Left 3 Shoulder Width . 6’ Right 3’ (w/guide rail) - Right 6’ Right (HDM Exhibit 2-10) 8’ (w/o guide rail) - Right 4 Bridge Roadway Width N/A N/A N/A 7% 5 Maximum Grade 2%2 2%2 (HDM Exhibit 2-10) For 30 mph ramp: 250 ft (emax= 4%) 231 ft (emax= 6%) 6 Horizontal Curvature ≥ 320 ft ≥ 309 ft 214 ft (emax= 8%) (Free flow condition) (HDM Exhibit 2-10)

8% max 7 Superelevation Rate ≤ 6%2 ≤ 6%2 (HDM Exhibit 2-10)

Stopping Sight ≥ 200 ft 8 ≥ 200 ft2 ≥ 200 ft2 Distance (HDM Exhibit 2-10) Right side = greater of shoulder width or 6 ft. and left > 6 ft (right side) > 6 ft (right side) 9 Horizontal Clearance side = 3 ft. minimum. > 3 ft (left side) > 3 ft (left side) (HDM 2.7.5.2.I)

16 ft over highway3 Vertical Clearance 10 (HDM 2.7.5.2.J and Bridge N/A N/A (above traveled way) Design Manual 2.4.1)

Travel Lane Cross 1.5% min to 2% max 11 1.5%-2%2 1.5%-2%2 Slope (HDM Section 2.7.5.2K)

3-41

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

4% max between travel 4% max between travel 4% max between travel 12 Rollover lanes; 8% at edge of traveled lanes; 8% max at edge lanes; 8% max at edge way; (HDM Section 2.7.5.2L) of traveled way2 of traveled way;

13 Structural Capacity N/A N/A N/A The Level of Service comparison is inapplicable due to proposed operational change on the ramps from the existing free-flow conditions to signalized LOS “D” or better conditions during peak periods. The delays and 14 Level of Service (HDM Section 2.7.5.2N) queues on the ramps are expected to increase to benefit the I-287 mainline operation. Refer to Appendix C for mainline Travel Time and LOS results. Full control 15 Control of Access Full control Full control (HDM Section 2.7.5.2O) Pedestrian 16 Pedestrians prohibited N/A N/A Accommodation General Note: Values shown are minimum. 1The Regional Traffic Engineer has concurred that the use of a Design Speed of XX mph is consistent with the anticipated off-peak 85th percentile speed within the range of functional class speeds for the terrain and volume. 2 Estimated value – to be confirmed upon completion of topographic survey 3 Some exceptions apply. Refer to NYSDOT Bridge Manual, Section 2.4.1 **Denotes non-standard feature.

Exhibit 3.2.3.2.h Critical Design Elements for Ramp 13N-EB (NB PIP to EB I-287) PIN: 8823.48 NHS (Y/N): Yes Route No. & I-287 Ramp 13N-EB Functional Classification: Principal Urban Arterial (Interstate) Name: Project Type: Design Classification: Freeway and Freeway Ramp % Trucks: Terrain: Level / Rolling ADT: Truck Access/Qualifying Hwy. Truck Access - Yes; Qualifying - Yes Standard No. Element Standard Existing Condition Proposed Condition Design Speed: Advisory Speed: Design Speed: 1 Design Speed1 25 mph, loop ramp 30 mph 30 mph (HDM 2.7.5.2.A) For 300’ radius and full depth standard shoulders: 1 lane = 14’ 2 Lane Width 1 lane = 15’ . 1 lane = 15’ (substandard width) (HDM Ex 2-9a) . 3’ Left . 4’ Left . 4’ Left 3 Shoulder Width . 6’ Right . 8’ Right . 7’ Right (HDM Exhibit 2-10) 4 Bridge Roadway Width N/A N/A N/A 7% 5 Maximum Grade 3.5%2 3.5%2 (HDM Exhibit 2-10) For 30 mph ramp: 250 ft (emax= 4%) 6 Horizontal Curvature 231 ft (emax= 6%) 375 ft 375 ft 214 ft (emax= 8%) (HDM Exhibit 2-10)

3-42

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

8% max 7 Superelevation Rate 4%2 4%2 (HDM Exhibit 2-10)

Stopping Sight ≥ 200 ft 8 ≥ 200 ft2 ≥ 200 ft2 Distance (HDM Exhibit 2-10) Right side = greater of shoulder width or 6 ft. and left > 6 ft (right side) > 6 ft (right side) 9 Horizontal Clearance side = 3 ft. minimum. > 3 ft (left side) > 3 ft (left side) (HDM 2.7.5.2.I)

16 ft over highway3 Vertical Clearance 10 (HDM 2.7.5.2.J and Bridge N/A N/A (above traveled way) Design Manual 2.4.1)

Travel Lane Cross 1.5% min to 2% max 11 1.5%-2%2 1.5%-2%2 Slope (HDM Section 2.7.5.2K)

4% max between travel 4% max between travel 4% max between travel 12 Rollover lanes; 8% at edge of traveled lanes; 8% max at edge lanes; 8% max at edge way; (HDM Section 2.7.5.2L) of traveled way2 of traveled way;

13 Structural Capacity N/A N/A N/A The Level of Service comparison is inapplicable due to proposed operational change on the ramps from the existing free-flow conditions to signalized LOS “D” or better conditions during peak periods. The delays and 14 Level of Service (HDM Section 2.7.5.2N) queues on the ramps are expected to increase to benefit the I-287 mainline operation. Refer to Appendix C for mainline Travel Time and LOS results. Full control 15 Control of Access Full control Full control (HDM Section 2.7.5.2O) Pedestrian 16 Pedestrians prohibited N/A N/A Accommodation General Note: Values shown are minimum. 1The Regional Traffic Engineer has concurred that the use of a Design Speed of XX mph is consistent with the anticipated off-peak 85th percentile speed within the range of functional class speeds for the terrain and volume. 2 Estimated value – to be confirmed upon completion of topographic survey 3 Some exceptions apply. Refer to NYSDOT Bridge Manual, Section 2.4.1 **Denotes non-standard feature.

Exhibit 3.2.3.2.i Critical Design Elements for Ramp 12-WB (N Palisades Center Dr to WB I-287) PIN: 8823.48 NHS (Y/N): Yes Route No. & I-287 Ramp 12-WB Functional Classification: Principal Urban Arterial (Interstate) Name: Project Type: Design Classification: Freeway and Freeway Ramp % Trucks: Terrain: Level / Rolling Truck Access/Qualifying ADT: Truck Access - Yes; Qualifying - Yes Hwy. Standard No. Element Standard Existing Condition Proposed Condition Design Speed1 Design Speed: Advisory Speed: 1 Design Speed: 25 mph, loop ramp 30 mph 25 mph 3-43

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

(HDM 2.7.5.2.A) The advisory speed to be established at the end of construction, based on ball bank analysis. For 150’ radius and ≥4 ft combined shoulders: . 1 lane = 17’ 2 x 15’ 2 Lane Width 2 x 15’ . 2 lanes = 30’ (merge 43 and 32) total (HDM Ex 2-9a) . 3’ Left . ≥ 4’ Left . 4’ Left 3 Shoulder Width . 6’ Right . ≥ 8’ Right . 6’ Right (HDM Exhibit 2-10) 4 Bridge Roadway Width N/A N/A N/A 7% 5 Maximum Grade 5%2 5%2 (HDM Exhibit 2-10) For 25 mph ramp: 154 ft (emax= 4%) 144 ft (emax= 6%) 134 ft (emax= 8%) Varies: Varies:

min. 175 ft Min. 155 ft 6 Horizontal Curvature For 30 mph ramp: (substandard for 30 mph (meets 25 mph Design 250 ft (emax= 4%) Design Speed) Speed standards) 231 ft (emax= 6%) 214 ft (emax= 8%) (Free flow condition) (HDM Exhibit 2-10)

8% max 7 Superelevation Rate ≤ 6%2 ≤ 6%2 (HDM Exhibit 2-10)

≥ 155 ft (25 mph) Stopping Sight 8 ≥ 200 ft (30 mph) ≥ 200 ft2 ≥ 155 ft2 Distance (HDM Exhibit 2-10) Right side = greater of shoulder width or 6 ft. > 6 ft (right side) > 6 ft (right side) 9 Horizontal Clearance and left side = 3 ft. > 3 ft (left side) > 3 ft (left side) minimum. (HDM 2.7.5.2.I) 16 ft over highway3 Vertical Clearance (HDM 2.7.5.2.J and 10 N/A N/A (above traveled way) Bridge Design Manual 2.4.1) Travel Lane Cross 1.5% min to 2% max 11 1.5%-2%2 1.5%-2%2 Slope (HDM Section 2.7.5.2K) 4% max between travel 4% max between 4% max between travel lanes; 8% at edge of travel lanes; 8% max 12 Rollover lanes; 8% max at edge of traveled way; (HDM at edge of traveled traveled way2 Section 2.7.5.2L) way; 13 Structural Capacity N/A N/A N/A The Level of Service comparison is inapplicable due to proposed operational change on the ramps from the existing free-flow conditions to signalized LOS “D” or better conditions during peak periods. The delays and 14 Level of Service (HDM Section 2.7.5.2N) queues on the ramps are expected to increase to benefit the I-287 mainline operation. Refer to Appendix C for mainline Travel Time and LOS results.

3-44

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

Full control 15 Control of Access Full control Full control (HDM Section 2.7.5.2O) Pedestrian 16 Pedestrians prohibited N/A N/A Accommodation General Note: Values shown are minimum. 1The Regional Traffic Engineer has concurred that the use of a Design Speed of XX mph is consistent with the anticipated off-peak 85th percentile speed within the range of functional class speeds for the terrain and volume. 2 Estimated value – to be confirmed upon completion of topographic survey 3 Some exceptions apply. Refer to NYSDOT Bridge Manual, Section 2.4.1 **Denotes non-standard feature.

Exhibit 3.2.3.2.j Critical Design Elements for Ramp 12-EB (Palisades Center Dr to EB I-287) PIN: 8823.48 NHS (Y/N): Yes Route No. & I-287 Ramp 12-EB Functional Classification: Principal Urban Arterial (Interstate) Name: Project Type: Design Classification: Freeway and Freeway Ramp % Trucks: Terrain: Level / Rolling Truck Access/Qualifying ADT: Truck Access - Yes; Qualifying - Yes Hwy. Standard No. Element Standard Existing Condition Proposed Condition Design Speed: Advisory Speed: Design Speed: 1 Design Speed1 25 mph, loop ramp 25 mph 25 mph (HDM 2.7.5.2.A) For 200’ radius and ≥4 ft combined shoulders: . 1 lane = 16’ 1 x 16' (1-lane segment) 2 Lane Width 1 x 14’ (substandard) . 2 lanes = 28’ 2 x14' (2-lane segment) total (HDM Ex 2-9a) . 3’ Left ≥ 10’ Left 6’ (1 Ln), 3’ (2 Ln) Left 3 Shoulder Width . 6’ Right ≥ 8’ Right ≥ 6’ Right (HDM Exhibit 2-10) 4 Bridge Roadway Width N/A N/A No change 7% 5 Maximum Grade 4%2 4%2 (HDM Exhibit 2-10) For 25 mph ramp: 154 ft (emax= 4%) (Varies) (Varies) 6 Horizontal Curvature 144 ft (emax= 6%) min. 240 ft min. 240 ft 134 ft (emax= 8%) (HDM Exhibit 2-10)

8% max 7 Superelevation Rate ≤ 8%2 ≤ 8%2 (HDM Exhibit 2-10)

≥ 155 ft 8 Stopping Sight Distance ≥ 155 ft2 ≥ 155 ft2 (HDM Exhibit 2-10) Right side = greater of shoulder width or 6 ft. and > 6 ft (right side) > 6 ft (right side) 9 Horizontal Clearance left side = 3 ft. minimum. > 3 ft (left side) > 3 ft (left side) (HDM 2.7.5.2.I)

3-45

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

16 ft over highway3 Vertical Clearance (HDM 2.7.5.2.J and 10 N/A N/A (above traveled way) Bridge Design Manual 2.4.1) 1.5% min to 2% max 11 Travel Lane Cross Slope 1.5%-2%2 1.5%-2%2 (HDM Section 2.7.5.2K) 4% max between travel 4% max between travel 4% max between travel lanes; 8% at edge of 12 Rollover lanes; 8% max at edge of lanes; 8% max at edge traveled way; (HDM traveled way2 of traveled way; Section 2.7.5.2L) 13 Structural Capacity N/A N/A N/A The Level of Service comparison is inapplicable due to proposed operational change on the ramps from the existing free-flow conditions to signalized LOS “D” or better conditions during peak periods. The delays and 14 Level of Service (HDM Section 2.7.5.2N) queues on the ramps are expected to increase to benefit the I-287 mainline operation. Refer to Appendix C for mainline Travel Time and LOS results. Full control 15 Control of Access Full control Full control (HDM Section 2.7.5.2O) Pedestrian 16 Pedestrians prohibited N/A N/A Accommodation General Note: Values shown are minimum. 1The Regional Traffic Engineer has concurred that the use of a Design Speed of XX mph is consistent with the anticipated off-peak 85th percentile speed within the range of functional class speeds for the terrain and volume. 2 Estimated value – to be confirmed upon completion of topographic survey 3 Some exceptions apply. Refer to NYSDOT Bridge Manual, Section 2.4.1 **Denotes non-standard feature. Exhibit 3.2.3.2.k Critical Design Elements for Ramp 9-WB (NY-119 White Plains Rd to WB I-287) PIN: 8823.48 NHS (Y/N): Yes Route No. & I-287 Ramp 9-WB Functional Classification: Principal Urban Arterial (Interstate) Name: Project Type: Design Classification: Freeway and Freeway Ramp % Trucks: Terrain: Level / Rolling ADT: Truck Access/Qualifying Hwy. Truck Access - Yes; Qualifying - Yes Standard No. Element Standard Existing Condition Proposed Condition Design Speed1 Design Speed: Advisory Speed: Design Speed: 30 mph, outer connection 30 mph 30 mph – requires 1 (HDM 2.7.5.2.A) design exception

For 200’ radius and full depth standard shoulders: 1 lane = 15’ 2 Lane Width 1 lane = 16’ . 1 lane = 16’ (substandard width) (HDM Ex 2-9a) . 3’ Left . 3’ Left . 3’ Left 3 Shoulder Width . 6’ Right . 9’ Right . 8’ Right (HDM Exhibit 2-10) 4 Bridge Roadway Width N/A N/A N/A 7% 5 Maximum Grade 1.0%2 1.0%2 (HDM Exhibit 2-10)

3-46

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

For 30 mph ramp: 250 ft (emax= 4%) 232 ft 6 Horizontal Curvature 231 ft (emax= 6%) 230 ft (emax= 6%) 214 ft (emax= 8%) (HDM Exhibit 2-10)

8% max 7 Superelevation Rate ≤ 6%2 ≤ 6%2 (HDM Exhibit 2-10)

Stopping Sight ≥ 200 ft 8 ≥ 200 ft2 ≥ 200 ft2 Distance (HDM Exhibit 2-10) Right side = greater of shoulder width or 6 ft. and left > 6 ft (right side) > 6 ft (right side) 9 Horizontal Clearance side = 3 ft. minimum. > 3 ft (left side) > 3 ft (left side) (HDM 2.7.5.2.I)

16 ft over highway3 Vertical Clearance 10 (HDM 2.7.5.2.J and Bridge N/A N/A (above traveled way) Design Manual 2.4.1)

Travel Lane Cross 1.5% min to 2% max 11 1.5%-2%2 1.5%-2%2 Slope (HDM Section 2.7.5.2K)

4% max between travel 4% max between travel 4% max between travel 12 Rollover lanes; 8% at edge of traveled lanes; 8% max at edge lanes; 8% max at edge way; (HDM Section 2.7.5.2L) of traveled way2 of traveled way;

13 Structural Capacity N/A N/A N/A The Level of Service comparison is inapplicable due to proposed operational change on the ramps from the existing free-flow conditions to signalized LOS “D” or better conditions during peak periods. The delays and 14 Level of Service (HDM Section 2.7.5.2N) queues on the ramps are expected to increase to benefit the I-287 mainline operation. Refer to Appendix C for mainline Travel Time and LOS results. Full control 15 Control of Access Full control Full control (HDM Section 2.7.5.2O) Pedestrian 16 Pedestrians prohibited N/A N/A Accommodation General Note: Values shown are minimum. 1The Regional Traffic Engineer has concurred that the use of a Design Speed of XX mph is consistent with the anticipated off-peak 85th percentile speed within the range of functional class speeds for the terrain and volume. 2 Estimated value – to be confirmed upon completion of topographic survey 3 Some exceptions apply. Refer to NYSDOT Bridge Manual, Section 2.4.1 **Denotes non-standard feature.

3.2.3.3. Other Design Parameters –

Exhibit 3.2.3.3a Other Design Parameters for Ramps to I-287 Element Standard Existing Conditions Proposed Condition Drainage 10 year 10 year 10 year Design Storm 3-47

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

Design I-287: WB-67 (Interstate Tractor- WB-67 Vehicle Trailer); and (Interstate WB-67 (Interstate Tractor-Trailer) Urban arterials: Alexander Dennis Tractor-Trailer) E500 Free Flow Condition Stop Condition Standards: Standards: Existing Proposed AASHTO 2011 AASHTO 2011 Acceleration lane Acceleration lane Tables 10-3 and Tables 10-3 and length (ft) length (ft) 10-4 10-4 14A-EB: 950’ 14A-EB: 330’ 14A-EB: 950’ 14A-EB: 720’ 14-EB: 625’ 14-EB: 480’ 14-EB: 730’ 14-EB: 720’ 13S-EB: 700’* 13S-EB: N/A* 13S-EB: 1,080’* 13S-EB: N/A* 13N-EB: 860’ 13N-EB: 546’ 13N-EB: 780’ 13N-EB: 720’ 12-EB: 850’ 12-EB: 1,428’ 12-EB: 1,680’ 12-EB: 1,680’ 4-WB: 1,245’* 4-WB: N/A* 4-WB: 1,245’* 4-WB: N/A* 1-WB: 550’ 1-WB: 780’ 1-WB: 1,200’ 1-WB: 1,200’ 9-WB: 910’ 9-WB: 900’ 9-WB: 1,040’ 9-WB: 720’ 11-WB: 950’ 11-WB: 910’ 11-WB: 1,200’ 11-WB: 1,200’ 12-WB: 910’ 12-WB: 1,900’ 12-WB: 1,900’ 12-WB: 1,200’ 13N-WB: 600’* 13N-WB: N/A* 13N-WB: 980’* 13N-WB: N/A* 13S-WB: 890’ 13S-WB: 910’ 13S-WB: 1,230’ 13S-WB: 1,200’ 14-WB: 1,660’* 14-WB: N/A* 14-WB: 1,660’* 14-WB: N/A* Proposed Length of Existing Length of Acceleration Lane Taper Acceleration Lane Taper and AASHTO Standards 14A-EB: 250’ 300' (300’ min., AASHTO Fig 10-69) 14-EB: 160’ 300' (300’ min., AASHTO Fig 10-69) 13S-EB: N/A* N/A* 13N-EB: 200’ 300' (300’ min., AASHTO Fig 10-69) 12-EB: 250’ 300' (300’ min., AASHTO Fig 10-69) 4-WB: N/A* N/A* 1-WB: 325’ 325’ (300’ min., AASHTO Fig 10-69) 9-WB: 200’ 300' (300’ min., AASHTO Fig 10-69) 11-WB: 350’ 350' (300’ min., AASHTO Fig 10-69) 12-WB: 450’ 450’ (300’ min., AASHTO Fig 10-69) 13N-WB: N/A* N/A* 13S-WB: 300’ 300' (300’ min., AASHTO Fig 10-69) 14-WB: N/A* N/A* * - denotes weaving segment (see Exhibit 3.2.3.3b below)

3-48

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

Exhibit 3.2.3.3b Weaving Section Level of Service (LOS) Existing Weaving Section Time Length (ft) FB Length LOS FNB LOS FB EB 13S on to 13N off 6-7AM D D

EB 13S on to 13N off 7-8AM 850 F F 795 EB 13S on to 13N off 8-9AM D C WB 13N on to 13S off 3-4PM D D

WB 13N on to 13S off 4_5PM E E 679 677 WB 13N on to 13S off 5_6PM F F

WB 13N on to 13S off 6-7PM D D WB 14 on to 14A off 3-4PM D D WB 14 on to 14A off 4_5PM D D 1810 1810 WB 14 on to 14A off 5_6PM D D WB 14 on to 14A off 6-7PM C C WB 4 on to 3 off 3-4PM E E WB 4 on to 3 off 4_5PM E E 1577 1577 WB 4 on to 3 off 5_6PM E E WB 4 on to 3 off 6-7PM E E

The weaving analysis demonstrates that the LOS is expected to improve under future-build conditions during the third hour of the morning peak (8-9AM) and remain the same during other peak hours.

The project design vehicle for I-287 mainline and ramps is WB-67 Tractor-Trailer, and for Urban Arterials it is the Alexander Dennis (ADL) double decker bus model ENVIRO 500 LOW HEIGHT 12.8m DENNIS E500 OFFSET T-DRIVE CHASSIS DISC BRAKES AND 'ZF' AV132 DRIVE AXLE.

By American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) classification, the equivalent design vehicle is the Intercity Bus (BUS-45). The turning template and dimensions of the design vehicles are shown in the figure below.

Exhibit 3.2.3.3c Minimum Turning Path for Intercity Bus (Bus-45) Design Vehicle.

3-49

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

Exhibit 3.2.3.3d Minimum Turning Path for WB-67 Tractor-Trailer.

3.3. Engineering Considerations

3.3.1. Operations (Traffic and Safety) & Maintenance

3.3.1.1. Functional Classification and National Highway System-

This project will not change the functional classification of the highway.

3.3.1.2. Control of Access -

There is no proposed change to roadway access.

3.3.1.3. Traffic Control Devices -

3.3.1.3. (1) Traffic Signals –

NY-59 and NY-119 Traffic Signal Equipment Upgrades This project includes signal and communication system upgrades to enable TSP and intelligent signal control. A total of 93 existing traffic signals have been identified for equipment upgrade, including cabinets, traffic signal controllers, and software. A total of 103 signals will be upgraded with TSP capabilities. In addition, a number of signalized intersections will be upgraded with newer countdown pedestrian signal heads and push buttons. The hardware and software upgrades incorporating a set of intelligent traffic and signal improvements would decrease transit travel times by providing buses with priority signal and improve traffic flow for all road users through a coordinated, adaptive system.

Locations selected for signal upgrades are listed in Exhibits 3-2-E and 3-2-C. The full inventory of signals is provided in Appendix C.

3-50

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

3.3.1.3. (2) Signs –

Existing signs will be evaluated and replaced as necessary. New signs will be added where required. The proposed Variable Message Signs are listed in Exhibit 3-2-G.

3.3.1.4. Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)–

Refer to Section 3.3.1.3. (1) for ITS signal upgrades on NY-59 and NY-119.

Ramp Metering on I-287

To stabilize mainline vehicle flows and decrease travel times on I-287, ramp meters would be implemented in both travel directions within the I-287 corridor.

Ramp metering uses traffic signals placed near the end of highway on-ramps to regulate or “meter” the flow of vehicles onto the highway. Metering helps break up platoons of vehicles attempting to enter congested mainline traffic. This improves overall flow rates leading to improved travel speeds, less speed variability, and safer merging conditions. These improvements have also been shown to improve fuel efficiencies and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

It is anticipated that ramp meter operations on I-287 will be governed by time of day, conditions on the mainline, and queuing on the ramp. During designated hours (primarily during peak periods), measured lane occupancy as detected on the mainline will trigger initiation of ramp metering. Metering rates will be dynamic; stepping up and down at set intervals as determined by changes in occupancy levels on the mainline. Operating criteria previously established dictated several business rules:

 ramp queues should not spill onto the local street network, therefore a queue detector coupled with a meter override to flush the queue will be implemented at each location;  ramp delays caused by meter operation should not exceed four minutes, therefore metering rates will adjust to prevent long delays regardless of storage capacity and mainline conditions; and  transit/HOV priority lane will be added at selected Lower Hudson Transit Link access ramps to ensure there is no additional delay imposed on transit vehicles.

The ramp meter locations were developed from an evaluation of candidate entry ramps between Thruway Interchange 14A (Garden State Parkway) in Spring Valley and I-287 Exit 5 (Route 119) in White Plains in both travel directions. A tiered screening process was used to identify locations with geometric/design feasibility, traffic operations feasibility and effectiveness, and the ability to be included in an implementation package with highest benefit compared against implementation cost.

For the geometric screening, a determination of minimum design parameters was established. Guidelines for the design of the I-287 ramp meters will follow criteria set forth in the following manuals:

 AASHTO Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (Green Book), 2011  USDOT/FHWA Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), 2009  FHWA Ramp Management and Control Handbook, 2006  NYSDOT Highway Design Manual, 2014  NYSTA New York State Thruway Authority Design Criteria, 2008  Caltrans Ramp Meter Design Manual, 2000

Acceleration lane lengths were determined based on AASHTO design standards; the number of ramp lanes was determined from the FHWA Ramp Management and Control Handbook; and ramp storage capacity was set to a minimum of 250 feet from the stop bar. If configuration changes are needed to satisfy the minimum design parameters but could not be accomplished without significant capital works (ROW and/or structure impacts), the location was screened out from further consideration. Locations with queuing in the existing condition, independent of the geometric design guidance, were also screened

3-51

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

from eligibility for metering, as were low-volume locations with fewer than 300 vehicles during the peak hour. The locations that passed the initial sketch design and queue and volume screenings were analyzed using traffic simulation modeling to confirm operational viability and effectiveness and to establish design considerations such as number of lanes, stop bar location, and traffic control operation.

The Aimsun micro-simulation modeling software (v8.1) was used with a modified San Diego Ramp Metering System (SDRMS) locally-responsive operating design and algorithm to evaluate 19 ramps within the corridor. The Aimsun model of the I-287 mainline and on- and off-ramps from Interchange 15 (Suffern) to Exit 6 (White Plains) was built and calibrated to existing peak period conditions: 6-9 a.m. and 3-7 p.m. Traffic data was collected for model development based on observed October 2014 conditions. Calibration and validation of peak-direction travel followed standards outlined in the FHWA Traffic Analysis Toolbox: Volume III: Guidelines for Applying Traffic Microsimulation Modeling Software for traffic volume, travel times, and queuing.

Ramp meter “build” scenarios were built on a future conditions “no build” model that includes geometric and operational changes anticipated for ETC (2018) and ETC+10 (2028) and traffic growth consistent with the I-287/Tappan Zee Bridge Corridor Final Environmental Impact Statement for Hudson River crossings and the New York Best Practice Model for the NYMTC region.

Meters were modeled at each of the 19 ramp locations and modified based on local conditions (ramp traffic, storage capacity, transit access). A baseline “full build” model scenario of all candidate ramps was completed and key performance indicators (KPI), primarily travel time and ramp delay, were quantified. To identify the efficacy of each of the candidate ramps, 19 separate scenarios were modeled, “turning off” a single meter, running the model, and producing comparative KPI. The relative difference between the full build and each new scenario were used to narrow the candidate ramp list. From that, four build scenarios packages were developed:

1. Eastbound/Southbound meters in Rockland County (5 ramps) 2. Westbound/Northbound meters in Westchester County (4 ramps) 3. Westbound/Northbound meters in Rockland County (5 ramps) 4. Westbound/Northbound meters in Rockland and Westchester Counties; excluding Exit 5 (8 ramps)

A ratio of person travel time benefit / estimated construction cost was calculated and a final selection of Package 1 and Package 4 were chosen that yielded the greatest travel time benefit for the investment cost.

3-52

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

Exhibit 3.3.1.4a: Travel Time Eastbound/Southbound from Interchange 14A to 11 - 2018 (No Build in Green, Build in Blue)

Exhibit 3.3.1.4b: Travel Time 2018 Westbound/Northbound from Exit 5 to start of Bridge – 2018 (No Build in Green, Build in Blue)

The results of Aimsun traffic simulation are provided in the Appendix C.

Locations for ramp meter installation are shown with purple circles in Exhibit 1.2-A and listed in Exhibit 3- 2-I. Exhibit 3.3.1.4c illustrates a typical ramp metering application. Appendix A-3 provides detailed information on the proposed work.

3-53

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

Exhibit 3.3.1.4c: Typical ramp Metering Scheme

Variable Message Signs (VMS)

VMS are an integral part of Intelligent Transportation Systems and are used to inform car drivers about specific temporary events and real-time traffic conditions. The signs will be connected to the ICMS located at the HVTMC via a network or a radio link. The proposed VMS will be controlled from the HVTMC.

The aim of using VMS is to provide drivers with mandatory and/or advisory information at the roadside. VMS can be used for many different purposes, with the potential benefits of reducing car drivers’ stress, travel time and increasing traffic safety. The information is intended to assist drivers in selecting appropriate routes, avoiding congestion and incidents and reducing drivers’ anxiety.

Signs can be particularly beneficial where drivers can be informed of alternative routes or park and ride sites to avoid further delays, and this therefore requires the VMS to be an integral part of the ICMS. VMS works include installation of new VMS and replacement of existing VMS that are at the end-of-life on I-87 / I-287 and adjacent cross-arterials along the corridor from Suffern to White Plains.

The proposed work requires replacement of 8 Cantilever signs with the “Texas T” style structures and associated VMS signs and one portable sign with a Texas-structure. In addition, 55 additional locations have been proposed for installation of strategic VMS, journey time boards and park and ride guidance signs. The Contractor will also be required to furnish and install equipment cabinets at each locations, install or repair conduit and all related equipment. Also, installation of ‘pads’ at selected locations to support maintenance vehicles is required.

3.3.1.5. Speeds and Delay -

3-54

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

3.3.1.5. (1) The existing posted speed limit in all areas would be retained upon completion of the project.

3.3.1.5. (2) Travel Time Estimates –

Exhibit 3.3.1.5a below presents the desired outcome for improvements of travel time, Vehicle Hours of Travel (VHT) and Vehicle and Person Hour Delay, average speed in peak direction of travel, and I-287 Incident Travel Time Ratio in peak direction of travel – the criteria established for the LHTL Project and presented in the NYSDOT LHTL Phase A Transit Service and Highway Performance Objectives report (see Appendix H for detailed information).

Exhibit 3.3.1.5a: Desired outcome for Improvements Travel Time Improvement (peak direction of travel for all vehicles) Between Via Desired Outcome Model Limit (west) I-287 Model Limit (east) I-87/I-287 10% Model Limit (west) Thruway Model Limit (south) I-87 10% Suffern Spring Valley NY-59 10% Suffern Nyack I-87/I-287 10% Suffern Nyack NY-59 10% Spring Valley Nyack NY-59 10% Spring Valley White Plains I-287 5% Nyack White Plains I-287 5% Tarrytown White Plains NY-119 10% VHT and Vehicle and Person Hour Delay Improvements Type of VHT / PHD Desired Outcome Total Network-wide VHT (all vehicles) 10% Vehicle Hours of Travel (buses) 10% Person Hours of Delay (buses) 10% Vehicle Hours of Travel (all vehicles) 10% Person Hours of Delay (all vehicles) 10% Average Speed (peak direction of travel) Improvement Route Segment Endpoints Desired Outcome I-87/I-287 Exit 14B (Airmont Rd) Exit 14 (NY-59) 5% I-87/I-287 Exit 14 (NY-59) Exit 12 (NY-303) 5% I-87/I-287 Exit 12 (NY-303) Exit 10 (NY-9W) 5% I-87/I-287 Exit 10 (NY-9W) Exit 9 (NY-9) 5% I-287 Exit 9 (NY-9) Exit 5 (NY-100) 5% NY-59 Hemion/Campbell NY-306 5% NY-59 NY-306 NY-304 10% NY-59 NY-304 NY-9W 5% NY-119 NY-9 NY-100 5% I-287 Incident Travel Time Ratio (peak direction of travel) Improvement Between Via Desired Outcome Model Limit (west) I-287 Model Limit (east) combined 5% Model Limit (west) Thruway Model Limit (south) combined 5% Suffern Spring Valley combined No change or better Suffern Nyack combined 5% Spring Valley White Plains combined 5% Nyack White Plains combined 5%

The ramp metering program will improve mainline Thruway travel times during peak-period conditions. (See summary of travel time in Exhibit 3.3.1.5b and Exhibit 3.3.1.5c below.) For morning southbound travel in Rockland County between the Garden State Parkway (Exit 14A) and Nyack (Exit 11), travelers 3-55

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

can expect an improvement in travel time of nearly two minutes during the peak hour. During the evening, northbound travelers will experience an improvement of over one minute for travel in Westchester County between White Plains (Exit 5) and the New NY Bridge and more than 30 seconds for northbound travel in Rockland between South Nyack (Exit 10) and Garden State Parkway (Exit 14A). Additional travel benefits will also occur during the periods before and after the peak hour.

Exhibit 3.3.1.5b: Ramp Metering Travel Time – 2018 Conditions Direction Section Distance Typical Daily Peak Hour Travel Time (mins) (miles) No Metering With Metering Improvement Southbound Interchange 14A 5.7 16.9 15.5 1.4 to 11 Northbound Exit 5 to New 4.4 12.2 10.2 2 NY Bridge Northbound New NY Bridge to Interchange 10.2 30.4 29.3 1.1 14A

Exhibit 3.3.1.5c: Aggregate Ramp Metering Travel Time – 2018 Conditions

Direction Section Distance Typical Daily Peak Period Delay (hrs) (miles) No Metering With Metering Improvement Southbound Interchange 14A 15.2 6612 6154 458 to 5 Northbound Interchange 5 to 14.4 10333 9836 497 14A

For detailed information on anticipated speeds and delays, based on simulation model outcomes, refer to Appendix C.

3.3.1.6. Traffic Volumes–

Since there are no anticipated changes in traffic volumes, see Section 2.3.1.6 for existing traffic volumes. Refer to Exhibit 2.3.1.6 for a summary of the traffic data. Peak-hour turning movement volumes for intersections with identified accident patterns, all major intersections, and major traffic generator driveways/entrances are included in Appendix C.

3-56

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

Exhibit 3.3.1.6: Ramp Metering Traffic Volumes and Effects on Traffic Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Proposed Configuration Projected Operations and Safety Benefits (2018) Mean Existing queue # of Annual Interchange Location length Annual Injury ramp Vehicle Queue detector Ramp Mainline Travel Time Property‐ Transit/HOV Number of (change in # Crash Reduction lanes Release Per location (ft from Savings Damage‐Only Priority lane? Ramp lanes of veh) (injury: property Cycle1 stopbar) (min) Crash AM PM AM PM only) Reduction 14A‐EB NB Garden St Pkwy to EB I‐287 1 NO 2 Single 880 1327 2990 0 14 EB Rt 59 to EB I‐287 1 NO 1 Single 930 255 3589 0 13S‐EB SB Palisades Int Pkwy to EB I‐287 1 NO 2 Single 1300 1049 3354 0 1.7 1 4 13N‐EB NB Palisades Int Pkwy to EB I‐287 1 NO 1 Single 1430 307 4298 1 12‐EB Palisades Center Dr to EB‐I287 1 YES 2 Single 390 782 4349 31

4‐WB Rt 100A Hartsdale Ave to WB I‐287 1 NO 1 Single 520 897 5886 20

1‐WB Rt 119 Main St to WB I‐287 1 NO 1 Single 560 993 3909 0 Route 119 White Plains Rd to WB I‐ 9‐WB 1 NO 1 Single 750 441 5770 18 287 11‐WB High Ave to WB I‐287 1 NO 1 Single 400 510 4952 16 1.9 2 7 12‐WB N Palisades Center Dr to WB I‐287 2 YES 2 Single 685 1083 4701 18

13N‐WB NB Palisades Int Pkwy to WB I‐287 1 NO 2 Single 1320 1173 4795 6

13S‐WB SB Palisades Int Pkwy to WB I‐287 1 NO 1 Single 725 504 5404 0 14‐WB Rt 59 to WB I‐287 1 NO 1 Dual 495 973 4913 1

1Meter release operation is shown as coded in Aimsun model. “Release per cycle” refers to the number of vehicles allowed entry on each green signal phase per lane.

3-57

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

3.3.1.7. Level of Service and Mobility–

3.3.1.7 (1) At Project Completion & Design Year –

The table below provides LOS Summaries for 2014 existing conditions, 2018 No Built, 2018 with traffic signal timing optimization, 2028 No Build, and 2028 with traffic signal timing optimization. Refer to Appendix C for more detailed information including traffic volumes, delays, and volume-to-capacity ratios (v/c) for each analyzed scenario.

AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR Intersection Existing No Build Optimized No Build Optimized Existing No Build Optimized No Build Optimized 2014 2018 2018 2028 2028 2014 2018 2018 2028 2028 NY 59 / US 202 (Wayne Ave) B B B B B C D B D C NY 59 / US 202 (Orange Ave) B B B B B C C C D C NY 59 / Chestnut St B B B B A B B B B B NY 59 / Washington Ave C C B C B C C C D C NY 59 / Hillcrest Rd B B B B B C C B C B NY 59 / Hemion Rd/Campbell Ave C C C C C D D D D D NY-59 / Airmont Rd C C C C C D D C D C NY-59 / Richgold Shopping Center B B B B B C C C C C NY-59 / Cherry Ln/Spook Rock Rd C C C C C C C C C C NY-59 / College Rd/New County Rd C C C C C C C C C C NY-59 / Remsen Av B B B B B B B B B B NY-59 / Saddle River Rd C C C C C D D C D C NY-59 / Robert Pitt Dr. B B B B B D D D D D NY-59 59 / Kennedy Drive B B B B B B B B B B NY-59 / West St B B B B B C C B C B NY-59 / Madison Av B B B B B B B B B B NY-59 / Main St C C C C C D D C D C NY-59 / S. Central Av/Dutch Ln C C C C C D D C D C NY-59 /Forman Dr C C C D C C C C C C NY-59 / Old Turnpike Way C C B C B C C B C B NY-59 / EB I-87 Grandview Av C C C C C D D C D C NY-59 / Easement Rd/Home Depot A A A A A B B A B A NY-59 / Hutton Av B B B B B C C B C B NY-59 / Shops at Nanuet West D’way A A A A A B B A B A NY-59 / Shops at Nanuet East D’way A A A A A C C B C B NY-59 /Middletown Rd D D C D C D D D D D NY-59 / College Av D D C D C D D D D D NY-59 / Rockland Center B B A B A B B B C B NY-59 / Smith St C D C D C D C C C C NY-59 / Crosfield Av B B B B B B B C C C NY-59 / Palisades Center Dr B B B B B C C C C C NY- 59 / Old Nyack Turnpike A A A B A A A A A A NY-59 / Mountainview Av D E D E D F F F F F NY-59 / NY-9W D D D E D D D D E D Airmont Rd / I-87 EB Ramps C C C D C C C C C C Airmont Rd / I-87 WB Ramps C D C D C D D C D D Airmont Rd / Executive Blvd B B A B A B B B B B Airmont Rd / Montebello Road B B C C C C C C C C

As shown, there is only one intersection – NY-59 and Mountainview Ave, which that will continue to operate under LOS F during afternoon peak hour in 2018 (ETC) and 2028 (ETC+10).

3-58

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

3.3.1.7 (2) – Work Zone Safety & Mobility –

A. Work Zone Traffic Control Plan - Due to the close proximity to residences and the ability to maintain traffic with acceptable delays during the daylight hours, night time construction will not be utilized. The use of time related provisions will be evaluated during final design. The work zone traffic control will need to be coordinated with local officials and residents.

C. Significant Projects (per 23 CFR 630.1010) -

The Region has determined that the subject project is not significant per 23 CFR 630.1010.

A Transportation Management Plan (TMP) will be prepared for the project consistent with 23 CFR 630.1012. The TMP will consist of a Temporary Traffic Control (TTC) plan. Transportation Operations (TO) and Public Information (PI) components of a TMP will be considered during final design.

3.3.1.8. Safety Considerations, Accident History and Analysis – In order to quantify the value in the reduction in crashes, the vehicular crash records on I-287 for the period 2012 to 2015 were acquired and mapped by the coordinate location associated with each incident. Using the Long Island INFORM ramp meter program case study as guidance, a 15% reduction in collisions can be expected. Assuming static year-over-year crash frequency (i.e. no escalation in crash rates based on growth in travel), this would result in a reduction of 5 incidents in the morning [1 injury, 4 property damage only (PDO)] and 9 in the evening (2 injury, 7 PDO) peak periods each year (see Exhibit 3.3.1.6). Further, the monetary value of crashes can be determined from the FHWA Highway Safety Improvement Program Manual, which identifies the cost of an injury crash of unknown severity of $158,200 and PDO of $7,400 per event.

Exhibit 3.3.1.8 below summarizes annual crash reductions during peak periods across the corridor. Injury Crash Reduction Property-Damage-Only Cost Savings1 Crash Reduction Annual Aggregate Value 3 11 $593,583 Across All Ramp Meters

3.3.1.9. Impacts on Police, Fire Protection and Ambulance Access –

Although there is no limitation of access anticipated during project construction, coordination with police, fire and ambulance services located within (or in close proximity to) the project area will be undertaken prior to construction.

It is not anticipated that the Project will have any adverse impacts on police, fire protection, or ambulance access.

3.3.1.10. Parking Regulations and Parking Related Issues –

No changes are proposed.

3.3.1.11. Lighting –

No changes are proposed to street or highway lighting. New lighting will be provided within the proposed LHTL bus shelters. 3.3.1.12. Ownership and Maintenance Jurisdiction –

1 2009 values, factoring in 1.6% inflation each year.

3-59

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

NYSDOT will continue ownership and maintenance responsibilities for NY-59, NY-119, and I-287. NYSDOT will continue ownership responsibilities for the Cross Westchester Expressway. NYSTA will continue ownership and maintenance responsibilities for I-87. NYSTA will continue maintenance responsibilities for the Cross Westchester Expressway.

3.3.1.13. Constructability Review –

A constructability review will be performed during final design.

3.3.2. Multimodal

3.3.2.1. Pedestrians –

A Pedestrian Generator Checklist is included in Appendix D.

Pedestrians are prohibited on interstate highways by law. There are no pedestrian crossings or other provisions proposed at the ramp terminals. Recommendations proposed for NY-59 in the Pedestrian Safety Study State Routes NY-59 and NY-45 in the Town of Ramapo and Village of Spring Valley, Rockland County will be incorporated into this project.

3.3.2.2. Bicyclists –

Bus stop improvements, as one of the project’s objectives, include provision of convenient transportation amenity – bicycle racks. The table below lists the proposed bus stops that will be equipped with bike racks, allowing commuters to securely park their bicycles, and then take a bus. The selection was made based on space availability for racks and infrastructure for riders.

Proposed Bus Stops equipped with bike racks

Bus Stop # Locations 1 Hallett Place at Chestnut St, Suffern 2 NY-59 at Airmont Rd, Airmont (EB) 3 Monsey Park and Ride Lot, Monsey 8 NY-59 and Mountainview Ave (WB), Central Nyack 9 S. Franklin St at Artopee Way (EB and WB stops), Nyack 10 S. Franklin St Extension (EB and WB), South Nyack 15 Tarrytown Rd at Westchester County Center (NB and SB), White Plains 16 Main St/Bank St (WB) 18 Martine Ave and MLK Blvd, White Plains 19 Main St and Broadway St, White Plains

For additional information, refer to Appendix A: “Intersection and Bus Stops”.

3.3.2.3. Transit –

This project will significantly improve the transit infrastructure to provide a coordinated, high-quality regional transit system to serve trips between Rockland and Westchester Counties, with an emphasis on BRT to serve bi-county trips and longer-distance intra-county trips. The transit corridor extends from Suffern in Rockland County to White Plains in Westchester County, and serves key employment destinations and transit links throughout the two counties. New transit vehicles (acquired under a separate contract) will be utilized for the system.

3.3.2.4. Airports, Railroad Stations, and Ports – 3-60

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

No changes to airports and ports are proposed.

One of the goals of this project is improved access to transit facilities, most importantly the White Plains Metro-North Train Station. There are proposed bus shelter improvements to Spring Valley Transit Center, White Plains Metro-North Station and Tarrytown Metro-North Station. These improvements are shown in Appendix A.

3.3.2.5. Access to Recreation Areas (Parks, Trails, Waterways, and State Lands) –

No changes are proposed.

3.3.3. Infrastructure

3.3.3.1. Proposed Highway Section –

Refer to Appendix A for typical sections.

3.3.3.1. (1) Right of Way -

The following potential estimated ROW acquisitions have been identified through the ARM process; note that locations and areas are approximate and for use by the Office of Right of Way for the sole purpose of determining type of Title Data required only.

Exhibit 3.3.3.1a - Right-of-Way Acquisitions – Bus Shelters Alternative Property Tax Map No. Type of Estimated Acquisition Area (Refer to Map) Acquisition TRN 001 54.35-1-1 PE 1,902sf TRN 102 55.11-1-30 PE 2,173sf TRN 103 56.16-1-13 FEE 10,520sf TRN 002 57.39-1-28 PE 12,290sf TRN 003 59.17-1-4 PE 4,300sf TRN 004 65.06-1-15 PE 46sf Build Alternative TRN 013 65.06-1-2 PE 957sf ARM #1 TRN 014 65.06-1-43 PE 673sf (Bus TRN 204 65.35-1-9 PE 610sf Shelters) TRN 205 65.35-1-8 PE 475sf TRN 005 66.38-1-65 PE 670sf TRN 006 65.38-1-61 PE 295sf TRN 402 1.100-65-2 PE 655sf TRN 301 125.57-4-3.1 PE 974sf TRN 012 125.74-6-1.11 PE 1,367sf

Exhibit 3.3.3.1b - Right-of-Way Acquisitions – Route 59 3-61

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

Property Type of Estimated Alternative Tax Map No. (Refer to Map) Acquisition Acquisition Area TRN 110 56.10-2-25 TE 250sf FEE 75sf TRN 111 56.14-3-2 TE 125sf TRN 112 56.14-3-15 TE 250sf TRN 113 56.10-3-41 TE 125sf TRN 114 56.14-3-16 TE 45sf FEE 45sf TRN 115 56.15-1-2 TE 40sf TRN 116 56.15-2-11 TE 200sf FEE 750sf TRN 117 56.15-2-13 TE 600sf FEE 275sf TRN 118 56.15-2-12 TE 220sf FEE 500sf TRN 119 56.16-1-8 TE 300sf FEE 550sf TRN 120 56.16-1-9 TE 260sf FEE 6,880sf TRN 121 56.16-1-10 TE 3,440sf FEE 680sf TRN 122 56.16-1-13 TE 300sf FEE 100sf TRN 123 56.16-1-12 TE 400sf FEE 20sf TRN 124 56.60-1-1 Build Alternative TE 40sf ARM #2 (Route TRN 125 56.52-1-2 TE 3,100sf 59) FEE 900sf TRN 126 57.53-1-1 TE 180sf TRN 127 57.45-1-1 TE 100sf TRN 128 57.45-1-3 TE 50sf FEE 160sf TRN 129 57.45-1-4 TE 120sf FEE 25sf TRN 501 57.53-1-2 TE 50sf FEE 40sf TRN 502 54.45-1-7 TE 25sf FEE 30sf TRN 503 57.46-2-1 TE 75sf TRN 504 57.45-1-11 TE 50sf TRN 505 57.46-1-51 TE 30sf TRN 506 57.46-1-50 TE 50sf TRN 507 57.46-2-9 TE 75sf TRN 508 57.46-2-17 TE 25sf TRN 509 57.46-2-20 TE 100sf TRN 510 57.46-1-33 TE 35sf TRN 511 57.46-2-23 TE 85sf TRN 512 57.47-1-62 FEE 50sf TRN 513 57.47-1-63 FEE 50sf TRN 514 57.47-1-48 FEE 150sf TRN 515 57.47-1-43 TE 75sf TRN 516 57.47-1-42 TE 45sf 3-62

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

TRN 517 57.55-1-24 TE 100sf TRN 518 57.47-1-24 FEE 150sf FEE 25sf TRN 601 57.56-1-17 TE 75sf

3.3.3.1. (2) Curb – (a) I-287 No changes to curb are proposed. (b) NY-59 At locations with proposed sidewalk or intersection geometry changes, curbs will be designed as per NYSDOT standards. (c) NY-119 There are no proposed curb changes.

3.3.3.1. (3) Grades – (a) I-287 Locations receiving ramp widening will have grades designed in accordance to NYSDOT standards.

(b) NY-59 All intersection work will have grades designed in accordance to NYSDOT standards.

(c) NY-119 There are no proposed grade changes.

3.3.3.1. (4) Intersection Geometry and Conditions – (a) I-287 There are no intersections on this roadway in the project area.

(b) NY-59 Proposed intersection geometry and conditions are provided in Appendix A.

(c) NY-119 No changes to intersection geometry and conditions are proposed on this roadway. 3.3.3.1. (5) Roadside Elements: (a) I-287 (i) Snow Storage, Sidewalks, Utility Strips, Bikeways, Bus Stops – No changes to these elements are proposed. (ii) Driveways – Driveways will be modified to comply with the current NYSDOT “Policy and Standards for Design of Entrances to State Highways”. Existing driveway access will be maintained at all proposed ramp meter locations. (iii) Clear Zone – Clear zones will be refined during final design as per NYSDOT requirements to adjust for slopes, roadway curvature, etc.

(b) NY-59 (i) Snow Storage, Sidewalks, Utility Strips, Bikeways, Bus Stops – The project includes modification to existing as well new proposed bus stops. The proposed alternatives will modify sidewalks within the project area to accommodate new bus shelters and adherence to ADA requirements. Refer to Appendix A for drawings of proposed designs. (ii) Driveways – Existing access to property will be maintained. (iii) Clear Zone – Clear zones will be maintained as per NYSDOT requirements. (b) NY-119 (i) Snow Storage, Sidewalks, Utility Strips, Bikeways, Bus Stops – No changes to these elements are proposed. (ii) Driveways – No changes to driveways are proposed. (iii) Clear Zone – No changes to clear zones are proposed. 3-63

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

3.3.3.2. Special Geometric Design Elements -

3.3.3.2. (1) Nonstandard Features – None.

3.3.3.2. (2) Non-Conforming Features – None. 3.3.3.3. Pavement and Shoulder –

Proposed pavement and shoulder will be provided based on NYSDOT standards.

In ramp metering areas where existing shoulders will be restriped to accommodate travel lanes, the existing pavement section will be assessed against as-built records and/or Pavement Evaluation and Treatment Selection Reports as and when these documents are made available by the New York State Thruway Authority. Any changes to existing pavement sections based on condition, residual design life and projected design year traffic will be documented in the subsequent Final Design phase. 3.3.3.4. Drainage Systems –

Proposed drainage systems will be provided based on NYSDOT standards.

3.3.3.5. Geotechnical –

Information obtained during site visits indicate that the subsurface condition is favorable for shallow foundations, such as those required for the bus shelter foundations. Present soils will be have adequate capacity to support structure loads using typical shallow foundations. Data is based solely on visual inspection of the sites and the surrounding exposed geology when present. No special techniques or considerations need be considered. If further evaluation is required a means of subsurface exploration is recommended.

3.3.3.6. Structures –

New sidewalks are proposed for the bridge structure BIN 1027640.

The current bridge width is 67 feet curb to curb. The proposed solution is to modify the existing cross- section without widening the bridge. The proposed cross-section consists of four 11-foot lanes, a 4-foot median, two 4-foot shoulders, and 5-foot sidewalks on both sides.

3.3.3.7. Hydraulics of Bridges and Culverts –

There are no proposed bridges or culverts over waterways within the project area. There are no proposed dams in the vicinity of the project.

3.3.3.8. Guide Railing, Median Barriers and Impact Attenuators –

All guiderail within the project area, including bridge railing will be evaluated during final design for conformance to design standards and replaced or repaired, if necessary.

Exhibit 3.3.3.8 Proposed Location of Guide Railing, Median Barriers and Impact Attenuators Type Location Side Length (ft) Guide Rail I-287 Int 14A-EB Ramp None None Gore and Impact Attenuator I-287 Int 14A-EB Ramp None None Guide Rail I-287 Int 14-WB Ramp RHS 135

3-64

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

Guide Rail I-287 Int 13S-EB Ramp RHS 625 Gore and Impact Attenuator I-287 Int 13S-EB Ramp RHS 1 Guide Rail I-287 Int 13S-WB Ramp None None Guide Rail I-287 Int 13N-WB Ramp RHS 964 Gore and Impact Attenuator I-287 Int 13N-WB Ramp RHS 1 Guide Rail I-287 12-EB Ramp RHS 1041 Gore and Impact Attenuator I-287 12-EB Ramp None None Guide Rail I-287 12-WB Ramp LHS 323 Gore and Impact Attenuator I-287 12-WB Ramp None None Guide Rail I-287 Int 4-WB Ramp LHS 184 Gore and Impact Attenuator I-287 Int 4-WB Ramp LHS 1

3.3.3.9. Utilities –

All utilities within the project area will be evaluated during final design for conformance to design standards and replaced or repaired, if necessary.

Exhibit 3.3.3.9 - Location of Potential Utility Impacts

Owner Type (Denote Location Side Length (ft) Impact OH/UG) Orange & OH & UG Rockland County Both Varies Protect and/or Relocate on a Rockland site by site basis ConED OH &UG Westchester County Both Varies Protect and/or Relocate on a site by site basis Verizon OH & UG Rockland County and Both Varies Protect and/or Relocate on a Westchester County site by site basis

3.3.3.10. Railroad Facilities –

There are no proposed changes to railroad facilities.

3.3.4. Landscape and Environmental Enhancements –

Refer to Chapter 4 for complete discussion.

3.3.4.1. Landscape Development and Other Aesthetics Improvements –

The design of each bus shelter and surrounding landscape will establish a welcoming and attractive place for transit riders. Landscape elements, such as permeable paving, sidewalks, lamp posts, bicycle parking (where space allows), site furnishings, wayfinding, lighting, and planted areas will create an identifiable place and contribute to a brand associated with the new service. Bus shelters and associated features will be integrated into existing infrastructure through either the replacement an existing shelter or placement of a new shelter into an existing context in an attractive appropriate manner. A family of shelter furnishings and legible signage compatible with the shelter architecture will be established that contributes to the brand of the overall service. Enhancements to the bus stop environment will create a comfortable place to sit within and adjacent to the shelters. Station area design will assure compliance with ADA accessibility.

Refer to Chapter 4 for a more detailed discussion.

3.3.4.2. Environmental Enhancements –

3-65

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

Integration of the bus stops into the surrounding environment is necessary to create a welcoming environment that encourages use of the service. Existing pedestrian circulation may be modified to accommodate the new shelters with new connections integrating existing and new desire lines. Efforts should be made to protect existing plantings and mature trees. Where possible and feasible, the addition of new street trees and improvements to surrounding pedestrian accessibility will enhance the stop environment.

Within the site area, new landscaping should include native and easily naturalized, non-invasive plant species, as well as progressive planting methods to both save water and increase plant viability from the start of the project. There will be close coordination between project civil engineers and the landscape architect to make the most effective use of storm water management in the landscape. Natural storm water management facilities may present opportunities for interpretive signage about the region, plantings, eco-measures, and more. Also important to the stop environment and passenger experience is the selection of lighting that can provide needed security while meeting ‘dark sky’ criteria.

3.3.5. Miscellaneous

NYS Smart Growth Public Infrastructure Policy Act (SGPIPA)

Pursuant to Environmental Conservation Law (ECL) Article 6, this project is compliant with the New York State Smart Growth Public Infrastructure Policy A.

To the extent practicable, this project meets the relevant criteria as described in ECL § 6-0107. The NYSDOT Smart Growth Screening Tool was used to assess the project’s consistency and alignment with relevant Smart Growth criteria. The screening tool and attestation are available upon request.

3-66

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

CHAPTER 4 SOCIAL, ECONOMIC and ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS and CONSEQUENCES 4.1 Introduction The purpose of Chapter 4 is to document the social, economic, and environmental conditions within the area that may be affected by the proposed project and describe the potential consequences of the Build Alternative. The assessment was prepared using the NYSDOT Environmental Manual (TEM) and FHWA regulations, procedures and guidance. The locations of all of the project elements of the Build Alternative are herein referred to as the “project area,” and include the limits of disturbance where construction would occur. The locations of bus stop and intersection improvements generally extend between the Village of Suffern, NY (Hallett Place at Chestnut Street) in Rockland County and the City of White Plains, NY (Main Street at Broadway) in Westchester County. However, ICM features would extend along the I-87 / 287 corridor between Sloatsburg in Rockland County and Port Chester in Westchester County. The project area includes various roadways including, but not limited to: NY-59, I87 / 287, NY-119, Lafayette Ave, White Plains Road, and Tarrytown Road. A 400-foot “study area” around each bus stop and intersection improvements location was used for the land use and zoning analyses. The study area for visual resources has been defined as the project area and adjacent areas where the project elements would be visible. For natural resources, hazardous waste and contaminated materials, and archaeological resources, the study area is the project area. The study area for the historic properties has been identified within the project’s area of potential effects (APE), which was identified in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). 4.1.1. Environmental Classification 4.1.1.1 NEPA Classification This project is being progressed as a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Class III action (Environmental Assessment) under FHWA’s Environmental Impact and Related Procedures (23 CFR 771). NEPA Class III actions are those in which the significance of the environmental impact is not clearly established. This Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared to determine whether the project would result in significant impacts and require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). 4.1.1.2 SEQR Classification NYSDOT has determined that this project is a State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) non- Type II Action in accordance with 17 New York Codes, Rules and Regulations (NYCRR) Part 15 Procedures for Implementation of State Environmental Quality Review Act. SEQRA non-Type II Actions include those for which the environmental impacts are not clearly established and require the preparation of an EA and/or EIS. This project is a non-Type II Action for which an EA is being prepared. 4.1.2 Coordination with Agencies NYSDOT will coordinate review with the appropriate agencies, as necessary, which may include the following:  New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC);  New York State Department of State (NYSDOS);  New York State Historic Preservation Office (NY SHPO); and  United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 4.2 Social The purpose of this section is to discuss the project’s potential effects on social conditions, such as land use, community character, and population. The project elements that would be located along I-87 / 287 and NY-59 are within a highly developed, suburban area between Sloatsburg in Rockland County and 4-1

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

Port Chester in Westchester County. Since the opening of the Tappan Zee Bridge in the 1950s, this area has served as the primary transportation corridor between Rockland and Westchester Counties. The areas surrounding the project elements are developed with industrial, residential, and commercial uses. The project elements would be mostly within existing State right-of-way. The construction of new sidewalks would require acquisition of narrow strips of land within private properties. The project would not require the acquisition or relocation of occupied dwellings or businesses or displacement of residents or businesses. 4.2.1 Land Use The proposed roadway improvements, such as intersection safety improvements, ramp metering, communication services, and ICM features (i.e., VMS) would be located within State right-of-way and compatible with the existing character of the I-87 / 287 corridor. A 400-foot “study area” around each bus stop and intersection improvements location was used for the land use analyses. The bus stops where improvements are proposed are generally along NY-59 in Rockland County and along NY-9 and in downtown White Plains in Westchester County. NY-59 is a largely multi-lane, commercial corridor that passes through the Towns of Ramapo, Clarkstown, and Orangetown, as well as a number of hamlets and incorporated villages within those towns. As shown in Exhibit 4.2.1.a, the areas adjacent to the bus stops along NY-59 are predominantly characterized by retail, office, and industrial uses. In the Villages of Nyack and South Nyack, the bus route transitions from NY-59 to local village streets where residential and mixed uses are more prevalent. The area around the bus stop in downtown Nyack is characteristic of a village center with a mix of residences, shops, restaurants, and other businesses. In South Nyack, there is a bus stop in a residential area primarily characterized by single-family homes. In Westchester County, the project corridor passes through the Village of Tarrytown and the Village of Port Chester. Bus stop locations and surrounding land uses are shown in Exhibit 4.2.1.b. The areas near the bus stops within Tarrytown comprise a mix of predominantly commercial and residential land uses. NY-9 (South Broadway) is a busy corridor that comprises mainly commercial and office uses near its intersection with Interstate 87 / 287. Near the Village of Tarrytown center, a mix of residential, small-scale business, and institutional (e.g., places of worship, schools) uses are more prevalent. A bus stop is located at the Metro-North Railroad Station in Tarrytown near the Hudson River waterfront, where there is a mix of recreational, residential, and commercial uses. NY-119 is characterized by commercial and office uses with some residential uses. Within the White Plains city center, land uses are of medium and high density and include office and residential buildings, multi-lane roadways, places of worship, educational facilities, and mixed residential/commercial uses. A Metro-North Railroad station is also located in downtown White Plains. The project would improve existing bus stops with enhanced transit-related amenities, improved access for patrons, and new bus stops. The existing bus stops serve nearby residents and businesses, and the improvements would not change adjacent land use patterns. The project would install new or replacement bus shelters at 22 bus stop locations, and rehabilitate one existing bus shelter with the new system- branded, distinctive enhanced transit shelters. The locations include existing TZx stops that already have shelters, existing TZx stops that do not have shelters, relocated TZx stops that require new shelters, or new stops altogether. All bus stop locations would be provided along existing bus routes and within commercial or mixed-use areas and would not affect the character of these areas. A 400-foot “study area” around the area along NY-59 in the Hamlet of Monsey and the Village of Spring Valley where new sidewalks would be constructed was used for the land use analysis. The study area along the NY-59 corridor is generally commercial (see Exhibit 4.2.1.c). Residential uses are more prevalent along the periphery of this area on side streets off of NY-59 and near the village center of Spring Valley. In addition, Monsey Glen County Park and Spring Valley High School are located along NY-59 in this area. While the proposed sidewalks and bus shelters would require minor property acquisition, existing land uses would remain. Therefore, the project elements would not result in adverse impacts on land use.

4-2

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

4-3

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

4-4

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

4-5

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

4.2.1.1 Demographics and Affected Population The I-87 / 287 corridor from Sloatsburg in Rockland County to the Village of Port Chester in Westchester County, where the majority of the project elements are located, is a densely populated suburban area of New York City. As of the 2010 Census, Rockland and Westchester Counties had a combined population of approximately 1.26 million and both have continued to grow, with estimates from July 1, 2015 showing a combined population of approximately 1.30 million. The majority (60.6 percent) of the combined area’s population is in the working age group (ages 18-64). Moreover, in 2000, 10.9 percent of the combined area’s population was disabled (see Exhibit 4.2.1.1). Also, the breakdown of the identified age groups is comparable for both counties. Overall, the project would not affect the demographic characteristics of the area but would include numerous safety improvements that would benefit elderly individuals and individuals with disabilities, as well as other populations. Exhibit 4.2.1.1 Demographics 2010 Age 2000 Disabled Population1 School Working Civilian Non- 2015 Age Age institutionalized 2010 Population (Under (Ages Over population 5 Disabled Area Population Estimate 18) 18-64) 65 years and over Population Percent Rockland 311,687 326,037 28.1% 58.5% 13.4% 261,757 27,492 10.5% County Westchester 949,113 976,396 24.0% 61.3% 14.7% 846,105 93,158 11.0% County Combined 1,260,800 1,302,433 25.0% 60.6% 14.4% 1,107,862 120,650 10.9% Area Notes: 1No comparable table is available in the 2010 Census or the American Community Survey. Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 and 2010 and Population Estimates.

4.2.1.2 Comprehensive Plans and Zoning In the study area along the I-87 / 287 corridor, a number of regional agencies and local municipalities have adopted master plans that guide growth and development in their communities. Many of these plans include visions or policies related to transportation and have a shared aspiration to enhance transit services and accessibility to those services. Accordingly, improved transit service along the I-87 / 287 corridor is a stated goal of the region’s long-range transportation plan (Plan 2040: A Shared Vision for Sustainable Growth), Westchester County’s comprehensive plan (Westchester 2025), and Rockland County’s comprehensive Plan (Rockland Tomorrow). For the municipalities in the project corridor that have adopted comprehensive plans or other development guidance documents, each acknowledge the importance of enhancing availability and accessibility to transit services. Some plans also highlight the need to foster coordinated transit improvements with the NNYB. The project is consistent with local comprehensive plans and zoning. 4.2.2 Neighborhoods and Community Cohesion 4.2.2.1 Community Cohesion The project would not divide neighborhoods, isolate part of a neighborhood, generate new development or otherwise affect community cohesion. The project elements, which consist of limited intersection safety improvements, construction of bus shelters, ramp metering and queue jumping improvements within existing State right-of-way, and limited intersection improvements and sidewalk construction and reconstruction on NY-59 (largely within existing State right-of-way), would enhance transit services in Rockland and Westchester Counties, and foster connectivity within the region. 4.2.2.2 Home and Business Relocations The project would not require the acquisition or relocation of occupied dwellings or businesses or displacement of residents or businesses.

4-6

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

4.2.3 Social Groups Benefited or Harmed 4.2.3.1 Elderly and/or Disabled Persons or Groups The project includes numerous safety improvements that would benefit elderly individuals and individuals with disabilities. The proposed safety improvements at bus shelter locations and adjacent intersections would include installing/upgrading ADA-compliant ramps with detectable warning panels; installing/upgrading pedestrian signal heads with LED countdown timers; revising signal timing (where it does not adequately accommodate walking speed); limiting right-turn-on-red movements at locations with high pedestrian volumes; repairing or resurfacing pavement; installing new reflectorized pavement markings; installing new crosswalk markings (where they do not exist); providing sidewalk continuity and crosswalk/sidewalk connectivity; improving intersection sight distances; and providing new traffic signal hardware with optical detection, high-visibility crosswalks, and accessible pedestrian signals (with audible tone or message), where appropriate. The project would not adversely impact elderly individuals or individuals with disabilities. 4.2.3.2 Transit Dependent The project would improve mobility and accessibility and enhance transit and pedestrian safety, providing a benefit to daily commuters and other travelers. The project would improve travel times and information services for bus customers as well as provide new stops to enhance access to bus routes. Thus, the project would be a benefit to transit-dependent users. 4.2.3.3 Low Income, Minority and Ethnic Groups (Environmental Justice) Some project elements would be located within areas with minority and/or low-income populations. However, since the project would not result in adverse impacts, no disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority or low income populations would occur. 4.2.4 School Districts, Recreational Areas, and Places of Worship 4.2.4.1 School Districts In Rockland County, the project corridor passes through six public school districts, including Ramapo Central, East Ramapo, Nanuet, Clarkstown, Nyack, and South Orangetown. Schools are located throughout the 400-foot study area, but none would be adversely affected by the project. The Spring Valley High School is located along NY-59 where sidewalk improvements would occur. These improvements would enhance pedestrian mobility and safety, and would not adversely affect this school. In Westchester County, the project corridor passes through seven school districts, including the Union Free School District of Tarrytown, the Irvington Union Free School District, the Elmsford Union Free School District, the Greenburgh Central School District, the Harrison School District, the Port Chester School District, and the White Plains City School District. The project would not adversely affect any schools within these districts. 4.2.4.2 Recreational Areas Recreational areas are located throughout the project corridor. Several are located in proximity to bus stops where improvements are proposed, such as the Raymond G. Esposito Trail in the Village of South Nyack and the Bronx River Pathway in the City of White Plains. The proposed improvements to bus stops would remain in context with existing bus stops and would not result in adverse effects to these recreational areas. Additionally, improved bus transit services would enhance accessibility to these recreational resources. While the existing sidewalks along NY-59 in the Hamlet of Monsey are adjacent to the Monsey Glen County Park, property acquisition would not be required; therefore, there would be no adverse impacts to the park. 4.2.4.3 Places of Worship Places of worship are located throughout the project corridor, particularly in the village centers of Nyack and Tarrytown and the city center of White Plains. The project would not result in adverse impacts to any places of worship.

4-7

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

4.3 Economic 4.3.1 Regional and Local Economies The project would improve mobility and accessibility, encourage transit use, reduce congestion in the corridor and along I-87 / 287, and enhance safety, all of which could benefit the regional and local economies. The project would not reduce or generate employment or have an effect on property values, but it would help improve access to jobs. The project is not expected to spur additional development. The project could enhance business activities by providing more efficient transportation within the region. 4.3.2 Business District Impacts The project elements are generally located within a highly developed, suburban transportation corridor between Sloatsburg in Rockland County and Port Chester in Westchester County. The adjacent areas are well-developed and include industrial, residential, and commercial uses. The project would enhance transit services to existing business districts. At the same time, it would not change roadway or freight access to business districts or the provision of parking within these districts. The project would not adversely impact business districts. 4.3.3 Specific Business Impacts The project would not eliminate or substantially alter roadway access to any businesses, and existing parking would be maintained along local roadways. The existing TZx westbound and eastbound stop at Route 119 and Meadow Street in Tarrytown will be eliminated from the replacement LHTL service due to limited ridership. Riders would alternatively use the next closest stop for both directions, approximately 0.4 miles to the west, at Route 119 and Broadway. In addition, the existing TZx westbound stop at Martin Luther King Boulevard and Main Street in White Plains will also be eliminated from the replacement LHTL service. Riders would have the option of using either the new proposed stop at the White Plains TransCenter (approximately 0.2 miles to the west) or the stop on Martine Avenue, between Court Street and Martin Luther King Boulevard (approximately 0.2 miles to the southeast). Adverse impacts to local businesses at these locations are not expected.

4.4 Environmental 4.4.1 Wetlands 4.4.1.1 State Freshwater Wetlands There are no NYSDEC-regulated freshwater wetlands or regulated adjacent areas within the project area, as per the NYSDEC Freshwater Wetlands Maps for Rockland and Westchester Counties, including the Ramsey, Park Ridge, Nyack, and White Plains USGS quadrangles, reviewed on March 28, 2016. 4.4.1.2 State Tidal Wetlands A review of NYSDEC Geographic Information System (GIS) wetland data files indicates that there are no NYSDEC jurisdictional tidal wetlands or regulated adjacent areas within or near the project area. 4.4.1.3 Federal Jurisdiction Wetlands The project area has been reviewed for wetlands in accordance with the criteria defined in the 1987 United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Wetland Delineation Manual. During a reconnaissance investigation conducted on March 23, 2016, wetlands fitting the USACE criteria were observed proximate to the project area; however, these wetlands were not located within the project area. It has been determined that the project elements would not impact federal jurisdictional wetlands. 4.4.1.4 Executive Order 11990 As stated above, there are no wetlands located within the project area. Executive Order 11990 does not apply to this project.

4-8

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

4.4.2 Surface Waterbodies and Watercourses 4.4.2.1 Surface Waters The project would not involve excavation in or the discharge of dredged or fill material into Waters of the United States. No permits under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act are anticipated. 4.4.2.2 Surface Water Classification and Standards Based upon review of NYSDEC GIS data maps for regulated streams, there are no surface waterways within the project area. 4.4.2.3 Stream Bed and Bank Protection Based upon review of the NYSDEC Environmental Resource Mapper GIS database, and as verified by a site visit, there are no protected streams, nor 50-foot regulated stream banks (on either side of a regulated stream) in the project area. 4.4.3 Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers There are no State Wild, Scenic or Recreational Rivers or National Wild and Scenic Rivers within or adjacent to the project area. No further review is required. 4.4.4 Navigable Waters 4.4.4.1 State Regulated Waters There are no state regulated navigable waters located within the project area. 4.4.4.2 Office of General Services Lands and Navigable Waters There are no Office of General Services (OGS) underwater holdings located within the project area. 4.4.4.3 U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) Jurisdiction Since the project would not involve the construction or modification of any bridge, dam, dike, or causeway within or over any navigable water of the United States, a USCG authorization is not required. 4.4.4.4 Rivers and Harbors Act – Section 10 Since the project would not involve the creation of any obstruction to the navigable capacity of any Waters of the United States, or in any manner alter or modify the course, location, condition, or capacity of any navigable water of the United States, Section 10 is not applicable. 4.4.5 Floodplains 4.4.5.1 State Flood Insurance Compliance Program Some project elements are within the 500-year floodplain of the Hudson River and Bronx River, as indicated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) on Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs). In accordance with the provisions of 6 NYCRR 502 - Flood Plain Management for State Projects, NYSDOT has considered and evaluated the practicality of alternatives to any floodplain encroachments (i.e., bus stop replacement/installation, ramp metering, and safety improvements). As a result of this evaluation, it is concluded that: (1) a significant encroachment does not exist; (2) there is no significant potential for interruption or termination of a transportation facility which is needed for emergency vehicles; and (3) there are no significant impacts on natural beneficial floodplain values. 4.4.5.2 Executive Order 11988 Executive Order 11988, “Floodplains Management,” requires avoidance of long- and short-term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains, to the extent possible. Some project elements are located within the 500-year floodplain of the Hudson River and Bronx River, as indicated by the FEMA FIRMs. The project elements located within the 500-year conform to State floodplain protection standards and would not result in significant impacts on natural beneficial floodplain values or increase the chance of flooding in the surrounding area. 4-9

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

4.4.6 Coastal Resources 4.4.6.1 State Coastal Zone Management Program The project is within a State Coastal Zone Management Area and the Village of Nyack, which has an approved Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan. As such, a Federal Aid Notification Letter and a State Coastal Assessment Form (CAF) were submitted to NYSDOS. The Federal Aid Notification Letter and CAF are provided in Appendix B-1. The NYSDOS provided general concurrence in a letter dated July 26, 2016 (included in Appendix B-1). The project would not result in adverse effects to coastal resources and would be consistent with coastal policies. 4.4.6.2 State Coastal Erosion Hazard Area The project is not located in or near a Coastal Erosion Hazard Area. 4.4.6.3 Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal Resources Program The project is located within the Village of Nyack, which has an approved Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan (LWRP), according to the NYSDOS “List of Approved Coastal LWRPs,” dated June 2015. As such, NYSDOT notified the Village of Nyack that the project would occur within the boundaries of its LWRP (see Appendix B-1). The proposed project is consistent with the Village of Nyack’s LWRP. 4.4.6.4 Federal Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) and Coastal Barrier Improvement Act (CBIA) The project is not located in or near a coastal area under the jurisdiction of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act or the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act. 4.4.7 Groundwater Resources, Aquifers, and Reservoirs According to the NYSDEC Division of Water, Bureau of Water Resource Management, the only municipal drinking water wells, wellhead influence zones, reservoirs, or aquifers within or near the project area are the Ramapo and Mahwah Rivers primary aquifer and several unnamed non-primary aquifers in both Westchester and Rockland Counties. Based on NYSDEC aquifer GIS data files, it has been determined that some project elements are located in the Ramapo and Mahwah Rivers state jurisdictional primary aquifer. The project is not anticipated to have an adverse impact on the primary aquifer. This project would include measures in design and construction to avoid, minimize or otherwise mitigate possible adverse impacts to the aquifer (e.g., Erosion and Sediment Control, Stormwater Management, and Construction Chemical Storage and Handling Best Management Practices [BMPs]). These measures would be intended to minimize contamination from highway runoff and construction activities. 4.4.8 Stormwater Management Since the project would involve more than one acre of soil disturbance, a State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) General Permit GP-0-15-002 would be required. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) with the appropriate sediment and erosion control measures would be developed. Depending on the total amount of disturbance and changes in total impervious area, permanent stormwater management practices may be required. The project would be located within the Bronx River and Hudson River watersheds, which are identified as Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) Watersheds. A TMDL is a pollution budget and includes a calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant that can occur in a waterbody and allocates the necessary reductions to one or more pollutant sources. The project would not have an adverse impact on the TMDL Watersheds. Best Management Practices (BMPs) to protect the aquifer would be employed, including Erosion and Sediment Control, Stormwater Management, and Construction Chemical Storage and Handling.

4-10

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

4.4.9 General Ecology and Wildlife Resources 4.4.9.1 Fish, Wildlife, and Waterfowl The study area for natural resources is defined as the project area. Available habitat within the project area is limited to paved roads, maintained transportation right of way, concrete sidewalks, and other urbanized and highly disturbed habitats. These habitats are suitable for only the most disturbance-tolerant plant and wildlife species. A review of the project area (i.e., reconnaissance investigation on March 23, 2016, NYSDEC Nature Explorer and Environmental Resource Mapper, and the USFWS Information Planning and Conservation (IPaC) database review) did not indicate a special habitat or breeding area for protected plants or animals. 4.4.9.2 Habitat Areas, Wildlife Refuges, and Wildfowl Refuges The project does not involve work in, or adjacent to, a wildlife or waterfowl refuge. No further consideration is required. 4.4.9.3 Endangered and Threatened Species

NYSDOT reviewed the USFWS IPaC database in February 2017 (IPaC Official Species List Appendix B- 1) and found three NY State and federally listed species as having the potential to occur within the project area: - Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis; Endangered); - Northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis; Threatened); and - Bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii; Threatened). In addition to the species included in IPaC, NYSDOT’s February 2017 review of the New York Natural Heritage Program (NYNHP) database identified two NY State and federally listed, and three NY State only listed species as having the potential to occur within the project area: - Shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum; Endangered); - Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus; Endangered); - Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus; Endangered) (state only); - Timber rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus; Threatened) (state only); and - Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus; Threatened) (state only). The NYNHP database also showed that there is critical habitat for the Atlantic sturgeon within the project area. A site reconnaissance for state and federally listed species was conducted on March 23, 2016, during which habitat within the project area was assessed for suitability for the aforementioned protected species. Following this site reconnaissance, it was determined that the project is not likely to result in potential effects to the aforementioned protected species based on the lack of suitable habitat and because direct disturbance would be limited to the right-of-way and paved surfaces. Additionally, approximately 2.18 acres of trees would be removed; however, any tree cutting within the project area would occur within the winter tree cutting time frame as to avoid potential effects to listed bats species. A discussion of each listed species and the potential for the project to affect that species is below. Peregrine Falcon The peregrine falcon is a New York State listed endangered species and protected under the federal Migratory Bird Act. Peregrine falcons often nest on ledges or holes on the faces of rocky cliffs, but will nest on human-made structures, such as bridges and tall buildings, especially near or in urban areas. The peregrine falcon’s diet primarily consists of birds, ranging from songbirds to small geese and also bats and other small mammals (White 2002). The project area is within an urbanized area and within the paved roadside, and would not affect the peregrine falcon’s ability to nest or hunt. Additionally, the one known occurrence of the peregrine falcon found on the NYNHP database is outside of the project area. Therefore, pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 182, NYSDOT has determined that the proposed activity is not likely to result in a take of the peregrine falcon and is therefore not subject to regulation under this Part. 4-11

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

Shortnose Sturgeon The shortnose sturgeon is a New York State and federally listed endangered species. Shortnose sturgeons are anadromous bottom-feeding fish that can be found throughout the Hudson River system from New York Harbor up through the Troy Dam. These fish spawn, develop, and overwinter in the upper Hudson River, and prefer colder, deeper waters for all life stages. Shortnose sturgeons are expected to occur in the Hudson River within the project corridor; however, no effects would occur within the Hudson River as a result of the project. Therefore, NYSDOT has made a “no effect” determination for this species. The FHWA have concurred with NYSDOT’s effect determination for this species. Additionally, pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 182, NYSDOT has determined that the proposed activity is not likely to result in a take of shortnose sturgeon and is therefore not subject to regulation under this Part. Atlantic Sturgeon The Atlantic sturgeon is a New York State and federally listed endangered species. Atlantic sturgeon spawn in freshwater sections of the Hudson River and overwinter throughout the New York Bight, off the south shore of Long Island, and throughout Long Island Sound (Waldman et al. 1996, Bain 1997, Savoy and Pacileo 2003). Atlantic sturgeon are expected to occur in the Hudson River within the project corridor; however, no effects would occur within the Hudson River as a result of the project. Therefore, NYSDOT has made a “no effect” determination for this species. The FHWA have concurred with NYSDOT’s effect determination for this species. Additionally, pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 182, NYSDOT has determined that the proposed activity is not likely to result in a take of the Atlantic sturgeon and is therefore not subject to regulation under this Part.

Critical Habitat (Atlantic Sturgeon) The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has proposed that the Hudson River from the NY Harbor to the Troy Lock and Dam be listed as Critical Habitat for the Atlantic Sturgeon. As stated previously, even though the project corridor transverses the Hudson River, no effects would occur within the Hudson River as a result of the project. Therefore, in accordance with FHWA NY Division’s “Environmental Procedures for Endangered Species Act, Section 7: Process for Compliance and Consultation” (Sturgeon process updated December 2016), since the project would not include in-water work, NYSDOT has concluded that there would be “no effect” for on the Atlantic Sturgeon. The FHWA has concurred with NYSDOT’s effect determination for this critical habitat. Bald Eagle The bald eagle is federally protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) and is a New York State listed threatened species. In New York, bald eagles engage in courtship and nest- building between December and March (USFWS 2007). Nests are typically several feet wide and located in tall, living trees near water (NYSDEC 2011). They primarily forage in bays, intertidal marshes, and non- vegetated tidal mudflats that become exposed at low tide and trap fish in drainage channels and pools (Thompson and McGarigal 2002, Thompson et al. 2005). The site reconnaissance and review of the NYNHP database indicated that there are no bald eagle nests within 660 feet of the project area (buffer required under BEGEPA) and since the project area is within an urbanized area and within the paved roadside, it would not impact the bald eagle’s ability to hunt. Therefore, pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 182, NYSDOT has determined that the proposed activity is not likely to result in a take of the bald eagle and is therefore not subject to regulation under this Part. Timber Rattlesnake The timber rattlesnake is a New York State listed threatened species with a distribution within the state that is primarily limited to the Hudson Valley, Southern Tier, and eastern edge of the Adirondacks. Timber rattlesnakes are typically found in deciduous forests containing thick understory vegetation, large woody debris, rocky terrain, and rock outcrops or talus slopes, often near surface waters. They may also occur in edge habitats, including roadsides, railroad embankments, fence rows, and field-forest edges (Gibbs et al. 2007, Ulev 2008). The project area is within an urbanized area and within the paved roadside; based on site visits, the preferred habitat of timber rattlesnakes is not found within the project area. Therefore, pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 182, NYSDOT has determined that the proposed activity is not likely to result in a take of the timber rattlesnake and is therefore not subject to regulation under this Part. 4-12

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

Indiana Bat The Indiana bat is a New York State and federally listed endangered species. Indiana bats utilize caves or abandoned mines as a wintering hibernaculum. During the spring, summer, and fall, Indiana bats emerge from their hibernacula and seek out roosting sites. Roosting sites and maternity sites are typically under loose bark or in the crevices of trees that have a diameter greater than four inches. Current USFWS guidance states that any tree cutting that occurs less than 100 feet from an active road surface and more than 1/4 mile from a known Indiana bat roost tree during the winter tree cutting period between October 1 to March 31 is not likely to adversely affect the Indiana bat. The approximately 2.18 acres of trees that would be removed for the project are located less than 100 feet from an active road surface and are more than 1/4 mile from a known Indiana bat roost tree, and the trees would be removed in the winter tree cutting time frame outlined above. Therefore, NYSDOT has made a “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” determination for this species. The USFWS and FHWA have concurred with NYSDOT’s effect determination for this species. Additionally, pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 182, NYSDOT has determined that the proposed activity is not likely to result in a take of the Indiana bat and is therefore not subject to regulation under this Part. Northern Long-Eared Bat The northern long-eared bat (NLEB) is a New York State and federally listed threatened species. NLEBs utilize caves or abandoned mines as a winter hibernaculum. Roosting sites and maternity sites for NLEBs are typically under loose bark or in the crevices of trees that have a diameter greater than three inches. Although they have been documented in urbanized areas (Whitaker et al. 2004, Johnson et al. 2008) and will occasionally utilize buildings and other artificial structures rather than trees for roosting (Timpone et al. 2010, USFWS 2013b), urban NLEBs tend to occur near large, forested parks or other expansive green spaces with abundant tree cover towards the city’s outskirts (Johnson et al. 2008). Current USFWS guidance states that any tree cutting that occurs less than 100 feet from an active road surface and more than 1/4 mile from a known northern long-eared bat roost tree during the winter tree cutting period between October 1 to March 31 is not likely to adversely affect the NLEB. The approximately 2.18 acres of trees that would be removed for the project are located less than 100 feet from an active road surface and are more than 1/4 mile from a known NLEB roost tree, and the trees would be removed in the winter tree cutting time frame outlined above. Therefore, NYSDOT has made a “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” determination for this species. The USFWS and FHWA have concurred with NYSDOT’s effect determination for this species. Additionally, pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 182, NYSDOT has determined that the proposed activity is not likely to result in a take of the NLEB and is therefore not subject to regulation under this Part. Bog Turtle The bog turtle is a New York State listed endangered and federally listed threatened species whose distribution within New York is primarily limited to Orange, Ulster, Dutchess, and Putnam Counties. The bog turtle’s preferred habitat consists of calcareous fens or wet meadows with cool, shallow, slow-moving water, deep and soft soils, and tussock-forming herbaceous vegetation (Gibbs et al. 2007). The project area is within an urbanized area and within the paved roadside; based on site visits the preferred habitat of bog turtles is not found within the project area. Therefore, NYSDOT has made a “no effect” determination for this species. The FHWA have concurred with NYSDOT’s effect determination for this species. Additionally, pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 182, NYSDOT has determined that the proposed activity is not likely to result in a take of the bog turtle and is therefore not subject to regulation under this Part.

A Biological Evaluation (BE) and a 14-day form (required for tree cutting activities) were prepared for the project. Per current procedures, the 14-day form was submitted to the USFWS and FHWA and the BE was submitted to FHWA on March 3, 2017. Current procedures state that the USFWS has 14 days to request additional information for the project, or concurrence with the 14-day form would be assumed. The USFWS did not request additional information within the 14-day time frame. Additionally, the FHWA has reviewed and concurred with NYSDOT’s effect determinations discussed in the BE. Therefore the FHWA, through coordination with USFWS, has concurred with NYSDOT’s effect determinations for the

4-13

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

above listed species. The concurrence letter from FHWA dated March 17, 2017 is in Appendix B-1. Based on USFWS/FHWA’s concurrence and since the project is not likely to result in ‘take’ of a NY State listed species, no further coordination is required for the project. 4.4.9.4 Invasive Species A review of the project area indicates that the following invasive species—common mugwort (Artemisia vulgaris), Asiatic bittersweet (Celastrus orbiculatus), and common reed (Phragmites australis)—are within the State’s right-of-way. Precautions would be taken during construction to prevent the spread of these or introduction of additional invasive terrestrial plant species. Disturbed areas not occupied by permanent structures would be revegetated with native species indigenous to this region of New York to the greatest extent practicable in accordance with a landscape plan that would be in compliance with Executive Order (EO) 13112, “Invasive Species.” In accordance with EO 13112, federal agencies must prevent, to the extent practicable and permitted by law, the introduction of invasive species and provide for their control and to minimize the economic, ecological, and human health impacts that invasive species cause. Therefore, construction and operation of the project would not be expected to have adverse impacts on vegetation and ecological communities within the project area. 4.4.9.5 Roadside Vegetation Management Existing roadside vegetation consists primarily of maintained lawn areas, wooded areas and waste areas. Efforts would be made to replace wildlife-supporting vegetation that is removed in the course of construction. 4.4.10 Critical Environmental Areas 4.4.10.1 State Critical Environmental Areas The project does not involve work in or near a Critical Environmental Area. 4.4.10.2 State Forest Preserve Lands The project does not involve work in or near state forest preserve lands. 4.4.11 Historic and Cultural Resources 4.4.11.1 National Heritage Areas Program The project is not located in areas identified as National Heritage Areas; therefore, no impact to these areas is expected. 4.4.11.2 National Historic Preservation Act – Section 106 The project is a federal undertaking subject to review under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and its implementing regulation, 36 CFR Part 800: Protection of Historic Properties. Section 106 requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. Projects reviewed under Section 106 do not require a separate review under Section 14.09 of the NYS Historic Preservation Act.

As part of the Section 106 consultation, NYSDOT submitted a Historic Screening and Building Inventory to SHPO on April 28 2016, summarizing the results of efforts to identify historic properties within the Area of Potential Effects (APE) established for the undertaking. The documentation package also included an Archaeological Sensitivity Screening, which provided the assessment that the Study Area has a low potential for the presence of intact archaeological resources within the Study Area. The historic screening and building evaluation identified eight historic properties in the APE, including four previously NRHP listed and eligible properties and four previously unevaluated architectural properties that were recommended NRHP-eligible. In a letter dated May 16, 2016, the SHPO concurred with the assessment of eligibilities and the lack of archaeological potential.

The project’s effects on historic properties were assessed in the May 23, 2016 Section 106 Finding Documentation (see Appendix B-2). The Finding Documentation describes the identified historic 4-14

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

properties, applies the criteria of adverse effect (36 CFR §800.5(a)(1)), and concludes that the project would have No Adverse Effect on historic properties. NYSDOT provided the Finding Documentation for review by SHPO on June 1, 2016, and SHPO concurred with the No Adverse Effect finding on June 16, 2016. FHWA issued a No Adverse Effect for the project in a letter dated July 28, 2016.

A Section 106 Finding Documentation Addendum was subsequently prepared on November 29, 2016 to review additional proposed ICM features along the Palisades Interstate Parkway and the Bronx River Parkway Reservation that were not previously addressed in the May 23, 2016 Finding Documentation. This review included consultation with the PIP Commission, as per the Memorandum of Understanding among the PIP Commission, the NYSDOT, and SHPO, executed in 2011. In accordance with the applicable criteria, the additional ICM features would not alter the National Register qualifying characteristics of the Palisades Interstate Parkway or the Bronx River Parkway Reservation, or diminish the integrity of the properties’ location, design or setting. The Finding Documentation Addendum was provided to the SHPO in December 2016, with an assessment that the existing No Adverse Effect finding remains valid. The SHPO concurred on December 13, 2016.

In a letter dated January 3, 2017, FHWA determined that the existing No Adverse Effect determination for the undertaking remains valid.

On February 17, 2017, NYSDOT notified SHPO of a minor project change that would relocate a bus stop in South Nyack. Based upon review of the submitted information, in a letter dated January 24, 2017, SHPO concurred that the existing No Adverse Effect determination for the LHTL Project, issued by FHWA on July 28, 2016, remains valid.

On March 16, 2017, NYSDOT notified SHPO of a minor project change that would relocate a bus stop in White Plains. A previously unevaluated property within the APE, the Michaelian Office Building at 148 Martine Avenue, was identified and recommended NRHP-eligible. Based upon review of the submitted information, SHPO concurred with the eligibility assessment and in a letter dated March 20, 2017, concurred that the existing No Adverse Effect determination for the LHTL Project, issued by FHWA on July 28, 2016, remains valid.

In a letter dated March 21, 2017, FHWA determined that the existing No Adverse Effect determination for the undertaking remains valid and that the requirements of 36 CFR Part 800 have been met for the LHTL project.

4.4.11.3 Architectural Resources In consultation with the SHPO, seven historic buildings and structures were identified within the APE consisting of discrete areas defined in consideration of the project’s potential direct and indirect (visual) effects. These include:  Two previously evaluated NRHP-eligible properties, the NRHP-eligible South Nyack Historic District in Rockland County and the NRHP-eligible Tarrytown Train Station in Westchester County.  Five properties identified by architectural historians meeting the National Park Service Professional Qualification Standards for Architectural History (36 CFR Part 61), with SHPO concurrence: a mid-19th century residence at 45 Nyack Turnpike in Rockland County; the former Westchester Title & Trust Building at 165 Main Street; a commercial building at 171 Main Street; the Northcourt Building at 175 Main Street, and the Michaelian Office Building at 148 Martine Avenue in White Plains in Westchester County.

These resources are described in greater detail and pictured in the May 23, 2016 Finding Documentation and the Historic Resource Inventory Form for the Michaelian Office Building of March 14, 2017 contained as Appendix B-2.

4-15

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

4.4.11.4 Archaeological Resources

The study area for archaeological resources was defined as the project area. The screening included a desktop survey of information previously collected for the I-87/287 corridor, a review of the SHPO Cultural Resource Information System (CRIS), a review of Record Plans for work performed along the NY-59 corridor during the 20th century, and a site walkover/windshield survey. Based on the results of the screening, no archaeological concerns for the LHTL Project were identified due to the low potential for the presence of intact archaeological resources. Subsequent to the original screening, a review of the additional ICM features also concluded a low potential for the presence of intact archaeological resources in the Study Area.

4.4.11.5 Historic Bridges

The Palisades Interstate Parkway, including components of Interchange 9 with Interstate 87/287 is listed on the NRHP. These components include the Exit 9W Northbound Bridge over Interstate 87/287 (BIN 1068692) and the Exit 9E Southbound Bridge over Interstate 87/287 (BIN 1068691). These bridges contribute to the significance of the Palisades Interstate Parkway. The bridges are both four-span multi- girder steel structures supported on concrete piers and abutments, bordered by low ashlar cut stone walls.

No changes are proposed to the bridges as part of the proposed project. There are no other historic bridges in the APE.

4.4.11.6 Historic Parkways

Palisades Interstate Parkway

The Palisades Interstate Parkway (Parkway) is listed in the National Register of Historic Places. It is a 42- mile, limited access and scenic roadway that extends along the west side of the Hudson River between Fort Lee in New Jersey and Bear Mountain in New York. Within the southern section of the Parkway in New York State, including the portion of Interchange 9 with Interstate 87/287 (also Interchange 13 from Interstate 87/287) and that are located in the APE, the National Register east and west boundaries follow the Parkway right-of-way, including its interchanges with other roadways. Interchange 9 with Interstate 87/287 consists of a “cloverleaf” shape formed by the four ramps that provide access to and from the Parkway and highway, and includes two bridges that cross Interstate 87/287, described above. The ramps are one-lane-wide and are bordered by standard low metal guide rails with adjacent grassy areas and vegetated or wetland areas at the center of each clover. The Palisades Interstate Parkway is exceptionally significant under National Register Criterion A in the themes of conservation, recreation, transportation and regional planning. It is also significant under National Register Criterion C in the areas of architecture, landscape architecture, and engineering as an outstanding example of a post-World War II, limited access, pleasure drive in New York and New Jersey. The period of significance of the Palisades Interstate Parkway extends from 1935, when the first major donation of land was made, continued acquisition of land and construction of the parkway between circa 1947 and 1961.

No changes are proposed to the travel lanes of the Parkway. Ramp metering proposed at Interchange 13 of Interstate 87/287 would require the widening of the Interchange 9E eastbound and 9W westbound ramps at the Interstate 87/287 and Palisades Interstate Parkway cloverleaf intersection. The existing ramps that form the cloverleaf in these locations would be widened from one to two lanes. In addition, stop bars with traffic signals would be installed on these ramps and at the Interchange 13N eastbound, 13S westbound 9E eastbound, and 9W westbound ramps. The proposed ramp widening would maintain the cloverleaf shape, would maintain landscaped and vegetated areas that border the ramps, with the ramp metering minimally affecting the historic configuration of the interchange and overall historic character of the Palisades Interstate Parkway.

4-16

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

The installation of additional ICM features at the Palisades Interstate Parkway including CCTV cameras, detectors, and VMS, would be located within Interchange 9 and also located on the Parkway north and south of Interchange 9. As described in greater detail in the Finding Documentation Addendum in Appendix B-2, the CCTV cameras and detectors would be relatively unobtrusive elements along the Parkway. The LHTL project proposes six (6) VMS along the Palisades Interstate Parkway and at its interchange with I-87/287 (Interchange 9). The signs would include four Hybrid VMS, with the signs measuring 20’6” x 10’10”. The Hybrid signs resemble typical highway signage but with small VMS modules. In addition, two Full Matrix VMS measuring 7’10” x 12’2” with a full digital display screen would be placed along the Parkway. The new signs would typically have a seven-foot clearance from the ground and trenching would be required within the Palisades Interstate Parkway right-of-way to install new fiber communications and electrical cables for the VMS. The proposed VMS have been sited at locations where there is no foliage for line of site purposes, and, therefore, adjacent vegetation/foliage along the Parkway would not need to be cut back or disturbed. The Parkway contains standard highway signage with a green sign face with white lettering that is typically mounted on poles or on a cantilever sign structure that partially overhangs the roadway. There are portable VMS signs on wheels that are already located along the Parkway and can be removed on demand. The four proposed Hybrid VMS signs would be longer than the existing signage on the Parkway, with an additional 4’-6” in length than the longest (16-foot) sign. However, these signs would be mounted seven feet above grade and on pole mounting that is consistent with most of the signage on the Parkway. Although the signs would be longer than existing signage, the pole mounting, in contrast with the cantilever sign mounting of several of the existing signs on the Parkway that is much more visually prominent, would be compatible with the existing lower signage. In addition, their general appearance with green sign faces, white lettering, and with small digital displays, would also not be significantly different than the existing signage. The VMS would not be mounted to significant Parkway structures like the bridges that cross it, and they would be placed in areas where vegetation has already been cleared. At a total of six signs, they would represent a small addition of signs that would also be spread along a corridor from south of Exit 8 to Exit 10 on the Parkway.

In addition, in August 2016, NYSDOT undertook consultation with the Palisades Interstate Park (PIP) Commission regarding the Project pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding between NYSDOT and the PIP Commission. The PIP Commission did not have concerns regarding the size and placement of the Project’s elements along the PIP, but expressed concern regarding the limited access to power and communications line along the PIP, which could affect the ability to operate the VMS. Based on the PIP Commission’s feedback, NYSDOT identified the locations to install the new fiber communications and electrical cables within the PIP right-of-way to service the future ICM features.

On January 23, 2017 the PIP Commission provided a conditional approval to a January 13, 2017 request by NYSDOT to deploy portable VMS (PVMS) equipment in the vicinity of the interchange with the New York State Thruway. The January 23, 2017 letter from the PIP Commission provides approval on the condition that the PVMS deployments are subject to a three year evaluation period concluding on December 31, 2019. The NYSDOT request letter and the PIP Commission’s approval letter, including conditions of the approval, are included in Appendix B-2.

As determined through Section 106 consultation, the proposed ramp metering and additional ICM features would not adversely affect the characteristics of the Palisades Interstate Parkway that qualify it for inclusion in the National Register in a manner that would diminish the integrity of the historic parkway’s contributing historic features.

Bronx River Parkway Reservation

The Bronx River Parkway Reservation is listed in the NRHP. The National Register Registration (Nomination) Form for the Bronx River Parkway Reservation states that the Bronx River Parkway is significant under criteria A and C in the areas of conservation, recreation, transportation, landscape architecture, architecture, and engineering. The nominated property includes the northern two-thirds of

4-17

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

the reservation that includes the Bronx River, Bronx River Parkway, and the landscaped area in which they are situated, which was planned and built between 1906 and 1925.

The APE includes the Westchester County Center at 198 Central Avenue in White Plains, which is included within the boundaries of the Bronx River Parkway Reservation, due to the proposed placement of a bus shelter adjacent to that property. The Westchester County Center was built between 1927 and 1930 and is a large Art Deco style building that has 30-foot-tall additions dating to the 1980s on its east and west facades. A paved parking lot and a modern wall are located between the west addition to the Westchester County Center and Tarrytown Road, where the proposed bus shelter would be installed, adjacent to the wall. An existing TZx stop marked by a pole and two Bee-Line bus shelters with glazed sides, opaque roofs, and benches in the interiors are at the location of the proposed new bus shelter. No work would occur within the boundaries of the Bronx River Parkway Reservation to install the bus shelter, and the installation of a glazed bus shelter in a location where there are existing bus stops and bus shelters would not compromise the integrity of the setting of the Westchester County Center or the larger Bronx River Parkway Reservation.

The APE also includes the proposed locations of a CCTV camera and a CCTV detector at the circular traffic circle formed by the intersection of the Bronx River Parkway and the Taconic State Parkway, south of Kensico Dam Plaza County Park, in Valhalla. This location includes existing large signage gantries that overhang the roadways and standard metal guide rails along the roadway. The installation of a CCTV camera and a detector would be relatively unobtrusive features that would not be out of character with the existing Parkway infrastructure.

As determined through Section 106 consultation, the proposed bus shelter and ICM features would not adversely affect the characteristics of the Bronx River Parkway Reservation that qualify it for inclusion in the National Register in a manner that would diminish the integrity of the historic property’s contributing historic features. 4.4.12 Parks and Recreational Resources 4.4.12.1 State Heritage Area Program The project is not located in areas identified as State Heritage Areas; therefore, no impact to these areas is expected. 4.4.12.2 National Registry of Natural Landmarks There are no listed nationally significant natural areas within, or adjacent to, the project area. 4.4.12.3 Section 4(f) Involvement Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act (DOT Act) of 1966 (49 USC § 303 and 23 U.S.C. §138) stipulates that FHWA and other USDOT agencies cannot approve the use of land from publicly owned parks, recreational areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, or public and private historical sites unless there is no feasible and prudent avoidance alternative to the use of land and the action includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the property resulting from such use. Section 4(f) is implemented by the FHWA through the regulation 23 CFR § 774.

Section 4(f) historic sites were identified through the Section 106 process pursuant to 36 CFR Part 800 (see Section 4.4.11 and Appendix B-2). Nine historic resources were identified in the area of potential effects (APE) for the project, including seven architectural properties and two historic parkways. The project would not require the use of any architectural property that qualifies for Section 4(f) protection.

There are no wildlife or waterfowl refuges within the project limits, and the project would not use any publicly-owned parklands or recreational areas.

The proposed work on the Palisades Interstate Parkway involves widening of existing ramps and installation of ICM features, while the project involves ICM features along the Bronx River Parkway (see Appendix B-2). In accordance with 23 CFR §774.13 (a), the proposed work qualifies as an exception to

4-18

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

the requirement for Section 4(f) approval provided for the restoration, rehabilitation or maintenance of transportation facilities eligible for or listed in the National Register. As a result of consultation with the SHPO pursuant to 36 CFR §800.5, the FHWA concluded that the proposed project features along the Palisades Interstate Parkway and Bronx River Parkway Reservation would not adversely affect the characteristics of the historic properties that qualify them for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. 4.4.12.4 Section 6(f) Involvement The project would not impact parklands or facilities that have been funded through the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Act. No further consideration under Section 6(f) of the LWCF Act is required. 4.4.12.5 Section 1010 Involvement This project does not involve the use of land from a park to which Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program funds have been applied. 4.4.13 Visual Resources 4.4.13.1 Introduction This section describes the project’s potential impacts on visual resources. This analysis was prepared in accordance with the guidelines for visual assessments contained in NYSDOT’s Engineering Instruction (EI) 02-025, Visual Resource Analysis Procedure and Engineering Bulletin (EB) 03-052 and in consideration of guidance contained in FHWA’s Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects (1981) and FHWA’s Environmental Impact Statement Visual Impact Discussion (1990). Based on the proposed scope of the project, the study area for visual resources has been defined as the project area and adjacent areas where the project elements would be visible. This visual resources assessment describes the existing conditions of the study areas; provides a qualitative assessment of the existing visual quality and visual resources of the study area and identifies sensitive viewers; and provides the project’s potential impacts on visual resources. 4.4.13.2 Effects Assessment Bus Shelters and Intersection Safety Improvements The locations of the proposed bus shelters include existing TZx stops with existing shelters, existing TZx stops without shelters, relocated TZx stops that require new shelters, or new stops altogether. The bus shelters would be glazed structures (including clear sides and translucent roof) measuring 11 feet wide and eight feet tall, with a bench located within the shelter (see Exhibits 4.4.13.2.a and 4.4.13.2.b). The shelters would include power for minimal interior lighting in the form of LED lights within the roof structure for the safety of the bus passengers, to backlight posters on a side panel of the shelter, and for infrastructure/communication feeds for potential off-board ticket machines and Passenger Information System (PIS) displays. Access and safety improvements are proposed at 15 intersections associated with the bus stops. These improvements, which would vary at the different locations, would result in limited changes to visual character and include: newly marked crosswalks; upgraded signing and pavement striping; optimized signal timing with adequate pedestrian crossing intervals; upgraded traffic signal hardware; pavement repairs/resurfacing; ADA-compliant sidewalk ramps; and replacement of existing railroad crossing signs and lights (in one location, Suffern). Repairs and resurfacing of broken and deteriorated pavement would have a positive visual effect in the study area. In all instances, the new bus shelters and associated intersection improvements would occur in fully developed urban and suburban areas in Rockland and Westchester Counties. The affected streets are paved in asphalt, typically lined with concrete sidewalks, and with associated street furniture at the intersections, including street lights, traffic lights and signs, and a variety of lane, intersection, and crosswalk pavement markings. At many of the proposed bus shelter locations, existing bus shelters exist for the TZx or Bee-Line bus services. These shelters are typically small glazed structures with metal or glazed roofs.

4-19

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

4-20

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

4-21

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

New bus shelters would replace existing bus shelters in Suffern, at the Spring Valley Transit Center, at the Macy’s stop at the Palisades Center Mall in West Nyack, at the westbound stop on NY-59 in Central Nyack, at the eastbound stop on Artopee Way in downtown Nyack, at the eastbound stop on South Broadway at NY-119 in Tarrytown, and at the eastbound Westchester County Center stop on Tarrytown Road (NY-119) in White Plains. The locations would be in paved parking lots or along streets. Viewers at these locations typically consist of commuters, shoppers, and motorists. In addition, residents at homes along the north side of Hallett Place west of Chestnut Street in Suffern and residents in apartments at the Tappan Manour Condominiums on South Broadway in Tarrytown across streets from the proposed bus shelters would have views of the new shelters. Replacement of the existing small, glazed bus shelters with the proposed bus shelters that would also be small, glazed, and utilize minimal interior lighting would constitute a minimal change to the visual environment and would not affect sensitive viewers in Suffern and on South Broadway in Tarrytown. In addition, the replacement of the existing bus shelter with the proposed bus shelter at the westbound bus stop in Central Nyack would also not affect views to a large vegetated bedrock outcrop that is located behind the bus stop at this location. This natural formation is on the north side of NY-59 east of Mountainview Avenue, in addition to a small, historic mile-marker located west of the bus stop that is of visual interest to pedestrians (see Exhibit 4.4.13-2, Photo 1). These features would remain similarly visible with the replacement bus shelter. At most locations where new shelters would be installed in locations that do not have existing shelters, the study area does not possess a high visual quality, important visual resources, or sensitive viewers to such resources. These include locations along busy commercial corridors (e.g., NY-59 in Rockland County), within surface commuter lots (e.g., the Nanuet/Exit 14 Park & Ride in Rockland County), and in the downtown locations at South Franklin Street in Nyack in Rockland County and in White Plains at the White Plains Transit Center in Westchester County. Therefore, the project would have no impacts on visual resources at these locations. At the South Nyack stop located on the South Franklin Street Extension, between US Route 9W North and I-87/287, the visual character consists of a residential neighborhood with a number of single family homes and the Interchange 10 of Interstate 87/287 (see Exhibit 4.4.13.2.c, Photo 2). South Franklin Street Extension provides access to and from local roadways and Interchange 10 of Interstate 87/287 within the New York State Thruway Authority (NYSTA) right-of-way. The proposed shelter with minimal lighting and the sidewalk widening would not substantially alter the visual quality of the study area at this location, nor impact any visual resources. At the Tarrytown Train Station in Westchester County, the train station is a picturesque one-story stone building with a peaked slate roof that was recently restored and has been determined eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (see Exhibit 4.4.13.2.d, Photo 1). The proposed bus shelter would be located at the existing TZx stop, which is marked by a sign affixed to a lamppost. The proposed new glazed bus shelter and sidewalk widening at the bus shelter location would be in keeping with the existing visual quality at the train station, which includes a wide sidewalk and an existing glazed Bee-Line bus shelter to the south of the proposed bus shelter location. The bus shelter proposed at the existing TZx stop on Main Street west of Court Street in downtown White Plains in Westchester County is located in front of Macy’s, a modern, mostly windowless concrete building at the Galleria Mall. While there are several buildings across the street that are architecturally distinctive with classical and Art Deco detailing that have been determined eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (165, 171, and 175 Main Street), the proposed glazed bus shelter, located across Main Street (on the south side of the street), would not impact views to these buildings on the north side of the street from viewers in the area, including pedestrians, shoppers, and workers. The bus shelter proposed on Martine Avenue west of Court Street would be located on the Martine Avenue side of the Macy’s at the Galleria Mall, which also presents a primarily windowless concrete façade on Martine Avenue. While there is a property across Martine Avenue that has been determined eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (the Michaelian Building at 148 Martine Avenue), the proposed bus shelter located across Martine Avenue (on the north side of the street), would not impact views to this building from viewers in the area, including pedestrians, shoppers, and workers.

4-22

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

The bus shelter proposed at the existing TZx stop at the northwest corner of Main Street and Broadway in downtown White Plains in Westchester County would be visible from residents who live at the apartment building behind the bus stop (One South Broadway), from pedestrians on the street, and also from users of Tibbets Park, a landscaped park median that separates north and southbound traffic lanes on Broadway to the east. Tibbets Park contains grassy areas planted with flowers, shrubs and trees, a sidewalk clock, a statue, a fountain, and paths with seating areas (see Exhibit 4.4.13.2.d, Photo 2). The bus shelter, to be located on a concrete sidewalk near an existing Bee-Line bus shelter across Broadway from Tibbets Park, would not substantially alter the visual character of the area, nor impact resident views to, or recreational viewers from, Tibbets Park on Broadway. I-87/287 Integrated Corridor Management (ICM) Integrated Corridor Management (ICM) features are to be implemented at selected locations where reasonable, justified by traffic simulation model results and funding availability. These include: • NY-59 / NY-119 ICM utilizing adaptive signal control, Transit Signal Priority (TSP), and bus queue jumps; • Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) and Computer-Aided Dispatch (CAD), real-time passenger information; • Automated Incident Detection (AID), video incident detection (VID), and enhancements to CCTV video surveillance; • Motorist advisory, Lane Use Management, and Variable Speed Limit Control electronic signage; • Ramp Metering at selected interchanges along I-287 in the study corridor; • Variable message signs (VMS) for ramp metering, Park & Ride, and motorist information; • Replacement of traffic signals; and • Sensors, including BlueTOAD Bluetooth, vehicle detection loops, magetometers, and radar detection. Ramp metering is proposed at 13 locations along the I-87/287 Corridor in Rockland and Westchester Counties. In conjunction with the ramp meters, traffic detection sensors and ramp queue jumps would also be located at the 13 locations. The ramp metering typically includes the placement of stop bars on the ramp pavement and installation of a traffic signal at that location, with a traffic detection sensor placed below grade in advance of the stop bar, as well as restriping within the existing roadway for the modification to acceleration lanes. This work would occur within existing NYSTA right-of-way and would have limited visibility within and beyond the right-of-way. Interstate 87/287 has a low visual quality, and there are no visual resources located at the proposed locations with the exception of Interchange 13 with the Palisades Interstate Parkway. Introduction of ramp metering to the eastbound entry ramp at Interchange 12 necessitates a 12-foot widening of the existing embankment to accommodate an extended acceleration lane. The proposed widening would include a retaining wall at the top of the extended embankment. The extent of the proposed tree removal would be minimized to an area needed to accommodate the 12-foot road widening and retaining wall. The proposed retaining wall would be a vegetated Geosynthetically Reinforced Soil System (GRSS)-type structure and be visually screened by the existing established vegetation that would be retained on the balance of the embankment slope. While the retaining wall would be visible during the winter months, it would not change the visual setting. As previously stated, the Palisades Interstate Parkway (aka the Parkway) is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, with the parkway providing a scenic landscaped view corridor to motorists travelling on the parkway. No changes are proposed to the travel lanes of the Parkway, though ramp metering proposed at Interchange 13 of Interstate 87/287 would require the widening of the ramp from the southbound Parkway to Interstate 287 east (Interchange 9E) and the ramp from the northbound Parkway to Interchange 287 west (Interchange 9W). The existing ramps that form the “cloverleaf” intersection in these locations would be widened from one to two lanes. In addition, stop bars with traffic signals would be installed on these ramps and on the ramp from the northbound Parkway to Interchange 287 east (Interchange 9E) and on the ramp from the southbound Parkway to Interchange 287 west (Interchange 4-23

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

9W). Interchange 9 of the Palisades Interstate Parkway with I-87/287 is defined by its cloverleaf-shaped ramp pattern, with adjacent grassy and vegetated areas (see Exhibit 4.4.13.2.e). The proposed ramp widening would maintain the cloverleaf shape and landscaped and vegetated areas that border the ramps, with the traffic signals minimally affecting the visual character of the ramps. Therefore, the proposed ramp metering at this location would not be expected to substantially alter the visual character or degrade the visual quality of this component of the Palisades Interstate Parkway or adversely impact the views of motorists travelling to and from the parkway and Interstate 87/287. Therefore, no adverse visual impacts to visual resources would occur. In addition, ICM features including CCTV, traffic data detectors, and VMS would also be located at Interchange 9 of the Parkway and on the Parkway north and south of Interchange 9. The CCTV cameras, typically mounted on 40-to-50-foot tall poles and detectors (loop detectors in the roadway pavement or small radar, bluetooth and CCTV detectors that could be mounted on poles) would not significantly alter the visual character of the Parkway, which currently includes highway-style signage supported on poles and on cantilever sign structures that partially overhang the roadway. The new VMS signs (a total of six on the Parkway) would also not be visually incompatible with existing signage. These include two Full Matrix VMS signs with a full digital display screen and four Hybrid VMS signs with typical highway-style green sign faces, white lettering, and with small digital displays. The signs would be pole-mounted, approximately seven feet above grade, comparable to most of the signage on the Parkway. Though the Hybrid signs would be approximately 4.5 feet longer than the longest sign along the Parkway in the area of the proposed VMS, their appearance, including sign face and mounting, would not be significantly different than the existing signage. In addition VMS signs on wheels are already located along the Parkway. Therefore, the ICM features on the Parkway would not negatively affect the visual character of the Parkway nor adversely impact the views of the motorists travelling on the Parkway. CCTV, traffic data detectors, and VMS would also be located along the I-87/287 corridor and a number of intersecting parkways and nearby local streets. Traffic signal upgrades would also occur on local streets. These ICM features would primarily be located on busy commercial corridors in Rockland and Westchester Counties including Routes 59, 45, and 303 in Rockland County and Routes 9, 119 and 100A in Westchester County. The commercial streets are paved in asphalt, and lined with lampposts, traffic lights, tall utility poles with overhead wires, and a variety of roadway and commercial signage. In locations where the roads interchange with I-87/287, there is typically large highway signage, including signs mounted on large gantries that span the roadways. In addition, the commercial corridors typically are lined with large retail or other commercial signage. On other smaller local streets where only CCTV and traffic data recorders would be installed, the streets also contain utility poles with overheard wires, traffic lights, and other street furniture. A small number of ICM features would be located on parkways intersecting I-87/287 including the Garden State Parkway, Saw Mill River Parkway, Sprain Brook Parkway, Hutchinson River Parkway, and Bronx River Parkway. The small number of ICM features would not substantially alter the visual character of the parkways, nor adversely impact motorists views along the parkways. Therefore, the ICM elements would not have adverse impacts on visual resources. Eleven bus queue-jumping lanes would be provided at 8 different intersection locations along NY-59, a busy commercial corridor in Rockland County with a generally low visual quality. The queue jumping would be accomplished using existing traffic lanes, with restriping and signage used to direct traffic accordingly. These activities would also have no impacts on visual resources.

4-24

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

4-25

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

4-26

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

4-27

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

NY-59 Pedestrian Improvements Pedestrian improvements are proposed along the NY-59 corridor in Monsey and Spring Valley (Rockland County) extending from Monsey Heights Road in Monsey to New Clarkstown Road in Spring Valley. The improvements include construction of sidewalks in locations where there are no sidewalks and in locations of existing sidewalks that are non-compliant or in poor repair, striping and restriping of crosswalks, construction of ADA-compliant sidewalk ramps at intersections, and modifications to traffic signals, including provision of ADA-compliant pedestrian signals. NY-59 is a busy commercial corridor. It is developed primarily with restaurants, retail, and shopping centers that carry two-way traffic and much of this corridor has sidewalks. Most of the improvements would be within the existing street right-of-way, though there are locations where narrow strips of land would be acquired to construct new sidewalks. The locations of sidewalk work do not contain any visual resources, and generally have low visual quality. In the locations where new sidewalks would be constructed where none exist presently, adjacent properties typically consist of vegetated areas and shopping centers and commercial buildings set back behind parking lots. The replacement of broken and deteriorated sidewalks with new sidewalks would have a positive visual effect in the study area. The other proposed modifications, including striping and restriping of crosswalks, construction of ADA- compliant sidewalk ramps at intersections, and modifications to traffic signals have limited visibility or potential for visual impacts. Therefore, the project would not result in adverse impacts to visual resources. 4.4.14 Farmlands 4.4.14.1 State Farmland and Agricultural Districts Based on review of the New York State Agricultural District Maps for Rockland and Westchester Counties, the project is not located in or adjacent to an Agricultural District. 4.4.14.2 Federal Prime and Unique Farmland The project is not located in or adjacent to farmland. Thus, the project would not require the conversion of any prime or unique farmland, or farmland of state or local importance, as defined by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, to a nonagricultural use. 4.4.15 Air Quality The proposed Interstate 87/287 ramp metering and the transit improvements along State NY-59 would result in measurable changes in travel delay time, signal timing, and roadway geometry, and therefore, these project elements were evaluated for their potential effects on carbon monoxide (CO) and particulate matter (PM) emissions. Other project elements would not have the potential for substantial changes in traffic conditions; consequently, these items would not result in measurable changes in air quality and were not assessed. CO and PM analyses screenings were conducted using results from the traffic analysis of the ramp metering and the transit improvements on State NY-59. The CO and PM analyses screenings included the mainline and ramps of the highway network for the eastbound direction in the AM peak period (6 AM – 9 AM) and westbound in the PM peak period (3 PM – 7 PM) since ramp meters would be turned on only in the peak direction. For the improvements along NY-59, 46 intersections were evaluated for the weekday AM peak hour (7:30 AM – 8:30 AM) and the weekday PM peak hour (5 PM – 6 PM). Years 2018 (estimated time of completion or ETC), 2028 (ETC+10), and 2038 (ETC+20) were evaluated for the CO and PM analyses screenings. 4.4.15.1 Regulatory Framework Air quality is regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) under the mandate provided by the Clean Air Act (CAA) and its amendments, aimed to achieve and maintain pollutant levels lower than the concentrations defined by the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) under the 4-28

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

CAA and revised periodically by USEPA. It is each State’s responsibility to formulate and undertake plans to achieve the NAAQS if USEPA has determined that the NAAQS are exceeded within any given state. The CO and PM analyses screenings for this project were conducted using the guidance provided in the NYSDOT TM. 4.4.15.2 Transportation Conformity NYSDOT has coordinated with the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council (NYMTC), and the project is listed in the 2017-2021 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) As a non-exempt project. 4.4.15.3 Carbon Monoxide (CO) Microscale Analysis For transit and safety improvements along State NY-59, traffic volumes in the future No Build and Build conditions are expected to be the same. Some re-assignment of lane use would occur to provide queue jumps for buses; however, these would not result in changes in the number of travel lanes or widening of the roadways. The installation of ramp meters would result in additional queuing overall, and a predicted increase of more than 10 percent in traffic volume in the years 2018 and 2028 at some locations. However, since there would be one or more additional queued lanes at each metered ramp, the Volume Threshold Screening was applied to all ramps regardless of volume increment. In addition, since No Build volumes and LOS were not available for 2038, the Volume Threshold screening was also conducted for the year 2038. The ramp with the highest peak-hour volume in the year 2018 would be the eastbound Interstate 87/287 14A entrance ramp at 1,327 vehicles. The highest peak-hour volume for years 2028 and 2038 would be at the westbound Interstate 87/287 13N entrance ramp, projected at 1,408 and 1,558 vehicles, respectively. The peak-hour volumes would all be below the Volume Threshold criteria of 4,000 vehicles per hour. Applying the emission factors obtained from the USEPA MOVES 2014a model for the corresponding segment to the volume threshold, conservatively accounting for the new signals at signalized intersections, volume thresholds would not be exceeded at any of the evaluated locations in years 2018, 2028 and 2038. Therefore, a CO microscale air quality analysis is not necessary since this project would not increase traffic volumes, reduce source-receptor distances, or change other existing conditions to such a degree as to jeopardize continued attainment of the NAAQS. 4.4.15.4 Mesoscale Analysis A mesoscale analysis is not required for this project since it does not substantially affect air quality conditions over a large area and is not a regionally significant project, as defined in 6 NYCRR Part 240 and 40 CFR 93.101. 4.4.15.5 Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs) Analysis The amount of MSATs emitted would be proportional to the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) if other variables, such as fleet mix, remains. The VMT and changes in fleet mix estimated for the project are small, and there would be no increase in capacity for the roadways affected by the project. Since the estimated peak hour VMT is not expected to substantially increase, it is expected there would be no appreciable difference in overall MSAT emissions from the project. In addition, emissions will likely be lower than present levels in the design year as a result of USEPA's national control programs that are projected to reduce annual MSAT emissions by over 80 percent between 2010 and 2050. Local conditions may differ from these national projections in terms of fleet mix and turnover, VMT growth rates, and local control measures. However, the magnitude of the USEPA-projected reductions is so great (even after accounting for VMT growth) that MSAT emissions in the project area are likely to be lower in the future in nearly all cases. An MSAT analysis is not warranted for this project. 4.4.15.6 Particulate Matter (PM) Analysis NYSDOT guidance states that PM microscale/hot-spot screening and analysis should be based on the USEPA guidance Transportation Conformity Guidance to Quantitative Hot-spot Analyses in PM2.5 and 4-29

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

PM10 Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas. The USEPA guidance lists the types of projects that could be of concern for PM. These projects include those that have a substantial number or would substantially increase the number of diesel vehicles. The current vehicle mix in the project area is 95 percent cars, 4.5 percent trucks, and 0.5 percent buses. The change in vehicle mix as a result of the project would be negligible and the percentage of diesel vehicles traveling to the area would not increase as a result of the project. A microscale analysis for PM is not warranted. 4.4.16 Greenhouse Gas Analysis The project would encourage the use of transit and reduce private vehicle use, resulting in reduced fuel consumption and ensuing greenhouse-gas emissions both directly (reduced trips) and indirectly (reduced congestion). Therefore, the project would have a beneficial impact on greenhouse gas emissions. The proposed project is not expected to:  Increase or decrease VMT;  Generate additional vehicle trips;  Substantially affect land use development patterns;  Result in a shift in travel patterns; or  Substantially increase or decrease vehicle operating speeds. Therefore, the project would not adversely impact energy consumption. 4.4.17 Noise The Interstate 87/287 ramp meters would result in new queued lanes for the locations where ramp metering would be in place, but there would be no changes to the alignment. There would be some re- assignment of lane use to provide for queue jumps for buses, but these lane re-assignments would not result in changes in the number of through-traffic lanes or widening of the roadways. None of the project elements would result in halving the distance between the traffic noise source and the closest receptor within the project corridor, which is a residential area about 125 feet away in the vicinity of the ramp from Route 100A to westbound Interstate 87/287 near Exit 4 of Interstate 87/287. The project would also not change the existing shielding provided by adjacent noise walls, and thereby would not change the line-of sight between a noise sensitive receptor and the traffic noise source. None of the project elements would meet the criteria of a Type I noise project, as specified in the NYSDOT Noise Policy and FHWA noise regulations (23 CFR §772). The project elements would not substantially alter the horizontal or vertical alignment of a highway (as defined in NYSDOT Noise Policy and 23 CFR §772) nor would it add a through-traffic lane. Therefore, no noise analysis or consideration of noise abatement measures is required. 4.4.18 Asbestos As a result of an asbestos screening performed for this project, it was determined that there are areas of potential asbestos-containing material within the project area associated with the demolition of existing structures and the existing utility lines that may be disturbed, removed, and/or replaced. An Asbestos Assessment would be performed prior to any demolition or disturbance, which would involve review of the as-built of the utilities and culverts. Any positive asbestos-containing materials to be impacted by project construction would require incorporation of abatement design specifications into project design documentation and use of licensed and certified asbestos abatement contractors during construction. 4.4.19 Hazardous Waste and Contaminated Materials A Hazardous Waste/Contaminated Materials (HWCM) Site Screening was completed in April 2016 in accordance with the NYSDOT TM to document the likely presence or absence of HWCM environmental conditions. A HWCM environmental condition is the presence or likely presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products (including products currently in compliance with applicable regulations) on a property under conditions that indicate an existing release, a past release, or a material threat of a release into structures on the property or into the ground, groundwater, or surface water of the property.

4-30

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

The study area for this section is defined as the project area. The project area was assessed for HWCM conditions relative to the project’s scope of work. The potential for a property to be contaminated with hazardous or toxic materials was determined by identifying current and past uses within or in close proximity to the project area (e.g., dry cleaners, automotive repair shops, landfills, print shops, machine shops, chemical or petroleum uses). Each property within the project area was assessed based on the criteria outlined in the NYSDOT TM. The HWCM Site Screening included a review of NYSDEC regulatory databases and a site inspection on March 10, 2016. The site inspection noted properties of potential environmental concern within or adjoining the project area, including gasoline filling stations, automotive repair facilities, a funeral home, and railroad tracks. Overall, HWCM conditions included gasoline filling stations, automotive repair facilities, petroleum storage tanks, generators of hazardous waste, dry cleaners, and chemical and petroleum spills. A table summarizing the potential sites of concern is included as Appendix B-3. Additionally, historical fill material of unknown origin may be present throughout the project area. Based on the results of the HWCM Site Screening, there is a potential that contaminated soil and/or groundwater may be encountered in the subsurface during construction. As such, a subsurface (Phase II) investigation of areas with substantial subsurface disturbance would be performed prior to construction to assess soil and groundwater conditions. Any identified (by the testing) or unexpectedly encountered contaminated materials would be segregated into appropriate waste streams and disposed of off-site in accordance with applicable regulations. A contingency plan for the removal and mitigation of buried petroleum tanks would be developed, as necessary. 4.5 Construction Effects Construction of the project is scheduled to last 18 months and is expected to begin in October of 2017. Construction would occur within the project area with staging occurring within existing right-of-way or through temporary easements obtained by NYSDOT. Temporary lane closures and/or pedestrian accommodations, required to construct the permanent work in a safe manner, would be implemented in accordance with procedures established by the authority having jurisdiction at that location. Construction activities have the potential to result in temporary effects related to air quality and noise, due to equipment and ground disturbance. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) with the appropriate sediment and erosion control measures would be developed. Depending on the total amount of disturbance and changes in total impervious area, permanent stormwater management practices may be required. NYSDOT would follow the provisions of its construction specifications related to construction equipment and construction activities, which include specifications relevant to air quality and noise. Equipment would generally move along the corridor as construction progresses, and emission sources would not be located continuously at any single location for the entire sixteen-month construction period. Generally, the project area is located at some distance away from sensitive receptors. A Work Zone Traffic Control (WZTC) Plan would be developed prior to construction to minimize disruption of traffic. The plans would include details on how automobiles and pedestrians would be accommodated during construction. It would also address how access and parking operations would be provided or maintained. Traffic in each direction would be maintained during construction. Transit services, including bus routes that operate along the project corridor, would be maintained throughout construction. With the measures in place that were described in Section 4.4.19 above, there would be no adverse effects related to hazardous and contaminated materials. With the above measures in place, construction of the project would not result in any significant adverse effects. 4.6 Indirect and Secondary Effects Potential indirect or secondary effects are generally defined as those induced or “caused by an action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable” (40 CFR §§ 1500- 1508). The project would enhance local connectivity by enhancing bus stops and implementing measures to improve bus travel times. The enhanced connectivity created by the project would improve access 4-31

March 2017 Final Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 8823.48

between Rockland and Westchester Counties. However, though the project would encourage the use of transit, it is not expected to substantially change ridership. No indirect or secondary effects are anticipated. 4.7 Cumulative Effects Potential cumulative effects may result from the incremental consequences of an action when added to other past and reasonably foreseeable future actions (40 C.F.R. § 1508.7). The direct effects of an individual action may be negligible, but may contribute to a measurable environmental impact when considered cumulatively with indirect effects and with other past and/or reasonably foreseeable future projects. The project is independent of other transportation projects or activities in the area. This project has independent utility; serves the discrete purpose of providing an enhanced bus transit system between the Village of Suffern and City of White Plains, with pedestrian safety improvements, advanced bus transit access to the White Plains Metro-North Station, and Integrated Corridor Management between Sloatsburg and Port Chester; connects logical termini; and would not restrict the consideration of alternatives for other reasonably foreseeable improvements. While this project is completely independent, it is recognized that other projects within the vicinity are being pursued at this time to achieve other purposes, including the New New York Bridge (NNYB), which is the new dual-structure bridge to replace the Tappan Zee Bridge that includes a shared pedestrian and bicycle path (shared-use path), and the bus equipment and operations procurement project. The NNYB underwent environmental review as part of the Tappan Zee Hudson River Crossing Project (TZHRCP) and is in construction. The request for proposal (RFP) for the Lower Hudson Transit Link (LHTL) bus equipment and operations procurement has not been released. It is anticipated to be released by NYSDOT under a new contract. The NNYB and bus equipment and operations procurement projects are not connected to, nor are they dependent on, the LHTL Project. They do not satisfy the purpose and need of the LHTL Project or the realization of its stated objectives. They can proceed prior to, concurrently with, or subsequent to the completion of the LHTL Project. Conversely, the LHTL Project does not influence, restrict, or dictate the consideration of any of the other projects in the vicinity. While the construction of the NNYB would be under concurrent schedule as this project, the NNYB project or the bus procurement project would not result in cumulative effects which would result in significant adverse environmental impacts. Therefore, there is no potential for localized cumulative impacts from the LHTL Project and other foreseeable undertakings on the built and natural environment.

4-32