DOCSLIB.ORG

STUDY AREA Preferred Freeway Alternative

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
STUDY AREA Preferred Freeway Alternative Genesee Rd. Concord 240 Sardinia 219 Springville 39 Erie County 39 Village of N.Y. 39 Springville Toronto Lake Ontario (New Ramps) Cattaraugus County Creek Rochester Yorkshire ORLEANS Cattaraugus NIAGARA Connoisarauley 77 Buttermilk QEW 405 32 WAYNE 12 Cr. 90 Peters Rd. 55 GENESEE 85 Creek Ashford 20 86-2 63 ONTARIO Buffalo 20A SENE 12 86-1 85 ERIE WYOMING Machias LIVINGSTON YATES Lake Erie 12 East Otto 20 Springville Hamlet of Snake Run Rd. 390 Ashford 53 16 Hollow CATTARAUGUS 86 SCHUYLE ALLEGANY 219 ALLEGANY S. Br. Catt. Cr. 90 62 CHAUTAUQUA STEUBEN CHE 242 86 86 240 75 Salamanca 14 75 15 6 B&PRR 17 B&PRR 13 Mansfield Cr. 219 62 6 Lindberg Ellicottville Rd. STUDY AREA Great Valley Cr. Mansfield 13 N.Y. 242 Franklinville Ellicottville 242 15 Village of Ellicottville 242 98 Forks Cr. 71 Little Valley 38 Hamlet of Great Valley Humphrey Preferred Freeway Alternative - NY&LE RR 18 B&PRR 18 Wrights Cr. 67 Partial Build Assessment 219 C.R. 18 353 Great Valley Salamanca 94 Salamanca of Salamanca City Alleg Railyard Ext. heny Salamanca Seneca River UNITED STATES 417 Exit 86 Nation Allegany DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 20 Exit 21 B&PRR FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION Allegany State Park N S (1) NEW YORK STATE Red House Carrollton DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION George E. Pataki, Governor Joseph H. Boardman, Commissioner STUDY AREA PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment (Vacant) December, 2004 PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment Table of Contents CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION...................................... 1-1 1.A. PURPOSE ................................................................................ 1-2 1.B. NYSDOT INTENTIONS ............................................................ 1-3 CHAPTER 2 - PROJECT CONDITIONS, NEEDS AND OBJECTIVES .............................................................. 2-1 2.C.1. CONDITIONS.......................................................................... 2-1 2.C.2. NEEDS .................................................................................. 2-1 2.D. PROJECT OBJECTIVES ......................................................... 2-2 CHAPTER 3 - PREFERRED FREEWAY ALTERNATIVE ............................................................ 3-1 3.A. DESIGN CRITERIA .................................................................. 3-1 3.B. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ............................................. 3-1 3.C. THE PREFERRED FREEWAY ALTERNATIVE ....................... 3-1 3.C.1.c. Preferred Freeway Alternative - Partial Build ........................................ 3-1 Figure 3-1 - Preferred Freeway Alternative to Snake Run Road ....... 3-3 PB-2 - Snake Run Road Interchange (Patial Build) .......................... 3-5 3.C.2. Engineering Considerations of Constructing Part of the Preferred Freeway Alternative ................................................................................................... 3-7 3.C.2.a. Geometrics.......................................................................................... 3-7 3.C.2.b. Traffic Forecasts, Level of Service and Safety Considerations ............. 3-7 3.C.2.b.(1) Design Year Traffic Volume Projections and Level of Service .... 3-11 3.C.2.b (1.1) Projected 2025 Traffic Volumes ............................................. 3-11 Table 3-4 - Segment Traffic Volume Comparison ............................ 3-12 Figure 3-2 - Projected 2025 Freeway Partial Build Alternative to Snake Run Road Traffic Volumes - AADT's........................................... 3-13 Figure 3-3 - Projected 2025 Preferred Freeway Partial Build Alternative to Snake Run Road - Turning Movements Volumes ................. 3-15 3.C.2.b (1.2) Projected 2025 Level of Service ........................................... 3-17 Table 3-5 - Segment Level of Service Comparison ......................... 3-18 Table 3-6 - Intersection Level of Service Comparison .................... 3-19 3.C.2.b (2) Queiung Analysis..................................................................... 3-21 3.C.2.b (3) Safety and Traffic Control Considerations ................................ 3-27 Table 3-7 Projected 2025 Accident Rates ......................................... 3-28 3.C.2.b. (4) Transportation User Benefits ................................................... 3-29 Table E.5-1 Components of 2025 AADT by Segment ...................... 3-30 December, 2004 Page i PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment Table E.5-2 - Travel Time Savings - Local Trip Diversions .............. 3-32 Table E.5-3 - Travel Time Savings - Long Distance Trip Diversions 3-34 3.C.2.c Pavement ........................................................................................... 3-35 Table E.5-4 - Travel Time Savings - Local Trip Diversions .............. 3-35 Table E.5-5 - Annual 2025 Transportation User Benefits ................. 3-35 3.C.2.d. Structures ......................................................................................... 3-36 3.C.2.e. Hydraulics ......................................................................................... 3-36 3.C.2.f. Drainage ............................................................................................. 3-37 3.C.2.g. Maintenance Responsibility ............................................................... 3-37 3.C.2.h. Maintenance and Protection of Traffic ................................................ 3-38 3.C.2.i. Soils and Foundations ........................................................................ 3-38 3.C.2.j. Utilities ............................................................................................... 3-38 Table 3-8 - Maintenance Cost Estimates .......................................... 3-38 3.C.2.k. Railroads ........................................................................................... 3-39 3.C.2.l. Right-of-Way ....................................................................................... 3-39 Table 3-9 - Right of Way to Be Aquired ............................................ 3-39 3.C.2.m. Landscape Development .................................................................. 3-40 3.C.2.n. Provisions for Pedestrians, Including Persons with Disabilities .......... 3-40 3.C.2.o. Provisions for Bicycling ..................................................................... 3-40 3.C.2.p. Lighting ............................................................................................. 3-40 3.C.2.q. Park-and-Ride Lots ............................................................................ 3-40 3.D. PROJECT COSTS AND SCHEDULE ................................... 3-41 3.D.1. Costs .................................................................................................... 3-41 3.D.2. Schedule .............................................................................................. 3-41 3.D.3. Construction Phasing............................................................................ 3-41 CHAPTER 4 - SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS ................... 4-1 4.B. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES...................................................................... 4-1 4.B.1. Social Consequences ............................................................................. 4-1 4.B.1.a. Community Cohesion .......................................................................... 4-1 4.B.1.b. Changes in Travel Patterns or Accessibility .......................................... 4-1 4.B.1.c. Impacts on School Districts, Recreation Areas, Churches or Businesses ................................................................................................. 4-2 4.B.1.c (1) School Districts ........................................................................ 4-2 4.B.1.c (2) Recreation Areas ...................................................................... 4-2 4.B.1.c (3) Churches .................................................................................. 4-2 4.B.1.c (4) Businesses ............................................................................... 4-2 4.B.1.d. Impacts on Police, Fire Protection, and Ambulance Access ................ 4-2 4.B.1.e. Impacts on Highway Safety, Traffic Safety, and Overall Public Safety ......................................................................................................... 4-3 4.B.1.f. General Social Groups Benefited or Harmed ........................................ 4-3 4.B.1.g. Environmental Justice ......................................................................... 4-3 4.B.2. Economic Consequences ........................................................................ 4-4 4.B.2.a. Impacts on Regional and Local Economies .......................................... 4-4 Table 4-10 - Employment Impacts of Construction ........................... 4-5 4.B.2.b. Impacts on Highway Related Businesses ............................................. 4-5 Page ii December, 2004 PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment 4.B.2.c. Impacts on Established Business Districts ......................................... 4-6 4.B.2.d. Relocation Impacts.............................................................................. 4-6 4.B.2.e. Impacts on Local Tax Base ................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Ultimate RV Dump Station Guide
    Ultimate RV Dump Station Guide A Complete Compendium Of RV Dump Stations Across The USA Publiished By: Covenant Publishing LLC 1201 N Orange St. Suite 7003 Wilmington, DE 19801 Copyrighted Material Copyright 2010 Covenant Publishing. All rights reserved worldwide. Ultimate RV Dump Station Guide Page 2 Contents New Mexico ............................................................... 87 New York .................................................................... 89 Introduction ................................................................. 3 North Carolina ........................................................... 91 Alabama ........................................................................ 5 North Dakota ............................................................. 93 Alaska ............................................................................ 8 Ohio ............................................................................ 95 Arizona ......................................................................... 9 Oklahoma ................................................................... 98 Arkansas ..................................................................... 13 Oregon ...................................................................... 100 California .................................................................... 15 Pennsylvania ............................................................ 104 Colorado ..................................................................... 23 Rhode Island ...........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Functional Classification Update Report for the Pocatello/Chubbuck Urbanized Area
    Functional Classification Update Report For the Pocatello/Chubbuck Urbanized Area Functional Classification Update Report Introduction The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973 required the use of functional highway classification to update and modify the Federal-aid highway systems by July 1, 1976. This legislative requirement is still effective today. Functional classification is the process by which streets and highways are grouped into classes, or systems, according to the character of service they are intended to provide. The functional classification system recognizes that streets cannot be treated as independent, but rather they are intertwined and should be considered as a whole. Each street has a specific purpose or function. This function can be characterized by the level of access to surrounding properties and the length of the trip on that specific roadway. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) functional classification system for urban areas is divided into urban principal arterials, minor arterial streets, collector streets, and local streets. Principal arterials include interstates, expressways, and principal arterials. Eligibility for Federal Highway Administration funding and to provide design standards and access criteria are two important reasons to classify roadway. The region is served by Interstate 15 (north/South) and Interstate 86 (east/west). While classified within the arterial class, they are designated federally and do not change locally. Interstates will be shown in the functional classification map, but they will not be specifically addressed in this report. Functional Classification Update The Idaho Transportation Department has the primary responsibility for developing and updating a statewide highway functional classification in rural and urban areas to determine the functional usage of the existing roads and streets.
    [Show full text]
  • ITD Board Sets Wish List for Potential Stimulus
    ITD board sets wish list for potential stimulus The priorities include six road projects that wouldn't otherwise be done. None are in the Valley. Idaho Statesman, January 8, 2009 By: Cynthia Sewell Idaho transportation leaders want to spend $94 million on six otherwise unfunded road projects if President-elect Barack Obama and the new Congress pass a stimulus package dedicated to infrastructure. The windfall could create between 2,000 and 4,000 Idaho jobs, officials said. None of the six roads are in the Treasure Valley, but the region's section of Interstate 84 has been getting - and is expecting to keep getting - most of the borrowed federal dollars from the Connecting Idaho project. The stimulus projects officials have identified would upgrade treacherous Idaho 95 in North Idaho and jump-start road projects in Pocatello, Twin Falls and East Idaho. The Idaho Transportation Department board picked these projects during a special meeting Wednesday, and officials say they could be under construction by June. Several versions of possible stimulus bills are circulating in Washington, and details are still sketchy. ITD expects Idaho could receive about $100 million for roads. Agency staff had identified $817 million in projects that could be ready for construction within 180 days. The six board members disagreed on two points on how best to spend the $100 million: Whether to put the money toward new projects or use it to repair the state's existing roads. Whether to divide the money equally around the state or give it to the areas with the most need. Jim Coleman, who represents North Idaho, argued that the state should use one-time money to finance key projects it is unlikely to be able to afford under current revenue sources.
    [Show full text]
  • Section 4: County Profile
    SECTION 4: COUNTY PROFILE SECTION 4: COUNTY PROFILE Broome County profile information is presented in the plan and analyzed to develop an understanding of a study area, including the economic, structural, and population assets at risk and the particular concerns that may be present related to hazards analyzed later in this plan (e.g., low lying areas prone to flooding or a high percentage of vulnerable persons in an area). This profile provides general information for Broome County (physical setting, population and demographics, general building stock, and land use and population trends) and critical facilities located within the County. GENERAL INFORMATION Broome County is a rural community located within the south-central part or “Southern Tier” of New York State. The Southern Tier is a geographical term that refers to the counties of New York State that lie west of the Catskill Mountains, along the northern border of Pennsylvania. Broome County lies directly west of Delaware County, 137 miles southwest of Albany and approximately 177 miles northwest of New York City. Broome County occupies approximately 715 square miles and has a population of approximately 199,031 (U.S. Census, 2011). Broome County is one of the 62 counties in New York State and is comprised of one city, sixteen towns, seven villages and many hamlets. The City of Binghamton is the County seat and is located at the confluence of the Susquehanna and Chenango Rivers. The City of Binghamton is part of the “Triple Cities,” which also includes the Villages of Endicott and Johnson City. With two Interstates and a major state route intersecting in the City of Binghamton, the area is the crossroads of the Southern Tier.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 233/Monday, December 4, 2000
    Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 233 / Monday, December 4, 2000 / Notices 75771 2 departures. No more than one slot DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION In notice document 00±29918 exemption time may be selected in any appearing in the issue of Wednesday, hour. In this round each carrier may Federal Aviation Administration November 22, 2000, under select one slot exemption time in each SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, in the first RTCA Future Flight Data Collection hour without regard to whether a slot is column, in the fifteenth line, the date Committee available in that hour. the FAA will approve or disapprove the application, in whole or part, no later d. In the second and third rounds, Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the than should read ``March 15, 2001''. only carriers providing service to small Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. hub and nonhub airports may L. 92±463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: participate. Each carrier may select up is hereby given for the Future Flight Patrick Vaught, Program Manager, FAA/ to 2 slot exemption times, one arrival Data Collection Committee meeting to Airports District Office, 100 West Cross and one departure in each round. No be held January 11, 2000, starting at 9 Street, Suite B, Jackson, MS 39208± carrier may select more than 4 a.m. This meeting will be held at RTCA, 2307, 601±664±9885. exemption slot times in rounds 2 and 3. 1140 Connecticut Avenue, NW., Suite Issued in Jackson, Mississippi on 1020, Washington, DC, 20036. November 24, 2000. e. Beginning with the fourth round, The agenda will include: (1) Welcome all eligible carriers may participate.
    [Show full text]
  • Offering Memorandum Representative Photo
    4101 Yellowstone AvenueCAPIT |AL Chubbuck, MARKETS NET Idaho LEASE PROPERTY 83202 GROUP OFFERING MEMORANDUM REPRESENTATIVE PHOTO TABLE OF CONTENTS Primary Contact DON ZEBE Executive Summary.....................................3 Senior Vice President +1 208 403 1973 [email protected] Property Description....................................8 CBC Advisors 2043 East Center Street Market Overview.......................................10 Pocatello, ID 83201 THE OFFERING CBC Advisors is pleased to extend the opportunity Founded in 1972, Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. is the largest privately-owned arts-and- to acquire fee simple interest in a 55,000-square crafts retailer with more than 800 stores across the nation. Hobby Lobby offers more foot Hobby Lobby. The lease has a below market than 70,000 arts, crafts, hobbies, home decor, Holiday, and seasonal products. The rent, three 5-year renewal options, and strong company has had strong growth with 63 new stores, which includes 12 relocated rental increases throughout. The asset is located stores during 2017. Hobby Lobby plans to continue its expansion by adding 60 new in Chubbuck, Idaho (Bannock County), which locations and hiring 2,500 new employees in 2018. The Hobby Lobby is included in is in the southeastern portion of Idaho, at the Forbes’ annual list of America’s largest private companies and had December 2016 convergence of Interstate 15 and 86. sales exceeding $4.3 billion. Hobby Lobby is ideally situated as an anchor on the south end of Pine Ridge Mall. Pine Ridge Mall is a 646,000-square foot enclosed mall also anchored by C-A-L Ranch, JCPenney, Herberger’s, and Shopko. Since acquisition in 2013, ownership has invested approximately $28 million in improvements and additions to the mall.
    [Show full text]
  • Snake River Plain Aquifer Wells Project, Falls Irrigation District
    Finding of No Significant Impact Snake River Plain Aquifer Wells Project Falls Irrigation District, Minidoka Project, Idaho U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Pacific Northwest Region Snake River Area Office PN FONSI 18-4 Introduction The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) has prepared this Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) to comply with Council of Environmental Quality regulations for implementing procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This document briefly describes the proposed action, other alternatives considered, the scoping process, Reclamation’s consultation and coordination activities, mitigation and Reclamation’s finding. The Final Environmental Assessment (EA) fully documents the analyses of the potential environmental impacts of implementing the changes proposed. Location and Background The project area is located in southeast Idaho near of the City of American Falls in Power County (see EA Figure 1-1), along the southeastern edge of the Eastern Snake Plain Aquifer (ESPA). American Falls is nestled between the edge of the American Falls Reservoir (AMF) and U.S. Interstate 86, approximately 22 miles southwest of Pocatello, Idaho. Falls Irrigation District (FID) operates and maintains Reclamation’s American Falls Division of the Minidoka Project. FID is a contracted space holder at AMF and Palisades Reservoir, which allows it to meet irrigation demand in FID’s 12,620-acre service area. The United States holds natural-flow surface water rights as well as ground water rights for the benefit of FID. AMF has experienced low late-season water levels due to drought, downstream deliveries of water to enhance fisheries, decline in reach gains entering AMF due to groundwater pumping, and increased late season demand by users drawing from AMF.
    [Show full text]
  • I‐80 Tolling Impact Study
    I‐80 Tolling Impact Study Tracy C. Miller, Associate Professor of Economics, Grove City College 10/2/2009 1 INTRODUCTION0B The proposal to implement tolls on Interstate 80 was borne out of legislation commonly known as Act 44. Residents of the Interstate 80 corridor and of the Northern Tier have testified during numerous public events that the plan will impose high costs on businesses and households located within the Interstate 80 corridor. Economic logic implies that it will have a negative impact on some residents of other parts of the state as well. Proponents argue in favor of tolls on 80 because they claim that most of the costs will be borne by drivers of vehicles from other states. This report begins with an economic model of the impact of tolls on businesses and consumers. It identifies some of the major Pennsylvania industries that are likely to be affected by tolls and highlights the costs to people who work in those industries, workers who commute along 80, and consumers. Using information on industry location and goods shipments, it compares the effect of tolling 80 on different regions of the state. It also explores some of the indirect impacts of tolls. These include costs to state and local governments resulting from possible business closings, unemployment, and declining property values as well as the impact on highway safety of more cars and trucks traveling on secondary roads to avoid tolls on 80. This report also discusses the income distributional effects of tolls by comparing income and unemployment rates of the counties that will bear most of the costs of tolls with income and unemployment in the rest of the state and the Pittsburgh and Philadelphia metropolitan areas.
    [Show full text]
  • RIVDA-CEDS-2017-2018-Final.Pdf
    2014 -2019 Region IV Development Association Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy Proudly serving South-central Idaho: Blaine, Camas, Cassia, Gooding, Jerome, Lincoln, Minidoka, and Twin Falls Counties Table of Contents Chapter 1 Building the Pathways ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1-1 Chapter 2 The Region’s Pathways ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2-1 • Dynamic Economies, Empowered People, Vital Communities • Objectives and Strategies ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2-2 o Education --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2-2 o Healthy Communities ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2-2 o Transportation --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2-3 o Entrepreneurship/Economic Empowerment------------------------------------------------------- 2-3 • Progress on specific Pathways ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 2-4 Chapter 3 Technical Report – where are we today? ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 3-1 • Background --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3-1 o Economy ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3-2 o Industrial Clusters ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    [Show full text]
  • Connecting Rural and Urban America PART3OF a SERIES
    August 2010 Transportation Reboot: Restarting America’s Most Essential Operating System The Case for Capacity: To Unlock Gridlock, Generate Jobs, Deliver Freight, and Connect Communities Connecting Rural and Urban America http://ExpandingCapacity.transportation.org PART3OF A SERIES AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS Acknowledgements Much of the material cited in this report, including the estimates of capacity increases required, is drawn from research published in May 2007 by the Transportation Research Board’s National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP). The report, Future Options for the Interstate and Defense Highway System, can be accessed at http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/trbnet/ acl/NCHRP_20-24_52Task10_NCHRPFinal.pdf. The objective of the research project was to develop a potential vision for the future of the U.S. Interstate Highway System. The report was prepared by a study team led by David Gehr and Steve Lockwood of PB Consult, Gary Maring of Cambridge Systematics, Inc., Kevin E. Heanue, and Alan E. Pisarski. The research was sponsored by AASHTO and the Federal Highway Administration, and was guided by a panel chaired by Harold E. Linnenkohl, Georgia DOT (retired); and included Allen D. Biehler, P.E., Secretary, Pennsylvania DOT; John F. Conrad, P.E., Washington State DOT; Dr. David J. Forkenbrock, University of Iowa; Dr. Clay McShane, Northeastern University; Debra L. Miller, Secretary, Kansas DOT; Thomas E. Norton, Colorado DOT (formerly); Kenneth Orski, Urban Mobility Corporation; Dr. Bruce E. Seely, Michigan Technological University; MG David A. Sprynczynatyk, North Dakota Army National Guard; and LTG Kenneth R. Wykle, National Defense Transportation Association. The analysis period considered in the Future Options report was the 30 years from 2005 to 2035.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 110/Tuesday, June 9, 1998/Notices
    Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 110 / Tuesday, June 9, 1998 / Notices 31549 Information on Services for Individuals designations that: (1) specify highway on the Internet at: With Disabilities routes over which hazardous materials http://www.fhwa.dot.gov. For information on facilities or (HM) may, or may not, be transported Section 5112(c) of title 49, United services for individuals with disabilities within their jurisdictions; and/or (2) States Code, requires the Secretary of or to request special assistance at the impose limitations or requirements with Transportation, in coordination with the meeting, contact Mr. Payne as soon as respect to highway routing of HM. States, to update and publish possible. States and Indian Tribes are also periodically a list of current effective required to furnish updated HM route hazardous materials highway routing Dated: June 4, 1998. information to the FHWA. designations. In addition, 49 CFR Joseph J. Angelo, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 397.73(b) requires each State or Indian Director of Standards, Marine Safety and Tribe to furnish information on any new Mr. Kenneth Rodgers, Safety and Environmental Protection. or changed HM routing designations to Hazardous Materials Division (HSA±10), [FR Doc. 98±15425 Filed 6±8±98; 8:45 am] the FHWA within 60 days after Office of Motor Carrier Safety, (202) BILLING CODE 4910±15±M establishment. The FHWA maintains a 366±4016; or Mr. Raymond W. Cuprill, listing of all current State routing Office of the Chief Counsel, Motor designations and restrictions. In Carrier Law Division (HCC±20), (202) DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION addition, the FHWA has designated a 366±0834, Federal Highway point of contact in each FHWA Division Administration, 400 Seventh Street, Federal Highway Administration Office to provide local coordination SW., Washington, DC, 20590±0001.
    [Show full text]
  • G2. US Route 6 to NY Route 211
    G2. US Route 6 to NY Route 211 Feature: Southern Shawangunk Ridge Distance: 9.10 miles USGS Map Quads: Otisville Trail Conference Maps: none General Description This section is a mixed bag of ridgetop hiking, abandoned rail beds, an active rail line, and woods roads. This section begins with the trail passing through the Hathorn Lake (Hawthorne Lake on some maps) development to a dead end, where it heads north along the ridge. After a short distance it then de- scends to the active Conrail Port Jervis line, which it follows north for a half a mile. There is one good view across Shin Hollow in this section. Where Shin Hollow Road crosses the Port Jervis line, the trail leaves the rail bed and fol- lows an abandoned section of Shin Hollow Road, which is a nice woods walk- ing section. After about a half a mile, the trail leaves Shin Hollow Road and begins a gradual descent to Guymard Turnpike, paralleling the Conrail Port Jervis line in the woods. After crossing Guymard Turnpike at a bridge over the railroad, the trail descends to the abandoned Erie Port Jervis line. It continues north on the rail bed, which it follows to NY Route 211, where this section ends. (Note: The map in this book still shows the old route.) Access Take the New York State Thruway to Exit 16 (Harriman). Take NY Route 17/future Interstate 86 west to Interstate 84 in Middletown. Take Interstate 84 west to exit 2, Mountain Road. Turn left on Mountain Road and continue a short distance to US Route 6.
    [Show full text]