DRAFT DESIGN REPORT / ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CHAPTER 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Highway Project P.I.N. 4390.13 NYS Route 390/I-490/NYS Route 31 Interchange Improvements Monroe County Town of Gates, Town of Greece and City of Rochester [City/Village] of______
U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ANDREW M. CUOMO, Governor JOAN MCDONALD, Commissioner DRAFT DESIGN REPORT / ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (Appendices Bound Separately)
March 2015
Highway Project P.I.N. 4390.13 NYS Route 390/I-490/NYS Route 31 Interchange Improvements Monroe County Town of Gates, Town of Greece and City of Rochester [City/Village] of______
U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ANDREW M. CUOMO, Governor JOAN MCDONALD, Commissioner
NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
PROJECT APPROVAL SHEET (Pursuant to SAFETEA-LU Matrix) A. MIS Approval: The project is ready to be added to the Regional Capital Program and project scoping can begin. The MIS was approved by: 9/9/98 Karl H. Horn Secretary, Genesee Transportation Council
B. EPP Approval: The project is recommended for advancement to the preliminary design phase. The EPP was approved by:
Regional Director
C. Scope Approval: The project cost and schedule are consistent with the Regional Capital Program. The scope was approved by:
Regional Director
D. Public Hearing A public hearing was held on August 28, 2013 in accordance with 23 USC 128. Certification (23 USC 128):
Design Squad Leader or Project Manager
E. Recommendation for The project cost and schedule are consistent with the Regional Capital Program. Design Approval:
Regional Program Manager
F. 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 or Regional Maintenance Engineer
G. Nonstandard Feature The nonstandard features have been adequately justified and it is not prudent to Approval: eliminate them as part of this project.
Regional Director, FHWA OR Deputy Chief Engineer
H. Design Approval: The required environmental determinations have been made and the preferred alternative for this project is ready for final design.
Regional Director, FHWA OR Deputy Chief Engineer NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
LIST OF PREPARERS
Group Director Responsible for Production of the Design Approval Document:
Frank H. Billittier, P.E., Regional Design Engineer, NYSDOT Region 4 PLACE P.E. STAMP
Mark J. McAnany, P.E., Project Manager, Bergmann Associates PLACE P.E. STAMP
Description of Work Performed by Firm: Directed the preparation of the Design Approval Document in accordance with established standards, policies, regulations and procedures, except as otherwise explained in this document.
This report was prepared by the following consultant staff:
Dominic Fekete, P.E., Assistant Project Manager, Bergmann Associates PLACE P.E. STAMP
Description of Work Performed: Prepared and directly supervised preparation of the Final Design Report Chapters 1 through 3, including preparation of the non-standard feature justification forms, in accordance with established standards, policies, regulations and procedures, except as otherwise explained in this document.
James F. Boggs, Environmental Discipline Specialist, Bergmann Associates
Description of Work Performed: Prepared and directly supervised preparation of the Final Design Report Chapter 4 in accordance with established standards, policies, regulations and procedures, except as otherwise explained in this document. NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
This report was prepared by the following NYSDOT and consultant staff (Requires P.E. or L.A. Stamp):
Frank L. Dolan, Transportation Systems Specialist, Bergmann Associates PLACE P.E. STAMP
Description of Work Performed: Directed the preparation of the traffic analysis and Synchro traffic model for the Design Approval Document in accordance with established standards, policies, regulations and procedures, except as otherwise explained in this document.
Christina L. Doughney, P.E., PTOE, Traffic Engineer, CHA PLACE P.E. STAMP
Description of Work Performed: Prepared the VisSim traffic model and analysis for the Design Approval Document in accordance with established standards, policies, regulations and procedures, except as otherwise explained in this document.
Vernon Myers, P.E., Senior Managing Engineer, Shumaker Engineering PLACE P.E. STAMP
Description of Work Performed: Directed the preparation of the accident analysis and energy analysis for the Design Approval Document in accordance with established standards, policies, regulations and procedures, except as otherwise explained in this document.
Mark Pawloski, P.E., Assistant Regional Construction Engineer, NYSDOT PLACE P.E. STAMP Region 4
Description of Work Performed: Supervised the preparation of the Pavement Evaluation Treatment Selection Report (PETSR) for the Design Approval Document in accordance with established standards, policies, regulations and procedures, except as otherwise explained in this document. NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Christopher P, Caraccilo, ASLA, Landscape Architect, NYSDOT Region 4 PLACE L.A. STAMP
Description of Work Performed: Prepared the Visual Impact Assessment (VIA) for the Design Approval Document in accordance with established standards, policies, regulations and procedures, except as otherwise explained in this document.
This report was prepared by the following NYSDOT and consultant staff (P.E. or L.A. Stamp Not Required):
Mark R. Johns, ASLA, Landscape Architect, Bergmann Associates PLACE L.A. STAMP
Description of Work Performed: Prepared the landscape/environmental enhancements opportunity and visual resource documentation in Chapters 2 and 3 for the Design Approval Document in accordance with established standards, policies, regulations and procedures, except as otherwise explained in this document.
Dory A. Marsh, P.E., Transportation Engineer, CHA PLACE P.E. STAMP
Description of Work Performed: Prepared the work zone safety and mobility, drainage systems, hydraulics of culverts, and utility impact assessment for the Design Approval Document in accordance with established standards, policies, regulations and procedures, except as otherwise explained in this document.
Frederick Burgwardt, P.E., Project Design Engineer, NYSDOT Region 4 PLACE P.E. STAMP
Description of Work Performed: Prepared the Access Modification Documentation for the Design Approval Document in accordance with established standards, policies, regulations and procedures, except as otherwise explained in this document. NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Joel Astyk, P.E., Project Engineer, Bergmann Associates PLACE P.E. STAMP
Description of Work Performed: Prepared the structural analysis for the Design Approval Document in accordance with established standards, policies, regulations and procedures, except as otherwise explained in this document.
Joseph A. Van Kerkhove, P.E., Project Manager, Bergmann Associates PLACE P.E. STAMP
Description of Work Performed: Prepared the surface water quality identification and evaluation and noise analysis for the Design Approval Document in accordance with established standards, policies, regulations and procedures, except as otherwise explained in this document.
Nancy Gillette, P.E., Environmental Department Manager, Ravi Engineering PLACE P.E. STAMP
Description of Work Performed: Prepared the air quality analysis, asbestos screening, and hazardous waste/contaminated materials screening for the Design Approval Document in accordance with established standards, policies, regulations and procedures, except as otherwise explained in this document.
Kelly J. Saladis, Environmental Discipline Specialist, Shumaker Engineering
Description of Work Performed: Prepared the Wetland Assessment and Delineation report for 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. NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
List of changes made to the Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment (dated April 2013) since initial circulation for public and agency review on July 31, 2013
Report Revisions
1. Table of Contents – Indicated the date on the cover sheets for all Appendices.
2. List of Preparers – Changed the Group Director Responsible for Production of the Design Approval Document.
3. Pg 1-4 Section 1.2.2 – Revised second sentence and item (4) for clarity.
4. Pg 1-4 Section 1.2.3 – Changed title and numbering of this section for clarity. Revised item (2) (now item P2) for clarity. Deleted item (5) under Project Objectives since community input is considered a requirement of NEPA. Deleted improvement of air quality as a goal of the project. This project is located in an air quality attainment area. Refer to Chapter 4, Section 4.4.15 – Air Quality. Removed reference to Appendix I since Project Purpose and Need Statement is already described in this section of the report.
5. Pg 1-6 Exhibit 1.5 – Revised Design Approval date to June 2015. Revised ROW acquisition for Phase 1 to “none required”.
6. Pg 1-7 Exhibit 1.6 – Revised ROW Costs and added footnote 10.
7. Pg 1-9/10 Section 1.7 – Added Public Info. Meeting and Public Hearings to text. Changed contact info. (Mohan Rao to Paul Spitzer). Revised deadline to submit comments on the report.
8. Pg 1-9 Exhibit 1.6 – Revised Public Hearing #1 date and added line for Public Hearing #2.
9. Pg 2-6/7 Section 2.2.2.4 – Updated to reflect 2014-2017 TIP and LRTP 2035 in response to Genesee Transportation Council (GTC) comments in letter dated 9/18/13 (Comment response letter included in Appendix G). Updated to reflect current status of PIN 4390.30, 4033.02, 4390.23, 4390.59, and ITS project.
10. Pg 2-10/11 Section 2.2.2.5 – Updated statements from Regional Planning Group.
11. Pg 2-24 Section 2.3.1.3 (2) – Added reference to Section 2.3.5 for further discussion on the ETC utilized on this project.
12. Pg 2-47 Section 2.3.1.8 – Added discussion on accident analysis reevaluation at end of this section under Miscellaneous.
13. Pg 2-82 Exhibit 2.3.3.6 (1) – Updated Lyell Ave bridge utility info.
14. Pg 2-88/89 Exhibit 2.3.3.7 – Added column for Dwg. No. Reference in response to comment from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) in letter dated 9/12/13 (Comment response letter included in Appendix G).
15. Pg 2-97 Section 2.3.5 – Revised entire section to justify the use of a 2015 ETC.
16. Pg 3-12 Exhibit 3.2.1 – Revised ROW Costs and added footnote 10.
17. Pg 3-18 Exhibit 3.2.3.2-2 – Revised the Standard and Proposed Condition criteria for Ramp Lane Width to reflect the current Highway Design Manual Exhibit 2-9a. Ramp ES changed from 17 ft. to 16 ft, which also resulted in a change to the right shoulder width from 17 ft. to 18 ft. Ramp EN changed from 12 ft. left and 13 ft. right lanes to 12 ft. for both lanes. This revision is also discussed below (Appendix A2). NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
18. Pg 3-20 Exhibit 3.2.3.2-3 – Revised the Standard and Proposed Condition criteria for Ramp Lane Width to reflect the current Highway Design Manual Exhibit 2-9b. Ramp C changed from 26 ft. to 16 ft. This revision is also discussed below (Appendix A2).
19. Pg 3-22 Exhibit 3.2.3.2-4 – Revised the Standard and Proposed Condition criteria for Ramp Lane Width to reflect the current Highway Design Manual Exhibit 2-9b. Ramp A changed from 15 ft. to 12 ft. and Ramp B changed from 17 ft. to 15 ft. This revision is also discussed below (Appendix A2).
20. Pg 3-32 Exhibit 3.2.3.3-2 – Revised Vehicle Accommodated column for Lyell-Howard Commons Plaza and Abandoned Gas Station - NE corner of Lyell-Lee intersection.
21. Pg 3-35 Section 3.3.1.6 – Added reference to Section 2.3.5 for further discussion on the ETC utilized on this project.
22. Pg 3-39 Section 3.3.1.7 (1) – Added reference to Section 2.3.5 for further discussion on the ETC utilized on this project.
23. Pg 3-58 Section 3.3.3.1.(1) – Added a paragraph describing the proposed utility corridor on the Stonegate Health Professional Complex property.
24. Pg 3-58 Section 3.3.3.1.(1) – Indicated that the right-of-way impact spreadsheet lists the former business names.
25. Pg 3-74 Exhibit 3.3.3.7 – Added column for Dwg. No. Reference in response to comment from USACE in letter dated 9/12/13 (Comment response letter included in Appendix G).
26. Pg 3-75 Exhibit 3.3.3.9 – Added line for NYSDOT Traffic Interconnect along Lyell Ave.
27. Pg 4-13 Exhibit 4.4.1-2 – Added columns for Temporary and Indirect Impacts in response to comments from USACE in letter dated 9/12/13 (Comment response letter included in Appendix G).
28. Pg 4-14 Section 4.4.1 – Changes made in response to comments from USACE in letter dated 9/12/13 (Comment response letter included in Appendix G).
29. Pg 4-17/18 Section 4.4.2 – Changes made in response to comments from USACE in letter dated 9/12/13 (Comment response letter included in Appendix G).
30. Pg 4-25 Section 4.4.9 – Added updated information regarding endangered and threatened species.
31. Pg 4-33 Section 4.4.15 – Revised first 2 paragraphs in response to comments from GTC in letter dated 9/18/13 (Comment response letter included in Appendix G).
32. Pg 4-46 Section 4.4.19 – Added reference to additional testing done on two properties. Updated the review of New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Spill Files.
33. Pg 4-61 Section 4.7 – Revised second to last paragraph to eliminate air quality from the list of minor benefits realized from the project.
Appendix Revisions
1. Appendix A (Alt A2 Plans) – Updated the properties near Lyell-Lee intersection and along Ramp A to reflect ROW and design changes based on Take-Line Meetings, including addition of a utility corridor along the Stonegate Health Professional Complex property. Revisions resulted in changes to drawings I-1, TS-6, PSL-2, PL-7, PL-8, PL-9, GP-6, and addition of drawing GP-12. NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
2. Appendix A (Alt A2 Plans) – Updated business names, which resulted in changes to drawings GP-1, GP-2, and GP-7. Former business names are shown on the plans in parenthesis. The report and all other appendices were not updated to include references to current business names.
3. Appendix A (Alt A2 Plans) – Revised ramp lane width dimensions for Ramps EN, ES, A, B and C to reflect the current Highway Design Manual Exhibit 2-9a and 2-9b (Issued with EB 13-030). The line work on the drawings was not revised, therefore a note was added to the dimension indicating that it is not to scale. Revision to Ramp ES lane width also resulted in a change to the right shoulder width. Revision resulted in changes to drawings TS-5, TS-6, TS-7, PL-4, PL-5, PL- 6, PL-7, PL-8, PL-9, PL-13, and GP-6. This revision is also discussed above (Exhibit 3.2.3.2-2 thru 3.2.3.2-4).
4. Appendix A (Misc Maps and Plans) – Updated Lyell Ave. Corridor alternative A2 graphic (see Appendix Revision 2 for explanation).
5. Appendix B – Added updated correspondence with regard to threatened and endangered species. Added a letter from FHWA with its determination regarding Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Added a letter from the New York State Canal Corporation with regard to potential Section 4(f) impacts from construction activities on the Canalway Trail.
6. Appendix G – Added response letters for comments received from the public hearing, agency review, and Hess. Added Meeting Minutes for Community Involvement Team (CIT) Meeting No. 6. Added superseded FHWA Approval to Release for Comments sheet from 2013.
7. Appendix H – Revised ROW acquisition for several properties abutting and near the Lyell Ave – Lee Rd intersection based on Take-Line Meetings. Also updated to most current business names and property owners.
8. Appendix I – Removed Project Purpose and Need Statement since it is already included in Section 1.2.3. of the report.
9. Appendix L – Changes made in response to comments from GTC in letter dated 9/18/13 (Comment response letter included in Appendix G).
10. Appendix P – Added reference to additional testing done on two properties. Updated the review of New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Spill Files.
11. Appendix Q – Revised based on comments from the USACE in a letter dated 9/12/2013. NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
TABLE OF CONTENTS COVER (Title / PIN / Location) FHWA APPROVAL TO RELEASE FOR COMMENTS PROJECT APPROVAL SHEET LIST OF PREPARERS LIST OF CHANGES MADE TO THE DRAFT DESIGN REPORT / ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (DATED APRIL 2013) SINCE CIRCULATION FOR PUBLIC AND AGENCY REVIEW ON JULY 31, 203 CHAPTER 1 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 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?...... 1-4 1.2.3. What are the Purposes and Objectives of the Project?...... 1-4 1.3. What Alternative(s) Are Being Considered? ...... 1-4 1.4. How will the Alternative(s) Affect the Environment?...... 1-5 1.5. What Are The Costs & Schedules?...... 1-6 1.6. Which Alternative is Preferred? ...... 1-8 1.7. Who Will Decide Which Alternative Will Be Selected And How Can I Be Involved In This Decision?...... 1-8 CHAPTER 2 - PROJECT CONTEXT: HISTORY, TRANSPORTATION PLANS, CONDITIONS AND NEEDS 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 2.2.1.1. Local Master Plan ...... 2-2 2.2.1.2. Local Private Development Plans ...... 2-3 2.2.1.3. Regional Trails Initiative ...... 2-3 2.2.2. Transportation Corridor...... 2-3 2.2.2.1. Importance of the Project Route Segment ...... 2-3 2.2.2.2. Alternate Routes ...... 2-4 2.2.2.3. Corridor Deficiencies and Needs ...... 2-4 2.2.2.4. Transportation Plans ...... 2-6 2.2.2.5. Abutting Highway Segments and Future Plans for Abutting Highway Segments ...... 2-7 2.3. Transportation Conditions, Deficiencies and Engineering Considerations ...... 2-11 2.3.1. Operations (Traffic and Safety) & Maintenance...... 2-11 2.3.1.1. Functional Classification and National Highway System (NHS)...... 2-11 2.3.1.2. Control of Access ...... 2-12 2.3.1.3. Traffic Control Devices ...... 2-12 2.3.1.4. Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) ...... 2-16 2.3.1.5. Speeds and Delay ...... 2-18 2.3.1.6. Traffic Volumes ...... 2-21 2.3.1.7. Level of Service and Mobility ...... 2-28 2.3.1.8. Safety Considerations, Accident History and Analysis ...... 2-40 2.3.1.9. Existing Police, Fire Protection and Ambulance Access……………………………….. 2-48 2.3.1.10. Parking Regulations and Parking Related Conditions ...... 2-49 2.3.1.11. Lighting ...... 2-49 2.3.1.12. Ownership and Maintenance Jurisdiction ...... 2-49 2.3.2. Multimodal...... 2-52 2.3.2.1. Pedestrians ...... 2-52 2.3.2.2. Bicyclists ...... 2-52 2.3.2.3. Transit ...... 2-53 2.3.2.4. Airports, Railroad Stations, and Ports ...... 2-54 2.3.2.5. Access to Recreation Areas (Parks, Trails, Waterways, State Lands) ...... 2-54 2.3.3. Infrastructure...... 2-55 2.3.3.1. Existing Highway Section ...... 2-55 2.3.3.2. Geometric Design Elements Not Meeting Standards ...... 2-59 2.3.3.3. Pavement and Shoulder...... 2-76 2.3.3.4. Drainage Systems ...... 2-77 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
TABLE OF CONTENTS 2.3.3.5. Geotechnical ...... 2-79 2.3.3.6. Structure ...... 2-81 2.3.3.7. Hydraulics of Bridges and Culverts ...... 2-88 2.3.3.8. Guide Railing, Median Barriers and Impact Attenuators...... 2-91 2.3.3.9. Utilities ...... 2-91 2.3.3.10. Railroad Facilities ...... 2-92 2.3.4. Landscape and Environmental Enhancement Opportunities...... 2-93 2.3.4.1. Landscape ...... 22-93 2.3.4.2. Opportunities for Environmental Improvements...... 2-97 2.3.5. Miscellaneous...... 2-97
CHAPTER 3 – ALTERNATIVES 3.1. Alternatives Considered and Eliminated from Further Study ...... 3-1 3.1.1. Expanded Project Proposal (EPP)...... 3-1 3.1.2. EPP Amendment (i.e. Re-evaluation Study) and Value Engineering (VE) Study...... 3-3 3.1.3. Preliminary Design Phase (i.e. Phases I-IV) ...... 3-6 3.2. Feasible Build Alternatives ...... 3-9 3.2.1. Description of Feasible Alternatives...... 3-9 3.2.2 Preferred Alternative...... 3-13 3.2.3. Design Criteria for Feasible Alternative(s)...... 3-13 3.2.3.1. Design Standards ...... 3-13 3.2.3.2. Critical Design Elements ...... 3-13 3.2.3.3. Other Design Parameters ...... 3-27 3.3. Engineering Considerations ...... 3-32 3.3.1. Operations (Traffic and Safety) & Maintenance...... 3-32 3.3.1.1. Functional Classification and National Highway System ...... 3-32 3.3.1.2. Control of Access ...... 3-33 3.3.1.3. Traffic Control Devices ...... 3-33 3.3.1.4. Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) ...... 3-34 3.3.1.5. Speeds and Delay ...... 3-34 3.3.1.6. Traffic Volumes ...... 3-35 3.3.1.7. Level of Service and Mobility ...... 3-38 3.3.1.8. Safety Considerations, Accident History and Analysis ...... 3-54 3.3.1.9. Impacts on Police, Fire Protection and Ambulance Access…………………………… 3-54 3.3.1.10. Parking Regulations and Parking Related Issues ...... 3-55 3.3.1.11. Lighting ...... 3-55 3.3.1.12. Ownership and Maintenance Jurisdiction ...... 3-56 3.3.1.13. Constructability Review …………………………………………………………………. 3-56 3.3.2. Multimodal...... 3-56 3.3.2.1. Pedestrians ...... 3-56 3.3.2.2. Bicyclists ...... 3-57 3.3.2.3. Transit ...... 3-57 3.3.2.4. Airports, Railroad Stations, and Ports ...... 3-57 3.3.2.5. Access to Recreation Areas (Parks, Trails, Waterways, and State Lands) ...... 3-57 3.3.3. Infrastructure...... 3-57 3.3.3.1. Proposed Highway Section ...... 3-57 3.3.3.2. Special Geometric Design Elements...... 3-59 3.3.3.3. Pavement and Shoulder...... 3-62 3.3.3.4. Drainage Systems ...... 3-66 3.3.3.5. Geotechnical ...... 3-67 3.3.3.6. Structures...... 3-67 3.3.3.7. Hydraulics of Bridges and Culverts ...... 3-73 3.3.3.8. Guide Railing, Median Barriers and Impact Attenuators...... 3-75 3.3.3.9. Utilities ...... 3-75 3.3.3.10. Railroad Facilities ...... 3-76 3.3.4. Landscape and Environmental Enhancements...... 3-77 3.3.4.1. Landscape Development ...... 3-77 3.3.4.2. Environmental Enhancements...... 3-77 3.3.5. Miscellaneous...... 3-77 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 4 - SOCIAL, ECONOMIC & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS 4.1. Introduction ...... 4-1 4.1.1. Environmental Classification and Lead Agencies……………………………………...... 4-1 4.1.2. Coordination with Agencies ...... 4-1 4.2. Social ...... 4-4 4.2.1. Land Use…………………………………………………………………..……………….…4-4 4.2.2. Neighborhoods and Community Cohesion ...... 4-5 4.2.3. Social Groups Benefited or Harmed ...... 4-6 4.2.4 School Districts, Recreational Areas, and Places of Worship……….………………….. 4-8 4.3 Economic ...... 4-10 4.3.1 Regional and Local Economies……………………………………………………….…… 4-10 4.3.2 Business Districts…………………………………………………………….……………… 4-11 4.4 Environment ...... 4-12 4.4.1. Wetlands……………………………………………………………………………….…...... 4-12 4.4.2. Surface Waterbodies and Watercourses………………………………………….……....4-16 4.4.3. Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers…………………………………………….……… 4-20 4.4.4. Navigable Waters…………………………………………………………………………... 4-20 4.4.5. Floodplains…………………………………………………………………………….…… 4-21 4.4.6. Coastal Resources………………………………………………………………………….. 4-22 4.4.7. Groundwater Resources, Aquifers, and Reservoirs…………………………………...... 4-22 4.4.8. Stormwater Management…………………………………………………………………... 4-23 4.4.9. General Ecology and Wildlife Resources……………………………………………….... 4-24 4.4.10. Critical Environmental Areas……………………………………………………………... 4-28 4.4.11. Historic and Cultural Resources………………………………………………………..... 4-29 4.4.12. Parks and Recreational Resources…………………………………………………….... 4-30 4.4.13. Visual Resources………………………………………………………………………...... 4-32 4.4.14. Farmlands………………………………………………………………………………...... 4-32 4.4.15 Air Quality……………………………………………………………….………………...... 4-33 4.4.16 Energy……………………………………………………………………………………….. 4-37 4.4.17 Noise………………………………………………………………………………….…...... 4-43 4.4.18 Asbestos………………………………………………………………………………………..4-45 4.4.19 Hazardous Waste and Contaminated Materials…..…………………………………..... 4-46 4.5 Construction Effects………………..…………………………………………………………………… 4-57 4.6 Indirect (Secondary) Effects………………..………………………………………………………….. 4-59 4.7 Cumulative Effects………………………………………………………………………………………. 4-60 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Appendices (Included herewith unless otherwise noted) Maps & Miscellaneous Plans - Plans, Profiles & Typical Sections (Bound Separately) (Cover dated March 2015) - Exhibit 1.2.1-1: Project Location Map - Exhibit 1.2.1-2: Project Study Area - Exhibit 1.2.1-3: Existing Conditions Plan - Exhibit 2.2.1: 2010 Land Use Map A. - Emergency Response Map - Highway Maintenance Jurisdiction Plans - Alternative A2 – Overall Graphic - Alternative A2 – Lyell Avenue Corridor Graphics - Alternative A2 – Work Zone Traffic Control Plans - Eliminated Alternatives - Alternative A2 Plans, Profiles & Typical Sections (Separately Bound 11x17) B. Environmental Information (Cover dated March 2015) Traffic Information (Cover dated March 2015) Pedestrian Generator Checklist
Speeds and Delay (Existing) - Exhibit 2.3.1.5 (2)-1: Travel Time & Delay Study - Average Peak Hour Travel Speeds - Exhibit 2.3.1.5 (2)-2: Off-Peak 85th Percentile Operating Speeds - Exhibit 2.3.1.5 (3)-1: Travel Time Loops 1-4 - Exhibit 2.3.1.5 (3)-2: Travel Time Loops 5-8 - Exhibit 2.3.1.5 (3)-4: Travel Time & Delay Study - Average Peak Hour Travel Times
Traffic Volumes (Existing) - Exhibit 2.3.1.6 (1)-1: Continuous Traffic Count Locations & Intersection Locations - Exhibit 2.3.1.6 (1)-2: Traffic Volume Diagram - Base Year: 2009 AADT - Exhibit 2.3.1.6 (1)-3: Traffic Volume Diagram - Base Year: 2009 Peak Hour - Exhibit 2.3.1.6 (1)-4A: 390 NB Weaving Volumes - Base Year: 2009 AM Peak Hour - Exhibit 2.3.1.6 (1)-4B: 390 SB Weaving Volumes - Base Year: 2009 AM Peak Hour - Exhibit 2.3.1.6 (1)-4C: 390 NB Weaving Volumes - Base Year: 2009 PM Peak Hour - Exhibit 2.3.1.6 (1)-4D: 390 SB Weaving Volumes - Base Year: 2009 PM Peak Hour - Exhibit 2.3.1.6 (2)-1: Traffic Volume Diagram - No-Build: 2015 AADT - Exhibit 2.3.1.6 (2)-2: Traffic Volume Diagram - No-Build: 2025 AADT - Exhibit 2.3.1.6 (2)-3: Traffic Volume Diagram - No-Build: 2035 AADT - Exhibit 2.3.1.6 (2)-4: Traffic Volume Diagram - No-Build: 2015 Peak Hour - Exhibit 2.3.1.6 (2)-5: Traffic Volume Diagram - No-Build: 2025 Peak Hour - Exhibit 2.3.1.6 (2)-6: Traffic Volume Diagram - No-Build: 2035 Peak Hour C. - Exhibit 2.3.1.6 (2)-7: Traffic Volume Diagram - No-Build: 2045 Peak Hour - Exhibit 2.3.1.6 (2)-8A: 390 NB Exiting & Weaving Volumes - No-Build: 2015 AM Peak Hour - Exhibit 2.3.1.6 (2)-8B: 390 SB Exiting & Weaving Volumes - No-Build: 2015 AM Peak Hour - Exhibit 2.3.1.6 (2)-8C: 390 NB Exiting & Weaving Volumes - No-Build: 2015 PM Peak Hour - Exhibit 2.3.1.6 (2)-8D: 390 SB Exiting & Weaving Volumes - No-Build: 2015 PM Peak Hour - Exhibit 2.3.1.6 (2)-9A: 390 NB Exiting & Weaving Volumes - No-Build: 2025 AM Peak Hour - Exhibit 2.3.1.6 (2)-9B: 390 SB Exiting & Weaving Volumes - No-Build: 2025 AM Peak Hour - Exhibit 2.3.1.6 (2)-9C: 390 NB Exiting & Weaving Volumes - No-Build: 2025 PM Peak Hour - Exhibit 2.3.1.6 (2)-9D: 390 SB Exiting & Weaving Volumes - No-Build: 2025 PM Peak Hour - Exhibit 2.3.1.6 (2)-10A: 390 NB Exiting & Weaving Volumes - No-Build: 2035 AM Peak Hour - Exhibit 2.3.1.6 (2)-10B: 390 SB Exiting & Weaving Volumes - No-Build: 2035 AM Peak Hour - Exhibit 2.3.1.6 (2)-10C: 390 NB Exiting & Weaving Volumes - No-Build: 2035 PM Peak Hour - Exhibit 2.3.1.6 (2)-10D: 390 SB Exiting & Weaving Volumes - No-Build: 2035 PM Peak Hour - Exhibit 2.3.1.6 (2)-11A: 390 NB Exiting & Weaving Volumes - No-Build: 2045 AM Peak Hour - Exhibit 2.3.1.6 (2)-11B: 390 SB Exiting & Weaving Volumes - No-Build: 2045 AM Peak Hour - Exhibit 2.3.1.6 (2)-11C: 390 NB Exiting & Weaving Volumes - No-Build: 2045 PM Peak Hour - Exhibit 2.3.1.6 (2)-11D: 390 SB Exiting & Weaving Volumes - No-Build: 2045 PM Peak Hour
Level of Service (Existing) - Exhibit 2.3.1.7-1: Level of Service Criteria - Exhibit 2.3.1.7 (1)-1: VISSIM Freeway Level of Service - Base Year and No-Build AM Peak Hour - Exhibit 2.3.1.7 (1)-2: VISSIM Freeway Level of Service - Base Year and No-Build PM Peak Hour - Exhibit 2.3.1.7 (1)-3: Base Year and No-Build Intersection Level of Service Summary NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Appendices (Included herewith unless otherwise noted)
Traffic Volumes (Proposed) - Exhibit 3.3.1.6-1: Traffic Volume Diagram – Alternate A2: 2015 AADT - Exhibit 3.3.1.6-2: Traffic Volume Diagram – Alternate A2: 2025 AADT - Exhibit 3.3.1.6-3: Traffic Volume Diagram – Alternate A2: 2035 AADT - Exhibit 3.3.1.6-4: Traffic Volume Diagram – Alternate A2: 2015 Peak Hour - Exhibit 3.3.1.6-5: Traffic Volume Diagram – Alternate A2: 2025 Peak Hour - Exhibit 3.3.1.6-6: Traffic Volume Diagram – Alternate A2: 2035 Peak Hour - Exhibit 3.3.1.6-7: Traffic Volume Diagram – Alternate A2: 2045 Peak Hour - Exhibit 3.3.1.6-8A: 390 SB Exiting & Weaving Volumes – Alternative A2: 2015 AM Peak Hour - Exhibit 3.3.1.6-8B: 390 NB to Lyell Ave. Weaving Volumes – Alternative A2: 2015 AM Peak Hour - Exhibit 3.3.1.6-8C: 390 SB to Chili Ave. Exiting Volumes – Alternative A2: 2015 AM Peak Hour - Exhibit 3.3.1.6-8D: 390 SB Exiting & Weaving Volumes – Alternative A2: 2015 PM Peak Hour - Exhibit 3.3.1.6-8E: 390 NB to Lyell Ave. Weaving Volumes – Alternative A2: 2015 PM Peak Hour - Exhibit 3.3.1.6-9A: 390 SB Exiting & Weaving Volumes – Alternative A2: 2025 AM Peak Hour - Exhibit 3.3.1.6-9B: 390 NB to Lyell Ave. Weaving Volumes – Alternative A2: 2025 AM Peak Hour - Exhibit 3.3.1.6-9C: 390 SB to Chili Ave. Exiting Volumes – Alternative A2: 2025 AM Peak Hour - Exhibit 3.3.1.6-9D: 390 SB Exiting & Weaving Volumes – Alternative A2: 2025 PM Peak Hour - Exhibit 3.3.1.6-9E: 390 NB to Lyell Ave. Weaving Volumes – Alternative A2: 2025 PM Peak Hour - Exhibit 3.3.1.6-10A: 390 SB Exiting & Weaving Volumes – Alternative A2: 2035 AM Peak Hour - Exhibit 3.3.1.6-10B: 390 NB to Lyell Ave. Weaving Volumes – Alternative A2: 2035 AM Peak Hour - Exhibit 3.3.1.6-10C: 390 SB to Chili Ave. Exiting Volumes – Alternative A2: 2035 AM Peak Hour - Exhibit 3.3.1.6-10D: 390 SB Exiting & Weaving Volumes – Alternative A2: 2035 PM Peak Hour - Exhibit 3.3.1.6-10E: 390 NB to Lyell Ave. Weaving Volumes – Alternative A2: 2035 PM Peak Hour - Exhibit 3.3.1.6-11A: 390 SB Exiting & Weaving Volumes – Alternative A2: 2045 AM Peak Hour - Exhibit 3.3.1.6-11B: 390 NB to Lyell Ave. Weaving Volumes – Alternative A2: 2045 AM Peak Hour - Exhibit 3.3.1.6-11C: 390 SB to Chili Ave. Exiting Volumes – Alternative A2: 2045 AM Peak Hour - Exhibit 3.3.1.6-11D: 390 SB Exiting & Weaving Volumes – Alternative A2: 2045 PM Peak Hour - Exhibit 3.3.1.6-11E: 390 NB to Lyell Ave. Weaving Volumes – Alternative A2: 2045 PM Peak Hour
Speeds and Delay (Existing) - Exhibit 3.3.1.5 (2): Travel Time & Delay Study – Estimated Average Peak Hour Travel Times
Level of Service (Proposed) - Exhibit 3.3.1.7 -1: Level of Service Criteria - Exhibit 2.3.1.7 (1)-1: VISSIM Freeway Level of Service – Alternative A2: AM Peak Hour - Exhibit 2.3.1.7 (1)-2: VISSIM Freeway Level of Service – Alternative A2: PM Peak Hour - Exhibit 2.3.1.7 (1)-3: Alternative A2 Intersection Level of Service Summary
Accidents - Exhibit 2.3.1.8-1: Accident Study Limits: Expressway Segments - Exhibit 2.3.1.8-2: Collision Diagrams - Exhibit 2.3.1.8-6: Accident Severity by Facility Segment with Percentages - Exhibit 2.3.1.8-7: Expressway Segments Accident Summary - Exhibit 2.3.1.8-8: Ramp Accident Summary - Exhibit 2.3.1.8-9: Surface Streets Accident Summary - Exhibit 2.3.1.8-10: Deer Accidents Summary Table - Exhibit 2.3.1.8-11: Deer Related Accidents - Exhibit 2.3.1.8-12: Key Accident Locations - Exhibit 2.3.1.8-13: Master Index Accident Summary Table - Exhibit 3.3.1.8: Anticipated Improvements to Key Accident Locations
ITS Alternatives 1 and 2
Freeway Access Modification Documentation
Pavement Information (Cover dated March 2015) D. - Pavement Evaluation Treatment Selection Report (PETSR) Structures Information (Cover dated March 2015) - Vertical Clearance Exemption E. - U.S. Coast Guard Jurisdiction Checklist - Bridge Deck Evaluation Report (BIN 1052290) - Bridge Deck Evaluation Report (BIN 4062531 and BIN 4062532) NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Appendices (Included herewith unless otherwise noted) F. Non-Standard Features Justification (Cover dated March 2015) G. Public Involvement (Cover dated March 2015) H. Right-of-Way Information (Cover dated March 2015) Misc. (Cover dated March 2015) - Project History I. - Existing Guide Railing, Median Barriers, and Impact Attenuators - Utility Facilities Inventory Report (HC 203) - Critical Design Elements for Existing Ramps Environmental Appendices (Bound Separately and Available Upon Request) J. Surface Water Quality (Cover dated June 2012) K. Visual Impact Assessment (Cover dated September 2012) L. Air Quality Analysis (Cover dated November 2014) M. Energy Study Tables (Cover dated June 2012) N. Noise Analysis (Cover dated June 2012) O. Asbestos Screening (Cover dated June 2012) P. Hazardous Waste/Contaminated Materials Screening (Cover dated November 2014) Q. Wetland Assessment and Delineation Report (Cover dated November 2014) Other Appendices (Bound Separately and Available Upon Request) R. Existing VISSIM Model Calibration & Results Report S. Existing, No-Build, and Proposed Synchro Output Reports BINs 1052290, 4062531 & 4062532 In-Depth Inspection Reports, Load Ratings, and Fatigue T. Calculations NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
CHAPTER 1 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1. Introduction – This report was prepared in accordance with the NYSDOT Project Development Manual, 17 NYCRR Part 15, and 23 CFR 771.
1.2. Purpose and Need
1.2.1. Where is the Project Located? – The project is located along a 3 mile segment of the I- 390/NYS Route 390 corridor in between the Chili Avenue and Lexington Avenue interchanges, in Monroe County, New York, within the municipal boundaries of the Town of Gates. The project focuses on the closely spaced I-390/NYS Route 390/I-490 and NYS Route 390/NYS Route 31 interchanges. See Exhibit 1.2.1-1 for the Project Location Map.
South of I-490, 390 is classified as an Interstate. It is classified as a NYS route to the north of I-490. For the purposes of this report, these interchanges will often be referred to as the 390/490 and 390/31 interchanges. NYS Routes (i.e. NYS Route 390) will often be abbreviated to NY (i.e. NY 390). NYS Route 31 will often be referred to as Lyell Avenue.
Several roadways and bridges that are part of the project study area are not within the proposed project work limits, and are identified in italics below. See Exhibit 1.2.1-2 for a map of the Project Study Area, and Exhibit 1.2.1-3 for an Existing Conditions map showing lane configurations; both of which can be found in Appendix A.
(1) Route numbers: - I-390 - NYS Route 390 - NYS Route 31 - NYS Route 33 (Bridge Crossing Only)
Study Area Only - I-490 - Reference Route 940L (Bridge Crossing and Approach tie-in Only)
(2) Route names: - Rochester Outer Loop (I-390 and NYS Route 390) - Lyell Avenue (NYS Route 31) - Buffalo Road (NYS Route 33)
Study Area Only - Western Expressway (I-490) - Howard Road (Reference Route 940L)
(3) SH number and official highway description: - I-390 SH 62-14 (From south of project study area to RM 390I 43037017) SH 60-26 (From RM 390I 43037017 to I-490 EB) - NYS Route 390 SH 60-26 (From I-490 EB to RM 390 43011006) SH 67-9 (From RM 390 43011006 to north of project study area) - NYS Route 31 SH 253 - NYS Route 33 SH 83
Study Area Only - I-490 SH 60-13 (From Howard Road to Erie Canal) - Reference Route 940L SH 9350
1-1 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
(4) BIN number and feature crossed: - 1021589 – Lyell Avenue over NY 390 NB and SB - 1023030 – Route 33 (Buffalo Road) over I-390 NB and SB - 1052290 – NY 390 NB over I-490 WB - 1062541 – NY 390 SB over Trolley Boulevard and Inactive CSX Railroad - 1062542 – NY 390 SB over Trolley Boulevard and Inactive CSX Railroad - 1063950 – I-390 NB over I-490 EB and Ramp ES (I-490 WB to I-390 SB) - 4062531 – NY 390 SB over Erie Canal - 4062532 – NY 390 NB over Erie Canal - 7025830 – CSX Railroad over I-390 NB and SB
Study Area Only - 1025811 – I-490 WB over NY 390 SB - 1025812 – I-490 EB over I-390 SB - 1025820 – I-490 EB over Ramp ES (I-490 WB to I-390 SB) - 1048680 – Reference Route 940L (Howard Road) over I-490 EB and WB - 1052280 – Ramp WN (I-490 EB to NY 390 NB) over I-490 WB and NY 390 SB - 1062521 – NY 390 SB over Lexington Avenue - 1062522 – NY 390 NB over Lexington Avenue - 4443361 – I-490 WB over Erie Canal - 4443362 – I-490 EB over Erie Canal - 4443380 – Lyell Avenue over Erie Canal
(5) City/Village/Township: Town of Gates
Study Area Only Town of Greece and City of Rochester
(6) County: Monroe
(7) Length: - I-390 – 1.7 miles - NYS Route 390 – 1.3 miles - NYS Route 31 – 0.74 miles - NYS Route 33 – 0.15 miles (bridge crossing and approach work only)
Study Area Only - I-490 – 0.9 miles - Reference Route 940L – bridge crossing only
(8) Reference Markers (RM): - I-390 – From RM 390I 43037007 To RM 390I 43037021 - NYS Route 390 – From RM 390 43011000 To RM 390 43011013 - NYS Route 31 – From RM 31 43031181 To RM 31 43032000 - NYS Route 33 – RM 33 43031138 (bridge crossing and approach work only)
Study Area Only - I-490 – From RM 490I 43021173 To RM 490I 43022000 - Reference Route 940L – RM 940L 43011018 (bridge crossing only)
(9) Although there is no work proposed on I-490 mainline, there is some minor incidental work proposed on I-490 at Ramp EN, which will require some Work Zone Traffic Control on I-490 approaching this ramp. There will also be some Work Zone Traffic Control needed on I-490 approaching BIN 1052290.
1-2 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
1-3 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
1.2.2. Why is the Project Needed? – The project is needed to address the highest priority deficiencies within the project study area. This project will address six (6) needs that have been identified through the project development process for resolution or improvement. Meeting these needs will offer the greatest transportation system benefits and the lowest life cycle costs, which are summarized as follows:
1. Reduce congestion for NY 390 southbound to I-490 eastbound traffic in the AM Peak (i.e. SB weave between Lyell Avenue and I-490). 2. Reduce congestion for I-490 westbound to NY 390 northbound traffic in the PM Peak (i.e. NB weave between I-490 and Lyell Avenue). 3. Reduce accidents related to the congestion and non-standard weave lengths in the above locations. 4. Address poor intersection geometry for trucks and other vehicles exiting northbound onto Lyell Avenue. 5. Address the deteriorated condition of the Lyell Avenue bridge over NY 390. 6. Improve pedestrian, bicycle and transit conditions on Lyell Avenue.
1.2.3. What are the Purposes and Objectives of the Project?
The following are the purposes of the project: (P1) Provide an acceptable level of service and reduce accidents for NY 390 southbound to I- 490 eastbound traffic in the AM peak and I-490 westbound to NY 390 northbound in the PM peak. (P2) Address poor intersection geometry for trucks and other vehicles exiting northbound onto Lyell Avenue. (P3) Provide a structurally adequate crossing of Lyell Avenue over NY 390 that meets the operation needs of the interchange and Lyell Avenue for the life of the structure.
The following are the objectives of the project that must be met: (O1) Develop a fundable capital project which provides a long term solution at this major interchange. (O2) Enhance multi-modal features along the Lyell Avenue corridor for bicyclists, pedestrians, bus/public transit, within the project limits. (O3) Avoid, minimize and/or mitigate impacts to wetlands and surface waters. (O4) Construct noise abatement measures where effective, feasible and reasonable.
The following are the goals of the project, which are not required but will be attempted to be met: (G1) Consider ways to accommodate Emergency Service providers, such as incorporating emergency median crossovers. (G2) Enhance truck access to the Lyell/Lee corridors from I-490 to the extent feasible and practical. (G3) Improve the aesthetic appearance of Lyell Avenue near the interchange. (G4) Consider ways to manage mobility along the Lyell Avenue corridor, including access to side streets and business driveways within the project limits that will facilitate future improvements beyond the limits of this project. (G5) Minimize travel impacts to school transportation, emergency service providers, residents and business owners during the construction phase.
1.3. What Alternative(s) Are Being Considered? – Of the numerous alternatives that were evaluated during the life of this project, only one is being considered as a feasible build alternative (Refer to Sections 2.1 and 3.1 for further discussion). Alternative A2 is a result of years of engineering study and analysis. Alternative A2 addresses the highest priority deficiencies within the project study area by satisfying all of the project needs. Several geometric changes are proposed under this alternative. This alternative includes major improvements along the I-390/NY 390 corridor between Chili Avenue and Lexington Avenue, a distance of approximately 3 miles, and along the Lyell Avenue corridor between Howard Road and the Erie Canal, a distance of approximately ¾ mile. Significant
1-4 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13 improvements to the 390/490 and 390/31 interchanges are proposed. Graphics of Alternative A2 are included in Appendix A. Typical sections, plans, and profiles for Alternative A2 are included in Appendix A and are bound separately.
A few highlights of the proposed improvements include:
· A major fork just north of Lyell Avenue that diverts 390 southbound through traffic to a new 2-lane roadway that passes over the 390/490 interchange. · Converting the existing NY 390 southbound 2-lane weave crossing to a 1-lane weave for Lyell Avenue eastbound traffic destined for I-490 eastbound. · Addition of a continuous auxiliary lane on I-390 southbound between I-490 and Chili Avenue. · Eliminating the NY 390 northbound weave by introducing a new grade separation that provides a direct connection for NY 390 northbound traffic destined for Lyell Avenue. · Addition of an extended auxiliary lane for I-490 westbound traffic destined for NY 390 northbound. · An additional NY 390 northbound through lane between I-490 and Lexington Avenue. · Conversion of the I-390 northbound left-hand travel lane to an exit only lane for I-490 westbound traffic. · Addition of a continuous auxiliary lane on NY 390 southbound between Lexington Avenue and Lyell Avenue. · Several new bridges are proposed as part of the geometric improvements. · Several bridges, which are nearing the end of their serviceable life and are beyond a point where a major rehabilitation would be considered, are proposed for replacement. A few bridges that are in better condition are proposed to be widened and rehabilitated. · Reconfiguring the 390/31 interchange ramps east of NY 390 to align with Lee Road to form a 4- leg signalized intersection. · Implementation of continuous sidewalks and bicycle lanes along both sides of Lyell Avenue from Howard Road to the Erie Canal. · Improvements to traffic flow and better defined driveways and side streets on Lyell Avenue.
While Alternative A2 is identified as the preferred alternative, the final selection of Alternative A2will not be made until comments on the draft design approval document and comments from the public hearing have been fully evaluated.
For a more in-depth discussion of the proposed improvements and detailed design criteria see section 3.2 of this report. See section 3.3.3.2.(1) for a summary of critical design elements within the proposed reconstruction limits not meeting standards.
1.4 How will the Alternative(s) Affect the Environment? Exhibit 1.4-A Environmental Summary NEPA Classification Class III BY Federal Highway AdministrationDate (FHWA) SEQR Type: Non-Type II (EA) BY NYSDOT Date
Refer to Chapter 4 Section(s) 4.4.1, 4.4.2, and 4.4.17 for mitigation measures that are proposed for this project.
Anticipated Permits/Certifications/Coordination:
NYSDEC: · State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) General Permit · Water Quality Certification (Sec 401) of the FWPCA
USCG (See Appendix H for USCG Checklist)
1-5 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
· U.S. Coast Guard Section 9 Permit
USACE · U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Section 404 Nationwide Permit #14 - Linear Transportation Projects · U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Section 401/ NYSDEC Title 5 Water Quality Certifications
NYS Canal Corporation · Work Permit
Coordination · Coordination with Federal Highway Administration · Coordination with New York State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) · Coordination with the US Fish and Wildlife Service · Coordination with the New York Natural Heritage Program · Coordination with the Federal Aviation Administration
Certifications · NYSDOL: Asbestos Variances
1.5. What Are The Costs & Schedules? Design Approval is scheduled for November/December of 2013 with Construction to occur over several phases, each scheduled to last approximately 18 to 30 months depending on the Phase.
Construction of the improvements must be done in phases due to the availability of funding. At this time funding is secured for the design and construction of Phase 1 only. The schedule of the remaining phases is estimated and will be determined when additional funding becomes available. The Regional Planning & Program Manager is preparing a Finance Plan for funding the construction of subsequent phases that will be submitted to FHWA for approval and presented to the MPO. Should the construction completion dates be shifted further into the future, several sections contained within this document should be reevaluated and documented, which include traffic analysis and accident history.
Exhibit 1.5 Project Schedule Activity Date Occurred/Tentative Scoping Approval 2003 (EPP) Design Approval (Tentative) June 2015 ROW Acquisition None Required (Phase 1) (Tentative) 2015 (Phase 2) None Required (Phase 3) 2020 (Phase 4) Construction Start 2015 (Phase 1) (Tentative) 2017 (Phase 2) 2019 (Phase 3) 2021 (Phase 4) Construction Complete 2016 (Phase 1) (Tentative) 2019 (Phase 2) 2021 (Phase 3) 2023 (Phase 4)
1-6 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Exhibit 1.6 Summary of Alternative A2 Costs Million Dollars (Calculated Year - 2012) Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 1 (I-390/NY 390 (I-390/NY 390 (Lyell Avenue Total All Activities (Lyell Avenue NB and Lyell SB) West of NY Phases Bridge) Ave East of 390) NY 390) Bridge5 $5,586,000 $8,231,000 $18,220,000 $0 $32,037,000 Construction Highway $500,000 $16,450,000 $18,530,000 $3,550,000 $39,030,000 Wetland and Stream Mitigation $0 $100,000 $0 $0 $100,000 Storm Pollution Discharge Elimination $10,000 $80,000 $130,000 $0 $220,000 System (SPDES) Noise Barriers $0 $3,000,000 $6,000,000 $0 $9,000,000 ITS (Includes Proposed Improvements $0 $0 $390,000 $0 $390,000 and Relocated Fiber Optic) Public Utilities $20,000 $210,000 $10,000 $320,000 $560,000 (Water and Sanitary Sewer) Subtotal (2012) $6,116,000 $28,071,000 $43,280,000 $3,870,000 $81,337,000 Survey Operation6 (2%) $122,000 $561,000 $866,000 $77,000 $1,626,000 Work Zone Traffic Control7 (7%) $428,000 $1,965,000 $3,030,000 $271,000 $5,694,000 Temporary Erosion Control8 (0.5%) $31,000 $140,000 $216,000 $19,000 $406,000 Subtotal (2012) $6,666,000 $30,597,000 $47,176,000 $4,218,000 $88,657,000 Incidentals1 (5%) $333,000 $1,530,000 $2,359,000 $211,000 $4,433,000 Subtotal (2012) $6,999,000 $32,127,000 $49,535,000 $4,429,000 $93,090,000 Contingencies2 (15% @ Design Approval) $1,050,000 $4,819,000 $7,430,000 $664,000 $13,963,000 Subtotal (2012) $8,049,000 $36,946,000 $56,965,000 $5,093,000 $107,053,000 Potential Field Change Order3 $370,000 $1,140,000 $1,540,000 $250,000 $3,300,000 Subtotal (2012) $8,419,000 $38,086,000 $58,505,000 $5,343,000 $110,353,000 Mobilization (4%) $337,000 $1,523,000 $2,340,000 $214,000 $4,414,000 Subtotal (2012) $8,756,000 $39,609,000 $60,845,000 $5,557,000 $114,767,000 Year of Estimate 2012 2012 2012 2012 - Anticipated Start of Construction 2015 2017 2019 2021 - Anticipated Construction Duration (mo.) 18 30 30 18 - Anticipated Construction Midpoint 2016 2018 2020 2022 - Assumed Rate of Annual Inflation 3% 3% 3% 3% - Inflation Factor to Project Midpoint 113% 119% 127% 134% - Expected Award Amount – Inflated4 @ 3%/yr to midpoint of Construction $9,855,000 $47,295,000 $77,077,000 $7,468,000 $141,695,000 (Phase 1 – 2015, Phase 2 – 2017) (Phase 3 – 2019, Phase 4 2021) Construction Inspection (8%) $788,000 $3,784,000 $6,166,000 $597,000 $11,335,000 ROW Costs (2012/2013)10 $2,100,000 $0 $0 $490,000 $2,590,000
Total Cost9 $12,800,000 $51,400,000 $83,300,000 $8,600,000 $156,500,000
1-7 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Notes for Exhibit 3.2.1: 1. The potential cost increase due to unknown or un-tabulated items. 2. NYSDOT recommends standard contingencies: 25% Scoping stage, 15% Design Approval stage, 5% Advanced Detail Plans stage. 3. According to HDM Chapter 21 Section 21.3.9.4, EB 03-029 & EB 06-057, and EI 07-024. 4. The use of an escalation rate of 3% was provided by Region 4 Design to account for potential future increases in labor, material, equipment and other costs associated with Capital Program work. 5. Costs for new/replacement bridges developed using NYSDOT Shoulder Break Worksheet. 6. The use of 2% for Survey Operations was utilized for the Design Approval stage. 7. The use of 7% for WZTC was utilized for the Design Approval stage. 8. The use of 0.5% for Temporary Erosion Control was utilized for the Design Approval stage. 9. Rounded to the nearest $100,000. 10. No acquisition needed to construct Phase 1. Funds needed to acquire properties needed for Phase 2 included under Phase 1. Acquisition of properties that involve owner/tenant relocation to be progressed during Phase 1.
1.6. Which Alternative is Preferred? – While Alternative A2 is identified as the preferred alternative, the final selection of the preferred alternative will not be made until the alternative impacts, comments on the draft design approval document, and comments from the public hearing have been fully evaluated.
1.7. Who Will Decide Which Alternative Will Be Selected And How Can I Be Involved In This Decision?
The Public Involvement Process for the preliminary design phase (Phases I-IV) kicked-off with a Public Officials Meeting on June 28th, 2010. The meeting re-introduced the project to local officials, providing an overview of project goals and objectives, a history of studies conducted to date, work currently underway, and the plan for upcoming outreach and public involvement, and anticipated project development moving forward from this point.
A Public Workshop was held on July 27th, 2010 to discuss existing conditions and project needs. Attendees were divided into several groups and given the opportunity to voice their concerns and provide suggestions for improving the existing operational and safety problems within the project study area. Attendees were asked to fill out two forms where they could provide input on the project purpose and need, and develop a listing of specific concerns and suggestions.
A total of six (6) Community Involvement Team (CIT) Meetings were held from November 2010 to March 2012. The CIT was an extension of the Project Design Team and served as an advisory group. The CIT provided valuable input during the preliminary design phase and identified needs and concerns of the larger community that they represented. The CIT consisted of members representing the following stakeholder groups:
· Residents · Commuters · Traffic Generators · School Districts & Transit · Emergency Services · Business Owners & Representatives
A Public Information Meeting was held on September 22th, 2011 to present alternatives. This meeting included both an Open House and a formal presentation by the project design team. A summary of the comments received from this meeting (including responses) is included in Appendix G.
A Public Workshop was held on January 24th, 2012 to discuss the process for determining if and where noise barriers may be constructed as part of this project. Topics of discussion included noise regulations, noise basics, noise analysis, neighborhood noise abatement investigation results, and the steps determine neighborhood preferences regarding construction of noise barriers.
1-8 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
A Public Information Meeting was held on July 9th, 2012 to present the preferred alternative. This meeting was an Open House format.
A Public Hearing was held on August 28th, 2013. Response letters for comments received from the hearing are included in Appendix G.
It is anticipated that another Public Hearing will be held in the Spring 2015. Response letters for comments received from the hearing will be included in Appendix G.
Meeting Minutes for all public involvement activities that occurred during the preliminary design phase (Phase I-IV) are included in Appendix G. Public meetings held during the EPP phase of the project are described in Appendix G.
Exhibit 1.7 Public Involvement Plan Schedule of Milestone Dates Activity Date Occurred/Tentative Public Officials Meeting June 28, 2010 Public Workshop #1 July 27, 2010 Community Involvement Meeting #1 November 8, 2010 Community Involvement Meeting #2 February 24, 2011 Community Involvement Meeting #3 May 24, 2011 Community Involvement Meeting #4 August 2, 2011 Public Informational Meeting #2 September 22, 2011 Community Involvement Meeting #5 December 8, 2011 Public Workshop #3 January 24, 2012 Community Involvement Meeting #6 March 28, 2012 Public Informational Meeting #4 July 9, 2012 Public Hearing #1 August 28, 2013 Public Hearing #2 Spring 2015 (Tentative) Phase 1 - Lyell Avenue bridge over NY 390 – 6/4/15 Phase 2 - I-390/NY 390 NB and associated ramps, Lyell Current Project Letting dates Avenue corridor east of NY 390 and Lee Road – 6/2/16 (Tentative) Phase 3 - I-390/NY 390 SB and associated ramps – 9/18/18 Phase 4 – Lyell Avenue corridor west of NY 390 – 10/27/20
Refer to Appendix G for Public Involvement (PI) Plan and Input from Stakeholders including Public.
You may offer your comments in a variety of ways.
· There will be another Public Hearing, tentatively Spring 2015, where you can talk to the Department representatives, give comments to a stenographer or leave written comments.
· You can contact:
Paul Spitzer, Project Manager Please include the six digit Project Identification Number (PIN) 4390.13 Questions or comments email: [email protected] telephone: (585) 272-4890
Mailing Address New York State Department of Transportation Region 4 Design 1530 Jefferson Road Rochester, New York 14623
1-9 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
· You can visit the Project’s website: https://www.dot.ny.gov/390lyell
The deadline for submitting comments on this report circulation will be determined once the Public Hearing is scheduled. Response letters for comments received will be included in Appendix G.
The remainder of this report is a detailed technical evaluation of the existing conditions, the proposed alternatives, the impacts of the alternatives, copies of technical reports and plans and other supporting information.
1-10 DRAFT DESIGN REPORT / ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CHAPTER 2 PROJECT CONTEXT: HISTORY, TRANSPORTATION PLANS, CONDITIONS AND NEEDS
Highway Project P.I.N. 4390.13 NYS Route 390/I-490/NYS Route 31 Interchange Improvements Monroe County Town of Gates, Town of Greece and City of Rochester [City/Village] of______
U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ANDREW M. CUOMO, Governor JOAN MCDONALD, Commissioner NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
CHAPTER 2 - PROJECT CONTEXT: HISTORY, TRANSPORTATION PLANS, CONDITIONS AND NEEDS
This chapter addresses the history and existing context of the project site, including the existing conditions, deficiencies, and needs for this section of the I-390/NY 390 corridor, in particular the 390/490 and 390/31 interchanges.
Project Study Area As indicated in Section 1.2.1, the project is located in Monroe County, New York, primarily within the municipal boundaries of the Town of Gates. The project study area focuses on the closely spaced 390/490 and 390/31 interchanges. In the south-north direction, the study area extends approximately 3 miles along NY 390/I-390 from the northernmost Chili Avenue interchange ramp terminals to the south to the Lexington Avenue interchange to the north. South of I-490, 390 is classified as an Interstate. It is classified as a NYS route to the north of I-490.
In the east-west direction along I-490, the study area extends approximately 1 mile from the Erie Canal to the east to the Howard Road overpass to the west. In the east-west direction along NY 31 (Lyell Avenue), the study area extends approximately ¾ miles from the Erie Canal to the east to the east leg of the Howard Road intersection to the west. Also included within the project study area is the intersection at Lexington Avenue and Lee Road.
Small portions of the project study area are contained within the Town of Greece (northern limit) and the City of Rochester (northeastern limit). The Chili Avenue and Mt. Read Boulevard interchanges are not inclusive in the project study area. See Exhibit 1.2.1-1 for the Project Location Map, Exhibit 1.2.1-2 for a map of the Project Study Area, and Exhibit 1.2.1-3 for an Existing Conditions map showing lane configurations; all of which can be found in Appendix A.
2.1. Project History – This section summarizes the project’s evolution up to the start of Preliminary Design Phases I-IV as defined in the New York State Department of Transportation’s (NYSDOT or Department) Project Development Manual (PDM). A detailed project history is included in Appendix I and Public Involvement activities are included in Appendix G.
· A Major Investment Study (MIS) was conducted by the NYSDOT and completed in 1998. It was titled “Route 390, From I-490 to Route 104, Major Investment Study – Initial Range of Alternatives & Screening”. It recommended three alternatives for further consideration.
· The NYSDOT prepared the Expanded Project Proposal (EPP) to further evaluate the three MIS alternatives, to develop new alternatives, and to provide recommendations for advancing to Preliminary Design Phases I-IV. The EPP was called “NY Route 390 Project – Expanded Project Proposal” (PIN 4040.38). It was published in April 2003 and recommended two alternatives. The EPP included a multi-use trail linking the NY 390 Trail to the Erie Canal Heritage Trail, which has since been separated from this project as a standalone P.I.N. (see Section 2.2.1.3).
· Preliminary Design Phases I-IV began, which led to the “NYS Route 390, Trolley Boulevard to NYS Route 104 – Draft Design Report”, dated November 2005. The report was never completed or published as emerging program priorities and fiscal constraints state-wide led the NYSDOT and Federal Highway Administration focus their efforts on developing alternatives that addressed critical non-standard geometry and operational deficiencies directly affecting safety.
· In August 2005, a re-evaluation study was started by the Department that culminated with the “NYS Route 390 Project – Expanded Project Proposal Amendment”. The report was never completed or published as the project was put on hold in October 2006.
· A Value Engineering (VE) study titled “NYS Route 390/I-490 Interchange - Value Engineering Study Report” was conducted in September 2007 to evaluate the unpublished EPP Amendment alternatives, and to consider new ideas that addressed the basic highway and interchange
2-1 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
functions, which would result in the best value considering non-economic benefits and life cycle costs. Two alternatives were identified that offered reasonable cost-effective solutions, and two new alternatives (V-A and V-B) were developed.
· The Department performed a validation review of Alternatives V-A and V-B. It was determined that generally the VE alternatives lay out acceptably, however some design adjustments and work limit changes were needed. In May 2008 the Department recommended that Alternative V- A be retained, but merged with portions of Alternative V-B, and renamed it as Alternative A1.
· In September 2010, the preliminary design process began (i.e. Phases I-IV), which will culminate with the final publication of this report and identification of a Preferred Alternative. The Public Involvement Process also resumed in 2010.
2.2. Transportation Plans and Land Use The current land use surrounding the project study area is shown in Exhibit 2.2.1 in Appendix A. There is a mixture of land uses within and adjacent to the project corridor, including residential, commercial, industrial and community services. The primary land uses adjacent to the project highways are summarized as follows:
· I-390 between Chili Avenue and I-490: residential, commercial, industrial and community services east and west; · NY 390 between I-490 and Lyell Avenue: residential west and mixture of vacant land, commercial and residential east; · NY 390 between Lyell Avenue and Trolley Boulevard: residential west and east; · NY 390 between Trolley Boulevard and Lexington Avenue: commercial, industrial and vacant land east and west, including community services for the Canalway Trail; · I-490 between Mt Read Boulevard and I-390/NY 390: industry north and south; · I-490 between I-390/NY 390 and NY 531: residential north and mixture of residential and community services south, including community services for Canalway Trail; · Lyell Avenue between Erie Canal and NY 390: a mixture of commercial and industrial north and south; · Lyell Avenue between NY 390 and Howard Road: commercial/retail and nearby residential north and south; · Lee Road between Lyell Avenue and Lexington Avenue: a mixture of residential, commercial, industrial and vacant land, including community services for Canalway Trail; · Lexington Avenue between NY 390 and Lee Road: vacant land, nearby residential north, and commercial south.
2.2.1. Local Plans for the Project Area
2.2.1.1. Local Master Plan – The project is located at the eastern edge of the Town of Gates. It is adjacent to the western limits of the City of Rochester and the southern limits of the Town of Greece. Among the planning goals of these communities for transportation systems are:
· Achievement of a traffic infrastructure system that provides safety and ease of travel. · Plans that mitigate traffic conflicts in order to contribute to economic viability and physical enhancements. · Develop plans that connect current and future trails, bikeways and walkways to provide access throughout the towns and city, other than the auto or mass transit modes. · Continue to work with the County and State to identify road improvement projects that can be incorporated into their respective transportation programs.
The Regional Planning Group has reviewed the local master plans prepared for the Towns of Gates and Greece, and the City of Rochester. This project is consistent with the local master plans. See Section 4.2.1 for a more detailed discussion on the Local Master Plan for the Town of Gates.
2-2 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
2.2.1.2. Local Private Development Plans – There are no approved developments planned or pending highway access permits within the project study area that will impact traffic operations.
However, a development is planned near the project study area that will likely have some modest impact on traffic operations through the project corridor. A mixed use development known as “City Gate” is progressing through the SEQR process. It is located southeast of the project study area near I-390 and adjacent to NY 15A (E. Henrietta Road). The development is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Westfall Road and E. Henrietta Road, which is located within ½ mile of Interchange 16 on I-390. This interchange is located approximately 5 miles south of the 390/490 interchange. The mixed use development contained in “City Gate” consists of a diverse mixture of retail, office, hotels and residential and recreational opportunities. The site encompasses 63 acres and is anticipated to generate nearly 1100 and 1500 new roadway vehicle trips during the AM and PM peak hours respectively. A portion of these forecasted vehicles are anticipated to utilize the various roadway segments within the project study area. Construction of City Gate is anticipated to begin in 2012 and be phased over the course of approximately 10 years.
2.2.1.3. Regional Trails Initiative – The purpose of the Regional Trails Initiative (2002) was to develop an action plan for creating a safe, accessible, and highly functional regional trail system. As part of this planning effort, a list was prepared of the near-term, mid-term, and long-term trail project recommendations. Also included were Priority Trail Projects, which were identified for immediate implementation as a result of the Steering Committee’s project sorting process. The following trail projects are within or near the project vicinity.
· Northwest Erie Canal Corridor Trail · Westside Canalway Trail Section #2 – I-490 to Canal Ponds Business Park · Westside Canalway Trail Section #3 – Buffalo Road to I-490 · Canalway Trail Upgrade – Brighton to Greece
As indicated in Section 2.1, the NY 390 Multi-Use Trail project (PIN 4390.08) will construct a new section of trail from the Canalway Trail to the NY 390 bike path at NY 104 (West Ridge Road). This project should not have an impact on the project corridor during construction.
2.2.2. Transportation Corridor
2.2.2.1. Importance of the Project Route Segment – The 390/490 and 390/31 interchanges serve approximately 200,000 vehicles making local, regional, and statewide trips each day. I-390, NY 390 and I-490 are all part of the National Highway System (NHS). All principal and minor arterials are listed as New York State Designated Truck Access Routes, which accommodate large trucks, including tractor trailer combinations with trailers up to 53 ft. long. This and other classification data for all roadways within the project study area can be found in Section 2.3.1.1 of this report.
I-390 extends southeasterly from the 390/490 interchange and provides service to centers of commerce, trade, academia and residences. It is also a vital link to the Greater Rochester International Airport, which is located just south of the project study area. In the more south-central area of Monroe County, I- 390 interchanges with I-590 south of Rochester and continues southerly to interchange with I-90.
NY 390 serves other areas of commerce, industry and residences that utilize the corridor on a daily basis. The NY 390 expressway extends north toward Lake Ontario for a distance of nearly 8 miles and ends at the Lake Ontario State Parkway, which parallels the shoreline of Lake Ontario. Within the project study area, NY 390 has interchanges with the east/west oriented urban minor arterials, including NY 31 (Lyell Avenue) and Lexington Avenue. Each of these arterials serve local centers of residences, commerce, retail and industry.
I-490 generally provides service to motorists in an easterly/westerly direction through Monroe County. It provides a direct connection between the Rochester area and I-90, an east-west corridor passing through the length of New York State between Pennsylvania at the western limits and Massachusetts at the eastern border. I-490 has connections to other expressways in the urban area. Those included are I-390
2-3 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13 and I-590/NY 590 that serve motorists traveling more in a general north/south direction in the central area of Monroe County, and NY 531 serving motorists traveling in a general east-west direction at the western limits of Monroe County. I-490 interchanges with NY 531 approximately 1 ½ miles west of the project study area. NY 531 is an expressway that extends westerly a distance of nearly 8 miles heading towards Brockport, serving residences, industry, commerce and academia institutions.
Within the project study area, I-490 provides a direct connection to the central business district of Rochester and other centers of commerce and trade to the east, and I-90 to the west as a connection to intrastate, interstate and international trade corridors. Local and regional commuters, freight haulers of national and international transport, visitors and tourists to the region, utilize this section of I-490.
Locally, NY 31 (Lyell Avenue) serves as the primary traffic mover for the Town of Gates and is a vital link in the local roadway network. The roadway functions as an urban minor arterial providing access to, and economic sustenance for, a large number of adjacent commercial developments. The regional significance of the roadway lies in its capability to provide connection between the densely developed County roadway system and major regional facilities, including 390/490.
Lexington Avenue serves areas to the east of NY 390 that are primarily industrial and commercial in terms of land use. It extends east from the interchange at NY 390 to Mt. Read Boulevard and terminates at Lake Avenue just west of the Genesee River. Bellwood Drive intersects Lexington Avenue to the north, just west of NY 390 and provides access to the Canal Ponds Business Park.
Lee Road (CR 154) runs parallel to NY 390 and intersects both Lyell Avenue and Lexington Avenue within the project study area. Its intersection with Lyell Avenue represents its southern terminus and it extends northward to Ridgeway Avenue providing access to residential and industrial areas, including the Kodak Distribution Center. Lee Road carries a fair amount of truck traffic.
2.2.2.2. Alternate Routes – Present and forecasted volumes of commuters traveling through the project study area are ten’s of thousand of vehicles each day, with many thousands during the peak hours alone. Due to these significant traffic volumes, alternative routes are limited and insufficient to absorb current and forecasted traffic. All nearby alternative routes have signalized intersections; there are no alternate freeway or expressway facilities.
Vehicles destined to and from the north along NY 390, connecting with I-390 to and from the south, have limited alternative routes. To the west of the 390 corridor, alternative routes include Long Pond Road, an urban minor arterial, and Howard Road (an urban collector roadway). These two roads have an offset connection to each other via Spencerport Road (NY 31). This at-grade arterial and collector system contains signalized intersections.
An option to the west side alternative described above is the Mt. Read Boulevard / Thurston Road corridor located on the east side of the NY 390/I-390 corridor. These two roads have an offset connection to each other via Buffalo Road (NY 33). Both routes are at-grade roadways with signalized intersections. Mt. Read Boulevard is a principal arterial, Thurston Rd is a collector.
As congestion and delay increases with forecasted commuter traffic on I-490, alternative routing to the Rochester central business district from communities to the west becomes a consideration. An option to I-490 is the Buffalo Road to Main Street corridor. Within the project study area, Buffalo Road is south of and parallel to I-490. Buffalo Road has a direct connection to I-490 west of the project area. This alternative route is an at-grade urban minor arterial system with signalized intersections.
Another alternate route to the Rochester central business district from the west is Lyell Road (County Road 117), which transitions to Lyell Avenue immediately west of the project study area. This east-west corridor is located immediately north of the NY 531/I-490 corridor, and is an at-grade urban collector with signalized intersections.
2.2.2.3. Corridor Deficiencies and Needs – Traffic congestion within the project study area limits the movement of people and goods at several locations during the morning and evening peak commuter
2-4 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13 periods. In addition, high accident rates and deteriorated facilities with high operational costs are evident throughout the project study area.
Congestion occurs during the morning peak period along southbound NY 390 from Lexington Avenue to I-490, and continues south on I-390. Some of the most severe congestion occurs in the NY 390 southbound weave area between the successive interchanges with Lyell Avenue and I-490. Congestion also occurs on the ramp from southbound NY 390 to eastbound I-490 as merging restraints occur with eastbound mainline I-490 traffic. In addition, traffic on eastbound I-490 destined for southbound I-390 has been observed to backup on and approaching the exit ramp due to merging restraints with I-390 through traffic during the morning peak period.
Congestion occurs during the afternoon peak period along northbound I-390 south of the I-490 interchange, and in the northbound weave section of NY 390 between the I-490 and Lyell Avenue interchanges. Traffic slows and occasionally stops on the ramp from westbound I-490 to northbound NY 390 as a result of weaving and merging conditions at the juncture with NY 390. Another area of slow traffic movement during the evening peak period is the diverge from northbound I-390 to westbound I- 490. Additional congestion occurs along Lyell Avenue in the vicinity of the two offset intersections with Lee Road and the northbound NYS 390 exit ramp.
Additional congestion occurs during typical commute peak periods along I-490 easterly from the central business district (CBD) for a distance of nearly 5 miles to the Elmwood Avenue/NY 441 interchange. Other pockets of congestion occur during peak commute periods on arterials throughout the urban area of Monroe County, primarily north, south and east of the CBD. Refer to Section 2.3.1.7 for further discussion of traffic operations.
As discussed in Section 2.3.1.8, a significant amount of accidents are occurring within the project study area due to stop and go congestion on the mainline and along Lyell Avenue, particularly at intersections. In addition, there are substandard design features also contributing to safety and mobility issues. As discussed in Section 2.3.3.2, several existing design features do not meet the minimum standards used by the NYSDOT to make capital infrastructure improvements and/or do not conform to normally accepted practice.
The Genesee Transportation Council (GTC) is responsible for the development and maintenance of transportation plans for the Transportation Management Area (TMA) of Monroe County and adjacent developed areas of Livingston, Ontario and Wayne counties. To achieve this goal, GTC has established a Congestion Management Process (CMP) to collect transportation data, identify options to resolve congestion and safety issues, and establish priorities of implementation. The tools utilized by GTC to address congestion and safety issues include Transportation System Management (TSM), Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), and Travel Demand Management (TDM) techniques.
Data collection is an ongoing program by GTC and NYSDOT within and adjacent to the project study area. GTC performed a Travel Time Data Collection Program in 2008 to measure the level of congestion during peak travel periods within the Rochester Transportation Management Area (TMA). Based on the results of the study, the following three segments within the project study area were identified as being congested during peak travel periods:
· I-490: Exit 7 Buffalo Road to Exit 10 Mt. Read Boulevard (AM Peak Period) · I-390: Exit 22 Lexington Avenue to Exit 17 Scottsville Road (AM Peak Period) · I-390: Exit 17 Scottsville Road to Exit 22 Lexington Avenue (PM Peak Period)
Typical TSM techniques include intersection and signal improvements, freeway bottleneck removal programs, data collection to monitor system performance, and special events management strategies. Traffic signal timing along Lyell Avenue between Spencerport Road and Lee Road has been implemented by NYSDOT. NYSDOT continually reviews collision reports on the state highway system within the corridor to identify and evaluate potential locations of safety concerns.
2-5 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Components of an Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) implemented within the project corridor and adjacent areas include Closed Circuit Television Cameras (CCTV), Dynamic Message Signs (DMS’s), Highway Advisory Radio (HAR), Remote Microwave Traffic Sensors (RMTS), and associated communication systems that allow interaction between them and the Regional Traffic Operations Center (RTOC). While some of these devices provide useful tools in viewing congestion and providing messages to the traveling public, they have not eliminated localized traffic congestion within the project corridor. Refer to Section 2.3.1.4 for further discussion of ITS infrastructure.
TDM techniques considered by GTC as part of the CMP include options of public transportation fare structures, system expansion, system operational improvements and transit supportive development. Several Rochester Genesee Regional Transportation Authority (RGRTA) bus routes operate within the project study area; however, they were not implemented as congestion relief measures specifically for the NY 390 / I-390 and I-490 corridors. Refer to Section 2.3.2.3 for additional information on transit services.
2.2.2.4. Transportation Plans – One of the responsibilities of the Genesee Transportation Council (GTC) is to maintain a Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The document created by the Program is required by the USDOT in order to receive federal transportation funding. The TIP identifies and schedules specific transportation improvements that will receive federal transportation funding over the next four years (2014-2017).
Phase 2 (PIN 4390.30) of the NYS Route 390/I-490/NYS Route 31 Interchange project is on the approved GTC TIP as project Ref No. 36. It is the #1 Priority Project in the Genesee Valley (NYSDOT Region 4), which is comprised of nine counties in the Genesee-Finger Lakes Region of Western New York. The current TIP encompasses years 2014-2017 and identifies projects to be constructed that have dedicated funds within that time-frame for construction.
Aside from the continuing inspection and preventative maintenance contained in the TIP, only one project is listed for construction that may have an impact on the project corridor. It is a NYSDOT project entailing highway rehabilitation (PIN 4033.02) to Buffalo Road from Trabold Road to Marway Circle, which is west of the project study area. The construction commenced in 2014 and will be complete in august 2015.
The TIP also mentions that there will be a NYSDOT Joint Repair project at 11 Locations in Monroe County (PIN 480638). The project is scheduled to start construction in 2017.
The I-390 Interchange Improvement project at Route 15 (Exit 16 Part 2) (PIN 4390.23) is currently under construction but should not have an impact on the construction of this project.
The final phase of the I-390 Interchange Improvements at Exit 16 (PIN 4390.59) will replace the Route 15A bridge over the Erie Canal and reconfigure I-390 NB Exit 16 ramps and lanes connecting to Route 15A. This project will be progressed using a Design-Build contract, which is anticipated to commence in March 2015 and be completed in 2017.
Improvements are planned for the Buffalo Road-Howard Road intersection, however it is currently not programmed as a project.
The NY 390/I-390, I-490 and NY 31 corridors are important transportation components of the local, regional and intrastate/interstate highway system. As such, any work zone for this project or any other adjacent projects that may consider using these corridors as a detour would require coordination. At this time, no projects have been identified that would utilize any of the roadways within the project study area as for a detour.
The GTC Board adopted the Long Range Transportation Plan for the Genesee-Finger Lakes Region: 2035 (LRTP 2035) on June 17, 2011. It was developed to examine opportunities to implement techniques through the CMP to reduce congestion, improve safety and enhance the efficiency of all transportation systems. Given that the current highway and bridge network capacity is projected to be sufficient for the needs of people and freight now and throughout the time period covered by the LRTP 2035, transportation investments will focus on preserving and maintaining the existing infrastructure while
2-6 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13 also providing additional investments in the public transportation, bicycle, and pedestrian networks. Part of the preservation and maintenance recommendations are those that focus on Asset Management and Improved Design. The LRTP 2035 lists the reconstruction of the I-490/I-390/NYS Route 390 interchange as a project representative of Asset Management and Improved Design and considers it part of the CMP. There are no specific projects designated in the TIP or the LRTP 2035 to be implemented in the project study area that are classified as Transportation Demand Management or Transportation System Management techniques.
Additionally, this project has been identified as a near-term recommendation of the Transportation Strategies for Freight and Goods Movement in the Genesee-Finger Lakes Region (the Regional Freight Plan), which was jointly funded by GTC and NYSDOT and completed in September 2012. Near-term recommendations are projects that meet immediate needs and have regional, state-wide, or national scale and/or rank high on the Cost-Effectiveness scale. These types of projects should be implemented as soon as the resources become available.
There are no planned and funded ITS projects in the current TIP to be constructed in the project study area. In contrast, GTC’s Intelligent Transportation Systems Strategic Plan for Greater Rochester dated April 2010 has identified a long-term ITS Deployment Plan that has key target areas within the project study area. In addition, an ITS project within and adjacent to the project study area was constructed in the towns of Gates and Greece along a 7 mile stretch of the NY 390 corridor during the 2012 construction season. Refer to Section 2.3.1.4 for further discussion of ITS infrastructure.
2.2.2.5. Abutting Highway Segments and Future Plans for Abutting Highway Segments – The abutting roadway segments of I-490, I-390 / NY 390, NY 31 (Lyell Avenue) and Lexington Avenue are described in the following sub-sections. Roadways that intersect these highway segments are described in Section 2.2.2.5.(6). Posted speed limits for the abutting roadway segments are the same as those that are within the project study area and are listed in Exhibit 2.3.1.5 (1)-1. Posted speed limits for other intersecting roadways are described in Section 2.2.2.5.(6). All abutting roadway segments consist of an asphalt pavement surface and do not provide bicycle lanes or sidewalks, except for the sidewalks located along NY 31 (Spencerport Road) as described in Section 2.2.2.5.(3).
2.2.2.5.(1) I-490 – The abutting segment of I-490 west of the project study area extends from the Howard Road to the Wegman Road overpass, a distance of approximately 1 mile. The eastbound and westbound segments consist of three 12 ft. through lanes with standard shoulder widths (6 ft. left, 10 ft. right). Although similar, horizontal and vertical alignments for the abutting segments are independent, with relatively flat horizontal curves providing for a variable median width from 37 to 210 ft. The vertical alignment is also relatively flat. The pavement and shoulders are generally in good condition, with the exception of the eastbound shoulders that are generally in fair condition.
The abutting segment of I-490 east of the project study area extends from the Erie Canal to the Mt. Read Boulevard interchange, a distance of approximately 0.70 miles. The eastbound and westbound segments consist of three 12 ft. through lanes with standard 10 ft. right shoulder widths. The left shoulders vary in width from 2 to 10 ft. Auxiliary lanes connect the interchange ramps throughout this segment providing a total of four lanes in each direction of travel. Along this segment, the majority of the median is paved with a concrete safety barrier providing a width of 25 ft. The horizontal alignment is tangent with relatively flat horizontal curves approaching the interchanges. Immediately east of the Erie Canal, horizontal and vertical alignments for the abutting segments are independent providing for a variable median width from 30 to 150 ft. The vertical alignment can be described as rolling. The pavement and shoulders are in good condition.
In 2006, I-490 was resurfaced with an asphalt overlay from NY 204 to Howard Road. From 2007 to 2009, the Western Gateway project (PIN 4490.09 / NYSDOT Contract Number D260481) included rehabilitation of both directions of I-490, from the Erie Canal to approximately 3.4 miles east. Where existing pavement sections were overlaid, the existing concrete pavement section was rubblized and overlaid with 8 inches of hot mix asphalt. Less commonly, pavement sections were reconstructed (e.g., at bridge approaches). Reconstructed sections consist of 10 inches of asphalt.
2-7 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Howard Road, which crosses over I-490 and represents the western extent of the project study area along I-490, is discussed in Section 2.2.2.5.(6).
2.2.2.5.(2) I-390 / NYS Route 390 – The abutting segment of I-390 south of the project study area extends from the northernmost Chili Avenue interchange ramp terminals to the Brooks Avenue Interchange, a distance of approximately 1 mile. To the north of the Brooks Avenue interchange the northbound and southbound horizontal alignments diverge to a median width of over 100 ft., then transition to a width of 36 feet at the Buell Road overpass. The 36 ft. width is held for the remainder of the abutting segment. The vertical alignment is rolling, as related to the profile over Chili Avenue. The northbound segment consists of three 12 ft. through lanes with a 12 ft. auxiliary lane extending from the Brooks Avenue interchange to Chili Avenue interchange; the shoulder width is 8 ft. The southbound segment consists of three 12 ft. through lanes with a 12 ft. auxiliary lane between the two interchanges. The left shoulder width is typically 8 ft.; the right shoulder width is 12 ft. The pavement and shoulders are in good condition.
Buffalo Road, which crosses over I-390 just south of the 390/490 interchange, is discussed in Section 2.2.2.5.(6).
The abutting segment of NY 390 north of the project study area extends from the Lexington Avenue interchange to the Ridgeway Avenue interchange, a distance of approximately 0.90 miles. The northbound segment consists of three 12 ft. through lanes with standard shoulder widths (6 ft. left, 10 ft. right). The southbound segment consists of three 12 ft. through lanes with standard shoulder widths (6 ft. left, 12 ft. right). Auxiliary lanes are present at both interchanges. Horizontal and vertical alignments for the abutting segments are independent, with flat horizontal curves providing for variance in the median width from 36 to 68 ft. The vertical alignment can be described as level to rolling. Although the pavement and shoulders are generally in good condition, the southbound direction exhibits minor rutting. In 2003 mainline NY 390 was resurfaced between Lyell Avenue and NY 104.
Trolley Boulevard (CR 115), which crosses under NY 390 between the Lyell Avenue and Lexington Avenue interchanges, is discussed in Section 2.2.2.5.(6).
2.2.2.5.(3) NYS Route 31 (Lyell Avenue) – The abutting segment of Lyell Avenue immediately west of the project study area extends from Howard Road to Long Pond Road, a distance of approximately 0.65 miles. To the west of Howard Road, NY 31 becomes Spencerport Road and transitions to a two lane section with a center (shared) turn lane. Shoulder widths are generally 6 feet. The horizontal alignment is tangent with the exception of a single curve through the Howard Road intersection. The vertical alignment is relatively flat. The pavement and shoulders (where applicable) are generally in fair condition. There are sidewalks on the north side of NY 31 extending west from the northwest corner of Howard Road to Baier Drive. There are signalized intersections at Howard Road, Baier Drive and Long Pond Road.
The abutting segment of Lyell Avenue immediately east of the project study area begins at the Erie Canal bridge. This bridge provides four 10 ft. lanes with minimal shy distance to the bridge trusses. To the east of the bridge, four 12 ft. lanes with curbs are provided. No shoulders are provided. The horizontal alignment is tangent and the vertical alignment can be described as level to rolling. The pavement is in poor condition. Sidewalks exist on both sides of Lyell Avenue. On the north side widths vary from 7 to 8.5 ft. and on the south side widths vary from 4.5 to 8 ft. These sidewalks are in poor condition.
Six streets intersect Lyell Avenue within the project study area. These include Cornelia Drive, Rossmore Street, Matilda Street, Tarwood Drive, Lee Road, and Lee Road Extension. The abutting segment of Lee Road located outside the project study area is discussed in Section 2.2.2.5.(5). The remaining intersecting local streets are discussed in Section 2.2.2.5.(6).
2.2.2.5.(4) Lexington Avenue – The abutting segment of Lexington Avenue east of the project study area begins at the Lee Road intersection. This segment consists of a four lane section with two lanes in each direction and a center lane containing left-turn slots at intersections and select driveways. Travel
2-8 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13 lanes are 12 ft. in width and the roadway is curbed and does not provide shoulders. The horizontal alignment is straight and there are no sidewalks. The pavement is in fair condition.
Two streets intersect Lexington Avenue within the project study area, including Lee Road and Bellwood Drive. The abutting segment of Lee Road located outside the project study area is discussed in Section 2.2.2.5.(5). Bellwood Drive is discussed in Section 2.2.2.5.(6).
2.2.2.5.(5) Lee Road (CR 154) – The abutting segment of Lee Road located outside the project study area consists of all portions of the roadway except for the approaches to the Lyell Avenue and Lexington Avenue intersections. Between Lyell Avenue and Trolley Boulevard, Lee Road consists of two 12 ft. lanes, 8 ft. shoulders, and curbs. This segment of pavement is in good condition. Between Trolley Boulevard and Ridgeway Avenue (not including the Lexington Avenue intersection approaches), Lee Road consists of a four lane section with two lanes in each direction. Travel lanes are 12 ft. in width and the roadway is curbed and does not provide shoulders. To the south of Lexington Avenue the pavement is in fair to good condition and there is a sidewalk on the east side, in fair condition. To the north of Lexington Avenue the pavement is in good condition. The alignment of Lee Road is straight.
2.2.2.5.(6) Other Intersecting Roadways (Buffalo Road, Howard Road, Trolley Boulevard, Cornelia Drive, Rossmore Street, Matilda Street, Tarwood Drive, Lee Road Extension and Bellwood Drive) – With the exception of Lee Road Extension, the horizontal alignments for the roadways described in this section are straight. The vertical alignments are generally level to rolling.
Buffalo Road (NY 33) extends from the City of Rochester and runs in a southwesterly direction to the Town of Bergen, NY. It spans I-390 just south of the 390/490 interchange. Two 12 ft. travel lanes are provided on and approaching the bridge. Shoulder widths on the bridge are 15 ft. in the eastbound direction and 17 ft. in the westbound direction. Shoulder widths approaching the bridge are 8 ft. Concrete gutters exist on each side of the roadway, except over the bridge which is curbed. Sidewalk exists on both sides of the bridge providing widths of 5 and 4.5 ft. on the north and south sides respectively. Sidewalk is not provided on the bridge approaches. The Buffalo Road bridge over I-390 provides a bridge width that is significantly wider than the approach roadway width as it was originally constructed to carry four lanes of traffic. From the Erie Canal, approximately 0.3 miles east of the bridge, to the I-490/Buffalo Road interchange area, approximately 1.75 miles west of the bridge, two travel lanes are provided on Buffalo Road. Beyond those limits, four travel lanes are provided. The posted speed limit on Buffalo Road within the vicinity of the project study area is 40 mph.
Howard Road extends in a north-south direction from Chili Avenue to NY 31. It spans I-490 just west of the 390/490 interchange. The roadway section consists of two 12 ft. travel lanes with 8 ft. shoulders on and approaching the bridge. Concrete gutters exist on each side of the roadway, except over the bridge which is curbed. A 4.5 ft. sidewalk exists on the east side of the bridge only. Sidewalk is not provided on the bridge approaches. The posted speed limit on Howard Road within the vicinity of the project study area is 40 mph.
Trolley Boulevard extends from Long Pond Road to Lee Road, a distance just over 1 mile. It crosses under NY 390 approximately 0.5 miles north of Lyell Avenue. Adjacent to Trolley Boulevard is an inactive and severed section of railroad, which is discussed in Section 2.3.3.10. The roadway section consists of two 11 ft. travel lanes with 6 ft. eastbound and 7 ft. westbound shoulder widths. Concrete gutters exist on each side of the roadway. There is guide rail on both sides of the roadway under the NY 390 bridge. The posted speed limit on Trolley Boulevard is 35 mph.
Cornelia Drive intersects Lyell Avenue to the north, approximately 1600 ft. west of NY 390. This road provides access to businesses in the immediate vicinity of Lyell Avenue and to residential areas to the north and west of the 390/31 interchange. The pavement is 20 ft. in width providing for two 10 ft. lanes, with a 4 ft. shoulder on the east side and a one foot shoulder (typical) on the west side. There are no curbs and there is no lane striping. The pavement is in fair condition. There is no posted speed limit on this street.
2-9 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Rossmore Street intersects Lyell Avenue to the north, approximately 1370 ft. west of NY 390. This road provides access to residential areas to the north and west of the 390/31 interchange. Paved driveways exist along both sides of the street approaching Lyell Avenue. The pavement is 20 ft. in width providing for two 10 ft. lanes, no curbs and no lane striping. The pavement is in fair condition. There is no posted speed limit on this street. Opposite the signalized intersection of Lyell Avenue and Rossmore Street is a multi-lane driveway for the Wegmans grocery store.
Matilda Street intersects Lyell Avenue to the north, approximately 1000 ft. west of NY 390. This road provides access to residential areas to the north and west of the 390/31 interchange. The pavement is 30 ft. in width providing for two 15 ft. lanes, no curbs and no lane striping. The pavement is in fair condition. There is no posted speed limit on this street.
Tarwood Drive intersects Lyell Avenue to the south, approximately 850 ft. west of NY 390. This road provides access to residential areas to the south and west of the 390/31 interchange. The pavement is 20 ft. in width providing for two 10 ft. lanes, curbs and no lane striping. The pavement is in good condition. There is no posted speed limit on this street.
Lee Road Extension intersects Lyell Avenue to the south, approximately 750 ft. east of NY 390. The northern portion of the roadway provides access to a commercial area, including the Stonegate Health Professional Complex and the Stonegate Retail Complex Building. This portion of the roadway contains a hybrid cul de sac, which consists of a 20 ft. wide pavement and concrete gutter. This portion of the pavement is generally in poor condition. The roadway then extends south to a dead end providing access to two residencies. This portion of the roadway consists of a 17 ft. wide pavement and no curb. This portion of the pavement is in fair condition. There is no posted speed limit on this street.
Bellwood Drive intersects Lexington Avenue to the north, just west of NY 390. This local street connects Lexington Avenue with Ridgeway Avenue (CR 111) to the north and provides access to the Canal Ponds Business Park. The pavement is 36 ft. wide providing for two 12 ft. lanes, concrete gutter and a left-turn lane. The left-turn lane is provided at the Lexington Avenue intersection and extends north to BJ’s Wholesale Club driveway. North of BJ’s the pavement reduces to two 12 ft. lanes and concrete gutter. The pavement is in fair condition except near the intersection with Lexington Avenue, where it is in poor condition. The posted speed limit on Bellwood Drive is 35 mph.
The Town of Gates has an ongoing street maintenance program prioritizing the roads in the worst condition first. The town roads have been rated from 1 (best condition) to 5 (worst condition). The most recent list posted on the Town of Gates website was observed in May 2011, which includes roads that will either be paved or patched during the 2011 maintenance season. All town roads within the project study area that are on the list were reviewed. Lee Road Ext. (patch only) was rated a 5; Matilda Street and Rossmore Street a 4; Evelyn Street a 3; and Eugene Street and Tarwood Drive a 1. Field observations performed in the spring of 2011 confirmed that within the limits of the project study area, only Eugene Street and Tarwood Drive have recently received a pavement overlay. Some minor patching has been performed on several of the other roadways.
The Regional Planning Group has confirmed that the New York State Department of Transportation has no plans in the current five-year program period ending March, 2019 to widen or add travel lanes to any of the State Highway segments abutting the project study area. Any projects in the long-term will likely be limited to maintaining the existing system in a state of good repair, but improvements that would involve adding lanes or widening existing facilities are not anticipated. Annual projects to address high priority replacement of overhead sign structures will be undertaken each year, some of which could be in or near the project study area.
The Regional Planning Group has confirmed that the Monroe County Department of Transportation does not have any plans to reconstruct, widen or add lanes to County roads (Trolley Boulevard, CR 115 and Lee Road, CR 154) where they pass through or adjoin the project study area. Likewise, the City of Rochester anticipates only maintenance milling and paving projects in and surrounding the project study area. Lyell Avenue (W. City Line to Mt. Read Blvd.) will be resurfaced in 2015. The Lexington Avenue
2-10 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13 west approach to the Lee Road intersection will likely be resurfaced in 2017/18. Lee Road will be resurfaced within the next 10 years.
2.3. Transportation Conditions, Deficiencies and Engineering Considerations
2.3.1. Operations (Traffic and Safety) & Maintenance
2.3.1.1. Functional Classification and National Highway System (NHS) – Classification data for all roadways within the project study area is listed in Exhibits 2.3.1.1-1 to 2.3.1.1-3. The major roadways are classified as either principal or minor urban arterials that carry large volumes of traffic.
The principal arterials are part of the National Highway System (NHS) and are therefore also considered Qualifying Highways. The NHS is a network of approximately 160,000 miles of roadway important to the nation’s economy, defense and mobility. Qualifying Highways are highways designated as part of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) of 1982 which allows STAA vehicles (tractor-trailer combinations greater than 65 ft., tractor with 28 ft. tandem trailers, maxi-cubes, triple saddle mounts, stinger-steered auto carriers, and boat transporters) and 53 ft. trailers to use that highway and any other highway within one linear mile of the Qualifying Highway.
Although I-390, NY 390 and I-490 are all part of the NHS they are exempt from the Federal government established 16 ft. vertical clearance network. Since the Thruway (I-90) is the designated 16 ft. vertical clearance route through the Rochester urban area, the minimum vertical clearance is 14 ft. as per an email provided by NYSDOT Engineering Structures Management. A copy of the email can be found in Appendix E.
All of the minor arterials are listed as New York State Designated Truck Access Routes (Access Highways). Access Highways are the same as Qualifying Highways except that the trucks may not travel off the access highway for any distance.
Exhibit - 2.3.1.1-1 Classification Data – Principal Arterials Route(s) I-490 I-390 NYS Route 390 Functional Urban Principal Urban Principal Urban Principal Classification Arterial Interstate Arterial Interstate Arterial Expressway National Highway System Yes Yes Yes (NHS) Designated Truck Access Yes Yes Yes Route Qualifying Yes Yes Yes Highway Within 1.6 km (1 mi) of a Yes Yes Yes Qualifying Highway Within the 4.9 m (16 ft) No No No vertical clearance network
2-11 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Exhibit - 2.3.1.1-2 Classification Data – Minor Arterials Lyell Avenue Buffalo Road Lee Road Route(s) Lexington Avenue (NYS Route 31) (NYS Route 33) (CR 154) Functional Urban Minor Urban Minor Urban Minor Urban Minor Classification Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial National Highway System No No No No (NHS) Designated Truck Access Yes Yes Yes Yes Route Qualifying No No No No Highway Within 1.6 km (1 mi) of a Yes Yes Yes Yes Qualifying Highway Within the 4.9 m (16 ft) No No No No vertical clearance network
Exhibit - 2.3.1.1-3 Classification Data – Collectors and Local Roads Bellwood Drive Lee Road Extension Howard Road Trolley Boulevard Cornelia Drive Route(s) (Reference Route 940L) (CR 115) Rossmore Street Matilda Street Tarwood Drive Functional Urban Collector Urban Local Urban Local Classification National Highway System No No No (NHS) Designated Truck Access Yes No No Route Qualifying No No No Highway Within 1.6 km (1 mi) of a Yes Yes Yes Qualifying Highway Within the 4.9 m (16 ft) No No No vertical clearance network
2.3.1.2. Control of Access – Access to I-490, I-390 and NY 390 within the project study area is fully controlled. Access to I-390 and NY 390 is achieved by grade separated interchanges at Lyell Avenue and Lexington Avenue. Full access control extends the full length of all ramps and terminals on the crossroads except at the following locations:
· The proximity of Tarwood Drive to the Lyell Avenue on-ramp to NY 390 SB (Ramp DF) does not conform to the 100 ft. minimum distance requirement as per page 6-36 and Figure 6-Q of the NYSDOT Highway Design Manual (HDM). · The proximity of Lee Road to the NY 390 NB off-ramp to Lyell Avenue (Ramp DD) does not conform to the 50 ft. minimum distance requirement as per Figure 6-S of the HDM. · Bellwood Drive intersects Lexington Avenue at the beginning of the on and off ramps for NY 390 SB (Ramps EC and ED), which does not conform to the control of access requirements restricting access along a ramp.
Access to all other roadways within the project study area is uncontrolled. Access control for commercial driveways located along Lyell Avenue is discussed in Section 2.3.3.1.(6).
2.3.1.3. Traffic Control Devices – There are six signalized intersections within the project study area, located on Lyell Avenue and on Lexington Avenue. The locations are shown on Exhibit 1.2.1-2 and are more specifically identified as follows:
2-12 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
1. Lyell Avenue at Rossmore Street 2. Lyell Avenue at Ramp DB 3. Lyell Avenue at Ramp DD 4. Lyell Avenue at Lee Road 5. Lexington Avenue at Ramps EA and EB 6. Lexington Avenue at Lee Road
The Lyell Avenue signals within the project study area are actuated and coordinated with one another and with the signal at Lyell Avenue and Howard Road. The Lexington Avenue signals are fully actuated. Specific information for these signals is summarized in Exhibits 2.3.1.3-1 through 2.3.1.3-6.
Exhibit - 2.3.1.3-1 Traffic Signal Summary – Lyell Avenue at Rossmore Street Ownership NYSDOT Maintenance Jurisdiction NYSDOT Signal Head Mounting Spanwire Signal Sections 12 inch Illumination LED Overhead Signs Yes, lane use signs (left, through, right) Preemption Detectors None Cabinet & Controller Type Ground mounted Phasing 5-Phase Actuation Actuated Coordination Coordinated Pedestrian Signal Hand and walking person Pedestrian Detectors Push buttons (west approach only) Street Lighting In vicinity: off right of way Overall Condition Good, by visual inspection Additional Observations Pedestrian push buttons do not meet ADA guidelines for accessibility
Exhibit - 2.3.1.3-2 Traffic Signal Summary – Lyell Avenue at Ramp DB Ownership NYSDOT Maintenance Jurisdiction NYSDOT Signal Head Mounting Spanwire Signal Sections 12 inch Illumination LED Overhead Signs None Preemption Detectors None Cabinet & Controller Type Ground mounted Phasing 2-Phase Actuation Actuated Coordination Coordinated Pedestrian Signal None Pedestrian Detectors None Street Lighting In vicinity: on Lyell Avenue, on southbound ramp Overall Condition Good, by visual inspection Additional Observations None
2-13 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Exhibit - 2.3.1.3-3 Traffic Signal Summary – Lyell Avenue at Ramp DD Ownership NYSDOT Maintenance Jurisdiction NYSDOT Signal Head Mounting Spanwire Signal Sections 12 inch Illumination LED Overhead Signs Yes, "left turn only", "right turn only" lane use signs Preemption Detectors None Cabinet & Controller Type Ground mounted (SE corner) Phasing 5-Phase Actuation Actuated Coordination Coordinated Pedestrian Signal None Pedestrian Detectors None Street Lighting In vicinity: on Lyell Avenue, on northbound ramp Overall Condition Good, by visual inspection Additional Observations Overhead sign brackets are corroded
Exhibit - 2.3.1.3-4 Traffic Signal Summary – Lyell Avenue at Lee Road Ownership NYSDOT Maintenance Jurisdiction NYSDOT Signal Head Mounting Spanwire Signal Sections 12 inch Illumination LED Overhead Signs Yes, "left turn only" lane use signs Preemption Detectors None Cabinet & Controller Type Ground mounted (SE corner Lyell and northbound ramp) Phasing 3-Phase Actuation Actuated Coordination Coordinated Pedestrian Signal None Pedestrian Detectors Yes, push buttons (east approach only) Street Lighting In vicinity: on Lyell Avenue Overall Condition Fair, by visual inspection Additional Observations Push buttons in poor condition; Signal heads are weathered; Overhead sign brackets are corroded
Exhibit - 2.3.1.3-5 Traffic Signal Summary – Lexington Avenue at Ramps EA and EB Ownership NYSDOT Maintenance Jurisdiction NYSDOT Signal Head Mounting Spanwire Signal Sections 12 inch Illumination LED Overhead Signs Yes, lane use signs (left, through/right, right) Preemption Detectors None Cabinet & Controller Type Ground mounted Phasing 2-Phase Actuation Fully Actuated Coordination Not Coordinated Pedestrian Signal None Pedestrian Detectors None Street Lighting In vicinity: on Lexington Avenue Overall Condition Fair, by visual inspection Additional Observations Overhead sign brackets are corroded (slightly)
2-14 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Exhibit - 2.3.1.3-6 Traffic Signal Summary – Lexington Avenue at Lee Road Ownership MCDOT Maintenance Jurisdiction MCDOT Signal Head Mounting Spanwire Signal Sections 12 inch Illumination LED Overhead Signs Yes, "left turn only" lane use signs Preemption Detectors None Cabinet & Controller Type Ground mounted Phasing 8-Phase Actuation Fully Actuated Coordination Not Coordinated Pedestrian Signal Bimodal hand and walking person, full field LED Pedestrian Detectors Push buttons (south and east approaches only) Street Lighting In vicinity: on Lexington Avenue, on Lee Road Overall Condition Fair, by visual inspection Additional Observations None
There are eleven overhead sign structures within the project study area. Their locations are shown in Exhibit 1.2.1-2 in Appendix A. Eight overhead sign structures are tri-chord trusses. SIN 40662 is a cantilever truss. SIN 40128 and SIN 40697 were constructed in 2011 as part of NYSDOT Contract Number D261262. SIN 40128 replaced in-kind former SIN 40130. SIN 40697 replaced former SIN 40698 and was installed several hundred feet south of the existing structure. There are three sign panels mounted on the CSX bridge over I-390.
The tri-chord overhead sign structures within the project area are aluminum trusses mounted on galvanized steel posts. NYSDOT research and field inspections have determined that fatigue and cracked welds are a recurring problem in this type of sign structure. Overhead sign structure design standards have been revised per AASHTO guidance.
Reports for sign inspections completed between 2008 and 2010 within the project study area were reviewed and the results are summarized in Exhibit 2.3.1.3-7. As shown, four structures have been flagged as having structural concerns. Cracked welds were noted in one inspection.
In terms of reflectivity, the overhead sign panels are generally in fair to good condition, with those having been recently replaced in excellent condition. The sign panels on SIN 40662, SIN 40132, and SIN 40140 were recently replaced as part of NYSDOT Contract Number D261262. Sign panels that were noted to be in poor condition during a field visit in the spring of 2011 also appear to have been recently replaced, including the sign panel for SIN 40655 and the sign panels mounted on the CSX railroad bridge.
Exhibit 2.3.1.3-7 Overhead Sign Structures Summary SIN Type No. of Minimum General Flag Flag Description Sign Vertical Recommendation Issued Panels Clearance m (ft.)
40132 Span 2 5.33 4 No (17.5) (2008)
40135 Span 3 5.94 5 No (19.5) (2008)
40140 Span 3 5.49 5 No (18.0) (2008)
2-15 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Exhibit 2.3.1.3-7 Overhead Sign Structures Summary 40658 Span 2 5.55 4 No (18.2) (2008)
40128 Span 3 5.35 ------(See (17.5) Note)
40697 Span 2 5.35 ------(See (17.5) Note)
40655 Span 1 5.40 4 Yes Crack in aluminum weld, (17.7) (2010) panel point 40660 Span 3 5.73 4 Yes Corrosion ring in the left front (18.8) (2010) post, loss of post thicknesses in both left posts
40662 Cantilever 1 5.24 5 Yes Front left anchor bolt nut (17.2) (2010) loose. 40665 Span 3 5.15 5 Yes Front right, front left, and (16.9) (2010) back left anchor bolt nuts loose. 40696 Span 3 4.94 4 No (16.2) (2010)
Note: Constructed in 2011 as part of NYSDOT Contract Number D261262.
In 2007, signing improvements were made in conjunction with PIN 4T37.06 (NYSDOT Contract Number D260422) from the 390/31 interchange northward, extending beyond the project study area. These improvements included overhead guide signs, regulatory signs, advisory speed signs, warning signs, route signs, and object markers. Otherwise, ground mounted signs within the project study area are generally in fair condition.
In general, mainline and ramp pavement markings are in fair condition throughout the project limits. The 390/31 interchange pavement markings are generally in good condition. Pavement markings are in poor condition at isolated locations, including the northbound direction of I-390 in the vicinity of the Ramp SE diverge and the southbound direction of I-390 between the Ramp NE diverge and the Ramp WS merge.
Lyell Avenue pavement markings are in fair condition except at intersections, where they are in poor to fair condition (e.g., symbols and crosswalks). Lexington Ave pavement marking is in fair condition, with the exception of the words and symbols at Lee Road, which are in poor to fair condition.
2.3.1.4. Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) – Existing ITS infrastructure operates within the project study area. The infrastructure includes Closed Circuit Television (CCTV), Dynamic Message Signs (DMS), Highway Advisory Radio (HAR), and Remote Microwave Traffic Sensors (RMTS). Communications to these devices include a combination of dedicated fiber optic cable, dial-up telephone service, and wireless radio. Combined these devices provide surveillance for traffic operations, incident detection, and incident management/notification. All the devices listed are owned and operated by the NYSDOT.
Closed Circuit Television Cameras (CCTV): There are four (4) CCTV’s located within the project study area:
2-16 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
1. I-490 eastbound ramp to NY 390 northbound 2. I-390 northbound, north of I-490 westbound ramp 3. I-490 westbound, east of the Erie Canal 4. I-390 southbound at Buffalo Road
Other CCTV cameras located or proposed near the project study area include: 1. North: NY 390 and NY 104 – approximately 3.5 miles north of the 390/490 interchange. 2. North: NY 390 and Ridgeway Avenue – approximately 2.5 miles north of the 390/490 interchange (proposed as part of PIN 4ITS18, Contract D261624) 3. South: I-390 and Chili Avenue – approximately 1 mile south of Buffalo Road 4. East: I-490 and CSX Railroad Overpass – approximately 0.5 miles east of the Erie Canal 5. West: none
Real-time images from the cameras are available to the general public online through the 511NY website at http://www.511ny.org and via the 511NY mobile app. 511NY was developed through the leadership of the NYSDOT with information provided by New York’s transportation agencies.
Dynamic Message Signs (DMS): There are six (6) DMS located near the project study area: 1. NY 390 southbound, south of NY 104 2. I-490 eastbound, west of Howard Road 3. I-490 eastbound, east of Mt. Read Boulevard 4. I-490 westbound, east of Mt. Read Boulevard 5. NY 390 southbound, north of Scottsville Road 6. NY 390 northbound, south of Buell Road
Highway Advisory Radio (HAR): There are two (2) HAR devices operating at 910 AM located near the project study area: 1. Transmitter: I-490 eastbound at Mt. Read Boulevard northbound ramp, South side of I-490 2. Advisory Sign with Beacons: NY 390 south at Ridgeway Avenue ramp median
Microwave Traffic Sensors: There is one (1) pair of Microwave Traffic Sensors located within the project study area. They are located on NY 390 NB/SB, between Buffalo Road and Chili Avenue.
There are three (3) pairs of Microwave Traffic Sensors located or proposed near the project study area: 1. North: NY 390 NB/SB at Ridgeway Avenue (proposed as part of PIN 4ITS18, Contract D261624) 2. South: NY 390 NB/SB – within the Chili Avenue interchange 3. East: I-490 EB/WB – east of Mt. Read Boulevard 4. West: none
Wireless Radio Communications: There are three (3) wireless broadband radio sites within the project study area that will be installed in the Spring/Summer of 2011 as part of PIN 4ITS18, Contract D261624: 1. I-490 eastbound ramp to NY 390 northbound 2. Intersection of NY 390 NB and Lyell Avenue 3. Intersection of NY 390 NB and Lexington Avenue
Fiber Optic Communications: There are two fiber optic communication circuits (backbones) near the project study area. One is owned, operated, and maintained by the NYSDOT and is installed along I-390 between I-490 and the Genesee River and along I-490 between I-390 and the Plymouth Avenue interchange. The second fiber backbone is owned, operated and maintained by the Monroe County Department of Environmental Services (MCDES) and is installed along Trolley Boulevard just north of the Lyell Avenue interchange. This segment connects several county traffic facility systems and traffic cameras on Long Pond Road and is a separate system from NYSDOT. All NYSDOT owned fiber and several strands of MCDES fiber allows data to be transferred back to the Regional Traffic Operations Center (RTOC).
2-17 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
The Regional Traffic Operations Center (RTOC): All ITS elements within the project study area are operated through the RTOC located adjacent to the Greater Rochester International Airport on Scottsville Road, approximately 3 miles south of the 390/490 interchange. The RTOC facility is jointly operated by the NYSDOT, Monroe County Department of Transportation (MCDOT), Monroe County Airport Authority and New York State Police. The facility serves as a centralized location to provide for complete detection and response capabilities for both the daily routine of traffic as well as traffic incident management.
Contained within the facility is the Traffic Control Center where the majority of Monroe County’s 600+ traffic signals can be monitored and controlled remotely via the Traffic Control System. The system measures and analyzes traffic conditions and automatically controls the timing of the traffic signals. Within the project study area, the Lyell Avenue corridor has a coordinated signal system between Long Pond Road and Lee Road controlled by the NYSDOT. Maintenance and dispatch of the existing traffic signal system crews are also housed RTOC.
The Genesee Transportation Council (GTC): The designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for transportation policy, planning, and investment decision making in the Genesee-Finger Lakes Region is the Genesee Transportation Council (GTC). According to the GTC’s Intelligent Transportation Systems Strategic Plan for Greater Rochester dated April 2010, the long-term ITS Deployment Plan lists key target areas including (but not limited to) I- 490, I-390, NY 390, NY 31 and NY 33. The GTC has identified as critical corridors to focus future investments for upgrades and integration of systems to round out management capabilities.
Planned Improvements: During the summer of 2012, NYSDOT project D261624 includes the installation of a temporary wireless broadband radio. This will provide temporary communications to the intersections of Route 31 and NY 390 and allow for integrated/coordinated interchange signal timing systems of the ramp signals. As part of NYSDOT’s long term goal a permanent fiber optic communications will be incorporated to provide more broadband data capacity to better monitor traffic coordination, congestion, and disseminate traveler information. Dynamic Message Signs will help provide better incident management and disseminate traffic information to travelers; a CCTV will aid in monitoring incidents and traffic progression along the corridor. These permanent ITS improvements to the Route 31/NYS Route 390 project area falls within the long range planned expansion as defined in the Rochester Areawide ATMS Plan “IMAGE” dated March, 1996.
2.3.1.5. Speeds and Delay – Posted regulatory speed limits and existing operating speeds are described in the following sections.
2.3.1.5. (1) Posted Speed Limits – Posted regulatory speed limits within the project study area are listed in Exhibit 2.3.1.5 (1)-1. Roadways that do not appear in this exhibit do not have a posted regulatory speed limit and are covered by the NYS Statutory Speed Limit of 55 mph.
Exhibit - 2.3.1.5 (1)-1 Existing Posted Regulatory Speed Limits Posted Off Peak Route Limits Speed Limit Operating Speed (mph) (mph) I-390 CSX Railroad Bridge to I-490 55 60 NYS Route 390 I-490 to north of Lexington Avenue Interchange 55 60 I-490 Howard Road to Erie Canal 55 60 NYS Route 31 West of Rossmore Street to Erie Canal 40 45 (Lyell Avenue) Lee Road (CR 154) Lyell Avenue to north of Lexington Avenue 35 45 Lexington Avenue East of Lee Road to NY 390 SB Ramps 35 45 Bellwood Drive North of Lexington Avenue 35 Rossmore Street North of Lyell Avenue 30
2-18 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Posted ramp advisory speeds within the project study area are listed in Exhibit 2.3.1.5 (1)-2. Ramps that do not appear in this exhibit do not have a posted advisory speed. Ramp designations are shown in Exhibits 1.2.1-2 and 1.2.1-3 of Appendix A.
Exhibit - 2.3.1.5 (1)-2 Existing Posted Ramp Advisory Speeds Advisory Speed Ramp Designation Description (mph) SW I-390 NB to I-490 WB 35 SE I-390 NB to I-490 EB 40 ES I-490 WB to I-390 SB 50 EN I-490 WB to NY 390 NB 50 NW NY 390 SB to I-490 WB 45 NE NY 390 SB to I-490 EB 40 WN I-490 EB to NY 390 NB 40 WS I-490 EB to I-390 SB 50 DD NY 390 NB to Lyell Avenue 30 DB NY 390 SB to Lyell Avenue 35 DC Lyell Avenue WB to NY 390 SB 30 DF Lyell Avenue EB to NY 390 SB 30 DE Lyell Avenue EB to NY 390 NB 25 EC NY 390 SB to Lexington Avenue 30 ED Lexington Avenue WB to NY 390 SB 30
2.3.1.5 (2) Existing Operating Speeds – Average peak hour travel speeds, determined from the travel time and delay study (see Section 2.3.1.5 (3) below), are summarized in Exhibit 2.3.1.5 (2)-1 of Appendix C. Operating speeds were typically below the posted speed limits during peak commuter periods at the locations identified above in Exhibit - 2.3.1.5 (1)-1. The slowest speeds (as low as 30 mph) occurred on certain expressway sections, listed below in Section 2.3.1.5 (3), due to merging and/or weaving vehicle maneuvers occurring downstream of the location.
The off-peak 85th percentile operating speed data was provided by the Regional Traffic Engineer as listed in Exhibit 2.3.1.5 (1)-1. This is also discussed in Section 2.3.3.2 (1) and shown in Exhibit 2.3.1.5 (2)-2 of Appendix C.
2.3.1.5 (3) Travel Time and Delay – A travel time and delay study was conducted throughout the I-490, I-390/NY 390, and NY 31 corridors and interchanges within the project study area. A total of eight loops/paths, shown in Exhibits 2.3.1.5 (3)-1 and 2.3.1.5 (3)-2 of Appendix C, of travel through the project study area were conducted to obtain representative samples of travel time in different directions. The travel time and delay study was conducted in February 2009, while schools were in session. Measurements were taken during the morning and evening peak hours of peak commuter traffic, 7:00 to 8:30 AM and 4:00 to 5:30 PM, respectively. Readings were taken to quantify the time necessary to traverse the study area and sources of delay were noted. Average peak hour travel times are summarized in Exhibit 2.3.1.5 (3)-3 with additional average travel time data in Exhibit 2.3.1.5 (3)-4 of Appendix C.
Peak hour travel times were obtained from the 2009 VISSIM model to compare the calibrated existing model to the existing conditions. Additionally, the travel times were extracted for the Estimated Time of Project Completion (ETC) (2015) and ETC+20 (2035) design years using VISSIM, assuming no geometric changes along the project study area other than routine maintenance. This data, showing how the study area travel times and operating conditions become worse over time, is also shown in Exhibit 2.3.1.5 (3)-3. Refer to Section 2.3.1.6 (2) for an explanation of the timeframe (design year) selection and Section 2.3.1.7 for a discussion of VISSIM. See Section 2.3.5. for further discussion on the ETC utilized for this project.
Notable delay along the expressway system was observed during the peak travel time and delay study at the following locations:
2-19 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
· I-490 EB off-ramp to I-390 SB – during the morning peak period due to merging traffic onto I-390 SB. · NY 390 SB between Erie Canal and I-490 – during the morning peak period due to congestion south of I-490 on I-390. · NY 390 NB between I-490 WB off-ramp to Erie Canal – during the afternoon peak period due to merging/weaving traffic on NY 390 NB between I-490 and Lyell Avenue off-ramp. · I-390 NB between Chili Avenue and off-ramp to I-490 WB – during the afternoon peak period as influenced by the geometric configuration of the off-ramp to I-490 WB and weaving conditions on NY 390 NB.
The most notable delay on Lyell Avenue occurred at the eastern limits for westbound traffic approaching Lee Road. The delays were caused by the traffic approaching the Lee Road signal being poorly coordinated with the coordinated system established along Lyell Avenue between Lee Road and Rossmore Street.
Exhibit - 2.3.1.5 (3)-3 Travel Time and Delay Study – Existing Average Peak Hour Travel Times AM Travel Time PM Travel Time Loop Year / Model (min:sec) (min:sec) 2009 / Field 3:30 2:38 2009 / VISSIM 3:47 2:42 Loop #1 - I-490 EB to I-390 SB 2015 / VISSIM 4:05 2:43 2035 / VISSIM 5:00 2:44 2009 / Field 2:55 3:36 2009 / VISSIM 3:07 3:55 Loop #1 - I-390 NB to I-490 WB 2015 / VISSIM 3:07 3:59 2035 / VISSIM 3:07 5:07 2009 / Field 2:43 2:39 2009 / VISSIM 3:05 2:44 Loop #2 - NY 390 SB (Lexington) to I-490 EB 2015 / VISSIM 3:17 2:44 2035 / VISSIM 5:35 2:44 2009 / Field 2:48 3:30 2009 / VISSIM 2:46 3:17 Loop #2 - I-490 WB to NY 390 NB (Lexington) 2015 / VISSIM 2:46 3:31 2035 / VISSIM 2:47 3:58 2009 / Field 3:29 3:10 2009 / VISSIM 3:40 3:20 Loop #3 - I-490 EB to NY 390 NB (Lexington) 2015 / VISSIM 3:43 3:20 2035 / VISSIM 4:06 3:21 2009 / Field 3:33 3:26 2009 / VISSIM 3:27 3:47 Loop #3 - NY 390 SB (Lexington) to I-490 WB 2015 / VISSIM 3:35 3:47 2035 / VISSIM 6:15 3:58 2009 / Field 1:54 2:05 2009 / VISSIM 1:52 2:07 Loop #4 - I-390 NB to I-490 EB 2015 / VISSIM 1:52 2:08 2035 / VISSIM 1:52 2:51 2009 / Field 2:04 2:10 2009 / VISSIM 2:11 2:11 Loop #4 - I-490 WB to I-390 SB 2015 / VISSIM 2:11 2:11 2035 / VISSIM 2:11 2:11 2009 / Field 2:26 3:19 2009 / VISSIM 2:22 3:36 Loop #5 - I-390 NB to NY 390 NB (Lyell) 2015 / VISSIM 2:19 3:36 2035 / VISSIM 2:20 5:00 2009 / Field 3:14 2:10 2009 / VISSIM 2:58 2:09 Loop #5 - NY 390 SB to I-390 SB (Lyell) 2015 / VISSIM 3:19 2:09 2035 / VISSIM 4:06 2:09
2-20 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Exhibit - 2.3.1.5 (3)-3 Travel Time and Delay Study – Existing Average Peak Hour Travel Times AM Travel Time PM Travel Time Loop Year / Model (min:sec) (min:sec) 2009 / Field 2:53 2:24 2009 / VISSIM 2:56 2:25 Loop #6 - I-490 EB to I-490 EB 2015 / VISSIM 3:00 2:25 2035 / VISSIM 3:32 2:25 2009 / Field 2:31 3:07 2009 / VISSIM 2:43 3:12 Loop #6 - I-490 WB to I-490 WB 2015 / VISSIM 2:43 3:12 2035 / VISSIM 2:43 3:18 2009 / Field 2:09 1:58 2009 / VISSIM 2:10 1:50 Loop #7 - NY 390 SB (Lyell) to I-490 EB 2015 / VISSIM 2:18 1:50 2035 / VISSIM 2:36 1:50 2009 / Field 2:06 2:53 2009 / VISSIM 2:01 2:59 Loop #7 - I-490 WB to NY 390 NB (Lyell) 2015 / VISSIM 1:58 2:47 2035 / VISSIM 1:58 3:03 2009 / Field 1:44 1:15 2009 / VISSIM 1:33 1:39 Loop #8 - Lyell Avenue WB to Lyell Avenue WB 2015 / VISSIM 1:33 1:47 2035 / VISSIM 1:35 1:49 2009 / Field 1:56 2:10 2009 / VISSIM 1:47 2:03 Loop #8 - Lyell Avenue EB to Lyell Avenue EB 2015 / VISSIM 1:45 2:19 2035 / VISSIM 1:47 2:24
Between the 2015 and 2035 design years, several segments had significant increases in travel times. For the morning peak period, the NY 390 SB and I-390 SB corridors experienced the greatest increase in travel times. These segments saw the highest levels of congestion in the calibration model and with the increase in volume in the No-Build design years, congestion increased along these corridors. The travel time loops that experienced the greatest increase in travel time from 2015 to 2035 during the AM peak hour were Loop #2 - NY 390 SB to I-490 EB (+70%) and Loop #3 - NY 390 SB to I-490 WB (+74%).
For the evening peak period, the largest travel time increases occurred on I-390 NB and NY 390 NB. As with the AM peak hour, the increase in traffic volume along these congested segments resulted in large increases in travel times. The travel time loops that experienced the greatest increase in travel time from 2015 to 2035 during the PM peak hour were Loop #1 - I-390 NB to I-490 WB (+28%) and Loop #5 - I-390 NB to NY 390 NB (+39%).
2.3.1.6. Traffic Volumes – The following sections summarize the traffic analysis of existing and projected future no-build conditions.
2.3.1.6. (1) Existing traffic volumes – Traffic data was collected for the project study area between the following limits:
· I-490 – between Mt Read Boulevard at the east and NY 531 at the west. · I-390 / NY 390 – between just north of the Chili Avenue interchange at the south and Lexington Avenue interchange at the north. · Lyell Avenue – between Erie Canal at the east and Spencerport Road at the west.
Ramps and ramp terminal intersections with local streets were included in the coverage area. Data was also collected for select local street intersections on Lyell Avenue and Lexington Avenue within the project study area. No Chili Avenue interchange on and off ramps volumes were collected.
Expressway mainline and ramp traffic volumes were developed by a combination of counting programs for this project in 2009. Continuous 24-hour machine counts, video recordings of weaving areas, and
2-21 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13 intersection turning movements were obtained throughout the study area, reviewed, and the count data balanced as appropriate.
Continuous 24-hour machine counts were conducted and recorded by 15-minute intervals at twenty-one (21) interchange ramps and selected mainline locations as shown in Exhibit 2.3.1.6 (1)-1 of Appendix C. The counts were collected in March 2009 before the I-490 reconstruction project (Western Gateway Project) was initiated for the season. Count data recorded was comprised of volume, 13 classifications of vehicles per the Federal Highway Administration categories, and speeds. Counts were conducted for one (1) week at each location.
Manual turning movement counts were collected at seven (7) intersections, including ramp terminal and select local street intersections, within the project study area as shown in Exhibit 2.3.1.6 (1)-1 of Appendix C. The counts were conducted from 7:00 to 9:00 AM and 4:00 to 6:00 PM in March 2009, while local schools were in session. Counts were recorded by two categories of vehicle types: automobiles and heavy vehicles/buses. Additionally, pedestrian count data was collected but not used in any analysis. All count data was recorded in 15-minute intervals to allow for identification of one peak hour within each peak commuter period. The counts were adjusted and balanced as appropriate.
Based on a review of the 24-hour continuous machine counts and manual turning movement counts, the hours of peak commuter traffic were found to be 7:15 to 8:15 AM and 4:30 to 5:30 PM.
Videos of the NY 390 NB and SB weave locations between I-490 and Lyell Avenue were also recorded during the AM and PM peak hours from the Lyell Avenue bridge while the manual turning movement counts were obtained. These videos were used to determine vehicle weaving maneuvers occurring on these segments of NY 390 between I-490 and Lyell Avenue. Additionally, videos of I-390 NB and SB looking north from the Buffalo Road bridge were recorded. The merging and diverging characteristics and behaviors were obtained from these videos. All of the videos provided verification of some of the ramp and mainline expressway volume counts.
Traffic flow diagrams showing the existing (2009) average annual daily traffic (AADT) volumes on the project study area mainline, ramps, and local streets are available in Appendix C, Exhibit 2.3.1.6 (1)-2. Flow diagrams for the morning and evening peak hour periods are also included in Exhibit 2.3.1.6 (1)-3 of Appendix C. Additionally, volume weaving diagrams are on Exhibits 2.3.1.6 (1)-4A to 4D of Appendix C. Daily and peak hour volumes for key highway segments and ramps in the study area are summarized in Exhibit 2.3.1.6 (1)-5 below.
Exhibit 2.3.1.6 (1)-5 Existing (2009) Expressway Traffic Volumes Number AADT AM PM Direction or Route Segment of Travel Peak Peak Travel (Veh/day) Lanes (Veh/hr) (Veh/hr) Northbound 3 49,700 2,801 5,298 I-390 Chili Avenue to I-490 Ramps Southbound 3 50,700 5,418 3,658 I-490 to Lyell Avenue – Weave Northbound 4 51,500 2,518 5,641 NY 390 Section Southbound 4 58,600 5,582 4,277 Northbound 3 55,300 3,135 6,040 NY 390 Lyell Avenue to Lexington Avenue Southbound 3 52,500 4,829 3,781 Eastbound 3 50,600 5,373 3,375 I-490 NY 531 to I-390/NY 390 Westbound 3 48,800 2,717 4,841 I-390/NY 390 to Mt Read Eastbound 4 50,700 5,193 2,973 I-490 Boulevard Westbound 4 53,800 3,085 5,130 Ramp WS I-490 EB to I-390 SB Eastbound 1 13,500 1,587 958 Ramp WN I-490 EB to NY 390 NB Eastbound 1 10,800 995 967 Ramp ES I-490 WB to I-390 SB Westbound 2 7,700 691 553 Ramp EN I-490 WB to NY 390 NB Westbound 2 21,400 970 2,390 Ramp SE I-390 NB to I-490 EB Northbound 1 6,500 432 473 Ramp SW I-390 NB to I-490 WB Northbound 1 13,200 821 1,574
2-22 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Exhibit 2.3.1.6 (1)-5 Existing (2009) Expressway Traffic Volumes Number AADT AM PM Direction or Route Segment of Travel Peak Peak Travel (Veh/day) Lanes (Veh/hr) (Veh/hr) Ramp NW NY 390 SB to I-490 WB Southbound 1 11,000 472 1,080 Ramp NE NY 390 SB to I-490 EB Southbound 2 18,000 1,970 1,050 Ramp DD NY 390 NB Exit to Lyell Avenue Northbound 2 10,300 540 875 NY 390 NB Entrance from Lyell Ramp DA Northbound 1 1,100 32 132 Avenue WB NY 390 NB Entrance from Lyell Ramp DE Northbound 1 2,200 130 175 Avenue EB
Ramp DB NY 390 SB Exit to Lyell Avenue Southbound 1 4,000 224 321
NY 390 SB Entrance from Lyell Ramp DC Southbound 1 3,600 264 412 Avenue WB NY 390 SB Entrance from Lyell Ramp DF Southbound 1 6,500 713 405 Avenue EB NY 390 NB Exit to Lexington Ramp EA Northbound 1 7,100 940 399 Avenue NY 390 SB Exit to Lexington Ramp EC Southbound 1 1,600 181 63 Avenue NY 390 SB Entrance from Ramp ED Southbound 1 7,300 306 1,074 Lexington Avenue NY 390 NB Entrance from Ramp EB Northbound 1 1,600 33 257 Lexington Avenue Lyell Rossmore Street to NY 390 SB Off- Eastbound 2 15,600 1,371 1,018 Avenue Ramp Westbound 2 15,600 559 1,631
School buses, transit buses, tractor-trailer combinations, and other large vehicles routinely use the I-490, I-390/NY 390, and NY 31 corridors and interchanges within the project study area. All continuous 24-hour machine counters were configured to record vehicle classification. Heavy vehicles are those with dual tires such as tractor-trailer combinations and buses. The proportion of heavy vehicles in the roadway system traffic stream varies by direction of travel and peak hour. Daily and peak hour heavy vehicle percentages are summarized in Exhibit 2.3.1.6 (1)-6 for locations where this data was collected.
Exhibit 2.3.1.6 (1)-6 Existing (2009) Heavy Vehicle Composition of Traffic Percent of Heavy Vehicles Direction or Route Segment AM Peak PM Peak Travel Daily Hour Hour I-390 / NY Northbound 7.8 8.0 4.0 Mainline at I-490 390 Southbound 6.0 3.7 3.3 Eastbound 6.3 3.8 3.2 I-490 Mainline at NY 390/I-390 Westbound 8.8 6.6 4.1 Ramp WS I-490 EB to I-390 SB Eastbound 6.0 3.4 3.3 Ramp WN I-490 EB to NY 390 NB Eastbound 7.6 6.2 3.8 Ramp ES I-490 WB to I-390 SB Westbound 7.6 5.7 4.2 Ramp EN I-490 WB to NY 390 NB Westbound 4.8 8.3 1.5 Ramp SE I-390 NB to I-490 EB Northbound 13.2 13.7 8.9 Ramp SW I-390 NB to I-490 WB Northbound 10.5 7.9 6.0 Ramp NW NY 390 SB to I-490 WB Southbound 7.4 6.4 4.1 Ramp NE NY 390 SB to I-490 EB Southbound 4.7 2.5 2.5 Ramp DD NY 390 NB Exit to Lyell Avenue Northbound 15.2 9.5 4.3
2-23 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Exhibit 2.3.1.6 (1)-6 Existing (2009) Heavy Vehicle Composition of Traffic Percent of Heavy Vehicles Direction or Route Segment AM Peak PM Peak Travel Daily Hour Hour NY 390 NB Entrance from Lyell Ramp DA Northbound 10.6 28.1 1.6 Avenue WB NY 390 NB Entrance from Lyell Ramp DE Northbound 10.2 10.4 4.0 Avenue EB Ramp DB NY 390 SB Exit to Lyell Avenue Southbound 5.3 3.1 2.0 NY 390 SB Entrance from Lyell Ramp DC Southbound 23.0 18.5 7.1 Avenue WB NY 390 SB Entrance from Lyell Ramp DF Southbound 3.4 1.6 2.3 Avenue EB Ramp EA NY 390 NB Exit to Lexington Avenue Northbound 10.8 4.5 6.7 Ramp EC NY 390 SB Exit to Lexington Avenue Southbound 5.8 4.1 15.3 NY 390 SB Entrance from Lexington Ramp ED Southbound 11.7 16.1 2.6 Avenue NY 390 NB Entrance from Lexington Ramp EB Northbound 5.6 24.2 0.0 Avenue Rossmore Street to NY 390 SB Off- Eastbound - Lyell Avenue 10.2 8.6 2.3 Ramp Westbound
The directionality of existing peak hour traffic flow throughout the project study area is illustrated in Exhibit 2.3.1.6 (1)-7. Traffic volumes are heavier in the southbound direction on the NY 390/I-390 corridor in the morning commute and heavier in the northbound direction during the evening commute. Traffic volumes on I-490 are heavier in the eastbound direction during the morning commute and heavier in the westbound direction during the evening commute.
Exhibit 2.3.1.6 (1)-7 Existing (2009) Directional Distribution of Traffic on NY 390/I-390 and I-490 Weekday Split by Direction (%) Road and Segment Direction AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour NY 390 – between Lexington Avenue and Northbound 39 62 Lyell Avenue Southbound 61 38 NY 390 – between Lyell Avenue and I- Northbound 31 57 490 Southbound 69 43 Northbound 34 59 I-390 – between I-490 and Chili Avenue Southbound 66 41 I-490 – between NY 531 and NY 390/I- Eastbound 66 41 390 Westbound 34 59 I-490 – between NY 390/I-390 and Mt Eastbound 63 37 Read Boulevard Westbound 37 63
2.3.1.6. (2) Future no-build design year traffic volume forecasts – The Estimated Time of Completion (ETC) for this project is 2015. A design year of 2035 (ETC+20) was selected upon guidance contained in Appendix 5 of the NYSDOT Project Development Manual (PDM). In addition to the ETC+20 (2035) volume forecasts, ETC+10 (2025) volumes were developed to support air quality studies and ETC+30 (2045) volumes were developed to assess bridges both in terms of capacity (width) and structural strength. See Section 2.3.5. for further discussion on the ETC utilized for this project.
Future traffic volumes were generated in cooperation with the Genesee Transportation Council (GTC). The regional travel demand (TransCAD) model was utilized to forecast no-action AADT and peak hour movements in year 2027. Traffic volumes in years 2015 and 2025 were developed by interpolation from the volumes between the base year (2009) and 2027. Year 2035 and 2045 volumes were extrapolated based upon year 2027 volumes and an annually compounded growth rate developed using 2009 base year volumes.
2-24 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
All known and significant roadway, intersection, and transit improvements included in the current Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and capital improvement programs of local governments were accounted for by adding capacity as necessary in the forecast model network characterizing the no-action highway and transit system. The regional travel demand model was also updated to better reflect existing and future travel behavior in and around the project area. Changes include updating the existing and future land uses to reflect the most current outlook on development within the project area, Monroe County and areas outside the county expected to influence traffic flow entering and passing through the project area. This process ensured that the data used for this project is consistent with that used for regional long range planning.
The following diagrams are available in Appendix C summarizing projected future traffic volumes under no-build conditions.
· Year 2015, 2025 and 2035 AADT on the project study area expressway mainline and ramps (Exhibits 2.3.1.6 (2)-1, 2.3.1.6 (2)-2, and 2.3.1.6 (2)-3); · Year 2015, 2025, 2035, and 2045 AM and PM peak hour mainline and ramp volumes, and intersection turning movements at 7 intersections (Exhibits 2.3.1.6 (2)-4, 2.3.1.6 (2)-5, 2.3.1.6 (2)- 6, and 2.3.1.6 (2)-7); and · Year 2015, 2025, 2035, and 2045 AM and PM peak hour volume weaving volumes (Exhibits 2.3.1.6 (2)-8A to 8D, 2.3.1.6 (2)-9A to 9D, 2.3.1.6 (2)-10A to 10D, and 2.3.1.6 (2)-11A to 11D).
Forecasted no-build design year (2035) traffic volumes and anticipated growth rates for the project study area roadway system are summarized in Exhibits 2.3.1.6 (2)-12 and 2.3.1.6 (2)-13 respectively.
Exhibit 2.3.1.6 (2)-12 No-Action Design Year (2035) Project Traffic Volumes Number AADT AM PM Direction or Route Segment of Travel Peak Peak Travel (Veh/day) Lanes (Veh/hr) (Veh/hr) Northbound 3 55,200 2,894 5,764 I-390 Chili Avenue to I-490 Ramps Southbound 3 55,500 5,939 3,846 I-490 to Lyell Avenue – Weave Northbound 4 57,300 2,598 6,136 NY 390 Section Southbound 4 65,100 6,251 4,512 Northbound 3 60,800 3,248 6,493 NY 390 Lyell Avenue to Lexington Avenue Southbound 3 58,100 5,360 3,986 Eastbound 3 54,900 5,895 3,506 I-490 NY 531 to I-390/NY 390 Westbound 3 53,400 2,812 5,353 I-390/NY 390 to Mt Read Eastbound 4 56,600 5,832 3,085 I-490 Boulevard Westbound 4 59,000 3,179 5,629 Ramp WS I-490 EB to I-390 SB Eastbound 1 14,800 1,704 1,015 Ramp WN I-490 EB to NY 390 NB Eastbound 1 11,500 1,040 991 Ramp ES I-490 WB to I-390 SB Westbound 2 8,000 704 576 Ramp EN I-490 WB to NY 390 NB Westbound 2 24,000 999 2,568 Ramp SE I-390 NB to I-490 EB Northbound 1 7,100 448 494 Ramp SW I-390 NB to I-490 WB Northbound 1 14,900 847 1,702 Ramp NW NY 390 SB to I-490 WB Southbound 1 11,500 489 1,166 Ramp NE NY 390 SB to I-490 EB Southbound 2 20,900 2,233 1,091 Ramp DD NY 390 NB Exit to Lyell Avenue Northbound 2 11,400 558 964 NY 390 NB Entrance from Lyell Ramp DA Northbound 1 1,100 34 140 Avenue WB NY 390 NB Entrance from Lyell Ramp DE Northbound 1 2,200 134 190 Avenue EB Ramp DB NY 390 SB Exit to Lyell Avenue Southbound 1 4,100 236 329 NY 390 SB Entrance from Lyell Ramp DC Southbound 1 3,700 284 424 Avenue WB
2-25 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Exhibit 2.3.1.6 (2)-12 No-Action Design Year (2035) Project Traffic Volumes Number AADT AM PM Direction or Route Segment of Travel Peak Peak Travel (Veh/day) Lanes (Veh/hr) (Veh/hr) NY 390 SB Entrance from Lyell Ramp DF Southbound 1 7,400 843 431 Avenue EB NY 390 NB Exit to Lexington Ramp EA Northbound 1 7,600 999 428 Avenue NY 390 SB Exit to Lexington Ramp EC Southbound 1 1,700 188 65 Avenue NY 390 SB Entrance from Ramp ED Southbound 1 7,600 318 1,093 Lexington Avenue NY 390 NB Entrance from Ramp EB Northbound 1 1,900 41 279 Lexington Avenue Lyell Rossmore Street to NY 390 SB Eastbound 2 17,800 1,589 1,067 Avenue Off-Ramp Westbound 2 17,800 599 1,799
Exhibit - 2.3.1.6 (2)-13 Estimated Annually Compounded Growth Rates AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Annual Annual Route Route - Segment Direction Growth Growth 2009 2035 2009 2035 Rate Rate (%) (%) Chili Avenue to I-490 Northbound 2,801 2,894 0.13 5,298 5,764 0.32 I-390 Ramps Southbound 5,418 5,939 0.40 3,658 3,846 0.20 I-490 to Lyell Avenue – Northbound 2,518 2,598 0.13 5,641 6,136 0.32 NY 390 Weave Section Southbound 5,582 6,251 0.44 4,277 4,512 0.21 Lyell Avenue to Northbound 3,135 3,248 0.13 6,040 6,493 0.27 NY 390 Lexington Avenue Southbound 4,829 5,360 0.40 3,781 3,986 0.20 Eastbound 5,373 5,895 0.36 3,375 3,506 0.15 I-490 NY 531 to I-390/NY 390 Westbound 2,717 2,812 0.13 4,841 5,353 0.39 I-390/NY 390 to Mt Eastbound 5,193 5,832 0.44 2,973 3,085 0.14 I-490 Read Boulevard Westbound 3,085 3,179 0.13 5,130 5,629 0.36 Ramp WS I-490 EB to I-390 SB Eastbound 1,587 1,704 0.27 958 1,015 0.22 Ramp WN I-490 EB to NY 390 NB Eastbound 995 1,040 0.17 967 991 0.09 Ramp ES I-490 WB to I-390 SB Westbound 691 704 0.13 553 576 0.16 Ramp EN I-490 WB to NY 390 NB Westbound 970 999 0.11 2,390 2,568 0.28 Ramp SE I-390 NB to I-490 EB Northbound 432 448 0.14 473 494 0.17 Ramp SW I-390 NB to I-490 WB Northbound 821 847 0.12 1,574 1,702 0.30 Ramp NW NY 390 SB to I-490 WB Southbound 472 489 0.14 1,080 1,166 0.31 Ramp NE NY 390 SB to I-490 EB Southbound 1,970 2,233 0.48 1,050 1,091 0.15 NY 390 NB Exit to Lyell Ramp DD Northbound 540 558 0.13 875 964 0.37 Avenue NY 390 NB Entrance Ramp DA Northbound 32 34 0.25 132 140 0.23 from Lyell Avenue WB NY 390 NB Entrance Ramp DE Northbound 130 134 0.11 175 190 0.31 from Lyell Avenue EB NY 390 SB Exit to Lyell Ramp DB Southbound 224 236 0.19 321 329 0.09 Avenue NY 390 SB Entrance Ramp DC Southbound 264 284 0.14 412 424 0.11 from Lyell Avenue WB NY 390 SB Entrance Ramp DF Southbound 713 843 0.65 405 431 0.24 from Lyell Avenue EB
2-26 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Exhibit - 2.3.1.6 (2)-13 Estimated Annually Compounded Growth Rates AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Annual Annual Route Route - Segment Direction Growth Growth 2009 2035 2009 2035 Rate Rate (%) (%) NY 390 NB Exit to Ramp EA Northbound 940 999 0.23 399 428 0.27 Lexington Avenue NY 390 SB Exit to Ramp EC Southbound 181 188 0.16 63 65 0.10 Lexington Avenue NY 390 SB Entrance Ramp ED Southbound 306 318 0.15 1,074 1,093 0.07 from Lexington Avenue NY 390 NB Entrance Ramp EB Northbound 33 41 0.89 257 279 0.35 from Lexington Avenue Lyell Rossmore Street to NY Eastbound 1,371 1,589 0.60 1,018 1,067 0.14 Avenue 390 SB Off-Ramp Westbound 559 599 0.39 1,631 1,799 0.44
Year 2045 volumes projections for areas on or under project study area bridges, Exhibit 2.3.1.6 (2)-14, were also developed under no-build conditions.
Exhibit 2.3.1.6 (2)-14 No-Action Design Year (2045) Project Traffic Volumes for Structures AADT B.I.N. Route Location (Veh/Day) 1048680 I-490 EB Under Howard Road 57,700 1048680 I-490 WB Under Howard Road 56,100 1048680 Howard Road Over I-490 16,000 1025812 I-390 SB Under I-490 EB 34,400 1025812 I-490 EB Over I-390 SB 30,100 I-490 WB Off-Ramp to I- 1025820/1063950 Under I-490 EB and I-390 NB 8,400 390 SB Over I-490 WB Off-Ramp to I-390 SB and 1025820/1063950 I-490 EB 52,000 Under I-390 EB Over I-490 EB and I-490 WB Off-Ramp to I- 1063950 I-390 NB 50,600 390 SB Under I-490 WB and I-490 EB Off-Ramp to NY 1025811/1052280 NY 390 SB 56,400 390 NB Over NY 390 SB and Under I-490 EB Off- 1025811/1052280 I-490 WB 44,000 Ramp to NY 390 NB I-490 EB Off-Ramp to 1052280 Over I-490 WB and NY 390 SB 12,100 NY 390 NB 1052290 I-490 WB Under NY 390 NB 28,400 1052290 NY 390 NB Over I-490 WB 34,900 4443362 I-490 EB Over Erie Canal 59,200 4443361 I-490 WB Over Erie Canal 62,000 1023030 I-390 NB Under Buffalo Road 57,800 1023030 I-390 SB Under Buffalo Road 58,400 1023030 Buffalo Road Over I-390 16,000 7025830 I-390 NB Under CSX Railroad 57,800 7025830 I-390 SB Under CSX Railroad 58,400 1021589 NY 390 NB Under Lyell Avenue 62,700 1021589 NY 390 SB Under Lyell Avenue 60,600 1021589 Lyell Avenue Over NY 390 30,300 1062542 NY 390 NB Over Trolley Boulevard 63,900 1062541 NY 390 SB Over Trolley Boulevard 61,000 4062532 NY 390 NB Over Erie Canal 63,900 4062531 NY 390 SB Over Erie Canal 61,000 1062542/1062541 Trolley Boulevard Under NY 390 6,000 1062522 NY 390 NB Over Lexington Avenue 55,900
2-27 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Exhibit 2.3.1.6 (2)-14 No-Action Design Year (2045) Project Traffic Volumes for Structures AADT B.I.N. Route Location (Veh/Day) 1062521 NY 390 SB Over Lexington Avenue 54,700 1062522/1062521 Lexington Avenue Under NY 390 7,000
2.3.1.7. Level of Service and Mobility – Level of Service (LOS) is a qualitative measure describing motorist satisfaction with various factors influencing traffic congestion including travel time, speed maneuverability, and delay on an average day during the design year. The methodology for performing capacity analyses and determining level of service is documented in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) (Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C., 2000). LOS ranges from A to F. LOS A describes conditions with free-flow operations at desirable travel speeds and little or no delay. LOS F denotes highly congested conditions with stop and go traffic, low speeds, significant congestion, and substantial delays.
LOS for signalized and unsignalized intersections is determined from the average seconds of delay per vehicle (sec/veh). Signalized intersection analyses yield LOS for groups of lanes (those lanes shared by similar movements) on each approach and the intersection as a whole. Unsignalized intersection analyses result in LOS values for critical movements only. Critical movements are those that must yield or stop and give the right-of-way to other approaching vehicles. LOS D or better on each lane group is generally considered acceptable during peak commuter periods in urban areas such as the City of Rochester.
On freeways and expressways, including mainline, weaving, merging, and diverging areas, LOS is expressed in terms of density and measured in passenger cars per mile per lane (pc/mi/ln). LOS E or worse indicates operations at or below capacity. LOS C is the minimum standard for freeways on the Interstate system, with LOS D acceptable for other, non-interstate urban freeways and expressways. Further information on LOS for both freeway facilities and intersections is available in Exhibit 2.3.1.7-1 of Appendix C.
The project study area is a complex system with many characteristics including urban expressways and arterial roadways. As noted in Section 2.3.3, there are two interchanges in close proximity to each other. One is between two Interstate Highways (I-490 and I-390/NY 390) and the other is at Lyell Avenue with NY 390. The ramps of the 390/490 interchange are direct connection ramps and consequently are intended to serve high speed traffic. On-ramps from Lyell Avenue to NY 390 consist both of loop and direct connection configurations. Off-ramps from NY 390 to Lyell Avenue are also direct connections and are controlled by three-color traffic signals. These interchanges are interwoven together by short weaving maneuvers. The on and off-ramps connecting Lexington Avenue to NY 390 consist of both loop and direct connection configurations, with a three-color traffic signal at the northbound ramps.
To properly assess existing and future no-build conditions along the project study area roadways, it was necessary to analyze the interaction of these closely spaced interchanges and varied traffic control elements and their effect on overall traffic flow. VISSIM, Version 5.2 by PTV, microsimulation computer software was chosen to accomplish that task. VISSIM is capable of modeling complex geometry, traffic control, and traffic flow situations. It is also capable of modeling interactions between vehicles, which is important within this project study area, as drivers maneuver to specific lanes in advance of weaving, exiting and entering locations along the expressways.
VISSIM microsimulation models were developed for both the morning and evening peak hour periods. The existing condition models were calibrated against volume, speed, travel time, and visual observations to ensure that they were representative of actual field conditions. A detailed calibration report for the project study area’s VISSIM models is available (bound separately and available upon request). Each microsimulation model was used to generate measures of effectiveness including travel time and density along the roadway system throughout the project study area for existing and future no-build conditions. Densities were measured at the following locations within the study area and related to LOS using HCM definitions.
2-28 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
· Twenty-two (22) basic expressway segments along NY 390/I-490/I-390 · Two (2) expressway weave sections · Five (5) expressway diverge junctures · Seven (7) expressway merge junctures
To properly assess existing and future no-build conditions along the project study area arterials and intersections, it was necessary to analyze the interaction of these closely spaced interchange intersections and varied traffic control elements and their effect on overall traffic flow. Synchro, Version 7.0, by Trafficware, was chosen to accomplish that task. Synchro implements the methods of the HCM for signalized and unsignalized intersection analyses. The intersections under review were those shown in Exhibit 2.3.1.6 (1)-1, where manual turning movement counts were completed. Existing timings and phasing for the intersections were obtained from the NYSDOT, MCDOT, and field studies. All future no- build signal timings and offsets were optimized using Synchro assuming routine maintenance of the signals over time. All Synchro output reports are contained within the project record. Delay was measured at the following locations within the project study area and related to LOS using HCM definitions.
· One (1) stop sign controlled approach to an intersection · Six (6) signalized intersections
2.3.1.7. (1) Existing level of service and capacity analysis – Tables summarizing the LOS and capacity analysis for existing (2009) expressway conditions are provided in Exhibits 2.3.1.7 (1)–1 and 2 of Appendix C for AM and PM peak hours, respectively. Intersection delay and LOS results are shown in Exhibit 2.3.1.7 (1)-3 of Appendix C. The results are also summarized below and illustrated in Exhibit 2.3.1.7 (1)-4.
Expressway Sections
I-490 All basic expressway sections along I-490 currently operate at LOS C or better in the non-peak direction during both the morning and evening peak periods. During the AM peak hour, I-490 EB between NY 531 and the NY 390 SB on-ramp (Ramp NE) operates at LOS D or worse. This is due to the large volume of traffic heading eastbound during the AM peak hour as well as the backup from the merging of I-490 EB to I-390 SB.
During the PM peak hour, I-490 WB throughout the project study area operates at LOS D with the exception of the segment between the NY 390 NB/I-390 off ramps SB (Ramps EN/ES) to the on-ramp from I-390 NB (Ramp SW). Additionally, the segment between the NY 390 SB on-ramp and NY 531 operates near the threshold of LOS E, or being at capacity. The poor LOS along this segment is due to the large volume of westbound traffic during the PM peak hour from both I-490 and I-390 NB.
I-390 Operating conditions for I-390 are at or exceed capacity, reflecting LOS E or F, in the southbound direction during the morning peak period and northbound direction during the evening peak period. The poor LOS are caused by the large traffic volumes in these directions during the peak hours. Additionally, the southbound direction is currently at or near capacity to the south, after ramps WS and ES from I-490 merge into I-390 during the AM peak hour. In the PM peak hour, the poor weaving conditions just to the north on NY 390 cause the issues on I-390. All non-peak direction operating conditions are at acceptable LOS.
NYS Route 390 All basic expressway segments on NY 390 operate at LOS C or better in the non-peak direction for both peak periods. NY 390 SB between the I-490 WB off-ramp (Ramp NW) and I-490 EB off-ramp (Ramp NE) during the morning peak period operates at LOS E. All remaining segments in the a.m. peak hour operate at LOS D or better. The poor LOS during the morning peak period is due to the high volume of southbound traffic and congested conditions through the southbound weave segment and at the I-490 EB merge.
2-29 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
The northbound segments between I-490 WB off-ramp (Ramp SW) to I-490 WB on-ramp (Ramp EN) and Lyell Avenue off-ramp (Ramp DD) to I-490 EB on-ramp (Ramp WN) operate at LOS F during the evening peak period. Additionally, the northbound segment from Lyell Avenue WB on-ramp (Ramp DA) to Lexington Avenue off-ramp (Ramp EA) during the evening peak period operates at LOS E. All remaining segments in the p.m. peak hour operate at LOS D or better. During the evening peak period, the high traffic volume in the northbound direction coming from I-490 WB and I-390 NB and congestion through the northbound weave segment results in poor LOS on NY 390. Both northbound and southbound NY 390 are nearing capacity during their respective peak hours.
Weaving Sections There are two weaving sections on NY 390 within the project study area. Each is located between the interchange with I-490 to the south and Lyell Avenue to the north. One weave section exists for the northbound traffic and the other for southbound traffic.
The northbound weave experiences LOS F during the evening peak period and the southbound weave experiences LOS D, approaching LOS E, during the morning peak period. The northbound segment operates poorly due to the high number or vehicles weaving from I-490 WB to NY 390 NB. Currently, the traffic from I-490 WB has to move over either 1 or 2 lanes to reach NY 390 NB, in which the segment to the north is only a two-lane segment. LOS for the southbound morning period is at the threshold of LOS E with brief moments of stop and go conditions for two of the four travel lanes. The large volumes entering into this weave during the morning peak hour as well as the volume of traffic weaving from Lyell Avenue EB to I-490 EB cause this weave to operate poorly during the a.m. peak hour. Additionally, it is due to this traffic having to move over 2 lanes to be in the correct lane to access I-490 EB. Operating conditions are LOS C or better for the off-peak weave areas.
Ramp Junctions A majority of the free-flow merge and diverge areas currently operate at LOS C or better (Interstate) / LOS D or better (non-interstate) during both the morning and evening peak periods with the exception of the following locations:
· I-490 EB merge (Ramp WS) with I-390 SB during the morning peak period operates at LOS F. This is due to the large volume entering from I-490 EB to the near capacity I-390 SB. · I-490 EB diverge (Ramp WS) to I-390 SB during the morning peak period operates at LOS D due to the poor merging conditions on I-390 SB noted above. · NY 390 SB diverge (Ramp DB) to Lyell Avenue during the morning peak period operates at LOS E. This is due to the volume of traffic on mainline and the operations of the downstream weave. · Lyell Avenue WB on-ramp merge (Ramp DC) with NY 390 SB during the morning peak period operates at LOS E. This is due to the volume of traffic on mainline, short acceleration lane, and the operations of the downstream weave. · I-390 NB diverge (Ramp SW) to I-490 WB during the evening peak period operates at LOS E due to the existing short deceleration lane length and the large volume of traffic in the left-most through lane to avoid the downstream traffic in the weave. · Lyell Avenue EB on-ramp merge (Ramp DE) with NY 390 NB during the evening peak period operates at LOS E. This is due to the large volume of traffic heading northbound during this peak hour. · NY 390 NB diverge (Ramp EA) to Lexington Ave during the evening peak period operates at LOS E. This is due to the large volume of traffic heading northbound during this peak hour. · NY 390 SB merge (Ramp NW) with I-490 WB during the evening peak period operates at LOS E due to the large volume of westbound traffic.
Merge and diverge areas are those sections within 1,500 ft of an on or off-ramp where accelerating and decelerating vehicles can cause turbulence in the traffic stream.
Stop Controlled Intersection Approach Delay was measured for vehicles approaching and entering Lexington Avenue from Bellwood Drive at the stop sign and LOS results were developed from using the HCM definitions for unsignalized intersections.
2-30 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
The intersection approaches are currently functioning at LOS C or better during both the morning and evening peak periods.
Signalized Intersection Operations Analyses were completed for intersections within the project study area. A total of six signalized intersections were analyzed for the existing (2009) conditions.
The signalized intersections are all operating at LOS C or better overall during the AM and PM peak hours. Individual lane groups with poor levels of service (LOS E or worse) are summarized below.
AM Peak Hour: · No lane groups operate at LOS E or F.
PM Peak Hour: · Wegmans NB Drive at Lyell Avenue Left Turn - LOS E · NY 390 NB Off Ramp at Lyell Avenue Left Turn - LOS F · Lyell Avenue EB at Lee Road Left Turn - LOS E
The above poor delays and LOS are expected given the volume on the roadway, especially Lyell Avenue, during the PM peak hour. Additionally, the poor approach LOS at the Lyell Avenue and NY 390
NB Off Ramp/Lee Road closely spaced intersections are due to competing green time/coordinated phasing, which allows traffic to move through both intersections to prevent the blocking of other approaches.
2-31 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13 Exhibit - 2.3.1.7 (1)-4 2009 Existing Level of Service Summary
D/B B/D
B/D
B/B C/B A/C
B/E Legend
X/X = Expressway Section AM/PM D/B X /X = Weaving Section AM/PM X /X = Ramp Junction AM/PM X /X = Signalized Intersection Overall AM/PM = Unsignalized intersection with a critical movement at LOS E or F D/C C/E
E/C B/D
B/C D/C B/C E/D
B/E A/B A/A B/D B/F D/B B/F
E/C B/D B/F B/D B/E B/C B/D
C/B E/C D/B C/A B/E F/C D/B C/F F/C
B/E E/C
2-32 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
2.3.1.7. (2) Future no-build design year level of service – Level of service analyses were also completed for future no-action conditions, 2015 (ETC), 2025 (ETC+10), 2035 (ETC+20), and 2045 (ETC+30). Tables summarizing the level of service and capacity analyses for these no-build expressway conditions are provided in Exhibits 2.3.1.7 (1)-1 and 2 of Appendix C for AM and PM peak hours respectively. Intersection delay and level of service results are shown in Exhibit 2.3.1.7 (1)-3 of Appendix C. Existing (2009) levels of service results are included in the Exhibits for comparative purposes. Results are also summarized below and illustrated in Exhibits 2.3.1.7 (2)-1 and 2 for 2015 and 2035 respectively. Results for 2025 were completed for use during the air quality analysis and will not be discussed in detail.
Additionally, the 2045 LOS analysis was completed to review the roadway capacity at bridge locations only. Refer to Exhibit 2.3.1.7 (2)-3 for the capacity review. In summary, there are multiple locations where the capacity measure is not acceptable due to the downstream operations. For example, the southbound merge condition of I-490 EB to I-390 SB causes backups and queuing to the north and west. This causes increased density and poorer LOS than if the roadways were operating without queuing. The results shown here over exaggerate the actual operating conditions of the roadway in most cases. Some of the roadways operate during the peak hours over capacity according to the HDM. Refer to Chapter 3 for an in-depth discussion on the feasible alternative 2045 capacity review.
Expressway Sections
I-490 All basic expressway sections along I-490 are projected to operate at LOS C or better during both the morning and evening peak periods for 2015 (ETC) and 2035 (ETC+20) except for the following:
2015 (ETC) o LOS D · I-490 EB between the NY 531 merge and the lane drop during the morning peak period. (Not shown on graphic) · I-490 EB between the I-390 SB off-ramp (Ramp WS) and NY 390 SB on-ramp (Ramp NE) during the morning peak period. · I-490 WB between Mt. Read Boulevard and the off-ramps to NY 390/I-390 (Ramps ES/EN) during the evening peak period. · I-490 WB between I-390 NB on-ramp (Ramp SW) and NY 390 SB on-ramp (Ramp NW) during the evening peak period. o LOS E · I-490 EB between the lane drop and NY 390 NB off-ramp (Ramp WN) during the morning peak period. · I-490 WB between the NY 390 SB on-ramp (Ramp NW) and NY 531 diverge during the evening peak period.
2035 (ETC+20) o LOS D · I-490 EB between the I-390 SB off-ramp (Ramp WS) and NY 390 SB on-ramp (Ramp NE) during the morning peak period. · I-490 EB between the NY 390 SB on-ramp (Ramp NE) and I-390 NB on-ramp (Ramp SE) during the morning peak period. · I-490 EB between the I-390 NB on-ramp (Ramp SE) and Mt. Read Boulevard during the morning peak period. · I-490 WB between I-390 NB on-ramp (Ramp SW) and NY 390 SB on-ramp (Ramp NW) during the evening peak period. o LOS E · I-490 EB between the NY 531 merge and the lane drop during the morning peak period. (Not shown on graphic) · I-490 WB between Mt. Read Boulevard and the off-ramps to NY 390/I-390 (Ramps ES/EN) during the evening peak period. · I-490 WB between the NY 390 SB on-ramp (Ramp NW) and NY 531 diverge during the evening peak period. 2-33 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
o LOS F · I-490 EB between the lane drop and NY 390 NB off-ramp (Ramp WN) during the morning peak period.
The high volume and poor LOS conditions described for the existing condition are exacerbated in these future 2015 and 2035 conditions. The heavy volumes on I-490 in the eastbound direction during the morning peak period and in the westbound direction during the evening peak period continue to cause at or near capacity operating conditions.
I-390 For both 2015 (ETC) and 2035 (ETC+20), operating conditions for I-390 are at or exceed capacity, reflecting LOS E or F, in the southbound direction during the morning peak period and northbound direction during the evening peak period. The poor LOS are caused by the large traffic volumes in these directions during the peak hours. Additionally, the southbound direction is currently at or near capacity to the south, after ramps WS and ES from I-490 merge into I-390 during the AM peak hour. In the PM peak hour, the poor weaving conditions just to the north on NY 390 cause the issues on I-390. The non-peak direction exhibit LOS C or better during both morning and evening peak periods of commuting.
NYS Route 390 All basic expressway sections along NY 390 are estimated to operate at LOS D or better during both the morning and evening peak periods for 2015 (ETC) and 2035 (ETC+20) except for the following:
2015 (ETC) o LOS E · NY 390 SB between the Lexington Avenue on-ramp (Ramp ED) and Lyell Avenue off-ramp (Ramp DB) during the morning peak period. · NY 390 SB between Lyell Avenue off-ramp (Ramp DB) and Lyell Avenue WB on-ramp (Ramp DC) during the morning peak period. · NY 390 NB between the Lyell Avenue WB on-ramp (Ramp DA) and Lexington Avenue off- ramp (Ramp EA) during the evening peak period. o LOS F · NY 390 SB between the I-490 WB off-ramp (Ramp NW) and I-490 EB off-ramp (Ramp NE) during the morning peak period. · NY 390 NB between the I-490 WB off-ramp (Ramp SW) and I-490 WB on-ramp (Ramp EN) during the evening peak period. · NY 390 NB between the Lyell Avenue off-ramp (Ramp DD) and I-490 EB on-ramp (Ramp WN) during the evening peak period.
2035 (ETC+20) o LOS E · NY 390 NB between the I-490 EB on-ramp (Ramp WN) and Lyell Avenue EB on-ramp (Ramp DE) during the evening peak period. · NY 390 NB between the Lyell Avenue WB on-ramp (Ramp DA) to Lexington Avenue off-ramp (Ramp EA) during the evening peak period. o LOS F · NY 390 SB between the Ridgeway Avenue on-ramp and Lexington Avenue off-ramp (Ramp EC) during the morning peak period. · NY 390 SB between the Lexington Avenue on-ramp (Ramp ED) and Lyell Avenue off-ramp (Ramp DB) during the morning peak period. · NY 390 SB between Lyell Avenue off-ramp (Ramp DB) and Lyell Avenue WB on-ramp (Ramp DC) during the morning peak period. · NY 390 SB between the I-490 WB off-ramp (Ramp NW) and I-490 EB off-ramp (Ramp NE) during the morning peak period. · NY 390 NB between the I-490 WB off-ramp (Ramp SW) and I-490 WB on-ramp (Ramp EN) during the evening peak period. · NY 390 NB between the Lyell Avenue off-ramp (Ramp DD) and I-490 EB on-ramp (Ramp WN) during the evening peak period. 2-34 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
The high volume and poor LOS conditions described for the existing condition are exacerbated in these future 2015 and 2035 conditions. The heavy volumes on NY 390 in the southbound direction during the morning peak period and in the northbound direction during the evening peak period continue to cause over-capacity conditions. The operations through the weave segments and at the ramp junctions also contribute to the congestion on the freeway segments.
Weaving Sections For the 2015 (ETC) condition during the morning peak period, the NY 390 SB weave is estimated to operate at LOS E. For the evening peak period, the NY 390 NB weaving segment is estimated to operate at LOS F.
For the 2035 (ETC+20) condition during the morning peak period, the NY 390 SB weave is estimated to operate at LOS F. For the evening peak period, the NY 390 NB weaving segment is estimated to operate at LOS F.
The LOS E and F conditions through the weave segments during the peak periods continue to be a result of the high volume of traffic in the peak direction, both through and weaving, that exceed the capacity of the weaving segments. During the AM peak hour, it is the volume of Lyell Avenue WB traffic weaving over to I-490 EB. The traffic merging into NY 390 NB from I-490 WB and the number of through lanes north downstream of the weave is the issue during the PM peak hour. Operating conditions are LOS C or better for the off-peak weave areas.
Ramp Junctions All free-flow merge and diverge areas are estimated to operate at LOS C or better (Interstate) / LOS D or better (non-interstate) during both the morning and evening peak periods for 2015 (ETC) and 2035 (ETC+20) except for the following:
2015 (ETC) · LOS E · NY 390 SB diverge (Ramp DB) to Lyell Avenue during the morning peak period. · Lyell Avenue WB merge (Ramp DC) with NY 390 SB during the morning peak period. · I-490 EB diverge (Ramp WS) to I-390 SB during the morning peak period. · I-390 NB diverge (Ramp SW) to I-490 WB during the evening peak period. · Lyell Avenue EB merge (Ramp DE) with NY 390 NB during the evening peak period. · NY 390 NB diverge (Ramp EA) to Lexington Avenue during the evening peak period. · NY 390 SB merge (Ramp NW) with I-490 WB during the evening peak period. · LOS F · I-490 EB merge (Ramp WS) with I-390 SB during the morning peak period.
2035 (ETC+20) o LOS E: · Lyell Avenue EB merge (Ramp DE) with NY 390 NB during the evening peak period. · Lyell Avenue WB merge (Ramp DA) with NY 390 NB during the evening peak period. · NY 390 NB diverge (Ramp EA) to Lexington Avenue during the evening peak period. · NY 390 SB merge (Ramp NW) with I-490 WB during the evening peak period. o LOS F · I-490 EB merge (Ramp WS) with I-390 SB during the morning peak period. · NY 390 SB diverge (Ramp EC) to Lexington Avenue during the morning peak period. · Lexington Avenue merge (Ramp ED) with NY 390 SB during the morning peak period. · NY 390 SB diverge (Ramp DB) to Lyell Avenue during the morning peak period. · Lyell Avenue WB merge (Ramp DC) with NY 390 SB during the morning peak period. · I-490 EB diverge (Ramp WS) to I-390 SB during the morning peak period. · I-390 NB diverge (Ramp SW) to I-490 WB during the evening peak period.
2-35 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Similar to the existing conditions for the AM peak period, the LOS E and F conditions are exacerbated in the future years and continue to be due to the high volume of traffic merging from I-490 EB to I-390 SB causing queuing and congestion on I-390/NY 390 SB. The weave segment on NY 390 SB also results in the LOS E and LOS F conditions at the Lyell Avenue and Lexington Avenue ramps.
As noted above in the existing conditions for the PM peak period, the LOS E and F conditions continue to be related to the high volume of northbound and westbound traffic on the freeway at the ramp junctions and the northbound weaving segment.
Stop Controlled Intersection Approach Delay was measured for vehicles approaching and entering Lexington Avenue from Bellwood Drive at the stop sign and LOS results were developed from using the HCM definitions for unsignalized intersections. The intersection approaches are functioning at LOS C or better during both the morning and evening peak periods in 2015 and 2035.
Signalized Intersection Operations Analyses were completed for intersections within the project study area. A total of six signalized intersections were analyzed for the no-build 2015 and 2035 conditions. It shall be noted that some delays and LOS improved from the existing (2009) to the 2015/2035 no-build conditions. This is due to the optimization of the timings and intersection coordination offsets, which would be expected to occur given routine maintenance.
The signalized intersections are all operating at LOS D or better overall. Individual lane groups with poor levels of service (LOS E or worse) are summarized below. The LOS indicated below are for both 2015 and 2035 unless otherwise noted.
AM Peak Hour: · No lane groups operate at LOS E or F.
PM Peak Hour: · Wegmans Drive NB at Lyell Avenue Left Turn - LOS E · NY 390 NB Off-Ramp at Lyell Avenue Left Turn - LOS E (2035) · Lyell Avenue EB at Lee Road Left Turn - LOS E
The above poor delays and LOS are expected given the volume on the roadway, especially Lyell Avenue, during the PM peak hour. Overall, the limited green on the side streets prevents volumes to enter Lyell Avenue given the heavy Lyell Avenue volumes. The Lyell Avenue and NY 390 NB Off-Ramp/Lee Road closely spaced intersections operates poorly due to the shared green time to move traffic through both intersections without blocking other approaches. Overall, the intersections did not heavily degrade over time due to the limited volume growth along the local roads in 2015/2035.
2-36 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13 Exhibit - 2.3.1.7 (2)-1 2015 No-Build Level of Service Summary
D/B B/D
B/D
B/B C/B A/A
B/E Legend
X/X = Expressway Section AM/PM D/B X /X = Weaving Section AM/PM X /X = Ramp Junction AM/PM X /X = Signalized Intersection Overall AM/PM = Unsignalized intersection with a critical movement at LOS E or F E/C C/E
E/C B/D
B/B E/C B/D E/D
B/E A/B A/A B/D B/F E/B B/F
F/C B/D B/F B/E B/E B/C B/D
C/B E/C E/B C/A B/E F/C D/B C/F
F/C
B/E E/C
2-37 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Exhibit - 2.3.1.7 (2)-2 2035 No-Build Level of Service Summary
F/B B/D
B/D
C/B F/B A/A
B/E Legend
X/X = Expressway Section AM/PM F/C X /X = Weaving Section AM/PM X /X = Ramp Junction AM/PM X /X = Signalized Intersection Overall AM/PM = Unsignalized intersection with a critical movement at LOS E or F F/C C/E
F/D B/E
B/C F/C B/D F/D
B/E A/B A/A B/E C/F F/C B/F
F/C B/D B/F B/E B/E B/C B/E
D/B F/C F/B D/A B/F F/C D/B C/F F/C
B/F
E/C
2-38 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Exhibit 2.3.1.7 (2)-3 No-Action Design Year (2045) Project LOS/Capacity Review for Structures Density (pc/mi/ln) B.I.N. Route Location Methodology Delay (s/veh) LOS
V/C Acceptable 1048680 I-490 EB Under Howard Road Freeway 61.6 F No 1048680 I-490 WB Under Howard Road Freeway 42.1 E No 1048680 Howard Road Over I-490 Capacity 0.5 = V/C - Yes 1025812 I-390 SB Under I-490 EB Freeway 101.9 F No 1025812 I-490 EB Over I-390 SB Freeway 33.4 D No 1025820/ I-490 WB Off-Ramp to Under I-490 EB and I-390 Ramp Capacity 0.17 = V/C - Yes 1063950 I-390 SB NB Over I-490 WB Off-Ramp 1025820/ I-490 EB to I-390 SB and Under I- Freeway 27.7 D No 1063950 390 NB Over I-490 EB and I-490 1063950 I-390 NB Diverge 56.7 F No WB Off-Ramp to I-390 SB Under I-490 WB and I-490 1025811/ NY 390 SB EB Off-Ramp to NY 390 Freeway 76.4 F No 1052280 NB Over NY 390 SB and 1025811/ I-490 WB Under I-490 EB Off-Ramp Freeway 33.1 D No 1052280 to NY 390 NB I-490 EB Off-Ramp to Over I-490 WB and NY 390 1052280 Ramp Capacity 0.52 = V/C - Yes NY 390 NB SB 1052290 I-490 WB Under NY 390 NB Freeway 27.0 D No 1052290 NY 390 NB Over I-490 WB Freeway 93.0 F No 4443362 I-490 EB Over Erie Canal Freeway 28.0 D No 4443361 I-490 WB Over Erie Canal Freeway 39.2 E No 1023030 I-390 NB Under Buffalo Road Freeway 81.6 F No 1023030 I-390 SB Under Buffalo Road Freeway 37.4 E No 1023030 Buffalo Road Over I-390 Capacity 0.5 = V/C - Yes 7025830 I-390 NB Under CSX Railroad Freeway 81.6 F No 7025830 I-390 SB Under CSX Railroad Freeway 37.4 E No 1021589 NY 390 NB Under Lyell Avenue Freeway 35.5 E No 1021589 NY 390 SB Under Lyell Avenue Merge 95.7 F No 1021589 Lyell Avenue Over NY 390 Intersection 10.0 B Yes 1062542 NY 390 NB Over Trolley Boulevard Freeway 36.6 E No 1062541 NY 390 SB Over Trolley Boulevard Freeway 86.2 F No 4062532 NY 390 NB Over Erie Canal Freeway 36.6 E No 4062531 NY 390 SB Over Erie Canal Freeway 86.2 F No 1062542/ Trolley Boulevard Under NY 390 Capacity 0.19 = V/C - Yes 1062541 1062522 NY 390 NB Over Lexington Avenue Freeway 35.1 E No 1062521 NY 390 SB Over Lexington Avenue Diverge 91.4 F No 1062522/ Lexington Avenue Under NY 390 Intersection 17.2 B Yes 1062521 Note: 1. Density/Delay/Capacity/LOS is for the critical peak hour operations in the critical direction. 2. Capacity checks are against the Highway Capacity Manual’s (HCM) listed values for capacity at free flow speed for that roadway: · Ramp Capacity - I-490 WB Two-Lane 50 mph, I-490 EB Single-Lane 45 mph, Exhibit 25-3 · Howard Road, Buffalo Road, Trolley Boulevard - 40 mph, 3200 pc/h, Chapter 20
2-39 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
2.3.1.8 Safety Considerations, Accident History and Analysis - An accident analysis was performed in accordance with the NYSDOT Highway Design Manual (HDM) Chapter 5, Section 5.3.
The most recent three years of available MV-104 accident reports (7/1/2007 to 6/30/2010) were gathered from local police records. This compilation of accident reports included non-reportable accidents. The accident study limits were determined to be:
· I-390 from the Chili Avenue interchange to I-490 (RM 390I43037010 – RM 390I43037021) · NY 390 from I-490 to the Ridgeway Avenue interchange (RM 39043011000 – RM 39043011020) · I-490 from Wegman Road to the Mt Read Blvd interchange (RM 490I43021170 – RM 490I43022006) · NY 31 (Lyell Avenue) from Howard Road/Spencerport Road to the Erie Canal (RM 3143031180 – RM 43031188) · Lexington Avenue from the NY 390 trumpet interchange ramps to Lee Road
The accident study limits include the expressway segments approaching the 390/490 interchange from the east, south and west. Not included in the study area were those accidents within the adjacent interchanges or influenced by the external interchange ramps. For example, the stop and go congestion related accidents on I-390 between I-490 and the Chili Avenue interchange were considered relevant to the accident analysis, but any crashes relating to the Chili Avenue ramp junctions were not. See Exhibit 2.3.1.8-1 in Appendix C for a mapping of the accident study limits with the highway segments numbered and the ramp letter designations denoted.
It was not possible to strictly classify accidents by reference markers as many of the recorded accident report reference markers were missing numbers, left out entirely, or differed from the written location descriptions. Therefore the written location descriptions from the accident reports were considered the most reliable location reference, if it differed from the reference marker. Approximately 1400 accidents were examined and classified. Of these 1400 accident reports 168 were duplicates, 209 were considered to be outside the accident study limits, and 24 were missing a pdf hard copy police report. The remaining 999 accidents were located via mapped collision diagrams in Exhibit 2.3.1.8-2 in Appendix C. These accidents are indexed and cross referenced in the accident summary table (equivalent to form TE-213) Exhibit 2.3.1.8-13 in Appendix C.
The following exhibits summarize the accidents by accident type, pavement surface condition, time of day, and severity for each general facility type (i.e. expressway segments, ramps and surface streets). Exhibits 2.3.1.8-6 to 2.3.1.8-9B in Appendix C further delineate the accidents by each facility segment.
2-40 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Exhibit – 2.3.1.8-3 Accident Summary by Accident Type and Facility Accident Type Expressway Ramps Surface Streets Total Rear End 266 44 87 397 wet am peak fatality 56 125 0 8 10 0 18 11 0 82 146 0 snow pm peak injury 30 98 63 11 15 7 14 26 18 55 139 88 dry off peak PDO 180 43 203 25 19 37 55 50 69 260 112 309 Run Off 112 117 9 238 wet am peak fatality 15 21 0 32 18 0 3 3 0 50 42 0 snow pm peak injury 51 19 33 59 16 22 5 0 0 115 35 55 dry off peak PDO 46 72 79 26 83 95 1 6 9 73 161 183 Sideswipe 92 35 40 167 wet am peak fatality 17 16 0 2 10 0 9 6 0 28 32 0 snow pm peak injury 15 33 8 5 8 1 3 10 3 23 51 12 dry off peak PDO* 60 43 84 28 17 34 28 24 37 116 84 155 Animal 32 3 0 35 wet am peak fatality 7 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 8 4 0 snow pm peak injury 1 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 4 dry off peak PDO 24 27 28 2 3 3 0 0 0 26 30 31 Right Angle 0 0 63 63 wet am peak fatality 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 5 0 14 5 0 snow pm peak injury 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 20 13 7 20 13 dry off peak PDO 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 38 50 42 38 50 Left Turn 0 0 51 51 wet am peak fatality 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 4 0 10 4 0 snow pm peak injury 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 13 12 1 13 12 dry off peak PDO 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 34 39 40 34 39 Right Turn 0 0 0 6 6 wet am peak fatality 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 snow pm peak injury 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 dry off peak PDO 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 6 5 5 6 Other 34 8 0 42 wet am peak fatality 5 10 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 6 11 0 snow pm peak injury 5 6 7 0 2 3 0 0 0 5 8 10 dry off peak PDO 24 18 27 7 5 5 0 0 0 31 23 32 Total 536 207 256 999 wet am peak fatality 100 176 0 44 39 0 55 29 0 199 244 0 snow pm peak injury 102 157 115 75 41 33 30 71 46 207 269 194 dry off peak PDO 334 203 421 88 127 174 171 156 210 593 483 805 PDO – Property damage accident only. No injuries or fatalities. 2-41 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Exhibit – 2.3.1.8-4 Accident Summary by Accident Type with Percentages Accident Type Total (%) Rear End 397 (39.7) wet am peak fatality 82 (20.7) 146 (36.8) 0 (0.0) snow pm peak injury 55 (13.9) 139 (35.0) 87 (21.9) dry off peak PDO 260 (65.5) 111 (28.0) 309 (77.8) Run Off 238 (23.8) wet am peak fatality 50 (21.0) 42 (17.6) 0 (0.0) snow pm peak injury 115 (48.3) 35 (14.7) 55 (23.1) dry off peak PDO 73 (30.7) 161 (67.6) 183 (76.9) Sideswipe 167 (16.7) wet am peak fatality 28 (16.8) 32 (19.2) 0 (0.0) snow pm peak injury 23 (13.8) 51 (30.5) 12 (7.2) dry off peak PDO 116 (69.5) 84 (50.3) 155 (92.8) Animal 35 (3.5) wet am peak fatality 8 (22.9) 4 (11.4) 0 (0.0) snow pm peak injury 1 (2.9) 1 (2.9) 4 (11.4) dry off peak PDO 26 (73.3) 30 (85.7) 31 (88.6) Right Angle 63 (6.3) wet am peak fatality 14 (22.2) 5 (7.9) 0 (0.0) snow pm peak injury 7 (11.1) 20 (31.7) 13 (20.6) dry off peak PDO 42 (66.7) 38 (60.3) 50 (79.4) Left Turn 51 (5.1) wet am peak fatality 10 (19.6) 4 (7.8) 0 (0.0) snow pm peak injury 1 (2.0) 13 (25.5) 12 (23.5) dry off peak PDO 40 (78.4) 34 (66.7) 39 (76.5) Right Turn 6 (0.6) wet am peak fatality 1 (16.7) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) snow pm peak injury 0 (0.0) 1 (16.7) 0 (0.0) dry off peak PDO 5 (83.3) 5 (83.3) 6 (100) Other 42 (4.2) wet am peak fatality 6 (14.3) 11 (26.2) 0 (0.0) snow pm peak injury 5 (11.9) 8 (19.0) 10 (23.8) dry off peak PDO 31 (73.8) 23 (54.8) 32 (76.2) Total (%) 999 (100.0) wet am peak fatality 199 (19.9) 244 (24.4) 0 (0.0) snow pm peak injury 207 (20.7) 268 (26.8) 194 (19.4) dry off peak PDO 593 (59.4) 486 (48.7) 805 (80.6) PDO – Property damage accident only. No injuries or fatalities.
2-42 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Exhibit – 2.3.1.8-5 Accident Summary by Facility with Percentages Roadway Type Total (%) Expressway 536 (53.7) wet am peak fatality 100 (18.7) 176 (32.8) 0 (0.0) snow pm peak injury 102 (19.0) 157 (29.3) 115 (21.5) dry off peak PDO 334 (62.3) 203 (37.9) 421 (78.5) Ramp 207 (20.7) wet am peak fatality 44 (21.3) 39 (18.8) 0 (0.0) snow pm peak injury 75 (36.2) 41 (19.8) 33 (15.9) dry off peak PDO 88 (42.5) 127 (61.4) 174 (84.1) Surface Street 256 (25.6) wet am peak fatality 55 (21.5) 29 (11.3) 0 (0.0) snow pm peak injury 30 (11.7) 70 (27.3) 46 (18.0) dry off peak PDO 171 (66.8) 157 (61.3) 210 (82.0) Total (%) 999 (100.0) wet am peak fatality 199 (19.9) 244 (24.4) 0 (0.0) snow pm peak injury 207 (20.7) 268 (26.8) 194 (19.4) dry off peak PDO 593 (59.4) 487 (48.7) 805 (80.6) PDO – Property damage accident only. No injuries or fatalities.
Over half (approx. 54%) of the total of 999 accidents occurred on the mainline highways NY 390, I-390 and I-490. Ramps associated with the interchanges accounted for 207 accidents and the remaining roadways accounted for 256 accidents, mainly the Lyell Avenue corridor. Predominant collision types were rear end (approx. 40%) and run off the road (approx. 24%). Sideswipe accidents were also high accounting for approximately 17% of the total. Rear end accidents are occurring primarily along areas of congestion and at signalized intersections, which is common. The majority of the run off the road accidents occur primarily during off-peak hours when traffic may be traveling at higher rates of speed or during inclement weather causing slippery pavement due to snow and ice. Over 40% of all accidents are occurring during inclement weather (i.e. snow, ice or rain) and over half (approx. 51%) are occurring during peak-hours. The vast majority (approx. 73%) of accidents are occurring during daylight hours.
There were no fatalities in the study area in the most recent three year period of available accident data. In general the severity of accidents was lower than statewide averages on similar facilities. See Exhibit 2.3.1.8-6 in Appendix C for a severity distribution calculation and comparison to statewide averages for similar facilities. This can be most likely attributed to the expressway congestion reducing vehicular speeds. There was a high proportion (approx. 58%) of inclement weather accidents on the ramps. There was a high number (approx. 62%) of peak hour accidents on the expressway segments. The combination of rear end and sideswipe accidents predominate on the expressway segments and more than half (approx. 57%) of the accidents on ramps are run off the road types.
The Regional Traffic Engineer has determined that the available information on statewide accident rates, PIL’s, SDL’s, PII’s are not very useful in evaluating the accident experience at this type of facility. Comparison of this interchange to average statewide accident rate statistics for urban expressways are not representative because of its unique configuration due to the close proximity of the 390/490 and 390/31 interchanges. Inclement weather patterns experienced in this part of the state further skew average accident data comparisons.
The study of accident patterns and groupings of accidents discovered through review of the police reports would reveal a great deal about the operation of the interchange, more so than any statewide average. The surface arterial streets and intersections lend themselves to the more conventional approach of determining accident rates and comparing them to the statewide average.
2-43 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
The following discussion examines the major accident clusters and patterns by facility section and explores potential mitigations. See Exhibit 2.3.1.8-12 in Appendix C for a mapping of key accident locations.
390/490 interchange area (Mainline) The high peak hour traffic volumes, many of which are weaving, through the constrained ramp geometry at the confluence of two urban expressways has created peak hour stop and go congestion. This condition has led to numerous rear end and sideswipe crashes on the mainline expressway sections as illustrated in Exhibits 2.3.1.8-7 in Appendix C. There are numerous clusters of rear end, and to lesser extent sideswipe, accidents in each expressway segment. In general the I-390 and NY 390 rear end accidents are in the northbound direction during the pm peak hour and in the southbound direction the majority of the rear end accidents are in the am peak hour. The weekday hourly distribution of traffic indicates a distinct SB am peak and a distinct B pm peak. Similarly on I-490 there is a distinct EB am peak and a distinct WB pm peak where the rear end accidents generally correlate. Because of the peak hour queuing there are many chain reaction rear end accidents where one closely spaced stopped vehicle will be pushed into the adjacent vehicle after the initial rear end collision. Further exacerbating the situation is the lake effect inclement weather patterns causing a slippery pavement due to snow, ice and rain, which contributes to the inability to stop as a slowing queue develops.
The proximity of the 390/490 interchange to the 390/31 interchange, combined with the high peak hour traffic volumes leads to expressway level of service deficiencies. (AASHTO recommends a 1 mile minimum interchange spacing in urban areas. The distance between I-490 and NY 31 is less than a ½ mile.) There are major level of service problem areas at various interchange ramp junctions and the weaving areas on NY 390 north of the 390/490 interchange which affect expressway mainline operations. (See Section 2.3.1.7. for a detailed description of existing Level of Service deficiencies.) There is a major correlation of the accident clusters and time of the day with existing Level of Service D, E and F conditions on the expressway segments, ramp junctions and weaving sections. Level of Service D, E and F conditions in Exhibit 2.3.1.7 (1)-4 almost directly correlate with the roadway segments that have identifiable accident patterns on Exhibit 2.3.1.8-12.
390/490 interchange area (Ramps) Another major accident pattern is the run off the road accidents on the interchange ramps. In particular there are major clusters on Ramp SW (I-390 NB to I-490 WB) and Ramp WN (I-490 EB to NY 390 NB). These sharp radius, left-hand exit ramps have posted advisory speed limits of 35 mph and 40 mph respectively. For a summary delineation of individual ramp accidents see Exhibit 2.3.1.8-8 in Appendix C.
On Ramp SW there were 27 run off the road crashes, 16 of which were snow/ice related and 8 occurred under wet pavement conditions. Additionally there were 8 sideswipe accidents at the ramp diverge point, of which two were weather related. The diverge point of this left-hand exit ramp approaches on a structure over I-490 EB without the full highway approach section. The length and width of the deceleration lane does not meet AASHTO criteria. Ramp SW is obstructed by bridge rail and vegetation and provides a stopping sight distance (SSD) of approximately 228 ft., which does not meet the minimum required for the 35 mph advisory speed. In general, excessive vehicular speeds, particularly for inclement weather conditions, are the major contributing factor to these accidents. Additionally the lack of standard lane widths and reduced bridge shoulder widths could be a contributing factor in reducing the recovery time and distance of a sliding vehicle.
Many of the peak hour accidents list unsafe lane changes in congested conditions as another contributing factor. Both the ramp junction diverge and mainline segment approaching this diverge are listed as LOS F in the pm peak hour.
On Ramp WN there were 36 run off the road accidents, of which 14 snow/ice related and 16 under wet pavement conditions. Traffic utilizing this left-hand exit ramp can diverge from I-490 at a high rate of speed due to the large 3820 ft. radius. This long curve is followed by a much smaller curve of radius 716 ft. This produces an extremely high compound curve ratio of over 5:1, far exceeding the recommended maximum rate of 2:1. This causes the alignment to appear extremely abrupt or forced, and travel paths
2-44 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13 of vehicles need considerable steering effort. Ramp WN is also obstructed by bridge rail and vegetation and provides a SSD of approximately 250 ft., which does not meet the minimum required for the 40 mph posted speed. Further exacerbating the situation is the lake effect inclement weather patterns causing a slippery pavement due to snow, ice, and rain, especially on the bridge where the ramp crosses over I-490 WB.
A similar, but less severe, accident cluster was present on Ramp NE which is also a left-hand exit ramp with a sharp radius and an advisory speed of 40 mph. There were a total of 22 accidents on this ramp of which 8 were run off the road and 10 were sideswipes. Four of the run off the road accidents were weather related.
Ramps SW, WN and NE are three out of the four left-hand entrance/exit ramps that comprise the I-390/I- 490 interchange. As stated in Section 2.3.2.2.(2) left-hand exits and entrances should be avoided for several reasons, including the following:
· Left-side moves tend to confuse and surprise drivers even with proper signing as they are contrary to the concept of driver expectancy, especially when intermixed with right-hand entrances and exits. · Decisions and maneuvering take place in the high speed lanes. · Trucks, which traditionally are restricted to the right-hand lane, are forced to maneuver across several traffic lanes to reach a left-hand exit or to return to the right lane from a left- hand entrance.
All of these factors relating to the presence of left-hand exits can be contributing to the resultant accident clusters on these ramps.
There was a cluster of accidents in the vicinity of the Ramp EN diverge area. There were multiple sideswipe (8) and run off the road accidents (6) in this area, generally caused by unsafe lane change maneuvers. Ramp EN is obstructed by W-Beam barrier and provides a SSD of approximately 407 ft., which is slightly less than the 425 ft. minimum required for the 50 mph posted speed. This is an area with multiple decision points and pm congestion contributing to this accident cluster.
There was also a cluster of accidents in the vicinity of the Ramp DD diverge area. There were 16 loss of control run off the road and 3 sideswipe accidents at this location. Snow/Ice was involved in 10, wet pavement in 2, congestion in 6, unsafe lane changes and/or excessive speed in 4, and alcohol involvement in 2 of these accidents. Poor lane balance exists on NY 390 and is of particular concern in the vicinity of the weaving section between Ramp EN and Ramp DD where heavy volumes from Ramp EN must merge with NY 390 NB traffic over an extremely short distance. The ramp terminal spacing for this weaving area is only 1225 ft., which is significantly less than the 2000 ft. as recommended by AASHTO. This results in a pair of two lane sections joining to form a four lane section within the weave area, only to split again to two and two. This unsafe maneuver is likely contributing to this accident cluster as indicated by the unsafe lane change cause, exacerbated by both congestion and inclement weather road conditions. There was also a late night right angle accident (N-316) in this location where a motorist from Ramp WN illegally backtracked across the median attempting to access Ramp DD.
Potential mitigations for both the mainline and ramp sections, other than total reconstruction of the 390/490 interchange to improve capacity and geometrics, would include:
· The increased usage of variable message signs to alert motorists to peak hour and incident congestion and slippery pavement conditions. · Reduce operating speeds on Ramps EN, SW, NE and WN by making signing improvements including: upgrading reflectivity, sizing, and placement (including double posting); adding supplemental flashing warning beacons; and placing speed reduction pavement markings. · Application of deicing agents and/or special pavement composition to combat freezing conditions. · Pavement grooving on select ramps may reduce slippery pavement accidents. · Insure proper lane balance at ramp junctions to minimize weaving. · Realign individual ramps to improve operating conditions.
2-45 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
· Pavement section widening on selected ramps.
NYS Route 31 (Lyell Avenue) - Howard Road/Spencerport Road Intersection to the Erie Canal There were a total of 230 accidents along the 0.8 mile segment of Lyell Avenue within the project study area as depicted in Exhibit 2.3.1.8-9A of Appendix C. This computes to an accident rate of 10.50 acc/MVM. This rate, including non-reportable accidents, is nearly double a statewide average of 5.66 acc/MVM for comparable four lane undivided urban arterials without control of access. See Exhibit 2.3.1.8-9B in Appendix C for an accident summary compilation with individual intersection accident rates computed, compiled and compared to statewide averages.
The accident rate at the Howard Road/Spencerport Road intersection was more than twice the statewide average for similar signalized intersections. The high number of left turning accidents included five on the yellow phase and additional permissive green incidents where there was motorist indecision over which car had the right of way. The non-typical diagonal configuration of the Spencerport Road leg, high traffic volumes, double left turn and shared lanes from the Howard Road approach and a fifth Lyell Road right turn only approach adds to the motorist confusion at this intersection. There were three overtaking sideswipe left turn accidents from Howard Road to the Spencerport Road.
The combination of congestion queuing due to multiple closely spaced traffic signals and the presence of many commercial driveways has created a disturbing pattern of right angle accidents. Vehicles making left turns out of commercial establishments (24 accidents) and unsignalized residential streets (12 accidents) are colliding with through vehicles and creating right angle crashes. A large percentage of these accidents are courtesy actions where a motorist stopped in traffic “waves through” a left turning vehicle exiting from a business driveway or side street. Exacerbating the situation is that some through traffic is illegally traveling in the median center turn lane to avoid the queues in the travel lanes. In certain instances both vehicles involved in the crash have received traffic violation summons.
In addition to the congestion queuing itself blocking sight distance from the various driveways and unsignalized intersections, there are numerous intersection sight distance problems caused by structural and environmental factors. The Lyell Avenue Bridge over the Erie Canal trusses and railings limits sight distance at adjacent commercial driveways. Vehicles parked in the stalls along business frontages limits sight distance for exiting vehicles at several driveways and side streets.
The close proximity of the Lyell Avenue signalized intersections with Lee Road and the Ramp DD lead to congestion and motorist confusion. There were 31 rear end collisions on the various approaches to these two closely spaced intersections. Similarly there were 26 rear end accidents at the Ramp DB intersection, 12 of which were on the ramp approach, itself. All three of these intersections contain accident rates that are more than double the statewide average for urban three legged signalized intersections.
Possible mitigations include:
· At the Howard/Spencerport intersection consider restricting left turns to protective phasing only. Add left turn tracking pavement markings for the NB to WB movements. A modern roundabout intersection alternative would improve capacity and reduce the accident severity. · Improve the arterial level of service and traffic flow by updating the coordination timing of the traffic signals according to current traffic conditions. · Eliminate one of the two traffic signals in the vicinity of Lee Road by realigning/reconfiguring the NY 390 interchange ramp entrances onto Lyell Avenue. · Improve pavement markings and place opposing left turn arrow markings in the median turn lane and roadside signs to reinforce the prohibition of through travel in the center turn lane. · Improve control of access onto Lyell Avenue by consolidating or eliminating commercial driveways. Better define and/or restrict width of driveway entrance locations. Recommend elimination of commercial parking slots that are restricting sight distance. · Construct a median barrier onto Lyell Avenue thereby restricting commercial access to rights in and rights out. Level of service would be impacted at the signalized intersections and sufficient room to allow for u-turns at intersections would be required.
2-46 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
· Improve intersection sight distance (ISD) as feasible to meet minimum standards at all non- signalized intersections, driveways and for any uncontrolled moves associated with a signalized intersection, in order to ensure that a motorist may safely enter or exit a roadway.
Lexington Avenue Interchange Area There is a significant accident cluster at the intersection of Lexington Avenue and Ramp EA. The ramp terminus approach is a three lane section with a left turn lane, a shared thru-right turn lane, and an exclusive right turn lane. There are seven separate accidents at this location with the description “NB overtaking sideswipe; tractor trailer making ROR from center turn lane; trailer strikes vehicle in right turn lane”. From observation in the field, there is a large percentage of tractor trailers making this right turn. Because of the sharp 35 ft. curb return radius, a large truck by necessity must track through both Lexington Avenue EB travel lanes. An automobile in the adjacent right turn lane cannot comfortably make a concurrent right turn movement at the same time as a tractor trailer. There is also a visual blind spot issue for the tractor trailer operator.
The potential mitigation technique would be to eliminate the dual right turn designation and widen the curb return radius so that a tractor trailer could track through the intersection safely.
The Lexington Avenue and Lee Road intersection has an accident rate approximately twice the statewide average for similar signalized intersections (See Exhibit 2.3.1.8-9B). There were seven left turn accidents in the eastbound - westbound direction. The rational mitigation is to eliminate the permissive left turn phase in the eastbound and westbound directions.
Deer Related Accidents Another anomalous pattern in an urban expressway environment is what appears to be a high number of deer accidents. There were 29 actual deer/vehicle crashes and 6 separate incidents where the unexpected appearance of deer on the expressway caused a vehicle to swerve and a subsequent accident resulted. See Exhibit 2.3.1.8-10 for a summary of these accidents and Exhibit 2.3.1.8-11 for a mapping of the deer accident locations. As seen from the mapping diagram the deer accidents are fairly uniformly distributed throughout the entire project study area. There is considerable wooded terrain in this corridor. Potential mitigations would include:
· Check the completeness and integrity of the right of way fencing, especially in the area along the Erie Canal Trail. · Investigate the applicability of state of the art electronic deer detection or deterrent warning systems.
Miscellaneous The original accident analysis was reviewed in February of 2015 with the most current available crash data. Previously identified Priority Investigation Locations (PILs) from the original analysis were still present but there was no significant change to the severity rating at these locations. There were two additional PIL locations appearing on the two most current PIL lists that had not previously appeared on the PIL lists compiled for the original study period, noted below:
Route 390: RM 390 4301 1004 to RM 390 4301 1008
I-490: RM 490I 4302 2000 to RM 490I 4302 2004
At the above locations, crash data from the original study period and the most current 3 year period were compared to determine if there was any change in crash patterns. The Route 390 crash numbers and patterns were found to be similar for both study periods. While the I-490 location crashes increased from 60 to 99, over 50% (21) of the increase in crashes were rear end crashes. All but 2 of 40 rear end crashes occurred between the hours of 7am and 9am or 4pm and 7pm. This is consistent with the congestion related crash pattern seen in the original study period. The remaining increases were scattered among most of the remaining crash types. No new patterns were identified. No substantial changes have occurred at the project site that may affect crash patterns. The recommendations resulting from the original accident analysis are appropriate.
2-47 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
2.3.1.9. Existing Police, Fire Protection and Ambulance Access – The NY 390/I-390 and I-490 corridors are jointly patrolled by New York State Police (NYSP) and Monroe County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) with support from local police as needed. These mainline roadways are also used by fire protection and ambulance response vehicles, primarily for traffic accident related incidents. There are no police stations, fire stations or ambulance facilities that have direct access to any of the roadways located within the project study area. However, emergency service vehicles routinely utilize the local roadway network as emergency response routes, particularly Lyell Avenue as it is a vital link in the local roadway network. Incident response is frequent on Lyell Avenue due to the significant amount of traffic accidents occurring along this heavily traveled corridor. Howard Road provides a vital connection from the Town of Gates emergency service facilities to North Gates and Park Ridge Hospital located on Long Pond Road in Greece.
The nearest State Police base is located at 1155 Scottsville Road inside the RTOC building, approximately 3 miles south of the 390/490 interchange. The nearest MCSO facility is located in downtown Rochester at 130 S. Plymouth Avenue, however no patrol units are stationed at this location as it serves as the MCSO headquarters, including the county jail and criminal investigation lab. The nearest patrol units are stationed at 2330 Union Street in Ogden. Although this station is located more than 6 miles west of the 390/490 interchange, units are often the first responders to incidents within the 390/490 interchange area since they are located adjacent to NY 531, which feeds into I-490 EB. The nearest City of Rochester police patrol station is located at 1099 Jay Street, approximately 1.5 miles east of the 390/490 interchange. The Gates Police Department is located at 1605 Buffalo Road, approximately 0.1 miles west of Howard Road.
A Monroe Ambulance facility is located just east of the project study area on 1669 Lyell Avenue. The Gates Volunteer Ambulance building is located at 1600 Buffalo Road, which is directly across from the Gates Police Department. Although this building is located nearest to the 390/490 interchange area, the Volunteer Ambulance building located at 1001 Elmgrove Road is less than 1 mile from the I-490/Buffalo Road interchange and are often the first responders to incidents within the 390/490 interchange area. Rural Metro Ambulance is stationed at 811 West Avenue, less than 1 mile northeast of the I-390/Chili Avenue interchange.
The nearest Gates Fire Department (Station 2) is located at 2215 Long Pond Road, approximately 0.6 miles west of the Lyell Avenue intersection with Howard Road. There is also a Gates Fire Department (Station 1) building located at 2355 Chili Avenue, approximately 0.3 miles west of Howard Road.
Additional emergency service providers are depicted on the Emergency Response Map in Appendix A.
Median crossovers, which are used to facilitate maintenance and emergency operations on controlled- access facilities, are present at the following location approaching and adjacent to the project study area as follows:
1. North: NY 390 between the Lexington Avenue and Ridgeway Avenue interchanges – approximately 0.5 miles north of Lexington Avenue 2. South: I-390 between the 390/490 and Chili Avenue interchanges – approximately 0.1 miles south of the CSX Railroad bridge over I-390 3. East: I-490 between the 390/490 and Mt. Read Boulevard interchanges – approximately 0.1 miles east of the Erie Canal 4. West: I-490 between the 390/490 and NY 531 interchanges – approximately 0.5 miles west of Howard Road
Discussions with the Gates Police and Fire Department revealed that the median crossover on I-490 to the west of the project study area does not provide enough width to safely accommodate emergency vehicles attempting to make u-turns. This median crossover provides a width of only 54 ft. In order to safely accommodate maintenance and emergency operations at this location, parallel-type deceleration lanes should be provided as per the HDM.
2-48 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
2.3.1.10. Parking Regulations and Parking Related Conditions – Parking on Interstate highways is restricted by law. NY 390 functions as an expressway, thus parking and stopping are prohibited on all mainline roadways and ramps.
Parking is prohibited throughout the Town of Gates from November through March. Otherwise, parking is not regulated within the project study area. To the west of Lee Road Extension, shoulder width along Lyell Avenue is insufficient for parking. Although shoulder width is sufficient for parking to the east of Lee Road Extension, there is ample parking available at commercial establishments through this segment and to the west. At the east extent of the project study area there is a parking area for Erie Canalway Trail users as well. There is no parking on Lexington Avenue or Lee Road within the project study area.
2.3.1.11. Lighting – Highway lighting poles are located just outside the edge of shoulder on both sides of the mainline and ramps, as well as adjacent to the median, on NY 390, I-390 and I-490 within the project study area. The poles are galvanized steel and aluminum with truss arms transformer bases. The fixtures are cobra-head style. New highway lighting was recently installed on both sides of the I-490 corridor including the median immediately east of the Erie Canal and continues toward the city. The steel poles are black powder coated with cobra head fixtures on truss arms.
Along both sides of Lyell Avenue, between the Erie Canal and Howard Road, existing lighting arms with cobra-head style fixtures are attached to wood utility poles. The poles, on both sides of Lyell Avenue, carry overhead electric, telephone and cable lines.
Under bridge lighting is present on the Lyell Avenue bridge over NY 390 and on the NY 390 bridges over Lexington Avenue.
Highway lighting is provided along both sides of Lexington Avenue between Lee Road and the NY 390 overpass. Truss light arms with cobra-head fixtures are attached to galvanized steel poles with transformer bases. Davit style poles are present at the intersection of Lee Road and Lexington Avenue and continue down Lee Road until the Erie Canal. No street lighting exists on Lee Road between the canal and Lyell Avenue.
Throughout the project study area light poles are in fair condition and exhibit loss of galvanizing and moderate rusting, except for the new poles along I-490 which are like new. Aluminum poles are generally oxidized. Several of the poles have dents at the base from impacts.
Lighting maintenance jurisdiction is presented in Exhibit 2.3.1.12 below.
2.3.1.12. Ownership and Maintenance Jurisdiction – Agencies primarily responsible for transportation facilities within the project study area include the NYSDOT and MCDOT. An existing maintenance jurisdiction table is included as Exhibit 2.3.1.12. Refer to Appendix A for Existing Highway Maintenance Jurisdiction Plans.
Exhibit - 2.3.1.12 Existing Maintenance Jurisdiction Part Highway Limits Feature(s) being Centerline Lane Agency Authority No. Maintained (mi)1 (mi)1 State Highways I-490 Howard Road to Pavement, drainage, 3.65 7.47 NYSDOT Highway Law (including Erie Canal landscaping, signs, Section 340-b 1 interchange pavement markings, ramps and snow removal auxiliary lanes) I-390 Northernmost Pavement, drainage, 3.37 7.61 NYSDOT Highway Law (including Chili Avenue landscaping, signs, Section 340-b 2 interchange Interchange pavement markings, ramps and Ramp Terminals snow removal auxiliary lanes) to I-490 NYS Route 390 I-490 to Lexington Pavement, drainage, 7.16 14.58 NYSDOT Highway Law (including Avenue landscaping, signs, Section 340-d 3 interchange Interchange pavement markings, ramps and snow removal
2-49 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Exhibit - 2.3.1.12 Existing Maintenance Jurisdiction Part Highway Limits Feature(s) being Centerline Lane Agency Authority No. Maintained (mi)1 (mi)1 auxiliary lanes) Lyell Avenue Howard Road to Pavement, curb, 0.76 3.60 NYSDOT Highway Law (NYS Route 31) Erie Canal drainage, landscaping, Section 349-c 4 signs, pavement markings, snow removal Lyell Avenue Howard Road to Sidewalks (including -- -- Town of Highway Law 5 (NYS Route 31) Erie Canal snow removal) Gates Section 349-c County Roads Lee Road (CR Lyell Avenue to Pavement, curb, 0.22 0.77 MCDOT Highway Law 154) Person Place and sidewalk, drainage, Section 129 6 Lexington Avenue landscaping, signs, intersection pavement markings Lee Road (CR Lyell Avenue to Snow removal 0.22 0.77 City of Highway Law 154) Person Place and Rochester Section 140 7 Lexington Avenue intersection Trolley Boulevard Under NYS Route Pavement, curb, 0.04 0.08 MCDOT Highway Law (CR 115) 390 drainage, landscaping, Section 129 8 signs, pavement markings, snow removal Trolley Boulevard Under NYS Route Snow removal 0.04 0.08 Town of Highway Law 9 (CR 115) 390 Gates Section 140 Local Roads Lexington Avenue NYS Route 390 to Pavement, curb, 0.25 1.13 City of Highway Law Lee Road drainage, landscaping, Rochester Section 140 10 signs, pavement markings, snow removal Lee Road Lyell Avenue to Pavement, curb, 0.19 0.38 Town of Highway Law Extension end of Lee Road drainage, landscaping, Gates Section 140 11 Extension signs, pavement markings, snow removal Cornelia Drive, Lyell Avenue Pavement, curb, -- -- Town of Highway Law Rossmore Street, intersection and drainage, landscaping, Gates Section 140 12 Matilda Street, vicinity signs, pavement and Tarwood markings, snow Drive removal Bellwood Drive Intersection with Pavement, curb, -- -- Town of Highway Law Lexington Avenue drainage, landscaping, Greece Section 140 13 / NYS Route 390 signs, pavement ramps markings, snow removal
Structures I-490/I-390/NYS -- Entire Structure -- -- NYSDOT Highway Law Route 390 340-b 14 Interchange Bridges NYS Route 390 Trolley Boulevard Entire Structure -- -- NYSDOT Highway Law bridges over to Lexington Section 340-d Trolley Boulevard Avenue 15 (CR 115), Erie Canal and Lexington Avenue NYS Route 390 -- Railroad -- -- CSX Highway Law bridges over appurtenances under Section 340-d 16 Trolley Boulevard bridge (i.e. tracks, (CR 115) railbed, etc.) Howard Road -- Entire Structure -- -- NYSDOT Highway Law 17 (Reference Route 340-b 940L) over I-490 I-490 bridge over -- Entire Structure -- -- NYSDOT Highway Law 18 Erie Canal 340-b
2-50 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Structures CSX -- Entire Structure -- -- NYSDOT Highway Law 19 Transportation (excluding railroad 340-b over I-390 appurtenances CSX -- Railroad -- -- CSX Highway Law 20 Transportation appurtenances (i.e. 340-b over I-390 tracks, railbed, etc.) NYS Route 33 -- Entire Structure -- -- NYSDOT Highway Law 21 (Buffalo Road) 340-b over I-390 NYS Route 31 -- Entire Structure -- -- NYSDOT Highway Law over NYS Route (excluding snow 340-d 22 390 removal and ice control for sidewalks) NYS Route 31 -- Snow removal and ice -- -- Town of Highway Law 23 over NYS Route control for sidewalks Gates 340-d 390 NYS Route 31 -- Entire Structure -- -- NYSDOT Highway Law over Erie Canal (excluding snow 349-c 24 removal and ice control for sidewalks) NYS Route 31 -- Snow removal and ice -- -- Town of Highway Law 25 over Erie Canal control for sidewalks Gates 349-c
Lighting I-490 Howard Road to Light poles and -- -- MCDOT Highway Law (including Erie Canal appurtenances Section 340-b 26 interchange ramps and auxiliary lanes) I-390 Northernmost Light poles and -- -- MCDOT Highway Law (including Chili Avenue appurtenances Section 340-b 27 interchange Interchange ramps and Ramp Terminals auxiliary lanes) to I-490 NYS Route 390 I-490 to Lexington Light poles and -- -- MCDOT Highway Law (including Avenue appurtenances Section 340-d interchange Interchange 28 ramps, auxiliary lanes and bridge lighting) Lyell Avenue Howard Road to Light poles and -- -- MCDOT Highway Law 29 (NYS Route 31) Erie Canal appurtenances Section 349-c Lee Road (CR Lexington Avenue Light poles and -- -- MCDOT Highway Law 30 154) intersection appurtenances Section 129 Lexington Avenue NYS Route 390 to Light poles and -- -- City of Highway Law 31 Lee Road appurtenances Rochester Section 327
Traffic Signals Lyell Avenue Rossmore Street Entire traffic signal and -- -- NYSDOT Highway Law 32 (NYS Route 31) to Lee Road appurtenances Section 349-c Lexington Avenue Intersection with Entire traffic signal and -- -- NYSDOT Highway Law 33 NYS Route 390 appurtenances Section 340-d ramps Lee Road (CR Lexington Avenue Entire traffic signal and -- -- MCDOT Highway Law 34 154) intersection appurtenances Section 129
Miscellaneous Erie Canalway Lyell Avenue Entire trail and -- -- NYS -- Trail intersection and appurtenances Canal 35 under NY 390 (excluding Lyell Corpora- Avenue crossing) tion Notes to Exhibit 2.3.1.12 1. The I-490/I-390/NYS Route 390 interchange ramp centerline miles and lane miles are divided equally between the highways they are connecting. Weaving lanes are included with NYS Route 390 (Part 3) only.
2-51 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
2.3.2. Multimodal
2.3.2.1. Pedestrians – The project study area is fully developed with land uses including residential, commercial, industrial, and public development. Local generators of pedestrian traffic include schools, the Erie Canalway Trail, and commercial development along Lyell Avenue. The Erie Canalway Trail crosses Lyell Avenue to the west of the Erie Canal. Section 2.3.2.5 addresses this crossing in more detail. Otherwise, pedestrian facilities are limited.
There are a limited number of sidewalks along Lyell Avenue. Where sidewalks exist they are generally in poor to fair condition. A 4 ft. sidewalk is present on both sides of the Lyell Avenue bridge over NY 390; this is in fair condition, exhibiting spalling and random cracking. There is a limited amount of sidewalk in the eastbound direction to the west of Tarwood Drive, in fair condition. Although curb ramps with detectable warning fields exist at several locations (e.g., Lee Road, Tarwood Drive, the terminal for Ramps DD and DE), existing sidewalks along Lyell Avenue are generally not in compliance with ADA guidelines as related to poor condition, insufficient width, and lack of continuity.
There are disconnected segments of asphalt mowing strips behind the curb along Lyell Avenue west of Lee Road Extension. Mowing strips are also present along Lee Road. These mowing strips are generally in fair condition.
There are no sidewalks along Lee Road and there are no shoulders provided between Lyell Avenue and just north of Evelyn Street. Along this segment of Lee Road, pedestrians must either walk on the grass, the asphalt mowing strips, or utilize the travel lanes. North of Evelyn Street pedestrians can utilize the 8 ft. wide shoulders on Lee Road.
There are sixteen bus stops within the project study area as indicated in Section 2.3.2.3. Pedestrian access to these bus stops generally ranges from poor to fair. In several cases there is no paved access; pedestrians must walk along grass roadside areas. Some worn footpaths are visible. Where access is paved it is generally in poor to fair condition, except where the bus stop is on the shoulder. In terms of accessibility per ADA guidelines, access is poor as related to condition, inadequate width, and the lack of curb ramps.
Pedestrians are prohibited on Interstate highways by state law. There are no pedestrian crossings or other provisions at the ramp terminals, except between Ramp DD and Ramp DE where curb ramps and crosswalks are present. A bus stop is located between these two ramp terminals. There are no plans for additional pedestrian routes within the project study area. A pedestrian generator checklist is included in Appendix C.
The Sidewalk Repair List posted on the Town of Gates website (on February 6, 2010) indicated that none of the existing sidewalks within the project study area have been recently repaired. Sidewalks damaged by town trees or town improvements are the responsibility of the Town of Gates.
2.3.2.2. Bicyclists – As related to the proximity of significant residential development, there is a potential for significant volumes of bicycle traffic, particularly on Lyell Avenue which connects to downtown Rochester. The Erie Canalway Trail is also a significant route for recreational use and is also used by commuters.
Lyell Avenue does not meet AASHTO or FHWA guidelines for accommodating bicycle traffic. In general, Lyell Avenue does not have ample width at curb lines or shoulders for bicycle travel. An exception is the segment to the east of Lee Road, where 9-10 ft. shoulders provide ample width for safe bicycle travel. Shoulders to the east of Lee Road are generally in fair condition. The Rochester Bicycling Club rates Lyell Avenue and Lee Road as good for bicycle travel.
State Bicycle Route 5 extends along Howard Road (over I-490) to NY 31, then northwesterly on NY 31 to Spencerport. Although a sign exists for Bicycle Route 5 on the westbound side of Lyell Avenue west of
2-52 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13 the Erie Canal, the Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator confirmed that the sign is in the wrong place and may have been erected to support a temporary route until the section to the south was established.
As indicated in Section 2.3.2.1., there are no shoulders provided on Lee Road between Lyell Avenue and just north of Evelyn Street. Along this segment of Lee Road, bicyclists must share the travel lane with vehicles. North of Evelyn Street bicyclists can utilize the 8 ft. wide shoulders on Lee Road.
Bicyclists are prohibited on Interstate highways by state law. Furthermore, there are no separate provisions for bicyclists and there are no plans for a bicycle route within the project study area.
2.3.2.3. Transit – The Rochester Genesee Transportation Authority (RGRTA) and Gates Chili Central School District (GCCSD) operate transit services within the project study area.
Rochester Genesee Regional Transportation Authority (RGRTA) The RGRTA, which oversees public transportation in seven Western New York counties, operates six Regional Transit Service (RTS) bus routes within the project study area as follows:
Route #3 Lyell – This route primarily provides east-west service on Lyell Avenue from downtown Rochester to the Greece-Ridge Mall, including stops at Edison Tech High School, Westmar Plaza, Canal Ponds Business Park and Park Ridge Hospital. Buses also utilize Howard Road, Lee Road, Lexington Avenue and Bellwood Drive. This route dominates ridership where approximately 75 buses daily make local stops along Lyell Avenue within the project study area. Local stops within the study area include:
Lyell Avenue Eastbound (37 buses daily at all stops listed) · East of Howard Road · Southwest corner of Rossmore Street intersection in front of Wegmans (Route #20 stop also) · Southwest corner of Tarwood Drive intersection (Route #20 stop also) · In between exit ramp to NY 390 SB (Ramp DF) and Lyell Avenue bridge · In between exit ramp to NY 390 NB (Ramp DE) and entrance ramp from NY 390 NB (Ramp DD) · Southwest corner of Lee Road Extension · Southwest corner of Sofia Collision and Frame driveway
Lyell Avenue Westbound (38 buses daily at all stops listed) · In front of TM Design Screen Printing and Embroidery · Northeast corner of Lee Road intersection · In between Boley Locksmiths and Taylor Rental Center (Route #20 stop also) · Northeast corner of Rossmore Street intersection (Route #20 stop also) · East of Howard Road (Route #20 stop also)
Lee Road · Approximately 100 ft. north of Lyell Avenue (northbound side) – 1 bus daily · Southeast corner of Lexington Avenue intersection (northbound side) – 1 bus daily · Approximately 200 ft. south of Lexington Avenue (southbound side) – 18 buses daily
Lexington Avenue · Approximately 200 ft. east of Lee Road (eastbound side) – 1 bus daily
Route # 9 Jay/Maple – This route provides east-west service on Buffalo Road from downtown Rochester to Gates Business Park. This route does not make any stops within the project study area. However, approximately 40 buses daily utilize the Buffalo Road bridge over I-390.
Route #14 Ridge Road – This route primarily provides east-west service on NY 104 (Ridge Road) from downtown Rochester to Creek House Commons in the town of Greece, including stops at Kodak, Rochester General Hospital and Greece-Ridge Mall. This route does not make any stops within the
2-53 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13 project study area. This route no longer provides express service, therefore no buses utilize the NY 390 and I-490 corridors within the project study area.
Route #20 Brockport – This route primarily provides east-west service from downtown Rochester to the Village of Brockport. Approximately 7 buses daily (3 eastbound and 4 westbound) make local stops along Lyell Avenue within the project study area at the locations noted above. This bus route also utilizes the I- 490 corridor as well as the NY 390 connection between the 390/490 and 390/31 interchanges.
Route #96 Hilton/Hamlin/Clarkson – This route provides limited service from downtown Rochester to the towns of Hilton, Hamlin and Clarkson, including stops at 3 Park & Ride lots. This route does not make any stops within the project study area. A total of 4 buses daily (2 AM and 2 PM) utilize the NY 390 and I- 490 corridors north and east of the 390/490 interchange.
S1 Express – This route provides express service from Basil A. Marella Park in the town of Greece to Strong/Highland Hospital in Rochester. This route does not make any stops within the project study area. A total of 2 buses daily (1 AM and 1 PM) utilize the NY 390/I-390 corridor.
The stop at the southwest corner of the Lyell Avenue and Rossmore Street intersection contains the only bus shelter within the study limits. There are no bus turnouts within the project study area. As such buses sometimes impede traffic flow when making stops, particularly the two stops on Lyell Avenue at the Rossmore Street intersection, which are the primary source of ridership.
RGRTA also provides Lift Line service, a safe, reliable and cost-effective transportation service to those people who are unable to ride accessible RTS buses.
RGRTA has embarked on a Bus Stop Optimization Study aimed at reducing the number of stops in the RTS system. The methodology will be applied to the project study area, though the timeline for on Lyell Avenue has yet to be defined.
There are no Park and Ride lots located within or adjacent to the project study area. However, RGRTA has indicated that a Park and Ride lot within the vicinity of the 390/490 interchange area is an ideal location to capture transit customers heading to downtown Rochester or other high-demand destinations such as U of R. However, there are currently no plans for a Park and Ride facility within the project study area.
RGRTA currently has no plans for a Transit Center or any other improvements within the project study area. However, the feasibility for suburban transit centers is currently being evaluated by RGRTA. Outside the limits of the project study area a transportation hub (RTS Transit Center) is planned in downtown Rochester and is expected to open in the Fall of 2013. Also located well beyond the project study area, a satellite transit center (Mt. Hope Station Transit Center) is currently being planned in conjunction with the University of Rochester’s proposed Collegetown project.
Gates Chili Central School District (GCCSD) The GCCSD provides transportation to Gates Chili public school students, and to private and parochial school students, and operates more than two dozen bus routes within the project study area. The majority of these busses service the local neighborhoods abutting Lyell Avenue by way of Rossmore Street, Matilda Street, Tarwood Drive and Lee Road.
2.3.2.4. Airports, Railroad Stations, and Ports – The Greater Rochester International Airport is located adjacent to I-390 SB approximately 2 miles south of the 390/490 interchange. No conflicts exist with the flight paths of aircraft using this airport.
There are no railroad stations or port entrances within or in the vicinity of the project study area.
2.3.2.5. Access to Recreation Areas (Parks, Trails, Waterways, State Lands) – The Erie Canal Heritage Trail (Canalway Trail) has a mid-block at-grade crossing of NY 31 (Lyell Avenue) adjacent to the bridge over the Erie Canal. The crossing is delineated with a painted crosswalk and advanced warning
2-54 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13 signing for motorists. Although the roadway profile provides the minimum sight distance, sight distance at the crossing is limited by the trusses and railings of the bridge over the Erie Canal. This crossing has been identified as a Safety/Trail Hazard on the Parks and Trails NY website. The trail is paved within the vicinity of the project limits and is utilized as a shared-use path.
As noted in Section 2.3.3.10, GTC indicated that no agencies are actively pursuing the purchase of the inactive railroad corridor that crosses under NY 390 beneath the two bridges that also carry NY 390 over Trolley Boulevard. However, it is expected that the long-range plan is to utilize the corridor as a trail, which would likely connect to the Canalway Trail.
There are no entrances to parks, waterways or state lands within the project limits.
2.3.3. Infrastructure
2.3.3.1. Existing Highway Section – Existing features for roadways within the project study area appear (along with proposed features) on the typical sections, plans, and profiles contained in Appendix A (bound separately). The project study area is depicted on Exhibit 1.2.1-2 in Appendix A. Lane configurations at all signalized intersections are depicted on Exhibit 1.2.1-3 in Appendix A. Posted speed limits are listed in Exhibit 2.3.1.5(1)-1, except for intersecting roadways that are described in Section 2.2.2.5.(6). For adjacent or intersecting roadways not discussed here, refer to Section 2.2.2.5.(6).
The following sub-sections summarize the existing conditions for I-390, I-490, NY 390, NY 31, Lexington Avenue and Lee Road. Further discussion regarding interchange spacing, ramp terminal spacing, left- hand entrances and exits, lane reductions, lane drop transitions, auxiliary lanes, compound curves, vehicle turning paths, and intersection sight distance can be found in Section 2.3.3.2.(2).
2.3.3.1.(1) I-490 – In the east-west direction along I-490, the project study area extends approximately 1 mile from the Erie Canal to the east to the Howard Road overpass to the west, which comprises the segment of I-490 that passes through the 390/490 interchange. Through the interchange the eastbound and westbound directions of I-490 have independent horizontal alignments, thereby attaining a maximum separation of approximately 750 ft. The alignments transition to a uniform section at Howard Road, and approximately 1500 ft. east of the Erie Canal. See Section 2.3.3.2.(1) for a more detailed discussion on the existing horizontal alignments. The vertical alignment is considered level since the maximum grade is 1.32% within the project study area.
There are a total of five bridges carrying I-490 traffic and four bridges over I-490 within the project study area. See Sections 2.3.3.2.(1) and 2.3.3.6 for more detailed discussion of these bridges.
To the west of the 390/490 interchange there are three through lanes in each direction. In the eastbound direction the left through lane is dropped at Ramp WN, a left-hand exit. At this same location, an auxiliary lane is added on the right side for a distance of approximately 1200 ft. to Ramp WS. The foregoing is a lane balance violation. Continuing in the eastbound direction, there are two through lanes on I-490 for a distance of 1250 ft., where Ramp NE merges as a left-hand entrance. Three through lanes continue for a distance of 1200 ft., where Ramp SE is introduced on the right side as a 4th lane (auxiliary lane) to Mt. Read Boulevard.
In the westbound direction there are four lanes to the east of the 390/490 interchange, which includes an auxiliary lane connecting the on-ramp from Mt. Read Boulevard to the off-ramp to NY 390 NB (Ramp EN). The left through lane is dropped at Ramp ES (a left-hand exit) while the right auxiliary lane is dropped at Ramp EN. Only two through lanes are provided on I-490 from Ramp EN to the Ramp SW, thus lane balance is violated along this segment in the westbound direction. Ramp SW enters the mainline as a lane addition so three through lanes continue westbound.
Existing lane widths along I-490 within the project study area are 12 ft. Left and right shoulder widths are typically 6 ft. and 10 ft. except at isolated locations on and under existing bridges as indicated in Section 2.3.3.2.(1).
2-55 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Although I-490 roadside grading conforms to clear zone criteria, with guide rail at necessary locations, protruding light pole footings within the clear zone along eastbound I-490 between the Erie Canal and the rail bridge to the east are considered to be roadside hazards.
2.3.3.1.(2) I-390 / NYS Route 390 – In the north-south direction, the study area extends approximately 3 miles along NY 390/I-390 from the northernmost Chili Avenue interchange ramp terminals to the south to the Lexington Avenue interchange to the north. In the northbound direction, I-390 terminates at Ramp SW and NY 390 begins. In the southbound direction, NY 390 ends at Ramp NE and I-390 begins.
The northbound and southbound directions of I-390 / NY 390 have independent horizontal alignments. To the south of the 390/490 interchange, the median width varies from 36 ft. to 120 ft. A maximum separation of approximately 800 ft. exists within the 390/490 interchange. From the 390/490 interchange to Lyell Avenue, the NY 390 horizontal alignments contain curves with large radii. The southbound direction curves to the left and provides one long flat radius. The northbound direction provides two curves that reverse in direction with a short tangent in between. The NY 390 horizontal alignment is straight as it extends north from Lyell Avenue to the southern portion of the Lexington Avenue interchange. The median width is 35 ft. over this length. Further north, the northbound and southbound alignments are independent and have large radius curves, resulting in a median width of approximately 55 ft. at the north project study area. See Section 2.3.3.2.(1) for a more detailed discussion on the existing horizontal alignments. The vertical alignment is considered level since the maximum grade is 2% within the project study area.
There are a total of eight bridges carrying I-390/NY 390 traffic and six bridges over I-390/NY 390 within the project study area. See Sections 2.3.3.2.(1) and 2.3.3.6 for more detailed discussion of these bridges.
With the exception of one segment in each direction, there are three through lanes in each direction of I- 390 and NY 390 within the project study area. Auxiliary lanes are present at the Chili Avenue interchange. Within the 390/490 interchange there are lane drops at Ramps SE and NE in the northbound and southbound directions, respectively. The three lane sections resume where Ramps WN and WS merge. Accordingly, there are lane balance violations in both directions where only two through lanes are present.
Existing lane widths along I-390 and NY 390 within the project study area are 12 ft. Left and right shoulder widths are typically 6 ft. and 10 ft. except at isolated locations on and under existing bridges as indicated in Section 2.3.3.2.(1), and along I-390 to the south of the railroad underpass, where left and right shoulder widths are typically 8 and 12 feet, respectively.
It appears that median grading is not in compliance with clear zone criteria in two segments, within the 390/31 interchange and between Trolley Boulevard and the Erie Canal. In certain instances unprotected slopes within the clear zone are as steep as 2.5:1. Roadside ditches and slopes within the clear zone appear to be nonconforming with respect to AASTHO Roadside Design Guide criteria at two ramp diverge points and one merge (Ramps SE, NE and ES).
To the south of the 390/490 interchange, roadside protection is non-conforming at the CSX Railroad, where the abutments are unshielded. Section 10.3.1.2 of the NYSDOT Highway Design Manual list unshielded abutments as a potentially hazardous feature that should be evaluated. In this case, the abutments are shielded at the approach ends, only.
2.3.3.1.(3) 390/490 interchange – The 390/490 interchange is a fully directional three level system-to- system interchange with both left and right-hand entrances and exits. Existing conditions for the I-490, I- 390 and NY 390 are summarized in Sections 2.3.3.1.(1) and 2.3.3.1.(2) above. There are six bridges at four locations within this interchange. There are two three-level grade separations, in the southeast and northwest quadrants. The three-level separation located in the northwest quadrant provides for separation of Ramp WN, I-490 WB and NY 390 SB (top to bottom). The three-level separation located in the southeast quadrant provides for separation of I-390 NB, I-490 EB and Ramp ES (top to bottom). The
2-56 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13 two bridges in the northeast and southwest quadrants provide separation between NY 390 NB and I-490 WB (top to bottom) and I-490 EB and I-390 SB (top to bottom), respectively.
As indicated in the preceding sections and in Section 2.3.3.2.(2), a reduction in the number of through lanes exists on the mainline roadways within the 390/490 interchange (all of which are lane balance violations). Inherent to the interchange type is the existence of four left-hand entrances and four left-hand exits. This, along with the relatively short distances between decision points, merge points, and diverge points is not conducive to efficient operation. These, along with other design parameters, are discussed in more detail in Section 2.3.3.2.(2).
Although this interchange is fully directional between I-490, I-390 and NY 390, it’s connectivity with the 390/31 interchange is not. Traffic traveling on I-490 EB destined for Lyell Avenue must exit at adjacent interchanges and backtrack to Lyell Avenue. The next closest interchanges are at I-490 and Mt. Read Boulevard, approximately 1 mile east of the 390/490 interchange, and at NY 390 and Lexington Avenue, approximately 1 mile north of the 390/31 interchange.
There were no observed clear zone issues within the 390/490 interchange area.
Existing conditions vary for the eight directional ramps as depicted in Exhibit 2.3.3.1 (3).
Exhibit 2.3.3.1 (3) 390/490 Interchange Ramps – Existing Pavement Widths Ramp Number of Travel Lanes Lane Width Shoulder Widths (L/R) Ramp NE 2 12 ft. 6 ft. / 10 ft. Ramp NW 1 14 ft. 7 ft. / 10 ft. Ramp WN 1 14 to 15 ft. 5 ft. / 18 ft. Ramp WS 1 14 ft. 6 ft. / 9 ft. Ramp SW 1 14 ft. 4 ft. / 9 ft. Ramp SE 1 14 ft. 6 ft. / 12 ft. Ramp ES 2* 12 ft. 6 ft. / 12 ft. Ramp EN 2* 12 ft. 7 ft. / 11 ft. * A single existing lane serves the two-lane ramp which is not desirable.
2.3.3.1.(4) NYS Route 390/NYS Route 31 interchange – The partial cloverleaf system-to-service interchange at Lyell Avenue is semi-directional with loop ramps (Ramps DC and DE) in the northwest and southeast quadrants, thereby providing for uncontrolled (i.e. free-flowing) movements from Lyell Avenue. Movements from the outer connection ramps (Ramps DA and DF) are also uncontrolled (i.e. free-flowing) from Lyell Avenue. The movements from the diagonal/outer connection ramps (Ramps DB and DD) are controlled at signalized intersections.
The loop ramp (Ramps DC and DE) lane widths are 15 ft. Ramp DC has a 5 ft. wide right shoulder and a 4 ft. wide left shoulder. Ramp DE has 6 ft. shoulders on both sides.
The outer connection ramp (Ramps DA and DF) lane widths are 14 ft. and 13 ft. respectively. Ramp DA has a 10 ft. wide right shoulder and 4 ft. wide left shoulder. Ramp DF has 6 ft. shoulders on both sides.
The diagonal ramp (Ramps DB and DD) lane widths are 14 ft. and 12 ft. respectively. Ramp DB has 6 ft. wide shoulders on both sides. Ramp DD is a two-lane ramp and has 8 ft. to 10 ft. right shoulders and 4 ft. to 6 ft. left shoulders.
There were no observed clear zone issues within the 390/31 interchange other than those discussed in Section 2.3.3.1.(2).
2-57 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
2.3.3.1.(5) NYS Route 390/Lexington Avenue interchange – The system-to-service interchange configuration at Lexington Avenue is a modified trumpet, with the movement from NY 390 SB to eastbound Lexington Avenue being provided by a loop ramp in the southwest quadrant. Uncharacteristic of a trumpet configuration is the signalized intersection at Ramps EA and EB, and the unsignalized intersection of Bellwood Drive at Ramps EC and ED.
The loop ramp (Ramp EC) lane width is typically 16 ft. with a 7 ft. wide left shoulder. The ramp is curbed along its entire length on the right side. The last third of the ramp is curbed on both sides and does not provide shoulders.
The diagonal ramp (Ramps EA and EB) lane widths are typically 14 ft. and 16 ft. respectively with 10 ft. wide right shoulders. Left shoulder widths for Ramps EA and EB are typically 6 ft. and 4 ft. respectively.
The semidirect ramp (Ramp ED) lane width is typically 14 ft. with 10 ft. right shoulders. The first half of the ramp is curbed on the left side and does not provide shoulders. The last half of the ramp is not curbed and provides left shoulders that are typically 3 ft. wide.
There were no observed clear zone issues within the NY 390/Lexington Avenue interchange.
2.3.3.1.(6) NYS Route 31 (Lyell Avenue) – In the east-west direction along Lyell Avenue, the study area extends approximately ¾ miles from the Erie Canal to the east to the east leg of the Howard Road intersection to the west. Route 31 continues to the west as Spencerport Road; Fox Run intersects Route 31 on the north approach.
The segment west of Ramp DF consists of a five lane section with two lanes in each direction and a center (shared) turn lane. Travel lanes are 11 ft. in width and the roadway is curbed. Shoulder widths (i.e. curb offsets) vary from 0 to 3 ft. The center lane terminates where Ramp DF begins.
Through the interchange area, Lyell Avenue typically consists of a four lane section with two lanes in each direction with auxiliary lanes for the loop ramps (i.e., there are three lanes in each direction on the bridge over NY 390). Travel lanes are 12 ft. in width and the roadway contains several curbed sections of limited length and is divided by an 8 ft. curbed concrete median island. The segment within the interchange has varying shoulder widths. On the bridge over NY 390 the outside curbs are offset approximately 1.5 ft. from the travel way in each direction. Curbing extends from the east ramp terminals to approximately 200 ft. east of Lee Road.
There are two signalized intersections on Lyell Avenue to the east of NY 390 which are spaced only 150 ft. apart from center. Lyell Avenue intersects with the NY 390 NB off-ramp (Ramp DD) and with Lee Road. With exception of the west approach to the intersection with Ramp DD where lanes are 12 ft. wide, through lane and turning lane widths are typically 11 ft. wide.
The segment east of Lee Road Extension consists of a four lane section with two lanes in each direction. Travel lanes 11 ft. in width and the roadway is not curbed. Shoulder widths are typically 10 ft. on the left side, 9 ft. on the right side.
Six streets intersect Lyell Avenue within the project study area. These include Cornelia Drive, Rossmore Street, Matilda Street, Tarwood Drive, Lee Road, and Lee Road Extension. The segment of Lee Road within the project study area is discussed in Section 2.3.3.1.(8). The abutting segment of Lee Road located outside the project study area is discussed in Section 2.2.2.5.(5). The remaining intersecting local streets are discussed in Section 2.2.2.5.(6).
In addition to these six streets, several commercial driveways are also located along Lyell Avenue within the project study area. Most significantly, access to Wegmans (to the south) is provided at the signalized intersection at Rossmore Street and by means of a driveway located just east of the Howard Road intersection. Since it is likely that most of these access points were established before the Policy and Standards for the Design of Entrances to State Highways became effective, it is likely that many of them are not in compliance with the criteria contained therein. Detailed evaluations of all existing access points
2-58 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13 were not performed as part of this study. However, it was determined that two existing driveways do not comply with criteria for minimum corner clearance from an intersection as per the NYSDOT Highway Design Manual (HDM) Figure 5A-1. The driveways are located less than twice the width of the driveway plus 15 ft. (2W + 15’) from the Matilda Street intersection and are as follows:
• Lyell Crest True Value Hardware; 2232 Lyell Avenue: Minimum = 103’ (Actual = 54’) • Steve T. Hots; 2260 Lyell Avenue: Minimum = 83’ (Actual = 44’)
In addition, the optimal driveway spacing of 550 ft. (NYSDOT Best Practices in Arterial Management, 1997) is not achieved as the corridor contains significant commercial development. There are no residential driveways located along Lyell Avenue within the project study area.
With the exception of the horizontal curve to the west of Cornelia Drive, Lyell Avenue is a straight alignment within the project study area. There are a significant number of utility poles within the clear zone. The utility poles within the clear zone are located on the north side of Lyell Avenue from the western study limit to the Matilda Street intersection and on the south side to the west of Tarwood Drive.
2.3.3.1.(7) Lexington Avenue – In the east-west direction along Lexington Avenue, the study area extends approximately 1000 ft. from the intersection of Lee Road to the east to the intersection of Bellwood Drive to the west, which intersects Lexington Avenue at its terminus, approximately 175 ft. west of NY 390. This segment consists of a four lane section with two travel lanes in each direction. Travel lanes are 12 ft. in width and the roadway is curbed and is divided by a 4 ft. concrete median island with guide rail. There are no shoulders along this segment of Lexington Avenue. There are 12 ft. left turn lanes at all approaches of the Lee Road intersection. The horizontal alignment from Bellwood Drive to Lee Road is in a mild curve to the right; the vertical alignment is relatively flat. There were no observed clear zone issues on Lexington Avenue within the project study area.
2.3.3.1.(8) Lee Road – The portions of Lee Road within the project study area are limited to the approaches for the Lyell Avenue and Lexington Avenue intersections. At its intersection with Lyell Avenue, approximately 600 ft. east of NY 390, Lee Road consists of a curbed three lane section with a 13 ft. wide right-turn lane and an 11 ft. wide left-turn lane in the southbound direction and a 15 ft. through lane in the northbound direction. At its intersection with Lexington Avenue, approximately 600 ft. east of the signalized intersection with Ramps EA and EB, Lee Road consists of a curbed five lane section with two lanes in each direction and a left-turn lane. All lane widths are generally 12 ft. wide. There are no shoulders approaching either the Lyell Avenue or Lexington Avenue intersections. The Lee Road alignment is straight and there were no observed clear zone issues.
2.3.3.2. Geometric Design Elements Not Meeting Standards – Existing design elements were compared with the minimum standards used by the NYSDOT to make capital infrastructure improvement decisions. Within the project study area numerous non-conforming features have been identified through field observations, evaluation of collected data and discussions with local officials. This type of review helps ensure that project objectives and feasible alternatives consider key deficiencies. The NYSDOT standards for 3R projects were used in place of reconstruction standards where applicable as they help identify areas that may need improvement rather than merely identifying elements that do not meet current standards.
2.3.3.2.(1) Critical Design Elements – For all mainline roadways and ramps within the project study area, select design criteria from the American Association of State and Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Interstate Standards in effect at the time of construction (i.e. “Standards of the Day”) were utilized in place of the current standards for the existing critical geometric design elements. The “Standards of the Day”, which are the minimum standards for capital improvements, are depicted in Chapter 7 of the NYSDOT Highway Design Manual (HDM) and include minimum values for stopping sight distance, minimum radii, grade, ramp design speed, and the widths of the medians, mainline travel lanes, and mainline shoulders. Otherwise standards from Chapter 2 of NYSDOT’s HDM are used for the critical design elements.
2-59 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
The Regional Traffic Engineer has concurred that the use of a design speed of 60 mph for the principal arterial highways (I-490, I-390 and NY 390) within the project study area is consistent with the anticipated off-peak 85th percentile speed, within the range of functional class speeds for the terrain and volume (See Exhibit 2.3.1.5 (2)-2 in Appendix C for Design Speed Review memo). As per the NYSDOT Standards for Freeway 3R Projects, critical design elements must be consistent with the current design speed, not the design speed that the roadways may have been originally designed for.
The existing geometric elements for all ramps, except for loop ramps, were compared with the minimum standards for capital improvements based on a 30 mph ramp design speed. The 30 mph ramp design speed was derived based on the current 60 mph mainline design speed. Loop ramps may utilize a design speed of 25 mph. A 30 mph design speed for the 390/31 and 390/Lexington Avenue interchange ramps is also consistent with the current required minimum design speed of 30 mph.
However, a 30 mph design speed for all eight 390/490 interchange ramps is not consistent with the current required minimum ramp design speed. These ramps are classified as “direct connection” ramps which require a 40 mph minimum and 50 mph preferred ramp design speed. The “direct connection” classification for the four left-hand exit/entrance ramps at this interchange clearly match Exhibit 10-55 E in the AASHTO publication A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets 2004 (referred to as the Green Book). The remaining four ramps could be classified as either “direct connection” or “outer connection” ramps. However, considering this is an interstate-to-interstate interchange, a “direct connection” classification for all eight ramps is considered appropriate. Furthermore, all eight ramps currently meet the horizontal geometrics for a 40 to 50 mph ramp design speed and are posted between 35 and 50 mph.
For the remaining roadways within the project study area, except for local side streets and Howard Road, the Regional Traffic Engineer has concurred that the use of a design speed of 45 mph is consistent with the anticipated off-peak 85th percentile speed, within the range of functional class speeds for the terrain and volume (See Exhibit 2.3.1.5 (2)-2 in Appendix C for Design Speed Review memo).
The existing geometric elements for the minor arterial roadways (Lyell Avenue, Buffalo Road, Lee Road and Lexington Avenue) were compared with the minimum standards for capital improvements based on the current 45 mph design speed. Existing geometric elements for all other roadways were not analyzed since no work is anticipated on any of them other than the incidental work where they intersect the minor arterial roadways. Vehicle Turning Paths and Intersection Sight Distance were analyzed and are discussed in Section 2.3.3.2.(2). The one exception is that the existing vertical clearance over Trolley Boulevard was analyzed in the event that the NY 390 bridges over Trolley Boulevard are widened or replaced. No other work is anticipated on Trolley Boulevard as part of this project.
Record plans and survey data were utilized to identify the existing geometric features within the project study area and are listed in Exhibits 3.2.3.2-1 to 3.2.3.2-5. Exhibits 2.3.3.2.(1)-1 to 2.3.3.2.(1)-3 of Appendix I show the complete analysis of the existing conditions of the ramps within the project study area. Existing geometric features that are considered critical design elements were identified as follows. Those that are non-standard are depicted with an asterisk (*).
I-490: Design Speed 60 mph
Lane Width: Lane widths are 12 ft., which meets the 12 ft. minimum required for Interstate highways.
* Shoulder Width: Left and right shoulder widths are typically 6 ft. and 10 ft. respectively. All shoulder widths meet or exceed the minimum required (4 ft. left / 10 ft. right) for Interstate highways except at the following isolated locations on and under existing bridges:
I-490 EB · I-490 EB over I-390 SB (BIN 1025812) – Left shoulder narrows to 3 ft. at the bridge approaches. Right shoulder narrows to 4 ft. across the bridge.
2-60 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
· I-490 EB/Ramp NE over Ramp ES (BIN 1025820) – Right shoulder tapers across the bridge and reduces to as little as 4.5 ft. The right side of this bridge carries I-490 EB traffic and the left side carries Ramp NE traffic. · I-490 EB over Erie Canal (BIN 4443362) – Right shoulder narrows to 7 ft. at the west approach.
I-490 WB · I-490 WB over the Erie Canal (BIN 4443361) – Right shoulder narrows to 7 ft. across the bridge. · I-490 WB over NY 390 SB (BIN 1025811) – Right shoulder narrows to 5 ft. at the bridge approaches.
* Bridge Roadway Width: All five bridges carrying I-490 traffic provide widths that are narrower than the approach roadway and less than AASHTO Interstate Standards. In all cases, the shoulder widths are reduced to minimize the bridge width and at least one of the shoulders on each bridge does not meet the minimum required for an Interstate highway.
Maximum Grade: The maximum grade of 1.32% on I-490 does not exceed the maximum grade for a level terrain when compared to both current standards (3% max.) and “Standards of the Day” (4% max.). Record plans were utilized to determine existing maximum grades.
Horizontal Curvature (Minimum): There are a total of 5 horizontal curves on I-490 from Howard Road to the Erie Canal; two on I-490 EB and three on I-490 WB. All curves exceed the minimum horizontal curvature for a 60 mph design speed and 6% maximum superelevation rate when compared to both current standards (1,330 ft.) and “Standards of the Day” (1,263 ft.). All curves were originally designed utilizing degrees of curvature to the nearest 0.5 degree with corresponding radii from 2864.79 ft. to 5729.58 ft. All of these curves contain spiral curve transitions except for the western-most I-490 WB simple curve. Those with spiral curve transitions are reversing with short tangents in between.
Superelevation Rate: The existing maximum superelevation rate along both directions of I-490 is 4.44%, which does not exceed the maximum allowable of 6%. Record plans were utilized to determine the existing maximum superelevation rates.
Stopping Sight Distance (SSD): All existing horizontal and vertical SSD’s within the project study area exceed the 475 ft. minimum when compared to “Standards of the Day”. All existing SSD’s also exceed the 570 ft. minimum when compared to current standards except for an isolated horizontal SSD restriction on the I-490 EB bridge over I-390 SB. SSD approaching this bridge is restricted by bridge rail where approximately 491 ft. is provided, which does not meet the minimum required for current standards. Project basemapping was utilized to determine existing horizontal SSD and record plans were utilized to determine existing vertical SSD.
* Horizontal Clearance (from EOT): There are no non-standard horizontal clearances along I-490 within the project study area, except at the I-490 EB over I-390 SB (BIN 1025812) bridge approach where the left shoulder narrows to 3 ft. as indicated in the Shoulder Width sub-section above. The minimum required horizontal clearance is 15 ft. without barrier and the larger of 4 ft. or the actual shoulder width with barrier.
* Vertical Clearance: There are a total of 4 bridges over I-490 within the project study area; two over I- 490 WB (BIN’s 1052280 and 1052290), one over I-490 EB (BIN 1063950), and one over both I-490 EB and WB (BIN 1048680). Since the Thruway (I-90) is the designated 16 ft. vertical clearance route through the Rochester urban area, a 14 ft. vertical clearance is the minimum required. All 4 bridges exceed the 14 ft. minimum required. There are also 2 bridges on I-490 over the Erie Canal (BIN’s 4443361 and 4443362); one in each direction of travel. Both bridges contain vertical clearances of 15 ft., which is less than the 15.5 ft. required. There are 4 overhead sign structures over I-490 within the project study area. All 4 overhead sign structures exceed the 15 ft. minimum required.
Travel Lane Cross Slope: Travel lane cross slopes range from 1.5% to 2%, which meets standard criteria of 1.5% minimum to 2% maximum. Record plans were utilized to determine the existing pavement cross slopes.
2-61 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Rollover: The existing maximum rollover rates on I-490 do not exceed the maximum allowable of 8% based on the record plans.
* Structural Capacity: Four of the five bridges carrying I-490 traffic provide a structural capacity that meets or exceeds HS 20 loading requirements. The exception is the I-490 EB over I-390 SB bridge (BIN 1025812), which has a structural capacity less than the HS 20 minimum.
* Level of Service (LOS): See Section 2.3.1.7 for discussion on existing LOS.
Control of Access: Access is fully controlled (See Section 2.3.1.2).
Median Width: The minimum median width along I-490 within the project study area is 24 ft. with barrier, which exceeds the minimum required when compared to both current standards (10 ft.) and “Standards of the Day” (4 ft.).
I-390 / NYS Route 390: Design Speed 60 mph
Lane Width: Lane widths are 12 ft., which meets the 12 ft. minimum required for Interstate highways and other freeways.
* Shoulder Width: Left and right shoulder widths are typically 6 ft. and 10 ft. respectively. All shoulder widths meet or exceed the minimum required (4 ft. left / 10 ft. right) for Interstate highways except at the following isolated locations on and under existing bridges:
I-390/NY 390 NB · I-390 NB/Ramp SW over I-490 EB (BIN 1063950) – Left and right shoulders narrow to 3 ft. across the bridge. · NY 390 NB over I-490 WB (BIN 1052290) – Left and right shoulders narrow to 3 ft. and 5 ft. respectively across the bridge. · NY 390 NB over inactive CSX Railroad and Trolley Boulevard (BIN 1062542) – Left and right shoulder narrows to 1 ft. and 3 ft. respectively across the bridge.
I-390/NY 390 SB · NY 390 SB over Lexington Avenue (BIN 1062521) – Right shoulder narrows to 5.5 ft. at the south approach. · NY 390 SB over the Erie Canal (BIN 4062531) – Right shoulder narrows to 5.5 ft. across the bridge. · NY 390 SB over inactive CSX Railroad and Trolley Boulevard (BIN 1062541) – Left and right shoulders narrow to 1 ft. and 3 ft. respectively across the bridge. · NY 390 SB under NY 31 – Left shoulder narrows to 3 ft. under the bridge.
* Bridge Roadway Width: Seven of the eight bridges carrying I-390/NY 390 traffic provide widths that are narrower than the approach roadway. The exception is the NY 390 NB bridge over the Erie Canal. For all seven bridges, the shoulder widths are reduced to minimize the bridge width and at least one of the shoulders on each bridge does not meet the minimum required for an Interstate highway, except for the NY 390 NB bridge over Lexington Avenue which provides the minimum required shoulder widths.
Maximum Grade: The maximum grade of 2.00% on I-390/NY 390 does not exceed the maximum grade for a level terrain when compared to both current standards (3% max.) and “Standards of the Day” (4% max.). Record plans were utilized to determine existing maximum grades.
Horizontal Curvature (Minimum): There are a total of 11 distinct horizontal curves on I-390/NY 390 from the northernmost Chili Avenue interchange ramp terminals to Lexington Avenue; four on I-390/NY 390 SB and seven on I-390 NB. All curves exceed the minimum horizontal curvature for a 60 mph design speed and 6% maximum superelevation rate when compared to both current standards (1,330 ft.) and “Standards of the Day” (1,263 ft.). All curves were originally designed utilizing degrees of curvature to the
2-62 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13 nearest 0.5 degree with corresponding radii from 2864.79 ft. to 11459.16 ft. None of the southbound curves contain spiral curve transitions since none of the radii exceed 1 degree of curvature, whereas several of the northbound curves contain spiral curve transitions. The entire southbound alignment through and south of the 390/490 interchange is on a long, flat curve of radius 11459.16 ft. Through the heart of the interchange, the northbound alignment contains 3 reversing curves with spiral curve transitions and short tangents in between.
South of Buffalo Road, comparison of three sets of as-built plans showed conflicting curve data. One set of as-built plans (NYSDOT Contract Number D256531) depicted compound curves on both the SB and NB side of I-390 with radii differing by only 0.18 ft. and 5 ft. respectively. Those same plans also showed an extremely short curve of only 66 ft. in length on I-390 SB just north of the Chili Avenue off-ramp. However, the intent is clear that there are 11 distinct horizontal curves on I-390/NY 390 from the northernmost Chili Avenue interchange ramp terminals to Lexington Avenue.
Superelevation Rate: The existing maximum superelevation rate along I-390/NY 390 is 4.6%, which does not exceed the maximum allowable of 6%. Record plans were utilized to determine the existing maximum superelevation rates.
* Stopping Sight Distance (SSD): All existing horizontal and vertical SSD’s within the project study area exceed the 475 ft. minimum when compared to “Standards of the Day” except for the sag vertical curves located in each direction of NY 390 just north of the Erie Canal. These sag curves provide HLSD of 469 ft. in the NB direction and 448 ft. in the SB direction, which is less than the 475 ft. minimum required for capital improvements. Furthermore, all existing SSD’s exceed the 570 ft. minimum when compared to current standards except for an isolated horizontal SSD restriction that exists on the NY 390 NB bridge over I-490 WB. SSD approaching this bridge is restricted by bridge rail where approximately 490 ft. is provided, which does not meet the minimum required. Project basemapping was utilized to determine existing horizontal SSD and record plans were utilized to determine existing vertical SSD.
* Horizontal Clearance (from EOT): There are no non-standard horizontal clearances along I-390/NY 390 within the project study area except at the following isolated locations on and under existing bridges:
· I-390 NB over I-490 EB (BIN 1063950) – Left and right shoulders narrow to 3 ft. across the bridge. · I-390 NB and SB under CSX Railroad (BIN 7025830) – Unshielded vertical faced abutments located less than 15 ft. from edge of traveled way. · NY 390 NB over I-490 WB (BIN 1052290) – Left shoulder narrows to 3 ft. across the bridge. · NY 390 NB over inactive CSX Railroad and Trolley Boulevard (BIN 1062542) – Left and right shoulder narrows to 1 ft. and 3 ft. respectively across the bridge. · NY 390 SB over inactive CSX Railroad and Trolley Boulevard (BIN 1062541) – Left and right shoulders narrow to 1 ft. and 3 ft. respectively across the bridge. · NY 390 SB under NY 31 – Left shoulder narrows to 3 ft. under the bridge.
The minimum required horizontal clearance is 15 ft. without barrier and the larger of 4 ft. or the actual shoulder width with barrier.
Vertical Clearance: There are a total of 5 bridges immediately over I-390/NY 390 within the project study area; two over I-390/NY 390 SB (BIN’s 1025811 and 1025812), two over I-390 NB and SB (BIN’s 1023030 and 7025830), and one over both NY 390 NB and SB (BIN 1021589). Since the Thruway (I-90) is the designated 16 ft. vertical clearance route through the Rochester urban area, a 14 ft. vertical clearance is the minimum required. All 5 bridges exceed the 14 ft. minimum required. There are also 2 bridges on NY 390 over the Erie Canal (BIN’s 4062531 and 4062532); one in each direction of travel. Both bridges contain vertical clearances of 20 ft., which exceed the 15.5 ft. required. There are 7 overhead sign structures over I-390/NY 390 within the project study area. All 7 overhead sign structures exceed the 15 ft. minimum required.
2-63 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Travel Lane Cross Slope: Travel lane cross slopes range from 1.5% to 2%, which meets standard criteria of 1.5% minimum to 2% maximum. Record plans were utilized to determine the existing pavement cross slopes.
Rollover: The existing maximum rollover rates on I-390/NY 390 do not exceed the maximum allowable of 8% based on the record plans.
* Structural Capacity: Four of the eight bridges carrying I-390/NY 390 traffic provide a structural capacity that does not meet HS 20 loading requirements (See Section 2.3.3.6.(1)). These four bridges are as follows:
· NY 390 NB over Lexington Avenue (BIN 1062522) · NY 390 SB over Lexington Avenue (BIN 1062521) · NY 390 NB over the Erie Canal (BIN 4062532) · NY 390 NB over Trolley Boulevard (BIN 1062542)
* Level of Service (LOS): LOS is a critical design element for Interstate highways and ramp junctions only. See Section 2.3.1.7 for discussion on existing LOS.
Control of Access: Access is fully controlled (See Section 2.3.1.2).
Median Width: The minimum median width along I-390 and NY 390 within the project study area is 32 ft. with barrier and 34 ft. without barrier respectively, which exceeds the minimum required when compared to both current standards (10 ft.) and “Standards of the Day” (4 ft.).
Direct Connection Ramps (SW, WN, NE, ES, WS, SE, EN, NW): Design Speed 30 mph
* Lane Width: The required lane widths on ramps are directly related to the horizontal curve radii and shoulder widths on the ramp. For each ramp, the existing lane widths were measured along the sharpest curve on the ramp. All existing direct connect ramp lane widths do not meet the minimum required.
* Shoulder Width: All existing direct connect ramp shoulder widths meet or exceed the minimum required (3 ft. left / 8 ft. right) for uncurbed ramps, except for an isolated portion on the right shoulder of Ramp WN which narrows to 3 ft. at the entrance terminal. The typical right shoulder width on Ramp WN is 18 ft.
* Bridge Roadway Width: All three bridges carrying direct connect ramps (Ramps SW, WN and NE) are narrower than the approach roadway. In all cases, the shoulder widths are reduced to minimize the bridge width. However, all three of these bridges still provide shoulder widths that meet or exceed the minimum required for ramps, except for the right shoulder on the bridge carrying Ramp NE, which is tapering across the bridge and reduces to as little as 4.5 ft. The right side of this bridge carries I-490 EB traffic and the left side carries Ramp NE traffic.
Maximum Grade: None of these ramps contain grades that exceed the 7% maximum for level terrain classification when compared to both current standards and “Standards of the Day”. Record plans were utilized to determine existing maximum grades.
Horizontal Curvature (Minimum): All eight direct connect ramps contain curves that exceed the minimum horizontal curvature for a 30 mph design speed and 6% maximum superelevation rate when compared to both current standards (231 ft.) and “Standards of the Day” (230 ft.). Furthermore, all ramp curves exceed the 643 ft. minimum horizontal curvature for a 45 mph design speed and 6% maximum superelevation rate when compared to current standards. All ramp curves were designed utilizing degrees of curvature to the nearest 0.5 degree with corresponding radii from 674.07 ft. to 1432.40 ft. None of the ramp curves contain spiral curve transitions.
2-64 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
* Superelevation Rate: The existing superelevation rates exceed the maximum allowable of 6% on 6 of the 8 direct connect ramps, excluding Ramps SW and WN. Both record plans and survey data were utilized to estimate the existing maximum superelevation rates.
Stopping Sight Distance (SSD): All eight direct connect ramps contain vertical curves that exceed the minimum SSD for a 30 to 45 mph design speed when compared to current standards (200 ft. to 360 ft. respectively), and a 30 to 50 mph design speed when compared to “Standards of the Day” (200 ft. to 350 ft. respectively). Furthermore, all eight ramps exceed the 425 ft. minimum vertical SSD for a 50 mph design speed when compared to current standards except for Ramps WS and SW. Ramp WS provides a minimum vertical SSD of 390 ft., which occurs along a sag curve approaching the entrance terminal and does not meet the minimum required for the 50 mph posted speed. Since this is a sag curve and the SSD is purely related to headlight sight distance, the existing highway lighting throughout the limits of the sag curve essentially eliminates this nonstandard feature. Ramp SW provides a minimum vertical SSD of 373 ft., which exceeds the minimum required for the 35 mph posted speed. Record plans were utilized to determine existing vertical SSD.
All ramps contain horizontal SSD’s that exceed the 200 ft. minimum for a 30 mph design speed when compared to both current standards and “Standards of the Day”. The required horizontal SSD based on current standards and the posted speed for each ramp was also investigated since all of these ramps are posted for speeds 35 mph or greater.
· Ramp SW is obstructed by bridge rail and vegetation and provides a SSD of approximately 228 ft., which does not meet the 250 ft. minimum required for the 35 mph posted speed.
· Ramp WN is also obstructed by bridge rail and vegetation and provides a SSD of approximately 250 ft., which does not meet the 305 ft. minimum required for the 40 mph posted speed.
· Ramp EN is obstructed by W-Beam barrier and provides a SSD of approximately 407 ft., which is slightly less than the 425 ft. minimum required for the 50 mph posted speed.
· Ramps NE and WS are obstructed by box beam barrier. Ramp NE provides a SSD of approximately 259 ft., which is less than the 305 ft. minimum required for the 40 mph posted speed. Ramp WS provides a SSD of approximately 410 ft., which is less than the 425 ft. minimum required for the 50 mph posted speed.
· Ramp ES is obstructed by concrete barrier at the I-490 EB underpass and provides a SSD of approximately 348 ft., which is less than the 425 ft. minimum required for the 50 mph posted speed.
· Ramps SE and NW exceed the minimum horizontal SSD based on their posted speed limits. Ramp SE provides a SSD of approximately 329 ft., which exceeds the 305 ft. minimum required for the 40 mph posted speed. Ramp NW does not contain any obstructions that would restrict the horizontal SSD.
Project basemapping was utilized to determine existing horizontal SSD.
Horizontal Clearance (from EOT): There are no non-standard horizontal clearances along any of the direct connect ramps. The minimum required horizontal clearance is 3 ft. on the left side and the larger of 6 ft. or the actual shoulder width on the right side, with an additional 4 ft. of clearance required beyond the outside of shoulders to bridge piers or abutments.
Vertical Clearance: There is one bridge immediately over Ramp ES (BIN 1025820), which connects I- 490 WB to I-390 SB. Since the Thruway (I-90) is the designated 16 ft. vertical clearance route through the Rochester urban area, a 14 ft. vertical clearance is the minimum required for bridge rehabilitations without structural deck replacement. This bridge exceeds the 14 ft. minimum required.
2-65 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Rollover: The existing maximum rollover rates on the direct connect ramps do not exceed the maximum allowable of 8% based on the record plans.
Structural Capacity: All three bridges carrying direct connect ramp traffic provide a structural capacity that meets or exceeds HS 20 loading requirements.
* Level of Service (LOS): LOS is a critical design element for Interstate highways and ramp junctions only. See Section 2.3.1.7 for discussion on existing LOS.
Control of Access: Access is fully controlled (See Section 2.3.1.2).
Pedestrian Accommodation: Pedestrians are prohibited on these direct connect ramps.
Loop Ramps (DC, DE, EC): Design Speed 25 mph
* Lane Width: The required lane widths on ramps are directly related to the horizontal curve radii and shoulder widths on the ramp. For each ramp, the existing lane widths were measured along the sharpest curve on the ramp. All existing loop ramp lane widths do not meet the minimum required.
* Shoulder Width: All existing loop ramp shoulder widths meet or exceed the 0 ft. (left/right) minimum required for curbed ramps and the 3 ft. (left) / 6 ft. (right) minimum required for uncurbed ramps, except for Ramp DC which contains a 5 ft. right shoulder width that does not meet the 6 ft. minimum required.
Maximum Grade: None of these ramps contain grades that exceed the 7% maximum for level terrain classification when compared to both current standards and “Standards of the Day”. Record plans were utilized to determine existing maximum grades.
Horizontal Curvature (Minimum): All three loop ramps contain curves that exceed the 144 ft. minimum horizontal curvature for a 25 mph design speed and 6% maximum superelevation rate when compared to both current standards and “Standards of the Day”.
* Superelevation Rate: The existing superelevation rates exceed the maximum allowable of 6% on all loop ramps. Both record plans and survey data were utilized to estimate the existing maximum superelevation rates.
* Stopping Sight Distance (SSD): All three loop ramps contain horizontal and vertical SSD’s that exceed the minimum for a 25 to 30 mph design speed when compared to both current standards (155 ft. to 200 ft. respectively) and “Standards of the Day” (160 ft. to 200 ft. respectively), except for an isolated horizontal SSD restriction on Ramp DE. Ramp DE provides a minimum horizontal SSD of approximately 141 ft., which is slightly less than the 155 ft. minimum required for a 25 mph design speed when compared to current standards. SSD is restricted approaching the ramp entrance terminal due to the presence of a W- Beam guiderail located along the inside of a 150 ft. radius curve. Project basemapping was utilized to determine existing horizontal SSD, and record plans were utilized to determine existing vertical SSD.
* Horizontal Clearance (from EOT): There are no non-standard horizontal clearances along any of the loop ramps except along the last third of Ramp EC, which is curbed and contains a median barrier along the left side of the ramp at an offset of approximately 2 ft. The minimum required horizontal clearance is 3 ft. on the left side and the larger of 6 ft. or the actual shoulder width on the right side, with an additional 4 ft. of clearance required beyond the outside of shoulders to bridge piers or abutments.
Rollover: The existing maximum rollover rates on the loop ramps do not exceed the maximum allowable of 8% based on the record plans.
* Control of Access: Access on Ramp EC is not fully controlled (See Section 2.3.1.2). Access on all other loop ramps is fully controlled.
2-66 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
* Pedestrian Accommodation: Existing sidewalks at ramp terminals are scarce and do not comply with standard criteria (See Section 2.3.2.1).
All Other Ramps (DA, DB, DD, DF, EA, EB, ED): Design Speed 30 mph As per AASHTO Green Book guidelines, Ramps DB, DD, EA and EB are classified as diagonal ramps; Ramps DA and DF are classified as outer connection ramps; and Ramp ED is classified as a semidirect ramp.
* Lane Width: The required lane widths on ramps are directly related to the horizontal curve radii and shoulder widths on the ramp. For each ramp, the existing lane widths were measured along the sharpest curve on the ramp. Six of the seven existing diagonal, outer connection and semidirect ramp lane widths do not meet the minimum required, except for Ramp EB which is 16 ft. wide on the ramp proper and exceeds the 15 ft. minimum.
Shoulder Width: All existing diagonal, outer connection and semidirect ramp shoulder widths meet or exceed the 0 ft. (left/right) minimum required for curbed ramps and the 3 ft. (left) / 6 ft. (right) minimum required for uncurbed ramps.
Maximum Grade: None of these ramps contain grades that exceed the 7% maximum for level terrain classification when compared to both current standards and “Standards of the Day”. Record plans were utilized to determine existing maximum grades.
Horizontal Curvature (Minimum): These ramps (i.e. diagonal, outer connection and semidirect) contain curves that exceed the minimum horizontal curvature for a 30 mph design speed and 6% maximum superelevation rate when compared to both current standards (231 ft.) and “Standards of the Day” (230 ft.).
* Superelevation Rate: The existing superelevation rates exceed the maximum allowable of 6% on Ramps DD, DF and ED. Both record plans and survey data were utilized to estimate the existing maximum superelevation rates.
* Stopping Sight Distance (SSD): These ramps contain horizontal and vertical SSD’s that exceed the 200 ft. minimum for a 30 mph design speed when compared to both current standards and “Standards of the Day”, except for Ramp ED and an isolated area on Ramp EA. Ramp ED, which is posted for 30 mph, provides a minimum horizontal SSD of approximately 156 ft., which does not meet the 200 ft. minimum required for the 30 mph posted speed. The box beam median barrier on the inside of the ramp curve limits SSD. A horizontal SSD of 156 ft. exceeds the minimum criteria for a 25 mph posted speed. Ramp EA provides a minimum vertical SSD of approximately 195 ft., which occurs along a sag curve approaching the Lexington Avenue intersection. Since this is a sag curve and the SSD is purely related to headlight sight distance, the existing highway lighting throughout the limits of the sag curve essentially eliminates this nonstandard feature. Project basemapping was utilized to determine existing horizontal SSD and record plans were utilized to determine existing vertical SSD.
The required SSD for ramps that meet a 30 mph design speed but are currently posted above 30 mph was also investigated. It was discovered that only Ramp EB contains an isolated vertical SSD restriction. Ramp EB provides a minimum vertical SSD of approximately 412 ft. on a crest curve, which is slightly less than the 425 ft. minimum required for a 50 mph design speed when compared to current standards. In addition, Ramp DB, which is posted for 35 mph, provides a minimum horizontal SSD of approximately 200 ft., which does not meet the 250 ft. minimum required for the 35 mph posted speed. The box beam median barrier on the inside of the ramp curve limits SSD.
* Horizontal Clearance (from EOT): There are no non-standard horizontal clearances along any of the diagonal, outer connection or semidirect ramps, except along the first half of Ramp ED which is curbed and contains a median barrier along the left side of the ramp at an offset of approximately 2 ft. The minimum required horizontal clearance is 3 ft. on the left side and the larger of 6 ft. or the actual shoulder width on the right side, with an additional 4 ft. of clearance required beyond the outside of shoulders to bridge piers or abutments.
2-67 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Travel Lane Cross Slope: Travel lane cross slopes range from 1.5% to 2%, which meets standard criteria of 1.5% minimum to 2% maximum. Record plans were utilized to determine the existing pavement cross slopes.
Rollover: The existing maximum rollover rates on the diagonal, outer connection and semidirect ramps do not exceed the maximum allowable of 8% based on the record plans.
* Control of Access: Access on Ramps DF, DD and ED is not fully controlled (See Section 2.3.1.2). Access on all other ramps is fully controlled.
* Pedestrian Accommodation: Existing sidewalks at ramp terminals are scarce and do not comply with standard criteria (See Section 2.3.2.1).
Lyell Avenue (NY 31), Buffalo Road (NY 33), Lee Road (CR 154), Lexington Avenue and Trolley Boulevard: Design Speed 45 mph
The only geometric design element analyzed on Trolley Boulevard was vertical clearance in the event that the NY 390 bridges over Trolley Boulevard are widened or replaced. No other work is anticipated on Trolley Boulevard as part of this project.
* Lane Width: Travel and turning lane widths along all minor arterial roadways within the project study area meet or exceed the required 11 ft. minimum, except on Lyell Avenue over the Erie Canal bridge where the travel lanes narrow to 10 ft. wide, and at the Lexington Avenue/Lee Road intersection where the left-turn lane from Lexington Avenue WB to Lee Road SB is only 10 ft. wide.
* Shoulder Width: Shoulder widths along all minor arterial roadways within the project study area meet or exceed the minimum required, except on the Lyell Avenue bridge over the Erie Canal, which provides 10 ft. wide travel lanes and no shoulders. Shoulders are not required on curbed minor arterial roadways that provide wide (12 ft. minimum) outside travel lanes. For uncurbed minor arterial roadways an 8 ft. minimum shoulder width is required.
* Bridge Roadway Width: The only bridges located on these roadways are on Lyell Avenue and Buffalo Road. The Lyell Avenue bridge over NY 390 provides the full approach roadway width. The Lyell Avenue bridge over the Erie Canal is only 40 ft. wide and accommodates four 10 ft. wide travel lanes. The east approach roadway width exceeds 60 ft., which accommodates four 10.5 to 11 ft. travel lanes and 9 to 10 ft. shoulders. The west approach roadway width is 48 ft., which accommodates four 12 ft. travel lanes. The Buffalo Road bridge over I-390 provides a bridge width that is significantly wider than the approach roadway width. Shoulders on the bridge are approximately 15 to 17 feet in width. This bridge was originally constructed to carry four lanes of traffic.
Maximum Grade: None of these roadways contain grades that exceed the maximum for level terrain classification when compared to both current standards (6%) and 3R Criteria (no maximum). Record plans were utilized to determine existing maximum grades.
Horizontal Curvature (Minimum): Within the project study area, one horizontal curve exists on Lyell Avenue west of Cornelia Drive and through the Howard Road intersection. There is also a single horizontal curve on Lexington Avenue. Both curves exceed the minimum horizontal curvature for a 45 mph design speed and 6% maximum superelevation rate when compared to both current standards (711 ft.) and 3R Criteria (250 ft.). There are no horizontal curves on any of the remaining roadways within the project study area.
Superelevation Rate: The only minor arterial within the project study area that is superelevated is Lexington Avenue and a small segment along Lyell Avenue west of Cornelia Drive and through the Howard Road intersection. The existing maximum superelevation rate along Lexington Avenue is 2.50% and is 2% along the Lyell Avenue curve, either of which does not exceed the maximum allowable of 4%. Record plans were utilized to determine the existing maximum superelevation rates.
2-68 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Stopping Sight Distance (SSD): All existing horizontal and vertical SSD’s within the project study area exceed the 360 ft. minimum when compared to both current standards and 3R criteria.
* Horizontal Clearance (from EOT): There are no non-standard horizontal clearances along any of these roadways, except at one isolated location on Lee Road where a fire hydrant is offset approximately 0.5 ft. from the EOT. The minimum required horizontal clearance is 1.5 ft. without barrier, 0 ft. with barrier, and 3 ft. at intersections.
Vertical Clearance: There are 2 bridges over Lexington Avenue (BIN’s1062521 and 1062522) within the project study area. Since Lexington Avenue is a non-NHS route, a 14 ft. minimum vertical clearance is required. Both bridges exceed the 14 ft. minimum required. There are also two bridges over Trolley Boulevard and the adjacent inactive and severed section of railroad owned by CSX Transportation (BIN’s 1062541 and 1062542) containing vertical clearances of over 22 ft., which exceeds the 14 ft. (roadway) and 22 ft. (railroad tracks) required. There is also a bridge on NY 31 over the Erie Canal (BIN 4443380) containing a vertical clearance of 18 ft., which exceeds the 15.5 ft. required.
Travel Lane Cross Slope: Travel lane cross slopes are 2%, which meets standard criteria of 1.5% minimum to 2% maximum. Record plans were utilized to determine the existing pavement cross slopes.
Rollover: The existing maximum rollover rates on the diagonal, outer connection and semidirect ramps do not exceed the maximum allowable of 8% based on the record plans.
* Structural Capacity: The only bridges located on these roadways are on Lyell Avenue and Buffalo Road. The Lyell Avenue bridge over NY 390 (BIN 1021589) does not provide a structural capacity that meets or exceeds HS 20 loading requirements. The Lyell Avenue bridge over the Erie Canal (BIN 4443380) and the Buffalo Road bridge over I-390 (BIN 1023030) exceed HS 20 loading requirements.
* Pedestrian Accommodation: Existing sidewalks are scarce and do not comply with standard criteria (See Section 2.3.2.1).
2.3.3.2.(2) Other Design Parameters – The existing non-critical geometric design elements within the project study area that do not conform to normally accepted practice were identified as follows:
Level of Service See Section 2.3.1.7 for discussion on existing Level of Service.
Interchange Spacing Interchange spacing along NY 390 within the project study area was reviewed for conformance with the AASHTO Green Book, which recommends a 1 mile minimum interchange spacing in urban areas. The distance between interchanges was measured from center-to-center of the interchange to the crossing roadway within the interchange as applicable. The distance between the 390/490 and NY 31 interchanges is approximately ½ mile. The distance between the NY 31 and Lexington Avenue interchanges is just short of 1 mile, which is a non-conforming feature.
Spacing for the nearest interchanges beyond the project study area was also measured for conformance. To the north, the distance between the Lexington Avenue and Ridgeway Avenue (CR 111) interchanges is approximately 0.9 miles, which is a non-conforming feature. To the south, the distance between the 390/490 and Chili Avenue interchanges is approximately 1.4 miles. To the east, the distance between the 390/490 and Mt. Read Boulevard interchanges is approximately 1 mile. To the west, the distance between the 390/490 and NY 531/490 interchanges is approximately 1.8 miles.
Ramp Terminal Spacing Ramp terminal spacing within the project study area was reviewed for conformance with the recommendations in Exhibit 10-68 of the AASHTO Green Book. As shown in Exhibit 2.3.3.2 (2)-1, the existing ramp terminal spacing is non-conforming in most instances. The Green Book states “to provide
2-69 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13 sufficient weaving length and adequate space for signing, a reasonable distance should be provided between successive ramp terminals”.
It should be noted that Exhibit 10-68 depicts traffic entering the mainline from the same (right) side of the roadway. However, as indicated in note 1 below Exhibit 2.3.3.2 (2)-1, several of the successive ramp terminals contain pairs of ramps in close proximity to each other that enter or exit on opposite sides of the mainline roadway. In addition, each pair of successive ramp terminals contains at least one ramp that either continues as a through lane when entering the mainline (lane addition) or drops off when exiting the mainline (lane drop). This scenario lessens the concern about ramp spacing since merging and diverging traffic on opposite sides of the mainline, as well as sign spacing, is less of an issue than traffic entering and exiting the mainline from the same side of the roadway.
As recommended by AASHTO, ramp terminal spacing should be checked in accordance with the procedures outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual and the larger of the values is suggested for use. Existing ramp terminal spacing was taken into account in the freeway capacity analysis. Discussion relating to those results can be found in Section 2.3.1.7 of this report.
Exhibit 2.3.3.2 (2)-1 Existing Ramp Terminal Spacing Recommended Existing Element Spacing Condition Minimum Ramp Terminal Spacing (a) Successive Exit Terminals 1000 ft. Min. - Ramp SE to Ramp SW - 882 ft.* 1 - Ramp NW to Ramp NE - 937 ft.* 1 - Ramp ES to Ramp EN - 439 ft.* 1 - Ramp WN to Ramp WS - 1186 ft. 1
(b) Successive Entrance Terminals 1000 ft. Min. - Ramp DC to Ramp DF - 805 ft.* - Ramp SW to Ramp NW - 871 ft.* 1 - Ramp NE to Ramp SE - 971 ft.* 1 - Ramp EN to Ramp WN - 1255 ft.1 - Ramp WN to Ramp DE - 518 ft.* 1 - Ramp DE to Ramp DA - 971 ft.* - Ramp WS to Ramp ES - 728 ft.* 1
(c) Exit to Entrance Terminal 500 ft. Min. - Ramp DB to Ramp DC - 410 ft.* - Ramp DD to Ramp DE - 548 ft. - Ramp SW to Ramp EN - 911 ft. - Ramp NE to Ramp WS - 928 ft. 1 - Ramp DD to Ramp WN - 30 ft.* 1 - Ramp EN to Ramp SW - 954 ft. 1 - Ramp WS to Ramp NE - 883 ft. 1 - Ramp EC to Ramp ED - 617 ft. - Ramp EA to Ramp EB - 1318 ft.
(d) Entrance to Exit Terminal (Weave) 2000 ft. Min. - Ramp DF to Ramp NW - 1225 ft.* - Ramp DF to Ramp NE - 2162± ft 3 - Ramp EN to Ramp DD - 1225 ft.*
(e) End of Taper to Theoretical Gore for (a) and (b) 270 ft. Min. - Ramp DC to Ramp DF - 296 ft. - Ramp DE to Ramp DA - 167 ft.* *Non-conforming feature
2-70 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Notes for Exhibit 2.3.3.2 (2)-1: (1) Ramp terminals are located on opposite sides of the mainline roadway with at least one ramp that is either a lane drop or lane addition. (2) Ramp terminal spacing is measured between the physical gores, except for (e). (3) Weaving length of 2162± ft. is measured between physical gores. Usable weaving length between painted gores is 1877 ft.±, which is less than 2000 ft. minimum recommended distance for the System to Service Interchange Full Freeway condition.
Left-Hand Entrances and Exits Four of the eight ramps that comprise the 390/490 interchange are left-hand entrance/exit ramps as follows:
1. Ramp NE (NY 390 SB to I-490 EB) 2. Ramp ES (I-490 WB to I-390 SB) 3. Ramp SW (I-390 NB to I-490 WB) 4. Ramp WN (I-490 EB to NY 390 NB)
Desirably all interchange entrances and exits should connect at the right of through traffic. Left-hand exits and entrances should be avoided for several reasons, including the following:
· Left-side moves tend to confuse and surprise drivers even with proper signing as they are contrary to the concept of driver expectancy, especially when intermixed with right-hand entrances and exits. · Decisions and maneuvering must take place in the high speed left lanes. · Trucks, which traditionally are restricted to the right-hand lane, are forced to maneuver across several traffic lanes to reach a left-hand exit, or to return to the right lane from a left-hand entrance. · Entering drivers are forced to merge to their right side where, with left-hand drive vehicles, they have reduced visibility and thus more difficulty in making accurate judgments. This problem is greatly magnified when the entering vehicle is a truck.
Since all four left-hand entrances enter the mainline as an added through lane, the last bullet is less of a concern for traffic continuing through the mainline. In other words, entering drivers are not forced to merge immediately to their right side because they are afforded their own lane. However, traffic that utilizes these left-hand entrance ramps and intend to exit at the downstream Chili Avenue, Mt. Read Boulevard, Lexington Avenue and NY 531 interchanges must merge and weave across multiple lanes of traffic over relatively short distances. These maneuvers can be very difficult and dangerous, especially during peak periods of congestion.
Exit only lanes are provided for three of the four left-hand exits. Ramp SW is the exception where a deceleration lane is provided.
Lane Reductions (Lane Balance) A reduction in the number of through lanes on the mainline roadways exists within the 390/490 interchange. Three through lanes are provided on I-490, I-390 and NY 390 for all approaches to the interchange. However, within the interchange itself, only two through lanes are provided due to lane reductions (i.e. lane drops or exit only lanes) for some of the interchange ramps. As discussed in the AASHTO Green Book, lane reductions should not be made within the interchange simply to accommodate variations in traffic volumes, especially on 390 where the existing peak hour traffic volumes on the majority of these two-lane sections warrant three through lanes. Instead, auxiliary lanes, as needed, should be added or removed from the basic number of lanes to accommodate ramps. To realize efficient traffic operation through and beyond the interchange, three lanes would be recommended through the “core” interchange area.
Option Lane (Decision Lane) Length The AASHTO Green Book (Figure 10-75) recommends a 1000 ft. to 1800 ft. length to widen a lane from 12 ft. to 24 ft at a major fork. Although I-390 SB at the Ramp NE exit has less than 1000 ft. for the lane
2-71 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13 widening length, it is in conformance with the principles of two-lane exit facility design shown in Figure 10- 75D, and therefore is not non-conforming.
Through Lane Drop Transition Length As indicated in the “Lane Reductions” subsection above, through lanes are “dropped” at several locations within the 390/490 interchange. However, lane drop transitions are not required since the through lanes are dropped as exit ramps. In other words, any through lanes that are dropped on the mainline roadways are actually converted to exit-only lanes. There is only one instance within the project study area where a through lane drop transition exists. The right through lane on the westbound side of Lexington Avenue is dropped as it becomes the exit ramp to NY 390 SB. The existing transition length is approximately 150 ft. Based on the anticipated off-peak 85th percentile speed of 45 mph, a transition length of approximately 450 ft. is required as per Section 3B.09 of the Federal Highway Administration publication Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways 2009 (MUTCD).
Lane Shift Taper Length There is only one instance within the project study area where a lane shift taper exists. The Lyell Avenue eastbound through lanes shift approximately 7 ft. just beyond Lee Road intersection. The existing taper length is approximately 190 ft. Based on the anticipated off-peak 85th percentile speed of 45 mph, a taper length of approximately 158 ft. is required as per Section 5.9.8.2 E of the HDM.
Auxiliary Lanes Auxiliary lanes (i.e. acceleration/deceleration lanes and/or speed-change lanes) for ramps within the project study area were reviewed for conformance with Exhibits 10-69 to 10-73 of the AASHTO publication A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets 2004 (Green Book). As shown in Exhibit 2.3.3.2 (2)-2, the existing auxiliary lane lengths exceed the minimum recommended by AASHTO in all but one instance at the 390/490 interchange. The existing auxiliary lane lengths at the two other interchanges are non-conforming in many instances. All existing auxiliary lanes are of the parallel-type, except for the taper-type exit from NY 31 EB to NY 390 SB.
Exhibit 2.3.3.2 (2)-2 Existing Auxiliary Lane Lengths Speed Change Grade Recommended Existing Condition Ramp Condition (mph)5,6,7,8,9 Factor Length (feet) (feet) I-490 / I-390 / NYS Route 390 Interchange NA (Left Lane Drop) NE (390 SB to 490 EB) Deceleration 60 to 40 NA 350 NA (Right Lane Fork) 1726 ft. (Left Lane) NE (390 SB to 490 EB) Acceleration 40 to 60 NA 550 NA (Right Lane Addition) ES (490 WB to 390 SB) Deceleration 60 to 50 NA 240 NA (Lane Drop) 310 ft. (Left Lane)1 ES (490 WB to 390 SB) Acceleration 50 to 60 NA 18011 NA (Right Lane Addition) SW (390 NB to 490 WB) Deceleration 60 to 40 NA 350 280 ft. * SW (390 NB to 490 WB) Acceleration 40 to 60 NA 550 NA (Added Lane) WN (490 EB to 390 NB) Deceleration 60 to 45 NA 300 NA (Lane Drop) WN (490 EB to 390 NB) Acceleration 50 to 60 NA 18011 NA (Added Lane) WS (490 EB to 390 SB) Deceleration 60 to 50 NA 240 1317 ft. WS (490 EB to 390 SB) Acceleration 50 to 60 NA 18011 838 ft.1 SE (390 NB to 490 EB) Deceleration 60 to 45 NA 300 NA (Lane Drop) SE (390 NB to 490 EB) Acceleration 50 to 60 NA 18011 NA (Right Lane Addition)10 EN (490 WB to 390 NB) Deceleration 60 to 50 NA 240 NA (Right Lane Drop)10 EN (490 WB to 390 NB) Acceleration 50 to 60 NA 18011 NA (Weave)2 NW (390 SB to 490 WB) Deceleration 60 to 45 NA 300 NA (Weave)2 NW (390 SB to 490 WB) Acceleration 45 to 60 NA 420 986 ft. NYS Route 390 / NYS Route 31 Interchange DA (31 WB to 390 NB) Deceleration 45 to 20 NA 325 233 ft. * DA (31 WB to 390 NB) Acceleration 50 to 60 NA 18011 852 ft.1 DB (390 SB to 31) Deceleration 60 to 35 NA 405 321 ft. * DC (31 WB to 390 SB) Deceleration 45 to 25 NA 295 431 ft. DC (31 WB to 390 SB) Acceleration 30 to 60 NA 910 362 ft. *
2-72 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Exhibit 2.3.3.2 (2)-2 Existing Auxiliary Lane Lengths Speed Change Grade Recommended Existing Condition Ramp Condition (mph)5,6,7,8,9 Factor Length (feet) (feet) DD (390 NB to 31) Deceleration 60 to 35 NA 405 NA (Weave)2 DE (31 EB to 390 NB) Deceleration 45 to 25 NA 295 360 ft. DE (31 EB to 390 NB) Acceleration 25 to 60 NA 1020 725 ft. * DF (31 EB to 390 SB) Deceleration 45 to 35 NA 220 248 ft.3 DF (31 EB to 390 SB) Acceleration 50 to 60 NA 18011 NA (Weave)2 NYS Route 390 / Lexington Avenue Interchange EA (390 NB to Lexington Ave) Deceleration 60 to 0 NA 530 >530 ft.4 EB (Lexington Ave to 390 NB) Deceleration 45 to 20 NA 325 ft. * EB (Lexington Ave to 390 NB) Acceleration 50 to 60 NA 18011 858 ft.1 EC (390 SB to Lexington Ave) Deceleration 60 to 25 NA 460 420 ft. * ED (Lexington Ave to 390 SB) Acceleration 40 to 60 NA 550 771 ft. *Non conforming feature
Notes for Exhibit 2.3.3.2 (2)-1: (1) The acceleration length starts back on the curvature of the ramp since the entrance radius is greater than 1000 ft (AASHTO Green Book Exhibit 10-69) and the motorist on the ramp has an unobstructed view of traffic on the through lane. However, only that portion of the acceleration length beginning where the painted gore nose width is equal to 2 ft. is shown in the table. (2) See Exhibit 2.3.3.2 (2)-1 for recommended spacing for weaves located within project study area. (3) Since the 50 mph design speed of the Ramp DF exit curve radius exceeds the 45 mph design speed of Lyell Avenue, the exit curve length of 211 ft. may be considered as part of the deceleration length. (4) Since the 70 mph design speed of the Ramp EA exit curve radius exceeds the 60 mph design speed of NY 390, and since this large radius exit curve connects with a straight ramp, a portion of the ramp may be considered as part of the deceleration length. (5) Speed of vehicles entering or exiting the highway is based on the anticipated off-peak 85th percentile speeds of the highway. (6) Speed change required for acceleration lanes is based on the anticipated off-peak 85th percentile speed of the highway and the maximum allowable ramp design speed of the entrance curve radius as per the 4% maximum superelevation rate table depicted in the HDM Exhibit 2-10. This approach is more conservative than using the 6% maximum superelevation rate tables because it may reduce the maximum theoretical speed that a vehicle can attain on the ramp entrance curve thus increasing the required acceleration length. (7) For ramps that do not contain compound exit curves, speed change required for deceleration lanes is based on the anticipated off-peak 85th percentile speed of the highway and the maximum allowable ramp design speed of the exit curve radius as per the 4% maximum superelevation rate table depicted in the NYSDOT HDM Exhibit 2-10. This approach is more conservative than using the 6% maximum superelevation rate tables. (8) For ramps containing compound exit curves, speed change required for deceleration lanes is based on the anticipated off-peak 85th percentile speed of the highway and the maximum allowable ramp design speed along the entire ramp as per the 4% maximum superelevation rate table depicted in the NYSDOT HDM Exhibit 2-10. This approach is more conservative than using the exit curve radius (if the exit curve radius is greater than the minimum radius on the ramp) or 6% maximum superelevation rate tables because it may reduce the maximum theoretical speed that a vehicle can attain on the ramp exit curve thus increasing the required deceleration length. It also discounts the ability of drivers to decelerate along a portion of the flatter curve prior to traversing the sharpest curve within the compound curve segment. (9) The maximum allowable design speed for any ramp is 50 mph. (10) Auxiliary lane is not considered a weaving lane since the ramp terminals are spaced greater than 2500 ft. apart as per HCM. (11) The required gap acceptance length should be a minimum of 300 ft. to 500 ft. (AASHTO Green Book Exhibit 10-69).
Auxiliary Lane Tapers Auxiliary / speed-change lane tapers for parallel-type exits within the project study area were reviewed for conformance with AASHTO Green Book criteria. A downstream taper length on parallel-type acceleration lanes of 300 ft. is suitable for design speeds up to 70 mph (AASHTO Green Book pg. 846). The tapered portion of deceleration lanes should have a taper of approximately 15:1 to 25:1 (180 ft. to 300 ft.) (AASHTO Green Book pg. 852). As shown in Exhibit 2.3.3.2 (2)-3, the existing speed-change lane taper
2-73 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13 lengths exceed the minimum recommended by AASHTO in all instances at the 390/490 interchange. A total of four existing taper lengths within the project study area are non-conforming.
Exhibit 2.3.3.2 (2)-3 Existing Auxiliary Lane Taper Lengths Recommended Length Existing Condition Ramp Condition (feet) (feet) I-490 / I-390 / NYS Route 390 Interchange NE (390 SB to 490 EB) Acceleration 300 576 ft. (Left Lane) ES (490 WB to 390 SB) Acceleration 300 680 ft. (Left Lane) SW (390 NB to 490 WB) Deceleration 180 498 ft. WS (490 EB to 390 SB) Deceleration 180 496 ft. WS (490 EB to 390 SB) Acceleration 300 750 ft. NW (390 SB to 490 WB) Acceleration 300 609 ft. NYS Route 390 / NYS Route 31 Interchange DA (31 WB to 390 NB) Acceleration 300 240 ft. * DB (390 SB to 31) Deceleration 180 188 ft. DC (31 WB to 390 SB) Acceleration 300 211 ft. * DE (31 EB to 390 NB) Deceleration 180 320 ft. DE (31 EB to 390 NB) Acceleration 300 206 ft. * NYS Route 390 / Lexington Avenue Interchange EA (390 NB to Lexington Ave) Deceleration 180 227 ft. EB (Lexington Ave to 390 NB) Acceleration 300 323 ft. EC (390 SB to Lexington Ave) Deceleration 180 270 ft. ED (Lexington Ave to 390 SB) Acceleration 300 283 ft. * *Non conforming feature
Compound Curve Ratio For compound curves, the AASHTO Green Book recommends a maximum rate of 1.5:1 on highways and 2:1 on turning roadways and ramps. General observations on ramps having differences in radii with a ratio of 2:1 indicate that both operation and appearance normally are satisfactory. However, a desirable maximum ratio for ramps is 1.75:1.
There is a series of compound curves on I-390 NB approaching the 390/490 interchange. These three curves have radii of 3819.72 ft., 11459.16 ft. and 2864.79 ft. resulting in ratios of 3:1 and 4:1. Although this series of compound curves exceed the maximum ratio, the middle curve is extremely flat such that the alignment does not appear abrupt or forced to drivers. There are no other compound curves present on any of the highways within the project study area.
Compound curves are present on most ramps. The following ramps exceed the maximum ratio and are non-conforming features:
· Ramp ES (I-490 WB to I-390 SB) – 2.3:1 · Ramp WN (I-490 EB to NY 390 NB) – 5.3:1 · Ramp SE (I-390 NB to I-490 EB) – 2.7:1 and 4:1 · Ramp DF (NYS 31 EB to NYS 390 SB) – 2.2:1 · Ramp EC (390 SB to Lexington Avenue) – 2.5:1
Length of Circular Arc for Compound Curves Exhibit 3-42 of the AASHTO Green Book recommends a minimum curve length for compound intersection curves. Curves that are compounded should not be too short or their effectiveness in enabling smooth transitions from a tangent or flat-curve to sharp-curve operation may be lost. All compound intersection curves exceed the minimum curve length except at the Ramp DA entrance terminal, which is a non- conforming feature. There were no reported accidents on this portion of the ramp.
Vehicle Turning Paths at Intersections (i.e. Design Vehicle) Vehicle turning paths were analyzed at all existing intersections within the project study area. At the Lyell Avenue and Howard Road intersection, only the east leg right-turns were analyzed since they are the only portion of the intersection within the project study area. Five of the six signalized intersections (excluding 2-74 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13 the Lyell Avenue at Howard Road intersection) were analyzed using an Interstate Semitrailer (WB-65) design vehicle since both intersecting roadways/ramps are considered part of the New York State Designated Truck Access Route as indicated in Section 2.3.1.1. The Lyell Avenue and Rossmore Street intersection utilizes a WB-65 design vehicle for delivery trucks entering and exiting the Wegmans driveway only, and a Single Unit (SU) design vehicle for turning maneuvers into and out of Rossmore Street. The Lyell Avenue at Howard Road east leg right-turns utilizes a WB-50 design vehicle for westbound to northbound turning vehicles and a WB-65 for northbound to eastbound turning vehicles. The following turning paths at signalized intersections were determined to be non-conforming:
· The Lyell Avenue WB right-turn onto Lee Road accommodates a WB-40 design vehicle, not the required WB-65. · The Ramp DD to Lyell Avenue EB to Lee Road right and left turn combination accommodates a WB-65 design vehicle, however the vehicle never gets square to Lyell Avenue and thus its trailer can block Lyell Avenue EB through traffic as it waits at the Lee Road traffic signal to make the left-turn. · The right-turn from the Wegman’s driveway onto Lyell Avenue EB accommodates a WB-40 design vehicle, not the required WB-65. · The Lyell Avenue WB right-turn onto Rossmore Street accommodates a P design vehicle without encroaching into the opposing lane, not the required SU vehicle. · The Ramp EA double right-turns onto Lexington Avenue do not accommodate a WB-65 and a Passenger Car (P) design vehicle both turning at the same time. · The Ramp EA left-turn onto Lexington Avenue accommodates a WB-50 design vehicle, not the required WB-65. However, it is expected that a WB-65 would seldom make this maneuver unless they are attempting to make a u-turn on NY 390 SB or accessing Bellwood Drive which utilizes a WB-50 design vehicle. · The Lee Road SB right-turn onto Lexington Avenue accommodates a WB-62 design vehicle, not the required WB-65. · The Howard Road WB right-turn onto Fox Run accommodates a WB-40 design vehicle, not the required WB-50. · The Howard Road NB right-turn onto Lyell Avenue accommodates a WB-62 design vehicle, not the required WB-65.
The unsignalized intersections at Lyell Avenue and Cornelia Drive, Lyell Avenue and Matilda Street, Lyell Avenue and Tarwood Drive, and Lyell Avenue and Lee Road Ext. were analyzed using a SU design vehicle. The unsignalized intersection at Lexington Avenue and Bellwood Drive was analyzed using a WB-50 design vehicle. Left-turning maneuvers at all four of these intersections are achievable with these design vehicles. However, similar to the right-turn maneuver from Lyell Avenue WB to Rossmore Street, all of the right-turning movements require the design vehicle to utilize a portion of the opposing receiving lane when making the turn, except at Cornelia Drive. When traffic is queued at these intersections, this could make for a difficult or impossible maneuver. The following turning paths at unsignalized intersections were determined to be non-conforming:
· The Lyell Avenue WB right-turn onto Matilda Street, EB onto Tarwood Drive, and EB onto Lee Road Ext. accommodate a P design vehicle without encroaching into the opposing lane, not the required SU vehicle. · The Lexington Avenue WB right-turn onto Bellwood Drive accommodates a WB-40 design vehicle, not the required WB-50.
Intersection Sight Distance (ISD) Minimum intersection sight distance (ISD) is required at all non-signalized intersections, driveways, and for any uncontrolled moves associated with a signalized intersection, in order to ensure that a motorist may safely enter or exit the roadway. The required ISD value varies based upon the highway design speed, type of vehicle, type of maneuver, and type of traffic control imposed on the side road traffic. ISD availability was investigated at all intersections and commercial driveways along Lyell Avenue and Lexington Avenue within the project study area. The required ISD for passenger cars, single-unit trucks and combination trucks is 430, 565 and 695 feet respectively for right-turns, and 500, 630 and 760 feet for
2-75 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13 left-turns based upon the 45 mph design speed of these two roadways. The evaluation identified that ISD is limited at numerous locations throughout the project study area as follows:
· The Lyell Avenue bridge over the Erie Canal limits sight distance for exiting vehicles at several adjacent driveways within the project study area. On the north side of Lyell Avenue, sight distance is limited by the bridge truss and railings at all three driveways from the bridge to the eastern-most driveway at the Hess gas Station. On the south side of Lyell Avenue, the bridge truss and railing limits sight distance at the Canalway Trail parking lot driveway, and the Sofia Collision and Frame driveway. Existing sight distances at these five driveways vary from approximately 180 ft. to 640 ft. In addition, as discussed in Section 2.3.2.5, the bridge also limits sight distance at the adjacent Canalway Trail crossing. · Sight distance for right-turning vehicles exiting the Canalway Trail parking lot on the south side of Lyell Avenue is limited by adjacent trees and vegetation during the non-winter months. · Vehicles parked in the stalls along business frontages limits sight distance for exiting vehicles at several driveways and side streets. On the north side of Lyell Avenue, sight distance is limited at the Taylor Rental Center and Steve T. Hots driveways. On the south side of Lyell Avenue, sight distance is limited at the East Gates Professional building driveway and at Tarwood Drive. Existing sight distances at these locations vary from approximately 110 ft. to 240 ft. · Sight distance for right-turning vehicles at Rossmore Street is limited by adjacent bushes with an existing ISD of approximately 190 ft. · Sight distance for right-turning on red vehicles exiting the Wegmans driveway is limited by the RGRTA bus shelter with an existing ISD of approximately 230 ft. · Sight distance for vehicles turning onto Lexington Avenue from Bellwood Drive is also limited. Sight distance for left-turning vehicles is limited by vegetation on the inside of the loop ramp with an existing ISD of approximately 520 ft. Sight distance for right-turning vehicles is limited by the NY 390 bridge abutment and provides an existing ISD of approximately 300 ft. · Sight distance for vehicles turning right onto Lexington Avenue from Ramp EA is limited by the NY 390 bridge abutment as well as an existing berg, which provides an existing sight distance of approximately 350 ft.
2.3.3.2.(3) Non-Conforming Geometric Features with a Related Accident History – All non- conforming geometric features with a related accident history are discussed in Section 2.3.1.8.
2.3.3.3. Pavement and Shoulder – The mainline roadways (I-490, I-390, and NY 390) within and including the 390/490 interchange, and portions of the 390/31 interchange, were constructed in 1963. The portion of NY 390 north of NY 31, including the remaining portion of the 390/31 interchange as well as the 390/Lexington Avenue interchange, was constructed in 1971. These mainline roadways and the 390/490 interchange ramps originally consisted of 9 inch reinforced concrete pavement over 12 inches of gravel base. The 390/31 interchange ramps, including the segment of Lyell Avenue within the interchange, originally consisted of an asphalt concrete surface with an 8 inch concrete foundation over 12 inches of gravel base. In 1993, portions of these mainline roadways and ramps within the 390/490 interchange were rehabilitated in conjunction with Project Identification Number (PIN) 4002.92 (NYSDOT Contract Number D253556). The existing concrete pavement sections were cracked and seated, then overlaid with 5 inches of asphalt. The I-390 mainline roadway to the south of the 390/31 interchange was rehabilitated in 1997 under NYSDOT Contract Number D256531. The existing concrete pavement sections were cracked and seated, then overlaid with 5 inches of asphalt. Since 1997 the mainline sections have been periodically milled and overlaid.
A Pavement Evaluation Treatment Selection Report (PETSR) was completed for the project study area on May 26, 2011. The observations noted herein reflect the contents of that report and an independent inspection conducted in March, 2011 unless otherwise noted. In terms of general observations per distress mechanisms and ratings, there were no significant differences. The independent inspection provided ratings and specific notes for areas within those delineated for the PETSR, as noted. Several roadway segments within the project study area were not included in the PETSR, as noted.
Pavement distress descriptions relate to reflective cracking, except for the shoulders. Accordingly, longitudinal, transverse, and edge cracking were observed in all mainline pavement and transverse and
2-76 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13 edge cracking are common in all ramp pavements. Other roadways within the project study area are asphalt pavement sections. The following summary corresponds to the segments identified in Section 2.3.3.1.
· I-390 - Chili Avenue interchange through the 390/490 interchange: The pavement and shoulders are in fair to good condition. Observations specific to this area were noted in the independent inspection. · NY 390 - 390/490 interchange to the Lexington Avenue interchange: The pavement is in good condition. Shoulders are good condition except in the southbound direction from Lyell Avenue to Trolley Boulevard, where longitudinal and minor block cracking were observed. The shoulder conditions were fair over that segment. Observations specific to this area were noted in the independent inspection. · I-490: The pavement and shoulders are in fair to good condition from Howard Road to I-390 NB. From I-390 NB to the east project limits the pavement and shoulders are in good condition. · 390/490 interchange: The directional ramp pavements and shoulders are in good condition. Pavement distress is limited, generally longitudinal and transverse. · 390/31 interchange: The pavement and shoulders of all ramps are in good condition. · NY 390/Lexington Avenue interchange: The pavement and shoulders of all ramps are in good condition. · NY 31 (Lyell Avenue): The pavement and shoulders (where applicable) are generally in poor condition. · Lexington Avenue: The pavement is generally in fair to good condition to the west of Lee Road; however, the west approach to the Lee Road intersection exhibits severe rutting. The pavement section to the east of the intersection is in fair condition. Lexington Avenue pavements were not included in the PETSR. · Lee Road: Lee Road pavements are generally in fair to good condition. Lee Road pavements were not included in the PETSR.
Pavement Condition Ratings were not included in the PETSR. A summary of the Pavement Evaluation and Treatment Selection Report (PETSR) is included as Appendix D.
2.3.3.4. Drainage Systems – The capacity of all observed structures over 48 inches in diameter has been diminished significantly due to silting. Most outfalls 24 inches or less in diameter were blocked or buried by silt and vegetation at the time of inspection. Accordingly, the conditions noted herein are limited to the extent that materials were not accessible. Major culverts are discussed in Section 2.3.3.7.
I-490 The project area to the east of the Erie Canal is drained by a drainage system in the median that intercepts flows from roadside ditches in each direction. Cross drain pipes range from 18” SICPP (good condition) to 30” x 18” elliptical concrete (fair to good condition). The system drains west to the Erie Canal (48” outfall).
I-390 From the south limits of the 390/490 interchange to a point approximately 1500 feet south of the CSX railroad overpass, runoff is conveyed to a low point south of the railroad overpass by means of roadside ditches. To the north of the bridge, the northbound and southbound ditches drain to the median by means of 30” x 18” elliptical concrete cross culverts north of the CSX railroad overpass. The flow is conveyed to the east side of I-390 to the south of the railroad bridge by means of a 30” x 18” elliptical concrete cross culvert. The outfall is located approximately 70 feet south of the bridge. Runoff from a point approximately 1500 feet to the south drains north by means of ditches to the low point in reference, located approximately 80 feet south of the railroad bridge. Flow from the west roadside ditch and the median ditch is conveyed to the outfall point by means of 24” CMP (fair condition). The flow from the 30” x 18” culvert and the 24” CMP outfalls is conveyed to the east by means of a 42” CMP.
With the exception of areas to the east of I-390 within the Chili Avenue interchange that drain to the east, the remaining area within the project limits drains to the low point located approximately 1600 feet to the
2-77 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13 south of the railroad bridge. Runoff from the ditches that drain to this point is conveyed to an outfall on the east side of I-390 by means of two 57” x 38” CMP arch pipes.
NYS Route 390 A significant area to the north of the 390/490 interchange and south of Lyell Avenue drains to roadside ditches along NY 390 SB and Ramp NW, to a 36” CMP and two 48” CMPs that cross NY 390.
The infield areas of the west portion of 390/31 interchange drain to the median of NY 390 by means of two cross culverts. The area within the interchange to the south of Lyell Avenue, and the area within the Ramp DC loop are conveyed to the median by a 30 inch CMP (fair condition). An 18 inch CMP drains the area between the Ramp DC loop and the southbound exit; the pipe is in fair condition.
The northeast quadrant of the 390/31 interchange drains to the south by means of a roadside ditch. The flow from this ditch and the area within the Ramp DE loop is conveyed to the south by means of a 24” CMP under Ramp DE. The median flow (including flow from the west portion of the interchange) discharges downstream of this culvert by means of a 42” CMP. Within the interchange the resulting flow is conveyed to the south by means of a roadside ditch, which drains most of the area encompassed by Ramp DD and Ramp DE. This flow is then conveyed to a manhole to the south by means of a 42” CMP. A relatively small portion of the south infield area is conveyed to the manhole by a 12” CMP (fair condition). The system discharges to the outside roadside ditch near the Ramp DD diverge by means of a 42” CMP. The roadside ditch flows south to the outfall of a 5’ x 15’ concrete box culvert (see 390/490 Interchange).
Areas to the north of the 390/31 interchange and to the south of the Lexington Avenue interchange drain to the Erie Canal. The area to the south of Trolley Boulevard is intercepted by a channel which conveys flow east under NY 390 to the canal. Areas to the north of Trolley Boulevard drain north to the canal.
The area encompassed by the loop ramp in the west portion of the Lexington Avenue interchange drains to the northbound exit ramp infield area on east side of NY 390. The remainder of the west portion drains to a roadside ditch that drains south to the Erie Canal.
390/490 Interchange Near the western limit of the project study area, an area to the north of I-490 WB drains to the median by means of a 3’ x 6’ concrete box culvert. An area to the south of I-490 EB is conveyed to the median at the same location by means of a 36” CMP. The median ditch flows east to a depressed area located south of I-490 WB. This area is drained by a 4’ x 6’ concrete box culvert that discharges to the south of Ramp WN approximately 400 ft. east of the I-490 eastbound/Ramp WN gore; the box culvert headwalls are buried. A ridge separates the contributing area for that box culvert from a relatively small area to the east (closer to the Ramp WN bridge over I-490); the latter area drains under Ramp WN to the south by means of an 18” CMP.
The area encompassed by Ramp WN, I-390 / NY 390 SB, I-490 EB, and Ramp WS drains east to a 4’ x 10’ concrete box culvert under I-390 SB. This culvert also conveys flow from an area to the north of Ramp WN (referenced above). A significant area drains to the outfall channel from the south. Runoff from the area to the east of I-390 SB, north of Ramp ES and south of I-490 EB is collected by ditches and conveyed to the north at the I-490 EB bridge over I-390 SB by means of a 24” CMP; this flow is conveyed to the outfall of the 4’ x 10’ concrete box culvert. To the east of the 4’ x 10’ box culvert outlet, the flow is conveyed under Ramp NE by means of an 4’ x 11.3’ concrete box culvert. The remaining area within the interchange north of I-490 WB and west of NY 390 SB drains under NY 390 SB at the three level grade separation in a southeasterly direction by means of a 24 inch CMP (fair condition), then south by open channel to the outfall east of Ramp NE.
The outfall channel that drains nearly the entire area of the interchange to the west of I-390 / NY 390 SB also drains nearly all of the central and southern part of the interchange, with the exception of the area to the east of I-390 NB and south of I-490 EB. The channel crosses the central portion of the interchange (between Ramps NE and SW) to a twin-cell 6.7’ x’ 7.2’ concrete box culvert that drains under I-390
2-78 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13 northbound near the Ramp SW diverge. A significant flow from areas within the interchange to the south of I-490 EB is conveyed to the outfall of this structure by means of a 36” CMP that extends through the three level grade separation on the south side of Ramp ES, then under Ramp ES. The culvert under Ramp ES drains most of the area to the east of Ramp ES and west of the Erie Canal between Ramp ES, I-490 EB, and I-490 WB. The box culvert outflow channel continues northeast to a 5’ x 15’ concrete box culvert under I-490 WB.
Two areas to the east of NY 390 SB do not drain to the outfall channel described above. The area east NY 390 SB and north of I-490 WB drains east to the NY 390 northbound (Ramp EN) roadside ditch, which drains southeast to the outfall of the 5’ x 15’ concrete box culvert. One 36” CMP and two 48” CMPs drain much of the area to the north, as well as an area to the west and north of the interchange. These culverts cross NY 390 SB, Ramp WN, and NY 390 northbound. Also of significance is a large detention area to the north of I-490 WB. The other area that does not drain to the outfall channel in the central portion of the interchange is the infield area to the east of I-390 northbound and south of I-490 EB. This area drains to the Ramp SE roadside ditch by means of an 18” CMP (poor condition). This flow, along with flows from areas south and east of the interchange, is conveyed to the east to a 42” CMP under I-490 EB, then north to the channel along I-490 WB by means of a 42” CMP. This channel flows to the east to its outfall at the Erie Canal.
Lyell Avenue Within the project study area Lyell Avenue drainage is conveyed entirely by underground storm drainage. From Howard Road to Rossmore Street all surface runoff is conveyed to the west by means of an underground storm sewer system located on the north side of Lyell Avenue. Between Rossmore Street and NY 390, runoff is conveyed by two systems. Rossmore Street runoff is conveyed south to Lyell Avenue by means of a 12” CMP, which combines with flow intercepted at the northwest and southwest corners of the intersection. The 12” CMP flows east along the south curb line of Lyell Avenue to an inlet located approximately 200 ft. east of Tarboro Drive. Runoff from several subsystems that drain commercial areas to the south are conveyed to this system. A system on the north side of Lyell Avenue (12” CMP) supplements the south system, extending from west of Matilda Street, receiving flow from the north at Matilda Street (8” CMP), then extending to an inlet located approximately 200 ft. east of the Tarboro Drive intersection. Both systems ultimately discharge to open channels in the 390/31 interchange.
To the east of the Lyell Avenue interchange, Lyell Avenue drains east to the Erie Canal by means of a storm sewer system on the north side. A 15” CMP extending from Lee Road also conveys runoff from several commercial areas to the north to a point approximately 300 ft. to the west of the Erie Canal, from which an 18” RCP extends to the Erie Canal. The south portion of a segment of Lyell Avenue to the west of the Erie Canal drains to an inlet located approximately 200 feet from the Erie Canal, which outfalls to the southeast to a ditch.
2.3.3.5. Geotechnical – Boring programs were undertaken within the project study area under three separate contracts, FASH 62-14, FASH 67-9 and FISH 60-13. The following summarizes the subsurface explorations:
BIN 1062521 & BIN 1062522 - NY 390SB/390NB over Lexington Avenue Subsurface conditions generally consist of a 12’ to 17’ deep layer of silty soil with some sand and angular gravel overlaying Limestone bedrock.
BIN 4062531 & BIN 4062532 - NY 390SB/390NB over Erie Canal Subsurface conditions generally consist of a 10’ to 20’ deep layer of silt and sand with broken limestone and some boulders overlaying Limestone bedrock.
BIN 1062541 & BIN 1062542 - NY 390SB/390NB over Trolley Blvd. and Abandoned RR Subsurface conditions generally consist of a 10’ to 14’ deep layer of silty soil with some sand and trace angular gravel overlaying Limestone bedrock.
BIN 1021589 - NY 31 (Lyell Avenue) over NY 390NB and NY 390SB
2-79 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Subsurface conditions generally consist of a 12’ to 17’ deep layer of silty soil with trace sand overlaying Limestone bedrock. Boulders with diameters varying from 3” to 12” were present in the overburden layer.
BIN 4443380 – NY 31 (Lyell Avenue) over Erie Canal No subsurface data is available.
BIN 1025811 – I-490WB over NY 390SB Subsurface conditions generally consist of a 13’ to 17’ deep layer of silt and sand with broken limestone and some boulders overlaying Limestone bedrock.
BIN 1052280 – Ramp WN over I-490WB and NY 390SB Subsurface conditions generally consist of a 16’ to 22’ deep layer of silty soil with some sand and gravel overlaying Limestone bedrock.
BIN 1052290 – NY 390NB over I-490WB Subsurface conditions generally consist of a 11’ to 12’ deep layer of silt and sand with some gravel overlaying Limestone bedrock.
BIN 1025812 – I-490EB over I-390SB Subsurface conditions generally consist of a 14’ to 19’ deep layer of silt, sand and gravel with broken limestone and some boulders overlaying Limestone bedrock.
BIN 1025820 & BIN 1063950 – I-490EB over Ramp ES & I-390NB over I-490EB and Ramp ES No subsurface data is available.
BIN 4443361 & BIN 4443362 – I-490WB/I-490EB over Erie Canal Subsurface conditions generally consist of a 15’ to 25’ deep layer of silt and sand with broken limestone and some boulders overlaying Limestone bedrock.
BIN 1048680 – Howard Road over I-490 WB and I-490EB No subsurface data is available.
BIN 1023030 – Route 33 (Buffalo Road) over I-390 NB and I-390SB Subsurface conditions generally consist of a 8’ to 18’ deep layer of silty soil with trace sand overlaying Limestone bedrock.
BIN 7025830 – CSX Railroad over I-390 NB and I-390SB Subsurface conditions generally consist of a 11’ to 12’ deep layer of silt and sand with some boulders overlaying Limestone bedrock.
Areas of exposed rock exist along the mainline roadways at the following locations. The locations and lengths listed below are based on the project basemapping. A field verification was not performed.
1. I-390 NB and SB – From approximately 400 ft. south of the CSX overpass to approximately 800 ft. north of the Buffalo Road bridge, a length of almost ½ mile. 2. NY 390 NB – From Ramp DE to approximately 250 ft. north of the Lyell Avenue bridge, a length of approximately 680 ft. 3. NY 390 SB – Under the Lyell Avenue bridge. 4. I-490 EB – At the west approach to the Howard Road bridge, a length of approximately 450 ft. 5. I-490 WB – On either side of the Howard Road bridge, a length of approximately 1100 ft.
The Regional Geotechnical Group has confirmed that there are no special geotechnical concerns with the soils within the project study area. Areas that may require modifications to rock slopes will be evaluated by the Geotechnical Group during Final Design.
2-80 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
2.3.3.6. Structure
2.3.3.6.(1) Description – Exhibit 2.3.3.6 (1) shows the bridges found within the project study area from CSX Railroad over I-390 to NY 390 over Lexington Avenue in the North-South direction and they extend from the Erie Canal to Howard Road in the East-West direction. The information found in Exhibit 2.3.3.6 (1) was derived from record plans, field survey and WINBolts. All vertical clearances are from WINBolts unless otherwise noted.
Exhibit - 2.3.3.6 (1) Summary of Existing Structures Bridge BIN No. Feature Bridge No. / Width of Out-to- Sidewalk Utilities Vertical Structural No. carried and Type Length Travel Out Clearance Capacity crossed of Lanes / Bridge (HS) spans Shoulders Width 1 1062521 NY 390SB Steel 1 4 Lanes 60’9” None Electric, 14’4” 33 Tons over Multi- span @ 12’ Lighting (Inv.)* Lexington Girder @ 90’ 4’0” Left 56 Tons Avenue Shoulder (Oper.)* 5’6” Right Shoulder 2 1062522 NY 390NB Steel 1 3 Lanes 54’6” None Electric, 14’5” 31 Tons over Multi- span @ 12’ Lighting (Inv.)* Lexington Girder @ 90’ 5’0” Left 52 Tons Avenue Shoulder (Oper.)* 10’0” Right Shoulder 3 4062531 NY 390SB Steel 1 4 Lanes 60’9” None Electric, 20’ (max) 38 Tons over Erie Multi- span @ 12’ Lighting (Inv.)** Canal Girder @ 4’0” Left 63 Tons 196’ Shoulder (Oper.)** 5’6” Right Shoulder 4 4062532 NY 390NB Steel 1 3 Lanes 54’6” None Electric, 20’ (max) 28 Tons over Erie Multi- span @ 12’ Lighting (Inv.)** Canal Girder @ 5’0” Left 47 Tons 196’ Shoulder (Oper.)** 10’0” Right Shoulder 5 1062541 NY 390SB Steel 4 3 Lanes 45’4” None Lighting Trolley 49 Tons over Trolley Multi- span @ 12’ Blvd (Inv.)*** Boulevard Girder @ 50’ 1’0” Left 23’11” 81 Tons and 65’ Shoulder (24’0” (Oper.)*** Abandoned 65’ 3’0” Right Field RR 50’ Shoulder Survey)
Railroad 22’4” (Field Survey) 6 1062542 NY 390NB Steel 4 3 Lanes 45’4” None Lighting Trolley 34 Tons over Trolley Multi- span @ 12’ Blvd (Inv.)*** Boulevard Girder @ 50’ 1’0” Left 24’-1” 56 Tons and 65’ Shoulder (24’1” (Oper.)*** Abandoned 65’ 3’0” Right Field RR 50’ Shoulder Survey)
Railroad 22’-4” (23’1” Field Survey)
2-81 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Exhibit - 2.3.3.6 (1) Summary of Existing Structures Bridge BIN No. Feature Bridge No. / Width of Out-to- Sidewalk Utilities Vertical Structural No. carried and Type Length Travel Out Clearance Capacity crossed of Lanes / Bridge (HS) spans Shoulders Width 7 1021589 NY 31 Steel 4 6 Lanes 97’10” Yes Electric, 14’1” 30 Tons (Lyell Multi- span @ 12 Lighting, (14’1” (Inv.)* Avenue) Girder @ 1’0” Left Telephone, Field 50 Tons over 29’ Shoulder Traffic Survey) (Oper.)* NY 390NB 80’ 2’0” Right Signal Interconnect and NY 80’ Shoulder 390SB 29’ 8’-0” Median 8 4443380 NY 31 Steel 1 4 Lanes 58’1” Yes Gas Line, 18’ 41 Tons (Lyell Thru span @ 10’ Water Line, (Inv.)* Avenue) Truss @ No Telephone, 59 Tons over Erie 113’ Shoulder Navigation, (Oper.)* Canal Fuel Line 9 1025811 I-490WB Steel 3 3 Lanes 49’2” None Lighting 14’8” 36 Tons over Multi- span @ 12’ (Inv.)* NY 390SB Girder @ 37’ 5’0” Left 65 Tons 58’ Shoulder (Oper.)* 37’ 5’0” Right Shoulder 10 1052280 Ramp WN Steel 3 1 Lane @ 33’2” None Lighting 14’8” 37 Tons (I-490EB to Multi- span 15’ (Inv.)* NY 390NB) Girder @ 80’ 3’0” min. 71 Tons over 110’ Left (Oper.)* I-490WB 92’ Shoulder and NY 11’0” min. 390SB Right Shoulder 11 1052290 NY 390NB Steel 3 2 Lanes 36’0” None Lighting 14’9” 43 Tons over Multi- spans @ 12’ (15’0” (Inv.)** I-490WB Girder @ 3’0” min. Field 71 Tons 56’ Left Survey) (Oper.)** 49’ Shoulder 44’ 5’0” min. Right Shoulder 12 1025812 I-490EB Steel 3 2 Lanes 34’2” None Lighting 15’2” 30 Tons over Multi- spans @ 12’ (Inv.)* I-390SB Girder @ 3’0” min. 50 Tons 40’ Left (Oper.)* 45’ Shoulder 42’ 4’0” min. Right Shoulder 13 1025820 I-490EB Steel 3 4 Lanes 60’8” None Lighting 14’6” 40 Tons over Ramp Multi- spans @ 12’ (Inv.)* ES Girder @ 4’0” min. 77 Tons (I-490WB to 59’ Left (Oper.)* I-390SB) 73’ Shoulder 71’ 4’6” min. Right Shoulder 14 1063950 I-390NB Steel 3 3 Lanes 43’1.5” None Lighting 14’6” 56 Tons over Multi- spans @ 12’ (Inv.)*** I-490EB Girder @ 3’0” Left 94 Tons and Ramp 87’ Shoulder (Oper.)*** ES 102’ 3’0” Right (I-490WB to 80’ Shoulder I-390SB)
2-82 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Exhibit - 2.3.3.6 (1) Summary of Existing Structures Bridge BIN No. Feature Bridge No. / Width of Out-to- Sidewalk Utilities Vertical Structural No. carried and Type Length Travel Out Clearance Capacity crossed of Lanes / Bridge (HS) spans Shoulders Width 15 4443361 I-490WB Steel 1 4 Lanes 63’0” None Electric, 15’ (max) 48 Tons over Erie Multi- span @ 12’ Navigation (Inv.)* Canal Girder @ 6’ Left 93 Tons 150’ Shoulder (Oper.)* 7’ Right Shoulder 16 4443362 I-490EB Steel 1 5 Lanes 75’0” None Electric, 15’ (max) 48 Tons over Erie Multi- span @ 12’ Navigation (Inv.)* Canal Girder @ 6’ Left 93 Tons 150’ Shoulder (Oper.)* 7’ Right Shoulder 17 1048680 Howard Steel 2 2 Lanes 52’0” Yes Electric, 14’6” 49 Tons Road over Multi- spans @ 12’ Telephone (Inv.)* I-490WB Girder @ 8’ 92 Tons and 99’ Shoulders (Oper.)* I-490EB 18 1023030 Route 33 Steel 4 2 Lanes 67’10” Yes Electric, 14’3” 55 Tons (Buffalo Multi- spans @ 13’ Telephone, (14’6” (Inv.)*** Road) over Girder @ 15’ Lighting Field 93 Tons I-390NB 31’ Shoulders Survey) (Oper.)*** and 77’ I-390SB 77’ 31’ 19 7025830 CSX Steel 2 None 59.0’ None None 14’2” N/A Railroad Girder / spans (14’6” over Floor- @ Field I-390NB beam 72’ Survey) and System I-390SB * From WINBolts Data ** Load Rating Calculations available upon request. *** Load Ratings from Regional Structures Group.
A fatigue evaluation was performed on three bridges, BIN 4062531 – NY 390SB over Erie Canal, BIN 4062532 – NY 390 NB over Erie Canal and BIN 1052290 – NY 390NB over I-490WB. The evaluation was performed in accordance with AASHTO Guide Specification for Fatigue Evaluation of Existing Bridges. A summary of the fatigue evaluations is provided in Exhibits 2.3.3.6 (2) through 2.3.3.6 (4).
Exhibit - 2.3.3.6 (2) BIN 4062531 – NY390SB over Erie Canal Fatigue Evaluation Summary Fatigue Life Fatigue Detail Detail Category (From 2011) Lateral Bracing Connection Plate Welds E 58 yrs Transverse Stiffener/Connection Plate Welds C Infinite Life
Exhibit - 2.3.3.6 (3) BIN 4062532 – NY390NB over Erie Canal Fatigue Evaluation Summary Fatigue Life Fatigue Detail Detail Category (From 2011) Lateral Bracing Connection Plate Welds E 35 yrs Transverse Stiffener/Connection Plate Welds C Infinite Life
2-83 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Exhibit - 2.3.3.6 (4) BIN 1052290 – NY 390NB over I-490WB Fatigue Evaluation Summary Fatigue Life Fatigue Detail Detail Category (From 2011) Partial Length Cover Plate Welds E’ 0 yrs Connection Plate/Bearing Stiffener Welds C Infinite Life Bottom Flange Splice Plate Welds E’ 18 yrs (Continuity Retrofit)
2.3.3.6.(2) Clearances (Horizontal/Vertical) – There are 10 bridges within the project study area that span over I-390/NY 390 and I-490, one of which is over a ramp. Since the Thruway (I-90) is the designated 16 ft. vertical clearance route through the Rochester urban area, a 14 ft. vertical clearance is the minimum required. All 10 bridges exceed the 14 ft. minimum required. See Exhibit 2.3.3.6 (1) for vertical clearances (from WINBolts). The I-490 bridges over the Erie Canal have a vertical clearance of 15 ft., which is less than the 15.5 ft. required. All 11 overhead sign structures within the project study area exceed the 15 ft. minimum required. Five bridges (BINs 1063950, 1052290, 1025812, 1062541 and 1062542) do not provide the minimum 4’ horizontal clearances across the bridge. Refer to Section 2.3.3.2 for further discussion on non-standard horizontal and vertical clearances.
2.3.3.6.(3) History & Deficiencies – A summary of the history and geometric deficiencies for the bridges found within the project study area is provided in Exhibit 2.3.3.6 (5).
Exhibit - 2.3.3.6 (5) History & Deficiencies Bridge BIN No. Feature Carried Year Major Rehabilitation Geometric No. and Crossed Built Work (Year) Deficiencies 1 1062521 NY 390SB over 1971 Concrete Overlay, Right Shoulder < 10’ Lexington Avenue Paint Steel, Joints & Bearings (1985) Asphalt Overlay (2009) 2 1062522 NY 390NB over 1971 Concrete Overlay, Lexington Avenue Paint Steel, Joints & Bearings (1985) Asphalt Overlay (2009) 3 4062531 NY 390SB over Erie 1971 Concrete Overlay, Substructure Repairs, Paint Right Shoulder < 10’ Canal Steel, Joints & Bearings (1985) 4 4062532 NY 390NB over Erie 1971 Concrete Overlay, Substructure Repairs, Paint Canal Steel, Joints & Bearings (1985) 5 1062541 NY 390SB over Trolley 1971 Asphalt Overlay Left Shoulder < 4’ Boulevard and (1985) Right Shoulder < 10’ Abandoned RR 6 1062542 NY 390NB over 1971 Asphalt Overlay Left Shoulder < 4’ Trolley Boulevard and (1985) Right Shoulder < 10’ Abandoned RR 7 1021589 NY 31 (Lyell Avenue) 1963 Asphalt Overlay Right Shoulder < 6’ over NY 390NB and (1985) (Curbed) NY 390SB Pier Repairs (2001) 8 4443380 NY 31 (Lyell Avenue) 1937 New Deck Lane < 11’ over Erie Canal (1966) Right Shoulder < 6’ Concrete Overlay, New Joints, Railing Retrofit (Curbed) (1990)
2-84 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Exhibit - 2.3.3.6 (5) History & Deficiencies Bridge BIN No. Feature Carried Year Major Rehabilitation Geometric No. and Crossed Built Work (Year) Deficiencies 9 1025811 I-490WB over NY 1963 New Deck (Widened Overhang), Replace Right Shoulder < 10’ 390SB Fascia Girder, Replace Piers, Superstructure Continuity Retrofit, Substructure Repairs, Paint Steel, New Joints & Bearings (1993) 10 1052280 Ramp WN (I-490EB to 1963 Concrete Overlay, Substructure Repairs, Paint None NY 390NB) over Steel, New Joints & Bearings I-490WB and NY (1993) 390SB 11 1052290 NY 390NB over 1963 New Deck, Replace Piers, Superstructure Left Shoulder < 4’ I-490WB Continuity Retrofit, Substructure Repairs, Paint Right Shoulder < 10’ Steel, New Joints & Bearings (1993) 12 1025812 I-490EB over 1963 New Deck, Replace Piers, Superstructure Left Shoulder < 4’ I-390SB Continuity Retrofit, Substructure Repairs, Paint Right Shoulder < 10’ Steel, New Joints & Bearings (1993) 13 1025820 I-490EB over Ramp 1963 New Deck (Widened Overhang), Replace Right Shoulder < 10’ ES (I-490WB to Piers, Superstructure Continuity Retrofit, I-390SB) Substructure Repairs, Paint Steel, New Joints & Bearings (1991) 14 1063950 I-390NB over I-490EB 1963 Concrete Overlay, Substructure Repairs, Paint Left Shoulder < 4’ and Ramp ES (I- Steel, New Joints & Bearings Right Shoulder < 10’ 490WB to I-390SB) (1991) Steel Repairs (2010) 15 4443361 I-490WB over Erie 1963 New Deck (Widened Overhang), Substructure Right Shoulder < 10’ Canal Repairs, Replace Fascia Girders, Paint Steel, New Joints & Bearings (1991) 16 4443362 I-490EB over Erie 1963 Widened Structure, New Deck, Replaced Right Shoulder < 10’ Canal Fascia Girder & Added 2 Girders, Substructure Repairs, Paint Steel, New Joints & Bearings (1991) 17 1048680 Howard Road over 1991 None None I-490WB and I-490EB 18 1023030 Route 33 (Buffalo 1963 Asphalt Overlay None Road) over I-390NB (1995) and I-390SB Pier Repairs (2001) Steel Repairs (2010) 19 7025830 CSX Railroad over 1963 N/A N/A I-390NB and I-390SB
2.3.3.6.(4) Inspection – A summary of the Biennial Bridge Inspection Reports for the bridges found within the project study area is provided in Exhibit 2.3.3.6 (6).
2-85 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Exhibit - 2.3.3.6 (6) Summary of Bridge Inspection Bridge BIN No. Feature Carried NYSDOT NYSDOT FHWA Suff. Bridge Elements Rated No. and Crossed General Condition Rating 3 and Below Rec. (Date) Rating (Date) (Date) 1 1062521 NY 390SB over 5 5.422 90.1 Guide Railing Lexington Avenue (2011) (2011) (2011) 2 1062522 NY 390NB over 5 5.266 89.4 Guide Railing; Railing, Lexington Avenue (2011) (2011) (2011) Parapet 3 4062531 NY 390SB over Erie 5 5.156 83.1 Guide Railing; Scuppers Canal (2010) (2010) (2011) 4 4062532 NY 390NB over Erie 5 4.563 84.2 Guide Railing; Scuppers Canal (2010) (2010) (2011) 5 1062541 NY 390SB over Trolley 4 3.922 40.9 Bearings, Bolts, Pads; Boulevard and (2011) (2011) (2011) Guide Railing; Paint; Abandoned RR Joints; Cap Beam 6 1062542 NY 390NB over Trolley 4 3.906 40.9 Bearings, Bolts, Pads; Boulevard and (2011) (2011) (2011) Guide Railing; Paint; Abandoned RR Joints; Cap Beam; Pier Columns; Pedestals 7 1021589 NY 31 (Lyell Avenue) 4 3.969 44.2 Bearings, Bolts, Pads; over NY 390NB and NY (2011) (2011) (2010) Seats & Pedestals; Guide 390SB Railing; Median; Paint; Joints 8 4443380 NY 31 (Lyell Avenue) 4 4.328 44.0 Bearings, Bolts, Pads; over Erie Canal (2011) (2011) (2011) Seats & Pedestals; Erosion/Scour; Bank Protection; Guide Railing; Lighting 9 1025811 I-490WB over NY 390SB 5 5.125 85.2 Joints (2009) (2011) (2010) 10 1052280 Ramp WN (I-490EB to 5 4.750 93.6 Guide Railing; Curbs; NY 390NB) over (2010) (2010) (2010) Sidewalks/Parapets I-490WB and NY 390SB 11 1052290 NY 390NB over 6 5.486 86.9 None I-490WB (2010) (2010) (2010) 12 1025812 I-490EB over 5 5.703 77.4 Curbs I-390SB (2010) (2010) (2011) 13 1025820 I-490EB over Ramp ES 5 4.953 82.7 Drainage; Guide Railing; (I-490WB to (2010) (2010) (2011) Lighting I-390SB) 14 1063950 I-390NB over I-490EB 5 4.813 35.0 Erosion/Scour; Primary and Ramp ES (I-490WB (2011) (2011) (2011) Members; Paint to I-390SB) 15 4443361 I-490WB over Erie Canal 6 5.746 93.6 Lighting (2010) (2010) (2011) 16 4443362 I-490EB over Erie Canal 6 5.857 93.6 Lighting (2010) (2010) (2011) 17 1048680 Howard Road over 6 6.368 92.1 None I-490WB and (2011) (2011) (2010) I-490EB 18 1023030 Route 33 (Buffalo Road) 4 4.031 65.0 Bearings, Bolts, Pads; over I-390NB and I- (2011) (2011) (2011) Seats & Pedestals; Paint; 390SB Joints; Primary Members; 19 7025830 CSX Railroad over N/A N/A N/A N/A I-390NB and I-390SB
The condition of the existing Lyell Avenue bridge over NY 390 (BIN 1021589) is at a point where a full replacement will be needed in conjunction with an early phase of this project.
2-86 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
An In-depth Inspection and Deck Evaluation were performed on three bridges, BIN 4062531 – NY 390SB over Erie Canal, BIN 4062532 – NY 390 NB over Erie Canal and BIN 1052290 – NY 390NB over I- 490WB. The Bridge Deck Evaluation Reports are included in Appendix E. The following summarizes the findings of the reports.
BIN 4062531 – NY 390SB over Erie Canal An in-depth inspection of this structure was performed in July 2011, and resulted in a General Recommendation of 5. The substructures are in generally fair condition, with isolated areas of hollow- sounding concrete. The structural deck is in poor condition with large areas of spalling and delaminated concrete. Approximately 24% of the deck is either spalled or delaminated. The steel girders, G1 through G6 are in good condition. However, the right fascia girder, G7, has severe pitting on the outside of the web and at isolated locations on the bottom flange.
In addition to the in-depth inspection a bridge deck evaluation report was also compiled to assess the condition and develop rehabilitation and/or replacement recommendations for the concrete deck. Based on the deck evaluation complete deck replacement is recommended based on the extent of deterioration, age and construction history, traffic volume, and WZTC requirements for construction.
The total deteriorated deck area is 24%. Deteriorated areas are well dispersed throughout all bays of the deck, which would preclude localized full-depth repairs. It is emphasized that the areas of deterioration were mapped on the bottom of the deck, since the top of deck is concealed by the asphalt wearing surface. The extent of deterioration at the top of deck is likely to be worse than at the bottom.
The existing deck is 39 years old, and a partial-depth deck replacement was completed in 1987. The deck appears to be nearing the end of its service life. Additionally, the previous partial-depth replacement may impede further rehabilitation efforts at this time.
The longevity of the deck treatment selected for these bridges is particularly important considering the high traffic volume and the costs associated with WZTC for this site. This further reinforces the rationale for complete deck replacement.
BIN 4062532 – NY 390NB over Erie Canal An in-depth inspection of this structure was performed in July 2011, and resulted in a General Recommendation of 5. The substructures are in generally fair condition, with isolated areas of hollow- sounding concrete. The structural deck is in poor condition with large areas of spalling and delaminated concrete. Approximately 33% of the deck is either spalled or delaminated. The steel girders, G2 through G6 are in good condition. However, the left fascia girder, G1, has severe pitting on the outside of the web and at isolated locations on the bottom flange.
In addition to the in-depth inspection a bridge deck evaluation report was also complied to access the condition and develop rehabilitation and/or replacement recommendations for the concrete deck. Based on the deck evaluation complete deck replacement is recommended based on the extent of deterioration, age and construction history, traffic volume, and WZTC requirements for construction.
The total deteriorated deck area is 33%. Deteriorated areas are well dispersed throughout all bays of the deck, which would preclude localized full-depth repairs. It is emphasized that the areas of deterioration were mapped on the bottom of the deck, since the top of deck is concealed by the asphalt wearing surface. The extent of deterioration at the top of deck is likely to be worse than at the bottom.
The existing deck is 39 years old, and a partial-depth deck replacement was completed in 1987. The deck appears to be nearing the end of its service life. Additionally, the previous partial-depth replacement may impede further rehabilitation efforts at this time.
The longevity of the deck treatment selected for these bridges is particularly important considering the high traffic volume and the costs associated with WZTC for this site. This further reinforces the rationale for complete deck replacement.
2-87 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
BIN 1052290 – NY 390NB over I-490WB An in-depth inspection of this structure was performed in July 2011, and resulted in a General Recommendation of 6. The abutment and pier substructures are in fair to good condition, with minor, isolated areas of hollow-sounding concrete. The structural deck is in good condition with isolated cracking and small areas of hollow sounding concrete affecting less than 5% of the deck surface. Fascia girders, G1 and G5, have section losses up to 34% near ends of the girders in Span 3. There is 5-12% flange section loss near midspan of the girders.
In addition to the in-depth inspection a bridge deck evaluation report was also complied to access the condition and develop rehabilitation and/or replacement recommendations for the concrete deck. The bridge deck evaluation report depicts the concrete deck to currently be in good condition with isolated hollow sounding areas. The report recommended present day routine bridge maintenance activities such as deck sealing and waterproofing be performed. It also recommended localized partial-depth deck repairs as part of a future rehabilitation within 5-10 years. Since it is anticipated that a future rehabilitation won’t occur for several years and due to the complexity of work zone traffic control through this corridor, it is recommended that the concrete deck receive a concrete overlay during rehabilitation.
2.3.3.6.(5) Restrictions – There are no posted or restricted bridges.
2.3.3.6.(6) Future Conditions – If no structural improvements are made to the existing bridges, the condition of each bridge will continue to deteriorate. The deterioration will eventually lead to load posting of the bridges or the need for emergency repairs.
2.3.3.6.(7) Waterway – NY 390 NB and SB, I-490 WB and EB, and Lyell Avenue cross the Erie Canal (BINs 4062532, 4062531, 4443361, 4443362, and 4443380 respectively). The Erie Canal is a navigable waterway by Federal Standards, therefore a Coast Guard Checklist is required and is included in Appendix E.
2.3.3.7. Hydraulics of Bridges and Culverts – There are no waterways within the project study area that require the consideration of and/or analysis of bridge hydraulics.
There are a total of seventeen “major” culverts within the project study area. For the purposes of this report, a culvert is considered major when it has a diameter greater than 36 inches. The description and approximate location for each major culvert is provided in Exhibit 2.3.3.7 below. Visual inspections of the major culverts were completed and a summary for each is also included in this section. If drainage patterns are changed, analyses will be conducted to ensure these existing structures, if retained, can function to carry appropriate drainage. Major culvert locations are shown on the plans and on Exhibit 1.2.1-2 in Appendix A.
Exhibit 2.3.3.7 Existing Major Culverts Culvert Dwg. No. Culvert Description Culvert Location ID (App. A) outside 1 4’x6’ box culvert (110 ft long) Beneath Ramp WN plan limits PL-6 2 5’x10’ box culvert (50 ft long) Beneath NY 390 Southbound (Sta. SBC 175+90) PL-6 3 5’x10’ box culvert (54 ft long) Beneath Ramp NE (Adjacent to Culvert 2) 6’ x 7’ twin-cell box culvert Beneath ramp SW & NY 390 Northbound PL-5 4 (230 ft long) (Sta. NB 658+90) Beneath Ramp EN & I-490 Westbound PL-13 5 5’x15’ box culvert (100 ft long) (Sta. EN 10+15) Outfall structure to Erie Canal beneath multi-use trail PL-13 6 84”x126” CMP (100 ft long) north of I-490 Westbound & NY 390 Northbound
2-88 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Exhibit 2.3.3.7 Existing Major Culverts outside 7 36”x72” box culvert (65 ft long) Beneath I-490 Westbound; near Howard Road Bridge plan limits Crossing under NY 390 Northbound, south of the PL-9 8 42” CMP (77 ft long) Ramp DE entrance terminal (Sta. NB 680+06) PL-8 9 42” CMP (70 ft long) Crossing Ramp DD north of the exit terminal Running parallel to the right side of NY 390 PL-8 10 42” CMP (124 ft long) Northbound just north of Ramp DD exit terminal Crossing NY 390 Northbound north of Ramp EN PL-7 11 48” CMP (164 ft long) entrance terminal Crossing Ramp WN north of Ramp EN entrance PL-7 12 48” CMP (134 ft long) terminal and just north of the sign structure (Adjacent to Culvert 11). PL-13 13 42” CMP (140 ft long) Crossing I-490 Westbound and Ramp ES PL-13 14 42” CMP (255 ft long) Crossing I-490 Eastbound and Ramp SE Outfall structure running perpendicular to the right PL-2 15 42” CMP (length unknown) side of I-390 Northbound just south of CSX bridge Crossing I-390 Northbound in between CSX bridge PL-1 Squashed CMP – 57”span x 16 and Chili Ave. exit ramps 38” rise (121 ft long) (NYSDOT CIN: 440104) Crossing I-390 Southbound in between CSX bridge PL-1 Squashed CMP – 57”span x 17 and Chili Ave. exit ramps, adjacent to culvert 16 38” rise (121 ft long) (NYSDOT CIN: 440108)
There are active beavers within the 390/490 interchange infield area that have constructed beaver dams across the main drainage channel that drains from west to east, eventually outletting to the Erie Canal. Culverts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 (see table on previous page) convey this drainage channel beneath the existing roadways. The dams have backed up enough water to make a couple of the culverts inaccessible. Below are summaries from the visual inspections.
Culvert 1: The culvert was inaccessible due to high water level most likely from blockage downstream from the beaver dams. Minor cracking to the headwalls and wingwalls but overall, the structure is in good condition.
Culvert 2: There is about 12 inches of silt on the invert. All four wingwalls have hollow sounding areas next to the culvert. Both southern wingwalls are spalled next to the culvert. The top slab is generally in good condition except at the eastern end were the cover concrete has spalled off for a width of 14” exposing one corroded reinforcement bar. The concrete around this area is hollow sounding.
Culvert 3: There is about 12 inches of silt along the northern side of the culvert invert. There are isolated hollow sounding areas approximately 1/3 from the east end. A crack in both stems and top slab was noted at this location but the crack was tight and there is no displacement.
Culvert 4: The majority of this twin cell culvert was accessible. There is considerable silting of the channel approaching the culvert and all flow is directed into the south cell, which is clear. A tree that was fell by a beaver is lying against the inlet side. The northern cell has a 4 ft high beaver dam at about the center and approximately 12 inches of silt on both sides of the dam. Water stain lines on the pier and abutments indicate the culvert was not engulfed due to the reduced hydraulic opening. There are full height cracks in the pier, the south stem and the top slab at a few locations. The cracks are leaking and there is hollow sounding concrete in the top slab but no reinforcement was visible. Between the 2nd and the 3rd box section joints, the top slab has the largest hollow sounding area (up to 24” wide) that is laced with efflorescence. All four wingwalls are generally in good condition with minor spalling and hollow 2-89 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13 sounding areas. The south east wingwall has a 24” x 24” cracked area with efflorescence but no displacement was noted.
Culvert 5: 24 inches of silt is present along the west half of the culvert. There is some isolated spalling and delaminated concrete cover at the north end of the box. The concrete is damp with some rust staining but this is an isolated condition. There are two “full perimeter” cracks within the box that exhibit leakage and are surrounded by hollow sounding concrete along the top slab. There is some minor spalling on the south east wingwall otherwise all wingwalls are in good condition.
Culvert 6: The integral concrete headwall and wingwalls at each end are in very good condition. The paved asphalt invert has worn off at random areas along the length. The corrugated steel that is exposed from the missing asphalt invert is corroded with some section loss but no complete holes from corrosion were observed. No deformation in the arch of the pipe was noticed.
Culvert 7: This culvert is upstream of Culvert 1 and is also impacted by the beaver dams. Water is within 6” of the top slab and it is not accessible. Approximately half of the 4 ft box height is filled with silt. There is minor cracking to the headwalls and wingwalls but overall the structure appears to be in good condition.
Culvert 8: The corrugated pipe is silted in approximately 12 inches making it inaccessible. The invert condition is unknown. The bituminous coating of the steel pipe was flaked off at the water line and the exposed steel was corroded. No sagging or deformation of the pipe was observed.
Culvert 9: This culvert is open only at one end and was not completely accessible. The asphalt- bituminous coating is cracked or flaked away along the normal waterline. There was no sagging or deformation observed from the open end of the pipe and no significant amount of siltation was noted.
Culvert 10: This culvert is open only at one end and was not completely accessible. The end section was rusted through at the waterline. From the visible end, the asphaltic coating of the pipe is cracked or missing along the waterline. The pipe was rusted through at the northern opening for a length of 24”. No sink holes were noted in the grass median and no silt was noticed on the invert.
Culvert 11: There is minor siltation along the invert. The inside of the culvert has a bituminous coating that is cracked or missing along the normal waterline. The upstream end section is rusted through at the waterline and there are areas along section seams where the pipe is completely rusted through. There is no noticeable deformation of the pipe.
Culvert 12: This culvert is similar in condition to culvert 11 with minor siltation along the invert. The bituminous coating is cracked or missing along the waterline with one location with is heavily rusted and malleable. The upstream end section is rusted through at the waterline. Vegetation just upstream of the end section restricts the hydraulic opening.
Culvert 13: The original pipe is under the roadway portion of I-490 and has an asphalt material that coats the steel. There are two newer galvanized sections at the southern end. These two sections are failing and exhibit significant rusting with visible holes completely through at the normal water level. There was no sinking of the fill above this section of pipe that is within the grass median area. At the northern opening, the invert was rusted through for a length of 10 inches. Near the southern end, the west and east side was heavily rusted for a length of 6 feet. Minor silt accumulation was noted. The original pipe was in satisfactory condition, with the asphalt coating exhibiting cracks and was completely gone in isolated locations.
Culvert 14: This culvert is made up of two different pipes. The original pipe under the roadway was coated with asphalt and is in satisfactory condition with some of the coating missing at the waterline. There is standing water along the entire length as it appears the culvert no longer holds grade through its length. The galvanized extension for the northern portion of the culvert is approximately 150 feet long and is located under grass within the median area. This section of the pipe is in failing condition with distortion and rust-through perforations on both the west and east side at normal water level. For approximately half of this extension, the invert is separated from the remaining portion of pipe and the
2-90 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
“walls” are pushing into the soil. There is a noticeable kink and the pipe shows deformation at about 75 feet from the north end within the ‘newer’ extension pieces. There is a sink hole about 20 feet south of the northern opening but fill is not spilling into the pipe. There were no other noted other sink holes.
Culvert 15: This outfall pipe leaves the site and was not completely accessible. The pipe is contained with a concrete headwall and a laid stone wall is above the headwall. The headwall has a horizontal crack that is actively leaking and shows efflorescence. From the portion of the pipe that could be observed, a significant amount of the bituminous coating is cracked or missing around the entire diameter of the pipe. There is minor buildup of small gravel along invert, but an overall condition of the pipe invert could not be determined. No deformation of the pipe was noted.
Culvert 16: The arch-shaped pipe was mostly filled with water and was not completely accessible at the time of inspection. There are galvanized pipe extensions outside of the roadway that show corrosion at the normal water level. The portion of the culvert under the roadway is older and is coated with asphalt with no observed deformation of the pipe arch. The joint between the original culvert and the extensions could not be inspected.
Culvert 17: The arch-shaped pipe is immediately downstream to culvert 16 and is in similar condition. The pipe was accessible and did have a small amount of silt and gravel along the invert. Galvanized pipe extensions outside of the pavement exhibit corrosion where the normal water level is. There is a dent (bulge to the culvert opening) on the median side that appears as-built but no sink hole within the embankment was noticed. The original section of pipe was coated with asphalt that has worn off at the waterline. Steel now exposed with the coating removed is corroded and has section loss. Isolated rust- through holes were observed along the length but no deformation of the pipe arch was noticed.
2.3.3.8. Guide Railing, Median Barriers and Impact Attenuators – Exhibits 2.3.3.8-1 to 2.3.3.8-9 summarize conditions of existing guide rail, median barrier and impact attenuators within the project study area, and can be found in Appendix I.
I-490 guide rail, median barrier and impact attenuators are in good condition.
I-390 guide rail, median barrier and impact attenuators are generally in good condition. Roadside protection is non-conforming at the CSX Railroad, where the abutments are unshielded. . NY 390 guide rail is generally in fair condition but often corroded. In the northbound direction several sections of guide rail are in poor condition, from the Ramp DA merge (box beam median barrier) to south of Trolley Boulevard (corrugated beam, box beam). In the southbound direction there is one section in poor condition, adjacent to Ramp DC.
There are a significant number of instances along NY 390 where box beam end sections are in need of upgrading to current standards. More specifically, Type I and Type II end sections are common to box beam installations. Although several are located outside the clear zone, Type III end sections are recommended for operating speeds over 50 mph. Also observed but less common were corrugated beams with turned down end sections (e.g., within the 390/31 interchange).
Guide rail along the 390/490 interchange ramps are generally in good condition. Exceptions are box beam guide rail along Ramp ES (in fair condition) and along Ramp SW (in poor condition).
Guide rail at the Lyell Avenue and Lexington Avenue interchanges is generally in fair to good condition. There are isolated areas where posts are missing. Corrosion is more evident in the vicinity of the Lexington Avenue interchange. Guide rail along Lyell Avenue is generally in good condition, with the exception of the cable guide rail at the Erie Canal, which is in poor condition.
2.3.3.9. Utilities – Utilities within the project study area include the following:
City of Rochester Water Department - water lines Frontier – underground telephone and fiber optic lines
2-91 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Level 3 Communications – underground fiber optic lines Monroe County – street lighting Monroe County Department of Environmental Services – underground fiber optic lines Monroe County Pure Water Agency – storm and sanitary sewer Monroe County Water Authority – water lines NYSDOT – underground fiber optic lines Rochester Gas and Electric – gas distribution mains and laterals Rochester Gas and Electric – aerial and underground electric lines and services Sprint – underground fiber optic line Time Warner Cable – overhead and underground cable lines Wiltel Communications – underground fiber optic lines
Existing overhead and underground utility locations are summarized in the Utilities Facilities Inventory Report (HC 203) included in Appendix I.
2.3.3.10. Railroad Facilities – An inactive and severed section of railroad owned by CSX Transportation (CSXT) crosses under NY 390 beneath the two bridges which also carry NY 390 over Trolley Boulevard. Original construction of these bridges accommodated two tracks over the Falls Road Branch of Conrail, a Class I mainline railroad that ran from Rochester to Niagara Falls, NY. However, in 1995 Conrail removed twelve miles of the Falls Road Branch from Brockport to just west of Lee Road in Rochester, NY. Genesee Valley Transportation (GVT) acquired the remaining section of track between Brockport and Lockport in 1996. That section of track is an active Class III short line railroad incorporated as the Falls Road Railroad (FRR). The remaining portion of the Falls Road Branch from Ames Street to Lee Road in Rochester is now owned by CSXT but is active only to the Erie Canal where rail service is maintained to Klein Steel, which sits adjacent to the east side of the Erie Canal. CSXT also continues to own and operate the Falls Road line from Lockport to Niagara Falls. GTC indicated that no agencies are actively pursuing the purchase of the inactive portion of the railroad corridor, however, it is expected that the long-range plan is to utilize it as a trail, which would likely connect to the Erie Canal Heritage Trail (Canalway Trail) located between Lee Road and the Erie Canal.
The existing minimum vertical clearance over the former railroad tracks at the NY 390 bridges based on as-built plans is 22.3 ft. The existing horizontal clearance between the former centerline of tracks and the bridge piers based on the as-built bridge plans is 14’-8” from the south track to the south pier face and 18’-0” from the north track to the north pier face. The horizontal perpendicular spacing between the NY 390 bridge piers is approximately 60.75 ft. Typically railroads request a 23 ft. vertical clearance over their tracks. In New York the statutory minimum vertical clearance is 22 feet. However, because the track is inactive and severed, a lesser vertical clearance may be permitted in the event that these bridges are widened or replaced as part of this project.
The Rochester Subdivision, a two track Class I mainline railroad owned by CSXT, crosses over I-390 just south of Buffalo Road. The line runs from Syracuse to Buffalo and is part of the New York City to Chicago mainline, formerly the New York Central Railroad mainline. The railroad line services both freight and passenger trains, with speeds up to 60 mph for freight and 79 mph for passenger. An average of 50 to 60 freight and passenger trains per day, with lengths of up to 1 mile for freight and 6 to 8 train cars for passenger, utilize the lines. Amtrak’s Empire Service, Lake Shore Limited, and Maple Leaf routes operate over the entire Rochester Subdivision. CSXT typically defaults to the State design criteria for clearances from the roadway to the underside of a railroad bridge, which in this case is a 14 ft. minimum and 14.5 ft. desirable. The existing minimum vertical clearance on I-390 under the railroad bridge is 14.5 ft. as per field survey conducted in summer 2011. It is in the best interest of the project that the existing railroad bridge not be altered, as work to the structure would be costly and come with numerous railroad work restrictions. The costs associated with work to the bridge would be at project expense.
There are no at-grade crossings within 1 km that could impact traffic conditions.
2-92 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Exhibit - 2.3.3.10 Existing Railroad Tracks Owner Location Crossing Side Train Length Condition CSXT Under NYS Route 390 NYS Route 390 N/A N/A Inactive / Severed (RM 39043011010) (Track Removed) parallel to Trolley Boulevard CSXT Over I-390 I-390 N/A Up to 1 mile (freight) Active (RM 390I43037014) 6 to 8 train cars (passenger) (50-60 trains/day) south of Buffalo Road
2.3.4. Landscape and Environmental Enhancement Opportunities
This section focuses on the critical existing areas to identify potential enhancement opportunities related to the project and to help avoid and minimize impacts. Chapter 4 focuses on the impacts, enhancements, and mitigation.
2.3.4.1. Landscape – A site investigation was performed in the project study area to assess the physical and visual value of the existing roadside environment.
Three landscape districts with distinct visual experiences were identified within the project study area. The visual character and visually sensitive resources within each of these districts were noted. Major viewer groups within the corridor were also identified.
The identification of landscape districts provides a framework for a visual impact assessment and the comparison of project alternatives in context with the existing environment. The three identified landscape districts are as follows:
Landscape District A – 390 / 490 Interchange Landscape District A (Exhibit – 2.3.4.1) includes the 390/490 interchange from Howard Road westerly along I-490 to the Erie Canal overpass to the east, and on NY 390 from Lyell Avenue at its north to the Buffalo Road underpass to the south. The interchange is bound by residential properties to the northwest, southwest and southeast, and industrial/commercial properties to the northeast. The area in- between the 390/490 interchange and the residential and industrial properties is densely vegetated with predominantly deciduous trees and some evergreen trees. The vegetation blocks most views to and from the residential and industrial uses in the summer months and creates densely filtered views in the winter months. Small gaps in the vegetation open intermittent views to the residential and industrial uses, but due to the high vehicular speeds, these views are brief and almost unnoticeable for the motorist.
The center area inside the 390/490 interchange contains areas of open fields and dense vegetation consisting mostly of deciduous trees and shrubs with some evergreen trees. This vegetation creates open and filtered views to and from the multiple ramps and highway travel lanes in the interchange. While driving through the interchange, the surrounding residential and industrial uses are generally not noticeable, if visible.
Major viewer groups in this district include commuters on 390/490 and the residents that live adjacent to the 390/490 interchange, which have views of the roadway.
Landscape District B – Industrial and Residential Landscape District B (Exhibit – 2.3.4.1) includes the areas of NY 390 from roughly Lyell Avenue to Lexington Avenue, and I-390 south of the interchange from the Buffalo Road underpass to the Chili Avenue entrance and exit ramps. North of the NY 390/31 interchange, NY 390 is bounded by residential properties between Lyell Avenue and the CSX Falls Road Branch Railroad / Trolley Boulevard overpass, and bounded by industrial and commercial properties north of the overpass to Lexington Avenue. South of the interchange between Buffalo Road and the Chili Avenue entrance and exit ramps, I-390 is bounded by industrial and commercial uses.
From Lyell Avenue to Lexington Avenue NY 390 begins to rise in elevation and is higher than the surrounding land uses. This area of NY 390 is lined with vegetation consisting of primarily deciduous 2-93 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13 trees. The area between NY 390 and Beechwood Drive on the west contains dense vegetation that screens views of single family homes during the summer months, and offers filtered views in the winter months. Small gaps in vegetation open views to homes on Beechwood Drive, but due to the high vehicular speeds, travel direction and view direction, these views are brief and almost unnoticeable. The area between NY 390 and Evelyn Street on the east is lined with vegetation consisting of a mix of deciduous and evergreen trees. The vegetation on the eastern side of NY 390 is not as dense as the vegetation on the western side, creating filtered views to the houses on Evelyn Street. Due to the high vehicular speeds, and since this area is in close proximity to a decision point for the Lyell Avenue exit demanding the motorists’ attention, views to these homes are brief and almost unnoticeable. In addition, the northbound on-ramp from Lyell Avenue further acts to screen the residences on Evelyn Street. North of the CSX Falls Road Branch Railroad / Trolley Boulevard overpass to Lexington Avenue, the vegetation is still dense, but due to the rise in elevation of NY 390, birds-eye views of the buildings on the industrial properties adjacent to the highway can be seen. This section of NY 390 also crosses over the Erie Canal. The depressed canal passes under NY 390 at a skewed angle, rendering it virtually invisible from NY 390 except for a fleeting view for northbound motorists towards the northwest.
From the Buffalo Road underpass to the CSX Railroad underpass, south of the 390 / 490 interchange, I- 390 is depressed in the landscape and flanked with vegetated rock cuts. Views to the surrounding landscape are minimal, contained by the cut slopes. The rooflines of buildings can been seen as well as the tops of tractor trailer trucks parked within Buffalo Industrial Park west of I-390. Due to the high vehicular speeds and since this area is a decision point for the 390/490 interchange, views to the building roofs and tractor trailer tops are brief and not significant.
From the CSX Railroad underpass to the Chili Avenue entrance/exit ramps, NY 390 is at-grade with the surrounding landscape. Both sides of NY 390 in this area are lined with deciduous vegetation. This vegetation creates visually dense screening in the summer months and filtered views in the winter months to the single family houses on the west, and the industrial buildings to the east. Large billboards and high power electrical lines are also visible in this corridor segment.
Major viewer groups in this district include commuters on NY 390 and I-390, residents that live adjacent to the NY 390 and I-390 corridors, and consumers and employees of the adjacent commercial / industrial uses.
Landscape District C – Commercial and Industrial Landscape District C (Exhibit – 2.3.4.1) includes the bisected commercial corridor of Lyell Avenue from Howard Road on the west to the Erie Canal overpass to the east, separated in the middle by NY 390 which is depressed in the landscape.
From Howard Road to the NY 390 overpass, Lyell Avenue is comprised of largely consumer-oriented retail. The 1 to 2 story buildings are set back from the road with parking in the front. From Howard Road to just west of Rossmore Street, a landscaped buffer exists between Lyell Avenue and the parking lots containing lawn and ornamental trees. No sidewalks exist in this area. Between Rossmore Street and the NY 390 overpass, Lyell Avenue has no buffering between the road and parking lots, and contains small intermittent segments of sidewalk. It is perceived that there are no sidewalks because they are incomplete and not of a consistent material throughout. In most locations there is no material change between the sidewalk and the surrounding asphalt pavement so it appears that parking extends up to the street edge.
From the NY 390 overpass to the Erie Canal overpass, Lyell Avenue is comprised of commercial and industrial uses. The buildings are primarily 1 story and set back from the road with parking in the front. The buildings in this area are spaced farther apart and vary in size, from small commercial to larger industrial buildings. The large Hess tanks south of Lyell Avenue can be seen from Lyell Avenue at the Lee Road intersection. This stretch of Lyell Avenue also has no buffering between the road and the parking lots, and contains small intermittent segments of sidewalk, giving the perception of no sidewalks.
2-94 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Lyell Avenue in the vicinity of the NY 390 overpass contains open views north and south of NY 390. The NY 390 overpass on Lyell Avenue contains sidewalks on both the north and south sides of the bridge, which terminate at the east and west bridge abutments.
Major viewer groups in this district include local commuters, shoppers and area residents.
2-95 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Exhibit – 2.3.4.1 Landscape District Map
2-96 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
2.3.4.1.(1) Terrain – The terrain within the project study area is classified as level per Section 2.5.2 of the NYSDOT Highway Design Manual and evaluation of existing vertical grades. Existing vertical grades on all roadways and ramps within the project study area do not exceed the maximum allowable criteria for level terrain classification.
2.3.4.1.(2) Unusual Weather Conditions – The project study area lies within the Western New York snowbelt region south of Lake Ontario, where lake-effect snow (or snow squall) events are particularly common. The lake-effect snow produces heavy snowfall and continuously cloudy skies throughout the winter months. Adverse weather conditions, including whiteouts, drifting snow and icing problems experienced within the project area are not uncommon. This inclement weather has contributed to numerous accidents, particularly on several of the 390/490 interchange ramps where traffic is exiting at high speeds. Proper selection of design speed and superelevation rates, as well as signing and delineation requirements on these ramps are critical to mitigating these weather related accidents. Proper driver behavior that considers these adverse weather conditions would also greatly mitigate weather related accidents.
2.3.4.1.(3) Visual Resources – Vegetation within the project study area is varied, ranging from open fields to dense groves of primarily deciduous trees with some evergreen trees. Water resources include the Erie Canal at the northern and eastern project study area, as well as drainage swales and small wetland areas within the 390/490 and 390/31 interchange areas.
Manmade developments and land uses along the 390/490 and 390/31 interchange areas include the following:
· Residential neighborhoods · Industrial / tractor trailer truck facilities · Commercial shopping facilities with parking lots · Office developments with parking lots · Religious institutional headquarters · Railroad facilities · Erie Canal and the Canalway Trail
2.3.4.2. Opportunities for Environmental Improvements – Practical opportunities for environmental initiative actions that could be considered in conjunction with the project (although not necessarily funded by the project) include:
· Potential connection from the Canalway Trail to the future NY 390 trail heading north to Greece · Improvements to the connection of the Canalway Trail to Lyell Avenue · Improvement to the condition of any wetlands that may exist in the area of the 390/490 interchange. · Improvements to vegetation buffers between 390/490 and adjacent residential development. · Improvements to Lyell Avenue such as the addition of sidewalks, buffering between the road and the front yard parking lots, and the addition of ornamental / pedestrian lighting and street trees. · The reduction of the number of travel lanes or their width on Lyell Avenue. · The enhancement of the Lyell Avenue bridge over NY 390 to help stitch the fragmented commercial center of Lyell Avenue back into a comprehensive whole. · Potential conversion of the CSX Transportation (Falls Road Branch) railroad corridor into a trail and connect to the existing Canalway Trail.
2.3.5. Miscellaneous
Estimated Time of Completion (ETC) and Effect on Project Design Year Forecast Traffic Volumes
Back in 2009, the year 2015 was chosen as the average Estimated Time of Completion (ETC) for construction of all phases of this project. This 2015 ETC was utilized as a basis to establish the ETC+10, ETC+20 and ETC+30 traffic volume projections for years 2025, 2035 and 2045 respectively. The traffic
2-97 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13 volumes within the project study area were forecast using anticipated growth rates to these future years, documented in this report, and used in conducting detailed engineering analyses of the design alternatives. Forecast traffic volumes were used to predict traffic levels of service and delays, as well as evaluate noise, air quality and energy usage.
Using an average of the anticipated mid-points of construction, for each of the four construction phases now planned, results in an average Estimated Time of Completion (ETC) of 2019. To recalculate the forecast traffic volumes, projecting them to future years 2029, 2039 and 2049 (based upon an updated ETC) is not a difficult task. However, incorporating the revised volumes into the various traffic simulation and environmental analysis models would involve a significant investment in engineering staff resources and expense. It is therefore appropriate to consider whether the four year postponement in the estimated ETC for the project would impact the recommended design, or if retaining the existing traffic data could be justified in this case.
This project area has been the subject of focused traffic and design studies since 1999. The traffic patterns within the project area are well established, and traffic growth that has occurred over the years has been recorded and documented. Both the No-Build Design Year and Alternative A2 Design Year forecast traffic volumes were generated with support and input from the Region’s Metropolitan Planning Organization, the Genesee Transportation Council (GTC). Output from the regional travel demand model (TransCAD) maintained by GTC was utilized, as it is the best available source for projecting future traffic volumes. The TransCAD model takes into account current information available on local travel behavior, land use and outlook for future development.
The TransCAD model output indicates very modest AM/PM Peak Hour annual growth rates ranging between 0.07% and 0.89% depending upon the roadway and peak hour (AM or PM) selected [Exhibit 2.3.1.6 (2) – 13]. Projecting data forward with these rates, to adjust volumes to account for the four (4) year postponement of the ETC would not result in Peak Hour volumes that would have the potential to impact the proposed design. No new development has occurred or is expected to occur that hasn’t already been accounted for in the GTC TransCAD model used in forecasting traffic for this project. Overall traffic patterns in the interchange area are not expected to change, and the limits of the project study area have not been modified or expanded since the original traffic volume forecasts were prepared.
The Regional Transportation Systems Operation Engineer has reviewed the traffic volume data for this project, and based upon that review and the above information, the currently documented design year traffic volume data for ETC 2015, ETC+10 (2025), ETC+20 (2035) and ETC+30 (2045) will be retained for use in this project.
2-98 DRAFT DESIGN REPORT / ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CHAPTER 3 ALTERNATIVES
Highway Project P.I.N. 4390.13 NYS Route 390/I-490/NYS Route 31 Interchange Improvements Monroe County Town of Gates, Town of Greece and City of Rochester [City/Village] of______
U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ANDREW M. CUOMO, Governor JOAN MCDONALD, Commissioner NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
CHAPTER 3 – ALTERNATIVES This chapter discusses the alternatives considered and examines the engineering aspects for all feasible alternatives to address project objectives in Chapter 1 of this report.
3.1. Alternatives Considered and Eliminated from Further Study – Over the past decade, many alternatives and sub-alternatives were evaluated for this project. The following describes those alternatives and sub-alternatives that were eliminated from further study.
The past efforts in evaluating the project alternatives eventually resulted in the Department developing a Purpose and Need Statement in April 2011 to guide further development of the project. Refer to the discussion at the end of Section 3.1.1. The Purpose and Need Statement is included in Appendix I; also refer to Sections 1.2.2 and 1.2.3 of this report.
3.1.1. Expanded Project Proposal (EPP) – Completed April 2003
The following alternatives included improvements within the original study area of the EPP. For the purposes of this report, only the improvements within the refined project study area are discussed.
1. Alternative 1: No-Build/Maintenance Alternative Under this no-build/maintenance alternative, routine maintenance would be performed to extend the service life of the existing pavement and bridges. This alternative was eliminated because it would not address the significant safety, congestion, and structural deficiencies within the project study area. These items are all significant components of the Purpose and Need Statement.
2. Alternative 2: Improved Three Level Interchange This alternative included reconstructing NY 390 with six (6) mainline lanes from NY 31 to NY 104, construction of auxiliary lanes connecting on and off ramps between NY 31 and Ridgeway Avenue, an improved three level 390/490 interchange, an improved 390/31 interchange, and minor improvements to the Lexington Avenue, Ridgeway Avenue and NY 104 interchanges. Alternative 2 was recommended as a feasible alternative at the conclusion of the EPP phase. Plans were developed for this alternative and were included in the EPP. A graphic depicting the proposed improvements for this alternative within the refined project study area was developed for the purposes of this DAD and are included in Appendix A.
This alternative was eliminated by the Department because it was determined that the project needs and objectives can be met at a lower cost, with fewer improvements in the 390/490 and 390/31 interchanges, and no improvements to Route 390 and the interchanges north of Lexington Avenue. This alternative would have more stream and wetland impact locations, and greater travel impacts during construction than a smaller-scale alternative. Key components of the Purpose and Need Statement include developing a fundable project that minimizes impacts.
3. Alternative 3: Improved Three Level Interchange with Single Point Urban Interchange (SPUI) at NYS Route 31 This alternative has the same features as Alternative 2 except that the 390/31 interchange was to be reconstructed as a Single Point Urban Interchange (SPUI) which controls traffic entering and exiting the expressway with one centrally located traffic signal. Plans were developed for this alternative and were included in the EPP. A graphic depicting the proposed improvements for this alternative within the refined project study area was developed for the purposes of this DAD and are included in Appendix A.
This alternative was eliminated by the Department because it was determined that the project needs and objectives can be met at a lower cost, with fewer improvements in the 390/490 and 390/31 interchanges, and no improvements to Route 390 and the interchanges north of Lexington Avenue. This alternative would have more stream and wetland impact locations, and greater
3-1 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
travel impacts during construction than a smaller-scale alternative. Key components of the Purpose and Need Statement include developing a fundable project that minimizes impacts.
4. New Four Level Interchange This alternative was considered as an option that would meet all geometric design criteria and engineering guidelines but was rejected by the Department. It was determined that the majority of the project needs and objectives can be met at a lower cost (EPP Table III-3). This alternative would have more stream and wetland impact locations, and greater travel impacts during construction than a smaller-scale alternative. Key components of the Purpose and Need Statement include developing a fundable project that minimizes impacts. A graphic for this alternative was not developed for the EPP, however a graphic was developed for the EPP Amendment and VE Study Report and is included in Appendix A.
5. Rehabilitate/Reconstruct NYS Route 390 with 390/490/31 Interchange Improvements (Preferred Alternative from 1998 Major Investment Study) This alternative was modified and enhanced during the EPP process into Alternatives 2 & 3. Many elements were retained as part of these alternatives and several were refined or eliminated. A graphic for this alternative was not developed for the EPP.
6. Same as #4 above with the exception of an alternative configuration of the SB Ramps This alternative was considered as a lower cost option to #4 above. It included an alternative configuration of the NY 31 ramps to 390 SB in an effort to eliminate several costly retaining walls and bridges required between NY 31 and I-490. NY 31 traffic that wanted to get to 390 SB would travel north along a C-D road parallel to NY 390, cross over or under NY 390 in the vicinity of Trolley Blvd. and enter NY 390 SB. This would increase the separation between NY 31 and I-490 ramps. Weaving would remain but would meet minimum requirements. A graphic for this alternative was not developed for the EPP.
This alternative was rejected due to relatively minor capital cost savings and the need for sharp radius loop ramps. It also reduced the accessibility of the NY 31 corridor, resulted in a greater impact to adjacent residential properties and did not eliminate the unsafe weaving condition. Key components of the Purpose and Need Statement include developing a fundable project that minimizes impacts, while also enhancing access to the Lyell/Lee corridors.
7. Add new ramp from I-490 EB to NYS Route 31 (Sub-Alternative) Many members of the public have expressed an interest in providing a means for connecting I- 490 EB to NY 31. This “missing link” is the only connection within the 390/490 and 390/31 interchanges that is not available to traffic. A connection would complete the full accessibility of these interchanges and enhance access to Lyell Avenue/Lee Road, however it is not necessary to address the project needs in the Purpose and Need Statement
The Department concluded that the connection is not warranted based on the relatively low volume (between 250 - 300 peak hour vehicles and 2,500 - 2,600 AADT in year 2035) expected to utilize it as well as the operational and cost implications associated with providing such a connection. A safe and efficient way of providing this movement under either Alternatives 2 or 3 could not be achieved. With the planned connections of NY 390 NB and I-490 WB to the NY 31 off-ramp at Lee Road, an I-490 EB to NY 31 ramp would add a third connection onto this off- ramp, thus creating a short distance for traffic to weave into position approaching the proposed NY 31/Lee Road intersection. A graphic for this alternative was not developed for the EPP. However this connection was further investigated during the current study and is discussed in Section 3.1.3.
8. NYS Route 390 SB to I-490 EB ramp as a left exit rather than a major fork design This alternative proposed eliminating the existing major fork design at the I-490 EB exit ramp. The high-speed left lane of NY 390 SB would continue as a through lane beyond the interchange. Traffic destined for I-490 EB would exit on a new left-hand exit ramp adjacent to the NY 390 SB
3-2 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
left lane. This alternative was rejected due to the impact it would have on the NY 31 EB traffic destined for I-490 EB. The existing weaving condition would worsen as a result of this proposed configuration because traffic would now have to cross an additional lane to exit onto I-490 EB. This is not consistent with two of the primary needs in the Purpose and Need Statement, which are to reduce accidents and congestion related to this weaving maneuver. A graphic for this alternative was not developed for the EPP.
Subsequent to the publication of the EPP, emerging program priorities and fiscal constraints state wide led the NYSDOT and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to focus their efforts on developing alternatives for the 390/490 and 390/31 interchanges that address critical non-standard geometric features and operational deficiencies directly affecting motorist safety in a prioritized, cost effective manner. A primary objective of the Department and FHWA is to develop a fundable capital project that provides a long term solution at this major interchange. Among the highest priorities identified were the operational and safety issues associated with the northbound and southbound weaving areas on NY 390 between I-490 and Lyell Avenue. The turbulence and associated accident patterns experienced within these weaving sections is a by-product of the minimal interchange separation between what is truly one system to system connection (390/490) and one system to service connection (390/31).
The resulting Purpose and Need Statement was developed by the Department in April 2011 to guide further development of the project. It is included in Appendix I; also refer to Sections 1.2.2 and 1.2.3.
3.1.2. EPP Amendment (i.e. Re-evaluation Study) – incomplete, last updated October 2006 and Value Engineering (VE) Study Report – Completed September 2007
The Re-evaluation Study evaluated the following build alternatives for the 390/490 and 390/31 interchanges, which were presented in the EPP Amendment:
1. Alternative 2A – 390 NB and Lyell Avenue to 490 EB Improvements This alternative utilizes components of Alternative 5 (below) to improve the safety and congestion problems associated with the northbound and southbound weaving areas on NY 390 between I- 490 and NY 31. The northbound weave is eliminated by introducing a flyover ramp to accommodate 390 NB traffic destined for NY 31. The southbound weave is significantly improved by introducing a flyover ramp to accommodate NY 31 traffic destined for I-490 EB. The VE team determined that this alternative required additional elements to provide a complete solution (see Alternative 2A & 2B below for further observations by the VE team). Their concerns about the proposed southbound weaving improvements being an inappropriate solution are consistent with the objective to develop a long term solution, as shown in the Purpose and Need Statement. A graphic for this alternative was not included in the EPP Amendment or VE Study Report, however a graphic was provided to the VE team for their review and is included in Appendix A.
2. Alternative 2A & 2B – 390 NB & SB and Lyell Avenue to 490 EB & WB This alternative utilizes Alternative 2A and included improvements to the NY 31 SB ramps and the southbound weaving area. The VE report indicates that construction of the southbound below grade section south of Lyell Avenue would require significant maintenance and protection of traffic provisions, which would increase its reported cost. Furthermore, the VE report states that replacing the existing bridges along the southbound traffic lanes to achieve the necessary roadway widening perpetuates a poor existing interchange design for many years to come and prematurely replaces existing infrastructure that was reconstructed in the early 1990s and has plenty of useful life remaining. The VE team determined that this alternative offered a reasonable cost-effective solution but required additional elements to provide a complete solution.
This alternative was eliminated primarily due to the manner in which the 390 southbound weaving condition was addressed; it also had more stream and wetland impact locations. The proposed southbound solution was inconsistent with the objectives in the Purpose and Need Statement to
3-3 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
develop a fundable long term solution with minimal impacts to wetlands, streams, and traffic during construction.
3. Alternative 3A – 390 NB Cloverleaf – NE Quadrant Similar to Alternative 2A, this alternative seeks to eliminate the northbound weaving condition via a flyover ramp. Additionally, this alternative eliminates the I-490 WB to NY 390 NB merge condition by separating the two traffic streams with a grassed median. The 390 NB to I-490 WB exit ramp is replaced with a flyover loop ramp to mitigate the ramps safety, operational and geometric deficiencies that exist today. However, no improvements were proposed for the southbound side of NY 390, thus the southbound weave remained untouched. The VE team determined that this alternative required additional elements to provide a complete solution (see Alternative 3A & 3B below for further observations by the VE team). Furthermore, this alternative converts the existing higher speed direct connection ramp to a lower speed loop ramp, which would be inconsistent with all other ramps at this interchange. A graphic for this alternative was not included in the EPP Amendment or VE Study Report, however a graphic was provided to the VE team for their review and is included in Appendix A.
This alternative was eliminated primarily because it didn’t address the 390 southbound weaving condition, which is a significant component of the Purpose and Need Statement.
4. Alternative 3A & 3B – 390 NB Cloverleaf with 390 SB Realignment This alternative utilizes Alternative 3A but also addresses the southbound weave. NY 390 SB through traffic is redirected to a new roadway parallel to NY 390 NB traffic, thus removing several thousand vehicles from the southbound weaving area. The VE report identifies that the proposed limits of pavement reconstruction are not properly depicted on the graphic. Providing for the proper transitions back to existing, several bridges will likely be impacted, including the CSX bridge to the south and the Trolley Blvd. and Erie Canal bridges to the north, which will add significantly to the cost of this alternative. The VE team determined that this alternative offered a reasonable cost-effective solution but required additional elements to provide a complete solution.
This alternative was eliminated by the Department because it was determined that the project needs and objectives can be met at a lower cost, with fewer improvements in the 390/490 interchange. Key components of the Purpose and Need Statement include developing a fundable project that minimizes impacts.
5. Alternative 4 – 390 Mainline Re-alignment This alternative seeks to completely separate 390 through traffic from traffic merging and weaving within the interchange. The VE report identifies that the proposed limits of pavement reconstruction are not properly depicted on the graphic. Providing for the proper transitions back to existing, several bridges will likely be impacted, including the CSX bridge to the south and the Trolley Blvd. and Erie Canal bridges to the north, which will add significantly to the cost of this alternative. This alternative is not consistent with the Purpose and Need Statement, which has identified developing a fundable project as one of the primary objectives.
6. Alternative 5 – Three Level Interchange This alternative is basically the same as Alternative 2 from the EPP within the 390/490/31 interchange area, and was eliminated by the Department prior to the draft EPP Amendment for similar reasons. High project cost and impacts are inconsistent with the objectives in the Purpose and Need Statement. The estimated 20% reduction in accidents as compared to Alternatives 2A & 2B and 3A & 3B do not justify the increased costs. It was retained for comparative purposes and reintroduced to the VE team, who also rejected it because of its complexity and cost.
7. Alternative 6 – Four Level Interchange This alternative was considered during the EPP phase but was rejected primarily because it was not considered fundable (see above), which is one of the primary project objectives in the Purpose and Need Statement. Furthermore, the estimated 20% reduction in accidents as
3-4 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
compared to Alternatives 2A & 2B and 3A & 3B do not justify the increased costs. It was retained for comparative purposes and reintroduced to the VE team who also rejected it because of its complexity and cost.
Graphics for all alternatives developed during the EPP Amendment phase are included in Appendix A.
The VE Report considered the following additional build alternatives for the 390/490 and 390/31 interchanges:
1. Alternative V-1 – 390 SB Weave Mitigation This alternative seeks to improve the safety and congestion problems associated with the southbound weaving area on NY 390 between I-490 and NY 31. However, no improvements were proposed for the northbound side of 390, thus the northbound weave remains untouched. The VE team determined that this alternative required additional elements to provide a complete solution. A graphic for this alternative was never developed as it was combined with Alternative V-3 during the VE study and renamed Alternative V-B.
This alternative was eliminated primarily because it didn’t address the 390 northbound weaving condition, which is a significant component of the Purpose and Need Statement.
2. Alternative V-2 – C-D Road This alternative, which constructed a circular collector-distributor road for interchange-to- interchange movements, was rejected by the VE team because of its complexity and cost. A graphic for this alternative was not developed for the VE Study Report. This alternative is not consistent with the Purpose and Need Statement, which has identified developing a fundable project as one of the primary objectives.
3. Alternative V-3 – 390 NB Weave Mitigation This alternative seeks to improve the safety and congestion problems associated with the northbound weaving area on NY 390 between I-490 and NY 31. However, no improvements were proposed for the southbound side of 390, thus the southbound weave remains untouched. The VE team determined that this alternative required additional elements to provide a complete solution. A graphic for this alternative was never developed as it was combined with Alternative V-1 during the VE study and renamed Alternative V-B.
This alternative was eliminated primarily because it didn’t address the 390 southbound weaving condition, which is a significant component of the Purpose and Need Statement.
4. Alternative V-B (V-1 and V-3) – Weave Elimination Using Dedicated Northbound and Southbound Through Lanes This alternative seeks to eliminate both the northbound and southbound weaving conditions while maintaining most of the existing infrastructure by combining Alternatives V-1 and V-3. The Department rejected this alternative due to the extended southerly work limits resulting in the need to replace the Buffalo Road and CSX bridges. In addition, a new traffic signal is employed on the Lyell Avenue bridge, thus making the bridge more expensive to build and maintain. A graphic for this alternative was developed for the VE Study Report, however the revised version is included in Appendix A. The additional costs for the extended southern work limits are inconsistent with the objective to develop a fundable project in the Purpose and Need Statement. The addition of another traffic signal location on Lyell Avenue would be inconsistent with improving mobility and operations on Lyell Avenue as stated in the Purpose and Need Statement.
5. Alternative V-A (V-4) – New Mainline Lanes for NB and SB Through Traffic This alternative seeks to eliminate the northbound weaving condition and improve the southbound weaving condition. A downside of this alternative is that several properties must be acquired in the northwest quadrant of the Lyell Avenue interchange to construct the loop ramp to the southbound NY 390. A major problem with this alternative is that a new traffic signal is
3-5 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
employed on the Lyell Avenue bridge, thus making the bridge more expensive to build and maintain, and requiring exiting vehicles destined for Lee Road (especially trucks) to make a right turn off the ramp followed by a quick left turn onto Lee Road. This alignment does not significantly improve the operation for trucks exiting NY 390 NB onto Lyell Avenue and continuing north on Lee Road, which is one of the project’s primary needs as indicated in the project Purpose and Need Statement (see Section 1.2.2. of this report). A graphic for this alternative was developed for the VE Study Report, however the revised version is included in Appendix A.
Subsequent to the VE Study, the Departments recommendation was to maintain Alternative V-A but merge it with the Alternative V-B Lee Road exit flyover bridge configuration. This combined alternative was named A-1.
3.1.3. Preliminary Design Phase (i.e. Phases I-IV) – Culminating with the publication of this report
The following build alternatives and sub-alternatives for the 390/490 and 390/31 interchanges were evaluated and rejected during the Preliminary Design Phase. They all reference the preferred Alternative A2, which is discussed in Section 3.2.
1. Alternative A1 As discussed in Section 3.1.2, this alternative combines elements from Alternative V-A and Alternative V-B of the VE Study. This alternative sought to eliminate the northbound weaving condition, improve the southbound weaving condition, and significantly improve the operation for trucks exiting NY 390 NB onto Lyell Avenue and continuing north on Lee Road. A validation review of this alternative identified several flaws, most notably the following:
· Excessive impacts to the neighborhood in the NW quadrant of the 390/31 interchange with minimal operational benefits realized. · Undesirable merge condition created on I-390 SB connector roadway just north of Buffalo Road where I-490 EB and WB traffic destined for I-390 SB are merging into a single lane at the same location. · Converts I-490 WB to I-390 SB (Ramp ES) to a left-hand merge condition. Existing ramp traffic currently enters I-390 SB as an added through lane. · Fatal Flaw – I-390 SB traffic volumes are too high for a single lane at the southern merge point. · I-390 SB AM level of service (LOS) between I-490 and Chili Ave. unimproved (2035 No- Build AM LOS E). · Converts I-490 EB to NY 390 NB (Ramp WN) to a left-hand merge condition. Existing ramp traffic currently enters NY 390 NB as an added through lane. · I-390 NB PM level of service (LOS) between Lyell Ave. and Lexington Ave. unimproved (2035 No-Build AM LOS E). · I-390 NB PM level of service (LOS) between I-490 and Chili Ave. unimproved (2035 No- Build AM LOS F). · I-390 NB to I-490 WB (Ramp SW) accident patterns not improved.
A graphic for this alternative was developed after the VE Study, however the revised version is included in Appendix A. This alternative was eliminated because it would not address all of the significant safety and congestion issues within the project study area, which are key components of the Purpose and Need Statement, Although this alternative was rejected due to these flaws, there were many positive elements that were incorporated into the preferred Alternative A2.
2. Alternative B1 Alternative B1 maintains the same scheme as Alternative A2 for NY 390 NB but provides a new concept for NY 390 SB. Similar to Alternative A2, Alternative B1 also introduces a major fork north of Lyell Avenue however, the NY 390 SB through traffic is maintained on existing alignment and NY 390 SB traffic destined for I-490 EB is diverted at the fork creating a direct connection to the existing ramp. In addition, a ramp is introduced off the center of the Lyell Avenue bridge
3-6 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
providing a direct connection for Lyell Avenue traffic destined for I-490 EB as well. This configuration completely separates NY 390 SB through traffic from traffic destined for I-490 EB. The new ramp bridge off the Lyell Avenue bridge completely eliminates the dangerous 2-lane weaving maneuver that exists today for Lyell Avenue traffic destined for I-490 EB. Due to the low traffic volumes on Lyell Avenue WB destined for I-490 EB, it is anticipated that a traffic signal would not be necessary on the Lyell Avenue bridge to accommodate left-turns.
In lieu of the long bridge(s) that would be required for the new NY 390 SB roadway through the interchange as proposed under Alternative A2, the I-490 WB bridge over NY 390 SB (BIN 1025811) and the I-490 EB to NY 390 NB ramp over NY 390 SB (BIN 1052280, Ramp WN) would be replaced under Alternative B1. In addition to the benefit realized from replacing these two 50 year old bridges, replacing the Ramp WN bridge would allow for horizontal realignment, which would improve the sharp curve contributing to run-off-the-road accidents on the ramp.
This concept was rejected during development for the following reasons:
· The lack of redundancy (an alternate route) for 390 SB through traffic, which Alternative A2 provides via the new 2-lane roadway for 390 SB through traffic. For Alternative B1, if the 390 SB lanes must be closed for an incident or repairs, there is no other way for SB traffic to get through the interchange. However for Alternative A2, 390 SB traffic could still use the SB C-D roadway to travel through the interchange. · Long-term maintenance of the unconventional ramp bridge off the Lyell Avenue bridge. · Concerns with construction/staging of the Lyell Avenue bridge, including the ramp bridge. · Concerns with incident management.
Improving the southbound traffic operations and accommodating emergency service providers are key components of the Purpose and Need Statement. A graphic for this alternative is included in Appendix A.
3. Add new ramp from I-490 EB to NY 31 (Alternative A2 Sub-Alternatives) Two additional sub-alternatives for providing this connection were investigated during the current study. While it would be desirable to add this missing connection from I-490 EB to Lyell Avenue if feasible, it is not necessary to address the project needs in the Purpose and Need Statement
One concept proposed splitting the existing I-490 EB to NY 390 NB ramp into two separate ramps via a fork design. The existing ramp would remain on existing alignment (more or less) and the new ramp would run parallel to the NY 31 to NY 390 NB loop ramp (Ramp C) auxiliary lane and terminate at Evelyn Street just north of Lyell Avenue adjacent to existing Ramp DA. This would create a three-leg stop controlled intersection at the southwest corner of Evelyn Street. Traffic would continue east on Evelyn Street and enter Lee Road via the existing stop controlled Evelyn Street/Lee Road intersection. This concept was rejected during development for several reasons including the following:
· Significant cost increase due to increased pavement and bridge infrastructure. · Poor geometrics – safety concern (i.e. fork off a sharp high-speed curve with a history of run-off-the-road accidents). · Creates an impromptu ramp configuration that utilizes the existing local roadway network to connect traffic to Lyell Avenue. · Significant impacts to properties adjacent to Evelyn Street. · Adds significant traffic volume on local side street and Evelyn Street / Lee Road intersection. · Proximity of Evelyn Street / Lee Road intersection to Lyell Road / Lee Ave intersection will cause operational problems. In particular, traffic destined for Lyell Avenue eastbound would have difficulty crossing queued traffic during the peak hours to access the left-turn slot.
3-7 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
· Only reduces travel time by approximately 3 to 4 minutes when compared to the existing route (Lexington Avenue to Lee Road to Lyell Avenue).
Another concept proposed converting the I-490 EB to NY 390 NB ramp from a left-hand to a right- hand entrance ramp and aligning it with the Ramp C auxiliary lane. This created a weaving condition between the loop ramp and a new off-ramp that terminated at Lee Road across from Person Place via stop control. This concept was rejected during development for several reasons including the following:
· Significant cost increase due to increased pavement and bridge infrastructure. · Implementation of a weaving lane containing high traffic volumes. · Creates an impromptu ramp configuration that utilizes the existing local roadway network to connect traffic to Lyell Avenue. · Significant impacts to Evelyn Street neighborhood (i.e. multiple acquisitions required). · Adds significant traffic volume through Evelyn Street neighborhood. · Severs and creates dead ends on Evelyn Street. · Only reduces travel time by approximately 3 to 4 minutes when compared to the existing route (Lexington Avenue to Lee Road to Lyell Avenue).
Graphics for these sub-alternatives are included in Appendix A.
4. Eliminate Lyell Avenue EB to 390 SB ramp (Ramp DF) via Jughandle on Lyell Avenue (Alternative A2 Sub-Alternatives) These two sub-alternatives sought to further improve the NY 390 SB weaving condition. Both sub-alternatives removed Ramp DF thus increasing the weave length on NY 390 SB from 1225 ft. existing to approximately 2000 ft. proposed, which was achievable by implementing a jughandle design at the Lyell Avenue and Ramp DB intersection. One concept proposed a reverse jughandle, which requires vehicles to first go through the intersection then loop around and go through the intersection again. This concept avoided significant impacts to the Lyell Gates Medical Building. This concept was rejected during development for the following reasons:
· Two-lane jughandle is required, which is not standard · Poor lane utilization if loop ramp remains 1 lane (i.e. lane reduction on loop ramp from 2 lanes at intersection to one lane on the ramp proper) causing LOS F or o If a two-lane loop ramp is utilized, impacts to the neighborhood in the NW quadrant of the 390/31 interchange would be necessary in order to reconfigure the ramps. · Reroutes Tarwood Drive traffic closer to signal at Rossmore Street. · Rerouting of Tarwood Drive would have significant impacts to local businesses.
Another concept proposed a forward jughandle, which requires vehicles to pass through the intersection only once. This concept provided a one-lane jughandle thus eliminating the dual-lane merge on the loop ramp. This concept was rejected during development because of significant impacts to the Lyell Gates Medical Building, and the rerouting of Tarwood Drive concerns as described above.
The negative impacts to the Lyell Avenue corridor are inconsistent with the Purpose and Need Statement, which seeks to improve the Lyell Avenue corridor. Graphics for these sub-alternatives are included in Appendix A.
5. NY 390 SB Flyover Ramp Bridge to I-490 EB (Alternative A2 Sub-Alternative) This sub-alternative also sought to further improve the NY 390 SB weaving condition by providing a direct connection from Lyell Avenue EB to I-490 EB via a new flyover ramp over existing NY 390 SB. The new direct connect ramp completely eliminates the dangerous 2-lane weaving maneuver that exists today for Lyell Avenue EB traffic destined for I-490 EB. This concept was rejected during development because it created an unorthodox exit ramp configuration that could
3-8 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
confuse motorists, added a new left-entrance ramp (undesirable), required an additional bridge thus increasing construction and future maintenance costs, and required rerouting Tarwood Drive traffic closer to the signal at Rossmore Street. Graphics for this sub-alternative are included in Appendix A.
This sub-alternative was eliminated by the Department because it was determined that the project needs and objectives can be met at a lower cost, without the added ramp and bridge. The associated negative impacts to the Lyell Avenue corridor are also inconsistent with the Purpose and Need Statement, which seeks to improve the Lyell Avenue corridor.
3.2. Feasible Build Alternatives
3.2.1. Description of Feasible Alternatives – Of the numerous alternatives that were evaluated during the life of this project, only one is being considered as a feasible build alternative. Alternative A2 is a result of years of engineering study and analysis. It improves upon many of the elements of Alternative A1 from the VE Study. Alternative A2 addresses the highest priority deficiencies within the project study area by satisfying all of the project needs listed in Section 1.2.2. Colored graphics of Alternative A2 are included in Appendix A. Typical sections, plans, and profiles for Alternative A2 are included in Appendix A and are bound separately.
A summary of how the project needs are addressed are as follows:
1. Reduce congestion for NY 390 southbound to I-490 eastbound traffic in the AM Peak (i.e. SB weave) – Alternative A2 implements a major fork just north of Lyell Avenue that diverts 390 SB through traffic to a new 2-lane roadway that passes over the 390/490 interchange. This new roadway is essentially an interchange bypass roadway and will reduce the amount of traffic congestion within the SB weave by over 40% during the AM Peak Hour. The SB weave is further improved by converting the existing 2-lane weave crossing to a 1-lane weave for Lyell Avenue eastbound traffic destined for I-490 EB. This is achievable because the existing cross-section through the weave area can be reduced from 4 to 3 lanes due to the reduced traffic volume that will utilize this segment of roadway once the interchange bypass roadway is constructed.
2. Reduce congestion for I-490 westbound to NY 390 northbound traffic in the PM Peak (i.e. NB weave) – Alternative A2 eliminates the NB weave by introducing a new grade separation that provides a direct connection for NY 390 northbound traffic destined for Lyell Avenue. Congestion will be further reduced with the addition of an extended auxiliary lane for I-490 WB traffic destined for NY 390 NB and an additional 390 NB travel lane between 490 and Lexington Avenue. These major improvements will also have a positive influence on I-390 NB traffic congestion well south of the existing weave area and I-490 WB traffic east of the interchange.
3. Reduce accidents related to the congestion and non-conforming weave lengths in the above locations – In addition to the major improvements described under #1 and #2, provision of a new surface course, new pavement markings, and signing improvements are expected to reduce accidents at these locations. See Section 3.3.1.8 for a more detailed discussion on anticipated safety improvements.
4. Improve operational geometry for trucks exiting northbound onto Lyell Avenue and continuing north on Lee Road – Alternative A2 eliminates the two closely spaced offset signalized intersections that are responsible for this awkward maneuver. All 390/31 interchange ramps east of NY 390 will be aligned with Lee Road to form a 4-leg signalized intersection. This will allow for the elimination of the Lyell Avenue WB to NY 390 NB entrance ramp (Ramp DA). All four legs of this signalized intersection will provide designated right and left turning lanes.
3-9 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
5. Address the deteriorated condition of the Lyell Avenue bridge over NY 390 (BIN 1021589) – This bridge is programmed for replacement in the first phase of this project. It is nearing its serviceable life and is beyond a point where a major rehabilitation would be considered. Furthermore, the existing width and span configuration will not accommodate the proposed roadway section both on and under the bridge. Except for grass buffer strips and a 5.5 ft. wide sidewalk, the proposed bridge section will match the roadway approach section as described in #11 below.
6. Improve pedestrian, bicycle and transit conditions on Lyell Avenue – Pedestrian and bicycle traffic accommodations along Lyell Avenue will be improved significantly with the implementation of continuous 5 ft. wide sidewalks and 6 ft. wide bike lanes along both sides of the roadway from Howard Road to the Erie Canal. Access to bus stops will be improved significantly with the implementation of sidewalks. See Sections 3.3.2.1 to 3.3.2.3 for more detailed discussion.
In addition, several other improvements to address other areas with operational and safety concerns within the project limits are proposed as follows:
7. Improve operational and safety issues associated with stop and go congestion during the AM and PM Peak Hours on I-390, NY 390 and I-490 – In addition to the major improvements described under #1 and #2, the addition of a continuous auxiliary lane on I-390 SB between I- 490 and Chili Avenue will significantly improve merging conditions for I-490 EB to I-390 SB (Ramp WS) traffic. This will also improve the conditions on I-490 EB (west of I-390) as less exiting traffic is expected to be backed up onto I-490. The addition of a continuous auxiliary lane on NY 390 SB between Lexington Avenue and Lyell Avenue will provide additional capacity and reduce congestion related accidents. Improvements to operations and safety on I-390 NB between Chili Avenue and I-490 are a direct result of the improvements described in #2 and #8. Improvements to operations and safety on I-490 WB east of the 390/490 interchange are a direct result of improvements described in #2 as well as the conversion of the Ramp EN exit terminal to a two-lane exit.
8. Reduce loss of control accidents on Ramp SW and sideswipe accidents at the ramp diverge – Widening of Ramp SW travel lane and shoulders, signing improvements, and conversion of the I-390 NB left-hand travel lane to an exit only lane for I-490 WB traffic is expected to reduce accidents at this location. The conversion of the left-hand travel lane to an exit only lane will also have a positive influence on I-390 NB traffic congestion well south of the ramp.
9. Reduce loss of control accidents on Ramp NE and sideswipe accidents at the ramp diverge – The improvements described under #1 as well signing improvements are expected to reduce accidents occurring at this location.
10. Reduce loss of control accidents on Ramp WN – Improvements to signing and striping is expected to reduce accidents occurring at this location.
11. Improve operational and safety issues associated with stop and go congestion during the peak hours on Lyell Avenue – Improvements to traffic flow, better defined driveways and side streets, provision of a new surface course, new pavement markings, signing and signal improvements, improved intersection sight distance, and implementation of a center-turn lane is expected to reduce accidents occurring along the Lyell Avenue corridor. The typical roadway section along Lyell Avenue from Howard Road to the Erie Canal is identical for both directions of travel, including an 11 ft. wide center-turn lane, four (4) 11 ft. wide travel lanes, 6 ft. wide bike lanes, 5 ft. wide grass buffer strips, and 5 ft. wide sidewalks.
3-10 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Key elements of this alternative include:
Geometry · Several geometric changes are proposed for this alternative as described above. This alternative includes major improvements along the I-390/NY 390 corridor between Chili Avenue and Lexington Avenue, a distance of approximately 3 miles and along the Lyell Avenue corridor between Howard Road and the Erie Canal, a distance of approximately ¾ mile. Significant improvements to the 390/490 and 390/31 interchanges are proposed. A listing of all roadways, ramps, and bridges improved by this alternative can be found in Section 3.2.3.2. · This alternative would retain some non-standard and non-conforming features at isolated locations as described in Section 3.3.3.2. Justification for retaining these non-standard features is included in Appendix F.
· This alternative improves traffic operations and safety at several locations Operational within the project limits as described above.
Control of Access · Access to all mainline roadways will remain fully controlled for this alternative. Full access control will extend the full length of all ramps and terminals on the crossroads except at a few locations described in Section 3.3.1.2. Right of Way · Right of way impacts are discussed in Section 3.3.3.1 (1). · Excluding property acquisitions that are required for Ramps A and B, no acquisitions are required along the mainline roadways. Many strip acquisitions and temporary construction easements are required along Lyell Avenue and Lee Road. · There is one total property acquisition that will require relocation of the occupants and demolition of a residential dwelling and garage (25 Lee Road Ext.). · There are two partial property acquisitions that will require relocation of the occupants and demolition of a residential dwelling (50 Lee Road Ext.) and demolition of a building (2000 Lyell Avenue - Perri’s Pizza). The remaining portion of these properties will be an uneconomic remainder. · There is one partial property acquisition that does not require demolition of the building but may require relocation of the owner’s personal belongings (2032 Lyell Avenue - abandoned gas station). · This alternative would completely eliminate Lee Road Ext. Environmental · There are wetland impacts associated with the proposed improvements, which are described in Section 4.4.1. · There are impacts to streams associated with the proposed improvements, which are described in Section 4.4.2. · There are impacts to ecological resources associated with the proposed improvements, which are described in Section 4.4.9. · There are temporary impacts to a recreational resource associated with the proposed improvements, which are described in Section 4.4.12. · There are noise impacts affecting six adjacent neighborhoods, which will require noise mitigation measures as described in Section 4.4.17. · There are visual impacts associated with the proposed improvements, which is described in Section 4.4.13.
Cost · Total estimated cost of this alternative is in excess of $150 M.
· This alternative addresses the highest priority deficiencies within the project Project Goals study area as described above.
3-11 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Exhibit 3.2.1 Summary of Alternative A2 Costs Million Dollars (Calculated Year - 2012) Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 1 (I-390/NY 390 (I-390/NY 390 (Lyell Avenue Total All Activities (Lyell Avenue NB and Lyell SB) West of NY Phases Bridge) Ave East of 390) NY 390) Bridge5 $5,586,000 $8,231,000 $18,220,000 $0 $32,037,000 Construction Highway $500,000 $16,450,000 $18,530,000 $3,550,000 $39,030,000 Wetland and Stream Mitigation $0 $100,000 $0 $0 $100,000 Storm Pollution Discharge Elimination $10,000 $80,000 $130,000 $0 $220,000 System (SPDES) Noise Barriers $0 $3,000,000 $6,000,000 $0 $9,000,000 ITS (Includes Proposed Improvements $0 $0 $390,000 $0 $390,000 and Relocated Fiber Optic) Public Utilities $20,000 $210,000 $10,000 $320,000 $560,000 (Water and Sanitary Sewer) Subtotal (2012) $6,116,000 $28,071,000 $43,280,000 $3,870,000 $81,337,000 Survey Operation6 (2%) $122,000 $561,000 $866,000 $77,000 $1,626,000 Work Zone Traffic Control7 (7%) $428,000 $1,965,000 $3,030,000 $271,000 $5,694,000 Temporary Erosion Control8 (0.5%) $31,000 $140,000 $216,000 $19,000 $406,000 Subtotal (2012) $6,666,000 $30,597,000 $47,176,000 $4,218,000 $88,657,000 Incidentals1 (5%) $333,000 $1,530,000 $2,359,000 $211,000 $4,433,000 Subtotal (2012) $6,999,000 $32,127,000 $49,535,000 $4,429,000 $93,090,000 Contingencies2 (15% @ Design Approval) $1,050,000 $4,819,000 $7,430,000 $664,000 $13,963,000 Subtotal (2012) $8,049,000 $36,946,000 $56,965,000 $5,093,000 $107,053,000 Potential Field Change Order3 $370,000 $1,140,000 $1,540,000 $250,000 $3,300,000 Subtotal (2012) $8,419,000 $38,086,000 $58,505,000 $5,343,000 $110,353,000 Mobilization (4%) $337,000 $1,523,000 $2,340,000 $214,000 $4,414,000 Subtotal (2012) $8,756,000 $39,609,000 $60,845,000 $5,557,000 $114,767,000 Year of Estimate 2012 2012 2012 2012 - Anticipated Start of Construction 2015 2017 2019 2021 - Anticipated Construction Duration (mo.) 18 30 30 18 - Anticipated Construction Midpoint 2016 2018 2020 2022 - Assumed Rate of Annual Inflation 3% 3% 3% 3% - Inflation Factor to Project Midpoint 113% 119% 127% 134% - Expected Award Amount – Inflated4 @ 3%/yr to midpoint of Construction $9,855,000 $47,295,000 $77,077,000 $7,468,000 $141,695,000 (Phase 1 – 2015, Phase 2 – 2017) (Phase 3 – 2019, Phase 4 2021) Construction Inspection (8%) $788,000 $3,784,000 $6,166,000 $597,000 $11,335,000 ROW Costs (2012/2013)10 $2,100,000 $0 $0 $490,000 $2,590,000
Total Cost9 $12,800,000 $51,400,000 $83,300,000 $8,600,000 $156,500,000
3-12 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Notes for Exhibit 3.2.1: 1. The potential cost increase due to unknown or un-tabulated items. 2. NYSDOT recommends standard contingencies: 25% Scoping stage, 15% Design Approval stage, 5% Advanced Detail Plans stage. 3. According to HDM Chapter 21 Section 21.3.9.4, EB 03-029 & EB 06-057, and EI 07-024. 4. The use of an escalation rate of 3% was provided by Region 4 Design to account for potential future increases in labor, material, equipment and other costs associated with Capital Program work. 5. Costs for new/replacement bridges developed using NYSDOT Shoulder Break Worksheet. 6. The use of 2% for Survey Operations was utilized for the Design Approval stage. 7. The use of 7% for WZTC was utilized for the Design Approval stage. 8. The use of 0.5% for Temporary Erosion Control was utilized for the Design Approval stage. 9. Rounded to the nearest $100,000. 10. No acquisition needed to construct Phase 1. Funds needed to acquire properties needed for Phase 2 included under Phase 1. Acquisition of properties that involve owner/tenant relocation to be progressed during Phase 1.
3.2.2 Preferred Alternative – While Alternative A2 is identified as the preferred alternative, the final selection of the preferred alternative will not be made until the alternative impacts, comments on the draft design approval document, and comments from the public hearing have been fully evaluated.
As discussed in Section 1.5, construction of the improvements must be done in phases due to the availability of funding. The sequencing of the improvements has been separated into four distinct construction phases as shown on Exhibit 3.3.1.7-1, which can be found with the Work Zone Traffic Control plans in Appendix A (bound separately).
3.2.3. Design Criteria for Feasible Alternative(s)
3.2.3.1. Design Standards – The design standards utilized for this project are based on reconstruction standards contained in the following:
1. NYSDOT Highway Design Manual (HDM) Chapters 2 (Rev. 59), 18 (Rev. 49) and 23 (Rev. 39) 2. NYSDOT Bridge Manual (BM) Section 2 (May 2011 updates) 3. AASHTO A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (Green Book), 2004 4. AASHTO A Policy on Design Standards Interstate Systems, January 2005 5. The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), 2009
3.2.3.2. Critical Design Elements – Critical design elements are presented in Exhibits 3.2.3.2-1 to 3.2.3.2-5 below. The standard criteria provided represents standards applicable to new construction / reconstruction projects for highways and bridges. Standards for capital improvements are not shown as they are only utilized for comparing to existing conditions. The existing conditions presented in the exhibits below include all roadways and bridges within the project study area. Existing conditions for the ramps are for those only within the proposed project limits. See Section 2.3.3.2.(1) and Appendix I for existing critical design elements within the project study area not meeting standards and a complete analysis of the existing conditions of the ramps within the project study area. The proposed conditions only include the roadways and ramps that are new or are being reconstructed. All bridges within the proposed project limits were analyzed. Ramps containing only terminal reconstruction were not analyzed since no work is proposed on the ramp proper. The ramp terminals are considered to be within the transition area from the proposed design to the existing. See Section 3.3.3.2.(1) for a summary of critical design elements within the proposed reconstruction limits not meeting standards.
The following roadways, ramps, and bridges are being reconstructed and rehabilitated and were compared against standard criteria:
Reconstructed Roadways · I-390 SB from Chili Avenue to I-490 · NY 390 from I-490 to Lexington Avenue · Lyell Avenue from Howard Road to the Erie Canal · Lee Road from Lyell Avenue to Person Place
3-13 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Reconstructed Ramps · Ramp SW · Ramp EN · Ramp ES (reconstructed portion only)
New Ramps · Ramp A · Ramp B · Ramp C
New Bridges · NY 390 SB over I-490 EB and Ramp ES (BIN No. to be assigned) · NY 390 SB over I-490 WB and Ramp SW (BIN No. to be assigned) · NY 390 SB over Ramp WN (BIN No. to be assigned) · Ramp A over Ramp EN (BIN No. to be assigned)
Reconstructed Bridges (replacement) · Route 33 (Buffalo Road) over I-390 NB and I-390 SB (BIN 1023030) · Route 31 (Lyell Avenue) over NY 390 NB and NY 390 SB (BIN 1021589) · NY 390 NB over Trolley Boulevard and Abandoned Railroad (BIN 1062542) · NY 390 SB over Trolley Boulevard and Abandoned Railroad (BIN 1062541)
Widened and Rehabilitated Bridges · NY 390 NB over I-490 WB (BIN 1052290) – right side widening · NY 390 NB over Erie Canal (BIN 4062532) – right side widening
Rehabilitated Bridges · NY 390 SB over Erie Canal (BIN 4062531)
Bridges carrying I-390 and NY 390 traffic within roadway reconstruction limits to remain: · I-390 NB/Ramp SW over I-490 EB (BIN 1063950)
The following locations within the project study area will be maintained in their existing condition since they are now outside the proposed reconstruction limits:
· I-490 (including all bridges carrying I-490 traffic) · Lexington Avenue (including interchange area, ramps, bridges and Lee Road intersection) · Direct Connection Ramps NW, WS, NE, SE, and WN (including Ramps WN and NE bridges) · Loop Ramps DC and EC · Diagonal Ramps DB and EA · Outer Connection Ramps · Lyell Avenue bridge over the Erie Canal (BIN 4443380)
3-14 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Exhibit 3.2.3.2-1 Critical Design Elements for Principal Arterials Route I-490 / Route I-390 / NY 390 PIN: 4390.13 NHS (Y/N): Yes Route No. & Name: I-490 / I-390 / NY 390 Functional Classification: Urban Principal Arterial Interstate (I-490/I-390) Principal Arterial Expressway (NY 390) Project Type: Reconstruction Design Classification: Interstate (I-490/I-390) Other Freeways (NY 390) % Trucks (Max.): 6.6% (I-490) Terrain: Level 8% (I-390 / NY 390) AADT One-Way 59,000 (I-490) Truck Access/Qualifying Hwy. Yes / Yes (2035): 55,500 (I-390) 65,100 (NY 390) Existing Proposed Condition Condition (all roadways (roadway Element Standard within original segments within project study proposed project area) limits only) 60 mph1 Posted 1 Design Speed 60 mph1 HDM Section 2.7.1.1 A 55 mph 12 ft. 2 Lane Width (Minimum) HDM Section 2.7.1.1 B 12 ft. 12 ft. 6 ft. typ. (left) 10 ft. typ. (right)
Typical 9 ft. min. (right) 6 ft. (left) (some speed 10 ft. (right) change lanes) 4 ft. (left) 6 ft. desirable where barrier is used (left) Under CSX Bridge 6 ft. (left) 10 ft. desirable (left) – interstates BIN 1052290 – 3 ft. 12 ft. desirable where barrier is used (left) - interstates 6 ft. (right)* Shoulder Width 3 10 ft. (right) left, 5 ft. right* (Minimum) BIN 1063950 – 3 ft. 12 ft. desirable where barrier is used (right) Bridges to remain HDM Section 2.7.1.1 C, Exhibit 2-2 left and right* Retain Existing* 6 ft. (right), Speed Change Lanes BIN 1062541 and (BIN 1052290 3 ft. HDM Section 2.7.5.3 1062542 – 1 ft. left, left, BIN 1063950 3 3 ft. right* ft. left and right, and BIN 1062521 and BIN 4062531 5.5 ft. 4062531 – 5.5 ft. right) right* 390 SB under 31 – 3 ft. left*
3-15 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Exhibit 3.2.3.2-1 Critical Design Elements for Principal Arterials Route I-490 / Route I-390 / NY 390 Interstates Full approach roadway width (New, Replacement & Rehabilitation)
Not less than AASHTO Interstate Standards, 2005 (i.e. New bridges 12 ft. lanes, 3.5 ft. left and 10 ft. right shoulder), unless Full Approach Most bridges are approved by FHWA Roadway Width (Existing bridges to remain in place) narrower than the approach roadway 4 Bridge Roadway Width Bridges to remain Non Interstate Freeways width and less than Retain Existing* Generally match the approach roadway width but not AASHTO less than Chapter 8 of AASHTO’s A Policy on Geometric (BIN 1052290, standards* Design of Highways and Streets, 2004 (i.e. 12 ft. lanes, 1063950, and 4 ft. left and 10 ft. right shoulders) 4062531) (New, Replacement & Rehabilitation)
BM Section 2.3.1-Table 2-1, AASHTO Interstate Standards, 2005 and AASHTO Green Book, 2004 0.64% (490 EB) 3% 2.85% (390 SB) 5 Maximum Grade HDM Section 2.7.1.1 E, Exhibit 2-2 1.32% (490 WB) 2.0% (390 NB) 2.0% (390 NB/SB) Horizontal Curvature 1,330 ft. (@ e = 6.0%) 2,865 ft. 2,865 ft. (390 NB) 6 (Minimum) HDM Section 2.7.1.1 F, Exhibit 2-2 (I-490,I-390/NY390) 2,000 ft. (390 SB) 4.44%(490 EB/WB) Superelevation Rate 6% (Urban) 7 4.6% (390 NB) 6% (Maximum) HDM Section 2.7.1.1 G 2.08% (390 SB) Typical 570 ft. (I-390) 570 ft. Stopping Sight Distance 570 ft. 8 469 ft. (390 NB)* (Minimum) HDM Section 2.7.1.1 H, Exhibit 2-2 Isolated locations 448 ft. (390 SB)* 469 ft.(390 NB)* 448 ft. (390 SB)* 6 ft. typ. (left) 10 ft. typ. (right) (w/ barrier) 15 ft. (w/o barrier) Typical 6 ft. typ. (left) 10 ft. typ. (right) BIN 1052290 – 3 ft. (w/ barrier) left* 15 ft. (w/o barrier) Horizontal Clearance 15 ft. without barrier 9 With barrier, use larger of 4 ft. or actual shoulder width BIN 1063950 – 3 ft. (from EOT) HDM Section 2.7.1.1 I left and right* Bridges to remain BIN 1062541 and Retain Existing* 1062542 – 1 ft. left, (BIN 1052290 3 ft. 3 ft. right* left, BIN 1063950 3 390 SB under 31 – ft. left and right) 3 ft. left* 11 ft. (under CSX bridge)* 14 ft. (Bridge)3 14.5 ft. Desirable (Bridge) 15 ft. (Overhead Sign Structures) 15.5 ft. Desirable (Overhead Sign Structures) 14 ft. Min (Bridge) Vertical Clearance HDM Section 2.7.1.1 J & BM Section 2.4 15.7 ft. Min (Signs) 10 14 ft. (Minimum) 15.5 ft. (Erie Canal) 15 ft. Min (Canal)* BM Section 2.4.4 22.33 ft. (Railroad) 22 ft. (Railroad Tracks) 23 ft. Desirable (Railroad Tracks) HDM Section 23.10.1 & BM Section 2.4.2
3-16 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Exhibit 3.2.3.2-1 Critical Design Elements for Principal Arterials Route I-490 / Route I-390 / NY 390 1.5% Min. to 2% Max. 1.5% Min. to 2% 1.5% Min. to 2% 11 Travel Lane Cross Slope HDM Section 2.7.1.1 K Max. Max. 4% between lanes; 8% at EOT; (If shoulder drainage is a concern, and superelevation > 12 Rollover 8% Max. 6%, may use 10% for outer 1.2 m of shoulder). 8% Max. HDM Section 2.7.1.1 L & 3.2.5.1 AASHTO HL-93 Live Load and the NYSDOT Design AASHTO HL-93 Live Load and the NYSDOT Design < HS 20 Permit Vehicle (new and replacement bridges) Permit Vehicle (new (BINs 1025812, HDM Section 2.7.1.1.M & BM Section 2.6.1 and replacement 13 Structural Capacity 1062521, 1062522, bridges) HS 20 Minimum (bridge rehabilitation) 1062542 and HDM Section 2.7.1.1 M & BM Section 2.6.2 4062532)* HS 20 Minimum (bridge rehabilitation) Min. “C” – Urban E (I-390 NB)* 14 Level of Service2 Section 2.3.1.7* HDM Section 2.7.1.1 N D (I-390 SB)* Fully controlled 15 Control of Access HDM Section 2.7.1.1 O Fully Controlled Fully Controlled Pedestrian 16 NA NA NA Accommodation 24 ft. min. (I-490) Median Width 10 ft. 17 32 ft. min. (I-390) 10 ft. (Minimum) HDM Section 2.7.1.1 P 34 ft. min. (NY390) (1) The Regional Traffic Engineer has concurred that the use of a Design Speed of 60 mph is consistent with the anticipated off- peak 85th percentile speed within the range of functional class speeds for the terrain and volume. (Refer to Section 2.3.1.5 Speeds and Delays and Appendix C of this report for additional information on speed data). (2) Level of Service (LOS) is not a critical design element for other freeways. NY 390 is classified as other freeway. See Section 2.3.1.7 for discussion on existing LOS. (3) Since the Thruway (I-90) is the designated 16 ft. clearance route through the Rochester urban area, the minimum vertical clearance is 14 ft. as per NYSDOT Engineering Structures Management. * Non-standard feature
3-17 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Exhibit 3.2.3.2-2 Critical Design Elements for Direct Connection Ramps (I-490 / I-390 / NY 390 Interchange) PIN: 4390.13 NHS (Y/N): Connects NHS Highways Route No. & Name: SW (I-390 NB to I-490 WB) Functional Classification: Urban ES (I-490 WB to I-390 SB) Principal Arterial Expressway (NY 390) EN (I-490 WB to NY 390NB) Principal Arterial Interstate (I-490/I-390) Project Type: Reconstruction Design Classification: Ramp % Trucks (Max.): 7.9% (SW) / 5.7% (ES) Terrain: Level 8.3% (EN) AADT (2035): 14,900 (SW) / 8,000 (ES) Truck Access/Qualifying Hwy. Yes / Connects Qualifying Highways 24,000 (EN) Existing Proposed Element Standard Condition Condition Posted 45 mph1 1 Design Speed HDM Section 2.7.5.2 A 35 mph (SW) 45 mph 50 mph (ES/EN) 17 ft. minimum (SW) HDM Section 2.7.5.2B, Exhibit 2-9a 12 ft. per lane Lane Width2 2A (Existing) 24 ft. minimum both lanes combined (ES/EN) (ES/EN)* See 2B (Includes 2 ft. deduction for shoulder width) 14 ft. (SW)* HDM Section 2.7.5.2 B, Exhibit 2-9a 16 ft. minimum (ES) 17 ft. minimum (SW) 16 ft. (ES) Lane Width2 HDM Section 2.7.5.2B, Exhibit 2-9a 2B See 2A 17 ft. (SW) (Proposed) 24 ft. minimum both lanes combined (EN) (Includes 2 ft. deduction for shoulder width) 12 ft. lanes (EN) HDM Section 2.7.5.2 B, Exhibit 2-9a 6/18 ft. (left/right) (ES)
Curbed - 0 ft. (left/right) 3 ft. (left) Shoulder Width Curbed – 2 ft. Desirable (left/right) 6/8 ft. (left/right) 3 8 ft. (right) (Minimum) Uncurbed - 3 ft. (left) / 8 ft. (right) (45-50 mph) (EN) HDM Section 2.7.5.2 C, Exhibit 2-10 (all ramps) 10/14 ft. (left/right) (SW) All 3 bridges are narrower than the Retain Existing* 4 Bridge Roadway Width Full Approach Roadway Width HDM Section 2.7.5.2 D approach roadway (BIN 1063950) width* 3.80% (EN) 3.5% (SW) 5% (45-50 mph) 5 Maximum Grade HDM Section 2.7.5.2 E, Exhibit 2-10 1.30% (ES) 3.5% (ES) 3.50% (SW) 3.0% (EN) 674 ft. (SW) 674 ft. (SW) Horizontal Curvature 643 ft. (@ e = 6.0%) (45 mph) 6 1273 ft. (ES) 850 ft. (ES) (Minimum) HDM Section 2.7.5.2 F, Exhibit 2-10 1432 ft. (EN) 1,060 ft. (EN) 6% (SW) Superelevation Rate 6% (Urban) 7 6% (Maximum) HDM Section 2.7.5.2 G > 6%* (all other ramps) 228 ft. (SW) 240 ft. (SW)* Stopping Sight Distance 360 ft. (45 mph) 8 348 ft. (ES) 384 ft. (ES) (Minimum) HDM Section 2.7.5.2 H, Exhibit 2-10 407 ft. (EN) 360 ft. (EN) 3 ft. Minimum (left side) Greater of shoulder width or 6 ft. Minimum (right side) Horizontal Clearance 3 ft. (left) 3 ft. (left) 9 (Additional 4 ft. clearance beyond the outside of (from EOT) shoulders to bridge piers or abutments) 6 ft. (right) 6 ft. (right) HDM Section 2.7.5.2 I
3-18 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Exhibit 3.2.3.2-2 Critical Design Elements for Direct Connection Ramps (I-490 / I-390 / NY 390 Interchange) 14 ft. (Bridge)3 Vertical Clearance 14.5 ft. Desirable (Bridge) 10 15 ft. (Overhead Sign Structures) 14 ft. Min (Bridge) 14 ft. Min (Bridge) (Minimum) 15.5 ft. Desirable (Overhead Sign Structures) HDM Section 2.7.5.2 J & BM Section 2.4 1.5% Min. to 2% Max. 11 Travel Lane Cross Slope HDM Section 2.7.5.2 K superelevated superelevated 4% between lanes; 8% at EOT; 0% b/w lanes (EN) 0% b/w lanes (EN) 12 Rollover (If shoulder drainage is a concern, and superelevation > 6%, may use 10% for outer 1.2 m of shoulder). 8% at EOT 8% at EOT HDM Section 2.7.5.2 L & 3.2.5.1 AASHTO HL-93 Live Load and the NYSDOT Design AASHTO HL-93 Live Permit Vehicle (new and replacement bridges) Load and the HDM Section 2.7.5.2.M & BM Section 2.6.1 NYSDOT Design 13 Structural Capacity > HS 20 Permit Vehicle (new HS 20 Minimum (bridge rehabilitation) and replacement HDM Section 2.7.5.2 M & BM Section 2.6.2 bridges) Min. “C” – Urban (interstate ramp junctions only) 14 Level of Service HDM Section 2.7.5.2 N Section 2.3.1.7* D (ES Merge)* Fully controlled 15 Control of Access HDM Section 2.7.5.2 O Fully Controlled Fully Controlled Pedestrian 5 ft. Minimum Accommodation 4 ft. Minimum (Restricted Areas) 16 Prohibited Prohibited (For ped facilities located In accordance with HDM Chapter 18 at the ramp terminal) HDM Section 2.7.5.2 P & 18.6.5.1 17 Median Width NA NA NA (1) The use of a Design Speed of 45 mph was selected based on the ramp type, the sharpest ramp curve for each ramp, and the minimum stopping sight distance for each ramp. A ramp speed study is not required to determine the ramp design speed. The ramp design speed does not apply to the ramp terminals, which generally includes transition curves and speed change lanes. Desirably, ramp design speed should approximate the anticipated off-peak 50th percentile speed on the higher speed intersecting highway (mainline) within the range of functional class speeds for the terrain and volume. (Refer to Section 2.3.1.5 Speeds and Delays and Appendix C of this report for additional information on speed data). (2) Standard lane width shown is based on the sharpest ramp curve for each ramp. (3) Since the Thruway (I-90) is the designated 16 ft. clearance route through the Rochester urban area, the minimum vertical clearance is 14 ft. as per NYSDOT Engineering Structures Management. * Non-standard feature
3-19 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Exhibit 3.2.3.2-3 Critical Design Elements for Loop Ramps (NY 390 / NY 31 Interchange) (NY 390 / Lexington Avenue Interchange) PIN: 4390.13 NHS (Y/N): Connects to an NHS Highway Route No. & Name: C (NY 31 to NY 390 NB) Functional Classification: Urban DE (NY 31 EB to NY 390 NB) Minor Arterial (NY 31/Lexington Ave.) Principal Arterial Expressway (NY 390) Project Type: Reconstruction Design Classification: Ramp % Trucks (Max.): 10.4% (DE) Terrain: Level 20% (C) AADT (2035): 3,300 (C) / 2,200 (DE) Truck Access/Qualifying Hwy. Connects Qualifying to Access Highway Existing Proposed Element Standard Condition Condition (Ramp DE) (Ramp C) 25 mph3 Posted 1 Design Speed 25 mph HDM Section 2.7.5.2 A 25 mph 17 ft. minimum (DE) Lane Width1 (Case I Condition C. Case II included deduction for 2A combined shoulder width. Deduction for shoulder width < 15 ft.* See 2B (Existing) Case I width. Use Case I width.) HDM Section 2.7.5.2 B, Exhibit 2-9b 16 ft. minimum (C) Lane Width1 (Case I Condition C. Case II included deduction for 2B combined shoulder width. Deduction for shoulder width < See 2A 16 ft. (Proposed) Case I width. Use Case I width.) HDM Section 2.7.5.2 B, Exhibit 2-9b Curbed - 0 ft. (left/right) Uncurbed Shoulder Width Curbed – 2 ft. Desirable (left/right) 3 ft. (left) 3 4 ft. (left) (Minimum) Uncurbed - 3 ft. (left) / 6 ft. (right) 6 ft. (right) HDM Section 2.7.5.2 C, Exhibit 2-10 6 ft. (right) Full Approach Roadway Width 4 Bridge Roadway Width HDM Section 2.7.5.2 D NA NA 7% 5 Maximum Grade HDM Section 2.7.5.2 E, Exhibit 2-10 3.62% 2.0% Horizontal Curvature 144 ft. (@ e = 6.0%) 6 150 ft. 230 ft. (Minimum) HDM Section 2.7.5.2 F, Exhibit 2-10 Superelevation Rate 6% (Urban) 7 > 6%* 6% (Maximum) HDM Section 2.7.5.2 G Stopping Sight Distance 155 ft. 8 141 ft.* 155 ft. (Minimum) HDM Section 2.7.5.2 H, Exhibit 2-10 3 ft. Minimum (left side) Greater of shoulder width or 6 ft. Minimum (right side) > 3 ft. (left) Horizontal Clearance 3 ft. (left) 9 (Additional 4 ft. clearance beyond the outside of > 6 ft. (right) (from EOT) 6 ft. (right) shoulders to bridge piers or abutments) (all other ramps) HDM Section 2.7.5.2 I 2 Vertical Clearance 14 ft. (Bridge) 10 14.5 ft. Desirable (Bridge) NA NA (Minimum) HDM Section 2.7.5.2 J & BM Section 2.4 1.5% Min. to 2% Max. 11 Travel Lane Cross Slope HDM Section 2.7.5.2 K superelevated superelevated 4% between lanes; 8% at EOT; 12 Rollover (If shoulder drainage is a concern, and superelevation > 6%, may use 10% for outer 1.2 m of shoulder). 8% 8% HDM Section 2.7.5.2 L & 3.2.5.1 AASHTO HL-93 Live Load and the NYSDOT Design Permit Vehicle (new and replacement bridges) HDM Section 2.7.5.2.M & BM Section 2.6.1 13 Structural Capacity NA NA HS 20 Minimum (bridge rehabilitation) HDM Section 2.7.5.2 M & BM Section 2.6.2
3-20 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Exhibit 3.2.3.2-3 Critical Design Elements for Loop Ramps (NY 390 / NY 31 Interchange) (NY 390 / Lexington Avenue Interchange) 14 Level of Service NA NA NA Fully controlled 15 Control of Access HDM Section 2.7.5.2 O Fully Controlled Fully Controlled Existing sidewalks Pedestrian 5 ft. Minimum at ramp terminals Accommodation 4 ft. Minimum (Restricted Areas) 16 are scarce and do 5 ft. (For ped facilities located In accordance with HDM Chapter 18 not comply with at the ramp terminal) HDM Section 2.7.5.2 P & 18.6.5.1 standard criteria* 17 Median Width NA NA NA (1) Standard lane width shown is based on the sharpest ramp curve for each ramp. (2) Since the Thruway (I-90) is the designated 16 ft. clearance route through the Rochester urban area, the minimum vertical clearance is 14 ft. as per NYSDOT Engineering Structures Management. (3) For loop ramps, a 25 mph design speed may be used as noted in the HDM Exhibit 7-11, Note 7. * Non-standard feature
3-21 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Exhibit 3.2.3.2-4 Critical Design Elements for Diagonal / Outer Connection / Semidirect Ramps (NY 390 / NY 31 Interchange) (NY 390 / Lexington Avenue Interchange) PIN: 4390.13 NHS (Y/N): Connects to an NHS Highway Route No. & Name: A (NY 390 NB to NY 31) Functional Classification: Urban B (I-490 WB to NY 31) Principal Arterial Expressway (NY 390) DA (NY 31 WB to NY 390 NB) Minor Arterial (NY 31 & Lexington Ave.) DD (NY 390 NB to NY 31) Project Type: Reconstruction Design Classification: Ramp % Trucks (Max.): 9.5% (A) Terrain: Level 9.5% (B) 28.1% (DA) 9.5% (DD) AADT (2035): 6,500 (A) / 4,900 (B) Truck Access/Qualifying Hwy. Connects Qualifying to 1,100 (DA) / 11,400 (DD) Access Highway Existing Proposed Element Standard Condition Condition Posted 45 mph 1 Design Speed HDM Section 2.7.5.2 A 30 mph (DD) 45 mph (A/B) Unposted (DA) 14 ft. minimum (DA) (Case I Condition C. Case II included deduction for combined standard shoulder width < Case I width. Use 13 to 14 ft. (DA)* Lane Width1 Case I width.) 2A 12 ft. (DD)* See 2B (Existing) 14 ft. minimum (DD) (Case III Condition C) (Includes 2 ft. deduction for shoulder width) HDM Section 2.7.5.2 B, Exhibit 2-9b 12 ft. minimum (A) 15 ft. minimum (B) Lane Width1 12 ft. (A) 2B (Case I Condition C. Includes deduction for combined See 2A (Proposed) shoulder width. Deduction for shoulder width < Case I 15 ft. (B) width. Use Case I width.) Uncurbed Curbed - 0 ft. (left/right) 3 ft. min. (left) Shoulder Width Curbed – 2 ft. Desirable (left/right) 4 ft. (left) 3 6 ft. min. (right) (Minimum) Uncurbed - 3 ft. (left) / 6 ft. (right) 6 ft. (right) (modified ramps) HDM Section 2.7.5.2 C, Exhibit 2-10 (all ramps) Full Approach Roadway Width 4 Bridge Roadway Width HDM Section 2.7.5.2 D NA NA 5% (45-50 mph)3 3% (A) 5 Maximum Grade 2.0% (DA/DD) HDM Section 2.7.5.2 E, Exhibit 2-10 2.42% (B) Horizontal Curvature 643 ft. (@ e = 6.0%) (45 mph)3 1910 ft. (DA) 1015 ft. (A) 6 (Minimum) HDM Section 2.7.5.2 F, Exhibit 2-10 260 ft. (DD) 700 ft. (B) Superelevation Rate 6% (Urban) 6% (DA) 7 6% (Maximum) HDM Section 2.7.5.2 G > 6% (DD)* Stopping Sight Distance 360 ft. (45 mph)3 8 200 ft. (all ramps) 360 ft. (A/B) (Minimum) HDM Section 2.7.5.2 H, Exhibit 2-10 3 ft. Minimum (left side) Greater of shoulder width or 6 ft. Minimum (right side) 3 ft. (left) Horizontal Clearance 3 ft. (left) 9 (Additional 4 ft. clearance beyond the outside of 6 ft. (right) (from EOT) 6 ft. (right) shoulders to bridge piers or abutments) (all ramps) HDM Section 2.7.5.2 I 2 Vertical Clearance 14 ft. (Bridge) 10 14.5 ft. Desirable (Bridge) NA NA (Minimum) HDM Section 2.7.5.2 J & BM Section 2.4 1.5% Min. to 2% Max. 1.5% Min. to 2% 1.5% Min. to 2% 11 Travel Lane Cross Slope HDM Section 2.7.5.2 K Max. Max.
3-22 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Exhibit 3.2.3.2-4 Critical Design Elements for Diagonal / Outer Connection / Semidirect Ramps (NY 390 / NY 31 Interchange) (NY 390 / Lexington Avenue Interchange) 4% between lanes; 8% at EOT; (If shoulder drainage is a concern, and superelevation > 12 Rollover 6%, may use 10% for outer 1.2 m of shoulder). 8% 8% HDM Section 2.7.5.2 L & 3.2.5.1 AASHTO HL-93 Live Load and the NYSDOT Design Permit Vehicle (new and replacement bridges) HDM Section 2.7.5.2.M & BM Section 2.6.1 13 Structural Capacity NA NA HS 20 Minimum (bridge rehabilitation) HDM Section 2.7.5.2 M & BM Section 2.6.2 14 Level of Service NA NA NA Fully controlled Fully Controlled Fully Controlled 15 Control of Access HDM Section 2.7.5.2 O (Except DD)* Existing sidewalks Pedestrian 5 ft. Minimum at ramp terminals Accommodation 4 ft. Minimum (Restricted Areas) 16 are scarce and do 5 ft. (For ped facilities located In accordance with HDM Chapter 18 not comply with at the ramp terminal) HDM Section 2.7.5.2 P & 18.6.5.1 standard criteria* 17 Median Width NA NA NA (1) Standard lane width shown is based on the sharpest ramp curve for each ramp. (2) Since the Thruway (I-90) is the designated 16 ft. clearance route through the Rochester urban area, the minimum vertical clearance is 14 ft. as per NYSDOT Engineering Structures Management. (3) Criteria utilized for proposed ramps only. * Non-standard feature
3-23 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Exhibit 3.2.3.2-5 Critical Design Elements for Minor Arterials Lyell Avenue (NY 31), Buffalo Road (NY 33), Lee Road (CR 154) and Lexington Avenue PIN: 4390.13 NHS (Y/N): No Route No. & Name: NY 31 - Lyell Avenue Functional Classification: Urban - Minor Arterial NY 33 – Buffalo Road CR 154 – Lee Road Lexington Avenue Project Type: Reconstruction Design Classification: Arterial % Trucks (Max.): 8.6% (Lyell Avenue) Terrain: Level Unknown (Buffalo Road) 9.2% (Lee Road) 7% (Lexington Avenue) AADT (2035): 33,900 (Lyell Avenue) Truck Access/Qualifying Hwy. Yes / No 15,000 (Buffalo Road) 11,600 (Lee Road) 17,100 (Lexington Avenue) Existing Proposed Element Standard Condition Condition Posted
1 40 mph (Lyell Ave 45 mph 1 1 Design Speed HDM Section 2.7.2.2 A and Buffalo Rd) 45 mph 35 mph (Lee Rd and Lexington Ave) 10 ft. min (Lyell Ave 11 ft. min. (Lyell Ave over Erie Canal)* and Lee Rd) 11 ft. 11 ft. typ. 10 ft. min (only at Travel Lane Width 2A 12 ft. / 14 ft. desirable (outside lane to accommodate bicyclists) (Lyell Ave) Lyell Ave over Erie (Minimum) 2 HDM Section 2.7.2.2 B, Exhibit 2-4 12 ft. (Buffalo Rd, Canal bridge) Lee Rd and 12 ft. (Buffalo Rd Lexington Ave) over I-390) NA (Buffalo Rd)
11 ft. (Lyell Ave 11 ft. minimum (including two-way left-turn lanes) 10 ft. (Lexington Turning Lane Width 12 ft. desirable and Lee Rd) 2B Ave to Lee Rd)* (Left and Right) 16 ft. desirable (two-way left-turn lanes) 12 ft. (Buffalo Rd HDM Section 2.7.2.2.B, Exhibit 2-4 over I-390) 11 ft. min. (all other roadways)
3-24 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Exhibit 3.2.3.2-5 Critical Design Elements for Minor Arterials Lyell Avenue (NY 31), Buffalo Road (NY 33), Lee Road (CR 154) and Lexington Avenue Divided/Curbed 0 ft. (left/right) (Lexington Ave and portions of Lyell 0 ft. (left – divided roadway) Ave)* 1 ft. to 2 ft. desirable (left – divided roadway) Curbed – 0 ft. with 12 ft. min. outside travel lane (right) Undivided/Curbed Typical Curbed – 5 ft. min. for bikes and lateral offset (right) 0 ft. min (Lee Rd) 6 ft. (right) Curbed – 6 ft. min. for bikes, lateral offset, and 8 ft. typ. (Lee Rd) (shared use) Shoulder Width breakdowns (right) 3 Curbed – 10 ft. desirable for bikes, lateral offset, and Right Turning Lanes (Minimum) breakdowns (right) 0 to 3 ft. typ. (Lyell 0 ft. with 12 ft. min. Uncurbed - 8 ft. (right) Ave west of 390 outside travel lane HDM Section 2.7.2.2 C, Exhibit 2-4 HDM Section 2.7.1.1 ramps) (Lyell Ave and C, Exhibit 2-2 Lee Rd) 4 ft. (right), Speed Change Lanes Undivided/Uncurbed HDM Section 2.7.5.3 9 ft. typ. (Lyell Ave east of Lee Rd Ext)
10 ft. (Buffalo Rd bridge approach) Greater than Full Approach Roadway Width (Buffalo Rd Greater than Full over I-390) Approach Roadway Width (Buffalo Rd Full Approach over I-390) Full Approach Roadway Width Roadway Width 4 Bridge Roadway Width BM Section 2.3.1, Table 2-1 (Lyell Ave over Full Approach NY390) Roadway Width Less than Full (Lyell Ave over Approach Roadway NY390) Width (Lyell Ave over Erie Canal)* 3% (Lyell Ave) 1.0% (Lee Rd) 3% (Lyell Ave) 6% 5 Maximum Grade HDM Section 2.7.2.2 E, Exhibit 2-4 0.92% (Buffalo Rd) 1.0% (Lee Rd) 0.64% (Lexington 0.92% (Buffalo Rd) Ave) 1,432 ft. (Lyell Ave) NA (Buffalo Rd and 1,600 ft. (Lyell Ave) Horizontal Curvature 711 ft. (@ e = 4.0%) 6 Lee Rd) NA (Buffalo Rd and (Minimum) HDM Section 2.7.2.2 F, Exhibit 2-4 2,865 ft. (Lexington Lee Rd) Ave)
2% max. (Lyell Ave) 2% (Lyell Ave) normal crown Superelevation Rate 4% normal crown 7 (Buffalo Rd and (Maximum) HDM Section 2.7.2.2 G (Buffalo Rd and Lee Lee Rd) Rd) 2.5% max. (Lexington Ave) Stopping Sight Distance 360 ft. 8 > 360 ft. 360 ft. (Minimum) HDM Section 2.7.2.2 H, Exhibit 2-4 0.5 ft. (Lee Rd)* 1.5 ft. without barrier Horizontal Clearance 0 ft. with barrier 9 1.5 ft. (Lyell Ave, 1.5 ft. (from FOC) 3 ft. at intersections HDM Section 2.7.2.2 I Buffalo Rd and Lexington Ave)
3-25 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Exhibit 3.2.3.2-5 Critical Design Elements for Minor Arterials Lyell Avenue (NY 31), Buffalo Road (NY 33), Lee Road (CR 154) and Lexington Avenue 14 ft. (New, Replacement & Rehabilitation w/o vertical clearance posting) 14.5 ft. Desirable (New, Replacement & Rehabilitation Vertical Clearance w/o vertical clearance posting) 10 As approved (Rehabilitation w/ vertical clearance 18 ft. (Canal) NA (Minimum) posting) HDM Section 2.7.2.2 J & BM Section 2.4 15.5 ft. (Erie Canal) BM Section 2.4.4 1.5% Min. to 2% Max. (Travel Lanes) HDM Section 2.7.2.2 K 1.5% Min. to 3% Max. (Travel Lanes) 11 Travel Lane Cross Slope 2.0% 2.0% 2% Min. to 8% Max. (Shoulders) HDM Section 7.5.2.2 K “3R Criteria” 4% between lanes; 8% at EOT 12 Rollover HDM Section 2.7.2.2 L 8% 8% AASHTO HL-93 Live Load and the NYSDOT Design Permit Vehicle (new and replacement bridges) AASHTO HL-93 HDM Section 2.7.2.2.M & BM Section 2.6.1 < HS 20 Live Load and the 13 Structural Capacity (BIN 1021589)* NYSDOT Design HS 20 Minimum (bridge rehabilitation) Permit Vehicle HDM Section 2.7.2.2 M & BM Section 2.6.2 14 Level of Service NA NA NA 15 Control of Access NA NA NA 5 ft. Minimum, Highway Existing sidewalks NA (Lee Rd) 4 ft. Minimum (Restricted Areas), Highway Pedestrian are scarce and do 5 ft. (Lyell Ave) 16 5.6 ft Minimum, Bridge Accommodation not comply with 5.6 ft. (Lyell Ave and In accordance with HDM Chapter 18 standard criteria* Buffalo Rd bridges) HDM Section 2.7.2.2 N & 18.6.5.1 17 Median Width NA NA NA (1) The Regional Traffic Engineer has concurred that the use of a Design Speed of 45 mph is consistent with the anticipated off- peak 85th percentile speed within the range of functional class speeds for the terrain and volume. (Refer to Section 2.3.1.5 Speeds and Delays and Appendix C of this report for additional information on speed data). (2) A 10 ft. min. lane width is used only at the Lyell Ave. bridge over the Erie Canal to transition the proposed roadway back to the existing bridge width, and is therefore not considered a non-standard feature. All other lane widths are 11 ft. min. * Non-standard feature
3-26 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
3.2.3.3. Other Design Parameters – Non-critical design elements were compared to standards from the AASHTO Green Book, HDM and MUTCD. See Section 2.3.3.2.(2) for discussion related to existing non- critical design elements. Existing design elements are repeated in the tables below for comparison purposes. The remaining elements only include the areas that are new or are being reconstructed or resurfaced. Ramps containing only terminal reconstruction were not analyzed since no work is proposed on the ramp proper. The ramp terminals are considered to be within the transition area from the proposed design to the existing. See Section 3.3.3.2.(2) for a summary of non-critical design elements within the proposed reconstruction limits that do not conform to normally accepted practice. See Section 3.2.3.2 for a complete listing of the roadways, ramps, and bridges that were compared against standard criteria.
Level of Service (LOS) See Section 3.3.1.7 for discussion on proposed LOS. LOS is a critical design element for Interstate highways and ramp junctions only. The minimum required LOS for non-Interstate highways and ramp junctions is “D”. There is no non-conforming LOS proposed along the non-Interstate highways and ramp junctions within the proposed reconstruction limits.
Interchange Spacing All existing interchange spacing will be retained. See Section 3.3.3.2.(2) for a summary of proposed non- conforming interchange spacing within the proposed reconstruction limits.
Ramp Terminal Spacing Ramp terminal spacing within the project study area was re-evaluated for conformance with the recommendations in Exhibit 10-68 of the AASHTO Green Book. As shown in Exhibit 3.2.3.3-1 over half (12) of the existing ramp terminal spacings are retained as they are outside of the proposed reconstruction limits. Five (5) of the terminal spacings that were non-conforming were eliminated due the reconfiguration of the 390/31 ramps on the east side of the interchange. Also, the conversion of Ramp ES to a right-hand entrance ramp eliminated the non-conforming spacing between Ramp ES and WS. Three (3) new ramp terminal spacings are proposed due to the new ramps and geometry changes. In summary:
· 25 existing ramp terminal spacings within project study area (13 non-conforming features) · 26 proposed ramp terminal spacings within project study area (8 non-conforming) · 13 proposed ramp terminal spacings within proposed reconstruction limits (4 non-conforming) · 6 proposed ramp terminal spacings within proposed resurfacing limits (2 non-conforming)
See Section 3.3.3.2.(2) for a summary of proposed non-conforming ramp terminal spacings within the proposed reconstruction limits.
Exhibit 3.2.3.3-1 Ramp Terminal Spacing Recommended Existing Proposed Element Spacing Condition Condition Minimum Ramp Terminal Spacing (a) Successive Exit Terminals - Ramp SE to Ramp SW 1000 ft. Min. 882 ft.* 1 903 ft.* 1,3 1000 ft. Min. (Exist) - Ramp NW to Ramp NE 937 ft.* 1,6 same 1,4,6 800 ft. Min. (Prop) - Ramp ES to Ramp EN 1000 ft. Min. 439 ft.* 1 369 ft.* 1,3 - Ramp WN to Ramp WS 1000 ft. Min. 1186 ft. 1 same 1,2 - Ramp SW to Ramp A 1000 ft. Min. NA (new) 662 ft.* 1,3 - Ramp DB to I-390 SB CD Road8 1000 ft. Min. NA (new) 1160± ft.3,8
(b) Successive Entrance Terminals - Ramp DC to Ramp DF 800 ft. Min. 805 ft.6 same4,6 - Ramp SW to Ramp NW 1000 ft. Min. 871 ft.* 1 same* 1,2
3-27 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Exhibit 3.2.3.3-1 Ramp Terminal Spacing Recommended Existing Proposed Element Spacing Condition Condition - Ramp NE to Ramp SE 1000 ft. Min. 971 ft.* 1 same* 1,2 - Ramp EN to Ramp WN 1000 ft. Min. 1255 ft.1 734 ft.* 1,3 - Ramp WN to Ramp DE 1000 ft. Min. 518 ft.* 1 NA (eliminated) - Ramp WN to Ramp C 1000 ft. Min. NA (new) 1755 ft.1,3 - Ramp DE to Ramp DA 1000 ft. Min. 971 ft.* NA (eliminated) - Ramp WS to Ramp ES 1000 ft. Min. 728 ft.* 1 NA (eliminated) - Ramp ES to I-390 SB CD Road 1000 ft. Min. NA (new) 1185 ft.1,3
(c) Exit to Entrance Terminal - Ramp DB to Ramp DC 500 ft. Min. 410 ft.* same* 4 - Ramp DD to Ramp DE 500 ft. Min. 548 ft. NA (eliminated) - Ramp SW to Ramp EN (On I-390) 500 ft. Min. 911 ft. 1277± ft. 1,3 - Ramp NE to Ramp WS 400 ft. Min. 928 ft. 1 same4 - Ramp DD to Ramp WN 500 ft. Min. 30 ft.* 1 NA (eliminated) - Ramp EN to Ramp SW (On I-490) 500 ft. Min. 954 ft. 1 1007 ft.1,3 - Ramp WS to Ramp NE 500 ft. Min. 883 ft. 1 same 1,2 - Ramp EC to Ramp ED 500 ft. Min. 617 ft. same2 - Ramp EA to Ramp EB 500 ft. Min. 1318 ft. same2 - Ramp A to Ramp EN 500 ft. Min. NA (new) 617 ft.3 - On Ramp EN, from Ramp B to I-390 NB 400 ft. Min. NA (new) 85± ft. 3,7
(d) Entrance to Exit Terminal (Weave) - Ramp DF to Ramp NW 1600 ft. Min. 1225 ft.* same*4 - Ramp DF to Ramp NE 1600 ft. Min. 2162± ft 1,5 same 1,4,5 - Ramp EN to Ramp DD 2000 ft. Min. 1225 ft.* NA (eliminated)
(e) End of Taper to Theoretical Gore for (a) and (b) 270 ft. Min. - Ramp DC to Ramp DF - 296 ft. same4 - Ramp DE to Ramp DA - 167 ft.* NA (eliminated)
(f) Turning Roadway - On Ramp EN, from I-490 WB to Ramp B 800 ft. Min. NA (new) 1208± ft.3 - On I-390 SB CD Road, from Ramp WS 1893± ft.3 800 ft. Min. NA (new) to I-390 SB *Non-conforming feature
Notes for Exhibit 3.2.3.3-1: (1) Ramp terminals are located on opposite sides of the mainline roadway with at least one ramp that is either a lane drop or lane addition. (2) Outside limits of proposed pavement reconstruction or resurfacing. (3) Within limits of proposed pavement reconstruction. (4) Within limits of proposed pavement resurfacing. (5) Existing weaving length of 2162± ft. is measured between physical gores. Usable weaving length between painted gores is 1877± ft., which is less than the 2000 ft. minimum recommended distance for the System to Service Interchange Full Freeway condition. Proposed weaving length is also 2162± ft., however the proposed roadway is classified as a CD roadway, therefore the recommended weaving length is 1600 ft. (6) Ramp terminal spacing exceeds the 800 ft. AASHTO recommendation for a CD roadway, which the proposed facility will be. Note that in Chapter 2 Exhibit 2.3.3.2 (2)-1, the existing ramp terminal spacing is non-conforming when compared to the 1000 ft. recommendation for an existing full freeway facility. (7) Proposed spacing of 85± ft. is measured between physical gores. Proposed spacing between painted gores is 665± ft, which exceeds the 400 ft. recommendation for a CD roadway type facility, and is therefore not considered non-conforming. (8) Ramp DC is not considered in the 390 SB analysis because the movement from Ramp DC to 390 SB is prohibited. (9) Ramp terminal spacing is measured between the physical gores, except for (e).
3-28 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Left-Hand Entrances and Exits See Section 3.3.3.2.(2) for a summary of the non-conforming left-hand entrance/exit ramps to remain.
Lane Reductions (Lane Balance) See Section 3.3.3.2.(2) for a summary of the non-conforming lane reductions to remain.
Option Lane (Decision Lane) Length The AASHTO Green Book (Figure 10-75) recommends a 1000 ft. to 1800 ft. length to widen a lane from 12 ft. to 24 ft at a major fork or branch connection. See Section 3.3.3.2.(2) for non-conforming locations.
Through Lane Drop Transition Length There are no through lane drop transitions required within the proposed project limits.
Lane Shift Taper Length All lane shift taper lengths were designed to meet the requirements of Section 5.9.8.2 E of the HDM.
Auxiliary Lanes Auxiliary lanes (i.e. acceleration/deceleration lanes and/or speed-change lanes) for ramps within the project study area were re-evaluated for conformance with Exhibits 10-69 to 10-73 of the AASHTO publication A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets 2004 (Green Book). As shown in Exhibit 3.2.3.3-2, all auxiliary lane lengths within the proposed reconstruction limits exceed the minimum recommended by AASHTO in all but one instance. The non-conforming acceleration lane length from NY 31 WB to NY 390 SB (Ramp DC) will be retained.
Exhibit 3.2.3.3-2 Auxiliary Lane Lengths Speed Grade Recommended Existing Proposed Ramp Condition Change Factor Length Condition Condition (mph)5,6,7,8,9 (feet) (feet) (feet) I-490 / I-390 / NYS Route 390 Interchange NA (Left Lane Drop) NE (390 SB to 490 EB) Deceleration 60 to 40 NA 350 same NA (Right Lane Fork) 1726 ft. (Left Lane) NE (390 SB to 490 EB) Acceleration 40 to 60 NA 550 NA (Right Lane same Addition) ES (490 WB to 390 SB) Deceleration 60 to 50 NA 240 NA (Lane Drop) same 310 ft. (Left Lane)1 ES (490 WB to 390 SB) Acceleration 50 to 60 NA 18011 NA (Right Lane 300 ft. Addition) SW (390 NB to 490 WB) Deceleration 60 to 40 NA 350 280 ft. * NA (Lane Drop) SW (390 NB to 490 WB) Acceleration 40 to 60 NA 550 NA (Added Lane) same WN (490 EB to 390 NB) Deceleration 60 to 45 NA 300 NA (Lane Drop) same WN (490 EB to 390 NB) Acceleration 50 to 60 NA 18011 NA (Added Lane) same WS (490 EB to 390 SB) Deceleration 60 to 50 NA 240 1317 ft. same WS (490 EB to 390 SB) Acceleration 50 to 60 NA 18011 838 ft.1 NA (Added Lane) SE (390 NB to 490 EB) Deceleration 60 to 45 NA 300 NA (Lane Drop) NA (Fork) NA (Right Lane SE (390 NB to 490 EB) Acceleration 50 to 60 NA 18011 same Addition)10 NA (Right Lane NA (Left Lane Fork) EN (490 WB to 390 NB) Deceleration 60 to 50 NA 240 Drop)10 same (Right Lane) NA (Left Lane Addition) EN (490 WB to 390 NB) Acceleration 50 to 60 NA 18011 NA (Weave)2 500 ft. (Right Lane) NW (390 SB to 490 WB) Deceleration 60 to 45 NA 300 NA (Weave)2 same NW (390 SB to 490 WB) Acceleration 45 to 60 NA 420 986 ft. same NYS Route 390 / NYS Route 31 Interchange DA (31 WB to 390 NB) Deceleration 45 to 20 NA 325 233 ft. * NA (eliminated) DA (31 WB to 390 NB) Acceleration 50 to 60 NA 18011 852 ft.1 NA (eliminated) DB (390 SB to 31) Deceleration 60 to 35 NA 405 321 ft. * NA (Lane Drop) DC (31 WB to 390 SB) Deceleration 45 to 25 NA 295 431 ft. same 3-29 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Exhibit 3.2.3.3-2 Auxiliary Lane Lengths Speed Grade Recommended Existing Proposed Ramp Condition Change Factor Length Condition Condition (mph)5,6,7,8,9 (feet) (feet) (feet) DC (31 WB to 390 SB) Acceleration 30 to 60 NA 910 362 ft. * same* DD (390 NB to 31) Deceleration 60 to 35 NA 405 NA (Weave)2 NA (eliminated) DE (31 EB to 390 NB) Deceleration 45 to 25 NA 295 360 ft. NA (eliminated) DE (31 EB to 390 NB) Acceleration 25 to 60 NA 1020 725 ft. * NA (eliminated) DF (31 EB to 390 SB) Deceleration 45 to 35 NA 220 248 ft.3 same DF (31 EB to 390 SB) Acceleration 50 to 60 NA 18011 NA (Weave)2 same A (390 NB to 31) Deceleration 60 to 50 NA 240 NA (new) 240 B (490 WB to 31) Deceleration 60 to 45 NA 240 NA (new) 240 C (31 to 390 NB) Acceleration 30 to 60 NA 910 NA (new) 710 ft.12 NYS Route 390 / Lexington Avenue Interchange EA (390 NB to Lexington Ave) Deceleration 60 to 0 NA 530 >530 ft.4 NA (Lane Drop) EB (Lexington Ave to 390 NB) Deceleration 45 to 20 NA 325 ft. * same* EB (Lexington Ave to 390 NB) Acceleration 50 to 60 NA 18011 858 ft.1 same EC (390 SB to Lexington Ave) Deceleration 60 to 25 NA 460 420 ft. * same* ED (Lexington Ave to 390 SB) Acceleration 40 to 60 NA 550 771 ft. NA (Lane Addition) *Non-conforming feature
Notes for Exhibit 3.2.3.3-2: (1) The acceleration length starts back on the curvature of the ramp since the entrance radius is greater than 1000 ft (AASHTO Green Book Exhibit 10-69) and the motorist on the ramp has an unobstructed view of traffic on the through lane. However, only that portion of the acceleration length beginning where the painted gore nose width is equal to 2 ft. is shown in the table. (2) See Exhibit 3.2.3.3-1 for recommended spacing for weaves located within project study area. (3) Since the 50 mph design speed of the Ramp DF exit curve radius exceeds the 45 mph design speed of Lyell Avenue, the exit curve length of 211 ft. may be considered as part of the deceleration length. (4) Since the 70 mph design speed of the Ramp EA exit curve radius exceeds the 60 mph design speed of NY 390, and since this large radius exit curve connects with a straight ramp, a portion of the ramp may be considered as part of the deceleration length. (5) Speed of vehicles entering or exiting the highway is based on the anticipated off-peak 85th percentile speeds of the highway. (6) Speed change required for acceleration lanes is based on the anticipated off-peak 85th percentile speed of the highway and the max. allowable ramp design speed of the entrance curve radius as per the 4% max. superelevation rate table depicted in the HDM Exhibit 2-10. This approach is more conservative than using the 6% max. superelevation rate tables because it may reduce the max. theoretical speed that a vehicle can attain on the ramp entrance curve thus increasing the required acceleration length. (7) For ramps that do not contain compound exit curves, speed change required for deceleration lanes is based on the anticipated off-peak 85th percentile speed of the highway and the max. allowable ramp design speed of the exit curve radius as per the 4% max. superelevation rate table depicted in the NYSDOT HDM Exhibit 2-10. This approach is more conservative than using the 6% max. superelevation rate tables. (8) For ramps containing compound exit curves, speed change required for deceleration lanes is based on the anticipated off-peak 85th percentile speed of the highway and the max. allowable ramp design speed along the entire ramp as per the 4% max. superelevation rate table depicted in the NYSDOT HDM Exhibit 2-10. This approach is more conservative than using the exit curve radius (if the exit curve radius is greater than the min. radius on the ramp) or 6% max. superelevation rate tables because it may reduce the max. theoretical speed that a vehicle can attain on the ramp exit curve thus increasing the required deceleration length. It also discounts the ability of drivers to decelerate along a portion of the flatter curve prior to traversing the sharpest curve within the compound curve segment. (9) The max. allowable design speed for any ramp is 50 mph. (10) Auxiliary lane is not considered a weaving lane since the ramp terminals are spaced greater than 2500 ft. apart as per HCM. (11) The required gap acceptance length should be a min. of 300 to 500 ft. (AASHTO Green Book Exhibit 10-69). (12) The acceleration length starts back on the curvature of the ramp since the entrance radius is greater than 1000 ft (AASHTO Green Book Exhibit 10-69) and the motorist on the ramp has an unobstructed view of traffic on the through lane. For preliminary design purposes, it is assumed that the motorist on the ramp has an unobstructed view of traffic on the through lane for a length of 200 ft. on the curvature of the ramp and is traveling at least 30 mph approaching the entrance terminal due to the long tangent length on the ramp proper. The feasibility of reducing the acceleration length will be explored further during final design.
3-30 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Auxiliary Lane Tapers Auxiliary / speed-change lane tapers for parallel-type exits within the project study area were re-evaluated for conformance with AASHTO Green Book criteria. As shown in Exhibit 3.2.3.3-3, all speed-change lane taper lengths within the proposed reconstruction limits exceed the minimum recommended by AASHTO in all but one instance. The non-conforming taper length for the NY 31 WB to NY 390 SB (Ramp DC) acceleration lane will be retained.
Exhibit 3.2.3.3-3 Auxiliary Lane Taper Lengths Recommended Proposed Existing Condition Ramp Condition Length Condition (feet) (feet) (feet) I-490 / I-390 / NYS Route 390 Interchange NE (390 SB to 490 EB) Acceleration 300 576 ft. (Left Lane) same ES (490 WB to 390 SB) Acceleration 300 680 ft. (Left Lane) 300 ft. SW (390 NB to 490 WB) Deceleration 180 498 ft. NA (Lane Drop) WS (490 EB to 390 SB) Deceleration 180 496 ft. same WS (490 EB to 390 SB) Acceleration 300 750 ft. NA (Lane Addition) NW (390 SB to 490 WB) Acceleration 300 609 ft. same NYS Route 390 / NYS Route 31 Interchange DA (31 WB to 390 NB) Acceleration 300 240 ft. * NA (Eliminated) DB (390 SB to 31) Deceleration 180 188 ft. NA (Lane Drop) DC (31 WB to 390 SB) Acceleration 300 211 ft. * same* DE (31 EB to 390 NB) Deceleration 180 320 ft. NA (Eliminated) DE (31 EB to 390 NB) Acceleration 300 206 ft. * NA (Eliminated) A (390 NB to 31) Deceleration 180 NA (new) 180 ft. B (490 WB to 31) Deceleration 180 NA (new) 180 ft. C (31 to 390 NB) Acceleration 300 NA (new) 300 ft. NYS Route 390 / Lexington Avenue Interchange EA (390 NB to Lexington NA (Lane Drop) Deceleration 180 227 ft. Ave) EB (Lexington Ave to 390 same Acceleration 300 323 ft. NB) EC (390 SB to Lexington same Deceleration 180 270 ft. Ave) ED (Lexington Ave to 390 NA (Lane Addition) Acceleration 300 283 ft. * SB) *Non-conforming feature
Compound Curve Ratio Compound curve ratios within the project reconstruction limits were evaluated for conformance with the AASHTO Green Book, which recommends a maximum rate of 1.5:1 on highways and 2:1 on turning roadways and ramps. There are no non-conforming compound curve ratios within the proposed reconstruction limits.
Length of Circular Arc for Compound Curves Minimum curve length for compound intersection curves within the project reconstruction limits were evaluated for conformance with Exhibit 3-42 of the AASHTO Green Book. There are no non-conforming compound intersection curve lengths within the proposed reconstruction limits.
Vehicle Turning Paths at Intersections (i.e. Design Vehicle) Vehicle turning paths were re-analyzed at all intersections along Lyell Avenue within the project reconstruction limits. All intersections and driveways were designed to accommodate the appropriate design vehicle turning paths.
3-31 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Exhibit 3.2.3.3-2 Vehicle Turning Paths at Lyell Avenue Intersections (i.e. Design Vehicle) Intersections Design Vehicle Vehicle Accommodated WB-50 (WB to NB) WB-50 (WB to NB) Howard Road – East leg right-turns only WB-65 (NB to EB) WB-65 (NB to EB) Cornelia Drive Large School Bus Large School Bus* Rossmore Street – North leg Large School Bus Large School Bus* Rossmore Street – South leg (Wegmans Driveway) WB-65 WB-65 Matilda Street Large School Bus Large School Bus* Tarwood Drive Large School Bus Large School Bus* Ramp DB WB-65 WB-65 Lee Road WB-65 WB-65
Driveways Design Vehicle Vehicle Accommodated Lyell-Howard Commons Plaza SU SU Wegmans Driveway – between Howard Road and SU (in) SU (in) Rossmore Street WB-65 (out) WB-65 (out) Gateway Plaza SU SU* Spy Outlet / Rochester Gold & Jewelry Exchange / Sal’s SU SU Barber Shop Martusciello’s Bread SU SU Steve T. Hots SU SU East Gates Professional Buildings / Apartment Complex SU SU* True Value Hardware SU SU Taylor Rental / Boley Locksmith SU SU* Abandoned Gas Station – NE corner of Lyell-Lee SU intersection Stonegate Complex SU SU Diplomat Banquet Center & Hotel / La Quinta Inn SU SU* Hess Tank Facility Oil Tanker Oil Tanker Hess Gas Station / Brady’s Trailer Service Oil Tanker Oil Tanker North Albany Terminal Company Oil Tanker Oil Tanker Rochester Industrial Services / PICS Telecom SU SU* International Sofia Collision & Frame SU SU* TM Design Corporation SU SU Canal Path Parking Lot SU SU * Also accommodates the occasional WB-50 design vehicle making a right-in manuever, however the truck is required to utilize a portion of the opposing receiving lane when making the turn.
Intersection Sight Distance (ISD) Intersection Sight Distance (ISD) was re-evaluated at all non-signalized intersections, commercial driveways, and all uncontrolled moves at signalized intersections along Lyell Avenue utilizing the appropriate design vehicles listed above. The removal of parking stalls on the eastbound side of Lyell Avenue between Howard Road and Tarwood Drive and the implementation of bicycle lanes, sidewalks, and grass buffer strips along the Lyell Avenue from Howard Road to the Erie Canal will significantly improve the existing ISD. See Section 3.3.3.2.(2) for a summary of non-conforming ISD to remain.
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 any of the roadways within the project limits. Functional classification for each roadway is listed in Exhibits 2.3.1.1-1 to 2.3.1.1-3.
3-32 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
3.3.1.2. Control of Access – Access to I-490, I-390 and NY 390 within the project limits will remain fully controlled. Full access control will extend the full length of all ramps and terminals on the crossroads except at the following locations:
· The proximity of Tarwood Drive to the Lyell Avenue on-ramp to NY 390 SB (Ramp DF) does not conform to the 100 ft. minimum distance requirement as per Section 2.7.5.2.O, page 6-36 and Figure 6-Q of the NYSDOT Highway Design Manual (HDM). · Bellwood Drive intersects Lexington Avenue at the beginning of the on and off ramps for NY 390 SB (Ramps EC and ED), which does not conform to the control of access requirements restricting access along a ramp.
In order to conform to standards, Tarwood Drive would have to be shifted westward by a minimum of 100 ft. This shift would have significant impacts to local businesses and reroute Tarwood Drive traffic closer to the signal at Rossmore Street. Since control of access is considered a critical design element for freeway ramps, a design exception is required and is included in Appendix F.
There is no work proposed at the Lexington Avenue interchange. In order to restrict Bellwood Drive access at the beginning of Ramps EC and ED, Lexington Avenue would have to be extended westward by a minimum 100 ft. and the ramps would have to be realigned.
Access to all other roadways within the project limits is uncontrolled. Proposed access control for commercial driveways located along Lyell Avenue is discussed in Section 3.3.3.1.(6).
3.3.1.3. Traffic Control Devices
3.3.1.3. (1) Traffic Signals: Three (3) new traffic signals are proposed at the following intersections:
1. Lyell Avenue at Rossmore Street 2. Lyell Avenue at Ramp DB 3. Lyell Avenue at Lee Road
The Lyell Avenue at Ramp DD signalized intersection will be eliminated and the Lyell Avenue at Lee Road signalized intersection will be converted to 4-way.
3.3.1.3. (2) Signs: Eleven (11) new overhead sign structures are anticipated at the following locations based on preliminary evaluation. Proposed overhead sign structure locations will be re-evaluated during final design in accordance with the most current MUTCD standards.
I-390/NY 390 NB 1. I-390 NB just north of Chili Avenue on-ramp (required for proposed lane drop) 2. NY 390 NB just south of Trolley Boulevard (required for proposed lane drop) 3. NY 390 NB at Lexington Avenue off-ramp (required for proposed lane drop)
NY 390/I-390 SB 4. NY 390 SB approximately 1 mile north of Lexington Avenue (required for proposed fork) 5. NY 390 SB at the Lexington Avenue off-ramp (required for proposed fork) 6. NY 390 SB just north of the Erie Canal (required for proposed lane drop) 7. NY 390 SB just south of Trolley Boulevard (required for proposed fork) 8. NY 390 SB at Lyell Avenue off-ramp (required for proposed lane drop) 9. NY 390 SB just north of Lyell Avenue EB on-ramp (required for proposed fork) 10. I-390 SB just south of I-490 EB on-ramp (required for proposed lane drop) 11. I-390 SB at the Chili Avenue off-ramp (required for proposed lane drop)
In addition, several existing overhead sign structures will require new signs and a few existing bridge mounted signs will need to be replaced with new signs. Some new ground mounted guide signs are also proposed. Proposed overhead and ground mounted guide signs will be explored further during final
3-33 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13 design. All other existing signs will be replaced as appropriate based on the geometric changes proposed or condition. Curve warning and speed advisory signs will be required for several of the 390/490 interchange and Lyell Avenue ramps, some with an existing accident history, and will be explored further during final design.
3.3.1.4. Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) – The Regional ITS Coordinator has identified possible ITS improvements that could be included in the project as follows:
ITS Alternative 1
· New CCTV camera installation with TCP/IP Ethernet communications mounted to light standard on north bridge fascia on eastern side of the new Lyell Avenue bridge over NY 390. New camera coverage will include the northern portion of the 390/490 interchange, both directions on the Lyell Avenue corridor, and a significant stretch to the north on NY 390 (closing the gap to the Ridgeway Avenue camera). · Extension of 144 strand fiber optic communications cable on NY 390 from the 390/490 interchange to northern project limit, and on I-490 from the 390/490 interchange to the existing cross-connect cabinet at the Erie Canal. · Signal control via 24 strand fiber optic cable for the traffic signals in the 390/31 interchange.
Further development of these technology improvements and timing of the construction will be undertaken during detailed design of the interchange improvements.
Preliminary concept plans and cost estimates provided by the Regional ITS Coordinator are included in Appendix C.
3.3.1.5. Speeds and Delay - Proposed posted speed limits as well as estimated travel times are described in the following sections.
3.3.1.5. (1) Proposed Posted Speed Limits - The proposed posted speed limits for the new roadways within the project study area are listed in Exhibit 3.3.1.5 (1). Overall, existing posted speed limits would be retained throughout the project area and are listed in Exhibit 2.3.1.5 (1)-1. Posted advisory speeds for ramps would likely be maintained if the ramp is not impacted by construction. Posted advisory speeds for the proposed ramps would be determined in detailed design.
3-34 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Exhibit - 3.3.1.5 (1) Proposed Posted Regulatory Speed Limits Proposed Posted Route Limits Speed Limit (mph) I-390 (including I-390 SB CD Road and CSX Railroad Bridge to I-490 55 390/490 Interchange Bypass) NYS Route 390 I-490 to north of Lexington 55 (including NY 390 SB CD Road) Avenue Interchange
3.3.1.5. (2) Travel Time Estimates – Peak hour travel times were extracted for the Estimated Time of Project Completion (ETC) (2015) and ETC+20 (2035) design years using VISSIM for the proposed alternative. This data is shown in Exhibit 3.3.1.5 (2) in Appendix C. Refer to Section 3.3.1.7 for a discussion of VISSIM and Section 2.3.1.5 (3) for an explanation of the travel time loops. See Section 2.3.5. for further discussion on the ETC utilized for this project.
Notable improvements (greater than 30 seconds) of delay along the expressway system were observed at the following locations:
AM Peak Hour: · I-490 EB to I-390 SB · NY 390 SB to I-490 EB (2035 only) · NY 390 SB to I-490 WB (2035 only) · NY 390 SB to I-390 SB
PM Peak Hour: · I-390 NB to I-490 WB (2035 only) · I-390 NB to I-490 EB (2035 only) · I-390 NB to NY 390 NB · I-490 WB to NY 390 NB
Overall, these improvements of travel time and delay are attributed to the proposed improvements along the expressway system. In all other locations, minimal differences in travel times were observed, which is due to the lack of geometric improvements and change in traffic volumes between the no-build and proposed conditions.
Overall, Lyell Avenue experienced a slight increase in travel time (less than 13 seconds), from end to end in the project study area. This is due to the updated traffic signal timings, although being coordinated on the same cycle length as existing, now accommodating pedestrian crossing time.
3.3.1.6. Traffic Volumes - See Section 2.3.1.6. (2) for more information on the design years, and development of AADT and peak hour turning movement volumes. See Section 2.3.5. for further discussion on the ETC utilized for this project. As with the future no-build volumes, future proposed volumes were generated in cooperation with the Genesee Transportation Council (GTC) and their regional travel demand (TransCAD) model. Overall, traffic volumes on new roadways and movements were generated from the demand models, balancing with the no-build conditions. Additionally, considerations were given to the new split of NY 390 SB into I-390 SB and NY 390 / I-390 SB CD Road and the potential use by those accessing I-490 as well as using it as a through roadway, in particular coming from Lexington Avenue. Given the widening of I-390 SB to Chili Avenue to four lanes wide in Alternative A2, traffic volumes exiting to Chili Avenue during the AM (critical) peak hour were developed from GTC origin-destination plots and entered into the VISSIM model.
3-35 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
The following diagrams are available in Appendix C summarizing project future traffic volumes under the proposed conditions, Alternative A2.
· Year 2015, 2025 and 2035 AADT on the project study area expressway mainline and ramps (Exhibits 3.3.1.6-1, 3.3.1.6-2, and 3.3.1.6-3); · Year 2015, 2025, 2035, and 2045 AM and PM peak hour mainline and ramp volumes, and intersection turning movements at 7 intersections (Exhibits 3.3.1.6-4, 3.3.1.6-5, 3.3.1.6-6, and 3.3.1.6-7); and · Year 2015, 2025, 2035, and 2045 AM and PM peak hour volume weaving volumes (Exhibits 3.3.1.6-8A to 8E, 3.3.1.6-9A to 9E, 3.3.1.6-10A to 10E, and 3.3.1.6-11A to 11E).
Overall, there were negligible differences between the design year 2035 no-build and proposed alternative, Alternative A2, volumes given the lack of significant geometric improvements. Refer to Section 2.3.1.6 (2) for an in-depth discussion on growth rates. There will be no impacts to mobility through the corridor for all vehicles types in Alternative A2. Therefore, heavy vehicle composition will remain the same under the proposed alternative. See Section 2.3.1.6 (1) for detailed percentages.
Alternative A2 design year (2035) traffic volumes for the project study area including new roadways within the system are summarized in Exhibit 3.3.1.6-12.
Exhibit 3.3.1.6-12 Alternative A2 Design Year (2035) Project Traffic Volumes Number AADT AM PM Direction or Route Segment of Travel Peak Peak Travel (Veh/day) Lanes (Veh/hr) (Veh/hr) Chili Avenue to I-490 Ramps Northbound 3 55,300 2,897 5,770 Chili Avenue to Buffalo Road Southbound 4 56,300 6,001 3,858 I-390 I-490 EB Entrance Ramp to NY Southbound 2 30,600 2,733 1,615 390 SB CD Road NY 390 SB I-490 to Lyell Avenue – Weave Southbound 3 35,300 3,566 2,918 CD Road Section Northbound 4 60,900 3,255 6,518 NY 390 Lyell Avenue to Lexington Avenue Southbound 4 58,900 5,395 4,000 Eastbound 3 54,900 5,908 3,511 I-490 NY 531 to I-390/NY 390 Westbound 3 53,400 2,821 5,363 I-390/NY 390 to Mt Read Eastbound 4 56,600 5,844 3,083 I-490 Boulevard Westbound 4 59,000 3,207 5,641 Ramp WS I-490 EB to I-390 SB CD Road Eastbound 1 14,800 1,716 1,016 Ramp WN I-490 EB to NY 390 NB Eastbound 1 11,500 1,043 996 Ramp ES I-490 WB to I-390 SB Westbound 1 8,000 728 572 Ramp EN I-490 WB to NY 390 NB Westbound 2 24,000 999 2,577 Ramp SE I-390 NB to I-490 EB Northbound 1 7,000 442 488 Ramp SW I-390 NB to I-490 WB Northbound 1 14,900 852 1,704 Ramp NW NY 390 SB CD Road to I-490 WB Southbound 1 11,500 489 1,167 Ramp NE NY 390 SB CD Road to I-490 EB Southbound 2 20,900 2,253 1,096 Ramp A NY 390 NB Exit to Lyell Avenue Northbound 1 6,400 334 532 I-490 WB (Ramp EN) Exit to Lyell Ramp B Northbound 1 5,000 226 432 Avenue NY 390 NB Entrance from Lyell Ramp C Northbound 1 3,400 170 331 Avenue Ramp DB NY 390 SB Exit to Lyell Avenue Southbound 1 4,100 231 331 NY 390 SB CD Road Entrance Ramp DC Southbound 1 3,700 281 426 from Lyell Avenue WB NY 390 SB CD Road Entrance Ramp DF Southbound 1 7,500 854 438 from Lyell Avenue EB
3-36 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Exhibit 3.3.1.6-12 Alternative A2 Design Year (2035) Project Traffic Volumes Number AADT AM PM Direction or Route Segment of Travel Peak Peak Travel (Veh/day) Lanes (Veh/hr) (Veh/hr) NY 390 NB Exit to Lexington Ramp EA Northbound 1 7,700 1,007 431 Avenue NY 390 SB Exit to Lexington Ramp EC Southbound 1 1,700 188 65 Avenue NY 390 SB Entrance from Ramp ED Southbound 1 8,500 324 1,093 Lexington Avenue NY 390 NB Entrance from Ramp EB Northbound 1 1,900 45 272 Lexington Avenue Lyell Rossmore Street to NY 390 SB Eastbound 2 17,800 1,588 1,069 Avenue Off-Ramp Westbound 2 17,800 598 1,795
Year 2045 volume projections for areas on or under project study area bridges are available in Exhibit 3.3.1.6-13.
Exhibit 3.3.1.6-13 Alternative A2 Design Year (2045) Project Traffic Volumes for Structures AADT B.I.N. Route Location (Veh/Day) 1048680 I-490 EB Under Howard Road 57,700 1048680 I-490 WB Under Howard Road 56,100 1048680 Howard Road Over I-490 16,000 1025812 I-390 SB CD Road Under I-490 EB 3,100 1025812 I-490 EB Over I-390 SB CD Road 30,100 I-490 WB Off-Ramp to I- 1025820/1063950 Under I-490 EB and I-390 NB 8,400 390 SB Over I-490 WB Off-Ramp to I-390 SB and 1025820/1063950 I-490 EB 52,000 Under I-390 EB Over I-490 EB and I-490 WB Off-Ramp to I- 1063950 I-390 NB 50,600 390 SB Under I-490 WB and I-490 EB Off-Ramp to NY 1025811/1052280 NY 390 SB CD Road 25,100 390 NB Over NY 390 SB CD Road and Under I-490 1025811/1052280 I-490 WB 44,000 EB Off-Ramp to NY 390 NB I-490 EB Off-Ramp to 1052280 Over I-490 WB and NY 390 SB CD Road 12,100 NY 390 NB 1052290 I-490 WB Under NY 390 NB 28,400 1052290 NY 390 NB Over I-490 WB 35,000 4443362 I-490 EB Over Erie Canal 59,200 4443361 I-490 WB Over Erie Canal 62,000 1023030 I-390 NB Under Buffalo Road 57,900 1023030 I-390 SB Under Buffalo Road 32,200 1023030 I-390 SB CD Road Under Buffalo Road 27,100 1023030 Buffalo Road Over I-390 16,000 7025830 I-390 NB Under CSX Railroad 57,900 7025830 I-390 SB Under CSX Railroad 59,300 Over I-490 WB Off-Ramp to I-390 SB, Over I- 490 EB, Over I-390 NB Off-Ramp to I-490 WB, 1, 2, 3* I-390 SB 32,200 Over I-490 WB, Over I-490 EB Off-Ramp to NY 390 NB I-490 WB Off-Ramp to I- 1* Under I-390 SB 8,400 390 SB 1* I-490 EB Under I-390 SB 52,000
3-37 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Exhibit 3.3.1.6-13 Alternative A2 Design Year (2045) Project Traffic Volumes for Structures AADT B.I.N. Route Location (Veh/Day) I-390 NB Off-Ramp to I- 2* Under I-390 SB 15,700 490 WB 2* I-490 WB Under I-390 SB 28,400 I-490 EB Off-Ramp to 3* Under I-390 SB 12,100 NY 390 NB NY 390 NB to Lyell Over I-490 WB Off-Ramp to NY 390 NB 4* 6,700 Avenue (Ramp A) (Ramp EN) I-490 WB Off-Ramp to 4* Under NY 390 NB to Lyell Avenue (Ramp A) 25,200 NY 390 NB (Ramp EN) 1021589 NY 390 NB Under Lyell Avenue 60,400 1021589 I-390 SB Under Lyell Avenue 32,200 1021589 NY 390 SB CD Road Under Lyell Avenue 29,200 1021589 Lyell Avenue Over NY 390 30,300 1062542 NY 390 NB Over Trolley Boulevard 63,900 1062541 NY 390 SB Over Trolley Boulevard 61,800 4062532 NY 390 NB Over Erie Canal 63,900 4062531 NY 390 SB Over Erie Canal 61,800 1062542/1062541 Trolley Boulevard Under NY 390 6,000 1062522 NY 390 NB Over Lexington Avenue 55,900 1062521 NY 390 SB Over Lexington Avenue 54,700 1062522/1062521 Lexington Avenue Under NY 390 7,000 Bolded B.I.N.s account for rehabilitated, reconstructed or new structures. / * - B.I.N.s to be Assigned.
3.3.1.7. Level of Service and Mobility - Refer to Section 2.3.1.7 for a discussion on Level of Service (LOS), and use of VISSIM and Synchro. In order to properly assess the proposed alternative, Alternative A2, conditions along the project study area roadways, it was necessary to use VISSIM and Synchro to analyze the interaction of traffic flow. VISSIM microsimulation models for the proposed alternative were developed from the calibrated existing and no-build, morning and evening peak hour models. Geometric and operational changes were made as necessary to match the alternative as well as operate as predicted with the new auxiliary lanes and capacity. Each microsimulation model was used to generate measures of effectiveness includes travel time and density along the roadway system in order to compare the no-build and alternative operating conditions. Densities were measured at the following locations with the study area and related to LOS using HCM definitions.
· Twenty-three (23) basic expressway segments along NY 390/I-490/I-390 · One (1) expressway weave section · Four (4) expressway diverge junctures · Five (5) expressway merge junctures
Synchro was used to properly assess the proposed alternative conditions along the project study area arterials and intersections. Under Alternative A2, the signalized conditions within the project study area would experience only minor changes. These are limited to a new, combined signal at the intersection of Lyell Avenue, Lee Road, and NY 390 NB ramps, and the inclusion of pedestrian accommodations, which slightly modified timing and phasing at the existing intersections. All signal timings were designed for the design year, ETC+20 (2035), and maintained through the other analysis years. All Synchro output reports are contained within the project record. Delay was measured at the following intersections within the project study area and related to LOS using HCM definitions.
· One (1) stop sign controlled approach to an intersection · Five (5) signalized intersections
3-38 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
3.3.1.7 (1) At Project Completion & Design Year – Level of service analyses were completed for the proposed Alternative A2 conditions, 2015 (ETC), 2025 (ETC+10), 2035 (ETC+20), and 2045 (ETC+30). See Section 2.3.5. for further discussion on the ETC utilized for this project. Tables summarizing the level of service and capacity analyses for the proposed expressway conditions are provided in Exhibits 3.3.1.7 (1)-1 and 2 of Appendix C for AM and PM peak hours respectively. Intersection delay and level of service results are shown in Exhibit 3.3.1.7 (1)-3 of Appendix C. Results and improvements over the no-build conditions are also summarized below and illustrated in Exhibit 3.3.1.7 (1)-4 and 5 for 2015 and 2035 respectively. Results for 2025 were completed for use during the air quality analysis and will not be discussed in detail.
Additionally, the 2045 LOS analysis was completed to review the roadway capacity at bridge locations only. Refer to Exhibit 3.3.1.7 (1)-6 for the capacity review. In summary, there are numerous locations where the capacity measure is unacceptable under Alternative A2. However, most of these locations are outside the proposed project improvement area. This includes on I-490 mainline where no additional capacity is included as part of the project and NY 390 north of Lexington Avenue. Three locations with unacceptable capacity in 2045 are I-390 NB/SB under CSX, I-390 NB/SB/SB CD Road under Buffalo Road, and I-390 NB over I-490 EB. However, given the adjacent segments of I-390 are already at their maximum feasible width without significant corridor widening, no capacity improvements are feasible. Refer to Section 3.3.3.2 (1) and Exhibits 3.3.3.2-5 and 3.3.3.2-6 in Appendix F for Non-Standard Feature Justifications given the locations are on Interstate highways.
As indicated below, several Interstate highway segments and ramp junctions do not meet the minimum required LOS “C”. Since LOS is a critical design element for these facilities, these locations require explanation for not improving to the minimum required (Non-Standard Feature Justification). However, for locations outside of the proposed project improvement area (I-490 mainline, NY 390 north of Lexington Avenue), justification for not meeting these standards is not necessary since the LOS is not worse than the no-build conditions. For locations and a complete explanation of locations of non-standard LOS, see Section 3.3.3.2 (1) and Exhibits 3.3.3.2-5 and 3.3.3.2-6 in Appendix F.
The total vehicle hours of delay (VHD) within the VISSIM network were greatly reduced under Alternative A2 when compared to the No-Build condition. During the AM peak hour, the VHD is reduced by 60-75% for the design years evaluated. Additionally, during the PM peak hour, the VHD is reduced by 40-60%. The AM peak hour sees a greater reduction in network delay due to the separation of southbound through traffic on NY 390/I-390, which alleviates the southbound queuing, and poor weaving and merging operations experienced under the No-Build conditions. During the PM peak hour, the elimination of the northbound weave area between I-490 and Lyell Avenue contributes to the improvements in network delay.
Expressway Sections
I-490 All basic expressway sections along I-490 are projected to operate at LOS C or better during both the morning and evening peak periods for 2015 (ETC) and 2035 (ETC+20) except for the following:
2015 (ETC) o LOS D · I-490 EB between the NY 531 merge and the lane drop during the morning peak period. · I-490 EB between the I-390 SB off-ramp (Ramp WS) and NY 390 SB on-ramp (Ramp NE) during the morning peak period. · I-490 WB between Mt. Read Boulevard and the I-390 SB off-ramp (Ramp ES) during the evening peak period. · I-490 WB between I-390 NB on-ramp (Ramp SW) and NY 390 SB on-ramp (Ramp NW) during the evening peak period.
3-39 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
o LOS E · I-490 EB between the lane drop and NY 390 NB off-ramp (Ramp WN) during the morning peak period. · I-490 WB between the NY 390 SB on-ramp (Ramp NW) and NY 531 diverge during the evening peak period.
2035 (ETC+20) o LOS D · I-490 EB between the I-390 SB off-ramp (Ramp WS) and NY 390 SB on-ramp (Ramp NE) during the morning peak period. · I-490 EB between the NY 390 SB on-ramp (Ramp NE) and I-390 NB on-ramp (Ramp SE) during the morning peak period. · I-490 EB between the I-390 NB on-ramp (Ramp SE) and Mt. Read Boulevard during the morning peak period. · I-490 WB between Mt. Read Boulevard and the I-390 SB off-ramp (Ramp ES) during the evening peak period. · I-490 WB between I-390 NB on-ramp (Ramp SW) and NY 390 SB on-ramp (Ramp NW) during the evening peak period. o LOS E · I-490 EB between the NY 531 merge and the lane drop during the morning peak period. · I-490 WB between the NY 390 SB on-ramp (Ramp NW) and NY 531 diverge during the evening peak period. o LOS F · I-490 EB between the lane drop and NY 390 NB off-ramp (Ramp WN) during the morning peak period.
Alternative A2 does not provide additional capacity on the I-490 mainline, where heavy volumes in the eastbound direction during the morning peak period and in the westbound direction during the evening peak period continue to cause at or near capacity operating conditions. However, there were two locations of slight improvements compared to the No-Build condition due to the proposed improvements along I-390 and NY 390. During the morning peak hour, I-490 EB, west of the I-490 EB to I-390 SB CD Road off ramp, marginally improved with the enhanced merging conditions of this traffic to I-390 SB. During the evening peak hour, I-490 WB, east of the I-490 WB to NY 390 NB off ramp, slightly improved with the enhanced mobility and geometry of NY 390 NB with the Lyell Avenue interchange.
I-390 Alternative A2 greatly improves the operations of I-390 SB during the morning peak hour. The separation of southbound through traffic without the interaction with the Lyell Avenue and I-490 ramps improves the flow, eliminating the backups that occur on NY 390/I-390 SB. During the morning peak hour, the I-390 SB CD Road operates at LOS D at year 2035 (ETC+20) and I-390 SB from the I-390 SB CD Road to Chili Avenue also operates at LOS D for 2015 (ETC) and 2035 (ETC+20). This is an improvement from the LOS E and F operations for the 2035 (ETC+20) No-Build condition.
During the evening peak hour, I-390 NB operates at LOS E from Chili Avenue to the I-490 EB off-ramp for 2015 (ETC) and 2035 (ETC+20). The section from the I-490 EB off-ramp to I-490 WB off-ramp operates at LOS D for 2015 (ETC) and LOS E for 2035 (ETC+20). However, these operations are an improvement from the No-Build condition, where operations are estimated to be LOS F for these segments for 2035 (ETC+20).
NYS Route 390 As discussed for I-390, Alternative A2 greatly improves the operations of NY 390. With the separation of southbound through traffic and the elimination of the northbound weave area between I-490 and Lyell Avenue, operations on NY 390 improve dramatically. All but one basic expressway section along NY 390 are estimated to operate at LOS D or better during both the morning and evening peak periods for 2015 (ETC) and 2035 (ETC+20). During the evening peak hour, NY 390 NB from the Lexington Avenue on- ramp to the Ridgeway Avenue off-ramp is estimated to operate at LOS E for 2015 (ETC) and 2035
3-40 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
(ETC+20). This segment operated at LOS D for the 2035 No-Build condition, though it was only 0.4 passenger cars per mile per lane below the LOS E threshold. The slight increase in volume related to the Alternative A2 caused the degradation in level of service.
Weaving Sections For the 2015 (ETC) and 2035 (ETC+20) conditions, the NY 390 SB weave is estimated to operate at LOS C or better for both peak periods. The separation of southbound through traffic improved the operations from LOS F for the 2035 No-Build condition. The NY 390 NB weave segment is eliminated with Alternative A2.
Ramp Junctions All free-flow merge and diverge areas are estimated to operate at LOS C or better (Interstate) / LOS D or better (non-interstate) during both the morning and evening peak periods for 2015 (ETC) and 2035 (ETC+20) except for the following:
2015 (ETC) o LOS D · I-490 EB diverge (Ramp WS) to I-390 SB during the morning peak period. o LOS E · NY 390 SB merge (Ramp NW) with I-490 WB during the evening peak period.
2035 (ETC+20) o LOS D · I-490 WB merge (Ramp ES) with I-390 SB during the morning peak period. · I-490 EB diverge (Ramp WS) to I-390 SB during the morning peak period. o LOS E: · Lexington Avenue merge (Ramp EB) with NY 390 NB during the evening peak period. · NY 390 SB merge (Ramp NW) with I-490 WB during the evening peak period.
The improvements made under Alternative A2 improve flow throughout the project study area, which resulted in the improvements in ramp junction operations. Several of the merge and diverge areas still operate at poor LOS due to the lack of improvements along I-490 under Alternative A2. Stop Controlled Intersection Approach Delay was measured for vehicles approaching and entering Lexington Avenue from Bellwood Drive at the stop sign and LOS results were developed from using the HCM definitions for unsignalized intersections. The intersection approaches are functioning at LOS C or better during both the morning and evening peak periods in 2015 and 2035, which did not change from the no-build conditions.
Signalized Intersection Operations Analyses were completed for intersections within the project study area. A total of five signalized intersections were analyzed for the proposed Alternative A2 2015 and 2035 conditions.
Along Lexington Avenue, the two existing intersections at NY 390 NB ramps and Lee Road were analyzed, resulting in slight increases (5 seconds per vehicle) in delay due to changes in volumes. For Lyell Avenue, the existing intersections at Rossmore Street/Wegmans and NY 390 SB off-ramp were maintained in their existing configuration and capacity; however minor phasing and timing changes were made to include pedestrian accommodations and provide corridor signal coordination. This resulted in an increase in vehicle delay overall, in particular the Lyell Avenue EB at Rossmore and Lyell Avenue WB at NY 390 SB off-ramp. For the new intersection at Lyell Avenue and Lee Road/NY 390 NB ramps, replacing the existing coupled adjacent signals, the single intersection control and left turn auxiliary lanes on all four approaches improved operations and vehicle delay. Signal coordination along Lyell Avenue was completed through the corridor, starting at the new intersection at Lee Road to the coordinated system to the west beginning at the intersection of Howard Road.
The signalized intersections are all operating at LOS D or better overall. Throughout the project study area, only a single lane group experienced poor level of service (LOS E or worse). Other lane groups
3-41 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13 described in Section 2.3.1.7 (2) with poor LOS where improved with modified phasing and timings. During both the AM and PM peak hours in 2015 and 2035, the Lee Road SB at Lyell Avenue left turn experienced LOS E. The 2035 delays are 64.4 and 56.0 seconds per vehicles for the AM and PM peak hours respectively. This poor LOS is due to the operations of coordinated signals, the long 120 second cycle length, accommodation for pedestrian crossing times, and the need to maintain acceptable LOS on higher volume approaches. Given the low volume of this movement (148/80 - 2035 AM/PM) and being less than 10 seconds away from LOS D threshold (55 seconds per vehicle), this is acceptable.
3-42 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Exhibit - 3.3.1.7 (1)-4 2015 Alternative A2 Level of Service Summary
3-43 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Exhibit - 3.3.1.7 (1)-5 2035 Alternative A2 Level of Service Summary
3-44 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Exhibit 3.3.1.7 (1)-6 Alternative A2 Design Year (2045) Project LOS/Capacity Review for Structures Density (pc/mi/ln) B.I.N. Route Location Methodology Delay (s/veh) LOS
V/C Acceptable 1048680 I-490 EB Under Howard Road Freeway 57.8 F No 1048680 I-490 WB Under Howard Road Freeway 44.2 E No 1048680 Howard Road Over I-490 Capacity 0.5 = V/C - Yes 1025812 I-390 SB CD Road Under I-490 EB Capacity 0.14 = V/C - Yes 1025812 I-490 EB Over I-390 SB CD Road Freeway 33.7 D No 1025820/ I-490 WB Off-Ramp to Under I-490 EB and I-390 Ramp Capacity 0.38 = V/C - Yes 1063950 I-390 SB NB Over I-490 WB Off-Ramp 1025820/ I-490 EB to I-390 SB and Under I- Freeway 35.0 E No 1063950 390 NB Over I-490 EB and I-490 1063950 I-390 NB Freeway 39.7 E No WB Off-Ramp to I-390 SB Under I-490 WB and I-490 1025811/ NY 390 SB CD Road EB Off-Ramp to NY 390 Freeway 32.1 D Yes 1052280 NB Over NY 390 SB CD Road 1025811/ I-490 WB and Under I-490 EB Off- Freeway 35.1 E No 1052280 Ramp to NY 390 NB I-490 EB Off-Ramp to Over I-490 WB and NY 390 1052280 Ramp Capacity 0.58 = V/C - Yes NY 390 NB SB CD Road 1052290 I-490 WB Under NY 390 NB Freeway 27.0 D No 1052290 NY 390 NB Over I-490 WB Diverge 32.0 D Yes 4443362 I-490 EB Over Erie Canal Freeway 29.5 D No 4443361 I-490 WB Over Erie Canal Freeway 30.5 D No 1023030 I-390 NB Under Buffalo Road Freeway 44.0 E No 1023030 I-390 SB Under Buffalo Road Merge 30.6 D No 1023030 I-390 SB CD Road Under Buffalo Road Freeway 27.5 D No 1023030 Buffalo Road Over I-390 Capacity 0.5 = V/C - Yes 7025830 I-390 NB Under CSX Railroad Freeway 44.0 E No 7025830 I-390 SB Under CSX Railroad Freeway 31.1 D No Over I-490 WB Off-Ramp to I-390 SB, Over I-490 EB, Over I-390 NB Off-Ramp to 1, 2, 3* I-390 SB Freeway 24.9 C Yes I-490 WB, Over I-490 WB, Over I-490 EB Off-Ramp to NY 390 NB I-490 WB Off-Ramp to 1* Under I-390 SB Ramp Capacity 0.38 = V/C - Yes I-390 SB 1* I-490 EB Under I-390 SB Freeway 35.0 E No I-390 NB Off-Ramp to 2* Under I-390 SB Ramp Capacity 0.75 = V/C - Yes I-490 WB 2* I-490 WB Under I-390 SB Freeway 27.0 D No I-490 EB Off-Ramp to 3* Under I-390 SB Ramp Capacity 0.58 = V/C - Yes NY 390 NB NY 390 NB to Lyell Over I-490 WB Off-Ramp 4* Ramp Capacity 0.30 = V/C - Yes Avenue (Ramp A) to NY 390 NB (Ramp EN) I-490 WB Off-Ramp to Under NY 390 NB to Lyell 4* Diverge 24.2 C Yes NY 390 NB (Ramp EN) Avenue (Ramp A) 1021589 NY 390 NB Under Lyell Avenue Freeway 28.2 D Yes 1021589 I-390 SB Under Lyell Avenue Freeway 24.9 C Yes
3-45 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Exhibit 3.3.1.7 (1)-6 Alternative A2 Design Year (2045) Project LOS/Capacity Review for Structures Density (pc/mi/ln) B.I.N. Route Location Methodology Delay (s/veh) LOS
V/C Acceptable 1021589 NY 390 SB CD Road Under Lyell Avenue Merge 26.0 C Yes 1021589 Lyell Avenue Over NY 390 / I-390 Intersection 51.5 D Yes 1062542 NY 390 NB Over Trolley Boulevard Merge 32.6 D Yes 1062541 NY 390 SB Over Trolley Boulevard Freeway 25.5 C Yes 4062532 NY 390 NB Over Erie Canal Freeway 31.7 D Yes 4062531 NY 390 SB Over Erie Canal Freeway 25.5 C Yes 1062542/ Trolley Boulevard Under NY 390 Capacity 0.19 = V/C - Yes 1062541 1062522 NY 390 NB Over Lexington Avenue Freeway 40.2 E No 1062521 NY 390 SB Over Lexington Avenue Diverge 34.9 D Yes 1062522/ Lexington Avenue Under NY 390 Intersection 6.4 A Yes 1062521 Note: 1. Density/Delay/Capacity/LOS is for the critical peak hour operations in the critical direction. 2. Capacity checks are against the Highway Capacity Manual’s (HCM) listed values for capacity at free flow speed for that roadway: · Ramp Capacity - I-490 WB Single-Lane 50 mph, I-490 EB Single-Lane 45 mph, I-390 NB Single-Lane 45 mph, NY 390 NB Single-Lane 50 mph, I-390 SB CD Road 60 mph, Exhibit 25-3 · Howard Road, Buffalo Road, Trolley Boulevard - 40 mph, 3200 pc/h, Chapter 20 3. Bolded B.I.N.s account for rehabilitated, reconstructed or new structures. 4. * - B.I.N.s to be Assigned.
3.3.1.7 (2) – Work Zone Safety & Mobility
A. Work Zone Traffic Control Plan
Conceptual work zone traffic control schemes have been developed for the preferred alternative. For discussion purposes, the sequencing of the improvements have been separated into four distinct construction phases are shown on Exhibit 3.3.1.7-1 in Appendix A (bound separately):
Phase 1: Lyell Avenue bridge over NY 390 Phase 2: Improvements to northbound I-390 / NY 390 and associated ramps, Lyell Avenue corridor east of NY 390 and Lee Road Phase 3: Improvements to southbound I-390 / NY 390 and associated ramps Phase 4: Lyell Avenue corridor west of NY 390
The four phases were broken down further into separate sections of work. Many of the sections can be completed concurrently or independently of other sections of work unless specifically noted. As indicated in Section 1.5, funding is secured for the design and construction of Phase 1 only. The sequence of how the remaining work will be phased will be determined when additional funding becomes available.
Assumptions that were used in developing the conceptual staging schemes include: maintaining two lanes of traffic during peak traffic hours for northbound 390, southbound 390, westbound Lyell Avenue (between Ramp DB and Lee Road) and Ramp EN (westbound I-490 to Lyell Avenue). All other roadways or sections of roadways and ramps are proposed to remain open during construction with at least one available lane for traffic.
Access for emergency vehicles will be maintained during construction when feasible. Additional shoulder width would be provided where necessary and feasible through work zones along the NY 390 / I-390 to allow for passage of emergency vehicles at all times. Construction of temporary median turn-arounds on NY 390 would be constructed to also allow emergency vehicles effectively respond to incidents by changing direction without having to exit the expressway.
3-46 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Except for the NY 390 NB bridge over Trolley Boulevard (BIN 1062542), all bridges undergoing staged construction will not experience vehicular loading where large overhangs may be necessary. As a result these bridges aren’t anticipated to require temporary deck support.
Work Zone Traffic Control Typical Sections are included in Appendix A (bound separately). The details for the work zone traffic control will be prepared and evaluated during final design.
Phase 1: Replacement of NY 31 (Lyell Avenue) bridge over NY 390 (BIN 1021589)
The existing 4-span bridge will be removed and replaced with a new bridge over northbound and southbound NY 390. The proposed bridge will be configured to span future build conditions for NY 390. Due to the close proximity of the proposed west abutment to the acceleration lane for Ramp DC, southbound NY 390 would be reduced from three to two travel lanes north of the interchange closing the outside (right lane in direction of traffic), shifting the Ramp DC acceleration lane over and closing the existing acceleration lane to construct the new abutment. The 2-span bridge configuration proposes a center pier within the existing grass median that separates the northbound and southbound directions of NY 390. Disruption to northbound NY 390 traffic during pier demolition of the center and east piers and construction of the new center pier could be minimized by utilizing short-term lane closure(s) in-place only during night-time and non-peak hours. Other minor impacts to NY 390 traffic would be limited to brief traffic stoppages during night time hours to remove portions of the existing superstructure and to set the new superstructure members.
The partial construction (excavation and grading) of a portion of new Ramp C that is beneath the Lyell Avenue bridge, as well as additional areas that do not impact any of the existing interchange ramps, could be included in this phase without additional traffic control measures.
Long term closure of Lyell Avenue at the existing bridge to construct the new bridge would require separate detours for both westbound and eastbound traffic. The westbound detour would utilize Lee Road to Lexington Avenue to NY 390 to Ramp DB, a detour length of approximately 2 miles. The eastbound detour would utilize Ramp DF to NY 390 to Ramp NE to I-490 to Mt. Read Boulevard to Lyell Avenue, a detour length of approximately 3.5 miles depending on the destination of the eastbound vehicle east of the closure. A long term closure of Lyell Avenue is not considered to be feasible as it would significantly reduce the effectiveness of the Lyell Avenue interchange ramps and divert a high volume of vehicles typically on Lyell Avenue to other roadways that may not have capacity to accommodate the additional traffic. This would also have significant impacts to emergency response times, transit services, and pedestrian and bicycle mobility.
The new bridge and approach work is proposed to be constructed in two stages with two-way traffic maintained along Lyell Avenue. The typical section would consist of two 11 ft lanes in the westbound direction and one 11 ft wide lane in the eastbound direction. From measured traffic volumes on Lyell Avenue, maintaining one eastbound lane between Ramp DF and Lee Road through both stages of Phase 1 is feasible. The following list compares features of maintaining one or two eastbound travel lanes during Phase 1:
1 Eastbound travel lane 2 Eastbound travel lanes · Wider travel lane widths/curb offsets across bridge · Narrower lanes / no curb offsets across bridge · Allows for additional buffer width between work · Left turn lane from eastbound Lyell Avenue to zone and traffic areas. Lee Road would be removed to provide for thru- lane lane shifts east of the bridge. · Allows for continued use of a left-turn lane for high volumes from eastbound Lyell Ave. to Lee Road. · More room to accommodate large left-turning · Additional width needed for four travel lanes (2 vehicles (WB-65) from Ramp DD to westbound in each direction) would take up room necessary Lyell Avenue for large turning vehicles from Ramp DD to · Requires signage and delineation west of the work westbound Lyell Avenue zone that outside lane is ending (turning into an on- ramp only lane) 3-47 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
The southern portion of the new bridge would be constructed first with traffic maintained on the northern portion of the existing bridge. Since the new bridge is wider to the south, constructing the southern portion of the bridge during Stage 1 would provide a configuration with less of a lateral shift for both westbound lanes that would better accommodate large left-turning vehicles from Ramp DD during Stage 2. For stage 2, all traffic would be shifted to the newly constructed portion of the bridge while the remainder of the new bridge is under construction. Approximately 150 ft of pavement, curbs, drainage and other utilities on either side of the new bridge would be impacted during this phase to accommodate the profile adjustment to Lyell Avenue and to complete transitions back to the existing roadway.
All four 390/31 interchange ramps would be maintained during construction of this phase. Temporary relocation of the entrances for Ramp DE (eastbound Lyell Avenue to northbound NY 390) and Ramp DC (westbound Lyell Avenue to southbound NY 390) to form a right-angle turn from Lyell Avenue may be necessary during this phase to accommodate work zones, buffer lengths and lane shifts. A reduction in the speed limit along Lyell Avenue is recommended during this phase to slow traffic through the lane shifts and enhance the ability for drivers to react to disruptions in traffic flow caused by construction. The reduced speed limit allows for shorter lane shift lengths which is conducive in this urban setting with closely spaced intersections and traffic signals that must be maintained during construction.
This staging sequence maintains traffic at all times on Lyell Avenue. Consideration was given to accelerated construction methods to reduce the impacts to traffic on Lyell Avenue and NY 390 below. Options that could be considered in future phases of the design process include:
1. Use of Precast Bridge Element Systems (PBES): Utilize precast substructure elements, precast deck panels and prefabricated superstructure members to reduce the overall duration of construction. This approach would utilize the staged construction method described above; however, the overall duration would be reduced by the use of precast concrete elements (eliminating construction times associated with forming, rebar and wet concrete placement and cure times).
2. Horizontal Slide-in Entire Superstructure: Install the entire superstructure during a three to four week full closure of Lyell Avenue. This could be accomplished by: a. Construct new substructures below and in front of/behind the existing bridge substructures using shorter duration and less obtrusive, short term lane and shoulder closures during off peak times. b. PBES or cast-on-place (CIP) construction practices could be used to construct the substructures c. Construct the entire new bridge superstructure adjacent to the existing bridge on temporary supports over NY 390. d. During a full closure of Lyell Avenue, demolish existing bridge, slide in the new superstructure and re-open to traffic. e. Complete approach work and tie in to the new superstructure during shorter duration and less obtrusive, short term off peak closures.
3. Staged Construction with Horizontal Slide-in of the Superstructure a. Similar to Option 2, construct new substructures below and in front of/behind the existing bridge substructures using shorter duration and less obtrusive, short-term lane and shoulder closures during off peak times. b. Construct half of the new bridge superstructure on both sides of the work area on temporary supports over NY 390. c. During a 3-4 week operation, shift traffic to one side of the bridge (3 lanes), remove half of the existing bridge and horizontally slide in half of the new bridge superstructure. d. Shift traffic to new bridge deck (3 lanes) and repeat Step c for the other half of the bridge.
3-48 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
e. Complete approach work and tie in to the new superstructure during shorter duration and less obtrusive, short-term off peak closures.
Options two and three described above will have similar impacts to traffic below on NY 390 to those in the conventionally staged options, except that a series of overnight closure of NY 390 would likely be required for Option 2 when rolling the superstructure into place. Refer to the Special Provisions (section 3.3.1.7 (2) b.) for considerations given to accelerated bridge construction for this phase.
A single span bridge replacement option was considered, however, the increased depth of superstructure necessary to span the proposed expressway footprint would require a raise in profile of Lyell Avenue as much as 6 ft near the east abutment to achieve the required clearance over NY 390. The significant elevation difference between the existing roadway and the proposed roadway at the east approach precludes shifting traffic from the existing roadway to the portion of the approach that would be constructed during stage 1 thus making the single span bridge option not feasible.
Phase 2: Construction/Reconstruction related to Northbound I-390 / NY 390
Section 1:
The following work would be completed as part of this section: Replace NY 390 northbound bridge over Trolley Boulevard (BIN 1062542) Widen NY 390 northbound bridge over Erie Canal (BIN 4062532) Construct portion of Ramp C All work on NY 390 northbound from NB 695+00 to NB 727+50 An option would be to also replace the NY 390 southbound bridge over Trolley Boulevard (BIN 1062541) and rehabilitate the NY 390 southbound bridge over Erie Canal (BIN 4062531) during this Section
The existing bridge carrying northbound NY 390 over Trolley Boulevard (BIN 1062542) is a constriction point with the existing section consisting of three travel lanes and left and right shoulder widths that narrow to 1.5 ft and 3.5 ft respectively across the bridge. Replacement of this bridge, the rehabilitation and widening of the adjacent bridge over the Erie Canal (BIN 4062532) and the lane widening of northbound NY 390 would be completed by reducing the northbound mainline down to two lanes to provide room to complete the work in two stages. Work on the eastern portion of the bridges and mainline would take place first while maintaining traffic along the existing inside and center lanes. For Stage 2, traffic would be shifted to the newly constructed portions from Stage 1 to complete reconstruction and rehabilitation of both bridges. The temporary deck overhang during Stage 2 construction of NY 390 NB bridge over Trolley Boulevard (BIN 1062542) can have partial emergency vehicle traffic loading on the left overhang during this stage of construction. Temporary overhang deck support may be required under this condition.
Because of the narrow width across the existing bridge over Trolley Boulevard, there is not adequate width during Stage 1 to provide for two travel lanes for northbound NY 390 traffic and additional width for emergency vehicle passage. A construction option that would provide enough width for passage of emergency vehicles at all times would be to include with this section the replacement and rehabilitation of the southbound bridges over Trolley Boulevard and the Erie Canal as well as the northbound bridges. Widening the southbound bridges would allow for one northbound travel lane to cross-over the median and use the southbound bridges. With one northbound travel lane removed from the northbound direction, there is adequate room for the other northbound travel lane and adequate shoulder width to allow for emergency vehicle passage while the northbound bridges are being widened. This split-configuration for northbound traffic would involve considerable delineation to safely split the traffic, but it would allow for continual access for emergency vehicles on northbound NY 390 at all times.
During reconstruction of BIN 1062542 over Trolley Boulevard, disruption to traffic on Trolley Boulevard should be minimal and limited to short-duration impacts when removing portions of the
3-49 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
existing bridge and setting superstructure members for the new bridge. There is an abandoned railroad corridor that parallels Trolley Boulevard beneath BIN 1062542 that could be used as a staging area for the Contractor during construction. The same conditions would apply to the reconstruction of BIN 1062541 if completed at this time or in Phase 3 – Section 6.
During rehabilitation of BIN 4062532 (and BIN 4062531 if completed at this time), a detour for pedestrian and bicycle traffic using the multi-use Canalway Trail that passes beneath the bridge is not anticipated, but there is a viable detour route along Trolley Boulevard and Lee Road if it is determined during final design that a detour for the Canalway Trail is warranted.
Permanent closure of Ramp DA would take place at this time. Closure of this ramp would allow for construction of a portion of proposed Ramp C, which is in direct conflict with the existing Ramp DA. The relatively low volumes (2015 ADT = 1,100) that use this existing ramp would be temporarily redirected to the Lexington Avenue interchange to access northbound NY 390 via northbound on Lee Road. Westbound traffic approaching the Lyell-Lee intersection that would normally be through movements would be temporarily converted to right-turn movements. However, due to the proximity of Ramp DA from the Lyell-Lee intersection, traffic is assumed to be in the shared thru-right lane even if the detour were not in place so impacts to the intersection LOS would be minimal. This rerouting of traffic should not have a significant impact to traffic operations along the remainder of this off-site detour route.
The proposed work included in Section 1 should be completed prior to the proposed work outlined in Section 2 below.
Section 2:
The following work would be completed as part of this section in 2 stages while maintaining two lanes of traffic on the northbound I-390 /NY 390 roadway: Widening of northbound I-390 between Ramp SE and Ramp SW Rehabilitation and widening of the bridge over westbound I-490 (BIN 1052290) Widening of Ramp SW Widening of northbound NY 390 from Ramp DD to Lyell Ave. and continued construction of Ramp C.
During the staged rehabilitation and widening of BIN 1052290 including construction of the two new portions of piers, disruption to westbound I-490 traffic could be minimized by utilizing short-term lane closure(s) in-place only during night-time and non-peak hours. Pier foundation work however, will require a traffic lane shift and temporary concrete barrier until the newly constructed foundations are backfilled. Other minor impacts to westbound I-490 traffic would be limited to brief traffic stoppages during night time hours to remove portions of the existing superstructure and to set the new superstructure members.
Multiple stages would be necessary to complete the widening and concrete overlay on the existing bridge deck for BIN 1052290 while maintaining two travel lanes and having additional shoulder width to allow for passage of emergency vehicles at all times. For Stage 2, work during non-peak hours including nighttime would be necessary to shut down one of the northbound travel lanes to place the concrete overlay in the lane. A third stage would then be necessary to complete the concrete overlay while maintaining traffic on the newly constructed portion of the bridge.
The widening of northbound I-390 between Ramp SE and Ramp SW and the widening of Ramp SW is independent of other work and can be completed during Phase 1 if there is available funding.
Prior to performing the widening along northbound NY 390 from Sta. NB 681+00 to Sta. NB 698+00, the new portion of Ramp C would tie-in to the loop portion of existing Ramp DE and traffic using this ramp would be transferred to this new roadway to allow for the work zones to be established. The
3-50 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
completed work outlined in this section would then allow for the realignment of Ramp EN identified in Section 3.
Section 3:
The following work would be completed as part of this section:. Construct grade separation bridge for Ramp A over Ramp EN Construct Ramps A & B Construct realigned Ramp EN Complete construction of Ramp C Complete intersection of Ramps A, B & C and Lee Road with Lyell Avenue Construct Lyell Avenue corridor east of NY 390 Construct Lee Road widening and rehabilitation All other proposed roadwork on NY 390 and I-390 northbound roadways
After completion of Section 2, Section 3 would commence with the construction of roadways on new alignment that would not significantly impact traffic on existing Ramp EN, existing Ramp DD and on Lyell Ave. This would include the construction of all of Ramp B, construction of a portion of Ramp A including the new Ramp A bridge, additional construction of Ramp C and the realignment portion of Ramp EN.
The section of Lyell Avenue from the eastern limit of work completed in Phase 1 (Lee Road) to the Erie Canal would be widened and reconstructed in two stages during this phase. Traffic would be maintained on-site with one travel lane in each direction and a center two-way left turn lane. This work can be progressed concurrently with the other work in this section but enough widening must be completed east of Lee Road to accommodate a westbound left-turn lane when Ramp C is ready to be opened to traffic (see below).
The intersection of the new ramps to Lyell Ave across from Lee Road could be constructed at this time and must be completed prior to opening any of the new ramps to traffic.
With tie-ins completed, traffic from westbound I-490 would be shifted onto the newly constructed portion of Ramp EN, allowing the last section Ramp A between northbound NY 390 and the newly completed Ramp A bridge to be completed.
Once Ramp B is accepting traffic from westbound I-490 and Ramp A is opened to accept traffic from northbound I-390 / NY 390, Ramp DD would be closed in order to complete Ramp C. Upon completion of the work at this intersection Ramp C would be opened to traffic allowing the detour along Lee Road that was in-place for Ramp DA to be removed. All traffic on Lyell Avenue and Lee Road would then access northbound NY 390 via Ramp C.
After the detour along Lee Road is removed, the widening and improvements along Lee Road would take place while maintaining both directions of traffic.
Phase 3: Construction/Reconstruction related to Southbound I-390 / NY 390
Section 4:
The following work would be completed as part of this section: Construct new bridge carrying Buffalo Road over I-390 Construct new 4th lane along I-390 southbound from Sta. SB 116+50 to Sta. SBC 159+00
Replacement of the bridge carrying Buffalo Road over I-390 (BIN 1023030) could take place at any time during earlier phases but must be completed prior to completing the widening of southbound I- 390 identified in this section and prior to any tie-in of the new southbound I-390 roadway that is identified in Section 5. There is adequate width on the existing bridge to maintain two-way traffic at
3-51 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
all times on 11 ft lanes during staged construction of the new bridge. The proposed condition for Buffalo Road has a left turn lane to the Industrial Park. It will be evaluated during final design if measures (i.e. temporary traffic signal) are necessary to alleviate any back-ups that may occur related to left turning vehicles. During demolition and construction operations for the existing and proposed bridge, disruption to I-390 traffic in both directions could be minimized by utilizing short-term lane closure(s) in-place only during night-time and non-peak hours. Other minor impacts to I-390 traffic would be limited to brief traffic stoppages during night time hours to remove portions of the existing superstructure and to set the new superstructure members.
While the bridge carrying Buffalo Road over I-390 is being replaced, the lane widening along southbound I-390 and the cut-back of the rock slopes along the west side of the southbound I-390 could also take place. After completion of the new bridge and rock excavations, the widening of the southbound direction of I-390 and the I-390 CD Road would be able to be completed. Long term shoulder closures are expected for the lane widening, but lane closures would only be in-place short term and would be limited to night-time and non-peak hours.
Section 5:
The following work would be completed as part of this section: Construct new roadway from I-390 Sta. SB 150+00± to Sta. SB 215+00± Construct 3 new bridges over I-490 EB, I-490 WB and Ramp WN Construct portion of Ramp ES on new alignment
Construct the new southbound 390 alignment from Sta. SB 150+00± to Sta. SB 215+00± including three new bridge, a major culvert extension and the portion of Ramp ES that is on new alignment. This section could be constructed prior to or concurrently with other Phase 3 sections although the new roadway cannot be opened to traffic until the lane widening along southbound I-390 from Sta. SB 116+50 to Sta. SBC 159+00 (on the new C-D roadway) is completed.
During the construction of the new bridges, disruption to Ramp WN traffic and both eastbound and westbound I-490 traffic could be minimized by utilizing short-term lane closure(s) in-place only during night-time and non-peak hours. Other minor impacts to I-490 and Ramp WN traffic would be limited to brief traffic stoppages during night time hours to set the new superstructure members.
Section 6:
The following work would be completed as part of this section: Replace NY 390 southbound bridge over Trolley Boulevard (if not completed in Phase 2 – Section 1) Replace deck for NY 390 southbound bridge over Erie Canal (if not completed in Phase 2 – Section 1) Lane widening on NY 390 southbound from SB 216+00 to SB 228+00 All other proposed work on NY 390 & I-390 southbound roadways
Work included as part of this section would be the reconstruction of the southbound NY 390 bridge over Trolley Boulevard (BIN 1062541), the rehabilitation of the southbound NY 390 bridge over the Erie Canal (BIN 4062531) and the widening of the southbound mainline roadway between Ramp DB and BIN 4062531. With the northbound side completed during Phase 2, there would be adequate width on the northbound bridges to accommodate two travel lanes for both the northbound and southbound mainline along with an 8 ft wide shoulder in each direction to allow for passage of emergency vehicles. Southbound mainline traffic would be reduced to 2 lanes north of Lexington Avenue and northbound mainline traffic on NY 390 would need to be reduced from 5 lanes south of Lyell Avenue to 2 lanes prior to Trolley Boulevard. Median cross-overs would be constructed to shift the 2 southbound lanes to the northbound mainline leaving the acceleration lane for the on-ramp from Lexington Avenue to southbound NY 390 on both southbound bridges. The on-ramp lane would merge back with mainline traffic south of the two bridges and after the second median cross-over.
3-52 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Ramp DB to Lyell Avenue would remain open under this configuration. Staged deck construction of both bridges would be necessary. Accelerated construction will be utilized if feasible to minimize the amount of time that the lane reductions and work zone configurations are necessary.
As noted in Phase 2 – Section 3 during similar construction to the northbound bridges over Trolley Boulevard and the Erie Canal, disruption to traffic on Trolley Boulevard would be minimal and any lane closures necessary for demolition or construction of the southbound bridges would be short- duration. If a detour for the pedestrians and bicyclists using the multi-use Canalway Trail is necessary for the proposed work on the southbound bridges, a viable route would follow Trolley Boulevard to Lee Road. The need for a detour will be investigated further during final design.
Phase 4: Construction of remaining sections of the project
The following work would be completed as part of this section: Reconstruct Lyell Avenue west of the bridge over NY 390
This phase consists of constructing the western portion of Lyell Avenue from Howard Road to Ramp DF including necessary utility relocations along this stretch that were not completed in previous phases. This section is independent of the other section of Lyell Avenue (Phase 2 – Section 3) but could be combined with a previous phase depending on available project funding.
Section 7:
Complete the widening and improvements along Lyell Avenue from Howard Road to the western limit of work completed during Phase 1. The work would be completed in 2 stages while maintaining two- way traffic that would consist of one lane in each direction with a center two-way left turn lane. Dedicated left turn lanes would be formed at major intersections.
The benefit to providing a three-lane section along Lyell Avenue is that the roadway would be constructed in two stages. The center lane is necessary for the number of driveways along the corridor. Maintaining two travel lanes in either direction plus the center lane would require additional section width that would add additional stages to complete the road construction.
B. Special Provisions
The high traffic volumes within the project limits will inevitably be impacted by construction of this project. Special provisions will be made to accelerate construction and reduce the amount of impact and delay to traffic. Time related contract provisions will be considered during final design to provide incentives to contractors for completing work ahead of schedule and disincentives for not meeting specified deadlines. Another time-related contract provision that will be considered is lane rentals for planned lane closures on the expressway. With the high volume of traffic during day time hours, the use of lane closures on NY 390, I-390 and I-490 during night time hours to perform certain short tasks will be included.
Nighttime construction along the Lyell Avenue commercial corridor will be considered during final design if analysis shows unacceptable delays during peak travel times caused by lane reductions as part of construction.
For the mainline NY 390 bridges that are to be replaced over Trolley Boulevard (BIN 1062541 and BIN 1062542) or bridge deck replacements/widening over the Erie Canal (BIN 4062531 and BIN 4062532) and for the replacement of the Lyell Avenue bridge over NY 390 (BIN 1021589), accelerated bridge construction methods, including the use of PBES are being considered to reduce construction time and lessen impacts to traffic. Construction of the new superstructure adjacent to the existing bridge and jacking or rolling in the structure into place could significantly reduce the duration of the three lane configuration on Lyell Avenue; however, impacts to NY 390 will be similar and the cost of construction will be increased. The feasibility and appropriate use of precast structural members and other accelerated construction methods will be investigated during the structure study phase of this project.
3-53 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
As indicated in Section 2.2.2.4, the NY 390/I-390, I-490 and NY 31 corridors are important transportation components of the local, regional and intrastate/interstate highway system. As such, any work zone for adjacent projects that may consider using these corridors as a detour would require coordination. At this time, no projects have been identified that would utilize any of the roadways within the project limits as a detours. The work zone traffic control for each phase of this project will also need to be coordinated with local officials and residents.
C. Significant Projects (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 • A Transportation Operations (TO) component • A Public Information component (PI)
3.3.1.8. Safety Considerations, Accident History and Analysis – As discussed in Section 2.3.1.8, a significant portion of the existing roadway segments have identifiable accident patterns within the project limits and all but one intersection (Rossmore Street) exceeds the statewide average accident rate. The majority of accidents are caused by congestion and inclement weather. See Exhibit 2.3.1.8-12 for notable accident statistics.
Safety improvements have been identified for the project and are described in detail in Exhibit 3.3.1.8 in Appendix C. In general, planned improvements will minimize delays and are expected to reduce congestion related accidents within the proposed project limits. Improvements to traffic flow, provision of a new surface course, new pavement markings, improved signing, and improvements to pedestrian and bicycle conditions will enhance the safety of all users within the project limits.
Warrants for guide railing, median barrier, signing, impact attenuators, lighting, variable message signs, ice retardant HMA, pavement grooving, etc. will be will be examined throughout the limits of the project and installed to current standards as necessary. Both non-traversable roadsides and fixed objects located within the clear zones will be evaluated for compliance with required clear zone criteria as specified in the AASHTO Roadside Design Guide.
Due to the high number of deer related accidents, the completeness and integrity of the right of way fencing and the applicability of electronic deer detection or deterrent warning systems will be investigated during final design.
3.3.1.9. Impacts on Police, Fire Protection and Ambulance Access – Although there are no police stations, fire stations or ambulance facilities that have direct access to any of the roadways located within the project limits, incident response times should improve due to the anticipated operational improvements. In addition, the frequency of incidents occurring within the project limits should decline due to the anticipated safety improvements.
As indicated in Section 2.3.1.9., the median crossover on I-490 to the west of the project study area does not provide enough width to safely accommodate emergency vehicles attempting to make u-turns. This median crossover provides a width of only 54 ft. In order to safely accommodate maintenance and emergency operations at this location, parallel-type deceleration lanes should be provided as per the HDM. However, since this median crossover is well outside the proposed project limits, improvements are not proposed as part of this project but should be considered as part of a separate project.
The need for a proposed median crossover on NY 390 between the 390/31 and Lexington Avenue interchange was evaluated due to concerns raised by the Gates Police and Fire Department that the proposed I-390 SB roadway passing over the 390/490 interchange might be difficult to access in the
3-54 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13 event of an incident on the new roadway. It was determined that such a crossover is not recommended due to the following safety issues:
1. Median crossovers are not recommended in narrow median widths per HDM criteria. The proposed median width is only 36 ft. and would require an opening in the median barrier to accommodate the crossover. 2. The proximity of the median crossover would be within 1500 ft. of the 390/31 interchange ramps, which is not recommended per HDM criteria. 3. Concern that I-490 EB vehicles destined for Lyell Avenue would illegally utilize the crossover in lieu of exiting at Lexington Avenue and looping backtracking via Ramp ED or Lee Road.
Refer to Section 3.3.1.7(2) for a discussion of the anticipated impacts during construction.
3.3.1.10. Parking Regulations and Parking Related Issues – No changes are proposed to parking regulations. As a result of the roadway widening along Lyell Avenue to accommodate turning lanes, bicycle lanes, and sidewalks, impacts to parking spaces are proposed at several businesses as follows:
PICS Telecom International (1920 Lyell Avenue) - One (1) parking space impacted
Diplomat Banquet Center and Hotel (1956 Lyell Avenue) - Twelve (12) parking spaces impacted
Stonegate Retail Complex (2003 Lyell Avenue) – One (1) parking space impacted
Stonegate Professional Complex (2005 Lyell Avenue) – Four (4) parking spaces impacted
ERB Financial (2243-2247 Lyell Avenue) – Six (6) parking spaces impacted
East Gates Professional Building (2255 Lyell Avenue) – Twelve (12) parking spaces impacted
East Gates Professional Building (2269 Lyell Avenue) – Eight (8) parking spaces impacted
Wegmans (2301-17 Lyell Avenue) – Twenty Eight (28) parking spaces impacted
3.3.1.11. Lighting – Widening and realignment of the mainline and ramps will directly impact the existing pole locations and the buried conduit and wires that are part of the existing lighting systems. At this time, it is assumed that all impacted lighting systems will be addressed in accordance with the NYSDOT Highway Lighting Policy dated December 1979. Placement of new continuous lighting systems on the proposed southbound mainline roadway and proposed ramps A, B, and C will also be considered in accordance with the same policy. NYSDOT is currently working on updating county-wide highway lighting agreement(s) with the Monroe County Department of Transportation (MCDOT), the agency responsible for the lighting systems within the project limits. Any new or replacement systems will be designed to current standards. The need to replace existing lighting standards along the mainline and ramps not impacted by construction should be revisited during final design for each construction phase. For the purposes of the construction cost estimate, existing lighting standards not impacted by construction are assumed to remain in-place.
High mast lighting is not being considered as part of this project given the close proximity of residential housing in the area of the two interchanges and since all of the existing continuous lighting within the interchange areas will not be impacted and will remain in-place.
It is anticipated that street lighting along Lyell Avenue that is currently located on utility poles will be replaced by decorative/ornamental lighting within the proposed grass buffer strips and at intersections and will be explored further during final design.
3-55 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
3.3.1.12. Ownership and Maintenance Jurisdiction – Agencies primarily responsible for transportation facilities within the project limits upon completion of the contract will remain the NYSDOT and MCDOT. Ownership and Maintenance Jurisdiction will remain as depicted in the Existing Highway Maintenance Jurisdiction Table and Plans (See Exhibit 2.3.1.12 and Appendix A), except for the following:
1. Lee Road Extension no longer exists in the proposed condition. 2. Lane miles have increased for I-390, NY 390, Lyell Avenue, and Lee Road due to the proposed roadway widening and ramps. 3. The limits of I-390 SB and NY 390 SB have changed through the 390/490 and 390/31 interchange areas due to the proposed 390/490 interchange bypass roadway. 4. The existing I-390 SB and NY 390 SB segments through the 390/490 and 390/31 interchanges are now designated as collector-distributor (CD) roads.
A proposed maintenance jurisdiction table and plans will be developed during final design.
3.3.1.13. Constructability Review – A full constructability review will be made by the Regional Construction Group during subsequent quality review phases of the project.
3.3.2. Multimodal
3.3.2.1. Pedestrians – Pedestrian accommodations along Lyell Avenue within the project limits will be improved significantly with the implementation of continuous 5 ft. wide sidewalks along both sides of the roadway from Howard Road to the Erie Canal. As indicated in sections 3.3.2.3. and 3.3.2.5. below, access to bus stops along Lyell Avenue and access to the Erie Canalway Trail will also be improved greatly with the implementation of sidewalks. Proposed improvements will be developed in accordance with ADA regulations.
No separate pedestrian facilities are proposed on Lee Road due to the limited available right-of-way and associated impacts it would have on adjacent properties. Approximately 400 ft. north of Lyell Avenue, the proposed shoulders along Lee Road provide ample width for pedestrians. For the short segment approaching the Lyell Avenue intersection where shoulders are not provided, the occasional pedestrian will continue to walk on the grass, the asphalt mowing strips, or utilize the travel lanes.
While the County, who is the owner of Lee Road has no objection to adding shoulders and sidewalks, they also have no plans to construct sidewalks on Lee Road in the near future. Sidewalks would have to be carried to the shoulder to provide for a continuous route as required by ADA. However, there are a limited number of generators that would attract pedestrians or bicyclists from the local neighborhood and one of those will be eliminated (Perri’s Pizza). Most of the remaining generators are on the west side of NY 390.
The proposed Lyell-Lee intersection design does not significantly diminish existing provisions for pedestrians and bicyclists. There are no existing sidewalks to connect to but the project would not preclude the construction of sidewalk along Lee Road from Lyell Avenue to the north at a future date. There would be significant additional right of way impacts to construct shoulders or sidewalks with little benefit.
A trail connection could be developed between Evelyn Street and Lyell Avenue where Ramp DA is being eliminated. This would provide a safe connection from the Evelyn Street neighborhood to Lyell Avenue and should meet much of the pedestrian and bicyclist access needs.
Pedestrians are prohibited on Interstate Highways by state law. Pedestrian crossings are proposed at the 390/31 interchange ramp terminals along Lyell Avenue. A pedestrian generator checklist is included in Appendix C.
3-56 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
3.3.2.2. Bicyclists – Bicycle traffic accommodations along Lyell Avenue within the project limits will be improved significantly with the implementation of continuous 6 ft. wide bike lanes along both sides of the roadway from Howard Road to the Erie Canal. The proposed bicycle lanes will provide a seamless connection from the Erie Canalway Trail to State Bicycle Route 5 at the Howard Road intersection.
No special provisions are proposed to accommodate bicyclists on Lee Road (i.e. separate lanes) due to the limited available right-of-way and associated impacts it would have on adjacent properties. Approximately 400 ft. north of Lyell Avenue, the proposed shoulders along Lee Road provide ample width for safe bicycle travel. For the short segment approaching the Lyell Avenue intersection where shoulders are not provided, the occasional bicyclist will continue to utilize the travel lanes (i.e. shared lane).
As indicated in Section 3.3.2.1., a trail connection could be developed between Evelyn Street and Lyell Avenue where Ramp DA is being eliminated to serve the bicyclist access needs from the Evelyn Street neighborhood.
Bicyclists are prohibited on Interstate Highways by state law.
3.3.2.3. Transit – Access to bus stops along Lyell Avenue within the project limits will be improved significantly with the implementation of sidewalks. The opportunity to consolidate the number of bus stop locations and provide for an eastbound far-side bus turnout/bay just east of Rossmore Street will be explored further during final design.
3.3.2.4. Airports, Railroad Stations, and Ports – There are no such facilities within the project limits.
3.3.2.5. Access to Recreation Areas (Parks, Trails, Waterways, and State Lands) – Access to the Erie Canal Heritage Trail (Canalway Trail) will be improved significantly with the implementation of sidewalks and bicycle lanes along Lyell Avenue. In particular, the proposed bicycle lanes will provide a seamless connection from the trail to State Bicycle Route 5 at the Howard Road intersection as mentioned in Section 3.3.2.2. As indicated in Section 3.3.2.1., potential safety improvements to the mid- block at-grade trail crossing of Lyell Avenue will be explored further during final design.
3.3.3. Infrastructure
3.3.3.1. Proposed Highway Section – Refer to Appendix A for typical sections (bound separately).
3.3.3.1. (1) Right-of-Way – As a result of the roadway widening along Lyell Avenue to accommodate turning lanes, bicycle lanes, and sidewalks, right-of-way strip acquisitions and temporary construction easements are required from almost all adjacent properties within the project limits. All strip acquisitions along Lyell Avenue are from local businesses and are with access. Impacts to parking spaces are proposed at several businesses and were discussed in Section 3.3.1.10.
Along Lee Road, some minor strip acquisitions are required from a few residential properties to accommodate the proposed turning lanes at the Lyell Avenue intersection.
Lee Road Ext. will be relocated and reduced in size due to the planned improvements. To accommodate the new exit ramps (Ramps A and B), strip acquisitions from the Stonegate Health Professional Complex (2005 Lyell Avenue) as well as a large acquisition from a wooded section of the Hess tank farm property (1975 Lyell Avenue) are necessary. These acquisitions will be without access.
There are two residential properties on Lee Rd. Ext. that will be impacted in order to accommodate the new exit ramps (Ramps A and B). There is one total property acquisition that will require relocation of the occupants and demolition of a residential dwelling and garage (25 Lee Road Ext.). There is a partial property acquisition that will require relocation of the occupants and demolition of the dwelling (50 Lee Road Ext.). However, the entire property is not needed for the planned improvements. The remaining portion of the property will be an uneconomic remainder (without legal access). The dwelling will be demolished, but the garage could possibly remain if the owner wishes to retain the property and can
3-57 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13 obtain access from a neighboring property. Or there is a possibility that the owner could sell or lease the remainder parcel to the owner of the Stonegate Health Professional Complex for increased parking.
There is another partial property acquisition that will require relocation of the occupants and demolition of the building (2000 Lyell Avenue - Perri’s Pizza). This property is located at the NW corner of the Lyell- Lee intersection and must be partially acquired to accommodate the proposed turning lanes on Lee Road. The remaining portion of the property will be an uneconomic remainder (without legal access). The building will be demolished, but the remaining parcel could be retained by the owner for another purpose, or the owner could sell or lease the remainder parcel to the owner of the Spinelli Dental office building for increased parking.
There is one partial property acquisition that does not require demolition of the building but may require relocation of the owner’s personal belongings (2032 Lyell Avenue - abandoned gas station). This property is located at the NE corner of the Lyell-Lee intersection, and must be partially acquired to accommodate the proposed right-turn lane on Lyell Avenue. Due to the proximity of the new Ramp A exit terminal and the Lyell-Lee intersection, access to the parcel cannot be provided to comply with access criteria as described in Section 3.3.3.1 (6). Similar to the two properties discussed above, the remaining portion of the property will be an uneconomic remainder (without legal access). The building could possibly remain if the owner wishes to retain the property and can obtain access from a neighboring property. Or there is a possibility that the owner could sell or lease the remainder parcel to a neighboring property.
A permanent easement is proposed on both Stonegate properties to accommodate a town maintained roadway/cul-de-sac that will allow continued truck access. This new roadway will require additional property acquisition from the Hess tank farm property. This preferred design was coordinated with the Town of Gates, Stonegate property owners, and Hess Corporation.
A permanent utility corridor is proposed for the Stonegate Health Professional Complex. The utility corridor is depicted on Dwg. No’s. TS-6, PL-9, GP-6, and GP-12 between the building and Ramp A (i.e. within the FEE W/OA and AFEE lines on the plans). Contained within the utility corridor are relocated utility service laterals for sanitary sewer, water, and gas for the Stonegate Health Professional Complex as well as a relocated storm sewer system for the Stonegate parking lot. The relocated utilities and storm sewer system are included on the drawings to show that the relocation is feasible.
Excluding acquisitions required for Ramps A and B, no acquisitions are required along the mainline roadways since the widening and noise walls will be constructed within existing right-of-way.
A right-of-way impact spreadsheet can be found in Appendix H. The spreadsheet lists the former businesses current as of March 2015 (e.g. Hess tank farm property is now Buckeye Terminals).
3.3.3.1. (2) Curb – Curbs will not be provided along the I-390/NY 390 mainline roadway, same as existing condition. Curb may be provided along the new ramps for drainage control where necessary.
Curbs will be provided along both sides of Lyell Avenue and Lee Road within the project limits to control drainage and define access. Vertical faced curb will be used due to the proposed sidewalk installation and presence of pedestrians.
3.3.3.1. (3) Grades – The maximum allowable grade of 3% may be required along the new I-390 SB through roadway in order to pass over the 390/490 interchange. The preliminary profile depict a 2.85% grade. The new roadway requires a sag vertical curve to pass under Lyell Avenue followed by a crest vertical curve to pass over the interchange. The distance between the PVI’s of these curves is roughly 2,000 ft. The grade does not warrant a climbing lane since the new roadway provides two travel lanes.
3.3.3.1. (4) Intersection Geometry and Conditions – Intersection geometry for the Lyell-Lee intersection is discussed in Section 3.2.1. The existing intersection geometry will be retained at all other locations.
3-58 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
3.3.3.1. (6) Roadside Elements:
(a) Snow Storage – The construction of the new I-390 SB roadway and Ramp C will require placement of concrete barriers within the 390/31 interchange area. Since standard shoulder widths are provided, snow storage on the mainline roadways in these areas is not anticipated to be a concern except during exceptional snow events. Snow storage along Lyell Avenue will be improved significantly with the implementation of grass buffer strips between the roadway and sidewalk.
(b) Sidewalks – See Section 3.3.2.1.
(c) Utility Strips – Utility strips will be provided as necessary.
(d) Bikeways – See Section 3.3.2.2.
(e) Bus Stops – See Section 3.3.2.3.
(f) Driveways – All driveways along Lyell Avenue within the project limits will be modified to comply with the current NYSDOT “Policy and Standards for Design of Entrances to State Highways” where possible. As indicated in Section 3.2.3.3, all driveways were designed to accommodate the appropriate design vehicle turning paths. The implementation of bicycle lanes, sidewalks, and grass buffer strips will significantly improve the existing ISD.
As indicated in Section 3.3.3.1. (1), access to the abandoned gas station at the NE corner of the Lyell-Lee intersection cannot be provided along Lyell Avenue to comply with the 50 ft. minimum distance requirement as per Figure 6-S of the NYSDOT Highway Design Manual (HDM) due to the proximity of the new Ramp A exit terminal. In addition, access to the parcel along Lee Road cannot be provided to comply with criteria for minimum corner clearance from an intersection as per the HDM Figure 5A-1, which states that a driveway must be located at least twice the width of the driveway plus 15 ft. from an intersection.
(g) Clear Zone – The recommended clear zone along the I-390/NY 390 mainline roadway will remain 30 ft. wide for fill slopes and vary from 21 ft. to 27 ft. for cut slopes as per Table 10-1 of the HDM. The recommended clear zones for ramps will vary based on AADT and design speed of each ramp. The clear zones to be provided will vary throughout the project limits and will be refined during final design to adjust for slopes, roadway curvature, etc.
3.3.3.2. Special Geometric Design Elements
3.3.3.2. (1) Non-Standard Features – Critical design elements for the roadways and ramps that are being reconstructed are presented for the preferred alternative in Exhibits 3.2.3.2-1 to 3.2.3.2-5. See Section 3.2.3.2 for a complete listing of the roadways, ramps, and bridges that were compared against standard criteria. See Appendix F for non-standard feature justification forms.
The critical design elements within the proposed roadway reconstruction limits that do not meet standard criteria are as follows:
Shoulder Width: The proposed right shoulder width under the CSX Transportation Railroad bridge (BIN 7025830) is 6 ft., which is less than the 10 ft. minimum required and a reduction from the existing 10 ft. shoulder width provided. A reduction in shoulder width is necessary to accommodate an additional travel lane on I-390 SB without impacting the bridge. The reduced shoulder width also accommodates a concrete barrier to shield the vertical abutment face, with appropriate approach guide rail transitions. See Exhibit 3.3.3.2-1 in Appendix F for non-standard feature justification form.
3-59 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Non-standard shoulder widths will be retained on the following bridges within the roadway reconstruction limits. See Exhibit 3.3.3.2-2 in Appendix F for non-standard feature justification form.
· I-390 NB/Ramp SW over I-490 EB and Ramp ES (BIN 1063950) – Left and right shoulders narrow to 3 ft. across the bridge. · NY 390 NB over I-490 WB (BIN 1052290) – Left shoulder narrows to 3 ft. across the bridge. · NY 390 SB over the Erie Canal (BIN 4062531) – Right shoulder narrows to 5.5 ft. across the bridge.
Bridge Roadway Width: The three bridges listed above will retain widths that are narrower than the approach roadway. These bridge widths are non-standard as a result of the reduced shoulder widths across the bridges. See Exhibit 3.3.3.2-2 in Appendix F for non-standard feature justification form.
Horizontal Clearance (from EOT): Non-standard horizontal clearances will be retained on bridges BIN 1063950 and BIN 1052290 listed above. These clearances are non-standard as a result of the reduced shoulder widths across the bridges. See Exhibit 3.3.3.2-2 in Appendix F for non-standard feature justification form.
Stopping Sight Distance (SSD): Non-standard stopping sight distance will be retained on the NY 390 NB and SB sag vertical curves located just north of the Erie Canal. See Exhibit 3.3.3.2-3 in Appendix F for non-standard feature justification form.
An isolated horizontal SSD restriction will remain on the NY 390 NB bridge over I-490 WB (BIN 1052290). The proposed horizontal SSD on Ramp SW is approximately 240 ft., which is slightly more than existing but less than the 360 ft. minimum required. The SSD at these locations is restricted by bridge rail. See Exhibit 3.3.3.2-4 in Appendix F for non-standard feature justification form.
As indicated in Section 2.3.3.2.(1), horizontal SSD is restricted by barrier on the following ramps where no geometric improvements are proposed:
· Ramp ED is limited to a SSD of approximately 156 ft., which does not meet the 200 ft. minimum required for the existing 30 mph posted speed. It meets a posted speed of 25 mph.
· Ramp DB is limited to a SSD of approximately 200 ft., which does not meet the 250 ft. minimum required for the existing 35 mph posted speed. It meets a posted speed of 30 mph.
· Ramp NE is limited to a SSD of approximately 259 ft., which does not meet the 305 ft. minimum required for the existing 40 mph posted speed. It meets a posted speed of 35 mph.
· Ramp WN is limited to a SSD of approximately 250 ft., which does not meet the 305 ft. minimum required for the existing 40 mph posted speed. It meets a posted speed of 35 mph.
· Ramp WS is limited to a SSD of approximately 410 ft., which does not meet the 425 ft. minimum required for the existing 50 mph posted speed. It meets a posted speed of 45 mph.
As part of the preferred alternative, it is recommended that all five of these ramps be down posted accordingly. Therefore a non-standard feature justification form was not prepared as these existing non- standard features would be mitigated by down posting the ramps in the proposed condition.
Level of Service (LOS): LOS is a critical design element for Interstate highways and ramp junctions only. The minimum required LOS for Interstate highways and ramp junctions during the design year is “C”. See Section 3.3.1.7 for discussion on proposed LOS. Non-standard LOS is proposed along the following roadway segments and ramp junctions:
· I-390 SB between Ramp WS and Chili Avenue – LOS “D” in the 2035/2045 AM Peak Hour · I-390 NB between Chili Avenue and Ramp SW – LOS “E” in the 2035/2045 PM Peak Hour
3-60 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
· Ramp ES merge to I-390 SB – LOS “D” in the 2035 AM Peak Hour
See Exhibits 3.3.3.2-6 and 3.3.3.2-7 in Appendix F for non-standard feature justifications.
Control of Access: As indicated in Section 3.3.1.2, the proximity of Tarwood Drive to the Lyell Avenue on-ramp to NY 390 SB (Ramp DF) does not conform to the 100 ft. minimum distance requirement as per page 6-36 and Figure 6-Q of the NYSDOT Highway Design Manual (HDM). See Exhibit 3.3.3.2-8 in Appendix F for non-standard feature justification form.
3.3.3.2. (2) Non-Conforming Features – Non-critical design elements for this reconstruction project are presented in Section 3.2.3.3. See Section 3.2.3.2 for a complete listing of the roadways, ramps, and bridges that were compared against standard criteria.
The non-critical design elements within the proposed roadway reconstruction limits that do not conform to normally accepted practice are as follows:
Interchange Spacing All existing interchange spacing will be retained. The distance between the 390/490 and NY 31 interchanges will remain approximately ½ mile. The distance between the NY 31 and Lexington Avenue interchanges will remain just short of 1 mile. The AASHTO Green Book recommends a 1 mile minimum interchange spacing in urban areas. Therefore, these spacings will remain as non-conforming features.
Ramp Terminal Spacing Six of the nineteen ramp terminal spacings within proposed reconstruction or resurfacing limits are non- conforming and are summarized as follows:
Successive Exit Terminals 1. Ramp SE to Ramp SW – 1000 ft. minimum recommended / 900 ft. provided 2. Ramp ES to Ramp EN – 1000 ft. minimum recommended / 365 ft. provided 3. Ramp SW to Ramp A – 1000 ft. minimum recommended / 680 ft. provided
Successive Entrance Terminals 4. Ramp EN to Ramp WN – 1000 ft. minimum recommended / 740 ft. provided
Exit to Entrance Terminal 5. Ramp DB to Ramp DC – 500 ft. minimum recommended / 410 ft. retained
Entrance to Exit Terminal (Weave) 6. Ramp DF to Ramp NW – 1600 ft. minimum recommended / 1225 ft. retained
Two-thirds of these ramp terminal spacings are located within the proposed reconstruction limits; one- third of those that are retained are within the proposed resurfacing limits.
As recommended by AASHTO, the ramp terminal spacings were checked in accordance with the procedures outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual. The LOS analysis revealed that all of the ramp junctions and weaving sections within the limits of these non-conforming ramp terminal spacings exceed the minimum required LOS, some of which will be greatly improved over the no-build condition. Discussion relating to those results can be found in Section 3.3.1.7 of this report.
Left-Hand Entrances and Exits Three of the four existing ramps within the 390/490 interchange will be retained as left-hand entrance/exit ramps, which is considered a non-conforming feature for reasons described in Section 2.3.3.2.(2). The following ramps will remain as left-hand entrance/exit ramps:
1. Ramp NE (NY 390 SB to I-490 EB) 2. Ramp SW (I-390 NB to I-490 WB)
3-61 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
3. Ramp WN (I-490 EB to NY 390 NB)
All three left-hand entrances will continue to enter the mainline as an added through lane, so entering drivers are not forced to merge immediately to their right side because they are afforded their own lane. Exit only lanes are provided for all three left-hand exits to remain.
Lane Reductions (Lane Balance) A reduction in the number of through lanes on the mainline roadways will be retained within the 390/490 interchange. Three through lanes (proposed auxiliary lanes not included) are provided on I-490, I-390 and NY 390 for all approaches to the interchange. However, within the interchange itself, only two through lanes are provided due to lane reductions (i.e. lane drops or exit only lanes) for some of the interchange ramps. All freeway segments were checked in accordance with the procedures outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual. The LOS analysis revealed that all of the two-lane segments within the 390/490 interchange exceed the minimum required LOS, some of which will be greatly improved over the no-build condition. Discussion relating to those results can be found in Section 3.3.1.7 of this report.
Option Lane (Decision Lane) Length One proposed location will have a non-conforming option lane (decision lane) length, which is less than the recommended length discussed in Section 3.2.3.3. The location is: · I-490 WB at Ramp EN: A length of approximately 310 ft. will be provided for the interior lane widening to avoid impacting the I-490 WB bridge over the Erie Canal, and to blend into the existing curved I-490 geometry.
Although the I-390 SB CD Roadway at Ramp NE has a lane widening length of less than 1000 ft., the design is in conformance with the principles of two-lane exit facility design as shown in Figure 10-75D of the AASHTO Green Book, and therefore is not non-conforming.
Auxiliary Lanes The non-conforming acceleration lane length from NY 31 WB to NY 390 SB (Ramp DC) will be retained. This acceleration lane is within the proposed resurfacing limits. Providing the minimum recommended value would require excessive impacts to the neighborhood in the NW quadrant of the 390/31 interchange with minimal operational benefits realized. Furthermore, the LOS analysis revealed that the ramp junction at this location will exceed the minimum required LOS and will be greatly improved over the no-build condition. Discussion relating to those results can be found in Section 3.3.1.7 of this report.
Auxiliary Lane Tapers The non-conforming taper length for the NY 31 WB to NY 390 SB (Ramp DC) acceleration lane will be retained. This taper is within the proposed resurfacing limits. Providing the minimum recommended value would require shifting the Ramp DF entrance terminal to the south, which is not feasible since it would in turn shorten the already non-conforming weave length between Ramp DF and Ramp NW.
Intersection Sight Distance (ISD) Intersection sight distance (ISD) will remain non-conforming at several driveways adjacent to the Lyell Avenue bridge over the Erie Canal. On the north side of Lyell Avenue, sight distance remains limited by the bridge truss and railings at all three driveways from the bridge to the eastern-most driveway at the Hess gas Station. On the south side of Lyell Avenue, the bridge truss and railing limits sight distance at the Canalway Trail parking lot driveway, and the Sofia Collision and Frame driveway. Proposed sight distances at these five driveways vary from approximately 270 ft. to 590 ft. In addition, as discussed in Section 2.3.2.5, the bridge also limits sight distance at the adjacent Canalway Trail crossing. Providing the minimum required sight distances at these locations would require replacement of the truss bridge.
3.3.3.3. Pavement and Shoulder – A Pavement Evaluation Treatment Selection Report (PETSR) was completed for the project study area on May 26, 2011 and is included as Appendix D. The following describes the proposed treatments for each roadway and ramp within the project limits.
3-62 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
The Regional Materials Engineer suggested that calculated pavement design thicknesses are to be utilized for cost estimating purposes only given the uncertainty of available construction funding for this project. As indicated in Section 1.5, funding is secured for the design and construction of Phase 1 only. The sequence of how the remaining work will be phased will be determined when additional funding becomes available. Pavement design thicknesses should be recalculated during final design.
In addition, the Regional Materials Engineer suggested utilizing a 2” top course for all relocated and realigned mainline roadways and ramps instead of the 1.5” top course programmed in the most current ESAL Calculator.
Relocated or Realigned Roadways The PETSR recommends full-depth Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) or Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) pavement for relocated or realigned roadways. HMA pavement is proposed to match the existing adjacent roadway and ramp pavement, which consists of PCC slabs (some of which have been cracked and seated) overlaid with asphalt. Full-depth pavement reconstruction was designed in accordance with the ESAL-based design procedures given in Section 4.5 of the NYSDOT Comprehensive Pavement Design Manual (CPDM) for New and Reconstructed Pavements. A truck volume growth rate of 2% was utilized for all roadways and ramps as per the NYSDOT ESAL Calculator. However, if a 1% growth rate is used as per Section 4.5.1.1 of the CPDM then the calculator often produces lesser thicknesses.
I-390/NY 390 (mainline) The ESAL Calculator produced a pavement thickness of 22.5” and requires a 6” select granular subgrade.
390/490 Interchange Ramps EN, ES, SE and SW The ESAL Calculator produced varying pavement thicknesses for these ramps ranging from 20.5” to 22.5”. To minimize the number of proposed treatments, it is recommended that Ramps EN and SW utilize a 22.5” pavement thickness and Ramps ES and SE utilize a 20.5” pavement thickness.
As per Section 2.3.1.8, ice retardant HMA and pavement grooving may be warranted to combat freezing conditions and reduce slippery pavement on Ramps SW and WN and to a lesser extent Ramp NE.
390/31 Interchange Ramps A, B, and C The ESAL Calculator produced the same pavement thickness for Ramps A and B (20.5”). Since Ramp C has the lowest AADT and percentage of truck traffic of the three ramps, the calculator produced a slightly thinner pavement (19.5”). To minimize the number of proposed treatments, it is recommended that these ramps utilize the maximum calculated 20.5” pavement thickness.
Roadways to Remain on Existing Alignment For roadways to remain on existing alignment two options are provided in the PETSR for the mainline roadways and ramps and two options are provided for Lyell Avenue. The PETSR does not provide recommendations for Lee Road.
I-390/NY 390 (mainline) and ramps Both options provide an 8 year expected service life and involve milling and patching moderate and high- severity cracks with HMA, truing and leveling (if necessary), and a 1” to 1.5” HMA top course. Option #1 does not mill the entire pavement and shoulders so the existing top course would be overlaid. Option #2 is a typical 1” to 1.5” mill and fill treatment of the entire pavement and shoulders.
Option #1 is recommended as it will still provide the desirable vertical clearance of 14’-6” under the existing bridges to remain even with a 1” to 1.5” overlay thickness. However, the Regional Materials Engineer suggested that Option #2 with a 2” mill and fill treatment be utilized for cost estimating purposes given the uncertainty of available construction funding for this project.
The Regional Materials Engineer also suggested that full width joint repairs and stress relief joints should be included in the construction cost estimate where underlying concrete exists.
3-63 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Lyell Avenue Both options are variations of a typical mill and fill treatment. Option #1 provides an 8 year expected service life and involves milling and patching moderate and high-severity cracks with HMA, 2” milling of the entire pavement and shoulders, truing and leveling (if necessary), and a 2” HMA top course. Option #2 provides a 15 year expected service life and is a typical 4” deep mill and fill treatment of the entire pavement and shoulders. The multiple course overlay would include HMA binder course and HMA top course. Milling and patching of cracks is not recommended due to the 4” deep milling.
Option #2 is recommended for the existing travel lanes as the 15 year expected service life is almost double that of Option #1. Record drawings from 2005 (D259872) show a 4” asphalt overlay on top of the existing concrete pavement from Howard Road to the Erie Canal so concrete milling would not be necessary unless repairs to the underlying concrete are necessary. Since record plans are not available for the existing 9 ft. shoulders just east of Lee Road Ext., the eastbound shoulder may need to be reconstructed with full-depth pavement as it will carry a travel lane in the proposed condition. Pavement cores should be taken during final design to determine if the shoulder thickness is adequate. If so then a mill and fill treatment may be appropriate. The westbound shoulder will be reduced to a 6 ft. bicycle lane in the proposed condition so mill and fill treatment is appropriate.
Due to the uncertainty of available construction funding for each phase of the project, with the Lyell Avenue corridor west of NY 390 expected to be completed in the last phase of construction, and due to the age of the existing underlying pavement and segmented reconstruction over the years, full-depth reconstruction of Lyell Avenue was assumed for cost estimating purposes.
Lee Road The PETSR does not provide recommendations for Lee Road. Lee Road was reconstructed during the 1989/1990 construction seasons (D252646) within the proposed project limits and appears to be in fair to good condition based on field observations as indicated in Section 2.3.3.3. Therefore, Option #1 for Lyell Avenue is an appropriate recommended treatment for Lee Road as it is anticipated that it will provide an expected service life of at least 8 years.
Roadway Widening The PETSR does not provide recommendations for roadway widening. As indicated in Section 5.5 of the CPDM, roadway widening should use a pavement section that is consistent with the existing pavement design so that it responds the same to frost, traffic loads and other effects as the existing section does. The top surface of the subbase of the widening should be no higher than the top surface of the existing pavement. For widened sections, pavement cores should be performed during final design to determine the existing thickness of the adjacent pavement layers.
I-390/NY 390 (mainline) Record plans show that 9” thick reinforced concrete slabs with an asphalt overlay of variable thickness exists along this mainline roadway. Within the 390/490 interchange area the existing slabs were cracked and seated and overlaid with a combined 4” asphalt top and binder course during the 1991 to 1993 construction seasons (D253556). The slabs rest on a 12” subbase.
Until pavement core results are available, the thickness for all widened sections will utilize the same thickness produced by the ESAL Calculator for the realigned and relocated roadways, except that a 9” base course is proposed to match the adjacent concrete slab thickness. This will ensure that the top surface of the subbase of the widening will be no higher than the top surface of the existing pavement.
Lyell Avenue Record plans show that a 40 ft. wide, 8” thick reinforced concrete pavement with an asphalt overlay of variable thickness exists along Lyell Avenue. From Howard Road to Ramp DF, record plans from 1978 (D95183) show 8.5’ to 9.5’ of widening that includes 10” of asphalt and 6” of subbase. From Ramp DC to just east of Lee Road Ext., record plans from 1988 (D252646) show 2 ft. to 6 ft. of widening that includes a combined 2.5” asphalt top and binder course, 8” asphalt base course, and 12” subbase. Record plans are not available for the remaining widened sections of Lyell Avenue.
3-64 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Until pavement core results are available, the thickness for all widened sections should utilize the maximum thickness of the already widened asphalt segment. The 10.5” asphalt thickness exceeds the 8.5” thickness requirements of the conventional pavement design procedures in Section 4.4 (Table 4-1) of the CPDM as well as the 9” thickness produced by ESAL-based design procedures. However, as indicated previously, full-depth reconstruction of Lyell Avenue is assumed so the ESAL-based method should be used. ESAL-based calculations produce a pavement thickness of 21.5”.
Lee Road Record plans from 1988 (D252646) show an existing pavement section comprised of a combined 2.5” asphalt top and binder course, 8” asphalt base course, and 12” subbase. The 10.5” asphalt thickness exceeds the 8.5” thickness requirements of the conventional pavement design procedures in Section 4.4 (Table 4-1) of the CPDM. Therefore, it is the recommended that the roadway widening along Lee Road utilize the same pavement thickness as the adjacent existing pavement.
Pavement Design Recommendation Summary
I-390/NY 390 and ramps · Cold Milling and Replacement (2”) – Existing travel lanes and ramps that are not being relocated or realigned o See PETSR Option #2 for 390/I390/I490 & Ramps
· I-390/NY 390 proposed pavement reconstruction o 2” top course o 2.5” binder course o 6” base course o 12” subbase o 6” select granular subgrade [Total pavement thickness is 22.5”, excluding select granular subgrade]
· I-390/NY 390 proposed pavement widening (pending pavement core results) o 2” top course o 2.5” binder course o 9” base course o 12” subbase o 6” select granular subgrade [Total pavement thickness is 25.5”]
· Interchange Ramps A, B, C, ES and SE o 2” top course o 2.5” binder course o 4” base course o 12” subbase [Total pavement thickness is 20.5”]
· Interchange Ramps EN and SW o 2” top course o 2.5” binder course o 6” base course o 12” subbase [Total pavement thickness is 22.5”]
3-65 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Lyell Avenue (Howard Road to Erie Canal) · Cold Milling with Multiple Course Overlay ( 4”) – Existing travel lanes and WB shoulder o See PETSR Option #2 for Lyell Avenue o Proposed roadway widening and existing EB shoulder from Lee Road Ext. to Erie Canal o 2” top course o 2.5” binder course o 5” base course o 12” subbase [Total pavement thickness is 21.5”]
Lee Road (Lyell Avenue to Person Place) · Cold Milling and Replacement (2”) – Existing travel lanes and shoulders o See PETSR Option #1 for Lyell Avenue
· Proposed roadway widening (match adjacent pavement section) o 2” top course o 2.5” binder course o 6” base course o 12” subbase [Total pavement thickness is 22.5”]
Since pavement design thicknesses are so similar, all pavement reconstruction utilized the same unit cost to simplify cost estimating.
3.3.3.4. Drainage Systems – The proposed drainage systems for the preferred alternative would have some localized areas that would drain differently due to the new and relocated roadways, but the overall drainage patterns through the entire project area would generally remain unchanged and the current outfall locations as noted in Chapter 2 would remain the same with the preferred alternative. Existing drainage ditches, pipes, culverts and structures that are silted in would be cleaned. Existing pipes and culverts that have reached their service life, are in poor condition, are at different elevations than the proposed improvements, or are undersized would be replaced as part of the preferred alternative.
The proposed drainage system along Lyell Ave would be closed drainage consisting of buried pipes and inlets at the curb lines that are bicycle and pedestrian friendly. The roadway improvements to Lyell Avenue will take place over multiple phases with the replacement of the bridge carrying Lyell Avenue over NY 390 to be part of the first phase. Run-off from the newly constructed section would drain the same as it does under existing conditions system and flow into the existing system east of the bridge at Lee Road and eventually outlet at the Erie Canal. As the sections of Lyell Avenue to the east and west of the bridge are constructed in later phases, the new closed drainage systems would be installed and connected. The exact layout and configuration of the closed drainage system along Lyell Avenue would be determined during final design.
Much of the existing drainage system within the expressway and interchange areas of the project would be retained. In the areas where roadways are widened or relocated, including the southbound C-D roadway, northbound and southbound I-390/NY 390 roadways, Ramp EN, Ramp ES and new Ramp C (Existing Ramp DE), the proposed system would consist of a combination of open ditches and buried storm pipes. Toe of slope ditches would be provided at the base of embankments for the new roadways including the southbound I-390/NY 390, Ramp A and Ramp B. New cross-culverts or extensions of existing culverts would be placed at locations where the new roadway crosses an existing drainage ditch. Trenchless installation methods would be used for any new cross-culverts beneath roadways that are not scheduled to be reconstructed. Any pipes to be abandoned in-place would be completely filled with a ‘flowable’ concrete material. Temporary drainage ditches and piping would be necessary due to project phasing and would be determined during final design.
SPDES measures would be included as part of the overall drainage system for all phases of the project, during construction activities and for permanent (post-construction) stormwater management as required
3-66 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13 by the SPDES general permit. There are locations within the project area and NYSDOT Right-of-Way, including the interchange infields, to implement and maintain adequate measures to properly manage stormwater run-off. The exact locations and method of treatment and management will be investigated during final design.
3.3.3.5. Geotechnical – Subsurface conditions at the existing bridges can generally be described as a 10’ to 25’ deep layer of silt and sand overlaying limestone bedrock. All existing bridges are founded on spread footings, 11 on bedrock and the remaining 8 on fill. It is anticipated that the new bridges will be founded on spread footings if bedrock is near the surface. Bridges where the bottom of footing is not close to bedrock will either be founded on a spread footing or pile foundation. Foundation types will be determined during final design based on the recommendations from geotechnical exploration.
Locations of exposed rock are identified in Section 2.3.3.5. Modification to the rock slopes along I-390 SB and NY 390 NB and SB are anticipated due to the proposed widening. The typical sections included in Appendix A depict proposed 2 on 1 rock slopes at these locations. Rock slope treatments will be further evaluated by the Geotechnical Group during final design.
3.3.3.6. Structures – There are 19 existing bridges located within the project study area. Of the 19 existing bridges, 12 of these bridges are outside of the proposed reconstruction limits of this project as described in Section 3.2.3.2 and will see no or only incidental work performed. These 12 bridges are summarized in Exhibit 3.3.3.6-1 and could be rehabilitated under future rehabilitation contracts.
Exhibit 3.3.3.6-1 Bridges with No Anticipated Work
Bridge No. BIN Description 1 1062521 NY 390 SB over Lexington Avenue 2 1062522 NY 390 NB over Lexington Avenue 8 4443380 NY 31 (Lyell Avenue) over Erie Canal 9 1025811 I-490 WB over NY 390 SB 10 1052280 Ramp WN (I-490 EB to NY 390 NB) over I-490 WB and NY 390 SB 12 1025812 I-490 EB over I-390 SB 13 1025820 I-490 EB over Ramp ES (I-490 WB to I-390 SB) 14 1063950 I-390 NB over I-490 EB and Ramp ES (I-490 WB to I-390 SB) 15 4443361 I-490 WB over Erie Canal 16 4443362 I-490 EB over Erie Canal 17 1048680 Howard Road over I-490 WB and I-490 EB 19 7025830 CSX Railroad over I-390 NB and I-390 SB
The remaining 7 bridges will require rehabilitation, widening or complete replacement. The project alternative also includes construction of 4 new bridges at new locations. All rehabilitated and new bridges will be designed in accordance with current AASHTO and NYSDOT standards including adequate pier protection as necessary. These structures are described as follows:
3-67 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Bridge 3: NY 390 SB over Erie Canal
BIN: 4062531 Description of Work: Bridge Rehabilitation Live Loading: HS-20 Historical Significance: None Vertical Clearance: 20’ max. over Canal Horizontal Clearance: 4’ min. shoulder Coast Guard Permit: Not required because the rehabilitation will not change the bridge width, or vertical and horizontal clearances. Bridge Section: 57’-6” Curb to Curb 4 Travel Lanes @ 12’-0” 1 Shoulder @ 4’-0” (Left Side) 1 Shoulder @ 5’-6” (Right Side) See Appendix A for a drawing of the typical bridge section. Bridge Type: Steel Multi-Girder Number of Spans: 1 Exist. Bridge Condition: See Section 2.3.3.6.(1) for a description of the existing condition. Rehabilitation Work: New deck, curbs and bridge rail, replace approach slab, perform structural steel repairs and paint existing girders, replace bearings and joints, perform abutment concrete surface repairs.
The proposed deck is marginally wider than the existing deck due to a wider proposed bridge railing. The new deck can be tapered down at the abutments to avoid substructure modification costs. At least one bridge rail post should be carried onto the approach slab to avoid a bridge rail post being located at the deck end taper.
Alignment: The rehabilitation will retain the existing vertical and horizontal alignments. Detour: On-site detour using staged construction.
Bridge 4: NY 390 NB over Erie Canal
BIN: 4062532 Description of Work: Bridge Rehabilitation & Widening Live Loading: HS-20 Historical Significance: None Vertical Clearance: 20’ max. over Canal Horizontal Clearance: 6’ min. shoulder Coast Guard Permit: Required because the rehabilitation will change the bridge width. Bridge Section: 64’-0” Curb to Curb 4 Travel Lanes @ 12’-0” 1 Shoulder @ 6’-0” (Left Side) 1 Shoulder @ 10’-0” (Right Side) See Appendix A for a drawing of the typical bridge section. Bridge Type: Steel Multi-Girder Number of Spans: 1 Exist. Bridge Condition: See Section 2.3.3.6.(1) for a description of the existing condition. Rehabilitation Work: New deck (widened), curbs and bridge rail, replace approach slab, widen abutments and install new girders at east fascia, replace west fascia girder, perform structural steel repairs and paint existing girders, replace bearings and joints, perform abutment concrete surface repairs. Alignment: The rehabilitation will retain the existing vertical and horizontal alignments. Detour: On-site detour using staged construction.
3-68 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Bridge 5: NY 390 SB over Trolley Boulevard and Abandoned RR
BIN: 1062541 Description of Work: Bridge Replacement Live Loading: HL-93 and NYSDOT Design Permit Vehicle Historical Significance: None Vertical Clearance: 14.5’ minimum desirable Horizontal Clearance: 6’ min. shoulder Coast Guard Permit: Not Applicable Bridge Section: 64’-0” Curb to Curb 4 Travel Lanes @ 12’-0” 1 Shoulder @ 6’-0” (Left Side) 1 Shoulder @ 10’-0” (Right Side) See Appendix A for a drawing of the typical bridge section. Bridge Type: The bridge type will be determined during structure study. Number of Spans: The span arrangement will be determined during structure study. Exist. Bridge Condition: See Section 2.3.3.6.(1) for a description of the existing condition. Replacement Work: Removal of the existing superstructure and substructure. Construction of new substructures and superstructure. Alignment: The replacement will retain the existing vertical and horizontal alignments. Detour: On-site detour using staged construction.
Bridge 6: NY 390 NB over Trolley Boulevard and Abandoned RR
BIN: 1062542 Description of Work: Bridge Replacement Live Loading: HL-93 and NYSDOT Design Permit Vehicle Historical Significance: None Vertical Clearance: 14.5’ minimum desirable Horizontal Clearance: 6’ min. shoulder Coast Guard Permit: Not Applicable Bridge Section: 64’-0” Curb to Curb 4 Travel Lanes @ 12’-0” 1 Shoulder @ 6’-0” (Left Side) 1 Shoulder @ 10’-0” (Right Side) See Appendix A for a drawing of the typical bridge section. Bridge Type: The bridge type will be determined during structure study. Number of Spans: The span arrangement will be determined during structure study. Exist. Bridge Condition: See Section 2.3.3.6.(1) for a description of the existing condition. Replacement Work: Removal of the existing superstructure and substructure. Construction of new substructures and superstructure. Alignment: The replacement will retain the existing vertical and horizontal alignments. Detour: On-site detour using staged construction.
3-69 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Bridge 7: NY 31 (Lyell Avenue) over NY 390 NB and NY 390 SB
BIN: 1021589 Description of Work: Bridge Replacement Live Loading: HL-93 and NYSDOT Design Permit Vehicle Historical Significance: None Vertical Clearance: 14.5’ minimum desirable Horizontal Clearance: 5’-6” sidewalk Coast Guard Permit: Not Applicable Bridge Section: 91’-0” Curb to Curb 4 Travel Lanes @ 11’-0” 2 Auxiliary Lanes @ 12’-0” 2 Bike Lanes @ 6’-0” 1 Striped Median @ 11’-0” 2 Sidewalks @ 5’-6” See Appendix A for a drawing of the typical bridge section. Bridge Type: The bridge type will be determined during structure study. Number of Spans: 2 spans. Span arrangement will be confirmed during structure study. Exist. Bridge Condition: See Section 2.3.3.6.(1) for a description of the existing condition. Replacement Work: Removal of the existing superstructure and substructure. Construction of new substructures and superstructure. Alignment: The replacement will retain the existing horizontal alignment and will be located on a slightly raised vertical alignment. Detour: On-site detour using staged construction.
Bridge 11: NY 390 NB over I-490 WB
BIN: 1052290 Description of Work: Bridge Rehabilitation & Widening Live Loading: HS-20 Historical Significance: None Vertical Clearance: 15’ over I-490 Horizontal Clearance: 3’ min. shoulder Coast Guard Permit: Not Applicable Bridge Section: 49’-0” Curb to Curb 3 Travel Lanes @ 12’-0” 1 Shoulder @ 3’-0” (Left Side) 1 Shoulder @ 10’-0” (Right Side) See Appendix A for a drawing of the typical bridge section. Bridge Type: Steel Multi-Girder Number of Spans: 3 Exist. Bridge Condition: See Section 2.3.3.6.(1) for a description of the existing condition. Rehabilitation Work: Construct new widened deck, perform localized deck repairs and overlay existing deck, replace curbs and bridge rail, install permanent snow fencing, replace approach slab, widen abutments and piers and install new girders at east fascia, perform structural steel repairs and paint existing girders, replace bearings and joints, perform abutment concrete surface repairs.
The bridge deck evaluation report recommends deck local repairs only. However, it is likely that an overlay will be required at the time when this bridge undergoes rehabilitation. Alignment: The rehabilitation will retain the existing vertical and horizontal alignments. Detour: On-site detour using staged construction.
3-70 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Bridge 18: NY 33 (Buffalo Road) over I-390 NB and I-390 SB
BIN: 1023030 Description of Work: Bridge Replacement Live Loading: HL-93 and NYSDOT Design Permit Vehicle Historical Significance: None Vertical Clearance: 14.5’ minimum desirable Horizontal Clearance: 11’-6” (6’ shoulder, 5’-6” sidewalk) Coast Guard Permit: Not Applicable Bridge Section: 48’-0” Curb to Curb 2 Travel Lanes @ 12’-0” 1 Left Turn Lane @ 12’-0” 2 Bike Lanes @ 6’-0” 2 Sidewalks @ 5’-6” See Appendix A for a drawing of the typical bridge section. Bridge Type: The bridge type will be determined during structure study. Number of Spans: The span arrangement will be determined during structure study. Exist. Bridge Condition: See Section 2.3.3.6.(1) for a description of the existing condition. Replacement Work: Removal of the existing superstructure and substructure. Construction of new substructures and superstructure. Alignment: The replacement will retain the existing vertical and horizontal alignments. Detour: On-site detour using staged construction.
New Bridge: I-390 SB over I-490 EB and Ramp ES
BIN: BIN Number to be Assigned Description of Work: New Bridge Construction Live Loading: HL-93 and NYSDOT Design Permit Vehicle Historical Significance: None Vertical Clearance: 14.5’ minimum desirable Horizontal Clearance: 6’ min. shoulder Coast Guard Permit: Not Applicable Bridge Section: 40’-0” Curb to Curb 2 Travel Lanes @ 12’-0” 1 Shoulder @ 10’-0” (Left Side) 1 Shoulder @ 6’-0” (Right Side) See Appendix A for a drawing of the typical bridge section. Bridge Type: The bridge type will be determined during structure study. Number of Spans: 2 spans. Span arrangement will be confirmed during structure study. Alignment: The bridge will be located on a new alignment. Detour: A detour will not be required.
3-71 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
New Bridge: I-390 SB over I-490 WB and Ramp SW
BIN: BIN Number to be Assigned Description of Work: New Bridge Construction Live Loading: HL-93 and NYSDOT Design Permit Vehicle Historical Significance: None Vertical Clearance: 14.5’ minimum desirable Horizontal Clearance: 6’ min. shoulder Coast Guard Permit: Not Applicable Bridge Section: 40’-0” Curb to Curb 2 Travel Lanes @ 12’-0” 1 Shoulder @ 10’-0” (Left Side) 1 Shoulder @ 6’-0” (Right Side) See Appendix A for a drawing of the typical bridge section. Bridge Type: The bridge type will be determined during structure study. Number of Spans: 3 spans. Span arrangement will be confirmed during structure study. Work: Construction of new substructures and superstructure. Alignment: The bridge will be located on a new alignment. Detour: A detour will not be required.
New Bridge: I-390 SB over Ramp WN
BIN: BIN Number to be Assigned Description of Work: New Bridge Construction Live Loading: HL-93 and NYSDOT Design Permit Vehicle Historical Significance: None Vertical Clearance: 14.5’ minimum desirable Horizontal Clearance: 6’ min. shoulder Coast Guard Permit: Not Applicable Bridge Section: 40’-0” Curb to Curb 2 Travel Lanes @ 12’-0” 1 Shoulder @ 10’-0” (Left Side) 1 Shoulder @ 6’-0” (Right Side) See Appendix A for a drawing of the typical bridge section. Bridge Type: The bridge type will be determined during structure study. Number of Spans: 1 span. Span arrangement will be confirmed during structure study. Work: Construction of new substructures and superstructure. Alignment: The bridge will be located on a new alignment. Detour: A detour will not be required.
3-72 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
New Bridge: Ramp A over Ramp EN BIN: BIN Number to be Assigned Description of Work: New Bridge Construction Live Loading: HL-93 and NYSDOT Design Permit Vehicle Historical Significance: None Vertical Clearance: 14.5’ minimum desirable Horizontal Clearance: 3’ min. shoulder Coast Guard Permit: Not Applicable Bridge Section: 24’-0” Curb to Curb 1 Travel Lane @ 15’-0” 1 Shoulder @ 3’-0” (Left Side) 1 Shoulder @ 6’-0” (Right Side) See Appendix A for a drawing of the typical bridge section. Bridge Type: The bridge type will be determined during structure study. Number of Spans: The span arrangement will be determined during structure study. Work: Construction of new substructures and superstructure. Alignment: The bridge will be located on a new ramp alignment. Detour: A detour will not be required.
3.3.3.7. Hydraulics of Bridges and Culverts – There are no waterways within the project limits that require the consideration of and/or analysis of bridge hydraulics.
This section looks at general recommendations to the existing major culverts within the proposed project limits. The recommendations were based on visual inspections performed in March 2012. As indicated in Section 1.5, funding is secured for the design and construction of Phase 1 only. The need to repair or replace existing culverts not impacted by construction should be revisited during final design for each construction phase.
All conveyed run-off is from roadside drainage ditches along I-490, I-390/NY 390, Lyell Avenue and ramps from the 390/490 and 390/31 interchanges. As noted in Section 3.3.3.4, the preferred alternative would create some localized changes to drainage patterns and channels due to new roadway alignments. These revisions would necessitate new installations of some of the major culverts. Existing culverts beneath roadways to remain that are no longer necessary after the new installations would most likely be abandoned in-place and filled with a “flowable” concrete material.
It is recommended that all existing reinforced box culverts would be retained. Concrete repairs to localized areas of deterioration within the box culverts and wingwalls would be necessary and improvements to the inlet and outlet aprons are expected. An extension of approximately 180 ft would be added to the west inlet of the existing 6ft x 7ft twin cell box culvert (Culvert ID# 4) located beneath NY 390 northbound and Ramp SW. Cleaning of the box culverts and drainage channels that are filled with debris or obstructed by beaver dams would be included as part of this project. The Regional Maintenance Group has been battling nuisance beaver problems at several of the box culverts within the 390/490 interchange for years. A creative solution such as a beaver deceiver end-treatment should be considered for inclusion into this project. This would ensure the long-term functionality of the culvert and relieve the limited Maintenance forces from a time intensive nuisance problem. The reinforced concrete box culverts that were not accessible (Culvert ID# 1 & 7) due to high water levels should be evaluated during final design to assess conditions and if any rehabilitation or other improvements would be necessary.
Most of the major culverts that are corrugated metal pipe (CMP) were installed during original construction and have been in-place for almost 50 years. As noted in Section 2.3.3.7, based on the visual inspections most of the CMP major culverts exhibit loss of the protective bituminous coating and corrosion of the metal pipes is moderate to significant. With the current long term schedule for all four phases of construction, it is recommended that with the exception of Culvert ID# 6 & 15, all major CMP culverts that are within the proposed project limits, regardless of whether or not they are affected by construction of this project, should be replaced by new culvert pipes consisting of polyethylene, aluminum or reinforced concrete material.
3-73 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
A listing of the proposed disposition for all major culverts within the project study area is included in Exhibit 3.3.3.7. Major culvert locations are shown on the plans and on Exhibit 1.2.1-2 in Appendix A. All major culverts should be reevaluated during final design to determine if additional rehabilitation or replacement is necessary.
Exhibit 3.3.3.7 Proposed Work for Major Culverts Culvert Dwg. No. Culvert Description Description of Work ID (App. A) outside 4’x6’ box culvert Culvert was inaccessible. Evaluate during final 1 plan (110 ft long) design to determine if rehabilitation is necessary. limits 5’x10’ box culvert Localized concrete repairs and cleaning. Confirm PL-6 2 (50 ft long) during final design. 5’x10’ box culvert Localized concrete repairs and cleaning. Confirm PL-6 3 (54 ft long) during final design. 6’ x 7’ twin-cell box culvert Clean culvert. Remove western inlet wingwalls, PL-5 4 (230 ft long) extend culvert approx. 180 ft. 5’x15’ box culvert Localized concrete repairs and cleaning. Confirm PL-13 5 (100 ft long) during final design. 84”x126” CMP PL-13 6 No work is proposed, reevaluate during final design. (100 ft long) outside 36”x72” box culvert Culvert was inaccessible. Evaluate during final 7 plan (65 ft long) design to determine if rehabilitation is necessary. limits Existing pipe to be removed / abandoned. A new PL-9 42” CMP 8 culvert with end sections would be provided in a new (77 ft long) location due to proposed roadway realignments. 42” CMP PL-8 9 Existing pipe to be removed / abandoned. (70 ft long) 42” CMP PL-8 10 Existing pipe to be removed / abandoned. (124 ft long) Existing pipe to be removed / abandoned. A new PL-7 48” CMP 11 culvert will be installed in a new location due to (164 ft long) proposed roadway realignments. Replace existing pipe with a new culvert including an PL-7 48” CMP 12 extension to accommodate the future southbound (134 ft long) roadway. Evaluate further during final design. 42” CMP Replace original pipe and pipe extensions with new PL-13 13 (140 ft long) end sections. 42” CMP Replace original pipe and pipe extensions with new PL-13 14 (255 ft long) end sections. 42” CMP PL-2 15 No work is proposed, reevaluate during final design. (length unknown) Replace or rehabilitate existing pipe and extensions PL-1 57”span x 38” rise CMP 16 and provide new end sections. Evaluate further (121 ft long) during final design. Replace or rehabilitate existing pipe and extensions PL-1 57”span x 38” rise CMP 17 and provide new end sections. Evaluate further (121 ft long) during final design.
3-74 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
3.3.3.8. Guide Railing, Median Barriers and Impact Attenuators – All guiderail within the project limits, including bridge railing will be evaluated during final design for conformance to design standards and replaced or repaired, if necessary. New guide rail will be installed in accordance with current standards.
3.3.3.9. Utilities – Both public and privately owned utilities are impacted by the preferred alternative. Exhibit 3.3.3.9 outlines some of the impacts anticipated as part of this project and lists if it is a project cost or to be relocated by others. For facilities not impacted by construction, private utility owners may elect to improve their facilities with their own resources during the construction phase. Coordination with these private owners would take place during final design. Owners of municipal utilities (sanitary sewer and water) may also have a need to upgrade their facilities by installing new or larger mains within areas of the project not affected by construction. These upgrades could be performed as part of the construction project as a betterment and funded by the owner of the utility. Refer to Section 3.3.1.11 for highway lighting.
Exhibit 3.3.3.9 Location of Potential Utility Impacts Anticipated Owner Type (OH/UG) Project Cost Location Impact (Y/N) Along I-390 / NY 390 and Relocate as part of this NYSDOT Fiber Optic (UG) Y interchange area with I-490 project Along Lyell Avenue on both sides of road from Howard Relocate by others with RG&E Electric (OH) N Road to Tarwood Drive and utility poles from Lee Road to Erie Canal Along Lee Road from Lyell Relocate by others with RG&E Electric (OH) N Ave to project limit utility poles Along Lyell Ave from Ramp DF to Ramp DA, along Buffalo Rd on existing Relocate by others as RG&E Electric (UG) N bridge over I-390, Along part of this project Trolley Blvd beneath NY 390 Replace conduits as part Located on existing Lyell RG&E Electric (UG) Y of this project, (lines by Ave bridge over NY 390 others) Along Lyell Ave and Lee Rd within limits of project, Relocate by others as TWC Cable (OH) N along Trolley Blvd beneath part of this project existing NY 390 bridges Along north side of Trolley May require relocation by TWC Cable (UG) N Blvd beneath NY 390 others as part of bridge bridges replacements Along Lyell Ave between Electric (UG) Wegmans’ entrances and Relocate as part of this NYSDOT (Traffic Y between signal at Ramp project interconnect) DB, across Lyell Ave bridge, to signal at Lee Rd. Along Lyell Ave within Frontier project limits and along Relocate by others as Telephone (UG) N Telephone north side of Trolley Blvd part of this project beneath NY 390 bridges
3-75 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Exhibit 3.3.3.9 Location of Potential Utility Impacts A portion will be relocated Along Lyell Ave near bridge RG&E Gas Line (UG) N by others as part of this over NY 390 project Along north side of Trolley May require relocation by RG&E Gas Line (UG) N Blvd beneath NY 390 others as part of bridge bridges replacements Along Lyell Ave from Various locations may Howard Road to Erie require relocation as part RG&E Gas Line (UG) N Canal, including side of this project by others, streets and services to owner may elect to business relocate/upgrade May require relocation as part of this project due to Along Lyell Ave and removal of Ramp DA. MCPWA Water Line (UG) Y Beneath Ramp DA Relocations along Lyell Ave may be necessary based on depth May require relocation as Along north side of Trolley part of this project MCPWA Water Line (UG) Y Blvd beneath NY 390 pending excavation bridges depths. Some relocations Sanitary Sewer Along Lyell Avenue within anticipated as part of this MCPWA Y (UG) project limits project, conflict with proposed drainage.
RG&E: Rochester Gas and Electric TWC: Time-Warner Communications MCPWA: Monroe County Pure Water Agency
3.3.3.10. Railroad Facilities – The two bridges which carry NY 390 over Trolley Boulevard and an inactive CSX railroad right-of-way are proposed to be replaced under this project. The preferred Alternative A2 has assumed bridge clearances and geometry to maintain the existing vertical and horizontal clearances for an active railroad facility. If CSX commits to abandoning the right-of-way for railroad use prior to detailed design for the replacement bridges, construction cost savings could be achieved in the form of reduced span lengths, and increased flexibility in vertical and horizontal clearance requirements.
In addition, I-390 SB will be widened from three to four lanes under the Class I mainline railroad owned by CSXT, which crosses over I-390 just south of Buffalo Road. The roadway widening will not impact the bridge and should not impact railroad service during construction. It is likely that the existing 14’-8” minimum vertical clearance on I-390 SB under the railroad bridge (as per field survey conducted in summer 2011) will be maintained since the minimum clearance is located at the right edge of travel lane on the high side of the superelevated pavement and the roadway is being widened to the median side, on the low side of the superelevation.
There should not be a need for a railroad force account agreement.
3-76 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
3.3.4. Landscape and Environmental Enhancements
Refer to Chapter 4 for complete discussion.
3.3.4.1. Landscape Development and Other Aesthetics Improvements
Landscape development is expected to be appropriate for the scope of the project. It will consist of replacement plantings and additional plant/vegetation buffers where needed. Landscape enhancements will be incorporated in the Lyell Avenue corridor, such as additional street trees that will define the corridor.
Wetland plantings will be incorporated into any required stormwater management measures. Native plants will be utilized where possible.
All existing vegetation to remain in the construction area will be protected using proper care and protection details. The project will incorporate the use of soil erosion control measures including temporary and permanent seeding and mulch.
Turf will be established in areas where pavement is removed; material will be stripped to expose native soils in these areas and new topsoil applied to the appropriate depth. Wildflowers may be used on this project.
Context sensitive treatments of the noise walls as they relate to each neighborhood will be utilized. Such treatments will be surface texture, color and details, and vegetation screenings.
Slopes will be flattened where feasible and in areas where slopes are steeper, vegetated stone slope protection may be utilized.
Decorative pavements and concrete may be utilized in areas where turf establishment may be difficult or difficult to maintain.
3.3.4.2. Environmental Enhancements
The Lyell Avenue corridor will be enhanced and further defined through a continuous sidewalk system and the addition of street trees. The entrance to the Erie Canalway Trail on Lyell Avenue at the east end of the project limits will be enhanced through landscape treatments and interpretive signage.
Planting groupings of vegetation within the interchange and along the I-390/NYS Route 390 corridor will include: large shade trees, lower canopy fruiting and flowering native shrubs and evergreen plant material for seasonal interest and habitat improvements.
3.3.5. Miscellaneous – None
3-77 DRAFT DESIGN REPORT / ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CHAPTER 4 SOCIAL, ECONOMIC & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
Highway Project P.I.N. 4390.13 NYS Route 390/I-490/NYS Route 31 Interchange Improvements Monroe County Town of Gates, Town of Greece and City of Rochester [City/Village] of______
U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ANDREW M. CUOMO, Governor JOAN MCDONALD, Commissioner NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
CHAPTER 4 - SOCIAL, ECONOMIC and ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS and CONSEQUENCES
4.1 Introduction
4.1.1 Environmental Classification and Lead Agencies
NEPA Classification
This project is classified as a NEPA Class III action in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115. NEPA Class III projects are actions in which the significance of the environmental impacts are not clearly established, and require the preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA).
SEQR Classification and Lead Agencies
The Department has determined that this project is a SEQR Non-Type II Action in accordance with 17 NYCRR Part 15 - Procedures for Implementation of State Environmental Quality Review Act. SEQR Non- Type II projects include actions for which the environmental impacts are not clearly established and require an Environmental Assessment (EA). The project is being progressed as SEQR Non-Type II (EA) because at least one alternative will involve the acquisition and relocation of a number of occupied residences. Under 17 NYCRR Part 15.14(d)(1), a Type II action has “no acquisition of any occupied dwelling units or principal structures of businesses. Furthermore, under 17 NYCRR Part 15.14(d)(3), a Type II action has “no more than minor social, economic or environmental effects upon occupied dwelling units, businesses, abutting properties or other established human activities.” This project, with its potential effects to occupied residential structures, does not meet the Type II criteria, and is therefore classified as a Non-Type II (EA) project.
4.1.2 Coordination with agencies
NEPA Cooperating and Participating Agencies
A Coordination Plan has been prepared in accordance with Section 6002 of Public Law 104-59, the “Safe Accountable Flexible Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users,” (SAFETEA-LU), enacted August 10, 2005. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) will serve as the Federal lead agency for the project and the NYSDOT will serve as the joint lead agency. Agencies that have been identified as Cooperating Agencies in accordance with 23 CFR 771 and/or Participating Agencies in accordance with Section 6002 of SAFETEA-LU are shown in Exhibit 4.1.2.
Exhibit 4.1.2. Agencies, Roles and Responsibilities. Agency Role Responsibilities US Army Corps Cooperating and Provide comments on: of Engineers Participating · Purpose and Need Agency · Range of Alternatives · Methodologies · Level of detail for analysis of alternatives · Identification of issues that could substantially delay or prevent granting of permit/approval · Opportunities for collaboration · Mitigation (if needed) If Individual Permit is required, adopt EA and coordinate public involvement for Section 404 permit
4-1 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Exhibit 4.1.2. Agencies, Roles and Responsibilities. Agency Role Responsibilities U.S. Coast Cooperating and Provide comments on: Guard Participating · Purpose and Need Agency · Range of Alternatives · Methodologies · Level of detail for analysis of alternatives · Identification of issues that could substantially delay or prevent granting of permit/approval · Opportunities for collaboration · Mitigation (if needed) If Section 9 Permit is required, adopt EA and coordinate public involvement for permit. Federal Aviation Cooperating and Provide comments on: Administration Participating · Purpose and Need Agency · Range of Alternatives · Methodologies · Level of detail for analysis of alternatives · Identification of issues that could substantially delay or prevent granting of permit/approval · Opportunities for collaboration · Mitigation (if needed) Advance coordination for obstruction analysis on proposed design features and potential temporary construction obstructions with regard to the Greater Rochester International Airport. NYS Department Cooperating and Provide comments on: of Environmental Participating · Purpose and Need Conservation Agency · Range of Alternatives (NYSDEC) · Methodologies · Level of detail for analysis of alternatives · Identification of issues that could substantially delay or prevent granting of permit/approval · Opportunities for collaboration · Mitigation Adopt EA and coordinate public involvement when possible Responsible for Section 401 Water Quality Certification Responsibility under US EPA and expertise in air quality issues Responsibility under US EPA in coverage under NYSDEC SPDES permit Responsibility under Article 15 Permit Memorandum of Agreement Town of Gates Participating Provide comments on: Agency · Purpose and Need · Range of Alternatives · Methodologies · Level of detail for analysis of alternatives · Identification of issues that could substantially delay or prevent granting of permit/approval · Opportunities for collaboration · Mitigation
4-2 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Exhibit 4.1.2. Agencies, Roles and Responsibilities. Agency Role Responsibilities Genesee Participating Provide comments on: Transportation Agency · Purpose and Need Council · Range of Alternatives · Methodologies · Level of detail for analysis of alternatives · Identification of issues that could substantially delay or prevent granting of permit/approval · Opportunities for collaboration · Mitigation Monroe County Participating Provide comments on: Agency · Purpose and Need · Range of Alternatives · Methodologies · Level of detail for analysis of alternatives · Identification of issues that could substantially delay or prevent granting of permit/approval · Opportunities for collaboration · Mitigation
The coordination plan, dated July 2013, is located in Appendix B.
As expressed in the SAFETEA-LU Environmental Review Process Final Guidance, “the purposes of the coordination plan are to facilitate and document the lead agencies’ structured interaction with the public and other agencies and to inform the public and other agencies of how the coordination plan will be accomplished.” Since the development of the coordination plan, the level of potential impacts has diminished from what was originally anticipated. Coordination with individual agencies has been ongoing with respect to these impacts, fulfilling the intent of the coordination plan. The plan calls a number of specific reviews by the cooperating and participating agencies that are no longer warranted on such a formal basis. These include:
· Review of a Pre-Draft Chapter II of DR, Draft Purpose and Need, Draft descriptions of alternatives being considered and Proposed Methodologies · Provide Cooperating Agencies with preliminary Draft DR/EA to identify any outstanding issues before public circulation. · Provide Cooperating & Participating Agencies with Preferred Alternative selection. Determine if a higher level of detail is needed for the Preferred Alternative. · Provide Cooperating Agencies with Administrative Final DR/FONSI
The cooperating and participating agencies will still be asked to review the Draft DR/EA along with the public.
4-3 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
4.2 SOCIAL
The purpose of this section is to discuss potential impact to the social environment of the project corridor under Alternative1 (the No Build Alternative) and Alternative A2 as described in Chapter 3.
4.2.1 Land Use
Demographics and Affected Population
The project corridor is located primarily in the Town of Gates, in Monroe County. The Town of Gates has population of 28,400 according to the 2010 U.S. Census this number is down 3% from the population of 29,275 reported in the 2000 U.S. Census. The current land use surrounding the project corridor includes residential, commercial, industrial and community services. The primary land uses adjacent to the project segments are summarized in Section 2.2. and a land use map is shown on Exhibit 2.2.1 in Appendix A.
According to 2010 census data, the Town of Gates, NY is 83% white, 9.5% black, 5.15% Hispanic, 3.23% Asian, with the rest of the population being of Native American, Native Alaskan, Native Pacific Islanders, other races, or two or more races. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) demographics mapping site shows that the affected population in the project corridor is 84.9% English speaking, 69.4% high school educated or higher, 74.1% owner occupied homes, with 67.4% having an annual income of $25,000 or higher. The affected population in the project corridor is primarily adults’ ages 18 to 64 who make up 58% of the corridor population. The remaining corridor population is seniors age 65 and older who account for 20% of the population, minors age 6 to 17 making up 16% of the population, and children age 5 and younger with remaining 6%.
Comprehensive Plans and Zoning
The project is located in the Town of Gates and adjacent to the western limits of the City of Rochester and the southern limits of the Town of Greece. The Town of Gates Master Plan of 2007 as amended in 2008 lists the following transportation systems planning goals: · To maintain the ease of transporting people and goods with a viable well integrated road network. · To maintain the efficient movement of people and goods to ensure commercial and economic growth and development in our town, county and state. · To establish and maintain a viable mass transit system to meet the needs of the people of our community who rely on public transportation for work, business and recreation. · Continue to work with the County and State to identify road improvement projects that can be incorporated into their respective transportation programs.
The Town of Gates master plan has been reviewed and this project is consistent with the listed non- transportation goals: · To provide diverse, wide-range, affordable, and stable housing options for families with varying income levels. This will maintain the current tax base, attract first-time home buyers to the town and encourage the development of similar living-spaces. The town needs to preserve the residential character of neighborhoods and must continue to eliminate areas of blight or deterioration through code enforcement and redevelopment. · To continue to encourage businesses to locate within the town by keeping taxes reasonable for developers and business owners. · To promote local businesses to serve the community, its neighborhoods and residents and to provide needed services to the community. · To provide accessible, affordable and quality leisure activities and facilities to all town residents. · To provide and encourage the establishment of community facilities which strengthen the quality of life and encourage family growth, diversity and a sense of neighborhood or community.
4-4 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
The Town of Gates zoning map of 2001 indicates that the land surrounding the project corridor is zoned for general industry, general business, neighborhood business, business/non-retail, multi-family residential, and residential-one family (see Exhibit 4.2.1-1 in Appendix B). The proposed project will not require rezoning.
Smart Growth
In accordance with the Smart Growth Public Infrastructure Policy Act of August 2010, state infrastructure agencies are required to ensure that public infrastructure projects approved, undertaken, supported or financed undergo a consistency evaluation and attestation using 10 smart growth criteria. To help comply with this requirement, the “Smart Growth Screening Tool,” developed by NYSDOT in November 2011, was used for the build alternative, Alternative 2A. This culminated in a “Smart Growth Statement” and an Attestation. These documents are located in Appendix B.
4.2.2 Neighborhoods and Community Cohesion
Community Cohesion
Several neighborhoods are located adjacent to the existing highway corridor, many of which were previously impacted by the original construction of I-390, NY390, and I-490.
The majority of the project corridor is a controlled access highway. The land surrounding this highway is a mixture of residential, commercial, retail and office space, industrial and unoccupied land. The residential houses surrounding the project corridor were predominately built after 1950. The greatest concentrations of residential housing are on the west side of the project corridor between Buffalo Road and Trolley Boulevard. Along Lyell Avenue there are retail stores, a large grocery store, several restaurants, office buildings, a gas station, and petroleum terminals. Lyell Avenue, within the project limits, is not serviced by continuous sidewalks, limiting pedestrian access. Traffic conditions paired with insufficient shoulder widths limit bicycle use along the Lyell Avenue section of the corridor. As a result, automobiles are the primary mode of transportation. The area surrounding I-490 is primarily residential with some unoccupied land. This area does not have direct access to the project corridor as it backs up to I-490 where access is fully controlled. The southern section of the project corridor is bordered by residential houses, industrial, and mixed commercial, with no sidewalks on Buffalo Road. The northern section of the corridor is surrounded by unoccupied land, industrial, residential houses, and an urgent care facility.
In general, the project will follow the existing alignment through the project corridor and pose no adverse impacts to community cohesion as a whole. The proposed project does not involve physical alteration to neighborhoods within the Town of Gates nor will it result in isolation of portions of any neighborhood, ethnic group, or low-income community. In the area where acquisition is proposed, the two homes are located in an area zoned for general industry and there are no other residential dwellings in the area. The age and ethnic background of the affected population is of a similar composition as that of the Town of Gates. No effects on Community Cohesion are expected with implementation of this project.
Construction impacts will generally be temporary in nature and will cease with the completion of each proposed construction phase. The local communities will experience short-term direct increases in employment associated with the construction activity, as well as an increased demand for local materials, services and labor. Potential traffic impacts will be addressed in the traffic staging plans. Area schools, hospitals, police, fire departments and other community groups will be advised of traffic patterns and detours during construction. Air quality impacts during construction will be limited to short term dust and mobile source emissions, which will be addressed with various control measures during construction activities.
Noise barriers are recommended as part of this project, to mitigate for impacts from traffic noise experienced at affected residential properties adjacent to the project corridor in the Town of Gates (see Section 4.4.17). Noise barrier locations and details can be found in Appendix N: Noise Analysis.
4-5 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Noise barriers will result in reduced traffic noise levels for the affected residential communities located along the corridor. They are proposed to be constructed between the affected residential areas and the mainline. These areas are already separated from other parts of the community by the roadways themselves, so noise barriers would not function as a barrier to different parts of the community. It is anticipated that it will be available to construct the noise barriers prior to construction of that part of the roadway. The barriers would then protect the affected residential areas from construction noise, as well as from traffic following construction.
Home and Business Relocations
The no-build/maintenance alternative would not result in any home or business relocations. Alternative A2 does require the acquisition of two occupied residential houses, an occupied restaurant building and unoccupied land. The two residential houses are located in an area zoned for general industry. The houses are numbers 25 and 50 Lee Road Extension. The house at 25 Lee Road Extension is a single family residence with a 3.5 acre lot and has a total assessed value of $108,400. The house at 50 Lee Road Ext is a single family residence on a 0.6 acre lot and has a total assessed value of $76,700. The restaurant at 2000 Lyell Ave sits on a .25 acre lot and has 89 feet of frontage on Lyell Ave as well as 200 feet of frontage on Lee Rd. The property has a total assessed value of $277,700.
These three properties pay a total of $10,744.64 in school tax which is 0.0007% of the Gates-Chili School District tax base of $1,559,719,300.00; a total of $8,299.64 in county tax, which is 0.002% of the Monroe County tax base of $38,481,170,686.00; and a total of $2,898 in Town of Gates tax which is 0.00002% of the Town of Gates tax base of $193,113,857.00. These property acquisitions will not have a significant impact on the tax bases.1
The residents of these houses and the business occupants would be displaced. There are houses in the surrounding neighborhoods that are currently available with similar lot sizes and similar market values. There are fewer options for the restaurant relocation; however, there is available lease space on Lyell Avenue within a mile of the current location. Overall, this project will not cause significant impacts based on the limited number of relocations required and the general availability of other similar properties.
4.2.3 Social Groups Benefited or Harmed
This project is not located in a Mapped Title VI Environmental Justice Area. The project limits are within the Town of Gates and are located more than a ¼ mile west of the border of the mapped Environmental Justice area associated with the City of Rochester metropolitan area.
Elderly and/or Disabled Persons or Groups
A review of 2010 US Census data for the Town of Gates indicates that there is no significant concentration of elderly or disabled persons in the project corridor (see Section 4.2.1).
Within the Town of Gates there are two senior housing towers located at 100 Dunn Tower Drive off Spencerport Road west of the project corridor.
The existing Lyell Ave section of the project corridor is lacking in infrastructure accommodations for disabled persons and the elderly. Much of the corridor does not provide sidewalks, access ramps, pedestrian crossing devices or crosswalks. Where there are sidewalks they are deficient per ADA guidelines: access is poor as related to condition, width is inadequate, and they lack curb ramps. This project proposes the implementation of continuous 5 ft. wide sidewalks along both sides of Lyell Avenue from Howard Road to the Erie Canal, as well as crosswalks which will improve accessibility accommodations for these user groups. Proposed improvements will be developed in accordance with ADA regulations.
1 It should be noted that some of the properties involve uneconomic remainders and the entire properties may not need to be acquired (see Section 3.3.3.1). This analysis therefore represents a conservative estimate of impact from the property acquisitions.
4-6 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
The proposed project also addresses the need for improved traffic flow, replacement of deteriorating facilities, improved traffic safety, and improved pedestrian access along Lyell Avenue. These improvements will benefit residents and commuters, including the elderly/disabled population.
Transit Dependent, Pedestrians, and Bicyclists
Transit – The Rochester Genesee Transportation Authority (RGRTA) and Gates Chili School District operate transit services within the project corridor as described in Section 2.3.2.3.
Access to bus stops along Lyell Avenue within the project limits will be improved significantly with the implementation of sidewalks as described in Section 3.3.2.3.
Pedestrians – There are twelve RGRTA bus stops within the project corridor as indicated in Section 2.3.2.3.
Pedestrian accommodations along Lyell Avenue within the project limits will be improved significantly as described in Section 3.3.2.1. This includes implementation of continuous 5 ft. wide sidewalks along both sides of the roadway from Howard Road to the Erie Canal. As indicated in Sections 3.3.2.3 and 3.3.2.5, access to bus stops along Lyell Avenue and access to the Erie Canalway Heritage Trail will also be improved greatly with the implementation of sidewalks. Proposed improvements will be developed in accordance with ADA regulations.
Bicyclists – Lyell Avenue does not meet AASHTO or FHWA guidelines for accommodating bicycle traffic as described in Section 2.3.2.2. Bicycle traffic accommodations along Lyell Avenue within the project limits will be improved significantly with the implementation of continuous 6 ft. wide bike lanes along both sides of the roadway from Howard Road to the Erie Canal as described in Section 3.3.2.2. The proposed bicycle lanes will provide a seamless connection from the Erie Canalway Heritage trail to State Bicycle Route 5 at the Howard Road intersection. No other components of the project corridor are appropriate for bicycle traffic; the remaining sections of the project include limited access highways where bicyclists are prohibited by state law.
The implementation of Alternative A2 will not result in any long term adverse effects on individuals that are transit dependent, pedestrians or bicyclists. Though construction activities may cause inconvenience it will be a temporary issue. The improved traffic patterns, the improved safety of the corridor and the implementation of continuous 5 ft. wide sidewalks and continuous 6 ft. wide bike lanes along both sides of the roadway from Howard Road to the Erie Canal will have positive effects for these groups.
Low Income, Minority and Ethnic Groups (Environmental Justice)
An evaluation was conducted in accordance with Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority populations and Low Income Population and with Department of Transportation Orders 5610.2 and 6640.23 which require the Federal Highway Administration to implement the principals of Executive Order 12898 in all programs, policies, and activities. The purpose of Environmental Justice is to identify and address, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health effects of a Federal agency’s programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations in accordance with Executive Order 12898, which was issued by President Clinton on February 11, 1994. The order focuses attention on the environmental and human health conditions of minority and low-income communities and requires agencies to make the achievement of environmental justice part of their mission. Environmental justice embraces the principle that all people and communities are entitled to equal protection through environmental, health, employment, housing, transportation, and civil rights laws. A key component to the Environmental Justice Strategy is to enhance public participation in the planning and development process; and to insure that transportation projects do not disproportionately affect minority and low-income populations.
Executive Order 12898 requires consideration of the needs of those households that have traditionally been underserved by existing transportation systems, particularly low-income and minority households. A summary of the methodology and findings regarding this project follows.
4-7 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Racial and Ethnic Minorities – As described in Section 4.2.1, 2010 census data for the Town of Gates indicates that 17.9% of residents classified themselves as racial or ethnic minorities. The percentage of minorities in the Town of Gates is lower than the percent of the state minority population, which was 34.3% in 2010, as well as Monroe County, which was 24% in 2010.
Low-Income Households – The 2011 Poverty Guidelines as issued by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services are used by the FHWA to determine low-income populations. The Poverty Guidelines for 2011 for the 48 Contiguous States and the District of Columbia are shown in Exhibit 4.2.3-1.
Exhibit 4.2.3-1: U.S. Department of Health 2011 Poverty Guidelines Persons in family/household Poverty guideline 1 $10,890 2 $14,710 3 $18,530 4 $22,350 5 $26,170 6 $29,990 7 $33,810 8 $37,630 For families/households with more than 8 persons, add $3,820 for each additional person.
The U.S. EPA Environmental Justice Mapper was used to determine household income in the project corridor and surrounding area. Household income data is as follows: Less than $15000 – 15.5%, $15,000-$25,000 – 11.8%, $25,000-$50,000 – 29.3%, $50,000-$75,000 – 22.4%, greater than $75,000 – 19.7%. Home ownership for the project corridor is 79.8%, with renter occupied at 20.2%.
No minority or low-income populations have been identified that would be adversely impacted by the proposed project as determined above. Therefore, in accordance with the provisions of EO 12898 and FHWA Order 6640.23, no further Environmental Justice analysis is required.
4.2.4 School Districts, Recreational Areas, and Places of Worship
School Districts
The project corridor is located in the Gates Chili Central School District. There are no schools located within the project corridor. Four schools are located in the vicinity of the project corridor. Gates Chili Junior and Senior High Schools and Hope Hall School are located off Buffalo Road. The schools are all served by the Gates Chili Central School District bus system. Bus schedules may need to be temporarily modified depending on bridge construction activities and phasing. Northstar Christian Academy is located off Spencerport Road and may also require temporary bussing modifications due to construction activities along Lyell Avenue. Continuous sidewalks do not currently exist along the project corridor.
The proposed project will not result in any permanent adverse impacts on the Gates Chili Central School District or the private schools adjacent to the project corridor. Temporary delays to motorists and busses destined for the schools surrounding the project corridor may be experienced during construction. The Gates Chili Central School District transportation policy provides bussing for the vast majority of students. Only those students who live adjacent to the schools are not provided bus transportation. The project corridor along Lyell Avenue is not generally traveled by students as pedestrians or bicyclists.
Recreational Areas
There are two recreational areas in the project vicinity. The Town of Gates Memorial Park is located at 150 Spencerport Road approximately 0.3 miles north west of the project corridor. The Erie Canalway Trail is located adjacent to the project corridor along the eastern boundary and crosses the northern end of the NYS
4-8 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Route 390 corridor to the north. Memorial Park is a 30-acre park with facilities that include: three baseball diamonds, two football/soccer fields, a natural pond, playground, bocce court, restrooms and an enclosed shelter. The Erie Canalway Trail is a 365-mile off road trail between Albany and Buffalo that is open to pedestrians and bicyclists.
The proposed project will not result in any permanent adverse impacts on the recreational areas adjacent to the project corridor. Temporary delays to motorists, pedestrians, and/or bicyclists destined for the recreational areas surrounding the project corridor may be experienced during construction.
Places of Worship
St. Theodore’s Church located at 168 Spencerport Road, St. Helen’s Church located at 310 Hinchey Road, Faith Outreach Ministry located at 83 Lee Road and Mt. Sinai Johnson Holy Temple located at 1713 Lyell Avenue are in the vicinity of the project corridor.
The proposed project will not result in any permanent adverse impacts on the places of worship adjacent to the project corridor. Minor, temporary delays to motorists, pedestrians, and/or bicyclists destined for the places of worship surrounding the project corridor may be experienced during construction.
4-9 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
4.3 Economic
The no-build/maintenance alternative will not meet the project objectives, which include reducing traffic congestion, improving road safety, and improving pedestrian access. This alternative may have a negative effect on the businesses in the project corridor because it does not address these objectives. Alternative A2 would include the replacement of deteriorating bridges, construction of new ramps to improve traffic flow, the widening of a section of Lyell Avenue, and the addition of sidewalks, green space, and bike lanes along Lyell Avenue. The businesses along the Lyell Avenue section of the project corridor will be most directly affected by the project. As discussed in Sections 3.3.1.10 and 3.3.3.1, the effect of this portion of the project on local businesses will vary as follows: · Perri’s Pizza will be required to relocate, · PICS Telecom International will have one (1) parking space eliminated, with approximately 51 remaining, · Diplomat Banquet Center and Hotel will have twelve (12) parking spaces eliminated, with approximately 58 remaining, · Stonegate Retail Complex will have one (1) parking space eliminated, with approximately 37 remaining,2 · Stonegate Health/Professional Complex will have four (4) parking spaces eliminated, with approximately 97 remaining,2 · ERB Financial will have six (6) parking spaces eliminated, with approximately six (6) remaining, · East Gates Professional Buildings will have 12 spaces eliminated, with approximately 72 remaining, and · Wegmans Plaza will have 28 spaces eliminated, with approximately 756 remaining.
During construction there may be delays for some motorists traveling through the corridor. This would be a temporary and minor impact. Alternative A2 will not have a long term negative effect on the businesses in the project corridor.
4.3.1 Regional and Local Economies
The impacts of Alternative A2 on regional and local economies would be positive. The area around the project corridor is heavily developed, containing a mix of commercial and residential properties. There are numerous businesses along the Lyell Ave section of the project. There are businesses along Buffalo Road, in the vicinity of the bridge to be reconstructed over I-490. During construction there will be minor delays to vehicular traffic and possible temporary impediments to pedestrian access.
Alternative A2 will have a positive effect on the local economy. It will contribute to economic viability by increasing foot traffic to the businesses along Lyell Avenue as well as making it more convenient for vehicular traffic to access the businesses along Lyell Avenue. Improved travel patterns will reduce accidents, ease congestion and allow easier navigation of the project corridor.
It is not expected that the businesses along Buffalo Road would experience changes with either the no/build option or Alternative A2. There are no project components slated for this section adjacent to the project corridor. Some delays may be experienced during reconstruction of the Buffalo Road Bridge over I-390. These would be minor and temporary in nature.
The project will not have an adverse effect on highway related businesses. The impacts are expected to be positive as discussed above.
2 There will also be 12 spaces remaining which are understood to be shared between the Stonegate Retail Complex and the Stonegate Health/Professional Complex.
4-10 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
4.3.2 Business Districts
Although no established business districts exist in the vicinity of the project corridor, the Lyell Avenue section of the project corridor is zoned for general business, general industry, neighborhood business, and business/non-retail. Along Lyell Avenue there is a variety of sizeable businesses located in the project limits. Many of these businesses rely upon drive by traffic.
Effects Assessment
Access to the parking lots belonging to the businesses along Lyell Avenue will be maintained during construction. Although some traffic may avoid the Lyell Avenue corridor during construction, this will be minor and temporary in nature. Other than these minor temporary impacts no significant adverse effects are anticipated.
4-11 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
4.4 Environment
4.4.1 Wetlands
State Freshwater Wetlands
There are no NYSDEC regulated freshwater wetlands or regulated 100’ Adjacent Areas mapped within the project area as per the NYSDEC Freshwater Wetlands Map for Monroe County, Rochester USGS quadrangle (see Exhibit 4.4.1-1). A site visit was performed on August 30, 2010 with the NYSDEC to verify this (see Appendix Q. No further investigation is required and Article 24 of the Environmental Conservation Law (ECL) is satisfied.
State Tidal Wetlands
A review of the NYSDEC GIS wetland data files indicates that there are no NYSDEC jurisdictional tidal wetlands or regulated adjacent areas within or near the project limits, and ECL Article 25 does not apply.
Federal Jurisdictional Wetlands
The United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Map for the Rochester, New York Quadrangle was reviewed. The NWI Map identifies the Erie Canal as a deepwater aquatic habitat, classified as Lacustrine, Limnetic, Unconsolidated Bottom, Permanently Flooded, Excavated (L1UBHx). In addition, four (4) wetland areas are identified on the NWI map within the project study area. They are classified as Palustrine, Forested, Broad-Leaved Deciduous, Temporarily Flooded, Partially Drained/Ditched (PFO1Ad) and Palustrine, Forested, Broad-Leaved Deciduous, Seasonally Flooded/ Saturated (PFO1E). These mapped wetlands are located near the south central portion of the project study area (see Exhibit 4.4.1-1 in Appendix B).
Based on the site investigation, conducted in May and June of 2010, and review of the Monroe County Soil Survey, the NWI map, and the NYSDEC Freshwater Wetlands Map, it was determined that eleven (11) wetland areas are located within the project study area. Each wetland area delineated for this project was designated a letter code for identification purposes (A-K). These are shown on the project plans (Appendix A) and in Appendix Q.
A site review with the USACE took place on May 16, 2012; the purpose of this visit was to review the delineated boundaries and hydrologic connections and obtain a Jurisdictional Determination (JD). Based on the JD walkover and subsequent email correspondence, the USACE determined that Wetlands A, B, C, D, E, F, G, I, J and K were under its jurisdiction. Wetland H was found to be hydrologically isolated from other waters of the U.S. and, therefore, is not regulated by the USACE. Wetland H will be handled via an approved JD; a preliminary JD is being used for all other wetlands. During the site review, Wetland I was re-evaluated. The findings resulted in a decrease in the size of Wetland I by 0.083 acres.
The southern limit of the project corridor was extended in 2011 to include the area on the east and west sides of I-390 between Buffalo Road and a location immediately north of Interchange 19 at Chili Avenue. The wetland delineation effort conducted in May and June 2010 did not include a review of this area; however, based on a preliminary field screening, additional wetlands areas were not observed within the expanded project limits. Wetlands were evident on the west side of an unnamed tributary of the Erie Canal that is adjacent to the west side of I-390 southbound; however, this area is beyond the limits of the project study area.
Detail regarding each of the delineated wetlands is presented in the Waters of the U.S. Wetlands and Streams Report, which is included as Appendix Q of this Design Report. A brief summary of pertinent information is provided below; additional information is included in Exhibit 4.4.1-2.
4-12 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Exhibit 4.4.1-2: Summary of Preliminary Wetland Impacts Percent Wetland Of Area Of Type Of Wetland Wetland Habitat Area in Total Temporary Indirect Impact Impact Functions & Services Id Classification PSA* Wetland Impacts*** Impacts*** (Acres)*** (Cut\Fill) (Acres) Area Impacted floodflow alteration, shallow emergent A 0.067 0.047 70 Fill sediment/toxicant retention and TBD None**** marsh nutrient removal sediment/toxicant retention and B floodplain forest 0.902 0.000 0 N/A N/A N/A nutrient removal shallow emergent sediment/toxicant retention and C 0.075 0.000 0 N/A N/A N/A marsh nutrient removal shallow emergent sediment/toxicant retention and D 0.024 0.000 0 N/A N/A N/A marsh nutrient removal E wet meadow 0.015 0.000 0 N/A sediment/toxicant retention N/A N/A sediment/toxicant retention, shallow emergent F 0.026 0.000 0 N/A nutrient removal and N/A N/A marsh sediment/shoreline stabilization shallow emergent sediment/toxicant retention and G 0.035 0.000 0 N/A N/A N/A marsh nutrient removal shallow emergent sediment/toxicant retention H** 0.106 0.000 0 N/A N/A N/A marsh shallow emergent sediment/toxicant retention and I 0.076 0.053 70 Fill TBD None**** marsh nutrient removal shallow emergent sediment/toxicant retention and J 0.064 0.000 0 N/A N/A N/A marsh nutrient removal shallow emergent sediment/toxicant retention and K 0.068 0.000 0 N/A N/A N/A marsh nutrient removal TOTAL 1.462 0.100 7
*PSA = Project Study Area **Wetland H has been determined non-jurisdictional by the USACE and will be covered under an Approved Jurisdictional Determination. ***Impacts as currently presented in the table and throughout the text, are based on preliminary design files and associated cut/fill limits. Avoidance and minimization measures have been employed to some extent, but proposed culverts are not yet included in the work files. As such, impacts shown are preliminary in nature and further minimization of impacts is anticipated to occur during final design. ****Wetlands A & I will still receive the same amount of inflow; therefore, as long as the outflow is similar, the remaining unfilled portions of each wetland will continue to exist.
4-13 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
The delineated wetlands are generally located in the vicinity of the I-390/NYS Route 390/I -490 interchange. The majority of the wetlands are shallow emergent marsh communities; Wetlands A, C, D, F, G, H, I, J and K are all characterized as shallow emergent marshes. Wetland B was identified as a floodplain forest and Wetland E is characterized as a wet meadow. The wetlands identified within the project study area principally provide sediment-toxicant retention and nutrient removal. Floodflow alteration and shoreline stabilization are provided by individual wetlands, but to a much lesser extent.
A total of 63,609 square feet (1.62 acres) of wetlands was delineated within the project study area. Two (2) of the 11 wetlands would be impacted by fill slopes associated with the proposed roadway work. The impacted wetlands are Wetlands A and I. Both of the impacted wetlands have been classified as palustrine emergent wetland habitats. A fill slope would disturb 0.047 acres or 70% of Wetland A and 0.053 acres or 70% of Wetland I. The impact to Wetland A will occur as a result of the fill needed to raise the elevation for the proposed ramp to avoid impact to Wetland B. Based on the mapped soil type and field observations, Wetland A has a high groundwater table during portions of the year and the soil is poorly drained. The remaining small portion of the wetland will continue to receive hydrology via the groundwater table and runoff drained from upgrade. It is anticipated that the proposed storm pipe will be sized the same or only slightly larger than the existing culvert; therefore, additional indirect impact to Wetland A will not occur. Once detailed drainage design is available, pipe size and inverts will be reviewed to confirm no further impact to the wetland. The remaining 30 percent of Wetland A would continue to function, albeit at a lesser capacity commensurate with the decrease in size. Increasing the length of Wetland A that is in a culvert may cause the size of Wetland C, which is up gradient of Wetland A, to increase in area over time, depending on the effect the culvert extension has, if any, on the up gradient displacement of water that flows through this part of the drainage system. The boundaries of Wetland A could possibly expand northward, southward, or in both directions, depending on the design of the culvert extension. Potential temporary impacts to Wetland A during construction would be restored and there would be no further indirect impacts to Wetland A based on the information provided above. The remaining unfilled portion of Wetland I would also continue to exist post-construction because groundwater discharge along an existing rock cut is the primary source of hydrology.
The total area of wetland impact (0.100 acres) is 7% of the total wetland area occurring in the project study area (1.462 acres). Wetlands A and I primarily provide sediment/toxicant retention and nutrient removal; Wetland A also provides floodflow alteration. Since these wetlands will be impacted, the functions exhibited by the wetlands will also be affected. Exhibit 4.4.1-2 presents a summary of the wetland impacts as discussed herein.
Exhibit 4.4.1-3 presents a summary of wetland impacts relative to Wetland Habitat Classifications.
Exhibit 4.4.1-3 Summary of Wetland Impacts by Habitat Classification Area of Wetland Habitat Impact Classification (Acres) shallow emergent marsh 0.100 floodplain forest 0.000 wet meadow 0.000 TOTAL 0.100
Indirect/Secondary effects
Indirect, or secondary effects on wetland areas are indicated on Exhibit 4.4.1-2; however, at this level of detail in the design process, it is not available to determine quantities for such impacts. The potential for some indirect impacts to Wetland A are discussed above, and it is concluded that beyond temporary construction impacts, there would be no indirect effects to that wetland. Potential indirect impacts are likely to occur as a result of activities associated with grading of fill slopes and stormwater discharges from the construction site. For example, the remaining portion of Wetland A is adjacent to the proposed limit of work. Additionally, Wetlands J and K will not be impacted, but exist along proposed cut and fill slopes respectively. Indirect
4-14 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13 impacts will be minimized to the extent possible by utilizing appropriate erosion and sediment control measures during construction as well as post construction management practices focused on water quality and quantity. Temporary impacts may occur as a result of grading efforts. Temporary impacts will be determined as the design progresses. Upon completion of the project, all areas experiencing temporary wetland disturbance will be regraded and seeded with an appropriate emergent wetland seed mix.
Executive Order 11990
Compliance with Presidential Executive Order 11990 is required for federal-aid projects that involve permanent fill in wetlands requiring a USACE Individual or Nationwide Permit. Since the proposed project will impact regulated wetlands, Executive Order 11990 will apply. An Executive Order 11990 Wetland Finding will need to be approved by FHWA stating and supporting that (1) there are no practicable alternatives to construction in the wetland(s), and (2) the proposed action includes all practicable measures to minimize harm to the wetland(s) which may result from such use.
Mitigation Summary
Compensatory mitigation, in all its forms (avoidance, minimization, and compensation), has been considered in the design of this project, to the extent necessary to ensure that the adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimized to the extent practicable. Mitigation has been defined in NEPA regulations to include efforts which: a) avoid; b) minimize; c) rectify; d) reduce or eliminate; or e) compensate for adverse impacts to the environment [40 CRR 1508.20 (a-e)]. Mitigation of wetland impacts is required in accordance with Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines of the Clean Water Act (40 CFR 230), FHWA step-down procedures (23 CFR 771.1 et seq), mitigation policy mandates, EO 11990 and USFWS mitigation policy directives. Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, the USACE/Environmental Protection Agency Memorandum of Agreement, and EO 11990 stress avoidance and minimization as primary considerations for protection of wetlands.
Avoidance: Waters of the United States, as defined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, are present within the project study area. Although it may not be possible to avoid all impacts to jurisdictional areas, impacts to streams and wetlands may be avoided with the use of environmentally sensitive design. Wetland impacts have been prevented by adjusting the roadway alignment to avoid certain areas. The original Alternative A2 design and subsequent iterations resulted in impacts to Wetlands B, J, and K; design modifications were made to avoid impacting them. The most significant avoidance measure involved the extension of flyover ramps to avoid impact to all of Wetland B (0.902 acres).
Minimization: Utilization of Best Management Practices (BMP) is recommended in an effort to minimize impacts. Steepening of fill slopes at stream and wetland crossings will continue to be evaluated as design progresses to reduce unnecessary wetland impacts. Ramp and other roadway geometry changes have been employed to minimize wetland/stream impacts. For example, the design speed of Ramp EN was reduced to pull in the ramp and minimize/avoid impact to Wetland J. Although detailed culvert design will not occur until final design, preliminary options for culvert locations have been evaluated to assess and identify feasible options with the least environmental impact/greatest ecological benefit. Appropriate sizing of culverts and sensitive placement of drainage structures may help to minimize further degradation of water quality and reduce adverse impacts on aquatic habitat viability in streams and tributaries. Exhibit 4.4.1-4 shows the reduction in wetland impacts that has been achieved using minimization measures. As shown in the table, avoidance and minimization measures have resulted in an approximate one acre decrease in impacts. Measures utilized to date, to minimize stream impacts are discussed in more detail in 4.4.2.
4-15 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Exhibit 4.4.1-4 Summary of Wetland Avoidance/Minimization Wetland Wetland Impacts Impacts Alternative A2 Wetland Alternative (with design Avoidance and Minimization Measures ID A2* modifications) Impact Impact (acres) (acres) A 0.047 0.047 N/A B 0.902 0.000 Extension of a flyover ramps I 0.053 0.053 N/A J 0.064 0.000 Modified ramp geometrics; steepened slope K 0.037 0.000 Steepened slope Avoidance & minimization resulted in 1.003 acre Total 1.103 0.100 reduction in wetland impacts
The total permanent wetland impacts are based on the worst case full-build scenario for Alternative A2. Avoidance and minimization will be conducted as directed by EO 11990 and USACE mitigation requirements to comply with Section 404(b) guidelines.
Permitting & Compensatory Mitigation: Most of the project in the vicinity of the Waters of the United States consists of widening existing highways and ramps, and the construction of new ramps and service lanes. It is therefore anticipated that the project will fall under a Section 404, Nationwide Permit No. 14, “Linear Transportation Projects.” This nationwide permit is for “Activities required for the construction, expansion, modification, or improvement of linear transportation projects (e.g., roads, highways, railways, trails, airport runways and taxiways) in Waters of the United States.” The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) has granted Section 401 Water Quality Certification provided that the project complies with the General Conditions, one of which is that “this certification does not authorize discharges greater than ¼ acre in size or more than 300 feet of stream disturbance. Because of the anticipated stream disturbance described in Section 4.4.2, the project may require an Individual Water Quality Certification. The final assessment of the need for an Individual Water Quality Certification will be determined based on impacts associated with the final design. All required permits will be obtained during the final design phase of the project. Work will not commence until the permit (s) are acquired and will adhere to any conditions identified in the permit documents. The total permanent wetland impacts are based on the worst case full-build scenario for Alternative A2.
Compensatory mitigation of wetland impacts is required when activities authorized under certain USACE NWPs are greater than one tenth of an acre. At this time, mitigation of wetland impacts appears unnecessary because review of proposed preliminary design indicates the placement of fill will impact approximately 0.10 acres of wetland. As such, wetland mitigation is not being pursued at this time.
If mitigation becomes necessary, the project corridor will be investigated to identify potentially suitable sites. Alternatively, purchasing credits from a local mitigation bank would be feasible instead of wetland creation as long as the amount of available credits is commensurate with the amount of permanent wetland impacts.
4.4.2 Surface Waterbodies and Watercourses
Surface Waters
Surface water bodies within the project study area include the Erie Canal located along the northern and eastern most portions of the study area; an unnamed tributary to the Erie Canal (T1) that meanders, from the
4-16 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13 west to the east, through the south central portion of the project study area; an unnamed tributary of T1 (T1A); and an unnamed tributary of the Erie Canal (T2) that flows north to south, beginning where the CSX Railroad crosses I-390 (see Exhibit 4.4.1-1 in Appendix B). The Erie Canal is classified as a NYSDEC Class B waterbody and the unnamed tributaries to the Erie Canal are classified as NYSDEC Class C waterbodies. The majority of the project area is situated in the Lower Genesee River Watershed which has a drainage area of approximately 334 square miles. Project limits were extended in 2011 to include additional land to the south along I-390, between Buffalo Road and Interchange 19 at Chili Avenue. An unnamed tributary of the Erie Canal (T2) exists adjacent to the west side of I-390 southbound within this portion of the project corridor. The tributary flows southerly, beginning at the CSX Transportation Crossing; then easterly through culverts under both lanes of I-390, located immediately south of the overhead utility line crossing; then south easterly, where it converges with the Erie Canal.
The proposed project will require excavation/fill within two separate sections of two unnamed tributaries to the Erie Canal (T1 and T1A). A USACE Section 404 Nationwide Permit will be required to authorize the impacts. A NYSDEC Section 401 Water Quality Certification is issued for any project that requires a USACE Section 404 permit. Construction activities will require authorization under a Section 404 permit; therefore, the project will also require a NYSDEC Water Quality Certification. Linear road projects having minor impacts typically qualify for a Nationwide Permit (NWP) No. 14 [33 CFR §330.5]. This nationwide permit applies to non-tidal waters provided that the discharge does not cause the loss of greater than a half an acre of “Waters of the United States.” All required permits will be obtained during the final design phase of the project. Work will not commence until the permit(s) are acquired and will adhere to any conditions identified in the permit documents.
Work associated with the proposed project would result in modifications to two separate sections of two unnamed tributaries of the Erie Canal, T1 and T1A:
(1) At T1 the existent twin box culvert at the I-490 WB ramp and 390 NB split would need to be extended upstream (west). Extending the existent culvert with a matching twin box culvert would result in approximately 0.110 acres of fill at or below the OHWM along 220 linear feet of stream based on current design. If any rip-rap is needed to protect the banks going to the extended culvert opening, the volume of fill (i.e., rip-rap) at or below the OHWM would need to be calculated as an additional stream impact during final design. Since there is no way to avoid extending the culvert for this part of the design, impacts were minimized, to the extent practicable by modifying the original culvert design. Originally, impacts to T1 involved filling 0.118 acres at or below the OHWM along 235 linear feet of stream. As presented above, the amount of fill at or below the OHWM was reduced by eight one-thousandths of an acre (0.008) and by 15 linear feet.
(2) At T1A, approximately 518 feet or 0.050 acres would be modified by fill-slopes. This would require the removal of two existing culverts and installation of two new culverts in order to maintain flow and proper drainage of T1A and its associated drainage basin, including wetlands. The culverts that convey T1A beneath the I-390 northbound lane and the culvert that carries flow from Wetland B into T1A would be removed. A new culvert would be installed to convey drainage from the infield area that would be created by proposed Ramps B and EN; the culvert would daylight into a new stream channel, east of proposed Ramp A, where it would then converge with T1A, along the toe of the fill slope to Ramp A. A new culvert would also be placed to convey surplus water from Wetland B into T1A; the upstream end of the culvert would be located at or next to the existent culvert opening; the downstream end of the culvert would be located south of the current culvert end location. The proposed culvert placement required to accommodate the proposed Ramps A, B and EN would result in a subsequent shift of the T1A channel location. Approximately 315’ of new stream channel would be constructed to replicate existing conditions of T1A and avoid loss of function.
A design goal for the proposed re-aligned channel is to mirror the critical characteristics of the existing impacted channel. It would receive groundwater inputs, maintain the hydrologic connection and filter sediment. Furthermore, it would be adjacent to a forested area, similar to the existing channel, thereby maintaining similar habitat structure. The channel would be further evaluated for the suitability of meanders or additional storage capacity to provide structure and habitat similar to existing conditions.
4-17 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Therefore, the proposed stream re-alignment would perform the same functions as the impacted channel, with the exception that (based on current preliminary design plans) there would still be a net deficit of open channel, since the proposed length of stream is less than the impacted length. It is anticipated that the proposed length of channel and/or enhancement opportunities will be further reviewed during final design to achieve the same degree of functionality exhibited by the impacted portion of T1A. Therefore the Department is not proposing any compensation for impacts to T1A, since the impacts will be mitigated by the realigned channel.
Approximately 218 feet of stream channel would be developed from the down gradient end of the new culvert that would convey water from Wetland A to the up gradient end of the new culvert that surplus water from Wetland B would drain to and into T1A. Approximately 107 feet of stream channel would be developed to reconnect the portion of T1A being conveyed through the new culvert with the existent channel of T1A. The hydrologic connection from Wetland I to T1A would be maintained via construction of a realigned channel, which would convey water from the down gradient end of the new culvert crossing beneath new proposed Ramps A and B from Wetland I into the 107 feet of proposed channel, then on to the existent channel of T1A. Based on proposed fill slopes, the original design resulted in a linear impact of 607 feet and an area impact of approximately 0.064 acres; therefore, the modified design discussed above minimized the impact to this stream by 89 feet and 0.014 acres.
As currently calculated, a total area of 0.160-acres along a total of 738 linear feet of NYSDEC Class C Waters would be impacted by the proposed project. The project will not impact T2. Exhibit 4.4.2-1 presents impacts relative to streams.
Exhibit 4.4.2-1: Summary of Preliminary Stream Impacts* Area of Volume Stream Impact Linear of Impact Temporary Indirect Impact Stream Name Feet of below Impacts Impacts ID SF Acres Impact OHWM** (CYs) 1 T1 Unnamed Tributary 4,803 0.110 220 TBD TBD TBD of Erie Canal 2 T1A Tributary of T1 2,173 0.050 518 TBD TBD None due to channel relocation 3 T2 Unnamed Tributary 0 0 0 0 N/A N/A of Erie Canal TOTAL 6,976 0.160 738 TBD *Drainage and culvert design is not yet available; therefore, stream impacts are preliminary in nature and for order of magnitude assessment only. **OHWM is defined on Page Q-8 (Appendix Q).
4-18 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Exhibit 4.4.2-2 Summary of Stream Avoidance/Minimization Stream ID Stream Impacts Stream Impacts Alternative A2* Alternative Avoidance and Minimization Measures A2*(with design modifications) Area Linear Area Linear impact impact impact impact (sf) (ft) (sf) (ft) T1 5,132 235 4,803 220 N/A T1A 2,800 607 2,173 518** Maintained similar hydrologic configuration; maintained connection between Wetland I and T1A; proposed open channel and ditch segments equal to linear impact T2 0 0 0 0 Initial avoidance Total 7,932 842 6,976 738 Reduction of 956 sf and 104 linear ft of impact *Detailed drainage and culvert design is not yet available; therefore, stream impacts are preliminary in nature and for order of magnitude assessment only. **Much of the T1A impact is expected to be temporary since the alignment of the stream will be shifted to replace functions.
Surface Water Classification and Standards
As stated above, the Erie Canal is classified by the NYSDEC as a Class B waterbody, which is subject to the NYSDEC Article 15 regulations. The best usage for Class B waters is swimming, other recreation and fishing. Water quality is suitable for fish propagation and survival. The water quality is suitable for primary and secondary contact recreation.
The unnamed tributaries of the Erie Canal (T1, T1A, and T2) are classified by the NYSDEC as Class C waters and they do not meet the State’s definition of navigable; therefore, they are not subject to Article 15 regulations. The best usage for Class C waters is fishing. Water quality is suitable for fish propagation and survival. The water quality shall be suitable for primary and secondary contact recreation, although other factors may limit the use for these purposes.
Stream Bed and Bank Protection
A NYSDEC Article 15 Protection of Waters Permit is required for disturbing the bed or banks of a stream with a classification of C(t) or higher. The Erie Canal is classified as a Class B stream; therefore, work within the stream would require coverage under an Article 15 Protection of Waters Permit. However, consistent with the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between NYSDOT and NYSDEC dated December 1996, NYSDOT is not required to obtain Individual Permits for projects regulated under Article 15. The MOU does specify the need for coordination for projects involving “protected” streams. Many water bodies are breeding habitat to fall-spawning trout. Protection of Waters permits typically contain a condition prohibiting in-water work between October 1 and April 30, which is the vulnerable spawning, incubation, and early development period for these fish; since the Erie Canal does not support population of fall-spawning trout, this work prohibition period would not apply. However, since the Erie Canal supports a warm water fishery, in stream work would be restricted to the period between July 15 and March 15, in any given year. Appropriate management practices will be incorporated into a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and utilized to avoid adverse impacts to water quality. During construction, precautions should be taken to prevent contamination of the streams by silt, sediment, fuels, solvents, lubricants, or any other pollutants. Upon completion of construction activities, all disturbed areas will be restored.
4-19 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Mitigation Summary
It is expected that the impacts to T1A associated with the shifted channel, would be compensated for with the approximately 325 feet of stream channel and approximately 235 feet of ditch that is proposed to maintain the function of T1A and hydrologic connectivity of Wetland I to T1A. The combined length of the proposed ditch and stream segments exceeds the proposed linear impact to T1A. The proposed channel would be designed to mimic existing channel conditions and functions, which were created as a result of the construction of a ditch through uplands during the original construction of the interchange,
Out of kind mitigation, as defined by the USACE, should be considered for impacts to streams within the project area. As discussed above, the preferred alternative will impact unnamed tributaries to the Erie Canal, T1 and T1A. Out of kind mitigation options that may be investigated to compensate for impacts to T1 include, but are not limited to: establishment of a buffer zone to protect aquatic resources, stream habitat enhancement along non-impacted streams, restoration of previously channelized streams, stabilization of eroding banks, and planting of vegetative barriers along wildlife corridors. Additionally, it may be feasible to incorporate stream mitigation measures into the wetland mitigation site design (should it be required), depending on selected location and suitability, or depending on extent of impact, credits could be purchased from a local mitigation bank.
Mitigation measures will be further evaluated as the project design progresses; selected measures will be included in the USACE/NYSDEC Joint Permit Application package, which will be prepared during final design.
4.4.3 Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers
State Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers
There are no NYSDEC Designated, Study or Inventory State Wild, Scenic or Recreational Rivers within or adjacent to the proposed project site. No further review is required.
National Wild and Scenic Rivers
The project does not involve a National Wild and Scenic River as shown by the Nationwide Rivers Inventory List of National Wild and Scenic Rivers. No further review is required.
Section 4(f) Involvement
The proposed project does not involve work in or adjacent to a wildlife or waterfowl refuge. No further consideration is required.
4.4.4 Navigable Waters
State Regulated Waters
Office of General Services Lands and Navigable Waters
There are no OGS underwater holdings located within the project’s area of potential effect that will be impacted by the work.
Rivers and Harbors Act – Section 9
The Erie Canal is a 524-mile navigable water of the United States. Primary Canal System user groups are: transient boaters, local recreational boaters/anglers, tour boats/cruise boats, hire boat operators/users, commercial operators, trail users and tourists via land. As described above, the canal is located just east of
4-20 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13 the project limits along NY 31, and under NY 390 north of the NY 390/NY 31 interchange. Under the No- Build/Maintenance Alternative, there would be no impacts to the Erie Canal at either location. Under Alternative A2, there would be no impacts to the Erie Canal to the east of the project limits along NY 31. The bridges that carry NY 390 over the Erie Canal (BIN 4062531 and BIN 4062532) would be rehabilitated as described in Section 3.3.3.6. U.S. Coast Guard Jurisdiction Checklists were completed for each bridge and are included in Appendix E. The checklist determined that a Section 9 Permit would not be required for the bridge carrying NY 390 SB (BIN 4062531) because the rehabilitation would not change the bridge width or vertical and horizontal clearances. The rehabilitation of the bridge carrying NY 390 NB (BIN 4062532) may require a Section 9 permit because the rehabilitation would widen the bridge. A Section 9 Permit Application Package will therefore be submitted to the United State Coast Guard for approval.
Coordination has been initiated with the U.S. Coast Guard regarding the project.
Rivers and Harbors Act – Section 10
Under the No-Build/Maintenance Alternative, there would be no impacts to the Erie Canal as described above. Under Alternative A2, there would be no impacts to the Erie Canal to the east of the project limits along NY 31. The bridges that carry NY 390 over the Erie Canal (BIN 4062531 and BIN 4062532) would be rehabilitated as described in Section 3.3.3.6. The work proposed on these bridges would not require any work in the Erie Canal. Since this alternative would not involve the creation of any obstruction to the navigable capacity of any of the 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
The purpose of the floodplain evaluation is to document the existing floodplains within the project area and to evaluate potential encroachments for Alternative A2. The project area includes the Erie Canal, which is a mapped stream in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
The floodplain evaluation must comply with the provisions of Executive Order 11988, Flood Plain Management, as implemented in 23CFR650 Subpart A, Location and Hydraulic Design of Encroachments on Flood Plains and 6NYCRR 502, Flood Plain Management Criteria for State Projects, to determine potential impacts on Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) floodplains within the project area. The existing conditions 1% annual chance floodplain boundaries, for the project area, includes the NYS Erie Canal as determined from the FEMA, Flood Insurance Rate Map, Monroe County, New York (All Jurisdictions), August 28, 2008. The Erie Canal is located within the project limits in the Town of Gates. The effective FEMA Flood Insurance Study delineates the NYS Erie Canal as a Zone-A. Additionally, there is a Zone-X area in the vicinity of the I-390 / 490 interchange that is not subject the Executive Order 11988 or 6NYCRR502. There are no additional delineated floodplains within the project area, and there are no lateral encroachments due to proposed roadway and structure work.
There will be no significant impacts to the floodplain or an increase in the 1% annual chance floodplain elevation as a result of the proposed lane widening of the NYS Route 390 NB structure that passes over the Erie Canal. The existing function of the 1% annual chance floodplain area will be unchanged as a result of the additional roadway and therefore does not result in an increase in the Base Flood (Q100) elevation for Alternative A2.
This floodplain evaluation has considered the effects of Alternative A2 in terms of encroachment, interruption, risk and impacts to natural resources, and 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; (3) there is no significant risk; and (4) there will be no significant impacts on natural and beneficial flood plain value.
4-21 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
4.4.6 Coastal Resources
State Coastal Zone Management Program
The proposed project is not located in a State Coastal Zone Management (CZM) area, according to the Coastal Zone Area Map from the NYS Department of State’s Coastal Zone Management Unit.
The project is not located in a Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat, as defined by the NYSDOS Division of Coastal Resources and Waterfront Revitalization. No further action is required.
State Coastal Erosion Hazard Area
The proposed project is not located in or near a Coastal Erosion Hazard Area.
Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal Resources Program
According to NYS DOS “List of Approved Coastal Local Waterfront Revitalization Programs (LWRPs),” dated December 2010, the proposed project is not located in a Local Waterfront Revitalization Area. No further action is required.
Federal Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) and Coastal Barrier Improvement Act (CBIA)
The proposed project is not located in, or near a coastal area under the jurisdiction of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) or the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act (CBIA).
4.4.7 Groundwater Resources, Aquifers, and Reservoirs
Aquifers
NYSDEC and United State Geological Survey (USGS) aquifer mapping has been reviewed and it has been determined that the proposed project is not located in an identified Primary Water Supply or Principal Aquifer Area. No further investigation for NYSDEC designated aquifers is required.
A review of the EPA-designated Sole Source Aquifer Areas Federal Register Notices, Maps, and Fact Sheets indicates that the project is not located in a Sole Source Aquifer Project Review Area. No federal review and/or approvals are required pursuant to Section 1424(e) of the Safe Drinking Water Act.
Drinking Water Supply Wells (Public and Private Wells) and Reservoirs
The project area is included in the service area for the Monroe County Water Authority. The Town of Gates is supplied with water from their Shoremont Water Treatment Plant on Lake Ontario. There are no municipal drinking water wells, wellhead influence zones, or reservoirs within or near the project area.
4-22 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
4.4.8 Stormwater Management
Site disturbance for this redevelopment project is greater than 1 acre, therefore, a full Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required for coverage under the State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activity (Permit No. GP-0-10-001). Contained in the project SWPPP document will be the following: erosion and sediment control designs (E&SC); review of stormwater management practices to provide for pollutant removal (water quality controls); review of the reduction in stream channel erosion, application of runoff reduction via green infrastructure techniques, prevention of overbank flooding, and control extreme flood events (water quantity controls).
For this project, the preliminary E&SC methods include silt fence, drainage inlet protection, pipe inlet/outlet protection, stone protection, and seeding/soil stabilization operations. In addition, Permanent measures that would be considered to minimize/control soil erosion and sedimentation include: seeding / vegetative cover; rock / stone lining at outlets; storm water ponds; and dry / wet swales.
Any water quantity and water quality volume treatment will be achieved within an approximate 10.7 acres of available surface area throughout the project limits. A full detailed storm water analysis and assessment can be found in Appendix J.
The project is not adjacent to, or discharging runoff to, a TMDL Watershed or a listed 303(d) waterbody.
4-23 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
4.4.9 General Ecology and Wildlife Resources
Fish, Wildlife and Waterfowl
The land use in the majority of the study area consists of the I-390/NYS Route 390 corridor and associated interchanges, including the I-390/NYS Route 390/I-490 and NYS Route 390/NYS Route 31 interchanges. Much of the area is therefore a mix of impervious surface and vacant land. Land use in the vicinity of Exit 21 (Lyell Avenue) is dominated by residential and commercial development. The terrain within the study area consists predominantly of a low lying area that gently slopes to the southeast. Sightings of White-tailed deer, wild turkey, ducks, and a variety of songbird species were common during the fieldwork.
The vegetative communities vary throughout the study area and primarily consist of successional northern hardwoods and mowed roadside. Dominant herbaceous vegetation observed includes Grasses (Poa spp.), Goldenrods (Solidago spp.), Common Dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), Perennial Sweet Pea (Lathyrus latifolius), Narrowleaf Plantain (Plantago lanceolata), Violet (Viola sp.), Field Thistle (Cirsium discolor), Poison Ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), Birdsfoot Trefoil (Lotus corniculatus), Wild carrot (Daucus carota) Chives (Allium schoenoprasum) and May Apple (Podophyllum peltatum). Dominant woody vegetation observed includes Common Buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica), Staghorn Sumac (Rhus typhina), Austrian Pine (Pinus nigra), White Ash (Fraxinus americana), Honey Locust (Gleditisa triacanthos), Norway maple (Acer platanoides), Riverbank Grapevine (Vitis riparia), Gray Dogwood (Cornus racemosa) American Basswood (Tilia americana) and Shagbark Hickory (Carya ovata). Invasive species observed on-site include Reed Canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea), Perennial Sweet Pea (Lathyrus latifolius), Common Reed (Phragmites australis), Cow Vetch (Vicia cracca), Garlic Mustard (Alliaria petiolata), Tatarian Honeysuckle (Lonicera tatarica), Autumn Olive (Elaeagnus umbellata), Mulitflora Rose (Rosa multiflora), Common Buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica) and Norway Maple (Acer platanoides).
As previously discussed, during the course of the project, the southern project limit was extended to a location immediately north of Interchange 19 at Chili Avenue. Since the limits were altered after the original field screenings were performed, an ecological screening of the area along I-390 between Buffalo Road and the Chili Avenue Interchange has not been performed. A field screening for this portion of the extended project area will be performed in spring of 2012 and impacts will be identified at that time.
Habitat Areas, Wildlife Refuges and Waterfowl Refuges
The project area is not located within or adjacent to a Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuge; therefore, no further consideration is required.
Endangered or Threatened Species
Coordination with the NYSDEC and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is required for federal aid or permitted construction projects. The details of the agency reviews are presented below. The USFWS Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Species and Candidate Species list for Monroe County was reviewed and the NYSDEC, Division of Fish, Wildlife, & Marine Resources, New York Natural Heritage Program (NYNHP) was contacted to identify the potential for Federal and/or State-listed endangered or threatened species to occur on-site. A discussion of these findings is presented below and in (Appendix B).
Endangered or Threatened Species (Federal)
On March 26, 2012, the USFWS Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Species and Candidate Species list identifies the Bog Turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii) for Riga and Sweden townships in Monroe County (Appendix B); however, since all the project related activities occur in the Town of Gates, no significant impacts to the species or its habitat are expected. FHWA concurred with the Department’s “no effect” determination on Bog Turtle (see the letter from FHWA dated April 10, 2013 in Appendix B).
An updated review was made using the USFWS Information, Planning and Consultation (IPaC) system on
4-24 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
October 7, 2014 (see Appendix B). There is suitable habitat for the Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) a federally proposed listed species within the project area. A biological evaluation supporting a “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” (MANLAA) determination was been sent to FHWA in October 2014. In a letter dated November 5, 2014, FHWA concurred with the Department’s determination. Tree removal is planned to occur between November 1st and March 31st (see Appendix B).
The USFWS has determined that the project will result in no effect to Bog Turtle, and concurred with FHWA’s “may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” determination on the Northern Long-eared Bat (see letter from USFWS dated November 21, 2014 in Appendix B).
Endangered or Threatened Species (State)
The NYSDEC-NYNHP was contacted regarding the potential for endangered and threatened species to occur within the project improvement area. The original NYSDEC-NYNHP response letter, dated November 16, 2010, identified one (1) State-listed threatened plant species, with the potential to occur on-site or within the immediate vicinity of the project site (Appendix B). The species was also included in a list of potential threatened and endangered plant species discussed below. Each plant on the list was searched for to see if it inhabited the project study area relative to each plant’s preferred habitat, when present. The species was not found inhabiting the project study area. The specific details of the remaining species on the NYSDOT list and the findings of the presence or absence of them are discussed in the following.
A list of thirty-nine (39) threatened and endangered species that could potentially be found within the project study area is shown in Appendix B. The preferred habitats of these particular species were screened during their blooming periods in mid-May, mid-July and late August throughout the project study area. The details associated with the screening effort are documented in the Endangered/Threatened Species Technical Memo, which is included in Appendix B. The potential threatened and endangered species were determined to prefer vegetative communities including, but not limited to, bottomlands, woodlands, fields, meadows, wetlands, disturbed areas and/or roadsides. None of the listed threatened and endangered species were found within or immediately adjacent to the project study area.
Project limits along I-390 were extended in 2011 from just south of Buffalo Road to immediately north of Interchange 19 at Chili Avenue. Based on a field review performed by NYSDOT, land within the expanded project limits does not provide suitable habitat for the endangered/threatened species previously identified as a potential concern for the project area. The NYSDEC-NYNHP was also contacted regarding the potential for endangered and threatened species to occur within the expanded project limits, based on records. The NYSDEC-NYNHP response letter, dated January 24, 2012, revealed that their databases do not contain records of endangered and threatened species on-site or within the immediate vicinity of the expanded project limits (Appendix B). Therefore, a detailed threatened/endangered species investigation will not be conducted for this area.
Since some time had passed, a third request was made of the NYSDEC-NYNHP. A letter dated January 2, 2014 named the same species as that in the November 16, 2010 letter discussed above. On October 7, 2014 the NYS Natural Heritage GIS database was reviewed for any changes in protected species occurring in the project area. There were no changes from the previous NYSDEC-NYHNP letters dated November 16, 2010 and January 24, 2012.
Four types of ecological resources would be impacted by the project. The resources are identified as approximately 0.160 acres along 738 linear feet of perennial stream; approximately 0.100 acres of wetlands; approximately 15.0 acres of wooded area (trees greater than 3” diameter breast height (dbh)); and approximately 5 acres of brush area. In general, ecological impacts will be limited to land immediately adjacent to the mainline and vegetated areas between ramps. The greatest impact to vegetated areas will occur in association with the 390/490 Interchange. The following table presents a summary of impacts to ecological resources relative to type.
4-25 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Exhibit 4.4.9-1 Summary of Impacts to Ecological Resources Area of Impacts Ecological Resource Linear Impact (ft) (acres) Perennial Streams* 0.160 738 Wetlands** 0.100 N/A Woodland 15.0 N/A Field 5.0 N/A *Reference Exhibit 4.4.2-1 ** Reference Exhibit 4.4.1-2
The potential for noise barriers is discussed in Section 4.4.17 and in Appendix N. It is important to note that the network of roads that make up the Interchange is heavily traveled; and, notwithstanding noise barriers, is inherently hazardous to any wildlife moving through the corridor. Wildlife mortality within the corridor is assumed to be high because of the many roads and ramps and their geometry create an environment where movement by wildlife would, in most instances, require crossing more than one road. It is possible that local wildlife have learned to avoid the area or those that did not learn to avoid it have been removed from the population by being killed by automobiles while attempting to cross the roadways.
The I-390/Route 390/I-490 corridor consists of the following ecological communities, based on Edinger et al. (2002): Forested Uplands: Successional Hardwoods; and Terrestrial Cultural: Mowed Roadside, Paved Road, and Roadcut Cliff/Slope.
Successional hardwood communities occurring along roads are typically narrow linear swaths situated between the road and some other type of development (e.g., residential, commercial or industrial). In this particular project area, however, the areas of successional hardwoods are mainly triangular or rectangular in shape because of the geometry of the Interchange. The majority of successional hardwoods are located inside of the Interchange proper and to its outside northeast quadrant, west of the Erie Canal. The other quadrants outside of the Interchange proper have been developed for residential use, where the dominant ecological community is Terrestrial Cultural: mowed lawn and mowed lawn with trees. The area along the corridor bounded by Buffalo Road to the North; the railroad to the south; Howard Road to the west; and the Barge Canal to the east has been developed for industrial use, including a large quarry. The remainder of the corridor included in the project study area is mostly successional hardwoods mixed with successional old field ecological communities and residential land use.
Based on the types of ecological communities present within the project study area and surrounding landscape, the following wildlife can reasonably be expected to inhabit the area, but is not limited to: white- tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), opossum (Didelphis virginiana), beaver (Castor Canadensis), woodchuck (Marmota monax), coyote (Canis latrans), snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina), garter snakes (Thamnophis sirtalis), and green frogs (Rana clamitans).
Although habitat suitable for deer and other mammals is present, it can be assumed that since the road network has been active for a relatively long period of time, most animals that traveled in or through the corridor have either been killed in collisions with automobiles or have learned routes that allow them to avoid crossing travel lanes.
Beavers are not as vulnerable to mortality from automobile strikes as other wildlife are because they mostly travel through the corridor or within the interchange in waters that the roads bridge or where there is a culvert.
Although extensive in length, the proposed noise barriers are not continuous. In general, the presence of noise barriers is not expected to have a discernible effect on the movement of local wildlife populations through the transportation corridor or ecological communities when considering the openness of the Interchange Area in conjunction with the locations of the proposed noise walls relative to it. The greater threat to wildlife movement relative to this particular project is the addition of ramps and roads, which would increase the number of travel lanes that an animal attempting to move through the area would have to cross compared
4-26 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13 to current conditions. The effect of noise barriers on the movement of wildlife would be far greater if the noise barriers were being constructed along the opposing sides of a divided four lane highway. This project is different, in that the noise barriers are discontinuous and would be placed next to the outer most lanes of the roadway network that makes up the Interchange, leaving adequate open space between noise barriers for wildlife to move through the transportation corridor and not be entrapped in narrow strips of land between a roadway and a noise barrier or on a roadway flanked by opposing noise barriers.
In the absence of a detailed study of wildlife populations and their use of habitat in and around the Project Study Area, particularly travel corridors, the effects of noise barriers proposed for the subject project on the movement of wildlife and the local ecosystem can only be discussed in general terms, with many assumptions. However, by first establishing some principles about the landscape and land use in the Project Study Area, certain assumptions can be validated.
Since the noise barriers would be sited between the outer lanes of the interchange and the adjacent residential areas, any wildlife travel corridors that may exist would not be constricted between two opposing noise walls, typical of four lane divided highways that bisect noise sensitive land uses. Should any of the proposed noise barriers transect a wildlife travel corridor, fauna would only be impinged in one direction because the proposed barriers are not continuous. This would allow an animal that has reached one of the noise barriers to either go back in the direction it came from or to continue traveling next to the barrier in either of two directions until it reaches the end of the barrier or decides to move in a direction away from the barrier after its initial contact with it.
After the noise barriers have been constructed, it can be expected that wildlife movement through the Interchange Area will adapt in response to their presence; however, since the proposed locations of the noise barriers relative to the geometry of the Interchange do not completely isolate one or more habitats from the greater whole, an adverse effect on wildlife or the local ecosystem is not anticipated.
Noise barrier construction would result in both permanent and temporary impacts to successional hardwood communities. The permanent impact would be relatively minor, in that the width of the completed wall or any of its sections is so narrow, but would include removing trees and trimming tree branches. Impacts during the construction of noise walls would affect a wider area on either side of a noise barrier’s footprint. However, once the construction activity of noise barriers ceases, any disturbed areas would recover, either naturally or with simple landscaping.
Invasive Species
As previously stated, invasive species occur on-site and include Reed Canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea), Perennial Sweet Pea (Lathyrus latifolius), Common Reed (Phragmites australis), Cow Vetch (Vicia cracca), Garlic Mustard (Alliaria petiolata), Tatarian Honeysuckle (Lonicera tatarica), Autumn Olive (Elaeagnus umbellata), Mulitflora Rose (Rosa multiflora), Common Buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica) and Norway Maple (Acer platanoides).
Executive Order 13112 aims to; (1) prevent the introduction of invasive species; (2) provide for their control; and (3) minimize the economic, ecological, and human health impacts that invasive species cause. Under Executive Order 13112, federal agencies cannot authorize, fund or carry out actions that it believes are likely to cause or promote the introductions or spread of invasive species in the United States or elsewhere unless all reasonable measures to minimize risk of harm have been analyzed and considered. As such, preventative measures and management practices should be utilized to minimize the potential introduction or spread of any invasive species due to disturbances caused by any construction or disturbance. Suitable measures and practices are discussed below.
NYSDOT has identified Common Reed, Purple Loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) and Japanese Knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum) as priority invasive species, subject to management. Locations where these species are present in the state rights-of-way will be delineated and shown on project plans. Best management practices will be used during construction to prevent the promulgation of these species to other project areas.
4-27 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Minimizing the amount of soil disturbance during construction would decrease the opportunity for any new or nearby invasive species to spread. Installing temporary erosion and sediment control practices will limit the spread of invasive species by acting as a barrier to reproductive methods. Mulching and seeding disturbed areas with native species as soon as possible after initial construction will limit the opportunity for any invasive species to become established or spread. Additionally, construction equipment access and movement should be limited within the project area and all equipment used during construction should be inspected and cleaned prior to entering and leaving the site as a control to spreading any invasive species.
Roadside Vegetation Management
Existing roadside vegetation consists primarily of maintained lawn/scrub areas. Efforts will be made to replace wildlife-supporting vegetation that is removed during proposed construction activities.
4.4.10 Critical Environmental Areas
State Critical Environmental Areas
Currently there are no Critical Environmental Area (CEAs) listed for the Town of Gates; therefore, the proposed project will not impact a CEA.
State Forest Preserve Lands
The project is not located within or adjacent to lands designated as state forest preserve.
4-28 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
4.4.11 Historic and Cultural Resources
National Heritage Areas Program
In December 2000 the Erie Canalway National Heritage Corridor Act (PL 106-544, title VIII) was adopted by Congress. This designation applies to all 234 municipalities adjoining the 524 miles of navigable waterway that comprise the New York State Canal System. Since the Erie Canal traverses the project area, the project area is included in the Erie Canalway National Heritage Area. The Erie Canalway National Heritage Corridor is managed by a 27-member federal commission, with staff support from the National Park Service.
The stated mission of the Erie Canalway National Heritage Corridor Commission is to “plan for, encourage, and assist historic preservation, conservation, recreation, interpretation, tourism and community development throughout the Corridor in a manner that promotes partnerships among the Corridor’s many stakeholders, and reflects, celebrates and enhances the Corridor’s national significance for all to use and enjoy.”
Neither the No-Build/Maintenance Alternative nor Alternative 2A would have any impact on any historic preservation aspect of the canal or any feature that contributes to the Erie Canalway National Heritage Area. See Section 4.4.12 for a discussion of recreation aspects of the project with regard to the Heritage Area.
National Historic Preservation Act – Section 106 / State Historic Preservation Act – Section 14.09
A Cultural Resource Reconnaissance Survey Report was completed on June 30, 1999 for PIN 4040.38 (now PIN 4390.13), and did not recommend any properties or structures within the Area of Potential Effect as National Register Eligible or Listed. The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) determined that this project will have No Effect upon cultural resources protected by Section 106 of the National Preservation Act in a letter dated August 6, 1999; and FHWA concluded that the requirements of 36 CFR Part 800 have been met in a letter dated August 3, 1999. A re-evaluation of the project’s potential resources and effect were conducted by the SHPO in the fall of 2012; they concurred with the No Effect determination in a letter dated October 19, 2012. A copy of this letter is included in Appendix B. In a letter dated November 27, 2012, the FHWA concurred that the undertaking will have No Effect upon cultural resources or historic properties in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and concluded that the requirements of 36 CFR Part 800 have been met for the project. A copy of this letter is included in Appendix B.
Section 4(f) Involvement
The Department has determined that there are no properties on, or eligible for, the National Register of Historic Places, or properties over 50 years old that may be eligible within the project’s area of potential effect. Therefore, a Section 4(f) evaluation for historical resources is not required.
4-29 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
4.4.12 Parks and Recreational Resources
Park and Recreational Resources
Section 4.2.4 includes a discussion of parks and recreational resources located in the community surrounding the project area. These include the Town of Gates Memorial Park and the Erie Canal Heritage Trail (Canalway Trail). The Town of Gates Memorial Park will not be impacted by the No-Build Maintenance Alternative or by Alternative A2.
As discussed in Section 2.3.2.5, the Canalway Trail has a mid-block at-grade crossing of Lyell Avenue adjacent to the bridge over the Erie Canal with sight distance at the crossing limited by the trusses and railings of the bridge of the Erie Canal. This crossing has been identified as a Safety/Trail Hazard on the Parks and Trails New York website (www.ptny.org). This condition would not change under the No- Build/Maintenance Alternative. Under Alternative A2, access to the Canalway Trail would be improved with the construction of continuous 5-foot sidewalks and bicycle lanes along both sides of Lyell Avenue from Howard Road. The construction would improve sight distance to the west of the crossing. Additional safety improvements will be explored during final design. See Sections 3.3.2.1 and 3.3.2.5.
The Canalway Trail is also located north of the NY 390/NY 31 interchange along the Erie Canal, approximately 20 feet below the two bridges carrying NY 390 (BIN 4062531 and BIN 4062532). There would be no changes to the trail at this location from the No-Build/Maintenance Alternative. Under Alternative A2, both of the structures over the trail would be rehabilitated as described in Section 3.3.3.6. Impacts to the trail may include temporary closure(s) during construction of the bridge rehabilitations. Upon completion of construction, full use of the trail would be restored. During times when the trail would be closed, a detour may be available using Trolley Blvd. The shoulders on Trolley Blvd are wide enough to contain the pedestrian and bicycle trail traffic. Coordination would be required so that the time for using such a detour would not coincide with the reconstruction of the bridges carrying NY 390 over Trolley Blvd (BIN 1062541 and BIN 1062542).
State Heritage Area Program
The proposed project will not impact areas identified as State Heritage Areas.
National Heritage Areas Program
As introduced in Section 4.4.11, the project area is located in the Erie Canalway National Heritage Area. One of the areas in the mission of the Erie Canalway National Heritage Corridor Commission includes recreation, interpretation, and tourism. The Canalway Trail is considered to be one of the resources of the Erie Canalway National Heritage Area.
Under the No-Build/Maintenance Alternative, there would be no change to the Erie Canalway National Heritage Area. As described above, the addition of sidewalks along both sides of Lyell Avenue described above would provide better pedestrian and bicycle access to the Canalway Trail. The at-grade crossing of the Canalway over Lyell Avenue would be made safer. This improved access to the Canalway Trail would help to promote recreation, tourism and interpretation in the immediate area, and in this way promote the mission of the Erie Canalway National Heritage Corridor Commission. Temporary impacts to the Canalway Trail during the rehabilitation of the NY 390 bridges over the Erie Canal are discussed above.
National Registry of Natural Landmarks
There are no listed nationally significant natural areas within, or adjacent to, the project area.
Section 4(f) Involvement
Section 4(f) of the USDOT Act of 1966 (49 USC § 303; 23 CFR §774) prohibits the Secretary of Transportation from approving any program or project that requires the “use” of (1) any publicly owned
4-30 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13 parkland, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge of national, state, or local significance; or (2) any land from a historic site of national, state, or local significance (collectively, “Section 4(f) properties”), unless there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of such land and such program or project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the park, recreation area, wildlife refuge, or historic site.
A project uses a Section 4(f) property when: · It permanently incorporates land from the property into a transportation facility; · It temporarily but adversely occupies land that is part of the property; or · It “constructively” uses the property, which occurs “when the transportation project does not incorporate land from a Section 4(f) property, but the proximity impacts are so severe that the protected activities, features, or attributes that qualify property for protection under Section 4(f) are substantially impaired.”
The Canalway Trail is a recreational and transportation resource owned by the NYS Canal Corporation. It is also considered to be a resource of the Erie Canalway National Heritage Area (see above). The Canalway Trail may therefore be considered to be a Section 4(f) resource.
As discussed above, the rehabilitation of the bridges carrying NY 390 over the Erie Canal my require use of the Canalway Trail during construction. Per above, this might be considered a Section 4(f) use; however, there are exceptions to this in the regulations (23 CFR Part 774.13) which include, “Temporary occupancies of land that are so minimal as to not constitute a use within the meaning of Section 4(f). The following conditions must be satisfied: (1) Duration must be temporary, i.e. , less than the time needed for construction of the project, and there should be no change in ownership of the land; (2) Scope of the work must be minor, i.e. , both the nature and the magnitude of the changes to the Section 4(f) property are minimal; (3) There are no anticipated permanent adverse physical impacts, nor will there be interference with the protected activities, features, or attributes of the property, on either a temporary or permanent basis; (4) The land being used must be fully restored, i.e. , the property must be returned to a condition which is at least as good as that which existed prior to the project; and (5) There must be documented agreement of the official(s) with jurisdiction over the Section 4(f) resource regarding the above conditions.”
The construction use of the Canalway Trail would only require a small portion of the total construction time for the bridge rehabilitations. Work would not be done directly to the trail. The area would be needed for construction access and safety. There would be no permanent adverse physical impacts and any damage to the trail and surrounding area from construction equipment would be restored. In a letter dated March 21, 2013, the NYS Canal Corporation concurred that the temporary occupancy of the Canalway Trail for construction would not constitute a “use.” A copy of this letter is included in Appendix B.
Since all of the conditions listed above would be met, it is concluded that Alternative A2 would be an exception to a Section 4(f) use, and Section 4(f) approval would not be required.
Section 6(f) Involvement
The project does not impact parklands or facilities that have been partially or fully federally funded through the Land and Water Conservation Act. No further consideration under Section 6(f) is required.
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.
4-31 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
4.4.13 Visual Resources
The proposed project (new ramps, mainline, bridge and interchange improvements) occurs on an existing major interstate expressway along a relatively uniform stretch of corridor between the City of Rochester, Town of Gates and Town of Greece; in addition to improvements to NY State Route 31/Lyell Avenue between the City of Rochester and the Town of Gates.
The proposed action will in most cases not result in a significant visual impact to the project area. The addition of the new or reconfigured on/off ramps and mainline ramp will incrementally add to the existing visual dominance of the interstate corridor with the addition of associated structures (noise walls, mainline support columns). Some of the improvements are reconfigurations or replacements and therefore will not necessarily result in net additional impacts.
Visual impacts will be mitigated to a large extent with careful construction practices aimed at preserving existing vegetation, incorporating supplemental landscape plantings in critical impact areas, and by incorporating appropriate context–sensitive design features to enhance the visual environment and quality of the project corridor.
A more detailed visual assessment can be found in Appendix K.
4.4.14 Farmlands
State Farmland and Agricultural Districts
Based on a review of the NYS Agricultural District Maps for Monroe County, the proposed project is not located in or adjacent to an Agricultural District.
Federal Prime and Unique Farmland
The proposed project activities will not convert 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.
4-32 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
4.4.15 Air Quality
Transportation Conformity
This project is located in Monroe County, which is in attainment for Carbon Monoxide (CO), particulate matter (PM2.5 & PM10), and Ozone (O3). The project is classified as non-exempt. Under the requirements of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA90), the impact of non-exempt transportation projects on air quality must be studied to determine if they conform to the purpose of the State Implementation Plan (SIP), which is the attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Since the project is located in an air quality attainment area, federal and state transportation conformity regulations do not apply to this project.
The project’s impact on regional emissions has been included in the Genesee Transportation Council (GTC) 2014-2017 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) adopted June 21, 2012. The TIP is consistent with all current plans and programs including conformity with the SIP for air quality in accordance with requirements of the CAAA90.
Carbon Monoxide (CO) Microscale Analysis
To determine whether the project is subject to a CO microscale air quality analysis, a review of the project was done in accordance with the screening process outlined in the NYSDOT Environmental Procedures Manual (EPM)3, January 2001. The first step of the screening consisted of reviewing the predicted level of service at the signalized intersections located within the project construction limits.
Level of Service (LOS) Screening Intersections impacted by a project, with build year 2015 (Estimated Time of Completion, ETC), 2025 (ETC + 10), 2035 (ETC + 20) LOS of only A, B, or C, are generally excluded from microscale air quality analysis. Regardless of the LOS, if there are potentially sensitive receptors, i.e. schools, hospitals, retirement communities, etc., a microscale analysis may be appropriate. Review of land use in the vicinity of the project did not reveal any potentially sensitive receptors.
It has been determined that the proposed Lyell Avenue and Lee Road signalized intersection will operate with a LOS of D for all three of the years during the afternoon peak traffic hour. Therefore, additional screening was necessary for that intersection.
Capture Criteria Screening A proper comparison between the Build and No-Build alternatives for the Lyell Avenue and Lee Road intersection could not be made because of the large geometric change being proposed for that intersection. This criterion could not be evaluated and additional screening was necessary.
Volume Threshold Screening Using Table 3C of the referenced EPM section, which is applicable for signalized intersections, peak hour traffic volume thresholds were determined for the Lyell Avenue and Lee Road intersection. The volumes in the table are determined using both free-flow and queue link (idling) emission factors. The design category for this intersection is considered to be urban. Therefore, as per the EPM, a free-flow speed of 30 mph was used. Emission modeling input/output information is detailed in the NYSDOT Mobile 6.2 CO Emission Factor Tables for Regional Microscale Air Quality Analysis prepared by the Environmental Analysis Bureau February 2009.
Since the traffic volume for the Lyell Avenue and Lee Road intersection ranged from 3039 vph in 2015 to 3214 vph in 2035, which is below the peak hour traffic threshold of 4000 vph, the proposed project does not meet the criteria required for a CO microscale air quality analysis to be conducted.
3 The EPM has been changed to “The Environmental Manual (TEM)” but the guidance for Air Quality has not yet been converted over to the new TEM section.
4-33 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Mesoscale Analysis
The analysis was conducted in accordance with the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) Guidelines, and considered the regional effects for five pollutants, CO, Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), PM2.5, PM10 and Nitrogen Oxides (NOx). The analysis was required because the Build Alternative will affect traffic conditions over a large area. The analysis was conducted for the years 2015, 2025 and 2035. These analysis years are consistent with the NYSDOT Guidelines of ETC, ETC+10 and ETC+20.
The emission burden for each pollutant (CO, VOC, PM2.5, PM10 and NOx) for the Build and No Build Alternatives were determined by multiplying the emission factor that was associated with the road segment’s speed, by the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for that segment.
Emission factors are based on the latest emission model MOBILE6.2 provided by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the latest model input parameters provided by the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation. Emission modeling input/output information is detailed in the NYSDOT Mobile6.2 PM10/PM2.5 Emission Factors for Regional, Mesoscale, CMAQ and Microscale Air Quality Analysis dated June 2008 and Mobile6.2 Emission Factors for Regional, Mesoscale, and CMAQ Project Calculations dated April 2008.
The results indicate that the Build Alternative will increase the VMT by a minimum of 1% during the 2015 AM peak and a maximum of 2.2% during 2035 PM peak. Subsequently, there are increases in CO and NOx levels due to this increase in VMT. An increase in CO emission levels can also be attributed to an increase in speed throughout various sections of the project area. VOC levels show a decrease because VOC’s go down as the speed increases. PM2.5 and PM10 values are increasing due to the increase in VMT. PM emission levels are independent of speeds.
In summary, the VOC emission burdens are expected to decrease between 0.6% and 9.3% as a result of the implementation of Alt A2. An overall increase in CO (1.9%-6.7%), NOx (2.3% to 5.3%), PM 2.5 (1.0% to 2.1%) and PM10 (1.0% to 2.2%) is anticipated. Variations in the percent change are dependent on the year (2015, 2025 or 2035) and time of day (Peak AM or PM).
Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs) Analysis
This project serves to improve, via reconstruction, the I-390/I-490 and NY 390/Route31 interchanges and is not likely to meaningfully increase emissions. Thus, the project qualifies as a “project with low potential MSAT effects” and a qualitative MSAT analysis was conducted as outlined in the FHWA’s September 30, 2009 “Interim Guidance Update on Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA Documents.”
Technical shortcomings of air quality emissions and dispersion models and uncertain science with respect to health effects prevent meaningful or reliable estimates of MSAT emissions and effects of this project. However, even though reliable methods do not exist to accurately estimate the health impacts of MSATs at the project level, it is possible to qualitatively assess the levels of future MSAT emissions under the project. Although a qualitative analysis cannot identify and measure health impacts from MSATs, it can give a basis for identifying and comparing the potential differences among MSAT emissions, if any, from the various alternatives. The qualitative assessment presented below is derived in part from a study conducted by the FHWA entitled A Methodology for Evaluating Mobile Source Air Toxic Emissions Among Transportation Project Alternatives.
The purpose of the project is to reconstruct the I-390/I-490 and NY 390/Route 31 interchanges to improve the efficiency of the traffic flow within this area of Monroe County. The amount of MSATs emitted is proportional to the VMT. Because the VMT estimated for the No-Build Alternative is lower than for the Build Alternative, higher levels of regional MSATs are expected from the Build Alternative compared to the No-Build. This increase is anticipated to be minimal (1% to 2.2%), and according to an FHWA analysis using EPA’s MOBILE 6.2 model, insignificant. The FHWA analysis determined that even if the VMT increases by 145 percent, a combined reduction of 72 percent in the total annual emission rate for the priority MSAT is projected from 1999 to 2050. This substantial decrease in MSAT emissions is a direct result of cleaner fuels and cleaner
4-34 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13 engines. 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 EPA-projected reductions is so great (even after accounting for VMT growth) that MSAT emissions in the study area are likely to be lower in the future in virtually all locations.
Particulate Matter (PM) Analysis
To determine whether the project is subject to a PM microscale air quality analysis, a review of the project was done in accordance with the guidelines outlined in the NYSDOT Particulate Matter Analysis, Final Policy, September 2004. For all Non-Type II and non-Categorical Exclusion projects that result in traffic increases, a Level I, PM microscale analysis is required and was conducted throughout the project area. The PM 2.5 and PM10 analyses were conducted for the critical analysis year that is computed from the traffic volumes and emission factors associated with the years 2015 (ETC), 2025 (ETC + 10) and 2035 (ETC + 20). The critical year was determined to be 2015.
PM pollutant concentrations from motor vehicles at roadway intersections are calculated using the CAL3QHC Version 2.0 computer program. CAL3QHC predicts air pollutant concentrations near highways due to emissions from motor vehicles under free flow conditions, and the estimation of the contribution of emissions from idling vehicles. CAL3QHC requires inputs such as meteorological conditions, roadway geometrics, receptor locations and vehicular emission factors.
Air quality models were developed in CAL3QHC to represent the build and no build conditions of the signalized intersection at Lyell Avenue and Lee Road. Due to the close proximity of the signalized Lyell Avenue and Rossmore Street intersection to the Lyell/Lee intersection, this intersection was also included in the modeling. These two signalized intersections also have the highest traffic volumes for intersections being modified by this project. A total of 39 receptor locations were analyzed in the air quality model. Receptors were located where sidewalks currently exist or would be constructed in the future if added to the intersection. The modeling provides a 1-hour PM concentration at each receptor. Annual and 24-hour PM concentrations were determined by multiplying the predicted 1-hour concentration against the persistence factors of 0.4 and 0.08, respectively.
The following tables show the maximum difference between the Build and No-Build alternatives for PM 2.5 and PM10 concentrations that were predicted for the modeled intersection.
Exhibit 4.4.15-1: Lyell Avenue/I-390/Lee Road 2015 (pm peak hour traffic) PM Concentrations 24-Hour Concentration Annual Concentration Alternative Receptor (µg/m3) (µg/m3)
Alt A2 Build (PM2.5) 1.1148 0.2230
No-Build (PM2.5) R1 0.9592 0.1918 Difference 0.16 0.03
Alt A2 Build (PM2.5) 1.1148 0.2230
No-Build (PM2.5) R3 0.9592 0.1918 Difference 0.16 0.03
Alt A2 Build (PM10) 2.4040 Not Applicable
No-Build (PM10) R3 2.0720 Not Applicable Difference 0.33 Not Applicable
Exhibit 4.4.15-2 shows the maximum concentration differences between the build and no-build analysis that will occur at Receptors R1 or R3 and these concentrations are compared to the NAAQS and impact
4-35 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13 thresholds. The results of the air quality analysis indicate that the project will have no adverse impact on ambient PM levels.
Exhibit 4.4.15-2: Lyell Avenue/NYS 390/Lee Road 2015 (pm peak hour traffic) Predicted Concentrations of PM Impact Predicted Threshold Pollutant Measurement Thresholds Concentrations Exceedence Annual Arithmetic Mean 0.3 µg/m3 0.03 µg/m3 No PM2.5 24-hour Average 5.0 µg/m3 0.16 µg/m3 No 3 3 PM10 24-hour Average 5.0 µg/m 0.33 µg/m No
Lead Emissions
Emissions of lead from motor vehicles have decreased significantly as a result of lead being phased out as an additive in motor vehicle fuels. The FHWA has advised that microscale lead analyses for highway projects is not needed or warranted. Lead emissions from highways have been virtually eliminated as a result of the regulation and legislation prohibiting the manufacture, sale, or introduction into commerce of any engine requiring leaded gasoline since model year 1992, sale of only unleaded gasoline, and the requirement for reformulated gasoline to contain no heavy metals (such as lead).
Construction Impact
Airborne particulate during construction will be controlled through wetting of soil surfaces and covering of trucks and other dust sources. These requirements will be included as part of the specifications of the construction contract. This project will not have any significant traffic diversions or detours.
The project is to be divided into 4 stages with an estimated construction period of 2 years for each stage.
Summary
The air quality analysis has followed the proper procedures described in the Air Quality Project Environmental Guidelines, EPM, NYSDOT in January 2001, Particulate Matter Analysis, Final Policy, NYSDOT, September 2004 and the FHWA’s September 30, 2009 “Interim Guidance Update on Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA Documents.” The air quality analysis indicates that the Build Alternative for the proposed project will not significantly increase regional emissions, create an air quality violation or cause an air quality impact.
4-36 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
4.4.16 Energy
A. Introduction
The NYSDOT Energy and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Guidance for Project-Project Level Analysis, 2003, requires that an energy analysis be prepared for projects that are regionally significant; change vehicle miles traveled (VMT); or have construction costs of $50 million or more. Upon reviewing, “Criteria for Determining Projects Requiring an Energy Analysis,” it was found that the construction cost for the project is expected to be more than $50 million. Additionally, the State Energy Plan, adopted in 2002, calls for the State’s transportation sector to be more energy efficient and sets goals for reducing consumption. Accordingly, the potential energy effects of the construction and operation of Alternative A2 (Build condition) are compared to taking no action (the No-Build alternative).
Because the project will increase operating speeds and change travel patterns along the project corridor, the proposed project has the potential to affect energy consumption. Both the potential direct and indirect energy impacts of the proposed project are analyzed based on guidance and procedures developed by NYSDOT for estimating the energy impacts from the construction and operation of transportation projects.
B. Methodology
B.1 Energy Analysis The energy analysis for this project was conducted in accordance with the methodology identified in the December 13, 2011 letter prepared by Shumaker Consulting Engineering & Land Surveying, P.C. The proposed methodology for the energy analysis was approved by NYSDOT Region 4 and is based on NYSDOT’s Draft Energy Analysis Guidelines for Project-Level Analysis, dated November 2003. The energy analysis addresses two elements: direct and indirect energy consumption. Direct energy refers to the fuel consumed by vehicles using the highway facility. Indirect energy refers to energy associated with the construction and operation of the facility.
B.1.1 Direct Energy Direct energy impact is defined as the energy consumed by vehicles using a facility based on vehicular volumes, weight and average travel speeds. The direct energy analysis is conducted using the Urban Fuel Consumption Method (UFCM) for light duty vehicles and medium and heavy trucks described in NYSDOT’s energy analysis guidelines.
Much of the input data for this analysis was developed for use in the project’s air analysis and provided to support the energy analysis. A spreadsheet that incorporates the link by link numbered segments with link lengths and average AM and PM vehicle speeds as developed for the Mesoscale Air Analysis is included in Appendix L. The analysis included an evaluation of ETC (2015) and ETC+20 (2035) for both the No Build and Alternative A2 conditions. Although the analysis could include an evaluation of ETC+10, the major energy impacts can be described and evaluated in terms of ETC and ETC +20 (ETC would fall somewhere in the middle). As such a discussion of ETC +10 is not included in this analysis.
Additional assumptions applied to this analysis include the following: - Vehicle volumes (AADTs) are identified for each facility segment and multiplied by link (segments of similar traffic volume and travel speed) length to produce vehicle miles of travel (VMT) per link. Traffic data developed for the project provided the basis for the traffic volumes used in the analysis; additional detail can be found in Section 2.3.1.6. - Vehicle weights are based on vehicle classifications which are used to identify fuel consumption rates. - The effect of slowdowns and stop conditions associated with urban traffic is built into the average travel speeds and fuel consumption rates of the UFCM. - The project terrain is characterized as generally level (located 4 miles south of Lake Ontario). The ramps do exhibit grade changes; however, the impact of the grade change at the ramps would have
4-37 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
an overall small effect on the outcome of the analysis. As such, the impact of grade changes was considered negligible and not accounted for in the direct energy calculations.
For this analysis, average speeds were estimated by link for the worst case morning and evening peak hours. These speeds were averaged to determine a daily fuel consumption rate and multiplied by AADTs, % HDV, and link lengths and summed to determine an annual fuel consumption usage for each alternative.
Average Speeds
Existing average travel speeds (time/distance) were measured by conducting a travel time and delay study throughout the I-390/NYS Route 390 corridor and the I-390/NYS Route 390/I-490 and NYS Route 390/NYS Route 31 interchanges. A total of eight loops/paths of travel were conducted through the corridor to obtain representative samples of travel time in different directions (Exhibit 2.3.1.5 (2)-1, Appendix C). The details of the study are provided in Section 2.3.1.5(2) of this Design Report. Readings were taken to quantify the time necessary to traverse the corridor and sources of delay were noted. Peak hour travel times were obtained from the 2009 VISSIM model to compare the calibrated existing model to the existing conditions. Additionally the future travel times and the resultant average peak hour speeds were calculated for the No Build and Alternative A2 conditions for the ETC (2015) and ETC+20 (2035) design years using the VISSIM traffic model. The morning and evening peak hour speeds were averaged to produce a daily average speed for the daily direct energy calculations.
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Vehicle Mix
Future volumes (AADTs) for both the ETC (2015) and ETC+20 (2035) conditions were developed as described in Section 2.3.1.6. The annual VMT for the No Build and Alternative A2 was calculated from the summation of link AADT x 365 days per segment length. The daily percentage of heavy vehicles was taken from Exhibit 2.3.1.6 (1)-6. A more detailed breakdown of vehicle mix for the project was developed based on a recent NYSDOT tube classification count on NYS Route 390 between the I-390/NYS Route 390/I-490 Junction and NYS Route 31 interchanges. The Station 430585 count taken in 9/2009 yielded a 40% medium (F4-buses and F5-2axle 6-tire single unit trucks) and a 60% heavy (F6-F13, 3axle or more unit trucks) proportion mix for heavy duty vehicles.
Fuel Consumption Rate/Fuel Economy
The fuel consumption rates for light duty vehicles and medium and heavy trucks were determined based on an average vehicle weight and average speed for each link and time period, using values provided in NYSDOT’s Draft Energy Analysis Guidelines, which adjusts 1980 base year factors for No-Build and Build conditions for ETC and ETC+20.
Total Vehicular Fuel Use
To estimate the total corridor fuel use for No-Build and Build conditions for ETC and ETC+20 for the morning and evening weekday peak hours, VMT by link by time period was multiplied by its corresponding fuel consumption rate and summed. The peak hour results were then factored using 24-hour Automatic Traffic Recording (ATR) counts to get daily fuel use, even though the higher off-peak travel speeds would slightly reduce actual fuel usage. The daily usage was multiplied by 350 to estimate annual fuel use. This multiplier, which accounts for the difference in traffic volume on weekends versus average weekday usage was developed from ATR counts for the period 2000 through 2004 provided by NYSDOT.
B.1.2. Indirect Energy The remaining energy impacts are the indirect energy associated with constructing, operating and maintaining a facility. The indirect energy analysis was conducted using the Input-Output Approach identified in NYSDOT’s Draft Energy Analysis Guidelines for Project-Level Analysis. Maintenance Energy is based on the lane-miles of pavement type for a facility. The indirect energy analysis is focused on the differences in the energy consumed due to construction between the No-Build and the Build alternatives. Construction energy
4-38 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13 covers production and transport of materials, powering on-site equipment, worker transportation and other factors plus the materials used in construction itself.
Construction Energy
Construction energy is the energy consumed during construction based on an established energy factor per dollar of construction costs, annualized by dividing total project costs by 20 years. The estimate cost of construction reported for all segments of the subject project at this time is approximately $100M. The energy coefficient per unit cost of construction is derived from a highway construction price index provided in the guidance document, in which the published 1977 dollar values are adjusted for a future year of construction of 2015 by a factor of 3.17. This analysis was performed by applying the construction factor (7.01x10 4 BTU/1977$) for “Interchange” for the Build alternative. The No-Build is assumed to result in no construction costs or related energy consumption, only maintenance.
Energy Required for Roadway Maintenance
The energy required to operate and maintain each alternative is based on the energy consumed for roadway maintenance (patching, crack sealing, lighting, landscape maintenance, etc.) based on the total lane-miles for each alternative. Annual energy consumption for maintenance per lane mile is provided in the guidance document.
B.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis The majority of the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the project are in the form of carbon dioxide (CO2), resulting from the combustion of carbon-based fossil fuels. Fossil fuels account for virtually all energy use by motor vehicles (direct energy), and for virtually all energy embedded in the construction materials and used during construction and maintenance of the roadway (indirect energy). Thus, this analysis of potential emissions of greenhouse gases uses the results from the direct and indirect energy analyses above and is reported as total carbon emissions.
B.2.1 CO2 Emissions Estimates From Direct Energy Consumption It is assumed that CO2 emissions from Direct Energy Consumption of a roadway project are the result of the combustion of motor vehicle fuel. Therefore, this analysis employed Carbon Emission Coefficients for motor vehicle fuel to calculate the carbon equivalent of CO2 emissions resulting from operation of each of the project alternatives. These coefficients were provided in NYSDOT’s Draft Energy Analysis Guidelines.
C. Probable Impacts of the Project Alternatives
C.1 Energy Analysis
C.1.1 Direct Energy The results of the analysis show that the potential future direct annual energy consumption for the Build Alternative A2 would be less than the energy consumption for the No-Build alternative. This change would be largely due to the improved operating conditions through the I-390/NYS Route 390/I-490 interchange/NYS Route 390/NYS Route 31 interchange area including the addition of the NYS Route 390/I-490 Interchange bypass, elimination of and smoothing of weaving conditions, and the elimination of a closely spaced intersection on Lyell Avenue (NY 31). Exhibit 4.4.16-1 provides a comparison of the vehicle miles of travel along the I-390/NYS Route 390 corridor for 2015 and 2035 for the No Build and Build conditions. Exhibit 4.4.16-2 provides a summary of the resulting Direct Energy Consumption. It shows that the Build Alternative will require less vehicular energy consumption in the future compared to the less efficient No-Build (existing) roadway configuration.
4-39 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Exhibit 4.4.16-1: Annual Travel Along Project Corridor Vehicle Miles of Alternative Travel (millions) 2015 2035 No Build 139.6 153.7 Build (Alternative A2) 143.6 159.0 % Difference Build vs. No-Build + 2.8% +3.4%
Exhibit 4.4.16-2: Annual Direct Energy Consumption Direct Energy Direct Energy Consumption Consumption Alternative (billion BTU) (billion BTU) 2015 2035 No Build 29660 29745 Build (Alternative A2) 20040 20366 Difference Build vs. No-Build 9620 9109 % Difference Build vs. No-Build -32.4% -30.6%
C.1.2 Indirect Energy The indirect energy calculations account for the energy expected to be expended during construction under each of the proposed alternatives. Between the No-Build and Build alternatives, the analysis predictably shows that the No Build alternative would result in the least amount of indirect energy expended, and that construction of the Build alternative would produce higher indirect energy demands than for the No-Build alternative. A summary of the indirect energy results is presented in Exhibit 4.4.16-3. The resulting indirect energy consumption has been annualized over 20 years (i.e., the total Indirect Energy Consumption for roadway construction has been divided by 20).
Exhibit 4.4.16-3: 2015 Construction Year Indirect Energy Consumption Indirect Energy Alternative 2015 Construction Cost Consumption2 (billion BTU) No Build $0 5.65 Build (Alternative A2) $ 100 M1 109 + 6.22 = 115 (1) The total construction cost for Alternative A2 is estimated at approximately $100M for this draft analysis. This cost will be refined as the project progresses; costs and thus resulting Indirect Energy Consumption will be refined as necessary. (2) Includes energy required annually for roadway maintenance and operation.
Exhibit 4.4.16-4: Total Estimated Energy Use (Direct and Indirect) Total Energy Total Energy Consumption Consumption Alternative (billion BTU) (billion Btu) 2015 2035 No Build 29666 29751 Build (Alternative A2) 20155 20481 Difference Build vs. No-Build 9511 9270 % Difference Build vs. No Build -32.1% -31.1%
4-40 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
C.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis
C.2.1 CO2 Emissions Estimates From Direct Energy Consumption
To calculate CO2 emissions from roadway project Direct Energy Consumption, it can be assumed that the energy consumed from vehicles using the transportation facility is a result of the combustion of motor vehicle fuel. Therefore, the CO2 emissions resulting from direct energy consumption on roadway projects can be determined by multiplying the total direct energy consumption (Exhibit 4.4.16-2) by the Carbon Emission Coefficient for motor vehicle fuel (19.34 million metric tons of carbon per quadrillion Btu). This product is then multiplied by a factor of 0.99, which represents the percent of carbon oxidation. A factor of 1.102 is also applied for the metric ton conversion.
Since the analysis shows the No-Build alternative results in higher direct energy effects compared to the Build alternative during the project life, as congestion increases, it follows that the future greenhouse gas emissions for the No-Build alternative are also predicted to be slightly higher than the Build alternative in the future. The results of this Direct Greenhouse Gas Energy Analysis are presented in Exhibit 4.4.16-5.
Exhibit 4.4.16-5: Annual Carbon (CO2) Emissions Estimated from Direct Energy Consumption Carbon Emissions Alternative (Tons per Year) 2015 2035 No Build 625,813 627,733 Build (Alternative A2) 422,835 429,714
C.2.2 CO2 Emissions Estimates From Indirect Energy Consumption
To calculate CO2 emissions from roadway project Indirect Energy Consumption, it can be assumed that the indirect energy consumed during construction and maintenance operations is a result of the combustion of diesel fuel. Therefore, the CO2 emissions resulting from indirect energy consumption on roadway projects can be determined by multiplying the total indirect energy consumption (Exhibit 4.4.16-3) by the Carbon Emission Coefficient for diesel fuel, which is19.95 million metric tons of carbon per quadrillion Btu. This product is then multiplied by a factor of 0.99, which represents the percent of carbon oxidation. A factor of 1.102 is also applied for the metric ton conversion.
The Indirect Greenhouse Gas Energy analysis shows that the No-Build alternative would result in a lower level of greenhouse gas emissions. As stated above, the construction work required under the Build alternative would contribute to higher indirect energy requirements, and therefore higher predicted emissions of greenhouse gases compared to the No-Build alternative. A summary of the estimated CO 2 emissions from indirect energy consumption are presented in Exhibit 4.4.16-6.
Exhibit 4.4.16-6: Total Carbon (CO2) Emissions Estimated from Indirect Energy Consumption Carbon Emissions Alternative (Tons per Year) 2015 2035 No Build 123 123 Build (Alternative A2) 2503 2503 (1) Construction energy and therefore carbon emissions is analyzed over 20 years.
C.2.3 Annual CO2 Emissions Estimated For The Project Total carbon emissions in 2015 and 2035 for the project are presented in Exhibit 4.4.16-7. The analysis shows that the No-Build alternative would result in 30% higher emissions compared to the Build Alternative A2 in both years.
4-41 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Exhibit 4.4.16-7: Total Carbon (CO2) Emissions Estimated Carbon Emissions Alternative (Tons per Year) 2015 2035 No Build 625,704 627,728 Build (Alternative A2) 425,337 432,215 Difference Build vs. No-Build -32.0% - 31.1%
D. MITIGATION
The proposed Build Alternative A2 substantially improves operating efficiency of the project corridor. Therefore, in spite of moving more traffic at higher speeds this reconstruction project reduces future vehicular fuel consumption. Likewise, total direct carbon emissions (and therefore CO 2 emissions) are reduced as well. The actual carbon emissions benefit in 2035 may be less substantial than what has been calculated as a result of the widespread introduction of hybrid vehicles (not factored into this analysis). Hybrid vehicles are far less prone to inefficiencies at very low travel speeds; therefore, the improved operating efficiencies realized with the Build Alternative would result in a smaller carbon emissions benefit.
Since the energy analysis demonstrates that the proposed Build alternative will improve operating efficiency within the project corridor compared to the No Build condition no energy conservation or mitigation measures area recommended with respect to energy related effects.
4-42 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
4.4.17 Noise
This project consists of the addition of an auxiliary lane, significant relocation of Route 390 and interchange entrance and exit ramps. Therefore, this project is considered a Type I project in accordance with Chapter I of Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations (23 CFR 772) and a noise study is required. The Noise Study Report is included in Appendix N. The purpose of the study was to identify potential future traffic noise impacts for the Null Alternative and Build Alternative A2.
4.4.17.1 Land Use Determination Noise abatement criteria (NAC) developed by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), define limits for determining impacts due to traffic noise levels in areas based on defined land use. Existing land uses were determined for the project area, and NAC corresponding to the land uses were assigned. FHWA Land Use Categories assigned to the particular areas of the project are shown in the Noise Study Report. The project area contains suburban residences with outdoor frequent use areas, considered FHWA Activity Category B. The project area also includes a single office building on Route 31 east of Route 390 that has limited outdoor activity use, and this is considered Activity Category E. The remaining project area consists of industrial and warehouse land use, office/ commercial with no exterior activity (Activity Category F), and undeveloped lands that are not permitted (Activity Category G).
4.4.17.2 Existing and Future Noise Levels Noise measurements were taken at 18 separate locations within the project area between November 2010 and December 2011. These measurements were used to “validate” the traffic noise prediction modeling within the project area. The noise measurements also provided a basis for establishing the modeled noise receptor sites within the project area. The predicted design year noise levels for the noise receptor sites are based on loudest hour traffic noise.
Using the predicted traffic noise levels, a noise impact analysis was performed. Federal regulations (23 CFR 772) define traffic noise impacts as "occurring when the predicted traffic noise levels approach or exceed the NAC, or when the predicted noise levels are substantially higher than the existing levels." In practice, the NYSDOT definition of this regulation quantifies "approach" as within 1 dBA and "substantially higher” as 6 dBA or greater. Therefore, an impact is considered to occur if the predicted future noise level is one decibel lower, equals or exceeds the NAC, or is 6 dBA or more above the existing noise level. If an impact is determined, abatement measures for reducing or eliminating the impact must be considered.
The TNM 2.5 model was used to perform the traffic noise evaluation. Results of the noise modeling for the Null Alternative and Alternative A2 are summarized in Appendix N. Noise impacts will occur at 45 analysis sites (144 dwelling unit receivers) within neighborhoods adjacent to the project.
Traffic noise impacts for the alternatives based on the FHWA Land Use Categories are summarized below in Exhibit 4.4.17-1.
Exhibit 4.4.17-1 Traffic Noise Impacts Summary Number of Impacts Number of Impacts Alternative (Existing Conditions) (Design Year – 2035) Category B Category E Category B Category E Null 144 0 144 0 Alt A2 144 0 144 0
4.4.17.3 Noise Abatement Analysis The FHWA’s regulations contained in 23 CFR 772 and the NYSDOT Noise Analysis Policy and Procedures require the consideration of abatement measures for all areas where traffic noise impacts are predicted to occur. Measures to be considered include: traffic management measures; alterations of horizontal and vertical alignments; construction of noise barriers; acquisition of real property; and noise insulation of publicly owned school buildings.
4-43 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Since Route 390 is contained within an existing highway corridor, realignment is not feasible. A number of alternative alignment configurations were evaluated in the development of this project. Therefore, any further alterations to the alignments to reduce noise levels are not feasible. Acquisition of real property would have a significant impact on the community, prohibiting usage by certain vehicles would affect the community, as those vehicles would use local streets for access and there are no school buildings near the impacts. Therefore, noise barriers at multiple locations throughout the project area were found to be the most effective and appropriate measure at reducing future traffic noise for impacted residences. Barrier locations and details are identified in Appendix N.
All of the evaluated noise barriers for this project were found to satisfy NYSDOT’s acoustical feasibility and reasonableness criteria. The modeled noise barriers would provide noise abatement for 187 residential dwelling units. The modeled noise barrier average heights would range between approximately 13 and 15 feet, have an approximate range in length of 2100 to 3845 feet, and would provide up to 12 decibels of attenuation. The estimated cost index for the noise barriers ranges between 640 and 1789 square feet of wall per benefited receptor, which is below the maximum allowable value of 2,000 square feet of wall per benefited receptor. Additional engineering analysis will need to be completed during the final design phase to refine wall geometry (heights and lengths), and the cost estimate.
A public information campaign was conducted to gage reaction to the construction of noise barriers next to residential properties within the project area. A meeting was held with property owners and occupants, and letters were sent to a wide range of residences in the affected area. Results of the viewpoints obtained from the benefited property owners and residents indicate a favorable response to the construction of all the proposed noise barriers
A discussion about the potential impact of noise barriers on wildlife movement and their effect on the ecological communities is included in Section 4.4.9.
4.4.17.4 Construction Noise – This project can be expected to produce noise level increases on a short duration basis during construction. The managing of construction activities to reduce the effects of construction noise on receptors can be achieved using an approach consisting of design modifications, the reduction of noise emitted from equipment (source control), the abatement of noise escaping from the site (site control), and public relations. The impact of construction noise can be reduced by using noise reduction techniques, but not eliminated. Public relations can be used to advise the residents of construction activities to curtail a possibly adverse community reaction.
The complete noise study is included in Appendix N.
4-44 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
4.4.18 Asbestos
Screening
An asbestos screening has been performed for this project. The screening included a review of As-built record plans and a site visit. Review of record plans and observations made during the preliminary on-site visit indicate the presence of suspect asbestos-containing material (ACM) within the project corridor. It has been determined that there are three (3) areas of potential asbestos material: 1) potential for the acquisition and demolition of five (5) existing buildings, 2) the existing utility lines which are indicated to be present within the sidewalks of two (2) bridges, and 3) miscellaneous material throughout all seven (7) bridge structures which could be impacted during the various replacement/rehabilitation projects. Reference the Appendix O, Preliminary Asbestos Screening Technical Memorandum for more detail regarding identified materials, locations of potential ACM, recommended number of samples, location sketches and photographs. If asbestos is determined to be present on the project, an Asbestos Special Note and Specification will need to be prepared by NYSDOT personnel or a consultant with an Asbestos Designer License.
Assessment and Quantification
A full asbestos assessment, including sampling and analysis of all suspect ACM, must be performed at the bridges and buildings prior to activities at these locations.
Handling and Disposal
If asbestos is determined to be present on the project, an Asbestos Special Note and Specification will need to be prepared by NYSDOT personnel or a consultant with an Asbestos Designer
4-45 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
4.4.19 Hazardous Waste and Contaminated Materials
Screening and Site Assessment
A Hazardous Waste/Contaminated Materials Site Screening has been conducted in accordance with NYSDOT’s The Environmental Manual in order to document the likely presence or absence of hazardous/contaminated environmental conditions. A hazardous/contaminated environmental condition is the presence or likely presence of any 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 of any hazardous substances or petroleum products into structures on the property or into the ground, ground water, or surface water of the property. Refer to Appendix P for the Hazardous Waste / Contaminated Materials Screening Technical Memorandum.
The Hazardous Waste/Contaminated Materials Site Screening included a review of NYSDEC and EPA regulatory data files.
The findings of the Hazardous Waste/Contaminated Materials Site Screening identified 31 sites of concern within or adjacent to the project area where contaminated materials are suspected to be present (Exhibit 4.4.19-1 below). The locations of these sites of concern are shown on Exhibits 4.4.19-2 and 4.4.19-3, located in Appendix B.
The 31 sites of concern were evaluated to determine if they will have a negative impact on the proposed build alternative (Alternative A2). Based on this evaluation it was determined that eight of the 31 sites of concern may either be impacted by, or have a negative impact on, the proposed build alternative. A summary of all of the sites of concern and their potential project impacts is summarized in Exhibit 4.4.19-1.
4-46 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Exhibit 4.4.19-1 Hazardous Waste / Contaminated Materials Screening Summary NYS Route 390 and NYS Route 390/I-490/NYS Route 31 Interchange Improvements
Site Environmental Environmental Site Name/ Address Potential Site Impacts Recommended Action No. Listing Concern(s) 1 Dearcop Farm CERCLIS, Existing on-site The installation of the noise Screening during construction Landfill NYSDEC Haz. contamination barriers along the I-390 adjacent to this site 92 Dearcop Road Waste Site northbound ramp to I-490 eastbound will not impact the fill associated with the Landfill. 2 MCEMC Waste Site MCEMC Solid Possibility for None anticipated. No work is None anticipated Gates 6, Buffalo Waste C&D encountering on-site proposed at or adjacent to this site Road, in Interstate Debris solid waste Route 490 3 MCEMC Waste Site MCEMC Solid Possibility for None anticipated. No work is None anticipated Gates 33 West of Waste C&D encountering on-site proposed at or adjacent to this site Lexington & Route Debris solid waste 390 (same as #4) 4 Eastman Kodak RPM RCRIS: Possibility for None anticipated. No work is None anticipated Site 1 Bellwood Drive Hazardous encountering proposed at or adjacent to this site (same as #3) Waste Generator contaminated soil and/or groundwater 6 Amerada Hess Bulk RCRIS: Potential for Contamination maybe encountered Screening during construction Terminal, 1975 Lyell Hazardous encountering along the western portion of the adjacent to facility Avenue Waste generator, contaminated soil property during the construction of NYSDEC MOSF, and/or Groundwater Ramps A and B. Multiple Spill Site, EPA AIRS Database Emission Source 7 Wilson Farms/Sugar RCRIS: Potential for Contamination will likely be Screening during construction Creek/ Sunoco 2032 Hazardous encountering encountered during the adjacent to facility. Closure Lyell Avenue Waste generator, contaminated soil reconstruction of Lyell Avenue and and removal of underground PBS facility, and/or groundwater intersection improvements at the storage tanks. A well multiple spill site intersection Lyell Ave. and Lee abandonment specification will Road. Two monitoring wells will be added to the construction likely be impacted. documents. Replacement of the monitoring wells may be required.
4-47 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Exhibit 4.4.19-1 Hazardous Waste / Contaminated Materials Screening Summary NYS Route 390 and NYS Route 390/I-490/NYS Route 31 Interchange Improvements
Site Environmental Environmental Site Name/ Address Potential Site Impacts Recommended Action No. Listing Concern(s) 8 Rochester Industrial RCRIS: Potential for Although unlikely, contamination Screening during construction Repair/ former Hazardous encountering maybe encountered during the adjacent to facility. Conolly Printing Waste Generator, contaminated soil reconstruction of Lyell Avenue. 1940 Lyell Avenue PBS Facility, and/or groundwater multiple spill site 10 MCEMC Waste Site MCEMC Solid Possibility for Minimal potential, proposed work Add a note on plans indicating Gates 23 Waste C&D encountering on-site is located within the existing C&D debris may be Erie Canal & NYS Debris solid waste highway boundary. encountered. Route 390 11 MCEMC Waste Site MCEMC Solid Possibility for None anticipated. Proposed work None anticipated Gates 28 Waste C&D encountering on-site is located at the Buffalo Road Buffalo Road & I-390 Debris solid waste Bridge over I-390 and within the existing highway for proposed I- 390 SB improvements. 16 Wegmans Food RCRIS: Possibility for None anticipated. No violation None Anticipated Market Hazardous encountering reported at the facility 2301 Lyell Avenue Waste Generator contaminated soil NPDES Permit and/or groundwater 17 Taco Bell/ former Multiple Spill Site, Possibility for Minimal potential, proposed work Screening during construction Exxonmobil Station/ PBS Facility encountering is located within the existing adjacent to facility. 2317 Lyell Avenue SPDES Permit contaminated soil highway boundary. and/or groundwater 22 Lilac Laundry Inc. RCRIS: Possibility for None Anticipated. Proposed None Anticipated 2415 Lyell Avenue Hazardous encountering improvements to Lyell Ave. at this Waste Generator contaminated soil location will not encroach on the and/or groundwater property. 23 Monro Muffler Brake RCRIS: Possibility for None Anticipated. Proposed None Anticipated 35 Howard Road Hazardous encountering improvements to Lyell Ave. at this Waste Generator contaminated soil location will not encroach on the and/or groundwater property.
4-48 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Exhibit 4.4.19-1 Hazardous Waste / Contaminated Materials Screening Summary NYS Route 390 and NYS Route 390/I-490/NYS Route 31 Interchange Improvements
Site Environmental Environmental Site Name/ Address Potential Site Impacts Recommended Action No. Listing Concern(s) 24 Gates Cleaning RCRIS: Possibility for None Anticipated. Proposed None Anticipated 2356 Lyell Avenue Hazardous encountering improvements to Lyell Ave. at this Waste Generator contaminated soil location will not encroach on the EPA AIRS and/or groundwater property. Database Emission Source 26 North Albany NYSDEC MOSF, Possibility for The proposed project will include Screening during construction Terminals Multiple Spill Site encountering the acquisition of the northern adjacent to facility. Due to the (Alaskan Oil, RCRIS: contaminated soil portion of the driveway to the site. numerous spills reported at Supreme Energy) Hazardous and/or groundwater Contamination may be this facility it is recommended Waste Generator encountered during construction. that the recommended soil EPA AIRS screening be conducted along Database Lyell Avenue between the Emission Source driveway to the facility and the canal. 29 Salvage No Possibility for None anticipated. Proposed work None anticipated Management Environmental encountering is located within the existing 522 Trolley Listing – Salvage contaminated soil highway boundary. Boulevard Yard and/or groundwater 40 LeChase RCRIS: Possibility for None anticipated. No violation None anticipated Construction Hazardous encountering reported at the facility and 300 Trolley Waste Generator contaminated soil proposed work is located within the Boulevard and/or groundwater existing highway boundary. 46 CJ Winter Machine EPA AIRS Data Possibility for None anticipated. No violation None anticipated Works Base Air encountering reported at the facility and 130 Albert Street Emissions contaminated soil proposed work is located within the Source and/or groundwater existing highway boundary. 47 Merkel Donohue EPA BRS Possibility for None anticipated. No violation None anticipated 500 Trolley Database Haz. encountering reported at the facility and Boulevard Waste Generator contaminated soil proposed work is located within the and/or groundwater existing highway boundary. 48 Tubetech Inc. RCRIS: Possibility for None anticipated. No violation None anticipated 500 Trolley Hazardous encountering reported at the facility and Boulevard Waste Generator contaminated soil proposed work is located within the and/or groundwater existing highway boundary.
4-49 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Exhibit 4.4.19-1 Hazardous Waste / Contaminated Materials Screening Summary NYS Route 390 and NYS Route 390/I-490/NYS Route 31 Interchange Improvements
Site Environmental Environmental Site Name/ Address Potential Site Impacts Recommended Action No. Listing Concern(s) 49 Tra-Lin Corp. RCRIS: Possibility for None anticipated. No violation None anticipated 15 Evelyn Street Hazardous encountering reported at the facility and Waste Generator contaminated soil proposed work is located within the and/or groundwater existing highway boundary. 61 Dolomite Products EPA AIRS Data Possibility for None anticipated. No violation None anticipated 900 Howard Road Base Air encountering reported at the facility and Emissions contaminated soil proposed work is located within the Source and/or groundwater existing highway boundary. 63 Diocese of Rochester RCRIS: Possibility for Minimal potential, proposed work None anticipated 1150 Buffalo Road Hazardous encountering is located within the existing Waste Generator contaminated soil roadway alignment. and/or groundwater 64 Dolomite Products RCRIS: Possibility for Minimal potential, proposed work None anticipated Co., Inc. Hazardous encountering is located within the existing 1075 Buffalo Road Waste Generator contaminated soil highway boundary. and/or groundwater 69 955 Buffalo Road, RCRIS: Possibility for None anticipated. Proposed work None anticipated Inc. Hazardous encountering is located at the Buffalo Road 955 Buffalo Road Waste Generator contaminated soil Bridge over I-390 and within the and/or groundwater existing highway for proposed I- 390 SB improvements. 70 Cumberland NYSDEC MOSF Possibility for None anticipated. Proposed work None anticipated Farms/Gulf Terminal Multiple Spill Site encountering is located at the Buffalo Road Also known as EPA AIRS contaminated soil Bridge over I-390 and within the Chevron terminal Database and/or groundwater existing highway for proposed I- 837 Buffalo Road Emission Source 390 SB improvements. 79 Alfred C. Proctor FIFRA Possibility for None anticipated. No violation None Anticipated Enterprises encountering reported at the facility. 2269 Lyell Avenue contaminated soil and/or groundwater
4-50 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Exhibit 4.4.19-1 Hazardous Waste / Contaminated Materials Screening Summary NYS Route 390 and NYS Route 390/I-490/NYS Route 31 Interchange Improvements
Site Environmental Environmental Site Name/ Address Potential Site Impacts Recommended Action No. Listing Concern(s) 80 Monroe County RCRIS: Possibility for None anticipated. No violation None Anticipated Water Authority Hazardous encountering reported at the facility Lyell Avenue at NY Waste Generator contaminated soil 390 (at or and/or groundwater immediately adjacent to site 74) 81 NYSDEC/Spill Unit RCRIS: Possibility for None anticipated. Spills and None Anticipated (Lyell Avenue Hazardous encountering generator status appears to be between) Lee Road Waste Generator, contaminated soil related to a surface spill clean-up. and NY 390 Spill Site and/or groundwater
82 Hess gasoline Station RCRIS: Possibility for Contamination maybe encountered Screening during construction 1954 Lyell Avenue Hazardous encountering during the reconstruction of the along the property frontage. Waste Generator contaminated soil Lyell Avenue along the property Multiple Spill Site and/or groundwater frontage. 83 Sofia Collision and EPA AIRS Possibility for None anticipated. No violation None Anticipated Frame Database encountering reported at the facility 1931 Lyell Ave Emission Source contaminated soil and/or groundwater 84 Lexington Machining NYSDEC Spills Possibility for None Anticipated None Anticipated 677 Buffalo Road encountering contaminated soil and/or groundwater
4-51 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
The eight sites of concern that may either be impacted by, or have a negative impact on, the proposed build alternative are described below:
a) Dearcop Farm Landfill (Site no. 1) The Dearcop Farm Landfill is a state listed Inactive Hazardous Waste Site and a CERCLIS site. The Dearcop Farm Landfill is located at the southeast corner of the I-390/I-490 interchange. A portion of the interchange is located on top of the landfill. The landfill extends beneath I-490, just east of the I- 390 ramps. The following wastes are listed as contaminants of concern for this site: · 1,1,1 trichloroethane · Other halogenated organics · cadmium · chromium · dupont wastes; consisting of acids, metals · ethylene dichloride · ethylidene dichloride · n-nitrosodiphenylamine · nickel · polychlorinated biphenyls (pcb) · toluene · xylene (mixed)
Hazardous wastes have been detected adjacent to I-490 and the adjacent median. It is suspected that some of the contaminants may be present beneath the existing pavement.
Although, Alternative A2 includes the installation of noise barriers along the I-390 northbound ramp to I-490 eastbound, the proposed construction depth will not penetrate into waste associated with the landfill. Therefore it is anticipated the Dearcop Farm Landfill will not have a negative impact on the proposed project. As a precautionary measure, during highway reconstruction within the extent of the Dearcop Farm Landfill site, screening for volatiles is recommended.
b) Amerada Hess Bulk Terminal (Site no. 6) 1975 Lyell Avenue Sta. A15+00 – A26+50, Sta. B14+00 – B20+50, and Sta. LA124+00 – LA127+00 The Amerada Hess Bulk Terminal (Hess Terminal) is located near the southeast corner of the Lyell Avenue/NYS 390 interchange. The Hess Terminal is a NYSDEC registered Major Oil Storage Facility (MOSF), a registered chemical Bulk Storage Facility, a generator of hazardous waste and an air emission source. The Hess MOSF has a capacity of approximately 7.7 million gallons of various petroleum products. Six (6) spills were reported at this facility between 2002 and January 2012. According to the NYSDEC spills data base these spills have been cleaned up to the satisfaction of the NYSDEC. Although there are no active spills at this facility, residual contamination may be present.
Alternative A2 proposes the acquisition of the undeveloped southwestern corner of the Hess Terminal property and improvements to Lyell Avenue along the northern property line. As a result of the continued use of the site as a petroleum terminal, and the historic spills documented at this site, petroleum contamination may be present at this site. As a contingency a specification shall be added to the contract documents for screening, segregating and disposing of non-hazardous petroleum contaminated soil. The plans will identify this property as a location where petroleum contamination may be encountered.
4-52 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
c) Monroe County Environmental Management Council (MCEMC) Waste Site – Gates 23 (Site No. 10) Sta. SB233+50 – SB236+00 The MCEMC waste site – Gates 23 is located southwest of NYSDOT Bridge BIN 4062531, NY 390 SB over the Erie Canal. This site was identified by the MCEMC as a construction and demolition (C/D) landfill. The extent of this site may encroach on the right-of-way for NY 390. Although unlikely, contamination from the former landfill may be encountered during construction at this location. Therefore this location will be identified on the plans as a location where C/D material may be encountered. A specification will be added to the contract documents describing procedures for screening, sampling and potential disposal of contaminated soil.
d) Taco Bell / Former Exxonmobil Station (Site no. 17) 2317 Lyell Avenue Sta. LA93+50 – LA96+00 The Taco Bell/former Exxonmobil Gasoline Station is located at the western terminus of the proposed improvements to Lyell Avenue. A Taco Bell Restaurant currently occupies the site. Prior to 2008 the site was occupied by an Exxonmobil Gasoline Station. There has been one reported spill at this site since 2002. This spill was reported January 22, 2007 as the result of a Phase II subsurface investigation that identified a petroleum like sheen on a groundwater sample obtained from a monitoring well. In March 2007, USTs and associated piping and product dispensers were removed from the site. Approximately 160 tons of contaminated soil was also removed from the site. Subsequent groundwater sampling indicated that trace levels of petroleum contamination were present at this site. In March 2008, based on a continued decrease in detectable petroleum contamination in the groundwater, a request for spill closure was submitted to the NYSDEC. This spill was closed by the NYSDEC in April 2008.
Alternative A2 proposes the addition of a sidewalk along Lyell Avenue and improvements to the western Lyell Avenue entrance to the Wegmans Plaza adjacent to this site. Although the spill at this site is considered closed by the NYSDEC, residual contamination is likely present. Therefore a specification will be added to the contract documents for screening, segregating and disposing of non-hazardous petroleum contaminated soil for the proposed work adjacent to this site. The project plans will identify this property as a location where petroleum contamination may be encountered.
e) Wilson Farms/ Sugar Creek/ Sunoco Gasoline Station (Site no. 7) 2032 Lyell Avenue Sta. LA 120+50 – LA122+50, and Sta. LR10+00 – LR11+25 The Wilson Farms/Sugar Creek/Sunoco Gasoline Station is located at the northeast corner of the Lyell Avenue and Lee Road intersection. A closed gasoline station currently occupies the site. Site improvements include a building located along the northern property line. The site is listed as a former PBS facility, a generator of hazardous waste, and a location of multiple reportable spills.
In 1987 four (4) USTs were removed and replaced with four (4) USTs. The replacement USTs were installed in the northeast corner of the property, east of the convenience store. In July 2010, the four (4) USTs located east of the building were removed.
There were three (3) spills reported to the NYSDEC since 2002 for this site. In 2003, paint thinner, waste oil/used oil and an unknown material was spilled at this site. This spill was cleaned up to the satisfaction of the NYSDEC. The second spill was reported as a tank test failure in 2006. The failure appears to have been related to improperly installed piping. This problem was rectified and the spill was closed.
The third spill was reported to the NYSDEC in December 2009 as a result of contamination encountered during a Phase II environmental site assessment. Under a consent order from the NYSDEC, four (4) USTs were removed in July 2010. After the tanks were removed a subsurface investigation was conducted at the site. This investigation included the installation of five (5) test pits
4-53 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
and eight (8) soil borings. Monitoring wells were installed in four (4) of the eight (8) soil borings. Soil and groundwater samples were obtained and submitted for laboratory analysis. The laboratory results indicated petroleum contamination is present in both the soil and groundwater at this site. Based on information provided by the NYSDEC, contamination at this site is primarily located beneath the eastern portion of the site.
Alternative A2 proposes the acquisition of a portion of the property frontages along Lee Road and Lyell Avenue. Based on the information obtained from the NYSDEC, contamination is present along the southern portion of the property adjacent to Lyell Avenue. Therefore, petroleum contaminated soil will likely be encountered during construction. In addition, two (2) of the monitoring wells will likely be impacted by the construction of Alternative A2.
A Geophysical Survey was conducted by AMEC Environment and Infrastructure Inc. (AMEC) on April 27, 2014 (see Appendix P Hazardous Waste/Contaminated Materials Screening Report). This survey indicates the potential presence of three Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) on the property. The presence of these USTs cannot be confirmed without conducting ground intrusive surveying.
A specification will be added to the contract documents for screening, segregating and disposing of non-hazardous petroleum contaminated soil for the proposed work adjacent to the site. A specification for the proper removal and disposal of the potential USTs will also be included in the contract documents. In addition, a specification for the proper closure of the monitoring wells and the installation of replacement monitoring wells will be included in the construction documents for the impacts to this site. The project plans will identify this site as a location where petroleum contamination will likely be encountered. The location of the monitoring wells at this site will also be called out on the project plans.
f) Hess Gasoline Station (Site no. 82) 1954 Lyell Avenue Sta. LA124+50 – LA127+75 The Hess gasoline station is located on the north side of Lyell Avenue between Lee Road and the Erie Canal. The site is listed as a PBS facility, a generator of hazardous waste, and a location of multiple reportable spills.
There are five (5) active USTs at this site. The USTs are located along the northern portion of the property. According to the NYSDEC records, four (4) USTs were removed from the site in 1998 and replaced by the five (5) existing USTs.
There have been four (5) spills reported to the NYSDEC relating to this site since 2002. All five (5) spills are considered closed. All five (5) spills were the result of petroleum inadvertently being released to the ground. Each spill was closed within three days of occurrence.
Alternative A2 includes the acquisition of a portion of the property along Lyell Avenue. Although there are no active spills at this site, based on the usage of the property as a gasoline station, petroleum contamination may be present. Therefore a specification will be added to the contract documents for screening, segregating and disposing of non-hazardous petroleum contaminated soil for the proposed work adjacent to the site. The plans will identify this property as a location where petroleum contamination may be encountered.
g) Rochester Industrial Repair/former Conolly Printing (Site no. 8) 1940 Lyell Avenue Sta. LA127+60 – 128+60 Rochester Industrial Repair is an electronics repair facility on the north side of Lyell Avenue approximately 250 feet west of the Erie Canal. Conolly Printing, a printing facility, operated from this location prior to 2001. This site is listed as a former PBS facility, a generator of hazardous waste, and is a NYSDEC spill site.
4-54 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
In 1996 an underground fuel oil storage tank was removed from this site. According to the NYSDEC spills data base a fuel oil spill was reported at the time of the tank removal. This spill was closed in 2000. There has been one spill reported at this facility since 2002. Reportedly an unknown volume of solvent was release to the sewer and air in August 2005. This spill was reported closed the following day.
Alternative A2 includes the acquisition of a portion of the properly along Lyell Avenue. Although there are no active spills at this site, based on the petroleum and solvent spills reported at this site, contamination may be present. Therefore a specification will be added to the contract documents for screening, segregating and disposing of petroleum/solvent contaminated soil at this site. The project plans will identify this site as a location where soil contamination may be encountered.
h) North Albany Terminals (Site no. 26) 1935 Lyell Avenue Sta. LA27+00 – LA27+50, and Sta. LA27+50 – LA132+00 (325 feet south) North Albany Terminals is a MOSF located east of and adjacent to the Hess Terminal. With the exception of the driveway to the site, North Albany Terminals does not have frontage along Lyell Avenue. The main operations at 1935 Lyell Avenue are situated approximately 325 feet south of Lyell Avenue and south of the 1931 Lyell Avenue property. Since 2002, the facility at 1935 Lyell Avenue has operated under the names of Alaskan Oil and Supreme Energy. In addition to the being a MOSF, this facility is also a generator of hazardous waste, an air emission source and a location of multiple reportable spills.
There have been 20 spills reported at this facility since 2002. Nineteen (19) of the spills are considered closed by the NYSDEC. The open spill at this facility is related to the presence of an unknown petroleum-like substance that had impacted the soil and groundwater at the site.
Alternative A2 includes the acquisition of a portion of the driveway to the facility. Although this site has minimal frontage along Lyell Avenue, due to the numerous spills at this facility, a specification will be added to the contract documents for screening, segregating and disposing of non-hazardous petroleum contaminated soil for the proposed work from the western portion of the driveway to 1935 Lyell Avenue to the Erie Canal. The project plans will identify this area as a location where petroleum contamination may be encountered.
In addition to the eight sites of concern, there are 19 bridges located within or adjacent to the project corridor that are painted. The location of the 19 bridges are shown on Exhibit 4.4.19-4 and 4.4.19-5, included in Appendix B. All but three of bridges are listed as generators of hazardous waste (lead). Seven of the bridges will be impacted by Alternative A2. A summary of the bridges within or adjacent to the project is provided in Exhibit 4.4.19-6.
Exhibit 4.4.19-4 Project Bridges Exhibit Listed 4.4.19-4 and Bridge Name BIN RCRA Project Impacts 4.4.19-5, Generator? ID number Lyell Avenue over Erie Canal 4443380 Yes None B-1 Buffalo Road over I-390 1023030 Yes Bridge Replacement B-2 NY 390 NB over I-490 WB 1052290 Yes Bridge Widening B-3 Lyell Avenue over NY 390 1021589 Yes Bridge Replacement B-4 NY 390 NB over Erie Canal 4062532 Yes Bridge Widening B-5 NY 390 SB over Erie Canal 4062531 Yes Bridge Widening B-6 NY 390 NB over Trolley 1062542 Yes Bridge Replacement B-7 Boulevard
4-55 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Exhibit 4.4.19-4 Project Bridges Exhibit Listed 4.4.19-4 and Bridge Name BIN RCRA Project Impacts 4.4.19-5, Generator? ID number NY 390 SB over Trolley 1062541 Yes Bridge Replacement B-8 Boulevard I-390 NB over I-490 EB and I- 1063950 Yes None B-9 490 WB Off-ramp to I-390 I-490 EB over I-490 WB Off- 1025820 Yes None B-10 ramp to I-390 SB I-490 EB Off-ramp to NY390 NB over I-490 WB and NY 1052280 Yes None B-11 390 SB I-490 WB over NY 390 SB 1025811 Yes None B-12 I-490 EB over NY 390 SB 1025812 Yes None B-13 I-490 WB over Erie Canal 4443361 Yes None B-14 I-490 EB over Erie Canal 4443362 Yes None B-15 CSX Rail Road over I-390 7025830 Yes None B-16 Howard Road over I-490 1048680 No None B-17 NY 390 NB over Lexington 1062522 No None B-18 Avenue NY 390 SB over Lexington 1062521 No None B-19 Avenue
It is assumed that the paint on the bridges contains lead. The presence of lead will require worker safety controls during bridge rehabilitation/widening or replacement. Disposal of generated wastes from bridge rehabilitation/widening or replacement associated with this project shall be in accordance with State and Federal regulations.
In addition to the eight locations of concern and seven impacted bridges, Alternative A2 proposes the acquisition of three parcels. Due to the potential presence of household and/or commercial chemicals in the structures on the parcels that will be acquired, it is recommended that the current property owners be requested to remove any chemicals from the properties prior to transferring the properties. After the properties are transferred the interior of the buildings should be inspected, any chemicals present in the structures should be identified and arrangements made for proper disposal. The sites where this is recommended include the following: · Residential property at 25 Lee Road Extension · Residential property at 50 Lee Road Extension · Commercial property at 2000 Lyell Avenue (the northwest corner of the intersection of Lyell Avenue and Lee Road). A subsurface investigation of this site was conducted by URS Corporation (URS) on September 26, 2013 (see Appendix P Hazardous Waste/Contaminated Materials Screening Report). Three soil borings were installed and advanced to a depth of 10 feet. Soils removed from the borings were screened with a photoionization detector (PID) and were given a detailed description. No petroleum contamination was identified at the boring locations at the time of this investigation.
4-56 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
4.5 CONSTRUCTION EFFECTS
Construction Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Construction impacts will be temporary, and will cease with the completion of construction. Although the project will be planned, designed, scheduled, and staged to minimize disruption to abutting communities and the environment during construction, some inconveniences will be inevitable.
Construction Impacts on Regional and Local Economies The short-term direct increases in employment associated with construction activity resulting from the project can be expected to filter through the local economy, generating consumer and business spending. Short-term benefits to the project area will occur initially during the construction phases of the project in the form of increased demand for local materials, services and labor. Indirect or secondary economic benefits will be anticipated to extend well beyond actual construction of the interchange. The specific location and level of this activity will depend upon the magnitude of the expenditures and the ability of the local suppliers and the local labor pool to fulfill demand for construction goods and services.
In an effort to reduce the effects of construction on the community, incentives and disincentives can be used to induce the contractor to work as quickly as possible. Under these programs, the contractor is awarded bonus payments for every day that he reaches a milestone ahead of schedule. In addition, disincentives will be assessed for each day that the contractor is late in reaching the milestone. This program provides a strong incentive for the contractor to finish the project as quickly as possible.
Construction Traffic Impacts Potentially significant to traffic are lane closures, along with constraints placed on major roadways to permit construction. Although intermittent lane closures will be needed during off-peak hours, assumptions that were used in developing the conceptual staging schemes include: maintaining two lanes of traffic during peak traffic hours for northbound 390, southbound 390, westbound Lyell Avenue (between Ramp DB and Lee Road) and Ramp EN (westbound I-490 to Lyell Avenue). All other roadways or sections of roadways and ramps are proposed to remain open during construction with at least one available lane for traffic. The construction methods proposed for the build alternative are discussed under Work Zone Safety and Mobility (see Section 3.3.1.7(2)). Area schools, hospitals, police, fire departments and other community representatives will be advised of traffic patterns and detours during construction.
Construction Impacts on Wetlands and Water Resources Erosion and sediment control measures consisting of silt fences, hay bales, sedimentation basins according to the SWPPP (see Section 4.4.8). The SWPPP will include erosion and sediment control plans, stormwater management measures, details, and specifications for implementing controls. All disturbed areas would be permanently revegetated to control long term erosion.
Potential contamination of groundwater (and/or soil) could occur as a result of leaking construction equipment and/or temporary on-site sanitary storage facilities. Proper maintenance procedures on the construction site will be enforced. Fuel/chemical storage will not be allowed on the job site unless the area is over impermeable ground and provides proper containment to protect against spill contamination. Absorption materials will be available on-site, as necessary to clean up any spills. Any spills (oil, gasoline, brake fluid, transmission fluid, etc.) will be contained immediately and disposed of properly, off-site. Additional runoff from the construction of temporary access or construction roads will be directed away from nearby wells to avoid potential contamination.
Construction Impacts on General Ecology and Wildlife As discussed in Section 4.1.9, preventative measures and management practices should be utilized during construction to minimize the potential introduction or spread of any invasive species. Suitable measures and practices include minimizing the amount of soil disturbance during construction, installing temporary erosion and sediment control practices, and mulching and seeding disturbed areas with native species as soon as possible after initial construction. Additionally, construction equipment access and movement should be
4-57 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13 limited within the project area and all equipment used during construction should be inspected and cleaned prior to entering and leaving the site as a control to spreading any invasive species.
Construction Noise Impacts Construction noise is discussed in Section 4.4.17. The managing of construction activities to reduce the effects of construction noise on receptors can be achieved using an approach consisting of design modifications, the reduction of noise emitted from equipment (source control), the abatement of noise escaping from the site (site control), and public relations. The impact of construction noise can be reduced by using noise reduction techniques, but not eliminated. Public relations can be used to advise the residents of construction activities to curtail a possibly adverse community reaction. Furthermore, in areas to be protected by noise barriers, the construction of the noise barriers early in the construction sequence will protect those neighborhoods during the remainder of construction.
The use of nighttime operations will be reviewed during detailed design of the project. Construction material will be handled and transported to limit noise levels. Noisy elements, such as compressors, will be located in less sensitive areas as much as possible. Muffling and proper equipment maintenance will also reduce the construction noise impacts.
Construction Impacts and Air Quality The air quality impacts during construction will be limited to short-term increased fugitive dust and mobile source emissions. To minimize the amount of construction-generated dust, contractual requirements will make provision for the application of various control measures during construction activities. These measures will include applying water or other suitable moisture-retaining agents on dirt roads, covering haul trucks carrying loose material, or treating materials likely to become airborne and contribute to air pollution if left untreated.
To minimize the amount of emissions generated, maintenance and protection of traffic measures will be implemented during the construction phase to limit disruption to traffic and ensure that adequate roadway capacity is available to general traffic during peak travel periods.
Construction Impacts with Hazardous Waste Potential hazardous waste sites in the project area have been identified, and all appropriate precautions will be taken during construction staging of these areas. If any spill contamination is encountered during construction, the contaminated soils will be handled per NYSDOT standard specifications for identifying, handling and disposing of petroleum and contaminated soil.
Energy Used in Construction Energy used in construction is addressed in Section 4.4.16.
4-58 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
4.6 INDIRECT (SECONDARY) EFFECTS
Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR § 1508.8) define several different types of effects that should be evaluated under NEPA. These include:
· Direct effects,4 which are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place; and
· Indirect effects,5 which are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects may include growth inducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density or growth rate, and related effects on air and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems.
Direct effects have been identified and discussed in the previous portions of this chapter. The typical indirect effects of a highway project include those related to economic development such as changes in land use, population density or growth rate, and the resulting effects on the natural and man-made environment. Such effects may have both beneficial and detrimental aspects.
The project will not provide any new access to new areas, which is one means by which growth may be stimulated by highway projects; however, by reducing delay and congestion, the project will improve existing access to the surrounding area. This will be one factor to enhance development in the surrounding area.
The Town of Gates Master Plan (February 2007) does not include any specific areas designated for concentrated development. It does point out on page 7 that most new construction has been that of redevelopment. A comparison of the Town of Gates Official Zoning Map (Exhibit 4.2.1-1 in Appendix B) with the 2010 Land Use Map (Exhibit 2.2.1 in Appendix A) shows that there are some vacant lots in the residential area north of Lyell Avenue and west of Lee Road, as well as some vacant land along the east side of Lee Road, which is zoned for General Industrial Land. Traffic flow and access to Lee Road from the NYS Route 390/Lyell Avenue interchange will be greatly improved as a result of the project, which will help to promote such development.
Further discussion that the project would not stimulate new development is provided in the completed Smart Growth Screening Tool in Appendix B. It is anticipated that this type of growth would not produce adverse social impacts to the local community. It would also have minimal effect upon natural resources in the area. It is anticipated existing regulations and local planning mechanisms would be used to address these resources. Laws and regulations that may apply include following:
· New York State Environmental Quality Review Act · NYSDEC SPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activity · Sections 401 & 404 of the Clean Water Act · Articles 15 Title 5 of the New York State Conservation Law · Article 24 of the Environmental Conservation Law · National Flood Insurance Program · New York State Endangered Species Act · New York State Historic Preservation Act · Clean Air Act
4 The terms “effect” and “impact” are used synonymously in the CEQ regulations. 5 For purposes of this study, the term “indirect” is synonymous with “secondary,” as is the case with FHWA guidance documents issued on this subject.
4-59 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
4.7 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
The CEQ regulations (40 CFR § 1508.7) define “cumulative impact” as:
The impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions.
“Reasonably foreseeable” actions are those that are likely to occur or probable, rather than those that are merely possible.6 Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time. Direct and indirect impacts are considered a subset to cumulative impacts.
In reviewing cumulative effects of the project, the only impacts from past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions to be discussed are those that correspond to the direct and indirect impacts of the subject properties. For example, past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions may include significant impacts to historic and cultural resources; however, since it was determined that the subject project would have “no effect” on such resources, there would be no incremental impact on such resources from the subject project.
Past Actions Specific documentation regarding previous resources is not readily available. It is apparent from looking at existing land uses of the project area and the areas immediately adjacent to it, that wholesale changes have taken place from development of the transportation infrastructure as well as development of the surrounding land into uses such as: the former Dearcop Landfill followed by residences to the southeast, the tank farms to the northeast, the quarry to the southwest, the commercial developments along Lyell Avenue, and the residential developments to the northwest and west. All of this had to have impacted any streams and wetlands that might have been in the area. For example, Stream T2 (Section 4.4.2) is currently pumped out of a quarry to the southwest of the I-390/I-490 Interchange before passing along the project.
Present and Future Minutes and agendas from the Town of Gates Planning Board were reviewed for the months of March through October 2014. Plans reviewed are summarized in Exhibit 4.7-1. None of the developments being considered are in the project area. Those that are nearby would not affect any of the same resources as the project. Prior to construction, the projects would need to be in compliance with the New York SEQR. Where appropriate, any such developments would require permits, such as the NYSDEC SPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activity (Permit No. GP-0-10-001) and State and Federal stream and wetland permits, which would require avoidance, minimization and mitigation of impacts to stream and wetland areas. Due to the proximity and general conclusion regarding the intensity of potential impacts, it is reasonable to conclude that such projects would not add to the impact of the subject project.
Section 2.2.2.4 discusses other transportation projects that could have an impact on the subject project. This includes a NYSDOT project entailing highway rehabilitation (PIN 4033.02) to a combination of roads immediately outside the project study area. These include: Buffalo Road between Howard Road and I-390, and Howard Road between Lyell Avenue and Chili Avenue. Construction of this project commenced in 2014 and is scheduled to be complete in August 2015. It is not anticipated that this project would produce impacts to the resources discussed for the subject project.
6 Federal Highway Administration Interim Guidance: Questions and Answers Regarding Indirect and Cumulative Impact Considerations in the NEPA Process, 2003.
4-60 NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange Improvements March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.13
Exhibit 4.7-1 Current Planned Developments, Town of Gates Planning Board Description of Proposed Development Name / Owner Location Development
Buffalo Road Holdings 837 Buffalo Rd Scrap yard, auto wrecking, dismantling & recycling operation Villa Capri / Atlantic Funding Real 150 Frank Mino Way 87-unit independent senior living Estate LLC facility on 4.5 acres of land St. Williams’s Apartments / 1150 Buffalo Rd 44 apartment units on 5 acres Diocese of Rochester Faith Outreach Ministry / Adele Near Elmgrove Rd; north side of Church on 1.45 acres Nitti Buffalo Rd Ivy Bridge Townhomes, Phase 3 / 3395 Buffalo Road 61 additional apartments on 11.3 Ivy Bridge Townhomes LLC acres of additional land CRERAND II / 3895 Lyell Road 14 2-bedroom townhomes and Nathaniel Development 22 3-bedroom townhomes 145 Fedex Way / Mufit Evyapan 145 Fedex Way 5,000 sq. ft building on 14 acre parcel
Potential impacts from the proposed project identified in this document include minor impacts to: · Relocations · Wetlands · Streams · Noise impacts · Visual impacts from noise barriers and flyover ramp
Minor benefits would be realized from the project to: · Land use (promote redevelopment) · Pedestrians and bicyclists · Access to the Erie Canalway Trail · Water quality through stormwater treatment of new areas and areas that were previously untreated · Energy use
While many of the past actions appear to have produced a number of impacts to the project area, a review of present and reasonably foreseeable actions does not reveal any impacts to the above resources that would cause a significant cumulative impact when combined with those of the proposed project.
4-61