DRAFT DESIGN REPORT / ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT · March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental...

DRAFT DESIGN REPORT /ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CHAPTER 1EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONANDREW M. CUOMO, Governor JOAN MCDONALD, Commissioner

Highway ProjectP.I.N. 4390.13

NYS Route 390/I-490/NYS Route 31Interchange Improvements

Monroe CountyTown of Gates, Town of Greece and

City of Rochester[City/Village] of________


(Appendices Bound Separately)

March 2015







NYS 390 / I-490 / NYS 31 Interchange ImprovementsMarch 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 projectscoping can begin.

The MIS was approved by:Karl H. Horn

9/9/98

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 HearingCertification (23 USC 128):

A public hearing was held on August 28, 2013 in accordance with 23 USC 128.

Design Squad Leader or Project Manager

E. Recommendation forDesign Approval:

The project cost and schedule are consistent with the Regional Capital Program.

Regional Program Manager

F. Recommendation forDesign and NonstandardFeature Approval:

All requirements requisite to these actions and approvals have been met, therequired independent quality control reviews separate from the functional groupreviews have been accomplished, and the work is consistent with establishedstandards, policies, regulations and procedures, except as otherwise noted andexplained.

Regional Design Engineer or Regional Maintenance Engineer

G. Nonstandard FeatureApproval:

The nonstandard features have been adequately justified and it is not prudent toeliminate 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 preferredalternative for this project is ready for final design.

Regional Director, FHWA OR Deputy Chief Engineer


LIST OF PREPARERSGroup Director Responsible for Production of the Design Approval Document:

Frank H. Billittier, P.E., Regional Design Engineer, NYSDOT Region 4

Mark J. McAnany, P.E., Project Manager, Bergmann Associates

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

PLACE P.E. STAMP

PLACE P.E. STAMP

This report was prepared by the following consultant staff:

Dominic Fekete, P.E., Assistant Project Manager, Bergmann Associates

Description of Work Performed: Prepared and directly supervised preparationof the Final Design Report Chapters 1 through 3, including preparation of thenon-standard feature justification forms, in accordance with establishedstandards, policies, regulations and procedures, except as otherwise explainedin this document.

PLACE P.E. STAMP

James F. Boggs, Environmental Discipline Specialist, Bergmann Associates

Description of Work Performed: Prepared and directly supervised preparationof the Final Design Report Chapter 4 in accordance with established standards,policies, regulations and procedures, except as otherwise explained in thisdocument.


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

Description of Work Performed: Directed the preparation of the traffic analysisand Synchro traffic model for the Design Approval Document in accordance withestablished standards, policies, regulations and procedures, except as otherwiseexplained in this document.

PLACE P.E. STAMP

Christina L. Doughney, P.E., PTOE, Traffic Engineer, CHA

Description of Work Performed: Prepared the VisSim traffic model andanalysis for the Design Approval Document in accordance with establishedstandards, policies, regulations and procedures, except as otherwise explainedin this document.

PLACE P.E. STAMP

Vernon Myers, P.E., Senior Managing Engineer, Shumaker Engineering

Description of Work Performed: Directed the preparation of the accidentanalysis and energy analysis for the Design Approval Document in accordancewith established standards, policies, regulations and procedures, except asotherwise explained in this document.

PLACE P.E. STAMP

Mark Pawloski, P.E., Assistant Regional Construction Engineer, NYSDOTRegion 4

Description of Work Performed: Supervised the preparation of the PavementEvaluation Treatment Selection Report (PETSR) for the Design ApprovalDocument in accordance with established standards, policies, regulations andprocedures, except as otherwise explained in this document.

PLACE P.E. STAMP


Christopher P, Caraccilo, ASLA, Landscape Architect, NYSDOT Region 4

Description of Work Performed: Prepared the Visual Impact Assessment(VIA) for the Design Approval Document in accordance with establishedstandards, policies, regulations and procedures, except as otherwise explainedin this document.

PLACE L.A. STAMP

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

Description of Work Performed: Prepared the landscape/environmentalenhancements opportunity and visual resource documentation in Chapters 2 and3 for the Design Approval Document in accordance with established standards,policies, regulations and procedures, except as otherwise explained in thisdocument.

PLACE L.A. STAMP

Dory A. Marsh, P.E., Transportation Engineer, CHA

Description of Work Performed: Prepared the work zone safety and mobility,drainage systems, hydraulics of culverts, and utility impact assessment for theDesign Approval Document in accordance with established standards, policies,regulations and procedures, except as otherwise explained in this document.

PLACE P.E. STAMP

Frederick Burgwardt, P.E., Project Design Engineer, NYSDOT Region 4

Description of Work Performed: Prepared the Access ModificationDocumentation for the Design Approval Document in accordance withestablished standards, policies, regulations and procedures, except as otherwiseexplained in this document.

PLACE P.E. STAMP


Joel Astyk, P.E., Project Engineer, Bergmann Associates

Description of Work Performed: Prepared the structural analysis for theDesign Approval Document in accordance with established standards, policies,regulations and procedures, except as otherwise explained in this document.

PLACE P.E. STAMP

Joseph A. Van Kerkhove, P.E., Project Manager, Bergmann Associates

Description of Work Performed: Prepared the surface water qualityidentification and evaluation and noise analysis for the Design ApprovalDocument in accordance with established standards, policies, regulations andprocedures, except as otherwise explained in this document.

PLACE P.E. STAMP

Nancy Gillette, P.E., Environmental Department Manager, Ravi Engineering

Description of Work Performed: Prepared the air quality analysis, asbestosscreening, and hazardous waste/contaminated materials screening for theDesign Approval Document in accordance with established standards, policies,regulations and procedures, except as otherwise explained in this document.

PLACE P.E. STAMP

Kelly J. Saladis, Environmental Discipline Specialist, Shumaker Engineering

Description of Work Performed: Prepared the Wetland Assessment andDelineation report for the Design Approval Document in accordance withestablished standards, policies, regulations and procedures, except as otherwiseexplained in this document.

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


List of changes made to the Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment (datedApril 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 DesignApproval 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 isconsidered 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 – AirQuality. Removed reference to Appendix I since Project Purpose and Need Statement is alreadydescribed in this section of the report.

5. Pg 1-6 Exhibit 1.5 – Revised Design Approval date to June 2015. Revised ROW acquisition forPhase 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. Changedcontact 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 toGenesee Transportation Council (GTC) comments in letter dated 9/18/13 (Comment responseletter 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 ETCutilized on this project.

12. Pg 2-47 Section 2.3.1.8 – Added discussion on accident analysis reevaluation at end of thissection 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 fromU.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) in letter dated 9/12/13 (Comment response letterincluded 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 LaneWidth 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 ENchanged from 12 ft. left and 13 ft. right lanes to 12 ft. for both lanes. This revision is alsodiscussed below (Appendix A2).


18. Pg 3-20 Exhibit 3.2.3.2-3 – Revised the Standard and Proposed Condition criteria for Ramp LaneWidth to reflect the current Highway Design Manual Exhibit 2-9b. Ramp C changed from 26 ft. to16 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 LaneWidth to reflect the current Highway Design Manual Exhibit 2-9b. Ramp A changed from 15 ft. to12 ft. and Ramp B changed from 17 ft. to 15 ft. This revision is also discussed below (AppendixA2).

20. Pg 3-32 Exhibit 3.2.3.3-2 – Revised Vehicle Accommodated column for Lyell-Howard CommonsPlaza 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 ETCutilized 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 ETCutilized on this project.

23. Pg 3-58 Section 3.3.3.1.(1) – Added a paragraph describing the proposed utility corridor on theStonegate Health Professional Complex property.

24. Pg 3-58 Section 3.3.3.1.(1) – Indicated that the right-of-way impact spreadsheet lists the formerbusiness names.

25. Pg 3-74 Exhibit 3.3.3.7 – Added column for Dwg. No. Reference in response to comment fromUSACE 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 tocomments from USACE in letter dated 9/12/13 (Comment response letter included in AppendixG).

28. Pg 4-14 Section 4.4.1 – Changes made in response to comments from USACE in letter dated9/12/13 (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 dated9/12/13 (Comment response letter included in Appendix G).

30. Pg 4-25 Section 4.4.9 – Added updated information regarding endangered and threatenedspecies.

31. Pg 4-33 Section 4.4.15 – Revised first 2 paragraphs in response to comments from GTC in letterdated 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. Updatedthe 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 ofminor benefits realized from the project.

Appendix Revisions

1. Appendix A (Alt A2 Plans) – Updated the properties near Lyell-Lee intersection and along RampA to reflect ROW and design changes based on Take-Line Meetings, including addition of a utilitycorridor along the Stonegate Health Professional Complex property. Revisions resulted inchanges to drawings I-1, TS-6, PSL-2, PL-7, PL-8, PL-9, GP-6, and addition of drawing GP-12.


2. Appendix A (Alt A2 Plans) – Updated business names, which resulted in changes to drawingsGP-1, GP-2, and GP-7. Former business names are shown on the plans in parenthesis. Thereport and all other appendices were not updated to include references to current businessnames.

3. Appendix A (Alt A2 Plans) – Revised ramp lane width dimensions for Ramps EN, ES, A, B and Cto 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 dimensionindicating that it is not to scale. Revision to Ramp ES lane width also resulted in a change to theright 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 3.2.3.2-2thru 3.2.3.2-4).

4. Appendix A (Misc Maps and Plans) – Updated Lyell Ave. Corridor alternative A2 graphic (seeAppendix Revision 2 for explanation).

5. Appendix B – Added updated correspondence with regard to threatened and endangeredspecies. Added a letter from FHWA with its determination regarding Section 106 of the NationalHistoric Preservation Act. Added a letter from the New York State Canal Corporation with regardto 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, agencyreview, 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 namesand property owners.

8. Appendix I – Removed Project Purpose and Need Statement since it is already included inSection 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 reviewof 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.


TABLE OF CONTENTSCOVER (Title / PIN / Location)FHWA APPROVAL TO RELEASE FOR COMMENTSPROJECT APPROVAL SHEETLIST OF PREPARERSLIST 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 SUMMARY1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................1.2. Purpose and Need ..................................................................................................................

1.2.1. Where is the Project Located?...........................................................................................1.2.2. Why is the Project Needed?...............................................................................................1.2.3. What are the Purposes and Objectives of the Project?......................................................

1.3. What Alternative(s) Are Being Considered? .............................................................................1.4. How will the Alternative(s) Affect the Environment? ..................................................................1.5. What Are The Costs & Schedules?..........................................................................................1.6. Which Alternative is Preferred? ..............................................................................................1.7. Who Will Decide Which Alternative Will Be Selected And How Can I Be Involved In ThisDecision?............................................................................................................................................

1-11-11-11-41-41-41-51-61-8

1-8

CHAPTER 2 - PROJECT CONTEXT: HISTORY, TRANSPORTATION PLANS, CONDITIONSAND NEEDS2.1. Project History ........................................................................................................................2.2. Transportation Plans and Land Use.........................................................................................

2.2.1. Local Plans for the Project Area.........................................................................................2.2.1.1. Local Master Plan ................................................................................ ...................2.2.1.2. Local Private Development Plans ...........................................................................2.2.1.3. Regional Trails Initiative .........................................................................................

2.2.2. Transportation Corridor......................................................................................................2.2.2.1. Importance of the Project Route Segment ..............................................................2.2.2.2. Alternate Routes ....................................................................................................2.2.2.3. Corridor Deficiencies and Needs ............................................................................2.2.2.4. Transportation Plans ..............................................................................................2.2.2.5. Abutting Highway Segments and Future Plans for Abutting Highway Segments .......

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)................................2.3.1.2. Control of Access ..................................................................................................2.3.1.3. Traffic Control Devices ...........................................................................................2.3.1.4. Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) .................................................................2.3.1.5. Speeds and Delay .................................................................................................2.3.1.6. Traffic Volumes .....................................................................................................2.3.1.7. Level of Service and Mobility ..................................................................................2.3.1.8. Safety Considerations, Accident History and Analysis .............................................2.3.1.9. Existing Police, Fire Protection and Ambulance Access………………………………..2.3.1.10. Parking Regulations and Parking Related Conditions ............................................2.3.1.11. Lighting ...............................................................................................................2.3.1.12. Ownership and Maintenance Jurisdiction ..............................................................

2.3.2. Multimodal..........................................................................................................................2.3.2.1. Pedestrians ...........................................................................................................2.3.2.2. Bicyclists ...............................................................................................................2.3.2.3. Transit ...................................................................................................................2.3.2.4. Airports, Railroad Stations, and Ports .....................................................................2.3.2.5. Access to Recreation Areas (Parks, Trails, Waterways, State Lands) ......................

2.3.3. Infrastructure......................................................................................................................2.3.3.1. Existing Highway Section .......................................................................................2.3.3.2. Geometric Design Elements Not Meeting Standards ...............................................2.3.3.3. Pavement and Shoulder.........................................................................................2.3.3.4. Drainage Systems .................................................................................................

2-12-22-22-22-32-32-32-32-42-42-62-72-112-112-112-122-122-162-182-212-282-402-482-492-492-492-522-522-522-532-542-542-552-552-592-762-77


TABLE OF CONTENTS2.3.3.5. Geotechnical .........................................................................................................2.3.3.6. Structure ...............................................................................................................2.3.3.7. Hydraulics of Bridges and Culverts .........................................................................2.3.3.8. Guide Railing, Median Barriers and Impact Attenuators...........................................2.3.3.9. Utilities ..................................................................................................................2.3.3.10. Railroad Facilities ................................................................................................

2.3.4. Landscape and Environmental Enhancement Opportunities.............................................2.3.4.1. Landscape ............................................................................................................2.3.4.2. Opportunities for Environmental Improvements .......................................................

2.3.5. Miscellaneous.....................................................................................................................

2-792-812-882-912-912-922-93

22-932-972-97

CHAPTER 3 – ALTERNATIVES3.1. Alternatives Considered and Eliminated from Further Study .....................................................

3.1.1. Expanded Project Proposal (EPP) .............................................................................3.1.2. EPP Amendment (i.e. Re-evaluation Study) and Value Engineering (VE) Study..........3.1.3. Preliminary Design Phase (i.e. Phases I-IV) ..............................................................

3.2. Feasible Build Alternatives ......................................................................................................3.2.1. Description of Feasible Alternatives...................................................................................3.2.2 Preferred Alternative...........................................................................................................3.2.3. Design Criteria for Feasible Alternative(s)..........................................................................

3.2.3.1. Design Standards ..................................................................................................3.2.3.2. Critical Design Elements ........................................................................................3.2.3.3. Other Design Parameters ......................................................................................

3.3. Engineering Considerations ....................................................................................................3.3.1. Operations (Traffic and Safety) & Maintenance.................................................................

3.3.1.1. Functional Classification and National Highway System ..........................................3.3.1.2. Control of Access ..................................................................................................3.3.1.3. Traffic Control Devices ...........................................................................................3.3.1.4. Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) .................................................................3.3.1.5. Speeds and Delay .................................................................................................3.3.1.6. Traffic Volumes .....................................................................................................3.3.1.7. Level of Service and Mobility ..................................................................................3.3.1.8. Safety Considerations, Accident History and Analysis .............................................3.3.1.9. Impacts on Police, Fire Protection and Ambulance Access……………………………3.3.1.10. Parking Regulations and Parking Related Issues ..................................................3.3.1.11. Lighting ...............................................................................................................3.3.1.12. Ownership and Maintenance Jurisdiction ..............................................................3.3.1.13. Constructability Review ………………………………………………………………….

3.3.2. Multimodal..........................................................................................................................3.3.2.1. Pedestrians ...........................................................................................................3.3.2.2. Bicyclists ...............................................................................................................3.3.2.3. Transit ...................................................................................................................3.3.2.4. Airports, Railroad Stations, and Ports .....................................................................3.3.2.5. Access to Recreation Areas (Parks, Trails, Waterways, and State Lands) ...............

3.3.3. Infrastructure......................................................................................................................3.3.3.1. Proposed Highway Section ....................................................................................3.3.3.2. Special Geometric Design Elements.......................................................................3.3.3.3. Pavement and Shoulder.........................................................................................3.3.3.4. Drainage Systems .................................................................................................3.3.3.5. Geotechnical .........................................................................................................3.3.3.6. Structures ..............................................................................................................3.3.3.7. Hydraulics of Bridges and Culverts .........................................................................3.3.3.8. Guide Railing, Median Barriers and Impact Attenuators...........................................3.3.3.9. Utilities ..................................................................................................................3.3.3.10. Railroad Facilities ................................................................................................

3.3.4. Landscape and Environmental Enhancements..................................................................3.3.4.1. Landscape Development .......................................................................................3.3.4.2. Environmental Enhancements ................................................................................

3.3.5. Miscellaneous.....................................................................................................................

3-13-13-33-63-93-93-133-133-133-133-273-323-323-323-333-333-343-343-353-383-543-543-553-553-563-563-563-563-573-573-573-573-573-573-593-623-663-673-673-733-753-753-763-773-773-773-77


TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 4 - SOCIAL, ECONOMIC & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS4.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................

4.1.1. Environmental Classification and Lead Agencies……………………………………......4.1.2. Coordination with Agencies ....................................................................................

4.2. Social ....................................................................................................................................4.2.1. Land Use…………………………………………………………………..……………….…4.2.2. Neighborhoods and Community Cohesion ..............................................................4.2.3. Social Groups Benefited or Harmed ........................................................................4.2.4 School Districts, Recreational Areas, and Places of Worship……….…………………..

4.3 Economic ...............................................................................................................................4.3.1 Regional and Local Economies……………………………………………………….……4.3.2 Business Districts…………………………………………………………….………………

4.4 Environment ............................................................................................................................4.4.1. Wetlands……………………………………………………………………………….…......4.4.2. Surface Waterbodies and Watercourses………………………………………….……....4.4.3. Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers…………………………………………….………4.4.4. Navigable Waters…………………………………………………………………………...4.4.5. Floodplains…………………………………………………………………………….……4.4.6. Coastal Resources…………………………………………………………………………..4.4.7. Groundwater Resources, Aquifers, and Reservoirs…………………………………......4.4.8. Stormwater Management…………………………………………………………………...4.4.9. General Ecology and Wildlife Resources………………………………………………....4.4.10. Critical Environmental Areas……………………………………………………………...4.4.11. Historic and Cultural Resources……………………………………………………….....4.4.12. Parks and Recreational Resources……………………………………………………....4.4.13. Visual Resources………………………………………………………………………......4.4.14. Farmlands………………………………………………………………………………......4.4.15 Air Quality……………………………………………………………….……………….......4.4.16 Energy………………………………………………………………………………………..4.4.17 Noise………………………………………………………………………………….….......4.4.18 Asbestos………………………………………………………………………………………..4.4.19 Hazardous Waste and Contaminated Materials…..………………………………….....

4.5 Construction Effects………………..……………………………………………………………………4.6 Indirect (Secondary) Effects………………..…………………………………………………………..4.7 Cumulative Effects……………………………………………………………………………………….

4-14-14-14-44-44-54-64-84-104-104-114-124-124-164-204-204-214-224-224-234-244-284-294-304-324-324-334-374-434-454-464-574-594-60


Appendices(Included herewith unless otherwise noted)

A.

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- 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)

C.

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- 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



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

D. Pavement Information (Cover dated March 2015)- Pavement Evaluation Treatment Selection Report (PETSR)

E.

Structures Information (Cover dated March 2015)- Vertical Clearance Exemption- U.S. Coast Guard Jurisdiction Checklist- Bridge Deck Evaluation Report (BIN 1052290)- Bridge Deck Evaluation Report (BIN 4062531 and BIN 4062532)



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)

I.

Misc. (Cover dated March 2015)- Project History- 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

T. BINs 1052290, 4062531 & 4062532 In-Depth Inspection Reports, Load Ratings, and FatigueCalculations


1-1

CHAPTER 1 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1. Introduction – This report was prepared in accordance with the NYSDOT Project DevelopmentManual, 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 MonroeCounty, New York, within the municipal boundaries of the Town of Gates. The project focuses on theclosely spaced I-390/NYS Route 390/I-490 and NYS Route 390/NYS Route 31 interchanges. See Exhibit1.2.1-1 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. Forthe purposes of this report, these interchanges will often be referred to as the 390/490 and 390/31interchanges. NYS Routes (i.e. NYS Route 390) will often be abbreviated to NY (i.e. NY 390). NYSRoute 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 projectwork 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 befound 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


1-2

(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 OnlyTown 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 workproposed on I-490 at Ramp EN, which will require some Work Zone Traffic Control on I-490approaching this ramp. There will also be some Work Zone Traffic Control needed on I-490approaching BIN 1052290.


1-3


1-4

1.2.2. Why is the Project Needed? – The project is needed to address the highest prioritydeficiencies within the project study area. This project will address six (6) needs that have been identifiedthrough the project development process for resolution or improvement. Meeting these needs will offerthe greatest transportation system benefits and the lowest life cycle costs, which are summarized asfollows:

1. Reduce congestion for NY 390 southbound to I-490 eastbound traffic in the AM Peak (i.e. SBweave between Lyell Avenue and I-490).

2. Reduce congestion for I-490 westbound to NY 390 northbound traffic in the PM Peak (i.e. NBweave between I-490 and Lyell Avenue).

3. Reduce accidents related to the congestion and non-standard weave lengths in the abovelocations.

4. Address poor intersection geometry for trucks and other vehicles exiting northbound ontoLyell 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 thePM peak.

(P2) Address poor intersection geometry for trucks and other vehicles exiting northbound ontoLyell Avenue.

(P3) Provide a structurally adequate crossing of Lyell Avenue over NY 390 that meets theoperation 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 futureimprovements beyond the limits of this project.

(G5) Minimize travel impacts to school transportation, emergency service providers, residentsand business owners during the construction phase.

1.3. What Alternative(s) Are Being Considered? – Of the numerous alternatives that wereevaluated 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 engineeringstudy and analysis. Alternative A2 addresses the highest priority deficiencies within the project studyarea by satisfying all of the project needs. Several geometric changes are proposed under thisalternative. This alternative includes major improvements along the I-390/NY 390 corridor between ChiliAvenue and Lexington Avenue, a distance of approximately 3 miles, and along the Lyell Avenue corridorbetween Howard Road and the Erie Canal, a distance of approximately ¾ mile. Significant


1-5

improvements to the 390/490 and 390/31 interchanges are proposed. Graphics of Alternative A2 areincluded in Appendix A. Typical sections, plans, and profiles for Alternative A2 are included in AppendixA 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-laneroadway that passes over the 390/490 interchange.

· Converting the existing NY 390 southbound 2-lane weave crossing to a 1-lane weave for LyellAvenue 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 arein 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 fromHoward 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 notbe made until comments on the draft design approval document and comments from the public hearinghave been fully evaluated.

For a more in-depth discussion of the proposed improvements and detailed design criteria see section 3.2of this report. See section 3.3.3.2.(1) for a summary of critical design elements within the proposedreconstruction limits not meeting standards.

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

Refer to Chapter 4 Section(s) 4.4.1, 4.4.2, and 4.4.17 for mitigation measures that are proposed for thisproject.

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)

Exhibit 1.4-AEnvironmental Summary

NEPA Classification Class III BY Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)DateSEQR Type: Non-Type II (EA) BY NYSDOT Date


1-6

· 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 severalphases, 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 timefunding is secured for the design and construction of Phase 1 only. The schedule of the remainingphases is estimated and will be determined when additional funding becomes available. The RegionalPlanning & Program Manager is preparing a Finance Plan for funding the construction of subsequentphases that will be submitted to FHWA for approval and presented to the MPO. Should the constructioncompletion dates be shifted further into the future, several sections contained within this document shouldbe reevaluated and documented, which include traffic analysis and accident history.

Exhibit 1.5Project Schedule

Activity Date Occurred/TentativeScoping Approval 2003 (EPP)Design Approval (Tentative) June 2015ROW Acquisition(Tentative)

None Required (Phase 1)2015 (Phase 2)None Required (Phase 3)2020 (Phase 4)

Construction Start(Tentative)

2015 (Phase 1)2017 (Phase 2)2019 (Phase 3)2021 (Phase 4)

Construction Complete(Tentative)

2016 (Phase 1)2019 (Phase 2)2021 (Phase 3)2023 (Phase 4)


1-7

Exhibit 1.6 Summary of Alternative A2 CostsMillion Dollars (Calculated Year - 2012)

ActivitiesPhase 1

(Lyell AvenueBridge)

Phase 2(I-390/NY 390NB and LyellAve East of

NY 390)

Phase 3(I-390/NY 390

SB)

Phase 4(Lyell Avenue

West of NY390)

Total AllPhases

ConstructionBridge5 $5,586,000 $8,231,000 $18,220,000 $0 $32,037,000

Highway $500,000 $16,450,000 $18,530,000 $3,550,000 $39,030,000

Wetland and Stream Mitigation $0 $100,000 $0 $0 $100,000Storm Pollution Discharge EliminationSystem (SPDES) $10,000 $80,000 $130,000 $0 $220,000

Noise Barriers $0 $3,000,000 $6,000,000 $0 $9,000,000ITS (Includes Proposed Improvementsand Relocated Fiber Optic) $0 $0 $390,000 $0 $390,000

Public Utilities(Water and Sanitary Sewer) $20,000 $210,000 $10,000 $320,000 $560,000

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(Phase 1 – 2015, Phase 2 – 2017)(Phase 3 – 2019, Phase 4 2021)

$9,855,000 $47,295,000 $77,077,000 $7,468,000 $141,695,000

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


1-8

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 preferredalternative, 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 fullyevaluated.

1.7. Who Will Decide Which Alternative Will Be Selected And How Can I Be Involved InThis Decision?

The Public Involvement Process for the preliminary design phase (Phases I-IV) kicked-off with a PublicOfficials Meeting on June 28th, 2010. The meeting re-introduced the project to local officials, providing anoverview 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 movingforward 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 providesuggestions 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 andneed, 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 March2012. The CIT was an extension of the Project Design Team and served as an advisory group. The CITprovided valuable input during the preliminary design phase and identified needs and concerns of thelarger community that they represented. The CIT consisted of members representing the followingstakeholder 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 meetingincluded both an Open House and a formal presentation by the project design team. A summary of thecomments 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 wherenoise 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 stepsdetermine neighborhood preferences regarding construction of noise barriers.


1-9

A Public Information Meeting was held on July 9 th, 2012 to present the preferred alternative. This meetingwas an Open House format.

A Public Hearing was held on August 28th, 2013. Response letters for comments received from thehearing are included in Appendix G.

It is anticipated that another Public Hearing will be held in the Spring 2015. Response letters forcomments 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 aredescribed in Appendix G.

Exhibit 1.7Public Involvement Plan Schedule of Milestone Dates

Activity Date Occurred/TentativePublic Officials Meeting June 28, 2010Public Workshop #1 July 27, 2010Community Involvement Meeting #1 November 8, 2010Community Involvement Meeting #2 February 24, 2011Community Involvement Meeting #3 May 24, 2011Community Involvement Meeting #4 August 2, 2011Public Informational Meeting #2 September 22, 2011Community Involvement Meeting #5 December 8, 2011Public Workshop #3 January 24, 2012Community Involvement Meeting #6 March 28, 2012Public Informational Meeting #4 July 9, 2012Public Hearing #1 August 28, 2013Public Hearing #2 Spring 2015 (Tentative)

Current Project Letting dates(Tentative)

Phase 1 - Lyell Avenue bridge over NY 390 – 6/4/15Phase 2 - I-390/NY 390 NB and associated ramps, LyellAvenue corridor east of NY 390 and Lee Road – 6/2/16Phase 3 - I-390/NY 390 SB and associated ramps – 9/18/18Phase 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 theDepartment representatives, give comments to a stenographer or leave written comments.

· You can contact:

Paul Spitzer, Project ManagerPlease include the six digit Project Identification Number (PIN) 4390.13

Questions or comments email: [email protected]: (585) 272-4890

Mailing AddressNew York State Department of Transportation

Region 4 Design1530 Jefferson Road

Rochester, New York 14623


1-10

· 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 PublicHearing 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 proposedalternatives, the impacts of the alternatives, copies of technical reports and plans and other supportinginformation.


CHAPTER 2PROJECT CONTEXT: HISTORY, TRANSPORTATION PLANS,

CONDITIONS AND NEEDS








2-1

CHAPTER 2 - PROJECT CONTEXT: HISTORY, TRANSPORTATIONPLANS, CONDITIONS AND NEEDSThis chapter addresses the history and existing context of the project site, including the existingconditions, deficiencies, and needs for this section of the I-390/NY 390 corridor, in particular the 390/490and 390/31 interchanges.

Project Study AreaAs indicated in Section 1.2.1, the project is located in Monroe County, New York, primarily within themunicipal boundaries of the Town of Gates. The project study area focuses on the closely spaced390/490 and 390/31 interchanges. In the south-north direction, the study area extends approximately 3miles along NY 390/I-390 from the northernmost Chili Avenue interchange ramp terminals to the south tothe Lexington Avenue interchange to the north. South of I-490, 390 is classified as an Interstate. It isclassified 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 tothe east to the Howard Road overpass to the west. In the east-west direction along NY 31 (LyellAvenue), the study area extends approximately ¾ miles from the Erie Canal to the east to the east leg ofthe Howard Road intersection to the west. Also included within the project study area is the intersectionat Lexington Avenue and Lee Road.

Small portions of the project study area are contained within the Town of Greece (northern limit) and theCity of Rochester (northeastern limit). The Chili Avenue and Mt. Read Boulevard interchanges are notinclusive in the project study area. See Exhibit 1.2.1-1 for the Project Location Map, Exhibit 1.2.1-2 for amap of the Project Study Area, and Exhibit 1.2.1-3 for an Existing Conditions map showing laneconfigurations; 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 PreliminaryDesign Phases I-IV as defined in the New York State Department of Transportation’s (NYSDOT orDepartment) Project Development Manual (PDM). A detailed project history is included in Appendix I andPublic Involvement activities are included in Appendix G.

· A Major Investment Study (MIS) was conducted by the NYSDOT and completed in 1998. It wastitled “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 MISalternatives, to develop new alternatives, and to provide recommendations for advancing toPreliminary Design Phases I-IV. The EPP was called “NY Route 390 Project – Expanded ProjectProposal” (PIN 4040.38). It was published in April 2003 and recommended two alternatives. TheEPP included a multi-use trail linking the NY 390 Trail to the Erie Canal Heritage Trail, which hassince 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 toNYS Route 104 – Draft Design Report”, dated November 2005. The report was never completedor published as emerging program priorities and fiscal constraints state-wide led the NYSDOTand Federal Highway Administration focus their efforts on developing alternatives that addressedcritical 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 nevercompleted 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 EngineeringStudy Report” was conducted in September 2007 to evaluate the unpublished EPP Amendmentalternatives, and to consider new ideas that addressed the basic highway and interchange


2-2

functions, which would result in the best value considering non-economic benefits and life cyclecosts. Two alternatives were identified that offered reasonable cost-effective solutions, and twonew alternatives (V-A and V-B) were developed.

· The Department performed a validation review of Alternatives V-A and V-B. It was determinedthat generally the VE alternatives lay out acceptably, however some design adjustments andwork 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 culminatewith the final publication of this report and identification of a Preferred Alternative. The PublicInvolvement Process also resumed in 2010.

2.2. Transportation Plans and Land UseThe current land use surrounding the project study area is shown in Exhibit 2.2.1 in Appendix A. There isa 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 aresummarized as follows:

· I-390 between Chili Avenue and I-490: residential, commercial, industrial and community serviceseast 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 isadjacent 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 andGreece, and the City of Rochester. This project is consistent with the local master plans. See Section4.2.1 for a more detailed discussion on the Local Master Plan for the Town of Gates.


2-3

2.2.1.2. Local Private Development Plans – There are no approved developments planned or pendinghighway 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 impacton traffic operations through the project corridor. A mixed use development known as “City Gate” isprogressing through the SEQR process. It is located southeast of the project study area near I-390 andadjacent to NY 15A (E. Henrietta Road). The development is located at the southeast corner of theintersection of Westfall Road and E. Henrietta Road, which is located within ½ mile of Interchange 16 onI-390. This interchange is located approximately 5 miles south of the 390/490 interchange. The mixeduse development contained in “City Gate” consists of a diverse mixture of retail, office, hotels andresidential and recreational opportunities. The site encompasses 63 acres and is anticipated to generatenearly 1100 and 1500 new roadway vehicle trips during the AM and PM peak hours respectively. Aportion of these forecasted vehicles are anticipated to utilize the various roadway segments within theproject study area. Construction of City Gate is anticipated to begin in 2012 and be phased over thecourse of approximately 10 years.

2.2.1.3. Regional Trails Initiative – The purpose of the Regional Trails Initiative (2002) was to developan action plan for creating a safe, accessible, and highly functional regional trail system. As part of thisplanning effort, a list was prepared of the near-term, mid-term, and long-term trail projectrecommendations. Also included were Priority Trail Projects, which were identified for immediateimplementation as a result of the Steering Committee’s project sorting process. The following trailprojects 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 sectionof trail from the Canalway Trail to the NY 390 bike path at NY 104 (West Ridge Road). This projectshould 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 serveapproximately 200,000 vehicles making local, regional, and statewide trips each day. I-390, NY 390 andI-490 are all part of the National Highway System (NHS). All principal and minor arterials are listed asNew York State Designated Truck Access Routes, which accommodate large trucks, including tractortrailer combinations with trailers up to 53 ft. long. This and other classification data for all roadways withinthe 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 atthe Lake Ontario State Parkway, which parallels the shoreline of Lake Ontario. Within the project studyarea, NY 390 has interchanges with the east/west oriented urban minor arterials, including NY 31 (LyellAvenue) 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. Itprovides a direct connection between the Rochester area and I-90, an east-west corridor passing throughthe length of New York State between Pennsylvania at the western limits and Massachusetts at theeastern border. I-490 has connections to other expressways in the urban area. Those included are I-390


2-4

and I-590/NY 590 that serve motorists traveling more in a general north/south direction in the central areaof Monroe County, and NY 531 serving motorists traveling in a general east-west direction at the westernlimits of Monroe County. I-490 interchanges with NY 531 approximately 1 ½ miles west of the projectstudy area. NY 531 is an expressway that extends westerly a distance of nearly 8 miles heading towardsBrockport, serving residences, industry, commerce and academia institutions.

Within the project study area, I-490 provides a direct connection to the central business district ofRochester and other centers of commerce and trade to the east, and I-90 to the west as a connection tointrastate, interstate and international trade corridors. Local and regional commuters, freight haulers ofnational 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 linkin the local roadway network. The roadway functions as an urban minor arterial providing access to, andeconomic sustenance for, a large number of adjacent commercial developments. The regionalsignificance of the roadway lies in its capability to provide connection between the densely developedCounty 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 interms of land use. It extends east from the interchange at NY 390 to Mt. Read Boulevard and terminatesat Lake Avenue just west of the Genesee River. Bellwood Drive intersects Lexington Avenue to thenorth, 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 Avenuewithin the project study area. Its intersection with Lyell Avenue represents its southern terminus and itextends northward to Ridgeway Avenue providing access to residential and industrial areas, including theKodak 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 projectstudy 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 currentand forecasted traffic. All nearby alternative routes have signalized intersections; there are no alternatefreeway or expressway facilities.

Vehicles destined to and from the north along NY 390, connecting with I-390 to and from the south, havelimited alternative routes. To the west of the 390 corridor, alternative routes include Long Pond Road, anurban minor arterial, and Howard Road (an urban collector roadway). These two roads have an offsetconnection to each other via Spencerport Road (NY 31). This at-grade arterial and collector systemcontains signalized intersections.

An option to the west side alternative described above is the Mt. Read Boulevard / Thurston Roadcorridor located on the east side of the NY 390/I-390 corridor. These two roads have an offset connectionto 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 theRochester central business district from communities to the west becomes a consideration. An option toI-490 is the Buffalo Road to Main Street corridor. Within the project study area, Buffalo Road is south ofand parallel to I-490. Buffalo Road has a direct connection to I-490 west of the project area. Thisalternative 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 (CountyRoad 117), which transitions to Lyell Avenue immediately west of the project study area. This east-westcorridor is located immediately north of the NY 531/I-490 corridor, and is an at-grade urban collector withsignalized intersections.

2.2.2.3. Corridor Deficiencies and Needs – Traffic congestion within the project study area limits themovement of people and goods at several locations during the morning and evening peak commuter


2-5

periods. In addition, high accident rates and deteriorated facilities with high operational costs are evidentthroughout the project study area.

Congestion occurs during the morning peak period along southbound NY 390 from Lexington Avenue toI-490, and continues south on I-390. Some of the most severe congestion occurs in the NY 390southbound weave area between the successive interchanges with Lyell Avenue and I-490. Congestionalso occurs on the ramp from southbound NY 390 to eastbound I-490 as merging restraints occur witheastbound mainline I-490 traffic. In addition, traffic on eastbound I-490 destined for southbound I-390 hasbeen observed to backup on and approaching the exit ramp due to merging restraints with I-390 throughtraffic during the morning peak period.

Congestion occurs during the afternoon peak period along northbound I-390 south of the I-490interchange, and in the northbound weave section of NY 390 between the I-490 and Lyell Avenueinterchanges. Traffic slows and occasionally stops on the ramp from westbound I-490 to northbound NY390 as a result of weaving and merging conditions at the juncture with NY 390. Another area of slowtraffic 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 withLee Road and the northbound NYS 390 exit ramp.

Additional congestion occurs during typical commute peak periods along I-490 easterly from the centralbusiness 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 areaof Monroe County, primarily north, south and east of the CBD. Refer to Section 2.3.1.7 for furtherdiscussion of traffic operations.

As discussed in Section 2.3.1.8, a significant amount of accidents are occurring within the project studyarea 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. Asdiscussed in Section 2.3.3.2, several existing design features do not meet the minimum standards usedby the NYSDOT to make capital infrastructure improvements and/or do not conform to normally acceptedpractice.

The Genesee Transportation Council (GTC) is responsible for the development and maintenance oftransportation plans for the Transportation Management Area (TMA) of Monroe County and adjacentdeveloped areas of Livingston, Ontario and Wayne counties. To achieve this goal, GTC has establisheda Congestion Management Process (CMP) to collect transportation data, identify options to resolvecongestion and safety issues, and establish priorities of implementation. The tools utilized by GTC toaddress congestion and safety issues include Transportation System Management (TSM), IntelligentTransportation Systems (ITS), and Travel Demand Management (TDM) techniques.

Data collection is an ongoing program by GTC and NYSDOT within and adjacent to the project studyarea. GTC performed a Travel Time Data Collection Program in 2008 to measure the level of congestionduring peak travel periods within the Rochester Transportation Management Area (TMA). Based on theresults of the study, the following three segments within the project study area were identified as beingcongested 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 removalprograms, 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 implementedby NYSDOT. NYSDOT continually reviews collision reports on the state highway system within thecorridor to identify and evaluate potential locations of safety concerns.


2-6

Components of an Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) implemented within the project corridor andadjacent areas include Closed Circuit Television Cameras (CCTV), Dynamic Message Signs (DMS’s),Highway Advisory Radio (HAR), Remote Microwave Traffic Sensors (RMTS), and associatedcommunication 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 providingmessages to the traveling public, they have not eliminated localized traffic congestion within the projectcorridor. 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 farestructures, system expansion, system operational improvements and transit supportive development.Several Rochester Genesee Regional Transportation Authority (RGRTA) bus routes operate within theproject study area; however, they were not implemented as congestion relief measures specifically for theNY 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 isrequired by the USDOT in order to receive federal transportation funding. The TIP identifies andschedules specific transportation improvements that will receive federal transportation funding over thenext four years (2014-2017).

Phase 2 (PIN 4390.30) of the NYS Route 390/I-490/NYS Route 31 Interchange project is on the approvedGTC 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. Thecurrent TIP encompasses years 2014-2017 and identifies projects to be constructed that have dedicatedfunds within that time-frame for construction.

Aside from the continuing inspection and preventative maintenance contained in the TIP, only one projectis listed for construction that may have an impact on the project corridor. It is a NYSDOT project entailinghighway rehabilitation (PIN 4033.02) to Buffalo Road from Trabold Road to Marway Circle, which is westof 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 MonroeCounty (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 underconstruction 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 Route15A bridge over the Erie Canal and reconfigure I-390 NB Exit 16 ramps and lanes connecting to Route15A. This project will be progressed using a Design-Build contract, which is anticipated to commence inMarch 2015 and be completed in 2017.

Improvements are planned for the Buffalo Road-Howard Road intersection, however it is currently notprogrammed 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 otheradjacent projects that may consider using these corridors as a detour would require coordination. At thistime, no projects have been identified that would utilize any of the roadways within the project study areaas 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 implementtechniques through the CMP to reduce congestion, improve safety and enhance the efficiency of alltransportation systems. Given that the current highway and bridge network capacity is projected to besufficient for the needs of people and freight now and throughout the time period covered by the LRTP2035, transportation investments will focus on preserving and maintaining the existing infrastructure while


2-7

also providing additional investments in the public transportation, bicycle, and pedestrian networks. Partof the preservation and maintenance recommendations are those that focus on Asset Management andImproved Design. The LRTP 2035 lists the reconstruction of the I-490/I-390/NYS Route 390 interchangeas 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 projectstudy area that are classified as Transportation Demand Management or Transportation SystemManagement techniques.

Additionally, this project has been identified as a near-term recommendation of the TransportationStrategies for Freight and Goods Movement in the Genesee-Finger Lakes Region (the Regional FreightPlan), which was jointly funded by GTC and NYSDOT and completed in September 2012. Near-termrecommendations are projects that meet immediate needs and have regional, state-wide, or nationalscale and/or rank high on the Cost-Effectiveness scale. These types of projects should be implementedas soon as the resources become available.

There are no planned and funded ITS projects in the current TIP to be constructed in the project studyarea. In contrast, GTC’s Intelligent Transportation Systems Strategic Plan for Greater Rochester datedApril 2010 has identified a long-term ITS Deployment Plan that has key target areas within the projectstudy area. In addition, an ITS project within and adjacent to the project study area was constructed inthe towns of Gates and Greece along a 7 mile stretch of the NY 390 corridor during the 2012 constructionseason. 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 – Theabutting roadway segments of I-490, I-390 / NY 390, NY 31 (Lyell Avenue) and Lexington Avenue aredescribed in the following sub-sections. Roadways that intersect these highway segments are describedin Section 2.2.2.5.(6). Posted speed limits for the abutting roadway segments are the same as those thatare within the project study area and are listed in Exhibit 2.3.1.5 (1)-1. Posted speed limits for otherintersecting roadways are described in Section 2.2.2.5.(6). All abutting roadway segments consist of anasphalt pavement surface and do not provide bicycle lanes or sidewalks, except for the sidewalks locatedalong 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 HowardRoad to the Wegman Road overpass, a distance of approximately 1 mile. The eastbound and westboundsegments 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, withrelatively flat horizontal curves providing for a variable median width from 37 to 210 ft. The verticalalignment is also relatively flat. The pavement and shoulders are generally in good condition, with theexception 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. ReadBoulevard interchange, a distance of approximately 0.70 miles. The eastbound and westbound segmentsconsist of three 12 ft. through lanes with standard 10 ft. right shoulder widths. The left shoulders vary inwidth from 2 to 10 ft. Auxiliary lanes connect the interchange ramps throughout this segment providing atotal of four lanes in each direction of travel. Along this segment, the majority of the median is paved witha concrete safety barrier providing a width of 25 ft. The horizontal alignment is tangent with relatively flathorizontal curves approaching the interchanges. Immediately east of the Erie Canal, horizontal andvertical alignments for the abutting segments are independent providing for a variable median width from30 to 150 ft. The vertical alignment can be described as rolling. The pavement and shoulders are ingood 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 rehabilitationof both directions of I-490, from the Erie Canal to approximately 3.4 miles east. Where existing pavementsections were overlaid, the existing concrete pavement section was rubblized and overlaid with 8 inchesof hot mix asphalt. Less commonly, pavement sections were reconstructed (e.g., at bridge approaches).Reconstructed sections consist of 10 inches of asphalt.


2-8

Howard Road, which crosses over I-490 and represents the western extent of the project study areaalong 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 areaextends from the northernmost Chili Avenue interchange ramp terminals to the Brooks AvenueInterchange, a distance of approximately 1 mile. To the north of the Brooks Avenue interchange thenorthbound and southbound horizontal alignments diverge to a median width of over 100 ft., thentransition to a width of 36 feet at the Buell Road overpass. The 36 ft. width is held for the remainder ofthe abutting segment. The vertical alignment is rolling, as related to the profile over Chili Avenue. Thenorthbound segment consists of three 12 ft. through lanes with a 12 ft. auxiliary lane extending from theBrooks Avenue interchange to Chili Avenue interchange; the shoulder width is 8 ft. The southboundsegment 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 arein good condition.

Buffalo Road, which crosses over I-390 just south of the 390/490 interchange, is discussed in Section2.2.2.5.(6).

The abutting segment of NY 390 north of the project study area extends from the Lexington Avenueinterchange to the Ridgeway Avenue interchange, a distance of approximately 0.90 miles. Thenorthbound 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 forthe abutting segments are independent, with flat horizontal curves providing for variance in the medianwidth from 36 to 68 ft. The vertical alignment can be described as level to rolling. Although the pavementand shoulders are generally in good condition, the southbound direction exhibits minor rutting. In 2003mainline NY 390 was resurfaced between Lyell Avenue and NY 104.

Trolley Boulevard (CR 115), which crosses under NY 390 between the Lyell Avenue and LexingtonAvenue 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 ofthe project study area extends from Howard Road to Long Pond Road, a distance of approximately 0.65miles. To the west of Howard Road, NY 31 becomes Spencerport Road and transitions to a two lanesection with a center (shared) turn lane. Shoulder widths are generally 6 feet. The horizontal alignmentis tangent with the exception of a single curve through the Howard Road intersection. The verticalalignment 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 HowardRoad to Baier Drive. There are signalized intersections at Howard Road, Baier Drive and Long PondRoad.

The abutting segment of Lyell Avenue immediately east of the project study area begins at the Erie Canalbridge. This bridge provides four 10 ft. lanes with minimal shy distance to the bridge trusses. To the eastof the bridge, four 12 ft. lanes with curbs are provided. No shoulders are provided. The horizontalalignment is tangent and the vertical alignment can be described as level to rolling. The pavement is inpoor condition. Sidewalks exist on both sides of Lyell Avenue. On the north side widths vary from 7 to8.5 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, RossmoreStreet, Matilda Street, Tarwood Drive, Lee Road, and Lee Road Extension. The abutting segment ofLee Road located outside the project study area is discussed in Section 2.2.2.5.(5). The remainingintersecting 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 studyarea begins at the Lee Road intersection. This segment consists of a four lane section with two lanes ineach direction and a center lane containing left-turn slots at intersections and select driveways. Travel


2-9

lanes are 12 ft. in width and the roadway is curbed and does not provide shoulders. The horizontalalignment 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 BellwoodDrive. The abutting segment of Lee Road located outside the project study area is discussed in Section2.2.2.5.(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 studyarea consists of all portions of the roadway except for the approaches to the Lyell Avenue and LexingtonAvenue 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 TrolleyBoulevard and Ridgeway Avenue (not including the Lexington Avenue intersection approaches), LeeRoad consists of a four lane section with two lanes in each direction. Travel lanes are 12 ft. in width andthe roadway is curbed and does not provide shoulders. To the south of Lexington Avenue the pavementis in fair to good condition and there is a sidewalk on the east side, in fair condition. To the north ofLexington 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, CorneliaDrive, 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 thissection 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 theTown of Bergen, NY. It spans I-390 just south of the 390/490 interchange. Two 12 ft. travel lanes areprovided on and approaching the bridge. Shoulder widths on the bridge are 15 ft. in the eastbounddirection 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. Sidewalkexists on both sides of the bridge providing widths of 5 and 4.5 ft. on the north and south sidesrespectively. Sidewalk is not provided on the bridge approaches. The Buffalo Road bridge over I-390provides a bridge width that is significantly wider than the approach roadway width as it was originallyconstructed 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 lanesare provided on Buffalo Road. Beyond those limits, four travel lanes are provided. The posted speedlimit 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 ofthe 390/490 interchange. The roadway section consists of two 12 ft. travel lanes with 8 ft. shoulders onand approaching the bridge. Concrete gutters exist on each side of the roadway, except over the bridgewhich is curbed. A 4.5 ft. sidewalk exists on the east side of the bridge only. Sidewalk is not provided onthe bridge approaches. The posted speed limit on Howard Road within the vicinity of the project studyarea is 40 mph.

Trolley Boulevard extends from Long Pond Road to Lee Road, a distance just over 1 mile. It crossesunder NY 390 approximately 0.5 miles north of Lyell Avenue. Adjacent to Trolley Boulevard is an inactiveand severed section of railroad, which is discussed in Section 2.3.3.10. The roadway section consists oftwo 11 ft. travel lanes with 6 ft. eastbound and 7 ft. westbound shoulder widths. Concrete gutters exist oneach side of the roadway. There is guide rail on both sides of the roadway under the NY 390 bridge. Theposted speed limit on Trolley Boulevard is 35 mph.

Cornelia Drive intersects Lyell Avenue to the north, approximately 1600 ft. west of NY 390. This roadprovides access to businesses in the immediate vicinity of Lyell Avenue and to residential areas to thenorth 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 nocurbs and there is no lane striping. The pavement is in fair condition. There is no posted speed limit onthis street.


2-10

Rossmore Street intersects Lyell Avenue to the north, approximately 1370 ft. west of NY 390. This roadprovides access to residential areas to the north and west of the 390/31 interchange. Paved drivewaysexist along both sides of the street approaching Lyell Avenue. The pavement is 20 ft. in width providingfor two 10 ft. lanes, no curbs and no lane striping. The pavement is in fair condition. There is no postedspeed limit on this street. Opposite the signalized intersection of Lyell Avenue and Rossmore Street is amulti-lane driveway for the Wegmans grocery store.

Matilda Street intersects Lyell Avenue to the north, approximately 1000 ft. west of NY 390. This roadprovides access to residential areas to the north and west of the 390/31 interchange. The pavement is 30ft. 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 roadprovides access to residential areas to the south and west of the 390/31 interchange. The pavement is20 ft. in width providing for two 10 ft. lanes, curbs and no lane striping. The pavement is in goodcondition. 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. Thenorthern portion of the roadway provides access to a commercial area, including the Stonegate HealthProfessional Complex and the Stonegate Retail Complex Building. This portion of the roadway containsa hybrid cul de sac, which consists of a 20 ft. wide pavement and concrete gutter. This portion of thepavement is generally in poor condition. The roadway then extends south to a dead end providingaccess 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 connectsLexington Avenue with Ridgeway Avenue (CR 111) to the north and provides access to the Canal PondsBusiness Park. The pavement is 36 ft. wide providing for two 12 ft. lanes, concrete gutter and a left-turnlane. The left-turn lane is provided at the Lexington Avenue intersection and extends north to BJ’sWholesale 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 poorcondition. 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 worstcondition first. The town roads have been rated from 1 (best condition) to 5 (worst condition). The mostrecent list posted on the Town of Gates website was observed in May 2011, which includes roads that willeither be paved or patched during the 2011 maintenance season. All town roads within the project studyarea that are on the list were reviewed. Lee Road Ext. (patch only) was rated a 5; Matilda Street andRossmore Street a 4; Evelyn Street a 3; and Eugene Street and Tarwood Drive a 1. Field observationsperformed in the spring of 2011 confirmed that within the limits of the project study area, only EugeneStreet and Tarwood Drive have recently received a pavement overlay. Some minor patching has beenperformed on several of the other roadways.

The Regional Planning Group has confirmed that the New York State Department of Transportation hasno plans in the current five-year program period ending March, 2019 to widen or add travel lanes to anyof the State Highway segments abutting the project study area. Any projects in the long-term will likely belimited to maintaining the existing system in a state of good repair, but improvements that would involveadding lanes or widening existing facilities are not anticipated. Annual projects to address high priorityreplacement of overhead sign structures will be undertaken each year, some of which could be in or nearthe project study area.

The Regional Planning Group has confirmed that the Monroe County Department of Transportation doesnot have any plans to reconstruct, widen or add lanes to County roads (Trolley Boulevard, CR 115 andLee Road, CR 154) where they pass through or adjoin the project study area. Likewise, the City ofRochester anticipates only maintenance milling and paving projects in and surrounding the project studyarea. Lyell Avenue (W. City Line to Mt. Read Blvd.) will be resurfaced in 2015. The Lexington Avenue


2-11

west approach to the Lee Road intersection will likely be resurfaced in 2017/18. Lee Road will beresurfaced 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 allroadways within the project study area is listed in Exhibits 2.3.1.1-1 to 2.3.1.1-3. The major roadways areclassified 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 consideredQualifying Highways. The NHS is a network of approximately 160,000 miles of roadway important to thenation’s economy, defense and mobility. Qualifying Highways are highways designated as part of theSurface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) of 1982 which allows STAA vehicles (tractor-trailercombinations 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 otherhighway 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 governmentestablished 16 ft. vertical clearance network. Since the Thruway (I-90) is the designated 16 ft. verticalclearance route through the Rochester urban area, the minimum vertical clearance is 14 ft. as per anemail provided by NYSDOT Engineering Structures Management. A copy of the email can be found inAppendix E.

All of the minor arterials are listed as New York State Designated Truck Access Routes (AccessHighways). Access Highways are the same as Qualifying Highways except that the trucks may not traveloff the access highway for any distance.

Exhibit - 2.3.1.1-1Classification Data – Principal Arterials

Route(s) I-490 I-390 NYS Route 390

FunctionalClassification

Urban PrincipalArterial Interstate

Urban PrincipalArterial Interstate

Urban PrincipalArterial Expressway

National Highway System(NHS) Yes Yes Yes

Designated Truck AccessRoute Yes Yes Yes

QualifyingHighway Yes Yes Yes

Within 1.6 km (1 mi) of aQualifying Highway Yes Yes Yes

Within the 4.9 m (16 ft)vertical clearance network No No No


2-12

Exhibit - 2.3.1.1-2Classification Data – Minor Arterials

Route(s) Lyell Avenue(NYS Route 31)

Buffalo Road(NYS Route 33)

Lee Road(CR 154) Lexington Avenue

FunctionalClassification

Urban MinorArterial

Urban MinorArterial

Urban MinorArterial

Urban MinorArterial

National Highway System(NHS) No No No No

Designated Truck AccessRoute Yes Yes Yes Yes

QualifyingHighway No No No No

Within 1.6 km (1 mi) of aQualifying Highway Yes Yes Yes Yes

Within the 4.9 m (16 ft)vertical clearance network No No No No

Exhibit - 2.3.1.1-3Classification Data – Collectors and Local Roads

Route(s) Howard Road(Reference Route 940L)

Trolley Boulevard(CR 115)

Bellwood DriveLee Road ExtensionCornelia DriveRossmore StreetMatilda StreetTarwood Drive

FunctionalClassification Urban Collector Urban Local Urban Local

National Highway System(NHS) No No No

Designated Truck AccessRoute Yes No No

QualifyingHighway No No No

Within 1.6 km (1 mi) of aQualifying Highway Yes Yes Yes

Within the 4.9 m (16 ft)vertical clearance network No No No

2.3.1.2. Control of Access – Access to I-490, I-390 and NY 390 within the project study area is fullycontrolled. Access to I-390 and NY 390 is achieved by grade separated interchanges at Lyell Avenueand Lexington Avenue. Full access control extends the full length of all ramps and terminals on thecrossroads except at the following locations:

· The proximity of Tarwood Drive to the Lyell Avenue on-ramp to NY 390 SB (Ramp DF) does notconform to the 100 ft. minimum distance requirement as per page 6-36 and Figure 6-Q of theNYSDOT Highway Design Manual (HDM).

· The proximity of Lee Road to the NY 390 NB off-ramp to Lyell Avenue (Ramp DD) does notconform 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 390SB (Ramps EC and ED), which does not conform to the control of access requirements restrictingaccess along a ramp.

Access to all other roadways within the project study area is uncontrolled. Access control for commercialdriveways 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 aremore specifically identified as follows:


2-13

1. Lyell Avenue at Rossmore Street2. Lyell Avenue at Ramp DB3. Lyell Avenue at Ramp DD4. Lyell Avenue at Lee Road5. Lexington Avenue at Ramps EA and EB6. Lexington Avenue at Lee Road

The Lyell Avenue signals within the project study area are actuated and coordinated with one another andwith 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 - 2.3.1.3-1Traffic Signal Summary – Lyell Avenue at Rossmore Street

Ownership NYSDOTMaintenance Jurisdiction NYSDOTSignal Head Mounting SpanwireSignal Sections 12 inchIllumination LEDOverhead Signs Yes, lane use signs (left, through, right)Preemption Detectors NoneCabinet & Controller Type Ground mountedPhasing 5-PhaseActuation ActuatedCoordination CoordinatedPedestrian Signal Hand and walking personPedestrian Detectors Push buttons (west approach only)Street Lighting In vicinity: off right of wayOverall Condition Good, by visual inspectionAdditional Observations Pedestrian push buttons do not meet ADA guidelines for accessibility

Exhibit - 2.3.1.3-2Traffic Signal Summary – Lyell Avenue at Ramp DB

Ownership NYSDOTMaintenance Jurisdiction NYSDOTSignal Head Mounting SpanwireSignal Sections 12 inchIllumination LEDOverhead Signs NonePreemption Detectors NoneCabinet & Controller Type Ground mountedPhasing 2-PhaseActuation ActuatedCoordination CoordinatedPedestrian Signal NonePedestrian Detectors NoneStreet Lighting In vicinity: on Lyell Avenue, on southbound rampOverall Condition Good, by visual inspectionAdditional Observations None


2-14

Exhibit - 2.3.1.3-3Traffic Signal Summary – Lyell Avenue at Ramp DD

Ownership NYSDOTMaintenance Jurisdiction NYSDOTSignal Head Mounting SpanwireSignal Sections 12 inchIllumination LEDOverhead Signs Yes, "left turn only", "right turn only" lane use signsPreemption Detectors NoneCabinet & Controller Type Ground mounted (SE corner)Phasing 5-PhaseActuation ActuatedCoordination CoordinatedPedestrian Signal NonePedestrian Detectors NoneStreet Lighting In vicinity: on Lyell Avenue, on northbound rampOverall Condition Good, by visual inspectionAdditional Observations Overhead sign brackets are corroded

Exhibit - 2.3.1.3-4Traffic Signal Summary – Lyell Avenue at Lee Road

Ownership NYSDOTMaintenance Jurisdiction NYSDOTSignal Head Mounting SpanwireSignal Sections 12 inchIllumination LEDOverhead Signs Yes, "left turn only" lane use signsPreemption Detectors NoneCabinet & Controller Type Ground mounted (SE corner Lyell and northbound ramp)Phasing 3-PhaseActuation ActuatedCoordination CoordinatedPedestrian Signal NonePedestrian Detectors Yes, push buttons (east approach only)Street Lighting In vicinity: on Lyell AvenueOverall Condition Fair, by visual inspectionAdditional Observations Push buttons in poor condition; Signal heads are weathered; Overhead sign

brackets are corroded

Exhibit - 2.3.1.3-5Traffic Signal Summary – Lexington Avenue at Ramps EA and EB

Ownership NYSDOTMaintenance Jurisdiction NYSDOTSignal Head Mounting SpanwireSignal Sections 12 inchIllumination LEDOverhead Signs Yes, lane use signs (left, through/right, right)Preemption Detectors NoneCabinet & Controller Type Ground mountedPhasing 2-PhaseActuation Fully ActuatedCoordination Not CoordinatedPedestrian Signal NonePedestrian Detectors NoneStreet Lighting In vicinity: on Lexington AvenueOverall Condition Fair, by visual inspectionAdditional Observations Overhead sign brackets are corroded (slightly)


2-15

Exhibit - 2.3.1.3-6Traffic Signal Summary – Lexington Avenue at Lee Road

Ownership MCDOTMaintenance Jurisdiction MCDOTSignal Head Mounting SpanwireSignal Sections 12 inchIllumination LEDOverhead Signs Yes, "left turn only" lane use signsPreemption Detectors NoneCabinet & Controller Type Ground mountedPhasing 8-PhaseActuation Fully ActuatedCoordination Not CoordinatedPedestrian Signal Bimodal hand and walking person, full field LEDPedestrian Detectors Push buttons (south and east approaches only)Street Lighting In vicinity: on Lexington Avenue, on Lee RoadOverall Condition Fair, by visual inspectionAdditional Observations None

There are eleven overhead sign structures within the project study area. Their locations are shown inExhibit 1.2.1-2 in Appendix A. Eight overhead sign structures are tri-chord trusses. SIN 40662 is acantilever truss. SIN 40128 and SIN 40697 were constructed in 2011 as part of NYSDOT ContractNumber D261262. SIN 40128 replaced in-kind former SIN 40130. SIN 40697 replaced former SIN40698 and was installed several hundred feet south of the existing structure. There are three sign panelsmounted on the CSX bridge over I-390.

The tri-chord overhead sign structures within the project area are aluminum trusses mounted ongalvanized steel posts. NYSDOT research and field inspections have determined that fatigue andcracked welds are a recurring problem in this type of sign structure. Overhead sign structure designstandards have been revised per AASHTO guidance.

Reports for sign inspections completed between 2008 and 2010 within the project study area werereviewed and the results are summarized in Exhibit 2.3.1.3-7. As shown, four structures have beenflagged 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 havingbeen recently replaced in excellent condition. The sign panels on SIN 40662, SIN 40132, and SIN 40140were recently replaced as part of NYSDOT Contract Number D261262. Sign panels that were noted tobe 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 2.3.1.3-7Overhead Sign Structures Summary

SIN Type No. ofSign

Panels

MinimumVertical

Clearancem (ft.)

GeneralRecommendation

FlagIssued

Flag Description

40132 Span 2 5.33(17.5)

4(2008)

No

40135 Span 3 5.94(19.5)

5(2008)

No

40140 Span 3 5.49(18.0)

5(2008)

No


2-16

Exhibit 2.3.1.3-7Overhead Sign Structures Summary

40658 Span 2 5.55(18.2)

4(2008)

No

40128(SeeNote)

Span 3 5.35(17.5)

---- ---- ----

40697(SeeNote)

Span 2 5.35(17.5)

---- ---- ----

40655 Span 1 5.40(17.7)

4(2010)

Yes Crack in aluminum weld,panel point

40660 Span 3 5.73(18.8)

4(2010)

Yes Corrosion ring in the left frontpost, loss of post thicknesses

in both left posts

40662 Cantilever 1 5.24(17.2)

5(2010)

Yes Front left anchor bolt nutloose.

40665 Span 3 5.15(16.9)

5(2010)

Yes Front right, front left, andback left anchor bolt nuts

loose.40696 Span 3 4.94

(16.2)4

(2010)No

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 NumberD260422) from the 390/31 interchange northward, extending beyond the project study area. Theseimprovements 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 aregenerally in fair condition.

In general, mainline and ramp pavement markings are in fair condition throughout the project limits. The390/31 interchange pavement markings are generally in good condition. Pavement markings are in poorcondition at isolated locations, including the northbound direction of I-390 in the vicinity of the Ramp SEdiverge 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 tofair condition (e.g., symbols and crosswalks). Lexington Ave pavement marking is in fair condition, withthe 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 theproject study area. The infrastructure includes Closed Circuit Television (CCTV), Dynamic MessageSigns (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 telephoneservice, and wireless radio. Combined these devices provide surveillance for traffic operations, incidentdetection, and incident management/notification. All the devices listed are owned and operated by theNYSDOT.

Closed Circuit Television Cameras (CCTV):There are four (4) CCTV’s located within the project study area:


2-17

1. I-490 eastbound ramp to NY 390 northbound2. I-390 northbound, north of I-490 westbound ramp3. I-490 westbound, east of the Erie Canal4. 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 Road4. East: I-490 and CSX Railroad Overpass – approximately 0.5 miles east of the Erie Canal5. West: none

Real-time images from the cameras are available to the general public online through the 511NY websiteat http://www.511ny.org and via the 511NY mobile app. 511NY was developed through the leadership ofthe 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 1042. I-490 eastbound, west of Howard Road3. I-490 eastbound, east of Mt. Read Boulevard4. I-490 westbound, east of Mt. Read Boulevard5. NY 390 southbound, north of Scottsville Road6. 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-4902. 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 locatedon 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 interchange3. East: I-490 EB/WB – east of Mt. Read Boulevard4. West: none

Wireless Radio Communications:There are three (3) wireless broadband radio sites within the project study area that will be installed in theSpring/Summer of 2011 as part of PIN 4ITS18, Contract D261624:

1. I-490 eastbound ramp to NY 390 northbound2. Intersection of NY 390 NB and Lyell Avenue3. 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 GeneseeRiver and along I-490 between I-390 and the Plymouth Avenue interchange. The second fiber backboneis 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. Thissegment connects several county traffic facility systems and traffic cameras on Long Pond Road and is aseparate system from NYSDOT. All NYSDOT owned fiber and several strands of MCDES fiber allowsdata to be transferred back to the Regional Traffic Operations Center (RTOC).

http://www.511ny.org/


2-18

The Regional Traffic Operations Center (RTOC):All ITS elements within the project study area are operated through the RTOC located adjacent to theGreater Rochester International Airport on Scottsville Road, approximately 3 miles south of the 390/490interchange. The RTOC facility is jointly operated by the NYSDOT, Monroe County Department ofTransportation (MCDOT), Monroe County Airport Authority and New York State Police. The facilityserves as a centralized location to provide for complete detection and response capabilities for both thedaily 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 systemmeasures 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 LongPond Road and Lee Road controlled by the NYSDOT. Maintenance and dispatch of the existing trafficsignal system crews are also housed RTOC.

The Genesee Transportation Council (GTC):The designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for transportation policy, planning, andinvestment 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 Rochesterdated 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 futureinvestments 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 wirelessbroadband radio. This will provide temporary communications to the intersections of Route 31 and NY390 and allow for integrated/coordinated interchange signal timing systems of the ramp signals. As partof NYSDOT’s long term goal a permanent fiber optic communications will be incorporated to provide morebroadband data capacity to better monitor traffic coordination, congestion, and disseminate travelerinformation. Dynamic Message Signs will help provide better incident management and disseminatetraffic information to travelers; a CCTV will aid in monitoring incidents and traffic progression along thecorridor. These permanent ITS improvements to the Route 31/NYS Route 390 project area falls withinthe long range planned expansion as defined in the Rochester Areawide ATMS Plan “IMAGE” datedMarch, 1996.

2.3.1.5. Speeds and Delay – Posted regulatory speed limits and existing operating speeds are describedin the following sections.

2.3.1.5. (1) Posted Speed Limits – Posted regulatory speed limits within the project study area are listedin Exhibit 2.3.1.5 (1)-1. Roadways that do not appear in this exhibit do not have a posted regulatoryspeed limit and are covered by the NYS Statutory Speed Limit of 55 mph.

Exhibit - 2.3.1.5 (1)-1Existing Posted Regulatory Speed Limits

Route LimitsPosted

Speed Limit(mph)

Off PeakOperating Speed

(mph)I-390 CSX Railroad Bridge to I-490 55 60

NYS Route 390 I-490 to north of Lexington Avenue Interchange 55 60I-490 Howard Road to Erie Canal 55 60

NYS Route 31(Lyell Avenue) West of Rossmore Street to Erie Canal 40 45

Lee Road (CR 154) Lyell Avenue to north of Lexington Avenue 35 45Lexington Avenue East of Lee Road to NY 390 SB Ramps 35 45

Bellwood Drive North of Lexington Avenue 35Rossmore Street North of Lyell Avenue 30


2-19

Posted ramp advisory speeds within the project study area are listed in Exhibit 2.3.1.5 (1)-2. Ramps thatdo not appear in this exhibit do not have a posted advisory speed. Ramp designations are shown inExhibits 1.2.1-2 and 1.2.1-3 of Appendix A.

Exhibit - 2.3.1.5 (1)-2Existing Posted Ramp Advisory Speeds

Ramp Designation Description Advisory Speed(mph)

SW I-390 NB to I-490 WB 35SE I-390 NB to I-490 EB 40ES I-490 WB to I-390 SB 50EN I-490 WB to NY 390 NB 50NW NY 390 SB to I-490 WB 45NE NY 390 SB to I-490 EB 40WN I-490 EB to NY 390 NB 40WS I-490 EB to I-390 SB 50DD NY 390 NB to Lyell Avenue 30DB NY 390 SB to Lyell Avenue 35DC Lyell Avenue WB to NY 390 SB 30DF Lyell Avenue EB to NY 390 SB 30DE Lyell Avenue EB to NY 390 NB 25EC NY 390 SB to Lexington Avenue 30ED Lexington Avenue WB to NY 390 SB 30

2.3.1.5 (2) Existing Operating Speeds – Average peak hour travel speeds, determined from the traveltime and delay study (see Section 2.3.1.5 (3) below), are summarized in Exhibit 2.3.1.5 (2)-1 of AppendixC. Operating speeds were typically below the posted speed limits during peak commuter periods at thelocations identified above in Exhibit - 2.3.1.5 (1)-1. The slowest speeds (as low as 30 mph) occurred oncertain expressway sections, listed below in Section 2.3.1.5 (3), due to merging and/or weaving vehiclemaneuvers occurring downstream of the location.

The off-peak 85th percentile operating speed data was provided by the Regional Traffic Engineer as listedin 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 ofAppendix 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 eightloops/paths, shown in Exhibits 2.3.1.5 (3)-1 and 2.3.1.5 (3)-2 of Appendix C, of travel through the projectstudy area were conducted to obtain representative samples of travel time in different directions. Thetravel 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 to8:30 AM and 4:00 to 5:30 PM, respectively. Readings were taken to quantify the time necessary totraverse the study area and sources of delay were noted. Average peak hour travel times aresummarized in Exhibit 2.3.1.5 (3)-3 with additional average travel time data in Exhibit 2.3.1.5 (3)-4 ofAppendix C.

Peak hour travel times were obtained from the 2009 VISSIM model to compare the calibrated existingmodel to the existing conditions. Additionally, the travel times were extracted for the Estimated Time ofProject Completion (ETC) (2015) and ETC+20 (2035) design years using VISSIM, assuming nogeometric changes along the project study area other than routine maintenance. This data, showing howthe study area travel times and operating conditions become worse over time, is also shown in Exhibit2.3.1.5 (3)-3. Refer to Section 2.3.1.6 (2) for an explanation of the timeframe (design year) selection andSection 2.3.1.7 for a discussion of VISSIM. See Section 2.3.5. for further discussion on the ETC utilizedfor this project.

Notable delay along the expressway system was observed during the peak travel time and delay study atthe following locations:


2-20

· I-490 EB off-ramp to I-390 SB – during the morning peak period due to merging traffic onto I-390SB.

· NY 390 SB between Erie Canal and I-490 – during the morning peak period due to congestionsouth of I-490 on I-390.

· NY 390 NB between I-490 WB off-ramp to Erie Canal – during the afternoon peak period due tomerging/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 asinfluenced by the geometric configuration of the off-ramp to I-490 WB and weaving conditions onNY 390 NB.

The most notable delay on Lyell Avenue occurred at the eastern limits for westbound traffic approachingLee Road. The delays were caused by the traffic approaching the Lee Road signal being poorlycoordinated with the coordinated system established along Lyell Avenue between Lee Road andRossmore Street.

Exhibit - 2.3.1.5 (3)-3Travel Time and Delay Study – Existing Average Peak Hour Travel Times

Loop Year / Model AM Travel Time(min:sec)

PM Travel Time(min:sec)

Loop #1 - I-490 EB to I-390 SB

2009 / Field 3:30 2:382009 / VISSIM 3:47 2:422015 / VISSIM 4:05 2:432035 / VISSIM 5:00 2:44

Loop #1 - I-390 NB to I-490 WB


Loop #2 - NY 390 SB (Lexington) to I-490 EB


Loop #2 - I-490 WB to NY 390 NB (Lexington)


Loop #3 - I-490 EB to NY 390 NB (Lexington)


Loop #3 - NY 390 SB (Lexington) to I-490 WB


Loop #4 - I-390 NB to I-490 EB


Loop #4 - I-490 WB to I-390 SB


Loop #5 - I-390 NB to NY 390 NB (Lyell)


Loop #5 - NY 390 SB to I-390 SB (Lyell)



2-21

Exhibit - 2.3.1.5 (3)-3Travel Time and Delay Study – Existing Average Peak Hour Travel Times

Loop Year / Model AM Travel Time(min:sec)

PM Travel Time(min:sec)

Loop #6 - I-490 EB to I-490 EB


Loop #6 - I-490 WB to I-490 WB


Loop #7 - NY 390 SB (Lyell) to I-490 EB


Loop #7 - I-490 WB to NY 390 NB (Lyell)


Loop #8 - Lyell Avenue WB to Lyell Avenue WB


Loop #8 - Lyell Avenue EB to Lyell Avenue EB


Between the 2015 and 2035 design years, several segments had significant increases in travel times. Forthe morning peak period, the NY 390 SB and I-390 SB corridors experienced the greatest increase intravel times. These segments saw the highest levels of congestion in the calibration model and with theincrease in volume in the No-Build design years, congestion increased along these corridors. The traveltime loops that experienced the greatest increase in travel time from 2015 to 2035 during the AM peakhour 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. Aswith the AM peak hour, the increase in traffic volume along these congested segments resulted in largeincreases in travel times. The travel time loops that experienced the greatest increase in travel time from2015 to 2035 during the PM peak hour were Loop #1 - I-390 NB to I-490 WB (+28%) and Loop #5 - I-390NB to NY 390 NB (+39%).

2.3.1.6. Traffic Volumes – The following sections summarize the traffic analysis of existing and projectedfuture no-build conditions.

2.3.1.6. (1) Existing traffic volumes – Traffic data was collected for the project study area between thefollowing 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 wasalso collected for select local street intersections on Lyell Avenue and Lexington Avenue within theproject 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 programsfor this project in 2009. Continuous 24-hour machine counts, video recordings of weaving areas, and


2-22

intersection turning movements were obtained throughout the study area, reviewed, and the count databalanced 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 GatewayProject) was initiated for the season. Count data recorded was comprised of volume, 13 classifications ofvehicles 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 andselect local street intersections, within the project study area as shown in Exhibit 2.3.1.6 (1)-1 of AppendixC. The counts were conducted from 7:00 to 9:00 AM and 4:00 to 6:00 PM in March 2009, while localschools were in session. Counts were recorded by two categories of vehicle types: automobiles andheavy vehicles/buses. Additionally, pedestrian count data was collected but not used in any analysis. Allcount data was recorded in 15-minute intervals to allow for identification of one peak hour within eachpeak 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, thehours 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 recordedduring the AM and PM peak hours from the Lyell Avenue bridge while the manual turning movementcounts were obtained. These videos were used to determine vehicle weaving maneuvers occurring onthese segments of NY 390 between I-490 and Lyell Avenue. Additionally, videos of I-390 NB and SBlooking north from the Buffalo Road bridge were recorded. The merging and diverging characteristics andbehaviors were obtained from these videos. All of the videos provided verification of some of the rampand mainline expressway volume counts.

Traffic flow diagrams showing the existing (2009) average annual daily traffic (AADT) volumes on theproject 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 ofAppendix 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 inExhibit 2.3.1.6 (1)-5 below.

Exhibit 2.3.1.6 (1)-5Existing (2009) Expressway Traffic Volumes

Route Segment Direction orTravel

Numberof Travel

Lanes

AADT AM PM

(Veh/day) Peak(Veh/hr)

Peak(Veh/hr)

I-390 Chili Avenue to I-490 Ramps Northbound 3 49,700 2,801 5,298Southbound 3 50,700 5,418 3,658

NY 390 I-490 to Lyell Avenue – WeaveSection

Northbound 4 51,500 2,518 5,641Southbound 4 58,600 5,582 4,277

NY 390 Lyell Avenue to Lexington Avenue Northbound 3 55,300 3,135 6,040Southbound 3 52,500 4,829 3,781

I-490 NY 531 to I-390/NY 390 Eastbound 3 50,600 5,373 3,375Westbound 3 48,800 2,717 4,841

I-490 I-390/NY 390 to Mt ReadBoulevard

Eastbound 4 50,700 5,193 2,973Westbound 4 53,800 3,085 5,130

Ramp WS I-490 EB to I-390 SB Eastbound 1 13,500 1,587 958Ramp WN I-490 EB to NY 390 NB Eastbound 1 10,800 995 967Ramp ES I-490 WB to I-390 SB Westbound 2 7,700 691 553Ramp EN I-490 WB to NY 390 NB Westbound 2 21,400 970 2,390Ramp SE I-390 NB to I-490 EB Northbound 1 6,500 432 473Ramp SW I-390 NB to I-490 WB Northbound 1 13,200 821 1,574


2-23

Exhibit 2.3.1.6 (1)-5Existing (2009) Expressway Traffic Volumes


Numberof Travel

Lanes

AADT AM PM


Peak(Veh/hr)

Ramp NW NY 390 SB to I-490 WB Southbound 1 11,000 472 1,080Ramp NE NY 390 SB to I-490 EB Southbound 2 18,000 1,970 1,050Ramp DD NY 390 NB Exit to Lyell Avenue Northbound 2 10,300 540 875

Ramp DA NY 390 NB Entrance from LyellAvenue WB Northbound 1 1,100 32 132

Ramp DE NY 390 NB Entrance from LyellAvenue EB Northbound 1 2,200 130 175

Ramp DB NY 390 SB Exit to Lyell Avenue Southbound 1 4,000 224 321

Ramp DC NY 390 SB Entrance from LyellAvenue WB Southbound 1 3,600 264 412

Ramp DF NY 390 SB Entrance from LyellAvenue EB Southbound 1 6,500 713 405

Ramp EA NY 390 NB Exit to LexingtonAvenue Northbound 1 7,100 940 399

Ramp EC NY 390 SB Exit to LexingtonAvenue Southbound 1 1,600 181 63

Ramp ED NY 390 SB Entrance fromLexington Avenue Southbound 1 7,300 306 1,074

Ramp EB NY 390 NB Entrance fromLexington Avenue Northbound 1 1,600 33 257

LyellAvenue

Rossmore Street to NY 390 SB Off-Ramp

Eastbound 2 15,600 1,371 1,018Westbound 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-hourmachine counters were configured to record vehicle classification. Heavy vehicles are those with dualtires such as tractor-trailer combinations and buses. The proportion of heavy vehicles in the roadwaysystem traffic stream varies by direction of travel and peak hour. Daily and peak hour heavy vehiclepercentages are summarized in Exhibit 2.3.1.6 (1)-6 for locations where this data was collected.

Exhibit 2.3.1.6 (1)-6Existing (2009) Heavy Vehicle Composition of Traffic


Percent of Heavy Vehicles

Daily AM PeakHour

PM PeakHour

I-390 / NY390 Mainline at I-490 Northbound 7.8 8.0 4.0

Southbound 6.0 3.7 3.3

I-490 Mainline at NY 390/I-390 Eastbound 6.3 3.8 3.2Westbound 8.8 6.6 4.1

Ramp WS I-490 EB to I-390 SB Eastbound 6.0 3.4 3.3Ramp WN I-490 EB to NY 390 NB Eastbound 7.6 6.2 3.8Ramp ES I-490 WB to I-390 SB Westbound 7.6 5.7 4.2Ramp EN I-490 WB to NY 390 NB Westbound 4.8 8.3 1.5Ramp SE I-390 NB to I-490 EB Northbound 13.2 13.7 8.9Ramp SW I-390 NB to I-490 WB Northbound 10.5 7.9 6.0Ramp NW NY 390 SB to I-490 WB Southbound 7.4 6.4 4.1Ramp NE NY 390 SB to I-490 EB Southbound 4.7 2.5 2.5Ramp DD NY 390 NB Exit to Lyell Avenue Northbound 15.2 9.5 4.3


2-24

Exhibit 2.3.1.6 (1)-6Existing (2009) Heavy Vehicle Composition of Traffic


Percent of Heavy Vehicles

Daily AM PeakHour

PM PeakHour

Ramp DA NY 390 NB Entrance from LyellAvenue WB Northbound 10.6 28.1 1.6

Ramp DE NY 390 NB Entrance from LyellAvenue EB Northbound 10.2 10.4 4.0

Ramp DB NY 390 SB Exit to Lyell Avenue Southbound 5.3 3.1 2.0

Ramp DC NY 390 SB Entrance from LyellAvenue WB Southbound 23.0 18.5 7.1

Ramp DF NY 390 SB Entrance from LyellAvenue EB Southbound 3.4 1.6 2.3

Ramp EA NY 390 NB Exit to Lexington Avenue Northbound 10.8 4.5 6.7Ramp EC NY 390 SB Exit to Lexington Avenue Southbound 5.8 4.1 15.3

Ramp ED NY 390 SB Entrance from LexingtonAvenue Southbound 11.7 16.1 2.6

Ramp EB NY 390 NB Entrance from LexingtonAvenue Northbound 5.6 24.2 0.0

Lyell Avenue Rossmore Street to NY 390 SB Off-Ramp

Eastbound -Westbound 10.2 8.6 2.3

The directionality of existing peak hour traffic flow throughout the project study area is illustrated in Exhibit2.3.1.6 (1)-7. Traffic volumes are heavier in the southbound direction on the NY 390/I-390 corridor in themorning commute and heavier in the northbound direction during the evening commute. Traffic volumeson I-490 are heavier in the eastbound direction during the morning commute and heavier in thewestbound direction during the evening commute.

Exhibit 2.3.1.6 (1)-7Existing (2009) Directional Distribution of Traffic on NY 390/I-390 and I-490

Road and Segment Direction Weekday Split by Direction (%)AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

NY 390 – between Lexington Avenue andLyell Avenue

Northbound 39 62Southbound 61 38

NY 390 – between Lyell Avenue and I-490

Northbound 31 57Southbound 69 43

I-390 – between I-490 and Chili Avenue Northbound 34 59Southbound 66 41

I-490 – between NY 531 and NY 390/I-390

Eastbound 66 41Westbound 34 59

I-490 – between NY 390/I-390 and MtRead Boulevard

Eastbound 63 37Westbound 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 inAppendix 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 structuralstrength. 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 hourmovements in year 2027. Traffic volumes in years 2015 and 2025 were developed by interpolation fromthe volumes between the base year (2009) and 2027. Year 2035 and 2045 volumes were extrapolatedbased upon year 2027 volumes and an annually compounded growth rate developed using 2009 baseyear volumes.


2-25

All known and significant roadway, intersection, and transit improvements included in the currentTransportation Improvement Program (TIP) and capital improvement programs of local governments wereaccounted for by adding capacity as necessary in the forecast model network characterizing the no-actionhighway and transit system. The regional travel demand model was also updated to better reflect existingand future travel behavior in and around the project area. Changes include updating the existing andfuture land uses to reflect the most current outlook on development within the project area, MonroeCounty and areas outside the county expected to influence traffic flow entering and passing through theproject area. This process ensured that the data used for this project is consistent with that used forregional long range planning.

The following diagrams are available in Appendix C summarizing projected future traffic volumes underno-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, andintersection 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 (Exhibits2.3.1.6 (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 studyarea 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)-12No-Action Design Year (2035) Project Traffic Volumes


Numberof Travel

Lanes

AADT AM PM(Veh/day) Peak

(Veh/hr)Peak

(Veh/hr)

I-390 Chili Avenue to I-490 Ramps Northbound 3 55,200 2,894 5,764Southbound 3 55,500 5,939 3,846

NY 390 I-490 to Lyell Avenue – WeaveSection

Northbound 4 57,300 2,598 6,136Southbound 4 65,100 6,251 4,512





Ramp WS I-490 EB to I-390 SB Eastbound 1 14,800 1,704 1,015Ramp WN I-490 EB to NY 390 NB Eastbound 1 11,500 1,040 991Ramp ES I-490 WB to I-390 SB Westbound 2 8,000 704 576Ramp EN I-490 WB to NY 390 NB Westbound 2 24,000 999 2,568Ramp SE I-390 NB to I-490 EB Northbound 1 7,100 448 494Ramp SW I-390 NB to I-490 WB Northbound 1 14,900 847 1,702Ramp NW NY 390 SB to I-490 WB Southbound 1 11,500 489 1,166Ramp NE NY 390 SB to I-490 EB Southbound 2 20,900 2,233 1,091Ramp DD NY 390 NB Exit to Lyell Avenue Northbound 2 11,400 558 964

Ramp DA NY 390 NB Entrance from LyellAvenue WB Northbound 1 1,100 34 140

Ramp DE NY 390 NB Entrance from LyellAvenue EB Northbound 1 2,200 134 190


Ramp DC NY 390 SB Entrance from LyellAvenue WB Southbound 1 3,700 284 424


2-26

Exhibit 2.3.1.6 (2)-12No-Action Design Year (2035) Project Traffic Volumes


Numberof Travel

Lanes

AADT AM PM


Peak(Veh/hr)

Ramp DF NY 390 SB Entrance from LyellAvenue EB Southbound 1 7,400 843 431

Ramp EA NY 390 NB Exit to LexingtonAvenue Northbound 1 7,600 999 428




LyellAvenue

Rossmore Street to NY 390 SBOff-Ramp


Exhibit - 2.3.1.6 (2)-13Estimated Annually Compounded Growth Rates

Route Route - Segment Direction

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

2009 2035AnnualGrowth

Rate(%)


Rate(%)

I-390 Chili Avenue to I-490Ramps

Northbound 2,801 2,894 0.13 5,298 5,764 0.32Southbound 5,418 5,939 0.40 3,658 3,846 0.20

NY 390 I-490 to Lyell Avenue –Weave Section


NY 390 Lyell Avenue toLexington Avenue


I-490 NY 531 to I-390/NY 390 Eastbound 5,373 5,895 0.36 3,375 3,506 0.15Westbound 2,717 2,812 0.13 4,841 5,353 0.39

I-490 I-390/NY 390 to MtRead Boulevard

Eastbound 5,193 5,832 0.44 2,973 3,085 0.14Westbound 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 0.22Ramp WN I-490 EB to NY 390 NB Eastbound 995 1,040 0.17 967 991 0.09Ramp ES I-490 WB to I-390 SB Westbound 691 704 0.13 553 576 0.16Ramp EN I-490 WB to NY 390 NB Westbound 970 999 0.11 2,390 2,568 0.28Ramp SE I-390 NB to I-490 EB Northbound 432 448 0.14 473 494 0.17Ramp SW I-390 NB to I-490 WB Northbound 821 847 0.12 1,574 1,702 0.30Ramp NW NY 390 SB to I-490 WB Southbound 472 489 0.14 1,080 1,166 0.31Ramp NE NY 390 SB to I-490 EB Southbound 1,970 2,233 0.48 1,050 1,091 0.15

Ramp DD NY 390 NB Exit to LyellAvenue Northbound 540 558 0.13 875 964 0.37

Ramp DA NY 390 NB Entrancefrom Lyell Avenue WB Northbound 32 34 0.25 132 140 0.23

Ramp DE NY 390 NB Entrancefrom Lyell Avenue EB Northbound 130 134 0.11 175 190 0.31

Ramp DB NY 390 SB Exit to LyellAvenue Southbound 224 236 0.19 321 329 0.09

Ramp DC NY 390 SB Entrancefrom Lyell Avenue WB Southbound 264 284 0.14 412 424 0.11

Ramp DF NY 390 SB Entrancefrom Lyell Avenue EB Southbound 713 843 0.65 405 431 0.24


2-27

Exhibit - 2.3.1.6 (2)-13Estimated Annually Compounded Growth Rates

Route Route - Segment Direction

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour


Rate(%)


Rate(%)

Ramp EA NY 390 NB Exit toLexington Avenue Northbound 940 999 0.23 399 428 0.27

Ramp EC NY 390 SB Exit toLexington Avenue Southbound 181 188 0.16 63 65 0.10

Ramp ED NY 390 SB Entrancefrom Lexington Avenue Southbound 306 318 0.15 1,074 1,093 0.07

Ramp EB NY 390 NB Entrancefrom Lexington Avenue Northbound 33 41 0.89 257 279 0.35

LyellAvenue

Rossmore Street to NY390 SB Off-Ramp

Eastbound 1,371 1,589 0.60 1,018 1,067 0.14Westbound 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)-14No-Action Design Year (2045) Project Traffic Volumes for Structures

B.I.N. Route Location AADT(Veh/Day)

1048680 I-490 EB Under Howard Road 57,7001048680 I-490 WB Under Howard Road 56,1001048680 Howard Road Over I-490 16,0001025812 I-390 SB Under I-490 EB 34,4001025812 I-490 EB Over I-390 SB 30,100

1025820/1063950 I-490 WB Off-Ramp to I-390 SB Under I-490 EB and I-390 NB 8,400

1025820/1063950 I-490 EB Over I-490 WB Off-Ramp to I-390 SB andUnder I-390 EB 52,000

1063950 I-390 NB Over I-490 EB and I-490 WB Off-Ramp to I-390 SB 50,600

1025811/1052280 NY 390 SB Under I-490 WB and I-490 EB Off-Ramp to NY390 NB 56,400

1025811/1052280 I-490 WB Over NY 390 SB and Under I-490 EB Off-Ramp to NY 390 NB 44,000

1052280 I-490 EB Off-Ramp toNY 390 NB Over I-490 WB and NY 390 SB 12,100

1052290 I-490 WB Under NY 390 NB 28,4001052290 NY 390 NB Over I-490 WB 34,9004443362 I-490 EB Over Erie Canal 59,2004443361 I-490 WB Over Erie Canal 62,0001023030 I-390 NB Under Buffalo Road 57,8001023030 I-390 SB Under Buffalo Road 58,4001023030 Buffalo Road Over I-390 16,0007025830 I-390 NB Under CSX Railroad 57,8007025830 I-390 SB Under CSX Railroad 58,4001021589 NY 390 NB Under Lyell Avenue 62,7001021589 NY 390 SB Under Lyell Avenue 60,6001021589 Lyell Avenue Over NY 390 30,3001062542 NY 390 NB Over Trolley Boulevard 63,9001062541 NY 390 SB Over Trolley Boulevard 61,0004062532 NY 390 NB Over Erie Canal 63,9004062531 NY 390 SB Over Erie Canal 61,000

1062542/1062541 Trolley Boulevard Under NY 390 6,0001062522 NY 390 NB Over Lexington Avenue 55,900


2-28

Exhibit 2.3.1.6 (2)-14No-Action Design Year (2045) Project Traffic Volumes for Structures


1062521 NY 390 SB Over Lexington Avenue 54,7001062522/1062521 Lexington Avenue Under NY 390 7,000

2.3.1.7. Level of Service and Mobility – Level of Service (LOS) is a qualitative measure describingmotorist satisfaction with various factors influencing traffic congestion including travel time, speedmaneuverability, and delay on an average day during the design year. The methodology for performingcapacity 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 describesconditions with free-flow operations at desirable travel speeds and little or no delay. LOS F denoteshighly congested conditions with stop and go traffic, low speeds, significant congestion, and substantialdelays.

LOS for signalized and unsignalized intersections is determined from the average seconds of delay pervehicle (sec/veh). Signalized intersection analyses yield LOS for groups of lanes (those lanes shared bysimilar movements) on each approach and the intersection as a whole. Unsignalized intersectionanalyses result in LOS values for critical movements only. Critical movements are those that must yieldor stop and give the right-of-way to other approaching vehicles. LOS D or better on each lane group isgenerally considered acceptable during peak commuter periods in urban areas such as the City ofRochester.

On freeways and expressways, including mainline, weaving, merging, and diverging areas, LOS isexpressed in terms of density and measured in passenger cars per mile per lane (pc/mi/ln). LOS E orworse indicates operations at or below capacity. LOS C is the minimum standard for freeways on theInterstate 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 ofAppendix C.

The project study area is a complex system with many characteristics including urban expressways andarterial 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 withNY 390. The ramps of the 390/490 interchange are direct connection ramps and consequently areintended to serve high speed traffic. On-ramps from Lyell Avenue to NY 390 consist both of loop anddirect connection configurations. Off-ramps from NY 390 to Lyell Avenue are also direct connections andare controlled by three-color traffic signals. These interchanges are interwoven together by short weavingmaneuvers. The on and off-ramps connecting Lexington Avenue to NY 390 consist of both loop and directconnection 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 wasnecessary to analyze the interaction of these closely spaced interchanges and varied traffic controlelements and their effect on overall traffic flow. VISSIM, Version 5.2 by PTV, microsimulation computersoftware was chosen to accomplish that task. VISSIM is capable of modeling complex geometry, trafficcontrol, and traffic flow situations. It is also capable of modeling interactions between vehicles, which isimportant 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 observationsto ensure that they were representative of actual field conditions. A detailed calibration report for theproject study area’s VISSIM models is available (bound separately and available upon request). Eachmicrosimulation model was used to generate measures of effectiveness including travel time and densityalong 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 HCMdefinitions.


2-29

· 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 andintersections, it was necessary to analyze the interaction of these closely spaced interchangeintersections and varied traffic control elements and their effect on overall traffic flow. Synchro, Version7.0, by Trafficware, was chosen to accomplish that task. Synchro implements the methods of the HCMfor signalized and unsignalized intersection analyses. The intersections under review were those shownin Exhibit 2.3.1.6 (1)-1, where manual turning movement counts were completed. Existing timings andphasing 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 thesignals over time. All Synchro output reports are contained within the project record. Delay was measuredat 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 andcapacity analysis for existing (2009) expressway conditions are provided in Exhibits 2.3.1.7 (1)–1 and 2 ofAppendix C for AM and PM peak hours, respectively. Intersection delay and LOS results are shown inExhibit 2.3.1.7 (1)-3 of Appendix C. The results are also summarized below and illustrated in Exhibit2.3.1.7 (1)-4.

Expressway Sections

I-490All basic expressway sections along I-490 currently operate at LOS C or better in the non-peak directionduring both the morning and evening peak periods. During the AM peak hour, I-490 EB between NY 531and the NY 390 SB on-ramp (Ramp NE) operates at LOS D or worse. This is due to the large volume oftraffic heading eastbound during the AM peak hour as well as the backup from the merging of I-490 EB toI-390 SB.

During the PM peak hour, I-490 WB throughout the project study area operates at LOS D with theexception of the segment between the NY 390 NB/I-390 off ramps SB (Ramps EN/ES) to the on-rampfrom I-390 NB (Ramp SW). Additionally, the segment between the NY 390 SB on-ramp and NY 531operates near the threshold of LOS E, or being at capacity. The poor LOS along this segment is due tothe large volume of westbound traffic during the PM peak hour from both I-490 and I-390 NB.

I-390Operating conditions for I-390 are at or exceed capacity, reflecting LOS E or F, in the southbounddirection during the morning peak period and northbound direction during the evening peak period. Thepoor 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-490merge into I-390 during the AM peak hour. In the PM peak hour, the poor weaving conditions just to thenorth on NY 390 cause the issues on I-390. All non-peak direction operating conditions are at acceptableLOS.

NYS Route 390All basic expressway segments on NY 390 operate at LOS C or better in the non-peak direction for bothpeak 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 houroperate at LOS D or better. The poor LOS during the morning peak period is due to the high volume ofsouthbound traffic and congested conditions through the southbound weave segment and at the I-490 EBmerge.


2-30

The northbound segments between I-490 WB off-ramp (Ramp SW) to I-490 WB on-ramp (Ramp EN) andLyell Avenue off-ramp (Ramp DD) to I-490 EB on-ramp (Ramp WN) operate at LOS F during the eveningpeak period. Additionally, the northbound segment from Lyell Avenue WB on-ramp (Ramp DA) toLexington Avenue off-ramp (Ramp EA) during the evening peak period operates at LOS E. All remainingsegments in the p.m. peak hour operate at LOS D or better. During the evening peak period, the hightraffic volume in the northbound direction coming from I-490 WB and I-390 NB and congestion throughthe northbound weave segment results in poor LOS on NY 390. Both northbound and southbound NY390 are nearing capacity during their respective peak hours.

Weaving SectionsThere are two weaving sections on NY 390 within the project study area. Each is located between theinterchange with I-490 to the south and Lyell Avenue to the north. One weave section exists for thenorthbound traffic and the other for southbound traffic.

The northbound weave experiences LOS F during the evening peak period and the southbound weaveexperiences LOS D, approaching LOS E, during the morning peak period. The northbound segmentoperates poorly due to the high number or vehicles weaving from I-490 WB to NY 390 NB. Currently, thetraffic from I-490 WB has to move over either 1 or 2 lanes to reach NY 390 NB, in which the segment tothe north is only a two-lane segment. LOS for the southbound morning period is at the threshold of LOS Ewith brief moments of stop and go conditions for two of the four travel lanes. The large volumes enteringinto this weave during the morning peak hour as well as the volume of traffic weaving from Lyell AvenueEB to I-490 EB cause this weave to operate poorly during the a.m. peak hour. Additionally, it is due to thistraffic having to move over 2 lanes to be in the correct lane to access I-490 EB. Operating conditions areLOS C or better for the off-peak weave areas.

Ramp JunctionsA 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 ofthe 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 dueto 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 LOSE. 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 periodoperates at LOS E. This is due to the volume of traffic on mainline, short acceleration lane, andthe operations of the downstream weave.

· I-390 NB diverge (Ramp SW) to I-490 WB during the evening peak period operates at LOS E dueto the existing short deceleration lane length and the large volume of traffic in the left-mostthrough 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 periodoperates at LOS E. This is due to the large volume of traffic heading northbound during this peakhour.

· NY 390 NB diverge (Ramp EA) to Lexington Ave during the evening peak period operates at LOSE. 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 Edue 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 anddecelerating vehicles can cause turbulence in the traffic stream.

Stop Controlled Intersection ApproachDelay was measured for vehicles approaching and entering Lexington Avenue from Bellwood Drive at thestop sign and LOS results were developed from using the HCM definitions for unsignalized intersections.


2-31

The intersection approaches are currently functioning at LOS C or better during both the morning andevening peak periods.

Signalized Intersection OperationsAnalyses were completed for intersections within the project study area. A total of six signalizedintersections were analyzed for the existing (2009) conditions.

The signalized intersections are all operating at LOS C or better overall during the AM and PM peakhours. 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/coordinatedphasing, which allows traffic to move through both intersections to prevent the blocking of otherapproaches.


2-32

C/E

E/C

B/E

B/D

B/F

F/C

D/B

B/E

B/D

B/E

D/C

E/C

D/C

B/B

E/D

D/B

B/E

E/C

Exhibit - 2.3.1.7 (1)-42009 Existing Level of Service Summary

Legend

= Expressway Section AM/PM

= Weaving Section AM/PM

= Ramp Junction AM/PM

= Signalized Intersection Overall AM/PM

= Unsignalized intersection with a critical

movement at LOS E or F

X/XX/XX/XX/X

B/C

A/B

B/C

A/A

F/C

E/C

C/F

B/F

D/B

C/A C/B

B/DB/C

B/D

B/D

B/F

B/E

B/D

C/B

D/B

B/DD/B

A/C


2-33

2.3.1.7. (2) Future no-build design year level of service – Level of service analyses were alsocompleted 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 expresswayconditions are provided in Exhibits 2.3.1.7 (1)-1 and 2 of Appendix C for AM and PM peak hoursrespectively. Intersection delay and level of service results are shown in Exhibit 2.3.1.7 (1)-3 of AppendixC. Existing (2009) levels of service results are included in the Exhibits for comparative purposes. Resultsare 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 locationsonly. Refer to Exhibit 2.3.1.7 (2)-3 for the capacity review. In summary, there are multiple locations wherethe capacity measure is not acceptable due to the downstream operations. For example, the southboundmerge condition of I-490 EB to I-390 SB causes backups and queuing to the north and west. This causesincreased density and poorer LOS than if the roadways were operating without queuing. The resultsshown here over exaggerate the actual operating conditions of the roadway in most cases. Some of theroadways operate during the peak hours over capacity according to the HDM. Refer to Chapter 3 for anin-depth discussion on the feasible alternative 2045 capacity review.

Expressway Sections

I-490All basic expressway sections along I-490 are projected to operate at LOS C or better during both themorning 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. (Notshown 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 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 themorning 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



2-34

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 thesefuture 2015 and 2035 conditions. The heavy volumes on I-490 in the eastbound direction during themorning peak period and in the westbound direction during the evening peak period continue to cause ator near capacity operating conditions.

I-390For 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 northbounddirection during the evening peak period. The poor LOS are caused by the large traffic volumes in thesedirections during the peak hours. Additionally, the southbound direction is currently at or near capacity tothe south, after ramps WS and ES from I-490 merge into I-390 during the AM peak hour. In the PM peakhour, the poor weaving conditions just to the north on NY 390 cause the issues on I-390. The non-peakdirection exhibit LOS C or better during both morning and evening peak periods of commuting.

NYS Route 390All basic expressway sections along NY 390 are estimated to operate at LOS D or better during both themorning 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 (RampDE) 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.


2-35

The high volume and poor LOS conditions described for the existing condition are exacerbated in thesefuture 2015 and 2035 conditions. The heavy volumes on NY 390 in the southbound direction during themorning peak period and in the northbound direction during the evening peak period continue to causeover-capacity conditions. The operations through the weave segments and at the ramp junctions alsocontribute to the congestion on the freeway segments.

Weaving SectionsFor the 2015 (ETC) condition during the morning peak period, the NY 390 SB weave is estimated tooperate at LOS E. For the evening peak period, the NY 390 NB weaving segment is estimated to operateat LOS F.

For the 2035 (ETC+20) condition during the morning peak period, the NY 390 SB weave is estimated tooperate at LOS F. For the evening peak period, the NY 390 NB weaving segment is estimated to operateat LOS F.

The LOS E and F conditions through the weave segments during the peak periods continue to be a resultof the high volume of traffic in the peak direction, both through and weaving, that exceed the capacity ofthe weaving segments. During the AM peak hour, it is the volume of Lyell Avenue WB traffic weaving overto I-490 EB. The traffic merging into NY 390 NB from I-490 WB and the number of through lanes northdownstream of the weave is the issue during the PM peak hour. Operating conditions are LOS C or betterfor the off-peak weave areas.

Ramp JunctionsAll free-flow merge and diverge areas are estimated to operate at LOS C or better (Interstate) / LOS D orbetter (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.


2-36

Similar to the existing conditions for the AM peak period, the LOS E and F conditions are exacerbated inthe future years and continue to be due to the high volume of traffic merging from I-490 EB to I-390 SBcausing queuing and congestion on I-390/NY 390 SB. The weave segment on NY 390 SB also results inthe 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 tobe related to the high volume of northbound and westbound traffic on the freeway at the ramp junctionsand the northbound weaving segment.

Stop Controlled Intersection ApproachDelay was measured for vehicles approaching and entering Lexington Avenue from Bellwood Drive at thestop 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 eveningpeak periods in 2015 and 2035.

Signalized Intersection OperationsAnalyses were completed for intersections within the project study area. A total of six signalizedintersections were analyzed for the no-build 2015 and 2035 conditions. It shall be noted that some delaysand LOS improved from the existing (2009) to the 2015/2035 no-build conditions. This is due to theoptimization of the timings and intersection coordination offsets, which would be expected to occur givenroutine maintenance.

The signalized intersections are all operating at LOS D or better overall. Individual lane groups with poorlevels of service (LOS E or worse) are summarized below. The LOS indicated below are for both 2015and 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 LyellAvenue given the heavy Lyell Avenue volumes. The Lyell Avenue and NY 390 NB Off-Ramp/Lee Roadclosely spaced intersections operates poorly due to the shared green time to move traffic through bothintersections without blocking other approaches. Overall, the intersections did not heavily degrade overtime due to the limited volume growth along the local roads in 2015/2035.


2-37

C/E

E/C

B/E

B/E

B/F

F/C

E/B

B/E

B/D

B/E

E/C

E/C

E/C

B/B

E/D

E/B

B/E

E/C

Exhibit - 2.3.1.7 (2)-12015 No-Build Level of Service Summary

Legend







X/XX/XX/XX/X

B/B

A/B

B/D

A/A

F/C

F/C

C/F

B/F

D/B

C/A C/B

B/DB/C

B/D

B/D

B/F

B/E

B/D

C/B

D/B

B/DD/B

A/A


2-38

C/E

F/C

B/F

B/E

B/F

F/C

F/B

B/E

B/E

B/E

F/C

F/D

F/C

C/B

F/D

F/C

B/F

E/C

Exhibit - 2.3.1.7 (2)-22035 No-Build Level of Service Summary

Legend







X/XX/XX/XX/X

B/C

A/B

B/D

A/A

F/C

F/C

C/F

B/F

D/B

D/A D/B

B/EB/C

B/D

B/E

C/F

B/E

B/D

F/B

F/C

B/DF/B

A/A


2-39

Exhibit 2.3.1.7 (2)-3No-Action Design Year (2045) Project LOS/Capacity Review for Structures

B.I.N. Route Location Methodology

Density(pc/mi/ln)

Delay(s/veh)

V/C

LOS

Acc

epta

ble

1048680 I-490 EB Under Howard Road Freeway 61.6 F No1048680 I-490 WB Under Howard Road Freeway 42.1 E No1048680 Howard Road Over I-490 Capacity 0.5 = V/C - Yes1025812 I-390 SB Under I-490 EB Freeway 101.9 F No1025812 I-490 EB Over I-390 SB Freeway 33.4 D No1025820/1063950

I-490 WB Off-Ramp toI-390 SB

Under I-490 EB and I-390NB Ramp Capacity 0.17 = V/C - Yes

1025820/1063950 I-490 EB

Over I-490 WB Off-Rampto I-390 SB and Under I-

390 NBFreeway 27.7 D No

1063950 I-390 NB Over I-490 EB and I-490WB Off-Ramp to I-390 SB Diverge 56.7 F No

1025811/1052280 NY 390 SB

Under I-490 WB and I-490EB Off-Ramp to NY 390

NBFreeway 76.4 F No

1025811/1052280 I-490 WB

Over NY 390 SB andUnder I-490 EB Off-Ramp

to NY 390 NBFreeway 33.1 D No

1052280 I-490 EB Off-Ramp toNY 390 NB

Over I-490 WB and NY 390SB Ramp Capacity 0.52 = V/C - Yes

1052290 I-490 WB Under NY 390 NB Freeway 27.0 D No1052290 NY 390 NB Over I-490 WB Freeway 93.0 F No4443362 I-490 EB Over Erie Canal Freeway 28.0 D No4443361 I-490 WB Over Erie Canal Freeway 39.2 E No1023030 I-390 NB Under Buffalo Road Freeway 81.6 F No1023030 I-390 SB Under Buffalo Road Freeway 37.4 E No1023030 Buffalo Road Over I-390 Capacity 0.5 = V/C - Yes7025830 I-390 NB Under CSX Railroad Freeway 81.6 F No7025830 I-390 SB Under CSX Railroad Freeway 37.4 E No1021589 NY 390 NB Under Lyell Avenue Freeway 35.5 E No1021589 NY 390 SB Under Lyell Avenue Merge 95.7 F No1021589 Lyell Avenue Over NY 390 Intersection 10.0 B Yes1062542 NY 390 NB Over Trolley Boulevard Freeway 36.6 E No1062541 NY 390 SB Over Trolley Boulevard Freeway 86.2 F No4062532 NY 390 NB Over Erie Canal Freeway 36.6 E No4062531 NY 390 SB Over Erie Canal Freeway 86.2 F No1062542/1062541 Trolley Boulevard Under NY 390 Capacity 0.19 = V/C - Yes

1062522 NY 390 NB Over Lexington Avenue Freeway 35.1 E No1062521 NY 390 SB Over Lexington Avenue Diverge 91.4 F No1062522/1062521 Lexington Avenue Under NY 390 Intersection 17.2 B Yes

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


2-40

2.3.1.8 Safety Considerations, Accident History and Analysis - An accident analysis was performedin 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 gatheredfrom local police records. This compilation of accident reports included non-reportable accidents. Theaccident 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 fromthe east, south and west. Not included in the study area were those accidents within the adjacentinterchanges or influenced by the external interchange ramps. For example, the stop and go congestionrelated accidents on I-390 between I-490 and the Chili Avenue interchange were considered relevant tothe accident analysis, but any crashes relating to the Chili Avenue ramp junctions were not. See Exhibit2.3.1.8-1 in Appendix C for a mapping of the accident study limits with the highway segments numberedand the ramp letter designations denoted.

It was not possible to strictly classify accidents by reference markers as many of the recorded accidentreport reference markers were missing numbers, left out entirely, or differed from the written locationdescriptions. Therefore the written location descriptions from the accident reports were considered themost reliable location reference, if it differed from the reference marker. Approximately 1400 accidentswere examined and classified. Of these 1400 accident reports 168 were duplicates, 209 were consideredto be outside the accident study limits, and 24 were missing a pdf hard copy police report. The remaining999 accidents were located via mapped collision diagrams in Exhibit 2.3.1.8-2 in Appendix C. Theseaccidents 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 ofday, 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.


2-41

Exhibit – 2.3.1.8-3Accident Summary by Accident Type and Facility

Accident Type Expressway Ramps Surface Streets TotalRear End 266 44 87 397

wet am peak fatality 56 125 0 8 10 0 18 11 0 82 146 0snow pm peak injury 30 98 63 11 15 7 14 26 18 55 139 88dry off peak PDO 180 43 203 25 19 37 55 50 69 260 112 309

Run Off 112 117 9 238wet 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 55dry off peak PDO 46 72 79 26 83 95 1 6 9 73 161 183

Sideswipe 92 35 40 167wet 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 12dry off peak PDO* 60 43 84 28 17 34 28 24 37 116 84 155

Animal 32 3 0 35wet 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 63wet am peak fatality 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 5 0 14 5 0


Left Turn 0 0 51 51wet am peak fatality 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 4 0 10 4 0


Right Turn 0 0 0 6 6wet am peak fatality 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0


Other 34 8 0 42wet 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 999wet 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 194dry off peak PDO 334 203 421 88 127 174 171 156 210 593 483 805PDO – Property damage accident only. No injuries or fatalities.


2-42

Exhibit – 2.3.1.8-4Accident 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)


Animal 35 (3.5)wet am peak fatality 8 (22.9) 4 (11.4) 0 (0.0)


Right Angle 63 (6.3)wet am peak fatality 14 (22.2) 5 (7.9) 0 (0.0)


Left Turn 51 (5.1)wet am peak fatality 10 (19.6) 4 (7.8) 0 (0.0)


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)


Total (%) 999 (100.0)wet am peak fatality 199 (19.9) 244 (24.4) 0 (0.0)


PDO – Property damage accident only. No injuries or fatalities.


2-43

Exhibit – 2.3.1.8-5 Accident Summary by Facility with PercentagesRoadway Type Total (%)

Expressway 536 (53.7)wet am peak fatality 100 (18.7) 176 (32.8) 0 (0.0)


Ramp 207 (20.7)wet am peak fatality 44 (21.3) 39 (18.8) 0 (0.0)


Surface Street 256 (25.6)wet am peak fatality 55 (21.5) 29 (11.3) 0 (0.0)


Total (%) 999 (100.0)wet am peak fatality 199 (19.9) 244 (24.4) 0 (0.0)


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-390and I-490. Ramps associated with the interchanges accounted for 207 accidents and the remainingroadways accounted for 256 accidents, mainly the Lyell Avenue corridor. Predominant collision typeswere rear end(approx. 40%) and run off the road (approx. 24%). Sideswipe accidents were also high accounting forapproximately 17% of the total. Rear end accidents are occurring primarily along areas of congestion andat signalized intersections, which is common. The majority of the run off the road accidents occurprimarily during off-peak hours when traffic may be traveling at higher rates of speed or during inclementweather causing slippery pavement due to snow and ice. Over 40% of all accidents are occurring duringinclement 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 Exhibit2.3.1.8-6 in Appendix C for a severity distribution calculation and comparison to statewide averages forsimilar facilities. This can be most likely attributed to the expressway congestion reducing vehicularspeeds. 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. Thecombination of rear end and sideswipe accidents predominate on the expressway segments and morethan 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 arenot representative because of its unique configuration due to the close proximity of the 390/490 and390/31 interchanges. Inclement weather patterns experienced in this part of the state further skewaverage accident data comparisons.

The study of accident patterns and groupings of accidents discovered through review of the police reportswould 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 ofdetermining accident rates and comparing them to the statewide average.


2-44

The following discussion examines the major accident clusters and patterns by facility section andexplores potential mitigations. See Exhibit 2.3.1.8-12 in Appendix C for a mapping of key accidentlocations.

390/490 interchange area (Mainline)The high peak hour traffic volumes, many of which are weaving, through the constrained ramp geometryat the confluence of two urban expressways has created peak hour stop and go congestion. Thiscondition has led to numerous rear end and sideswipe crashes on the mainline expressway sections asillustrated in Exhibits 2.3.1.8-7 in Appendix C. There are numerous clusters of rear end, and to lesserextent sideswipe, accidents in each expressway segment. In general the I-390 and NY 390 rear endaccidents are in the northbound direction during the pm peak hour and in the southbound direction themajority of the rear end accidents are in the am peak hour. The weekday hourly distribution of trafficindicates a distinct SB am peak and a distinct B pm peak. Similarly on I-490 there is a distinct EB ampeak and a distinct WB pm peak where the rear end accidents generally correlate. Because of the peakhour queuing there are many chain reaction rear end accidents where one closely spaced stoppedvehicle will be pushed into the adjacent vehicle after the initial rear end collision. Further exacerbatingthe situation is the lake effect inclement weather patterns causing a slippery pavement due to snow, iceand 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 hourtraffic volumes leads to expressway level of service deficiencies. (AASHTO recommends a 1 mileminimum interchange spacing in urban areas. The distance between I-490 and NY 31 is less than a ½mile.) There are major level of service problem areas at various interchange ramp junctions and theweaving 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 majorcorrelation of the accident clusters and time of the day with existing Level of Service D, E and Fconditions on the expressway segments, ramp junctions and weaving sections. Level of Service D, E andF conditions in Exhibit 2.3.1.7 (1)-4 almost directly correlate with the roadway segments that haveidentifiable 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 particularthere 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 mphrespectively. For a summary delineation of individual ramp accidents see Exhibit 2.3.1.8-8 in AppendixC.

On Ramp SW there were 27 run off the road crashes, 16 of which were snow/ice related and 8 occurredunder 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 astructure over I-490 EB without the full highway approach section. The length and width of thedeceleration lane does not meet AASHTO criteria. Ramp SW is obstructed by bridge rail and vegetationand provides a stopping sight distance (SSD) of approximately 228 ft., which does not meet the minimumrequired for the 35 mph advisory speed. In general, excessive vehicular speeds, particularly forinclement weather conditions, are the major contributing factor to these accidents. Additionally the lackof standard lane widths and reduced bridge shoulder widths could be a contributing factor in reducing therecovery time and distance of a sliding vehicle.

Many of the peak hour accidents list unsafe lane changes in congested conditions as another contributingfactor. Both the ramp junction diverge and mainline segment approaching this diverge are listed as LOSF 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 wetpavement conditions. Traffic utilizing this left-hand exit ramp can diverge from I-490 at a high rate ofspeed due to the large 3820 ft. radius. This long curve is followed by a much smaller curve of radius 716ft. This produces an extremely high compound curve ratio of over 5:1, far exceeding the recommendedmaximum rate of 2:1. This causes the alignment to appear extremely abrupt or forced, and travel paths


2-45

of vehicles need considerable steering effort. Ramp WN is also obstructed by bridge rail and vegetationand provides a SSD of approximately 250 ft., which does not meet the minimum required for the 40 mphposted speed. Further exacerbating the situation is the lake effect inclement weather patterns causing aslippery pavement due to snow, ice, and rain, especially on the bridge where the ramp crosses over I-490WB.

A similar, but less severe, accident cluster was present on Ramp NE which is also a left-hand exit rampwith a sharp radius and an advisory speed of 40 mph. There were a total of 22 accidents on this ramp ofwhich 8 were run off the road and 10 were sideswipes. Four of the run off the road accidents wereweather 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 forseveral reasons, including the following:

· Left-side moves tend to confuse and surprise drivers even with proper signing as they arecontrary to the concept of driver expectancy, especially when intermixed with right-handentrances 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- handentrance.

All of these factors relating to the presence of left-hand exits can be contributing to the resultant accidentclusters on these ramps.

There was a cluster of accidents in the vicinity of the Ramp EN diverge area. There were multiplesideswipe (8) and run off the road accidents (6) in this area, generally caused by unsafe lane changemaneuvers. 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 withmultiple 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 ofcontrol run off the road and 3 sideswipe accidents at this location. Snow/Ice was involved in 10, wetpavement in 2, congestion in 6, unsafe lane changes and/or excessive speed in 4, and alcoholinvolvement in 2 of these accidents. Poor lane balance exists on NY 390 and is of particular concern inthe vicinity of the weaving section between Ramp EN and Ramp DD where heavy volumes from RampEN must merge with NY 390 NB traffic over an extremely short distance. The ramp terminal spacing forthis weaving area is only 1225 ft., which is significantly less than the 2000 ft. as recommended byAASHTO. This results in a pair of two lane sections joining to form a four lane section within the weavearea, only to split again to two and two. This unsafe maneuver is likely contributing to this accidentcluster as indicated by the unsafe lane change cause, exacerbated by both congestion and inclementweather road conditions. There was also a late night right angle accident (N-316) in this location where amotorist 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 the390/490 interchange to improve capacity and geometrics, would include:

· The increased usage of variable message signs to alert motorists to peak hour and incidentcongestion and slippery pavement conditions.

· Reduce operating speeds on Ramps EN, SW, NE and WN by making signing improvementsincluding: upgrading reflectivity, sizing, and placement (including double posting); addingsupplemental 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.


2-46

· Pavement section widening on selected ramps.

NYS Route 31 (Lyell Avenue) - Howard Road/Spencerport Road Intersection to the Erie CanalThere were a total of 230 accidents along the 0.8 mile segment of Lyell Avenue within the project studyarea as depicted in Exhibit 2.3.1.8-9A of Appendix C. This computes to an accident rate of 10.50acc/MVM. This rate, including non-reportable accidents, is nearly double a statewide average of 5.66acc/MVM for comparable four lane undivided urban arterials without control of access. See Exhibit2.3.1.8-9B in Appendix C for an accident summary compilation with individual intersection accident ratescomputed, compiled and compared to statewide averages.

The accident rate at the Howard Road/Spencerport Road intersection was more than twice the statewideaverage for similar signalized intersections. The high number of left turning accidents included five on theyellow phase and additional permissive green incidents where there was motorist indecision over whichcar had the right of way. The non-typical diagonal configuration of the Spencerport Road leg, high trafficvolumes, double left turn and shared lanes from the Howard Road approach and a fifth Lyell Road rightturn only approach adds to the motorist confusion at this intersection. There were three overtakingsideswipe 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 ofmany commercial driveways has created a disturbing pattern of right angle accidents. Vehicles makingleft turns out of commercial establishments (24 accidents) and unsignalized residential streets (12accidents) are colliding with through vehicles and creating right angle crashes. A large percentage ofthese accidents are courtesy actions where a motorist stopped in traffic “waves through” a left turningvehicle exiting from a business driveway or side street. Exacerbating the situation is that some throughtraffic is illegally traveling in the median center turn lane to avoid the queues in the travel lanes. In certaininstances 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 andunsignalized intersections, there are numerous intersection sight distance problems caused by structuraland environmental factors. The Lyell Avenue Bridge over the Erie Canal trusses and railings limits sightdistance at adjacent commercial driveways. Vehicles parked in the stalls along business frontages limitssight 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 tocongestion and motorist confusion. There were 31 rear end collisions on the various approaches to thesetwo closely spaced intersections. Similarly there were 26 rear end accidents at the Ramp DBintersection, 12 of which were on the ramp approach, itself. All three of these intersections containaccident rates that are more than double the statewide average for urban three legged signalizedintersections.

Possible mitigations include:

· At the Howard/Spencerport intersection consider restricting left turns to protective phasingonly. Add left turn tracking pavement markings for the NB to WB movements. A modernroundabout 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 thetraffic signals according to current traffic conditions.

· Eliminate one of the two traffic signals in the vicinity of Lee Road by realigning/reconfiguringthe NY 390 interchange ramp entrances onto Lyell Avenue.

· Improve pavement markings and place opposing left turn arrow markings in the median turnlane 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 commercialdriveways. Better define and/or restrict width of driveway entrance locations. Recommendelimination of commercial parking slots that are restricting sight distance.

· Construct a median barrier onto Lyell Avenue thereby restricting commercial access to rightsin and rights out. Level of service would be impacted at the signalized intersections andsufficient room to allow for u-turns at intersections would be required.


2-47

· Improve intersection sight distance (ISD) as feasible to meet minimum standards at all non-signalized intersections, driveways and for any uncontrolled moves associated with asignalized intersection, in order to ensure that a motorist may safely enter or exit a roadway.

Lexington Avenue Interchange AreaThere is a significant accident cluster at the intersection of Lexington Avenue and Ramp EA. The rampterminus approach is a three lane section with a left turn lane, a shared thru-right turn lane, and anexclusive right turn lane. There are seven separate accidents at this location with the description “NBovertaking sideswipe; tractor trailer making ROR from center turn lane; trailer strikes vehicle in right turnlane”. 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 bothLexington Avenue EB travel lanes. An automobile in the adjacent right turn lane cannot comfortablymake a concurrent right turn movement at the same time as a tractor trailer. There is also a visual blindspot issue for the tractor trailer operator.

The potential mitigation technique would be to eliminate the dual right turn designation and widen thecurb 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 statewideaverage for similar signalized intersections (See Exhibit 2.3.1.8-9B). There were seven left turn accidentsin the eastbound - westbound direction. The rational mitigation is to eliminate the permissive left turnphase in the eastbound and westbound directions.

Deer Related AccidentsAnother anomalous pattern in an urban expressway environment is what appears to be a high number ofdeer accidents. There were 29 actual deer/vehicle crashes and 6 separate incidents where theunexpected appearance of deer on the expressway caused a vehicle to swerve and a subsequentaccident resulted. See Exhibit 2.3.1.8-10 for a summary of these accidents and Exhibit 2.3.1.8-11 for amapping of the deer accident locations. As seen from the mapping diagram the deer accidents are fairlyuniformly distributed throughout the entire project study area. There is considerable wooded terrain inthis corridor. Potential mitigations would include:

· Check the completeness and integrity of the right of way fencing, especially in the areaalong the Erie Canal Trail.

· Investigate the applicability of state of the art electronic deer detection or deterrent warningsystems.

MiscellaneousThe original accident analysis was reviewed in February of 2015 with the most current available crashdata. Previously identified Priority Investigation Locations (PILs) from the original analysis were stillpresent but there was no significant change to the severity rating at these locations. There were twoadditional PIL locations appearing on the two most current PIL lists that had not previously appeared onthe 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 werecompared to determine if there was any change in crash patterns. The Route 390 crash numbers andpatterns were found to be similar for both study periods. While the I-490 location crashes increased from60 to 99, over 50% (21) of the increase in crashes were rear end crashes. All but 2 of 40 rear endcrashes occurred between the hours of 7am and 9am or 4pm and 7pm. This is consistent with thecongestion related crash pattern seen in the original study period. The remaining increases werescattered among most of the remaining crash types. No new patterns were identified. No substantialchanges have occurred at the project site that may affect crash patterns. The recommendations resultingfrom the original accident analysis are appropriate.


2-48

2.3.1.9. Existing Police, Fire Protection and Ambulance Access – The NY 390/I-390 and I-490corridors 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 fireprotection and ambulance response vehicles, primarily for traffic accident related incidents. There are nopolice stations, fire stations or ambulance facilities that have direct access to any of the roadways locatedwithin the project study area. However, emergency service vehicles routinely utilize the local roadwaynetwork as emergency response routes, particularly Lyell Avenue as it is a vital link in the local roadwaynetwork. Incident response is frequent on Lyell Avenue due to the significant amount of traffic accidentsoccurring along this heavily traveled corridor. Howard Road provides a vital connection from the Town ofGates emergency service facilities to North Gates and Park Ridge Hospital located on Long Pond Road inGreece.

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 indowntown Rochester at 130 S. Plymouth Avenue, however no patrol units are stationed at this location asit serves as the MCSO headquarters, including the county jail and criminal investigation lab. The nearestpatrol units are stationed at 2330 Union Street in Ogden. Although this station is located more than 6miles west of the 390/490 interchange, units are often the first responders to incidents within the 390/490interchange area since they are located adjacent to NY 531, which feeds into I-490 EB. The nearest Cityof Rochester police patrol station is located at 1099 Jay Street, approximately 1.5 miles east of the390/490 interchange. The Gates Police Department is located at 1605 Buffalo Road, approximately 0.1miles west of Howard Road.

A Monroe Ambulance facility is located just east of the project study area on 1669 Lyell Avenue. TheGates Volunteer Ambulance building is located at 1600 Buffalo Road, which is directly across from theGates Police Department. Although this building is located nearest to the 390/490 interchange area, theVolunteer Ambulance building located at 1001 Elmgrove Road is less than 1 mile from the I-490/BuffaloRoad 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/ChiliAvenue interchange.

The nearest Gates Fire Department (Station 2) is located at 2215 Long Pond Road, approximately 0.6miles 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 areaas 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 milessouth of the CSX Railroad bridge over I-390

3. East: I-490 between the 390/490 and Mt. Read Boulevard interchanges – approximately 0.1miles east of the Erie Canal

4. West: I-490 between the 390/490 and NY 531 interchanges – approximately 0.5 miles west ofHoward Road

Discussions with the Gates Police and Fire Department revealed that the median crossover on I-490 tothe west of the project study area does not provide enough width to safely accommodate emergencyvehicles attempting to make u-turns. This median crossover provides a width of only 54 ft. In order tosafely accommodate maintenance and emergency operations at this location, parallel-type decelerationlanes should be provided as per the HDM.


2-49

2.3.1.10. Parking Regulations and Parking Related Conditions – Parking on Interstate highways isrestricted by law. NY 390 functions as an expressway, thus parking and stopping are prohibited on allmainline roadways and ramps.

Parking is prohibited throughout the Town of Gates from November through March. Otherwise, parking isnot regulated within the project study area. To the west of Lee Road Extension, shoulder width alongLyell Avenue is insufficient for parking. Although shoulder width is sufficient for parking to the east of LeeRoad Extension, there is ample parking available at commercial establishments through this segment andto the west. At the east extent of the project study area there is a parking area for Erie Canalway Trailusers 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 ofthe mainline and ramps, as well as adjacent to the median, on NY 390, I-390 and I-490 within the projectstudy area. The poles are galvanized steel and aluminum with truss arms transformer bases. Thefixtures are cobra-head style. New highway lighting was recently installed on both sides of the I-490corridor including the median immediately east of the Erie Canal and continues toward the city. The steelpoles 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 withcobra-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 overLexington Avenue.

Highway lighting is provided along both sides of Lexington Avenue between Lee Road and the NY 390overpass. Truss light arms with cobra-head fixtures are attached to galvanized steel poles withtransformer bases. Davit style poles are present at the intersection of Lee Road and Lexington Avenueand continue down Lee Road until the Erie Canal. No street lighting exists on Lee Road between thecanal and Lyell Avenue.

Throughout the project study area light poles are in fair condition and exhibit loss of galvanizing andmoderate rusting, except for the new poles along I-490 which are like new. Aluminum poles are generallyoxidized. 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 transportationfacilities within the project study area include the NYSDOT and MCDOT. An existing maintenancejurisdiction table is included as Exhibit 2.3.1.12. Refer to Appendix A for Existing Highway MaintenanceJurisdiction Plans.

Exhibit - 2.3.1.12Existing Maintenance Jurisdiction

PartNo.

Highway Limits Feature(s) beingMaintained

Centerline(mi)1

Lane(mi)1

Agency Authority

State Highways

1

I-490(including

interchangeramps and

auxiliary lanes)

Howard Road toErie Canal

Pavement, drainage,landscaping, signs,pavement markings,

snow removal

3.65 7.47 NYSDOT Highway LawSection 340-b

2

I-390(including


auxiliary lanes)

NorthernmostChili AvenueInterchange

Ramp Terminalsto I-490


snow removal

3.37 7.61 NYSDOT Highway LawSection 340-b

3

NYS Route 390(including


I-490 to LexingtonAvenue

Interchange


snow removal

7.16 14.58 NYSDOT Highway LawSection 340-d


2-50

Exhibit - 2.3.1.12Existing Maintenance Jurisdiction

PartNo.

Highway Limits Feature(s) beingMaintained

Centerline(mi)1

Lane(mi)1

Agency Authority

auxiliary lanes)

4

Lyell Avenue(NYS Route 31)


Pavement, curb,drainage, landscaping,

signs, pavementmarkings, snow

removal

0.76 3.60 NYSDOT Highway LawSection 349-c

5 Lyell Avenue(NYS Route 31)


Sidewalks (includingsnow removal)

-- -- Town ofGates

Highway LawSection 349-c

County Roads

6

Lee Road (CR154)

Lyell Avenue toPerson Place andLexington Avenue

intersection

Pavement, curb,sidewalk, drainage,landscaping, signs,pavement markings

0.22 0.77 MCDOT Highway LawSection 129

7

Lee Road (CR154)

Lyell Avenue toPerson Place andLexington Avenue

intersection

Snow removal 0.22 0.77 City ofRochester

Highway LawSection 140

8


Under NYS Route390



removal

0.04 0.08 MCDOT Highway LawSection 129

9 Trolley Boulevard(CR 115)

Under NYS Route390

Snow removal 0.04 0.08 Town ofGates


Local Roads

10

Lexington Avenue NYS Route 390 toLee Road



removal

0.25 1.13 City ofRochester


11

Lee RoadExtension

Lyell Avenue toend of Lee Road

Extension



removal

0.19 0.38 Town ofGates


12

Cornelia Drive,Rossmore Street,

Matilda Street,and Tarwood

Drive

Lyell Avenueintersection and

vicinity



removal

-- -- Town ofGates


13

Bellwood Drive Intersection withLexington Avenue/ NYS Route 390

ramps



removal

-- -- Town ofGreece


Structures

14

I-490/I-390/NYSRoute 390

InterchangeBridges

-- Entire Structure -- -- NYSDOT Highway Law340-b

15

NYS Route 390bridges over

Trolley Boulevard(CR 115), Erie

Canal andLexington Avenue

Trolley Boulevardto Lexington

Avenue

Entire Structure -- -- NYSDOT Highway LawSection 340-d

16

NYS Route 390bridges over


-- Railroadappurtenances under

bridge (i.e. tracks,railbed, etc.)

-- -- CSX Highway LawSection 340-d

17Howard Road

(Reference Route940L) over I-490


18 I-490 bridge overErie Canal



2-51

Structures

19CSX

Transportationover I-390

-- Entire Structure(excluding railroad

appurtenances

-- -- NYSDOT Highway Law340-b

20CSX

Transportationover I-390

-- Railroadappurtenances (i.e.tracks, railbed, etc.)

-- -- CSX Highway Law340-b

21NYS Route 33(Buffalo Road)

over I-390


22

NYS Route 31over NYS Route

390

-- Entire Structure(excluding snow

removal and ice controlfor sidewalks)

-- -- NYSDOT Highway Law340-d

23NYS Route 31

over NYS Route390

-- Snow removal and icecontrol for sidewalks

-- -- Town ofGates

Highway Law340-d

24

NYS Route 31over Erie Canal

-- Entire Structure(excluding snow

removal and ice controlfor sidewalks)

-- -- NYSDOT Highway Law349-c

25 NYS Route 31over Erie Canal

-- Snow removal and icecontrol for sidewalks

-- -- Town ofGates

Highway Law349-c

Lighting

26

I-490(including


auxiliary lanes)


Light poles andappurtenances

-- -- MCDOT Highway LawSection 340-b

27

I-390(including


auxiliary lanes)

NorthernmostChili AvenueInterchange

Ramp Terminalsto I-490


-- -- MCDOT Highway LawSection 340-b

28

NYS Route 390(including

interchangeramps, auxiliarylanes and bridge

lighting)

I-490 to LexingtonAvenue

Interchange


-- -- MCDOT Highway LawSection 340-d




-- -- MCDOT Highway LawSection 349-c

30 Lee Road (CR154)

Lexington Avenueintersection


-- -- MCDOT Highway LawSection 129

31 Lexington Avenue NYS Route 390 toLee Road


-- -- City ofRochester


Traffic Signals


Rossmore Streetto Lee Road

Entire traffic signal andappurtenances

-- -- NYSDOT Highway LawSection 349-c

33Lexington Avenue Intersection with

NYS Route 390ramps


-- -- NYSDOT Highway LawSection 340-d

34 Lee Road (CR154)

Lexington Avenueintersection


-- -- MCDOT Highway LawSection 129

Miscellaneous

35

Erie CanalwayTrail

Lyell Avenueintersection andunder NY 390

Entire trail andappurtenances(excluding Lyell

Avenue crossing)

-- -- NYSCanal

Corpora-tion

--

Notes to Exhibit 2.3.1.121. 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.


2-52

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 Trailcrosses Lyell Avenue to the west of the Erie Canal. Section 2.3.2.5 addresses this crossing in moredetail. Otherwise, pedestrian facilities are limited.

There are a limited number of sidewalks along Lyell Avenue. Where sidewalks exist they are generally inpoor 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 inthe eastbound direction to the west of Tarwood Drive, in fair condition. Although curb ramps withdetectable warning fields exist at several locations (e.g., Lee Road, Tarwood Drive, the terminal forRamps DD and DE), existing sidewalks along Lyell Avenue are generally not in compliance with ADAguidelines 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 ofLee Road Extension. Mowing strips are also present along Lee Road. These mowing strips aregenerally in fair condition.

There are no sidewalks along Lee Road and there are no shoulders provided between Lyell Avenue andjust 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 8ft. wide shoulders on Lee Road.

There are sixteen bus stops within the project study area as indicated in Section 2.3.2.3. Pedestrianaccess 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 ispaved it is generally in poor to fair condition, except where the bus stop is on the shoulder. In terms ofaccessibility per ADA guidelines, access is poor as related to condition, inadequate width, and the lack ofcurb ramps.

Pedestrians are prohibited on Interstate highways by state law. There are no pedestrian crossings orother provisions at the ramp terminals, except between Ramp DD and Ramp DE where curb ramps andcrosswalks are present. A bus stop is located between these two ramp terminals. There are no plans foradditional pedestrian routes within the project study area. A pedestrian generator checklist is included inAppendix C.

The Sidewalk Repair List posted on the Town of Gates website (on February 6, 2010) indicated that noneof the existing sidewalks within the project study area have been recently repaired. Sidewalks damagedby 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 potentialfor significant volumes of bicycle traffic, particularly on Lyell Avenue which connects to downtownRochester. The Erie Canalway Trail is also a significant route for recreational use and is also used bycommuters.

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 thesegment 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 ratesLyell 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 toSpencerport. Although a sign exists for Bicycle Route 5 on the westbound side of Lyell Avenue west of


2-53

the Erie Canal, the Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator confirmed that the sign is in the wrongplace and may have been erected to support a temporary route until the section to the south wasestablished.

As indicated in Section 2.3.2.1., there are no shoulders provided on Lee Road between Lyell Avenue andjust north of Evelyn Street. Along this segment of Lee Road, bicyclists must share the travel lane withvehicles. 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 separateprovisions 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 CentralSchool 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 sixRegional 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 downtownRochester to the Greece-Ridge Mall, including stops at Edison Tech High School, Westmar Plaza, CanalPonds Business Park and Park Ridge Hospital. Buses also utilize Howard Road, Lee Road, LexingtonAvenue and Bellwood Drive. This route dominates ridership where approximately 75 buses daily makelocal 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 Rochesterto 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) fromdowntown 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


2-54

project study area. This route no longer provides express service, therefore no buses utilize the NY 390and I-490 corridors within the project study area.

Route #20 Brockport – This route primarily provides east-west service from downtown Rochester to theVillage of Brockport. Approximately 7 buses daily (3 eastbound and 4 westbound) make local stops alongLyell 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 thetowns of Hilton, Hamlin and Clarkson, including stops at 3 Park & Ride lots. This route does not makeany 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 toStrong/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 onlybus shelter within the study limits. There are no bus turnouts within the project study area. As suchbuses sometimes impede traffic flow when making stops, particularly the two stops on Lyell Avenue at theRossmore Street intersection, which are the primary source of ridership.

RGRTA also provides Lift Line service, a safe, reliable and cost-effective transportation service to thosepeople 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 theRTS system. The methodology will be applied to the project study area, though the timeline for on LyellAvenue has yet to be defined.

There are no Park and Ride lots located within or adjacent to the project study area. However, RGRTAhas indicated that a Park and Ride lot within the vicinity of the 390/490 interchange area is an ideallocation to capture transit customers heading to downtown Rochester or other high-demand destinationssuch as U of R. However, there are currently no plans for a Park and Ride facility within the project studyarea.

RGRTA currently has no plans for a Transit Center or any other improvements within the project studyarea. 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 indowntown Rochester and is expected to open in the Fall of 2013. Also located well beyond the projectstudy area, a satellite transit center (Mt. Hope Station Transit Center) is currently being planned inconjunction 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 parochialschool students, and operates more than two dozen bus routes within the project study area. Themajority of these busses service the local neighborhoods abutting Lyell Avenue by way of RossmoreStreet, Matilda Street, Tarwood Drive and Lee Road.

2.3.2.4. Airports, Railroad Stations, and Ports – The Greater Rochester International Airport is locatedadjacent to I-390 SB approximately 2 miles south of the 390/490 interchange. No conflicts exist with theflight 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 CanalHeritage Trail (Canalway Trail) has a mid-block at-grade crossing of NY 31 (Lyell Avenue) adjacent to thebridge over the Erie Canal. The crossing is delineated with a painted crosswalk and advanced warning


2-55

signing for motorists. Although the roadway profile provides the minimum sight distance, sight distance atthe crossing is limited by the trusses and railings of the bridge over the Erie Canal. This crossing hasbeen identified as a Safety/Trail Hazard on the Parks and Trails NY website. The trail is paved within thevicinity 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 theinactive railroad corridor that crosses under NY 390 beneath the two bridges that also carry NY 390 overTrolley 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 (boundseparately). The project study area is depicted on Exhibit 1.2.1-2 in Appendix A. Lane configurations atall signalized intersections are depicted on Exhibit 1.2.1-3 in Appendix A. Posted speed limits are listedin Exhibit 2.3.1.5(1)-1, except for intersecting roadways that are described in Section 2.2.2.5.(6). Foradjacent 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, LexingtonAvenue 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 1mile from the Erie Canal to the east to the Howard Road overpass to the west, which comprises thesegment of I-490 that passes through the 390/490 interchange. Through the interchange the eastboundand westbound directions of I-490 have independent horizontal alignments, thereby attaining a maximumseparation of approximately 750 ft. The alignments transition to a uniform section at Howard Road, andapproximately 1500 ft. east of the Erie Canal. See Section 2.3.3.2.(1) for a more detailed discussion onthe existing horizontal alignments. The vertical alignment is considered level since the maximum grade is1.32% 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 studyarea. 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 eastbounddirection the left through lane is dropped at Ramp WN, a left-hand exit. At this same location, an auxiliarylane is added on the right side for a distance of approximately 1200 ft. to Ramp WS. The foregoing is alane balance violation. Continuing in the eastbound direction, there are two through lanes on I-490 for adistance of 1250 ft., where Ramp NE merges as a left-hand entrance. Three through lanes continue for adistance 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 anauxiliary 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 atRamp EN. Only two through lanes are provided on I-490 from Ramp EN to the Ramp SW, thus lanebalance is violated along this segment in the westbound direction. Ramp SW enters the mainline as alane 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 aretypically 6 ft. and 10 ft. except at isolated locations on and under existing bridges as indicated in Section2.3.3.2.(1).


2-56

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 therail 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 3miles along NY 390/I-390 from the northernmost Chili Avenue interchange ramp terminals to the south tothe Lexington Avenue interchange to the north. In the northbound direction, I-390 terminates at RampSW 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 maximumseparation of approximately 800 ft. exists within the 390/490 interchange. From the 390/490 interchangeto Lyell Avenue, the NY 390 horizontal alignments contain curves with large radii. The southbounddirection curves to the left and provides one long flat radius. The northbound direction provides twocurves that reverse in direction with a short tangent in between. The NY 390 horizontal alignment isstraight as it extends north from Lyell Avenue to the southern portion of the Lexington Avenueinterchange. The median width is 35 ft. over this length. Further north, the northbound and southboundalignments are independent and have large radius curves, resulting in a median width of approximately55 ft. at the north project study area. See Section 2.3.3.2.(1) for a more detailed discussion on theexisting 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 withinthe project study area. See Sections 2.3.3.2.(1) and 2.3.3.6 for more detailed discussion of thesebridges.

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 Avenueinterchange. Within the 390/490 interchange there are lane drops at Ramps SE and NE in thenorthbound and southbound directions, respectively. The three lane sections resume where Ramps WNand WS merge. Accordingly, there are lane balance violations in both directions where only two throughlanes are present.

Existing lane widths along I-390 and NY 390 within the project study area are 12 ft. Left and rightshoulder widths are typically 6 ft. and 10 ft. except at isolated locations on and under existing bridges asindicated in Section 2.3.3.2.(1), and along I-390 to the south of the railroad underpass, where left andright 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 the390/31 interchange and between Trolley Boulevard and the Erie Canal. In certain instances unprotectedslopes within the clear zone are as steep as 2.5:1. Roadside ditches and slopes within the clear zoneappear to be nonconforming with respect to AASTHO Roadside Design Guide criteria at two rampdiverge 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 listunshielded abutments as a potentially hazardous feature that should be evaluated. In this case, theabutments 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 atfour locations within this interchange. There are two three-level grade separations, in the southeast andnorthwest quadrants. The three-level separation located in the northwest quadrant provides forseparation of Ramp WN, I-490 WB and NY 390 SB (top to bottom). The three-level separation located inthe southeast quadrant provides for separation of I-390 NB, I-490 EB and Ramp ES (top to bottom). The


2-57

two bridges in the northeast and southwest quadrants provide separation between NY 390 NB and I-490WB (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 throughlanes exists on the mainline roadways within the 390/490 interchange (all of which are lane balanceviolations). Inherent to the interchange type is the existence of four left-hand entrances and four left-handexits. This, along with the relatively short distances between decision points, merge points, and divergepoints is not conducive to efficient operation. These, along with other design parameters, are discussedin 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 the390/31 interchange is not. Traffic traveling on I-490 EB destined for Lyell Avenue must exit at adjacentinterchanges and backtrack to Lyell Avenue. The next closest interchanges are at I-490 and Mt. ReadBoulevard, 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-serviceinterchange at Lyell Avenue is semi-directional with loop ramps (Ramps DC and DE) in the northwest andsoutheast 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) arecontrolled 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 a4 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 DAhas 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 inSection 2.3.3.1.(2).


2-58

2.3.3.1.(5) NYS Route 390/Lexington Avenue interchange – The system-to-service interchangeconfiguration at Lexington Avenue is a modified trumpet, with the movement from NY 390 SB toeastbound Lexington Avenue being provided by a loop ramp in the southwest quadrant. Uncharacteristicof a trumpet configuration is the signalized intersection at Ramps EA and EB, and the unsignalizedintersection 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 curbedalong its entire length on the right side. The last third of the ramp is curbed on both sides and does notprovide 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 ofthe ramp is curbed on the left side and does not provide shoulders. The last half of the ramp is notcurbed 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 areaextends approximately ¾ miles from the Erie Canal to the east to the east leg of the Howard Roadintersection to the west. Route 31 continues to the west as Spencerport Road; Fox Run intersects Route31 on the north approach.

The segment west of Ramp DF consists of a five lane section with two lanes in each direction and acenter (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 ineach direction with auxiliary lanes for the loop ramps (i.e., there are three lanes in each direction on thebridge over NY 390). Travel lanes are 12 ft. in width and the roadway contains several curbed sections oflimited length and is divided by an 8 ft. curbed concrete median island. The segment within theinterchange has varying shoulder widths. On the bridge over NY 390 the outside curbs are offsetapproximately 1.5 ft. from the travel way in each direction. Curbing extends from the east ramp terminalsto 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 150ft. apart from center. Lyell Avenue intersects with the NY 390 NB off-ramp (Ramp DD) and with LeeRoad. 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 leftside, 9 ft. on the right side.

Six streets intersect Lyell Avenue within the project study area. These include Cornelia Drive, RossmoreStreet, Matilda Street, Tarwood Drive, Lee Road, and Lee Road Extension. The segment of Lee Roadwithin the project study area is discussed in Section 2.3.3.1.(8). The abutting segment of Lee Roadlocated outside the project study area is discussed in Section 2.2.2.5.(5). The remaining intersectinglocal 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 withinthe project study area. Most significantly, access to Wegmans (to the south) is provided at the signalizedintersection at Rossmore Street and by means of a driveway located just east of the Howard Roadintersection. Since it is likely that most of these access points were established before the Policy andStandards for the Design of Entrances to State Highways became effective, it is likely that many of themare not in compliance with the criteria contained therein. Detailed evaluations of all existing access points


2-59

were not performed as part of this study. However, it was determined that two existing driveways do notcomply with criteria for minimum corner clearance from an intersection as per the NYSDOT HighwayDesign Manual (HDM) Figure 5A-1. The driveways are located less than twice the width of the drivewayplus 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 noresidential 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 straightalignment within the project study area. There are a significant number of utility poles within the clearzone. The utility poles within the clear zone are located on the north side of Lyell Avenue from thewestern 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 areaextends approximately 1000 ft. from the intersection of Lee Road to the east to the intersection ofBellwood Drive to the west, which intersects Lexington Avenue at its terminus, approximately 175 ft. westof NY 390. This segment consists of a four lane section with two travel lanes in each direction. Travellanes are 12 ft. in width and the roadway is curbed and is divided by a 4 ft. concrete median island withguide rail. There are no shoulders along this segment of Lexington Avenue. There are 12 ft. left turnlanes at all approaches of the Lee Road intersection. The horizontal alignment from Bellwood Drive toLee Road is in a mild curve to the right; the vertical alignment is relatively flat. There were no observedclear 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 theapproaches for the Lyell Avenue and Lexington Avenue intersections. At its intersection with LyellAvenue, approximately 600 ft. east of NY 390, Lee Road consists of a curbed three lane section with a 13ft. wide right-turn lane and an 11 ft. wide left-turn lane in the southbound direction and a 15 ft. throughlane in the northbound direction. At its intersection with Lexington Avenue, approximately 600 ft. east ofthe signalized intersection with Ramps EA and EB, Lee Road consists of a curbed five lane section withtwo lanes in each direction and a left-turn lane. All lane widths are generally 12 ft. wide. There are noshoulders approaching either the Lyell Avenue or Lexington Avenue intersections. The Lee Roadalignment is straight and there were no observed clear zone issues.

2.3.3.2. Geometric Design Elements Not Meeting Standards – Existing design elements werecompared with the minimum standards used by the NYSDOT to make capital infrastructure improvementdecisions. Within the project study area numerous non-conforming features have been identified throughfield observations, evaluation of collected data and discussions with local officials. This type of reviewhelps ensure that project objectives and feasible alternatives consider key deficiencies. The NYSDOTstandards for 3R projects were used in place of reconstruction standards where applicable as they helpidentify areas that may need improvement rather than merely identifying elements that do not meetcurrent standards.

2.3.3.2.(1) Critical Design Elements – For all mainline roadways and ramps within the project studyarea, 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”) wereutilized 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 inChapter 7 of the NYSDOT Highway Design Manual (HDM) and include minimum values for stopping sightdistance, 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 criticaldesign elements.


2-60

The Regional Traffic Engineer has concurred that the use of a design speed of 60 mph for the principalarterial highways (I-490, I-390 and NY 390) within the project study area is consistent with the anticipatedoff-peak 85th percentile speed, within the range of functional class speeds for the terrain and volume (SeeExhibit 2.3.1.5 (2)-2 in Appendix C for Design Speed Review memo). As per the NYSDOT Standards forFreeway 3R Projects, critical design elements must be consistent with the current design speed, not thedesign 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 minimumstandards for capital improvements based on a 30 mph ramp design speed. The 30 mph ramp designspeed was derived based on the current 60 mph mainline design speed. Loop ramps may utilize adesign speed of 25 mph. A 30 mph design speed for the 390/31 and 390/Lexington Avenue interchangeramps 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 thecurrent required minimum ramp design speed. These ramps are classified as “direct connection” rampswhich 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 inthe AASHTO publication A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets 2004 (referred to as theGreen Book). The remaining four ramps could be classified as either “direct connection” or “outerconnection” ramps. However, considering this is an interstate-to-interstate interchange, a “directconnection” classification for all eight ramps is considered appropriate. Furthermore, all eight rampscurrently meet the horizontal geometrics for a 40 to 50 mph ramp design speed and are posted between35 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 withthe anticipated off-peak 85th percentile speed, within the range of functional class speeds for the terrainand 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 Roadand Lexington Avenue) were compared with the minimum standards for capital improvements based onthe current 45 mph design speed. Existing geometric elements for all other roadways were not analyzedsince no work is anticipated on any of them other than the incidental work where they intersect the minorarterial roadways. Vehicle Turning Paths and Intersection Sight Distance were analyzed and arediscussed in Section 2.3.3.2.(2). The one exception is that the existing vertical clearance over TrolleyBoulevard was analyzed in the event that the NY 390 bridges over Trolley Boulevard are widened orreplaced. 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 projectstudy 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 ofAppendix I show the complete analysis of the existing conditions of the ramps within the project studyarea. 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 shoulderwidths meet or exceed the minimum required (4 ft. left / 10 ft. right) for Interstate highways except at thefollowing 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.


2-61

· I-490 EB/Ramp NE over Ramp ES (BIN 1025820) – Right shoulder tapers across the bridge andreduces to as little as 4.5 ft. The right side of this bridge carries I-490 EB traffic and the left sidecarries 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 theapproach roadway and less than AASHTO Interstate Standards. In all cases, the shoulder widths arereduced to minimize the bridge width and at least one of the shoulders on each bridge does not meet theminimum required for an Interstate highway.

Maximum Grade: The maximum grade of 1.32% on I-490 does not exceed the maximum grade for alevel 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 tothe Erie Canal; two on I-490 EB and three on I-490 WB. All curves exceed the minimum horizontalcurvature for a 60 mph design speed and 6% maximum superelevation rate when compared to bothcurrent standards (1,330 ft.) and “Standards of the Day” (1,263 ft.). All curves were originally designedutilizing degrees of curvature to the nearest 0.5 degree with corresponding radii from 2864.79 ft. to5729.58 ft. All of these curves contain spiral curve transitions except for the western-most I-490 WBsimple 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 theexisting maximum superelevation rates.

Stopping Sight Distance (SSD): All existing horizontal and vertical SSD’s within the project study areaexceed the 475 ft. minimum when compared to “Standards of the Day”. All existing SSD’s also exceedthe 570 ft. minimum when compared to current standards except for an isolated horizontal SSD restrictionon the I-490 EB bridge over I-390 SB. SSD approaching this bridge is restricted by bridge rail whereapproximately 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 todetermine existing vertical SSD.

* Horizontal Clearance (from EOT): There are no non-standard horizontal clearances along I-490 withinthe project study area, except at the I-490 EB over I-390 SB (BIN 1025812) bridge approach where theleft shoulder narrows to 3 ft. as indicated in the Shoulder Width sub-section above. The minimumrequired horizontal clearance is 15 ft. without barrier and the larger of 4 ft. or the actual shoulder widthwith 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 EBand WB (BIN 1048680). Since the Thruway (I-90) is the designated 16 ft. vertical clearance route throughthe Rochester urban area, a 14 ft. vertical clearance is the minimum required. All 4 bridges exceed the14 ft. minimum required. There are also 2 bridges on I-490 over the Erie Canal (BIN’s 4443361 and4443362); one in each direction of travel. Both bridges contain vertical clearances of 15 ft., which is lessthan 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 standardcriteria of 1.5% minimum to 2% maximum. Record plans were utilized to determine the existingpavement cross slopes.


2-62

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 thatmeets or exceeds HS 20 loading requirements. The exception is the I-490 EB over I-390 SB bridge (BIN1025812), 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 ofthe 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 andother freeways.

* Shoulder Width: Left and right shoulder widths are typically 6 ft. and 10 ft. respectively. All shoulderwidths meet or exceed the minimum required (4 ft. left / 10 ft. right) for Interstate highways except at thefollowing 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 thatare 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 ofthe shoulders on each bridge does not meet the minimum required for an Interstate highway, except forthe 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 gradefor 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 fromthe northernmost Chili Avenue interchange ramp terminals to Lexington Avenue; four on I-390/NY 390 SBand seven on I-390 NB. All curves exceed the minimum horizontal curvature for a 60 mph design speedand 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


2-63

nearest 0.5 degree with corresponding radii from 2864.79 ft. to 11459.16 ft. None of the southboundcurves contain spiral curve transitions since none of the radii exceed 1 degree of curvature, whereasseveral of the northbound curves contain spiral curve transitions. The entire southbound alignmentthrough and south of the 390/490 interchange is on a long, flat curve of radius 11459.16 ft. Through theheart of the interchange, the northbound alignment contains 3 reversing curves with spiral curvetransitions and short tangents in between.

South of Buffalo Road, comparison of three sets of as-built plans showed conflicting curve data. One setof as-built plans (NYSDOT Contract Number D256531) depicted compound curves on both the SB andNB side of I-390 with radii differing by only 0.18 ft. and 5 ft. respectively. Those same plans also showedan 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 thenorthernmost Chili Avenue interchange ramp terminals to Lexington Avenue.

Superelevation Rate: The existing maximum superelevation rate along I-390/NY 390 is 4.6%, whichdoes not exceed the maximum allowable of 6%. Record plans were utilized to determine the existingmaximum superelevation rates.

* Stopping Sight Distance (SSD): All existing horizontal and vertical SSD’s within the project study areaexceed the 475 ft. minimum when compared to “Standards of the Day” except for the sag vertical curveslocated in each direction of NY 390 just north of the Erie Canal. These sag curves provide HLSD of 469ft. in the NB direction and 448 ft. in the SB direction, which is less than the 475 ft. minimum required forcapital improvements. Furthermore, all existing SSD’s exceed the 570 ft. minimum when compared tocurrent standards except for an isolated horizontal SSD restriction that exists on the NY 390 NB bridgeover I-490 WB. SSD approaching this bridge is restricted by bridge rail where approximately 490 ft. isprovided, which does not meet the minimum required. Project basemapping was utilized to determineexisting 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/NY390 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 thebridge.

· I-390 NB and SB under CSX Railroad (BIN 7025830) – Unshielded vertical faced abutmentslocated 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 actualshoulder width with barrier.

Vertical Clearance: There are a total of 5 bridges immediately over I-390/NY 390 within the project studyarea; two over I-390/NY 390 SB (BIN’s 1025811 and 1025812), two over I-390 NB and SB (BIN’s1023030 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. verticalclearance is the minimum required. All 5 bridges exceed the 14 ft. minimum required. There are also 2bridges 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 7overhead sign structures over I-390/NY 390 within the project study area. All 7 overhead sign structuresexceed the 15 ft. minimum required.


2-64


Rollover: The existing maximum rollover rates on I-390/NY 390 do not exceed the maximum allowable of8% based on the record plans.

* Structural Capacity: Four of the eight bridges carrying I-390/NY 390 traffic provide a structural capacitythat does not meet HS 20 loading requirements (See Section 2.3.3.6.(1)). These four bridges are asfollows:

· 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 junctionsonly. See Section 2.3.1.7 for discussion on existing LOS.


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 comparedto 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 andshoulder widths on the ramp. For each ramp, the existing lane widths were measured along the sharpestcurve 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 minimumrequired (3 ft. left / 8 ft. right) for uncurbed ramps, except for an isolated portion on the right shoulder ofRamp WN which narrows to 3 ft. at the entrance terminal. The typical right shoulder width on Ramp WNis 18 ft.

* Bridge Roadway Width: All three bridges carrying direct connect ramps (Ramps SW, WN and NE) arenarrower than the approach roadway. In all cases, the shoulder widths are reduced to minimize thebridge width. However, all three of these bridges still provide shoulder widths that meet or exceed theminimum required for ramps, except for the right shoulder on the bridge carrying Ramp NE, which istapering across the bridge and reduces to as little as 4.5 ft. The right side of this bridge carries I-490 EBtraffic and the left side carries Ramp NE traffic.

Maximum Grade: None of these ramps contain grades that exceed the 7% maximum for level terrainclassification when compared to both current standards and “Standards of the Day”. Record plans wereutilized to determine existing maximum grades.

Horizontal Curvature (Minimum): All eight direct connect ramps contain curves that exceed theminimum horizontal curvature for a 30 mph design speed and 6% maximum superelevation rate whencompared to both current standards (231 ft.) and “Standards of the Day” (230 ft.). Furthermore, all rampcurves exceed the 643 ft. minimum horizontal curvature for a 45 mph design speed and 6% maximumsuperelevation rate when compared to current standards. All ramp curves were designed utilizingdegrees 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.


2-65

* Superelevation Rate: The existing superelevation rates exceed the maximum allowable of 6% on 6 ofthe 8 direct connect ramps, excluding Ramps SW and WN. Both record plans and survey data wereutilized to estimate the existing maximum superelevation rates.

Stopping Sight Distance (SSD): All eight direct connect ramps contain vertical curves that exceed theminimum 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 350ft. respectively). Furthermore, all eight ramps exceed the 425 ft. minimum vertical SSD for a 50 mphdesign speed when compared to current standards except for Ramps WS and SW. Ramp WS provides aminimum vertical SSD of 390 ft., which occurs along a sag curve approaching the entrance terminal anddoes not meet the minimum required for the 50 mph posted speed. Since this is a sag curve and theSSD is purely related to headlight sight distance, the existing highway lighting throughout the limits of thesag curve essentially eliminates this nonstandard feature. Ramp SW provides a minimum vertical SSD of373 ft., which exceeds the minimum required for the 35 mph posted speed. Record plans were utilized todetermine existing vertical SSD.

All ramps contain horizontal SSD’s that exceed the 200 ft. minimum for a 30 mph design speed whencompared to both current standards and “Standards of the Day”. The required horizontal SSD based oncurrent standards and the posted speed for each ramp was also investigated since all of these ramps areposted for speeds 35 mph or greater.

· Ramp SW is obstructed by bridge rail and vegetation and provides a SSD of approximately 228ft., 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 approximately250 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 isslightly 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 ofapproximately 259 ft., which is less than the 305 ft. minimum required for the 40 mph postedspeed. 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 ofapproximately 348 ft., which is less than the 425 ft. minimum required for the 50 mph postedspeed.

· 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 requiredfor the 40 mph posted speed. Ramp NW does not contain any obstructions that would restrict thehorizontal SSD.

Project basemapping was utilized to determine existing horizontal SSD.

Horizontal Clearance (from EOT): There are no non-standard horizontal clearances along any of thedirect connect ramps. The minimum required horizontal clearance is 3 ft. on the left side and the larger of6 ft. or the actual shoulder width on the right side, with an additional 4 ft. of clearance required beyond theoutside 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 throughthe Rochester urban area, a 14 ft. vertical clearance is the minimum required for bridge rehabilitationswithout structural deck replacement. This bridge exceeds the 14 ft. minimum required.


2-66

Rollover: The existing maximum rollover rates on the direct connect ramps do not exceed the maximumallowable of 8% based on the record plans.

Structural Capacity: All three bridges carrying direct connect ramp traffic provide a structural capacitythat meets or exceeds HS 20 loading requirements.

* Level of Service (LOS): LOS is a critical design element for Interstate highways and ramp junctionsonly. See Section 2.3.1.7 for discussion on existing LOS.


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 andshoulder widths on the ramp. For each ramp, the existing lane widths were measured along the sharpestcurve 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) minimumrequired for curbed ramps and the 3 ft. (left) / 6 ft. (right) minimum required for uncurbed ramps, exceptfor Ramp DC which contains a 5 ft. right shoulder width that does not meet the 6 ft. minimum required.


Horizontal Curvature (Minimum): All three loop ramps contain curves that exceed the 144 ft. minimumhorizontal curvature for a 25 mph design speed and 6% maximum superelevation rate when compared toboth current standards and “Standards of the Day”.

* Superelevation Rate: The existing superelevation rates exceed the maximum allowable of 6% on allloop ramps. Both record plans and survey data were utilized to estimate the existing maximumsuperelevation rates.

* Stopping Sight Distance (SSD): All three loop ramps contain horizontal and vertical SSD’s that exceedthe 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 horizontalSSD 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 tocurrent 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 todetermine 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 theloop ramps except along the last third of Ramp EC, which is curbed and contains a median barrier alongthe left side of the ramp at an offset of approximately 2 ft. The minimum required horizontal clearance is3 ft. on the left side and the larger of 6 ft. or the actual shoulder width on the right side, with an additional4 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 allowableof 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 allother loop ramps is fully controlled.


2-67

* Pedestrian Accommodation: Existing sidewalks at ramp terminals are scarce and do not comply withstandard criteria (See Section 2.3.2.1).

All Other Ramps (DA, DB, DD, DF, EA, EB, ED): Design Speed 30 mphAs 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 semidirectramp.

* Lane Width: The required lane widths on ramps are directly related to the horizontal curve radii andshoulder widths on the ramp. For each ramp, the existing lane widths were measured along the sharpestcurve on the ramp. Six of the seven existing diagonal, outer connection and semidirect ramp lane widthsdo not meet the minimum required, except for Ramp EB which is 16 ft. wide on the ramp proper andexceeds the 15 ft. minimum.

Shoulder Width: All existing diagonal, outer connection and semidirect ramp shoulder widths meet orexceed the 0 ft. (left/right) minimum required for curbed ramps and the 3 ft. (left) / 6 ft. (right) minimumrequired for uncurbed ramps.


Horizontal Curvature (Minimum): These ramps (i.e. diagonal, outer connection and semidirect) containcurves that exceed the minimum horizontal curvature for a 30 mph design speed and 6% maximumsuperelevation rate when compared to both current standards (231 ft.) and “Standards of the Day” (230ft.).

* Superelevation Rate: The existing superelevation rates exceed the maximum allowable of 6% onRamps DD, DF and ED. Both record plans and survey data were utilized to estimate the existingmaximum superelevation rates.

* Stopping Sight Distance (SSD): These ramps contain horizontal and vertical SSD’s that exceed the200 ft. minimum for a 30 mph design speed when compared to both current standards and “Standards ofthe 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. minimumrequired for the 30 mph posted speed. The box beam median barrier on the inside of the ramp curvelimits SSD. A horizontal SSD of 156 ft. exceeds the minimum criteria for a 25 mph posted speed. RampEA provides a minimum vertical SSD of approximately 195 ft., which occurs along a sag curveapproaching the Lexington Avenue intersection. Since this is a sag curve and the SSD is purely relatedto headlight sight distance, the existing highway lighting throughout the limits of the sag curve essentiallyeliminates this nonstandard feature. Project basemapping was utilized to determine existing horizontalSSD 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 mphwas 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 slightlyless 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 approximately200 ft., which does not meet the 250 ft. minimum required for the 35 mph posted speed. The box beammedian barrier on the inside of the ramp curve limits SSD.

* Horizontal Clearance (from EOT): There are no non-standard horizontal clearances along any of thediagonal, outer connection or semidirect ramps, except along the first half of Ramp ED which is curbedand contains a median barrier along the left side of the ramp at an offset of approximately 2 ft. Theminimum required horizontal clearance is 3 ft. on the left side and the larger of 6 ft. or the actual shoulderwidth on the right side, with an additional 4 ft. of clearance required beyond the outside of shoulders tobridge piers or abutments.


2-68


Rollover: The existing maximum rollover rates on the diagonal, outer connection and semidirect rampsdo 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 withstandard criteria (See Section 2.3.2.1).

Lyell Avenue (NY 31), Buffalo Road (NY 33), Lee Road (CR 154), Lexington Avenue and TrolleyBoulevard: Design Speed 45 mph

The only geometric design element analyzed on Trolley Boulevard was vertical clearance in the eventthat the NY 390 bridges over Trolley Boulevard are widened or replaced. No other work is anticipated onTrolley Boulevard as part of this project.

* Lane Width: Travel and turning lane widths along all minor arterial roadways within the project studyarea meet or exceed the required 11 ft. minimum, except on Lyell Avenue over the Erie Canal bridgewhere the travel lanes narrow to 10 ft. wide, and at the Lexington Avenue/Lee Road intersection wherethe 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 meetor exceed the minimum required, except on the Lyell Avenue bridge over the Erie Canal, which provides10 ft. wide travel lanes and no shoulders. Shoulders are not required on curbed minor arterial roadwaysthat 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 BuffaloRoad. The Lyell Avenue bridge over NY 390 provides the full approach roadway width. The LyellAvenue 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 lanesand 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 thanthe approach roadway width. Shoulders on the bridge are approximately 15 to 17 feet in width. Thisbridge was originally constructed to carry four lanes of traffic.

Maximum Grade: None of these roadways contain grades that exceed the maximum for level terrainclassification when compared to both current standards (6%) and 3R Criteria (no maximum). Recordplans were utilized to determine existing maximum grades.

Horizontal Curvature (Minimum): Within the project study area, one horizontal curve exists on LyellAvenue west of Cornelia Drive and through the Howard Road intersection. There is also a singlehorizontal curve on Lexington Avenue. Both curves exceed the minimum horizontal curvature for a 45mph design speed and 6% maximum superelevation rate when compared to both current standards (711ft.) and 3R Criteria (250 ft.). There are no horizontal curves on any of the remaining roadways within theproject study area.

Superelevation Rate: The only minor arterial within the project study area that is superelevated isLexington Avenue and a small segment along Lyell Avenue west of Cornelia Drive and through theHoward 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.


2-69

Stopping Sight Distance (SSD): All existing horizontal and vertical SSD’s within the project study areaexceed 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 theseroadways, 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, and3 ft. at intersections.

Vertical Clearance: There are 2 bridges over Lexington Avenue (BIN’s1062521 and 1062522) within theproject study area. Since Lexington Avenue is a non-NHS route, a 14 ft. minimum vertical clearance isrequired. Both bridges exceed the 14 ft. minimum required. There are also two bridges over TrolleyBoulevard and the adjacent inactive and severed section of railroad owned by CSX Transportation (BIN’s1062541 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 rampsdo 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 BuffaloRoad. The Lyell Avenue bridge over NY 390 (BIN 1021589) does not provide a structural capacity thatmeets or exceeds HS 20 loading requirements. The Lyell Avenue bridge over the Erie Canal (BIN4443380) 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 theproject study area that do not conform to normally accepted practice were identified as follows:

Level of ServiceSee Section 2.3.1.7 for discussion on existing Level of Service.

Interchange SpacingInterchange spacing along NY 390 within the project study area was reviewed for conformance with theAASHTO Green Book, which recommends a 1 mile minimum interchange spacing in urban areas. Thedistance between interchanges was measured from center-to-center of the interchange to the crossingroadway within the interchange as applicable. The distance between the 390/490 and NY 31interchanges is approximately ½ mile. The distance between the NY 31 and Lexington Avenueinterchanges 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) interchangesis approximately 0.9 miles, which is a non-conforming feature. To the south, the distance between the390/490 and Chili Avenue interchanges is approximately 1.4 miles. To the east, the distance between the390/490 and Mt. Read Boulevard interchanges is approximately 1 mile. To the west, the distancebetween the 390/490 and NY 531/490 interchanges is approximately 1.8 miles.

Ramp Terminal SpacingRamp terminal spacing within the project study area was reviewed for conformance with therecommendations in Exhibit 10-68 of the AASHTO Green Book. As shown in Exhibit 2.3.3.2 (2)-1, theexisting ramp terminal spacing is non-conforming in most instances. The Green Book states “to provide


2-70

sufficient weaving length and adequate space for signing, a reasonable distance should be providedbetween successive ramp terminals”.

It should be noted that Exhibit 10-68 depicts traffic entering the mainline from the same (right) side of theroadway. However, as indicated in note 1 below Exhibit 2.3.3.2 (2)-1, several of the successive rampterminals contain pairs of ramps in close proximity to each other that enter or exit on opposite sides of themainline roadway. In addition, each pair of successive ramp terminals contains at least one ramp thateither continues as a through lane when entering the mainline (lane addition) or drops off when exiting themainline (lane drop). This scenario lessens the concern about ramp spacing since merging and divergingtraffic on opposite sides of the mainline, as well as sign spacing, is less of an issue than traffic enteringand exiting the mainline from the same side of the roadway.

As recommended by AASHTO, ramp terminal spacing should be checked in accordance with theprocedures 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. Discussionrelating to those results can be found in Section 2.3.1.7 of this report.

Exhibit 2.3.3.2 (2)-1Existing Ramp Terminal Spacing

Element RecommendedSpacing

ExistingCondition

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


2-71

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 ServiceInterchange Full Freeway condition.

Left-Hand Entrances and ExitsFour of the eight ramps that comprise the 390/490 interchange are left-hand entrance/exit ramps asfollows:

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-handexits 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 arecontrary to the concept of driver expectancy, especially when intermixed with right-handentrances 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-handentrance.

· Entering drivers are forced to merge to their right side where, with left-hand drive vehicles, theyhave reduced visibility and thus more difficulty in making accurate judgments. This problem isgreatly 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 aconcern for traffic continuing through the mainline. In other words, entering drivers are not forced tomerge immediately to their right side because they are afforded their own lane. However, traffic thatutilizes these left-hand entrance ramps and intend to exit at the downstream Chili Avenue, Mt. ReadBoulevard, Lexington Avenue and NY 531 interchanges must merge and weave across multiple lanes oftraffic over relatively short distances. These maneuvers can be very difficult and dangerous, especiallyduring peak periods of congestion.

Exit only lanes are provided for three of the four left-hand exits. Ramp SW is the exception where adeceleration lane is provided.

Lane Reductions (Lane Balance)A reduction in the number of through lanes on the mainline roadways exists within the 390/490interchange. Three through lanes are provided on I-490, I-390 and NY 390 for all approaches to theinterchange. However, within the interchange itself, only two through lanes are provided due to lanereductions (i.e. lane drops or exit only lanes) for some of the interchange ramps. As discussed in theAASHTO Green Book, lane reductions should not be made within the interchange simply toaccommodate variations in traffic volumes, especially on 390 where the existing peak hour traffic volumeson the majority of these two-lane sections warrant three through lanes. Instead, auxiliary lanes, asneeded, should be added or removed from the basic number of lanes to accommodate ramps. To realizeefficient traffic operation through and beyond the interchange, three lanes would be recommendedthrough the “core” interchange area.

Option Lane (Decision Lane) LengthThe AASHTO Green Book (Figure 10-75) recommends a 1000 ft. to 1800 ft. length to widen a lane from12 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


2-72

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 LengthAs indicated in the “Lane Reductions” subsection above, through lanes are “dropped” at several locationswithin the 390/490 interchange. However, lane drop transitions are not required since the through lanesare dropped as exit ramps. In other words, any through lanes that are dropped on the mainline roadwaysare actually converted to exit-only lanes. There is only one instance within the project study area where athrough lane drop transition exists. The right through lane on the westbound side of Lexington Avenue isdropped 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 approximately450 ft. is required as per Section 3B.09 of the Federal Highway Administration publication Manual onUniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways 2009 (MUTCD).

Lane Shift Taper LengthThere is only one instance within the project study area where a lane shift taper exists. The Lyell Avenueeastbound through lanes shift approximately 7 ft. just beyond Lee Road intersection. The existing taperlength is approximately 190 ft. Based on the anticipated off-peak 85th percentile speed of 45 mph, a taperlength of approximately 158 ft. is required as per Section 5.9.8.2 E of the HDM.

Auxiliary LanesAuxiliary lanes (i.e. acceleration/deceleration lanes and/or speed-change lanes) for ramps within theproject study area were reviewed for conformance with Exhibits 10-69 to 10-73 of the AASHTOpublication A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets 2004 (Green Book). As shown inExhibit 2.3.3.2 (2)-2, the existing auxiliary lane lengths exceed the minimum recommended by AASHTOin all but one instance at the 390/490 interchange. The existing auxiliary lane lengths at the two otherinterchanges 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)-2Existing Auxiliary Lane Lengths

Ramp ConditionSpeed Change

(mph)5,6,7,8,9GradeFactor

RecommendedLength(feet)

Existing Condition(feet)

I-490 / I-390 / NYS Route 390 Interchange

NE (390 SB to 490 EB) Deceleration 60 to 40 NA 350 NA (Left Lane Drop)NA (Right Lane Fork)

NE (390 SB to 490 EB) Acceleration 40 to 60 NA 550 1726 ft. (Left Lane)NA (Right Lane Addition)

ES (490 WB to 390 SB) Deceleration 60 to 50 NA 240 NA (Lane Drop)

ES (490 WB to 390 SB) Acceleration 50 to 60 NA 18011 310 ft. (Left Lane)1

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. *


2-73

Exhibit 2.3.3.2 (2)-2Existing Auxiliary Lane Lengths

Ramp ConditionSpeed Change

(mph)5,6,7,8,9GradeFactor



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 InterchangeEA (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 oftraffic on the through lane. However, only that portion of the acceleration length beginning where thepainted 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 beconsidered as part of the deceleration length.

(5) Speed of vehicles entering or exiting the highway is based on the anticipated off-peak 85th percentile speedsof the highway.

(6) Speed change required for acceleration lanes is based on the anticipated off-peak 85th percentile speed ofthe 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 conservativethan using the 6% maximum superelevation rate tables because it may reduce the maximum theoreticalspeed 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 basedon the anticipated off-peak 85th percentile speed of the highway and the maximum allowable ramp designspeed of the exit curve radius as per the 4% maximum superelevation rate table depicted in the NYSDOTHDM Exhibit 2-10. This approach is more conservative than using the 6% maximum superelevation ratetables.

(8) For ramps containing compound exit curves, speed change required for deceleration lanes is based on theanticipated off-peak 85th percentile speed of the highway and the maximum allowable ramp design speedalong the entire ramp as per the 4% maximum superelevation rate table depicted in the NYSDOT HDMExhibit 2-10. This approach is more conservative than using the exit curve radius (if the exit curve radius isgreater than the minimum radius on the ramp) or 6% maximum superelevation rate tables because it mayreduce the maximum theoretical speed that a vehicle can attain on the ramp exit curve thus increasing therequired deceleration length. It also discounts the ability of drivers to decelerate along a portion of the flattercurve 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 TapersAuxiliary / speed-change lane tapers for parallel-type exits within the project study area were reviewed forconformance with AASHTO Green Book criteria. A downstream taper length on parallel-type accelerationlanes of 300 ft. is suitable for design speeds up to 70 mph (AASHTO Green Book pg. 846). The taperedportion 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


2-74

lengths exceed the minimum recommended by AASHTO in all instances at the 390/490 interchange. Atotal of four existing taper lengths within the project study area are non-conforming.

Exhibit 2.3.3.2 (2)-3Existing Auxiliary Lane Taper Lengths

Ramp Condition Recommended Length(feet)


I-490 / I-390 / NYS Route 390 InterchangeNE (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 InterchangeDA (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 InterchangeEA (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 RatioFor compound curves, the AASHTO Green Book recommends a maximum rate of 1.5:1 on highways and2:1 on turning roadways and ramps. General observations on ramps having differences in radii with aratio of 2:1 indicate that both operation and appearance normally are satisfactory. However, a desirablemaximum ratio for ramps is 1.75:1.

There is a series of compound curves on I-390 NB approaching the 390/490 interchange. These threecurves have radii of 3819.72 ft., 11459.16 ft. and 2864.79 ft. resulting in ratios of 3:1 and 4:1. Althoughthis series of compound curves exceed the maximum ratio, the middle curve is extremely flat such thatthe alignment does not appear abrupt or forced to drivers. There are no other compound curves presenton any of the highways within the project study area.

Compound curves are present on most ramps. The following ramps exceed the maximum ratio and arenon-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 CurvesExhibit 3-42 of the AASHTO Green Book recommends a minimum curve length for compound intersectioncurves. Curves that are compounded should not be too short or their effectiveness in enabling smoothtransitions from a tangent or flat-curve to sharp-curve operation may be lost. All compound intersectioncurves 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 LyellAvenue and Howard Road intersection, only the east leg right-turns were analyzed since they are the onlyportion of the intersection within the project study area. Five of the six signalized intersections (excluding


2-75

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 StateDesignated Truck Access Route as indicated in Section 2.3.1.1. The Lyell Avenue and Rossmore Streetintersection utilizes a WB-65 design vehicle for delivery trucks entering and exiting the Wegmansdriveway only, and a Single Unit (SU) design vehicle for turning maneuvers into and out of RossmoreStreet. The Lyell Avenue at Howard Road east leg right-turns utilizes a WB-50 design vehicle forwestbound 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 therequired WB-65.

· The Ramp DD to Lyell Avenue EB to Lee Road right and left turn combination accommodates aWB-65 design vehicle, however the vehicle never gets square to Lyell Avenue and thus its trailercan block Lyell Avenue EB through traffic as it waits at the Lee Road traffic signal to make theleft-turn.

· The right-turn from the Wegman’s driveway onto Lyell Avenue EB accommodates a WB-40design vehicle, not the required WB-65.

· The Lyell Avenue WB right-turn onto Rossmore Street accommodates a P design vehicle withoutencroaching 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 aPassenger 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 therequired WB-65. However, it is expected that a WB-65 would seldom make this maneuver unlessthey are attempting to make a u-turn on NY 390 SB or accessing Bellwood Drive which utilizes aWB-50 design vehicle.

· The Lee Road SB right-turn onto Lexington Avenue accommodates a WB-62 design vehicle, notthe required WB-65.

· The Howard Road WB right-turn onto Fox Run accommodates a WB-40 design vehicle, not therequired WB-50.

· The Howard Road NB right-turn onto Lyell Avenue accommodates a WB-62 design vehicle, notthe required WB-65.

The unsignalized intersections at Lyell Avenue and Cornelia Drive, Lyell Avenue and Matilda Street, LyellAvenue and Tarwood Drive, and Lyell Avenue and Lee Road Ext. were analyzed using a SU designvehicle. The unsignalized intersection at Lexington Avenue and Bellwood Drive was analyzed using aWB-50 design vehicle. Left-turning maneuvers at all four of these intersections are achievable with thesedesign 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 receivinglane when making the turn, except at Cornelia Drive. When traffic is queued at these intersections, thiscould make for a difficult or impossible maneuver. The following turning paths at unsignalizedintersections were determined to be non-conforming:

· The Lyell Avenue WB right-turn onto Matilda Street, EB onto Tarwood Drive, and EB onto LeeRoad Ext. accommodate a P design vehicle without encroaching into the opposing lane, not therequired SU vehicle.

· The Lexington Avenue WB right-turn onto Bellwood Drive accommodates a WB-40 designvehicle, not the required WB-50.

Intersection Sight Distance (ISD)Minimum intersection sight distance (ISD) is required at all non-signalized intersections, driveways, andfor any uncontrolled moves associated with a signalized intersection, in order to ensure that a motoristmay safely enter or exit the roadway. The required ISD value varies based upon the highway designspeed, type of vehicle, type of maneuver, and type of traffic control imposed on the side road traffic. ISDavailability was investigated at all intersections and commercial driveways along Lyell Avenue andLexington Avenue within the project study area. The required ISD for passenger cars, single-unit trucksand combination trucks is 430, 565 and 695 feet respectively for right-turns, and 500, 630 and 760 feet for


2-76

left-turns based upon the 45 mph design speed of these two roadways. The evaluation identified that ISDis 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 severaladjacent driveways within the project study area. On the north side of Lyell Avenue, sightdistance is limited by the bridge truss and railings at all three driveways from the bridge to theeastern-most driveway at the Hess gas Station. On the south side of Lyell Avenue, the bridgetruss and railing limits sight distance at the Canalway Trail parking lot driveway, and the SofiaCollision and Frame driveway. Existing sight distances at these five driveways vary fromapproximately 180 ft. to 640 ft. In addition, as discussed in Section 2.3.2.5, the bridge also limitssight distance at the adjacent Canalway Trail crossing.

· Sight distance for right-turning vehicles exiting the Canalway Trail parking lot on the south side ofLyell 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 atseveral driveways and side streets. On the north side of Lyell Avenue, sight distance is limited atthe Taylor Rental Center and Steve T. Hots driveways. On the south side of Lyell Avenue, sightdistance 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 anexisting ISD of approximately 190 ft.

· Sight distance for right-turning on red vehicles exiting the Wegmans driveway is limited by theRGRTA 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 withan existing ISD of approximately 520 ft. Sight distance for right-turning vehicles is limited by theNY 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 theNY 390 bridge abutment as well as an existing berg, which provides an existing sight distance ofapproximately 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 andincluding 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 wellas the 390/Lexington Avenue interchange, was constructed in 1971. These mainline roadways and the390/490 interchange ramps originally consisted of 9 inch reinforced concrete pavement over 12 inches ofgravel base. The 390/31 interchange ramps, including the segment of Lyell Avenue within theinterchange, originally consisted of an asphalt concrete surface with an 8 inch concrete foundation over12 inches of gravel base. In 1993, portions of these mainline roadways and ramps within the 390/490interchange were rehabilitated in conjunction with Project Identification Number (PIN) 4002.92 (NYSDOTContract Number D253556). The existing concrete pavement sections were cracked and seated, thenoverlaid with 5 inches of asphalt. The I-390 mainline roadway to the south of the 390/31 interchange wasrehabilitated in 1997 under NYSDOT Contract Number D256531. The existing concrete pavementsections were cracked and seated, then overlaid with 5 inches of asphalt. Since 1997 the mainlinesections have been periodically milled and overlaid.

A Pavement Evaluation Treatment Selection Report (PETSR) was completed for the project study areaon May 26, 2011. The observations noted herein reflect the contents of that report and an independentinspection conducted in March, 2011 unless otherwise noted. In terms of general observations perdistress mechanisms and ratings, there were no significant differences. The independent inspectionprovided ratings and specific notes for areas within those delineated for the PETSR, as noted. Severalroadway 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


2-77

edge cracking are common in all ramp pavements. Other roadways within the project study area areasphalt pavement sections. The following summary corresponds to the segments identified in Section2.3.3.1.

· I-390 - Chili Avenue interchange through the 390/490 interchange: The pavement and shouldersare in fair to good condition. Observations specific to this area were noted in the independentinspection.

· NY 390 - 390/490 interchange to the Lexington Avenue interchange: The pavement is in goodcondition. Shoulders are good condition except in the southbound direction from Lyell Avenue toTrolley Boulevard, where longitudinal and minor block cracking were observed. The shoulderconditions were fair over that segment. Observations specific to this area were noted in theindependent 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 pavementsection to the east of the intersection is in fair condition. Lexington Avenue pavements were notincluded in the PETSR.

· Lee Road: Lee Road pavements are generally in fair to good condition. Lee Road pavementswere not included in the PETSR.

Pavement Condition Ratings were not included in the PETSR. A summary of the Pavement Evaluationand 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 hasbeen diminished significantly due to silting. Most outfalls 24 inches or less in diameter were blocked orburied by silt and vegetation at the time of inspection. Accordingly, the conditions noted herein are limitedto the extent that materials were not accessible. Major culverts are discussed in Section 2.3.3.7.

I-490The project area to the east of the Erie Canal is drained by a drainage system in the median thatintercepts flows from roadside ditches in each direction. Cross drain pipes range from 18” SICPP (goodcondition) to 30” x 18” elliptical concrete (fair to good condition). The system drains west to the ErieCanal (48” outfall).

I-390From the south limits of the 390/490 interchange to a point approximately 1500 feet south of the CSXrailroad overpass, runoff is conveyed to a low point south of the railroad overpass by means of roadsideditches. To the north of the bridge, the northbound and southbound ditches drain to the median bymeans of 30” x 18” elliptical concrete cross culverts north of the CSX railroad overpass. The flow isconveyed to the east side of I-390 to the south of the railroad bridge by means of a 30” x 18” ellipticalconcrete cross culvert. The outfall is located approximately 70 feet south of the bridge. Runoff from apoint 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 themedian 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


2-78

south of the railroad bridge. Runoff from the ditches that drain to this point is conveyed to an outfall onthe east side of I-390 by means of two 57” x 38” CMP arch pipes.

NYS Route 390A significant area to the north of the 390/490 interchange and south of Lyell Avenue drains to roadsideditches 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 oftwo cross culverts. The area within the interchange to the south of Lyell Avenue, and the area within theRamp DC loop are conveyed to the median by a 30 inch CMP (fair condition). An 18 inch CMP drains thearea 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. Theflow 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 flowis conveyed to the south by means of a roadside ditch, which drains most of the area encompassed byRamp 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 (faircondition). The system discharges to the outside roadside ditch near the Ramp DD diverge by means ofa 42” CMP. The roadside ditch flows south to the outfall of a 5’ x 15’ concrete box culvert (see 390/490Interchange).

Areas to the north of the 390/31 interchange and to the south of the Lexington Avenue interchange drainto the Erie Canal. The area to the south of Trolley Boulevard is intercepted by a channel which conveysflow 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 drainsto the northbound exit ramp infield area on east side of NY 390. The remainder of the west portion drainsto a roadside ditch that drains south to the Erie Canal.

390/490 InterchangeNear the western limit of the project study area, an area to the north of I-490 WB drains to the median bymeans of a 3’ x 6’ concrete box culvert. An area to the south of I-490 EB is conveyed to the median atthe same location by means of a 36” CMP. The median ditch flows east to a depressed area locatedsouth of I-490 WB. This area is drained by a 4’ x 6’ concrete box culvert that discharges to the south ofRamp WN approximately 400 ft. east of the I-490 eastbound/Ramp WN gore; the box culvert headwallsare buried. A ridge separates the contributing area for that box culvert from a relatively small area to theeast (closer to the Ramp WN bridge over I-490); the latter area drains under Ramp WN to the south bymeans 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’ x10’ concrete box culvert under I-390 SB. This culvert also conveys flow from an area to the north ofRamp WN (referenced above). A significant area drains to the outfall channel from the south. Runofffrom the area to the east of I-390 SB, north of Ramp ES and south of I-490 EB is collected by ditches andconveyed to the north at the I-490 EB bridge over I-390 SB by means of a 24” CMP; this flow is conveyedto the outfall of the 4’ x 10’ concrete box culvert. To the east of the 4’ x 10’ box culvert outlet, the flow isconveyed under Ramp NE by means of an 4’ x 11.3’ concrete box culvert. The remaining area within theinterchange north of I-490 WB and west of NY 390 SB drains under NY 390 SB at the three level gradeseparation in a southeasterly direction by means of a 24 inch CMP (fair condition), then south by openchannel 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 SBalso drains nearly all of the central and southern part of the interchange, with the exception of the area tothe 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


2-79

northbound near the Ramp SW diverge. A significant flow from areas within the interchange to the southof I-490 EB is conveyed to the outfall of this structure by means of a 36” CMP that extends through thethree level grade separation on the south side of Ramp ES, then under Ramp ES. The culvert underRamp 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 boxculvert under I-490 WB.

Two areas to the east of NY 390 SB do not drain to the outfall channel described above. The area eastNY 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 largedetention area to the north of I-490 WB. The other area that does not drain to the outfall channel in thecentral 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” CMPunder I-490 EB, then north to the channel along I-490 WB by means of a 42” CMP. This channel flows tothe east to its outfall at the Erie Canal.

Lyell AvenueWithin 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 anunderground storm sewer system located on the north side of Lyell Avenue. Between Rossmore Streetand NY 390, runoff is conveyed by two systems. Rossmore Street runoff is conveyed south to LyellAvenue by means of a 12” CMP, which combines with flow intercepted at the northwest and southwestcorners of the intersection. The 12” CMP flows east along the south curb line of Lyell Avenue to an inletlocated approximately 200 ft. east of Tarboro Drive. Runoff from several subsystems that draincommercial 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 thenorth at Matilda Street (8” CMP), then extending to an inlet located approximately 200 ft. east of theTarboro Drive intersection. Both systems ultimately discharge to open channels in the 390/31interchange.

To the east of the Lyell Avenue interchange, Lyell Avenue drains east to the Erie Canal by means of astorm sewer system on the north side. A 15” CMP extending from Lee Road also conveys runoff fromseveral commercial areas to the north to a point approximately 300 ft. to the west of the Erie Canal, fromwhich an 18” RCP extends to the Erie Canal. The south portion of a segment of Lyell Avenue to the westof the Erie Canal drains to an inlet located approximately 200 feet from the Erie Canal, which outfalls tothe southeast to a ditch.

2.3.3.5. Geotechnical – Boring programs were undertaken within the project study area under threeseparate contracts, FASH 62-14, FASH 67-9 and FISH 60-13. The following summarizes the subsurfaceexplorations:

BIN 1062521 & BIN 1062522 - NY 390SB/390NB over Lexington AvenueSubsurface conditions generally consist of a 12’ to 17’ deep layer of silty soil with some sand and angulargravel overlaying Limestone bedrock.

BIN 4062531 & BIN 4062532 - NY 390SB/390NB over Erie CanalSubsurface conditions generally consist of a 10’ to 20’ deep layer of silt and sand with broken limestoneand some boulders overlaying Limestone bedrock.

BIN 1062541 & BIN 1062542 - NY 390SB/390NB over Trolley Blvd. and Abandoned RRSubsurface conditions generally consist of a 10’ to 14’ deep layer of silty soil with some sand and traceangular gravel overlaying Limestone bedrock.

BIN 1021589 - NY 31 (Lyell Avenue) over NY 390NB and NY 390SB


2-80

Subsurface conditions generally consist of a 12’ to 17’ deep layer of silty soil with trace sand overlayingLimestone bedrock. Boulders with diameters varying from 3” to 12” were present in the overburden layer.

BIN 4443380 – NY 31 (Lyell Avenue) over Erie CanalNo subsurface data is available.

BIN 1025811 – I-490WB over NY 390SBSubsurface conditions generally consist of a 13’ to 17’ deep layer of silt and sand with broken limestoneand some boulders overlaying Limestone bedrock.

BIN 1052280 – Ramp WN over I-490WB and NY 390SBSubsurface conditions generally consist of a 16’ to 22’ deep layer of silty soil with some sand and graveloverlaying Limestone bedrock.

BIN 1052290 – NY 390NB over I-490WBSubsurface conditions generally consist of a 11’ to 12’ deep layer of silt and sand with some graveloverlaying Limestone bedrock.

BIN 1025812 – I-490EB over I-390SBSubsurface conditions generally consist of a 14’ to 19’ deep layer of silt, sand and gravel with brokenlimestone and some boulders overlaying Limestone bedrock.

BIN 1025820 & BIN 1063950 – I-490EB over Ramp ES & I-390NB over I-490EB and Ramp ESNo subsurface data is available.

BIN 4443361 & BIN 4443362 – I-490WB/I-490EB over Erie CanalSubsurface conditions generally consist of a 15’ to 25’ deep layer of silt and sand with broken limestoneand some boulders overlaying Limestone bedrock.

BIN 1048680 – Howard Road over I-490 WB and I-490EBNo subsurface data is available.

BIN 1023030 – Route 33 (Buffalo Road) over I-390 NB and I-390SBSubsurface conditions generally consist of a 8’ to 18’ deep layer of silty soil with trace sand overlayingLimestone bedrock.

BIN 7025830 – CSX Railroad over I-390 NB and I-390SBSubsurface conditions generally consist of a 11’ to 12’ deep layer of silt and sand with some bouldersoverlaying Limestone bedrock.

Areas of exposed rock exist along the mainline roadways at the following locations. The locations andlengths 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 800ft. 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 lengthof 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 thesoils within the project study area. Areas that may require modifications to rock slopes will be evaluatedby the Geotechnical Group during Final Design.


2-81

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 fromCSX Railroad over I-390 to NY 390 over Lexington Avenue in the North-South direction and they extendfrom 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 WINBoltsunless otherwise noted.

Exhibit - 2.3.3.6 (1)Summary of Existing Structures

BridgeNo.

BIN No. Featurecarried and

crossed

BridgeType

No. /Length

ofspans

Width ofTravelLanes /

Shoulders

Out-to-Out

BridgeWidth

Sidewalk Utilities VerticalClearance

StructuralCapacity

(HS)

1 1062521 NY 390SBover

LexingtonAvenue

SteelMulti-Girder

1span@ 90’

4 Lanes@ 12’

4’0” LeftShoulder5’6” RightShoulder

60’9” None Electric,Lighting

14’4” 33 Tons(Inv.)*

56 Tons(Oper.)*

2 1062522 NY 390NBover

LexingtonAvenue

SteelMulti-Girder

1span@ 90’

3 Lanes@ 12’

5’0” LeftShoulder

10’0”Right

Shoulder


14’5” 31 Tons(Inv.)*

52 Tons(Oper.)*

3 4062531 NY 390SBover Erie

Canal

SteelMulti-Girder

1span

@196’

4 Lanes@ 12’



20’ (max) 38 Tons(Inv.)**63 Tons(Oper.)**

4 4062532 NY 390NBover Erie

Canal

SteelMulti-Girder

1span

@196’

3 Lanes@ 12’

5’0” LeftShoulder

10’0”Right

Shoulder


20’ (max) 28 Tons(Inv.)**47 Tons(Oper.)**

5 1062541 NY 390SBover TrolleyBoulevard

andAbandoned

RR

SteelMulti-Girder

4span@ 50’

65’65’50’

3 Lanes@ 12’


45’4” None Lighting TrolleyBlvd

23’11”(24’0”Field

Survey)

Railroad22’4”(Field

Survey)

49 Tons(Inv.)***81 Tons

(Oper.)***

6 1062542 NY 390NBover TrolleyBoulevard

andAbandoned

RR

SteelMulti-Girder

4span@ 50’

65’65’50’

3 Lanes@ 12’


45’4” None Lighting TrolleyBlvd

24’-1”(24’1”Field

Survey)

Railroad22’-4”(23’1”Field

Survey)


(Oper.)***


2-82


BridgeNo.


crossed

BridgeType

No. /Length

ofspans


Shoulders

Out-to-Out

BridgeWidth


StructuralCapacity

(HS)

7 1021589 NY 31(Lyell

Avenue)over

NY 390NBand NY390SB

SteelMulti-Girder

4span

@29’80’80’29’

6 Lanes@ 12


8’-0”Median

97’10” Yes Electric,Lighting,

Telephone,TrafficSignal

Interconnect

14’1”(14’1”Field

Survey)

30 Tons(Inv.)*

50 Tons(Oper.)*

8 4443380 NY 31(Lyell

Avenue)over Erie

Canal

SteelThruTruss

1span

@113’

4 Lanes@ 10’

NoShoulder

58’1” Yes Gas Line,Water Line,Telephone,Navigation,Fuel Line

18’ 41 Tons(Inv.)*

59 Tons(Oper.)*

9 1025811 I-490WBover

NY 390SB

SteelMulti-Girder

3span@ 37’

58’37’

3 Lanes@ 12’


49’2” None Lighting 14’8” 36 Tons(Inv.)*

65 Tons(Oper.)*

10 1052280 Ramp WN(I-490EB toNY 390NB)

overI-490WBand NY390SB

SteelMulti-Girder

3span@ 80’110’92’

1 Lane @15’

3’0” min.Left

Shoulder11’0” min.

RightShoulder


71 Tons(Oper.)*

11 1052290 NY 390NBover

I-490WB

SteelMulti-Girder

3spans

@56’49’44’

2 Lanes@ 12’

3’0” min.Left


RightShoulder

36’0” None Lighting 14’9”(15’0”Field

Survey)

43 Tons(Inv.)**71 Tons(Oper.)**

12 1025812 I-490EBover

I-390SB

SteelMulti-Girder

3spans

@40’45’42’

2 Lanes@ 12’

3’0” min.Left


RightShoulder


50 Tons(Oper.)*

13 1025820 I-490EBover Ramp

ES(I-490WB to

I-390SB)

SteelMulti-Girder

3spans

@59’73’71’

4 Lanes@ 12’

4’0” min.Left


RightShoulder


77 Tons(Oper.)*

14 1063950 I-390NBover

I-490EBand Ramp

ES(I-490WB to

I-390SB)

SteelMulti-Girder

3spans

@87’

102’80’

3 Lanes@ 12’


43’1.5” None Lighting 14’6” 56 Tons(Inv.)***94 Tons

(Oper.)***


2-83


BridgeNo.


crossed

BridgeType

No. /Length

ofspans


Shoulders

Out-to-Out

BridgeWidth


StructuralCapacity

(HS)

15 4443361 I-490WBover Erie

Canal

SteelMulti-Girder

1span

@150’

4 Lanes@ 12’6’ Left

Shoulder7’ Right

Shoulder

63’0” None Electric,Navigation

15’ (max) 48 Tons(Inv.)*

93 Tons(Oper.)*

16 4443362 I-490EBover Erie

Canal

SteelMulti-Girder

1span

@150’

5 Lanes@ 12’6’ Left

Shoulder7’ Right

Shoulder

75’0” None Electric,Navigation

15’ (max) 48 Tons(Inv.)*

93 Tons(Oper.)*

17 1048680 HowardRoad overI-490WB

andI-490EB

SteelMulti-Girder

2spans

@99’

2 Lanes@ 12’

8’Shoulders

52’0” Yes Electric,Telephone

14’6” 49 Tons(Inv.)*

92 Tons(Oper.)*

18 1023030 Route 33(Buffalo

Road) overI-390NB

andI-390SB

SteelMulti-Girder

4spans

@31’77’77’31’

2 Lanes@ 13’

15’Shoulders

67’10” Yes Electric,Telephone,

Lighting

14’3”(14’6”Field

Survey)


(Oper.)***

19 7025830 CSXRailroad

overI-390NB

andI-390SB

SteelGirder /Floor-beam

System

2spans

@72’

None 59.0’ None None 14’2”(14’6”Field

Survey)

N/A

* 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, BIN4062532 – NY 390 NB over Erie Canal and BIN 1052290 – NY 390NB over I-490WB. The evaluationwas performed in accordance with AASHTO Guide Specification for Fatigue Evaluation of ExistingBridges. 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 SummaryFatigue Detail Detail Category Fatigue Life

(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 Detail Detail Category Fatigue Life(From 2011)

Lateral Bracing Connection Plate Welds E 35 yrsTransverse Stiffener/Connection Plate Welds C Infinite Life


2-84

Exhibit - 2.3.3.6 (4)BIN 1052290 – NY 390NB over I-490WB

Fatigue Evaluation Summary

Fatigue Detail Detail Category Fatigue Life(From 2011)

Partial Length Cover Plate Welds E’ 0 yrsConnection Plate/Bearing Stiffener Welds C Infinite Life

Bottom Flange Splice Plate Welds(Continuity Retrofit) E’ 18 yrs

2.3.3.6.(2) Clearances (Horizontal/Vertical) – There are 10 bridges within the project study area thatspan over I-390/NY 390 and I-490, one of which is over a ramp. Since the Thruway (I-90) is thedesignated 16 ft. vertical clearance route through the Rochester urban area, a 14 ft. vertical clearance isthe minimum required. All 10 bridges exceed the 14 ft. minimum required. See Exhibit 2.3.3.6 (1) forvertical clearances (from WINBolts). The I-490 bridges over the Erie Canal have a vertical clearance of15 ft., which is less than the 15.5 ft. required. All 11 overhead sign structures within the project studyarea exceed the 15 ft. minimum required. Five bridges (BINs 1063950, 1052290, 1025812, 1062541 and1062542) do not provide the minimum 4’ horizontal clearances across the bridge. Refer to Section2.3.3.2 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 thebridges found within the project study area is provided in Exhibit 2.3.3.6 (5).

Exhibit - 2.3.3.6 (5)History & Deficiencies

BridgeNo.

BIN No. Feature Carriedand Crossed

YearBuilt

Major RehabilitationWork (Year)

GeometricDeficiencies

1 1062521 NY 390SB overLexington Avenue

1971 Concrete Overlay,Paint Steel, Joints & Bearings

(1985)Asphalt Overlay

(2009)

Right Shoulder < 10’

2 1062522 NY 390NB overLexington Avenue

1971 Concrete Overlay,Paint Steel, Joints & Bearings

(1985)Asphalt Overlay

(2009)3 4062531 NY 390SB over Erie

Canal1971 Concrete Overlay, Substructure Repairs, Paint

Steel, Joints & Bearings(1985)


4 4062532 NY 390NB over ErieCanal

1971 Concrete Overlay, Substructure Repairs, PaintSteel, Joints & Bearings

(1985)5 1062541 NY 390SB over Trolley

Boulevard andAbandoned RR

1971 Asphalt Overlay(1985)

Left Shoulder < 4’Right Shoulder < 10’

6 1062542 NY 390NB overTrolley Boulevard andAbandoned RR



7 1021589 NY 31 (Lyell Avenue)over NY 390NB andNY 390SB


Pier Repairs(2001)

Right Shoulder < 6’(Curbed)

8 4443380 NY 31 (Lyell Avenue)over Erie Canal

1937 New Deck(1966)

Concrete Overlay, New Joints, Railing Retrofit(1990)

Lane < 11’Right Shoulder < 6’

(Curbed)


2-85

Exhibit - 2.3.3.6 (5)History & Deficiencies

BridgeNo.


YearBuilt

Major RehabilitationWork (Year)

GeometricDeficiencies

9 1025811 I-490WB over NY390SB

1963 New Deck (Widened Overhang), ReplaceFascia Girder, Replace Piers, Superstructure

Continuity Retrofit, Substructure Repairs, PaintSteel, New Joints & Bearings

(1993)


10 1052280 Ramp WN (I-490EB toNY 390NB) overI-490WB and NY390SB

1963 Concrete Overlay, Substructure Repairs, PaintSteel, New Joints & Bearings

(1993)

None

11 1052290 NY 390NB overI-490WB

1963 New Deck, Replace Piers, SuperstructureContinuity Retrofit, Substructure Repairs, Paint

Steel, New Joints & Bearings(1993)


12 1025812 I-490EB overI-390SB

1963 New Deck, Replace Piers, SuperstructureContinuity Retrofit, Substructure Repairs, Paint

Steel, New Joints & Bearings(1993)


13 1025820 I-490EB over RampES (I-490WB toI-390SB)

1963 New Deck (Widened Overhang), ReplacePiers, Superstructure Continuity Retrofit,

Substructure Repairs, Paint Steel, New Joints& Bearings

(1991)


14 1063950 I-390NB over I-490EBand Ramp ES (I-490WB to I-390SB)

1963 Concrete Overlay, Substructure Repairs, PaintSteel, New Joints & Bearings

(1991)Steel Repairs

(2010)


15 4443361 I-490WB over ErieCanal

1963 New Deck (Widened Overhang), SubstructureRepairs, Replace Fascia Girders, Paint Steel,

New Joints & Bearings(1991)


16 4443362 I-490EB over ErieCanal

1963 Widened Structure, New Deck, ReplacedFascia Girder & Added 2 Girders, Substructure

Repairs, Paint Steel, New Joints & Bearings(1991)


17 1048680 Howard Road overI-490WB andI-490EB

1991 None None

18 1023030 Route 33 (BuffaloRoad) over I-390NBand I-390SB


Pier Repairs(2001)

Steel Repairs(2010)

None

19 7025830 CSX Railroad overI-390NB and I-390SB

1963 N/A N/A

2.3.3.6.(4) Inspection – A summary of the Biennial Bridge Inspection Reports for the bridges foundwithin the project study area is provided in Exhibit 2.3.3.6 (6).


2-86

Exhibit - 2.3.3.6 (6)Summary of Bridge Inspection

BridgeNo.


NYSDOTGeneral

Rec. (Date)

NYSDOTCondition

Rating (Date)

FHWA Suff.Rating(Date)

Bridge Elements Rated3 and Below

1 1062521 NY 390SB overLexington Avenue

5(2011)

5.422(2011)

90.1(2011)

Guide Railing

2 1062522 NY 390NB overLexington Avenue

5(2011)

5.266(2011)

89.4(2011)

Guide Railing; Railing,Parapet

3 4062531 NY 390SB over ErieCanal

5(2010)

5.156(2010)

83.1 (2011)

Guide Railing; Scuppers

4 4062532 NY 390NB over ErieCanal

5(2010)

4.563(2010)

84.2(2011)

Guide Railing; Scuppers

5 1062541 NY 390SB over TrolleyBoulevard andAbandoned RR

4(2011)

3.922(2011)

40.9(2011)

Bearings, Bolts, Pads;Guide Railing; Paint;Joints; Cap Beam

6 1062542 NY 390NB over TrolleyBoulevard andAbandoned RR

4(2011)

3.906(2011)

40.9(2011)

Bearings, Bolts, Pads;Guide Railing; Paint;Joints; Cap Beam; PierColumns; Pedestals

7 1021589 NY 31 (Lyell Avenue)over NY 390NB and NY390SB

4(2011)

3.969(2011)

44.2(2010)

Bearings, Bolts, Pads;Seats & Pedestals; GuideRailing; Median; Paint;Joints

8 4443380 NY 31 (Lyell Avenue)over Erie Canal

4(2011)

4.328(2011)

44.0(2011)

Bearings, Bolts, Pads;Seats & Pedestals;Erosion/Scour; BankProtection; Guide Railing;Lighting

9 1025811 I-490WB over NY 390SB 5(2009)

5.125(2011)

85.2(2010)

Joints

10 1052280 Ramp WN (I-490EB toNY 390NB) overI-490WB and NY 390SB

5(2010)

4.750(2010)

93.6(2010)

Guide Railing; Curbs;Sidewalks/Parapets

11 1052290 NY 390NB overI-490WB

6(2010)

5.486(2010)

86.9(2010)

None

12 1025812 I-490EB overI-390SB

5(2010)

5.703(2010)

77.4(2011)

Curbs

13 1025820 I-490EB over Ramp ES(I-490WB toI-390SB)

5(2010)

4.953(2010)

82.7(2011)

Drainage; Guide Railing;Lighting

14 1063950 I-390NB over I-490EBand Ramp ES (I-490WBto I-390SB)

5(2011)

4.813(2011)

35.0(2011)

Erosion/Scour; PrimaryMembers; Paint

15 4443361 I-490WB over Erie Canal 6(2010)

5.746(2010)

93.6(2011)

Lighting

16 4443362 I-490EB over Erie Canal 6(2010)

5.857(2010)

93.6(2011)

Lighting

17 1048680 Howard Road overI-490WB andI-490EB

6(2011)

6.368(2011)

92.1(2010)

None

18 1023030 Route 33 (Buffalo Road)over I-390NB and I-390SB

4(2011)

4.031(2011)

65.0(2011)

Bearings, Bolts, Pads;Seats & Pedestals; Paint;Joints; Primary Members;

19 7025830 CSX Railroad overI-390NB and I-390SB

N/A N/A N/A N/A

The condition of the existing Lyell Avenue bridge over NY 390 (BIN 1021589) is at a point where a fullreplacement will be needed in conjunction with an early phase of this project.


2-87

An In-depth Inspection and Deck Evaluation were performed on three bridges, BIN 4062531 – NY 390SBover 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 thefindings of the reports.

BIN 4062531 – NY 390SB over Erie CanalAn in-depth inspection of this structure was performed in July 2011, and resulted in a GeneralRecommendation 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 delaminatedconcrete. Approximately 24% of the deck is either spalled or delaminated. The steel girders, G1 throughG6 are in good condition. However, the right fascia girder, G7, has severe pitting on the outside of theweb 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 thecondition and develop rehabilitation and/or replacement recommendations for the concrete deck. Basedon 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 thedeck, which would preclude localized full-depth repairs. It is emphasized that the areas of deteriorationwere mapped on the bottom of the deck, since the top of deck is concealed by the asphalt wearingsurface. 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. Thedeck appears to be nearing the end of its service life. Additionally, the previous partial-depth replacementmay impede further rehabilitation efforts at this time.

The longevity of the deck treatment selected for these bridges is particularly important considering thehigh traffic volume and the costs associated with WZTC for this site. This further reinforces the rationalefor complete deck replacement.

BIN 4062532 – NY 390NB over Erie CanalAn in-depth inspection of this structure was performed in July 2011, and resulted in a GeneralRecommendation 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 delaminatedconcrete. Approximately 33% of the deck is either spalled or delaminated. The steel girders, G2 throughG6 are in good condition. However, the left fascia girder, G1, has severe pitting on the outside of the weband at isolated locations on the bottom flange.

In addition to the in-depth inspection a bridge deck evaluation report was also complied to access thecondition and develop rehabilitation and/or replacement recommendations for the concrete deck. Basedon 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 thedeck, which would preclude localized full-depth repairs. It is emphasized that the areas of deteriorationwere mapped on the bottom of the deck, since the top of deck is concealed by the asphalt wearingsurface. 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. Thedeck appears to be nearing the end of its service life. Additionally, the previous partial-depth replacementmay impede further rehabilitation efforts at this time.

The longevity of the deck treatment selected for these bridges is particularly important considering thehigh traffic volume and the costs associated with WZTC for this site. This further reinforces the rationalefor complete deck replacement.


2-88

BIN 1052290 – NY 390NB over I-490WBAn in-depth inspection of this structure was performed in July 2011, and resulted in a GeneralRecommendation 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 isolatedcracking and small areas of hollow sounding concrete affecting less than 5% of the deck surface. Fasciagirders, 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 thecondition and develop rehabilitation and/or replacement recommendations for the concrete deck. Thebridge deck evaluation report depicts the concrete deck to currently be in good condition with isolatedhollow sounding areas. The report recommended present day routine bridge maintenance activities suchas deck sealing and waterproofing be performed. It also recommended localized partial-depth deckrepairs as part of a future rehabilitation within 5-10 years. Since it is anticipated that a future rehabilitationwon’t occur for several years and due to the complexity of work zone traffic control through this corridor, itis 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, thecondition of each bridge will continue to deteriorate. The deterioration will eventually lead to load postingof 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 navigablewaterway by Federal Standards, therefore a Coast Guard Checklist is required and is included inAppendix E.

2.3.3.7. Hydraulics of Bridges and Culverts – There are no waterways within the project study area thatrequire 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 thisreport, a culvert is considered major when it has a diameter greater than 36 inches. The description andapproximate location for each major culvert is provided in Exhibit 2.3.3.7 below. Visual inspections of themajor culverts were completed and a summary for each is also included in this section. If drainagepatterns are changed, analyses will be conducted to ensure these existing structures, if retained, canfunction to carry appropriate drainage. Major culvert locations are shown on the plans and on Exhibit1.2.1-2 in Appendix A.

Exhibit 2.3.3.7Existing Major Culverts

CulvertID Culvert Description Culvert Location Dwg. No.

(App. A)

1 4’x6’ box culvert (110 ft long) Beneath Ramp WNoutside

planlimits

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) PL-6

4 6’ x 7’ twin-cell box culvert(230 ft long)

Beneath ramp SW & NY 390 Northbound(Sta. NB 658+90)

PL-5

5 5’x15’ box culvert (100 ft long) Beneath Ramp EN & I-490 Westbound(Sta. EN 10+15)

PL-13

6 84”x126” CMP (100 ft long) Outfall structure to Erie Canal beneath multi-use trailnorth of I-490 Westbound & NY 390 Northbound

PL-13


2-89

Exhibit 2.3.3.7Existing Major Culverts

7 36”x72” box culvert (65 ft long) Beneath I-490 Westbound; near Howard Road Bridgeoutside

planlimits

8 42” CMP (77 ft long) Crossing under NY 390 Northbound, south of theRamp DE entrance terminal (Sta. NB 680+06)

PL-9

9 42” CMP (70 ft long) Crossing Ramp DD north of the exit terminal PL-8

10 42” CMP (124 ft long) Running parallel to the right side of NY 390Northbound just north of Ramp DD exit terminal

PL-8

11 48” CMP (164 ft long) Crossing NY 390 Northbound north of Ramp ENentrance terminal

PL-7

12 48” CMP (134 ft long)Crossing Ramp WN north of Ramp EN entranceterminal and just north of the sign structure (Adjacentto Culvert 11).

PL-7

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 PL-13

15 42” CMP (length unknown) Outfall structure running perpendicular to the rightside of I-390 Northbound just south of CSX bridge

PL-2

16 Squashed CMP – 57”span x38” rise (121 ft long)

Crossing I-390 Northbound in between CSX bridgeand Chili Ave. exit ramps(NYSDOT CIN: 440104)

PL-1

17 Squashed CMP – 57”span x38” rise (121 ft long)

Crossing I-390 Southbound in between CSX bridgeand Chili Ave. exit ramps, adjacent to culvert 16(NYSDOT CIN: 440108)

PL-1

There are active beavers within the 390/490 interchange infield area that have constructed beaver damsacross 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 theexisting roadways. The dams have backed up enough water to make a couple of the culvertsinaccessible. Below are summaries from the visual inspections.

Culvert 1: The culvert was inaccessible due to high water level most likely from blockage downstreamfrom the beaver dams. Minor cracking to the headwalls and wingwalls but overall, the structure is in goodcondition.

Culvert 2: There is about 12 inches of silt on the invert. All four wingwalls have hollow sounding areasnext to the culvert. Both southern wingwalls are spalled next to the culvert. The top slab is generally ingood 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 isolatedhollow sounding areas approximately 1/3 from the east end. A crack in both stems and top slab wasnoted 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 thechannel approaching the culvert and all flow is directed into the south cell, which is clear. A tree that wasfell by a beaver is lying against the inlet side. The northern cell has a 4 ft high beaver dam at about thecenter and approximately 12 inches of silt on both sides of the dam. Water stain lines on the pier andabutments indicate the culvert was not engulfed due to the reduced hydraulic opening. There are fullheight cracks in the pier, the south stem and the top slab at a few locations. The cracks are leaking andthere is hollow sounding concrete in the top slab but no reinforcement was visible. Between the 2nd andthe 3rd box section joints, the top slab has the largest hollow sounding area (up to 24” wide) that is lacedwith efflorescence. All four wingwalls are generally in good condition with minor spalling and hollow


2-90

sounding areas. The south east wingwall has a 24” x 24” cracked area with efflorescence but nodisplacement was noted.

Culvert 5: 24 inches of silt is present along the west half of the culvert. There is some isolated spallingand delaminated concrete cover at the north end of the box. The concrete is damp with some ruststaining but this is an isolated condition. There are two “full perimeter” cracks within the box that exhibitleakage and are surrounded by hollow sounding concrete along the top slab. There is some minorspalling 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. Thepaved asphalt invert has worn off at random areas along the length. The corrugated steel that is exposedfrom the missing asphalt invert is corroded with some section loss but no complete holes from corrosionwere 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 within6” of the top slab and it is not accessible. Approximately half of the 4 ft box height is filled with silt. Thereis 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 invertcondition is unknown. The bituminous coating of the steel pipe was flaked off at the water line and theexposed 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 ordeformation 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 sectionwas rusted through at the waterline. From the visible end, the asphaltic coating of the pipe is cracked ormissing along the waterline. The pipe was rusted through at the northern opening for a length of 24”. Nosink 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 coatingthat is cracked or missing along the normal waterline. The upstream end section is rusted through at thewaterline and there are areas along section seams where the pipe is completely rusted through. There isno noticeable deformation of the pipe.

Culvert 12: This culvert is similar in condition to culvert 11 with minor siltation along the invert. Thebituminous coating is cracked or missing along the waterline with one location with is heavily rusted andmalleable. The upstream end section is rusted through at the waterline. Vegetation just upstream of theend section restricts the hydraulic opening.

Culvert 13: The original pipe is under the roadway portion of I-490 and has an asphalt material that coatsthe steel. There are two newer galvanized sections at the southern end. These two sections are failingand exhibit significant rusting with visible holes completely through at the normal water level. There wasno sinking of the fill above this section of pipe that is within the grass median area. At the northernopening, the invert was rusted through for a length of 10 inches. Near the southern end, the west andeast side was heavily rusted for a length of 6 feet. Minor silt accumulation was noted. The original pipewas in satisfactory condition, with the asphalt coating exhibiting cracks and was completely gone inisolated locations.

Culvert 14: This culvert is made up of two different pipes. The original pipe under the roadway wascoated 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 itslength. The galvanized extension for the northern portion of the culvert is approximately 150 feet longand is located under grass within the median area. This section of the pipe is in failing condition withdistortion and rust-through perforations on both the west and east side at normal water level. Forapproximately half of this extension, the invert is separated from the remaining portion of pipe and the


2-91

“walls” are pushing into the soil. There is a noticeable kink and the pipe shows deformation at about 75feet from the north end within the ‘newer’ extension pieces. There is a sink hole about 20 feet south ofthe 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 containedwith a concrete headwall and a laid stone wall is above the headwall. The headwall has a horizontalcrack that is actively leaking and shows efflorescence. From the portion of the pipe that could beobserved, a significant amount of the bituminous coating is cracked or missing around the entire diameterof the pipe. There is minor buildup of small gravel along invert, but an overall condition of the pipe invertcould 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 thetime of inspection. There are galvanized pipe extensions outside of the roadway that show corrosion atthe normal water level. The portion of the culvert under the roadway is older and is coated with asphaltwith no observed deformation of the pipe arch. The joint between the original culvert and the extensionscould 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 pipeextensions 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 theembankment was noticed. The original section of pipe was coated with asphalt that has worn off at thewaterline. 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 2.3.3.8-9summarize conditions of existing guide rail, median barrier and impact attenuators within the project studyarea, 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. Roadsideprotection 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 severalsections of guide rail are in poor condition, from the Ramp DA merge (box beam median barrier) to southof Trolley Boulevard (corrugated beam, box beam). In the southbound direction there is one section inpoor condition, adjacent to Ramp DC.

There are a significant number of instances along NY 390 where box beam end sections are in need ofupgrading to current standards. More specifically, Type I and Type II end sections are common to boxbeam installations. Although several are located outside the clear zone, Type III end sections arerecommended for operating speeds over 50 mph. Also observed but less common were corrugatedbeams 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 boxbeam 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 theLexington Avenue interchange. Guide rail along Lyell Avenue is generally in good condition, with theexception 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 linesFrontier – underground telephone and fiber optic lines


2-92

Level 3 Communications – underground fiber optic linesMonroe County – street lightingMonroe County Department of Environmental Services – underground fiber optic linesMonroe County Pure Water Agency – storm and sanitary sewerMonroe County Water Authority – water linesNYSDOT – underground fiber optic linesRochester Gas and Electric – gas distribution mains and lateralsRochester Gas and Electric – aerial and underground electric lines and servicesSprint – underground fiber optic lineTime Warner Cable – overhead and underground cable linesWiltel Communications – underground fiber optic lines

Existing overhead and underground utility locations are summarized in the Utilities Facilities InventoryReport (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, aClass I mainline railroad that ran from Rochester to Niagara Falls, NY. However, in 1995 Conrailremoved 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 Brockportand Lockport in 1996. That section of track is an active Class III short line railroad incorporated as theFalls Road Railroad (FRR). The remaining portion of the Falls Road Branch from Ames Street to LeeRoad in Rochester is now owned by CSXT but is active only to the Erie Canal where rail service ismaintained to Klein Steel, which sits adjacent to the east side of the Erie Canal. CSXT also continues toown and operate the Falls Road line from Lockport to Niagara Falls. GTC indicated that no agencies areactively pursuing the purchase of the inactive portion of the railroad corridor, however, it is expected thatthe 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 onas-built plans is 22.3 ft. The existing horizontal clearance between the former centerline of tracks and thebridge piers based on the as-built bridge plans is 14’-8” from the south track to the south pier face and18’-0” from the north track to the north pier face. The horizontal perpendicular spacing between the NY390 bridge piers is approximately 60.75 ft. Typically railroads request a 23 ft. vertical clearance over theirtracks. In New York the statutory minimum vertical clearance is 22 feet. However, because the track isinactive and severed, a lesser vertical clearance may be permitted in the event that these bridges arewidened or replaced as part of this project.

The Rochester Subdivision, a two track Class I mainline railroad owned by CSXT, crosses over I-390 justsouth of Buffalo Road. The line runs from Syracuse to Buffalo and is part of the New York City toChicago mainline, formerly the New York Central Railroad mainline. The railroad line services bothfreight and passenger trains, with speeds up to 60 mph for freight and 79 mph for passenger. An averageof 50 to 60 freight and passenger trains per day, with lengths of up to 1 mile for freight and 6 to 8 traincars for passenger, utilize the lines. Amtrak’s Empire Service, Lake Shore Limited, and Maple Leafroutes operate over the entire Rochester Subdivision. CSXT typically defaults to the State design criteriafor 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 railroadbridge is 14.5 ft. as per field survey conducted in summer 2011. It is in the best interest of the project thatthe existing railroad bridge not be altered, as work to the structure would be costly and come withnumerous railroad work restrictions. The costs associated with work to the bridge would be at projectexpense.

There are no at-grade crossings within 1 km that could impact traffic conditions.


2-93

Exhibit - 2.3.3.10Existing Railroad Tracks

Owner Location Crossing Side Train Length ConditionCSXT Under NYS Route 390

(RM 39043011010)parallel to Trolley Boulevard

NYS Route 390 N/A N/A Inactive / Severed(Track Removed)

CSXT Over I-390(RM 390I43037014)

south of Buffalo Road

I-390 N/A Up to 1 mile (freight)6 to 8 train cars (passenger)

Active(50-60 trains/day)

2.3.4. Landscape and Environmental Enhancement Opportunities

This section focuses on the critical existing areas to identify potential enhancement opportunities relatedto 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 physicaland 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. Majorviewer groups within the corridor were also identified.

The identification of landscape districts provides a framework for a visual impact assessment and thecomparison of project alternatives in context with the existing environment. The three identifiedlandscape districts are as follows:

Landscape District A – 390 / 490 InterchangeLandscape District A (Exhibit – 2.3.4.1) includes the 390/490 interchange from Howard Road westerlyalong I-490 to the Erie Canal overpass to the east, and on NY 390 from Lyell Avenue at its north to theBuffalo Road underpass to the south. The interchange is bound by residential properties to thenorthwest, 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 withpredominantly deciduous trees and some evergreen trees. The vegetation blocks most views to and fromthe residential and industrial uses in the summer months and creates densely filtered views in the wintermonths. Small gaps in the vegetation open intermittent views to the residential and industrial uses, butdue 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 vegetationconsisting mostly of deciduous trees and shrubs with some evergreen trees. This vegetation createsopen 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 notnoticeable, if visible.

Major viewer groups in this district include commuters on 390/490 and the residents that live adjacent tothe 390/490 interchange, which have views of the roadway.

Landscape District B – Industrial and ResidentialLandscape District B (Exhibit – 2.3.4.1) includes the areas of NY 390 from roughly Lyell Avenue toLexington Avenue, and I-390 south of the interchange from the Buffalo Road underpass to the ChiliAvenue entrance and exit ramps. North of the NY 390/31 interchange, NY 390 is bounded by residentialproperties 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. Southof the interchange between Buffalo Road and the Chili Avenue entrance and exit ramps, I-390 is boundedby industrial and commercial uses.

From Lyell Avenue to Lexington Avenue NY 390 begins to rise in elevation and is higher than thesurrounding land uses. This area of NY 390 is lined with vegetation consisting of primarily deciduous


2-94

trees. The area between NY 390 and Beechwood Drive on the west contains dense vegetation thatscreens views of single family homes during the summer months, and offers filtered views in the wintermonths. Small gaps in vegetation open views to homes on Beechwood Drive, but due to the highvehicular speeds, travel direction and view direction, these views are brief and almost unnoticeable. Thearea between NY 390 and Evelyn Street on the east is lined with vegetation consisting of a mix ofdeciduous and evergreen trees. The vegetation on the eastern side of NY 390 is not as dense as thevegetation on the western side, creating filtered views to the houses on Evelyn Street. Due to the highvehicular speeds, and since this area is in close proximity to a decision point for the Lyell Avenue exitdemanding 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. Northof the CSX Falls Road Branch Railroad / Trolley Boulevard overpass to Lexington Avenue, the vegetationis still dense, but due to the rise in elevation of NY 390, birds-eye views of the buildings on the industrialproperties adjacent to the highway can be seen. This section of NY 390 also crosses over the ErieCanal. The depressed canal passes under NY 390 at a skewed angle, rendering it virtually invisible fromNY 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 surroundinglandscape are minimal, contained by the cut slopes. The rooflines of buildings can been seen as well asthe tops of tractor trailer trucks parked within Buffalo Industrial Park west of I-390. Due to the highvehicular speeds and since this area is a decision point for the 390/490 interchange, views to the buildingroofs 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 thesurrounding landscape. Both sides of NY 390 in this area are lined with deciduous vegetation. Thisvegetation creates visually dense screening in the summer months and filtered views in the winter monthsto the single family houses on the west, and the industrial buildings to the east. Large billboards and highpower 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 tothe NY 390 and I-390 corridors, and consumers and employees of the adjacent commercial / industrialuses.

Landscape District C – Commercial and IndustrialLandscape District C (Exhibit – 2.3.4.1) includes the bisected commercial corridor of Lyell Avenue fromHoward Road on the west to the Erie Canal overpass to the east, separated in the middle by NY 390which is depressed in the landscape.

From Howard Road to the NY 390 overpass, Lyell Avenue is comprised of largely consumer-orientedretail. The 1 to 2 story buildings are set back from the road with parking in the front. From Howard Roadto just west of Rossmore Street, a landscaped buffer exists between Lyell Avenue and the parking lotscontaining lawn and ornamental trees. No sidewalks exist in this area. Between Rossmore Street and theNY 390 overpass, Lyell Avenue has no buffering between the road and parking lots, and contains smallintermittent segments of sidewalk. It is perceived that there are no sidewalks because they areincomplete and not of a consistent material throughout. In most locations there is no material changebetween the sidewalk and the surrounding asphalt pavement so it appears that parking extends up to thestreet edge.

From the NY 390 overpass to the Erie Canal overpass, Lyell Avenue is comprised of commercial andindustrial 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 largerindustrial buildings. The large Hess tanks south of Lyell Avenue can be seen from Lyell Avenue at theLee Road intersection. This stretch of Lyell Avenue also has no buffering between the road and theparking lots, and contains small intermittent segments of sidewalk, giving the perception of no sidewalks.


2-95

Lyell Avenue in the vicinity of the NY 390 overpass contains open views north and south of NY 390. TheNY 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.


2-96

Exhibit – 2.3.4.1Landscape District Map


2-97

2.3.4.1.(1) Terrain – The terrain within the project study area is classified as level per Section 2.5.2 of theNYSDOT Highway Design Manual and evaluation of existing vertical grades. Existing vertical grades onall roadways and ramps within the project study area do not exceed the maximum allowable criteria forlevel terrain classification.

2.3.4.1.(2) Unusual Weather Conditions – The project study area lies within the Western New Yorksnowbelt region south of Lake Ontario, where lake-effect snow (or snow squall) events are particularlycommon. The lake-effect snow produces heavy snowfall and continuously cloudy skies throughout thewinter months. Adverse weather conditions, including whiteouts, drifting snow and icing problemsexperienced within the project area are not uncommon. This inclement weather has contributed tonumerous accidents, particularly on several of the 390/490 interchange ramps where traffic is exiting athigh speeds. Proper selection of design speed and superelevation rates, as well as signing anddelineation requirements on these ramps are critical to mitigating these weather related accidents.Proper driver behavior that considers these adverse weather conditions would also greatly mitigateweather related accidents.

2.3.4.1.(3) Visual Resources – Vegetation within the project study area is varied, ranging from openfields to dense groves of primarily deciduous trees with some evergreen trees. Water resources includethe Erie Canal at the northern and eastern project study area, as well as drainage swales and smallwetland 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 thefollowing:

· 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 environmentalinitiative actions that could be considered in conjunction with the project (although not necessarily fundedby 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) forconstruction 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


2-98

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 designalternatives. Forecast traffic volumes were used to predict traffic levels of service and delays, as well asevaluate noise, air quality and energy usage.

Using an average of the anticipated mid-points of construction, for each of the four construction phasesnow planned, results in an average Estimated Time of Completion (ETC) of 2019. To recalculate theforecast traffic volumes, projecting them to future years 2029, 2039 and 2049 (based upon an updatedETC) is not a difficult task. However, incorporating the revised volumes into the various traffic simulationand environmental analysis models would involve a significant investment in engineering staff resourcesand expense. It is therefore appropriate to consider whether the four year postponement in the estimatedETC for the project would impact the recommended design, or if retaining the existing traffic data could bejustified in this case.

This project area has been the subject of focused traffic and design studies since 1999. The trafficpatterns within the project area are well established, and traffic growth that has occurred over the yearshas been recorded and documented. Both the No-Build Design Year and Alternative A2 Design Yearforecast traffic volumes were generated with support and input from the Region’s Metropolitan PlanningOrganization, 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 trafficvolumes. 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 rangingbetween 0.07% and 0.89% depending upon the roadway and peak hour (AM or PM) selected [Exhibit2.3.1.6 (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 toimpact the proposed design. No new development has occurred or is expected to occur that hasn’talready 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 projectstudy 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 thisproject, and based upon that review and the above information, the currently documented design yeartraffic volume data for ETC 2015, ETC+10 (2025), ETC+20 (2035) and ETC+30 (2045) will be retained foruse in this project.


CHAPTER 3ALTERNATIVES








3-1

CHAPTER 3 – ALTERNATIVESThis chapter discusses the alternatives considered and examines the engineering aspects for all feasiblealternatives to address project objectives in Chapter 1 of this report.

3.1. Alternatives Considered and Eliminated from Further Study – Over the pastdecade, many alternatives and sub-alternatives were evaluated for this project. The following describesthose alternatives and sub-alternatives that were eliminated from further study.

The past efforts in evaluating the project alternatives eventually resulted in the Department developing aPurpose and Need Statement in April 2011 to guide further development of the project. Refer to thediscussion at the end of Section 3.1.1. The Purpose and Need Statement is included in Appendix I; alsorefer 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 thepurposes of this report, only the improvements within the refined project study area are discussed.

1. Alternative 1: No-Build/Maintenance AlternativeUnder this no-build/maintenance alternative, routine maintenance would be performed to extendthe service life of the existing pavement and bridges. This alternative was eliminated because itwould not address the significant safety, congestion, and structural deficiencies within the projectstudy area. These items are all significant components of the Purpose and Need Statement.

2. Alternative 2: Improved Three Level InterchangeThis 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 RidgewayAvenue, an improved three level 390/490 interchange, an improved 390/31 interchange, andminor 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 theproposed improvements for this alternative within the refined project study area was developedfor the purposes of this DAD and are included in Appendix A.

This alternative was eliminated by the Department because it was determined that the projectneeds and objectives can be met at a lower cost, with fewer improvements in the 390/490 and390/31 interchanges, and no improvements to Route 390 and the interchanges north of LexingtonAvenue. This alternative would have more stream and wetland impact locations, and greatertravel impacts during construction than a smaller-scale alternative. Key components of thePurpose and Need Statement include developing a fundable project that minimizes impacts.

3. Alternative 3: Improved Three Level Interchange with Single Point Urban Interchange (SPUI) atNYS Route 31This alternative has the same features as Alternative 2 except that the 390/31 interchange was tobe reconstructed as a Single Point Urban Interchange (SPUI) which controls traffic entering andexiting the expressway with one centrally located traffic signal. Plans were developed for thisalternative and were included in the EPP. A graphic depicting the proposed improvements forthis alternative within the refined project study area was developed for the purposes of this DADand are included in Appendix A.

This alternative was eliminated by the Department because it was determined that the projectneeds and objectives can be met at a lower cost, with fewer improvements in the 390/490 and390/31 interchanges, and no improvements to Route 390 and the interchanges north of LexingtonAvenue. This alternative would have more stream and wetland impact locations, and greater


3-2

travel impacts during construction than a smaller-scale alternative. Key components of thePurpose and Need Statement include developing a fundable project that minimizes impacts.

4. New Four Level InterchangeThis alternative was considered as an option that would meet all geometric design criteria andengineering guidelines but was rejected by the Department. It was determined that the majorityof the project needs and objectives can be met at a lower cost (EPP Table III-3). This alternativewould have more stream and wetland impact locations, and greater travel impacts duringconstruction than a smaller-scale alternative. Key components of the Purpose and NeedStatement include developing a fundable project that minimizes impacts. A graphic for thisalternative was not developed for the EPP, however a graphic was developed for the EPPAmendment and VE Study Report and is included in Appendix A.

5. Rehabilitate/Reconstruct NYS Route 390 with 390/490/31 Interchange Improvements (PreferredAlternative 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 RampsThis alternative was considered as a lower cost option to #4 above. It included an alternativeconfiguration of the NY 31 ramps to 390 SB in an effort to eliminate several costly retaining wallsand bridges required between NY 31 and I-490. NY 31 traffic that wanted to get to 390 SB wouldtravel north along a C-D road parallel to NY 390, cross over or under NY 390 in the vicinity ofTrolley Blvd. and enter NY 390 SB. This would increase the separation between NY 31 and I-490ramps. Weaving would remain but would meet minimum requirements. A graphic for thisalternative was not developed for the EPP.

This alternative was rejected due to relatively minor capital cost savings and the need for sharpradius loop ramps. It also reduced the accessibility of the NY 31 corridor, resulted in a greaterimpact to adjacent residential properties and did not eliminate the unsafe weaving condition. Keycomponents of the Purpose and Need Statement include developing a fundable project thatminimizes 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 390/31interchanges that is not available to traffic. A connection would complete the full accessibility ofthese interchanges and enhance access to Lyell Avenue/Lee Road, however it is not necessaryto address the project needs in the Purpose and Need Statement

The Department concluded that the connection is not warranted based on the relatively lowvolume (between 250 - 300 peak hour vehicles and 2,500 - 2,600 AADT in year 2035) expectedto utilize it as well as the operational and cost implications associated with providing such aconnection. A safe and efficient way of providing this movement under either Alternatives 2 or 3could not be achieved. With the planned connections of NY 390 NB and I-490 WB to the NY 31off-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 proposedNY 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 inSection 3.1.3.

8. NYS Route 390 SB to I-490 EB ramp as a left exit rather than a major fork designThis 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


3-3

left lane. This alternative was rejected due to the impact it would have on the NY 31 EB trafficdestined for I-490 EB. The existing weaving condition would worsen as a result of this proposedconfiguration 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, whichare to reduce accidents and congestion related to this weaving maneuver. A graphic for thisalternative was not developed for the EPP.

Subsequent to the publication of the EPP, emerging program priorities and fiscal constraints state wideled the NYSDOT and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to focus their efforts on developingalternatives for the 390/490 and 390/31 interchanges that address critical non-standard geometricfeatures and operational deficiencies directly affecting motorist safety in a prioritized, cost effectivemanner. A primary objective of the Department and FHWA is to develop a fundable capital project thatprovides a long term solution at this major interchange. Among the highest priorities identified were theoperational and safety issues associated with the northbound and southbound weaving areas on NY 390between I-490 and Lyell Avenue. The turbulence and associated accident patterns experienced withinthese weaving sections is a by-product of the minimal interchange separation between what is truly onesystem 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 guidefurther 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 andValue Engineering (VE) Study Report – Completed September 2007

The Re-evaluation Study evaluated the following build alternatives for the 390/490 and 390/31interchanges, which were presented in the EPP Amendment:

1. Alternative 2A – 390 NB and Lyell Avenue to 490 EB ImprovementsThis alternative utilizes components of Alternative 5 (below) to improve the safety and congestionproblems 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 toaccommodate 390 NB traffic destined for NY 31. The southbound weave is significantlyimproved by introducing a flyover ramp to accommodate NY 31 traffic destined for I-490 EB. TheVE team determined that this alternative required additional elements to provide a completesolution (see Alternative 2A & 2B below for further observations by the VE team). Their concernsabout the proposed southbound weaving improvements being an inappropriate solution areconsistent with the objective to develop a long term solution, as shown in the Purpose and NeedStatement. A graphic for this alternative was not included in the EPP Amendment or VE StudyReport, however a graphic was provided to the VE team for their review and is included inAppendix A.

2. Alternative 2A & 2B – 390 NB & SB and Lyell Avenue to 490 EB & WBThis alternative utilizes Alternative 2A and included improvements to the NY 31 SB ramps andthe southbound weaving area. The VE report indicates that construction of the southbound belowgrade section south of Lyell Avenue would require significant maintenance and protection oftraffic provisions, which would increase its reported cost. Furthermore, the VE report states thatreplacing the existing bridges along the southbound traffic lanes to achieve the necessaryroadway widening perpetuates a poor existing interchange design for many years to come andprematurely replaces existing infrastructure that was reconstructed in the early 1990s and hasplenty of useful life remaining. The VE team determined that this alternative offered a reasonablecost-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 weavingcondition was addressed; it also had more stream and wetland impact locations. The proposedsouthbound solution was inconsistent with the objectives in the Purpose and Need Statement to


3-4

develop a fundable long term solution with minimal impacts to wetlands, streams, and trafficduring construction.

3. Alternative 3A – 390 NB Cloverleaf – NE QuadrantSimilar to Alternative 2A, this alternative seeks to eliminate the northbound weaving condition viaa flyover ramp. Additionally, this alternative eliminates the I-490 WB to NY 390 NB mergecondition by separating the two traffic streams with a grassed median. The 390 NB to I-490 WBexit ramp is replaced with a flyover loop ramp to mitigate the ramps safety, operational andgeometric deficiencies that exist today. However, no improvements were proposed for thesouthbound side of NY 390, thus the southbound weave remained untouched. The VE teamdetermined that this alternative required additional elements to provide a complete solution (seeAlternative 3A & 3B below for further observations by the VE team). Furthermore, this alternativeconverts the existing higher speed direct connection ramp to a lower speed loop ramp, whichwould be inconsistent with all other ramps at this interchange. A graphic for this alternative wasnot included in the EPP Amendment or VE Study Report, however a graphic was provided to theVE team for their review and is included in Appendix A.

This alternative was eliminated primarily because it didn’t address the 390 southbound weavingcondition, which is a significant component of the Purpose and Need Statement.

4. Alternative 3A & 3B – 390 NB Cloverleaf with 390 SB RealignmentThis alternative utilizes Alternative 3A but also addresses the southbound weave. NY 390 SBthrough traffic is redirected to a new roadway parallel to NY 390 NB traffic, thus removing severalthousand vehicles from the southbound weaving area. The VE report identifies that the proposedlimits of pavement reconstruction are not properly depicted on the graphic. Providing for theproper transitions back to existing, several bridges will likely be impacted, including the CSXbridge to the south and the Trolley Blvd. and Erie Canal bridges to the north, which will addsignificantly to the cost of this alternative. The VE team determined that this alternative offered areasonable 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 projectneeds and objectives can be met at a lower cost, with fewer improvements in the 390/490interchange. Key components of the Purpose and Need Statement include developing afundable project that minimizes impacts.

5. Alternative 4 – 390 Mainline Re-alignmentThis alternative seeks to completely separate 390 through traffic from traffic merging and weavingwithin the interchange. The VE report identifies that the proposed limits of pavementreconstruction are not properly depicted on the graphic. Providing for the proper transitions backto existing, several bridges will likely be impacted, including the CSX bridge to the south and theTrolley Blvd. and Erie Canal bridges to the north, which will add significantly to the cost of thisalternative. This alternative is not consistent with the Purpose and Need Statement, which hasidentified developing a fundable project as one of the primary objectives.

6. Alternative 5 – Three Level InterchangeThis alternative is basically the same as Alternative 2 from the EPP within the 390/490/31interchange area, and was eliminated by the Department prior to the draft EPP Amendment forsimilar reasons. High project cost and impacts are inconsistent with the objectives in the Purposeand 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 purposesand reintroduced to the VE team, who also rejected it because of its complexity and cost.

7. Alternative 6 – Four Level InterchangeThis alternative was considered during the EPP phase but was rejected primarily because it wasnot considered fundable (see above), which is one of the primary project objectives in thePurpose and Need Statement. Furthermore, the estimated 20% reduction in accidents as


3-5

compared to Alternatives 2A & 2B and 3A & 3B do not justify the increased costs. It was retainedfor comparative purposes and reintroduced to the VE team who also rejected it because of itscomplexity 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 390/31interchanges:

1. Alternative V-1 – 390 SB Weave MitigationThis alternative seeks to improve the safety and congestion problems associated with thesouthbound weaving area on NY 390 between I-490 and NY 31. However, no improvementswere 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 completesolution. A graphic for this alternative was never developed as it was combined with AlternativeV-3 during the VE study and renamed Alternative V-B.

This alternative was eliminated primarily because it didn’t address the 390 northbound weavingcondition, which is a significant component of the Purpose and Need Statement.

2. Alternative V-2 – C-D RoadThis 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. Agraphic for this alternative was not developed for the VE Study Report. This alternative is notconsistent with the Purpose and Need Statement, which has identified developing a fundableproject as one of the primary objectives.

3. Alternative V-3 – 390 NB Weave MitigationThis alternative seeks to improve the safety and congestion problems associated with thenorthbound weaving area on NY 390 between I-490 and NY 31. However, no improvementswere 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 completesolution. A graphic for this alternative was never developed as it was combined with AlternativeV-1 during the VE study and renamed Alternative V-B.

This alternative was eliminated primarily because it didn’t address the 390 southbound weavingcondition, 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 SouthboundThrough LanesThis alternative seeks to eliminate both the northbound and southbound weaving conditions whilemaintaining most of the existing infrastructure by combining Alternatives V-1 and V-3. TheDepartment rejected this alternative due to the extended southerly work limits resulting in theneed to replace the Buffalo Road and CSX bridges. In addition, a new traffic signal is employedon the Lyell Avenue bridge, thus making the bridge more expensive to build and maintain. Agraphic for this alternative was developed for the VE Study Report, however the revised versionis included in Appendix A. The additional costs for the extended southern work limits areinconsistent 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 withimproving 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 TrafficThis alternative seeks to eliminate the northbound weaving condition and improve thesouthbound weaving condition. A downside of this alternative is that several properties must beacquired in the northwest quadrant of the Lyell Avenue interchange to construct the loop ramp tothe southbound NY 390. A major problem with this alternative is that a new traffic signal is


3-6

employed on the Lyell Avenue bridge, thus making the bridge more expensive to build andmaintain, and requiring exiting vehicles destined for Lee Road (especially trucks) to make a rightturn off the ramp followed by a quick left turn onto Lee Road. This alignment does notsignificantly improve the operation for trucks exiting NY 390 NB onto Lyell Avenue and continuingnorth on Lee Road, which is one of the project’s primary needs as indicated in the projectPurpose and Need Statement (see Section 1.2.2. of this report). A graphic for this alternativewas 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 butmerge it with the Alternative V-B Lee Road exit flyover bridge configuration. This combined alternativewas 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 wereevaluated and rejected during the Preliminary Design Phase. They all reference the preferred AlternativeA2, which is discussed in Section 3.2.

1. Alternative A1As discussed in Section 3.1.2, this alternative combines elements from Alternative V-A andAlternative V-B of the VE Study. This alternative sought to eliminate the northbound weavingcondition, improve the southbound weaving condition, and significantly improve the operation fortrucks exiting NY 390 NB onto Lyell Avenue and continuing north on Lee Road. A validationreview of this alternative identified several flaws, most notably the following:

· Excessive impacts to the neighborhood in the NW quadrant of the 390/31 interchangewith minimal operational benefits realized.

· Undesirable merge condition created on I-390 SB connector roadway just north of BuffaloRoad where I-490 EB and WB traffic destined for I-390 SB are merging into a single laneat the same location.

· Converts I-490 WB to I-390 SB (Ramp ES) to a left-hand merge condition. Existing ramptraffic 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 mergepoint.

· 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. Existingramp 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 isincluded in Appendix A. This alternative was eliminated because it would not address all of thesignificant safety and congestion issues within the project study area, which are key componentsof 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 B1Alternative B1 maintains the same scheme as Alternative A2 for NY 390 NB but provides a newconcept for NY 390 SB. Similar to Alternative A2, Alternative B1 also introduces a major forknorth of Lyell Avenue however, the NY 390 SB through traffic is maintained on existing alignmentand NY 390 SB traffic destined for I-490 EB is diverted at the fork creating a direct connection tothe existing ramp. In addition, a ramp is introduced off the center of the Lyell Avenue bridge


3-7

providing a direct connection for Lyell Avenue traffic destined for I-490 EB as well. Thisconfiguration 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-laneweaving maneuver that exists today for Lyell Avenue traffic destined for I-490 EB. Due to the lowtraffic volumes on Lyell Avenue WB destined for I-490 EB, it is anticipated that a traffic signalwould 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 theinterchange as proposed under Alternative A2, the I-490 WB bridge over NY 390 SB (BIN1025811) 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 thesetwo 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 AlternativeA2 provides via the new 2-lane roadway for 390 SB through traffic. For Alternative B1, ifthe 390 SB lanes must be closed for an incident or repairs, there is no other way for SBtraffic to get through the interchange. However for Alternative A2, 390 SB traffic couldstill 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 providersare key components of the Purpose and Need Statement. A graphic for this alternative isincluded 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 currentstudy. While it would be desirable to add this missing connection from I-490 EB to Lyell Avenue iffeasible, 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 rampsvia a fork design. The existing ramp would remain on existing alignment (more or less) and thenew ramp would run parallel to the NY 31 to NY 390 NB loop ramp (Ramp C) auxiliary lane andterminate at Evelyn Street just north of Lyell Avenue adjacent to existing Ramp DA. This wouldcreate a three-leg stop controlled intersection at the southwest corner of Evelyn Street. Trafficwould continue east on Evelyn Street and enter Lee Road via the existing stop controlled EvelynStreet/Lee Road intersection. This concept was rejected during development for several reasonsincluding 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 eastboundwould have difficulty crossing queued traffic during the peak hours to access the left-turnslot.


3-8

· Only reduces travel time by approximately 3 to 4 minutes when compared to the existingroute (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 weavingcondition between the loop ramp and a new off-ramp that terminated at Lee Road across fromPerson Place via stop control. This concept was rejected during development for several reasonsincluding 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. Bothsub-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 jughandledesign at the Lyell Avenue and Ramp DB intersection. One concept proposed a reversejughandle, which requires vehicles to first go through the intersection then loop around and gothrough the intersection again. This concept avoided significant impacts to the Lyell GatesMedical 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 oro 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 toreconfigure 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 theintersection only once. This concept provided a one-lane jughandle thus eliminating the dual-lanemerge on the loop ramp. This concept was rejected during development because of significantimpacts to the Lyell Gates Medical Building, and the rerouting of Tarwood Drive concerns asdescribed above.

The negative impacts to the Lyell Avenue corridor are inconsistent with the Purpose and NeedStatement, which seeks to improve the Lyell Avenue corridor. Graphics for these sub-alternativesare 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 providinga direct connection from Lyell Avenue EB to I-490 EB via a new flyover ramp over existing NY390 SB. The new direct connect ramp completely eliminates the dangerous 2-lane weavingmaneuver that exists today for Lyell Avenue EB traffic destined for I-490 EB. This concept wasrejected during development because it created an unorthodox exit ramp configuration that could


3-9

confuse motorists, added a new left-entrance ramp (undesirable), required an additional bridgethus increasing construction and future maintenance costs, and required rerouting Tarwood Drivetraffic closer to the signal at Rossmore Street. Graphics for this sub-alternative are included inAppendix A.

This sub-alternative was eliminated by the Department because it was determined that the projectneeds and objectives can be met at a lower cost, without the added ramp and bridge. Theassociated negative impacts to the Lyell Avenue corridor are also inconsistent with the Purposeand 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 evaluatedduring the life of this project, only one is being considered as a feasible build alternative. Alternative A2 isa result of years of engineering study and analysis. It improves upon many of the elements of AlternativeA1 from the VE Study. Alternative A2 addresses the highest priority deficiencies within the project studyarea by satisfying all of the project needs listed in Section 1.2.2. Colored graphics of Alternative A2 areincluded in Appendix A. Typical sections, plans, and profiles for Alternative A2 are included in AppendixA 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. SBweave) – Alternative A2 implements a major fork just north of Lyell Avenue that diverts 390SB through traffic to a new 2-lane roadway that passes over the 390/490 interchange. Thisnew roadway is essentially an interchange bypass roadway and will reduce the amount oftraffic congestion within the SB weave by over 40% during the AM Peak Hour. The SBweave is further improved by converting the existing 2-lane weave crossing to a 1-laneweave for Lyell Avenue eastbound traffic destined for I-490 EB. This is achievable becausethe existing cross-section through the weave area can be reduced from 4 to 3 lanes due tothe reduced traffic volume that will utilize this segment of roadway once the interchangebypass roadway is constructed.

2. Reduce congestion for I-490 westbound to NY 390 northbound traffic in the PM Peak (i.e. NBweave) – Alternative A2 eliminates the NB weave by introducing a new grade separation thatprovides 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-490WB traffic destined for NY 390 NB and an additional 390 NB travel lane between 490 andLexington Avenue. These major improvements will also have a positive influence on I-390NB traffic congestion well south of the existing weave area and I-490 WB traffic east of theinterchange.

3. Reduce accidents related to the congestion and non-conforming weave lengths in the abovelocations – In addition to the major improvements described under #1 and #2, provision of anew surface course, new pavement markings, and signing improvements are expected toreduce accidents at these locations. See Section 3.3.1.8 for a more detailed discussion onanticipated safety improvements.

4. Improve operational geometry for trucks exiting northbound onto Lyell Avenue and continuingnorth on Lee Road – Alternative A2 eliminates the two closely spaced offset signalizedintersections that are responsible for this awkward maneuver. All 390/31 interchange rampseast of NY 390 will be aligned with Lee Road to form a 4-leg signalized intersection. This willallow 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.


3-10

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 itsserviceable life and is beyond a point where a major rehabilitation would be considered.Furthermore, the existing width and span configuration will not accommodate the proposedroadway 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 asdescribed in #11 below.

6. Improve pedestrian, bicycle and transit conditions on Lyell Avenue – Pedestrian and bicycletraffic accommodations along Lyell Avenue will be improved significantly with theimplementation of continuous 5 ft. wide sidewalks and 6 ft. wide bike lanes along both sidesof the roadway from Howard Road to the Erie Canal. Access to bus stops will be improvedsignificantly with the implementation of sidewalks. See Sections 3.3.2.1 to 3.3.2.3 for moredetailed discussion.

In addition, several other improvements to address other areas with operational and safety concernswithin the project limits are proposed as follows:

7. Improve operational and safety issues associated with stop and go congestion during the AMand PM Peak Hours on I-390, NY 390 and I-490 – In addition to the major improvementsdescribed 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 lessexiting traffic is expected to be backed up onto I-490. The addition of a continuous auxiliarylane on NY 390 SB between Lexington Avenue and Lyell Avenue will provide additionalcapacity and reduce congestion related accidents. Improvements to operations and safetyon I-390 NB between Chili Avenue and I-490 are a direct result of the improvementsdescribed in #2 and #8. Improvements to operations and safety on I-490 WB east of the390/490 interchange are a direct result of improvements described in #2 as well as theconversion 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 ofthe I-390 NB left-hand travel lane to an exit only lane for I-490 WB traffic is expected toreduce accidents at this location. The conversion of the left-hand travel lane to an exit onlylane 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 reduceaccidents occurring at this location.

10. Reduce loss of control accidents on Ramp WN – Improvements to signing and striping isexpected to reduce accidents occurring at this location.

11. Improve operational and safety issues associated with stop and go congestion during thepeak hours on Lyell Avenue – Improvements to traffic flow, better defined driveways and sidestreets, provision of a new surface course, new pavement markings, signing and signalimprovements, improved intersection sight distance, and implementation of a center-turn laneis expected to reduce accidents occurring along the Lyell Avenue corridor. The typicalroadway section along Lyell Avenue from Howard Road to the Erie Canal is identical for bothdirections of travel, including an 11 ft. wide center-turn lane, four (4) 11 ft. wide travel lanes, 6ft. wide bike lanes, 5 ft. wide grass buffer strips, and 5 ft. wide sidewalks.


3-11

Key elements of this alternative include:

Geometry · Several geometric changes are proposed for this alternative as describedabove. This alternative includes major improvements along the I-390/NY 390corridor between Chili Avenue and Lexington Avenue, a distance ofapproximately 3 miles and along the Lyell Avenue corridor between HowardRoad and the Erie Canal, a distance of approximately ¾ mile. Significantimprovements to the 390/490 and 390/31 interchanges are proposed. Alisting of all roadways, ramps, and bridges improved by this alternative can befound in Section 3.2.3.2.

· This alternative would retain some non-standard and non-conforming featuresat isolated locations as described in Section 3.3.3.2. Justification for retainingthese non-standard features is included in Appendix F.

Operational · This alternative improves traffic operations and safety at several locationswithin 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 thecrossroads 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 stripacquisitions and temporary construction easements are required along LyellAvenue and Lee Road.

· There is one total property acquisition that will require relocation of theoccupants and demolition of a residential dwelling and garage (25 Lee RoadExt.).

· There are two partial property acquisitions that will require relocation of theoccupants and demolition of a residential dwelling (50 Lee Road Ext.) anddemolition of a building (2000 Lyell Avenue - Perri’s Pizza). The remainingportion of these properties will be an uneconomic remainder.

· There is one partial property acquisition that does not require demolition ofthe 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.

Project Goals · This alternative addresses the highest priority deficiencies within the projectstudy area as described above.


3-12

Exhibit 3.2.1 Summary of Alternative A2 CostsMillion Dollars (Calculated Year - 2012)

ActivitiesPhase 1

(Lyell AvenueBridge)

Phase 2(I-390/NY 390NB and LyellAve East of

NY 390)

Phase 3(I-390/NY 390

SB)

Phase 4(Lyell Avenue

West of NY390)

Total AllPhases

ConstructionBridge5 $5,586,000 $8,231,000 $18,220,000 $0 $32,037,000

Highway $500,000 $16,450,000 $18,530,000 $3,550,000 $39,030,000

Wetland and Stream Mitigation $0 $100,000 $0 $0 $100,000Storm Pollution Discharge EliminationSystem (SPDES) $10,000 $80,000 $130,000 $0 $220,000

Noise Barriers $0 $3,000,000 $6,000,000 $0 $9,000,000ITS (Includes Proposed Improvementsand Relocated Fiber Optic) $0 $0 $390,000 $0 $390,000

Public Utilities(Water and Sanitary Sewer) $20,000 $210,000 $10,000 $320,000 $560,000

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(Phase 1 – 2015, Phase 2 – 2017)(Phase 3 – 2019, Phase 4 2021)

$9,855,000 $47,295,000 $77,077,000 $7,468,000 $141,695,000

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


3-13

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 finalselection of the preferred alternative will not be made until the alternative impacts, comments on the draftdesign 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 theavailability of funding. The sequencing of the improvements has been separated into four distinctconstruction phases as shown on Exhibit 3.3.1.7-1, which can be found with the Work Zone TrafficControl 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 reconstructionstandards 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), 20044. AASHTO A Policy on Design Standards Interstate Systems, January 20055. 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 to3.2.3.2-5 below. The standard criteria provided represents standards applicable to new construction /reconstruction projects for highways and bridges. Standards for capital improvements are not shown asthey are only utilized for comparing to existing conditions. The existing conditions presented in theexhibits below include all roadways and bridges within the project study area. Existing conditions for theramps are for those only within the proposed project limits. See Section 2.3.3.2.(1) and Appendix I forexisting critical design elements within the project study area not meeting standards and a completeanalysis of the existing conditions of the ramps within the project study area. The proposed conditionsonly include the roadways and ramps that are new or are being reconstructed. All bridges within theproposed project limits were analyzed. Ramps containing only terminal reconstruction were not analyzedsince no work is proposed on the ramp proper. The ramp terminals are considered to be within thetransition area from the proposed design to the existing. See Section 3.3.3.2.(1) for a summary of criticaldesign elements within the proposed reconstruction limits not meeting standards.

The following roadways, ramps, and bridges are being reconstructed and rehabilitated and werecompared 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


3-14

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 sincethey 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)


3-15

Exhibit 3.2.3.2-1Critical Design Elements for Principal Arterials

Route I-490 / Route I-390 / NY 390PIN: 4390.13 NHS (Y/N): Yes

Route No. & Name: I-490 / I-390 / NY 390 Functional Classification: UrbanPrincipal 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)8% (I-390 / NY 390)

Terrain: Level

AADT One-Way(2035):

59,000 (I-490)55,500 (I-390)

65,100 (NY 390)

Truck Access/Qualifying Hwy. Yes / Yes

Element Standard

ExistingCondition

(all roadwayswithin originalproject study

area)

ProposedCondition(roadway

segments withinproposed project

limits only)

1 Design Speed 60 mph1

HDM Section 2.7.1.1 APosted55 mph

60 mph1

2 Lane Width (Minimum) 12 ft.HDM Section 2.7.1.1 B 12 ft. 12 ft.

3 Shoulder Width(Minimum)

4 ft. (left)6 ft. desirable where barrier is used (left)

10 ft. desirable (left) – interstates12 ft. desirable where barrier is used (left) - interstates

10 ft. (right)12 ft. desirable where barrier is used (right)

HDM Section 2.7.1.1 C, Exhibit 2-26 ft. (right), Speed Change Lanes

HDM Section 2.7.5.3

6 ft. typ. (left)10 ft. typ. (right)

9 ft. min. (right)(some speedchange lanes)

BIN 1052290 – 3 ft.left, 5 ft. right*

BIN 1063950 – 3 ft.left and right*

BIN 1062541 and1062542 – 1 ft. left,

3 ft. right*BIN 1062521 and4062531 – 5.5 ft.

right*390 SB under 31 –

3 ft. left*

Typical6 ft. (left)

10 ft. (right)

Under CSX Bridge6 ft. (left)

6 ft. (right)*

Bridges to remainRetain Existing*

(BIN 1052290 3 ft.left, BIN 1063950 3ft. left and right, andBIN 4062531 5.5 ft.

right)


3-16


Route I-490 / Route I-390 / NY 390

4 Bridge Roadway Width

InterstatesFull approach roadway width

(New, Replacement & Rehabilitation)

Not less than AASHTO Interstate Standards, 2005 (i.e.12 ft. lanes, 3.5 ft. left and 10 ft. right shoulder), unless

approved by FHWA(Existing bridges to remain in place)

Non Interstate FreewaysGenerally match the approach roadway width but not

less than Chapter 8 of AASHTO’s A Policy on GeometricDesign of Highways and Streets, 2004 (i.e. 12 ft. lanes,

4 ft. left and 10 ft. right shoulders)(New, Replacement & Rehabilitation)

BM Section 2.3.1-Table 2-1, AASHTO InterstateStandards, 2005 and AASHTO Green Book, 2004

Most bridges arenarrower than theapproach roadwaywidth and less than

AASHTOstandards*

New bridgesFull Approach

Roadway Width

Bridges to remainRetain Existing*(BIN 1052290,1063950, and

4062531)

5 Maximum Grade 3%HDM Section 2.7.1.1 E, Exhibit 2-2

0.64% (490 EB)1.32% (490 WB)

2.0% (390 NB/SB)

2.85% (390 SB)2.0% (390 NB)

6 Horizontal Curvature(Minimum)

1,330 ft. (@ e = 6.0%)HDM Section 2.7.1.1 F, Exhibit 2-2

2,865 ft.(I-490,I-390/NY390)

2,865 ft. (390 NB)2,000 ft. (390 SB)

7 Superelevation Rate(Maximum)

6% (Urban)HDM Section 2.7.1.1 G

4.44%(490 EB/WB)4.6% (390 NB)2.08% (390 SB)

6%

8 Stopping Sight Distance(Minimum)

570 ft.HDM Section 2.7.1.1 H, Exhibit 2-2

570 ft. (I-390)

469 ft. (390 NB)*448 ft. (390 SB)*

Typical570 ft.

Isolated locations469 ft.(390 NB)*448 ft. (390 SB)*

9 Horizontal Clearance(from EOT)

15 ft. without barrierWith barrier, use larger of 4 ft. or actual shoulder width

HDM Section 2.7.1.1 I

6 ft. typ. (left)10 ft. typ. (right)

(w/ barrier)15 ft. (w/o barrier)

BIN 1052290 – 3 ft.left*

BIN 1063950 – 3 ft.left and right*

BIN 1062541 and1062542 – 1 ft. left,

3 ft. right*390 SB under 31 –

3 ft. left*11 ft. (under CSX

bridge)*

Typical6 ft. typ. (left)

10 ft. typ. (right)(w/ barrier)

15 ft. (w/o barrier)

Bridges to remainRetain Existing*

(BIN 1052290 3 ft.left, BIN 1063950 3

ft. left and right)

10 Vertical Clearance(Minimum)

14 ft. (Bridge)3

14.5 ft. Desirable (Bridge)15 ft. (Overhead Sign Structures)

15.5 ft. Desirable (Overhead Sign Structures)HDM Section 2.7.1.1 J & BM Section 2.4

15.5 ft. (Erie Canal)BM Section 2.4.4

22 ft. (Railroad Tracks)23 ft. Desirable (Railroad Tracks)

HDM Section 23.10.1 & BM Section 2.4.2

14 ft. Min (Bridge)15.7 ft. Min (Signs)15 ft. Min (Canal)*22.33 ft. (Railroad)

14 ft.


3-17


Route I-490 / Route I-390 / NY 39011 Travel Lane Cross Slope 1.5% Min. to 2% Max.

HDM Section 2.7.1.1 K1.5% Min. to 2%

Max.1.5% Min. to 2%

Max.

12 Rollover4% between lanes; 8% at EOT;

(If shoulder drainage is a concern, and superelevation >6%, may use 10% for outer 1.2 m of shoulder).

HDM Section 2.7.1.1 L & 3.2.5.1

8% Max. 8% Max.

13 Structural Capacity

AASHTO HL-93 Live Load and the NYSDOT DesignPermit Vehicle (new and replacement bridges)

HDM Section 2.7.1.1.M & BM Section 2.6.1

HS 20 Minimum (bridge rehabilitation)HDM Section 2.7.1.1 M & BM Section 2.6.2

< HS 20(BINs 1025812,

1062521, 1062522,1062542 and

4062532)*

AASHTO HL-93 LiveLoad and the

NYSDOT DesignPermit Vehicle (new

and replacementbridges)

HS 20 Minimum(bridge

rehabilitation)

14 Level of Service2 Min. “C” – UrbanHDM Section 2.7.1.1 N Section 2.3.1.7*

E (I-390 NB)*D (I-390 SB)*

15 Control of Access Fully controlledHDM Section 2.7.1.1 O Fully Controlled Fully Controlled

16 PedestrianAccommodation NA NA NA

17 Median Width(Minimum)

10 ft.HDM Section 2.7.1.1 P

24 ft. min. (I-490)32 ft. min. (I-390)

34 ft. min. (NY390)10 ft.

(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 Speedsand 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 Section2.3.1.7 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 verticalclearance is 14 ft. as per NYSDOT Engineering Structures Management.* Non-standard feature


3-18

Exhibit 3.2.3.2-2Critical 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)ES (I-490 WB to I-390 SB)

EN (I-490 WB to NY 390NB)

Functional Classification: UrbanPrincipal Arterial Expressway (NY 390)Principal Arterial Interstate (I-490/I-390)

Project Type: Reconstruction Design Classification: Ramp% Trucks (Max.): 7.9% (SW) / 5.7% (ES)

8.3% (EN)Terrain: Level

AADT (2035): 14,900 (SW) / 8,000 (ES)24,000 (EN)

Truck Access/Qualifying Hwy. Yes / Connects Qualifying Highways

Element Standard ExistingCondition

ProposedCondition


HDM Section 2.7.5.2 A

Posted35 mph (SW)

50 mph (ES/EN)45 mph

2A Lane Width2

(Existing)

17 ft. minimum (SW)HDM Section 2.7.5.2B, Exhibit 2-9a

24 ft. minimum both lanes combined (ES/EN) (Includes 2 ft. deduction for shoulder width)

HDM Section 2.7.5.2 B, Exhibit 2-9a

12 ft. per lane(ES/EN)*

14 ft. (SW)*See 2B

2B Lane Width2

(Proposed)

16 ft. minimum (ES)17 ft. minimum (SW)

HDM Section 2.7.5.2B, Exhibit 2-9a24 ft. minimum both lanes combined (EN)

(Includes 2 ft. deduction for shoulder width)HDM Section 2.7.5.2 B, Exhibit 2-9a

See 2A16 ft. (ES)17 ft. (SW)

12 ft. lanes (EN)


Curbed - 0 ft. (left/right)Curbed – 2 ft. Desirable (left/right)

Uncurbed - 3 ft. (left) / 8 ft. (right) (45-50 mph)HDM Section 2.7.5.2 C, Exhibit 2-10

3 ft. (left)8 ft. (right)(all ramps)

6/18 ft. (left/right)(ES)

6/8 ft. (left/right)(EN)

10/14 ft. (left/right)(SW)

4 Bridge Roadway Width Full Approach Roadway WidthHDM Section 2.7.5.2 D

All 3 bridges arenarrower than theapproach roadway

width*

Retain Existing*(BIN 1063950)

5 Maximum Grade 5% (45-50 mph)HDM Section 2.7.5.2 E, Exhibit 2-10

3.80% (EN)1.30% (ES)3.50% (SW)

3.5% (SW)3.5% (ES)3.0% (EN)


643 ft. (@ e = 6.0%) (45 mph)HDM Section 2.7.5.2 F, Exhibit 2-10

674 ft. (SW)1273 ft. (ES)1432 ft. (EN)

674 ft. (SW)850 ft. (ES)

1,060 ft. (EN)



6% (SW)

> 6%*(all other ramps)

6%


360 ft. (45 mph)HDM Section 2.7.5.2 H, Exhibit 2-10

228 ft. (SW)348 ft. (ES)407 ft. (EN)

240 ft. (SW)*384 ft. (ES)360 ft. (EN)


3 ft. Minimum (left side)Greater of shoulder width or 6 ft. Minimum (right side)

(Additional 4 ft. clearance beyond the outside ofshoulders to bridge piers or abutments)


3 ft. (left)6 ft. (right)



3-19

Exhibit 3.2.3.2-2Critical Design Elements for Direct Connection Ramps

(I-490 / I-390 / NY 390 Interchange)


14 ft. (Bridge)3

14.5 ft. Desirable (Bridge)15 ft. (Overhead Sign Structures)

15.5 ft. Desirable (Overhead Sign Structures)HDM Section 2.7.5.2 J & BM Section 2.4

14 ft. Min (Bridge) 14 ft. Min (Bridge)

11 Travel Lane Cross Slope 1.5% Min. to 2% Max.HDM Section 2.7.5.2 K superelevated superelevated



HDM Section 2.7.5.2 L & 3.2.5.1

0% b/w lanes (EN)8% at EOT

0% b/w lanes (EN)8% at EOT





> HS 20

AASHTO HL-93 LiveLoad and the

NYSDOT DesignPermit Vehicle (new

and replacementbridges)

14 Level of Service Min. “C” – Urban (interstate ramp junctions only)HDM Section 2.7.5.2 N Section 2.3.1.7* D (ES Merge)*


16

PedestrianAccommodation(For ped facilities locatedat the ramp terminal)

5 ft. Minimum4 ft. Minimum (Restricted Areas)

In accordance with HDM Chapter 18HDM Section 2.7.5.2 P & 18.6.5.1

Prohibited Prohibited

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 theminimum stopping sight distance for each ramp. A ramp speed study is not required to determine the ramp design speed. Theramp 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 intersectinghighway (mainline) within the range of functional class speeds for the terrain and volume. (Refer to Section 2.3.1.5 Speeds andDelays 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 verticalclearance is 14 ft. as per NYSDOT Engineering Structures Management.* Non-standard feature


3-20

Exhibit 3.2.3.2-3Critical 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 HighwayRoute No. & Name: C (NY 31 to NY 390 NB)

DE (NY 31 EB to NY 390 NB)Functional Classification: Urban

Minor Arterial (NY 31/Lexington Ave.)Principal Arterial Expressway (NY 390)

Project Type: Reconstruction Design Classification: Ramp% Trucks (Max.): 10.4% (DE)

20% (C)Terrain: Level

AADT (2035): 3,300 (C) / 2,200 (DE) Truck Access/Qualifying Hwy. Connects Qualifying toAccess Highway

Element StandardExisting

Condition(Ramp DE)

ProposedCondition(Ramp C)


HDM Section 2.7.5.2 APosted25 mph

25 mph

2A Lane Width1

(Existing)

17 ft. minimum (DE)(Case I Condition C. Case II included deduction for

combined shoulder width. Deduction for shoulder width <Case I width. Use Case I width.)

HDM Section 2.7.5.2 B, Exhibit 2-9b

15 ft.* See 2B

2B Lane Width1

(Proposed)

16 ft. minimum (C)(Case I Condition C. Case II included deduction for

combined shoulder width. Deduction for shoulder width <Case I width. Use Case I width.)

HDM Section 2.7.5.2 B, Exhibit 2-9b

See 2A 16 ft.


Curbed - 0 ft. (left/right)Curbed – 2 ft. Desirable (left/right)Uncurbed - 3 ft. (left) / 6 ft. (right)

HDM Section 2.7.5.2 C, Exhibit 2-10

Uncurbed4 ft. (left)

6 ft. (right)


4 Bridge Roadway Width Full Approach Roadway WidthHDM Section 2.7.5.2 D NA NA

5 Maximum Grade 7%HDM Section 2.7.5.2 E, Exhibit 2-10 3.62% 2.0%


144 ft. (@ e = 6.0%)HDM Section 2.7.5.2 F, Exhibit 2-10 150 ft. 230 ft.


6% (Urban)HDM Section 2.7.5.2 G > 6%* 6%


155 ft.HDM Section 2.7.5.2 H, Exhibit 2-10 141 ft.* 155 ft.





> 3 ft. (left)> 6 ft. (right)

(all other ramps)



14 ft. (Bridge)2

14.5 ft. Desirable (Bridge)HDM Section 2.7.5.2 J & BM Section 2.4

NA NA

11 Travel Lane Cross Slope 1.5% Min. to 2% Max.HDM Section 2.7.5.2 K superelevated superelevated



HDM Section 2.7.5.2 L & 3.2.5.18% 8%





NA NA


3-21

Exhibit 3.2.3.2-3Critical Design Elements for Loop Ramps


14 Level of Service NA NA NA


16




Existing sidewalksat ramp terminalsare scarce and do

not comply withstandard criteria*

5 ft.

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 verticalclearance 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


3-22

Exhibit 3.2.3.2-4Critical Design Elements for Diagonal / Outer Connection / Semidirect Ramps


PIN: 4390.13 NHS (Y/N): Connects to an NHS HighwayRoute No. & Name: A (NY 390 NB to NY 31)

B (I-490 WB to NY 31)DA (NY 31 WB to NY 390 NB)

DD (NY 390 NB to NY 31)

Functional Classification: UrbanPrincipal Arterial Expressway (NY 390)Minor Arterial (NY 31 & Lexington Ave.)

Project Type: Reconstruction Design Classification: Ramp% Trucks (Max.): 9.5% (A)

9.5% (B)28.1% (DA)9.5% (DD)

Terrain: Level

AADT (2035): 6,500 (A) / 4,900 (B)1,100 (DA) / 11,400 (DD)

Truck Access/Qualifying Hwy. Connects Qualifying toAccess Highway


ProposedCondition

1 Design Speed 45 mphHDM Section 2.7.5.2 A

Posted30 mph (DD)

Unposted (DA)45 mph (A/B)

2A Lane Width1

(Existing)

14 ft. minimum (DA)(Case I Condition C. Case II included deduction for

combined standard shoulder width < Case I width. UseCase I width.)

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

13 to 14 ft. (DA)*12 ft. (DD)* See 2B

2B Lane Width1

(Proposed)

12 ft. minimum (A)15 ft. minimum (B)

(Case I Condition C. Includes deduction for combinedshoulder width. Deduction for shoulder width < Case I

width. Use Case I width.)

See 2A12 ft. (A)15 ft. (B)


Curbed - 0 ft. (left/right)Curbed – 2 ft. Desirable (left/right)Uncurbed - 3 ft. (left) / 6 ft. (right)

HDM Section 2.7.5.2 C, Exhibit 2-10

Uncurbed4 ft. (left)

6 ft. (right)(all ramps)

3 ft. min. (left)6 ft. min. (right)

(modified ramps)

4 Bridge Roadway Width Full Approach Roadway WidthHDM Section 2.7.5.2 D NA NA

5 Maximum Grade 5% (45-50 mph)3

HDM Section 2.7.5.2 E, Exhibit 2-10 2.0% (DA/DD)3% (A)

2.42% (B)


643 ft. (@ e = 6.0%) (45 mph)3

HDM Section 2.7.5.2 F, Exhibit 2-101910 ft. (DA)260 ft. (DD)

1015 ft. (A)700 ft. (B)



6% (DA)> 6% (DD)*

6%


360 ft. (45 mph)3

HDM Section 2.7.5.2 H, Exhibit 2-10 200 ft. (all ramps) 360 ft. (A/B)





3 ft. (left)6 ft. (right)(all ramps)



14 ft. (Bridge)2

14.5 ft. Desirable (Bridge)HDM Section 2.7.5.2 J & BM Section 2.4

NA NA

11 Travel Lane Cross Slope 1.5% Min. to 2% Max.HDM Section 2.7.5.2 K

1.5% Min. to 2%Max.

1.5% Min. to 2%Max.


3-23

Exhibit 3.2.3.2-4Critical Design Elements for Diagonal / Outer Connection / Semidirect Ramps




HDM Section 2.7.5.2 L & 3.2.5.18% 8%





NA NA

14 Level of Service NA NA NA

15 Control of AccessFully controlled

HDM Section 2.7.5.2 OFully Controlled

(Except DD)*Fully Controlled

16




Existing sidewalksat ramp terminalsare scarce and do

not comply withstandard criteria*

5 ft.

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 verticalclearance is 14 ft. as per NYSDOT Engineering Structures Management.(3) Criteria utilized for proposed ramps only.* Non-standard feature


3-24

Exhibit 3.2.3.2-5Critical Design Elements for Minor Arterials

Lyell Avenue (NY 31), Buffalo Road (NY 33), Lee Road (CR 154) and Lexington AvenuePIN: 4390.13 NHS (Y/N): No

Route No. & Name: NY 31 - Lyell AvenueNY 33 – Buffalo RoadCR 154 – Lee RoadLexington Avenue

Functional Classification: Urban - Minor Arterial

Project Type: Reconstruction Design Classification: Arterial% Trucks (Max.): 8.6% (Lyell Avenue)

Unknown (Buffalo Road)9.2% (Lee Road)

7% (Lexington Avenue)

Terrain: Level

AADT (2035): 33,900 (Lyell Avenue)15,000 (Buffalo Road)

11,600 (Lee Road)17,100 (Lexington Avenue)

Truck Access/Qualifying Hwy. Yes / No


ProposedCondition


HDM Section 2.7.2.2 A

Posted40 mph (Lyell Aveand Buffalo Rd)35 mph (Lee Rd

and Lexington Ave)

45 mph1

2A Travel Lane Width(Minimum)

11 ft.12 ft. / 14 ft. desirable (outside lane to accommodate

bicyclists)HDM Section 2.7.2.2 B, Exhibit 2-4

10 ft. min (Lyell Aveover Erie Canal)*

11 ft. typ.(Lyell Ave)

12 ft. (Buffalo Rd,Lee Rd and

Lexington Ave)

11 ft. min. (Lyell Aveand Lee Rd)

10 ft. min (only atLyell Ave over Erie

Canal bridge)2

12 ft. (Buffalo Rdover I-390)

2B Turning Lane Width(Left and Right)

11 ft. minimum (including two-way left-turn lanes)12 ft. desirable

16 ft. desirable (two-way left-turn lanes)HDM Section 2.7.2.2.B, Exhibit 2-4

NA (Buffalo Rd)

10 ft. (LexingtonAve to Lee Rd)*

11 ft. min.(all other roadways)

11 ft. (Lyell Aveand Lee Rd)

12 ft. (Buffalo Rdover I-390)


3-25


Lyell Avenue (NY 31), Buffalo Road (NY 33), Lee Road (CR 154) and Lexington Avenue


0 ft. (left – divided roadway)1 ft. to 2 ft. desirable (left – divided roadway)

Curbed – 0 ft. with 12 ft. min. outside travel lane (right)Curbed – 5 ft. min. for bikes and lateral offset (right)

Curbed – 6 ft. min. for bikes, lateral offset, andbreakdowns (right)

Curbed – 10 ft. desirable for bikes, lateral offset, andbreakdowns (right)

Uncurbed - 8 ft. (right)HDM Section 2.7.2.2 C, Exhibit 2-4 HDM Section 2.7.1.1

C, Exhibit 2-24 ft. (right), Speed Change Lanes

HDM Section 2.7.5.3

Divided/Curbed0 ft. (left/right)

(Lexington Ave andportions of Lyell

Ave)*

Undivided/Curbed0 ft. min (Lee Rd)8 ft. typ. (Lee Rd)

0 to 3 ft. typ. (LyellAve west of 390

ramps)

Undivided/Uncurbed9 ft. typ. (Lyell Aveeast of Lee Rd Ext)

10 ft. (Buffalo Rdbridge approach)

Typical6 ft. (right)

(shared use)

Right Turning Lanes0 ft. with 12 ft. min.outside travel lane

(Lyell Ave andLee Rd)

4 Bridge Roadway Width Full Approach Roadway WidthBM Section 2.3.1, Table 2-1

Greater than FullApproach RoadwayWidth (Buffalo Rd

over I-390)

Full ApproachRoadway Width(Lyell Ave over

NY390)Less than Full

Approach RoadwayWidth (Lyell Aveover Erie Canal)*

Greater than FullApproach RoadwayWidth (Buffalo Rd

over I-390)

Full ApproachRoadway Width(Lyell Ave over

NY390)

5 Maximum Grade 6%HDM Section 2.7.2.2 E, Exhibit 2-4

3% (Lyell Ave)1.0% (Lee Rd)

0.92% (Buffalo Rd)0.64% (Lexington

Ave)

3% (Lyell Ave)1.0% (Lee Rd)

0.92% (Buffalo Rd)


711 ft. (@ e = 4.0%)HDM Section 2.7.2.2 F, Exhibit 2-4

1,432 ft. (Lyell Ave)NA (Buffalo Rd and

Lee Rd)2,865 ft. (Lexington

Ave)

1,600 ft. (Lyell Ave)NA (Buffalo Rd and

Lee Rd)


4%HDM Section 2.7.2.2 G

2% max. (Lyell Ave)normal crown

(Buffalo Rd andLee Rd)

2.5% max.(Lexington Ave)

2% (Lyell Ave)normal crown

(Buffalo Rd and LeeRd)


360 ft.HDM Section 2.7.2.2 H, Exhibit 2-4 > 360 ft. 360 ft.

9 Horizontal Clearance(from FOC)

1.5 ft. without barrier0 ft. with barrier

3 ft. at intersectionsHDM Section 2.7.2.2 I

0.5 ft. (Lee Rd)*

1.5 ft. (Lyell Ave,Buffalo Rd andLexington Ave)

1.5 ft.


3-26


Lyell Avenue (NY 31), Buffalo Road (NY 33), Lee Road (CR 154) and Lexington Avenue


14 ft. (New, Replacement & Rehabilitation w/o verticalclearance posting)

14.5 ft. Desirable (New, Replacement & Rehabilitationw/o vertical clearance posting)

As approved (Rehabilitation w/ vertical clearanceposting)

HDM Section 2.7.2.2 J & BM Section 2.415.5 ft. (Erie Canal)BM Section 2.4.4

18 ft. (Canal) NA

11 Travel Lane Cross Slope

1.5% Min. to 2% Max. (Travel Lanes)HDM Section 2.7.2.2 K

1.5% Min. to 3% Max. (Travel Lanes)2% Min. to 8% Max. (Shoulders)

HDM Section 7.5.2.2 K“3R Criteria”

2.0% 2.0%

12 Rollover 4% between lanes; 8% at EOTHDM Section 2.7.2.2 L 8% 8%





< HS 20(BIN 1021589)*

AASHTO HL-93Live Load and theNYSDOT DesignPermit Vehicle

14 Level of Service NA NA NA15 Control of Access NA NA NA

16 PedestrianAccommodation

5 ft. Minimum, Highway4 ft. Minimum (Restricted Areas), Highway

5.6 ft Minimum, BridgeIn accordance with HDM Chapter 18HDM Section 2.7.2.2 N & 18.6.5.1

Existing sidewalksare scarce and donot comply with

standard criteria*

NA (Lee Rd)5 ft. (Lyell Ave)

5.6 ft. (Lyell Ave andBuffalo Rd bridges)

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 Speedsand 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 theexisting bridge width, and is therefore not considered a non-standard feature. All other lane widths are 11 ft. min.* Non-standard feature


3-27

3.2.3.3. Other Design Parameters – Non-critical design elements were compared to standards from theAASHTO 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 comparisonpurposes. The remaining elements only include the areas that are new or are being reconstructed orresurfaced. Ramps containing only terminal reconstruction were not analyzed since no work is proposedon the ramp proper. The ramp terminals are considered to be within the transition area from theproposed design to the existing. See Section 3.3.3.2.(2) for a summary of non-critical design elementswithin the proposed reconstruction limits that do not conform to normally accepted practice. See Section3.2.3.2 for a complete listing of the roadways, ramps, and bridges that were compared against standardcriteria.

Level of Service (LOS)See Section 3.3.1.7 for discussion on proposed LOS. LOS is a critical design element for Interstatehighways and ramp junctions only. The minimum required LOS for non-Interstate highways and rampjunctions is “D”. There is no non-conforming LOS proposed along the non-Interstate highways and rampjunctions within the proposed reconstruction limits.

Interchange SpacingAll 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 SpacingRamp terminal spacing within the project study area was re-evaluated for conformance with therecommendations 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 proposedreconstruction limits. Five (5) of the terminal spacings that were non-conforming were eliminated due thereconfiguration of the 390/31 ramps on the east side of the interchange. Also, the conversion of RampES 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. Insummary:

· 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 theproposed reconstruction limits.

Exhibit 3.2.3.3-1Ramp Terminal Spacing


ExistingCondition

ProposedCondition

Minimum Ramp Terminal Spacing(a) Successive Exit Terminals

- Ramp SE to Ramp SW 1000 ft. Min. 882 ft.* 1 903 ft.* 1,3

- Ramp NW to Ramp NE 1000 ft. Min. (Exist)800 ft. Min. (Prop) 937 ft.* 1,6 same 1,4,6

- 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


3-28

Exhibit 3.2.3.3-1Ramp Terminal Spacing


ExistingCondition

ProposedCondition

- 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

to I-390 SB 800 ft. Min. NA (new) 1893± ft.3


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 toService Interchange Full Freeway condition. Proposed weaving length is also 2162± ft., however theproposed 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 theproposed facility will be. Note that in Chapter 2 Exhibit 2.3.3.2 (2)-1, the existing ramp terminal spacing isnon-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 goresis 665± ft, which exceeds the 400 ft. recommendation for a CD roadway type facility, and is therefore notconsidered non-conforming.

(8) Ramp DC is not considered in the 390 SB analysis because the movement from Ramp DC to 390 SB isprohibited.

(9) Ramp terminal spacing is measured between the physical gores, except for (e).


3-29

Left-Hand Entrances and ExitsSee 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) LengthThe AASHTO Green Book (Figure 10-75) recommends a 1000 ft. to 1800 ft. length to widen a lane from12 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 LengthThere are no through lane drop transitions required within the proposed project limits.

Lane Shift Taper LengthAll lane shift taper lengths were designed to meet the requirements of Section 5.9.8.2 E of the HDM.

Auxiliary LanesAuxiliary lanes (i.e. acceleration/deceleration lanes and/or speed-change lanes) for ramps within theproject study area were re-evaluated for conformance with Exhibits 10-69 to 10-73 of the AASHTOpublication A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets 2004 (Green Book). As shown inExhibit 3.2.3.3-2, all auxiliary lane lengths within the proposed reconstruction limits exceed the minimumrecommended by AASHTO in all but one instance. The non-conforming acceleration lane length from NY31 WB to NY 390 SB (Ramp DC) will be retained.

Exhibit 3.2.3.3-2Auxiliary Lane Lengths

Ramp ConditionSpeed

Change(mph)5,6,7,8,9

GradeFactor


ExistingCondition

(feet)

ProposedCondition

(feet)I-490 / I-390 / NYS Route 390 Interchange

NE (390 SB to 490 EB) Deceleration 60 to 40 NA 350 NA (Left Lane Drop)NA (Right Lane Fork) same

NE (390 SB to 490 EB) Acceleration 40 to 60 NA 5501726 ft. (Left Lane)

NA (Right LaneAddition)

same

ES (490 WB to 390 SB) Deceleration 60 to 50 NA 240 NA (Lane Drop) same

ES (490 WB to 390 SB) Acceleration 50 to 60 NA 18011310 ft. (Left Lane)1

NA (Right LaneAddition)

300 ft.

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) sameWN (490 EB to 390 NB) Deceleration 60 to 45 NA 300 NA (Lane Drop) sameWN (490 EB to 390 NB) Acceleration 50 to 60 NA 18011 NA (Added Lane) sameWS (490 EB to 390 SB) Deceleration 60 to 50 NA 240 1317 ft. sameWS (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)

SE (390 NB to 490 EB) Acceleration 50 to 60 NA 18011 NA (Right LaneAddition)10 same

EN (490 WB to 390 NB) Deceleration 60 to 50 NA 240 NA (Right LaneDrop)10

NA (Left Lane Fork)same (Right Lane)

EN (490 WB to 390 NB) Acceleration 50 to 60 NA 18011 NA (Weave)2

NA (Left LaneAddition)

500 ft. (RightLane)

NW (390 SB to 490 WB) Deceleration 60 to 45 NA 300 NA (Weave)2 sameNW (390 SB to 490 WB) Acceleration 45 to 60 NA 420 986 ft. same

NYS Route 390 / NYS Route 31 InterchangeDA (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


3-30

Exhibit 3.2.3.3-2Auxiliary Lane Lengths

Ramp ConditionSpeed

Change(mph)5,6,7,8,9

GradeFactor


ExistingCondition

(feet)

ProposedCondition

(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 sameDF (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) 240B (490 WB to 31) Deceleration 60 to 45 NA 240 NA (new) 240C (31 to 390 NB) Acceleration 30 to 60 NA 910 NA (new) 710 ft.12

NYS Route 390 / Lexington Avenue InterchangeEA (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 sameEC (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 oftraffic on the through lane. However, only that portion of the acceleration length beginning where thepainted 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 beconsidered as part of the deceleration length.

(5) Speed of vehicles entering or exiting the highway is based on the anticipated off-peak 85th percentile speedsof the highway.

(6) Speed change required for acceleration lanes is based on the anticipated off-peak 85th percentile speed ofthe 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 usingthe 6% max. superelevation rate tables because it may reduce the max. theoretical speed that a vehicle canattain 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 basedon the anticipated off-peak 85th percentile speed of the highway and the max. allowable ramp design speedof the exit curve radius as per the 4% max. superelevation rate table depicted in the NYSDOT HDM Exhibit2-10. 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 theanticipated off-peak 85th percentile speed of the highway and the max. allowable ramp design speed alongthe 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 thanthe 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 decelerationlength. It also discounts the ability of drivers to decelerate along a portion of the flatter curve prior totraversing 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 oftraffic on the through lane. For preliminary design purposes, it is assumed that the motorist on the ramp hasan unobstructed view of traffic on the through lane for a length of 200 ft. on the curvature of the ramp and istraveling at least 30 mph approaching the entrance terminal due to the long tangent length on the rampproper. The feasibility of reducing the acceleration length will be explored further during final design.


3-31

Auxiliary Lane TapersAuxiliary / speed-change lane tapers for parallel-type exits within the project study area were re-evaluatedfor conformance with AASHTO Green Book criteria. As shown in Exhibit 3.2.3.3-3, all speed-change lanetaper lengths within the proposed reconstruction limits exceed the minimum recommended by AASHTO inall 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 3.2.3.3-3Auxiliary Lane Taper Lengths

Ramp ConditionRecommended

Length(feet)


ProposedCondition

(feet)I-490 / I-390 / NYS Route 390 Interchange

NE (390 SB to 490 EB) Acceleration 300 576 ft. (Left Lane) sameES (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. sameWS (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 InterchangeDA (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 InterchangeEA (390 NB to Lexington

Ave) Deceleration 180 227 ft. NA (Lane Drop)

EB (Lexington Ave to 390NB) Acceleration 300 323 ft. same

EC (390 SB to LexingtonAve) Deceleration 180 270 ft. same

ED (Lexington Ave to 390SB) Acceleration 300 283 ft. * NA (Lane Addition)


Compound Curve RatioCompound curve ratios within the project reconstruction limits were evaluated for conformance with theAASHTO Green Book, which recommends a maximum rate of 1.5:1 on highways and 2:1 on turningroadways and ramps. There are no non-conforming compound curve ratios within the proposedreconstruction limits.

Length of Circular Arc for Compound CurvesMinimum curve length for compound intersection curves within the project reconstruction limits wereevaluated for conformance with Exhibit 3-42 of the AASHTO Green Book. There are no non-conformingcompound 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 projectreconstruction limits. All intersections and driveways were designed to accommodate the appropriatedesign vehicle turning paths.


3-32

Exhibit 3.2.3.3-2Vehicle Turning Paths at Lyell Avenue Intersections (i.e. Design Vehicle)

Intersections Design Vehicle Vehicle Accommodated

Howard Road – East leg right-turns only WB-50 (WB to NB)WB-65 (NB to EB)

WB-50 (WB to NB)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-65Matilda Street Large School Bus Large School Bus*Tarwood Drive Large School Bus Large School Bus*Ramp DB WB-65 WB-65Lee Road WB-65 WB-65

Driveways Design Vehicle Vehicle AccommodatedLyell-Howard Commons Plaza SU SUWegmans Driveway – between Howard Road andRossmore Street

SU (in)WB-65 (out)

SU (in)WB-65 (out)

Gateway Plaza SU SU*Spy Outlet / Rochester Gold & Jewelry Exchange / Sal’sBarber Shop SU SU

Martusciello’s Bread SU SUSteve T. Hots SU SUEast Gates Professional Buildings / Apartment Complex SU SU*True Value Hardware SU SUTaylor Rental / Boley Locksmith SU SU*Abandoned Gas Station – NE corner of Lyell-Leeintersection SU

Stonegate Complex SU SUDiplomat Banquet Center & Hotel / La Quinta Inn SU SU*Hess Tank Facility Oil Tanker Oil TankerHess Gas Station / Brady’s Trailer Service Oil Tanker Oil TankerNorth Albany Terminal Company Oil Tanker Oil TankerRochester Industrial Services / PICS TelecomInternational SU SU*

Sofia Collision & Frame SU SU*TM Design Corporation SU SUCanal Path Parking Lot SU SU* Also accommodates the occasional WB-50 design vehicle making a right-in manuever, however thetruck 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, commercialdriveways, and all uncontrolled moves at signalized intersections along Lyell Avenue utilizing theappropriate design vehicles listed above. The removal of parking stalls on the eastbound side of LyellAvenue 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 significantlyimprove 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 thefunctional classification of any of the roadways within the project limits. Functional classification for eachroadway is listed in Exhibits 2.3.1.1-1 to 2.3.1.1-3.


3-33

3.3.1.2. Control of Access – Access to I-490, I-390 and NY 390 within the project limits will remain fullycontrolled. Full access control will extend the full length of all ramps and terminals on the crossroadsexcept at the following locations:

· The proximity of Tarwood Drive to the Lyell Avenue on-ramp to NY 390 SB (Ramp DF) does notconform to the 100 ft. minimum distance requirement as per Section 2.7.5.2.O, page 6-36 andFigure 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 390SB (Ramps EC and ED), which does not conform to the control of access requirements restrictingaccess along a ramp.

In order to conform to standards, Tarwood Drive would have to be shifted westward by a minimum of 100ft. This shift would have significant impacts to local businesses and reroute Tarwood Drive traffic closerto the signal at Rossmore Street. Since control of access is considered a critical design element forfreeway 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 Driveaccess at the beginning of Ramps EC and ED, Lexington Avenue would have to be extended westwardby 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 forcommercial 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 Street2. Lyell Avenue at Ramp DB3. Lyell Avenue at Lee Road

The Lyell Avenue at Ramp DD signalized intersection will be eliminated and the Lyell Avenue at LeeRoad 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 locationsbased on preliminary evaluation. Proposed overhead sign structure locations will be re-evaluated duringfinal design in accordance with the most current MUTCD standards.

I-390/NY 390 NB1. 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 SB4. 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 bridgemounted signs will need to be replaced with new signs. Some new ground mounted guide signs are alsoproposed. Proposed overhead and ground mounted guide signs will be explored further during final


3-34

design. All other existing signs will be replaced as appropriate based on the geometric changesproposed or condition. Curve warning and speed advisory signs will be required for several of the390/490 interchange and Lyell Avenue ramps, some with an existing accident history, and will beexplored further during final design.

3.3.1.4. Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) – The Regional ITS Coordinator has identifiedpossible 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 standardon north bridge fascia on eastern side of the new Lyell Avenue bridge over NY 390. New cameracoverage will include the northern portion of the 390/490 interchange, both directions on the LyellAvenue corridor, and a significant stretch to the north on NY 390 (closing the gap to theRidgeway Avenue camera).

· Extension of 144 strand fiber optic communications cable on NY 390 from the 390/490interchange to northern project limit, and on I-490 from the 390/490 interchange to the existingcross-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 undertakenduring detailed design of the interchange improvements.

Preliminary concept plans and cost estimates provided by the Regional ITS Coordinator are included inAppendix C.

3.3.1.5. Speeds and Delay - Proposed posted speed limits as well as estimated travel times aredescribed in the following sections.

3.3.1.5. (1) Proposed Posted Speed Limits - The proposed posted speed limits for the new roadwayswithin the project study area are listed in Exhibit 3.3.1.5 (1). Overall, existing posted speed limits would beretained throughout the project area and are listed in Exhibit 2.3.1.5 (1)-1. Posted advisory speeds forramps would likely be maintained if the ramp is not impacted by construction. Posted advisory speeds forthe proposed ramps would be determined in detailed design.


3-35

Exhibit - 3.3.1.5 (1)Proposed Posted Regulatory Speed Limits

Route LimitsProposed Posted

Speed Limit(mph)

I-390(including I-390 SB CD Road and

390/490 Interchange Bypass)CSX Railroad Bridge to I-490 55

NYS Route 390(including NY 390 SB CD Road)

I-490 to north of LexingtonAvenue Interchange 55

3.3.1.5. (2) Travel Time Estimates – Peak hour travel times were extracted for the Estimated Time ofProject Completion (ETC) (2015) and ETC+20 (2035) design years using VISSIM for the proposedalternative. This data is shown in Exhibit 3.3.1.5 (2) in Appendix C. Refer to Section 3.3.1.7 for adiscussion of VISSIM and Section 2.3.1.5 (3) for an explanation of the travel time loops. See Section2.3.5. for further discussion on the ETC utilized for this project.

Notable improvements (greater than 30 seconds) of delay along the expressway system were observedat 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 alongthe expressway system. In all other locations, minimal differences in travel times were observed, which isdue to the lack of geometric improvements and change in traffic volumes between the no-build andproposed conditions.

Overall, Lyell Avenue experienced a slight increase in travel time (less than 13 seconds), from end to endin the project study area. This is due to the updated traffic signal timings, although being coordinated onthe 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, anddevelopment of AADT and peak hour turning movement volumes. See Section 2.3.5. for furtherdiscussion on the ETC utilized for this project. As with the future no-build volumes, future proposedvolumes were generated in cooperation with the Genesee Transportation Council (GTC) and theirregional travel demand (TransCAD) model. Overall, traffic volumes on new roadways and movementswere 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 Roadand the potential use by those accessing I-490 as well as using it as a through roadway, in particularcoming from Lexington Avenue. Given the widening of I-390 SB to Chili Avenue to four lanes wide inAlternative A2, traffic volumes exiting to Chili Avenue during the AM (critical) peak hour were developedfrom GTC origin-destination plots and entered into the VISSIM model.


3-36

The following diagrams are available in Appendix C summarizing project future traffic volumes under theproposed 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, andintersection turning movements at 7 intersections (Exhibits 3.3.1.6-4, 3.3.1.6-5, 3.3.1.6-6, and3.3.1.6-7); and

· Year 2015, 2025, 2035, and 2045 AM and PM peak hour volume weaving volumes (Exhibits3.3.1.6-8A 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 proposedalternative, Alternative A2, volumes given the lack of significant geometric improvements. Refer toSection 2.3.1.6 (2) for an in-depth discussion on growth rates. There will be no impacts to mobilitythrough the corridor for all vehicles types in Alternative A2. Therefore, heavy vehicle composition willremain 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 withinthe system are summarized in Exhibit 3.3.1.6-12.

Exhibit 3.3.1.6-12Alternative A2 Design Year (2035) Project Traffic Volumes


Numberof Travel

Lanes

AADT AM PM


Peak(Veh/hr)

I-390

Chili Avenue to I-490 Ramps Northbound 3 55,300 2,897 5,770Chili Avenue to Buffalo Road Southbound 4 56,300 6,001 3,858

I-490 EB Entrance Ramp to NY390 SB CD Road Southbound 2 30,600 2,733 1,615

NY 390 SBCD Road

I-490 to Lyell Avenue – WeaveSection Southbound 3 35,300 3,566 2,918





Ramp WS I-490 EB to I-390 SB CD Road Eastbound 1 14,800 1,716 1,016Ramp WN I-490 EB to NY 390 NB Eastbound 1 11,500 1,043 996Ramp ES I-490 WB to I-390 SB Westbound 1 8,000 728 572Ramp EN I-490 WB to NY 390 NB Westbound 2 24,000 999 2,577Ramp SE I-390 NB to I-490 EB Northbound 1 7,000 442 488Ramp SW I-390 NB to I-490 WB Northbound 1 14,900 852 1,704Ramp NW NY 390 SB CD Road to I-490 WB Southbound 1 11,500 489 1,167Ramp NE NY 390 SB CD Road to I-490 EB Southbound 2 20,900 2,253 1,096Ramp A NY 390 NB Exit to Lyell Avenue Northbound 1 6,400 334 532

Ramp B I-490 WB (Ramp EN) Exit to LyellAvenue Northbound 1 5,000 226 432

Ramp C NY 390 NB Entrance from LyellAvenue Northbound 1 3,400 170 331


Ramp DC NY 390 SB CD Road Entrancefrom Lyell Avenue WB Southbound 1 3,700 281 426

Ramp DF NY 390 SB CD Road Entrancefrom Lyell Avenue EB Southbound 1 7,500 854 438


3-37

Exhibit 3.3.1.6-12Alternative A2 Design Year (2035) Project Traffic Volumes


Numberof Travel

Lanes

AADT AM PM


Peak(Veh/hr)

Ramp EA NY 390 NB Exit to LexingtonAvenue Northbound 1 7,700 1,007 431




LyellAvenue

Rossmore Street to NY 390 SBOff-Ramp


Year 2045 volume projections for areas on or under project study area bridges are available in Exhibit3.3.1.6-13.

Exhibit 3.3.1.6-13Alternative A2 Design Year (2045) Project Traffic Volumes for Structures


1048680 I-490 EB Under Howard Road 57,7001048680 I-490 WB Under Howard Road 56,1001048680 Howard Road Over I-490 16,0001025812 I-390 SB CD Road Under I-490 EB 3,1001025812 I-490 EB Over I-390 SB CD Road 30,100

1025820/1063950 I-490 WB Off-Ramp to I-390 SB Under I-490 EB and I-390 NB 8,400

1025820/1063950 I-490 EB Over I-490 WB Off-Ramp to I-390 SB andUnder I-390 EB 52,000

1063950 I-390 NB Over I-490 EB and I-490 WB Off-Ramp to I-390 SB 50,600

1025811/1052280 NY 390 SB CD Road Under I-490 WB and I-490 EB Off-Ramp to NY390 NB 25,100

1025811/1052280 I-490 WB Over NY 390 SB CD Road and Under I-490EB Off-Ramp to NY 390 NB 44,000

1052280 I-490 EB Off-Ramp toNY 390 NB Over I-490 WB and NY 390 SB CD Road 12,100

1052290 I-490 WB Under NY 390 NB 28,4001052290 NY 390 NB Over I-490 WB 35,0004443362 I-490 EB Over Erie Canal 59,2004443361 I-490 WB Over Erie Canal 62,0001023030 I-390 NB Under Buffalo Road 57,9001023030 I-390 SB Under Buffalo Road 32,2001023030 I-390 SB CD Road Under Buffalo Road 27,1001023030 Buffalo Road Over I-390 16,0007025830 I-390 NB Under CSX Railroad 57,9007025830 I-390 SB Under CSX Railroad 59,300

1, 2, 3* I-390 SB

Over I-490 WB Off-Ramp to I-390 SB, Over I-490 EB, Over I-390 NB Off-Ramp to I-490 WB,

Over I-490 WB, Over I-490 EB Off-Ramp toNY 390 NB

32,200

1* I-490 WB Off-Ramp to I-390 SB Under I-390 SB 8,400

1* I-490 EB Under I-390 SB 52,000


3-38

Exhibit 3.3.1.6-13Alternative A2 Design Year (2045) Project Traffic Volumes for Structures


2* I-390 NB Off-Ramp to I-490 WB Under I-390 SB 15,700

2* I-490 WB Under I-390 SB 28,400

3* I-490 EB Off-Ramp toNY 390 NB Under I-390 SB 12,100

4* NY 390 NB to LyellAvenue (Ramp A)

Over I-490 WB Off-Ramp to NY 390 NB(Ramp EN) 6,700

4* I-490 WB Off-Ramp toNY 390 NB (Ramp EN) Under NY 390 NB to Lyell Avenue (Ramp A) 25,200

1021589 NY 390 NB Under Lyell Avenue 60,4001021589 I-390 SB Under Lyell Avenue 32,2001021589 NY 390 SB CD Road Under Lyell Avenue 29,2001021589 Lyell Avenue Over NY 390 30,3001062542 NY 390 NB Over Trolley Boulevard 63,9001062541 NY 390 SB Over Trolley Boulevard 61,8004062532 NY 390 NB Over Erie Canal 63,9004062531 NY 390 SB Over Erie Canal 61,800

1062542/1062541 Trolley Boulevard Under NY 390 6,0001062522 NY 390 NB Over Lexington Avenue 55,9001062521 NY 390 SB Over Lexington Avenue 54,700

1062522/1062521 Lexington Avenue Under NY 390 7,000Bolded 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, AlternativeA2, conditions along the project study area roadways, it was necessary to use VISSIM and Synchro toanalyze the interaction of traffic flow. VISSIM microsimulation models for the proposed alternative weredeveloped from the calibrated existing and no-build, morning and evening peak hour models. Geometricand operational changes were made as necessary to match the alternative as well as operate aspredicted with the new auxiliary lanes and capacity. Each microsimulation model was used to generatemeasures of effectiveness includes travel time and density along the roadway system in order to comparethe no-build and alternative operating conditions. Densities were measured at the following locations withthe 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 areaarterials and intersections. Under Alternative A2, the signalized conditions within the project study areawould experience only minor changes. These are limited to a new, combined signal at the intersection ofLyell Avenue, Lee Road, and NY 390 NB ramps, and the inclusion of pedestrian accommodations, whichslightly modified timing and phasing at the existing intersections. All signal timings were designed for thedesign year, ETC+20 (2035), and maintained through the other analysis years. All Synchro output reportsare contained within the project record. Delay was measured at the following intersections within theproject study area and related to LOS using HCM definitions.

· One (1) stop sign controlled approach to an intersection· Five (5) signalized intersections


3-39

3.3.1.7 (1) At Project Completion & Design Year – Level of service analyses were completed for theproposed 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 levelof 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 serviceresults are shown in Exhibit 3.3.1.7 (1)-3 of Appendix C. Results and improvements over the no-buildconditions are also summarized below and illustrated in Exhibit 3.3.1.7 (1)-4 and 5 for 2015 and 2035respectively. Results for 2025 were completed for use during the air quality analysis and will not bediscussed in detail.

Additionally, the 2045 LOS analysis was completed to review the roadway capacity at bridge locationsonly. Refer to Exhibit 3.3.1.7 (1)-6 for the capacity review. In summary, there are numerous locationswhere the capacity measure is unacceptable under Alternative A2. However, most of these locations areoutside the proposed project improvement area. This includes on I-490 mainline where no additionalcapacity is included as part of the project and NY 390 north of Lexington Avenue. Three locations withunacceptable capacity in 2045 are I-390 NB/SB under CSX, I-390 NB/SB/SB CD Road under BuffaloRoad, and I-390 NB over I-490 EB. However, given the adjacent segments of I-390 are already at theirmaximum 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 FeatureJustifications given the locations are on Interstate highways.

As indicated below, several Interstate highway segments and ramp junctions do not meet the minimumrequired LOS “C”. Since LOS is a critical design element for these facilities, these locations requireexplanation for not improving to the minimum required (Non-Standard Feature Justification). However, forlocations outside of the proposed project improvement area (I-490 mainline, NY 390 north of LexingtonAvenue), justification for not meeting these standards is not necessary since the LOS is not worse thanthe no-build conditions. For locations and a complete explanation of locations of non-standard LOS, seeSection 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 AlternativeA2 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 throughtraffic on NY 390/I-390, which alleviates the southbound queuing, and poor weaving and mergingoperations experienced under the No-Build conditions. During the PM peak hour, the elimination of thenorthbound weave area between I-490 and Lyell Avenue contributes to the improvements in networkdelay.

Expressway Sections

I-490All basic expressway sections along I-490 are projected to operate at LOS C or better during both themorning 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.


3-40

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




· 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 themorning peak period.

· I-490 WB between Mt. Read Boulevard and the I-390 SB off-ramp (Ramp ES) during theevening 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 morningpeak period.

Alternative A2 does not provide additional capacity on the I-490 mainline, where heavy volumes in theeastbound direction during the morning peak period and in the westbound direction during the eveningpeak period continue to cause at or near capacity operating conditions. However, there were twolocations of slight improvements compared to the No-Build condition due to the proposed improvementsalong I-390 and NY 390. During the morning peak hour, I-490 EB, west of the I-490 EB to I-390 SB CDRoad 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 improvedwith the enhanced mobility and geometry of NY 390 NB with the Lyell Avenue interchange.

I-390Alternative A2 greatly improves the operations of I-390 SB during the morning peak hour. The separationof southbound through traffic without the interaction with the Lyell Avenue and I-490 ramps improves theflow, eliminating the backups that occur on NY 390/I-390 SB. During the morning peak hour, the I-390SB CD Road operates at LOS D at year 2035 (ETC+20) and I-390 SB from the I-390 SB CD Road to ChiliAvenue also operates at LOS D for 2015 (ETC) and 2035 (ETC+20). This is an improvement from theLOS 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 for2015 (ETC) and 2035 (ETC+20). The section from the I-490 EB off-ramp to I-490 WB off-ramp operatesat LOS D for 2015 (ETC) and LOS E for 2035 (ETC+20). However, these operations are an improvementfrom the No-Build condition, where operations are estimated to be LOS F for these segments for 2035(ETC+20).

NYS Route 390As discussed for I-390, Alternative A2 greatly improves the operations of NY 390. With the separation ofsouthbound through traffic and the elimination of the northbound weave area between I-490 and LyellAvenue, operations on NY 390 improve dramatically. All but one basic expressway section along NY 390are 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


3-41

(ETC+20). This segment operated at LOS D for the 2035 No-Build condition, though it was only 0.4passenger cars per mile per lane below the LOS E threshold. The slight increase in volume related to theAlternative A2 caused the degradation in level of service.

Weaving SectionsFor the 2015 (ETC) and 2035 (ETC+20) conditions, the NY 390 SB weave is estimated to operate at LOSC or better for both peak periods. The separation of southbound through traffic improved the operationsfrom LOS F for the 2035 No-Build condition. The NY 390 NB weave segment is eliminated withAlternative A2.

Ramp JunctionsAll free-flow merge and diverge areas are estimated to operate at LOS C or better (Interstate) / LOS D orbetter (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.


· 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, whichresulted in the improvements in ramp junction operations. Several of the merge and diverge areas stilloperate at poor LOS due to the lack of improvements along I-490 under Alternative A2.Stop Controlled Intersection ApproachDelay was measured for vehicles approaching and entering Lexington Avenue from Bellwood Drive at thestop 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 eveningpeak periods in 2015 and 2035, which did not change from the no-build conditions.

Signalized Intersection OperationsAnalyses were completed for intersections within the project study area. A total of five signalizedintersections 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 wereanalyzed, resulting in slight increases (5 seconds per vehicle) in delay due to changes in volumes. ForLyell Avenue, the existing intersections at Rossmore Street/Wegmans and NY 390 SB off-ramp weremaintained in their existing configuration and capacity; however minor phasing and timing changes weremade to include pedestrian accommodations and provide corridor signal coordination. This resulted in anincrease in vehicle delay overall, in particular the Lyell Avenue EB at Rossmore and Lyell Avenue WB atNY 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 laneson all four approaches improved operations and vehicle delay. Signal coordination along Lyell Avenuewas completed through the corridor, starting at the new intersection at Lee Road to the coordinatedsystem 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 studyarea, only a single lane group experienced poor level of service (LOS E or worse). Other lane groups


3-42

described in Section 2.3.1.7 (2) with poor LOS where improved with modified phasing and timings. Duringboth the AM and PM peak hours in 2015 and 2035, the Lee Road SB at Lyell Avenue left turnexperienced LOS E. The 2035 delays are 64.4 and 56.0 seconds per vehicles for the AM and PM peakhours respectively. This poor LOS is due to the operations of coordinated signals, the long 120 secondcycle length, accommodation for pedestrian crossing times, and the need to maintain acceptable LOS onhigher volume approaches. Given the low volume of this movement (148/80 - 2035 AM/PM) and beingless than 10 seconds away from LOS D threshold (55 seconds per vehicle), this is acceptable.


3-43

Exhibit - 3.3.1.7 (1)-42015 Alternative A2 Level of Service Summary


3-44

Exhibit - 3.3.1.7 (1)-52035 Alternative A2 Level of Service Summary


3-45

Exhibit 3.3.1.7 (1)-6Alternative A2 Design Year (2045) Project LOS/Capacity Review for Structures


Density(pc/mi/ln)

Delay(s/veh)

V/C

LOS

Acc

epta

ble

1048680 I-490 EB Under Howard Road Freeway 57.8 F No1048680 I-490 WB Under Howard Road Freeway 44.2 E No1048680 Howard Road Over I-490 Capacity 0.5 = V/C - Yes1025812 I-390 SB CD Road Under I-490 EB Capacity 0.14 = V/C - Yes1025812 I-490 EB Over I-390 SB CD Road Freeway 33.7 D No1025820/1063950

I-490 WB Off-Ramp toI-390 SB

Under I-490 EB and I-390NB Ramp Capacity 0.38 = V/C - Yes

1025820/1063950 I-490 EB

Over I-490 WB Off-Rampto I-390 SB and Under I-

390 NBFreeway 35.0 E No

1063950 I-390 NB Over I-490 EB and I-490WB Off-Ramp to I-390 SB Freeway 39.7 E No

1025811/1052280 NY 390 SB CD Road

Under I-490 WB and I-490EB Off-Ramp to NY 390

NBFreeway 32.1 D Yes

1025811/1052280 I-490 WB

Over NY 390 SB CD Roadand Under I-490 EB Off-

Ramp to NY 390 NBFreeway 35.1 E No

1052280 I-490 EB Off-Ramp toNY 390 NB

Over I-490 WB and NY 390SB CD Road Ramp Capacity 0.58 = V/C - Yes

1052290 I-490 WB Under NY 390 NB Freeway 27.0 D No1052290 NY 390 NB Over I-490 WB Diverge 32.0 D Yes4443362 I-490 EB Over Erie Canal Freeway 29.5 D No4443361 I-490 WB Over Erie Canal Freeway 30.5 D No1023030 I-390 NB Under Buffalo Road Freeway 44.0 E No1023030 I-390 SB Under Buffalo Road Merge 30.6 D No1023030 I-390 SB CD Road Under Buffalo Road Freeway 27.5 D No1023030 Buffalo Road Over I-390 Capacity 0.5 = V/C - Yes7025830 I-390 NB Under CSX Railroad Freeway 44.0 E No7025830 I-390 SB Under CSX Railroad Freeway 31.1 D No

1, 2, 3* I-390 SB

Over I-490 WB Off-Rampto I-390 SB, Over I-490 EB,Over I-390 NB Off-Ramp toI-490 WB, Over I-490 WB,Over I-490 EB Off-Ramp to

NY 390 NB

Freeway 24.9 C Yes

1* I-490 WB Off-Ramp toI-390 SB Under I-390 SB Ramp Capacity 0.38 = V/C - Yes

1* I-490 EB Under I-390 SB Freeway 35.0 E No

2* I-390 NB Off-Ramp toI-490 WB Under I-390 SB Ramp Capacity 0.75 = V/C - Yes

2* I-490 WB Under I-390 SB Freeway 27.0 D No

3* I-490 EB Off-Ramp toNY 390 NB Under I-390 SB Ramp Capacity 0.58 = V/C - Yes

4* NY 390 NB to LyellAvenue (Ramp A)

Over I-490 WB Off-Rampto NY 390 NB (Ramp EN) Ramp Capacity 0.30 = V/C - Yes

4* I-490 WB Off-Ramp toNY 390 NB (Ramp EN)

Under NY 390 NB to LyellAvenue (Ramp A) Diverge 24.2 C Yes

1021589 NY 390 NB Under Lyell Avenue Freeway 28.2 D Yes1021589 I-390 SB Under Lyell Avenue Freeway 24.9 C Yes


3-46

Exhibit 3.3.1.7 (1)-6Alternative A2 Design Year (2045) Project LOS/Capacity Review for Structures


Density(pc/mi/ln)

Delay(s/veh)

V/C

LOS

Acc

epta

ble

1021589 NY 390 SB CD Road Under Lyell Avenue Merge 26.0 C Yes1021589 Lyell Avenue Over NY 390 / I-390 Intersection 51.5 D Yes1062542 NY 390 NB Over Trolley Boulevard Merge 32.6 D Yes1062541 NY 390 SB Over Trolley Boulevard Freeway 25.5 C Yes4062532 NY 390 NB Over Erie Canal Freeway 31.7 D Yes4062531 NY 390 SB Over Erie Canal Freeway 25.5 C Yes1062542/1062541 Trolley Boulevard Under NY 390 Capacity 0.19 = V/C - Yes

1062522 NY 390 NB Over Lexington Avenue Freeway 40.2 E No1062521 NY 390 SB Over Lexington Avenue Diverge 34.9 D Yes1062522/1062521 Lexington Avenue Under NY 390 Intersection 6.4 A Yes

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 390NB 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 203. 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. Fordiscussion purposes, the sequencing of the improvements have been separated into four distinctconstruction phases are shown on Exhibit 3.3.1.7-1 in Appendix A (bound separately):

Phase 1: Lyell Avenue bridge over NY 390Phase 2: Improvements to northbound I-390 / NY 390 and associated ramps, Lyell Avenuecorridor east of NY 390 and Lee RoadPhase 3: Improvements to southbound I-390 / NY 390 and associated rampsPhase 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 becompleted concurrently or independently of other sections of work unless specifically noted. As indicatedin Section 1.5, funding is secured for the design and construction of Phase 1 only. The sequence of howthe 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 twolanes 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 roadwaysor sections of roadways and ramps are proposed to remain open during construction with at least oneavailable lane for traffic.

Access for emergency vehicles will be maintained during construction when feasible. Additional shoulderwidth would be provided where necessary and feasible through work zones along the NY 390 / I-390 toallow for passage of emergency vehicles at all times. Construction of temporary median turn-arounds onNY 390 would be constructed to also allow emergency vehicles effectively respond to incidents bychanging direction without having to exit the expressway.


3-47

Except for the NY 390 NB bridge over Trolley Boulevard (BIN 1062542), all bridges undergoing stagedconstruction will not experience vehicular loading where large overhangs may be necessary. As a resultthese bridges aren’t anticipated to require temporary deck support.

Work Zone Traffic Control Typical Sections are included in Appendix A (bound separately). The detailsfor 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 andsouthbound NY 390. The proposed bridge will be configured to span future build conditions for NY390. Due to the close proximity of the proposed west abutment to the acceleration lane for RampDC, southbound NY 390 would be reduced from three to two travel lanes north of the interchangeclosing the outside (right lane in direction of traffic), shifting the Ramp DC acceleration lane over andclosing the existing acceleration lane to construct the new abutment. The 2-span bridge configurationproposes a center pier within the existing grass median that separates the northbound andsouthbound directions of NY 390. Disruption to northbound NY 390 traffic during pier demolition ofthe center and east piers and construction of the new center pier could be minimized by utilizingshort-term lane closure(s) in-place only during night-time and non-peak hours. Other minor impacts toNY 390 traffic would be limited to brief traffic stoppages during night time hours to remove portions ofthe 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 LyellAvenue 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 requireseparate detours for both westbound and eastbound traffic. The westbound detour would utilize LeeRoad to Lexington Avenue to NY 390 to Ramp DB, a detour length of approximately 2 miles. Theeastbound detour would utilize Ramp DF to NY 390 to Ramp NE to I-490 to Mt. Read Boulevard toLyell Avenue, a detour length of approximately 3.5 miles depending on the destination of theeastbound vehicle east of the closure. A long term closure of Lyell Avenue is not considered to befeasible as it would significantly reduce the effectiveness of the Lyell Avenue interchange ramps anddivert a high volume of vehicles typically on Lyell Avenue to other roadways that may not havecapacity to accommodate the additional traffic. This would also have significant impacts toemergency 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 trafficmaintained along Lyell Avenue. The typical section would consist of two 11 ft lanes in the westbounddirection and one 11 ft wide lane in the eastbound direction. From measured traffic volumes on LyellAvenue, maintaining one eastbound lane between Ramp DF and Lee Road through both stages ofPhase 1 is feasible. The following list compares features of maintaining one or two eastbound travellanes 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

zone and traffic areas.· Left turn lane from eastbound Lyell Avenue to

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 highvolumes from eastbound Lyell Ave. to Lee Road.

· More room to accommodate large left-turningvehicles (WB-65) from Ramp DD to westboundLyell Avenue

· Additional width needed for four travel lanes (2in each direction) would take up room necessaryfor large turning vehicles from Ramp DD towestbound Lyell Avenue· Requires signage and delineation west of the work

zone that outside lane is ending (turning into an on-ramp only lane)


3-48

The southern portion of the new bridge would be constructed first with traffic maintained on thenorthern portion of the existing bridge. Since the new bridge is wider to the south, constructing thesouthern portion of the bridge during Stage 1 would provide a configuration with less of a lateral shiftfor both westbound lanes that would better accommodate large left-turning vehicles from Ramp DDduring Stage 2. For stage 2, all traffic would be shifted to the newly constructed portion of the bridgewhile 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 thisphase to accommodate the profile adjustment to Lyell Avenue and to complete transitions back to theexisting roadway.

All four 390/31 interchange ramps would be maintained during construction of this phase. Temporaryrelocation of the entrances for Ramp DE (eastbound Lyell Avenue to northbound NY 390) and RampDC (westbound Lyell Avenue to southbound NY 390) to form a right-angle turn from Lyell Avenuemay be necessary during this phase to accommodate work zones, buffer lengths and lane shifts. Areduction in the speed limit along Lyell Avenue is recommended during this phase to slow trafficthrough the lane shifts and enhance the ability for drivers to react to disruptions in traffic flow causedby construction. The reduced speed limit allows for shorter lane shift lengths which is conducive inthis urban setting with closely spaced intersections and traffic signals that must be maintained duringconstruction.

This staging sequence maintains traffic at all times on Lyell Avenue. Consideration was given toaccelerated 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 durationof construction. This approach would utilize the staged construction method describedabove; however, the overall duration would be reduced by the use of precast concreteelements (eliminating construction times associated with forming, rebar and wet concreteplacement and cure times).

2. Horizontal Slide-in Entire Superstructure: Install the entire superstructure during a three tofour week full closure of Lyell Avenue. This could be accomplished by:

a. Construct new substructures below and in front of/behind the existing bridgesubstructures using shorter duration and less obtrusive, short term lane and shoulderclosures during off peak times.

b. PBES or cast-on-place (CIP) construction practices could be used to construct thesubstructures

c. Construct the entire new bridge superstructure adjacent to the existing bridge ontemporary supports over NY 390.

d. During a full closure of Lyell Avenue, demolish existing bridge, slide in the newsuperstructure and re-open to traffic.

e. Complete approach work and tie in to the new superstructure during shorter durationand less obtrusive, short term off peak closures.

3. Staged Construction with Horizontal Slide-in of the Superstructurea. Similar to Option 2, construct new substructures below and in front of/behind the

existing bridge substructures using shorter duration and less obtrusive, short-termlane and shoulder closures during off peak times.

b. Construct half of the new bridge superstructure on both sides of the work area ontemporary supports over NY 390.

c. During a 3-4 week operation, shift traffic to one side of the bridge (3 lanes), removehalf of the existing bridge and horizontally slide in half of the new bridgesuperstructure.

d. Shift traffic to new bridge deck (3 lanes) and repeat Step c for the other half of thebridge.


3-49

e. Complete approach work and tie in to the new superstructure during shorter durationand less obtrusive, short-term off peak closures.

Options two and three described above will have similar impacts to traffic below on NY 390 to thosein the conventionally staged options, except that a series of overnight closure of NY 390 would likelybe 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 ofsuperstructure necessary to span the proposed expressway footprint would require a raise in profileof Lyell Avenue as much as 6 ft near the east abutment to achieve the required clearance over NY390. The significant elevation difference between the existing roadway and the proposed roadway atthe east approach precludes shifting traffic from the existing roadway to the portion of the approachthat 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 (BIN4062531) during this Section

The existing bridge carrying northbound NY 390 over Trolley Boulevard (BIN 1062542) is aconstriction point with the existing section consisting of three travel lanes and left and right shoulderwidths that narrow to 1.5 ft and 3.5 ft respectively across the bridge. Replacement of this bridge, therehabilitation and widening of the adjacent bridge over the Erie Canal (BIN 4062532) and the lanewidening of northbound NY 390 would be completed by reducing the northbound mainline down totwo lanes to provide room to complete the work in two stages. Work on the eastern portion of thebridges and mainline would take place first while maintaining traffic along the existing inside andcenter lanes. For Stage 2, traffic would be shifted to the newly constructed portions from Stage 1 tocomplete reconstruction and rehabilitation of both bridges. The temporary deck overhang duringStage 2 construction of NY 390 NB bridge over Trolley Boulevard (BIN 1062542) can have partialemergency vehicle traffic loading on the left overhang during this stage of construction. Temporaryoverhang deck support may be required under this condition.

Because of the narrow width across the existing bridge over Trolley Boulevard, there is not adequatewidth during Stage 1 to provide for two travel lanes for northbound NY 390 traffic and additional widthfor emergency vehicle passage. A construction option that would provide enough width for passageof emergency vehicles at all times would be to include with this section the replacement andrehabilitation of the southbound bridges over Trolley Boulevard and the Erie Canal as well as thenorthbound bridges. Widening the southbound bridges would allow for one northbound travel lane tocross-over the median and use the southbound bridges. With one northbound travel lane removedfrom the northbound direction, there is adequate room for the other northbound travel lane andadequate shoulder width to allow for emergency vehicle passage while the northbound bridges arebeing widened. This split-configuration for northbound traffic would involve considerable delineationto safely split the traffic, but it would allow for continual access for emergency vehicles on northboundNY 390 at all times.

During reconstruction of BIN 1062542 over Trolley Boulevard, disruption to traffic on TrolleyBoulevard should be minimal and limited to short-duration impacts when removing portions of the


3-50

existing bridge and setting superstructure members for the new bridge. There is an abandonedrailroad corridor that parallels Trolley Boulevard beneath BIN 1062542 that could be used as astaging area for the Contractor during construction. The same conditions would apply to thereconstruction 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 forpedestrian and bicycle traffic using the multi-use Canalway Trail that passes beneath the bridge is notanticipated, but there is a viable detour route along Trolley Boulevard and Lee Road if it is determinedduring 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 forconstruction 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 temporarilyredirected to the Lexington Avenue interchange to access northbound NY 390 via northbound on LeeRoad. Westbound traffic approaching the Lyell-Lee intersection that would normally be throughmovements would be temporarily converted to right-turn movements. However, due to the proximityof Ramp DA from the Lyell-Lee intersection, traffic is assumed to be in the shared thru-right lane evenif the detour were not in place so impacts to the intersection LOS would be minimal. This rerouting oftraffic should not have a significant impact to traffic operations along the remainder of this off-sitedetour route.

The proposed work included in Section 1 should be completed prior to the proposed work outlined inSection 2 below.

Section 2:

The following work would be completed as part of this section in 2 stages while maintaining two lanesof 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 newportions of piers, disruption to westbound I-490 traffic could be minimized by utilizing short-term laneclosure(s) in-place only during night-time and non-peak hours. Pier foundation work however, willrequire a traffic lane shift and temporary concrete barrier until the newly constructed foundations arebackfilled. Other minor impacts to westbound I-490 traffic would be limited to brief traffic stoppagesduring night time hours to remove portions of the existing superstructure and to set the newsuperstructure members.

Multiple stages would be necessary to complete the widening and concrete overlay on the existingbridge deck for BIN 1052290 while maintaining two travel lanes and having additional shoulder widthto allow for passage of emergency vehicles at all times. For Stage 2, work during non-peak hoursincluding nighttime would be necessary to shut down one of the northbound travel lanes to place theconcrete overlay in the lane. A third stage would then be necessary to complete the concrete overlaywhile 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 SWis 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 thisramp would be transferred to this new roadway to allow for the work zones to be established. The


3-51

completed work outlined in this section would then allow for the realignment of Ramp EN identified inSection 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 newalignment that would not significantly impact traffic on existing Ramp EN, existing Ramp DD and onLyell Ave. This would include the construction of all of Ramp B, construction of a portion of Ramp Aincluding the new Ramp A bridge, additional construction of Ramp C and the realignment portion ofRamp EN.

The section of Lyell Avenue from the eastern limit of work completed in Phase 1 (Lee Road) to theErie Canal would be widened and reconstructed in two stages during this phase. Traffic would bemaintained on-site with one travel lane in each direction and a center two-way left turn lane. Thiswork can be progressed concurrently with the other work in this section but enough widening must becompleted east of Lee Road to accommodate a westbound left-turn lane when Ramp C is ready to beopened to traffic (see below).

The intersection of the new ramps to Lyell Ave across from Lee Road could be constructed at thistime 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 constructedportion of Ramp EN, allowing the last section Ramp A between northbound NY 390 and the newlycompleted Ramp A bridge to be completed.

Once Ramp B is accepting traffic from westbound I-490 and Ramp A is opened to accept traffic fromnorthbound I-390 / NY 390, Ramp DD would be closed in order to complete Ramp C. Uponcompletion of the work at this intersection Ramp C would be opened to traffic allowing the detouralong Lee Road that was in-place for Ramp DA to be removed. All traffic on Lyell Avenue and LeeRoad would then access northbound NY 390 via Ramp C.

After the detour along Lee Road is removed, the widening and improvements along Lee Road wouldtake 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 anytime 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 isidentified in Section 5. There is adequate width on the existing bridge to maintain two-way traffic at


3-52

all times on 11 ft lanes during staged construction of the new bridge. The proposed condition forBuffalo Road has a left turn lane to the Industrial Park. It will be evaluated during final design ifmeasures (i.e. temporary traffic signal) are necessary to alleviate any back-ups that may occurrelated to left turning vehicles. During demolition and construction operations for the existing andproposed bridge, disruption to I-390 traffic in both directions could be minimized by utilizing short-termlane closure(s) in-place only during night-time and non-peak hours. Other minor impacts to I-390traffic would be limited to brief traffic stoppages during night time hours to remove portions of theexisting superstructure and to set the new superstructure members.

While the bridge carrying Buffalo Road over I-390 is being replaced, the lane widening alongsouthbound I-390 and the cut-back of the rock slopes along the west side of the southbound I-390could also take place. After completion of the new bridge and rock excavations, the widening of thesouthbound direction of I-390 and the I-390 CD Road would be able to be completed. Long termshoulder closures are expected for the lane widening, but lane closures would only be in-place shortterm 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± includingthree 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 thenew roadway cannot be opened to traffic until the lane widening along southbound I-390 from Sta. SB116+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 andwestbound I-490 traffic could be minimized by utilizing short-term lane closure(s) in-place only duringnight-time and non-peak hours. Other minor impacts to I-490 and Ramp WN traffic would be limited tobrief 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 bridgeover Trolley Boulevard (BIN 1062541), the rehabilitation of the southbound NY 390 bridge over theErie Canal (BIN 4062531) and the widening of the southbound mainline roadway between Ramp DBand BIN 4062531. With the northbound side completed during Phase 2, there would be adequatewidth on the northbound bridges to accommodate two travel lanes for both the northbound andsouthbound mainline along with an 8 ft wide shoulder in each direction to allow for passage ofemergency vehicles. Southbound mainline traffic would be reduced to 2 lanes north of LexingtonAvenue and northbound mainline traffic on NY 390 would need to be reduced from 5 lanes south ofLyell Avenue to 2 lanes prior to Trolley Boulevard. Median cross-overs would be constructed to shiftthe 2 southbound lanes to the northbound mainline leaving the acceleration lane for the on-ramp fromLexington Avenue to southbound NY 390 on both southbound bridges. The on-ramp lane wouldmerge back with mainline traffic south of the two bridges and after the second median cross-over.


3-53

Ramp DB to Lyell Avenue would remain open under this configuration. Staged deck construction ofboth bridges would be necessary. Accelerated construction will be utilized if feasible to minimize theamount 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 TrolleyBoulevard and the Erie Canal, disruption to traffic on Trolley Boulevard would be minimal and anylane 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 isnecessary for the proposed work on the southbound bridges, a viable route would follow TrolleyBoulevard 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 RampDF including necessary utility relocations along this stretch that were not completed in previousphases. This section is independent of the other section of Lyell Avenue (Phase 2 – Section 3) butcould 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 limitof 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 beconstructed in two stages. The center lane is necessary for the number of driveways along thecorridor. Maintaining two travel lanes in either direction plus the center lane would require additionalsection 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 totraffic. Time related contract provisions will be considered during final design to provide incentives tocontractors 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 onthe expressway. With the high volume of traffic during day time hours, the use of lane closures on NY390, 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 ifanalysis shows unacceptable delays during peak travel times caused by lane reductions as part ofconstruction.

For the mainline NY 390 bridges that are to be replaced over Trolley Boulevard (BIN 1062541 and BIN1062542) 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 bridgeconstruction methods, including the use of PBES are being considered to reduce construction time andlessen impacts to traffic. Construction of the new superstructure adjacent to the existing bridge andjacking or rolling in the structure into place could significantly reduce the duration of the three laneconfiguration on Lyell Avenue; however, impacts to NY 390 will be similar and the cost of construction willbe increased. The feasibility and appropriate use of precast structural members and other acceleratedconstruction methods will be investigated during the structure study phase of this project.


3-54

As indicated in Section 2.2.2.4, the NY 390/I-390, I-490 and NY 31 corridors are important transportationcomponents of the local, regional and intrastate/interstate highway system. As such, any work zone foradjacent projects that may consider using these corridors as a detour would require coordination. At thistime, no projects have been identified that would utilize any of the roadways within the project limits as adetours. The work zone traffic control for each phase of this project will also need to be coordinated withlocal 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 CFR630.1012. 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, asignificant portion of the existing roadway segments have identifiable accident patterns within the projectlimits and all but one intersection (Rossmore Street) exceeds the statewide average accident rate. Themajority of accidents are caused by congestion and inclement weather. See Exhibit 2.3.1.8-12 fornotable accident statistics.

Safety improvements have been identified for the project and are described in detail in Exhibit 3.3.1.8 inAppendix C. In general, planned improvements will minimize delays and are expected to reducecongestion related accidents within the proposed project limits. Improvements to traffic flow, provision ofa new surface course, new pavement markings, improved signing, and improvements to pedestrian andbicycle 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 projectand installed to current standards as necessary. Both non-traversable roadsides and fixed objectslocated within the clear zones will be evaluated for compliance with required clear zone criteria asspecified in the AASHTO Roadside Design Guide.

Due to the high number of deer related accidents, the completeness and integrity of the right of wayfencing and the applicability of electronic deer detection or deterrent warning systems will be investigatedduring final design.

3.3.1.9. Impacts on Police, Fire Protection and Ambulance Access – Although there are no policestations, fire stations or ambulance facilities that have direct access to any of the roadways located withinthe project limits, incident response times should improve due to the anticipated operationalimprovements. In addition, the frequency of incidents occurring within the project limits should declinedue 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 doesnot provide enough width to safely accommodate emergency vehicles attempting to make u-turns. Thismedian crossover provides a width of only 54 ft. In order to safely accommodate maintenance andemergency operations at this location, parallel-type deceleration lanes should be provided as per theHDM. However, since this median crossover is well outside the proposed project limits, improvementsare 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 Avenueinterchange was evaluated due to concerns raised by the Gates Police and Fire Department that theproposed I-390 SB roadway passing over the 390/490 interchange might be difficult to access in the


3-55

event of an incident on the new roadway. It was determined that such a crossover is not recommendeddue to the following safety issues:

1. Median crossovers are not recommended in narrow median widths per HDM criteria. Theproposed median width is only 36 ft. and would require an opening in the median barrier toaccommodate 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 inlieu 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 parkingregulations. 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 existingpole 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 NYSDOTHighway Lighting Policy dated December 1979. Placement of new continuous lighting systems on theproposed southbound mainline roadway and proposed ramps A, B, and C will also be considered inaccordance with the same policy. NYSDOT is currently working on updating county-wide highwaylighting agreement(s) with the Monroe County Department of Transportation (MCDOT), the agencyresponsible for the lighting systems within the project limits. Any new or replacement systems will bedesigned to current standards. The need to replace existing lighting standards along the mainline andramps 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 byconstruction are assumed to remain in-place.

High mast lighting is not being considered as part of this project given the close proximity of residentialhousing in the area of the two interchanges and since all of the existing continuous lighting within theinterchange 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 bereplaced by decorative/ornamental lighting within the proposed grass buffer strips and at intersectionsand will be explored further during final design.


3-56

3.3.1.12. Ownership and Maintenance Jurisdiction – Agencies primarily responsible for transportationfacilities 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 MaintenanceJurisdiction 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 RegionalConstruction 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 beimproved significantly with the implementation of continuous 5 ft. wide sidewalks along both sides of theroadway 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 improvedgreatly with the implementation of sidewalks. Proposed improvements will be developed in accordancewith ADA regulations.

No separate pedestrian facilities are proposed on Lee Road due to the limited available right-of-way andassociated impacts it would have on adjacent properties. Approximately 400 ft. north of Lyell Avenue, theproposed shoulders along Lee Road provide ample width for pedestrians. For the short segmentapproaching the Lyell Avenue intersection where shoulders are not provided, the occasional pedestrianwill 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 tobe carried to the shoulder to provide for a continuous route as required by ADA. However, there are alimited number of generators that would attract pedestrians or bicyclists from the local neighborhood andone of those will be eliminated (Perri’s Pizza). Most of the remaining generators are on the west side ofNY 390.

The proposed Lyell-Lee intersection design does not significantly diminish existing provisions forpedestrians and bicyclists. There are no existing sidewalks to connect to but the project would notpreclude 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 littlebenefit.

A trail connection could be developed between Evelyn Street and Lyell Avenue where Ramp DA is beingeliminated. This would provide a safe connection from the Evelyn Street neighborhood to Lyell Avenueand should meet much of the pedestrian and bicyclist access needs.

Pedestrians are prohibited on Interstate Highways by state law. Pedestrian crossings are proposed at the390/31 interchange ramp terminals along Lyell Avenue. A pedestrian generator checklist is included inAppendix C.


3-57

3.3.2.2. Bicyclists – Bicycle traffic accommodations along Lyell Avenue within the project limits will beimproved significantly with the implementation of continuous 6 ft. wide bike lanes along both sides of theroadway from Howard Road to the Erie Canal. The proposed bicycle lanes will provide a seamlessconnection 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 tothe 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 widthfor safe bicycle travel. For the short segment approaching the Lyell Avenue intersection where shouldersare 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 LyellAvenue where Ramp DA is being eliminated to serve the bicyclist access needs from the Evelyn Streetneighborhood.

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 improvedsignificantly with the implementation of sidewalks. The opportunity to consolidate the number of bus stoplocations and provide for an eastbound far-side bus turnout/bay just east of Rossmore Street will beexplored 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 theErie Canal Heritage Trail (Canalway Trail) will be improved significantly with the implementation ofsidewalks and bicycle lanes along Lyell Avenue. In particular, the proposed bicycle lanes will provide aseamless connection from the trail to State Bicycle Route 5 at the Howard Road intersection asmentioned 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 accommodateturning lanes, bicycle lanes, and sidewalks, right-of-way strip acquisitions and temporary constructioneasements are required from almost all adjacent properties within the project limits. All strip acquisitionsalong Lyell Avenue are from local businesses and are with access. Impacts to parking spaces areproposed 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 toaccommodate 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 accommodatethe 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 thenew exit ramps (Ramps A and B). There is one total property acquisition that will require relocation of theoccupants and demolition of a residential dwelling and garage (25 Lee Road Ext.). There is a partialproperty acquisition that will require relocation of the occupants and demolition of the dwelling (50 LeeRoad Ext.). However, the entire property is not needed for the planned improvements. The remainingportion of the property will be an uneconomic remainder (without legal access). The dwelling will bedemolished, but the garage could possibly remain if the owner wishes to retain the property and can


3-58

obtain access from a neighboring property. Or there is a possibility that the owner could sell or lease theremainder 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 ofthe 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). Thebuilding 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 forincreased parking.

There is one partial property acquisition that does not require demolition of the building but may requirerelocation of the owner’s personal belongings (2032 Lyell Avenue - abandoned gas station). Thisproperty is located at the NE corner of the Lyell-Lee intersection, and must be partially acquired toaccommodate the proposed right-turn lane on Lyell Avenue. Due to the proximity of the new Ramp A exitterminal and the Lyell-Lee intersection, access to the parcel cannot be provided to comply with accesscriteria as described in Section 3.3.3.1 (6). Similar to the two properties discussed above, the remainingportion of the property will be an uneconomic remainder (without legal access). The building couldpossibly remain if the owner wishes to retain the property and can obtain access from a neighboringproperty. Or there is a possibility that the owner could sell or lease the remainder parcel to a neighboringproperty.

A permanent easement is proposed on both Stonegate properties to accommodate a town maintainedroadway/cul-de-sac that will allow continued truck access. This new roadway will require additionalproperty acquisition from the Hess tank farm property. This preferred design was coordinated with theTown of Gates, Stonegate property owners, and Hess Corporation.

A permanent utility corridor is proposed for the Stonegate Health Professional Complex. The utilitycorridor 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 relocatedutility service laterals for sanitary sewer, water, and gas for the Stonegate Health Professional Complexas well as a relocated storm sewer system for the Stonegate parking lot. The relocated utilities and stormsewer 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 mainlineroadways 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 formerbusinesses 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 asexisting 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 controldrainage and define access. Vertical faced curb will be used due to the proposed sidewalk installationand presence of pedestrians.

3.3.3.1. (3) Grades – The maximum allowable grade of 3% may be required along the new I-390 SBthrough 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 crestvertical curve to pass over the interchange. The distance between the PVI’s of these curves is roughly2,000 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 isdiscussed in Section 3.2.1. The existing intersection geometry will be retained at all other locations.


3-59

3.3.3.1. (6) Roadside Elements:

(a) Snow Storage – The construction of the new I-390 SB roadway and Ramp C will requireplacement of concrete barriers within the 390/31 interchange area. Since standardshoulder widths are provided, snow storage on the mainline roadways in these areas isnot anticipated to be a concern except during exceptional snow events. Snow storagealong Lyell Avenue will be improved significantly with the implementation of grass bufferstrips 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 tocomply with the current NYSDOT “Policy and Standards for Design of Entrances to StateHighways” where possible. As indicated in Section 3.2.3.3, all driveways were designedto accommodate the appropriate design vehicle turning paths. The implementation ofbicycle 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 NEcorner of the Lyell-Lee intersection cannot be provided along Lyell Avenue to comply withthe 50 ft. minimum distance requirement as per Figure 6-S of the NYSDOT HighwayDesign 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 forminimum corner clearance from an intersection as per the HDM Figure 5A-1, whichstates 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 roadwaywill remain 30 ft. wide for fill slopes and vary from 21 ft. to 27 ft. for cut slopes as perTable 10-1 of the HDM. The recommended clear zones for ramps will vary based onAADT and design speed of each ramp. The clear zones to be provided will varythroughout 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 beingreconstructed are presented for the preferred alternative in Exhibits 3.2.3.2-1 to 3.2.3.2-5. See Section3.2.3.2 for a complete listing of the roadways, ramps, and bridges that were compared against standardcriteria. See Appendix F for non-standard feature justification forms.

The critical design elements within the proposed roadway reconstruction limits that do not meet standardcriteria are as follows:

Shoulder Width: The proposed right shoulder width under the CSX Transportation Railroad bridge (BIN7025830) 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 travellane on I-390 SB without impacting the bridge. The reduced shoulder width also accommodates aconcrete barrier to shield the vertical abutment face, with appropriate approach guide rail transitions. SeeExhibit 3.3.3.2-1 in Appendix F for non-standard feature justification form.


3-60

Non-standard shoulder widths will be retained on the following bridges within the roadway reconstructionlimits. 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 shouldersnarrow 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 theapproach roadway. These bridge widths are non-standard as a result of the reduced shoulder widthsacross 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 BIN1063950 and BIN 1052290 listed above. These clearances are non-standard as a result of the reducedshoulder widths across the bridges. See Exhibit 3.3.3.2-2 in Appendix F for non-standard featurejustification form.

Stopping Sight Distance (SSD): Non-standard stopping sight distance will be retained on the NY 390NB and SB sag vertical curves located just north of the Erie Canal. See Exhibit 3.3.3.2-3 in Appendix Ffor 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 existingbut less than the 360 ft. minimum required. The SSD at these locations is restricted by bridge rail. SeeExhibit 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 nogeometric improvements are proposed:

· Ramp ED is limited to a SSD of approximately 156 ft., which does not meet the 200 ft. minimumrequired 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. minimumrequired 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. minimumrequired 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. minimumrequired 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. minimumrequired 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 postedaccordingly. 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”. SeeSection 3.3.1.7 for discussion on proposed LOS. Non-standard LOS is proposed along the followingroadway 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


3-61

· 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 Avenueon-ramp to NY 390 SB (Ramp DF) does not conform to the 100 ft. minimum distance requirement as perpage 6-36 and Figure 6-Q of the NYSDOT Highway Design Manual (HDM). See Exhibit 3.3.3.2-8 inAppendix F for non-standard feature justification form.

3.3.3.2. (2) Non-Conforming Features – Non-critical design elements for this reconstruction project arepresented in Section 3.2.3.3. See Section 3.2.3.2 for a complete listing of the roadways, ramps, andbridges that were compared against standard criteria.

The non-critical design elements within the proposed roadway reconstruction limits that do not conform tonormally accepted practice are as follows:

Interchange SpacingAll existing interchange spacing will be retained. The distance between the 390/490 and NY 31interchanges will remain approximately ½ mile. The distance between the NY 31 and Lexington Avenueinterchanges will remain just short of 1 mile. The AASHTO Green Book recommends a 1 mile minimuminterchange spacing in urban areas. Therefore, these spacings will remain as non-conforming features.

Ramp Terminal SpacingSix of the nineteen ramp terminal spacings within proposed reconstruction or resurfacing limits are non-conforming and are summarized as follows:

Successive Exit Terminals1. Ramp SE to Ramp SW – 1000 ft. minimum recommended / 900 ft. provided2. Ramp ES to Ramp EN – 1000 ft. minimum recommended / 365 ft. provided3. Ramp SW to Ramp A – 1000 ft. minimum recommended / 680 ft. provided

Successive Entrance Terminals4. Ramp EN to Ramp WN – 1000 ft. minimum recommended / 740 ft. provided

Exit to Entrance Terminal5. 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 theprocedures outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual. The LOS analysis revealed that all of the rampjunctions and weaving sections within the limits of these non-conforming ramp terminal spacings exceedthe 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 ExitsThree of the four existing ramps within the 390/490 interchange will be retained as left-hand entrance/exitramps, which is considered a non-conforming feature for reasons described in Section 2.3.3.2.(2). Thefollowing 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)


3-62

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 enteringdrivers 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 390/490interchange. Three through lanes (proposed auxiliary lanes not included) are provided on I-490, I-390and NY 390 for all approaches to the interchange. However, within the interchange itself, only twothrough lanes are provided due to lane reductions (i.e. lane drops or exit only lanes) for some of theinterchange ramps. All freeway segments were checked in accordance with the procedures outlined inthe Highway Capacity Manual. The LOS analysis revealed that all of the two-lane segments within the390/490 interchange exceed the minimum required LOS, some of which will be greatly improved over theno-build condition. Discussion relating to those results can be found in Section 3.3.1.7 of this report.

Option Lane (Decision Lane) LengthOne proposed location will have a non-conforming option lane (decision lane) length, which is less thanthe 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 lanewidening to avoid impacting the I-490 WB bridge over the Erie Canal, and to blend into theexisting curved I-490 geometry.

Although the I-390 SB CD Roadway at Ramp NE has a lane widening length of less than 1000 ft., thedesign is in conformance with the principles of two-lane exit facility design as shown in Figure 10-75D ofthe AASHTO Green Book, and therefore is not non-conforming.

Auxiliary LanesThe 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 recommendedvalue would require excessive impacts to the neighborhood in the NW quadrant of the 390/31 interchangewith minimal operational benefits realized. Furthermore, the LOS analysis revealed that the ramp junctionat this location will exceed the minimum required LOS and will be greatly improved over the no-buildcondition. Discussion relating to those results can be found in Section 3.3.1.7 of this report.

Auxiliary Lane TapersThe non-conforming taper length for the NY 31 WB to NY 390 SB (Ramp DC) acceleration lane will beretained. This taper is within the proposed resurfacing limits. Providing the minimum recommendedvalue would require shifting the Ramp DF entrance terminal to the south, which is not feasible since itwould 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 LyellAvenue bridge over the Erie Canal. On the north side of Lyell Avenue, sight distance remains limited bythe bridge truss and railings at all three driveways from the bridge to the eastern-most driveway at theHess gas Station. On the south side of Lyell Avenue, the bridge truss and railing limits sight distance atthe Canalway Trail parking lot driveway, and the Sofia Collision and Frame driveway. Proposed sightdistances at these five driveways vary from approximately 270 ft. to 590 ft. In addition, as discussed inSection 2.3.2.5, the bridge also limits sight distance at the adjacent Canalway Trail crossing. Providingthe 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) wascompleted for the project study area on May 26, 2011 and is included as Appendix D. The followingdescribes the proposed treatments for each roadway and ramp within the project limits.


3-63

The Regional Materials Engineer suggested that calculated pavement design thicknesses are to beutilized for cost estimating purposes only given the uncertainty of available construction funding for thisproject. 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 fundingbecomes 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 andrealigned mainline roadways and ramps instead of the 1.5” top course programmed in the most currentESAL Calculator.

Relocated or Realigned RoadwaysThe 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 existingadjacent roadway and ramp pavement, which consists of PCC slabs (some of which have been crackedand seated) overlaid with asphalt. Full-depth pavement reconstruction was designed in accordance withthe ESAL-based design procedures given in Section 4.5 of the NYSDOT Comprehensive PavementDesign Manual (CPDM) for New and Reconstructed Pavements. A truck volume growth rate of 2% wasutilized for all roadways and ramps as per the NYSDOT ESAL Calculator. However, if a 1% growth rateis 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 granularsubgrade.

390/490 Interchange Ramps EN, ES, SE and SWThe ESAL Calculator produced varying pavement thicknesses for these ramps ranging from 20.5” to22.5”. To minimize the number of proposed treatments, it is recommended that Ramps EN and SWutilize 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 freezingconditions and reduce slippery pavement on Ramps SW and WN and to a lesser extent Ramp NE.

390/31 Interchange Ramps A, B, and CThe ESAL Calculator produced the same pavement thickness for Ramps A and B (20.5”). Since Ramp Chas the lowest AADT and percentage of truck traffic of the three ramps, the calculator produced a slightlythinner pavement (19.5”). To minimize the number of proposed treatments, it is recommended that theseramps utilize the maximum calculated 20.5” pavement thickness.

Roadways to Remain on Existing AlignmentFor roadways to remain on existing alignment two options are provided in the PETSR for the mainlineroadways and ramps and two options are provided for Lyell Avenue. The PETSR does not providerecommendations for Lee Road.

I-390/NY 390 (mainline) and rampsBoth 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 #1does not mill the entire pavement and shoulders so the existing top course would be overlaid. Option #2is 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 theexisting bridges to remain even with a 1” to 1.5” overlay thickness. However, the Regional MaterialsEngineer suggested that Option #2 with a 2” mill and fill treatment be utilized for cost estimating purposesgiven the uncertainty of available construction funding for this project.

The Regional Materials Engineer also suggested that full width joint repairs and stress relief joints shouldbe included in the construction cost estimate where underlying concrete exists.


3-64

Lyell AvenueBoth options are variations of a typical mill and fill treatment. Option #1 provides an 8 year expectedservice life and involves milling and patching moderate and high-severity cracks with HMA, 2” milling ofthe 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 entirepavement and shoulders. The multiple course overlay would include HMA binder course and HMA topcourse. 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 almostdouble that of Option #1. Record drawings from 2005 (D259872) show a 4” asphalt overlay on top of theexisting concrete pavement from Howard Road to the Erie Canal so concrete milling would not benecessary unless repairs to the underlying concrete are necessary. Since record plans are not availablefor the existing 9 ft. shoulders just east of Lee Road Ext., the eastbound shoulder may need to bereconstructed with full-depth pavement as it will carry a travel lane in the proposed condition. Pavementcores should be taken during final design to determine if the shoulder thickness is adequate. If so then amill and fill treatment may be appropriate. The westbound shoulder will be reduced to a 6 ft. bicycle lanein 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 LyellAvenue corridor west of NY 390 expected to be completed in the last phase of construction, and due tothe age of the existing underlying pavement and segmented reconstruction over the years, full-depthreconstruction of Lyell Avenue was assumed for cost estimating purposes.

Lee RoadThe PETSR does not provide recommendations for Lee Road. Lee Road was reconstructed during the1989/1990 construction seasons (D252646) within the proposed project limits and appears to be in fair togood condition based on field observations as indicated in Section 2.3.3.3. Therefore, Option #1 for LyellAvenue is an appropriate recommended treatment for Lee Road as it is anticipated that it will provide anexpected service life of at least 8 years.

Roadway WideningThe PETSR does not provide recommendations for roadway widening. As indicated in Section 5.5 of theCPDM, roadway widening should use a pavement section that is consistent with the existing pavementdesign 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 existingpavement. For widened sections, pavement cores should be performed during final design to determinethe 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 thicknessexists along this mainline roadway. Within the 390/490 interchange area the existing slabs were crackedand seated and overlaid with a combined 4” asphalt top and binder course during the 1991 to 1993construction seasons (D253556). The slabs rest on a 12” subbase.

Until pavement core results are available, the thickness for all widened sections will utilize the samethickness 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 topsurface of the subbase of the widening will be no higher than the top surface of the existing pavement.

Lyell AvenueRecord plans show that a 40 ft. wide, 8” thick reinforced concrete pavement with an asphalt overlay ofvariable 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. ofwidening 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.


3-65

Until pavement core results are available, the thickness for all widened sections should utilize themaximum thickness of the already widened asphalt segment. The 10.5” asphalt thickness exceeds the8.5” thickness requirements of the conventional pavement design procedures in Section 4.4 (Table 4-1) ofthe CPDM as well as the 9” thickness produced by ESAL-based design procedures. However, asindicated previously, full-depth reconstruction of Lyell Avenue is assumed so the ESAL-based methodshould be used. ESAL-based calculations produce a pavement thickness of 21.5”.

Lee RoadRecord 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 thicknessexceeds 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 Roadutilize 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 realignedo See PETSR Option #2 for 390/I390/I490 & Ramps

· I-390/NY 390 proposed pavement reconstructiono 2” top courseo 2.5” binder courseo 6” base courseo 12” subbaseo 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 courseo 2.5” binder courseo 9” base courseo 12” subbaseo 6” select granular subgrade

[Total pavement thickness is 25.5”]

· Interchange Ramps A, B, C, ES and SEo 2” top courseo 2.5” binder courseo 4” base courseo 12” subbase


· Interchange Ramps EN and SWo 2” top courseo 2.5” binder courseo 6” base courseo 12” subbase



3-66

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 Avenueo Proposed roadway widening and existing EB shoulder from Lee Road Ext. to Erie Canalo 2” top courseo 2.5” binder courseo 5” base courseo 12” subbase


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 courseo 2.5” binder courseo 6” base courseo 12” subbase


Since pavement design thicknesses are so similar, all pavement reconstruction utilized the same unit costto simplify cost estimating.

3.3.3.4. Drainage Systems – The proposed drainage systems for the preferred alternative would havesome localized areas that would drain differently due to the new and relocated roadways, but the overalldrainage patterns through the entire project area would generally remain unchanged and the currentoutfall locations as noted in Chapter 2 would remain the same with the preferred alternative. Existingdrainage ditches, pipes, culverts and structures that are silted in would be cleaned. Existing pipes andculverts that have reached their service life, are in poor condition, are at different elevations than theproposed 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 andinlets at the curb lines that are bicycle and pedestrian friendly. The roadway improvements to LyellAvenue will take place over multiple phases with the replacement of the bridge carrying Lyell Avenue overNY 390 to be part of the first phase. Run-off from the newly constructed section would drain the same asit does under existing conditions system and flow into the existing system east of the bridge at Lee Roadand eventually outlet at the Erie Canal. As the sections of Lyell Avenue to the east and west of the bridgeare constructed in later phases, the new closed drainage systems would be installed and connected. Theexact layout and configuration of the closed drainage system along Lyell Avenue would be determinedduring final design.

Much of the existing drainage system within the expressway and interchange areas of the project wouldbe retained. In the areas where roadways are widened or relocated, including the southbound C-Droadway, 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 buriedstorm pipes. Toe of slope ditches would be provided at the base of embankments for the new roadwaysincluding the southbound I-390/NY 390, Ramp A and Ramp B. New cross-culverts or extensions ofexisting 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 notscheduled 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 projectphasing 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


3-67

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 managestormwater run-off. The exact locations and method of treatment and management will be investigatedduring final design.

3.3.3.5. Geotechnical – Subsurface conditions at the existing bridges can generally be described as a10’ to 25’ deep layer of silt and sand overlaying limestone bedrock. All existing bridges are founded onspread footings, 11 on bedrock and the remaining 8 on fill. It is anticipated that the new bridges will befounded on spread footings if bedrock is near the surface. Bridges where the bottom of footing is notclose to bedrock will either be founded on a spread footing or pile foundation. Foundation types will bedetermined 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-390SB and NY 390 NB and SB are anticipated due to the proposed widening. The typical sections includedin Appendix A depict proposed 2 on 1 rock slopes at these locations. Rock slope treatments will befurther 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 19existing bridges, 12 of these bridges are outside of the proposed reconstruction limits of this project asdescribed in Section 3.2.3.2 and will see no or only incidental work performed. These 12 bridges aresummarized in Exhibit 3.3.3.6-1 and could be rehabilitated under future rehabilitation contracts.

Exhibit 3.3.3.6-1Bridges with No Anticipated Work

BIN DescriptionBridgeNo.

1 1062521 NY 390 SB over Lexington Avenue2 1062522 NY 390 NB over Lexington Avenue8 4443380 NY 31 (Lyell Avenue) over Erie Canal9 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 SB12 1025812 I-490 EB over I-390 SB13 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 Canal16 4443362 I-490 EB over Erie Canal17 1048680 Howard Road over I-490 WB and I-490 EB19 7025830 CSX Railroad over I-390 NB and I-390 SB

The remaining 7 bridges will require rehabilitation, widening or complete replacement. The projectalternative also includes construction of 4 new bridges at new locations. All rehabilitated and new bridgeswill be designed in accordance with current AASHTO and NYSDOT standards including adequate pierprotection as necessary. These structures are described as follows:


3-68

Bridge 3: NY 390 SB over Erie Canal

BIN: 4062531Description of Work: Bridge RehabilitationLive Loading: HS-20Historical Significance: NoneVertical Clearance: 20’ max. over CanalHorizontal Clearance: 4’ min. shoulderCoast 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-GirderNumber of Spans: 1Exist. 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 andjoints, perform abutment concrete surface repairs.

The proposed deck is marginally wider than the existing deck due to awider proposed bridge railing. The new deck can be tapered down atthe abutments to avoid substructure modification costs. At least onebridge rail post should be carried onto the approach slab to avoid abridge rail post being located at the deck end taper.

Alignment: The rehabilitation will retain the existing vertical and horizontalalignments.

Detour: On-site detour using staged construction.

Bridge 4: NY 390 NB over Erie Canal

BIN: 4062532Description of Work: Bridge Rehabilitation & WideningLive Loading: HS-20Historical Significance: NoneVertical Clearance: 20’ max. over CanalHorizontal Clearance: 6’ min. shoulderCoast Guard Permit: Required because the rehabilitation will change the bridge width.Bridge Section: 64’-0” Curb to Curb


Bridge Type: Steel Multi-GirderNumber of Spans: 1Exist. 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 westfascia girder, perform structural steel repairs and paint existing girders,replace bearings and joints, perform abutment concrete surface repairs.




3-69

Bridge 5: NY 390 SB over Trolley Boulevard and Abandoned RR

BIN: 1062541Description of Work: Bridge ReplacementLive Loading: HL-93 and NYSDOT Design Permit VehicleHistorical Significance: NoneVertical Clearance: 14.5’ minimum desirableHorizontal Clearance: 6’ min. shoulderCoast Guard Permit: Not ApplicableBridge Section: 64’-0” Curb to Curb


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: 1062542Description of Work: Bridge ReplacementLive Loading: HL-93 and NYSDOT Design Permit VehicleHistorical Significance: NoneVertical Clearance: 14.5’ minimum desirableHorizontal Clearance: 6’ min. shoulderCoast Guard Permit: Not ApplicableBridge Section: 64’-0” Curb to Curb






3-70

Bridge 7: NY 31 (Lyell Avenue) over NY 390 NB and NY 390 SB

BIN: 1021589Description of Work: Bridge ReplacementLive Loading: HL-93 and NYSDOT Design Permit VehicleHistorical Significance: NoneVertical Clearance: 14.5’ minimum desirableHorizontal Clearance: 5’-6” sidewalkCoast Guard Permit: Not ApplicableBridge 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: 1052290Description of Work: Bridge Rehabilitation & WideningLive Loading: HS-20Historical Significance: NoneVertical Clearance: 15’ over I-490Horizontal Clearance: 3’ min. shoulderCoast Guard Permit: Not ApplicableBridge Section: 49’-0” Curb to Curb


Bridge Type: Steel Multi-GirderNumber of Spans: 3Exist. 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 permanentsnow fencing, replace approach slab, widen abutments and piers andinstall new girders at east fascia, perform structural steel repairs andpaint existing girders, replace bearings and joints, perform abutmentconcrete 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 whenthis bridge undergoes rehabilitation.




3-71

Bridge 18: NY 33 (Buffalo Road) over I-390 NB and I-390 SB

BIN: 1023030Description of Work: Bridge ReplacementLive Loading: HL-93 and NYSDOT Design Permit VehicleHistorical Significance: NoneVertical Clearance: 14.5’ minimum desirableHorizontal Clearance: 11’-6” (6’ shoulder, 5’-6” sidewalk)Coast Guard Permit: Not ApplicableBridge 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.




New Bridge: I-390 SB over I-490 EB and Ramp ES

BIN: BIN Number to be AssignedDescription of Work: New Bridge ConstructionLive Loading: HL-93 and NYSDOT Design Permit VehicleHistorical Significance: NoneVertical Clearance: 14.5’ minimum desirableHorizontal Clearance: 6’ min. shoulderCoast Guard Permit: Not ApplicableBridge Section: 40’-0” Curb to Curb


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.


3-72

New Bridge: I-390 SB over I-490 WB and Ramp SW



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



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.


3-73

New Bridge: Ramp A over Ramp ENBIN: BIN Number to be AssignedDescription of Work: New Bridge ConstructionLive Loading: HL-93 and NYSDOT Design Permit VehicleHistorical Significance: NoneVertical Clearance: 14.5’ minimum desirableHorizontal Clearance: 3’ min. shoulderCoast Guard Permit: Not ApplicableBridge 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 thatrequire the consideration of and/or analysis of bridge hydraulics.

This section looks at general recommendations to the existing major culverts within the proposed projectlimits. The recommendations were based on visual inspections performed in March 2012. As indicatedin Section 1.5, funding is secured for the design and construction of Phase 1 only. The need to repair orreplace existing culverts not impacted by construction should be revisited during final design for eachconstruction phase.

All conveyed run-off is from roadside drainage ditches along I-490, I-390/NY 390, Lyell Avenue andramps from the 390/490 and 390/31 interchanges. As noted in Section 3.3.3.4, the preferred alternativewould 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 culvertsbeneath roadways to remain that are no longer necessary after the new installations would most likely beabandoned in-place and filled with a “flowable” concrete material.

It is recommended that all existing reinforced box culverts would be retained. Concrete repairs tolocalized areas of deterioration within the box culverts and wingwalls would be necessary andimprovements to the inlet and outlet aprons are expected. An extension of approximately 180 ft would beadded to the west inlet of the existing 6ft x 7ft twin cell box culvert (Culvert ID# 4) located beneath NY 390northbound and Ramp SW. Cleaning of the box culverts and drainage channels that are filled with debrisor obstructed by beaver dams would be included as part of this project. The Regional MaintenanceGroup has been battling nuisance beaver problems at several of the box culverts within the 390/490interchange for years. A creative solution such as a beaver deceiver end-treatment should be consideredfor inclusion into this project. This would ensure the long-term functionality of the culvert and relieve thelimited Maintenance forces from a time intensive nuisance problem. The reinforced concrete box culvertsthat were not accessible (Culvert ID# 1 & 7) due to high water levels should be evaluated during finaldesign 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 originalconstruction and have been in-place for almost 50 years. As noted in Section 2.3.3.7, based on thevisual inspections most of the CMP major culverts exhibit loss of the protective bituminous coating andcorrosion of the metal pipes is moderate to significant. With the current long term schedule for all fourphases of construction, it is recommended that with the exception of Culvert ID# 6 & 15, all major CMPculverts that are within the proposed project limits, regardless of whether or not they are affected byconstruction of this project, should be replaced by new culvert pipes consisting of polyethylene, aluminumor reinforced concrete material.


3-74

A listing of the proposed disposition for all major culverts within the project study area is included inExhibit 3.3.3.7. Major culvert locations are shown on the plans and on Exhibit 1.2.1-2 in Appendix A. Allmajor culverts should be reevaluated during final design to determine if additional rehabilitation orreplacement is necessary.

Exhibit 3.3.3.7Proposed Work for Major Culverts

CulvertID Culvert Description Description of Work Dwg. No.

(App. A)

1 4’x6’ box culvert(110 ft long)

Culvert was inaccessible. Evaluate during finaldesign to determine if rehabilitation is necessary.

outsideplanlimits


Localized concrete repairs and cleaning. Confirmduring final design.

PL-6



PL-6

4 6’ x 7’ twin-cell box culvert(230 ft long)

Clean culvert. Remove western inlet wingwalls,extend culvert approx. 180 ft.

PL-5



PL-13

6 84”x126” CMP(100 ft long) No work is proposed, reevaluate during final design.

PL-13

7 36”x72” box culvert(65 ft long)

Culvert was inaccessible. Evaluate during finaldesign to determine if rehabilitation is necessary.

outsideplanlimits

8 42” CMP(77 ft long)

Existing pipe to be removed / abandoned. A newculvert with end sections would be provided in a newlocation due to proposed roadway realignments.

PL-9

9 42” CMP(70 ft long) Existing pipe to be removed / abandoned.

PL-8

10 42” CMP(124 ft long) Existing pipe to be removed / abandoned.

PL-8

11 48” CMP(164 ft long)

Existing pipe to be removed / abandoned. A newculvert will be installed in a new location due toproposed roadway realignments.

PL-7

12 48” CMP(134 ft long)

Replace existing pipe with a new culvert including anextension to accommodate the future southboundroadway. Evaluate further during final design.

PL-7

13 42” CMP(140 ft long)

Replace original pipe and pipe extensions with newend sections.

PL-13

14 42” CMP(255 ft long)

Replace original pipe and pipe extensions with newend sections.

PL-13

15 42” CMP(length unknown) No work is proposed, reevaluate during final design.

PL-2

16 57”span x 38” rise CMP(121 ft long)

Replace or rehabilitate existing pipe and extensionsand provide new end sections. Evaluate furtherduring final design.

PL-1

17 57”span x 38” rise CMP(121 ft long)

Replace or rehabilitate existing pipe and extensionsand provide new end sections. Evaluate furtherduring final design.

PL-1


3-75

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 andreplaced 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 costor to be relocated by others. For facilities not impacted by construction, private utility owners may elect toimprove their facilities with their own resources during the construction phase. Coordination with theseprivate owners would take place during final design. Owners of municipal utilities (sanitary sewer andwater) may also have a need to upgrade their facilities by installing new or larger mains within areas ofthe project not affected by construction. These upgrades could be performed as part of the constructionproject as a betterment and funded by the owner of the utility. Refer to Section 3.3.1.11 for highwaylighting.

Exhibit 3.3.3.9Location of Potential Utility Impacts

Owner Type (OH/UG)AnticipatedProject Cost

(Y/N)Location Impact

NYSDOT Fiber Optic (UG) Y Along I-390 / NY 390 andinterchange area with I-490

Relocate as part of thisproject

RG&E Electric (OH) N

Along Lyell Avenue on bothsides of road from HowardRoad to Tarwood Drive andfrom Lee Road to ErieCanal

Relocate by others withutility poles

RG&E Electric (OH) N Along Lee Road from LyellAve to project limit

Relocate by others withutility poles

RG&E Electric (UG) N

Along Lyell Ave from RampDF to Ramp DA, alongBuffalo Rd on existingbridge over I-390, AlongTrolley Blvd beneath NY390

Relocate by others aspart of this project

RG&E Electric (UG) Y Located on existing LyellAve bridge over NY 390

Replace conduits as partof this project, (lines byothers)

TWC Cable (OH) N

Along Lyell Ave and Lee Rdwithin limits of project,along Trolley Blvd beneathexisting NY 390 bridges


TWC Cable (UG) NAlong north side of TrolleyBlvd beneath NY 390bridges

May require relocation byothers as part of bridgereplacements

NYSDOTElectric (UG)

(Trafficinterconnect)

Y

Along Lyell Ave betweenWegmans’ entrances andbetween signal at RampDB, across Lyell Avebridge, to signal at Lee Rd.

Relocate as part of thisproject

FrontierTelephone Telephone (UG) N

Along Lyell Ave withinproject limits and alongnorth side of Trolley Blvdbeneath NY 390 bridges



3-76

Exhibit 3.3.3.9Location of Potential Utility Impacts

RG&E Gas Line (UG) N Along Lyell Ave near bridgeover NY 390

A portion will be relocatedby others as part of thisproject

RG&E Gas Line (UG) NAlong north side of TrolleyBlvd beneath NY 390bridges

May require relocation byothers as part of bridgereplacements

RG&E Gas Line (UG) N

Along Lyell Ave fromHoward Road to ErieCanal, including sidestreets and services tobusiness

Various locations mayrequire relocation as partof this project by others,owner may elect torelocate/upgrade

MCPWA Water Line (UG) Y Along Lyell Ave andBeneath Ramp DA

May require relocation aspart of this project due toremoval of Ramp DA.Relocations along LyellAve may be necessarybased on depth

MCPWA Water Line (UG) YAlong north side of TrolleyBlvd beneath NY 390bridges

May require relocation aspart of this projectpending excavationdepths.

MCPWA Sanitary Sewer(UG) Y Along Lyell Avenue within

project limits

Some relocationsanticipated as part of thisproject, conflict withproposed drainage.

RG&E: Rochester Gas and ElectricTWC: Time-Warner CommunicationsMCPWA: Monroe County Pure Water Agency

3.3.3.10. Railroad Facilities – The two bridges which carry NY 390 over Trolley Boulevard and aninactive CSX railroad right-of-way are proposed to be replaced under this project. The preferredAlternative A2 has assumed bridge clearances and geometry to maintain the existing vertical andhorizontal clearances for an active railroad facility. If CSX commits to abandoning the right-of-way forrailroad use prior to detailed design for the replacement bridges, construction cost savings could beachieved in the form of reduced span lengths, and increased flexibility in vertical and horizontal clearancerequirements.

In addition, I-390 SB will be widened from three to four lanes under the Class I mainline railroad owned byCSXT, which crosses over I-390 just south of Buffalo Road. The roadway widening will not impact thebridge 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 insummer 2011) will be maintained since the minimum clearance is located at the right edge of travel laneon the high side of the superelevated pavement and the roadway is being widened to the median side, onthe low side of the superelevation.

There should not be a need for a railroad force account agreement.


3-77

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 ofreplacement plantings and additional plant/vegetation buffers where needed. Landscape enhancementswill be incorporated in the Lyell Avenue corridor, such as additional street trees that will define thecorridor.

Wetland plantings will be incorporated into any required stormwater management measures. Nativeplants will be utilized where possible.

All existing vegetation to remain in the construction area will be protected using proper care andprotection details. The project will incorporate the use of soil erosion control measures includingtemporary and permanent seeding and mulch.

Turf will be established in areas where pavement is removed; material will be stripped to expose nativesoils in these areas and new topsoil applied to the appropriate depth. Wildflowers may be used on thisproject.

Context sensitive treatments of the noise walls as they relate to each neighborhood will be utilized. Suchtreatments 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 slopeprotection may be utilized.

Decorative pavements and concrete may be utilized in areas where turf establishment may be difficult ordifficult to maintain.

3.3.4.2. Environmental Enhancements

The Lyell Avenue corridor will be enhanced and further defined through a continuous sidewalk systemand the addition of street trees. The entrance to the Erie Canalway Trail on Lyell Avenue at the east endof 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 willinclude: large shade trees, lower canopy fruiting and flowering native shrubs and evergreen plant materialfor seasonal interest and habitat improvements.

3.3.5. Miscellaneous – None


CHAPTER 4SOCIAL, ECONOMIC & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS








4-1

CHAPTER 4 - SOCIAL, ECONOMIC and ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONSand 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 IIIprojects are actions in which the significance of the environmental impacts are not clearly established, andrequire 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 17NYCRR 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 anEnvironmental Assessment (EA). The project is being progressed as SEQR Non-Type II (EA) because atleast one alternative will involve the acquisition and relocation of a number of occupied residences. Under 17NYCRR Part 15.14(d)(1), a Type II action has “no acquisition of any occupied dwelling units or principalstructures of businesses. Furthermore, under 17 NYCRR Part 15.14(d)(3), a Type II action has “no more thanminor social, economic or environmental effects upon occupied dwelling units, businesses, abutting propertiesor 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 “SafeAccountable Flexible Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users,” (SAFETEA-LU), enactedAugust 10, 2005. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) will serve as the Federal lead agency for theproject and the NYSDOT will serve as the joint lead agency. Agencies that have been identified asCooperating Agencies in accordance with 23 CFR 771 and/or Participating Agencies in accordance withSection 6002 of SAFETEA-LU are shown in Exhibit 4.1.2.

Exhibit 4.1.2. Agencies, Roles and Responsibilities.Agency Role ResponsibilitiesUS Army Corpsof Engineers

Cooperating andParticipatingAgency

Provide comments on:· 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 (if needed)

If Individual Permit is required, adopt EA and coordinate publicinvolvement for Section 404 permit


4-2

Exhibit 4.1.2. Agencies, Roles and Responsibilities.Agency Role ResponsibilitiesU.S. CoastGuard




If Section 9 Permit is required, adopt EA and coordinate publicinvolvement for permit.

Federal AviationAdministration




Advance coordination for obstruction analysis on proposeddesign features and potential temporary constructionobstructions with regard to the Greater Rochester InternationalAirport.

NYS Departmentof EnvironmentalConservation(NYSDEC)



prevent granting of permit/approval· Opportunities for collaboration· Mitigation

Adopt EA and coordinate public involvement when possibleResponsible for Section 401 Water Quality CertificationResponsibility under US EPA and expertise in air quality

issuesResponsibility under US EPA in coverage under NYSDEC

SPDES permitResponsibility under Article 15 Permit Memorandum of

AgreementTown of Gates Participating

AgencyProvide comments on:

· Purpose and Need· Range of Alternatives· Methodologies· Level of detail for analysis of alternatives· Identification of issues that could substantially delay or



4-3

Exhibit 4.1.2. Agencies, Roles and Responsibilities.Agency Role ResponsibilitiesGeneseeTransportationCouncil

ParticipatingAgency



Monroe County ParticipatingAgency



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 thecoordination plan are to facilitate and document the lead agencies’ structured interaction with the public andother agencies and to inform the public and other agencies of how the coordination plan will beaccomplished.” Since the development of the coordination plan, the level of potential impacts has diminishedfrom what was originally anticipated. Coordination with individual agencies has been ongoing with respect tothese impacts, fulfilling the intent of the coordination plan. The plan calls a number of specific reviews by thecooperating 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 alternativesbeing considered and Proposed Methodologies

· Provide Cooperating Agencies with preliminary Draft DR/EA to identify any outstanding issues beforepublic circulation.

· Provide Cooperating & Participating Agencies with Preferred Alternative selection. Determine if ahigher 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.


4-4

4.2 SOCIAL

The purpose of this section is to discuss potential impact to the social environment of the project corridorunder 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 haspopulation of 28,400 according to the 2010 U.S. Census this number is down 3% from the population of29,275 reported in the 2000 U.S. Census. The current land use surrounding the project corridor includesresidential, commercial, industrial and community services. The primary land uses adjacent to the projectsegments 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, otherraces, or two or more races. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) demographics mapping siteshows that the affected population in the project corridor is 84.9% English speaking, 69.4% high schooleducated or higher, 74.1% owner occupied homes, with 67.4% having an annual income of $25,000 orhigher. The affected population in the project corridor is primarily adults’ ages 18 to 64 who make up 58% ofthe corridor population. The remaining corridor population is seniors age 65 and older who account for 20% ofthe population, minors age 6 to 17 making up 16% of the population, and children age 5 and younger withremaining 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 thesouthern limits of the Town of Greece. The Town of Gates Master Plan of 2007 as amended in 2008 lists thefollowing 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 varyingincome levels. This will maintain the current tax base, attract first-time home buyers to the townand encourage the development of similar living-spaces. The town needs to preserve theresidential character of neighborhoods and must continue to eliminate areas of blight ordeterioration through code enforcement and redevelopment.

· To continue to encourage businesses to locate within the town by keeping taxes reasonable fordevelopers and business owners.

· To promote local businesses to serve the community, its neighborhoods and residents and toprovide 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.


4-5

The Town of Gates zoning map of 2001 indicates that the land surrounding the project corridor is zoned forgeneral industry, general business, neighborhood business, business/non-retail, multi-family residential, andresidential-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 infrastructureagencies are required to ensure that public infrastructure projects approved, undertaken, supported orfinanced undergo a consistency evaluation and attestation using 10 smart growth criteria. To help comply withthis requirement, the “Smart Growth Screening Tool,” developed by NYSDOT in November 2011, was usedfor 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 previouslyimpacted 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 amixture of residential, commercial, retail and office space, industrial and unoccupied land. The residentialhouses surrounding the project corridor were predominately built after 1950. The greatest concentrations ofresidential 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 gasstation, and petroleum terminals. Lyell Avenue, within the project limits, is not serviced by continuoussidewalks, limiting pedestrian access. Traffic conditions paired with insufficient shoulder widths limit bicycleuse along the Lyell Avenue section of the corridor. As a result, automobiles are the primary mode oftransportation. The area surrounding I-490 is primarily residential with some unoccupied land. This area doesnot have direct access to the project corridor as it backs up to I-490 where access is fully controlled. Thesouthern 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 adverseimpacts to community cohesion as a whole. The proposed project does not involve physical alteration toneighborhoods within the Town of Gates nor will it result in isolation of portions of any neighborhood, ethnicgroup, or low-income community. In the area where acquisition is proposed, the two homes are located in anarea zoned for general industry and there are no other residential dwellings in the area. The age and ethnicbackground of the affected population is of a similar composition as that of the Town of Gates. No effects onCommunity Cohesion are expected with implementation of this project.

Construction impacts will generally be temporary in nature and will cease with the completion of eachproposed construction phase. The local communities will experience short-term direct increases inemployment 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 detoursduring construction. Air quality impacts during construction will be limited to short term dust and mobile sourceemissions, 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 experiencedat 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.


4-6

Noise barriers will result in reduced traffic noise levels for the affected residential communities located alongthe 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 noisebarriers would not function as a barrier to different parts of the community. It is anticipated that it will beavailable to construct the noise barriers prior to construction of that part of the roadway. The barriers wouldthen protect the affected residential areas from construction noise, as well as from traffic followingconstruction.

Home and Business Relocations

The no-build/maintenance alternative would not result in any home or business relocations. Alternative A2does require the acquisition of two occupied residential houses, an occupied restaurant building andunoccupied land. The two residential houses are located in an area zoned for general industry. The housesare numbers 25 and 50 Lee Road Extension. The house at 25 Lee Road Extension is a single familyresidence with a 3.5 acre lot and has a total assessed value of $108,400. The house at 50 Lee Road Ext is asingle family residence on a 0.6 acre lot and has a total assessed value of $76,700. The restaurant at 2000Lyell Ave sits on a .25 acre lot and has 89 feet of frontage on Lyell Ave as well as 200 feet of frontage on LeeRd. 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 SchoolDistrict tax base of $1,559,719,300.00; a total of $8,299.64 in county tax, which is 0.002% of the MonroeCounty tax base of $38,481,170,686.00; and a total of $2,898 in Town of Gates tax which is 0.00002% of theTown of Gates tax base of $193,113,857.00. These property acquisitions will not have a significant impact onthe tax bases.1

The residents of these houses and the business occupants would be displaced. There are houses in thesurrounding neighborhoods that are currently available with similar lot sizes and similar market values. Thereare fewer options for the restaurant relocation; however, there is available lease space on Lyell Avenue withina mile of the current location. Overall, this project will not cause significant impacts based on the limitednumber 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 theTown of Gates and are located more than a ¼ mile west of the border of the mapped Environmental Justicearea 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 ofelderly 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 offSpencerport Road west of the project corridor.

The existing Lyell Ave section of the project corridor is lacking in infrastructure accommodations for disabledpersons and the elderly. Much of the corridor does not provide sidewalks, access ramps, pedestrian crossingdevices or crosswalks. Where there are sidewalks they are deficient per ADA guidelines: access is poor asrelated to condition, width is inadequate, and they lack curb ramps. This project proposes the implementationof continuous 5 ft. wide sidewalks along both sides of Lyell Avenue from Howard Road to the Erie Canal, aswell as crosswalks which will improve accessibility accommodations for these user groups. Proposedimprovements 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 tobe acquired (see Section 3.3.3.1). This analysis therefore represents a conservative estimate of impact from the propertyacquisitions.


4-7

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 benefitresidents and commuters, including the elderly/disabled population.

Transit Dependent, Pedestrians, and Bicyclists

Transit – The Rochester Genesee Transportation Authority (RGRTA) and Gates Chili School District operatetransit 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 theimplementation 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 asdescribed in Section 3.3.2.1. This includes implementation of continuous 5 ft. wide sidewalks along both sidesof the roadway from Howard Road to the Erie Canal. As indicated in Sections 3.3.2.3 and 3.3.2.5, access tobus stops along Lyell Avenue and access to the Erie Canalway Heritage Trail will also be improved greatlywith the implementation of sidewalks. Proposed improvements will be developed in accordance with ADAregulations.

Bicyclists – Lyell Avenue does not meet AASHTO or FHWA guidelines for accommodating bicycle traffic asdescribed in Section 2.3.2.2. Bicycle traffic accommodations along Lyell Avenue within the project limits willbe improved significantly with the implementation of continuous 6 ft. wide bike lanes along both sides of theroadway from Howard Road to the Erie Canal as described in Section 3.3.2.2. The proposed bicycle lanes willprovide a seamless connection from the Erie Canalway Heritage trail to State Bicycle Route 5 at the HowardRoad intersection. No other components of the project corridor are appropriate for bicycle traffic; theremaining 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 aretransit dependent, pedestrians or bicyclists. Though construction activities may cause inconvenience it will bea temporary issue. The improved traffic patterns, the improved safety of the corridor and the implementationof continuous 5 ft. wide sidewalks and continuous 6 ft. wide bike lanes along both sides of the roadway fromHoward 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 AddressEnvironmental Justice in Minority populations and Low Income Population and with Department ofTransportation Orders 5610.2 and 6640.23 which require the Federal Highway Administration to implementthe principals of Executive Order 12898 in all programs, policies, and activities. The purpose of EnvironmentalJustice is to identify and address, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health effects ofa Federal agency’s programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations in accordancewith Executive Order 12898, which was issued by President Clinton on February 11, 1994. The order focusesattention on the environmental and human health conditions of minority and low-income communities andrequires agencies to make the achievement of environmental justice part of their mission. Environmentaljustice embraces the principle that all people and communities are entitled to equal protection throughenvironmental, health, employment, housing, transportation, and civil rights laws. A key component to theEnvironmental 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 beenunderserved by existing transportation systems, particularly low-income and minority households. A summaryof the methodology and findings regarding this project follows.


4-8

Racial and Ethnic Minorities – As described in Section 4.2.1, 2010 census data for the Town of Gatesindicates that 17.9% of residents classified themselves as racial or ethnic minorities. The percentage ofminorities in the Town of Gates is lower than the percent of the state minority population, which was 34.3% in2010, 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 for2011 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 GuidelinesPersons in family/household Poverty guideline

1 $10,8902 $14,7103 $18,5304 $22,3505 $26,1706 $29,9907 $33,8108 $37,630

For families/households with more than 8 persons, add $3,820 for eachadditional person.

The U.S. EPA Environmental Justice Mapper was used to determine household income in the project corridorand 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%. Homeownership 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 theproposed project as determined above. Therefore, in accordance with the provisions of EO 12898 and FHWAOrder 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 withinthe project corridor. Four schools are located in the vicinity of the project corridor. Gates Chili Junior andSenior High Schools and Hope Hall School are located off Buffalo Road. The schools are all served by theGates Chili Central School District bus system. Bus schedules may need to be temporarily modifieddepending on bridge construction activities and phasing. Northstar Christian Academy is located offSpencerport Road and may also require temporary bussing modifications due to construction activities alongLyell 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 SchoolDistrict or the private schools adjacent to the project corridor. Temporary delays to motorists and bussesdestined for the schools surrounding the project corridor may be experienced during construction. The GatesChili Central School District transportation policy provides bussing for the vast majority of students. Onlythose students who live adjacent to the schools are not provided bus transportation. The project corridoralong 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 150Spencerport Road approximately 0.3 miles north west of the project corridor. The Erie Canalway Trail islocated adjacent to the project corridor along the eastern boundary and crosses the northern end of the NYS


4-9

Route 390 corridor to the north. Memorial Park is a 30-acre park with facilities that include: three baseballdiamonds, two football/soccer fields, a natural pond, playground, bocce court, restrooms and an enclosedshelter. The Erie Canalway Trail is a 365-mile off road trail between Albany and Buffalo that is open topedestrians and bicyclists.

The proposed project will not result in any permanent adverse impacts on the recreational areas adjacent tothe project corridor. Temporary delays to motorists, pedestrians, and/or bicyclists destined for the recreationalareas 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 LyellAvenue 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 tothe project corridor. Minor, temporary delays to motorists, pedestrians, and/or bicyclists destined for theplaces of worship surrounding the project corridor may be experienced during construction.


4-10

4.3 Economic

The no-build/maintenance alternative will not meet the project objectives, which include reducing trafficcongestion, improving road safety, and improving pedestrian access. This alternative may have a negativeeffect on the businesses in the project corridor because it does not address these objectives. Alternative A2would include the replacement of deteriorating bridges, construction of new ramps to improve traffic flow, thewidening of a section of Lyell Avenue, and the addition of sidewalks, green space, and bike lanes along LyellAvenue. The businesses along the Lyell Avenue section of the project corridor will be most directly affectedby the project. As discussed in Sections 3.3.1.10 and 3.3.3.1, the effect of this portion of the project on localbusinesses 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 atemporary and minor impact. Alternative A2 will not have a long term negative effect on the businesses in theproject 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 projectcorridor is heavily developed, containing a mix of commercial and residential properties. There are numerousbusinesses along the Lyell Ave section of the project. There are businesses along Buffalo Road, in the vicinityof the bridge to be reconstructed over I-490. During construction there will be minor delays to vehicular trafficand possible temporary impediments to pedestrian access.

Alternative A2 will have a positive effect on the local economy. It will contribute to economic viability byincreasing foot traffic to the businesses along Lyell Avenue as well as making it more convenient for vehiculartraffic to access the businesses along Lyell Avenue. Improved travel patterns will reduce accidents, easecongestion 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/buildoption or Alternative A2. There are no project components slated for this section adjacent to the projectcorridor. 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 bepositive as discussed above.

2 There will also be 12 spaces remaining which are understood to be shared between the Stonegate Retail Complex andthe Stonegate Health/Professional Complex.


4-11

4.3.2 Business Districts

Although no established business districts exist in the vicinity of the project corridor, the Lyell Avenue sectionof the project corridor is zoned for general business, general industry, neighborhood business, andbusiness/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 duringconstruction. Although some traffic may avoid the Lyell Avenue corridor during construction, this will be minorand temporary in nature. Other than these minor temporary impacts no significant adverse effects areanticipated.


4-12

4.4 Environment

4.4.1 Wetlands

State Freshwater Wetlands

There are no NYSDEC regulated freshwater wetlands or regulated 100’ Adjacent Areas mapped within theproject 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 (seeAppendix 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 tidalwetlands 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) Mapfor the Rochester, New York Quadrangle was reviewed. The NWI Map identifies the Erie Canal as adeepwater 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 projectstudy 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 studyarea (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 SoilSurvey, 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 wasdesignated 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 thedelineated boundaries and hydrologic connections and obtain a Jurisdictional Determination (JD). Based onthe 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 otherwaters of the U.S. and, therefore, is not regulated by the USACE. Wetland H will be handled via an approvedJD; 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 sidesof I-390 between Buffalo Road and a location immediately north of Interchange 19 at Chili Avenue. Thewetland 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 expandedproject limits. Wetlands were evident on the west side of an unnamed tributary of the Erie Canal that isadjacent to the west side of I-390 southbound; however, this area is beyond the limits of the project studyarea.

Detail regarding each of the delineated wetlands is presented in the Waters of the U.S. Wetlands andStreams Report, which is included as Appendix Q of this Design Report. A brief summary of pertinentinformation is provided below; additional information is included in Exhibit 4.4.1-2.


4-13

Exhibit 4.4.1-2: Summary of Preliminary Wetland Impacts

WetlandId

Wetland HabitatClassification

WetlandArea inPSA*

(Acres)

Area OfImpact

(Acres)***

PercentOf

TotalWetland

AreaImpacted

Type OfImpact

(Cut\Fill)Functions & Services Temporary

Impacts***Indirect

Impacts***

A shallow emergentmarsh 0.067 0.047 70 Fill

floodflow alteration,sediment/toxicant retention andnutrient removal

TBD None****

B floodplain forest 0.902 0.000 0 N/A sediment/toxicant retention andnutrient removal N/A N/A

C shallow emergentmarsh 0.075 0.000 0 N/A sediment/toxicant retention and

nutrient removal N/A N/A

D shallow emergentmarsh 0.024 0.000 0 N/A sediment/toxicant retention and


E wet meadow 0.015 0.000 0 N/A sediment/toxicant retention N/A N/A

F shallow emergentmarsh 0.026 0.000 0 N/A

sediment/toxicant retention,nutrient removal andsediment/shoreline stabilization

N/A N/A

G shallow emergentmarsh 0.035 0.000 0 N/A sediment/toxicant retention and


H** shallow emergentmarsh 0.106 0.000 0 N/A sediment/toxicant retention N/A N/A

I shallow emergentmarsh 0.076 0.053 70 Fill sediment/toxicant retention and

nutrient removal TBD None****

J shallow emergentmarsh 0.064 0.000 0 N/A sediment/toxicant retention and


K shallow emergentmarsh 0.068 0.000 0 N/A sediment/toxicant retention and


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, impactsshown 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 eachwetland will continue to exist.


4-14

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 Kare all characterized as shallow emergent marshes. Wetland B was identified as a floodplain forest andWetland E is characterized as a wet meadow. The wetlands identified within the project study area principallyprovide sediment-toxicant retention and nutrient removal. Floodflow alteration and shoreline stabilization areprovided 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) ofthe 11 wetlands would be impacted by fill slopes associated with the proposed roadway work. The impactedwetlands are Wetlands A and I. Both of the impacted wetlands have been classified as palustrine emergentwetland habitats. A fill slope would disturb 0.047 acres or 70% of Wetland A and 0.053 acres or 70% ofWetland I. The impact to Wetland A will occur as a result of the fill needed to raise the elevation for theproposed ramp to avoid impact to Wetland B. Based on the mapped soil type and field observations, WetlandA has a high groundwater table during portions of the year and the soil is poorly drained. The remaining smallportion of the wetland will continue to receive hydrology via the groundwater table and runoff drained fromupgrade. It is anticipated that the proposed storm pipe will be sized the same or only slightly larger than theexisting culvert; therefore, additional indirect impact to Wetland A will not occur. Once detailed drainagedesign is available, pipe size and inverts will be reviewed to confirm no further impact to the wetland. Theremaining 30 percent of Wetland A would continue to function, albeit at a lesser capacity commensurate withthe 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 extensionhas, if any, on the up gradient displacement of water that flows through this part of the drainage system. Theboundaries of Wetland A could possibly expand northward, southward, or in both directions, depending on thedesign of the culvert extension. Potential temporary impacts to Wetland A during construction would berestored and there would be no further indirect impacts to Wetland A based on the information providedabove. The remaining unfilled portion of Wetland I would also continue to exist post-construction becausegroundwater 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 studyarea (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 exhibitedby the wetlands will also be affected. Exhibit 4.4.1-2 presents a summary of the wetland impacts asdiscussed herein.

Exhibit 4.4.1-3 presents a summary of wetland impacts relative to Wetland Habitat Classifications.

Exhibit 4.4.1-3Summary of Wetland Impacts by Habitat Classification

Wetland HabitatClassification

Area ofImpact(Acres)

shallow emergent marsh 0.100floodplain forest 0.000wet 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 detailin the design process, it is not available to determine quantities for such impacts. The potential for someindirect impacts to Wetland A are discussed above, and it is concluded that beyond temporary constructionimpacts, there would be no indirect effects to that wetland. Potential indirect impacts are likely to occur as aresult 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


4-15

impacts will be minimized to the extent possible by utilizing appropriate erosion and sediment controlmeasures during construction as well as post construction management practices focused on water qualityand quantity. Temporary impacts may occur as a result of grading efforts. Temporary impacts will bedetermined as the design progresses. Upon completion of the project, all areas experiencing temporarywetland 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 involvepermanent fill in wetlands requiring a USACE Individual or Nationwide Permit. Since the proposed project willimpact regulated wetlands, Executive Order 11990 will apply. An Executive Order 11990 Wetland Finding willneed to be approved by FHWA stating and supporting that (1) there are no practicable alternatives toconstruction in the wetland(s), and (2) the proposed action includes all practicable measures to minimizeharm to the wetland(s) which may result from such use.

Mitigation Summary

Compensatory mitigation, in all its forms (avoidance, minimization, and compensation), has been consideredin the design of this project, to the extent necessary to ensure that the adverse effects to the aquaticenvironment are minimized to the extent practicable. Mitigation has been defined in NEPA regulations toinclude efforts which: a) avoid; b) minimize; c) rectify; d) reduce or eliminate; or e) compensate for adverseimpacts to the environment [40 CRR 1508.20 (a-e)]. Mitigation of wetland impacts is required in accordancewith Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines of the Clean Water Act (40 CFR 230), FHWA step-down procedures (23CFR 771.1 et seq), mitigation policy mandates, EO 11990 and USFWS mitigation policy directives. Section404(b)(1) Guidelines, the USACE/Environmental Protection Agency Memorandum of Agreement, and EO11990 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 withinthe project study area. Although it may not be possible to avoid all impacts to jurisdictional areas, impacts tostreams and wetlands may be avoided with the use of environmentally sensitive design. Wetland impactshave been prevented by adjusting the roadway alignment to avoid certain areas. The original Alternative A2design and subsequent iterations resulted in impacts to Wetlands B, J, and K; design modifications weremade to avoid impacting them. The most significant avoidance measure involved the extension of flyoverramps to avoid impact to all of Wetland B (0.902 acres).

Minimization: Utilization of Best Management Practices (BMP) is recommended in an effort to minimizeimpacts. Steepening of fill slopes at stream and wetland crossings will continue to be evaluated as designprogresses to reduce unnecessary wetland impacts. Ramp and other roadway geometry changes have beenemployed to minimize wetland/stream impacts. For example, the design speed of Ramp EN was reduced topull in the ramp and minimize/avoid impact to Wetland J. Although detailed culvert design will not occur untilfinal design, preliminary options for culvert locations have been evaluated to assess and identify feasibleoptions with the least environmental impact/greatest ecological benefit. Appropriate sizing of culverts andsensitive placement of drainage structures may help to minimize further degradation of water quality andreduce adverse impacts on aquatic habitat viability in streams and tributaries. Exhibit 4.4.1-4 shows thereduction 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.


4-16

Exhibit 4.4.1-4Summary of Wetland Avoidance/Minimization

WetlandID

WetlandImpacts

AlternativeA2*

Impact(acres)

WetlandImpacts

Alternative A2(with design

modifications)Impact(acres)

Avoidance and Minimization Measures

A 0.047 0.047 N/AB 0.902 0.000 Extension of a flyover rampsI 0.053 0.053 N/AJ 0.064 0.000 Modified ramp geometrics; steepened slopeK 0.037 0.000 Steepened slope

Total 1.103 0.100 Avoidance & minimization resulted in 1.003 acrereduction 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 requirementsto comply with Section 404(b) guidelines.

Permitting & Compensatory Mitigation: Most of the project in the vicinity of the Waters of the United Statesconsists of widening existing highways and ramps, and the construction of new ramps and service lanes. It istherefore anticipated that the project will fall under a Section 404, Nationwide Permit No. 14, “LinearTransportation 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, airportrunways and taxiways) in Waters of the United States.” The New York State Department of EnvironmentalConservation (NYSDEC) has granted Section 401 Water Quality Certification provided that the projectcomplies with the General Conditions, one of which is that “this certification does not authorize dischargesgreater than ¼ acre in size or more than 300 feet of stream disturbance. Because of the anticipated streamdisturbance described in Section 4.4.2, the project may require an Individual Water Quality Certification. Thefinal assessment of the need for an Individual Water Quality Certification will be determined based on impactsassociated with the final design. All required permits will be obtained during the final design phase of theproject. Work will not commence until the permit (s) are acquired and will adhere to any conditions identifiedin the permit documents. The total permanent wetland impacts are based on the worst case full-build scenariofor Alternative A2.

Compensatory mitigation of wetland impacts is required when activities authorized under certain USACENWPs are greater than one tenth of an acre. At this time, mitigation of wetland impacts appears unnecessarybecause review of proposed preliminary design indicates the placement of fill will impact approximately 0.10acres 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 aslong 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 andeastern most portions of the study area; an unnamed tributary to the Erie Canal (T1) that meanders, from the


4-17

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 Railroadcrosses I-390 (see Exhibit 4.4.1-1 in Appendix B). The Erie Canal is classified as a NYSDEC Class Bwaterbody 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 areaof approximately 334 square miles. Project limits were extended in 2011 to include additional land to thesouth along I-390, between Buffalo Road and Interchange 19 at Chili Avenue. An unnamed tributary of theErie 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 culvertsunder 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 theErie 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 Section404 permit. Construction activities will require authorization under a Section 404 permit; therefore, the projectwill also require a NYSDEC Water Quality Certification. Linear road projects having minor impacts typicallyqualify for a Nationwide Permit (NWP) No. 14 [33 CFR §330.5]. This nationwide permit applies to non-tidalwaters provided that the discharge does not cause the loss of greater than a half an acre of “Waters of theUnited States.” All required permits will be obtained during the final design phase of the project. Work will notcommence until the permit(s) are acquired and will adhere to any conditions identified in the permitdocuments.

Work associated with the proposed project would result in modifications to two separate sections of twounnamed 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 extendedupstream (west). Extending the existent culvert with a matching twin box culvert would result inapproximately 0.110 acres of fill at or below the OHWM along 220 linear feet of stream based on currentdesign. If any rip-rap is needed to protect the banks going to the extended culvert opening, the volume offill (i.e., rip-rap) at or below the OHWM would need to be calculated as an additional stream impact duringfinal design. Since there is no way to avoid extending the culvert for this part of the design, impacts wereminimized, to the extent practicable by modifying the original culvert design. Originally, impacts to T1involved 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 by15 linear feet.

(2) At T1A, approximately 518 feet or 0.050 acres would be modified by fill-slopes. This would require theremoval of two existing culverts and installation of two new culverts in order to maintain flow and properdrainage of T1A and its associated drainage basin, including wetlands. The culverts that convey T1Abeneath the I-390 northbound lane and the culvert that carries flow from Wetland B into T1A would beremoved. A new culvert would be installed to convey drainage from the infield area that would be createdby proposed Ramps B and EN; the culvert would daylight into a new stream channel, east of proposedRamp A, where it would then converge with T1A, along the toe of the fill slope to Ramp A. A new culvertwould also be placed to convey surplus water from Wetland B into T1A; the upstream end of the culvertwould be located at or next to the existent culvert opening; the downstream end of the culvert would belocated south of the current culvert end location. The proposed culvert placement required toaccommodate the proposed Ramps A, B and EN would result in a subsequent shift of the T1A channellocation. Approximately 315’ of new stream channel would be constructed to replicate existing conditionsof T1A and avoid loss of function.

A design goal for the proposed re-aligned channel is to mirror the critical characteristics of the existingimpacted channel. It would receive groundwater inputs, maintain the hydrologic connection and filtersediment. Furthermore, it would be adjacent to a forested area, similar to the existing channel, therebymaintaining similar habitat structure. The channel would be further evaluated for the suitability ofmeanders or additional storage capacity to provide structure and habitat similar to existing conditions.


4-18

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 ofopen channel, since the proposed length of stream is less than the impacted length. It is anticipated thatthe proposed length of channel and/or enhancement opportunities will be further reviewed during finaldesign to achieve the same degree of functionality exhibited by the impacted portion of T1A. Thereforethe Department is not proposing any compensation for impacts to T1A, since the impacts will be mitigatedby the realigned channel.

Approximately 218 feet of stream channel would be developed from the down gradient end of the newculvert that would convey water from Wetland A to the up gradient end of the new culvert that surpluswater from Wetland B would drain to and into T1A. Approximately 107 feet of stream channel would bedeveloped to reconnect the portion of T1A being conveyed through the new culvert with the existentchannel of T1A. The hydrologic connection from Wetland I to T1A would be maintained via constructionof a realigned channel, which would convey water from the down gradient end of the new culvert crossingbeneath new proposed Ramps A and B from Wetland I into the 107 feet of proposed channel, then on tothe existent channel of T1A. Based on proposed fill slopes, the original design resulted in a linear impactof 607 feet and an area impact of approximately 0.064 acres; therefore, the modified design discussedabove 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 Waterswould be impacted by the proposed project. The project will not impact T2. Exhibit 4.4.2-1 presents impactsrelative to streams.

Exhibit 4.4.2-1: Summary of Preliminary Stream Impacts*

StreamImpact

IDStream Name

Area ofImpact Linear

Feet ofImpact

Volumeof Impact

belowOHWM**

(CYs)

TemporaryImpacts

IndirectImpactsSF Acres

1 T1 Unnamed Tributaryof Erie Canal

4,803 0.110 220 TBD TBD TBD

2 T1A Tributary of T1 2,173 0.050 518 TBD TBD None dueto channelrelocation

3 T2 Unnamed Tributaryof Erie Canal

0 0 0 0 N/A N/A

TOTAL 6,976 0.160 738 TBD*Drainage and culvert design is not yet available; therefore, stream impacts are preliminary in natureand for order of magnitude assessment only.**OHWM is defined on Page Q-8 (Appendix Q).


4-19

Exhibit 4.4.2-2Summary of Stream Avoidance/Minimization

Stream ID Stream ImpactsAlternative A2*

Stream ImpactsAlternative

A2*(with designmodifications)

Avoidance and Minimization Measures

Areaimpact

(sf)

Linearimpact

(ft)

Areaimpact

(sf)

Linearimpact

(ft)T1 5,132 235 4,803 220 N/AT1A 2,800 607 2,173 518** Maintained similar hydrologic configuration;

maintained connection between Wetland I andT1A; proposed open channel and ditchsegments equal to linear impact

T2 0 0 0 0 Initial avoidanceTotal 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 innature and for order of magnitude assessment only.**Much of the T1A impact is expected to be temporary since the alignment of the stream will beshifted 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 theNYSDEC 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 andsecondary contact recreation.

The unnamed tributaries of the Erie Canal (T1, T1A, and T2) are classified by the NYSDEC as Class Cwaters and they do not meet the State’s definition of navigable; therefore, they are not subject to Article 15regulations. The best usage for Class C waters is fishing. Water quality is suitable for fish propagation andsurvival. The water quality shall be suitable for primary and secondary contact recreation, although otherfactors 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 witha classification of C(t) or higher. The Erie Canal is classified as a Class B stream; therefore, work within thestream would require coverage under an Article 15 Protection of Waters Permit. However, consistent with theMemorandum of Understanding (MOU) between NYSDOT and NYSDEC dated December 1996, NYSDOT isnot required to obtain Individual Permits for projects regulated under Article 15. The MOU does specify theneed for coordination for projects involving “protected” streams. Many water bodies are breeding habitat tofall-spawning trout. Protection of Waters permits typically contain a condition prohibiting in-water workbetween October 1 and April 30, which is the vulnerable spawning, incubation, and early development periodfor these fish; since the Erie Canal does not support population of fall-spawning trout, this work prohibitionperiod would not apply. However, since the Erie Canal supports a warm water fishery, in stream work wouldbe restricted to the period between July 15 and March 15, in any given year. Appropriate managementpractices will be incorporated into a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and utilized to avoid adverseimpacts to water quality. During construction, precautions should be taken to prevent contamination of thestreams by silt, sediment, fuels, solvents, lubricants, or any other pollutants. Upon completion of constructionactivities, all disturbed areas will be restored.


4-20

Mitigation Summary

It is expected that the impacts to T1A associated with the shifted channel, would be compensated for with theapproximately 325 feet of stream channel and approximately 235 feet of ditch that is proposed to maintain thefunction of T1A and hydrologic connectivity of Wetland I to T1A. The combined length of the proposed ditchand stream segments exceeds the proposed linear impact to T1A. The proposed channel would be designedto mimic existing channel conditions and functions, which were created as a result of the construction of aditch 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 theproject 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 habitatenhancement along non-impacted streams, restoration of previously channelized streams, stabilization oferoding banks, and planting of vegetative barriers along wildlife corridors. Additionally, it may be feasible toincorporate 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 purchasedfrom a local mitigation bank.

Mitigation measures will be further evaluated as the project design progresses; selected measures will beincluded 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 oradjacent 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 InventoryList 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 furtherconsideration 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 beimpacted 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


4-21

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. UnderAlternative A2, there would be no impacts to the Erie Canal to the east of the project limits along NY 31. Thebridges that carry NY 390 over the Erie Canal (BIN 4062531 and BIN 4062532) would be rehabilitated asdescribed in Section 3.3.3.6. U.S. Coast Guard Jurisdiction Checklists were completed for each bridge andare included in Appendix E. The checklist determined that a Section 9 Permit would not be required for thebridge carrying NY 390 SB (BIN 4062531) because the rehabilitation would not change the bridge width orvertical and horizontal clearances. The rehabilitation of the bridge carrying NY 390 NB (BIN 4062532) mayrequire a Section 9 permit because the rehabilitation would widen the bridge. A Section 9 Permit ApplicationPackage 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 describedabove. Under Alternative A2, there would be no impacts to the Erie Canal to the east of the project limitsalong NY 31. The bridges that carry NY 390 over the Erie Canal (BIN 4062531 and BIN 4062532) would berehabilitated as described in Section 3.3.3.6. The work proposed on these bridges would not require any workin the Erie Canal. Since this alternative would not involve the creation of any obstruction to the navigablecapacity 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 toevaluate potential encroachments for Alternative A2. The project area includes the Erie Canal, which is amapped stream in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

The floodplain evaluation must comply with the provisions of Executive Order 11988, Flood PlainManagement, as implemented in 23CFR650 Subpart A, Location and Hydraulic Design of Encroachments onFlood Plains and 6NYCRR 502, Flood Plain Management Criteria for State Projects, to determine potentialimpacts on Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) floodplains within the project area. The existingconditions 1% annual chance floodplain boundaries, for the project area, includes the NYS Erie Canal asdetermined 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 FEMAFlood Insurance Study delineates the NYS Erie Canal as a Zone-A. Additionally, there is a Zone-X area inthe 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 encroachmentsdue to proposed roadway and structure work.

There will be no significant impacts to the floodplain or an increase in the 1% annual chance floodplainelevation as a result of the proposed lane widening of the NYS Route 390 NB structure that passes overthe Erie Canal. The existing function of the 1% annual chance floodplain area will be unchanged as a resultof the additional roadway and therefore does not result in an increase in the Base Flood (Q100) elevation forAlternative 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 encroachmentdoes not exist; (2) there is no significant potential for interruption or termination of a transportationfacility which is needed for emergency vehicles; (3) there is no significant risk; and (4) there will be nosignificant impacts on natural and beneficial flood plain value.


4-22

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 theCoastal 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 NYSDOSDivision 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),” datedDecember 2010, the proposed project is not located in a Local Waterfront Revitalization Area. No furtheraction 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 BarrierResources 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 beendetermined that the proposed project is not located in an identified Primary Water Supply or Principal AquiferArea. 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 Sheetsindicates that the project is not located in a Sole Source Aquifer Project Review Area. No federal reviewand/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 issupplied with water from their Shoremont Water Treatment Plant on Lake Ontario. There are no municipaldrinking water wells, wellhead influence zones, or reservoirs within or near the project area.


4-23

4.4.8 Stormwater Management

Site disturbance for this redevelopment project is greater than 1 acre, therefore, a full Stormwater PollutionPrevention Plan (SWPPP) is required for coverage under the State Pollutant Discharge Elimination SystemGeneral Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activity (Permit No. GP-0-10-001). Contained inthe project SWPPP document will be the following: erosion and sediment control designs (E&SC); review ofstormwater management practices to provide for pollutant removal (water quality controls); review of thereduction 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/outletprotection, stone protection, and seeding/soil stabilization operations. In addition, Permanent measures thatwould 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 ofavailable surface area throughout the project limits. A full detailed storm water analysis and assessment canbe found in Appendix J.

The project is not adjacent to, or discharging runoff to, a TMDL Watershed or a listed 303(d) waterbody.


4-24

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 associatedinterchanges, 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 areaconsists 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 northernhardwoods and mowed roadside. Dominant herbaceous vegetation observed includes Grasses (Poa spp.),Goldenrods (Solidago spp.), Common Dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), Perennial Sweet Pea (Lathyruslatifolius), Narrowleaf Plantain (Plantago lanceolata), Violet (Viola sp.), Field Thistle (Cirsium discolor), PoisonIvy (Toxicodendron radicans), Birdsfoot Trefoil (Lotus corniculatus), Wild carrot (Daucus carota) Chives(Allium schoenoprasum) and May Apple (Podophyllum peltatum). Dominant woody vegetation observedincludes Common Buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica), Staghorn Sumac (Rhus typhina), Austrian Pine (Pinusnigra), White Ash (Fraxinus americana), Honey Locust (Gleditisa triacanthos), Norway maple (Acerplatanoides), Riverbank Grapevine (Vitis riparia), Gray Dogwood (Cornus racemosa) American Basswood(Tilia americana) and Shagbark Hickory (Carya ovata). Invasive species observed on-site include ReedCanarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea), Perennial Sweet Pea (Lathyrus latifolius), Common Reed (Phragmitesaustralis), Cow Vetch (Vicia cracca), Garlic Mustard (Alliaria petiolata), Tatarian Honeysuckle (Loniceratatarica), 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 locationimmediately north of Interchange 19 at Chili Avenue. Since the limits were altered after the original fieldscreenings were performed, an ecological screening of the area along I-390 between Buffalo Road and theChili Avenue Interchange has not been performed. A field screening for this portion of the extended projectarea 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 furtherconsideration is required.

Endangered or Threatened Species

Coordination with the NYSDEC and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is required forfederal aid or permitted construction projects. The details of the agency reviews are presented below. TheUSFWS Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Species and Candidate Species list for Monroe Countywas reviewed and the NYSDEC, Division of Fish, Wildlife, & Marine Resources, New York Natural HeritageProgram (NYNHP) was contacted to identify the potential for Federal and/or State-listed endangered orthreatened 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 CandidateSpecies list identifies the Bog Turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii) for Riga and Sweden townships in MonroeCounty (Appendix B); however, since all the project related activities occur in the Town of Gates, nosignificant impacts to the species or its habitat are expected. FHWA concurred with the Department’s “noeffect” 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


4-25

October 7, 2014 (see Appendix B). There is suitable habitat for the Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotisseptentrionalis) a federally proposed listed species within the project area. A biological evaluation supportinga “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” (MANLAA) determination was been sent to FHWA in October2014. In a letter dated November 5, 2014, FHWA concurred with the Department’s determination. Treeremoval 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 fromUSFWS 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 occurwithin 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 theimmediate vicinity of the project site (Appendix B). The species was also included in a list of potentialthreatened and endangered plant species discussed below. Each plant on the list was searched for to see ifit inhabited the project study area relative to each plant’s preferred habitat, when present. The species wasnot found inhabiting the project study area. The specific details of the remaining species on the NYSDOT listand 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 projectstudy area is shown in Appendix B. The preferred habitats of these particular species were screened duringtheir blooming periods in mid-May, mid-July and late August throughout the project study area. The detailsassociated with the screening effort are documented in the Endangered/Threatened Species TechnicalMemo, which is included in Appendix B. The potential threatened and endangered species were determinedto 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 werefound 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 ofInterchange 19 at Chili Avenue. Based on a field review performed by NYSDOT, land within the expandedproject limits does not provide suitable habitat for the endangered/threatened species previously identified asa potential concern for the project area. The NYSDEC-NYNHP was also contacted regarding the potential forendangered and threatened species to occur within the expanded project limits, based on records. TheNYSDEC-NYNHP response letter, dated January 24, 2012, revealed that their databases do not containrecords of endangered and threatened species on-site or within the immediate vicinity of the expanded projectlimits (Appendix B). Therefore, a detailed threatened/endangered species investigation will not be conductedfor 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, 2014the NYS Natural Heritage GIS database was reviewed for any changes in protected species occurring in theproject area. There were no changes from the previous NYSDEC-NYHNP letters dated November 16, 2010and January 24, 2012.

Four types of ecological resources would be impacted by the project. The resources are identified asapproximately 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)); andapproximately 5 acres of brush area. In general, ecological impacts will be limited to land immediatelyadjacent to the mainline and vegetated areas between ramps. The greatest impact to vegetated areas willoccur in association with the 390/490 Interchange. The following table presents a summary of impacts toecological resources relative to type.


4-26

Exhibit 4.4.9-1Summary of Impacts to Ecological Resources

Ecological Resource Area of Impacts(acres) Linear Impact (ft)

Perennial Streams* 0.160 738Wetlands** 0.100 N/AWoodland 15.0 N/AField 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 thatthe network of roads that make up the Interchange is heavily traveled; and, notwithstanding noise barriers, isinherently hazardous to any wildlife moving through the corridor. Wildlife mortality within the corridor isassumed to be high because of the many roads and ramps and their geometry create an environment wheremovement by wildlife would, in most instances, require crossing more than one road. It is possible that localwildlife have learned to avoid the area or those that did not learn to avoid it have been removed from thepopulation 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 situatedbetween the road and some other type of development (e.g., residential, commercial or industrial). In thisparticular project area, however, the areas of successional hardwoods are mainly triangular or rectangular inshape because of the geometry of the Interchange. The majority of successional hardwoods are locatedinside of the Interchange proper and to its outside northeast quadrant, west of the Erie Canal. The otherquadrants outside of the Interchange proper have been developed for residential use, where the dominantecological community is Terrestrial Cultural: mowed lawn and mowed lawn with trees. The area along thecorridor bounded by Buffalo Road to the North; the railroad to the south; Howard Road to the west; and theBarge Canal to the east has been developed for industrial use, including a large quarry. The remainder of thecorridor included in the project study area is mostly successional hardwoods mixed with successional old fieldecological communities and residential land use.

Based on the types of ecological communities present within the project study area and surroundinglandscape, 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 (CastorCanadensis), 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 roadnetwork has been active for a relatively long period of time, most animals that traveled in or through thecorridor have either been killed in collisions with automobiles or have learned routes that allow them to avoidcrossing travel lanes.

Beavers are not as vulnerable to mortality from automobile strikes as other wildlife are because they mostlytravel 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 ofnoise barriers is not expected to have a discernible effect on the movement of local wildlife populationsthrough the transportation corridor or ecological communities when considering the openness of theInterchange Area in conjunction with the locations of the proposed noise walls relative to it. The greater threatto wildlife movement relative to this particular project is the addition of ramps and roads, which would increasethe number of travel lanes that an animal attempting to move through the area would have to cross compared


4-27

to current conditions. The effect of noise barriers on the movement of wildlife would be far greater if the noisebarriers were being constructed along the opposing sides of a divided four lane highway. This project isdifferent, in that the noise barriers are discontinuous and would be placed next to the outer most lanes of theroadway network that makes up the Interchange, leaving adequate open space between noise barriers forwildlife to move through the transportation corridor and not be entrapped in narrow strips of land between aroadway 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 ProjectStudy Area, particularly travel corridors, the effects of noise barriers proposed for the subject project on themovement of wildlife and the local ecosystem can only be discussed in general terms, with manyassumptions. However, by first establishing some principles about the landscape and land use in the ProjectStudy Area, certain assumptions can be validated.

Since the noise barriers would be sited between the outer lanes of the interchange and the adjacentresidential areas, any wildlife travel corridors that may exist would not be constricted between two opposingnoise walls, typical of four lane divided highways that bisect noise sensitive land uses. Should any of theproposed noise barriers transect a wildlife travel corridor, fauna would only be impinged in one directionbecause the proposed barriers are not continuous. This would allow an animal that has reached one of thenoise barriers to either go back in the direction it came from or to continue traveling next to the barrier ineither of two directions until it reaches the end of the barrier or decides to move in a direction away from thebarrier after its initial contact with it.

After the noise barriers have been constructed, it can be expected that wildlife movement through theInterchange Area will adapt in response to their presence; however, since the proposed locations of the noisebarriers relative to the geometry of the Interchange do not completely isolate one or more habitats from thegreater 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 hardwoodcommunities. The permanent impact would be relatively minor, in that the width of the completed wall or anyof its sections is so narrow, but would include removing trees and trimming tree branches. Impacts during theconstruction 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 orwith 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 (Elaeagnusumbellata), 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. UnderExecutive Order 13112, federal agencies cannot authorize, fund or carry out actions that it believes are likelyto cause or promote the introductions or spread of invasive species in the United States or elsewhere unlessall reasonable measures to minimize risk of harm have been analyzed and considered. As such, preventativemeasures and management practices should be utilized to minimize the potential introduction or spread ofany invasive species due to disturbances caused by any construction or disturbance. Suitable measures andpractices 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 speciesare present in the state rights-of-way will be delineated and shown on project plans. Best managementpractices will be used during construction to prevent the promulgation of these species to other project areas.


4-28

Minimizing the amount of soil disturbance during construction would decrease the opportunity for any new ornearby invasive species to spread. Installing temporary erosion and sediment control practices will limit thespread of invasive species by acting as a barrier to reproductive methods. Mulching and seeding disturbedareas with native species as soon as possible after initial construction will limit the opportunity for any invasivespecies to become established or spread. Additionally, construction equipment access and movement shouldbe limited within the project area and all equipment used during construction should be inspected and cleanedprior 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 replacewildlife-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, theproposed 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.


4-29

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 byCongress. This designation applies to all 234 municipalities adjoining the 524 miles of navigable waterwaythat comprise the New York State Canal System. Since the Erie Canal traverses the project area, the projectarea is included in the Erie Canalway National Heritage Area. The Erie Canalway National Heritage Corridoris 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 developmentthroughout the Corridor in a manner that promotes partnerships among the Corridor’s many stakeholders, andreflects, 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 historicpreservation 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 (nowPIN 4390.13), and did not recommend any properties or structures within the Area of Potential Effect asNational Register Eligible or Listed. The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) determined that thisproject will have No Effect upon cultural resources protected by Section 106 of the National Preservation Actin a letter dated August 6, 1999; and FHWA concluded that the requirements of 36 CFR Part 800 have beenmet in a letter dated August 3, 1999. A re-evaluation of the project’s potential resources and effect wereconducted by the SHPO in the fall of 2012; they concurred with the No Effect determination in a letter datedOctober 19, 2012. A copy of this letter is included in Appendix B. In a letter dated November 27, 2012, theFHWA concurred that the undertaking will have No Effect upon cultural resources or historic properties in oreligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and concluded that the requirements of 36CFR Part 800 have been met for the project. A copy of this letter is included in Appendix B.


The Department has determined that there are no properties on, or eligible for, the National Register ofHistoric 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.


4-30

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 surroundingthe 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 MaintenanceAlternative or by Alternative A2.

As discussed in Section 2.3.2.5, the Canalway Trail has a mid-block at-grade crossing of Lyell Avenueadjacent to the bridge over the Erie Canal with sight distance at the crossing limited by the trusses andrailings of the bridge of the Erie Canal. This crossing has been identified as a Safety/Trail Hazard on theParks 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 withthe construction of continuous 5-foot sidewalks and bicycle lanes along both sides of Lyell Avenue fromHoward Road. The construction would improve sight distance to the west of the crossing. Additional safetyimprovements 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 wouldbe 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 trailmay include temporary closure(s) during construction of the bridge rehabilitations. Upon completion ofconstruction, full use of the trail would be restored. During times when the trail would be closed, a detour maybe available using Trolley Blvd. The shoulders on Trolley Blvd are wide enough to contain the pedestrian andbicycle trail traffic. Coordination would be required so that the time for using such a detour would not coincidewith 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. Oneof 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 CanalwayNational Heritage Area.

Under the No-Build/Maintenance Alternative, there would be no change to the Erie Canalway NationalHeritage Area. As described above, the addition of sidewalks along both sides of Lyell Avenue describedabove would provide better pedestrian and bicycle access to the Canalway Trail. The at-grade crossing ofthe Canalway over Lyell Avenue would be made safer. This improved access to the Canalway Trail wouldhelp to promote recreation, tourism and interpretation in the immediate area, and in this way promote themission of the Erie Canalway National Heritage Corridor Commission. Temporary impacts to the CanalwayTrail 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) of the USDOT Act of 1966 (49 USC § 303; 23 CFR §774) prohibits the Secretary ofTransportation from approving any program or project that requires the “use” of (1) any publicly owned


4-31

parkland, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge of national, state, or local significance; or (2) anyland from a historic site of national, state, or local significance (collectively, “Section 4(f) properties”), unlessthere is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of such land and such program or project includes allpossible 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 theprotected activities, features, or attributes that qualify property for protection under Section 4(f) aresubstantially impaired.”

The Canalway Trail is a recreational and transportation resource owned by the NYS Canal Corporation. It isalso considered to be a resource of the Erie Canalway National Heritage Area (see above). The CanalwayTrail 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 ofthe 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 occupanciesof land that are so minimal as to not constitute a use within the meaning of Section 4(f). The followingconditions 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 tothe Section 4(f) property are minimal;

(3) There are no anticipated permanent adverse physical impacts, nor will there be interferencewith the protected activities, features, or attributes of the property, on either a temporary orpermanent basis;

(4) The land being used must be fully restored, i.e. , the property must be returned to a conditionwhich 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 forthe bridge rehabilitations. Work would not be done directly to the trail. The area would be needed forconstruction access and safety. There would be no permanent adverse physical impacts and any damage tothe 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 forconstruction 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 anexception to a Section 4(f) use, and Section 4(f) approval would not be required.


The project does not impact parklands or facilities that have been partially or fully federally funded through theLand 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 RecoveryProgram funds have been applied.


4-32

4.4.13 Visual Resources

The proposed project (new ramps, mainline, bridge and interchange improvements) occurs on an existingmajor interstate expressway along a relatively uniform stretch of corridor between the City of Rochester, Townof Gates and Town of Greece; in addition to improvements to NY State Route 31/Lyell Avenue between theCity 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. Theaddition of the new or reconfigured on/off ramps and mainline ramp will incrementally add to the existingvisual dominance of the interstate corridor with the addition of associated structures (noise walls, mainlinesupport columns). Some of the improvements are reconfigurations or replacements and therefore will notnecessarily result in net additional impacts.

Visual impacts will be mitigated to a large extent with careful construction practices aimed at preservingexisting vegetation, incorporating supplemental landscape plantings in critical impact areas, and byincorporating appropriate context–sensitive design features to enhance the visual environment and quality ofthe 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 notlocated 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 localimportance, as defined by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, to a nonagricultural use.


4-33

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 CleanAir Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA90), the impact of non-exempt transportation projects on air quality mustbe studied to determine if they conform to the purpose of the State Implementation Plan (SIP), which is theattainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Since the project is located in an airquality 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 allcurrent plans and programs including conformity with the SIP for air quality in accordance with requirementsof 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 projectwas done in accordance with the screening process outlined in the NYSDOT Environmental ProceduresManual (EPM)3, January 2001. The first step of the screening consisted of reviewing the predicted level ofservice at the signalized intersections located within the project construction limits.

Level of Service (LOS) ScreeningIntersections 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, retirementcommunities, etc., a microscale analysis may be appropriate. Review of land use in the vicinity of the projectdid not reveal any potentially sensitive receptors.

It has been determined that the proposed Lyell Avenue and Lee Road signalized intersection will operate witha LOS of D for all three of the years during the afternoon peak traffic hour. Therefore, additional screeningwas necessary for that intersection.

Capture Criteria ScreeningA proper comparison between the Build and No-Build alternatives for the Lyell Avenue and Lee Roadintersection 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 ScreeningUsing Table 3C of the referenced EPM section, which is applicable for signalized intersections, peak hourtraffic volume thresholds were determined for the Lyell Avenue and Lee Road intersection. The volumes inthe table are determined using both free-flow and queue link (idling) emission factors. The design category forthis 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 Tablesfor 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 to3214 vph in 2035, which is below the peak hour traffic threshold of 4000 vph, the proposed project does notmeet 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 beenconverted over to the new TEM section.


4-34

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 affecttraffic conditions over a large area. The analysis was conducted for the years 2015, 2025 and 2035. Theseanalysis 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 BuildAlternatives were determined by multiplying the emission factor that was associated with the road segment’sspeed, by the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for that segment.

Emission factors are based on the latest emission model MOBILE6.2 provided by the United StatesEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the latest model input parameters provided by the NYSDepartment of Environmental Conservation. Emission modeling input/output information is detailed in theNYSDOT Mobile6.2 PM10/PM2.5 Emission Factors for Regional, Mesoscale, CMAQ and Microscale Air QualityAnalysis dated June 2008 and Mobile6.2 Emission Factors for Regional, Mesoscale, and CMAQ ProjectCalculations dated April 2008.

The results indicate that the Build Alternative will increase the VMT by a minimum of 1% during the 2015 AMpeak and a maximum of 2.2% during 2035 PM peak. Subsequently, there are increases in CO and NOxlevels due to this increase in VMT. An increase in CO emission levels can also be attributed to an increase inspeed throughout various sections of the project area. VOC levels show a decrease because VOC’s go downas the speed increases. PM2.5 and PM10 values are increasing due to the increase in VMT. PM emissionlevels are independent of speeds.

In summary, the VOC emission burdens are expected to decrease between 0.6% and 9.3% as a result of theimplementation 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 isnot likely to meaningfully increase emissions. Thus, the project qualifies as a “project with low potential MSATeffects” 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 tohealth 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 atthe 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 basisfor identifying and comparing the potential differences among MSAT emissions, if any, from the variousalternatives. The qualitative assessment presented below is derived in part from a study conducted by theFHWA entitled A Methodology for Evaluating Mobile Source Air Toxic Emissions Among TransportationProject Alternatives.

The purpose of the project is to reconstruct the I-390/I-490 and NY 390/Route 31 interchanges to improve theefficiency of the traffic flow within this area of Monroe County. The amount of MSATs emitted is proportionalto 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. Thisincrease is anticipated to be minimal (1% to 2.2%), and according to an FHWA analysis using EPA’s MOBILE6.2 model, insignificant. The FHWA analysis determined that even if the VMT increases by 145 percent, acombined reduction of 72 percent in the total annual emission rate for the priority MSAT is projected from1999 to 2050. This substantial decrease in MSAT emissions is a direct result of cleaner fuels and cleaner


4-35

engines. Local conditions may differ from these national projections in terms of fleet mix and turnover, VMTgrowth rates, and local control measures. However, the magnitude of the EPA-projected reductions is sogreat (even after accounting for VMT growth) that MSAT emissions in the study area are likely to be lower inthe 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 projectwas 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, aLevel I, PM microscale analysis is required and was conducted throughout the project area. The PM2.5 andPM10 analyses were conducted for the critical analysis year that is computed from the traffic volumes andemission factors associated with the years 2015 (ETC), 2025 (ETC + 10) and 2035 (ETC + 20). The criticalyear was determined to be 2015.

PM pollutant concentrations from motor vehicles at roadway intersections are calculated using the CAL3QHCVersion 2.0 computer program. CAL3QHC predicts air pollutant concentrations near highways due toemissions from motor vehicles under free flow conditions, and the estimation of the contribution of emissionsfrom 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 thesignalized intersection at Lyell Avenue and Lee Road. Due to the close proximity of the signalized LyellAvenue and Rossmore Street intersection to the Lyell/Lee intersection, this intersection was also included inthe modeling. These two signalized intersections also have the highest traffic volumes for intersections beingmodified by this project. A total of 39 receptor locations were analyzed in the air quality model. Receptorswere 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 concentrationswere determined by multiplying the predicted 1-hour concentration against the persistence factors of 0.4 and0.08, respectively.

The following tables show the maximum difference between the Build and No-Build alternatives for PM 2.5 andPM10 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

Alternative Receptor 24-Hour Concentration(µg/m3)

Annual Concentration(µg/m3)

Alt A2 Build (PM2.5)R1

1.1148 0.2230

No-Build (PM2.5) 0.9592 0.1918

Difference 0.16 0.03

Alt A2 Build (PM2.5)R3

1.1148 0.2230

No-Build (PM2.5) 0.9592 0.1918

Difference 0.16 0.03

Alt A2 Build (PM10)R3

2.4040 Not Applicable

No-Build (PM10) 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 thatwill occur at Receptors R1 or R3 and these concentrations are compared to the NAAQS and impact


4-36

thresholds. The results of the air quality analysis indicate that the project will have no adverse impact onambient PM levels.

Exhibit 4.4.15-2: Lyell Avenue/NYS 390/Lee Road 2015 (pm peak hour traffic) PredictedConcentrations of PM

Pollutant MeasurementImpact

ThresholdsPredicted

ConcentrationsThreshold

Exceedence

PM2.5Annual Arithmetic Mean 0.3 µg/m3 0.03 µg/m3 No

24-hour Average 5.0 µg/m3 0.16 µg/m3 NoPM10 24-hour Average 5.0 µg/m3 0.33 µg/m3 No

Lead Emissions

Emissions of lead from motor vehicles have decreased significantly as a result of lead being phased out as anadditive in motor vehicle fuels. The FHWA has advised that microscale lead analyses for highway projects isnot needed or warranted. Lead emissions from highways have been virtually eliminated as a result of theregulation and legislation prohibiting the manufacture, sale, or introduction into commerce of any enginerequiring leaded gasoline since model year 1992, sale of only unleaded gasoline, and the requirement forreformulated 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 oftrucks and other dust sources. These requirements will be included as part of the specifications of theconstruction 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 EnvironmentalGuidelines, EPM, NYSDOT in January 2001, Particulate Matter Analysis, Final Policy, NYSDOT, September2004 and the FHWA’s September 30, 2009 “Interim Guidance Update on Air Toxic Analysis in NEPADocuments.” The air quality analysis indicates that the Build Alternative for the proposed project will notsignificantly increase regional emissions, create an air quality violation or cause an air quality impact.


4-37

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 milestraveled (VMT); or have construction costs of $50 million or more. Upon reviewing, “Criteria for DeterminingProjects Requiring an Energy Analysis,” it was found that the construction cost for the project is expected tobe more than $50 million. Additionally, the State Energy Plan, adopted in 2002, calls for the State’stransportation sector to be more energy efficient and sets goals for reducing consumption. Accordingly, thepotential energy effects of the construction and operation of Alternative A2 (Build condition) are compared totaking no action (the No-Build alternative).

Because the project will increase operating speeds and change travel patterns along the project corridor, theproposed project has the potential to affect energy consumption. Both the potential direct and indirect energyimpacts of the proposed project are analyzed based on guidance and procedures developed by NYSDOT forestimating the energy impacts from the construction and operation of transportation projects.

B. Methodology

B.1 Energy AnalysisThe energy analysis for this project was conducted in accordance with the methodology identified in theDecember 13, 2011 letter prepared by Shumaker Consulting Engineering & Land Surveying, P.C. Theproposed methodology for the energy analysis was approved by NYSDOT Region 4 and is based onNYSDOT’s Draft Energy Analysis Guidelines for Project-Level Analysis, dated November 2003. The energyanalysis addresses two elements: direct and indirect energy consumption. Direct energy refers to the fuelconsumed by vehicles using the highway facility. Indirect energy refers to energy associated with theconstruction and operation of the facility.

B.1.1 Direct EnergyDirect energy impact is defined as the energy consumed by vehicles using a facility based on vehicularvolumes, weight and average travel speeds. The direct energy analysis is conducted using the Urban FuelConsumption Method (UFCM) for light duty vehicles and medium and heavy trucks described in NYSDOT’senergy analysis guidelines.

Much of the input data for this analysis was developed for use in the project’s air analysis and provided tosupport the energy analysis. A spreadsheet that incorporates the link by link numbered segments with linklengths and average AM and PM vehicle speeds as developed for the Mesoscale Air Analysis is included inAppendix L. The analysis included an evaluation of ETC (2015) and ETC+20 (2035) for both the No Build andAlternative A2 conditions. Although the analysis could include an evaluation of ETC+10, the major energyimpacts can be described and evaluated in terms of ETC and ETC +20 (ETC would fall somewhere in themiddle). 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. Trafficdata 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 consumptionrates.

- The effect of slowdowns and stop conditions associated with urban traffic is built into the averagetravel speeds and fuel consumption rates of the UFCM.

- The project terrain is characterized as generally level (located 4 miles south of Lake Ontario). Theramps do exhibit grade changes; however, the impact of the grade change at the ramps would have


4-38

an overall small effect on the outcome of the analysis. As such, the impact of grade changes wasconsidered 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 studythroughout the I-390/NYS Route 390 corridor and the I-390/NYS Route 390/I-490 and NYS Route 390/NYSRoute 31 interchanges. A total of eight loops/paths of travel were conducted through the corridor to obtainrepresentative samples of travel time in different directions (Exhibit 2.3.1.5 (2)-1, Appendix C). The details ofthe study are provided in Section 2.3.1.5(2) of this Design Report. Readings were taken to quantify the timenecessary to traverse the corridor and sources of delay were noted. Peak hour travel times were obtainedfrom the 2009 VISSIM model to compare the calibrated existing model to the existing conditions. Additionallythe future travel times and the resultant average peak hour speeds were calculated for the No Build andAlternative A2 conditions for the ETC (2015) and ETC+20 (2035) design years using the VISSIM trafficmodel. The morning and evening peak hour speeds were averaged to produce a daily average speed for thedaily 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 asdescribed in Section 2.3.1.6. The annual VMT for the No Build and Alternative A2 was calculated from thesummation of link AADT x 365 days per segment length. The daily percentage of heavy vehicles was takenfrom Exhibit 2.3.1.6 (1)-6. A more detailed breakdown of vehicle mix for the project was developed based ona recent NYSDOT tube classification count on NYS Route 390 between the I-390/NYS Route 390/I-490Junction 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 onan average vehicle weight and average speed for each link and time period, using values provided inNYSDOT’s Draft Energy Analysis Guidelines, which adjusts 1980 base year factors for No-Build and Buildconditions 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 morningand evening weekday peak hours, VMT by link by time period was multiplied by its corresponding fuelconsumption rate and summed. The peak hour results were then factored using 24-hour Automatic TrafficRecording (ATR) counts to get daily fuel use, even though the higher off-peak travel speeds would slightlyreduce 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 wasdeveloped from ATR counts for the period 2000 through 2004 provided by NYSDOT.

B.1.2. Indirect EnergyThe remaining energy impacts are the indirect energy associated with constructing, operating and maintaininga facility. The indirect energy analysis was conducted using the Input-Output Approach identified inNYSDOT’s Draft Energy Analysis Guidelines for Project-Level Analysis. Maintenance Energy is based on thelane-miles of pavement type for a facility. The indirect energy analysis is focused on the differences in theenergy consumed due to construction between the No-Build and the Build alternatives. Construction energy


4-39

covers production and transport of materials, powering on-site equipment, worker transportation and otherfactors plus the materials used in construction itself.

Construction Energy

Construction energy is the energy consumed during construction based on an established energy factor perdollar of construction costs, annualized by dividing total project costs by 20 years. The estimate cost ofconstruction reported for all segments of the subject project at this time is approximately $100M. The energycoefficient per unit cost of construction is derived from a highway construction price index provided in theguidance document, in which the published 1977 dollar values are adjusted for a future year of construction of2015 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 constructioncosts 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 roadwaymaintenance (patching, crack sealing, lighting, landscape maintenance, etc.) based on the total lane-miles foreach alternative. Annual energy consumption for maintenance per lane mile is provided in the guidancedocument.

B.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions AnalysisThe 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 energyuse by motor vehicles (direct energy), and for virtually all energy embedded in the construction materials andused during construction and maintenance of the roadway (indirect energy). Thus, this analysis of potentialemissions of greenhouse gases uses the results from the direct and indirect energy analyses above and isreported as total carbon emissions.

B.2.1 CO2 Emissions Estimates From Direct Energy ConsumptionIt is assumed that CO2 emissions from Direct Energy Consumption of a roadway project are the result of thecombustion of motor vehicle fuel. Therefore, this analysis employed Carbon Emission Coefficients for motorvehicle fuel to calculate the carbon equivalent of CO2 emissions resulting from operation of each of the projectalternatives. 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 EnergyThe results of the analysis show that the potential future direct annual energy consumption for the BuildAlternative A2 would be less than the energy consumption for the No-Build alternative. This change would belargely due to the improved operating conditions through the I-390/NYS Route 390/I-490 interchange/NYSRoute 390/NYS Route 31 interchange area including the addition of the NYS Route 390/I-490 Interchangebypass, elimination of and smoothing of weaving conditions, and the elimination of a closely spacedintersection on Lyell Avenue (NY 31). Exhibit 4.4.16-1 provides a comparison of the vehicle miles of travelalong the I-390/NYS Route 390 corridor for 2015 and 2035 for the No Build and Build conditions. Exhibit4.4.16-2 provides a summary of the resulting Direct Energy Consumption. It shows that the Build Alternativewill require less vehicular energy consumption in the future compared to the less efficient No-Build (existing)roadway configuration.


4-40

Exhibit 4.4.16-1: Annual Travel Along Project Corridor

Alternative Vehicle Miles ofTravel (millions)2015 2035

No Build 139.6 153.7Build (Alternative A2) 143.6 159.0

% Difference Build vs. No-Build + 2.8% +3.4%

Exhibit 4.4.16-2: Annual Direct Energy Consumption

AlternativeDirect EnergyConsumption(billion BTU)

2015

Direct EnergyConsumption(billion BTU)

2035No Build 29660 29745

Build (Alternative A2) 20040 20366Difference Build vs. No-Build 9620 9109

% Difference Build vs. No-Build -32.4% -30.6%

C.1.2 Indirect EnergyThe indirect energy calculations account for the energy expected to be expended during construction undereach of the proposed alternatives. Between the No-Build and Build alternatives, the analysis predictablyshows that the No Build alternative would result in the least amount of indirect energy expended, and thatconstruction of the Build alternative would produce higher indirect energy demands than for the No-Buildalternative. A summary of the indirect energy results is presented in Exhibit 4.4.16-3. The resulting indirectenergy consumption has been annualized over 20 years (i.e., the total Indirect Energy Consumption forroadway construction has been divided by 20).

Exhibit 4.4.16-3: 2015 Construction Year Indirect Energy Consumption

Alternative 2015 Construction CostIndirect EnergyConsumption2

(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 berefined as necessary.

(2) Includes energy required annually for roadway maintenance and operation.

Exhibit 4.4.16-4: Total Estimated Energy Use (Direct and Indirect)

AlternativeTotal EnergyConsumption(billion BTU)

2015

Total EnergyConsumption(billion Btu)

2035No Build 29666 29751

Build (Alternative A2) 20155 20481Difference Build vs. No-Build 9511 9270

% Difference Build vs. No Build -32.1% -31.1%


4-41

C.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis

C.2.1 CO2 Emissions Estimates From Direct Energy ConsumptionTo calculate CO2 emissions from roadway project Direct Energy Consumption, it can be assumed that theenergy consumed from vehicles using the transportation facility is a result of the combustion of motor vehiclefuel. Therefore, the CO2 emissions resulting from direct energy consumption on roadway projects can bedetermined by multiplying the total direct energy consumption (Exhibit 4.4.16-2) by the Carbon EmissionCoefficient for motor vehicle fuel (19.34 million metric tons of carbon per quadrillion Btu). This product is thenmultiplied by a factor of 0.99, which represents the percent of carbon oxidation. A factor of 1.102 is alsoapplied for the metric ton conversion.

Since the analysis shows the No-Build alternative results in higher direct energy effects compared to the Buildalternative during the project life, as congestion increases, it follows that the future greenhouse gas emissionsfor the No-Build alternative are also predicted to be slightly higher than the Build alternative in the future. Theresults 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

AlternativeCarbon Emissions

(Tons per Year)2015 2035

No Build 625,813 627,733Build (Alternative A2) 422,835 429,714

C.2.2 CO2 Emissions Estimates From Indirect Energy ConsumptionTo calculate CO2 emissions from roadway project Indirect Energy Consumption, it can be assumed that theindirect energy consumed during construction and maintenance operations is a result of the combustion ofdiesel fuel. Therefore, the CO2 emissions resulting from indirect energy consumption on roadway projects canbe determined by multiplying the total indirect energy consumption (Exhibit 4.4.16-3) by the Carbon EmissionCoefficient for diesel fuel, which is19.95 million metric tons of carbon per quadrillion Btu. This product is thenmultiplied by a factor of 0.99, which represents the percent of carbon oxidation. A factor of 1.102 is alsoapplied for the metric ton conversion.

The Indirect Greenhouse Gas Energy analysis shows that the No-Build alternative would result in a lowerlevel of greenhouse gas emissions. As stated above, the construction work required under the Buildalternative would contribute to higher indirect energy requirements, and therefore higher predicted emissionsof greenhouse gases compared to the No-Build alternative. A summary of the estimated CO 2 emissions fromindirect energy consumption are presented in Exhibit 4.4.16-6.

Exhibit 4.4.16-6: Total Carbon (CO2) Emissions Estimated from Indirect Energy Consumption



No Build 123 123Build (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 ProjectTotal carbon emissions in 2015 and 2035 for the project are presented in Exhibit 4.4.16-7. The analysisshows that the No-Build alternative would result in 30% higher emissions compared to the Build AlternativeA2 in both years.


4-42

Exhibit 4.4.16-7: Total Carbon (CO2) Emissions Estimated



No Build 625,704 627,728Build (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 vehicularfuel consumption. Likewise, total direct carbon emissions (and therefore CO2 emissions) are reduced as well.The actual carbon emissions benefit in 2035 may be less substantial than what has been calculated as aresult of the widespread introduction of hybrid vehicles (not factored into this analysis). Hybrid vehicles are farless prone to inefficiencies at very low travel speeds; therefore, the improved operating efficiencies realizedwith the Build Alternative would result in a smaller carbon emissions benefit.

Since the energy analysis demonstrates that the proposed Build alternative will improve operating efficiencywithin the project corridor compared to the No Build condition no energy conservation or mitigation measuresarea recommended with respect to energy related effects.


4-43

4.4.17 Noise

This project consists of the addition of an auxiliary lane, significant relocation of Route 390 and interchangeentrance and exit ramps. Therefore, this project is considered a Type I project in accordance with Chapter I ofTitle 23, Code of Federal Regulations (23 CFR 772) and a noise study is required. The Noise Study Report isincluded in Appendix N. The purpose of the study was to identify potential future traffic noise impacts for theNull Alternative and Build Alternative A2.

4.4.17.1 Land Use DeterminationNoise abatement criteria (NAC) developed by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), define limits fordetermining impacts due to traffic noise levels in areas based on defined land use. Existing land uses weredetermined for the project area, and NAC corresponding to the land uses were assigned. FHWA Land UseCategories assigned to the particular areas of the project are shown in the Noise Study Report. The projectarea 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 outdooractivity use, and this is considered Activity Category E. The remaining project area consists of industrial andwarehouse land use, office/ commercial with no exterior activity (Activity Category F), and undeveloped landsthat are not permitted (Activity Category G).

4.4.17.2 Existing and Future Noise LevelsNoise measurements were taken at 18 separate locations within the project area between November 2010and December 2011. These measurements were used to “validate” the traffic noise prediction modeling withinthe project area. The noise measurements also provided a basis for establishing the modeled noise receptorsites within the project area. The predicted design year noise levels for the noise receptor sites are based onloudest hour traffic noise.

Using the predicted traffic noise levels, a noise impact analysis was performed. Federal regulations (23 CFR772) define traffic noise impacts as "occurring when the predicted traffic noise levels approach or exceed theNAC, or when the predicted noise levels are substantially higher than the existing levels." In practice, theNYSDOT definition of this regulation quantifies "approach" as within 1 dBA and "substantially higher” as6 dBA or greater. Therefore, an impact is considered to occur if the predicted future noise level is one decibellower, equals or exceeds the NAC, or is 6 dBA or more above the existing noise level. If an impact isdetermined, 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 theNull Alternative and Alternative A2 are summarized in Appendix N. Noise impacts will occur at 45 analysissites (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 inExhibit 4.4.17-1.

Exhibit 4.4.17-1Traffic Noise Impacts Summary

AlternativeNumber of Impacts

(Existing Conditions)Number of Impacts

(Design Year – 2035)Category B Category E Category B Category E

Null 144 0 144 0Alt A2 144 0 144 0

4.4.17.3 Noise Abatement AnalysisThe FHWA’s regulations contained in 23 CFR 772 and the NYSDOT Noise Analysis Policy and Proceduresrequire the consideration of abatement measures for all areas where traffic noise impacts are predicted tooccur. Measures to be considered include: traffic management measures; alterations of horizontal and verticalalignments; construction of noise barriers; acquisition of real property; and noise insulation of publicly ownedschool buildings.


4-44

Since Route 390 is contained within an existing highway corridor, realignment is not feasible. A number ofalternative alignment configurations were evaluated in the development of this project. Therefore, any furtheralterations to the alignments to reduce noise levels are not feasible. Acquisition of real property would have asignificant impact on the community, prohibiting usage by certain vehicles would affect the community, asthose 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 effectiveand appropriate measure at reducing future traffic noise for impacted residences. Barrier locations and detailsare identified in Appendix N.

All of the evaluated noise barriers for this project were found to satisfy NYSDOT’s acoustical feasibility andreasonableness criteria. The modeled noise barriers would provide noise abatement for 187 residentialdwelling units. The modeled noise barrier average heights would range between approximately 13 and 15feet, have an approximate range in length of 2100 to 3845 feet, and would provide up to 12 decibels ofattenuation. The estimated cost index for the noise barriers ranges between 640 and 1789 square feet of wallper benefited receptor, which is below the maximum allowable value of 2,000 square feet of wall per benefitedreceptor. Additional engineering analysis will need to be completed during the final design phase to refine wallgeometry (heights and lengths), and the cost estimate.

A public information campaign was conducted to gage reaction to the construction of noise barriers next toresidential properties within the project area. A meeting was held with property owners and occupants, andletters were sent to a wide range of residences in the affected area. Results of the viewpoints obtained fromthe benefited property owners and residents indicate a favorable response to the construction of all theproposed noise barriers

A discussion about the potential impact of noise barriers on wildlife movement and their effect on theecological 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 shortduration basis during construction. The managing of construction activities to reduce the effects ofconstruction noise on receptors can be achieved using an approach consisting of design modifications, thereduction 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 reductiontechniques, but not eliminated. Public relations can be used to advise the residents of construction activitiesto curtail a possibly adverse community reaction.

The complete noise study is included in Appendix N.


4-45

4.4.18 Asbestos

Screening

An asbestos screening has been performed for this project. The screening included a review of As-builtrecord plans and a site visit. Review of record plans and observations made during the preliminary on-sitevisit indicate the presence of suspect asbestos-containing material (ACM) within the project corridor. It hasbeen determined that there are three (3) areas of potential asbestos material: 1) potential for the acquisitionand demolition of five (5) existing buildings, 2) the existing utility lines which are indicated to be present withinthe sidewalks of two (2) bridges, and 3) miscellaneous material throughout all seven (7) bridge structureswhich 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. Ifasbestos is determined to be present on the project, an Asbestos Special Note and Specification will need tobe 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 thebridges 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 needto be prepared by NYSDOT personnel or a consultant with an Asbestos Designer


4-46

4.4.19 Hazardous Waste and Contaminated Materials

Screening and Site Assessment

A Hazardous Waste/Contaminated Materials Site Screening has been conducted in accordance withNYSDOT’s The Environmental Manual in order to document the likely presence or absence ofhazardous/contaminated environmental conditions. A hazardous/contaminated environmental condition is thepresence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products (including products currentlyin compliance with applicable regulations) on a property under conditions that indicate an existing release, apast release, or a material threat of a release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products intostructures on the property or into the ground, ground water, or surface water of the property. Refer toAppendix P for the Hazardous Waste / Contaminated Materials Screening Technical Memorandum.

The Hazardous Waste/Contaminated Materials Site Screening included a review of NYSDEC and EPAregulatory data files.

The findings of the Hazardous Waste/Contaminated Materials Site Screening identified 31 sites of concernwithin or adjacent to the project area where contaminated materials are suspected to be present (Exhibit4.4.19-1 below). The locations of these sites of concern are shown on Exhibits 4.4.19-2 and 4.4.19-3, locatedin Appendix B.

The 31 sites of concern were evaluated to determine if they will have a negative impact on the proposed buildalternative (Alternative A2). Based on this evaluation it was determined that eight of the 31 sites of concernmay either be impacted by, or have a negative impact on, the proposed build alternative. A summary of all ofthe sites of concern and their potential project impacts is summarized in Exhibit 4.4.19-1.


4-47

Exhibit 4.4.19-1Hazardous Waste / Contaminated Materials Screening Summary

NYS Route 390 and NYS Route 390/I-490/NYS Route 31 Interchange Improvements

SiteNo. Site Name/ Address Environmental

ListingEnvironmental

Concern(s) Potential Site Impacts Recommended Action

1 Dearcop FarmLandfill92 Dearcop Road

CERCLIS,NYSDEC Haz.Waste Site

Existing on-sitecontamination

The installation of the noisebarriers along the I-390northbound ramp to I-490eastbound will not impact the fillassociated with the Landfill.

Screening during constructionadjacent to this site

2 MCEMC Waste SiteGates 6, BuffaloRoad, in InterstateRoute 490

MCEMC SolidWaste C&DDebris

Possibility forencountering on-sitesolid waste

None anticipated. No work isproposed at or adjacent to this site

None anticipated

3 MCEMC Waste SiteGates 33 West ofLexington & Route390 (same as #4)




None anticipated

4 Eastman Kodak RPMSite 1 Bellwood Drive(same as #3)

RCRIS:HazardousWaste Generator

Possibility forencounteringcontaminated soiland/or groundwater


None anticipated

6 Amerada Hess BulkTerminal, 1975 LyellAvenue

RCRIS:HazardousWaste generator,NYSDEC MOSF,Multiple Spill Site,EPA AIRSDatabaseEmission Source

Potential forencounteringcontaminated soiland/or Groundwater

Contamination maybe encounteredalong the western portion of theproperty during the construction ofRamps A and B.

Screening during constructionadjacent to facility

7 Wilson Farms/SugarCreek/ Sunoco 2032Lyell Avenue

RCRIS:HazardousWaste generator,PBS facility,multiple spill site

Potential forencounteringcontaminated soiland/or groundwater

Contamination will likely beencountered during thereconstruction of Lyell Avenue andintersection improvements at theintersection Lyell Ave. and LeeRoad. Two monitoring wells willlikely be impacted.

Screening during constructionadjacent to facility. Closureand removal of undergroundstorage tanks. A wellabandonment specification willbe added to the constructiondocuments. Replacement ofthe monitoring wells may berequired.


4-48






8 Rochester IndustrialRepair/ formerConolly Printing1940 Lyell Avenue

RCRIS:HazardousWaste Generator,PBS Facility,multiple spill site

Potential forencounteringcontaminated soiland/or groundwater

Although unlikely, contaminationmaybe encountered during thereconstruction of Lyell Avenue.

Screening during constructionadjacent to facility.

10 MCEMC Waste SiteGates 23Erie Canal & NYSRoute 390



Minimal potential, proposed workis located within the existinghighway boundary.

Add a note on plans indicatingC&D debris may beencountered.

11 MCEMC Waste SiteGates 28Buffalo Road & I-390



None anticipated. Proposed workis located at the Buffalo RoadBridge over I-390 and within theexisting highway for proposed I-390 SB improvements.

None anticipated

16 Wegmans FoodMarket2301 Lyell Avenue

RCRIS:HazardousWaste GeneratorNPDES Permit


None anticipated. No violationreported at the facility

None Anticipated

17 Taco Bell/ formerExxonmobil Station/2317 Lyell Avenue

Multiple Spill Site,PBS FacilitySPDES Permit



Screening during constructionadjacent to facility.

22 Lilac Laundry Inc.2415 Lyell Avenue



None Anticipated. Proposedimprovements to Lyell Ave. at thislocation will not encroach on theproperty.

None Anticipated

23 Monro Muffler Brake35 Howard Road




None Anticipated


4-49






24 Gates Cleaning2356 Lyell Avenue

RCRIS:HazardousWaste GeneratorEPA AIRSDatabaseEmission Source



None Anticipated

26 North AlbanyTerminals(Alaskan Oil,Supreme Energy)

NYSDEC MOSF,Multiple Spill SiteRCRIS:HazardousWaste GeneratorEPA AIRSDatabaseEmission Source


The proposed project will includethe acquisition of the northernportion of the driveway to the site.Contamination may beencountered during construction.

Screening during constructionadjacent to facility. Due to thenumerous spills reported atthis facility it is recommendedthat the recommended soilscreening be conducted alongLyell Avenue between thedriveway to the facility and thecanal.

29 SalvageManagement522 TrolleyBoulevard

NoEnvironmentalListing – SalvageYard


None anticipated. Proposed workis located within the existinghighway boundary.

None anticipated

40 LeChaseConstruction300 TrolleyBoulevard



None anticipated. No violationreported at the facility andproposed work is located within theexisting highway boundary.

None anticipated

46 CJ Winter MachineWorks130 Albert Street

EPA AIRS DataBase AirEmissionsSource



None anticipated

47 Merkel Donohue500 TrolleyBoulevard

EPA BRSDatabase Haz.Waste Generator



None anticipated

48 Tubetech Inc.500 TrolleyBoulevard




None anticipated


4-50






49 Tra-Lin Corp.15 Evelyn Street




None anticipated

61 Dolomite Products900 Howard Road

EPA AIRS DataBase AirEmissionsSource



None anticipated

63 Diocese of Rochester1150 Buffalo Road



Minimal potential, proposed workis located within the existingroadway alignment.

None anticipated

64 Dolomite ProductsCo., Inc.1075 Buffalo Road




None anticipated

69 955 Buffalo Road,Inc.955 Buffalo Road




None anticipated

70 CumberlandFarms/Gulf TerminalAlso known asChevron terminal837 Buffalo Road

NYSDEC MOSFMultiple Spill SiteEPA AIRSDatabaseEmission Source



None anticipated

79 Alfred C. ProctorEnterprises2269 Lyell Avenue

FIFRA Possibility forencounteringcontaminated soiland/or groundwater

None anticipated. No violationreported at the facility.

None Anticipated


4-51






80 Monroe CountyWater AuthorityLyell Avenue at NY390 (at orimmediately adjacentto site 74)




None Anticipated

81 NYSDEC/Spill Unit(Lyell Avenuebetween) Lee Roadand NY 390

RCRIS:HazardousWaste Generator,Spill Site


None anticipated. Spills andgenerator status appears to berelated to a surface spill clean-up.

None Anticipated

82 Hess gasoline Station1954 Lyell Avenue

RCRIS:HazardousWaste GeneratorMultiple Spill Site


Contamination maybe encounteredduring the reconstruction of theLyell Avenue along the propertyfrontage.

Screening during constructionalong the property frontage.

83 Sofia Collision andFrame1931 Lyell Ave

EPA AIRSDatabaseEmission Source



None Anticipated

84 Lexington Machining677 Buffalo Road

NYSDEC Spills Possibility forencounteringcontaminated soiland/or groundwater

None Anticipated None Anticipated


4-52

The eight sites of concern that may either be impacted by, or have a negative impact on, the proposed buildalternative 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. TheDearcop Farm Landfill is located at the southeast corner of the I-390/I-490 interchange. A portion ofthe 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 suspectedthat 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 toI-490 eastbound, the proposed construction depth will not penetrate into waste associated with thelandfill. Therefore it is anticipated the Dearcop Farm Landfill will not have a negative impact on theproposed project. As a precautionary measure, during highway reconstruction within the extent of theDearcop Farm Landfill site, screening for volatiles is recommended.

b) Amerada Hess Bulk Terminal (Site no. 6)1975 Lyell AvenueSta. A15+00 – A26+50,Sta. B14+00 – B20+50, andSta. LA124+00 – LA127+00The Amerada Hess Bulk Terminal (Hess Terminal) is located near the southeast corner of the LyellAvenue/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 airemission source. The Hess MOSF has a capacity of approximately 7.7 million gallons of variouspetroleum 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 ofthe NYSDEC. Although there are no active spills at this facility, residual contamination may bepresent.

Alternative A2 proposes the acquisition of the undeveloped southwestern corner of the Hess Terminalproperty and improvements to Lyell Avenue along the northern property line. As a result of thecontinued 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 addedto the contract documents for screening, segregating and disposing of non-hazardous petroleumcontaminated soil. The plans will identify this property as a location where petroleum contaminationmay be encountered.


4-53

c) Monroe County Environmental Management Council (MCEMC) Waste Site – Gates 23 (Site No. 10)Sta. SB233+50 – SB236+00The MCEMC waste site – Gates 23 is located southwest of NYSDOT Bridge BIN 4062531, NY 390SB 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 beencountered. A specification will be added to the contract documents describing procedures forscreening, sampling and potential disposal of contaminated soil.

d) Taco Bell / Former Exxonmobil Station (Site no. 17)2317 Lyell AvenueSta. LA93+50 – LA96+00The Taco Bell/former Exxonmobil Gasoline Station is located at the western terminus of the proposedimprovements to Lyell Avenue. A Taco Bell Restaurant currently occupies the site. Prior to 2008 thesite was occupied by an Exxonmobil Gasoline Station. There has been one reported spill at this sitesince 2002. This spill was reported January 22, 2007 as the result of a Phase II subsurfaceinvestigation that identified a petroleum like sheen on a groundwater sample obtained from amonitoring well. In March 2007, USTs and associated piping and product dispensers were removedfrom the site. Approximately 160 tons of contaminated soil was also removed from the site.Subsequent groundwater sampling indicated that trace levels of petroleum contamination werepresent at this site. In March 2008, based on a continued decrease in detectable petroleumcontamination in the groundwater, a request for spill closure was submitted to the NYSDEC. This spillwas closed by the NYSDEC in April 2008.

Alternative A2 proposes the addition of a sidewalk along Lyell Avenue and improvements to thewestern Lyell Avenue entrance to the Wegmans Plaza adjacent to this site. Although the spill at thissite is considered closed by the NYSDEC, residual contamination is likely present. Therefore aspecification will be added to the contract documents for screening, segregating and disposing ofnon-hazardous petroleum contaminated soil for the proposed work adjacent to this site. The projectplans 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 AvenueSta. LA 120+50 – LA122+50, andSta. LR10+00 – LR11+25The Wilson Farms/Sugar Creek/Sunoco Gasoline Station is located at the northeast corner of theLyell Avenue and Lee Road intersection. A closed gasoline station currently occupies the site. Siteimprovements include a building located along the northern property line. The site is listed as aformer 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 wereinstalled 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 thesatisfaction of the NYSDEC. The second spill was reported as a tank test failure in 2006. The failureappears to have been related to improperly installed piping. This problem was rectified and the spillwas closed.

The third spill was reported to the NYSDEC in December 2009 as a result of contaminationencountered during a Phase II environmental site assessment. Under a consent order from theNYSDEC, four (4) USTs were removed in July 2010. After the tanks were removed a subsurfaceinvestigation was conducted at the site. This investigation included the installation of five (5) test pits


4-54

and eight (8) soil borings. Monitoring wells were installed in four (4) of the eight (8) soil borings. Soiland groundwater samples were obtained and submitted for laboratory analysis. The laboratory resultsindicated petroleum contamination is present in both the soil and groundwater at this site. Based oninformation provided by the NYSDEC, contamination at this site is primarily located beneath theeastern portion of the site.

Alternative A2 proposes the acquisition of a portion of the property frontages along Lee Road andLyell Avenue. Based on the information obtained from the NYSDEC, contamination is present alongthe southern portion of the property adjacent to Lyell Avenue. Therefore, petroleum contaminated soilwill likely be encountered during construction. In addition, two (2) of the monitoring wells will likely beimpacted by the construction of Alternative A2.

A Geophysical Survey was conducted by AMEC Environment and Infrastructure Inc. (AMEC) on April27, 2014 (see Appendix P Hazardous Waste/Contaminated Materials Screening Report). This surveyindicates the potential presence of three Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) on the property. Thepresence 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 ofnon-hazardous petroleum contaminated soil for the proposed work adjacent to the site. Aspecification for the proper removal and disposal of the potential USTs will also be included in thecontract documents. In addition, a specification for the proper closure of the monitoring wells and theinstallation of replacement monitoring wells will be included in the construction documents for theimpacts to this site. The project plans will identify this site as a location where petroleumcontamination will likely be encountered. The location of the monitoring wells at this site will also becalled out on the project plans.

f) Hess Gasoline Station (Site no. 82)1954 Lyell AvenueSta. LA124+50 – LA127+75The Hess gasoline station is located on the north side of Lyell Avenue between Lee Road and theErie Canal. The site is listed as a PBS facility, a generator of hazardous waste, and a location ofmultiple reportable spills.

There are five (5) active USTs at this site. The USTs are located along the northern portion of theproperty. According to the NYSDEC records, four (4) USTs were removed from the site in 1998 andreplaced 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 beingreleased 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 thereare no active spills at this site, based on the usage of the property as a gasoline station, petroleumcontamination may be present. Therefore a specification will be added to the contract documents forscreening, segregating and disposing of non-hazardous petroleum contaminated soil for the proposedwork adjacent to the site. The plans will identify this property as a location where petroleumcontamination may be encountered.

g) Rochester Industrial Repair/former Conolly Printing (Site no. 8)1940 Lyell AvenueSta. LA127+60 – 128+60Rochester Industrial Repair is an electronics repair facility on the north side of Lyell Avenueapproximately 250 feet west of the Erie Canal. Conolly Printing, a printing facility, operated from thislocation prior to 2001. This site is listed as a former PBS facility, a generator of hazardous waste, andis a NYSDEC spill site.


4-55

In 1996 an underground fuel oil storage tank was removed from this site. According to the NYSDECspills data base a fuel oil spill was reported at the time of the tank removal. This spill was closed in2000. There has been one spill reported at this facility since 2002. Reportedly an unknown volume ofsolvent was release to the sewer and air in August 2005. This spill was reported closed the followingday.

Alternative A2 includes the acquisition of a portion of the properly along Lyell Avenue. Although thereare 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 forscreening, segregating and disposing of petroleum/solvent contaminated soil at this site. The projectplans will identify this site as a location where soil contamination may be encountered.

h) North Albany Terminals (Site no. 26)1935 Lyell AvenueSta. LA27+00 – LA27+50, andSta. LA27+50 – LA132+00 (325 feet south)North Albany Terminals is a MOSF located east of and adjacent to the Hess Terminal. With theexception of the driveway to the site, North Albany Terminals does not have frontage along LyellAvenue. The main operations at 1935 Lyell Avenue are situated approximately 325 feet south of LyellAvenue and south of the 1931 Lyell Avenue property. Since 2002, the facility at 1935 Lyell Avenuehas 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 multiplereportable spills.

There have been 20 spills reported at this facility since 2002. Nineteen (19) of the spills areconsidered closed by the NYSDEC. The open spill at this facility is related to the presence of anunknown 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 sitehas minimal frontage along Lyell Avenue, due to the numerous spills at this facility, a specification willbe added to the contract documents for screening, segregating and disposing of non-hazardouspetroleum contaminated soil for the proposed work from the western portion of the driveway to 1935Lyell Avenue to the Erie Canal. The project plans will identify this area as a location where petroleumcontamination may be encountered.

In addition to the eight sites of concern, there are 19 bridges located within or adjacent to the project corridorthat are painted. The location of the 19 bridges are shown on Exhibit 4.4.19-4 and 4.4.19-5, included inAppendix B. All but three of bridges are listed as generators of hazardous waste (lead). Seven of the bridgeswill be impacted by Alternative A2. A summary of the bridges within or adjacent to the project is provided inExhibit 4.4.19-6.

Exhibit 4.4.19-4 Project Bridges

Bridge Name BINListedRCRA

Generator?Project Impacts

Exhibit4.4.19-4 and

4.4.19-5,ID number

Lyell Avenue over Erie Canal 4443380 Yes None B-1Buffalo Road over I-390 1023030 Yes Bridge Replacement B-2NY 390 NB over I-490 WB 1052290 Yes Bridge Widening B-3Lyell Avenue over NY 390 1021589 Yes Bridge Replacement B-4NY 390 NB over Erie Canal 4062532 Yes Bridge Widening B-5NY 390 SB over Erie Canal 4062531 Yes Bridge Widening B-6NY 390 NB over TrolleyBoulevard 1062542 Yes Bridge Replacement B-7


4-56

Exhibit 4.4.19-4 Project Bridges

Bridge Name BINListedRCRA

Generator?Project Impacts

Exhibit4.4.19-4 and

4.4.19-5,ID number

NY 390 SB over TrolleyBoulevard 1062541 Yes Bridge Replacement B-8

I-390 NB over I-490 EB and I-490 WB Off-ramp to I-390 1063950 Yes None B-9

I-490 EB over I-490 WB Off-ramp to I-390 SB 1025820 Yes None B-10

I-490 EB Off-ramp to NY390NB over I-490 WB and NY390 SB

1052280 Yes None B-11

I-490 WB over NY 390 SB 1025811 Yes None B-12I-490 EB over NY 390 SB 1025812 Yes None B-13I-490 WB over Erie Canal 4443361 Yes None B-14I-490 EB over Erie Canal 4443362 Yes None B-15CSX Rail Road over I-390 7025830 Yes None B-16Howard Road over I-490 1048680 No None B-17NY 390 NB over LexingtonAvenue 1062522 No None B-18

NY 390 SB over LexingtonAvenue 1062521 No None B-19

It is assumed that the paint on the bridges contains lead. The presence of lead will require worker safetycontrols during bridge rehabilitation/widening or replacement. Disposal of generated wastes from bridgerehabilitation/widening or replacement associated with this project shall be in accordance with State andFederal regulations.

In addition to the eight locations of concern and seven impacted bridges, Alternative A2 proposes theacquisition of three parcels. Due to the potential presence of household and/or commercial chemicals in thestructures on the parcels that will be acquired, it is recommended that the current property owners berequested to remove any chemicals from the properties prior to transferring the properties. After theproperties are transferred the interior of the buildings should be inspected, any chemicals present in thestructures should be identified and arrangements made for proper disposal. The sites where this isrecommended 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 URSCorporation (URS) on September 26, 2013 (see Appendix P Hazardous Waste/ContaminatedMaterials Screening Report). Three soil borings were installed and advanced to a depth of 10feet. Soils removed from the borings were screened with a photoionization detector (PID) andwere given a detailed description. No petroleum contamination was identified at the boringlocations at the time of this investigation.


4-57

4.5 CONSTRUCTION EFFECTS

Construction Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Construction impacts will be temporary, and will cease with the completion of construction. Although theproject will be planned, designed, scheduled, and staged to minimize disruption to abutting communities andthe environment during construction, some inconveniences will be inevitable.

Construction Impacts on Regional and Local EconomiesThe short-term direct increases in employment associated with construction activity resulting from the projectcan be expected to filter through the local economy, generating consumer and business spending. Short-termbenefits to the project area will occur initially during the construction phases of the project in the form ofincreased demand for local materials, services and labor. Indirect or secondary economic benefits will beanticipated to extend well beyond actual construction of the interchange. The specific location and level of thisactivity will depend upon the magnitude of the expenditures and the ability of the local suppliers and the locallabor 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 usedto induce the contractor to work as quickly as possible. Under these programs, the contractor is awardedbonus payments for every day that he reaches a milestone ahead of schedule. In addition, disincentives willbe assessed for each day that the contractor is late in reaching the milestone. This program provides a strongincentive for the contractor to finish the project as quickly as possible.

Construction Traffic ImpactsPotentially significant to traffic are lane closures, along with constraints placed on major roadways to permitconstruction. Although intermittent lane closures will be needed during off-peak hours, assumptions that wereused in developing the conceptual staging schemes include: maintaining two lanes of traffic during peak traffichours for northbound 390, southbound 390, westbound Lyell Avenue (between Ramp DB and Lee Road) andRamp EN (westbound I-490 to Lyell Avenue). All other roadways or sections of roadways and ramps areproposed to remain open during construction with at least one available lane for traffic. The constructionmethods proposed for the build alternative are discussed under Work Zone Safety and Mobility (see Section3.3.1.7(2)). Area schools, hospitals, police, fire departments and other community representatives will beadvised of traffic patterns and detours during construction.

Construction Impacts on Wetlands and Water ResourcesErosion and sediment control measures consisting of silt fences, hay bales, sedimentation basins accordingto the SWPPP (see Section 4.4.8). The SWPPP will include erosion and sediment control plans, stormwatermanagement measures, details, and specifications for implementing controls. All disturbed areas would bepermanently revegetated to control long term erosion.

Potential contamination of groundwater (and/or soil) could occur as a result of leaking construction equipmentand/or temporary on-site sanitary storage facilities. Proper maintenance procedures on the construction sitewill be enforced. Fuel/chemical storage will not be allowed on the job site unless the area is over impermeableground and provides proper containment to protect against spill contamination. Absorption materials will beavailable 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 constructionof temporary access or construction roads will be directed away from nearby wells to avoid potentialcontamination.

Construction Impacts on General Ecology and WildlifeAs discussed in Section 4.1.9, preventative measures and management practices should be utilized duringconstruction to minimize the potential introduction or spread of any invasive species. Suitable measures andpractices include minimizing the amount of soil disturbance during construction, installing temporary erosionand sediment control practices, and mulching and seeding disturbed areas with native species as soon aspossible after initial construction. Additionally, construction equipment access and movement should be


4-58

limited within the project area and all equipment used during construction should be inspected and cleanedprior to entering and leaving the site as a control to spreading any invasive species.

Construction Noise ImpactsConstruction noise is discussed in Section 4.4.17. The managing of construction activities to reduce theeffects of construction noise on receptors can be achieved using an approach consisting of designmodifications, the reduction of noise emitted from equipment (source control), the abatement of noiseescaping from the site (site control), and public relations. The impact of construction noise can be reduced byusing noise reduction techniques, but not eliminated. Public relations can be used to advise the residents ofconstruction activities to curtail a possibly adverse community reaction. Furthermore, in areas to be protectedby noise barriers, the construction of the noise barriers early in the construction sequence will protect thoseneighborhoods during the remainder of construction.

The use of nighttime operations will be reviewed during detailed design of the project. Construction materialwill be handled and transported to limit noise levels. Noisy elements, such as compressors, will be located inless sensitive areas as much as possible. Muffling and proper equipment maintenance will also reduce theconstruction noise impacts.

Construction Impacts and Air QualityThe air quality impacts during construction will be limited to short-term increased fugitive dust and mobilesource emissions. To minimize the amount of construction-generated dust, contractual requirements willmake provision for the application of various control measures during construction activities. These measureswill include applying water or other suitable moisture-retaining agents on dirt roads, covering haul truckscarrying loose material, or treating materials likely to become airborne and contribute to air pollution if leftuntreated.

To minimize the amount of emissions generated, maintenance and protection of traffic measures will beimplemented during the construction phase to limit disruption to traffic and ensure that adequate roadwaycapacity is available to general traffic during peak travel periods.

Construction Impacts with Hazardous WastePotential hazardous waste sites in the project area have been identified, and all appropriate precautions willbe taken during construction staging of these areas. If any spill contamination is encountered duringconstruction, the contaminated soils will be handled per NYSDOT standard specifications for identifying,handling and disposing of petroleum and contaminated soil.

Energy Used in ConstructionEnergy used in construction is addressed in Section 4.4.16.


4-59

4.6 INDIRECT (SECONDARY) EFFECTS

Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR § 1508.8) define several different types of effects thatshould 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 othereffects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density or growth rate, andrelated 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 indirecteffects 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. Sucheffects 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 bestimulated by highway projects; however, by reducing delay and congestion, the project will improve existingaccess 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 forconcentrated development. It does point out on page 7 that most new construction has been that ofredevelopment. A comparison of the Town of Gates Official Zoning Map (Exhibit 4.2.1-1 in Appendix B) withthe 2010 Land Use Map (Exhibit 2.2.1 in Appendix A) shows that there are some vacant lots in the residentialarea north of Lyell Avenue and west of Lee Road, as well as some vacant land along the east side of LeeRoad, which is zoned for General Industrial Land. Traffic flow and access to Lee Road from the NYS Route390/Lyell Avenue interchange will be greatly improved as a result of the project, which will help to promotesuch development.

Further discussion that the project would not stimulate new development is provided in the completed SmartGrowth Screening Tool in Appendix B. It is anticipated that this type of growth would not produce adversesocial impacts to the local community. It would also have minimal effect upon natural resources in the area. Itis 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 guidancedocuments issued on this subject.


4-60

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 whenadded to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of whatagency (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 aremerely possible.6 Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actionstaking 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 foreseeablefuture actions to be discussed are those that correspond to the direct and indirect impacts of the subjectproperties. For example, past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions may include significantimpacts to historic and cultural resources; however, since it was determined that the subject project wouldhave “no effect” on such resources, there would be no incremental impact on such resources from the subjectproject.

Past ActionsSpecific documentation regarding previous resources is not readily available. It is apparent from looking atexisting land uses of the project area and the areas immediately adjacent to it, that wholesale changes havetaken place from development of the transportation infrastructure as well as development of the surroundingland into uses such as: the former Dearcop Landfill followed by residences to the southeast, the tank farms tothe northeast, the quarry to the southwest, the commercial developments along Lyell Avenue, and theresidential developments to the northwest and west. All of this had to have impacted any streams andwetlands that might have been in the area. For example, Stream T2 (Section 4.4.2) is currently pumped outof a quarry to the southwest of the I-390/I-490 Interchange before passing along the project.

Present and FutureMinutes and agendas from the Town of Gates Planning Board were reviewed for the months of Marchthrough October 2014. Plans reviewed are summarized in Exhibit 4.7-1. None of the developments beingconsidered are in the project area. Those that are nearby would not affect any of the same resources as theproject. Prior to construction, the projects would need to be in compliance with the New York SEQR. Whereappropriate, any such developments would require permits, such as the NYSDEC SPDES General Permit forStormwater Discharges from Construction Activity (Permit No. GP-0-10-001) and State and Federal streamand wetland permits, which would require avoidance, minimization and mitigation of impacts to stream andwetland areas. Due to the proximity and general conclusion regarding the intensity of potential impacts, it isreasonable 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. Thisincludes a NYSDOT project entailing highway rehabilitation (PIN 4033.02) to a combination of roadsimmediately 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 2014and is scheduled to be complete in August 2015. It is not anticipated that this project would produce impactsto the resources discussed for the subject project.

6 Federal Highway Administration Interim Guidance: Questions and Answers Regarding Indirect and Cumulative ImpactConsiderations in the NEPA Process, 2003.


4-61

Exhibit 4.7-1 Current Planned Developments, Town of Gates Planning Board

Development Name / Owner Location Description of ProposedDevelopment

Buffalo Road Holdings 837 Buffalo Rd Scrap yard, auto wrecking,dismantling & recycling operation

Villa Capri / Atlantic Funding RealEstate LLC

150 Frank Mino Way 87-unit independent senior livingfacility on 4.5 acres of land

St. Williams’s Apartments /Diocese of Rochester

1150 Buffalo Rd 44 apartment units on 5 acres

Faith Outreach Ministry / AdeleNitti

Near Elmgrove Rd; north side ofBuffalo Rd

Church on 1.45 acres

Ivy Bridge Townhomes, Phase 3 /Ivy Bridge Townhomes LLC

3395 Buffalo Road 61 additional apartments on 11.3acres of additional land

CRERAND II /Nathaniel Development

3895 Lyell Road 14 2-bedroom townhomes and22 3-bedroom townhomes

145 Fedex Way / Mufit Evyapan 145 Fedex Way 5,000 sq. ft building on 14 acreparcel

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 ofpresent and reasonably foreseeable actions does not reveal any impacts to the above resources that wouldcause a significant cumulative impact when combined with those of the proposed project.

DRAFT DESIGN REPORT / ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT · March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental...

Documents

Transcript of DRAFT DESIGN REPORT / ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT · March 2015 Draft Design Report / Environmental...