FINAL DESIGN REPORT...July 2013 Final Design Report PIN 9014.39 LIST OF PREPARERS Group Director Responsible for Production of the Design Approval Document : Scott P. Faulkner, P.E.,

FINAL DESIGN REPORT

July 2013

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

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

Bridge Replacement P.I.N. 9014.39 BIN: 1018600

NY Routes 26 and 79 over the Tioughnioga River

Village of Whitney Point Town of Triangle Broome County

This project is being designed using metric units and the text of this report uses metric units. The following table of approximate conversion factors provides the relationship between metric and U.S. Customary units for some of the more frequently used units in highway design. The table allows one to calculate the U.S. Customary Unit by multiplying the corresponding Metric Unit by the given factor.

Metric Unit x Factor = U.S. Customary Unit

Length

kilometer (km) x 0.621 = miles (mi)

meter (m) x 3.281 = feet (ft.)

Area hectare (ha) x 2.471 = acres (a)

square meter (m2) x 1.196 = square yards (sy)

square meter (m2) x 10.764 = square feet (sf)

Volume cubic meter (m3) x 1.308 = cubic yards (cy)

cubic meter (m3) x 35.315 = cubic feet (cf)

Speed kilometer per hour (km/h) x 0.621 = miles per hour (mph)

meter per second (m/s) x 3.281 = feet per second (ft/s)

July 2013 Final Design Report PIN 9014.39

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

Scott P. Faulkner, P.E., Project Manager, McFarland-Johnson, Inc. Description of Work Performed by Firm: Directed the preparation of the Design Approval Document in accordance with established standards, policies, regulations and procedures, except as otherwise explained in this document.

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


TABLE OF CONTENTS

COVER (Bridge Replacement / PIN 9014.39 / Village of Whitney Point)

METRIC TO U.S. CUSTOMARY UNIT CONVERSION TABLE (on back of cover) PROJECT APPROVAL SHEET LIST OF PREPARERS CHAPTER 1 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 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 Objectives/Purposes 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 This Decision?............................................................................................................................................

1-1 1-1 1-1 1-1 1-3 1-3 1-4 1-5 1-6 1-7

CHAPTER 2 - PROJECT CONTEXT: HISTORY, TRANSPORTATION PLANS, CONDITIONS AND NEEDS 2.1. 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 ...............................................................................

2.2.2. 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 ...................................................................................................... 2.3.3.5. Geotechnical .............................................................................................................. 2.3.3.6. Structure .....................................................................................................................

2-1 2-1 2-1 2-1 2-2 2-2 2-2 2-2 2-2 2-2 2-2 2-4 2-4 2-4 2-4 2-4 2-5 2-5 2-5 2-6 2-8 2-10 2-10 2-10 2-10 2-10 2-10 2-11 2-11 2-11 2-11 2-11 2-11 2-15 2-15 2-16 2-16 2-16


TABLE OF CONTENTS

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. Potential Enhancement Opportunities................................................................................ 2.3.4.1. Landscape .................................................................................................................. 2.3.4.2. Opportunities for Environmental Enhancements ........................................................

2-19 2-20 2-20 2-20 2-20 2-20 2-21

CHAPTER 3 – ALTERNATIVES 3.1. Alternatives Considered and Eliminated from Further Study ........................................................ 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 and Other Aesthetic Improvements ................................... 3.3.4.2. Environmental Enhancements ....................................................................................

3-1 3-7 3-7 3-9 3-10 3-10 3-10 3-17 3-17 3-17 3-17 3-17 3-17 3-17 3-17 3-17 3-18 3-19 3-20 3-20 3-20 3-20 3-20 3-21 3-21 3-21 3-21 3-21 3-21 3-21 3-21 3-22 3-23 3-23 3-23 3-24 3-24 3-25 3-25 3-25 3-25 3-25 3-25


TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 4 - SOCIAL, ECONOMIC & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS…………………… 4.1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................

4.1.1. Environmental Classification and Lead Agencies……………………………………...... 4.1.2. Cooperating, Participating, and Involved Agencies .....................................................

4.2. Social .......................................................................................................................................... 4.2.1. Land Use…………………………………………………………………………………… 4.2.2. Neighborhoods and Community Cohesion ................................................................. 4.2.3. General 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…………………………………………………………………………… 4.3.3 Specific Businesses Impacts..………………………………………………………………

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……………………………………………………………………………………….

4-1 4-1 4-1 4-1 4-2 4-2 4-3 4-4 4-5 4-6 4-6 4-6 4-7 4-7 4-7 4-8 4-9 4-9 4-10 4-11 4-11 4-13 4-14 4-15 4-15 4-16 4-17 4-18 4-19 4-19 4-20 4-20 4-21 4-24 4-24 4-24


Appendices

A. Maps, Plans, Profiles & Typical Sections

B. Design Information

C. Structures Information

D. Environmental Information

E. Non-Standard Features Justification

F. Correspondence

G. Programmatic Section 4(f) and Memorandum of Agreement

H. Public Involvement Plan


1-1

CHAPTER 1 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1. Introduction This report was prepared in accordance with the NYSDOT Project Development Manual, 17 NYCRR Part 15, and 23 CFR 771. 1.2. Purpose and Need

1.2.1. Where is the Project Located? (1) Route number: NY Routes 26, 79 and 206; US Route 11 (2) Route name: NY Route 26 is identified as North Hickory Street north of the NY 79/206

intersection; NY 79 is identified as Hickory Street south of the NY Route 26/206 intersection; and NY Route 206 is identified as East Main Street east of the NY Route 26/79 intersection.

(3) SH number and official highway description: FASSH 56-14 Whitney Point – Greene Part 1 (NY Route 206); SH 1612 Glen Aubrey – Whitney Point Part 2, Whitney Point Village – Hickory Street (NY Route 26); SH 1486 Whitney Point – Lisle; SH 8209 Chenango Forks – Whitney Point (NY Route 79); SH 1486 Whitney Point – Lisle (US Route 11).

(4) BIN: 1018600, NY Routes 26 & 79 over the Tioughnioga River. (5) Municipality: Village of Whitney Point, Town of Triangle (6) County: Broome County (7) Length: The project length from west to east along Main Street/East Main Street and NY Route

206 is approximately 0.31 km. The project length from south to north along US 11/NY Route 79 is approximately 0.23 km. The project length from south to north along NY Route 79/NY Route 26 is approximately 0.15 km.

(8) Termini: The project begins approximately 110 meters west of the bridge on Main Street and ends approximately 120 meters east of the bridge on NY Route 206. The project extends for approximately 140 meters south of the west intersection on US Route 11/NY Route 26 to 90 meters north of the west intersection on US Route 11/NY Route 79. The project also extends for approximately 85 meters south of the east intersection on NY Route 79 and 65 meters north of the east intersection on NY Route 26.

Refer to the Project Location Map on Page 1-2.

1.2.2. Why is the Project Needed? The project is needed to address the deficiencies of the existing structure carrying NYS Routes 26 & 79 over the Tioughnioga River (BIN 1018600) in a cost effective manner and thus ensure continued mobility for the traveling public. This project will reconstruct the intersections on either side of the structure to provide turning lanes and improve the turning radii at the intersections to accommodate tractor trailers. Additional project needs include improving roadway drainage, improving pedestrian accommodations, and replacing the traffic signal, deteriorated curbs and signs.


1-2


1-3

PROJECT REFERENCE MARKER MAP (NOT TO SCALE)

1.2.3. What are the Objectives/Purposes of the Project? The objectives established for this project are:

• Address the deficiencies of BIN 1018600, the Warren Truss bridge structure over the

Tioughnioga River, in a cost effective manner and restore the bridge rating to a minimum of 5 or greater for a minimum of 75 years.

• Reconstruct the intersections on either side of the structure and improve geometric elements

and incorporate appropriate design features.

• Improve highway operations and safety conditions using effective access management techniques to reduce vehicle conflicts, reduce the accident rate, and improve the flow of traffic.

1.3. What Alternative(s) Are Being Considered? The range of alternative solutions under consideration includes:

• Null (Do Nothing) Alternative. The null alternative involves no work being performed on the existing structure. As the fatigue cycles increase on the bridge superstructure, the expectation is that the frequency and severity of structural flags would increase, requiring additional effort by maintenance personnel to prepare and complete repairs to each flag. This alternative would not restore the condition rating of the bridge; therefore, this alternative has been discarded.

BIN 1018600 206-91011000

26-91011283

79-91031130

26-91011282

11-91013162

11-91013164 206-91011001

PROJECT LIMIT

PROJECT LIMIT

26-91011284

PROJECT LIMIT

PROJECT LIMIT

PROJECT LIMIT


1-4

• Maintenance Alternative. Under this alternative continued preventive maintenance, as well as corrective action within the capabilities of Regional Maintenance Forces, would be undertaken. The nature of the deterioration of this structure is such that maintenance efforts cannot address it adequately. Without even considering the continuing deterioration within the area repaired, experience and history points to other additional repairs that will be required every two years, or so, to keep up with the intended desired service. Therefore this alternative has been discarded.

• Rehabilitation Alternative. This alternative proposes to retain and rehabilitate the existing structure. In order to rehabilitate the structure, for a lifespan of 50 years, the existing truss would need to be dismantled, deteriorated members repaired or replaced, all members would be cleaned to bare metal, painted and the structure would then be reassembled. Floor beams would be replaced on an individual basis, as required, and all of the rivets used to construct the truss would be replaced with high strength bolts. A ‘Rehabilitation versus Replacement Analysis’ was completed in December 2007 (Appendix C) and indicated that the rehabilitation costs are 92% of the total replacement cost. This ratio suggests that complete bridge replacement is warranted, therefore this alternative has been discarded. A superstructure replacement alternative was also considered and discarded due to the inability to economically modify the existing substructure.

• Replacement Alternative 1. Under this alternative, the existing structure would be replaced on a slightly skewed angle from the existing alignment with a new bridge built to current design standards with the addition of a turning lane. This alternative would require a temporary bridge adjacent to the existing structure for maintenance and protection of traffic during removal of the existing structure and construction of the new structure. The existing traffic signal at the intersection west of the bridge will be replaced with a new traffic signal along with the addition of a right turn lane on the northbound approach. This alternative requires a Section 4(f) evaluation as it would involve the removal of the existing structure. This alternative warrants further consideration and is considered to be the only feasible alternative.

Preliminary typical sections, plans and profiles for the feasible alternative are included in Appendix A. For a more in-depth discussion of the design criteria see Section 3.2.3. Design Criteria for Feasible Alternative. 1.4 How will the Alternative(s) affect the Environment?

Exhibit 1.4-A Environmental Summary

NEPA Classification Class II w/ Doc BY Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)Date June 12, 2013 SEQR Type: Non-Type II (EA) BY NYSDOT Date Aug. 21, 2012

Exhibit 1.4-B Comparison of Alternatives

Category Alternatives

Null 1

West Intersection LOS(delay) at ETC+30

AM - C (27 secs.) PM - D (52 secs.)

AM - B (20 secs.) PM - C (26 secs.)

Pedestrians None Sidewalks on both sides of

bridge. Additional crosswalks at intersections

Bicyclists None Addition of shoulders on bridge

Property Impacts -ROW Acquisition -Permanent Easements -Temporary Easements

None

0.610 HA 0.002 HA 0.049 HA

Long-term business impacts None Positive due to improved

access


1-5

Refer to Chapter 4 for any mitigation measures that are proposed for this project. Anticipated Permits/Certifications/Coordination: Permits NYSDEC:

• State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) General Permit • Section 401 Water Quality Certification

USACOE

• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Section 404 Nationwide Permit #3 - Maintenance Activities in all Waters of the U.S.

Coordination

• Coordination with NYSDEC pursuant to the “NYSDEC/NYSDOT Memorandum of Understanding Regarding ECL Article 15”

• Coordination with Federal Highway Administration • Coordination with New York State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) • Coordination with the US Fish and Wildlife Service

Certifications

• NYSDOL: Asbestos Variances Others

• Local Flood Plain Ordinance • Historic or Archaeological Impacts on Federal 106

1.5. What Are The Costs & Schedules? Design Approval is scheduled for July of 2013 and construction is scheduled to last 20 months beginning in May of 2015.

Exhibit 1.5A Project Schedule

Activity Date Occurred/Tentative Scoping Approval January 17, 2008 Design Approval July 2013

ROW Acquisition October 2014

Construction Start May 2015

Construction Complete December 2016

General Ecology and Wildlife Resources

None Potential Impact to Yellow Lampmussel a species of

special concern

Asbestos No Impact 18 suspect materials primarily

on existing bridge

HW/CM No Impact Potential for UST’s and

contaminated soils in roadway reconstruction areas

Total Project Costs None $10.91 M


1-6

Exhibit 1.5B Alternative 1 Project Cost

(Millions)

Activities

Alternate

1 Costs

Construction Costs

Replacement Bridge

$3.69

Temporary Bridge

$1.07

Highway $1.84*

Incidentals 5% $0.33

Subtotal ($) $6.93

Contingency (20% at Design Approval)

$1.39

Subtotal ($) $8.32

Field Change Order $0.42

Subtotal ($) $8.74

Mobilization (4%) $0.35

Subtotal ($) $9.09

Expected Award Amount (inflate current costs/ prices

at 3%/yr to midpoint of construction to arrive at $

amount to be entered here) See HDM 21.6.3.2 B

$9.94

Construction Inspection (9%)

$0.89

ROW Costs ($)

$0.08*

Total Project Costs $10.91

*The costs for right-of-way and construction of the ad hoc fishing access area is not eligible for federal funds and will be included in a 100% State Funded share

1.6. Which Alternative is Preferred? The feasible and prudent alternative that best meets the project objectives is Replacement Alternative 1 and it is the only feasible alternative. A final decision on Replacement Alternative 1 being the preferred alternative has been made based on the environmental determination and cost considerations.


1-7

1.7. Who Will Decide Which Alternative Will Be Selected And How Can I Be Involved In This Decision? The Regional Director, after weighing the results of technical studies and public input, will decide which alternative will be selected. You can be involved in this decision by writing to or phoning the Department representative listed below. Letters were sent on January 31, 2012 and October 17, 2012 to area property owners, local officials and emergency service providers to gather public input early in the scoping process. Stakeholders are identified in the Public Involvement Plan which can be reviewed at the NYSDOT Region 9 office listed below. Some of these stakeholders include local elected officials, local property owners, emergency services, businesses, chamber of commerce and schools. Preliminary plans have been developed, and two (2) public information meetings have been held in order to get stakeholder feedback on alternatives. Refer to Appendix F for project correspondence.

Exhibit 1.7 Public Involvement Plan Schedule of Milestone Dates

Activity Date Occurred/Tentative Pre-Scope Environmental findings May 4, 2007 Field Pre-Scoping Meeting (all groups) January 9, 2007 In-house DOT scoping meeting January 22, 2007 Scoping Public Informational Meeting March 14, 2007 Public Informational Meeting #1 February 23, 2012 Public Informational Meeting #2 November 1, 2012 Current Project Letting date December 18, 2014

You may offer your comments in a variety of ways.

• You can contact:

Kathryn Mangan, Project Manager Please include the six digit Project Identification Number (PIN) 9014.39

Questions or comments email: [email protected] telephone: (607) 721-8254

Mailing Address

New York State Department of Transportation Region 9 Planning 44 Hawley Street

Binghamton, New York 13901-3200

• You can visit the Project’s website: https://www.dot.ny.gov/rte206whitneypoint The remainder of this report is a detailed technical evaluation of the existing conditions, the proposed alternatives, the impacts of the alternatives, copies of technical reports and plans and other supporting information.


2-1

CHAPTER 2 - PROJECT CONTEXT: HISTORY, TRANSPORTATION PLANS, CONDITIONS AND NEEDS This chapter addresses the history and existing context of the project site, including the existing conditions, deficiencies, and needs for the project area. 2.1. Project History The need for this project was identified by the Region 9 Structures Unit upon review of the biennial inspection report. This project was added to the Capital Program during the Capital Program Update on April 5, 1999 and scheduled for Letting on June 6, 2008. The project Letting advanced during the Capital Program Update of March 2001 from June 6, 2008 to November 1, 2007 based on Regional priorities. The Letting was then rescheduled to November 8, 2008 during the Capital Program Update of May 2003 to better balance Construction targets. The Letting was again rescheduled based on a Regional Capital Program Committee meeting held February 8, 2006 to better align Program with Construction targets and reduce over-programming. The Letting moved to April 2010. The Initial Project Proposal recommending rehabilitation or replacement of this bridge was prepared by the Regional Bridge Subcommittee in January 2007 at an estimated construction cost of $4.247 M. A capital project was approved by the Regional Capital Program Committee in January 2007. A project Planning Meeting was held on January 12, 2007, followed by a Scoping Meeting on February 8, 2007. Based on the Capital Program Update in February 2007, the estimated construction cost increased to $7.500 M. reconstruction of intersections on either side of the bridge is also included as part of this cost increase. Construction cost has been revised to $9.53 M due to scope changes on October 2012. The Letting is currently scheduled for December 18, 2014.

2.2. Transportation Plans and Land Use 2.2.1. Local Plans for the Project Area 2.2.1.1. Local Master Plan The Comprehensive Plan for the Village of Whitney Point was adopted in December 1992 with one of the goals of this plan being providing suitable areas of the community with adequate access to the transportation network for future commercial and industrial growth. This project will improve access across the Tioughnioga River by providing standard lane and shoulder widths on the replacement bridge and providing turning lanes and improved turning radii at the intersections on either side of the bridge. The Village of Whitney Point has recently adopted a Downtown Strategic Plan that details the issues facing the Downtown today, while providing specific guidance regarding identified and prioritized actions that will affect positive change in the Downtown. Some of the recommendations of this plan include: construction of a river trail; acquisition of land and development of a linear park on the western bank of the Tioughnioga River; addition of street trees; pedestrian improvements especially at the US Route 11/Main Street intersection; replacement of the NY Routes 26 and 79 bridge over the Tioughnioga River; and streetscape design for US Route 11. The Strategic Plan strongly recommends that the bridge remain at its current location so that the US Route 11/Main Street intersection remains the heart of the community and the design should include sidewalks, overlooks, historical interpretation, enhanced access to the river, lighting and signage to create a grand entrance to the community. The Broome County Intermunicipal Waterfront Public Access Plan dated December 2011 also discusses improvement of the hand carry boat launch and development of a path along the west bank of the


2-2

Tioughnioga River. Enhancements of hand carry launches may include a shelter, picnic tables and/or benches, trash receptacles, signage with river maps, and an overlook.

2.2.1.2. Local Private Development Plans There are no approved developments planned within the project area that will impact traffic operations.

2.2.2. Transportation Corridor 2.2.2.1. Importance of the Project Route Segment BIN 1018600 carries NY Routes 26 and 79 over the Tioughnioga River. It is very important route as commuters and the traveling public use the bridge to reach the downtown area of Whitney point and to access I-81 via US Route 11 to the north and NY Route 26 to the south. NY Route 206 is an east-west connection between I-88 and I-81. This segment of NY Route 206 is also on a designated truck route.

2.2.2.2. Alternate Routes There are no alternative routes that would be suitable as a permanent detour. 2.2.2.3. Corridor Deficiencies and Needs The turning radii at the intersections on each side of the bridge are not able to accommodate large trucks and the intersection sight distance at the east intersection is non-standard due to the existing truss blocking the view to the west from the intersection. Also, as noted previously, the Village is planning a revitalization of Main Street to create a more historic feel to the Village. A sidewalk along the east side of US Route 11 northbound from BIN 1018600 to a point near the high school is also being considered. This project will have a direct bearing on these needs within the project limits. 2.2.2.4. Transportation Plans The project is on the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). 2.2.2.5. Abutting Highway Segments and Future Plans for Abutting Highway Segments US Route 11/NY Route 26 Overlap (South of West Intersection) South of the project limits there is a 3.6 meter travel lane in each direction with 2.4 meter paved shoulders. The grade is approximately level and the roadway is on a horizontal curve to the right in the southbound direction that has a radius of approximately 975 meters. The pavement condition rating as of 2010 was a ‘6’ meaning the condition is fair (surface distress is clearly visible). There is corrugated beam guide rail along both sides of the roadway, therefore the clear area is the same as the shoulder width in this area. The posted speed limit is 40 MPH (64 km/h). US Route 11/NY Route 79 Overlap (North of West Intersection) North of the project limits there is a 3.6 meter travel lane in each direction, a 3.6 meter center turn lane and 0.6 meter curb offsets to non-mountable concrete curb on both sides of the road. There is a 1.5 meter concrete sidewalk on the west of the road. Proceeding northbound on US Route 11 the existing grade is approximately a +2.3% grade and is on a horizontal tangent. On the east side of the road there is box beam guide rail at the face of the curb, therefore the clear area is 0.6 meters and on the west side of the road the clear area is approximately 4.2 meters as there are signs located behind the sidewalk.


2-3

The pavement condition rating as of 2010 was a ‘7’ meaning the condition is good (distress symptoms are beginning to show). The posted speed limit is 40 MPH (64 km/h). Main Street (West of West Intersection) West of the project limits there is a travel lane in each direction that varies from 4.4 meters to 3.6 meters and a 2.7 meter parking lane on each side of the road with non-mountable curb. Proceeding west along Main Street from the project limits the grade transitions from -0.3% to -1.0% and the roadway is in a horizontal tangent section. The clear area is approximately 2.9 meters on both sides of the road due to the presence of signs and utility poles behind the curb. The posted speed limit is 30 MPH (48 km/h) NY Route 26 (North of East Intersection) North of the project limits there is a 3.6 meter travel lane in each direction with 2.0 meter paved shoulders and a concrete gutter along the west side of the road. Proceeding north along NY Route 26 from the project limits the grade is approximately +8.1% and the roadway is in a horizontal tangent section. The clear area on the east side of the road is approximately 3.5 meters due to a 1 on 2 cut slope behind the gutter and on the west side the clear area is approximately 4.6 meters due to the presence of signs and utility poles. The pavement condition rating as of 2010 was a ‘7’ meaning the condition is good (distress symptoms are beginning to show). The posted speed limit is 40 MPH (64 km/h). NY Route 79 (South of East Intersection) South of the project limits there is a 3.6 meter travel lane in each direction without shoulders and there is non-mountable concrete curb on the west side of the road. Proceeding south along NY Route 79 from the project limits the grade is approximately -2.6% and the roadway is in a horizontal tangent section. The clear area on the east side of the road is approximately 1.3 meters due to utility poles and signs and on the west side the clear area is approximately 2.4 meters due to a picket fence located behind the sidewalk. The pavement condition rating as of 2010 was a ‘6’ meaning the condition is good (surface distress is clearly visible). The regulated or posted speed limit is 30 MPH (48 km/h). NY Route 206 (East of East Intersection) East of the project limits there is a 3.3 meter lane in each direction with a 1.8 meter westbound shoulder with concrete gutter and a 0.6 meter curb offset to mountable curb and 1.525 meter sidewalk on the eastbound side. Proceeding east from the project limit the grade is approximately +7.5% and there is a horizontal tangent section that continues east. The clear area on the south side of the road is approximately 2.5 meters due to signs and utility poles located behind the sidewalks and on the north side it varies between 2.2 and 2.5 meters due to a retaining wall that runs parallel to the road. The pavement condition rating as of 2010 was a ‘9’ meaning the condition is excellent (no significant surface distress). This section of roadway was reconstructed in 2008. The posted speed limit is 30 MPH (48 km/h). The Regional Planning Group has confirmed that there are no plans to reconstruct or widen any of these highway segments, or their adjoining segments, within the next 20 years.


2-4

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)

Exhibit - 2.3.1.1 Classification Data

Route(s) US Route 11/ NY Route 26

Overlap

US Route 11/ NY Route 79

Overlap

NY Route 26/ NY Route 79

Overlap NY Route 26 NY Route 79 NY Route 206

Functional Classification

Rural Major Collector

Rural Minor Arterial


Rural Major Collector

Rural Minor Collector


National Highway System (NHS)

No No No No No No

Designated Truck Access Route

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Qualifying Highway

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Within 1.6 km of a Qualifying Highway

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

Within the 4.9 m vertical clearance network

No No No No No No

2.3.1.2. Control of Access Access in uncontrolled throughout the project limits as there are commercial and residential driveways entering the roadways.

2.3.1.3. Traffic Control Devices There are two intersections within the project limits. Information regarding these intersections is summarized below:

• The US Route 11/NY Route 26/NY Route 79/Main Street intersection is at the western end of the bridge. It is a four-legged intersection that includes the overlap of NY Routes 26 & 79 (across the bridge to the east), US Route 11 & NY Route 26 (to the south), Main Street (directly west across the intersection from the bridge, slightly skewed to the north) and US Route 11 & NY Route 79 overlap (to the north). This intersection is controlled by a four-way traffic signal.

• The NY Route 26/NY Route 79/NY Route 206 intersection is at the eastern end of the bridge. It is a four-legged intersection that includes the overlap of NY Routes 26 & 79 (across the bridge to the west), NY Route 79 (to the south and skewed to the east), NY Route 206 (directly east across the intersection from the bridge) and NY Route 26 (to the north). This intersection is controlled by three “Stop” signs located on NY Routes 26 (southbound), 79 (westbound) and 206 (westbound). There is also a 2-color flashing traffic signal located at this intersection.

• Signing and pavement markings are in fair to good condition and appear to conform to the latest guidelines and warrants.

• No audible roadside delineators exist within the project limits.


2-5

2.3.1.4. Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) There are no ITS systems in operation or planned for the project area.

2.3.1.5. Speeds and Delay -

Exhibit - 2.3.1.5 Speed Data

Route(s) Main Street US Route 11 NY Route 26 NY Route 79 NY Route 206 Existing Speed Limit 30 mph

48 km/h 40 mph 64 km/h

40 mph 64 km/h

30 mph 48 km/h

30 mph 48 km/h

Estimated Operating Speed 60 km/h 80 km/h 80 km/h 60 km/h 60 km/h The estimated operating speeds shown in the table is based on the posted speed limit plus 10 mph (16 km/h). This is based on the fact the project is located in the vicinity of two intersections where vehicles are slowing down or accelerating from a stopped condition. A speed study for this location is not appropriate as per the Regional Traffic Engineering & Safety Office. The design speed will be the estimated operating speed shown in the table. Travel speed and delay runs for existing condtions: There are no significant delays or congestion problems present within the project limits. The existing overall Level of Service for the signalized west intersection is ‘B’ for both AM peak hour and ‘C’ for the PM peak hour. Southbound US Route 11 turning left onto the bridge becomes a ‘C’ during AM peak hours. Travel time and delay estimates: No significant delays are expected in the design year (2046).

2.3.1.6. Traffic Volumes Refer to Appendix B of this report for traffic volumes at the west and east intersections. The traffic volume data was obtained in the year 2011. 2.3.1.6. (1) Existing traffic volumes Refer to Exhibits 2.3.1.6-1 and 2.3.1.6-2 for a summary of the traffic data. Peak hour turning movement volumes for east and west intersections are included in Appendix B.

Exhibit - 2.3.1.6-1 Traffic Data

Route(s) US Route 11/NY Route 79 (north of west intersection)

NY Route 26/NY Route 79 (across bridge)

Directional Distribution 57%/43% AM, 52%/48% PM 61%/39% AM, 43%/57% PM

Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90

% Peak Hour Trucks 8% AM, 8% PM 8% AM, 8% PM

% Daily Trucks 9.8% 9.8%

Exhibit - 2.3.1.6-2 Existing and Forecast Traffic Volumes

Route From Main Street to I-81, Int. 8 From West Intersection to East

Intersection (across bridge) Year AADT DHV AADT DHV

Existing (2012)

9700 1070 9500 760


2-6

Exhibit - 2.3.1.6-2 Existing and Forecast Traffic Volumes

Route From Main Street to I-81, Int. 8 From West Intersection to East

Intersection (across bridge) ETC

(2016) 9900 1090 9750 780

ETC+10 (2026)

10350 1140 10250 820

ETC+20 (2036)

10900 1200 10750 860

ETC+30 (2046)

11450 1260 11250 900

2.3.1.6. (2) Future no-build design year traffic volume forecasts – The Estimated Time of Completion (ETC)+30 design year was selected per PDM Appendix 5 as the project is a bridge replacement. Peak hour turning movement volumes for the west and east intersections are included for the design year(s) in Appendix B. A 0.5% growth factor was used for projecting existing traffic volumes to the design year. 2.3.1.7. Level of Service and Mobility 2.3.1.7. (1) Existing level of service and capacity analysis West Intersection - Main Street/US Route 11/NY Route 79/NY Route 26 Exhibit 2.3.1.7-1 below provides the results of the existing signalized intersection capacity analysis for the west intersection. Highway Capacity Software (HCS 2010), Version 5.6 and SYNCHRO 7 were used for the analysis portion of this study. As shown in the table, the intersection operates at an overall LOS B and C during the AM and PM weekday peak hour, respectively, and all approaches operate at a LOS C or better with the exception of the eastbound approach which has a LOS D. The eastbound left turn lane group has a LOS D and E during the AM and PM peak hour, respectively. The southbound left turn lane group has a LOS D during the PM peak hour.

Exhibit - 2.3.1.7-1 Existing Signalized Intersection Level of Service and Delays (sec)

West Intersection - Main Street/US Route 11/NY Route 26/NY Route 79 YEAR EB WB NB SB

2012 AM Overall LOS B (15 secs.) V/C = 0.60

C (30 secs.) B (15 secs.) B (12 secs.) B (13 secs.)

2012 PM Overall LOS C (22 secs.) V/C = 0.71

D (36 secs.) B (17 secs.) C (23 secs.) B (18 secs.) East Intersection - East Main Street/NY Route 26/NY Route 79/NY Route 206 The capacity analysis for this intersection used Two-Way Stop Control, however the intersection has three-way stop control with the eastbound approach having the free movement. Standard analysis procedures for stop controlled intersections are either two-way or four-way stop control. Two-way stop analysis was used since the through movement on a major street is typically not affected by intersection traffic control, therefore the westbound NY 206 approach was considered free-flow in the analysis even though it is stop controlled. Exhibit 2.3.1.7-2 provides the results of the capacity analysis for the east intersection. The results show that the intersection currently operates at an acceptable LOS during the AM and PM weekday peak hour.


2-7

Exhibit - 2.3.1.7-2 Existing Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service and Delays (sec)

East Intersection - East Main Street/NY Route 26/NY Route 79/NY Route 206 YEAR NY 26/79 EB

Lt/Th/Rt NY 206 WB

Lt/Th/Rt NY 79 NB

Lt/Th NY 26 SB Lt/Th/Rt

2012 AM A (7.7 secs.) A (7.5 secs.) B (14.5 secs.) A (9.7 secs.) 2012 PM A (8.0 secs.) A (7.8 secs.) D (25.5 secs.) B (10.7 secs.)

2.3.1.7. (2) Future no-build design year level of service – West Intersection - Main Street/US Route 11/NY Route 79/NY Route 26 Exhibit 2.3.1.7-3 provides the results of the signalized intersection capacity analysis for the future no-build condition. The results show that although the overall LOS is an acceptable C and D during the AM and PM weekday peak hours, the volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio during the PM peak hour is approaching 1.0 which indicates the intersection will be at its capacity if the lane configurations were to remain the same to the design year of 2046. The Main Street eastbound approach will operate at a LOS E with a V/C ratio of 0.97 during the PM peak hour. Individual lane groups with a LOS E or worse include the eastbound left turn during the AM and PM peak hours and the southbound left turn during the PM peak hour.

Exhibit - 2.3.1.7-3 Future No-Build Signalized Intersection Level of Service and Delays (sec)


2046 AM Overall LOS C (21 secs.) V/C = 0.80

D (43 secs.) B (15 secs.) C (24 secs.) B (14 secs.)

2046 PM Overall LOS C (29 secs.) V/C = 0.97

E (60 secs.) C (21 secs.) C (24 secs.) C (28 secs.) East Intersection - East Main Street/NY Route 26/NY Route 79/NY Route 206 Exhibit 2.3.1.7-4 provides the results of the capacity analysis for the future no-build condition at the east intersection. The exhibit shows the capacity analysis for this intersection using two-way stop control and four-way stop control. The intersection is a three-way stop control therefore the actual level of service will vary slightly from the results shown. The results show that the intersection approaches will operate at an acceptable Level of Service C or better during the AM and PM peak hours, with the exception being the NY 79 northbound approach during the PM peak hour experiencing LOS F under the future no-build condition for two-way stop control. Under four-way stop control during the PM peak hour the approach has a LOS B, therefore it could be assumed that under the three-way stop control that exists the level of service on this approach is not quite as bad as shown under two-way stop control but slightly worse than shown under four-way stop control.

Exhibit - 2.3.1.7-4 Future No-Build Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service and Delays (sec) East Intersection - East Main Street/NY Route 26/NY Route 79/NY Route 206

YEAR NY 26/79 EB Lt/Th/Rt

NY 206 WB Lt/Th/Rt

NY 79 NB Lt/Th

NY 26 SB Lt/Th/Rt

2046 AM (two-way stop) A (7.8 secs.) A (7.6 secs.) C (19.9 secs.) B (10.3 secs.) 2046 AM (four-way stop) B (10.1 secs.) B (10.9 secs.) B (10.9 secs.) B (13.1 secs.) 2046 PM (two-way stop) A (8.2 secs.) A (8.0 secs.) F (>50 secs.) B (11.2 secs.) 2046 PM (four-way stop) B (14.3 secs.) B (13.3 secs.) B (13.1 secs.) B (10.9 secs.)


2-8

2.3.1.8. Safety Considerations, Accident History and Analysis An accident analysis was performed in accordance with the Highway Design Manual chapter 5 in 2010 by NYSDOT for the 5-year period from December 2003 thru November 2008. The Route Marker range studied include: 26 91011282-1284; 11 91013161-3164; 79 91031129-1130; and 206 9101100001001. The NY Route 26 segment appears on 2009 PIL (as well as 2008 PIL); US Route 11 segment appears on 2009 HAL as a SDL (as well as all other PIL lists except for 2006); NY Routes 79 and 206 do not appear on the most current (2009) HAL nor any preceding PIL lists. All accidents were carefully sorted for exact location. All duplication of cases (reported to more than one road) were carefully accounted for only once. The focus of the study was to carefully sort what was related to the intersection on the west end of the bridge (Routes 11, 26, 79 and West Main Street; three color traffic signal controlled); what was on the east end of the bridge (Routes 26, 79, and 206; all legs stop controlled except EB); and what was directly attributed to the driveway maneuvers at the Hess Station in the northwest quadrant of the west side intersection as these were the pattern areas established for this project location in earlier studies. Five years of data was reviewed so that the patterns were clearer. During part of the study time period traffic was sporadically increased due to operations on I-81 at a bridge replacement project. The occasional shifting of traffic to the study area was not significant enough to be concerned about it. The subject project constructed bridges during the winter so that the two-lane-two-way operation on I-81 did not cause backups. Backups only occurred on the holidays, which might have encourages traffic to divert thru the Village of Whitney Point. In the five year study time frame there were 23 accidents (see Exhibit 2.3.1.8-1) attributed to intersection operations on the west side of the bridge. The severity distribution of these cases is normal. The resulting accident rate is 0.75 accidents per million entering vehicles (MEV). The comparable statewide average is 0.50. While the rate is high, it is not alarmingly so. The accidents were all-over accidents with the exception of a few patterns:

• 6 cases were related to the tight radius and narrow bridge that a northbound vehicle encounters when performing a right turn onto the bridge. Field conditions changed here after the study time period. In summer 2009 the northbound right turn lane that had previously been striped onto the shoulder was removed and the shoulder restored. While many complaints were received, and there are probably a lot of local violators, this may improve the situation for a large vehicle unfamiliar with the area from making the turn from the right turn lane and either hitting the bridge or greatly encroaching into oncoming WB traffic causing them to swerve. This situation will be improved once the bridge is replaced, an adequate turning radius will be provided to allow the large vehicle to turn from the legal lane.

• 5 northbound rear-ends occurred at the signal. Only one of these cite being behind a stopped left turner.

A recommendation made based on a prior study, to reconstruct the intersection (at least partially) to include properly developed left turn lanes and an improved NB right turn radius still stands.

Exhibit 2.3.1.8-1 Collision Summary

West Intersection - US Route 11/NY Route 26/NY Route 79/West Main Street Type of Collision Number Percentage

Side Swipe 3 13 Right Angle 3 13 Rear End 8 35 Left Turn 3 13

Fixed Object 3 13 Other 3 13


2-9

In the five year study time frame there were 11 accidents (see Exhibit 2.3.1.8-2) attributed to intersection operations on the east side of the bridge. The severity distribution of these cases is normal. The resulting accident rate is 0.83 accidents per MEV. The comparable statewide average is 0.31. The accident rate is high. The most prevalent accident pattern is loss of control on approach to the Stop sign: 3 SB on Route 26 (2 icy one dry) and 1 WB on Route 206 (cited to be a 'black out' but the pavement was wet). There were two EB left turns made by large vehicles that had difficulty with a vehicle located at the southbound Stop bar on Route 26. There were two right angle hits of a NB vehicle that pulled out into a path of an EB vehicle (the only leg not Stop controlled). By virtue of the bridge being replaced (currently a pony truss that blocks sight distance), the accident situation may be improved. Without improvements to the grades on the north 26 and east 206 leg, grade related crashes will continue. There are no strong patterns here that would generate an appreciable benefit value, so no improvements are suggested based on accidents.

Exhibit 2.3.1.8-2 Collision Summary

East Intersection - NY Route 26/NY Route 79/NY Route 206 Type of Collision Number Percentage

Side Swipe 1 9 Right Angle 4 36

Run Off Road 2 18 Rear End 2 18

Fixed Object 1 9 Other 1 9

In the five year study time frame there were 23 accidents (see Exhibit 2.3.1.8-3) on Route 11/79 overlap (just north of the signal) related to the Hess gas station's driveway just north of the intersection. The severity distribution of these cases is normal. Assuming a driveway 'entering' volume (exiting the driveway) of 2000 cars per day, the intersection accident rate of the driveway is 0.69 accidents per MEV. This can be loosely compared to an urban 3-leg sign controlled intersection where the statewide average rate would be 0.11. The driveway's accident rate is very high. Of the 23 cases, 10 of them involved a northbound vehicle on Route 11 slowing/stopping/left turning into the driveway just north of the traffic signal. 5 of the cases were simple RE's of a stopped left turner, 2 of them were hit by a southbound vehicle after being 'waved thru' by a stopped vehicle in the left turn lane, and 3 of them were just collisions with a southbound vehicle as the northbound vehicle turned left towards the driveway. An additional 5 cases involved a vehicle exiting the driveway being hit by a southbound vehicle, 4 of these vehicles were trying to turn left, one of them turned right. Three accidents involved a vehicle at the driveway being hit by a backing vehicle inside the parking lot: two of these were vehicles waiting to turn left onto Route 11 northbound, and one was a southbound vehicle waiting and trying to enter the driveway. There were an additional 3 cases within the parking lot itself involving tight parking lot maneuvers: backing, right angle, overtaking. These cases do not count towards the accident rates at the driveway of course. There were two accidents at the driveway onto Main Street. The driveway entrance is very close to the intersection, and within the SB queuing of the intersection. There are 16 accident cases related to left turning maneuvers here, both entering and exiting. If this maneuver was to be prevented, and all left turns (northbound entering and eastbound exiting) were made at the traffic signal these accidents would be eliminated. Of course the Village would have to support this restriction, but business would not want their Route 11 driveway restricted to right-in-right-out operation. There is an expected $1.5 million public safety benefit to be realized with this change.


2-10

Exhibit 2.3.1.8-3 Collision Summary Hess Gas Station

Type of Collision Number Percentage Side Swipe 1 4 Right Angle 6 26

Left Turn 5 22 Rear End 8 35

Other (Parking Lot Maneuvers) 3 13 The following are the recommendations from accident analysis:

• Reconstruct west intersection to include a NB left turn lane and an adequate NB right-turn radius to accommodate a tractor-53' trailer combination vehicle.

• Expect sight distance improvements at the east intersection, analyze possible improvements to control there after construction. Make sure that no bridge/intersection alternatives worsen the approach grades on Route 206 WB or Route 26 SB.

• Recommend and monitor project developments in regards to restricting northbound left turns into the Hess gas station driveway on Route 11 and left turns out of the same driveway.

The accident summaries (TE-213) and collision diagrams (TE-56) for the above information is included in Appendix B along with the Traffic and Safety recommendations. Accident rates on the linear segments of NY Routes 26 and 206 from the eastern intersection were calculated as shown in Appendix B. Most of the accidents occurring within these segments were concentrated at the intersection. Hence, the linear accident rates were not relevant to evaluate for the non-standard feature justifications in Appendix E.

2.3.1.9. Existing Police, Fire Protection and Ambulance Access The Village of Whitney point fire department is located on Main St. approximately 0.1 km west of the project limit.

2.3.1.10. Parking Regulations and Parking Related Conditions Parking is prohibited on the US Route 11/NY Route 26 overlap and on NY Route 206. Roadway width restricts parking on NY Route 79, US Route 11/NY Route 79 overlap and the bridge (NY Route 26/79 overlap). There are no parking restrictions on NY Route 26 north of the structure. There is parking along both sides of Main Street west of the project limits.

2.3.1.11. Lighting Street lighting exists on both ends of the bridge but not on the bridge. Street lighting within the project limit will be relocated subject to utility company approval.

2.3.1.12. Ownership and Maintenance Jurisdiction NY Routes 26, 206 & 79 and the bridge over the Tioughnioga River (BIN 1018600) are owned and maintained by the State of New York. US Route 11 is owned and maintained by the State of New York. Main Street, west of the west intersection is owned and maintained by the Village of Whitney Point.

2.3.2. Multimodal 2.3.2.1. Pedestrians


2-11

Pedestrians are accommodated on sidewalks along the south side of the bridge (right side traveling eastbound, the feasible alternative will construct sidewalks on both sides of the bridge. Sidewalks also exist on the south side of Main Street and NY Route 206, and on the west side of NY 11, north of the west intersection, and on the west side of NY 79 south of the east intersection. These sidewalks will be reconstructed and a sidewalk will be added on the north side approaches to the bridge. A Pedestrian Generator Checklist is included in Appendix B. The sidewalks and driveway aprons are generally in poor to fair condition, although some short sections of sidewalk have been recently replaced. The sidewalk on the west side of NY 79 east of the river does not conform to the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) as it is approximately 1.2 meters wide. In addition, some of the existing curb ramps have slopes and widths that do not conform to the ADAAG. 2.3.2.2. Bicyclists NY Bike Route 11 traverses north along NY Route 79 to the east intersection, goes across the bridge and north on US Route 11.

2.3.2.3. Transit There are no transit providers operating within the project limits.

2.3.2.4. Airports, Railroad Stations, and Ports There are no airports, railroad stations or port entrances within or in the vicinity of the project limits.

2.3.2.5. Access to Recreation Areas (Parks, Trails, Waterways, State Lands) There is a gravel driveway on the east side of US Route 11, just south of the west intersection, to an ad-hoc parking area for access to the Tioughnioga River within the project limits.

2.3.3. Infrastructure 2.3.3.1. Existing Highway Section 2.3.3.1(1) Right-of-Way The existing right-of-way width was determined based on survey mapping done during preliminary design. The right-of-way width within the project limits varies as follows:

• Along US Route 11 – minimum width of 32.2 meters

• Along Main Street at the west end of BIN 1018600 – 16.4 meters to 21.1 meters

• Along Hickory Street / NY Route 79 – varies from 15.8 meters to 21.4 meters

• Along N. Hickory Street / NY Route 26 – varies from 28.4 meters to 47.1 meters

• Along E. Main Street / NY Route 206 – varies from 20.5 meters to 31.4 meters

2.3.3.1(2) Lanes and Shoulders

• NY Route 26/79 overlap (BIN 1018600): The two asphalt travel lanes are 3.3 meters wide. There are no shoulders.

• NY Route 206 (east of bridge): the two asphalt travel lanes are 3.3 meters wide. There is a 0.6 meter curb offset on the south side and a 1.8 m shoulder on the north side.

• NY Route 79 (east of bridge): The two asphalt travel lanes are 3.3 meters wide. There are no shoulders.


2-12

• NY Route 26 (east of bridge): The two asphalt travel lanes are 3.6 meters wide. The shoulders are 3.0 meters wide.

• US Route 11 (south of NY Route 26 intersection): The two asphalt travel lanes are 3.6 meters wide. The shoulders are 3.0 meters wide.

• US Route 11 & NY Route 26 overlap: The two asphalt travel lanes are 3.6 meters wide. The shoulders are 2.4 meters wide.

• US Route 11 & NY Route 79 overlap: The two asphalt travel lanes are 3.6 meters wide. There are no shoulders, but there is 0.6 meter curb offset

2.3.3.1(3) Curb NY Routes 26 & 79 overlap section across the bridge has granite curb. On the east side of the bridge, NY Route 79 has non-mountable concrete curb along the west side; no curb exists on NY Route 26; mountable concrete curb and a concrete gutter exist along the south side and north side of NY Route 206, respectively. On the west side of the bridge, non-mountable concrete curb exists on both sides of the US Route 11 & NY Route 79 overlap north of the intersection, while no curbs exist on either side to the south of the intersection. 2.3.3.1(4) Median There is a grass, curbed median strip on NY Route 79 at the intersection just east of the bridge. There is also a triangular grass, curbed island at same location separating vehicles turning right onto NY Route 206 eastbound from traffic heading north on NY Route 26 or turning west onto NY Route 206. 2.3.3.1(5) Grades and Curves BIN 1018600, carrying NY Routes 26 & 79 over the Tioughnioga River, is on a horizontal tangent. Traveling west to east, the grade on the highway approach is +2.45%, the grade on the west span is +2.14% and the grade on the east span is +3.22%. On the west side of the bridge, US Route 11 is on a 925 meter radius horizontal curve to the left, south of the west intersection, then continues north on a tangent section. The grade is almost flat going north approaching the intersection then increases to approximately 2.0% north of the intersection. On the east side of the bridge, NY Route 26 is on a horizontal tangent section and has a grade of approximately -8.4% going south approaching the intersection; NY Route 79 is on a horizontal tangent section and has a grade heading north of +2.6% at the south project limit and transitions to a -3.9% on the approach to the intersection; NY Route 206 heading east starts on a horizontal tangent section that changes to a 162.5 meter radius horizontal curve to the right and has a grade of +8.6% heading east away from the intersection.

2.3.3.1(6) Intersection Geometry and Conditions There are intersections on both ends of the bridge as well as the intersection along US Route 11 just south of the bridge. These intersections are described as follows:

• West Intersection: US Route 11/NY Route 26/NY Route 79/Main Street: This intersection is at the western end of the bridge. It is a four-legged intersection that includes the overlap of NY Routes 26 & 79 (across the bridge to the east), US Route 11 & NY Route 26 (to the south), Main Street (to the west, slightly skewed to the north) and US Route 11 & NY Route 79 overlap (to the north). This intersection is controlled by a four-way traffic signal. Radii of the curbs need to be increased to improve turning radii. Guide rail coming off the bridge repeatedly get struck by trucks turning onto or off the bridge.


2-13

The description of this intersection is as follows: Approaching the intersection traveling westbound on NY Routes 26 & 79 overlap there is a single lane that transitions to a left turn lane and a combined straight/right turn lane as you come off the bridge. Traveling eastbound on NY Route 26 & 79 overlap, as you leave the intersection, there is one travel lane.

Approaching the intersection traveling northbound on US Route 11 & NY Route 26 overlap there

is a single right/straight/left-turn lane. A previous right turn lane has been hatched out to prevent usage to the numerous tractor trailers hitting the aforementioned guide rail. Traveling southbound on US Route 11 & NY Route 26 overlap as you leave the intersection there is one travel lane.

Approaching the intersection traveling eastbound on Main Street there are two lanes of traffic,

which include a left turn lane and a straight/right turn lane. Traveling eastbound on Main Street as you leave the intersection there is only one travel lane.

Approaching the intersection traveling southbound on US Route 11 & NY Route 79 overlap there

is a left-turn only lane and a straight/right-turn lane. Traveling northbound on US Route 11 & NY Route 79 overlap as you leave the intersection there is one travel lane.

• East Intersection: NY Route 26/NY Route 79/NY Route 206 intersection: This intersection is at

the eastern end of the bridge. It is a four-legged intersection that includes the overlap of NY Routes 26 & 79 (across the bridge to the west), NY Route 79 (to the south and skewed to the east), NY Route 206 (to the east) and NY Route 26 (to the north). This intersection is controlled by three “Stop” signs located on NY Route 26 southbound, NY Route 79 northbound and NY Route 206 westbound. The description of this intersection is as follows: Approaching the intersection traveling eastbound on NY Route 26 & 79 overlap there is a single travel lane that is a free movement (not controlled by a “Stop” sign like the other three legs). Vehicles can turn left onto NY Route 26 northbound, turn right onto NY Route 79 eastbound, or travel straight onto NY Route 206 eastbound, as you come off the bridge. There is a single travel lane leaving the intersection and heading westbound on NY Route 26 & 79 overlap (onto the bridge).

Approaching the intersection traveling westbound on NY Route 79, it is a skewed intersection with two median islands. One of the islands separates a two-way slip ramp that allows vehicles to turn right onto NY Route 206 eastbound but also allows vehicles traveling westbound on NY Route 206 to turn left onto NY Route 79. There is another median island just to the west of this slip ramp that separates the vehicles traveling westbound on NY Route 79 toward the intersection with the NY Route 79 eastbound vehicles leaving the intersection. There is a single travel lane leaving the intersection and heading eastbound on NY Route 79.

Approaching the intersection traveling westbound on NY Route 206, there is single thru/right lane. There is a two-way slip ramp that allows vehicles to turn left onto NY Route 79 eastbound. There is a single travel lane leaving the intersection heading eastbound on NY Route 206. Approaching the intersection traveling southbound on NY Route 26 there is a single left/thru/right lane. There is a single travel lane leaving the intersection heading northbound on NY Route 26.

• US Route 11/NY Route 26 intersection: This intersection is approximately 160 meters south of

the west intersection. It is a three-legged intersection that includes NY Route 26, US Route 11 and US Route 11 & NY Route 26 overlap. The description of this intersection is as follows: Approaching the T-intersection traveling northbound on NY Route 26 there is a single right/left turn lane onto US Route 11. There is a single travel lane leaving the intersection heading southbound on NY Route 26.


2-14

Approaching the intersection traveling northbound on US Route 11 there is a single thru/left turn lane. There is a single travel lane leaving the intersection heading southbound on US Route 11. Approaching the intersection traveling southbound on US Route 11 & NY Route 26 overlap there is a single thru/right turn lane There is a single travel lane leaving the intersection heading northbound on US Route 11 & NY Route 26 overlap.

2.3.3.1(7) Parking Parking is prohibited on NY Route 206 and US Route 11/NY Route 26 overlap. Roadway width restricts parking on NY Route 79, US Route 11/NY Route 79 overlap and the bridge (NY Route 26/79 overlap). There are no parking restrictions on NY Route 26 north of the structure. There is parking along both sides of Main Street.

2.3.3.1(8) Roadside Elements A 2 meter wide sidewalk exists along eastbound NY Route 26/79 overlap on the bridge. A typical section view looking eastbound and proceeding left to right from the south edge of pavement would reveal a curb, a two-rail bridge rail, truss, sidewalk, chain-link fence and older steel bridge rail. The sidewalk connects a sidewalk system that is present west and east of the bridge. A typical section view looking westbound and proceeding left to right from the north edge of pavement would reveal a curb, a two-rail bridge rail and the truss. To the east of the structure: along NY Route 79, a 1.2 meter sidewalk exists on the west side of the road; along NY Route 206, a 1.5 meter sidewalk exists on the south side; and there is no sidewalk along NY Route 26. To the west of the structure: the sidewalk terminates at the end of the radius to the intersection along the east side of US Route 11. From here, there exists a pedestrian crossing to the west side of US Route 11. The sidewalk system continues to the north along US Route 11 and down Main Street. There are no snow storage areas between the curb and sidewalk with the exception of the northwest quadrant of the west intersection in which there is a 1.0 meter snow storage area. 2.3.3.1(9) Driveways There are commercial driveways located at the corner of Main Street as well as at Aiello’s Restaurant at the southwest corner of the intersection with US Route 11. Another commercial driveway is located at the Hess gas station at the northwest corner of the same intersection. None of the driveways appear to conform to the State Policy for Driveway Entrances. There is another paved driveway off of US Route 11 at the southeast corner of same intersection which leads down to the Tioughnioga River. There are residential driveways along NY Route 79, NY Route 206 and NY Route 26 east of the Tiougnioga River. 2.3.3.1(10) Clear Area The clear area within the project limits is restricted by the guide rail, bridge rail, truss, utility poles, trees and buildings. On the west side of the bridge, the clear area on the US Route 11/NY Route 26 overlap section is limited to the shoulder width of 2.4 meters due to the presence of guide rail at the edge of shoulder. The clear area on the east side of the US Route 11/NY Route 79 overlap section is approximately 1.6 meters in the non-guide rail area and 0.6 meters where there is guide rail. On the west side the clear area is approximately 2.7 meters due to the presence of signs. There is no clear area on the NY Route 26/NY Route 79 overlap section across BIN 1018600 due to the truss being at the edge of the travel lanes in each direction. On the east side of the bridge, the clear area on NY Route 79 is approximately 1.0 meters on both sides of the road due to the presence of signs and a cut slope. On NY Route 206, the clear area is 2.5 meters on the south side due to the presence of signs and 2.3 meters on the north side due to the presence of a retaining wall. On NY Route 26, the clear area is 4.6 meters on the west side and 2.1 meters on the east side due to the presence of signs and utility poles.


2-15

2.3.3.2. Geometric Design Elements Not Meeting Standards 2.3.3.2.(1) Critical Design Elements The following non-standard features are present within the project limits:

o BIN 1018600

� Existing bridge roadway width is 6.6 meters or less than the full roadway width. Lanes are 3.3 meters wide (standard is 3.6 meters).

� Shoulder width (curbed) is 0 meters (standard is 1.5 meters).

o NY Route 206: � Shoulder width (curbed) is 0.6 meters (standard is 1.5 meters) � Grade ranges up to 9.5% (standard max is 6%) � Stopping Sight Distance is 56 meters (standard is 85 meters)

o NY Route 26 (north of east intersection)

� Grade is 8.1% (standard max is 7%). � Stopping Sight Distance is 92 meters (standard is 130 meters)

o NY Route 79 (south of east intersection):

� Travel lane width is 3.3 meters (standard is 3.6 meters) � Shoulder width (uncurbed) ranges from 0 to 1 meters (standard is 1.5 meters). Shoulder

width (curbed) is 0 meters (standard is 1.5 meters). � There are two horizontal curves with radii ranging as low as 20 meters (standard is 135

meters @ e= 4.0%). One curve is part of the non-conforming intersection geometry at the NY east intersection. The second is approximately 50 meters south of the intersection.

� There is a vertical curve with a SSD of 75 meters, approximately 152 meters south of the east intersection, and a vertical curve with a SSD of 80 meters, approximately 274 meters south of the east intersection (standard is 85 meters).

2.3.3.2.(2) Other Design Parameters Other project elements that do not conform to guidelines contained in the NYSDOT HDM or AASHTO include:

o The intersection on the east side of the bridge is a three-way stop controlled (non conforming

control) with non conforming intersection sight distance (blocked mainly by the vertical members of the truss bridge).

o Many of the turning radii at the intersections will not accommodate the proposed design vehicle.

2.3.3.3. Pavement and Shoulder The 2010 Highway Condition Rating for the US Route 11/NY Route 26 overlap is a ‘6’ meaning the condition is fair (surface distress is clearly visible). The paved shoulders are also in fair condition. The pavement for the US Route 11/NY Route 79 overlap section is a ‘7’ meaning good condition (surface distress beginning to show) and there are no shoulders in this section. The pavement for NY Route 26 is rated a ‘7’, indicating good condition (distress symptoms are beginning to show). Paved shoulders are in fair condition on NY Route 26 north of the east intersection. There are no shoulders across the bridge (NY Route 26/79 overlap). For NY Route 206, the pavement condition rating as of 2010 was a ‘9’, indicating excellent condition (no significant surface distress). The paved shoulders are also in excellent condition. For NY Route 79, the pavement condition rating as of 2010 was a ‘6’ meaning the condition is fair (distress is clearly visible). There are no shoulders on NY Route 79 within the project limits.


2-16

2.3.3.4. Drainage Systems 2.3.3.4(1) Type At both intersection on the east and west end of the bridge, the existing drainage system consists of a closed network of drainage structures connected together by drainage pipes. This system outlets to the Tioughnioga River. There are also concrete gutters along the north side of NY Route 206 and along both sides of NY Route 26 north of the east intersection. 2.3.3.4(2) Condition/Deterioration The condition of the closed drainage system is unknown within the area of the west intersection. The condition of the closed drainage system at the east intersection is also unknown with the exception of the closed system along NY Route 206 which is in excellent condition as it was recently installed.

2.3.3.4(3) Deficiencies/Needs The closed drainage system at the intersection of NY Routes 26, 206 and 79 just east of the bridge was cleaned out as part of PIN 901442 NY Route 206 Drainage Improvements project let for construction on July 12, 2007. The closed drainage systems within the project limits will be reconstructed due to its age and/or the revised alignment configurations at the intersections. 2.3.3.5. Geotechnical As part of a general soils investigation conducted by the Regional Geotechnical Engineer in January 2006, soil survey maps of the area were reviewed. The maps indicate that four different subsurface strata are encountered within the project limits; subsurface exploration borings taken within the project limits in August 2005 and September 2013 confirmed the presence of these subsurface strata. The strata vary in several characteristics; most notably in texture (silt/clay to gravel), permeability rate, and load carrying capabilities. According to NYS Surficial Geology, the silt/clay layers have a low rate of permeability and potential land instability issues. However, since the horizontal and vertical alignments will remain essentially unchanged, the potential for land instability issues is relatively low for the long term.

2.3.3.6. Structure

There is one structure being replaced within the project limits as listed below: The bridge is not considered to be a “critical” bridge. 2.3.3.6.(1) Description:

(a) BIN 1018600 (b) Feature carried and crossed – NY Routes 26 and 79 over the Tioughnioga River (c) Type of bridge, number and length of spans, etc. – The structure is a Warren Truss (thru)

consisting of 2 spans with an overall bridge length of 74.9 meters. (d) Width of travel lanes, parking lanes, and shoulders – The travel lanes on the bridge are 3.3

meters wide and there are no parking lanes or shoulders. Total curb to curb width is 6.6 meters. (e) Sidewalks – There is a concrete sidewalk on the south side of the bridge outside of the thru-

truss. (f) Utilities carried – There is a 10 NPS water line hanging from beneath the structure.

2.3.3.6.(2) Clearances (Horizontal/Vertical) There is no horizontal clearance as the truss is located at the edge of the travel way.


2-17

2.3.3.6.(3) History & Deficiencies (a) History The bridge carrying NY Route 26/79 overlap over the Tioughnioga River is a Warren Truss structure. It was constructed in 1928 and is eligible for the National Register of historic bridges in New York State. It is identified as BIN 1018600. According to the Department’s recent bridge inspection files, the existing bridge is in a deteriorated condition and needs to be rehabilitated or replaced. The bridge carries a general recommendation of ‘4’. The general recommendation is an assessment of the overall condition of the bridge. According to the New York State DOT Bridge Inspection Manual guidelines, a rating of ‘4’ indicates somewhere between minor deterioration, but functioning as originally designed (a ‘5’ rating) and serious deterioration, or not functioning as originally designed (a ‘3’ rating). According to the NYSDOT bridge inventory system (WINBOLTS), work completed on this bridge is as follows: In 1975 as part of contract FARC 75-95, the bridge deck was replaced. Maintenance repaired damaged railing as well as other bridge improvements. In 1990 as part of contract D253115, the superstructure was cleaned. In 1991 as part of contract D253431, all metal surfaces were cleaned and painted. In 1992 as part of contract D254044, the wearing surface was replaced. In 1993 as part of contract D254528, the pier caps and abutments were cleaned as well as the superstructure. In 1997 as part of contract D257134, the superstructure was cleaned. In 2000 as part of contract D257905, the superstructure was cleaned. In 2001 as part of contract D258682, the pier caps and abutments were cleaned as well as the superstructure. In 2004 as part of D259512, the bridge was cleaned. Also in 2004 as part of contract D259512, the pier caps and abutments were cleaned as well as the superstructure. (b) Deficiencies There are no current flags on the structure, all previous flags have been addressed. The following deficiencies were identified in the 2012 bridge inspection:

• Begin/End Abutments: Joint with Deck - Both abutment expansion joints have their seals almost completely worn away. Signs of leakage are noted underneath in the form of rust stains on the backwalls and debris on the seats. Begin and end joint ratings changed from 5 to 2.

• Begin/End Abutments: Bearings, Bolts, Pads - Both begin and end bearings are frozen in the neutral position due to debris under the rockers and filling the slotted holes in the rockers.

• Begin Abutment: Backwall - The begin backwall has the following defects: A 40” x 20” x 3” deep spall behind the begin right bearing and a 36” x 38” x 8” deep spall behind the begin left bearing. The debris from the spalls is accumulating over the bearing and hindering movement. There has been no loss of embankment backfill.


2-18

• Approaches: Guide Railing - Three lengths of jersey barrier were previously added to the begin right approach extending to the truss end post. An impact has caused the steel plate connection bolt to shear off on the section closest to the bridge. The begin left box beam guide railing has impact damage at the bridge. Several posts are detached for a 12’ total length of unsupported rail. The top rail is broken through near the bridge where it turns out at the welded splice, further weakening the system. Safety flag issued for condition of begin left guide railing. The end right guide railing has 3 of the first 5 posts disconnected from one or both rails. The end left guide railing rates a 5.

• Spans 1 and 2 Deck Elements: Sidewalks, Fascias - The left fascia in spans 1 and 2 has cracks up to 1/8” wide, hollow areas up to 3’ x 6” and spalls up to 3’ x 6” x 2” deep. The underside of the sidewalk has transverse cracks with efflorescence and scaling at multiple locations. The sidewalk deck plates have been improved with the welding of auxiliary plates over some rust holes, but still rate 4 due to several additional holes.

• Span 1 Deck Elements: Railings, Parapets - The top rail pipe of the sidewalk chain link fencing is disconnected at the end of Span 1. Remainder of railing item in Span 1 rates 5 or above. Rating changed from 7 to 4.

• Span 1 and 2 Superstructure: Structural Deck - Stay in place forms in both spans have local corrosion along the edges of the deck from leakage at the curb lines. Rusted pieces of the SIP clip angles are falling off throughout the bridge. There is also scattered leakage and rusting of forms along the bridge centerline, probably through a construction joint over the center stringer.

• Span 1 Superstructure: Primary Members - Right Truss - There is section loss in the lower portions of the diagonals near the bottom chord and deck level. The worst locations listed below were cleaned and painted at the deck level and below in 2008, and the section loss has not changed. U01-L02 - 36% overall loss; U05-L06 - 27% overall loss; L06-U07 - 39% overall loss; U11-L10 - 36% overall loss. The other of the right truss members have moderate surface rust at multiple locations with section loss up to 10%. The inside of the bottom chord has heavy accumulation of debris at multiple locations. Previously noted 1” dia. rust holes were not found in vertical member U07-L07 diameter at the bottom.

• Span 1 Superstructure: Primary Members - Left Truss - Truss members typically have moderate losses between the curb line and the lower panel point gusset plates. Typical range is 10 to 20% gross section loss on diagonals and verticals and 10% on bottom chords. The begin end post has one location with a bent plate from impact damage. The top chord at span 1 has 3 locations of bent plates from impact damage. The weld repair on the interior gusset plate at U01 was closely inspected as a special emphasis item with no deficiencies noted. The bottom chord splice locations on both trusses have rivets that are rose-budding along the top and bottom channel flanges.

• Span 1 Superstructure: Primary Members - Floorbeams & Stringers - The connection between the center stringer and floorbeam was cleaned and painted in 2008. No other significant deficiencies were noted. Overall rating of 5 retained.

• Spans 1 and 2 Superstructure: Secondary Members - The lacing bars in both spans are generally in poor condition with heavy section loss. The worst location is the Span 2 Right Truss end post near the sidewalk with the lacing bars nearly entirely rusted out. Many bottom chord tie plates have section losses from corrosion, or distortion due to pack rust. The tie plate at L03-L04 on the left truss has 3 rust holes up to 3” diameter. The sway bracing members are slightly bent near the begin and end and their gusset plates are deteriorated.

• Spans 1 and 2 Superstructure: Paint - The stringers and floorbeams have localized areas with paint failure but rate 5. The bottom chords have peeling paint and surface rust on +/-40% of their surfaces. In 2008, several diagonals on the right truss in both spans were cleaned and painted near the bottom. The center stringer to floorbeam connections were painted also. Overall rating of 2 seems low. Span 1 and 2 ratings changed from 2 to 3.

• Span 1 Superstructure: Joints - The superstructure joint seal is torn and leaks onto the elements below. Ratings changed from 5 to 3.

• Span 1 Pier: Bearings, Bolts Pads - The fixed pier bearings have only minor corrosion but they appear to be frozen to rotational movement around the pin. The end right bearing is missing the left anchor bolt nut.


2-19

• Span 1 Pier: Erosion or Scour - The vertical face of the pier footing is exposed up to 1.7 feet along the end face and 0.8’ along the begin. There is no significant increase in exposure from recent past inspections. Per plans, the pier footing is on piles and it is 4.5 feet thick. The large amount of debris left on the upstream nose in 2010 has been removed.

• Span 2 Deck Elements: Railings, Parapets - Several consecutive post supports on the chain link fence are loose in their anchorage, and the fence is leaning inward at the begin of Span 2. Remainder of railing item in Span 2 rates 5 or above. Rating changed from 7 to 4.

• Span 2 Superstructure: Primary Members - Right Truss - There is section loss in the lower portions of the diagonals near the bottom chord and deck level. The worst locations, L02-U03 and U09-L10, were repaired with two C8 channels in 2008. Member L06-U07 was cleaned and painted at the deck level and below in 2008, and the 40% section loss has not changed since. The rest of the right truss members have moderate surface rust at multiple locations with section loss up to 10%. The inside of the bottom chord has heavy accumulation of debris at multiple locations.

• Span 2 Superstructure: Primary Members - Left Truss - Truss members typically have moderate losses between the curb line and the lower panel point gusset plates. Typical range of losses is 10 to 20% gross section loss on diagonals and verticals and 10% on bottom chords. The bottom chord splice locations on both trusses have rivets that are rose-budding along the top and bottom channel flanges.

• End Abutment: Backwall - The end backwall has 4’ x 2’ x 5” deep spall behind the right bearing. The debris from the spalls is accumulating over the bearing and hindering movement. There has been no loss of embankment backfill.

2.3.3.6.(4) Inspection The last biennial inspection was performed on October 24, 2012. The federal sufficiency rating was 47.1 and the computed State condition rating was 4.389. The bridge inspection report can be reviewed in the NYSDOT Region 9 offices. 2.3.3.6.(5) Restrictions There are no loading restrictions that are posted on the bridge. 2.3.3.6.(6) Future Conditions The future will bring continued deterioration of the existing facility. Continuing deterioration will require more costly repairs and significant more time of maintenance personnel to keep the existing structure in service. Continued deterioration of the structure may require a load posting of the bridge. 2.3.3.6.(7) Waterway A USACE Section 10 Permit is not required because the project does not involve construction activities in or over USACE defined navigable waters. In addition, a US Coast Guard (USCG) Section 9 Permit is not required for the work of this project because it is not in or over USCG navigable waters.

2.3.3.7. Hydraulics of Bridges and Culverts

The waterway opening is rated a ‘5’ (minor siltation that has not yet caused any local scour problems at the bridge). A complete hydraulic analysis will be performed during final design. The hydraulic adequacy of any small culverts within the project limits will be investigated during final design.


2-20

2.3.3.8. Guide Railing, Median Barriers and Impact Attenuators –

Exhibit - 2.3.3.8

Existing Guide Railing, Median Barriers and Impact Attenuators

Type Location/Side Length Condition Box beam bridge railing Along both sides of the bridge 73 m Fair Box beam guide railing East side of US Route 11/NY Route 79 overlap Good

Box beam guide railing North side of NY Route 26/NY Route 79 overlap on the east approach to the bridge

20 m Good

Box beam guide railing North side of NY Route 26/NY Route 79 overlap on the west departure from the bridge

22 m Good

Corrugated beam guide railing

Both sides of US Route 11/NY Route 26 overlap Good

Corrugated beam guide railing

South side of NY Route 26/NY Route 79 overlap on the east departure from the bridge

30 m Good

Median Barrier South side of NY Route 26/NY Route 79 on the west approach to the bridge

9 m Good

Impact attenuators N/A N/A N/A

2.3.3.9. Utilities There are overhead utility lines (electric, cable tv, telephone) in the following locations: south side of Main Street and NY Route 206 from the western project limit to the eastern project limit; east side of US Route 11, east side of NY Route 79 and west side of NY Route 26. There are sanitary sewer lines owned by the Village of Whitney Point on the east side of the river along the west side of NY Route 26, north side of NY Route 206 and along NY Route 79. There are no sanitary sewer lines within the project limits on the west side of the river. There are water lines owned by the Village of Whitney Point on the west side of the river in the vicinity of the west intersection and a 10 NPS water line crosses the Tioughnioga River on the existing truss bridge. On the east side of the river there are water lines on the west side of NY Route 26, south side of NY Route 206 and west side of NY Route 79.

2.3.3.10. Railroad Facilities There are no railroads within the project limits. However the Syracuse Branch of the New York, Susquehanna & Western Railroad is within 0.8 kilometers of the project limit but railroad involvement is not anticipated.

2.3.4. Potential Enhancement Opportunities This section focuses on the existing areas to identify potential enhancement opportunities related to the project and to help avoid and minimize impacts. Chapter 4 focuses on the impacts, enhancements, and mitigation.

2.3.4.1. Landscape 2.3.4.1. (1) Terrain

The project area is considered to have rolling terrain. 2.3.4.1. (2) Unusual Weather Conditions There are no unusual climatic conditions that would affect the project.


2-21

2.3.4.1. (3) Visual Resources The visual character of the project area consists of a rural village setting which includes the Warren truss bridge that will be replaced. The predominant views are of pave roadway and shoulder areas; commercial and residential properties; mowed lawns; a riverside fishing area and wooded surroundings. The eastern bridge approach is an important crossroads, as it connects NY Routes 26, 79 and 206. The existing visual character reflects the function as a crossroads, with a large amount of vehicular activity both within the roadway and the Hess gas station in the northwest quadrant of the Main Street/US Route 11 intersection. The western bridge approach is significant because it connects US Route 11 and NY Route 79 with Interstate 81. A predominance of asphalt paving of roadways and parking lots detract from views. Streetscape amenities including trees, sidewalks, planting areas, pavers, and benches are not present within the project area. Decorative lighting exists on West Main Street west of the project limits. Existing open green space on either side of the western bridge approach provides visual relief and recreation opportunities.

2.3.4.2. Opportunities for Environmental Enhancements Due to the location and type of project, there are limited opportunities for environmental initiatives in this project. The project location may provide an opportunity for environmental enhancement in accordance with the Department’s Environmental Initiative. The most likely enhancement feature is a fishing access lot on the southeast quadrant of the west intersection, where there is currently an access road to a gravel parking area. There will also be a standard blue and yellow, cast metal, state historic marker installed near the east intersection to identify that location as the former site of a toll gate on the Catskill Turnpike.


3-1

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

3.1. Alternatives Considered and Eliminated from Further Study No Action/Maintenance Alternative. The no-build/maintenance alternative will result in the continued deterioration of the structure, resulting in increased maintenance and eventually requiring the structure to be load posted or possibly even closed to traffic. This alternative would not achieve any of this project’s objectives. For that reason, it does not warrant further consideration. It was used only as a baseline or benchmark for comparative purposes. Rehabilitation Alternative: This alternative proposes to retain and rehabilitate the existing structure. However, this alternative will not address some of the non-standard design elements that exist at this structure. The minimum required shoulder width is 1.5 meters and this structure does not have any shoulders. Also, the existing bridge roadway way width is 6.6 meters the standard criteria for bridge roadway width is 10.2 meters. The rehabilitation vs. replacement study indicates that the rehabilitation costs are 92% of the total replacement cost. This ratio suggests that complete bridge replacement is the appropriate work to progress. The study recommends replacing the existing structure because it satisfies all of the project objectives and is in conformance with the strategies of the department; it eliminates an 80 year old structure with questionable long term capabilities; and it increases safety by meeting current design standards. For the above reasons the rehabilitation alternative has been eliminated from further study.


3-2

Alternative No. 1 w/Roundabouts: Under this alternative, the existing structure would be replaced in its approximate existing location although at a slightly different skew. This alternative proposed roundabouts at both or either of the intersections. A temporary bridge would be required to maintain traffic during construction of the replacement bridge. The roundabout at the west intersection was eliminated from further consideration because the capacity analysis of a single lane roundabout at the west intersection showed a level of service F during the PM peak hour due to the unbalanced traffic flows through the roundabout. The roundabout at the east intersection is not a feasible alternative and is eliminated from further consideration due to undesirable geometric features, including steep grades on the approaches, with little expected benefit vs. large cost. For these reasons, this alternative has been eliminated from further consideration.


3-3

Alternative No. 2: Under this alternative, the existing structure would be replaced just north of the existing bridge with a new curved bridge built to current standards with the addition of a tuning lane. The existing intersection at both ends of the bridge will be reconstructed up to standard meeting the new bridge alignment. This would allow the use of the existing bridge for maintenance and protection of traffic during construction. However, sight distance would remain limited for traffic turning left from Hickory Street onto the bridge and there would be constructability issues for the southeast wingwall and abutment due to its proximity to the existing bridge. Shifting the alignment further to provide the clearance necessary would cause alignment problems with the intersection on the east side of the river. It was decided that this alternative is no longer feasible due to its limited sight distance and constructability issues.


3-4

Alternative No. 3: Under this alternative, the existing structure would be replaced just south of the existing alignment with a new bridge built to current standards with the addition of a median tuning lane. The intersection at the east end of the bridge will be reconstructed up to standard meeting the new bridge alignment and a new T-intersection would be constructed adjacent to the south of the west intersection. This would allow the use of the existing alignment for maintenance and protection of traffic during construction. The signalized intersection analysis of the three intersections show that queues from the middle signal would back traffic up into the intersections to the north and south. Also, northbound queues on US 11 at the Main Street intersection would back up into the middle intersections. Due to close proximity of these three intersections to each other it would be very difficult to coordinate them to provide a satisfactory traffic flow. It was decided that due to the traffic operational problems this alternative is not a feasible alternative and would be eliminated from further consideration.


3-5

Alternative No. 4: This alternative proposes to rehabilitate and widen the existing structure to meet the current standards. In order to widen the existing structure, the entire existing trusses would have to be removed and rehabilitated. The truss would need to be completely dismantled and painted and the

structure would require new floor beams and deck. The existing floor beams would have to be discarded and replaced with new, longer floor beams to provide the required additional width. The existing abutments and pier would have to be modified to accept the wider structure, at a significant cost. This alternative requires a temporary bridge to maintain traffic during construction of the rehabilitation and widening of the existing bridge. The rehabilitation cost estimate, without widening the bridge, was 92% of the replacement option cost estimates, widening of the structure would increase the rehabilitation cost, making Alternate 4 economically untenable, and therefore not a feasible alternative and is eliminated from further consideration.


3-6

Alternative No. 5: The twin bridge alternative proposes to build a new one-lane bridge adjacent to the existing structure. The new bridge will be constructed while traffic is maintained on the existing bridge. Once the new bridge is constructed traffic would be shifted and the existing bridge would be rehabilitated. The north truss will act as a barrier between the two structures. Impact attenuators will be added at the ends of the bridge to prevent any vehicles from colliding into the truss. This alternative would allow the existing traffic to carry the eastbound traffic and the new bridge to carry westbound traffic. However, retaining the existing structure does not eliminate the problematic line of sight for vehicles because of the existing truss, does not provide a left turn lane, has constructability issues due to the proximity of the existing and proposed substructures to each other and has the same rehabilitation issues and cost issues as Alternative 4. For all of these reasons this alternative is not being considered a feasible alternative and is eliminated from further consideration.


3-7

Alternative No. 6: This alternative looked at connecting NY Route 26 from its intersection with Collins Street to NY Route 26 on the east side of the river. This alternative would require a very long bridge over the river, it would create a skewed intersection with US 11, and it would also remove the majority of traffic from the downtown Main Street intersection which is opposed by the Village of Whitney Point. Also, the construction cost of this alternative would be twice the cost of the other alternatives. Therefore, this alternative is not being considered a feasible alternative and is eliminated from further consideration.

3.2. Feasible Build Alternatives

3.2.1. Description of Feasible Alternatives Alternative No. 1 Under this alternative, the existing structure would be replaced on a slightly skewed angle from the existing alignment with a new bridge built to current standards including the addition of a turning lane. The existing traffic signal on U.S. Route 11 and Main Street intersection will be replaced with a new traffic signal that meets current standards. This alternative would require a temporary bridge adjacent to the proposed structure for maintenance and protection of traffic during construction.

Geometry • This alternative includes better aligning the east-west roadway from Main

Street to NY Route 206. This results in slightly increased skew for the northbound/southbound roadways west of the river and the NY Route 79 northbound approach east of the river.

• This alternative includes adding a 3.3 meter median turning lane and 1.5 meter shoulders on the bridge along with 3.6 meter travel lanes.

• Roadways adjacent to each of the intersections will be reconstructed to match the existing configurations with the exception of the US Route 11 northbound approach where turning lanes will be added and the NY Route 79 northbound approach to the east intersection where the two-way slip ramp will be eliminated.


3-8

• The bridge will include 1.7 meter sidewalks on both the north and south side.

• This alternative would retain nonstandard grades at two locations within the project limit and a non-standard headlight sight distance on NY Route 26 at the east intersection. Justification for retaining these non-standard features is included in Appendix E of this report.

Operational • This alternative will improve traffic operations after completed due to the addition of turning lanes at the intersections which will improve the level of service. A temporary bridge will be constructed for the maintenance and protection of traffic while the new structure is being built.

Control of Access • Access is uncontrolled throughout the project area due to numerous driveways accessing the roadways.

Right of Way • Approximately 15 square meters of ROW is required on the north side of Main Street to reconstruct the sidewalk along the Hess Realty property. In addition, approximately 23 square meters of permanent easement is required for future maintenance of the sidewalk and a drainage pipe that crosses the corner of the property.

• Approximately 876 square meters of ROW is required along the east side of US Route 11 south of the west intersection to construct the slope that is required for the approach widening and the new fishing access drive. Acquisition of ROW for the new fishing access drive will not be eligible for federal funds.

• Approximately 4915 square meters of the Bed of the Tioughnioga River will be acquired for the construction of the new structure, temporary structure and water line being placed beneath the river.

• Approximately 221 square meters of ROW is required in the southwest quadrant of the east intersection and along the west side of NY Route 79 due to the shift in the intersection to the south and construction of a new sidewalk. In addition, approximately 395 square meters of temporary easement is required for the construction of the temporary bridge and slope work behind the new sidewak.

• Approximately 72 square meters of ROW and 92 square meters of temporary easement is required from the property in the northwest quadrant of the east intersection for the installation of the relocated water main that is currently hanging on the bridge.

Environmental • There are no wetland impacts associated with the bridge replacement or roadway improvements.

• There are no significant noise or visual impacts associated with the bridge replacement or roadway improvements.

• The proposed bridge is a replacement of an existing bridge located within and along the edge of a floodplain. Although the project involves work within the floodplain including the replacement of the abutments and the mid-river pier, the proposed work will not have a significant encroachment on the flood plain. The proposed bridge is a replacement of an existing bridge, a portion of which is already located within the floodplain. The proposed activities are not a new action within the floodplain, it is an alteration of a previous action within the floodplain. Consequently, this project complies with EO 11988 and no notification is required.

• A field survey of the project area indicated the presence of yellow lampmussels which may require a relocation and monitoring plan be developed prior to construction.

• The preliminary asbestos investigation indicated 18 materials requiring sampling prior to construction.

• The preliminary HW/CM investigation indicated the potential for soil contamination in the vicinity of the Hess Gas Station and potential for underground storage tanks at the west intersection.


3-9

Cost • Total estimated cost of this alternative is $10.91 million, see Exhibit 3.2.1 for cost summary.

Project Goals • The replacement of the bridge meets the overall objective to address the deterioration of the structure, realigning the intersections on both ends of the bridge, including work to provide proper drainage, improve sidewalks, curbs, signs and signals and thus ensure continued mobility for the traveling public.

Exhibit 3.2.1 Summary of Alternative Costs - Million Dollars (2016)

Activities Alternative 1

Construction

Replacement Bridge $3.69

Temporary Bridge $1.07

Highway $1.845

Subtotal (2012 ) $6.60

Incidentals1 (2012) 5% $0.33

Subtotal (2012 ) $6.93

Contingencies2(20% @ Design Approval) $1.39

Subtotal (2012 ) $8.32

Potential Field Change Order3 $0.42

Subtotal (2012) $8.74

Mobilization (4%) $0.35

Subtotal (2012 ) $9.09

Expected Award Amount – Inflated4 @ 3%/yr to midpoint of

Construction (2016) $9.94

Construction Inspection (9%) $0.89

ROW Costs (2012 ) $0.085

Total Cost (2016) $10.91

Notes: 1. The potential cost increase due to unknown or un-tabulated items. 2. NYSDOT recommends standard contingencies: 25% Scoping stage, 15%-20% 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. 4. The escalation rate of 3% to account for potential future increases in labor, material, equipment and other costs associated with Capital Program work. 5. The costs for right-of-way and construction of the ad hoc fishing access area is not eligible for federal funds and will be included in a 100% State Funded share

3.2.2 Preferred Alternative

Alternative 1 is the only feasible alternative and is therefore the preferred alternative. The approval of the preferred alternative is recommended based on the impacts, comments from public officials and comments from the public information meetings.


3-10

3.2.3. Design Criteria for Feasible Alternative(s) 3.2.3.1. Design Standards The design criteria and design parameters for this project are based on the NYSDOT Highway Design Manual (HDM) and the NYSDOT Bridge Manual (BM)

3.2.3.2. Critical Design Elements EXHIBIT 3.2.3.2-1

Main Line Design (in accordance with HDM §2.7)

PIN: 9014.39 NHS (Y/N): N

Route No. & Name: BIN 1018600 (NY Route 26/79 overlap)

Functional Class: Rural Minor Arterial

Project Type: Intersection Reconstruction/

Bridge Replacement

Design Classification (AASHTO Class)

Urban Arterial (See Note 2)

% Trucks: 8% Terrain: Rolling

AADT: 11,250 Truck Access Rte.: Yes

Element Standard Criteria

HDM § Reference

Existing Conditions

Proposed Conditions

1 Design Speed (See Note 1) 60 km/h M2.7.2.2 A 60 km/h 60 km/h

2 Lane Width

Turning Lane Width

3.6 m

3.3 m BM 2.3.1

3.3 m

None

3.6 m

3.3 m

3 Shoulder Width: Curbed = 1.5 m BM 2.3.1 0 m* 1.5 m

4 Bridge Roadway Width (total) = 13.5 m BM 2.3.1 6.6 m*

13.5 m

2-3.6 m Travel Lanes

1-3.3. m Turning Lane

1.5 m Shoulders

5 Max Grade 8% M2.7.2.2 E 2.6% 2.6%

6 Horizontal Curvature 135 m minimum M2.7.2.2 F Varies N/A

7 Superelevation Rate 4.0 % maximum M2.7.2.2 G Varies 4.0% maximum

8 Stopping Sight Distance

(Horizontal & Vertical) 85 m minimum M2.7.2.2 H 56 m* >85 m

9

Horizontal Clearance

Without Barrier=

With Barrier =

At Intersection=

0.5 m

0.0 m

1.0 m

M2.7.2.2 I

varies

varies

varies

1.7 m

1.7 m

1.0 m

10 Vertical Clearance 4.3 m minimum BM 2.4.1 Unlimited Unlimited

11 Pavement Cross Slope 1.5 % to 2.0 % M2.7.2.2 K Varies 2.0 %

12 Rollover - between lanes =

At edge of traveled way =

4.0 % max

8.0 % max M2.7.2.2 L

4.0 % max

8.0 % max

4.0 % max

8.0 % max

13 Structural Capacity - Replace =

Rehabilitation/Temporary =

HL-93 Live Load & NYSDOT Design Permit Vehicle

BM 2.6.1, 2.6.2 HS20 (see note 3)* HL-93 Live Load & NYSDOT Design Permit Vehicle

14 Pedestrian Accommodations HDM – Chapter 18 HDM – Chapter 18

Sidewalk on south side of NY Route 26 & 79 overlap,

BIN 1018600

1.7 meter sidewalk on both sides of structure

Note 1- Based on posted speed limit plus 16 km/h (10 mph). The Regional Traffic Engineer has concurred with the proposed design speed. Note 2- Project area exhibits characteristics of Urban Arterial and will be classified as Urban Note 3- Current investigations may show further reduction in capacity due to section loss.


3-11

EXHIBIT 3.2.3.2-2


PIN: 9014.39 NHS (Y/N): N

Route No. & Name: US Route 11/NY Route 79 Overlap Functional Class: Rural Minor Arterial


Bridge Replacement






HDM § Reference

Existing Conditions

Proposed Conditions


2 Lane Width

Turning Lane Width

3.6 m

3.3 m M2.7.2.2 B

3.6 m

3.3 m

3.6 m

3.3 m

3 Shoulder Width: Curbed 1.5 m M2.7.2.2 C varies 1.5 m

4 Bridge Roadway Width (total) = Full Approach

Roadway Width BM 2.3.1 N/A N/A

5 Grade 7% M2.7.2.2 E 2.4% 2.4%

6 Horizontal Curvature 280 m minimum M2.7.2.2 F N/A N/A

7 Superelevation Rate 4.0 % maximum M2.7.2.2 G N/A N/A


(Horizontal & Vertical) 130 m minimum M2.7.2.2 H >130 m >130 m

9


Without Barrier=

With Barrier=

At Intersection =

0.5 m

0.0 m

1.0 m

M2.7.2.2 I

varies

varies

varies

0.5 m

0.0 m

1.0 m


11 Pavement Cross Slope 1.5 % to 2.0 % M2.7.2.2 K varies 2.0 %



4.0 % max

8.0 % max M2.7.2.2 L

4.0 % max

8.0 % max

4.0 % max

8.0 % max




BM 2.6.1, 2.6.2 N/A N/A

14 Pedestrian Accommodations HDM – Chapter 18 HDM – Chapter 18 1.525 m sidewalk

on west side

Sidewalk/Shoulders will comply with

HDM Chapter 18

Note 1- Based on posted speed limit plus 16 km/h (10 mph). The Regional Traffic Engineer has concurred with the proposed design speed. Note 2- Project area exhibits characteristics of Urban Arterial and will be classified as Urban


3-12

EXHIBIT 3.2.3.2-3


PIN: 9014.39 NHS (Y/N): N

Route No. & Name: US Route 11/NY Route 26 Overlap Functional Class: Rural Major Collector


Bridge Replacement


Rural Collector




HDM § Reference

Existing Conditions

Proposed Conditions


2 Lane Width

Turning Lane Width

3.6 m

3.0 m M2.7.3.1 B

3.6 m

3.3 m

3.6 m

3.3 m and 3.6 m

3 Shoulder Width: 2.4 m M2.7.3.1 C varies 2.4 m



5 Grade 7% M2.7.3.1 E 0.2% 0.2%

6 Horizontal Curvature 252 m minimum M2.7.3.1 F 925 m 925 m

7 Superelevation Rate 6.0 % maximum M2.7.3.1 G 2.0% 3.29%



9


Without Barrier=

With Barrier =

At Intersection=

3.0 m

2.4 m

N/A

M2.7.3.1 I

N/A

varies

N/A

N/A

2.4 m

N/A





4.0 % max

8.0 % max M2.7.3.1 L

4.0 % max

8.0 % max

4.0 % max

8.0 % max




BM 2.6.1, 2.6.2 N/A N/A

14 Pedestrian Accommodations HDM – Chapter 18 HDM – Chapter 18 Some Sidewalk Sidewalk/Shoulders

will comply with HDM Chapter 18

Note 1- Based on posted speed limit plus 16 km/h (10 mph). The Regional Traffic Engineer has concurred with the proposed design speed.


3-13

EXHIBIT 3.2.3.2-4


PIN: 9014.39 NHS (Y/N): N

Route No. & Name: NY Route 26, north of NY Route 206 intersection

Functional Class: Rural Major Collector


Bridge Replacement


Rural Collector




HDM § Reference

Existing Conditions

Proposed Conditions


2 Lane Width 3.6 m M2.7.3.1 B 3.6 m 3.6 m

3 Shoulder Width: Uncurbed = 2.4 m M2.7.3.1 C 3 m 2.4 m



5 Grade 7% M2.7.3.1 E 8.4%* 8.36%*


7 Superelevation Rate 8.0% maximum M2.7.3.1 G N/A N/A


(Horizontal & Vertical) 130 m minimum M2.7.3.1 H 25 m* 29 m*

9 Horizontal Clearance

Without Barrier =

3.0 m

M2.7.3.1 I

varies

3.0 m





4.0 % max

8.0 % max M2.7.3.1 L

4.0 % max

8.0 % max

4.0 % max

8.0 % max


Rehabilitation =


BM 2.6.1, 2.6.2

N/A

N/A

14 Pedestrian Accommodations HDM – Chapter 18 HDM – Chapter 18 Shoulders Shoulders

* Nonstandard Feature

Note 1- Based on posted speed limit plus 16 km/h (10 mph). The Regional Traffic Engineer has concurred with the proposed design speed.


3-14

EXHIBIT 3.2.3.2-5


PIN: 9014.39 NHS (Y/N): N

Route No. & Name: NY Route 79, south of NY Route 206 intersection

Functional Class: Rural Minor Collector


Bridge Replacement


Urban Collector (See Note 2)




HDM § Reference

Existing Conditions

Proposed Conditions


2 Lane Width: Uncurbed=

Curbed=

3.3 m

3.6 m** M2.7.3.2 B 3.3 m

3.6 m Right

4.2 m Left

3 Shoulder Width: Uncurbed = 1.5 m M2.7.3.2 C 0.0 to 1.0 m* 1.5 m



5 Grade 10% M2.7.3.2 E 2.33% 2.33%


7 Superelevation Rate 4.0 % maximum M2.7.3.2 G N/A N/A


(Horizontal & Vertical)

85 m minimum

M2.7.3.2 H 75.3 m* >85 m

9


Without Barrier =

With Barrier =

Curbed

0.5 m

0.0 m

Uncurbed

3.0 m

1.5 m

Curbed

M2.7.3.2 I

Uncurbed

M2.7.3.1 I

Curbed

varies

varies

Uncurbed

varies

varies

Curbed

0.5 m

0.0 m

Uncurbed

3.0 m

1.5 m

10 Vertical Clearance 4.3 m BM 2.4.1 Unlimited Unlimited

11 Pavement Cross Slope 1.5 % to 2.0 % M2.7.3.2 K varies 1.5 % to 2.0 %



4.0 % max

8.0 % max M2.7.3.2 L

4.0 % max

8.0 % max

4.0 % max

8.0 % max


Rehabilitation =


BM 2.6.1, 2.6.2 N/A N/A

14 Pedestrian Accommodations HDM – Chapter 18 HDM – Chapter 18 Sidewalk on west side of NY Route

79


HDM Chapter 18

*Nonstandard Feature **Per Highway Design Manual Exhibit M2-6, Wide travel lanes may be used on low-speed (<70 km/h) urban collectors

Note 1- Based on posted speed limit plus 16 km/h (10 mph). The Regional Traffic Engineer has concurred with the proposed design speed. Note 2- Project area exhibits characteristics of Urban Collector and will be classified as Urban


3-15

EXHIBIT 3.2.3.2-6


PIN: 9014.39 NHS (Y/N): N

Route No. & Name: NY Route 206 Functional Class: Rural Minor Arterial


Bridge Replacement






HDM § Reference

Existing Conditions

Proposed Conditions


2 Lane Width: Uncurbed=

Curbed=

3.3 m

3.6 m**

M2.7.2.2 B

M2.7.2.2 B

3.3 m

3.9 m

3.6 m

4.2 m

3 Shoulder Width: Uncurbed = 2.4 m M2.7.2.2 C 1.8 m* 2.4 m



5 Max Grade 8% M2.7.2.2 E 9.5 %* 8.66%*

6 Horizontal Curvature 135 m minimum M2.7.2.2 F N/A 187 m

7 Superelevation Rate 4.0 % maximum M2.7.2.2 G Varies 3.8%


(Horizontal & Vertical) 85 m minimum M2.7.2.2 H 56 m* >85 m

9


Without Barrier=

With Barrier =

At Intersection=

Curbed

0.5 m

0.0 m

1.0 m

Uncurbed

3.0 m

2.4 m

Curbed

M2.7.2.2 I

Uncurbed

M2.7.2.1 I

Curbed

varies

varies

varies

Uncurbed

varies

varies

Curbed

0.5 m

0.0 m

1.0 m

Uncurbed

3.0 m

2.4 m


11 Pavement Cross Slope 1.5 % to 2.0 % M2.7.2.2 K Varies 2.0 %



4.0 % max

8.0 % max M2.7.2.2 L

4.0 % max

8.0 % max

4.0 % max

8.0 % max




BM 2.6.1, 2.6.2 N/A N/A

14 Pedestrian Accommodations HDM – Chapter 18 HDM – Chapter 18 Sidewalk on south side of Route 206


HDM Chapter 18

* Nonstandard Feature **Per Highway Design Manual Exhibit M2-4, Wide travel lanes may be used in low-speed segments Note 1- Based on posted speed limit plus 16 km/h (10 mph). The Regional Traffic Engineer has concurred with the proposed design speed. Note 2- Project area exhibits characteristics of Urban Arterial and will be classified as Urban


3-16

EXHIBIT 3.2.3.2-7


PIN: 9014.39 NHS (Y/N): N

Route No. & Name: West Main Street Functional Class: Rural Local


Bridge Replacement


Urban Local (See Note 2)


AADT: 3,900 Truck Access Rte.: No


HDM § Reference

Existing Conditions

Proposed Conditions


2

Lane Width

Turning Lane Width

Parking Lane Width

3.0 m

2.7 m

2.4 m

M2.7.4.2 B

M2.7.4.2 B

M2.7.4.2 B

3.6 m

3.3 m

2.7 m

3.6 m

3.3 m

2.7 m

3 Shoulder Width: 1.5 m M2.7.4.2 C 0.3 m* 1.5 m



5 Max Grade 8% M2.7.4.2 E 0.9% 0.9%

6 Horizontal Curvature 86 m minimum M2.7.4.2 F 162.5 m 162.5 m

7 Superelevation Rate 4.0 % maximum M2.7.4.2 G Varies 2%



9


Without Barrier=

With Barrier =

At Intersection=

0.5 m

0.0 m

1.0 m

M2.7.4.2 I

varies

varies

varies

0.5 m

0.0 m

1.0 m


11

Pavement Cross Slope

Travel Lane

Parking Lane

1.5 % to 2.0 %

1.5% to 5.0%

M2.7.4.2 K Varies

2.0 %

2.0%



4.0 % max

8.0 % max M2.7.4.2 L

4.0 % max

8.0 % max

4.0 % max

8.0 % max




BM 2.6.1, 2.6.2 N/A N/A

14 Pedestrian Accommodations HDM – Chapter 18 HDM – Chapter 18 Sidewalks Sidewalks will

comply with HDM Chapter 18

* Nonstandard Feature Note 1- Based on the maximum functional class speed shown in Section M2.7.4.2 A. The Regional Traffic Engineer has concurred with the proposed design speed. Note 2- Project area exhibits characteristics of Urban Local and will be classified as Urban


3-17

3.2.3.3. Other Design Parameters

Exhibit 3.2.3.3 a Other Design Parameter: Design Vehicle

Location Design Vehicle Vehicle Accommodated

Within the project limit.

WB-20 WB-20

3.3. Engineering Considerations

3.3.1. Operations (Traffic and Safety) & Maintenance 3.3.1.1. Functional Classification and National Highway System This project will not change the functional classification of the highway.

3.3.1.2. Control of Access No control of access will be provided.

3.3.1.3. Traffic Control Devices 3.3.1.3. (1) Traffic Signals The existing traffic signal system at the west intersection will be replaced. The flashing signal at the east intersection will also be replaced, and it will remain a three-way stop as currently exists with the eastbound approach having the free movement and the other three approaches stop controlled. 3.3.1.3. (2) Signs Existing signs within the project limits will be replaced and new ones will be added to accommodate the alignment change and change in intersection configurations.

3.3.1.4. Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) No ITS measures are proposed.

3.3.1.5. Speeds and Delay 3.3.1.5. (1) Proposed Speed Limit The posted speed limit within the project limits will remain the same. Refer to Subsection 2.3.1.5. 3.3.1.5. (2) Travel Time Estimates This project will not significantly affect capacity; therefore, travel time estimates were not prepared. 3.3.1.6. Traffic Volumes Since there are no significant changes in traffic volumes as a result of this project, refer to Exhibit 2.3.1.6 for future traffic volumes. No impacts are anticipated relative to the tractor trailers, local delivery trucks and school buses that routinely travel within the project limit. Peak hour turning movement volume diagrams for the design year for both the west and east intersections are included in Appendix B.


3-18

3.3.1.7. Level of Service and Mobility 3.3.1.7 (1) Design Year Level of Service West Intersection - Main Street/US Route 11/NY Route 79/NY Route 26 The proposed alternative will add a left and right turn lane on the US Route 11/NY Route 26 northbound approach and add a left turn lane for the NY Route 26/NY Route 79 westbound approach to the west intersection. Exhibit 3.3.1.7-1 provides the results of the signalized intersection capacity analysis for the design year. The results show that the intersection operates at an overall LOS B in the AM peak hour and LOS C in the PM peak hour. The individual approaches all have an acceptable LOS for the AM and PM peak hour. All of the individual lane groups have a LOS D or better on each of the approaches. Level of service analyses are included in Appendix B.

Exhibit - 3.3.1.7-1 Future Signalized Intersection Level of Service and Delays (sec)


2046 AM Overall LOS B (16 secs.) V/C = 0.69

C (25 secs.) B (20 secs.) B (18 secs.) A (10 secs.)

2046 PM Overall LOS B (16 secs.) V/C = 0.73

C (23 secs.) B (20 secs.) B (13 secs.) B (14 secs.) East Intersection - East Main Street/NY Route 26/NY Route 79/NY Route 206 Exhibit 3.3.1.7-2 provides the results of the capacity analysis for two-way stop control and four-way stop control at the east intersection. The proposed intersection with have three-way stop control as currently exists, but standard analysis procedures for stop controlled intersections are either two-way or four-way stop control. The results show that the intersection will operate at an acceptable LOS during the AM and PM weekday peak hour with the exception of the NY Route 79 northbound approach which will have a LOS F during the design year under a two-way stop condition and a LOS B under a four-way stop condition. It can be assumed that the level of service for the northbound approach under a three-way stop condition would be slightly better than two-way stop condition and slightly worse than the four-way stop condition.

Exhibit - 3.3.1.7-2 Future Build Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service and Delays (sec)

East Intersection - East Main Street/NY Route 26/NY Route 79/NY Route 206 YEAR NY 26/79 EB

Lt/Th/Rt NY 206 WB

Lt/Th/Rt NY 79 NB

Lt/Th NY 26 SB Lt/Th/Rt

2046 AM (two-way stop) A (7.8 secs.) A (7.6 secs.) C (19.9 secs.) B (10.3 secs.) 2046 AM (four-way stop) B (10.1 secs.) B (10.9 secs.) B (10.9 secs.) B (13.1 secs.) 2046 PM (two-way stop) A (8.2 secs.) A (8.0 secs.) F (>50 secs.) B (11.2 secs.) 2046 PM (four-way stop) B (14.3 secs.) B (13.3 secs.) B (13.1 secs.) B (10.9 secs.)

3.3.1.7 (2) – Work Zone Safety & Mobility A. Work Zone Traffic Control Plan In accordance with EI 10-041, reviewing the Workzone Method Comparison Worksheet Checklist there are three items that are checked yes, including the duration being more than one construction season; the oversize/overweight vehicle detour route is greater than 25 miles; and the detour route substantially increases the through traffic in low-speed residential neighborhoods. In addition, the User Cost Benefit/Capital Cost Ratio for the detour route is -0.24. All of these indicate that an on-site detour may be considered. For this project, an off-site detour is not considered feasible for the following reasons:


3-19

• Length of detour is 8.1 miles for passenger cars and 28.9 miles for trucks • Impacts on residences and businesses within the project area • A portion of the passenger car detour route is on a local road with steep grades and sharp

horizontal curves. • Children utilize the existing route to walk to school and school buses will be required to use the

passenger car detour route. • Emergency service providers would be required to use the detour route or stage vehicles on the

opposite side of the bridge as there are no other service providers nearby to provide coverage in a timely manner.

Therefore, maintenance and protection of traffic will be accomplished by constructing a temporary bridge over the Tioughnioga River during construction of the new bridge. The roadway reconstruction will be accomplished through daytime lane closures in accordance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Access to residences and businesses will be maintained at all times during construction, and temporary provisions will be made for access to sidewalks and driveways disrupted during construction. Routes for emergency vehicles and school buses will also be maintained and open during construction. The details for the work zone traffic control will be prepared and evaluated during final design. B. Special Provisions Due to the proximity to residences and the ability to maintain traffic with acceptable delays during the daylight hours, the use of night time construction will be minimized. The use of time related provisions will be evaluated during final design. The work zone traffic control will need to be coordinated with local officials and residents. The owner of Aiello’s Restaurant has expressed concerns about impacts to accessing the restaurant during their peak business hours of Friday and Saturday from 6:00-9:00 PM. A special note will be added to the contract documents indicating access to Aiello’s will be provided during these time frames throughout the duration of the project. C. Significant Projects (per 23 CFR 630.1010) This project is not considered a Significant Project as defined in 23 CFR 630.1010. A Transportation Management Plan (TMP) will be prepared for the project consistent with 23 CFR 630.1012. The TMP will consist of a Temporary Traffic Control (TTC) plan. Transportation Operations (TO) and Public Information (PI) components of a TMP will be considered during final design.

3.3.1.8. Safety Considerations, Accident History and Analysis

The following recommendations were included in the Accident Analysis prepared for the project and included in Section 2.3.1.8:

• Reconstruct the west intersection to include a NB left turn lane and an adequate NB right-turn radius to accommodate a tractor-53’ trailer combination vehicle.

• Expect sight distance improvements at the east intersection and analyze possible improvement to control there after construction.

• Make sure that no bridge/intersection alternatives worsen the approach grades on NY Route 206 WB or NY Route 206 SB.

• Recommend and monitor project developments in regards to restricting northbound left turns into the Hess gas station driveway on US Route 11 and left turns out of the same driveway.

All of these recommendations have been incorporated into the preferred alternative with the exception of restricting left turns into and out of the Hess gas station driveway on US Route 11. The business owner and the village were opposed to this recommendation indicating it would severely hurt the business. The


3-20

approach grades on NY Route 206 and NY Route 26 are being flattened slightly although they will remain non-standard features. Additional safety related improvements that are part of the preferred alternative include the following:

• The narrow, 6.6 meter two-lane bridge roadway width will be replaced with a three-lane section consisting of two-3.6 meter travel lanes with 1.5 meter shoulders that will accommodate both motorized vehicles and bicycles, separated by a 3.3 meter wide left-turn lane.

• Marked crosswalks will be installed at all pedestrian crossings, and pedestrian signals will be installed at these crossings. Sidewalks will also be provided on both sides of the bridge.

• Other turning radii improvements at the east and west intersections. • Install/Improve advanced warning devices (i.e. signs, flashers) on the NY Route 26 southbound

approach and the NY Route 206 westbound approach to mitigate the non-standard approach grades and try to reduce rear end crashes.

3.3.1.9. Impacts on Police, Fire Protection and Ambulance Access There will be minimal or no impact to the police, fire, or emergency services or access as a result of construction of the proposed alternative. There are no plans to use off-site detours during construction, so existing emergency vehicle routes will be maintained through the use of daytime lane closures. Should short-term detours be necessary due to project activities, these will be coordinated with the 911 dispatcher’s office, the Chief of Police, the Fire Captain and the ambulance manager, enabling these departments to plan ahead as needed to reduce any possible emergency response delays. No long-term impacts on police, fire, or emergency services or access are anticipated as a result of the proposed project. 3.3.1.10. Parking Regulations and Parking Related Issues No changes are proposed.

3.3.1.11. Lighting Street lighting currently exists on the utility poles at both the east and west intersections but not on the bridge. The project area does not meet either of the two lighting warrants from the NYSDOT “Policy on Highway Lighting”, but it is proposed to install street lighting on the new bridge to provide continuous lighting between the two intersections on either side of the bridge. Even though the project area did not meet the lighting warrants and Preliminary Lighting Report was prepared for the project area to identify where light poles would be needed. The Preliminary Lighting Report is included in Appendix B.

3.3.1.12. Ownership and Maintenance Jurisdiction There are no proposed changes to the ownership and maintenance jurisdiction of the roadways in the project area, refer to Chapter 2 Section 2.3.1.12. A new driveway/parking area will be constructed for fishing access to the Tioghnioga River and will require an agreement with the either the NYSDEC or the Village of Whitney Point stating that they are responsible for maintenance of the driveway/parking area and any amenities that may also be included in the project.

3.3.1.13. Constructability Review The Regional Construction Group will review the project and their concerns will be addressed either during preliminary design or final design, as appropriate.


3-21

3.3.2. Multimodal

3.3.2.1. Pedestrians In conformance with Chapter 18 of the NYSDOT HDM, all existing sidewalks within the reconstruction area will be replaced at a minimum width of 1.525 m. Sidewalks at intersections will be reconstructed at the required width and match into the existing width on the side streets. All sidewalk curb ramps within the reconstruction area will be constructed to be in conformance with Chapter 18 of the NYSDOT HDM. Pedestrians will be accommodated by sidewalks on the north and south side of the bridge. Existing sidewalks will be replaced on the east and west sides of the bridge. A new sidewalk will be constructed on the north side of NY Routes 26 and 79 on the approaches to the sidewalk being proposed on the bridge. A Pedestrian Generator Checklist is included in Appendix B.

3.3.2.2. Bicyclists No special provisions are proposed to accommodate bicyclists. The occasional bicyclist may legally use the shoulder of this uncontrolled access highway.

3.3.2.3. Transit No changes are proposed.

3.3.2.4. Airports, Railroad Stations, and Ports There are no airports, railroad stations or port entrances within the project limits.

3.3.2.5. Access to Recreation Areas (Parks, Trails, Waterways, and State Lands) The driveway to the gravel parking area off of US Route 11/NY Route 26 just south of the intersection will be relocated to the south further from the intersection. In addition, a historical monument and streetscaping that currently exists on the north side of the existing bridge will be relocated to the south side of the bridge adjacent to the new driveway/parking area being constructed.

3.3.3. Infrastructure

3.3.3.1. Proposed Highway Section 3.3.3.1. (1) Right-of-Way Right-of-way acquisitions are required in the following locations: on the north side of Main Street, west of US Route 11, for reconstruction of the sidewalk; on the east side of US Route 11, south of the intersection, for construction of the roadway widening, slope and access drive to the ad hoc fishing area; in the southwest quadrant of the east intersection due to the shift of the intersection to the south; and in the northwest quadrant of the east intersection for relocation of the water line. In addition, the bed of the river will be acquired for construction of the new bridge, temporary bridge and water line relocation. The costs for the right-of-way associated with the ad hoc fishing access area access is not eligible for federal funds and will be included in a 100% State Funded share. A permanent easement is required on the north side of Main Street, west of US Route 11, for future maintenance of the sidewalk and a drainage pipe that crosses the corner of the Hess property. Temporary easements will required in the southwest quadrant of the west intersection for construction of the temporary bridge; along the west side of NY Route 79 for construction of the slope behind the new


3-22

sidewalk; and in the northwest quadrant of the west intersection for a work area for installation of the water line. 3.3.3.1. (2) Curb Mountable concrete curb will be installed along US Route 11 from just south of the intersection to the northern project limits. Non-mountable concrete curb will be installed on Main Street to the intersection with Collins Street, on the NY Route 26/NY Route 79 overlap section on the bridge approaches, and on the west side of NY Route 79, east of the bridge. A mountable curb will be installed along the south side of NY Route 206. 3.3.3.1. (3) Grades The proposed maximum grade is approximately -8.4% on the NY Route 26 southbound approach to the east intersection. There is also a -8.6% grade on the NY Route 206 westbound approach to the east intersection. 3.3.3.1. (4) Intersection Geometry and Conditions Refer to the General Plans in Appendix A for the proposed intersection geometry. The proposed east-west alignment better aligns the roadway between Main Street and NY Route 206. The change in the east-west alignment results in a slightly increased skew angle with US Route 11 at the west intersection, and with NY Route 79 at the east intersection. 3.3.3.1. (5) Roadside Elements: (a) Snow Storage, Sidewalks, Utility Strips, Bikeways, Bus Stops - Sidewalks will be constructed on the

north and south side of the bridge. Existing sidewalks will be replaced on the east and west sides of the bridge and a new sidewalk will be constructed on the north side of NY Routes 26 and 79 on the approaches to the sidewalk being proposed on the bridge. Snow storage will be provided by proposed shoulders that vary in width between 1.5 meters and 3.0 meters.

(b) Driveways - All driveways disturbed within the project limit will be restored to comply with the current NYSDOT “Policy and Standards for Design of Entrances to State Highways.”

(c) Clear Area - It is anticipated that a area (i.e., the horizontal distance between the curb line/edge of

traveled way and a fixed object) of 1.5 m minimum will be maintained throughout the project limits. The clear area will be limited by guide rail, utility poles, light standards, hydrants, and street trees.

3.3.3.2. Special Geometric Design Elements

3.3.3.2. (1) Non-Standard Features - The feasible alternative complies with the geometric features and cross section elements in the design criteria with the exception of the grade on NY Route 26, north of the east intersection, the grade on NY Route 206, east of the east intersection, and the headlight sight distance for the sag vertical curves on NY Route 26 at the east intersection. As indicated in Section 2.3.1.8, the non-standard grades on NY Route 26 and NY Route 206 appear to be a contributing factor to the predominant accident pattern at the east intersection, but there are no strong patterns that would generate an appreciable benefit value, so no improvements are recommended based on accidents. The non-standard headlight sight distance on NY Route 26 does not appear to be contributing factors to the accidents at the east intersection. Non-standard feature justifications are included in Appendix E. The proposed grade on NY Route 26 is 8.36% north of the east intersection, while the standard maximum grade is 7.0%. The proposed grade on NY Route 206 is 8.66% east of the east intersection, while the standard maximum grade is 8.0%. The headlight sight distance on NY Route 26 at the east intersection is 29 meters while the minimum stopping sight distance is 130 meters. These non-standard features could be eliminated if the intersection were able to be raised to reduce the grades, but maintaining traffic


3-23

while reconstructing this intersection at a higher grade would be difficult and raising the grades would require additional right-of-way acquisitions. In addition, the non-standard grades continue beyond the project limits, therefore the only way to address this would be to significantly extend the work limits on NY Route 26 and NY Route 206, which is beyond the scope of this bridge replacement project. The east intersection is being shifted to the south approximately 20 meters which will provide additional distance on NY Route 26 at a flatter grade for vehicles to come to a stop at this intersection. Street lighting currently exists and is proposed to remain at the east intersection to mitigate the headlight sight distance non-standard feature. 3.3.3.2. (2) Non-Conforming Features – Various non-conforming features will be retained under the Feasible Alternative. Below is a discussion regarding these non-conforming features:

o Intersection angle. Although minor changes to the geometry of the west and east intersections

are being proposed, the geometry of the intersections approaches will remain largely unchanged. US Route 11 is slightly skewed relative to Main Street and NY Route 26/NY Route 79 and NY Route 79 is skewed even more from existing. Any major changes to the approaches to make them more perpendicular will result in major ROW acquisition. Further, this intersection’s location within the Whitney Point Village Historic District makes extensive reconfiguration unfeasible.

o Intersection corner radii. Geometric improvements at the intersections (i.e., increased corner radii) will be incorporated into the feasible alternative; however, encroachment into other lanes by large vehicles will still occur on the US Route 11/NY Route 79 southbound right turn to West Main Street and the NY Route 206 westbound left turn to NY Route 79. Encroachments such as these are generally acceptable, considering the elimination of these encroachments would allow faster turning speeds, would increase pedestrian crossing distances, and may increase confusion for motorists confronted with large paved areas; these would all be undesirable consequences in this Village setting. There were no accidents related to either of the turning movements noted above. Additional right-of-way acquisition in the northwest quadrant of the west intersection to improve the turning radius so that encroachments were eliminated would result in impacts to the operations of the Hess gas station by inhibiting traffic flow into and around the gas pumps.

3.3.3.3. Pavement and Shoulder In general, the pavement work will be limited to the reconstruction of the intersections and their approaches on the east and west side of the bridge. The proposed full-depth hot mix asphalt pavement section recommendation consists of 40 mm Top Course, 65 mm Binder Course, 150 mm Base Course, 100 mm Permeable Base Course, and 300 mm Subbase course.

3.3.3.4. Drainage Systems The existing open and closed drainage system in the project area will be maintained with little modification for the proposed project. Drainage improvements required will mainly be the addition of edge drains in areas where the pavement is being reconstructed and minor repair or replacement for items identified in Section II.C.1.q.–Drainage Systems. Current stormwater management practices will be used during construction to minimize sediment and erosion concerns. Water quality mitigation measures will be investigated during the final design phase as plans are developed and impacts determined.

3.3.3.5. Geotechnical There are no unusual soil or foundation conditions known to exist for this project. It is anticipated that conventional construction methods will be utilized. Subsurface investigations have been progressed at the proposed bridge site to determine the appropriate foundation type.


3-24

3.3.3.6. Structures 3.3.3.6. (1) Description of Work – the existing bridge, BIN 1018600, will be replaced in its entirety with a new two-span structure. The feasible alternative proposes a 3.6 meter wide lane in each direction, a 3.3 meter center lane for left turns at each intersection and 1.5 m wide shoulders with curb at the edge of shoulder. A 1.7 meter sidewalk is also proposed on each side of the bridge. Currently there is a 10 NPS water line on the existing bridge, but it is planned to relocate the water line under the Tiougnioga River to the north of the new bridge. 3.3.3.6. (2) Clearances (Horizontal/Vertical) - The horizontal clearance will be equal to the shoulder width of 1.5 meters. There is an overhead utility line that crosses the river in the same location as the bridge. The clearance to the utility line will need to be checked during final design. 3.3.3.6. (3) Live Load - The replacement bridge will be designed for a HL-93 with NYS Permit Vehicle loading. 3.3.3.6. (4) Associated Work - This work will consist of reconstructing the intersections and their approaches on each side of the bridge, replacement of guide railing, drainage improvements, lighting, signing and pavement markings. 3.3.3.6. (5) Waterway - A USCG Section 9 Permit will not be required.

3.3.3.7. Hydraulics of Bridges and Culverts The Tioughnioga River flows below BIN 1018600. Exhibit 3.3.3.7 shows the proposed Q50 and Q100 flows provided by the Hydraulics Unit based on their preliminary hydraulic analysis. The preliminary analysis results show that the water surface elevation is reduced for the new bridge at the Q50 and Q100 flows. Based on the preliminary hydraulic analysis, the Design High Water shown below and the preliminary structure depth there will be approximately 400 mm of freeboard at the west abutment. Any stream structure that provides a minimum freeboard of 600 mm for the 50 year flood shall be considered as satisfying normal hydraulic clearance requirements, but there is no absolute minimum freeboard requirement or standard which must be met to satisfy a specification or regulation. Whatever minimum freeboard is finally chosen, in accordance with accepted practice and application of these guidelines, should be considered as meeting all State requirements and standards. The actual minimum freeboard will be determined during final design. The waterway opening for the proposed structure will be greater than the existing structure. Raising the profile to provide 600 mm of freeboard may be hard to achieve due to the proximity of the west intersection to the bridge. Raising the profile at this intersection too much would make maintaining traffic through the intersections difficult. A combination of adjusting the profile slightly and providing a shallower superstructure depth will be investigated during final design of the replacement structure to provide the greatest freeboard possible.

Exhibit 3.3.3.7 Hydraulic Data

Design High Water

(Q50)

Basic High Water

(Q100)

Proposed Condition

290.42 m

290.63 m


3-25

3.3.3.8. Guide Railing, Median Barriers and Impact Attenuators All guide rail within the project limits will be evaluated during final design for conformance to design standards and replaced or repaired, if necessary. There are no median barriers or impact attenuators proposed for the project.

3.3.3.9. Utilities The utilities that will be affected by this project are listed in Exhibit 3.3.3.9. The existing 10 NPS water line hanging on the existing bridge is planned to be relocated beneath the Tioughnioga River north of the proposed bridge. There are no other underground relocations expected as a result of the project. The relocation of numerous utility poles is also anticipated due to roadway widening and relocation of the curb and/or sidewalk.

Exhibit 3.3.3.9 Location of Potential Utility Impacts

Owner Type Location/Side Quantity Impact

Village of Whitney point

Water Line Hanging from existing bridge Approx. 100 meters

Relocation

NYSEG Utility Poles

Within the project limit that has been disrupted by reconstruction

Approx. 15 Poles

Relocation

3.3.3.10. Railroad Facilities The Syracuse Branch of the New York, Susquehanna & Western Railroad is within a half mile of the project limit but railroad involvement is not anticipated.

3.3.4. Landscape and Environmental Enhancements

3.3.4.1. Landscape Development and Other Aesthetics Improvements The Department will provide/replace landscaping as a part of the overall enhancement and aesthetic improvement efforts for this project. Landscape development requirements are anticipated to be minimal and will include activities such as slope stabilization and seeding with standard seed mixes. The minimal visual impacts discussed in Section 4.4.13 and impacts to existing plantings will be mitigated with plantings around the bridge area and in the other areas where existing plantings are impacted. The landscape plantings would be a mix of trees and shrubs.

3.3.4.2. Environmental Enhancements Due to the location and type of project, there are limited opportunities for environmental initiatives in this project. The project location may provide an opportunity for environmental enhancement in accordance with the Department’s Environmental Initiative. The most likely enhancement feature is a fishing access lot on the south-east corner of the Main Street / US Route 11 intersection.


4-1

CHAPTER 4 - SOCIAL, ECONOMIC and ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS and CONSEQUENCES 4.1 Introduction This project is for the replacement of BIN 1018600, the Warren truss bridge carrying the combined NY Routes 26 and 79 over the Tioughnioga River in Whitney Point, Broome County, New York. The project location is a tight work site with several residential or business properties in close proximity of the bridge ends. The east side of the bridge faces a steep topography and both ends are skewed at odd angles to the adjacent roads. This chapter will address the social, economic, and environmental conditions and consequences as they relate to the proposed alternative on the existing alignment and the temporary bridge required immediately downstream.

4.1.1 Environmental Classification and Lead Agencies NEPA Classification After completion of the NEPA Assessment Checklist (included in Appendix D) it has been determined that the project meets the requirement(s) of a Class II Categorical Exclusion with Documentation. FHWA concurs that this bridge replacement project will not induce significant environmental impacts and agrees that it meets the conditions and criteria for a NEPA Class II, Categorical Exclusion with Documentation in accordance with 23 CFR 771.117. See Appendix G for FHWA Concurrence letter. The project is not required to have an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or Environmental Assessment (EA) prepared under NEPA. This is because Class II Categorical Exclusion with Documentation is a class of actions that do not cause significant environmental impacts, either individually or cumulatively. Specifically, in accordance with the Federal Highway Administration’s regulations 23 CFR 771.117(d) (the ‘D List’), this project meets the project description of the Categorical Exclusion ‘D list’ as (3) “Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction or replacement.” The completed NEPA Assessment Checklist has been included in Appendix D. Supporting environmental documentation is included in subsequent sections of this report and the technical appendices in Appendix D. Correspondence is included in Appendix F. SEQR Classification and Lead Agencies The Department has determined that this project is a SEQR Non-Type II Action in accordance with 17 NYCRR Part 15 - Procedures for Implementation of State Environmental Quality Review Act. SEQR Non-Type II projects include actions for which the environmental impacts are not clearly established and require an Environmental Assessment (EA). The project is being progressed as SEQR Non-Type II because BIN 1018600 has been determined to be National Register Eligible under Criteria C-6 as it “embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic value … individuality or variation of features within a particular bridge type.” Under 17 NYCRR Part 15.14(d) (6), a Type II action has “no effect on any district, site, structure or object that is listed, or may be eligible for listing, on the National Register of Historic Places…”. This project with its potential effects to the subject bridge, does not meet the Type II criteria, and is therefore classified as a non-Type II (EA) project.

4.1.2 Cooperating, Participating, and Involved Agencies NEPA Cooperating and Participating Agencies The following agencies have been identified as Cooperating Agencies in accordance with 23 CFR 771:

The Federal Highway Administration


4-2

New York State Department of Transportation The following agencies have been identified as Involved and Interested Agencies under SEQR:

New York State Department of Transportation New York State Historic Preservation Office New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

4.2 Social The purpose of this section is to describe the social environment of Whitney Point and to discuss the potential effects on the surrounding community from the proposed build and no build alternatives for the replacement of BIN 1018600. The project bridge consists of two lanes carrying NY Routes 26 and 79 over the Tioghnioga River. This discussion considers the one build alternative proposed for this bridge including the replacement of the bridge on its approximate existing alignment. The discussion will also consider the consequences to the community of not building the bridge.

The project is located entirely within the incorporated village limits of the Village of Whitney Point which is located in the Town of Triangle, Broome County, New York. The village is a historical and social center in the predominantly rural portion of northern Broome County. The village is also a busy travelers’ hub due to village’s logistics off of Interstate 81 with two exits plus the confluence of six state and county routes.

The bridge connects the “Downtown Whitney Point” district of the Village along West Main Street with the residential area on the east side of the Tioughnioga River. The east end of the bridge terminates in a residential area that quickly transforms into a rural area along each of the three roads. The bridge over the Tioughnioga River therefore provides the essential community conduit for the east and west parts of the village, school district, town and northern Broome County. BIN 1016800 over the Tioughnioga River is the only east/west corridor in this portion of Broome County. A detour would be approximately 13 kilometers. Therefore, the logistics of moving traffic through the area requires the maintenance of traffic over a temporary bridge adjacent to the existing bridge during all phases of construction.

4.2.1 Land Use

Demographics and Affected Population The Village of Whitney Point is within the Town of Triangle, Broome County. The 2010 US Census reports that the Village has a population of 964 persons. The median reported age was 35.7, with 14.1% of the population being reported at age 65 or older. Reportedly 95.7% of the population was identified as white. Based on data collected during the previous US Census conducted in 2000, approximately 22.3% of the Village’s and 19.7% of the Town’s populations over the age of five years was disabled, although specific disabilities were not listed. These percentages are generally consistent with the 2000 percentages for Broome County, 19.0%, and the New York State, 20.6 %. The national percentage of disability (≥5 Years of Age) in 2000 was 19.3%. The village had 13.2% of its population reported to be below the poverty level, which is only slightly above that year’s national average of 12.4%. The Village demographics are similar to those of the surrounding area. This project is not located in an Environmental Justice Area. The area has been transitioning from a rural agricultural center to a bedroom community for the Triple Cities/Binghamton area and Cortland. The proximity of Interstate 81 provides reasonable commuting times for many residents to these employment centers. The US Census reported that in 2000, 77% of the village’s working population commuted as individuals by car or truck to work with an average travel time of 28.8 minutes. This is approximately three minutes longer than the national average and considered by many to be reasonable for a work commute or shopping.


4-3

Although the area roads are classified as rural and the population density is also considered to be rural, the project bridge is in the midst of four state and US transportation routes and the core of the village. For this reason, the area will be treated as urban for project purposes. Comprehensive Plans and Zoning The Village’s Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1992. This short overview of the village’s population, housing and land use pattern concluded with three recommendations, including the preservation of its residential neighborhoods, the provision of access to the transportation network for commercial and industrial development, and the insurance of housing opportunities for all economic levels. Since then, the village has adopted a zoning plan to meet these recommendations and to maintain its highly valued small town atmosphere. The Downtown Strategic Plan adopted in 2008 focused on revitalizing the Downtown District. Replacement of the bridge on its approximate current horizontal alignment is consistent with this Strategic Plan, although the plan was written to discourage further decline of the historic downtown panorama from lack of repairs or additional inappropriate architectural additions or alterations. This project will not affect local zoning. See Appendix D for Whitney Point Zoning Map.

4.2.2 Neighborhoods and Community Cohesion

Community Cohesion

The incorporated village is functionally divided into three major sections consisting of the original downtown, the active business district and the residential neighborhoods. The original downtown extends along West Main Street from the Susquehanna & Western Railroad yard at Railroad Street to the project bridge and is referred to as the “Historic Downtown Whitney Point District.” The more active business area follows along US Route 11 from the project bridge northward to Interstate 81 Exit 8B. The remainder of the village is made up of numerous residential neighborhoods and open space. Along the western edge of the village, Interstate 81 runs north to south with the half diamond interchanges of Exits 8A and 8B feeding traffic into the village commercial area. Any vehicles exiting the Interstate must drive through the remainder of the Village on US Route 11 to regain access to the Interstate. Whitney Point was originally settled by General John Patterson, a Revolutionary War leader, in 1791 with the construction of the first log cabin on the site now occupied by the Hess Gas Station at the corner of West Main Street and US Route 11. The village’s business district grew at this river bank location and was incorporated as Whitney Point in 1871. The “Historic Downtown” is the original village core centered along West Main Street consisting of a section of typical upstate New York two story, row style brick buildings lining both sides of West Main Street. This business district has been in decline since the 1970’s and now consists of several poorly maintained or empty structures. This decline began about the same time as the construction of Interstate 81 when West Main Street began to function as a lesser used side street. The business district now has a mix of service and retail businesses plus some eateries, bars and professional offices, as well as municipal offices, several churches, a community library and an arts center on other side streets. Freight related businesses are concentrated in the western end of the village along Railroad Street. Future development is proposed for the downtown area. Lourdes Hospital currently has a primary care facility on Academy Street, but is planning a larger facility on West Main Street to provide better medical care for larger numbers of patients in the area. The village also reportedly has federal and state grant monies to improve the facades of at least two historic buildings and the general ambiance along West Main Street.

The currently more active commercial portion of the village is concentrated along US Route 11. This narrow strip contains a mixture of banks, churches, several restaurants, gas stations, and other retail businesses plus the Broome County Fairgrounds, the three public school campuses and the school district’s bus garage. Although the local public high school and elementary school campuses do not front US Route 11, the main entrance to the combined campus is within 60 meters of US Route 11 on Keibel Road. Travelers exiting Interstate 81 from either direction have to drive through this commercial corridor to regain access to the Interstate. As no services are available on the Interstate or are readily available


4-4

off of US Route 11, a majority of these travelers patronize the corridor’s fast food eateries and gas stations. Local residents accessing the Interstate for employment or shopping also are funneled through this same corridor. The remainder of the village’s non-commercial areas is dominated by residential neighborhoods and open space. The village nucleus contains many historic homes, while the surrounding area consists of newer homes built in the last half of the 1900’s. According to the 2000 US Census, half the houses in the village were built prior to 1939, with 45% occupied by the current owners since 1995. A proposal is currently being progressed to build a 48 unit townhouse complex on Hickory Street. Residents of this new development will most likely use the project bridge to access Interstate 81 or US Route 11. The village itself is surrounded by the more rural Town of Triangle. The area has historically been an agriculturally based economy which is evident in the numerous active and fallow farms beyond the village borders. In previous decades, the Downtown District had functioned as the commercial center for this agricultural economy. The village now functions as a bedroom community for the Tri-Cities and Cortland areas. Due to a combination of this economic change and generational metamorphous the village has experienced over a 50% turnover of home ownership from 1990 to 2000.

NY Routes 26 and 79 both cross over this bridge and connect to Interstate 81 at either end of the village limits. BIN 1018600 over the Tioughnioga River therefore provides the essential community conduit for the east and west parts of the village, school district, town and northern Broome County. Despite economic changes and increased traffic through its core, the village still retains much of its small town Americana atmosphere. Home and Business Relocations This project will require no home or business relocations.

4.2.3 General Social Groups Benefited or Harmed

The 1964 Title IV of the Civil Rights Act and Executive Order 12898 require review of federal projects that may result in disproportionately high adverse affects to minority or low-income populations. The Project Objectives, as stated in Chapter 1, are to address the deterioration of the structure in a cost effective manner; reconstruct the intersections on either side of the structure and improve geometric elements; and improve highway operations and safety conditions. This bridge replacement is a benefit to the general public and will not adversely affect any particular population group. Elderly and/or Disabled Persons or Groups As stated in Section 4.2.1, a review of the 2000 US Census for Whitney Point indicates that there is not a significant concentration of elderly or disabled persons within the Village compared to the surrounding municipalities. The existing bridge has a 2.0 meter sidewalk along the eastbound side of the bridge. This project proposes sidewalks on both sides of the bridge and new crosswalks that will be compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and will improve accessibility accommodations for these user groups. Transit Dependent, Pedestrians, and Bicyclists There is no regularly scheduled public or private bus service or bus stops for the village or its surrounding areas. The Broome County Department of Transportation considers the area to be rural and provides transportation to senior citizens and disabled persons through a dial a ride service called “B.C. Country.” This door to door bus service is available for riders on weekdays from 9:00 to 3:30. It services rural residents needing access to social services, medical providers and shopping in Downtown Binghamton and other Triple-Cities locations.


4-5

Currently the bridge has a sidewalk along the eastbound side of the bridge. It continues past both ends of the bridge for short distances. Each end of the bridge has one painted crosswalk and the west end has a pole mounted pedestrian push button and dedicated signal, however, traffic does not stop in all directions. As indicated on the Pedestrian Checklist, there are pedestrian generators within 800 m of both bridge ends; however there is not much pedestrian traffic utilizing this bridge. This project proposes new ADA compliant sidewalks on both sides of the bridge and its approaches, handicap ramps and crosswalks. (Appendix B contains the Pedestrian Generator Checklist). The Village has discussed a complete sidewalk system up US Route 11 connecting the bridge to the Whitney Point High School campus on Keibel Road. To promote pedestrian activities, the Village has had additional discussions of the establishment of a linear park/walking trail or other improvements to visually and commercially connect such a walking trail to the Historic Downtown District. This would encourage and utilize the character and ambiance of Whitney Point as a cultural and ecotourism center for local residents and tourists. The NY Bike Route 11 follows NY Route 79 north and crosses the bridge to US Route 11 north. Currently, there is no provision or pavement marking for bicyclists on either lane. The lanes are narrow and it is presumed that many cyclists utilized the sidewalk as necessary. The project will provide for cyclists with the widened shoulders and/or shared lanes. Low Income, Minority and Ethnic Groups (Environmental Justice) This project is not located in or near an environmental justice area. Consistent with Executive Order 12898 and FHWA Guidance on Environmental Justice, the project has not directly or indirectly used criteria, methods or practices that discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin or income level. 4.2.4 School Districts, Recreational Areas, and Places of Worship School Districts The project area is entirely within the Whitney Point School District (WPSD). The district educates approximately 1,500 students per year from Pre-K to 12

th grade. WPSD operates its own bus system to

transport students from both sides of the Tioughnioga River to its three school buildings and the BOCES program in Binghamton. All the district buildings are beyond the project work area, with the Riverside Academy located closest to the project area just north of the Otselic River Bridge on US Route 11. This building houses the district’s Intermediate and Middle Schools of 4

th through 8

th grades. Fifteen standard

school district buses (maximum 50 passengers) and six smaller district vans (maximum 15 passengers) cross the bridge four times every school day. In addition to the buses, the district garage staff estimates that less than twelve students use the bridge per week. The staff thought these students were older middle school students who generally were walking home after school hours from athletic events or other school related activities in warmer conditions. Older students reportedly congregate at the bridge area during non-school periods. The Whitney Point Pre-school is a privately owned facility located on West Main Street beyond the work area. This school has 30 students a year. These children are transported to school by their parents or other designated adult. It is presumed that some of these families use the bridge to reach the school. Recreational Areas An ad hoc fishing access is located adjacent to the project on the south side below the west terminus of the bridge. A dirt surface driveway allows vehicles and pedestrians access to the west bank of the Tioughnioga River. This area is not a state, county, or locally designated park or recreational area, but since it possesses river access, it presents a potential environmental enhancement area under the proposed alternative. Despite the lack of official designation, the site seems to be well utilized as there are consistent observations of several vehicles parked on the flat area during fishing season and a worn


4-6

path under the bridge to the north. The entrance will be relocated to the south as it presents a hazardous un-signalized driveway within one car length to the signaled bridge intersection. The Village Strategic Plan recommends that this access area be incorporated into a potential “River Trail.” The Trail would be an enhanced greenspace development to physically, visually and economically connect the community with the Tioughnioga River as part of a larger project to revitalize the downtown economy and aesthetics. This plan includes the development of a linear park along the riparian areas from Dorchester Park to the village’s waste water treatment plant with a spur along the Otselic levee. The Village envisions this site as a mixed used park area for kayaking, canoeing or other car top boat launching area, fishing, a walking/exercise trail, picnic areas, and historic interpretation. The Village has a small memorial site at the bridge’s northwest corner. This site consists of a large rock with a plaque commemorating the revolutionary war veteran, General John Paterson. Due to its size and location, the site does not function as a recreational area. Places of Worship The project work area does not include any places of worship. There are three worship facilities within 0.5 mile of the west end of the bridge. These properties are located on West Main Street, Collins Street and US Route 11, which are each located outside of the project work area. Church members or guests utilize the project bridge for access to these churches and their activities, but the project will not affect church functions.

4.3 Economic

4.3.1 Regional and Local Economies The Village of Whitney Point is located in the Southern Tier region of New York State. As discussed throughout Section 4.2 Social, Whitney Point used to be an agriculturally based economy, but is now primarily a bedroom community for Cortland and the Triple Cities. Since the Village is a small community, with approximately 0.5% of the Broome County population, specific economic information is not available. However, according to the 2000 US Census as discussed in Section 4.2.1 Land Use - Demographics, the Village is a bedroom community and is similar in its demographic and economic makeup to the County, a comparison of the surrounding county is reasonable. Of 62 counties in New York, Broome’s total personal income ranking in the state has dropped from 22

nd in 1997 to 27

th in 2007 (with no adjustment

for inflation). In 2007, Broome County accounted only for 0.7% of the total personal income earned in New York State that year. The local business areas are not designated as Economic Development Zones. The project will not cause the loss of businesses or employment in the Village. The project is estimated to cost $10.91 million. FHWA JOBMOD modeling predicts this two year construction project will supply approximately 120 full time jobs to the area with an estimated $3.5 million of income directly generated by the project. Approximately two thirds of these jobs would be construction crews, who due to the duration and nature of construction jobs, do not usually remain in the area, but move from site to site as contracted. The remaining employment positions would likely be in the service sector, health and education. The other jobs are anticipated to provide a temporary hike in the area’s employment, but only for the time the construction crews are living and working in the area.

4.3.2 Business Districts Established Business Districts

Whitney Point has two distinct general business areas. The first is the Village designated “Historic Whitney Point Downtown District” which encompasses the original village settlement along West Main Street and several side streets. This business district portion has declined from its prime as it has less visibility, limited on street parking, and only a few businesses to attract consumers, and in turn, other


4-7

businesses. Some motorists who have exited Interstate 81 will purchase fuel at the Hess station, but will purchase quick food further north on US Route 11. This area was designed for a previous pre-automotive and interstate era, before traffic was diverted from Main Street to US Route 11. Economic revitalization proposed by the Village Strategic Plan requires an aesthetic update of the area that includes a better intersection on the west end of the project bridge. The more lucrative business area is a strip on either side of Route 11 north of the Riverside Academy campus. This is not designated as a business district, but an unplanned suburban land use pattern with a concentration of commercial, eateries and retail establishments. Because of traffic patterns and easy visibility, this area is the primary destination for most local and transient motorists for fuel, fast food, and other retail establishments. The area is not conducive to pedestrian use because of the distance from pedestrian generators and the lack of suitable sidewalks. Without suitable pedestrian facilities or public transportation, this area is dominated by individual motor vehicle utilization. Effects on Business Districts

Long-term impacts to the existing businesses are anticipated to be positive. This determination is based upon aesthetic enhancement of the bridge and its intersections, plus access improvements for vehicles and pedestrian movements through the area. The addition of ADA compliant sidewalks and pedestrian signaling along with visible crosswalks will improve pedestrian access to businesses.

4.3.3 Specific Business Impacts Established Businesses It is anticipated that the project will improve traffic movement and safety for the Main Street/US Route 11 intersection at the west end of the bridge. These improvements will include better traffic signal timing, pedestrian crossing identification, and improved intersection approaches including turning lanes. Intersection approach improvements will allow for better driveway accesses to Aellio’s Restaurant and the Hess gas station from US Route 11. Effects Assessment No business acquisitions are proposed for this project, therefore there will be no loss of assessment or tax revenue.

4.4 Environmental 4.4.1 Wetlands State Freshwater Wetlands There are no NYSDEC regulated freshwater wetlands or regulated adjacent areas (100 feet) within the project area, as per the NYSDEC Freshwater Wetlands Map for Broome County as accessed on December 10, 2009. A site visit was performed on October 13, 2011 to verify the mapped information. No further investigation is required and Environmental Conservation Law, Article 24 is satisfied. See Figure 2 in Appendix D for the NYSDEC Freshwater Wetlands Map. State Tidal Wetlands A review of the NYSDEC GIS wetland data files indicates that there are no NYSDEC jurisdictional tidal wetlands or regulated adjacent areas within or near the project limits and Environmental Conservation Law, Article 25 does not apply.


4-8

Federal Jurisdiction Wetlands The USGS National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Maps indicated the potential presence of federally regulated wetlands on the west bank of the Tioghnioga River just north of the project bridge. This area is just below the confluence of the Tioghnioga and Otselic Rivers. The NWI mapping labels this area as PSS1A, which classifies the area as palustrine scrub/shrub wetland with broad-leaved deciduous vegetation in an area that receives temporary flooding. A site walkover was conducted by McFarland-Johnson on October 13, 2011. The presence of the wetland was confirmed, however the wetland is not located within the project area. See Figure 3 in Appendix D for the NWI Map. Executive Order 11990 There are no wetlands impacts proposed as part of the proposed project, therefore a EO 11990 finding is not required.

Mitigation Summary No wetland mitigation/monitoring plan is required for this project, since no wetlands are impacted. 4.4.2 Surface Waterbodies and Watercourses

The proposed project involves the bridge crossing the Tioughnioga River. Approximately 180 meters upstream from the bridge the Otselic River flows into the Tioughnioga River. An unnamed tributary enters the Tioughnioga River approximately 590 meters downstream of the bridge. A review of the alternative proposed for this project indicates that only the Tioughnioga River will be impacted by this project. Surface Waters Although the Tioughnioga River is not listed on the 9

th Coast Guard District list of navigable waters,

according to NYSDEC Region 7, the Tioughnioga River is considered a navigable water and protected stream of New York State, and is therefore regulated by the NYSDEC. An Article 15 Protection of Waters permit will not be required from the NYSDEC for this project per the 1997 DEC/DOT MOU, however the NYSDOT will coordinate with the NYSDEC regarding potential impacts to the Tioughnioga River. The project activities involve the replacement of a currently serviceable structure and the placement of riprap to protect the new bridge abutments. The installation of cofferdams will likely be required for the removal of the existing abutments and pier as well as the installation of the new abutments and pier. It is anticipated that this work can be authorized under the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Section 404 Nationwide Permit #3 – Maintenance. Due to the proposed placement of rip-rap, a pre-construction notification must be made to the USACE prior to undertaking the proposed activities. A Section 401 Water Quality Certification will be required for in-water work associated with the replacement of the bridge structure. A Blanket Water Quality Certification has been issued by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) for projects covered under Nationwide Permit #3 provided they meet a set of general conditions. It is anticipated that the proposed project will meet all of the required general conditions and therefore will be covered under the Blanket Section 401 Water Quality Certification. Surface Water Classification and Standards Based upon a review of the NYSDEC mapping of regulated streams, the Tioughnioga River is a Class B waterbody. The Otselic River, a Class C water body, flows into the Tioughnioga River approximately 180 meters upstream of the subject bridge. An unnamed Class C stream flows into the Tioughnioga River approximately 590 meters downstream of the project area.


4-9

The best usages for Class/Standard “B” waters are for primary and secondary contact recreation and fishing. The water quality is suitable for fish propagation and survival. The best usage for Class/Standard “C” waters is fishing. Water quality is suitable for fish propagation and survival. The water quality shall be suitable for primary and secondary contact recreation, although other factors may limit the use for these purposes. The Tioughnioga River is also considered navigable in fact, and thereby regulated by the NYSDEC. According to the New York State Department of Conservation (NYSDEC) the Tioughnioga River at the project location is considered a warm water fishery. The NYSDEC has established a construction restriction of March 1

th through July 15

th due to the anticipated spawning season associated with warm

water fisheries. The project is not located within or adjacent to a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Watershed. Stream Bed and Bank Protection Based upon a review of the NYSDEC mapping for the project area, the Tioughnioga River is a protected stream. As previously discussed, the Tioughnioga River is designated as Class/Standard B Surface Waters as defined by Title 6, Part 701 of the Water Quality Regulations. Coordination with NYSDEC will continue pursuant to 1997 “DEC/DOT MOU Regarding ECL Articles 15 and 24”.

4.4.3 Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers Neither the Tioughnioga River, nor its tributaries in the project vicinity, are considered Wild, Scenic or Recreational Rivers, nor are they listed in the National Park Services’ Nationwide Rivers Inventory. 4.4.4 Navigable Waters State Regulated Waters According to the NYSDECThe Tioughnioga River is considered a navigable river by NYSDEC standards. Navigability of the Tioughnioga River will not be affected by the proposed project. An Article 15 Protection of Waters permit will not be required from the NYSDEC for this project per the 1997 DEC/DOT MOU, however the NYSDOT will coordinate with the NYSDEC regarding potential impacts to the Tioughnioga River. Office of General Services Lands and Navigable Waters There are no OGS underwater holdings located within the project’s area of potential effect that will be impacted by the work. Rivers and Harbors Act – Section 9 Since the project does not involve the construction or modification of any bridge, dam, dike, or causeway over any navigable water of the United States, Section 9 of the Rivers and Harbors Act is not applicable to this project. Rivers and Harbors Act – Section 10 A USACE Section 10 Permit is not required because the project does not involve construction activities in or over navigable waters regulated under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act.


4-10

4.4.5 Floodplains State Flood Insurance Compliance Program A floodplain assessment of the preferred alternative was performed to ensure compliance with the criteria outlined in the NYSDEC’s Floodplain Management for State Projects (6 NYCRR Part 502) and the FHWA’s Federal-Aid Policy Guide (FAPG) 23 CFR 650A. The Village of Whitney Point participates in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and FEMA has published a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for the community. The effective date of the FIRM, for Community Number 360058 B, is January 6, 1984. A Flood Insurance Study (FIS) was never published for the Village. The FIRM includes special flood hazard areas for flooding sources that have been studied using approximate methods, and have been designated as approximate Zone A. Areas within the community subject to inundation by the 100-year flood (base flood) and identified as Zone A are established based on approximate hydrologic and hydraulic methods or historical flood data. As such, no Base Flood Elevation (BFE) data is available within the Village. Detailed technical analyses will be completed during final design to determine BFEs and ensure the preferred alternative is in compliance with state and federal floodplain regulations. A copy of the FIRM is illustrated on Figure 4 in Appendix D of this report. It is important to note that FEMA is conducting a countywide flood hazard mapping update for Broome County. This update includes a countywide FIS and FIRMs. FEMA published the preliminary information on February 5, 2010. The preliminary FIRM for the project area (Map Number 36007C0130F) depicts Zone A flood hazards and the USACE levee consistent with those depicted on the effective FIRM. The preliminary FIS and FIRMs cannot be used for floodplain management until they become effective by FEMA. The existing bridge and the preferred alternative are located within the Zone A flood hazard area of the Tioughnioga River. Floodplain Management for State Projects (6 NYCRR 502) and Federal requirements state, no project shall be undertaken unless it is demonstrated that the cumulative effect of the proposed project will not increase the water surface elevation of the BFE more than one foot at any point. These provisions apply to the subject crossing. In order to establish the changes, if any, in water surface elevations caused by the preferred alternative, a detailed backwater analysis will be performed during final design. The analysis will determine BFE data for both existing conditions and the preferred alternative, and will serve as a tool to assess backwater impacts. Because the preferred alternative is essentially an in-kind replacement, negligible backwater increases are anticipated. In accordance with the provisions of 6 NYCRR 502 – Floodplain Management for State Projects and federal floodplain regulations, this action has considered and evaluated the practicality of alternatives to any floodplain encroachments. As a result of this evaluation, it is concluded that: (1) a significant encroachment does not exist, (2) there is no significant potential for interruption or termination of a transportation facility which is needed for emergency vehicles, (3) there is no significant risk, and (4) there are no significant impacts on natural beneficial floodplain values.

All necessary permits are expected to be acquired for the preferred alternative, including the Section 404 Permit. Executive Order 11988 In order to comply with Executive Order 11988, as implemented in FAPG 23 CFR 650A, an evaluation of potential effects of any actions taken within the floodplain, and alternatives to avoid any adverse effects were considered. There is no feasible alternative that would not impact floodplains. The preferred alternative would replace the existing bridge at its existing location within the floodplain of the Tioughnioga River. The preferred alternative will not result in a significant encroachment on the base (100-year) floodplain nor will it result in an increased flooding risk. The preferred alternative will have a


4-11

span length consistent with the existing bridge span to minimize floodplain impacts and impacts on natural and beneficial floodplain values. Floodplain Hydraulic Analysis A preliminary backwater analysis using HEC-RAS was performed by the NYSDOT Regional Hydraulics Engineer. The preliminary water surface elevations for proposed conditions were estimated as:

• Q50 = 290.42 m (952.81 ft.) • Q100 = 290.63 m (953.50 ft.)

The preliminary analysis results show that the water surface elevation is reduced for the new bridge at the Q50 and Q100 flows. The water elevation at the existing bridge during the September 2011 flood was approximately 287.4 m. Based on the preliminary hydraulic analysis, the Design High Water shown above and the preliminary structure depth there will be approximately 400 mm of freeboard at the west abutment. Any stream structure that provides a minimum freeboard of 600 mm for the 50 year flood shall be considered as satisfying normal hydraulic clearance requirements, but there is no absolute minimum freeboard requirement or standard which must be met to satisfy a specification or regulation. Whatever minimum freeboard is finally chosen, in accordance with accepted practice and application of these guidelines, should be considered as meeting all State requirements and standards. The actual minimum freeboard will be determined during final design. Flood Control Structures Whitney Point Lake, a flood control reservoir operated by the USACE, is located less than one mile upstream (north) of the subject bridge crossing. The project is located in an area where US Route 11 and its embankments are considered a levee. The USACOE is responsible for maintaining the US Route 11 embankments and the NYSDOT is responsible for maintaining the US Route 11 roadway. The NYSDEC has jurisdiction of the levee and will require an Article 16 permit for the preferred alternative. The Environmental Commitments & Obligations Package (ECOPAC) for Construction will require a Part 501 permit. This permit is required for Use of Flood Control Lands under NYSDEC jurisdiction for activities which result in destruction of trees, shrubs and other vegetation; changing any feature of the existing landscape; addition of gutters, sidewalks, driveways, parking lots or spaces; outdoor lighting; installation of utilities; or operation of a motor vehicle.

4.4.6 Coastal Resources

The project is not located in a Coastal Zone Management Area and is not within the boundaries of an approved or pending Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan area. No further coastal zone studies are required.

4.4.7 Groundwater Resources, Aquifers, and Reservoirs

Aquifers State Aquifers NYSDEC aquifer GIS data files have been reviewed and it has been determined that the proposed project is located in New York State designated Principal Aquifer. According to the USGS Numbered Series map from the Water-Resources Investigations Report entitled “Potential Yields of Wells in Unconsolidated Aquifers in Upstate New York, Finger Lakes Sheet,” dated 1988, the project area is underlain by an


4-12

unconfined sand and gravel aquifer capable of providing groundwater at a rate of over 100 gallons per minute. This project will take measures in design and construction to avoid, minimize or mitigate any possible adverse impacts to the aquifer. These measures are intended to minimize contamination from highway runoff and construction activities. Project activities will comply with the applicable standards in 6 NYCRR Part 703. Federally Designated Aquifers A review of the EPA-designated Sole Source Aquifer Areas Federal Register Notices, Maps and Fact Sheets, the proposed project is located within the Sole Source Aquifer Boundary of the Clinton Street Ballpark Aquifer System. The proposed project involves the replacement of an existing bridge and intersection improvements at the east and west end of the bridge. The proposed project lies within the boundaries of the Clinton Street Ballpark Aquifer System. Pursuant to Section 1424(e) of the Safe Water Drinking Act, the EPA has determined that the Clinton Street Ballpark Aquifer System underlying the Broome and Tioga County areas is the sole or principal source of drinking water for Vestal, Johnson City, Endicott, Nichols, Waverly and Owego, and that the aquifer, if contaminated, would create a significant hazard to public health. As a result of this action, Federal financially assisted projects constructed in the Broome and Tioga County areas and their streamflow source zone (upstream portions of the Susquehanna River drainage basin will be subject to EPA review to ensure that these projects are designed and constructed so that they do not create a significant hazard to public health. The 1984 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between FHWA Region 1 and the EPA Region 2 establishes the types of projects that require Federal review, factors to be considered in the review process, and the time frames for review as per Executive Order 12372. The proposed project does not require EPA early notification or review based on MOU criteria and stated goals. The proposed project does not involve:

1. Construction of additional through-traffic lanes, interchanges, or rotaries on existing roadways. 2. Construction of a two or more lane highway on new alignment. 3. Construction of rest areas with on-site sewage disposal facilities.

Additionally, projects that may have an effect on the water quality of the aquifer to the extent that the goals of the MOU are not met, in the opinion of the FHWA, may be subject to review. The goal of the MOU is to prevent the introduction of contaminants into the aquifer in quantities that may create a public health hazard or require additional treatment facilities to meet drinking water regulations. In determining whether a contaminant would threaten public health, factors such as the contaminants’ toxicity, the volume of contaminants entering the aquifer, and the aquifer characteristics and the attenuation capability are considered. It is anticipated that the proposed project alternative will not create a significant hazard to public health or groundwater resources and will meet the stated goals of the FHWA-EPA MOU. The project will have a NYSDEC State Pollution Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) General Permit for stormwater discharges during construction activities. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan will incorporate Best Management Practices (BMPs) for controlling erosion and sedimentation, as well as any increase in contaminants that may enter stormwater runoff. Storage, stockpiling, and the use of construction chemicals and fuel storage tanks in the projet area will be included in the BMPs. Regular inspections and maintenance will be conducted in accordance with BMPs. The proposed project satisfies the requirements of Section 1424(e) of the Safe Drinking Water Act and the stated goals of the 1984 FHWA-EPA Memorandum of Understanding. Coordination for design review by FHWA and EPA will be conducted during final design.


4-13

Drinking Water Supply Wells (Public and Private Wells) and Reservoirs The Village of Whitney Point utilizes the valley filled sand and gravel aquifer as a municipal water supply source. According to village officials the well field for the village is located approximately 1,700 feet north-northwest of the project site. Based on site topography and the southerly flow direction of the Tioughnioga River, it is assumed that the village well field is located hydraulically up gradient of the project and thus will not be impacted by the proposed project. 4.4.8 Stormwater Management Site soils are as identified by the “National Cooperative Soil Survey” from USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. Soils in the project area are divided into two parts by the bridge. Soils to the West of the bridge are predominantly Hydrologic Soil Group (HSG) A ChA soils, which are described as well-drained gravelly loam soils. Soils to the East of the bridge are predominantly Hydrologic Soil Group (HSG) C MhD soils, which are described as slowly-drained silt loam soils. Erosion factor K for ChA and MhD soils are 0.2 and 0.24 respectively, which indicates a moderate susceptibility of the soil to sheet and rill erosion by water. A SPDES General Permit GP-0-10-001 will be required because the project has more than one acre (3.1 ac.) of soil disturbance. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) with the appropriate sediment and erosion control measures will be developed. This project is required to assess the requirements for stormwater management practices. Based on the SWPPP, permanent stormwater management practices are required due to increase in total impervious area from 1.9 ac to 2.2 ac. The results of the SPDES assessment indicate that stormwater quantity controls are NOT required since the project outlets into a fifth order stream, Tioughnioga River. The project corridor is not adjacent to or discharging runoff to a TMDL Watershed or a listed 303(d) water body. Based on the classification “B” of the Tioughnioga River located within the project area, a NYSDEC Protection of Waters permit is not required for this project per the 1997 DEC/DOT MOU. This project should not diminish the water quality standards of the Tioughnioga River. During construction, precautions should be taken to prevent contamination of the Tioughnioga River by silt, sediment, fuels, solvents, lubricants, or any other pollutants. Promptly after construction, care will be taken to stabilize all disturbed areas. The increases in impervious area are directly related to reconstruction of the two intersections at both ends of the bridge, including the addition of turning lanes and bringing them up to current roadway standards within the project limits. The effects of the increased area on stormwater runoff characteristics and site level hydrology will be evaluated during final design. Potential impact on surface water quality associated with the project would be the result of stormwater runoff and associated pollutants. Pollutants associated with the project could include deicing salts, particulates, nutrients, heavy metals, and hydrocarbons, including polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH’s). Pollutant sources may include road surface material, vehicle exhaust and degradation, lubrication system losses, roadway maintenance activities, and by-products of combustion. Of these pollutants, deicing salts are considered a primary pollutant due to the potential quality of salts applied to the roadway during snow removal operations, and because they are potentially the most difficult to mitigate. Based on the very large watershed that drains through the project area and no increase in lane-miles from pavement widening, an analysis quantifying the effects of deicing salts was not performed for the project. Required Water Quality Volume (WQv) for this redevelopment project is calculated according to Chapter 4 and Chapter 9 of the NYSDEC Stormwater Management Design Manual. The attenuation of Water Quality Volume would be accomplished by following the hierarchy of methods for managing storm water quality, which can be found in Chapter 5 of the NYSDEC Stormwater Management Design Manual.


4-14

Preliminary analysis shows that stormwater management practices that could be applied on site are limited by drainage pattern and limits of disturbance. For this project, water would be treated by maintaining sheet flow over vegetated areas, re-vegetate existing roadside ditches, and utilizing catch basin inserts and hydrodynamic separation devices where closed systems are proposed. Required Minimum Runoff Reduction Volume is calculated according to Chapter 4, which will be achieved by application of on-site green infrastructure techniques, such as preservation of undisturbed areas, preservation of buffers, and reduction of clearing and grading. The SWPPP will demonstrate that all the green infrastructure planning and design options are evaluated to meet the runoff reduction requirement and provide documentation if any components of this approach are not technically feasible. Soil erosion plans and details will also be developed during the advance detail design phases of the project in accordance with Section 209 Soil Erosion and Sediment Control of the NYSDOT Standard Specifications in order to satisfy the SWPPP. These plans and details will include both temporary and permanent measures to prevent soil erosion and provide fences, seeding, mulching, erosion control fabric, check dams, inlet protection, temporary sedimentation/detention ponds, and stabilized construction access points. These measures will serve to minimize the potential for pollutants from the proposed project to reach Tioughnioga River. 4.4.9 General Ecology and Wildlife Resources Habitat in the proposed project area is primarily riverine, including the main river channel and adjacent areas. Developed residential and commercial properties border the roads in the Village, as well as the eastern banks of the river. The residential and commercial properties are characterized by mown lawn, buildings, driveways, and parking areas. Undeveloped areas in the project vicinity are characterized as successional shrubland. Some loss of successional shrubland habitat will occur during project implementation. Consultation with the New York Natural Heritage Program indicated that the yellow lampmussel (Lampsilis cariosa), a shellfish Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) in New York State, is known to occur in the Tioughnioga River in the immediate project vicinity. It is not listed as Threatened or Endangered in New York, and therefore it is not specifically protected under the state’s Endangered and Threatened Species Regulations. The NYSDEC has a broad rule that all mussel species, regardless of status, are protected from unpermitted killing in New York. The project area has also been identified as potential habitat for the brook floater (Alasmidonta varicosa), a state listed threatened shellfish. A field survey of freshwater mussels was conducted on September 21-22, 2010 in a 300-meter reach of the Tioughnioga River near the NYS Route 206 Bridge in Whitney Point, New York. The survey discovered two yellow lampmussels, a Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) in New York, a mussel relocation and monitoring plan may need to be developed and implemented prior to construction. Coordination with the NYSDEC for guidance on this issue is recommended. The US Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) county list of Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species was consulted to determine the likelihood of occurrence of endangered, threatened or rare species in the project area. There are no federally listed threatened, endangered, or candidate species listed for Broome County. It can be reasonably determined that except for occasional transient individuals, no Federally listed or proposed endangered or threatened species under the jurisdiction of the USFWS are known to exist in the project area. In addition, no habitat in the project impact area is currently designated or proposed critical habitat in accordance with provisions of the Endangered Species Act (87 Stat. 884 as amended; 16 U.S.C.1531 et seq.). No further Endangered Species Act coordination is required.


4-15

4.4.10 Critical Environmental Areas State Critical Environmental Areas According to information obtained from NYSDEC, the proposed project does not involve work in or near a Critical Environmental Area. State Forest Preserve Lands According to information obtained from NYSDEC, the proposed project does not involve work in or near state forest preserve lands. 4.4.11 Historic and Cultural Resources National Heritage Areas Program The proposed project will not impact areas identified as National Heritage Areas. National Historic Preservation Act – Section 106/State Historic Preservation Act – Section 14.09 Because the project is partially federally funded and involves federal environmental permitting, NYSDOT will be following the Section 106 Process of the National Historic Preservation Act. This action ensures compliance with the NYSHPA Section 14.09 process. Because the present structure, BIN 1018600, is listed as being National Register Eligible (NRE) and because the preferred alternative, Alternative 1, lies on approximately the same alignment of the existing bridge, thereby requiring the removal of the present structure, this project will have an “adverse effect” on the standing bridge. As required under the Section 106 process, a Finding Document explaining the project’s “adverse effect” was submitted to the New York State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and the FHWA for review. Both agencies concurred with the finding. A Programmatic 4(f) evaluation has been prepared and a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), regarding removal of this NRE bridge and mitigation measures, has been executed by SHPO, NYSDOT and FHWA. Refer to Appendix G for the Programmatic 4(f) Evaluation and MOA. Architectural Resources The proposed project does not involve federally owned, jurisdictional or controlled property that is eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Therefore, Section 110 does not apply. Archaeological Resources A Phase I archeological survey was conducted in 2008 to determine the presence of archeological resources. The survey found prehistoric lithics at one STP site on the east side of US 11/NY Route 79, approximately 70 meters north of the intersection at the west end of the present bridge. The follow up test pits around that location recovered no additional prehistoric material. The roadway work in this area will not extend beyond previously disturbed ground, therefore a 4(f) evaluation will not be required for archaeological resources. A copy of this conclusion is included in the Cultural Resource Management Report which is included as a Technical Appendix. Historic Bridges The subject bridge, a two-span, pony truss over the Tioughnioga River in the Village of Whitney Point, is listed on the NYSDOT Historic Bridge Inventory as being National Register Eligible (NRE). BIN 1018600 meets NRE Criteria C-6, which is a structure that “demonstrates individuality or variation of features within a particular bridge type”, in this case, a multiple span, post-1908, Warren truss bridge. The current


4-16

structure’s documented integrity problems and design limitations together with the high cost of rehabilitation make retention of the present bridge problematic. As a result, the preferred alternative -- Alternative l -- involves building a replacement bridge adequate to carry modern traffic loads on the present alignment. The removal of the present bridge will result in this project having an Adverse Affect. The project meets the criteria of a ”Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation and Approval for FHWA Projects that Necessitate the Use of Historic Bridges,” which has been prepared and included in Appendix G. A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), regarding the removal of this NRE bridge and mitigation measures has been executed by SHPO, NYSDOT and FHWA. Refer to Appendix G for the Programmatic 4(f) Evaluation and MOA Historic Parkways This project does not have the potential to adversely affect any historic parkways. Native American Involvement The Department will be following the Section 106 Process of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800). This ensures compliance with this Act. In addition, places or artifacts of religious importance to Native Americans were not found within the project impact area. Section 4(f) Involvement The project bridge was identified by the NYSDOT Historic Bridge Inventory as a historic property eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. The programmatic Section 4(f) evaluation applies to this project.

4.4.12 Parks and Recreational Resources There are no municipal, county, or state designated parks or recreational areas within or in the vicinity of the project area. However, there is an ad hoc fishing access located to the south below the west terminus of the bridge. A dirt surface driveway at this access allows vehicles and pedestrians access to the west bank of the Tioughnioga River. This access will be retained as requested by the Village of Whitney Point with modifications of the driveway to improve safety. State Heritage Area Program The proposed project will not impact areas identified as State Heritage Areas. National Heritage Areas Program The proposed project will not impact areas identified as National Heritage Areas. National Registry of Natural Landmarks

There are no listed nationally significant natural areas within, or adjacent to, the project area. Section 4(f) Involvement There are no publicly owned parks or recreational facilities, protected under Section 4(f) of the USDOT Act, in or adjacent to the project area. There is an ad hoc fishing area south of the bridge on the west side of the Tioughnioga River but it is not considered a significant resource under Section 4(f) and although it will be impacted during construction it will be improved as part of the project. No further action is required under this section.


4-17

Section 6(f) Involvement The project does not impact parklands or facilities that have been partially or fully federally funded through the Land and Water Conservation Act. No further consideration under Section 6(f) is required. Section 1010 Involvement This project does not involve the use of land from a park to which Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program funds have been applied.

4.4.13 Visual Resources Introduction The visual character of the project area consists of a rural village setting which includes the Warren truss bridge that will be replaced. The predominant views are of paved roadway and shoulder areas; commercial and residential properties; mowed lawns; an ad hoc riverside fishing area and wooded surroundings. The eastern bridge approach is an important crossroads, as it connects NY Routes 26, 79 and 206. The existing visual character reflects the function as a crossroads, with a large amount of vehicular activity both within the roadway and the Hess gas station that is at the Main Street/US Route 11 intersection. The western bridge approach is significant because it connects US Route 11 and NY Route 79 with Interstate 81. Viewshed The viewshed defines the boundary of the visual environment. It is described as all the surface area visible from the project area, as well as the surface area from which the viewpoint is seen. The viewshed is bounded to the southwest by the gravel fishing access on the west bank of the Tioughnioga River, US Route 11, NY Route 26, wooded areas that buffer adjacent residential areas, commercial area on Main Street and paved parking lots. From the northwest, the viewshed is bounded by the commercial district west of US Route 11 and NY Route 79, including a gas station and parking, wooded areas on the west bank of the Tiougnioga River, a levee and lawn area that follows the bank of the river. The viewshed boundary on the east side of the bridge consists of residential areas, grassed traffic islands, steeply sloped paved roads and wooded areas both on the bank of the river and on the slope east of NY Route 26, buffering agricultural fields beyond. Effects Assessment Within the project area, there are three significant visual resources:

• BIN 1018600 itself is a historic resource, and is eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places

• NYS Bicycle Route 11 is a significant visual resource according to the NYSDEC criteria • The ad hoc fishing area south of the western bridge approach is a significant visual resource as a

local recreation attraction. As a result of the proposed alternative, some unavoidable visual impacts will occur within the project area. Because the bridge itself is a significant resource, visual impacts will occur due to its replacement. The Warren truss structure will be replaced with a conventional steel girder and concrete deck that will have aesthetic Texas barrier bridge railing. Elimination of the deteriorated steel structure and chain link fence along the pedestrian sidewalk will improve the overall aesthetics of the bridge and improve views from the bridge for motorists, pedestrians and bicyclists. In addition, the Village of Whitney Point passed


4-18

a resolution stating they do not want to keep the existing bridge, so although it is listed as a historic and thus significant resource, and its replacement does cause a visual impact, it is one that is welcomed by those who see it most. There will be impacts to views from NYS Bicycle Route 11. Views of the bridge from the intersection of US Route 11 and Main Street will change with the bridge widening, the change in structure from a Warren truss to a conventional girder bridge, and clearing and grading and revegetation associated with construction of the new bridge. There will be similar visual impacts to views to and from the ad hoc fishing area due to the bridge replacement. Views of the bridge elevation will change from the Warren truss structure to Texas style aesthetic barrier, the existing memorial bench will be removed and relocated, and the fishing area will likely be impacted by construction activities. Views of the understructure of the bridge will change, as well as grading areas adjacent to the bridge abutments. The appearance of vegetation hanging over the wingwalls will be significantly different with the clearing and grubbing that will be necessary for construction of the new bridge. Overall, the changes to the visual environment of the bridge and its surrounds will not be significant. The NYSDEC Visual Policy states, “Aesthetic impact occurs when there is a detrimental effect on the perceived beauty of a place or structure. Significant aesthetic impacts are those that cause a diminishment of the public enjoyment and appreciation of an inventoried resource, or one that impairs the character or quality of such a place. Proposed large facilities by themselves should be a trigger for a declaration of significance. Instead, a project by virtue of its siting in visual proximity to an inventoried resource may lead staff to conclude there may be a significant impact.” Because the project is the replacement of an existing bridge, visual impacts will be minimal. The new bridge will be wider and in a slightly different alignment, but it will not be an entirely new feature in the landscape. The bridge structure will also be different, but the change will improve views of the Tioughnioga River for pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists alike by eliminating the visual barriers created by the truss structure and chain link fence. Light fixtures and the Texas style aesthetic barrier railing will establish streetscape vocabulary for the bridge that will be visible from the entry points on NY Route 206 on the east approach and US Route 11 and NY Route 79 on the west approach. This change in the visual environment will positively affect the two “gateway” views and create a distinct visual identity. None of the inventoried resources - the bridge, NYS Bicycle Route 11, and the ad hoc fishing area - will be impacted in such a manner that will diminish its public enjoyment nor impair its quality and character. The complete Visual Resource Assessment is included in Appendix D.

4.4.14 Farmlands State Farmland and Agricultural Districts Based on a review of the NYS Agricultural District Maps for Broome County, the proposed project is not located in or adjacent to an Agricultural District. Federal Prime and Unique Farmland The proposed project activities will not convert any prime or unique farmland, or farmland of state or local importance, as defined by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, to a nonagricultural use.


4-19

4.4.15 Air Quality Air Quality Screening I. CO Microscale Air Quality Analysis To determine whether the project is subject to a microscale air quality analysis, a review of the project was done in accordance with the screening process outlined in the NYSDOT Environmental Procedures Manual (EPM), January 2001. The screening consisted of looking at the level of service changes, capture criteria and traffic volume threshold. I-1. Level of Service (LOS) Screening (page 1.1-20)* Intersections impacted by a project, with build ETC, ETC+10, or ETC+20 LOS of only A, B, or C, are generally excluded from microscale air quality analysis.” “Regardless of the LOS, if there are potentially sensitive receptors, i.e. schools, hospitals, retirement communities, etc … a microscale analysis may be appropriate.”

TABLE 4.4.15-1 - INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE

NO BUILD

BUILD ALTERNATIVE #1

ETC ETC + 10 ETC +20 ETC ETC + 10 ETC + 20 INTERSECTION (yr. 2016) (yr. 2026) (yr. 2036) (yr. 2016) (yr. 2026) (yr. 2036)

1

East side of the Tioughnioga River -

a.m. C C C A A B

East Main St., NY 79, NY 26 and NY 206

p.m. E F F A B B

2

West side of the Tioughnioga River -

a.m. B B C B B B

East Main St., NY 79, NY 26 and NY 206

p.m. C C D C C C

Neither of the proposed intersections will have a LOS of D, E or F therefore the microscale air quality analysis is not required due to LOS concerns.

A review of potentially sensitive receptors at each of the proposed project intersections revealed that there are no receptors immediately adjacent to the intersections that have potential to be impacted. I-2. Capture Criteria Screening (page 1.1-20)* Will the project increase the number of queued lanes for ETC, ETC+10 or ETC+20?

N/A – Do not need to look at this step since all intersections are working at an LOS of C or better. I-3. Volume Threshold Screening (page 1.1-22)* If any of the criteria listed above are realized, then a traffic volume threshold should be considered to further determine the need for a microscale air quality analysis.

N/A – Do not need to look at this step since all intersections are working at an LOS of C or better.

4.4.16 Energy

An energy assessment is not required for the proposed project since it is not expected to:

a. Increase or decrease VMT; b. Generate additional vehicle trips; c. Significantly affect land use development patterns;


4-20

d. Result in a shift in travel patterns; or e. Significantly increase or decrease vehicle operating speeds.

Therefore, the project will not significantly affect energy consumption.

4.4.17 Noise This project is essentially on the same location, with minor realignments of existing lanes due to slight realignment of the bridge. It does not increase the number of through traffic lanes, nor does it significantly change the horizontal or vertical alignment in the vicinity of a receptor. This project is not a Type I project, as defined by 23 CFR 772 and does not require a formal noise study. However, a noise analysis was done for the preferred alternative. Mitigation Summary In order to reduce the noise impact associated with this project, noise abatement techniques would need to be employed. Noise abatement measures must be considered reasonable and feasible to warrant implementation. Feasible is defined as the practical capability of the abatement being built as well as achieving a substantial decibel reduction. A substantial reduction in noise level of 10 dBA is desirable, while a 7 dBA reduction is considered a minimum. Reasonable is when the cost of the noise abatement measure is less than a specified cost index based on the total cost per dwelling unit benefited, and that the impacted residents concur with the abatement recommendation. Four (4) noise abatement techniques were reviewed for this project: traffic management techniques, alternative highway locations, noise barriers, and acquisition of real property to serve as a buffer zone. None of the techniques were found to be reasonable and feasible since they do not provide the substantial noise reduction required or would be considered cost effective for implementation. Therefore, no noise abatement measures are recommended for this project. The Noise Study Report in Appendix D provides a complete evaluation of mitigation measures.

4.4.18 Asbestos

A preliminary asbestos assessment was completed. This assessment included a review of available records and a visual assessment to identify suspect asbestos containing materials (ACMs). A complete copy of the Preliminary Asbestos Assessment Report is included in Appendix D. Record Review Various bridge records and utility record plans were reviewed. Suspect asbestos materials identified include: premoulded felt strips, bituminous waterproofing materials, drain pipes potentially coated with an asbestos material and joint materials. Site Inspection A site inspection was conducted on October 25, 2011. This inspection was conducted by New York State Department of Labor (NYSDOL) Certified Asbestos Inspectors. There are eighteen (18) suspect materials that require sampling prior to the replacement of the bridge and reconstruction of highway intersections. These materials are as follows:

1. Black felt-like material between concrete slabs in sidewalk. 2. Not Used 3. Brown felt-like material between concrete sidewalk and concrete curb (east side of bridge) 4. Faded green bridge paint 5. Bright green bridge paint 6. Thick grey bridge paint (drippings) on western bridge abutment 7. Greyish beige paint on western concrete abutment


4-21

8. Pink primer bridge paint 9. White paint on concrete western bridge abutment 10. Grey mortar troweled-on coating on western bridge abutment 11. Silver paint on manhole cover west side of river 12. Brown patch on insulated water line beneath south side of the bridge 13. Insulation on water line 14. Brown caulk like sealant at truss penetrations in concrete sidewalk 15. Grey caulk around fence post on bridge 16. Not Used 17. Grey caulk/gasket like material in eastern bridge expansion joint 18. Black sealant at center bridge expansion joint 19. White paint on posts for “W” guide rail southeast side of bridge 20. Not Used 21. Black tar like coating on interior of CMP pipe through northeast corner of bridge abutment

Conclusions and Recommendations It is recommended that three (3) samples each of the eighteen (18) identified materials identified in the “Site Inspection” section be collected and analyzed for asbestos content determination. Samples are required to be collected by a NYSDOL Certified Asbestos Inspector and analyzed by a NYS Department of Health (DOH) laboratory. Analytical information was received on October 20, 2012 from the NYSDOT. Three samples of green bridge paint had been previously collected, analyzed and found not to contain asbestos. It is unknown form the information presented in the analytical report if the paint sampled was faded green or bright green (material numbers 4 and 5 indicated above). Therefore, one of the green paints will be eliminated from the need to be sampled and analyzed. It is recommended that when sampling occurs the field inspectors determine in the field which green paint sample has not been sampled and sample the appropriate paint accordingly.

4.4.19 Hazardous Waste and Contaminated Materials Screening and Site Assessment A Hazardous Waste/Contaminated Materials Site Screening has been conducted in accordance with the NYSDOT Environmental Manual in order to document the likely presence or absence of hazardous/contaminated environmental conditions. A hazardous/contaminated environmental condition is the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products (including products currently in compliance with applicable regulations) on a property under conditions that indicate an existing release, a past release, or a material threat of a release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products into structures on the property or into the ground, ground water, or surface water of the property. The Hazardous Waste/Contaminated Materials Screening Report is included in Appendix D. The Hazardous Waste/Contaminated Materials Site Screening included a review of regulatory data files compiled by Environmental Data Resource, Inc. (EDR). This information was supplemented through a review of published databases and through contact with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). The findings of the Hazardous Waste/Contaminated Materials Site Screening identified five sites of concern within or adjacent to the project area where contaminated materials are suspected to be present. The locations of these sites of concern are shown on Figure 4.4.19-1. The five sites of concern were evaluated to determine if they will have a negative impact on the proposed build alternatives. A summary of all of the sites of concern and their potential project impacts is summarized in Exhibit 4.4.19-1.


4-22

Exhibit 4.4.19-1 Summary of Sites of Concern

Site Name /Address

Environmental Listing

Environmental Concern(s)

Potential Site Impacts

Recommended Action

Hess Gasoline Station (Site 1) 2818 Main Street

RCRIS Hazardous Waste Generator, PBS facility, multiple spill site

Possible petroleum contamination

Construction along the property frontage Main Street and US Route 11 and NY 79 overlap.

Detailed site investigation - subsurface sampling.

Aiellos Restaurant (Site 2) 2667 Main Street

Multiple spill site, on site Fuel oil above ground storage tank (AST)

Possible contamination present.

Construction along the property frontage Main Street and US Route 11 and NY 26 overlap.

None: contamination has been remediated, and AST is located in basement on west side of building that fronts on Collins Street.

Intersection of NY Route 26 and US Route 11 (Site 3)

Historical Sanborn maps indicate underground storage tanks (USTs)

Possible USTs in the ROW and residual contamination

Reconstruction of the intersection.

Detailed site investigation - geophysical investigation and subsurface sampling

BIN 1018600 (Site 4) Routes 26, and 79 over the Tioughnioga River EDR Site: 4

RCRIS Hazardous Waste Generator

Possibility of encountering lead based paint during construction

The proposed project includes the replacement of this bridge.

Paint is assumed to contain lead and will be addressed accordingly in the construction documents.

5111 NY Route 26 (Hickory Street) (Site 5) Private Residence

- Fuel oil storage at the site and a septic tank south of house

Alt 1: Construction along NY Route 26 and the NY Route 26 and 79 overlap.

None: property will not be impacted.

Based on this evaluation it was determined that three of the five sites of concern may either be impacted by, or have a negative impact on, the proposed build alternatives. Recommendations for the proposed project are provided below:

1. Based on the current and historic use of the Hess gasoline station (Site 1) at 2818 Main Street, petroleum contamination may be present. It is recommended that a detailed investigation be conducted within the ROW along US Route 11 and NY Route 79 overlap and Main Street. This investigation should include subsurface soil sampling and analysis to determine if residual petroleum contamination is present.


4-23

Site 4

Site 1

Site 2

Site 3

Site 5

Key: Site 1: Hess Gasoline Station 2818 Main Street Site 2: Aiellos Restaurant 2667 Main Street Site 3: NY Route 26 and US Route 11 East of Aiellos Restaurant Site 4: BIN 1018600 Routes 206, 29, and 79 over

the Tioughnioga River Site 5: 5111 NY Route 26 (Hickory

Str.)

PROJECT NO.

20-09-095

SCALE:

N.T.S.

DATE:

2-13-12

DRAWING NO:

2110 SOUTH CLINTON AVENUE, SUITE 1

ROCHESTER, NEW YORK 14618 TL: (585) 223-3660 FX (585) 223-4250

NY ROUTES 26, 206 & 79 OVER THE TIOUGHNIOGA RIVER VILLAGE OF WHITNEY POINT, BROOME COUNTY, NEW YORK

BIN 1018600, PIN 9014.39.122

FIGURE 4.4.19-1 - AREAS OF CONCERN

MAP SOURCE: NYSGIS Clearinghouse, 2006 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH


4-24

2. Underground storage tanks and potential petroleum contamination may be present beneath the road at, and immediately south of, the western intersection (US Route 11 and NY Route 79 overlap, the US Route 11 and NY Route 26 overlap, the NY Routes 26 and 79 overlap (BIN 1018600), and Main Street). Sanborn maps document the presence of a garage with gasoline storage tanks at this location (Site 3). It is recommended that a detailed investigation be conducted for this location. This detailed investigation should include a geophysical investigation of the intersection to determine if abandoned underground storage tanks are present. In addition, subsurface soil sampling and analysis should be conducted to determine if residual petroleum contamination is present.

3. It is assumed that the paint on the NY Routes 26 and 79 bridge over the Tioughnioga River

(Site 4 / BIN 1018600) contains lead. Therefore the paint should be handled in accordance with applicable local, state and federal regulations. A worker protection plan should be developed by the contractor for the demolition of the bridges that would be impacted by the build alternatives.

4.5 Construction Effects

Construction Impacts The construction impacts associated with this project are considered to be insignificant, as referenced in the previous sections of this report. The project will replace the current bridge, BIN 1018600, over the Tioughnioga River in its same approximate location. Potential construction impacts are limited to those associated with the temporary earth disturbances in upland and waterway environments during construction. Excavation and site disturbance will be kept to the minimum required to complete the project. No wet or fresh concrete or leachate will be allowed to enter waters of the US. Appropriate standards for soil erosion and sediment control will be followed during construction to limit upland erosion and minimize introduction of sediment into the Tioughnioga River. No work will occur in the Tioughnioga River during high flow conditions. The project has been designed to avoid and minimize adverse effects, both temporary and permanent, to waters of the U.S. to the maximum extent practicable. The construction work in the stream or along its banks will be completed according with USACE NWP stipulated conditions. Mitigation Measures All disturbed upland areas will be re-seeded following construction completion. Compliance with NWP General Conditions, and USACE Buffalo District Specific and General Regional Conditions will constitute mitigation for impacts to waters of the US.

4.6 Indirect and Secondary Effects The proposed project should have no significant indirect or secondary effects, locally or regionally, on the social and economic environments of the surrounding area. The project does include work to improve drainage, sidewalks, curbs, signs, and signals within the project area, so any potential effects would be considered to be positive in nature.

4.7 Cumulative Effects The proposed project will not lead to additional development, subsequent projects, or increased traffic within the vicinity of the project area. Based on the detailed environmental analysis performed for this project, it is anticipated that there will be no significant direct, indirect, secondary or cumulative impacts

resulting from this project.

Documents

FINAL DESIGN REPORT...July 2013 Final Design Report PIN 9014.39 LIST OF PREPARERS Group Director Responsible for Production of the Design Approval Document : Scott P. Faulkner, P.E.,