CHAPTER 3 ALTERNATIVES · 2012-07-11 · April, 2012 Final Design Report/Environmental Assessment...

April, 2012 Final Design Report/Environmental Assessment PIN 4390.17

III-1

CHAPTER 3 – ALTERNATIVES Ctrl. Click here for revisions: Change 1 Change 2 Change 3 Change 4 Change 5 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. Note about alternative development: This project addresses conditions and needs at multiple interrelated locations. Because of earlier studies,

a many alternatives were developed to address conditions and needs

thought the corridor. During development of this project, these alternatives were further refined and modified to determine the best combination of features that would address the project objectives. Some features of previously identified alternatives were not considered for formal inclusion in this report. These features were considered technically infeasible or not cost effective considering that less costly alternatives could be developed. Further discussion on these alternatives, the reasons for not including them can be found in Appendix C. Also included in the back of this report is a pullout diagram identifying by number or letter bridges, ramps and other feature of the proposed alternatives. References are made to this diagram throughout the report. It can be unfolded for easy reference. Detailed plans, profiles and typical sections of the preferred alternative are included in Appendix A. ____________________________________________________________________________________

3.1. Alternatives Considered and Eliminated from Further Study

Various alternatives and features have been considered as potential engineering solutions that satisfy the project objectives. After further detailed study, some of these alternatives and/or sub-alternatives proved to have no cost, safety, environmental or operational benefits over the other alternatives. Therefore, the following alternatives have been eliminated from further consideration: Alternative 1: No Build Alternative Alternative 2: Corridor Improvements – Diamond Type Alternative 1 Under this alternative, routine maintenance would be performed to extend the service life of the existing pavement and bridges. This alternative would not address safety or congested related deficiencies. This alternative does not meet any of the project objectives and will only be used for comparison purposes. Alternative 2 This alternative includes improvements that are based on the existing conventional diamond interchange type. Improvements to levels of service would be accommodated with the addition of turn lanes at various locations. Increased separation between on/off ramps at Route 15A is included. Presently some of the vehicles traveling to or from Route 15 to I-390 must traverse the Route 15A intersections at-grade. This alternative would provide additional direct access points to I-390 and eliminate some of these movements. Additional improvements are included at various locations and on the I-390 mainline. This alternative also includes improved access to/from the University of Rochester campus area via Kendrick Road and E. River Road.

a Southern Corridor Mobility Study, NYSDOT, April, 1999


III-2

After comparisons and study of both Alternative 2 and Alterative 3, it was determined that they would both accommodate existing and future traffic. There were modest improvements in levels of service for Alternative 3 versus Alternative 2. Social, economic and environmental impacts are similar for both alternatives. One major difference is Alternative 3 will have some impacts to the parking lot for the Monroe County Social Services office on Westfall Road. These impacts and potential mitigation are discussed below. Operationally, Alternative 2 would continue to function with cross traffic turns at intersections and multiple points of conflict. Alternative 3 would eliminate many points of conflict at intersections and further reduce the potential for crashes. Widening the Route 15 to I-390 northbound entrance ramp structure (ramp CH) to accommodate the dual left turn from Rt. 15 northbound would be complex and costly. It would also require long ramp transitions and preclude desired access improvements at Kendrick Road, which would accommodate traffic generated by the University of Rochester as its master plan is implemented. It would also require a costly widening, or potential, replacement of the Route 15 Bridge over I-390 and the Erie Canal. For the above reasons, Alternative 2 has been dropped from further consideration. ____________________________________________________________________________________

3.2. Feasible Build Alternatives

Alternative 3 – Corridor Improvements – Partial Cloverleaf Type This alternative includes improvements that are based on a partial cloverleaf interchange type. Loop ramps are added at both Route 15 and 15A to accommodate some movements and reduce traffic congestion at intersections. Additional direct access points to I-390 would divert some of the vehicles that must traverse the Route 15A intersections at-grade to access I-390. Additional improvements are included at various locations and on the I-390 mainline. This alternative also provides desired access improvements at Kendrick Road, which would accommodate traffic generated by the University of Rochester as its master plan is implemented.

3.2.1. Description of Feasible Alternatives

Alternatives 3 will include improvements to reduce congestion and reduce the potential for congestion related and other crashes. A detailed description of the features of this alternative follows with specific map references to the pullout key code map. Improvements at Kendrick Road/East River Road (Reference A): the existing I-390 southbound ramp (Ramp AH) to E. River Road will be reconstructed and realigned. A deceleration lane will be added to I-390 (Ref. A-1).This will provide room for a new on-ramp (Ramp FH) at this location (Ref. A-2). The new on-ramp will accommodate southbound Route 15 traffic destine for I-390 southbound and will eliminate the need for some traffic to traverse over Route 15A on the south frontage road to reach I-390 southbound. The ramp will also serve traffic from the University of Rochester area via Kendrick Road. To accommodate the additional traffic and improve access to the University of Rochester campus a new roundabout (Ref. A-3) will be constructed at Kendrick Road and East River Road. A new ramp will be constructed from Kendrick Road to I-390 northbound. This will serve traffic from the University of Rochester area (Ref. A-4). Kendrick Road will also be widened over I-390 to accommodate turn lanes.


III-3

The addition of the Kendrick Road on-ramp (Ramp EH) was considered at the request of the U of R. The desire to provide a full interchange at Kendrick Road was identified early in studies compiled for the U of R and their long-range expansion plan. New access from E. River Road (near Kendrick Road) to I-390 southbound was already proposed as part of the Southern Corridor study (ramp FH). Geometrics and the proximity of the Erie Canal preclude an off-ramp from I-390 northbound to Kendrick Road. A new on-ramp from Kendrick Road to I-390 northbound was found to be feasible and constructible. Improvements at Rte 15 (Reference B): A new loop ramp (Ramp GH) will be constructed from Route 15 northbound to I-390 northbound (Ref. B-1). Route 15 southbound traffic to I-390 northbound will continue to use the existing ramp (Ref B-2). Route 15 will be restriped to accommodate the new lane configuration. A right turn lane will be striped for Route 15 southbound at the I-390 ramp and a right turn lane will be added on Route 15 northbound at the north frontage road across from E. River Road (Ref B-3). The left turn move from Route 15 southbound to the service road will be eliminated (Ref. B-4). Improvements at Route 15A (Reference C): On I-390 the existing northbound mainline outside lane, which now exits to Route 15A and provides access to Route15 will be extended under the Route 15A bridge (Ref. C-1). This ramp (Ramp NFE) will split to provide a new loop ramp (Ramp NFD) to Route 15A southbound (Ref. C-2) and to provide a new access directly to Route 15 at East River Road (Ref. C-3). A new ramp (Ramp NFC) will be constructed from I-390 to Route 15A northbound (Ref. C-4). The existing ramp (Ramp DH) from Route 15A southbound to I-390 northbound will be relocated (Ref. C-5). This ramp includes a grade separated crossing over the new ramp (Ramp NFE) to Route 15A (Ref.C-3). The bridge carrying Route 15A over the Erie Canal (Ref. C-6) will be replaced and widened to provide 4 through travel lanes with two auxiliary lanes (one in each direction). Route 15A will be restriped to provide a dual left turn lane at the I-390 southbound and I-390 northbound ramps (Ref. C-7). The I-390 northbound ramp (Ramp GB) will be widened to accept the dual left and improve merge distances (Ref. C-8). Additional improvement (Ref. D): A new auxiliary lane will be added to the I-390 southbound to I-590 northbound (Ref. D-1) connector. This will allow a vehicle entering I-390 on Ramp GB to weave across one lane and then use the new auxiliary lane to merge onto 590. The project will also included pavement and bridge rehabilitations where appropriate, new signs, signals and pavement markings and improvements to bicycle and pedestrian facilities on affected highways. Bridges: A summary of bridge work is discussed below. More details can be found in Section 3.3.3.6. Structures (refer to the key code map for bridge numbers). New bridges: Bridge 5A (Kendrick Road ramp EH), Bridge 14 (new ramp GH), Bridge 15 (Ramp NFE over ramp DH). Widened and rehabilitated bridges: Bridge 5 (Kendrick Road) Rehabilitated bridges: Bridge 6 (Rte. 15 over I-390), Bridge 6A (Ramp CH), Bridge 7 (Ramp NFE over I-390), Bridge 9 (Rte. 15A over I-390). Work includes, but not limited to deck repairs/replacement, substructure repairs, fatigue and seismic retrofits. Replacement bridges: Bridge 8 (Rte. 15A over Erie Canal)

___________________________________________________________________________________


III-4

Table III-1

Summary of key Elements

Geometry This alternative meets current geometric standards except as noted below

Operational This alternative improves operational aspects of the affected highways.

Control of Access All control of access components for this alternative will meet AASHTO‘s Policy on Design Standards for Interstate Systems.

Right of Way Minor right-of-way will be required in the form of small strips in fee or permanent easement. These will occur along Kendrick Road, E. River Road, Route 15 and Route 15A. The NYSDOT has previously acquired two large parcels of land north of I-390, south of the Erie Canal, to the east and west of Route 15A. This allows accommodation of the improvements without significant right-of-way acquisition.

A large acquisition is required from Monroe County from the parking lot of the Monroe County Social Services Building on Route 15 at Westfall Road.

A right-of-way jurisdiction transfer may be required to facilitate construction of portion of the project.

Environmental There are no wetland impacts.

There are noise impacts affecting Westmorland Drive, which are eligible for noise mitigation measures. This measure, construction of Noise Barriers, has been rejected by the public and is not being considered further. There are no significant visual impacts associated with the project. There are no significant social, economic or environmental impacts.

Cost Total estimated cost of this alternative is $66.4 M.

Project Goals These improvements meet the overall objective to reduce congestion and congestion related crashes on I-390 at Interchange 16 (Rtes. 15 & 15A). It also improves access to the University of Rochester.


III-5

Table III-2 Cost Summary

Activities Alternative 3

Millions of Dollars

Construction

Bridge New $9.1

Bridge Replacement $10.0

Bridge Rehabilitation $7.7

Highway – Reconstruction/new const. $16.4

Highway – rehabilitation $3.000

Wetland Mitigation $0

Storm Pollution Discharge Elimination System $0.280

ITS & Signals $2.1

Landscaping $1.2

Subtotal (2009 ) $49.7

Contingencies and incidentals (25%) $12.7

Potential Field Change Order $2.0

Mobilization (4%) $2.0

Subtotal (2011) $66.4

Expected Award Amount – Inflated1 @ 5%/yr to midpoint of

Construction $84.74

Construction Inspection (8%) $7.425

ROW Costs (2011 ) $0.835

1 – Each construction phase was inflated separately based on anticipated letting schedules, subject to revision. For tentative phasing schedule see section 3.3.5

____________________________________________________________________________

3.2.2 Preferred Alternative

While Alternative 3 is identified as the preferred alternative, the final selection and scope of the preferred alternative will not be made until all comments on the draft Design Approval/Environmental Assessment document are fully evaluated and a formal public hearing is conducted. ____________________________________________________________________________________

3.2.3. Design Criteria for Feasible Alternative(s)

3.2.3.1. Design Standards - NYSDOT Highway Design Manual Chapter 2; NYSDOT Bridge Manual, 2010; A Policy on the Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 2004 (AASHTO) 3.2.3.2. Critical Design Elements - Note: Footnotes and comments follow the last table and apply to all tables)


III-6

Table III-3a Critical Design Elements for I-390 (HDM 2.7.1)

P.I.N.: 4390.17 NHS (Y/N): Yes

Route No. & Name

I-390 Functional Class: Urban Principal arterial - Interstate

Project Type: Reconstruction Design Class: Interstate (HDM Exhibit 2-1)

% Trucks 4.5% Terrain: Level

ADT: 84,410 Truck Access/Qual. Hwy Yes

Element Standard Existing

Condition Proposed Condition

1 Design Speed 65 mph1 n/a 65 mph

2 Lane Width 12‘

HDM §2.7.1.1(b) 12‘ 12‘

3

Shoulder Width Right

10‘ (12‘ desirable)2

HDM §2.7.1.1(c) 12‘ 12‘

Shoulder Width Left

4‘ (12‘ desirable)2

HDM §2.7.1.1(c) 6‘ 6‘

4 Bridge Roadway

Width N/A (no mainline bridges affected) - -

5 Maximum Grade 3%

HDM §2.7.1.1(e) 3% 3%

6 Horizontal Curvature

1480‘ HDM §2.7.1.1(f)

1605 min. 1605 min.

7 Superelevation

Rate 8%

HDM §2.7.1.1(g) 8% 8%

8 Stopping Sight

Distance 645‘

HDM §2.7.1.1(h) 645‘min. 645‘ min

9 Horizontal Clearance

15‘ (w/o barrier) or shldr. Width w/barrier)

HDM §2.7.1.1(i)



10 Vertical

Clearance

14‘ Minimum, Highway3

14‘ 6‖ Desirable, Highway 15‘ 6‖ Canal

BM §2.4

14‘ Min. Highway3

14‘ 6‖ Desirable, Highway

14‘ Min. Highway3


11 Pavement Cross

Slope 1.5% Min. to 2% Max.

HDM §2.7.1.1(k) 2% 2%

12 Rollover 4% between lanes; 8% at EOT

HDM §2.7.1.1(l) 4% between

lanes; 8% at EOT 4% between

lanes; 8% at EOT

13 Structural Capacity

New/Replacement - AASHTO HL-93 & NYSDOT Design Permit Vehicle

Rehabilitations - HS 20 BM §2.6.1

N/A N/A

14 Level of Service D

4

HDM §2.7.1.1(n) Varies D, E

8

15 Control of Access Fully controlled

HDM §2.7.1.1(o) Fully controlled Fully controlled

16 Pedestrian

Accommodation N/A N/A N/A

17 Median Width 10‘ Min.

HDM §2.7.1.1(p) 20‘-50‘+/- 20‘-50‘+/-

See notes on page III-12


III-7


Table III-3b Critical Design Elements for Ramps

P.I.N.: 4390.17 NHS (Y/N): Yes

Route No. & Name

Loop Ramps GH, FH & NFD

Functional Class: Urban Principal arterial - Interstate

Project Type: Reconstruction Design Class: Interstate ramps (HDM Exhibit 2-1)

% Trucks 4.5% Terrain: Level

ADT: Varies per ramp Truck Acc. /Qual. Hwy Yes

Element Standard Existing Cond. Proposed Condition

1 Design Speed 25 mph

HDM §2.7.5.2(a) n/a 25 mph

2

Lane Width HDM 2.7.5.2(b) Lane/Passing

case II-D9

Ramp Radius Min. Width

n/a

(see note 9)

GH 163‘/217‘ 27‘/25‘ 25‘-27‘

FH 140‘ 28‘ 15‘-31‘

NFD 180‘/620‘ 26‘/18‘ 15‘-26‘

3 Shoulder Width 3‘ left, 6‘ right

HDM §2.7.5.2(c) n/a 3‘ left, 6‘ right min.

4 Bridge Roadway

Width Match approach section

HDM §2.7.5.2(d) & BM Table 2-1 n/a

Match approach section

5

5 Maximum Grade 7%

HDM §2.7.5.2(e) n/a

GH – 5.1 FH - 2.0

NFD – 1.8


144 (@ emax. =6% HDM §2.7.5.2(f)

n/a See above

FH – se note 8

7 Superelevation

Rate 6% Maximum (urban)

HDM §2.7.5.2(g) n/a 6% max.

8 Stopping Sight

Distance 155‘Minimum

HDM §2.7.5.2(h) n/a

GH – 329‘ FH - 375‘

NFD – 448‘


Rt. Shoulder width but not <6‘. Lt. = 3 HDM §2.7.5.2(i)

n/a Rt. Shoulder width

but not <6‘. Lt. = 410

10 Vertical

Clearance 15‘ 6‖ Canal

BM §2.4 n/a

GH only 15‘ 6‖ Canal

11 Pavement Cross


HDM §2.7.5.2(k) n/a 2%


HDM §2.7.5.2(l) n/a

4% between lanes; 8% at EOT




n/a GH - HL-93

NYSDOT Design Permit Vehicle


4

HDM §2.7.5.2(n) n/a C


HDM §2.7.5.2(o) n/a

Fully controlled

16 Pedestrian

Accommodation Ramp Terminals

In accordance with ADAAG and HDM Chpt. 18

5‘ min. Sidewalks

5‘ min. Sidewalks

17 Median Width N/A N/A N/A


III-8

Table III-3c Critical Design Elements for Ramps

P.I.N.: 4390.17 NHS (Y/N): Yes

Route No. & Name

I-390 Diagonal, Outer Conn. And One Quadrant Ramps – EH, AH, NFE,

DH, NFC, GB, CH

Functional Class: Urban Principal arterial - Interstate

Project Type: Reconstruction Design Class: Interstate ramps (HDM Exhibit 2-1)

% Trucks 5% Terrain: Level

ADT: Varies per ramp Truck Access/Qual. Hwy

Yes




HDM §2.7.5.2(a) n/a 35 mph

2

Lane Width HDM §2.7.5.2(b)

Lane/Passing case II-D

9

Ramp Radius Min. Width (see note 9)

EH Tangent 15‘ n/a 15‘

AH 930 15‘ Varies 39‘

NFE 1245 15‘ n/a 15‘

DH 620 17‘ n/a 18‘-30‘

NFC 483‘ 18‘ n/a 25‘-27‘

GB Tan. 15‘ Varies 15‘-30‘

CH Tan. 15‘ 15‘ 15‘

3 Shoulder Width 3‘ left, 6‘ right

HDM §2.7.5.2(c)

3.5. lt., 6.5‘ rt. (Ramps AH, GB

and CH only)

3‘ left, 6‘ right or match existing

EH – 2‘ left, 5‘ rt. (8))

4 Bridge Roadway Width Match approach section

HDM §2.7.5.2(d) & BM Table 2-1 n/a


5

5 Maximum Grade 6%

HDM §2.7.5.2(e)

EH – n/a AH – 1.5

NFE – n/a DH – n/a

NFC – n/a GB – 2.5 CH – 4.0

EH – 5.9 AH – 4.4 NFE - 6 DH – 1.8

NFC – 4.6 GB – 2.5 CH – 4.0

6 Horizontal Curvature 340‘ (emax. = 6%) HDM §2.7.5.2(f)

EH – n/a AH – 230‘ NFE – n/a DH – n/a

NFC – n/a GB – Tangent CH – Tangent

EH – Tangent AH – 930‘

NFE – 1245‘ DH – 620‘

NFC – 483‘ GB – Tangent CH – Tangent

7 Superelevation Rate 6% Maximum (urban)

HDM §2.7.5.2(g) 6% max. 6% max.

8 Stopping Sight

Distance 250‘ Minimum

HDM §2.7.5.2(h)

EH – n/a AH – 203‘ NFE – n/a DH – n/a

NFC – n/a GB – no crest CH – no crest

EH – 388‘ AH – 343‘

NFE – 420‘ DH – 1110‘ NFC – 509‘ GB – n/a CH – n/a


III-9


Table III-3c - continued Critical Design Elements for Ramps

9 Horizontal Clearance Rt. Shoulder width but not <6‘.

Lt. = 3 HDM §2.7.5.2(i)

Rt. Shoulder width but not <6‘.

Lt. = 4

Rt. Shoulder width but not <6‘. Lt. =

410

10 Vertical Clearance


14‘ 6‖ Desirable, Highway 15‘ 6‖ Canal

BM §2.4

14‘ Minimum

14‘ Minimum, Highway

3


11 Pavement Cross Slope 1.5% Min. to 2% Max.

HDM §2.7.5.2(k) 2% 2%


HDM §2.7.5.2(l)

4% between lanes; 8% at

EOT

4% between lanes; 8% at EOT

13 Structural Cap.

New/Replacement - AASHTO HL-93 & NYSDOT Design Permit

Vehicle Rehabilitations - HS 20

BM §2.6.1

See bridge ratings

EH,NFE – HL-93 & NYSDOT

Design Permit Vehicle

CH - HS-20


4

HDM §2.7.5.2(n) Varies C


HDM §2.7.5.2(o) Fully controlled Fully controlled

16 Pedestrian

Accommodation Ramp Terminals

In accordance with ADAAG and HDM Chpt. 18

5‘ min. Sidewalks

5‘ min. Sidewalks



III-10


Table III-3d Critical Design Elements for Rtes. 15 & 15A

P.I.N.: 4390.17 NHS (Y/N): 15 (north of I390) Yes

15A No

Route No. & Name 15 & 15A Functional Class: 15 - Urban Principal

Arterial (Other Street) 15A - Urban Minor Arterial

Project Type: Reconstruction Design Class: Arterial – Urban (HDM

Exhibit 2-1)

% Trucks 15 – 4.9%, 15A – 4.2% Terrain: Level

ADT: 15 – 31,774, 15A – 37,311 Truck Access/Qual. Hwy No6

Element Standard Existing Cond. Proposed Cond.


HDM §2.7.2.2(a) n/a 45 mph

1

2 Lane Width

11‘ min. or 12‘—14‘ shared bike/travel lane

HDM §2.7.2.2(b) 11‘ – 12‘ lanes

11‘ lanes min. 14‘ shared curb lane (see line 3)

Note 12

Turn Lane Width 11‘ min. 11‘ – 12‘ lanes 11‘ min. 12‟

3

Shoulder Width curbed

5‘ shoulder or 12‘ min. 14‘ desirable shared

bike/travel lane HDM §2.7.2.2(c)

5‘ bike lane 15A south of I-390, 11‘ or 12‘ curb lanes

elsewhere

5‘ bike lane 15A south of I-390

Shared 14‘ Curb lanes

elsewhere See note 12

uncurbed 8‘ min. 8‘ 8‘

4 Bridge Roadway


HDM §2.7.2.2(d) §BM Table 2-1 Generally matches approach section


5

5 Maximum Grade 6%

HDM §2.7.2.2(e) 15 – 2.2% 15A – 1.9

15 – 2.2 15A – 1.9


711 (emax. =6%) HDM §2.7.2.2(f)

Tangent Tangent

7 Superelevation


HDM §2.7.2.2(g) 4% Maximum 4% Maximum

8 Stopping Sight

Distance 360‘ Minimum

HDM §2.7.2.2(h) 15 – 498.7‘ 15A – 751.3‘

15 – 498.7‘ 15A – 751.3‘


0‘ w/barrier, 1.5‘ no barrier, 3‘ at intersections HDM §2.7.2.2(i)

0‘ w/barrier, 1.5‘ no barrier,

3‘ at intersections

0‘ w/barrier, 1.5‘ no barrier,

3‘ at intersections

10 Vertical

Clearance


14‘ 6‖ Desirable, Highway 15‘ 6‖ Canal BM §2.4

n/a 15, 15A

15‘ 6‖ Canal

11 Pavement Cross


HDM §2.7.2.2(k) 2% 2%


HDM §2.7.2.2(l) 4% between

lanes; 8% at EOT 4% between lanes;

8% at EOT




See bridge ratings

15A - HL-93 & NYSDOT Design Permit Vehicle

15 - HS-20

14 Level of Service N/A -- --

15 Control of Access N/A -- --

16 Pedestrian

Accommodation In accordance with ADAAG and HDM

Chpt. 18 5‘ min. Sidewalks 5‘ min. Sidewalks



III-11

Table III-3e Critical Design Elements for Route E. River Road (ER) & Kendrick Road (K)

P.I.N.: 4390.17 NHS (Y/N): No

Route No. & Name

East River Road (ER) Kendrick Road (K)

Functional Class: K, ER - Urban Local (HDM Exhibit 2-1)

Project Type: Reconstruction Design Class: Urban collector11

% Trucks ER <5% K < 2%

Terrain: Level

ADT: ER – 13,162 K – 10,570

Truck Access/Qual. Hwy

No6



1 Design Speed K - 40 mph, ER – 45 mph HDM

§2.7.3.2(a) n/a

K - 40 mph ER – 45 mph

2

Lane Width 10‘ min. or

12‘—14‘ shared bike/travel lane HDM §2.7.3.2(b)

11‘ – 14‘ shared lane

Shared 12‘ – 14‘ Travel lanes 11‟

See note 12

Turn Lane Width <2% 10‘ min. 12‘ desirable >2% 11‘ min. 12 desirable

12‘ 12‘

3

Shoulder Width curbed

5‘ shoulder or 12‘—14‘ shared bike/travel lane

HDM §2.7.3.2(c)

11‘ – 14‘ shared lane

Shared 12‘ – 14‘ Travel lanes ER

5‟ - K See note 12

uncurbed 8‘ 8‘ 8‘

4 Bridge Roadway


HDM §2.7.3.2(d) §BM Table 2-1 Match approach

section Match approach

section5,7

5 Maximum Grade K - 9%, ER – 8% HDM §2.7.3.2(e)

K – 3% ER – 2.1%

K – 3% ER – 2.1%


K – 533, ER - 711 (@ emax. =4%) HDM §2.7.3.2(f)

K – 573‘ ER – 955‘

K – 573‘ ER – 955‘

7 Superelevation


HDM §2.7.3.2(g) 4% Maximum

(urban) 4% Maximum

(urban)

8 Stopping Sight

Distance K - 305, ER - 360 Minimum

HDM §2.7.3.2(h) K – 464.6 ER – 951‘

K – 464.6 ER – 951‘


0 ft. with barrier, 1.5 ft. without barrier and 3 ft. at intersections.

HDM §2.7.3.2(i)

0 ft. with barrier, 1.5 ft. without

barrier and 3 ft. at intersections.

0 ft. with barrier, 1.5 ft. without

barrier and 3 ft. at intersections.

10 Vertical

Clearance


14‘ 6‖ Desirable, Highway BM §2.4

n/a n/a

11 Pavement Cross

Slope 1.5% Min. to 2% Max. 2% 2%

12 Rollover 4% between lanes; 8% at EOT 4% between

lanes; 8% at EOT 4% between

lanes; 8% at EOT




See bridge ratings

Kendrick HL-93 & NYSDOT Design Permit Vehicle

( if rehab- HS-20)

14 Level of Service N/A -- --

15 Control of Access N/A -- --

16 Pedestrian

Accommodation In accordance with ADAAG and HDM

Chpt. 18 5‘ min. sidewalks 5‘ min. sidewalks



III-12

Critical Design Elements for Speed Change lanes (Acceleration/Deceleration Lanes) Design Standards for Speed Change lanes shall be in accordance with HDM Section 2.7.5.3.(min. value for NFD/NFE ramps: 645‘, actual value: 545‘ See also section 3.3.3.2). Lane widths will match the adjacent travel lane width, shoulders will be a minimum 6‘ wide. All other critical design elements will match that of the adjacent roadway. See Table III-a. Notes: 1 – A determination of design speed document was prepared for the project. It documents the determination of design speed for each study segment in table III-3. The document was reviewed by the Regional Traffic and Safety Group, which has determined that the proposed design speeds are appropriate. The approval document and study can be found in Appendix B. 2 - Where truck traffic exceeds 250 DDHV. 3 - For interstates on the strategic highway network (STRAHNET) min. clearance is 16‘. This segment of interstate qualifies but due to height restrictions along the entire route, it is not considered part of the STRAHNET. Canal clearance is above maximum nav. Pool elevation. Actual clearance will be determine during detailed design and will vary based on structure type and superstructure design. 4 - Normally LOS C but LOS D allowed in heavily developed areas (verified with Traffic and Safety on 1/28/10) 5 – Match approach highway section for all new and replacement bridges. Rehabilitated bridges will match their existing section. 6 – These highways are not qualifying highways but are considered such as they are within 1 mile of a qualifying highway (I-390) and will be designed to accommodate the larger vehicles. 7 – Kendrick Road Bridge is wider than the minimum width as stated in the bridge manual due to the inclusion of turn lanes on the bridge. 8 – These critical design elements are considered non-standard. See section 3.3.3.2.(1) for additional documentation. 9 – Notes on ramps: For ramps add shoulder width to lane width to determine Travel Way width from HDM Exhibit 2-9. Note ramp width varies as the ramps transition from/to deceleration/acceleration lanes and transition from the various lane configurations at the ramp terminals to the mainline. See plans for additional details. Ramp FH special design - due to space restrictions the ramp was also designed using turning templates to assure accommodation of the design vehicle. 10 – Note AASHTO requires 4‘ (ramps page 840) so a minimum of 4‘ will be provided. 11 – Although functionally classified as an urban local street, the portions of E. River Road from Kendrick Road to Rte. 15 and Kendrick Road from E. River Road to Westmorland Road serve as access highways to I-390. Upon consultations with Regional Traffic & Safety it was determined the design class should match those for a urban collector.‖ 12 - For specific information on lane widths and shoulder widths refer to the “Bicycle Accommodations Modifications” located in Appendix „A‟ Notes about the Proposed Modern Roundabout at Kendrick Road and E. River Road: Since NYSDOT HDM does not have an official chapter on roundabouts, the following references have been utilized to advance the Roundabout design:


III-13

Guides used EI 00-021 (6-2000, Interim Guidance on Roundabouts) HDM Draft Ch 26 (12-2000, Roundabouts) FHWA Pub #RD-00-067 (2000, Roundabouts: An Informational Guide) NCHRP Report 672 (2010, second edition Roundabouts: An Informational guide) Kansas DOT (10-2003, Kansas Roundabout Guide (A Supplement to FHWAs RD-00-067) For Design Vehicle on modern roundabouts, Main Office / Design Services advise use of truck WB-67. Recommended Side Friction Factor = 0.22 by Exhibit 3-12 on page 139 of the 2004 AASHTO Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets Other Parameters: Circulating Lane Width (in general): 30 feet with 2% cross slope Truck Apron: NONE. Circulating Roadway Speed Limit: Max Entry Design Speed 25mph for an Urban Multilane ____________________________________________________________________________________

3.2.3.3. Other Design Parameters

Design Vehicle: The standard design vehicle for this project (based on NHS and Truck Qualifying Highway) is WB-65. For all roadways, the standard design vehicle used was WB-67. On Kendrick Road at the proposed ramp (EH) the design vehicle will be a WB-40 with a check for WB-67. This is based on the local nature of the traffic using Kendrick Road, which is classified as an local urban street. Larger trucks can be accommodated at the full interchange on Rte. 15.

Other design parameters considered;

The minimum weave length is 1800‘ and the recommended weave length is 2000‘ Acceleration length necessary: varies - refer to AASHTO Exhibit 10-70 The minimum distance between successive entrance ramps is 1000‘

__________________________________________________________________________________

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 system. ____________________________________________________________________________________ 3.3.1.2. Control of Access - Access control will not change, full control will be maintained on all limited access facilities, no control will be provided on Rtes. 15 and 15A, E. River Road and Kendrick Road other than at ramp terminals. See also TA-5, Freeway modification Document. ____________________________________________________________________________________ 3.3.1.3. Traffic Control Devices 3.3.1.3. (1) Five (5) new/replacement traffic Signals are proposed. 3.3.1.3. (2) Signs: Existing signs will be replaced as appropriate based on the geometric changes proposed or condition. ____________________________________________________________________________________


III-14

3.3.1.4. Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Along the I-390 corridor and intersections will include closed circuit television cameras, dynamic message sign, Remote Traffic Microwave Sensors, and a fiber optic communication system. These elements are as appropriate and consistent with the Region 4 ITS Architecture

b titled Rochester Areawide Advanced

Transportation Management System - Improved Mobility Areawide Guidance Evaluation (IMAGE). The Systems Engineering report has been included in Appendix G. ____________________________________________________________________________________ 3.3.1.5. Speeds and Delay 3.3.1.5. (1) Proposed Speed Limit - The posted speed limit within the project limits varies (see chapter 2)

and will not change for roadways within the project limits. 3.3.1.5. (2) Travel Time Estimates – Time travel estimates are discussed in Section 3.3.1.7. ____________________________________________________________________________________ 3.3.1.6. Traffic Volumes The Genesee Transportation Council (GTC) travel forecast model was used to develop future travel forecasts for the regional planning area for Alternative 3. Forecasted year 2033 (ETC+20) AM and PM peak hour volumes are shown in Table III-4. The design year for structures is ETC+30 (2043). Traffic volumes for this year were developed by increasing the 2033 volumes by a percentage growth projection per year. A straight growth per year of 0.5 percent between years 2033 and 2043 was used. The forecasted volumes for structures are retained within the project files. Additional details and documentation can be found in Technical Appendix TA-1. Table III-4 includes the no build data from Chapter 2 for comparison. Traffic volume differences are cause by the changes in ramps and access points to I-390, including the construction of a new northbound on-ramp at Kendrick Road. AADT for new ramps are also shown.

b Rochester Areawide Advanced Transportation Management System - Improved Mobility Areawide Guidance

Evaluation (IMAGE), 1996


III-15

Notes: (1) Note traffic from Route 15A previously was able to use the NFE ramp to get to Route 15.

Under alternative 3 this move is eliminated. The model diverts this traffic north to Westfall road and back to Route 15 although some traffic may divert via Crittenden Road.

(2) ETC is the Estimated Time of Completion. (3) Refer to Section 2.3.1.6 for the no-build traffic under Alternative 1.

Table III-4 Future Forecast Traffic Volumes Alternative 3

No Build 2033

(ETC+20) Build 2033

(ETC+20)

I-390 Genesee River to Route 15 AADT AADT

Combined 106,735 108,011

DHV NB am (pm) 3248(5265) 3411 (5413)

SB am (pm) 6350(4598) 6353 (4604)

I-390 Route 15 to I-590 AADT Combined 96,054 96,039

DHV NB am (pm) 4591(3853) 4591 (3829) 4239 (5494)

SB am (pm) 4222(5489) 4239 (5494)

Route 15 Doncaster to I-390 AADT Combined 35,289 33,470

DHV NB am (pm) 1261(1752) 1262 (1745)

SB am (pm) 1486(1683) 1479 (1682)

Route 15 I-390 to Westfall AADT Combined 28,260 24,237

DHV NB am (pm) 1497(1018) 1387 (1016)

SB am (pm) 916(1897) 881 (1588) 1 Route 15A Crittenden to I-390 AADT Combined 41,839 39,461

DHV NB am (pm) 1318(1972) 1308 (1963)

SB am (pm) 2199(1738) 2219 (1736)

Route 15A I-390 to Westfall AADT Combined 32,783 36,262

DHV NB am (pm) 2179(1200) 2276 (1224)

SB am (pm) 1134(1794) 1085 (1932)

E. River Road AADT Combined1 16,182 15,388

Ramp to 15 DHV EB am (pm) 1317(1462) 1200 (928)

WB am (pm) 536 (234) 624 (341) Kendrick Road AADT Combined 10,570

1148(334) 16,380

DHV NB am (pm) 1148 (334) 1218 (1014)

SB am (pm) 243(952) 305 (425) \

Bridge 5 AADT ETC+30 11,099

Bridge 8 AADT 32,489



Ramp EH AADT ETC+20

0 2891

Ramp CH AADT 9612 2687

Ramp FH AADT 0 5334

Ramp GH AADT 0 6561

Table III-4 (continued) Future Forecast Traffic Volumes Alternative 3

Ramp DH AADT 8286 7569

Ramp NFE AADT 37301

2698

1

Ramp NFD AADT (see GC) 3894

Ramp NFC AADT (See GC) 5459 Ramp CG (repl. By NF ramps) AADT 12237 n/a


III-16

3.3.1.7. Level of Service and Mobility 3.3.1.7 (1) At Project Completion & Design Year Level of Service (LOS) results for expressway segments, ramp junctures, weave areas, and intersections are discussed in detail in Technical Appendix TA-1 and are summarized in this report. Generally, the results indicate moderate improvements in levels of service and mobility thought the project limits. The results are generated with optimized signal timings and phasing, in addition to the highway improvements. I-390 Mainline/ramps/weave areas: Density measurements provided similar LOS results for the AM and PM peak hours compared to the no-build alternative. During the AM peak hour, a majority of the LOS results showed a slight increase in density. This is primarily due to both adjusted volumes along the corridor as well as variations in the modeling and data gathering. Southbound I-390 at both Kendrick and Route 15, exhibit LOS worse than C (E and D respectively) for this Alternative. However, the densities at both locations improved over 15 pc/mi/lane compared to those of the no-build alternative. Therefore, even with LOS conditions not achieved as desirable, there are some significant operational improvements produced by the geometric improvements. In the PM peak hour, there are several locations where the mainline expressway exhibits LOS results worse than C. Primarily; these are due to increased volumes. Overall, the ramp merge/diverge operations on I-390 provide efficient yet limited improvements compared to the no-build alternative. With the addition of acceleration/deceleration lanes, limited improvements to the operations are achieved. In the northbound direction, the AM peak hour ramps operate at LOS B or better, with very little improvement compared to the no-build conditions. In the PM peak hour, there is a slight improvement to the northbound I-390 merge juncture with the ramp from southbound Route 15. Operations improve slightly with a decrease around 1.0 pc/mi/lane, to 31 pc/mi/lane (D) from 32 pc/mi/lane. Although this operation is still worse than LOS C, the magnitudes of the volumes determine the LOS, which does not improve appreciably from the no-build alternative. In the southbound direction on I-390, the AM and PM peak hour experiences LOS that are not desirable (D) at most ramp junctions. For the southbound movement to East River Road near Kendrick Road, the addition of a deceleration lane to the north reduces the density by a letter grade from E to D in the AM and D to C in the PM peak hours. However, in the AM peak hour, this movement is still worse than LOS C, which is due to volumes approaching this element. For the remaining southbound ramp junctions for the preferred alternative, both are LOS (D), which is slightly worse than that of the no-build alternative. Each ramp experiences significant increases in the volumes exiting southbound I-390 under the preferred alternative. Therefore, the LOS results are reflective of these volume increases. The northbound I-390 weave between the I-590/I-390 interchange and the exit ramp to Route 15A experiences significant improvement in LOS during the AM peak hour compared to the no-build alternative. This is due to the improvements to the weave section by increasing the capacity of expressway in this location. However, the PM peak hour had a similar LOS compared to the no-build alternative, due to the volumes being similar and traffic not being constrained by the expressway section during the PM peak hour. The southbound weave area for the same section of I-390 did not change in capacity in Alternative 3 because of the unconstrained traffic conditions present in 2033 on the existing and proposed geometry. It is noted that the weaving movement from Route 15A to northbound to I-590 requires one less lane change, which is a significant operational improvement, even though this is not represented in the LOS results.


III-17

Rtes. 15, 15A, E. River Road and Kendirck Road (Intersections): At the signalized and local road intersections for alternative 3 the LOS results exhibited improvements on a large majority of the approaches with the geometric and operational updates. All intersections operate with acceptable LOS, with the exception of only 4-5 approach movements in each peak hour being worse than LOS D. Although all signal operations have been optimized, there are occasions where the demand exceeds capacity. This condition occurs in the case of the westbound Westfall Road left turns at Route 15A and westbound Westfall Road left turns at Route 15. In other cases, the signal timings are balanced to optimize timings, which sometimes hinder the lesser volume movements. These include the westbound Crittenden Road left turn at Route 15A (AM/PM) and the southbound Route 15A left turn to southbound I-390 (PM). Lastly, another condition exists at unsignalized intersections, where there is insufficient gap time in conflicting traffic in order to perform the movement, causing a LOS for that approach worse than D. This includes westbound Westmoreland Drive at Kendrick Road during the AM peak hour and the northbound driveway movement at the intersection of Kendrick Road/East River Road during the PM peak hour. At Kendrick Road and E. River Road a roundabout is the proposed intersection treatment. Studies show this single lane roundabout will function with an acceptable level of service. A comparison to a two-lane and signalized intersection was also conducted. The results are documented in appendix TA 1.3 Kendrick Road Ramp: Traffic studies were conducted with both the ramp at Kendrick Road (to I-390 northbound) and without the ramp, to see what impacts the ramp would have on Alternatives under study for this project. It was found that the ramp had very little impact to the proposed alternatives and provided a marginal benefit at some intersections within the study limits. The comprehensive traffic study conducted for the U of R

c considered

potential benefits the ramp may have on the local street network in and around the U of R. Results showed positive benefits at the intersections along the Mt. Hope between Crittenden Boulevard and West Henrietta Road. Due to reduced southbound traffic volumes, the overall LOS is improved for these intersections. Northbound left turn volumes on Kendrick road at Elmwood Ave would also be reduced. This would have positive benefits to intersections downstream such as the congested intersection of Elmwood Ave/Scottville Road and Genesee Street. Additionally, direct access to I-390 NB from Kendrick Road will reduce the cut-through traffic into neighborhoods east of the U of R. Based on the benefits to the Mt. Hope corridor and the adjacent residential neighborhoods, it was agreed to include the new access from Kendrick Road to I-390 in this project. (Volume change on the local street changes due to the addition of the Kendrick Road ramp can be found in Technical Appendix TA-1). Travel Time and Delay: When comparing travel times on I-390, Rtes. 15 and 15A, both northbound and southbound, the improvement in Alternative 3 is between 25 to 30% for 2033 traffic conditions when compared to the no-build alternative (See table III-5). This is a significant improvement and shows the effectiveness, both in increased capacity and improved operations. Even though improvements within the LOS results may be limited, the travel times demonstrate the overall project area and corridor improvements by the improved geometry within the preferred alternative. The Kendrick Road ramp will also affect travel time and delay along Rte. 15. A Travel Time Savings Comparison Summary - was prepare by T.Y. Lynn and can be found in Technical Appendix TA-1.2. Bridges: For the bridges scheduled to be replaced or for new bridges traffic volumes have been projected for ETC+30 (2043) and the VISSIM analysis checked to verify that the structures will provide sufficient capacity for the design life of each bridge.

c T.Y. Lin International, Traffic Impact Study, University of Rochester - Planned Development, 2010


III-18

The analysis showed no change in delay/LOS, except for one location, from the design year (2033) results. Southbound I-390 at Kendrick Road during AM peak experienced increased delay and lower LOS. This is due to the volumes on this approach being at or over the expected capacity of the three-lane segment, which causes issues in its computations, thus resulting in LOS F. Nevertheless, the results from this analysis do not change the conclusions on the design year (2033) in-depth analysis; no additional mainline capacity is required on I-390. The Synchro analysis shows a slight increase in the delay at the intersections studied. All approaches, with the exception of two, to these intersections coming on or off structures have LOS D (acceptable) or better. The two instances of poor LOS occurred at the westbound through-right at Route 15 and the East River Road/Access Road (NFE/SF) and southbound left at Route 15A and Access Road/southbound I-390 on ramp (SF/GB), neither location experiences significant delays, at maximum 65 second/vehicle. Therefore, these intersection approaches can be mitigated with adjusted timings to achieve acceptable vehicle delays. Therefore, all proposed bridge widths will be adequate for the design year (ETC+20) and the design life of the structure (ETC+30). Conclusion: The capacity and mobility studies for Alternative 3 show definite benefit to overall corridor operations. Both the intersections LOS and travel time data show the positive operational and capacity benefits to the system. These include improving the operations of northbound I-390 to Route 15A access during the AM peak hour, from LOS E to LOS D/B/A (to northbound Route 15A, southbound Route 15A, and Route 15, respectively). Additional improvements include Route 15 south of I-390 (LOS E to B) in the northbound direction during the PM peak hour, Crittenden Road intersection with Route 15A (overall LOS F to C) during the PM peak hour, and Route 15A at southbound I-390 entrance ramp (LOS E to C). These comparisons show the effectiveness of the improvements to the well-known issues within the system. ___________________________________________________________________________________

* Distance changed due to change in geometry 3.3.1.7 (2) – Work Zone Safety & Mobility

Table III-5 MEASURE OF MOBILITY SUMMARY: TRAVEL TIMES

Location Distance (feet)

AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR

2033 Alt 1 (no build)

2033 Alt 3 2033 Alt 1 (no build)

2033 Alt 3

Travel Time (minutes)

NB I-390 Ramp to NB I-390, 1200 ‗ north of Kendrick Rd. Overpass

9157 (9331)*

1.76 1.80 1.84 1.82

SB I-590 Ramp to NB I-390, 1200 ‗ north of Kendrick Road Overpass

9157 (9309)*

1.74 1.81 1.85 1.80

SB I-390, 1200‘ north of Kendrick Rd. to Southbound I-390 Ramp

8725 (9061)*

3.65 1.82 2.65 1.93

SB I-390, 1200‘ north of Kendrick Rd. to NB I-590 Ramp

8725 (9062)*

3.73 1.82 2.75 1.92

NB Rte. 15 - From south of Doncaster Rd. to North of Westfall Rd.

3225 2.08 1.95 3.00 1.83

SB Rte. 15 - From north of Westfall Rd. to South of Doncaster Rd.

2657 1.76 1.50 3.10 1.65

NB. 15A - From South of Crittenden Rd. to North of South Drive (CityGate)

3610 2.37 1.96 2.68 2.00

SB 15A - From north of South Drive (CityGate) to south of Crittenden Rd.

2560 1.87 1.41 2.79 1.31


III-19

A. Work Zone Traffic Control Plan Rtes. 15A and 15 carry significant volumes of traffic during peak hours and serve critical and significant destinations. It is imperative that traffic be maintained at all times. As such bridges cannot be entirely closed for extended durations during construction as parallel off site detours with excess capacity, do not exist. Each stage of construction will require different and unique traffic control strategies. For highway widening and pavement reconstruction it is anticipated that traffic will be maintained on-site during the construction of this project. Temporary widening may be required and the use of nighttime construction will be considered for certain stages. For areas where new ramps and bridges will be constructed, there will be minimal impacts on traffic. New ramps and bridges can be constructed in stages and opened prior to closing ramps that will be removed. The widening of the Kendrick Road Bridge will likely require a detour to facilitate construction. The detour would utilize Kendrick Road, Crittenden Blvd. and/or Elmwood Ave., Rte. 15 (Mt. Hope Ave) and E. River Road. The detour would also facilitate construction of the round-a-bout. The rehabilitation of bridge 6A (CH Ramp) will require a detour which will likely utilize E. River Road and Kendrick Road to the new ramp EH. Replacing the bridge that carries Route 15A over the Erie Canal (bridge 8) poses unique challenges. It has been determined that four lanes of traffic and the existing intersection configurations should be maintained (at a minimum speed of 30 mph) throughout the construction without extended closures. The existing structure is comprised of a two plate girder and floorbeam system with pin and hangers. The plate girders are non-redundant and staging the construction on half the bridge at a time would be very complicated and costly. The replacement structure will be almost twice the width of the existing structure to accommodate two new lanes and a striped median. A bridge widening study that investigated several staging and accelerated construction techniques was prepared and is included in Section 5 of Technical Appendix – 3. The bridge widening study identified two conventional staging options and one accelerated staging option as feasible for the replacement of this bridge.

Alternative 1 – Traffic Shifted to Both Sides of Existing Bridge: This alternative would maintain four lanes of traffic throughout the construction duration. During Stage 1 the sidewalks and railings on the existing structure would be removed and concrete barriers would be placed along the bridge fascia. Traffic would be maintained on the existing bridge while portions of the new bridge would be constructed alongside both the east and west fascias. When Stage 1 is complete, traffic would be shifted onto the temporary lanes of the new structure. During Stage 2 the existing bridge would be demolished and the center portion of the new bridge would be constructed. During Stage 3 the sidewalks and railings would be constructed. For this alternative pedestrian traffic would need to be detoured. If pedestrian traffic needs to be maintained a temporary bridge could be constructed at an additional cost of $400,000.

Alternative 2 – Traffic Shifted to the East of Existing Bridge: This alternative would maintain four lanes of traffic throughout the construction duration. During Stage 1 the east sidewalk and railing on the existing structure would be removed and concrete barriers would be placed along the east fascia. Traffic would be maintained on the existing bridge while a portion of the new bridge would be constructed alongside the east fascia to accommodated two temporary southbound lanes. A temporary truss would also be erected to carry two temporary northbound lanes. When Stage 1 is complete, traffic would be shifted onto the temporary lanes. During Stage 2 the existing bridge would be demolished and the remainder of the new bridge would be constructed. During Stage 3 the sidewalks and railings would be constructed. For this alternative pedestrian traffic would be maintained during Stage 1 on the existing bridge and during Stage 2 pedestrian traffic would be maintained on the temporary truss.


III-20

Alternative 3 – Accelerated Construction: This alternative would maintain four lanes of traffic on the existing bridge while the new bridge would be constructed in two halves on each side and adjacent to the existing bridge. When the portions of the new bridges are complete, Route 15A would be completely closed while the existing bridge is demolished and the two halves of the new bridge are moved jacked together. This method will require the full closure and detour of Route 15A for approximately two to four weeks while construction of the new bridge is complete. The advantage using accelerated construction is that the public will only be impacted during the full closure instead of the two years of construction associated with the conventional staging methods although all three alternatives will maintan at least two through lanes of travel in each direction.

As part of the bridge widening study various bridge types and span configurations were also investigated because the structure type selected has implications on both the cost and staging of the new structure. Table III-6 III-summarizes the key elements for each of the feasible staging for the replacement of the Route 15A Bridge over the Erie Canal.

Table III-6 Staging Alternatives Bridge 8

Key Elements

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Traffic Shifted to Both Sides of Exist. Bridge

Traffic Shifted to the East Side of Exist. Bridge

Accelerated Construction

Construction Duration Impact on Traffic

2 Years (Concrete Barriers &

Lane Shifts)

2 Years (Concrete Barriers & Lane

Shifts)

2 to 4 Weeks (Full Closure &

Detour)

Pedestrian Accommodations

No Yes Yes (Except for 2 Week

Closure)

Additional Cost to Accommodate Pedestrians

$400,000 $0 NA

During construction and rehabilitation of the bridges crossing the Erie Canal pedestrian traffic along the Canalway Trail may have to be detoured around the construction site. Coordination with the Canal Corporation will also be required at various phases of construction (i.e. girder erection, bridge demolition, etc.) to insure the safety of boaters using the Erie Canal. During subsequent design phases, an overall Work zone traffic Control program will be developed. The use of incentive/disincentive clauses (A+B bidding, lane rental) as well as traffic demand management and traffic systems management measures may be appropriate to expedite key construction milestones and minimize lane closures and delay. B. Special Provisions - Due to the close proximity to residential homes and the ability to maintain traffic with acceptable delays during the daylight hours, night time construction will be kept to a minimum. The use of time related provisions will be evaluated during final design. The work zone traffic control will need to be coordinated with local officials and residents. C. Significant Projects (per 23 CFR 630.1010) A Transportation Management Plan (TMP) will be prepared for the project consistent with 23 CFR 630.1012. The TMP will consist of:


III-21

• A Temporary Traffic Control (TTC) plan • A Transportation Operations (TO) component • A Public Information component (PI) See also section 3.3.5 for a discussion on staging options. ____________________________________________________________________________________ 3.3.1.8. Safety Considerations, Accident History and Analysis A majority of the crashes described in Chapter 2 are congestion related. Improvements proposed under Alternative 3 will significantly reduce congestion and therefore reduce congestion related crashes. A more detailed description of anticipated reductions in congestion related crashes are described below. Kendrick Rd. /E. River Road: The addition of a roundabout will reduce the potential for crashes as traffic volumes increase over the next 20 years. Studies have shown that in comparison to a conventional signalized intersection, for every leg of the roundabout there would be a substantial reduction in "conflict points", less decision-making by the motorist and a reduction in vehicle approach speed. Typically, roundabouts have less severe type crashes (than conventional signalized intersections). In addition, roundabouts typically have fewer right angle, head-on and left-turn type crashes. Other potential problems at signalized intersections, such as geometric skew angles (of legs) and sun-glare sight distance problems are eliminated with Roundabouts. I-390 ramp/E. River Road: The accident patter is primarily rear-end accidents on the ramp exit along the I-390 mainline and at the ramp terminal. The pattern is repeated at the E. River Road/Rte.15 right turn move. A realigned intersection with E. River road, extended deceleration lane along I-390 and other signal and geometric improvements will reduce the potential for rear-end crashes at this location. A roundabout was considered at this intersection but it was found to provide a lower level of service than a conventional signalized intersection. It would have required 2 and in places, 3 lanes to achieve a desirable level of service. In summary, the crash patterns will be addressed by:

- Extension of deceleration lanes on I-390 - Geometric improvements to the ramp to East River Road - Improvement of sight distance restriction of Route 15 Bridge over I-390 due to guide rail - Reduced delay at East River and Route 15 by elimination of the left turns on the bridge - Reduced delay on East River and along Route 15 by construction of NB ramp at Kendrick Rd. - Eliminates left turn and right angle accidents on Rte. 15 southbound to I-390 southbound and

Rte. 15 northbound to I-390 northbound. Route 15 corridor (Doncaster to Westfall): The southbound left turn move to the frontage road and the northbound left turn to I-390 will be eliminated. A dedicated northbound lane will be constructed for traffic headed towards I-390 northbound reducing conflicts at E. River Road with those vehicles turning left onto E. River Road. A dedicated right turn lane will be installed southbound at the I-390 on ramp. All of these improvements will reduce conflict points, reduce delays and congestion, these improvements will significantly reduce the potential for crashes in the Route 15 corridor. The new Loop Ramp (GH) will eliminate the northbound left turn movement, providing a safer free-flowing right turn movement and reducing left turn and rear-end crashes. In summary, the crash patterns will be addressed by:

- Elimination of the left turn movement by building a loop ramp on the right side of the road - Reduced delay at along Route 15 by elimination of the left turns on the bridge - Reduced delay on ramp and along Route 15 by construction of NB ramp at Kendrick Road


III-22

Route 15A Corridor: Left turn moves both to I-390 northbound and southbound will be expanded to dual left turns. At the I-390 northbound off ramp, the I-390 to Route 15A southbound traffic will be moved to the new Loop ramp (NFD). This will reduce conflict points at this intersection. The project will increase the separation of the two intersections, one north and the other south of I-390. This will allow for more storage and better lane definition. A right turn lane will be added from Route15A southbound to I-390 northbound. The ramp merge areas (after turns) will be lengthened to the extent practical. These improvements will significantly reduce the potential for crashes in the Route 15A corridor.

- Separation of the two interchange intersections allowing for dual left–turn movements - Construction of the new NFD loop ramp and elimination of left turns from I-390 southbound to

Rte. 15A southbound - Construction of the new NF connector and NFE ramp to allow Rte. 15 traffic from I-390 to

remain on the interstate and eliminate the cross-over movement through the intersection. - Construction of the new FH ramp on East River Road and elimination of left turns from Rte. 15

southbound to the SF connector reducing through volumes at the Rte. 15A intersection

I-390 northbound weave area (I-590 to Route 15A): On I-390, many rear end and overtaking crashes occurred near the Route 15A entrance/exit ramps. The result is a crashes rate higher than the statewide average. Most of these crashes were attributed to the high number of weaving movements made by drivers attempting to merge or exit from I-390 and I-590 to Route 15A. The proposed alternative separates the Route 15A southbound/Route 15 traffic from the Route 15A northbound traffic. The weaving area would be extended by 70% for drivers reaching the former exits and reduce the volume of traffic reaching the later exit. This should reduce congestion and the potential for crashes in this area. I-390 southbound weave area (I-390/I-590): Vehicles entering I-390 southbound from Rte 15A destined for I-590 are required to weave or cross two separate lanes to merge onto I-590. The new extended right lane along I-590 will only require vehicles weave or cross one lane then merge onto I-590 after the connection to I390 southbound, resulting in fewer conflicts. The above improvements will reduce crashes and address crashes now occurring at several Priority Investigation List (PIL) locations. In general, planned improvements will minimize delays in the corridor reduce conflict points and should result in less congestion related crashes along this roadway segment. The existing minimum clear zone as described in Chapter 2 will be maintained. Improvements to signing, signals, pavement markings, pedestrian and bicycle facilities will enhance the safety of all users within the project limits. Guide railing, median barrier, signing, impact attenuators, etc. will be installed to current standards and warrants. ____________________________________________________________________________________

3.3.1.9. Impacts on Police, Fire Protection and Ambulance Access

Refer to Section 3.3.1.7(2) for a discussion of the anticipated impacts during construction. The feasible alternative will improve access for police, fire, ambulance access as congestion is reduced, and access to I-390 is improved.

____________________________________________________________________________________ 3.3.1.10. Parking Regulations and Parking Related Issues No changes are proposed to on-roadway parking. ____________________________________________________________________________________


III-23

3.3.1.11. Lighting Standard lighting exists along Route15, 15A, E. River Road and on ramps and frontage roads. High Mast lighting existing within the I-390 corridor for the mainline and some ramps. Any lighting poles or fixtures that are impacted by widening or new ramps will be adjusted as necessary. New lighting will be installed for new and relocated ramps consistent with existing conditions and upon agreement of appropriate municipal agencies for maintenance of such lighting. _____________________________________________________________________________

3.3.1.12. Ownership and Maintenance Jurisdiction NYSDOT will continue ownership and maintenance responsibilities for Route 15, Route 15A and I-390 (including ramps and frontage roads) within the Town of Brighton. The City of Rochester will retain maintenance responsibly for Route 15 and 15A and Kendrick Road within the City. The Town of Brighton will continue maintenance of Kendrick Road south of the City line and Monroe County will retain maintenance responsibly for East River Road and for freeway lighting. _________________________________________________________________________________ 3.3.1.13. Constructability Review An initial full constructability review was be made by the Regional Construction Group and a value engineering study was completed

d (available for review upon request). Additional constructability reviews

will occur during subsequent quality review phases of the project. _________________________________________________________________________________

3.3.2. Multimodal

3.3.2.1. Pedestrians I-390: Pedestrians are prohibited on Interstate Highways by state law. There will be pedestrian crosswalks at appropriate ramp terminals. Other Highways: Proposed improvements will be developed in accordance with the ADA regulations. The proposed alternative will include a continuous sidewalk system on both sides of Route 15 (ending at Southland Drive) & 15A within the project limits. Sidewalks will also be included on E. River Road on the south side only and on Kendrick Road. Access to the Erie Canal Heritage Trail may be impacted at Rte. 15 near the new entrance ramp to I-390 northbound. Provisions to maintain access will be made and the existing east side connection will be retained. Users though, will have to cross the new ramp to access the connection. The New York State Department of Transportation will consider a new west side trail connection at Route 15 Mt. Hope Avenue. This new trail connection would start just north of the I-390 Bridge and extend 740‟ west to the existing trail. It would be constructed on at 5% grade but would need a considerable length of retailing wall. This connection would cost approximately $500,000. An additional, minor right-of-way acquisition would be required from one business on Route 15. Although costly, impacts are minimal and the option is feasible. The NYSDOT will consider construction of this trail connection pending further Engineering studies and based on our ability to secure funding. This would be studied as ancillary and outside the scope of this project and will be perused as a separate action.

d I-390/Route 15A Interchange Value Engineering Study, NCE, July 2010


III-24

Several lane modifications were added to the project to mitigate non-vehicular modal interests. During construction, access to the trail may be disrupted temporarily during certain phases as work proceeds on overhead brides. Appropriate detours will be implemented. The Pedestrian Checklists have been prepared and included in Technical Appendix TA-4. ___________________________________________________________________________________ 3.3.2.2. Bicyclists

I-390: Bicyclists are prohibited on Interstate Highways by State law. There will be pedestrian crosswalks at appropriate ramp terminals.

Other Highways:

Bicycle traffic will be accommodated within the roadway pavement section with 5‟ wide shoulders or a shared lane to accommodate bicycles. Separate bicycle lanes between turn lanes and through lanes will be provided where possible. There are no special provisions for bicycles (i.e. separate lanes). This is due primarily to the restrained conditions thought the project on Route 15 and Route15A. There are no provisions for separate bike lanes on the Route 15A bridges over I-390 and these bridges are since this bridge is not being replaced or widened. There are no provisions for bicycles on these routes within the City of Rochester and along Route 15 south of E. River Road, there are no provisions for bicycles.

E. River Road and Kendrick Road also does not have existing provisions for bicycles nor is there plans to add them. E. River Road will include shared curb lanes to accommodate bicyclists. Kendrick Road will include 5‟ wide shoulders to accommodate bicycles. Construction of bicycle lanes on the short sections that will be reconstructed as part of this project would not be cost effective or consistent with the existing highway section. It would require additional right-of-way acquisition. Kendrick Road and E. River Road are both low speed local highways and project work areas are located within the University of Rochester complex. This reduced width section, with shared bicycle lanes, remains within the context of the local area and will encourage traffic calming.

See also the “Bicycle Accommodations Modifications” located in Appendix „A‟ ____________________________________________________________________________________ 3.3.2.3. Transit No changes are proposed. ____________________________________________________________________________________ 3.3.2.4. Airports, Railroad Stations, and Ports There are no such facilities affected by the project. ____________________________________________________________________________________ 3.3.2.5. Access to Recreation Areas (Parks, Trails, Waterways, and State Lands) Access to the Erie Canal heritage Trail will be modified at Route 15, see section 3.3.2.1. ____________________________________________________________________________________

3.3.3. Infrastructure

3.3.3.1. Proposed Highway Section Refer to Appendix A for a typical section. ____________________________________________________________________________________


III-25

3.3.3.1. (1) Right of Way (ROW) Anticipated ROW impacts will be relatively minor, as much of the work, including many of the new roadway links; will be constructed within the existing ROW. Two large parcels to the east and west of Route 15A, north of I-390 and south of the Erie Canal have been acquired over the past 10 years with the intended purpose of providing access control and safety enhancements. These parcels will be used to accommodate proposed improvements. A summary of right-of-way acquisitions with estimates can be found in Table III-7. For the most part, ROW acquisitions will likely take the form of narrow strips along the existing highway boundary to accommodate some of the new roadway links and triangular shaped parcels near intersections. The most significant right-of-way acquisition will be the parcel from the County of Monroe to construct ramp GH. To accomplish this, the NYSDOT will acquire 1.4 acres of land from the parking lot of the Monroe County Department of Social Services. The existing social services parking lot has 686 spaces. Without mitigation, the proposed entrance ramp will eliminate 100 parking spaces. A detailed analysis of the parking lot was conducted. A recommended parking lot design with expanded parking provides 682 spaces. This would require converting 0.6 acres of grass lawn to new parking. Negotiations with Monroe County during the right-of-way acquisition phase will determine if the NYSDOT or Monroe County will reconstruct the parking lot as part of the right-of-way settlement. For a conceptual parking replacement plan see appendix D.

3.3.3.1. (2) Curb I-390: Existing curbs will be replaced in-kind where necessary meeting current standards. New traversable curbs, for drainage control, may be installed on ramps and frontage roads.

Table III-7 Right-of-way acquisitions

Key area (see plans)

Owner/ Reputed Owner

Type of Acquisition

(anticipated)

Estimated Acquisition

area

1 U of R and Pure Waters FEE WOA 21650 SF

2 U of R FEE WOA 103200 SF

3 U of R FEE 42500 SF



6 Monroe County Social Services FEE WOA 60020 SF

7 Paul Fien, 2021 West Henrietta Omer Farooq , 6 Southland Dr, U of R property at 250 River Rd.

FEE 1100 SF

8 Kelly Shea, 1956 West Henrietta Road

FEE WOA & FEE

1325 SF

9 Monroe Community Hospital FEE 4800 SF

10 Monroe County Pure Waters FEE 14650 SF

Total


III-26

Other highways: Curbs will be provided to control drainage and define access. Where provisions are made for sidewalks, due to the presence of pedestrians and the urban nature of the highways, vertical faced curb will be provided. ____________________________________________________________________________________ 3.3.3.1. (3) Grades The grade does not warrant a climbing lane. ____________________________________________________________________________________ 3.3.3.1. (4) Intersection Geometry and Conditions Refer to Section 3.2.1 and Table III-1 for the proposed geometry of the proposed intersections. ____________________________________________________________________________________ 3.3.3.1. (5) Roadside Elements:

(a) Snow Storage: The construction of new ramps adjacent to I-390 will require placement of additional concrete barriers. Snow storage may decrease but it is not anticipated to become a major concern except during exceptional storm events.

Sidewalks: See section 3.3.2.1. Utility Strips: Provided as appropriate Bikeways: See section 3.3.2.2 Bus Stops: Will be adjusted as necessary (b) Driveways - The driveways will be modified to comply with the current NYSDOT ―Policy

and Standards for Design of Entrances to State Highways.‖ (c) Clear Zone - The existing clear zone as identified in Chapter II will be retained.

____________________________________________________________________________________

3.3.3.2. Special Geometric Design Elements

3.3.3.2. (1) Non-Standard Features Alternative 3 will retain/create four non-standard features. A brief description of each feature with the reason the feature is not being eliminated can be found below. For a complete justification for the retention of the non-standard feature, see Exhibit 3.3.3.2 in Appendix E. Ramp FH The horizontal curve radius at the beginning of this new entrance ramp is non standard by 4‘. Reason for incorporating the feature: There is insufficient space between E. River Road and the I-390 main line to increase the radius. To provide the marginal increase the mainline of E. River Road would have to be relocated further south. This would necessitate a larger curve radius to this section of nearly tangent highway. Vehicle speeds from the intersection are anticipated to be low; the feature is compatible with other restricted ramp configurations in the area. Despite the smaller radii, the proposed design vehicle can be accommodated on the ramp. Alternate access to I-390 southbound exists at Route 15A for large oversized trucks. Appropriate warning signs will be posted. Ramp EH The total shoulder width on the ramp will be 7‘ with a 5‘ right shoulder and 2‘ left shoulder. The ramp lane width will remain at 15‘. Reason for incorporating the feature: To provide the standard total shoulder width of 9‘ will require an encroachment of the ramp into/over the Erie Canal or realignment of I-390 mainline with a reduction in median width of 6‘. The narrower shoulder extends the length of the ramp from the intersection with Kendrick Road, to the gore - approximately 1000‗.To achieve full width shoulders, 3820‘ of mainline I-390 would have to be reconstructed at a cost of $123,000. This would require a mainline shift and a narrowing of the existing median. Providing two feet less of shoulder on the ramp should not operationally affect the ramp and the 15‘ lane with 7‘ of shoulder width will accommodate passing of a stalled vehicle. The Erie Canal is considered eligible for the National Register of Historic


III-27

Places and the narrower shoulder will minimize impacts to the canal at this location and reduce impacts to the historic guard lock structure. Deceleration (Speed change) Lane (Ramp NF) and Ramp NFD/NFE The horizontal sight distance under the Rte. 15A Bridge along the ramp deceleration lane and from the Interstate to Ramp Approach Nose at the ramp is 100‘ less than the minimum required. Reason for incorporating the feature: The ramp is compatible with other restricted ramp configurations in the area. Vehicle speeds are low on the ramp and it is not anticipated that vehicles nor other objects will interfere with the ability of drivers to adequately judge conflicts and avoid them. Sufficient shoulder widths are provided to bypass a stalled vehicle. Grading at the northwest quadrant of the bridge will maximize sight distance along the ramp. To provide adequate horizontal sight distance on the deceleration lane (NF), the Route 15A Bridge over I-390 would require replacement or lengthening. This would add costs of approximately $6 to $8 M. This non-standard feature will be eliminated at a future date when the bridge is programmed for replacement or upgrading. Traffic cameras and other ITS devices will be used to monitor the areas to mitigate incidents. Level of Service The level of service on southbound I-390 near Kendrick Road is projected to be ―E‖ during the design year. The minimum LOS is ―D‖ for this urban interstate. Reason for incorporating the feature: The LOS for the no-build design year is ―F‖, the improvements proposed in Alternative 3 will enable this segment of freeway to remain at an LOS ―E‖ or better for the 20-year design life of the project. Although the LOS will get gradually worse over time, it is limited to about a one-hour peak in one direction only. LOS of adjacent segments for the design year is ―D‖ or better and meets standards. The cost to provide additional mainline capacity for this short segment would be significant, as it would require major widening of the interstate and replacement or widening of the mainline bridge carrying I-390 over Genesee Valley Park and the Genesee River. Social, economic and environmental impacts would also be significant. The isolated non-standard LOS will be retained. ___________________________________________________________________________________ 3.3.3.2. (2) Non-Conforming Features Several non-conforming features will be introduced or retained. Primary reasoning for retention of these features include bridge widening or replacements that are not required to construct the proposed alternative for vehicular operations. These would be costly and provide marginal benefit. Additionally, elimination of many of the non-conforming features would not be possible without elimination of the proposed new feature (i.e. new ramp). Descriptions and additional support documentation for each non-conforming feature can be found below: Weave Section Northbound Between I-590 and the Route 15A Northbound Off-Ramp The minimum weave length is 1800‘ and the recommended weave length is 2000‘ with a design level of service of ‗C‘. The current weave length is 1530‘ and the current LOS is ‗C‘. Under alternative 3, the weave length would increase to 1565‘ and the operational LOS in the design year would remain a ‗C‘. The weave length conforms to the minimum LOS requirement but is short by about 250‘ in length. Reasons for not correcting this non-conforming feature: The only mitigation would be to eliminate the weaving section by constructing a bypass and new bridge over the Erie Canal. This alternative was considered and rejected for several reasons (see Appendix C). By extending the 4th lane beyond the Route 15A northbound ramp, the effective weave length for some vehicles (those exiting to Route 15A southbound or to Route 15) increases to over 3100‘. This will further mitigate the non-conforming weave length. There is not a significant crashes history at a location that would support lengthening or eliminating the weave section.


III-28

Ramp CH Existing radii at the intersection with Route 15 does not allow a WB-67 to make a right turn on to the ramp without encroaching into the Route 15 through lanes. This feature would still exist in the no-build scenario. Reason for not eliminating the feature: Large cost to reconstruct or replace the structure to accommodate the larger vehicles, lack of evidence of impact by larger vehicles on the existing ramp Ramp DH Acceleration length necessary is 770 feet, existing geometric constraints will allow for only 465 feet (for ramp speed of 40 mph and design speed of I390 of 65mph). The Lg (gap acceptance length) of 300 feet can be provided. Reason for not eliminating the feature: The length of the ramp portion parallel to I390 cannot be lengthened due to the location of the new GH Ramp. Reverse curve with no tangent for superelevation runoff. Transitions take place on the curves with instantaneous level section at PT/PC. Transitions are of sufficient length so as not to exceed the maximum relative gradient. Reason for not eliminating the feature: If tangent is added, the acceleration length of the ramp will be further reduced. The super elevation runoff on the curve is reduced so the ramp rollover, where it meets mainline, does not exceed 4%. Transitions are of sufficient length so as not to exceed the maximum relative gradient. Reason for not eliminating the feature: Due to space constraints and requirements to maximize ramp spacing, the ramp cannot be constructed to provide conforming super elevation runoff. The minimum distance between successive entrance ramps of 1000 feet cannot be established between Ramp DH and Ramp GH. The proposed distance is 900 feet. It is also recommended that a minimum of 270 feet be established between the end of the taper of the first on ramp and the theoretical gore for the succeeding on ramp for an entrance-entrance configuration, the maximum distance that can be achieved for the two above-mentioned ramps is 120 feet. Reason for not eliminating the feature: Due to space constraints and requirements to maximize ramp spacing, the ramp cannot be constructed to provide conforming ramp distances.

To eliminate the above non-conforming features Ramp GH would have to be eliminated from consideration. The only alternative to constructing Ramp GH is a dual left turn onto ramp CH. This was considered with alternative 2 but was eliminated from further consideration. Iit would not eliminate conflict points at the ramp (CH) and it may even create more conflicts as with the dual left, cars will need to merge into a single lane on the ramp. The potential for accidents would be greater for this alternative. It would also eliminate the possibility of constructing the Kendrick Road ramp (EH) due to the longer merge lengths required. Additionally the alternative would require reconstruction or widening of the CH ramp bridge (Bridge 6A) and widening and/or replacement of the Rte. 15 Bridge over I-390 (Bridged 6). This would be at a substantial cost adding over $16M. Ramp NFD

Successive compound curves in the deceleration ramp exceed the recommended ratio of 2:1 Reason for not eliminating the feature: There is insufficient space to the north due to proximity of canal and Ramp DH. To move the ramp south would require that I390 mainline be relocated and/or a new Route 15A structure be constructed over I390. The cost for this structure is approximately $5 M. Deceleration (Speed change) Lane (Ramp NFD & NFE)– Decision Sight Distance. The NFD and NFE ramps under the Route15A bridge, prior to the split of the two ramps and diverge of the ramp lane does not meet the recommended decision sight distance. The ramp design speed for NFE is 35 mph and for NFD is 25 mph. The auxiliary lane never functions as part of the mainline so the operating speed is assumed to be 45 mph from the I-390/I590 merge to the NFC ramp spilt. Although vehicles will slow further as they approach the NFD and NFE split, the 45 mph speed is assumed to apply along the entire speed change lane. Likely though speeds will further decrease as traffic proceeds under


III-29

the bridge and approaches the decision point. Based on this operational speed the decision sight distance is 800‘ (AASHTO). The ramp design provides for 560‘ – 640‘ feet of decision sight distance. Reason for not eliminating the feature: Achieving the full decision sight distance recommendation would require replacing the Rte. 15A bridge over I-390 with a longer bridge. The cost would exceed $5 million and provide minimal additional benefit. Appropriate and adequate signage for the ―exit only‖ ramp lane with appropriate ramp speed warnings will be provided. Grading will maximize sight distance and provide recoverable slopes at the ramp gore. Provisions for Bicycles Construction of a bike lane adjacent to the right turn lane on Route 15 at the connection SF is not included, as this will minimize any impacts to the national register eligible structure at this location. It would also not be consistent with the right turn lane to the GH ramp where the existing structure (see above) prevents construction of the separate bike lane. ____________________________________________________________________________________ 3.3.3.3. Pavement and Shoulder New pavement for I-390, Route 15, Route 15A and connecting ramps will be designed in accordance with the New York State thickness Design Manual for New and Reconstructed Pavements. Due to the limited quantity of pavement reconstruction, it is anticipated that all pavement will be a flexible (asphalt) concrete pavement. All of the segments are less than 1.5 km long and some segments are pavement maintenance treatments (single course pavement work) so a formal pavement selection process is not required. The only segment that may require PETSR is the I390 portion. If necessary, the PETSR for this section of I-390 will be completed during detailed design. The following summarizes the proposed treatments for each highway within the project limits. I-390 Based on the current distress and scheduled treatment per the CPDM, the recommended treatment would be mill and fill (1-1/2‖- corrective maintenance treatment) in 2012/13. This treatment is appropriate and will be included within the project. The long-term pavement solution would be a 50-year pavement design with PCC pavement. This is beyond the scope of the project and should be considered when funds are available. East River Road Work will include only reconstruction where necessary due to geometric changes (i.e. new ramp alignments, roundabout construction). Route 15 (West Henrietta Road and Mt. Hope Avenue) From Southland Dr north to the I390 south bridge approach: Based on the recent pavement rehabilitation project, this segment of highway would not require a corrective maintenance treatment (Mill/Fill- 1-1/2‖) until 2015/16. Therefore, work only necessary to accommodated proposed geometric changes will be included in this project. The segment from the north bridge approach to West Moreland Dr: Based on the current distress and highway condition, the recommended treatments at this time is a deep mill and fill (3-1/2‖- rehabilitation treatment) with the appropriate corrective pavement repairs. This treatment will only be included to the project work limits. The NYSDOT does not maintain this segment of Route 15. Beyond the project limits, the appropriate maintaining authority should consider scheduling work as appropriate.


III-30

Route 15A (East Henrietta Road) From Crittenden Road to I390 south bridge approach: Based on the recent reconstruction project, this segment of highway would not require a corrective maintenance treatment (Mill/Fill- 1-1/2‖) for 12-15 years. Therefore, work only necessary to accommodated proposed geometric changes will be included in this project. From I390 north bridge approach to the Erie Canal: Based on the current distress and highway condition, the recommended treatment at this time is a deep Mill and Fill (3-1/2‖- rehabilitation treatment) with the appropriate corrective pavement repairs. This treatment will only be included to the project work limits. The NYSDOT does not maintain this segment of Route 15A. Beyond the project limits, the appropriate maintaining authority should consider scheduling work as appropriate. Kendrick Road The recommended treatment based on condition and current distresses is Mill and Fill (1-1/2‖) - corrective maintenance treatment. This treatment will only be included to the project work limits. The NYSDOT does not maintain this highway. Beyond the project limits, the appropriate maintaining authority should consider scheduling work as appropriate. ____________________________________________________________________________________ 3.3.3.4. Drainage Systems In general, existing drainage patterns will be retained. Where necessary, and consistent with existing conditions, the existing enclosed system will be reconstructed as necessary to accommodate new ramps and frontage roads. Existing cross-culverts within the project corridor will require extension and/or replacement due to the proposed improvements. In addition, with the inclusion of new roadway links, to the overall interchange area, additional cross-culverts may need to be considered in order to accommodate surface stormwater runoff. Existing drainage is conveyed directly to the Erie Canal or to large retention ponds constructed at the I-390/I-590 interchange. Additional consideration of storm water retention/detention may be required due to the increase in impervious surfaces within the project corridor and will be determined during final design. ___________________________________________________________________________________ 3.3.3.5. Geotechnical Subsurface investigations will be performed as needed and special foundation requirements determined for all structures, ramps and frontage roads during the detail design phase. No significant issues are anticipated. Generally, rock is not located where it will be a concern. ___________________________________________________________________________________ 3.3.3.6. Structures There are 15 vehicular/pedestrian structures and 2 utility structures located within the project limits. Approximately 9 of those structures will see no or only incidental work performed (see Table III-8). The remaining structures will require minor rehabilitation, widening or complete replacement (See Table III-9). The project alternatives also include construction of 3 new structures at new locations and replacement of the Route 15A Bridge over the Erie Canal. Structural work is varied and unique. New bridges range from simple singles span structures with little if any traffic maintenance issues to full replacement of bridge over the canal carrying approximately 27,000 vehicles per day. For bridge rehabilitation alternatives and the results of the inspection/condition reports and the deck evaluation report see Technical Appendix TA-3.


III-31

The extent of repair work on bridges not impacted by project alternatives will be a function of fund availably and maintenance of traffic considerations. The main objective of the project is not to restore the brides to ‗like new‘ condition, rather the work should be considered incidental and be included where appropriate and cost effective. Bridge 5 (Kendrick Road): Assuming a new ramp is constructed from Kendrick Road to I-390 NB, the bridge could be widened accommodate the new Ramp EH (Bridge 5A). Width of lanes, shoulders and sidewalks – Refer to Typical Bridge sections, can be found in Appendix A and Technical Appendix TA-3. Waterways - Although there will be no impact to navigation, new structures over the Erie Canal will require a coast guard permit. 3.3.3.7. Hydraulics of Bridges and Culverts The only new structures over water are those over the Erie Canal, a controlled waterway with known flow elevations. A detailed hydraulic study is not required. A Coast Guard permit will be required (See Appendix F for Coast Guard Jurisdiction Check List). 3.3.3.8. Guide Railing, Median Barriers and Impact Attenuators All guide rail within the project limits including bridge railing will be evaluated during final design for conformance to design standards and replaced or repaired, if necessary. New guide rail will be installed in accordance with current standards. ____________________________________________________________________________________ 3.3.3.9. Utilities Public and private utilities within the project limits are noted in Section 2.3.3.9, Utilities. It is anticipated some utilities within the project limits will need to be relocated. Several bridges that will be replaced or altered presently carry utilities that will be subsequently impacted. The full impact to all utilities will need to be determined during subsequent design phases. There will be no impacts to the existing RG&E substation located on the east side of Route 15A north of I-390. The adjacent parcel was recently purchased. Right-of-way access will be maintained to the RG&E site. A 12‖ gas line that spans the Erie Canal is located to the east of the Route 15 Bridge (Bridge 6) and will need to be relocated in order to construct Ramp GH.

Table III-8

Structures with no anticipated work

Br.

Bridge

Number

Roadway Over Approx.

Length/width

Proposed Vertical/Horizontal

Clearance

Comment

Spec. features

5A Kendrick Road Entrance Ramp

to NB I-390 Ramp EH

n/a 300‘/28‘ n/a Ramp structure from existing/replacement Kendrick Road

bridge to I-390 adjacent to canal

14 Route 15 NB to I-390 NB Ramp

GH

Erie Canal 290‘/32.5‘ Curved Bridge on sharp radius

15 New ramp from I-390NB to 15

Ramp NFE over Ramp

DH

175‘/28‘

Bridge BIN No. Roadway Number

1A 4070541 I-390 NB over Genesee R.

1B 4070542 I-390 SB over Genesee R.

2 4443820 Moore Road over I-390

3 1070330 Pedestrian bridge over I-390

3B 4443490 Ab. ELRR over Erie Can.

4 1070320 Ab. LVRR over I-390

4A 4443480 Ab. LVRR over Erie Canal

10A 4443861 I-390 NB over Erie Canal

10B 4443862 I-390 SB over Erie Canal


III-32

A 10‖ abandoned steam line exists to the east of the Route15A Bridge (Bridge 8) over the Erie Canal. Bridge replacement and staging alternatives will likely require removal of the steam line crossing. ____________________________________________________________________________________ 3.3.3.10. Railroad Facilities There are no active railroads within the project limits. ____________________________________________________________________________________


III-33

*The type of bridge and span arrangement is to be determined (TBD) during final design. Conceptual bridge types and span arrangement are provided in Technical Appendix – 3 (TA-3) for these structures.

Table III-9

Structures Description of Work

Bridge No.

BIN

Bridge Description of Work

Type of Bridge

No. of Spans

Vertical Clearance

Utilities Carried Live

Load

Associated work/comments

5A Ramp EH (Kendrick Road

Entrance Ramp to NB I-390)

New TBD* TBD* N/A TBD* HL-93 New ramp structure framing into widened/rehabilitated Kendrick Road bridge to I-390 located adjacent to canal.

14 Ramp GH over Canal

(Route 15 NB to I-390 NB Ramp)

New TBD* TBD* >15.5‘ TBD* HS-93 New curved bridge on sharp radius.

15 Ramp NFE over Ramp DH

(Ramp from I-390 NB to Rt.15)

New TBD* TBD* >14.5‘ TBD* HL-93 New structure to span over Ramp DH.

5 4443840

Kendrick Rd. over I-390 & Canal

Rehab & Widen

Steel Multi-Girder

2 15.55‘ (Field Survey)

Navigation HS-20 Bridge will be widened to accommodate new turn lanes.

6 4070890

Rt.15 over I-390 & Canal

Rehab Steel Multi-Girder

2 15.10‘ (Field Survey)

Electric, Telephone, Lighting

HS-20 Deck rehabilitation, substructure repairs, fatigue and seismic retrofit.

6A 407089A

Ramp CH (Rt.15 to I-390 NB)


6 N/A Navigation, Lighting

HS-20 Deck replacement, substructure repairs, fatigue and seismic retrofit.

7 1070910

EW Connector Ramp over I-390 (Rt.15 to Rt. 15A)


2 14.83‘ (As-Built Dwgs.)

None HS-20 Deck rehabilitation, substructure repairs, fatigue and seismic retrofit.

8 4443310

Rt.15A over Canal Replace & Widen

TBD* TBD* >15.5‘ Gas Line, Electric, Telephone, Navigation,

Lighting

HL-93 New widened structure to replace existing bridge.

9 1070900

Rt.15A over I-390


1 14.73‘ (As-Built Dwgs.)

Electric, Telephone, Lighting

HS-20 Deck rehabilitation, substructure repairs, fatigue and seismic retrofit.

A 4443870

12‖ Gas over Erie Canal

Relocation Aerial Pipe Crossing

1 >15.5‘ Gas N/A Relocation to construct Ramp GH.

B 4443760

Steam line (Abandoned)

Removal N/A 5 N/A Removed

Steam (Abandoned)

N/A Removal to widen BIN 4443310.


III-34

3.3.4. Landscape and Environmental Enhancements

3.3.4.1. Landscape Development and Other Aesthetics Improvements It is anticipated that existing vegetation that is impacted by the proposed improvements will be mitigated, in part, with replacement plantings. Additional vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground cover) may serve as mitigation for some of the more severe visual impacts along the corridor. Street trees will be included where space permits and existing vegetation removed for construction will be replaced. Replacement plantings are to include; a mix of deciduous, evergreen and ornamental trees and shrubs. 3.3.4.2. Environmental Enhancements Environmental enhancements will be limited to improvements to the Erie Canal Heritage Trail at new/replaced structure crossings and at connections to local roadways and sidewalk systems. No other environmental enhancements are proposed at this time.

3.3.5. Miscellaneous

Aesthetic Enhancements: Most of the new features within the project will be designed to blend visually with the context of other structures and features. Opportunities for new or innovative aesthetic designs are limited to the replacement of the Route 15A Bridge over the Erie Canal and to the new structure carrying the loop ramp over the Erie Canal. With regard to the Route 15A Bridge, there may be opportunities to blend the bridge aesthetically into the context of the historically significant Monroe Community Hospital and the new designs for Citygate. The bridge also serves as a gateway into the City of Rochester and as such, should receive additional aesthetic consideration during the detailed design phase. Surface treatments may be included on retaining walls and bridges. Additional opportunities may exist within the central island of the roundabout. This area will serve as a gateway to the University of Rochester and could provide the opportunity to collaborate with the University of Rochester for some type of gateway feature. Staging: Due to economic (funding) and/or engineering considerations, construction of the project using several smaller contracts is desirable to implement the preferred alternative. The following staging concepts are being considered. Further evaluation and refinement of these potential contracts will be conducted during detailed design. The order of stages has not been determined. It is also possible that several stages could be combined into individual construction contracts. A staging diagram can be found in Appendix A. East River Road Stage ($4.76M) Construct highway improvements at E. River Road including roundabout at Kendrick, Reconstructed ramp from I-390 southbound to E. River Road, new ramp (ramp FH) to I-390 southbound, reconstruct E. River Road as necessary. This could also include some widening and reconstruction on Route 15 south of E. River Road to accommodate future contracts. Completion of the new ramp to I-390 southbound along with the other improvements in this phase will facilitate later phases at Route 15 by providing needed relief. 590/390 Auxiliary Lane Stage ($0.53M) Construct new auxiliary lane at the diverge of I-390 southbound and I-590 northbound near the Route 15A entrance ramp.


III-35

Kendrick Road to 390 NB Stage ($12.9M) Build a new Kendrick Road on ramp (Ramp EH, bridge 5A) to I-390 northbound. Rehabilitate, widen or replace the Kendrick Road Bridge over I-390 and the Erie Canal. This phase should be completed before Phase 4 it can serve diverted traffic from Rte. 15 during that phase West Henrietta Road Loop Ramp Stage ($19.6M) Build the new Route 15 northbound to I-390 northbound ramp (GH) Bridge (14), complete merge area improvements to the existing on-ramp from Route 15 to I-390 to accommodate the new ramp. This ramp should be built prior to work on Route 15A. East Henrietta Road Canal Bridge Stage ($13.2M) Replace the Route 15A Bridge over the Erie Canal (bridge 8). Depending on traffic control methods and necessary diversions of traffic to Route 15 as an alternate route, this phase could be constructed before or concurrently with phase 1 and 2. East Henrietta Interchange Stage ($15.3M) Construct improvements at Route 15A.

CHAPTER 3 ALTERNATIVES · 2012-07-11 · April, 2012 Final Design Report/Environmental Assessment...

Documents

Transcript of CHAPTER 3 ALTERNATIVES · 2012-07-11 · April, 2012 Final Design Report/Environmental Assessment...