a not-for-profit corporation   
PO Box 424    Kinderhook, NY  12106    518-758-2646    KNGG@berk.com

 
WIDEWATERS COMMONS WIDEWATERS DEIS WIDEWATERS SDEIS ROUNDABOUT KNGG FINDINGS ARTICLE 78 ABOUT KNGG MEMBERSHIP KNGG CONCERT BENEFIT KNGG Home Page
PAST ISSUES Home Page
 
WIDEWATERS DEIS
 
DEIS TRAFFIC EVALUATION
 
 

Meg Moran

268 State Farm Road

Valatie, New York 12184

 

August 8, 2002

 

Town of Kinderhook Planning Board

P.O. Box P

Town Hall

Niverville NY 12130

           

            Re: Widewaters Commons

 

Dear Chairman Simonsen and Members of the Planning Board:

 

            On behalf of Kinderhook Neighbors for Good Growth (“KNGG”) please find attached the comments of our traffic consultant, Michael K. Chevalier, PE, of URS Corporation, regarding deficiencies in the preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Statement (“PDEIS”) submitted by the Widewaters Company for the above-referenced project.

 

As is the case with our previously-submitted comments regarding the PDEIS, and as noted in the July 29, 2002 letter from Jeffrey Baker on behalf of KNGG, these comments are not intended as criticism of the project, but are intended to assist the Planning Board in its effort to identify information or analysis missing from the PDEIS.  Without such information and analysis, the Planning Board’s meaningful review of the proposed project and requisite hard look at the potential impacts are hindered.  Although we and our traffic consultant have tried to provide a thorough and detailed list of deficiencies, the limited time for review and the extent of deficiencies may justify further comment.  KNGG reserves the right to present any additional comments during the Planning Board’s review of subsequent revisions of the PDEIS and the formal public comment period.

 

            Thank you for your time and attention to our concerns.

 

Very truly yours,

Meg Moran

 

______________________________________________________________________

 

  

TRAFFIC-RELATED REVIEW COMMENTS

on the

Widewaters Commons Shopping Center

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

 

We have reviewed the subject document with respect to completeness, as well as comments made to date by other interested parties.  At the risk of being repetitive in some cases, we have the following comments:

  • There is a question as to whether or not the Traffic Impact Study included as Appendix B is the most recent version.
  • While NYSDOT intends to construct sidewalks along State Route 9, it should be shown that the sidewalks and crosswalks proposed by the developer have logical termini and will not leave pedestrians stranded in potentially unsafe situations.
  • The study should indicate if pedestrian signals are proposed and provide some documentation that the needs of pedestrians were taken into account in proposed signal timing analysis.  Adequate green time should be provided to not only allow vehicles to proceed through the intersection, but should be adjusted as needed to accommodate pedestrians walking at 3 feet per second.
  • There are indications in some of the correspondence we have received that traffic counts were performed at the Ichabod Crane School driveways.  This information should be made available if it exists.
  • In any event, traffic counts should be performed during the months of September or October to reflect more representative traffic volumes in the study areas, particularly one such as this that is located adjacent to a sizable central school campus.
  • We observed a significant number of trucks in the study area.  This could be even more significant with addition of school busses to the mix.  All analyses should be done using the actual percent of heavy vehicles based on the traffic counts, as opposed to values automatically defaulted to by the software.
  • Common practice is that traffic analyses be performed at any intersection that is expected to experience a 5 percent increase in traffic as the result of a proposed development.  It should be verified that this, or some similar rationale, was used to determine which intersections were evaluated.  While it is not unusual to evaluate intersections at commercial driveways, analyses are occasionally performed in some unique situations.  We feel that the three driveways to the Ichabod Crane School campus should be considered for analysis during the PM peak hour, if indeed the traffic in and out of them is significant between 4:30 and 5:30 PM, as some of the information we read indicates.
  • A queuing analysis should be performed for all movements at the State Route 9/State Route 9H/State Farm Road/proposed driveway intersection.  One should also be performed at the proposed southernmost entrance as well.  Of particular concern is the storage length needed for northbound left turning traffic at the proposed center driveway.  Vehicles waiting to turn into the center driveway should not block the southernmost driveway, nor should it block the driveways to other existing businesses. 
  • The year of build-out used no longer appears valid and should be extended out to a more appropriate time.
  • We would agree that the 80%/20% split of southbound entering traffic between the proposed northernmost and center driveways is appropriate.  However, the same split for northbound entering traffic between the southernmost and center driveways is questionable.  An analysis should be provided that shows what would happen with a 50%/50% split and a 25%/75% split.  The queuing of these alternative splits should be carefully evaluated.
  • Turning templates should be applied for tractor-trailers to indicate that they could safely maneuver the various turns in and out of the plaza.  One of particular concern is the movement out of the center driveway onto State Route 9 southbound.
  • The speed limit on State Route 9 north of the development and State Route 9H south of the development is 55 miles per hour.  It is our observation that traffic, including a significant number of trucks, travels through the area at this full speed.  In light of this, a deceleration lane for southbound traffic entering the plaza at the northernmost entrance should be provided to get vehicles making that movement out of the way of through traffic.  Adequate sight distance for southbound traffic on State Route 9 needs to be provided to ensure that vehicles slowing down to enter the development are seen in plenty of time.  The width of the existing right of way should be investigated to determine if it is wide enough to accommodate a southbound deceleration lane.
  • In general, sight distance to the north from both the proposed center and southernmost driveway should be examined to ensure that it is adequate.
  • The geometric layout of all proposed driveways must be in conformance with NYSDOT policies and procedures.  This will be investigated in detail by NYSDOT.
  • An accident analysis is commonly included in Traffic Impact Studies.  One should be conducted for the study area to determine if any high accident locations exist.  Without the benefit of any data, it certainly seems possible that the intersection directly in front of the development has potential as one such location.
  • The report indicates that a traffic signal is required even under existing conditions at State Route 9/Main Street (Valatie) intersection.  It is our observation that the installation of a traffic signal at that location is not without problems.  The layout of the intersection is somewhat irregular with a one lane “ramp” from northbound State Route 9 to eastbound Main Street.  State Route 9 is on a significant grade in the vicinity of the intersection and has sharp horizontal curves both north and south of the intersection.  Advance sight distance to such a signal would be limited, requiring special consideration such as “Signal Ahead” signs and flashing lights.

 

Prepared By:

 

URS Corporation

One Northway Lane

Latham, NY 12110

 

Michael K. Chevalier, PE

August 7, 2002

 

 

* * *