HomeMy WebLinkAboutTraffic notes -revised DEIS - rev12f - FINAL - jkPage | Traffic-1
VEHICULAR TRAFFIC IMPACTS
Vehicle Count Terminology
The DEIS and the Traffic Impact Study (DEIS Appendix O) employ inappropriate and misleading
terminology in their descriptions of construction truck traffic volumes. The revised versions of both
documents fail to adequately address related inadequacies identified by the Planning Board in the
original (December 2021) versions of those documents.
The Final Scope of Work for the DEIS recognizes the importance of providing accurate and
comprehensive information on truck and vehicle traffic associated with the both the construction and
operation of the Project, including “truck trips for soil removal and associated truck routes” (p.6);
vehicle trips on Cox Neck Road and West Mill Road (p.11); and vehicle trip types included in each phase
and post construction (p.13);
Both the original December 2021 DEIS (p.197) and October 2021 Traffic Impact Study (TIS) (DEIS
Appendix O, p.34) indicate that they utilized the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) report “Trip
Generation” (10th edition) (as called for in the DEIS Scope, p.25) in preparing the traffic analysis, which
is described in the DEIS as “a nationally excepted [sic] standard.” The ITE defines a “trip” as “a single or
one-direction vehicle movement with either the origin or destination (exiting or entering) inside the
study site” (ITE 1976). However, both the original TIS and DEIS consistently equate “trips” with round-
trips when discussing vehicular traffic1. This leaves the impression that the number of “trips” is half of
what it really is. The original TIS and the DEIS employed this practice multiple times2. As described
below, the revised DEIS continues to employ this deceptive wording.
The Planning Board identified this misrepresentation as an inadequacy in the original DEIS. Their May 9,
2022 memo states:
1 However, the DEIS does use the proper definition of “trip” when discussing marine traffic.
2 “Phase 1 would generate 4,100 total trips” (pp. xxx, 34, 267); “Phase 2 would generate 400 total trips” (pp. xxx, 18, 34, 267);
“Phase 3 would generate a total of 60 truck trips (pp. xxx, 19); “. . . and another 101 truck trips” (pp. xxx, 19); “40 trips would
be made to and from the site” (p.212); “Four trips (entering and exiting) would be made each hour during the day” (p.212);
“no more than two total trips per day “ (p.213); “The Phase 1 Excavation Phase generates the most daily truck trips (40), but
less employee trips (15)” (p.214); “5 truck trips per day would make deliveries to the site and two trucks per week would
remove debris” (p.214); Under the completed project up to 13 new trips would be added (p.221).
Both the December 2021, and November 2022 versions of the DEIS state that “40 [round] trips would be made to and from
the site” each day. However, the Applicant’s Project Fact Sheet, dated February 10, 2022, and posted on his website until
revised on April 6, continued to say that “We estimate that approximately 32 trucks entering and exiting the property per
day.”
Page | Traffic-2
“DEIS combines both directions when assessing the adverse impacts of a truck trip when
in fact the total number of trips is expected to be much greater and is not discussed in
the document.
“Therefore, the Planning Board finds that the discussion provided in the document on
impacts to transportation, community character and infrastructure is not a true
assessment of what will occur on local and regional roads and the direct and indirect
adverse impacts on the quality of life of residents and the character of the impacted
areas.
“During Phase 1; it is expected that a total of 80 trucks loaded and unloaded with sand
would travel the route each weekday passing a single point on the route 9,600 times
over a six-month period.3 For example, a single-family residence (single point) located
on Cox Neck Road or Sound Avenue would be subject to these potential large adverse
impacts along the specified truck route.
“During Phase 2, approximately 12,000 CY of material would be excavated and
removed and would generate 400 total trips or 800 trucks passing a single point
loaded. and unloaded up to 1 month (2 to 4 weeks) . . .
“Phase 3 would generate a total of 60 truck trips for the construction of the retaining
wall and another 101 truck trips (12 trucks for material delivery and 89 trucks for
concrete foundation) for the two boat storage buildings. over approximately 6 months.
This would result in 322 trucks passing a single point along the route over 6 months” (all
emphases in original).”
The Planning Board’s memo requests that the revised DEIS include a more accurate and detailed
discussion on the . . . “the total number of trucks per day that will travel over local and regional roads
over the duration of the project” (emphasis in original).
The revised DEIS has not addressed this concern and continues to misleadingly misrepresent the
increase in the number of truck trips that the Project will generate.
The revised DEIS continues to deceptively describe truck traffic in terms of round-trips rather than as
one-way movements as called for by the Planning Board (and the ITE):
“Phase 1 would generate 4,100 total trips” (DEIS pp. xxx, 18, 34, 211, 267, 286)4;
3 The 9,600 figure was presumably derived as follows: 24 weeks (5.5 months) x 5 days/week x 80 trips/day. However, if each of
the 4800 trips outbound from the Project site consists of 30-cubic-yard loads, this would result in the amount of sand being
removed being 144,000 CY rather than the 134,000 CY as described in the DEIS. However, it is questionable that the actual
size of each truck load will be 30 CY (see the discussion of truck weights and capacities, below). As a result, the actual number
of truck trips required to transport the sand off site will be close to the Planning Board’s 9600 figure.
4 p. 211 of the revised DEIS also correctly states that Excavation Phase 1 “work will thus generate 8,200 truck trips”, but this is
the only place where this clarification has been incorporated into the revised DEIS. It is not, for example, made in the section
of the DEIS dealing with air quality impacts from truck emissions (p.267) or anywhere in the Executive Summary.
Page | Traffic-3
“Phase 2 would generate 400 total trips” (DEIS pp. xxx, 18, 34, 267, 286)5;
“Phase 3 would generate a total of 60 truck trips for the construction of the retaining wall and another
101 truck trips (12 trucks for material delivery and 89 trucks for concrete foundation) (DEIS p. xxx, 19, 286,
293);
The total number of times that the Project’s 22-wheel tractor-trailer haul trucks will pass a given point
along the truck route is never mentioned in the revised DEIS.6
Haul Truck Weight and Capacity
The DEIS either a) underestimates the number of truck trips required to haul sand from the Project site
during the Excavation Phases, or b) fails to note that haul trucks would have to be overloaded to
conform to the number of estimated trips.
As proposed, the Project includes the removal of an estimated 134,921 cubic yards (CY) of sand from the
Construction Excavation Area (DEIS p. 41). This will be accomplished in two phases. Phase 1 includes
approximately 123,000± CY of material and Phase 2 is the remaining 12,000± CY of material. According to
the DEIS: “Based on 30 CY trucks, [Excavation] Phase 1 would generate 4,100 total trips [loads] . . . [and] Based on
30 CY trucks, [Excavation] Phase 2 would generate 400 total trips [loads]” (DEIS pp. xxx, 286, also p.267).
In order for the Project to limit excavation-associated truck traffic to a total of 4500 truck-loads of sand,
each truck must be loaded to its full 30 cubic yard capacity. This raises a number of issues.
The maximum allowable gross vehicle weight (MGVW) for trucks traveling most interstate highways in
New York is 80,000 pounds (23 CFR 658.17). A truck’s MGVW is defined as the weight of a vehicle
without load plus the weight of any load on the vehicle. However, this weight can be exceeded on New
York state and local roads if a Divisible Load Overweight Permit is obtained from the NYSDOT. According
to the revised DEIS, “The empty weight of the Project haul vehicles will be 32,500 pounds and the Gross
Vehicle Weight of the vehicles is anticipated to be 107,000 pounds” (DEIS p.220). The 107,000-pound
limit is presumably because Project haul trucks will presumably have (F2 Type 7[?]) permits issued by
NYSDOT in accordance with 17 NYCRR 154-2.4 which allows for permitted vehicles to have a MGVW of
107,000 pounds. While the TIS states that “None of the trucks used in the construction of the project
will . . . exceed the weight limits established by State law” (DEIS p.78), it fails to note that special
5 p. 212 of the revised DEIS also correctly states that “The work will thus generate 800 truck trips”, but this is the only place
where this clarification has been incorporated into the revised DEIS. It is not, for example, made in the section of the DEIS
dealing with air quality impacts from truck emissions (p.267).
6 The Planning Board’s May 10, 2022 memo specifically calls for “a more accurate and detailed discussion {of the] total number
of trucks per day that will travel over local and regional roads over the duration of the project.” The Applicant’s annotated
version of that memo, submitted with the revised DEIS indicates that the requested information has been “included.” While
the revised DEIS does include discussions about the number of trucks expected to be associated with individual phases of
construction, it does discuss the "total” count for all construction phases.
Page | Traffic-4
permits will be required that will allow each Project haul truck to exceed the unpermitted maximum
allowable weight limit by 27,000 pounds.
The DEIS states that “[T]rucks delivering materials to the site or removing excavated material from the
site would all comply with New York State Vehicle and Traffic law regarding the size of vehicles and the
permissible weight of vehicles that may operate on the public roads of the State including Cox Neck
Road/West Mill Road” (p.212). No mention is made of the fact that loaded Project haul trucks may
weigh 15 times the weight permitted on some local roads in Southold.7
As noted above, the MGVW includes the weight of the empty vehicle plus the weight of its load. If the
empty weight of the Project haul vehicles is 32,500 pounds, then the weight of the load on each vehicle
cannot exceed 74,500 pounds (107,000 -32,500). If each haul truck is loaded with 30 CY of sand as
stated in the DEIS, then the weight of each cubic yard cannot exceed 2,483 pounds.
There is considerable variability in the weight of a cubic yard of sand. Grain size, shape, density and
moisture content all affect the weight of a cubic yard of sand. According to the EPA, the weight of a
cubic yard of sand can vary from 2,441 pounds for loose sand to as much as 3,510 pounds for wet sand.8
According to Table 6 in the GWPC9 August 3, 2021 geotechnical report (DEIS Appendix H) approximately
43,851 CY of the sand excavated from the Project site will come from Stratum 1 (Reddish-Brown Fine
Sand) and approximately 84,852 CY will come from Stratum 2 (Tan Medium Sand). Together, these two
strata account for 96 percent of the sand that will be excavated. Table 1 in the same document provides
information on the actual weight of the sands found at the Project site. According to Table 1 in the
Project’s geotechnical report, Stratum 1 sands from the Project Area weigh 110 pcf (pounds per cubic
foot) or 2,970 pounds per cubic yard, and Stratum 2 sands weigh 115 pcf, or 3,105 pounds per cubic
yard.
Using the actual weight of the sand at the Project site, and knowing that the actual maximum weight of
the sand in any one truck load is 74,500 pounds, the maximum volume of Stratum 1 sand that can be
carried by any one haul truck is 25 CY—not the 30 CY stated in the DEIS. The maximum volume of
Stratum 2 sand that can be carried is 24 CY.10
7Residents of the Town of Southold have for some time expressed concerns about heavy truck traffic on local roads. In
response to some of these concerns the Town recently modified Section 260-26 of the Town Code to read “Vehicles, trucks,
tractors, tractor-trailer combinations, tractor-semitrailer combinations or tractor-trailer-semitrailer combinations in excess of
a registered weight of 8,000 pounds are prohibited from traveling upon . . . [Love Lane and Peconic Bay Boulevard].
8 https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-03/documents/conversions.pdf
9 P.W. Grosser Consulting, Inc. prepared the DEIS for the Applicant.
10 According to the revised acoustic study, and the vibration study, in the DEIS (Appendix R), the modeling of noise and vibration
impacts is based on the analysis of a truck “loaded with 39 tons of sand/dirt at the time of the readings, which is equivalent
to 28-29 yards of material” (p.16). This assumption is in direct contravention of the DEIS’ geotechnical report which, as
Page | Traffic-5
Project haul trucks loaded to their maximum allowable weight will not be able to carry, at most, more
than 25 CY of sand. Removal of the sand during Excavation Phase 1 will therefore require a minimum of
4,920 round trips (9,840 total trips)—not the 4,100 trips stated in the DEIS. Excavation Phase 2 will
require a minimum of 480 round trips (960 total trips)—not the 400 trips stated in the DEIS.
The DEIS appears to have significantly underestimated the volume of construction truck traffic that
will be generated by the Project. Under the scenario of 80 truck trips per day, the number of Project
haul trucks travelling along Cox Neck Road and West Mill Road will be one every 7.5 minutes during
Excavation Phases 1 and 2. If this must be increased to 96 trips per day in order to maintain the
Project’s schedule, the interval between trucks will be even smaller (approximately one every six
minutes).
The Planning Board’s consultant (NPV), in their review of the original DEIS, noted that “[T]he basis for
the construction truck traffic analysis and potential construction duration is largely reliant on the use of
large 30 yard trailers, therefore the feasibility of use of this equipment must be fully evaluated to
determine if the projected construction duration is reasonably analyzed” (NPV p. 4-5). The DEIS has not
addressed this issue.
The DEIS has underestimated the number of 22-wheel tractor-trailer truck trips required to remove
sand from the Project site by more than 20 percent.
Vehicle Classification
The DEIS and the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) (Appendix O) employ inappropriate and misleading
terminology in their descriptions of the classification of existing and projected truck traffic. The DEIS
and the TIS present conclusions about the increase in construction traffic that are contradicted by raw
data in the TIS. This data is not discussed in the text of either document. Both documents ignore the
true increase in heavy (tractor-trailer) truck traffic (FhWA 10 vehicles) that will be associated with
Project construction.
shown, indicates that 39 tons of sand would (in addition to resulting in an overweight condition for haul trucks) would be the
equivalent of 26 CY of sand—not 28-29 CY.
The Supplemental Data Appendix to the TIS includes a letter from Benimax Inc., an excavated material hauler located in
Middle Island, New York. According to that correspondence “We specifically supply up to 500 tons per day (which is the
equivalent of app. 14 tractor trailer loads) of materials . . .” This means that each load averages approximately 71,500
pounds. This is well within the maximum allowable permitted weight. If Project haul trucks were limited to 71,500-pound
loads (approximately 23.8 cubic yards of sand from the Project site) the number of loads required for the Project excavation
phase would be more than 5,100 for Excavation Phase 1 and more than 500 for Excavation Phase 2. This equates to more
than 11,000 trips.
Page | Traffic-6
The Final Scope of Work for the DEIS calls for the traffic study to include information “on vehicle types
that would be using roadways in the project vicinity” (p.11); “vehicle types involved in the staging,
clearing, excavation, and site preparation [and] construction” (p.13); on “all specifications of the loaded
and unloaded trucks involved in the excavation and construction” (p.13), and “potential adverse impacts
from all vehicle trip types included in each phase and post construction, the wear and tear on roadways
caused by vehicle types” (p.13).
The revised TIS (DEIS Appendix O) includes in its appendices, sections titled “Vehicle Classification
Studies.” These appendices consist of detailed traffic counts, breaking down the counts into the Federal
Highway Administration’s (FHWA) 13-class vehicle classification system 11,12. Significantly, the existence
of this information is mentioned in the DEIS, but the data is never discussed in any detail.13 Instead, the
DEIS ignores this data and combines all truck types (larger than pick-up trucks) into a single “heavy
vehicle” category, and never discusses truck traffic in terms of the FhWA vehicle classification system.
As a result, the DEIS contains numerous misleading statements about the nature of existing truck traffic
and the severity of the impacts associated with Project-related truck traffic. For example:
“trucks and other heavy-duty vehicles commonly use West Mill Road and have done so
for many years” (DEIS p. xxxi); and
“The vehicle classification counts indicated that heavy vehicles (trucks) as a percentage
of the traffic observed exceeded 5 percent of the traffic on Sound Avenue/North Road
during the summer, increasing to over 6 percent in the spring and fall, and dropping to
between 4 and 5 percent during the winter months. . . “; and
“The presence of trucks on Cox Neck Road was noted with between 3.6 and 9.4 percent
on weekdays, varying seasonally. During the winter, the percentage of trucks reduced to
approximately 3.6 percent. Truck usage of West Mill Road was varied from 1.5 to 7.9
percent for the four seasons, also varying seasonally. During the winter the percentage
of trucks reduced to 1.5 percent weekdays and less than 2 percent on weekends during
the summer. During the winter, truck usage of West Mill Road was one percent or less
during weekdays and weekends. The analysis of the classification data from West Mill
11 FHWA Axle Classification Scheme: F1 Motorcycles; F2 Autos; F3 2 axle, 4-tire pickups, vans, motor-homes; F4 Buses; F5 2 axle,
6-tire single unit trucks; F6 3 axle single unit trucks; 7 4 or more axle single unit trucks; F8 4 or less axle vehicles, single trailer;
F9 5 axle, single trailer; F10 6 or more axle, single trailer; F11 5 axle multi-trailer trucks; F12 6 axle multi-trailer trucks: F13 7
or more axle multi-trailer trucks.
12 The New York State Department of Transportation Traffic Monitoring Standards (2001) require vehicle classification counts
to be based on the 13 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) F-Scheme categories as described in the FHWA Traffic
Monitoring Guide.
13 The original December 21, 2021 DEIS and TIS claim that a “fine-grained analysis of the classification data from West Mill
Road” was conducted (DEIS p.195; TIS p.21). There is nothing in either document to suggest that this was, in fact, done. The
revised versions of both documents have been edited to remove the term “fine-grained.”
Page | Traffic-7
Road also indicated that the trucks using the road were smaller than those using Cox
Neck Road and Sound Avenue/North Road” (DEIS p.200-201, TIS p.23).
Nowhere in DEIS or the TIS, including the sections of those documents entitled “Analysis of
Construction-Related Traffic Impacts” (DEIS p.216-217) and “Traffic Impacts from Construction” (TIS pp.
51-65) is there an analysis of the extent to which “heavy” truck traffic (Class 5-13) and more importantly
Class 9 and 10 truck traffic—18- and 22-wheel tractor-trailers, would increase during the months-long
construction period, or what the impacts of this increase would be.
The percentages of total truck traffic described in the DEIS as “heavy vehicles” is derived by combining
the number of trucks in all truck classifications (classes 5-13), and ignores significant differences in the
traffic counts associated with individual vehicle classes. Virtually all delivery trucks, such as the box vans
used by FedEx and UPS, fall into Class 5 or Class 6, and are often categorized as “medium trucks”.14
However, all of the trucks that will be used to haul sand from the Project site--22-wheel tractor-trailers
with 6 axles--will be considerably larger and heavier and will fall into vehicle classification 10 which are
unambiguously considered “heavy trucks” (COMMENT FIGURE TRAFFIC-1)15
According to raw data in the TIS, traffic counts made during the one winter week (March 13-19, 2021)
when data was collected, a total of 15 trips by trucks in classes 7-13 were recorded on Cox Neck Road,
all on weekdays. This amounts to 3 trips per day. During the same period, only 2 trips were recorded
along West Mill Road, only one of which was on a weekday. Effectively, no heavy truck traffic was
observed on West Mill Road during the winter study period. The Project will generate at least 80 trips a
day on both Cox Neck Road and West Mill Road by trucks considerably larger and heavier than those
that comprise existing truck traffic on those roads.
According to the DEIS and the TIS “analysis of the classification data from West Mill Road also indicated
that the trucks using the road were smaller than those using Cox Neck Road and Sound Avenue/North
Road” (DEIS p.201; TIS p.23). However, the DEIS fails to address the implications of this statement.
During the one-week long fall study period (November 4-10, 2021), a total of 21 trips (18 on weekdays)
by trucks in classes 7-13 were recorded on Cox Neck Road. This amounts to between 3 and 4 trips per
day. The Project will cause an approximately 2000% increase in this number. During the same period a
total of 7 heavy truck trips (6 on weekdays) were counted on West Mill Road, or an average of one trip
per day. The Project will generate almost 80 times this number.
The revised TIS does includes information about the nature of the traffic travelling West Mill Road on
three weekdays in August 2022:
14 MGVW of a typical UPS or FedEx truck is 26,000 pounds or less.
15 However, the acoustic report (DEIS Appendix R) based its analyses on the assumption that vehicles similar to a Peterbilt 389
2020 edition dump trucks will be employed. This is potentially misleading and confusing to lay readers of the DEIS. The
Peterbilt 389 dump truck and the Peterbilt 389 tractor-trailer have different axle configurations and are not in the same
FHWA vehicle class. The former is a Class 5 vehicle.
Page | Traffic-8
“Almost all the vehicles observed were two axel [sic] vehicles with approximately 85 % of
the vehicles were motorcycles, passenger vehicles and personnel pick-up trucks and
vans. One percent were noted as buses. Thirteen percent were 2 axle, 6-tire vehicles
such as UPS, Amazon, or other small delivery vehicles. Most of these trips occur
between 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM and are not occurring during the weekday AM and PM
peak periods. During the entire three-day period, 3 3-axle vehicles were counted, and 2
4-axle vehicles were counted. None of the 3 or 4 axle vehicles were counted during the
typical weekday AM or PM peak hours. It must also be noted the trucks counted may
not all have destined [sic] for SYC. Some may have been destined for the Town
Commercial Dock. When examining truck activity, the counts reflect vehicles that have
arrived and departed the site. One vehicle delivery is counted as two trips in the
count”16 (emphasis added) (Revised TIS p. 37).
This information, which clearly indicates how little truck traffic presently travels West Mill Road,
and the relatively small size of those vehicles, is NOT included in the revised main DEIS text.17
The increase in the volume of heavy truck traffic generated by the Project, and continuing for up to
seven months, must be considered a significant negative impact affecting not only estimates of road
damage, and dangers to pedestrians and cyclists, but the general quality to life of residents along Cox
Neck Road and West Mill Road.
The DEIS states that “The vehicle classification counts indicated that heavy vehicles (trucks) as a
percentage of the traffic observed [on Sound Avenue in Riverhead] . . . was slightly more than 3 percent
during the winter months” (DEIS p.194-5; Traffic Study p.21). In fact, haul trucks from the Project will
also cause a significant increase in heavy truck traffic on Sound Avenue. Data from the vehicle
classification study tables in the traffic study indicate that just the trucks hauling sand from the Project,
without regard to other construction-related truck traffic, will result in an approximate 50 percent
increase in week-day heavy truck traffic on Sound Avenue during the winter.18 The impact will be even
16 Note the correct use of “trip” in contrast to how it used elsewhere in the DEIS.
17 Evidence that the DEIS’ has attempted to overestimate the amount of “heavy” truck traffic presently travelling Cox Neck and
West Mill Roads, can be found in DEIS Appendix R (Acoustic Report). Tables 28 and 29 in the Acoustic Report, based upon
information in the Traffic Study (DEIS Appendix O), list the hourly existing traffic distribution on Cox Neck and West Mill
Roads. Unlike the DEIS, Tables 28 and 29 differentiate between “medium trucks,” and “heavy trucks” like the haul trucks that
will be used by the Project. According to Tables 28 and 29, over a 24-hour period only one heavy truck travelled West Mill
Road, and only 12 travelled Cox Neck Road. The latter figure may be an overestimate of the heavy truck volume on Cox Neck
Road. It seems highly likely that most of the heavy trucks counted as travelling Cox Neck Road had either the Premium Wine
Group facility, or the Route 48 Plaza retail complex, as their destination. Both locations have entrances located within 100
yards of Sound Avenue. This means that the recorded heavy truck traffic turned off Cox Neck Road immediately after turning
off of Sound Avenue, and did not travel along the residential portion of Cox Neck Road.
18 A total of 784 trips by vehicles in classes 7-13 were recorded on five weekdays between March 15 and March 19, 2011.
Project haul trucks will add an additional 400 trips during each Monday through Friday period.
Page | Traffic-9
greater during the fall when haul trucks from the Project will result in a more than doubling of heavy
truck traffic on Sound Avenue.19
The DEIS has misrepresented the qualitative nature of the truck traffic that will be generated by the Project in a
way that minimizes the severity of traffic impacts.
Limited-Sight Distances and Roadway Configuration
The DEIS contains no proper evaluation of the hazards posed by limited sight distances along Cox Neck
Road, West Mill Road, and Sound Avenue.
The DEIS scope calls for “[s]ight distances at intersections and around curves in the roadways” to be
evaluated (p.15). However, the DEIS only discusses this issue in the context of sight distances associated
with the proposed intersection of the proposed haul road with West Mill Road.
The DEIS, quoting the Traffic Study, does contain an extensive discussion of roadway characteristics for
the Project truck routes, noting numerous hazardous locations:
“Much of the Cox Neck Road/West Mill Road is slightly rolling but there are two areas of
significant curves. The first is just north of Bergen Avenue where, going north, the
roadway curves sharply to the east turning about 90o and then turns less sharply to the
north. Within the curves the road drops to the area between the curves just west of
Breakwater Road and then rises in the second curve to peak north of Jackson Landing and
the end of the curved section. No warning signs are posted for either north bound south
bound traffic. On the westerly side of the southern curve guide rail has been placed to
prevent vehicles from leaving the road. The guide rail is substandard and not properly
anchored on the ends. We question whether the two curves should be posted with curve
warning signs indicating the “S” curvature of the road and the use of additional chevron
signing along the back of both curves.
“North of the two curves the roadway straightens out and continues north in a relatively
straight line on gently rolling terrain. West and south of Naugle’s Drive the roadway turns
fairly sharply to the east. Curve warning signs were posted for northbound traffic
approaching the curve and for southbound traffic approaching the same curve. The
southbound signs seem to be placed too close to the curve and chevron warning signs
along the back of the curve would be useful. To the east of Naugle’s Drive West Mill Road
turns to the south and drops vertically. There is a curve warning sign posted for eastbound
19 A total of 309 trips by vehicles in classes 7-13 were recorded on five weekdays between November 4 and November 11,
2011. Project haul trucks will add an additional 400 trips during each Monday through Friday period.
Page | Traffic-10
traffic and an additional sign stating, “SLOW POPULATED AREA”. That sign is posted
behind a utility pole and not readily visible” (DEIS pp.195-6; TIS p.12).20
In fact, local residents have documented instances of vehicles failing to negotiate curves on West Mill
Road [COMMENT FIGURES TRAFFIC 2-3].
In addition, according to the Town of Riverhead Comprehensive Plan, “Sound Avenue is a two-lane
roadway, with significant horizontal and vertical curvature and old growth trees along many segments,
resulting in poor sight distance for stopping. Shoulders are narrow or nonexistent; there are few
sidewalks; and there are many agriculture-related businesses (such as farm stands), some of which do
not have well laid out driveways or parking lots” (2003, p.9-11) (emphasis added).
The DEIS fails to identify the actual sight distances at any point along the truck route, or whether they
will allow for adequate stopping sight distances for 107,000 pound 30-yard haul truck travelling at the
speed limit in either dry or wet pavement situations.
Examples of limited sight distances along Cox Neck and West Mill Roads are illustrated in Photographs 3
and 6-10, included in the TIS Supplemental Data Appendix. At a minimum, the DEIS and TIS should have
evaluated the stopping distances for unloaded and fully-loaded haul trucks in relation to locations with
limited sight distances. The failure to do this is especially concerning because, as cited above, the DEIS
and TIS both note the existence of locations with significant curves that should have warning signs.
The TIS includes the results of a CADD based AutoTurn computer analysis to determine whether the
wheel paths and perimeter of the large tractor-trailer haul trucks being used would stay within their
travel lanes while negotiating a number of curves in Cox Neck Road/West Mill Road. The TIS found that
the “curve west of Naugles Road is tighter than the curves to the south and trucks negotiating this
section of the road will not be able to stay within their travel lane. East of Naugles Road the curve is also
tight, and it will be difficult for the trucks to stay in lane” (emphasis added) (DEIS p. 219; TIS p.77). Figure
8 of 12, in the Truck Turning Studies section of the Supplemental Data Appendix of the TIS, clearly shows
that trucks will NOT be able to stay in lane at this location. To overcome this the DEIS and TIS propose
“that flaggers be used to control traffic as truck [sic] pass through this area” (DEIS p.219; TIS p.77).
There are limited sight distances at this location. In the absence of an analysis of the relationship
between sight distance and truck stopping distance it is not possible to assess the effectiveness of this as
a mitigative measure.
The DEIS does state that “Flaggers will be uses for maintenance and protection of traffic at locations
where severe curves in the truck route or at intersections where turns are being made by Project trucks
that may require crossing of the yellow double barrier lines” (DEIS pp. xxxvi, xxxix, 229, 298). However,
20 These descriptions would seem to contradict the statement on p.25 of the original TIS and p.196 of the original DEIS that
“there are no indication [sic] that Cox Neck Road/West Mill Road has any traffic safety deficiencies.” While the revised TIS
still includes this statement (p.28), it appears to have been eliminated from the revised DEIS.
Page | Traffic-11
other than the Naugles Road locations, no locations where flaggers will be deployed are identified. The
DEIS notes that only two “Flag Personnel” will be employed during the Project excavation phases (DEIS
pp. xxx, 18, 212, 290) suggesting that Naugles Road location is the only location where flaggers will be
used.
Trucks entering and exiting the Project site via the proposed haul road may also be unable to stay in lane
as they turn off West Mill Road. According to the DEIS
“During construction of the proposed crushed concrete haul road, a 100-foot-long
stabilized RCA shoulder would be constructed south of the haul road entrance to
provide for wider turns and safe access for trucks” (DEIS p.288); and according to the TIS
and DEIS “[A]t the proposed temporary haul road to the site that will connect to West
Mill Road south of Naugle's Drive a temporary shoulder will be placed along the road
north and south of the access to protect the existing edge of West Mill Road while
trucks use that access. A 100-foot-long RCA shoulder will be placed south of the haul
road and a wide radius will be provided at the southeast corner to facilitate truck turns
off north bound West Mill Road” (DEIS p. 222; TIS p.82).
Neither the DEIS nor the TIS address whether trucks making left-hand turns to exit the Project site via
the haul road will be able to stay in lane. COMMENT FIGURE TRAFFIC-4 illustrates the difficulty that
large haul trucks have making turns onto Cox Neck Road.
Concerns about limited sight and stopping distances are not confined to the portions of the truck route
in Southold. As noted above, the Riverhead Comprehensive Plan (2003:G-9) states that Sound Avenue
“has significant horizontal and vertical curvature, which limits stopping sight distances”.
The TIS includes a section dealing with roadway characteristics, but fails to mention that Sound Avenue
is marked with double-yellow no-passing lines for the entire length of the truck route, or discuss how
this could impact traffic on that road.
Other than mentioning the existence of the Route 58/Roanoke Ave traffic circle (DEIS p.218; TIS p.76),
there is no discussion of potential issues at this location. Although the revised TIS includes photographs
documenting road conditions along the entire truck route, no photograph of this key location is
included. Likewise, it was not included in the AutoTurn analysis.
The DEIS also reports that the traffic study “indicated that vehicles operating on Breakwater Road at the
survey site had an 85-percentile speed of between 42.9 and 43.9 mph while the posted speed limit was
30 mph. At the survey location Breakwater Road is relatively straight and flat as are much of Cox Neck
Road and West Mill Road and it can be anticipated that speeds of this road would be similar to those on
Breakwater Road except in the areas of the curves where horizontal and vertical geometric features will
suppress speed” (p.198). The DEIS fails to take into account how non-Project vehicles travelling in
Page | Traffic-12
excess of the posted speed limits might affect potential construction impacts and overall safety once
Project-related heavy truck traffic is added to existing volumes.
Weather Considerations
The revised DEIS fails to adequately consider how weather conditions and time of day might affect
traffic safety.
The Planning Board’s May 10 memo (p.26) found inadequate the DEIS’ discussion of “delays that could
occur from unexpected weather and task delays,” and asked “What is unexpected weather? What
would be considered task delays?” The Applicant has submitted a copy of the Planning Board’s memo
with the annotation “Narrative expanded, as requested” next to this comment.
The revised DEIS (but not the TIS) claims “that the proposed construction schedule is a maximum time
period and considers delays that could occur from unexpected weather and task delays. Task delays
could be expected during unexpected snow events or wet weather during site preparation, which would
impact work on the site. However, the construction schedule provided in this DEIS includes over-
estimates should delay occur” (DEIS p.287). There are a number of problems with these statements.
The “revised” text is not responsive to the Planning Board’s comments. Explaining that weather delays
consist of snow and wet weather is not helpful. Nor is explaining that task delays could result from bad
weather.21
Nowhere in the DEIS, or the TIS, is there an estimate of the number of days that the Project may be
delayed because of weather-related (or task delay) issues. It should be remembered that most of the
Project’s haul-truck traffic will be on the road during the winter months. (This also has the potential to
affect the overall Project schedule). Nowhere in the DEIS or TIS is there a discussion of what, if any,
conditions would determine if the operation of Project haul trucks will be limited or suspended. This is
especially important since most of the haul truck traffic to and from the site will take place during the
winter and spring months.
In Mattituck, the “snowy period of the year lasts for 4.4 months, from November 23 to April 4, with a
sliding 31-day snowfall of at least 1.0 inches. The month with the most snow in Mattituck is January,
with an average snowfall of 5.6 inches.”22 Individual storms have had snow totals well above this
average (e.g., 10.3 inches on February 1, 2021). Between December 15, 2021 and March 15, 2022, snow,
snow/sleet, or a wintry mix were recorded on 17 days. Between December 15, 2020 and March 15,
2021, snow, snow/sleet, or a wintry mix were recorded on 13 days.23 Nowhere in the DEIS or TIS is
21 Presumably task delays could be caused by things other than weather, e.g., the need to service or repair equipment.
22 https://weatherspark.com/y/25435/Average-Weather-in-Mattituck-New-York-United-States-Year-Round#Figures-Snowfall
Page | Traffic-13
there a consideration of how adverse weather conditions might affect visibility or stopping distances,
especially in relation to the numerous limited-sight-distance locations along Cox Neck and West Mill
Road. It can be assumed that wet or icy roadways will require (because of the reduced coefficient of
friction between the road surface and vehicle tires) that vehicle stopping distances will be greater when
such conditions are present.
From mid-December thru January Project haul trucks traveling along the designated truck route after
4:30 PM and before 7:00 AM will be traveling after sunset or before sunrise.24 Some Project traffic
traveling along the western portions of the truck route in Town of Riverhead will also be traveling after
dusk or before dawn, when conditions are even darker. While single overhead street lights are present
at intersections along Cox Neck and West Mill Roads, there are large stretches along these roads that
are not illuminated. There is no discussion in the DEIS as to how the lack of lighting might affect traffic
safety.
Accident Data
The DEIS fails to adequately assess the potential for Project-related traffic accidents, and incorrectly
concludes that the potential for accidents along the Project truck routes will not increase as a result of
the Project. The DEIS is still inadequate in that it fails to provide accident data for the entire truck
route.
The DEIS scope called for the DEIS to include accident data from “along the proposed truck routes”.
Although complete truck routes had not been identified at the time of scoping, the DEIS scope asks for
accident data for Cox Neck Road, West Mill Road, Sound Avenue, and Suffolk County Route 48 (p.11).25
According to the revised DEIS, “[A]ccident data was requested from the NYSDOT for all accidents that
occurred along Cox Neck Road/West Mill Road from its intersection with Sound Avenue/North Road (CR
48) to its terminus at Mattituck Creek and SYC. The DEIS fails to include accident data for the portions of
the truck route along Sound Avenue (west of Bergen Avenue), Northville Turnpike or County Route 58.
The TIS Supplemental Data Appendix includes a section identified as “NYSDOT Accident Verbal
Descriptions”. This section contains information from NYSDOT’s Accident Location Information System
(ALIS) for the period from 1/1/2019-12/31/2021. This supplements data in the original TIS for the
23 https://certifiedsnowfalltotals.com/storm_history/history/NY/2708/64369/Mattituck%2C%2011952
24 Sunset at Mattituck Inlet can occur as early as 4:24 PM, and last light as early as 4:56 PM.
25 The Accident History sections of the revised DEIS and TIS have been significantly updated to include 60 months of data rather
than 42. A comparison of the two versions of both documents indicates that the number of accidents along Cox Neck and
West Mill Roads, and at the intersection Of Cox Neck Road and Sound Avenue/Route 48, was considerably greater than
stated in the originals. The number of accidents has been increased from 35 to 48; the number of accidents involving injuries
doubled from 4 to 8, and; the number involving only property damage increased from 17 to 32.
Page | Traffic-14
1/l/2017-6/30/2020 period.26 Unlike the original DEIS, the revised DEIS does not include details from
this data. Instead, it refers readers to the TIS Appendix entitled, “Accident Data” and the Supplemental
Data Appendix of the TIS. Given the importance of accident data in assessing safety concerns, the
decision to eliminate this data from the main DEIS text, (necessitating lay readers to refer to two
separate technical appendices) is questionable.
According to the DEIS the “accident data obtained from the Police was largely duplicative of the data
originally obtained from NYSDOT” (p.202). Only one accident in police records is not included in the
NYSDOT data. However, it is noted that this is the only reported accident that involved a vehicle towing
a boat trailer. It does not appear to have been included in total number of accidents (48) noted in the
DEIS and TIS.
Page 27 of the revised TIS states that “As noted by NYSDOT, there were ten accidents that occurred on
Cox Neck Road/West Mill Road in the 60-month period. It goes on to provide descriptions of these
accidents. While the DEIS and TIS both note that 38 accidents were associated with the intersection of
Cox Neck Road and Sound Avenue, no detailed information about these accidents is included in the text
of either document. Given that all Project truck traffic will have to negotiate this intersection, greater
attention should have been given to those accidents.
The DEIS states that “[T]here are no demonstrative conditions along [Cox Neck Road/West Mill Road]
that would indicate that the project volumes would increase the potential for additional [vehicular]
accidents” (pp. xviii, 229). This is a disingenuous statement and is not supported by data in the traffic
study. The DEIS ignores the fact that composition of the Project-related traffic will be significantly
different than the composition of existing traffic. As noted above, the Project will cause an
approximately twenty-fold increase in this number of heavy (Class 9 and 10) trucks traveling Cox Neck
Road, and result in 80 times the number of heavy trucks travelling West Mill Road, during the Project’s
extended construction period.
The DEIS states that the “accident study revealed no accidents involving bicycles or pedestrians. Despite
the relative narrowness of the road the small numbers of additional vehicles the Project will generate
during construction and after completion should not increase the hazards to bicycles and pedestrians
also using the road” (p. xvii). While it may be considered true that once the Project is completed it will
generate “a small number of additional vehicles,” the same cannot be said for the construction period.
The implication that the addition of large numbers of oversize, overweight construction vehicles, of a
type that only rarely travel the proposed Project truck routes, will not pose an increased risk of
accidents is unsupportable.
26 Note the overlapping reporting period from 1-1-19 to 6-30-20. There appears to be a discrepancy in the data reported during
this period. Six accidents are reported in one set of data that are not reported in the other. This suggests that different
criteria may have used by the Applicant’s consultant when requesting ALIS data from NYSDOT, or the ALIS data is possibly
incomplete.
Page | Traffic-15
It is noted that the original December 2021 DEIS and TIS concluded that “accident data . . . during the . .
. analysis period indicated that there are [sic] no indication Cox Neck Road/West Mill Road has any
traffic safety deficiencies” (p.196). While this conclusion appears to have been eliminated from the
revised main DEIS text, it still appears in the revised TIS (p.28). This seems to contradict the statements
in the DEIS (p.191) and the Traffic Study (p.12) (quoted above) that identify potentially dangerous
locations along these roads.
No data is provided to support the statement that the “rate of accidents occurring at the [Cox Neck
Road at Sound Avenue/North Road intersection is not atypical for an intersection with similar volumes”
(p.196). Even if true, it has no bearing on how the accident rate might change with the Project’s massive
increase in heavy construction truck traffic, notably 22-wheel tractor trailers.
The same invalid assumption that past data can be assumed to represent what conditions will be like
during Project construction, when vastly different heavy (Class 9 and 10) truck volumes will exist, is
evident in the statement that a “small portion of West Mill Road east of Naugle’s Drive is only 22± feet
wide. Pedestrians and cyclists currently use the roadway with the existing traffic and the three-year
examination of accidents along the roadway did not indicate any involving either pedestrians or cyclists”
p.211.
The DEIS notes (p.203) that there have also been no recently identified accidents in the vicinity of the
intersection of the proposed haul road and West Mill Road. It is hard to understand how historical
accident data pertaining to a presently non-existent intersection is relevant to what the accident
potential will be after the intersection is created.
Although the DEIS scope (p.11) requires that the DEIS include accident data for Sound Avenue and
Suffolk County Route 48 in Riverhead, no accident data is included for the portions of the Project truck
route in Riverhead. No attempt was made to obtain information from NYSDOT or the Riverhead Police
Department. The potential for accidents along the Riverhead portions of the Project truck route was
demonstrated in a 2018 accident in which a truck carrying sand overturned just east of the Project truck
route 27 (COMMENT FIGURE TRAFFIC-9).
The DEIS and TIS should have included a crash prediction analysis study for the entire Project truck
route, with special emphasis on Cox Neck and West Mill Roads, and the intersection of Cox Neck Road
and Route 48 (North Road)/Sound Avenue. Crash prediction models have been developed and
methodologies are described in detail in the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials’ (AASHTO) Highway Safety Manual (HSM) and the National Cooperative Highway Research
Program’s (NCHRP) Document 297 Intersection Crash Prediction Methods for the Highway Safety
Manual.
27 https://www.google.com/search?q=riverhead+truck+traffic&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjDiIrdyKT-
AhWMlIkEHYIXDUwQ0pQJegQIAhAC&biw=1078&bih=882&dpr=1.25#imgrc=Oo1Oj_g4bmvjUM
Page | Traffic-16
Damage to Local Roads
The DEIS fails to adequately consider or evaluate the extent of road damage that will occur during the
construction phases of the Project, and does not include the information necessary for the Planning
Board to conduct its own evaluation.
The Planning Board’s 2020 Positive Declaration for the Project notes that “The design and condition of
the roads leading to the site (route) is a concern. Many areas exhibit stress cracks on the pavement. The
design of the roads and the ability to increase traffic, including trucks, is a significant concern”. The DEIS
scope requires the DEIS to discuss “the potential damage and destruction of local and regional roads by
trucks and all other vehicle types involved in the staging, clearing, excavation, site preparation,
construction and post construction and operations of the facility” and “the wear and tear on roadways
caused by vehicle types” (emphasis added) (p.13).
The Planning Board’s May 10, 2022 DEIS inadequacy memo concluded that the original DEIS’ discussion
of potential large impacts to “infrastructure (road damage) along an entire route due to the total
number of vehicles trips proposed” was inadequate. In response, the revised DEIS now includes in
Appendix O the results of a pavement analysis (ESAL & Pavement Thickness Calculations in Response to
Town’s Comments) prepared by TSPE 28.
ESAL is a concept developed from data collected at the American Association of State Highway Officials
(AASHO) Road Test to establish a damage relationship for comparing the effects of vehicle axles carrying
different loads. “Based on computed ESAL values, the thickness of pavement is calculated to find out
how much pavement thickness is required to handle the existing and additional construction traffic”
(TPSE pavement analysis). ESAL values do not quantify how projected traffic loads will accelerate, or
contribute to damage on existing roads.
The DEIS states:
“ESAL are calculated using traffic including the roadway’s Annual Average Daily Traffic
and the results of vehicle classification studies that determine the percentage of heavy
vehicles utilizing the roadway. Table 10 (ESAL for Proposed Truck Route)29 presents the
calculated ESAL for No Build Condition without the proposed construction and the ESAL
for each roadway with the addition of site generated trucks due to the construction of
the project.
28 Tri State Planning, Engineering and Land Surveying, P.C.
29 The Table 10 referred to is in the Pavement Evaluation Report in the Supplemental Data Appendix of the TIS. It is not Table
10 in the DEIS.
Page | Traffic-17
“The ESAL loads are calculated based on a 5-year pavement life in order to take a
conservative approach. Actual pavement life is typically calculated as 20 years. The
comparison of the impact of the projected truck traffic is minimal on all the proposed
truck routes except for West Mill Road which showed an increase in ESAL loading with a
11.14 percent increase and Bergen Avenue, if it is used as an alternative the truck route
[See later Section: Alternate Routing of Haul Material]. While the increased ESAL
loadings by percentage are significant, the significance is due to the existing light traffic
volumes found on the roads. The number of ESAL loads projected to occur on West Mill
Road are approximately one tenth of those projected to occur on Cox Neck Road. TSPE,
as part of the pavement evaluation, also examined the ability of [the]Town of Southold
standard pavement section with 1.5 inches of top, 2.5 inches of binder and 4.0 inches of
stone or recycled concrete base will support the expected loads from the project truck
traffic. The TSPE Pavement Evaluation Report can be found in the Supplemental Data
Appendix of the TIS” (p.223).
There are numerous problems with the pavement evaluation study which call its conclusions into
question.
First, each of the calculation sheets included in TPSE’s pavement analysis states that “calculations were
taken from Figure 4-1 of the NYS Comprehensive Pavement Design Manual (June 2000)”.30 The Manual
includes an ESAL calculator in the form of an Excel spreadsheet 31 which is identical to the calculation
sheets used by TPSE and included in the TIS Supplemental Data Appendix (in DEIS Appendix O). Chapter
4 of the Manual, where Figure 4-1 and the associated spreadsheet are found, is entitled “New
Construction/Reconstruction.” Figure 4-1 and the associated spreadsheet used by TPSE were NOT
intended for use in evaluating existing roadways. TPSE could have included as part of their analysis the
procedures in the Manual’s Chapter 2 “Evaluation of Existing Pavements”.
Second, the new road construction model used by TPSE to calculate ESAL requires that the percentage
of “Heavy Trucks Class 4 or greater” be estimated. As the DEIS states, ESAL calculations require “results
of vehicle classification studies.” As noted above in the discussion of vehicle classifications, the DEIS (and
the TPSE pavement evaluation study) consistently lumped all truck traffic, regardless of vehicle
classification, into a single group. As a result, TPSE has assumed that the heavy truck percentage along
the truck route in Southold will be: West Mill Road (5%), Cox Neck Road (7%), and Sound Avenue (6%).32
These percentages ignore the fact that virtually all of the increase in heavy truck traffic on West Mill and
Cox Neck Roads during Project construction will be in one of the heaviest truck categories--notably Class
30 TPSE did not use the most current version of that document. Revision 1 was issued in 2002. However, the ESAL calculator
does not appear to have changed as a result of the revision.
31 https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/design/dqab/cpdm/repository/chapter4.pdf
32 These numbers are also inconsistent with the numbers provided in the DEIS and TIS (DEIS p.200-201, TIS p.23).
Page | Traffic-18
10 22-wheel tractor trailers. The result is a significant underestimate of the ESAL increase associated
with Project construction. As noted above in the section on vehicle classification, the increase in Class
10 traffic on West Mill Road during Project construction will be on the order of 2000%. The increase on
Cox Neck Road will be on the order of 8000%. These increases are not taken into account in TPSE’s
calculations. As a result, tables (items 8 and 9) in the TSPE analysis, which compare calculated increases
in total ESAL values from the “no build condition” to the “build condition” along Cox Neck and West Mill
Roads underestimate the actual ESAL increase.
Third, the new road construction model used by TPSE to calculate ESAL also requires that a “Truck
Equivalency Factor (avg ESAL per truck)”33 be included in the model. All of TPSE’s calculations employ a
Truck Equivalency Factor of 1.35—the default value in the calculation spreadsheet. According to the
AASHO, triple-axle sets like those on the 22-wheel tractor trailers that will used by the Project, will likely
have a truck equivalency factor closer to 1.66. One state DOT has indicated that a TEF of 2.24 should be
used for Class 10 vehicles.34 One study has concluded that estimated errors associated with the truck
classification variable used for ESAL predictions can range from ±10 to ±100 percent. The use of the 1.35
default value in TPSE’s calculations has likely further resulted in an underestimate of the ESAL increase
associated with the Project.
Fourth, TPSE has assumed in their calculations that the construction year for the Project will be 2023,
when most construction take place in 2024, at the earliest.
Finally, TPSE’s calculations are based on the unsupported and erroneous assumption that Cox Neck and
West Mill Roads, and Sound Avenue, were constructed in accordance with the Town of Southold’s
current highway specifications (Chapter 161 of Town Code)35. They were not. They are not
“engineered” roads as reflected in the Planning Board’s concern with the “design and condition of the
roads leading to the site.” Chapter 161 was first approved in 1993 and states that the “specifications set
forth in the following chart shall apply to all constructed roadways after April 20, 1993.”36 The
specifications apply to newly constructed roads, not existing ones. Section 161-26 of the Town Code
authorizes the Superintendent of Highways to direct that cores be taken every 500 feet along newly
constructed roads and have them analyzed by “a reliable testing laboratory which has the approval of
the Town Engineer” to confirm that construction specifications were met. TPSE should have taken
33The effect of heavy loads on pavement damage, such as fatigue cracking and rutting of asphaltic concrete pavements, has
traditionally been expressed using the concept of axle load equivalency factors (truck equivalency factors). General Axle Load
Equivalency Factors, Transportation Research Record 1482.
34 Alaska Flexible Pavement Design Manual, Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, Effective 7/1/2020.
35 Southold Code Sections 161.21–23 call for new asphalt roads to have a 4-inch base course, a 2.5-inch binder course, and a
1.5-inch wearing course. The Sound Avenue portion of the truck route is in Riverhead—not Southold.
36 Cox Neck and West Mill Roads were dedicated in 1907 (Southold Town records Liber K pp.212-225). The DEIS (p. 225) notes
that in recent years only resurfacing of these roads has taken place or is planned. There is no evidence that either road has
undergone any significant reconstruction since their original dedication.
Page | Traffic-19
sample cores along Cox Neck and West Mill Roads and Sound Avenue to determine the actual structure
of the pavement on those roads. They could also have enquired of the Southold and Riverhead
Superintendents of Highways if information on pavement thickness along the truck route was available.
They did neither.
The last factor is significant because TPSE’s conclusion that existing pavement thickness on West Mill
and Cox Neck Road is adequate to support the increase in traffic associated with the Project. Without
knowing the actual existing pavement thickness along Town roads, it is not possible to determine if
existing pavement thickness will be able to support the ESAL increase associated with the large number
of 22-wheel tractor-trailer trips that the Project will generate.
Even if one accepts as valid, the calculations derived by TPSE, it should be noted that TPSE’s conclusions
that the “the roads along the designated truck route are adequate to carry expected Project-generated
traffic” and, that “the combined small vehicle and large vehicle increase in traffic [along Cox Neck
Road/West Mill Road, particularly the section north of Breakwater Road], even with the additional truck
loading from site generated construction, should be tolerated by the existing road structure” (DEIS pp.
xviii, 223; TIS p.82) refers only to the thickness of existing pavement. This is NOT the same as saying
that Project-generated traffic will not result in increased damage to the roads that make up the truck
route. TPSE’s conclusion could easily be misinterpreted by readers of the DEIS, in spite of the fact that
common sense dictates that the increase in truck traffic will be result in accelerated damage to local
roads.
The pavement evaluation included in the TIS should have included a Pavement (Present) Serviceability
Index (PSI) evaluation. PSI is a parameter that accounts for the loss in serviceability. It is obtained from
measurements of roughness and distress, e.g., cracking, patching and rut depth at a particular time
during the service life of the pavement. “Roughness is the dominant factor in estimating the PSI of a
pavement. . . The major factors influencing the loss of serviceability of a pavement are traffic, age, and
environment.”37 Recent studies have found that the high volume of overweight permit trucks, such as
the out-bound Project haul trucks, contribute disproportionately to the damage to New York State
highway infrastructure systems, and reduce the service lives of pavements.38
It is obvious to anyone traveling the proposed Project truck route in Southold that the roads are in poor
condition (see COMMENT FIGURE TRAFFIC-5). According to the DEIS “The Town Highway Department
has indicated that resurfacing should be delayed until it is determined how the SYC project will be
conducted, preferring to perform the resurfacing after that work is complete” (p. 221).
37 AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures 1993.
38 Ghosn, Michel et al., 2015, Effects of Overweight Vehicles on NYSDOT Infrastructure. University Transportation Research
Center - Region 2
Page | Traffic-20
The statement (item 13) in the TPSE pavement evaluation that “the roads along the designated truck
route are adequate to carry the expected project traffic” fails to take into account the current
condition of local roads, is based on multiple unsupported assumptions, and does not evaluate the
extent to which local roads will be damaged by Project-generated traffic.
According to a US Government Accountability Office (GAO) report39
“[a]lthough a five-axle tractor trailer will be loaded to the current 80,000-pound Federal
weight limit weighs about the same as 20 automobiles, the impact of the tractor-trailer
is dramatically higher. Based on [American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials] data, and confirmed by its officials, such a tractor-trailer has
the same impact on an interstate highway as at least 9,600 automobiles. Increasing
truck weight causes an ever increasing rate of pavement damage (GAO 1979: ii). The
GAO report also concludes that “the amount of pavement damage varies depending on
the number of heavy trucks in the total traffic volume and the related axle weights.
Assuming pavement damage caused by a 2,000-pound automobile axle is one unit, then
the pavement damage by 100 such automobile axles would be 100 pavement damage
units. Damage caused by a single 18,000-pound and a 20,000-pound truck axle would
equate to 5,000 and 7,550 pavement damage units, respectively. As the number or
weight of heavy truck axles per 100 vehicle axles increases, pavement damage increases
exponentially” (emphasis added) (GAO 1979:23).40
The GAO conclusions are based on what is known as the Generalized Fourth Power Law. It’s a rule of
thumb for comparing the amount of pavement damage caused by vehicles with different weights, in
terms of axle loads and equates pavement deterioration with reduced/loss of pavement serviceability.41
Assuming that an average two-axle vehicle, like a car or SUV, weighs 4000 pounds—or one ton on each
axle, and Project haul trucks will average nine tons (18,000 pounds) on each of their six axles, the
Generalized Fourth Power Law indicates that each loaded haul truck leaving the Project site will have
the same effect on Project roads as more than 6,500 2-axle vehicles.
In conclusion, the DEIS fails to adequately address the degree to which the Project will contribute to,
and accelerate, damage local roads.
39 Comptroller-General's Report to the Congress Excessive Truck Weight: An Expensive Burden We Can No Longer Support (CED-
79-94) 1979, U.S. Government Accountability Office, Washington DC.
40 Some sources criticize the 9,600 figure, underscoring the fact that the AASHO Road Test, which is the basis for the GAO’s
conclusion, was partially conducted on under-designed pavement, not properly designed highways. However, Cox Neck
Road and West Mill Road are under-designed, and are not “properly designed highways.”
41 The associated equation is (w1/w2)4, where W1 is the weight of an axle on vehicle 1, which is compared to W2, the weight of
an axle on vehicle 2.
Page | Traffic-21
Proposed Mitigation
The measures described in the DEIS to mitigate traffic impacts, including road damage, are
inadequate, vague, incomplete, and unacceptable as proposed.
The DEIS scope states that “Potential mitigation measures to reduce potential [traffic] impacts will be
identified.” The scope also calls for a discussion of “the potential increase in . . . traffic and if trucks
should be limited to certain hours, low speeds and the number of trucks per day” (p.13), and for the
DEIS to “[D]iscuss how streets will be repaired” (p.14).
The Planning Board, in its May 9, 2022 memo on DEIS inadequacies, reports that the original DEIS had
not adequately addressed mitigation of traffic impacts and found that the DEIS needed to provide “a
more accurate and detailed discussion on the: . . . mitigation proposed to address potential adverse
impacts from the total number of trucks on the quality of life, community character and infrastructure
along the route.” The Applicant’s annotated version of the Planning Board’s May 10, 2022 adequacy
determination memo, submitted with the revised DEIS, indicates that the requested information has
been “included.” In reality, the revised DEIS includes only a slightly elaborated discussion relating to the
post-construction treatment of road damage. It does not address means of lessening that damage
during the construction period. No additional details about traffic impact mitigation measures are
included in the revised DEIS. It does not address the possibility of reducing the number of trucks per day,
as requested by the Planning Board. The revised DEIS does include information on Project alternatives
which it believes would reduce traffic impacts (discussed below), but these are not part of the proposed
Project. Traffic impact mitigation proposed in the DEIS is discussed below.
The DEIS states that “[A]ll trucks associated with the construction of the proposed action will be limited
to traveling at 30 mph on West Mill Road and all neighboring roads. The posted speed limit on West Mill
Road is 35 mph” (pp. xxxvi, xxxix, 229, 293, 298, 334). This is incorrect. The current posted speed limit is
30 mph.42 The DEIS and the TIS (DEIS Appendix O) claim that the “proposed 30 miles per hour maximum
speed to be observed by Project trucks on Cox Neck Road/West Mill Road will mitigate the concerns of
the community” (DEIS p.218; TIS p.73). This assumption is not supported by any data, and is incorrect.
The Applicant has made no attempt to determine if the proposed 5 mph reduction in the speed of
Project haul trucks, effectively only on Cox Neck Road, will “mitigate concerns of the community.” The
Applicant’s offer to have construction trucks abide by the posted speed limit on West Mill Road is
effectively meaningless. It is not mitigation and will not mitigate “the concerns of the community.”
The DEIS states that the “current speed limit is 35 miles per hour and could be reduced to 30 or even 25
miles per hour for the duration of the construction activity. The speed limit change would require
42 Traffic count video equipment was observed attached to a 30-mph speed limit sign [COMMENT FIGURE TRAFFIC-6]. The
southerly end of Cox Neck Road is posted at 35 mph. The 30-mph limit is posted starting north of the junction with
Breakwater Road. The DEIS (p,198) notes that the posted speed limit on Breakwater Road is 30 mph.
Page | Traffic-22
approval of the NYSDOT or the Southold Town Board depending on the Town’s ability to set speed
limits” (emphasis added) (DEIS p.225). There is no explanation of why, if the Applicant can require
Project trucks to limit their speed to 30 mph on Town roads, he cannot require a limit of 25 mph, or why
this is an action that must be taken by the Town of Southold.43
The DEIS scope notes that “Many areas [of the truck route] exhibit stress cracks on the pavement”
(p.11). The DEIS offers as a “suggested,” “potential,” mitigation measure “monitoring and repairing
damage to Cox Neck Road/West Mill Road during the construction period (DEIS p. xix, 228). (Note that
Sound Avenue in Riverhead is not included). However, the DEIS also states that “Applicant will commit
to quickly repairing any potholes that appear in the roadway during the construction activity” (emphasis
added) (DEIS pp. xxxvi, xxxix, 224-5, 228, 298). The DEIS also states that during “the construction period,
Cox Neck Road/West Mill Road will be monitored daily to detect any rough surfaces or potholes that
develop [and that] roadway imperfections will be corrected by forces employed by the applicant” (DEIS
pp. xxxvi, 229).
The commitment to repair potholes and “roadway imperfections” is not adequately discussed. Road
damage, in addition to potholes, may include cracking, rutting, and the crushing of the edges of the
travelway.44 Cracks, potholes and rutting could all be significant issues given the heavy loads involved 45
and that peak haul truck traffic volumes will occur during the winter and spring, when freeze/thaw
activity will exacerbate potholing. The DEIS contains no description of how procedures to repair
potholes will be implemented, even though the DEIS scope calls for a discussion of this issue (p.14). No
definition of the word “quickly” is provided. Does this mean daily, weekly, or less frequently? How will
work be completed during winter months when asphalt plants are closed? Will temporary repairs be
with “throw and go” asphalt?46 Will this work be completed by Project personnel or subcontracted?
When will repairs take place? If during work hours, will it interfere with construction traffic (as well as
non-Project traffic)? Or will it take place at night? These factors have not been considered in evaluating
traffic impacts.
43 The Town of Southold is presently considering lowering the speed limit on Town-owned roads to 30 mph due to population
increases over time and the need to improve pedestrian safety. https://www.newsday.com/long-island/suffolk/southold-
transportation-commission-
i59hrhkv?utm_term=sub&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Mattituck&lctg=2f5d188ab3c70e9
a92b520ea87ba98bd3d83c74704cee45b9a9b42e5e68e4fe3
44 Most of Cox Neck Road and West Mill Road have no paved shoulders. Paved surfaces are limited to the actual travelway.
This is clearly a concern, witness the fact that the Applicant has proposed installing a temporary recycled concrete aggregate
(RCA) shoulder along short stretches of West Mill Road, north and south of the proposed haul road exit (DEIS p.212).
45 Gillespie et al (1993), Effects of Heavy-Vehicle Characteristics on Pavement Response and Performance, National Cooperative
Highway Research Program Report 353.
46 When those potholes pop up in winter, they are often only treated with temporary, “throw and go” loose asphalt. This is
because a more permanent repair with standard hot-mix asphalt requires that all loose debris and moisture be absent from
the hole to allow the new filler to affix to the surrounding surfaces. In colder months, asphalt plants shut down because hot
mix can’t be delivered and applied in time before the mix cools.
Page | Traffic-23
The DEIS also includes the following as mitigation: “[A] survey of the pavement condition would be done
prior to the commencement of construction and the roadway would be resurveyed following the
completion of the Project. In concert with Town of Southold Highway Department (but not the
Riverhead Highway Department), the before and after surveys will be reviewed, and if damage did occur
due to the construction, the appropriate measures will be taken to correct it” (pp. xviii, xxxix, 223, 226,
228, 298). The proposal to conduct pre- and post-construction surveys is appropriate. However, as
worded, the DEIS is unclear as to how it will be determined that damage is “due to construction.”
Presumably, some damage will result from non-Project vehicles accelerating damage when passing over
areas damaged by Project vehicles.
The December 2021 version of the DEIS noted that Southold Highway Superintendent advised that a
resurfacing of Cox Neck Road from North Road (CR 48) to Bergen Avenue with 1-1/2 inches of Type 6
asphalt was planned for 2021. The revised November 2022 DEIS now says the Superintendent says that
that work “should be delayed until the it is determined how the SYC Project will be conducted,
preferring to perform the resurfacing after that work is complete” (DEIS p.202). The delay in resurfacing
of Cox Neck Road until after Project construction is complete is understandable. However, it also means
that Cox Neck Road will continue to deteriorate, exacerbating traffic-generated noise and vibration, and
will continue to do so until Project construction is complete. That is not likely to happen before 2025, if
ever. In the meantime, Southold residents travelling on Cox Neck Road have to endure continuously
deteriorating road conditions. A report from the American Automobile Association found that in 2021,
one in ten drivers sustained vehicle damage significant enough to warrant a repair after hitting a
pothole. With an average price tag of almost $600 per repair.
The DEIS scope calls for a discussion of “specific provisions for a performance guarantee to assure
appropriate reclamation/restoration of any areas (including local roadways) that may be required, or in
the event that the Project does not come to completion after a specifically defined period of time”
(p.14). The revised DEIS now states that “at the request of the Town, SYC would be willing to sign a
corporate guarantee for the repair of any road damages to pre-development condition” (DEIS pp. xxxvi,
xxxvi, xxxix, 226-7, 228, 298).47 The DEIS does NOT discuss the “specific provisions” of the offered
corporate/performance guarantee as called for in the DEIS scope. The Applicant must be required to
provide a bond to ensure that road restoration takes place. This is especially essential to ensure that
roads will be repaired in the event that the Project does not proceed beyond the excavations phases, is
not completed, is indefinitely halted, halted for an extended period, or if the Applicant (SYC) should
declare bankruptcy. The Planning Board’s May 10, 2022 memo on the inadequacies of the December
2021 version of the DEIS stated that the discussion of performance guarantees needs to include “all
impacted roadways or Townships” (emphasis added). The DEIS does not include any reference to
performance guarantees discussed with the Town of Riverhead.
The DEIS scope (p.12) calls for the DEIS to discuss “what temporary traffic signals will be considered.
What traffic control measures will be implemented? Discuss what private resources that will be required
47 Does this commitment also apply to portions of the Project truck route in Riverhead?
Page | Traffic-24
to control traffic”. In response, the DEIS offers as a “suggested,” “potential,” mitigation measure
“making traffic control improvement to the roadways” (DEIS pp. xix, 228). Referring to a location on
West Mill Road, just north of Bergen Avenue, the DEIS and TIS both say:
“No warning signs are posted for either north bound south bound traffic. On the
westerly side of the southern curve guide rail has been placed to prevent vehicles from
leaving the road. The guide rail is substandard and not properly anchored on the ends.
We question whether the two curves should be posted with curve warning signs
indicating the “S” curvature of the road and the use of additional chevron signing along
the back of both curves.
“North of the two curves the roadway straightens out and continues north in a relatively
straight line on gently rolling terrain. West and south of Naugle’s Drive the roadway
turns fairly sharply to the east. Curve warning signs were posted for northbound traffic
approaching the curve and for southbound traffic approaching the same curve. The
southbound signs seem to be placed too close to the curve and chevron warning signs
along the back of the curve would be useful. To the east of Naugle’s Drive West Mill
Road turns to the south and drops vertically. There is a curve warning sign posted for
eastbound traffic and an additional sign stating, “SLOW POPULATED AREA”. That sign is
posted behind a utility pole and not readily visible” (DEIS pp.195-6; TIS p.12).
The DEIS does NOT propose any mitigation to correct these unsafe conditions, presumably leaving that
up to the Town of Southold.
Another traffic control improvement “suggested” in the DEIS is that “Cox Neck Road/West Mill Road be
restriped with shoulder edge lines defining the edge of 10-foot travel lanes”. This would also, presumably, be the
responsibility of the Town. In the absence of a commitment to carry out, or fund, the “suggested”
measures, they cannot be considered mitigation.
No traffic control improvements are proposed as part of the Project. The only off-site traffic control
measure, committed to in the DEIS is the use of flaggers “for maintenance and protection of Traffic [sic]
at locations where severe curves in the truck route or at intersections where turns are being made by
Project trucks that may require crossing of the yellow double barrier lines” (DEIS pp. xxvi, xxxix, 229,
298). The DEIS identifies only one location, West Mill Road east of Naugles Road, where it will be
difficult for the trucks to stay in lane. No other locations are identified. The DEIS text is ambiguous as to
whether the commitment to provide flaggers would also include all “severe curves” where limited sight
distances exist.48
48 The actual wording is “Flaggers will be uses [sic] for maintenance and protection of traffic at locations where severe curves in
the truck route or at intersections where turns are being made by project trucks that may require crossing of the yellow
double barrier lines” (emphasis added).
Page | Traffic-25
Finally, the DEIS has proposed two Project alternatives, which are represented as having the potential to
reduce traffic-related impacts. The first is “an alternative material mitigation plan . . . to reduce the
volume of material to be removed from the subject property by placing approximately 13,500 cy of
material on the R-80-zoned parcel. This alternative material mitigation plan is discussed in Section 5.7 of
this DEIS” (p. 225). This alternative would reduce the number of truck trips along the Project route but
would create other serious negative impacts. It is not part of the proposed Project.
The second alternative presented as a means of reducing traffic impacts is an
“Alternate Truck Route . . . that would reduce the impact of trucks hauling material
from the site. This alternative split arriving empty trucks from departing trucks carrying
excavated material on the south segment of Cox Neck Road. Arriving trucks would
follow the original Truck Route plan, making a left turn from east bound Sound Avenue
onto north bound Cox Neck Road/West Mill Road. Departing trucks hauling material
from the site would utilize West Mill Road/Cox Neck Road and then turn west onto
Bergen Avenue to Sound Avenue. This alternative routing plan is discussed in Section 5.8
of the DEIS” (p.225).
It is unclear how this alternative would “reduce the impact of trucks.” If employed, this Project
alternative will only increase the number of community residents impacted by the Project, because
additional roadways will be incorporated into the Projects truck route, while none would be eliminated.
Project-Related Vehicle Trips During Site Preparation
The DEIS and TIS have not properly assessed, and underestimate, the number of truck trips required
during the Site Preparation/Clearing and Grubbing Phase of the Project
According to the DEIS and TIS:
“[One] truck with 30-yard trailer will be used to remove ground-up debris 3 to 4 times
per day. The truck with trailer will not remain on site but will return to its base each
night. On average, the truck with trailer will generate no more then [sic] one entering
trip every other hour and one exiting trip every other hour. Each piece of equipment will
have an operator (5) and four additional laborers will support the work. Each morning
up to 9 employees and the truck with trailer will arrive at the site and depart at the end
of the day” (DEIS p.211; TIS p.55).
This description fails to take into account that, during site preparation, a 1,454± foot crushed concrete
haul road would be constructed from the proposed Construction Excavation Area to West Mill Road
(p.239). The construction of the haul road is a prerequisite to all on-site work and would have to be
Page | Traffic-26
completed during the two-week long site preparation phase. The DEIS and TIS states that a “temporary
haul road will be developed in the first phase of the project” (emphasis added) (DEIS p.209; TIS p. 53).
According to the Haul Road Plan (DEIS Appendix C, Figure 10)49, the road will vary from 16 ft (along most
of its length) to 30 ft wide. The DEIS estimates that the amount of RCA (Recycled Concrete Aggregate)
required to provide a six-inch horizon for the haul road and shoulders out on West Mill Road is
approximately 700 CY” (DEIS pp. 18, 285).50 This will necessitate a minimum (depending upon the weight
of the crushed concrete) of 24 trips by 30 CY haul trucks to the Project site during site preparation. This
traffic does not appear to have been taken into account in either the TIS (DEIS Appendix O) or the DEIS
even though this was identified as an inadequacy by the Planning Board in its review of the original
DEIS.51 The Project construction schedule (DEIS Appendix F) which lists Project construction vehicles
required during each Project phase also fails to account for these vehicles.
The DEIS implies that all vegetation cleared during the site preparation phase will be removed. This
seems unlikely. According to the DEIS, during the two-week-long clearing and grubbing site preparation
phase “one truck with 30-yard trailer would be used to remove ground-up debris 3 to 4 times per day”
(DEIS p. 211). This translates to a maximum volume of 1,200 CY of vegetative debris. As discussed in
greater detail in comments on the Project’s ecological impacts, the actual volume of vegetative debris
associated with the removal of 634 trees, and their stumps and roots, plus an unknown number of
smaller trees, shrubs and ground vegetation will generate an order of magnitude greater volume of
debris. Based on FEMA data, and data from the tree survey conducted for the Project (Appendix C in
DEIS Appendix S), between approximately 10,000 CY to 12,000 CY of tree debris alone will be created.52
According to FEMA, “Vegetative debris consists of whole trees, tree stumps, tree branches, tree trunks,
and other leafy material. Depending on the size of the debris, the collection of vegetative debris may
require the use of flat bed trucks, dump trucks, and grapple loaders. . . Vegetative debris is bulky and
consumes a significant volume of landfill space if buried.”53 Will the Project require the use of flat-bed
trucks, in addition to feller-bunchers and haul trucks, to remove vegetative debris?
49 The Haul Road Plan is annotated with the words: “CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO EXCAVATION ACTIVITIES.”
50 However, the Haul Road Plan Plan (DEIS Appendix C, Figure 10) indicates that the haul road will consist of eight inches of
recycled concrete over a six-inch stabilized soil base. This discrepancy needs to be resolved.
51 “. . . the estimated quantity of RCA needed to stabilize the access road for use by heavy equipment should be provided and
the analysis of truck trips updated to address the number of truck trips required to bring this material to the site” (NPV p. 5).
The Applicant’s annotated version the Planning Board’s comments indicates that the DEIS text has been revised to address
this issue. It has not.
52 See the Ecology section of these comments.
53 https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DEEP/forestry/icestorm/FEMAVegetativeDebrisEligibilitypdf.pdf
Page | Traffic-27
If the trees being cut and removed from the Project Area are being moved (either off-site or to the R-80
portion of the Project parcel), or ground-up, a significant amount of truck traffic will be generated in
excess of the 80 trips (four round-trips per day for 10 days) claimed in the DEIS to remove the debris
created. The actual number will be closer to ten times that amount.
Truck Trips Required During Phase 3 Construction.
The DEIS has significantly underestimated the number of truck trips required during Phase 3
Construction.
The DEIS states that “[t]hrough consultations with LI Precast 54, it was determined that the total concrete
volume for the proposed Project (i.e., for the concrete in the retaining wall, floor slabs and foundations)
is limited to 5,345 CY, of which the total volume of sand in the concrete is limited to 30 percent or 1,604
CY” (DEIS p.315 and DEIS Appendix U). LI Precast is a supplier of the pre-cast concrete sections that will
be used to construct the Project’s Evergreen concrete retaining wall. These pre-cast concrete sections
will be manufactured off-site (DEIS Appendix H, Evergreen Wall Report55) and generate 60 round-trip
truck trips (120 total trips) for delivery.
Appendix U contains a table labeled “Volume Calculations for Concrete Manufacturing, Strong’s Marina -
Retaining Wall & New Building” prepared by LI Precast. According to that table 1,264 CY of concrete will
be required for the retaining wall. Presumably this in the amount of concrete in the precast retaining
wall sections. However, an additional 323 CY will be required for (retaining wall?) foundations, and
3,759 CY will be required for the floor slabs for the two proposed storage buildings. This means that
4,082 CY of concrete will have to be brought to the site.56
As noted above, according to the DEIS “It is anticipated that Phase 3 would generate a total of 60 truck
trips 57 for the construction of the retaining wall and another 101 truck trips (12 trucks for material
delivery and 89 trucks for concrete foundation) for the two boat storage buildings” (pp. xxx, 19).
Concrete trucks generally carry approximately 10 CY of material per load.58 Assuming 10 CY trucks are
54 http://www.li-precast.com/
55 This report is labeled as a “Draft.”
56 No on-site batch plant is proposed.
57 This is another instance of the DEIS using an incorrect definition of “trip.” The number of trips referred to her refers to round-
trips. The true number of trips is double the numbers stated.
58 The DEIS does not provide information concerning the exact size or weight of concrete trucks that may be used. The revised
DEIS states only that “Concrete will arrive at the site in single unit concrete trucks with a minimum of 3 axles and 10 tires.
The concrete trucks will be no larger than those used for pouring concrete for the construction of single-family homes and
residential pools” (Rev DEIS p. 220).
Page | Traffic-28
used, the 89 truck deliveries would therefore be transporting approximately 890 CY of concrete to the
Project site for foundations and floor slabs. This is far less concrete than the 4082 CY specified in
Appendix U. Assuming 10 CY of concrete can be delivered during each round-trip, approximately 410
round-trips, or 820 total trips will be required to deliver the concrete required for the Project’s
retaining wall foundations and building floor slabs. This is more than four times the number stated in
the DEIS.
Unloaded concrete trucks generally weigh approximately 26,000 pounds. Wet concrete weighs
approximately 4000 pound per cubic yard. A full 10-CY concrete truck therefore has gross vehicle
weight of approximately 60,000 pounds.59
It is also highly unlikely that concrete deliveries will be evenly spaced over the entire six months of the
Phase 3 construction period. The DEIS is not only silent on this point, but fails to include concrete trucks
on the equipment list included in Appendix F.
In addition, the DEIS does not adequately describe the route that will be taken by concrete trucks. The
TIS states that the “materials need for the construction of the buildings, drainage and retaining walls will
all come from suppliers west of the site. Trucks delivering these building materials from the west, will
arrive on Sound Avenue east bound turning north on Cox Neck Road/West Mill Road” (TIS p.64). This
description may not include the trucks required for the delivery of concrete for foundations and floor
slabs. No local concrete suppliers are believed to be located directly along the designated truck route.
Because of their weight, loaded concrete trucks are not permitted on Interstate highways such as the
Long Island Expressway. Trucks delivering concrete to the Project will be traveling and impacting local
roads other than those on the truck route.
The DEIS needs to clarify the number of trips that will be required to deliver concrete, how traffic
volumes and associated traffic impacts evaluations may need to be changed, how the required
number of trips by concrete truck could affect estimates of road damage, and identify potential points
of origin for concrete needed for the Project.
Phase 1 and 2 (Excavation Phase) Traffic Impacts West of Cox Neck Road 60
A comprehensive analysis of potential traffic-related impacts on the portions of the traffic route
between Cox Neck Road and the Long Island Expressway has not been included in the revised DEIS.
The DEIS scope called for the DEIS to “Evaluate and discuss the duration of potential adverse impacts
from all vehicle trip types included in each phase and post construction, the wear and tear on roadways
59 Based on information from the American Concrete Institute. https://www.structuremag.org/?p=10927.
60 SEQRA requires the Planning Board to consider extra-territorial environmental impacts, for example, impacts occurring in an
adjoining municipality (SEQRA Handbook p.172).
Page | Traffic-29
caused by vehicle types, quality of life impacts to the community and receptors along the routes
including adjacent Towns where vehicles will be travelling” (emphasis added) (p.13). The Planning
Board’s May 9, 2022 memo lists as an inadequacy in the original DEIS the fact that the “[truck] route has
not been identified . . . [and that] there is [n]o discussion on the road condition and impacts to Sound
Avenue or other roadways in adjacent Towns . . .” The Planning Board’s consultant’s comments on the
adequacy of the original DEIS clearly states that “the entire construction route should be identified and
evaluated from the subject site to the Long Island Expressway (i.e., West Mill Road, Cox Neck Road,
Sound Ave./Main Road, Northville Turnpike, Route 25, etc.)” (emphasis in original) (NPV p.4).
In response to these comments, the revised TIS now includes a map showing the truck route from the
Project to the Long Island Expressway. The revised TIS also states that “Additional historic data has been
incorporated into the report to cover Sound Avenue between Cox Neck Road and Northville Turnpike,
Northville Turnpike between Sound Avenue and Old Country Road (CR 43), and Old Country Road (CR
58), between the Long Island Expressway and Northville Turnpike. The data was received from the
NYSDOT and included weekday ATR volume and classification counts. The additional data is included in
the Appendix of this Report in the section entitled Supplemental Data” (TIS p. 16). However, it follows
this with the statement that it “should be noted that the above AADT and the traffic volume count data
were not utilized for analysis purposes but were used to define peak periods of highway traffic and are
presented for informational purposes” (TIS pp. 16-17). In other words, these data were not collected
specifically for the Project. As a result, they are qualitatively and quantitatively different from the data
collected for the portions of the truck route in the Town of Southold.
• Traffic count data obtained from NYSDOT is very limited. Data from NYSDOT, now included in
the revised TIS consists of only counts made on: 4 days in August 2019 for the portion of Sound
Avenue from Cox Neck Road to Bergen Avenue; 3 days in August 2018 for the portion of Sound
Avenue from Phillips Lane to Pier Avenue; 4 days in June 2018 for the portion of Northville
Turnpike from CR 58 to CR 105; and 5 days in August 2019 for the portion of Old Country Road
from CR 73 to CR 43.
Not only is this data very limited, in terms of the number of days sampled, it is confined to a
single season, rather than the four seasons required. Additionally, all the data was collected
during the summer, while the greatest impacts associated with increased Project related truck
traffic will occur in the winter.
• Vehicle classification data obtained from NYSDOT is very limited and covers the same dates and
locations as the traffic count data.
• No intersection capacity analyses have been conducted. The intersection of Sound Ave and
Northville Turnpike often has traffic backups associated with left hand turns. No data has been
included that would allow for an assessment of how this situation might be exacerbated by the
addition of Project traffic.
Page | Traffic-30
• No accident data for portions of the truck route west of Cox Neck Road is included in the revised
DEIS or TIS.
According to the DEIS and TIS, in “2018 Northville Turnpike had an AADT of 6,218 vehicles per day of
which 7.84 percent were classified as heavy vehicles. In 2019 Old Country Road had an AADT of 24,585
vehicles per day of which 7.60 percent were classified as heavy vehicles” (DEIS 218-219; TIS p. 76).
However, the percentage of “heavy vehicles” is derived from the fact that all vehicles in FHWA
classifications 4-13 are included in the “heavy vehicle” category. This means that busses, and all trucks
larger than pick-ups, are combined. The net effect is to downplay the significance of increases in 18-
and 22-wheel tractor trailer traffic.
The vehicle classification data included in the TIS Supplemental Data Appendix consists of tables labeled
“Classification Count Average Weekday Data Report”.61 These tables indicate that there will be a
significant increase in the number of Class 10 vehicles (the 22-wheel tractor trailer haul trucks that will
comprise the bulk of Project construction traffic) on the portions of the truck route west of Cox Neck
Road. The daily number of Class 10 vehicles reported varies from 39 on the portion of Sound Avenue
between Cox Neck Road and Bergen Avenue, to 11 on Old Country Road. The number of combined Class
9 (18-wheel tractor trailers) and Class 10 vehicles (together representing the total number of all tractor
trailers), varies from 141 (on a portion of Sound Avenue), to 40 on Northville Turnpike. The addition of a
minimum of 80 Project haul trucks per day on these roads will result in an increase in tractor trailer
traffic ranging from 76% on Sound Avenue, to 200% on Northville Turnpike. Additionally, the number of
tractor trailers travelling Old Country Road to the Long Island Expressway will more than double.
Nothing in the DEIS or TIS supports the conclusion that “Sound Avenue west of Cox Neck Road is well
suited to carry the site related construction traffic.” Nor is there any meaningful analysis of traffic
impacts along the portions of the Project truck route west of Cox Neck Road.
Phase 3 Construction Traffic
The Planning Boards May 10, 2022 memo to the Applicant notes that “Phase 3 would generate a total of
60 truck trips for the construction of the retaining wall and another 101 truck trips (12 trucks for
material delivery and 89 trucks for concrete foundation)62 for the two boat storage buildings, over
approximately 6 months. This would result in 322 trucks passing a single point along the route over 6
months” (p.16).
61 The tables include summary percentages of “heavy truck” traffic. However, the percentages of “heavy truck” traffic given
the tables include vehicle classifications 4-13.
62 The actual number of concrete truck deliveries is estimated to be significantly higher (see discussion, above).
Page | Traffic-31
According to the TIS, “[E]arly in [the Phase 3 Construction Phase] with the retaining wall and drainage
work being done at the same time up to 60 workers maybe on site at one time. The number of workers
will vary after that but will not exceed a maximum of 60” (TIS p. 59). Table 6 (Construction Generated
Traffic) in the TIS provides Project volumes for peak weekday and peak Saturday hours 63, when most site
workers will be travelling to or from the Project site during Phase 3 construction. Table 6 shows that the
Project will generate a total of 72 vehicle trips per hour during both AM and PM and Saturday peak
hours.64
Phase 3 (construction) of the Project, assuming the most optimistic schedule given in the DEIS, would
start early in June 2024 and last until December 2024. This means that Phase 3 construction traffic
would be traveling the Project truck route during all of the summer and fall. This is the period of highest
traffic volumes on Sound Avenue in Southold and Riverhead. Heavy traffic volumes on Sound Avenue,
resulting in bottlenecks at some locations, has been a long-standing community concern65,66 (COMMENT
FIGURE TRAFFIC-7) The DEIS states
“Concern has been expressed regarding the potential impact of Project trucks on
commercial farming operations along the proposed vehicle route. In particular,
operations such as Harbe’s Family Farm on Sound Avenue. These sites are particularly
popular in the summer and fall and roadways they front on can become congested on
weekends. To minimize potential impacts site excavation, hauling and material delivery
to the site will be done during weekdays when activities at these facilities are less
Impactful” (DEIS p. 219).
Limiting some truck traffic to weekdays will not significantly reduce the overall impact of Project traffic.
Given the severity of existing traffic issues on Sound Avenue during the summer and fall months, ANY
increase in traffic on Sound Avenue during the summer and fall months is unacceptable.67
63 Unlike the Excavation phases of the Project, during the Construction Phase, work will be conducted on Saturdays.
64 This includes 60 employee vehicles entering and 10 exiting, plus 1 truck entering and 1 truck leaving, during peak hours.
65 “Middle Road and Sound Avenue have become the bypass routes of choice for many people, but neither road is very well-
suited for bypass traffic. Because these roads and intersections have not been designed to handle heavy traffic volumes,
safety has degraded. Both roadways are lined with residential and agricultural uses that are being negatively impacted by
high-volume, high-speed traffic” (Town of Riverhead Comprehensive Plan).
66 Suffolk Times (July 24, 2012) Traffic problems at Harbe’s farm a concern for Planning Board; Suffolk Times (October 10,
2017) Readers weigh in on fall traffic problem; Suffolk Times (March 1, 2018), North Fork officials come together to talk
traffic woes; Newsday (October 10, 2021) Weekends at the pumpkin patch tie up residents, traffic on the North Fork; Suffolk
Times (October 22, 2021) Southold Town Board discusses bottleneck outside Harbes Farm.
67 “With County Road 48 and Route 25 flooded with cars heading out to enjoy the North Fork, it's not just pumpkin farms or
any one business that's sparking the problems, Southold Town Supervisor Scott Russell said at that meeting and again this
year. ‘It's a volume problem.’ Roadways in town including Peconic Bay Boulevard are frequently backed up as traffic
congestion woes only continue to increase, he said. Riverhead Town Police Chief David Hegermiller said Riverhead is the
"first choking point" as the cars head east. Hegermiller agreed during the harvest season, the volume is the issue. ‘It's like
sand in an hourglass; there's only so much you can put through at one time,’ he said. ‘There are just too many cars on a too
Page | Traffic-32
Miscellaneous deficiencies and discrepancies in the DEIS
Other deficiencies and discrepancies in the DEIS and the Traffic Impact Study call into question its
reliability as a document that can be used for decision making.
• Vehicle classification data is missing for Sunday 11-6-21;
• Vehicle class data collected only hourly in winter, but quarter-hourly in other seasons;
• The description of the proposed Project in the TIS indicates that there are eight existing
buildings on site. One of these is identified as Building 4 (One-story storage [169 SF]. Building 4
does not exist. It was demolished in 2018 (DEIS p.2).
• The revised DEIS (p.202) contains what appears to be a typographical error: “Twenty-eight (38)
of the accidents were associated with the intersection of Cox Neck Road at Sound Avenue/North
Road.” A careful reading of the text indicates that 38—not 28—is the correct number.
• Page 27 of the revised TIS incorrectly identifies West Mill Road as “West Neck Road”.
• The DEIS indicates that ATR (Automatic Traffic Recorder)68 counts were made along Cox Neck
Road and West Mill Road to obtain vehicle classification data. Data in the TIS indicates a
significant increase in the number of Class 7 and larger vehicles traveling Cox Neck Road/West
Mill Road during late spring (early June data) and summer (early August) over that during the
winter and fall. Because vehicle classification recorders rely on axle counts to identify vehicle
class, the high numbers may reflect the large number of towed boat trailers and landscaper
truck-trailer combinations traveling these roads during these periods, rather than “heavy
trucks.” Finally, because there are fewer Class 7 and larger vehicles travelling Cox Neck Road and
West Mill Road during the winter (when Project construction will be underway) does not mean
that such vehicles are not at present causing traffic problems which will only be exasperated by
the Project. See, for example COMMENT FIGURE TRAFFIC-8 showing the effect on traffic of a
boat being towed down West Mill Road during the winter.
lane highway heading eastbound’” https://patch.com/new-york/northfork/surge-fall-traffic-sparks-fury-toll-bridge-suggested.
68 According to the Federal Highway Administration’s Traffic Monitoring Guidebook, Automated Traffic Recorders (ATRs) are
automatic vehicle counters that operate for longer periods of time and are set up for more permanent function (continuous
counts). These devices utilize permanent sensors, such as induction loop detectors, which are installed directly into each lane
of pavement at a count location. An inductive-loop detector senses the presence of a metal object by inducing currents in the
object. It seems likely that the Traffic Study, in fact, employed Accumulative Count Recorders (ACRs) rather than ATRs.
These are automatic counters that can be set up at a location and count continuously for short periods of time (short term
counts) up to several weeks. These devices utilize temporary sensors, with the most commonly used type being pneumatic
tubes ("road tubes") placed in the roadway. Local residents reported observed these tubes during the period when the
traffic study was being undertaken. The DEIS should clarify this point.
Page | Traffic-33
DEIS and TIS Conclusions
Conclusions in the DEIS are either not supported by the data (e.g. “there would be a minimal increase in
traffic from the development of the project”), or deal with post-construction operational impacts.
The revised DEIS states that “The construction of the project will generate a substantial amount of truck
traffic.” (p. xix). However, the DEIS also states that, “[C]onclusions were made regarding the traffic
impact of the development on the surrounding street network based on the data and facts gathered in
[the TIS]” (DEIS pp. xvii, 193; TIS p.8). While those conclusions may be appropriate as they apply to post-
construction operation of the Project, they should not be considered applicable to the construction
phase. For example:
• “The proposed action would result in unavoidable short-term impacts that would occur during
the proposed excavation and construction activities; however, these impacts would be
temporary and cease upon completion of construction of the project” (emphasis added) (DEIS
p.309).
• A temporary increase in truck traffic associated with the site preparation (2 weeks), and
excavation phase (6-7 months) and construction phase (6 months) of the proposed
development. However, as indicated in Sections 3.3 and 3.10 of this DEIS, mitigation measures
have been incorporated into the proposed action to reduce the traffic-related impacts on the
surrounding properties and roadways. Upon completion of construction, the proposed action
will have no adverse traffic impacts post-development” (emphasis added) (DEIS p. 309).
• “As indicated in the TIS, the adjacent highway and street system will be able to accommodate
the proposed project” (DEIS p.225).
• “Although there would be a minimal increase in traffic from the development of the project, the
development of the site, as proposed, will not cause a significant negative impact on traffic
conditions” DEIS p.225; TIS p.96).
• “However, as indicated in Sections 3.3 and 3.10 of this DEIS, mitigation measures have been
incorporated into the proposed action to reduce the traffic-related impacts on the surrounding
properties and roadways’ (p.309).
• “Under the completed project up to 13 new trips would be added to this roadway during the
weekday AM and PM peak hours of traffic. This small number of additional vehicle trips will not
be noticeable and will not affect pedestrians or bicycles using the road” (emphasis added) (DEIS
p.221; TIS p.80)
Page | Traffic-34
• “As previously noted, the only real increase in traffic will come from the 11 new employees that
are expected to be brought on to accommodate the additional work generated by the new
vessels to be stored” (emphasis added) (DEIS p.204; TIS p.38).
• “[as] indicated in the TIS, the results of the unsignalized capacity analysis indicate that the
increased traffic from the project would create negligible traffic impacts once the project is
complete and fully operational” (emphasis added) (DEIS p.225, 216).
• “The intersection capacity analyses conducted to measure the impact of the new site generated
traffic on the surrounding street and highway network indicate the new traffic can be
accommodated with negligible traffic impact” (emphasis added) (DEIS p.226; TIS p.96).
• Although there would be a minimal increase in traffic from the development of the Project, the
development of the site, as proposed, will not cause a significant negative impact on traffic
conditions” (emphasis added) (DEIS p.225; TIS p.96).
It is obvious that almost all of the conclusions in both the DEIS and TIS relate to impacts associated with
the post-construction operation of the Project—not to the significant impacts during the construction
period. This de-emphasis of construction-related impacts seems to be based on the fact that the DEIS
classifies traffic impacts during Project construction as “short-term impacts.” It cites the SEQRA
Handbook’s description of short-term impacts as “the immediate and temporary results of an action, for
example, noise, dust, and truck traffic during construction of a building.”69 This is a cherry-picking of
language in the SEQRA Handbook, and does not take into account that the SEQRA Handbook makes it
clear that short-term impacts can be significant and need to be considered. The SEQRA Handbook is also
clear that short-term impacts must be considered “to the degree they are determined to be relevant
and significant to an action”. The SEQRA Handbook states that:
“Two key characteristics of possible impacts that should be considered in determining
significance are ‘magnitude’ and ‘importance.’ Magnitude assesses factors such as
severity, size, or extent of an impact. Importance relates to how many people are going
to be impacted or affected by the Project; the geographic scope of the project; duration
and probability of occurrence of each impact; and any additional social or
environmental consequences if the project proceeds (or doesn’t proceed). Each impact
of an action must be judged by these two characteristics” (SEQRA Handbook p.76).
There is no question that the orders of magnitude increase in construction vehicles (including thousands
of trips by 22-wheel tractor trailers with a loaded weight of 107,000 pounds) traveling over local roads,
ten hours a day, for months on end, and the impact that will have on community residents, qualifies the
“short-term” increase in truck traffic as “significant.” The impacts associated with the increase in truck
69 The SEQR Handbook, Fourth Edition, NYSDEC (2020), p.79
Page | Traffic-35
traffic over the entire construction period can be considered short-term only because they are not
permanent.
Page | Traffic-36
COMMENT FIGURE TRAFFIC-1
Peterbilt 389 tractor-haul trailer combination dumping sand (4-axle trailer)
Peterbilt 389 tractor with 3-axle trailer (22-wheeler)
Similar to trucks that will be used to haul sand from the Project site
Page | Traffic-37
COMMENT FIGURE TRAFFIC-2
Page | Traffic-38
COMMENT FIGURE TRAFFFIC- 3
Page | Traffic-39
COMMENT FIGURE TRAFFFIC- 4
Haul truck (est. 30 CY capacity) turning onto Cox Neck Road. The truck was delivering fill for a
single residential lot at the corner of Rosewood Drive and Cox Neck Road (Spring 2021)
Page | Traffic-40
COMMENT FIGURE TRAFFIC-5
Photo taken Nov 6, 2021 (Not in DEIS)
Page | Traffic-41
COMMENT FIGURE TRAFFIC-6
Examples of the condition of the pavement along West Mill Road (photo taken January 2023)
Page | Traffic-42
COMMENT FIGURE TRAFFIC-7
Sound Avenue in Riverhead https://patch.com/new-york/northfork/surge-fall-traffic-sparks-fury-toll-bridge-suggested
Page | Traffic-43
COMMENT FIGURE TRAFFIC- 8
West Mill Road
Page | Traffic-44
COMMENT FIGURE TRAFFIC- 9
Route 25 was closed in both directions from the County Road 58 intersection to County Road 105 in
Riverhead most of the day while an accident involving a dump truck that spilled sand on the road was
cleaned up.