Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCross Sound Ferry Rev Site Plan ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM (EAF) PART 3 - EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS (~cluding EAF Parts 1 & 2) Revised Site Plan Application for CROSS SOUND FERRY SERVICES, INC. Orient, Town of Southold Suffolk County, New York NP&V Project No. 97106 June, 2001 Environmental Assessment Form Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM (EA10 PART 3 - EVALUATION OF TI~F~ IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS (including EAF Parts I & 2) Revised Site Plan Application for CROSS SOUND FERRY SERVICES, INC. PreparedBy: Nelson, Pope & Voorhis, LLC 572 Walt Whitman Road Melville, New York 11747 (631) 427-5665 Prepared For: Town of Southold Planning Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 (631) 765-1938 Environmental Assessment Form Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM (EAF) Revised Site Plan Application for CROSS SOUND FERRY SERViCerS, INC. !.0 INTRODUCTION 2.0 PURPOSE OF THIS DOCUMENT 3.0 BACKGROUND TABLE OF CONTENTS 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 COMPARISON OF ORIGINAL (1996) TO CURRENT (2001) PROPOSED PROJECT DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS 5.1 Analysis of General Conditions 5.2 Analysis of SEQR Classification 5.3 Comparison With Prior Positive Declaration 5.4 Analysis of Specific Impacts 5.5 Summary of Mitigation Inherent in the Project CONCLUSIONS ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS APPENDICES Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C EAF Parts 1 & 2 Original Positive Declaration Updated Traffic Impact Analysis Page 1 Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 5 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 7 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 12 Part 3 - Evaluation of the Importance of Impacts Revised Site Plan Application for CROSS SOUND FERRY SERVICES, INC. 1.0 INTRODUCTION The site plan application of Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc., has been pending before the Town of Southold Planning Board since April of 1996. The issue of parking and traffic involving the Cross Sound Ferry terminal has been a matter involving litigation and concern on the part of the Town of Southold Planning Board and community citizens since the commencement of operations of a high-speed, passenger-only ferry between Orient Point and Connecticut in 1995. The Town of Southold Planning Board has maintained a nigh level of involvement in the application, in order to ensure that the site plan requirements of the Town of Southold are abided by, and the duties and responsibility of the Planning Board are fulfilled. The Planning Board has been involved in litigation, court directed negotiations and environmental review, and is intimately familiar with the subject application. This involvement enables the Planning Board to tak~ a "hard look" at the matter before the Board, and reach informed decisions with respect to potential environmental impacts. Tnis Part 3 Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) documents some of the nistory of this application, the evolution of the application before the Planning Board, and the environmental considerations concerning the change in the nature of the proposed project. 2.0 PURPOSE OF THIS DOCUMENT Since the nature of the proposed action before the Planning Board has changed, a Part 3 EAF is believed to be an effective tool for the Board to use as a means of documenting the changes, analyzing the project and presenting the reasoned elaboration that supports a Determination of Significance. The EAF Part 1 is used as an information and screening tool, for initial project review and coordination. The EAF Part 1 was submitted by the applicant in connection with a revised site plan submission that severed the Trust Parcel fi.om the site plan application in May of 1999. A copy is included in Appendix A of this document. The EAF Part 2, is titled Project Impacts and Their Magnitude. This form provides a means of assessing the magnitude of impacts associated with a project and is algo included with Appendix A. The Part 2 EAF indicates the following with respect to potential impacts of a project: Identifying that an impact will be potentially large (column 2) does not mean that it is also necessarily Significant. Any large impact must be evaluated in PART3 to determine significance. Identifying an impact in column 2 simply asks that it be looked at further. Environmental Assessment Form Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. This document provides a Part 3 EAF to further assess the potential impacts of the mended site plan application. It is noted that the Part 2 EAF identified certain impacts associated with the application which warrant further discussion, noted as follows: · Impact on Transportation; · Impact on a Critical Environmental Area; and · Public Controversy Related to Potential Adverse Environmental Impacts. It is noted that none of these issues were found to be potentially large; however, in order to fully disclose potential impacts and present the discussion and analysis which support a Determination of Significance, this EAF Part 3 has been prepared. In addition, the EAF Part 3 documents background with respect to the project, and presents the current and prior application, as related to environmental significance. 3.0 BACKGROUND In April of 1996, Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. submitted a site plan application for the ferry terminal located at Orient Point, pursuant to a request by the Town of Southold Planning Board. The original project involving the Cross Sound Ferry site plan application involved multiple parcels of land identified as follows: [raxlV~ap No, :ParcelNarne .aicreage:: Future, ' ,Exiffing~se , Z0n~ng 1000-15-9-10.1 West Parcel 1.20ac. Same Overflow Long MII Term Parking 1000-15-9-11.1 Terminal Parcel 1.40 ac. Same Terminal Bldg; MII Vehicle Staging 1000-15-9-15.1 Snack Bar Parcel 1.46 ac. Same Snack Bar; Long Mil Term Parking 1000-15-9-3.5 Trust Parcel 2.50 ac. Parking Trust Parcel; R-80 Expansion Vacant Land The three (3) tax parcels involving the existing Cross Sound Ferry terminal operations comprise 4.06 acres of land. In 1996, Cross Sound Ferry proposed a 62% expansion to add the trust parcel of 2.5 acres tO the operation and provide additional parking for the facility. The action at that time was described as follows: To provide additional parking to a previously approved ferry terminal on Route 25 in Orient; in order to accommodate increased demand for parking that has been generated in part by the inclusion of a high speed passenger only ferry service to the existing vehicular ferry service. The Town of Southold Planning Board determined that the project may have a significant impact on the environment and issued a Positive Declaration dated September 16, 1996, thereby requiring the preparation of a Dratt Environmental Impact Statement. Page 2 Environmental Assessment Form Cross Sound Ferr~ Services, Inc. Subsequent to the Positive Declaration, the applicant prepared and submitted a Draft Environmental Impact Statement, which did not receive acceptance by the Planning Board. In addition, on-going litigation involving the Town, Cross Sound Fen3, Services, Inc. and a local organization "Southold Citizens for Safe Roads", proceeded during the period up to the present time. In May of 1999, Cross Sound Ferry severed the Trust Parcel from the application. This occurred as a result of observations of the traffic and parking patterns over the period from 1995 to 1998, which indicated that the Trust Parcel was not needed to provide additional parking for the operation. In addition, there was local opposition to an expansion of the parking area. As a result Cross Sound Ferry severed the Trust Parcel from the site plan application. At the time of the amended application, the applicant submitted additional environmental documents and traffic impact studies. The Planning Board has had the benefit of the following supporting environmental and traffic documents: · Traffic Assessment of Existing Cross Sound Ferry Services (updated March 1999, prepared by Dunn Engineering Services) · Traffic Impact Study for Proposed Cross Sound Ferry Parking Lot Expansion (September 1997; prepared by Dunn Engineering Associates) · Addendum and Full Environmental Assessment Form for the Revised Site Plan Application for Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. (May 1999; prepared by Inter-Science Research Associates, Inc.) In addition, the Board has had updated and supplemental traffic impact analysis prepared by Nelson, Pope & Voorhis, LLC, in connection with this EAF Part 3. It is noted that the application before the Town is for review of three (3) ferry related use parcels as an integrated unit. The west parking lot, approved in 1995, already provided for a much needed increase in parking spaces. And the terminal parcel used primarily for offices, site entry, and stacking for loading of vessels has experienced modifications to improvements these operations. The purpose of the current site plan is to further improve the facility by improving existing parking facilities, drainage, aesthetics, and safety to accommodate the nature of the current use. 4.0 COMPARISON OF ORIGINAL (1996) TO CURRENT (2001) PROPOSED PROJECT The proposed project is substantially different from the project which was pending before the Planning Board in 1996 and received a Positive Declaration. The 1996 application involved a 62% expansion of the ferry terminal's land area. The expansion went beyond the operational area of the ferry terminal, and utilized a 2.5 acre additional parcel that is zoned R-80 for single family residential use on 2-acre lots. The expansion parcel would have involved the physical alteration of the additional area for the purpose of parking, in a Critical Environmental Area, expanded the use beyond the M II (marine transportation & recreation) zoning area, and encroached within a residential zone. Page 3 Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. The subsequent removal of the Trust Parcel from the pending application completely changes the nature of the application. The project as currently proposed, involves a site plan for the existing Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. parcels within the configuration of the existing facility. The project description, as provided in the revised site plan application, is written as follows: Cross Sound Ferry operates a ferry terminal with car-carrying vessels and walk-on passenger services between Orient Point, New York and New London, Connecticut. The ferry route provides an important inter-state transportation connection and assists in providing an alternative transportation connection to and from Long Island. In response to customer needs, and to provide additional walk-on passenger capacity and improved service, Cross Sound Ferry added a high-speed, passenger-only ferry service in the mid-1990's. Cross Sound Ferry currently operates this high speed passeng*r only ferry from the Orient Point Terminal, providing connection to New London which serves as a link to the Foxwoods Casino in Connecticut and other passenger-only destinations. This service involves scheduled daily departures and arrivals and necessitates the short term parking of cars for the walk-on passengers which use this service. Over the past several years, the intensity of use of this service has stabilized, and the operation of this service is considered in the traffic evaluations, parking needs, and site plan/operation improvements plan proposed by Cross Sound Ferry and under consideration by the Planning Board. Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. requests site plan approval from the Southold Town Planning Board for the existing and on-going operations currently occurring on the project site. In addition, the proposed action includes facility improvements on the eastern parcel referred to as the Snack Bar parcel, as well as operational improvements to the parcel referred to as the Terminal Parcel (west of the terminus of NYS Route 25). Those improvements which are design oriented, are incorporated into the site plan as follows: · Continue Existing Parking on the Snack Bar Parcel: The applicant has used the Snack Bar Parcel for terminal parking and will continue to do so; Proposed Improvement of Vegetative Buffer: Cross Sound Ferry has prepared and submitted a planting plan to enhance and augment the existing vegetative buffer around the perimeter of the Snack Bar Parcel and provide a natural buffer planting area east of the Snack Bar Parcel; Proposed Re-Grading and Application of Stone/Gravel to Snack Bar Parking Area: To eliminate the ponding of water during significant rainfall and reduce the number of existing potholes, the Snack Bar parking surface will be re-graded and surfaced with clean stone/gravel (these improvements will improve customer safety and drainage facilities); Proposed Installation of Curb Stops and Guard Rail Fence: Cross Sound will install segments of curb stops and guard rail fence around the perimeter of the gravel parking surface. The curb stops and guard rail fence will function to delineate the overall parking area, and protect the proposed plantings from encroachment by vehicles; Page 4 Environmental Assessment Form Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. Proposed In*tallation of Low Intensity Safety Lighting: For the safety of their travelers, Cross Sound will install low intensity safety lighting on the east boundary of the Snack Bar parking area. All such lighting will be operated by a timer, allowing the lights to automatically shut off after the prescribed period (i.e. one-half hour after the arrival of the last ferry for each business day); and Proposed Cross Walk: For traveler (pedestrian) safety, a cross walk is proposed to be painted across Route 25, between the Snack Bar parcel and the Terminal Parcel (parcel west of Route 25 terminus). The site plan related features are reflected in the formal engineered site plan prepared by a licensed engineer/surveyor and submitted to the Planning Board for site plan approval. The submission includes details of the proposed safety lighting, as well as a landscape plan provkYmg the details of the proposed site landscaping. This EAF Part 3 evaluates the potential environmental impacts of the revised site plan as presented above and reflected in the application currently pending before the Planning Board. 5.0 DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS 5.1 Analysis of General Conditions In general, the revision of the project to sever the expanded parking associated with the Trust Parcel fi:om the application, changes the project such that potential significant environmental impacts are avoided. The Trust Parcel represented a 62% expansion of land area and an encroachment of operations into residential areas beyond the M II zoned land, with physical alteration and associated impacts. The Trust Parcel is zoned R-80, and could not be used for ferry terminal purposes absent a variance for parking or a change of use. The current site plan involves only the existing Terminal parcels owned and operated by Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. These parcels are currently zoned M II which specifically authorizes the Ferry terminal use. The site plan modifications are improvements to the current facility which as noted in the project description above (Section 4.0) involve: continued parking on the Snack Bar Parcel; landscape improvements around the Snack Bar Parcel; regrading, stabilization and provision of drainage facilities for the Snack Bar Parcel; installation of curb stops and guard rail fence; installation of low intensity safety lighting, and striping of a proposed cross walk on part of the New York State Route 25 property. All of these measures involve minimal alteration of the site. All of these measures represent an improvement in safety, pedestrian circulation, aesthetics and environmental control. Since there are no major site alterations, no expansion of the structures associated with the current facility, and all proposed modifications represent improvements to the site, there is an initial perception that the project will not cause significant adverse environmer~tal impacts based on an analysis of general conditions. Additional, more detailed analysis is provided in the following sections. Page 5 Environmental Assessment Form Cross Sound Ferr? Services, In~ 5.2 Analysis of SEQR Classification The original proposed project which involved a 62% expansion of the terminal land area, with additional parking and encroachment into the residential zone, beyond the MII zone, was determined to be a Type I action under the State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) Act. A Type I action is an action that is more likely to require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) than an Unlisted action. The project received a Positive Declaration, thus requiring the preparation of an EIS. The revision of the site plan application, by deleting the Trust Parcel, warrants additional consideration regarding SEQR classification. The current project does not propose an expansion of the facility, does not encroach within residential zoned land beyond the bounds of the Mil district, and does not involve significant physical alteration of the project site. It is noted that the project has some characteristics of a Type II action, which would not require any review under SEQR. Specifically, Type II actions are defined under SEQR 617.5 (c). One Type II action [617.5 (c)(2)] is defined as follows: "replacement, rehabilitation or reconstruction of a structure or facility, in kind, on the same site .... unless such action meets or exceeds any of the thresholds in section 617.4 of this Part". The facility will be rehabilitated in-kind and none of the other thresholds in 617.4 will be met or exceeded. However, the action is controversial and involves a site plan decision for site plan modifications including: parking lot grading and drainage, and the installation of lighting, landscaping and pedestrian circulation. As a result, this analysis finds that a conservative classification of the project as an Unlisted action is appropriate. This enables the Planning Board to take a "hard look" at the project, and come to an informed decision regarding the potential environmental consequences of the site plan application. With regard to the Type I action list contained in SEQR 617.4, the proposed project does not meet any of the criteria which would result in classification as a Type I action. Listed actions 1- 4 involve adoption of community plans, changes of zoning and allowable uses, and acquisition of land by government. Listed action 5 involves residential use. Listed action 6 involves non residential facilities; however, an action must involve physical alteration of more than I 0 acres. The area proposed to be modified is approximately 1.46 acres, and modifications involve regrading an existing parking lot and adding drainage and landscape improvements. Listed actions 7-9 involve structures of 100 or more feet in height, actions in agricultural areas, or actions within or substantially contiguous to historical buildings, facilities, sites or districts. Listed action 10 involves an action that exceeds 25 percent of any of the thresholds and occurring within or substantially contiguous to publicly owned parkland. There is a County Park to the north, that is separated from the site by a State highway (NYS Route 25). In addition, the area proposed to be physically altered involves 1.46 acres of land associated with limited surfacing and drainage improvements on the existing snack bar parcel parking area; 25 percent of 10 acres would require alteration of 2.5 or more acres. The f'mal listed action in the Type I list (11) involves any Unlisted action that exceeds a Type I threshold established by an involved agency pursuant to SEQR 617.14. Review and analysis of the Type I list therefore finds that the action associated with the current (2000) site plan is appropriately classified as an Unlisted action under SEQR. Page 6 Environmental Assessment Form Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. 5.3 Comparison with Prior Positive Declaration The Positive Declaration issued by the Planning Board for the original site plan application is dated September 16, 1996, and is included as an Appendix B to th/s document. The Planning Board provided ten (10) reasons as to why a Positive Declaration was appropriate for the project as proposed at that time. The current (2000) revised site plan addresses the issues which formed the basis for the original Positive Declaration. The revised site plan not only removes the expansion of parking and use areas associated with the Cross Sound Ferry terminal, but also incorporates site plan features that address drainage, aesthetic, and safety issues that were also of concern to the Planning Board in 1996. In order to document the original reasons for the Positive Declaration, and the changes and mitigation represented by the current application, a matrix has been prepared. This matrix, included as Table 1, is titled "Analysis of Reasons for the Original Positive Declaration in Consideration of Current Site Plan", and is included on the next page. The matrix lists each of the original reasons for the Positive Declaration, and provides a discussion/reason for a current £mding of no significant impact with respect to the current site plan application. The results of this analysis finds that the ten (10) original reasons for the Positive Declaration are not valid with respect to the current site plan application, and no significant adverse environmental impact is expected with respect to the original reasons for the Positive Declaration. 5.4 Analysis of Specific Impacts The EAF Part 2 identified several potential issues of concern; however, none of the potential impacts were found to be potentially large. These issues are noted as follows: · Impact on Transportation; · Impact on a Critical Environmental Area; and · Public Controversy Related to Potential Adverse Environmental Impacts. Although EAF Part 2/3 procedures do not require additional analysis of potential impacts that are small to moderate based on EAF Part 2 review, the Planning Board has conducted additional analysis of each of these issues. Impact on Transportation Transportation impacts have been of concern with respect to the Cross Sound Fen3, terminal operation. Several prior traffic impact reports have been completed for the applicant and are available for review and consideration. These include: · Traffic Assessment of Existing Cross Sound Ferry Services (updated March 1999, prepared by Dram Engineering Services) Page 7 Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc./Part II EAF IMPACT FROM NOISE, ODORS, GLARE, VIBRATION, OR ELECTRICAL DISTURBANCE 16. Will there be objectionable odors, noise, glare, vibration or electrical disturbance as a result of the Proposed Action? __ Yes X No IMPACT ON NOISE (Examples that would apply to column 2) Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school or other sensitive facility. Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day). Proposed Action will produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures. Proposed Action will remove natural barriers that would act as a noise Please list other impacts: IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH AND (HAZARDS) SAFETY 17. Will Proposed Action affect public health and safety? __ Yes X IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH AND (HAZARDS) SAFETY (Examples that would apply to column 2) Proposed Action will cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances (i.e. oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.) in the event of accident or upset conditions, or them will be a chronic low level discharge or emission. Proposed Action will result in the burial of "hazardous wastes" (i.e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc., including wastes that are solid, semi-solid, liquid or contain gases). Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of liquitied natural gas or other liquids. Please list other impacts: Pedestrian safety will be improved through crosswalk striping, and improved circulation and facility operations. 1 2 Small to Potential Moderate Large Impact Impact No 1 2 Small to Potential Moderate Large Impact Impact 3 Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change (Enter Yes or No) 3 Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change (Enter Yes or No) Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc./Part H EAF IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD 18. Will Proposed Action affect the character of the existing Community? __ Yes X No 1 2 IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR Sm~ll to Potential NEIGHBORHOOD Moderate Large (Examples that would apply to column 2) Impact Impact The population of the city, town or village in which the project is likely to grow by more than 5% of resident human population. The municipal budgets for capital expenditures or operating services will increase by more than 5% per year as a result of this project. Will involve any permanent facility of a non-agricultural use on more than one acre in an agricultural district or remove more than 10 acres of (prime) agricultural lands from ealtivatiun. Proposed Action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures or areas of historic importance to the community. Development will in induce an influx of a particular age group with special needs. Proposed A~ion will set an important precedent for future projects. Proposed Action will relocate 15 or more employees in one or more businesses. Please List other impacts: Facility currently exists/operates at the site. IMPACT ON CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS 19. Will Proposed Action impact exceptional or unique characteristics of critical environmental areas (CEA) established pursuant to subdivision 6 NYCRR 617.14 (g) ? X Yes __ No IMPACT ON CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS (Examples that would apply to column 2) 1 2 Small to Potential Moderate Large Impact Impact Proposed action to locate within the CEA. X Proposed action will result in a reduction of the resource.. Proposed action will result in a reduction in the quality of the resource. Proposed action will impact the use, function or enjoyment of the ICSOUrCC, Other impacts: Site use -i~ existing and will not adversely impact a CE~l. X 20. Is there public controversy related to Potential Adverse Environmental Impacts? X Either govemmant or citizens of adjacent communities have expressed opposition or rejected the project or have not been contacted. Objections to the project from within the community. Project has been subject to public hearings and thorough Planning Boa~'d deliberation. Project has been subject to litigation. Planning Board has reviewed all relevant information and input. Yes __ No 3 Can Impact Be MiflgatedBy Project Change (Enter Yasor No) 3 Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change (Enter Yes or No) Environmental Assessment Form Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. APPENDIX B ORIGINAl, POSITIVE DECLARATION Town Hall, 58095 ~ P.o=d P.O. ]~ 1179 Sou~hoM, New ¥~rk 11971 Fsx (516) 765-3156 Telephoue (516) 765-].938 September 17, t996 PI. ANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD William Esseks, Esq. Esseks, Hefter and Angel 408 East Main St. Riverhead, NY ~190'1 Re~- Proposed site plan for Cross Sound Ferry SCTM# 1000-15-9-10.I, t4,1, 15.1 & 3.5 Dear Mr. Esseks: The following resolutions were adopted Dy the Southold Town Planning Board at a meeting held on Monday, September 16, 1996. BE IT RESOLVED ii, at the Southold Town Planning Board. acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, assumes lead agency status on this Type 1 action. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED'that the Planning Board, as lead agency, finds that the action may significantly effect the environment, and makes a determination of a Positive Declaration. Enclosed please find a copy of [he Positive Declarer:ion for your records. Please contact :his ofi~ce within the next week for a scoping session date prior to your compiling the Draft Environmental Impact S:atement. Sincerety, BenneU: Ortowski Acting Chairman enc, Town Hall, .~309~ Iv~aln Road P.O. Bc~ 1179 SoutBold, New York 1197~ F~ (~16) 76~-3136 Tel~hone (516) 76~1958 PLANNING BOAi~D OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD State Environmental Quality Review PosmvE DECLARATION Notice of Intent to Prepare a Draft ElS Determination of Significance September 16, 1996 This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act) of the ' Environmental Conservation Law. The Southold Town Planning Board, as lead agency, has determined that the proposed action described below may have a significant effect on the environment and a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will be prepared. Name of Action: Proposed site plan for Cross Sound Ferry $CTM#: 1000-15-9-10.1, 11.1, 15.1 &3.5 Location: F_JS State Rt. 25 at Odent Point -SEQR Status: Type I ,( X ) Unlisted ) Description of Action: To provide additional parking to a previously approved ferry terminal on Rt. 25 in Orient; in order to accommodate increased demand for parking that has been generated in part by the inclusion of a high speed passenger only ferry service to the existing vehicular ferry service. Ed WclI~; :£0 I00~ EO '~eW ~£'[¢ ~cj.~ '~£9 : 'ON Xbl4 O~ldOl~ 9NINNId']d NFIO/ (I'~OH.LFIOS : WO;~--I SEQP, Positive Oeclaral~on. Cross 8ound Fer~ September 16, 1996 ' ' Reasons Supporting This Determination: The applicant has provided the lead agency with a Long Environmental Assessment'Form. The LEAF has been reviewed by the Planning Board, the Planning Board's Environmental Consultant, and other involved agencies, The Cross Sound project is expected to have a potential significant impact particularly in view of site sensitivity regarding the following issues: The project is a Type 1 action, which is more likely to require the preparation of a Draft ElS. In addition, the project is located adjacent to the surface waters of Gardinere Bay, Which.comprises a portion of the Peconic Bay Estuary, and lies within the Orient Point Critical Environmental Area (CEA). The proposed project may impair the environmental characteristics of this CEA. In addition, the project is in proximity to the Orient Beach State Park and 48+ acres of County owned land. The proposed action will cause a significant increase in.the intensity of land use on the project site, as a function of the expanded parking, demand for parking in connection with ferry operations and on-site traffic circulation for parking access. The proposed action may change the need and use of public and pedes- trian transportation services (including existing' bike trail), and may increase the demand for other community services including fire, police recreational 'facilities and utilities, The proposed action will cause a significant increase in the number of vehicle trips which utilize off-site infrastzucture facilities primarily including existing transportati,on systems. The project may adversely change noise and air quality as a function of increased traffic, and/or may substantially increase solid waste i ' 9eneration. Ex st~ng and proposed site drainage must be analyzed and controlled. Increased intensity of site use for high speed ferry service will increase the use of on-site facilities, particularly sanitary flow and water use, and may result in an adverse impact upon the environment. The project may impact visual and aesthetic resources, particularly as ~ Wd~:£O ~00~ EO 'cew 9£~£ ~ I~0 : 'ON X~ q~08 ~NINN~qd NMOI ~qOH£PO$ : WO~ Septembe~ 16, 1996 regards lighting, and use dudng both daytime and night time hours. The proposed proiect may cause growth inducing aspects associated with the proposed project. In addition, the study of mitigation of potential environmental impacts and alternatives would be facilitated by the preparation of a Draft ElS. The project involves multiple agency jurisdictions and permits, and the comprehensive review of potential impacts would be facilitated through the preparation of a Draft ElS. 10, Impact of passenger only jet boats on marine environment. The Southold Town Planning Board has determined that an Environmental Impact Statement be prepared in order t0-provide a means to assess the significance of the impacts of the project, to obtain input from involved, agencies and the community, and to research possible alternatives and mitigation measures. For Further Information: Contact Person: Robert G. Kassner Address: Planning Board Telephone Number: (516) 765-1938 Southold Town Board Southold Town Building Dept. Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals Southold Town Board of Trustees Suffolk County Dept of Health Services Suffolk County Dept. of Planning Suffolk County Dept. of Public Works Suffolk County Dept. of Parks NYS Dept. of State, Coastal Resources &Waterfront Revitalization Division NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation - Albany & Stony Brook offices NYS Dept. of Transportation - Albany & Hauppauge offices NYS Office of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation U.S. Dept of Agriculture U.S. Army Corp of Engineers Federal Emergency Management Agency ~W W8~:~0 $00~ ~0 '~eW 9~$~ Sgl ;E9 : 'ON ×Wi ~0~ 9NINNS~8 NMOi ~oH£nos : WOa~ Environmental Assessment Form Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. APPENDIX C UPDATED TRAFFIC IMPACT ANAI,YSIS NEI. DN & POPE Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Town of Southold Planning Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 June 7, 2001 Re: Cross Sound Ferry Service Inc. Amended and Full Environmental Assessment Form Traffic Assessment Review N&P No. 97106 Dear Mr. Orlowski: This letter is in reference to the Amended and Full Environmental Assessment Form for the Revised Site Plan for Cross Sound Ferry Services Inc., Orient, Town of Southold. Nelson & Pope has been retained to review prior Traffic Impact Analyses and update such materials as appropriate in order to apprise the Board of any traffic impacts based upon all available data. The purpose of this study is to compare the latest available traffic volume data with previous studies conducted to determine the prevailing parking and traffic conditions on Route 25 in the vicinity of the Cross Sound Fen'y. The State of New York has conducted traffic counts in connection with the "North Fork Recreation of Traffic Needs Assessment" (NFRTNA) program. These counts were conducted during the month of August 1998 and have recently become available. The final report for the NFRTNA is not available at this time. Several traffic studies were prepared as part of the application. These documents reviewed by Nelson & Pope (N&P) include the following: Traffic Assessment of Existing, Cross Sound Ferry Services (updated March 1999, prepared by Dunn Engineering Services. Traffic Impact Study for Proposed Cross Sound Ferry Parking Lot Expansion, (September 1997) prepared by Dunn Engineering Associates. 1999 Traffic Volume Report (March 2000) New York State Department of Transportation. - Correspondence from W. Ugolik, L1TP 2000, North Fork Recreational Needs Assessment (April 13, 2000). Re: Cross Sound Ferry Suae 7, 2001 Page 2 Additionally technical reviews and the responses to review comments were also included in the research for this study. The (N-FRTNA) data have been used to verify the conclusions of the applicant's Cross Sound Ferry traffic assessment and to recalculate the levels of service within the Route 25 highway segments east of Greenport using the most recent traffic volume data available. The Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) reported in the March 1999 Updated Cross Sound Ferry traffic assessments are lower than the volumes reported in the 1999 New York State Traffic Volume Report. Excerpts from the State report are attached (See Attachment 1). The section of Route 25 between Main Street and Narrow River Road is reported by New York State to have an AADT of 5050 vehicles per day in 1999 as compared to the 4200 in 1996 indicated in the applicant's report. The section of Route 25 east of Narrow River Road and west of the ferry terminal is reported to have an AADT of 3600 vehicles per day in 1999 as compared to the 2700 previously reported in 1996. It should be noted that the NYSDOT uses these segments as a broad indicator of traffic activity within the specified section of road. During August of 1996, Dunn Engineering Associates (DEA) also collected additional traffic volumes on Route 25 east of both Narrow River Road and the entrance to Orient Beach State Park immediately west of the entrance to Cross Sound Ferry. In the March, 1999 Traffic Assessment prepared by DEA, they reported a volume of 5620 vehicles per day (ADT). It should be noted that the State generated AADT represented the Average Annual Daily Traffic and thus is proportioned to be an average over the entire year. These values are not directly comparable but are presented lo indicate that actual counts during summer months are greater than average annual data. These August counts reflect the highly seasonal characteristics of the travel patterns on eastern Long Island and these data were used by DEA to project 1998 traffic volumes. The historical AADT data is summarized in the attached NYS 1999 Traffic Volume Data Report (Attachment 1). The NFRTNA data collected in July and August of 1998 has been applied to the roadway study segments included in the Cross Sound Ferry traffic assessment prepared by DEA. The study data available is for the segment of Route 25 west of the ferry terminal. This is the segment of Route 25 between Narrow River Road and the end of Route 25 at the feny terminal. Excerpts of Traffic Volume Data for the NFRTNA are included in Attachment 2. The times and other study parameters have been retained by N&P for the purposes of this evaluation. Only the traffic volumes have been changed so that results could be properly compared. Additionally, the 3% annual growth rote has been applied to project conditions in the current year (2001). The traffic volumes were reported by DEA in the segments east of Main Street between Main Street and Tabor Road, between Tabor Road and Narrow River Road, and between Narrow River Road and Orient. These volumes are conservative based upon the other information now available. We have therefore retained their 1998 projected volumes and expanded them by a 3% annual growth for a three year period to project the 2001 traffic conditions to maintain the conservative methodology of the analysis. This will allow the Planning Board to consider the present traffic conditions on Route 25. Environmental Assessment Form Cross Sound Ferry Service~, Inc. · Traffic Impact Study for Proposed Cross Sound Ferry Parking Lot Expansion (September 1997; prepared by Duma Engineering Associates) In order to update and further evaluate the potential traffic impacts of the project, the Planning Board commissioned Nelson, Pope & Voortfis, LLC to conduct further traffic evaluation· The purpose of the study is as follows: ·.. to compare the latest available traffic volume data with previous studies conducted to determine the prevailing parking and traffic conditions on Route 25 in the vicinity of Cross Sound Ferry". The traffic impact evaluation reviews trends in daily traffic volumes, capacity analysis of road segments east of Greenport, trends in ridership on certain vessels operated by Cross Sound Ferry; a breakdown of traffic volumes based on uses in the vicinity of Cross Sound Ferry, and provides conclusions regarding potential traffic impacts based on these trends. A copy of the supplemental traffic evaluation is provided in Appendix C of this document. It is noted that traffic growth between Main Street, Greenport and Orient Point, is a function of population growth, and the attraction of other destinations, not simply an increase in ferry related traffic. As noted in review of traffic data, traffic volumes are highly variable with seasonal factors as well as background growth, other destinations and ferry related activity, causing fluctuations in volume. Traffic volumes on the east end of Long Island would experience an increase over time, regardless of the introduction of a passenger only ferry, as a result of area growth. The data suggests that traffic volumes on Route 25 are variable and subject to a variety of factors, and that the volume and ridership attributable to Cross Sound Ferry has not increased significantly as a result of the proposed project· This could be a function of the ability of the Cross Sound Ferry services to accommodate a large number of passengers throughout the period of operation of the terminal, coupled with the change in availability of other forms of transportation such as alternative high speed passenger ferry service from Glen Cove to Connecticut. The data also suggests that Cross Sound Ferry is only one component of traffic volume in the area between Greenport and Orient Point, comprising a portion of the car trips in the area of the terminus of NYS Route 25 in Orient, with other trips attributed to Orient Beach State Park, the Plum Island Ferry, Orient by the Sea marina and other services, parkland, sightseers and residents. As a result of this evaluation, the following conclusion is provided with respect to impact on transportation: We are of the opinion, based on the most recent traffic data that the conditions described in the Transportation Summary section of the "Traffic Assessment of Existing Cross Sound Ferry", Updated March 1999, are valid for the year 2001. Based on the review of prior documents and the update conducted herein, we do not expect significant traffic and/or safety impacts as a result of the improvements to the site. Page 9 Environmental Assessment Form Cross Sound Ferry Services, lnc~ Impact on a Critical Environmental Area The applicant addressed the issue of Critical Environmental Area impacts, as well as impacts related to stormwater, sanitary effluent and erosion, as part of a supplemental environmental report submission in connection with the revised site plan. The document, Addendum and Full Environmental Assessment Form for the Revised Site Plan Application for Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. (May 1999; prepared by Inter-Science Research Associates, Inc.) was reviewed and found to contain informative discussion regard'mg CEA's. The following is excerpted from that document to assist the Planning Board in addressing the issue of Impact on a Critical Environmental Area: 6 NYCRR Part 617.2 (j) defines a Critical Environmental Area (CEA) as a "specific geographic area designated by a state or local agency, having exceptional or unique environmental characteristics". In 1986, the Suffolk County Legislature designated County-owned land located to the north and east of the Cross Sound facility as a Critical Environmental Area. Furthermore, in 1988, the County designated all land located immediately within 500 ft. of the shoreline as a CEA. Based upon the County's actions in 1986 and 1988, the project site is located in, and is surrounded by, land designated as CEA. Relationship to the Current Operation: The nearby County property was designated a CEA largely in part due to the Suffolk County Open Space Acquisition Program. The lands within 500 ft. of the shoreline were designated as CEA mainly because of the potential impacts resulting from runoff, sewage effluent and/or erosion on the adjacent bay/estuary areas. The existing facility/project site is located over I00 1.f. from the County-owned CEA land. It is believed that this separation is suff'mient in preventing any physical disturbance to the County property generated by the on-going operation of the Cross Sound Facility. However, the CEA land that runs along the coastline and includes a large percentage of the project site deserves to be addressed more closely. Given that runoff, sewage effluent and erosion have been identified by the County as the principal potential threats to this specific CEA, each of these issues will be discussed separately below: Stormwater Runoff- The existing facility utilizes a drainage system similar to the other parking lots in the vicinity. Stormwater is directed towards French drains and drywells. Furthermore, since a large portion of the existing parking area is surfaced with loose blue stone and/or exposed soil, most rainwater simply permeates immediately through the surface. During unique periods of intense or lengthy rainfall, the stormwater eonlrol structures (i.e. the French drains and drywells) collect and store the runoff generated on the site for eventual groundwater recharge. It should be noted that the on-site drainage plan for the existing West parcel and Terminal Parcels were approved by the Town Engineer and the Snack Bar parcel drainage plan will also require review and approval by the Town Engineer. The addition of drainage on the Snack Bar parcel will be of environmental benefit. Sewage Effluent - Cross Sound provides restrooms in the existing Snack Bar and Ferry terminal buildings. There are no changes proposed to restroom facilities, and no building expansion that would result in the need to increase system capacity or obtain other agency approvals. Page 10 Environmental Assessment Form Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. Erosion - Approximately 95% of the existing operations occurs upland/outside of the designated Coastal Erosion Hazard Area. Those operations that occur below the Erosion Hazard Area (such as passenger and vehicle loading/unloading; vessel docking, etc.) have no other alternative with respect to location. Regardless, based upon the site inspection and consultation with coastal engineers, it has been determined that even the actions that take place below the erosion hazard area do not result in negative impacts, or contribute to the erosion of the adjacent beach or dunes. With respect to the discussion noted above, it is understood that the current on-going operation of the Cross Sound Facility does not have any significant effect on the County-owned CEA land located to the east beyond other privately owned lands and to the north beyond NYS Route 25. Furthermore, the on-site CEA land located along the coastline will continue to function as a buffer and remain an important safeguard against any threat to the Bay. As a result of this information, the project is not expected to have a significant adverse impact on a CEA, nor is the project expected to cause a significant adverse impact with respect to stormwater runoff, sewage disposal or erosion. Controversy Related to Potential Adverse Environmental Impacts The degree of public interest is evident in the litigation that has transpired throughout the review process. The Planning Board must rise above the controversy and fulfill their role in implementing the provisions of the Town Zoning Code and conducting appropriate and fair review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act. The Planning Board has conducted necessary hearings and disseminated information to the pubic as appropriate throughout the review process. The Planning Board has reacted to the submissions of the applicant and completed appropriate reviews in accordance with Town and State regulations and guidelines. The Planning Board has conducted itself as appropriate by direction of the Court with regard to the continuing litigation. At this time, the Planning Board is in the process of reviewing all available information in order to render a SEQR Determ'mation of Significance and decision on the site plan once SEQR is completed. 5.5 Summary of Mitigation Inherent in the Project The Applicant has provided mitigation through project design. Project design features intended by the applicant which are shown on the site plan are noted as follows: · Installation of curb stops along the northern, western and southern borders of the Snack Bar Parcel; · Installation of a wooden or metal guard rail along the length of the eastern border of the Snack Bar Parcel; Page 11 Environmental Assessment Form Cross Sound Ferry Services,/nc. · Grade the parking surface to eliminate depressions and apply stone/gravel to the surface (it is noted that any regulated action within 100 feet of Trustees designated wetlands will require approval of the Town Trustees); · Enhancement of existing vegetative buffers adjacent to the parking areas on the Snack Bar Parcel; · Install low intensity safety lighting for pedestrian safety during evening hours of operation; and · Provide striped cross-walk across NYS Route 25, for pedestrian access between the Snack Bar Parcel and the Terminal Parcel (with appropriate NYSDOTauthorization). These measures minimize potential environmental impacts to the maximum extent practicable, and are inherent in the project design. These measures address long-term concerns of the Planning Board with respect to the Cross Sound Ferry terminal operations regarding drainage, aesthetics and safety. The measures incorporated into the site plan improve site conditions on a site that is akeady in operation. As a result, the site plan is viewed as benefiting the health, safety and environmental conditions of the subject site. 6.0 CONCLUSIONS Potential environmental impacts of the revised site plan application for Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. are evaluated in this EAF Part 3. The evaluation considers the following: · Original end current proposed site plans; · Impact analysis of general conditions; · Analysis of SEQR classification of the project; · Comparison with the prior Positive Declaration · Specific analysis of impacts identified in the EAF Part 2 (including transportation, CEA and controversy); and · Appropriate mitigation measures incorporated into the project. The Planning Board is extremely familiar with the original and current proposed project, the background and history related to the project site, the project site itself, the on-going litigation, and potential impacts of the project. The Planning Board has taken a "hard look" at the potential impacts of the project, and in order to implement the provisions of the Town Zoning Code, as well as the regulations for implementation of SEQR as lead agency in review of the project. Based on the evaluation contained herein, and in consideration of available information, it is concluded that there are no significant adverse environmental impacts anticipated as a result of the revised site plan application of Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. Impacts are either not significant, or are adequately mitigated as a result of the design features inherent in the revised site plan. In addition, the Planning Board fully supports Cross Sound Ferry's efforts to improve operations through measures identified in Section 7.0 of this report. This document fulfills SEQRA requirements for completing environmental evaluation using a Part I, 2 and 3 Environmental Assessment Form, and allows the lead agency to take a "hard look" at the potential impacts of a project, to reach an informed decision. Page 12 Environmental Assessment Form Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. 7.0 ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS Although the proposed modifications to the Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. terminal are not expected to have a significant adverse environmental impact, the Ferry company has indicated a willingness to seek additional operations improvements to accommodate passengers. These measures are noted as follows: u Provide Parking Attendant: Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. proposes to provide at least one parking attendant during peak parking periods (summer and holiday weekends), to assist travelers with vehicular parking and access. The attendant will remain at the site for at least one-half hour after the arrival of the last ferry for the business day. u Con~ider a Reservation System: Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. will consider establishing a system for the reservation of parking for travelers using the high speed service, to allow for advance notice for the need for parking and to allow for daily planning of on-site parking. Cross Sound Ferry Sendces, Inc. will also explore further long-term operational modifications to further improve service and limit congestion and traffic inconvenience, noted as follows: Investigate other areas for additional parking outside of the Orient area. Investigate bus/rail links and potential to establish parking outside of Orient in association with mass transportation modes. Investigate out-of-the-area ferry landing sites to augment ferry services to Long Island. Pursue with the NYS Department of Transportation the re-arrangement of the terminus of NYS Route 25 as an integrated plan with ferry terminal properties, and coordinate such improvements with the Town of Southold. Until this is achieved, Cross Sound Ferry will be responsive to community concerns regarding traffic flow and pedestrian safety. As with any ongoing operation, it is important to continue to improve the management and timing of off-loading cars due to their impact on the traffic flow on NYS Route 25. Through extensive project review, several items have been identified for incorporation into the site plan to improve design. These items all pertain to the Snack Bar parcel and will be addressed by the Planning Board through site plan review. Items include: additional controlled lighting of the parking area, the addition of at least 1 handicap parking stall based on the requirements of the zoning code for the square footage of the building, addition of drainage per the Town Engineer memorandum, additional landscaping, maintaining the open access at the south end of the parking area, and maintaining the existing wood fence between the parking area and the beach. Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. has been a long-term business providing an important service on the east end of Long Island. Cross Sound Ferry provides an inter-state transportation link that serves as a convenient and necessary transportation alternative to destinations in New England, thereby avoiding the need to travel through New York City to exit or enter Long Island. The ferry company has made adjustments to serve the needs of the traveling public, and seeks to operate in a safe and efficient manner to serve these needs. In recognition of changes in travel patterns and preferences, Cross Sound Ferry has provided service to accommodate transport of goods, commutation, vehicle transport, and recreation and entertainment related travel. Cross Sound Ferry intends to operate at the Orient terminal well into the future, and have indicated the company will seek means to ensure that public needs and desires are met in a manner that maximizes the use of the facility without being a detriment to the locale. The improvements to the terminal and specifically the Snack Bar pamel proposed as part of the pending site plan will improve the operation, and additional considerations outlined above will be explored to further improve the operation. Pagel3 Environmental Assessment Form Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. APPENDICES Page 14 Environmental Assessment Form Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. APPENDIX A EAF PARTS 1 & 2 $17.20 ' Appendix A State Environmental Quality Review FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM SEQR Purpose: The full EAF is designed to help applicant~ and agencies determin&, in an orderly manner, whether a project or action may be significant. The question of whether an action may be significant is not always' easy to answer. Frequent- ly, there ate aspects of a project that are subjective or unmeasureable, It is a~so understood that those who determine significance may have little or no formal knowledge of the environment or may not be technicaUy expert in environmental analysis. In addition, many who have knowledge in one particular area may not be aware of the broader concerns affecting the question 9f significance. The full EAF is intended to provid~ a method whereby applicants and agencies can be assuredthat the determination process has been orderly, comprehensive in nature, yet flexible enough to allow introduction of information to fit a project or action. Full EAF Component~ The full EAF is comprised of three parts: Pa~t 1~ Provides objective data and information abo~t a given project and its site. Ry identifying basic project data, it assists a reviewer in the analysis that takes place in Parts 2 and 3. Pa~t 2: Focuses on identifying the range of possible impacts that may occur from a project or action. It provides guidance as to whether an impact is likely to be considered small to moderate or whether it is a potentially- large impact The form also identifies whether an impact can be mitigated or reduced. Part 3: ~f any impact in Part 2 is identified as potentially-large, then Part 3 i~ used to evaluate whether or not the impact is actually important. I I ! I i ! ! ! ! DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE--Type I and Unlisted Actions Identif~ the Portion of EAF completed for this project.. ~ Part I C] Part 2 ~Part 3 Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF (Parts 1 and 2 and 3 if appropriate), and any other supporting information, and considering both the magnitude and importance of each impact, it is reasonably determined by the lead agency that: C] A. The project will not result in any large and important impact[s) and, therefore, is one which will not have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a negative declaration will be prepared. I-1' B. Although the project could have a significant effect On the environment, 'there will not be a significant · ' effect for this Unlisted Action because the mitigation measures described in PART 3 have been required, therefore a CONDITIONED negative declaration will be prepared.* O C. The project may result in one or more large and important impacts that may have a si~lnificant impact on the environment, therefore a politic declaration will be prep~red:- · A Conditioned Negative Declaration is only valid for Unlisted Actions Bennett: Orlowski ,~r. Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Cross Sound Perry - Proposed continuance of current operation and land use. Name of Action Southold Planning Board Name of Lead Agency Chairman, Planning Board Title of Responsibl~ Officer Signature of Responsible Officer in *Lead Agency Signature of Preparer (If different from responsible officer) Date 1 I I I I PART 1--PROJECT INFORMATION Prepared by Project Sponsor NOTICE: This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant effect on the environment. Please complete the entire form, Parts A through E, Answers to these questions wiU be considered as part of the application for approval and may be subject to further verification and public review. Provide any additional information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3. It is eXpected that completion of the full EAF wiil be dependent on information curren'd¥ available and will not involve new studies, research or investigation. If information requiring such additional work is unavailable, so indicate and specify each instance. NAME OF ACTION Cross Sound Ferry - Proposed continuance of current operation and Rand use LOCATION OF ACTION (Include 8treat Address, Municipality and County) Ortenc~ Town of 8outhold, Suffolk County NAME OF APPLJCANT/SPONE~OR Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. ADDnEES PO Box 33 CITY/PO New London NAME OF OWNER (If different) SAME ADDRESS JBU$1NE~; TELEPHONE (86~ 443-7394 I STAT~ I ZIP CODE CT 06320 IBUSlN~ TELEPHONE ( CITY/PO DESCRIPTION OF ACTION bi*ATE t Z~P CODE i Refer :o E.A.F. Addendum I Please Complete Each Question-Indicate N.A. if not applicable ~, A. Site Description Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas. 1. Present land use: C]Urban nlndustrial r'lForest I"lAgriculture i2. Total acreage of project area: 4.06 APPROXIMATE ACREAGE Meadow or Brushland (Non-agricultural) Forested Agricultural (Includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.) Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24, 25 of ECL) Water Surface Area Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill) Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces Other (Indicate type} E~Commercial nResidential (suburban) ~.Other acres. C{~6,854~ s.f.) PRESENTLY 17,685 acres O acres 0 acres 0 acres C~ ' acres 106,113 S. f ,acres 53,056 s.f acres acres IDRural (non-farm) AFTER COMPLETION 17,685 acres n acres 0 acres 0 acres 106,113 s ~:res 0 acres 3. What is predominant soil type(s) on project site? a. Soil drainage: [~Well drained q5 96 of site nModerately well drained % of site [~Poorly drained ~, ~ % of site b. If any agricultural land is involved, how many acres of soil are classified within soil group I through 4 of the NYS Land Classification System? acres. (See 1 NYCRR 370). Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? nyes ]D~]qo : a. What is depth to bedrock? (in feet) i i i 5. Ap,proximate percentage of proposed project site with slopes: ~{~p-10% ].00 , % r~10.15% % I-I15% or greater 6. Is project substantially contiguous I~0, or contain a building, s.ite, or district, listed on the State or the National Registers of Historic Places? ~Yes F'INo 7. Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed'on the Register of National Natural Landmarks? r-lyes K'lNo 8. What is the depth of the water table? 7.8 (in feet) BeZow surface 9. is site located over a primal, principal, or sole source aquifer? [~Yes r-lNo 10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? I-lYes r~No 11. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered~' [~]Yes ~lNo According to Refer 'co E.A.F. Addenc[um Identify each species 12. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, .other geological formations) DYes r'lNo ]~escribe 13. Is the project site presently used by the community .or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? D-lYes ~-No If yes, explain 14. Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the-community? ~Yes r-INo 15. Streams within or contiguous to project area: N,A. a. Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary 16. Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: a. Name Gardiner~s Bay b. Size (in acres) 171 is the site served by existing public utilities? I~Yes . I-INo a) If Yes, .does sufficient capa~:ity exist to allow connection? D-rYes DNo N.A. b) If Yes, will improvements be necessary to allow-connection[' F1Yes DNo ~1.A. 18. Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25-AA, Section 303 and 304? DYes 19. I~.t. he site located in or substantially contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8 of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 6177 Z1'Yes r-INo 20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes[' r'lYes []No. B. Project Description 1, Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate) a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor /~. 06 b. Project acreage to be developed: 3.6.5 acres initially; 3.6.5 c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped /.~ acres. d. Length of project, in miles: }~..4,; (If appropriate) e. If the project- is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing * 8. h4aximum vehicular trips generated per hour * h. If residential: Number and type of housing units: One Family Two Family initially Ultimately i. Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure height; j. Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy is~ 3 acres. acres ultimately. 'lff. A %; ; proposed*~.efer 'co T.~af~=ic and ?arkin~ sec'c~ot , of ~ Add.dura (upon completion of prolect)~ Multiple Family Condominium width; length. 1,[88 ft. I I I I I i 2. How mu'ch natural material (i.e., rock, earth, etc.) will be removed from the site? 3. Will disturbed areas be reclaimed? C]Yes . DNo ~N/A a. If yes, for what intended purpose is the site being reclaimed? b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? r-lYes c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclar~ation? [)'lYes nNo 4. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site? O acres. 5. Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this project? 'r-lyes NoAo 6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction months, (including demolition). 7. If multi-phased: N.A. a. Total number of phases anticipated b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 c, Approximate completion date of final phase d, Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? 8. will blasting occur during construction? i-lYes 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction N 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project . N.A. 11, Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? (number), month month [l-lyes r'INo tons/cubic yards y~ar, (including demolition). year. ; after project is complete N .A. nyes [~No If yes, explain 12, Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? nyes ~'No a, If yes, indicate type 0f waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) and amount b, Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged 13, Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? I[~t'es r'fNo Type 14, Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? Explain No change 15, Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain? ~Yes 16. Will the project generate solid waste? }[~Yas 'l-lNo a. If yes, what is the amount per month [/~; tons b, If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? ~Yes ITINo c, If yes, give name Southold Landfill/Transfer Sta: location d, Will any wastes not go into a sewage dlspdsal system or into a sanitary landfill? e, If Yes, explain Sanitary effluent nyes I-1No f-lNo Cutchogue Town. of Southold r~Yes 17, 18. 19. 20, 21, Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? b, If yes, what is the anticipated site life? Will project use herbicides or pesticides? [l-lyes []Yes flqNo tons/month. years, Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? nyes X~2No Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? i-lYes Will project result in an increase in energy use? I-lYes g~No If yes , indicate type(s) 22, If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity ~T~k~O~T~ 23, Total anticipated water usage per day 24, Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding? If Yes, explain gallons/minute. ~]No gallons/day. Design flow = 2,950 gal/day - terminal ac snack bar r~Yes ~No ' 4 25. Approva'~s Required: j City, Town, Village Board aYes [~No City, Town, Village Planning Board [~Yes r'lNo J Town Zoning Board r'iYes [~No City, City, CounW Health Department I-lYes [~No Other Local Agencies [:]Yes (~No Other Regional Agencies r-lYes i~No State Agencies l-lYes I~No g .! Federal Agencies r'Wes rRNo $i~e Flau Type Submittal Date .~/11/q6 i ¢. Zoning and Planning Information I. Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning dec~ision? [~Yes CINo If Yes, indicate decision required: I I'Izoning amendment · I-Izoning variance r'lspecial use permit r'lsubdivision [:]new/revision of master plan r'tresouree management plan r-lother 2. What is the zoning classifi~ation(sJof the site?MII (Marl~e IT) ~[site plan i i ! 3. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning? Building area - 53,056 s.f. (30% coverage) 4, What is the proposed zoning of the site? N.A. 5, What is the maximum potential development of the. site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning? NoAo 6. Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? J~Yes [:]No 7. What are the predominant land use(s) and zoning classifications Within a ',~ mile radius of proposed action? MIT, I{-80, R-40; Commercial, Residential, Transportation, Open S~ace 8. Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses within a M mile? Z~fes i-INo 9. If the proposed action is t~e subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? t 10. Will proposed action reqpire~_ny authorization(s) for the formation of sewer or water districts?. I-lYes 11. Will the proposed action*create 'a demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, police, fire protection)? OYes ~1o a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand~ f-lyes i-lNo 12. Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? I-lyes I-INo a. If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic? [:]Yes CINo Refer to Traffic and D. Informational Details Parking section of gAF Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your project. If thereA~u~J~/'be any adverse impacts associated w'i~h your proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate or avoid them. E. Verification I certify that the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge, ApplicantJSponsor Hame T~'cer-Science research Aseoclat:es. inc. Date Signature for Cross Sound Ferry Services, InC,Title If the action is in the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment. 5 Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc./Part H EAF Part II - RESPONSIBILITY OF LEAD AGENCY Project Impacts and Their Magnitude General Information (Read Carefully) In completing the form the reviewer should be guided by the question: Have my decisions and determinations been reasonable? The reviewer is not expected to be an expert environmental analyst. Identifying that an effect wi]l be potentially large (column 2) does not mean that it is also necessarily signfficant. Any large impact must be evaluated in PART 3 to determine significance. By identifying an impact in column 2 simply asks that it be looked at further. The Examples provided are to assist the reviewer by showing types of impacts and wherever possible the threshold of magnitude that would U-igger a response in cob~mn 2. The examples are generally applicable throughout the State and for most situations. But, for any specific project or site other examples and/or lower thresholds may be appropriate for a Potential Large Impact rating. Each project, on each site, in each locality, will vary. Therefore, the examples have been offered as gnidancc. They do not constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to answer each question. The number of examples per question does not indicate the importance of each question. Instructions (Read carefully) a. Answer each of the 19 questions in PART 2. Answer Yes if there will be any impact. b. Maybe answers should be considered as Yes answers. c. If answering Yes to a question then check the appropriate box (colum~ 1 or 2) to indicate the potential size of the impact. If threshold impact equals or exceeds any example provided, check column 2. If impact will occur but threshold is lower than example, check columu I. d. If reviewer has doubt about size of the impact then consider the impact as potentially large and proceed to PART 3. e. If a potentially large impact or effect can be mitigated by a change in the project to a less than large magnitude, check the yes box in colunm 3. A No response indicates that such a reduction is not possible. IMPACT ON LAND 1. Will the proposed action result in a physical change to thc project site? Yes X No IMPACT ON LAND Examples that would apply to Column 1 1 Small to Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, (15 foot rise per 100 foot of length), or where the general slopes in the project area exceed 10%. ConsWaction of land where the depth to the water table is less than 3 feet. Construction of paved parking area for 1,000 or more vehicles. Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within 3 feet of existing ground surface. ConsWaction that will cunimue for more than one year or involve more than one phase or stage. Conslruction in a designated floodway. Other Impacts (Please describe): Project involves currently existing ferry terminal use site, and will incorporate facility improvements including operational improvements and landscaping. 3 Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change (Enter Yes or No) Cross Sound Ferry Services, IncJPart H EAF 2. Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on thc site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, geological formations, etc0 __ Yes X No. List specific land forms: Project will not involve dune areas; additional landscaping will be provided as part of site plan. IMPACT ON WATER 3. Will proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? (under Articles 15, 24, 25 of the Environmental Conservation Law, ECL) __ Yes .~X No. IMPACT ON WATER (Examples that would apply to column 2) Developable area of site contains a protected water body. 1 2 Small to Potential Moderate Large Impact Impact 3 Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change (Enter Yes or No) Dredging more than 1 O0 cubic yards of material from channel of a protected stream. Extension of utility dis~bution facilities through a protected water body. Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland. Please List Other Impacts: Project does not involve dredging or development beyond current use areas. 4. Will proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? __ Yes X No A 10% increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease. ConsWaction of a body of water that exceeds I0 acres of surface area. Please List Other Impacts: 5. Will proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality? __ Yes X No Proposed Action will require a discharge permit. Proposed Action requires use of a source of water that does not have approval to serve proposed (projeot) action. Proposed Action requires water supply from wells with greater than 45 gallons per minute pumping capacity. Construction or operation causing any contamination of a public water supply system. Please List Other Impacts: 2 Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc./Part H EAF IMI~ACT ON WATER (cont.) (Examples that would apply to column 2) 1 Small to Moderate Impact Proposed Action requiring a facility that would use water in excess of 20,000 gallons per day. Proposed Action will likely cause siltation or other discharge into an existing body of water to the extent that there will be an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions. Proposed Action will require the storage of petroleum products greater than 1,100 gallons. Proposed Action will allow residential uses ha areas without water and/or Proposed Action locates commercial and/or industrial uses which may require new or expansion of existing waste treatment and/or storage facilities. Please list other impacts: 6. Will proposed action alter drainage flow, patterns or surface water runoff? __ Yes X No. Proposed Action would impede flood water flows. Proposed Action is likely to cause substantial erosion. Proposed Action is incompatible with existing drain patterns. Proposed Action will allow development ha a designated floodway. Please list other impacts: IMPACT ON AIR 7. Will proposed action affect air quality? __ Yes X No. 2 Potential Large Impact 3 Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change (Enter Yes or No) Proposed Action will induce 1,000 or more vehicle trips ha given hour. Proposed Action will result in the incineration of mere than 1 ton of refuse per hour. Proposed Action emission rate of all contaminants will exceed 5 lbs. Per hour or a heat source producing more than 10 million BTU's per hour. Proposed Action will allow an increase in the mount of land committed to industrial use. Proposed Action will allow an increase in the density of industrial development in existing industrial areas. Please List Other Impacts: 3 Cross Sound Ferry Setwices, IncJPart H EAF · IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS 8. Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or endangered species? __ Yes X No. IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS (Examples that would apply to Column 2) 1 2 Small to Potential Moderate Large Impact Impact Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York or Federal hst, using the site, over or near site or found on the site. Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat. Application of pesticide or herbicide over more than twice a year other than for agricultural purposes. Please list other impacts: 9. Will Proposed Action substantially affect non-threatened or endangered species7 __ Yes X No 3 Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change (Enter Yes or No) Proposed Action would substantially interfere with any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species. Proposed Action requires the removal of more than 10 acres of mature forest (over 100 years of age) or other locally important vegetation. Please list other impacts: EVIPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES 10. Will the Proposed Action affect agricultural land resources? __ IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES (Examples that would apply to Column 2) The Proposed Action would sever, cross through, or limit access to a field of agricultural land (includes cropland, hayfields, pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc. Construction activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of agricultural land. The Proposed Action would irreversibly convert more than 10 acres of agricultural land or, if located in an Agricultural District, more than one acre of agricultural land. The Proposed Action would disrupt agricultural land management systems (e.g., subsurface drain lines, outlet ditches, strip cropping); prevent agriculfmal land management measures from being installed; or create a need for such measures (e.g., cause a farm field to drain poorly due to increased nmof't) Please list other mapacts: Yes X No 1 2 Small to Potential Moderate Large Impact Impact 3 Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change (Enter Yes or 1~o) 4 Cross Sound Ferry Services, IncJPart H EAF IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES OR COMMUNITY CHARACTER 11. Will proposed action affect aesthelic resources, or the character of the neighborhood or community? __ X No Yes 1 2 IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES OR COMMUNITY CHARACTER Small to Potential (Examples that would apply to column 2) Moderate Large (If Necessary Use the Visual EAF Addendum in Section 617.23) Impact Impact Introduction of proposed land uses, projects or project components obviously different or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns or existing man-made additions to the landscape. Introduction of proposed land uses, projects or project components as described in the above example that will be visible to users of aesthetic resources. This will eliminate or significantly reduce the public enjoyment or appreciation of the appearance or aesthetic qualities of a resource or comraunity character. Introduction of project components that will result in the elimination or significant screening of scenic views known to be important to the area. Please list other impacts: The facility is currently existing and has historically occupied the project site. IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 12. Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure of historic, prehistoric or paleontogical importance?_Yes _X_No 3 Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change (Enter Yes or No) IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES (Examples that would apply to column 2) Proposed Action occurring wholly or partially within or contiguous to any facility or site listed or eligible for listing on the State or National Register of historic places. Any impact to an archeological site or fossil bed located witlfm the project site. Proposed Action will occur in an area designated as sensitive for archeological sites on the NSF Site Inventory. Please list other impacts: 1 2 Small to Potential Moderate Large Impact Impact 3 Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change (Enter Yes or No) Cross Sound Ferry Services, IncJPart H EAF IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION 13. Will Proposed Action affect thc quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities?__ Yes X No IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION (Examples that would apply to column 2) 1 2 Small to Potential Moderate Large Impact Impact The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity. A major reduction of an open space important to the community. Please list other impacts: IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION 14. Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? X IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION (Examples that would apply to cot,mn 2) __ Yes __ No 1 Small to Moderate Impact 2 Potential Large Impact Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods. Proposed Action will result in severe traffic problems Please list other impacts: The project has been subject to extensive traffic impact analysis. Surveys find that the ferry related traffic comprises a portion of the volume present at the terminus of NYS Route 25. Traffic volume has been evaluated over a 4-year period and is found to be variable. Level of service calculations find that uninterrupted flow conditions do not exist for long periods along the segment of Route 25 between Greenport and the terminal. Parking appears adequate for the current level of use, and facility improvements will assist with passenger safety. Long-term plans to coordinate with NYSDOT will further improve conditions at the terminus of the State highway. X IMPACT ON ENERGY 15. Will proposed action affect the communities sources of fuel or energy supply? __ Yes __ IMPACT ON ENERGY (Examples that would apply to column 2) 1 Small to Moderate Impact X No 2 Potential Large Impact Proposed Action will cause a greater than 5% increase in any form of energy in municipality. Proposed Action will require the creation or extension of an energy transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two family residences. Please list other impacts: 3 Can Impact Be l~itigated By Project Change (Enter Yes or No) 3 Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change (Enter Yes or No) 3 Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change (Enter Yes or No) 6 Re: Cross SoundFerry Sune ?, 2001 Page 3 The following Table has been prepared as a summary of the traffic volume data compiled fi-om the documents reviewed. The Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) statistics have been obtained from NYSDOT reports. These volumes represent a 365 day average lraffic volume and therefore do not describe roadWay usage during peak seasons. The Average Daily Traffic (ADT) statistics have been prepared using week long volume count data, including weekends. All ADT presented in the Table are based on volume counts conducted during the month of August and therefore they are representative of seasonal usage. These ADT volumes have been obtained from counts conducted in connection with the NFRTNA. Study Year 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 SUMMARY OF TRAFFIC VOLUME DATA W/OFerry NarrowRiverRoad AADT ADT AADT ADT 5300 5300 2450 E/O Main Street AADT ADT 4700 2650 4150 2700 3950 4200 5920 12490 3570 7400 10710 3550 4060 4950 3600 5050 7750 The data compiled in the foregoing table represents the best information available at this time. The roadway segments are not consistent throughout the various sources used. The originator of the specific data set defines the segment, therefore, there may be overlaps. The count data labeled W/O Ferry was collected between the entrance to Orient Beach State Park and the entrance to the ferry terminal (New York State count location 25 0704 1728). The volume data labeled Narrow River Road was collected near the intersection of a private road and Truman's Path (New York State count location 25 0704 1706)· The volume data labeled E/O Main Street was collected east of the NYS Route 25 and CR 48 intersection. This last location does not have an available NYS count location number. The traffic volume data for 1996, 1997 and 1998 under the ADT (average daily traffic) represents 24-hour counts recorded during the month of August. Therefore, these data include the peak summer seasonal traffic volume increases. The variation can be due to many factors including but not limited to: other uses in the area; out-of-state uses such as Casino gambling in Connecticut, the weather pattern during the summer months, the general economic climate as · well as the volume of traffic generated by the ferries. The ferry generated traffic is subject to the same types of fluctuations as the other traffic as well as by competition from other transportation facilities. There has been an increase in competition in the transportation sector. A high speed passenger vessel presently operates between Glen Cove, NY and New London, Conn. Re: Cross Sound Ferry June 7, 2001 Page 4 The Long Island State Parks and Recreation Commission report that 6760 vehicles entered Orient Beach State Park during the month of August 1998. The two way volume for the month was, therefore, 13,520 trips. Using supplemental daily park trips we have calculated that the park generates an ADT of 450 vehicles per day or approximately 11% of the traffic recorded in the segment of Route 25 west of the ferry terminal. The revised Levels of Service have been summarized and compared to the Levels of Service reported in the March 1999 Updated "Traffic Assessment of Existing Cross Sound Ferry". As indicated in the attached summary table (See Attachment 3) most of the Levels Of Service projected to 2001 remained the same as those reported in the March 1999 updated report. Notable differences are those Levels of Service reported for the eastern most segment which have improved due to lower hourly volumes for the study intervals. These are the result of altered traffic patterns rather than a significant reduction in the overall daily volume of traffic. These improved Levels of Service are due to lower peak hour traffic volume as reported by NYSDOT as part of the NFRTNA projecl. The only degradation in Level of Service occurs in the segment east of Main Street during the one hour period between 9 and 10 PMon a Sunday. The Level of Service drops from B to C. This is not a significant change. Level of Service C is considered to be a free flow condition. Copies of the Levels of Service calculations are included in Attachment 4. The previous reports also reported ridership data for the Cross Sound Ferry Orient terminal. While the number of cars arriving and departing by ferry was similar in the September 1997 report and the report updated in March, 1999, there was a slight reduction in the average number of passengers.transported on the high speed vessel. The following table is a summary of the peak arrivals and departures of 1997 and 1999 reported by Dunn Engineering Associates. September 1997' March 1999'* Departures 10AM Weekday 333 329 Satl0AM 285 282 Sunday 10AM 264 218 Arrivals 7-8 PM Weekdays 319 286 7-8 PM Sat. 261 262 5 -6 PM Sun 269 285 Source: * DunnTrafficlmpactSmdyfor CSF, Sep~mber1997, page41. · * DunnTraffic Assessment~r CSF, Upda~dM~ch 1999, page 37 The reduced peak ferry hour traffic volumes, evidenced by the 1998 NFRTNA traffic counts indicates there may be further reducfions in the use or a different traffic pattern of the Cross Sound Ferry at Orient. Other factors such as area development and tourism can be contributing to the modified travel patterns. Re: Cross Sound Ferry June 7, 2001 Page 5 A copy of the Cross Sound Ferry Excess Passenger Capacities Summary Table is included in the Attachments, This Table lists the vessels in use at the site and the vehicular and passenger capacities of each vessel. The .operators at the service report that the car ferries have a two way passenger capacity of 9035 passengers per day beyond the average of 2.5 passengers per car and the passenger only vessel has a two way capacity of 2400 passengers per day. These represent full utilization of ail vessels and the peak daily schedules of the vessels. The summary demonstrates that the passenger only vessel does not generate additional passenger trips as the other vessels have sufficient passenger capacity to meet the peak demand passenger volume. We are of the opinion, based upon the most recent traffic' data that the Conditions described m the Transportation Summary section! of the "Traffic Assessment of Existing Cross Sound Ferry", Updated March 1999, are valid for the year 2001. Based on the review of prior documents and the update conducted herein, we do not expect significant traffic and/or safety impacts as a result of the improvements to the site. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Very truly yours, NELSON & POPE ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS Peter G. Brown Attachments I:Y97107/2001/PB4-27 ATTACHMENT 1 NYS TRAFFIC VOLUME DATA ooogoooooo8 o8oogo8o8ooooo 88~88888§88 8888858588§8~8 §8~8~888888 888§8888888888 000 O0 [oo0o~o ~m~ 0o;~o8oo .... ATTACHMENT 2 NFRTNA TRAFFIC VOLUME DATA Page: 1 *** Ho=fly Multi-Channel Horizontal ID : 62 25 W/O FERRY SCarC Time : 12:45 > I : EB Star5 Da~e : Jul 31, 1998 Fri ) 2 : WB End Time : 10:15 ~r : 1.0001 End Date : Aug 13, 1998 Thu #1 !nfo : EB Sensor Used : ~Lxle Mode : Subtraction Divide By 2 : Yes **************************************************************************** %2 Info : WB Sensor Used : Axle Mode :'subtraction Divide By 2 : Yes Lane Lane kte Day Time 91 #2 Av~. To=al ~1/98 Fri 13::00 151 90 105 211 14:00 189 191 190 380 15:00 112 120 116 232 16:00 153 161 157 314 17:00 140 179 159 ~19 16;00 128 179 15~ 307 19:00 134 182 158 316 20:00 83 128 105 211 21:00 51 139 95 190 2~:00 13 150 81 163 23:O0 5 22 13 27 HOD~ TOTAL 1129 1541 1335 2670 PERCENTS AM AM PM PM Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak ~e Total Avg. ToCal Avg. AM To=al Percent PM Total Percent L 1129 102.6 1~:00 189 16.71 2 1541 140.1 14:00 19! 12,41 ~B, 2670 121.~ 1~:00 380 14.21 ~4: l~ Dunn Engineering Associates 66 Main Street Westhampton Beach, N.Y. 11978 Page: 2 *** Hourly Multi-Channel Horizontal *** : ID : 62 25 W/O PERRY Date of Data : Aug 1, 1998 Sat !o I : EB Adj. Factor : 1.00 !o 2 : WB ~ of Lanes : 2 ***************************************************************************** Lane Lane Day Time #1 ~2 Avg. Total ~I/98 Sat 00:00 3 1 2 4 01:00 1 2 1 3 02:00 1 0 0 03:00 0 0 0 0 04~00 1 0 0 1 05:00 18 12 15 30 06:00 139 14 76 153 07:00 162 56 109 218 08:00 156 104 130 260 09:00 192 103 147 295 10:00 165 152 158 317 11:00 178 134 156 312 12:00 186 226. 206 412 13:00 163 127 145 290 14:00 186 210 198 396 15:00 160 162 161 322 16:00 150 187 168 337 17:00 123 210 166 333 18:00 94 161 127 255 19:00 100 207 153 307 20:00 68 113 90 181 21:00 57 107 82 164 22:00 21 90 55 111 23:00 4 13 8 17 [OUR TOTAL 2328 2391 2359 4719 PERCE~S 49% 51% AM AM PM PM Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak : To~al Avg. Total Av9. AM Total Percent PM Total Percent 101G 84.7 1312 109.3 09:00 192 8.2% 12:00 1B6 8.0% 578 48,2 1813 151.1 10:00 152 6,4% 12:00 226 9.5% 1594 66.4 3125 130.2 10:00 317 6.7% 12:00 412 8.7% /00 Dunn Engineering Associates Page: :16 66 Main Street Westhampton Beach, N.Y. 11978 *** Hourly Multi-Channel Horizontal ID : 62 25 W/O PERRY Date of Data : Aug 2, 1998 Sun ) 1 : EB Adj, Factor : 1,00 ) 2 : WB # Of Lanes : 2 Lane Lane =e Day Time ~1 #2 Avg. Total 2/98 Sun 00:00 5 2 3 7 01:00 11 2 6 02:00 3 I 2 4 03:00 0 0 0 0 04:00 2 2 2 4 05:00 18 2 10 20 06:00 112 12 62 124 07:00 166 56 111 222 08:00 153 53 103 206 09:00 203 80 141 283 10:00 166 177 171 343 11:00 258 170 211 428 12:00 211 237 224 448 13:00 178 189 183 367 14:00 230 230 230 460 15:00 235 210 222 445 16:00 231 284 257 515 17:00 161 239 200 400 18:00 235 127 181 362 19:00 128 223 175 351 20:00 102 128 115 230 21:00 39 140 89 179 22:00 5 153 79 158 23:00 7 7 7 [OD'R TOTAL 2859 2726 2791 5583 PERCENTS 51~ 49% AM AM PM PM Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak Total Avg. Total Avg. AM Total Percent PM Total Percent 1097 91.4 1762 146.8 11:00 258 9.01 15:00 235 8.2% 557 ~6.~ 2167 180.6 10:00 177 6,51'16:00 284 10.41 1654 68.9 3929 163,7 11:00 428 7.7% 16:00 515 9.2% 4/00 Dunn Engineering Associates Page: 4:16 ~6 Hain Street Westhampton Beach, N.Y. 11978 *** Hourly Multi-Channel Horizontal ~ ID : 62 25 W/O FERRY Date of Data : Aug 3, 1998 Mort !o 1 : EB Adj, Factor : 1.00 [o 2 : WB ~ Of Lanes : 2 Lane Lane tie Day Time %1 %2 Avg. Total ]3/98 Mon 00:00 1 2 1 3 0t:00 0 0 0 0 02:00 1 1 1 2 03:00 0 0 0 0 04:00 2 0 1 2 05:00 21 2 11 23 06:00 136 10 73 07:00 159 39 99 198 08:00 143 65 104 208 09:00 190 84 137 274 10:00 138 136 137 27~ 11:00 145 127 136 272 12:00 166 163 16~ 329 13:00 112 95 103 207 14:00 152 181 166 333 15:00 93 102 97 195 16:00 131 154 142 285 17:00 92 189 140 281 18:00 89 147 118 236 19:00 62 149 105 211 20:00 37 116 ?~ 153 21:00 31 96 63 127 22:00 7 45 26 52 23:00 i 5 3 6 HOUR TOTAL 1909 1908 1908 3817 PE~CE1TrS 50% 50% AM AM PM PM Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak ~e ToKal Avg. Total Avg. AM Total Percen~ PM Total Dercent 936 78.0 973 81.1 09:00 190 ~0.0% 12:00 166 8.7% ~66 38.8 1442 1~0.2 10:00 136 7.1% 17:00 189 9.9% 1~02 58.4 2415 100.6 09:00 274 7.2% 14:00 333 8.7% i/oo %:16 Dunn Engineering Associates 66 Main Street Westhampton Beach, N.Y. 11978 Page: Hourly }9/lti-Char~nel Horizontal *** ID : 62 25 W/O FERRY Date of Data : Aug 4, 1998 Tue o 1 : EB Adj. Factor : 1.00 o 2 : WB ~ Of Lanes : 2 **************************************************************************** Lane Lane Day Time #1 #2 Avg. To%al 4/98 Tue 00:00 2 0 i 2 01:00 1 0 0 02:00 1 5 3 6 03:00 3 1 2 4 04:00 1 0 0 1 05:00 17 4 10 21 06:00 95 14 54 109 07:00 152 22 87 174 08:00 112 47 79 159 09:00 165 32 98 197 i0:00 128 107 117 235 11:00 130 90 110 220 12:00 100 150 115 230 13:00 95 91 93 186 14:00 103 14U 125 250 15:00 82 101 91 183 16:00 92 117 104 209 17:00 68 158 113 226 18:00 56 140 98 196 19:00 48 172 110 20:00 41 63 52 104 21:00 17 84 50 101 22:00 5 61 33 66 23:00 2 5 3 7 HOUR TOTAL 1516 1591 1553 310g PERCENTS 49% 51% AM AM PM PM Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak .e Total Avg. Total Avg. AM Total Percent PM Total Percent 807 67,3 709 59.1 09:00 165 10.9% 14:00 !03 6.8% ! 322 26.8 1269 105.8 10:O0 107 6.7% 19:00 172 10.8% ~. 1129 47.0 1978 $2.4 10:00 23S ?,6~ 14:00 250 8.0% /00 Ounn Engineering Associates ~age: :lg 66 Main Street Westhampton Beach, N.Y, 119'78 *** Hourly Multi-channel Horizontal SD : 62 25 W/O FERRY Date of Data : Aug 5, 1998 Wed , 1 : EB kdj. Factor : 1.00 , 2 : WB # Of Lanes : 2 *************************************************************************** Lane Lane Day Time #1 #2 Avg. Total ;/98 Wed 00:00 3 1 2 4 01:0O 1 2 1 3 02:00 0 0 0 0 03:00 1 1 1 2 04:00 2 O 1 2 05:00 13 4 8 17 06:00 71 7 39 78 07:00 162 22 92 !84 08:00 130 64 97 194 09:00 203 74 3.38 277 10:00 139 88 113 227 1t:00 134 102 118 226 12:00 118 105 111 223 13:00 99 73 86 172 14:00 98 159 128 257 15:00 77 77 77 154 16:00 93 125 109 218 17:00 69 155 112 224 18:00 60 145 102 205 19:00 46 174 130 220 20:00 25 104 64 129 21:00 23 88 55 111 22:00 9 50 29 59 23:00 4 9 6 !3 OUR TOTAL 1580 1629 1604 3209 PERCEI~TS 49% 511 AM A.M PM PM Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak Total Avg, Total Avg. AM Total Percent PM Total Percent 859 71,6 721 60.1 09:00 203 12.81 12:00 118 7.5% 365 30.4 1264 105.3 11:00 102 6.3% 19:00 174 10.71 1224 51.0 1985 82.7 09:00 277 8.6% 14:00 257 8.0% /gO Dunn Engineering Associates Page: :16 66 Main Street WesthamDton Beach, N,¥. 11978 7 Hourly M~lt/-Channel Horizontal ID : 62 25 W/O FERRY Date of Data : Aug 6, 1998 Thu ~ 1 : EB Adj. Factor : 1.00 ) 2 : WB ~ Of Lanes : 2 Day Time 11 #2 Av~. Total 5/98 Thu 00:00 0 0 0 0 01:00 0 0 0 0 02:00 0 0 0 0 03:00 2 1 1 3 04:00 3 1 2 05:00 12 2 7 14 06:00 115 8 61 123 07:00 181 i9 100 200 08:00 120 54 87 09:00 190 46 118 236 10:00 148 105 126 253 11:00 151 101 126 252 12:00 153 141 147. 294 13:00 101 72 86 173 14:00 144 188 166 332 15:00 106 102 104 208 16:00 123 146 134 269 17:00 97 67 82 164 18:00 85 274 179 359 19:00 77 78 77 155 20:00 38 234 136 272 21:00 27 47 37 74 22:00 16 185 100 201 23t00 2 8 5 10 ~OL~R TOTAL 1891 1879 1885 3770 P~RCENTS 50% 50% AM Total AM PM PM Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak Avg. Total Avg. AM Total Percent PM Total Percent 922 76.8 969 80.8 09:00 190 10.01 12:00 153 8.11 337 2B,1 1542 128.5 10:00 105 5.61 18:00 274 1~.61 1259 52.5 251! 104.6 10:00 253 6.7% 18:00 359 9.5% ~/00 Dunn Engineering Associates Page: 8 4:16 66 Main Stree~ We$~h~mpton Beach, N.Y. 11978 *** Hourly Multi-Channel Horizontal *** ID : 62 25 W/O PERRY Date of Data : Aug 7, 1998 o 1 : EB Adj. Factor : 1.00 io 2 : WB # Of Lanes : 2 Day Time #1 #2 Avg. Total )7/98 Pti 00:00 3 0 1 3 01:00 1 t 1 2 02:00 1 1 1 03:00 1 1 1 2 04:00 3 % 2 4 05:00 19 3 11 22 06:00 115 13 64 128 07:00 155 23 89 178 08:00 133 99 116 232 09:00 161 55 108 216 10:00 148 159 153 307 11:00 182 115 148 297 12:00 143 152 147 295 13:00 117 136 126 253 14:00 153 175 164 328 15:00 122 138 130 260 16:00 130 164 147 294 17:00 168 138 153 306 18:00 128 173 150 301 19:00 Ill 197 154 20:00 105 206 155 311 2i:00 57 138 97 195 22:00 13 131 72 144 23:00 7 54 30 61 HOLFR TOTAL 2176 2273 2~24 4449 PERCENTS 49% 51% ~uM AM PM PM Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak ne Total Av~. Total Avg. AM Total Percent PM Total Percent 922 76,8 1254 104.5 11:00 182 8.4% 17:00 168 471 39.3 1802 150.2 10~00 159 7.0% 20:00 20~ 9.1% 1393 58.0 3056 127.3 10:00 307 6.9% 14:00 328 7.4% 4/00 Dunn Engineering Associates Page: 9 4:16 66 Main Street Westhampton Beach, N.Y. 11978 *** Hourly Multi-Channel ~orizontal *** ID : 62 25 W/O FERRY Da~e of Data : Aug 8, 1996 Sat o 1 : EB Adj. Factor : 1.00 o 2 : wB ~ Of Lanes : 2 Lane Lane Day Time #1 ~2 Avg. Total 8/98 Sat 00:00 1 4 2 5 01:00 1 1 1 2 02:00 4 4 4 8 03:00 1 0 0 1 04:00 2 3 2 5 05:00 24 5 14 29 06:00 139 12 75 151 07:00 174 48 111 222 08:00 152 110 131 262 09:00 176 102 139 278 10:00 165 160 162 325 11:00 189 181 185 370 12:00 158 154 156 312 13:00 142 126 134 268 14:00 183 209 196 392 15:00 166 117 141 283 16:00 133 172 152 305 17:00 135 180 157 315 18:00 114 146 130 260 19:00 116 156 136 272 20:00 87 81 84 168 21:00 71 95 83 166 22:00 15 99 57 114 23:00 10 14 12 24 [OLr~ TOTAL 2358 2179 2268 4537 PERCENTS 52% 48% A/~ A~M PM PM Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak Total Avg. Total Avg. AM ToEal Percent PM Total Percent 1028 85.7 ].330 110.8 11:00 189 8.0% 14:00 183 7.8% 630 52.5 1549 129.1 11:00 181 8.3% 14:00 209 9.6% 1658 69.z 2879 120.0 11:00 370 8.2% 14:00 392 8.6% ~00 Dunn En~ineerin9 Associates Pape: 10 ~16 66 Main S~reet wes~hampton Beach, N.Y. 11978 Hourly Multi-Channel Horizontal *** ID : g2 25 W/O FERRY Date of DaUa : Aug 9, 1998 Sun 1 : EB Adj. Factor : 1.00 2 : WB $ Of Lanes : 2 e Day Time 11 %2 Avg. Total /98 Sun 00:00 9 5 ? 14 01:00 5 i 3 6 02:00 2 5 3 7 03:00 2 3 2 5 04:00 2 1 1 3 05:00 17 5 11 22 0~:0O 120 11 65 131 07:00 149 50 99 199 08:00 162 50 106 212 09:00 173 75 124 248 10:00 176 157 166 333 11:00 316 125 220 441 12:00 297 142 219 439 13:00 268 118 193 386 14:00 258 194 226 452 15:00 233 153 193 386 16:00 294 202 248 496 17:00 255 236 245 491 18:00 239 102 170 341 19:00 212 97 154 399 20:00 176 81 128 257 21:00 !20 41 80 161 22:00 110 56 83 166 23;00 14 2 8 16 07JR TOTAL 3609 1912 2760 5521 P~RCENTS 65% 35% ~M Total AM PM PM Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak Avg. Total Avg. AM Total Percent ~M Total Percen~ 1133 94.4 2476 206.3 11:00 3!6 8.8% 12:00 297 8.2% ~88 40.7 1424 118.7 10:00 157 8.2% 17:00 236 12.31 1621 67.5 3900 162.5 11~00 441 8.0% 16:00 496 9,01 /00 Dunn Engineering Associates P~3e: 11 :16 66 Main S~ree~ Westhampton Beach, N.Y, 11978 *** KouTly Multi-Chan.nel Horizontal ID : 62 25 W/O FERRY Date of Da~a : Aug 10, 1998 MOrt D 1 : EB Adj. Factor : 1.00 ~ 2 : WB # Of Lanes : 2 Lane Lane ~e D~y Time #1 #2 AvH. Total 0/98 Mon 00:00 8 0 4 8 01:00 1 0 0 1 02:00 1 1 1 03:00 I 0 0 1 04:00 1 0 0 1 05:00 19 I 10 20 06:00 132 6 69 138 07:00 206 22 114 228 0B:00 148 60 104 20B 09:00 198 48 123 10:00 154 109 131 263 11:00 159 81 120 240 12:00 178 89 133 267 13:00 159 60 109 219 14:00 109 137 123 246 15:00 141 86 115 227 16:00 180 86 133 266 17:00 171 1~6 158 317 18:00 128 118 123 246 19:00 120 118 119 238 20:00 86 61 73 147 21:00 45 62 54 109 22:00 ~5 67 56 112 23;00 4 0 2 4 HOUR TOTAL 2396 1358 1877 3754 PERCElqTS 64% 36% AM AM PM PM Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak 5e Total Avg. Total Avg. AM Total Percent PM To%al Percent 1 102~ 85.7 1368 !1~.0 07:00 206 8.6% 16:00 180 7.5% 2 328 27.3 1030 85,8 10:00 109 8.0% 17:00 146 10.8% MB. 1356 56.5 2598 99.9 10:00 2~3 7.0% 17:00 317 8,4% /00 Dunn EngineerinD Associates Page: :lg 66 Main S~reeL Westhampgon Beach, N.Y. 11978 *** Hourly Multi-Channel Horizontal ID : 62 25 W/O FERRY Date of Da~a : Aug 11, i998 Tue ) i : EB Adj. Factor : 1.00 ) 2 : W~ # Of Lanes : 2 Day Time #1 $2 AvD. Total AM AM PM PM Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak Total Ay9. Total Avg. AM Total Percent PM To,al Percent 955 79.6 1565 130.4 07:00 189 7.4% 12:00 194 7.7% 259 21.6 605 50.4 10:00 75 8.7% 14:00 91 t0.5% 1214 50.6 2170 90.4 10:00 236 7.0% 14:00 267 7.9% L/98 Tue 00:00 2 0 Z 2 01;00 2 0 ~ 2 02:00 0 0 0 0 03:00 0 0 0 0 04:00 3 0 I 3 05:00 16 0 8 16 06:00 104 07:00 187 22 104 209 08:00 147 47 97 194 09:00 178 41 109 219 10:00 161 75 118 236 11:00 155 68 111 223 12:00 194 61 127 255 13:00 131 59 95 190 14:00 176 91 133 267 15:00 154 47 100 201 16:00 180 53 116 233 17:00 169 66 1!7 235 18:00 160 54 107 214 19:00 162 79 120 241 20:00 114 33 73 147 21:00 73 36 54 109 22:00 4~ 23 36 72 23:00 3 ] 3 6 TOTAL 2520 864 1692 3384 PERCEI~TS 74% 26% t/00 Dunn Engineering Associates P~ge~ 13 ~:16 6~ Main Street Westhampton Beach, N.Y. 11978 *** ~ourly Multi-Channel Eorizontal *** ID : 62 25 W/O FERRY Date of Data : Aug 12, 1998 Wed D I : EB Adj. Factor : 1.00 ~ 2 : WB ~ Of Lanes : 2 La~e Lane te Day Time $1 $2 Avg. Total 2/98 Wed 00:00 3 1 2 4 01:00 6 0 3 6 02:00 0 0 0 0 03:00 I 0 O 1 04:00 1 0 0 05:00 i0 0 5 10 06:00 82 9 45 91 07:00 194 15 104 209 08:00 131 45 88 176 09:00 215 43 129 258 10:00 174 67 120 241 11:00 163 58 110 221 12:00 159 93 126 252 13:00 116 37 76 153 14:00 203 $9 141 282 15:00 118 49 83 167 16:00 144 93 118 237 17:00 ~91 56 ~23 247 18:00 157 48 102 205 19:00 195 38 116 233 20:00 106 26 66 132 21:00 75 33 54 108 22:00 24 38 31 62 23:00 6 0 [OUR TOTAL 2474 828 ~651 3302 PERCENTS 75% 25% AM AM PM PM Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak Total Avg. Total Avg. AM Total Percent PM Total Percent 980 81~7 1494 124.5 09:00 215 8.7% 14:00 203 8.2% 23~ 19.8 590 49.2 10:00 67 8.1% 12:00 93 11.2% 1218 50.8 2084 86.8 09:00 258 7.8% 14:00 282 8.5% /00 Dunn Engineering Associates Page: 14 :16 66 Main Street Wes%hampton Beach, N.Y. 11978 *** Hourly Mul=i-Channel Horizontal ID : 62 25 W/O FERRY Date of Data : Aug 13, 1998 Thu , i : EB Adj. Factor : 1.00 ~ 2 : WB % Of Lanes : 2 Lane Lane Day Time ~1 %2 Avg. Total AM AM PM PM Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak Total Avg. Total Avg. AM Total Percent PM Total Percen~ %33 43.3 07:00 111 25,6% 236 23.6 09:00 102 43,2% 669 33.5 09:00 208 31.1% ~/98 Thu 00:00 2 0 I 2 01:00 I 0 0 1 02:00 1 I I 2 03:00 1 1 1 2 04:00 1 0 0 1 05:00 !5 2 8 17 06:00 88 9 48 9? 07:00 111 45 78 156 08:00 107 76 91 183 09:00 106 102 104 208 DUR TOTAL 433 236 334 669 PERCEI~TS 65% 35% ATTACHMENT 3 LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY ATTACHMENT 4 CAPACITY ANAI,YSES WORKSHEETS 1985 HCM:TW0-LANE HIGHWAYS **************************************************************** FACILITY LOCATION .... R~ 25 East of Main Sc ANALYST .............. PGB TIME OF ANALYSIS ..... llA~-12 Noon DATE OF ANALYSIS ..... 01-17-2001 OTHER INFORP[ATION .... 2001 EVALUATION A) ADJUSTMENT FACTORS PERCENTAGE OF TRUCKS ........................ 2 PERCENTAGE OF BUSES ......................... 2 PERCENTAGE OF RECREATIONAL VEKICLES ......... 5 DESIGN SPEED (MPH) .......................... $0 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ............................. 89 DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION (UP/DOWN) .......... 55 / LANE WIDTH (FT) ............................. USABLE SHOULDER WIDTH (AVG. WIDTK IN FT.),.. PERCENT NO PASSING ZONES .................... 57 CORRECTION FACTORS LEVEL TERRAIN E E E f f f LOS T B R w d HV A 2 1.8 2.2 .84 .97 .91 B 2.2 2 2.5 .84 .97 .89 C 2.2 2 2.5 .84 .97 .89 D 2 1.6 1.6 ,84 .97 .94 1.6 !,6 .87 .97 .94 C) LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS INPUT VOLUME (vph): 715 ACTUAL FLOW RATE: SERVICE LOS FLOw RATE V/C A 146 . H 387 .19 C 693 .34 D 1267 .59 E 2225 1 LOS FOR GIVEN CONDITIONS: D ;ENT ~Y: PO~ROWN; S3~ 7242~55; APR-27-O~ 7:3gA~; PA~E 4 1985 HCM:TWO-LANE HIGHWAYS FACILITY LOCATION .... Rt 25 East of Main ANALYST .............. PGB TIME OF ANALYSIS ..... 5-6 PH DATE OF ANALYSIS ..... 01-17-2001 OT~ER INFORMATION .... 2001 EVALUATION A) B) C) ADJUSTMENT FACTORS PERCENTAGE OF BUSES ......................... 2 PERCENTAGE OF ~ECREATIONAL VEHICLES ......... 5 DESIGN SPEED (MPM) .......................... 50 PEAK HOU~ FACTOR ............................. ?$ DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION (UP/DOWN) .......... 51 / 49 LANE WIDTH (FT) ............................. 10 USABLE SHOULDER WIDTH (AVG. WIDTH IN FT.}... 7 PERCENT NO PASSING ZONES .................... 57 CORRECTION FACTORS LEVEL TERRAIN E E E f f f LOS T B R w d HV A 2 1,8 2.2 .84 ,99 .91 B 2.2 2 2.5 ,84 .99 .89 C 2.2 2 2.5 ,84 .99 .89 D 2 1.6 1.6 .84 .99 .94 E 2 1.6 1.6 ,87 .99 .94 LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS INPUT VOLUME (vph): 942 ACTUAL FLOW RATE: 1256 SERVICE LOS FLOW R3%TE V/C A 149 ,07 B 397 .19 C 710 .34 D 1299 .59 E 2280 1 LOS FOR GIVEN CONDITIONS: D ~NT BY: POBR0WN; 63~ ~242855; AFH-Z/-U~ [;~UA~; ~AU~ ~ 1985 HCM:TWO-LANE HIGHWAYS FACILITY LOCATION .... R5 25 East o~ Main St P.NADYS'I'. ............. PGB TIME OF ANALYSIS ..... 9-10 PM DATE OF ANALYSIS ..... 01-17-2001 OT~ER INFORMATION .... 2001 EVALUATION A) B) C) ADJUSTMENT FACTORS PERCENTAGE OF TRUCKS ........................ 2 PERCENTAGE OF BUSES ......................... 2 PERCENTAGE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES ......... 5 DESIGN SPEED (MPH) .......................... 50 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ............................. 8 DIR~CTIONAL DISTRIBUTION (UP/DOWN) .......... 63 / 37 LANE WIDTH (FT) ............................. 10 USABLE S~OULDER WIDTH (AVQ. WIDTH IN PT.)... 7 PERCENT NO PASSING ZONES .................... 57 CORRECTION FACTORS LEVEL TERRAIN LOS A E f f f B R w d ~V 1.8 2.2 .84 .93 .91 2.2 2 2.5 .84 .93 .89 C 2.2 2 2.5 .84 .93 .89 D 2 1.6 1.6 .84 .93 .94 E 2 1.6 1.6 .87 .93 .94 LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS INPUT VOLUME (vph): 371 ACTUAL FLOW RATE: 464 SERVIC~ [IOS FLOW PATE V/C A 1~9 .07 B 369 .19 C 661 .34 D 1209 .59 E 2122 1 LOS FOR GIVEN CONDITIONS: C ~NT BY: PGBROWfl; 631 7242855; 1985 HCM:TWO-LANE HIGHWAYS FACILITY LOCATION .... R~ 2S Eas~ of Main St AI~ALYST .............. PGB TIME OF ANALYSIS ..... SAT 11-12 NOON DATE OF A~ALYSIS ..... 01-17-2001 OTHER INFORMATION .... 2001 EVALUATION A) B) C) ADJUSTMENT FACTORS PERCENTAGE OF TRUCKS ........................ 2 P~RCENTAGE OP BUSES ......................... 2 PERCENTAGE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES ......... 5 DESIGN SPEED (MP~) .......................... 50 PEAK ~OUR FACTOR ............................. 9~ DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION (UP/DOWN) .......... 54 / 46 LANE WIDT~ (FT) ............................. 10 USABLE SHOULDER WIDTH (AVC. WIDTH IN FT.)... 7 PERCENT NO PASSING ZONES .................... 57 CORRECTION FACTORS LEVEL TERRAIN LOS A E E E f f f T B R w d EV 2 1.8 2.2 .8~ .98 .91 B 2.2 2 2.5 .84 ,98 .89 C 2.2 2 2.5 .84 .98 .89 D 2 Z.6 1.6 .84 .98 .94 E 2 1.6 1.6 .87 .98 b~VEL OF SERVICE RESULTS INPUT VOLUME(vph): 1309 ACTUAL FLOW PATE: 1438 SERVICE LOS FLOW RATE V/C A ~47 .07 B 390 .19 C 697 .34 D 127~ .59 E 2239 1 ~NT BY: P~BROWN; 63i 7242855; APR-27-01 ~:4UA~; KA~= / 1985 HCM:TWO-LA/~ HIGHWAYS FACILITY LOCATION .... Rt 25 East of Main St A/~ALYST .............. PGB TIME OF ANALYSIS ..... SAT 5-6 PM DATE OF ANALYSIS ..... 01-17-2001 OTHER INFORMATION .... 2001 EVALUATION A) C) ADJUSTMENT FACTORS PERCENTAGE OF TRUCKS ........................ 2 PERCENTAGE OF BUSES ......................... 2 PERCENTAGE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES ......... 5 DESIGN SPEED (MPH) .......................... 50 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ............................. 79 DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION (UP/DOWN) .......... 4S 57 LANE WIDTH (FT) ............................. 10 USl%BLE SHOULDER WIDTM (AVG. WIDTH IN FT.),.. 7 PERCENT NO PASSING ZONES .................... 57 CORRECTION FACTORS LEVEL TERRAIN LOS A E g $ f f f T B R w d HV 2 1.8 2.2 .84 .96 .91 B 2.2 2 2.5 ,84 .96 .89 C 2.2 2 2.5 .84 .96 .89 D 2 1.6 1.6 .84 .96 E 2 1.6 1.6 .87 .96 .94 LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS INPUT VOLUME(vph): 1248 ACTUAL FLOW PATE: 1580 SERVICE LOS FLOW RATE V/C A 144 ,07 B 383 .19 C 685 .34 D 1252 .59 E 2197 1 LOS FOR GIVEN CONDITIONS: E ~NT BY: P~B~OWN; 631 7242BSb; A~-Zr-U~ /:~UA~; r~: ~ 1985 HCM:TWO-LANE NIGHWAYS FACILITY LOCATION .... Rt 25 East of Main S: ANALYST .............. PGB TIME OF ANALYSIS ..... SAT 9-10 PM DATE OF ANALYSIS ..... 01-17-2001 OTHER INFORMATION .... 2001 EVALUATION A) ADJUSTMENT FACTORS c) PERCENTAGE OF TRUCKS ........................ 2 PERCENTAGE OF BUSES ......................... 2 PERCENTAGE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES ......... 5 DESIGN SPEED (MPH) .......................... 50 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ............................. 88 DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION {UP/DOWN) .......... 57 / 43 LANE WIDTM (FT) ............................. 10 USABLE SHOULDER WIDTH (AVG. WIDTH IN FT.)... 7 PERCENT NO PASSING ZONES .................... 57 CORRECTION FACTORS LEVEL TERRAIN LOS A E E E f f f T B R w d HV 2 1.8 2,2 .84 ,96 ,91 B 2.2 2 2.5 .84 .96 .89 C 2.2 2 2.5 .84 ,9~ .89 D 2 1,6 1.~ .84 ,96 .94 E 2 1.6 1,6 .87 .96 ,94 LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS INPUT VOLUME (vph): 546 ACTUAL FLOW RATE: 620 SERVICE LOS FLOW RATE V/C A 144 .07 B 383 .19 C 685 .3~ D 1252 .59 E 2197 LOS FOR GIVEN CONDITIONS: C ~NT BY: PGBROWN; 83t 7~42855; APH-~f-U~ /:~UA~; r~uc ~ 1985 HCM:TWO-LA~E HIGHWAYS FACILITY LOCATION .... Rt 25 East o~ Main St ANALYST .............. PGB TIM~ OF ANALYSIS ..... SUN 11-12 NOON DATE OF ANALYSIS ..... 01-17-2001 OTHER INFORMATION .... 2001 EV~LUATION A} C) ADJUSTMENT FACTORS PERCENTAGE OF TRUCKS ........................ 2 PERCENTAGE OF BUSES ......................... 2 PERCENTAGE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES ......... 5 DESIGN SPEED (MPH) .......................... 50 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ............................. 94 DIRECTION~J~ DISTRIBUTION (UP/DOWN) .......... 58 / 42 LANE WIDTH (FT) ............................. 10 USABLE SHOULDER WIDTH (AVG. WIDTH IN FT.)... 7 PERCENT NO PASSING ZONES .................... 57 CORRECTION FACTORS LEVEL TERRAIN LOS A E E E f f f T B R w d HV 2 1.8 2.2 .84 .~5 ,9t B 2,2 2 2.5 .84 .95 .89 C 2,2 2 2.5 ,84 .95 ,89 D 2 1.6 1.6 .84 .95 .94 1.6 1.6 .87 .95 .9% LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS INPUT VOLUME(vph): 1380 ACTUAL FLOW RATE: 1468 SERVICE LOS FLOW RATE V/C A 1%3 .07 B 380 .19 C 680 D 1244 .59 E 2184 1 LOS FOR GIVEN CONDITIONS: ENT BY: PGBROWN; 63t 7242855; APR-27-01 7:41AMi PAG~ 10 195E HCM:TWO-LANE HIGHWAYS FACILITY LOCATION .... Rt 25 East of Main St A~ALYST .............. PGB TIME OF ANALYSIS ..... SUN 5-6 PM DATE OF ANALYSIS ..... 01-17-2001 OTHER INFORMATION .... 2001 EVALUATION A) C) ADJUSTMENT FACTORS PERCENTAGE OF TRUCKS ........................ 2 PERCENTAGE OF BUSES ......................... 2 P~RCENTAGE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES ......... 5 DESIGN SPEED (MPH) .......................... 50 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ............................. 81 DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION (UP/DOW-N) .......... 38 / 62 LANE WIDTH (FT) ............................. 10 USABLE StIOULD~R WIDTI! (AVG. WIDTH IN FT.)... 7 PERCENT NO PASSING ZONES .................... 57 CORRECTION FACTORS LEVEL TERRAIN E E E f f f LOS T B R w d MV A 2 1.8 2.2 .84 .93 .91 B 2.2 2 2.5 .84 .93 .89 C 2.2 2 2,5 ,8% .93 D 2 1.6 1.6 ,84 .93 ,94 E 2 1.6 1,6 .87 .93 .9% LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS INPUT VOLUME (vph): 1396 ACTUAL FLOW RATE: 1723 SERVICE LOS FLOW PATE V/C A 140 .07 B 371 .19 C 665 .34 D 1215 .59 E 2133 1 BY: P¢~ROWN; 83t 7242855; APR-27-01 /:4~AM; ~AUC ~ 1985 KCM:TWO-LANE MIGMWAYS **************************************************************** FACILITY LOCATION .... Rt 25 East of'Main St ANALYST .............. PGB TIME OF ANALYSIS ..... SUN 9-10 PM DATE OF ANALYSIS ..... 01-17-2001 OTHER INFORMATION .... 2001 EVALUATION A) ADJUSTMENT FACTORS PERCENTAGE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES ......... 5 DESIGN SPEED (MPH) .......................... 50 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ............................. 72 DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION (UP/DOWN) .......... 50 / 50 LANE WIDTH (FT) ............................. 10 USABLE SMOULDER WIDTH (AVG. WIDTH IN FT.)... 7 PERCENT NO PASSING ZONES .................... 57 CORRECTION FACTORS LEVEL TERRAIN E E E f f f LOS T B R w d HV A 2 1.8 2.2 .84 1 .91 B 2.2 2 2.5 .84 I .89 C 2.2 2 2.5 .84 1 ,89 D 2 1.6 1.6 .84 1 .94 E 2 1.6 1.6 .87 1 .94 C) LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS INPUT VOLUME (~rph) : 658 ACTUAL FLOW RAT~: 914 SERVICE LOS FLOW PATE V/C A 150 .07 ~ 399 C 715 .34 D 1307 E 229% i LOS FOR GIVEN CONDITIONS: D ENT BY: PGBROWN; B3~ 7242~55; APR-27-0! 7:4~A~; ~AUe ~ 1985 HCM:TWO LANE HIGHWAYS FACILITY LOCATION .... R~ 25 West of Tabor Rd ANALYST .............. ~GB TIME OF ANALYSIS ..... 11-12 NOON DATE OF ANALYSIS ..... 01-17-2001 OTHER INFORMATION .... 2001 EVALUAT?0~ A) B) ADJUSTMENT FACTORS PERCENTAGE OF TRUCKS ........................ 2 PERCENTAGE OF BUSES ......................... 2 PERCENTAGE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES ......... 5 DESIGN SPEED (MPH) .......................... 50 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ............................. 76 DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION (UP/DOWI~) .......... 63 / 37 LANE WIDTH (FT) ............................. 10 US~]BLE SHOULDER WIDTH (AVG. WIDTH IN FT.) .,. 7 PERCENT NO PASSING ZONES .................... 57 CORRECTION FACTORS LEVEL TERRAIN LOS A E E E f f f T B R w d Hv 2 1.8 2.2 .84 .93 .91 B 2.2 2 2,5 .84 .93 .89 C 2,2 2 2~5 .84 D 2 1,6 1.6 .84 .93 .94 E 2 1,6 1,6 ,87 .93 ,94 C) LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS INPUT VOLUME (vph): 461 ACTUAL FLOW RATE: 607 SERVICE LOS FLOW RATE V/C A 139 .07 B 369 .19 C 661 .34 D 1209 .59 E 2122 1 LOS FOR GIVEN CONDITIONS: C ENT ~Y: P~BROWN; 83~ 72~2855~ APR.27.O! 7:41A~; ~A~ ~ 1985 HCM:TWO-LANE HIGHWAYS **************************************************************** FACILITY LOCATION .... Rt 25 West of Tabor Rd ANALYST .............. PG~ TIME OF ANALYSIS ..... 5-6 PM DATE OF ANALYSIS ..... 01-17-2001 OTHER INFORMATION .... 2001 EVALUATION A) B) C) ADJUSTMENT FACTORS PERCENTAGE OF TRUCKS ........................ 2 PERCENTAGE OF BUSES ......................... 2 PERCENTAGE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES ......... 5 DESIGN S~SED (M~) .......................... 50 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ............................. 84 DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION (UP/DOWN) .......... 56 / 44 LAi~E WID~ (FT) ............................. 10 USABLE S~OULDER WIDTH (AVG. WIDTH IN FT.)... 7 PERCENT NO PASSING ZONES .................... 57 CORRECTION FACTORS LEVEL TERRAIN LOS A E E E f f T B R w d 2 1.8 2.2 .84 .96 .91 B 2.2 2 2.5 .84 .96 .89 C 2.2 2 2.5 .84 .96 D 2 1,6 1.6 ,84 .96 ,9~ 1,6 1.6 .87 ,96 .94 LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS INPUT VOLUME (vph): 548 ACTUAL FLOW RATE: 652 SERVICE LOS FLOW PATE V/C A 145 .07 ~ 38S .19 C 689 .34 D 1260 .59 E 2211 1 ~NT BY: PGBROWN; 631 7~42855; AP~-27.01 7:41A~; ~A~ ~4 !955 HCM:TW0-LANE ~IGHWAYS FACILITY LOCATION .... Rt 25 West of Tabor Rd ANALYST .............. PGB TIME OF ANALYSIS ..... 9-10 PM DATE OF ANALYSIS ..... 01-17-2001 0TMER INFORMATION .... 2001 EVALUATION A) C) ADJUSTMENT ~ACTORS PERCENTAGE OF TRUCKS ........................ 2 PERCENTAGE OF BUSES ................... ' ...... 2 PERCENTAGE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES ......... 5 DESIGN SPEED (MP~) .......................... 50 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ............................. 61 DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION (UP/DOWN) .......... 57 / 43 LANE WIDT~ (FT) ............................. 3.0 USABLE SHOULDER WIDT~ (AVG. WIDTR IN FT,) ... 7 PERCENT NO PASSING ZONES .................... 57 CORRECTION FACTORS LEVEL TERPJIIN E E E f f f LOS T B R w d WV A 2 1.8 2.2 B 2.2 2 2.5 ,84 ,96 ,89 C 2.2 2 2.5 .84 .96 .89 1,6 ,84 ,96 ,94 1,6 .S? ,96 .94 LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS INPUT VOLUME(vph) : 240 ACTUAL FLOW RATE: 393 SERVICE LOS FLOW RATE V/C A 144 ,07 B 383 .~9 C 685 D 1252 .59 LOS FOR GIVEN CONDITIONS: C 1985 HCM:TW0-LANE HIGHWAYS **************************************************************** FACILITY LOCATION .... RZ 25 West of Tabor Rd ANALYST .............. PGB TIME OF A/~ALYSIS ..... SAT 11-12 NOON DATE OF ANALYSIS ..... 01-17-2001 OTHER INFORMATION .... 2001 EVALUATION A) B) C) ~JUSTMENT FACTORS PERCENTAGE OF TRUCKS ........................ 2 PERCENTAGE OF BUSES ......................... 2 PERCENTAGE OF RECREATIONAL VEKICLES ......... 5 DESIGN SPEED (MPH) .......................... 50 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ............................. 79 DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION (UP/DOWN) .......... 60 / 40 LA/~E WIDTH (FT) ............................. 10 USABLE SHOULDER WIDTH (AVG. WIDTH IN FT.).,. 7 PERCENT NO PASSING ZONES .................... 57 CORRECTION FACTORS LEVEL TERRAIN LOS A E E E f f f T B R w d WV 2 1.8 2,2 .84 .94 .91 B 2.2 2 2.5 .84 .94 .89 C 2.2 2 2.5 .84 ,94 .89 D 2 1.6 1.6 .84 .94 .94 E 2 1.6 1.6 .87 .94 .94 LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS INPUT VOLUME(vph) : 798 ACTUAL FLOW P~ATE: 1010 SERVICE LOS FLOW RATE V/C A 141 .07 B 375 .19 C 672 .34 D 1228 .59 E 2156 1 LOS FOR GIVEN CONDITIONS: D ~NT ~Y: P~bROWN; 63~ 7242855; APR-27-01 /:4~A~; ~Au~ ]~ 1985 HCM:TWO-LANE HIGHWAYS FACILITY LOCATION .... R5 25 W~st Of Tabor Rd A~ALYST .............. ~GB TIME OF ANALYSIS ..... SAT 5-6 PM DATE OF ANALYSIS ..... 01-17-2001 OTHER INFORMATION .... 2001 EVALUATION A) B) C) ADJUSTMENT FACTORS PERCENTAGE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES ......... 5 DESIGN SPEED (MPH) .......................... 50 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ............................. 84 DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION (UP/DOWN) .......... 45 / 55 LAIqE WIDTH (PT) ............................. 10 USABLE SHOULDER WIDTH (AVG. WIDTM IN FT.)... 7 PERCENT NO PASSING ZONES .................... 57 CORRECTiON FACTORS LEVEL TERRAIN E E E f f f LOS T B R w d HV A 2 1.8 2.2 .84 .97 .91 2.2 2 2.5 .Sq .97 .89 C 2.2 2 2.5 .84 .97 .89 D 2 1.6 1.6 .84 .97 .94 E 2 1,6 1.6 .87 .97 LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS INPUT VOLUME(vph) : 720 ACTUAL FLOW RATE: 857 SERVICE LOS FLOW RATE V/C A 146 .07 B 387 C 693 .3~ D 1267 .59 E 2225 1 LOS FOR GIVEN CONDITIONS: D -:NT BY: P~BROWN; 631 7242855; z985 HCM :TWO-LANE HIGHWAYS FACILITY LOCATION .... Rt 25 West oE Tabor Ed ANALYST .............. TIME OF A~ALYSIS ..... SAT 9-10 PM DATE OF ANALYSIS ..... 01-1'/-2001 OTHER INFORMATION .... 2001 EVALUATION A) E) C) ADJUSTMENT FACTORS PERCENTAGE OF TRUCKS ........................ 2 PERCENTAGE OF BUSES ......................... 2 PERCENTAGE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES ......... 5 DESIGN SPEED (MPH) .......................... 50 PEAK ~OUR FACTOR ............................. 68 DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION (UP/DOWN) .......... 68 / 32 LANE WIDTH (FT) ............................. 10 uSABLE SHOULDER WIDTH {AVG. WIDTH IN FT.)... 7 PERCENT NO PASSING ZONES .................... 57 CORRECTION FACTORS LEVEL TERRAIN S E E f f f LOS T B R w d WV A 2 1.8 2.2 .84 .9 .91 B 2.2 2 2.5 .84 .9 .89 C 2.2 2 2.5 .84 .9 .89 D 2 1.6 1,6 .84 .9 .94 E 2 1,6 1.6 .87 .9 ,94 LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS INPUT VOLUME(vph): 282 ACTUAL FLOW RATE: 415 SERVICE LOS FLOW RATE V/C A 135 .07 B 359 ,19 C 643 .34 D 1176 .59 E 20~4 1 ENT BY: PGBROW~; 63t 7242855; A~-~/-U3 [:~ZAU; ~A~: ~o !985 HCM:TWO-LANE HIGEWAYS **************************************************************** FACILITY LOCATION .... Rt 25 West of Tabor Rd ANALYST .............. PGB TIME OF ANALYSIS ..... SUN 11-12 NOON DATE OF ANALYSIS ..... 01-17-2001 OTBER INFORMATION .... 2001 EVALUATION A) B) C) ADJUSTMENT FACTOKS PERCENTAGE OF TRUCKS ........................ 2 PERCENTAGE OF BUSES ......................... 2 PERCENTAGE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES ......... 5 DESIGN SPEED (MPH) .......................... 50 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ............................. 87 DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION (IR/DOWN) .......... 66 / 34 LANE WIDT~ (FT) ............................. 10 USkBLE SHOULDER WIDTK (AVO. WIDTM IN FT.).,. 7 PERCENT NO PASSING ZONES .................... 57 COP~RECTION FACTORS LEVEL TERRAIN LOS A E f f ~ T B R w d HV 2 1.8 2.2 .84 .91 .91 B 2.2 2 2.5 C 2.2 2 2.5 .84 .91 ,89 D 2 1.6 ].6 .84 .91 .94 E 2 1.6 1.6 .87 .91 .94 LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS INPUT VOLUME(vph): 820 ACTUAL FLOW PATE: 943 SERVICE LOS FLOW RATE V/C A 137 .07 B 3~3 .19 C 650 .3~ D 1189 ,59 E ~087 1 LOS FOR GIVEN CONDITIONS: D ~NT BY: P~BROWN; 63t 7~42B55; A~-Zt-U~ ~:~A~; r~o: ~ 1985 HCM:TW0-LANE HIGHWAYS FACILITY LOCATION .... R~ 25 West of Tabor Rd ANALYST .............. PGB TIME OF ANALYSIS ..... SUN 5-6 PM DATE OP ANALYSIS ..... 01-17-2001 OTHER INFORMATION .... 2001 EVALUATION A) ~) C) ADJUSTMENT FACTOR~ PERCENTAGE OF TRUCKS ........................ 2 PERCENTAGE OP BUSES ......................... 2 PERCENTAGE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES ......... 5 DESIGN SPEED (MP~) .......................... 50 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ............................. 7 DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION (UP/DOWN) .......... 40 / 60 LANE WIDT~ (FT) ............................. 10 USABLE S~OULDER WIDTH (AV~. WIDTH IN FT.).., 7 PERCENT NO PASSING ZONES .................... S7 CORRECTION FACTORS LEVEL TERRAIN g E ~ f f ~ LOS T B R w d HV A 2 1.8 2.2 .84 .94 .91 B 2.2 2 2.5 .84 ,94 .89 C 2.2 2 2,5 .84 ,94 .89 D 2 ]..6 1,~ .84 ,94 .94 E 2 1.6 1.6 .87 .94 .94 LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS INPUT VOLUME (vph): 981 ACTUAL FLQW RATE: 1401 SERVICE LOS FLOW ~ATE V/C A 141 .0~ ~ 375 .L9 C 672 .34 D 1228 .59 E 2156 i LOS FOR GIVEN CONDITIONS: E 83I 72~2855; A~-~-U~ /:~A~; ~A~ zu 1985 ~CM:TWO-LA/gE HIGHWAYS FACILITY LOCATION .... Rt 25 Wes~ of Tabor Rd ANALYST .............. PGB TiME OF ANALYSIS ..... SLrN 9-10 PM DATE OF ANALYSIS ..... 01-17-2001 OTHER INFORMATION .... 200! EVALUATION B) C) ADJUSTMENT FACTORS PERCENTAGE OF TRUCKS ........................ 2 PERCENTAGE OF BUSES ......................... 2 PERCENTAGE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES ......... 5 DESIGN SPEED (MPH) .......................... 50 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ............................. 7 DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION (UP/DOWN) .......... 53 / 47 L~ WIDTH (FT) ............................. 10 USABLE SHOULDER WIDTH (AVG. WIDTH IN PT,),,. 7 PERCENT NO PASSING ZONES .................... 57 CORRECTION FACTORS LEVEL TERRAIN LOS A E E E f f f T B R w d HV 2 1.8 2.2 .84 .98 .91 B 2.2 2 2.5 .84 .98 .89 C 2.2 2 2.5 .84 .98 .89 D 2 1,6 1.6 .84 ,98 1.6 1.6 ,87 .98 LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS INPUT VOLUME (vph) : 420 ACTUAL FLOW RATE: 600 SERVICE LOS FLOW RATE V/C A 148 .07 B 392 .19 C 702 .34 D 1283 ,59 E 2252 LOS FOR GIVEN CONDITIONS: C ENT 9Y: PGBROWN; 631 7242855; APR.27.0~ ?:43AM; PAGE 2~/29 1985 HCM:TWO-LANE HIGHWAYS FACILITY LOCATION .... rT 25 East of Narrow River Rd ANALYST .............. PGE TIME OF ANALYSIS ..... 11-12 NOON DATE OF A~ALYSIS ..... 01-17-2001 OTHER INFORMATION .... 2001 EVALUATION A) C) ADJUSTMENT FACTORS PERCENTAGE OF BUSES ......................... 2 PERCENTAGE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES ......... 5 DESIGN SPEED (MPH) .......................... 50 ~EAK HOUR FACTOR ............................. 71 DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION (UP/DOWN) .......... 62 / 38 LANE WIDT~ (FT) ............................. 10 USABLE SHOULDER WIDTH (AVG. WIDTH IN FT.)... 7 PERCENT NO PASSING ZONES .................... 57 CORRECTION FACTORS LEVEL TERRAIN E E E f f f LOS T B R w d MY A 2 1.8 2.2 .84 .93 ,91 B 2.2 2 2.5 .84 .93 .89 C 2.2 2 2.5 .84 .93 .89 D 2 1.6 1.6 .84 .93 .94 1.6 .87 .93 ,94 LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS INPUT VOLUME(vph) : 359 ACTUAL FLOW RATE: 506 SERVICE LOS FLOW RATE V/C A 140 .07 B 371 .19 C 665 .34 D 1215 .59 E 2133 I LOS FOR GIVEN CONDITIONS: C ~ENT BY: PG~ROWN; 631 72428~5; AP~.27-01 7:43AM; ~A~ ~/29 1982 RCM:TWO-LANE ~IG~WAYS FACILITY LOCATION .... Rt 25 East of Narrow River Rd ANALYST .............. PGB TIME OF ANALYSIS ..... 5-6 PM DATE OF ANALYSIS ..... 0%-17-2001 OTEER INFORFLkTION .... 2001 ~VALUATION A) ~) ADJUSTMENT FACTORS PERCENTAGE OF TRUCKS ........................ 2 PERCENTAGE OF BUSES ......................... 2 PERCENTAGE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES ......... 5 DESIGN SPEED (MPH) .......................... 50 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ............................. 77 DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION (UP/DOWN) LANE WIDTH USABLE SHOULDER WIDTE (AVG. WIDTH IN FT.)... ? PERCENT NO PASSING ZONES .................... 57 CORRECTION FACTORS LEVEL TERRAIN LOS A E E f f f B R w d 1.8 2.2 .84 B 2.2 2 2.5 .84 .98 .89 C 2.2 2 2.5 .84 .95 .89 D 2 1.6 1.6 .84 ,98 ,94 E 2 1.6 1.6 .87 ,98 .94 C) LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS INPUT VOLUME (vph) : 257 ACTUAL FLOW RATE: 334 SERVICE LOS FLOW RATE V/C k 147 .07 B 390 .19 C 697 .34 D 1275 .59 E 2239 1 GIVEN CONDTTTONR~ R ':ENT BY: PGBR0WN; 6Bi 7242855; APH-2/-U1 F:4~A~; ~AU: Z~/Z~ 1985 HCM:TWO-LANE HIGHWAYS **************************************************************** FACILITY LOCATION .... Rt 25 Eas: o~ Narrow River Rd ANALYST .............. PGB TiME OF ANALYSIS ..... 9=10 PM DATE OF ANALYSIS ..... 01-17-2001 OTMER INFORMATION .... 2001 ~VALUATION A) ADJUSTMENT FACTORS PERCENTAGE OF TRUCKS ........................ 2 PERCENTAGE OF BUSES ......................... 2 PERCENTAGE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES ......... 5 DESIGN SPEED (MPH) .......................... 50 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ............................. 5 DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION (UP/DOWN) .......... 59 / LANE WIDT~ (FT) ............................. USABLE SMOULDER WIDTM (AVG. WIDTE IN FT,).., ? PERCENT NO PASSING ZONES .................... 50 B) CORRECTION FACTORS LEVEL TER~IN LOS T A 2 B 2.2 C 2.2 D 2 E 2 B E f f f R w d ~V 2.2 .84 .95 .91 2 2.5 .84 .95 .89 2.5 .84 .95 .89 1.6 .84 .95 ,94 1 6 1.6 .87 .95 C) LEVEL OF SERVICE RESUb'i'S INPUT VOLUME (vph): 57 ACTUAL FLOW RATE: SERVICE LOS FLOW RAT~ V/C A ~83 ,09 B 418 .21 C 716 .36 D ~257 ~ 2170 1 LOS FOR GIVEN CONDITIONS: A -'NT BY: 1985 HCM:TWO-LANE HIGHWAYS FACILITY LOCATION .... RL 2S East of Narrow River Rd ANALYST .............. PGB TIME OF ANALYSIS ..... SAT 11-12 NOON DATE OF ANALYSIS ..... 01-17-2001 OT~ER INFORMATION .... 2001 EVALUATION ~) c) ADJUSTMENT FACTORS PERCENTAGE OF TRUCKS ........................ 2 PERCENTAGE OF BUSES ......................... 2 PERCENTAGE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES ......... 5 DESIGN SPEED (MPH) .......................... 50 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ............................. 83 DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION (UP/DOWN) .......... 54 / 46 LANE WIDTH (FT) ............................. 10 USABLE SHOULDER WIDTH (AVG. WIDT~ IN FT.),.. 7 PERCENT NO PASSING ZONES .................... 50 CORRECTION FACTORS LEVEL TERP~AIN LOS A E E E f f f T B R w d HV 2 1.8 2.2 .84 .98 .91 B 2.2 2 2.5 .84 ,98 .89 C 2.2 2 2.5 .84 .98 .89 D 2 1.6 1.6 .84 .98 .94 E 2 1.6 1.6 .87 .98 .94 LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS INPUT VOLUME (vph): ACTUAL FLOW RATE: 541 SERVICE LOS FLOW RATE V/C A 189 .09 B 431 .21 C 739 .36 D 1297 .6 E 2239 LOS FOR GIVEN CONDITIONS: C 1985 HCM:TWO-LANE HIGEWAYS FACILITY LOCATION .... Rt 25 East of Narrow River Rd ANALYST .............. PGB TIME OF ANALYSIS ..... SAT 4-S PM DATE OF .~NALYSIS ..... '1/17/01 OTHER iNFORMATION .... 2001 EVALUATION A) B) C) ADJUSTMENT FACTORS P~RCENTAGE OF TRUCKS ........................ 2 PERCENTAGE OF BUSES ......................... 2 PERCENTAGE O~ RECREATIONAL VEHICLES ......... 5 DESIGN SPEED (MPH) .......................... 50 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ............................. 81 DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION (UP/DOWN) .......... 44 / 56 LANE WIDTH (FT) ............................. 10 USABLE SHOULDER WIDTH (AVG. WIDTH IN FT.).,. 7 PERCENT NO PASSING ZONES .................... 50 CORRECTION FACTORS LEVEL TERP. AIN E E E f f f LOS T B R w d HV A 2 1.8 2.2 .84 .96 .91 B 2.2 2 2.5 .SA .96 .89 C 2.2 2 2.5 .84 .96 .89 D 2 1.6 1,6 .84 .96 .94 E 2 1.6 1.6 .87 .96 .94 LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS INPUT V0LUME(~h) : 278 ACTUAL FLOW RATE: 343 SERVICE LOS FLOW RATE V/C A 186 .09 B 426 ,21 C 729 .36 D 1281 E 2211 LOS FOR GIVEN CONDITIONS: B ~NT BY: PGBROWNi 8S~ 7~2855; A~R-27-O~ 7:~AM; PAGE 28/29 1985 HCM:TWO-LANE HIGHWAYS FACILITY LOCATION .... R~ 25 East of Narrow River Rd ANALYST .............. PGB TIME OF ANALYSIS ..... SAT 9-10 PM DATE OP ANALYSIS ..... 1/17/01 OTHER INFORMATION .... 2001 EVALUATION A) C) ADJUSTMENT FACTORS PERCENTAGE OF RECREATIONAL VE~ICLES ......... 0 DESIGN SPEED (MP~) ............. ............. 50 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ............................. 53 DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION (UP/DOWN) .......... 63 / 37 LANE WIDTH (FT) ............................. 10 USABLE SHOULDER WIDTH (AVG. WIDTH IN FT.),.. 7 PERCENT NO PASSING ZONES .................... 50 CORRECTION FACTORS LEVEL TERRAIN E E E f ~ f LOS T B R w d HV A ~2 1.8 2.2 .8~ ,93 B 2.2 2 2.5 ,84 .93 1 C 2,2 2 2.5 ,84 .93 D 2 1,6 1,6 .84 .93 1 E 2 ~.6 1,6 .87 .93 ; LEVEL OF SERVICE RESUI,TS INPUT VOLUME (vph): 121 ACTUAL ~LOW RATE: 228 SERVICE LOS FLOW RATE V/C A ~96 B 457 .2~ C 783 .36 D 1305 .6 E 2253 ~NT BY: PGBROWN; 83~ 72~2B55~ APR-27-Ot ?:~4A~ PA~ 1985 HCM:TWO-LANE HIGNWAYS FACILITY LOCATION .... Rt 25 East of Narrow River Rd ANALYST .............. PGB TIME OF AlqALYSIS ..... SUN 11-12 NOON DA%'E OF ANALYSIS ..... 1/17/01 OTHER INFORMATION .... 2001 EVALUATION A) B) C) ADJUSTMENT FACTORS PERCENTAGE OF TRUCKS ........................ 2 PERCENTAGE OF BUSES ......................... 2 PERCENTAGE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES ......... 5 DESIGN SPEED (MPH) .......................... 50 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ............................. DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION (UP/DOWN) .......... 68 / 32 LANE WIDTH (FT) ............................. 10 USABLE SHOULDER WIDTH (AVG. WIDTH IN FT.)... 7 PERCENT NO PASSING ZONES .................... 50 CORRECTION FACTORS LEVEL TERRAIN E E E f f f LOS T B R w d HV A 2 1.8 2.2 .84 ,9 .91 B 2.2 2 2.5 .84 .9 .89 C 2.2 2 2.5 .84 .9 .89 D 2 1,6 1.6 .84 .9 .94 E 2 1,6 1.6 .87 ,9 .94 LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS INPUT VOLUME(vph): 488 ACTUAL FLOW PATE: 602 SERVICE LOS FLOW PATE V/C A 174 .09 B 397 C 681 .36 D 1196 .6 E 2064 i LOS FOR GIVEN CONDITIONS: C ~ENT ~Y: PGBROWN; 63~ 7242~55~ APR-27-O~ 7:44A~; PA~ ~/2§ 1985 HCM:TWO-LANE HIGHWAYS FACILITY LOCATION .... R~ 25 East of Nar£0w River Rd ANALYST .............. PGB TIME OF ANALYSIS ..... SUN 5-6 PM DATE OF ARALYSIS ..... 1/17/01 OTHER INFORMATION .... 2001 EVA~UATION A) B) ADJUSTMENT FACTORS PERCENTAGE OF TRUCKS ........................ 2 PERCENTAGE OF BUSES ......................... 2 PERCENTAGE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES ......... 5 DESIGN SPEED (MPH) .......................... 50 PEAK HOUR FACTOR .... ' ......................... 75 DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION (UP/DOWN) .......... 38 / 62 LANE WIDTH (FT) ............................. 10 USABLE SHOULDER WIDTH (AVG. WIDTH IN FT.)... 7 PERCENT NO PASSING ZONES .................... 50 CORRECTION FACTORS LEVEL TERRAIN E E E f f f LOS T B R w d HV A 2 1.8 2.2 .84 .93 .91 B 2,2 2 2,5 .84 .93 .89 C 2.2 2 2,5 .84 .93 ,89 D 2 1.6 1,6 ,8~ ,93 ,94 ~ 2 1.6 1.6 .87 ,93 .94 C) LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS INPUT VOLUME (vph): 395 ACTUAL FLOW RATE: 527 SERVICE LOS FLOW RATE V/C A 180 .09 B 410 .21 C 70~ .36 D 1236 .6 E 2133 I LOS FOR GIVEN COb-DITIONS: C 1985 HCM:TWO-LANE HIGHWAYS FACILITY LOCATION .... Rt 25 East of Narrow River Rd ANALYST .............. PGB TIME OF ANALYSIS ..... SUN 9-10 PM DATE OF ANALYSIS ..... 1/17/01 OTHER INFORMATION .... 2001 EVALUATION A) C) ADJUSTMENT FACTORS PERCENTAGE OF TRUCKS ........................ 2 PERCENTAGE OF BUSES ......................... 2 PERCENTAGE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES ......... 5 DESIGN SPEED (MPH) .......................... 50 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ............................. 5~ DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION (UP/DOWN) .......... 50 / 50 LANE WIDT~ (FT) ............................. 10 USABLE S~OULDER WIDTH (AVG. WIDTH IN FT.)... 7 P~RCENT NO PASSING ZONES .................... 50 CORRECTION FACTORS LEVEL TERP. AIN E E E f f f LOS T B R w d HV A 2 1.8 2.2 .84 1 .91 2.2 2 2.5 .$% i .89 C 2.2 2 2.5 .84 1 .89 D 2 1.6 1.6 .84 i .94 E 2 1,6 1.6 .87 1 .94 LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS iNPUT VOLUME (vph): 172 ACTUAL FLOW RATE: 325 SERVICE LOS FLOW RATE V/C A 193 .09 B 441 .21 C 757 .36 D 1~29 .6 ~ 2294 1 LOS FOR GIVEN CONDITIONS: B ATTACHMENT 5 EXCESS PASSENGER CAPACITIES