HomeMy WebLinkAboutArterial Management Best Practices - NYS 1997
~, '" ""'''''''''' ~
~"'''" oO'
'_:~:~c '
',-, :
{ '-O'
f _~;;~" "",,,
'O'_'~^,'O' . 00, ~..,.c
, " ~~", U~'.._ ^
"O'
,. - ^ ,--,. ~
~^~~~~
O'""-,O'"",,,
New York State Association of
Metropolitan Planning Organizations
and
New York State Department of Transportation
1997
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This report is very much an evolving document; embracing, as it does, the experience of many, many
, State and local planners and officials. Their dedication should guide us in the future; and as they test
new approaches to arterial access management and gain additional experience this report will be
expanded.
This report is also the obvious result of many busy minds. Steve Ferranti (SRF & Associates), Geoffrey
Benway (now with the Town of Penfield), Aaron Gagne (Director of Development in Canandaigua), and
Ron Brand (Director of Development for the Town of Farmington) provided information and support for
the preparation of the case studies --but more importantly, their actions have been important in making
arterial access management work in a number of areas. Many others in the Department and
metropolitan planning organizations, including Tim Gilchrist, Arthur Perkins, Gayle Burgess, Richard
Morris, Karl Horn, Rich Peters, Dick Carlson, Brian Rowback, Steve Vetter, Carey Babyak, George
Greenslade, Chuck Riedel, Jim Davis, Paul Cuerdon, Joe Huba, Owen Shevlin, Ken Carlson, Ed Small,
and John Poorman provided thoughtful insight from their varying operational and regional perspectives.
A special thanks to Brad Oswald and Lynn Webb ofthe Corridor Management Group who provided
insight and productive criticism throughout the development of this report. Finally, many thanks to
Diane Kenneally and Mark Bush of Design Services --for their assistance with graphics; and Linda
Huneau and Jacelyn Tompkins for their constant humor and assistance.
Steve Munson
Arterial Access Management Initiative
Transportation infrastructure and safe and efficient traffic operations are fundamental to local and regional
economic development. Maintaining safe and efficient traffic operations, however, requires a careful balancing
between the need to accommodate through traffic and also provide high quality access to properties abutting the
roadway.
The Arterial Access Management Initiative is a collaboration between the New York State Department of
Transportation and local governments which focuses on melding transportation and land-use management
strategies to preserve and enhance mobility while promoting development along uncontrolled access facilities.
The Initiative incorporates the use of management techniques which are effective and can be applied in addressing
local growth and traffic management issues to obtain the greatest benefit from our State and local transportation
investments. Towards this end, the New York State Department of Transportation includes arterial management as
an integral component of its planning, traffic safety and project development activities and works in partnership
with local governments to ensure that this strategy is available to assist localities in their efforts to accommodate
economic development.
The Department does not, nor can it, stand alone in its commitment to linking land-use, development and
transportation. For example, the land-use and local system management actions of the Towns of Penfield,
Canandaigua and Farmington are paralleled by similar activities in other localities seeking to maintain the
aesthetic character of their communities while fostering growth. Similarly, at the regional level, the metropolitan
planning organizations have acted to more closely align land-use and transportation planning. The Capital District
Transportation Committee has implemented procedures linking land-use and transportation planning and
management through its project development and selection process. Others, such as the Syracuse Metropolitan
Transportation Council and the Genesee Transportation Council, have initiated community-oriented outreach and
education programs to increase the understanding of the relationship between land-use and transportation and,
through these, generate local demand for collaborative transportation and land-use planning and management.
This rising tide of actions more formally linking land-use and transportation planning and management bodes well
for the future. It cannot help but result in a transportation system which is more consistent with community needs
and objectives.
The New York State Department of Transportation's Arterial Access
Management Initiative combines the planning, management and control
tools discussed in this report with innovative financing to form a coherent
collaborative approach to arterial management. NYSDOT brings two
critical elements to this State and local collaboration:
the authority, information and skills to integrate local land-use
management with transportation projects into an effective arterial
management initiative; and,
technical support services, which have been and can be provided
to assist municipalities in implementing these initiatives, as
shown at right.
NYSDOT Support Services
Training
Outreach
Scope of Work for Consultants
Review EIS & Mitigation
Evaluate Tools &Applications
Link to NYSDOT Projects
Link to Corridor & Arterial Plans
Review & Draft Codes & Reg.s
Define Cost Shares
Project & Innovative Finance
Contact the NYSDOT Regional Planning and Program Manager in your area to learn more about this initiative as
well as other support services provided by the Department or to obtain assistance in implementing the measures
discussed in this report.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. I
A. Layout. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. I
B. Overview ............................................................. 2
II. STATE AND LOCAL COLLABORATION. .. .. ... . .. ... . .. .. .. . .. . .. .. .. ... . .. ... 6
A. Transportation Planning and Project Development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6
B. Mitigation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8
C. Access Management ................................................... 10
D. Corridor Preservation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12
III. TRANSPORTATION TOOLS... ... .. .. .. . .. . . .... ... ... .. ...... .. .. ... . . .. . . .. 14
A. NewRoadsandBypasses............................................... 14
B. Road Widening, New Lanes ............................................. IS
C. Turn and Merge Lanes. .. ... . . .. . .. .. .. . . .. .... .. .. ... . .. .. . . . . . .. ... . .. IS
D. Medians ............................................................. 16
E. Signal Installation and Timing ........................................... 17
F. Accommodating Heavy Vehicles .......................,................. 17
G. Transit.... .. .. .. ... .. ... .. .. .. . .. .. . .. ..... .. .. .. .... .. . .... .. ... ... 18
H. Parking Management. .. .,. .... ... .. .. .... ... ... . . .. .... ... .. .. .. ... .. .. 19
1. Transportation Demand Management .. . . .. .. . . .. . . .. .. .. . . .. .. .. .. . .. . .... 19
J. Traffic Calming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 20
K. Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities.. .. .. . . . .. . .. .. .. . . .. .. .. . .. . . .. . . . .. .. .. 21
IV. LAND-USE MANAGEMENT TOOLS. . .. .. . . . .. . .. . .. . . . . . . .. . .. . .. . . .. .. . . . ... 23
A. Driveway Spacing Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 24
B. Minimum Corner Clearance Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 25
C. Driveway Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 27
D. Shared Driveways and Cross Access Driveways ............................. 27
E. Subdivision Design and Control .......................................... 28
F. Setbacks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 29
G. Official Mapping ... . .. .. .. . . . .. .. . . .. .. .. .. .. . . .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. . .. .. 30
H. Provide Access/Service Roads ........................................... 31
1. Transit Oriented Land-Use .............................................. 31
J. Adapt to Congestion ................................................... 32
APPENDIX A, CASE STUDIES ...................................................... 34
Capital District Transportation Committee: Land-Use and Transportation Program. . . . . . .. 34
Town of Ulster: Route 9W Arterial By-Pass. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 37
Town of Penfield: Land-Use and Access Management Plan .......................... 41
Towns ofCanandaigna and Farmington: Route 332 Corridor Management .............. 43
Town of Malta, Saratoga County: Phased Mitigation: State Farm Insurance. . . . . . . . . . . . .. 46
APPENDIX B, GLOSSARY AND ACRONYMS ........................................ 49
END NOTES AND REFERENCES .................................................... 52
I.
INTRODUCTION
A.
Layout
This report is comprised of four chapters. This chapter provides an overview of the problems
confronting transportation planners and the benefits that result from effective arterial management.
Chapter II, State and Local Collaboration, identifies when and how state and local agencies collaborate in
developing arterial plans and projects and describes several discrete, local initiatives that contribute to
arterial management. Chapter III, Transportation Tools, describes the traditional transportation
techniques used to resolve congestion and safety problems. Land Use Management Tools, Chapter IV,
identifies and describes land-use management tools that can be used to improve the transportation and
development functions of uncontrolled access arterials.
Case studies examining the application of these transportation and land-use management tools and
techniques are provided in Appendix A. The cases were selected to illustrate the use of arterial
management techniques and tools to resolve congestion problems as well as to balance or improve the
potential for local economic development. They also demonstrate the mutual benefits resulting from
collaborative relationships between NYSDOT and local governments in addressing transportation and
growth related issues. These cases include the following:
Capital District Transportation Committee, Land-Use/Transportation Program -- This case
illustrates a programmatic approach to linking land-use and transportation planning on a regional
basis.
Ulster -- This case illustrates collaborative planning, state and local cost sharing and innovative
local finance in the construction of a local bypass to alleviate congestion and degraded access to
businesses on State Route 9W. The bypass provides access to undeveloped properties increasing
their value and development potential.
Penfield -- Implementation of a Town initiated access management plan to leverage the benefits
of a State construction project. This case illustrates application of land-use and transportation
tools (including both retrofit and preemptive tools) to enhance overall local development
objectives.
Canandaigua and Farmington -- Collaborative, State and local development of a corridor-long
access management and transportation enhancement plan involving two municipalities. This
case illustrates application ofland-use and transportation tools to protect the transportation
utility of the Rt. 332 corridor.
State Farm, Saratoga -- This case describes a state, local and private collaboration to mitigate the
transportation impacts of a major development. It illustrates the use of the State Environmental
Quality Review Act (SEQRA) process, and negotiation, to achieve a more flexible, phased
approach to impact mitigation.
1
B. Overview
The State's uncontrolled access arterials play important roles for both transportation and local
development. They serve through traffic: connecting village to town to city; collecting and distributing
traffic bound from home to work, school or other destinations; and providing key connections between
local roads and the higher speed, higher capacity interstates and expressways.' Uncontrolled access
arterials also support development, and properties along such roads may have direct connections
(driveways) to the roadway. (The main street through a community is a good example of an uncontrolled
access arterial.)
CClU.EC'>OAS
ACCESS
TOPflO?ERTY
Uncontrolled access arterials have been the focus of
local development for many years and this is one of
the key factors behind suburbanization. There is,
however, neither definition nor consensus as to an
appropriate balance between traffic operations, on
one hand, and access to local development on the
other. And, as responsibility for determining this
balance is split, with NYSDOT having authority for
construction and operation of state roads and
municipalities having primary responsibility for
regulation and control of land-use and development,
development has become the primary function for
many arterials.
or.e
~
:;;" ^ .;~
=mRU~RPi-t:tC-~;
1<,"-" .,,'~"',' '<'--" :-')
'~~VBllem:..>-~"
-~, ~ ~~ .t7A;$~ :~~~,
",,;;jltiJ!'" ':J~;;;"~
. ,~=''p~
w..'1'ERST-A1'S.:'
I'N!t!WA>'S
ttmw>.An;;
~
ACCESS ROODS
L.OCAt.RQAOS
Uncontrolled access arterials are built to
serve through traffic, first, and provide
access to development, second.
The result is that the State's arterial network is under tremendous stress. The most obvious symptom is
congestion. It is estimated that users of the arterial network expended over 42,000,000 hours in delay in
1993. Congestion also carries a hefty economic price tag. Using NYSDOT figures, the delay in 1993
cost arterial users an estimated $310,000,000.' The commercial impacts may be even more significant,
as congestion increases the cost of delivery and business travel. This increases the costs of goods and
services produced and consumed in New York and erodes the State's ability to attract businesses and sell
its products in domestic and foreign markets. Locally, congestion decreases market size and businesses
may close or relocate where heavy traffic impedes access to their facility.
The impacts of congestion have, in turn, increased demand for transportation infrastructure and! or
management. At the same time, in densely developed areas, it is often not feasible to build new or widen
existing roadways simply because of the resulting social and economic impacts on existing developments
in the necessary right-of-way.
The factors driving congestion on uncontrolled access arterials are well known and not generally
exclusive to arterials. They include:
Increased Road-Based Travel The vehicle miles traveled (VMT) on the State system increased
by 36.S-percent between 1982 and 1992 despite much smaller increases in population, registered
vehicles and drivers. These trends are expected to continue.
Limited Exoansion oftbe Road Svstem The total mileage of roads increased by only 2.1-
percent between 1982 and 1992. The total mileage of state roads, which account for the large
2
"'_"_"~~"""'_"'M_-'--
~--~-
majority of travel, grew by only 0.6-percent.
Transit Constraints With the possible exception of the greater New York City metropolitan
area, the pattern of suburban development inhibits opportunities to develop traditional transit
services.
Develonment Alone Arterials FinalIy, and of specific consequence for uncontrolIed access
arterials, traffic generated by large and/or intense developments along such roads conflicts with
through traffic, decreasing speed, capacity and safety.
How does development affect traffic and safety? Traffic entering or exiting driveways
interferes with through traffic. As the number of driveways increases, so does the number of
conflict points and the number of actual conflicts. Safety decreases and con~estion increases.
Take, for example, a quarter-mile, two-lane road, with 7 two-way driveways at 200 feet intervals on
each side. Each driveway "creates" 3 major and 6 minor conflict
points, as at left. This results in 42 major and 84 minor conflict
points along the road. Eve1;y through vehicle will cross at least 42
of these points. If a vehicle traverses the area traveling at 40 MPH
the driver will need to make a slow/stop/accelerate decision every
eight-tenths of a second on average, and more frequently if
through or turning volumes are large.
If the number of lanes or driveway densities increase, or driveway
alignments change, the number of conflict points increases. If the number of driveways doubles, for
example, so does the number of conflict points while the average time available for a driver to
perceive and react to a potential conflict is halved. Conversely, if the number of driveways is halved
so too are the number of conflict points while the average perception/reaction time is doubled.
Resolving congestion and safety problems on the State's uncontrolled access arterials is complex,
expensive and time-consuming but crucial to the vitality of the State. Further, the available solutions
must be:
Cost Efficient Available funding is insufficient to maintain the existing state road system at
existing levels of service let alone resolve congestion problems by providing additional capacity.
Intel1:rated The current ad hoc approaches to development management fail to address the
cumulative transportation impacts of development and may simply pass congestion problems
"down the line". Arterial management strategies must address the fulI road hierarchy and the
cumulative impacts of development. Arterial management strategies must also integrate multi-
modal opportunities.
Practical Capital projects can take up to 15 years or more from conception through
construction; consequently major changes to the transportation system involving a number of
projects will take many, many years. To be effective arterial management must avoid the
3
counter-productive ratcheting that can
result from short-term or divergent
pressures.
Collaborative Arterial planning may
involve dozens of organizations with a
direct, formal role: from municipal
planning departments and local transit
agencies through the Metropolitan
Transportation Organizations (MPOs) to
the State Department of Transportation.
Many others may have a direct stake in
the resulting arterial management
strategies. Direct, active collaboration is
the principal method of developing
"acceptable" strategies among
organizations with distinct and often
diverse objectives.
Local officials must be involved in order to
resolve or avoid the traffic problems resulting
from development along arterials.
Foresillhted Many municipalities have recognized that the extent of development along some
arterials is inconsistent with their overall needs and objectives. Retrofit of existing development
is, however, more difficult and expensive than anticipating problems before they occur. Arterial
management strategies are most effective when they are preemptive; incorporating actions to
avoid future traffic and safety problems, enhance multi-modal solutions, and improve
opportunities for local development.
Effective arterial management demonstrably improves safety and reduces congestion. The NYSDOT,
1995/1996, Five-Year Program, for example, which emphasizes transportation alternatives, estimates a
reduction of 204,677 vehicle-hours of delay per day (VHDID) over projected VHDID on state roads by
the year 2000. It also projects a 26 percent
reduction in accidents at treated locations.
Importantly, these benefits occur throughout the
State and result from a variety of projects.
Indeed, 75 percent of the projected reduction in
VHDID will result from the implementation of
transportation systems management and demand
management projects.'
3.;
30
.
,
':"
,
~
~20
:>:
,
~l&
C
,
'ElIO
"
"
<
151030
Commercial Driveways
DAADT <5000 .5.000-15.000 D>15.0oo
Mid-block accidents per mile per year as a
function of traffic volume and control over the
number and density of driveways. (NYSDOT
Class Data, 1/91-12/93, CDTC)
_lhanlS
The transportation benefits of land-use
management initiatives are also significant and are
normally achieved at substantially lower costs
than traditional transportation projects. While not
strictly comparable because of differences in the
local environment, roadway conditions, analytic
approach, and! or the type and intensity of
techniques applied, studies around the country
confirm that access management alone improves
4
safety, capacity, and speed --often dramatically:
accidents decreased by 14 to 68 percent, average
operating speeds increased by 22 to 70 percent, and
capacity increased by between 42 and 80 percent.'
The benefits of the application of land-use tools
extend well beyond improvements to the safe and
efficient flow of traffic, however. Perhaps most
importantly for municipalities, application of these
tools provides an opportunity to shape the
evolution of transportation infrastructure to meet
local goals. Reduced congestion, for example, can
improve access to local businesses and increase
their overall market area, as shown at right.'
,..
..
J:
..
:Ii
~
~ eo
.
.
<
;; ..
..
.
:Ii
o
" ..
.
e
.
..
..
40.5 . JU 17
Avel'llg. Tl'lIvel Speed, MPH
....
Congestion decreases average travel speeds. As
speeds decrease so does a locality's market area.
Effective arterial management combines the
transportation and land-use tools discussed in
Chapters II-IV through a state and local
collaboration. It is not clear that the traffic and safety benefits of this combination are cumulative.
It is clear, however, that tllis approach reduces long-term costs, preserves investment in transportation
infrastructure and provides a more effective balance between transportation and development. It is also
clear that land-use management can be effective in resolving congestion problems and thereby reduces
the need for costly transportation improvements.
5
II. STATE AND LOCAL COLLABORATION
A. Transportation Plannin~ and Proiect Development
Core Characteristics of Arterial Management
Arterial management involves the application of state and local planning,
capital, regulatory, and management tools to enhance and/or preserve the
transportation function of the roadway.
It is a continuing process in which state and local officials share leadership. Importantly,
local officials assume responsibility for land-use actions that can enhance transportation.
It establishes objectives and provides a strategic framework through which to select and
define transportation projects and initiate complimentary land-use management actions.
It is a long-term effort generally implemented through a series of transportation
infrastructure, management and multi-modal projects and local land-use management
initiatives.
It balances state transportation and economic goals with the development and "quality-of-
life" objectives of municipalities along the arterial.
It uses the full array of state and local planning, management, capital, and regulatory tools
necessary to achieve effective solutions.
It addresses the full effective length of an arterial, sometimes involving several
municipalities, and the full road hierarchy --including state and local roads in all functional
classes.
Effective arterial management begins with good planning. In New York, there are two mid- to long-
range planning efforts in which state and local collaboration can dramatically enhance arterial
management. At the regional level these are the Long Range Transportation Plans developed by the
metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) --for urban areas, and the Regional Comprehensive Plans
by the Department's regional offices. These plans establish regional transportation objectives and
priorities, define the policy and criteria for the selection of transportation projects, and may define land-
use management actions which are suggested for or required of municipalities. Municipal participation
can ensure that local needs and objectives are formally considered in the development of state plans.
Equally importantly, municipal participation provides an opportunity for planners to apply local land-use
management capabilities to reduce the conflicts between development and transportation.
At the local level these include the municipal comprehensive plans. Participation by state transportation
planners in the development (or updating) of municipal comprehensive plans is imperative. First,
6
because these plans provide the fundamental policies and structure guiding the development and
application of local land-use controls including zoning, subdivision, site-plan approval, and official
mapping --all of which are intrinsic elements of effective arterial management. Second, because local
comprehensive plans are the principle local instrument addressing the full state and local road network.
And, finally, because participation provides transportation planners with an opportunity to integrate
transportation-sensitive land-use elements to local comprehensive plans.
The critical element in linking state and municipal actions in effective arterial management is, however,
the relationship between PLANNING and ACTION: how the State and/or metropolitan planning
organizations collaborate with municipalities to act on an arterial management "project" and when this
collaboration takes place. The initial step most frequently occurs before a project becomes a formal part
of the Department's Transportation Improvement Program (TIP); that is, when a transportation problem
is identified and methods of resolving the problem are considered. Opportunities to integrate
transportation and land-use management tools are, thus, addressed when the project becomes a candidate
for the TIP.
The metropolitan planning organizations can playa fundamental role in linking local land-use action to
the development and selection of a state transportation project. The Capital District Transportation
Committee, for example, has established a IO-step process to integrate land-use and transportation
decisions, as outlined and discussed in the Case Study ofCDTC.' Moreover, CDTC's project screening
requirements provide substantial incentive for active participation in this program as, to be placed on the
TIP: all projects must be consistent with the regional plan; all projects must be consistent with or
compliment projects in the adjacent jurisdiction; fixed capacity improvements must be linked to local
land-use management; and, all projects must be consistent with community desires as documented in
local land-use plans.
Once a project is placed on the TIP there are two additional stages in the project management process
where local participation is important. 7 The first is Project Scoping. The purpose of scoping is to
establish a consensus about the nature of a proposed project and what it is to accomplish. It defines the
physical, operational, financial, environmental, and institutional requirements. It also identifies feasible
alternatives, which involves extensive input from state and local agencies as well as the general public.
The second stage where alternatives are addressed and refined (and sometimes added) is Preliminary
Design. At this stage the feasible alternatives are evaluated in greater detail; the social, environmental
and economic impacts of the project are assessed; and agency and public input on the project is obtained.
The product of preliminary design is selection of the alternatives to be imolemented as Dart of a oroiect.
Local input during the Scoping and Preliminary Design stages can have a significant affect on the final
design and, occasionally, timing of a project. It can, for example, more closely align the final design of a
project with local objectives where local knowledge suggests that specific enhancements will increase
the overall transportation benefits. Also, in specific circumstances, local betterments and/or
transportation mitigation can be combined with a state project to avoid the disruption of traffic associated
with sequential work in the right-of-way. Further, alignment with a state project may provide
substantial opportunity to leverage local resources. In Canandaigua, for example, the Town's plans to
construct a network of local access roads lead to the incorporation of "planned" intersections in the
Department's project design as well as the potential for the State to share the cost of constructing of a
number of local access roads. This could significantly reduce the cost of future roadwork for the Town.
7
Partnering between localities and the State and/or metropolitan planning organizations extends well
beyond planning and collaboration in the selection and design of specific projects, however. The
Department also promotes and supports a variety of local initiatives that contribute to arterial
management. These initiatives include transportation impact mitigation, access management and
corridor preservation.
B. Mitigation
1. Site Specific Mitigation
Every development which generates traffic has an effect on the road system. Individual developments
which generate or attract large volumes of traffic will create congestion and degrade safety unless
mitigating actions are taken. The Department requires major developers to mitigate the congestion and
safety problems created by their facilities so as to maintain the existing level of service on state roads.'
Enforcement of this policy is provided through the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA)9
and/or the Highway Work Permit Process required by NYSDOT.IO
The municipality acts as the Lead Agency for the SEQRA review. NYSDOT participates as an involved
agency when a Highway Work Permit is required. NYSDOT may also participate as an interested
agency when the development is not on a state Highway and a Highway Work Permit is not required but
the development may still impact a state road.
Early and ongoing communications between the developer, the lead municipality and NYSDOT are key
to improved transportation solutions, and can minimize delays that are possible without such
coordination. NYSDOT should be notified of a proposed development likely to impact a state highway as
early as practicable. The ideal place for early discussions to take place is in the SEQRA scoping
meeting. If formal SEQRA scoping is not done this coordination should still take place in order to avoid
possible misunderstandings and confusion at a later date.
The actual coverage of the SEQRA analysis is commensurate with the magnitude of the development and
problems under study. Larger developments may require a Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) as part
of the EIS and the developer and lead municipality should coordinate with NYSDOT to ensure that the
scope of TIA is adequate.
Mitigation requirements are established during the SEQRA review and/or the Highway Work Permit
process. Mitigation is generally required to be completed prior to opening of the development. Phased
traffic mitigation may, however, be allowed on a case-by-case basis, as was the case for State Farm
Insurance, in the Town of Malta. While NYSDOT will not issue a Highway Work Permit until all the
requirements ofSEQRA are met, it can require mitigation independent of the SEQRA process.
Similarly, a municipality can require mitigation over and above NYSDOT requirements.
Mitigation requirements can reflect broader plans for a corridor and may include provisions for
sidewalks and traffic demand management, transit facilities (e.g. bus stops and shelters), access retrofits
(shared driveways or cross access), and/or corridor enhancement (access or service roads) --although the
required mitigation must be linked to the impacts of the specific development at issue. These, too may
be incorporated into the local site plan approval and/or the Highway Work Permit together with the
conditions which would necessitate implementation including, most commonly, a change in use or
8
increase of intensity, involving an increase in vehicular traffic and/or development of adjacent properties.
2. Cumulative Impact Mitigation
In the large majority of cases transportation impact mitigation is required only for major projects.
(NYSDOT, for example, issued 7,493 Highway Work Permits in 1994, of which 1293 were for
residential, subdivision and commercial developments. Only 49 of these permits included requirements
for transportation impact mitigation. II) Smaller developments were not required to undergo a SEQRA
review or to mitigate their transportation impacts; most commonly because their impacts were
insufficient, by themselves, to warrant transportation mitigation. But, the cumulative impacts of small to
moderate sized development are generally greater than those of a single large development. They are
also more difficult to address as they take place over time and may be relatively widely dispersed.
Partially as a result, the costs associated with correcting such impacts are often large and usually shifted
to a municipality or the State rather than the developer.
One method used to exam ine and address the cumulative impacts of smaller development is the Generic
Environmental Impact Statement (GElS). A GElS may be used to assess the environmental impacts of a
number of separate actions in a given geographic area which, if considered together, may have
significant impacts; or separate actions having generic or common impacts." A GElS is more general
than a site specific ElS and is typically used to consider broad-based actions or related groups of actions.
Its intent is establish conditions and thresholds which would apply to future development. It is otherwise
similar to a site specific ElS in terms of the procedures and technical approaches followed.
A GElS has the additional advantage of streamlining future SEQRA compliance. That is, no further
SEQRA compliance is required if a proposed action will be carried out in conformance with the
conditions and thresholds established in the GElS." Alternatively, a supplemental review can address
elements which are specific to development at a specific site.
The utility of the GElS process for transportation is clear from two recent examples: the Vischer Ferry
Road Corridor in the Town of Clifton Park and Land-Use and Access Management Plan (LUAMP) in the
Town of Penfield. In both cases the towns reacted to development pressure by establishing an informal
development moratorium and initiating GElS efforts. In Clifton Park this focused on defining allowable
development and then the mitigation and public infrastructure needs (water, sewerage, transportation,
etc;) stemming from proposed development. In contrast, Penfield's effort focused on the impacts of
growth on traffic and consequently focused on the land-use, infrastructure and transportation
improvements necessary to preserve traffic and safety.
In Clifton Park, GElS identified the capital improvements necessary to serve existing and projected users
of the State and local road system; the allocation of capital costs for these improvements to the State,
Town and developments within the study area --with the development allocation based on the ratio of
projected development trips to total trips; and a system of mitigation fees to be collected as development
occurs --the transportation fee averages $250/trip, overall.
The results were substantially the same in Penfield, with three additional elements. First, the Town used
the LUAMP/GElS effort to develop access management standards implemented bv local law to reduce
the impacts of development on the road system. Secondly, the LUAMP provided for access retrofits to
existing businesses in the Study area. Finally, the LUAMP orovided for betterments to the existing
9
NYSDOT project as part of the overall access management plan. Costs for these betterments and other
off-road improvements were to be financed through a system which includes access mitigation fees
imposed within an overlay district, ROW donations and private cost sharing.
.c.. Access Manal;l"ement
Over the past decade access management has emerged as a major technique to address the conflicts
between through traffic and traffic generated by development, specifically, and is usually a major
element of an arterial management program." Its goals are to limit the number of conflict points (at
driveways, median breaks and intersections), separate conflict points, and remove turning traffic from
through movements.
Some states have laws and/or regulations governing access. New York does not. As a result, access
control authority in New York is decentralized and access management initiatives take several forms.
Some municipalities apply snecific access control tools to address specific problems. The Town ofIslip,
for example, works with property owners along heavily developed arterials to interconnect retail and
commercial parking and thereby remove turning vehicles from the roadway. Similarly, the Town of
Brookhaven restricts the number of driveways to subdivisions to reduce the number of conflict points.
There is, however, an increasing trend for the State and metropolitan planning organizations to "Partner"
with municipalities in developing comprehensive access management plans to compliment a capital
project, as is the case in Penfield, Farmington and Canandaigua. These partnerships have also been
initiated as a result of program requirements. At the regional level, for example, the Capital District
Transportation Committee (CDTC) requires localities to implement land-use and access management as
a formal condition in the selection of capacity projects.
Implementation of an Access Management Program can be simple or complex. A review of five issues
can be helpful in determining the timing, type, and intensity of such a program.
Why implement an Access Management Program, Now? A full-fledged program requires
time, resources and political capital and must be justified by pragmatic benefits. Municipal
action has generally resulted from a combination of opportunities to correct existing or predicted
traffic and safety problems linked to development; alleviate business concerns over the potential
loss of revenue resulting from congestion; avoid local expenditures necessary to resolve future
traffic problems resulting from development; manal!e the transportation system to accommodate
and promote local economic and social objectives; leverage local resources by combining efforts
with a state project; and, meet stateIMPO requirements for a capital project.
How will the Access Management Program be implemented? An effective program is
enforceable. An early inclination, if not decision, as to the method of implementation is helpful
in defining the procedures to be followed and the legal and technical elements to be addressed in
developing a program that is enforceable. A number of options are possible: through integration
in a comprehensive master plan", as mitigation or development requirements in an area covered
by a GElS, through amendment of local zoningl6 or subdivision regulations, as zoning or
subdivision regulations within an overlay district,17 as part of a capital project, by local policy
(e.g.. as a resolution), as an element of site plan review and approval,18 or some combination of
these.
10
;-'~-<---~--~-""-~;-^-"'~~"'~~~"'-'>""'-"~
What roads will the Access Management Program cover? From a transportation perspective
an access program is most effective when it covers a relatively large area and the full hierarchy
of roads. In most cases, however, municipalities have targeted a subset of roads which serve
through and local traffic, are commercially developed or under development pressure and have
or are projected to have traffic problems. In order to enSure that traffic problems aren't simply
passed "down-the-line" the access program should, however, address the road or roads on a
corridor basis. Further, care should be taken to ensure the program addresses access on roads
crossing the facility. Thus, the proposed access ordinances for Farmington and Canandaigua will
cover developments for the full effective length of Route 332, from the Thruway to the City of
Canandaigua line, as well as on cross roads out to a distance of 1/4 mile.
Will the Program address current or projected development, or both? NYSDOT
encourages programs which address both. Areas which are only lightly to moderately developed
are more likely to have programs emphasizing future development. The current (draft) plans for
Canandaigua and Farmington, thus, focus on applying appropriate access standards to future
developments. Access retrofits are to be considered when existing businesses apply for a permit
for a change-of-use or expanded facilities. In more heavily developed areas, or areas where the
transportation impacts of existing businesses are apparent, access programs address both
existing and projected development. Penfield's Land Use and Access Management Plan, for
example, requires retrofits for existing businesses and applies access standards to future
development.
What institutional conflicts might occur and how will they be resolved? The decision to
undertake an access management plan reflects a determination that the transportation impacts of
development are unacceptable. But, an access program affects many constituencies with often
distinct and occasionally polar interests. The ability to establish priorities and resolve competing
interests is imperative. Local leadership and teaming is important. The team should be lead by a
municipal official (e.g. the Town Supervisor) and would include representatives from planning,
transportation, environmental, and economic development agencies. If the program involves
retrofit or requires public approval, close consultation with affected constituencies is desirable
including the business community, the school district(s), and special interest groups.
The major tools used to implement a broad access management program are discussed in Chapters III
and IV. Importantly, choice of the most appropriate tools depends On the specific situation. In lightly
developed areas land-use tools are highly effective in preempting future traffic problems at relatively low
cost; particularly minimum spacing and design standards for driveways, alternative access, limiting the
number of driveways to individual properties and subdivisions, and provisions for future interconnection
of parking.
As the level of development intensifies the application of other tools becomes important. Medians, turn
restrictions, shared driveways, improved parking circulation, construction of access/service roads, and
interconnection of parking areas can be applied to complement driveway spacing and design standards,
for example. In areas that are close to or at full build-out retrofit techniques and operational
enhancements (and less frequently, capacity improvements) generally provide the only methods of
alleviating traffic problems resulting from development. And, as the costs of retrofit are often borne by
property owners, retrofits are most easily accomplished if they are addressed in the initial site
development permit; that is, before they're actually required. The recommendations proposed in the
11
Penfield Land Use and Access Manallement Plan provide a good example of the combination ofland-use
and transportation tools applied to address transportation and development in a moderately developed
area, as shown below.
Penfield Land Use and Access Management Recommendations
Access Management Changes
Land Use Modifications
driveway consolidation and sharing
driveway spacing and design standards
comer clearance spacing
parking consolidation and cross access
alternative parking requirements
conditional land uses within the Zone
front setback reductions
density & intensity incentives
buffers and lot coverage
dimensional requirements
landscaping
use limitations for corner properties
Transportation Improvements
raised medians
access roads
right-turn lanes
signal location and timing
directional signage modifications
Capital Improvements
NYSDOT project betterments
developer agreements & mitigation
mitigation fees within Zone
Finally, there are circumstances in which the extent and nature of development essentially prohibit
strategies to improve the speed and volume of traffic on an arterial. These circumstances might include,
for example, extended "Main Street" environments with high density, small-scale development, on street
parking, minimal frontages and setbacks, tight separation of intersections, and no real opportunity to
provide alternative access and parking. In such cases, access management may focus on making the
roadway more aesthetically attractive, transit-friendly and usable for pedestrians and bicyclists.
Common strategies include relocation of parking, re-routing of heavy traffic, sidewalk widening,
construction and signing of pedestrian islands and crosswalks, provisions for bicycle lanes and facilities
(e.g. parking), and the like.
D. Corridor Preservation
Corridor preservation is the application of various measures to obtain control of or otherwise protect the
right-of-way for transportation facilities as well as to enhance the environmental and economic vitality of
a corridor. Corridor preservation reduces the costs of constructing or widening roads and the
displacement of homes and businesses which might otherwise locate in the necessary right-of-way. It
also preserves desirable locations and, thereby, minimizes the environmental, social and economic
impacts associated with inferior alignments.
The basic tools applied in corridor preservation efforts are shown on the next page. Importantly, official
mapping and control of encroachment on the right-of-way are exclusively local. And, these are, by far,
the most flexible and lowest cost approaches to preserving necessary right-of-way. Conversely, advance
12
Corridor preservation should be addressed in
transportation planning and management at state,
regional and local levels. The most important factor
in developing corridor preservation plans are
agreement and commitment between the responsible
parties: agreement that corridor preservation is a necessary component of land-use/transportation
management and commitment to a plan of action ensuring its integration as part of the overall local/state
program.
acquisition and/or the purchase of access control are
the least flexible and most expensive.
Several methods of controlling encroachment can be
used alone or in conjunction with official mapping to
protect right-of-way. These include increased
setbacks and frontage, lim its on subdivisions and flag
lots, and elimination of commercial strip zoning.
Overall consistency with municipal objectives can be
enhanced if these are implemented as part of a local
master plan, access management plan, or cumulative
impact/GElS effort.
TOOLS FOR
CORRIDOR PRESERVATION
Official Mapping. Local: include ROW needs
along existing roads and for future roads
Control of Encroachment. Local: zoning,
subdivision, or site development actions that
protect future ROW from development
Obtain Access Control. State or Local:
purchase strip of land along existing ROWand
bar access to the roadway
Advance Acquisition. State or Local:
purchase land comprising needed ROW
13
III. TRANSPORTATION TOOLS
This Chapter discusses some of the most common transportation alternatives applied by state and local
transportation agencies to resolve capacity, congestion and safety problems on uncontrolled access
arterials. The identification, selection and design of such alternatives can take from 2-10 years, or more.
The range considered depends on the size, complexity and location of the problems and issues being
addressed. As a general rule, the full range of operational, capacity, transit, traffic demand and systems
management (TOM and TSM), and land-use management alternatives is considered when there are
existing and projected conl!'estion problems.
In principle the mix of alternatives selected for a project must
resolve the problems and be cost-effective --in comparison with
other projects competing for transportation funding. In practice,
two factors affect the final mix of alternatives. First, the
Department may influence but does not control all of the
transportation alternatives, including implementation of new
transit facilities and services (transit organizations) and
transportation demand management programs (municipalities and
private organizations). If these entities will not commit to the
necessary actions then the Department's only recourse is to
program alternatives it can implement.
Transportation Tools
New Roads or Bypasses
Road Widening, New Lanes
Turn and Merge Lanes
Medians
Signal Installation & Timing
Separate Heavy Vehicles
Transit
Demand Management
Traffic Calming
Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities
Parking Management
Second, the Department's projects often address specific problems
within specific areas, while effective arterial management may
take place within larger, longer corridors. It may, thus, be desirable to program alternatives which
contribute to effective arterial management but are not strictly necessary for the specific project at issue.
This is, for example, the case in Canandaigua and Farmington where the design team has incorporated
alternatives (access roads and restrictive medians) not included in the initial project Scope. The net
result is a project which will provide a more efficient traffic circulation pattern, improve safety through
marked decreases in left turns, and enhance opportunities for local development on the access roads.
A. New Roads and Bypasses
The Department does build new, uncontrolled access arterials, but infrequently due to their cost and
environmental and community impacts. Further, development along new uncontrolled access facilities
contributes to increased travel and may well simply propagate future capacity and congestion problems.
Local land-use management and control techniques should, thus, be applied to compliment a capacity
project in order to reduce the impact of development on traffic and to preserve public investment.
Bypasses can be a reasonable alternative. The determination to construct a bypass is generally
predicated on three factors. First, the bypass must resolve existing capacity and congestion problems on
a state road. Second, the bypass must be cost-effective. Third, the cost of constructing the bypass must
not compromise the Region's capital budget --which is true of all projects.
The Department may also share in the cost of constructing an uncontrolled access, local bypass with a
municipality. An example of this occurred in the Town of Ulster when the Department provided $2-
14
million towards construction of an $8.8-million local bypass to Route 9W. The Department's decision to
support this project was based on analyses which demonstrated that the bypass was superior to all other
feasible alternatives for resolving congestion problems, specifically widening of Route 9W. Estimated
costs for the Department were significantly lower; $2-million versus the $I3.8-million it would have had
to spend to widen Rt. 9W. Equally importantly, the bypass alternative would provide significant relief to
congestion on Route 9W, as projected traffic volumes on the three primary links on Rt. 9W with the
bypass are less than half of projected volumes of the "no-action" case.
Similarly, acquisition of the right-of-way necessary to widen 9W would have required the taking or
disruption of 56 businesses and 19 residences and the consequent probability of significant public
opposition. In contrast, the right-of-way necessary to construct the bypass ran through undeveloped
properties. As a result the bypass would open previously marginal properties to development with
potentially substantial increases in property values and local property tax revenues.
B. Road Widenin~. New Lanes
Widening and/or the adding lanes are among the most common improvements to congested arterials.
The net effect of these actions is to increase capacity (by adding lanes) or make more effective use of
existing capacity (by widening lanes).
Wider lanes enhance use of existing capacity through improvements in driver behavior: that is, by
reducing the perception of conflicts between opposing drivers and by providing additional maneuvering
room, traffic flows more smoothly and at higher speeds. Wider lanes can be achieved by re-striping
(thus reducing shoulder widths) or through construction and re-striping (thus maintaining or, perhaps,
even augmenting shoulder widths). In rare cases new lanes can also be provided by re-striping --
generally where the travel lanes are wide and broad shoulders are provided on both sides of the road.
This alternative faces many of the same tests as construction of new roads. It must resolve existing
capacity and congestion problems, be cost effective and not compromise the Region's capital budget.
Additionally and not infrequently, development along the road may also restrict opportunities to
construct new lanes. That is, acquisition and/or relocation of homes and businesses in the necessary
ROW can be quite expensive and, thus, reduce the cost/benefit performance of this alternative. Further,
the opposition of home or business owners is, itself, a significant consideration in selecting among
feasible alternatives and, indeed, in determining whether to proceed with a project.
C. Turn and Merge Lanes
When through and turning traffic volumes are high separate right and/or left turning lanes as well as
merge (acceleration/deceleration) lanes may be required. These alternatives are effective in reducing
conflicts resulting from large speed differentials, basically by allowing turning vehicles to diverge from
or merge with through traffic at relatively low speed differential.
Turn and merge lanes are common at intersections and on the approaches to the driveways of large retail,
commercial and industrial facilities. They are frequent operational improvements where increased
volumes of through and turning traffic have affected intersection and/or mid-block operations. They are
also common mitigation requirements for large, private developments.
15
The length of turn and merge lanes is
a principal design consideration.
Merge lanes must be at least long
enough for merging traffic to attain
the average running speed of through
traffic. Turn lanes must be long
enough to allow safe deceleration and
to provide storage for turning vehicles
--that is, to prevent queuing vehicles
from backing into the travel lanes.
Left turn lanes are also frequently
paired with restrictive medians.
Acceleration and deceleration lanes improve the safety of
vehicles merging with or diverging from through traffic.
ACCELERATiON ~
LEfT TURN ONLY ~
D. Medians
O:CELERATlON
Medians affect congestion and safety principally by controlling and managing left turns (from and to the
roadway) and crossing movements as well as separating traffic moving in opposite directions. There are
essentially four categories of medians: paved, raised, flush-swale, and natural ground. A variety of
design treatments are available within each category. Raised median options, for example, include
Jersey barriers, curb-and-crown, and raised landscaped medians. While each category physically
separates opposed travel lanes paved flush medians are often designed to allow encroachment and
storage for left turning vehicles along their full length.
The selection and design of median treatments is largely a function of through and turning volumes,
speeds, road characteristics (e.g. the number of lanes and geometry), the availability of right-of-way, and
development along the road.
Medians may be located at intersection
approaches or along the full length of a road
between intersections. If the latter, the spacing
of intersections and median-breaks and the
design of median breaks are crucial to
providing access to properties on both sides of
the road. Median breaks may be designed to
allow full or restricted turning movements
(e.g. left turn in and out only). If the latter,
median designs generally incorporate left-turn
storage lanes and may include merge lanes.
Provisions for V-turns may also be desirable
where medians run for an extended length of
the road. V-turn treatments depend on the
width and type of median, available ROWand
the operating and safety characteristics of the road. A wide variety of treatments are possible, including
jug-handles where the width of the median is insufficient to accommodate a V-turn at the median break.
,
,
,
I- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
...
TlMItll'NE~
f- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
....
f- n II
Medians restrict and improve the safety of turning
movements. In this case the median restricts left-
turn exit movements.
Medians which restrict left turns can reduce accidents dramatically. But, because of their perceived
affect on business they can be controversial, particularly along arterials which are saturated with retail
16
_._~-~,.,~"~-,..,..,,.._.~,,-~.~-~.,;..
businesses. Evidence of the affect of median retrofits along arterials serving existing businesses is
mixed; there are businesses which have experienced decreased sales and others that have increased sales.
At the same time, there is evidence that the installation of medians along largely undeveloped arterials
has not inhibited commercial or retail development.
E. Sh:nal Installation and Timing
The need for traffic signals is determined by an investigation of prevailing traffic conditions, physical
characteristics, and expected traffic conditions at the proposed signal location. Safety and maintenance
of traffic are principal factors in determining the need for traffic signals, as reflected by the primary
warrants for signalization: minimum vehicular volumes; interruption of continuous traffic; minimum
pedestrian volumes; school crossings; progressive movement (coordinated signal system); accident
experience; and some combination of these factors.!9
National studies suggest that improvements in signal operations can increase speeds or reduce travel
times by 8% to 25%'0 and generally provide the greatest payoff for reducing congestion'!. The principal
improvements noted include improved and/or installed signals, improved signal maintenance, improved
signal timing and phasing. signal interconnection, and traffic signal removal. (In urban areas, changes in
traffic patterns can justify the removal of traffic signals and replacement with two-way stop controls.)
The safety and congestion benefits of signal installation and improvements in signal operations on
uncontrolled access arterials are clear. It should be noted, however, that the overall affect of a densely
signalized arterial environment is to increase travel times. State and municipal planners and officials
should, therefor, encourage appropriate intersection spacing and discourage development that
necessitates or contributes to the need for tight signal spacings.
F. Accommodatinl! Heavv Vehicles
Heavy vehicles provide a critical service along uncontrolled
access arterials, providing cost-effective delivery of goods to
developments generally served by no other form of
transportation. At the same time, heavy vehicles can contribute
to congestion on uncontrolled access arterials mainly as a result
of three factors: their affect on comfort level of drivers in cars,
their slow and often wide turns may encroach on traffic in
oncoming lanes, and their inability to maintain speeds on
sustained upgrades.
The impacts of heavy vehicle operations vary widely and are
generally a function of traffic volumes, speeds and turning
movements; the volume and type of heavy vehicles; roadway
characteristics (e.g. lane widths, grade, geometry, and the like);
and the extent of development being accessed by heavy vehicles.
In addition, the design of many uncontrolled access arterials may
be incompatible with the size of the current generation of trucks;
lane widths and turning radii are, for example, often too small to
accommodate these vehicles effectively.
17
Heavy Vehicle Treatments
Provide appropriately sized turn lanes
and/or increase radii at intersections
Retrofit driveways to accommodate the
current generation of heavy vehicles
Provide separate driveways or service
roads and adequate internal circulation
Prohibit from arterials where local roads
provide equal access
Divert through vehicles to controlled
access facilities
Designate and sign truck access routes
Widen through lanes
Provide climbing lanes
Build truck routes
There are a wide variety of alternatives by which to treat the traffic impacts of heavy vehicles. Selection
of the appropriate alternative(s) depends on the problems encountered and the overall objectives of the
project. Additionally, because of their importance for local development and goods movement, everv
effort should be made to ensure that the alternative selected maintains or enhances the cost-effective and
economical operation ofheavv vehicles --when this does not conflict with higher priority objectives.
In some moderately developed areas, land-use and re-routing alternatives can often provide substantial
relief at a relatively low cost. These may also be effective in more heavily developed areas although
they can face opposition as a result of increased delivery costs and the need to retrofit access to existing
businesses. The more capital intensive solutions are most often implemented in the context of a much
larger project or overall arterial or regional management strategy.
.G... Transit
Enhancement of transit to help resolve congestion and safety problems on uncontrolled access arterials in
suburban and developing areas, where the opportunities for arterial management are greatest, focuses on
three general sets of actions. The first set of actions focuses on establishing a transit-supportive land-use
environment, including suitable land-use densities and convenient access to transit facilities. (These
alternatives are discussed in Chapter IV, I. Transit Oriented Land-Use.)
The second set of actions focus on attracting new passengers (automobile drivers) by improving the cost
and convenience of transit. These actions include the provision of new routes (including routes which
bridge gaps in existing services, are tailored to particular job clusters and/or cross "service" boundaries);
the development and enhancement of inter-modal facilities; improved schedules; and pricing. They also
include actions which support both transit and TOM, such as guaranteed ride-home and integrated
transit/parking management programs.
The final set of actions focus on changes that enhance transit operations along the arterial and, thereby,
make it more competitive with automobiles. These include strategies which improve the convenience of
transit as well as those relating to arterial design, as below:
Queue Jumping for Buses - includes strategies such as short segments of dedicated lane or
separate rights of way to bypass localized congestion points, dedicated traffic signals for bus
turnout bays and priority treatment for buses at highway entrances.
Arterial Traffic Signal Priority for Buses - provide for an early or extended green light for
buses, improve transit efficiency and travel time competitiveness by reducing delay at signalized
intersections.
Bns Turnont Design - construct where potential for auto/bus conflicts warrants separation from
general purpose vehicles. Special consideration should be where a bus stopping in a travel lane
may be unsafe or impede traffic flow. Bus turnouts should be considered at locations with high
bus/passenger volumes. Turnouts are preferred at the far side of an intersection to reduce
confusion of bus turnouts with turning lanes. Conflicting highway access curb cuts for abutting
land uses should be avoided within the length of the turnout.
Bus Stop Locations - should provide safe and convenient access for passengers and minimize
18
conflicts with through and turning vehicles. Location depends on a variety of factors including
the proximity and design of intersections and driveways, through traffic volumes and speed,
proximity to facilities used by passengers, and the design of the bus stop itself.
Bus Stop Passenger Facilities - should provide safe and convenient access to buses and
protection for passengers. Passengers should be sheltered and provided with a clear view of the
surrounding environment. Seating should be provided. Landscaping and lighting contribute to
an attractive environment. Bus shelters should have direct and clear pedestrian linkages to
building entrances.
H. Parking- Manae-ement
On-street parking on uncontrolled access arterials can dramatically affect arterial operations and
management. On-street parking, for example, conflicts with through traffic and frequently reduces safety
and the average speed of through traffic; conflicts with safe and effective transit operations; and
increases the difficulty and costs associated with street cleaning and maintenance
In most cases, the preferred treatment for projects addressing
capacity and congestion problems, outside of urban areas, is
to relocate on-street parking to off-street sites. (The
exceptions may be found in village and main street
environments where parking may also serve as a buffer
between sidewalks and the travel lanes.) This directly reduces
vehicle-to-vehicle conflicts, expands the options available to
planners, and generally reduces the costs of improvements. If
relocation is not possible, other management and design
treatments can also reduce conflicts with through traffic and
street cleaning and maintenance.
Parking Treatments
Remove/Relocate Off-Street
Manage
Reduce Spaces
Peak Hour Restrictions
Alternate Sides
Residential Only
Car-Van Pool Only
Loading Only
Design
Separate from Travel Lanes
Separate from Transit/Loading
Convert Diagonal to Parallel
Parking management can also contribute to congestion relief
and operational improvements, and such benefits may extend
beyond the specific corridor at issue, principally through
initiatives which promote transit and transportation demand
management. A variety of treatments are possible including parking supply options --constructing
fringe, park and ride, and car and van pool parking; incentive and disincentive options --preferential
spaces for car and van pool vehicles, limiting parking spaces for single-occupant vehicles, price/credit
incentives for car and van pool vehicles; and location options --locating single-occupant vehicle parking
close to transit centers and car and van pool parking close to business and shopping areas.
L Transportation Demand Manaeement 22
Transportation or travel demand management (TOM) encompasses a set of alternatives and strategies
intended to encourage travelers to use alternatives to driving during peak hour periods. (Some of these
are outlined in the table on the next page.) Many TOM programs include some combination of
alternatives selected for the particular commuting population and market area in which they are to be
implemented. The strategies, then, encompass the basic incentives and/or requirements by which the
alternatives are implemented.
19
Transportation Demand Management
Alternatives
Carpools & Vanpools
Public & Private Transit
Bicycling and Walking
Compressed Work Weeks
Flexible/Staggered Hours
Telecommuting
Strategjes
Improved Transit and CarNan Pooling Services
Financial Incentives and Convenience
Priority Treatment for High-Occupancy Vehicles
Parking Restrictions and Costs
Employer Support Measures (eg. Subsidies)
Marketing and Promotion
The primary goals of most TOM programs are to reduce congestion and delay by reducing automobile
trips and single-occupancy vehicles in a particular area and/or at a particular time of day --usually the
morning and evening peak hours.
Selection of TDM initiatives as a desirable strategy for arterial management is predicated on a number of
factors. First, since TOM facilities, services and programs are most frequently funded and implemented
by transit operators and major employers, collaboration and a!!Teement is paramount. Second, the land-
use environment must be suitable. Cost-effective TOM programs for arterials require relatively high
user densities at both trip. Third, the TOM alternative must offer roughly the same cost and convenience
"package" as travel by car. Finally, there must be a stimulus for TDM providers to undertake an
initiative. Both regulatory and incentive programs have been successful in this regard. (In the case of
State Farm in Malta, for example, the company was provided with an opportunity to reduce its share of
the costs of necessary improvements on state roads in
return for implementing various TOM actions.)
J. Traffic Calming
Because ofthe negative impact on through vehicular
traffic which could result in increased congestion and
congestion induced accidents, the traffic calming
techniques discussed below must be supported by a
thorough traffic engineering analysis to ensure that the
proposed traffic calming will produce a net beneficial
effect considering any congestion induced traffic
stream friction.
There are, however, circumstances where traffic
calming may be warranted; that is, where the speed and
volume of through traffic occasions frequent conflicts
with pedestrians and/or bicyclists and they cannot use
or cross the road safely. These problems are most
frequently encountered in main street and village
environments and heavily populated residential or
mixed-use areas.
20
'ie<'>
4!
Curb bulb-outs help reduce traffic speeds
and the distance required to cross the
roadway. Islands and marked, signalized
crossings further enhance pedestrian safety.
The reduction of conflicts between pedestrians and bicyclists with vehicular traffic may be obtained
through the judicious use of geometric features and appropriate traffic regulations. Geometric features
that can both calm vehicular traffic and clearly define vehicular and pedestrian traffic streams include but
are not limited to marked crosswalks, relocation or removal of parking, changes in pavement surface or
texture, traffic circles (roundabouts), diverters, bulb-outs and chicanes.
While traffic control devices can have a positive role to play in traffic calming, they must only be used
where they reflect the roadway geometries and traffic flow. For example, the imposition of an unrealistic
speed limit i.e. a limit that is lower than the prevailing 85th percentile traffic speed, will not be complied
with, will not produce the desired results and will produce motorist disrespect for other warranted speed
limits. Some appropriate traffic control devices include signals at mid-block pedestrian crossings --where
there is sufficient demand, and the addition ofW ALK-DON'T WALK indications at existing
intersection signals.
K. Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities
Walking and bicycling are significant modes of travel and compliment both auto and transit travel. In
1990, for example, pedestrians and bicyclists made over 2.8-million trips per day. New York, in fact, led
the nation in walk-to-work trips (at 12.8 percent of national trips) and ranked fourth in bike-to-work trips
(4.3 percent). Despite the continuing and growing
significance of pedestrian and bicycle travel,
however, many uncontrolled access arterials have Pedestrian and Biqcle Facilities
not been designed with their needs in mind.
Basic Facilities Desig1l Elements
The basic pedestrian and bicycle facility options
are shown at right. Selection and design of the
most appropriate type offacility depends on the
environment and existing and anticipated physical
and operational characteristics of both the facility
and the abuttimz arterial. Further, as safety is the
dominant factor in developing such facilities,
designers and planners must consider design
elements that facilitate the safe and affective
operation of bike and pedestrian facilities.
Cleaning and maintenance are also important to
safety, and provisions for these operations should be established before the contract to build such
facilities is let. (However, lack of maintenance agreements should not deter the Department from
requiring such facilities if they are clearly warranted.)
Sidewalks
Walkways/Paths
Bike Paths
Bike Lanes
Shared Lanes
Shoulders
Street and Rail
Crossings
Lighting
Marking & Striping
Signage and Signals
Ramps & Stairs
Refuge Islands
Shelters
Bike Parking & Storage
Rails & Screening
The Pedestrian and Bicvcle Facility Scopin~ Guide23 suggests that pedestrian andlor bicycle facilities
should be recommended when they are a logical component of an existing network or they are
continuous and connect logical termini and where demand justifies the resources required and the right-
of-way is sufficient to construct the facilities. Three environments along uncontrolled access arterials,
thus, appear particularly attractive for construction andlor enhancement of pedestrian and bicycle
facilities; these being main streets, commerciaVretail strips abutting residential areas, and transit/inter-
modal facility environments.24
21
A wide variety of design and land-use
management techniques compliment the
development and operation of pedestrian and
bicycle facilities. Access management
techniques such as the spacing and design of
driveways, interconnection of parking areas,
the construction of service/access roads,
subdivision planning, and increased setbacks
can improve safety and siting. Over the
longer term, integration of bicycle and
pedestrian design elements into subdivision
design together with higher density, cluster
and/or mixed use development can result in
more heavily used and safer facilities.
Bike lanes and pedestrian crossings, curb ramps and
buffers promote a safe, friendly bicycle and
pedestrian environment.
22
IV. LAND-USE MANAGEMENT TOOLS
The symbiotic relationship between transportation and local development is manifest. The
interconnected arterial and highway network has contributed to suburban sprawl and travel. At the same
time, development along uncontrolled access arterials has created conflicts between through traffic and
vehicles entering and exiting these developments; increasing congestion and reducing safety.
Congestion has, in turn, increased the demand for transportation infrastructure. But, those same
developments that contribute to congestion can obstruct operational and/or capacity solutions due to the
high costs often associated with the purchase and/or relocation of homes and businesses in the right-of-
way.
Given the relationship between land-use and transportation it would seem that improved land-use
planning and control can substantially benefit transportation and the attractiveness of abutting properties,
and this is indeed the case. This Section discusses a number of land-use tools whose application
contributes to effective arterial management and provides examples of their application.
Land-Use & Transportation Management Tools
Land-Use
Driveways
subdivision design and control..
limit lot splits with driveways.
eliminate or restrict flag lots.
increase/decrease frontage.
increase/decrease setbacks..
promote mixed use zoning.
restrict commercial strip zoning.
promote high density/cluster zoning.
promote transit oriented design..
promote bike/pedestrian design
establish parking design standards
reverse parking.
official map projected right-of-way..
.. Presented as individual subsections. . Discussed within the subsections.
minimum spacing**
minimum comer clearance**
maximum number per parcel.
minimum design standards..
restrict turning movements.
require shared driveways..
Alternate Access
reverse access*
interconnect parking across lots..
provide access/service roads..
provide alternative through route
In evaluating these tools a number of general characteristics should be recognized. First, as shown on
the following page, authority to apply these tools is predominantly local. Their application, thus,
requires local leadership. Local officials must be convinced that their use contributes to the overall
economic and social health of the community. Establishing this as part ofa transportation initiative
requires a high level of cooperation between state and local planners, engineers and officials. It also
requires that land-use and transportation agencies be willing to accept the trade-offs that are often
necessary to ensure implementation of a balanced, land-use and transportation management program.
Second, these tools are most effective when they are applied before development occurs. Conversely,
they are more expensive to implement and disruptive to the social and economic environment in areas
23
which are substantially developed. They are also most effective when applied at a larger rather than
smaller scale: that is, when they are applied at corridor or regional levels and address the full road
hierarchy.
Land-Use and Transportation Management Authority
Authority Local State
Comprehensive Planning Yes No
Zoning Yes No
Subdivision Control Yes No
Site Plan Approval Yes No
SEQRA (Lead) Yes State Projects
GElS Yes State Projects
Advance Acquisition Yes Yes
Official Mapping Yes No
Transportation Planning Local Roads State/Regional*
Highway Work Permit Local Roads State Roads
*Through the metropolitan planning organizations, for urban areas.
Third, these tools are seldom applied in isolation but almost always in combinations to achieve goals
established in a Plan; whether it be a municipal comprehensive plan or a more focused access
management plan. Importantly, choice of the most appropriate tools depends on the specific situation.
In lightly developed areas preemptive tools are highly effective, particularly driveway spacing and
design standards, limitations on the number of driveways to a property, subdivision controls, and
provisions for the future interconnection of parking areas. As the level of development increases retrofit
tools become more important. Medians, turn restrictions, shared driveways, and interconnected parking
can be applied to compliment spacing and design standards. In areas that are close to full build-out land-
use retrofit techniques and operational enhancements (and less frequently, capacity improvements) are
the only methods generally available to alleviate congestion.
A. Driveway Spacinf: Standards
Driveway spacing is one of the principle tools used to
handle the potential conflicts between through traffic
and traffic generated by development. The
establishment of traffic-sensitive minimum driveway
spacing standards has two principal effects: it limits the
number of conflict points and separates conflict points.
Spacing standards are particularly effective in helping
to avoid future traffic problems in lightly to moderately
developed areas facing development pressure.
~~O' MINIMUM
~~O' MINIMUM
GOOO SPACING, FEWER CONFLICTS
POOR SPACING. MANY CONFLICTS
Driveway spadng can dramatically affect the
number of conflict points along a road.
There are no clear, widely accepted standards for
driveway spacing. Standards based strictly on traffic and engineering factors are generally quite large
24
and may be incompatible witb local development, particularly in denser suburban environments where
existing frontage requirements are often 150-feet, or less. In practice, existing or proposed standards
generally reflect a balance between traffic and engineering conditions and requirements, local
development objectives, and existing land-use characteristics (lot sizes, land-use type, frontage
requirements, and tbe like). Further, even where minimum spacing standards have been adopted tbe
actual spacing allowed between driveways is a function of the size of each proposed development, tbe
volume of traffic generated by development, roadway characteristics, and existing and projected traffic
conditions. Larger developments, tbus, generally require larger driveway spacing.
In contrast witb a number of otber states, New York has not established driveway spacing standards but
ratber left such action to municipal discretion. As a result, a number of towns have moved to establish
local standards, including Penfield, Canandaigua and Farmington. The standards proposed for
Canandaigua and Farmington reflect two oftbe most siguificant determinants of driveway spacing, speed
and the size of development, as shown below."
Proposed Driveway Spacing Standards for Canandaigua and Farminv:on
Posted Speed Small Generator Medium Generator Large Generator
o to 100 PHT 101 to 200 PHT 201 PHT or more
less than 45 mph 220 feet, 67 meters 330 feet, 100 meters 550 feet, 168 meters
45 mph or greater 330 feet, 100 meters 440 feet, 134 meters 660 ft, 200 meters
PHT, Peak Hour Trips
Where applied in New York, minimum driveway spacing standards have been imposed by local law
witbin an overlay zone covering a critical corridor or corridors. The affect of minimum spacing
standards may also be obtained or reinforced by increasing minimum frontage requirements, limiting tbe
number of driveways allowed at each property, and requiring shared driveways andlor cross access.
Further, provisions for a variance to tbe minimum spacing standards should be provided where tbe site
plan analysis suggests tbat more than one driveway, each serving
specific movements (e.g. right in only, right out only), improves
performance.
Comer properties, properties with frontage on intersecting roads,
present special problems in tbe location and design of
driveways. Such properties are particularly attractive to
businesses which generate a high volume of drive-by, drop-in
customers (e.g.. gas stations, convenience stores and fast food
franchises) and, thus, occasion frequent conflicts between
through traffic, vehicles entering or exiting tbe intersection, and
vehicles entering or exiting tbe site. Vehicles stopped in tbe
travel lanes waiting to turn into a comer property may, and often
do, block traffic on tbe roadway. Further, because these
< < FULL MOVEMENTS
~J}
~:
~I
~:
RIGHT TURN IN
FROM ARTERIAL > >
B.
Minimum Comer Clearance Standards
H
COLLECTOR
rnJrJ [[]]lrn
Comer treatments include
driveway location and may
include turn restrictions.
25
driveways increase the number and density of conflict points, they place increased demands on drivers
with a resulting deterioration in performance --accidents at intersections are about three times more
frequent than between intersections.
In practice, corner clearance for driveways from existing:. developed properties reflects the tension
between traffic and safety needs (generally determined through an analysis which addresses the type of
development and development generated traffic, road and intersection characteristics, and existing and
projected traffic conditions) and property rights and local development objectives. That is, the corner
clearance of existing driveways at many developed properties is in conflict with the safe and efficient
movement of traffic through the intersection.
While there are no widely accepted standards for minimum corner clearance those developed in Florida
are frequently used as a model.26 In New York, the Town of Penfield requires a minimum corner
clearance of 230 feet and the towns of Canandaigua and Farmington have proposed ordinances which
would set corner clearance at 220 feet for full access --all movements, and 110 for partial access --right
turn in and/or out only. In determining the actual location for driveways proposed to serve corner
properties three conditions are generally attached to minimum corner clearance spacing requirements:
The actual driveway spacing is to be determined through an analysis of the effect
vehicles entering or exiting a corner property have on traffic operations and safety on the
road. Thus, driveways from corner properties generating a high volume of trips should
be spaced to exceed minimum spacing requirements. .
Driveways should not be allowed
within the functional area of an
intersection and particularly within the
boundary of turn or merge lanes. That
is, driveways should not be placed
where the attention of through drivers is
focused on entering and exiting an
intersection or diverging from or
merging with through traffic.
For properties that cannot meet the
minimum corner clearance standards or
where there is a high volume of traffic
across the driveway face, driveways
should be sited as far as possible form
the intersection, shared and/or cross
access with abutting properties should
be provided, and turn restrictions (right
in and/or out only) should be required.
Florida: Comer Clearance At Intersections
Position Access Spacing Restrictive
Allowed Feet Median
Approaching Right inlOut 115 Yes
Approaching Right In 75 Yes
Departing Right InIOut 230 Yes
Departing Right Out 100 Yes
Approaching Full 230 No
Approaching Right In 100 No
Departing Full 230 No
Departing Right Out 100 No
As with driveway spacing, minimum corner clearance standards in New York have been adopted by local
law applying within an overlay district. Supporting elements can include zoning and/or site plan
requirements for minimum frontage, lot sizes exceeding the corner clearance standard, reverse access,
and the like.
26
C. Drivewav Design
Traffic entering and exiting a development conflicts with through traffic under the best of normal
circumstances. Inadequately designed driveways can, however, measurably reduce safety and increase
congestion, as shown at right27 and as exemplified by traffic back-ups on roads serving developments
with inadequate driveway designs.
Driveways should be designed to allow
vehicles to exit and enter the roadway quickly
and safely, and with as little impact as possible
on through traffic. Driveway design needs are
based on existing and projected traffic
conditions; the type and volume of traffic
generated by the development; the physical
characteristics of the road and site; necessary
accommodations fortransit, pedestrians and
bicyclists; and, parking and internal site
circulation requirements. The principal
elements of driveway design affecting traffic
and safety include driveway width, radii, and
flare as well as throat length, turn restrictions
(e.g.. islands), and driveway crossing treatments for pedestrians and bicyclists."
SIGNALlZEO~_ t1IJIJ WJ ....
INTERSECTION ~ et!P WD ....
.... [[I]';.:I OIJD rn:n::J ~ i!NSUFFICIENT STORAGE .....
- =~ ~~~~I~
~ =--
~~ '"'lU =
= =
-
-
=
= =
~+t~+t~+t~+t~
Poorly designed driveways and parking areas can
degrade traffic operations on the road and site.
Driveway design requirements and conditions are normally determined as part of and incorporated into
the municipal site plan approval. The vast majority of municipalities, however, have not established
driveway design standards or requirements and, instead, treat driveway design on a case-by-case basis.
Although it is unlikely that many municipalities will establish standards and requirements, adequate
coverage and treatment can be provided by requiring developers to adhere to state and/or federal design
standards as part of the municipal subdivision requirement. (An example of standards currently being
applied to driveways to state roads is provided in the New York State Department of Transportation's
"Policy and Standards for Entrances to State Highways".)
Driveway design is also affected or complimented by other requirements or actions. These include land-
use elements (e.g.. driveway spacing, turn restrictions, adequate internal circulation, provisions for cross
or reverse access, and construction of service or access roads) as well as improvements to the road (e.g..
construction of merge and turning lanes, medians and signals).
D. Shared Drivewavs and Cross Access Driveways
Shared driveways are driveways serving two or more abutting properties, as illustrated below". They
mayor may not be comprised of land from each property. Shared driveways allow for larger driveway
spacing and improved management of traffic entering and exiting a development.
Cross access driveways interconnect the parking facilities of two or more abutting properties. They are
27
Driveway sharing and cross access can be
effective in reducing conflict points along the
road while providing full access to properties.
always comprised of land from each property.
Cross access driveways provide an opportunity for
vehicles to move from one development to
another without recourse to the roadway, thus
reducing traffic volumes on the road and
eliminating conflicts with entering or exiting
vehicles.
Shared and cross access driveways are key
elements of almost all access management plans.
Indeed, in areas which are heavily developed cross
access driveways provide the most significant
traffic relief short of closure and retrofit of
existing driveways, driveway signalization, and
capacity enhancement.
Provisions for shared and cross access driveways are most effective and uniformly applied if enacted by
local law; as has been done within an overlay zone in the Penfield Land-Use and Access Manae:ement
Plan and is being considered in Canandaigua and Farmington. These requirements would then be
implemented as part of a subdivision or site plan approval. In all cases the land comprising the shared or
cross access driveway should be recorded as an easement and constitute a covenant running with the
land. Joint maintenance agreements should also be incorporated to the property deed.
E" Subdivision Desip and Control
There are many elements of subdivision design and control that can have tangible benefits for
transportation including cluster and density zoning; mixed use zoning; provision of separate, direct
access for bicyclists and pedestrians; and transit supportive design. The specific form these elements
might take in municipal zoning or subdivision
ordinances is highly dependent on the existing
transportation network and potential and/or projected
demand --by mode, local economic development
conditions, site characteristics, and a number of other
factors.
There are, however, four specific elements that can be
used to enhance traffic operations and safety on
arterials abutting subdivisions. As a general rule the
objective of these elements is to reduce the number of
and separate conflict points, basically by reducing the
number of driveways from a subdivision to the
arterial. This is most easily accomplished if these
elements are required as part of the subdivision plan
and considered in the subdivision approval process.
They include the following:
restrictions on the number of
28
Local
Arter..1
Loul
]I'~i[
I // ,I \'" i I
: ./" .f, '., -"" ::
L.."-' ,/' \, "'.,::
Aru:rial
Subdivisions: Avoid individual drive~ys
to an arterial, top, when consolidated
access to a local road can be obtained,
bottom,
driveways that will be allowed from a subdivision to the arterial;
requirements that subdivided properties share driveways and/or access roads including,
where possible, with abutting properties;
minimum separation requirements for shared driveways and/or access roads to the public
roadways; and,
requirements that subdivided properties will have a driveway or driveways only to the
lowest classification of road serving the intended use of the property.
The approved design of the subdivision should reflect these elements. Further, shared driveway and/or
access road alignments should be recorded as part of the municipal Official Map. Desirably, the property
comprising these alignments should be recorded as easements and constitute a covenant running with the
land. If these are to be public facilities then the property should be transferred to the municipality. The
timing of and responsibility for construction of shared driveways and or access roads should be provided
for as part of the site plan approval.
Subdivisions with properties structured as flag lots in
order to provide access to interior properties result in
densely packed driveways. If these driveways provide
access to heavily traveled roads and/or the uses of the
property generate substantial volumes of entering and
exiting traffic they will interfere with the safe and
efficient operation of the road.
"
'"
<
)>
""'
'"
co
)>
co
From a transportation perspective it is desirable to
restrict flag lots as part of the municipal zoning and/or
subdivision ordinances. If this cannot be done because
of municipal development objectives or property
rights' concerns --for existing but undeveloped flag
properties, municipalities can require shared
driveways serving multiple properties. This
requirement can be incorporated to subdivision
approval ordinances or can be negotiated as part of the
site plan approval process. In such cases the land
comprising the driveway should be recorded as an
easement and constitute a covenant running with the land.
incorporated to the property deed.
ROAD
ROAD
Flag lots, right, increase the number and
density of driveways. An easement for a
shared driveway provides equal access and
reduces conflicts on the road.
Joint maintenance agreements should also be
F. Setbacks
Setbacks vary widely depending on the specific characteristics of the community and the roadway as
well as the needs and objectives of the municipality; consequently, their affect on arterial management
varies widely.
29
In general, larger setbacks are applied to preserve the aesthetic character of a roadway, reduce the impact
of the roadway on the site (and vice-versa), decrease visual clutter, provide space for pedestrian and/or
bicycle facilities, and preserve right-of-way where future widening of the road is anticipated, as shown at
right'o. Large setbacks also reduce use of the roadway for parking, off-loading, storage and other
activities which affect safe operation of the roadway. The principal affects oflarge setbacks for arterial
management is, thus, that it improves safety and reduces the cost of future road improvements by
eliminating commercial or residential encroachment on future right-of-way.
At the same time, large setbacks have problems. Large
setbacks encourage front parking, which can reduce
opportunities to provide reverse access and thereby
manage and reduce turns from the main roadway. They
inhibit pedestrian and transit use by requiring transit users
and pedestrians to walk across parking areas, occasionally
substantial distances. Finally, the developments associated
with large setbacks often require substantial areas of land,
thus inhibiting the development of shared access and
interconnected parking.
Reverse Parkin
o
1111=11
<<c~ou Aceess
o
00
~oo 'IIdkwayl8ikepotr.
V\.Jo
As regards arterial management, it is generally desirable to
have larger setbacks where widening of the existing
roadway and/or pedestrian or bicycle facilities are planned
or anticipated between the roadway and the development
within a reasonable time frame. Conversely it is generally
desirable to reduce setbacks where the development is to
be served by transit and the transit facilities are to be
located along the road.
Large setbacks and reverse parking
provide space for bicycle and pedestrian
facilities as well as future right-of-way.
Setbacks are generally established in municipal zoning and/or subdivision ordinances or as part of a
subdivision approval, and enforced during the site plan approval process. Some of the drawbacks of
large setbacks, for arterial management, can be offset by establishing provisions for reverse parking and
cross access driveways to abutting properties.
G. Official Ma~pin~
An Official Map is a document adooted bv locallee:islation showing the location and layout of existing
and future rights-of-way, drainage channels and other public facilities. The Official Map:
allows the Municipality to reserve and protect the right-of-way from encroachment by
development;
provides developers with a clear location of roads and other public facility needs and,
thereby, alleviates the potential for conflicts; and
guides the (municipal) planning board in its review, approval and/or conditioning of
subdivision layouts and SEQRA determinations.
30
Zoning, subdivision and site planning approval can be used alone or in conjunction with the official map
to protect future ROW. Among the most effective requirements are a combination of increased setbacks
and frontage, limits on subdivisions and flag lots, and elimination of commercial strip zoning. Overall
consistency with municipal objectives is enhanced if these are implemented as part of a Comprehensive
Plan, Access Management Plan or GElS. (In this regard, incorporation of future collectors to the
Official Map may be among the first steps taken in implementing a "plan" for developer financing and/or
construction of such roads.) Finally, for greatest protection, the future ROWand other public facility
needs should be reasonable, consistent with and desirably part of a capital development program
occurring in a reasonable time-frame.
H. Provide Access/Service Roads
Access/service roads provide a major opportunity
to remove turning traffic from the through route
while providing businesses with extended
frontage, as shown at right". Existing examples
of access/service roads are predominantly located
parallel to and alongside the through route. But,
there is a growing tendency to locate these
facilities behind the properties fronting the
through route, for many good reasons: the reverse
location provides access to a greater number of
properties increasing their commercial value;
reduces the property costs and potentially the
construction costs for individual properties;
improves intersection spacing on cross roads;
reduces driver perception problems associated
with tightly spaced parallel roads; and provides an
opportunity to reverse parking and create a transit
friendly environment along the through route.
A divided arterial with two-way frontage roads.
Note the looping of the frontage road to
improve intersection spacing.
Opportunities to construct access/service roads
are generally restricted to locations where there is substantial spacing between intersecting roads, little if
any existing development, and a development plan. Where setbacks for developed properties or the
availability ofland behind developed properties are sufficiently large retrofit is, however, possible.
Preservation of access/service road alignments can be put into place in advance of development through
official mapping. Easements can be acquired as development occurs, and recorded with the deed.
Further, if the development takes place within an overlay district or area covered by a GElS, provisions
to construct or share the cost of constructing the access service roads could be provided.
I. Transit Oriented Land-Use
Current land-use patterns are often inimical to transit, particularly in suburban environments. Yet transit
can be a significant contributor to the resolution of existing and impending congestion problems IF
31
municipalities use their planning and regulatory powers, in collaboration with transit and transportation
agencies, to anticipate and implement transit friendly land-use.
Transit oriented land-use actions can be separated into two categories: municipal-level planning and
development, and neighborhood/site level development. Where appropriate, municipalities should
develop their Master Plans to reflect a pragmatic potential for transit. Zoning and subdivision
requirements should then be adapted to ensure these plans are implemented as development occurs. The
following are some of the key elements of a transit friendly plan."
Municinal Level
encourage high density residential and non-
residential development
locate trip generators and facilities frequented
by existing or potential transit users around
transit nodes
encourage mixed use development
encourage higher density mixed-use
developments to concentrate in activity nodes
along existing or potential transit corridors
space activity nodes to compliment transit
solutions
orient uses toward the street in activity nodes
and corridors
locate retail shopping centers and office uses
within activity nodes
design collectors and subdivisions to
accommodate pedestrian access to transit
Neighborhood/Site Level
provide pedestrian facilities at activity nodes
and along corridors
co-locate pedestrians and transit with
commercial and retail facilities
design and provide transit waiting areas and
shelters to meet the needs of all user groups
design parking to accommodate pedestrians
design shopping centers and malls to facilitate
pedestrian access
.L. Adapt to Congestion
There are circumstances in which the extent of development essentially negates opportunities to apply
either capital or land-use solutions to reduce congestion. "Main Street" environments with high density
commercial and retail development, on street parking, minimal frontages and setbacks, and tight
intersection separation typically fall into this category.
In such cases, efforts often focus on making the roadway environment more supportive of commercial or
residential uses; that is, aesthetically attractive and accessible for transit users, pedestrians and bicyclists.
Common strategies often involve the removal and relocation of on-street and front parking, the provision
32
'-"-~-'",""","'--~""~---._"-"
of alternative access for delivery vehicles and re-routing of heavy traffic, development of shared
driveways and service alleys, traffic calming, sidewalk widening and bike lanes, pedestrian islands and
crosswalks at intersections, enhancement of landscaping and street furnishings, provision of facilities for
transit users, and lighting and architectural improvements.
Because of their scope these improvements can involve significant alteration of zoning, subdivision and
site development ordinances and are, thus, often applied within an overlay zone. An example of the
potential scope of such changes is provided in the "West Avenue Corridor Management Plan"" in
Saratoga Springs. The proposed amendments to the Saratoga Springs Code include, among other
changes:
Creation of Three Districts --each district would provide for a distinct type of land-use
(e.g. Commercial2A, medium density mixed use) and distinct building and site design
guidelines within the district.
Parkin!! --a reduction in the required parking area where two or more facilities share parking.
Maximum Setbacks -- a reduction in maximum setbacks from 80 feet to 50 feet and
provisions and a variance allowing existing buildings not in compliance with the
maximum setback to expand their facility by up to 20 percent.
Site Design --provisions for cross access at the rear of lots and shared driveways. Each
lot is restricted to a single point of access to the road unless a waiver is provided by the
Planning Board.
33
APPENDIX A. CASE STUDIES
Capital District Transportation Committee: Integrated Land-Use and
Transportation Program 34
CONTACT: Capital District Transportation Committee
5 Computer Drive West
Albany, NY 12205
(518) 458-2161, FAX (518) 459-2155
This case illustrates a programmatic approach to linking land-use and
transportation planning on a regional basis. This approacb demonstrates how
collaborative planning can be implemented through use of a direct linkage to the
transportation project selection process.
The metropolitan area surrounding Albany, NY includes six counties and has a population of
approximately 900,000. Albany, the largest municipality, houses approximately 100,000 residents. Ten
other cities or towns have at least 20,000 residents. There are several city and suburban employment
centers with employment of 3,000 to 15,000 each. Only the Albany central business district, with
approximately 40,000 employees, is a major downtown trip destination. Radial suburban development
has been modest in all directions except to the north, along 1-87 (the Adirondack Northway) into
Saratoga County. Saratoga County has had among the most rapid growth rates in New York over the
past two decades.
Ten Steps to Integrated Land Use and Transportation Decisions
I. Add suburban towns to the MPO policy
structure.
2. Shift the focus of the long range regional plan
from new highways to local solutions to critical
problems.
3. Assume the lead role in traffic modeling.
4. Offer communities a lead role in addressing
traffic problems through cooperative planning.
5. Develop a regional policy on public-private
highway financing.
6. Offer communities technical assistance in
reviewing site impact studies and assessing traffic
mitigation fees.
7. Establish TIP screening criteria which require
land use management as a pre-requisite to
capacity projects.
8. Assign priority use of federal funds to
implement projects identified in the cooperative
plans.
9. Provide funds to provide for corridor
management planning along critical corridors.
10. Engage municipal, business and special
interest group leaders and the general public in a
"New Visions" initiative focussing on the next
generation of policy issues.
34
.<-~_''''___'''~__'''~'_'_''_N''_'~'_.'';'''~'''''_'''''''_
____._'.T4...~._;"".,.._..,~"''''''''''"'''.~.~.~._,.____..,.
The home rule nature ofland use decision-making in New York, the separation of transportation and land
use planning, and the requirement of consensus before MPO action, presents a challenge to those seeking
to integrate land use and transportation planning in New York. A series of initiatives by COTC has
been relatively successful in meeting this challenge. These initiatives have included the ten steps
discussed below.
Step 1. Expanded Policy Structure
COTC was created with local government representation limited to counties and cities. Its revised policy
structure adds two rotating positions for direct representation of towns and villages. A one-year period
as an alternate and a one-year period as member allow the two positions to involve four key town leaders
in the MPO policy structure at any time. Over a period of a few years, nearly all of the towns
experiencing development pressure have a direct presence at the MPO table.
Step 2. Shifted Regional Transportation Plan Focus
COTC's first regional plan provided major highway and transit elements. Many of these projects proved
to be infeasible, having been evaluated primarily on the basis of their contribution to the overall
transportation system -- not on the basis of their acceptability to the community. The new plan set
priorities among twenty-four corridors containing traffic congestion, high accident rates or physical
deterioration. The new plan stated that no specific recommendation would be placed on the regional plan
until localized study was completed; thus shifting attention from the State to the community in a
cooperative process for finding acceptable solutions.
Step 3. Assuming the Modeling Function
While the location of the transportation model does not appear to be central to a discussion of land use
policy, COTC's choice in 1987 to establish its own modeling capabilities was significant in meeting the
land use challenge. From that point, COTC became the source of official traffic forecasts and modeling
guidance. Further, COTC's investment in data collection for model calibration improved its technical
credibility in the eyes of local government. At the point that a model became available through the
MPO, local government interest in exploring land use and transportation issues increased significantly.
Step 4. Cooperative Transportation Plans
Beginning in 1988, COTC began entering into contractual agreements with communities on the request
of the community. The scope of the work is mutuallv determined to both address local concerns and
advance regional system planning. Transportation modeling and alternatives assessment is performed by
COTC staff. Basic land use information and definition of future land use scenarios is provided by the
community. Costs of the effort vary with the scope and range. The community's share of the cost also
varies, and has ranged from $8,000 to $40,000.
To date, CnTC has contracted for work in six separate municipalities. Two of the studies cover
entire towns and the remainder focus on particular areas or specific corridors. Further, in addition to
traditional roadway improvements, transit, and demand management activities these cooperative plans
also address arterial and access management; including implementation of access management standards,
expansion of the local road network, and support for investment in access management improvements.
35
Step 5. Public-Private Financing Policy
In February 19&9, the New York State Oepartment of Transportation issued a policy on public-private
highway financing. Seizing the opening offered by NYSOOT, COTC worked with local governments
and the business community and released its "Public-Private Highway Financing Policy" in September,
1989. This policy provides alternative approaches to associate impacts from development with the costs
of accommodating cumulative growth. These approaches have been applied to projects on and off the
State system and serve as the underpinning of shared cost projects included in COTC's transportation
improvement program.
Step 6. Provision of Technical Assistance
COTC offers technical assistance to all communities in the review of site impacts of development
projects. This service is used to varying degrees by communities; the town of Colonie is the most active
and contractually supplements COTC's federal funding with $20,000 annually in town funds. These
funds are used to review projects, calculate mitigation fees and recommend specific actions to mitigate
the impacts of private development. Through this process, the town has collected over $2,000,000 toward
implementing the transportation plan for the Albany Airport area. .
Step 7. TIP Screening Criteria
The COTC TIP project evaluation process provides three stages of TIP development -- screening, merit
evaluation and programming. The merit evaluation process is a refinement of historic COTC evaluation
of projects across a broad range of issues. Programming is performed by using a "fact sheets" for each
candidate project and attempting to select the "best" projects while balancing funding commitments by
geographic area, mode and project type.
With respect to advancing land use planning objectives, the screening criteria provides the greatest
leverage in the process. Specifically, COTC's screening process includes five requirements that must be
met. They are: 1. consistency with the regional transportation plan; 2. consistency with or
complementary to the facility in the adjacent jurisdiction; 3. linkage with land use management --for
fixed capacity projects; 4. consistency with community desires as documented in local land use plans or
other policy documents; and,S. a match with at least one ofthe fifteen factors ofISTEA. (The fact that
most of the candidate highway projects considered during the 1993-98 five year TIP update were derived
from COTC's local studies made the land use management requirement easy to put in place.)
Step 8. TIP Funding Priority
The preceding steps positioned COTC to make good on its commitments to integrate land use and
transportation planning. As a result, the increased federal funding authorizations from ISTEA and the
project selection flexibility provided to MPOs through ISTEA was used in large part to implement
COTC's regional plan. The funding and flexibility also provided for work in the high priority corridors
assessed in the integrated plans. The public-private financing policy assisted in this commitment; several
projects require significant private contributions through mitigation fees or development district
assessments. The total private funding obligation is $18 million over five years.
36
Step 9. Corridor Management Initiative
CDTC's cooperative plans with communities do not fully provide communities with the tools to carry out
the land use half of the commitments. In 1993, CDTC used the ISTEA flexibility to set aside $500,000
of Surface Transportation Program funds ($100,000 per year for five years) for corridor management.
Specifically, CDTC's program is an 80/20 challenge grant to individual communities, counties or
cooperative municipalities. The focus of the program is on the work necessary to revise zoning,
development district and parking ordinances; create site design standards; adopt official street maps; and
the like.
Step 10. "New Visions" Planning
These "big picture" issues cannot be addressed adequately in the context of TIP development or even in
the context of a cooperative land use and transportation plan for a single community or corridor. CDTC's
"New Visions" initiative includes the use of nine separate task forces, each focussing on a specific
subject. These are: demographics, technology and development patterns; transit futures; urban issues;
arterial management; expressway management; bicycle and pedestrian travel; infrastructure renewal;
special transportation needs; and, goods movement and freight issues. Each task force is also required to
address several over-riding considerations (e.g. environmental quality, equity and resource allocation) as
part of its task focus. A supporting effort is a consultant-assisted examination of fixed guide-way transit
options. The scope of this work is to specifically examine the land use benefits ofIight rail or other
transit investments.
Town of Ulster: Route 9W Arterial By-Pass
CONTACT: Rich Peters (RPPM), Wai Cheung
NYSDOT Region 8, Tel: (914) 431-7905
The Town of Ulster is located in the Hudson River Valley and
is bordered by the Hudson River to the east, the City of
Kingston to the north and west, and the Towns of Hurley and
Kingston to the west. Ulster is served by several major
expressways including the New York State Thruway (1-87)
and Routes 209/199. State Route 9W serves as the major
commercial corridor; generally bisecting the Town from north
to south and intersecting State Route 32 in the south.
Between 197(1 and 1987 the Town's population grew by
approximately 5 percent. This, together with commercial and
employment growth in and around Ulster, increased the
volume of local traffic on its arterial roads. As a result of
37
growing concern with congestion, the Town initiated a Land UsefTransportation Study & Traffic
Management Plan for the area experiencing the greatest traffic congestion, the Route 9W corridor. (The
Study was funded in part by the Town and four local businesses --IBM, Edgewater Corp., Miron
Building, and the Hudson Valley Mall, and conducted under the joint sponsorship of Ulster County and
the New York State Department of Transportation.)
The Study's results confirmed the problems identified by the Town. Built as an arterial to accommodate
through traffic, which still comprised 30-40 percent of peak hour traffic in 1988, growth in local traffic
together with interference from vehicles entering and exiting commercial properties along Route 9W had
significantly degraded traffic conditions. Equally importantly, even relatively modest growth would
more than double the volume of traffic.
Evaluation of Alternatives
The Study also identified and evaluated a series of alternatives .that might resolve existing and impending
traffic problems. These alternatives included, among others, operational, capacity and signal
improvements on 9W --basically, it would be widened from 3 to 4 lanes; and construction of a local
bypass which would roughly parallel Rt. 9W from Rt. 32 in the south and then swing west to connect to
Rt. 9W just north of the merger ofRt.s 199 and 209. The latter would also involve the construction of
several spurs linking the bypass with the commercial portion of9W.
The Study's analysis of these alternatives demonstrated that the bypass alternative was superior to the Rt.
9Walternative in almost all regards. Estimated costs were significantly lower; $8.8-million versus
$I3.8-million. Similarly, acquisition of the right-of-way necessary to widen 9W would require the
taking or disruption of 56 businesses and 19 residences and the consequent probability of significant
public opposition.
In contrast, the right-of-way necessary to construct the bypass ran through undeveloped properties. (This
alternative was also attractive as Town officials recognized that the bypass would open previously
marginal properties to development, and land owners along the bypass recognized that the value of their
properties would increase substantially as the result of attaining frontage.) Equally importantly, the
bypass alternative was shown to provide significant relief to traffic conditions on Route 9W; for
example, traffic volumes on the three primary links on Rt. 9W with the bypass are projected to be less
than half of volumes in the "no-action" case. Indeed, with one exception, projected traffic volumes are
actually less than volumes in 1988.
The bypass alternative did have one major drawback for the Town, however. Because it would have to
be built as a local road, the Town would have to bear the costs. And, with its relatively modest tax base
($3 A-million in property tax revenues in 1988), amortization of the debt required to cover construction
costs would significantly increase local property taxes. Nonetheless, because of the demonstrable traffic,
economic and property benefits, the Town decided to pursue construction of the bypass.
State and Local Cooperation
In mid-1989 the New York State Department of Transportation solicited the Town's interest in the newly
initiated PubliclPrivate Finance Demonstration Program, which provided local governments with the
opportunity to initiate or expedite projects on state routes. Ulster, which had already initiated design of a
38
...............,-...-;"...,-,,,..^'.,~-" .
Route 9W bypass, applied for the Program in December of 1989. The proposed project consisted off our
intersection improvements on state routes, the construction of a north-south collector linking Routes 9W
and 32 and two east-west collectors
linking this road with Route 9W, and a
commercial service road just west of
Route 9W.
The estimated cost of the proposed project
was slightly under $8.7 million and Ulster
proposed a State share of $1.89 million.
The Town would finance $1.64 million
through out-of-pocket, in kind and ROW
donations and proposed that the remainder
be financed through implementation of a
"Transportation" special assessment
district. (It should be noted that the
proposed cost-sharing project was only a
part of Ulster's overall transportation
development plan. In early 1995 the
Town and NYSDOT agreed to evaluate
and, if appropriate, share costs for a
second element.)
The Department approved Ulster's
application in June of 1990, offering a
State share of $2-million. The
Department's approval was, however,
subject to two major conditions. First,
design of the project would have to be
coordinated with and approved by the
Department. Secondly, the Town's share
of costs had to be in place before the State
share would be released.
The Ulster Transportation Improvement District (shaded)
with the Route 9W By-pass and proposed extension.
'~J.:8' .:;:::: ::., ~= ~---:. - _, ....-~. .-'
;,. ": __ i '~::-. iy,
.;.;.,. ~ PrOPO'Ie.dExteqSlO'D ;
. ,
.;~-..........
., _ "- i
, - - , I ~
, ~,
~~
Implementation of the Development Facilitation Imnrovement District
The Town's decision to establish a Development Facilitation Improvement District directly addressed
three intertwined issues. Because it would have to bond to cover construction costs, the Town would
have to persuade bond underwriters and the State that the proposed method of financing was fiscally
responsible and relatively risk free. Because of its modest tax base and the relatively large assessment
consequences of bond amortization, the Town wanted to avoid the requirement for a voter referendum
necessary to issue a General Revenue Bond. And, because the Rt. 9W bypass would not benefit all
property owners and resident equally, the Town needed to establish an equitable basis for assessing bond
amortization costs.
Resolution of these issues required substantial, prolonged effort. First, as the Comptroller's approval of
the proposed District would be subject to the results of a permissive referendum by voters (properties)
39
Cooperation was in Evel;yone's Interest -- The State:
improved service and safety on Rt. 9W, increased capacity
for through traffic, $11-million in avoided costs. IW:
Town: improved development potential, an increase in
ratables and a $2-million reduction in local costs.
Businesses on Rt. 9W: increased market area, a reduction
in access problems, avoidance of relocation. Propen;y
Owners: increased property values and a reduction in
property "tax" costs that would otherwise be required to
obtain frontage on a local road.
within the proposed District and the actual
improvements would be paid for by a
special assessment on these same properties,
Town officials needed to persuade property
owners that the benefits of the proposed
project were greater than its costs and that
costs were allocated equitably. Secondly,
establishment of a special assessment
district is itself a complex process, largely
resulting from requirements for individual
state authorization and approval and, thus,
the need to interact closely and responsively
with State legislators and the Office of the State Comptroller. The steps taken to implement the Ulster
Development Facilitation Improvement District #1 are outlined below.
04-07-89
03-06-90
10-15-90
11-26-90
03-18-91
04-00-91
05-28-91
06-06-91
08-28-91
09-16-91
12-03-91
Completion of the Transportation Study and Traffic Management Plan.
Submission of legislation authorizing establishment of an improvement district.
Passage oflegislation. (Ch. 521 of the Laws of 1990)
Adoption of an order reciting the boundaries, costs and method of financing for
the District and specifying that a public hearing be held.
The public hearing is held and the Town resolves to establish the District.
Findings on the Final Environmental Impact Statement are issued.
Ulster issues a final resolution to establish the District subject to a permissive
referendum.
A Certificate of No Petition for a Referendum is issued.
Ulster requests permission ofthe Office ofthe State Comptroller to establish the
District.
The Office of the State Comptroller grants permission for the District.
Ulster issues an order establishing the District.
NYSDOT and Ulster enter into an agreement for the use of 1988 Bond Funds for
the Route 9W project.
The enabling legislation required that property owners within the District be assessed for the cost of
improvements on the basis of benefits. These were determined to include travel benefits --e.g. reduced
accidents, travel time and congestion; property value benefits --for properties fronting the bypass and
connectors; and avoided costs --for properties on Rt. 9W which would not have to relocate or lose
property necessary for roadway widening.
40
Town of Penfield: Land-Use and Access Management Plan JS
CONTACTS:
Geoffrey Benway, P.E.
MRB Group, P.C. (716) 381-9250
Stephen R. Ferranti, P.E.
SRF & Associates (716) 454-4800
This case examines implementation of a Town initiated access management plan to
leverage the benefits of a State constrnction project and ilInstrates the application
ofland-nse and transportation tools (inclnding both retrofit and preemptive tools)
to enhance overall local development objectives.
The Town of Penfield is a bedroom community lying east of the City of Rochester in the Finger Lake
Region of New York. The Town has no major expressways within its borders, however, 1-490 extends
from the City of Rochester to the south and NYS Route 104 is located north of the Town. The project
area encompasses the intersection of two state arterials. Route 441 is an east-west highway with dense
residential and modest commercial developments. Route 250, a north-south highway, links recreational,
business, and shopping facilities in adjoining Towns. Traffic volumes on Routes 250 and 441 reach
16,200 and 25,900 vehicles-per-day (VPD), respectively. The project area includes approximately
500,000 square feet of retail and commercial development, and can accommodate another 1.0-1.5 million
square feet at build-out.
In early 1994 the Town, aware ofa NYSDOT intersection improvement project scheduled for 1997 and
already actively involved in the Route 441 Corridor Review Committee (established by the NYSDOT
Region 4 Director) reacted to a rush of commercial development applications by declaring an informal
development moratorium and initiating a Land Use and Access Management Study. This study would
include specific land-use and access management strategies to be integrated with and compliment the
proposed highway project.
The Study confirmed the need for additional site and highway related improvements in order to
accommodate a potential doubling of commercial development within and outside the Study area. In
order to meet the overall needs of the Town a comprehensive survey was undertaken and a series of
public information meetings were held to update property owners and citizens and to discuss, refine and
obtain support for its proposals.
Evaluation of Alternatives
The consultants had several workshops with the Town Board and Planning Board members to determine
the desired course of action, based upon various growth scenarios and their impacts on traffic and
business in the Study area. A number of options to treat these impacts were addressed, including modest
and aggressive reductions in curb cuts along the highway; changes in zoning to limit developments
which would generate large volumes of traffic; increasing building setbacks; increasing frontages; and
other rezoning and subdivision opportunities. The consultants also evaluated potential betterments to the
proposed NYSDOT project --including, for example, alternative median and aesthetic treatments. These
were reviewed with Region 4 planners and designers at key steps in the process. The cost for these
betterments were determined and options for funding were evaluated.
41
As a result of this work the Town established a Land Use and Access Management Plan (LUAMP)
structured to reduce the impacts of existing
and future development on traffic and the
local quality of life. The LUAMP contained
a number of land use and access
management changes to be applied within an
overlay zone; some of which are illustrated
at right. Importantly, individual retrofit
plans were worked out with affected
business in the Study area --in order to treat
their impact on existing traffic as well as to
bring them into conformance with the
overall access management system.
State and Local Cooperation
The project was supportive of the New York
State DOT Long Range Intermodal
Statewide Transportation Plan and the Town
of Penfield Master Plan. The NYSDOT
Region 4 offered its support through the
Route 441 Corridor Review Committee and
personal appearances by the regional director
on local cable programs and public meeting.
The project team was able to obtain
consensus of the business owners for median
installations, internal cross access
agreements, and other access considerations.
Implementation Strategies
;'~';:", .,'
,,'>:~d'''~/''.
A number of promotional, finance, administrative and legal actions were required to implement the
recommendation of the LUAMP. A key concern was community acceptance; particularly acceptance by
businesses directly affected by the Plan's access retrofit requirements. This was addressed by
developing executive and business support for the overall concept, first, then holding open meetings to
address the concerns of the populace, generally. The LUAMP was then revised based on the results of
these meetings. Intensive efforts were also made to meet with individual businesses and work out site
specific elements affecting each property.
Implementation of the LUAMP, itself, was
addressed through a SEQRA review and passage of
local legislation creating an Overlay District and
modifying zoning and subdivision ordinances within
the District. One element, for example, addressed
the need to obtain developer agreements for
temporary and conditional access to the State
42
-"'-~~-~~...._-,<----...~---
highway pending construction of internal access roadways or shared driveways. As an incentive for
these agreements the Plan developed Incentive Zoning provisions and used Town Law 278 to offer
benefits to developers willing to agree to temporary/conditional access.
Another element addressed financing for local costs for preparation of the LUAMP, the SEQRA review
and the cost of betterments to be included in the NYSDOT improvement project. These resource
requirements were to be met through a combination of techniques including: Town support in obtaining
the additional right of way needed for the NYSDOT project; inter-municipal agreements for drainage
and sidewalks; and development of a Transportation Improvement Fee to be levied within the Overlay
District. The fee would be based on peak hour trip generation for the proposed development and paid to
the Town. The fee could be partially waived for developers that complete access improvements to the
State highway required in and to be funded as part of the LUAMP.
Towns of Canandaigua and Farmington: Route 332 Corridor Management
Richard Twardokus
NYSDOT Reg. 4 Design,
(716) 272-3497
Aaron Gagne, Canandaigua
Director of Development
(716) 394-7400
Ron Brand, Farmington
Director of Development
(315) 986-8189
This ongoing project involves development of an access management and transportation
enhancement plan involving two mnnicipalities. It illustrates how land-use and
transportation tools can be used to protect the transportation utility of an arterial.
Route 332 is a principal arterial linking the city of Canandaigua with the greater Rochester urban area. It
stretches from the New York State Thruway in the north to the City of Canandaigua in the south. Traffic
conditions along Route 332 vary widely with location and time of day. In 1993 the AADT ranged from
13,040 to 20,247 with one-way DHV ranging from 804 to 1,160. Peak hour levels-of-service were
generally deficient along the length of the corridor and at unsignalized intersections. Accident rates were
generally higher than the State average for similar classes of roads and the large majority of accidents
occurred at intersections or in the vicinity of driveways.
In their Master Plans both Towns demonstrated relatively common objectives for the corridor: the need
to maintain its aesthetic and transportation benefits while taking advantage of its utility as a magnet for
development. And, as part of these Plans, both Towns proposed a network of access roads to attract
development as well as to protect the Rt. 332 corridor against the worst manifestations of strip
development.
In 1993 the State legislature appropriated funds for improvements to Route 332. The project would
involve widening the road from 2 to 4 lanes as well as intersection and signal improvements. In March,
1994, Town Supervisors Robert Simpson, Sr., and Lawrence Scott ofCanandaigua and Farmington,
respectively, provided their proposed recommendations to the NYSDOT. These included improvements
that are not normally undertaken as part of a state transportation project; specifically, the construction of
43
The Rt. 332 project will enhance transportation
and development management for the full length
of the corridor.
local access roads and the installation of
conduit and underground equipment for
signalization of future intersections with
unbuilt access roads.
State and Local Cooperation
In mid-l 994 the (NYSDOT) Project Design
Team initiated on-going meetings with local
officials and planners from both towns to
obtain their input on the design of the Rt.
332 project. As discussions continued,
however, it became clear that the project
provided an opportunity for all parties to
leverage their interests: NYSDOT could
enhance and secure the transportation
benefits of its capital project and the Towns
could reduce the costs of constructing the
network of access roads while providing for
appropriate economic development.
The Department provided the Towns with
median alternatives, signal locations and a preliminary draft of proposed access management ordinances.
A series of meetings were (and are being) held with Town planners and officials to discuss their
implications for traffic and safety on Route 332 as well as local development. They were then revised
based on local input. The Town ofCanandaigua then held an early public information session on the
overall project, with support from the Department. A number of concerns were apparent at this session,
for example: the affect of restrictive medians on access to existing businesses, the local (tax)
implications for construction of the access roads, and the affect of the project on property values.
Officials from the Town then followed up with individual meetings with individual businesses and
property owners to clarify and, if possible, mollify their concerns.
Access Management
Achievement of the full traffic, safety and local development benefits of the project depended on a state
and local agreement over the median treatment, completion of the access roads and enactment of the
access management ordinances. The basic elements of the cooperative agreement are discussed below.
Medians The Department developed several alternative median treatments and presented these to the
towns for their consideration. The Department's recommended alternative was a median which would
restrict left turns except at median breaks and intersections and, thus, improve safety. The towns would
agree to accept this alternative. The Department would, in turn, agree to construct the intersection
geometry and provide the conduit for a number of signalized intersections with unbuilt access roads.
Working with the Department, the Towns would designate the location of these intersections (and
median breaks).
Access Roads: The access roads would complete a traffic circulation scheme, provide alternate access to
44
areas targeted for development and provide an effective
means of separating through from local traffic. The
Towns would commit to locations where the access
roads will intersect with Route 332, determine the final
alignment of the access roads, and establish a plan to
finance and construct the access roads. The Department
would help the towns by providing assistance in
evaluating traditional and non-traditional methods of
financing capital projects and by constructing or sharing
the costs of constructing such access roads ~
warranted to maintain traffic and safety during
construction alonl! Route 332.
Access Manal!ement Ordinances: Enactment of the
access management ordinances would allow the Towns
to focus development along the Rt. 332 while
minimizing the impact of such developments on traffic.
Some of the key elements of the ordinance are:
'- /\
-,/y' \~
/ "'+;.. \"$.
/'/ ~ \.
-- \, '
\
/"-'--1'
~~ \ /
_~7- \..//
.....~//
/~/
11/
iJ!/
8/
!
\...","
"....""'""
'\, /1 ~~__"'__'
'\ ' ........-{
\ ' II'
\k=~of
Canaldaip
@~
The proposed access roads will improve
traffic circulation in the developing area
along Rt. 332.
Drivewavs Generally limited to one per parcel;
spacing and design will be determined as part of
the Highway Work Permit and/or site development permit; located to allow driveway sharing;
cross access/inter-connected parking is encouraged; minimum comer clearance standards are
established; minimum driveway spacing standards are as below:
Posted Speed Minimum Generator Minor Generator Major Generator
Peak Direction Trips 0-50 PDT 51-100 PDT 10 1 PDT or more
less than 45 mph 220 feet, 67 meters 330 feet, 100 meters 550 feet, 168 meters
45 mph or greater 330 feet, 100 meters 440 feet, 134 meters 660 ft, 200 meters
.~
Subdivisions and develonments Planned access will be provided; subdivided properties will
not have the right of individual driveways; developments generating more than 50 vehicles in the
peak hour are required to mitigate transportation impacts.
Retrofit for developments taking place after the effective date of the ordinance --may be
required to construct a driveway to an access road and close driveways to Route 332 once the
access road is completed; for properties which are now developed --when applying for an
upgrade or change of use may be required to retrofit driveways and take other actions as will
bring them into conformance with the access management ordinances.
45
Town of Malta. Saratoga County: Phased Mitigation: State Farm Insurance
This case describes a state, local and private collaboration to mitigate the
transportation impacts of major development. It illustrates how the State
Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) process, and negotiation, can
be used to implement a flexible, developer-sensitive approach to impact
mitigation.
This case describes phased transportation impact mitigation associated with the development of the
North Atlantic Regional Office of the State Farm Insurance Company on Route 67. This includes a
combination of phased mitigation; off-site mitigation using, in part, NYSDOT Industrial Access Program
funding; cost sharing for future improvements; and a developer-proposed trip reduction plan.
Phase I of the development,
constructed in the summer of 1991,
included the headquarters building and
other improvements on the south side
of Route 67 just west of the Northway
(1-87) Exit 12. The new facility
provided approximately 325,000
square feet of office space. Initially,
the office was to be occupied by 670
employees. Full employment was
projected to reach 1,085 by 1999.
Off-site mitigation required on Route
67, Route 9 and Dunning Road (CR
108) was estimated to cost
approximately $1.75 million. The
funding for mitigation was split
between State Farm ($1.0 million) and
New York State ($0.75 million in
Industrial Access Program monies). If
economic conditions permit, State
Farm would later develop additional
land. This was projected to include
office and retail space as well as a hotel.
\
The State Farm Insurance mitigation included
improvements along Rt. 67 and at the junction of Rt.
67 with the Northway.
State Environmental Ouality Review Process
The SEQRA Statement of Findings for traffic impacts listed the Route 67 entry, 1-87 ramps, the Route 67
bridge over 1-87, and the intersection of Route 67 and Route 9 as being adversely impacted by the State
Farm development. Since Route 67, the Northway and its ramps, and Route 9 are state highways the
NYSDOT was an "involved agency" in the SEQRA process --as NYSDOT Highway Work Permits
would be required for the required highway mitigation. (The State Farm manager said publicly that the
SEQRA process was lengthy and required more mitigation and changes to their building plans than the
46
Company experiences elsewhere but it wasn't unreasonable. They viewed it as a corporate
responsibility.)
Approval of Phased Mitigation
The Commissioner of the New York State Department of Transportation determined that phased
mitigation for State Farm was in the public interest. Phased mitigation request is an exception to
NYSDOT's public/private policy --which normally requires that ALL mitigation, based on FULL build
out, be completed prior to opening a facility. Several key conditions must be met for phased mitigation
to be considered: the performance of future mitigation must be secured in the Highway Work Permit
and/or other contractual documents, the interim mitigation must be reasonable, and a "fair share" of costs
for future improvements must be established.
Phased Mitigation Agreements Incornorated to the Highwav Work Permit
NYSDOT had maximum mitigation leverage in this case due to the frontage and impacts on intersections
with state highways. The main contents of this permit and restrictive covenant are described below.
To ensure that State Farm would mitigate future impacts associated with the additional
development, the State of New York attached conditions to the standard work permit to convert
it into a restrictive covenant running with the land. This was filed in the Saratoga County Clerks
Office and listed in the Miscellaneous Record Indices.
The State highway improvements to be completed by State Farm (the Permittee) were traffic
impact mitigations required by the SEQRA record of decision of the Town of Malta dated 217/90
for an office building with a maximum size of 325,000 square feet.
The Permittee agreed to submit a surety bond for $850,000 to insure that the work to be done
would be completed in a timely manner and according to NYSDOT plans and specifications.
If the right to the site was transferred to another party before construction of the project was
completed the new party would be required to obtain permits to carry out the work.
If the Permittee did not comply with the terms of the permit NYSDOT reserved the right to
reconsider its approval and decide whether to continue, rescind or modify the permit. The
Permittee agreed that it would not apply for a certificate of occupancy until all permit work was
completed to the satisfaction of the Department.
State Farm agreed to participate in financing future work, on a "fair share" basis. The "fair
share" was determined as the percentage of the cost that was equal to the percentage of the
additional roadway capacity provided by the widening that is consumed by State Farm related
traffic.
The "fair-share" work would include additional through lanes on Route 67 and related work
possibly including turn lanes, ramps, and tapering. This work was to be warranted when the total
volume of traffic entering the 1-87 Exit 12 Northbound ramp was 1,863 vehicles in the morning
peak hour, 2,403 vehicles in the afternoon peak hour, or when rehabilitation of the structure was
47
necessary.
State Farm agreed to maintain the specific transportation demand management actions included
in the traffic study (e.g. staggered work hours, van pooling) for a period of 10 years after the
completion of phases I and II. In the event State Farm terminated these measures before the 10
year period had elapsed its "fair share" would be adjusted by factors determined in the traffic
studies.
Any assessment for additional cost was to be recorded as a restrictive covenant running with the.
land which provided that future owners of the land would be obligated for a portion of any
assessment cost in relation to the percentage of their property to the total tract being assessed.
EXAMPLE OF "FAIR SHARE" ASSESSMENTS3.
Phases I and II: Four Lane Bridge
State Farm Share
State Farm Share with Travel Demand Management Program
35%
26%
Phases I and II: Four Lane Bridge with Northbound off-Ramp Right Turn Lane
State Farm Share 19%
State Farm Share with Travel Demand Management Program 13%
Full Develo\lment. Phases I-III
State Farm Share
State Farm Share with Travel Demand Management Program
44%
35%
48
APPENDIX B
GLOSSARY AND ACRONYMS
AADT - Annual Average Daily Traffic.
ACCESS CONTROL - The exercise of State
and/or Local authority to condition or acquire a
property owner's right of access to a road.
ACCESS MANAGEMENT - The process that
provides access to land development while
simultaneously preserving the flow of traffic on
the surrounding road system in terms of safety,
capacity and speed.
ACTIVITY NODES - For the purpose of this
report are: compact, transit-oriented, pedestrian-
friendly areas with a high concentration of mixed-
use development where two or more transit routes
or travel routes intersect (or could intersect).
ARTERIAL - A major throughfare used primarily
for through traffic and generally characterized by
high vehicular capacity and continuity of
movement.
ARTERIAL, UNCONTROLLED or UNLIMITED
ACCESS - An arterial along which properties
abutting the right-of-way have the right to
construct driveways to the arterial subject to
conformance with any State and/or Local
permitting requirements.
ARTERIAL MANAGEMENT - The application
of (State and local) planning, capital, regulatory,
and management tools to enhance and/or preserve
the transportation function of the roadway.
BULB-OUT (also PINCH POINT) - A bulge in the
curb intended to narrow the travel lane and thereby
reduce the speed of vehicles. A variety of designs
are possible.
CAPACITY - The maximum hourly rate at which
persons or vehicles can reasonably be expected to
traverse a point or uniform section of a lane or
roadway during a given time period under
prevailing roadway, traffic and control conditions.
CHICANE - A series oftight turns in opposite
directions in an otherwise straight stretch of road.
CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT- A planned
development in which the lots are plotted with less
than the minimum lot size and dimensional
requirements.
COLLECTOR - A street which collects traffic
from local streets and connects with arterials.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (also MASTER
PLAN) - The officially adopted Plan for the
development of a town, which indicates the
general location for physical growth of the
community, together with any and all amendments
thereto.
CONFLICT POINT - The point at which a higway
user crossing, merging with, or diverging from a
road or driveway conflicts with another highway
user using the road or driveway.
CROSSWALK or W ALKW A Y or SIDEW ALK-
An access way designed for pedestrian traffic and
dedicated to Public use.
DIVERTER - An extension of the curb, raised
median or other device used to channel traffic
from one travel path to another.
DRIVEWAY - Every entrance or exit used by
vehicular traffic to or from lands or buildings
abutting a road.
EASEMENT - Deeded authorization by a property
owner for the use of any part of his or her
property.
49
EXPANSION - Any growth of activity which
requires the enlargement of facilities, including
buildings, parking spaces, storage yards, or the
construction of new facilities required to
accommodate such growth.
FRONTAGE - The distance along the road
pavement edge in front of a property abutting a
street right-of-way, measured between lines
perpendicular to the centerline of the roadway
from each property corner abutting the road.
GElS - Generic Environmental Impact Statement.
IN-FILL - A vacant lot between two other lots
where there already exists a principal building on
each.
LANDSCAPING - The act of changing or
enhancing the natural features, a plot buffer zone,
public open space, or other area or portion of a lot
so as to make said area more attractive, to add
visual screening and/or to provide safety features
to assist in protecting life and property.
LAND USE OR DEVELOPMENT - Any
construction, alteration or other activity which
materially changes the use or appearance of land
or a structure or the intensity of the use ofland or
a structure.
(LOS) LEVEL OF SERVICE - A qualitative
measure of operational characteristics within a
traffic stream. (Levels range from "A",
representing the best operating conditions, to "F",
representing the worst.)
LUAMP - Land Use and Access Management
Plan.
LOCAL - A street which is used primarily for
access to the abutting residential properties.
LOT - A parcel or portion of land separated from
other parcels or portions by description as on a
subdivision map, survey map or by metes and
bounds.
LOT, CORNER - A lot situated at the intersection
of two (2) or more roads.
LOT, LINE -The established dividing line between
different parcels of property.
MEDIAN - the portion of a divided highway
separating the traveled way for traffic traveling in
opposite directions.
MPO - Metropolitan Planning Organization.
NYSDOT (also the DEPARTMENT) - The New
York State Department of Transportation.
OPEN SPACE - Land not covered by buildings,
pavement, open storage, mining operations or any
other use that visually obscures the natural or
improved landscape, except for recreation
facilities.
PARKING AREA - Any place, lot, parcel, or yard
used, in whole or in part, for storing or parking
motor vehicles.
PDT - Peak (hour) Directional Traffic.
REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS - Any activities
or improvements required by the Subdivision
Regulations, including but not limited to streets
and roads, utility installations, road ditches,
drainage facilities and culverts, monuments, and
re-vegetation operations.
ROAD - A way for vehicular traffic, whether
designated as a "street," "highway,"
"thoroughfare," "parkway," "through-way,"
"road," "avenue," "boulevard," "lane," "cul-de-
sac." "place" or otherwise designated, and
includes the entire area within the right-of-way.
(ROW) RIGHT-OF-WAY - (a) A general term
denoting land, property, or interest therein, usually
in a strip, for or devoted to transportation
purposes. (b) The right of one vehicle or
pedestrian to proceed in a lawful manner in
50
preference to another vehicle or pedestrian.
SEQRA or SEQR - (State Environmental Quality
Review Act): Law and associated regulations
governing environmental impact review of
proposed actions.
SETBACK - The established line beyond which no
part of a building shall extend, generally measured
from the right-of-way line to the building face.
SFY - State Fiscal Year (April I to March 31)
SHOULDERS - The improved portion of a
highway contiguous with the roadway.
SPEED CUSHIONS - Speed bumps which do not
span the entire width of the roadway, thus
providing bicycles and motorcycles with a safer
path to travel.
SPEED DEPRESSION - A depressed and
generally narrow section of the roadway intended
to slow traffic by reducing the speed at which it
can be comfortably traversed
SUBDIVISION - A division of any residential,
commercial or industrial land into two or more
lots, parcels or sites, whether adjoining or not, for
. the purpose of sale, lease, license or any form of
separate ownership or occupancy.
TDM - Transportation Demand Management.
(S)TIP - (State) Transportation Improvement
Program.
TIS, also TIA - Transportation Impact Study,
Transportation Impact Assessment.
TRAFFIC CIRCLE (ROUNDABOUT) - A
channelized intersection at which all traffic moves
counter-clockwise around a central traffic island.
TSM - Transportation Systems Management.
V/C - Vehicle/Capacity (Ratio).
VHD(/D) - Vehicle-Hours Delay (per Day).
VMT - Vehicle Miles Traveled.
51
END NOTES AND REFERENCES
I. For purposes of this report unlimited access arterials include the following functional classes of roads:
urban principal arterial other (14), urban minor arterial (16), rural principal arterial other (02), and rural
minor arterial (06). Residential, commercial and industrial access to these roads is largely unrestricted;
although some stretches do have full-to-partial access controls.
2. NYSDOT Highway User Cost Accounting Program Logic, Lou Adams, NYSDOT Planning Data
Analysis Group, August 2, 1996. This uses the composite value for mixed traffic, $7.34, which reflects
the mix of traffic and user costs for passenger vehicles, $5.84, and for mixed trucks, $8.59. It is worth
noting that the composite value is lower than the national value which is approximately $12.85.
3. NYSDOT, "The Five-Year Transportation Program Update Program Assessment Report: SFY
1995/96 Thru SFY 1999/00" April, 1995, Systems and Program Planning Bureau, Planning, New York
State Department of Transportation.
4. These include (I) the "Georgia Crash Study", Squires and Parsons, TRR 1239; (2) the "Florida Crash
Study", Long, Gan and Morrison, 1993; (3) the Colorado Access Demonstration Project, 1995; the
"Transportation Planning Workshop: Access Management Issues, Tools and Techniques", Capital
District Transportation Committee, 1995, for county roads (4) and state roads (5); (6) the 1985 "Highway
Capacity Manual", Transportation Research Board"; and (7) application of the Transyt7 model.
5. Adapted from: Stover, V. G. And Koepke, F. J., "Transportation and Land Development", 1988,
Institute of Transportation Engineers.
6. CDTC, "Case Study in Integrating Land-Use and Transportation Decisions: The Capital District in
New York", 1993, John Poorman, State Director, Capital District Transportation Committee, Albany,
NY.
7. NYSDOT, "Procedure for Managing Projects: The New Capital Program and Project Management
System for DOT', third working draft, Group B Projects, Program and Project Management
Improvement Task Force.
8. NYSDOT, "Public Private Financing of Road Improvements Handbook", page 7, Planning Division,
NYSDOT
9. New York State Environmental Quality Review Act, Article 8 of EnvironmentaJ Conservation Law
and State-wide implementing regulations, part 617 ofNYCRR.
10. NYSDOT, "Policy and Standards for Entrances to State Highways, M.A.P. 7.12-34, New York State
Department of Transportation. Authorized by Section 52 of the New York State Highway Law and
Section 1220-a of the New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law.
II. The data are taken from NYSDOT Finance 'Project Cost Tabulation" listing of projects with
"A W"PIN prefixes. A W prefIXes are attached to private developments requiring mitigation and effort
and expense by the Department for design review and approval, construction inspection and other
services. These data are likely to underestimate the actual number of projects requiring mitigation.
52
12. 6 NYCRR, part 617.
13.6NYCRR,part617.
14. There is a large body ofliterature treating access management. A relatively comprehensive
overview is available in "Access Management Guidelines for Activity Centers", NHCRP Report 348,
1992, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council
15. New York State Town Law Section 272.a. Master Plan.
16. New York State Town Law, Section 264.
17. New York State Town Law, Section 262.
18. New York State Town Law, Section 274.a.
19. NYSDOT, "Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices: Part 271, Warrants for Traffic Control
Signals", New York State Department of Transportation, Division of Traffic and Safety.
20. FHW A, "Urban and Suburban Highway Congestion", Working Paper No. 10, Federal Highway
Administration, December, 1987.
21. ITE, "A Toolbox for Alleviating Traffic Congestion", pages 37-38, ITE publication No. IR054A,
1989, Institute of Traffic Engineers.
22. There is a wide variety of literature on transportation demand management. This discussion is
excerpted from one of the most useful general overviews: "A Guidance Manual for Implementing
Effective Employer-Based Travel Demand Management Programs", November, 1993, Report No. DOT-
T-94-05, U.S. Department of Transportation.
23. NYSDOT, "Pedestrian and Bicycle Facility Scoping Guide", Apoendix I: Scooin!! Procedures
Manual. March, 1995, Corridor Management Group, Planning Bureau, NYSDOT.
There is a large and rapidly growing body of literature on the planning and design of bicycle and
pedestrian facilities. For additional or more detailed information contact the NYSDOT Bicycle and
Pedestrian Program, Room 4-206, State Office Campus, Albany, NY 12232, Tel: (518) 457-8307.
24. The basic characteristics of these environments are the same. They have relatively high user
densities, involve the co-location of residential and business land-uses (and/or transit facilities) and
provide a relatively short distance between the different types of land-use generating or attracting
pedestrian and bicycle traffic.
25. Draft "Driveway Spacing Guidelines" prepared for the towns ofCanandaigua and Farmington by
NYSDOT, Reg. 4.
26. Florida Department of Transportation, "Use of the Access Management Standards".
53
27. Adapted from Koepke, F. J. And Levinson, H. S., "Access Management Guidelines for Activity
Centers", 1992, Report 348, figure 8-32, Transportation Research Board.
28. From, Florida Department of Transportation, "Access Management: An Important Traffic
Management Strategy".
29. Adapted from the City of Saratoga Springs, "Final Report: West Avenue Corridor Management
Plan", Saratoga Springs, NY, 1995
30. Adapted from, Anzevino, J., "Understanding Traffic and Its Impact", 1993, Scenic Hudson, Inc.,
Poughkeepsie, NY.
31. Adapted from Koepke, F. J. And Levinson, H. S., "Access Management Guidelines for Activity
Centers", 1992, Report 348, figure 8-32, Transportation Research Board.
32. Adapted from: (I) Ontario ministries of Transportation and Municipal Affairs, "Transit-Supportive
Land-Use Planning Guidelines", 1992, and (2) NJTransit, "Planning for Transit-Friendly Land-Use: A
Handbook for New Jersey Communities", 1994.
33. "West Avenue Corridor Management Plan: Final Report", prepared for the City of Saratoga Springs
by the L. A. Group, 40 Long Alley, Saratoga Springs, NY 12866
34. This case study is excerpted from "Case Study in Integrating Land Use and Transportation
Decisions: The Capital District in New York", John Poorman, Staff Director, Capital District
Transportation Committee, prepared for the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy and the Fall, 1993,
Statewide Transit Conference.
35. Ferranti, S. R. and Benway, G., "The Challenges (and Early Successes) Of A Town Initiated Access
Management "Retrofit" Program on Two State Highways", 1996, Stephen R. Ferranti (SRF &
Associates, Rochester, NY 716-454-4800) and GeoffBenway (the MRB Group, Rochester, NY, 716-
381-9250)
36. The percentages shown were derived from "Memorandum to State Farm Files, "Charles W. Manning
& Stephen R. Cook, Roger Creighton Associates, Inc. August 8 & 9, 1990.
54