final d esig n report...november 2013 final design report pin 1460.42 list of preparers group...

U.S. Depa

NEW YORANDREW

F

artment of Tra

RK STATE DW M. CUOMO

FINAL D

ansportation F

EPARTMENT, Governor

DESIG

Novembe

Federal Highw

T OF TRANS

GN REPer 2013

way Administ

SPORTATION JOAN MCD

NYS Route Albany Co

City of Coh

PORT

tration

N ONALD, Com

Bridge ProjeP.I.N. 1460.4BIN: 1-0225032 over the Mounty / Saratohoes / Town o

mmissioner

ct 42 0-0 Mohawk Riveoga County of Waterford

er

This project is being designed using metric units and the text of this report uses metric units. The following table of approximate conversion factors provides the relationship between metric and U.S. Customary units for some of the more frequently used units in highway design. The table allows one to calculate the U.S. Customary Unit by multiplying the corresponding Metric Unit by the given factor.

Metric Unit x Factor = U.S. Customary Unit Length kilometer (km) x 0.621 = miles (mi) meter (m) x 3.281 = feet (ft) Area hectare (ha) x 2.471 = acres (a) square meter (m2) x 1.196 = square yards (sy) square meter (m2) x 10.764 = square feet (sf) Volume cubic meter (m3) x 1.308 = cubic yards (cy) cubic meter (m3) x 35.315 = cubic feet (cf) Speed kilometer per hour (km/h) x 0.621 = miles per hour (mph) meter per second (m/s) x 3.281 = feet per second (ft/s)

November 2013 Final Design Report PIN 1460.42

PROJECT APPROVAL SHEET(Pursuant to SAFETEA-LU Matrix)

A. IPP Approval: The project is ready to be added to the Regional Capital Program and project scoping can begin.

The IPP was approved by: Tom Werner

08/2002

Regional Director

B. Scope Approval: The project cost and schedule are consistent with the Regional Capital Program.The scope was approved by: Robert Hansen for David Rettig

07/2004

Regional Planning and Program Manager

C. Public Hearing Certification (23 USC 128):

A public hearing was held on August 13, 2013 and August 15, 2013 inaccordance with 23 USC 128.

08/2013

Design Squad Leader or Project Manager

D. Recommendation for Design Approval:

The project cost and schedule are consistent with the Regional Capital Program.

Regional Program Manager

E. Recommendation for Design and Nonstandard Feature Approval:

All requirements requisite to these actions and approvals have been met, the required independent quality control reviews separate from the functional group reviews have been accomplished, and the work is consistent with established standards, policies, regulations and procedures, except as otherwise noted and explained.

Regional Design Engineer

F. Nonstandard Feature Approval:

No nonstandard features have been identified, created, or retained.

Regional Director

G. Design Approval: The required environmental determinations have been made and the preferred alternative for this project is ready for final design.

Deputy Chief Engineer

A public hearing was held on August 13, 2013 and August 15, 2013accordance with 23 USC 128.

Design Squad Leader or Project Manager


LIST OF PREPARERS Group Director Responsible for Production of the Design Approval Document:

Manuel T. Salorio, Jr., P.E., Vice President, CHA Consulting Inc. Description of Work Performed by Firm: Directed the preparation of the Design Approval Document in accordance with established standards, policies, regulations and procedures, except as otherwise explained in this document.

Note: It is a violation of law for any person, unless they are acting under the direction of a licensed professional engineer, architect, landscape architect, or land surveyor, to alter an item in any way. If an item bearing the stamp of a licensed professional is altered, the altering engineer, architect, landscape architect, or land surveyor shall stamp the document and include the notation "altered by" followed by their signature, the date of such alteration, and a specific description of the alteration.


TABLE OF CONTENTS COVER METRIC TO U.S. CUSTOMARY UNIT CONVERSION TABLE (on back of cover) PROJECT APPROVAL SHEET LIST OF PREPARERS

CHAPTER 1 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2. PURPOSE AND NEED ................................................................................................................................ 1-1

1.2.1. Where is the Project Located? ..................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2.2. Why is the Project Needed? ......................................................................................................... 1-4 1.2.3. What are the Objectives/Purposes of the Project? ...................................................................... 1-4

1.3. WHAT ALTERNATIVE(S) ARE BEING CONSIDERED? .................................................................................... 1-4 1.4 HOW WILL THE ALTERNATIVE(S) AFFECT THE ENVIRONMENT? ..................................................................... 1-4 1.5. WHAT ARE THE COSTS & SCHEDULES ....................................................................................................... 1-6 1.6. WHICH ALTERNATIVE IS PREFERRED? ....................................................................................................... 1-8 1.7. WHO WILL DECIDE WHICH ALTERNATIVE WILL BE SELECTED AND HOW CAN I BE INVOLVED IN THIS

DECISION? ............................................................................................................................................... 1-8

CHAPTER 2 - PROJECT CONTEXT: HISTORY, TRANSPORTATION PLANS, CONDITIONS AND NEEDS .................................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1. PROJECT HISTORY ................................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2. TRANSPORTATION PLANS AND LAND USE .................................................................................................. 2-1

2.2.1. Local Plans for the Project Area ................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2.1.1. Local Master Plan .................................................................................................................. 2-1 2.2.1.2. Local Private Development Plans .......................................................................................... 2-2

2.2.2. Transportation Corridor ................................................................................................................ 2-2 2.2.2.1. Importance of the Project Route Segment ............................................................................. 2-2 2.2.2.2. Alternate Routes .................................................................................................................... 2-2 2.2.2.3. Corridor Deficiencies and Needs ........................................................................................... 2-2 2.2.2.4. Transportation Plans .............................................................................................................. 2-2 2.2.2.5. Abutting Highway Segments and Future Plans for Abutting Highway Segments ................. 2-2

2.3. TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS, DEFICIENCIES AND ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS .................................. 2-3 2.3.1. Operations (Traffic and Safety) & Maintenance ........................................................................... 2-3

2.3.1.1. Functional Classification and National Highway System (NHS) ............................................ 2-3 2.3.1.2. Control of Access ................................................................................................................... 2-3 2.3.1.3. Traffic Control Devices ........................................................................................................... 2-3 2.3.1.4. Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) ............................................................................... 2-4 2.3.1.5. Speeds and Delay .................................................................................................................. 2-4 2.3.1.6. Traffic Volumes ...................................................................................................................... 2-4 2.3.1.7. Level of Service and Mobility ................................................................................................. 2-5 2.3.1.8. Safety Considerations, Accident History and Analysis .......................................................... 2-6 2.3.1.9. Existing Police, Fire Protection and Ambulance Access ....................................................... 2-7 2.3.1.10. Parking Regulations and Parking Related Conditions ......................................................... 2-8 2.3.1.11. Lighting ................................................................................................................................. 2-8 2.3.1.12. Ownership and Maintenance Jurisdiction ............................................................................ 2-8

2.3.2. Multimodal .................................................................................................................................... 2-9 2.3.2.1. Pedestrians ............................................................................................................................ 2-9 2.3.2.2. Bicyclists .............................................................................................................................. 2-10 2.3.2.3. Transit .................................................................................................................................. 2-10 2.3.2.4. Airports, Railroad Stations, and Ports .................................................................................. 2-10


2.3.2.5. Access to Recreation Areas (Parks, Trails, Waterways, State Lands) ................................ 2-10 2.3.3. Infrastructure .............................................................................................................................. 2-10

2.3.3.1. Existing Highway Section ..................................................................................................... 2-10 2.3.3.2. Geometric Design Elements Not Meeting Standards .......................................................... 2-11 2.3.3.3. Pavement and Shoulder ...................................................................................................... 2-11 2.3.3.4. Drainage Systems ................................................................................................................ 2-11 2.3.3.5. Geotechnical ........................................................................................................................ 2-12 2.3.3.6. Structure ............................................................................................................................... 2-12 2.3.3.7. Hydraulics of Bridges and Culverts ...................................................................................... 2-14 2.3.3.8. Guide Railing, Median Barriers and Impact Attenuators ..................................................... 2-14 2.3.3.9. Utilities .................................................................................................................................. 2-15 2.3.3.10. Railroad Facilities ............................................................................................................... 2-15

2.3.4. Landscape and Environmental Enhancement Opportunities ..................................................... 2-15 2.3.4.1. Landscape ............................................................................................................................ 2-15 2.3.4.2. Opportunities for Environmental Improvements .................................................................. 2-16

2.3.5. Miscellaneous ............................................................................................................................. 2-16

CHAPTER 3 – ALTERNATIVES ..................................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER STUDY ....................................................... 3-1 3.2. FEASIBLE BUILD ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................................................ 3-2

3.2.1. Description of Feasible Alternatives ............................................................................................. 3-2 3.2.2. Preferred Alternative .................................................................................................................... 3-3 3.2.3. Design Criteria for Feasible Alternative(s) ................................................................................... 3-3

3.2.3.1. Design Standards .................................................................................................................. 3-3 3.2.3.2. Critical Design Elements ........................................................................................................ 3-3 3.2.3.3. Other Design Parameters ...................................................................................................... 3-5

3.3. ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................................................................... 3-5 3.3.1. Operations (Traffic and Safety) & Maintenance ........................................................................... 3-5

3.3.1.1. Functional Classification and National Highway System ....................................................... 3-5 3.3.1.2. Control of Access ................................................................................................................... 3-5 3.3.1.3. Traffic Control Devices ........................................................................................................... 3-5 3.3.1.4. Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) ............................................................................... 3-6 3.3.1.5. Speeds and Delay .................................................................................................................. 3-6 3.3.1.6. Traffic Volumes ...................................................................................................................... 3-6 3.3.1.7. Level of Service and Mobility ................................................................................................. 3-6 3.3.1.8. Safety Considerations, Accident History and Analysis .......................................................... 3-8 3.3.1.9. Impacts on Police, Fire Protection and Ambulance Access .................................................. 3-8 3.3.1.10. Parking Regulations and Parking Related Issues ................................................................ 3-9 3.3.1.11. Lighting ................................................................................................................................. 3-9 3.3.1.12. Ownership and Maintenance Jurisdiction ............................................................................ 3-9 3.3.1.13. Constructability Review ........................................................................................................ 3-9

3.3.2. Multimodal .................................................................................................................................... 3-9 3.3.2.1. Pedestrians ............................................................................................................................ 3-9 3.3.2.2. Bicyclists ................................................................................................................................ 3-9 3.3.2.3. Transit .................................................................................................................................... 3-9 3.3.2.4. Airports, Railroad Stations, and Ports .................................................................................... 3-9 3.3.2.5. Access to Recreation Areas (Parks, Trails, Waterways, and State Lands) ........................... 3-9

3.3.3. Infrastructure ................................................................................................................................ 3-9 3.3.3.1. Proposed Highway Section .................................................................................................... 3-9 3.3.3.2. Special Geometric Design Elements ................................................................................... 3-13 3.3.3.3. Pavement and Shoulder ...................................................................................................... 3-13 3.3.3.4. Drainage Systems ................................................................................................................ 3-13 3.3.3.5. Geotechnical ........................................................................................................................ 3-14 3.3.3.6. Structures ............................................................................................................................. 3-14 3.3.3.7. Hydraulics of Bridges and Culverts ...................................................................................... 3-15 3.3.3.8. Guide Railing, Median Barriers and Impact Attenuators ..................................................... 3-15


3.3.3.9. Utilities .................................................................................................................................. 3-15 3.3.3.10. Railroad Facilities ............................................................................................................... 3-16

3.3.4. Landscape and Environmental Enhancements ......................................................................... 3-16 3.3.4.1. Landscape Development and Other Aesthetics Improvements .......................................... 3-16 3.3.4.2. Environmental Enhancements ............................................................................................. 3-16

CHAPTER 4 - SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS AND CONSEQUENCES .... 4-1

4.1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1.1 Environmental Classification and Lead Agencies ......................................................................... 4-1 4.1.2 Cooperating, Participating, and Involved Agencies ...................................................................... 4-1

4.2 SOCIAL ..................................................................................................................................................... 4-2 4.2.1 Land Use ....................................................................................................................................... 4-2 4.2.2 Neighborhoods and Community Cohesion ................................................................................... 4-2 4.2.3 Social Groups Benefited or Harmed ............................................................................................. 4-2 4.2.4 School Districts, Recreational Areas, and Places of Worship ....................................................... 4-3

4.3 ECONOMIC ................................................................................................................................................ 4-3 4.3.1 Regional and Local Economies ..................................................................................................... 4-3 4.3.2 Business Districts .......................................................................................................................... 4-3 4.3.3 Specific Business Impacts ............................................................................................................ 4-3

4.4 ENVIRONMENTAL ....................................................................................................................................... 4-4 4.4.1 Wetlands ....................................................................................................................................... 4-4 4.4.2 Surface Waterbodies and Watercourses ...................................................................................... 4-5 4.4.3 Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers .......................................................................................... 4-6 4.4.4 Navigable Waters .......................................................................................................................... 4-7 4.4.5 Floodplains .................................................................................................................................... 4-7 4.4.6 Coastal Resources ........................................................................................................................ 4-8 4.4.7 Groundwater Resources, Aquifers, and Reservoirs ...................................................................... 4-9 4.4.8 Storm Water Management ............................................................................................................ 4-9 4.4.9 General Ecology and Wildlife Resources ...................................................................................... 4-9 4.4.10 Critical Environmental Areas ..................................................................................................... 4-12 4.4.11 Historic and Cultural Resources ................................................................................................ 4-12 4.4.12 Parks and Recreational Resources ........................................................................................... 4-15 4.4.13 Visual Resources ...................................................................................................................... 4-15 4.4.14 Farmlands ................................................................................................................................. 4-15 4.4.15 Air Quality .................................................................................................................................. 4-16 4.4.16 Energy ....................................................................................................................................... 4-17 4.4.17 Noise ......................................................................................................................................... 4-17 4.4.18 Asbestos .................................................................................................................................... 4-17 4.4.19 Contaminated and Hazardous Materials ................................................................................... 4-18

4.5 CONSTRUCTION EFFECTS ........................................................................................................................ 4-19 4.6 INDIRECT EFFECTS .................................................................................................................................. 4-19 4.7 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ............................................................................................................................. 4-20


Appendices A. Plans, Profiles & Typical Sections

B. Environmental Information

C. Traffic Information

D. Pavement Information

E. Structures Information*

F. Miscellaneous Data and Project Correspondence

G. Public Involvement *

H. Estimate Backup

I. Alternatives Considered

J. Visualizations

K. Project Schedule

*Additional information located on disc inside back cover


1-1

CHAPTER 1 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1. Introduction The purpose of this document is to describe the existing conditions of the NYS Route 32 Bridge (Waterford-Cohoes Bridge) over the Mohawk River (B.I.N. 1-02250-0) and to present the alternatives considered to address the identified deficiencies. This document also describes the potential social, economic and environmental consequences of the proposed project. This report is intended to provide information to all interested parties and serve as a decision-making tool and a means of documenting decisions, ultimately leading to Design Approval of a proposed improvement. The existing 7-span concrete arch bridge is 207.9 m (682 ft) long and crosses the Mohawk River near its confluence with the Hudson River. The bridge carries NYS Route 32 between the City of Cohoes and the Town of Waterford in Albany and Saratoga Counties, respectively. No-Build, Rehabilitation, and Reconstruction Alternatives were considered for this project. From these alternatives, two feasible design alternatives were evaluated in detail; Alternative 6 – Bridge Replacement on Parallel Alignment (with Signalized Intersections) and Alternative 8 – Bridge Replacement on Existing Alignment. This report documents the findings associated with each alternative. In addition to the bridge and roadway work, the proposed project would provide improved pedestrian facilities, new curbing and sidewalks, closed drainage improvements, and streetscaping and landscaping features where space permits within the project limits. Based on public input, Alternative 6 has been selected as the preferred alternative and is recommended to be advanced to construction. The project is being progressed as a Non-Type II Action in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), 17 NYCRR, Part 15. The SEQRA Lead Agency is the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT). In addition, this project is being progressed as a Class II Categorical Exclusion with Documentation Action in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), under United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) Regulations, 23 CFR 771. The NEPA Lead Agency is the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). This report was prepared in accordance with the NYSDOT Project Development Manual, 17 NYCRR Part 15, and 23 CFR 771.

1.2. Purpose and Need 1.2.1. Where is the Project Located? The existing bridge (BIN 1-02250-0) carries NYS Route 32 over the Mohawk River, just west of its confluence with the Hudson River, between the City of Cohoes and the Town of Waterford in Albany County and Saratoga County, respectively. The southerly project limit is located at the intersection of NYS Route 787 / New Courtland Street and NYS Route 32 in the City of Cohoes. The project proceeds northerly along NYS Route 32, over the Mohawk River, to the northerly project limit at the NYS Route 32 and School Street / Museum Lane intersection in the Town of Waterford. The total project is 0.5 km (1650 ft) in length, with approximately 0.21 km (682 ft) of that length being the actual bridge itself (BIN 1-02250-0). A regional Project Location map is shown on page 1-2 and a Project Area map is shown on page 1-3.


1-2

Project Location Map

Not to scale

NYS Route 32 over the Mohawk River City of Cohoes & Town of Waterford

Project No. 12703

Date: August 2011


1-3

Project Area Map Not to scale

NYS Route 32 over the Mohawk River City of Cohoes & Town of Waterford

Project No. 12703

Date: October 2013


1-4

1.2.2. Why is the Project Needed?

This project is needed to address structural conditions of the bridge in order to maintain its primary urban arterial function to carry vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle traffic connecting Albany and Saratoga Counties. 1.2.3. What are the Objectives/Purposes of the Project?

The objective of this project is to restore the bridge condition rating to 5 or greater, for at least 25 years for a bridge rehabilitation, or 75 years for a bridge replacement, using cost effective techniques to minimize the life cycle cost of maintenance and repair.

1.3. What Alternative(s) Are Being Considered?

Two feasible alternatives were considered for this project: Bridge Replacement on a Parallel Alignment and Bridge Replacement on Existing Alignment. Brief descriptions of these alternatives are provided below. Descriptions of other alternatives that were considered and dismissed from further study are described in Appendix I. Alternative 6 – Bridge Replacement on a Parallel Alignment (Signalized Intersections), Minimized Approach Work - This alternative includes construction of a new 260 m (853 ft) long multiple-span structure located approximately 25 m (80 ft) east of and parallel to the existing structure. South of the bridge, the alignment is shifted east in order to provide sufficient space for the adjacent Shelter Enterprises driveway to allow trucks to turn into the driveway and back into the existing loading dock (instead of backing up in the middle of NYS Route 32, as they currently operate). Two-way traffic during most construction operations would be maintained on the existing structure and roadways. Staged bridge construction would be necessary for the northern span and abutment due to the overlapping abutment locations. Roadway construction would be performed under traffic utilizing short-term lane closures and lane shifts as needed. Re-using the bridge for recreational or alternate travel modes would not be feasible due to the type of bridge and nature of the deterioration and therefore, will not be offered to the municipalities. This alternative would address the deficiencies of the bridge and provide a service life of 75 years, while limiting the highway approach work and associated construction costs. Based upon public input, this alternative has been selected. Alternative 8 – Bridge Replacement On Existing Alignment, with Temporary Bridge - This alternative would replace the existing bridge with a new 210 m (689 ft) long multiple span structure supported on conventional abutments. As outlined above, no feasible long term detour route exists. Thus, traffic would be maintained on a two lane temporary bridge constructed along the east side of the existing structure. This would extend the overall construction period for this alternative by approximately 6 months. The existing bridge carries a significant amount of utilities (including electrical, phone, gas and water mains). Since the existing bridge would be removed prior to construction of the new bridge, this alternative would require that these utilities be relocated twice – once to the temporary structure and then to the proposed structure. This utility relocation cost is an added societal cost that is not directly reflected in the project cost and relocating the utilities twice is not associated with any other alternative. This alternative would address the deficiencies of the bridge and provide a service life of 75 years, while limiting the highway approach work and associated construction costs. Based upon public input, this alternative will not be pursued.

1.4 How will the Alternative(s) Affect the Environment?

The following table provides a summary of the environmental classifications:


1-5

Exhibit 1.4-A Environmental Summary

NEPA Classification Class II Cat Ex w/ doc BY Federal Highway (FHWA) Date TBD SEQR Type: Non-Type II BY NYSDOT Date TBD

The following exhibit compares the impacts, including environmental, cultural, economic and social, of the two current alternatives:

Exhibit 1.4-B Comparison of Alternatives

Category Alternatives

Alt. 6 – Parallel Bridge Alt. 8 – Online Bridge

Wetland impacts 46 m2 (495 sf) 46 m2 (495 sf)

Cultural resources Adverse Adverse

Utility Relocation Required

Yes - Once (To new permanent

location only)

Yes - Twice (Temporary and permanent

relocations required)

Property impacts TE – 1235 m2 (0.31 acres)

FEE – 3463 m2 (0.86 acres) PE – 113 m2 (0.03 acres)

TE – 1826 m2 (0.45 acres) FEE – 632 m2 (0.16 acres)

Access / Safety Improvements at SW parcel (Shelter Enterprises)

Would eliminate conflicts between trucks accessing loading docks and

traffic on NYS Route 32.

Would not eliminate conflicts with trucks.

Construction Cost $19.8 M* $20.3 M*

*construction costs do not reflect the societal costs associated with utility relocation costs incurred by others.

The following Permits/Certifications/Coordination are anticipated:

NYSDEC: State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) General Permit Water Quality Certification (Sec 401) of the FWPCA Article 15 Protection of Waters

USACOE: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Section 401/ NYSDEC Title 5 Water Quality Certifications U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Nationwide Permit #3- Maintenance U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Section 10, Historically Navigable Waters

FHWA: Section 4(f) for Adverse Effects on Historic Properties

NYS OPRHP (SHPO): Signed Memorandum of Agreement for Adverse Effects

NYSDOS: Coastal Zone Consistency Certification Statement Coastal Zone Local Waterfront Revitalization Certification

EPA: NPDES General Permit

Coordination: Coordination with NYSDEC pursuant to the “NYSDEC/NYSDOT Memorandum of Understanding

Regarding ECL Article 15 & 24”


1-6

Coordination with Federal Highway Administration Coordination with New York State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) Coordination with the US Fish and Wildlife Service Coordination with the New York Natural Heritage Program Coordination with National Heritage Area Programs

1.5. What Are the Costs & Schedules Design Approval is scheduled for Fall of 2013. A project schedule is provided below:

Exhibit 1.5 Project Schedule

Activity Date Occurred/Tentative Scoping Approval February 2003 Design Approval Fall 2013 ROW Acquisition Winter 2013 – Winter 2014 Plans, Specifications & Estimate (PS&E) Summer 2018* Project Letting Fall 2018* Construction Start Winter 2019 Construction Complete Winter 2021 * Based on expected funding. Sooner, if possible

The following exhibit details the project cost of each of the current alternatives:


1-7

Exhibit 1.6 Comparison of Alternatives Project Costs (Millions)

Activities Alternate 6 Alternate 8

Costs Costs

Construction Costs

Bridge* $13,700,000 $9,675,000

Highway $1,580,000 $2,038,000

Temporary Bridge Costs N/A $3,800,000

SPDES Mitigation Costs $20,000 $30,000

Highway Incidentals 10%* $160,000 $207,000

Subtotal (2013 Dollars) $15,460,000 $15,750,000

Highway Contingency (15% @ Design Approval)*

$266,000 $342,000


Field Change Order $622,000 $633,000


Mobilization (4%) $654,000 $670,000


Expected Award Amount (Inflated @ 3%/yr to midpoint of construction (2015 Dollars)

$1,173,000 $1,200,000

Construction Inspection (9%) $1,635,000 $1,675,000

ROW Costs (2013 Dollars) TBD TBD

Total Project Costs $19,810,000 $20,270,000


1-8

1.6. Which Alternative is Preferred? Based on public comments received in response to the Public Informational Meeting/hearing held on August 13, 2013 and August 15, 2013, Alternative 6 – Bridge Replacement on a Parallel Alignment (Signalized Intersections), Minimized Approach Work has been selected as the preferred alternative and is being advanced to Design Approval.

1.7. Who Will Decide Which Alternative Will Be Selected And How Can I Be Involved In This Decision?

A Public Involvement Plan (PIP) has been completed for this project. This plan indicates that public participation was to begin in scoping phases of the project and continue through construction. Early coordination was initiated with both municipalities back in 2003 when the initial alternatives were developed to solicit input and concerns. Since then, follow-up meetings were held in 2010 and 2013 with the City of Cohoes and with the Shelter Enterprises owner to specifically discuss issues on the southern approach to the bridge. Appendix G includes correspondence and information gathered as a result of these coordination efforts. A meeting with the Supervisor of the Town of Waterford was held in the summer of 2013. Public Informational Meetings and NEPA Public Hearings were held in August of 2013. Visualizations have been developed as a tool to better understand what the new bridge would look like from several vantage points. The intent of these meetings and discussions is to identify key issues and pertinent information that may impact the alternative designs and/or selection process. Other coordination efforts identified in the PIP include meetings / coordination with emergency service providers and development of a project brochure. Refer to Appendix G for Public Involvement Plan (PIP) and input from Stakeholders. Upon completion of the review and comment period, on August 26, 2013, Region 1 prepared a design recommendation and selected Alternative 6 as the preferred alternative for approval. Design Approval will be granted by the Deputy Chief Engineer, Design.

Questions or comments: Geoffrey W. Wood, P.E., Project Manager Please include the six digit Project Identification Number (PIN) 1460.42

email: [email protected] telephone: 518-457-8900 Mailing Address: NYSDOT Region 1 Design 50 Wolf Road, POD 2-3 Albany, New York 12232

The remainder of this report is a detailed technical evaluation of the existing conditions, the feasible alternatives, the potential impacts of these alternatives, copies of supporting technical reports, plans and other supporting information.


2-1

CHAPTER 2 - PROJECT CONTEXT: HISTORY, TRANSPORTATION PLANS, CONDITIONS AND NEEDS

This chapter addresses the history and existing context of the project site, including the existing conditions, deficiencies, and needs.

2.1. Project History In August of 2002, NYSDOT completed an Initial Project Proposal (IPP) for this project and added the project to NYSDOT’s Region One Five-Year Capital Program. In November of 2002, NYSDOT held a project scoping meeting to identify preliminary design alternatives. In February of 2003, NYSDOT initiated the preliminary design phases of the project and the Scope Summary Memorandum was signed in July 2004. The project was temporarily put on hold in 2005 due to fiscal constraints. In 2009, the project was resumed in an effort to minimize construction costs by focusing on the original intent of the project, which is to provide a structurally sound bridge with a service life of 75 years.

2.2. Transportation Plans and Land Use 2.2.1. Local Plans for the Project Area 2.2.1.1. Local Master Plan The City of Cohoes has been actively engaged in various comprehensive land use and transportation planning activities over the last decade, beginning with the City Comprehensive Plan in 2000. This was followed by several additional studies and plans near the project including: [1] Route 270 Corridor Study (2002), Downtown Redevelopment Plan (2002), Waterfront Rediscovery Plan (2005), State Route 787 Corridor Pre-Nomination Study (2009), and Cohoes Boulevard Opportunity Area Study (2013). A common theme of these plans with respect to the transportation system is to provide a sustainable network of streets that include elements to enhance multi-modal access and mobility and to support the urban context of the community. These plans do not recommend systemic capacity enhancements to NYS Route 32 or other roadways within the City’s street network. These planning documents have identified a future commercial redevelopment opportunity to create a Northern Gateway to the City, which includes property at the northeast quadrant of the NYS Route 787, NYS Route 32 and New Courtland Street intersection. This developable property provides scenic views of the Mohawk River and direct access to NYS Route 787.

The Town and Village of Waterford completed its Comprehensive Plan in March 2002. The Town and Village of Waterford’s Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan (LWRP), which was approved in 2010, identified the Waterford-Cohoes Bridge and NYS Route 32 as the Town’s southern gateway. This Revitalization Plan recommended improvements such as bridge repair, installing welcome, wayfinding and interpretive signage, constructing façade and streetscape enhancements along NYS Route 32, and constructing greenspace at the west side of the Bridge. The goal of these improvements is to enhance resident and visitor perception of the Village and encourage additional visitation and private investment. In the interim period of this plan development, a welcome sign/gateway treatment was installed on NYS Route 32 at the south entrance to the Village consistent

with the LWRP, which is shown in the image at left. Neither the Town/Village Comprehensive Plan nor the LWRP identify recommendations for capacity enhancement of NYS Route 32 to support the plan. Both the Cohoes and Waterford plans recognize the importance of the NYS Route 32 bridge for local and regional transportation needs. This project to restore the bridge condition either through rehabilitation or replacement is consistent with these local plans.


2-2

2.2.1.2. Local Private Development Plans There are no approved developments planned within the project area that would significantly impact traffic operations within the project limits. Project alternatives have been designed to minimize the impact to developable property identified for urban redevelopment under the various community plans identified above in Section 2.2.1.1. 2.2.2. Transportation Corridor 2.2.2.1. Importance of the Project Route Segment The Cohoes-Waterford Bridge connects these two communities and provides a direct route from Waterford to all points south via State Route 787 and Interstate 787. Due to the location of the Mohawk River, the next available route to points south is lengthy; either through Halfmoon and over the Interstate 87 bridge, or through Troy and other bridges in that area. As such, this connection is an important route to the economic and residential viability of the Waterford area. 2.2.2.2. Alternate Routes The project area encompasses a major connection between Interstate 787 and the Town of Waterford. Interstate 787 begins south of NYS Route 7 and is connected to the Town of Waterford via NYS Route 787. There are no alternative routes that would be suitable as a permanent detour or long term detour during construction. 2.2.2.3. Corridor Deficiencies and Needs The Cohoes-Waterford bridge is a vital link in the transportation corridor connecting these two communities and adjoining areas. This bridge is structurally deficient and in need of corrective action. 2.2.2.4. Transportation Plans This project is not part of any statewide plan or any urban area transportation plan. 2.2.2.5. Abutting Highway Segments and Future Plans for Abutting Highway Segments The character of the roadways adjacent to the project limits are urban, with curb and closed drainage systems. In the summer of 2002, NYS Route 787 to the south of the project area received an asphalt overlay and new pavement markings from the City of Albany to its intersection with Tibbits Avenue in the City of Cohoes. In addition, brick red colored surface treatment was placed on the shoulders between the Tibbits Avenue and Ontario Street intersections as a traffic calming treatment within this stretch of roadway. NYS Route 32, from the Cohoes-Waterford Bridge north to Burton Avenue in the Town of Waterford, was resurfaced by NYSDOT in August 2011. The City of Cohoes has finalized an Expanded Project Proposal for the reconstruction of Cohoes Boulevard. This project proposes to construct gateway entrance features to promote traffic calming and speed reduction, and to contribute to a more urban boulevard feel for traffic approaching or departing Cohoes on NYS Route 787. The proposal includes raised center medians, 3.3 m (11 ft.) travel lanes, landscaping, period street lighting, and special crosswalk treatments between the intersections of Dyke Avenue and Ontario Street along NYS Route 787. To date, funding for this project has not been secured and a construction schedule has not been determined. Both alternatives for the replacement of the NYS Route 32 Bridge are compatible with this plan and have independent utility.


2-3

NYSDOT does not have plans for widening of NYS Route 32 in the Town of Waterford within the current 5-year TIP program and has no expectations of widening this road within the Town’s historic district. There are also no recommendations in the Town/Village Comprehensive Plan and LWRP for widening of this road.

2.3. Transportation Conditions, Deficiencies and Engineering Considerations

2.3.1. Operations (Traffic and Safety) & Maintenance 2.3.1.1. Functional Classification and National Highway System (NHS) NYS Route 32 is classified as an Urban Principal Arterial (Other) and is not included in the National Highway System. The roadway is listed as an access highway (but not a qualifying highway) within the “Qualifying or Access Highway for Larger Dimension Vehicles”. NYS Route 787 is also designated as an access highway adjacent to the project, and is not designated as a qualifying highway within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of the project. The functional classification data for NYS Route 32 is summarized in Exhibit 2.3.1.1.

Exhibit 2.3.1.1 Classification Data

Route(s) NYS Route 32 Functional Classification Urban Principal Arterial (Other) National Highway System (NHS) No Designated Truck Access Route Yes Qualifying Highway No Within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of a Qualifying Highway No Within the 4.9 m (16 ft) vertical clearance network No

2.3.1.2. Control of Access Access along NYS Route 32 within the project limits is uncontrolled. 2.3.1.3. Traffic Control Devices Traffic control devices within the project limits include pavement markings, traffic signs, and traffic signals. The existing pavement markings and traffic signs are generally in good condition, except for the crosswalks and turn arrows at the NYS Route 32 and NYS Route 787 / New Courtland Street intersection and the Clifton Street / Museum Lane intersection. At these intersections, the pavement markings have been worn away due to the heavy traffic volumes and turning movements. The pavement markings and traffic signs comply with the National Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and 17 NYCRR Chapter V (New York Supplement). There are 2 signalized intersections within the project limits:

NYS Route 32 and Clifton Street / Museum Lane NYS Route 32 and NYS Route 787 / New Courtland Street

The intersection of NYS Route 32 and Clifton Street / Museum Lane is controlled by a multi-phase, actuated signal. The operations of this signal include a protected/permitted left turn phase for NYS Route 32 northbound traffic. The traffic signal displays and operations for vehicular traffic are consistent with current MUTCD requirements. Pedestrian pushbuttons are provided to cross the north and south legs of NYS Route 32, although there is no marked crosswalk across the south leg of the intersection to accompany the pedestrian pushbuttons. The existing pedestrian pushbuttons at this intersection do not meet current MUTCD standards. There are no pedestrian signals, although the conditions at this intersection do not require them. The intersection of NYS Route 32 and NYS Route 787 / New Courtland Street is also controlled by a multi-phase, fully-actuated traffic signal. The operations of this signal include a leading protected/permitted left turn


2-4

phase for NYS Route 32 southbound traffic, a Yield-sign controlled Channelized Turn Lane (CTL) for right-turn traffic from NYS Route 32 northbound, and a leading protected/permitted left-turn phase for eastbound traffic on New Courtland Street. Pedestrian signals with countdown timers and pedestrian pushbuttons are also provided for crossing all legs of the intersection. The traffic and pedestrian signal displays and operations are consistent with current MUTCD requirements. Although the signs for the pedestrian signals/pushbuttons do not reflect the style and format of the current MUTCD, they do provide the same information. 2.3.1.4. Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) There are no ITS systems in operation or planned for the project area. 2.3.1.5. Speeds and Delay The posted speed limit on NYS Route 32 within the project limits is 30 mph (50 km/hr) and the 85th percentile speed was calculated at 41 mph (66 km/hr) based upon a speed study conducted in November 2002 by the NYSDOT (see Appendix C). 2.3.1.6. Traffic Volumes 2.3.1.6. (1) Existing traffic volumes Refer to Exhibit 2.3.1.6-1 and 2.3.1.6-2 for a summary of the traffic data. A discussion of the traffic count methodology, peak hour, and turning movement volumes are included in Appendix C.

Exhibit - 2.3.1.6-1 Traffic Data

Route NYS Route 32

Directional Distribution 27% NB/73% SB AM, 67% NB/33% SB PM

Peak Hour Factor 0.90 SB (AM), 0.94 NB (PM),

% Peak Hour Trucks 4% SB (AM), 2% NB (PM),

% Daily Trucks 6%

Exhibit 2.3.1.6-2 Existing and Forecast Traffic Volumes for Route 32 Bridge

Design Year Traffic

Data Type Route 32 over the Mohawk

(BIN 1-02250-0) EXISTING

(2009) AADT 16,800 DHV 1,194

ETC (2014)

AADT 16,900 DHV 1,202

ETC+30 (2044)

AADT 18,900 DHV 1,245

(1) ETC is the Estimated Time of Completion, AADT is the Average Annual Daily Traffic and DHV is the Design Hourly Volume for the 30th highest hour.

Large trucks routinely use NYS Route 32 to access Shelter Enterprises Inc., which is located on the west side of NYS Route 32, just north of the NYS Route 32 and NYS Route 787 / New Courtland Street intersection. 2.3.1.6. (2) Future no-build design year traffic volume forecasts


2-5

The Estimated Time of Completion (ETC)+30 design year was selected per PDM Appendix 5, since this is a bridge project. Future peak hour turning movement volumes for intersections are included for the design year(s) in Appendix C. 2.3.1.7. Level of Service and Mobility 2.3.1.7. (1) Existing level of service and capacity analysis Capacity analyses were performed using the procedures outlined in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, (HCM) Special Report 209, published by the Transportation Research Board, to determine the levels of service (LOS) and delay at the following study area intersections for the Existing conditions:

NYS Route 32 and Clifton Street / Museum Lane NYS Route 32 and NYS Route 787 / New Courtland Street

The LOS and delay for each approach of the signalized study area intersections are summarized in Exhibit 2.3.1.7 below. The LOS and delay by individual lane group movement are included in Appendix C. The results shown include data for the Existing, ETC and ETC+30 design year conditions. The operations on NYS Route 32 over the Mohawk River are controlled by the operations of the upstream and downstream signals and the intersections within the roadway system. A review of the LOS results for the intersections in the project limits shows that the signalized intersection of NYS Route 32 and Clifton Street / Museum Lane operates at overall LOS B during the AM peak hours and LOS A during the PM peak hours, indicating acceptable operations during both periods. These capacity analysis results also show that the NYS Route 32 and NYS Route 787 / New Courtland Street intersection operates at overall LOS C during the AM and overall LOS E during the PM period, indicating congestion during the PM peak period. 2.3.1.7. (2) Future no-action design year level of service The predicted Future no-build design year level of service and capacity analysis for the AM and PM peak hours for all approaches to the two study area intersections are shown in Exhibit 2.3.1.7. A review of these results shows that the signalized intersection of NYS Route 32 and Clifton Street / Museum Lane is projected to continue to operate very well through the 30-year design horizon. The overall intersection performance will be LOS B or better during the AM and PM peak hours for both ETC and ETC+30 design years. The northbound approach of NYS Route 32 at this intersection (departing the bridge) will operate at LOS A during the AM peak hour and LOS B during the PM peak hour through ETC+30. The intersection of NYS Route 32 and NYS Route 787 / New Courtland Street is projected to operate at overall LOS C during the AM peak hour for ETC and ETC+30 design horizons. In the PM peak, the LOS will continue to be LOS E at ETC, but will decline to LOS F in the future ETC+30, indicating that congestion will continue to persist in the PM peak period at this intersection. The southbound approach of NYS Route 32 at this intersection (departing the bridge) will operate at LOS B during the AM peak hour and LOS C during the PM peak hour in both ETC and ETC+30.


2-6

Exhibit - 2.3.1.7 Intersection Level of Service and Delays (sec)

YEAR Overall EB (Clifton St)

WB (Museum Ln)

NB (NYS Route 32)

SB (NYS Route 32)

AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Intersection of NYS Route 32 and Clifton Street / Museum Lane EXISTING (2009) B

(12.3) A

(9.9) D

(36.2) C

(25.2) C

(35.0) C

(24.3) A

(3.9) A

(8.3) B

(12.5) B

(10.1) ETC (2014) B

(12.4) A

(9.9) D

(36.3) C

(25.2) D

(35.1) C

(24.4) A

(3.9) A

(8.4) B

(12.6) B

(10.1) ETC+30 (2044) B

(16.5) B

(14.8) D

(36.4) C

(26.5) D

(35.0) C

(26.0) A

(5.0) B

(12.4) B

(18.6) B

(16.9)

YEAR Overall EB (New Cortland St)

WB (NYS Route 787)

NB (NYS Route 32)

SB (NYS Route 32)

Intersection of NYS Route 32 and NYS Route 787 / New Courtland Street EXISTING (2009) C

(23.8) E

(61.1) D

(36.9) C

(31.4) C

(26.4) E

(72.6) D

(46.5) F

(110.1) B

(11.8) C

(22.7) ETC (2014) C

(24.0) E

(62.0) D

(36.6) C

(31.5) C

(26.6) E

(73.7) D

(46.8) F

(112.4) B

(12.2) C

(22.7) ETC+30 (2044) C

(24.8) F

(101.5) D

(39.6) C

(36.7) C

(21.3) F

(133.3) D

(48.3) F

(194.9) B

(14.7) C

(26.0) 1ETC is the Estimated Time of Completion. *A (0.0) = LOS (Delay) where delay is given in seconds per vehicle for through vehicle movement

Vehicle queues were evaluated for the ETC and ETC+30 design horizons to consider their effect on the geometric requirements for the bridge; specifically to determine if a two-lane bridge would be sufficient to accommodate the projected design-year traffic volumes. The southbound approach of NYS Route 32 at NY Route 787 consists of three lanes configured for a separate lane each for left-turn, through and right-turn traffic. During the AM peak period, more than 50% of the southbound volume turns left onto NYS Route 787. The design queue for this movement is 145 m (475 ft) for ETC and 206 m (675 ft) for ETC+30. This places the back of the design queue for ETC+30 at approximately the same point as the beginning of the bridge (south abutment). Considerations for a bay taper and lateral transition for the left-turn lane would extend approximately 152 m (500 ft) onto the bridge. The lateral transition for the northbound left-turn lane at Clifton Street also currently extends onto the bridge. These transitions and left-turn queue accommodations would create an hour-glass configuration on the bridge such that there would only be a 46 m (150 ft) +/- segment of bridge that would actually be two-lanes wide. Further, analysis of operations with a two-lane bridge configuration (single lane in each direction) shows that the left-turn queue will block access of southbound traffic to the through and right-turn lanes at NYS Route 787. This obstruction will reduce the efficiency of operations of this signalized intersection, and will increase the length of queue on the bridge. Based on these analyses, maintaining a three-lane bridge is recommended. 2.3.1.8. Safety Considerations, Accident History and Analysis Accident analyses were conducted for NYS Route 32 between and including the intersections of NYS Route 787 / New Courtland Street and Clifton Street / Museum Lane for the 3-year period between January 1, 2006 and December 31, 2008. The accident analysis was performed in accordance with the Highway Design Manual Chapter 5. The accident data was provided for Saratoga Street (NYS Touring Route 32, TH RM 32-1104-6017 to 6018) in the City of Cohoes and NYS Route 32 (RM 32-1505-1000 to 1003) in the Town of Waterford. Route 32 is intersected at RM 1001 by Clifton Street and Museum Lane and at RM 1003 by Fulton Street. The statewide accident rate for this 0.6 mile segment of Route 32 is 3.70 accidents per million vehicle miles. This is below the statewide accident rate for similar facilities of 3.74 accidents per million vehicle miles. The Regional Traffic Engineer had no safety recommendations for the project as a result of the accident history analysis. A review of the accident data for the study area indicates there were forty-four (44) accidents that occurred during the 3–year study period. Of the forty-seven (44) accidents, thirty-eight (38) accidents occurred at the


2-7

intersections and six (6) occurred along the NYS Route 32 link. Twenty-one (21) accidents occurred at NYS Route 32 with NYS Route 787 / New Courtland Street. There was one (1) accident involving a bicyclist. There were no pedestrian accidents or fatalities. Exhibit 2.3.1.8-1 identifies the predominate types of accidents within the project limits. Exhibits 3.3.1.8-2 and 3.3.1.8-3 summarize the collision types and accident severity based on location.

Exhibit - 2.3.1.8-1 Collision Summary - NYS Route 32,

NYS Route 787 / New Courtland Street to Clifton Street / Museum Lane Type of Collision Number Percentage

Rear End 23 52 Left Turn 7 16

Right Angle 7 16 Other 7 16

Exhibit - 2.3.1.8-2 Collision Summary

NYS Route 32, From NYS Route 787 / New Courtland Street to Clifton Street / Museum Lane

Location Head On

Right Angle

Rear End

Left Turn

Over take

Side swipe

Ped/ Bike Total

Intersections

Clifton St./Museum Lane 1 2 13 0 1 0 1 18

NYS Route 787 / New Courtland Street

0 5 5 7 3 0 0 20

Link

Route 32 bridge 0 0 5 0 0 1 0 6

Total 1 7 23 7 4 1 1 44

Exhibit - 2.3.1.8-3 Accident Severity

Location Personal Injury

Property Damage Only

Non- Reportable

Total

Intersections Clifton St. / Museum Lane 1 17 0 18

NYS Route 787 / New Courtland St. 5 15 0 20

Link Route 32 2 4 0 6

Total 8 36 0 44 In September 2011, an update to the accident history was reviewed for accidents that occurred from January 1, 2008 to January 31, 2011. This set of data shows that the types and frequency of accidents had not changed since the previous study. Therefore, the accident statistics presented here are still appropriate. No additional safety recommendations for the project were made as a result of this update of the accident history. The 2009 and 2011 accident analyses, including an accident summary (TE-213) and collision diagrams (TE-56) are included in Appendix C. 2.3.1.9. Existing Police, Fire Protection and Ambulance Access The Cohoes-Waterford Bridge connects the City of Cohoes and the Town of Waterford and also provides a direct route from Waterford to all points south via State Route 787 and Interstate 787. Due to the location of


2-8

the Mohawk River, the next available route to points south would be lengthy; either through Halfmoon and over the Interstate 87 Bridge, or through Troy and other bridges in that area. As such, continuous emergency access throughout the length of the project will be a priority for this area. Public safety services for the project area include the following: Police: Cohoes: 97 Mohawk Street Waterford: 65 Broad Street Fire/EMS: Cohoes: 25 Central Avenue and 59 Pleasant Street Halfmoon-Waterford: 315 Middletown Road and 750 Hudson River Road Waterford: Northside Fire District, Town of Waterford, 85 Saratoga Avenue Ambulance: Empire Ambulance Service Troy Ambulance Service Mohawk Ambulance Service Waterford Rescue Squad 2.3.1.10. Parking Regulations and Parking Related Conditions Parking is prohibited on both sides of NYS Route 32 between the north end of the bridge and Fulton Street. The bridge and the segment of NYS Route 32 south of the bridge to the intersection of NYS Route 787 do not have posted parking regulations. 2.3.1.11. Lighting There is street lighting mounted on the bridge and along NYS Route 32 within the project limits. The lighting consists of decorative high pressure sodium light fixtures mounted on concrete obelisks formed onto the concrete bridge railing. There are typical cobra styled lighting fixtures along NYS Route 32. 2.3.1.12. Ownership and Maintenance Jurisdiction Exhibit 2.3.1.11 summarizes the existing maintenance jurisdiction with the project limits.


2-9

Exhibit - 2.3.1.11 Existing Maintenance Jurisdiction

Part No.

Highway Limits Feature(s)

being Maintained

Centerline km(ft)

Lane Km(ft)

Agency Authority

1 NYS Route 32 south of bridge

roadway 0.208 (682)

0.769 (2,523)

City of Cohoes

Section 12 Highway Law

2 NYS Route 32 bridge and

north of bridge

bridge and roadway

0.331 (1,086)

0.993 (3,258)

State of New York



sidewalk 0.208 (682)

0.416 (1,365)

City of Cohoes


4 NYS Route 32 south half of bridge

sidewalk snow & ice

0.104 (341)

0.208 (682)

City of Cohoes


5 NYS Route 32 south half of bridge

sidewalk structural repairs

0.104 (341)

0.208 (682)

State of New York


6 NYS Route 32 north half of bridge

sidewalk snow & ice

0.104 (341)

0.208 (682)

Village of Waterford


7 NYS Route 32 north half of bridge

Sidewalk structural repairs

0.104 (341)

0.208 (682)

State of New York


8 NYS Route 32 north of bridge

sidewalk 0.123 (404)

0.246 (808)

Village of Waterford



drainage n/a n/a City of

Cohoes Section 349-c Highway Law

10 NYS Route 32 north of bridge

drainage n/a n/a State of

New York Section 349-c Highway Law

11 NYS Route 32 bridge and

south of bridge

lighting n/a n/a City of

Cohoes Section 327

Highway Law

NYSDOT owns, operates and maintains the traffic signals at the intersections of NYS Route 32/NYS Route 787/New Courtland Street and NYS Route 32/Clifton Street/Museum Lane. 2.3.2. Multimodal 2.3.2.1. Pedestrians The existing pedestrian facilities along NYS Route 32 consist of concrete sidewalks along both sides of the roadway throughout the project limits. The existing sidewalks are in fair to poor condition. In several locations, these sidewalks do not comply with current Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) requirements with respect to ramp slopes, ramp texture, and sidewalk surface conditions. There are marked crosswalks on the north and west legs of the signalized intersection of NYS Route 32 and Clifton Street / Museum Lane. Pedestrian pushbuttons (with signs) are provided to cross the north and south legs of NYS Route 32; however, the signs are missing from the posts in the NE and SW quadrants. The south leg of the intersection is not marked by a crosswalk even though there are pedestrian pushbuttons to cross this leg. The existing pedestrian pushbuttons at this intersection do not meet current ADAAG standards. There are no pedestrian signals, although the conditions at this intersection do not require them. Pedestrian accommodations at the intersection of NYS Route 32 and NYS Route 787 / New Courtland Street include marked crosswalks across all of the intersection legs, with pedestrian signals, countdown timers and ADA-compliant pushbuttons.


2-10

Refer to Appendix C for Pedestrian Generator Checklist. 2.3.2.2. Bicyclists The Cohoes-Waterford Bridge connects two municipalities with residential and commercial development. It has been identified as a significant crossing of the Mohawk River for the Canalway Trail, the Rivers Park Bike Route System, and the Capital District Transportation Committee Pedestrian Bicyclist Network. These factors draw and see use from a highly varied user group of bicyclists. The CDTC website map shows “Waterford Old Champlain Canal Trail” as an on-road trail through the project limits. Currently, there are no separate provisions for bicyclists on the bridge; however, bicyclists may legally use the 0.6 m (2 ft) wide paved shoulders. 2.3.2.3. Transit CTDA Bus Route 432 Mechanicville – Troy travels through the project limits Monday through Friday. No bus stops are located within the project limits. 2.3.2.4. Airports, Railroad Stations, and Ports There are no airports, railroad stations, or port entrances within or in the vicinity of the project limits. 2.3.2.5. Access to Recreation Areas (Parks, Trails, Waterways, State Lands) A newly created pocket park owned by the City of Cohoes is accessed via a shared driveway across from Shelter Enterprises within the project limits. The park itself is not located within the project limits. 2.3.3. Infrastructure 2.3.3.1. Existing Highway Section See Existing Bridge Section in Appendix A - Typical Sections, Plan and Profile sheets. Along NYS Route 32 the existing right-of-way (ROW) width is generally 20.1 m (66 ft). On both the bridge and its approaches, NYS Route 32 consists of a three-lane highway section with two southbound travel lanes and one northbound travel lane. Non-mountable concrete curbs abut both sides of the roadway along NYS Route 32 and across the bridge within the project limits. Most areas have little to no curb reveal due to pavement overlays and deteriorated curbing. Sidewalks of varying width exist along both sides of the roadway within the project limits. Snow storage areas vary in width from 0.0 to 2.0 m (0.0 to 6.5 ft). The existing horizontal alignment is generally straight and the existing vertical alignment exhibits grades between 0.3% and 4.2%. A constant grade of 0.5% is maintained across the entire length of the bridge. No designated on-street parking areas are located within the project limits. Commercial and residential driveways exist within the project limits. Shelter Enterprise Inc. is a primary commercial driveway, located immediately south of the existing bridge. Currently, access to the loading docks at this location requires trucks to stop within the NYS Route 32 roadway limits and stop traffic in both directions in order to back into the loading dock position. The owner has worked with the truck drivers to attempt to avoid high traffic times during the day, but options to alleviate this situation are being considered as a part of this project.


2-11

2.3.3.2. Geometric Design Elements Not Meeting Standards 2.3.3.2.(1) Critical Design Elements There are no existing non-standard design elements within the project limits. The existing bridge is not presently load posted. 2.3.3.2.(2) Other Design Parameters Two non-conforming features exist at the existing NYS Route 32 / NYS Route 787 intersection. Currently trucks (WB-20’s) turning right from NYS Route 787 to NYS Route 32 encroach into the oncoming travel lane. See Exhibit 2.3.3.2. In addition this intersection has an overall LOS E during the PM period, indicating congestion during the PM peak period. This is below the minimum LOS D for this type of roadway. See Section 2.3.1.7 for additional details. 2.3.3.3. Pavement and Shoulder The existing asphalt surface is generally in fair condition with signs of transverse, longitudinal, and edge cracking. Wheelpath rutting is also apparent at several locations. Asphalt patches for maintenance or utilities repairs are present throughout the project limits. The bridge deck wearing surface is in generally fair condition. The most recent bridge inspection rated the deck surfaces as a “4” and noted that “the asphalt shows longitudinal and transverse developed cracks or swaths of cracking reflecting the joints between the underlying concrete slabs”. The deck is comprised of 100 to 125 mm (4 to 5 inches) of asphalt overlay atop a 225 mm (9 inch) concrete slab. The bridge approach pavement was rated as a “4” in the most recent bridge inspections, noting that the asphalt on both approaches show longitudinal and transverse cracks or swaths of cracking reflecting the joints between the underlying concrete slabs, similar to the deck surface. 2.3.3.4. Drainage Systems The existing drainage system generally consists of a closed system with surface collection structures located along the curb lines, which are interconnected with drainage pipes that eventually outlet to the Mohawk River. The existing pavement adjacent to the curbline shows evidence of water ponding during typical storm events, and exhibits distress from surface water infiltrating the pavement structure. A previous maintenance operation performed by the NYSDOT on the bridge involved the placement of flexible drains to relieve water saturation within the earth filled arches. However, this system offers only minor functional benefit due to the free surface water elevation of the river being higher than the outlet elevation. Along the southern approach to the bridge, a box culvert carries stormwater from the City of Cohoes system beneath NYS Route 32 to a spillway that then outlets to the Mohawk River. The stormwater from the City of Cohoes system appears to be collected through a series of underground pipes, tunnels and an old canal bed, to private property belonging to Shelter Enterprises Inc. just west of NYS Route 32. This system then is conveyed below an existing building and ultimately empties to the brick arch culvert that carries the stormwater beneath and across NYS Route 32. On August 12, 2011 an inspection of the culvert was performed to evaluate its condition. The culvert was identified as being in poor to serious condition, refer to Appendix E for the Condition Inspection Report. The scuppers on the bridge were rated as a “3” in the most recent bridge inspection, noting that the only scuppers on bridge are at both curblines above piers 2 and 5. The left scupper at pier 2 on left appears


2-12

functional. The other three scuppers are currently open at inlets but have standing water several feet down and appear non-functional. 2.3.3.5. Geotechnical A comprehensive geotechnical investigation will be performed for this project during subsequent design phases. The bedrock in the study area on both sides of the Mohawk River is Snake Hill Shale and Siltstone. The bedrock beneath the silt and shale layer is limestone that formed in deep water. Based upon historical records and visual inspections it is likely that bedrock would be encountered during excavations for drainage systems, underground utilities and bridge foundations. The basic soil type within the City of Cohoes is Urban-land Udorthents, an association comprised mainly of soils disturbed or covered with concrete, asphalt, buildings, or other materials. Typically the surface layer consists of dark brown silty loam to a depth of 12.7 cm (5 inches) over brown and yellow brown silty loam and silty clay, which may have up to 40% rock fragments in it. Frequently these soils contain wood, ash, cinder, and refuse due to urban development. The Waterford area is associated with another soil type known as Lordstown shale loam. This loam is a light yellowish brown color and is either a loam or silty loam, with very fine angular debris derived from the deeper, Hudson River shale. The average depth of this soil is approximately 10.2 cm (4 inches). In addition, there are bedrock outcrops near or at the surface. No unusual soil conditions exist that would require special design considerations. 2.3.3.6. Structure 2.3.3.6.(1) Description:

(a) BIN – 1-02250-0 (b) Feature carried and crossed – NYS Route 32 over the Mohawk River (c) Type of bridge, number and length of spans, etc. – Concrete Continuous Arch Bridge, 207.9 m

(682 ft) long, 7 spans (d) Width of travel lanes, parking lanes, and shoulders - the existing bridge consists of three 3.6 m

(12 ft) travel lanes, with two 0.6 m (2 ft) shoulders. (e) Sidewalks – 1.525 m (5 ft) concrete sidewalks are on both sides of the bridge (f) Utilities carried – One 200 mm (8 inch) gas line and four telephone ducts under the east sidewalk;

six 125 mm (5 inch) fiber conduits under the west sidewalk; and one 50 mm (2 inch) fiber duct in the base sections of the parapets for bridge lighting electric lines (all according to record plans). Also, two fiber optic conduits are hung along the outside of the bridge along the east fascia.

The Cohoes-Waterford Bridge was designed by the New York State Department of Public Works and was completed and opened to traffic on November 15, 1932. In the early 1990’s the New York State Dam was raised to produce more power at the hydro-electric facility. This Dam is located approximately 152.4 m (500 ft) downstream (east) of the existing bridge. The dam is operated by Boralex Hydro Operations, Inc. in South Glens Falls, NY. The increased water elevation has resulted in submerging of the weep holes along the existing bridge and subsequent saturation of the earth filled arches. Refer to Appendix E for a copy of the original bridge record drawings. 2.3.3.6.(2) Clearances (Horizontal/Vertical) There are no horizontal and/or vertical clearance restrictions on this bridge. No boating traffic in vicinity of the project is allowed due to the location of dams on either side of the bridge.


2-13

2.3.3.6.(3) History & Deficiencies

The New York State Department of Public Works built the existing concrete arch bridge (BIN 1-02250-0) in1932 as a Depression-Era Work Relief Project. Between 1932 and 1987, no significant problems ordeficiencies with the bridge were documented. Between 1987 and 1991 underwater diving inspectionsconducted by the NYSDOT documented varying degrees of undermining at the bedrock interface of severalpiers and both abutments. By 1991 undermining had been identified and documented at all piers and bothabutments. Based upon the results of these inspections, the NYSDOT repaired the undermining through theuse of grouting techniques. These remedial repairs were completed prior to the 1996 Diving Inspection.

In 2001, the NYSDOT Maintenance Department determined that the earth fill within the arches was saturatedand that the structures existing drainage system was not working properly, thus contributing to the settlementof the curbs and sidewalks atop the structure. It was concluded that modifications made to the New YorkState dam immediately downstream of the bridge in the early 1990’s, resulted in normal water levels raisingseveral feet higher than had been previously experienced. This increased the water depth above the existingspringlines hampering the bridges ability to dispel water from within the earthen filled arches. In 2001, thesidewalks on the west side of the bridge were replaced, and in 2002, the sidewalks on the east side of thebridge were replaced and a remedial repair was initiated, consisting of the installation of a flexible pipe drainto allow water trapped within the structure to drain through the west spandrel wall.

2.3.3.6.(4) Inspection

The structure had received a General Recommendation of 4 (computed rating 3.773, federal sufficiency ratingof 49.4) on a scale of 1 to 7 during the NYSDOT 2010 Bridge Inspection Program. This rating is theassessment of the overall bridge condition, and is described as follows in the NYSDOT Bridge InspectionManual:

4 – “Moderate deterioration of primaries, secondaries, and substructures has occurred, but bridgeload capacity is not substantially reduced. Considerable reconditioning of secondary members,substructures, and other components may be needed. Primary members do not yet needextensive reconditioning. There may be some minor substructure undermining."

NYSDOT defines a deficient bridge as one with a State condition rating of less than 5.0. A deficient conditionrating indicates deterioration at a level that requires corrective maintenance or rehabilitation to restore thebridge to its fully functional non-deficient condition. It does not mean that the bridge is unsafe.

The existing structure is a continuous concrete arch bridge and is 207.9 m (682 ft) long. The primarymembers are reinforced concrete arches which show signs of leakage with a few isolated areas of spallingand rebar exposure. The superstructure was rated a 4. The wearing surface, curbs, and sidewalks were allrated a 4. The parapets, railings and lighting are currently rated a 5. Settlement, guide rail and drainage onthe approaches are rated a 5. The majority of length of granite curb on the east side has settled, leavingminimal reveal. Due to the general flatness of roadway both on and off the bridge, water tends to pond andthen seep into filled arches causing issues such as tipped wingwalls and curb and leakage / deteriorationthrough vertical walls above arches. Pavement on the approaches were rated a 4 (recently downgraded froma 5 in 2008). Previously eroded areas have had repairs completed. The beginning and end wingwalls wererated a 3 & 5 respectively. Erosion at the wingwalls and bank protection were both rated a 5.

Refer to Appendix E for a copy of the most recent Bridge Inspection Report and Bridge Diving Report.

2.3.3.6.(5) Restrictions

There are currently no restrictions or postings on the bridge.


2-14

2.3.3.6.(6) Future Conditions

Continuous deterioration of the bridge is anticipated if no improvements are made, eventually leading to loadposting and ultimately closure of the bridge.

2.3.3.6.(7) Waterway

The Mohawk River is State regulated but is not navigable in this location; boating traffic on the Mohawk Riveris prohibited due to the proximity of dams on either side of the bridge. Boats traveling downstream on theMohawk River are directed down the Barge Canal via Waterford Flight of Locks and then to the Hudson River.Therefore, the replacement of the bridge will not affect the navigability of the river.

2.3.3.7. Hydraulics of Bridges and Culverts

Upstream of the project location the Mohawk River is regulated by a combination of dams before flowing overthe Cohoes Falls. To the east, and downstream of the bridge, the Mohawk River flows over the New YorkState Dam before the confluence with the Hudson River. The Mohawk River water elevations are controlledby the upstream and downstream dams, which regulate water flow through this reach of the river.

A hydraulic analysis was performed using the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ River Analysis System (HEC-RAS, Version 4.1.0) Computer Software. This model was developed to compute the hydraulic parametersneeded to analyze scour at the bridge, as well as to evaluate the potential impacts associated with variousreplacement alternatives. Sub-critical flow scenarios were modeled for the 50-, 100- and 500-year floodevents and starting water surface elevations were based on critical depth over the crest of the New York StateDam located approximately 152.4 m (500 ft) downstream.

The channel and bridge geometry necessary for the creation of the model was developed from field surveyconducted in August 2011. Design flows were generated using a Log-Pearson Type III analysis for USGSGage 01357500 (Mohawk River at Cohoes) and were consistent with those published in the preliminaryAlbany Countywide FEMA Flood Insurance Study (March 2012). Manning’s “n” values and the contractionand expansion coefficients for each cross-section were based on field conditions documented during the sitevisit.

The existing structure consists of a seven-span earth-filled spandrel concrete multi-arch bridge with a totallength of approximately 198.7 m (652 ft). The hydraulic evaluation concluded that the existing bridge providesapproximately 1596.1 m2 (17,180 sf) of cross-sectional opening with a low chord elevation ranging from 19.75m (64.8 ft) at the apex of the southernmost arch to 20.67 m (67.8 ft) at the apex of the northernmost arch.The structure measures 14.6 m (48 ft) between the upstream and downstream fascia’s and the abutmentsand piers are not skewed in relation to the superstructure of bridge. In addition, the bridge deck slopesupward from south to north, from a low elevation of 20.2 m (66.4 ft) to a high of 21.3 m (70 ft). The existingcondition hydraulic model indicates that the design (50-year) flood event results in a freeboard of 0.73 m (2.4ft) at the apex of the lowest arch, while the base (100-year) flood event results in a freeboard of 0.51 m (1.7 ft)at the apex of the lowest arch. The hydraulic results presented in this report are based on the assumption ofunobstructed flow through the bridge section.

2.3.3.8. Guide Railing, Median Barriers and Impact Attenuators

The box beam guide rail and box beam median barrier along NYS Route 787 is in generally good condition.Corrugated beam rail at the southern bridge approach is in poor condition and is no longer connected to thebridge parapet. The bridge parapet is in generally good condition with minor surface cracking and scalingalong its entirety. There is no existing guiderail transition to the parapet walls in any of the four quadrants ofthe bridge. The 2010 Biennial Bridge Inspection cited no serious deficiencies associated with the parapet,and the guiderail was given a rating of 5. In accordance with the Bridge Inspection Manual this ratingindicates minor deterioration, but functioning as originally designed.


2-15

There are no impact attenuators within the project limits. 2.3.3.9. Utilities Above ground electric, cable, and telephone lines owned and maintained by National Grid, Time Warner, and Verizon, respectively, serve the project area. The project area is also served by underground utility services including National Grid gas, and municipally owned underground sanitary sewer and water. The 1931 bridge record plans indicate four utilities on the bridge: One 200 mm (8 inch) gas line and four telephone ducts under the east sidewalk, six 125 mm (5 inch) fiber conduits under the west sidewalk, and one 50 mm (2 inch) fiber duct in the base sections of the parapets for bridge lighting electric lines. Two fiber optic conduits are hung along the outside of the bridge along the east fascia. The New York State Dam, located approximately 152.4 m (500 ft) downstream (east) of the existing bridge, was raised in the early 1990’s to produce more power at the hydro-electric facility. The dam is operated by Boralex Hydro Operations, Inc. in South Glens Falls, NY. High voltage (4.16 KV) overhead lines cross within the project limits in an east west direction. Beginning at the southern end of the New York State Dam the overhead lines proceed easterly along the southern shoreline of the Mohawk River, crossing NYS Route 32 approximately 20 m (65 ft.) south of the existing bridge. Between the NYS Route 32 bridge and the Canadian Pacific Railroad bridge, the overhead lines proceed north across the Mohawk River before continuing east along the northern shoreline of the Mohawk River. The existing minimum overhead clearance of the high voltage overhead wires at NYS Route 32 is 12.6 m (41.3 ft.). See diagram in Appendix F for proposed and existing overhead electric lines clearances. 2.3.3.10. Railroad Facilities A Canadian Pacific Railroad line runs parallel to NYS Route 32 approximately 80 m (262 ft) west of the roadway. The railroad crosses the Mohawk River on an independent and parallel bridge. The existing railroad is outside the project limits and is not affected by the NYS Route 32 bridge project. 2.3.4. Landscape and Environmental Enhancement Opportunities This section focuses on the critical existing areas to identify potential enhancement opportunities related to the project and to help avoid and minimize impacts. Chapter 4 focuses on the specific findings, along with specific enhancements and mitigation included in the project. 2.3.4.1. Landscape There is little to no landscaping along NYS Route 32 south of the bridge. This area is limited to commercial ventures and long term truck parking. North of the bridge, the surrounding area is primarily residential and landscaping consists of manicured lawns and associated shrubs and trees. 2.3.4.1.(1) Terrain Generally, level terrain exists along the mainline in the north-south direction. Rolling terrain exists in the east-west direction as the topography rises from the confluence of the Mohawk River at the Hudson River forming the hills associated with the City of Cohoes and Town of Waterford. Naturally steep drop-offs ranging from 1 to 4 m (3 to 13 ft) high exist along the shorelines of the Mohawk River in the immediate project area. 2.3.4.1.(2) Unusual Weather Conditions There are no unusual weather conditions within the project area.


2-16

2.3.4.1.(3) Visual Resource Inventory The visual environment of the project area consists mainly of man-made features in an urban setting. The City of Cohoes area is characterized as commercial in nature, while the Town of Waterford area is characterized as residential in nature with limited commercial establishments within the project limits. The existing concrete arch structure is an aesthetically pleasing structure and has been identified as eligible for inclusion on the National Registry. This bridge is considered eligible because of its multi-spandrel design demonstrating individuality within the standardized filled spandrel concrete arch type. The bridge is also eligible because of its construction in a primary year of Depression Era Work Relief. 2.3.4.2. Opportunities for Environmental Improvements Coordination with the City of Cohoes, Town of Waterford, and other interested stakeholders will be ongoing with regards to potential environmental improvements, such as gateway and/or bikeway signage. 2.3.5. Miscellaneous There are no other relevant features or conditions not already addressed in Section 2.3.


3-1

CHAPTER 3 – ALTERNATIVES This chapter discusses the alternatives considered and examines the engineering aspects for all feasible alternatives to address the project objectives identified in Chapter 1 of this report.

3.1. Alternatives Considered and Eliminated from Further Study During project scoping, a total of eight alternatives were identified. Several of these alternatives (Alternatives 3, 4, 5 and 7) considered opportunities to integrate broader transportation system enhancements into the project. These alternatives were not advanced for further study because they involved considerable intersection work that is unrelated to the objectives of the project and projected funding is not sufficient to include this additional work. See Appendix I for descriptions and concept plans of these alternatives which have been considered and eliminated from further consideration. A description of other alternatives considered but eliminated is provided below: Alternative 1 - Null or No-Build (no-action) This alternative would provide only for the routine maintenance of the existing bridge with no additional capital construction funds being expended on the existing structure. This no-action alternative would result in continued deterioration of the existing structure, resulting in increased maintenance efforts, eventual load posting and ultimately, closure. This alternative does not satisfy the project objective but will be carried forward as a basis of comparison with the other alternatives. Alternative 2 - Bridge Rehabilitation This alternative would include the rehabilitation of the existing multiple span concrete arch structure to provide a minimum service life of 25 years. This alternative was thoroughly investigated due to the potential historic significance of the structure. Based on a visual inspection of the bridge and review of the bridge inspection reports, the rehabilitation of the bridge would need to include:

Removing the asphalt and concrete deck Removing the earth fill within the arches Repairing the concrete inside the structure as necessary Repairing the concrete on the bottom of the arches Repairing the spalled areas on the concrete parapet Removing and replacing pier 4 Waterproofing the inside of the structure Constructing a revised drainage system within the arches Filling the arches with new structural fill material Replacing the concrete deck, sidewalks and curbs

Rehabilitation of the existing arch presents several constructability problems. Due to the low overhead clearance of the arches, as well as the raised pool elevation, construction of braced cellular coffer systems around the arch piers is not feasible, as there is inadequate head room for the equipment used to core into the bedrock and to install the vertical steel column braces. Installation of the frame work on the columns and the sheet pile itself also would be prohibited by the limited vertical clearance under the arches. Also, due to the structural needs and design of the existing arch structure it would not be feasible to maintain traffic on the bridge during its rehabilitation. The feasibility of detouring traffic around the site via NY Route 4, over the Hudson River and south into the City of Troy, and back to NYS Route 787 via NYS Route 470 and the 112th Street Bridge was investigated by the NYSDOT Region 1 Traffic and Safety Group during the scoping phases of this project. The communal environment along this detour corridor is consistent with that of a densely populated, urban area with on-street parking. The additional traffic volumes as a result of this


3-2

detour would have a significant impact on the quality of life for both the residents and the traveling public. The Department’s experience with this detour route and knowledge of the traffic issues has resulted in the dismissal of this long term detour from further consideration. Therefore, to maintain traffic during construction a 246 m (807 ft) long temporary bridge would be required along the east side of the existing structure. Estimated construction cost of this alternative is $21.1 M, including the temporary bridge, but not including right-of-way. Although this alternative meets the project objective of providing a structurally sound bridge, it only provides for a service life of 25 years, unlike the bridge replacement service life of 75 years. Since the overall construction cost is similar, even slightly higher, when compared to that of the bridge replacement alternatives, this alternative does not ‘use cost effective techniques to minimize the life cycle cost of maintenance and repair’, as required in the project objective. This alternative has therefore been eliminated from further consideration.

3.2. Feasible Build Alternatives From the diverse range of concepts that were investigated during scoping, two feasible alternatives have been identified for further investigation. These two feasible alternatives are presented below: 3.2.1. Description of Feasible Alternatives Alternative 6 – Bridge Replacement on a Parallel Alignment (Signalized Intersections), Minimized Approach Work This alternative includes construction of a new 260 m (853 ft) long multiple-span structure located approximately 25 m (82 ft) east of and parallel to the existing structure. The proposed horizontal mainline reconstruction would begin at the intersection of NYS Route 787 / New Courtland Street and NYS Route 32 and proceed northeast on a curvilinear alignment to meet with the tangent bridge alignment parallel to the existing bridge. The bridge would then curve back towards the existing bridge near the northern abutment where it would match back into the existing mainline alignment prior to the intersection of Clifton Street / Museum Lane and NYS Route 32. South of the bridge, NYS Route 32 would be shifted east in order to provide sufficient space for the adjacent Shelter Enterprises driveway to allow trucks to turn into the driveway and back into the existing loading dock (instead of backing up in the middle of NYS Route 32, as they currently operate). The proposed profile would closely match the existing profile, although it would be slightly raised at the northern abutment to provide a more consistent slope across the length of the bridge. This change in grade and elevation would reduce property impacts to adjacent homes in the Northside Historic District in the Town of Waterford. The typical section for the reconstructed segment of NYS Route 32 would consist of three travel lanes. The southbound and northbound curb lanes will each be 4.2 m (14 ft) shared lanes for vehicular and bicycle traffic. The center travel lane will be 3.3 m (11 ft) which will accommodate the northbound left-turn lane at Clifton Street and then transition to a second southbound travel lane for left-turns at the NY Route 787 intersection. Sidewalks having a width of 1.525 m (5 ft) will be provided on both sides of the road. Full depth reconstruction would be required throughout the majority of the project limits. Two-way traffic will be maintained during most construction operations on the existing structure and roadways. Staged bridge construction would be necessary for the northern span and abutment due to the overlapping abutment locations. Roadway construction would be performed under traffic utilizing short-term lane closures and lane shifts as needed. Re-using the bridge for recreational or alternate travel modes would not be feasible due to the type of bridge and nature of the deterioration and therefore, will not be offered to the municipalities.


3-3

Estimated construction cost of this alternative is $19.8 M, not including right-of-way. This alternative would address the deficiencies of the bridge and provide a service life of 75 years, while limiting the approach work and associated construction costs. This alternative is considered a preferred feasible alternative which has been retained for further evaluation in the remaining sections of this report. Alternative 8 – Bridge Replacement On Existing Alignment, with Temporary Bridge This alternative would replace the bridge on its existing alignment with a new 210 m (689 ft) long multiple span structure supported on conventional abutments. The typical section for the bridge and reconstructed segment of NYS Route 32 would be comprised of the same elements as in Alternative 6; namely 4.2 m (14 ft) shared travel lanes (vehicles and bicycles) in each direction, with a 3.3 m (11 ft) center lane for northbound left-turns at Clifton Street and southbound left-turns at NY Route 787. Sidewalks having a width of 1.525 m (5 ft) will also be provided on both sides of the road. As outlined in previous sections, no feasible long term detour route exists. Thus, traffic would be maintained on a two lane temporary bridge constructed along the east side of the existing structure. Incorporation of this temporary bridge would result in increased impacts at the approach areas and would also add approximately 6 months to the construction schedule. The existing bridge carries a significant amount of utilities (including electrical, telephone, natural gas and water mains). Since the existing bridge would be removed prior to construction of the new bridge, this alternative would require that these utilities be relocated twice – the first would be a relocation to the temporary bridge and the second would be the final relocation to the new bridge structure. This utility relocation cost is an added societal cost that is not directly reflected in the project cost and is not associated with any other alternative. Estimated construction cost of this alternative is $20.3 M, not including right-of-way. This alternative would address the deficiencies of the bridge and provide a service life of 75 years, while limiting the highway approach work and associated construction costs. This alternative is considered a feasible alternative, which has been retained for further evaluation in the remaining sections of this report. 3.2.2. Preferred Alternative Based on public comments received in response to the Public Informational Meeting/hearing held on August 13, 2013 and August 15, 2013, Alternative 6 – Bridge Replacement on a Parallel Alignment (Signalized Intersections), Minimized Approach Work has been selected as the preferred alternative and is being advanced to Design Approval. 3.2.3. Design Criteria for Feasible Alternative(s) 3.2.3.1. Design Standards The proposed project will be designed in accordance with the following design standards and guidelines:

NYSDOT Highway Design Manual (HDM) NYSDOT Bridge Manual

3.2.3.2. Critical Design Elements Exhibit 3.2.3.2 outlines the design criteria that apply to the project in accordance with NYS Route 32’s classification as an Urban Principal Arterial (Other) and its designation as a Truck Access Highway.


3-4

Exhibit 3.2.3.2. NYS Route 32 Design Criteria

PIN: 1460.42 NHS (Y/N): No Route No. & Name: NYS Route 32 Functional Class: Urban Principal Arterial Other Project Type: Bridge Replacement Design Classification (AASHTO

Class) Urban Principal Arterial

% Trucks: 6.0% Terrain: Level ADT: 18,900 (ETC+30) Truck Access/Qualifying Hwy: Truck Access Highway

Element Standard Reference Existing

Condition

Alternative 6(Parallel Bridge)

Alternative 8(Online Bridge)

1 Design Speed 65 km/hr(1) (40 mph)

HDM §2.7.2.2.A. 30 mph posted

65 km/hr 65 km/hr

2 Travel Lane Width 3.3 m (min.)

Bridge Manual §2.3.1

& HDM §2.7.2.2

3.6 m 3.3 m (min.) 3.3 m (min.)

Shared Travel Lane Width

3.6 m (min) – 4.2 m (des)

n/a 4.2 m 4.2 m

3 Turn Lane Width 3.3 m (min.) 3.6 m (des.)

3.6 m 3.3 m 3.3 m

4 Shoulder Width 0 m to 1.2 m 0.6 m n/a n/a

5 Bridge Roadway Width Full Approach Width


12.2 m 11.7 m(2) 11.7 m(2)

6 Max. Grade 7.0% HDM §2.7.2.2.E. 4.3% 2.7% 3.7%

7 Min. Horizontal Radius 163 m @ e = 4.0% HDM §2.7.2.2.F. n/a 250 m n/a

8 Max. Superelevation 4.0% max.(3) HDM §2.7.5.9 2.0% NC 2.0% NC 2.0% NC

9 Stopping Sight Distance 93 m (min.)

HDM §2.7.2.2.H. (TABLE 2-4)

90 m 93.5 m 177 m

10 Horizontal Clearance 0 m with barrier

0.5 m without barrier

HDM §2.7.2.2.I. 0.3 m

1.7 m on bridge

0.5 m on approaches

1.7 m on bridge

0.5 m on approaches

11 Vertical Clearance n/a


n/a n/a n/a

12 Pavement Cross Slope 1.5% (min.) to 2.0% (max.)

HDM §2.7.2.2.K. 2.0% 2.0% 2.0%

13 Rollover Between Travel Lanes

4.0% HDM §2.7.2.2.L. 4.0% 4.0% 4.0%

14 Rollover At Edge of Travelled Way

8.0% HDM §2.7.2.2.L. 8.0% n/a n/a

15 Min. Structural Capacity NYSDOT LRFD HL-93 Live Load, and NYS Design Permit Vehicle


M-18 (H-20)

HL-93 Live Load, and

NYS Design Permit Vehicle

HL-93 Live Load, and

NYS Design Permit Vehicle

16 Pedestrian Accommodations Meet HDM Chapter

18 Requirements HDM §2.7.2.2.N.

and §18.6.5.1

1.525 sidewalk

both sides

1.525 sidewalk both sides, 1.7

m on bridge

1.525 sidewalk both sides, 1.7

m on bridge

(1) The design speed is equivalent to 40.4 mph and is based, in part, on the computed pre-construction 85th percentile speed of 41 mph. The Regional Traffic Engineer has concurred with the design speed (Refer to Section 2.3.1.5 Speeds and Delays and Appendix C of this report for additional information on speed data).

(2) Since the project is reconstructing Route 32 from the NY 787 intersection to the Museum Ln intersection, the existing approach width of 12.2 m will no longer be relevant and the lane and shoulder widths proposed for Route 32 in this table will control.

(3) Per Section 2.7.2.2 of the HDM, on urban arterials in heavily built up areas where superelevation needs to be minimized it is appropriate to use Table 2-11 of the HDM. Providing superelevation along this corridor would have the following negative results: It would encourage drivers to drive faster through the corridor. It would cause roadway runoff to sheetflow across the three lane sections of NYS Route 32 rather than along the curblines. The profile low points would occur very close to the “0” section in the superelevation transition, resulting in flat areas which are prone to

ponding.


3-5

3.2.3.3. Other Design Parameters In addition to the Design Criteria listed in the table above, the following Design Parameters and Design Vehicles will also be applied to the project:

Exhibit 3.2.3.3-1 Miscellaneous Design Parameters

PARAMETER VALUE

DESIGN YEAR ETC (Estimated Time of Construction)+30

LEVEL OF SERVICE “D” Minimum

CLOSED DRAINAGE SYSTEM DESIGN STORM 10 Year Storm Event

Exhibit 3.2.3.3-2 Design Vehicles

AASHTO Title

Description Location(s) where Applicable

P Passenger Car Residential driveways

SU Single Unit Truck Park / access drive southeast of bridge Side street intersections (except those streets noted below)

WB-20 Intermediate Semi Tractor Trailer

NYS Route 32 and NYS Route 787 within project limits Commercial Driveway (Shelter Enterprises) southwest of bridge

3.3. Engineering Considerations 3.3.1. Operations (Traffic and Safety) & Maintenance 3.3.1.1. Functional Classification and National Highway System This project will not change the functional classification of the highway. 3.3.1.2. Control of Access No control of access will be provided. 3.3.1.3. Traffic Control Devices 3.3.1.3. (1) Traffic Signals: The project will include certain modifications to the existing traffic signals at the two signalized intersections on either side of the bridge that are necessitated by the construction. These modifications are likely to include replacement of loop detectors, conduit replacement and minor realignment of signal displays on the affected intersection approaches. Complete replacement of these traffic signal installations is not contemplated, although there may be an opportunity within the project design (subject to funding availability) to address conditions that, while operable, do not comply with current MUTCD standards. 3.3.1.3. (2) Signs: Existing signs will be replaced and updated as necessary


3-6

3.3.1.4. Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) No ITS measures are proposed. 3.3.1.5. Speeds and Delay

Exhibit - 3.3.1.5 Speed Data

Route NYS Route 32

Posted Speed Limit 30 mph (48 km/h)

Actual Operating Speed and Method Used 41 mph (66 km/h) Speed Study (Nov 1, 2002)

Design Speed Approved by Regional Traffic Engineer

40 mph (65 km/h) (See Appendix C)

3.3.1.5. (1) Proposed Speed Limit The posted speed limit will remain 30 mph. 3.3.1.5. (2) Travel Time Estimates Travel time estimates are not applicable for a bridge replacement project 3.3.1.6. Traffic Volumes Since there are no anticipated changes in future traffic volumes as a result of the project, see Section 2.3.1.6 for existing and future traffic volumes. Refer to Appendix C for traffic flow diagrams. Refer to Exhibits 2.3.1.6-1 and 2.3.1.6-2 for a summary of the traffic data and volumes. Peak hour turning movement volumes for both intersections within the project limits are included in Appendix C. 3.3.1.7. Level of Service and Mobility 3.3.1.7 (1) At Project Completion & Design Year The logical termini of this bridge replacement projects is the NYS Route 787 / New Courtland Street intersection to the south and the NYS Route 32 with Clifton Street / Museum Lane intersection to the north. The operations on NYS Route 32 over the Mohawk and at these study area intersections are directly influenced by the operations and geometrics of the other adjacent intersections in the nearby roadway system including the intersections of NYS Route 32 and NYS Route 470, and NYS Route 787 and NYS Route 470. Likewise, the operations at the Route 470 intersections are also influenced by the operations of the Route 32 and New Courtland Street / Route 787 intersection. Since there are no capacity improvements proposed for this project, the future operations on the bridge, for both alternatives, will be the same as the No-Build operations. Refer to Exhibit 3.3.1.7 for a summary of LOS for both intersections.


3-7

Exhibit - 3.3.1.7-1 Intersection Level of Service and Delays (sec)

YEAR Overall EB

(Clifton St) WB

(Museum Ln) NB

(NYS Route 32) SB

(NYS Route 32)

AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM

Intersection of NYS Route 32 and Clifton Street / Museum Lane

EXISTING (2009) B (12.3)

A (9.9)

D (36.2)

C (25.2)

C (35.0)

C (24.3)

A (3.9)

A (8.3)

B (12.5)

B (10.1)

ETC (2014) B (12.4)

A (9.9)

D (36.3)

C (25.2)

D (35.1)

C (24.4)

A (3.9)

A (8.4)

B (12.6)

B (10.1)

ETC+30 (2044) B (16.5)

B (14.8)

D (36.4)

C (26.5)

D (35.0)

C (26.0)

A (5.0)

B (12.4)

B (18.6)

B (16.9)

YEAR Overall EB (New Courtland St)

WB (NYS Route 787)

NB (NYS Route 32)

SB (NYS Route 32)

Intersection of NYS Route 32 and NYS Route 787 / New Courtland Street

EXISTING (2009) C (23.8)

E (61.1)

D (36.9)

C (31.4)

C (26.4)

E (72.6)

D (46.5)

F (110.1)

B (11.8)

C (22.7)

ETC (2014) C (24.0)

E (62.0)

D (36.6)

C (31.5)

C (26.6)

E (73.7)

D (46.8)

F (112.4)

B (12.2)

C (22.7)

ETC+30 (2044) C (24.8)

F (101.5)

D (39.6)

C (36.7)

C (21.3)

F (133.3)

D (48.3)

F (194.9)

B (14.7)

C (26.0)

Exhibit 3.3.1.7-2 Intersection Level of Service and Delay (sec)

Intersection/ Approach Existing

ETC1

(2014) ETC1+30

(2044) AM PM AM PM AM PM

Intersection of NYS Route 32 and Clifton Street / Museum Lane

Clifton Street (EB) L/T/R D (36.2) C (25.2) D (36.3) C (25.2) D (36.4) C (26.5)

Museum Lane (WB) L/T/R C (35.0) C (24.3) D (35.1) C (24.4) C (35.0) C (26.0)

NYS Route 32 (NB) L B (18.5) A (7.0) B (18.8) A (7.1) C (32.3) B (13.3)

T/R A (3.3) A (8.5) A (3.3) A (8.5) A (3.6) B (12.3)

NYS Route 32 (SB) L -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2

T/R B (12.5) C (10.1) B (12.6) B (10.1) B (18.6) B (16.9)

Overall B (12.3) A (9.9) B (12.4) A (9.9) B (16.5) B (14.8)

Intersection of NYS Route 32 and NYS Route 787 / New Cortland Street

New Cortland Street (EB) L C (28.7) D (45.4) C (28.6) D (45.4) C (29.6) D (53.3)

T/R D (37.6) C (24.7) D (37.3) C (24.7) D (40.9) C (27.6)

NYS Route 787 (WB) T D (50.5) F (131.5) D (50.7) F (133.9) D (47.6) F (249.1)

R A (8.7) C (26.2) A (8.7) C (26.4) B (10.4) C (25.7)

NYS Route 32 (NB) L D (42.7) D (44.9) D (43.1) D (45.1) D (54.5) D (51.5)

T D (47.7) F (127.3) D (48.0) F (130.2) D (44.4) F (229.9)

NYS Route 32 (SB)

L B (14.9) C (32.1) B (15.3) C (32.1) B (19.7) D (40.2)

T A (9.8) B (17.9) B (10.0) B (17.9) B (10.3) B (17.8)

R A (5.5) B (10.9) A (5.6) B (10.9) A (5.0) B (10.9

Overall C (23.8) E (61.1) C (24.0) E (62.0) C (24.8) F (101.5) 1 ETC is the Estimated Time of Completion. 2 LOS and delay not provided for this movement as there was no peak hour volume for this movement. * A (0.0) = LOS (Delay), where delay is given in seconds per vehicle


3-8

A review of these results indicates that NYS Route 32 and Clifton Street / Museum Lane operate with acceptable LOS during both the AM and PM peak period for all conditions. The capacity analysis results show that NYS Route 32 and NYS Route 787 / New Courtland Street intersection are predicted to operate at an overall LOS C during the future AM peak hours and a LOS E and LOS F during the future PM peak hours, indicating congestion in the system. The current and future levels of service (LOS F in the PM) at this intersection indicate that capacity / operational improvements may be required in the future. Given the site constraints, it is highly unlikely that these improvements would include a second northbound through lane on Route 32. It is more likely that, if needed, the Route 32 / Route 787 intersection and adjacent intersections may be converted to roundabout controlled intersections capable of handling greater traffic volumes without significant delays. The roundabout option was studied as part of this project’s scoping stage but was found to be financially infeasible at this time. Thus the proposed bridge width (3 lanes) is adequate for the anticipated needs of the Route 32 / Route 787 intersection. 3.3.1.7 (2) – Work Zone Safety & Mobility A. Work Zone Traffic Control Plan

Traffic will be maintained throughout the project area during construction operations through the use of staged construction methods established in accordance with the Federal MUTCD and NYS Supplement. Two-way traffic will be maintained over the Mohawk River during construction operations. Alternative 8 will require a temporary bridge to accommodate two-way traffic during construction. It is anticipated that short-term, alternating one-way traffic will be required during some roadway construction operations, but two-way traffic would be maintained during all non-working hours and during peak traffic hours. Routes for emergency vehicles will be maintained and open during construction. The details for the work zone traffic control will be prepared and evaluated during final design.

B. Special Provisions Due to the close proximity to residential homes and the ability to maintain traffic with acceptable delays during the daylight hours, night time construction is not anticipated. The use of time related provisions will be evaluated during final design. The work zone traffic control will be coordinated with local officials.

C. Significant Projects (per 23 CFR 630.1010) A Transportation Management Plan (TMP) will be prepared for the project consistent with 23 CFR 630.1012. The TMP will consist of a Temporary Traffic Control (TTC) plan. Transportation Operations (TO) and Public Information (PI) components of a TMP will be considered during final design.

3.3.1.8. Safety Considerations, Accident History and Analysis There are no accident reduction or prevention needs identified within the project area. 3.3.1.9. Impacts on Police, Fire Protection and Ambulance Access Refer to Section 3.3.1.7(2) for a discussion of the anticipated impacts during construction. Routes for emergency vehicles will be maintained and open during construction


3-9

3.3.1.10. Parking Regulations and Parking Related Issues No changes are proposed. 3.3.1.11. Lighting New lighting will be considered on the new bridge and bridge approaches at the request of the local municipalities, which would be required to own and maintain the system. 3.3.1.12. Ownership and Maintenance Jurisdiction Refer to Chapter 2 Section 2.3.1.12. No changes are proposed. 3.3.1.13. Constructability Review Both feasible alternatives will require access to the waters below the bridge (Mohawk River). Access may be limited for large cranes / barges due to the presence of dams both east and west of the structure. The railroad bridge west of the structure may also limit access due to its height over the river High tension power lines cross NYS Route 32 in the vicinity of the southern shoreline. These power lines are approximately 12.6 m (41.3 ft.) above the existing roadway and will be a consideration for construction. 3.3.2. Multimodal 3.3.2.1. Pedestrians Sidewalks will be provided on both sides of NYS Route 32 within the project limits. Pedestrian facilities at both signalized intersections would be brought up to current standards, including ramps, pushbuttons, and pedestrian signal heads at all four quadrants. 3.3.2.2. Bicyclists NYS Route 32 is a County bike route and on CDTC’s Bicycle/Pedestrian Priority Network. Considering the context of the project area within the corridor, bicyclists will be accommodated by a shared 4.2 m (14 ft) travel lane in each direction. Because bicyclists may be riding adjacent to the curb line, all surface collection inlet structures will use reticuline (“bicycle safe”) grates. 3.3.2.3. Transit Bus Route 432 Mechanicville – Troy traverses the project corridor Monday through Friday. No bus stops are located or proposed within the project limits. No changes are proposed. 3.3.2.4. Airports, Railroad Stations, and Ports There are no airports, rail or port facilities within the project limits, or affected by the project. No changes are proposed. 3.3.2.5. Access to Recreation Areas (Parks, Trails, Waterways, and State Lands) There are no recreation areas located within or adjacent to the project area; therefore, no changes in access to recreation areas are proposed. 3.3.3. Infrastructure 3.3.3.1. Proposed Highway Section Refer to Appendix A for a typical section of the proposed NYS Route 32 roadway.


3-10

3.3.3.1. (1) Right-of-Way The construction of either feasible alternative would require temporary easements and/or fee acquisitions. Construction releases may also be required from adjacent properties within the project limits. A comparison of the acquisitions/easements for the feasible alternatives is provided in the following tables. Please note that the totals given in the table are approximate. Design changes may be made as design progresses to further minimize the number of acquisitions along the corridor. It is anticipated that the takings will not be considered de minimus under the Eminent Domain Procedure Law (EDPL) and two public hearings were held on August 13, 2013 and August 15, 2013. Acquisitions will be handled in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 and as amended, Federal and State law and regulation and State right of way process.

Exhibit 3.3.3.1-1 Table of Anticipated Temporary and Permanent Right of Way Acquisitions

Alternative 6

No. Reputed Owner Map &

Parcel # Acqus. Type

Purpose Parcel Size

(±) Acquisition Size

(±) sq.m ac sq.m ac

1 Cohoes Falls Business Park, LLC.

M1 P1 TM 10.12-2-9

FEE/WA Highway Infrastruct.

4591 1.13 229 0.06

2 Cohoes Falls Business Park, LLC.

M2 P2 TM 10.12-2-9

TE Highway Infrastruct.

4591 1.13 255 0.06

3 Shelco Development, LLC. M2 P2 TM 10.12-2-2


2547 0.63 131 0.03

4 Jeffory J Myers M4 P4 TM 10.12-2-10


826 0.20 390 0.10



826 0.20 435 0.11



219 0.05 219 0.05

7 City of Cohoes M6 P8 TM 10.12-2-11

PE Highway Infrastruct.

113 0.03 113 0.03

8 City of Cohoes M6 P7 TM 10.12-2-13


32 0.01 32 0.01

9 Lands of the People of the State of New York

Under the Jurisdiction of the New York State

Canal Corporation

M7-T P7 TM 295.12-1-55


- - 279 0.07



Canal Corporation

M7-T P9 TM 10.12-2-

9,10,11,12, and 13


- - 1672 0.41

11 Robert C. Martin M8 P8 TM 295.12-1-54


324 0.08 5.7 0.001

12 Robert C. Martin M9 P9 TM 295.12-1-54


324 0.08 42 0.01

13 Shelter Enterprises, Inc. M8 P11 TM 10.12-2-1


8498 2.10 12 0.003

14 Shelter Enterprises, Inc. M9 P12 TM 10.12-2-1


8498 2.10 41 0.01

15 Unknown Owner M10 P13 n/a


- - 9 0.002

16 Unknown Owner M11 P14 n/a


- - 26 0.01

17 Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation

M10 P10 n/a


- - 12 0.003


3-11

18 Kenneth C. Sullivan M11 P11 TM 295.12-1-55


379 0.09 379 0.09

19 Leroy S. Waltz, Jr. & Alison R. Waltz

M12 P14 TM 295.12-1-56


4891 1.21 99 0.02


M13 P13 TM 295.12-1-56


4891 1.21 305 0.08

21 A Portion of the Bed of City of Cohoes Saratoga Street

M12 P15 TM 10.12-2-No

Lot #


- - 125 0.03

Exhibit 3.3.3.1-2 Table of Anticipated Temporary and Permanent Right of Way Acquisitions

Alternative 8 No. Reputed Owner Map &

Parcel # Acqus. Type

Purpose Parcel Size (±)

Acquisition Size (±)

sq.m ac sq.m ac 1 Cohoes Falls Business

Park, LLC. 10.12-2-9 FEE/WA Highway

Infrastruct. 4591 1.13 16 0.004

2 Shelco Development, LLC. 10.12-2-2 TE Highway Infrastruct.

2547 0.63 112 0.03

3 Shelter Enterprises, Inc. 10.12-2-1 TE Highway Infrastruct.

8498 2.10 16 0.004

4 Shelter Enterprises, Inc. 10.12-2-1 TE Highway Infrastruct.

8498 2.10 197 0.05

5 Unknown Owner n/a FEE/WA Highway Infrastruct.

- - 22 0.01

6 Unknown Owner n/a TE Highway Infrastruct.

- - 13 0.003

7 Jeffory J Myers 10.12-2-10 TE Highway Infrastruct.

826 0.20 16 0.004

8 City of Cohoes 10.12-2-11 TE Highway Infrastruct.

113 0.03 29 0.007

9 Jeffory J Myers 10.12-2-12 TE Highway Infrastruct.

219 0.05 43 0.01



Canal Corporation

10.12-2-9,10,11,12, and

13


- - 120 0.03

11 Robert C. Martin 295.12-1-54 FEE/WA Highway Infrastruct.

324 0.08 39 0.01

12 Robert C. Martin 295.12-1-54 TE Highway Infrastruct.

324 0.08 51 0.01

13 Robert C. Martin 295.12-1-54 TE Highway Infrastruct.

324 0.08 17 0.004



Canal Corporation

295.12-1-55 FEE/WA Highway Infrastruct.

- - 73 0.02


n/a FEE/WA Highway Infrastruct.

- - 3 0.001

16 Kenneth C. Sullivan 295.12-1-55 FEE/WA Highway Infrastruct.

379 0.09 155 0.04


295.12-1-56 TE Highway Infrastruct.

4891 1.21 387 0.10

18 City of Cohoes 10.12-2-13 TE Highway Infrastruct.

32 0.01 32 0.01


3-12



Canal Corporation

295.12-1-55 TE Highway Infrastruct.

- - 177 0.04



Canal Corporation

10.12-2-9,10,11,12, and

13


- - 736 0.18


n/a FEE/WA Highway Infrastruct.

- - 6 0.002

22 Kenneth C. Sullivan 295.12-1-55 FEE/WA Highway Infrastruct.

379 0.09 198 0.05

3.3.3.1. (2) Curb 150 mm (6 in.) vertical faced curb would be provided on both sides of the highway within the project limits. 3.3.3.1. (3) Grades The proposed maximum grade for Alternative 6 is 2.7% and for Alternative 8 is 3.75%. These grades do not require any other special provisions. 3.3.3.1. (4) Intersection Geometry and Conditions In general the existing intersection geometry will be retained at both intersections within the project limits. Minor modifications to the curb radii at the NYS Route 32 / NYS Route 787 intersection are proposed for both feasible alternatives. This modification is necessary to accommodate WB-20 trucks which currently encroach into the oncoming travel lane when turning right from NYS Route 787 to NYS Route 32. 3.3.3.1. (5) Roadside Elements:

(a) Snow Storage, Sidewalks, Utility Strips, Bikeways, Bus Stops Sidewalks would be included along both sides of the roadway and bridge. The sidewalks will provide a minimum width of 1.525 m (5.0 ft). Snow storage will generally be located behind the sidewalks, where space permits. Underground utilities would be located either beneath the pavement or beneath the sidewalk, while above ground utilities would likely be located behind the sidewalk limits (as currently exists). No separate utility strip is anticipated due to right of way constraints through the project limits. Bikes will be accommodated on the proposed 4.2 m (14.0 ft) shared travel lanes within the project limits. There are no existing bus stops within the project limits and none are proposed as a part of this project.

(b) Driveways Driveways will be modified as necessary to comply with the current NYSDOT “Policy and Standards for Design of Entrances to State Highways.” Available sight distance will be evaluated at each driveway within the project limits, especially those in the vicinity of the bridge railing or other visual obstructions.


3-13

(c) Clear Zone

The design clear zone for this project is 4.6 m (15 ft) wide.

3.3.3.2. Special Geometric Design Elements 3.3.3.2. (1) Non-Standard Features The feasible design alternatives meet the design criteria established in Section 3.2.3. No non-standard features are included. 3.3.3.2. (2) Non-Conforming Features The overall level-of-service (LOS) at the intersection of Route 787 with Route 32 in the City of Cohoes would not be improved as part of this project. While the LOS of the Route 32 SB leg of the intersection within the project limits will remain at an acceptable level in future years, the Route 32 NB leg and overall LOS at this intersection is projected to be ‘F’ during the PM peak hour in the design year with or without construction of this project. The current and future levels of service at this intersection indicate that capacity / operational improvements may be required in the future. However, given the site constraints it is highly unlikely that these improvements would include a second northbound through lane on Route 32. This non-conforming feature is proposed to be retained because addressing the overall capacity issues at this intersection, where three out of four of the legs are outside the project limits, is not an objective of this project. To address the overall intersection it is more likely that, if needed, the Route 32 / Route 787 intersection and adjacent intersections may be converted to roundabout-controlled intersections capable of handling greater traffic volumes without significant delays. The roundabout option was studied as part of this project’s scoping stage, but was found to be financially infeasible at this time. Thus the proposed bridge width (3 lanes) is adequate for the anticipated needs of the Route 32 / Route 787 intersection. 3.3.3.3. Pavement and Shoulder A formal pavement selection process, as described in the Pavement Treatment and Selection Process, is not necessary since the pavement reconstruction (excluding bridges) is less than 1.5 km (1 mi) in length. A full depth pavement section consisting of the following materials would be required on the relocated approaches on either side of the proposed bridge:

40 mm (1.5”) Asphalt Top Course (12.5 mm maximum aggregate size) 50 mm (2”) Asphalt Binder Course (19.0 mm maximum aggregate size) 160 mm (6.5”) Asphalt Base Course 100 mm (4”) Asphalt Drainage Layer (with accompanying underdrains) 300 mm (12”) Gravel Subbase Course

The pavement thickness design calculations for this project are included in Appendix D. Refer to Appendix A for the proposed typical section. 3.3.3.4. Drainage Systems The proposed project would typically utilize grated surface collection structures with closed drainage systems. The drainage systems would discharge from the roadway corridor to the Mohawk River. These systems are shown on the general plans for Alternative 6 included in Appendix A.


3-14

The existing brick arch culvert located below Route 32 south of the bridge would be replaced with a new concrete box culvert as part of Alternative 6 and extended to meet the existing laid up stone sluiceway. The culvert extension would not affect the downstream sluiceway or the existing weir structure in the vicinity of the Mohawk River outlet. The sluiceway would be repaired, including removal of tree roots, cleaning, and repointing of mortar between stone blocks. The portion of the sluiceway beneath the new highway alignment would also be covered with a wider concrete slab on separate supports so as to protect it. See related notations on general plan drawing GNP-3 for Alternative 6 in Appendix A. The culvert is located near proposed centerline station 1+260. 3.3.3.5. Geotechnical In general, there are no known unusual soil conditions within the project limits which would affect the design or construction of the proposed project. However, deep excavations for items such as storm and/or sanitary systems, may encounter rock. Soil borings will be obtained to evaluate structural design and rock excavation quantities. 3.3.3.6. Structures 3.3.3.6. (1) Description of Work This project includes the demolition of BIN 1-02250-0 and the construction of a new multi-span structure over the Mohawk River.

(a) Type of bridge, number of spans, etc. The proposed structure is anticipated to be a multi-span, multi-girder structure with a composite concrete deck wearing surface. Abutments, wingwalls, and foundations would be reinforced cast in place concrete founded on bedrock. Due to the depth of flow caused by the raising of the nearby downstream dam in the 1990’s, it has been determined that a new earth filled concrete arch type structure is not feasible.

(b) Width of travel lanes, shoulders, and sidewalks The bridge will have a clear width of 11.7 m (38’-5”) curb to curb with 1.7 m (5’-7”) sidewalk on both sides. (Refer to the bridge typical section included in Appendix A.)

(c) Utilities carried It is known that the existing bridge carries a natural gas line along with electric, telephone and fiber optic lines. Utility owners and municipal authorities will be notified and record drawings showing known utilities will be requested to determine if additional utilities need to be considered.

3.3.3.6. (2) Clearances (Horizontal/Vertical) A minimum of 2’ of freeboard will be provided for the design (50 year) storm, per NYSDOT guidelines. 3.3.3.6. (3) Live Load HL 93 and NYSDOT Permit Vehicle. 3.3.2.6. (4) Associated Work There is no additional work associated with the structure.


3-15

3.3.3.6. (5) Waterway The Mohawk River is State regulated but is not navigable in this location; boating traffic on the Mohawk River is prohibited due to the proximity of dams on either side of the bridge. Therefore, the replacement of the bridge will not affect the navigability of the river and no consultation with the U.S. Coast Guard is necessary. No Bridge Permit is required for this project. Bank protection along the Mohawk River and slope protection around the bridge wingwalls will be developed during final design to avoid, minimize and mitigate impacts. 3.3.3.7. Hydraulics of Bridges and Culverts The proposed project crosses the Mohawk River just upstream of its confluence with the Hudson River. The existing bridge is located at the narrowest point of the Mohawk River. The proposed bridge would either be located at the same location (Alternative 8) or shifted easterly (Alternative 6) to a slightly wider location. In accordance with the “green sheets” amendments to the AASHTO Model Drainage Manual which indicate the NYSDOT hydraulic policies for bridges, there is no absolute minimum freeboard requirement or standard which must be met to satisfy a specification or requirement. Typically, any structure that provides at least 0.6 m (2 ft) of freeboard for the design (50-year) flood event is considered as satisfying normal hydraulic clearance requirements to protect against substantial reduction in the waterway opening due to clogging at the structure by debris or ice. No freeboard of less than 0.6 m (2 ft) is generally permitted at a bridge replacement project unless the proposed bridge will provide a greater waterway opening than the existing bridge and unless the proposed minimum allowable freeboard for the design flood will exceed the existing minimum freeboard. The preferred alternative is located approximately 24.4 m (80 ft) downstream of the existing bridge and consists of a five-span continuous steel multi-girder structure with a total length of approximately 241.4 m (792 ft). This configuration provides approximately 1596.1 m2 (17,180 sf) of cross-sectional opening with a low chord elevation ranging from 19.75 m (64.8 ft) at the south abutment to 19.93 m (65.4 ft) at the north abutment. Based on a detailed hydraulic analysis, the design (50-year) flood event results in a freeboard of 0.94 m (3.1 ft), while the base (100-year) flood event results in a freeboard of 0.79 m (2.6 ft). Given the results of the proposed condition hydraulic model, the construction of the preferred alternative will lower or maintain existing water surface elevations within the study reach during the design (50-year) and base (100-year) flood events. As such, it is not anticipated that the construction of the proposed bridge will impact upstream or downstream property owners. 3.3.3.8. Guide Railing, Median Barriers and Impact Attenuators Rail treatment on the bridge could be either four-rail bridge rail or Texas aesthetic barrier as presented in Appendix J, Visualizations. The bridge rail would transition to box beam guide railing and associated end treatments on all approaches. Guide rail installation in the vicinity of driveways will be evaluated to determine the potential for intersection sight distance limitations. Based on public input and in considering the existing bridge was a contributing visual element to the adjacent historic district in the Village of Waterford, Texas aesthetic barrier will be provided. 3.3.3.9. Utilities The proposed roadways, sidewalks and storm sewer systems reconstruction would require relocation of both above-ground and underground private utility lines along the roadway (National Grid, Time Warner, Verizon, NYNEX, and Tech Valley Communications). In addition, the natural gas line, electric, telephone and fiber optic lines on the existing bridge would be relocated to the proposed structure. The New York State Dam, located approximately 152.4 m (500 ft) downstream (east) of the existing bridge, was raised in the early 1990’s to produce more power at the hydro-electric facility. The dam is operated by Boralex Hydro Operations, Inc. in South Glens Falls, NY. There will be no impacts to the Power Facility.


3-16

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) will be reviewing work done around the dam and canal. Boralex Hydro Operations, Inc. and FERC were contacted by letter in November 2013 to notify them of the project. A copy of the letters is included in Appendix F. For Alternative 6, the utility relocations on the bridge would be relatively straightforward. Utilities would be maintained on the existing bridge during construction, and new lines located on the new bridge. The tie-ins would be made prior to demolition of the existing bridge. The 4.16 KV overhead transmission lines which cross NYS Route 32 will have a proposed overhead minimum clearance under Alternative 6 of be 10.3 m (33.8 ft.) from an existing overhead clearance of 12.6 m (41.3 ft.). See diagram in Appendix F for proposed and existing overhead electric lines clearances. For Alternative 8, the utility relocations would be much more involved. Since the new bridge would be constructed in the same location as the existing bridge, the utilities could not be maintained on the existing bridge during construction. Utilities would need to be temporarily relocated onto the temporary bridge during construction and then relocated a second time onto the new bridge once completed. This would double the cost of the utility relocation, and could significantly impact the construction timeline due to lead times required by utility owners. Coordination with the respective utility owners will be on-going. Efforts will be made to minimize utility down time during construction. 3.3.3.10. Railroad Facilities There are no proposed changes to the nearby railroad facilities. 3.3.4. Landscape and Environmental Enhancements 3.3.4.1. Landscape Development and Other Aesthetics Improvements Landscaping would be incorporated into the final design of this project to promote a pleasing visual appearance and to compliment and/or enhance the surrounding existing features. Details regarding the use of plantings, lighting, and surface treatments would be developed during final design. Both the City of Cohoes and Town of Waterford have indicated that they would like to enhance their gateway facade. Coordination with the City of Cohoes and Town of Waterford will take place during final design. 3.3.4.2. Environmental Enhancements Possible environmental enhancements, including park benches on either side of the bridge and creation of green space within the existing roadway footprint on the Town of Waterford side of the bridge, will be considered. Coordination with the City of Cohoes and Town of Waterford to evaluate potential environmental enhancements will take place during final design.


4-1

CHAPTER 4 - SOCIAL, ECONOMIC and ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS and CONSEQUENCES

4.1 Introduction The purpose of this chapter is to identify and consider all social, economic, and environmental issues in evaluating the feasible alternatives and selecting the final preferred alternative for construction; identify feasible avoidance and /or mitigation measures; satisfy the applicable social, economic, and environmental laws; document coordination efforts made with applicable regulatory, advisory, and consulting groups, including the public; and identify all permits and approvals which are anticipated to be necessary for the project. The NYSDOT Region 1 LAES Project Resource Report for this project is located in Appendix B. 4.1.1 Environmental Classification and Lead Agencies NEPA Classification and Lead Agencies This project is classified as a NEPA Class II Categorical Exclusion with documentation in accordance with 23 CFR 771. NEPA Class II Actions include actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant environmental effect. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is the lead agency. In accordance with the Federal Highway Administration’s regulations 23 CFR 771.117(d)(the ‘D List’), this project meets the project description of the Categorical Exclusion ‘D list’ as replacement of an existing highway and bridge in essentially the same corridor with no additional capacity (no added thru lanes) and does not significantly impact the environment. The NEPA Checklist has been completed and is included in Appendix B. SEQR Classification and Lead Agencies This project is classified as a SEQR Non-Type II action in accordance with 17 NYCRR, Part 15, and “Procedures for Implementation of State Environmental Quality Review Act” (SEQR). Non-Type II projects include actions for which the environmental impacts are not clearly established and require an Environmental Assessment. The project is being progressed as a SEQR Non-Type II action because it does not meet the criteria in SEQR part 17, Section 15.14 (d). This project, with its potential effects to the subject historic bridge, and historic districts, the project does not meet the Type II criteria, and is therefore classified as a non -Type II (EA) project. The New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) is the SEQR lead agency. 4.1.2 Cooperating, Participating, and Involved Agencies NEPA Cooperating and Agencies The following agencies have been identified as cooperating agencies in accordance with 23 CFR 771:

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) New York State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) NYS Office of General Services (OGS) New York State Department of Labor (NYSDOL) NYSDEC – State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES).


4-2

4.2 Social The purpose of this Section is to discuss the social environment of the site. This project involves the replacement of the NYS Route 32 Bridge (BIN 1-02250-0) over the Mohawk River. The project is located within an urban area of the City of Cohoes and Village of Waterford. The replacement bridge will be built either online or immediately adjacent to and east of the existing bridge, requiring a moderate approach road realignment and embankment to raise the existing ground adjacent to the existing bridge. 4.2.1 Land Use Demographics and Affected Population South of the bridge, the land use of the corridor is predominately commercial in nature consisting of small and large businesses, retail stores, restaurants, churches, and gasoline stations. The area immediate north of the bridge is residential in nature. Commercial businesses, restaurants and gas stations re-appear near the project’s northern terminus and a museum is located near NYS Route 32 on Museum Lane. The project area is a mixture of backgrounds and age similar to the demographics throughout the City of Cohoes and Village of Waterford. The corridor is urban in nature with distinct commercial and residential areas. The proposed project will not isolate any single residence or group of residences and is not anticipated to affect the population in or around the project area. Comprehensive Plan(s) and Zoning Replacement of the bridge is consistent with the City of Cohoes’ comprehensive plan (Plan 2000) and the Town of Waterford’s Comprehensive Plan, dated March of 2002, and will not affect local zoning. The proposed project is being progressed by NYSDOT in coordination with the City of Cohoes and Village of Waterford. 4.2.2 Neighborhoods and Community Cohesion Community Cohesion The proposed project will not divide neighborhoods, isolate part of a neighborhood, generate new development or otherwise affect community cohesion. In fact, the project will allow for continued bridge access between the City of Cohoes and Town of Waterford and the implementation of new sidewalks and landscaping elements will likely benefit the community cohesiveness. The age and ethnic background of the affected population is of a similar composition as the rest of the City of Cohoes and Town of Watertown. Home and Business Relocations Neither of the progressed Build alternatives would to result in residential or business relocations. 4.2.3 Social Groups Benefited or Harmed Elderly and/or Disabled Persons or Groups Although there are no existing retirement community or elderly/disabled care facilities located in or adjacent to the project area, the proposed project improvements will benefit elderly and disabled persons that travel through the project limits by increasing mobility and accessibility within the project area. Refer to Section 3.3.2 for a discussion on the proposed pedestrian facilities to be provided in accordance with the current Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG).


4-3

Transit Dependent, Pedestrians, and Bicyclists The CDTA Bus Route 432 currently traverses the corridor, but no bus stops exist within the project limits. The project includes replacing the sidewalks. Bicyclists would be accommodated on the proposed 4.2 m (14 ft) shared travel lanes. Low Income, Minority and Ethnic Groups (Environmental Justice) This project is located outside an environmental justice area. The proposed project will not have a proportionately high or adverse human health and environmental effect on minority or low income populations 4.2.4 School Districts, Recreational Areas, and Places of Worship School Districts The proposed project is located within the Cohoes City School District and Waterford-Halfmoon Union Free School District. Since a bridge will remain open to traffic during construction of the replacement bridge, it is not expected that there will be any short-term adverse impacts to either school district. In the long-term, effects will be positive with improved bridge conditions. Recreational Areas There are no existing recreational areas within the project limits. Places of Worship There are no places of worship within the project limits. The proposed project is not expected to have any direct negative impacts to places of worship.

4.3 Economic 4.3.1 Regional and Local Economies The Cohoes-Waterford Bridge connects the City of Cohoes and the Town of Waterford and also provides a direct route from Waterford to all points south via State Routes 787 and Interstate 787. This connection is important to the economic and residential viability of the Waterford area. By keeping the bridge open and viable to all modes of transportation (i.e., no load posting), this project will result in positive long-term economic benefits for the local businesses and patrons in the corridor. 4.3.2 Business Districts This project involves only a small stretch of roadway, but it does border the outskirts of business districts both in Cohoes and Waterford. This project is expected to maintain an important link that will result in positive long-term benefits for these districts. 4.3.3 Specific Business Impacts Established Businesses The Shelter Enterprises (SEI) manufacturing business is located at the southwestern quadrant of the bridge and will be potentially affected by both the construction of this project and the alternative selected.


4-4

Effects Assessment Alternative 6 – This alternative proposes a new bridge adjacent to the existing bridge, which essentially shifts NYS Route 32 farther away from the face of the existing SEI building. This shift will increase the available space so that incoming trucks will no longer need to stop traffic along NYS Route 32 in order to access the loading docks. However, this option would affect the existing truck parking utilized by Shelter Enterprises in the empty lot across the street. Truck spaces in this lot would be decreased. Some accommodations within the new space internal to SEI site could replace some of these spaces. Alternative 8 – This alternative proposes replacing the existing bridge on-line and would essentially maintain the existing operational patterns where trucks stop traffic on NYS Route 32 to make deliveries to the site and truck parking will be the same as existing. However, there is the potential for significant negative effects during construction, especially in the vicinity of the new abutment along the southwestern quadrant of the bridge. The loading dock spaces in this area are crucial to the operation of the business. These potential effects were discussed with SEI and they have reviewed the two feasible alternatives. SEI has indicated that they prefer Alternative 6 since it provides a better overall solution to their operations and does not change their available loading dock space. They have indicated that off-site parking for their trucks is acceptable.

4.4 Environmental The purpose of this section is to evaluate and analyze the environmental effects of the feasible alternatives as well as construction activities. Potential avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures are presented as appropriate. 4.4.1 Wetlands State Freshwater Wetlands There are no NYSDEC regulated freshwater wetlands or regulated adjacent areas (30 m [100 ft]) within the project area, as per the NYSDEC Freshwater Wetlands Maps for Albany and Saratoga Counties (Troy North USGS Quadrangle). A site visit was performed to verify this. No further investigation is required and Environmental Conservation Law, Article 24 is satisfied. State Tidal Wetlands Under Article 25 of the Environmental Conservation Law (6 NYCRR Part 661), the NYSDEC administers the Tidal Wetland Regulatory Program to regulate activities within the tidal wetlands for the protection and preservation of these areas. According to the NYSDEC, tidal wetlands within New York State are located along the salt water shore, bays, inlets, canals, and estuaries of Long Island, New York City, and Westchester County. They are also located along the Hudson River upstream to the Troy Dam. A review of the NYSDEC GIS wetland data files indicates that there are no NYSDEC jurisdictional tidal wetlands or regulated adjacent areas within or near the project limits, and ECL Article 25 does not apply. Federal Jurisdictional Wetlands One Federal Jurisdictional Wetland which meets the criteria defined in the Army Corps of Engineers 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual occurs in the project area. This small fringe wetland occurs along the bank of the Mohawk River adjacent to the bridge footings at the southeast extent of the bridge. This wetland was delineated by a consultant and reviewed in spring 2013 by NYSDOT staff. The wetland was taken into consideration when designing the project, and impact avoidance and minimization alternatives were evaluated. This wetland will be impacted with either of the proposed alternatives.


4-5

Construction activities and fill embankment required to construct the new abutment at this location will impact this entire wetland. This wetland is a small 0.006 acre (243 SF) emergent wetland that occurs on the bank of the Mohawk River. This wetland is directly connected to the Mohawk River so it is considered federally jurisdictional. It is dominated by herbaceous species including spotted touch-me-not (Impatiens capensis), purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), marshpepper smartweed (Polygonum hydropiper), sweet Joe-pye weed (Eupatorium purpureus) and blue vervain (Herbena hastata). A low number of white willow (Salix alba) and silky dogwood (Cornus amomum) shrubs also occur. It is also degraded by debris from the steep slopes of the road embankment and from floating debris deposited by the river. Wetland hydrology indicators observed include soil saturation within the upper 0.3 m (1 ft) of the soil surface; drift lines and a positive FAC-Neutral test. As this wetland is fringe to the Mohawk River, it likely experiences periodic flooding from the river. Hydric soil indicators include a low chroma soil matrix within the upper 0.3 m (1 ft) of the soil surface. This soil meets the criteria to be classified as Stratified Layers (A5) hydric soil because it has more than one layer in the surface soils that has a value of 3 or less and a chroma of 1 or less. Executive Order 11990 A programmatic Executive Order 11990 applies to this project, based on its classification as a Categorical Exclusion under 23 CFR 771.117 and its qualification for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404/Section 10 Nationwide Permit(s). The project satisfies the requirements of EO 11990. The Programmatic EO 11990 Wetland Finding documentation can be found in Appendix B. Mitigation Summary All practicable measures were taken to address the avoidance and minimization of impacts to the Federal wetland; however, impacting this entire small wetland at the existing bridge abutment is unavoidable. Due to the small amount of proposed wetland impact, it is assumed that compensatory wetland mitigation will not be required for the proposed impacts to the Federal wetland. It is likely that this small wetland area will reestablish itself adjacent to the new bridge based on existing river flows and sediment deposition expected over time. 4.4.2 Surface Waterbodies and Watercourses Surface Waters Regulated surface waters in the project include the Mohawk River. In the area of the project, the Mohawk River is approximately 210 m (690 ft) wide. The proposed project would result in impacts to the Mohawk River, both permanent and temporary. Permanent impacts would include construction of the new bridge abutments, footings and piers. Temporary impacts would include construction impacts and/or temporary bridge abutments, footings and piers. It is assumed that stone filling will be placed across the front of the abutments to protect them from scouring. The Department has determined this project will be progressed under USACE Nationwide Permit #3 - Maintenance. A blanket Section 401 Water Quality Certification will apply to this project. Surface Water Classification and Standards The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) has classified the Mohawk River in the vicinity of the project as a Class C/Standard C water body. NYSDEC designated Class C waters are best for fishing and suitable for fish, shellfish, and wildlife propagation. The water quality is also suitable for primary and secondary contact recreation, although other factors may limit this use. Based on the water


4-6

quality classification, the Mohawk River would not be State-regulated waters; however, the State also regulates navigable waters under Article 15, Protection of Waters, and the Mohawk River at this location is Army Corp Navigable (historically) and not U.S. Coast Guard navigable, no boating is allowed. The project is not located within or adjacent to a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Watershed. In order to complete the proposed roadway improvements, work outside the paved right-of-way (ROW) will be necessary and result in temporary impacts to regulated waters within the project area. Demolition of the existing bridge and construction of new bridge abutments and piers will take place within the Mohawk River and adjacent fringe wetland. Precautions will be necessary to control construction activities and minimize the impact to the surface waters. No restrictions to construction activities due to fish spawning seasons are enforced on a Class C water body. Stream Bed and Bank Protection Coordination with NYSDEC will continue pursuant to 1997 DEC/DOT MOU Regarding ECL Articles 15 and 24. Temporary soil erosion and water pollution control measures will include the installation of silt fence along the perimeter of the work area and along wetland areas to ensure that sediment does not impact “Waters of the United States.” Disturbed areas will be seeded and mulched to decrease the potential for erosion. Silt fence will remain in place until the vegetation has been re-established. Airport and Airway Improvement There are no airports in the project area or within proximity of the project area that require coordination. Mitigation Summary Due to the small level of proposed wetland impact (less than a tenth of an acre), it is assumed that compensatory mitigation will not be required by the USACE. Provisions to maintain water quality during construction will be made in accordance with Section 209 “Temporary Soil Erosion and Water Pollution Control” of the current NYSDOT Standard Specifications. Measures such as hay bales and silt fence for temporary erosion control will be included in the plans to minimize the impact during construction of this project. 4.4.3 Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers State Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers There are no NYSDEC Designated, Study or Inventory State Wild, Scenic or Recreational Rivers within or adjacent to the proposed project site. No further review is required. National Wild and Scenic Rivers The project does not involve a National Wild and Scenic River as shown by the Nationwide Rivers Inventory List of National Wild and Scenic Rivers. No further review is required. Section 4(f) Involvement The proposed project does not involve work in or adjacent to a wildlife or waterfowl refuge. No further consideration is required.


4-7

Mitigation Summary The proposed project does not include a State or National designated Wild, Scenic or Recreational River, or wildlife or waterfowl refuge; therefore, no further review is required. 4.4.4 Navigable Waters State Regulated Waters The Mohawk River is State regulated but is not navigable in this location within the project area; boating traffic on the Mohawk River is prohibited in this area due to the proximity of dams on either side of the bridge. Boats traveling downstream on the Mohawk River, are directed down the Barge Canal via Waterford Flight of Locks and then to the Hudson River. The project will require placement of concrete piers, with temporary cofferdams during construction. Navigability of the water will not be affected. This work is expected to be progressed through consultation with NYSDEC pursuant to the DOT Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Office of General Services Lands and Navigable Waters There are no OGS underwater holdings located within the project area that will be impacted by the proposed work. The Mohawk River is located within the project area; however, the bed and banks of the Mohawk River are under the jurisdiction of the New York State Canal Corporation. Rivers and Harbors Act – Section 9 The Mohawk River is not U.S. Coast Guard navigable at this location and boating is prohibited here. The replacement of the bridge will not affect the navigability of the river. No Bridge Permit is required for this project. Section 9 does not apply to this project. Rivers and Harbors Act – Section 10 The project will involve the replacement of a bridge over a historically navigable water way. The construction will necessitate temporary discharge of fill into the river as well as the placement of four (4) permanent piers, and will require an USACE Section 10 Permit. The NWP 3 will also cover the Section 10 regulated area. 4.4.5 Floodplains State Flood Insurance Compliance Program The proposed project, in some locations, is within the 100 year floodplain of the Mohawk River, as indicated by FEMA on the GIS data base. In accordance with the provisions of 6 NYCRR 502 - Flood Plain Management for State Projects, this action has considered and evaluated the practicality of alternatives to any floodplain encroachments. As a result of this evaluation, it is concluded that: (1) a significant encroachment does not exist, (2) there is no significant potential for interruption or termination of a transportation facility which is needed for emergency vehicles, (3) there are no significant impacts on natural beneficial floodplain values. A floodplain hydraulic analysis will be performed during the advance detail plan phase. Executive Order 11988 According to the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps for Albany (preliminary March 2012) and Saratoga (August 1995) Counties, the project is located within the 100-year floodplain of the Mohawk River. As such, the provisions of Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, as implemented in 23 CFR 650A, Location and Hydraulic Design of Encroachments on Floodplains, were evaluated during the preparation of this Design


4-8

Report. The evaluations in regard to Executive Order 11988 considered and evaluated the practicality of alternatives to any significant encroachments, or any support of incompatible floodplain development. The study reach for the Route 32 crossing of the Mohawk River is bounded on the downstream by the New York State Dam and on the upstream by Cohoes Falls. As mentioned previously, the proposed bridge will lower or maintain existing water surface elevations within the study reach during the design (50-year) and base (100-year) flood events. In addition, any potential downstream impacts resulting from the increase in hydraulic opening will be mitigated by the New York State Dam located approximately 152.4 m (500 ft.) downstream. As such, the evaluation of this project in regard to Executive Order 11988 concluded that: (1) a significant encroachment does not exist, (2) there is no significant potential for interruption or termination of a transportation facility which is needed for emergency vehicles, (3) there is no significant risk, and (4) there are no significant impacts on natural and beneficial flood plain values. 4.4.6 Coastal Resources State Coastal Zone Management Program The proposed project is not located in a State Coastal Zone Management (CZM) area, according to the Coastal Zone Area Map from the NYS Department of State’s Coastal Zone Management Unit. The project is not located in a Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat, as defined by the NYSDOS Division of Coastal Resources and Waterfront Revitalization. No further action is required. State Coastal Erosion Hazard Area The proposed project is not located in or near a Coastal Erosion Hazard Area. Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal Resources Program The Town and Village of Waterford have completed the preparation of a Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP). The LWRP is a locally prepared, comprehensive land and water use plan for the natural, public, and developed waterfront resources. The Town and Village of Waterford prepared the LWRP with financial and technical assistance from the New York State Department of State and in accordance with the New York State Waterfront Revitalization of Coastal Areas and Inland Waterways Act and the New York State Coastal Management Program. The Village of Waterford Board of Trustees adopted the LWRP on September 13, 2008 and the Town of Waterford Town Board adopted the LWRP on September 8, 2009. The Secretary of State approved the LWRP on April 20, 2010. The LWRP refines and supplements the State Coastal Management Program by incorporating local needs, issues, and objectives. Notification to the Town of Waterford that the project will occur within the boundaries of its LWRP was completed. Continued Coordination with the Town of Waterford will be required, and the completion of the Federal Consistency Form to comply with the Nationwide/Joint permit required for this project will be completed in final design. Federal Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) and Coastal Barrier Improvement Act (CBIA) The proposed project is not located in or near a coastal area under the jurisdiction of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) or the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act (CBIA).


4-9

4.4.7 Groundwater Resources, Aquifers, and Reservoirs Aquifer Areas A review of the EPA-designated Sole Source Aquifer Ares Federal Register Notices, Maps, and Fact Sheets indicates that the project is not located in a Sole Source Aquifer Project Review Area. No federal review and/or approvals are required pursuant to Section 1424(e) of the Safe Drinking Water Act. NYSDEC aquifer GIS data files have been reviewed and it has been determined that the proposed project is located over a principal aquifer. As such, mitigation of potential impacts on the aquifer is required. This project will take measures in design and construction to avoid, minimize or mitigate any possible adverse impacts to the aquifer. These measures are intended to minimize contamination from highway runoff and construction activities. Project activities will comply with the applicable standards in 6 NYCRR Part 703. Surface water treatment measures to avoid and/or minimize impacts to the aquifer will be incorporated into the Stormwater Management Plan (SMP). In addition, Erosion and Sediment Control Plans developed in accordance with current NYSDEC Stowmwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) regulations will incorporate erosion and sediment control, stormwater management, and construction chemical storage and handling best management practices into the project. The identified practices will help further avoid and minimize adverse impacts to the principal aquifer. Drinking Water Supply Wells (Public and Private) and Reservoirs There are no municipal drinking water wells, wellhead influence zones, or reservoirs within or near the project area, according to the NYS Atlas of Community Water System Sources, dated 1982, issued by the NYS Department of Health. 4.4.8 Storm Water Management A New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Stat Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) General Permit for Storm water Discharges from Construction Activities (GP-0-10-001) will be necessary for this redevelopment project as more than 0.40 ha (1.0 acre) of soil will be disturbed during construction. To comply with the SPDES permit, a Storm water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be developed. The SWPPP will include an “Erosion and Sediment Control Plan” as well as water quality controls that will be developed during the final design phase of the project. Water quantity controls are not required as storm water runoff will discharge to the Mohawk River, a 5th order or greater watercourse. The plan will identify both temporary and permanent measures that will be implemented to avoid or minimize impacts to surface waters and groundwater at the site both during and after construction activities. The project corridor is not adjacent to or discharging runoff to, a TMDL Watershed or a listed 303(d) water body. 4.4.9 General Ecology and Wildlife Resources Fish, Wildlife and Waterfowl The project corridor occurs in an urban setting and is primarily developed. Vegetative communities are limited to mowed roadsides, one shallow emergent marsh wetland, and minor forested/shrub communities along the banks of the Mohawk River. The mowed roadside communities are comprised of common grasses, dandelion (Taraxicum officinale), clover (Trifolium pretense and T. repens), Queen Anne’s lace (Daucus carota) and other herbaceous species common to the area. This community type occurs wherever there are mowed areas adjacent to the roadway. The shallow emergent marsh wetland located in the southeast quadrant of the bridge is dominated by herbaceous species such as spotted touch-me-not, purple loosestrife, reed canary grass, marshpepper


4-10

smartweed, sweet Joe-pye weed and blue vervain. A low number of white willow and silky dogwood shrubs also occur. Forested/shrub communities occur along the banks of the Mohawk River and extend inland in some areas. The canopy and shrub layers are dominated by staghorn sumac (Rhus typhina) and box elder. Herbaceous species present are species typical of roadsides and waste places, and include grasses, ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia), chicory (Cichorium intybus), dandelion and other common weeds. Wildlife observed within the project corridor is limited due to the developed nature of the area. Rock dove (Columba liva) and European starling (Sturnus vulgaris) were most prevalent in the uplands and were commonly associated with buildings and roadsides. Herring gull (Larus argentatus), double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus), mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) and Canada goose (Branta canadensis) were readily observed wading or perching within the waters of the Mohawk River and flying above and near the Mohawk River. A meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus) was observed tunneling through vegetation within the wetland. A Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus) was observed in the old canal that is located approximately 300’ south of the bridge, on the east side of NYS Route 32. Habitat Areas, Wildlife Refuges and Waterfowl Refuges The proposed project does not involve work in, or adjacent to, a wildlife or waterfowl refuge. No further consideration is required. State Endangered and Threatened Species This project was scoped for State Endangered and threatened species by NYSDOT staff June 2013. The Natural heritage Database/GIS revealed the following within a half mile of the project:

Alewife floater (Anodonta implicata) – unlisted Giant pine-drops (Pterospora andromedea) – endangered

According to the NHP, the Alewife floater is a clam species that lives in the strong currents in larger rivers and among cobbles in smaller tributaries (Strayer and Jirka 1997). Associated ecological communities in New York include deepwater rivers. According to the NYSDEC response letter, this species could be found in the Mohawk River at Waterford. Species related to Alewife Floater clams can also be found at the project site, particularly the on the piers of the bridge. The Alewife floater species is now unlisted and impacts to the species are highly unlikely and would be very difficult to evaluate being that the Alewife floater is mixed in with other mollusk species. The species is currently unlisted. No further study is required for this federally funded project. The Giant pine-drop, a plant, will not be impacted by the project because optimal habitat for this species does not occur within the project area. The forested areas of the project area are composed of deciduous trees with minimal to no conifers present. The leaf litter on the forest floor is dominated by leaves of deciduous trees and a well developed needle duff is not present. No further study is required for this federally funded project. Federal Endangered and Threatened Species Due to current FHWA/USFWS procedures, the “Information, Planning, and Conservation” system or IPaC/USFWS website was referenced on June 19, 2013 (and updated on November 18, 2013) for current lists of federally-listed species known to occur within the project area. This site indicated that the following species are known to occur in the project area (in Albany and Saratoga counties):

Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) – endangered Northern Long Eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) - endangered Bog Turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii)- threatened


4-11

Karner Blue Butterfly (Lycaeides melissa samuelis) – endangered While Indiana bats were known to winter in Albany County, we now believe that they are likely extirpated or in such small numbers that it is unlikely that they would be present and impacted by any specific proposed projects in Albany, Rensselaer, Saratoga, Schenectady and Schoharie Counties. The nearest hibernaculum is 18 miles from the project site. Bog turtle will not be impacted by the project because suitable habitat for the species does not occur within the project area. According to the National Heritage Program in New York, bog turtles occur in open-canopy wet meadows, sedge meadows, and calcareous fens. None of these are present in the project area which is less than a mile below the Cohoes Falls and is fast moving; therefore the bog turtle will not be present. Karner blue butterfly will not be impacted by the project because its habitat does not occur within the project area. According to the NHP, Karner blue butterflies can be found in extensive pine barrens, oak savannas or openings in oak woodlands, and unnatural openings such as airports and right-of-ways that contain lupine (Lupinus perennis), the sole larval food source. FHWA has concurred, with our determination that this undertaking will have “no effect” on Endangered and Threaten Species, on July 9, 2013. Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act Although the current bridge design (7 span arch) has no ledges for birds to perch the contractor will be notified in the project proposal the details of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The bald eagle was delisted on August 8, 2007. While there are no ESA requirements for bald eagles after this date, the eagles continue to receive protection under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA). The Bald eagle will not be impacted by the project because of the limited amount of tree removal required and because suitable nesting habitat is not present within the project area. The project is located in a heavily developed area with more suitable nesting habitat on the adjacent bridges, islands, forested shorelines, and this project is unlikely to result in an impact to bald eagles. The proposed project will comply with the USFWS’s May 2007 Bald Eagle Management Guidelines recommendations for avoiding disturbance.

Common Name

Scientific Name Federally

Listed Endangered

Federally Listed

Threatened

StateListed

Endangered

Project area supports habitat

More review needed

STATE

Alewife floater Anodonta implicata

unlisted yes no

Giant pine-drops

Pterospora andromedea

no no

FEDERAL

Bog turtle (Clemmys Glyptemys]

muhlenbergii) no no

Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) no no

Karner blue butterfly

(Lycaeides melissa

samuelis) no no

Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus

leucocephalus), unlisted

No (nearest recorded nest is 1.41 miles from project

site)

no


4-12

Invasive Species Precautions will be taken to prevent the introduction of new or additional invasive species, intentionally or accidentally, during project design and construction. Roadside Vegetation Management Existing roadside vegetation consists primarily of maintained lawn areas. Efforts will be made to replace wildlife-supporting vegetation that is removed in the course of construction. 4.4.10 Critical Environmental Areas State Critical Environmental Areas According to information obtained from NYSDEC, this project does not involve work in or near a Critical Environmental Area. State Forest Preserve Lands According to information obtained from NYSDEC, this project does not involve work in or near state forest preserve lands. 4.4.11 Historic and Cultural Resources National Heritage Areas Program A National Heritage Area is a place designated by the United States Congress where natural, cultural, historic and recreational resources combine to form a cohesive, nationally distinctive landscape arising from patterns of human activity shaped by geography. The Route 32 Bridge falls within two National Heritage Areas: the Erie Canalway National Heritage Corridor, and the Hudson River Valley National Heritage Area. State Heritage Area Program The Route 32 Bridge falls within two State Heritage Areas: the Hudson-Mohawk Heritage Area (RiverSpark) and the Mohawk Valley Heritage Area. National Historic Preservation Act – Section 106 A Cultural Resources Survey (CRS) was completed May 2004 by New York State Museum (NYSM) The project area, in 2004, included 35 building properties, the Cohoes Waterford Bridge and the Old Champlain Canal. The survey performed archeological pre-reconnaissance and architectural reconnaissance to identify the National Register listed properties as the Northside Historic District, Old Champlain Canal, and the Fulton Street Bridge. Additional properties identified by this survey as eligible for the National Register included the Cohoes Waterford Bridge, St. Nicholas Church, 219 Ontario St. In February 2005 the NYSM completed the Archeological Reconnaissance Survey Addendum CRS for the project area. The report identified 4 historic sites and 4 sites that needed additional deep trench testing, and 4 sites that the project would potentially impact as part of this project. Testing revealed no pre-historic artifacts. In April 2011, the Public Archaeology Facility, Binghamton University completed the recommended testing and trench testing at the recommended locations of the 2005 report. 10 STP and 8 trenches were tested. Testing revealed no pre-historic artifacts. The NYSDOT prepared the effect determination, finding this project to have an adverse effect on the National Register Eligible Route 32 “Waterford-Cohoes Bridge”. The State Historic Preservation Office concurred with the adverse effect finding September 19, 2012 and responded with a request to be involved with the new


4-13

bridge design elements (arches, parapets, and pier elements). On December 11, 2012 the Draft Memorandum of Agreement was sent to SHPO for their review. On October 10, 2013 the MOA was signed by all signatories. See Appendix B for a copy of the signed final copy of the MOA. To minimize adverse effects of this project on the Northside Historic District NYSDOT will consult with SHPO on design elements. To mitigate for adverse effects on the historic bridge a Level II Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) is proposed. All architectural and archeological resources are listed in the tables below with the anticipated impacts of the proposed project. Archaeological Resources

Resources Identified Listed or Eligible for

National Register Criteria Anticipated

Effects Old Champlain Canal (NYSM 11594) Listed, A, C & D None Old Champlain Canal Lock 4 (NYSM 11596) Listed, A & D None

Riverside House site (NYSM 11597) MDS 288 & 244

Eligibility TBD, D Impacted by flooding July

2006 no further testing warranted

Fuld and Hatch Knitting Warehouse Site NYSM12291

Not Eligible, D None

Architectural Resources

Architectural Property and Address

NRL/E? National Register Criteria Associated Effect

From Alternative 6 or 8* The Cohoes-Waterford Bridge

BIN 1-02250-0 Historic 7 span earth-filled continuous concrete arch

Yes Bridge type,

(A & C)

Adverse EffectThe structure is proposed to be

removed for both Alternatives 6 & 8

1 Saratoga Ave Previously Listed

(in Northside Historic District) (A & C)

Removed in 2006

9 Saratoga Ave Yes

Listed (in Northside Historic District) (A & C)

No adverse effect for fee taking for Alternative 6

- No effect for Alternative 8

2, 4, 6, 8,10, 12 Saratoga Ave Yes

Listed (in Northside Historic District) (A & C)

No effect for either Alternative Alternative 6 lengthens drives

NYSM# 11595 Cohoes Company Power Race

(sluiceway)

No, Lacks integrity Contributes to adjacent Harmony Mills

Historic District (A & C)

Full depth reconstruction of roadway will impact. New design will bridge this area and water will continue to flow to Mohawk River here thru a

new culvert

Northside Historic District Yes

Listed Historic District (A & C)

No Adverse effect Removal of the bridge

(less impact for Alternative 8* and preferred by SHPO)

See email in Appendix *Alternative 6 (new bridge on new adjacent alignment) Alternative 8 (detour and bridge same alignment) (a) that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or (b) that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or (c) that embody distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or (d) that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.


4-14

Historic Bridges The Cohoes-Waterford Bridge was designed by the New York State Department of Public Works and built in 1932. This seven span earth filled concrete spandrel arch has been found eligible for the National Register of Historic Places based on criterion (c) that identifies the quality of the bridge’s significance to embody distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction. This bridge is considered eligible because of its multi-spandrel design demonstrating individuality within the standardized filled spandrel concrete arch type and has exceptional integrity, notably retaining the original parapet railings and decorative lighting (CRS 2004, pg 57). The bridge is also significant because of its construction in a primary year of Depression Era Work Relief. Historic Canals The Champlain Canal historically ran north to south on the east side of this bridge. There are no remains within the immediate project area. A Right-of-way taking is planned property owned by the State of NY – Canal Corporation, historically within the “Blue Line”. Historic Parkways There are no historic parkways that will be affected by the proposed project. New York State Scenic Byways State Scenic Byways are transportation corridors that are of particular statewide interest to visitors and communities in New York State. They are representative of a region's scenic, recreational, cultural, natural, historic or archaeological significance. One Scenic Byway Corridor lies adjacent to the Route 32 Bridge. Mohawk Towpath Scenic Byway The Mohawk Towpath Scenic Byway runs from Waterford to the historic Stockade District of Schenectady along the north side of the Mohawk River. The rich past and present of the Mohawk River, Erie Canal and towns along the way contribute to the importance of this State scenic byway. Diverse wildlife habitats, classic architecture and beautiful vistas are sprinkled throughout the corridor. Cycling, hiking and boating are just a few of the outdoor activities that center on the Mohawk River. Notification and coordination will take place. Lakes to Locks Passage Scenic Byway The Lakes to Locks Passage Scenic Byway runs from the St. Lawrence River in Quebec and the Mohawk River at the Route 32 Bridge. It connects numerous historic, recreational and scenic attractions along its 225 mile route, and is used by cyclists, pedestrians and motorists. Waterford is one of the Byway’s 32 “Waypoint Communities” at which lodging, dining and shopping services are available. Notification and coordination will take place. Native American Involvement The project location falls within the area of interest for both the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe and the Stockbridge-Munsee Community Band of Mohican Indians NYSDOT has forwarded the CRS, project notification and project description to Arnold Printup, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer and Chief Hart of the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe, and to Sherry White, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer for the Stockbridge-Munsee Community Band of Mohican Indians for review and comment. No Native American, pre-contact, or prehistoric artifacts were recovered during any of the archeological testing. Both tribes have responded to our request to review the project and both have responded with no concerns and to be notified if pre-historic artifacts or uncovered during construction.


4-15

Section 4(f) The State Historic Preservation Office has concurred that this project will have an “adverse effect” on the National Register Eligible Route 32 Bridge over the Mohawk. FHWA was notified that a Section 4(f) evaluation would be prepared. A Draft Programmatic Section 4(f) evaluation for Historic Bridges was provided to the Area Engineer at FHWA along with a Deminimus Finding for the effects on 9 Saratoga Ave which is part of the Northside Historic District. FHWA concurred with the Final Section 4(f) Programmatic Evaluation and the Deminimus Finding in November 2013. See Appendix B for FHWA’s concurrence. 4.4.12 Parks and Recreational Resources Park and Recreational Resources The proposed project will not alter any parkland, recreational areas, or designated open spaces. National Registry of Natural Landmarks There are no listed nationally significant natural areas within, or adjacent to, the project area. Section 4(f) for Parkland There are no recreational facilities, protected under Section 4(f) of the USDOT Act, in or adjacent to the project area. No further action is required under this section. Section 6(f) Involvement The project does not impact parklands or facilities that have been partially or fully federally funded through the Land and Water Conservation Act. No further consideration under Section 6(f) is required. Section 1010 Involvement This project does not involve the use of land from a park to which Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program funds have been applied. 4.4.13 Visual Resources The proposed project, which includes bridge reconstruction on either the existing alignment or a parallel adjacent alignment, is located between the visual resources; Cohoes Falls, Peebles Island, and the Hudson River and in proximity to a number of historic structures. There are three primary viewer groups of the proposed project: highway traffic users, residential occupants, and pedestrians. The view-shed of the pedestrian and motorist viewer groups passing through the project corridor is generally contained by the bridge railing, buildings, and a railroad bridge to the west. Residents’ view-shed is primarily the same, with the exception of those in two- and three-story structures that afford views over the facing buildings to the river. Either alternative progressed is expected to have no negative impacts from or to the adjacent visual resources. Views of the existing and proposed bridge from the roadway surface and from Peebles Island have been prepared and are included in Appendix J. 4.4.14 Farmlands State Farmland and Agricultural Districts Based on a review of the NYS Agricultural District Maps for Albany and Saratoga Counties, the proposed project is not located in or adjacent to an Agricultural District.


4-16

Federal Prime and Unique Farmland The proposed project activities will not convert any prime or unique farmland, or farmland of state or local importance, as defined by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, to a nonagricultural use. 4.4.15 Air Quality Regulatory Framework The Air Quality Analysis for this project will be investigated in accordance with Chapter 1.1 of the NYSDOT Environmental Procedures Manual. Transportation Conformity The project site is located in Albany and Saratoga Counties, which are considered Clean Air Act Subpart 1 Basic non-attainment areas for ozone. Carbon Monoxide (CO) Microscale Analysis An air quality analysis for CO is not required since this project will not increase traffic volumes, reduce source-receptor distances by 10% or more, or change other existing conditions to such a degree as to jeopardize attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The project does not require a project-level conformity determination. Mesoscale Analysis A Mesoscale Analysis is not required for this project since it does not significantly affect air quality conditions over a large area and is not a regionally significant project. Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT’s) The purpose of this project is to address structural deficiencies with the NYS Route 32 Bridge over the Mohawk River. The project will not result in any changes in traffic volumes, vehicle mix, location of the existing facility, or any other factor that would cause an increase in emissions impacts relative to the no-build alternative. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations for vehicle engines and fuels will cause overall MSATs to decline significantly over the next 20 years. Even after accounting for a 64 percent increase in VMT (vehicle miles traveled), FHWA predicts MSATs will decline in the range of 57 percent to 87 percent, from 2000 to 2020, based on regulations now in effect. This will both reduce the background level of MSATs as well as the possibility of even minor MSAT emissions from this project. As such, FHWA has determined that this project will generate minimal air quality impacts for clean Air Act criteria pollutants and has not been linked with any special MSAT concerns. Consequently, this effort is exempt from analysis for MSATs Particulate Matter (PM) Analysis The project was determined to be a SEQR Non-type II and is classified as a NEPA Class II action. The project actions do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on PM emissions. It can therefore be concluded that the project will have no significant adverse impact on ambient particulate matter levels.


4-17

Greenhouse Gas Analysis A Greenhouse Gas Analysis is not required for this project since it does not significantly impact vehicle delays through the corridor. 4.4.16 Energy The proposed project is not expected to have a significant impact on energy consumption since it will not have permanent changes to traffic volumes, land use, travel patterns, or vehicle speeds. 4.4.17 Noise Regulatory Framework This project is essentially on the same location, with minor realignment of existing lanes due to the reconstruction of the bridge on a new alignment (under Alternative 6 only). It does not increase the number of through traffic lanes, nor does it significantly change the horizontal or vertical alignment in the vicinity of a receptor. This project is not a Type I Noise project, as defined by 23 CFR 772 and does not require a formal noise study. 4.4.18 Asbestos Screening A screening of the project corridor was conducted to determine if any of the current or historical adjacent land uses present the potential for encountering asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) during construction operations. The screening process consisted of the review of local governmental agency files and historical records, review of federal and state regulatory databases, and a visual inspection of the project corridor (see Appendix B for Asbestos Field Form). On April 6, 2004, a visual inspection of the project corridor was conducted searching for evidence of suspect ACMs. In addition, the Village of Waterford’s Water and Sewer Department and the City of Cohoes Water and Sewer Departments were contacted to determine types of materials associated with the underground utility lines. The Village of Waterford indicated the water pipe consists of cast iron pipe and sewer pipe consists of vitrified clay pipe. The City of Cohoes reported that the water pipe consists of cast iron and sewer pipe consists of concrete pipe. None of these materials are considered to be potential asbestos-containing materials. Based on the visual inspection and research conducted, the following potential asbestos-containing material was identified: Asphalt sealant located on each vertical column of the concrete spandrel arch bridge. This material was observed to be compressed between the vertical column and the individual arches of the bridge. Assessment and Quantification An Asbestos Assessment will be completed for this project prior to demolition of any structures. The Asbestos Assessment will be conducted in accordance with NYSDOT guidelines. The assessment will include a review of as-built drawings and the collection and analysis of suspect materials. A summary of findings will be sent to the New York State Department of Labor (NYSDOL) to comply with NYSDOL’s Industrial Code Rule No. 56, Preconstruction Notification Requirements. A copy of the as-builts and consultant sampling results will be kept in the project files, and will be available for review. A sampling / testing report will be completed for the bridge structure being replaced if the as-built drawings are not available or insufficient. If asbestos is determined to be present within the project corridor, as


4-18

Asbestos Special Note and Specification will need to be prepared by NYSDOT personnel or a consultant with an Asbestos Designer License. Mitigation Summary No special site specific variances are anticipated for this project. Existing Departmental blanket variances or existing variances will be sufficient for this project. Handling and Disposal If asbestos material is encountered during construction they will be identified, segregated, and disposed in accordance with NYSDOT Special Specifications. 4.4.19 Contaminated and Hazardous Materials Screening and Site Assessment A Hazardous Waste/Contaminated Materials Site Screening has been conducted in accordance with NYSDOT Environmental Procedures Manual, Chapter 5, in order to document the likely presence or absence of hazardous/contaminated environmental conditions. A hazardous/contaminated environmental condition is the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products (including products currently in compliance with applicable regulations) on a property under conditions that indicate an existing release, a past release, or a material threat of a release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products into structures on the property or into the ground, ground water, or surface water of the property. The Hazardous Waste/Contaminated Materials Site Screening included a review of NYSDEC regulatory data files and a site ‘walkover’ on April 6, 2004 (see Appendix B for Hazardous Waste Screening Forms). Based upon the observations made during the site visit/project walkover and the review of historical and regulatory information, a list of properties were identified as potential areas of environmental impact to the project corridor. When the scope of the project was narrowed down to just a bridge replacement in 2009, that list was shortened to only the following two properties:

39 Saratoga Street, Cohoes – Former Star Textile/Universal Needlecraft manufacturing facility. The building has been demolished, but the foundation and some ruins remain on the property.

15-19 Saratoga Street, Cohoes – Former Barclay Home Products manufacturing facility. Mitigation Summary A Draft Hazardous Waste/Contaminated Materials Detailed Site Investigation Report (dated October 12, 2004) has been developed summarizing the site investigations conducted for this project It is recommended that a Hazardous Waste Assessment be completed relative to the areas listed above in order to evaluate subsurface conditions prior to the initiation of construction activities. The Assessment should consist of the installation of a series of soil borings in the potential areas of concern. Soil samples should be analyzed for volatile organic compounds, semi-volatile organic compounds, PCB’s, and the eight RCRA metals (arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, selenium, and silver). The potential areas of concern will be determined once a preferred alternative is selected. If necessary, a Remediation Plan will be developed after a complete review of the Hazardous Waste/Contaminated Materials Site Assessment. Handling and Disposal If hazardous material is encountered during construction they will be identified, segregated, and disposed in accordance with NYSDOT Special Specifications.


4-19

4.5 Construction Effects Construction Impacts The anticipated construction impacts from the proposed project include dust, visual, noise, air, and minor traffic disruptions during construction operations. There are no long-term impacts to the environment anticipated as a result of the proposed construction operations. Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures will include proper equipment maintenance, work hour restrictions, the use of erosion and sedimentation measures to mitigate potential erosion impacts, and construction management, including a public awareness/information program to keep the nearby residents informed as to the planned activities. To minimize effects to businesses, access to existing businesses will be maintained for the duration of construction. Traffic delays will be minimized through the development of a detailed Traffic Management Plan (TMP). The plan will require coordination with adjacent property and business owners to minimize the potential effects of the construction. It will also specify restrictions on the time and length of lane closures. Dust control measures, as well as requirements for mufflers on all equipment exhaust systems, will be included in the construction specifications. Pedestrian accommodations will be maintained on NYS Route 32 during construction. Bicyclists will be allowed to continue to utilize the travel lanes on NYS Route 32 during construction. Water quality impacts will be minimized through the development of Soil Erosion and Water Pollution Control Plans and Details, and a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).

4.6 Indirect Effects Pursuant to the definitions in Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulation 1508, “effects” include secondary (indirect) effects “which are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in the distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects may include growth inducing effects and other effects related to inducing changes in the pattern of land use, population density or growth rate, and related effects on air and water and on the natural systems, including ecosystems.” Indirect Socioeconomic Effects The proposed project is not anticipated to have any significant positive or negative effects on growth within the project area. The proposed project will not result in any change to traffic volumes, access, or highway classification. Therefore, no indirect socioeconomic effects will result from the project. Social Consequences The proposed project will replace the bridge in the same or immediately adjacent location, and will therefore not result in any significant impacts to land use, population demographics, recreational activities, travel patterns or accessibility, emergency access or safety. The project will improve traffic and pedestrian mobility/safety, and help to enhance the aesthetics of the corridor. The benefits should be recognized by the business owners and patrons. Economic Consequences The proposed project is not anticipated to result in any significant negative economic consequences. The proposed project is expected to have positive effects on the economic growth and revitalization within the project area.


4-20

4.7 Cumulative Effects Cumulative impacts occur when the effects of an individual project or action are added to or interact with other effects within a given time and place. A cumulative impact analysis considers the compounding effects of an action on a resource, community or ecosystem, and takes into account additional activities within the area which potentially impact the same resources. There are no approved development planned within or adjacent to the project area that in conjunction with the proposed project will impact traffic operations. There will be no cumulative impacts as a result of this project. The proposed project is not anticipated to have significant positive or negative effects on growth within the project area. The proposed project will address structural deficiencies of the NYS Route 32 Bridge over the Mohawk River. The proposed roadway approaches will follow or approximate the existing alignment and will not bisect communities or isolate individuals or communities.

final d esig n report...november 2013 final design report pin 1460.42 list of preparers group...

Documents