CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1 1 SUMMARY OF EXISTING CONDITIONS 1 1.1 Issues and Observations 1 1.2 Public Meeting (December 2005) 1 2 LIST OF POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENT STRATEGIES 2 2.1 Traffic Signal Coordination 2 2.2 Traffic Calming 2 2.3 Local Road Connections 8 2.4 Traffic Signalization 8 2.5 Sight Distance 8 2.6 Other Traffic Improvement Strategies 8 3 APPLICATIONS AND IMPACTS OF IMPROVEMENT STRATEGIES 9 3.1 Route 52 between Jackson Street and I-84 9 3.2 Route 52/Cedar Hill Intersection 9 3.3 Colonial Avenue/Shirley Avenue section 10 3.4 Rapalje Road section 13 3.5 Broad Street-Smith Street-Elm Street section 15 3.6 Luyster Place-Cary Avenue-Weston Avenue section 17 3.7 Sight Distance Improvements 19 4 SUMMARY OF MEETINGS AND NEXT STEPS 20 4.1 Steering Committee Meeting (February 2006) 20 4.2 Meeting with Village of Fishkill (February 2006) 21 4.3 Advisory Committee Meeting (March 2006) 22 4.4 Public Meeting (June 2006) 25 4.5 Next Steps 25 APPENDIX OF TABLES
TABULATIONS TABLE PAGE 1.1 ISSUES AND OBSERVATIONS 1 2.1 COMPARISON OF TRAFFIC CALMING STRATEGIES 7 3.1 TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENT STRATEGIES COLONIAL /SHIRLEY AVENUE NEIGHBORHOOD 11 3.2 SIGHT DISTANCE MITIGATION 19
ILLUSTRATIONS FIGURE NUMBER FOLLOWS PAGE 3.1 Traffic Signal Coordination along Route 52 9 3.2 Suggested Improvement Strategy - Route 52/Cedar Hill Road 10 3.3 Traffic Improvement Strategies Colonial/Shirley Neighborhood 11 3.4 Rapalje Road Full Enhancement Alternative 13 3.5 Rapalje Road Speed Hump, Speed Table, Choker 13 3.6 Rapalje Road Neckdown 13 3.7 Rapalje Road Right-in/Right-out 13 3.8 Rapalje Road Half-Closure 14 3.9 Rapalje Road Dead-End 14 3.10 Broad/Smith/Elm Section Full Enhancement Alternative 15 3.11 Broad/Smith/Elm Section Neckdown 16 3.12 Broad/Smith/Elm Section Speed Table, Choker, Speed Hump 16 3.13 Broad/Smith/Elm Section Raised Intersection 16 3.14 Broad/Smith/Elm Section Half Closures 16 3.15 Broad/Smith/Elm Section Dead-End 16 3.16 Broad/Smith/Elm Section Diagonal Diverter 16 3.17 Broad/Smith/Elm Section One-Way 16 3.18 Luyster/Cary/Weston Section Half Closure/Speed Hump 17 3.19 Luyster/Cary/Weston Section Neckdown 17 3.20 Luyster/Cary/Weston Section Speed Table, Choker, Speed Hump 17
3.21 Luyster/Cary/Weston Section Raised Intersection 17 3.22 Luyster/Cary/Weston Section Dead-End 18 3.23 Luyster/Cary/Weston Section Dead-End 18 3.24 Luyster/Cary/Weston Section One-Way 18
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Development of Traffic Improvement Strategies is the third step of the overall planning process and follows the existing conditions analysis and identification of congestion, safety, and local circulation issues in the analysis area. To gain a better understanding of the analysis area, six specific neighborhoods/locations were studied and are listed below: Route 52 between Jackson Street and I-84 Route 52/Cedar Hill Road intersection Colonial Avenue-Shirley Avenue section Rapalje Road section Broad Street-Smith Street-Elm Street section Luyster Place-Cary Avenue-Weston Avenue section The Alternatives Technical Memorandum summarizes the potential traffic improvement strategies by each of the neighborhood/corridor areas. The traffic improvement strategies consider a number of techniques in addressing the identified deficiencies. Some of those techniques are: Traffic Signal Coordination Traffic Calming Traffic Signalization Roadway Geometry One-way conversion Sight Distance Right-in/Right-out Local road connections These strategies were presented at meetings of the Advisory and Steering Committees in March 2006. A set of preferred strategies identified at those meetings by the Committees was presented at the public meeting held on March 28, 2006. Page ES-1
CHAPTER 1 SUMMARY OF EXISTING CONDITIONS 1.1 Issues and Observations An Existing Conditions Technical Memorandum was prepared in December 2005 to identify traffic operations, safety, and speeding issues in the Village of Fishkill. The existing conditions analysis showed a number of issues and supporting observations which are highlighted in Table 1.1 below. Table 1.1 Issues and Observations Issues Observations Congestion/Delays 11 of 15 intersections operate at LOS D or worse Speeding on Residential Streets Travel speed on Rapalje Road exceeds posted speed limit Cut-Through Traffic CR 34 (Jackson Street) at Route 52 via Florence/Weston to Cary/Luyster Route 52 to Route 9 via Jackson Street/Broad Street/Elm Street Route 52 to Route 9 via Rapalje Road Route 9 to Route 52 via Church Street Safety Issues Crash Rate at 10 of 15 locations exceeds the Statewide Rate High percentage of rear-end and angle crashes due to congestion in the analysis area The above issues form a basis to develop improvement strategies for consideration in the next phase of the study. 1.2 Public Meeting (December 2005) The first public meeting on this project was held on December 14, 2005 at the Fishkill Elementary School in the Village of Fishkill. The purpose of this meeting was to present the findings of the Existing Conditions analysis and receive input from the neighborhood and the residents of the Village. The following is a list of key issues raised by the residents in the Village: Speeding on Rapalje Road. Intersection geometry at Route 52/Rapalje Road. Poorly timed traffic signals on Route 52 west of Route 9. Left turn movements on Route 52 at Colonial and Shirley Avenue. Signage on Route 52 in the Village area. Truck traffic in the Route 52 corridor. A summary of the meeting comments made at the December meeting will be provided in the Final Report. Page 1
CHAPTER 2 LIST OF POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENT STRATEGIES This chapter lists traffic improvement strategies that were considered to mitigate the issues identified in the existing conditions analysis and by residents at the December public meeting. The goal prior to the conduct of this study was to identify issues and potential solutions that are most effective at addressing local issues while not degrading the performance of the overall transportation system. Issues identified at the conclusion of the existing conditions study were speeding, cut-through traffic, congestion, and safety. 2.1 Traffic Signal Coordination Traffic signal coordination is a method of establishing relationships between adjacent traffic signals. The principle of traffic signal coordination is to maximize the vehicles moving and minimize stops and delays. This is accomplished by keeping vehicles in platoons or groups that move down the street arriving at a green light at each downstream intersection. Signal coordination is designed at a travel speed such that vehicles traveling at that speed arrive at a green light at each intersection in that system. In addition, by keeping vehicles in groups or platoons, there is more opportunity for the side-street movements at stop-controlled intersections to enter the main street. If properly designed and installed, coordinated traffic signals can reduce traffic delays, travel times, risk of crashes, and vehicle emissions in a corridor. Several engineering studies have indicated that traffic signal coordination can show a reduction in travel time and delay between 10 and 20 percent after implementation. 2.2 Traffic Calming Traffic Calming refers to various design features and strategies such as changes in street alignment, installation of barriers, and other physical measures intended to reduce vehicle traffic speeds and volumes on a particular roadway. Traffic Calming projects can range from minor modifications of an individual street to comprehensive redesign of a road network. The general objectives for the application of Traffic Calming measures include: To reduce vehicular speeds, or reduce vehicular volumes; To promote safe and pleasant conditions for motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians, and residents; To improve the environment and livability of neighborhood streets; To discourage use of residential streets by cut through vehicular traffic from outside the neighborhood; and, To encourage citizen involvement in the Traffic Calming process by incorporating the preferences and requirements of the citizens. Traffic Calming methods are highly beneficial to non-motorized modes and are generally self enforcing. Traffic Calming techniques have to be applied with a consideration for the entire network, in order to prevent the shift of problems from one area to another. Page 2
H H H H H Technical Memorandum #2 Alternatives Technical Memorandum Some Traffic Calming measures that were identified in order to mitigate the problems in the Village of Fishkill are described below: Speed Reduction Devices These techniques are mainly applied to reduce speed on residential streets with minor volume reduction benefits: Speed Humps: These are rounded, raised pavement devices placed across roadway. Speed humps are typically 12' long (in the direction of travel), 3"- 4" high, parabolic shaped, with a design speed of 15-20 mph. They are most effective if used in a series with appropriate signage. Some of the drawbacks which may result from their application include increase of noise traversing the device, potential increase in emergency vehicle response time, and maintenance issues during winter. Speed Tables: These are raised, flat-topped pavement devices that are long enough for the entire wheelbase of a passenger car to rest on top. Speed tables are typically 3"- 4" high, 22' long (in the direction of travel), consisting of 6' ramps at each end and a 10' flat top and a design speed of 25-30 mph. These are less susceptible to the drawbacks of speed humps such as increasing emergency response times and winter maintenance issues. They also improve safety for pedestrians and bicyclists. Raised Intersections: These are flat raised areas covering entire intersections, with ramps on all approaches and are often constructed with brick or other textured materials on the flat section and ramps. Raised intersections typically rise to the sidewalk level. They are more effective where there are existing sidewalks. In addition to reducing speeds, these devices make the entire intersection pedestrian friendly. Some of the drawbacks include the cost of drainage modifications and the increase of emergency response times. Raised Crosswalks: Raised crosswalks are basically speed tables outfitted with crosswalk markings and signage to channelize pedestrian crossings. Their primary purpose is to enhance pedestrian safety by elevating the pedestrians and slowing vehicle speeds. Neckdowns/Bumpouts: These devices provide a physical reduction of road width at intersections. The primary purpose besides reducing speed is to provide a refuge for pedestrians and shorten the roadway crossing distance for pedestrians at this location. These devices are effective in slowing down turning vehicles thus reducing speeds at the entry points to the roadway. Maintenance problems are a known drawback in the application of these devices. Such devices are currently in use on Route 52 Page 3
H H Technical Memorandum #2 Alternatives Technical Memorandum between CR 34 (Jackson Street) and Route 9. Chokers: These devices provide a physical reduction of road width between intersections through the use of curb extensions. Chokers can be designed to allow one travel lane in each direction or the roadway can be narrowed further to allow travel in only one direction at a time. Volume Reduction Devices These techniques are mainly applied to reduce volume of cut through traffic on residential streets with minor speed reduction benefits: Half Closures: These devices are barriers that block travel in one direction for a short distance on an otherwise two-way street, thus only allowing vehicles into or out of the street at that location. While they reduce traffic volume substantially, they have no impact on the movement of emergency vehicles. These may have a less than desirable impact on transit/bus services. However, these devices may significantly impact travel patterns within a neighborhood. Diagonal Diverters: These are barriers placed diagonally across an intersection, blocking through traffic movements. They are usually staggered to create circuitous routes through neighborhoods to reduce traffic volumes. These devices can restrict vehicle access while maintaining pedestrian and bicycle access. Some drawbacks to using these devices are that they also restrict emergency vehicle access as well as create maintenance issues. Cul-de-sacs (Road Closures): These are barriers placed across a street to close the street completely to through traffic, usually leaving only sidewalks or bicycle paths open. Cul-de-sacs should be constructed in conjunction with full closures. This technique is predominantly used to reduce traffic volumes. This effect of closure can also be attained with bollards in the event that there is a lack of right of way required to design a cul-de-sac. These devices will definitely restrict emergency vehicle access, and may also shift the traffic volumes onto other streets. Page 4
Summary of Traffic Calming Measures It is important we recognize the application of Traffic Calming measures is part of a diverse program which considers the effects of these devices on an area-wide basis. This is necessary in order to verify that the application of Traffic Calming measures would not be the cause for shifting the traffic problems to another area. A successful Traffic Calming program also needs community participation in order to truly understand the existing traffic related concerns. Designing Traffic Calming features to mitigate the actual existing problems will maximize the success of a Traffic Calming program. A comparison of the Traffic Calming strategies is made in Table 2.1. The following summarizes the comparisons by key criteria: Speed Reduction This criterion is defined by the percent reduction in speed after the installation of traffic calming devices. Higher the reduction in speed higher is the benefit. Speed humps, speed tables, and half-closures are effective speed reduction measures. Cul-de-sacs have low benefit in speed reduction. Volume Reduction This criterion is defined by the percent reduction in traffic volume after the installation of traffic calming devices. Higher the reduction in traffic volume higher is the benefit. Half-closures, diagonal diverters, and cul-de-sacs are most effective volume reduction measures. Raised intersections and crosswalks are not effective speed reduction. Crash Reduction This criterion is defined by the percent reduction in crashes after the installation of traffic calming devices. Higher the reduction in crashes higher is the benefit. Speed humps and speed tables are effective crash reduction measures. Cul-de-sacs have low benefit in crash reduction. Environment This criterion is defined by the impact on environment (noise, pollution) due to the installation of traffic calming devices. Minimal impact to environment relates to a higher benefit. Volume reduction measures have less negative impact on the environment than speed reduction measures because they do not increase noise and pollution. Local Impact This criterion is defined by the impact on local travel patterns after installation of traffic calming devices. Minimal impact to local travel patterns relates to a higher benefit. The speed reduction devices have high benefit because they reduce travel speeds on local streets while maintaining the traffic flow. The volume reduction techniques have a low benefit because they affect local travel patterns. System Impact This criterion is defined by the impact on the overall system and regional travel patterns after installation of traffic calming devices. Minimal impact to regional travel patterns relates to a higher benefit. Contrary to the local impact, the volume reduction measures have higher benefit to the overall system because they divert or reduce traffic volumes from the local streets. Page 5
Enforcement This criterion is defined by the need for local enforcement to prevent traffic violations after installation of traffic calming devices. Less enforcement relates to a higher benefit. Half closures require strict enforcement and monitoring by the local police departments. Emergency Response This criterion is associated with the impact on emergency responders (fire, police, ambulance) after installation of traffic calming devices. Minimal impact to emergency response activities relates to a higher benefit. Neckdowns and chokers have a high benefit to emergency responders. Cul-de-sacs have a low benefit because closure of streets limits access to the emergency personnel. Maintenance/Cost Problems This criterion is associated with maintenance activities and associated cost in conducting these activities after installation of a traffic calming device. Minimal maintenance and cost relates to a higher benefit. Speed humps and tables have high benefit relative to this criterion because they require less maintenance. Neckdowns and chokers pose maintenance issues because maintenance vehicles have tough time maneuvering during snow plowing. Construction Cost per device This criterion is defined by the cost of constructing the traffic calming device. Low cost relates to a higher benefit. Raised intersections, diagonal diverters, and cul-de-sacs have higher construction costs per device than other measures. Table 2.1 indicates a high benefit for those measures where the construction per device is low. Page 6
Table 2.1 Comparison of Traffic Calming Strategies Source: Wilbur Smith Associates based on ITE s Traffic Calming Handbook Benefit High Medium Low Page 7
2.3 Local Road Connections Improving the local road connections by connecting certain roads would significantly improve travel within the community. Improved local connectivity would also make it easier to get to the village or town center, supporting revitalization efforts. This scenario improves local road connections and could help reduce traffic congestion or increase pedestrian/bicycle activity by providing pedestrian/bicycle specific connections on certain local roads. 2.4 Traffic Signalization Traffic signals are installed to control vehicular and pedestrian flow. Traffic signal can be installed provided the standard warrant guidelines for installation as written in the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) are met. Traffic signals are efficient in controlling various traffic movements at an intersection and therefore, optimize the intersection capacity. The intersection capacity is associated with the amount of green time provided to each traffic movement at that intersection. 2.5 Sight Distance The safe operation of an intersection requires the consideration of three primary elements: the driver, the vehicle, and the roadway. Sight distance requirements are based on a combination of the three elements, the driver s ability relates to reaction time of the driver at an intersection, the type of vehicle defines its braking and maneuverability at an intersection, and the roadway influences the speed of a vehicle. 2.6 Other Traffic Improvement Strategies One-way Conversion: Converting existing two-way streets to one-way in configuration can eliminate or reduce cut-through traffic. Roadway signage is normally used to designate one-way streets. Initially, enforcement may be required to monitor the usage of these streets. Right-in/Right-out: Right-in/right-out channelization is used to control left-turn movements into and out of the roadway. Right-in/right-out channelization has been used to improve operations and safety by placing islands or devices that force drivers to enter or exit a location with a right turn movement, eliminating left turns, and reducing conflicts. The effective implementation of this strategy depends on the size and design of islands. The right-in/right-out channelization reduces the frequency and severity of conflicts but requires enforcement in order to ensure consistent compliance. Turn Lanes: Turn lanes provide additional capacity and storage area at intersections. Specifically, on major roadways, turn lanes provide storage area for left turn movements waiting for an available gap on opposing traffic stream. They also provide an opportunity for motorists traveling through the intersection to bypass the left turning traffic. On side streets, turn lanes reduce the amount of waiting time and provide opportunities for right turners to pass the left turning traffic waiting to exit the intersection. Page 8
CHAPTER 3 APPLICATIONS AND IMPACTS OF IMPROVEMENT STRATEGIES This chapter details the specific applications and impacts of the improvement strategies on the various sections in the study area. The following is a list of the sections where one or more improvement strategies were considered: Route 52 between Jackson Street and I-84 Route 52/Cedar Hill Road intersection Colonial Avenue-Shirley Avenue section Rapalje Road section Broad Street-Smith Street-Elm Street section Luyster Place-Cary Avenue-Weston Avenue section A Public Meeting was held on March 28 th, 2006 to present preferred alternatives for each of the above sections. The preferred alternatives were agreed upon by the Steering and Advisory Committee members. Each section below details the alternatives presented at the Public Meeting in the summary section. 3.1 Route 52 between Jackson Street and I-84 Traffic Signal Coordination There is an opportunity to coordinate the existing traffic signals at Route 52/Jackson Street and Route 52/Blodgett Road with the traffic signals at the I-84 Eastbound and Westbound ramps. Based on the traffic signal spacing between these locations, traffic signal coordination should improve traffic flow on Route 52. However, a more detailed engineering study would be required to determine appropriate signal coordination parameters and timing plans. Figure 3.1 shows the locations where traffic signal coordination is proposed along Route 52. The traffic signal coordination alternative was presented at the Public Meeting. The benefits achieved due to traffic signal coordination on Route 52 between I-84 and Jackson Street is to manage traffic flow efficiently in the corridor, provide gaps and opportunities for the sidestreet movements to enter the major street, and potentially reduce the risk of crashes on Route 52. This strategy improves the overall system. 3.2 Route 52/Cedar Hill Road Intersection The results of the existing conditions analysis indicated that congestion was the primary issue at this intersection. The Cedar Hill Road approach (left and right turn movements) operates at poor levels of service (LOS F) during the A.M. and P.M. peak hour periods. Based on a review of traffic signal warrants, the Route 52/Cedar Hill Road intersection meets the criteria for a traffic signal. However, the intersection has poor vertical geometry on the Route 52 approaches to the intersection. A detailed investigation and an engineering study may be required to further substantiate the installation of the traffic signal. Page 9
As an alternate strategy, the Cedar Hill Road approach may be re-striped to two approaching lanes (separate left and right). This lane arrangement will provide the right turning movements from Cedar Hill Road to Route 52 to have their own lane and not impacted by the delay on the left turn movements. Figure 3.2 represents the suggested improvement strategy at this location. With separate approach lanes on Cedar Hill Road, the right turn level of service will improve from LOS F to LOS C. Table A-1 (included in the appendix) shows the anticipated levels of service and delay by movement at the Route 52/Cedar Hill Road intersection. The traffic improvement strategy to provide separate turn lanes on Cedar Hill Road was presented at the Public Meeting. The benefits achieved are reduction in waiting time and queues for the right turn movements on Cedar Hill Road. This strategy has a system benefit. 3.3 Colonial Avenue-Shirley Avenue Section The Colonial Avenue-Shirley Avenue neighborhood section consists of approximately 180 households and has only two roads to enter and exit from Route 52. During the peak hour periods, traffic is typically backed up on Route 52 from the Route 9 intersection. The primary issue in this section is the proximity of the two intersections on Route 52 and the limited access and egress points onto Route 52. Currently, there are no left turn lanes on Route 52 at these locations. As stated in the Public Meeting in December 2005, through traffic on Route 52 frequently bypasses the left turning traffic at these locations and there is inadequate space for the through vehicles to maneuver around the left turning vehicles and creates an issue with safety. In March 2006, a public meeting was held to present traffic improvement strategies for each of the five neighborhoods. The original proposal included a traffic signal at Shirley Avenue, right-in/right out at Colonial Avenue, ad a paved bicycle/pedestrian path to the Fishkill Plaza at the end of the Village Commons. There was strong opposition from many of those present so we developed/evaluated additional options and collected additional data to address concerns over the level of service for left turn movements and the overall access from Route 52. A Public Meeting was held on June 5, 2006 in the Village Hall and all residents in the neighborhood were invited to participate in this meeting. Ten different strategies were developed for this Colonial Avenue/Shirley Avenue neighborhood. Page 10
Table 3.1 lists the various strategies presented at the public meeting. Figure 3.3 shows the various strategies graphically. Table 3.1 Traffic Improvement Strategies Colonial/Shirley Neighborhood No. Type of Strategy 1 Do Nothing (Null) 2a 2b 3a 3b 4a 4b Right-in/Right-out on Colonial Avenue Right-in/Right-out on Shirley Avenue Left turn pocket on Route 52 into Colonial Avenue Left turn pocket on Route 52 into Shirley Avenue Combination of 2a and 3b Combination of 2b and 3a 5 Continuous center turn lane on Route 52 between Colonial Avenue and Shirley Avenue 6a Signal at Route 52 @ Shirley Avenue intersection with Right-in/Right-out at Colonial Avenue 6b Signal at Route 52 @ Colonial Avenue intersection with Right-in/Right-out at Shirley Avenue Source: Wilbur Smith Associates As indicated in Table 3.2, these ten strategies could be undertaken independently or in combination. For Strategies 6a and 6b, the traffic signal can be installed at Colonial Avenue or Shirley Avenue provided that the other location is a right-in/right out intersection. This is a requirement to meet the traffic signal warrants at these locations. Traffic signal warrant analysis was conducted at the Route 52/Colonial Avenue/Shirley Avenue intersections assuming that one location has the traffic signal and the other is a right-in/right out location. Traffic count data for a 24-hr period was obtained at Route 52, Colonial Avenue, and Shirley Avenue. Traffic signal warrant analysis was conducted based on the Manual of Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) standards and guidelines for three traffic volume related warrants namely the Eight Hour, Four Hour, and the Peak Hour Volume Warrants. Based on the results of the warrant analysis, the three traffic volume related warrants are met at the Route 52/Colonial/Shirley intersection. Page 11
Pros and Cons of Strategies - The pros and cons of each of the strategies identified in Table 3.2 are listed below: Do Nothing (1) does not have any pros or cons since there are no changes recommended. Right-In/Right-Out (2a and 2b) would eliminate left turn movements from the major and minor streets but may have some property impacts on the minor street relative to the construction of a physical island. Left turn pocket (3a and 3b) would provide a storage area for vehicles to queue on the major street but may have property impacts to construct it. 4a and 4b are combination options which include 2a, 2b, 3a, and 3b. Continuous Center Turn Lane (4a and 4b) is similar to the left turn pocket strategy except that it may introduce a high potential for sideswipe accidents and more property impacts depending on the length of the center turn lane section. Signalization (6a and 6b) reduces congestion, eliminates sight line issues, and reduces travel speeds but increases the potential for rear end accidents. Table A-2 provides a tabular presentation of the pros and cons associated with each strategy. Pros and Cons of Location - The pros and cons associated with the application of each of these strategies at Colonial Avenue and Shirley Avenue are listed below: Right-In/Right Out would eliminate left turn delay at Colonial Avenue or Shirley Avenue but divert traffic to the other street for left turn movements. Under 2a (right-in/right out at Colonial Avenue), Shirley Avenue will get additional traffic of about 300 vehicles on a daily basis. Under 2b (right-in/right out at Shirley Avenue), Colonial Avenue will get additional traffic of about 500 vehicles on a daily basis. Left turn pocket and Continuous Center Lane do not have any traffic diversions but would provide storage for the left turn movements and allow through traffic to pass by the left turners. Continuous Center Lane would extend the entire length on Route 52 between Colonial Avenue and Shirley Avenue and therefore may increase the potential for sideswipe accidents. Both these strategies may have impact to residential property along Route 52 and the side street. To determine the amount of property impact, a detailed survey and engineering review should be undertaken. Traffic Signalization at Colonial Avenue or Shirley Avenue requires the other street to become a Right-In/Right-Out location in order to meet the traffic signal warrants. If the Colonial Avenue or Shirley Avenue intersection with Route 52 is signalized, left turn movements will be diverted from the other location. Page 12
Table A-3 provides a tabular presentation of the pros and cons associated with the application of these strategies at Colonial Avenue and Shirley Avenue. The traffic improvement strategies listed above were presented to the Public in a meeting held on June 5, 2006. Public comment and input relative to the preference of the above strategies was received at that meeting. All of the above proposals (except the Do Nothing ) for Colonial Avenue and Shirley Avenue provide overall system improvement but some of the options have property impacts and/or diversion of traffic within the neighborhood. 3.4 Rapalje Road Section The primary issues on Rapalje Road are the vehicular speeds and traffic volumes. Existing conditions analysis identified travel speeds to be 10 miles per hour higher than the 85 th percentile speed. The roadway is approximately 35 feet wide and provides the opportunity for motorists to speed on this section. A number of concerns were expressed by residents on vehicular speed and noise in this section in the December Public Meeting. In addition, there is cut-through traffic from Route 52 to Route 9 on Rapalje Road. This traffic volume is approximately 150 and 200 vehicles per hour during the A.M. and P.M. peak hour periods respectively. The full-enhancement of Rapalje Road cross-section consists of providing sidewalks, streetscape, and a reduced pavement width. This primarily addresses the speeding issue in this section. A speed table is also provided along Rapalje Road to reduce vehicular speeds. This option is anticipated to enhance the safety of pedestrians and may reduce cut-through traffic in this section. A potential reduction in cut-through traffic on Rapalje Road would create a negative impact on the Route 9/Route 52 intersection. This was the preferred option by the Advisory and Steering Committees. Based on the public meeting in March, the residents along Rapalje Road requested that a left turn prohibition be provided from Route 52 to Rapalje Road to address the cut-through traffic from Main Street. The left-turn prohibition on Route 52 is included in this strategy. Figure 3.4 shows the full-enhancement alternative. The following page shows a photo-simulation of before and after cross section on Rapalje Road. Placement of a speed reduction device such as a speed table, speed hump, or a choker. These measures are typically placed at mid-block locations to reduce speeds and can be used for pedestrian crossings. Figure 3.5 shows this alternative. Placement of a neckdown at a mid-block location to reduce vehicular speeds on Rapalje Road. Specifically, the neckdowns reduce cross section of the roadway to provide a narrow width for pedestrian crossing. However, curbing is required where neckdowns are placed on the roadway. Figure 3.6 shows this alternative. Right-in/right-out treatment at the Route 52/Rapalje Road intersection. This alternative prohibits left turn movements from Route 52 to Rapalje Road and from Rapalje Road to Route 52. Therefore, it addresses the congestion issue identified in the traffic analysis relative to left turn movements. Figure 3.7 shows this alternative. Page 13
Half-closure treatment at the Route 52/Rapalje Road intersection. This alternative is anticipated to reduce cut-through traffic from Route 52 to Route 9 via Rapalje Road because all entering movements are prohibited at the Route 52/Rapalje Road intersection. Specifically, traffic arriving from the east on Route 52 is forced to use the Route 9/Route 52 and Route 9/Rapalje Road intersections. Figure 3.8 shows this alternative. Dead-end on Rapalje Road on the Route 9 side. This alternative would restrict Rapalje Road traffic to be local and force cut-through traffic to the Route 9/Route 52 intersection. Figure 3.9 shows this alternative. Rapalje Road - Before Rapalje Road - After Page 14
The six alternatives for the Rapalje Road section were analyzed to determine the traffic impacts associated with those improvement strategies and a summary is detailed below by key intersections in the vicinity of this section: Route 9/Route 52 Half closure and dead end treatments have the worst traffic impact at the Route 9/Route 52 intersection because they prohibit cut-through traffic on Rapalje Road. Rightin/right-out has a minor impact on the Route 9/Route 52 intersection. The remaining options have no impact. Route 9/Rapalje Road The dead-end option has a positive impact since the intersection does not exist under this option. The remaining options have minor or no impact. Route 52/Rapalje Road Right-in/right out has a positive impact at the Route 52/Rapalje Road intersection because it prohibits left turn movements from Rapalje Road to Route 52. The remaining options have minor or no impact. Table A-4 highlights the anticipated levels of service during the P.M. peak hour period associated with the six alternatives for the Rapalje Road section. The traffic improvement strategy to provide a full enhancement of Rapalje Road with sidewalks, streetscape, and a reduced pavement width along with a speed reduction device was presented at the Public Meeting. The benefits achieved are reduction in travel speeds and potentially cut-through traffic on Rapalje Road. This strategy has a local impact because it is anticipated to affect travel patterns on Rapalje Road and not the adjacent roadway system (Route 9, Route 52). Property impacts may occur on Rapalje Road with installation of sidewalks and streetscape elements. 3.5 Broad Street-Smith Street-Elm Street section The primary issue on this section is the cut-through traffic from Route 52 and Jackson Street to Route 9 via Broad Street, Smith Street, and Elm Street. The existing conditions analysis identified these routing patterns from Route 52 and Jackson Street via Broad Street and Smith Street to Elm Street. The full-enhancement of the Broad Street-Smith Street-Elm Street section consists of installing pavement striping and marking on Broad Street, Smith Street, and Elm Street to improve visibility in this section. A right-in/right out treatment at the Route 52/Cary Avenue intersection. Re-define the Smith Street/Elm Street and Broad Street/Jackson Street intersections by providing an all-way stop sign. An engineering study should be undertaken to support the installation of an all-way stop sign at the Broad Street/Jackson Street and Elm Street/Smith Street intersections. Broad Street would also have a speed table to reduce travel speeds. This alternative is anticipated to improve travel in the local street network and not create an impact to the overall system. This alternative was preferred by the Advisory and Steering Committees and is shown in Figure 3.10. Page 15
Placement of neckdowns at mid-block and intersection locations. These measures are anticipated to reduce vehicular speeds on Broad Street, Smith Street, and Jackson Street. Figure 3.11 shows this alternative. Placement of speed tables, chokers, or speed humps at mid-block locations to reduce vehicular speeds on Broad Street and Cary Avenue. Figure 3.12 shows this alternative. Installation of raised intersections at the Jackson Street/Broad Street and Smith Street/Broad Street locations. Raised intersections reduce speeds and could potentially reduce cut-through traffic in this corridor. However, the grade along Smith Street is not conducive for the placement of this device. The pedestrian activity is also minimal in this section. Figure 3.13 shows this alternative. Half closures at the Jackson Street/Broad Street and Smith Street/Broad Street locations. Half Closures are volume reduction devices and are installed to eliminate cut-through traffic in this corridor. In this corridor, half closures will have an impact on access at the United Methodist Church on Smith Street. Figure 3.14 shows this alternative. Dead-ends on Cary Avenue, Smith Street, and Broad Street locations. Full-closures would eliminate cut-through traffic on Cary Avenue, Broad Street, and Smith Street. However, installation of these devices may have a significant local impact to access and circulation specifically on Broad Street and Smith Street. Figure 3.15 shows this alternative. Placement of a diagonal diverter at the Smith Street/Broad Street intersection to prohibit cutthrough traffic from Cary Avenue to Elm Street. The placement of this device would prohibit through traffic movements on Broad Street. Figure 3.16 shows this alternative. Conversion of Cary Avenue as a one-way street towards Route 52. This alternative eliminates traffic movements from Route 52 to Cary Avenue. Figure 3.17 shows this alternative. The eight alternatives for the Cary/Jackson/Smith/Broad section were analyzed to determine the traffic impacts associated with those improvement strategies and a summary is detailed below by key intersections in the vicinity of this section: Route 52/Jackson Street Half closures, dead-ends, and the diagonal diverter have a positive traffic impact at the Route 52/Jackson Street intersection because they prohibit cut-through traffic in the corridor. The remaining alternatives have minor or no impact at the Route 52/Jackson Street intersection. Route 9/Route 52 - Half closures, dead-ends, and the diagonal diverter have a negative traffic impact at the Route 9/Route 52 intersection because cut-through traffic is diverted from local streets to Route 52 and the Route 9/Route 52 intersection. The remaining alternatives have minor or no impact at the Route 52/Jackson Street intersection. Page 16
Route 9/Elm Street, Route 52/Cary Avenue, Route 52/Church Street, and Route 52/Broad Street intersections have minor or no traffic impacts in the Broad Street-Smith Street-Elm Street section. Table A-5 shows the anticipated levels of service during the P.M. peak hour period in the Broad Street-Smith Street-Elm Street section. The traffic improvement strategy is to increase visibility in the Broad Street, Smith Street, and Elm Street sections of the neighborhood. In addition, this strategy modifies the Smith Street/Elm Street and Broad Street/Jackson Street intersections. Placement of speed reduction devices such as speed tables along Broad Street will reduce travel speeds. This strategy was presented at the Public Meeting. The benefits achieved are potential reduction in both travel speeds and cut-through traffic in these sections. These benefits would be realized more at a local level (Broad Street, Cary Avenue, Jackson Street). Traffic diversions may occur to Route 52 if the speed tables impact travel on Broad Street (system impact). 3.6 Luyster Place-Cary Avenue-Weston Avenue section The primary issue on this section is the cut-through traffic from Jackson Street to Route 52 via Florence Avenue and Weston Avenue to Cary Avenue, Wood Place, and Luyster Place. The existing conditions analysis identified these routing patterns from Route 52 and Jackson Street via Broad Street-Smith Street-Elm Street. Half closures at the Wood Place/Luyster Place and Cary Avenue/Weston Avenue intersections. Half closures at these locations would prohibit traffic movements from Jackson Street to Cary Avenue and Luyster Place, thereby eliminating cut-through traffic. In addition, speed humps will be provided along Florence Avenue and Weston Avenue to reduce travel speeds. This alternative was preferred by the Advisory and Steering Committees. Figure 3.18 shows this alternative. Placement of neckdowns at mid-block and intersection locations. Locations where such devices could be placed are Florence Avenue, Weston Avenue, Cary Avenue, and Luyster Place. In addition, the neckdowns are suggested at the minor street approaches on Jackson Street/Florence Avenue/Rosilia Lane and the Jackson Street/Weston Avenue/Health Center driveway intersections. These devices are anticipated to reduce travel speeds in these sections. Figure 3.19 shows this alternative. Placement of speed tables, speed humps, and chokers at mid-block locations along Florence Avenue, Weston Avenue, Wood Place, Cary Avenue, and Luyster Place. These devices are anticipated to reduce travel speeds in these sections. Figure 3.20 shows this alternative. Installation of raised intersections at the Florence Avenue/Wood Place, Weston Avenue/Cary Avenue, and Wood Place/Luyster Place intersections. These intersections currently have STOP control and therefore, there is effective speed control measure at the intersection. The placement of these devices may involve significant cost. Figure 3.21 shows this alternative. Page 17
Installation of dead-ends on Cary Avenue, Luyster Place, and Wood Place (on the Florence Avenue side) locations. Full-closures would eliminate cut-through traffic on Cary Avenue and Luyster Place. However, installation of these devices may have a significant local impact to access and circulation specifically on Wood Place. Figure 3.22 shows this alternative. Dead-end on Cary Avenue and Luyster Place is on the Route 52 side. This alternative will improve traffic operations at the Route 52/Cary Avenue intersection and eliminates the Route 52/Lusyter Place intersection. Figure 3.23 shows this alternative. Conversion of Cary Avenue and Luyster Place as a one-way street away from Route 52. This alternative eliminates movements from Cary Avenue and Luyster Place to Route 52. Figure 3.24 shows this alternative. The seven alternatives for the Luyster/Cary/Jackson/Florence section were analyzed to determine traffic impacts associated with the improvement strategies and a summary is detailed below by key intersections in the vicinity of this section: Route 52/Jackson Street Half-closures and dead-ends have a minor impact because of the diversion of cut-through traffic to the Route 52/Jackson Street intersection. The remaining alternatives have no impact. Route 52/Luyster Place/Shopping Center Half closures and dead-ends have a positive traffic impact on the Luyster Place approach because of the diversion of cut-through traffic to the Route 52/Jackson Street intersection. Dead-end on Luyster Place on the Route 52 side and conversion of Luyster Place as a one-way street removes exiting movements on Luyster Place at the Route 52 intersection. The remaining alternatives have no impact. Route 52/Cary Avenue - Half closures and dead-ends have a positive traffic impact on the Cary Avenue approach because of the diversion of cut-through traffic to the Route 52/Jackson Street intersection. Dead-end on Cary Avenue on the Route 52 side and conversion of Cary Avenue as a one-way street removes exiting movements on Cary Avenue at the Route 52 intersection. The remaining alternatives have no impact. Jackson Street/Weston Avenue Due to half-closures, dead-ends, and one-way conversions of Cary Avenue and Luyster Place, traffic remains on Jackson Street and therefore, there is a negative traffic impact on the Weston Avenue eastbound approach. The remaining alternatives have no impact. Jackson Street/Florence Avenue/Rosilia Lane Similar to the Weston Avenue approach, Florence Avenue approach also has a negative traffic impact because traffic remains on Jackson Street due to half-closures, dead-ends, and one-way conversions of Cary Avenue and Luyster Place. The remaining alternatives have no impact. Table A-6 shows the anticipated levels of service during the P.M. peak hour period in the Luyster Place-Cary Avenue-Weston Avenue section. Page 18
The traffic improvement strategy is to eliminate cut-through traffic from Jackson Street to Route 52 by providing partial closures on Luyster Place and Cary Avenue at Weston Avenue. In addition, a speed reduction device was suggested on Florence Avenue and Weston Avenue. This strategy was presented at the Public Meeting. The benefits achieved are reduction in cut-through traffic and travel speeds in these sections. The partial closures have an overall system effect due to the diversion of approximately 100 vehicle trips from the local streets to the Route 52/Jackson Street intersection. Local impact may be apparent with traffic diverting within the neighborhood. Partial closures may have property impacts at the intersections. 3.7 Sight Distance Improvements Based on the existing conditions analysis, there were a number of locations identified along Route 52 and Jackson Street that have poor and limited sight distance from the side street approaches. Table 3.2 identifies those locations along with specific issues that would require attention in order to improve sight lines. Table 3.2 Sight Distance Mitigation Sight Distance Restrictions and Strategies Roadway Intersection Looking Left Looking Right Strategies/Considerations Route 52 Jackson Street At Luyster Pl. Large trees Large trees Trees can be removed At Cary Ave. (Southbound) Large trees and bushes None Removal impact residential property At Broad Street Large tree within the channelization island None Tree can be removed. At Rapalje Road None Small trees Removal impacts residential property Large tree near Removal impacts residential At Colonial Ave. Two large trees and bushes utility boxes property on the east side Removal impacts residential At Weston Ave. None Bushes property Removal impacts residential At Florence Ave. None Tree and fence property Source: Wilbur Smith Associates As outlined in Table 3.3, sight distance can be improved at the above locations by removal of trees and bushes but at many locations there are property impacts which need to be considered. Page 19
CHAPTER 4 SUMMARY OF MEETINGS AND NEXT STEPS This chapter outlines the next steps for the project leading to the preparation of a Final Report. Prior to the preparation of this report, the Advisory and Steering Committee meetings were held in February and March, 2006. A Public Meeting to present the preferred strategies from the Advisory and Steering Committee meeting was also held in March 2006. 4.1 Steering Committee Meeting (February 2006) A Steering Committee meeting was held on February 24, 2006 at the PDCTC offices to present improvement strategies for each of the neighborhood areas. As discussed in Chapter 2, these strategies included Traffic Calming, intersection improvement, traffic signalization and traffic signal coordination. The committee had questions and comments on the traffic improvement strategies presented at the meeting: Some of those comments are presented below: In general, the committee did not favor some of the Traffic Calming strategies such as raised intersections, diagonal diverters, dead-ends, etc. or cul-de-sac, due to cost and local issues particularly lack of exiting sidewalks and the nature of the neighborhoods. Route 52 corridor traffic signal coordination The committee supported the strategy of traffic signal coordination along Route 52 between the I-84 Ramps and Jackson Street. The committee recognized this to be a short term improvement strategy. Cedar Hill Road The committee supported the idea of separate turn lanes on the Cedar Hill Road approach to reduce delay on Cedar Hill Road. Traffic signalization was discussed at the intersection as an operational improvement but was perceived to potentially cause a safety issue. Colonial-Shirley The committee did not support the idea of closing access at Shirley Avenue on Route 52. A right-in-right out option was suggested on the Shirley Avenue approach. A separate left turn lane on Route 52 at Colonial Avenue was supported by the committee. The idea of providing a traffic signal at the Route 52/Colonial Avenue required further study. The intersection currently does not meet traffic signal warrants. NYSDOT proposed to conduct traffic counts on Colonial Avenue to investigate eight-hour warrants. The committee also indicated that the Colonial-Shirley area will see future development which may necessitate the need for a traffic signal. The committee agreed that traffic signalization should be pursued with further study. The committee also discussed the possibility of providing paved pedestrian/bicycle connection to the Fishkill Plaza. The committee felt that there should be an engineering study to discuss specific issues at that location. Rapalje Road The committee supported the use of speed reduction devices on Rapalje Road. They also suggested that the cross-section of Rapalje Road should be reduced in width and the street may be enhanced with sidewalks and other amenities. Page 20