I am Oreon Sandler, a P.E., working as Executive Director for CWCWC.
This Patterson Crossing application is unworkable:
a. There is no commitment to fund the necessary off-site highway improvements to support the development, and
b. The development’s onsite transportation infrastructure is significantly undersized for the proposed 434,050 square feet retail space, and
c. Near-by residents will suffer negative consequences and congestion, which will eventually lead to local town and state DOT action to fund and repair these narrow roads.
Consequently, the application as proposed will have a significant adverse impact on area traffic operating conditions, and the application should be denied.
In lieu of outright denial, a supplemental Environmental Impact Statement should be required. Because the traffic study for Patterson Crossing underestimated the volume of traffic that will be added to the surrounding roadway network, it is recommended that the entire traffic analysis be revised and resubmitted as part of an SEIS, along with other information that might have been misrepresented in the DEIS.
Revised Traffic Study should:
a. Include a revised analysis to reflect 15% pass by credit during the weekday peak hour and a 10% pass by credit during the Saturday peak hour.
b. Include a revised analysis to determine whether the internal intersections will have sufficient capacity to accommodate the additional internal traffic and holiday-season traffic including left-turns on the electronics and sporting goods store approaches to the main access road, to ensure that the site’s main access road will not fail and prevent motorists from using it to enter or exit the facility.
c. Analyze the signalized intersection of Towners Road and NY Route 52 since 19% of site traffic is projected to pass though this important intersection.
d. Contain ramp capacity analyses of the I-84 ramps to and from State Route 311 since more than half of the traffic generated by the project is projected to use interstate I-84.
e. Contain a revised analysis of the intersection of NY Route 311 with NY Route 52, where there is effectively only one lane on westbound NY Route 311 as it approaches NY Route 52. This was incorrectly assumed that there were full left-turn and right-turn lanes on the causeway approach to NY Route 52.
f. Contain a revised analysis of the intersection of Horse Pound Road with NY Route 52 indicating that 19% of site traffic is passing through this intersection. The DEIS analysis assumed that 10% of project traffic would materialize on NY Route 52 somewhere between Barrett Hill Road and Horse Pound Road.
g. Contain a revised analysis of the intersection of NY Route 311 with NY Route 164 indicating that 10% of site traffic will travel to and from Patterson, Putnam Lake and the western portions of New Fairfield (CT) on NY Route 164. It is estimated that the difference between the 3% used and the 10% recommended will come from the west on I-84 and 40% from the east on I-84.
h. Review individual accident reports (form MV 104) available from the Millbrook office of the New York State Police Accident Records Bureau in-order to establish a realistic traffic problem basis from the past in this area. This is to specifically identify potential remedial measures at each of the following locations, which appear to be less safe presently, and thus, have the potential to be impacted by projected traffic based on elevated accident rates, relative to the volume of traffic they serve:
i. NY Route 311 at Terry Hill Road.
ii. NY Route 311 at Luddington Court, which is a very low volume street yet with 4 accidents.
iii. NY Route 311 at the I-84 ramps
iv. NY Route 52 from milepost 1035 to 1038 (6 accidents/10th mile)
v. NY Route 52 from milepost 1042 to 1044 (5.5 accidents/10th mile)
vi. NY Route 52 at Towners Road
vii. NY Route 52 from milepost 1048 to 1050 (6 accidents/10th mile)
The SEIS should either propose a second driveway to access the project site or dramatically reduce the size of the project to a level which can be sustained by a single driveway and which is consistent with current engineering and planning standards and philosophies.
The SEIS recommended should contain a commitment from the applicant to fund completion of the necessary mitigating measures. Alternatively, the resolution of approval for the subject property should require that Certificates of Occupancy for the development would be conditioned upon the completion of these improvements by others.
These data were compiled by John Canning, of Adler Consulting, White Plains, New York.
Thank you.
