Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20240588 NYS Route 29 Special Use permit Station Park Mobility 07.24.2026Comments and recommendation on the Station Park application pertaining to traffic impacts, safety and other mobility matters, using the proposed TIA+ outline. OUTLINE COMMENT RECOMMENDATION 1. Scoping Meeting 1.1. Meet with OPED staff to a) determine the limits of the study area, b) discuss the elements to be studied, and c) whether to combine the TIA with another proposed project. The limits of the study area may be different for different portions of the study. The applicant is free to make a case for why a particular element does not need to be analyzed. The Planning Board Chair will be the arbiter. • TBD • 2. Study area map 2.1. Prepare a study area map with streets, number of travel and turn lanes, sidewalks, bus stops, bus shelters, bike lanes, multi/shared-use paths, trails, crosswalks, and other elements of the transportation network. This map will provide a basis for discussion with OPED and before the Planning Board. A draft should be prepared for the scoping meeting. • TIA concerned with intersections along West Av., and sight distance along Washington St. • 2.2. The study area is to include, at a minimum, all transportation facilities (streets, sidewalks, pedestrian ramps, bike lanes, bus stops, etc.) within one-quarter mile of the site perimeter, and select facilities within one-half mile of the site perimeter. OPED, in consultation with other city agencies, will determine the locations to be analyzed, and the extent of analysis thereof. • 2024 TIA studied intersections along West Av., and sight distance along Washington St. It did not study the intersection of Washington St and Kirby Rd (to the west of the site) nor the intersections of West Av and Grand St or West Circular St (to the south of the site). • 2024 TIA included Tait Lane Reserve, across the RR tracks from the site. It is unclear why. • The applicant should provide a walking circulation analysis to demonstrate that people can get where they want to go without walking out of their way or across lawns. 3. City plans 3.1. Describe how the proposed project will advance goals and specific recommendations found in city plans • The project narrative does not contain the word walking, sidewalk, pedestrian, bicycle, path, ADA, accessibility, or trail. • An easement for non-motorized connections to the train station. (Comprehensive, Missing Sidewalk Links, Open Space, Complete Streets, Greenbelt Trail, etc.). • The walking and cycling network and connectivity within the development and to external destinations (i.e. Greenbelt Trail ) is not clear. • A path at the SW corner of the site to the sidewalk on the Washington St bridge. • All streets should be public. • Coordinate with ongoing CRTC West Avenue Train Station study. 4. Parking and trips 4.1. Calculate the number of net new parking spaces: number of new parking spaces proposed minus the number of existing spaces to be retained. Minimize the number of spaces using applicable exemptions (sharing, on-street, land bank) found in UDO Section 10.6. Should the number of net new parking spaces be zero or below, other sections of the TIA, especially task 4.2 may not be necessary. • TBD • On street parking should be eliminated and all parking placed in lots or garages. This will permit more area for trees and landscaping. 4.2. Estimate net new (subtract existing from total) motor vehicle (MV) trips using best current practices: the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Mixed-Use Trip Generation Model, the Institute of Transportation Professionals’ (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, or a more local source (for example internal research). Offer strategies to minimize new external, peak- hour MV trips through transportation demand management (TDM). Should the number of net new trips be zero or below, other sections of the TIA may not be necessary. • 2017 TIS did this. • 2017 TIS recommended a transportation demand management plan. • The proposed development analyzed by the 2017 TIS recommended a monitoring and mitigation implementation plan after phase 2 of the project. This would allow adjustments should impacts be more than expected. • 2017 TIS contained 266 DUs, 5 retail and 2 restaurants. The current proposal is for 390 DUs and no retail or restaurants. Nonetheless, the estimated peak hour trips were almost identical: 417 and 419, respectively. • 4.3. Estimate net new walking and cycling trips. Evaluate existing walking and cycling facilities adjacent with and nearby proposal and propose improvements to enhance new walking and cycling trips (connections to existing paths, crosswalks, sidewalks). • Bus stop on Washington St is not be practical unless there is a signalized crosswalk. • A new bus stop within the site for CDTA’s flex service. But stop to include shelter, benches, and other amenities. 4.4. Calculate and show on the study area map travel times between the project site and destinations within the city (city hall, library, local school, dog run, nearest grocery store, nearest park, bike path…). Calculate for driving, cycling, and walking, transit using readily available navigation apps. • Not done. • 5. Traffic safety 5.1. Summarize any relevant safety analyses produced within the past five years. • Not done. • 5.2. Obtain and/or collect motor vehicle speed data for a representative 24-hour period on select streets. Calculate the maximum, 85th percentile, and 50th percentile speeds per hour. • 2024 TIA lists 85th percentile speeds along Washington St at the project site as 47 and 49 mph. The posted speed transitions from 30 to 45 mph at the east end of the bridge, where the entrance to the site will be. It is not clear at what time of day these speeds were taken, nor the range of speeds over the course of the day. There is no discussion about the safety impacts of these speeds. The fatality risk for a person hit at these speeds while crossing from the site to the shops across the street is about 65%, https://www.transportation.gov/safe- system-approach/safer-speeds. • 2024 TIA lists 85th percentile speeds along Station Ln as 33 mph. The posted speed is 30 mph. About 100’ west of the entrance to the site, Station Ln becomes a loop at the train station drop-off and parking lot. It is questionable whether drivers would be travelling this fast so near a dead end. There is no information as to where along the street these speeds were taken, or at what time of day. More importantly, this speed is used to justify the removal of trees to meet sight distance at the corner. • 5.3. Assemble 3-year crash data for all users (pedestrian, bicycle, vehicle, transit) on select streets. Perform a crash cost analysis • Not done. • using the KABCO scale. Present the Economic Costs, QALY Costs, and Comprehensive Costs in most recent dollars. Present crashes per number of lanes and crashes per average daily traffic (ADT). Compare crashes to other locations in the city. 5.4. Perform intersection sight distance analyses at signalized intersections. Perform gap and stopping sight distance analyses at unsignalized intersections, driveways, bus stops, and other points where people walking, cycling or driving would be expected to enter or cross the street. • 2024 TIA found the site distance acceptable for drivers. • 5.5. Propose countermeasures to manage speeds and reduce crashes without limiting access for pedestrians and cyclists. • DPS questioned the number of crosswalks, citing maintenance costs. There should be a crosswalk at every leg of every intersection, plus midblock crosswalks. • 2017 TIS recommended against a single- lane roundabout at West & Washington based on traffic volumes. It does not appear safety was considered. • Crosswalk across Washington. • Streets within the site should have traffic calming that limit speeds to 20 mph. • There should be sidewalks on both sides of every street. • 6’ wide sidewalks. • The peak hour volumes projected along Station Park Avenue are 139 NB and 93 SB. NACTO recommends advisory bike lanes for streets with these volumes (50-150 peak hour per direction), https://nacto.org/publication/urban- bikeway-design-guide/designing- bikeways-for-all-ages-and- abilities/bikeways-on-low-speed-low- volume-streets/advisory-bike-lanes. 6. Traffic volume 6.1. Obtain and/or collect vehicle, transit, truck, bicycle, and pedestrian volumes for representative time periods on select streets and paths. • 2024 TIA did not collect data nor analyze traffic at Freeman Ln (the road to Intrada and USPS). It appears this road will be connected directly to the site. • 2024 TIA’s Traffic volumes were collected in March, which is not a peak month for • 2024 TIA used a 0.82 historic annual growth rate (from CRTC) to project traffic volumes into the future. Based on this, in 25 years we will have 23% more traffic. As the city intends to grow population and economy, but Saratoga. They do not appear to have been adjusted seasonally. • 2017 TIS volumes were seasonally adjusted. not car traffic, then a lower rate should be used. 6.2. Calculate volume to capacity (v/c) ratio per hour on select streets. Determine the percentage increase due to the proposed project. • 2024 TIA contains v/c ratios. • 6.3. Perform a queue analysis to determine if the proposed project will routinely impede access to surrounding properties. • Not done. • 6.4. Propose improvements that align with city plans, and/or make more efficient use of existing infrastructure. Improvements should generally not lead to induced vehicle traffic (roadway widening, new turn lanes), nor should they fixate on localized peak hour traffic delays. • 2017 TIS recommended a southbound right turn lane on West at Washington. This would be counter to city goals. • • • 7. Data and other information may be found with the city, county, metropolitan planning organization (MPO), state, and others identified by OPED and/or applicant. • n/a • • • 8. To ensure transparency, OPED is to be copied on all correspondence during the review process between the applicant and other jurisdictions (NYSDOT, Saratoga County, etc.). • City not copied on CDTA comments (20241018 NYS ROUTE 29 PRIME STATION LANE SITE PLAN CORRESPONDENCE CDTA FEEDBACK.PDF) • Reports & feedback referenced: • 2024 TIA, 20241018 NYS ROUTE 29 PRIME STATION LANE SITE PLAN TRAFFIC LETTER W ATTACHMENTS.PDF • Letter from CSAB, 20241018 NYS RT 29 STATION LANE SITE PLAN REVIEW COMPLETE STREETS ADVISORY BOARD LETTER 06.01.2026.PDF • Comments from DPS, 20241018 NYS ROUTE 29 PRIME STATION LANE SITE PLAN TRAFFIC COMMENTS 11102025.PDF • Letter from NYS DOT, 20241018 NYS ROUTE 29 PRIME STATION LANE SEQRA RESPONSE LETTER.PDF • Project narrative, 20241018 NYS ROUTE 29 PRIME STATION LANE SITE PLAN NARRATIVE.PDF • 2017 TIS, TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STATION PARK 2017.pdf