Appendix F - Public Comments and CDTC Responses
Response: CDTC appreciates advance notice of possible amendments and will process them accordingly at the proper time.
Expressed support for three bridge improvement projects on non-state roads in Rensselaer County, specifically, County Route 40 over the Poestenkill, 56 Road over the Poestenkill, and County Route 3 over the Conrail tracks.
Response: These HBRR projects were already added to the draft TIP and will be included in the final TIP.
Expressed support for several projects with more than $5 Million in funding. He said these projects will help Rensselaer County become more competitive with the rest of the region into the 21st Century. They include NY 9 & 20 (R157, R176 and R177), I-90 Exit 8 Interconnector (R173), Amtrak Shop Construction (R206), the Amtrak Station in the City of Rensselaer (T54), and US 20 from Columbia County to Nassau (R108).
Response: CDTC currently has no commitment to the construction of R177. However, the rest of these projects will remain in the TIP.
Expressed support for a variety of smaller projects that will benefit the residents and businesses of Rensselaer County. These projects include Durable Pavement Marking (RG15), Local Bridge Inspection (RG22), Commuter Rail Demonstration Projects (RG79, SA163 and SA164), and an Intelligent Transportation Center (RG28).
Response: These projects will remain in the TIP.
"The TIP's goals of significantly reduced emissions of ozone-precursors are laudable and supported by the RCEMC."
Response: Comment noted.
Expressed support for the high speed rail initiative being undertaken in the TIP. The RCEMC indicated that they are looking forward to working with transportation officials to improve Hudson River access for pedestrians while also improving the speed and efficiency of Amtrak services. Pedestrian access to the Hudson River needs to be emphasized more in the TIP so that recreational opportunities along the Hudson are not lost to improved Amtrak service.
Response: These types of projects continue to be eligible for Transportation Enhancement funds.
The RCEMC recommends improving the at-grade rail crossings rather than closing or consolidating the existing Hudson River access points.
Response: NYSDOT intends to work with all affected parties in examining feasible options regarding improved safety at grade crossings on the high-speed corridor.
Suggested having more van services from the Colonie area to the State Office Campus in order to help relieve traffic congestion on I-87, Route 5, and Route 9.
Response: CDTC's New Visions Regional Transportation Plan calls for increased use of shuttle service in developed areas. CDTA has successfully implemented such service in the Pine Bush, the Route 4 corridor in Rensselaer County and in the Wolf Road / Airport area of Colonie. Additional shuttle service such as to the state office campus may be considered in the future, particularly in the context of the commuter rail demo (TIP project RG79).
Suggested using the currently dormant Colonie train station for local transit.
Response: Commuter rail station locations between Schenectady and Rensselaer will be examined as part of TIP project RG79. The old Colonie Amtrak station is one location that will be considered, although the location is currently being used for other purposes.
Suggested changing the outside lane of the Northway (along the median) to a mass transit lane. Only vans or vehicles with more than three people would be permitted to use the lane with some form of certification or authorization.
Response: CDTC and NYSDOT examined such options as new HOV lanes on I-87 as part of the Northway Study during the New Visions development. Such options are still a possible long-range alternative for dealing with Northway congestion, but the New Visions plan determined that no capacity additions would be made to the Northway for at least a decade; thus, there are no mainline I-87 capacity projects in the draft 1999-04 TIP. Additionally, national experience has indicated that "take a lane" types of HOV projects which reduce the number of remaining general purpose lanes all have met serious public opposition and have been discontinued because of that opposition. CDTC is not likely to seriously consider a "take a lane" project on the I-87.
Response - CDTC concurred and made this change to the TIP.
Response - CDTC concurred and made this change to the TIP.
Response: Comment noted.
Expressed support for increasing funding for existing projects in need of cost increases before funding new projects.
Response: Comment noted.
Expressed concern that the funding for the Relocation of Maxwell Road (A296) was insufficient.
Response: CDTC obtained updated right-of-way costs for this project. Therefore, the Planning Committee must accept a proposal to increase this project's funding in order to cover this increase in cost. Phase 2 of this project (A392) was intended to perform whatever work was left incomplete by this project for whatever funds were left unspent for it. Since this cost increase is the result of more refined estimates, it should result in a corresponding decrease to the funding of A392. CDTC concurred and made this change to the TIP.
Noted that the jurisdiction showing in the TIP for the Relocation of Maxwell Road Part 2 (A392) was incorrectly shown as "County". It should be "Town".
Response: CDTC staff had already found the error and corrected it.
Expressed support for increased funding for project RG82, Set-Aside for New Visions Contingencies.
Response: In crafting the 1999-04 TIP, the Planning Committee first funded any deficits in existing projects and HBRR projects, and only $5M to program for new project proposals. The committee programmed $2M of that amount for this project and made the judgement to fund CMAQ projects with the other $3M in order to program all available CMAQ money.
Requested that CDTC review the cost estimates for Elm Avenue Reconstruction (A338) and Cherry Avenue Reconstruction (A339). He also requested that more money be added to these projects.
Response: The Planning Committee has considered all specific cost changes brought to its attention by NYSDOT or other project implementers during the development of the draft 1999-04 TIP and in revising it after public release. Consideration of cost changes for these projects requires additional specific information. CDTC would consider that information if and when it becomes available.