HomeMy WebLinkAboutDraft Route 1 Corridor Development Study Technical Memorandum Number 2 - Technical Investigation 3/1/1997 U. S. Route 1 Corridor Development Study
PIN 8473.08, D008560
Westchester County
DRAFT
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NUMBER 2
TECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
Prepared by
The De Leuw, Cather Team
for
The New York State Department of Transportation
March, 1997
U.S. Route 1 Corridor Development Study Technical Memorandum Number 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of the U.S. Route 1 Corridor Development Study is to evaluate the Route 1 corridor in
Westchester County,N.Y.,and recommend traffic flow improvements for the roadway. This Technical
Memorandum documents Phase A of the study,which consists of the data collection and base analysis
work tasks. Chapter 1 provides more detail about the study area and purpose.
The data collections for this study consisted of two sections - collection of available data and
supplemental data collection. The goal of the collection of available data was to amass and evaluate data
available from the various agencies, municipalities, and private sector entities with interests in the
corridor. A number of studies and reports were reviewed, including several EISs prepared for major
developments in the corridor. The supplemental data collection augmented the available data for the
corridor to obtain a complete picture of the roadway network and its operation. Data collected by the
project team under this work item included traffic counts at over twenty-five locations, two origin-
destination surveys, travel time and delay data, and parking data. The data collection effort is
documented in Chapters 2 and 3 of this document.
The collected data were combined with the available data, and a base analysis of the corridor was
performed. The analysis consisted of over twenty intersection analyses using methodologies form the
1994 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), traffic simulations of several segments of the corridor, a
parking analysis, and a safety analysis. The analyses and results are documented in Chapter 4.
Once the analyses were completed, the results were reviewed, and general conclusions were drawn
regarding the study area. This review is documented in Chapter 5. A detailed review of the results
obtained, and the development of proposed improvements, will be undertaken in future phases of the
study.
De Leuiv, Cather Team Page i
U.S. Route I Corridor Development Study Technical Memorandum Number 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Description Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I
TABLE OF CONTENTS ii
LIST OF APPENDIXES iv
LIST OF FIGURES v
LIST OF TABLES vi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS vii
1. INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1. Study Area Communities 1-1
1.2. U. S. Route 1 1-1
1.3. New England Thruway (I-95) 1-2
1.4. MTA/Metro-North Railroad 1-3
1.5. Other Routes in the Study Area 1-3
1.6. Analysis Years 1-5
1.7. Project Team 1-5
1.8. Technical Memorandum Number 2 1-6
2. AVAILABLE DATA COLLECTION 2-1
2.1. Physical Roadway Conditions 2-1
2.2. Traffic Operations 2-2
2.3. Bicycle Facilities 2-2
2.4. Public Transportation Service by Rail 2-2
2.5. Public Transportation Service by Bus 2-6
2.6. Vanpool/Carpool and Rideshare Activities 2-7
2.7. Accidents 2-7
2.8. Current and Proposed Construction Activities 2-7
2.9. Study Area Reports 2-8
2.10. Social and Economic Data 2-10
2.11. Existing Land Use 2-13
2.12. Parks, Recreation Areas and Wildlife Sanctuaries 2-17
De Leuw, Cather Team Page ii
U.S. Route I Corridor Development Study Technical Memorandum Number 2
2.13. Historical,Archeological, and Cultural Sites 2-17
2.14. Wetlands,Floodplains, Coastal Protection Zones, and Major Bodies of Water 2-18
2.15. Commercial and Industrial Sites 2-19
3. SUPPLEMENTAL DATA COLLECTION 3-1
3.1. U. S. Route 1 Motorist Origin-Destination Survey 3-1
3.2. MTA/Metro-North Railroad Rider Origin-Destination Survey 3-2
3.3. Traffic Volume Turning Movement Counts 3-4
3.4. Travel Time and Delay Data 3-4
3.5. MTA/Metro-North Parking Activities 3-5
3.6. On-Street Parking Activities 3-6
3.7. Pedestrian Activities 3-6
3.8. Major Goods Movement Generators 3-7
3.9. Field Reconnaissance 3-7
3.10. Public Input 3-7
4. BASE YEAR(1996) AND FUTURE YEAR(2011) TRAFFIC VOLUMES 4-1
4.1. Intersection Selection 4-1
4.2. Data Management 4-1
4.3. Base Year(1996)Traffic Volumes 4-2
4.4. Future Year(2011)Traffic Volumes 4-3
5. ANALYSIS OF BASE YEAR AND FUTURE NULL CONDITIONS 5-1
5.1. Traffic Operations Analysis 5-1
5.2. Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis 5-9
5.3. Travel Speed Evaluation 5-9
5.4. Parking Utilization and Requirement Analysis at MNR Stations 5-10
5.5. Traffic Accident/ Safety Analysis 5-11
5.6. Pavement Condition Review 5-12
5.7. Current Agency Coordination Activity Investigation 5-15
5.8. Technical Advisory Group Input 5-16
6. CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS 6-1
6.1. Conclusions 6-1
6.2. Next Steps 6-4
De Leuw, Cather Team Page iii
U.S. Route 1 Corridor Development Study Technical Memorandum Number 2
LIST OF APPENDIXES
Appendix A - MNR Data
Appendix B - Study Area Bus Data
Appendix C - Motorist Origin-Destination Survey Data
Appendix D -MNR Origin-Destination Survey Data
Appendix E - Traffic Count Data
Appendix F - Travel Time Data
Appendix G-Metro-North Parking Surveys
Appendix H - On-Street Parking Surveys
Appendix I -Pedestrian Data
Appendix J- Intersection Sketches
Appendix K-Public Meeting Minutes
Appendix L - Written Public Comments
Appendix M -Traffic Data Management
Appendix N - Capacity Analysis Backup
Appendix 0 -NETSIM Inputs, Calibration and Results
Appendix P -Pavement Sufficiency Data
Appendix Q -Technical Advisory Group Comments
De Leuiv, Cather Team Page iv
U.S. Route I Corridor Development Study Technical Memorandum Number 2
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Follows Page
Figure 1 -Project Study Area 1-1
Figure 2 - Existing Lane Configurations 1-2
Figure 3 - 1994 AADT Data 2-2
Figure 4 - Area Land Use 2-14
Figure 5 - Physical and Environmental Features 2-17
Figure 6 -Historic Sites 2-18
Figure 7 - A.M. Peak Hour Pedestrian Volumes 3-6
Figure 8 - P.M. Peak Hour Pedestrian Volumes 3-6
Figure 9 - Major Traffic Generators 3-7
Figure 10 - Locations Studied 4-1
Figure 11 - Existing Traffic Volumes - A.M. Peak Hour 4-2
Figure 12 - Existing Traffic Volumes - P.M. Peak Hour 4-2
Figure 13 - Existing Traffic Volumes - Saturday Peak Hour 4-2
Figure 14 - Future Null Traffic Volumes -A.M. Peak Hour 4-4
Figure 15 - Future Null Traffic Volumes - P.M. Peak Hour 4-4
Figure 16 - Future Null Traffic Volumes - Saturday Peak Hour 4-4
De Leuw, Cather Team Page v
U.S. Route I Corridor Development Study Technical Memorandmn A`uniber 2
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
Table 1 -Public Bicycle Locking Facilities 2-2.
Table 2 - 1996 MNR Weekday Peak Period Ridership Data 2-3
Table 3 - 1996 MNR Daily Ridership Data 2-3
Table 4 - MNR Uni-Ticket Data 2-4
Table 5 - MNR Chek-It O-D Data 2-5
Table 6 -MNR Travel Mode Data 2-5
Table 7 - Bus Routes Serving Route 1 2-6
Table 8 - Ongoing Construction Projects 2-7
Table 9 -Future Construction Projects 2-8
Table 10 - Study Area Reports 2-9
Table 11 - Population Trends - Study Area Municipalities 2-10
Table 12 - Population Trends and Projections - Westchester County 2-11
Table 13 - Population Projections - Study Area Municipalities 2-12
Table 14 - 1990 Socio-Economic Characteristics 2-13
Table 15 - Historic Sites 2-18
Table 16 - Motorist Origin-Destination Survey Response Summary 3-2
Table 17 - Surveyed O-D Data 3-3
Table 18 -MNR Origin-Destination Survey Response Summary 3-3
Table 19 -Average Speed and Delay Summary 3-5
Table 20 - Surveyed MNR Parking Activity 3-5
Table 21 - On-Street Parking Inventory 3-6
Table 22 - Other Development Traffic 4-3
Table 23 - Unsignalized Intersection LOS - 1996 Base Conditions 5-2
Table 24 - Signalized Intersection LOS - 1996 Base Conditions 5-3
Table 25 - Signalized Intersection LOS - 2011 Future Null Conditions 5-4
Table 26 -Unsignalized Intersection LOS -2011 Future Null Conditions 5-5
Table 27 -NETSIM Summary- 1996 Base Year 5-7
Table 28 -NETSIM Summary- 2011 Future Null Year 5-8
Table 29 - Ideal Travel Time Comparison 5-10
Table 30 - Parking Permit Backlogs 5-11
Table 31 - Accident Rate Summary 5-12
Table 32 - Pavement Sufficiency Data 5-13
De Leuw, Cather Team Page vi
U.S. Route I Corridor Development Study Technical Memorandum Number 2
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ATR Automatic Traffic Recorder
HCM Highway Capacity Manual
HCS Highway Capacity Software
MNR MTA/Metro-North Commuter Railroad
MPO Municipal Planning Organization
mph miles per hour
MTA Metropolitan Transportation Authority _
NYMTC New York Metropolitan Transportation Council
NYSDEC New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
NYSDMV New York State Department of Motor Vehicles
NYSDOT New York State Department of Transportation
PCC Portland Cement Concrete
TAG Technical Advisory Group
TM Technical Memorandum
WCDOT Westchester County Department of Transportation
WCDPW Westchester County Department of Public Works
WCDCP Westchester County Department of County Planning
De Leuw, Cather Team Page vii
U.S. Route 1 Corridor Development Study Technical Memorandum Number 2
1. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of the U.S.Route 1 Corridor Development Study is to identify problems and to develop and
evaluate improvements for Route 1. The Goals and Objectives of the study were defined in Technical
Memorandum (TM) Number 1. TM Number 2 documents the Technical Investigation phase. The
purpose of the Technical Investigation was to collect, compile, and analyze data which describe the
Route 1 corridor. The results of the Technical Investigation will be used as the basis for the
development of improvements in the next phases of the study.
This study focuses on the 12.6 mile segment of Route 1 from New York City to Connecticut in
Westchester County,NY. To facilitate this study, Primary and Secondary Study Areas were defined.
See Figure 1 -Project Study Area. The Primary Study Area includes the area immediately surrounding
Route 1 and I-95 including Route 1,1-95,MTA/Metro-North Commuter Railroad(MNR)and portions
of I-287,NYS Route 120,NYS Route 120A,NYS Route 125, and NYS Route 127. The relationship
of these roadways to Route 1 and I-95 will be evaluated within the Primary Study Area. The Secondary
Study Area includes the Primary Study Area and extends west to the Hutchinson River Parkway. Refer
to Figure 1. The purpose of the Secondary Study Area is to provide an area around the Primary Study
Area which will not be analyzed, but where other projects should be considered since they may have a
direct effect on the Primary Study Area. A more detailed description of the study area and other general
study information follows.
1.1. Study Area Communities
The communities along Route 1 and I-95 include Pelham Manor, New Rochelle, Larchmont,
Mamaroneck, Rye, Harrison, and Port Chester. These communities are typically mature, with
many older homes and established commercial and retail development. Port Chester supports
commercial and light industrial land uses along with residential areas. Northern Harrison is
experiencing commercial growth, but it is relatively stable within the study area. Pelham,
Larchmont,Mamaroneck, and Rye are largely residential; Harrison is mainly residential in the
study area,with mixed office/residential development to the northwest; and Pelham and New
Rochelle have commercial and light industrial areas along with residential development.
Many area residents commute to Manhattan or White Plains. MNR serves Manhattan
commuters, while many White Plains commuters drive or use Bee-Line buses. Major
employment centers within the study area include New Rochelle and Port Chester.
1.2. U. S. Route 1
U. S. Route 1 is an urban arterial which serves the coastal communities of southeastern
Westchester. It is generally four lanes (two lanes per direction) with some segments two lanes
De Leuw, Cather Team Page 1-1
North
(approxi
•
r.
`' /
/ City of White Plains
/ /ViIloge of Scarsdale )
IV
r' ..D
\ --
1 ,r
,-'' Hutch rhea"
\ �_ River Parkway ---
Hu),
\ y — _ `=J, �, R-� p_ 800
_---- / -_ - v' ar-A.k,
\ --- ay 1(J
City of Mount Vernon % _ ___ r'
\ Town of Mamaroneck /
- aiook ! ® Secondary' Study Area � -/ - -
/ `oe� / Town of Harrison ,'' ii
c' ( [1207 ®•
\` Village of '1/40 a %/ /' _liEN •• ® /
\ Pe I ham / . - �r th �' ® � <' / I:
` \i-'4g,� Metroor 1r--�--�y `J '.
X _r.• -o9, —", \, Vi I Inge of
A� \ / \� --- r-- — /,___-=,-----: ', .Pi- 'mar \` . / Port Chester •
IP ` !�- VtI Iag9 of •
1 `y' \ .'—k-'City of • VV. �'0 Mamdronea• `/Study ,t—St.
_-'' _ ��,
Vi.l Ia..: of New Rochel ie •,! Vi Hage 'of �, v____11/4:----•...,-,� tra No''t
Pelham Mdnor,y • �' 'Larchmont'• �@
I\
,�r• I�l ,... /i▪ , j City of Rye �*
._
.. .. .•.....7 .. •:, , .1
/-1-'''. •
Li
Long Island Sound
tSTATE OF NEW YORK
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
U. S. Route 1 Corridor
Development Study
FIGURE 1
Project Study Area
•
U.S. Route I Corridor Development Study Technical Memorandum Number 2
or six lanes wide. See Figure 2 - Existing Lane Configurations. Abutting development is
commercial in some communities, and residential in others. Several NY State routes terminate
at Route 1, including NYS Route 125,NYS Route 127 and NYS Route 120. NYS Route 120A
intersects Route 1 in Port Chester. Many trips along Route 1 are short trips, including those to
local employment, schools, I-95, MNR stations,and and shopping areas. Through trips in the
corridor typically use I-95, and many commuter trips use MNR,both of which parallel Route 1.
For the purpose of this study,Route 1 is considered a north-south route. This is consistent with
I-95 and MNR within the study area.
Although Route 1 is typically a state route in Westchester County, it is under local control in the
City of New Rochelle and the City of Rye. Within the New Rochelle, the section from the
southern city limit to Lispenard Avenue (including the Main Street/Huguenot Street one-way
pair) is under city control. The stretch from Lispenard Avenue to the northern city limit is
controlled by Westchester County. The City of Rye controls Route 1 throughout its city limits.
Work such as traffic signal maintenance and roadway resurfacing is performed by the local
entities in these areas.
1.3. New England Thruway (I-95)
The New England Thruway, operated by the New York State Thruway Authority (NYSTA), is
a six lane divided limited access facility through the study area. It is part of I-95,which stretches
from Maine to Florida. The following nine interchanges are within the study area:
• Int. 14 (northbound entrance/southbound exit) - Hutchinson River Parkway
• Int. 15 - Route 1,New Rochelle/The Pelhams
• Int. 16-North Avenue/Cedar Street,New Rochelle
• Int. 17 (northbound exit/southbound entrance) - Chatsworth Avenue, Larchmont
• Int. 18A (northbound exit) - Fenimore Road, Mamaroneck
• Int. 18A (southbound)/18B - Mamaroneck Avenue, Mamaroneck/White Plains
• Int. 19- Playland Parkway, Rye/Harrison
• Int. 20 (northbound exit) - Route 1, Rye
• Int. 21 (northbound exit/southbound entrance) -Cross-Westchester Expressway(I-287)
/Route 1, Port Chester
• Int. 22 (northbound exit) - Midland Avenue, Port Chester
• Int. 22 (northbound entrance/southbound exit) -Cross-Westchester Expressway(I-287)
/Midland Avenue, Port Chester
The NYSTA collects a$1.00 toll northbound on 1-95 in Larchmont. Tolls can be paid in cash
at manned and exact change lanes, and with EZ-Pass. EZ-Pass is an electronic toll collection
system which uses a transponder placed inside the user's vehicle on the windshield to deduct the
De Leuw, Cather Team Page 1-2
(7"errsak
1° Lu\ se x e t \ °nookDri vvoY RmD S.SM 1____ MAveriuetK _e 1 veno° •
e
.—T
_^17I EITTIi— . rsYZ
-11
ow• L � / iteri
s° q�pe� `-6D�a e Route I NA\\ era / Q. a
el_....--
4,iir.rti--) RQIMnsw t ` •HRP Rarry ��rely,,- �'T i— Y .r _ + fit
Spring StlY
.4;11114T- , 4-- _.•-• ('I-9S Raw `�, T
----7X--- /----, Cc., --,, 1-1(S. At - . ..f-----
i.', .<6c..1.3A6 •••,. .
__ 1--,-- i At", 1 ,,,,.._ -7,,,, A .
/ITis ��t" Se= ) \ 7 �/ \ ~ j ri •
) 1 irei ,y, % ' Np s.- - ..
\44.4114, 1** 4/, ,
. aof/, Ap0044. i‘s-0,4k4t40.4 .4,1,4 •mi/94-4,Ansiltk dt.eke. ititc. --i ii _r 4..
, , -4414-7-040. -.., . -7 k---- s dt r „. _ _,. .... , „A.,)_ - .---,,
. i.,,,,-...,,,,,,, . 4%,,b."46% #40•14,4146, ' 'WI,
' '4k4v44#5,41i- '''' ''
k" Mit4% it
►4-Alte • ♦.14 ` io „....,,„0........2,,,,A_ 4f- i4. 'V :-.4 4--4,Lik --74,40, 1:000 -- • ♦ .� �-v i
ile Wildira•S; .>' __-, .,.
!Po
,” v •itid„ i,„,t •
/.taia, al , 74r . iit "8-. ,;poi- . reo r
i 44 v. ,_,.., / mmix,,444,
, ,
...., , .
• - .14" ,f: rI 1eft w� of j r��11►1 • f 1 % �►/1��/ j F_. *IOW 0 t t,A.
, „ STs to i ` ''1 iii ! J�' ►�"' wig' r ;/1 J• ,,,.�. rte_ itr r .;;i. t t1At!.
00
�,
' •* I 1, `7.7 74 % ;� t U. �� `„ V.
:'::.-..1:j21111111°H:
Arkt
s" IN • ‘ *4
'�,� , ..* . +I % -k/.;!►.. 1014111111111111
1ltrA; r� *0 �Ay ter'/,,,,,,,a
---: i ,.. •;' •.•-- ::'- ,":‘ IS* "Wilk \ ._ 0.;Xi T
.
1Y IAvlenw Ieeier -c . - �'
HRP Romp
JIM/ :1,-,..Z - I L i--4 7—ri
(-- _____-
North
__ _.i. .---1- „lain...I:rm. . ,...)
IY i—i- -r-I
r var YS ___,,,,.,•.:.... STATE OF NEW YORK
tis Ra;;;. g S rest Ni« ��w{YOj • DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
�� U. S. Route 1 Corridor
T
1—T ; i T T a Development Study
d'� FIGURE 2
Idar
�" " it �" �x� �"
IA of4veoy
c°�" Lane Configurations
•"�� PA,p-for 4143. Smeet R inui R•
DE LEUW,CATFER & COMPANY OF NEW YORK,NC.
t/.S. Route I Corridor Development Study Technical Memorandum Number 2
appropriate toll from the user's account. Motorists are not required to stop at the toll booth, but
can pass through an EZ-Pass lane at slow speed. Data from the NYSTA indicates that about
12%of New England Thruway users take advantage of the EZ-Pass system on a daily basis,and
about 19%of A.M. peak period trips use the system.
The New York State Thruway Authority maintains I-95 and I-287 within the study area, which
includes bridges and Route 1 interchanges in Rye/Port Chester and New Rochelle. The I-95
/ I-287 / Route 1 interchange in Rye/Port Chester was recently reconstructed, including two
Route 1 bridges and two signalized intersections.
1.4. MTA/Metro-North Railroad
MTA/Metro-North Railroad provides commuter rail service to seven New Haven Line stations
within the study area. The stations are listed below.
• Pelham Station provides MNR service for Pelham and Pelham Manor
• New Rochelle Station provides MNR service for New Rochelle and is the only
AMTRAK station in the study area. It is the site of a proposed TransCenter, connecting
MNR, AMTRAK, Bee-Line buses, and long distance bus service.
• Larchmont Station is the busiest MNR station in the study area, serving Larchmont and
eastern Scarsdale. It is served by two Bee-Line commuter loops, and has the most
available parking.
• Mamaroneck Station provides MNR service for Mamaroneck.
• Harrison Station provides MNR service for southeastern Harrison, Mamaroneck, and
some Port Chester residents.
• Rye Station provides MNR service for Rye and portions of Port Chester.
• Port Chester Station provides MNR service for Port Chester and some Connecticut
residents. It serves the highest volume of reverse commute (toward Connecticut) trips.
Most trains serve commuters to Manhattan, but reverse peak service into Connecticut is also
provided, along with off-peak and weekend service. AMTRAK provides intercity service at
New Rochelle, with service to Boston and Washington, D.C., and connections to other points.
1.5. Other Routes in the Study Area
A number of other major roadways serve the Primary Study Area. Some of the routes are
described below.
1.5.a. Cross-Westchester Expressway (I-287)
The Cross-Westchester Expressway is a six lane divided limited access facility which
connects I-95 at the New York/Connecticut line with I-87 in Elmsford. It serves as one
De Leuw, Cather Team Page 1-3
U.S. Route I Corridor Development Study Technical Memorandum Number 2
of the major east-west routes in Westchester County, connecting I-87 and I-95 to White
Plains. It also serves a high volume of Connecticut-New Jersey through traffic skirting
New York City. Similar to I-95, it is operated and maintained by the NYSTA.
1.5.b. Hutchinson River Parkway
The Hutchinson River Parkway is generally a four lane divided limited access parkway
connecting New York City with the Merritt Parkway in Connecticut. It has over twenty
interchanges in the study area, including I-95 at the New York City border, I-287 in
Harrison,NYS Route 120,NYS Route 127, and NYS Route 125.
1.5.c. Playland Parkway
Playland Parkway is a four lane divided limited access parkway connecting 1-95 with
Rye Playland at the Long Island Sound. There are connections to Old Post Road just
west of Route 1, and there is a ramp from Route 1 northbound to Playland Parkway
eastbound.
1.5.d. NYS Route 125 (Weaver Street)
Weaver Street is typically a one lane per direction collector which connects Larchmont
with Scarsdale and White Plains. Adjacent land use is typically residential, with some
commercial areas.
1.5.e. NYS Route 127 (Harrison Avenue)
NYS Route 127 is typically a one lane per direction collector which connects southern
Mamaroneck with Harrison and White Plains. Adjacent land use is typically residential,
with some commercial areas, especially in Harrison. The two blocks of Route 127 just
west of Route 1 are known as Keeler Street. Harrison Street, a town road, intersects
Keeler Avenue two blocks west of its intersection with Route 1. West of the Keeler/'
Harrison intersection, Route 127 is known as Harrison Avenue.
1.5.f. NYS Route 120 (Purchase Street)
Purchase Street is typically a one lane per direction collector within the Primary Study
Area. In Harrison, it joins NYS Route 120A (Westchester Avenue) and becomes the
service road for I-287 for several thousand feet. Then it turns north(as Purchase Street)
toward Westchester County Airport.
1.5.g. NYS Route 120A(Westchester Avenue/King Street)
NYS Route 120A consists of two sections. The Westchester Avenue section begins at
NYS Route 120 / I-287 in Harrison, and traverses easterly to Liberty Square in Port
Chester. It serves commercial development(offices) along I-287, residential properties
in Rye Brook, and commercial development in Port Chester. At Liberty Square, it turns
northward and becomes King Street. In downtown Port Chester, it continues to serve
De Leuw, Cather Team Page 1-4
U.S.Route I Corridor Development Study Technical Memorandum Number 2
commercial development. Once out of downtown, it serves residential areas north to the
Connecticut State line.
1.5.h. Palmer Avenue(County Road 67/44)
Palmer Avenue originates at River Avenue(Echo Avenue)in New Rochelle. It traverses
northerly as a four lane collector through Larchmont to Mamaroneck Avenue,paralleling
Route 1. It typically serves residential uses, with commercial areas near Larchmont
Avenue in Larchmont and Mamaroneck Avenue in Mamaroneck.
Other main roads include Pelhamdale Road in Pelham, North Avenue in New Rochelle,
Larchmont and Chatsworth Avenues in Larchmont, Mamaroneck and North Barry Avenues in
Mamaroneck, Old Post Road and Purdy Street in Rye, and South Regent Street and Mill Street
in Port Chester.
1.6. Analysis Years
The base year for this study is 1996. Any information about the corridor collected prior to 1994
was not considered current. The supplemental data collection effort was performed during 1996.
These data were combined to obtain a picture of the network as it exists in 1996, which has been
used in the existing analyses.
The existing data will be projected fifteen years into the future to 2011. Several analyses of the
future data will be performed.
• Future null analyses (described in this Technical Memorandum) have been performed
as the "base" or "no-build" 2011 condition. It includes traffic growth and projected
developments for the study area. It does not reflect any study recommendations.
• Upcoming phases of the study will develop 2011 improvement packages for Route 1.
Each of these packages will be analyzed and compared to the null analysis already
performed. The relative impacts of the improvements can then be evaluated in terms of
benefits and costs.
1.7. Project Team
This Study is being performed for the New York State Department of Transportation(NYSDOT)
by De Leuw, Cather and Company of New York,Inc.. De Leuw, Cather is being assisted in
this effort by two subconsultants:
• El Taller Colaborativo,Inc. is responsible for the field data collection tasks, including
traffic counts,the origin-destination surveys, and the parking surveys.
De Leuw, Cather Team Page 1-5
U.S. Route 1 Corridor Development Study Technical Memorandum Number 2
• Parish Weiner and Shuster,Inc. is responsible for the collection of available data and
portions of the capacity analysis.
Collectively,these firms are referred to as the De Leuw, Cather Team.
1.8. Technical Memorandum Number 2
This Technical Memorandum documents the Technical Investigation, which describes the
Route 1 corridor. The Technical Investigation consisted of the following three elements:
• The Transportation System Characteristics Inventory phase included collection of
available data from existing sources(Chapter 2)and supplemental data collection in the
field (Chapter 3)to describe the corridor.
• These data were compiled and used to develop base year and future year null traffic
volumes, which are documented in Chapter 4.
• The traffic volumes were combined with other data collected to perform an analysis of
base year and future year null traffic conditions. The analysis is documented in
Chapter 5.
Chapter 6 presents the conclusions drawn from this work and outlines the next steps of the study.
Because of the volume of data collected, this technical memorandum has been prepared with a
body and a series of separate appendixes. The body of the document consists of summaries of
the data collected, while the appendixes contain the raw data. The summaries have been
prepared with the expectation that work in subsequent phases could be performed without
substantial use of the appendixes.
De Leuw, Cather Team Page 1-6
U.S. Route 1 Corridor Development Study Technical Memorandum Number 2
2. AVAILABLE DATA COLLECTION
An inventory of the physical conditions along Route 1 was undertaken to allow for analysis and
evaluation of the corridor. The goal of the inventory was to define current operational and physical
characteristics of Route 1 and the Primary Study Area. The first step in the data collection effort
involved the collection of available information reflecting conditions in the study area.
Studies and reports are prepared regularly by federal, state,and local governments,and by private sector
entities. Data contained in area reports were used for this project to avoid duplication of efforts. A list
of potential data sources for Route 1 was compiled,and the following agencies were contacted to obtain
available data:
• New York State Department of Transportation(NYSDOT)
• New York State Thruway Authority(NYSTA)
• MTA/Metro-North Railroad(MNR)
• Westchester County Department of Transportation(WCDOT)
• Westchester County Department of Planning (WCDCP)
• Westchester County Department of Public Works (WCDPW)
• Town of Pelham
• Village of Pelham Manor
• City of New Rochelle
• Town of Mamaroneck
• Village of Larchmont
• Village of Mamaroneck
• Town of Rye
• City of Rye
• Town of Harrison
• Village of Harrison
• Village of Port Chester
• Village of Rye Brook
Each of these agencies was asked to provide copies of data relevant to the study corridor. The data were
reviewed in terms of type, quality, quantity,and geographic coverage to determine if they were suitable
for use in this study. Data reflecting conditions prior to 1994 were considered out of date. Each type
of data collected is described in detail below.
2.1. Physical Roadway Conditions
These data describe Route 1 and other routes physically in terms of number of lanes, shoulders,
right of way,clearances,and pavement conditions. Traffic control data include signing,striping,
traffic signal information,and parking data. Existing data collected include aerial photographs
De Leuw, Cather Team. Page 2-1
U.S. Route 1 Corridor Development Study Technical Memorandum Number 2
of the study area, 40-scale mapping for Route 1, and appropriate data from the NYSDOT
Highway Sufficiency Ratings book. Typically, Route 1 is two lanes per direction. Exceptions
include one lane per direction segments in Rye and Port Chester,and the three lane per direction
one-way pair in New Rochelle. Refer to Figure 2. Property line information will only be
collected in areas where proposed improvements may require right-of-way,and will be collected
in future tasks.
2.2. Traffic Operations
Operational data describe the traffic that flows in the Primary Study Area. The data include
Automatic Traffic Recorder(ATR)volumes,turning movement volumes, travel time and delay
data,and vehicle classification and occupancy data. Available data collected include volumes
from several Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) and counts taken by NYSDOT. County-
wide data were also available from New York Metropolitan Transportation Council (NYMTC),
the regional metropolitan planning organization(MPO) which includes Westchester County.
Average daily traffic volume data for 1994 were also collected. These data provide a general
indication of the level of traffic flow along a roadway. Generally,the segments of Route 1 with
the highest AADTs are southern Pelham, New Rochelle, Mamaroneck, and southern Port
Chester. Refer to Figure 3 - 1994 AADT Data. The compilation of peak hour volume data is
described later in this document.
2.3. Bicycle Facilities
There are no marked bicycle lanes or routes in the Primary Study Area. Public bicycle locking
facilities are shown in Table 1. Facilities are available at two MNR stations. These facilities are
not used regularly.
Table 1 -Public Bicycle Locking Facilities
Location Facility Type Capacity
Larchmont MNR Station Open Rack 24 Bicycles
Mamaroneck MNR Station Open Rack 16 Bicycles
2.4. Public Transportation Service by Rail
AMTRAK and MNR both serve the Route 1 Study Area. Data on AMTRAK schedules were
collected from published timetables. AMTRAK provides limited service to New Rochelle
station, with six northbound and southbound trains stopping on a typical day.
De Leuw, Cather Team. Page 2-2
14 , 60019 , 600 VPD `
VPD
22 , 100 VPD 1 25 , 200 VPD
13 , 700 VPD
18 , 500 VPD 11 , 500 VPD
12 , 300 VPD
9 , 250 VPD 10 , 300 VPD
,' 'i,1\ 10 , 700 VPD
1.
f ♦ ( ` Qom. / /
_ A I _ lirL ''''.00
-ilt s.„,, 1 .,,,, 44 ____-.1-' i -- ---- ,
/ /.,IN. , .,_ ,,_. 1 Of/ .s' . . ---N
i? • -i;y I- -.---'' '.2 / ) -- I 4 ) 1
10* i allfiNt 7' I,./‹-\ i / L.-.. i! 4p . , 441/41.P .1 -X
(5) -- 7 >/// / -.1. \ ' \ , 4111,„,, r ,
p.,.2_ ij,,,; "4„,*.441 0." /(C;711u..,a.,1411 2 1/
+. ` •ottail 141te' ' > r WV\:*
lit
‘f, -i i •-)
.frA4• . littAtdor
o.
i `:14: ,'*"•114.004,441:1:417
11/rte # .II
/ `ior villif.dr dr.,---- _;. .. ,, /- . � ;V*'"1'4-:(
7! \ I#4:-
��l ► C ;CP lit
�117
/TM. 00.11
` Ciirionliv‘/
`t!G� e#,, 9 h ♦1� '. "f G�,• nae - _� � '
� fir' Zfir • �r �. ,7 ♦ •
1 �r'N / +
�clidrarM
p +t N� -'t'i vNr.� j t74�s• �,, }
II ! . jj / #1�� -�{ `lam t1 ...nis IN-•,•. �,,,r { o'y . \i A . • `
_.-
tole ';' __/''
'-itt
ARROW f �' 1: ` : �� ; ; fir. °"re l lir" s--_� _
• /0, ; ) -1 P411111.11
,-:: :„'z•-....; Lig'.. Alt% • q 4"-:'..j:::11:--- '. --,-___ if ' ''.:'- f.- ,,c--- I 1 1 '
iEtif . r 4 apr_..., :. ,„ 44..4 ...- ..._,-•-• - : ' 0 i Ot 4 -
•
te)4?
18 , 100 VPD '
North
l opprox1
17 , 300 VPD Legend
1 2 , 400 VPD 10.000 - 14.000 VPD rSTATE OF NEW YORK
18 , 500 VPD DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
12 , 300 VPD 14.000 - 18.000 VPD U. S. Route 1 Corridor
Development Study
1 1 , 500 VPD 9 , 250 VPD 18.000 — 22.000 VPD
000
3
22.000 - 26.000 VPD 1994 AADT Data
DE LEUW,CATHER & COMPANY OF NEW YORK,INC.
U.S. Route 1 Corridor Development Study Technical Memorandum Number 2
MNR provides regular commuter service to the Primary Study Area. MNR route,schedule,fare,
ridership, and parking data were collected from the railroad. See Appendix A - MNR Data.
Weekday peak period ridership data are shown in Table 2. Morning peak period data reflect
trains arriving in Grand Central Terminal (Manhattan)between 6 A.M. and 10 A.M. Evening
peak period data reflect trains departing Grand Central Terminal between 4 P.M. and 8 P.M.
MNR did not provide evening reverse commute data. Daily ridership data are shown in Table
3. Peak period data are not collected on weekends, so daily data are the only available measure
of Saturday ridership.
Table 2 - 1996 MNR Weekday Peak Period Ridership Data
Morning Peak Evening Peak
Inbound Outbound (Outbound)
Station
On Off On Off On Off
Pelham 1723 15 74 104 18 1440
New Rochelle 1636 61 341 329 63 1510
Larchmont 2572 20 48 227 35 2097
Mamaroneck ' 1320 44 54 343 40 1116
Harrison 1459 19 28 244 106 1132
Rye 1423 26 15 333 40 1196
Port Chester 1142 59 155 413 84 894
Table 3 - 1996 MNR Daily Ridership Data
Weekday Saturday
Station Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound
On Off On Off On Off On Off
Pelham 2219 102 137 2213 718 98 105 651
New Rochelle 2784 628 567 2829 1218 337 406 1326
Larchmont 3323 92 136 3224 853 100 152 901
Mamaroneck 2014 148 157 1929 713 155 156 777
Harrison 2050 84 182 1852 561 60 66 567
Rye 2188 98 80 2053 688 35 52 958
Port Chester 2047 410 362 1981 931 259 319 989
De Leuw, Cather Team. Page 2-3
U.S. Route I Corridor Development Study Technical Memorandum Number 2
The data in Tables 2 and 3 indicate that Larchmont is the busiest commuter station,but that New
Rochelle is busier off-peak and on weekends. Larchmont is served by two commuter bus loops
and has the most parking of the MNR stations in the study area. New Rochelle is also served
by several Bee-Line routes, and serves as a transfer point to AMTRAK.
Uni-Ticket, origin-destination, and travel mode data were also provided. The Uni-Ticket data
show the origin and destination stations for riders who have enrolled in the MNR/ Bee-Line
combined ticket program. Refer to Table 4 and Appendix A.
Table 4 -MNR Uni-Ticket Data
To/From Station
To/From Station
Manhattan Bronx/Mt. Connecticut Other Study Total
Vernon Area Stations
Pelham 19 3 • 1 1 24
New Rochelle 60 20 4 4 88
Larchmont 41 1 1 1 44
Mamaroneck 13 10 0 1 24
Harrison 6 2 0 0 8
Rye 18 5 1 0 24
Port Chester 1 20 17 0 38
The Uni-Ticket data reflect the frequent Bee-Line service and high passenger densities at
Larchmont and New Rochelle.
The origin-destination data provided are based on April, 1995 Chek-It data. Chek-It is a program
which allows commuters to purchase monthly tickets by mail, avoiding lines at the ticket
window. Although Chek-It data do not reflect the entire traveling population,they do show the
origins of monthly commuters, who are often the best targets for origin-to-station mode shifts.
The Chek-It O-D data were reviewed by station, and compiled to show trips that originated in
the same ZIP code as the boarding station, trips that originated in ZIP codes adjacent to the
station's ZIP code,and trips that originated at other ZIP codes. Refer to Table 5 and Appendix B
for complete data. An origin-destination survey was performed as part of the supplemental data
collection effort to obtain additional data about MNR trips. See subsequent sections for more
information. The O-D data generally reflect short trips to the train station,as would be expected
of commuters. Many of the "other ZIP" trips to the Garrison station are from the Larchmont
area.
De Leuw, Cather Team. Page 2-4
U.S. Route 1 Corridor Development Study Technical Memorandum Number 2
Table 5 - MNR Chek-It O-D Data
Station Station ZIP Adjacent ZIP Other ZIP
Pelham 74% 24% 2%
New Rochelle 24% 69% 7%
Larchmont 85% 15% 0%
Mamaroneck 78% 14% 8%
Harrison 32% 40% 28%
Rye 74% 24% 2%
Port Chester 69% 28% 3%
Travel mode data for rider trips to the train station were provided based on MNR's 1995
customer satisfaction survey. See Table 6 and Appendix A.
Table 6 -MNR Travel Mode Data
Drove& Dropped Carpool/
Station parked Off/Taxi Vanpool Bus Bicycle Walked Other
Pelham 22% 26% 3% 1% 1% 46% 1%
New Rochelle 44% 33% 0% 4% 0% 19% 0%
Larchmont 39% 14% 2% 3% 0% 42% 0%
Mamaroneck 45% 24% 0% 2% 0% 29% 0%
Harrison 65% 12% 0% 0% 3% 20% 0%
Rye 49% 24% 2% 1% 3% 21% 0%
Port Chester 32% 31% 2% 0% 0% 35% 0%
The three most common modes to the station were drove & parked, dropped off/ taxi, and
walked. Walk trips were more common in those areas with high percentages of trips originating
in the station's ZIP code. Bus trips were most common in New Rochelle and Larchmont,where
bus service is most prevalent.
De Leuw, Cather Team. Page 2-5
U.S.Route I Corridor Development Study Technical Memorandum Number 2
2.5. Public Transportation Service by Bus
WCDOT operates the Bee-Line bus system throughout Westchester County. Within the study
area, fifteen existing routes use or cross Route 1. CTTransit also operates one route which
connects Port Chester with southwestern Connecticut. See Table 7 and Appendix B-Study Area
Bus Data. Schedule and route data for these lines were collected from the operators. Flexible
route paratransit service is also provided by Bee-Line. There were no existing park-and-ride
facilities identified within the study area. Routes 90 and 91 are seasonal Tuesday-Sunday
Playland Park routes, accommodating midday recreational trips to the amusement park. Route
76 also serves Playland in season.
Table 7 -Bus Routes Serving Route 1
Route Route 1 Communities Served Other Communities Served
7 New Rochelle Yonkers, Mount Vernon
13 Port Chester Ossining, Tarrytown
30 New Rochelle Yonkers, Bronxville
42 New Rochelle The Bronx, Mount Vernon
45 New Rochelle Eastchester, Pelham Bay
45Q New Rochelle Top-of-the-Ridge
60 Pelham Manor,New Rochelle, The Bronx, White Plains
Larchmont, Mamaroneck
61 Pelham Manor,New Rochelle, The Bronx, Harrison
Larchmont, Mamaroneck, Rye,
Port Chester
62 Pelham Manor,New Rochelle The Bronx, White Plains
66 New Rochelle, Larchmont Dobbs Ferry, Ardsley, Scarsdale
70 Larchmont (commuter loop)
71 Larchmont Manor (commuter loop)
76 Rye, Port Chester Rye Beach
90 Pelham Manor The Bronx, Playland
91 Pelham Manor,New Rochelle Yonkers, Mount Vernon, Playland
K(1) Port Chester Cos Cob, Old Greenwich, Stamford
(1)-Operated by CTTransit,Connecticut
De Leuw, Cather Team. Page 2-6
U.S. Route 1 Corridor Development Study Technical Memorandum Number 2
2.6. Vanpool/Carpool and Rideshare Activities
Rideshare programs are being promoted under provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA). A
regional rideshare program serves southeastern New York(Westchester and five other counties)
and southwestern Connecticut,including the Route 1 corridor. It is operated by MetroPool and
uses 1-800-FIND-RIDE as its contact number. MetroPool's database includes about one
thousand commuters who either live or work in the study area, and they are working with about
thirty-five area employers. The current successful match rate is about thirty-two percent.
2.7. Accidents
The New York State Department of Motor Vehicles (NYSDMV) maintains accident records
which describe reported accidents along roadways throughout the state. Accidents along state
routes are compiled in the State Accident Surveillance System (SASS) database. NYSDOT
provided accident data along Route 1 (except Rye and New Rochelle) from the SASS database
for 1992, 1993, 1994, and 1995. Since Route 1 is not under NYSDOT control in Rye and New
Rochelle,accident data was obtained from the Centralized Local Accident Surveillance System
(CLASS) for similar years. The accident analysis is described later in this document.
2.8. Current and Proposed Construction Activities
Various agencies were contacted for data on current and proposed construction activities along
the Route 1 corridor. Ongoing projects identified(as of May, 1996) are shown in Table 8.
Table 8 - Ongoing Construction Projects
Location Limits of Work Type of Work Agency
New England Thruway Harrison Dr.,Larchmont to Full reconstruction,including bridges,ramps, NYSTA
(I-95),Larchmont Fenimore Road,Mamaroneck and Larchmont Station parking structure
New England Thruway West St.,Harrison to Central Full reconstruction,including bridges,ramps, NYSTA
(I-95),Rye/Harrison Ave.,Rye and Playland Parkway Interchange
Main Street(Route 1), Lispenard St.to Cooper Dr. Resurfacing WCDOT
New Rochelle
Cedar Street at Route 1 -- Installation of semi-actuated traffic signal. City of
Rye
Route 1 and Weyman 1-95 to King St.;Weyman Signal modification and widening as part of a (private)
Avenue,New Rochelle Ave.,New Rochelle new Home Depot.
One significant project has been the reconstruction of 1-95 (the New England Thruway), which
is being performed as a series of several mile contracts. Under each contract,the NYSTA has
De Leuw, Cather Team. Page 2-7
U.S. Route I Corridor Development Study Technical Memorandum Number 2
maintained two lanes in each direction at all times. Two contracts are under construction now,
one in Rye and the other in Larchmont. Since the I-95 reconstruction has been under way for
at least a decade, any diversions to Route 1 have been analyzed as part of the normal Route 1
traffic stream. Other than the I-95 projects, the identified construction projects are not
anticipated to cause full-time lane closures or diversions.
Only one roadway project has been identified which is expected to be constructed in the near
future. Several other potential future projects have been identified, but the planned work is still •
under study or has not been fully approved. See Table 9.
Table 9 -Future Construction Projects
Description Limits of Work Type of Work Status Agency
Rehabilitation of AMTRAK I-95 to Weyman Overhead bridge In design AMTRAK
overpass,New Rochelle Ave. rehabilitation
Sidewalk Improvements, Westchester Ave.to Rehabilitation of To be Village of
South Main St.,Port Chester Slater St. sidewalks and widening built in Port
at Grace Church St. 1997 Chester
Home Depot,Midland Ave., Various locations, Intersection In permit (private)
Port Chester Rye and Port Chester improvements process
Sidewalk Improvements, Central Ave.to Rehabilitation of Under City of
Boston Post Road,Rye Orchard Ave.,Rye sidewalks study Rye
Reconfiguration of Hutchinson River Ramp relocation/ Under City of
Hutchinson River Pkwy. Pkwy.ramps at signalization study New
Interchange 7,Pelham Route 1,Pelham Rochelle
The extent of the Hutchinson River parkway work has not been determined. Outside of this
project, no full-time lane closures or diversions are anticipated.
2.9. Study Area Reports
Several recent reports include data on Route 1 and the surrounding area. Collected reports are
listed in Table 10. These reports provided a variety of data along Route 1, including existing
volumes,signalization information,and future traffic projections. The data in these reports has
been combined with the field data collected and used as part of the basis for this study.
De Leuw, Cather Team. Page 2-8
U.S. Route 1 Corridor Development Study l ethnical Memorandum Number 2
Table 10 - Study Area Reports
Document Project Location Study Area Coverage
Interchange 7 Improvement Study, Route 1 /Hutchinson River Pelham
Hutchinson River Parkway Parkway Interchange, Pelham
Price Club Environmental Impact Weyman Avenue,New Pelham/New
Study Rochelle Rochelle
Home Depot Environmental Weyman Avenue,New New Rochelle
Impact Study Rochelle
RKO Theater, Reuse Application Route 1 at North Avenue, New Rochelle
Traffic Study New Rochelle
New Rochelle Center Route 1 at LeCount Place, New Rochelle
Environmental Impact Study New Rochelle
Signal Timing Optimization Route 1, New Rochelle New Rochelle
Program Report
Palmer Center Traffic Impact Palmer Avenue,New New Rochelle/
Study Rochelle Larchmont
Traffic Assessment, SHI Realty Route 1 at Chatsworth Larchmont
Corp. Avenue, Larchmont
Regatta Mixed Use Development Prospect Avenue, Mamaroneck
Environmental Impact Study Mamaroneck
Osborn Retirement Community Route 1 at Osborn Road/ Old Rye
Traffic Study Post Road, Rye
Home Depot Environmental Midland Avenue, Port Rye/Port Chester
Impact Study Chester
PIL Study Numbers 872018, Route 1,Port Chester Port Chester
872019, 872020, and 872021
Rye Brook North Environmental Anderson Hill Road/Route Port Chester
Impact Study 120A, Rye Brook
The Hutchinson River Parkway Interchange 7 Improvement Study is still unde review by
NYSDOT. A study is also being prepared for the proposed TransCenter in New Rochelle, but
no reports have been released.
De Leuw, Cather Team. Page 2-9
U.S. Route 1 Corridor Development Study Technical Memorandum Number 2
2.10. Social and Economic Data
A review of the social and economic characteristics of the Primary and Secondary Study Areas
was performed. The study area extends from the Hutchinson River Parkway to Route 1,
including portions of Pelham, Pelham Manor,New Rochelle, Larchmont,the town and village
of Mamaroneck,Rye, Harrison,Port Chester,Rye Brook,and a small portion of Scarsdale. See
Figure 1. Because of the limitations of certain census data,the review of population trends and
major socio-economic characteristics included the entirety of these municipalities, except
Scarsdale,which was omitted.
Information on the population and demographics of the study area were obtained from Census
data,New York Metropolitan Transportation Council (NYMTC) data and other studies. Data
were collected for Westchester County as a whole,and for each of the municipalities in the study
area. Data included existing population data, future population projections, median age
information,household size and income data, and housing information.
2.10.a. Population Trends and Projections
During the decade of the eighties, Westchester County's total population remained
virtually stable, increasing by only one percent from 1980 to 1990. See Table 11.
Table 11 - Population Trends - Study Area Municipalities
Municipality 1980 1990 Percent Change
Pelham Manor 6,130 5,490 -10.4%
Pelham 6,848 6,395 -6.6%
New Rochelle 70,794 67,276 -5.0%
Larchmont 6,308 6,181 -2.0%
Mamaroneck(Town) 12,428 11,564 -7.0%
Mamaroneck(Village) 17,616 16,997 -3.5%
Rye 15,083 14,936 -1.0%
Harrison 23,046 23,310 1.1%
Rye Brook 7,996 7,758 -3.0%
Port Chester 23,565 24,735 5.0%
Municipality Totals 189,814 184,642 -2.7%
County Totals 866,599 874,866 1.0%
Data from the U.S.Census for 1980 and 1990
De Leuw, Cather Team. Page 2-10
U.S.Route 1 Corridor Development Study Technical Memorandum Number 2
Many of the northern municipalities(those with vacant and underdeveloped land)gained
in population, while the older, more densely settled southern municipalities lost
population. The population in Port Chester and Harrison, in the northern portion of the
study area, increased slightly, while the population in the other municipalities in the
study area decreased. Population losses ranged from negligible to 10.4 percent in
Pelham Manor. Overall,the population in the study area municipalities declined by 2.7
percent.
Population projections for the county as a whole, made by NYMTC, show modest
continuing growth for most decades through 2020, as shown in Table 12. Overall,the
county's population is projected to increase to 905,000 by 2020,a growth of 1.2 percent
over the thirty year period.
Table 12 - Population Trends and Projections -Westchester County
Year Population(thousands) Percent Change
1970 894,100 ---
1980 866,600 -3.1%
1990 874,900 1.0%
1992 888,900 1.6%
1995 885,600 -0.4%
2000 891,000 0.6%
2005 892,900 0.2%
2010 897,700 0.5%
2015 900,000 0.3%
2020 905,000 0.6%
Data from New York Metropolitan Transportation Council
The study area municipalities are projected to have less population growth than the
county as a whole. The total population for these municipalities is expected to increase
by only a half a percent from 1990 to 2020, as shown in Table 13. The only
municipalities with projected growth are the Town of Mamaroneck (6.8%), Harrison
(6.0%), Rye (4.1%), and New Rochelle (2.2%). The remaining municipalities are
projected to have stable or declining populations.
De Leuw, Cather Team. Page 2-11
U.S. Route 1 Corridor Development Study Technical Memorandum Number 2
Table 13 - Population Projections - Study Area Municipalities
Change
Municipality 1990 2000 2010 2020 (1990-2020)
Pelham Manor 5,490 5,400 5,170 5,100 -7.1%
Pelham 6,395 6,400 6,200 6,100 -4.6%
New Rochelle 67,276 70,200 67,500 68,750 2.2%
Larchmont 6,181 6,000 5,800 5,750 -7.0%
Town of Mamaroneck 11,564 12,100 12,150 12,350 6.8%
Village of Mamaroneck 16,997 17,200 16,680 17,000 0.0%
Rye 14,936 14,970 14,500 15,550 4.1%
Harrison 23,310 22,800 22,500 24,700 6.0%
Rye Brook 7,758 7,350 7,350 7,250 -6.5%
Port Chester 24,735 24,800 23,500 23,000 -7.0%
Study Area Totals 184,642 187,220 181,350 185,550 0.5%
Projection data from the Westchester County Park-n-Ride Master Plan Study,Technical
Memorandum# 1; 1990 data from the 1990 U. S.Census
2.10.b. Socio-Economic Characteristics
A variety of socio-economic characteristics were compiled for the study area
municipalities. The median age for Westchester County was 36.2 as reported in the 1990
Census. Port Chester and Harrison,the only municipalities showing population growth,
have lower median ages(33.6 and 34.3,respectively)than the county-wide average. The
median age in the other study area municipalities varies from 37.3 in Pelham to 40.0 in
Rye Brook. See Table 14.
The municipalities with the smallest households in 1990 were New Rochelle,Larchmont,
the Town of Mamaroneck,and the Village of Mamaroneck. These are all lower than the
county-wide average of 2.65 persons per household. The remaining municipalities
reported an average household size of 2.68 to 2.84. The range of household sizes is
relatively small,with the entire study area reporting a median of fewer than three persons
per household. Refer to Table 14.
De Leuw, Cather Team. Page 2-12
U.S. Route I Corridor Development Study Technical Memorandum Number 2
Table 14 - 1990 Socio-Economic Characteristics
Average Median Median Detached Single
Persons per Household Household Family Homes
Municipality .Household Age(Years) Income (%of Units)
Pelham Manor 2.84 39.6 $78,769 71.8%
Pelham 2.81 37.3 $63,512 52.7%
New Rochelle 2.57 37.3 $43,482 37.6%
Larchmont 2.55 37.8 $77,649 65.5%
Mamaroneck(Town) 2.63 38.2 $63,896 63.4%
Mamaroneck(Village) 2.51 37.5 $47,321 41.5%
Rye 2.70 37.9 $69,695 65.3%
Harrison 2.72 34.3 $56,324 48.9%
Rye Brook 2.78 40.0 $72,788 67.7%
Port Chester 2.68 33.6 $35,216 25.2%
Westchester County 2.64 36.2 $48,405 43.4%
Data from the 1990 U. S.Census
Except for Port Chester,New Rochelle, and the Village of Mamaroneck, the study area
municipalities reported higher 1989 incomes than Westchester County as a whole.
Pelham Manor, Larchmont, and Rye Brook all exceeded$70,000 in median household
income, with Rye only slightly below that figure. See Table 14.
As would be expected, those municipalities with the highest incomes have the highest
proportions of detached single family houses in their housing stock. In Pelham Manor,
Rye Brook, and Larchmont,detached single family homes represent about two thirds of
all housing units. In contrast, detached single family homes make up about one quarter
of the housing inventory for Port Chester. County-wide,the fraction is about two fifths.
Refer to Table 14.
2.11. Existing Land Use
Westchester County's earliest development was influenced by its three major transportation
corridors: the Hudson River Valley, the Bronx River-North Saw Mill River Valley, and the
Long Island Sound Plain. These north-south corridors,where the county's topography was most
De Leuw, Cather Team. Page 2-13
U.S. Route 1 Corridor Development Study Technical Memorandum Number 2
gentle, dictated placement of the major post roads and rail lines. Early development centered
around the railroad stations. By 1920,the Boston Post Road-New Haven Railroad corridor was
largely developed and the intervening years have seen primarily infill development or
redevelopment of older core or underutilized areas.
The Westchester County Planning Board, in its adopted land use 1996 plan, "Patterns for
Westchester," classifies the existing concentrated centers in the county as major, intermediate,
local,and hamlet. The study area centers are New Rochelle(major),Port Chester(intermediate),
and seven local centers-Pelham Manor,Pelham,Larchmont,Larchmont Station,Mamaroneck,
Rye, and Harrison. There are no hamlets in the study area.
In both New Rochelle and Port Chester, the two larger centers in the corridor, much of the
central business district (in both cases, bordering Route 1) has been designated as an urban
renewal area. Because redevelopment is only partly complete,both have a combination of new
buildings and street furniture, vacant land and buildings, and both improved and unimproved
areas.
Otherwise, the Route 1 corridor today is a mixture of uses; most areas are residential and/or
commercial. The municipality-by-municipality descriptions below start in Pelham Manor,at the
Bronx line,and continue north to Port Chester and the Connecticut line.
2.11.a. The Pelhams
For about two blocks at the southern boundary of the study area,the Hutchinson River
Parkway is east of Route 1. In this area,along both sides of Route 1 extending south into
the adjacent area of The Bronx and north to the Parkway, is an industrial and
warehousing section, also including a Caldor's shopping center. On the north-east side
of the Hutchinson River Parkway, the character of the land uses near Route 1 changes
abruptly,becoming entirely residential. The first blocks are entirely bordered by single-
family homes; closer to New Rochelle,the Route 1 frontage is predominantly apartment
buildings and, on the Long Island Sound side, extending into New Rochelle, is the
Pelham Country Club.
As shown in Figure 4 -Area Land Use,the Westchester County Planning Department's
generalized land use map classifies most of Pelham Manor and Pelham within the study
area as "medium density residential," defined as two to sixteen dwelling units per acre.
Within the residential area are churches, public schools, parks and an occasional
cemetery. These are part of the normal fabric of residential areas.
2.11.b. New Rochelle
Immediately north of the New Rochelle city line, Route 1 crosses under 1-95 and
AMTRAK. At the 1-95 interchange,the character of Route 1 changes;throughout New
Rochelle it is bordered by commercial or mixed commercial-residential uses. Directly
De Leuiv, Cather Team. Page 2-14
IMII INSTITUTIONAL OR PUBLIC ASSEMBLY
OFFICES
COMMERCIAL/RETAIL
NM MANUFACTURING/INDUSTRIAL .414
ite
[.,,—:•J MIXED COMMERCIAL/RESIDENTIAL -:
RESIDENTIAL-LOW DENSITY
F I RESIDENTIAL-MED DENSITY A
RESIDENTIAL-HIGH DENSITY ` all
#°.e
° W/
LAKES/PONDS ...2--/
OPEN SPACESir -N.
All
TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORSsaw L 1I UNDEVELOPED AREAS ',..-' illt
Ur •
/V MAJOR HIGHWAYS --1l I _ �,
` RAILROADS - i/ to111\' '
r -a \
A, MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES
• • 11.1 -P---- ' -- li‘ / •
"I/
I.
gr I (-- ,i1,44.7.:, I, .01„, ,,,,
V ..`-4 -", ,_„,
"I# 444
. 4k-\0• iibi A - \ ... ...„,___;*
< . abliir, ;00, . a ----k
•
,
Jr' ,1i 7r' ' ppiv / '•
vp
, ....it _ -------
\ ‘Iir., .--- \ it _\ ,,„„...--,0, /Lore-- .„.t-, ....
,___, , 40....k .si,
III - "441%II J c--'\4 \
‘ 4410/ \''' ..° t
cf
--si....)00"P° ''''' III"- I'll...k -- - Jr glillkto ---- -4 .z,
1% „ik: 'f'4Arpiiii. r
so ..:!....-4-e.e.„..„w:a--L'.,--- .1;;''. 11,.j.f7' 4,,,*
L__,
,,
air .1;e \
(-1;
North
(approx 1
STATE OF NEW YORK
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
U. S. Route 1 Corridor
Development Study
FIGURE 4
Area Land Use
DE LEUW,CATHER TEAM
U.S. Route I Corridor Development Study Technical Memorandum Number 2
northeast of the I-95 /Route I interchange,a Home Depot opened in the fall of 1996 and
construction has started on a Price Club. The impact of these two major commercial uses
is analyzed as part of the future development in the study area. Between the Home
Depot-Price Club site and the central business district, land uses on the west side of
Route 1 to the railroad are primarily commercial. On the east side of Route 1, between
the Route 1 frontage and Long Island Sound, land uses are primarily medium density
residential.
A few blocks north of the Home Depot-Price Club site, Route 1 splits into paired one-
way streets as it goes through the central business district (including the urban renewal
area). Main Street, northbound, is a retail-commercial street; Huguenot Street,
southbound, does not have a retail character, but, instead, has a mixture of uses. These
include a modern hotel, a modern office building, and a historic post office; there are a
few vacant buildings and lots.
The blocks between Main and Huguenot streets and from Huguenot Street to the railroad
are commercial. The city has plans for a sizeable part of this area, including reuse of the
New Rochelle Mall (now vacant), construction of a parking garage and, in the future, a
transportation center. Just before Main and Huguenot streets rejoin, residential uses
reappear between Main Street and the railroad. Mixed commercial and residential uses
continue, however, on both sides of Route 1 into the first few blocks of Larchmont.
2.11.c. Larchmont
The Route 1 frontage in Larchmont is classified as mixed commercial/residential on the
county's generalized land use map. This general category masks some changes: the
southernmost block in Larchmont continues the New Rochelle pattern of mixed
residential and commercial uses;the next few blocks are characterized by single-family
homes up to the beginning of the small business district centering on Larchmont Avenue.
North of the business district and continuing into Mamaroneck, Route 1 is bordered by
apartment buildings, schools, and mixed commercial uses, including several of the
automobile-commercial uses which become increasingly common through Mamaroneck.
Except for the Route 1 frontage and a strip along the I-95 / MNR corridor, Larchmont
is a medium-density residential village.
2.11.d. Mamaroneck
Mamaroneck Village borders Long Island Sound and extends inland to the vicinity of the
MNR/I-95 corridor. The village is located in two towns: Mamaroneck and Rye. The
unincorporated portion of Mamaroneck Town lies west of Larchmont and Mamaroneck,
except for two narrow strips extending to the Sound on either side of Larchmont.
In the village of Mamaroneck, at least as far north as Mamaroneck Avenue,the character
of the land uses near Route 1 tends to be more intense inland than on the Long Island
De Leuii', Cather Team. Page 2-15
U.S. Route 1 Corridor Development Study Technical Memorandum Number 2
Sound side. Towards the water, behind the generally commercial uses fronting Route
1, are the I-Iampshire Country Club, Flint and Harbor Island parks, medium and low
density residential neighborhoods, and waterfront uses. The waterfront -- Mamaroneck
Harbor's East Basin and West Basins--actually comes within sight of Route 1 at the foot
of the central business district on Mamaroneck Avenue. Between the two basins and
fronting on Route 1 is a county water pollution control plant (in an attractive brick
building) and Harbor Island Park, taking advantage of the views of the waterfront.
Away from the water and between Route 1 and I-95 are a variety of commercial,
industrial, mixed commercial-residential and high density residential uses extending
north to the Mamaroneck Avenue central business district. North of Mamaroneck
Avenue, the Route 1 frontage can be characterized as strip commercial, with several
automobile dealerships and automobile-related uses. North of Mamaroneck Avenue and
west of Route 1,the village is generally medium density residential. The town,generally
inland of I-95, is medium and low density residential with several country clubs near the
Scarsdale boundary.
2.11.e. Rye and Harrison
The character of Route 1 changes abruptly as it enters Rye. Although a city, Rye appears
far less urban than any of the other communities in the study area. Rye is the only
community in the study area with low density residential areas fronting on Route 1,along
with extensive open space and low density institutions. Immediately north of the city
line are a number of open spaces: a state-designated wetlands, the underdeveloped
Sloane-Kettering property(which has received approval for a 38-home subdivision), the
Boston Post Road Historic District consisting of the Marshlands Conservatory and the
Rye Golf Club;north of Playland Parkway is the Rye Nature Center. Aside from some
schools and other low density institutions,the only other uses bordering Route 1 in south
and central Rye are single-family homes, many on large lots.
Rye has a small and compact central business district in the northern part of the city,west
of Route 1. This business district is bounded on the north and west by the railroad. The
northernmost part of Route 1 in Rye is a part of an extensive interchange system between
1-95,I-287 and Route 1. At this interchange, 1-95 crosses Route 1, continuing north on
the Long Island Sound side of Route 1.
Rye and Harrison generally have medium density residential development in the vicinity
of Route 1 and the railroad; closer to Long Island Sound on the one side and the
Hutchinson River Parkway on the other, the land uses are primarily low density single
family homes and open space uses, including the county's Playland amusement park and
beach.
De Leuiv, Cather Team. Page 2-16
U.S. Route 1 Corridor Development Study Technical Memorandum Number 2
2.111 Port Chester and Rye Brook
Port Chester lies north of the I-95 / 1-287 / Route 1 interchange. In Port Chester,
Route 1, crossed twice by railroad bridges, is the heart of the central business district.
The partially vacant urban renewal area is located between the two Fridges on the Long
Island Sound side of Route 1.
Immediately north of the interchange are United Hospital on the west and a Caldor's
shopping center on the east. A Home Depot has been proposed in this area but has not
received final approvals. North of the hospital and shopping center, Route 1 continues
its commercial, central business district character, but the uses are smaller. Just north of
the second railroad crossing is the landmarked Lifesavers Building, a former factory
converted to housing.
From this point north to the state line there are occasional residential uses on Route 1.
Crossing the state line into Connecticut, another abrupt change occurs, with extensive
woods and lawns contrasting to the urban character of the road in Port Chester. Port
Chester was identified as an intermediate center by Westchester County. Its business
district extends some blocks on either side of Route 1 and the railroad. Elsewhere, the
village is primarily residential. Rye Brook, adjoining Port Chester on the west, is
primarily medium and low density residential, except for some office and commercial
uses.
2.12. Parks, Recreation Areas and Wildlife Sanctuaries
The Route 1 corridor has numerous parks and recreation areas. Along Long Island Sound are
two county parks -Playland in Rye and Glen Island Park in New Rochelle, as well as numerous
yacht clubs / marinas and municipal parks. Route 1 itself is bordered by two country clubs
(Pelham Country Club on the Pelham Manor/New Rochelle line and Rye Golf Club), a few
parks (Flint Park in Larchmont, Harbor Island Park in Mamaroneck), and tiny urban parklet-
monuments in New Rochelle and Port Chester, among others. West or inland of Route 1 there
are numerous municipal parks and country clubs, the county's Saxon Woods Park
(Mamaroneck),and a trail system from Mamaroneck to New Rochelle. These features are shown
on Figure 5 - Physical and Environmental Features.
Three significant areas, all in Rye, can be considered wildlife sanctuaries or open space rather
than active recreation areas: the Rye Nature Center,the Marshlands Conservancy,and,on Long
Island Sound, the Edith G. Read Natural Park and Wildlife Sanctuary near Playland.
2.13. Historical, Archeological, and Cultural Sites
A number of historic sites (listed on the National Register of Historic Places) have been
identified in the study area. These sites have been evaluated, and have been placed in the
De Leuw, Cather Team. Page 2-1 7
LOCAL STREETS
MAJOR ROADS
N PARKWAYS/INTERSTATES ...
la
U.S.ROUTE 1 ''
' ..�
RAIL LINES
....
,'
I
"V COASTAL ZONE •...•••••
... i�
.� I
�,I Qd, i
/AN/ MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES l
r
PARKLAN DS � I" •
4I I
NYS DEC WETLANDS
r 1
I
'.II_��� a $IIi,
lime witil4
s Otilk<r:
-andicip-f44:0
ran • .41-. _,..."IP :414d:r.,-, I
e., 4h_ lir lop.)
r !� rILO469.if (Wt 41V141 1 . ( ittiti '
11111 '.:4
4141 I izt,l'hilleaw 7
o
-
vir lt,ftvilfr • # viv44-4,41,
,...--pr,.. . aqA07/7— "..- if ,
i dito
......i.:La, ..%. - I Nritkl
���: pv .
�i ,- 0 I/• i,;?,,.•.,r� 0 invo 1,,. -D -%'•47177
/////// •i•' i 1t ik •w/0 f�21// �i�Likh __ . pt olt- to ' i���0...• .,rahan_.-- - �. ♦`
/ //// I. 1111 a=-- ♦ V
i, �•,�I` � ���.���.ter- r• ♦�►� �
/// y v/ ��I 1,% ;�� /�� a- ��e/``L ► �w1•.rr�,,..rr �" ....r`��►►//I '� 'I�' ‘�)`�-0�
*4?4,11,111.0 *JO" sc 4 f4a444711111'43,11,4.=4140--"I':wolf ---Ar.rok'' --4' irld 0 /OA
NI "ip * Ct 0 \S#4 4kt. `4,14,411114Walik—r1P%-... ,.*-0,1060 id' SI *0 3
Imo_ �� '��ii%����r� �#.117,W,04•0408., u /' � ::!,1*101t
�� 40.--.4,."I . • �,. 111 �..• � � t �r ♦ ►�► •. •
gigegarovA. ), i,,,,
lopy
mie owe r".. --- - ..-, —VI- xracax_, , . , . . ,414.,
. ,,,,,,,,,,
s.,,,, ...- 1,...10,r-v . 4 illip, "Air
tti fp Ere tOr " tirogto- /
0 pp.,. .-. — 46 ::"..4„440
-?4,1041111 .44),,,it .,
(;::1 X
Nar+h
o capproxl •y
STATE OF NEW YORK
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
4.
U. S. Route 1 Corridor
Development Study _•>
FIGURE 5
Physical and Environmental Features
DE LEUW,CATHER TEAM
U.S. Route 1 Corridor Development Study Technical Memorandum Number 2
Register because of unique historical features. The sites are listed in Table 15 and are shown on
Figure 6 - Historic Sites.
Table 15 - Historic Sites
Site Location
First Presbyterian Church of New Rochelle Pintard Avenue,New Rochelle
U.S. Post Office 255 North Avenue,New Rochelle
Pioneer Building 14 Lawton Street,New Rochelle
U.S. Post Office 1 Chatsworth Avenue, Larchmont
Mamaroneck United Methodist Church 546 Boston Post Road, Mamaroneck
Boston Post Road Historic District Boston Post Road, Rye
U.S. Post Office 41 Purdy Avenue, Rye
Square House 1 Purchase Street, Rye
Capitol Theater 147A-15I Westchester Avenue, Port Chester
Meller Engine and Hose#3 Putnam Engine 46 South Main Street, Port Chester
Life Savers Building North Main Street and Horton Avenue, Port Chester
Additional sites on or adjacent to Route 1 have been surveyed at various times, sometimes as
part of a federal or state project, and were declared eligible for listing in the National Register
of Historic Places. In Port Chester, for example, a group of buildings was found suitable for
designation as part of a historic district, but such a district has never been officially proposed.
It is not certain that these buildings or the district of which they would be a part would still
qualify for inclusion in the National Register. In addition,many sites along or near Route 1 have
been proposed but have not been evaluated. These sites are not now listed in the National
Register,but may be in the future. Additional evaluation of these"eligible"or"proposed" sites
is not expected since major widening is not anticipated to be recommended as part of this study.
Other than the historical sites described above,no archaeological or cultural sites were identified
in the study area.
2.14. Wetlands, Floodplains, Coastal Protection Zones, and Major Bodies of Water
There are several NYSDEC mapped wetlands in the Primary Study Area, situated along the
Mamaroneck/Rye border. These are related to Beaver Swamp Brook, which flows to the Long
Island Sound.
De Leuw, Cather Team. Page 2-18
Meller Engine & Hose #3 Capitol
and Putnam Engine Theater
U. S. Post Office,
New Rochelle United Methodist
First Presbyterian Church, Mamaroneck Square House
Church of New Rochelle
T }
;
t
IF
f'••\..,.....,/' -&„•; ;v.:r:..,,...�r:":":..x:.-. , 't+f..„‘(-
r. ( /
.0,-,,,,,• !< " f s . _,_:•'- '� -: s a'gd :ew+' _ .,4•.y • ,'`'y.- 1 ` 1
';,tx`4 rye v y ,' r't--..-3.....-4,y... 'a .--- r.•€' .,`$: a I t t.w f'\ .,�. a" ",.- 'I..‘ �..: .; i c l•%
N.
,i ra,rt 7'.,.�,"_s•–•--•_;........:..---,— f,C....r: .,^ .,.L' 1 i - t `'''a`"°*,.::*..;..rr%"" ., _ �•r, ''•t .J.-.r-..._ -,as.'_
i3"3% •, -,,f•c- `;:'• ,i• .,kt"",•'' P 1, ••••,..---'•
,,,••••••:•34,—,-,;...1.--':-�:=' ....+R-�.._5., qac; •'( a' •�;' +,. ,,r'
4.4 " ., j`•—.2
)„`--* �1 t .; 1 i _ ..,r, i i, - r 1 ''� • i 1 .--c,c. ,.,5/r �� rco
i` • -..\-.. c.,-,.',,:.-_,,---.1. ..<;/,/....-/^ •-:%-........-..----.. . ,....1.,q„•-.; r /. '•t. `.t -y1 4 t ..E, -• ..,`.,ti i t„ .`( }- .,
i.
-- .}'y1 f.''.: --:1"-!....'s"-<:'N.'..-
-"
y,. ,�•'N�'._.,+t.:•.'i..,. til" fi ..._.. -( `j•, f----i--5.'-'" %'•Pf a,:...z -"�"'-1 +ti ,; > ,py�;! !-'j + �`�' ' `-i
mac . a ti to 1 / (N' t,-1"'N' r
1 r.<. .i'i --..r r. i i i; y..-'i, •.v' `°- .--„4•••–•,,.....
�6" ,<` Lr"f' I M i ;_\
t .:C ‘-.<,,------0-7i" r ,T - 7 1`.,..-� --_•;moi r /' %%" ', tr t 1p /': f :._ /f
•�+L.'.--.r, ar 1'!\.'>'S:`,.'-`! •�`:4. ..•..7}..,�,, Nf •'\ ......:�' ( \ , -/-`,.„....�......'--f` ,e- 1 ".,1r�t 1+,1% 1- ••• -:`.:4,,j' '""`` •''',.
_..44...`><4..:',44,..:;,7'Ft �Ifx� ... h. �.."�•,r,k.. �-., ^•tii,``�,'.',.Q i, j l ` {`• ) ' :i \ `t!' �. `,i.� 'i j J! ;'r�, j,N. '?. t'..'i.:'l /
•�p�'-S'.:.'ir'L'p!..'_ ''%';'4/ �'' ' :• ''''''',,,,:.,•••'---.4'....,„..;•' ' ~"5 _"r ,' .\...'• r r ; t `t f' -\,-,-"/`
c.-'' l,.!," � .-.• .3, •..--t� - ( r,`',.'' --jh,, .I %.
•
` '% �'',ti? .}.'"'c•••-'-,-/-:;- � '` "-.,1._.'N'YJ ' j',..=' ! S "7..7;i
.tet ,, rr- t... Lf , te " r f ,d `t, i,. .-"(r,�,f!�\\�.�/�,--
,..•W•"` -3r - , r .'.y . ,ti A•.-;-�j I '•� ,r" 4(%,om.r.y...ri l t ,-.t, { `.., t , -' Ti. �'fl _ r i• ,...r i-, .: '` "`
;r.'•.i CN a. .. , ,.v r'1 / I f, =e+t f'f1 '7'' iii _?,3_+ ,\i..e,1 Y: ,i i i J' (., • f t w(i a �+ %r r i4
.......'%,,4"71,/,,,,,1-,--1,4,
r. .P /,.•'s5/.-:r,`,. �--Y✓',✓ }y/ s • ., y4 ,-, _J _ .-�`y :it' .D ir:';C..,,,c,r t 'r';T. f. `'ti t r r� !"T. ..'.. i
,/:;-..."›,,�J„-,t1.i o., `F�-�1" �,�"-,1•_ r. i.. .' .1.'17,7,,,,,.t......,_------- _»I, .e /` +.-7.Y`}.- •s,.'�`\_",ii Vi:i ^1 ....„ `;' , /11
!`t ;,..,,p,-- `'l �'Y,? \. / \ �t A'•'\ !��'�` ••4 /1'
!.u':'t'/��'f i j. ;K',-",;7-}
_ ,,.y,. ` 1 1, �: ' ! .)-t .t'!.J-1•71.--')'''''s
#, F''~ ( ,r', .4` �` 'y-}• F.1 j :-r,�-.)::/.`"
. �`c X ". ...., , r= :� '�,Y�r It-. ; ^,...a, f ,-r`�: Li.-- t Y'",` ,-: r x- .�'` i'' VA' t %
.r=.. `-A I, .1/4",,_.-'1,4,'�' xt'Y„, �9-...� ,L. ,i''t r.'"'t•,s.,,, `Sl rA),,,„/'4 -4 y..-",.•�_ -,>,..,--r---.3_ .--vs-.C.A i-_., - /k..`7C. 1 f.r ,,Ab•...•'-'-';Z'",; •,(i it _ , - {.4'', !..'!.. f i --, :d..t
l ,i ?' t fi . .4---1,- 't / ^" .,lll 'Y r .5,"...-^" .-.r C r h. n y -• ;t f i nr''7� :C''.' 1 '1 ti
j, 't,,,.. '>< . s t')V-
i/,.r w+.! - ; 'n'� '.i' r.. •,� , `1:' _ .ath t -..i- i >• � C .'+4, 1 t ! _i.T.17" •,4
...-0 -/ r ,{'�.� /•1, -.[!'^. ! ` '�` s„1-,_ 1�; �(�,..' f•-1.::-...� ~�i^ .,,..,+�,.�P,I, 'i� .. t,:sY. �-?',...//..--5-,-,),,x:F; 'r'. Y r' i :,r- - ..r.....
!'� \. .77"• ,, LX }/ " -s.. t .�' . ./,yc, y' .--z-_, .,l f.,,.---Is.i, ., 1 `,:,,..;__ ,Fi” •'(.Y•'7% '�"---,_, :... l'a•_;i -4.-r- -,.5.4. •',,,,: •1'<. it .> 1` . ,"•, .:•,,/,-•;t •'t t ',_;L,--.44.4.---„,; i
2 f- S .r_ .a Y; ,;I', 7. -,,,t �...1`. -,, -1 -i.L, cu\--<..._ ...3i-: tir. _! r, r °'.- /..,./',i•c,!4,Y , %(-94.•• i '•t t r` �J,
�,,,. '!!•'V•.._ •�},,,, e-. A.` �i i,� ‘^'1 d "'x'-...., _:..-.-_.`�-,'^'""N, {- •-Jr- `•. i�: y�r i \ ` •.9 it )
/' !P. 7�,"--fit'...'....•...-•:-.-•." : '..e: _`•. . P/ y ! -•-.._.._.• a c-, t" .s.a.., ---1-,;. r `".1 ` ---„,../..L-- �'
t'i' ,.:`'+ .I f. (�- ^�"�It ,r74_ I', R i i t71'..----....... { ""`Y ..� .h r« ''''-ror'"'f`....•;�-o:...-�' _�i»,•,.�,,�.�-., ^I '7{t 1. i 1`� S.•;-.� t �, ;:,-›,, f
f •'^ v7.'A „t p_,.•...i...,..1y V. ` " ,l, _ i;':' '•t
• ),f .i?: r•.., ' r �.••• " -,t- �r- -- - (` "�""._. ,;,------.÷-t-
;, ..- i.^.it.',! f-L. .t..< ."{ s _ J ..:1 ?T fy'r,'ti• ,r
t ,Y, t t Y 1< ,,. { •'i.,+' , !�� J•-"' f, ,i.._ /.... ,:�•..�..� ;'i"^_. s•y r � • . ti, ,..,e- %..,�`•� � :;�` t t' ..i �: •t f `-<,,�;'.. ;�•%•:i k
r' '�t t �`},�'-� t�rh-/:,..,ir V, ---,,,,,,o, �.. ,; j._..�._.}._..,•Wit 4 E 'Ll( .i.-' 'i-'E-";--._•.t"'''s../,..'>--
^..,,,,,,... i i '-1 r'� • } a'•' ,/' •%. `t. t
.s.�yr ,..f - ,[, ...�-f''-: +.... - ~i;" }. ,y._...,-..b-. '� .w.` ' s.: ''.x ,.. ,\.R�r`�f r 1• .. '"'.f.
! ,..� �..tf, .1' S f,.l.-,•y�./� _ '1.017"'''''. .L•r� �•• �� __ ._�J•,.�„ {.�.._ .t..,•7„ ) I._'^' -,•••••1-7'....L.....4...,--.4.r•-•i...L r `Y' +� •'rT�"r� ,s t ir'r`14:>. .......----,......._...-_-41-4--,•4_,...•��� ..,.F t 4� -•�`�`!
•
� '�"ri !, /.. �C'. i" .t';: ,:h .:r , 7-a i :ti•-s f_`"._-'\;: ,.'' ,•t-'-\".. .�._ qt_...? • i y • .-,.,.,"F-..'j..;t .. r Lt .4 .1�---? '`':1A..... '�yJ; ••... . ! .' �
,.ti_ "-';,i i • f . '< �+ _ r ..11-77-1::4,1
1 '!- r,:4,1-f.j -, + "^ --'(*, (-•�•,,,•-‘,,v2.::.2_. "__r.. r 'r-t---.a. j r rr , 1/ -•-•I ---1— •t.-,�i''f5--.... ,.....1..-•'"�,_.,,,._ _•_...y' ; ``
4.,,42.--f--,/ !.._ i=-` .,(t:'9r l ....t l:.i't.,. f. t i _-.•-" I.
: ?S tf .7. .' -•.i-
. ,! � ''`iii=•�"°,' •1 i �' ,,�'.Y._.' L`� "C ti r�. { : t� i, •:s-� .� ,-�rw..'.7,..
.%!• A r { :v JN _: "r ` > -fit } i =r ! . � _y�; f>_ T` y.'! .......-_,...4::....„:„....„_.;....i-
_ .� s
} �� �' "1-1-11. { • t,f ; ` E ri ., Z -. ---i ''-`..! } 1 .:--, Y^ ,s. r.•
• V 1' `t � ".'" r 'tom i u):-,.t:.1..- - ;'•ryr t /\ _ r -t i ' ^* 44,, G'L "�''
.5;���'`'' t ;:'•`" �:. 1"'� t r`* t.� ,+ t,_• ?1 "� 'j tr-1:� .,..,•t t • `..-�-1:i, r V. C..x ( :1:- ; _ •A •w r,,,^r, N.-.•-, st,,...<:..-,
Y'. ,;yA:,t -i' r'--1--- :•V '!r,---A..1-4 �_l._t\- • iR, :.' i; j. !, 1 1".-.\ ` :/e•- ...f"~ +( �!* -"� ..•-,--f. K\ t r` l Z.• t_� c �`.":,1'�'-, .
i:: - -.L.J"':, 1 .- "( "`i .:.6�>. ', i .)•••‘..s..•
.'.. I ...•.F_.,f. I „r : •�.yrr % '-'Y.�:'"i \ .-• _'-r•' 't 's
,'S'..1 i� • .;'s'•" ` 9 ,, z-,7�:-.-.....,,,-..L.,.;--.::‘r: 1 '' 1p ' l i!i n:... C. k \ ct . `«
\{i M� i i J j 1= �' ? ` t ` f a`' ly •
., t ! f' L`(s:1; ,. i i s . f'` 1:e'j k.: t f
!
/
1"",'.t'..' 3 .i,.-. '. `�`�`%- ,44-. f • :<.
...d(r J`Mr..,j ,j�,'�r' Y'r-•,--4 r?' 'ref -- ,.
,fit"'"-t tL1, I + i<' 1 a rf, ....`''�`».1'i`.. .--;i''''''''' '''( ( . '.,.. •°' ( to l f !%� L.--..!J---:,r 'y"6.\''t,..,'l ,• li'4';'y �, ,i
• y r t' % f f • 7 i i•�•`E'er"'-.✓rl. ..r: t
•
-,..Y-�';-. . Y. •.r i` .PI/ i..._.t.. J= 'I Y. _ ,.�...•, �r i ''f :fry:' 1.....'i:-t`,.f,-c% rit' ,�••-'-1-- \may j -
tr
k Is 1
F,. r •-t'✓ i.\..... ` r✓ %., y \ % rr I !/,-%.'• 5"'*4 ^• �fi.•\'' At.•- t:,;tom, y � • '.3
t, `
•
•mit w :.--c\ 4 ..._J-.• -
-.•'f,..� k'`‘r..` '\, .,
- •t .�'\
f s• i-- a.
\r" Life Savers
Pioneer Building
Nar+h
(aPProx1 _
Building Boston Post Road
U.S. Post Office, Historic District
Larchmont AlikltgSTATE OF NEW YORK
U. S. Post DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office, Rye U. S. Route 1 Corridor
Development Study
FIGURE 6
Historic Sites
DE LEUW,CATHER TEAM
U.S. Route I Corridor Development Study Technical Memorandum Number 2
The Costal Protection Zone extends inland from Long Island Sound. In southern New Rochelle
and Pelham, the western boundary is east of the Primary Study Area. At Echo Avenue in New
Rochelle,the boundary comes inland to Route 1,and parallels Route 1 to the Mamaroneck Town
line. The boundary then follows the Town of Mamaroneck line, encompassing all of the town,
until the northern town line intersects Route 1. The western zonal boundary then follows
Route 1 north through Rye and Port Chester to the Connecticut State line. See Figure 8.
The Long Island Sound is the nearest major body of water. Several bays and harbors extend
inland toward Route 1, including Echo Bay (New Rochelle), Larchmont Harbor (Larchmont/
Mamaroneck), Mamaroneck Harbor (Mamaroneck), Milton Harbor (Rye), and Port Chester
Harbor(Port Chester). Numerous rivers, streams,and other watercourses also flow to the Sound.
These include the Premium River (Larchmont), the Mamaroneck River (Mamaroneck), Guion
Creek / Beaver Swamp Brook (Mamaroneck), Blind Brook (Rye) and the Byrain River at the
Connecticut State Line.
2.15. Commercial and Industrial Sites
Major employers (100 or more employees) is a category that generally includes municipal and
other government offices, hospitals and nursing homes, and schools, as well as industries,
offices, stores and businesses.
The largest concentration of major employers in the study area is in New Rochelle, identified by
Westchester County as a major center; the second largest concentration is in Port Chester,
identified as an intermediate center.
Not surprisingly, the clusters of major employers tend to appear along main transportation
arteries: in the Pelhams, in the southwest corner of the Hutchinson Parkway / Route 1
interchange; in New Rochelle, along Route 1 and North Avenue; in Mamaroneck, along
Route 1; in Rye and Harrison, along Mamaroneck Avenue and MNR; and, in Port Chester and
Rye Brook, along Route 1 and I-287. Refer to Figure 7.
Major shopping centers identified by the county include, in Pelham Manor, the Caldor's center;
in New Rochelle, the Home Depot area, the central business district, and the Wykagyl area near
the Hutchinson River Parkway; in Mamaroneck Town, along Route 1; and in Port Chester and
Rye Neck, near Route 1 and I-287; and one or two scattered elsewhere. No major shopping
centers have been identified in Rye or Harrison.
De Leuw, Cather Team. Page 2-I9
U.S. Route I Corridor Development Study Technical Memorandum Number 2
3. SUPPLEMENTAL DATA COLLECTION
After the collection of available data, gaps in the data were identified, and field work was performed to
fill them. Most of the data collected either updated available data or filled the specific needs of this
study. The supplemental data collection included O-D surveys, traffic counts, and other data collection.
Time-specific data, such as turning movement and pedestrian counts, were collected during the A.M.
peak period(6:00 A.M. to 9:00 A.M.),the P.M. peak period (3:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M.), and the Saturday
peak period (12:00 noon to 3:00 P.M.). Weekday data, such as the travel time data and the origin-
destination surveys, were collected on a middle weekday (Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday) to avoid
fluctuations due to weekend vacations and increases in commercial activity on Friday afternoons. All
data were collected during the school year and in weeks which did not contain legal holidays.
Preliminary field visits began in May, 1996 to assist in the evaluation of the available data collected.
The supplemental data collection was performed in June, 1996. Further field visits and additional data
collection continued through September, 1996 as part of data validation.
3.1. U. S. Route 1 Motorist Origin-Destination Survey
A survey of Route 1 users was conducted at five representative locations along Route 1. These
locations were Pelhamdale Avenue in Pelham Manor, North Avenue at Main Street and
Huguenot Street in New Rochelle, Chatsworth Avenue in Larchmont, North Barry Avenue in
Mamaroneck, and Westchester Avenue (Liberty Square) in Port Chester. Route 1 motorists
stopping at these signalized intersections were handed mail-back survey cards, which asked
questions about the trip they were making when they received the card. The surveys were
distributed during the A.M. and P.M. peak periods. Turning movement counts were conducted
during the surveys, to allow for the computation of distribution and sampling rates.
NYSDOT performed public outreach prior to the O-D survey to inform the public of the purpose
of the survey and anticipated distribution dates. Additional information regarding the motorist
survey is shown in Appendix C - Motorist Origin-Destination Survey Data.
The overall distribution rate was forty-six percent. The distribution rates in New Rochelle and
Port Chester were lowest. The overall response rate was approximately thirteen percent. This
is typical of a mail-back O-D survey. The response rate in Mamaroneck was the highest, about
six percent above average. The response rate was lowest in Port Chester.
The average sampling rate was six percent. Due to the low distribution rate in Port Chester, the
sampling rate was only two percent. The high response rate in Mamaroneck leads to a sampling
rate of ten percent, the highest motorist rate in the survey. The average sampling rate was 6%.
Refer to Table 16.
De Leuw, Cather Team. Page 3-1
U.S. Route I Corridor Development Study Technical Memorandum Number 2
Table 16 - Motorist Origin-Destination Survey Response Summary
2-way Distribution Responses Sampling
Location Auto Rate
Volume Forms Rate Forms Rate
Pelham 4798 3062 64% 371 12% 8%
New Rochelle 9920 2714 27% 276 10% 3%
Larchmont 5938 3723 63% 502 13% 8%
Mamaroneck 7380 3840 52% 725 19% 10%
Port Chester 4058 1358 33% 78 6% 2%
An analysis of the surveyed response rates was performed to determine if the results would be
statistically representative of the driving population. Refer to Appendix C. The response rates
were acceptable, except at the Port Chester survey station. The data from this station has been
included in corridor-wide statistics, but will not be directly used to represent the driving
population in Port Chester.
The survey data show that most trips along Route 1 are local trips, accessing shopping.
employment,schools,MNR,and the limited access roadways in the study area. The primary trip
purpose of the surveyed motorists was driving to work(31%), followed by driving home (14%)
and shopping(12%). The surveyed average vehicle occupancy was 1.5 persons per vehicle, and
many trips(58%)were made at least five times per week. A variety of other modes are available
in the corridor,but 36%of the respondents indicated that none of these modes would suit their
trip. Trips along Route 1 typically took thirty minutes or less, with 15 minutes being the most
common travel time response (21%). About 18% of the respondents said they would consider
bus service along Route 1 if it was provided. A number of"fill-in-the-blank" responses were
also received. The survey response data is shown in Appendix C.
3.2. MTA / Metro-North Railroad Rider Origin-Destination Survey
A survey of MNR users was conducted at each of the seven stations in the study area.
Passengers boarding during the A.M. peak period were handed mail-back survey cards, which
asked questions about the trip they were making when they received the card.
In cooperation with MNR, NYSDOT performed public outreach prior to the O-D survey to
inform the ridership of the purpose of the survey and anticipated distribution dates. The surveys
were performed during June, 1996. The O-D data were reviewed by station, and compiled in the
same way as the Chek-It data. See Table 17. Additional information regarding the MNR survey
De Leuiv, Cather Team. Page 3-2
U.S. Route I Corridor Development Study Technical Memorandum Number 2
is shown in Appendix D - MNR Origin-Destination Survey Data. Descriptive measures were
also calculated for the MNR data to confirm that the data are representative of the riding
population.
Table 17 - Surveyed O-I) Data
Station Station ZIP Adjacent ZIP Other ZIP
Pelham 75% 24% 1%
New Rochelle 47% 52% 1%
Larchmont 83% 16% 1%
Mamaroneck 75% 17% 8%
Harrison 41% 50% 9%
Rye 72% 25% 3%
Port Chester 77% 22% 1%
Distribution rates were calculated based on the number of boarding patrons at each station, as
provided by MNR. The overall distribution rate was forty-five percent. The overall response
rate for the MNR survey was thirty-seven percent. This is higher than the auto response rate,
which may be due to the fact that MNR patrons could sit and complete the forms on the train,
while motorists had to continue driving after receiving the form. The overall sampling rate was
about sixteen percent, which was also higher than the auto sampling rate. Refer to Table 18.
Table 18 - MNR Origin-Destination Survey Response Summary
Boarding Distribution Responses Sampling
Station Volume Rate
Forms Rate Forms Rate
Pelham 1723 683 40% 245 36% 14%
New Rochelle 1636 612 37% 186 30% 11%
Larchmont 2572 1725 67% 693 40% 27%
Mamaroneck 1320 438 33% 151 34% I1%
Harrison 1459 678 46% 271 40% 19%
Rye 1423 409 29% 157 38% 11%
Port Chester 1142 507 44% 165 33% 14%
De Leuu', Cather Team. Page 3-3
U.S. Route I Corridor Development Study T echnical Memorandum Number 2
A statistical analysis of the MNR response rates was also performed. The data were found to be
representative, and can be used with relative confidence for the purposes of this study.
particularly when combined with data received from MNR.
Many passengers drove to the station (45%), while others walked (34%), rode in another
person's car(13%) or used other modes (8%). Most trips were commuter trips to work (95%).
The typical trip frequency was 5 times per week (88%). The most common travel time to the
station response was five minutes(26%), followed by ten minutes(18%). The 0-5 minute range
included 43% of the respondents, and 6-10 minutes was 41% of the surveyed population. A
number of"fill-in-the-blank" responses were also received. The survey response data is shown
in Appendix D.
3.3. Traffic Volume Turning Movement Counts
Major intersections along Route 1 were identified based on data collected from other studies and
input from NYSDOT and the Technical Advisory Group (TAG). Available data for these
locations were reviewed and a counting program was developed for this study. The project team
counted approximately twenty-five locations, and NYSDOT supplemented this database with
counts at an additional fifteen locations. Each of the Route 1 origin-destination survey locations
were included in the count program to determine sampling and response rates. At each count
location,volumes were recorded by movement in 15-minute intervals. Classification into autos,
light trucks,medium trucks,heavy trucks, and buses was also performed. Compilation of these
data is documented in subsequent chapters. The collected field data is shown in Appendix E -
Traffic Count Data.
3.4. Travel Time and Delay Data
Information about the operating speed and stopped time along Route 1 was collected during the
A.M. and P.M. peak periods. These data were obtained using the floating car technique. A
vehicle started at one end of the corridor and proceeded with traffic along Route 1 to the other
end of the corridor. Times were noted at predefined checkpoints. Delays along the route were
also noted, including delay time and the cause. Delay was defined as the time when the survey
vehicle was not in motion. The distances between the checkpoints were determined based on
mapping and field measurements. Speeds (both with and without delay) were calculated by
dividing distance by travel times. Travel speed includes the delay time recorded, while running
speed includes only the time in motion along the roadway.
The data were tabulated and summarized to develop average travel speed and running speed for
each segment and for Route 1 as a whole. See Table 19 and Appendix F - Travel Time Data.
The P.M. speeds were lower than the A.M. speeds for the corridor. The P.M. delays were about
twenty-five percent higher than the A.M. delays. This reflects the increase in traffic during the
P.M. peak period due to increased commercial activity.
De Leuiv, Cather Team. Page 3-4
U.S. Route I Corridor Development Study Technical Memorandum Number 2
Table 19 - Average Speed and Delay Summary
Northbound Southbound
A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M.
Running Time (min) 27:55 27:08 27:12 28:15
Delay Time (min) 5:55 7:49 7:01 8:54
Running Speed (mph) 28.41 28.03 27.76 26.43
Travel Speed (mph) 23.24 21.98 22.40 20.62
A variety of causes were noted for the delays encountered along the corridor, including double
parking, left turns, and traffic signals. The majority of the stopped delay was attributable to the
signals in the corridor.
3.5. MTA / Metro-North Parking Activities
Parking data were collected at each of the seven MNR stations in the Primary Study Area. Each
station parking lot was inventoried to determine the number of spaces and parking regulations.
Surveys were conducted between the A.M. peak period and the P.M. peak period to determine
typical occupancy for each lot. See Table 20 and Appendix G - Metro-North Parking Surveys.
The parking data collected was used in the MNR Parking Utilization and Requirements analysis.
documented in subsequent chapters.
Table 20 - Surveyed MNR Parking Activity
Station Lots Permits Daily Meters
Capacity Occupancy Capacity Occupancy
Pelham 5 192 157 (82%) 57 57 (100%)
New Rochelle 5 537 369 (69%) 8 6 (75%)
Larchmont 5 440 402 (91%) 439 338 (75%)
Mamaroneck 7 501 412 (82%) 99 99 (100%)
Harrison 4 412 403 (98%) 139 135 (97%)
Rye 7 594 488 (82%) 146 145 (99%)
Port Chester 4 181 161 (89%) 203 200 (99%)
De Lem'', Cather Team. Page 3-5
U.S. Route l Corridor Development Study Technical Memorandum Number 2
3.6. On-Street Parking Activities
On-street parking data were collected in Port Chester, Larchmont, and New Rochelle. The data
in Port Chester were collected from William Street to Mill Street. The data in Larchmont were
collected from Manor Road to Nassau Street. The data in New Rochelle were collected from
Maple Avenue to Echo Avenue on both sides of Main Street. Each block face within the survey
area was inventoried to determine the number of spaces and parking regulations. Surveys were
then conducted each thirty minutes during the A.M. and P.M. peak periods to determine typical
duration and turnover.
Three measures were compiled for each area. The average peak hour occupancy was calculated
as the average number of vehicles parked along Route 1 during the two busiest consecutive half-
hour survey periods. The average parking duration was obtained by comparing license plates
from each survey period and determining the number of half-hour periods each vehicle occupied
its space. The turnover was calculated as the number of different vehicles using the parking area
divided by the total number of spaces. See Table 21 and Appendix H - On-Street Parking
Surveys.
Table 21 - On-Street Parking Inventory
Number Average Peak Hour Average Parking Turnover
Location of Spaces Occupancy Duration(minutes) (vehicles)
(vehicles)
A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M.
New Rochelle 108 62 100 35 54 1.1 2.9
Larchmont 101 45 74 59 60 0.7 1.5
Port Chester 169 59 129 42 61 0.9 2.1
The data collected show that there is more parking activity in the P.M. peak period, which is
typical for commercial areas. In general, the parking demand in New Rochelle is highest,
although the demand on individual blocks within each area varies.
3.7. Pedestrian Activities
Pedestrian counts were performed at six intersections along Route 1. The locations were North
Avenue at Main Street and Huguenot Street in New Rochelle, Larchmont and Chatsworth
Avenues in Larchmont, and Grace Church Street and Westchester Avenue in Port Chester.
These counts consisted of the number of pedestrians using each crosswalk at the intersection,
and were collected in fifteen minute intervals. Refer to Figure 7 - A.M. Peak Hour Pedestrian
Volumes, Figure 8 - P.M. Peak Hour Pedestrian Volumes, and Appendix I - Pedestrian Data.
De Lem!), Cather Team. Page 3-6
i Huguenot Street Main Street
1 AT
N N
4- 54 -► 4- 77 -0-
a)
,a, t t a) a, t t a,
C a) c C
Q - CO ¢' > in N CO Q
L r L L CO u7 L
t r
O OO O
Z i y Z Z + 4Z
E- 149 -► j 123 -►
W
I TI
Huguenot Street Main Street
Boston Post Road Boston Post Road I
1
/N , N
<- 63 -> L_ 4- 53 -0-
ai
> f f a' a' T + a'
L L
co o t (h o
E B 3 N
t N N
2
2 2 E Eli
as
+ `L '-a-J
+ U + U
4- 59 -0 I 4- 51 .
f Boston Post Road Boston Post Road
Purdy Street North Main Street
A 1 A
N
4- 45 -> I I F 161 - 1
i
J
+ t a ? 4 a'
2 O) L N �.C� aD N
ti o t r
U) 4 3 4, + g
t- 22 -► I t- 86 -►
I
South Main Street 1 South Main Street 1
U. S. Route 1 Corridor Development Study Figure 7
De Leuw, Cather and Company of NY, Inc. AM Peak Hour Pedestrian Volumes
Huguenot Street Main Street
I AT
N N
F 73 - 150 -►
v 4 t w a� t t a,
> (N N > > N- d- ai
Q
C N C C C
0 o 0 0
z 4, z z 4.. 4, z
1 F 165 1 4- 216
i
Huguenot Street Main Street
Boston Post Road I I Boston Post Road I
AN N
1 f- 51 -0 F 31 -i
L
o c" co 0 _ C'7 00 �o
Ev7 I
? 3 (h 3
L V1 N
U U
J 3, co 0 i 0
F 23 -► 1 F - 28 -►
Boston Post Road Boston Post Road
Purdy Street I North Main Street I
I
A A
M I 4- 128 -► I
�15 oi—
ai
f + L > ? a
`w 11+ �'
O L N O m
gr r 0 a L
0 + 4, 3 g
- � r—
<- 102 -► 4. 137 -0-
1
►i w
South Main Street South Main Street
U. S. Route 1 Corridor Development Study Figure 8
De Leuw, Cather and Company of NY, Inc. PM Peak Hour Pedestrian Volumes
U.S. Route I Corridor Development Study Technical Memorandum Number 2
The data show that the P.M. is the peak period for pedestrians in New Rochelle and Port Chester,
but the A.M. is the peak period in Larchmont. This is expected, since the commercial
development is more dense in Port Chester and New Rochelle (as shown in the higher volumes)
while pedestrian traffic is partially school related in Larchmont.
3.8. Major Goods Movement Generators
Data regarding truck trip generators were obtained from WCDCP. These generators are typically
located in the more industrial areas of New Rochelle, Port Chester, and southern Pelham. See
Figure 9 - Major Traffic Generators. Much of this traffic uses Route 1 to access I-95 / I-287.
Truck traffic is hindered in Port Chester by the two low overpasses on Route 1. Local truck trips
are also generated by the retail areas along Route 1 accepting deliveries.
3.9. Field Reconnaissance
Additional field reconnaissance was performed by the consultant team to verify data obtained
from both the Collection of Available Data and the Supplemental Data Collection. Data
collected included signing and pavement marking data at analyzed intersections, verification of
CAD mapping, land use and goods movement generators, and parking regulations. As part of
this effort, video runs were performed during each peak period.
The CAD mapping of the corridor was based on 1990 data. Therefore, it was extensively field
checked for accuracy. Changes were made as necessary to the base mapping, including the
changes in the I-95 /I-287 /Route 1 interchanges. The mapping did not include most of Port
Chester and Palmer Avenue at Weaver Street. Detailed measurements of these intersections
were used to prepare CAD sketches at the four locations listed below.
• Route 1 (South Main Street) at Grace Church Street/ Purdy Street
• Route 1 (North and South Main Street)at Westchester Avenue/King Street(NYS Route
120A)
• Route 1 (North Main Street) at Mill Street
• Weaver Street (NYS Route 125) at Palmer Avenue
The sketches identify curblines, striping, signing, signals, and building lines. They will be used
for the development of potential improvements as needed. Refer to Appendix J - Intersection
Sketches.
3.10. Public Input
Municipal and community input is crucial to this study. In order to obtain this input for the
study, two methodologies are being applied. Firstly, a Technical Advisory Group (TAG) has
been formed, which consists of municipal officials with responsibilities in the corridor.
De Leinr. (-other Team. Page 3--
/\/ LOCAL ROADS
AI INTERSTATES/PARKWAYS
U.S.ROUTE 1 ��----
- -'-•- a
RAILROADS f
e4\ MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES --- I
I
MAJOR SHOPPING CENTERS8
- ta i
MAJOR EMPLOYERS -=�I� r �� 011cp.i?'
i
r •f , f 1
11
1..,- 41,1M1 ""-4 .',-•�� 9 di /
-1 -P7a�i AIL. 100 1
falk4Alikekl ,r• ....•• 1 ' . /.1,0 Alalik
���i
li Ai., • .111-. 400#11.1 ':°_, 1,4*
...-,for,"A„, Airs ,„„_.
44
r_� is
., ,k.s. .e•
`� , t, fir! r �i, 44• (... -
..
.. - 7-- - /sou lIrv:. / r -— ,..... ��_��` ' .. `/�,���/,�:i._ _ •- - fi
2wi.
"--711 t;4c Wit' 0 0 ` --- t,,,,ei604. rotiv t
♦�..'�♦�Q�•4.♦Ili��,A.;:. J --
„ti
1 lo air. vivb
70.61111/47
' X1 •“It1” . y i�iii���4. • �� i`' .� ��'"
Ji '�// i•a, /`'4{v •'��0 fip,g�( Air& d ImoA• .. C �• g.....1•--':ice► w _ s
•• p . G N ► 1711 I • I � 1s ♦ �I i" , � .I � • ..�I►•�,
•�� �I �� /�� �� 10� I�l♦���`I IS .��'Ji � .!�i_..r��:i ��� a -r- I% .44
���i, jp
�,,ii.�41,,����I\ .stel 4/.•♦�RZ�•iAT if,i ,71 `141�4,... o- .';;,...oir.�h. i..s ta, Iii�0-G, �� �`.I�J�}�"L/
� I J •� ,..r te% G� :s �•� p � '�. ,� � / /�_ de � •. • •• d ,..
i �O/,� I4�%� x.714 th;�• -I' 7■ jai J��t�`CO f 4.%, 6�,i l�� ♦4� /1 • �� ��� e/ 4 f-,
i �•f IP I .• 0 `l:.e -11/1,.7- I �i �0♦, f7 �' ���.���.� �`N 1I r
�� ♦ •
•�� r� olko I'll 4ori_
- ��I �� '�.. .,,M �� �,� .���,��` .1,I
MEV rt, i •
its r, � �.' /� r+ c •• .c-- !��� / r • ;�lr4,..° 4 0 0#0‘.. .0 •
r �� �rw
Irriligij
col li, `,. i. •
.• TN .. • . % 0,4,
/ .
v 1)‘n0=(°%l .t'
I
•t
North
1 , (approxi
,.„,
STATE OF NEW YORK
S I DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
U. S. Route 1 Corridor
Development Study
FIGURE 9
Major Traffic Generators
DE LEUW,CATHER TEMI
U.S. Route 1 Corridor Development Study Technical Memorandum Number 2
Secondly, three Public Meetings (PMs) are being held during the study. The first TAG meeting
and the first PM have been held. The input received at these meetings is discussed below.
3.10.a. Technical Advisory Group
The fractured jurisdictional coverage of the corridor leads to a variety of maintenance
programs, operational plans, and municipal involvement levels. In several cases, the
relationship between local authorities is strained because of a lack of coordination. The
TAG was formed to obtain input from officials with responsibilities in the corridor. A
TAG survey was conducted and the first TAG meeting was held prior to the data
collection effort to obtain input from the community on perceived problems. The data
collection effort was partly guided by the input received from the TAG. This input is
documented in TM # 1. The data received are included in TM # 2 where appropriate.
3.10.b. Public Meeting Number 1
Concurrent with the release of Technical Memorandum Number 1, a Public Meeting was
held to allow for public comment. NYSDOT made a presentation, and the floor was
opened to the public for oral remarks. The stenographic record of the meeting is
included in Appendix K- Public Meeting Minutes. The following concerns were raised:
• Congestion at the Palmer Avenue / Weaver Street intersection, and associated
by-pass traffic
• Access to the Edwards Shopping Center in Larchmont
• Diversions to Route 1 from I-95, due in part to the northbound toll on I-95
• Parking enforcement
• Signal coordination
• Pedestrian crossings
• Signing
• Low clearances under MNR bridges in Port Chester
3.10.c. Written Public Comments
Written comments were received as a result of PM # 1. Some written comments were
also included with origin-destination survey responses. The letters received to date have
been summarized in Appendix L - Written Public Comments. The following general
concerns were raised:
• Add left turn bays where possible
• Signal coordination and improvements
• Improve striping and signing
• A variety of specific intersection improvements
The public involvement program will continue throughout the remainder of the study, with two
more TAG meetings and two more Public Meetings.
De Le►nr, Cather Team. Page 3-8
U.S. Route 1 Corridor Development Study Technical Memorandum Number 2
4. BASE YEAR (1996) AND FUTURE YEAR (2011) TRAFFIC VOLUMES
The development and projection of traffic volumes used in this study is presented in this chapter. This
process has taken several months, and has been reviewed and approved by NYSDOT. The 1996 base
traffic volumes were developed based on existing counts and work performed as part of this study. The
2011 future traffic volumes were projected based on identified development and anticipated general
traffic growth in the study area.
4.1. Intersection Selection
To adequately characterize the traffic flow along Route 1, the traffic volumes at representative
points along the roadway are required. However, collection of traffic data for each of the several
hundred intersections in the corridor is unreasonable. Selection of count locations was generally
based on the following factors:
• Major Intersections- Intersections where Route 1 meets other major roads in the study
area, such as I-95 and NYS Route 125 (Weaver Street).
• High Accident Locations - Intersections where local experience dictates that safety
concerns need to be addressed.
• Congested Locations - Intersections identified by the TAG or the community as
congested.
• Corridor Analysis - Intersections required for simulation runs in congested areas. The
corridor analysis required that all intersections (including major driveways) in the
analysis segments be included.
• Community Concerns- Intersections identified by the community for reasons other than
those above.
• Use of Resources - NYSDOT stipulated a budget for the count program, based on the
funding for the project.
A preliminary list of over seventy intersections was compiled, reviewed, and compared to
available data. Fifty-five intersections were selected for study based on the above factors.
Counts were performed at approximately twenty-five locations by the project team, and at about
fifteen locations by NYSDOT'. Data for the remaining locations were obtained from other
studies. Refer to Figure 10 - Locations Studied and Appendix M.
4.2. Data Management
With data collected at over fifty locations, a reliable methodology for compiling, balancing,
projecting, and printing the volumes was required. A computer-based spreadsheet template was
prepared which reflects the roadway network. The template allows volumes for each movement
De Lem'', Cather Team Page 4-1
III
I-287 / I-95
Ramps Grace
Hutchinson River Pkwy. Old Post Road Purdy CAve.
hurch St. /
S/B ramps / Spring St.
North Ave. Osborn Road Peck Ave.
Hutchinson River at Huguenot St.
Westchester Ave. /
Pkwy. N/B ramps Mamaroneck Ave. King St.
Purchase St.
Weaver St.
Pelhamdale Pkwy. at Palmer Ave.
I-95 S/B Ramp Milton St. / _ Mill St.
,))L-
Cross St-
f
Weyman Ave. r ♦ r.. ,• ��— / p° 4111‘;'4'" / S f;
inti ..'",40• V �i ` i ♦ I /l / low. / ( \
+ ,11 -)1..t.,
' /
,_.)
\„.._____,„,lie,,..?-ii
dr- r - ‘ Vil / f---:„.,.\:71., ---1- 1 , , . 4 .,_. (-----2
-- .1 44*0 Imiaat --; \ r
' iS.S' ' *4t •Alig't". . -gib .// rft,'.
,4$ }_� r tt�ilt % tilkor"
, ,
ti ,� + t om,
Ot ri ' 'y �- «'►+,��+r,41011/ �� ..` "�j,N'Jahrr swop.fie# /'.41 `'1�, *l ,,, �,,1� �� ,A° �j, -' h ♦ IP 4,01„' ir
ist, ,,,..::
uvrik
Ir► I�� t !�- iii► �;,,, � •tho
1
--if` �� �lopi •1�,t tes.� �`� iii` ........11� 1p Hsu_ , , 1 /� �� I I itt , + i
,___„. ._ ,1470,
itio
liii
2" ► �+!r `' rte// !�� � dater1 may' *„ `�
Sit:‘,lit-feat." al 1-111j173' ..
4
is, 4,„„. % ,...111104. ' 0 f. iiiii4 ,4' &
il #1.1 ...dale& -'' A it
*Is—, ��!_� , Efferij l aft -..,„i; ,‘ - _ Vii• + l , 0 .. ;�-�,, M • oG}g ,��. / lqiik •
4_ �_
Os. :11 161.73 111.77::,,,,'. ---:„,''.':%,:-;,„.f.--.-,46:i 414d0.,.''''''' ::, 4,4 .._ 1111111_. ''',:-2f:,___: ,.. _., 4_11 i -)
:k\,:,•:: " " . ..-
ter;," : _-
Weaver St.
North
I-95 N/B Ramp (approx)
Alden St.
Kings Ave. STATE OF NEW YORK
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Chatsworth Ave.
0 Analyzed Intersection
North Ave. U. S. Roptment Study Corridore 1
at Main St.
Larchmont Ave. mumwm
NETSIM Simulation Segments FIGURE 10
Locations Studied
DE LEUW,CATHER & COMPANY OF NEW YORK,INC.
U.S. Route I Corridor Development Study Technical Memorandum Number 2
at the studied intersections to be entered. The numbers in the template can be printed at each
intersection using a computerized base plan of the roadway network. For more details, refer to
Appendix M - Traffic Data Management.
4.3. Base Year(1996) Traffic Volumes
The turning movement count data collected under both the Collection of Available Data task and
the Supplemental Data Collection task were compiled and reviewed for accuracy and
completeness.
4.3.a. Volumes from the Collection of Available Data
A variety of volume data were available from other reports performed within the study
area. These reports included the Home Depot and Price Club EISs (New Rochelle), the
Osborne Home Expansion Study (Rye) and the Home Depot EIS (Port Chester). Refer
to Table 6 for a complete list of studies, and Appendix M for the locations and time
periods where these volumes were used. These volumes were entered into the template
for the available intersections and time periods.
4.3.b. Volumes from the Supplemental Data Collection
Peak hour volumes were extracted from the three hour peak period counts performed as
part of the supplemental data collection task. Since the corridor is over twelve miles
long, it was not expected that the peak hour would be the same throughout the corridor
in any peak period. The A.M. peak hours ranged from 7:45-8:45 to 8:00-9:00. The P.M.
peak hours ranged from 4:00-5:00 to 5:15-6:15. The Saturday peak hours ranged from
12:00-1:00 to 1:45-2:45. A consistent peak hour was not selected for the entire corridor
so that the peak(highest)volumes in each area would be used in the analyses. The peak
hour volumes were entered into the template at the counted locations for the counted
periods.
4.3.c. Balancing of Volumes
A balancing process was undertaken to equalize the traffic flow between adjacent
intersections. This was necessary since counts at adjacent locations may have come from
different sources,or the intersections may not have been counted on the same day. The
changes resulting from the balancing process were then entered into the turning
movement template and reviewed for accuracy.
At the end of the balancing process, a set of existing traffic volume figures were prepared. See
Figure 11 - Existing Traffic Volumes - A.M. Peak Hour, Figure 12 - Existing Traffic Volumes -
P.M. Peak Hour, and Figure 13 - Existing Traffic Volumes - Saturday Peak Hour. These
volumes served as the basis for the development of the future year volumes in the next step of
the process. They were also used for the base year analysis documented later in this document.
De Leuiv, Cather Team Page 4-2
/i///
1 40 7� /i/ .- 410 240 250 L 250
540 — 740 1 90 1 100 50 60 140 — 260 160 120 260 /!/ — 400
r -- 340 .J i L. r 50 ✓ r 4 r 10 /...../ ,- 170 r 230 -U L. 400
870 -- -1 r 760 Fl 260 i -1 r 40 J -I T r 30 4j4o -» -7 /-- ezo \ 440 -1 r 210 1
- 10 40 150 -, 500 -- 490 160 390 50 170 60 410 /// 180 7 30 270 \ 180 '-1 170 200 430
40 '7 10 / 111 -
e/
-1 T r /i/
PELlU1AtDALE�� // WEYMAN AVENUE MOS HIGHWAY
//
DRIVEWAY /"
- NEW ENGLAND THRUWAY
I-95
M ITCHI NSON RIVER PARKWAY
PELHAM MANOR X NEW ROCHELLE >
t t 90 ONE WAY _
-- I -- 240 340 - 470
.J 1 r -J 1 r - r .J 1 r 40 r r
-, 4 -1 4 -, -1 1 ., -1:1----"N„....
60 250
HUGUENOT STREET
MAIN STREET
370 50 200 60 240 170 130 230 200 30 50 110 370 440
.J 4 L. I L. 1 l-. L. 1 L. 4 L. L. + L.
900 1 r 900 -• r 100 _I 4 r 1030 -- 170 -1 1 r 50 J 210 .1 t r 60 J t r 1130 r 80 350 J t C.
80 .1 60 80 130 -1 140 880 -- -- -- 1030 160 70 -1 1030 -- 250 60 1040 -- 870 -- 200 50 1030 80 110 60 Z 60 1110 830 460 320
60 Z 90 -1 30 -1 40 7
PINTARD AVENUE MAPLE AVENUE CENTRE AVENUE DIVISION STREET CHURCH STREET LAWTON STREET NORTH AVENUE LE COUNT PLACE FRANKUN AVENUE HARRISON STREET ECHO AVENUE
NEW ROCHELLE >
ONE WAY ---W
SCHEMATIC-NOT TO SCALE
North
t approxi
STATE OF NEW YORK
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
U. S. Route 1 Corridor
Development Study
FIGURE 11A
1996 Existing Traffic Volumes
AM Peak Hour (1 of 2)
DE LEUW,CATHER TEAM
L 180
160 330 140 ^ 230
.J I L. r 40 PALMER AVENUE
1e J .1 t r
380 -• 30 300 60 Weekday count data M tUtaaa Monitions prow**for Won**only
50 1 Satwday data not Ina is sd
4 -►
L 20 t 70 1 511080 t 70 1 120650 t 30 L 120
50 110 60 ^ 320 70 20 30 ^ 370 10 50 90 90 110 '-' 660 170 10 130 '- 57A 70 60 210 ^ 650 280 40 � 40 10 10 60 ^ 360 220 30 1 60 20 80 120 ^ i50
.J I L. r 60 .J 4 L. r .J L - 720 J 1 L. r 10 .J I Lr r 10 .J 4 L. r 30 ✓ 4 330 Y1 4 L. C 10 .J L. ^ 370 J 1 L. r
40 J .1 t r 60 J '1 t r' 1040 60 J •1 I r' 190 J '1 t r 60 J •1 t r 210 10 J .1 I r 310 .2 30 J '1 I r
640 -• 20 100 100 740 10 60 10 690-• 70 100 60 770 '• 20 10 10 750 -• 100 60 50 360 390 -• 10 10 510 -• 630 120 60 60
30 1 10 1 140 1 20 -1 60 Z Z e0 7
LARCHMONT AVENUE CHATSWORTH AVENUE ALDEN ROAD WEAVER STRUT MAMARONECK AVENUE NORTH BARRY AVENUE KEELER AVENUE HARRISON AVENUE HORNIOGE ROAD OSBORNE ROAD
OAKLAND BEACH AVENUE
VILLAGE OF LARCHMONT X TOWN OF MAMARONECK 1•c VILLAGE OF MAMARONECK x CITY OF RYE
1-267 -
II
160 10 1 40 380 110 \�\ is
✓ 10 10 10 ^ 330 ✓ 4 e 10 ^ 580 J \\ 80 100 L 170 20 10 t 560 480 310 II L J80 130 60 t Eb ^ 660
^ 280 J L. r 350 ^ 360 r 340 ^ 610 \�\ J L.. 720 J L.. ^ 870 ✓ 4 r 310 I 620 .-1 L. 880 r 80
250 1 110 7 ti J r• 380 _i 490 -• `1 r 470 - \\\\ 190 90 .3 ^ \ 10 310 J 310 -. UUII r* 203 260 200 J 160770 ~ •1 r
470 480 -• 30 370 480 -. 110 1 100 160 180 -1 \\ II90 30
\\ 60 -. 1I
4 \\
OLD POST ROAD CROSS STREET PURCHASE STREET PECK AVENUE 1-95 NORTHBOUND. CEDAR STREET HILLSIDE ROAD 1-95 SOUTHBOUND I 1-287 WESTBOUND HIGH STREET CALDOR'S DRIVEWAY
RAMPS ENTRANCE RAMP RAMPS
CITY OF RYE YG VILLAGE OF PORTCHESTER
420 140 L 70 370 100 t 30
.J L. 590 ✓ t .- 320
130 J 190 J \` 150 L 100 L 0 L 10 L 50
610 '-• 640 -• 760 �-. r 180 120 200 90 2 •- 200 60 90 2 •" 230 10 20 120 ^ 240 40 30 40 •' 250 •- 240 330
160 1 r 20 .J I L. v r 10 .J I I--, r 10 J 1 L.. r 20 .--1 1 L. r 30 V 200 .J L.
60 > • .1 r' 100 J •1 t r r 10 J `t I r 10 J 30 J 320 - .1 r 360 -•
REGENT STREET PEARL STREET 30 80 10 30 -, 20 140 30 290 ^ 20 40 50 350 •• 410 120 "1 110 160
190 -• 10 Z Z 30 1
BO 5 30 1
GRACE CHURCH 190 r• PURDY WESTCHESTER AVENUE ADEE STREET WILLETT AVENUE HIGHLAND AVENUE MILL STREET PUTNAM AVENUE
STREET 1 AVENUE
VILLAGE OF PORT CHESTER
SCHEMATIC-NOT TO SCALE
North
I approxi
STATE OF NEW YORK
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
U. S. Route 1 Corridor
Development Study
FIGURE 11B
1996 Existing Traffic Volumes
AM Peak Hour (2 of 2)
DE LEUW,CATHER TEAM
I
I
11.\
1
I '
ee
ee
ee
ee
I,
ee„
170 1200 t I t 60 A 270 ii'
70 too i L 0 50 80 70 - 350 230 150 340 �/:' - 680 - 620 230 190 t 300
1200 -1 r 750 Tl
350 J -9 770 'J 1 L r 60 -' ( 4. r ,,,% ' 100 r 220 .J L. - 510
Z 20 60 610 "'I 1 400 -. 660 380 90 J t r” 20 -� I �i.120 ti i-' 080 460 •1 r" 190 J
„\\
I 460 "' 60 200 40 370 �f` �� 100 7 40 260 220 Z 160 180 450
50 1
t '1 I r• ,i' -
PELHAAIDALE ROAD 10 10 �;+' WEYMAN AVENUE KINGS HIGHWAY
1 DRIVEWAY ""
1 '' NEW ENGLAND THRUWAY
1-96
HUTCHWSON RIVER PARI(WAY
PELHAM MANOR Yc NEW ROCHELLE >
L
1 240 ONE WAY
- L - 400 460 - 990 - 1180 f - 1120 -
J 1 r .J I r r. ...I 1 r 240 r 140 r 40
'1 T 1 t --t "f t -1 -i
170 290 150 100
HUGUENOT STREET
MAIN STREET
570 80 140 100 250 290
210 3601L. 40 100 140 1 340
J 1 L. 1 L. I L.
L. 1
600 -* -1 r' 670 ' r• 50 J t r. 1 L. L. 1 L.
750 - 200 J I r' 70 J 210 J I r 80 J } r• 950 -. r• 150 J 320 J 4 r'
40 1 50 40 50 Z 70 650 90 90 90 1 840 - 280 80 850 700 240 60 850 -• 60 100 100 Z 50 850 - 620 -" 430 180
40 1
150 1 60 1 50 1
PINTARO AVENUE MAPLE AVENUE CENTRE AVENUE DIVISION STREET CHURCH STREET LAWTON STREET NORTH AVENUE LE COUNT PLACE FRANKLIN AVENUE HARRISON STREET ECHO AVENUE
NEW ROCHELLE
ONE WAY -O.
SCHEMATIC-NOT TO SCALE
North
t approxI
STATE OF NEW YORK
DEPARTI/ENT OF TRANSPORTATION
U. S. Route 1 Corridor
Development Study
FIGURE 12A
1996 Existing Traffic Volumes
PM Peak Hour (1 of 2)
DE LEUW,CATFER TEAM
L 160
220 340 120 400 .-
.J 1 L. r 90 PALMER AVENUE
200 J .1 4 4-
390
390 40 360 100 Weekday°aunt data at these IooHwrr provided for reference only
70 7 Saturday data not included
L 70 L 60 L 160 L 110 1 130 L 60 1 60
80 140 90 - 600 90 30 70 - 600 10 20 100 90 140 - 740 230 50 160 - 580 100 100 140 - 900 300 20 a 40 40 20 60 •-• 660 70 10 1 10 10 90 60 `- 690
.-I 1 4 1 50 J 1 L. r 20 J L.. - 890 J 1 L. r 40 J 1 L. r 4tl .J i L. r 30 ✓ c• 660 .J 1 L.. r 20 J L. - 670 J 1 L. r 20
40 J .1 1 r 80 _1 -'1 1 r" 970 210 J `1 t r' 200 J .1 r r• 40 J `1 1 r- 260-' 30 J .1 1 r' 80 J to J '1 1 r.
650 30 100 60 720 -• 20 70 20 730 -• 50 60 40 800 -• 30 30 30 420 - 70 30 10 490 -• 470 10 10 490 -• 410 130 60 30
30 -1 10 -3 50 Z 30 Z 80 -1 10 -1 100 -7
LARCHMONT AVENUE CHATSWORTH AVENUE ALDEN ROAD WEAVER STREET MAMARONECK AVENUE NORTH BARRY AVENUE KEELER AVENUE HARRISON AVENUE HORNIDGE ROAD OSBORNE ROAD
OAKLAND BEACH AVENUE
.r VILLAGE OF LARCHMONT >< TOWN OF MAMARONECK >< VILLAGE OF MAMARONECK >< CITY OF RYE
1-287 -
11 Il
1,1 I
11 r
\\ I I
220p/ L 60 480 100 1. Ir
•-" a 10 60 70 — 580 ✓ e 20 — 610 J \11IIt —
60 90 L 160 10 1 380 370 500 II 1 620 240 200120 730
e... 420 •-I 4 r' 430 - 590 - r 270 - 780 1t1 J L. 730 J L. - 880 ✓ A C 330 I - 830 .J L. 1110 r 210
120 -." 20 J .7 1 i• 320 1 570 -• `1 I' 510 - 11 60 J \`\ 10 J 480 I4 r 160 J 880 •1 r
360 390 30 10 310 450 150 "7 180 190 250 Z \1 460 480 II 620 1190 -• 510 -Z 500 90
70 7 \1 I I
11 Si
1160 1 Ir
OLD POST ROAD CROSS STREET + PURCHASE STREET PECK AVENUE 1-95 NORTHBOUND. CEDAR STREET HILLSIDE ROAD 1-95 SOUTHBOUND r; 1-287 WESTBOUND HIGH STREET CALDOR'S DRIVEWAY
RAMPS ENTRANCE RAMP RAMPS
< CITY OF RYE >< VILLAGE OF PORTCHESTER
300 190 t 110 520 120 a 40
._J L. -- 740 ✓ A .- 640 .
250 J 270 J �- 290 1 150 L 20 1 30 1 60
830 530 260 `. e- 200 170 160 110 3 - 360 110 80 2 .- 360 10 10 90 .- 400 40 30 20 - 410 - 390 450 73
90 1 r 30 J I L. v r 20 J 1 L.. r 20 J 1 L. r 10 J 1 L. r 30 r 180
60 , w .1 r 150 . '1 I r r 3o J .1 1 r• 30 J 50 J 270 -• •1 r 400 -•
REGENT STREET PEARL STREET 40 180 10 50 40 210 30 330 \50 90 80 380 -' 380 -* 130 -1 170 200
250 -• 50 Z 20 Z 40 7
80 ) 30 Z
GRACE CHURCH 210 •''PURDY WESTCHESTER AVENUE ADEE STREET WILLETT AVENUE HIGHLAND AVENUE MILL STREET PUTNAM AVENUE
STREET 10 4 AVENUE
t VILLAGE OF PORT CHESTER >
SCHEMATIC-NOT TO SCALE
Na-th
(approx)
STATE OF NEW YORK
DEPARTMENT Of TRANSPORTATION
U. S. Route 1 Corridor
Development Study
FIGURE 12B
1996 Existing Traffic Volumes
PM Peak Hour (2 of 2)
DE LEUW,CATHER TEMI
---')\
\
1 140 I 230 ,i'
290 ` 5� \ L 90 L 80 40 160 120 3e0 15o 110 250 ,i — 540 — 4110 190 230 1 190
\\\ „
_ 340 J l L f 110 ✓ ( L. f' ,, ' 100 r 260 .J L 560
1070 20 50 360 360 J -1 r 6o J "'1 I r. 20 ,/490 — 7 ,-' 660 510 -' -1 r 180 J
400 — 310 130-II4,-..„.\
/ 360 — 60 170 60 360 „ 100 7 40 260 140 -1 170 170 400 —
60 Z •- ' t
PELHAMDALE ROAD ,��' WEYMAN AVENUE MOS HN3HWAY
DRIVEWAY ,�,
NEW ENGLAND THRI WAY
1-95
HUTCHNSON RIVER PARKWAY
t PELHAM MANOR >< NEW ROCHELLE >
L L 190 ONE WAY
` 1- — 110 140 — 600 — 1020 4 — 1010 —
J 4 r .-1 1 r - r .J 4 r 140 r 120 r 40 1
.-I 1 -1 t "( 1 t ..1 .-1 ..1
140 360 110 110
HUGUENOT STREET
MAIN STREET
730 50 100 90 290 330
J 1 L 1 100 180 120 50 60 160 500 290
720 -" n r 4 L. L. 1 L. 1 L. L 4 L.
780 r 40 J r r 680 -••• 170 J 1 r 100 J 240 J t r 70 J I r 950 -- r-
30 100 J 320 J t r
Z 40 60 40 Z 50 770 -• 90 90 70 -1 1040 '- 190 90 1040 720 230 60 830 — 70 110 90 Z 60 go 710 '-' 210 220
30 7 190 '-1 20 - 70 Z
i PINTARD AVENUE MAPLE AVENUE CENTRE AVENUE DIVISION STREET CHURCH STREET LAWTON STREET NORTH AVENUE LE COUNT PLACE IRANKLJN AVENUE HARRISON STREET ECHO AVENUE
i'
NEW ROCHELLE
>
ONE WAY —tea=
CHEMAT/C-NOT TO SCALE
Narfh
(approx)
STATE OF NEW YORK
DEPARTMENT Of TRANSPORTATION
U. S. Route 1 Corridor
Development Study
FIGURE 13A
1996 Existing Traffic Volumes
Saturday Peak Hour (1 of 2)
DE LEUW,CATHER TEAM
1
L 120
140 310 100 - 210 —
rJ 1 L. 1- 40 PALMER AVENUE
160 J `1 t r-
290
200 70 430 90 Weekday*orae data ua these Ioo.tiwr provided to.r./w«w.«iy
7o -1 S.`"day data not included i.4
L 120 L 160 1 180 L 120 L L 160
90 130 80 -- 670 110 70 160 ^ 600 10 20 120 160 60 •- 660 210 50 140 ..- 710 e- 80 10 1 20 10 50 30 460
r 40 J 4 L. r 30 J L. - 830 J 4 L. r 40 J 4 L. r 30 ._i 1 i. r .✓ 4 J 1 L. r .-J L. 480 J 1 L. r 40
80 J .1 t r 80 J i-t t r 1080 220 J `1 t r 210 J •) t rr J '1 t r -• J .1 t 60 J 10 J 1
680 " 20 110 70 740 " 10 50 30 820" 50 70 70 770 110 60 70. --• -.' -. 600 -" 470 " 210 60 60
30 -1 10 -1 70 -1 60 -1 -1 -1 160 -1
LARCHMONT AVENUE CHATSWORTH AVENUE ALDEN ROAD WEAVER STREET MAMARONECK AVENUE NORTH BARRY AVENUE KEELER AVENUE HARRISON AVENUE HORNIOGE ROAD OS6ORNE ROAD
OAKLAND BEACH AVENUE
VILLAGE OF LARCHMONT X TOWN OF MAMARONECK X VILLAGE OF MAMARONECK x CITY OF RYE >
-
1287
/1
\\ 1
\\ I
\\
\\ It:
160 20 L 20 400 30 \\\
✓ 4 10 10 10 560 ✓ 4 e 30 530 J \\ 30 90 L 80 10 10 L 240 370 530 tI 1 360 120 210 L 190 6�
400 J J L. 1- 400 - 580 r 170 670 \\\ J L. 690 J L. - 770 .� a r 320 1� 850 .J L• " 1090 r 350
860 -. -1 r
120 1 10 J 7 .•-•" 330 1 490 .1 1" 510 \`\ 60 J J 530 r 90 J I1 560 1270 --• 720 -1 600 170
430 -. 460 380 520 -" 160 -I 130 110 90 7 \\ 460 -• 530 " 11
70 7 \\ ii
\\ 30 " 11
t \\ HILLSIDE ROAD 1-95 SOUTHBOUND I 1 1-287 WESTBOUND HIGH STREET CALOOR'S DRIVEWAY
OLD POST ROAD CROSS STREET PURCHASE STREET PECK AVENUE 1-95 NORTHBOUND CEDAR STREETll
RAMPS ENTRANCE RAMP RAMPS
CITY OF RYE >< VILLAGE OF PORTCHESTER __
140 30 L 80 370 70 a 50
J 730 ✓ 4 .- 660
110 J 220 J �- 60 L 110 L 20 1 60 L 30
950 " 680 250 N-. /' 190 190 130. 140 300 110 90 2 330 40 20 90 350 40 20 30 r 420 330 390 62
160 r 300 J 1 L. v r 30 .J 4 L. r 30 .J I 1. r 40 J I L. r 20 r 150 -J 1-»
70 , 0 *1 r' 190 j "1 t r r 30 J -1 t r 30 J 40 J 25080 150 180 350 -'
REGENT STREET PEARL STREET 20 70 30 -' 80 180 40 330 " 60 60 60 380 " 380 "
270 100 -1 20 -1 30 Z
70 ) 50 7
GRACE CHURCH 190 �'PURDY WESTCHESTER AVENUE ADEE STREET WILLETT AVENUE HIGHLAND AVENUE MILL STREET PUTNAM AVENUE
STREET 1 AVENUE
VILLAGE OF PORT CHESTER >
SCHEMATIC-NOT TO SCALE •
North
I approx)
STATE OF NEW YORK
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
U. S. Route 1 Corridor
Development Study
FIGURE 13B
1996 Existing Traffic Volumes
Saturday Peak Hour (2 of 2)
DE LEUW,CATHER TEAM
U.S. Route I Corridor Development Study Technical Memorandum Number 2
4.4. Future Year (2011) Traffic Volumes
The future year volumes will be used to evaluate the effect of traffic growth on the corridor.
Two factors were accounted for in the preparation of future year traffic volumes. These items
are discussed below.
4.4.a. Background Growth
Traffic experiences background growth as population, auto ownership, and employment
increase in an area. A background growth of one percent a year was applied to each
intersection in the corridor. The growth rate was developed based on past growth in
traffic volumes, a review of other studies in the area, and population, employment, and
vehicle registration trends. For more details, refer to Appendix M. Traffic from
proposed future developments in the study area was added to this traffic separately.
4.4.b. Future Development Traffic
New developments and existing redevelopments in the corridor are projected to attract
additional traffic. Data on proposed future traffic generators were collected as outlined
in Chapter 2. Traffic projections for these developments were evaluated, and any
projects generating 100 trips or more during any peak period were considered as part of
the future growth. See Table 22,Table 10, and Appendix M. Future development trips
were added to the volumes in the template based on the distribution provided in the
respective reports.
Table 22 - Other Development Traffic
Generation (trips)
Project or Development
A.M. P.M. Sat.
Price Club, New Rochelle -- 355 581
Home Depot, New Rochelle 375 602 1,202
RKO Theater,New Rochelle 275 98 100
New Rochelle Mall Redevelopment,New Rochelle (1) -- 1,645 1,999
Regatta Residential Development, Mamaroneck 92 99 --
Osborn Retirement Community, Rye (2) 56 97 --
Home Depot, Port Chester (1) -- 550 1,100
(1) Includes pass-by traffic
(2) Net increase
-- Trip generation for these projects and time periods not available
De Leuw, Cather Team Page 4-3
U.S. Route I Corridor Development Study Technical Memorandum Number 2
The background growth was applied to the 1996 volumes,and the other development traffic was
added to the grown volumes. This formed the 2011 future null volumes. These volumes served
as the basis for the future null analysis documented in subsequent chapters. Refer to Figure 14 -
Future Null Traffic Volumes- A.M. Peak Hour, Figure 15 - Future Null Traffic Volumes - P.M.
Peak Hour, and Figure 16 - Future Null Traffic Volumes - Saturday Peak Hour.
•
De Leuiv, Cather Team Page 4-4
I
I
I
\ e
--I')i
' t 60 A
020 ^ s60�L 100 L 120 60 70 170 ^ 110 180 140 al 0 .:' 480 ^ 490 280 120 t 303
400 .J 1 L. r eo -� . 4 r 10 ,i' 200 r 270 J L. 480
1010 'i r• 890 T 300 J 'i r'
60 J '� t r 10 ,.110 ," 760 650 -0 '1 r 240 J
Z 10 60 170 j 690 660 190 460 60 200 70 490 -1 /
cii.....,,
, 220 7 30 130 -1 210 Z 200 250 550I60 -1 10 Z ,iI PELMAMOALE ROAD _/„' WEYMAN AVENUE KINGS HIGHWAY
„
DRIVEWAY tee,
( NEW ENGLAND THRUWAY
496
HUTCHINSON RIVER PARKWAY
PELHAM M.4MJR x NEW ROCHELLE
t 1 100 ONE WAY
t ^ 280 190 - 550 ^ 0 -' -
J 1 r -' { r ^ r J 1 r 50 r r r
"1 } 1I "I T •1 '7
70 290
HUGUENOT STREET
MAIN STREET
470 60 320 70 280 200 150 260 230 30 60 130 430 510
.J 1 L. 1 1... 1 L. L. 1 L. 4 L. L. 1 L.
1130 "I r 1130 -0 r 120 J T r' 1230 200 J I r- 60 J 250 J t r' 70 J I r' 1330 r• 90 J 410 J T r'
90 -1 70 90 150 1 160 1010 ^ 230 240 80 1 1230 290 70 1240 ' 1030 ” 230 60 1210 90 130 70 -1 70 1300 970 -' 630 370
160 -1 110 Z 40 -1 50 Z
PINTARD AVENUE MAPLE AVENUE CENTRE AVENUE DIVISION STREET CHURCH STREET LAWTON STREET NORTH AVENUE LE COUNT PLACE FRANKLIN AVENUE HARRISON STREET ECHO AVENUE
< NEW ROCHELLE
ONE WAY --I►
SCHEMATIC-NOT TO SCALE North
(opprox)
STATE OF NEW YORK
DEPARTMENT OF TRMISPORTATION
U. S. Route 1 Corridor
Development Study
FIGURE 14A
2011 Future Null Traffic Volumes
AM Peak Hour (1 of 2)
DE LEUW,CATHER TEAM
I
f
L 210
180 380 160 260 "
.J l L. I 50 PALMER AVENUE
180 J n t (-
440
440 — 30 350 70 Weekday count data at them locations provided tot rafar«wa sMY
80 —1 Saturday data not Included
4 —,
L 90 1 90 1 130 L 90 L 140 1 30 1 140
60 130 70 — 360 80 20 30 " 440 10 60 100 100 130 — 650 210 20 160 •- 610 80 60 240 •- 750 320 50 A 60 10 10 70 " 400 260 30 1 60 20 90 140 " 400
rl I ly r 60 .-J 1 L. r .J L. �- 140 .J 1 L. C 10 .J 1 L. 1 10 rJ 1 L. r 30 ✓ 4 .- 380 .J 1 L. r 10 .J I— 430 J 4 L. r
60 J `1 t r 60 J `1 t F. 1200 " 70 J '1 1 r' 220 J '1 1 rs 70 J -1 t r 240—0 10 J `1 1 r' 360 J 30 J .1 1 1.-
740 -• 20 120 120 160 — 10 70 10 1030— 80 120 100 890 " 20 10 10 30 — 120 70 60 420 " 450 — 10 10 690 — 610 " 140 90 60
30 -1 10 -1 160 Z 20 4 70 -1 -1 90 -1
LARC1it40NT AVENUE CHATSWORTH AVENUE ALOEN ROAD WEAVER STREET MAMARONECK AVENUE NORTH BARRY AVENUE KEELER AVENUE HARRISON AVENUE HORNIDOE ROAD OSBORNE ROAD
OAKLAND BEACH AVENUE
VILLAGE OF LARCHMONT X TOWN OF MAMARONECK x VILLAGE OF MAMARONECK x CITY OF RYE >
1-267 —
1,
11 1
`1 1
\1 11
11 1j
170 t 50 410 130 1%1
a---..
/ 10 10 10 380 ✓ 4 t 10 — 670 «J 1 100 120 L 200 20 10 L 640 650 360 11 1 460 150 90 t 100 1010
11 .J L� 830 J L. 1000 ✓ 4 r 360 �� 710 1010 890 " >b
320 .J ) L. 400 410 .r1 390 530 " 930 1`% 220 J 10 J 360 — 11 300 980 180 Z '1 30
290 1 10 J '� I �" 440 J 660
540 " 550 " 30 430 550 — 130 Z 120 180 210 -1 11 320 - \360 — 11
120 7 11 11
11 70 — 1 UU
OLD POST ROAD CROSS STREET 4
PURCHASE STREET PECK AVENUE 1-95 NORTHBOUMS CEDAR STREET HILLSIDE ROAD 1-95 SOUTHBOUND / 1-267 WESTBOUND HIGH STREET CALDOR'S DRIVEWAY
RAMPS ENTRANCE RAMP RAMPS
CITY OF RYE _ >< VILLAGE OF PORTCHESTER >
480 160 L 80 430 120 30
.J L.. 680 .-- 4 •- 370
150 J 220 J t 170 1 120 10 L 10 t 60
700 -• 620 — 180 •-. r 210 140 230 100 2 — 230 70 100 2\\L
.- 260 10 20 140 "- 280 50 30 60 290 280 380 1040
180 s1 r 20 .J 1 L. to r 10 .J 1 r 10 .J 1 L. r 20 .-J 1 L.. r 30 r 230 .J L..
60 > • 1r 120 J '1 t ( r 10 J `1 t r' 10 J 30 J 370 -• 'I r' 410REGENT STREET PEARL STREET 30 90 10 30 -' 20 160 30 330 — 20 50 60 400 " 470 " 140 -1 130 180
220 — 10 -1 -1 30 1
90 ) 30 -1
GRACE CHURCH 220 ' PURDY WESTCHESTER AVENUE ADEE STREET WIL.ETT AVENUE HIGHLAND AVENUE MILL STREET PUTNAM AVENUE
STREET 4 AVENUE
VILLAGE OF PORT CHESTER >
SCHEMATIC-NOT TO SCALE
North
(approX 1
tow—
STATE OF NEW YORK
DEPORTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
U. S. Route 1 Corridor
Development Study
FIGURE 14B
2011 Future Null Traffic Volumes
AM Peak Hour (2 of 2)
DE LEUW,CATHER TEM(
I\ )e i 1.
I_ so A 460 4Y
Iso L 60
✓ 14� t 60 80 D0 460 260 Zgp 470 ..., 180 530 280 240 L 370
_ - 950 l L. r 50 ✓ ( .. r .. 240
r 320 .� L - 970
1430 20 70 590 400 _1 •1 r 100 J r r' 20 .:dao — r- 830 670 — -, r 240 J
510 760 450.",..\\I
/ 690 — 70 230 50 510 ,� 120 7 50 440 260 260 Z 490 210 620
60 Z -I
,�
•1 t r ,ice
PELHAMOALE ROAD 10 10 ,i� WEYMAN AVEf6JE /MOS HIGHWAY
DRIVEWAY ,i,
NEW ENGLAND THRUWAY
495
HVTCNMSON RIVER PAP*WAY
PELHAM MANOR
>l< NEW ROCHELLE
L 1 610 OAE WAY
t — 470 740 — 1130 •- 1710 4---- 1290 -- 160
--1 1 r ^_J 1 r r J 1 r 290 r 160 r 200
.-1 t ..1 1 "1 '1 t '1 '-( 1
200 340 240 210
HUGUENOT STREET
MAIN STREET
770 100 190 130 290 390 240 430 310 50 180 100 540 390
.J 1 L 4 L. 1 L L. 4 L. 1 L. L 1 L.
810 — n r 900 — r 60 J 1 r
1020 — 240 J I r so J 250 J 1 r 200 J 1 r 1300 -� r 260 J 370 J 1 r
50 Z 60 50 60 -1 90 870 120 140 110 -1 1160 — 320 110 1180 — 1000 — 290 80 1110 — 70 120 120 1 60 1090 -• 960 -' 490 210
70 -1 180 -1 70 60
PINTARD AVENUE MAPLE AVENUE CENTRE AVENUE DIVISION STREET CHURCH STREET LAWTON STREET NORTH AVENUE LE COUNT PLACE FRANKLIN AVENUE HARRISON STREET ECHO AVENUE
NEW ROCHELLE
ONE WAY --11.
SCHEMATIC-.NOT TO SCALE
North
(approx)
STATE OF NEW YORK
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPCRTATbN
U. S. Route 1 Corridor
Development Study
FIGURE 15A
2011 Future Null Traffic Volumes
PM Peak Hour (1 of 2)
DE LEUW,CATHER TEAM
L 180
250 390 140 - 480
,J l L_. r loo PALMER AVENUE
230 I I-
450
450 J 50 410 120 Weekday count date N thaw i000tione provided for releranoe only
Saturday date not included
f
L. 130 1 150 L 70 t 60
L 80 L 90 1 170 L 60 50 20 60 - 770 60 10 1 10 100 60 �' 690
100 180 90 - 760 110 30 80 - 740 10 20 120 100 160 890 280 60 190 1040 120 120 160 1070 350 20 J L. 7110 10 1 t� 1 90
! L.. r 60 .--I 1 L. 'ri t O r' 3 0 4 - 780 J L 't l20 l' 90 J T r
r1 { L. 60 J { L. r 20 11 L. t 070 J 1 L-. 50 J60 10
60 J 1 r" 680 J `� 1 r2 1170 250 1 '1 1 �6 250 J 40-I T r• 30 J 80 30 10 680 - 660 10 10 680 490 150 70 40
810 -1 40 120 90 810 -1 20 80 20 880 60 70 ti0 s40 - 40 30 10 -1 120 -1
40 �7 10 Z 60 Z 40 Z 70 -1
KFEI FR AVENUE HARRISON AVENUE 110RNiD0E ROAD O660RNE ROAD
LARCIM4ONT AVENUE CHATSWORTH AVENUE ALDEN ROAD WEAVER STREET MAMARONECK AVENUE NORTH BARRY AVENUEOSKORNADH AVENUE
VILLAGE OF MAMARONECKX CITY OF RYE
1 <
VILLAGE OF LARCHMONT X TOWN OF MAMARONECK >< _
1-287 -
lI
1\ 1
\1 1
N II
11 I I
260 20 L 70 550/ 120 1\1 10 t 500 470 660 111 t 600 280 230 L 140 •- 840
700 ,J 11 60 100 L 160 .� 4 390 f1 - 960 .-I L. *- 1280
240
✓ Z 10 60 60 - 680 .-, 20 -
- 600 .J ) L.• r 490 690 r 370 - 950 1t1 J L. 900 10 J - 1080 550 - Iii r' 210 J 1050 - `1 r
140 -' 20 J .7 1 r' 370 660 " r 690 -• 11 60 J lI 600 1410 " 590 Z 680 100
180 -1 220 220 290 -4 \\ 530 - 550 "• lI
q30 -» 460 30 10 360 530 11 1I
60 7 11
1\ 70 - I I
CALDOR'S DRIVEWAY
! N HILLSIDE ROAD 1-95 SOUTHBOUND i/ 1-287 WESTtloUND HIGH STREET
OLD POST ROAD CROSS STREET PURCHASE STREET PECK AVENUE 1-95 NORTHBOUN& CEDAR STREET ENTRANCE RAMP RAMPS
RAMPS
VILLAGE OF PORTCHESTER )
CITY OF RYE ><
350 220 1_ 130 600 140 / 60
i .J L. 850 ✓ A 740 L 20 1 30 t 70
290 J 310 -/ ` 330 L 170 - 450
430 130 90 2 420 10 10 100 - 470 50 30 20 " 480 r 210 520 L.
1000 650 100 )-. V 250 210 1 I10 130 1 L. r 20 J 1 L. r 10 J 4 L. 1 30
t 70 1 r 30 J I L. v r 20 J 60 i 320 - r' 470 -•
70 4 � r 180 J •1 I r r 40 J � T 1' 40 J
� 60 100 70 420 "• 440 � 150 -1 200 230
REGENT STREET PEARL STREET 50 210 10 60 • 50 240 30 390 20 -1 50 -1
300 -- ISO �
go ) 30 Z WILLETT AVENUE HIGHLAND AVENUE MILL STREET PUTNAM AVENUE
GRACE CHURCH 270 •'-'' PURDY WESTCHESTER AVENUE ADEE STREET
STREET 10 4 AVENUE VILLAGE OF PORT CHESTER
•
SCHEMATIC-NOT TO SCALE
North
(approx)
STATE OF NEW YORK
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
U. S. Route 1 Corridor
Development Study
FIGURE 15B
2011 Future Null Traffic Volumes
PM Peak Hour (2 of 2)
DE LEUW,CATHER TEAM
1
1
I /
I /
//
I /
1
le
1 "
1 L 190 z 460 /i:•
330 /0L100
0 I 460 'J 1 L. r 150 .-/ ' ^
1330 — -, r 930 n 410 J -, r 60 .1 .� r r f `.. r '- �- 320 r Oso .� L. eoo
Z 20 - 410 120 //440 — 7 / 640 650 — 't r 250 i
I 670 — 360 160 530 70 200 90 590 // 120 7 50 660 660 7 190 -3 700 320 710
1 70 -1 Z /'
I '1 f r /i/
1
1 PELHAMOALE ROAD /i/ WEYMAN AVENUE KINGS HIGHWAY
r/
1 DRIVEWAY ri'
I i/
I NEW ENGLAND THRUWAY
F95
HUTCHINSON RIVER PARKWAY
PELHAM MANORX NEW ROCHELLE >
L L 460 ONE WAY
^ L -- 130 430 ^ 1160 ^ 1570 f — ^ 1160 --
J 1 r .J 1 r — r ...! 1 r 180 r 140 r 240
...1 t '1 t -7 '1 1 -1 t'7
170 430 200 240
HUGUENOT STREET
MAIN STREET
1020 60 140 120 330 430 120 220 200 60 170 340 580 330
J 1 L. 1 L. i L. L. 1 I... 1 L. L. 1 L.
1020 — -1 r 1090 — r 50 J I r 1230 — 210 i I r 120 J 290 J I r 220 J I r 1330 -- r 220 1 380 J t f---
40
40 -1 50 60 50 '1 60 1050 120 140 90 1 1450 — 220 120 1460 — 1070 — 260 90 1130 — 80 130 110 Z 70 1210 — 1100 — 240 250
70 Z 230 Z 20 Z 80 Z
I
PIHTARD AVENUE MAPLE AVENUE CENTRE AVENUE DIVISION STREET CHURCH STREET LAWTON STREET NORTH AVENUE LE COUNT PLACE FRANKLIN AVENUE HARRISON STREET ECHO AVENUE
DIVISION
NEW ROCHELLE
ONE WAY ---►
SCHEMATIC-NOT TO SCALE
North
l opprox)
STATE OF NEW YORK
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
U. S. Route 1 Corridor
Development Study
FIGURE 16A
2011 Future Null Traffic Volumes
Saturday Peak Hour (1 of 2)
DE LEUW,CATHER TEAM
L . 140
160 360 120 — 240
.J 1 L. r 50 PALMER AVENUE
180 J •-1 I r
330 80 490 100 W count data at thee.locations provided for relrw>a only
80 Z
Saturday dote not included
L 140 t 190 L 210 L 140 1 L t 70
110 150 90 — 720 140 80 190 " 760 10 20 140 170 70 — 800 250 60 160 — 850 [ 90 10 L 20 10 60 40 ^ 640
.J 1 L r 50 .J 1 L_ 1 —
70 J .1 f r30 'J L. — 1010 .__) 1 L. r 60 ,J I L. (- 30 rJ 1 L. r ✓ .e../(
� .J 1 L. r J L. — 580 .-1 I 4 r 60
700 3 `1 t 1 1300 -.. 260 J 'l t r 250 3 n I r 3 -1 1 r -' 3 -1 t r• 70 J 10 i `1 t I'
840 30 130 80 900 -' 10 80 30 980 — 60 80 90 920 -* 130 60 90 600 660 -* 240 70 60
40 -1 10 -1 so
70 -1 Z Z 170 -1
LARCHMONT AVENUE CHATSWORTH AVENUE ALDEN ROAD WEAVER STREET MAMARONECK AVENUE NORTH BARRY AVENUE KEELER AVENUE HARRISON AVENUE HORNIDGE ROAD OSBORNE ROAD
OAKLAND BEACH AVENUE
VILLAGE OF LARCHMONT X X x TOWN OF MAMARONECK VILLAGE OF MAMARONECK CITY OF RYE
11 I I1-287 -
11 t
11
11
180 20 1 20 460 /11/14 .
✓ e 30 111 I I
— 480 .t J 1 �" 670 670 ✓ 4 e 30 -' 610 J 1`1 30 100 t too 10 10 1 400 610 610 I/ t 410 140 240 L 220 790
140 -� 1 O 3 1 380 J — 690 570 — `1 x320 — 900 11 .-I L.. 920 ..J L. — 1010 .-, 4 r 370 if — 980 J L. — 1250 r 400
140 510 600 — 11 60 J 3 610 II r 100 J 1070 '1 r
440 620 200 Z 170 130 100 Z 111 630 — \610 �� 640 1660 -" 630 Z 690 200
80 7 11 iii
I 11
1-95 NORTHBOU30 -. II
OLD POST ROAD CROSS STREET PURCHASE STREET PECK AVENUE ND CEDAR STREET HILLSIDE ROAD 1-95 SOUTHBOUND II 1-287 WESTBOUND HIGH STREET CALDOR'S DRIVEWAY
RAMPS ENTRANCE RAMP RAMPS
< CITY OF RYE YE VILLAGE OF FORTCHESTER
160 40 L 100 430 80 1 60
.-I L_. — 840 ✓ 4 _ 640
130 J 250 J t 70 L 130 L 20 L 70 L 30
1180 -.• 670 -» 320 \-... r 270 240 150 160 — 370 130 100 2 400 50 20 100 '4-- 420 50 20 30 ."- 600 — 390 460 71
180 1 r 350 .J t L. v r 30 .J 1 L.. r 30 .I I L. 1 50 .J 1 L. r 20 r 170
60 > • 1 r 240 3 'T 1 r r 40 J .1 t r 40 3 50 3 300 — l r
PEARL STREET 20 80 30 —, 90 210 50 400 -. 70 70 70 430 450 100 '1 180 210 410
REGENT STREET
344) 120 -1 20 -1 40 -1
80 5 60 '1
GRACE CHURCH 270 r'PURDY WESTCHESTER AVENUE ADEE STREET W)LLETT AVENUE HIGHLAND AVENUE MILL STREET PUTNAM AVENUE
STREET 4 AVENUE
VILLAGE OF PORT CHESTER
SCHEMATIC-NOT TO SCALE
North
(opprox)
STATE OF NEW YORK
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
U. S. Route 1 Corridor
Development Study
FIGURE 16B
2011 Future Null Traffic Volumes
Saturday Peak Hour (2 of 2)
DE LEUW,CATHER TEAM
U.S. Route l Corridor Development Study Technical Memorandum Number 2
5. ANALYSIS OF BASE YEAR AND FUTURE NULL CONDITIONS
In order to define problem areas along Route 1, a number of tasks were performed as part of this study.
Problem areas identified by the community during the study have been documented in Technical
Memorandum Number 1 and earlier in this document. A consistent means of evaluating these locations
and other critical locations along Route 1 was developed using a variety of engineering tools.
The corridor was examined using intersection analyses, arterial simulation, a safety analysis, and a
review of pavement conditions. This chapter documents the base analysis performed in the corridor.
The analysis identified and quantified problems in the corridor. These areas will be the target of work
in future phases of the study. Improvements developed in future phases of the study will be compared
to the base case analyses.
5.1. Traffic Operations Analysis
Two analyses of traffic operations along the Route 1 corridor have been performed. Refer to
Figure 10 and the descriptions below.
• Intersection analyses at twenty-four key locations have been performed using procedures
from the Highway Capacity Manual' (HCM). These analyses quantify operating
conditions at each location.
• Detailed simulations of the Route 1 arterial in three downtown areas have been
performed. The simulations account for the interaction of adjacent traffic signals,
driveways,parking maneuvers, and pedestrians.
These analyses are described in more detail below. They were performed for both the base year
(1996) and future null year(2011). The base year analysis identified existing problems in the
corridor. The future analysis identified problem locations in 2011. Potential improvements
developed as part of this study will be compared to the future case.
5.1.a. Traffic Intersection Analysis
During earlier phases of the study,twenty-four intersections were identified for analysis
using the procedures outlined in the HCM. The HCM is an accepted engineering
reference, which provides procedures for evaluating the quality of traffic operations.
These operational levels are expressed in terms of "levels of service" (LOS) for the
subject facility under given conditions. There are six defined levels of service, with
LOS A being the best and LOS F being the worst. The specific LOS criteria for each
Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209 (Third Edition), Transportation Research Board,
Washington,D.C., 1994
De Leuw, Cather Team Page 5-1
U.S. Route 1 Corridor Development Study Technical Memorandum Number 2
methodology depend on the facility type under analysis. The signalized and unsignalized
intersection methodologies are being applied in this study, as outlined below.
• Signalized Intersection Analysis - The signalized methodology calculates delays
for each lane group in the intersection, and for the intersection as a whole. Based
on these delays, levels of service are assigned. The delay values range for
negligible (LOS A)to greater than 60 seconds (LOS F). Typically, intersections
operating at LOS E or LOS F are considered unacceptable. Signalized analyses
have been performed at twenty-two intersections indicated on Figure 10.
• Unsignalized Intersection Analysis - The unsignalized methodology also
calculates vehicular delays. At a typical unsignalized intersection,the major road
has a continuous right of way. The delays for left turning vehicles on the major
approaches and vehicles on the minor approach are calculated and the associated
LOS is assigned. Due to the different type of operation, the LOS criteria are
different than those for the signalized methodology. Unsignalized analysis has
been performed at Spring Street and at Hornidge Road.
The results of the existing analysis are shown in Table 23 and Table 24 for unsignalized
and signalized locations, respectively. Detailed results are shown in Appendix N -
Capacity Analysis Backup. As can be seen, there are poor unsignalized levels of service
at the Hutchinson River Parkway Ramp / Spring Street intersection on the minor
approach. This location is being studied for improvements, as shown in Table 9. Three
of the twenty-two signalized locations (or 14%) operate at LOS F for at least one peak
hour under existing conditions.
Table 23 - Unsignalized Intersection LOS - 1996 Base Conditions
LOS
Intersection Approach A.M. P.M. Sat.
Hornidge Road (Rye Neck High School)
Eastbound Approach C B B
Northbound Left Turn B B A
Hutchinson River Parkway S/B ramps / Spring Street
Eastbound Right C C B
Westbound Approach E F F
Southbound Left B C B
De Leuiv, Cather Team Page 5-2
U.S. Route I Corridor Development Study Technical Memorandum Number 2
Table 24 - Signalized Intersection LOS - 1996 Base Conditions
LOS
Intersection A.M. P.M. Sat.
Mill Street C D B
Westchester Avenue C F C*
Grace Church Street B D* B
Ramps from I-287 E/B /to 1-95 S/B C C C
Peck Avenue B* B B
Purchase Street B C B
Cross Street B B B
Old Post Road (Western Spur) B B B
Osborn Road D D D
Mamaroneck Avenue C C C
Weaver Street at Route 1 F C C
Weaver Street at Palmer Avenue B C C
Chatsworth Avenue B B C
Larchmont Avenue B B B
North Avenue at Huguenot Street C C* C
North Avenue at Main Street C E C
Kings Highway B B B
Weyman Avenue B B B
I-95 N/B ramps B B B
I-95 S/B ramps B B B
Pelhamdale Avenue B B B
Hutchinson River Parkway N/B ramps B F B
* - One or more lane groups at LOS F
The results of the future null analysis are shown in Table 25 and Table 26 for signalized
and unsignalized conditions, respectively. The number of signalized intersections at
LOS F increases to twelve (or 55%) under future null conditions. Both unsignalized
intersections experience LOS F under at least one time period.
De Leuw, Cather Team Page 5-3
U.S. Route I Corridor Development Study Technical Memorandum Number 2
Table 25 - Signalized Intersection LOS - 2011 Future Null Conditions
LOS
Intersection A.M. P.M. Sat.
Mill Street F F D
Westchester Avenue C F F
Grace Church Street C F F
Ramps from I-287 E/B /to 1-95 S/B F D* F
Peck Avenue C C* B
Purchase Street C D C
Cross Street B C B
Old Post Road (Western Spur) B B B
Osborn Road D D D
Mamaroneck Avenue C D* D*
Weaver Street at Route 1 F F F
Weaver Street at Palmer Avenue C F F
Chatsworth Avenue C F F
Larchmont Avenue B E* F
North Avenue at Huguenot Street C F D
North Avenue at Main Street D D E
Kings Highway C* B C
Weyman Avenue B C C
I-95 N/B ramps B F F
I-95 S/B ramps B B B
Pelhamdale Avenue B B F
Hutchinson River Parkway N/B ramps B F C*
* - One or more lane groups at LOS F
De Leuiv, Cather Team Page 5-4
U.S. Route I Corridor Development Study Technical Memorandum Number 2
Table 26 - Unsignalized Intersection LOS - 2011 Future Null Conditions
LOS
Intersection Approach A.M. P.M. Sat.
Hornidge Road (Rye Neck High School)
Eastbound Approach F B B
Northbound Left Turn B B A
Hutchinson River Parkway S/B ramps/ Spring Street
Eastbound Right D E B
Westbound Approach F F F
Southbound Left B C C
5.1.b. Route 1 Arterial Analysis
The HCM provides only limited tools for analyzing arterial traffic flow outside of the
intersection itself. The arterial analysis methodology provided in Chapter 11 of the
HCM does not consider queuing, driveways,or other mid-block traffic flow disruptions.
These frictions often have a substantial effect on the traffic flow along an arterial.
Microscopic traffic simulations consider each vehicle as it travels along the roadway
network,and reflect mid-block traffic flow disruptions, signal coordination, and queuing.
Measures of effectiveness such as speed, travel time, and delay are collected for each
vehicle as it travels through the network. Results of the simulation can also be presented
visually. A simulation of traffic conditions was performed for several congested
segments of Route 1 to provide a better measure of potential improvements.
The analyzed segments are in New Rochelle, Larchmont/Mamaroneck, and Rye/Port
Chester. The segments were selected based on problems identified by the communities,
the spacing and interaction of traffic signals, and the quantity and type of mid-block
interruptions. Each of the segments is described in more detail below.
• New Rochelle - In 1991, the City of New Rochelle undertook a signal
coordination study under the New York State Energy Office's "Signal Timing
Optimization Program". The study included Main Street and Huguenot Street
(Route 1). At that time, all of the signals along Route 1 were coordinated with
a 100 second background cycle, improving traffic flow through the area.
Although some modifications have been made in response to changes in traffic
patterns,the coordination is still in place. The introduction of Home Depot and
Price Club on Weyman Avenue by 1997 will have a substantial effect on this
De Leuiv, Cather Team Page 5-5
U.S. Route l Corridor Development Study Technical Alemorandum Number 2
segment. To evaluate current and future conditions, and to account for new
development,New Rochelle was selected for simulation analysis.
The analysis segment for this study begins at the intersection of the southbound
I-95 ramps with Route 1. Proceeding north, it includes the signals at the
northbound 1-95 ramps, Weyman Avenue, Kings Avenue, Drake Avenue/ Cliff
Street, Pintard Avenue/Huguenot Street, Centre Street, Division Street, Church
Street, Lawton Street,North Avenue, Locust Avenue/ LeCount Place, Franklin
Avenue, Harrison Avenue, and Echo Avenue. The segment is about 1.4 miles
long.
• Larchmont/Mamaroneck -Route 1 in downtown Larchmont serves substantial
storefront retail development with associated on-street parking and pedestrian
traffic, and has several closely-spaced signals. There is also substantial
community concern regarding the Hommocks Road School, pedestrian activity
along Weaver Street, and congestion at the Palmer Avenue / Weaver Street
intersection in the Town of Mamaroneck. Therefore, the Larchmont area was
selected for analysis.
The Larchmont analysis segment begins at Larchmont Avenue, and proceeds
north through Chatsworth Avenue and Alden Street to Weaver Avenue. The
analysis segment extends along Weaver Street to Palmer Avenue. The analysis
segment is about 0.8 miles long.
• Rye/Port Chester - Route 1 in Rye and Port Chester serves the highest traffic
volumes in the corridor. This is due to the I-95 / I-287 interchange and the
density of high turnover commercial development just north of the interchange.
Although the signals in this area are typically actuated, most of them are not
• coordinated,which adds to congestion. Therefore,this segment was selected for
simulation.
This analysis segment begins at the Cross Street intersection with Route 1. The
Cross Street intersection also includes driveways for Rye City Hall/CVS and the
Rye Commons apartment complex. It operates under the same signal controller
as the intersection of Route 1 at Purchase Street, the next intersection in the
analysis segment. These intersections are about three hundred feet apart. The
next modeled intersection is Purdy Street, followed by Peck Avenue. Peck
Avenue is the southern limit of the 1-95 /1-287/Route 1 interchange. All of the
Route 1 ramps are included in the analysis, as are Cedar Street and Hillside
Avenue. North of the interchange,the next intersection is High Street, followed
by Charles Street/Caldor Mall, South Regent Street, Olivia Street, South Pearl
De Leuiv, Cather Team Page 5-6
U.S. Route I Corridor Development Study Technical Memorandum Number 2
Street, Slater Street, and Grace Church Street. Major driveways are included
between Charles Street and Grace Church Street, including Post Road Plaza
(Bally's), and the north Caldor Mall Driveway adjacent to Wendy's. Minor
driveways are also reflected. The signals at High Street, Charles Street/ Caldor
Mall and South Regent Street are coordinated with a 100-second background
cycle from 6 A.M. to 12 midnight daily.
At Grace Church Street, the analysis segment turns to follow Route 1 through
downtown Port Chester, including Liberty Square/ Westchester Avenue/King
Street, Adee Street, Willet Avenue, Highland Street, and Mill Street. This
analysis segment is the longest of the three, about 2.1 miles in length.
Each segment was simulated using NETSIM, a microscopic traffic simulation tool. The
data requirements for NETSIM are substantial, and calibration is crucial. Refer to
Appendix 0-NETSIM Inputs,Calibration and Results for more information. After data
coding and calibration were completed, the peak hour results for the base year and the
future null year were compiled by segment. The compiled results consist of the
following three elements:
• Person-miles of travel-the total distance traveled by all persons in the network.
• Person-hours of delay-the total delay encountered by all persons in the network
• Person-hours of travel- the total travel time of all persons in the network
These measures were compiled for Route 1 by direction and for the cross streets,and also
for the network as a whole. The data are summarized in Table 27 for existing conditions
and Table 28 for future conditions.
Table 27-NETSIM Summary - 1996 Base Year
Person Miles of Travel Person Hours of Delay Person Hours of Travel
AM PM Sat AM PM Sat AM PM Sat
New Rochelle
Route 1 N/B 2,191 1,811 1,866 81 63 65 144 115 119
Route 1 S/B 752 1,027 967 19 25 25 40 54 53
Other Streets 1,650 1,678 1,463 68 62 51 122 117 98
Total 4,593 4,516 4,296 168 150 141 306 287 270
De Leuiv, Cather Team Page 5-7
U.S. Route I Corridor Development Study Technical Memorandum Number 2
Table 27 -NETSIM Summary - 1996 Base Year
Person Miles of Travel Person Hours of Delay Person Hours of Travel
AM PM Sat AM PM Sat AM PM Sat
Larchmont
Route 1 N/B 1,010 879 961 31 38 38 62 65 67
Route I S/B 560 804 766 16 28 31 33 53 55
Other Streets 1,078 1,167 1,082 42 49 81 78 88 117
Total 2,647 2,850 2,808 89 115 149 173 206 239
Port Chester
Route 1 N/B 1,627 1,871 1,997 68 101 78 122 163
Route 1 S/B 1,847 2,339 2,158 55 86 72 116 164
--• Other Streets 1,754 2,081 1,935 70 III 90 126 178
Total 5,228 6,290 6,090 193 298 240 365 505
Table 28 -NETSIM Summary -2011 Future Null Year
Person Miles of Travel Person Hours of Delay Person Hours of Travel
AM PM Sat AM PM Sat AM PM Sat
New Rochelle
Route 1 N/B 2,678 2,408 2,578 128 101 124 205 170 198
Route 1 S/B 877 1,327 1,335 24 45 49 49 83 87
Other Streets 1,894 2,178 2,084 163 156 119 225 226 186
Total 5,449 5,913 5,997 315 302 291 479 480 471
Larchmont
1 Route 1 N/B 1,145 1,035 1,025 38 73 157 73 105 189
Route 1 S/B 779 966 909 26 39 57 50 69 85
Other Streets 1,256 1,313 1,191 56 108 63 98 152 103
Total 3,180 3,314 3,125 120 221 277 221 326 376
De Leuu', Cather Team Page 5-8
U.S. Route l Corridor Development Study Technical Memorandum Number 2
Table 28 - NETSIM Summary - 2011 Future Null Year
Person Miles of Travel Person Hours of Delay Person Hours of Travel
AM PM Sat AM PM Sat AM PM Sat
Port Chester
Route 1 N/B 1,796 1,962 2,267 92 212 130 152 277 205
Route 1 S/B 2,112 2,547 2,494 76 180 166 146 265 249
Other Streets 1,951 2,281 2,182 103 179 116 165 253 187
Total 5,860 6,970 6,943 271 571 411 463 795 641
5.2. Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis
Two types of warrant analyses are anticipated for this study. They will require additional data
collection, so the warrant analysis will only be performed if the location is targeted in an
improvement program in a future phase of the study. The analyses will be performed under the
conditions outlined below:
• Several locations along the corridor are not signalized, but have been identified as
problems by the community or as part of the base analysis. A signal warrant analysis
will be performed for these locations if they are selected for detailed improvement
evaluation.
• Some signalized locations serve low cross street volumes. If the signal hinders through
traffic flow on Route 1, and is recommended for removal as part of an improvement
program, an analysis was performed to determine if the signal meets warrants, or could
be removed.
If required, these analyses will be documented in future Technical Memoranda.
5.3. Travel Speed Evaluation
To provide an additional measure of the success of proposed improvements, an "ideal" speed
was calculated for Route 1 by direction, and the existing travel time data were compared to it.
Ideal speeds were calculated using speed limits and the travel time runs. For each segment, the
• ideal speed was the existing speed constrained by the speed limit(as a maximum value)and 85%
of the speed limit (as a minimum value) Segments below the ideal speed will be targeted for
improvements, in addition to areas identified through other methods. Refer to Table 29.
De Leuiv, Cather Team Page 5-9
U.S. Route I Corridor Development Study Technical Memorandum Number 2
Table 29 - Ideal Travel Time Comparison
AM Peak PM Peak
Northbound Southbound Northbound Southbound
Location Exist Ideal Exist Ideal Exist Ideal Exist Ideal
Pelham 27.2 29.3 28.2 29.3 32.1 29.7 25.3 27.2
New Rochelle 24.8 26.0 24.3 26.9 21.0 25.8 24.3 26.0
Larchmont 26.7 26.5 27.6 27.7 28.6 29.3 17.5 25.5
Mamaroneck 28.2 29.0 29.9 29.1 32.9 29.1 30.3 27.7
Rye 30.5 29.3 29.9 29.3 29.3 28.8 29.5 27.6
[ Port Chester 24.2 26.9 23.2 27.3 22.4 27.2 22.6 27.8
The ideal travel time comparison reflects the congestion in New Rochelle and Port Chester,
where the existing speeds are the lowest compared to the ideal speeds. The existing speeds in
Rye are consistently above the ideal speeds, reflecting speed limit exceedances noted by
community members. Existing data for the remaining communities are relatively close to the
ideal speeds.
5.4. Parking Utilization and Requirement Analysis at MNR Stations
Public parking is provided at each MNR station in the study area. Existing conditions are
documented in earlier chapters of this document. There is a perceived need for additional
parking at all of the stations in the study area. There are two distinct categories of parking at
�. each station - metered and permit. The needs for each are discussed below.
5.4.a. Permit Parking
Each of the municipalities was surveyed to determine the backlog of permit applications
at the local station. The results of this survey are shown in Table 30. The perceived lack
of permit parking can be seen in the large backlogs, particularly at Rye.
.1
1
.1
De Leuw, Cather Team Page 5-10
I
U.S. Route 1 Corridor Development Study Technical Memorandum Number 2
Table 30 - Parking Permit Backlogs
Municipality Permits Available Backlog (Applicants)
Pelham 200 200
New Rochelle 150 400
Larchmont(incl.spaces 300 (permit lots) none
for Mamaroneck residents) 1300 (meter lots)
Mamaroneck 625 30
Harrison 810 none
Rye 690 973
Port Chester 371 data not available
The low parking usage reflected at several stations with backlogs(69%at New Rochelle,
82% at Pelham, Mamaroneck, and Rye; refer to previous chapters) reflects the need to
have sufficient spaces available for all permit holders, even though some permit holders
do not use their space every day. In addition, particularly in New Rochelle, permit
spaces far from the station may not be used by permit holders if closer meter parking is
available.
5.4.b. Metered Parking
There are metered spaces at each station. At five of the seven stations, at least 97% of
the metered parking is utilized. This reflects the additional need for metered parking for
occasional users and those on permit waiting lists. Metered spaces often fill before the
A.M. peak period is over, preventing motorists from using them.
To address the shortfalls shown in both metered and permit parking, changes are needed at
several stations. In the next phases of the study, improvements such as feeder bus routes, added
parking, and parking lot redesign will be evaluated.
5.5. Traffic Accident/Safety Analysis
An accident analysis of Route 1 was performed as part of this study. The purpose of the analysis
was to identify high accident locations for potential future improvements. Accident data were
obtained as outlined in earlier chapters. Accident rates were calculated for various segments of
Route 1 as shown in Table 31. These rates were then compared to the NYSDOT average for four
De Leuiv, Cather Team Page 5-11
U.S. Route 1 Corridor Development Study Technical Memorandum Number 2
lane undivided suburban arterials. Port Chester was the only municipality with an overall
accident rate higher than the statewide average of 6.93 accidents per million vehicle miles.
NYSDOT has already undertaken several studies of the safety issues along Route 1 near the
Caldor shopping center in Port Chester. A number of recommendations were made by those
studies, but no improvements have been implemented pending the results of this study. New
Rochelle had the next highest accident rate (6.208%), and Rye had the lowest rate (2.412).
Table 31 - Accident Rate Summary
Municipality Total Accidents Accident Rate
Pelham 131 5.467
New Rochelle 291 6.208
Larchmont/ Mamaroneck 347 3.991
Rye 114 2.412
Port Chester 642 13.847
Total 1525 6.776
5.6. Pavement Condition Review
Pavement conditions have an effect on the perceived travel quality along the roadway. A review
of pavement conditions along Route 1 was conducted to serve as input in addressing perceived
problems and the need for improvements.
A review of the pavement condition data collected from the New York State Highway
Sufficiency Rating book was performed. The most recent data were from 1994, which is two
years old. The purpose of the review was to identify segments of Route 1 where pavement
condition is rated at 5 or below. This value is the NYSDOT-defined threshold for "poor"
pavement,which has been flagged for further action. See Table 31 and Appendix P - Pavement
Sufficiency Data.
Since the NYSDOT data were two years old, a supplemental review of field conditions was
performed as part of this study. Refer to Table 32. Each segment was rated "good", "fair", or
2 New York State's 1994 Highway Sufficiency Ratings,Highway Facilities Section, Data Services Bureau,
New York State Department of Transportation, 1995,pg.vii.
De Leann, Cather Team Page 5-12
U.S. Route I Corridor Development Study Technical Memorandum Number 2
"poor"3. The ratings were based on the NYSDOT classification system, but an in-depth analysis
as outlined in the NYSDOT Pavement Rehabilitation Manual was not performed.
Table 32 - Pavement Sufficiency Data
From To Length 1994 1996
(mi) Rating Rating
Bronx Line Hutchinson River Pkwy. 0.17 6 fair
Hutchinson River Pkwy. Peace Street 0.27 6 fair
Peace Street Pelhamdale Avenue 0.41 6 fair
Pelhamdale Avenue Manor Ridge Road 0.37 7 fair
Manor Ridge Road New Rochelle Line 0.02 6 fair
New Rochelle Line Cleveland Avenue 0.08 6 fair
Cleveland Avenue I-95 Overpass 0.12 6 fair
I-95 Overpass AMTRAK overpass 0.11 6 fair
AMTRAK overpass Drake Avenue 0.48 6 fair
Drake Avenue Church Street 0.63 5 poor
Church Street Lispenard Avenue 0.38 7 fair
Lispenard Avenue Mamaroneck Town Line 0.58 5 good
Mamaroneck Town Line Larchmont Village Line 0.24 7 good
Larchmont Village Line Weaver Street 0.95 8 good
Weaver Street Mamaroneck Village Line 0.28 7 good
Mamaroneck Village Line Delancey Avenue 0.66 7 good
Delancey Avenue Mamaroneck Road 0.29 7 good
Mamaroneck Road North Barry Avenue 0.46 7 good
North Barry Avenue Keeler Avenue 0.14 7 good
Keeler Avenue Rye City Line 0.49 7 good
3 Pavement Rehabilitation Manual, Volume l_- Pavement Evaluation, New York State Department of
Transportation, Materials Bureau, 1990(revised 1992),pgs. 1-4.
De Leuw, Cather Team Page 5-13
U.S. Route 1 Corridor Development Study Technical Memorandum Number 2
Table 32 - Pavement Sufficiency Data
From To Length 1994 1996
(m i) Rating Rating
Rye City Line Park Avenue 0.68 8 good
Park Avenue Playland Parkway exit 1.00 8 good
Playland Parkway exit Parsons Street 0.41 9 good
Parsons Street Purchase Street 0.51 5 poor
Purchase Street Peck Avenue 0.41 6 poor
Peck Avenue I-95 Overpass 0.04 8 good
I-95 Overpass Cedar Street 0.07 8 good
Cedar Street Hillside Road 0.22 6 fair
Hillside Road 1-287 Overpass 0.06 6 fair
1-287 Overpass John Street 0.64 6 fair
John Street Slater Street 0.05 5 poor
Slater Street Grace Church Street 0.07 6 fair
Grace Church Street Westchester Avenue 0.19 6 fair
Westchester Avenue NYS Route 120A 0.05 6 fair
NYS Route 120A Mill Street 0.32 7 fair
Mill Street Horton Avenue 0.01 5 poor
Horton Avenue Connecticut State Line 0.59 6 fair
Based on the 1996 review, the worst segments4 are described below. Also, whenever the rating
differed substantially from the 1994 NYSDOT rating, the reason has been noted below. In
downtown New Rochelle, Route 1 splits into Main Street and Huguenot Street, which is not
explicitly reflected in the NYSDOT data. The segments listed in this area do not follow the
NYSDOT segments.
4 Pavement types were outlined in the ratings data collected for Route I. Dominant distress was defined
in the Highway Sufficiency Ratings book,pg.vii.
De Letnv, Cather Team Page 5-14
U.S. Route 1 Corridor Development Study Technical Memorandum Number 2
• New York City line 10 Hutchinson River Parkway - overlaid Portland Concrete (PCC)
pavement exhibiting alligator cracking and spot patching.
• Cleveland Avenue to AMTRAK overpass - PCC pavement exhibiting spalling. Overlays
in this area are difficult due to required truck clearances under the I-95 and AMTRAK
overpasses.
• AMTRAK overpass to Drake Avenue - overlaid PCC pavement exhibiting alligator
cracking. This segment will be overlaid as part of the New Rochelle Home Depot
roadway improvements.
• Huguenot Street from Church Street to Pintard Avenue - overlaid PCC pavement and
Belgian paving blocks exhibiting alligator cracking and complete failure of the overlay.
• Lispenard Avenue to Mamaroneck Town Line - overlaid PCC pavement. 1994 data
reflect alligator cracking and a rating of 5 (poor). As noted in Table 8, this segment is
being overlaid in 1996 by Westchester County DOT.
• Parsons Street to NYS Route 120 (Purchase Street) -overlaid PCC pavement exhibiting
alligator cracking.
• NYS Route 120 (Purchase Street) to Peck Avenue - overlaid PCC pavement exhibiting
alligator cracking.
• John Street to Slater Street- PCC pavement exhibiting spalling. Overlays in this area
are difficult due to the 12'-6" clearance under the MNR overpass.
• Slater Street to Westchester Avenue - overlaid PCC pavement in fair condition. This
segment will be overlaid in 1997 as part of Port Chester's sidewalk rehabilitation and
widening outlined in Table 9.
• Mill Street to Horton Avenue - overlaid PCC pavement exhibiting alligator cracking.
Overlays in this area are difficult due to the 11'-8" clearance under the MNR overpass.
It is understood that much of Route 1 should be resurfaced before the 2011 future year as part
of the regular maintenance cycle of the controlling agencies. The segments under MNR in Port
Chester are unique problems,since overlays would reduce the low clearance even further. These
locations will be addressed in future work phases.
5.7. Current Agency Coordination Activity Investigation
Segments of the Route 1 corridor are under the control of four different agencies - NYSDOT,
WCDOT, and the Cities of Rye and New Rochelle. Each of the towns and villages in the study
area also have input regarding operations within their segments of the corridor, although this
input is typically controlled by NYSDOT permitting and review process. The NYSTA also
maintains two interchanges along Route 1 - one within the city of New Rochelle, and the other
straddling Port Chester and Rye. There is no one entity which has overall jurisdiction within the
corridor.
De Leuw, Cather Team Page 5-15
U.S. Route I Corridor Development Study Technical Memorandum Number 2
Each municipality has its own agenda regarding development, zoning,traffic flow, and parking.
These agendas can, and often do, conflict. Several examples of this are evident in the corridor
today. The New Rochelle Home Depot/Price Club development, wholly within City limits, is
projected to have traffic impacts along Route 1 in Pelham and Pelham Manor. The City, the
villages, and NYSDOT are currently working together to address these issues. Similarly, the
Home Depot proposed in Port Chester will have impacts on traffic flow in Rye. These projects
have all undergone the Environmental Impact Statement process,which allows for input from
all concerned parties. This is not always the case with smaller projects.
5.8. Technical Advisory Group Input
A draft of this Technical Memorandum will be circulated to the TAG, and a TAG meeting will
be held to receive comments on the work performed. The minutes of the TAG meeting and
written comments received during the comment period will be incorporated into Appendix Q -
Technical Advisory Group Comments. Where appropriate, these comments will also be
reflected in the final document. A summary of comments will also be included here.
De Leuw, Cather Team Page 5-16
U.S. Route I Corridor Development Study Technical Memorandum Number 2
6. CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS
This phase of the study has collected data and evaluated base conditions along the Route I corridor. The
next step of the study will include the evaluation of the data collected and analyses. Several general
conclusions can be drawn from this work effort, as outlined below.
6.1. Conclusions
Route 1 is a suburban arterial serving a variety of commercial, residential, and commuter traffic.
The mix of existing uses and adjacent development has lead to a wide range of problems in the
corridor. The results of the base analyses of the corridor are summarized in this section, by
municipality.
6.1.a. Port Chester
Many of the analyzed intersections in Port Chester operate with at least one approach at
LOS F. Data from NYSDOT P.I.L. studies indicate that several additional locations in
Port Chester operate at Los F under existing conditions. Future conditions will degrade
due to traffic growth and the purposed Home Depot. NETSIM results for the area reflect
the poor levels of service, as does the travel time data. Accident data reflect the
congested nature of the downtown and Caldor Mall areas of Port Chester, and mitigation
measures are needed. The low clearances at the MNR overpasses contribute to these and
other problems. On-street parking in downtown Port Chester also adds to congestion.
O-D data for Port Chester indicate that many trips are short trips, accessing shopping,
1-95 / 1-287, and MNR. MNR service in the area is adequate, but improvements to
parking and access to the station would be beneficial. Bee-Line service includes several
routes to the station and along Route 1, and CTTransit also provides service to
Connecticut. There are no identified park-n-ride facilities in the area, but several bus
routes provide service to the Caldor Mall. Pedestrian facilities along Route 1 will be
improved with the proposed roadway/sidewalk improvements between Liberty Square
and Grace Church Street. The continuing urban renewal efforts in the downtown area
will attract more auto trips.
6.1.b. Rye
Route 1 in northern Rye (from Port Chester to Rectory St.) exhibits similarities to Port
Chester. The adjacent land use is typically commercial, reducing travel speeds and
causing congestion. In the future year, Park Avenue will have one approach at Los F.
NETSIM reflects congestion at this intersection and at Purchase St./Cross Street. Field
observations of on-street parking in the Rectory Street area indicate that this parking adds
to congestion,although no specific data were collected. The signal controller at Purchase
De Leuw, Cather Team Page 6-1
U.S. Route I Corridor Development Study Technical Memorandum Number 2
Street/Cross Street has been upgraded recently, but the signal heads and other features
are outdated.
The Rye MNR station parking data show high metered parking usage, indicating a
potential need for additional parking. However,the overhead 1-95 and Route 1 structures
limit potential expansion. Pedestrian access could also be improved Bee-Line service
to the MNR station is provided by two routes. Proposed improvements along Route 1
south of Cross Street will improve pedestrian facilities along Route 1, but additional
improvements would be made. The rock outcropping at Purchase Street and Route 1 will
also be addressed in the improvement program.
6.1.c. Mamaroneck
The Mamaroneck Avenue at Route 1 intersection operates with approaches at Los F in
the future year, attributable to general traffic growth. In addition, the unsignalized
Hornidge Road approach at Rout 1 operates at LOS F in the future year. This location
will be reviewed with Greenhaven Road to evaluate potential improvements.
Northbound travel time data indicate congestion between Mamaroneck Avenue and
Keeler Avenue. The Keeler Avenue intersection at Route 1 has been studied several
times due to a fatal accident in the 1980's. Work by both NYSDOT and AAA indicated
that a signal was not warranted at this location. These analyses will be reviewed using
current data, and improvements may be considered if the analysis results warrant
changes. On-street parking in the business district around Mamaroneck Avenue also
causes congestion. Weaver Street at Route 1 operates at Los F in the future year for all
time periods,and LOS F in the existing AM peak hour. Weaver Street at Palmer Avenue
also experiences LOS F operation. These intersections were simulated in NETSIM, and
similar results were obtained. Improvements will be evaluated at both of these locations.
Parking at the MNR station in Mamaroneck is well utilized, with all metered spaces
occupied during the survey, and 82%occupancy in the permit lots. Pedestrian facilities
in the area appear adequate, with sidewalks along Route 1 throughout the area. The
number of schools in the area provides for non-commercial pedestrian activity, and
several Route 1 crossings are perceived as dangerous. This will be reviewed as part of
the improvement program.
6.1.d. Larchmont
The Larchmont business district along Route 1 is regularly congested. These conditions
will worsen in the future year, and both Larchmont Avenue and Chatsworth Avenue at
Route 1 will experience LOS F operations during at least one peak hour. The congestion
is largely due to the side frictions from parking maneuvers, pedestrian activities, and
narrow lanes. The congestion is also reflected in the travel time data.
De Leuiv, Cather Team Page 6-2
U.S. Route I Corridor Development Study Technical Memorandum Number 2
The Larchmont MNR station serves the highest volume of commuter traffic in the study
area. Substantial parking is provided on either side of the station, including a parking
deck over the New England Thruway. Improvements to the parking structures are being
performed as part of the current Thruway rehabilitation in the area. Several Bee-Line
routes serve the Larchmont area and train station, including routes on both Larchmont
and Chatsworth Avenues.
6.1.e. New Rochelle
Several intersections in New Rochelle are projected to have approaches at Los F in the
future year. The progression established by the city in 1991 tends to improve operations,
today, but the impacts of developments such as Home Depot, Price Club, and the Mall
Redevelopment will change trip patterns in the future year. Modifications to the signal
progression and timing will be evaluated as an improvement measure. Other sources of
congestion include illegal parking between I-95 and Pintard Avenue and double parking
north of Pintard Avenue. Buses also cause delays when they cannot access pull-outs or
curb lanes to stop. NETSIM results reflect the impacts of illegal parking, and show the
surveyed reductions in travel speed through the CBD. Again, O-D data reflect short trip
lengths in this area.
The New Rochelle MNR station is the site of a proposed TransCenter, which will add
parking and improve circulation around the station. Current problems addressed by the
TransCenter include lack of sufficient parking adjacent to the station, fractured Bee-Line
and long distance bus service, and a lack of connectivity between modes. Bee-Line
service is dense in the downtown area, with seven routes serving the Route 1 area and
the MNR station. Roadway and sidewalk improvements have been undertaken on Main
Street from Pintard Avenue to Echo Avenue as part of the downtown revitalization
program, but this work has not been completed on Huguenot Street or south of Pintard
Avenue. Improvements proposed as part of this study will be related to the revitalization
as appropriate. The revitalization will attract auto trips to the downtown area.
6.1.f. Pelham
Pelham has two distinct characters, separated by the Hutchinson River Parkway. North
of the parkway, Route 1 varies from one to two lanes per direction. The lane
configuration is this area will be reviewed, and potential improvements will be
recommended to address shortfalls South of the Hutchinson River parkway,the roadway
is distinctly commercial, and is tow lanes per direction plus turn bays.
The only identified capacity issue is the Hutchinson River Parkway ramps at Route 1.
These intersections are currently under study as part of the Price Club development in
New Rochelle. Results from this study will be coordinated with the Route 1 study. At
De Leuw, Cather Team Page 6-3
U.S. Route I Corridor Development Study Technical Memorandum Number 2
the Pelhamdale Avenue intersection, recommendations will be made regarding access
to the adjacent shopping mall for pedestrians and autos.
The MNR station at Pelham has a parking permit shortfall, and all metered spaces are
typically utilized. The predominant travel mode to the station is walking, and Pelham
has the highest percent of walking trips surveyed by MNR. Most of the Route 1
surveyed were local trips. Pedestrian facilities along Route 1 have several deficiencies,
which will be addressed in the next work phase.
6.2. Next Steps
The results of the analyses performed will be reviewed and used to develop a variety of
improvements for the corridor. Improvement alternatives will be developed,screened,analyzed,
and presented to the community for input. Alternatives selected for further review will be
compiled into improvement packages for the corridor. These packages will be reviewed by the
community and the Department, and a recommended alternative will be selected and forwarded
to conceptual design. The Final Study Report will contain this conceptual design.
j:\route 1\text\tm2\tm2.wp6
De Lem'', Cather Team Page 6-4
f407 �R� , A
L
730'14
,,_ ---
" ' •tcnnoa I f i
STATE OF NEW YORK t
FI
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION L.
4 BURNETT BOULEVARD ADMIf11S1RA ORS OFFICE
POUGHKEEPSIE, N.Y. 12603 TOWN OFMAMARONFCK
JOSEPH H. BOARDMAN
ALBERTJ. BAUMAN xI caxPAtek
REGIONAL DIRECTOR ACTING COMMISSIONER
April 1, 1997
Ms. Elaine M. Price
Supervisor, Town of Mamaroneck
740 Boston Post Road
Mamaroneck, NY 10543-3319
Dear Supervisor Price:
Re: Route 1 Corridor Study
New York City Line to
Connecticut State Line
PIN 8473.08, Westchester County
Enclosed for your review is a copy of Technical Memorandum Number 2 (TM #2) for the
subject study. Since our first Technical Advisory Group (TAG) meeting in May 1996,we have
conducted an extensive data collection program which included speed, origin, and destination
surveys. This information is included with TM #2 in addition to analyses of problem locations
along the Route 1 Corridor.
As part of our continuing effort to encourage public and local participation in this study,we
would like to invite you to the second TAG meeting. The meeting will include a presentation
of our findings and discussion related to your comments on TM #2.
The second TAG meeting will be held on Wednesday,April 16, 1997 at 10:00 a.m. at the
Department's Traffic Operations Center office, 244 Westchester Avenue,White Plains, New
York. A location map of the Traffic Operation Center office is attached for your information.
We look forward to seeing you or your designee at the meeting. If you have any questions
please call me at (914) 431-7905.
Very truly yours,
de-1
WAI K. CHEUNG
Civil Engineer II
WKC/peb
Enclosures
REBUILDING - NEW YORK
TRAFFIC INFORMATIONPROJECT .
Traffic Operations Center, 901 Bedford Road, Pleasantville, New York 10570
TRANSPORTATION SY:;'t i i4S 1.1AidAGl:Iii:iri'/•.['[(AI"Flc: o1'EPA•.I'IOtii C'tin'i'iia OFFICE
New York State l)PI,artmenl. of Transportation
[legion 0 - TSM/Traffic Operations Center .
241 Westchester Avenue ( Fourth Floor )
White Plains, NY 10604
• I_)It ctions
Our new office is located on Westchester Avenue (West ) . The off ice
is in the first building after the William L. Butcher Bridge, the
next property after NYN[X, when traveling west from the 1-207/1-6B1interchange area . Please refer to the limp below :
Northrdrvay
. FA.
ttihol fiailet
ronitN
HAgp18ON •
ri waygreat heals AvanuA And nnrf
Main St (Waitbound Hill aad
;LIr b ... . �D
N8' 1 " _:
ale, ,.: --.-i. ..'-‘ ,!ROad ret
•. .
, rug
.,•�•,� •�• r.• ;�,,,...` is ,'f yy�� pp
.�,tr �7NI �:: n r n/ - UI�,f1�L� Iii �� Il
' /// 1 'r.,•r ` Til
N' k 't� ''j'=��' .��i:„Ai,.
�!i' e
iy
1 Urr,k ti. ' !.,i i ! :' now
Moue
og
. . .� ,; ,� f..;ti,,.;•
I -- -- \ Cldie eetehei
,k ; 'r air` 0,M5:1,-,'n- ' ineriadal91 x�llBiiiva}► t
•`f.. ..1J0;7..,:0,,,:, „,„;;. „fCV25
..Onv, •I,„�!llutlJn'oh.,! tri;,. • � N�Q�pp i -.
,rn , .,tl��' ,l,r'�,r - Binet ‘ WOitcheater 6 flr�
.; � /�';F'k1 1 nf, � , �” ( �EOeI curt
ivaichoson
Mamoru*a
I
tNEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MARIO M.CUOMO, Governor
;cam►.E wJOHN C. EGAN,Commissioner
NIW •OIIK