POSTOPFICE BOX 30814 ROCHESTER, NEW YORK. 146.084 RALPH A, UTTARO (585) 328.2550 SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT 585) 429-3643 [REAL ESTXTE/ DEVELOPMENT Emma ralph tara weg M; Ramsey Boehner Town of Brighton — Building and Planning Dept. 2300 Elmwood Avenue Rochester, New York 14618 RE: Whole Foods Plaza Development on Monroe Avenue, Rochester, NY Dear Mr, Boehner: We have been monitoring the progress of the Whole Foods Plaza development on Monroe Avenue, particularly with respect to potential impact on traffic. As I am sure you are aware, we operate a successful supermarket on Monroe Avenue in the town of Pittsford, approximately one-half mile east of the proposed development. Almost one third of the customers in that store reside in the Town of Brighton. The attached letter from David Goehring, Regional Traffic Engineer at the New York State Department of Transportation, cated April 4, 2016, has recently come to our attention. Its conclusions regarding the development’s negative impact on traffic. and consequently on our business, are quite alarm Among those conclusions are the following: * The intersection of Monroe Avenue and Clover Street currently fails during peak periods, exceeding its capacity. With the addition of a traffic signal at the entrance to the proposed development, the situation will deteriorate further with “westbound queue lengths extend[ing] from the proposed traffic signal into the Clover Street intersection.” ‘This condition would inconvenience our Brighton customers returning home from our store at peak hours. More significantly, it would create a public safety concern, * Mr. Goehring’s letter also concludes that both the westbound and southbound left turn movements at the proposed new traffic signal would fail during the p.m, and Saturday peak hours. + The letter also suggests the elimination of a proposed dedicated eastbound turn arrow at the proposed new signal because it would take too much time away from westbound through traffic. The elimination of this turn arrow would perpetuate the current conditions where drivers hoping to turn left must execute a dangerous unprotected movement across two lanes of heavy traffic, ‘G-RAL2O1GWhote Foods MomroeveL. 05022016 de© The letter further notes that eastbound traffic currently backs up onto the Route 590 ramp during the p.m. peak hour. The addition of a signal would further exacerbate th condition and “will likely create a gridlock condition during certain peak hours” ‘These dire conditions predicted in Mr. Goehring’s letter are based on the traflic report prepared by the developer of the proposed project and submited to the Town as part of the DEIS process. As a preface to his conclusions, Mr. Goehring indicates that the developer's traffic report is, in fact, overly optimistic since “the report’s queue lengths and delays are much shorter than actual conditions”. Given this fact, Mr. Goehring’s concluding statement is surprisingly restrained, stating only that “delays on and approaching Route 31 (including the proposed signalized driveway) may further increase. ‘Wegmans currently operates eighty-eight stores in six states, with that number growing at the rate of three or four additional stores each year. In every instance, the municipality reviewing our proposed development conducts a rigorous analysis of potential impacts to ensure that our store does not endanger public safety. inconvenience the residents of the ‘community or negatively impact nearby businesses. In a number of cases. our proposed plans have been rejected. We believe in responsible development that balances the interests of landowners seeking to develop their properties with the interests of the larger community. We urge you to make sure that this project will not result in any material adverse impact on the public, our customers and our business. We will continue to monitor this project carefully and will make further comments as warranted. Thank you for the opportunity to comment, Very Truly Yours, Ralph A. Uttaro RAU:jms enclosure cc: William Moehle, Town of Brighton Town Supervisor David Goehring, NYSDOT Gra 201 6.Whole Foods Monroe Ave 5022016. doexWilliam Moehle wn of Brighton — Town Supervisor 2300 Elmwood Avenue Rochester, NY 14618 David Goehring hway Work Permit Proc NYSDOT Region 4 1530 Jefferson Road Rochester, NY 14623 G-RAU2OL6Whole Foods Mone vel 05122016 snesNewyorK | Department of ANDREW M, CUOMO STATE Governor grow’ | Transportation MATTHEW J. DRISCOLL ‘Commissioner KEVIN BUSH, PE. Regional Orector April 4, 2016 Ms. Amy Dake Project Tracking No. 44663 SRF & Associates 3495 Winton Place Building E, Suite 110 Rochester, NY 14623 Re: Whole Foods Plaza Redevelopment Route 31, Monroe Avenue between 1590 and Route 65 Town of Brighton, Monroe County Project Tracking No. 44663, Dear Ms. Dake: We have completed our review of the revised January, 2016 Traffic Impact Study for the proposed redevelopment of Clover Lanes and adjacent property. This project proposes two Griveways on Monroe Avenue; a signalized full access driveway and an unsignalized driveway where exiting lefts are prohibited. The study reviews multiple scenarios with varying degrees of development, and various limits of access to Clover Street and Allens Creek Road. In response we have the following comments: In regards to existing traffic conditions, our comments are similar to our previous comments. At the Monroe Avenue and Clover Street intersection, this intersection during peak periods exceeds its capacity, with existing delays and queue lengths greater than shown in the SYNCHRO and Simtralfic models. For example, in the PM peak hour the existing eastbound queue lengths on Monroe Avenue at Clover Street extend at least 1500 feet, to the Route 1590 Northbound ramps. The queue lengths calculated in SYNCHRO and Simtraffic are approx- imately 750 feet and 550 feet respectively. The report's queue lengths and delays are much shorter than actual conditions, This will ead to underestimation of background and full development conditions, with shorter delays and queue lengths than what can be expected. Each of the existing condition SYNCHRO and Simtraftic models should be revised to reflect existing delays and queue lengths. ‘Through our review of site generated trips we conclude that the number of trips generated in the original plan and each alternative are similar, with the exception of Alternative 5, This alternative has an appreciable reduction in trips generated relative to the other alternatives, and thus will have loss of a traffic impact. We agree that a three color traffic signal is warranted on Monroe Avenue at the site driveway/Sakura driveway intersection with full development of the proposed project with any of the six alternatives. A sidewalk within the Monroe Avenue frontage of the project is also 20 Host RuMs. Amy Dake April 4, 2016 Page 2 warranted. We agree that there are benefits with a traffic signal and sidewalks at this location for side street traffic and pedestrians on both sides of Monroe Avenue. However, as we previously pointed out, this tratfic signal will further disrupt existing traffic on Monroe Avenue, with increased delays and queue lengths. This is mainly due to its close proximity to other ‘major intersections. In regards to the proposed traffic signal on Monroe Avenue and the full development analysis for each alternative, we noted the following: In the SYNCHRO analysis westbound queue lengths on Monroe Avenue extend from the proposed traffic signal into the Clover Street intersection. This will further disrupt traffic at an intersection that operates at its capacity during the PM and Saturday peak hours. ‘At the proposed traffic signal on Monroe Avenue we noted that the westbound left turn movement and the southbound left turn movernent fails during the PM and Saturday peak periods. At the proposed traffic signal on Monroe Avenue, a dedicated eastbound left turn arrow is proposed. The time allotted for the arrow would need to be taken from westbound traffic. This arrow will further disrupt westbound through vehicles on Monroe Avenue, increasing delays and queue lengths for these vehicles. With alternative access for left tumners at the westerly drive, and the negative conse- quences this arrow will create, this arrow should be omitted from plans at this time. As we previously stated, eastbound traffic on Monroe Avenue at Clover Street extends into the Route 1590 intersection during the PM peak hour. With a three color traffic signal at the site driveway/Sakura driveway intersection, eastbound traffic will be queued through this intersection, with no guarantee that there will be sufficient space for side street traffic to enter Monroe Avenue eastbound. This will likely create ‘a gridlock condition during certain peak periods, when vehicles exiting the site driveway block westbound through vehicles. When intersections such as Monroe Avenue and Clover Street, and Monroe Avenue and site driveway nears or exceeds its capacity, actual delays and queue lengths can be much greater than calculated. In order to alleviate these conditions, geometric improvements and/or alternative access need to be considered. In regards to geometric improvements, we considered the installation of a westbound right turn lane on Monroe Avenue at the site driveway. However, the benefits of a right turn lane at this location were determined to be minimal. With its close proximity to the Route 1590 on-ramp, motorists destined for Route 1590 northbound may be confused and use the right tun lane. The extra width makes it more difficult forMs. Amy Dake April 4, 2016 Page 3 ‘eastbound left turns and for pedestrians. When weighing the benefits against the impacts, we concluded that a right turn lane disbenefits outweigh the minimal benefits. ‘+ Inregards to alternative access, we recommend having site access to Clover Street and possibly to Allens Creek load, each of which have excess capacity. Either access or both would help to alleviate the failing levels of service an Monroe Avenue for entering and exiting site vehicles, and provide an escape valve during peak periods when the above intersections are at capacity. It is our opinion that it would generate no appreciable difference in traffic volumes north/east of the driveways with or without the driveways. However the potential benefits to Monroe Avenue would be appre- ciable at certain times. Consideration of partial access should be evaluated as ‘a compromise. We also reviewed the unsignalized intersection on Clover Street at Towpath Lane and at Warren Avenue. During peak periods it may be difficult to turn left onto Clover Street, however during the AM and PM peak hours, a delay study documented that acceptable levels of service are attained during these peak hours. It is not anticipated that the subject project will Impact these intersections. We agree with the report's findings that the subject project should not add to the existing cut-through traffic. As we stated previously, the overall priority on the Route 31 corridor includes the Route 1590 ramps (so traffic does not queue onto the mainline of Route 1590) and the operation of the Route 31/Route 65 intersection. Given these priorities, delays on and approaching Route 31 (including the proposed signalized driveway) may further increase, This remains our conclusion in consideration of the report's six alternatives. If there are any questions regarding our review or comments, please contact Mr. Robert Duennebacke at 272-3475 or me at (585) 272-3460. Sincerely, Aanke ichn. David C. Goehring, P.E. Regional Traffic Engineer DCG/ALD/bap c: Ramsey Boehner, Town of Brighton Terry Rice, Monroe County DOT