Summary of Comments & Responses

Response to PAC Comments Received

Comments received from PAC members in response to alternatives developed as part of the Albany Corridor Study have been summarized and responded to below.

Comment: Study report does not include any discussion of improvements or possible relocation of Selkirk exit.
Response: The Selkirk Bypass project is under the jurisdiction of NYS Department of Transportation. The Thruway Authority would not initiate relocation of the existing Interchange 22 because traffic forecasts do not indicate a need at this time.

Comment: Consider adding E-ZPass only ramps at Wemple Road to alleviate congestion at Interchange 23 and stimulate development at Technical Park on Wemple Road.
Response: The Thruway Authority would not initiate construction of a new interchange because traffic forecasts do not indicate a need at this time. However, the Thruway Authority is willing to work with local communities to explore economic development opportunities.

Comment: Consider including emergency access for fire truck and ambulance services to the Thruway at Mainline Barrier 2.
Response: If a mainline barrier concept is selected for further study, options for emergency access will be explored during preliminary design.

Comment: Tandem lot should be relocated to Port of Albany to support development of an intermodal facility.
Response: Comment addressed in the study.

Comment: Noise and visual concerns need to be examined along with mitigation measures for all of the concepts presented.
Response: After this study is complete, projects that have been identified for further consideration will undergo an environmental analysis pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) prior to their implementation.

Comment: Interchange 25 Concept J includes the addition of a new diamond interchange which appears to be an overbuilding of the present access scheme to Curry Road.
Response: This concept is just one alternative for improving mobility and reducing congestion at Interchange 25. There are no preferred alternatives, and all concepts will undergo evaluation to compare the effects with those resulting from the other concepts.

Comment: The Thruway should be coordinating with the Albany Pine Bush Preserve Commission for concepts which impact the Pine Bush ecosystem.
Response: The Albany Pine Bush Preserve Commission was added to the PAC.

Comment: Wetland impacts need to be looked at more closely for the Normanskill watershed.
Response: Approximate existing wetland locations have been identified in Chapter IV. The affect of the concepts on these wetlands will be further explored during preliminary design.

Comment: County of Albany Department of Economic Development, Conservation & Planning (EDCP) should be included on Project Advisory Committee (PAC).
Response: The County chose the Department of Public Works (DPW) to represent them on the PAC. However, a representative from Albany County EDCP was added to the PAC.

Comment: Local counties need to review plans before construction begins.
Response: The appropriate local jurisdictions will have an opportunity to review project documents, including environmental and design documents.

Comment: Alternatives discussed in the Concept Report should be analyzed as part of a Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) in order to properly address potential impacts and allow involved and interested agencies as well as the general public sufficient opportunity to review and comment on the proposed project alternatives.
Response: This is a corridor study and is intended to identify needs and potential solutions for planning purposes. Any projects identified for further review will be subject to an environmental review in accordance with SEQRA and will include opportunity for public review and comment during preliminary design.

Comment: Additional tandem lot locations should be explored.
Response: Prior to the Albany Corridor Study, a separate study was conducted to investigate possible tandem lot locations in the Albany Corridor. The locations included in the Albany Corridor Study were selected as the result of the previous tandem lot study.

PUBLIC OUTREACH PROGRAM

In addition to the two meetings held with the PAC members, four public meetings were held to present the Corridor Study and obtain feedback on the concepts developed. The first two meetings were held at the Beltrone Living Center in the Town of Colonie on June 17, 2003 and February 24, 2004. The third and fourth meetings were held at Draper Junior High School in the Town of Rotterdam on May 11, 2004 and at Bishop Maginn High School in the City of Albany on May 12, 2004.

The first public meeting was held to introduce the Albany Corridor Study to the public. Information was provided regarding the scope of the study, needs within the Albany Corridor, analyses completed to date, and potential projects identified.

The second public meeting was held to present and obtain feedback on the concepts developed to meet the needs identified by the Albany Corridor Study. The public was encouraged to provide comments and recommendations for which concepts were felt to best address the needs of the corridor. This meeting was also used to present the study schedule and its relation to individual project schedules that may be progressed in the future. Handouts available at the public meeting included figures and short description of the concepts developed to date.

The third and fourth public meetings were held in response to comments received requesting additional public meetings near Interchange 23 and Interchange 25. The same presentation was given and the same handouts were distributed as at the February 24, 2004 meeting.

Response to Public Comments Received

Comments received in response to alternatives developed as part of the Albany Corridor Study have been summarized and responded to below.

Comment: Noise, air quality, and visual impacts would be unacceptable for residents living in close proximity to the proposed northbound E-ZPass ramp (Western Avenue flyover) at Interchange 24. In addition, the ramp would add to the already congested ramp from Western Avenue and Schoolhouse Road.
Response: The northbound E-ZPass ramp is just one concept for providing access to the Northway and will undergo evaluation for impacts with the other concepts. The issues that result from concepts which include this ramp must be weighed against issues created by the other concepts, such as construction in the Albany Pine Bush Preserve. If a concept that includes this ramp is selected for further study, noise, air, and visual impacts will be addressed during preliminary design. An evaluation of future traffic volumes is included in Chapter III of this report. Traffic conditions will be evaluated further during preliminary design.

Comment: Residents near the Thruway already endure noise and air pollution impacts from cars and trucks. Noise barriers should be included in all concepts to reduce the existing impacts and minimize future impacts.
Response: Noise and air quality will be addressed in accordance with State and Federal law, as applicable.

Comment: The February 24, 2004 public meeting at the Beltrone Living Center presented a lot of information; however, as the last of two public meetings it does not project enough time for the public to digest the material presented and make additional informed comments or objections to the study. Additional public meetings for each interchange should be held separately to allow residents to focus on the projects that affect them individually.
Response: Two additional public information meetings were scheduled in response to this comment. These meetings were held on May 11, 2004 at Draper Junior High School in the Town of Rotterdam and on May 12, 2004 at Bishop Maginn High School in the City of Albany. These two meetings presented the same information as the February 24, 2004 meeting held at the Beltrone Living Center in the Town of Colonie. The public comment period was extended to June 2, 2004.

Comment: No land containing Pine Bush ecosystems should be disturbed. Please identify the Albany Pine Bush Preserve boundary on study maps.
Response: The Albany Pine Bush Preserve boundary has been added to the concept maps available on the study website. All of the concepts attempt to minimize disturbance in the Albany Pine Bush Preserve, but due to its proximity to the Thruway, it cannot be completely avoided. The issues that result from concepts which encroach on the Albany Pine Bush Preserve must be weighed against issues created by other concepts.

Comment: The Thruway should consider raising tolls in the Albany Corridor to raise funds for purchasing the remaining Pine Bush land for the Albany Pine Bush Preserve Commission.
Response: Current bond covenants do not allow the use of Thruway tolls to purchase lands for non-Thruway purposes.

Comment: Alternative modes of transportation should be considered, such as light rail, buses, or carpooling, instead of increasing capacity on the Thruway. The Thruway should also utilize the canal system as an alternative mode of transportation in the Capital Region.
Response: The Thruway supports alternative modes of transportation; however, the Thruway Authority’s responsibility is not to develop these systems. The Thruway Authority will share comments related to this topic with the appropriate organization, such as the Capital District Transportation Committee (CDTC) and/or Capital District Transportation Authority (CDTA). The canal system is used for recreation and long distance transport of goods. Use of the canal system for transportation would not relieve traffic on the Thruway within the Capital District.

Comment: The Thruway should construct a bicycle path on their right-of-way between Interchanges 21 and 25A.
Response: The Thruway Authority’s statutory mission is to operate and maintain the Thruway, which is part of the Interstate system. Bicycles and pedestrians are prohibited from accessing the Thruway. Bicycle and pedestrian issues are under the jurisdiction of the CDTC, NYSDOT, and local governments. CDTC is working with the Thruway on the Albany Corridor Study. If there are any opportunities to improve the bicycle and pedestrian system, the Authority will work with CDTC to advance them. However, the Authority’s jurisdiction is limited in this area and it cannot participate in capital and maintenance costs for this type of improvement.

Comment: Helping to reconnect McKownville to the neighborhoods, shopping, commerce, and Pine Bush Preserve on the western side of the Thruway and Northway corridors for pedestrians and bicyclists should be a major goal in any consideration of mitigation measures for the adverse impacts of the proposed flyover ramp.
Response: It is noted that there may be a need for pedestrian and bicycle improvements along Route 20 in the vicinity of Fuller Road Alternate, Church and Schoolhouse Roads. However, the Authority’s statutory mission is the operation and maintenance of the Thruway system. Route 20 is under the jurisdiction of NYSDOT.

Comment: Reconstructing the Interchange 23 ramps would move the ramps and toll plaza closer to residential properties on Noonan Lane increasing noise, light and air pollution, as well as vibrations. These concepts would also increase traffic on Noonan Lane because it would provide access to the proposed toll plaza for employees. The proposed ramps would also impact undisturbed natural land which is part of the Normanskill ecosystem.
Response: These issues would be explored during preliminary design.

Comment: The Thruway should work with regional planning agencies, such as New York State Department of Transportation (NYS DOT) and Capital District Transportation Committee (CDTC), to create concepts which will consider transportation issues on a regional level.
Response: These agencies are on the PAC and as such have been provided with information regarding the Albany Corridor Study. The Thruway Authority is willing to work with these agencies to develop regional planning goals.

Comment: The Two Mainline Barrier Concept is preferable because it offers the best prospects for efficient transportation with the least intrusion on nearby properties.
Response: These issues would be explored during preliminary design.

Comment: Consider concepts which would make the Thruway toll free within the Capital Region.
Response: The Thruway Authority is legally bound to uphold the covenants established when the Thruway’s Bond Resolution was issued in the mid-1990’s. These covenants include no free passage on currently tolled sections. No State taxes are used to support the NYS Thruway. Removal of the toll system would increase dependence on other State and Federal funding sources, such as gas tax, which would require raising taxes.

Comment: Mainline Barrier Concepts are preferable because they minimize the amount of right-of-way acquisitions. These concepts also appear to provide better connection between Albany and Schenectady.
Response: These issues would be explored during preliminary design.

Comment: Safety walls should be constructed on I-890 to protect adjacent residential properties from cars and trucks running off road.
Response: The Thruway Authority’s statutory mission is to operate and maintain the Thruway system. Issues related to Interstate 890 are under the jurisdiction of the NYSDOT. The Authority will share comments related to this topic with NYSDOT.

Comment: Include bicycle and pedestrian improvements on any bridge being reconstructed that crosses the Thruway mainline. Concept plans should also include bicycle and pedestrian access and safety on roads which ramps connect to.
Response: The Thruway Authority’s statutory mission is to operate and maintain the Thruway system. Issues related to bicycle and pedestrian accommodations on local and State roads are under the jurisdiction of NYSDOT and the local governments.

Comment: Interchange 23 Concept J1 is preferred.
Response: Comment noted.

Comment: The Four Mainline Barrier Concept is preferred. It offers best option for alleviating congestion while minimizing environmental impacts.
Response: These issues would be explored during preliminary design.

Comment: Do not consider segmentation of projects within the Albany Corridor for State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) purposes.
Response: Projects which result from the Corridor Study will undergo review in conformity with SEQRA.

Comment: Air quality analyses must be completed for all concepts to determine impacts to nearby residences.
Response: Air quality will be addressed during preliminary design in accordance with State and Federal law as applicable.

Comment: If the Interchange 24 direct E-ZPass ramp must be constructed, please build it under Western Avenue.
Response: This option will be explored during preliminary design. However, design elements such as roadway grade, tie-ins to the Northway, and maintaining traffic on Western Avenue need to be considered and compared to the effects of other concepts.

Comment: Like the direct E-ZPass access between the Thruway and Northway shown in Interchange 24 Concepts H and K.
Response: Comment noted.

Comment: There are additional impacts not included in the public meeting handout. An assessment of all impacts that could reasonably be expected should be compiled and presented to the public.
Response: Potential concerns associated with each concept have been identified in Chapter IV of this document. A more thorough assessment of these concerns would be completed during preliminary design in accordance with State and Federal law for the concepts selected for further consideration.

Comment: Include a traffic signal on Route 9W at Mount Hope Drive in Interchange 23 concepts.
Response: A traffic signal on Route 9W at Mount Hope Drive could be considered during preliminary design. However, Route 9W is under the jurisdiction of the NYSDOT. The Authority will share comments related to this topic with NYSDOT.

Comment: Reconsider new interchange for Selkirk Bypass.
Response: The Selkirk Bypass project is under the jurisdiction of NYS Department of Transportation. The Thruway Authority would not initiate relocation of the existing Interchange 22 because traffic forecasts do not indicate a need at this time.

Comment: Mainline Barrier Concepts are unacceptable because they place new toll plazas along the Thruway closer to residential neighborhoods which are not currently near toll plazas. Mainline Barriers will lower the quality of life for these residents.
Response: The Mainline Barrier Concepts are just one alternative for improving mobility and reducing congestion at the interchanges within the Albany Corridor. There are no preferred alternatives and all concepts will undergo evaluation to compare the effects with those resulting from the other concepts. The issues that result from the Mainline Barrier Concepts must be weighed against issues created by the interchange improvement concepts at Interchanges 23, 24 and 25. If the Mainline Barrier Concepts are selected for further study, noise, air, and visual impacts will be addressed during preliminary design.

Comment: Construct new connection between the Thruway, at Interchange 26, and the Northway, north of the Mohawk River.
Response: This connection would be a regional planning improvement, involve additional communities and agencies, and is not within the Thruway Authority’s jurisdiction.

Comment: Prefer Port of Albany Tandem Lot Concept.
Response: Comment noted.

Comment: Include visual assessment for all concepts that move forward.
Response: Visual concerns will be addressed in accordance with State and Federal requirements, as applicable, during preliminary design for concepts that are selected for further study.

Comment: Review all concepts with CDTC’s bike and pedestrian advisory committee.
Response: CDTC is on the PAC and there will be additional coordination with CDTC and the PAC during preliminary design.

Comment: Prefer Interchange 24 Concept H.
Response: Comment noted.

Comment: Prefer Interchange 24 Concept K.
Response: Comment noted.

Comment: Interchange 24 plaza should be moved as far west as possible, but east of Rapp Road.
Response: Comment noted. Concept K moves the plaza and ramps west of their existing location, but east of Rapp Road.

Comment: Support concepts which alleviate congestion at Interchanges 23 and 24.
Response: All of the concepts presented alleviate congestion at Interchanges 23, 24, 25, and 25A. The remaining interchanges within the Albany Corridor do not require improvements to reduce congestion within the 20-year planning horizon investigated in the Albany Corridor Study.

Comment: Access must be maintained between I-890, Carman Road, and the Thruway at Interchange 25.
Response: Interchange 25 Concepts F, G, and K maintain that access, while Concept J modifies the access and Concept H removes this access. There is no preferred alternative, and all concepts will undergo evaluation to compare the effects of the various concepts. Each concept affects different resources and these effects must be compared between concepts. If Concepts H or J are selected for further study the effect of removing this connection will be addressed during preliminary design

Comment: When will information about Interchange 21A and 22 be available? Has the proposed technology center in the southern part of Bethlehem been considered during the planning for these interchanges?
Response: Interchanges 21A and 22 are discussed in Chapter II. The volumes, based on CDTC forecasts which include growth, do not indicate that any additional capacity will be needed at these locations within the 20-year planning horizon investigated in the Albany Corridor Study. A specific technology center has not been included in the traffic forecasts since no formal plan for the center exists.

Comment: The impact of Interchange 25 to the surrounding neighborhoods needs to be addressed. The influence area needs to be enlarged to consider the effects on adjoining roadways such as Carman Road and Curry Road.
Response: Traffic analyses were completed for the intersection at Carman and Curry Roads. The forecasted build volumes were compared with no-build volumes. The volumes did not indicate that the proposed concepts would result in volume changes at this intersection.

Comment: Consider a roundabout at the intersection of Curry Road and Carman Road.
Response: The Thruway Authority’s statutory mission is to operate and maintain the Thruway system. Issues related to Curry and Carman Roads are under the jurisdiction of the NYSDOT. The Authority will share comments related to this topic with NYSDOT.

Comment: Remove short weave on I-890 and straighten approach to Interchange 25 toll plaza.
Response: Interchange 25 Concepts F, G, H, and J eliminate the weave on I-890 at Exit 9. Concepts G, H, and J straighten the approach to the Interchange 25 toll plaza.

Comment: Present congestion could be greatly relieved if the Rotterdam/Route 7 and Guilderland/Route 146 streams could be separated instead of both using Curry Road.
Response: The Thruway Authority’s statutory mission is to operate and maintain the Thruway system. Issues related to access to and from Routes 7 and 146 are under the jurisdiction of the NYSDOT. The Authority will share comments related to this topic with NYSDOT.

Comment: Shift Interchange 25 eastbound ramps included in Concepts F and K east to avoid acquisition of residence on Stanford Drive.
Response: The eastbound ramp location shown is just one concept for providing access. There is no preferred alternative, and this concept will undergo evaluation for impacts with the other concepts. Relocation issues that result from the concepts which include this ramp must be weighed against issues created by the other concepts, such as acquisition and relocation of residential and commercial properties on Curry Road. If a concept that includes these ramps is selected for further study, relocation impacts and shifting the ramps will be investigated and evaluated during preliminary design.

Comment: Support safety improvements, but oppose improvements for traffic flow because it promotes sprawl.
Response: Comment noted.

Comment: Move access between the Thruway and Route 9W from Interchange 23 to the south near Corning Hill Road.
Response: A concept which relocated access between the Thruway and Route 9W near Corning Hill Road was developed, evaluated and not retained for further study. This concept increases the travel distance by up to 3.5 miles for vehicles traveling between Route 9W and the Thruway. This concept was not retained for further study because CDTC-forecasted volumes indicated that it resulted in an overall increase in vehicle miles traveled due to the increased travel distance.

Comment: Mainline Barrier Concepts may result in additional interchanges and closer interchange spacing through the Albany Corridor. The end result could be increased congestion and safety issues.
Response: While additional interchanges would be less expensive to construct than interchanges in a tolled/ticketed system, the Authority would not implement projects that would increase congestion, reduce safety, violate AASHTO guidelines for interchange spacing, or have a negative effect on revenues.

Comment: Removal of the tolls and utilization of an alternate funding/revenue collection would eliminate the environmental impacts associated with the tolls while facilitating higher service capacity.
Response: In the early 1990s the Governor and legislature appointed a blue ribbon panel that recommended that the Authority remain responsible for the Thruway and it be supported by tolls. The legislature endorsed this recommendation through the enactment on Thruway 2000.

Comment: Include the cost for noise barriers in the estimates for each concept.
Response: Cost estimates include a contingency to cover mitigation expenses such as noise and wetlands, but the mitigation required is not yet known. Noise issues will be addressed during preliminary design in accordance with State and Federal requirements, as applicable. Cost estimates for each concept are included in Chapter III.

Comment: February 24, 2004 public meeting location was difficult to find and the parking was inadequate.
Response: Comment noted. In response to requests for meetings at different locations, two additional meetings were held. These meetings covered the same information as at the February 24, 2004 meeting and were held near Interchanges 23 and 25. Directions to all of the meetings were posted on the study website at http://www.nysthruway.gov/studies/albany/index.html.

Comment: The Albany Pine Bush Preserve Commission (APBPC), McKownville Improvement Association, and City of Albany Neighborhood Associations (CANA) should be included on the PAC. Can individual citizens also participate on the PAC?
Response: A representative from the APBPC is included on the PAC. PAC members are public/government/transportation agencies, and not private citizen’s groups. Although CANA and the McKownville Improvement Association are not represented on the PAC, these groups are included on the Albany Corridor Study mailing list and will be involved in future public involvement activities.

Comment: Concepts should include reviving the Southern Albany Expressway between Interchanges 23 and 24 on the Thruway. It could be either parallel to or above the Thruway mainline.
Response: The Southern Albany Expressway located parallel to the Thruway would result in property acquisitions in existing communities adjacent to the Thruway, such as McKownville and Whitehall Road. This expressway would need to be included in a regional plan such as the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) developed by CDTC. Comments related to this topic will be shared with CDTC.

Comment: The impact of Interchange 23 to the surrounding roadways (I-787 and city streets) and neighborhoods should be addressed.
Response: The affects of each concept on the surrounding roadways were evaluated, and the results are included in Chapter III.

Comment: The Thruway should take control of the Northway up to Exit 9.
Response: The Thruway Authority’s jurisdiction is set forth in state statute and does not include the Northway, which is under the jurisdiction of NYSDOT.

Comment: Designation of the Thruway Authority as the SEQRA Lead Agency is unacceptable.
Response: A Lead Agency has not yet been determined. This will be the first step as each project enters the SEQRA process.

Comment: Relocate Office of General Services (OGS) parking lot on Route 9W near Interchange 23 and expand tandem lot into this area.
Response: The OGS parking lot is not under the Thruway Authority’s jurisdiction. . Issues related to this parking lot are under the jurisdiction of the NYS Office of General Services. Relocation of the parking lot on Route 9W could be considered during preliminary design in conjunction with OGS; however, a suitable replacement location for the OGS parking lot would also need to be identified.

Comment: Prefer the Port of Albany Tandem Lot Concept; however, this location is located in a low income area and shows signs of environmental racism.
Response: There is no preferred alternative for the tandem lot concepts. Issues associated with environmental justice will be investigated during preliminary design should this concept be selected for further study.

Comment: Prefer MP 139 Tandem Lot location.
Response: Comment noted.

Comment: Large tandem trucks cross all lanes of traffic in all directions to access the tandem lot at Interchange 24. Is this situation going to be addressed in this study?
Response: The Interchange 24 Concepts include alternative access for the Interchange 24 tandem lot. All of the concepts include plans to remove tandem lot access from the immediate toll plaza area.

Comment: During the summer months, it is common to see the westbound Thruway backed up from Interchange 24 to Russell Road. An additional lane is needed and a sound barrier to go along with it.
Response: The current backups are a result of the congested toll plaza at Interchange 24. The Interchange 24 Concepts address this congestion. An additional mainline lane between Interchanges 23 and 24 has been identified as a potential project. The effects of noise levels due to an additional lane, which may include analysis of noise barrier in some locations, will be investigated during preliminary design.

Comment: An extra lane is needed between Interchanges 23 and 24. There seems to be plenty of “real estate” in the median in which to expand.
Response: The need for a third lane has been identified in Chapter II. Placing the additional lane in the existing median of the Thruway will be explored during preliminary design.

Comment: Work with NYSDOT to develop a regional concept which includes a beltway around the City of Albany.
Response: A beltway concept was originally included in the regional transportation plan for the Capital District; however, it was dismissed in the 1970’s due to insufficient funding. Issues related to construction of a beltway around Albany are under the jurisdiction of the NYSDOT and CDTC, not the Thruway Authority. The Authority will share comments related to this topic with NYSDOT and CDTC.

Comment: Oppose tandem lot at MP 143.
Response: Comment noted.

Comment: Require all northbound tractor/trailers to exit at Interchange 23 and use I-787 instead of Interchange 24, or exit at Interchange 24, leaving Interchange 23 for passenger traffic.
Response: All interstates are accessible to trucks by law. Restricting truck access to I-787 or the Northway (I-87) would require a change in legislation since they are both interstates.

Comment: Consider using rubberized asphalt pavement for resurfacing projects on the Thruway to reduce noise pollution.
Response: Rubberized asphalt pavement is used as an overlay material for pavement rehabilitation projects. Mixed data is available on its performance in reducing traffic noise. If it is determined to be a feasible option, rubberized asphalt pavement will be evaluated during preliminary design.

Comment: Oppose Interchange 23 Concept J1 as it would encourage vehicles to use Frisbee Avenue through Hoffman Park and other ball fields.
Response: Traffic volume forecasts developed by CDTC indicate that this concept will result in an overall increase of approximately 330 vehicles per hour on Frisbee Avenue during the afternoon peak hour. However, Concept J1 is only one alternative for improving mobility and reducing congestion at Interchange 23. There are no preferred alternatives, and all concepts will undergo evaluation to compare the effects with those resulting from the other concepts. The issues that result from Concept J1 must be weighed against issues created by the other concepts at Interchange 23. In addition, the work on Route 9W and I-787 is not necessary to address capacity needs at Interchange 23 and, therefore, could be completed separately from the Interchange improvements. If Concept J1 is selected for further study, measures to mitigate any additional traffic will be addressed during preliminary design.

Comment: The Thruway is recognizing issues with traffic flow at the interchanges, but it should also be concerned about congestion along the roadway itself. This needs to be studied now, not separately. The overall volume of traffic contributes to environmental and noise pollution.
Response: Congestion along the Thruway mainline is identified in Chapter II. Concepts to address the needs identified are presented in Chapter III. Potential environmental effects of these concepts are documented in Chapter IV.

Comment: The Thruway should work with DOT to coordinate traffic flow. The Thruway’s suggested improvements are good, but what about the DOT portion of the roadways. Will DOT address increases to noise, air pollution, and safety concerns due to increased traffic?
Response: The Authority is coordinating with DOT on a number of issues, including traffic volumes between the Thruway and State roadways.

Comment: The Thruway is considering roadway expansion between Interchanges 23 and 24 without considering all the environmental impacts for the various options under consideration. Under SEQRA it is considered segmentation if the collective impacts of all the projects are not evaluated.
Response: All projects will be advanced in conformity with SEQRA requirements.

Comment: How much does the Thruway make from the tolls between Interchanges 23 and 25? Are citizens less important than bondholders? Does the Thruway have the right to collect tolls in the future or will the proposed toll barriers become obsolete?
Response: The Thruway’s Bond Covenant from the mid-90’s states that tolls on the Thruway will continue to be collected into the future. More recent bond issuances have required a revenue neutrality test to ensure that changes in toll collection do not result in a decrease in revenue. Citizens are not less important than bondholders, but the Thruway Authority is legally bound to uphold the resolutions established when the bonds were issued.

Comment: Is this study a priority for the Thruway or are there other projects that are being considered in other areas that are a higher priority?
Response: The Authority is looking at similar roadway sections in Syracuse and Buffalo. The Tappan Zee Bridge Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is also underway. All of the improvements will be assessed, and the Authority will decide what the best solutions are for the available funds.

Comment: Impacts to residents and businesses from construction should be evaluated. Specifically, the Thruway should look at impacts from lighting and noise from construction sites.
Response: Potential environmental effects of these concepts are documented in Chapter IV and will undergo additional evaluation during preliminary design for concepts which are selected for further investigation.

Comment: The Thruway’s plan to coordinate with DOT regarding impacts to local roads is not sufficient. Traffic will continue to increase on the Thruway and also on local roads operated by DOT.
Response: The Authority is coordinating with DOT on a number of issues, including traffic volumes between the Thruway and State roadways.

Comment: Are the plans presented inevitable? Does the Thruway care how the public feels? How much impact does what the public say have on these projects?
Response: All of the plans are still in the conceptual design phase, and public meetings will be held throughout the design process to gain public input and feedback. The public comments will help to shape the nature of the improvements and potential mitigation measures.

Comment: Will a third lane between Interchanges 23 and 24 be constructed no matter what?
Response: There will be additional public meetings during the preliminary design phase of this improvement. The SEQRA process will also be followed before a final decision is made.

Comment: The Thruway should plant trees to provide a natural barrier to shield residents and businesses from noise and help to improve air quality.
Response: Planting of trees can be evaluated during preliminary design as a mitigation measure for visual impacts and to improve aesthetics. However, planting of trees has minimal effect in reducing traffic noise or improving air quality.

Comment: What kind of barrier will be put in place next to Mount Hope?
Response: Mitigation measures for all concepts selected for further evaluation will be investigated during preliminary design.

Comment: While safety of toll plaza employees was cited as a reason for redesigning toll barriers, does the number of injuries really warrant this expense?
Response: Safety is an important goal for the Thruway Authority. It is the mission of the Thruway Authority to offer a user-fee supported Highway and Canal system that delivers high levels of safety and service.

Comment: Is the traffic study for the Albany Corridor available for public viewing?
Response: Copies of the traffic study are available at local libraries.

Comment: The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) building would be impacted by Interchange 23 Concept J1. It appears that one half acre of the site would be taken and that the new roadway configuration would increase traffic during the peak hours. The reason the FBI is situated here is that the location has easy access and egress. If this concept goes forward, the FBI might decide that the location is no longer feasible for them. Having the FBI at this site is good for economic development in south Albany. The Thruway should provide the traffic counts on Frisbee Avenue and McCarty Avenue.
Response: Concept J1 requires approximately 0.8 acres of right-of-way from the FBI property. Traffic volumes on Frisbee Avenue and McCarty Avenue for Concept J1 are included in Chapter III. The traffic forecasts were developed by CDTC and indicate that this concept will result in an overall decrease of approximately 40 vehicles per hour on McCarty Avenue during the afternoon peak hour.

Comment: By not coordinating with the local system, the Thruway is wasting an opportunity to solve many larger regional problems. The Thruway is designated for interregional travel while the other corridors in Albany serve intraregional travel. A region-wide study should be conducted to identify regional issues.
Response: CDTC is responsible for regional planning, which it has done through development of its long-term plan, New Visions. The Thruway Authority is only responsible for Thruway facilities, but does assist CDTC with its planning functions. The Thruway Authority has coordinated with CDTC and many other agencies through PAC interaction.

Comment: How will projects be paid for?
Response: As projects are identified and move forward through design, the Thruway Authority will identify funding sources including Federal funds, where applicable, Thruway tolls and/or bonds.

Comment: Interchange 26 should be included in study because it could be the best way to create a new regional link and improve access between the Thruway and Northway.
Response: The Albany Corridor Study area was established based on interstate connections and traffic volumes. Improving access between the Thruway at Interchange 26 and the Northway is a regional planning improvement and not within the Thruway Authority’s jurisdiction.

Comment: Is redevelopment on the Western Avenue Extension at Interchange 24 being considered as concepts are evaluated?
Response: Traffic volume forecasts for each concept, included in Chapter III, include growth due to development in this area.

Comment: What is the timetable for pavement work between Interchanges 23 and 24?
Response: Construction would begin in 2006, at the earliest. Preliminary design and the SEQRA process are anticipated to begin in 2004.

Comment: What is the purpose and need of the Albany Corridor Study?
Response: The purpose and need for the Albany Corridor Study have been identified in Chapter II.

Comment: Instead of constructing a third lane during the reconstruction between Interchanges 23 and 24, use detours during the paving operations.
Response: The Thruway will verify the feasibility of detours with DOT; however, the Thruway does not believe there would be sufficient capacity on the local roadways or other interstates to accommodate the volume of detoured vehicles.

Comment: Why do Thruway users pay a toll when a portion of the fuel tax is designated for upkeep of Interstate highways?
Response: The Thruway Authority receives no State funds and some Federal funds, which are not sufficient to operate and maintain the roadway. State legislation passed by the Legislature and signed into law by the Governor in the 1990’s provided for the continued collection of tolls by the Authority.