A transportation professional's
view of Geneseo, Part 2 (June 15, 2006)
Editor's note: This is part 2 of a
memo that was delivered to the Geneseo Planning Board last week
by Lewis Gurley. Mr. Gurley was retained by Please Don't Destroy
Geneso (PDDG) to analyze the traffic studies submitted for the
Newman PDD application.
Should the current rapid growth in traffic in
Geneseo not be able to be curtailed through a planned development
of the remaining parcels, the community will be looking for
major capital improvement projects on route 20A to relieve traffic
congestion. The normal and expected approach will be to go to
the state since Route 20A is a state highway.
The state's capital improvement program is seriously under funded.
Highway construction does not receive the attention that it
once did several decades ago due to changed priorities. Last
year a Transportation Bond fund was approved. Those funds were
already over committed the day they were approved. New York
States infrastructure is in a declining mode.
Geneseo must not believe that the state will be able to provide
highway construction moneys to widen and improve Route 20A to
relieve congestion caused by uncontrolled development that generated
the traffic which led to the congestion.
Based on my experience and past responsibilities, I can assure
you that should the Level of Service of Route 20 A deteriorate
below acceptable levels (and it will), the community will live
with the associated problem for one or more decades before there
would be constructed relief. Even then, the most one could hope
for is some relief not a complete solution.
Look at Jefferson Road in Henrietta or Ridge Road in Greece.
Tens of millions of dollars are being spent now on Ridge Road
and it is unlikely that the Level of Service will be raised
to a desirable level upon completion of the road reconstruction.
Often there is an immediate improvement when the construction
is complete but the added capacity is used up by more development
that occurs. One must remember that each development must only
show that their added traffic will be able to be accommodated.
Once in place these developments (retailers) are no longer responsible
for future problems that result from accumulated effects. The
time to preserve the character of a community is before the
development occurs. The return of orderly traffic flow on a
facility will never happen once it is lost.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the above and my observations of roadway
capacity deterioration caused by the building of large retail
stores in many communities over the years, I offer the following
recommendations:
1. Do not approve additional large retail development in and
along Route 20A and Volunteer Rd. until more thorough investigation
of traffic impacts based on full development of available land
is undertaken and complete.
2. Complete the Access Management study that was started but
as yet is incomplete.
3. Undertake a study by a qualified consultant to evaluate the
traffic operations along Route 20A and key village alternate
routes based on full build out of all available land currently
zoned to allow commercial retail development. This could be
accomplished by a change of scope to the Access Management Study.
4. Consider tightening current zoning criteria to assure that
all developable land will not become retail development. A mix
of light industrial, office and retail will significantly regulate
the growth of traffic and hence make traffic congestion manageable.
5. Consider establishing a Transportation Development District
that will allow for collection of funds from current businesses
as well as future ones that can be set aside for transportation/
traffic improvements when they are called for due to operating
conditions. This would require state legislation to establish
but may be one of the most effective ways for the town to protect
itself from over development.