008
,
'X^(\)
PAGGI & MARTIN
Consulting Engineers & Land Surveyors
54-56 Main Street
Poughkeepsie, New York 12601
9 1 4-47 1- 78 9 8
October 4, 1993
Town Board
Town of Wappinger
P.O. Box 324
Wappingers Falls, New York 12590
Reference:
All Angels Hill Road & Kent Road Intersection
Route 90 & Old State Road
Dear Board Members:
As you recall at the August meeting, we were asked to look at the
above intersections with respect to safety and/or access.
As you might further recall, I had asked permission to obtain the
services of a traffic consultant to get a specific recommendation on
these two (2) problems.
I have done so and met with Phil Grealy of John Collins Engineers, P.C.
Mr. Grealy has given a Preliminary Inspection Report of the above,
which I have enclosed a copy for your review. I would recommend that
we discuss this at a Workshop session.
As you can see, Mr. Grealy will further complete the report when he
receives more data from the Dutchess County Department of Public
Works and the New York State Department of Transportation.
In the interim, I would ask that you review this report and give our office
a call if there are any questions.
Very truly yours. . /J il
cJ~ E' (~rJ(i)
Joseph E. Paggi, Jr., P .E.
JEP:law
Enclosure
cc: Graham Foster w/enclosure
Albert P. Roberts, Esq. w/enclosure
Phil Grealy w/o enclosure
C c. T I (<sA ; j c;' ~ .;
JosephE. Paggi,Jr., P.E.
Ernst Martin, Jr., P.E., L.S.
@ printed on recycled paper
,---
JOHN COLLINS
ENGINEERS, P.C.
TRAFFIC.TIIANSPORTATION ENGINEERS
11 BRA D H U R S T AV EN U E · HAW THO R N E, N. Y. · 10532. (914) 347.7500 · FAX (914) 347.7266
September 29, 1993
Mr. Joseph E. Paggi, Jr., P.E.
Paggi and Martin
54-56 Main street
poughkeepsie, New York 12601
\".-_0
- O!::-~
-
Re: Town of Wappinger, NY
Dear Mr. Paggi:
We have had the opportunity to complete a preliminary inspection of
the two intersections in the Town for which you requested a review
of traffic and geometric conditions. At this time, we have not
completed our total evaluation, however, offer the following
preliminary thoughts with respect to each of these intersections.
1. All Anqels Hill Road (C.R. 94) and Kent Road
Kent Road intersects with All Angels Hill Road at a "stop"
sign controlled full movement intersection opposite cider Mill
Loop. We are in the process of obtaining any accident and
traffic count information for the intersection, however, based
on our initial field inspection have the following preliminary
recommendations with respect to the intersection.
a) On the Kent Road eastbound approach to the intersection,
there is a "stop" sign and a "stop sign ahead" located in
advance of the intersection. However, we recommend that
a sign indicating a cross intersection ahead(MUTCD sign
W2-1) also be installed in advance of the intersection.
b) Along the south side of Kent Road there is some asphalt
curbing, however, it is not differentiated from the
asphalt paving of the roadway. In order to better define
the radius at the intersection and provide better
visibility, for approaching vehicles, consideration
should be given to providing concrete curbing at the
intersection.
c) On the Kent Road and Cider Mill Loop approaches
addi tional striping should be installed including new
double yellow centerline striping as well as a painted
white edge line striping similar to that present on the
County Road.
Page 2
d) To increase visibility at the intersection, on both
sides of All Angels Hill Road north of the intersection
some tree pruning and clearing of vegetation should be
implemented to improve sight lines for vehicles
approaching the intersection on All Angels Hill Road as
well as for traffic exiting from these two side roads.
Similarly, on the southwest corner of the intersection,
it may be advisable to remove one of the existing locust
trees.
e) We have also received a copy of the intersection plan
prepared for Nicole Farms, dated 8/30/88. This plan also
shows some shoulder widenings on all of the approaches to
the intersection as well as increased turning radii.
Such improvements could be complimented by those outlined
above and would have to be coordinated with the County.
At this time we are awaiting the accident and traffic count
information which we will utilize to determine if any other
improvements such as lighting, signing and/or signalization
should be explored at this location.
2. Route 90 and Old State Road
Old State Road intersects with Route 90 at a stop sign
controlled "Y" type skewed intersection. The existing
location maximizes sight distance for vehicles on Route 90 as
well as exiting Old State Road. However, the width of Old
State Road and its alignment do not provide the most efficient
operation. The initial comments from the state with respect
to the possible relocation of this roadway connection
indicates that their required sight lines would have to be
provided at any new location but this is restricted by the
vertical alignment of Routgo 90. We vlill be reviewing in more
detail traffic volume and other data for this intersection but
in the meantime, the following preliminary items have been
noted.
a) Old State Road should be widened at the intersection to
provide better separation of entering and exiting
traffic. In conjunction with this, a deceleration lane
may be feasible and could be developed on the southbound
approach of Route 90. This would slow traffic exiting
Route 90 onto Old State Road and reduce any interference
with through traffic.
b) The possible relocation of the Old State Road exiting
approach is complicated due to the vertical alignment of
Route 90 north of the intersection. Based on a review of
Page 3
the preliminary profile prepared by your office, it appears that
there may be two options with respect to the relocation of the Old
state Road approach, however, both appear to require adjustments to
the Route 90 mainline to improve sight lines. The first alternate
would require lowering the vertical curve on Route 90 to increase
sight distance while the other alternate would raise the elevation
of Route 90 by 1-foot to 2-feet for approximately a 150 foot
section. The possible raising of the Route 90 mainline would have
to be evaluated in more detail relative to drainage and impacts on
adjoining driveways.
At this time we are continuina our review of these two
intersections and will provide more detailed recommendations in the
next couple of weeks.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
P.c.
dwp694.paggi
Attachment
~ 231.8
(iii) The advisory speed stated on the W1-19 through W1-22 signs may be less than that associated with
the initial ramp curve where the ramp is short and exiting traffic should normally begin decelerating for its ter- (
minal condition before entering the ramp.
(4) The W1-19 and W1- 20 signs are for roadside use. The W1- 21 and W1- 22 signs are for overhead use with
overhead exit direction signs (see section 252.8).
(b) Location.
(1) These signs are in posting category IV (see section 230.2). At typical interchanges, advance posting
distances are usually limited by design features and placement of required guide signs.
(2) Where used, the W1-19 or W1-20 sign should be placed along the deceleration lane or, if necessary, at the
ramp gore, at a location where it is clearly visible for a sufficient distance so that exiting drivers can easily decelerate
to the appropriate speed at the exit ramp. The sign shall be placed on the right side of the roadway where traffic ex-
its to the right, and on the left side of the roadway where traffic exits to the left.
(3) Where used, the W1-21 or W1-22 sign shall be placed beneath the overhead exit direction sign (see
section 252.8).
(c) Illustrations. Figures 222-9, 255-12, and 255-13 show examples of exit ramp sign use.
Sec.
232.1 Intersection signs
232.2 Merge signs
232.3 Traffic circle sign
232.4 Stop ahead sign
Section 232.1 Intersection signs.
130
PART 232
INTERSECTION WARNING SIGNS
(~
\
Sec.
232.5 Yield ahead sign
232.6 Signal ahead sign
232.7 Double arrow sign
Yellow background
Black legend
(,
7.1.83