A-O Wind Power Transportation Study Text · Alabama Ledge Wind Farm Transportation Study Page 1 of 16 FA 065017 September 2007 I. Introduction Fisher Associates, P.E., L.S., P.C

TRANSPORTATION STUDY

FOR

Alabama Ledge Wind Farm

Genesee County, New York

Applicant:Alabama Ledge Wind Farm, LLC

3 Columbia PlaceAlbany, New York 12207

Prepared For:Tetra Tech EC, Inc.133 Federal Street

6th FloorBoston, Massachusetts 02110

TtEC #061591

Published: September 2007

Prepared By:

FA No.: 065017

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No.

I. Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1 A. Alabama Ledge Project Delivery Route............................................................................ 1 B. Construction Vehicles......................................................................................................... 1

II. Traffic ........................................................................................................................................... 3 A. Traffic Flow and Capacity ................................................................................................. 3

1. During Construction ....................................................................................................................3 2. Post Construction.........................................................................................................................4 3. School Bus Routes........................................................................................................................4

B. Safety.................................................................................................................................... 5 C. Projected Traffic Impacts & Proposed Mitigation .......................................................... 6

III. Transportation Systems.............................................................................................................. 8 A. Existing Roadway Conditions............................................................................................ 8

1. Surface Type.................................................................................................................................8 2. Roadway Width............................................................................................................................8 3. Intersections..................................................................................................................................9 4. Weight ...........................................................................................................................................9 5. Vertical Curvature .....................................................................................................................10 6. Height ..........................................................................................................................................10

B. Existing Drainage Structures........................................................................................... 11 1. Bridges.........................................................................................................................................11 2. Culverts .......................................................................................................................................13

C. Projected Physical Impacts & Proposed Mitigation...................................................... 14 IV. Conclusion.................................................................................................................................. 16 Appendix A Exhibit 1: Project Location Map Exhibit 2: Project Map Exhibit 3: Truck Data and Turning Movement Diagrams Exhibit 4: Specific Intersection Improvements Exhibit 5: Generic Intersection Improvements Exhibit 6: Drainage Structure Inventory Exhibit 7: Road Width Exhibit 8: Construction Traffic Routes & Roadway Improvement Locations Exhibit 9: Overhead Wire Exhibit 10: Drainage Structure Locations Appendix B – Project Photographs Appendix C – Sample Permits: Genesee County, NYSDOT, NYS Thruway Authority Appendix D – Bridge Analysis

References

1) Turbine Layout Drawings and GIS Data prepared by Tetra Tech EC, Inc., dated December

2006. 2) New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) Highway Design Manual:

Chapter 5 – Basic Design, Revision 50 (2006). 3) NYSDOT 2006 Traffic Data Report. 4) NYSDOT Safety Information Management System (SIMS) Accident Data from January 1,

1999 to December 31, 2003. 8) “VIRTIS” Bridge Load Rating Software, Version 5.5.0. Copyright 1997-2006 AASHTO.

Alabama Ledge Wind Farm Transportation Study Page 1 of 16 FA 065017 September 2007

I. Introduction

Fisher Associates, P.E., L.S., P.C. (FA) has been contracted by Tetra Tech EC, Inc. to complete a Traffic and Transportation Study for the proposed Alabama Ledge Wind Farm. The project is located in the southeast corner of the Town of Alabama in Genesee County, New York as shown on the location map included in Exhibit 1. This report reviewed the existing local traffic and safety patterns and roadway conditions within the project area and along the proposed hauling route from Interstate 90 to the project site. The review revealed areas where modifications to the roadway system will be required to accommodate construction activities. A. Alabama Ledge Project Delivery Route Interstate Route 90 (NYS Thruway) to NYS Route 77 is projected to be the primary delivery route to the project area. The NYS Thruway was not included in the scope of this study as the hauling company delivering the turbine components will be required to analyze the Thruway and/or any other highways to be used to obtain a Special Hauling Permit prior to component delivery. A Special Hauling Permit is required for vehicles and/or loads that exceed the legal maximum dimensions or weights specified in Section 385 of the New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law. Those dimensions and weights include a maximum width of 8 feet 6 inches, maximum height of 13 feet 6 inches, maximum length of single trailer of 53 feet, and maximum weight of one axle of 22,400 pounds. The delivery route for the purposes of this report will begin with the Exit 48A (NYS Thruway) – NYS Route 77 intersection and then follow NYS Route 77 northward to the Alabama Ledge Wind Farm project area. The local on-site roads that will complete the delivery routes include the following:

• Judge Road (NYS Route 63) • Gorton Road • Ledge Road (CR 26) • Maple Street Road (CR 23) • Town Line Road (CR 26) • Kenyon Road • Alleghany Road (NYS Route 77) • Wight Road

B. Construction Vehicles Construction traffic will consist of standard construction equipment and specialized hauling trucks to deliver the turbine components. Standard construction traffic consists of gravel/dump trucks, concrete trucks, excavation equipment, conventional semi-trailers, transport/tool vehicles and employee vehicles. These standard construction vehicles should not require physical modifications to the roadways to accommodate their presence. Delivery of the wind turbine components will utilize Over-Size/Over-Weight (OS/OW) trucks to bring the components from the manufacturer to the project area.


The OS/OW trucks are special hauling vehicles with unique lengths, widths, heights, and weights depending on the component being transported. These trucks require particular clearances due to their size and turning radii. The actual vehicles used to deliver the turbines varies dependent on the transportation contractor. For the basis of this study a minimum inside radius of 150 feet has been used to model intersection modification scenarios. The anticipated truck configurations and turning radii are included in Exhibit 3. The following is a summary of wind turbine components with corresponding truck configurations:

Wind Turbine

Part

Approx. Component

Weight (lbs.)

Comp. Length

(ft)

Comp. Height / Dia. (ft)

Comp. Width

(ft)

Truck Description

Overall Length

(ft)

Overall Height

(ft.)

Overall Width (ft.)

Est. Gross

Vehicle Wt.

(lbs.)

Rotor Blade

14,800 139.4 10.4 7.2 5-Axle Double Drop Stretch

160* 14 11'-6" 45,000

Two Blade cage

33,100 141.4 9.7 12.8 5-Axle Double Drop Stretch

160* 14 13'-0" 45,000

Base Tower

# # # # 6-Axle Stretch

108 16* 13'-6" 150,000

Lower Mid Tower

135,300 56.7 13.3 dia.

-- 6-Axle Stretch

113 16* 13'-6" 165,000

Mid Tower

105,150 56.8 13.2 dia.

-- 6-Axle Stretch

113 16* 13'-6" 135,000

Upper Mid Tower

87,000 64.7 13.2 dia.

-- 6-Axle Stretch

113 16* 13'-6" 120,000

Top Tower

62,600 76.1 13.2 dia.

-- 6-Axle Stretch

113 16* 13'-6" 95,000

Nacelle 165,400 30.8 13.3 13.1 11-Axle Low Profile

160* 16* 13'-6" 200,000*

Hub Assembly

33,250 9.6 10.3 9.6 8-Axle Stretch

102 15 14'-0" 75,000

Rotor Nose cone

2,500 12.8 7.6 14.8 # # # # #

# All truck configurations are assumed based on previous projects and the base tower data has not been provided. The truck configurations to be finalized after components and hauling company have been selected. * SUPERLOAD (PERM12S) permits required by NYSDOT for any vehicle or combination of vehicles which exceed 16 feet in width; or 16 feet in height or greater; or greater than 160 feet in length; or 200,000 lbs. or greater in gross weight; or a combination of any of the above.

This report determines potential impacts to the existing traffic capacity/patterns, safety concerns and roadway features due to the anticipated construction/delivery traffic. For each impact, proposed mitigation methods are identified to address specific deficiencies due to the additional traffic created during construction and due to the requirements of the OS/OW vehicles.


II. Traffic

This section summarizes the existing conditions and potential impacts to the traffic capacity and safety along the delivery routes. Refer to Exhibits 1 and 2 for roadway locations. A. Traffic Flow and Capacity

A review of the State routes in the project area indicates that all appear to be operating below vehicle capacity. Detailed capacity analysis was not completed for this study, however, field observation of the transportation network did not reveal any locations where traffic flow and/or capacity appeared to create undue delay for the traveling public.

The following table presents the existing traffic data along the state and county roadways within the project area:

Roadway Name Lanes Travel Lane

Widths Shoulder Widths

Posted Speed Limit

AADT

NYS Route 77 2 12’ 4’ (asphalt) 55 MPH 6,000 – 8,000 NYS Route 63 2 12’ 4’ (asphalt) 55 MPH 3,000 – 4,000

CR 26 2 12’ 4’ (gravel) 55 MPH Not Available CR 23 2 12’ 4’ (gravel) 55 MPH Not Available

* AADT = Average Annual Daily Trips. * Traffic volumes for State routes obtained from the NYSDOT Traffic Volume Report dated

8/16/2006. * Genesee County does not have current traffic volume data for County roads. The existing traffic

volumes were observed to be minor.

1. During Construction There will be approximately 10 OS/OW trucks required for each turbine. Approximately 52 turbines are proposed for this project which will create a total 520 OS/OW vehicle trips along with multiple standard construction equipment trips which could include the following: • Gravel trucks with capacity of approximately 10 cubic yards (cy) per truck and an

estimated gross weight of 75,000 pounds (lbs), for access road construction (given the estimate of each access road being 1500 feet long and 32 feet wide with gravel 15 inches deep; total of approximately 11,000 to 12,000 trips).

• Concrete trucks for construction of turbine foundations and transformer pads with capacity of approximately 10 cy per truck and an estimated gross weight of 96,000 lbs (total of approximately 40 trips per foundation depending on final design).

• Variety of conventional semi-trailers for delivery of reinforcing steel (two per turbine foundation) and small substation components and interconnection facility material (approximately 30 to 50 trucks).

• Pickup trucks for equipment and tools.


• Trucks and cars for transporting construction workers. While OS/OW vehicles are traveling along project area and delivery route roadways, the existing traffic may experience minor delays as escort vehicles, flag persons, and/or temporary traffic signals slow or stop traffic to allow the safe passage of the OS/OW vehicles. As the existing traffic volumes are low, the roadways should not be significantly impacted by standard construction traffic or during OS/OW load transport. The area that will likely receive the greatest impact due to the OS/OW vehicles is the NYS Route 77/Thruway entrance as all OS/OW vehicles will likely travel through this intersection and there are two truck stops in close proximity. The existing traffic is slow moving and the roadway does have passing lanes at the intersection which may help to relieve any potential problems.

2. Post Construction

The project will employ approximately 10 to 15 individuals, all of whom may drive separately to the Operation and Maintenance (O&M) building. Some of these personnel will need to visit each turbine location and return to the O&M building. Each turbine typically requires routine maintenance visits once every 3 months, but certain turbines or other project improvements may require periods of more frequent service visits should a problem arise. Such service visits typically involve 1 to 2 pick-up trucks. Project personnel (or National Grid personnel) may also need to service the project substation. Such servicing would likely be carried out on a similar quarterly basis (unless a problem arose) and would involve a similar number of maintenance vehicles. Based on the preceding information, employee/maintenance traffic is not anticipated to have a significant impact on the local traffic patterns. In addition to maintenance activity, the operation of a wind power project typically increases tourist traffic, which can negatively impact roadways within the project area. The impacts, if any, are unknown as of the publishing date of this report.

3. School Bus Routes

The Pembroke and Oakfield-Alabama school districts service the residences within the project area. The morning pickup times are from 6:30 am to 8:30 am and afternoon drop-offs occur between 2:30 pm and 4:00 pm. Due to the distance from the school buildings and lack of sidewalks, most students are picked-up/dropped-off at their place of residence. The number of stops and busses within the project area is limited due to the low density of houses within and adjacent to the project area.


In addition, the majority of the project activities and deliveries will likely occur during the summer months and through the middle of the day, therefore, the impacts to the local school bus routes should be minimal.

B. Safety

Five-year accident summaries were obtained from the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) Safety Information Management System (SIMS) database in order to identify historical accident patterns or clusters. The latest five-year history on file was January 1, 1999 to December 31, 2003. In this time period, 193 accidents were reported along study area roadways with 39.4 percent (76 accidents) of the accidents containing an injury. The safety history review did not indicate any definable accident clusters or patterns within the main project area that warrant avoidance or safety mitigations. NYS Route 77 had a large number of reported accidents between I-90 and Ledge Road. Many of those accidents were caused by adverse winter weather conditions, aggressive driving, and impaired drivers.

The following table presents the number of accidents within the study area along each roadway:

Roadway Name 5-Year

Injury Accidents

5-Year Non-Injury Accidents

5-Year Total Accidents

Accidents Per Year

Ham Road 1 3 4 1 Judge Road

(NYS Route 63) 7 11 18 4

Ledge Road (CR 26)

5 5 10 2

Town Line Road (CR 26)

0 2 2 <1

Alleghany Road (NYS Route 77)

56 89 145 29

Kenyon Road 1 0 1 <1 Wight Road 0 0 0 0 Gorton Road 0 1 1 <1

Maple Street Road (CR 23)

5 4 9 2

Macomber Road (CR 30)

1 2 3 <1

Marble Road 0 0 0 0

Accident rates were calculated along the state highways within the study area and compared to the state averages. The following presents the average accident rates for those state roadways:

• Route 77 – Thruway to Ledge Road = 2.3 accidents per million vehicle miles (acc/mvm)


• Route 77 – Ledge Road to Route 63 = 1.0 acc/mvm • Route 63 – Maple Street Road to Route 77 = 1.0 acc/mvm.

All segments are below the statewide average rate of 2.81 for Rural Functional Class, Undivided, 2-Lane highways including mainline and juncture accidents. The above SIMS data includes accidents that occurred early in the morning, late at night, in the rain, snow and ice with poor visibility. The NYSDOT Special Hauling permit specifically prohibits operating in these conditions. The one exception is a waiver for peak-hour restriction which may allow OS/OW transports between 7-9AM and 4-6PM which NYSDOT considers as "curfew hours". The NYSDOT Special Hauling/Superload permits require several full-time vehicle escorts, several police escorts, speed limit restrictions and hours of operation limited to daytime-only, preferably in the summer. In conjunction with the safety analysis, there were locations where sight distance appeared to be limited. At these locations, slow moving construction equipment could increase the potential for accidents:

• Route 77 bridge over the Thruway, • Route 77 south of Indian Falls Road, • Route 77 south of Ledge Road, • Maple Street Road south of Ledge Road, • Ham Road east of Gorton Road.

As mentioned above, the Special Hauling/Superload Permits require several full-time vehicle escorts, several police escorts, speed limit restrictions and hours of operation limited to daytime-only. These escort vehicles will be responsible for safe passage of the OS/OW vehicles.

C. Projected Traffic Impacts & Proposed Mitigation

Traffic Flow and Capacity Impact – During construction activities local traffic may experience minor delays due to slow moving vehicles and increased construction related traffic. Mitigation – No areas appear to warrant immediate installation of measures to mitigate the minor delays that will be experienced by local traffic. The applicant should, in conjunction with the NYSDOT and local highway departments, establish a traffic/transportation notification protocol to respond to any locations that experience significant traffic flow or capacity issues. The following is a protocol that could be used for the project:


• Prior to construction the applicant will identify one or more construction managers as the primary traffic contact(s) for traffic/transportation concerns that may arise during the construction of the project.

• The Town, County, and State Highway departments will be notified of the primary traffic contact(s).

• All construction personnel will be instructed to watch for traffic/transportation concerns and to contact the primary traffic contact immediately following a traffic/transportation issue.

• The primary traffic contact will call the appropriate Town, County, or State Highway Department immediately following identification of a congestion problem.

• The applicant will consult with all town and county highway departments prior to construction to identify potential traffic congestion areas and to develop potential detours.

• If construction-related congestion occurs, the primary traffic contact will call the appropriate Town, County, or State Highway Department immediately and discuss the implementation of pre-determined detour routes.

A temporary signal at the NYS Route 77 / Ledge Road intersection may be warranted after further review of the area and the project by NYSDOT. Electronic Vehicle Message Systems (VMS) may also assist in notifying drivers of the construction activities. All road improvements will be designed and submitted for approval to the appropriate highway authorities. Safety Impact – Sight distance appears to be limited in several locations where slow moving construction vehicles could increase the potential for accidents. Mitigation – The Special Hauling/Superload Permits obtained for OS/OW vehicles specifically prohibits operating early in the morning, late at night, and in poor weather conditions. The one exception is a waiver for peak-hour restriction which may allow OS/OW transports between 7-9AM and 4-6PM which NYSDOT considers as "curfew hours". The NYSDOT Special Hauling/Superload permits require several full-time vehicle escorts, several police escorts, speed limit restrictions and hours of operation limited to daytime-only, preferably in the summer. The conditions of the Special Hauling/Superload Permits provide mitigation for the sight distance concerns for OS/OW vehicles. Construction signage will be placed at the areas of limited sight distance as an additional measure to warn drivers of general construction traffic. Solar powered flashers and advisory signage could also be placed at these locations to further warn drivers of potential conflicts.


III. Transportation Systems

The physical characteristics assessment completed as a part of the study included a review of the roadway widths, drainage structures, bridges, intersection geometry, overhead clearances, and roadway alignments. Each bridge or drainage structure found in the field was inventoried for approximate location, type, size, approximate depth of cover over the structure, and roadway width at the structure. The structure and road data is included in the Structure Inventory Table in Exhibit 4. Several locations appeared to have existing features that may not accommodate the construction traffic anticipated for the proposed project. In the Structure Inventory Table these locations are indicated as blue cells under the “Concern” column and were marked as such for one or more of the following reasons:

• Roadway width less than 20 feet • Less than 2 feet of cover • Structure in poor condition • Unknown conditions • Bridge location (discussed in a later section)

A. Existing Roadway Conditions 1. Surface Type

The Structure Inventory Table, Exhibit 6, presents the roadway type at each drainage structure. As depicted, the roadways within the project area are either paved with asphalt or treated with oil & stone. The state and county roads appear to be in good condition with clear pavement markings and signage. The local town roads are in fair condition with little to no pavement markings. All roadway surface conditions appear to be adequate to accommodate construction activities.

2. Roadway Width

The Road Width map, Exhibit 7, presents the width of the roadway, excluding shoulders, at each drainage structure. The majority of the roadways in the project area have widths between 21 feet and 24 feet. The State Routes are all 24 feet wide with at least 4 feet wide asphalt shoulders. The Route 77 bridge crossing over the Thruway has 3 feet high concrete walls topped with fencing located at the edge of the shoulders and is also at the crest of a hill. Vehicles wider than 15 feet will likely need to cross the center line to traverse this bridge. The county and town roads vary in width with gravel shoulders varying from 2 feet to 4 feet. All existing roadway widths will accommodate construction activities.


3. Intersections

As shown in the diagrams in Exhibit 4, all intersections being used by the OS/OW trucks will need improvements to accommodate the OS/OW vehicles. Exhibit 8 depicts the anticipated OS/OW travel routes identifying the intersections that will need to be improved. The following table includes a list of intersections that will need improvements to accommodate the OS/OW vehicles. Also included is a preliminary assessment of the modification scenario that appears to best fit the intersections and attempts to minimize impacts, using the typical intersections contained in Exhibit 5. Exhibit 4 examines each intersection traveled and illustrates the application of these scenarios per the proposed traffic routes as of the date of this report. Note that the intersections will need to be re-evaluated during final engineering once topographic mapping and final truck configurations are available to determine the optimal solution for each intersection.

Intersections to be used by OS/OW Trucks

Approaching Road Receiving Road Modification

Scenario

SR 77 (nb) Ledge Rd (eb) 6 SR 77 (nb) SR 63 (eb) 5 SR 63 (eb) Kenyon Rd (sb) 10 SR 63 (eb) Wight Rd (sb) 10 SR 63 (eb) Gorton Rd (nb) 9

Ledge Rd (eb) Maple St Rd (nb) 9 Ledge Rd (eb) Maple St Rd (sb) 7

Maple Street Rd (sb) Town Line Rd (eb) 6 (nb) – northbound (sb) – southbound (wb) – westbound (eb) – eastbound One additional solution for locations such as the Ledge Road/Maple Street Road (nb) intersection would be to create an access road between the utility poles in order to keep the poles in their existing locations. Refer to Scenario #13 in Exhibit 5 for a schematic of this option.

4. Weight

Ham, Kenyon, Wight, Gorton, and Marble Roads are all posted with 10 ton weight limits. The Town of Alabama Highway Superintendent indicated that the roads were originally posted to restrict truck traffic from the local gravel mine in order to minimize damage to these roads. There are no reported structures along these roadways that have posted weight limits.


5. Vertical Curvature

There are existing vertical curves along project area roadways that OS/OW trucks may not be able to traverse without modifications. Exhibit 8 identifies the locations along Ledge, Maple Street, Wight, Gorton, and Kenyon Roads that may require modifications to accommodate the low clearance trailers. These locations should be avoided if possible or evaluated during final design of the roadway improvements, once detailed topographic information and final truck configurations are available. A few of the modifications will not be needed based on the current project layout and proposed travel routes.

6. Height

Based on the OS/OW truck configurations, any locations along the travel routes with a vertical clearance less than 16 feet will need to be adjusted to allow movement. The Overhead Wire map, Exhibit 9, presents the location of overhead utilities along the project area roadways as measured in the field. As depicted by the highlighted areas, several roadways have a significant number of overhead utility crossings that may present difficulties for crane and construction equipment movement. The following table includes a preliminary count of overhead adjustments needed, where overhead clearances are less than 16 feet along the proposed travel routes.

Roadway Name

Mainline Electric

Mainline Cable/Telephone

Services Electric

Services Cable/Telephone

Total Height Adjustments

Ham Road 0 0 0 0 0 Judge Road (NYS Route

63) 0 0 0 3 3

Ledge Road (CR 26) 0 0 2 1 3

Town Line Road

(CR 26) 0 0 1 2 3

Alleghany Road

(NYS Route 77)

0 0 1 17 18

Kenyon Road 1 0 1 3 5 Wight Road 0 0 0 0 0 Gorton Road 0 0 2 3 5 Maple Street Road (CR 23) 0 0 1 2 3

Macomber Road (CR 30) 0 0 0 0 0

Marble Road 0 0 0 0 0 The applicant will need to coordinate and obtain permits from the utility companies in order to adjust the utility lines crossing the roadways. The signal heads located at the NYS Route 77 and Thruway entrance intersection will also need to be raised. The actual


heights and proposed modifications will be included in the route survey required for the Special Hauling/Superload permits from the NYSDOT. These measurements and verifications will be performed at a later date by the company contracted to deliver WTG components.

B. Existing Drainage Structures

Drainage structures with a span length of greater than twenty feet are considered bridges and referenced as such in this summary. Information regarding bridge structure type and history was obtained from the 2006 NYSDOT bridge inspection reports inventory for the BINs indicated. Information regarding culverts was obtained through field inspection and evaluation.

1. Bridges

There are three bridge structures that were reviewed for this study:

• BIN 1030100 – Route 77 over Whitney Creek • BIN 1030090 – Route 77 over Tonawanda Creek • BIN 1030080 – Route 77 over the NYS Thruway

The locations of these bridges can be found in Exhibit 10. The bridges will all carry loads over water or other roadways. Each of these bridges was reviewed for geometric conditions and load rating to determine if each could accommodate the OS/OW vehicles. All bridges are safe for legal loads and do not have posted weight restrictions. All also have sufficient horizontal and vertical clearances to accommodate the OS/OW trucks. The Route 77 bridge over the Thruway has concrete barriers and fences along the edge of the shoulder which will require the OS/OW vehicles to cross the roadway centerline. The three bridges were inspected and evaluated for the OS/OW vehicles. Two bridges, BIN 1030080 (Rte. 77 over I-90) and BIN 1030090 (Rte. 77 over Tonawanda Creek), could be rated without the need for further investigation with non-destructive and destructive testing of the structure. The third bridge, BIN 1030100 (Rte. 77 over Whitney Creek), consisted of a reinforced concrete arch of unknown construction and could not be rated without destructive testing. Since the hauling company has not been selected at the time of this report, exact truck configurations are not known. However, based on truck configurations from previously completed wind power projects, the Nacelle transport truck load and configuration was selected as the vehicle with the highest potential load for both bridges, since it has the highest overall load (200 kips), most number of axles (11), and highest axle loads (22 kips). Note that the bridges should be reanalyzed during final design of the roadway upgrades once the actual transport vehicles have been selected for the project.


Bridges were analyzed using VIRTIS bridge rating software (version 5.5.0) in accordance with NYSDOT procedures. The latest VIRTIS computer files were obtained and reviewed from the NYSDOT and field inspections were performed. Using this software, input for main support members, secondary floor beams and deck elements are utilized where applicable. Controlling elements are identified and used to determine the overall load rating of the bridge. Deck elements are not rated, unless significant deterioration is encountered, in which case the elements are checked independently. If results of the analysis indicate that deck elements control, they are noted in the report. No elements were deteriorated on the subject bridges examined to warrant this rating step. All of the bridges evaluated were rated for the Nacelle Truck axle configuration and H20 and HS20 design load for comparisons. A summary of the results of the field inspections and rating computations are provided herein: BIN 1030080, Rte. 77 over I-90 This bridge was found to be in good condition with no significant section loss to the girders or deterioration which would affect the load carrying capacity of the members. The table below summarizes the results of the load analysis for both the design vehicles and the Nacelle Truck. Factors for inventory and operating ratings are greater than 1.0, indicating the transport vehicles can cross the bridge with no restrictions due to weight.

Bridge Rating Summary BIN 1030080 - Rte. 77 over I-90

Live Load Girder Design Method

Load Type

Inventory Rating Factor

Operating Rating Factor

Impact Lane

H 20-44 G1 LFD Lane 1.975 3.296 Y Multi-Lane HS 20-44 G1 LFD Truck 1.733 2.895 Y Multi-Lane Nacelle Truck

G2 LFD Truck 1.144 1.91 Y Multi-Lane

BIN 1030090, Route 77 over Tonawanda Creek This bridge was found to be in good condition with no significant section loss to the girders or deterioration which would affect the load carrying capacity of the members. The table below summarizes the results of the load analysis for both the design vehicles and the Nacelle Truck. Factors for inventory and operating ratings for the design vehicles are greater than 1.0, indicating the bridge can carry the design loads with no load posting. However, Inventory rating for the transport vehicle is lower than 1.0, and the operating rating is 1.014. This rating includes impact and is for two lanes of load. When the analysis allows for a single lane, and eliminates impact, the Inventory Rating increases to .958 and the Operating Rating increases to 1.509. Although the operating rating for


multi-lane analysis with impact indicates that the bridge can carry the Nacelle truck, we recommend that the vehicle cross the bridge at no greater than 10 mph and traffic be restricted to one-direction during the crossing. This will significantly improve the rating of the bridge and minimize the potential for overstressing of the girders.

Bridge Rating Summary BIN 1030090 - Rte. 77 over Tonawanda Creek

Live Load Girder Design Method

Load Type

Inventory Rating Factor

Operating Rating Factor

Impact Lane

H 20-44 G2 LFD Lane 1.036 1.731 Y Multi-Lane HS 20-44 G2 LFD Lane 1.036 1.731 Y Multi-Lane Nacelle Truck

G2 LFD Truck 0.607 1.014 Y Multi-Lane

Nacelle Truck

G2 LFD Truck 0.958 1.509 N Single-Lane

BIN 1030100, Route 77 over Whitney Creek This bridge is a concrete arch structure which has been widened with steel girders on each side. The inspection found that the arch is in fair to good condition with no significant concrete deterioration which would affect the capacity of the arch components, and no distress observed in the arch sections. Additionally, the steel sections were also found to be in good condition. No drawings of this structure are available, since it was constructed in 1913. Without further in-depth testing and investigation, this structure could not be rated. However, we believe that the structure can carry the loads, with restrictions similar to those indicated for BIN 1030090 above. The OS/OW vehicles should travel over the center of the bridge at 10 mph. Appendix D contains the ratings results summary for each bridge. Note that NYSDOT and the NYS Thruway Authority Structures Divisions will review and approve all bridges proposed to be used during the Special Hauling Permit application process.

2. Culverts

The Culvert Type & Diameter and Culvert Minimum Cover & Condition maps, Exhibit 10, present the locations of the drainage structures apparent in the field. For the purposes of this study, it is assumed that any culvert with less than 2 feet of cover may be susceptible to damage during construction activities. The inventory table in Exhibit 6 highlights any locations with concerns in regards to insufficient cover, roadway width, and/or structure condition. These locations will be further analyzed during final engineering to determine if improvements are necessary prior to construction of the turbines.


C. Projected Physical Impacts & Proposed Mitigation

Roadway Type Impact – The existing surface conditions appear adequate to accommodate construction activities. The amount, type, and weight of both general construction traffic (gravel/concrete trucks, semi-trailers, etc.) and OS/OW vehicles, however, will likely damage the surface condition of the roadways in the project area. Mitigation – After completion of construction activities, the applicant will be required to repair the roadway surface to preconstruction conditions. A roadway condition video survey can be completed prior to construction to document the existing surface conditions. The applicant will need to repair the roadways using the appropriate treatment (oil & stone, hot or cold mix asphalt) to re-establish the preconstruction surface conditions. Roadway Width Impact – The existing roadway widths for the on-site traveled roads at the time of this report are adequate to accommodate the construction activities. Mitigation – None required. Intersections Impact – All intersections used by OS/OW vehicles will need radius improvements to accommodate construction activities (Exhibit 8). The intersection impacts include:

• Clearing and grubbing of existing vegetation • Relocating traffic signs, fences, and utility poles • Grading of the terrain to accommodate the improvement • Extension of existing drainage pipes and/or culverts • Re-establishment of ditch line (if necessary) • Construction of a suitable roadway surface to carry the construction traffic (based on

the existing geotechnical conditions) Mitigation – Each public roadway intersection will require a detailed engineering plan to quantify and provide a solution for the impacts listed above. The intersection radii will generally need to be improved to 150-feet. This study provided a preliminary engineering solution that can be completed, based on observed field conditions, to accommodate the OS/OW vehicles. See section III.A.4 and Exhibits 3, 4 and 8 for the preliminary recommendations. After construction of the project, the applicant should coordinate with the


NYSDOT and local highway departments to determine if the radii improvements will need to be returned to preconstruction conditions or left for future use by the Town. Weight Impact – Ham, Kenyon, Wight, Gorton, and Marble Roads are all posted for 10 Ton weight limits. A majority of the construction equipment will weigh more than 10 Tons and will need to use these roadways. Mitigation – The Town of Alabama indicated the 10 Ton posting is to prevent local gravel trucks from using the roadways. The Town did not indicate that any of the structures along the roadway were deficient for legal loads. The applicant will need approval from the Town of Alabama to use these roadways during construction. Impact – Eight drainage pipes/culverts have been identified as having less than 2-feet of cover or are in poor condition as shown in Exhibit 6. These culverts may be crushed or deformed by construction activities causing construction delays, delays to local motorists, and damage to construction vehicles and/or turbine components. Mitigation – Each pipe should be evaluated during final design of the roadway improvements to determine if improvements will be necessary to accommodate the construction activities. Improvements may include:

• Additional cover over pipes, • Reinforce pipes with bracing, • Use bridge jumpers to clear pipes, • Use bridge plates to distribute vehicle loading, • Replace pipes prior to construction, • Replace pipes during or after construction if damaged by construction activities.

Impact – The bridges in the project area are safe for legal loads and do not have posted weight restrictions. They have sufficient horizontal and vertical clearances to accommodate the OS/OW trucks, except for BIN 1030080 over I-90 where a lane closure will be required. There appears to be no detrimental impacts to the bridges within the project area. Mitigation – Based on the bridge study findings, BIN 1030080 over I-90 will not require any mitigation for weight concerns. However, BIN 1030090 and BIN 1030100 may require that the OS/OW vehicles travel over the center of the bridges at 10 mph. All three bridges will require that a lane be closed during transport. The escort vehicles traveling with the OS/OW vehicles should ensure safe passage over the bridges. The NYSDOT and the NYS Thruway Authority Structures Divisions will still review and approve all bridges proposed to be used during the Special Hauling Permit application process.


Vertical Curvature Impact – Locations exist along the project roadways where the vertical curvature of the roadway may not accommodate the OS/OW vehicles. Ledge, Maple Street, Wight, Gorton, and Kenyon Roads have locations, identified through visual observation, which may not accommodate OS/OW vehicles. Exhibit 8 presents the locations of the vertical curves that were identified through visual observation which may not accommodate OS/OW vehicles. Mitigation – Each vertical curve will be analyzed during final design of the roadway improvements (using topographic survey information) to determine if OS/OW vehicles will be able to traverse the existing roadways. If the vehicles cannot traverse the vertical curves in question, the following mitigation measures may be used to accommodate construction traffic:

• Re-route OS/OW vehicles to roadway that can accommodate construction traffic, • Modification of access road locations to avoid vertical curves, • Reconstruct vertical curves to accommodate OS/OW vehicles which may involve

additional grading and drainage improvements to reestablish the roadside features. Height Impact – Overhead wires that do not meet OS/OW vehicle clearances and the traffic signal at Route 77 / NYS Thruway entrance will need to be raised to accommodate OS/OW vehicles. Mitigation – The applicant will be required to coordinate with National Grid, telephone and cable companies, and NYSDOT to obtain the necessary permits to raise wires and the traffic signal. The utility companies and the NYSDOT will assist in the final solution at each location once final engineering plans and permit applications have been submitted. Solutions include permanently raising wires/signal, temporarily raising wires/signal for the duration of construction, or temporarily raising each wires/signal as a vehicle passes under.

IV. Conclusion

This study has identified the transportation related impacts that may be experienced during construction of the Alabama Ledge Wind Farm. Mitigation measures have been provided to accommodate the construction traffic and minimize impacts to the traveling public. Final engineering design will be required prior to construction activities to ensure all transportation related impacts have been addressed to the satisfaction of the NYSDOT and the local highway departments.

AAPPPPEENNDDII XX AA

Exhibit 1: Project Location Map

Street Atlas USA® 2004

© 2003 DeLorme. Street Atlas USA® 2004.www.delorme.com

TN

MN (11.0°W)0 2 4 6 8 10

0 3 6 9 12 15

mikm

Scale 1 : 400,000

1" = 6.31 mi Data Zoom 9-0

Exhibit 2: Project Map

#*

!.

!.

!. !.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!.!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!.!.

!.!.

!.

!.

!. !.!.!.!.

!.!.

!.

!. !.!.

!.!. !.!.!. !.

!.

!.!.!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

I-90

Ham

Go r

ton

Judge (SR 63)

Wi g

h t

Ledge (CR 26)

Ken

yon

Phelps

Cro

sby

Alle

gha n

y ( S

R 7

7 )

Mac

ombe

r

Al le

g ha n

y

Ma c

ombe

r (C

R 3

0 )

Indian Falls

Galloway

Kno

wle

svill

e

Al le

g ha n

y (S

R 7

7 )

Marble

Town Line

Mor

gan

Ma p

le S

tre e

t (C

R 2

3)

Gabbey

Bloomingdale

Meiser

Mcalpine

Ack

erso

n

Towne

Patterson

Lewiston

Judge

Pem

brok

eM

a ple

Str

e et

Church

Sumner

Gor

ton

Ham

Meiser


�

0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 20.25

Miles

Project Map

Legend

!. Turbines

#* Met Towers

Construction Travel Routes

Access Roads

Step-Up Substation

Interconnection Substation

Project Area

Exhibit 3: Truck Data and Turning Movement Diagrams

Exhibit 4: Specific Intersection Improvements

Existing 4’ Shoulder

Ex

istin

g 4

’ S

ho

uld

er

Critical Vehicle Path Limit

Temporary Widening

- Remove & Reset Traffic Signs

- Clearing & Grubbing

- Fill As Required with Compacted Gravel

6’ Wide Temporary Gravel Shoulder

180’u

92

’u

62’u

State R

ou

te 7

7

State Route 77 / Ledge Road

Ledge Road (CR 26)

N

12’ Lane Receiving

12’ L

ane A

pproaching

Existing 4’ ShoulderE

xistin

g 4

’ S

ho

uld

er


Temporary Widening




State Route 63

State Route 77 / State Route 63

N

53’u

46’uS

tate R

ou

te 7

7

Tu

rn

in

g L

an

e

Tu

rn

in

g L

an

e12’ L

ane A

pproaching

Turning Lane


Ex

istin

g 4

’ S

ho

uld

er


Temporary Widening






190’u

95’u

66’u

State Route 63 / Kenyon Road

Kenyon Road

State R

ou

te 6

3

N


12’ L

ane A

pproaching

Ex

istin

g 4

’ S

ho

uld

er


Temporary Widening






190’u

95’u

66’u

State Route 63 / Wight Road

State R

ou

te 6

3

N

Wight Road

12’ L

ane A

pproaching


Existing 4

’ S

houlder




- Fill As Required with Compacted GravelS

tate R

oute 63

Gorton Road


11

4’u

120’u

Gorton Road

Temporary Widening (Typ.)

12’ L

ane A

pproaching

10.5’ Lane Receiving


State Route 63 / Gorton Road

N

Critical Vehicle

Path Limit (Typ.)


Ex

istin

g 4

’ S

ho

uld

er




93’u

62’u

Maple Street (CR 23)

Ledge R

oad (

CR

26)

Maple Street (CR 23)

Critical Vehicle Path Limit (Typ.)

Temporary Widening (Typ.)


120u

94

u67u


12’ L

ane A

pproaching

6’ W

ide T

em

porary

Gravel S

houlder

N

Ledge Road / Maple Street


Ex

istin

g 4

’ S

ho

uld

er


Temporary Widening


Maple S

treet (

CR

23)

180’u

92

’u

62’u




N

Maple Street / Town Line Road

Town Line Road

12’ L

ane A

pproaching


Exhibit 5: Generic Intersection Improvements


Temporary Widening





xistin

g 4

’ S

ho

uld

er

10

.5’ L

an

e A

pp

ro

ach

in

g10.5’ Lane Receiving

Intersection Improvements

No Lane Crossing (Right-Hand Turn)

Corner Widening Only

SCENARIO 1:

123’u

120’u


Temporary Widening





Ex

istin

g 4

’ S

ho

uld

er

10

.5’ L

an

e A

pp

ro

ach

in

g



Lane Crossing (Receiving)

Corner / Receiving Widening


SCENARIO 2:

200’u

67’u

10

0’u


Temporary Widening





Ex

istin

g 4

’ S

ho

uld

er

10

.5’ L

an

e A

pp

ro

ach

in

g



Lane Crossing (Approaching)

Corner / Approaching Widening

6’ W

id

e T

em

po

rary

Grav

el S

ho

uld

er

SCENARIO 3:

96’u

18

0’u


Temporary Widening





xistin

g 4

’ S

ho

uld

er

10

.5’ L

an

e A

pp

ro

ach

in

g10.5’ Lane Receiving

6’ W

id

e T

em

po

rary

Grav

el S

ho

uld

er


SCENARIO 4:


Lane Crossing (Approaching & Receiving)

Corner / Approaching / Receiving

160’u

46’u45’u

160’u


xistin

g 4

’ S

ho

uld

er



Temporary Widening




12’ L

ane A

pproaching




SCENARIO 5:

113’u113’u


Ex

istin

g 4

’ S

ho

uld

er



Temporary Widening








12’ L

ane A

pproaching

SCENARIO 6:

180’u

92

’u

62’u


Ex

istin

g 4

’ S

ho

uld

er



Temporary Widening







6’ W

id

e T

em

po

rary

Grav

el S

ho

uld

er

12’ L

ane A

pproaching

SCENARIO 7:

93’u

160’u

62’u


Ex

istin

g 4

’ S

ho

uld

er



Temporary Widening




6’ W

id

e T

em

po

rary

Grav

el S

ho

uld

er

12’ L

ane A

pproaching


SCENARIO 8:




150’u1

50

’u

93’u

38’u

12’ L

ane A

pproaching

Ex

istin

g 4

’ S

ho

uld

er



Temporary Widening








SCENARIO 9:

11

4’u

120’u

12’ L

ane A

pproaching

Ex

istin

g 4

’ S

ho

uld

er



Temporary Widening









SCENARIO 10:

190’u

95’u

66’u

12’ L

ane A

pproaching

Ex

istin

g 4

’ S

ho

uld

er



Temporary Widening








6’ W

id

e T

em

po

rary

Grav

el S

ho

uld

er

SCENARIO 11:

17

0’u

63’u

97’u

12’ L

ane A

pproaching

Ex

istin

g 4

’ S

ho

uld

er



Temporary Widening





6’ W

id

e T

em

po

rary

Grav

el S

ho

uld

er 6’ Wide Temporary Gravel Shoulder

SCENARIO 12:




160’u1

50

’u

41

’u

42’u

12’ Lane Approaching


Ex

istin

g 4

’ S

ho

uld

er


SCENARIO 13:


New Gravel Road

Through Field

10

.5’ L

an

e R

eceiv

in

g



Temporary Lane35’ u

73u

68uUtility Poles (TYP.)

Exhibit 6: Drainage Structure Inventory

Alabama Ledge Wind Farm Drainage Structure Inventory

ID TYPESIZE(in.)

COVER(ft.)

LENGTH(ft.)

CULVERT CONDITION

ROADWAY WIDTH (ft.)

ROAD TYPESHOULDER WIDTH (ft.)

SHOULDER TYPE

CLEAR ZONE (ft.)

ROAD NAME NOTES

1 Elliptical Conc. 48 x 24 1.6 45 Fair 24 Asphalt 5 Asphalt 50 SR 77 HEADWALLS POOR cover2 Bridge Fair Asphalt 5 Asphalt 38 SR 77 BIN 10301003 Twin CMP 24 4.0 54 Fair 24 Asphalt 5 Asphalt 54 SR 774 CMP 36 3.0 50 Fair 24 Asphalt 5 Asphalt 50 SR 775 Elliptical CMP 36 2.0 50 Fair 24 Asphalt 5 Asphalt 54 SR 776 Twin CMP 24 2.0 53 Fair 24 Asphalt 5 Asphalt 55 SR 777 Conc. 30 2.0 53 Good 24 Asphalt 6 Asphalt 54 SR 778 Elliptical CMP 36 2.0 53 Good 24 Asphalt 6 Asphalt 54 SR 779 CMP 12 2.0 50 Fair 24 Asphalt 5 Asphalt 50 SR 7710 Elliptical Conc. 48 2.0 56 Good 24 Asphalt 5 Asphalt 54 SR 7711 Conc. 24 2.0 55 Fair 24 Asphalt 4 Asphalt 56 SR 7712 Conc.-CMP 30 2.0 70 Fair 24 Asphalt 5 Asphalt 70 SR 7713 CMP 12 2.0 70 Fair 24 Asphalt 5 Asphalt 103 SR 7714 Conc. Box 30 x 30 2.0 50 Good 24 Asphalt 6 Asphalt 66 SR 7715 Conc. 24 2.0 55 Fair 24 Asphalt 6 Asphalt 60 SR 7716 CMP 36 2.0 50 Fair 21 Oil & Stone 2 Gravel 50 Ham17 SICPP 12 2.0 50 Good 21 Oil & Stone 2 Gravel 50 Ham18 Steel 12 2.0 45 Fair 21 Oil & Stone 2 Gravel 45 Ham19 SICPP 12 2.0 45 Good 21 Oil & Stone 2 Gravel 45 Ham20 SICPP 12 2.0 62 Good 21 Oil & Stone 2 Gravel 61 Ham21 SICPP 24 2.0 35 Good 21 Oil & Stone 2 Gravel 38 Ham22 SICPP 12 2.0 49 Good 21 Oil & Stone 2 Gravel 48 Ham23 SICPP 12 0.5 35 Good 21 Oil & Stone 2 Gravel 30 Ham cover24 SICPP 12 2.0 42 Good 21 Oil & Stone 2 Gravel 41 Ham25 SICPP 12 2.0 42 Good 21 Oil & Stone 2 Gravel 41 Ham26 SICPP 12 2.0 38 Good 21 Oil & Stone 2 Gravel 38 Ham27 Elliptical CMP 12' x 10' 3.0 45 Good 21 Oil & Stone 2 Gravel 32 Ham28 CMP 48 2.0 43 Fair 21 Asphalt 2 Gravel 42 Gorton29 SICPP 18 2.0 42 Good 21 Asphalt 2 Gravel 42 Gorton30 Steel 18 2.0 48 Fair 24 Asphalt 4 Asphalt 96 SR 6331 CMP 18 2.0 54 Poor 24 Asphalt 4 Asphalt 91 SR 63 condition32 CMP 36 2.0 55 Poor 24 Asphalt 4 Asphalt 55 SR 63 condition33 CMP 24 2.0 55 Fair 24 Asphalt 4 Asphalt 55 SR 6334 Steel 18 2.0 55 Fair 24 Asphalt 4 Asphalt 55 SR 6335 Elliptical CMP 60 x 36 3.0 45 Good 24 Asphalt 4 Asphalt 39 SR 6336 CMP 36 2.0 45 Fair 22 Oil & Stone 2 Gravel 45 Kenyon37 CMP 30 2.0 45 Fair 22 Oil & Stone 2 Gravel 45 Kenyon38 Twin Elliptical CMP 48 x 24 3.0 46 Fair 22 Oil & Stone 4 Gravel 46 Kenyon39 CMP 18 2.0 50 Fair 24 Asphalt 4 Gravel 48 Ledge40 SICPP 24 2.0 48 Good 24 Asphalt 4 Gravel 45 Ledge41 CMP 24 2.0 43 Fair 21 Oil & Stone 4 Gravel 42 Marble42 Steel 16 2.0 46 Poor 21 Oil & Stone 4 Gravel 46 Marble condition43 Unknown 22 Oil & Stone 2 Gravel 55 Wight Old RR line filled in44 SICPP 24 2.0 48 Fair 22 Oil & Stone 2 Gravel 48 Wight45 SICPP 24 2.0 48 Fair 22 Oil & Stone 2 Gravel 48 Wight46 Conc. 30 2.0 46 Good 22 Oil & Stone 2 Gravel 46 Wight47 Steel 32 3.0 46 Fair 22 Oil & Stone 2 Gravel 46 Wight48 CMP 24 2.0 45 Good 22 Oil & Stone 2 Gravel 45 Wight49 SICPP 12 2.0 46 Good 24 Asphalt 4 Gravel 46 Ledge50 CMP 24 2.0 46 Good 22 Oil & Stone 2 Gravel 45 Gorton51 CMP 16 2.0 50 Fair 21 Oil & Stone 2 Gravel 50 Gorton cover52 CMP 48 3.0 Good 22 Oil & Stone 2 Gravel 45 Gorton53 SICPP 24 2.0 46 Good 22 Oil & Stone 2 Gravel 46 Gorton54 CMP 12 2.0 41 Fair 21 Oil & Stone 2 Gravel 42 Gorton55 CMP 12 2.0 50 Fair 24 Asphalt 4 Gravel 48 Ledge56 CMP 24 2.0 45 Fair 24 Asphalt 4 Gravel 48 Ledge57 CMP 12 2.0 50 Fair 24 Asphalt 4 Gravel 49 Ledge58 CMP 24 2.0 60 Fair 24 Asphalt 4 Gravel 58 Maple59 CMP 24 2.0 50 Poor 24 Asphalt 2 Gravel 50 Townline condition

CONCERN

Alabama Ledge Wind Farm Drainage Structure Inventory

ID TYPESIZE(in.)

COVER(ft.)

LENGTH(ft.)

CULVERT CONDITION

ROADWAY WIDTH (ft.)

ROAD TYPESHOULDER WIDTH (ft.)

SHOULDER TYPE

CLEAR ZONE (ft.)

ROAD NAME NOTES CONCERN

60 CMP 12 2.0 50 Fair 24 Asphalt 2 Gravel 48 Townline61 CMP 24 3.0 50 Fair 24 Asphalt 2 Gravel 50 Townline62 CMP 12 2.0 50 Fair 24 Asphalt 2 Gravel 50 Townline63 CMP 12 2.0 45 Poor 22 Asphalt 2 Gravel 45 Macomber condition64 CMP 36 3.0 45 Good 22 Asphalt 2 Gravel 45 Macomber65 CMP 36 3.0 45 Good 22 Asphalt 2 Gravel 45 Macomber66 Elliptical CMP 48 x 30 2.0 45 Fair 22 Asphalt 2 Gravel 45 Macomber67 CMP 24 2.0 47 Fair 22 Asphalt 2 Gravel 48 Macomber68 CMP 24 2.0 45 Fair 22 Asphalt 2 Gravel 45 Macomber69 CMP 12 2.0 45 Fair 22 Asphalt 2 Gravel 46 Macomber70 CMP 24 2.0 48 Fair 22 Asphalt 2 Gravel 45 Macomber71 CMP 12 2.0 44 Fair 22 Asphalt 2 Gravel 36 Macomber72 Conc. 24 4.0 46 Fair 21 Asphalt 2 Gravel 46 Maple73 Bridge SR 77 BIN 103009074 Bridge SR 77 BIN 103008075 Bridge I-90 BIN 551687976 CMP 12 2.0 55 Fair 22 Asphalt Wight77 CMP 18 2 - 3 35 Fair 24 Asphalt Ledge

Exhibit 7: Road Width

#*

$+

�)

$+

$+

$+$+

$+$+

$+$+

$+

$+

$+

$+

$+

!(!(

!(

!( !( !(!( !( !( !(!(!(

!(

!(

$+$+$+$+$+$+

#*

#*

#*

$+$+

!( !(

$+

#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*

$+

#*

!(

#*

#*

!(

$+$+ $+

$+

#*#*

#*#*#*

#*#*

!(

$+$+ $+#*

#*

�)

�)

�)

#*

$+

!.

!.

!. !.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!.!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!.!.

!.!.

!.

!.

!. !.!.!.!.

!.!.

!.

!. !.!.

!.!. !.!.!. !.

!.

!.!.!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

I-90

Ham

Go r

ton

Judge (SR 63)

Wi g

h t

Ledge (CR 26)

Ken

yon

Phelps

Cro

sby

Alle

gha n

y ( S

R 7

7 )

Mac

ombe

r

Al le

g ha n

y

Ma c

ombe

r (C

R 3

0 )

Indian Falls

Galloway

Kno

wle

svill

e

Al le

g ha n

y (S

R 7

7 )

Marble

Town Line

Mor

gan

Ma p

le S

tre e

t (C

R 2

3)

Gabbey

Bloomingdale

Meiser

Mcalpine

Ack

erso

n

Towne

Patterson

Lewiston

Judge

Pem

brok

eM

a ple

Str

e et

Church

Sumner

Gor

ton

Ham

Meiser

9

87

6

5

4

3

2

1

77

76

74

75

73

64

63626160

72

7170

6968676665

58

575655

54

53

52

51

50

49

48

47

46

45

44

43

59

42

41

4039

38

37

36

35 34 33 32 31 30

29

28

272625242322212019

18

1716

15

14

13

12

11

10


�

0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 20.25

Miles

Legend

!. Turbines

#* Met Towers


Access Roads

Step-Up Substation

Interconnection SubstationRoad Width (excluding shoulders)

�) Bridge

!( 21'

#* 22'

$+ 24'

Road Width at Culvert

Exhibit 8: Construction Traffic Routes & Roadway Improvement Locations

#*

!.

!.

!. !.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!.!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!.!.

!.!.

!.

!.

!. !.!.!.!.

!.!.

!.

!. !.!.

!.!. !.!.!. !.

!.

!.!.!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

I-90

Ham

Go r

ton

Judge (SR 63)

Wi g

h t

Ledge (CR 26)

Ken

yon

Phelps

Cro

sby

Alle

gha n

y ( S

R 7

7 )

Mac

ombe

r

Al le

g ha n

y

Ma c

ombe

r (C

R 3

0 )

Indian Falls

Galloway

Kno

wle

svill

e

Al le

g ha n

y (S

R 7

7 )

Marble

Town Line

Mor

gan

Ma p

le S

tre e

t (C

R 2

3)

Gabbey

Bloomingdale

Meiser

Mcalpine

Ack

erso

n

Towne

Patterson

Lewiston

Judge

Pem

brok

eM

a ple

Str

e et

Church

Sumner

Gor

ton

Ham

Meiser


�

0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 20.25

Miles

Legend

!. Turbines

#* Met Towers


Access Roads

Step-Up Substation



Roadway Improvements

Construction Traffic Routes & Roadway Improvement Locations

Exhibit 9: Overhead Wire

#*

!.

!.

!. !.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!.!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!.!.

!.!.

!.

!.

!. !.!.!.!.

!.!.

!.

!. !.!.

!.!. !.!.!. !.

!.

!.!.!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

I-90

Ham

Go r

ton

Judge (SR 63)

Wi g

h t

Ledge (CR 26)

Ken

yon

Phelps

Cro

sby

Alle

gha n

y ( S

R 7

7 )

Mac

ombe

r

Al le

g ha n

y

Ma c

ombe

r (C

R 3

0 )

Indian Falls

Galloway

Kno

wle

svill

e

Al le

g ha n

y (S

R 7

7 )

Marble

Town Line

Mor

gan

Ma p

le S

tre e

t (C

R 2

3)

Gabbey

Bloomingdale

Meiser

Mcalpine

Ack

erso

n

Towne

Patterson

Lewiston

Judge

Pem

brok

eM

a ple

Str

e et

Church

Sumner

Gor

ton

Ham

Meiser


�

0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 20.25

Miles

Legend

!. Turbines

#* Met Towers

Overhead Wire

Access Roads

Step-Up Substation


Areas with Overhead Wire Clearance < 16'On Construction Travel Routes

Off Construction Travel Routes

Overhead Wire

Exhibit 10: Drainage Structure Locations

#*

XY

�)

�)

#*#*

#*#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*#* #* #*#* #* #*#*

�)

#*

#*

#*#*#*#*#*�)

#*

#*

�)

#*#*

#*#*

#*

#*#*

#*

�)

#*

#*

#*

#*

�)

#*

#*

#*#*#*

#*

�)#*

#*#*#*

#*#*

�)

#*�) #*#*

�)

XY

XY

XY

#*

�)

!.

!.

!. !.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!.!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!.!.

!.!.

!.

!.

!. !.!.!.!.

!.!.

!.

!. !.!.

!.!. !.!.!. !.

!.

!.!.!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

I-90

Ham

Go r

ton

Judge (SR 63)

Wi g

h t

Ledge (CR 26)

Ken

yon

Phelps

Cro

sby

Alle

gha n

y ( S

R 7

7 )

Mac

ombe

r

Al le

g ha n

y

Ma c

ombe

r (C

R 3

0 )

Indian Falls

Galloway

Kno

wle

svill

e

Al le

g ha n

y (S

R 7

7 )

Marble

Town Line

Mor

gan

Ma p

le S

tre e

t (C

R 2

3)

Gabbey

Bloomingdale

Meiser

Mcalpine

Ack

erso

n

Towne

Patterson

Lewiston

Judge

Pem

brok

eM

a ple

Str

e et

Church

Sumner

Gor

ton

Ham

Meiser

9

87

65

4

3

2

1

77

76

74

75

73

64

63626160

72

7170

6968676665

58

575655

54

53

52

51

50

49

48

47

46

45

44

43

59

42

41

4039

38

37

36

35 34 33 32 31 30

29

28

272625242322212019

18

1716

15

14

13

12

11

10


�

0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 20.25

Miles

Legend

!. Turbines

#* Met Towers


Access Roads

Step-Up Substation


Culvert Cover, Condition

XY Bridge

< 2', Poor

< 2', Fair

< 2', Good

#* 2', Poor

#* 2', Fair

#* 2', Good

�) > 2', Poor

�) > 2', Fair

�) > 2', Good

Culvert Minimum Cover & Condition

#*

GF

�)

%,

!(

XY%,

$+XY

!(

GF

$+

!(

�)

$+

!(

[�

#*

[� [� [�[� [� [� [�[� XY

!(

[�

#*!(!(!(#*XY

!(

!(

%L

!([�

!( #*

!(

[�[�$+

#*

!(

[�

!(

!(

!(

[�

!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(XY

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

$+

!( !( !(

!(

!(

�)

�)

�)

!.

!.

!. !.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!.!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!.!.

!.!.

!.

!.

!. !.!.!.!.

!.!.

!.

!. !.!.

!.!. !.!.!. !.

!.

!.!.!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

I-90

Ham

Go r

ton

Judge (SR 63)

Wi g

h t

Ledge (CR 26)

Ken

yon

Phelps

Cro

sby

Alle

gha n

y ( S

R 7

7 )

Mac

ombe

r

Al le

g ha n

y

Ma c

ombe

r (C

R 3

0 )

Indian Falls

Galloway

Kno

wle

svill

e

Al le

g ha n

y (S

R 7

7 )

Marble

Town Line

Mor

gan

Ma p

le S

tre e

t (C

R 2

3)

Gabbey

Bloomingdale

Meiser

Mcalpine

Ack

erso

n

Towne

Patterson

Lewiston

Judge

Pem

brok

eM

a ple

Str

e et

Church

Sumner

Gor

ton

Ham

Meiser

9

87

65

4

3

2

1

77

76

74

75

73

64

63626160

72

7170

696867

6665

58

575655

54

53

52

51

50

49

48

47

46

45

44

43

59

42

41

40 39

38

37

36

35 34 33 32 31 30

29

28

27262524232221201918

1716

15

14

13

12

11

10


�

0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 20.25

Miles

Legend

!. Turbines

#* Met Towers


Access Roads

Step-Up Substation


Culvert Type, Diameter�) Bridge!( CMP, 12" - 18"!( CMP, 24" - 36"!( CMP, 48" +�) Conc Box, 30" x 30"

Conc - CMP, 30"$+ Conc, 24" - 30"

XY Elliptical CMP, 12' x 10'

XY Elliptical CMP, 30"x48" - 36"x60"

GF Elliptical Conc, 48

GF Elliptical Conc, 48 x 24

[� SICPP, 12" - 18"

[� SICPP, 24"#* Steel, 12" - 18"#* Steel, 32" +

%, Twin CMP, 24"

%L Twin Elliptical CMP, 48"x 24"

Unknown Type

Culvert Type & Diameter

AAPPPPEENNDDII XX BB

Alabama Ledge Wind Farm Genesee County, New YorkPreliminary Transportation Study Project Photo Log

Project # 065017 Page 1 of 13

State Route 77 (Alleghany Rd)

I90 Exit 48A Tollbooth; Facing West I90 Exit 48A Tollbooth; Facing East

Intersection w/ I90 off-ramp; Facing East Intersection w/ I90 off-ramp; Facing North




SR77 Tonawanda Creek Bridge; Facing North Intersection w/ Ledge Rd; Facing North

Intersection w/ Ledge Rd; Facing South Intersection w/ Marble Rd; Facing East




Intersection w/ Marble Rd; Facing West SR77 North of Marble Rd; Southbound

Intersection w/ Judge Rd; Facing North Intersection w/ Judge Rd; Facing West



County Route 26 (Ledge Rd)

Intersection w/ Kenyon Ave; Facing East Intersection w/ Wight Rd; Facing West

Intersection w/ Gorton Rd; Facing East Intersection w/ Gorton Rd; Facing North



County Route 26 (Ledge Rd)

CR26 West of Gorton Rd; Westbound Intersection w/ Maple Street Rd; Facing East

Intersection w/ Maple Street Rd; Facing North CR26 East of Gorton Rd; Eastbound



Town Line Road

Intersection w/ Maple Street Rd; Facing West Intersection w/ Maple Street Rd; Facing North

Intersection w/ Macomber Rd; Facing West Intersection w/ Macomber Rd; Facing South



County Road 23 (Maple Rd)

County Road 30 (Macomber Rd)

CR23 South of Townline Rd; Northbound CR23 South of Townline Rd; Southbound

CR30 North of Townline Rd; Northbound CR30 North of Townline Rd; Southbound



State Route 63 (Judge Rd)

Intersection w/ Kenyon Rd; Facing East Intersection w/ Kenyon Rd; Facing North

Intersection w/ Wight Rd; Facing East Intersection w/ Wight Rd; Facing North



State Route 63 (Judge Rd)

SR63 West of Kenyon Rd; Eastbound SR63 East of Wight Rd; Westbound

Intersection w/ Gorton Rd; Facing South Intersection w/ Gorton Rd; Facing West



Gorton Road

Gorton Rd South of Judge Rd; Northbound Gorton Rd North of Judge Rd; Southbound

Intersection w/ Ham Rd; Facing North Intersection w/ Ham Rd; Facing South



Ham Road

Wight Road

Ham Rd West of Gorton Rd; Eastbound Ham Rd West of Gorton Rd; Westbound

Wight Rd South of SR63; Northbound Wight Rd North of CR26; Southbound



Kenyon Road

Intersection w/ Marble Rd; Facing East Intersection w/ Marble Rd; Facing North

Kenyon Rd North of Marble Rd; Southbound Kenyon Rd North of Marble Rd; Northbound



Marble Road

Marble Rd West of Kenyon Rd; Westbound Marble Rd West of Kenyon Rd; Eastbound

AAPPPPEENNDDII XX CC

AAPPPPEENNDDII XX DD

LoneStar

22,000 each axle

19,333 each axle

21,000 each axle

15’-9”

14,700 each axle

4’-6”

1/07 Revised by Fisher Associates

Documents

A-O Wind Power Transportation Study Text · Alabama Ledge Wind Farm Transportation Study Page 1 of 16 FA 065017 September 2007 I. Introduction Fisher Associates, P.E., L.S., P.C