Onondaga County Lakeview Amphitheater Conceptual Design Report June 2014

Onondaga County Lakeview Amphitheater TC-1 Conceptual Design Report
ONONDAGA COUNTY
LAKEVIEW AMPHITHEATER
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background ...................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Project Objectives ............................................................................................................ 1-2
1.3 Project Location Overview ............................................................................................... 1-3
1.4 Reviews, Approvals, and Environmental Considerations ................................................. 1-7
1.4.1 State Environmental Quality Review Act ............................................................. 1-7
1.4.2 Agency and Public Review .................................................................................. 1-9
1.4.3 Site Environmental Considerations ....................................................................1-10

2.0 AMPHITHEATER FACILITY DESIGN
2.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1.1 Design Considerations ........................................................................................ 2-2
2.1.2 Main Event Complex Overview ........................................................................... 2-3
2.2 Type of Performances ..................................................................................................... 2-5
2.2.1 Main Event Complex ........................................................................................... 2-5
2.2.2 Community Event Amphitheater.......................................................................... 2-7
2.3 Facility Sizing/Capacity .................................................................................................... 2-7
2.4 General Siting Considerations ......................................................................................... 2-9
2.5 Covered Seating Areas ...................................................................................................2-10
2.5.1 Description .........................................................................................................2-10
2.5.2 Sightlines ...........................................................................................................2-10
2.6 Lawn/Uncovered Seating Areas ......................................................................................2-11
2.6.1 General Admission .............................................................................................2-11
2.6.2 VIP Pavilions ......................................................................................................2-11
2.7 Event Support Facilities Required ...................................................................................2-11
2.7.1 Restrooms ..........................................................................................................2-12
2.7.2 Food and Beverage............................................................................................2-12
2.7.3 Merchandising ....................................................................................................2-12
2.7.4 First Aid ..............................................................................................................2-12
2.8 Performance Technology Equipment and Requirements Overview ................................2-13
2.8.1 General ..............................................................................................................2-13
2.8.2 Architectural Elements .......................................................................................2-13
2.8.2.1 Stage Floors ..........................................................................................2-14

2.8.2.2 Stage Galleries and Catwalks ...............................................................2-14
2.8.2.3 Grids (Over Stage and Forestage) ........................................................2-15
2.8.2.4 Acoustical Doors ...................................................................................2-15
2.8.2.5 Weather Seal Doors ..............................................................................2-15
2.8.2.6 Cable Management System ..................................................................2-15
2.8.3 Theatrical Equipment .........................................................................................2-16
2.9 Noise Generation and Acoustics Analysis Overview .......................................................2-16
2.9.1 General ..............................................................................................................2-16
2.9.2 Noise Impact Analysis ........................................................................................2-17
2.9.3 Noise Mitigation .................................................................................................2-19
2.10 Event Operational Considerations...................................................................................2-20
2.11 Space Programming Analysis .........................................................................................2-23
2.12 Conceptual Building Development Plans ........................................................................2-25
2.12.1 Design Concepts and Materials of Construction ................................................2-25
2.12.2 Amphitheater Building ........................................................................................2-26
2.12.3 Box Office Building .............................................................................................2-26
2.12.4 General Services Building ..................................................................................2-26
2.12.5 Miscellaneous Support Buildings ......................................................................2-27

3.0 FACILITY SITING AND ALTERNATIVES REVIEW
3.1 General ............................................................................................................................ 3-1
3.2 Alternative Project Location ............................................................................................. 3-1
3.3 Lakeview Point Siting Alternatives ................................................................................... 3-3

4.0 CONCEPTUAL SITE DEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN
4.1 Overview of Proposed Development Plan ........................................................................ 4-1
4.2 Amphitheater Building ...................................................................................................... 4-1
4.3 Community Amphitheater ................................................................................................. 4-2
4.4 Green Space and Community Areas ............................................................................... 4-2
4.5 General Service Building .................................................................................................. 4-3
4.6 Facility Gateway/Entry ..................................................................................................... 4-4
4.7 Concessions and Merchandising ..................................................................................... 4-4
4.8 Restrooms ........................................................................................................................ 4-5
4.9 Parking ............................................................................................................................. 4-5
4.10 Pedestrian Access ........................................................................................................... 4-5
4.11 On-Site Transportation Network ....................................................................................... 4-6
4.12 ADA Considerations ......................................................................................................... 4-6
4.13 Water Access and Amenities ........................................................................................... 4-6
4.14 Bike Path Reconfiguration ................................................................................................ 4-6
4.15 Site Security ..................................................................................................................... 4-7
4.16 Site Use During Non-Performance Periods ...................................................................... 4-7

5.0 SITE AND FACILITY ENGINEERING
5.1 Topography and Grading to Support Amphitheater and Lawn Area ................................. 5-1
5.2 Geotechnical .................................................................................................................... 5-2
5.2.1 Overview of Existing Conditions .............................................................................. 5-2

5.2.2 Historical and Supplemental Data Overview ........................................................... 5-3
5.2.3 Subsurface Soils Characteristics Summary ............................................................ 5-6
5.2.4 Preliminary Slope Stability Evaluation ..................................................................... 5-7
5.2.5 Preliminary Fill and Settlement Evaluation and Considerations .............................. 5-7
5.2.6 Preliminary Design Considerations ......................................................................... 5-7
5.2.6.1 Corrosion ............................................................................................... 5-7
5.2.6.2 Fill Areas and Other Open Areas ........................................................... 5-8
5.2.6.3 Foundations Heavily Loaded Structures ............................................. 5-8
5.2.6.4 Foundations Lightly Loaded Structures ............................................... 5-9
5.2.6.5 Roadways .............................................................................................. 5-9
5.2.6.6 Settlement between Pile Supported and Non-Pile Supported Items ...... 5-9
5.2.6.7 Flexible Connections for Utilities ............................................................ 5-9
5.2.7 Preliminary Construction Considerations ..............................................................5-10
5.2.8 Future Data Collection and Analyses ....................................................................5-10
5.3 Structural Considerations ..................................................................................................5-12
5.3.1 General ..................................................................................................................5-12
5.3.2 Amphitheater ..........................................................................................................5-12
5.3.3 Miscellaneous Support Buildings ...........................................................................5-14
5.4 Storm Water Management ................................................................................................5-15
5.5 Site Utilities .......................................................................................................................5-17
5.5.1 General ..................................................................................................................5-17
5.5.2 Water .....................................................................................................................5-17
5.5.3 Sewage ..................................................................................................................5-19
5.5.4 Electric ...................................................................................................................5-20
5.5.5 Data and Communications .....................................................................................5-20
5.5.6 Natural Gas ............................................................................................................5-21

6.0 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT
6.1 Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................... 6-1
6.1.1 Non-NYS Fair Conditions (Background).................................................................. 6-1
6.1.2 NYS Fair Conditions (Special NYSDOT Traffic Mgmt. Plan) ................................... 6-2
6.2 Traffic Analysis Overview (Proposed Event Traffic) ......................................................... 6-3
6.2.1 Key Design Assumptions ........................................................................................ 6-3
6.2.2 Traffic Data.............................................................................................................. 6-3
6.2.3 Traffic Alternatives Evaluated .................................................................................. 6-4
6.2.4 Traffic Analysis Conclusions ................................................................................... 6-5
6.3 Transportation Infrastructure Improvements .................................................................... 6-7
6.3.1 Short Term Improvements....................................................................................... 6-7
6.3.2 Long Term Improvements ....................................................................................... 6-7
6.4 Event Operational Considerations.................................................................................... 6-8
6.4.1 Manned Traffic Control ............................................................................................ 6-8
6.4.2 Supplemental Signage ............................................................................................ 6-8
6.4.3 Emergency Vehicle Access ..................................................................................... 6-8
6.4.4 Shuttle Buses .......................................................................................................... 6-8
6.4.5 ITS Operations ....................................................................................................... 6-9

7.0 SUSTAINABLE INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT
7.1 LEED Overview and Analysis........................................................................................... 7-1
7.2 Other Sustainable Design Initiatives ................................................................................ 7-1

8.0 PROJECT SCHEDULE AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ......................................................... 8-1

FIGURES
1-1: Regional Project Location
1-2: Project Location
1-3: Waste Bed Locations
1-4: Site Aerial Photo Looking North
1-5: Site Aerial Photo Looking North
1-6: Honeywell Waste Beds 1-8 Interim Remedial Measures
2-1: Sound Propagation Map
2-2: Sound Propagation Map Comparison
2-3: Amphitheater First Floor Plan
2-4 Amphitheater Second Floor Plan
2-5 Amphitheater Third Floor Plan
2-6 Amphitheater Building Section
2-7 Amphitheater Building Elevations
2-9 Amphitheater Isometric Views
2-11 Amphitheater Building Rendering
2-12 Box Office Building Floor Plan and Elevations
2-13 Concession and Restroom Building Plans and Elevations
2-14 Box Office Building Rendering
2-15 General Services Building-First Floor Plan
2-16 General Services Building-Second Floor Plan
3-1: 1991 Onondaga Lake Land Use Plan
3-2: Existing Conditions Plan
3-3: Alternate Siting
3-4: Maple Bay Site Layout
3-5: Cove Concept
3-6: Beacon Concept
3-7: Viewshed Analysis
3-8: Visual Simulation Reference Map
3-9: Beacon Visual #1
3-14: Cove Visual #1

4-1: Site Development Master Plan
4-2: Site Development Master Plan (Enlarged)
5-1: Conceptual Grading Plan
5-2: Site Cross Sections
5-3: Soil Boring Location Plan
5-4: Utility Services Location Plan
6-1: Project Location Map
6-2: Sold-Out Event-Local Arrival Distribution
6-3: Proposed Short-Term Traffic Mitigation Measures
6-4: Long-Term Improvements-Concept Plan

APPENDICES
Appendix APerformance Technology Systems Information
Appendix BAcoustical Analysis
Appendix CBuilding Space Programming
Appendix DVisual Impact Assessment
Appendix EPreliminary Geotechnical Assessment
Appendix FTraffic Impact Study
Appendix GLEED Checklist
Appendix HSewage Generation Estimates

Onondaga County Lakeview Amphitheater ES-1 Conceptual Design Report

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Background
Onondaga County (the County) is proposing to construct an outdoor events center (Lakeview
Amphitheater) on County-owned land on the western shore of Onondaga Lake, in the Town of Geddes (see
Figures 1-1 through 1-5). The Lakeview Amphitheater will be an outdoor event complex, which will include
an amphitheater with an estimated seating capacity of approximately 17,500 (both covered and lawn
seats), a nature area, vendor/festival area, a smaller outdoor community theater, recreational trails,
observation pier, and other amenities. Associated infrastructure will include access roads/driveways and
site utilities (power, water, sewer, data/communications and natural gas). The amphitheater project is a
component of a larger community revitalization initiative for the western shore of Onondaga Lake, the
Village of Solvay and Town of Geddes. The project is being funded through a combination of State and
County resources. Construction will occur in phases and is anticipated to begin in the late fall/winter of
2014 and conclude in the fall of 2015. The Lakeview Amphitheater will be owned by Onondaga County,
and the entire site is expected to remain in public ownership.

This Conceptual Design Report summarizes the work performed during the conceptual engineering phase
of the project. The scope of this phase of the project was to assess the general feasibility of construction of
a large scale outdoor entertainment venue on County owned property along the west shore of Onondaga
Lake; to provide further definition of the scope and characteristics of the project and to evaluate the project
site from an engineering perspective. This report will serve as the blue print for the Countys plans for
subsequent phases of the project.


Project Location

Environmental Compliance and Health Effects
The Lakeview Point site is located within one of the Onondaga Lake superfund subsites, known as Waste
Beds 1 through 8. In parallel with the conceptual engineering efforts, SEQR compliance efforts are ongoing
and a Draft Environmental Impact Statement has recently been completed for the project. It is anticipated
that the SEQRA process will be completed in the October/November, 2014.

With the planned future designated use of this area as a public park and entertainment venue, the health
and safety aspects of the site are an important issue. To address the planned designated use, Honeywell is
has prepared a Draft Feasibility Study (FS) for Operable Unit No. 1(OU1) to evaluate remedies for the site.
OU1 includes the soils and fill materials on Waste Beds 1 through 8. The FS proposes placement of a
vegetative cover system consisting of either vegetative enhancement or placement of a soil or structural fill
substrate capable of providing water holding capacity, rooting volume and growing conditions to support a
planted vegetative cover utilizing native species appropriate for each area of use. The placement and

thickness of the substrate could range from a minimal wood fiber mulch/compost/fertilizer layer to as much
as one foot of gravel or two feet of soil
In addition to the FS, the USEPA has completed a Draft Supplemental Human Health Risk Evaluation
(HHRE) as an addendum to the 2011 HHRA document reflecting current information on site conditions and
the intended use of the Waste Bed 5 and 6 areas for the amphitheater venue. The supplemental risk
evaluation concludes that the potential risks and hazards associated with the Amphitheater Attendee and
Amphitheater Maintenance Worker are expected to be within acceptable risk ranges and targets.
Amphitheater Facility Design
The Lakeview Amphitheater is both a public outdoor park and a combination of large and small performance spaces.
The whole of the amphitheater complex is designed with consideration for these several missions:
1. Serve as a public space for the benefit of the citizens of the Onondaga County
2. Contribute to the rebirth of Onondaga Lake and the revitalization of nearby communities
3. Raise the profile of the region surrounding the lake
4. Incorporate to the greatest extent possible the adjacent park amenities: bike path, trails, etc.
5. Complement, rather than compete with, the existing large, outdoor venues within a 300 mile
radius
6. Allow flexibility to provide low-cost public access to the seats nearest the stage (which are
typically top-dollar VIP areas) for certain events where desired
7. Scale in size to accommodate large audiences for high-profile artists and smaller audiences for
local presenters
8. Provide audience with optimum views of both the stage and the natural surroundings
9. Arrange the site to mitigate impact of low-setting sunlight on artist or audience
10. Develop a top-tier performance space which will be a must-play destination for high-profile artists

Primary components of the project as they relate to the performance venues include:
Main Event Complex: Large amphitheater with seating for up to 17,500 guests
Community Event Amphitheater: Small outdoor performance space for approximately 300 guests
General Service Building: Administration and security offices, food and beverage storage and
distribution, and facility and grounds support

Box Office and Entrance Gate: Portal to the public facilities
Security: Staffed shed for control of access to back-of-house during events

The Lakeview Amphitheater, in some respects, is a celebration of the rebirth of Onondaga Lake. The
initiatives that have improved the environment in and around the Lake allow the public to once again enjoy
the nature and scenery of the western shore. The design of the amphitheater is intended to be both organic
and iconic. Using contemporary building materials and dynamic forms, the buildings are inspired,
complement, and participate in the natural environment, while creating a presence and visual experience
that is memorable. As the building rises, textures and materials become lighter as in the natural world. The
first floor of the building is stone, tying the building to the ground and providing the visual base for the
reclaimed-wood clad exterior columns to launch towards the airy glass of the Event Center. The sloped and
angular metal roofs below mimic the random striations of geology, while the curved metal roof at the top of
the structure appears to float in air. On the exterior wall above the covered seating canopy, a lighted logo
will glow during performances to enhance the Lakeview Amphitheater brand.
The amphitheater is purposely nestled in a natural cove and is meant to be discovered as one approaches
it upon the entrance path. From far, very little is seen. As one approaches, more of the building is revealed
until its full detail is apparent. As if coming upon a natural feature like a rock outcropping or waterfall, its
grandeur isnt fully understood until you are completely in its presence.


Proposed Amphitheater

Facility Siting
Careful consideration and evaluation was given to potential amphitheater sites for the project. Options
considered include an alternative west shore site and four different facility siting options on Lakeview Point.
Alternatives were evaluated for their potential to mitigate impacts and for their ability to meet the goals of
the County; primary of which are are:
1. To help enhance public access to the western shore of Onondaga Lake
2. To take advantage of the new opportunities available as a result of the remediation and restoration
efforts taking place on the lakeshore, and
3. To further economic opportunity and revitalization in the Town of Geddes and surrounding areas.

Along with meeting the stated objectives outlined above, there are many considerations that factor into
determination of the suitability of a proposed site or concept design. These include issues such as
ingress/egress to the facility from the local road network, parking for attendees, parking and staging areas

for performer support vehicles, orientation of the stage house to the sun, topography of the site, access to
utilities, visual impacts/aesthetics and acoustics/noise propagation.

Various County owned public lands along the western shore of the lake were screened for their ability to
support the project concept. In summary, there are few other apparent sites along the western shore where
a project of this scale could be located with sufficient access, parking, and space to accommodate a
development of this size. With regard to siting of the facility on Lakeview Point, several different alternatives
were evaluated that considered a variety of factors such as suitability for the proposed amphitheater
facilities, constructability, geotechnical issues, acoustics, noise impacts, visual impacts and other
environmental considerations. A total of 4 site locations were considered on Lakeview Point, with two being
evaluated in further detail based on an initial screening.

The two concepts evaluated with the greatest potential involved what were titled the Cove option which
sites the primary amphitheater structure along the northern shore of Waste Bed 6 and the Beacon option
which sites the facility on top of the Lakeview Point peninsula between Waste Beds 5 and 6. A design
workshop was conducted with Onondaga County staff in May 2014 where each option was reviewed with
regard to its layout on the site, suitability to support amphitheater operations, constructability, costs, visual
impacts and other factors. Based on a review of these considerations, the Cove Option was identified as
the preferred option for facility siting.

Beacon Option

The Cove option is a somewhat significant departure from the early project concept for the facility in that it
is not located on the top of Lakeview Point. This option was conceived based on a consideration to develop
an alternative that embraces the water, but at the same time blends into the natural topography of
Lakeview Point, and creates a park atmosphere for the community. The Cove option achieves this
objective by situating the main amphitheater along the lower elevations of the northern shoreline of
Lakeview Point and is positioned to blend in with the existing topography much better than any of the other
options considered. The views of Onondaga Lake for the audience are excellent for this option and the
background noise is lowest of any of the options considered due to it being furthest from I-690 of all of the
options considered. As a result of this option blending best with existing topography, the amount of fill and
earthwork required for this option is significantly less than the other options, thereby reducing the relative
cost of construction. This option also minimizes construction impacts to the Crucible landfill which is viewed
favorably by the NYSDEC.

Cove Option

Site Development Master Plan
The proposed Site Development Master Plan (see Figures 4-1 and 4-2) is intended to provide a
cohesive set of spatial relationships to harmonize a variety of program elements with the
opportunities and constraints provided by the project site. As documented elsewhere in this
report, the site is the subject of an intensive remediation effort and has a long history as an
industrial waste bed. The unique topography of the peninsula, a result of its prior use as a
series of waste beds, creates a high plateau along the shoreline of Onondaga Lake which is

unrivaled in the views it offers of the lake and surrounding community. Also, the project site has
recently been made available for public recreation, in a limited fashion, through the recently
completed extension to the Onondaga Lake West Shore multi-use trail. Finally, the site is located
adjacent to one of the major parking lots for the New York State Fair. These factors, along with
other operational considerations, were the driving factors in the development of the proposed
master plan. The master plan provides a vision for the amphitheater facility that holistically
addresses the following:
Amphitheater Building
Community Amphitheater
Green Space and Community Areas
Administration Support Services
Facility Gateway/Entry
Concessions and Merchandising
Restrooms
Parking
Pedestrian Access
On-Site Transportation Network
ADA Considerations
Water Access and Amenities
Bike path Reconfiguration
Site Security
Site Use During Non-Performance Periods


Site Master Plan-Cove Option
Site and Facilities Engineering
Geotechnical
As a result of the history of the site, its unusual topography, and the current state of the site, geotechnical and
engineering issues will play a critical role in the design of the amphitheater. The Waste Beds are engineered
systems constructed with stronger outer containment berms holding interior areas of weaker material. .During this
conceptual design, it was assumed that cutting into the existing Waste Beds and their containment berms should be
minimized to the extent possible due to concerns about slope stability. Based on the preliminary geotechnical
assessment, the slope stability of the berms does not appear to be a significant issue based on the current site layout
and grading plan. This issue will be examined further during detailed design. If it is found that the Waste Beds and
containment berms can be cut, the volume of imported fill will be able to be reduced, which would reduce the overall
project cost. At this time, the conceptual design shows very little cutting into the existing waste bed system.
Relative to earthwork, another geotechnical concern is the ability of the Waste Beds to bear the weight of the
required fill. It is expected that placing earthen fill will result in the settling of the weaker areas of the waste beds.
Based on existing geotechnical reports and recent consultations with the reports authors, placing approximately 15
feet of fill on the waste beds may result in up to 6 feet of settling over a period of several months. Based on these

conditions, it will be necessary to pre-load certain areas by placing fill well in advance of the construction of finished
surfaces. This will allow these areas to settle and stabilize prior to more formal site construction work.
The Solvay Process Waste contains calcium carbonate (CaCO3) with gypsum, sodium chloride (NaCl), and calcium
chloride (CaCl). These compounds can be corrosive to steel and concrete such that when mixed with water (e.g.,
groundwater, infiltrating rainwater) can produce an electrolytic solution. Protective measures will need to be included
in the project design may include but not be limited to: sacrificial anodes for foundation elements; coating specific
foundation elements; separating foundation elements from the SPW and electrolytic solution, to name a few
alternatives. In addition, the use of non-metallic pipe (e.g., High Density Polyethylene HDPE) should be considered
for buried utilities that do not require metallic piping.
Based upon the subsurface stratigraphy, the amphitheater structure (i.e., loading dock truck apron, stage area, and
seating area, etc) and other large structures associated with this project should be supported by a pile foundation
founded on/in the underlying Vernon Shale. By driving piles to bedrock, these structures will not settle as a result of
the underlying SPW, soft cohesive soils and/or loose granular soils consolidating from the additional loads applied by
these new structures. Additional soil borings be performed during the design phase with rock coring such that rock
core samples can be collected and subsequently tested for strength parameters to identify an allowable bearing
capacity. For lightly loaded structures (e.g., restroom facilities, vendor facilities, drainage structures, etc) methods
for reducing settlements include surcharging as discussed above and/or floating the structure. A method for floating
structures is to remove a known amount of in-situ material and replace it with light weight fill (e.g., red-dog, geofoam)
and subsequently construct upon the light weight fill. The new roadways that are being planned must support heavy
loads, in particular semi tractor trailer trucks and buses. Since the subgrade of these roadways will most likely consist
of soft to medium stiff SPW, the roadway section (e.g., sub-base material and pavement) will require addition support
and/or means to distribute the wheel loading over a large area. One method for distributing the wheel loading over a
large area would be to place a geotextile rated for stabilization on the prepared subgrade followed by a Geogrid. The
geotextile will provide a separation between the sub-base material and underlying subgrade as well as some strength
when a load is applied. The Geogrid will assist in spreading out the wheel loads over a much larger area thus
reducing the applied load to the subgrade material.
Storm Water Management
While serving as a focal point for Onondaga County in many ways, the Lakeview Amphitheater can certainly serve as
a showcase for the principles developed during the Countys award-winning SaveThe Rain program. The
development of this site will allow for the implementation of a wide variety of practices to protect Onondaga Lake,
educate the public, and drive the conversation forward. The opportunity for a working set of storm water
management examples will be created in this new public space. This project will be an opportunity to showcase what

is possible when storm water management is considered during the conceptual design of the site, rather than solely
as a retrofit.

Utilities
A review of existing utilities infrastructure in the project area was performed to support the facility infrastructure
requirements to support the proposed facility was performed and existing infrastructure in the project area to support
the facility. Given the accelerated pace that the conceptual engineering portion of the project has progressed,
definitive estimates of all utility loads has not yet been determined at this time. Definitive parameters for each service
will be defined in the preliminary design phase of the project. Efforts to date have focused on identifying the likely
source of the various utilities required based on meetings conducted with each provider and making a preliminary
assessment with regard to their adequacy to serve the proposed facility. The following utilities were assessed as part
of this evaluation:
Utility Provider
Water Onondaga County Water Authority (OCWA)
Sewage Onondaga County Dept. Water Environment Protection (OCWEP)
Electric Village of Solvay Electric
Data/Communications Verizon Wireless & Time Warner Cable
Natural Gas National Grid

In summary, it was determined that the existing utilities infrastructure is adequate to support the proposed facility and
connection points are all within reasonable proximity to the project site.
Transportation and Traffic Impact Assessment
A primary engineering challenge with the proposed site is its currently restricted access. Because of the adjacent
location of Interstate Route 690, FHWA regulates a without access boundary line that separates the site from other
existing public highways. There is one access point to the site, which is currently utilized by contractors under special
permit from FHWA. Also at this entrance, Onondaga County has obtained a permit for access and limited parking for
the recently completed West Shore Trail Extension, which provides bicycle and pedestrian access around Onondaga
Lake, and will be linked to the amphitheater site. Three other access points to NY 695 and I-690 are only allowed for
use during the New York State Fair by FHWA. Linking the site to other public streets like Bridge Street and State Fair
Boulevard is hampered by the physical barrier of the I-690 lanes and connector ramp to NY 695.
Routing all concert traffic to the Orange lot which abuts the amphitheater site by way of a single entrance is feasible
for small events (up to 500 people), but larger events and sold-out attractions generate too much traffic for this

scenario. For that reason, splitting incoming traffic and using directional routing to both the Orange and Brown lots is
proposed (see Figure 6-2). Several options were investigated, starting with use of the existing roadway network, then
supplemented by mitigation measures. An alternative using all temporary access points similar to Fair operations was
modeled, but eliminated from further consideration based on FHWA feedback that such an option would not be
acceptable for use beyond NYS Fair events. Ultimately, any alternative that provides access to the amphitheater site
will require a separate break-in-access study to be reviewed and approved by NYSDOT and FHWA.
To assess traffic impacts during an amphitheater event, background traffic conditions were modeled using manual
traffic counts at the five intersections in the study area, and supplemented by NYSDOT machine counts.
As the models were created and evaluated for a sold-out event arrivals using existing traffic control (i.e. no
infrastructure improvements), it became evident that mitigation would be required to eliminate traffic congestion
throughout the study area. Traffic can be expected to have queue for those trying to access the Orange Lot from
Bridge Street and Willis Avenue, as well as for those trying to access the Brown Lot from State Fair Boulevard west
and Pumphouse Road. Queues from Pumphouse Road are expected to impact the I-690 Eastbound Exit 6 off-ramp,
and possibly the I-690 Eastbound mainline, at this location. The I-690 Eastbound Exit 7 off-ramp traffic at the
intersection of State Fair Boulevard and Bridge Street is expected to queue along the exit only lane from the NYS RT
695 Northbound merge with I-690 Eastbound. This would affect the I-690 Eastbound mainline at this location if a
vehicle on I-690 wishes to take Exit 7 and needs to merge into slow moving traffic in the exit only lane.
Based on the evaluations performed, both short and long-term improvements have been identified as summarized
below.
Short-Term Improvements
The proposed mitigation alternative includes modifications to the existing highway network to improve
operations and traffic flow during sold-out events, and to keep delays to acceptable levels typically expected
for a similarly sized attraction. Most improvements focus on areas in proximity to the main entry road
opposite the I-690 WB off-ramp at Exit 7. These include elongating and widening the off-ramp to two lanes
with improved deceleration and storage distance, widening to three lanes at the intersection with local
streets, reconstructing the main entry road to lower the grade for easier shuttle bus operation and improved
two-way traffic flow, and adding an auxiliary lane at the State Fair Boulevard wye to increase capacity of
exiting traffic (see Figure 6-3). The ramp widening would require modification of an overhead sign truss.
Additional traffic signs and guide signs for amphitheater traffic are recommended. Installation of an
electronic DMS on northbound NY 695 approaching the fairgrounds is also recommended.


Short-Term Transportation Improvements

Long-Term Improvements
This report focuses on short term improvements deemed necessary to mitigate anticipated traffic volumes
that result from operation of the proposed amphitheater during peak usage. The current configuration of
interstate access consists two overlapping interchanges with nine ramps spread over a distance of 2.3
miles, with three ramps having nonstandard access control. In discussions with FHWA and NYSDOT, it is
apparent that further long term improvements that provide a permanent solution to event traffic and Orange
lot access for the New York State Fair will be required. FHWA has commented that the temporary signal
and direct access driveways from I-690 and NY 695 connector will not be allowed in the near future.

In order to test the feasibility of proposed short term improvements to ensure they fit in with an overall
concept for a long term solution, potential concept level layouts that modify the existing interchange layout
have been developed. One possible long term solution, which consists of constructing new I-690 WB on-
and off-ramps in the vicinity of the existing crossover and temporary signal, is illustrated on Figure 6-4.
Further development of long-term design solutions for the Interchange 6 and 7 ramps is beyond the scope
of this report and the evaluation of this long term solution is being discussed between the FHWA, NYSDOT
and Onondaga County.
In addition to the above, additional operational measures will need to be implemented during large scale
events including the following:

Manned Traffic Control
Supplemental Signage
Emergency Vehicle Access
Shuttle Buses
Intelligent Transportation Systems and Dynamic Message Signs

Sustainable Infrastructures Development
LEED, or Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design, is a green building certification program that recognizes
best-in-class building strategies and practices. To receive LEED certification, building projects satisfy prerequisites
and earn points to achieve different levels of certification. Based on the current project schedule, it is expected that
the project will be registered under LEED 2009 criteria. As detailed in Appendix G, the design team completed a
LEED checklist in which various strategies are gauged to be possible (Yes), unknown to be possible (?), or most
likely not possible (No). Based on the result of evaluating each prerequisite and credit, a possible score of 66 was
determined. This score corresponds to the mid-range of Gold Certification. As the design progresses, the LEED
checklist will continue to be updated, and credits for Innovation in Design will be sought where possible.
There are many opportunities to integrate these sustainable infrastructure elements into the project moving forward,
given the variety of facilities and improvements that will be part of this project. There will be pavements, building
roofs, landscape areas and facilities such as bathrooms which need water. Each of these technologies should be
evaluated in the final design for this project and utilized to the maximum extent feasible throughout the project site.

Project Schedule and Implementation Plan
The County has expressed a desire to have an event at the amphitheater facility on Labor Day weekend of 2015.
Given the size and complexity of the proposed facility, unique environmental and geotechnical conditions at the site,
and the necessary coordination that must take place with Honeywells ongoing construction operations, this is a very
ambitious completion date for this facility. In an effort to implement the project in this accelerated timeline, the project
was given approval by the State of New York to implement the project through a Best Value Design-Build
Procurement method. A related issue affecting the schedule is the need to complete the SEQRA process for the
project before any construction commences.

At this time, there are many variables that could impact the targeted completion date, particularly any delays in the
SEQRA/Environmental review process as this is the controlling item to allow construction to start on the site. As the
project progresses, the design team will have work in conjunction with the County to refine the project schedule

based on developments with the environmental review process and other project developments that adequately
balances the target completion date with issues such as construction costs, risk, quality of construction and other
factors.

Proposed Amphitheater Rendering

Proposed Gateway Building Entry

Onondaga County Lakeview Amphitheater 1-1 Conceptual Design Report

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND
Onondaga County (the County) is proposing to construct an outdoor events center (Lakeview
Amphitheater) on County-owned land on the western shore of Onondaga Lake, in the Town of Geddes (see
Figures 1-1 through 1-5). The Lakeview Amphitheater will be an outdoor event complex, which will include
an amphitheater with an estimated seating capacity of approximately 17,500 (both covered and lawn
seats), a nature area, vendor/festival area, a smaller outdoor community theater, recreational trails,
observation pier, and other amenities. Associated infrastructure will include access roads/driveways and
site utilities (power, water, sewer, data/communications and natural gas). The amphitheater project is a
component of a larger community revitalization initiative for the western shore of Onondaga Lake, the
Village of Solvay and Town of Geddes. The project is being funded through a combination of State and
County resources.

It is anticipated that vehicular access to the amphitheater site will be provided from I-690 and the local road
network, and parking will be accommodated through use of the existing New York State Fair parking lots
located between I-690/State Fair Blvd. and Onondaga Lake (i.e. Orange and Brown Lots). These lots are
currently utilized primarily during the New York State Fair and are owned by the State of New York.
Pedestrians will also be able to access the amphitheater through use of the Onondaga County Park Trail
System and the pedestrian bridge from State Fair Boulevard. Future additional water-based access is also
anticipated through use of a seasonal (removable) docking system and associated water taxis.
Construction will occur in phases, anticipated to begin in the late fall/winter of 2014 and conclude in the fall
of 2015. The Lakeview Amphitheater will be owned by Onondaga County, and the entire site is expected to
remain in public ownership.

In February 2014, C&S Engineers, Inc. (C&S) was retained by the County to perform a Conceptual
Engineering Report and initiate the required environmental studies and compliance efforts associated with
the project. This Conceptual Engineering Report summarizes the work performed during the conceptual
engineering phase of the project. The scope of this phase of the project was to assess the general
feasibility of constructing of a large scale outdoor entertainment venue on County owned property along the
west shore of Onondaga Lake, to provide further definition of the scope and characteristics of the project,

and evaluate the project site from an engineering perspective. This report will serve as the blue print for the
Countys plans for subsequent phases of the project.

Given the unique characteristics of this project both from a facility design perspective and the complex
environmental and geotechnical conditions of the proposed site/area, a multi-disciplined team of
professionals was assembled to complete this phase of the project. The project team contributing to this
assessment is listed below along with each firms primary role.

Firm Role
C&S Companies Lead Project Consultant
Environmental Design & Research Planning, Landscape Architecture & Environmental Review
Theater Project Consultants Amphitheater Specialty Consultant
Acoustic Dimensions Acoustical and Noise Consultants
Venue Consulting Cost Consultant
Geosyntec, LLC Geotechnical Consultant
1
st
Point Construction Solutions Construction Consultation

The environmental assessment of this project is being conducted in in accordance with the requirements
of the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR). A summary of the process being
followed for SEQR is summarized later in this section and the results of the environmental studies
performed are documented in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prepared for the project.

1.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The purpose of establishing an outdoor events center at the Lakeview Point site is to help enhance public
access to the western shore of Onondaga Lake, to take advantage of the new opportunities available as a
result of the remediation and restoration efforts taking place on the western lakeshore, and to further
economic opportunity and revitalization in the Town of Geddes, Village of Solvay, and surrounding area.
This Project will create a new waterfront attraction offering entertainment, gathering and recreational
opportunities for local residents and visitors from the surrounding region. This vision is to be fulfilled
consistent with the concepts developed by local planners as expressed in the Onondaga Lake
Development Plan 1991, the Syracuse-Onondaga County Planning Agency (SOCPA) 1995 Land Use

Plan, the communitys vision for the future of a revitalized Onondaga Lake as provided to the Onondaga
Lake Partnership in the 2007 EcoLogic report
1
and consistent with findings in the recent report F.O.C.U.S.
on Onondaga Lake A Road Map to Facilitating Reconnecting the Lake with the Community
2
.

These and other planning efforts by Onondaga County, the City of Syracuse and various agencies have
created a vision for transforming the lakeshore and adjacent areas. There have been significant changes
and improvements in and surrounding the lake over the last 10 years as a result of this vision and the area
is now becoming a dominant contributor to the economic, cultural and social fabric of the County. Water
quality has improved greatly as the Countys Save the Rain program moves toward its 2018 goal, and
Honeywell continues to progress rapidly on its lake and upland remediation efforts. The southern lakeshore
has already become a destination for retail, entertainment, recreation and regional transportation, which will
be further enhanced by the planned infill development of the Inner Harbor. Consistent with this vision,
these areas present a number of opportunities for adaptive reuse, many of which are currently underway.
A capable network of advocacy organizations, institutions, nonprofits, local government, and private
developers contributing to the revitalization of the areas and neighborhoods on the west side of the lake.
Through much hard work, these stakeholders have coalesced around the vision of a resurgence around the
lake, capitalizing on the areas strengths and history. This resurgence is changing the relationship of our
community with the lake and the public perception of the lakeshore areas. As the lake and its surroundings
are transforming from a post-industrial landscape, the lakeshore and surrounding properties are
experiencing the beneficial effects of our community wide interest in revitalization. The Lakeview
Amphitheater will further this effort by capitalizing on a unique landform present on the western shore by
helping to protect and improve the lake oriented vistas which were previously unavailable to the public and
by allowing opportunity for visitors to experience Onondaga Lake from atop this peninsula.

1.3 PROJECT LOCATION OVERVIEW

The Project site is located on Lakeview Point, on the western shore of Onondaga Lake (see Figures 1-1
through 1-5). Situated north of the existing New York State Fairgrounds parking lots and the I-690 and
NYS Route 695 interchange, and east-southeast of the mouth of Nine Mile Creek, the project site is located

1
EcoLogic. 2007. Reconnecting with Onondaga Lake The Communitys Vision for the Future of a Revitalized Resource.
Onondaga Lake Partnership and Onondaga Environmental Institute.
2
F.O.C.U.S Greater Syracuse, Inc. 2012. F.O.C.U.S. on Onondaga Lake: A Roadmap to Facilitate Reconnecting the Lake with the
Community. Available at: http://www.ongov.net/documents/FOCUSonOnondagaLake.pdf (Accessed April 7, 2014).

approximately 1.2 miles north of the Village of Solvay, 1.0 mile south of the Village of Liverpool, and 1.9
miles northwest of the City of Syracuse (Figure 1-2). This specific portion of Onondaga Lakes shoreline
was historically used as a location to host events and attract tourism. In 1872, the Lakeview Point Resort
became the first of many hotels, restaurants, resorts, and amusement parks lining the shores of Onondaga
Lake (see Image 1 below) (Thompson, 2002).
3

Image 1. 1898 United States Geological Survey (USGS) Syracuse Southwest Quadrangle,
Illustrating the location of the former Lake View Hotel and Rockaway, Manhattan, and Pleasant Beaches.

Subsequent to its use as a resort, this land was used as a waste repository and a landfill. The Project site is
located on what are known as the Solvay Process Waste Beds. Waste Beds 1-8 cover an area of
approximately 315 acres, and consist of tiered layers of fill above the natural sediments, contained by
perimeter dikes. The fill, which was generated as waste during soda ash production at the former Solvay
Process Plant from approximately 1916 to 1943 (see Image 2 below), consists largely of calcium carbonite,
gypsum, sodium chloride, and calcium chloride (USEPA, 2009).
4
As depicted on Figure 1-3, the Lakeview
Amphitheater project site is generally located on Waste Beds 5 and 6. Portions of Waste Beds 1-4, 7, and

3
Thompson, D.H. 2002. The Golden Age of Onondaga Lake Resorts. Purple Mountain Press, Ltd., Fleischmanns, NY. 141 pp.
4
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2009. Human Health Risk Assessment Onondaga Lake Wastebeds
1-8 Site: Bike Trail, Geddes, NY. Emergency and Remedial Response Division, New York, NY. January 2009.

8 are currently used for State Fair parking. The upper levels of the Waste Beds are up to 65 feet above
lake level, with a maximum thickness of approximately 78 feet and a typical thickness ranging between 60
feet and 70 feet (OBrien & Gere, 2011).
5

Image 2. 1938 aerial photograph illustrating the then-active Waste Beds.

In addition to the Waste Beds, the Project site also contains a capped landfill (Figures 1-3 and Figure 1-4).
In 1973, Crucible Specialty Metals began operating a landfill on Waste Bed 5 that was used for disposal of
both hazardous and non-hazardous wastes. Capped in 1988, the Crucible landfill contains approximately
225,000 cubic yards of steel mill waste and covers approximately 20 acres (OBrien & Gere, 2011). The
Crucible landfill contains both hazardous and non-hazardous waste, consisting of various mill wastes
including waste caustic, acid pickling sludges, air pollution dust and demolition debris.

According to the New York State Office of Real Property Services (NYSORPS), land use at the Project site
is currently classified as vacant commercial land. The nearest residential properties are located on the

5
OBrien & Gere. 2011. Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment Wastebeds 1 through 8 Site, Geddes, New York. Prepared for
Honeywell, International, Inc. March 2011.

other side of I-690 (approximately 0.3 to 0.5 mile west of the Project site), along State Fair Boulevard,
Regatta Row, and Lake Country Drive. The project site is currently dedicated parkland and is owned by
Onondaga County Parks, which in cooperation with the Onondaga County Department of Transportation
has recently completed constructing a paved multipurpose trail through the project site.

This new trail extends the West Shore Trail by approximately 2.5 miles, and is part of a long-term initiative
to develop a Loop the Lake trail around Onondaga Lake. Elevation at the Project site ranges from 363
feet above mean sea level (AMSL) to 425 feet AMSL.

Onondaga Lake Trail System

1.4 REVIEWS, APROVALS, AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS

1.4.1 STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT
The basic purpose of SEQR is to incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the existing
planning, review, and decision-making processes of state, regional, and local government agencies at the
earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQR requires a determination of whether a proposed
action may have a significant impact on the environment, and if it is determined that the action may have a
significant adverse impact, prepare or request an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
6
It was the
intention of the State Legislature that protection and enhancement of the environment, human, and
community resources should be given appropriate weight with social and economic considerations in
determining public policy, and that those factors be considered together in reaching decisions on proposed
actions. Accordingly, it is intended that a suitable balance of social, economic, and environmental factors
be incorporated into the planning and decision-making processes of state, regional, and local agencies.
However, it is not the intention of SEQR that environmental factors be the sole consideration in decision-
making.
7

The SEQR process for the proposed Lakeview Amphitheater has included or will include the following
actions:
Preparation of Parts 1, 2, and 3 of a Full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF).
Issuance of a Positive Declaration.
Preparation of a Draft Scoping Document.
Public Scoping Process.
Issuance of Final Scoping Document.
Preparation of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS).
Notice of completion of DEIS and notice of public hearing and comment period.
Public hearing on DEIS (must be held at least 14 days after public notice is published).
A minimum 30-day public comment period on the DEIS.
Revisions to the DEIS as necessary to address substantive/relevant comments received.
Preparation of Final EIS (FEIS).

6
6 New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations (NYCRR) Part 617.1(c). 6 NYCRR Part 617.1 through 617.20 can be accessed at
www.dec.ny.gov/regs/4490.html.
7
6 NYCRR Part 617.1(d).

File notice of completion of FEIS.
10-day consideration period.
Issuance of Findings Statement.

On February 14, 2014, the Onondaga County circulated to potentially interested/involved SEQR agencies
Part 1 of a Full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) and statement indicating that the County intended
to serve as Lead Agency for the review of the proposed Lakeview Amphitheater. Following the required 30
day coordinated review period,
8
no agency objected to Onondaga County assuming the role of Lead
Agency. In addition, Onondaga County, as Lead Agency, issued a Positive Declaration (which
necessitated the preparation of this DEIS), and initiated the Public Scoping Process on April 4, 2014.

Public scoping represents an initial step in the review of potential environmental impacts under SEQR. The
primary goals of scoping (which is an optional step in the SEQR process) are to focus an EIS on potentially
significant impacts and to eliminate consideration of those impacts that are irrelevant or non-significant.
9
A
draft scoping document for the proposed Lakeview Amphitheater was released for public and agency
review and comment on April 11, 2014. The comment period provided an opportunity for agencies and the
public to review and comment on the identification of significant environmental conditions and resources
that may be affected by the proposed action, and the extent and quality of information necessary to
address those issues during the SEQR process. The comment period ended on May 12, 2014. A final
scoping document was issued May 22, 2014, which identified the significant environmental conditions and
resources that may be affected by the proposed Lakeview Amphitheater, and defined the extent and quality
of information necessary to address those issues. It reflected the Lead Agencys analysis of potential
impacts indicated in Parts 2 and 3 of the EAF, and incorporated additional relevant issues raised during the
public scoping process.

In accordance with SEQR, the DEIS prepared for the project addresses those potentially significant
adverse environmental impacts that can reasonably be anticipated and/or have been identified in the
scoping process. Based on the current status, it is anticipated that the SEQR process for the amphitheater
project will be completed in September-October 2014 timeframe.

8
6 NYCRR Part 617.6(b)(3)(i).
9
6 NYCRR Part 617.8(a).


1.4.2 Agency and Public Review
Opportunities for detailed agency and public review in relation to the project will continue to be provided
throughout the SEQR process. The DEIS, along with a copy of the public notice, will be distributed for
review and comment to the public and to the various agencies and parties listed below. In addition to a
public comment period (during which time written comments will be accepted), a duly noticed public hearing
concerning the DEIS will be organized and held, in accordance with SEQR requirements. Additionally, a
2005 amendment to SEQR, (Chapter 641 of the NYS Laws of 2005; Ch. 641) requires every
Environmental Impact Statement be posted on a publicly accessible internet website. A DEIS is to be
posted as soon as it is accepted and remain posted until the FEIS is accepted. The FEIS should be posted
when completed, and must remain posted until one (1) year after all final approvals have been i ssued for
the Project that is the subject of the FEIS. In accordance with this amendment to SEQR, the DEIS will be
posted to: http://www.ongov.net/environment/amphitheater.html.

In addition to the Lead Agencys responsibility to comply with State Environmental Quality Review Act
(SEQR) regulations and requirements, implementation of the Project will require certain ministerial
approvals from local and state agencies. The approvals that are expected to be required are listed in Table
1-1.

Table 1-1. Approvals for the Lakeview Amphitheater
Agency SEQR Status Description of Approval Required or Project Interest
Onondaga County Legislature Lead Agency
Administration of SEQR review process, including
acceptance of EIS documents and issuance of findings
Onondaga County Department of
Health
Involved Agency
Approvals associated with connection to public water
supply and sanitary sewer system.
Onondaga County Department of
Water Environment Protection
Involved Agency
Approvals associated with connection to sanitary sewer
system.
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
Involved Agency
SPDES General Permit for construction.
Site Management Plan, Institutional Controls
Health
Involved Agency
Approvals associated with temporary food service
establishments.
Transportation
Involved Agency Highway work permits.

Agency SEQR Status Description of Approval Required or Project Interest
New York State Office of Parks,
Recreation, and Historical
Preservation
Involved Agency
Consultation pursuant to NY, Parks, Recreation and
Historic Restoration Law (PRHPL) 14.09 and/or 106 of
the National Historic Preservation Act.
Empire State Development
Corporation
Involved Agency Project funding.
New York State Canal
Corporation
Interested Agency Activities related to water taxi.
Agriculture and Markets
Involved Agency Use of State Fair parking lots during events.
Town of Geddes Interested Agency Utilities/infrastructure.
Village of Solvay Interested Agency Utilities/infrastructure.
Federal Highway Administration NA I-690 ingress/egress
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers NA Approval associated with waterfront pier.

1.4.3 SITE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
As stated previously, the Lakeview Point site is located within one of the Onondaga Lake superfund
subsites, known as Waste Beds 1 through 8. Specifically, the project site is located within the areas known
as Waste Beds 5 and 6. The project area is also listed on the New York State Registry of Inactive
Hazardous Waste Sites as a State Superfund Class 2 site (NYS Registry: 734081). Also located on Waste
Bed 5 is the capped Crucible Steel landfill, a former steel mill solid waste fill site which covers an area of
approximately 20 acres and contains an estimated volume of about 225,000 cubic yards of both non-
hazardous and hazardous wastes.
10
With the planned future designated use of this area as a public park
and entertainment venue, the health and safety aspects of the site are an important issue. To address the
planned designated use, Honeywell is currently preparing a Draft Feasibility Study (FS) for Operable Unit
No. 1(OU1) to evaluate remedies for the site. OU1 includes the soils and fill materials on Waste Beds 1
through 8 excluding site groundwater, which is a separate unit. This FS document
11
will outline the
development, screening and evaluation of remedial alternatives designed to be protective of human health
and the environment and to improve natural habitat. Each alternative developed as part of that plan, will be
evaluated consistent with CERCLA and NYSDEC guidance in terms of the following criteria:
1. Overall protection of human health and the environment
2. Compliance with Applicable, Relevant or Appropriate Requirements (ARARS)

10
Crucible Landfill Revised Landfill Closure Plan Volumes 1 & 2 (C&S, 1986)
11
Draft Feasibility Study Report-Operable Unit No. 1, Wastebeds 1 through 8, Geddes, NY. OBrien and Gere, May
2014

3. Long term effectiveness and permanence
4. Reduction of mobility, toxicity or volume
5. Short term effectiveness
6. Implementability, and
7. Cost

The feasible alternatives developed through this process will be implemented in conjunction with the
elements of the ongoing Interim Remedial Measures (see Figure 1-6 for summary of IRM being
implemented) and a future groundwater remediation plan to address remediation of the project site and
surrounding property. The feasible alternatives to be proposed involve placement of vegetated cover and
institutional controls on the site as a function of the intended use of each area. More specifically, the FS will
propose placement of a vegetative cover system consisting of either vegetative enhancement or placement
of a soil or structural fill substrate capable of providing water holding capacity, rooting volume and growing
conditions to support a planted vegetative cover utilizing native species appropriate for each area of use.
The placement and thickness of the substrate could range from a minimal wood fiber
mulch/compost/fertilizer layer to as much as one foot of gravel or two feet of soil and would be a function of
use as defined by the following categories:
1. Areas where contaminant levels are below the appropriate NYSDEC Soil Cleanup Objectives
(SCOs)
2. Areas of Passive Recreational Use (limited potential for soil contact, i.e. parking lots, etc.)
3. Areas of Active Recreational Use (potential for soil contact, i.e. park grounds, seating areas)
4. Areas of Ecological Resources Value (undeveloped upland areas supporting native flora and
fauna)

In addition to the FS, the USEPA is completing a Draft Supplemental Human Health Risk Evaluation
(HHRE)
12
as an addendum to the 2011 HHRA document reflecting current information on site conditions
and the intended use of the Waste Bed 5 and 6 areas for the amphitheater venue. The 2011 HHRA
identified the potential exposure pathways by which populations may be exposed to site-related

12
USEPA, Draft Supplemental Human Health Risk Evaluation, Onondaga Lake Superfund Site,
Wastebeds 1-8, Lakeview Amphitheater, Geddes, NY, May 2014

contamination, the toxicity of the chemicals that are present, and the potential for cancer risks and non-
cancer health hazards from exposure to those chemicals. A four-step process was utilized as part of this
study for assessing site-related human health risks for a reasonable maximum exposure (RME) scenario.
These steps included:
1. Hazard Identification, which identifies the contaminants of potential concern at the site based on
several factors such as toxicity, frequency of occurrence and concentration.
2. Exposure Assessment, which estimates the magnitude of actual and/or potential human
exposures, the frequency and duration of these exposures and the exposure pathways under
current and likely future land use scenarios.
3. Toxicity Assessment, which determines the types of adverse health effects associated with
chemical exposures, and the relationship between magnitude of exposure and severity of adverse
effects, and
4. Risk Characterization, which summarizes and combines outputs of the exposure and toxicity
assessments to provide a quantitative assessment of site-related risks and hazards, and presents
a discussion of the uncertainties of the process.

The HHRE evaluation included a comparison of the human receptors for the intended use (Amphitheater
Attendee, Amphitheater Maintenance Worker, and Amphitheater Construction Worker) likely to be
associated with the proposed Lakeview Amphitheater facility to receptors that were quantitatively evaluated
as part of the 2011 Wastebeds 1-8 site (Site) baseline human health risk assessment (HHRA). It is
important to note that the HHRA and the supplemental evaluation assumed no remediation, nor access or
use controls such as fencing or signage. It is important to note that once the remedial measures and
controls are implemented, there will be reduced potential for human exposure to site contaminants relative
to the conditions which were assumed in the HHRA and in this supplemental evaluation. The supplemental
risk evaluation concludes that the potential risks and hazards associated with the Amphitheater Attendee
and Amphitheater Maintenance Worker are expected to be within acceptable risk ranges and targets.

As noted earlier, as part of the regulatory process established for the remedial alternatives, following review
of the evaluations documented in the FS Report, NYSDEC and USEPA will identify an alternative to
propose as the preferred remedy for the site and will develop a Proposed Remedial Action Plan (PRAP) for
Operable Unit 1 describing their findings. This plan will be published for public review and comment.

Following receipt of public comments on the PRAP, the selected remedial alternative will be finalized and
documented in a Record of Decision (ROD) for the site. The final remedy will then be implemented by
Honeywell under the supervision of the involved regulatory agencies. In addition, the design and
construction of the proposed facility must take into account the conditions described in the Crucible Landfill
Closure Plan and Post Closure Plan. These documents describe the function of the landfill cover system
which has been in place since 1989 and the long term care and maintenance requirements to preserve and
protect the cover features. Design of the surface and subsurface features of the amphitheater project are
being coordinated with technical staff of Honeywell and the regulators so that they can be implemented in
conjunction with both the existing and proposed site remedies. Early phases of construction of the project
will involve some intrusive work associated with installation of utilities, preliminary site grading and
installation of foundations, and this initial work may not have the benefit of protection by the proposed
remedy as will the latter stages of construction. Later stages of construction and site preparation as well as
the ultimate use of the facilities and surrounding grounds will benefit from the proposed remedies as they
are implemented.


2.0 AMPHITHEATER FACILITY DESIGN

2.1 INTRODUCTION
The Lakeview Amphitheater is both a public outdoor park and a combination of large and small
performance spaces. The whole of the amphitheater complex is designed with consideration for these
several missions:

1. Serve as a public space for the benefit of the citizens of the Onondaga County
2. Contribute to the rebirth of Onondaga Lake and the revitalization of nearby communities
3. Raise the profile of the region surrounding the lake
4. Incorporate to the greatest extent possible the adjacent park amenities: bike path, trails, etc.
5. Complement, rather than compete with, the existing large, outdoor venues within a 300 mile radius
6. Allow the flexibility to provide low-cost public access to the seats nearest the stage (which are
typically top-dollar VIP areas) when desire for certain events
7. Scale in size to accommodate large audiences for high-profile artists and smaller audiences for local
presenters
8. Provide audience with optimum views of both the stage and the natural surroundings
9. Arrange the site to mitigate impact of low-setting sunlight on artist or audience
10. Develop a top-tier performance space which will be a must-play destination for high-profile artists

Primary components of the project as they relate to the performance venues include:

Main Event Complex: Large amphitheater with seating for up to 17,500 guests
Community Event Amphitheater: Small outdoor performance space for approximately 300 guests
General Service Building: Administration and security offices, food and beverage storage and
distribution, and facility and grounds support
Box Office and Entrance Gate: Portal to the public facilities
Security: Staffed shed for control of access to back-of-house during events

2.1.1 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
The Main Event Complex the large amphitheater with stage support and performer support is the
cornerstone of the project. This concept design addresses the needs of the artist, the audience, the owner,
the operator, the show designers, and the technicians through these five primary considerations:

1. Theatrical functionality: The over-arching goal has been to ensure that the venue functions as a
performance space and is an efficient working factory for shows, complete with appropriate
access, sufficient area, and requisite technical support. Accommodation has been made for
efficient load-in and load-out. Appropriate theater equipment and infrastructure to support touring
equipment has been included. Sufficient storage space, shops, and production support are
included.

2. Audience experience: The team focused on the quality of the experience of the guests in their
arrival to the site, journey to their seats, and access to basic needs including sufficient quantities
and appropriate ratios of mens and womens restrooms, food and beverage outlets, and
opportunities for merchandise purchasing. The sightlines have been established to ensure
maximum visibility and audience intimacy. Large format projectors and screens to the left and
right of the stage provide image magnification (IMAG) to ensure that the furthest audience
member still has a view of the action on stage.

3. Artist experience: Even though a professional strives always to give his very best regardless of
the circumstances, we are all undeniably affected by our environments. It then follows that it may
be difficult to quantify the experience of the artist in their dressing rooms, backstage and
onstage, however the quality of that experience is directly related to the caliber of performance
the artist shares with the audience. This concept design seeks to nurture that experience through
consideration of easy artist access to backstage, direct access to dressing rooms and other
performer support, and appropriate stage dimensions and stage support to ensure that the artists
who play here will feel comfortable, secure, and will trust that their needs offstage and onstage
are well met. In exchange they will give a better performance here than anywhere else on their
tour and will want to return time and again.

4. Audience-artist relationship: Sightlines, audience configuration and circulation have been
considered for their immediate, obvious reasons but also for maximum energy between artist and
audience. A live performance is not a one-way street but rather a two-way dialogue between
artist and audience with a rhythm and pace all its own each night. The optimum audience
configuration has been considered in order to provide maximum opportunities for that dialogue
and to ensure that even at this large scale a sense of intimacy and energy can be achieved and
developed.

5. Efficiency and cost of operation and maintenance: An amphitheater is a factory for industrial-
scale performances. Successfully moving a dozen trucks worth of equipment and 50 artists and
crew in and out on a regular basis requires facilities which can withstand rough use without
requiring an abundance of upkeep, and equipment must have duty cycles to reduce downtime for
maintenance or repair. Systems planned for this facility are intended to make the operation flow
smoothly and keep maintenance time and expense low.

While the facilities will be a welcoming place for the visitor, they will be the working home for the artists,
technicians and management who work in the building and on the grounds. In this large amphitheater, the
stages and backstage contain formidable technical facilities and considerable spatial volume, however the
whole of the working areas have been laid-out in a way that ensures they are places where creativity and
productivity can flourish in a humane and hospitable atmosphere.

Also, great emphasis has been placed upon the facilities accessibility and their character as places for
people and for communication between people. Ultimately, the meeting of people whether spontaneously,
at random, or as part of a precisely choreographed and considered event shall animate the Lakeview
Amphitheater throughout the public areas and within the working heart backstage.

2.1.2 MAIN EVENT COMPLEX OVERVIEW
The Main Event Complex is a large amphitheater with fully equipped stage, covered and lawn seating for
up to 17,500 guests, and significant stage support, performer support, technical accommodation and guest
amenities.

A. STAGE
The permanent stage and stage house are designed to meet the needs of large scale contemporary
touring musical acts typically travelling in a dozen or more tractor trailers and several busses, touring to
comparable venues in the warmer months of spring and summer. This amphitheater will also
accommodate conventional theater, opera, symphony, ballet, other smaller functions, and a wide range
of community events.

The stage floor is concrete slab construction measuring 108 W x 50D with a covered, closable, full
stage house and a proscenium opening measuring 60 W x 35 H. A vertical shutter will deploy to seal-
off the stage house during non-performance times to secure it and protect it from weather. This also
allows the stage house to be used as a small black box theater accommodating smaller theatrical
productions and special events even in harsh weather.

Located 50 above the stage floor is the grid, a walkable work floor, which is intended to carry
permanent and temporary structural loads to accommodate lighting, rigging, sound, and backdrops and
masking for typical touring music acts. Downstage of the proscenium wall, the grid also extends over
the forestage to support performance in that zone.

Stage galleries include the operating and fly/loading galleries along the stage left and stage right walls,
and the crossover gallery long the upstage wall. These fixed equipment support structures also
provide access and work floors for technicians and are locations for production elements including
temporary chain hoists, speaker clusters, lighting and scenery trusses and adjustable acoustic
elements.

Appropriate structural and electrical accommodation for temporary touring equipment and necessary
cable management for that equipment is identified.

B. AUDITORIUM
The outdoor auditorium includes covered seats and lawn seating for up to 17,500 people. A large roof
covers 5,000 seats including 500 Inner Circle and 4,500 reserved, fixed seats. The roof shades the
seats but also serves as a structure to support and provide access to house lighting, announcement

speakers, and theater lighting, sound and video equipment. A tiered, uncovered lawn provides space
for up to 12,500 people; around the perimeter of the lawn are also VIP Pavilions permanent pads
which can accommodate temporary tents.

C. PERFORMER SUPPORT
Backstage includes a complement of dressing rooms, wardrobe support, temporary production offices,
warming kitchen and indoor/outdoor dining facilities, and a meet-and-greet room for artists to visit with
invited guests.

D. STAGE SUPPORT
Provided are a complement workshop and technical offices and storage for lighting, rigging, sound, and
video.

E. ADMINISTRATION
Sufficient office space for show technical operations are included; all other administrative offices are
located at the General Services Building located on the site southwest of the amphitheater.

F. BUILDING SERVICES
Building Services include operational considerations such as a truck dock with direct access to stage,
dumpster pads, and electrical switchgear for temporary theater equipment. Also included on the north
side of the stage house is a 150 person Event Center which faces the lake.

Additional details related to the space programming are provided in Appendix C and conceptual drawings
of the buildings referenced above are provided in Figures 2-3 though 2-14.

2.2 TYPE OF PERFORMANCES
The two performance spaces will accommodate a broad range of different performance types as described
in the following sections.

2.2.1 MAIN EVENT COMPLEX
At the fullest end of the range, the amphitheater is designed for high-energy musical acts. During the

concept design, the team identified the Dave Matthews Band and the Zac Brown Band as two examples of
the kinds of acts the venue should be designed to accommodate. These acts each currently travel with
between 11 to 13 trucks, from 4 to 9 buses, and approximately 50 artists and crew.

These types of acts always travel self-contained, bringing their own rigging (chain hoists, trusses and
accessories), lighting, sound, and video media content; what they need is the infrastructure to support their
equipment: structural capacity to hang their scenery, lighting trusses and speakers; electrical infrastructure
to power that equipment; data infrastructure to easily distribute signal; and, cable management to route
temporary cabling from the temporary equipment around the amphitheater. Typically the only equipment
they will depend on locally are follow spots, video walls (or projectors and screens) for IMAG assuming the
house equipment scaled to meet the needs of the artist, and back-of house communications, paging and
video.

The size of the amphitheater stage and the types of theater equipment infrastructure provided will also
accommodate more conventional theater and opera, ballet and symphony performances. Two important
considerations by the team and County were:

Orchestra enclosure: Outdoor symphony concerts present a special opportunity to reach out to the
community, however performing outdoors always becomes a compromise for the musicians without
the support of an orchestra enclosure which allows them to hear each other. Also, distance from
stage to back of lawn dictates microphones and amplifiers will be required. We considered the many
ramifications or procuring, storing, and deploying a conventional enclosure and it was determined in
collaboration with the County to incorporate instead infrastructure for future rental of an electronic
stage shell like those in use by many other orchestras when performing outdoors.

Grid height and rigging system: Considered was that the stage house should be no taller than
absolutely necessary, and that most of the programming would likely be large touring acts with no
need for conventional counterweight rigging. We chose to set the grid at 50 above the stage floor
and to use a modular grid which will allow chain hoists to be hung from stands placed on the grid
thus taking full advantage of the full 50 of potential travel.

In order to scale the facility to accommodate smaller acts and smaller audiences, conventional stage
masking drapes will be provided which can be arranged to reduce the functional size of the proscenium
opening from its hard structural dimensions of 60 W x 35H to any smaller size desired. Also, a
complement of lighting and sound equipment will be provided for use by local groups, along with
infrastructure to accommodate temporary equipment which local groups might own or rent from elsewhere.

2.2.2 COMMUNITY EVENT AMPHITHEATER
A simple, unstaffed outdoor performance space for up to 300 guests, the smaller Community Event
Amphitheater will be able host impromptu daytime performances in a true park setting. Also,
accommodation has been made for structural support of a temporary space-frame over the raised slab
stage for adding lights or speakers for more organized evening events. Behind the stage is a pad; a road
provides vehicle access to the pad for loading equipment onto the stage or for parking a vehicle behind the
stage to serve as an informal backdrop. Easy access to one of the main restrooms and one of the food and
beverage outbuildings means that public services can be easily available for any event sized for this
performance space.

2.3 FACILITY SIZING/CAPACITY
The seat count of 17,500 for the Onondaga Lakeview Amphitheater is consistent with the goals established
by the County to attract large musical events and it is similar to the current seat count for the Grandstand at
the New York State Fair Grounds facility.

Also, the new amphitheater is intended as a complement to comparable facilities within about a 250 to 300
mile radius. When planning a tour, this rule of thumb distance is used by touring industry promoters as a
minimum distance between cities for two reasons: (1) a minimum distance, adjusted for market density,
should be maintained between consecutive stops to reduce the likelihood that any individual stop might
cannibalize potential audience from the other stop; and, (2) cost efficient tour scheduling is based on
overnight travel in trucks and buses with one driver per vehicle, therefore the maximum distance between
overnight stops, without adding the cost of additional drivers, is limited by DOT regulations which restrict
drivers to, among other things, a maximum of 11 hours driving per day and 70 hours driving per week.

See below a list of comparables within that driving distance from Syracuse:
Name
Operator
Location Capacity Miles from Syracuse

Artpark Outdoor Amphitheater
Independent operator
Lewiston, NY 20,000 170

Bethel Woods Center for the Arts
Independent operator
Bethel, NY 15,000 150

Constellation Brand-Marvin Sands Performing Arts Center (formerly Finger Lakes PAC)
Operated by SMG
Canandaigua, NY 15,000 71

Darien Lake Performing Arts Center
Operated by Live Nation
Darien, NY 21,600 131

Saratoga Performing Arts Center
Saratoga Springs, NY 25,100 140

Nikon at Jones Beach Theater
Wantagh, NY 15,000 283

Toyota Pavilion at Montage Mountain (formerly Ford Pavilion)
Scranton, PA 18,000 130

XFINITY Music Theater
Hartford, CT 30,000 256


2.4 GENERAL SITING CONSIDERATIONS
When determining where and in what orientation to place the amphitheater on the site, the team considered
multiple factors including: the position of the sun during probable show times; the public view to the lake
and surrounding area; commercial access to the back-of-house areas; potential for road noise to affect
performances; probable costs associated with amount of soil required to achieve necessary slope; and,
potential impact on existing conditions including subsurface soils.

Several site options were explored and two site layouts with sufficient merit were explored in depth. Section
3 described the various locations considered as part of the siting of the facility.

SUN
By logic, the most favorable orientation for an amphitheater is for the centerline running through the
center of the stage and the audience to fall generally along a north to south axis. This orientation
prevents the setting sun from providing discomfort to either the artist onstage or the audience facing
the stage. In practice, the majority of amphitheaters in North America (as well as NFL stadiums) are so
oriented.

PUBLIC VIEW
Consideration of the view that the audience would have of the lake and the surrounding area is an
important criteria in siting the facility.

COMMERCIAL ACCESS
An inherent dilemma when considering the siting of an amphitheater near a lake or river is the desire to
focus the audience towards the surrounding natural beauty but also to have commercial access of
trucks and buses to back of the stage house so it can function as a performance space. Both the
options evaluated in detail provide the required vehicle access.

ROAD NOISE
Consideration was given to the potential impact of road noise on the performances in the amphitheater.

2.5 COVERED SEATING AREAS

2.5.1 DESCRIPTION
A large, deep roof structure covers approximately 5,000 seats closest to the stage, shielding those seats
from the elements. The structure also includes a series of catwalks to access house lighting and public
address speakers. It serves also as a location for a follow spot gallery, front-of-house performance lighting
catwalks, and is location for temporary theater equipment technical for rigging, lighting, sound and video. It
also provides locations for securable weather-proof equipment closets for permanent front-of-house audio,
video, and lighting equipment racks.

The two zones of covered seats include the Inner Circle and the Covered Pavilion. Weather-resistance,
durability and ease of maintenance have been considered in the choice of seating type and materials.

1. INNER CIRCLE
The Inner Circle is the zone of approximately 500 seats nearest the stage. Most of the seats are fixed
(permanently mounted), however the first several rows of seats are demountable ganged seats on flat-
floor hardscape area allowing this area to double as a lay-down area for the assembly and disassembly
of show-specific temporary performance equipment such as lights, rigging, sound, and video during
load-in and load-out.

2. COVERED PAVILION
The Covered Pavilion is the zone of approximately 4,500 reserved seats also under the roof. They are
permanently fixed, hard plastic back and bottom, self-rising, weather resistant.

2.5.2 SIGHTLINES
Note that for the fixed, covered seats, second row of vision sightlines are used. Generally, each guest is
viewing the stage by looking between the two heads in the row ahead of him and over the head of the
person two rows ahead. Factors considered included the the need to keep the row-to-row rise to a
minimum so the furthest row is not too very high; the need to provide sufficient legroom between rows; and,
the need to maintain sufficiently tight row to row spacing for both maximum sightlines and audience
intimacy. The balanced solution in this case is a 36 row-to-row spacing.


2.6 LAWN/UNCOVERED SEATING AREAS
The lawn provides two distinct seating zones as described in the following sections.

2.6.1 GENERAL ADMISSION
General admission seating on the lawn will accommodate up to 12,500 guests on a tiered, open
landscape, with the audience using blankets or low beach-style folding chairs. There is no shade from the
sun, nor cover from the rain. Consideration was given to the slope of the lawn seats as well as the covered
seats in order to strike a balance between audience comfort and sightlines. Sightlines on the lawn are more
fluid than in the fixed seats because some people will be on blankets, some in chairs, and their ability to
shift and move in front of those behind them.

The greater the slope, the better the view any audience member will have over the heads of the people in
front. However, too steep of a slope can result in awkward walking conditions or even present a hazard of
round or cylindrical items rolling downhill. Also, directly proportional to the amount of slope is the change
in elevation to the most distant seats which is directly related to the height of the underside of the roof in
order for those distant seats to have a clear view of the stage. After weighing those considerations a slope
of 10-12% was determine to be optimum.

2.6.2 VIP PAVILIONS
VIP Pavilions are concrete pads distributed around the perimeter of the lawn. These four pads provide
locations which will function similar in nature to sky boxes in an arena. They are sites which can be covered
by open sided tents and are intended for targeted VIP or group sales. Electrical, audio, and media
infrastructure is provided for local large screen capacity. Service from wait staff service is envisioned. When
not used as VIP areas, these pads may also double as additional locations for local food truck vendors for
large or small events as appropriate.

2.7 EVENT SUPPORT FACILITIES
Event support facilities for the public include restrooms, food and beverage outlets, and merchandise
stations, and first aid.

2.7.1 RESTROOMS
Distributed around the perimeter of the lawn and covered seating are four outbuildings with public
restrooms in sufficient quantity and ratio to serve the public during performances. The quantities of users
planned for takes into consideration that if there is one or more opening act high, restroom usage is
expected during breaks between bands. As with public spaces for any performance space, the ratio of
fixtures favors women in order to reduce long lines and improve customer experience.

2.7.2 FOOD AND BEVERAGE
Distributed around the perimeter of the lawn and covered seating, and in close proximity to the Restroom
outbuildings, are outbuildings for serving food and beverage. These buildings include sales windows, dry
storage, and cold storage, and are accessible by vehicles distributing to them from the General Services
Building.

To either supplement the food and beverage sales during large events or to meet the needs of small events
in either the large amphitheater or the smaller Community Events Amphitheater, the pads for these out-
buildings will be large enough to accommodate food trucks from local vendors; shore power will be
available to eliminate the need to run generators for electrical power.

2.7.3 MERCHANDISING
Consideration was given for the need for locations for retail merchandise sales by the artists team. The
majority of these sales take place after the performance essentially as impulse buys. Distributed along the
path between the amphitheater and guest parking are several pads and covered Market Sheds where the
vendors can set-up sales stations. Lighting and utility power will be available at the Market Sheds, and
utility power will be available at the pads.

2.7.4 FIRST AID
A first aid station is included in the offices at the Entrance Gate building as well as the General Services
Building.

2.8 PERFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY EQUIPMENT AND REQUIREMENTS OVERVIEW

2.8.1 GENERAL
The Lakeview Amphitheater will require infrastructure to support touring acts theatrical equipment including
rigging, lighting, audio, video, and communications. The facilities will also require a complement of this
equipment in-house to support other events including local theater, opera, ballet, symphony and other
community events.

The decisions made regarding theatrical equipment and infrastructure for the Lakeview Amphitheater are
supported by information gathered during the Concept Design phase of the project. Decisions made by the
design team shall be confirmed with potential user groups and relevant staff during subsequent phases. A
theatrical equipment plan has been developed based on the building design parameters, our knowledge of
industry practices, and our experience with similar projects. Appendix A provides a narrative discussion of
the Performance Technology Systems elements of the project design,

In developing the outline for the performance technology systems, considerations included the need for
weather resistant theater equipment exposed to the elements; need for some otherwise permanently
mounted equipment to be demountable during non-peak months; and the need for year-round temperature
control for weather-proof theater equipment closets located in the roof covering the fixed seats.

2.8.2 ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS
This section provides specific recommendations and advice on architectural elements that significantly
impact theatrical equipment and require careful coordination. These elements include:

Stage floors
Stage galleries and catwalks
Grids (over-stage and forestage)
Acoustical doors
Weather seal doors
Cable management system


2.8.2.1 STAGE FLOORS
The stage floor will be concrete construction designed to achieve the structural loading criteria to be
defined in the TPC Structural Loading Guidelines. The stage floor will not contains traps, however floor
pockets or other hatches may be required for routing of cable for temporary performance equipment on a
show-by-show basis, These floor pockets and troughs will needs to be coordinated with the stage floor
construction.

2.8.2.2 STAGE GALLERIES AND CATWALKS
Structural steel members are required at the roof in regular 8 intervals, spanning the width of the
auditorium, running upstage to downstage and also the depth of the stage house running upstage to
downstage. The upper steel members could be used to mount perpendicular rigging beams for chain
motors and spot-line block attachment. This structure could be combined with required roof steel.

Structural catwalks and bridges over the covered seating and integrated into the roof are required to
provide front lighting positions and follow spot positions for the stage area; these can be suspended from
the upper steel members, or constructed to operate independently. The catwalks will carry a great quantity
of theatrical lighting equipment and circuitry, and must be able to support specialty scenic and projection
equipment for individual productions. Horizontal railings in these areas must be of a diameter to
accommodate standard lighting equipment clamps, typically 1.9 OD, and often must be adjustable
vertically. Access catwalks in the roof structure covering the fixed reserved seating will provide a path to
and a place from which to work to service and maintain house lights, announcement/public address
speakers, banners, temporary power positions, and other theatrical equipment and equipment closets.

Stage galleries include the operating galleries and fly/loading galleries along the stage left and stage right
walls, and the crossover catwalk at the upstage wall. These fixed equipment support structures also carry
production elements and provide access and work floors for technicians. Scenic and other production items
can be suspended and flown from these locations.

Galleries and catwalks will be designed to meet the functional requirements of installed mechanical
systems and the anticipated production needs of the facility. These systems may include temporary chain

hoists, speaker clusters, and adjustable acoustic elements. Theatrical lighting catwalks must
accommodate and provide access to stage lighting fixtures, projection equipment, follow spots with
operators, electrical distribution, and other theatrical equipment.

2.8.2.3 GRIDS (OVER-STAGE AND FORESTAGE)
A technical grid is required as a walking surface both above the stage (below the rigging support steel) and
above the forestage. The above-stage grid accommodates the rigging for theatrical lighting and masking
machinery, fire curtain machinery if required, and proscenium weather seal shutter. It also provides access
to high roof smoke vent systems. These grids are likely to have a floor constructed of demountable
subway type grating panels. The forestage grid will be used for rigging additional theatrical equipment as
required by each production. Both grids should be painted OSHA safety yellow on top. Since the underside
of both grids will be visible to the audience they should be painted an appropriate color on the underside to
allow stage personnel to observe rigging elements fly out against a contrasting background.

2.8.2.4 ACOUSTICAL DOORS
Large acoustical doors along the wall of the stage at stage left, stage right, and center will close off the
main stage area from the scene dock areas during performances. These large double or single doors
should be manually operable with oversized leaves and will conform to NC ratings as determined by the
Acoustician. Local fire codes may require a roll-down fire shutter on the scene dock side for proper fire
separations. The acoustical door provides noise separation between the stage and the back of house area,
and is not intended to function as a fire door, weather seal, or for any other purpose.

2.8.2.5 WEATHER SEAL DOORS
A large robust weather seal door will be required to close off the proscenium opening of the stage house to
prevent vandalism and theft and to protect the stage from the elements. This door must be capable of
operating in a harsh environment, must work in extreme temperatures, and must handle high wind loads.

2.8.2.6 CABLE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
The cable management system is a network of cable passes, cable doors, cable hooks, and cable trays
that allow temporary production cabling to be run between loading areas, house mix positions, disconnect
locations, and the stage house. Penetrations are usually provided through the proscenium walls, stage floor

slab, pit walls, and all four walls of the stage house. Fire protection is achieved by installing intumescent
sacks that reside in the cable opening at all times.

2.8.3 THEATRICAL EQUIPMENT
The theatrical equipment includes specialty technical theater equipment. Equipment is planned to support
current performance programming while providing for reasonable future expansion. Organized by CSI
division, the theatrical equipment weve identified includes:

Division 11: Equipment
11 61 33 Theatrical Rigging
11 61 35 Theatrical Rigging Controls
11 61 37 Fire Safety Curtain
11 61 43 Theatrical Draperies
11 61 91 Theatrical Lighting Instruments and Accessories

Division 12: Furnishings
12 62 13 Fixed Audience Seating
12 63 11 Loose Audience Seating

Division 26: Electrical
26 61 11 Theatrical Dimming and Controls
26 61 20 Company Switches

Division 27: Communications
27 41 16.61 Integrated Audio-Video Systems and Equipment for Theaters

An outline of the equipment components for each of these items is provided in Appendix A.

2.9 NOISE GENERATION AND ACOUSTICS ANALYSIS OVERVIEW

2.9.1 GENERAL
Noise is defined by NYSDEC as any loud, discordant or disagreeable sound or sounds1. Basically, any
unwanted sound can be considered noise. Various environmental factors determine the impacts of noise
including number and type of receptors, sensitivity of receptors, distance from the source, terrain,
background sound levels, time of day, wind direction and climate conditions. The combination of sound
characteristics, environmental factors and sensitivity of the receptors determine whether noise impacts will

1
NYSDEC Program Policy Publication DEP-00-1, February 2, 2001

be adverse. Noise impacts can be evaluated in several ways including the extent to which government
ordinances or guidelines may be exceeded, and the extent to which receptors may be annoyed or
otherwise adversely affected by the sound.

The proposed project site is immediately north of the existing New York State Fairgrounds parking lots and
east of I-690 (and the I-690/NYS Route 695 exchange). The New York State Fairgrounds are located
immediately south of the I-690/NYS Route 695 exchange (see Figure 2). Background sound sources
around the site include traffic on the adjacent Interstate and State Fair Boulevard, events at the State
Fairgrounds, processes at Crucible Specialty Metals, Ben Weitzman scrap yard and at other local industrial
plants and the local railroad traffic.

2.9.2 NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS
In order to assess the sources of noise associated with this project, a sound level assessment was
performed by Acoustic Dimensions, which included modeling to predict future sound levels associated with
events and a comparison to applicable evaluation criteria. The Acoustic Dimensions sound propagation
report is included in Appendix B.

Sound propagation levels are based upon estimated average source levels. With respect to concerts
and/or performing arts, these levels will fluctuate from one performance to the next depending on the size
and nature of the event. For performances at a typical outdoor amphitheater with both covered and lawn
seating, the total sound level will consist of a combination of the following primary sources.

1. Source One is sound generated on the stage by instruments, instrument amplifiers, and stage
monitors. These sounds are the Artists means of expression.

2. Source Two is sound generated by the large-scale sound reinforcement loudspeakers flanking the
stage. These sounds are mixed (adjusted) for the enjoyment of the audience located under the
roof.

3. Source Three is sound generated by medium-scale loudspeakers distributed along the leading
edge of the roof. These sounds are mixed for the audience located on the lawn.

4. Source Four is sound generated by the audience. This source is often overlooked, however, the
audience members themselves are capable of generating sound levels equal to or greater than the
other sources.

Anticipated sound levels to be experienced by the nearby communities were estimated based on typical
Amphitheater sound levels for amplified music, estimated to be 100 dBA at the rear of the lawn seating
area. Sound levels of this magnitude will occur during loud rock and pop music concerts, which can be
considered a worst-case scenario. It should be noted that sound propagation over long distances from the
Amphitheater will vary significantly depending on atmospheric, weather and wind conditions. Although the
effect of these conditions cannot be precisely predicted, they could impact sound levels at any one location
by 10 dB or more.

Figures 2-1 and 2-2 depict the results of the sound propagation analysis during loud rock and pop music
concerts. The sound levels shown are not continuous expected sound levels generated during each event,
but instead are maximum anticipated sound levels that are will occur for a portion of some events during
certain times of a given performance. The duration of these maximum sound levels, the number of times
during an event they will occur, and the number of events during the season during which these sound
levels may occur, will depend on the events that are scheduled.

Image 2-1 shows the anticipated maximum sound levels within approximately 2 miles of the Amphitheater
location. Image 2-2 compares expected maximum sound levels from concerts in the proposed
Amphitheater with expected maximum sound level from concerts in the existing State Fair Grandstand.

As can be seen in the model results, there are some residential areas along State Fair Boulevard in
Lakeland where maximum sound levels from some events are predicted to exceed 65 dBA. Also, from
Image 2-2, it can be seen that these sounds would appear louder than that from a concert at the State
Fairgrounds under similar conditions. Using the 65 dBA threshold, some amount of annoyance/impact can
be expected in the Lakeland area based on the modeling conducted by Acoustic Dimensions. However, as
depicted in Image 2-2, no receptors are predicted to experience noise in excess of 70 dBA as a result of
the Amphitheater.

2.9.3 NOISE MITIGATION
In order to mitigate noise impacts from live performances, sound levels can be monitored by various
methods and the results can be communicated to the system operators. Sound level monitoring in the
community can be conducted during events, through automated systems or by manual sound level

measurements. This database of sound impacts can be used to alter future soundstage setups to mitigate
impacts. These modifications are typically used to control Source Three sounds as noted above. Sources
One and Two are controlled by the artist and their technicians and are typically not managed other than
possibly by contract in special cases. Contracts that are too restrictive can limit the desirability of a venue
for national tour acts. Source Four (crowd noise) is typically not mitigated. Should noise-related impacts
occur, sound level monitoring and Source Three controls can be implemented. Also, given the temporal
and intermittent nature of these events, public notice can be given to receptors in the area concerning times
and dates for performances to allow for effective planning and avoidance.

2.10 EVENT OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
A number of conceptual design decisions were made for this project based upon what is expected to be the
typical usage of the facility. Some of the most demanding requirements for an amphitheater are for
performances by high-level rock, pop, or country acts. Specific sizes, shapes, quantities, functions, and
orientations of the design elements are all affected by the needs of the performance and audience. These
were all taken into consideration.

Perhaps the best way to understand some of the design decisions is to take a look at a typical Day in the
Life of a performance at the amphitheater. These are typical performance related events which are mostly
behind the scenes. Additional consideration was given to operational issues, including arrival times and
traffic flow for administration, box office, security, emergency, concession, usher, and parking staff.

Time Performance Related Events
6:00 AM Eight tractor-trailers and four tour buses begin to arrive in the backstage parking area.
These trucks and buses carry the Artists equipment and crew.
6:00 AM Touring crew of 40 continues to sleep in their buses.
6:30 AM Local caterer delivers breakfast for local crew of 30.
6:45 AM House crew of truck loaders, stagehands, riggers, and electricians begin to arrive in 30
personal vehicles.
7:00 AM Touring caterer prepares breakfast for touring crew and drivers.

7:00 AM Amphitheaters technical director, Artists production manager, and Promoters
representative meet to discuss ticket sales, days schedule, etc.
7:00 AM Some crew members eat breakfast while others start unloading trucks.
7:30 AM Local electrician connects power for all touring equipment.
7:30 AM Touring and local riggers begin to hang 55 electric chain hoists.
8:00 AM Local electrician connects power for tour buses.
8:00 AM Touring crew breaks down into specialty areas (sound, lights, video, staging, etc.).
8:00 AM House crew is distributed to specialty areas as needed.
8:00 AM Touring production manager and accountant set up offices backstage.
8:30 PM As trucks are unloaded, they move from the dock to the parking area where they continue
to run while drivers catch up on sleep.
9:00 AM All crews work together as setup continues through the day.
10:00 AM Runners are sent on various errands in their personal vehicles.
11:00 AM Touring and local caterers prepare lunch for respective crews.
12:00 PM Touring and house crews break for lunch in shifts.
12:30 PM All crews work together to complete setup.
1:00 PM Touring crew interfaces with amphitheaters sound, intercom, house light, spotlight, and
video systems.
2:00 PM Trucks for two opening acts arrive at dock and are unloaded into stage wings and storage
areas.
3:00 PM Buses for two opening acts arrive in the backstage area.
4:00 PM Audience of 15,000 begins to arrive in parking areas.
4:00 PM Bulk of house crew dismissed until load-out, and leave in personal vehicles.

4:00 PM Artists buses arrive and park directly adjacent to backstage area.
5:00 PM Artist takes the stage for sound check/rehearsal.
5:30 PM Audience begins to gather at ticket booth, will call, and entrance gates.
6:00 PM As soon as Artist leaves the stage, word is given to open the gates to the audience.
6:00 PM Some of performers equipment is moved to make room for opening acts.
6:15 PM While audience enters, visits concessions and restrooms, and finds their seats,
equipment for opening acts is set on stage and they may do quick sound checks.
6:30 PM Touring crew breaks for dinner.
6:30 PM Some Artists eats dinner.
7:00 PM Some number of Artist guests and VIPs arrive by car or limo in the backstage area.
7:30 PM First opening act performs.
8:15 PM Second opening act performs.
9:00 PM Artist performs.
9:15 PM During Artists performance, opening acts equipment is packed up and loaded onto their
trucks.
10:00 PM First four Artists trucks are returned to the dock, ready for loading.
10:00 PM Opening act trucks and buses will probably leave the amphitheater during the Artists
performance.
10:30 PM Full house crew returns in personal vehicles.
10:30 PM Some audience members begin to leave so they can beat the crowd.
10:45 PM Touring caterer delivers some Artist dinners to their bus.
11:00 PM Show ends.
11:00 PM Immediately after the last encore, Artist will often go directly to their bus and leave the

amphitheater.
11:00 PM Touring crew and house crew work together to tear down, pack up, and load out the
show.
11:15 PM Remaining audience all head for the exits; many stopping at concessions on the way out.
11:30 PM Bulk of concert-goers attempt to leave parking areas.
12:00 AM Runner goes for end-of-night crew bus food.
12:30 AM As touring crew finish their specific tasks, they shower and head for their buses.
1:00 AM When the last truck door is closed, the local crew is dismissed and they depart.
1:00 AM Runner delivers food to crew buses.
1:30 AM Last of touring crew finish showers and go to buses.
*** For the amphitheater, the day ends and there may be some number of dark days until
the next performance.
*** For the Artist, touring costs require them to perform at least five times a week, and
logistics require the next venue to be no more than six hours away.
2:00 AM Touring crew sleeps while trucks and buses drive to the next venue.
7:00 AM It begins again.

No one day at the amphitheater will ever be exactly like this, but each of these events will occur at some
time, on some date, in some venue, for some performance.

Another consideration made was that since the amphitheater is located in a public park there is the
requirement to close-off the stagehouse from the public during non-show days. This is to protect it from
vandalism or theft, and also to protect it from the harsh winter climate. This requirement also presents the
opportunity to use the closed performance space as a black box theater for smaller theatrical productions
and special events. The shutter required to close-off a 60 W x 35 H opening will require significant
structural accommodation and will be a costly element of the design.


2.11 SPACE PROGRAMMING ANALYSIS
The space program is divided by general building units and further subdivided by zones: public areas,
stage and auditorium; stage support; performer support; administration; and, building services. Appendix C
provides a detailed space programming analysis for all of the building superstructures. The preliminary
building floor plans developed to date have been based on this space program.

AMPHITHEATER
Includes covered seating for 5,000, stage, stage support, performer support, and event space above.

LAWN SEATING
Includes uncovered seating, VIP Pavilions, and four food and beverage outbuildings and four
restroom outbuildings to serve 17,500 audience.

COMMUNITY AMPHITHEATER
Includes bench seating, fixed stage, pad for truck as backdrop, and infrastructure to support small
events.

TICKET GATE
Includes box office for will-call and ticket purchase, box office offices, entrance gates and additional
exit gates.

GENERAL SERVICES BUILDING
Includes administration, grounds maintenance, security, parking, and F&B receiving, storage, and
distribution.


2.12 CONCEPTUAL BUILDING DEVELOMENT PLANS
This section provides a summary of the architectural concepts and themes for each building structure.
Figures 2-3 through 2-14 provide various conceptual building plans, sections, elevations and renderings as
summarized below:

Figure Title
2-3 Amphitheater First Floor Plan
2-4 Amphitheater Second Floor Plan
2-5 Amphitheater Third Floor Plan
2-6 Amphitheater Building Section
2-11 Amphitheater Building Rendering
2-12 Box Office Building Floor Plan and Elevations
2-13 Concession and Restroom Building Plans and Elevations
2-14 Box Office Building Rendering
2-15 General Services Building-First Floor Plan
2-16 General Services Building-Second Floor Plan

2.12.1 DESIGN CONCEPTS AND MATERIALS OF CONSTRUCTION
The Lakeview Amphitheater, in some respects, is a celebration of the rebirth of Onondaga Lake. The
initiatives that have improved the environment in and around the Lake allow the public to once again enjoy
the nature and scenery of the western shore.

The design of the amphitheater is intended to be both organic and iconic. Using contemporary building
materials and dynamic forms, the buildings are inspired, complement, and participate in the natural
environment, while creating a presence and visual experience that is memorable. As the building rises,
textures and materials become lighter as in the natural world. The first floor of the building is stone, tying
the building to the ground and providing the visual base for the reclaimed-wood clad exterior columns to
launch towards the airy glass of the Event Center. The sloped and angular metal roofs below mimic the
random striations of geology, while the curved metal roof at the top of the structure appears to float in air.
On the exterior wall above the covered seating canopy, a lighted logo will glow during performances to
enhance the Lakeview Amphitheater brand.


The amphitheater is purposely nestled in a natural cove and is meant to be discovered as one approaches
it upon the entrance path. From far, very little is seen. As one approaches, more of the building is revealed
until its full detail is apparent. As if coming upon a natural feature like a rock outcropping or waterfall, its
grandeur isnt fully understood until you are completely in its presence.

2.12.2 AMPHITHEATER BUILDING
The first floor of the Amphitheater features splayed wings to house the separate artist and house crew
functions. In addition to creating a visually dynamic exterior, the wings work to further block public view to
the utilitarian and vehicular spaces to the rear. Between the wings, the docks and storage rooms serve to
allow lighting and sound rigging, scenery, and equipment to be brought efficiently from trucks to the Stage.
The west first floor lobby contains an elevator to the third floor Event Center. This lobby is configured with
secure doors that can isolate it from the stage and back-of-house spaces during non-performance times, so
that the public can access the Event Center without being able to enter restricted areas.

The second floor contains further program space for artist and house crew functions as well as mechanical
space. On this level, the roofs of the spaces below may be vegetated and terraced for outdoor activities.
The Event Center on the third floor is envisioned as a year-round space for community and visiting
performer functions. High above the ground, enclosed by glass curtain walls, and with a balcony
overlooking Onondaga Lake, the views will be breathtaking.

2.12.3 BOX OFFICE BUILDING
The Box Office building, as the gateway to the park, sets the opening tones for the aesthetic themes seen
in the amphitheater, but also stands as a beacon to event goers arriving in the parking lot. From a distance,
the soaring columns and sloped roof focus all to the point of entry; and the dynamic form produce the first
notes of excitement.

2.12.4 GENERAL SERVICES BUILDING
Containing the utilitarian and administrative functions of the Amphitheater Park, the General Services
Building is intentionally set aside from event goers experience and the procession from the parking lots to
the Box Office Gate, and eventually to the amphitheater itself. The building houses the necessary functions

of food preparation and storage, first aid, building and grounds repair, and the operators administrative
offices. Though easily accessed by service trucks, staff, and administrators, the building is mostly hidden
from view.

2.12.5 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPORT BUILDINGS
Several smaller structures stand in support of the event goers experience, including concessions,
restrooms, and merchandise sheds. Though of smaller stature, the structures will carry the aesthetic of the
larger buildings in material and form.

3.0 FACILITY SITING AND ALTERNATIVES REVIEW

3.1 GENERAL
This section provides a description and evaluation of potential amphitheater siting alternatives considered
for the project. Options considered include an alternative west shore site and four different facility siting
options on Lakeview Point. Alternatives were evaluated for their potential to mitigate impacts and for their
ability to meet the goals of the County. As stated in Section 1, the primary goals of the project are:

1. To help enhance public access to the western shore of Onondaga Lake
2. To take advantage of the new opportunities available as a result of the remediation and restoration
efforts taking place on the lakeshore, and
3. To further economic opportunity and revitalization in the Town of Geddes and surrounding areas.

Along with meeting the stated objectives outlined above, there are many considerations that factor into
determination of the suitability of a proposed site or concept design. These include issues such as
ingress/egress to the facility from the local road network, parking for attendees, parking and staging areas
for performer support vehicles, orientation of the stage house to the sun, topography of the site, access to
utilities, visual impacts/aesthetics and acoustics/noise propagation.

3.2 ALTERNATIVE PROJECT LOCATION
Various County owned public lands along the western shore of the lake were screened for their ability to
support the project concept. The 1991 Onondaga Lake Land Use Plan evaluated the public lands along the
western shore for their ability to support a variety of uses (see Figure 3-1).

The planning document shows a proposed location for an amphitheater near Lakeview point. As can be
seen from Figure 3-1, there are few other apparent sites along the western shore where a project of this
scale could be located with sufficient access, parking, and space to accommodate a development of this
size. Based on spacial constraints as the first criterion, alternative locations were reviewed and one
alternative site was identified for further consideration. This site is on County property at the Northwest
corner of the lake, in the area known as Maple Bay as shown on Figure 3-3.

This site was the only alternate area identified on the western shore that had the minimum space required
to accommodate the proposed stage house and seating areas, however there is little additional space for
ancillary facilities or amenities. The site is located off of Van Vleck Road at Exit 5 from Interstate 690
adjacent to Dwight Industrial Park. It currently is vacant with the exception of the County West Shore Trail
right of way. A proposed conceptual site layout for this site is shown on Figure 3-4.

The two candidate sites were evaluated based on a series of criteria related to suitability for development
and operation including proximity to residences and businesses, available public utilities, opportunities for
community enhancement, sensitive receptors, visual impacts, construction impacts, engineering
considerations and constructability and operability.

Siting the amphitheater at the Maple Bay location would require offsite parking and shuttle service to
accommodate the planned events. Although alternative parking may be available at Longbranch Park or
other County properties, none of these areas provide sufficient space for the expected 7,000 vehicles
associated with a major event. Under this alternative, construction would most likely take place at several
sites concurrently to accommodate offsite parking and reduced scale amenities would be provided at the
main venue site. Viability of the venue as a national tour stop may be diminished due to the site constraints
and reduced amenities. Public utilities are available nearby and renewable sourced power could be
provided at reduced cost from the Village of Solvay Municipal Electric system. Special consideration would
have to be given to geotechnical conditions on this site, however these may be less severe than at the
Lakeview site. Operating costs would be greater as most parking would remain offsite requiring use of
shuttles. Currently, a large portion of the Maple Bay site is located within a documented wetlands area.
Siting at this location would require a major wetlands offset mitigation effort to accommodate the necessary
site work resulting in additional project cost and a lengthened implementation schedule. By contrast, there
would be little concern regarding impacted soils or contaminated groundwater and coordination with
remedial construction would not be necessary as it would at Lakeview Point. The facility would be in
relatively close proximity to housing developments along Lake Pines Trail and Nicks Way in Lakeland and
homes and businesses on Van Vleck Road and the Dwight Industrial Park. Visual impact would be more
pronounced at this location given its relation to neighboring properties.

The Lakeview Point sites proximity to the State Fairgrounds parking lots would provide ease of access and
lower operating cost. In addition, the site has sufficient acreage to support all of the planned facilities for a
top tier venue. The site has access to public sewer, water, natural gas and low cost municipal electric
service and favorable topography to minimize visual impacts. Operations and security would be enhanced
through proximity to Honeywell Visitors Center site and the State Fair grounds. There are fewer homes and
businesses proximate to the site as compared to Maple Bay and the location could serve as a convenient
waypoint between Longbranch Park and the Inner Harbor for Loop the Lake Trail users. Difficult
geotechnical conditions are present on site and coordination with the ongoing Honeywell remedial
construction will be required.

In comparison to Maple Bay, the Lakeview Point site has more positive attributes to support the intended
use. Based on this initial screening, the analysis then focused on finding a favorable site in the Lakeview
Point area.

3.3 LAKEVIEW POINT SITING ALTERNATIVES
With regard to siting of the facility on Lakeview Point, several different alternatives were evaluated that
considered a variety of factors such as suitability for the proposed amphitheater facilities, constructability,
geotechnical issues, acoustics, noise impacts, visual impacts and other environmental considerations. A
total of 4 site locations were considered on Lakeview Point, with two being evaluated in further detail based
on an initial screening.

One option considered consisted of constructing the main stage house facilities on top of Lakeview Point at
the far eastern end of the point. This location most closely resembled the location that was depicted when
the project was first announced publically. After a more detailed review of this location, it was determined
that it was not suitable for properly supporting the operational requirements of the amphitheater due to poor
access to the backstage facilities by large delivery vehicles, buses, etc. In addition, the width of Lakeview
Point in this proposed location was not wide enough to support the outdoor seating and significant
earthwork would have been required. Based on the above, this location was not considered for further
development.

A second location considered consisted of locating the amphitheater closer to the NYS Fair parking lots to
more readily access the back stage facilities. While this option was ideal from a facility access standpoint,
several significant issues rendered this option not suitable for further consideration. First, being closer to I-
690, this location had significant background noise from the highway that was deemed to be detrimental to
the intended use of the site. A second disadvantage of this option related to a significant portion of the
venue being located on the old Crucible landfill. This would have required a significant amount of fill to be
placed on the capped landfill to develop the grades needed for the amphitheater and lawn seating. In
addition to these drawbacks, the location was also somewhat removed from the lake resulting in poor views
of Onondaga Lake and unobstructed views of I-690.

The two concepts evaluated with the greatest potential involved what were titled the Cove option which
sites the primary amphitheater structure along the northern shore of Waste Bed 6 and the Beacon option
which sites the facility on top of the Lakeview Point peninsula between Waste Beds 5 and 6. These two
options are shown conceptually in Figures 3-5 and 3-6. A design workshop was conducted with Onondaga
County staff in May 2014 where each option was reviewed with regard to its layout on the site, suitability to
support amphitheater operations, constructability, costs, visual impacts and other factors. To further assist
with the review of these options from an aesthetic and visual impact perspective, a detailed visual
assessment of these two options was performed. This consisted of simultaneously flying two high visibility
balloons at the location of both the Beacon and Cove options. The balloons were flown to a height of
approximately 87 feet above grade which represents the approximate height of the proposed
superstructure based on the conceptual engineering work performed on the building to date. The
assessment included taking pictures from various vantage points throughout the project area to ascertain
the visual differences between these two options. For a select number of vantage points, the photos were
superimposed with conceptual 3D building renderings to provide the County with a sense for the scale and
appearance of the facility from these vantage points. A complete copy of the visual impact assessment and
data is provided in Appendix D and Figures 3-7 thru 3-18 illustrate the key findings of the analysis.

With regard to the Beacon option, this location would site the primary amphitheater facility on the most
prominent location of Lakeview Point. This location would provide excellent views of the lake for the
audience and the building would be highly visible from different vantage points. Given its location on top of
Lakeview Point, the construction of the facilities would also have less impact on Honeywells ongoing

environmental remediation activities in this area. From a disadvantage standpoint, being closer to I-690,
the background noise in the outdoor seating area is quite noticeable. Of more significance, the Beacon
option requires a significant portion of the outdoor seating to be located over the Crucible Landfill, with
significant quantities of fill required (approximately 25 feet in certain areas) to create the sloped seating
areas required to support the amphitheater. In addition to being very costly to construct, this would be a
significant disturbance to the closed landfill and would likely not be viewed favorably by the NYSDEC.

The Cove option is a somewhat significant departure from the early project concept for the facility in that it
is not located on the top of Lakeview Point. This option was conceived based on a consideration to develop
an alternative that embraces the water, but at the same time blends into the natural topography of
Lakeview Point, and creates a park atmosphere for the community. The Cove option achieves this
objective by situating the main amphitheater along the lower elevations of the northern shoreline of
Lakeview Point and is positioned to blend in with the existing topography much better than any of the other
options considered. The views of Onondaga Lake for the audience are excellent for this option and the
background noise is lowest of any of the options considered due to it being furthest from I-690 of all of the
options considered. As a result of this option blending best with existing topography, the amount of fill and
earthwork required for this option is significantly less than the other options, thereby reducing the relative
cost of construction. This option also minimizes construction impacts to the Crucible landfill which is viewed
favorably by the NYSDEC.

Challenges associated with the Cove option include the need for significant coordination of the Countys
project with Honeywells remediation project as this area will be actively utilized by Honeywell until at least
the spring of 2015. In addition, due to the need to reconfigure the existing grading to accommodate the
amphitheater slopes required, portions of the recently constructed existing bike trail will need to be
reconstructed. With the main amphitheater building close to the water, access for large tractor trailers and
buses required careful consideration. Ultimately, it was determined that the best means of access was to
utilize and extend an existing service road that is currently being utilized for Honeywells construction
operations. While the access road is somewhat longer than required for the other options considered, it has
the benefit of already being partially constructed and the circuitous routing inherently separates the large
delivery vehicles from the venue attendees.

Based on the factors described above, the Cove option was identified as the preferred option for all work
going forward at the May design workshop with County staff.


4.0 CONCEPTUAL SITE DEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN

4.1 OVERVIEW OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PLAN
The proposed Site Development Master Plan (see Figures 4-1 and 4-2) is intended to provide a cohesive
set of spatial relationships to harmonize a variety of program elements with the opportunities and
constraints provided by the project site. As documented elsewhere in this report, the site is the subject of
an intensive remediation effort and has a long history as an industrial waste bed. The unique topography of
the peninsula, a result of its prior use as a series of waste beds, creates a high plateau along the
shoreline of Onondaga Lake which is unrivaled in the views it offers of the lake and surrounding
community. Also, the project site has recently been made available for public recreation, in a limited
fashion, through the recently completed extension to the Onondaga Lake West Shore multi-use trail.
Finally, the site is located adjacent to one of the major parking lots for the New York State Fair. These
factors, along with other operational considerations, were the driving factors in the development of the
proposed master plan. Below is a discussion of the key program elements and their relationship to the site
master plan.

4.2 AMPHITHEATER BUILDING
The siting of the Amphitheater Building is the result of consideration of several alternatives as discussed in
Section 3. The most important factors to consider are solar orientation and topography, followed by
vehicular and pedestrian access. The ideal orientation for an outdoor covered amphitheater facility is along
a north/south axis, with the stage proscenium facing south and the audience facing north. This provides the
least interference from the setting sun. The amphitheater itself requires an internal change in elevation from
the floor in front of the stage area to the rear of the covered area of approximately 15 feet. From the rear of
the roofed area upward to the rear of the lawn area, the slope can vary from 12 to 17 percent. The total
required elevation change required to provide the sight lines needed for a satisfactory audience experience
is approximately 40 feet. A landform which is a natural bowl suits the requirements of this type of facility
the best.

The Cove location was identified as the preferred siting location for the Amphitheater building because it
satisfies the first two criteria: the siting allows for a north/south orientation, with a panoramic view of the
lake beyond the building, and the natural topography in the notch of the waste bed peninsula

accommodates the topographic requirements of the facility. As for access, this location will allow service
functions to be routed behind (on the lake side) the facility, while pedestrian access will be from the front of
the facility on the high (peninsula) side.

4.3 COMMUNITY AMPHITHEATER
The Community Amphitheater is envisioned as an open air facility which will provide a location for smaller,
community based performances such as concerts by local musicians, theater productions, movies,
graduations and other community events. Like the main amphitheater, this facility has certain topographic
requirements. The main stage area is slightly elevated surrounded by a level lawn or paved area. The
surrounding seating area is envisioned as a series of semi-circular terraces, each retained by a low wall at
seating height. These terraced areas would have a grass surface and would be wide enough for patrons to
place lawn chairs or spread blankets to sit on. This facility would be much smaller in its overall footprint
than the main amphitheater, and would have an overall elevation change of 10-12 feet from the level area
in front of the stage to the highest of the terraced area.

The selected orientation for the Community Amphitheater is on an east/west axis, along the same
alignment as the peninsula. The stage area would face westward, while the amphitheater audience would
face east, looking out across the peninsula and with a panoramic view of the lake beyond. This location
would allow the facility to take advantage of the same main pedestrian and service vehicle access from the
entry gate as the main amphitheater. It would also allow the facility to have a connection to the green space
that will be developed in the internal part of the peninsula area. Finally, it would be in close proximity to the
bathroom and concession facilities at the outer edge of the main amphitheater lawn, and some, or all of
these facilities could be opened for smaller community events, depending on the need.

4.4 GREEN SPACE AND COMMUNITY AREAS
The development of this site provides several opportunities to enhance the existing landscape to create
additional green space which will enhance the view shed surrounding the amphitheater facilities, as well as
providing additional active and passive recreational opportunities for both the community at large and
patrons of events at the amphitheater. These areas include the following:

Festival Grounds on the former Crucible Landfill Site
This capped landfill will require some fill/re-grading to level the deep swales which bisect it, but can be
turned into a large lawn area which could accommodate festival activities such as vending, and
camping and other recreational activities. An access path surrounding this area will link it to the internal
trail network.

Nature Area on the Lakeview Point Peninsula
The peninsula area is an excellent place to show the unique community of plants and animals that
have developed on the site over the last 50-75 years. This area can be easily accessed from the
existing multi use trail, and would be directly connected to the more developed Community
Amphitheater area.

Picnic/Festival Grounds
The transitional area between the Peninsula nature area and the community amphitheater is an ideal
area for a Picnic/Festival grounds. This would be an open lawn area interspersed with some tree
groups.

Nature Area on the Northwestern Portion of the Site
This area has been substantially cleared and leveled during Honeywell cleanup operations, but it
provides an additional opportunity to add green space to the site, to provide an enhanced buffer to I-
690 and to improve the views on the approach to the amphitheater from the bike trail.

4.5 GENERAL SERVICE BUILDING
The General Service Building houses a number of important functions in the operation of the Amphitheater
facility, but does not necessary need to have a strong connection to the public spaces in the master plan.
The building is proposed to have a more conventional architecture, as opposed to the iconic form of the
amphitheater structure. As such, the proposed location on the north side of the former Crucible landfill, the
future Festival Grounds provides good proximity to the main amphitheater, but places the building in a
location that is somewhat less conspicuous to patrons of the site.

The parking for the General Service Building can also double as public parking for the site during non-event
times, and provides a good point to access the multi use trail and internal pedestrian network from the north
side of the site. The nearest access points to the multi use trail with parking are about a mile to the south at
the new trailhead parking area at the southern end of the State Fair parking lot, and several miles to the
north on Long Branch Road.

4.6 FACILITY GATEWAY/ENTRY
The site orientation of the gateway and entrance to the amphitheater facility is one of the most significant
elements in the master plan. The selected location is on a direct axis with the Amphitheater structure, but is
also clearly visible from all areas of the existing parking lot. This will provide an important visual reference
and way-finding cue to visitors arriving at the site for the first time. In addition, the iconic architecture of the
entrance gateway makes a bold statement that lets patrons know they have arrived at a special place, and
begins a sequence which will culminate when they come upon the Amphitheater itself, nestled in the cove.

The gateway structure will also house the box office, and a drop off loop with a small number of adjacent
parking spaces. This will serve patrons who wish to stop by to purchase tickets or conduct other business
at the box office during non-event times. The loop will be employed to provide tram and shuttle service to
the entrance from the main parking area, and remote parking areas during large events.

4.7 CONCESSIONS AND MERCHANDISING
Small buildings/kiosks for vending and merchandise sales are proposed along the walkway into the facility,
just inside the entrance gate. This is a natural location which allows space for vendors to set up but assures
maximum visibility from virtually all patrons entering and leaving the park. Concessions selling food and
beverages are proposed at several locations surrounding the main amphitheater, at both the upper and
lower levels. The buildings housing these functions will also be co-located with the restroom facilities.

In addition, the loop access drive/path surrounding the Festival Grounds will contain a small
parking/vending area along the northern side of the grounds which will provide an ideal location for vendors
servicing the area with mobile facilities, such as food trucks and trailers.

4.8 RESTROOMS
Restroom facilities are an important amenity for a facility of this type and their location has been carefully
considered. Restroom buildings are located at either side of the stage house, as well as along the top of the
lawn area. These upper facilities will also serve the community amphitheater when events area being held
there. They are also located in close proximity to the multi use trail, so the County could have the option to
make some or all of these facilities accessible to the public during non-event times as well, similar to the
bathroom buildings elsewhere along Onondaga Lake Park.

4.9 PARKING
The project site is conveniently located to take advantage of the significant amount of existing parking in
the State Fair parking lot to the south (Orange Lot). Tram and/or shuttle service can provide easy access
from this large parking area, and other off-site lots (i.e., Brown Lot), to the drop-off circle located
immediately in front of the entrance gateway.

There are also parking needs for the interior areas of the site. The drop-off loop has a small parking area
for patrons using the box office area. The General Service Building has a small amount of staff parking, as
well as adjacent parking for public trail access. The Festival Grounds has a small parking area for vendors
located on the north side of the grounds. The operation of the main Amphitheater requires a large number
of tractor trailer and bus parking spaces, which are located behind the facility on the northern edge of the
peninsula.

4.10 PEDESTRIAN ACCESS
Pedestrians may access the site through the main gateway entrance only during amphitheater events, but
will also have access via the multi use path at other times. This existing path enters the site from the north
and south sides and wraps around the peninsula. This alignment will be preserved, but slightly modified to
allow the trail to pass through the amphitheater site. A network of internal pedestrian pathways connects all
the major site elements. These pathways will be constructed so that service vehicles will be able to use
them for access, though only the major services drives will be constructed for heavy truck traffic.

4.11 ON-SITE TRANSPORTATION NETWORK
The amphitheater site requires both a vehicular and pedestrian circulation network. The master plan seeks
to keep those uses separated through the use of dedicated pedestrian walk ways along the parking area
and inside the site, with major vehicular traffic inside the site routed to the outer perimeter. There will be
occasional use of the pedestrian path network by service vehicles, but this will be mainly for maintenance
and concessions functions. This level of interaction is common in the adjacent Onondaga Lake Park and
presents minimal conflicts.

4.12 ADA CONSIDERATIONS
The main amphitheater site will be developed with an accessible network of paths and walkways. To the
maximum extent feasible, the intent is to avoid ramps, which will require more structural elements such as
handrails and landings, and keep slopes to more gentle levels which are accessible to all users. However,
due to the grade changes that are inherent in an amphitheater, there may be physical constraints which will
require alternate methods of achieving accessibility.

4.13 WATER ACCESS AND AMENITIES
A waterfront pier is shown on the master plan at a location on the north side of the peninsula, however,
dependent upon the final configuration of the site and the requirements of the lake improvement monitoring
equipment, other locations, may need to be considered. This amenity would give visitors to the site direct
access to the water, which is not currently provided anywhere on the site. Depending on the topographic
orientation of the final location, a series of ramps may be necessary to descend from the site to the pier
level.

4.14 BIKE PATH RECONFIGURATION
As mentioned previously, the existing multi use trail which follows the west shore of the lake will be
maintained in its current alignment, except at the amphitheater, where it will be reconfigured to be
integrated into the site. This reconfiguration may require reconstructing a portion of the trail approaching
the amphitheater from either side in order to match the required grades.

4.15 SITE SECURITY
The entire site will require security fencing in order to ensure that only paying patrons are able to access
the facility during a performance. Locking gates at the perimeter of the site where the multi use path enters
will also be required. During non-event times, these gates will be left open to allow public access to the site.

A restricted access service road, with a small security building, will enter the site to the west of the main
gateway. This will allow the buses and trucks associated with amphitheater productions, as well as vehicles
of staff members, to access the site, while restricting access for un-authorized vehicles. This post will also
be open during non-event times to allow public access to the parking along the nature area and to the
future waterfront pier area.

4.16 SITE USE DURING NON-PERFORMANCE PERIODS
While the site is being designed and developed with the function of the main Amphitheater as a primary
concern, it is understood that the majority of the time, events will not be taking place and the site (with the
exception of the amphitheater building itself) will be entirely accessible to the public as a park and
recreation area. The master plan creates spaces for a variety of both active and passive uses of the site,
including biking, running, picnicking, nature observation, kayaking and boating, taking part in programs at
the community amphitheater, among other activities.


5.0 SITE AND FACILITY ENGINEERING

5.1 TOPOGRAPHY AND GRADING TO SUPPORT AMPHITHEATER AND LAWN AREA
This section of the report describes the engineering requirements and considerations for creating an
amphitheater on Lakeview Point. A description of the existing site conditions is also provided in Sections 1
and 3 of this report. A description of the general design requirements of an amphitheater of this scale are
provided in Section 2 of this report.

In order to provide the line of sight conditions for a satisfactory audience experience, an amphitheater of
this scale will require a difference in elevation of approximately 40 feet from the bottom of the stage to the
top of the lawn seating area. To minimize the costs associated with imported earthen materials to create
this difference in elevation, many amphitheaters are constructed on areas of long steep slopes. The
preferred site layout provides differences in elevation of approximately 40 feet for approximately half of the
amphitheater footprint. The other half of the amphitheater footprint contains elevation differences of
approximately 25 feet. Accordingly, up to 15 feet of fill will be required in certain locations (see Figures 5-1
and 5-2). The maximum depths of fill will be required to create the eastern extents of the lawn seating area.
As the detailed design begins, one goal will be to minimize the amount of imported fill required for the
project and the preferred site layout minimizes the imported fill required compared to other options
considered. Nonetheless, it is expected that the project will require a considerable volume of imported fill to
construct the necessary lawn slopes for the venue.

As a result of the history of the site and the current state of the site, geotechnical issues will play a critical
role in the design of the amphitheater. The geotechnical conditions are summarized in Section 5.2 and a
preliminary geotechnical assessment is provided in Appendix E. The Waste Beds are engineered systems
constructed with stronger outer containment berms holding interior areas of weaker material. During this
conceptual design, it was assumed that cutting into the existing Waste Beds and their containment berms
should be minimized to the extent possible due to concerns about slope stability. Based on the preliminary
geotechnical assessment (see Appendix E), the slope stability of the berms does not appear to be a
significant issue based on the current site layout and grading plan. This issue will be examined further
during detailed design. If it is found that the Waste Beds and containment berms can be cut, the volume of

imported fill will be able to be reduced, which would reduce the overall project cost. At this time, the
conceptual design shows very little cutting into the existing waste bed system.

Relative to earthwork, another geotechnical concern is the ability of the Waste Beds to bear the weight of
the required fill. It is expected that placing earthen fill will result in the settling of the weaker areas of the
waste beds. Based on existing geotechnical reports and recent consultations with the reports authors,
placing approximately 15 feet of fill on the waste beds may result in up to 6 feet of settling over a period of
several months. Based on these conditions, it will be necessary to pre-load certain areas by placing fill
well in advance of the construction of finished surfaces. This will allow these areas to settle and stabilize
prior to more formal site construction work.

5.2 GEOTECHNICAL

5.2.1 OVERVIEW OF EXISTING CONDITIONS
The general area where the project site is located is within the Erie-Ontario Lowlands province, which is an
area of low relief lying south of the Great Lakes characterized primarily by glacial deposits. This area was
a former glacial lake bottom which has been modified by erosion and repeated glacial deposition. The
project site is located along the southwest shore of Onondaga Lake. This area was previously marsh land
that was subsequently filled by the Solvay Process Company, later known as Allied Chemical Company,
between 1916 and 1943. During this time eight lagoons, commonly referred to as Waste Beds 18, were
constructed to accept waste material generated as a result of the production of soda ash. This waste
material is commonly referred to as Solvay Process Waste (SPW) which is a chalky material consisting
mainly of calcium carbonate with gypsum, sodium chloride, and calcium chloride. Each Waste Bed was
constructed as a diked/bermed area where SPW was pumped as liquid slurry. The liquid portion of the
slurry was allowed to decant and/or evaporate over time prior to additional liquid slurry being added to the
same Waste Bed. After a Waste Bed reach a certain portion of the capacity, another dike/berm was
constructed using a portion of the solid material within the Waste Bed and the disposal process then
continued. The solid material subsequently forms the upper soil-like strata and is approximately 40- to 60-
feet in thickness. The western portion of Waste Beds 18 also includes a former steel mill landfill which
was capped and closed in 1989 per NYSDEC regulations.

The native soil underlying the SPW is part of a region within the Erie-Ontario Lowlands known as the
Oneida Lake Plain consisting of soft cohesive or loose to medium dense granular lacustrine deposits. The
underlying soils, in descending order, consist of: organic Peat; loose sandy Marl; soft Silt and Clay; loose to
medium dense Silt and Sand; medium dense Sand and Gravel; and very dense silty Glacial Till. The
thickness of the overburden soil ranges from approximately 100 feet to approximately 250 feet. Beneath
the glacial till is the Vernon Shale which is part of the Salina Group. Shale beds vary in thickness from
approximately 1 foot to approximately 7 feet and may contain thin dolomitic limestone and/or gypsum
seams between Shale beds. Traversing through the project site area is the former stream bed of Nine Mile
Creek. In this area, the overburden soil can be up to 220 feet thick with an additional 40 to 60 feet of
overlying SPW. This trough is due to erosion activity caused by Nine Mile Creek and repeated glacial
scour.

Site topography is fairly flat with slopes generally at 3-percent or less with the exception where the former
Waste Bed berms were constructed. At these locations the terraced slopes can exceed 15-percent. The
elevation at the edge of Onondaga Lake is approximately +363.0 feet above mean sea level (ft-AMSL) and
at the top of the Waste Bed the ground surface elevations is approximately +425 ft-AMSL.

5.2.2 HISTORICAL AND SUPPLEMENTAL DATA OVERVIEW
Since the early to late 1980s, subsurface investigations have been conducted within Waste Beds 1-8 to
characterize the subsurface materials (e.g., SPW, in-situ soils, bed rock) and groundwater for the presence
of various chemical constituents. These constituents are associated with the SPW and other items
disposed in the former steel mill landfill. During those studies, most SPW and/or soil samples were
retrieved using the Standard Penetration Test method in accordance with ASTM D1586, or by advancing
thin-walled tubes (e.g., Shelby Tubes) in accordance with ASTM D1587. The information included on the
boring logs allows for an understanding of the subsurface soil stratigraphy and an approximation of the
bedrock surface. Figure 5-3 illustrates the location of various subsurface investigation performed in the
area of the proposed amphitheater.

For the immediate area where the Amphitheater is proposed, the following borings, test pits and/or
groundwater wells were reviewed to identify the subsurface soil conditions.

Location
Type of
Exploration
Surface
Elevation
(ft)
Depth
Explored
(ft)
Bottom of
Boring
Elevation
(ft)
Terminated in
Soil Unit
SB-15 Soil Boring NA 80.0 -- SILT and CLAY
SB-16BR Soil Boring NA 134.7 -- Bedrock Shale
SB-17 Soil Boring NA 62.0 -- clayey SILT
SB-28NM Soil Boring NA 50.0 -- SAND, and Silt
SB-29NM Soil Boring NA 54.0 -- clayey SILT
SB-30NM Soil Boring NA 50.0 -- medium to fine SAND
TP-11 Test Pit NA 10.0 -- Solvay Waste
MW-04-S Monitoring Well 388.61 18.0 370.61 SILT
MW-04-I Monitoring Well 388.75 34.0 354.75 medium to fine SAND
MW-04-D Monitoring Well 388.66 154.0 234.66 TILL (SILT)
MW-04-G Monitoring Well 388.84 50.0 338.84 SAND
MW-04-BR Monitoring Well 388.19 204.0 184.19 SHALE
MW-17-S Monitoring Well 409.20 56.0 353.2 SAND
MW-17-I Monitoring Well 409.33 72.0 337.33 SAND
MW-17-D Monitoring Well 409.18 185.6 223.58 TILL (SILT)
OW-01S Observation Well 388.62 26.0 362.62 MARL
OW-02S Observation Well 388.44 26.0 362.44 MARL
OW-05G Observation Well 388.18 54.0 334.18 fine SAND, and Silt
OW-06G Observation Well 388.24 50.0 338.24 SAND, and Gravel
TW-01S Observation Well 388.47 28.0 360.47 MARL
TW-03G Observation Well 388.54 54.0 334.54 fine SAND, and Silt
DW-102 Monitoring Well NA 140.0 -- sandy SILT
CM-108 Monitoring Well NA 66.0 -- Organic PEAT
LVA-B1 Soil Boring 410.0 165.0 245.0 SILT and CLAY
LVA-B2 Soil Boring 424.0 162.0 262.0 SILT and CLAY
Note: NA Not Available within information reviewed

In addition to the above exploration locations, the following borings, and monitoring wells were also used to
approximate the bedrock surface beneath Waste Beds 18.

Location
Type of
Exploration
Surface
Elevation
(ft)
Depth to
Bedrock (ft)
Top of
Bedrock
Elevation (ft)
Depth
Explored
(ft)
Bottom of
Boring
Elevation
(ft)
SB-09BR Soil Boring NA 114.8 -- 114.8 --
MW-03BR Monitoring Well 366.17 142.0 224.17 175.0 191.17
MW-02D Monitoring Well 366.34 97.7 268.64 98.0 268.34
MW-16D Monitoring Well 426.12 132.9 293.22 133.0 293.12
MW-18D
(SB-24BR)
Monitoring Well 425.00 146.0 279 146.6 278.4
MW-100D/BR Monitoring Well NA 74.3 -- 76.1 --
Note: NA Not Available within information reviewed

During this planning study, two soil borings were advanced through the SPW and into the underlying in-situ
native soils. Each boring was terminated within the Silt and Clay unit. Soil samples were retrieved from
each stratigraphic unit encountered and select soil samples were submitted for geotechnical laboratory
testing. Select samples retrieved were analyzed using one or more of the following test methods.

Moisture Content (ASTM D2216);
Sieve Analysis of Soil w/o Hydrometer (ASTM C117 & C136);
Sieve Analysis of Soil w/ Hydrometer (ASTM C136, D421 & D422);
Atterberg Limits (ASTM D4318);
Unit Weight (ASTM D7263);
Unconfined Compression Strength (ASTM D2166);
Void Ratio; and/or
Uniaxial Consolidation (ASTM D2435)

The results from these tests will be available at a later date and can be used to refine the preliminary
settlement and preliminary slope stability calculations as provided in the Onondaga Lakeview Amphitheater

Geotechnical Conceptual Evaluation by Geosyntec Consultants (Geosyntec Report) included in Appendix
E. In addition, these results can also be used to guide a site specific subsurface geotechnical investigation
during the design phase of this project.

5.2.3 SUBSURFACE SOILS CHARACTERISTICS SUMMARY
As previously indicated, subsurface investigations have been conducted within Waste Bed 18 since the
early to late 1980s; however, most of the work as been associated with the environmental aspects
associated with the disposition of waste materials (e.g., SPW, steel mill. Provided below is a summary of
the historical geotechnical laboratory testing results that was available for review.

Boring
Depth
(ft bgs)
Soil
Strata
Specific
Gravity
Hydraulic
Conductivity
(cm/sec)
Uni-Axial Consolidation Test
Test
CU Triaxial Test
Preconsol.
Press (tsf)
C
c
C
r

C' / C ' /
(psf) (degrees)
SB-01 32-34 Clayey Silt -- -- -- -- -- 80.6 / 181.4 34.1 / 19.3
SB-03 38-40 Clayey Silt 2.74 1.66 x 10
-7
12.17 0.31 0.02 -- --
SB-07 6-8 Marl -- -- -- -- -- 93.6 / 231.8 39.3 / 23.7
SB-10 44-46 Marl -- -- -- -- -- 164.2 / 506.8 39.1 / 16.2
SB-13BR 40-42 Solvay Waste -- -- -- -- -- 371.5 / 1565 51.0 / 16.6
SB-14 72-74 Marl -- -- -- -- -- 0.0 / 165.6 34.4 / 15.5
SB-16BR 58-60 Clayey Silt -- -- -- -- -- 123.8 / 1570 36.4 / 15.0
SB-17 10-12 Solvay Waste -- -- -- -- -- 1248 / 1698 22.6 / 6.2
58-60 Clayey Silt 2.76 2.73 0.19 0.01 -- --
SB-18 10-12 Solvay Waste 2.61 1.12 x 10
-5
0.47 3.18 0.03 -- --
SB-19BR 24-26 Solvay Waste 2.55 1.99 x 10
-5
2.02 1.85 0.02 -- --
SB-20 48-50 Clayey Silt -- 1.13 x 10
-7
-- -- -- 525.6 / 766.1 27.5 / 12.2
SB-21 14-16 Solvay Waste -- -- -- -- -- 1371 / 2416 18.7 / 0.0
SB-22 24-26 Marl 2.69 -- 0.92 0.72 0.01 -- --
SB-23 32-34 Silt 2.72 -- 2.39 0.06 0 -- --
SB-24BR 48-50 Solvay Waste 2.43 8.96 x 10
-6
5.82 0.92 0.01 -- --
SB-25 18-20 Clayey Silt -- -- -- -- -- 452.2 / 602.0 30.2 / 19.2
SB-27NM 20-22 Solvay Waste -- -- -- -- -- 509.8 / 1591 31.1 / 6.6
38-40 Marl -- -- -- -- -- 0.0 / 293.8 40.2 / 27.8
SB-28NM 14-16 Solvay Waste -- -- -- -- -- 0.0 / 648.0 42.4 / 19.3
SB-29NM 18-20 Solvay Waste -- -- -- -- -- 548.6 / 594.7 42.4 / 17.6
SB-31NM 16-18 Solvay Waste 2.59 1.85 x 10
-5
2.86 1.98 0.14 -- --
SB-20MW 18-20 Marl 2.72 1.02 x 10
-5
0.28 0.53 0.01 -- --
Notes: ft bgs feet below ground surface
cm/sec centimeter per second
tsf tons per square foot
psf pounds per square foot

5.2.4 PRELIMINARY SLOPE STABILITY EVALUATION
Geosyntec conducted a slope stability evaluation for three cross sections through the area where the
amphitheater structure is planned to be constructed. The evaluation was conducted using Spencers
method for rotational failure surfaces and Janbus Simplified method for block type failure surfaces. The
calculations for these two slope stability methods were conducted using the SLIDE computer program
developed by Rocscience, Inc. The preliminary evaluation indicated that the lowest factor of safety (FOS)
for the proposed construction is 1.32 which exceeds the minimum targeted FOS of 1.30. Additional
information regarding this evaluation is provided in the Geosyntec Report provided in Appendix E.
Additional evaluations should be conducted using the data collected during the preliminary geotechnical
investigation since the information used to model the area was from borings conducted at other areas
within Waste Beds 18 and at Waste Bed 13.

5.2.5 PRELIMINARY FILL AND SETTLEMENT EVALUATION AND CONSIDERATIONS
Geosyntec also conducted a preliminary settlement evaluation based upon the anticipated amount of fill
that will be placed to create the proper grades and sight lines for the amphitheater. The evaluation was
conducted using uni-dimensional consolidation theory in which total settlement is the sum of primary (due
to applied loading) and secondary (due to soil creep) settlement. The analysis was performed using the
Settle3D computer program developed by Rocscience, Inc. Settlement of up to approximately 6-feet was
calculated based upon placing approximately 16-feet of fill for the lawn area. Additional information
regarding this evaluation is provided in the Geosyntec Report provided in Appendix E. Additional
evaluations should be conducted using the data collected during the preliminary geotechnical investigation
since the information used to model the area was from borings conducted at other areas within Waste Beds
18 and at Waste Bed 13.

5.2.6 PRELIMINARY DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

5.2.6.1 CORROSION
The SPW contains calcium carbonate (CaCO3) with gypsum, sodium chloride (NaCl), and calcium chloride
(CaCl). These compounds can be corrosive to steel and concrete such that when mixed with water (e.g.,
groundwater, infiltrating rainwater) can produce an electrolytic solution. This type of solution can be
aggressive towards steel by causing it to oxidize (rust) and loose strength and/or attack the lime within the

concrete matrix. In addition, the salts that form from the chemical transformations have the ability to
substitute with the bonding agents within the concrete. Protective measures could include but not be
limited to: sacrificial anodes for foundation elements; coating specific foundation elements; separating
foundation elements from the SPW and electrolytic solution, to name a few alternatives. In addition, the
use of non-metallic pipe (e.g., High Density Polyethylene HDPE) should be considered for buried utilities
that do not require metallic piping.

5.2.6.2 FILL AREAS AND OTHER OPEN AREAS
For large areas that will be open and subsequently loaded either by new fill or vehicles (e.g., lawn seating
area, parking lots) one method to reduce post construction settlement would be to preload the area with
controlled compacted fill placed in layers. The method of inducing settlement prior to construction is
referred to as surcharging. The principle of this method is to add weight to the area (e.g., soil fill) while
monitoring the settlement and in-situ pore water pressure. The amount of weight to be added to a specific
area should be in excess of the anticipated loading upon completion of construction. Since the in-situ SWP
has a fairly low shear strength, it would be prudent to load the areas in stages such that as the in-situ pore
water pressure decreases to a determined level, additional fill material could then be applied. This method
of staging and monitoring the surcharge should preclude a deep-seated bearing capacity failure and/or
slope failure from occurring.

5.2.6.3 FOUNDATIONS HEAVILY LOADED STRUCTURES
Based upon the subsurface stratigraphy, the amphitheater structure (i.e., loading dock truck apron, stage
area, and seating area, etc) and other large structures associated with this project should be supported
by a pile foundation founded on/in the underlying Vernon Shale. By driving piles to bedrock, these
structures will not settle as a result of the underlying SPW, soft cohesive soils and/or loose granular soils
consolidating from the additional loads applied by these new structures. It is recommended that during the
design phase additional soil borings be conducted with rock coring such that rock core samples can be
collected and subsequently tested for strength parameters to identify an allowable bearing capacity. In
addition, depending upon the type of pile to be used (e.g., steel H-piles, steel pipe piles filled with concrete,
reinforced concrete piles, etc), some form of corrosion protection may be required as discussed above.

5.2.6.4 FOUNDATIONS LIGHTLY LOADED STRUCTURES
For lightly loaded structures (e.g., restroom facilities, vendor facilities, drainage structures, etc) methods
for reducing settlements include surcharging as discussed above and/or floating the structure. A method
for floating structures is to remove a known amount of in-situ material and replace it with light weight fill
(e.g., red-dog, geofoam) and subsequently construct upon the light weight fill. The intent is to remove
enough in-situ material such that when replaced with the light weight fill and the structure load the increase
in loading at the bottom of the light weight fill is zero or less.

5.2.6.5 ROADWAYS
The new roadways that are being planned must support heavy loads, in particular semi tractor trailer trucks
and buses. Since the subgrade of these roadways will most likely consist of soft to medium stiff SPW, the
roadway section (e.g., sub-base material and pavement) will require addition support and/or means to
distribute the wheel loading over a large area. One method for distributing the wheel loading over a large
area would be to place a geotextile rated for stabilization on the prepared subgrade followed by a Geogrid.
The geotextile will provide a separation between the sub-base material and underlying subgrade as well as
some strength when a load is applied. The Geogrid will assist in spreading out the wheel loads over a
much larger area thus reducing the applied load to the subgrade material.

5.2.6.6 SETTLEMENT BETWEEN PILE SUPPORTED AND NON-PILE SUPPORTED ITEMS
To minimize settlement between pile supported and non-pile supported items (e.g., seating area and lawn,
roadway and loading dock apron, etc), a portion of the unsupported item may be floated for a specified
distance away from the supported item. Floating of structures is discussed above.

5.2.6.7 FLEXIBLE CONNECTIONS FOR UTILITIES
For utilities that are hard piped and cannot tolerate displacements, it is recommended that flexible
connections be used where the piping enters the structure and/or the area that has been prepared so as
not to settle. In addition, utilities should not be rigidly connected to the foundation but rather sleeved
through them with enough space to anticipate potential settlements.

5.2.7 PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS
As previously indicated, the upper stratum consists of SPW that is in a soft to very soft condition. During
the remedial construction activities that are being conducted in this area in conjunction with the Onondaga
Lake Cleanup project, it has been reported that large pieces of construction equipment have become
buried up to the top of their tracks or tires when traversing over the SPW. In addition, it has been reported
that temporary construction roads were built by placing granular fill consisting brick, rock, broken up
concrete, and gravel in several layers until settlement of the fill material ceased. Apparently, the built up
temporary construction road is approximately 5 to 6 feet in thickness in which 3- to 4-feet of the material
settled into the SPW.

During construction, temporary construction roads should be aligned to the best practical extent as the final
roadways so that as much settlement can occur prior to the final roadway being placed. By aligning the
temporary roadways in this manner, the fill material could be used for the final roadway subgrade.
Depending upon area and subsurface conditions where temporary roadways and/or final roadways will be
constructed, there is also the possibility that stabilization methods may be required. One such method is to
place a geotextile stabilization fabric on the subgrade (e.g., SPW) and also use a Geogrid within the
granular fill to assist with spreading out the load induced by the construction and/or design vehicles upon
the subgrade.

Another consideration to take into account is the type of construction equipment that should be used. Until
haul roads and/or hard no-yielding surfaces are available to support conventional construction equipment,
low ground pressure equipment (e.g., wide-tracked light weight equipment, light weight equipment with
oversized balloon-like tires) will be required.

5.2.8 FUTURE DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSES
Prior to conducting a final foundation design for the amphitheater structure, supporting structures (e.g., box
office, office & maintenance building, etc.), roadways and other appurtenances, additional subsurface
investigation work should be conducted. This work would include advancing soil borings to the top of and
into the underlying Vernon Shale to identify the depth to competent bedrock and refine the anticipated pile
lengths as well as advancing shallower borings in the areas where roadways and lightly loaded structures
(e.g., restroom facilities, vendor facilities) will be located.


While advancing the borings, SPW and soil samples would be collected for geotechnical laboratory testing
to further identify geotechnical design parameters. The samples would be analyzed using one or more of
the following test methods.
Moisture Content (ASTM D2216);
Sieve Analysis of Soil w/o Hydrometer (ASTM C117 & C136);
Sieve Analysis of Soil w/ Hydrometer (ASTM C136, D421 & D422);
Atterberg Limits (ASTM D4318);
Unit Weight (ASTM D7263);
Unconfined Compression Strength (ASTM D2166);
Void Ratio;
Uniaxial Consolidation (ASTM D2435);
Triaxial Unconsolidated-Undrained (ASTM D2850);
Triaxial Consolidated-Undrained (ASTM D4767);
Unconfined Uniaxial Rock Core Compression (ASTM D7012) and/or
Corrosion testing that could include: pH, Sulfate, Chloride, Calcium, Sodium,
Resistivity, Reduction-Oxidation (REDOX) Potential, Cation Exchange Capacity
(CEC), and/or other parameters.

The number of borings to be advanced and the amount of testing to be conducted has yet to be finalized.
These items would be identified during the design phase of the project after a final conceptual design has
been identified. The purpose of the geotechnical laboratory testing is to obtain addition information to use
to design the appropriate foundations and roadway sub-base sections in order to limit the amount of
settlement of the new structures. In addition, this data will also be used to further refine/calibrate the slope
stability and anticipated settlement analyses that were initially begun during this phase and as detailed in
the Geosyntec Report provided in Appendix E.


5.3 STRUCTURAL CONSIDERATIONS

5.3.1 GENERAL
As stated above, the soil at the proposed site is not ideal for supporting large structures on shallow
foundations. For this reason, any structures of significant size and with significant load to be transferred to
the foundation will make use of deep foundations founded on bedrock. As the depth to bedrock can be over
200 feet at the proposed site, it is not practical to use this same system for supporting lighter structures.
Where possible, lighter structures will be supported on stiffened shallow foundations designed to withstand
the stresses applied from the minor subgrade movement that is expected even after the recommended
geotechnical improvements.

With respect to the superstructure, the intent is to support the function of the facility while blending in to the
form of the facility. Primarily, the superstructure will be structural steel. For structures of this size and type,
this generally presents the best solution in terms of strength, durability, and cost. However, there will most
likely also be some load bearing masonry walls as well as some structural light gage steel framing in the
support buildings.

5.3.2 AMPHITHEATER
The amphitheater consists of two main building sections: the stage house and the canopy over the covered
seating.

5.3.2.1 THE STAGE HOUSE
The stage house will be a typical steel framed structure. Non-composite and composite steel joists and joist
girders will make up the floor and roof systems and will be supported on steel columns. Columns will be
hidden within the partition walls where possible and will be laterally braced at floor elevations. The stage
presents the only location in the stage house where long, open spans and tall, laterally unbraced columns
will be required due to the function of that area. The girder over the proscenium opening will be a deep
truss designed to withstand the loading from the event space floor structure above, the canopy girders that
it supports, and the lateral wind load from the proscenium opening enclosure in the closed position. Access
stairs and elevated galleries above the stage will be supported off of the columns and/or hung from the

joists above. Since the area above the stage will be used as event space, the design of the long span
composite floor joists will account for vibration due to human activity.

The foundation will be driven H-piles founded on bedrock. Pile caps will be located at column locations and
will generally be supported by 2 to 4 piles as loading requires. Due to the existing subgrade, the structural
floor will be designed to be fully supported off of the deep foundation and will not account for any support
from surface materials. This will prevent serviceability issues resulting from differential settlement between
the floor slab and structural elements within the building. The floor system will have a grid of integral grade
beams that will be tied to the pile caps as well as be supported by a single pile at beam intersections where
the distance between pile caps exceeds the allowable beam span. The structural slab will be a reinforced
concrete slab spanning between grade beams. The pile caps, grade beams, and floor slab will be cast
monolithically. The truck apron at the back end of the building will also be supported in this method so that
the elevation difference between the apron and the loading dock remains constant and is immune to
differential settlement.

5.3.2.2 THE CANOPY
The canopy framing requires long spans to a limited number of tall, laterally unbraced columns. Preliminary
design of this structure consists of 8 deep trussed box girders spanning from the stage house to the edge
of the canopy. The box girders will likely be shop fabricated in sections allowing them to be transported to
the site and spliced together in the field during erection. These box girders will likely be deep and wide
enough that utility and/or personnel access along the interior of the trussed box girder could be
accommodated. Spanning between the girders will be long span steel joists. Catwalks and access
platforms will be hung from the roof structure. Since this is the open part of the structure, the design of the
canopy structure will account for more wind uplift than the stage house structure.

The foundation will be similar to the stage house foundation in concept. The pile caps under the canopy
supporting columns will be larger due to the heavier loading. Also, due to the wind uplift stated above, the
piles will likely also need to be able to resist a net uplift. The structural floor slab under the canopy will be
gridded with grade beams and intermediate piles as described above.

5.3.3 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPORT BUILDINGS
Where possible, smaller structures will be founded on stiffened shallow foundations. However, this is not
likely to be possible for the box office or the general services building. These two structures will likely be on
piles driven to bedrock similar to the amphitheater.

Structures such as the restrooms and concession buildings will probably be on stiffened shallow
foundations. The primary foundation consideration at these locations will be accounting for differential
settlement. As stated in the geotechnical considerations, differential settlement at the proposed site is a
significant design consideration that will need to be dealt with in the design of anything not on piles as well
as anything that is adjacent and is functionally connected to a structure on piles. To address this, the
structural design will take into account the recommended subgrade improvements stated in the
geotechnical section of this report. Utility connections to these buildings will need to account for a small
amount of movement. Typically, this is done with pipe sleeves and flexible connections. This will be
especially important for plumbing connections.
Structural framing for the miscellaneous support buildings will be primarily structural steel. However, some
load bearing masonry and light gage metal framing may be appropriate for the smaller structures.

5.3.4 SITE ACCESS ROADS/PATHS
Site access roads and paths will be built on improved subgrade. As described in the geotechnical section of
this report, this primarily consists of base stabilization by pre-loading the existing subgrade followed by
placement of geogrid and the addition of suitable materials on top of a geotextile fabric. Depending on
grading requirements, this may be done in conjunction with other cut/fill operations. The intended purpose
of this improvement is to reduce settlement to within acceptable limits. A significant consideration in the
design of these access roads and paths will be their functional interaction with structures that will be
constructed on a deep foundation and will effectively not experience settlement. The paths will be of flexible
construction materials to account for some movement. This may consist of well graded gravel and stone
dust, asphalt, or other flexible pavement options.


5.4 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
The construction of the Lakeview Amphitheater will require the management of storm water runoff. The
project will disturb more than 1 acre of land, which will result in the need for a SPDES permit under GP-0-
10-001. This permit requires the implementation of facilities to meet designated management criteria, the
creation of an erosion and sediment control plan, and the preparation of a Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP). This site is located in the Onondaga Lake watershed. A Total Maximum Daily
Load (TMDL) of phosphorus has been established for Onondaga Lake. Additional phosphorus
management considerations will be incorporated into the final site design.

The site drains directly to Onondaga Lake which is a large body of water. This should relieve the
requirement to manage the quantity of storm water runoff from the project area. The SPDES permit allows
relief from this requirement if the applicant can demonstrate that the peak rate of storm water runoff from
the site will not affect the peak rate of flow in the receiving water body. The peak runoff from the
amphitheater site will occur approximately 12 to 15 hours into the 24-hour design storm. The peak flow in
Onondaga Lake will occur perhaps days after the 24-hour design storm. This difference in peak timing is a
result of the relative size differences of the two watersheds. The peak flow from the amphitheater site will
occur well before the peak in Onondaga Lake. Storm water runoff from the outer reaches of the Onondaga
Lake watershed requires considerable travel time through its drainage network. The Onondaga Dam on
the Onondaga Nation also provides a delay in the arrival of the peak flow to the lake. The relief from
quantity management can noticeably reduce the amount of space needed for a project. Large areas of
land are typically required to manage storm water quantity from projects of this scale.

While treatment of storm water quantity should not be necessary, treatment for storm water quality will be
required. Storm water quality treatment volumes are generally a direct result of the measurement of
impervious area of the site. These treatment volumes can be reduced through the minimization of
impervious area, the use of grass-lined swales rather than pipes, the harvesting of rainwater, and other
methods. Some of these practices come with considerable implementation and maintenance costs, which
will be evaluated with the County during detailed design.

The construction of the amphitheater and its related site improvements will result in the creation of a
considerable amount of impervious surfaces. In some areas, impervious surfaces may be able to be
reduced. For example, the parking areas for large tractor trailers account for a considerable percentage of
the potential impervious area. These areas will be subjected to tractor trailer traffic relatively infrequently.
These areas may offer a good opportunity for a grass-based paving system. Honeywell is currently
conducting a demonstration project to assess the effectiveness of various grass-based paving systems and
it is anticipated that the remedial strategy for the NYS Fair parking lots will involve covering the lots with a
vegetative parking lot rather than pavement or granular material. With regard to the amphitheater building,
the substantial roof area may present an opportunity to harvest rainwater for non-potable use at the facility,
reducing the effective impervious area of the site.

While the detailed design of any storm water management has not yet commenced, it is likely that a certain
amount of traditional infrastructure (catch basins, pipes, roof leaders, etc.) will need to be constructed to
keep the site usable and maintainable. However, one goal during detailed design will be to minimize the
use of traditional infrastructure in favor of practices with a lower initial capital cost and reduced
maintenance requirements. Where feasible, grass-lined swales can be used in lieu of piped storm water
conveyances. Footpaths and site access can be designed to minimize the crossing of drainage paths,
reducing the need for cross-culverts. The pros and cons of these types of approaches will be discussed
with the County during final design. The reduction of the piped system in favor of a more natural system
can provide a reduction to the volume of water required to be treated for quality by the SPDES permit.

While serving as a focal point for Onondaga County in many ways, the Lakeview Amphitheater can
certainly serve as a showcase for the principles developed during the Countys award-winning SaveThe
Rain program. The development of this site will allow for the implementation of a wide variety of practices
to protect Onondaga Lake, educate the public, and drive the conversation forward. The opportunity for a
working set of storm water management examples will be created in this new public space. This project will
be an opportunity to showcase what is possible when storm water management is considered during the
conceptual design of the site, rather than solely as a retrofit.

5.5 SITE UTILITIES

5.5.1 GENERAL
The section provides an overview of the utilities infrastructure requirements to support the proposed facility
and identifies the existing infrastructure in the project area to support the facility. Given the accelerated
pace that the conceptual engineering portion of the project has progressed, definitive estimates of all utility
loads has not yet been determined at this time. Definitive parameters for each service will be defined in the
preliminary design phase of the project. Efforts to date have focused on identifying the likely source of the
various utilities required based on meetings conducted with each provider and making a preliminary
assessment with regard to their adequacy to serve the proposed facility. The following utilities were
assessed as part of this evaluation:

Utility Provider
Water Onondaga County Water Authority (OCWA)
Sewage Onondaga County Dept. Water Environment Protection (OCWEP)
Electric Village of Solvay Electric
Data/Communications Verizon Wireless & Time Warner Cable
Natural Gas National Grid

5.5.2 WATER
The general project area is served by two water purveyors depending on location: the Onondaga County
Water Authority (OCWA) and the City of Syracuse. The City of Syracuse service to the area terminates in
the general vicinity of the Honeywell visitors center approximately 1.5 miles south of the proposed facility.
Based on meetings with Honeywell, this source was previously evaluated as part of the visitors center and
construction support offices and found to be in poor condition and of limited capacity. A meeting was held
with OCWA in March 2014 to discuss providing a water service to the facility. Based on that meeting,
OCWA indicated that it has a 12 inch diameter water distribution pipeline that runs along the northeastern
side of State Fair Blvd. that could be utilized for the facilitys water service. This pipeline is fed from an
elevated water tank in the Lakeland area which has a normal operating water surface elevation of
approximately 590 feet AMSL. Based on the highest ground elevation at the Lakeview Point location, static
water pressure at the facility would be approximate 70 psi. Obviously, working pressures will be less due to

friction losses thru the system, however, delivery pressure at the facility will be adequate without the need
for a booster pumping station. OCWA will be performing a hydrant flow test in the vicinity of the intended
connection point to further quantify system capabilities during high flow conditions. This data will be
considered during final design of the utilities to the facility. Estimates of water demands for the facility have
been prepared based on various attendance volumes at the facility (see Appendix I.) Instantaneous peak
water demand from a 17,500 person event is estimated to be approximately 200 gpm (assumed to be the
same as peak sewage flow) or 87,500 gallons per day (peak day). As would be expected, fire flow
requirements will dictate the sizing of the service since the instantaneous fire flow will exceed peak water
demand from attendees. While specific fire flows will be determined as the facility design progresses
further, it is expected that needed fire flows will be at least 500 gpm. In order to provide the greatest
flexibility to support the Countys long term options for the western shore of the lake, it is anticipated that a
12 inch diameter water service will be extended from State Fair Blvd. to the amphitheater. Based on
discussions with OCWA, the meter for the service would need to be immediately adjacent to the connection
point on State Fair Blvd in an underground manhole per OCWA standards. From that point, the service line
would be a private water service owned and maintained by Onondaga County. With regard to backflow
prevention, OCWA will require a backflow preventer on the service line which can be located on the
amphitheater grounds (rather than at the connection point).

Extension of underground utilities from State Fair Blvd to the proposed amphitheater is complicated due to
the need to cross I-690. A preliminary review of the potential routing indicates that it will be necessary to
directionally drill under I-690 and install casings to support any needed utilities being routed from State Fair
Blvd. Honeywell has indicated that they have already installed a casing for some of their utilities, which may
be abandoned at the end of 2014. Honeywell has indicated that the County could potentially utilize this
casing to assist with the routing of utilities under I-690. Due to the potential corrosive effects of Solvay
waste materials on underground metal, water pipelines will be constructed of either HDPE with heat fused
joints or PVC with push-on joints in accordance with AWWA standards. Due to the potential for significant
differential settlement in Solvay waste areas, pipe material/joint selections will need to be evaluated in more
detail during the design phase of the project.

5.5.3 SEWAGE
Based on a review of existing infrastructure in the area, there are currently no sewer lines on the east side
of I-690 that could be utilized to discharge sewage from the amphitheater. A meeting was held with the
Onondaga County Department of Water Environment Protection (OCWEP) in March 2014 to discuss
available options for discharge of sewage from the facility. OCWEP has two existing pumping stations in
the project area; the West Side Pumping Station and the Lakeside Pumping Station. The West Side
Pumping station is located on the western shore of Onondaga Lake, immediately adjacent to the Honeywell
visitors center. The West Side Pumping Station has a number current operational issues due to its age and
insufficient capacity to support sewage flows. OCWEP recently selected a consultant to address these
issues with the end result likely being that the entire pumping station will be replaced and slightly relocated.

The Lakeside Pumping Station is located on the northeastern side of State Fair Blvd adjacent to the I-690
access ramps. Based on discussion with OCWEP, this pumping station is somewhat underutilized and
would have sufficient capacity to accept sewage from the amphitheater facility based on the peak sewage
flow rate estimates (conservatively assumed to match peak water demands-see Appendix I). Given the
location of the Lakeside Pumping Station and similar to the situation with the water service, the sewage
pipeline will need to be directionally drilled under I-690 to serve the amphitheater facility. As several utilities
will need to be drilled under I-690, it is anticipated that multiple casings will be drilled/installed at the same
time from an efficiency and cost-savings standpoint. All gravity sewage pipes will be constructed of PVC
with push on joints per ASTM standards, with the exception to sewage force mains, which may be HDPE
with heat fused joints. Due to the need to cross I-690 to get to the Lakeside Pumping Station, it is expected
that a sewage force main will be utilized to convey the sewage from the amphitheater facility. While no
detailed utilities layouts have been developed for the amphitheater site at this phase of the project, it is
anticipated that a submersible sewage pumping station would be constructed adjacent to the proposed
administration building, which is located at a low elevation relative to the majority of the amphitheater site.
Sewage from the restrooms throughout the facility would flow by gravity to this pumping station, where it
would then be conveyed by a force main to the Lakeside Pumping Station. It is anticipated that the forece
main, along with other key site utilities would be routed along the proposed service road to the facility
administration/maintenance building.

5.5.4 ELECTRIC
Electric service in the vicinity of the project site is provided by the Village of Solvay Electric Company. This
municipally owned utility provides electric service to the Village of Solvay and immediate surrounding area.
A meeting was held with the Solvay Electric in March 2014 to discuss available options for providing an
electric service to the facility. Solvay electric currently has a primary voltage (4,000 volt) electrical
distribution line that runs through the entire orange parking lot of the NYS Fairgrounds which terminates
just south of the proposed box office/ticket building for the facility. This distribution line is relatively new as it
was recently installed to provide lighting for the State Fair Parking lots. Based on discussions with Solvay
Electric, it is anticipated that the existing distribution lines would be capable of supporting the proposed
facility without modification. However, there may need to be some improvements to their existing fuses
depending on the proposed electrical demand from the amphitheater facility. This will be ascertained once
more definitive electrical loads are determined during the design phase of the project. Similar to the
intended routing for the sewage utilities, it is anticipated that the primary underground electrical service will
be routed along the proposed service road to the location of administrative/maintenance building where the
primary electrical switchgear for the facility will be located. It is anticipated that an emergency generator
with automatic transfer switch will also be installed in this general location to keep the facility operational in
the event of a power outage. Facility electrical distribution will likely consist of both 480 VAC and 208 VAC
systems. Due to the potential corrosive effects of Solvay waste on metal conduits, all buried electrical
systems will be installed in PVC conduit.

5.5.5 DATA AND COMMUNICATIONS
With the significant growth in the use of high speed data on cell phones and the need to support the data
needs of the facility (i.e., potential live internet streaming of concert events), it is important that a robust
data and communications infrastructure be installed at the facility. To this end, a meeting was held with
Verizon Wireless in May 2014 to provide an overview of the proposed project and to discuss options for
providing the necessary data/communications infrastructure. Verizon Wireless has significant experience in
providing high speed data infrastructure to many similar facilities including CMAC (Finger Lakes facility),
Bethel Woods, the Syracuse Carrier Dome and other large campuses and venues. Verizon indicated that
for these types of facilities, Verizon would typically furnish and install all of the necessary data/
communications infrastructure including the installation of a fiber optic feed to the facility from the nearest
available source. Verizon would install what is called neutral host infrastructure equipment which would

not only bolster Verizons network capacity to handle the surge in data needs during a large scale event,
but would also allow other wireless carriers (i.e., AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, etc.) to connect to that
infrastructure to provide a similar enhancement to their networks if needed and/or desired. Verizon
indicated that it has mutual infrastructure use agreements with the other carriers and these connections to
the infrastructure would not require any involvement of the County. The infrastructure would also be
capable of supporting the installation of secured and unsecured Wi-Fi networks at the facility if desired by
the County. For the scenario described above, Verizon would pay for the costs of the data/communications
infrastructure installation at the facility and would own and maintain that infrastructure as needed. Based on
the initial meeting, Verizon is currently reviewing its infrastructure in the area to evaluate the details of
providing services to the amphitheater facility. Further discussions related to the specifics of the installation
will take place after Verizon completes its initial engineering review. Time Warner cable was also consulted
during this phase of the project and it was confirm that Time Warner has a high speed data cable on the
northern end of the orange parking lot (at the existing cellular communication tower site).

5.5.6 NATURAL GAS
Natural gas will be required to support the heating and cooling needs of the buildings at the facility. National
Grid is the local service provider for natural gas in the area and has distribution lines along the northeastern
side of State Fair Blvd. As with the other utilities, the intended routing to the amphitheater will likely involve
directionally drilling under I-690. The timing of the gas line installation will be coordinated such that it is
installed at the same time as the other utilities. Due to the conceptual nature of the building design, no
estimate of gas loads has been performed, however, it is expected that the existing that the National Grid
distribution lines will have adequate capacity to support needs of the amphitheater facility.


6.0 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT

6.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS

6.1.1 NON-NYS FAIR (BACKGROUND) CONDITIONS
For the purpose of this report, the area surrounding the amphitheater site and New York State Fairgrounds
is defined as being served by six roads: State Fair Boulevard (CR 80 and NY 931B), Bridge Street (NY
297), Willis Avenue (CR 85), NYS Route 695 (freeway), and Interstate Route 690 EB and WB (freeway).
There are two interchanges: Exit 6, which provides direct access between I-690 EB/WB and NY 695 SB,
and Exit 7, which provides access between I-690 EB/WB and Bridge Street/State Fair Boulevard.
Pumphouse Road is a dead-end access road that connects the Exit 6 EB off-ramp with State Fair
Boulevard. East of Willis Avenue, State Fair Boulevard turns into an on-ramp to I-690 EB. Figures 6-1 and
6-2 illustrate the project area and local transportation network.

The Bridge Street/State Fair Boulevard/Exit 7 ramp intersection is signalized. Another traffic signal is
located at a parking lot across from Crucible Steel east of Bridge Street, but is being proposed for
decommissioning. All other intersections are stop sign controlled.

The fairgrounds is located along the southwest side of State Fair Boulevard, between Bridge Street and NY
695. Parking for the fair includes three lots on the northeast side of State Fair Boulevard: the Pink and
Brown lots, located between State Fair Boulevard and I-690, and the Orange lot, located between I-690
and Onondaga Lake, adjacent to the proposed amphitheater site.

There are four access points to the Orange lot: on the east end; a driveway across from the Exit 7 WB off-
ramp, on the west end; a gated drive connecting to a crossover on I-690, and on the south side two gated
entrances directly from the shoulder of NY 695. All four access points are defined as Without Access by
FHWA and are only allowed for use by special permit during the New York State Fair, which occurs every
August and September on the twelve days preceding and including Labor Day.

The Brown lot is accessed by two ramps that connect with State Fair Boulevard. Additionally, there is a
direct entrance ramp access from the I-690 exit 7 EB off-ramp. This access point, like the four Brown lot
entrances, are defined as Without Access by FHWA and are only allowed for use during the New York
State Fair. An overhead pedestrian footbridge which crosses State Fair Boulevard, the Exit 7 EB off-ramp,
and I-690 connects the fairgrounds with the Brown and Orange lots.

To assess traffic impacts during an amphitheater event, background traffic conditions were modeled using
manual traffic counts at the five intersections in the study area, and supplemented by NYSDOT machine
counts.

6.1.2 NYS FAIR CONDITIONS (SPECIAL NYSDOT TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN)
During the annual NYS Fair, several temporary changes to the highway network are implemented by
NYSDOT in a special traffic management and operations plan. These include temporary pavement
markings, temporary signage, overhead signs, variable message signs, temporary signals, speed limit
reductions, and State Police manned traffic control which take weeks of coordination to implement. The five
parking lot access points described in Section 6.1.1 are opened during Fair operation as integral
components for moving traffic in and out of the Orange and Brown lots. On peak days the Fair attendance
exceeds 100,000 visitors, often coinciding with major concert events at the Grandstand.

During fair operations, traffic flow in the Orange lot is one-way, from east to west. Vehicles entering the
parking lot utilize the driveway across from the Exit 7 WB off-ramp and the two gated entrances directly
from the shoulder of NY 695. All traffic exiting the lot utilize the western access road intersecting I-690
which is controlled by a temporary traffic control signal and allows movement to both I-690 EB and WB.
Shuttle buses to the main fairgrounds gates utilize the driveway across from the Exit 7 WB off-ramp in both
directions. The pedestrian footbridge is heavily used by fairgoers parked in the Orange lot.

It is anticipated that most Fair concerts currently held at the Grandstand will be moved to the Lakeview
Amphitheater once the new venue is opened. It is assumed that traffic operations under this scenario would
be similar to current Fair operations, and that the existing NYSDOT traffic management plan would still be
implemented. For that reason, a study of amphitheater traffic during the Fair was not studied.


6.2 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS OVERVIEW (PROPOSED EVENT TRAFFIC)

6.2.1 KEY DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS
In order to predict traffic flow during an amphitheater event, a model was developed and SYNCHRO
computer simulations were run to assess expected level of service, delays, and queue lengths within the
highway network. The Traffic Impact Study in Appendix F provides a detailed discussion of assumptions
used to create the model.

In summary, the traffic model assumes a worst case scenario with a sold-out event (17,500 attendees)
occurring coincident with a summertime Friday evening traffic peak and most concertgoers (80%) arriving
within one peak hour with an average occupancy rate of 2.5 persons per vehicle. Other modes of
transportation, including transit bus and water taxi, were assumed to not contribute. Distribution of arriving
vehicles from six highways was assumed to be the same percentages generated by the Fair, as derived
from special NYSDOT traffic counts conducted during actual Fair operations. Traffic volumes were
extrapolated at a 0.5 % growth rate to account for projected volumes in the 2016 when the facility will first
be open for a full concert season. Departure operations were modeled as well, assuming all attendees
leaving within one hour of the event conclusion, mixing with low volume background traffic typical for late
evening conditions.

It was assumed that all traffic from I-690 WB, Bridge Street, and Willis Avenue would be directed to the
Orange lot. All traffic from I-690 EB, NY 695, and State Fair Boulevard would be directed to the Brown lot.
All traffic would leave in the opposite direction of their arrival. Shuttle buses would bring attendees parking
in the Brown lot to the venue. For a sold-out event, a total of 75 shuttle bus runs were estimated to be
needed. This operational scenario prevents the Orange lot from exceeding its capacity, and distributes
traffic more efficiently to reduce delays.

6.2.2 TRAFFIC DATA
The Traffic Impact Study in Appendix F provides a detailed discussion of simulation results for both existing
and proposed conditions. Traffic volumes were obtained for all roads and intersections in the study area.

Using both existing and projected volumes, a capacity analysis was performed for the study intersections
using the existing condition traffic volumes with existing roadway and intersection geometries and
NYSDOTs signal timing and phasing information. The level of service (LOS), delay in seconds, and 95th
percentile queues for each lane group of each study intersection were calculated. The results of this
analysis indicate that all movements are currently operating at an acceptable LOS. To this background
data, projected traffic generated by an amphitheater event was added, and the resultant change in LOS,
delays, and queue lengths was determined for each scenario.

6.2.3 TRAFFIC ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED
A primary engineering challenge with the proposed site is its currently restricted access. Because of the
adjacent location of Interstate Route 690, FHWA regulates a without access boundary line that separates
the site from other existing public highways. There is one access point to the site, which is currently utilized
by contractors under special permit from FHWA. Also at this entrance, Onondaga County has obtained a
permit for access and limited parking for the recently completed West Shore Trail Extension, which
provides bicycle and pedestrian access around Onondaga Lake, and will be linked to the amphitheater site.
Three other access points to NY 695 and I-690 are only allowed for use during the New York State Fair by
FHWA. Linking the site to other public streets like Bridge Street and State Fair Boulevard is hampered by
the physical barrier of the I-690 lanes and connector ramp to NY 695.

Routing all concert traffic to the Orange lot which abuts the amphitheater site by way of a single entrance is
feasible for small events (up to 500 people), but larger events and sold-out attractions generate too much
traffic for this scenario. For that reason, splitting incoming traffic and using directional routing to both the
Orange and Brown lots is proposed (see Figure 6-2). Several options were investigated, starting with use of
the existing roadway network, then supplemented by mitigation measures. An alternative using all
temporary access points similar to Fair operations was modeled, but eliminated from further consideration
based on FHWA feedback that such an option would not be acceptable for use beyond NYS Fair events.
Ultimately, any alternative that provides access to the amphitheater site will require a separate break-in-
access study to be reviewed and approved by NYSDOT and FHWA.

6.2.4 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS CONCLUSIONS
The traffic analysis for the future build condition was performed for both small events and large events,
including modeling both arrival and departure traffic under both existing and mitigated conditions.

For a small event, queues for vehicles arriving from the I-690 Eastbound Exit 7 off-ramp to the intersection
at State Fair Boulevard and Bridge Street are expected to approach two minutes as they wait to turn left
onto State Fair Boulevard. The anticipated queues are not expected to impact the I-690 Eastbound
mainline. There is an increase to the average intersection delay of approximately 15 seconds. Levels of
service for the arriving vehicles as they approach the Orange Lot access at the intersection of the I-690
Westbound Exit 7 off-ramp and the Exit 7 Connector road decrease, with queues due to the high conflicting
volumes coming off the off-ramp. Queues are not anticipated to impact the intersection of the Exit 7
Connector road and State Fair Boulevard. The I-690 Westbound Exit 7 off-ramp or mainline is not expected
to be impacted. There are no proposed mitigation measures for the arrival time period associated with a
small event. With minimal conflicting traffic, there are no significant delays anticipated during event
departure. There are no proposed mitigation measures for the departure time period associated with a
small event.

As the models were created and evaluated for a sold-out event arrivals using existing traffic control, it
became evident that mitigation would be required to eliminate significant traffic congestion throughout the
study area. Traffic can be expected to queue for those trying to access the Orange Lot from Bridge Street
and Willis Avenue, as well as for those trying to access the Brown Lot from State Fair Boulevard west and
Pumphouse Road. Queues from Pumphouse Road are expected to impact the I-690 Eastbound Exit 6 off-
ramp, and possibly the I-690 Eastbound mainline, at this location. The I-690 Eastbound Exit 7 off-ramp
traffic at the intersection of State Fair Boulevard and Bridge Street is expected to queue along the exit only
lane from the NYS RT 695 Northbound merge with I-690 Eastbound. This would affect the I-690
Eastbound mainline at this location if a vehicle on I-690 wishes to take Exit 7 and needs to merge into slow
moving traffic in the exit only lane.

The first level of mitigation considered was manned traffic control at the intersections of I-690 Westbound
Exit 7 off-ramp and the Exit 7 Connector road, State Fair Boulevard and Pumphouse Road, and the west
access to the Brown Lot on State Fair Boulevard to maintain traffic flow into the facilities and minimize

queues on the I-690 off-ramps. Manned control was simulated by using a pre-timed signal timing and
phasing at these intersections with more green time allotted to movements that would most improve
operations that may affect the I-690 mainline: I-690 Westbound Exit 7 off-ramp; Pumphouse Road; and the
access to the Brown Lot.

While manned control is expected to improve queues, there will still be significant queues along
Pumphouse Road that will impact the I-690 Eastbound Exit 6 off-ramp. The introduction of manned control
on the I-690 Westbound Exit 7 off-ramp will create queues that may impact the I-690 Westbound mainline
at this location, even with a change in lane usage allowing the left lane as a shared left/through lane and
the right lane as a dedicated through lane to the Orange Lot.

The 1,000 foot plus queue for traffic approaching the Orange Lot from the Exit 7 Connector road is
expected to impact operations at the intersection with State Fair Boulevard and ultimately to the traffic
approaching northbound on Bridge Street.

In order to minimize the potential for impacts onto the I-690 mainline, additional mitigation measures were
considered along the route via Pumphouse Road to the Brown Lot access and to the I-690 Westbound Exit
7 off-ramp. The mitigation measures will not improve the queues for the vehicles accessing the Orange Lot
via the Exit 7 Connector road impacting State Fair Boulevard and Bridge Street, or for the vehicles from
NYS RT 695 Northbound using the I-690 Eastbound Exit 7 off-ramp to the Brown Lot. In order to reduce
the potential for impacts to the I-690 Eastbound mainline near Exit 7, DMS could guide vehicles looking to
use that exit to use Exit 6 instead.

As with the small event, the background traffic expected during the departure analysis period is minimal,
but with the amount of traffic trying to leave the two parking areas at one time, there will be significant
delays for attendees. Once they leave the parking areas, delays will be minimal throughout the study area,
except for those exiting the Orange Lot as they approach State Fair Boulevard and those wanting to turn
left onto Bridge Street from State Fair Boulevard westbound. Mitigation measures were considered to
improve operations during departure.

Departure traffic should not impact I-690 mainline operations in either direction as queues will be limited to
the parking lots themselves.

6.3 TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS

6.3.1 SHORT TERM IMPROVEMENTS
The proposed mitigation alternative includes modifications to the existing highway network to improve
operations and traffic flow during sold-out events, and to keep delays to acceptable levels typically
expected for a similarly sized attraction. Most improvements focus on areas in proximity to the main entry
road opposite the I-690 WB off-ramp at Exit 7. These include elongating and widening the off-ramp to two
lanes with improved deceleration and storage distance, widening to three lanes at the intersection with local
streets, reconstructing the main entry road to lower the grade for easier shuttle bus operation and improved
two-way traffic flow, and adding an auxiliary lane at the State Fair Boulevard wye to increase capacity of
exiting traffic (see Figure 6-3). The ramp widening would require modification of an overhead sign truss.
Additional traffic signs and guide signs for amphitheater traffic are recommended. Installation of an
electronic DMS on northbound NY 695 approaching the fairgrounds is also recommended.

6.3.2 LONG TERM IMPROVEMENTS
This report focuses on short term improvements deemed necessary to mitigate anticipated traffic volumes
that result from operation of the proposed amphitheater during peak usage. The current configuration of
interstate access consists two overlapping interchanges with nine ramps spread over a distance of 2.3
miles, with three ramps having nonstandard access control. In discussions with FHWA and NYSDOT, it is
apparent that further long term improvements that provide a permanent solution to event traffic and Orange
lot access for the New York State Fair will be required. FHWA has commented that the temporary signal
and direct access driveways from I-690 and NY 695 connector will not be allowed in the near future.

In order to test the feasibility of proposed short term improvements to ensure they fit in with an overall
concept for a long term solution, potential concept level layouts that modify the existing interchange layout
have been developed. One possible long term solution, which consists of constructing new I-690 WB on-
and off-ramps in the vicinity of the existing crossover and temporary signal, is illustrated on Figure 6-4.
Further development of long-term design solutions for the Interchange 6 and 7 ramps is beyond the scope

of this report and the evaluation of this long term solution is being discussed between the FHWA, NYSDOT
and Onondaga County.

6.4 EVENT OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS

6.4.1 MANNED TRAFFIC CONTROL
During large scale amphitheater events, a traffic operations plan should be implemented that utilizes police
personnel to direct traffic at intersections and parking lot entrances. It is not practical to assume automated
intersection control can handle large traffic volumes expected during sold-out events. Police traffic control is
customary at similar venues and should be employed at this facility in a similar fashion.

6.4.2 SUPPLEMENTAL SIGNAGE
Additional roadside signs are recommended for installation that will provide information to drivers during
concert events. These would be permanently installed sign assemblies, hinged with flip-down panels that
appear blank during most times when event traffic is not a concern. Current signing along I-690 directs
motorists to the fairgrounds, and would need to be modified or supplemented to indicate access to the
amphitheater site. The I-690 EB off-ramp to Pumphouse Road would require a flip-down sign directing
motorists to form two lanes on the ramp and local street during special events, a message that would be
reinforced by the preceding DMS described in Section 6.4.5.

6.4.3 EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS
During amphitheater events, all Orange lot traffic would enter and exit using the driveway across from the
Exit 7 WB off-ramp. The western access road intersecting I-690 which is controlled by a temporary traffic
control signal during the Fair and allows movement to both I-690 EB and WB would be manned by security
and would be available for use only by emergency vehicles. The temporary signal would not be included in
this scenario.

6.4.4 SHUTTLE BUSES
It is assumed that few people who park in the Brown lot will utilize the existing pedestrian footbridge and
walk to the amphitheater, which can be as long as 1.5 miles in distance. It is assumed that shuttle buses
will be used, similar to Syracuse University events at the Carrier Dome that utilize Centro transit buses to

remote parking facilities. It is estimated that a fleet of 25 buses would be required to accommodate sold-out
events. Buses would run on a loop from the Brown lot onto State Fair Boulevard to the driveway across
from the Exit 7 WB off-ramp, then up through the Orange lot to the amphitheater gate. To expedite
headways, the buses would run on a dedicated route, utilizing the shoulder of State Fair Boulevard to avoid
traffic entering and exiting the lots.

6.4.5 ITS OPERATIONS
During major amphitheater events, the use of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) would be utilized to
improve communication and mitigate traffic flow in real time. This technology employs video cameras,
dynamic message signs (DMS) and cell phone connectivity that allow personnel to monitor traffic situations
in real time and transmit operational changes to the field.

Existing video cameras at the Exit 6 and 7 interchanges relay images to the NYSDOT Traffic Management
Center (TMC) at the State Office building in Syracuse. There are two existing DMS installations, one along
I-690 WB near the Geddes Street exit east of the fairgrounds, and one along I-690 EB just west of the
fairgrounds, which can be programmed with messages to instruct drivers. A third DMS, to be installed along
NY 695 south of the fairgrounds, is recommended. TMC personnel monitoring traffic in the areas during an
event using the existing ITS cameras, can immediately change DMS messages as needed to direct traffic
or warn through vehicles of potential slowdowns, and communicate with police on the street controlling
traffic to help ensure traffic is flowing as efficiently and safely as possible. The DMS would warn through
traffic to be aware of event traffic and direct event traffic to their designated exit, lane, and parking area.


7.0 SUSTAINABLE INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT

7.1 LEED CERTIFICATION
LEED, or Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design, is a green building certification program that
recognizes best-in-class building strategies and practices. To receive LEED certification, building projects
satisfy prerequisites and earn points to achieve different levels of certification. Based on the current project
schedule, it is expected that the project will be registered under LEED 2009 criteria.

As detailed in Appendix G, the design team completed a LEED checklist in which various strategies are
gauged to be possible (Yes), unknown to be possible (?), or most likely not possible (No).

Based on the result of evaluating each prerequisite and credit, a possible score of 66 was determined. This
score corresponds to the mid-range of Gold Certification. As the design progresses, the LEED checklist will
continue to be updated, and credits for Innovation in Design will be sought where possible.

7.2 OTHER SUSTAINABLE DESIGN INITIATIVES
Since one of the catalysts for this project has been the Countys ongoing efforts to clean up Onondaga
Lake, it makes perfect sense that a high profile element of this project would be integration of what is
perhaps the Countys most notable program in the realm of sustainability, the Save the Rain program.
The "Save the Rain" program is a comprehensive storm water management plan intended to reduce
pollution to Onondaga Lake and its tributaries. During wet weather events, storm water flows into the local
sewer system, causing heavy flow periods that can overload the system. The County has employed the
program to develop green infrastructure solutions to capture and treat storm water naturally where it lands.
The technologies that have been employed include:

Porous pavements
Bio-retention and rain gardens
Green roofs
Rainwater harvesting

There are many opportunities to integrate these elements into the project moving forward, given the variety
of facilities and improvements that will be part of this project. There will be pavements, building roofs,
landscape areas and facilities such as bathrooms which need water. Each of these technologies should be
evaluated in the final design for this project and utilized to the maximum extent feasible throughout the
project site.

Another opportunity for a sustainable element to be integrated into the project is to explore the possibility of
using the products of the Countys innovative composting facility to improve and amend the poor (or non-
existent) soils of this former waste site. This landscape could be a showcase of the benefits of OCRRA
produced compost, and would provide much needed organic matter to the existing substrate which will be
critical for the healthy growth of vegetation.

Also, as the resurgence of the bald eagle population on the south shore of the lake has shown, the project
site has the potential to provide significant additional wildlife habitat along the lake shoreline, particularly for
birds. With this in mind, the buildings at the Amphitheater grounds will incorporate bird-friendly design
where possible. The glass incorporated in the building will be designed to reduce reflectivity and
transparency. In addition, tint and pattern can be used to avoid strikes, which will reduce bird mortality while
adding to the building aesthetic. Lighting will be evaluated both in type and time of operation, to reduce
attracting birds to the building.


8.0 PROJECT SCHEDULE AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
The County has expressed a desire to have an event at the amphitheater facility on Labor Day weekend of 2015.
Given the size and complexity of the proposed facility, unique environmental and geotechnical conditions at the site,
and the necessary coordination that must take place with Honeywells ongoing construction operations, this is a very
ambitious completion date for this facility. In an effort to implement the project in this accelerated timeline, the project
was given approval by the State of New York to implement the project through a Best Value Design-Build
Procurement method. A related issue affecting the schedule is the need to complete the SEQRA process for the
project before any construction commences.
At this time, there are many variables that could impact the targeted completion date, particularly any delays in the
SEQRA/Environmental review process as this is the controlling item to allow construction to start on the site. As the
project progresses, the design team will have work in conjunction with the County to refine the project schedule
based on developments with the environmental review process and other project developments that adequately
balances the target completion date with issues such as construction costs, risk, quality of construction and other
factors.

Onondaga County Lakeview Amphitheater Conceptual Design Report

FIGURES

Ninemile Creek
Utility Bridge
Now or Formerly
Property of
Popes Grove, Inc.
Tax Map No. 24-8-15.1
N
e w
Y
o r k S
t a t e R
o u t e 6 9 0
S t a t e F a i r B o u l e v a r d
N
o
w
o
r F
o
rm
e
rly
P
ro
p
e
rty o
f
E
d
w
a
rd
S
. S
u
ch
o
n
T
a
x M
a
p
N
o
. 2
5
-1
-0
6
.1
Now or Formerly
Property of
Onondaga County Department of Parks and Recreation
Tax Map No. 29-1-02
Liber 3142 - Page 245
Historical Conveyance: Ownership transferred to the Office of General Services from the Department of Transportation by Abandonment Map No. 1 Parcel No. 243.
N
o w
o r F
o r m
e r l y
P
r o p e r t y o f
C
S
X
B
a l d w
i n s v i l l e
Now or Formerly
Property of
Tax Map No. 30-1-02.1
A p p r o x i m
a t e S o u t h e r l y B o u n d s o f N e w Y o r k S t a t e R o u t e 6 9 0
A p p r o x i m a t e N o r t h e r l y B o u n d s o f N e w Y o r k S t a t e R o u t e 6 9 0
N i n e m
i l e C r e e k
O
n
o
n
d
a
g
a
L
a
k
e
N
o
w
o
r F
o
rm
e
rly
P
ro
p
e
rty o
f
K
e
e
g
a
n
E
n
te
rp
rise
s
T
a
x M
a
p
N
o
. 2
5
-1
-0
1
.2
N
o
w
o
r F
o
rm
e
rly
P
ro
p
e
rty o
f
O
n
o
n
d
a
g
a
C
o
u
n
ty
T
a
x M
a
p
N
o
. 2
5
-1
-0
1
.1
Edge of Water
Edge of Water
Pumphouse Road
Asphalt Ramp 690 - 695 Interchange
Asphalt Ramp to New York State Route 690
Rim=372.50 Sump=359.00 Water in Structure
Rim=368.60
Rim=370.55
Rim=380.45
Chain Link Fence 6' Tall
WETLAND
EDGE OF WETLAND
U P L A N D
Ninemile Creek
Ninemile Creek
Edge of Water
Edge of Water
Edge of Water
Edge of Water
Edge of Water
Edge of Water
Gravel Access Road
Gravel Access Road
Ninemile Creek
Rim=405.40
Rim=427.05
Rim=426.25
1 354,319 sq. ft. 8.13 acres
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS GAS GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
W
W
GAS
GAS
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
COMM
COMM
COMM
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
Ninemile Creek
Asphalt Ramp from Route 695 and State Fair Boulevard
Asphalt Ramp from Route 695 and State Fair Boulevard
Asphalt Ramp to Route 695
Overpass
Overpass
Asphalt Ramp to Route 690
Sanitary Sewer
Pump Station
Edge of Asphalt
Edge of Asphalt
COMM
COMM
COMM
COMM
COMM
COMM
COMM
Ninemile Creek
Wetland "F"
Gravel Parking
1
1
5
+
0
0 1
1
6
+
0
0 1
1
7
+
0
0 1
1
8
+
0
0 1
1
9
+
0
0 1
2
0
+
0
0 1
2
1
+
0
0 1
2
2
+
0
0 122+89
Now or Formerly
Property of
New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets
Transfer of Jurisdiction Map No. 214T Parcel No. 297
7
8
+
0
07
9
+
0
08
0
+
0
08
1
+
0
08
2
+
0
08
3
+
0
08
4
+
0
08
5
+
0
08
6
+
0
08
7
+
0
08
8
+
0
0
88+70 90+97
91+00
92+00
93+00
94+00
95+00
96+00
97+00
98+00
99+00
100+00
101+00
102+00
103+00
104+00
105+00
106+00
107+00
108+00
109+00
110+00
111+00
112+00
113+00
114+00
115+00
116+00
117+00
118+00
119+00
120+00
121+00
122+00
122+89
1
7
4
+
3
5
1
7
5
+
0
0
1
7
6
+
0
0
1
7
7
+
0
0
1
7
8
+
0
0
1
7
9
+
0
0
1
8
0
+
0
0
1
8
1
+
0
0
1
8
2
+
0
0
1
8
3
+
0
0
1
8
4
+
0
0
1
8
5
+
0
0
1
8
6
+
0
0
1
8
7
+
0
0
1
8
8
+
0
0
1
8
9
+
0
0
1
9
0
+
0
0
1
9
1
+
0
0
1
9
2
+
0
0
1
9
3
+
0
0
1
9
4
+
0
0
1
9
5
+
0
0
P
I: 181+80.00
111+74
112+00 113+00 114+00 115+00 116+00 117+00 118+00 119+00
119+38
1
1
2
+
0
0
1
1
3
+
0
0
1
1
4
+
0
0
1
1
5
+
0
0
1
1
6
+
0
0
1
1
7
+
0
0
1
1
8
+
0
0
1
1
9
+
0
0
1
2
0
+
0
0
1
2
1
+
0
0
1
2
2
+
0
0
1
2
3
+
0
0
1
2
3
+
6
5
1
5
3
2
3
+
0
0
1
5
3
2
4
+
0
0
1
5
3
2
5
+
0
0
1
5
3
2
6
+
0
0
1
5
3
2
7
+
0
0
1
5
3
2
8
+
0
0
1
5
3
2
9
+
0
0
1
5
3
3
0
+
0
0
1
5
3
3
1
+
0
0
1
5
3
3
2
+
0
0
1
5
3
3
3
+
0
0
1
5
3
3
4
+
0
0
1
5
3
3
5
+
0
0
1
5
3
3
6
+
0
0
1
5
3
3
7
+
0
0
1
5
3
3
8
+
0
0
1
5
3
3
9
+
0
0
1
5
3
4
0
+
0
0
1
5
3
4
1
+
0
0
1
5
3
4
2
+
0
0
1
5
3
4
3
+
0
0
1
5
3
4
4
+
0
0
1
5
3
4
5
+
0
0
1
5
3
4
6
+
0
0
1
5
3
4
7
+
0
0
1
5
3
4
8
+
0
0
1
5
3
4
8
+
0
1
PC: 15327+26.10
PT: 15341+44.17
State Fair Boulevard - County Route 48 (66-foot width)
Now or Formerly
Property of
New York State
Department of
Agriculture and
Markets
Transfer of
Jurisdiction Map
No. 214T Parcel
No. 297
Historical Conveyance:
Ownership transferred to the
Office of General Services from
the Department of Transportation
by Abandonment Map No. 1
Parcel No. 243.
Now or Formerly
Property of
Now or Formerly
Property of
Now or Formerly
Property of
Onondaga County
Department of
Parks and
Recreation
Tax Map No.
29-1-02
Liber 3142 - Page
245
Parcel No. 243.
Now or Formerly
Property of
Onondaga County
Department of
Parks and
Recreation
Tax Map No.
29-1-02
Liber 3142 - Page
245
Parcel No. 243.
Now or Formerly
Property of
Tax Map No. 29-1-02
Now or Formerly
Property of
Onondaga County
Department of
Parks and
Recreation
Tax Map No.
29-1-02
Liber 3142 - Page
245
Parcel No. 243.
Edge of Water Edge of Water
Edge of Water
Edge of Water
Edge of Water
Edge of Water
Edge of Water
Edge of Water
Edge of Water
Northerly Bounds of New York State Route 690
UGE
UGE
UGE
UGE
UGE
UGE
UGE
UGE
UGE
UGE
UGE
UGE
UGE
J UNE, 2014
ONONDAGA COUNTY
LAKEVIEW
AMPHITHEATER
CONCEPTUAL
ENGINEERING STUDY
EXISTING
CONDITIONS
PLAN
FIGURE 3-2
CRUCIBLE
LANDFILL
ONONDAGA
LAKE
ONONDAGA
LAKE
LAKEVIEW
POINT
NINEMILE
CREEK
OUTLET
SECTION C-C PROFILE
350
355
360
365
370
375
380
385
390
395
400
405
410
415
420
425
430
435
440
445
450
2+00
3
9
3
.
2
2
3
8
6
.
5
9
3
8
6
.
5
8
5
3+00
3
9
4
.
7
0
4
0
1
.
2
7
4
0
1
.
2
7
3
4+00
4
2
1
.
0
9
4
2
3
.
6
4
4
2
3
.
6
4
0
5+00
4
2
3
.
5
7
4
2
3
.
6
1
4
2
3
.
6
1
5
6+00
4
2
3
.
6
8
4
2
5
.
0
6
4
2
5
.
0
6
5
7+00 8+00 9+00
J UNE, 2014
ONONDAGA COUNTY
LAKEVIEW
AMPHITHEATER
CONCEPTUAL
ENGINEERING STUDY
CONCEPTUAL
GRADING
PLAN
FIGURE 5-1
ONONDAGA
LAKE
EXISTING
RECREATIONAL
PATH (TYP.)
TRUCK &BUS
PARKING
STAFF
PARKING
TRUCK &BUS
ACCESS
COMMUNITY
AMPHITHEATER
LARGE AMPHITHEATER
COVERED SEATING
LARGE AMPHITHEATER
LAWN SEATING
GRADING SECTION LINES -
SEE NEXT FIGURE
LARGE AMPHITHEATER
STAGE HOUSE
PROPOSED GRADING
CONTOURS (TYP.)
SECTON B-B PROFILE
350
360
370
380
390
400
410
420
430
440
450
350
360
370
380
390
400
410
420
430
440
450
1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00 9+00
SECTION A-A PROFILE
350
360
370
380
390
400
410
420
430
440
450
350
360
370
380
390
400
410
420
430
440
450
1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00 9+00
SECTION C-C PROFILE
350
360
370
380
390
400
410
420
430
440
450
350
360
370
380
390
400
410
420
430
440
450
1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00 9+00
J UNE, 2014
ONONDAGA COUNTY
LAKEVIEW
AMPHITHEATER
CONCEPTUAL
ENGINEERING STUDY
SITE
CROSS
SECTIONS
FIGURE 5-2
EXISTING
GRADE
COVERED
SEATING
EXISTING
GRADE
PROPOSED
GRADE
EXISTING
GRADE
PROPOSED
GRADE
PROPOSED
GRADE
LAWN
SEATING
APPROX.
STAGE
HOUSE
LOC.
COVERED
SEATING
LAWN
SEATING
APPROX.
STAGE
HOUSE
LOC.
COVERED
SEATING
LAWN
SEATING
APPROX.
STAGE
HOUSE
LOC.


APPENDIX A
PERFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS
INFORMATION

Onondaga Lakeview Amphitheatre
Theatrical Equipment Narrative
Concept Design Report

Solvay, NY
June 5, 2014

2014 Theatre Projects Consultants, Inc.

PREPARED FOR C&S Companies
C&S Companies
499 Col. Eileen Collins Blvd.
Syracuse, New York 13212
Phone: 315-455-2000
Fax: 315-455-9667

PREPARED BY THEATRE PROJECTS CONSULTANTS, INC.
47 Water Street
South Norwalk, CT 06854
T 203 299-0830 F 203 299-0835
www.theatreprojects.com

The following pages form a theatrical equipment narrative for Onondaga Lakeview Amphitheatre. This material is
for review and discussion.

Theatre Projects June 5, 2014 3
Overview
Introduction
The preliminary theatrical equipment narrative and probable cost estimate for Onondaga
Lakeview Amphitheatre are supported by information gathered during the Concept Design
phase of the project and incorporates decisions made by the design team which shall be
confirmed with potential user groups and relevant staff during subsequent phases. Weve
created this theatrical equipment narrative and budget based on the development of the building
design parameters, our knowledge of industry practices, and our experience with similar
projects.

We intend these documents as an estimating guide for theatrical equipment accommodation.
Budget figures listed are rough-order-of-magnitude bare costs for the theatrical equipment;
others must develop mark-ups and costs for related work by other trades.

These documents are to be considered preliminary. Well develop precise equipment details and
requirements throughout the design process as the building evolves.

Architectural elements
We use this section to give specific recommendations and advice on architectural elements that
significantly impact theatrical equipment and require careful coordination. These elements
include:

Stage floors
Stage galleries and catwalks
Grids (over-stage and forestage)
Acoustical doors and moving partitions
Cable management system

Theatrical equipment
The theatrical equipment section includes specialty technical theatre equipment. We plan
equipment to support current performance programming while providing for reasonable future
expansion. Organized by CSI division, the theatrical equipment weve identified includes:

Division 11: Equipment
11 61 33 Theatrical Rigging
11 61 35 Theatrical Rigging Controls
11 61 37 Theatrical Fire Safety Curtain
11 61 43 Theatrical Draperies
11 61 91 Theatrical Lighting Instruments and Accessories

Division 12: Furnishings
12 61 13 Fixed Audience Seating
12 62 11 Loose Audience Seating


Division 26: Electrical
26 61 11 Theatrical Dimming and Controls

Division 27: Communications
27 41 16.61 Integrated Audio-Video Systems and Equipment for Theatres

Theatrical equipment probable cost estimate
This Theatrical Equipment Narrative is intended to provide detail for the accompanying budget,
the Theatrical Equipment Probable Cost Estimate, both of which are found in this concept
design report at Appendix A: Performance Technology Systems Information.

Architectural elements
Stage floor
The stage floor will be concrete construction designed to achieve the structural loading criteria to
be defined in the TPC Structural Loading Guidelines, to be issued during Schematic Design. The
stage floor will not contains traps, however floor pockets or other hatches may be required for
routing of cable for temporary performance equipment on a show-by-show basis, These floor
pockets and troughs will needs to be coordinated with the stage floor construction.

Accommodation required
Architect: coordinate finishes, acoustic absorption criteria, and structural supports with the
Acoustician and Structural Engineer.
Structural Engineer: coordinate acoustic absorption criteria and structural supports.
Acoustician: provide acoustic absorption criteria.

Rigging beams, FOH catwalks, and lighting positions
Structural steel members are required at the roof in regular 8 intervals, spanning the width of the
auditorium, running upstage to downstage and also the depth of the stagehouse running upstage
to downstage. The upper steel members could be used to mount perpendicular rigging beams
for chain motors and spot-line block attachment. This structure could be combined with required
roof steel.

Structural catwalks and bridges over the covered seating and integrated into the roof are required
to provide front lighting positions and followspot positions for the stage area; these can be
suspended from the upper steel members, or constructed to operate independently. The catwalks
will carry a great quantity of theatrical lighting equipment and circuitry, and must be able to
support specialty scenic and projection equipment for individual productions. Horizontal
railings in these areas must be of a diameter to accommodate standard lighting equipment
clamps, typically 1.9 OD, and often must be adjustable vertically.


Architect: coordinate finishes and structural supports with the Structural Engineer.
Structural Engineer: coordinate structural support system.
Electrical Engineer: coordinate electrical system services with clear spaces in catwalks and other
lighting positions.

Access catwalks
Access catwalks in the roof structure covering the fixed reserved seating will provide a path to
and a place from which to work to service and maintain house lights, announcement/public
address speakers, banners, temporary power positions, and other theatrical equipment and
equipment closets.

Architect: coordinate structural loading requirements, framing, and attachments with the
Structural Engineer.
MEP Engineer: coordinate all MEP systems to allow clear area for operation.
Structural Engineer: coordinate structural loading requirements, framing, and attachments with
the Architect.
Electrical Engineer: coordinate electrical power, safety devices, and power and control conduit
and wiring.

Stage galleries
Stage galleries include the operating galleries and fly/loading galleries along the stage left and
stage right walls, and the crossover catwalk at the upstage wall. These fixed equipment support
structures also carry production elements and provide access and work floors for technicians.
Scenic and other production items can be suspended and flown from these locations.

Galleries and catwalks will be designed to meet the functional requirements of installed
mechanical systems and the anticipated production needs of the facility. These systems may
include temporary chain hoists, speaker clusters, and adjustable acoustic elements.

Theatrical lighting catwalks must accommodate and provide access to stage lighting fixtures,
projection equipment, follow spots with operators, electrical distribution, and other theatrical
equipment.

Architect: coordinate structural loading requirements, framing, and attachments with the
Structural Engineer.
MEP Engineer: coordinate MEP systems in the stage house to allow clear area for operation.
the Architect.

and wiring.

Stage house grid
A technical grid is required as a walking surface both above the stage (below the rigging support
steel) and above the forestage. The above-stage grid accommodates the rigging for theatrical
lighting and masking machinery, fire curtain machinery if required, and proscenium weather seal
shutter. It also provides access to high roof smoke vent systems. These grids are likely to have a
floor constructed of demountable subway type grating panels.

The forestage grid will be used for rigging additional theatrical equipment as required by each
production.

Both grids should be painted OSHA safety yellow on top. Since the underside of both grids will
be visible to the audience they should be painted an appropriate color on the underside to allow
stage personnel to observe rigging elements fly out against a contrasting background.

Architect: coordinate finishes, and structural loading requirements, framing, and attachments
with the Structural Engineer.
MEP Engineer: coordinate MEP systems to allow clear area for rigging elements.
the Architect.
and wiring.

Acoustical doors
Large acoustical doors along the rea wall of the stage at stage left, stage right, and center will
close off the main stage area from the scene dock areas during performances. These large double
or single doors should be manually operable with oversized leaves and will conform to NC
ratings as determined by the Acoustician. Local fire codes may require a roll-down fire shutter
on the scene dock side for proper fire separations. The acoustical door provides noise separation
between the stage and the back of house area, and is not intended to function as a fire door,
weather seal, or for any other purpose.

Architect: coordinate finishes. Coordinate structural loading requirements and framing with the
Structural Engineer. Coordinate with fire protection.
Mechanical Engineer: coordinate with Architect for fire protection strategy.
Structural Engineer: coordinate structural loading requirements with the Architect.
Acoustician: provide acoustic criteria.


Weather seal door
A large robust weather seal door will be required to close off the proscenium opening of the
stagehouse to prevent vandalism and theft and to protect the stage from the elements. This door
must be capable of operating in a harsh environment, must work in extreme temperatures, and
must handle high wind loads. Typical products include Assa Abloy Megadoor and others.

Architect: coordinate finishes. Coordinate structural loading requirements and framing with the
Structural Engineer. Coordinate with fire protection.
Mechanical Engineer: coordinate with Architect for fire protection strategy.
Structural Engineer: coordinate structural loading requirements with the Architect.
Acoustician: provide acoustic criteria.

Cable management
The cable management system is a network of cable passes, cable doors, cable hooks, and cable
trays that allow temporary production cabling to be run between loading areas, house mix
positions, disconnect locations, and the stage house. Penetrations are usually provided through
the proscenium walls, stage floor slab, pit walls, and all four walls of the stage house. Fire
protection is achieved by installing intumescent sacks that reside in the cable opening at all times.
(Cable pass locations are provided by Theatre Projects in Design Development.)

Architect: coordinate finishes, acoustic separation criteria, fire protection criteria, and structural
impact.
Structural Engineer: coordinate structural impact.
Acoustician: provide analysis of acoustic impact.

Conduit, wiring, and back boxes
The theatrical equipment systems described in this document and indicated on the
accompanying or future drawings require electrical wiring services and materials. These include
theatrical equipment on the attached schedule, the cable pass system, and the empty raceway and
outlet box system for the SVC systems.

Architect: coordinate finishes, acoustic separation criteria, fire protection criteria, and structural
impact.
Structural Engineer: coordinate finishes, locations, access, and structural support system with
Architect and Engineers.
MEP Engineer: coordinate finishes, locations, access, and structural support system with
Architect.
Acoustician: provide noise and isolation criteria.


Theatrical equipment

11 61 33 - Theatrical rigging

Power flying battens
The power flying rigging set consists of mechanically-lifted linesets for general purpose, lighting
electrics, cycloramas, act curtains, and heavy scenic pieces. These self-contained winches or
specifically-designed motorized winches can be controlled individually or grouped into presets
with the integrated computer controller. For safety, this panel has restricted access to the controls
via a key switch or lock out commands.

Stage traveler track
Main curtain and mid-stage traveler drapery require portable manual traveler tracks attached to
overhead battens. These two-panel draperies are operated by hand, splitting down the middle.

Speaker cluster rigging
Single-speed motors for FOH speaker clusters (left, right, and center) allow each cluster to move
between a high operational position and a floor maintenance position. This system may also
activate panel doors which conceal space for storage and service of the speaker cluster.
Coordinate locations with the A/V Consultant. Control is via master panel and remote pickle.

Chain motors
The chain motor system includes quarter-ton, half-ton, and one-ton chain motors, chain motor
controller, and rigging truss sections attached to the grid for use with lighting, masking, or
scenery.

Spotline rigging system
The spotline rigging system uses synthetic rope, sheaves, belaying pins, sandbags, cable cradles,
and other theatrical rigging elements to suspend scenery and theatrical lighting cables.

Trolley and beams
A trolley and beam system will be required for a chain hoist system to be used for raising and
lowering equipment to the lighting catwalks, followspot position, and equipment closets located
in the roof structure covering the fixed reserved seats.

Architect: coordinate, structural columns, and architectural finishes and color. Coordinate
finishes, acoustic mass criteria, storage zones, electrical conduit and wiring, and structural
support system with MEP Engineer, Structural Engineer, and Acoustician.
MEP Engineer: coordinate MEP systems to allow clear area for rigging operation.
Structural Engineer: coordinate stage house structural framing systems.

Electrical Engineer: coordinate electrical services and connections as required for electric motors
and electric rigging devices.

11 61 35 Theatrical rigging controls
A central theatrical equipment machinery panel will control winches, motorized electrics sets,
and other stage machinery. Portable local controls will supplement the central control station.

Electrical Engineer: coordinate electrical services and connections as required for electric motors
and the raceway connecting device locations to winch motor starters.

11 61 37 - Theatrical fire safety curtain
Local code may require a fire safety curtain made of synthetic flame-retardant material. In an
emergency, it will automatically deploy. In non-emergency situations, it can be motorized or
manually operated. Vertical edge smoke pockets at the stage side of the proscenium are designed
to create a fire and smoke barrier between the stage and auditorium, as required by life safety
standards, and local and national building codes.

Architect: coordinate acoustical doors, structural columns, and architectural finishes and color.
MEP Engineer: coordinate MEP systems to allow clear area for rigging operation.
Structural Engineer: coordinate stage house structural framing systems.
Electrical Engineer: coordinate electrical services and connections as required for electric motors.

11 61 43 - Theatrical draperies
Theatrical draperies include the fabric and related connection accessories required for visual
masking, decoration, and scenic effects on the stage. Velour drapery will be made from opaque,
inherently flame-retardant polyester fabric, providing long service life with little maintenance.

The main curtain will have 100% fullness, a lining, and could include decorative trimmings. The
stage masking drapes could include flat-sewn legs, borders, and mid-stage traveler. Remaining
inventory includes a filled leno cyclorama and both white and black scrims. Muslin drawstring
bags and hampers with lids and heavy-duty casters are required for storage.

The color of drapes is to be selected from standard manufacturers colors.

Architect: select main curtain color to match designed dcor.
Theatrical rigging contractor: provide counterweight rigging sets and traveler track.
Storage: provide storage for hampers.


11 61 91 - Theatrical lighting instruments and accessories
The complement of equipment for this section includes stage lighting fixtures for onstage, front-
of-house, cyclorama, drop, plus followspots.

Inventory
The inventory includes a quantity of demountable theatrical lighting fixtures with mounting and
distribution accessories. Fixtures contain an inventory of ellipsoidals, pars, and cyc lights.

Inventory includes long throw followspots which are large, manually-operated theatrical
spotlights for highlighting lead performers.

Moving lights: an inventory of moving light fixtures capable of remote pan/tilt, pattern, color,
and iris control. Fixtures may be controlled independently or connected along a "daisy chain."
Fixtures will be equipped with lamp, clamp, dichroic color mixing capabilities, patterns, and
control cable.

Accessories: an inventory of mounting and distribution accessories for theatrical fixtures,
including clamps, side-arms, booms, multi-cables, extension cables, two-fers, irises, barn-doors,
template holders, donuts, and tophats.

Architect: coordinate floor finishes, adjacent surfaces, storage locations, column placements, and
slab accommodation. Coordinate finish fascias as required.
MEP Engineer: coordinate mechanical systems to allow clear area for operation. Coordinate fire
sprinkler systems.
Structural Engineer: coordinate theatrical fixture mounting pipes and catwalks. See Structural
Guidelines to be issued by Theatre Projects during Schematic Design for additional information.
Electrical Engineer: coordinate electrical services and connections as required for work and
performance lighting equipment.

12 61 13 Fixed audience seating
This project requires approximately 5,000 high-quality plastic, weather resistant chairs with self-
rising seats, seat arms, letter and number plates, and aisle lights incorporated in end standards.
The rear of each seat will be hard plastic, the seat bottom will be hard plastic, and the seat arms
will be hard plastic. Fixed audience seating may require aisle fixed seats with flip-out arms for
disabled access, according to ADA and local codes.

Demountable chairs
Provide a quantity of demountable chairs for wheelchair positions. All demountable chairs shall
be capable of being provided in pairs with sled bases.

Architect: coordinate riser layout, sightlines, finishes, and fixing details.
Electrical Engineer: coordinate electrical connections for aisle lights.

Acoustician: provide acoustic mass and seat acoustical materials and properties criteria.

12 62 11 - Loose audience seating
Provide high-quality demountable, gangable seats matching the fixed seating finishes. Seating
will be used in the Inner Circle closest to the stage as shown on Architects and Theatre
Consultants drawings.

Architect: coordinate riser layout, sightlines, finishes, and fixing details.
Electrical Engineer: coordinate electrical connections for aisle lights.
Acoustician: provide acoustic mass and seat acoustical materials and properties criteria.

26 61 11 - Theatrical lighting dimmers and control
This group of systems includes the dimmers, computer control console(s), and electronic control
systems required for: theatrical lighting, concert and score-reading lighting, and architectural
house lighting. Theatrical performance dimmers are wired to individual theatrical lighting
outlets distributed throughout the audience chamber and performance area. Architectural house
lighting dimmers are wired to fixed house lighting fixtures.

Central: A quantity of central dimmer banks with 2400-watt and 6000-watt capacity dimmers.
Theatrical performance lighting: A quantity of remote-controlled standard rise dimmers.
Architectural house lighting: remote-controlled standard rise dimmers.
House lighting control: fixed, architectural-style controls.
Control console: A portable, computer-based control console to control theatrical lighting.
Console operation shall be possible from the control room, stage area, and technical rehearsal
position in the audience area.
Theatrical lighting network: Accommodation for both wired and wireless Ethernet infrastructure
for remote operation of theatrical lighting and lighting data. Portable and/or fixed Ethernet
nodes are included.

Worklight relay panel: central relay cabinet with 20 amp relays and front end electronics
receiving a DMX512 control signal from the control console and house lighting controls. Relays
are used to control worklight and similar circuits that do not require dimming.

Cue light system: a custom low voltage cue light system that enable stage management
personnel to cue stage crew silently with small lights. System allows for manual control or
programming of cues via desk top controller and can be designed for line voltage operation if
required.

Architect: coordinate with house lighting designed by Architectural Lighting Designer.
Mechanical Engineer: coordinate air handling needs in dimmer room.
Electrical Engineer: coordinate electrical services to dimmer racks and two-wire plus ground
branch circuits to fixed lighting and theatrical lighting outlets, including all labor, wire, raceways,

and fittings. Coordinate general services power and work lighting systems. Coordinate raceways,
back boxes, and wire for control systems.

A Company Switch is an industry standard fused or circuit-breaker protected disconnect that
provides a safe and convenient means of supplying temporary power utilizing Cam-lock
connectors for the installation of temporary theatrical equipment. The project will include several
Company Switches in various amperages, configurations, and locations depending on specific
lighting, scenic, and audio requirements. Configurations include multiple amperages (100A,
200A, and 400A) and all are 120/208 3 phase 4 wire w/ ground; double neutral to accommodate
non-linear loads in lighting; isolated ground for audio. These are in addition to disconnects or
switches for any other specific uses.

Probable sizes, uses, and quantities:
400A: 7 total: 4 for lighting, 1 for audio, 2 for stage machinery
200A: 2 for audio
100A: 2 for stage machinery and miscellaneous

Architect: coordinate locations with other services and surrounding finishes.
Electrical Engineer: Provide electrical service to each device including all labor, wire, raceways,
and fittings.

27 41 16.61 Integrated audio-visual systems and equipment
Audio, visual, and communications systems include equipment and infrastructure for technical
audio and video communications, back-of-house and front-of-house paging, background music
to the public, public address announcements, assisted listening system including:

1. MAIN EVENT COMPLEX
a. Onstage Area
1) Intercom
2) Infrastructure and tie lines
3) Company switches
b. Backstage Area
1) Video production room
2) AV rack room
3) Intercom
4) Paging
5) Distributed multimedia
c. Covered Audience Area
1) Large-scale video projection (with weather protection)
2) House mixing position
4) ADA compliant hearing assist
5) Modest public address for small events (<500) (with weather protection)

d. Lawn Audience Area
1) Sound reinforcement for all events (with weather protection)
2) AV rack room
e. Event Space
1) Distributed multimedia
3) Small sound system for live performance
2. COUNTY EVENT AMPHITHEATER
a. Stage Area Utility Bunker (with weather protection)
1) Intercom
3) Company switch
3. OUT BUILDINGS AND PADS
a. Distributed multimedia


Architect coordination :

The house mixing position is an operations area in the audience seating area. Portable consoles,
processing gear, and operators will be located here. This space requires easy rolling access to and
from the stage and loading dock. It is approximately 24 feet wide by 18 feet deep; located on the
center line of the venue, 80 to 100 feet from the stage.

The video production room is an operations area containing all of the rack-mounted video
processing equipment, video monitors, remote cameras controls, and the production switcher. It
is typically located in the stage house at stage level. This room is approximately 150 square feet.

The AV rack rooms contain all of the large, power consuming, heat producing AV components.
One is located in the stage house area and one is located at the center of the roof edge. These
rooms are approximately 100 square feet.

The AV storage room is located with easy rolling access to the stage area. Portable loudspeakers,
microphones, stands, cables, and accessories are stored here when not in use. This room is
approximately 100 square feet.

Mechanical Engineer coordination:

The mechanical engineer will design and specify HVAC systems for rooms containing AV
equipment. These rooms ideally should be maintained at an ambient temperature between 60
and 80 degrees Fahrenheit, and at a relative humidity between 40% and 55%, non-condensing.
These environmental requirements are in effect 24 hours a day and often necessitate a separate air
handling system for each room containing AV equipment.


Electrical Engineer coordination:

Coordinate isolated ground general services power, raceways, back boxes, and wire for control
systems; coordinate electrical and video services to amp racks, control locations, and technical
power circuits to fixed S&C outlets, including all labor, wire, raceways, and fittings.

Specify the following items for exclusive use by the AV equipment (design criteria will be
supplied by the AV designer as the project develops during design): AV technical power system
fed from K-13 rated isolation transformer with copper windings and electrostatic shield; AV
technical power isolated grounding system; AV technical power panel board providing
programmable, sequential start-up and shut-down of the AV systems; AV technical power
company switches; AV portable power distribution panel providing multiple outlets for use with
portable AV equipment; and, empty conduit and raceway systems (with pull strings) connecting
all AV equipment terminations. Note that the wire and wire-pull labor for low voltage AV cables
are included in the installed AV systems cost estimate.

I.T. Systems for AV systems:

The IT designer will specify the following items for use with the AV equipment: Router/switch
for connection of AV Equipment to building network; Outlet types and wall jacks for connection
of AV Equipment to the building network; and, Cable types and closet destinations.

Various:

Coordinate empty cable management system for temporary cabling for temporary performance
equipment for audio and video recording and broadcast.

XX XX XX - Other (items required but not specified)
Personnel lifts: Several portable motorized unit for elevating a worker to service lighting and
scenery to a maximum of 36 above the stage floor. Accommodation required: storage.

Lectern: A portable, adjustable lectern with integral lighting and sound features.
Accommodation required: finishes and colors as per Architect. Storage.

Washers and dryers: Two pairs of heavy-duty washers and dryers for the wardrobe/laundry
room. Accommodation required: Mechanical Engineer to coordinate plumbing and exhaust
needs. Electrical Engineer to coordinate electrical hook-ups.

Pianos: One performance-quality grand piano. Provide piano with associated dollies, benches,
and heavy-duty quilted covers which include leg protection. Accommodation required: storage.
Storage will be equipped with humidity control.

Miscellaneous stage equipment: A complement of stage equipment including hand tools, safety
gear, maintenance equipment, ladders, dollies, and hand trucks, as well as various pieces of
hardware required for facility operation. Accommodation required: Storage.


APPENDIX B
ACOUSTICAL ANALYSIS

145 HUGUENOT STREET | NEW ROCHELLE, NY 10801 | 1. 914. 712. 1300
ONONDAGA COUNTY EVENTS AREA
SOUND PROPAGATION REPORT

ACOUSTICAL ANALYSIS
A. NYS AND LOCAL ORDINANCES
The Amphitheater site lies within the Town of Geddes, NY, which is bounded by Onondaga Lake and
Liverpool to the East, Camillus to the West, Solvay to the South and Van Buren and Lysander to the
North. The community of Lakeland, within the Town of Geddes, as well as the Villages of Liverpool,
Solvay and Camillus, will be most affected with respect to sound from the Amphitheater. The nearest
residential areas to the proposed Amphitheater site appear to be located along State Fair Boulevard in
Geddes, approximately mile south-west of the proposed site. The Village of Liverpool, including
Onondaga Lake Park, is approximately 1 mile north-west of Lakeview Point across Onondaga Lake.
The NY State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) is responsible for interpreting and
applying regulations and statutes regarding noise impacts from facility operations that are located in close
proximity to other land uses. In addition, the Code of the Town of Geddes includes regulations regarding
noise control which may be applicable to this project.
A Program Policy publication of the NYSDEC, Assessing and Mitigating Noise Impacts, dated 02.02.01,
appears to provide the most recent guidance regarding sound propagation relative to NYS law.
According to this document:
In non-industrial settings, the SPL should probably not exceed ambient noise by more than 6
dB(A) at the receptor. An increase of 6 dB(A) may cause complaints. There may be occasions
where an increase in SPLs of greater than 6 dB(A) might be acceptable. The addition of any
noise source, in a nonindustrial setting, should not raise the ambient noise level above a
maximum of 65 dB(A). This would be considered the upper end limit since 65 dB(A) allows for
undisturbed speech at a distance of approximately three feet. Still lower ambient noise levels
may be necessary if there are sensitive receptors nearby.
Ambient noise SPLs in industrial or commercial areas may exceed 65 dB(A) with a high end of
approximately 79 dB(A). The goal in an industrial/commercial area, where ambient SPLs are
already at a high level, should be not to exceed the ambient SPL.
Based on the above, it appears that it may be appropriate to establish 65 dBA as a goal for sound levels
from the Amphitheater when measured in residential areas. However, meeting this goal will not ensure
that residents in areas where sound levels are below 65 dBA will not be adversely affected, as discussed
below.
The Town of Geddes code, Section 140 Paragraph 4 states:
It shall be unlawful for any person to maintain and operate in any building or on any premises in
the Town of Geddes any radio device or mechanical musical instrument, loudspeaker or device of
any kind whereby the sound there from can be heard to the annoyance or inconvenience of
travelers upon any public street or public place or of persons in neighboring premises.
We believe this is a stringent requirement which is based predominately on the perception of the
receptors and may be difficult to quantify. The Town of Geddes code includes further restrictions on
sound propagation in specific zoning districts for both conforming and non-conforming uses. The
proposed Onondaga County Events Area is in an area zoned Industrial A General Industrial District.
`

ACOUSTI CAL ANALYSI S
ONONDAGA COUNTY EVENTS AREA 2 OF 3 5 JUNE 2014
We note that the NY State NYSDEC policy guidelines and Town of Geddes Code both reference A-
weighted sound levels (dBA). The use of dBA as a sound level descriptor is an industry-standard
approach. The abbreviation dBA refers to a single-figure-of-merit sound level descriptor which is meant
to approximate the frequency sensitivity of normal hearing. The sound maps have been prepared using
dBA to relate to the relevant documents.
In addition to the above, we anticipate that community response to sound propagation from the
Amphitheater will also relate to sound levels having significant low-frequency spectral content which is not
readily characterized when sound levels are measured in dBA. The reasons for this include:
1. Low frequency sound is more prominent over long distances, since mid and high frequency
sound energy is subject to air absorption.
2. The directionality of low frequency sound is difficult to control; bass sound energy from the
loudspeakers serving the lawn seating will be propagated relatively uniformly and widely
dispersed over a large radius.

B. SOUND PROPAGATION
Sound propagation levels are based upon estimated average source levels. It should be noted these
levels will fluctuate from one performance to the next. For any given performance, the total sound level
will consist of a combination of these primary sources.
1. Source One is sound generated on the stage by instruments, instrument amplifiers, and stage
monitors. These sounds are the Artists means of expression.
2. Source Two is generated by the large-scale sound reinforcement loudspeakers flanking the
stage. These sounds are mixed (adjusted) for the enjoyment of the audience located under the
roof.
3. Source Three is generated by medium-scale loudspeakers distributed along the back edge of the
roof. These sounds are mixed for the audience located on the lawn.
4. Source Four is sound generated by the audience. The source is often overlooked. However, the
audience members themselves are capable of generating sound levels equal to or greater than
the other sources.
It is often asked if venue management can monitor and control the sound levels. Sound level monitoring
in the community can be conducted during events, through automated systems or by manual sound level
measurements. With this information, Source Three can be directly controlled by the venue. Sources
One and Two are controlled by the Artist and their technicians. Source Four cant be controlled.
Sound levels can be monitored by various methods and the results can be communicated to the system
operators, who can take action to control Source Three sounds as noted above. In some situations,
ensuring the system operators comply with local sound level requirements can be challenging.
We have estimated sound levels in the nearby communities due to sound reinforcement at the
Amphitheater. These estimates are based on typical Amphitheater sound levels for amplified music,
estimated to be 100 dBA at the rear of the lawn seating area. Sound levels of this magnitude will occur
during loud rock and pop music concerts.
`

ACOUSTI CAL ANALYSI S
ONONDAGA COUNTY EVENTS AREA 3 OF 3 5 JUNE 2014
In our analysis, we considered both of the amphitheater configurations being discussed (Cove and
Beacon). Sound propagation over long distances from the Amphitheater will vary significantly depending
on atmospheric, weather and wind conditions; the effect of these conditions cannot be precisely
predicted, although it could impact sound levels at any one location by 10 dB or more.
In addition, sound propagation from the Cove and Beacon options will be similar enough that for the
purposes of this analysis, sound levels in the nearby community will be the same for the two proposed
facility orientations.
The two images included in Figure 2-1 depict the results of our analysis of sound propagation during loud
rock and pop music concerts. The sound levels shown are not continuous expected sound levels during
each event, but instead are maximum anticipated sound levels that are will occur for a portion of some
events during certain times at the Amphitheater. The duration of these maximum sound levels, the
number of times during an event they will occur, and the number of events during the season during
which these sound levels may occur, will depend on the events that are scheduled.
SK-3 shows the anticipated maximum sound levels within approximately 2 miles of the Amphitheater
location. Note that there are residential areas in which we expect maximum sound levels from some
events to exceed 65 dBA. SK-4 compares expected maximum sound levels from concerts in the
proposed Amphitheater with expected maximum sound level from concerts in the existing State Fair
Grandstand.


APPENDIX C
BUILDING SPACE PROGRAMMING

Theatre Projects
14158 2014-06-05-Space Program - v.3.xlsx
Printed on: J une 5, 2014 1
GENERAL SUMMARY
MAIN
AMPHITHEATRE
BUILDING
LAWN
SEATING
MINI
AMPHITHEATRE
GENERAL
SERVICES
BUILDING Total Notes
Includes covered
seating, stage, stage
support, performer
support, restrooms,
F&B, event space
Includes uncovered
seating and pads for
VIP Pavilions
Includes main entrance
ticketing,
administration, grounds
maintenance, security,
parking, F&B storage
and distribution
Capacity: 5,000 12,500 300 17,800 18,100
net sf net sf net sf
Name net sf net sf
1000 PUBLIC AREAS 14,691 0 0 9,090 23,781
2000 PERFORMANCE SPACES 66,089 0 4,080 0 70,169
3000 STAGE SUPPORT 2,425 0 0 0 2,425
4000 PERFORMERS SUPPORT 6,104 0 0 0 6,104
5000 PRODUCTION SPACES 1,416 0 0 0 1,416
6000 SHOP SPACES 0 0 0 0 0
7000 ADMINISTRATION 0 0 0 3,372 3,372
8000 SERVICES 1,960 0 0 6,340 8,300
9000 EXTERNAL 0 125,640 0 0 125,640
Subtotal Program Net SF 92,685 125,640 4,080 18,802
Total Net SF 241,207
Theatre Projects
SUMMARY BY ZONE
MAIN
AMPHITHEATRE
BUILDING
LAWN
SEATING
MINI
AMPHITHEATRE
GENERAL
SERVICES
BUILDING Total Notes
Includes covered
seating, stage, stage
support, performer
support, restrooms,
F&B, public event
space
Includes uncovered
seating and pads for
VIP Pavilions
Includes main entrance
ticketing, administration,
grounds maintenance,
security, parking, F&B
storage and distribution
Building Area 5,000 12,500 300 17,800 18,100
Name net sf net sf net sf
net sf net sf
1000 PUBLIC AREAS 14,691 0 0 9,090 23,781
Food and beverage 2,386 (Box office, food storage, FOH staff support)
Restrooms 7,740
Event Space 3,360
Reception/stage door/other 895
2000 PERFORMANCE SPACES 66,089 0 4,080 0 70,169
Covered - "Inner Circle" 5,000
Covered - "Fixed Seats" 54,000
Stage 6,957
3000 STAGE SUPPORT 2,425 0 0 0 2,425
(Offices, crew rooms and storage)
4000 PERFORMERS SUPPORT 6,104 0 0 0 6,104
(Dressing rooms, wardrobe, performer lounge)
5000 PRODUCTION SPACES 1,416 0 0 0 1,416
(Artist catering/dining, warming kitchen)
6000 SHOP SPACES 0 0 0 0 0
7000 ADMINISTRATION 0 0 0 3,372 3,372
(Administrative offices)
8000 SERVICES 1,960 0 0 6,340 8,300
(Stage door, truck dock, scene dock) (Receiving, Security, J anitorial, Maintenance, Recycling)
9000 EXTERNAL 0 125,640 0 0 125,640
Subtotal Program Net SF 92,685 125,640 4,080 18,802
Total Net SF 241,207
Theatre Projects
Space Program- Space List Onandaga Laveview Amphitheatre
Notes Version 1
April 24, 2014
Space Program - Space List Notes
1 Note: Areas shown highlighted YELLOW are line items which have changed from the previous
2
3 Unless otherwise noted, the quantity of all spaces listed is one
5 All square footages should be confirmed by the ADA consultant.
6 a. Final gross calculations are to be determined by the cost consultant.
b. Total gross includes to allowance for:
i. Circulation (increased for both patrons and scenery/equipment)
GENER ii. Mechanical and Electrical Services (increased for larger ducts, and more conduits)
iii. Inaccessible spaces (due to space layout and open volumes of room shapes)
iv. Thicker walls (due to acoustic isolation)
8 Common abbreviations used in this document.
SL Stage left
SR Stage right
FOH Front of house
BOH Back of house
DSL Down stage left
DSR Down stage right
USL Up stage left
USR Up stage right
SLL Sound and light lock
All areas in this worksheet are calculated via one of the following methods:
a. Width (W) x depth (D)
b. Number of occupants (Occup) x Unit (SF per person)
c. A specific-use formula as identified in the "Notes" column
Theatre Projects
MAIN COMPLEX INCLUDING AMPHITHEATRE
Rm #
L
e
v
e
l
Name Net SF V.2 Occup Unit No W D H Comments
P SF Qty F F F
1000 PUBLIC AREAS 14,691
2000 PERFORMANCE SPACES 66,089
3000 STAGE SUPPORT 2,425
4000 PERFORMERS SUPPORT 6,104
5000 PRODUCTION SPACES 1,416
6000 SHOP SPACES 0
7000 ADMINISTRATION 0
8000 SERVICES 1,960
9000 EXTERNAL 0
Total Program NET 92,685
1000 PUBLIC AREAS Cap. Levels
1000 LOBBIES 5,000 1
GENERA 1001 FOH Enclosed Lobby 0 0 8
1002 Street Covered Lobby 0 4000 6
1007 Multi Corridors 0 0 0 10 0 8
1009 Multi Stairs 0 140 0 in gross
1010 FOH Stair Lobby 0 45 0 in gross
1100 LOBBY SERVICES
1101 FOH Elevators 100 100 1 in gross 7
1102 FOH Elevator Machine Room 80 80 1 in gross
1103 FOH Elevator Lobby 0 40 0 in gross
1104 Multi Service Elevator 0 80 0 8 10 8
1105 FOH Telephones / Water Fountains 0 36 0 in gross
1400 CATERING
1401 FOH Bars / Concessions 1,907 1100 293 6.5 2750
1402 FOH Bar / Concession Storage 289 15% bars
1403 FOH Bar Cool Storage 191 10% bars
Total Bar Area 2,386
1404 Ground Event Space 2,400 150 16
1405 Ground Event Space - Kitchen 360 15% Warming kitchen; assume catered
1406 Ground Event Space - Storage 600 25%
1407 U/L Restaurant Kitchen / Services in gross
Theatre Projects
Rm #
L
e
v
e
l
P SF Qty F F F
1500 RECEPTION
1507 FOH Washrooms - Unisex 130 65 2
1516 Ground Meet & Greet / Press Room 500 25 20 Greenroom
1700 SERVICES
1703 FOH Janitor Closet - FOH 15 15 1
1800 STORAGE
1801 FOH FOH / Operations Storage 250 5%
1900 RESTROOMS
1901 FOH Washrooms - Male 2,500 71 35 8
1902 FOH Washrooms - Female 5,000 100 50 8
1903 FOH Uni-sex H/C / Family Assist Washrooms 240 4 60 7
TOTAL PUBLIC - AREAS 14,691
2000 PERFORMANCE SPACES
2100 AUDITORIUM 5000
2101 Auditori Inner Circle 5,000 500 10 100% Loose seats nearest stage; lay-down area
2102 Auditori Covered 54,000 4,500 12 0% Fixed reserved seats
Pros Arch 100%
2200 STAGE Proscenium W H W D H
2201 Stage Mainstage 5,400 60 35 108 50 50 50' from stage to top of grid
2202 Stage Wing Left / Side Stage 0 0 19 50 Included in stage dimensions
2203 Stage Wing Right / Side Stage 0 0 19 50 Included in stage dimensions
2204 Stage Support Stage 0 0 70 20
Total Stage Area 5,400 Grid Dims 108 50
2212 Stage Apron 750 1 75 10
2213 Stage Stage Sound & Light Locks 640 80 4 8 10 8
2300 GALLERIES W L
2301 Stg Hse Loading Gallery 0 0 6 50 in gross
2304 Stg Hse Fly Gallery 300 1 6 50 in gross
2305 Stg Hse Operating Gallery 300 1 6 50 in gross
2307 Stage Crossover Gallery 288 1 96 3 in gross
2312 Auditori Auditorium Catwalks 1,080 3 4 90 in gross include followspot position
Theatre Projects
Rm #
L
e
v
e
l
P SF Qty F F F
2500 OVERHEAD
2501 Upper Grid 5,400 108 50 8 in gross
2504 Auditori Forestage Grid 1,050 1050 1 75 14 in gross
2600 OFFICES / SUPPORT
2612 Auditori Light & Sound Platform 480 6 80 1
2700 SERVICES
2701 Upper Dimmer Room 95 25 1 70 9 Two rooms: one backstage, one in roof
2702 Upper Sound Rack Room 204 22 7 50 Two rooms: one backstage, one in roof
2703 Stage Company Switch / Transfer 64 1 8 8 in gross
2704 Auditori Sound Cockpit / Mix Position 0 6 0 20 9
TOTAL - PERFORMANCE SPACES 66,089
3000 STAGE SUPPORT
3100 COMMON
3102 Stage Janitor's Closet - BOH 15 1 15
3200 STORAGE
3201 Stage On Stage Storage 1,080 20% 20 40
3212 Stage Shell Storage - Tower 0 600 0 30 20 30
3214 Stage Piano Storage 80 1 80 1
3215 Stg/LowInstrument Storage 0 3% 0 incl office / work area
3300 WORKSHOPS
3301 Stage Scenery Maintance & Repair / Tool Room 120 120 1 10 incl office / work area
3400 STAGE OFFICES
3401 Stage Production Management 320 2 160 1 7
3402 Stage Visiting Production Office 240 3 80 1 7
3500 STAFF ROOMS
3501 Stage Crew Locker / Ready Room 240 20 12 7
3900 RESTROOMS
3901 Stage Crew Washrooms / Showers 200 2 100 7
Theatre Projects
Rm #
L
e
v
e
l
P SF Qty F F F
3902 Stage Offstage Washrooms - Unisex 130 2 65 2 7
TOTAL - STAGE SUPPORT 2,425
4000 PERFORMERS SUPPORT total P
4100 DRESSING ROOMS
4101 Stage Star Suite 640 1 320 2 2 8
4105 S/U 2/4 Dressing Room 960 4 60 4 16
4110 S/U 8/10 Dressing Room 1,152 10 384 3 30
4112 Lower Chorus Dressing Room 1,064 24 532 2 48 8
4117 Lower Band Dressing Room 1,000 25 40 1 25
121
4300 WARDROBE
4309 L/U Laundry / Wardrobe Room 200 2 100 8 Close to Dressing Rooms
4600 COMMON
4601 Stage Performers Lounge 968 61 16 1 8 Green Room / pantry
4605 Stage Janitor's Closet - Perf 120 40 3
TOTAL - PERFORMERS SUPPORT 6,104
5000 PRODUCTION SPACES
5100 COMMON
5101 Stage Artist Catering / Assembly 1,089 61 18 1
5102 Stage Kitchenette / Storage 327 30%
TOTAL - PRODUCTION SPACES 1,416
6000 SHOP SPACES
6100 SCENE SHOP
TOTAL - SHOP SPACES 0
7000 ADMINISTRATION
TOTAL - ADMINISTRATION 0
8000 SERVICES
8000 BOH SERVICES
8001 Stage Stage Door Reception 0 200 0 incl receiving
8002 Stage Stage Door Office 0 250 0 7 incl fire control / security
Theatre Projects
Rm #
L
e
v
e
l
P SF Qty F F F
8200 PLANT / SERVICES
8201 Stage Truck bays (apron) 4,920 1230 4 15 82 15 external parking required
8202 Stage Truck dock 720 180 4 15 12 15 4' above apron; covered
8203 Stage Scene dock 1,800 1800 1 60 30 20 transfer / assembly area
8206 Stage Freight Elevator 160 1 10 16 8 interior cab dims
8208 Stage Garbage Disposal - Exterior 192 48 4 8 6
8300 ELECTRICS / COMMUNICATIONS
8301 L/U Phone Intake 1
8304 L/U Electrical Intake 1
8400 MEP / HVAC 12% of total gross
8407 L/U HVAC Plant
TOTAL - SERVICES 1,960
9000 EXTERNAL
TOTAL - EXTERNAL 0
LAWN
Rm #
L
e
v
e
l
Name
Proposed
net sf Occup Unit No W D H Comments
P sf Qty f f f
1000 PUBLIC AREAS 0
2000 PERFORMANCE SPACES 0
3000 STAGE SUPPORT 0
4000 PERFORMERS SUPPORT 0
5000 PRODUCTION SPACES 0
6000 SHOP SPACES 0
8000 SERVICES 0
9000 EXTERNAL 125,640
1000 PUBLIC AREAS
Theatre Projects
Rm #
L
e
v
e
l
P SF Qty F F F
TOTAL - PUBLIC AREAS 0
TOTAL - PERFORMANCE SPACES 0
3000 STAGE SUPPORT
TOTAL - STAGE SUPPORT 0
4000 PERFORMERS SUPPORT
TOTAL - PERFORMERS SUPPORT 0
TOTAL - PRODUCTION SPACES 0
6000 SHOP SPACES
7000 ADMINISTRATION
8000 SERVICES
TOTAL - SERVICES 0
9000 EXTERNAL Cap. Levels
9140 CATERING 12,500 1
ATL- 9141 Lawn Bar / Concessions 1,406 3,125 60 0.5 6 9
ATL- 9142 Lawn Bar / Concessions Storage 844 60% bars
ATL- 9143 Lawn Bar Cool Storage 984 70% bars
9190 RESTROOMS
ATL- 9194 Lawn Washrooms - Male (Lawn) 3,125 104 30 52
ATL- 9195 Lawn Washrooms - Female (Lawn) 8,036 179 45 89.29 8
ATL- 9196 Lawn Uni-sex H/C Washrooms (Lawn) 480 8 60 7
9210 SEATING AREA
ATL- 9211 Lawn Lawn 125,000 12,500 10 100%
ATL- 9220 Lawn VIP Pavillions 640 8 20 4
Theatre Projects
Rm #
L
e
v
e
l
P SF Qty F F F
12,500 100%
TOTAL - EXTERNAL 125,640
COMMUNITY EVENT AMPHITHEATRE
Rm #
L
e
v
e
l
Name
Proposed
net sf Occup Unit No W D H Comments
P sf Qty f f f
1000 PUBLIC AREAS 0
2000 PERFORMANCE SPACES 4,080
6000 SHOP SPACES 0
8000 SERVICES 0
9000 EXTERNAL 0
Total program NET 4,080
1000 PUBLIC AREAS Cap. Levels
1000 LOBBIES 300 1
TOTAL - PUBLIC AREAS 0
2100 AUDITORIUM 300
ATF- 2101 Tiered Concrete Benches 2,400 0 8
2200 STAGE Proscenium W H W D H
ATF- 2201 Festival Stage 1,200 40 35 40 30 0 H=f72*2.5
ATF- 2204 Support Pad 480 40 12 W=e72*2
2700 SERVICES
ATF- 2703 Company Switch / Transfer 225 0 15 15
ATF- 2704 Sound Cockpit / Mix Position 750 6 30 25
TOTAL - PERFORMANCE SPACES 4,080
Theatre Projects
Rm #
L
e
v
e
l
P SF Qty F F F
3000 STAGE SUPPORT
4000 PERFORMERS SUPPORT total P
6000 SHOP SPACES
7000 ADMINISTRATION
8000 SERVICES
TOTAL - SERVICES 0
9000 EXTERNAL
TOTAL - EXTERNAL 0
Theatre Projects
GENERAL SERVICES - TICKETING
L
e
v
e
l
Name Net SF Occup Unit No W D H Comments
P SF Qty F F F
1000 PUBLIC AREAS 9,090
2000 PERFORMANCE SPACES 0
6000 SHOP SPACES 0
7000 ADMINISTRATION 3,372
8000 SERVICES 6,340
9000 EXTERNAL 0
5,000 Main Complex
12,500 Lawn
1000 PUBLIC AREAS Cap. Levels 300 Mini Amphitheatre
1000 LOBBIES 17,800 3 17,800 Total
Cap = perf/public areas + reh /
function rooms
1002 Street Exterior Lobby 2,670 890 3
1100 LOBBY SERVICES
1101 FOH Elevators 100 100 1 in gross 7
1102 FOH Elevator Machine Room 80 80 1 in gross
2,850 0
1200 TICKETING
1202 Ground Box Office Sales / Counter 550 10 50 1 open counter
1204 Ground Box Office Operations / Workroom 400 4 100 1 7 BO Staff
1207 Ground Box Office Manager 100 1 100 1 7 Ticket / Technologies Mgr
1300 SALES
1307 Ground Merchandizing Area 1,800 180 10 12 15
1400 CATERING
1413 Upp/LowFood Service Storage 2,000 2,000 1 General Commisary
Rm #
Total lobby provisions - Note
that gross numbers are the
sf per person (plus individual
theatres sf)
Theatre Projects
L
e
v
e
l
Name Net SF Occup Unit No W D H Comments Rm #
1414 Upp/LowFood Service Cold Storage 1,000 1,000 1 General Commisary
1600 OFFICES
1601 FOH House Manager's Office 120 1 120 7 HM & Asst. / files & workspace
1603 FOH House Manager Assist 200 2 100 7 2 Asst. / files & workspace
1605 FOH First Aid Room 400 4 100 7
1608 FOH Staff Lockers / Storage 500 50 10
lockers & WC/stroller storage
only
1611 FOH Food Services Manager 120 1 120
1612 FOH Food Service Office 330 3 110 Head + asst. / chef
1613 FOH Food Service Staff Lockers 500 50 10 Caf / Bar staff
1700 SERVICES
1703 FOH Janitor Closet - FOH 30 30 1 Supply storage
1705 FOH Staff Washrooms - Male 210 35 6
1706 FOH Staff Washrooms - Female 180 45 4
1800 STORAGE
1801 FOH FOH / Operations Storage 400 2 400 1
1803 FOH Furniture Storage 2,000 2 2000 1
1900 RESTROOMS
TOTAL - PUBLIC AREAS 9,090 0 = total WC sf
2000 PERFORMANCE SPACES See Individual Areas
TOTAL - PERFORMANCE SPACES 0
3000 STAGE SUPPORT See Individual Areas
4000 PERFORMERS SUPPORT total P See Individual Areas
Theatre Projects
L
e
v
e
l
5000 PRODUCTION SPACES See Individual Areas
6000 SHOP SPACES See Individual Areas
6500 COMMON AREAS
6501 Street Truck Apron 0 795 0 15 53 15
external parking required for
additional trucks / busses
6502 Shop Loading Dock w/ levelers 0 120 0 15 8 15
external area for levelers /
bumpers / lights etc.
6503 Shop Scene Dock 0 3,720 0 93 40 16
circulation between truck dock
and stage
6506 Multi Freight Elevator in gross 10 22 14
6508 Street Garbage Disposal - Exterior 0 144 0 12 12
6511 General Storage Units 0 0 7 42 8 container units stacked
7000 ADMINISTRATION
7000 EXECUTIVE 890
7001B FOH Executive Director 250 1 250
7006 FOH Admin Assistant 300 2 150
7007 FOH Office Manager 120 1 120 7
7010 FOH Reception Area 220 4 55 1 12 Waiting area
7100 FUNDRAISING 0
7200 MARKETING 600
7201A FOH Marketing Director 150 1 150
7205 FOH Event Manager / Volunteer Coordinator 120 1 120 1 7 Volunteer Services Director
7206 FOH Customer Service Manager 110 1 110 1 7
7212 FOH Marketing Offices 220 2 110 Publicist / Sec. / graphics
Theatre Projects
L
e
v
e
l
7300 BUSINESS 360
7301A FOH Business Manager 120 1 120 BM / Asst.
7303 FOH Bookeeper 110 1 110 7 Controller
7315 FOH Information Technologies Tech 130 1 130 1 7
7400 OPERATIONS 455
7401A FOH VP - Operations 125 1 125 1 7 Operations Manager
7405A FOH Programming Manager 110 1 110 Asst. / Sec.
7407 FOH Booking Manager 120 1 120
7413 FOH Building Engineer 100 1 100
7900 SERVICES 1,067
7901 FOH Conference / Board Room 300 20 15 1 10
7904 FOH Staff Lunch Room / Pantry 150 150 1
7907 FOH Xerox / Mail Room 200 200 1 7
7908 FOH Restrooms - Male 72 2 36 1 7
7909 FOH Restrooms - Female 100 2 50 1 7
7910 BasemeAdministrative Storage 200 200 1 200 7 Business storage
7911 FOH Janitor's Closet - ADM 45 45 1
TOTAL - ADMINISTRATION 3,372 16 Total PAC Staff FT & PT
Tech offices shown in Stage Support
8000 SERVICES BO / FOH staff shown in Public Areas
8000 BOH SERVICES
8008 Street Security / Parking Office 220 2 110 1 Head security / equip
8009 Security Staff Lockers 500 50 10 1
8100 BUILDING SERVICES
8101 Upp/LowJanitorial Storage 1,000 1000 1 main storage
8102 Upp/LowJanitorial Office / Lockers 300 30 10 1 Head custodian + 6
8105 Upp/LowMaintenance Store / Shop 500 500 1 main storage / work area
8107 Upp/LowMaintenance Office / Lockers 320 2 160 1 Building engineer + 1
8200 PLANT / SERVICES
Theatre Projects
L
e
v
e
l
8201 Street Loading Bays 2,220 1,110 2 15 74 15
external parking required for
additional trucks / busses
8203 Stage Receiving, storage / Distribution Area 3,000 3,000 1 60 50 16
8206 Multi Freight Elevator 0 0 12 24 10 interior cab dims
8207 Stage Garbage Disposal - Interior 0 48 0 8 6 Catering / Loading Docks
8208 Street Garbage Disposal - Exterior 0 144 0 12 12
8209 Street Recycling Room 500 500 1 20 25
8210 Dock Storage
8211 Stg/LowStage Air Compressors 0 1
8300 ELECTRICS / COMMUNICATIONS
8301 Lower Phone Intake 100 100 1
8302 Low/Up Communications Hub Room (IT) 240 120 2
8303 Low/Up Telephone Closets 300 50 6
8304 Lower Electrical Intake 200 200 1
8305 Lower Transformer Room 200 200 1
8306 Lower High Voltage Room 300 300 1
8307 Lower Low Voltage Room 300 300 1
8308 All Electrical Closets 384 64 6
8400 MEP / HVAC 12% of total gross typical
8401 Lower Boiler Room 400 400 1
8402 Lower Chiller Room 2,000 2,000 1
8403 Upper Fan Room 750 150 5
8404 Lower Domestic Water Room 50 50 1
8405 All Mechanical Room - Misc 600 200 3
8406 Low/Up Supply Plenum 0 100 0
TOTAL - SERVICES 6,340 5,824
9000 EXTERNAL
9100 EXTERIOR SERVICES
9103 Landscape Maintenance 1,764 1764 1 42 42
TOTAL - EXTERNAL 0
Theatre Projects
CHANGE TRACKING
V.1 Initial
V.2 Change Restaurant to Event Space
Change Restaurant Kitchen to Warming Kitchen only
Reduce Kitchen and Storage in size
V.3 Resized Chorus dressing rooms (no SF delta)
Adjusted size of proscenium opening to reflect drawings
Deleted orchestra enclosure and storage
Deleted Stage Door Offices and Reception
Deleted secondary sound cockpit/house mix position


APPENDIX D
VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Lakeview Amphitheater Facility
1
3.5 VISUAL AND AESTHETIC RESOURCES

3.5.1 Existing Conditions

The visual study area was defined as the area within a one-mile radius
1
of both potential Lakeview Point Project
locations (i.e., the Cove and the Beacon). The study area includes approximately 3.4 square miles and includes
portions of the Towns of Geddes and Salina and a portion of the Hamlet of Lakeland. The Village of Liverpool is
located at the northeastern limit of the visual study area and the City of Syracuse is approximately 1.4 miles to the
southeast. The extent of the visual study area is illustrated in Figure 9.

The visual study area is located in the lowlands portion of the Erie-Ontario Plain physiographic province, which is
characterized by low lying till plains, drumlins, outwash plains and small areas of lacustrine origin (USDA SCS,
1977).
2
Roughly half of the visual study area overlaps the central portion of Onondaga Lake. Topography in the
remainder of the visual study area is characterized by a relatively level area comprised of Solvay waste beds and a
capped steel mill landfill in the central portion of the study area and extending to the southeast; a low lying area
surrounding the channelized Nine-Mile Creek and a solidified industrial waste lagoon/tailings pond in the
southwestern portion of the study area; and a moderately steep hillside in the western portion of the study area.
Elevations range from approximately 360 feet amsl along the Onondaga Lake shoreline to approximately 510 feet
amsl in the western portion of the study area (see Figure 2).

Land use within the one-mile-radius visual study area includes recreational and residential uses as well as areas of
vacant land. Recreational land use within the study area is associated with Onondaga Lake, Onondaga Lake County
Park, the New York State Fairgrounds, and Popes Grove Golf Course. Medium-density residential development with
small interspersed areas of forest or grassland/shrubland occupies the western portion of the visual study area,
associated with the Hamlet of Lakeland. Vacant land is associated with former waste beds in the vicinity of the
Project site and in the southwestern portion of the study area. Vegetation within the study area is a mix of lawns,
landscape/streetscape plantings, grassland, successional shrubland/forestland, and small areas of mature deciduous
forest.

The Project site is located on Lakeview Point, a manmade landform extending into Onondaga Lake. The Project site
is located within Onondaga Lake Park; is adjacent to the New York State Fairgrounds parking lots and the I-690 and
NYS Route 695 exchange; and is east-southeast of the mouth of Nine Mile Creek. The Project site is presently

1
A 1.0-mile study area is typically used as an industry standard for visual assessments for small projects such as buildings, communication
towers, and/or electrical utility lines.
2
USDA Soil Conservation Service (SCS). 1997. Soil Survey of Onondaga County, NY, January 1977.

2
vacant and covered by early successional forestland. A multi-use recreational trail has recently been constructed
through the Project site that connects to the existing West Shore trail located northwest of the site.

3.5.1.1 Visually Sensitive Resources

To identify visually sensitive resources within the visual study area, EDR consulted a variety of data sources,
including: digital geospatial data (shapefiles) obtained primarily through the NYS GIS Clearinghouse or the
Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI); numerous national, state, county and local agency/program
websites, as well as websites specific to identified resources; the DeLorme Atlas and Gazetteer for New York State;
USGS 7.5-minute topographical maps; and web mapping services such as Google Maps. All inventoried aesthetic
resources are depicted in Figure 10 and listed in Appendix D.

Visually sensitive resources generally fall into two categories: 1) aesthetic resources that have been formally
recognized, such as buildings and landscapes listed on the National or State Register of Historic Places or publicly
owned properties such as State Parks, or 2) places of concentrated activity such as schools, villages centers, and
heavily used roadways, or landscapes of high aesthetic merit that may be considered important by local residents.
The former category includes various resources that have been identified as aesthetic resources of statewide
significance by NYSDEC Visual Policy. Within the one-mile study area, these resources include the following:

Sites Listed on the State and/or National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)
EDR reviewed the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and
Historic Preservation (NYSOPRHP) website, as well as a NYSOPRHP shapefile for buildings, structures, objects and
historic districts listed in the NRHP, in order to identify significant historic buildings and/or districts located within one
mile of the proposed Project (NRHP, 2014a,
3
2014b;
4
NYSOPRHP, 2012,
5
2014a
6
). No NRHP-listed historic sites or
districts occur within the visual study area. The NYSOPRHP State Preservation Historical Information Network
Exchange (SPHINX) database was also reviewed to identify NRHP-eligible properties (NYSOPRHP, 2014c).
7
This
database identifies 24 structures within the New York State Fairgrounds as NRHP-eligible, 10 of which fall within the
visual study area.

3
National Register of Historic Places. 2014a. Historic Districts [website]. Available at: http://www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com/
districts.html (Accessed April 9, 2014).
4
National Register of Historic Places. 2014b. State Listings [website]. Available at: http://www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com/state.html
(Accessed April 9, 2014).
5
NYSOPRHP. 2012. National Register Sites [shapefile]. File allnr.shp received by EDR staff via email September 18, 2012 from Cristina
Croll at New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation.
6
NYSOPRHP. 2014c. The Geographic Information System for Archeology and National Register [website]. Available at: http://www.
oprhp.state.ny.us/nr/main.asp (Accessed April 9, 2014).
7
NYSOPRHP. 2014b. SPHINX System. Available at: http://pwa.parks.ny.gov/SPHINX/ (Accessed March 10, 2014).

3
State Parks
Review of the NYSOPRHP website indicates that there are no New York State Parks located within the visual study
area. The State Park at the Fair is located in front of the Horticulture Building, just outside the study area
(NYSOPRHP, 2014d).
8

Urban Cultural Parks/Heritage Areas
The visual study area lies wholly within the Erie Canalway National Heritage Corridor. This national heritage corridor
encompasses New Yorks canal system and the communities that grew along its shores (NYSOPRHP, 2014e).
9
The
mission of the Erie Canalway National Heritage Corridor Commission is to assist historic preservation, conservation,
recreation, interpretation, tourism and community development along the Erie Canalway Heritage Corridor among the
Canalways many stakeholders, and to enhance the Canalways national significance for all to use and enjoy
(NYSOPRHP, 2007).
10

State Forest Preserves
New York State Forest Preserves occur within the Adirondack and Catskill Parks, neither of which are located within
the visual study area (NYSDEC, 2014c).
11

National Wildlife Refuges and State Wildlife Management Areas
Review of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wildlife Refuge System website and the NYSDEC website
indicate that no National Wildlife Refuges or State Wildlife Management Areas are located within the visual study
area (USFWS, 2014;
12
NYSDEC, 2014d
13
).

National Natural Landmarks
Review of the National Park Service National Natural Landmarks Program website indicates that no National Natural
Landmarks are located within the visual study area (NPS, 2014a).
14

National Parks, Recreation Areas, Seashores and/or Forests

8
NYSOPRHP. 2014d. State Parks [website]. Available at: http://nysparks.state.ny.us/parks/ (Accessed April 11, 2014).
9
NYSOPRHP. 2014e. Heritage Areas [website]. Available at: http://nysparks.state.ny.us/historic-preservation/heritage-areas.aspx.
10
New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (NYSOPRHP). 2007. Heritage Development Resource Guide.
Available at: http://nysparks.com/historic-preservation/documents/HeritageDevelopmentResourceGuide.pdf (Accessed April 11, 2014).
11
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 2014a. New Yorks Forest Preserve [website]. Available at: http://
www.dec.ny.gov/lands/4960.html (Accessed April 9, 2014).
12
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014. National Wildlife Refuge Locator [website]. Available at: http://www.fws.gov/refuges/refuge
LocatorMaps/index.html (Accessed April 11, 2014).
13
NYSDEC. 2014b. Wildlife Management Areas [website]. Available at: http://www.dec.ny.gov/outdoor/7768.html (Accessed April 9, 2014).
14
National Park Service (NPS). 2014a. National Natural Landmarks in New York [website]. Available at: http://www.nature.nps.gov/nnl/state.
cfm?State=NY (Accessed April 9, 2014).

4
Review of the National Park Service and U.S. Forest Service websites regarding National Park Service Lands and
National Forests (respectively) indicates that no National Parks, Recreation Areas, Seashores or Forests are located
within the visual study area (NPS, 2014b;
15
USFS, 2014
16
).

National or State Designated Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers
Review of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers website and the NYSDEC Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers
website indicates that no formally designated wild, scenic or recreational rivers are located within the visual study
area (National Wild and Scenic Rivers, 2014;
17
NYSDEC, 2014e
18
). The Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NRI) was also
consulted, as it is somewhat equivalent to an eligible-for-listing designation, but did not include any rivers located
within the study area (NPS, 2014c).
19

Sites, Areas, Lakes, Reservoirs or Highways Designated or Eligible as Scenic
There are no state or nationally designated scenic byways located within the visual study area (NYSDOT, 2014
20
;
USDOT, 2014).
21

Scenic Areas of Statewide Significance
According to the NYS Department of State (2014)
22
, there are no Scenic Areas of Statewide Significance within the
visual study area.

State or Federally Designated Trails
No state or federally designated trails are located within the study area (NPS, 2014d;
23
NYSOPRHP, 2014f
24
).

Adirondack Park Scenic Vistas
No portion of the Adirondack Park is located within the study area.

15
NPS. 2014b. Find a Park in NY [website]. Available at: http://www.nps.gov/state/ny/index.htm (Accessed April 4, 2014).
16
United States Forest Service. 2014. Find a Forest by State [website]. Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/map/state_list.shtml
17
National Wild and Scenic Rivers. 2014. Wild & Scenic Rivers: New York [website]. Available at: http://www.rivers.gov/new-york.php
18
NYSDEC. 2014e. Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers [website]. Available at: http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/32739.html (Accessed April
9, 2014).
19
NPS. 2014c. Nationwide Rivers Inventory [website]. Available at: http://www.nps.gov/ncrc/programs/rtca/nri/index.html (Accessed April 9,
2014).
20
New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT). 2014. New York State Scenic Byways [website]. Available at: https://www.
dot.ny.gov/scenic-byways (Accessed April 9, 2014).
21
United States Department of Transportation (USDOT). 2014. Americas Byways: New York [website]. Available at: http://www.
fhwa.dot.gov/byways/states/NY/maps (Accessed April 9, 2014).
22
New York State Department of State. 2014. Scenic Areas of Statewide Significance [website]. Office of Planning and Development.
Available at: http://www.dos.ny.gov/opd/programs/consistency/scenicass.html (Accessed April 9, 2014).
23
NPS. 2014d. National Trails System [website]. Available at: http://www.nps.gov/nts/nts_trails.html (Accessed April 9, 2014).
24
NYSOPRHP. 2014f. Trails [website]. Available at: http://www.nysparks.com/recreation/trails/. (Accessed April 11, 2014).

5

Palisades Park
No portion of Palisades Park is located within the study area.

State Nature and Historic Preserve Areas and Bond Act Properties (Exceptional Scenic Beauty, Open Space)
Review of existing data did not identify any State Nature or Historic Preserve Areas or Bond Act Properties within the
study area that were purchased under the Exceptional Scenic Beauty or Open Space Category.

Locally Important Resources
In addition to the scenic resources of statewide significance listed above, the visual study area also includes areas
that are regionally or locally significant, sensitive to visual impacts, and/or receive significant public/recreational use.
These resources include the Hamlet of Lakeland, the Village of Liverpool (adjacent to the study area), Interstate 690
and State Route 695, the New York State Fairgrounds, and a number of recreational resources, described below.

The Empire Expo Center/New York State Fairground is located in the southern portion of the visual study area. This
375-acre exhibition ground is used for a variety of exhibitions and trade fairs throughout the year, but is best known
for annually hosting the New York State Fair. State Fair attendance is typically near 1 million visitors and it is
estimated that an additional 1 million people attend non-fair events throughout the year (New York State Fair,
2014).
25

Onondaga Lake Park is the most popular park in Central New York with over 1 million visitors per year (Onondaga
County Parks, 2014).
26
The park features seven miles of shoreline; offers paved trails, a marina, playground, and
dog park; hosts special events, sporting competitions and festivals; and more. The park encompasses much of the
shoreline of Onondaga Lake, including the entire shoreline within the visual study area. The portion of the park within
the visual study area is relatively undeveloped, although a portion of the West Shore Trail extends into the
northeastern portion of the study area. The West Shore Trail, also known as John Haley Memorial Trail, is a paved
trail that wanders through 2 miles of woodlands along the western shore of Onondaga Lake. An expansion of this
trail has recently been constructed that provides pedestrians and bicyclists access to the Project site.

Onondaga Lake is approximately 1 mile wide and 4.6 miles long and occupies roughly half of the visual study area.
Recreational use of the lake includes boating and fishing. Recreational uses of Ninemile Creek within the study area
include fishing and paddling.

25
New York State Fair. 2014. The Great New York State Fair [website]. Available at: http://www.nysfair.org/ (Accessed May 9, 2014).
26
Onondaga County Parks. 2014. Onondaga Lake Park [website]. Available at: http://onondagacountyparks.com/onondaga-lake-park/
(Accessed May 7, 2014).

6

Popes Grove Golf Course is a nine-hole course located off of State Fair Boulevard, approximately 0.6 miles
southwest of the Project site. Another notable recreational resource, located beyond the visual study area, is the
Onondaga Creekwalk, which presently extends from Armory Square in downtown Syracuse to the southern shore of
Onondaga Lake. The northern terminus of this popular trail is approximately 3.5 miles southeast of the Project site.
Additionally, the Onondaga Yacht Club Boat Launch is located across the lake from the Project site, just at the border
of the visual study area.

3.5.2 Potential Impacts

3.5.2.1 Construction

Visual impacts during construction will include removal of vegetation and soil disturbance on the Project site, as well
as the addition of construction material and equipment to the Project site and local roads. Once construction activity
and landscaping activities are complete, construction-related visual impacts will no longer occur.

3.5.2.2 Operation

Potential Project visibility was evaluated through viewshed analysis and field verification (ballooning). Project visibility
and visual contrast with the existing landscape do not necessarily equate to an adverse visual impact in this situation.
Adding a visually interesting focal point, attracting the attention of potential spectators, and creating a source of
community pride are goals of this facility.

The appearance of the Project was illustrated by preparing computer-assisted mass model renderings of the
completed Project from representative/sensitive viewpoints throughout the visual study area.

3.5.2.2.1 Viewshed Analysis

Topographic viewshed maps for the Project were prepared using USGS digital elevation model (DEM) data (7.5-
minute series), the location and height of the two proposed Lakeview Point concepts, and ESRI ArcGIS software
with the Spatial Analyst extension. A 1-mile radius topographic viewshed was mapped to illustrate potential visibility
of the proposed Project (based on a maximum structure height of 87 feet above existing grade).

The ArcGIS program defines the viewshed (using topography only) by reading every cell of the DEM data and
assigning a value based upon visibility from observation points throughout the 1-mile study area. The resulting
topographic viewshed map defines the maximum area from which any portion of the completed Project could

7
potentially be seen from ground-level vantage points (existing grade plus 1.7 meters to account for viewer height)
within the study area (ignoring the screening effects of existing vegetation and structures).

Potential visibility of the proposed Project, as indicated by the topographic viewshed analyses, is illustrated in Figure
11, Sheet 1. This analysis indicates that some portion of the proposed Project could potentially be visible in
approximately 94% of the 1-mile radius study area if it is constructed at the Beacon location, or approximately 89% of
the 1-mile radius study area if it is constructed at the Cove location. Because the screening provided by vegetation
and structures is not considered in this analysis, the topographic viewshed represents a "worst case" (maximum)
assessment of potential Project visibility. Topographic viewshed maps assume that no trees exist, and are therefore
very accurate in predicting where visibility will not occur due to topographic interference. However, they are less
accurate in identifying areas from which the Project would actually be visible. Tall vegetation, buildings, and other
structures can limit or eliminate visibility in areas indicated as having potential Project visibility in the topographic
viewshed analysis.

Areas where this analysis indicates screening of views by intervening topography include portions of the shoreline
around Lakeview Point, the shoreline near the southeastern limit of the study area, and portions of I-690 southeast
of, and including, the interchange with State Route 695. Based on this analysis, all of the visually sensitive resources
identified within the 1-mile study area are indicated as having potential views of some portion of the Project based on
screening or partial screening provided by intervening topography alone (see Appendix D). The viewshed mapping
of the two proposed Project locations are similar, but due to the higher elevation of the Beacon site, this location has
greater visibility throughout the study area. Nearly all of the sensitive sites identified within the study area are
indicated as having the potential for views of the Project, regardless of which location is chosen. The primary
difference between the two proposed locations (with respect simply to the presence or absence of a view from any
portion of a visually sensitive resource) is that some of the NRHP-eligible sites within the New York State
Fairgrounds would not have views of the Project if it were located at the Cove site, whereas all of these structures are
indicated as having a potential view of the Project if it were located at the Beacon site (according to the topographic
viewshed analysis).

To supplement the worst case topographic viewshed analysis, a vegetation viewshed was also prepared to illustrate
the potential screening provided by forest vegetation. A base vegetation layer was created using the USGS 2006
National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD) to identify the mapped location of forest land (including the Deciduous Forest,
Evergreen Forest and Mixed Forest NLCD classifications). The mapped locations of the forest land were assigned
an assumed elevation of 40 feet, and added to the DEM. The viewshed analysis was then re-run, as described
above. Once the viewshed analysis was completed, the areas covered by the forest vegetation layer were set to

8
zero visibility using a Spatial Analyst conditional statement to reflect the fact that views within forested areas will
generally be screened.

Because areas of mapped mature forest are somewhat limited within the study area (including several small areas
scattered in the western portion of the study area and a small portion of Onondaga Lake Park adjacent to the State
Fair parking area in the southeastern portion of the study area), factoring vegetation into the viewshed analysis
results in a minor reduction in potential Project visibility (see Figure 11, Sheet 2). Within a 1-mile radius, the
vegetative viewshed analysis indicates that approximately 87% of the study area could have views of the proposed
Project if it is constructed in the Beacon location, or approximately 81% of the study area if it is constructed in the
Cove location. According to this analysis, views of the Project will be more limited in the western portion of the study
area than the topographic viewshed indicated. Portions of residential neighborhoods in Lakeland and a portion of
Onondaga Lake Parks West Shore Trail are indicated as being screened from view of the Project.

Because it accounts for the screening provided by mapped forest stands, the vegetation viewshed is a much more
accurate representation of potential Project visibility. However, it is important to note that because screening
provided by hedgerows, scrub vegetation, buildings and street/yard trees, as well as characteristics of the proposed
Project components that influence visibility (color, distance from viewer, etc.), are not taken into consideration in the
viewshed analyses, being within the viewshed does not necessarily equate to actual Project visibility. Areas of actual
Project visibility are anticipated to be more limited than indicated by the viewshed analysis.

3.5.2.2.2 Field Review

Visibility of the proposed Project was also evaluated in the field on April 28, 2014. Two 15-foot by 6-foot helium-filled
balloons were tethered at approximately the center of each of the proposed Project sites and raised to a height of 87
feet above existing grade. The purpose of this exercise was to provide a locational and scale reference to verify
visibility of the proposed Project and to obtain photographs for subsequent use in the development of mass model
renderings. Partly sunny skies resulted in good visibility throughout the day.

During the field verification, an EDR field crew drove public roads and visited public vantage points within the 1-mile
radius study area as well as points on the water and along the Onondaga Lake shoreline beyond the study area to
document locations from which the Project would likely be visible, partially screened, or fully screened, based on the
visibility of the balloons raised at the potential Project sites. Photos were taken from 101 representative viewpoints
within the study area and around the lake (viewpoint locations are mapped in Figure 12 and corresponding
photographs are presented in Appendix E). All photos were obtained using Nikon D200 and 5200 digital SLR
cameras with a focal length between 28 and 35 mm (equivalent to between 45 and 55 mm on a standard 35 mm film

9
camera). This focal length is the standard used in visual impact assessment because it most closely approximates
normal human perception of spatial relationships and scale in the landscape. Viewpoint locations were determined
using hand-held global positioning system (GPS) units and high resolution aerial photographs (digital ortho quarter
quadrangles). The time and location of each photo was documented on field maps and data sheets (see Appendix
F). Viewpoints photographed during field review generally represented the most open, unobstructed available views
toward the Project.

Field review confirmed that actual Project visibility is likely to be more limited than suggested by viewshed mapping.
This is primarily due to screening provided by buildings and street trees within more developed areas such as
residential neighborhoods and the New York State Fairgrounds as well as some degree of screening by trees and
scrub on Lakeview Point. Field review also indicates that the Beacon location is more visible in the southeastern
portion of the visual study area (in the vicinity of the State Fair parking lots adjacent to I-690) than the Cove location;
and that the Cove location is more visible from some areas in Lakeland than the Beacon location. Beyond the one-
mile study area, field review indicates that the proposed Project would be visible in both potential locations along the
northern, eastern and southern shores of Onondaga Lake, including the northern terminus of Onondaga Creekwalk.
Project visibility from the western shore was found to be more limited, and views from much of Onondaga Lake
Parks West Shore trail were screened by tall vegetation. The Project was visible from areas near the shoreline
within the Village of Liverpool but screened from view in locations further into the village. Similarly, both Concepts
were visible from portions of Lakeland nearest to the Project, but visibility was intermittent at greater distances. The
Project was not visible from viewpoints within the New York State Fairgrounds but the Beacon Concept was visible
throughout the State Fair parking lot and the Cove Concept was visible from the northern end of the parking lot.
Visibility from I-690 was variable, with only the Cove Concept visible from the West Shore Trail I-690 overpass; both
Concepts visible from Viewpoint 61, west of the Project site; neither Concept is visible from Viewpoint 62 near the
State Fairgrounds exit; and only the Beacon Concept visible from the walking bridge over I-690 between the
Fairgrounds and the parking area.

3.5.2.2.3 Mass Model Renderings

The photo documentation that resulted from EDRs field verification effort was used by C&S Companies for
development of mass model renderings. The mass model renderings allow comparison between existing views and
these same views following construction of the proposed Project in either the Beacon or the Cove location. Since the
architectural design of the Project has not yet been determined, two different potential designs were used in the
renderings; one that is more traditional and presents limited contrast to the landscape with its horizontal/gently
rounded profile while the other design presents more of an architectural statement and visual focal point (Figure 13).

10
These two designs represent opposite ends of the spectrum of potential architectural design currently under
consideration. For the purposes of this analysis, in order to present a range from least visual contrast to most visual
contrast, the more subtle/traditional design was placed in the lower-elevation Cove location and the higher
contrasting/modern design was placed in the higher elevation Beacon location. However, the designs are not
location-specific and either design (or another design altogether) could be constructed in either location. Because
the renderings are intended to depict the proposed Project relative to existing conditions, they include existing
features in the landscape that provide scale references and visual context for the Project; in some instances, these
features may also serve to screen portions of the building.

Views from Across the Lake
Mass model renderings were prepared to represent views of the Project that would be available from the opposite
shoreline of Onondaga Lake. The selected viewpoint, referred to as Viewpoint 1, is located at the Onondaga Yacht
Club Boat Launch directly across the lake from the Project site. From this viewpoint, both the Beacon and Cove
Concepts are clearly visible and relatively unobscured by intervening vegetation and topography (Figure __).
Although the effect of distance limits the visual prominence of both the Beacon and Cove Concepts, their contrast to
existing land use creates a new focal point in this view nonetheless. Both alternatives present a contrast to the
undeveloped landscape, but the horizontal lines and low profile of the Cove Concept create less visual contrast to
this view whereas the Beacon Concept creates a more noticeable break in the horizon and creates greater contrast
with the landscape in terms of both line and form.

Views from the Water
Viewpoints 7 and 21 are representative of views of the Project from the lake on either side of Lakeview Point.
Viewpoint 7 is located southeast of Lakeview Point and is therefore closer to the Beacon Concept, which is fully
visible from this viewpoint, while the view of the Cove Concept is largely obscured by intervening topography and
vegetation (Figure __). The Beacon Concept dominates the view from Viewpoint 7, introducing a new and distinctive
man-made feature to a view that was previously undeveloped. By contrast, the Cove Concept introduces minimal
visual change to the landscape from this viewpoint. Viewpoint 21 is located northwest of Lakeview Point and is
closer to the Cove Concept (Figure __). As such, the Cove Concept is fully visible from this viewpoint. It introduces
a large new structure to the previously undeveloped shoreline, and unlike other views of this Concept, is not
screened by site vegetation or topography or tempered by the effects of distance. The Beacon Concept is also
clearly visible on the horizon from this viewpoint. While the lines and form of the Beacon Concept present greater
contrast with the landscape than the Cove Concept in this view, greater distance from the viewer and the unaltered
foreground vegetation serve to reduce visual contrast of the Beacon Concept from this viewpoint.

11
Viewpoints 11 and 13 are both located northeast of Lakeview Point at distances of approximately 2,200 feet and 830
feet from shore, respectively. The Beacon Concept was modeled from Viewpoint 11 (Figure __, Sheet 1). From this
viewpoint, the structure is prominently visible, sitting atop the plateau and breaking the sky line in this view. It
presents strong contrast to the line and form of the existing landscape and adds a new and distinctive man-made
structure to a view that was previously undeveloped. The Cove Concept was modeled from Viewpoint 13 and,
although this is a closer view than the rendering of the Beacon Concept from Viewpoint 11, this alternative presents
less contrast to the existing landscape due to the horizontal lines of the design and its lower elevation which results in
substantial screening of the structure and limited interruption of the horizon line (Figure __, Sheet 2).

Views from Adjacent Uplands
The appearance of each proposed alternative from adjacent uplands south of the site was illustrated from Viewpoint
24, which is located at the edge of the capped Crucible Landfill and near the western end of the State Fair parking
area. Both proposed alternatives are located below the existing tree line in this view and are substantially screened
by intervening topography (Figure __). Once again, the lines and form of the Beacon Concept present a greater
contrast with the landscape than the Cove Concept, with its primarily horizontal and subtly curved lines. While the
Cove Concept is a less prominent change to the existing view, the design of the Beacon Concept creates a more
distinctive focal point and adds visual interest from this viewpoint.

3.5.2.2.4 Night Lighting

No impacts from night lighting are anticipated during construction of the Project. It is anticipated that construction
activities will be restricted to daytime hours and therefore no lighting during construction will be necessary.

As described in Section 3.5.2.2.3, the architectural design of the Project has not yet been finalized. Therefore, the
precise effect of lighting cannot be determined. However, it is anticipated that the facility will host concerts,
performances, and/or special events during the evening, and that during those events the Project will include
significant lighting. It is anticipated that the effect of lighting during these events will generally be consistent with the
effect of lighting from other existing, well-established, temporary (i.e., event-based) occurrences at the adjacent New
York State Fairgrounds.

During periods when the facility is not in use, it is anticipated that some exterior lighting will be necessary for security
and public safety. Exterior lighting associated with periods when the facility is not in use may be necessary along the
exterior of the amphitheater and other associated structures, along pathways and roads, and in parking areas.

12
3.5.3 Mitigation

Project visibility and visual contrast with the existing landscape do not necessarily equate to an adverse visual impact
in this situation. Adding a visually interesting focal point, attracting the attention of potential spectators, and creating
a source of community pride are goals of this facility. If these goals are to be achieved while minimizing visual
contrast with the existing landscape, the Cove Concept represents a more subtle addition to the landscape from most
viewpoints within the visual study area. The only exception would be views from the lake, particularly immediately
east of Lakeview Point. If the desire is to make an architectural statement and create a prominent landmark then the
Beacon alternative is better suited to that purpose. Since the visual change that this Project represents is not
necessarily an adverse impact, no formal mitigation measures are proposed.

In addition the Project design is intended, in part, to blend with the environment through use of textures and materials
(e.g., stone, wood) representative of nature.

To minimize potential nighttime impacts from exterior lighting when the proposed facility is not in use, exterior lighting
will be restricted to the minimum acceptable lighting to ensure security and safety. In addition, all lighting fixtures
associated with pedestrian pathways, roads, parking areas, and building exterior areas for the proposed facility will
be fully shielded or fitted with opaque hoods, shields, louvers, shades, and/or other devices to insure that all light
generated by the light source is directed downward and not outward horizontally. The lighting fixtures will be
consistent with the intent of various Dark Sky initiatives (generally speaking; e.g., Dark Sky Society, 2009
27
).

27
The Dark Sky Society. 2009. Guidelines for Good Exterior Lighting Plans. Available at:
http://www.darkskysociety.org/handouts/LightingPlanGuidelines.pdf.
$
$
Onondaga
Lake
T
o
w
n

o
f

S
a
l
i
n
a
T
o
w
n

o
f

G
e
d
d
e
s
T
o
w
n

o
f

G
e
d
d
e
s
T
o
w
n

o
f

C
a
m
i
l
l
u
s
Beacon
Concept
Cove
Concept
Copyright: 2011 National Geographic Society, i-cubed
NOTES: BASEMAP: ESRI ARCGIS ONLINE "USA TOPO MAPS" MAP SERVICE.
0 600 1,200 1,800 2,400 300
Feet
$
POTENTIAL PROJECT
LOCATION
ONE-MILE VISUAL
STUDY AREA
ONONDAGA COUNTY LAKEVIEW AMPHITHEATER
FIGURE 9: VISUAL STUDY AREA
JUNE, 2014
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
$
$
Onondaga
Lake
State
Fairgrounds
B
lo
o
d
y
B
ro
o
k
G
e
d
d
e
s

B
r
o
o
k
N
in
e
m
ile
C
re
e
k
Onondaga
Lake
S
a
lin
a S
t
P
o
w
e
ll S
t
A
l
d
e
r

S
t
L
a
u
ra
D
r
H
o
r
a
n

R
d
L
a
k
e

D
r
W
i
ll
o
w

S
t
H
ia
w
a
t
h
a
A
v
e
T
h
o
m
a
s

A
v
e
C
a
y
u
g
a

A
v
e
B
ro
w
S
t
A
s
p
e
n

S
t
H
a
z
e
l
S
t
N
ia
g
a
r
a

S
t
H
ia
w
a
th
a
T
r
l
V
a
le
rin
o
A
v
e
S
ta
s
k
o

D
r
S
c
o
r
p
i
o

D
r
L
a
k
e
C
o
u
n
tr
y
D
r
L
a
k
e
la
n
d
A
v
e
S
y
c
a
m
o
r
e

S
t
C
y
p
r
e
s
s

S
t
H
i
c
k
o
r
y

S
t
P
le
a
s
a
n
t B
e
a
c
h
R
d
R
e
g
a
tta
R
o
w
I
r
o
q
u
o
i
s

L
n
T
a
m
a
r
a
c
k

S
t
B
i
r
c
h

S
t
C
h
u
r
c
h

S
t
B
a
s
s

S
t
B
a
l
s
a
m

S
t
T
o
n
a
w
a
n
d
a
S
t
C
h
e
y
e
n
n
e

S
t
3R
d S
t
5
T
h
S
t
B
e
l
l
e

I
s
l
e

A
v
e
Gere Lock Rd
A
l
h
a
n

P
k
y
1St St
C
attaragus St
4T
h S
t
O
n
o
n
d
a
g
a
L
a
k
e
P
k
y
O
s
w
e
g
o
S
t
T
u
l
i
p

S
t
V
i
n
e

S
t
A
rm
strong R
d
S
ta
te
F
a
ir
B
lv
d
UV
695
UV
297
UV
57
UV
370
690
Galeville
Lakeland
Liverpool
Solvay
Pope's
Grove Golf
Course
Onondaga Lake
County Park
Onondaga Lake
County Park
Onondaga
Lake County
Park
Lakeland
Park
Johnson
Park
NOTES: BASEMAP: ESRI STREETMAP NORTH AMERICA, 2008.

0 600 1,200 1,800 2,400 300
Feet
$
POTENTIAL PROJECT
LOCATION
ONE-MILE VISUAL
STUDY AREA
FIGURE 10: VISUALLY SENSITIVE RESOURCES
JUNE, 2014
VISUALLY SENSITIVE RESOURCES
! NRHP-ELIGIBLE SITE
TRAIL
NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA
GOLF COURSE
LOCAL PARK
Other Local Resources
$
$
Onondaga
Lake
O
s
w
e
g
o
S
t
V
i
n
e

S
t
T
u
l
i
p

S
t
A
rm
strong R
d
S
ta
te
F
a
ir
B
lv
d
UV
695
UV
297
UV
57
UV
370
690
Beacon
Concept
Cove
Concept
Source: Esri, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, GeoEye, Getmapping,
Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, and the GIS User Community
NOTES: BASEMAP: ESRI ARCGIS ONLINE "WORLD IMAGERY" MAP SERVICE.

0 600 1,200 1,800 2,400 300
Feet
$
POTENTIAL PROJECT
LOCATION
ONE-MILE VISUAL
STUDY AREA
FIGURE 11: VIEWSHED ANALYSIS
JUNE, 2014
VIEWSHED RESULTS
BOTH CONCEPTS POTENTIALLY VISIBLE
ONLY COVE CONCEPT POTENTIALLY VISIBLE
ONLY BEACON CONCEPT POTENTIALLY VISIBLE
SHEET 1 OF 2: VISIBILITY BASED ON TOPOGRAPHY ONLY
$
$
Onondaga
Lake
O
s
w
e
g
o
S
t
V
i
n
e

S
t
T
u
l
i
p

S
t
A
rm
strong R
d
S
ta
te
F
a
ir
B
lv
d
UV
695
UV
297
UV
57
UV
370
690
Beacon
Concept
Cove
Concept
Source: Esri, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, GeoEye, Getmapping,
Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, and the GIS User Community

0 600 1,200 1,800 2,400 300
Feet
$
POTENTIAL PROJECT
LOCATION
ONE-MILE VISUAL
STUDY AREA
FIGURE 11: VIEWSHED ANALYSIS
JUNE, 2014
VIEWSHED RESULTS
BOTH CONCEPTS POTENTIALLY VISIBLE
ONLY COVE CONCEPT POTENTIALLY VISIBLE
ONLY BEACON CONCEPT POTENTIALLY VISIBLE
SHEET 2 OF 2: VISIBILITY BASED ON TOPOGRAPHY AND VEGETATION
$
$
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
Bloody Brook
Ley Creek
G
e
d
d
e
s
B
r
o
o
k
N
in
e
m
ile
C
re
e
k
O
s
w
e
g
o

S
t
G
r
a
n
t

B
l
v
d
M
o
r
g
a
n
R
d
M
i
l
t
o
n

A
v
e
L
o
d
i

S
t
J
o
h
n
G
le
n
B
lv
d
F
a
y
R
d
Hiawatha Blvd
Vine St
Arm
strong R
d
P
a
r
k

S
t
T
u
lip
S
t
W
i
l
li
s
A
v
e
Long Branch Rd
S
t
a
t
e

F
a
ir

B
l
v
d
Electronics Pky
E
r
ie

B
l
v
d
7
T
h

N
o
r
t
h

S
t
B
u
ckle
y R
d
V
a
n

B
u
r
e
n

R
d
O
l
d

L
iv
e
r
p
o
o
l

R
d
UV
5
UV
695
UV
370
UV
297
UV
57
11
690
90
81
Fairmount
Galeville
Lakeland
Liverpool
Solvay
Syracuse
Westvale
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42 43
2
44
45
46
47
49
50
51
48
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
Source: Esri, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, GeoEye, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, and the GIS User
Community
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 500
Feet
FIGURE 12: VIEWPOINT LOCATION MAP

JUNE, 2014
JUNE, 2014
SHEET 1 OF 2: BEACON CONCEPT
ORIGINAL PHOTO
Please note that the purpose of creating a wire frame model is to determine the scale of a given
building/structure based on the conceptual design, and its placement and orientation in a given
landscape. The building fnishes and aesthetic qualities will ultimately be determined through
detailed architectural design.
FIGURE 13: VIEWPOINT 1 WIRE FRAME RENDERINGS
JUNE, 2014
SHEET 2 OF 2: COVE CONCEPT
ORIGINAL PHOTO
JUNE, 2014
ORIGINAL PHOTO
JUNE, 2014
ORIGINAL PHOTO
JUNE, 2014
ORIGINAL PHOTO
JUNE, 2014
ORIGINAL PHOTO
JUNE, 2014
SHEET 1 OF 2: BEACON CONCEPT (VIEWPOINT 11)
ORIGINAL PHOTO
FIGURE 16: VIEWPOINTS 11 AND 13 WIRE FRAME RENDERINGS
JUNE, 2014
FIGURE 16: VIEWPOINTS 11 AND 13 WIRE FRAME RENDERINGS
SHEET 2 OF 2: COVE CONCEPT (VIEWPOINT 13)
ORIGINAL PHOTO
JUNE, 2014
ORIGINAL PHOTO
JUNE, 2014
ORIGINAL PHOTO
Lakeview Amphitheater
Town of Geddes - Onondaga County, New York
Figure X: Photo Log
May 2014
Sheet 1 of 51 www.edrdpc.com
Viewpoint 1:
Viewpoint 2:
Figure X: Photo Log
May 2014
Viewpoint 3:
Viewpoint 4:
Figure X: Photo Log
May 2014
Viewpoint 5:
Viewpoint 6:
Figure X: Photo Log
May 2014
Viewpoint 7:
Viewpoint 8:
Figure X: Photo Log
May 2014
Viewpoint 9:
Viewpoint 10:
Figure X: Photo Log
May 2014
Viewpoint 11:
Viewpoint 12:
Figure X: Photo Log
May 2014
Viewpoint 13:
Viewpoint 14:
Figure X: Photo Log
May 2014
Viewpoint 15:
Viewpoint 16:
Figure X: Photo Log
May 2014
Viewpoint 17:
Viewpoint 18:
Figure X: Photo Log
May 2014
Viewpoint 19:
Viewpoint 20:
Figure X: Photo Log
May 2014
Viewpoint 21:
Viewpoint 22:
Figure X: Photo Log
May 2014
Viewpoint 23:
Viewpoint 24:
Figure X: Photo Log
May 2014
Viewpoint 25:
Viewpoint 26:
Figure X: Photo Log
May 2014
Viewpoint 27:
Viewpoint 28:
Figure X: Photo Log
May 2014
Viewpoint 29:
Viewpoint 30:
Figure X: Photo Log
May 2014
Viewpoint 31:
Viewpoint 32:
Figure X: Photo Log
May 2014
Viewpoint 33:
Viewpoint 34:
Figure X: Photo Log
May 2014
Viewpoint 35:
Viewpoint 36:
Figure X: Photo Log
May 2014
Viewpoint 37:
Viewpoint 38:
Figure X: Photo Log
May 2014
Viewpoint 39:
Viewpoint 40:
Figure X: Photo Log
May 2014
Viewpoint 41:
Viewpoint 42:
Figure X: Photo Log
May 2014
Viewpoint 43:
Viewpoint 44:
Figure X: Photo Log
May 2014
Viewpoint 45:
Viewpoint 46:
Figure X: Photo Log
May 2014
Viewpoint 47:
Viewpoint 48:
Figure X: Photo Log
May 2014
Viewpoint 49:
Viewpoint 50:
Figure X: Photo Log
May 2014
Viewpoint 51:
Viewpoint 52:
Figure X: Photo Log
May 2014
Viewpoint 53:
Viewpoint 54:
Figure X: Photo Log
May 2014
Viewpoint 55:
Viewpoint 56:
Figure X: Photo Log
May 2014
Viewpoint 57:
Viewpoint 58:
Figure X: Photo Log
May 2014
Viewpoint 59:
Viewpoint 60:
Figure X: Photo Log
May 2014
Viewpoint 61:
Viewpoint 62:
Figure X: Photo Log
May 2014
Viewpoint 63:
Viewpoint 64:
Figure X: Photo Log
May 2014
Viewpoint 65:
Viewpoint 66:
Figure X: Photo Log
May 2014
Viewpoint 67:
Viewpoint 68:
Figure X: Photo Log
May 2014
Viewpoint 69:
Viewpoint 70:
Figure X: Photo Log
May 2014
Viewpoint 71:
Viewpoint 72:
Figure X: Photo Log
May 2014
Viewpoint 73:
Viewpoint 74:
Figure X: Photo Log
May 2014
Viewpoint 75:
Viewpoint 76:
Figure X: Photo Log
May 2014
Viewpoint 77:
Viewpoint 78:
Figure X: Photo Log
May 2014
Viewpoint 79:
Viewpoint 80:
Figure X: Photo Log
May 2014
Viewpoint 81:
Viewpoint 82:
Figure X: Photo Log
May 2014
Viewpoint 83:
Viewpoint 84:
Figure X: Photo Log
May 2014
Viewpoint 85:
Viewpoint 86:
Figure X: Photo Log
May 2014
Viewpoint 87:
Viewpoint 88:
Figure X: Photo Log
May 2014
Viewpoint 89:
Viewpoint 90:
Figure X: Photo Log
May 2014
Viewpoint 91:
Viewpoint 92:
Figure X: Photo Log
May 2014
Viewpoint 93:
Viewpoint 94:
Figure X: Photo Log
May 2014
Viewpoint 95:
Viewpoint 96:
Figure X: Photo Log
May 2014
Viewpoint 97:
Viewpoint 98:
Figure X: Photo Log
May 2014
Viewpoint 99:
Viewpoint 100:
Figure X: Photo Log
May 2014
Viewpoint 101:


APPENDIX E
PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT

Page 1 of 28

Written
by:
M. Erten/A.
Ebrahimi
Date: 5/30/2014
Reviewed
by:
Ming Zhu/Jay Beech Date: 6/02/2014

Client:
C&S
Engineers
Project:
Amphitheater Conceptual
Geotechnical Evaluation
Project No.: GD5598 Task No.: 01

GA140356/Amphitheater Conceptual Geotechnical Evaluation
ONONDAGA LAKEVIEW AMPHITHEATER
CONCEPTUAL GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION

INTRODUCTION
This calculation package was prepared in support of the conceptual design of the Onondaga
Lakeview Amphitheater. The proposed amphitheater will be located at the northern shoreline of
Wastebeds 1 through 8 near Onondaga Lake in Syracuse, New York. The site was historically
used as a disposal area for the byproduct (i.e., Solvay waste) from the chemical process to
manufacture soda ash. Figure 1 shows the proposed conceptual grading plan of the amphitheater
provided by C&S Engineers. The major components of the amphitheater include a building with
performance stage, a covered concrete seating area, a lawn area, and associated access roads.
According to the information provided by C&S Engineers, the proposed amphitheater building
and seating area is expected to be supported by deep pile foundations founded on bedrock; while
the lawn area will not be supported by piles. The pile-supported building and seating area and the
non-pile-supported lawn area is delineated by a bike path on the grading plan, as shown in
Figure 1. The proposed conceptual grading plan involves cutting and filling of the existing
wastebed. At the request of C&S Engineers, Geosyntec performed a conceptual geotechnical
evaluation of the slope stability, settlement, and pile foundations for the proposed amphitheater
conceptual grading plan.
Specifically, the purpose of the conceptual geotechnical evaluation was to: (i) develop the
subsurface stratigraphy and material properties at selected cross sections using available
geotechnical data; (ii) evaluate the slope stability of the site under the existing and post-grading
conditions; (iii) estimate the settlement of subsurface materials under the loading from fill and
access roads and evaluate potential differential settlement at critical locations; (iv) provide an
initial estimate of the end bearing and skin friction capacities for the pile foundations founded on
bedrock; and (v) provide preliminary recommendations on geotechnical approaches regarding
amphitheater structure foundation, site and slope development, site access roads, and
miscellaneous site support structures.
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS
Previous geotechnical investigations were conducted by OBrien and Gere (OBG) in the
area where the proposed amphitheater is located as part of the ongoing Onondaga Lake Cleanup

Page 2 of 28

Written
by:
M. Erten/A.
Ebrahimi
Date: 5/30/2014
Reviewed
by:

Client:
C&S
Engineers
Project:

project. The purpose of the geotechnical investigations was to characterize the subsurface
conditions and geotechnical properties of the subsurface materials. Details of these geotechnical
investigations were summarized in the reports titled Wastebeds 1 through 8 Integrated IRM
50% Design dated May, 2010 [OBG, 2010a], Focused Feasibility Report for Wastebeds 1
through 8 dated June, 2010 [OBG 2010b], and SMU-4 Pre-Design Investigation Addendum
Summary Report dated June 2011 [OBG 2011]. Figure 1 presents the approximate locations of
soil borings in or near the proposed footprint of the amphitheater based on the historical
geotechnical investigations conducted by OBG. The available geotechnical data from the OBG
reports were used to develop the subsurface stratigraphy and geotechnical properties of
subsurface materials that were used in the preliminary slope stability analyses, settlement
calculations, and pile foundation evaluation presented in this package. Two new soil borings
(i.e., Borings LVA-B1 and LVA-B2) were advanced by C&S Engineers in May 2014 within the
proposed footprint of the amphitheater. The information from these two new borings was also
considered in the development of subsurface stratigraphy. Samples were collected and sent to a
geotechnical laboratory; however, the test results were not available at the time when this
conceptual geotechnical evaluation was performed.
SUBSURFACE STRATIGRAPHY
Figures 2 through 4 show the interpreted subsurface stratigraphy at three selected cross
sections (i.e., Cross Sections 1 to 3 shown on Figure 1) based on the information from historical
borings conducted by OBG and two new borings recently conducted by C&S Engineers.
In general, the site stratigraphy consists of (from top to bottom) a 25 to 50 ft-thick layer of
Solvay waste (SOLW), a 15 to 20 ft-thick layer of marl, silt and sand, silt and clay, and bedrock.
Nine borings used for developing the subsurface stratigraphy of the selected three cross sections
were terminated in the silt and sand or silt and clay layer. One boring (i.e, WB18-SB-16BR
located close to the shoreline) was advanced to bedrock. The encountered bedrock was described
as shale with a reported standard penetration test blow count (or, SPT N-value) of greater than 80
at a depth of 134 ft below the ground surface.
MATERIAL PROPERTIES
Parameters for Slope Stability Analysis
The material properties (i.e., total unit weight and shear strength) used in the slope stability

Page 3 of 28

Written
by:
M. Erten/A.
Ebrahimi
Date: 5/30/2014
Reviewed
by:

Client:
C&S
Engineers
Project:

analysis are presented in Table 1. The properties of SOLW and marl were interpreted by
Geosyntec from the available geotechnical laboratory test results provided in OBGs reports. The
properties of the fill, the compacted SOLW (i.e., the wastebed berm material), and the silt and
sand were assumed by Geosyntec for the purpose of conceptual geotechnical evaluation.
Parameters for Settlement Calculations
The material properties (i.e., total unit weight and consolidation parameters) used in the
settlement calculations are presented in Table 2. The properties of SOLW and marl were
interpreted by Geosyntec from the available geotechnical laboratory test results provided in
OBGs reports. The deeper layers (i.e., the silt and sand and the silt and clay) were not
considered in the settlement calculations for the purpose of conceptual geotechnical evaluation,
as the settlement of these deeper layers is not expected to be significant.
EXTERNAL LOADING
No external loading from construction equipment were considered in the slope stability
analysis and settlement calculations during the conceptual geotechnical evaluation. It will be
evaluated in the next stage of design.
SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES
Methodology
The rotational and block slip surface modes were considered in the slope stability analyses.
The slope stability analyses were performed using Spencers Method [Spencer, 1973] for
rotational slip surfaces and Janbus Simplified Method [Janbu, 1973] for block type of slip
surfaces, as implemented in the computer program SLIDE, version 6.025 by Rocscience.
The SLIDE program generated potential circular and block slip surfaces, calculated the
factor of safety for each of these surfaces, and identified the most critical slip surface with the
lowest factor of safety. Information required for the analyses included the slope geometry, the
subsurface soil stratigraphy, the groundwater elevation, the external loading condition if
applicable, and the properties of subsurface materials.

Page 4 of 28

Written
by:
M. Erten/A.
Ebrahimi
Date: 5/30/2014
Reviewed
by:

Client:
C&S
Engineers
Project:

Target Factor of Safety
The target factor of safety was selected as 1.30 for the interim-undrained conditions, which
were analyzed during the conceptual geotechnical evaluation, in accordance with the
Engineering Manual Engineering and Design Slope Stability prepared by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers [USACE, 2003].
Slope Stability Analysis Results
Slope stability analyses were performed on two of the three cross sections (i.e., Cross
Sections 1 and 2) for the undrained conditions with the existing and post-grading geometries.
The initial undrained shear strength values of the subsurface materials were used in the analyses.
No shear strength increase due to placement of the fill was considered, as it takes time for the
subsurface materials to consolidate and thereby, gain shear strength under the loading from the
fill. The minimum calculated factors of safety were reported for both the slopes near the
shoreline and under the proposed seating area. The calculated minimum factors of safety are
presented in Table 3. Cross Section 3 was not analyzed, but the results are expected to be similar
to the other two cross sections.
The calculate factors of safety for the shoreline slope under the existing conditions at Cross
Sections 1 and 2 were shown in Figures 5 and 6, respectively. The calculated minimum factors of
safety for the shoreline slope are both 1.25. Since the post-grading geometry of this shoreline
area did not change from the existing geometry in the slope stability models, the same factors of
safety (i.e., 1.25) were calculated for the shoreline slope under the post-grading conditions as
well. Figures 7 and 8 show the calculated factors of safety for the seating area slope at Cross
Section 1, with 1.42 for the existing conditions and 1.66 for the post-grading conditions. Figures
9 and 10 show the calculated factors of safety for the seating area slope in Cross Section 2, with
1.55 for the existing conditions and 1.32 for the post-grading conditions.
The calculated minimum factors of safety were considered acceptable, except for the berm
slope near the shoreline that has a calculated factor of safety slightly less than the target factor of
safety. Geotechnical approaches to improve the slope stability are discussed in the end of this
calculation package. It is recommended that more detailed slope stability analyses be performed
in the next stage of design.

Page 5 of 28

Written
by:
M. Erten/A.
Ebrahimi
Date: 5/30/2014
Reviewed
by:

Client:
C&S
Engineers
Project:

SETTLEMENT CALCULATIONS
Methodology
The settlement of compressible materials was calculated using the 1-D consolidation theory,
which is widely accepted in geotechnical engineering practice [e.g., Holtz and Kovacs, 1981].
The total consolidation settlement consists of the primary settlement caused by the drainage of
porewater under surcharge loading and the secondary settlement due to soil creep:

s p
S S S
c
+ = (1)
where,
S
c
= total consolidation settlement
S
p
= primary settlement
S
s
= secondary settlement
The primary settlement was calculated using the following equations:

|
|
.
|
\
|
'
A + '
A =
vo
v vo
p
S
o
o o
c

log H C
'
r
for
'

v vo
o o A + '
p
o ' (2)

|
|
.
|
\
|
'
A + '
A +
|
|
.
|
\
|
'
'
A =
p
v vo
vo
p
p
S
o
o o
o
o
c c

log H C log H C
'
c r
for
'

v vo
o o A + ' >
p
o ' (3)
where,
C
cc
= C
c
/ (1+e
0
), modified compression index
C
c
= compression index
e
0
= initial void ratio
C
rc
= C
r
/ (1+e
0
), modified recompression index
C
r
= recompression index
H = layer thickness
vo
o' = initial vertical effective stress
p
o ' = preconsolidation pressure
'
v
o A = vertical effective stress increase due to loading

Page 6 of 28

Written
by:
M. Erten/A.
Ebrahimi
Date: 5/30/2014
Reviewed
by:

Client:
C&S
Engineers
Project:

The secondary settlement was calculated using the equation below:
log H C
1
2
|
|
.
|
\
|
A =
t
t
S
s oc
(4)
where,
C
oc
= C
o
/ (1+e
0
), modified secondary compression index
C
o
= secondary compression index
t
1
= time for completion of primary consolidation
t
2
= time when settlement due to secondary compression is computed (assumed as 100
years in the settlement calculations in this package)
The following equation related to the time rate of consolidation was used to calculate t
1
:

c
TH

v
2
dr
1
= t (5)
where,
T = time factor
c
v
= coefficient of consolidation
H
dr
= longest drainage path.
The time factor (T) is a function of the average degree of consolidation (U). For U = 90%,
which is usually assumed as the end of primary consolidation for practical purposes, the value of
T is 0.848. Therefore, Equation 5 became:

c
H
848 . 0
v
2
dr
1,90%
= t (6)
Settlement analyses were performed using the computer program Settle 3D by Rocscience.
Settle 3D is a three-dimensional (3D) program for analysis of settlement and consolidation,
which computes settlements, stresses and porewater pressures throughout the 3-D volume. Settle
3D was selected for use due to the programs ability to model load dissipation (e.g., using
Boussinesq stress dissipation methods) and time-dependent consolidation. Input parameters
required for Settle 3D include loading (i.e., the fill geometry and weight), subsurface
stratigraphy, consolidation parameters, and unit weights.

Page 7 of 28

Written
by:
M. Erten/A.
Ebrahimi
Date: 5/30/2014
Reviewed
by:

Client:
C&S
Engineers
Project:

Calculation Results
Settlement calculations were performed at four selected locations along Cross Section 1, as
shown in Figure 11. The settlement calculation results are presented in Table 4. It should be
noted that the calculated settlement is depending on fill thickness and subsurface geometry. For
the purpose of conceptual geotechnical evaluation, only four locations along Cross Section 1
were evaluated and a parametric study was conducted by varying the fill thickness at each
location to understand the sensitivity and estimate the anticipated approximate range of
settlement. It is recommended that more detailed settlement calculations will be performed in the
next stage of design.
The settlement calculation results indicate that the calculated total settlement ranges
approximately from 0.4 ft to 5.8 ft depending on the fill thickness, which was assumed to vary
from 1 ft to 16 ft, and subsurface geometry. The maximum settlement of 5.8 ft was calculated at
the highest point of the lawn area corresponding to the anticipated maximum fill thickness of 16
ft. It is also expected that significant differential settlement may occur at critical locations,
including an order of approximately 3 ft (corresponding to 10 ft fill) in the transition area
between the pile-supported seating area and the lawn area and an order of approximately 1 to 2 ft
(corresponding to 8 ft fill) at the connection between the access road and the pile-supported
loading deck in the rear of the amphitheater structure. As discussed in the next section, the
pile-supported area is expected to have minimal settlement.
The simplified method by US Department of the Interior [2001] was used to estimate the
minimum required gravel thickness for the access roads for the purpose of preliminary settlement
calculations. The gravel thickness was estimated for a wheel load of 16 kips (i.e., half of the total
32-kips axle load from an HS-20 vehicle) based on an assumed California Bearing Ratio (CBR)
of 4 for the subsurface material, which is about 23 inches as shown in Figure 12. It is important
to note that the value for CBR of 4 was assumed as a minimum value required since materials
with lower values of CBR than 4 will likely need to be improved (e.g., excavated and replaced
with competent materials or reinforced with geosynthetics). Due to the potentially
nonhomogeneous foundation materials, the access roads may experience differential settlement
along the proposed route. The amount of differential settlement along the access road should be
estimated during the next stage of design when the proposed route is available.

Page 8 of 28

Written
by:
M. Erten/A.
Ebrahimi
Date: 5/30/2014
Reviewed
by:

Client:
C&S
Engineers
Project:

PILE FOUNDATION EVALUATION
The anticipated column loading from the amphitheater structure was not provided to
Geosyntec. For the purposes of conceptual deep foundation design, Geosyntec recommends the
installation of steel H-piles driven to refusal at or below the top of shale bedrock, which is
expected to be 150 ft to 200 ft below ground surface. For compression loads on individual steel
piles driven to refusal, an allowable compression stress of 16 kips per square inch (ksi) may be
used as an initial estimate for developing working structural and geotechnical resistances
(International Building Code 2009, Table 1810.3.2.6). Uplift resistance can be preliminarily
estimated considering a working unit skin friction of 300 psf, with embedded length in the
SOLW being excluded for any calculations (International Building Code 2009, Section
1810.3.3.1.4). Table 5 provides a few commonly available steel H sections along with required
geometric data. Prior experience with toe bearing steel H-piles indicates that settlement can be
expected to be approximately 1 in or less.
It should be noted that for this conceptual design, Geosyntec did not perform: (i) drivability
analysis, (ii) group effect evaluation, (iii) lateral load analysis, (iv) downdrag analysis, if
applicable, (v) feasibility of a friction pile foundation that would not extend to bedrock, (vi)
detailed analysis for allowable resistances (tip and skin), or (vii) detailed settlement calculations.
Detailed geotechnical evaluation of the pile foundation should be performed as part of the next
stage of design.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The following geotechnical approaches are recommended based on the results of the
conceptual geotechnical evaluation presented above in this package.
Amphitheater Structure Foundation
It is recommended that the amphitheater structure be supported by steel H-piles bearing on
bedrock. An allowable compression stress of 16 ksi and a working unit skin friction of 300 psf
may be used as an initial estimate for developing working structural and geotechnical resistances.
More detailed geotechnical analysis should be performed in the next stage of design to evaluate
the pile foundation. In addition, the compatibility of the steel H-piles with the surrounding
Solvay waste should be evaluated and corrosion protection of the piles should be considered as
needed.

Page 9 of 28

Written
by:
M. Erten/A.
Ebrahimi
Date: 5/30/2014
Reviewed
by:

Client:
C&S
Engineers
Project:

Site and Slope Development
The proposed conceptual grading plan involves cutting a portion of the existing ground
(including the berms that contain the SOLW) and placing up to approximately 16 ft of fill on the
existing ground. The slope stability analysis based on the proposed conceptual grading plan
indicates that the calculated minimum factor of safety is generally considered acceptable, expect
for the berm slope near the shoreline where the calculated factor of safety is slightly less than the
target factor of safety. Further slope stability analysis should be performed when the final
grading plan is proposed. Several approaches can be used to improve the slope stability as
needed, including regrading to a gentle slope, toe buttressing, and placing light-weight fill.
As mentioned before, up to approximately 16 ft of fill is expected to be placed on the
existing ground. Results of the settlement calculations indicate that the estimated settlement is up
to approximately 6 ft. Since the amphitheater structure will be supported by piles, it is expected
that significant differential settlement on the order of approximately 3 ft (corresponding to 10 ft
fill) may occur in the transition zone between the amphitheater structure and the lawn area, as the
latter will not be supported by piles. Light-weight fill may be considered to reduce the loading
and thereby, reduce the amount of settlement. This can be used in conjunction with structural
considerations, e.g., a structure joint that allows a certain amount of differential settlement.
In addition, surcharging may be considered as an approach to reduce the differential
settlement, because most, if not all, of the settlement is expected to happen during the
surcharging prior to the start of site construction. Staged construction may be required during
surcharging in order to maintain slope stability due to the existing soft ground. Previous
experience with the SOLW from the test pad in Wastebed 13 at the Onondaga Lake site indicated
that generally the SOLW reached 80% to 90% consolidation within approximately 3 to 5
months. Wick drains may be effective at accelerating the consolidation as needed during
surcharging.
Site Access Roads
Stability of the side slopes of the access roads under vehicle loading was not evaluated as
part of the conceptual design. Due to the existing soft foundation materials at the site,
georeinforcements (e.g., geogrids and geotextiles) may be required at the base of the access road
to improve the slope stability; or, the foundation materials may be required to be excavated and
replaced with adequate competent base materials (e.g., gravels) before constructing the access

Page 10 of 28

Written
by:
M. Erten/A.
Ebrahimi
Date: 5/30/2014
Reviewed
by:

Client:
C&S
Engineers
Project:

roads. The analysis should be performed during the next stage of design when the proposed
access road plan is available.
The proposed route of the access roads was not available on the conceptual grading plan
received by Geosyntec. Settlement calculations of the access roads were performed at limited
locations on one representative cross section. The calculated settlement ranges approximately
from 0.4 to 2 ft corresponding to an assumed road thickness of 2 to 8 ft. Due to the potentially
nonhomogeneous foundation materials, the access roads may experience differential settlement
along the proposed route. Based on the calculation results, the most significant differential
settlement on the order of approximately 1 to 2 ft (corresponding to 8 ft fill) is expected to occur
at the connection between the access road and the loading deck in the rear of the amphitheater
structure, as the latter will be supported by piles. As discussed previously, surcharging the access
road route may be used as an approach to reduce the settlement. In addition, light-weight fill may
be used to replace part of the foundation materials of the access roads to reduce the net increase
of loading and thereby, reduce the settlement.
Miscellaneous Site Support Structures
No specific information was available regarding the site support structures and therefore, no
evaluation was performed for the foundations of these structures as part of the conceptual
geotechnical evaluation. Conceptually, a floating foundation approach may be used for these
small structures to minimize potential settlement, i.e., by excavating the foundation materials the
net increase of loading on the subsurface materials may become zero or negative.
Summary
In summary, the conceptual geotechnical evaluation results indicate that the proposed
conceptual grading plan appears to be feasible with respect to geotechnical considerations.
Potential issues of settlement and slope stability should be further evaluated in more details and
addressed during the next stage of design by considering geotechnical approaches recommended
above. It is our understanding that additional geotechnical investigation will be performed and
more detailed geotechnical analysis will be performed during the next stage of design.

Page 11 of 28

Written
by:
M. Erten/A.
Ebrahimi
Date: 5/30/2014
Reviewed
by:

Client:
C&S
Engineers
Project:

REFERENCES
Holtz and Kovacs. (1981). An Introduction to Geotechnical Engineering. Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
Englewood Cliffs, N. J., 733 p.
Janbu, N. (1973), Slope Stability Computations, Embankment Dam Engineering, Casagrande
Memorial Volume, R. C. Hirschfield and S. J. Poulos, Eds., John Wiley, New York, 1973,
pp. 47-86.

OBrien and Gere (2010a). Wastebeds 1 through 8 Integrated IRM 50% Design, 2010.

OBrien and Gere (2010b). Focused Feasibility Report for Wastebeds 1 through 8, 2010.

OBrien and Gere (2011). SMU-4 Pre-Design Investigation Addendum Summary Report, 2011.

Spencer, E. (1973), The Thrust Line Criterion in Embankment Stability Analysis,
Gotechnique, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 85-100, March 1973.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) (2003), Engineering and Design Slope Stability,
Engineering Manual EM 1110-2-1902, October 2003.

U.S. Department of the Interior (USDOI) (2001). Design of Surface Mine Haulage Roads A
Manual, Information Circular 8758, Bureau of Mines.

Page 12 of 28

Written
by:
M. Erten/A.
Ebrahimi
Date: 5/30/2014
Reviewed
by:

Client:
C&S
Engineers
Project:

Table 1. Summary of Material Properties Used in Slope Stability Analysis
Material
Total Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Drained Shear
Strength
[1]

Undrained Shear
Strength
[1]
(psf)
c | From CU Tests
Fill 120 5 30 N/A
Compacted SOLW
(Berm Material)
100 5 30 N/A
SOLW 80 250 36
S
u
/o'
v
=0.40
S
u,min
=300
Marl 110 0 33
S
u
/o'
v
= 0.30
S
u,min
=200
Silt and Sand 120 0 32 N/A

Notes:
1. Undrained shear strength values were interpreted from the CU test results included in OBG reports as
discussed in the text.
2. N/A = Not Available

Page 13 of 28

Written
by:
M. Erten/A.
Ebrahimi
Date: 5/30/2014
Reviewed
by:

Client:
C&S
Engineers
Project:

Table 2. Summary of Material Properties Used in Settlement Calculations

Note:
1. The consolidation parameters were interpreted by Geosyntec from the available geotechnical data included in OBG reports as discussed in the text.
For SOLW, the parameters were interpreted one consolidation test from WB18-SB-31NM located in Wastebeds 1 through 8, but not in the area
where the proposed amphitheater is located.

Material
Total Unit
Weight
(pcf)

Consolidation Parameters

C
c
C
r
C
C
v
(ft
2
/d) OCR
SOLW 80 0.36 0.026
For
v
/
p
< 1.0 0.0035 0.55
2.0
For
v
/
p
> 1.0 0.0059 1.21
Marl 110 0.19 0.020
For
v
/
p
< 1.0 0.0024 0.74 2.0; for 0 to 20 ft deep
1.5; for 20 to 40 ft deep
1.0; for > 40 ft deep
For
v
/
p
> 1.0 0.0055 1.86

Page 14 of 28

Written
by:
M. Erten/ A.
Ebrahimi
Date: 5/30/2014
Reviewed
by:

Client:
C&S
Engineers
Project:

Table 3. Summary of Calculated Minimum Factors of Safety
Cross Section Geometry Location Factor of Safety Note
1
Existing Conditions
Seating Area 1.42 Figure 7
Shoreline 1.25 Figure 5
Post-grading Conditions
Shoreline 1.25 --
2
Existing Conditions
Shoreline 1.25 Figure 6
Post-grading Conditions
Shoreline 1.25 --

Page 15 of 28

Written
by:
M. Erten/ A.
Ebrahimi
Date: 5/30/2014
Reviewed
by:

Client:
C&S
Engineers
Project:

Table 4. Summary of Settlement Calculation Results
Cross
Section
Fill
Thickness
(ft)
Assumed
Ground
Water Depth
(ft)
Calculated Primary
Consolidation
Settlement (ft)
Calculated
Secondary
Consolidation
Settlement (ft)
Total
Settlement
(ft)
Point #1 (Representing Access Road)
1 2
10
0.2 0.3 0.5
1 4 0.4 0.3 0.7
1 6 1.0 0.3 1.3
1 8 1.6 0.3 1.9
Point #2 (Representing Connection between Access Road and Loading Deck)
1 2
10
0.1 0.3 0.4
1 4 0.3 0.3 0.6
1 6 0.4 0.3 0.7
1 8 0.5 0.3 0.8
Point #3 (Representing Transition between Seating Area and Lawn Area)
1 1
10
0.1 0.3 0.4
1 5 0.6 0.3 0.9
1 10 2.2 0.3 2.5
Point #4 (Representing Middle of Lawn Area)
1 8
10
1.2 0.3 1.5
1 16 5.4 0.4 5.8

Page 16 of 28

Written
by:
M. Erten/ A.
Ebrahimi
Date: 5/30/2014
Reviewed
by:

Client:
C&S
Engineers
Project:

Table 5. Common Sizes of Steel H-Piles
Pile Size
Cross-
Sectional Area
(in
2
)
Max. Working
Compression
Resistance (kips)
Perimeter
Side Area
(ft
2
/ft)
(1)
Max. Working
Tension Resistance
(kips)
(2)

HP 12x53 15.5 240 4.0 100
HP 14x73 21.4 340 4.7 110
HP 14x89 26.1 410 4.7 110
HP 16x101 29.8 470 5.2 130
Notes:
1. The skin area given is the boxed perimeter area. Analysis of soil plugging has not been made.
2. It was assumed the depth to rock of 134 ft and excluding 50 ft of embedment in Solvay Waste. The
actual depth of rock may vary and the maximum working tension resistance should be re-evaluated
during the next stage of design.

Page 17 of 28
Written
by:
M. Erten/ A.
Ebrahimi, W.
Tanner
Date: 5/30/2014
Reviewed
by:

Client:
C&S
Engineers
Project:


Figure 1. Conceptual Grading Plan and Approximate Locations of Available Soil Borings
Amphitheater Building
(Pile-Supported)
Lawn Area (not
supported by piles)
Seating Area
(Pile-Supported)
Bike Path
(Transition from Pile-
supported to unsupported area)
CS-3
CS-2
CS-1

Page 18 of 28
Written
by:
M. Erten/ A.
Ebrahimi
Date: 5/30/2014
Reviewed
by:

Client:
C&S
Engineers
Project:


Figure 2. Geometry of Cross Section 1
Note: The dashed line at the top represents the existing ground and the solid line at the top represents the proposed grading.

Page 19 of 28
Written
by:
M. Erten/ A.
Ebrahimi
Date: 5/30/2014
Reviewed
by:

Client:
C&S
Engineers
Project:



Page 20 of 28
Written
by:
M. Erten/ A.
Ebrahimi
Date: 5/30/2014
Reviewed
by:

Client:
C&S
Engineers
Project:



Page 21 of 28
Written
by:
M. Erten/ A.
Ebrahimi
Date: 5/30/2014
Reviewed
by:

Client:
C&S
Engineers
Project:


1.25 1.25
W
W
1.25 1.25
Safety Factor
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
5.50
6.00+
6
0
0
5
5
0
5
0
0
4
5
0
4
0
0
3
5
0
3
0
0
2
5
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750
Figure 5. Slope Stability Analysis Results of Cross Section 1 (Shoreline Berm, Existing Undrained Conditions)
Marl
SOLW
Compacted SOLW
Silt and Sand

Page 22 of 28
Written
by:
M. Erten/ A.
Ebrahimi
Date: 5/30/2014
Reviewed
by:

Client:
C&S
Engineers
Project:

1.25 1.25
W
W
1.25 1.25
Safety Factor
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
5.50
6.00+
6
0
0
5
5
0
5
0
0
4
5
0
4
0
0
3
5
0
3
0
0
2
5
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900
Figure 6. Slope Stability Analysis Results of Cross Section 2 (Shoreline Berm, Existing Undrained Conditions)

Silt and Sand
Marl
SOLW
Compacted SOLW

Page 23 of 28
Written
by:
M. Erten/ A.
Ebrahimi
Date: 5/30/2014
Reviewed
by:

Client:
C&S
Engineers
Project:

1.42 1.42
W
W
1.42 1.42
Safety Factor
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
5.50
6.00+
7
0
0
6
5
0
6
0
0
5
5
0
5
0
0
4
5
0
4
0
0
3
5
0
3
0
0
2
5
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 1000
Figure 7. Slope Stability Analysis Results of Cross Section 1 (Proposed Seating Area, Existing Undrained Conditions)
Silt and Sand
Marl
SOLW
Compacted SOLW

Page 24 of 28
Written
by:
M. Erten/ A.
Ebrahimi
Date: 5/30/2014
Reviewed
by:

Client:
C&S
Engineers
Project:

1.66 1.66
W
W
1.66 1.66
Safety Factor
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
5.50
6.00+
8
0
0
7
0
0
6
0
0
5
0
0
4
0
0
3
0
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300

Figure 8. Slope Stability Analysis Results of Cross Section 1 (Proposed Seating Area, Post-grading Undrained Analysis)
Marl
Original Geometry
Compacted SOLW
Silt and Sand
Marl
Marl
SOLW
SOLW SOLW
Fill

Page 25 of 28
Written
by:
M. Erten/ A.
Ebrahimi
Date: 5/30/2014
Reviewed
by:

Client:
C&S
Engineers
Project:

1.55 1.55
W
W
1.55 1.55
Safety Factor
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
5.50
6.00+
6
0
0
5
5
0
5
0
0
4
5
0
4
0
0
3
5
0
3
0
0
2
5
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900

Figure 9. Slope Stability Analysis Results of Cross Section 2 (Proposed Seating Area, Existing Undrained Conditions)
SOLW
Compacted SOLW
Silt and Sand
Marl

Page 26 of 28
Written
by:
M. Erten/ A.
Ebrahimi
Date: 5/30/2014
Reviewed
by:

Client:
C&S
Engineers
Project:

1.32 1.32
W
W
1.32 1.32
Safety Factor
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
5.50
6.00+
7
0
0
6
5
0
6
0
0
5
5
0
5
0
0
4
5
0
4
0
0
3
5
0
3
0
0
2
5
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 1000

Figure 10. Slope Stability Analysis Results of Cross Section 2 (Proposed Seating Area, Post-grading Undrained Conditions)

SOLW
Compacted SOLW
Silt and Sand
Marl
Original Geometry
SOLW SOLW SOLW
Marl
Marl
Marl
Fill

Page 27 of 28
Written
by:
M. Erten/ A.
Ebrahimi
Date: 5/30/2014
Reviewed
by:

Client:
C&S
Engineers
Project:


Figure 11. Locations of Points Used for Settlement Calculations along Cross Section 1
Locations for settlement calculations
Point #1
Point #2
Point #3
Point #4

Page 28 of 28
Written
by:
M. Erten/ A.
Ebrahimi
Date: 5/30/2014
Reviewed
by:

Client:
C&S
Engineers
Project:


Figure 12. Estimated Minimum Gravel Thickness for Access Roads [USDOI, 2001]

23 inches
of gravel
16 kip wheel load (1/2 of a 32
kips axle on an HS-20)


APPENDIX F
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY

Traffic Impact Study


Town of Geddes, Onondaga County, New York

Prepared for:

Onondaga County
Office of the County Executive
J ohn H. Mulroy Civic Center, 14
th
Floor

J une 2014

Prepared by:

C&S Engineers, Inc.
499 Col Eileen Collins Boulevard


Prepared by
C&S Engineers, Inc.
for
Onondaga County

Draft Report
June 2014

Onondaga County
Office of the County Executive
J ohn H. Mulroy Civic Center, 14
th
Floor
Onondaga County
Lakeview Amphitheater Traffic Impact Study

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary I

I. Introduction 1-1
a. Project Description 1-1
b. Study Area 1-1
c. Methodology 1-2

II. Existing Conditions 2-1
a. Roadway Network 2-1
b. Traffic Volumes 2-4
c. Level of Service Analysis 2-4
d. Accident Analysis 2-4

III. Build Condition 3-1
a. Access and Parking 3-1
b. Background Growth 3-2
c. Trip Generation 3-2
d. Trip Distribution 3-3
e. Build Volumes 3-5
f. Build Analysis 3-6
g. Additional Analysis 3-11
h. Long-Term Considerations 3-11

IV. Recommendations and Conclusions 4-1

Onondaga County

ii

LIST OF FIGURES
(FIGURES INCLUDED AT THE END OF EACH SECTION)

Figure 1-1 Project Location Map
Figure 1-2 Study Area Intersection
Figure 2-1 Existing Condition PM Peak Hour Volumes
Figure 2-2 Existing Condition Operations Summary
Figure 3-1 2016 PM Peak Hour Background Volumes
Figure 3-2 Regional Trip Distribution
Figure 3-3 Small Event - Local Arrival Distribution
Figure 3-4 Small Event - Local Departure Distribution
Figure 3-5 Sold-out Event - Local Arrival Distribution
Figure 3-6 Sold-out Event - Local Departure Distribution
Figure 3-7 Small Event - Arrival Volumes
Figure 3-8 Small Event - Departure Volumes
Figure 3-9 Sold-out Event - Arrival Volumes
Figure 3-10 Sold-out Event - Departure Volumes
Figure 3-11 Small Event - Arrival Operations Summary
Figure 3-12 Small Event - Departure Operations Summary
Figure 3-13 Sold-out Event - Arrival Operations Summary - Manned Control
Figure 3-14 Proposed Mitigation Measures
Figure 3-15 Sold-out Event - Arrival Operations Summary - Manned Control/Mitigation
Figure 3-16 Sold-out Event - Departure Operations Summary
Figure 3-17 Sold-out Event - Departure Operations Summary with Mitigation
Figure 3-18 Sold-out Event - Local Arrival Distribution Using State Fair Access Points
Figure 3-19 Sold-out Event - Local Departure Distribution Using Signal on I-690

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1-1: LOS Criteria 1-4
Table 2-1: Accident Summary 2-6
Table 2-2: Accident Rates 2-7

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A: Volume Data and Calculations A
Appendix B: Analysis Reports B
Appendix C: Accident Data C
Onondaga County

I
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This traffic impact study evaluates the potential transportation impacts from the proposed
Lakeview Amphitheater Facility. Onondaga County is proposing to construct a 17,500 seat
(combination indoor and lawn seating) outdoor events center on County-owned land on the
western shore of Onondaga Lake, in the Town of Geddes. It is anticipated that the venue will
host 15 to 20 large events during a concert season, plus additional large events in conjunction
with the New York State Fair. Smaller scale events are also anticipated to occur several times per
year. While events will range from small, local gatherings to popular musical acts, it is
anticipated that a sold-out event could generate approximately 7,000 vehicles during the typical
PM commuter period to be accommodated along the adjacent roadway network.

Parking for the facility will be accommodated with the Orange and Brown State Fair parking
lots. In order to use the Orange Lot outside of State Fair activities, a break-in-access study is
required by the Federal Highway Administration and will be a follow-on activity associated with
the development of the site.

While the Orange Lot will be able to accommodate the small, local event demand, the Brown Lot
will be necessary for the larger, close to sold-out events. For the large, sold-out events, it is
recommended that attendees are directed as follows based on anticipated travel routes:

I-690 Westbound traffic take Exit 7 and will park in the Orange Lot
I-690 Eastbound traffic will take Exit 6 towards Lakeland, onto Pumphouse Road, State
Fair Boulevard, and the Brown Lot
NYS RT 695 Northbound will transition onto I-690 Eastbound, take Exit 7 to State Fair
Boulevard, and the Brown Lot
Bridge Street (NYS RT 297) traffic will take a right onto State Fair Boulevard to the
Orange Lot
State Fair Boulevard traffic (from the west) will use the Brown Lot
Willis Avenue traffic will use the Orange Lot via State Fair Boulevard

Accident information was obtained from NYSDOT in order to determine if there is a high
incident of accidents within the study area. Verbal description reports of accidents as recorded in
the Accident Location Information System (ALIS) over the latest three-year period (October 1,
2010 to September 30, 2013) were obtained for the study area. During the study period, a total
of 91 reported accidents were provided by the ALIS. Of the 91 accidents, 15 had indeterminate
locations or were out of the study area. The Pumphouse Road, Bridge Street and Willis Road
intersections along State Fair Boulevard exceed the statewide average by a considerable margin.
The I-690 Westbound Exit 7 off-ramp accident rate is above the average, but there was only 1
accident in the three year period, and that occurred during the Fair with drugs were involved. The
only State Fair Boulevard segment significantly above the statewide average is from the Exit 7
Connector road to Willis Avenue.

Based on numerous scenario analyses for a sold-out event, the following operational and capital
improvement recommendations should be considered in order to minimize impacts to the I-690
mainline:
Onondaga County

II
Operational Recommendations
Educate the public on desired parking areas and traffic flow based on incoming direction
of travel by posting directions on the facility website
Utilize police officers on the ground to manually control key intersections in the area,
focusing on moving traffic along Pumphouse Road and off the I-690 Westbound Exit 7
off-ramp to avoid impacts to the I-690 mainline
Utilize existing dynamic message signs (DMS) on the I-690 mainline and install a new
DMS on NYS RT 695 Northbound to direct traffic in real-time and warn motorists of
potential slowdowns
Utilize existing intelligent transportation system (ITS) cameras during events to update
the DMS in real-time and communicate with the police on the street controlling traffic
will help to ensure traffic is flowing as efficiently and safely as possible
Utilize temporary signage to direct traffic to the appropriate I-690 exit and parking area,
as well as to inform vehicles on I-690 Eastbound Exit 6 off-ramp to utilize the shoulder
as a second lane on Pumphouse Road and form two lanes eastbound on State Fair
Boulevard between Pumphouse Road and the Brown Lot west access
Utilize approximately 25 transit buses as shuttles to transport attendees between the
Brown Lot and the facility before and after the event

Capital Improvement Recommendations
Widen and lengthen the I-690 Westbound Exit 7 off-ramp to include three lanes
approaching the Exit 7 Connector road and approximately 400 feet of a two-lane storage
lane for a total length of approximately 2,600 feet
Construct an auxiliary right turn lane for southbound traffic on the Exit 7 Connector road
approaching State Fair Boulevard (NYS RT 931B) for use during large events
Reconstruct the Orange Lot access road opposite the Exit 7 off-ramp to lower grade and
improve turning radius for large vehicles
Optimize signal timing at the intersection of State Fair Boulevard and Bridge Street
during the event departure period to increase green times for westbound traffic

There will be significant delays for those approaching the site on State Fair Boulevard from west
of Pumphouse Road and those on Bridge Street due to the preference of moving traffic on other
approaches to avoid impacts to the I-690 mainline.

The above-mentioned recommendations are expected to minimize impacts to the I-690 mainline
for events at the proposed facility and improve safety and operations during the State Fair, but
will not reduce the need for the non-standard access points throughout the adjacent interstate
system currently used while the State Fair is in session. Long-term improvements to the
roadway network within the study area will be considered, outside of this study, to provide
improved access to the Orange Lot during the State Fair and for the proposed facility.

Onondaga County

1-1
I. Introduction
a. Project Description
This traffic impact study (TIS) evaluates the potential transportation impacts from
the proposed Lakeview Amphitheater Facility. Onondaga County is proposing to
construct an outdoor events center on County-owned land on the western shore of
Onondaga Lake, in the Town of Geddes, Onondaga County, New York. The
Lakeview Amphitheater Facility will be an outdoor event complex, which will
include an amphitheater with both covered and lawn seats (17,500 total), a vendor
area, recreational trails, and amenities. Events hosted at the facility are expected
to vary in size from small, local events to sold-out musical acts, and will occur
on-site throughout the season. It is anticipated that 15 to 20 large scale events
may be scheduled in a typical summer concert season. Additional large scale
events are also expected to be scheduled during the New York State Fair as a
replacement for the current grandstand entertainment concert series. Local usage
may consist of school graduations, wedding receptions, concerts by local artists,
and other community-based events. Construction is anticipated to occur in a
single phase, beginning in the late fall/winter of 2014 and concluding in the spring
of 2016. It is planned to host small-scale events at the facility by Labor Day
2015, with full utilization of the site available for the 2016 summer concert
season.

b. Study Area
The project site is located on Lakeview Point, on the western shore of Onondaga
Lake. Situated north of the existing New York State Fairgrounds parking lots and
the Interstate 690 (I-690) and New York State (NYS) Route 695 interchange, and
east-southeast of the mouth of Nine Mile Creek, the site is located approximately
1.2 miles north of the Village of Solvay, 1.0 mile south of the Village of
Liverpool, and 1.9 miles northwest of the City of Syracuse. A project location
map of the site is included as Figure 1-1.

Onondaga County

1-2
The study area is defined by all roads that provide access to the Fairgrounds and
Lakeview Point area, which consist of three local streets, one freeway, and one
interstate highway. Based on discussions with the New York State Department of
Transportation (NYSDOT) Region 3, the study area includes the following
intersections (see Figure 1-2):

State Fair Boulevard & Pumphouse Road (West limit of NYS RT 931B)
State Fair Boulevard (NYS RT 931B) & Bridge Street (NYS RT 297)
I-690 Westbound Exit 7 off-ramp & Exit 7 Connector
Exit 7 Connector & State Fair Boulevard
State Fair Boulevard & Willis Avenue

The intersection of State Fair Boulevard and Bridge Street is signalized (owned
and operated by the NYSDOT) but the other study area intersections are stop
controlled. See Section II.a for more detailed roadway network information.

c. Methodology
The methodology used to determine the impacts of the traffic generated by the
proposed facility was discussed and approved with NYSDOT. Several traffic
conditions or scenarios were established and considered for the study
intersections. The traffic conditions considered in this report are as follows:

Existing (2014) traffic conditions during the typical Friday PM peak hours
Design year (2016) full-build traffic conditions for the proposed
development during the typical Friday PM peak hours for a small event
(arrival and departure)
Design year (2016) full-build traffic conditions for the proposed
development during the typical Friday PM peak hours for a sold-out event
(arrival and departure)
Mitigated conditions for the full-build traffic conditions, as needed

While a design year no-build traffic condition is typically evaluated for a traffic
impact study as a baseline for comparison with the full-build condition, this
comparison is not applicable due to unique conditions created by the use of the
proposed facility. The design year traffic condition scenarios will include a
Onondaga County

1-3
growth of background traffic to account for unknown development in the area
through 2016.

The PM peak period analyzed (4:00-7:00 PM) was determined based on the
following considerations:

Many events are assumed to occur on weekend evenings with a start time of
7:00 or 8:00 PM
Arrivals for such an event are anticipated to coincide with typical commuter
traffic (4:00 7:00 PM)
Morning or midday events during the typical work week are not anticipated

The effect of the proposed facility on the adjacent roadway network was
measured by comparing the operations of the study intersections to operations that
are typically considered acceptable. The study intersections were analyzed using
SYNCHRO 7
1
which is a computer program that implements the methods
presented in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual
2
. SYNCHRO determines the
level of service (LOS), which is defined in terms of delay, as well as anticipated
queue lengths. Delay is a measure of driver discomfort, frustration, fuel
consumption and lost travel time. LOS criteria are stated in terms of the control
delay per vehicle for a 15 minute analysis period and range from A to F.
LOS A is representative of a movement that is free flowing with minimal delay,
while LOS F generally represents long delays. LOS D is generally considered
acceptable in urban environments. Since we are evaluating special event traffic
operations, this evaluation focuses on the amount of anticipated delay, queue
lengths, and anticipated impacts to the interstate highway system.

The ranges of delay for each level of service are shown in Table 1-1 on the
following page.

1
SYNCHRO 7, Traffic Signal Coordination Software, Version 7, Trafficware Corporation, Albany, California,
1993-2006.
2
Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington D.C., 2000.
Onondaga County

1-4
Table 1-1: Level of Service Criteria
Level of
Service (LOS)
Signalized
Intersections
Unsignalized
Intersections
Delay (sec) Delay (sec)
A 0-10 0-10
B >10-20 >10-15
C >20-35 >15-25
D >35-55 >25-35
E >55-80 >35-50
F over 80 over 50

The TIS also includes an accident analysis on State Fair Boulevard and the Exit 7
Connector road in vicinity of the project site. The NYSDOT provided accident
verbal and event summaries for the most recent three-year period available, from
October 1, 2010 through September 30, 2013. The accident analysis was
conducted to identify any areas of concern in terms of traffic safety that may be
improved or intensified based on the proposed project.
NOT TO SCALE
FIGURE
LAKEVIEW
AMPHITHEATER
PROJECT LOCATION MAP
(AERIAL FROM GOOGLE MAPS 2013)
11
Site Location

NOT TO SCALE
FIGURE LAKEVIEW
AMPHITHEATER
STUDY AREA INTERSECTIONS
(MAP FROM GOOGLE MAPS 2013)
12
Study Area Intersection

Onondaga County

2-1
II. Existing Conditions
a. Roadway Network
The following roadways and intersections make up the study area:

State Fair Boulevard is a two-way roadway with multiple ownership within the
study area. The section between Pumphouse Road and Bridge Street is owned by
the NYSDOT and is also known as NYS RT 931B. The NYS RT 931B section
consists of two lanes for westbound traffic and one lane eastbound with a center
two-way left turn lane along portions of the roadway. Onondaga County owns
the remainder of the roadway within the study area and is also called County
Route 80. Two lanes are provided on the county-owned sections for each
direction of travel. The speed limit is 35 MPH at west end of the study limits, 40
MPH in proximity to the State Fairgrounds, and increases to 45 MPH just east of
the Exit 7 Connector road.

Pumphouse Road is a two-way roadway that runs north-south and serves as a
connector from the I-690 eastbound/ NYS RT 695 southbound ramp to State Fair
Boulevard. There is one lane for each direction of travel and no posted speed
limit. The roadway is signed as a dead end. South of the intersection with the I-
690/NYS RT 695 ramp, the road leads to a small public park and a gated private
road to waste beds.

Bridge Street is a two-way roadway also known as NYS RT 297. There is one
lane of travel in each direction. The posted speed limit is 40 MPH. There is
currently a sidewalk on the west side of the roadway, directly adjacent to the curb.
This roadway is currently being redesigned to improve bicycle and pedestrian
safety, but it is assumed that traffic operations will not change.

TheExit 7 Connector road is a two-way roadway owned by the NYSDOT that
connects the I-690 westbound off-ramp to State Fair Boulevard. There are two
Onondaga County

2-2
lanes for southbound traffic and one lane northbound. There is no posted speed
limit.

Willis Road is a two-way north-south County-owned roadway within the study
area that consists of one lane for each direction of travel and no posted speed
limit.

Intersection of State Fair Boulevard and Pumphouse Road is stop-controlled on
Pumphouse Road. There are two lanes
on the westbound approach and one lane
on the eastbound approach of State Fair
Boulevard with a narrow striped median
and one approach lane on Pumphouse
Road. There are no sidewalks or
crosswalks, but paved shoulders are
available on all roadway approaches.

Intersection of State Fair Boulevard and Bridge Street (NYS RT 297) is four-
way intersection that is controlled by a NYSDOT owned and operated signal.
The approaches consist of the following lane configurations:

State Fair Boulevard Eastbound
Dedicated left-turn lane, through
lane, and shared through/right-turn
lane
State Fair Boulevard Westbound
Dedicated left-turn lane, through
lane, and shared
through/channelized right-turn
lane
Bridge Street Northbound
Dedicated left-turn lane, shared through/right-turn lane
I-690 Eastbound off-ramp shared left-turn/through lane and channelized
right-turn lane

Signal timing and phasing information was provided by NYSDOT.
Google Maps 2013
Google Maps 2013
Onondaga County

2-3
Intersection of State Fair Boulevard and the Exit 7 Connector road is a skewed
three-way intersection that is stop controlled on the southbound approach of the
connector road. There is one lane for
left-turning traffic and one channelized
right-turn lane for southbound traffic
on the connector road. There is one
lane for westbound traffic and a
dedicated left-turn lane with a
dedicated through lane for eastbound
traffic on State Fair Boulevard.

Intersection of the Exit 7 Connector and the I-690 Westbound Exit 7 Off-Ramp
is a four-way intersection that is controlled on all approaches but the Exit 7 off-
ramp. The off-ramp consists of two-lanes that operate as a dedicated left-turn
lane and shared left-turn/through/right-turn lane during typical operations. The
access to the State Fair Orange Lot is opposite the Exit 7 off-ramp and consists of
two lanes inbound and one channelized
right-turn lane approaching the
intersection. The Exit 7 Connector
road approach is one shared left-
turn/through lane. The approach
opposite the Exit 7 Connector is
currently provides construction access
to sites along Onondaga Lake.

Intersection of State Fair Boulevard
and Willis Avenue is a three-legged
intersection with stop-control on Willis
Avenue. Each approach consists of one
lane for all movements.

Google Maps 2013
Google Maps 2013
Google Maps 2013
Onondaga County

2-4
b. Traffic Volumes
Turning movement counts were collected at the study area intersections on
Friday, May 2
nd
2014 from 4:00 7:00 PM. The peak hour for the study
intersections was determined to be from 4:00 5:00 PM.

The existing condition PM peak hour traffic volumes are shown in Figure 2-1 in
and the complete turning movement count data is provided in Appendix A.

c. Level of Service Analysis
A capacity analysis was performed for the study intersections using the existing
condition traffic volumes with existing roadway and intersection geometries and
NYSDOTs signal timing and phasing information. Figure 2-2 shows the LOS,
delay in seconds, and 95
th
percentile queues for each lane group of each study
intersection. The results of this analysis indicate that all movements are operating
at a LOS D or better, except for the few vehicles using the construction access at
the intersection of the I-690 Westbound Exit 7 off-ramp and the Exit 7 Connector
road.

The existing condition SYNCHRO reports are included in Appendix B.

d. Accident Analysis
Accident information was obtained from NYSDOT in order to determine if there
is a high incident of accidents within the study area. Verbal description reports of
accidents as recorded in the Accident Location Information System (ALIS) over
the latest three-year period (October 1, 2010 to September 30, 2013) were
obtained for State Fair Boulevard from approximately three tenths of a mile west
of the Pumphouse Road intersection, east to the ramp merging onto I-690
Eastbound, for a total length of 2.6 miles. Also included was the I-690 Westbound
Exit 7 off-ramp and Exit 7 Connector road to State Fair Boulevard. This
information included accident records at the intersection of State Fair Boulevard
and Pumphouse Road, Bridge Street, Exit 7 Connector road, Willis Avenue, and
Onondaga County

2-5
the various gates and ramps to the fairgrounds. The information provides brief
summaries of each reported accident and a general location based on reference
markers, intersecting streets and landmarks. Some reports have incomplete
location information and the exact location cannot be determined. For the
purposes of this study, locations were estimated based on the information given, a
thorough check of available on-line mapping, and inferences taken from the
details of the accident.

During the study period, a total of 91 reported accidents were provided by the
ALIS. Of the 91 accidents, 15 had indeterminate locations or were out of the
study area. The accident analysis was broken down into each separate intersection
and smaller intersection-to-intersection segments, with corresponding Annual
Average Daily Traffic (AADT) estimated from recently collected traffic counts.
The table on the following page summarizes accident severity for the entire study
period for each of the intersections and segments. Non-reportable collisions are
those that result in less than $1,000 worth of damage and no injuries. Since this
corridor experiences an extremely high traffic volume during the 12 days the State
Fair is open, during which a higher incidence of accidents may occur but a
reliable source of traffic volume data is not available, the accidents were tabulated
separately for all days of the year, and excluding State Fair days, in order to give a
general comparison of the accidents rates during the State Fair and the rest of the
year.

The accident rates for each segment and intersection were calculated in order to
make a comparison to the statewide average rates as published by the NYSDOT
for similar road and intersection types and locations. The results are shown in
Table 2-2 on Page 2-7.

Onondaga County

2-6
Table 2-1: Accident Summary

October 2011 - September 2013
Total #
Accidents PDO Injury Fatality
Non-
Reportable
Intersections - All Days, Including State Fair
State Fair Boulevard at Pumphouse Road 2 1 0 0 1
State Fair Boulevard at Bridge Street 28 14 5 0 9
State Fair Boulevard at Exit 7 Connector Road 0 0 0 0 0
Exit 7 Connector Road & 690 WB Off-Ramp
(Exit 7)
1 1 0 0 0
State Fair Boulevard at Willis Avenue 2 1 1 0 0
33 17 6 0 10
Segments - All Days, Including State Fair
State Fair Boulevard: West of Pumphouse
Road
2 0 0 0 2
State Fair Boulevard: Pumphouse Road to
Bridge Street
32 12 5 0 15
State Fair Boulevard: Bridge Street to Exit 7
Connector Road
2 0 1 0 1
(Exit 7)
0 0 0 0 0
State Fair Boulevard: Exit 7 Connector Road to
Willis Avenue
7 1 5 1 0
State Fair Boulevard: East of Willis Avenue 0 0 0 0 0
Totals 43 13 11 1 18

Intersections - Excluding State Fair Days
(Exit 7)
0 0 0 0 0
Totals 31 15 6 0 10
Segments - Excluding State Fair Days
State Fair Boulevard: West of Pumphouse
Road
2 0 0 0 2
State Fair Boulevard: Pumphouse Road to
Bridge Street
17 8 4 0 5
State Fair Boulevard: Bridge Street to Exit 7
Connector Road
1 0 0 0 1
(Exit 7)
0 0 0 0 0
State Fair Boulevard: Exit 7 Connector Road to
Willis Avenue
7 1 5 1 0
Totals 27 9 9 1 8

Onondaga County

2-7
Table 2-2: Accident Rates
Total #
Accidents AADT*
Segment
Length
(mi)
Total
Acc
Rate
(MEV)
SWA
Rate
% >
SWA
State Fair Boulevard at Pumphouse
Road
2 5340 0.34 0.15 127%
State Fair Boulevard at Bridge Street 28 11650 2.19 0.21 943%
State Fair Boulevard at Exit 7
Connector Road
0 6600 0.15
Exit 7 Connector Road & 690 WB Off-
Ramp (Exit 7)
1 5190 0.18 0.13 38%
State Fair Boulevard at Willis Avenue 2 2990 0.61 0.15 307%
State Fair Boulevard: West of
Pumphouse Road
2 5280 0.30 1.15 2.25 -49%
State Fair Boulevard: Pumphouse Road
to Bridge Street
32 6600 0.90 4.92 2.48 98%
State Fair Boulevard: Bridge Street to
Exit 7 Connector Road
2 5880 0.23 1.35 3.20 -58%
Ramp (Exit 7)
0 5190 0.22 2.25
State Fair Boulevard: Exit 7 Connector
Road to Willis Avenue
7 2250 0.66 4.3 2.25 91%
State Fair Boulevard: East of Willis
Avenue
0 1230 0.30 2.25
State Fair Boulevard at Pumphouse
Road
2 5340 0.35 0.15 133%
State Fair Boulevard at Exit 7
Connector Road
0 6600 0.15
Ramp (Exit 7)
0 5190 0.13
State Fair Boulevard: West of
Pumphouse Road
2 5280 0.30 1.19 2.25 -47%
State Fair Boulevard: Pumphouse Road
to Bridge Street
17 6600 0.90 2.7 2.48 9%
State Fair Boulevard: Bridge Street to
Exit 7 Connector Road
1 5880 0.23 0.70 3.20 -78%
Ramp (Exit 7)
0 5190 0.22 2.25
State Fair Boulevard: Exit 7 Connector
Road to Willis Avenue
7 2250 0.66 4.45 2.25 98%
State Fair Boulevard: East of Willis
Avenue
0 1230 0.30 2.25
*AADT for intersections estimated using existing PM peak hour entering volumes and the Suburban through
route factor below to obtain AADT (see Appendix C)
Onondaga County

2-8
The Pumphouse Road, Bridge Street and Willis Road intersections exceed the
statewide average by a considerable margin, with no significant difference seen
during the State Fair. The I-690 Westbound Exit 7 off-ramp accident rate is above
the average, but there was only 1 accident in the three year period, and that
occurred during the Fair with drugs were involved. The only State Fair Boulevard
segment significantly above the statewide average is from the Exit 7 Connector
road to Willis Avenue. It should be noted that of the 7 accidents recorded, 5
resulted in injury and there was 1 fatality. Accidents during the State Fair occur at
a higher rate in the Pumphouse Road to Bridge Street segment due to the
increased number of access points used along this segment at the fairgrounds.
Otherwise removing accidents that occurred during the State Fair did not
significantly reduce the number of accidents throughout the study area.

The most prevalent types of accidents in the study area were rear end, overtaking,
and turning movement collisions. At the Bridge Street intersection, 10 of the 31
accidents involved left turns against other vehicles, indicating motorists are
pulling in front of oncoming traffic, resulting in a collision. Another 8 at that
intersection were rear end, which is indicative of stop and go traffic. Most of the
contributing factors for all study area accidents were driver inattention, failure to
yield right-of-way, and unsafe lane changes or improper passing and lane usage.

A copy of the ALIS reports from NYSDOT is included along with a detailed
summary list of all the accidents and collision diagrams in Appendix C.

NOT TO SCALE
FIGURE
LAKEVIEW
AMPHITHEATER
EXISTING CONDITION PM PEAK HOUR
VOLUMES
21
100
35
96
18316714
4510729
8
333
281
B
r
i
d
g
e
S
t
WillisAve
StateFairBlvd

NOT TO SCALE
FIGURE
LAKEVIEW
AMPHITHEATER
EXISTING CONDITION OPERATIONS
SUMMARY
22
b
10.8s
3
B
r
i
d
g
e
S
t
WillisAve
StateFairBlvd
A
9.2s
26
B
16.1s
62
D
36.6
#239
C
28.0s
#127
B
15.2s
94
B
12.6s
85
A
2.8s
6
x/Xunsignalized/SignalizedLevelofService
xx.x sDelayinseconds
xxx95
th
%queueinfeet
n/aNodelaysincetheyhavenoconflictingmovements
#95
th
%volumeexceedscapacity,queuemaybelonger
a
7.6s
0
n/a
n/a
c
15.0
108
b
10.5s
11
D
37.6s
#151
e
49.9s
7
n/a
e
43.7s
21
a
8.7s
47
b
10.6s
27
a
2.7s
0

Onondaga County

3-1
III. Build Conditions
a. Access and Parking
The facility is proposed to be constructed on Lakeview Point, adjacent to what is
currently designated as the Orange Lot for State Fair parking. Based on an
understanding between Onondaga County and the New York State Department of
Agriculture and Markets, parking for the facility will be accommodated by the
Orange and Brown Lots, typically used during the State Fair. For the purposes of
this study and analysis, it is assumed any access control in terms of payment
collection will occur well within the site, if at all, so as not to negatively impact
vehicular flow inbound.

The Orange Lot is accessed via a three-
lane roadway opposite the I-690
Westbound Exit 7 off-ramp and is
estimated to be able to accommodate
approximately 6,500 vehicles. This
access will serve as the only vehicular
access to the site. It is anticipated that
the existing grade approaching the facility site will be reduced as part of the
development of the site.

In order to use this access point outside of State Fair activities, a break-in-access
study is required by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and will be a
follow-on activity associated with the development of the facility. The County
has recently obtained a permit for temporary access for the new Loop Trail and a
small parking lot. Discussions with the FHWA and NYSDOT have led to the
understanding that any other access points to the site typically used during the
State Fair (gated access drives from the I-690 Westbound to NYS RT 695
Southbound ramp, temporary traffic signal with the Orange Lot access with the I-
690 mainline, and the access ramp directly to the Brown Lot from the I-690
Eastbound Exit 6 off-ramp) will not be available during amphitheater events.
Google Maps 2013
Onondaga County

3-2
During events, the Orange Lot western access road to the I-690 crossover will be
opened only for emergency vehicle access only, and would not include any signal
components.

The Brown Lot is accessed via two driveways along State Fair Boulevard with a
capacity of approximately 3,500 vehicles. It is assumed that this lot will be used
during large events (see Section III.d) and will be served by shuttle buses to
transport attendees to the facility via the Orange Lot access.

b. Background Growth
The Lakeview Amphitheater Facility is expected to be completed by the fall of
2015 and completely operational with a full season in 2016. Based on past traffic
volume information collected on various roadways within the study area (see
Appendix A), a compounded growth rate of 0.5% was applied to the existing
traffic volumes to derive 2016 background volumes that account for any unknown
development that may occur in the area.

Figure 3-1 shows the 2016 background arrival volumes.

c. Trip Generation
The expected trip generation for the Lakeview Amphitheater Facility was
estimated based on the number of seats in the facility, size of event, an assumed
vehicle occupancy ratio, and assumed arrival and departure patterns. It is
assumed that any employees will arrive well before attendees and before the
typical PM peak hour. The vehicle occupancy ratio (VOR) for the attendees is
assumed to be 2.5, meaning that, on average, each vehicle contains 2.5 attendees.
While other modes may be used to access the area via a recently completed multi-
use trail and potential boat access in the future, a mode share reduction was not
applied for the purposes of this analysis. The following assumptions were made
when estimating the facilitys trip generation for a small, local event and a sold-
out event:
Onondaga County

3-3
Small Event
A small, local event is assumed to attract 500 attendees, or 200 vehicles with the
VOR adjustment. It is assumed that all 500 attendees will arrive during the peak
hour and will be directed to park in the Orange Lot. Departure would occur for
all attendees via the Orange Lot access over the course of one hour, assumed to be
approximately 10:00PM.

Sold-out Event
With the VOR adjustment, 17,500 attendees would arrive in 7,000 vehicles.
Given the size of the event and potential tail-gating type activities, it is assumed
that 80% of the vehicles (5,600) would arrive during the peak hour with the
remaining 20% arriving before or after the analysis period.

As noted in Section III.a, it is anticipated that the Brown Lot will be utilized with
shuttle buses transporting attendees to the site via the Orange Lot access. Shuttle
bus trips were estimated based on a number of assumptions including the number
of vehicles and attendees using the Brown Lot (as discussed in Section III.d), the
capacity of transit buses, and the time estimated to take for a bus to make a
roundtrip from the Brown Lot to the facility. It is assumed that shuttle buses will
have more direct access via dedicated lanes or given priority through intersections
to avoid congestion, which will be finalized during facility operations planning.

During the peak hour, it is estimated that 75 shuttle bus trips will occur during the
peak hour analyzed. See Appendix A for more detailed shuttle bus assumptions
and calculations.

d. Trip Distribution
Trip distribution was considered on a broader, regional scale then broken down to
a more localized distribution depending on the size of the event: small vs sold-
out. The regional distribution takes into consideration where attendees are
Onondaga County

3-4
coming from and how they are accessing the study area. The local distribution is
based on the size of the event and which parking area will be utilized.

Access to the general study area is accommodated through the following
roadways:

I-690 Westbound
I-690 Eastbound
NYS RT 695 Northbound
Bridge Street (NYS RT 297)
State Fair Boulevard (from the west)
Willis Avenue

In order to estimate how many vehicles will use each of the above-mentioned
routes, it was assumed that the distribution for amphitheater events would be
similar to the distribution to the area during the State Fair. The NYSDOT
provided counts that were collected hourly throughout the study area during the
course of the 2007 State Fair. The average incoming volumes on each route were
found during the analysis period and used to determine the distribution, as shown
in Figure 3-2. See Appendix A for detailed regional distribution data and
calculations.

For the small event, it is assumed that all attendees will park in the Orange Lot
using the access opposite the I-690 Westbound Exit 7 off-ramp on the Exit 7
Connector road. The local distribution for small event arrivals and departures in
shown in Figures 3-3 and 3-4.

For the sold-out event, it is anticipated that 7,000 vehicles will need to park on-
site. Since the Orange Lot is only expected to accommodate 6,500 vehicles,
traffic will need to be distributed to the Brown Lot. A local distribution was
developed in order to more evenly distribute vehicles to the two lots, as well as
minimize conflicting movements and delays. It is assumed that this distribution
will be publicized through the facility website, dynamic message signs (DMS)
Onondaga County

3-5
along I-690 and NYS RT 695, and other signage to direct traffic to the desirable
route and parking lot. As shown in Figure 3-5, the following local distribution
for a sold-event during arrival was developed:

I-690 Westbound traffic will park in the Orange Lot
I-690 Eastbound traffic will take Exit 6 towards Lakeland, onto
Pumphouse Road, State Fair Boulevard, and the Brown Lot
NYS RT 695 Northbound will transition onto I-690 Eastbound, take Exit 7
to State Fair Boulevard, and the Brown Lot
Bridge Street (NYS RT 297) traffic will take a right onto State Fair
Boulevard to the Orange Lot
Willis Avenue traffic will use the Orange Lot

It is assumed that both Brown Lot access points will be utilized. For arrivals, it is
assumed that the westernmost access point will consist of two inbound lanes and
one outbound lane while the east access will consist of one lane in each direction.
For departures, the lane configuration for the west access will change to three
outbound lanes: two right turn lanes and a left turn lane for shuttles. It is
assumed that the access to the Orange Lot will remain with two inbound lanes and
one outbound lane.

During departure for both the sold-out event, the traffic distribution will use the
closest, more direct interstate ramps and roadways to travel in the direction they
arrived, as shown in Figure 3-6.

e. Build Volumes
The distributed arrival attendee traffic was added to the 2016 background
volumes to create the 2016 future build condition volumes for the small and sold-
out events. For the departure conditions, background traffic was estimated based
on a comparison between PM peak hour volumes and volumes collected during
the 10:00PM hour. Using 24-hour counts during typical conditions along State
Fair Boulevard, Bridge Street, and the I-690 Westbound Exit 7 off-ramp, it was
estimated that volumes during the 10:00PM hour are approximately 20% of the
Onondaga County

3-6
4:00PM hour volumes. Therefore, the existing PM peak hour volumes were
reduced by approximately 80%, then grown at the 0.5% compounded growth rate
to estimate 2016 background volumes during event departure.

Future volume calculations are included in Appendix A. Figures 3-7 through 3-
10 show the 2016 build condition volumes for small and sold-out events during
arrival and departure.

f. Build Analyses
Future build condition SYNCHRO models were created for the following
scenarios:

Small event arrival with existing traffic control
Small event departure with existing traffic control
Sold-out event arrival with existing traffic control
Sold-out event arrival with manned traffic control
Sold-out event arrival with manned traffic control and proposed mitigation
Sold-out event departure

Small Event Arrival/Departure
The LOS, delay in seconds, and 95
th
percentile queues for the small event arrival
and departure scenarios are shown in Figures 3-11 and 3-12 and detailed analysis
reports are included in Appendix B. Delays for vehicles arriving from the I-690
Eastbound Exit 7 off-ramp to the intersection at State Fair Boulevard and Bridge
Street are expected to approach two minutes as they wait to turn left onto State
Fair Boulevard. The anticipated queues are not expected to impact the I-690
Eastbound mainline. The average intersection LOS falls from a C to a D with an
increase to the average intersection delay of approximately 15 seconds. The LOS
for the arriving vehicles as they approach the Orange Lot access at the
intersection of the I-690 Westbound Exit 7 off-ramp and the Exit 7 Connector
road are expected to be an F, with delays and queues due to the high conflicting
volumes coming off the off-ramp. Queues are not anticipated to impact the
intersection of the Exit 7 Connector road and State Fair Boulevard. The I-690
Onondaga County

3-7
Westbound Exit 7 off-ramp or mainline is not expected to be impacted. There are
no proposed mitigation measures for the arrival time period associated with a
small event.

With minimal conflicting traffic, there are no significant delays anticipated during
event departure. All movements at all study intersections are anticipated to
operate at a LOS B or better. There are no proposed mitigation measures for the
departure time period associated with a small event.

Sold-out Event Arrival
As the models were created and evaluated for the sold-out event arrivals using
existing traffic control, it became evident that mitigation would be required to
eliminate gridlock throughout the study area. Traffic can be expected to come to
a stand-still for those trying to access the Orange Lot from Bridge Street and
Willis Avenue, as well as for those trying to access the Brown Lot from State Fair
Boulevard west and Pumphouse Road. Queues from Pumphouse Road are
expected to impact the I-690 Eastbound Exit 6 off-ramp, and possibly the I-690
Eastbound mainline, at this location. The I-690 Eastbound Exit 7 off-ramp traffic
at the intersection of State Fair Boulevard and Bridge Street is expected to queue
along the exit only lane from the NYS RT 695 Northbound merge with I-690
Eastbound. This would affect the I-690 Eastbound mainline at this location if a
vehicle on I-690 wishes to take Exit 7 and needs to merge into slow moving
traffic in the exit only lane. Detailed analysis reports are included in Appendix
B.

Sold-out Event Arrival with Manned Traffic Control
The first level of mitigation considered was manned traffic control at the
intersections of I-690 Westbound Exit 7 off-ramp and the Exit 7 Connector road,
State Fair Boulevard and Pumphouse Road, and the west access to the Brown Lot
on State Fair Boulevard to maintain traffic flow into the facilities and minimize
queues on the I-690 off-ramps. Manned control was simulated by using a pre-
Onondaga County

3-8
timed signal timing and phasing at these intersections with more green time
allotted to movements that would most improve operations that may affect the I-
690 mainline: I-690 Westbound Exit 7 off-ramp; Pumphouse Road; and the
access to the Brown Lot.

While manned control is expected to improve queues and delays, there will still
be significant backups along Pumphouse Road that will impact the I-690
Eastbound Exit 6 off-ramp. The introduction of manned control on the I-690
Westbound Exit 7 off-ramp will create queues that may impact the I-690
Westbound mainline at this location, even with a change in lane usage allowing
the left lane as a shared left/through lane and the right lane as a dedicated through
lane to the Orange Lot.

Although not obvious by reviewing the results, the 1,000 foot plus queue for
traffic approaching the Orange Lot from the Exit 7 Connector road is expected to
impact operations at the intersection with State Fair Boulevard and ultimately to
the traffic approaching northbound on Bridge Street. The LOS, delay in seconds,
and 95
th
percentile queues for the sold-out event arrival scenario with assumed
manned traffic control are shown in Figure 3-13 and the detailed analysis reports
are included in Appendix B.

Sold-out Event Arrival with Manned Traffic Control and Mitigation
In order to minimize the potential for impacts onto the I-690 mainline, additional
mitigation measures were considered along the route via Pumphouse Road to the
Brown Lot access and to the I-690 Westbound Exit 7 off-ramp as described
below:

Measurements of Pumphouse Road and the ramp from I-690 eastbound
indicate that there is adequate existing pavement width including the
shoulder to accommodate two lanes of travel northbound. The striped
median, two-way center left turn lane, and wide shoulders along State Fair
Boulevard between Pumphouse Road and the Brown Lot access may
allow for 2 lanes of travel eastbound. With two lanes of traffic, manned
Onondaga County

3-9
traffic control, as well as the appropriate signage and traffic control, it is
anticipated that queues will be mitigated to avoid impacts to the I-690
Eastbound mainline.
Potential mitigation to the I-690 Westbound Exit 7 off-ramp include
widening and lengthening the ramp itself to current guidelines for a
parallel type interstate off-ramp provided by the American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials A Policy on Geometric
Design of Highways and Streets: add an additional lane at the intersection
with the Exit 7 Connector road to provide a dedicated left turn lane and
two through lanes for approximately 400 feet, widen the ramp to provide
two lanes for another 400 feet, and extend the deceleration/storage lane for
a total Exit 7 off-ramp length of approximately 2,600 feet compared to the
existing 1,000 foot ramp (see Figure 3-14). Along with the manned
control focused on minimizing queues on the off-ramp, it is anticipated
that impacts to the I-690 Westbound mainline could be avoided.

The above-mentioned mitigation measures will not improve the queues and delays
for the vehicles accessing the Orange Lot via the Exit 7 Connector road impacting
State Fair Boulevard and Bridge Street, or for the vehicles from NYS RT 695
Northbound using the I-690 Eastbound Exit 7 off-ramp to the Brown Lot. In
order to reduce the potential for impacts to the I-690 Eastbound mainline near
Exit 7, DMS could guide vehicles looking to use that exit to use Exit 6 instead.
The LOS, delay in seconds, and 95
th
percentile queues for the sold-out event
arrival scenario with assumed manned traffic control and the above-mentioned
mitigation measures are shown in Figure 3-15 and the detailed analysis reports
are included in Appendix B.

Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)
The use of temporary signage, police personnel for traffic control, real-time DMS
use, intelligent transportation systems (ITS) cameras, and real-time
communications will help to mitigate traffic operations for any sized event at the
facility. Monitoring traffic in the areas during an event using the existing ITS
cameras, immediately changing the DMS message as needed to direct traffic or
warn through vehicles of potential slowdowns, and communicating with the
police on the street controlling traffic will help to ensure traffic is flowing as
efficiently and safely as possible. There are currently roadside DMS units along
Onondaga County

3-10
I-690 in both directions approaching the study area, and installing one on NYS
RT 695 Northbound will provide the opportunity to direct traffic to an event to
use the I-690 Eastbound Exit 7 and stay in the right lane to the Brown Lot. The
DMS would warn through traffic to be aware of event traffic and direct event
traffic to their designated exit, lane, and parking area.

Sold-out Event Departure with/without Mitigation
As with the small event, the background traffic expected during the departure
analysis period is minimal, but with the amount of traffic trying to leave the two
parking areas at one time, there will be significant delays for attendees. Once
they leave the parking areas, delays will be minimal throughout the study area,
except for those exiting the Orange Lot as they approach State Fair Boulevard and
those wanting to turn left onto Bridge Street from State Fair Boulevard
westbound. The following mitigation measures were considered to improve
operations during departure:

Adjusting the signal timing at the intersection of State Fair Boulevard and
Bridge Street to provide more time for the westbound movements will
mitigate the delays for the westbound traffic on State Fair Boulevard
without degrading operations for other movements.
In order to improve traffic flow for those exiting the Orange Lot, adding a
second right turn lane (auxiliary lane for event traffic only) on the Exit 7
Connector road approaching State Fair Boulevard will reduce delays but
not mitigate them to a LOS indicative of current operations (see Figure 3-
14).

Departure traffic should not impact I-690 mainline operations in either direction
as delays and queues will be limited to the parking lots themselves. The LOS,
delay in seconds, and 95
th
percentile queues for the sold-out event departure
scenario without and with the above-mentioned mitigation measures are shown in
Figures 3-16 and 3-17 and the detailed analysis reports are included in Appendix
B.

Onondaga County

3-11
g. Additional Analyses
As stated in Section III.a, it is understood that the gated access drives into the
Orange Lot from the I-690 Westbound to NYS RT 695 Southbound ramp, the
temporary traffic signal at the Orange Lot access road with the I-690 mainline
crossover, and the access ramp directly to the Brown Lot from the I-690
Eastbound Exit 6 off-ramp, all of which are utilized during the New York State
Fair every year for 12 days preceding Labor Day, will not be available for use
during amphitheater events. Before this was known, a number of additional
scenarios were evaluated that included the use of these access points:

Sold-out event arrival with the Orange Lot access from the I-690
Westbound to NYS RT 695 Southbound ramp and the access directly to the
Brown Lot from the I-690 Eastbound Exit 6 off-ramp (see Figure 3-18)
This assumes that both access points to the Orange Lot are open, with
signage directing traffic to use the shoulder for direct access to the east
access, the right lane to the west access, and the left lane for through
traffic. This scenario eliminates the need to alter the I-690 Westbound
Exit 7 off-ramp, as well as improves delays and queues along the Exit 7
Connector road and at the intersection of State Fair Boulevard and Bridge
Street.
Sold-out event departure using the signal from the Orange Lot to access
the I-690 mainline (see Figure 3-19) This scenario assumes that vehicles
that arrived via I-690 Westbound Exit 7 will exit the Orange Lot via the
signalized intersection along the I-690 mainline. Delays from the Orange
Lot are reduced, but traffic on the I-690 mainline will be forced to come to
a stop similar to conditions during the State Fair. Significant signage and
the use of the DMS will be required to warm motorists on I-690 of the
stop in traffic.

The detailed analysis reports for the above-mentioned scenarios are included in
Appendix B.

h. Long-Term Considerations
The access to the Orange Lot opposite the I-690 Westbound Exit 7 off-ramp is
currently the only available access to the proposed site, pending the approval of
an FHWA break-in-access study. Discussions between the FHWA, NYSDOT,
and the County have acknowledged the desire to provide long-term improvements
Onondaga County

3-12
to the area that will not only serve the proposed amphitheater facility, but the
State Fair access to the Orange Lot as well without requiring the use of the access
points from the I-690 Westbound to NYS RT 695 Southbound ramp or the signal
along the I-690 mainline.

The mitigation measures identified to widen and extend the I-690 Westbound Exit
7 off-ramp and construct a second right turn lane on the Exit 7 Connector road
southbound to State Fair Boulevard will improve operations and safety during
both amphitheater events and the State Fair, but will not reduce the need for the
non-standard access points currently used while the State Fair is in session. To
eliminate the need for those access points, additional ramps from the I-690
mainline would need to be considered.

While not a part of this study, several conceptual layouts are being considered to
provide direct access to the Orange Lot via I-690 Eastbound and Westbound off-
and on-ramps and frontage roads. One scenario to be considered involves
constructing new westbound on- and off-ramps at the location of the current
temporary traffic signal at the mainline crossover. Other long-term concepts
would consider replacing some or all existing ramps with a full interchange to
serve both the fairgrounds and the amphitheater site.

NOT TO SCALE
FIGURE
LAKEVIEW
AMPHITHEATER
2016 PM PEAK HOUR BACKGROUND
VOLUMES
31
101
35
97
18516914
4510829
8
336
284
B
r
i
d
g
e
S
t
WillisAve
StateFairBlvd

NOT TO SCALE
FIGURE
LAKEVIEW
AMPHITHEATER
REGIONAL TRIP DISTRIBUTION
(MAP FROM GOOGLE MAPS 2013)
32
34%
3%
12%
19%
11%
21%

S
M
A
L
L

E
V
E
N
T

L
O
C
A
L

A
R
R
I
V
A
L

D
I
S
T
R
I
B
U
T
I
O
N
3
-
3
F
I
G
U
R
E
N
O
T

T
O

S
C
A
L
E
L
A
K
E
V
I
E
W

A
M
P
H
I
T
H
E
A
T
E
R
T
R
A
F
F
I
C

I
M
P
A
C
T

S
T
U
D
Y
S
M
A
L
L

E
V
E
N
T

L
O
C
A
L

D
E
P
A
R
T
U
R
E

D
I
S
T
R
I
B
U
T
I
O
N
3
-
4
F
I
G
U
R
E
N
O
T

T
O

S
C
A
L
E
L
A
K
E
V
I
E
W

A
M
P
H
I
T
H
E
A
T
E
R
T
R
A
F
F
I
C

I
M
P
A
C
T

S
T
U
D
Y
S
O
L
D
-
O
U
T

E
V
E
N
T

L
O
C
A
L

A
R
R
I
V
A
L

D
I
S
T
R
I
B
U
T
I
O
N
3
-
5
F
I
G
U
R
E
N
O
T

T
O

S
C
A
L
E
L
A
K
E
V
I
E
W

A
M
P
H
I
T
H
E
A
T
E
R
T
R
A
F
F
I
C

I
M
P
A
C
T

S
T
U
D
Y
S
O
L
D
-
O
U
T

E
V
E
N
T

L
O
C
A
L

D
E
P
A
R
T
U
R
E

D
I
S
T
R
I
B
U
T
I
O
N
3
-
6
F
I
G
U
R
E
N
O
T

T
O

S
C
A
L
E
L
A
K
E
V
I
E
W

A
M
P
H
I
T
H
E
A
T
E
R
T
R
A
F
F
I
C

I
M
P
A
C
T

S
T
U
D
Y
NOT TO SCALE
FIGURE
LAKEVIEW
AMPHITHEATER
SMALL EVENT ARRIVAL VOLUMES
37
101
57
97
18516938
45108109
8
336
284
B
r
i
d
g
e
S
t
WillisAve
StateFairBlvd

NOT TO SCALE
FIGURE
LAKEVIEW
AMPHITHEATER
SMALL EVENT DEPARTURE
VOLUMES
38
19
7
18
35323
9216
2
166
78
B
r
i
d
g
e
S
t
WillisAve
StateFairBlvd

NOT TO SCALE
FIGURE
LAKEVIEW
AMPHITHEATER
SOLD-OUT EVENT ARRIVAL
VOLUMES
39
101
110
97
185169686
110910829
8
411
284
B
r
i
d
g
e
S
t
WillisAve
StateFairBlvd
BrownWest BrownEast
075
1792
1214

NOT TO SCALE
FIGURE
LAKEVIEW
AMPHITHEATER
SOLD-OUT EVENT DEPARTURE
VOLUMES
310
19
82
18
35323
9216
2382
139
894
B
r
i
d
g
e
S
t
WillisAve
BrownWest BrownEast
357075
0
75
StateFairBlvd

NOT TO SCALE
FIGURE
LAKEVIEW
AMPHITHEATER
SMALL EVENT ARRIVAL
OPERATIONS SUMMARY
311
b
11.2s
2
B
r
i
d
g
e
S
t
WillisAve
StateFairBlvd
B
10.7s
33
B
16.3s
63
D
40.4
#247
C
28.5s
#130
B
14.6s
95
B
12.5s
86
A
2.1s
10
xxx95
th
%queueinfeet
#95
th
a
7.8s
9
n/a
n/a
c
15.3s
112
c
15.3s
20
F
109.1s
#280
f
660.7s
360
n/a
f
50.6s
24
a
8.7s
48
b
10.7s
29
a
2.7s
0

NOT TO SCALE
FIGURE
LAKEVIEW
AMPHITHEATER
SMALL EVENT DEPARTURE
OPERATIONS SUMMARY
312
a
9.0s
0
B
r
i
d
g
e
S
t
WillisAve
StateFairBlvd
B
10.4s
8
A
8.6s
14
A
7.9s
32
A
9.1s
43
B
11.6s
23
B
11.0s
21
A
3.3s
2
xxx95
th
%queueinfeet
#95
th
a
7.3s
0
n/a
n/a
b
11.0s
55
a
9.6s
17
B
16.0s
29
b
11.5s
0
n/a
b
10.2
1
a
7.4s
6
a
9.7s
4
n/a

NOT TO SCALE
FIGURE
LAKEVIEW
AMPHITHEATER
OPERATIONS SUMMARY MANNED
CONTROL 313
f
205.5s
#1277
B
r
i
d
g
e
S
t
WillisAve
B
13.7s
48
B
16.9s
63
D
43.9s
#254
C
31.6s
#183
B
18.4s
95
B
12.5s
86
A
4.5s
100
c
15.8s
180
n/a
n/a
d
25.8s
219
f
err
err
F
640.2
#1086
f
362.5s
#1035
a
0.4s
0
f
89.8s
39
b
13.0s
1
b
12.6s
63
a
2.7 s
0
BrownWest BrownEast
StateFairBlvd
f
164.7s
#1856
n/a
f
85.9s
#156
f
422.6s
m#2167
f
351.8s
#597
n/a
xxx95
th
%queueinfeet
n/aNodelaysincetheyhavenoconflictingmovements errv/cratiotoohighto
#95
th
%volumeexceedscapacity,queuemaybelonger provideaccurateresults
mVolumefor95
th
%queueismeteredbyupstreamsignal

P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

M
E
A
S
U
R
E
S
3
-
1
4
F
I
G
U
R
E
N
O
T

T
O

S
C
A
L
E
L
A
K
E
V
I
E
W

A
M
P
H
I
T
H
E
A
T
E
R
T
R
A
F
F
I
C

I
M
P
A
C
T

S
T
U
D
Y
StateFairBlvd
f
125.3s
#186
e
59.4s
m932
f
103.1s
#472
e
61.0
m949
NOT TO SCALE
FIGURE
LAKEVIEW
AMPHITHEATER
OPERATIONS SUMMARY MANNED
CONTROL/MITIGATION
315
B
r
i
d
g
e
S
t
WillisAve
B
13.7s
48
B
16.9s
63
D
43.9s
#254
C
31.6s
#183
B
18.4s
95
B
12.5s
86
A
4.5s
100
c
15.8s
180
n/a
n/a
b
14.7s
82
f
err
err
F
640.2
#1086
f
362.5 s
#1035
a
0.4s
0
f
89.8s
39
b
12.6s
63
a
2.7 s
0
BrownWest BrownEast
xxx95
th
%queueinfeet
#95
th
mVolumefor95
th
n/a
n/a

NOT TO SCALE
FIGURE
LAKEVIEW
AMPHITHEATER
OPERATIONS SUMMARY
316
b
11.0s
0
B
r
i
d
g
e
S
t
WillisAve
B
12.9s
30
A
8.8s
14
F
184.0s
#732
E
56.4s
#730
B
11.6s
23
B
11.0s
21
A
3.3s
2
a
7.4s
5
n/a
n/a
f
err
err
b
12.7s
38
b
14.6s
17
b
10.3s
1
a
7.4s
6
a
9.3s
4
n/a
BrownWest BrownEast
StateFairBlvd
f
521.8s
3416
B
16.0s
29
b
13.7s
15
xxx95
th
%queueinfeet
#95
th
mVolumefor95
th
n/a
n/a
f
err
err

NOT TO SCALE
FIGURE
LAKEVIEW
AMPHITHEATER
OPERATIONS SUMMARY WITH
MITIGATION 317
b
11.0s
0
B
r
i
d
g
e
S
t
WillisAve
C
23.9s
42
B
14.9s
14
C
23.4s
#615
E
55.2s
#968
C
29.3s
42
C
27.5s
38
A
3.0s
2
a
7.4s
5
n/a
n/a
f
614.9s
4475
f
248.8s
1739
C
33.8s
43
b
14.6s
17
b
10.3s
1
a
7.4s
6
a
9.3s
4
n/a
BrownWest BrownEast
StateFairBlvd
f
521.8s
3416
b
13.7s
15
f
err
err
n/a
n/a
xxx95
th
%queueinfeet
#95
th
mVolumefor95
th

S
O
L
D
-
O
U
T

E
V
E
N
T

L
O
C
A
L

A
R
R
I
V
A
L

D
I
S
T
R
I
B
U
T
I
O
N

U
S
I
N
G

S
T
A
T
E

F
A
I
R

A
C
C
E
S
S
3
-
1
8
F
I
G
U
R
E
N
O
T

T
O

S
C
A
L
E
L
A
K
E
V
I
E
W

A
M
P
H
I
T
H
E
A
T
E
R
T
R
A
F
F
I
C

I
M
P
A
C
T

S
T
U
D
Y
S
O
L
D
-
O
U
T

E
V
E
N
T

L
O
C
A
L

D
E
P
A
R
T
U
R
E

D
I
S
T
R
I
B
U
T
I
O
N

U
S
I
N
G

I
-
6
9
0

S
I
G
N
A
L
3
-
1
9
F
I
G
U
R
E
N
O
T

T
O

S
C
A
L
E
L
A
K
E
V
I
E
W

A
M
P
H
I
T
H
E
A
T
E
R
T
R
A
F
F
I
C

I
M
P
A
C
T

S
T
U
D
Y
Onondaga County

4-1
IV. Recommendations and Conclusions
This traffic impact study evaluates the potential transportation impacts from the proposed
Lakeview Amphitheater Facility. Onondaga County is proposing to construct a 17,500
seat outdoor events center on County-owned land on the western shore of Onondaga
Lake. While events will range from small, local gatherings to popular musical acts, it is
anticipated that a sold-out event could generate approximately 7,000 vehicles during the
typical PM commuter period to be accommodated along the adjacent roadway network.

Parking for the facility will be accommodated with the Orange and Brown State Fair
parking lots. While the Orange Lot will be able to accommodate the small, local event
demand, the Brown Lot will be necessary for the larger, close to sold-out events. For the
large, sold-out events, it is recommended that attendees are directed as follows based on
anticipated travel routes:

I-690 Westbound traffic take Exit 7 and will park in the Orange Lot
I-690 Eastbound traffic will take Exit 6 towards Lakeland, onto Pumphouse Road,
State Fair Boulevard, and the Brown Lot
NYS RT 695 Northbound will transition onto I-690 Eastbound, take Exit 7 to
State Fair Boulevard, and the Brown Lot
Bridge Street (NYS RT 297) traffic will take a right onto State Fair Boulevard to
the Orange Lot
Willis Avenue traffic will use the Orange Lot via State Fair Boulevard

Based on numerous scenario analyses for a sold-out event, the following operational and
capital improvement recommendations should be considered:

Operational Recommendations
Educate the public on desired parking area and traffic flow based on incoming
direction of travel by posting directions on the facility website
Utilize police officers on the ground to manually control key intersections in the
area, focusing on moving traffic along Pumphouse Road and off the I-690
Westbound Exit 7 off-ramp to avoid impacts to the I-690 mainline
Utilize existing dynamic message signs (DMS) on the I-690 mainline and install a
new DMS on NYS RT 695 Northbound to direct traffic in real-time and warn
motorists of potential slowdowns
Onondaga County

4-2
Utilize existing intelligent transportation system (ITS) cameras during events to
update the DMS in real-time and communicate with the police on the street
controlling traffic will help to ensure traffic is flowing as efficiently and safely as
possible
Utilize temporary signage to direct traffic to the appropriate I-690 exit and
parking area, as well as to inform vehicles on I-690 Eastbound Exit 6 off-ramp to
utilize the shoulder as a second lane on Pumphouse Road and form two lanes
eastbound on State Fair Boulevard between Pumphouse Road and the Brown Lot
west access
Utilize approximately 25 transit buses as shuttles to transport attendees between
the Brown Lot and the facility before and after the event

Capital Improvement Recommendations
Widen and lengthen the I-690 Westbound Exit 7 off-ramp to include three lanes
approaching the Exit 7 Connector road and approximately 800 feet of a two-lane
storage lane for a total length of approximately 1,200 feet
Construct an auxiliary right turn lane for southbound event traffic on the Exit 7
Connector road approaching State Fair Boulevard
Optimize signal timing at the intersection of State Fair Boulevard and Bridge
Street during the event departure period to increase green times for westbound
traffic

These recommendations are expected to minimize impacts to the adjacent roadway
network for events at the proposed facility and also improve safety and operations during
the State Fair, but will not reduce the need for the non-standard access points currently
used while the State Fair is in session. Long-term improvements to the roadway network
within the study area will be considered, outside of this study, to provide improved access
to the Orange Lot.

Onondaga County

Appendix A:

Volume Data and Calculations

C&S Engineers, I nc
499 Col Eileen Collins Blvd
Syracuse, NY 13212
File Name : 3641 Mike 690 WB Off
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 5/2/2014
Page No : 1
Groups Printed- Unshifted
Southbound
690 WB off-Ramp (Exit 7)
Westbound
Exit 7 Connector
Northbound
from Upper (Orange) Lot
Eastbound
Start Time Right Thru Left Trucks Right Thru Left Trucks Right Thru Left Trucks Right Thru Left Trucks Int. Total
04:00 PM 2 3 0 0 1 0 153 8 0 2 0 1 3 0 0 2 175
04:15 PM 1 6 0 1 0 0 157 6 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 175
04:30 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 141 7 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 153
04:45 PM 0 3 0 1 2 0 139 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 149
Total 3 13 0 2 3 0 590 24 0 5 0 2 8 0 0 2 652
05:00 PM 0 3 0 0 1 0 133 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 143
05:15 PM 1 1 0 0 2 1 149 4 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 1 164
05:30 PM 1 2 0 0 3 1 96 4 0 5 0 0 2 0 0 0 114
05:45 PM 0 2 0 0 1 0 109 3 0 5 0 0 2 0 0 0 122
Total 2 8 0 0 7 2 487 15 0 14 0 0 7 0 0 1 543
06:00 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 97 3 0 1 3 0 3 0 0 0 108
06:15 PM 1 24 0 0 0 1 95 3 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 126
06:30 PM 0 9 0 0 0 0 79 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 89
06:45 PM 0 5 0 0 0 0 78 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 85
Total 1 39 0 0 0 1 349 7 0 3 3 0 5 0 0 0 408
*** BREAK ***
Grand Total 6 60 0 2 10 3 1426 46 0 22 3 2 20 0 0 3 1603
Apprch % 8.8 88.2 0 2.9 0.7 0.2 96 3.1 0 81.5 11.1 7.4 87 0 0 13
Total % 0.4 3.7 0 0.1 0.6 0.2 89 2.9 0 1.4 0.2 0.1 1.2 0 0 0.2
A - 1
C&S Engineers, I nc
Syracuse, NY 13212
Page No : 2
Southbound
690 WB off-Ramp (Exit 7)
Westbound
Exit 7 Connector
Northbound
from Upper (Orange) Lot
Eastbound
Start Time Right Thru Left Trucks App. Total Right Thru Left Trucks App. Total Right Thru Left Trucks App. Total Right Thru Left Trucks App. Total Int. Total
Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 07:00 PM - Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:00 PM
04:00 PM 2 3 0 0 5 1 0 153 8 162 0 2 0 1 3 3 0 0 2 5 175
04:15 PM 1 6 0 1 8 0 0 157 6 163 0 1 0 1 2 2 0 0 0 2 175
04:30 PM 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 141 7 148 0 1 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 3 153
04:45 PM 0 3 0 1 4 2 0 139 3 144 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 149
Total Volume 3 13 0 2 18 3 0 590 24 617 0 5 0 2 7 8 0 0 2 10 652
% App. Total 16.7 72.2 0 11.1 0.5 0 95.6 3.9 0 71.4 0 28.6 80 0 0 20
PHF .375 .542 .000 .500 .563 .375 .000 .939 .750 .946 .000 .625 .000 .500 .583 .667 .000 .000 .250 .500 .931
A - 2
C&S Engineers, I nc
Syracuse, NY 13212
Page No : 3

f
r
o
m

U
p
p
e
r

(
O
r
a
n
g
e
)

L
o
t

6
9
0

W
B

o
f
f
-
R
a
m
p

(
E
x
i
t

7
)

Exit 7 Connector
Right
3
Thru
13
Left
0
Trucks
2
In Out Total
8 18 26
R
i
g
h
t3

T
h
r
u
0

L
e
f
t
5
9
0

T
r
u
c
k
s
2
4

O
u
t
T
o
t
a
l
I
n
0

6
1
7

6
1
7

Left
0
Thru
5
Right
0
Trucks
2
Out Total In
611 7 618
L
e
f
t
0

T
h
r
u
0

R
i
g
h
t 8

T
r
u
c
k
s
2

T
o
t
a
l
O
u
t
I
n
3

1
0

1
3

Peak Hour Begins at 04:00 PM

Unshifted
Peak Hour Data
North
A - 3
C&S Engineers, I nc
Syracuse, NY 13212
File Name : 3638 SF-Connector
Page No : 1
Exit 7 Connector
Southbound
State Fair Blvd
Westbound Northbound
State Fair Blvd
Eastbound
Start Time Right Thru Left Hev Veh Right Thru Left Hev Veh Right Thru Left Hev Veh Right Thru Left Hev Veh Int. Total
04:00 PM 134 0 25 10 2 31 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 13 1 2 222
04:15 PM 139 0 25 7 0 27 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 3 227
04:30 PM 125 0 17 7 0 22 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 19 1 3 195
04:45 PM 122 0 20 4 0 23 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 23 1 2 197
Total 520 0 87 28 2 103 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 77 3 10 841
05:00 PM 117 0 20 3 0 17 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 29 2 1 190
05:15 PM 136 0 17 5 0 22 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 19 1 1 203
05:30 PM 92 0 8 4 1 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 5 1 149
05:45 PM 98 0 15 3 0 27 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 24 4 3 176
Total 443 0 60 15 1 78 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 98 12 6 718
06:00 PM 83 0 15 3 1 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 3 0 148
06:15 PM 96 0 25 3 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 1 0 160
06:30 PM 72 0 16 2 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 1 125
06:45 PM 77 0 9 1 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 1 2 123
Total 328 0 65 9 1 61 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 84 5 3 556
Grand Total 1291 0 212 52 4 242 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 259 20 19 2115
Apprch % 83 0 13.6 3.3 1.5 92.4 0 6.1 0 0 0 0 0 86.9 6.7 6.4
Total % 61 0 10 2.5 0.2 11.4 0 0.8 0 0 0 0 0 12.2 0.9 0.9
A - 4
C&S Engineers, I nc
Syracuse, NY 13212
Page No : 2
Exit 7 Connector
Southbound
State Fair Blvd
Westbound Northbound
State Fair Blvd
Eastbound
Start Time Right Thru Left Hev Veh App. Total Right Thru Left Hev Veh App. Total Right Thru Left Hev Veh App. Total Right Thru Left Hev Veh App. Total Int. Total
04:00 PM 134 0 25 10 169 2 31 0 4 37 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 1 2 16 222
04:15 PM 139 0 25 7 171 0 27 0 4 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 3 25 227
04:30 PM 125 0 17 7 149 0 22 0 1 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 1 3 23 195
04:45 PM 122 0 20 4 146 0 23 0 2 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 1 2 26 197
Total Volume 520 0 87 28 635 2 103 0 11 116 0 0 0 0 0 0 77 3 10 90 841
% App. Total 81.9 0 13.7 4.4 1.7 88.8 0 9.5 0 0 0 0 0 85.6 3.3 11.1
PHF .935 .000 .870 .700 .928 .250 .831 .000 .688 .784 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .837 .750 .833 .865 .926
A - 5
C&S Engineers, I nc
Syracuse, NY 13212
Page No : 3
Exit 7 Connector

S
t
a
t
e

F
a
i
r

B
l
v
d

S
t
a
t
e

F
a
i
r

B
l
v
d

Right
520
Thru
0
Left
87
Hev
Veh
28
In Out Total
5 635 640
R
i
g
h
t2

T
h
r
u
1
0
3

L
e
f
t
0

H
e
v
V
e
h1
1

O
u
t
T
o
t
a
l
I
n
1
6
4

1
1
6

2
8
0

Left
0
Thru
0
Right
0
Hev
Veh
0
Out Total In
0 0 0
L
e
f
t
3

T
h
r
u
7
7

R
i
g
h
t 0

H
e
v
V
e
h 1
0

T
o
t
a
l
O
u
t
I
n
6
2
3

9
0

7
1
3


Unshifted
Peak Hour Data
North
A - 6
C&S Engineers, I nc
Syracuse, NY 13212
File Name : 1387 PTT SF-Pumphouse
Page No : 1
Southbound
State Fair Blvd
Westbound
Pumphouse Rd
Northbound
State Fair Blvd
Eastbound
04:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 104 0 2 2 0 0 0 1 59 0 3 171
04:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 89 0 4 1 0 1 0 0 61 0 0 156
04:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 83 0 3 1 0 3 0 0 65 0 4 159
04:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 95 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 72 0 3 174
Total 0 0 0 0 0 371 0 10 7 0 4 0 1 257 0 10 660
05:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 90 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 69 0 3 164
05:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 113 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 67 0 3 188
05:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 79 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 65 0 4 151
05:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 73 1 1 4 0 1 0 0 69 0 0 149
Total 0 0 0 0 0 355 1 5 8 0 2 0 1 270 0 10 652
06:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 64 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 66 0 1 132
06:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 58 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 61 0 0 119
06:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 59 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 54 0 0 115
06:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 57 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 63 0 1 121
Total 0 0 0 0 0 238 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 244 0 2 487
Grand Total 0 0 0 0 0 964 1 15 16 0 8 0 2 771 0 22 1799
Apprch % 0 0 0 0 0 98.4 0.1 1.5 66.7 0 33.3 0 0.3 97 0 2.8
Total % 0 0 0 0 0 53.6 0.1 0.8 0.9 0 0.4 0 0.1 42.9 0 1.2
A - 7
C&S Engineers, I nc
Syracuse, NY 13212
Page No : 2
Southbound
State Fair Blvd
Westbound
Pumphouse Rd
Northbound
State Fair Blvd
Eastbound
04:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 83 0 3 86 1 0 3 0 4 0 65 0 4 69 159
04:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 95 0 1 96 3 0 0 0 3 0 72 0 3 75 174
05:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 0 0 90 1 0 0 0 1 1 69 0 3 73 164
05:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 113 0 3 116 2 0 0 0 2 0 67 0 3 70 188
Total Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 381 0 7 388 7 0 3 0 10 1 273 0 13 287 685
% App. Total 0 0 0 0 0 98.2 0 1.8 70 0 30 0 0.3 95.1 0 4.5
PHF .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .843 .000 .583 .836 .583 .000 .250 .000 .625 .250 .948 .000 .813 .957 .911
A - 8
C&S Engineers, I nc
Syracuse, NY 13212
Page No : 3

S
t
a
t
e

F
a
i
r

B
l
v
d

S
t
a
t
e

F
a
i
r

B
l
v
d

Pumphouse Rd
Right
0
Thru
0
Left
0
Hev
Veh
0
In Out Total
0 0 0
R
i
g
h
t0

T
h
r
u
3
8
1

L
e
f
t
0

H
e
v
V
e
h
7

O
u
t
T
o
t
a
l
I
n
2
8
0

3
8
8

6
6
8

Left
3
Thru
0
Right
7
Hev
Veh
0
Out Total In
1 10 11
L
e
f
t
0

T
h
r
u
2
7
3

R
i
g
h
t 1

H
e
v
V
e
h 1
3

T
o
t
a
l
O
u
t
I
n
3
8
4

2
8
7

6
7
1


Unshifted
Peak Hour Data
North
A - 9
C&S Engineers, I nc
Syracuse, NY 13212
File Name : 3639-3640 K-J SF-Ramps Bridge St
Page No : 1
690 EB off-ramp
Southbound
State Fair Blvd
Westbound
Bridge St (RT 297)
Northbound
State Fair Blvd
Eastbound
Start Time Right Thru Left Trucks Right Thru Left Trucks Right Thru Left Trucks Right Thru Left Trucks Int. Total
04:00 PM 11 27 3 4 2 92 72 10 3 44 45 7 18 5 26 2 371
04:15 PM 14 24 10 6 2 79 84 12 2 47 49 4 20 10 22 0 385
04:30 PM 8 23 4 5 2 73 59 3 6 39 50 7 29 11 29 1 349
04:45 PM 12 33 12 4 2 89 66 6 3 37 39 3 29 9 23 0 367
Total 45 107 29 19 8 333 281 31 14 167 183 21 96 35 100 3 1472
05:00 PM 15 25 5 1 2 70 61 3 8 42 62 4 22 14 24 0 358
05:15 PM 10 15 8 2 4 87 71 9 2 38 68 4 20 11 20 2 371
05:30 PM 13 15 13 1 5 49 48 3 4 44 55 2 12 10 31 2 307
05:45 PM 9 24 13 2 3 61 54 6 4 39 47 6 19 10 25 0 322
Total 47 79 39 6 14 267 234 21 18 163 232 16 73 45 100 4 1358
06:00 PM 12 18 7 1 6 60 47 2 3 37 46 3 10 15 23 1 291
06:15 PM 12 23 10 2 12 49 49 2 3 27 37 0 15 12 28 0 281
06:30 PM 17 13 1 1 5 53 36 1 1 42 34 3 14 10 18 0 249
06:45 PM 11 13 12 2 1 48 30 0 3 26 20 0 12 13 24 1 216
Total 52 67 30 6 24 210 162 5 10 132 137 6 51 50 93 2 1037
Grand Total 144 253 98 31 46 810 677 57 42 462 552 43 220 130 293 9 3867
Apprch % 27.4 48.1 18.6 5.9 2.9 50.9 42.6 3.6 3.8 42 50.2 3.9 33.7 19.9 44.9 1.4
Total % 3.7 6.5 2.5 0.8 1.2 20.9 17.5 1.5 1.1 11.9 14.3 1.1 5.7 3.4 7.6 0.2
A - 10
C&S Engineers, I nc
Syracuse, NY 13212
Page No : 2
690 EB off-ramp
Southbound
State Fair Blvd
Westbound
Bridge St (RT 297)
Northbound
State Fair Blvd
Eastbound
Start Time Right Thru Left Trucks App. Total Right Thru Left Trucks App. Total Right Thru Left Trucks App. Total Right Thru Left Trucks App. Total Int. Total
04:00 PM 11 27 3 4 45 2 92 72 10 176 3 44 45 7 99 18 5 26 2 51 371
04:15 PM 14 24 10 6 54 2 79 84 12 177 2 47 49 4 102 20 10 22 0 52 385
04:30 PM 8 23 4 5 40 2 73 59 3 137 6 39 50 7 102 29 11 29 1 70 349
04:45 PM 12 33 12 4 61 2 89 66 6 163 3 37 39 3 82 29 9 23 0 61 367
Total Volume 45 107 29 19 200 8 333 281 31 653 14 167 183 21 385 96 35 100 3 234 1472
% App. Total 22.5 53.5 14.5 9.5 1.2 51 43 4.7 3.6 43.4 47.5 5.5 41 15 42.7 1.3
PHF .804 .811 .604 .792 .820 1.000 .905 .836 .646 .922 .583 .888 .915 .750 .944 .828 .795 .862 .375 .836 .956
A - 11
C&S Engineers, I nc
Syracuse, NY 13212
Page No : 3
690 EB off-ramp

S
t
a
t
e

F
a
i
r

B
l
v
d

S
t
a
t
e

F
a
i
r

B
l
v
d

Bridge St (RT 297)
Right
45
Thru
107
Left
29
Trucks
19
In Out Total
275 200 475
R
i
g
h
t8

T
h
r
u
3
3
3

L
e
f
t
2
8
1

T
r
u
c
k
s
3
1

O
u
t
T
o
t
a
l
I
n
7
8

6
5
3

7
3
1

Left
183
Thru
167
Right
14
Trucks
21
Out Total In
484 385 869
L
e
f
t
1
0
0

T
h
r
u
3
5

R
i
g
h
t
9
6

T
r
u
c
k
s
3

T
o
t
a
l
O
u
t
I
n
5
6
1

2
3
4

7
9
5


Unshifted
Peak Hour Data
North
A - 12
C&S Engineers, I nc
Syracuse, NY 13212
File Name : 1388 April SF-Willis
Page No : 1
Southbound
State Fair Blvd
Westbound
Willis Ave
Northbound
State Fair Blvd
Eastbound
04:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 32 0 27 5 25 16 0 10 117
04:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 15 0 28 5 33 15 0 6 104
04:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 25 0 15 2 30 9 0 9 92
04:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 19 3 34 10 0 5 93
Total 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 94 0 89 15 122 50 0 30 406
05:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 0 18 2 31 14 0 2 93
05:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 21 5 32 8 0 3 93
05:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 16 1 21 12 0 1 72
05:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 27 0 21 2 27 14 0 4 96
Total 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 98 0 76 10 111 48 0 10 354
06:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 17 2 32 8 0 2 78
06:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 17 1 27 18 0 4 79
06:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 15 0 19 9 0 2 61
06:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 3 0 24 12 0 1 54
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 59 0 52 3 102 47 0 9 272
Grand Total 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 3 251 0 217 28 335 145 0 49 1032
Apprch % 0 0 0 0 0 42.9 14.3 42.9 50.6 0 43.8 5.6 63.3 27.4 0 9.3
Total % 0 0 0 0 0 0.3 0.1 0.3 24.3 0 21 2.7 32.5 14.1 0 4.7
A - 13
C&S Engineers, I nc
Syracuse, NY 13212
Page No : 2
Southbound
State Fair Blvd
Westbound
Willis Ave
Northbound
State Fair Blvd
Eastbound
04:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 32 0 27 5 64 25 16 0 10 51 117
04:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 15 0 28 5 48 33 15 0 6 54 104
04:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 25 0 15 2 42 30 9 0 9 48 92
04:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 19 3 44 34 10 0 5 49 93
Total Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 6 94 0 89 15 198 122 50 0 30 202 406
% App. Total 0 0 0 0 0 33.3 16.7 50 47.5 0 44.9 7.6 60.4 24.8 0 14.9
PHF .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .500 .250 .750 .750 .734 .000 .795 .750 .773 .897 .781 .000 .750 .935 .868
A - 14
C&S Engineers, I nc
Syracuse, NY 13212
Page No : 3

S
t
a
t
e

F
a
i
r

B
l
v
d

S
t
a
t
e

F
a
i
r

B
l
v
d

Willis Ave
Right
0
Thru
0
Left
0
Hev
Veh
0
In Out Total
0 0 0
R
i
g
h
t0

T
h
r
u
2

L
e
f
t
1

H
e
v
V
e
h
3

O
u
t
T
o
t
a
l
I
n
1
4
4

6

1
5
0

Left
89
Thru
0
Right
94
Hev
Veh
15
Out Total In
123 198 321
L
e
f
t
0

T
h
r
u
5
0

R
i
g
h
t
1
2
2

H
e
v
V
e
h 3
0

T
o
t
a
l
O
u
t
I
n
9
1

2
0
2

2
9
3


Unshifted
Peak Hour Data
North
A - 15
Onondaga County
Traffic Analysis
May 12, 2014
Amphitheater Data
Number of attendees 17,500
Number of events 15-20
Date of completion 2016 with a possible event in Fall 2015
Assumptions
Assumed VOR = 2.5 occupants per vehicle
No assumed mode share reductions
Assume 80% of trips arrive during 1 hour for sold out event
Assume 100% try to leave in 1 hour
Assume 25 centro buses will make 75 total shuttle trips (see shuttle estimates tab)
Growth rate =0.5% (see growth rate tab)
2007 state fair counts provided by the NYSDOT were used to estimate trip distribution (see map below & 2007 state fair counts tab)
Assumed attendance Vehicle Trips 80%
17,500 7000 5600
500 200
34%
3%
12%
19%
11%
21%
F:\Project\125A - ONONDAGA COUNTY\125407100 LakeviewAmphitheater\Planning-Study\Technical Information\Traffic\volume worksheets.xlsxTrip Generation 5/30/2014
A - 16
622
792
358
640 1398
0
0
1 12
456 8
6
2
2
96 848
7
0
0 181
2
7
5
333
4
5
1
0
7
2
9
281
78
4
8
4
1
8
3
1
6
7
1
4
364
7
9
2
561
2
3
1
100
35
Existing PM Peak Hour
2014 Volumes
0
3
7
1
6
3
5 0
0
371
264
1
47
6
3
3
375
2
5
8
257 11
2
6
9 607
5
103
5
2
00
8
7
0
164
0
0
0 0
7
0
3
623
8
0
3
24 3
5
9
3
5
9
3 16
8
0
3
1
30
590
0
6
1
1
77
612 2
1
0
5
050
1
1
3
8
0
0 5
8 616
183
122 306
2
6
3
91
1
7
2
50
0
3
1
4
7 0
0
2
1
144
1
2
3
8
9
9
4
State Fair Blvd
P
u
m
p
h
o
u
s
e

R
d

(
f
r
o
m

6
9
0

E
B

r
a
m
p
)
State Fair Blvd
B
r
id
g
e

S
t

(
R
T

6
9
0

E
B

o
f
f

r
a
m
p
State Fair Blvd
690 WB off-ramp
(Exit 7)
E
x
it

7

C
o
n
e
n
c
t
o
r
State Fair Blvd to
690 EB
W
illis

A
v
e
to 695 SB
to 690 WB
6
9
0

E
B

o
n

r
a
m
p
F:\Project\125A - ONONDAGA COUNTY\125407100LakeviewAmphitheater\Planning-Study\Technical Information\Traffic\volume worksheets.xlsxExistingPMPkHr Vol 5/30/2014
A - 17
Background Volume Estimation
Typical weeknight counts from NYSDOT Traffic Data Viewer
NYSDOT Station 336077 330906 330019 333004
Location SFB (just E of Pumphouse) SFB (931B) RT 297 Exit 7
10:00 PM 116 237 184 117
4:00 PM 640 1225 838 752
% volume 18% 19% 22% 16% 19%
Volumes at 10 PM are approximately 19% of the volu
F:\Project\125A - ONONDAGA COUNTY\125407100 Lakeview Amphitheater\Planning-Study\Technical Information\Traffic\volume worksheets.xlsxoutgoing background volumes 5/30/2014
A - 18
Background PM Peak Hour
2016 Volumes Background Growth Rate
Build Out Years
622
792
358
640 1398
123 309
1
7
4
0
260 11 35 368 78 0 51
9
0
09
5
7
1
0
629
2
6
6
3 101
8
1
97 857 0 0
0
0
375 183
2
7
8
336 613
5
104
000
6
2
8
7
0
7
618
284
5
2
50
8
8
79
4
8
9
1
8
5
1
6
9
1
4
1
166 145
0
000
1
2
4
92
185
1
4
8 0
0
2
1
0
6
2
7
2
0 0
3
000
2
0
0 0
3
7
5
6
4
1
461
0 4
5
1
0
8
2
9
267
1
407
6
3
9
379
8
0
0
567
8
2
6
1
0
2
3
3
1 12
8 622
0
0
1
1
3
8
0
0
0.5%
2
24 3
5
9
9
5
9
9
16
8
0
3
1
30
596
0
6
1
7
050
5
State Fair Blvd
P
u
m
p
h
o
u
s
e

R
d

(
f
r
o
m
6
9
0
E
B

r
a
m
p
)
State Fair Blvd
B
r
id
g
e

S
t

(
R
T

2
9
7
)
6
9
0
E
B

o
f
f
r
a
m
p
State Fair Blvd
690WB off-ramp
(Exit 7)
E
x
it

7

C
o
n
e
n
c
t
o
r
State Fair Blvd to
690EB
W
illis
A
v
e
to 695SB
to 690WB
6
9
0
E
B

o
n

r
a
m
p
F:\Project\125A - ONONDAGA COUNTY\125407100 LakeviewAmphitheater\Planning-Study\Technical Information\Traffic\volume worksheets.xlsx2016 Back PMIn 5/30/2014
A - 19
During 2007 state fair
Distribution Estimation
Map Key 1 2 3 4 7 8 30 30 Total Total
NYSDOT Station 330246 330246 330545 330545 330135 330135 9324 9324 2007 2007 6157 6157 Inbound Outbound
Movement 690 EB (W) 690 WB (W) 690 EB (E) 690 WB (E) 695 SB 695 NB 297 NB 297 SB SFB (SB/EB) SFB (NB/WB) Willis NB* Willis SB
1,4,8, 30NB, 2007S/EB,
Willis NB 2,3,7, 30SB, 2007N/WB
4pm 624 781 1066 1073 799 603 385 318 357 210 110 3152 3174
5pm 694 808 1013 1101 835 627 354 272 359 201 119 3254 3129
AADT 7317 8297 15813 13483 6554 6864 3779 3118 2791 1871 800 35034 35653
20% 25% 34% 34% 25% 19% 12% 10% 11% 7% 3% 100% 100%
21% 26% 32% 34% 27% 19% 11% 9% 11% 6% 4% 100% 100%
21% 23% 44% 38% 18% 20% 11% 9% 8% 5% 2% 100% 100%
Say 21.0% 25.0% 33.0% 34.0% 26.0% 19.0% 12.0% 9.0% 11.0% 7.0% 3.0%
* Based onexistingtraffic,49%ofNB
trafficturnleftontoStateFairBlvd.
VolumesnotedaboveforWillisNBis
49%ofNBtrafficthatisassumedtobe
headingtoevent.
F:\Project\125A - ONONDAGA COUNTY\125407100 Lakeview Amphitheater\Planning-Study\Technical Information\Traffic\volume worksheets.xlsx2007 state fair counts 5/30/2014
A - 20
PM Peak Hour Proposed Traffic
2016 Small Event Volumes - All
Inbound
622
792
358
640 1398
24 3
6
6
7
6
6
7
16
8
68
3
1
30
596
0
6
1
7
1
3
2
50
137
8 754
0
0
2
1
1
203
8
0
0
0 0
3
7
5
6
6
3
541
0 4
5
1
0
8
1
0
9
289
1
407
6
6
1
379
8
2
2
567
8
2
8
3
0
2
5
5
1 12
1
166 145
0
000
1
2
4
98
191
1
4
8
0
0
2
1
1
2
2
7
8
0 0
3
000
8
0
0
0
375 263
2
7
8
336 613
1
3
7
104
000
6
2
8
8
3
3
750
284
5
2
50
8
8
205
4
8
9
1
8
5
1
6
9
3
8
123 315
1
7
4
0
282 11 57 392 78 0 51
9
6
09
5
8
3
6
629
2
7
2
129 101
2
0
7
97 881 0 0
State Fair Blvd
P
u
m
p
h
o
u
s
e

R
d

(
f
r
o
m
6
9
0
E
B

r
a
m
p
)
State Fair Blvd
B
r
id
g
e

S
t

(
R
T

2
9
7
)
6
9
0
E
B

o
f
f
r
a
m
p
State Fair Blvd
690WB off-ramp
(Exit 7)
E
x
it

7

C
o
n
e
n
c
t
o
r
State Fair Blvd to
690EB
W
illis
A
v
e
to 695SB
to 690WB
6
9
0
E
B

o
n

r
a
m
p
F:\Project\125A - ONONDAGA COUNTY\125407100 LakeviewAmphitheater\Planning-Study\Technical Information\Traffic\volume worksheets.xlsx2016 PMSmall PropTraf InA1 5/30/2014
A - 21
PM Peak Hour Proj ect Traffic Small Event =500 attendees
2016 Small Event Volumes - Project Trips Total Project Trips
Outbound
622
792
358
640 1398
1
1
4 3
2
0
1
0
2
0
2
1
2
0
2
0
0 1
202 318
20
113
0
3
1
7
78
2
2
60
9
1
200
5 1
1
1
4
0
0 1
0
01
6
5
5
2
0 0
9
3
1
4
4 0
0
93
1
000
0
51
0
2
16
78
2
2
4
5
2
6
0
317 0
35 5
3
166 316
9
15
2
0
1
2
6
0 0
0
000
0
105 96
0
29
1
8
1
4
3
94
2
5
4
210
2
6
1
246
1
2
4
17
0
000
3
0
1
7
1
0
7
0
65
01
1
1
7
3
5
0 35
9
6
88
5
0
0
4
4
19
1
5
1
49 2 7 70
3
2
3
15
0 2
1
20
18 187 0 0
State Fair Blvd
P
u
m
p
h
o
u
s
e

R
d

(
fr
o
m

6
9
0

E
B

r
a
m
p
)
State Fair Blvd
B
r
id
g
e

S
t
(
R
T

2
9
7
)
6
9
0

E
B
o
ff
r
a
m
p
State Fair Blvd
690 WB off-ramp
(Exit 7)
E
x
it

7

C
o
n
e
n
c
t
o
r
State Fair Blvd to
690 EB
W
illis
A
v
e
Trip Distribution to 695 SB
Trip Distibution to
690 WB
6
9
0

E
B
o
n

r
a
m
p
Trip Distribution to
690 EB
Trip Distribution to Bridge St
Pumphouse
Willis Ave
690 EB
F:\Project\125A - ONONDAGA COUNTY\125407100 LakeviewAmphitheater\Planning-Study\Technical Information\Traffic\volume worksheets.xlsx2016 PMSmPropTraf out A1 5/30/2014
A - 22
Shuttle Estimates/Assumptions
Transit bus 'crush capacity' = 60
from University Hill Park & Ride Feasibility Study
Brown lot capacity = 3500 vehicles
vehicle occupancy ratio = 2.5 occupants per vehicle
Number of attendees needed to shuttle = 8750
Assumed roundtrip time = 20 min
Assume buses operate 2 hours before show start time
Number of roundtrips per bus for 2 hours = 6
Each bus can carry = 360 for 2 hours
Number of buses needed = 24.30556 say 25
say 25 buses make 3 runs each during peak hour = 75 trips
F:\Project\125A - ONONDAGA COUNTY\125407100 Lakeview Amphitheater\Planning-Study\Technical Information\Traffic\volume worksheets.xlsxshuttle estimates 5/30/2014
A - 23
PM Peak Hour Project Traffic Large event - 17,500 attendees
2016 Large Event Volumes - All Trips Total Project Trips
Inbound
A1 shuttle trips = 75
check = 5600
622
34%
1904
19%
1064
29
792
11%
616 21% 672 168
1176
358
640 1398 12% 3%
2
5
0
3 2819 16
8
1904
0
2
9
0
5
2822
8
3
0
0 920
83 1612
3
1
30
596
0
5600
24 3
2
5
0
3
0
0
2931
411 688
9
2
0
284
0 0
3
7
5
2
4
3
3
0
0
375 1247
2
7
8
2
9
1139
2059
260
6
9
2
9
1
5
5
8
7
0
3
1
5
2
9
1608 170
104
8
8
0
4
8
9
6
0
00
1
2
5
5
379
2
0
1
4
1706
1
5
3
2
1
8
5
1
6
9
6
8
6
0
704
1
40
000
0
1
1
0
9
1
0
8
1
1
8
3
75
75
8
7
7
0
3
0
8
101
8
2
8
750
1
7
4
0 00
0
826 166
2
7
4
4
4
0
0
0
0
353
3
1
4
8
0
0
2
0
1525
1 1188 97 1529 0 0 123 477
1
2
4
2
5
8
09
5
0
1
145
876 1187 110 1040 78 0 51
4
3
4 1792
State Fair Blvd
P
u
m
p
h
o
u
s
e

R
d

(
fr
o
m

6
9
0

E
B

r
a
m
p
)
State Fair Blvd
B
r
id
g
e

S
t
(
R
T

2
9
7
)
6
9
0

E
B
o
ff
r
a
m
p
State Fair Blvd
690 WB off-ramp
(Exit 7)
E
x
it

7

C
o
n
e
n
c
t
o
r
State Fair Blvd to
690 EB
W
illis
A
v
e
to 695 SB
to 690 WB
6
9
0

E
B
o
n

r
a
m
p
Trip Distribution
from690WB -
East
Trip Distribution
from695 NB
Trip Distribution
fromBridge St
Trip Distribution from
Pumphouse
Trip Distribution
fromWillis Ave
Trip Distribution
from690EB -
West
to Brown Lot
to Orange Lot
F:\Project\125A - ONONDAGA COUNTY\125407100 LakeviewAmphitheater\Planning-Study\Technical Information\Traffic\volume worksheets.xlsx2016 PMmajor propTraf InA1 5/30/2014
A - 24
PM Peak Hour Project Traffic Major Event =17,500 attendees
2016 Large Event Volumes - All Trips Total Project Trips
Outbound
shuttle trips = 75
check =
622
3% 12% 34%
210 840 2380 792
19% 1330
21% 1470
34%
11%
770
210
840 3%
12%
358
640 1398
7000
7187
3430
5 1
1
1
4
1
1
4 3
2
0
120
113
0
1
4
8
0
3570
3
6
2
27
5
10
75
3
5
8
2
76
3
5
0
7
0
0
2382
2
4
3
3
139
2
16
76
3507 3698
1
3
5
7
0 0
1
2
8
0
0
841 75 35
3
4
1
4
3
5
0
4
3697 0
2
0
2
6
2 3621 7
6
20
0 0
8
4
1
8
9
2
2468
0
0
0
000
0 3570 75
9
8
9
1
842
3
0
2
183
3
5
0
5
3415
1
9
3
3
3
5
3
2
3
2 82 70 15
0
10
3
3
9
50
2
2
7
0
0
0 5
0
0
1
1
9
19
9
0
76
2
4
3
0
49
0
00
0
51 90 241 28
894
0
00
2
6
0
269
10 35
0 2 18 1003 0 0 233
2
3
4
1
7
01
8
17
State Fair Blvd
P
u
m
p
h
o
u
s
e

R
d

(
fr
o
m

6
9
0

E
B

r
a
m
p
)
State Fair Blvd
B
r
id
g
e

S
t
(
R
T

2
9
7
)
6
9
0

E
B
o
ff
r
a
m
p
State Fair Blvd
690 WB off-ramp
(Exit 7)
E
x
it

7

C
o
n
e
n
c
t
o
r
State Fair Blvd to
690 EB
W
illis
A
v
e
Trip Distribution to 695 SB
Trip Distibution to
690 WB
6
9
0

E
B
o
n

r
a
m
p
690 EB
Trip
Distribu
tion to
Pumphouse
Willis Ave
fromBrown Lot
fromOrange Lot
F:\Project\125A - ONONDAGA COUNTY\125407100 LakeviewAmphitheater\Planning-Study\Technical Information\Traffic\volume worksheets.xlsx2016 PMmajor propTraf out A1 5/30/2014
A - 25

Onondaga County

Appendix B:

Analysis Reports

Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing PM Peak Hour (4-5)
3: State Fair Blvd & Pumphouse Rd
5/29/2014
5/5/2014 Existing PM Peak Hour Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 1
Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 257 1 0 371 4 11
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.902
Flt Protected 0.987
Satd. Flow (prot) 1827 0 0 3505 1692 0
Flt Permitted 0.987
Satd. Flow (perm) 1827 0 0 3505 1692 0
Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 250 835 1004
Travel Time (s) 5.7 19.0 22.8
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.89 0.89 0.69 0.69
Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 3% 3% 0% 0%
Adj. Flow (vph) 286 1 0 417 6 16
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 287 0 0 417 22 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No
Lane Alignment Left Right Left Left Left Right
Median Width(ft) 12 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Turning Speed (mph) 9 15 15 9
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 23.6% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
B - 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing PM Peak Hour (4-5)
5/29/2014
KMF Page 2
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 257 1 0 371 4 11
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.89 0.89 0.69 0.69
Hourly flow rate (vph) 286 1 0 417 6 16
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 287 495 286
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 287 495 286
tC, single (s) 4.2 6.8 6.9
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 100 99 98
cM capacity (veh/h) 1265 509 717
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1
Volume Total 287 139 278 22
Volume Left 0 0 0 6
Volume Right 1 0 0 16
cSH 1700 1265 1700 646
Volume to Capacity 0.17 0.00 0.16 0.03
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 3
Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.8
Lane LOS B
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 10.8
Approach LOS B
Average Delay 0.3
B - 2
7: Bridge St &
5/29/2014
KMF Page 8
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 100 35 96 281 333 8 183 167 14 29 107 45
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 100 0 200 0 100 20 0 0
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.890 0.996 0.850 0.966
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.992
Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 3181 0 1719 3424 0 1703 1792 1524 0 1655 0
Flt Permitted 0.514 0.653 0.388 0.912
Satd. Flow (perm) 967 3181 0 1182 3424 0 695 1792 1524 0 1522 0
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 114 3 15 18
Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 824 1223 1933 1551
Travel Time (s) 18.7 27.8 43.9 35.3
Peak Hour Factor 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.79 0.79 0.79
Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 1% 1% 5% 5% 5% 6% 6% 6% 10% 10% 10%
Adj. Flow (vph) 119 42 114 299 354 9 197 180 15 37 135 57
Lane Group Flow (vph) 119 156 0 299 363 0 197 180 15 0 229 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No
Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right
Median Width(ft) 12 12 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Number of Detectors 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2
Detector Template Left Thru Left Thru Left Thru Right Left Thru
Leading Detector (ft) 20 100 20 100 20 100 20 20 100
Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Position(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Size(ft) 20 6 20 6 20 6 20 20 6
Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex
Detector 1 Channel
Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 2 Position(ft) 94 94 94 94
Detector 2 Size(ft) 6 6 6 6
Detector 2 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex
Detector 2 Channel
Detector 2 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Turn Type pm+pt pm+pt pm+pt pt+ov Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 8 1 4
Permitted Phases 2 6 8 4
B - 3
7: Bridge St &
5/29/2014
KMF Page 9
Detector Phase 5 2 1 6 3 8 8 1 4 4
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 10.0 4.0 10.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Minimum Split (s) 10.0 16.0 10.0 16.0 9.5 11.5 11.5 11.5
Total Split (s) 20.0 25.0 0.0 12.0 17.0 0.0 24.5 44.0 56.0 19.5 19.5 0.0
Total Split (%) 24.7% 30.9% 0.0% 14.8% 21.0% 0.0% 30.2% 54.3% 69.1% 24.1% 24.1% 0.0%
Maximum Green (s) 14.0 19.0 6.0 11.0 19.0 38.5 14.0 14.0
Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
All-Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 4.0
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Recall Mode None Min None Min None None None None
Act Effct Green (s) 20.4 12.7 18.3 13.7 27.8 27.8 40.0 13.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.32 0.20 0.28 0.21 0.43 0.43 0.62 0.20
v/c Ratio 0.29 0.22 0.77 0.50 0.44 0.23 0.02 0.71
Control Delay 16.1 9.2 36.6 28.0 15.2 12.6 2.8 37.6
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 16.1 9.2 36.6 28.0 15.2 12.6 2.8 37.6
LOS B A D C B B A D
Approach Delay 12.2 31.9 13.5 37.6
Approach LOS B C B D
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 81
Actuated Cycle Length: 64.3
Natural Cycle: 60
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.77
Intersection Signal Delay: 24.6 Intersection LOS: C
Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.2% ICU Level of Service B
Splits and Phases: 7: Bridge St &
B - 4
Queues Existing PM Peak Hour (4-5)
7: Bridge St &
5/29/2014
KMF Page 10
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 119 156 299 363 197 180 15 229
v/c Ratio 0.29 0.22 0.77 0.50 0.44 0.23 0.02 0.71
Control Delay 16.1 9.2 36.6 28.0 15.2 12.6 2.8 37.6
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 16.1 9.2 36.6 28.0 15.2 12.6 2.8 37.6
Queue Length 50th (ft) 30 7 86 70 47 42 0 76
Queue Length 95th (ft) 62 26 #239 #127 94 85 6 #151
Internal Link Dist (ft) 744 1143 1853 1471
Turn Bay Length (ft) 100 200 100 20
Base Capacity (vph) 554 1029 387 731 602 1083 982 348
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.21 0.15 0.77 0.50 0.33 0.17 0.02 0.66
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
B - 5
11: Exit 7 Connector &
5/29/2014
KMF Page 11
Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR SWL SWR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 3 77 103 2 87 520
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.998 0.850
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1597 1681 1806 0 1719 1538
Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1597 1681 1806 0 1719 1538
Travel Time (s) 27.8 16.6 12.5
Peak Hour Factor 0.83 0.83 0.80 0.80 0.93 0.93
Heavy Vehicles (%) 13% 13% 5% 5% 5% 5%
Adj. Flow (vph) 4 93 129 3 94 559
Lane Alignment Left Left Left Right Left Right
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Area Type: Other
B - 6
5/29/2014
KMF Page 12
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SWL SWR
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 3 77 103 2 87 520
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.83 0.83 0.80 0.80 0.93 0.93
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Percent Blockage
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) 1223
tC, single (s) 4.2 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.3 3.5 3.3
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 SW 1 SW 2
Volume Total 4 93 131 94 559
Volume Left 4 0 0 94 0
Volume Right 0 0 2 0 559
cSH 1389 1700 1700 750 912
Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.05 0.08 0.12 0.61
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 11 108
Control Delay (s) 7.6 0.0 0.0 10.5 15.0
Lane LOS A B C
Approach LOS B
Average Delay 10.7
B - 7
12: Exit 7 Connector & Exit 7 Access
5/29/2014
KMF Page 13
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 0 5 0 0 13 3 0 0 8 590 0 3
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00
Frt 0.976 0.865 0.850
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1357 0 0 1656 0 0 0 1315 1649 1649 1553
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1357 0 0 1656 0 0 0 1315 1649 1649 1553
Link Distance (ft) 550 106 548 1009
Travel Time (s) 12.5 2.4 12.5 22.9
Peak Hour Factor 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.94 0.94 0.94
Heavy Vehicles (%) 40% 40% 40% 12% 12% 12% 25% 25% 25% 4% 4% 4%
Adj. Flow (vph) 0 8 0 0 23 5 0 0 12 628 0 3
Shared Lane Traffic (%) 50%
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free
Area Type: Other
B - 8
5/29/2014
KMF Page 14
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 0 5 0 0 13 3 0 0 8 590 0 3
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.94 0.94 0.94
Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 8 0 0 23 5 0 0 12 628 0 3
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Percent Blockage
Median storage veh)
vC, conflicting volume 1272 1259 0 1265 1255 0 3 0
vCu, unblocked vol 1272 1259 0 1265 1255 0 3 0
tC, single (s) 7.5 6.9 6.6 7.2 6.6 6.3 4.3 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.9 4.4 3.7 3.6 4.1 3.4 2.4 2.2
p0 queue free % 100 91 100 100 77 100 100 61
cM capacity (veh/h) 70 88 984 91 100 1056 1480 1610
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 SE 1 NW 1 NW 2 NW 3
Volume Total 8 28 12 418 209 3
Volume Left 0 0 0 418 209 0
Volume Right 0 5 12 0 0 3
cSH 88 120 1700 1610 1610 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.09 0.23 0.01 0.39 0.39 0.00
Queue Length 95th (ft) 7 21 0 47 47 0
Control Delay (s) 49.9 43.7 0.0 8.7 8.7 0.0
Lane LOS E E A A
Approach Delay (s) 49.9 43.7 0.0 8.6
Approach LOS E E
Average Delay 10.4
B - 9
17: Willis Ave & State Fair Blvd
5/29/2014
KMF Page 15
Lane Group NBL NBR SET SER NWL NWT
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 89 94 50 122 1 2
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.931 0.904
Satd. Flow (prot) 1599 0 1468 0 0 1251
Satd. Flow (perm) 1599 0 1468 0 0 1251
Travel Time (s) 17.4 62.9 28.3
Peak Hour Factor 0.77 0.77 0.90 0.90 0.75 0.75
Heavy Vehicles (%) 8% 8% 17% 17% 50% 50%
Adj. Flow (vph) 116 122 56 136 1 3
Lane Alignment Left Right Left Right Left Left
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Area Type: Other
B - 10
5/29/2014
KMF Page 16
Movement NBL NBR SET SER NWL NWT
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 89 94 50 122 1 2
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.77 0.77 0.90 0.90 0.75 0.75
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Percent Blockage
Median storage veh)
tC, single (s) 6.5 6.3 4.6
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.6 3.4 2.7
Direction, Lane # NB 1 SE 1 NW 1
Volume Total 238 191 4
Volume Left 116 0 1
Volume Right 122 136 0
cSH 881 1700 1141
Volume to Capacity 0.27 0.11 0.00
Queue Length 95th (ft) 27 0 0
Control Delay (s) 10.6 0.0 2.7
Lane LOS B A
Approach LOS B
Average Delay 5.8
B - 11
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Small event inbound
5/29/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 1
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 282 1 0 375 4 7
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.916
Flt Protected 0.982
Satd. Flow (prot) 1827 0 0 3505 1709 0
Flt Permitted 0.982
Satd. Flow (perm) 1827 0 0 3505 1709 0
Travel Time (s) 5.7 19.0 22.8
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.89 0.89 0.69 0.69
Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 3% 3% 0% 0%
Adj. Flow (vph) 313 1 0 421 6 10
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Area Type: Other
B - 12
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Small event inbound
5/29/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 2
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 282 1 0 375 4 7
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.89 0.89 0.69 0.69
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Percent Blockage
Median storage veh)
tC, single (s) 4.2 6.8 6.9
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
Volume Left 0 0 0 6
cSH 1700 1235 1700 598
Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.2
Lane LOS B
Approach LOS B
Average Delay 0.2
B - 13
7: Bridge St &
5/29/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 8
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 101 57 97 284 336 8 185 169 38 109 108 45
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.906 0.996 0.850 0.977
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.980
Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 3238 0 1719 3428 0 1703 1792 1599 0 1712 0
Flt Permitted 0.497 0.636 0.453 0.783
Satd. Flow (perm) 935 3238 0 1151 3428 0 812 1792 1599 0 1368 0
Link Distance (ft) 824 1223 1933 1551
Travel Time (s) 18.7 27.8 43.9 35.3
Peak Hour Factor 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.79 0.79 0.79
Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 1% 1% 5% 5% 1% 6% 6% 1% 1% 10% 10%
Adj. Flow (vph) 120 68 115 302 357 9 199 182 41 138 137 57
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Detector 1 Size(ft) 20 6 20 6 20 6 20 20 6
Detector 1 Channel
Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 2 Channel
B - 14
7: Bridge St &
5/29/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 9
Detector Phase 5 2 1 6 3 8 8 1 4 4
Switch Phase
Minimum Split (s) 10.0 16.0 10.0 16.0 9.5 11.5 11.5 11.5
Total Split (s) 20.0 25.0 0.0 12.0 17.0 0.0 24.5 44.0 56.0 19.5 19.5 0.0
Total Split (%) 24.7% 30.9% 0.0% 14.8% 21.0% 0.0% 30.2% 54.3% 69.1% 24.1% 24.1% 0.0%
Maximum Green (s) 14.0 19.0 6.0 11.0 19.0 38.5 14.0 14.0
Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
All-Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
Total Lost Time (s) 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 4.0
Act Effct Green (s) 20.5 12.8 18.2 13.5 29.0 29.0 41.1 14.1
v/c Ratio 0.30 0.25 0.81 0.52 0.41 0.23 0.04 1.10
Control Delay 16.3 10.7 40.4 28.5 14.6 12.5 2.1 109.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 16.3 10.7 40.4 28.5 14.6 12.5 2.1 109.1
LOS B B D C B B A F
Approach Delay 12.9 33.9 12.5 109.1
Approach LOS B C B F
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 81
Natural Cycle: 60
Intersection Signal Delay: 39.5 Intersection LOS: D
Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.9% ICU Level of Service C
B - 15
Queues Small event inbound
7: Bridge St &
5/29/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 10
v/c Ratio 0.30 0.25 0.81 0.52 0.41 0.23 0.04 1.10
Control Delay 16.3 10.7 40.4 28.5 14.6 12.5 2.1 109.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 16.3 10.7 40.4 28.5 14.6 12.5 2.1 109.1
Queue Length 50th (ft) 31 11 87 71 47 42 0 ~149
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.22 0.18 0.81 0.52 0.32 0.17 0.04 1.10
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
B - 16
5/29/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 11
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 129 78 104 8 88 525
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.990 0.850
Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 1681 1796 0 1719 1538
Satd. Flow (perm) 1787 1681 1796 0 1719 1538
Travel Time (s) 27.8 16.6 12.5
Peak Hour Factor 0.83 0.83 0.80 0.80 0.93 0.93
Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 13% 5% 1% 5% 5%
Adj. Flow (vph) 155 94 130 10 95 565
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Area Type: Other
B - 17
5/29/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 12
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 129 78 104 8 88 525
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.83 0.83 0.80 0.80 0.93 0.93
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Percent Blockage
Median storage veh)
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
Volume Total 155 94 140 95 565
cSH 1449 1700 1700 444 906
Control Delay (s) 7.8 0.0 0.0 15.3 15.3
Lane LOS A C C
Approach LOS C
Average Delay 10.8
B - 18
5/29/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 13
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 132 5 0 0 13 3 0 0 8 596 68 3
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.976 0.865 0.850
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1761 0 0 1656 0 0 0 1315 1736 1881 1553
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1761 0 0 1656 0 0 0 1315 1736 1881 1553
Travel Time (s) 12.5 2.4 12.5 22.9
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.63 0.63 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.94 0.94 0.94
Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 40% 40% 12% 12% 12% 25% 25% 25% 4% 1% 4%
Adj. Flow (vph) 147 8 0 0 23 5 0 0 12 634 72 3
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Area Type: Other
B - 19
5/29/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 14
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 132 5 0 0 13 3 0 0 8 596 68 3
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.63 0.63 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.94 0.94 0.94
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Percent Blockage
Median storage veh)
tC, single (s) 7.1 6.9 6.6 7.2 6.6 6.3 4.3 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 4.4 3.7 3.6 4.1 3.4 2.4 2.2
p0 queue free % 0 90 100 100 74 99 100 61
cM capacity (veh/h) 71 77 984 78 88 963 1390 1610
Volume Total 155 28 12 634 72 3
Volume Left 147 0 0 634 0 0
cSH 71 106 1700 1610 1700 1700
Control Delay (s) 660.7 50.6 0.0 8.7 0.0 0.0
Lane LOS F F A
Approach Delay (s) 660.7 50.6 0.0 7.8
Approach LOS F F
Average Delay 120.6
B - 20
5/29/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 15
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 96 95 51 123 1 2
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.933 0.905
Satd. Flow (prot) 1600 0 1470 0 0 1251
Satd. Flow (perm) 1600 0 1470 0 0 1251
Travel Time (s) 17.4 62.9 28.3
Peak Hour Factor 0.77 0.77 0.90 0.90 0.75 0.75
Heavy Vehicles (%) 8% 8% 17% 17% 50% 50%
Adj. Flow (vph) 125 123 57 137 1 3
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Area Type: Other
B - 21
5/29/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 16
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 96 95 51 123 1 2
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.77 0.77 0.90 0.90 0.75 0.75
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Percent Blockage
Median storage veh)
tC, single (s) 6.5 6.3 4.6
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.6 3.4 2.7
Volume Left 125 0 1
cSH 878 1700 1138
Lane LOS B A
Approach LOS B
Average Delay 6.0
B - 22
Queuing and Blocking Report Small event - simtraffic queues
A1 small inbound
5/28/2014
F:\Project\125A - ONONDAGA COUNTY\125407100 Lakeview Amphitheater\Planning-Study\Technical Information\Traffic\synchro\A1 small inbound.syn SimTraffic Report
KMF Page 1
Intersection: 3: State Fair Blvd & Pumphouse Rd
Movement NB
Directions Served LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 29
Average Queue (ft) 11
95th Queue (ft) 34
Link Distance (ft) 963
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Intersection: 5: SFB to 695SB-690 WB & State Fair Blvd
Movement NW
95th Queue (ft) 27
Intersection: 6: SFB to 695SB-690 WB & SFB to 695 SB
Movement
Directions Served
Maximum Queue (ft)
Average Queue (ft)
95th Queue (ft)
Link Distance (ft)
B - 23
A1 small inbound
5/28/2014
KMF Page 2
Intersection: 7: Bridge St &
Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB
Directions Served L T TR L T TR L T R LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 101 54 48 225 375 332 124 246 45 247
Average Queue (ft) 31 11 15 121 69 66 70 77 26 127
95th Queue (ft) 71 35 39 207 203 156 131 163 54 215
Link Distance (ft) 742 742 1167 1167 1878 1462
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 200 100 20
Storage Blk Time (%) 1 5 0 4 27 2
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 9 0 8 60 7
Intersection: 11: Exit 7 Connector &
Movement EB WB SW
Directions Served L TR L
Maximum Queue (ft) 57 42 107
Average Queue (ft) 10 1 34
95th Queue (ft) 32 14 72
Intersection: 12: Exit 7 Connector & Exit 7 Access
Movement EB WB NW NW
Directions Served LT TR L R
Maximum Queue (ft) 113 55 12 28
Average Queue (ft) 58 10 1 3
95th Queue (ft) 96 33 6 16
Link Distance (ft) 439 40
Upstream Blk Time (%) 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 500 20
Storage Blk Time (%) 0
B - 24
A1 small inbound
5/28/2014
KMF Page 3
Intersection: 17: Willis Ave & State Fair Blvd
Movement NB
95th Queue (ft) 74
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 85
B - 25
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Small event outbound
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 1
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 49 0 0 93 1 1
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.932
Flt Protected 0.976
Satd. Flow (prot) 1827 0 0 3574 1728 0
Flt Permitted 0.976
Satd. Flow (perm) 1827 0 0 3574 1728 0
Travel Time (s) 5.7 19.0 22.8
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.89 0.50 0.69 0.69
Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 3% 1% 0% 0%
Adj. Flow (vph) 54 0 0 186 1 1
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Area Type: Other
B - 26
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Small event outbound
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 2
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 49 0 0 93 1 1
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.89 0.50 0.69 0.69
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Percent Blockage
Median storage veh)
tC, single (s) 4.2 6.8 6.9
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 100 100 100
Volume Left 0 0 0 1
cSH 1700 1542 1700 914
Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.0
Lane LOS A
Approach LOS A
Average Delay 0.1
B - 27
5: SFB to 695SB-690 WB & State Fair Blvd
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 3
Lane Group EBL EBR SBL SBR NWL NWR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 0 50 0 0 93 117
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 100 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Lanes 1 1 0 0 2 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.95
Frt 0.850 0.916
Flt Protected 0.978
Satd. Flow (prot) 1863 1583 0 0 3237 0
Flt Permitted 0.978
Satd. Flow (perm) 1863 1583 0 0 3237 0
Travel Time (s) 19.0 10.5 72.8
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 0 54 0 0 101 127
Lane Alignment Left Right Left Right Left Right
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9
Sign Control Free Stop Free
Area Type: Other
B - 28
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 4
Movement EBL EBR SBL SBR NWL NWR
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 0 50 0 0 93 117
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Percent Blockage
Median storage veh)
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 100 100 100
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 NW 1 NW 2
Volume Left 0 0 0 0
cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700
Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Lane LOS
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0
Approach LOS
Average Delay 0.0
B - 29
7: Bridge St &
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 7
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 19 7 18 78 166 2 35 32 3 6 21 9
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.891 0.999 0.850 0.968
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.991
Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 3185 0 1787 3571 0 1703 1792 1599 0 1681 0
Flt Permitted 0.550 0.612 0.514
Satd. Flow (perm) 1035 3185 0 1151 3571 0 921 1792 1599 0 1696 0
Link Distance (ft) 824 1223 1933 1551
Travel Time (s) 18.7 27.8 43.9 35.3
Peak Hour Factor 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.50 0.50 0.94 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.79 0.79 0.79
Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 6% 6% 1% 1% 10% 10%
Adj. Flow (vph) 23 8 21 156 332 2 38 34 3 8 27 11
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Detector 1 Size(ft) 20 6 20 6 20 6 20 20 6
Detector 1 Channel
Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 2 Channel
B - 30
7: Bridge St &
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 8
Detector Phase 5 2 1 6 3 8 8 1 4 4
Switch Phase
Minimum Split (s) 10.0 16.0 10.0 16.0 9.5 11.5 11.5 11.5
Total Split (s) 20.0 25.0 0.0 12.0 17.0 0.0 24.5 44.0 56.0 19.5 19.5 0.0
Total Split (%) 24.7% 30.9% 0.0% 14.8% 21.0% 0.0% 30.2% 54.3% 69.1% 24.1% 24.1% 0.0%
Maximum Green (s) 14.0 19.0 6.0 11.0 19.0 38.5 14.0 14.0
Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
All-Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
Total Lost Time (s) 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 4.0
Act Effct Green (s) 19.0 16.3 23.8 27.8 9.5 10.5 14.1 7.2
v/c Ratio 0.04 0.02 0.19 0.13 0.11 0.07 0.01 0.14
Control Delay 8.6 10.4 7.9 9.1 11.6 11.0 3.3 16.0
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 8.6 10.4 7.9 9.1 11.6 11.0 3.3 16.0
LOS A B A A B B A B
Approach Delay 9.6 8.7 11.0 16.0
Approach LOS A A B B
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 81
Natural Cycle: 50
Intersection Signal Delay: 9.6 Intersection LOS: A
B - 31
Queues Small event outbound
7: Bridge St &
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 9
v/c Ratio 0.04 0.02 0.19 0.13 0.11 0.07 0.01 0.14
Control Delay 8.6 10.4 7.9 9.1 11.6 11.0 3.3 16.0
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 8.6 10.4 7.9 9.1 11.6 11.0 3.3 16.0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.02 0.01 0.19 0.13 0.04 0.02 0.00 0.07
B - 32
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 10
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 1 15 20 0 91 226
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.850
Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 1681 1810 0 1787 1599
Satd. Flow (perm) 1787 1681 1810 0 1787 1599
Travel Time (s) 27.8 16.6 12.5
Peak Hour Factor 0.83 0.83 0.80 0.80 0.50 0.50
Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 13% 5% 1% 1% 1%
Adj. Flow (vph) 1 18 25 0 182 452
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Area Type: Other
B - 33
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 11
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 1 15 20 0 91 226
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.83 0.83 0.80 0.80 0.50 0.50
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Percent Blockage
Median storage veh)
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
Volume Total 1 18 25 182 452
cSH 1596 1700 1700 967 1054
Control Delay (s) 7.3 0.0 0.0 9.6 11.0
Lane LOS A A B
Approach LOS B
Average Delay 9.9
B - 34
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 12
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 0 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 202 113 0 1
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.955 0.865 0.850
Flt Protected 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1357 0 0 1620 0 0 0 1627 1736 1881 1553
Flt Permitted 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1357 0 0 1620 0 0 0 1627 1736 1881 1553
Travel Time (s) 12.5 2.4 12.5 22.9
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.63 0.63 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.67 0.67 0.50 0.94 0.94 0.94
Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 40% 40% 12% 12% 12% 25% 25% 1% 4% 1% 4%
Adj. Flow (vph) 0 2 0 0 4 2 0 0 404 120 0 1
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Area Type: Other
B - 35
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 13
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 0 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 202 113 0 1
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.63 0.63 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.67 0.67 0.50 0.94 0.94 0.94
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Percent Blockage
Median storage veh)
tC, single (s) 7.1 6.9 6.6 7.2 6.6 6.3 4.3 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 4.4 3.7 3.6 4.1 3.4 2.4 2.2
p0 queue free % 100 100 100 100 99 100 100 93
cM capacity (veh/h) 667 555 984 478 596 1056 1483 1610
Volume Total 2 5 404 120 0 1
Volume Left 0 0 0 120 0 0
cSH 555 697 1700 1610 1700 1700
Control Delay (s) 11.5 10.2 0.0 7.4 0.0 0.0
Lane LOS B B A
Approach Delay (s) 11.5 10.2 0.0 7.4
Approach LOS B B
Average Delay 1.8
B - 36
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 14
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 17 18 78 29 0 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.931 0.963
Flt Protected 0.976
Satd. Flow (prot) 1599 0 1812 0 0 1267
Flt Permitted 0.976
Satd. Flow (perm) 1599 0 1812 0 0 1267
Travel Time (s) 17.4 62.9 28.3
Peak Hour Factor 0.77 0.77 0.50 0.50 0.75 0.75
Heavy Vehicles (%) 8% 8% 1% 1% 50% 50%
Adj. Flow (vph) 22 23 156 58 0 0
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Area Type: Other
B - 37
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 15
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 17 18 78 29 0 0
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.77 0.77 0.50 0.50 0.75 0.75
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Percent Blockage
Median storage veh)
tC, single (s) 6.5 6.3 4.6
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.6 3.4 2.7
Volume Left 22 0 0
cSH 816 1700 1700
Lane LOS A
Approach LOS A
Average Delay 1.7
B - 38
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Major event inbound
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 1
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 876 1 0 375 4 1183
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.866
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot) 1827 0 0 3505 1645 0
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm) 1827 0 0 3505 1645 0
Travel Time (s) 5.7 19.0 22.8
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.89 0.89 0.69 0.90
Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 3% 3% 0% 0%
Adj. Flow (vph) 973 1 0 421 6 1314
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Area Type: Other
Intersection Capacity Utilization 126.3% ICU Level of Service H
B - 39
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Major event inbound
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 2
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 876 1 0 375 4 1183
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.89 0.89 0.69 0.90
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Percent Blockage
Median storage veh)
tC, single (s) 4.2 6.8 6.9
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
Volume Total 974 140 281 1320
Volume Left 0 0 0 6
cSH 1700 697 1700 255
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 Err
Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Err
Lane LOS F
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 Err
Approach LOS F
Average Delay 4860.4
B - 40
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 3
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 0 2059 0 0 375 192
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.95
Frt 0.850 0.949
Flt Protected 0.968
Satd. Flow (prot) 1863 808 0 0 3320 0
Flt Permitted 0.968
Satd. Flow (perm) 1863 808 0 0 3320 0
Travel Time (s) 19.0 10.5 13.0
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 100% 2% 2% 2% 2%
Adj. Flow (vph) 0 2238 0 0 408 209
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Area Type: Other
B - 41
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 4
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 0 2059 0 0 375 192
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Percent Blockage
Median storage veh)
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 100 100 100
Volume Left 0 0 0 0
cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700
Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Lane LOS
Approach LOS
Average Delay 0.0
B - 42
6: SFB to 695SB-690 WB & SFB to 695 SB
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 5
Lane Group NBT NBR SBL SBT SWL SWR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot) 1863 1863 0 0 0 0
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm) 1863 1863 0 0 0 0
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR)
Travel Time (s) 10.5 19.3 7.6
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Turn Type Perm
Protected Phases 2
Permitted Phases 2
Minimum Split (s) 20.0 20.0
Total Split (s) 20.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Split (%) 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Maximum Green (s) 16.0 16.0
Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lead/Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0
Act Effct Green (s)
Actuated g/C Ratio
v/c Ratio
Control Delay
Queue Delay
Total Delay
LOS
B - 43
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 6
Approach Delay
Approach LOS
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 20
Actuated Cycle Length: 20
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:, Start of Green
Natural Cycle: 40
Control Type: Pretimed
Splits and Phases: 6: SFB to 695SB-690 WB & SFB to 695 SB
B - 44
Queues Major event inbound
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 7
Lane Group
Lane Group Flow (vph)
v/c Ratio
Control Delay
Queue Delay
Total Delay
Queue Length 50th (ft)
Internal Link Dist (ft)
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph)
Starvation Cap Reductn
Spillback Cap Reductn
Storage Cap Reductn
Reduced v/c Ratio
B - 45
7: Bridge St &
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 8
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 101 110 97 284 411 8 185 169 686 29 108 1109
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.930 0.997 0.850 0.880
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.999
Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 3324 0 1719 3430 0 1703 1792 1599 0 1521 0
Flt Permitted 0.404 0.599 0.204 0.986
Satd. Flow (perm) 760 3324 0 1084 3430 0 366 1792 1599 0 1502 0
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 115 2 533 434
Link Distance (ft) 824 1223 1933 1551
Travel Time (s) 18.7 27.8 43.9 35.3
Peak Hour Factor 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.79 0.79 0.79
Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 1% 1% 5% 5% 1% 6% 6% 1% 1% 10% 10%
Adj. Flow (vph) 120 131 115 302 437 9 199 182 738 37 137 1404
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Detector 1 Size(ft) 20 6 20 6 20 6 20 20 6
Detector 1 Channel
Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 2 Channel
B - 46
7: Bridge St &
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 9
Detector Phase 5 2 1 6 3 8 8 1 4 4
Switch Phase
Minimum Split (s) 10.0 16.0 10.0 16.0 9.5 11.5 11.5 11.5
Total Split (s) 20.0 25.0 0.0 12.0 17.0 0.0 24.5 44.0 56.0 19.5 19.5 0.0
Total Split (%) 24.7% 30.9% 0.0% 14.8% 21.0% 0.0% 30.2% 54.3% 69.1% 24.1% 24.1% 0.0%
Maximum Green (s) 14.0 19.0 6.0 11.0 19.0 38.5 14.0 14.0
Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
All-Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
Total Lost Time (s) 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 4.0
Act Effct Green (s) 20.5 12.8 18.2 13.5 29.0 29.0 41.1 14.1
v/c Ratio 0.33 0.33 0.84 0.63 0.56 0.23 0.61 2.38
Control Delay 16.9 13.7 43.9 31.6 18.4 12.5 4.5 640.2
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 16.9 13.7 43.9 31.6 18.4 12.5 4.5 640.2
LOS B B D C B B A F
Approach Delay 14.8 36.6 8.2 640.2
Approach LOS B D A F
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 81
Natural Cycle: 150
Intersection Signal Delay: 276.1 Intersection LOS: F
B - 47
Queues Major event inbound
7: Bridge St &
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 10
v/c Ratio 0.33 0.33 0.84 0.63 0.56 0.23 0.61 2.38
Control Delay 16.9 13.7 43.9 31.6 18.4 12.5 4.5 640.2
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 16.9 13.7 43.9 31.6 18.4 12.5 4.5 640.2
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.24 0.23 0.84 0.63 0.36 0.17 0.61 2.38
B - 48
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 11
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 750 78 104 170 88 600
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.916 0.850
Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 1681 1698 0 1719 1538
Satd. Flow (perm) 1787 1681 1698 0 1719 1538
Travel Time (s) 27.8 16.6 12.5
Peak Hour Factor 0.83 0.83 0.80 0.80 0.93 0.93
Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 13% 5% 1% 5% 5%
Adj. Flow (vph) 904 94 130 213 95 645
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Area Type: Other
B - 49
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 12
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 750 78 104 170 88 600
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.83 0.83 0.80 0.80 0.93 0.93
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Percent Blockage
Median storage veh)
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
Volume Total 904 94 342 95 645
cSH 1222 1700 1700 14 795
Queue Length 95th (ft) 180 0 0 Err 219
Control Delay (s) 15.8 0.0 0.0 Err 25.8
Lane LOS C F D
Approach LOS F
Average Delay 469.8
B - 50
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 13
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 915 5 0 0 13 3 0 0 83 596 1904 3
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00
Frt 0.976 0.865 0.850
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1787 0 0 1656 0 0 0 822 0 3507 1553
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1787 0 0 1656 0 0 0 822 0 3507 1553
Travel Time (s) 12.5 2.4 12.5 11.6
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.63 0.63 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.94 0.94 0.94
Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 40% 40% 12% 12% 12% 25% 25% 100% 4% 1% 4%
Adj. Flow (vph) 1017 8 0 0 23 5 0 0 124 634 2026 3
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Area Type: Other
B - 51
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 14
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 915 5 0 0 13 3 0 0 83 596 1904 3
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.63 0.63 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.94 0.94 0.94
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Percent Blockage
Median storage veh)
tC, single (s) 7.5 7.3 7.7 7.7 6.7 7.1 4.6 4.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 4.4 3.7 3.6 4.1 3.4 2.5 2.2
p0 queue free % 0 0 100 0 0 98 100 61
cM capacity (veh/h) 0 3 973 0 4 220 203 1607
Volume Total 1025 28 124 1309 1350 3
Volume Left 1017 0 0 634 0 0
cSH 0 5 1700 1607 1700 1700
Volume to Capacity Err 5.35 0.07 0.39 0.79 0.00
Queue Length 95th (ft) Err Err 0 48 0 0
Control Delay (s) Err Err 0.0 7.1 0.0 0.0
Lane LOS F F A
Approach Delay (s) Err Err 0.0 3.5
Approach LOS F F
Average Delay Err
B - 52
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 15
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 258 95 51 123 1 2
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.960 0.905
Satd. Flow (prot) 1709 0 1470 0 0 1251
Satd. Flow (perm) 1709 0 1470 0 0 1251
Travel Time (s) 17.4 62.9 28.3
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.77 0.90 0.90 0.75 0.75
Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 8% 17% 17% 50% 50%
Adj. Flow (vph) 287 123 57 137 1 3
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Area Type: Other
B - 53
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 16
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 258 95 51 123 1 2
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.77 0.90 0.90 0.75 0.75
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Percent Blockage
Median storage veh)
tC, single (s) 6.4 6.3 4.6
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 3.4 2.7
Volume Left 287 0 1
cSH 878 1700 1138
Lane LOS B A
Approach LOS B
Average Delay 8.6
B - 54
24: State Fair Blvd & Brown - West
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 17
Lane Group SEL SET NWT NWR SWL SWR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 1792 267 567 0 75 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frt
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1800 3539 0 902 1863
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1800 3539 0 902 1863
Travel Time (s) 13.0 46.6 13.7
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 2% 2% 2% 100% 2%
Adj. Flow (vph) 1991 297 630 0 83 0
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Area Type: Other
B - 55
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 18
Movement SEL SET NWT NWR SWL SWR
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 1792 267 567 0 75 0
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Percent Blockage
Median storage veh)
tC, single (s) 4.1 8.8 6.9
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 4.5 3.3
Direction, Lane # SE 1 NW 1 NW 2 SW 1 SW 2
Volume Total 2288 420 210 83 0
cSH 955 1700 1700 0 1700
Volume to Capacity 2.08 0.25 0.12 Err 0.00
Lane LOS F F A
Approach Delay (s) 504.0 0.0 Err
Approach LOS F
Average Delay Err
B - 56
26: State Fair Blvd & Brown - East
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 19
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 0 308 567 1139 0 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.900
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1863 3206 0 1863 0
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1863 3206 0 1863 0
Travel Time (s) 46.6 13.1 7.8
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 1% 2% 2%
Adj. Flow (vph) 0 342 630 1266 0 0
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Area Type: Other
B - 57
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 20
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 0 308 567 1139 0 0
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Percent Blockage
Median storage veh)
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 100 100 100
Direction, Lane # SE 1 NW 1 NW 2 SW 1
Volume Left 0 0 0 0
cSH 311 1700 1700 1700
Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Lane LOS A
Approach LOS A
Average Delay 0.0
B - 58
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Major event outbound
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 1
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 49 49 0 841 1 1
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.932 0.932
Flt Protected 0.976
Satd. Flow (prot) 1703 0 0 3505 1728 0
Flt Permitted 0.976
Satd. Flow (perm) 1703 0 0 3505 1728 0
Travel Time (s) 5.7 19.0 22.8
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.89 0.89 0.69 0.90
Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 3% 3% 0% 0%
Adj. Flow (vph) 54 54 0 945 1 1
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Area Type: Other
B - 59
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Major event outbound
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 2
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 49 49 0 841 1 1
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.89 0.89 0.69 0.90
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Percent Blockage
Median storage veh)
tC, single (s) 4.2 6.8 6.9
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 100 100 100
Volume Left 0 0 0 1
cSH 1700 1472 1700 602
Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.0
Lane LOS B
Approach LOS B
Average Delay 0.0
B - 60
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 3
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 0 50 0 0 841 2837
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.95
Frt 0.850 0.884
Flt Protected 0.989
Satd. Flow (prot) 1863 808 0 0 3159 0
Flt Permitted 0.989
Satd. Flow (perm) 1863 808 0 0 3159 0
Travel Time (s) 19.0 10.5 13.0
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 100% 2% 2% 2% 2%
Adj. Flow (vph) 0 54 0 0 914 3084
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Area Type: Other
B - 61
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 4
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 0 50 0 0 841 2837
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Percent Blockage
Median storage veh)
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 100 100 100
Volume Left 0 0 0 0
cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700
Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Lane LOS
Approach LOS
Average Delay 0.0
B - 62
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 5
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 1480 1357 0 0 0 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.850
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot) 1863 1583 0 0 0 0
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm) 1863 1583 0 0 0 0
Satd. Flow (RTOR)
Travel Time (s) 10.5 19.3 7.6
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 1609 1475 0 0 0 0
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Turn Type Perm
Protected Phases 2
Permitted Phases 2
Total Split (s) 20.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Split (%) 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lead/Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Act Effct Green (s) 20.0 20.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 1.00 1.00
v/c Ratio 0.86 0.93
Control Delay 7.4 14.9
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 7.4 14.9
LOS A B
B - 63
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 6
Approach Delay 11.0
Approach LOS B
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 20
Natural Cycle: 40
Intersection Signal Delay: 11.0 Intersection LOS: B
Intersection Capacity Utilization 87.4% ICU Level of Service E
B - 64
Queues Major event outbound
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 7
Lane Group NBT NBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 1609 1475
v/c Ratio 0.86 0.93
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0
Queue Length 50th (ft) 0 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) #33 #63
Internal Link Dist (ft) 380
Base Capacity (vph) 1863 1583
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.86 0.93
B - 65
7: Bridge St &
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 8
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 19 82 18 894 139 2382 35 32 3 6 21 9
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.974 0.858 0.850 0.968
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.991
Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 3481 0 1719 3060 0 1703 1792 1599 0 1681 0
Flt Permitted 0.237 0.504 0.514
Satd. Flow (perm) 446 3481 0 912 3060 0 921 1792 1599 0 1696 0
Link Distance (ft) 824 1223 1933 1551
Travel Time (s) 18.7 27.8 43.9 35.3
Peak Hour Factor 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.79 0.79 0.79
Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 1% 1% 5% 5% 1% 6% 6% 1% 1% 10% 10%
Adj. Flow (vph) 23 98 21 951 148 2534 38 34 3 8 27 11
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Detector 1 Size(ft) 20 6 20 6 20 6 20 20 6
Detector 1 Channel
Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 2 Channel
B - 66
7: Bridge St &
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 9
Detector Phase 5 2 1 6 3 8 8 1 4 4
Switch Phase
Minimum Split (s) 10.0 16.0 10.0 16.0 9.5 11.5 11.5 11.5
Total Split (s) 20.0 25.0 0.0 12.0 17.0 0.0 24.5 44.0 56.0 19.5 19.5 0.0
Total Split (%) 24.7% 30.9% 0.0% 14.8% 21.0% 0.0% 30.2% 54.3% 69.1% 24.1% 24.1% 0.0%
Maximum Green (s) 14.0 19.0 6.0 11.0 19.0 38.5 14.0 14.0
Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
All-Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
Total Lost Time (s) 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 4.0
Act Effct Green (s) 16.4 11.1 23.6 27.6 9.5 10.5 14.3 7.2
v/c Ratio 0.06 0.12 1.35 1.77dr 0.11 0.07 0.00 0.14
Control Delay 8.8 12.9 184.0 56.4 11.6 11.0 3.3 16.0
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 8.8 12.9 184.0 56.4 11.6 11.0 3.3 16.0
LOS A B F E B B A B
Approach Delay 12.2 89.8 11.0 16.0
Approach LOS B F B B
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 81
Natural Cycle: 150
Intersection Capacity Utilization 99.1% ICU Level of Service F
dr Defacto Right Lane. Recode with 1 though lane as a right lane.
B - 67
Queues Major event outbound
7: Bridge St &
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 10
v/c Ratio 0.06 0.12 1.35 1.77dr 0.11 0.07 0.00 0.14
Control Delay 8.8 12.9 184.0 56.4 11.6 11.0 3.3 16.0
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 8.8 12.9 184.0 56.4 11.6 11.0 3.3 16.0
Queue Length 50th (ft) 1 4 ~18 0 5 4 0 4
Queue Length 95th (ft) 14 30 #732 #730 23 21 2 29
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.03 0.06 1.35 1.08 0.04 0.02 0.00 0.07
B - 68
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 11
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 76 15 20 0 227 3395
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.850
Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 1681 1810 0 1719 1538
Satd. Flow (perm) 1787 1681 1810 0 1719 1538
Travel Time (s) 27.8 16.6 12.5
Peak Hour Factor 0.83 0.83 0.80 0.80 0.93 0.93
Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 13% 5% 1% 5% 5%
Adj. Flow (vph) 92 18 25 0 244 3651
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Area Type: Other
B - 69
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 12
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 76 15 20 0 227 3395
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.83 0.83 0.80 0.80 0.93 0.93
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Percent Blockage
Median storage veh)
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
Volume Total 92 18 25 244 3651
cSH 1596 1700 1700 712 1043
Queue Length 95th (ft) 5 0 0 38 Err
Control Delay (s) 7.4 0.0 0.0 12.7 Err
Lane LOS A B F
Approach LOS F
B - 70
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 13
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 75 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 3507 113 0 1
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00
Frt 0.955 0.865 0.850
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 912 0 0 1620 0 0 0 1611 0 3298 1553
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 912 0 0 1620 0 0 0 1611 0 3298 1553
Travel Time (s) 12.5 2.4 85.7 11.3
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.63 0.63 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.94 0.94 0.94
Heavy Vehicles (%) 100% 40% 40% 12% 12% 12% 25% 25% 2% 4% 1% 4%
Adj. Flow (vph) 83 2 0 0 4 2 0 0 5234 120 0 1
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Area Type: Other
B - 71
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 14
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 75 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 3507 113 0 1
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.63 0.63 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.94 0.94 0.94
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Percent Blockage
Median storage veh)
tC, single (s) 9.5 7.3 7.7 7.7 6.7 7.1 4.6 4.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 4.5 4.4 3.7 3.6 4.1 3.4 2.5 2.2
p0 queue free % 82 100 100 100 99 100 100 93
cM capacity (veh/h) 457 536 973 6 590 1053 1468 1607
Volume Total 85 5 5234 120 0 1
Volume Left 83 0 0 120 0 0
cSH 458 691 1700 1607 1700 1700
Queue Length 95th (ft) 17 1 Err 6 0 0
Control Delay (s) 14.6 10.3 0.0 7.4 0.0 0.0
Lane LOS B B A
Approach Delay (s) 14.6 10.3 0.0 7.4
Approach LOS B B
Average Delay 0.4
B - 72
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 15
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 17 18 10 233 0 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.926 0.871
Flt Protected 0.978
Satd. Flow (prot) 1641 0 1414 0 0 1267
Flt Permitted 0.978
Satd. Flow (perm) 1641 0 1414 0 0 1267
Travel Time (s) 17.4 62.9 28.3
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.77 0.90 0.90 0.75 0.75
Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 8% 17% 17% 50% 50%
Adj. Flow (vph) 19 23 11 259 0 0
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Area Type: Other
B - 73
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 16
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 17 18 10 233 0 0
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.77 0.90 0.90 0.75 0.75
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Percent Blockage
Median storage veh)
tC, single (s) 6.4 6.3 4.6
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 3.4 2.7
Volume Left 19 0 0
cSH 875 1700 1700
Lane LOS A
Approach LOS A
Average Delay 1.3
B - 74
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 17
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 0 50 183 0 75 3570
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.88
Frt 0.850
Flt Protected 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1863 3539 0 902 2787
Flt Permitted 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1863 3539 0 902 2787
Travel Time (s) 13.0 46.6 13.7
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 2% 2% 2% 100% 2%
Adj. Flow (vph) 0 56 203 0 83 3967
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Area Type: Other
B - 75
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 18
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 0 50 183 0 75 3570
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Percent Blockage
Median storage veh)
tC, single (s) 4.1 8.8 6.9
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 4.5 3.3
Direction, Lane # SE 1 NW 1 NW 2 SW 1 SW 2 SW 3
Volume Total 56 136 68 83 1983 1983
Volume Right 0 0 0 0 1983 1983
cSH 1373 1700 1700 497 934 934
Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.7 521.8 521.8
Lane LOS B F F
Approach LOS F
Average Delay 480.6
B - 76
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 19
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 0 50 183 75 0 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.956
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1863 2646 0 1863 0
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1863 2646 0 1863 0
Travel Time (s) 46.6 13.1 7.8
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 100% 2% 2%
Adj. Flow (vph) 0 56 203 83 0 0
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Area Type: Other
B - 77
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 20
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 0 50 183 75 0 0
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Percent Blockage
Median storage veh)
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 100 100 100
Volume Left 0 0 0 0
cSH 1272 1700 1700 1700
Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Lane LOS A
Approach LOS A
Average Delay 0.0
B - 78
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Major event inbound - manned
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 1
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 876 1 0 375 4 1183
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.866
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot) 1827 0 0 3505 1645 0
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm) 1827 0 0 3505 1645 0
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 32
Travel Time (s) 5.7 19.0 22.8
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.89 0.89 0.69 0.90
Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 3% 3% 0% 0%
Adj. Flow (vph) 973 1 0 421 6 1314
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Turn Type Perm
Protected Phases 4 8 2
Permitted Phases 8
Minimum Split (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
Total Split (s) 60.0 0.0 60.0 60.0 90.0 0.0
Total Split (%) 40.0% 0.0% 40.0% 40.0% 60.0% 0.0%
Maximum Green (s) 56.0 56.0 56.0 86.0
Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lead/Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0
Act Effct Green (s) 56.0 56.0 86.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.37 0.37 0.57
v/c Ratio 1.43 0.32 1.38
Control Delay 236.7 58.7 205.5
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 236.7 58.7 205.5
B - 79
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 2
LOS F E F
Approach Delay 236.7 58.7 205.5
Approach LOS F E F
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 150
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBL and 6:, Start of Green
Natural Cycle: 150
Splits and Phases: 3: State Fair Blvd & Pumphouse Rd
B - 80
Queues Major event inbound - manned
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 3
Lane Group EBT WBT NBL
Lane Group Flow (vph) 974 421 1320
v/c Ratio 1.43 0.32 1.38
Total Delay 236.7 58.7 205.5
Queue Length 50th (ft) ~1284 228 ~1703
Queue Length 95th (ft) #1546 m141 #1277
Internal Link Dist (ft) 170 755 924
Base Capacity (vph) 682 1309 957
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 1.43 0.32 1.38
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
B - 81
7: Bridge St &
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 9
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 101 110 97 284 411 8 185 169 686 29 108 1109
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.930 0.997 0.850 0.880
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.999
Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 3324 0 1719 3430 0 1703 1792 1599 0 1521 0
Flt Permitted 0.404 0.599 0.204 0.986
Satd. Flow (perm) 760 3324 0 1084 3430 0 366 1792 1599 0 1502 0
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 115 2 533 434
Link Distance (ft) 824 1223 1933 1551
Travel Time (s) 18.7 27.8 43.9 35.3
Peak Hour Factor 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.79 0.79 0.79
Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 1% 1% 5% 5% 1% 6% 6% 1% 1% 10% 10%
Adj. Flow (vph) 120 131 115 302 437 9 199 182 738 37 137 1404
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Detector 1 Size(ft) 20 6 20 6 20 6 20 20 6
Detector 1 Channel
Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 2 Channel
B - 82
7: Bridge St &
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 10
Detector Phase 5 2 1 6 3 8 8 1 4 4
Switch Phase
Minimum Split (s) 10.0 16.0 10.0 16.0 9.5 11.5 11.5 11.5
Total Split (s) 20.0 25.0 0.0 12.0 17.0 0.0 24.5 44.0 56.0 19.5 19.5 0.0
Total Split (%) 24.7% 30.9% 0.0% 14.8% 21.0% 0.0% 30.2% 54.3% 69.1% 24.1% 24.1% 0.0%
Maximum Green (s) 14.0 19.0 6.0 11.0 19.0 38.5 14.0 14.0
Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
All-Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
Total Lost Time (s) 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 4.0
Act Effct Green (s) 20.5 12.8 18.2 13.5 29.0 29.0 41.1 14.1
v/c Ratio 0.33 0.33 0.84 0.63 0.56 0.23 0.61 2.38
Control Delay 16.9 13.7 43.9 31.6 18.4 12.5 4.5 640.2
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 16.9 13.7 43.9 31.6 18.4 12.5 4.5 640.2
LOS B B D C B B A F
Approach Delay 14.8 36.6 8.2 640.2
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 81
Natural Cycle: 150
B - 83
7: Bridge St &
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 11
v/c Ratio 0.33 0.33 0.84 0.63 0.56 0.23 0.61 2.38
Control Delay 16.9 13.7 43.9 31.6 18.4 12.5 4.5 640.2
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 16.9 13.7 43.9 31.6 18.4 12.5 4.5 640.2
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.24 0.23 0.84 0.63 0.36 0.17 0.61 2.38
B - 84
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 12
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 750 78 104 170 88 600
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.916 0.850
Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 1681 1698 0 1719 1538
Satd. Flow (perm) 1787 1681 1698 0 1719 1538
Travel Time (s) 27.8 16.6 12.5
Peak Hour Factor 0.83 0.83 0.80 0.80 0.93 0.93
Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 13% 5% 1% 5% 5%
Adj. Flow (vph) 904 94 130 213 95 645
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Area Type: Other
B - 85
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Major event inbound - manned
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 13
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 750 78 104 170 88 600
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.83 0.83 0.80 0.80 0.93 0.93
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Percent Blockage
Median storage veh)
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
Volume Total 904 94 342 95 645
cSH 1222 1700 1700 14 795
Lane LOS C F D
Approach LOS F
Average Delay 469.8
B - 86
6/1/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 1
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 915 5 0 0 13 3 0 0 83 596 1904 3
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00
Frt 0.976 0.865 0.850
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1787 0 0 1656 0 0 0 822 0 3507 1553
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1787 0 0 1656 0 0 0 822 0 3507 1553
Right Turn on Red No No No No
Satd. Flow (RTOR)
Travel Time (s) 12.5 2.4 12.5 11.6
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.63 0.63 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.94 0.94 0.94
Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 40% 40% 12% 12% 12% 25% 25% 100% 4% 1% 4%
Adj. Flow (vph) 1017 8 0 0 23 5 0 0 124 634 2026 3
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Turn Type Split Free Perm Perm
Protected Phases 4 4 8 2
Permitted Phases Free 2 2
Minimum Split (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
Total Split (s) 52.0 52.0 0.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 90.0 90.0 90.0
Total Split (%) 34.7% 34.7% 0.0% 0.0% 5.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 60.0% 60.0% 60.0%
Maximum Green (s) 50.0 50.0 6.0 88.0 88.0 88.0
Yellow Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
All-Red Time (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 2.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lead/Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Act Effct Green (s) 50.0 6.0 150.0 88.0 88.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.33 0.04 1.00 0.59 0.59
v/c Ratio 1.72 0.42 0.15 1.29 0.00
Control Delay 362.5 89.8 0.4 164.7 13.0
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 362.5 89.8 0.4 164.7 13.0
B - 87
6/1/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 2
LOS F F A F B
Approach LOS F F F
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 150
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NWTL, Start of Green
Natural Cycle: 150
Splits and Phases: 12: Exit 7 Connector & Exit 7 Access
B - 88
6/1/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 3
Lane Group EBT WBT SER NWT NWR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 1025 28 124 2660 3
v/c Ratio 1.72 0.42 0.15 1.29 0.00
Control Delay 362.5 89.8 0.4 164.7 13.0
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 362.5 89.8 0.4 164.7 13.0
Queue Length 50th (ft) ~1475 27 0 ~1741 1
Queue Length 95th (ft) #1035 39 0 #1856 6
Turn Bay Length (ft) 20
Base Capacity (vph) 596 66 822 2057 911
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 1.72 0.42 0.15 1.29 0.00
B - 89
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 17
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 258 95 51 123 1 2
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.960 0.905
Satd. Flow (prot) 1709 0 1470 0 0 1251
Satd. Flow (perm) 1709 0 1470 0 0 1251
Travel Time (s) 17.4 62.9 28.3
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.77 0.90 0.90 0.75 0.75
Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 8% 17% 17% 50% 50%
Adj. Flow (vph) 287 123 57 137 1 3
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Area Type: Other
B - 90
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 18
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 258 95 51 123 1 2
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.77 0.90 0.90 0.75 0.75
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Percent Blockage
Median storage veh)
tC, single (s) 6.4 6.3 4.6
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 3.4 2.7
Volume Left 287 0 1
cSH 878 1700 1138
Lane LOS B A
Approach LOS B
Average Delay 8.6
B - 91
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 19
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 1792 267 567 0 75 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frt
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1800 3539 0 902 1863
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1800 3539 0 902 1863
Right Turn on Red No No
Satd. Flow (RTOR)
Travel Time (s) 13.0 46.6 13.7
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 2% 2% 2% 100% 2%
Adj. Flow (vph) 1991 297 630 0 83 0
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Turn Type Split Perm
Permitted Phases 8
Minimum Split (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
Total Split (s) 105.0 105.0 20.0 0.0 25.0 25.0
Total Split (%) 70.0% 70.0% 13.3% 0.0% 16.7% 16.7%
Maximum Green (s) 101.0 101.0 16.0 21.0 21.0
Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lead/Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
v/c Ratio 1.89 1.67 0.66
Total Delay 422.6 351.8 85.9
LOS F F F
Approach LOS F F F
B - 92
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 20
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 150
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NWT, Start of Green
Natural Cycle: 150
Splits and Phases: 24: State Fair Blvd & Brown - West
B - 93
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 21
Lane Group SET NWT SWL
v/c Ratio 1.89 1.67 0.66
Total Delay 422.6 351.8 85.9
Queue Length 50th (ft) ~3487 ~471 78
Queue Length 95th (ft) m#2167 #597 #156
B - 94
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 22
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 0 308 567 1139 0 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.900
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1863 3206 0 1863 0
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1863 3206 0 1863 0
Travel Time (s) 46.6 13.1 7.8
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 1% 2% 2%
Adj. Flow (vph) 0 342 630 1266 0 0
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Area Type: Other
B - 95
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 23
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 0 308 567 1139 0 0
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Percent Blockage
Median storage veh)
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 100 100 100
Volume Left 0 0 0 0
cSH 311 1700 1700 1700
Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Lane LOS A
Approach LOS A
Average Delay 0.0
B - 96
SimTraffic Performance Report
A1 large event - manned control
5/28/2014
SimTraffic Report
KMF Page 1
3: State Fair Blvd & Pumphouse Rd Performance by movement
Movement EBT WBT NBL NBR All
Total Delay (hr) 8.2 3.6 0.9 426.9 439.6
Delay / Veh (s) 51.0 51.4 4033.7 1310.0
Total Stops 256 260 0 1216 1732
Travel Dist (mi) 26.9 38.9 0.0 68.8 134.7
Travel Time (hr) 9.1 5.1 0.9 429.5 444.6
Avg Speed (mph) 3 8 2 3
Fuel Used (gal) 2.8 2.5 0.2 99.9 105.4
HC Emissions (g) 24 24 0 5 53
CO Emissions (g) 464 761 10 4846 6082
NOx Emissions (g) 54 83 0 43 180
Vehicles Entered 577 250 0 390 1217
Vehicles Exited 576 250 0 373 1199
Hourly Exit Rate 576 250 0 373 1199
Input Volume 876 378 4 1183 2442
% of Volume 66 66 0 32 49
Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0
Denied Entry After 0 0 2 793 795
5: SFB to 695SB-690 WB & State Fair Blvd Performance by movement
Movement EBT EBR NWL NWR All
Total Delay (hr) 0.0 22.3 0.4 0.2 23.0
Delay / Veh (s) 44.7 85.1 5.6 6.3 62.8
Total Stops 1 1481 7 15 1504
Travel Dist (mi) 0.1 138.3 26.8 13.5 178.6
Travel Time (hr) 0.0 28.0 1.4 0.8 30.2
Avg Speed (mph) 5 6 20 18 7
Fuel Used (gal) 0.0 8.4 1.1 0.5 10.1
CO Emissions (g) 0 1857 353 147 2357
NOx Emissions (g) 0 155 41 19 215
Input Volume 6 2059 375 192 2633
% of Volume 17 46 65 65 50
B - 97
5/28/2014
SimTraffic Report
KMF Page 2
6: SFB to 695SB-690 WB & SFB to 695 SB Performance by movement
Movement NBT All
Total Delay (hr) 0.0 0.0
Delay / Veh (s) 0.5 0.5
Total Stops 0 0
Travel Dist (mi) 6.9 6.9
Travel Time (hr) 0.5 0.5
Avg Speed (mph) 13 13
Fuel Used (gal) 0.6 0.6
HC Emissions (g) 6 6
CO Emissions (g) 300 300
NOx Emissions (g) 23 23
Vehicles Entered 124 124
Vehicles Exited 124 124
Hourly Exit Rate 124 124
Input Volume 192 192
% of Volume 65 65
Denied Entry Before 0 0
Denied Entry After 0 0
B - 98
6/1/2014
SimTraffic Report
KMF Page 1
Total Delay (hr) 8.2 3.4 1.0 432.2 444.8
Delay / Veh (s) 51.1 50.9 4062.2 1328.9
Total Stops 263 246 0 1211 1720
Travel Dist (mi) 27.0 37.8 0.0 69.2 134.0
Travel Time (hr) 9.1 4.9 1.0 434.8 449.8
Fuel Used (gal) 2.8 2.4 0.2 101.3 106.7
CO Emissions (g) 486 793 11 4906 6196
NOx Emissions (g) 60 87 0 45 191
Input Volume 876 378 4 1183 2442
% of Volume 66 64 0 32 49
Total Delay (hr) 0.0 21.4 0.4 0.2 22.0
Delay / Veh (s) 21.8 81.1 5.7 6.6 60.5
Total Stops 1 1474 5 17 1497
Travel Dist (mi) 0.1 138.8 25.9 13.2 178.0
Travel Time (hr) 0.0 27.1 1.3 0.8 29.2
Fuel Used (gal) 0.0 8.3 1.1 0.5 10.0
CO Emissions (g) 0 1620 386 140 2146
NOx Emissions (g) 0 141 45 18 203
Input Volume 6 2059 375 192 2633
% of Volume 17 46 63 63 50
B - 99
6/1/2014
SimTraffic Report
KMF Page 2
Movement NBT All
Delay / Veh (s) 0.4 0.4
Total Stops 0 0
% of Volume 63 63
B - 100
6/1/2014
SimTraffic Report
KMF Page 3
7: Bridge St & Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Total Delay (hr) 0.3 2.7 0.4 3.2 2.2 0.0 34.2 33.8 130.2 1.0 3.9 21.6
Delay / Veh (s) 18.8 158.4 33.4 54.9 24.3 4.6 1150.6 1398.7 1154.8 143.4 128.4 75.0
Total Stops 45 57 43 228 221 0 423 354 1639 61 250 1446
Travel Dist (mi) 7.5 9.4 7.1 49.4 79.2 0.9 37.9 30.7 145.6 7.7 31.4 252.8
Travel Time (hr) 0.5 3.0 0.7 5.2 5.3 0.0 35.5 34.8 135.5 1.3 5.0 30.1
Avg Speed (mph) 14 3 10 10 15 20 4 3 4 6 6 8
Fuel Used (gal) 0.2 0.8 0.3 2.6 3.5 0.0 8.8 8.2 33.8 0.4 1.8 12.0
HC Emissions (g) 2 3 2 36 78 0 71 163 42 0 10 280
CO Emissions (g) 39 85 38 973 1869 8 1321 2450 2191 34 266 4646
NOx Emissions (g) 6 9 6 106 220 1 87 191 101 3 32 611
Vehicles Entered 49 62 46 209 330 4 110 89 418 27 111 1049
Vehicles Exited 49 61 45 207 330 4 104 85 395 26 107 1024
Hourly Exit Rate 49 61 45 207 330 4 104 85 395 26 107 1024
Input Volume 101 113 97 284 412 8 185 169 686 29 108 1109
% of Volume 49 54 46 73 80 50 56 50 58 90 99 92
Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
Denied Entry After 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 65 271 0 0 0
Movement All
Total Delay (hr) 233.5
Delay / Veh (s) 340.4
Total Stops 4767
Travel Dist (mi) 659.6
Travel Time (hr) 256.9
Avg Speed (mph) 6
Fuel Used (gal) 72.6
HC Emissions (g) 687
CO Emissions (g) 13921
NOx Emissions (g) 1373
Vehicles Entered 2504
Vehicles Exited 2437
Hourly Exit Rate 2437
Input Volume 3301
% of Volume 74
Denied Entry Before 1
Denied Entry After 406
B - 101
6/1/2014
SimTraffic Report
KMF Page 4
11: Exit 7 Connector & Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SWL SWT SWR All
Total Delay (hr) 58.3 2.7 0.5 0.9 0.3 0.2 0.6 63.5
Delay / Veh (s) 520.5 190.8 14.9 19.3 20.1 10.0 5.0 175.7
Total Stops 1390 105 46 97 64 20 14 1736
Travel Dist (mi) 93.3 10.3 14.7 21.9 5.2 4.0 35.2 184.8
Travel Time (hr) 61.9 3.0 1.0 1.8 0.6 0.4 2.2 71.0
Avg Speed (mph) 2 4 15 12 9 9 16 3
Fuel Used (gal) 17.0 1.1 0.5 0.7 0.3 0.2 1.4 21.2
HC Emissions (g) 31 27 8 2 5 54 39 166
CO Emissions (g) 1656 557 148 62 151 800 935 4309
NOx Emissions (g) 132 65 18 8 13 110 104 450
Vehicles Entered 438 52 117 172 62 70 426 1337
Vehicles Exited 368 48 118 172 62 70 425 1263
Hourly Exit Rate 368 48 118 172 62 70 425 1263
Input Volume 750 85 104 170 88 75 600 1872
% of Volume 49 56 113 101 70 93 71 67
Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Denied Entry After 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
12: Exit 7 Connector & Exit 7 Access Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SER NWL NWT NWR All
Total Delay (hr) 12.0 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 3.1 9.1 0.0 24.8
Delay / Veh (s) 80.7 171.3 40.6 57.3 1.4 28.6 27.7 41.6 40.4
Total Stops 482 6 12 4 0 253 751 8 1516
Travel Dist (mi) 51.6 0.5 0.1 0.0 4.0 36.8 111.6 0.4 205.0
Travel Time (hr) 14.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.2 4.5 12.8 0.1 32.5
Avg Speed (mph) 4 3 1 1 21 8 9 6 6
Fuel Used (gal) 4.8 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 2.0 6.2 0.0 13.3
HC Emissions (g) 15 8 1 0 13 27 33 0 97
CO Emissions (g) 611 110 18 1 183 667 1201 3 2794
NOx Emissions (g) 68 9 2 0 26 81 150 0 337
Vehicles Entered 536 6 13 5 71 385 1184 4 2204
Vehicles Exited 538 6 13 5 72 388 1181 4 2207
Hourly Exit Rate 538 6 13 5 72 388 1181 4 2207
Input Volume 915 6 13 3 83 596 1904 3 3523
% of Volume 59 100 100 167 87 65 62 133 63
Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Denied Entry After 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
B - 102
6/1/2014
SimTraffic Report
KMF Page 5
17: Willis Ave & State Fair Blvd Performance by movement
Movement NBL NBR SET SER NWT All
Total Delay (hr) 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.8
Delay / Veh (s) 7.4 5.8 4.1 2.1 0.4 5.9
Total Stops 275 117 0 0 0 392
Travel Dist (mi) 37.7 16.2 16.0 44.6 0.9 115.4
Travel Time (hr) 2.0 0.8 0.6 1.6 0.0 5.1
Avg Speed (mph) 19 19 28 27 31 23
Fuel Used (gal) 1.1 0.5 0.4 1.2 0.0 3.2
HC Emissions (g) 5 10 16 52 4 88
CO Emissions (g) 258 226 245 786 60 1575
NOx Emissions (g) 18 26 42 131 13 230
Vehicles Entered 275 118 33 91 4 521
Vehicles Exited 275 117 34 92 4 522
Hourly Exit Rate 275 117 34 92 4 522
Input Volume 258 95 59 123 2 538
% of Volume 107 123 58 75 200 97
Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0
Denied Entry After 0 0 0 0 0 0
24: State Fair Blvd & Brown - West Performance by movement
Movement SEL SET NWT SWL All
Total Delay (hr) 6.0 0.9 65.6 1.4 73.8
Delay / Veh (s) 25.9 25.1 554.3 68.0 182.6
Total Stops 457 65 1931 66 2519
Travel Dist (mi) 96.7 13.9 170.8 7.7 289.0
Travel Time (hr) 11.2 1.6 71.3 1.7 85.8
Fuel Used (gal) 5.5 0.8 20.0 0.5 26.8
HC Emissions (g) 31 24 48 123 226
CO Emissions (g) 1227 496 1744 1878 5344
NOx Emissions (g) 143 67 149 238 598
Hourly Exit Rate 834 124 356 72 1386
Input Volume 1792 285 567 75 2719
% of Volume 47 44 63 96 51
B - 103
6/1/2014
SimTraffic Report
KMF Page 6
26: State Fair Blvd & Brown - East Performance by movement
Movement SET NWT NWR All
Total Delay (hr) 0.1 0.5 2.0 2.6
Delay / Veh (s) 1.5 3.3 7.2 5.2
Total Stops 0 3 16 19
Travel Dist (mi) 66.4 56.5 99.6 222.6
Travel Time (hr) 2.4 2.4 6.0 10.9
Fuel Used (gal) 2.4 2.0 2.6 7.0
HC Emissions (g) 203 72 12 287
CO Emissions (g) 3524 1586 403 5513
NOx Emissions (g) 534 189 44 767
Vehicles Entered 222 595 975 1792
Vehicles Exited 224 594 970 1788
Hourly Exit Rate 224 594 970 1788
Input Volume 382 688 1139 2209
% of Volume 59 86 85 81
Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0
Denied Entry After 0 0 0 0
Total Network Performance
Total Stops 17151
Avg Speed (mph) 7
Input Volume 34755
% of Volume 14
B - 104
Queuing and Blocking Report
6/1/2014
SimTraffic Report
KMF Page 7
Movement EB B22 WB WB NB
Directions Served TR T LT T LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 299 1097 308 251 978
Average Queue (ft) 262 1035 211 76 972
95th Queue (ft) 276 1208 298 234 1016
Link Distance (ft) 191 1045 722 722 963
Upstream Blk Time (%) 64 61 78
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0
Movement EB NW NW
Directions Served R L LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 736 31 57
Average Queue (ft) 727 1 6
95th Queue (ft) 734 10 31
Movement
Directions Served
Maximum Queue (ft)
Average Queue (ft)
95th Queue (ft)
Link Distance (ft)
B - 105
6/1/2014
SimTraffic Report
KMF Page 8
Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB B9
Directions Served L T TR L T TR L T R LTR T
Maximum Queue (ft) 113 97 128 225 386 332 125 1912 54 1552 1583
Average Queue (ft) 20 49 32 120 102 56 84 1535 45 1320 772
95th Queue (ft) 54 101 88 228 266 151 163 2594 51 2042 1852
Link Distance (ft) 742 742 1167 1167 1878 1462 1520
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 6 10 2 16 67
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 6 20 15 142 236
Movement EB EB WB SW SW
Directions Served L T TR L R
Maximum Queue (ft) 1255 1219 362 70 190
Average Queue (ft) 1107 1075 125 31 13
95th Queue (ft) 1435 1520 266 55 79
Link Distance (ft) 1167 1167 628 445 445
Upstream Blk Time (%) 52 50
Queuing Penalty (veh) 217 204
Movement EB WB NW NW NW B28
Directions Served LT TR LT T R T
Maximum Queue (ft) 471 60 508 502 32 510
Average Queue (ft) 457 14 457 433 4 340
95th Queue (ft) 470 41 552 520 22 618
Link Distance (ft) 445 36 430 430 471
Upstream Blk Time (%) 46 5 8 5 7
Queuing Penalty (veh) 426 0 0 0 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 20
Storage Blk Time (%) 39 0
B - 106
6/1/2014
SimTraffic Report
KMF Page 9
Movement NB
95th Queue (ft) 120
Intersection: 24: State Fair Blvd & Brown - West
Movement SE NW NW SW
Directions Served LT T TR L
Maximum Queue (ft) 527 1724 1761 327
95th Queue (ft) 530 1648 1683 263
Link Distance (ft) 511 1995 1995 561
Intersection: 26: State Fair Blvd & Brown - East
Movement
Directions Served
Maximum Queue (ft)
Average Queue (ft)
95th Queue (ft)
Link Distance (ft)
Network Summary
B - 107
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Large event inbound - manned/mitigation
5/30/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 1
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 876 1 0 375 4 1183
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 1000
Storage Lanes 0 0 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95
Frt 0.851 0.850
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot) 1827 0 0 3505 1617 1534
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm) 1827 0 0 3505 1617 1534
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 4 4
Travel Time (s) 5.7 19.0 37.0
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.89 0.89 0.69 0.90
Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 3% 3% 0% 0%
Adj. Flow (vph) 973 1 0 421 6 1314
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Turn Type Perm Perm
Permitted Phases 8 2
Minimum Split (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
Total Split (s) 40.0 0.0 40.0 40.0 110.0 110.0
Total Split (%) 26.7% 0.0% 26.7% 26.7% 73.3% 73.3%
Maximum Green (s) 36.0 36.0 36.0 106.0 106.0
Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lead/Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0
Act Effct Green (s) 36.0 36.0 106.0 106.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.24 0.24 0.71 0.71
v/c Ratio 2.22 0.50 0.58 0.61
B - 108
5/30/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 2
Control Delay 584.4 74.7 13.3 14.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 584.4 74.7 13.3 14.1
LOS F E B B
Approach LOS F E B
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 150
Natural Cycle: 90
Intersection Capacity Utilization 101.7% ICU Level of Service G
B - 109
Queues Large event inbound - manned/mitigation
5/30/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 3
Lane Group EBT WBT NBL NBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 974 421 663 657
v/c Ratio 2.22 0.50 0.58 0.61
Control Delay 584.4 74.7 13.3 14.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 584.4 74.7 13.3 14.1
Queue Length 50th (ft) ~1531 230 295 317
Queue Length 95th (ft) #1793 m225 251 436
Base Capacity (vph) 438 841 1144 1085
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 2.22 0.50 0.58 0.61
B - 110
7: Bridge St &
5/30/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 9
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 101 110 97 284 411 8 185 169 686 29 108 1109
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.930 0.997 0.850 0.880
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.999
Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 3324 0 1719 3430 0 1703 1792 1599 0 1521 0
Flt Permitted 0.404 0.599 0.204 0.986
Satd. Flow (perm) 760 3324 0 1084 3430 0 366 1792 1599 0 1502 0
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 115 2 533 434
Link Distance (ft) 824 1223 1933 1551
Travel Time (s) 18.7 27.8 43.9 35.3
Peak Hour Factor 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.79 0.79 0.79
Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 1% 1% 5% 5% 1% 6% 6% 1% 1% 10% 10%
Adj. Flow (vph) 120 131 115 302 437 9 199 182 738 37 137 1404
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Detector 1 Size(ft) 20 6 20 6 20 6 20 20 6
Detector 1 Channel
Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 2 Channel
B - 111
7: Bridge St &
5/30/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 10
Detector Phase 5 2 1 6 3 8 8 1 4 4
Switch Phase
Minimum Split (s) 10.0 16.0 10.0 16.0 9.5 11.5 11.5 11.5
Total Split (s) 20.0 25.0 0.0 12.0 17.0 0.0 24.5 44.0 56.0 19.5 19.5 0.0
Total Split (%) 24.7% 30.9% 0.0% 14.8% 21.0% 0.0% 30.2% 54.3% 69.1% 24.1% 24.1% 0.0%
Maximum Green (s) 14.0 19.0 6.0 11.0 19.0 38.5 14.0 14.0
Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
All-Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
Total Lost Time (s) 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 4.0
Act Effct Green (s) 20.5 12.8 18.2 13.5 29.0 29.0 41.1 14.1
v/c Ratio 0.33 0.33 0.84 0.63 0.56 0.23 0.61 2.38
Control Delay 16.9 13.7 43.9 31.6 18.4 12.5 4.5 640.2
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 16.9 13.7 43.9 31.6 18.4 12.5 4.5 640.2
LOS B B D C B B A F
Approach Delay 14.8 36.6 8.2 640.2
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 81
Natural Cycle: 150
B - 112
7: Bridge St &
5/30/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 11
v/c Ratio 0.33 0.33 0.84 0.63 0.56 0.23 0.61 2.38
Control Delay 16.9 13.7 43.9 31.6 18.4 12.5 4.5 640.2
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 16.9 13.7 43.9 31.6 18.4 12.5 4.5 640.2
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.24 0.23 0.84 0.63 0.36 0.17 0.61 2.38
B - 113
5/30/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 12
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 750 78 104 170 88 600
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95
Frt 0.916 0.888 0.850
Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 1681 1698 0 1586 1461
Satd. Flow (perm) 1787 1681 1698 0 1586 1461
Travel Time (s) 27.8 17.6 12.5
Peak Hour Factor 0.83 0.83 0.80 0.80 0.93 0.93
Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 13% 5% 1% 5% 5%
Adj. Flow (vph) 904 94 130 213 95 645
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Area Type: Other
B - 114
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Large event inbound - manned/mitigation
5/30/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 13
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 750 78 104 170 88 600
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.83 0.83 0.80 0.80 0.93 0.93
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Percent Blockage
Median storage veh)
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
Volume Total 904 94 342 310 430
Volume Right 0 0 212 215 430
cSH 1222 1700 1700 43 795
Lane LOS C F B
Approach LOS F
B - 115
5/30/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 14
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 915 5 0 0 13 3 0 0 83 596 1904 3
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95
Frt 0.976 0.865
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1787 0 0 1656 0 0 0 822 1736 3574 0
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1787 0 0 1656 0 0 0 822 1736 3574 0
Satd. Flow (RTOR)
Travel Time (s) 12.5 2.4 12.5 18.4
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.63 0.63 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.94 0.94 0.94
Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 40% 40% 12% 12% 12% 25% 25% 100% 4% 1% 4%
Adj. Flow (vph) 1017 8 0 0 23 5 0 0 124 634 2026 3
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Turn Type Split Free Perm
Permitted Phases Free 2
Minimum Split (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 20.0 20.0
Total Split (s) 52.0 52.0 0.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 90.0 90.0 0.0
Total Split (%) 34.7% 34.7% 0.0% 0.0% 5.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 60.0% 60.0% 0.0%
Maximum Green (s) 50.0 50.0 6.0 88.0 88.0
Yellow Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
All-Red Time (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 2.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 4.0
Lead/Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Act Effct Green (s) 50.0 6.0 150.0 88.0 88.0
v/c Ratio 1.72 0.42 0.15 0.62 0.97
Control Delay 362.5 89.8 0.4 23.6 43.2
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 362.5 89.8 0.4 23.6 43.2
B - 116
5/30/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 15
LOS F F A C D
Approach LOS F F D
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 150
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NWTL, Start of Green
Natural Cycle: 150
B - 117
5/30/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 16
Lane Group EBT WBT SER NWL NWT
v/c Ratio 1.72 0.42 0.15 0.62 0.97
Control Delay 362.5 89.8 0.4 23.6 43.2
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 362.5 89.8 0.4 23.6 43.2
Queue Length 50th (ft) ~1475 27 0 389 961
Queue Length 95th (ft) #1035 39 0 517 #1179
Reduced v/c Ratio 1.72 0.42 0.15 0.62 0.97
B - 118
5/30/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 17
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 258 95 51 123 1 2
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.960 0.905
Satd. Flow (prot) 1709 0 1470 0 0 1251
Satd. Flow (perm) 1709 0 1470 0 0 1251
Travel Time (s) 17.4 62.9 28.3
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.77 0.90 0.90 0.75 0.75
Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 8% 17% 17% 50% 50%
Adj. Flow (vph) 287 123 57 137 1 3
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Area Type: Other
B - 119
5/30/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 18
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 258 95 51 123 1 2
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.77 0.90 0.90 0.75 0.75
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Percent Blockage
Median storage veh)
tC, single (s) 6.4 6.3 4.6
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 3.4 2.7
Volume Left 287 0 1
cSH 878 1700 1138
Lane LOS B A
Approach LOS B
Average Delay 8.6
B - 120
5/30/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 19
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 1792 267 567 0 75 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frt
Flt Protected 0.950 0.964 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1698 1718 3539 0 902 1863
Flt Permitted 0.950 0.964 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1698 1718 3539 0 902 1863
Satd. Flow (RTOR)
Travel Time (s) 13.0 46.6 13.7
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 2% 2% 2% 100% 2%
Adj. Flow (vph) 1991 297 630 0 83 0
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Permitted Phases 8
Minimum Split (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
Total Split (s) 100.0 100.0 30.0 0.0 20.0 20.0
Total Split (%) 66.7% 66.7% 20.0% 0.0% 13.3% 13.3%
Maximum Green (s) 96.0 96.0 26.0 16.0 16.0
Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lead/Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Act Effct Green (s) 96.0 96.0 26.0 16.0
v/c Ratio 1.04 1.05 1.03 0.86
Control Delay 59.4 61.0 103.1 125.3
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 59.4 61.0 103.1 125.3
LOS E E F F
Approach LOS E F F
B - 121
5/30/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 20
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 150
Natural Cycle: 150
Intersection Signal Delay: 71.0 Intersection LOS: E
B - 122
5/30/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 21
Lane Group SEL SET NWT SWL
v/c Ratio 1.04 1.05 1.03 0.86
Control Delay 59.4 61.0 103.1 125.3
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 59.4 61.0 103.1 125.3
Queue Length 50th (ft) ~1277 ~1301 ~345 81
Queue Length 95th (ft) m932 m949 #472 #186
Reduced v/c Ratio 1.04 1.05 1.03 0.86
B - 123
5/30/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 22
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 0 308 567 1139 0 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.900
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1863 3206 0 1863 0
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1863 3206 0 1863 0
Travel Time (s) 46.6 13.1 7.8
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 1% 2% 2%
Adj. Flow (vph) 0 342 630 1266 0 0
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Area Type: Other
B - 124
5/30/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 23
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 0 308 567 1139 0 0
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Percent Blockage
Median storage veh)
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 100 100 100
Volume Left 0 0 0 0
cSH 311 1700 1700 1700
Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Lane LOS A
Approach LOS A
Average Delay 0.0
B - 125
A2 large manned-mitigation
5/30/2014
SimTraffic Report
KMF Page 1
Total Delay (hr) 9.2 5.8 0.0 4.0 19.1
Delay / Veh (s) 79.3 69.1 25.7 11.9 35.2
Total Stops 258 308 2 426 994
Travel Dist (mi) 19.4 46.7 1.2 369.1 436.4
Travel Time (hr) 9.9 7.6 0.1 17.5 35.0
Avg Speed (mph) 2 6 18 22 13
Fuel Used (gal) 2.9 3.3 0.0 10.7 16.9
CO Emissions (g) 352 926 3 1439 2721
NOx Emissions (g) 38 103 1 147 289
Hourly Exit Rate 419 300 4 1220 1943
Input Volume 876 378 4 1183 2442
% of Volume 48 79 100 103 80
Total Delay (hr) 0.0 2.8 0.5 0.3 3.6
Delay / Veh (s) 1.8 6.2 6.2 6.6 6.2
Total Stops 0 382 5 14 401
Travel Dist (mi) 0.6 239.7 33.2 19.2 292.6
Travel Time (hr) 0.0 13.2 1.7 1.1 16.1
Avg Speed (mph) 20 18 19 18 18
Fuel Used (gal) 0.0 9.5 1.4 0.8 11.6
CO Emissions (g) 12 3609 420 232 4273
NOx Emissions (g) 1 317 52 31 401
Hourly Exit Rate 7 1640 297 173 2117
Input Volume 6 2059 375 192 2633
% of Volume 117 80 79 90 80
B - 126
5/30/2014
SimTraffic Report
KMF Page 2
Movement NBT All
Delay / Veh (s) 0.4 0.4
Total Stops 0 0
% of Volume 90 90
B - 127
5/30/2014
SimTraffic Report
KMF Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Total Delay (hr) 0.6 2.5 1.2 6.2 2.1 0.0 30.4 35.3 130.0 0.9 4.0 24.0
Delay / Veh (s) 25.9 125.7 54.1 100.4 23.9 2.1 918.6 1165.8 1212.0 163.9 149.5 86.9
Total Stops 85 74 72 311 236 1 451 480 1629 54 243 1675
Travel Dist (mi) 12.9 11.7 12.9 52.4 74.7 1.6 42.6 39.7 137.3 6.0 28.1 243.5
Travel Time (hr) 1.1 2.9 1.8 8.4 5.0 0.1 31.9 36.6 134.9 1.1 5.0 32.2
Avg Speed (mph) 12 4 7 6 15 23 4 3 4 5 6 8
Fuel Used (gal) 0.5 0.9 0.6 3.4 3.4 0.1 7.9 9.2 33.6 0.4 1.8 12.4
HC Emissions (g) 1 1 1 74 89 0 114 61 71 0 36 299
CO Emissions (g) 45 70 56 1594 2023 20 1859 1277 2562 28 607 4911
NOx Emissions (g) 6 5 5 179 245 1 161 107 137 3 78 641
Vehicles Entered 85 76 83 224 319 7 124 113 398 21 98 1007
Vehicles Exited 84 71 81 224 312 7 115 106 375 20 97 986
Hourly Exit Rate 84 71 81 224 312 7 115 106 375 20 97 986
Input Volume 101 113 97 284 412 8 185 169 686 29 108 1109
% of Volume 83 63 84 79 76 88 62 63 55 69 90 89
Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0
Denied Entry After 0 0 0 0 0 0 57 65 283 0 0 0
Movement All
Total Stops 5311
Avg Speed (mph) 6
Input Volume 3301
% of Volume 75
B - 128
5/30/2014
SimTraffic Report
KMF Page 4
11: Exit 7 Connector & Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SWL SWT SWR All
Total Delay (hr) 55.1 2.7 0.4 0.9 0.6 0.1 1.2 61.1
Delay / Veh (s) 511.6 194.5 14.0 17.7 32.7 8.7 9.7 170.0
Total Stops 1365 119 39 108 61 3 470 2165
Travel Dist (mi) 87.2 10.3 14.2 25.6 5.7 3.1 40.6 186.7
Travel Time (hr) 58.5 3.1 0.9 1.9 0.8 0.3 3.3 68.9
Avg Speed (mph) 1 4 16 13 7 10 12 3
Fuel Used (gal) 16.1 1.1 0.4 0.8 0.3 0.2 1.9 20.9
HC Emissions (g) 32 42 8 4 1 50 64 201
CO Emissions (g) 1645 798 158 86 72 735 1383 4877
NOx Emissions (g) 132 87 21 11 6 101 159 516
Vehicles Entered 423 51 105 191 62 55 443 1330
Vehicles Exited 354 50 106 187 61 54 444 1256
Hourly Exit Rate 354 50 106 187 61 54 444 1256
Input Volume 750 85 104 170 88 75 600 1872
% of Volume 47 59 102 110 69 72 74 67
Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Denied Entry After 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
12: Exit 7 Connector & Exit 7 Access Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SER NWL NWT NWR All
Total Delay (hr) 11.5 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 2.3 7.6 0.0 21.6
Delay / Veh (s) 76.9 90.9 60.1 8.2 1.6 20.0 20.8 6.9 33.2
Total Stops 475 3 9 0 0 208 689 1 1385
Travel Dist (mi) 52.7 0.3 0.1 0.0 4.2 62.2 196.6 0.4 316.5
Travel Time (hr) 13.9 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.2 4.6 14.2 0.0 33.2
Avg Speed (mph) 4 3 1 3 20 14 14 19 10
Fuel Used (gal) 4.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 2.4 7.6 0.0 14.9
HC Emissions (g) 15 2 3 0 18 32 51 0 121
CO Emissions (g) 621 34 44 0 265 793 1564 2 3323
NOx Emissions (g) 70 4 4 0 38 91 176 0 383
Vehicles Entered 539 3 12 1 74 409 1310 3 2351
Vehicles Exited 533 3 12 1 74 410 1309 3 2345
Hourly Exit Rate 533 3 12 1 74 410 1309 3 2345
Input Volume 915 6 13 3 83 596 1904 3 3523
% of Volume 58 50 92 33 89 69 69 100 67
Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Denied Entry After 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
B - 129
5/30/2014
SimTraffic Report
KMF Page 5
17: Willis Ave & State Fair Blvd Performance by movement
Movement NBL NBR SET SER NWL NWT All
Total Delay (hr) 0.7 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0
Delay / Veh (s) 8.5 6.9 2.8 1.0 2.0 0.1 6.4
Total Stops 286 117 0 0 0 0 403
Travel Dist (mi) 39.8 16.1 20.3 40.7 0.2 0.2 117.4
Travel Time (hr) 2.2 0.9 0.7 1.5 0.0 0.0 5.2
Avg Speed (mph) 19 19 28 28 27 29 23
Fuel Used (gal) 1.2 0.5 0.6 1.1 0.0 0.0 3.4
HC Emissions (g) 7 13 32 56 2 2 113
CO Emissions (g) 322 274 471 863 30 29 1989
NOx Emissions (g) 23 35 79 148 5 5 295
Vehicles Entered 290 116 44 86 1 1 538
Vehicles Exited 287 117 44 86 1 1 536
Hourly Exit Rate 287 117 44 86 1 1 536
Input Volume 258 95 59 123 1 2 538
% of Volume 111 123 75 70 100 50 100
Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Denied Entry After 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
24: State Fair Blvd & Brown - West Performance by movement
Movement SEL SET NWT SWL All
Total Delay (hr) 7.2 1.3 8.6 1.3 18.4
Delay / Veh (s) 17.9 21.7 65.4 79.2 30.2
Total Stops 786 171 432 58 1447
Travel Dist (mi) 163.7 24.5 185.6 6.2 380.0
Travel Time (hr) 15.8 2.5 14.8 1.6 34.7
Avg Speed (mph) 10 10 13 4 11
Fuel Used (gal) 8.8 1.3 7.2 0.4 17.7
HC Emissions (g) 38 23 49 88 198
CO Emissions (g) 1949 534 1047 1315 4845
NOx Emissions (g) 205 68 150 164 588
Vehicles Exited 1436 217 468 60 2181
Hourly Exit Rate 1436 217 468 60 2181
Input Volume 1792 285 567 75 2719
% of Volume 80 76 83 80 80
B - 130
5/30/2014
SimTraffic Report
KMF Page 6
26: State Fair Blvd & Brown - East Performance by movement
Movement SET NWT NWR All
Total Delay (hr) 0.2 0.6 2.0 2.8
Delay / Veh (s) 2.3 3.8 7.6 5.5
Total Stops 0 4 31 35
Travel Dist (mi) 99.8 56.2 96.0 251.9
Travel Time (hr) 3.6 2.5 6.0 12.1
Fuel Used (gal) 3.4 2.1 2.6 8.2
HC Emissions (g) 156 83 18 257
CO Emissions (g) 2861 1806 505 5172
NOx Emissions (g) 420 224 59 703
Vehicles Entered 302 595 950 1847
Vehicles Exited 305 595 946 1846
Hourly Exit Rate 305 595 946 1846
Input Volume 382 688 1139 2209
% of Volume 80 86 83 84
Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0
Denied Entry After 0 0 0 0
Total Network Performance
Total Stops 15429
Avg Speed (mph) 10
Input Volume 34329
% of Volume 17
B - 131
5/30/2014
SimTraffic Report
KMF Page 7
Movement EB B22 WB WB NB NB
Directions Served TR T LT T LR R
Maximum Queue (ft) 260 1084 393 420 259 264
Average Queue (ft) 258 1059 264 126 148 133
95th Queue (ft) 263 1069 363 344 244 235
Link Distance (ft) 188 1045 729 729 1584
Movement EB EB NW NW
Directions Served R R L LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 308 315 30 55
95th Queue (ft) 183 248 10 26
Movement
Directions Served
Maximum Queue (ft)
Average Queue (ft)
95th Queue (ft)
Link Distance (ft)
B - 132
5/30/2014
SimTraffic Report
KMF Page 8
Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB B9
Directions Served L T TR L T TR L T R LTR T
Maximum Queue (ft) 125 201 178 225 723 476 125 1902 66 1553 1572
Average Queue (ft) 44 59 61 144 205 84 77 1559 44 1470 1187
95th Queue (ft) 99 142 155 267 561 284 167 2581 53 1799 2080
Link Distance (ft) 742 742 1151 1151 1878 1462 1520
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 13 28 1 4 23 64
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 14 57 4 31 200 228
Movement EB EB WB SW SW
Directions Served L T TR LR R
Maximum Queue (ft) 1197 1203 353 304 226
Average Queue (ft) 1068 1048 126 112 65
95th Queue (ft) 1487 1560 241 226 170
Link Distance (ft) 1151 1151 672 437 437
Movement EB WB NW NW NW
Directions Served LT TR L T TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 457 54 317 392 428
Average Queue (ft) 441 8 180 293 322
95th Queue (ft) 449 33 282 379 410
B - 133
5/30/2014
SimTraffic Report
KMF Page 9
Movement NB
95th Queue (ft) 169
Intersection: 24: State Fair Blvd & Brown - West
Movement SE SE NW NW SW
Directions Served L LT T TR L
Maximum Queue (ft) 526 530 286 307 282
Average Queue (ft) 367 402 203 200 126
95th Queue (ft) 549 567 277 285 233
Link Distance (ft) 510 510 1983 1983 555
Intersection: 26: State Fair Blvd & Brown - East
Movement
Directions Served
Maximum Queue (ft)
Average Queue (ft)
95th Queue (ft)
Link Distance (ft)
Network Summary
B - 134
Lanes, Volumes, Timings Large event outbound - mitigation
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 1
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 49 49 0 841 1 1
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.932 0.932
Flt Protected 0.976
Satd. Flow (prot) 1703 0 0 3505 1728 0
Flt Permitted 0.976
Satd. Flow (perm) 1703 0 0 3505 1728 0
Travel Time (s) 5.7 19.0 22.8
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.89 0.89 0.69 0.90
Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 3% 3% 0% 0%
Adj. Flow (vph) 54 54 0 945 1 1
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Area Type: Other
B - 135
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Large event outbound - mitigation
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 2
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 49 49 0 841 1 1
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.89 0.89 0.69 0.90
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Percent Blockage
Median storage veh)
tC, single (s) 4.2 6.8 6.9
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 100 100 100
Volume Left 0 0 0 1
cSH 1700 1472 1700 602
Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.0
Lane LOS B
Approach LOS B
Average Delay 0.0
B - 136
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 3
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 0 50 0 0 841 2837
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.95
Frt 0.850 0.884
Flt Protected 0.989
Satd. Flow (prot) 1863 808 0 0 3159 0
Flt Permitted 0.989
Satd. Flow (perm) 1863 808 0 0 3159 0
Travel Time (s) 19.0 10.5 13.0
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 100% 2% 2% 2% 2%
Adj. Flow (vph) 0 54 0 0 914 3084
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Area Type: Other
B - 137
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 4
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 0 50 0 0 841 2837
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Percent Blockage
Median storage veh)
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 100 100 100
Volume Left 0 0 0 0
cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700
Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Lane LOS
Approach LOS
Average Delay 0.0
B - 138
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 5
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 1480 1357 0 0 0 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.850
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot) 1863 1583 0 0 0 0
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm) 1863 1583 0 0 0 0
Satd. Flow (RTOR)
Travel Time (s) 10.5 19.3 7.6
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 1609 1475 0 0 0 0
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Turn Type Perm
Protected Phases 2
Permitted Phases 2
Total Split (s) 20.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Split (%) 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lead/Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
v/c Ratio 0.86 0.93
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0
LOS A B
B - 139
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 6
Approach Delay 11.0
Approach LOS B
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 20
Natural Cycle: 40
B - 140
Queues Large event outbound - mitigation
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 7
Lane Group NBT NBR
v/c Ratio 0.86 0.93
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0
B - 141
7: Bridge St &
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 8
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 19 82 18 894 139 2382 35 32 3 6 21 9
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.974 0.858 0.850 0.968
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.991
Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 3481 0 1719 3060 0 1703 1792 1599 0 1681 0
Flt Permitted 0.233 0.502 0.534 0.931
Satd. Flow (perm) 438 3481 0 908 3060 0 957 1792 1599 0 1579 0
Link Distance (ft) 824 1223 1933 1551
Travel Time (s) 18.7 27.8 43.9 35.3
Peak Hour Factor 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.79 0.79 0.79
Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 1% 1% 5% 5% 1% 6% 6% 1% 1% 10% 10%
Adj. Flow (vph) 23 98 21 951 148 2534 38 34 3 8 27 11
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Detector 1 Size(ft) 20 6 20 6 20 6 20 20 6
Detector 1 Channel
Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 2 Channel
B - 142
7: Bridge St &
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 9
Detector Phase 5 2 1 6 3 8 8 1 4 4
Switch Phase
Minimum Split (s) 10.0 16.0 10.0 16.0 9.5 11.5 11.5 11.5
Total Split (s) 10.0 20.0 0.0 40.0 50.0 0.0 9.5 21.0 61.0 11.5 11.5 0.0
Total Split (%) 12.3% 24.7% 0.0% 49.4% 61.7% 0.0% 11.7% 25.9% 75.3% 14.2% 14.2% 0.0%
Maximum Green (s) 4.0 14.0 34.0 44.0 4.0 15.5 6.0 6.0
Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
All-Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
Total Lost Time (s) 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 4.0
Act Effct Green (s) 17.1 12.9 51.3 51.1 10.1 11.2 43.4 6.3
v/c Ratio 0.12 0.18 0.90 1.80dr 0.20 0.12 0.00 0.30
Control Delay 14.9 23.9 23.4 55.2 29.3 27.5 3.0 33.8
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 14.9 23.9 23.4 55.2 29.3 27.5 3.0 33.8
LOS B C C E C C A C
Approach Delay 22.4 46.9 27.5 33.8
Approach LOS C D C C
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 81
Natural Cycle: 150
B - 143
Queues Large event outbound - mitigation
7: Bridge St &
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 10
v/c Ratio 0.12 0.18 0.90 1.80dr 0.20 0.12 0.00 0.30
Control Delay 14.9 23.9 23.4 55.2 29.3 27.5 3.0 33.8
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 14.9 23.9 23.4 55.2 29.3 27.5 3.0 33.8
Queue Length 50th (ft) 5 22 ~326 ~744 15 13 0 16
Queue Length 95th (ft) 14 42 #615 #968 42 38 2 43
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.12 0.16 0.86 1.07 0.20 0.08 0.00 0.30
B - 144
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 11
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 76 15 20 0 227 3395
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95
Frt 0.869 0.850
Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 1681 1810 0 1563 1461
Satd. Flow (perm) 1787 1681 1810 0 1563 1461
Travel Time (s) 27.8 16.6 12.5
Peak Hour Factor 0.83 0.83 0.80 0.80 0.93 0.93
Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 13% 5% 1% 5% 5%
Adj. Flow (vph) 92 18 25 0 244 3651
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Area Type: Other
B - 145
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 12
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 76 15 20 0 227 3395
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.83 0.83 0.80 0.80 0.93 0.93
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Percent Blockage
Median storage veh)
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
Volume Total 92 18 25 1461 2434
Volume Right 0 0 0 1217 2434
cSH 1596 1700 1700 967 1043
Control Delay (s) 7.4 0.0 0.0 248.8 614.9
Lane LOS A F F
Approach LOS F
Average Delay 461.8
B - 146
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 13
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 75 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 3507 113 0 1
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95
Frt 0.955 0.865 0.850
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 912 0 0 1620 0 0 0 1611 1736 2950 0
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 912 0 0 1620 0 0 0 1611 1736 2950 0
Link Distance (ft) 550 106 3772 1257
Travel Time (s) 12.5 2.4 85.7 28.6
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.63 0.63 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.94 0.94 0.94
Heavy Vehicles (%) 100% 40% 40% 12% 12% 12% 25% 25% 2% 4% 1% 4%
Adj. Flow (vph) 83 2 0 0 4 2 0 0 5234 120 0 1
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Area Type: Other
B - 147
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 14
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 75 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 3507 113 0 1
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.63 0.63 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.94 0.94 0.94
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Percent Blockage
Median storage veh)
tC, single (s) 9.5 7.3 7.7 7.7 6.7 7.1 4.6 4.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 4.5 4.4 3.7 3.6 4.1 3.4 2.5 2.2
p0 queue free % 82 100 100 100 99 100 100 93
cM capacity (veh/h) 457 536 973 6 589 1052 1468 1607
Volume Total 85 5 5234 120 0 1
Volume Left 83 0 0 120 0 0
cSH 458 690 1700 1607 1700 1700
Queue Length 95th (ft) 17 1 Err 6 0 0
Control Delay (s) 14.6 10.3 0.0 7.4 0.0 0.0
Lane LOS B B A
Approach Delay (s) 14.6 10.3 0.0 7.4
Approach LOS B B
Average Delay 0.4
B - 148
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 15
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 17 18 10 233 0 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.926 0.871
Flt Protected 0.978
Satd. Flow (prot) 1641 0 1414 0 0 1267
Flt Permitted 0.978
Satd. Flow (perm) 1641 0 1414 0 0 1267
Travel Time (s) 17.4 62.9 28.3
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.77 0.90 0.90 0.75 0.75
Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 8% 17% 17% 50% 50%
Adj. Flow (vph) 19 23 11 259 0 0
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Area Type: Other
B - 149
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 16
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 17 18 10 233 0 0
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.77 0.90 0.90 0.75 0.75
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Percent Blockage
Median storage veh)
tC, single (s) 6.4 6.3 4.6
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 3.4 2.7
Volume Left 19 0 0
cSH 875 1700 1700
Lane LOS A
Approach LOS A
Average Delay 1.3
B - 150
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 17
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 0 50 183 0 75 3570
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.88
Frt 0.850
Flt Protected 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1863 3539 0 902 2787
Flt Permitted 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1863 3539 0 902 2787
Travel Time (s) 13.0 46.6 13.7
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 2% 2% 2% 100% 2%
Adj. Flow (vph) 0 56 203 0 83 3967
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Area Type: Other
B - 151
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 18
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 0 50 183 0 75 3570
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Percent Blockage
Median storage veh)
tC, single (s) 4.1 8.8 6.9
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 4.5 3.3
Volume Total 56 136 68 83 1983 1983
Volume Right 0 0 0 0 1983 1983
cSH 1373 1700 1700 497 934 934
Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.7 521.8 521.8
Lane LOS B F F
Approach LOS F
Average Delay 480.6
B - 152
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 19
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 0 50 183 75 0 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.956
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1863 2646 0 1863 0
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1863 2646 0 1863 0
Travel Time (s) 46.6 13.1 7.8
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 100% 2% 2%
Adj. Flow (vph) 0 56 203 83 0 0
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Area Type: Other
B - 153
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 20
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 0 50 183 75 0 0
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Percent Blockage
Median storage veh)
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 100 100 100
Volume Left 0 0 0 0
cSH 1272 1700 1700 1700
Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Lane LOS A
Approach LOS A
Average Delay 0.0
B - 154
Lanes, Volumes, Timings B1 large event arrival - SF access
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 1
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 876 1 0 375 4 1183
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 1000
Storage Lanes 0 0 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95
Frt 0.851 0.850
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot) 1827 0 0 3505 1617 1534
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm) 1827 0 0 3505 1617 1534
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 14 14
Travel Time (s) 5.7 19.0 38.0
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.89 0.89 0.69 0.90
Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 3% 3% 0% 0%
Adj. Flow (vph) 973 1 0 421 6 1314
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Turn Type Perm Perm
Permitted Phases 8 2
Minimum Split (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
Total Split (s) 50.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 100.0 100.0
Total Split (%) 33.3% 0.0% 33.3% 33.3% 66.7% 66.7%
Maximum Green (s) 46.0 46.0 46.0 96.0 96.0
Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lead/Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Act Effct Green (s) 46.0 46.0 96.0 96.0
v/c Ratio 1.74 0.39 0.64 0.67
Control Delay 371.9 64.5 19.5 20.7
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 371.9 64.5 19.5 20.7
B - 155
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 2
LOS F E B C
Approach LOS F E C
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 150
Natural Cycle: 90
Intersection Capacity Utilization 101.7% ICU Level of Service G
B - 156
Queues B1 large event arrival - SF access
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 3
Lane Group EBT WBT NBL NBR
v/c Ratio 1.74 0.39 0.64 0.67
Control Delay 371.9 64.5 19.5 20.7
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 371.9 64.5 19.5 20.7
Queue Length 50th (ft) ~1407 229 366 393
Queue Length 95th (ft) #1669 m225 311 543
Reduced v/c Ratio 1.74 0.39 0.64 0.67
B - 157
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 4
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 0 2059 0 0 375 192
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.88 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.95
Frt 0.850 0.949
Flt Protected 0.968
Satd. Flow (prot) 1863 2787 0 0 3320 0
Flt Permitted 0.968
Satd. Flow (perm) 1863 2787 0 0 3320 0
Travel Time (s) 19.0 10.5 13.0
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 0 2238 0 0 408 209
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Area Type: Other
Intersection Capacity Utilization 75.4% ICU Level of Service D
B - 158
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis B1 large event arrival - SF access
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 5
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 0 2059 0 0 375 192
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Percent Blockage
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) 835 572
pX, platoon unblocked 0.84 0.84 0.84
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 100 100 100
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 EB 3 NW 1 NW 2
Volume Total 0 1119 1119 272 345
cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700
Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Lane LOS
Approach LOS
Average Delay 0.0
B - 159
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 6
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot) 1863 1863 0 0 0 0
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm) 1863 1863 0 0 0 0
Satd. Flow (RTOR)
Travel Time (s) 10.5 19.3 7.6
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Turn Type Perm
Protected Phases 2
Permitted Phases 2
Total Split (s) 20.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Split (%) 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lead/Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Act Effct Green (s)
Actuated g/C Ratio
v/c Ratio
Control Delay
Queue Delay
Total Delay
LOS
B - 160
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 7
Approach Delay
Approach LOS
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 20
Natural Cycle: 40
B - 161
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 8
Lane Group
Lane Group Flow (vph)
v/c Ratio
Control Delay
Queue Delay
Total Delay
Internal Link Dist (ft)
Base Capacity (vph)
Starvation Cap Reductn
Spillback Cap Reductn
Storage Cap Reductn
Reduced v/c Ratio
B - 162
7: Bridge St &
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 9
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 101 110 97 284 411 8 185 169 686 29 108 45
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.930 0.997 0.850 0.967
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.992
Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 3324 0 1719 3430 0 1703 1792 1599 0 1679 0
Flt Permitted 0.417 0.599 0.384 0.912
Satd. Flow (perm) 784 3324 0 1084 3430 0 688 1792 1599 0 1544 0
Link Distance (ft) 824 1223 1933 794
Travel Time (s) 18.7 27.8 43.9 18.0
Peak Hour Factor 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.79 0.79 0.79
Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 1% 1% 5% 5% 1% 6% 6% 1% 1% 10% 10%
Adj. Flow (vph) 120 131 115 302 437 9 199 182 738 37 137 57
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Detector 1 Size(ft) 20 6 20 6 20 6 20 20 6
Detector 1 Channel
Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 2 Channel
B - 163
7: Bridge St &
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 10
Detector Phase 5 2 1 6 3 8 8 1 4 4
Switch Phase
Minimum Split (s) 10.0 16.0 10.0 16.0 9.5 11.5 11.5 11.5
Total Split (s) 20.0 25.0 0.0 12.0 17.0 0.0 24.5 44.0 56.0 19.5 19.5 0.0
Total Split (%) 24.7% 30.9% 0.0% 14.8% 21.0% 0.0% 30.2% 54.3% 69.1% 24.1% 24.1% 0.0%
Maximum Green (s) 14.0 19.0 6.0 11.0 19.0 38.5 14.0 14.0
Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
All-Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
Total Lost Time (s) 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 4.0
Act Effct Green (s) 20.4 12.7 18.3 13.7 27.9 27.9 40.0 12.9
v/c Ratio 0.32 0.33 0.82 0.61 0.45 0.23 0.62 0.71
Control Delay 16.7 13.7 41.6 31.0 15.3 12.6 4.5 37.3
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 16.7 13.7 41.6 31.0 15.3 12.6 4.5 37.3
LOS B B D C B B A D
Approach Delay 14.7 35.3 7.8 37.3
Approach LOS B D A D
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 81
Natural Cycle: 60
B - 164
7: Bridge St &
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 11
v/c Ratio 0.32 0.33 0.82 0.61 0.45 0.23 0.62 0.71
Control Delay 16.7 13.7 41.6 31.0 15.3 12.6 4.5 37.3
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 16.7 13.7 41.6 31.0 15.3 12.6 4.5 37.3
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.23 0.23 0.82 0.61 0.33 0.17 0.61 0.65
B - 165
9: 690 Ramps &
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 12
Lane Group NBL SER SER2 NEL NER
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 278 183 1064 0 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.865
Flt Protected 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1611 0 0 0
Flt Permitted 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1611 0 0 0
Travel Time (s) 18.0 52.3 13.1
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 302 199 1157 0 0
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No
Lane Alignment Left Right Right Left Right
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 9 15 9
Area Type: Other
B - 166
9: 690 Ramps &
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 13
Movement NBL SER SER2 NEL NER
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 278 183 1064 0 0
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph) 302 199 1157 0 0
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Percent Blockage
Median storage veh)
vC, conflicting volume 1079 777
vCu, unblocked vol 1079 777
tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 100 100
cM capacity (veh/h) 242 397
Direction, Lane # NB 1 SE 1
Volume Total 302 1355
Volume Left 0 0
Volume Right 0 1157
cSH 1700 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.18 0.80
Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0
Lane LOS
Approach LOS
Average Delay 0.0
B - 167
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 14
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 750 78 104 170 88 600
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.916 0.850
Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 1681 1698 0 1719 1538
Satd. Flow (perm) 1787 1681 1698 0 1719 1538
Travel Time (s) 27.8 16.6 12.5
Peak Hour Factor 0.83 0.83 0.80 0.80 0.93 0.93
Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 13% 5% 1% 5% 5%
Adj. Flow (vph) 904 94 130 213 95 645
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Area Type: Other
B - 168
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 15
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 750 78 104 170 88 600
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.83 0.83 0.80 0.80 0.93 0.93
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Percent Blockage
Median storage veh)
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
Volume Total 904 94 342 95 645
cSH 1222 1700 1700 14 795
Lane LOS C F D
Approach LOS F
Average Delay 469.8
B - 169
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 16
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 915 5 0 0 13 3 0 0 83 596 0 3
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.976 0.865 0.850
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1787 0 0 1656 0 0 0 822 3367 0 1553
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1787 0 0 1656 0 0 0 822 3367 0 1553
Satd. Flow (RTOR)
Travel Time (s) 12.5 2.4 12.5 11.5
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.63 0.63 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.94 0.94 0.94
Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 40% 40% 12% 12% 12% 25% 25% 100% 4% 1% 4%
Adj. Flow (vph) 1017 8 0 0 23 5 0 0 124 634 0 3
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Turn Type Split Free custom custom
Permitted Phases Free 2 2
Minimum Split (s) 20.0 20.0 8.0 20.0 20.0
Total Split (s) 90.0 90.0 0.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 52.0 0.0 52.0
Total Split (%) 60.0% 60.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 34.7% 0.0% 34.7%
Maximum Green (s) 86.0 86.0 4.0 48.0 48.0
Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lead/Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Act Effct Green (s) 86.0 4.0 150.0 48.0 48.0
v/c Ratio 1.00 0.64 0.15 0.59 0.01
Control Delay 60.0 125.0 0.4 45.4 35.0
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 60.0 125.0 0.4 45.4 35.0
B - 170
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 17
LOS E F A D C
Approach Delay 60.0 125.0
Approach LOS E F
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 150
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NWL and 6:, Start of Green
Natural Cycle: 90
B - 171
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 18
Lane Group EBT WBT SER NWL NWR
v/c Ratio 1.00 0.64 0.15 0.59 0.01
Control Delay 60.0 125.0 0.4 45.4 35.0
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 60.0 125.0 0.4 45.4 35.0
Queue Length 50th (ft) ~970 28 0 268 2
Internal Link Dist (ft) 470 26
Reduced v/c Ratio 1.00 0.64 0.15 0.59 0.01
B - 172
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 19
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 258 95 51 123 1 2
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.960 0.905
Satd. Flow (prot) 1709 0 1470 0 0 1251
Satd. Flow (perm) 1709 0 1470 0 0 1251
Travel Time (s) 17.4 62.9 28.3
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.77 0.90 0.90 0.75 0.75
Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 8% 17% 17% 50% 50%
Adj. Flow (vph) 287 123 57 137 1 3
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Area Type: Other
B - 173
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 20
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 258 95 51 123 1 2
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.77 0.90 0.90 0.75 0.75
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Percent Blockage
Median storage veh)
tC, single (s) 6.4 6.3 4.6
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 3.4 2.7
Volume Left 287 0 1
cSH 878 1700 1138
Lane LOS B A
Approach LOS B
Average Delay 8.6
B - 174
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 21
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 1792 267 567 0 75 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.88
Frt
Flt Protected 0.950 0.964 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1698 1718 3539 0 902 3278
Flt Permitted 0.950 0.964 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1698 1718 3539 0 902 3278
Satd. Flow (RTOR)
Travel Time (s) 13.0 46.6 13.7
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 2% 2% 2% 100% 2%
Adj. Flow (vph) 1991 297 630 0 83 0
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Permitted Phases 8
Minimum Split (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 8.0 8.0
Total Split (s) 100.0 100.0 30.0 0.0 20.0 20.0
Total Split (%) 66.7% 66.7% 20.0% 0.0% 13.3% 13.3%
Maximum Green (s) 96.0 96.0 26.0 16.0 16.0
Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lead/Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Act Effct Green (s) 96.0 96.0 26.0 16.0
v/c Ratio 1.04 1.05 1.03 0.86
Control Delay 58.6 60.2 103.1 125.3
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 58.6 60.2 103.1 125.3
LOS E E F F
Approach LOS E F F
B - 175
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 22
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 150
Natural Cycle: 150
B - 176
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 23
Lane Group SEL SET NWT SWL
v/c Ratio 1.04 1.05 1.03 0.86
Control Delay 58.6 60.2 103.1 125.3
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 58.6 60.2 103.1 125.3
Queue Length 50th (ft) ~1280 ~1304 ~345 81
Queue Length 95th (ft) m1023 m1042 #472 #186
Reduced v/c Ratio 1.04 1.05 1.03 0.86
B - 177
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 24
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 0 308 567 75 0 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.983
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1863 3483 0 1863 0
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1863 3483 0 1863 0
Travel Time (s) 46.6 13.1 7.8
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 1% 2% 2%
Adj. Flow (vph) 0 342 630 83 0 0
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Area Type: Other
B - 178
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 25
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 0 308 567 75 0 0
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Percent Blockage
Median storage veh)
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 100 100 100
Volume Left 0 0 0 0
cSH 882 1700 1700 1700
Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Lane LOS A
Approach LOS A
Average Delay 0.0
B - 179
30: 695 SB Ramp & Orange West
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 26
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 0 0 511 952 0 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.902
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 0 3192 0 0 0
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 0 3192 0 0 0
Travel Time (s) 4.9 29.7 11.7
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 555 1035 0 0
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Sign Control Stop Free Stop
Area Type: Other
B - 180
30: 695 SB Ramp & Orange West
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 27
Intersection Sign configuration not allowed in HCM analysis.
B - 181
33: 695 SB Ramp & Orange East
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 28
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 0 0 1463 952 0 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.850
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 0 3539 1583 0 0
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 0 3539 1583 0 0
Travel Time (s) 29.7 33.8 5.1
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 1590 1035 0 0
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Sign Control Stop Free Stop
Area Type: Other
B - 182
33: 695 SB Ramp & Orange East
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 29
Intersection Sign configuration not allowed in HCM analysis.
B - 183
Lanes, Volumes, Timings C large event outbound SF signal
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 1
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 49 49 0 841 1 1
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.932 0.932
Flt Protected 0.976
Satd. Flow (prot) 1703 0 0 3505 1728 0
Flt Permitted 0.976
Satd. Flow (perm) 1703 0 0 3505 1728 0
Travel Time (s) 5.7 19.0 22.8
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.89 0.89 0.69 0.90
Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 3% 3% 0% 0%
Adj. Flow (vph) 54 54 0 945 1 1
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Area Type: Other
B - 184
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis C large event outbound SF signal
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 2
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 49 49 0 841 1 1
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.89 0.89 0.69 0.90
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Percent Blockage
Median storage veh)
tC, single (s) 4.2 6.8 6.9
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 100 100 100
Volume Left 0 0 0 1
cSH 1700 1472 1700 602
Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.0
Lane LOS B
Approach LOS B
Average Delay 0.0
B - 185
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 3
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 0 50 0 0 841 2837
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.95
Frt 0.850 0.884
Flt Protected 0.989
Satd. Flow (prot) 1863 808 0 0 3159 0
Flt Permitted 0.989
Satd. Flow (perm) 1863 808 0 0 3159 0
Travel Time (s) 19.0 10.5 13.0
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 100% 2% 2% 2% 2%
Adj. Flow (vph) 0 54 0 0 914 3084
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Area Type: Other
B - 186
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 4
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 0 50 0 0 841 2837
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Percent Blockage
Median storage veh)
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 100 100 100
Volume Left 0 0 0 0
cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700
Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Lane LOS
Approach LOS
Average Delay 0.0
B - 187
6: SFB to 695SB-690 WB & SFB to 690 WB
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 5
Lane Group NBL NBT SBT SBR SEL SER
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 1480 1357 0 0 0 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt
Flt Protected 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1863 0 0 0 0
Flt Permitted 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1863 0 0 0 0
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR)
Travel Time (s) 10.5 7.6 14.4
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 1609 1475 0 0 0 0
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Turn Type Prot
Protected Phases 2
Permitted Phases 2
Total Split (s) 20.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Split (%) 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lead/Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
v/c Ratio 0.91 0.79
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0
LOS B A
B - 188
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 6
Lane Group NBL NBT SBT SBR SEL SER
Approach Delay 7.8
Approach LOS A
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 20
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:, Start of Green
Natural Cycle: 40
Splits and Phases: 6: SFB to 695SB-690 WB & SFB to 690 WB
B - 189
Queues C large event outbound SF signal
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 7
Lane Group NBL NBT
v/c Ratio 0.91 0.79
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0
B - 190
7: Bridge St &
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 8
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 19 82 18 894 139 0 35 32 3 6 21 9
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.974 0.850 0.968
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.991
Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 3481 0 1719 3438 0 1703 1792 1599 0 1681 0
Flt Permitted 0.658 0.503 0.514
Satd. Flow (perm) 1238 3481 0 910 3438 0 921 1792 1599 0 1696 0
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 21 3 11
Link Distance (ft) 824 1223 1933 1551
Travel Time (s) 18.7 27.8 43.9 35.3
Peak Hour Factor 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.79 0.79 0.79
Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 1% 1% 5% 5% 1% 6% 6% 1% 1% 10% 10%
Adj. Flow (vph) 23 98 21 951 148 0 38 34 3 8 27 11
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Detector 1 Size(ft) 20 6 20 6 20 6 20 20 6
Detector 1 Channel
Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 2 Channel
B - 191
7: Bridge St &
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 9
Detector Phase 5 2 1 6 3 8 8 1 4 4
Switch Phase
Minimum Split (s) 10.0 16.0 10.0 16.0 9.5 11.5 11.5 11.5
Total Split (s) 20.0 25.0 0.0 12.0 17.0 0.0 24.5 44.0 56.0 19.5 19.5 0.0
Total Split (%) 24.7% 30.9% 0.0% 14.8% 21.0% 0.0% 30.2% 54.3% 69.1% 24.1% 24.1% 0.0%
Maximum Green (s) 14.0 19.0 6.0 11.0 19.0 38.5 14.0 14.0
Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
All-Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
Total Lost Time (s) 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 4.0
Act Effct Green (s) 16.3 11.0 23.4 27.4 9.4 10.4 14.3 7.2
v/c Ratio 0.04 0.12 1.35 0.06 0.11 0.07 0.00 0.14
Control Delay 8.6 13.0 186.2 10.0 11.4 10.8 3.3 15.9
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 8.6 13.0 186.2 10.0 11.4 10.8 3.3 15.9
LOS A B F B B B A B
Approach Delay 12.3 162.5 10.8 15.9
Approach LOS B F B B
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 81
Natural Cycle: 90
B - 192
7: Bridge St &
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 10
v/c Ratio 0.04 0.12 1.35 0.06 0.11 0.07 0.00 0.14
Control Delay 8.6 13.0 186.2 10.0 11.4 10.8 3.3 15.9
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 8.6 13.0 186.2 10.0 11.4 10.8 3.3 15.9
Queue Length 50th (ft) 1 4 ~18 0 5 4 0 4
Queue Length 95th (ft) 14 29 #724 42 22 20 2 28
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.02 0.06 1.35 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.00 0.07
B - 193
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 11
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 76 15 20 0 227 1015
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95
Frt 0.904 0.850
Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 1681 1810 0 1606 1461
Satd. Flow (perm) 1787 1681 1810 0 1606 1461
Travel Time (s) 27.8 16.6 12.5
Peak Hour Factor 0.83 0.83 0.80 0.80 0.93 0.93
Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 13% 5% 1% 5% 5%
Adj. Flow (vph) 92 18 25 0 244 1091
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Area Type: Other
B - 194
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 12
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 76 15 20 0 227 1015
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.83 0.83 0.80 0.80 0.93 0.93
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Percent Blockage
Median storage veh)
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
Volume Total 92 18 25 608 728
cSH 1596 1700 1700 879 1043
Control Delay (s) 7.4 0.0 0.0 17.8 16.0
Lane LOS A C C
Approach LOS C
Average Delay 15.7
B - 195
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 13
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 75 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 1127 113 0 1
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.955 0.865 0.850
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 912 0 0 1620 0 0 0 1611 3367 0 1553
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 912 0 0 1620 0 0 0 1611 3367 0 1553
Travel Time (s) 12.5 2.4 29.5 11.7
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.63 0.63 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.94 0.94 0.94
Heavy Vehicles (%) 100% 40% 40% 12% 12% 12% 25% 25% 2% 4% 1% 4%
Adj. Flow (vph) 83 2 0 0 4 2 0 0 1682 120 0 1
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Area Type: Other
B - 196
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 14
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 75 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 1127 113 0 1
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.63 0.63 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.94 0.94 0.94
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Percent Blockage
Median storage veh)
tC, single (s) 8.1 6.9 6.6 7.2 6.6 6.3 4.3 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 4.4 4.4 3.7 3.6 4.1 3.4 2.4 2.2
p0 queue free % 84 100 100 100 99 100 100 93
cM capacity (veh/h) 512 555 984 176 596 1056 1483 1610
Volume Total 85 5 1682 60 60 1
Volume Left 83 0 0 60 60 0
cSH 513 697 1700 1610 1610 1700
Control Delay (s) 13.4 10.2 0.0 7.4 7.4 0.0
Lane LOS B B A A
Approach Delay (s) 13.4 10.2 0.0 7.4
Approach LOS B B
Average Delay 1.1
B - 197
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 15
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 17 18 10 233 0 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.926 0.871
Flt Protected 0.978
Satd. Flow (prot) 1641 0 1414 0 0 1267
Flt Permitted 0.978
Satd. Flow (perm) 1641 0 1414 0 0 1267
Travel Time (s) 17.4 62.9 28.3
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.77 0.90 0.90 0.75 0.75
Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 8% 17% 17% 50% 50%
Adj. Flow (vph) 19 23 11 259 0 0
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Area Type: Other
B - 198
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 16
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 17 18 10 233 0 0
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.77 0.90 0.90 0.75 0.75
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Percent Blockage
Median storage veh)
tC, single (s) 6.4 6.3 4.6
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.5 3.4 2.7
Volume Left 19 0 0
cSH 875 1700 1700
Lane LOS A
Approach LOS A
Average Delay 1.3
B - 199
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 17
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 0 50 183 0 75 3570
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.88
Frt 0.850
Flt Protected 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1863 3539 0 902 2787
Flt Permitted 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1863 3539 0 902 2787
Travel Time (s) 13.0 46.6 13.7
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 2% 2% 2% 100% 2%
Adj. Flow (vph) 0 56 203 0 83 3967
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Area Type: Other
B - 200
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 18
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 0 50 183 0 75 3570
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Percent Blockage
Median storage veh)
tC, single (s) 4.1 8.8 6.9
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 4.5 3.3
Volume Total 56 136 68 83 1983 1983
Volume Right 0 0 0 0 1983 1983
cSH 1373 1700 1700 497 934 934
Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.7 521.8 521.8
Lane LOS B F F
Approach LOS F
Average Delay 480.6
B - 201
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 19
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 0 50 183 75 0 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.956
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1863 2646 0 1863 0
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1863 2646 0 1863 0
Travel Time (s) 46.6 13.1 7.8
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 100% 2% 2%
Adj. Flow (vph) 0 56 203 83 0 0
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Area Type: Other
B - 202
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 20
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h) 0 50 183 75 0 0
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Percent Blockage
Median storage veh)
tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 100 100 100
Volume Left 0 0 0 0
cSH 1272 1700 1700 1700
Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Lane LOS A
Approach LOS A
Average Delay 0.0
B - 203
31: Int
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 21
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 0 512 454 0 2380 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00
Frt
Flt Protected 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 3539 3539 0 3433 950
Flt Permitted 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 3539 3539 0 3433 950
Satd. Flow (RTOR)
Travel Time (s) 26.6 31.1 11.9
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 100%
Adj. Flow (vph) 0 557 493 0 2587 0
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Turn Type Perm
Permitted Phases 6
Minimum Split (s) 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0
Total Split (s) 0.0 30.0 30.0 0.0 90.0 90.0
Total Split (%) 0.0% 25.0% 25.0% 0.0% 75.0% 75.0%
Maximum Green (s) 24.0 24.0 84.0 84.0
Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
All-Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0
Lead/Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
v/c Ratio 0.79 0.70 1.08
Total Delay 54.6 50.6 62.5
LOS D D E
Approach LOS D D E
B - 204
31: Int
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 22
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2: and 6:SWL, Start of Green
Natural Cycle: 120
Splits and Phases: 31: Int
B - 205
31: Int
5/28/2014
Synchro 7 - Report
KMF Page 23
Lane Group EBT WBT SWL
v/c Ratio 0.79 0.70 1.08
Total Delay 54.6 50.6 62.5
Queue Length 50th (ft) 217 188 ~1151
Queue Length 95th (ft) 283 248 #1278
B - 206
Onondaga County

Appendix C:

Accident Data

County: Onondaga Muni: Geddes(T) Ref. Marker: 931B33011008 Street: STATE FAIR BLVD
10/9/2010 Sat 13:45 PM Persons Killed: 0 Persons Injured: 0 Extent of Injuries: Case: 2010-33603662
Accident Class: NON-REPORTABLE Police Agency: GEDDES TOWN PD Numof Veh: 2
Type Of Accident: COLLISION WITH MOTOR VEHICLE Traffic Control: RR CROSSING GATES
Manner of Collision: REAR END Weather: CLEAR
Road Surface Condition: DRY Road Char.: STRAIGHT AND LEVEL Light Condition: DAYLIGHT
Loc. of Ped/Bicycle: NOT APPLICABLE Action of Ped/Bicycle: NOT APPLICABLE
Veh :2 CAR/VAN/PICKUP Registered Weight: State of Registration: NY
Numof Occupants: 1 Driver's Age: 45 Sex: F Citation Issued: N
Direction of Travel: SOUTH-EAST Public Property Damage: OTHER School Bus Involved: OTHER
Pre-Accd Action: STOPPED IN TRAFFIC
Apparent Factors: NOT APPLICABLE, NOT APPLICABLE
Pre-Accd Action: SLOWED OR STOPPING
Apparent Factors: FOLLOWING TOO CLOSELY, DRIVER INATTENTION
31 Meters West of Unnamed Street
10/13/2010 Wed 14:10 PM Persons Killed: 0 Persons Injured: 0 Extent of Injuries: Case: 2010-33607885
Accident Class: PROPERTY DAMAGE Police Agency: GEDDES TOWN PD Numof Veh: 2
Type Of Accident: COLLISION WITH MOTOR VEHICLE Traffic Control: NONE
Manner of Collision: OVERTAKING Weather: CLEAR
***** CONTINUED
Veh :2 CAR/VAN/PICKUP Registered Weight: 3248 State of Registration: NY
Accident Location Information System(ALIS)
Date: 5/19/2014
4:36:41 PM
Accident Verbal Description
Page: 1
Date in this report covers the period - 10/1/2010 thru 9/30/2013
Complete Accident data from NYSDMV is only available thru 9/30/2013 12:00:00 AM
Date: 5/19/2014
4:36:41 PM
Page: 2
Page 1of 52
5/20/2014 file:///F:/Project/125A%20-%20ONONDAGA%20COUNTY/125407100%20Lakeview%20Amphitheater/Planning-Study/Tech...
C - 1
Direction of Travel: EAST Public Property Damage: OTHER School Bus Involved: OTHER
Pre-Accd Action: GOING STRAIGHT AHEAD
Apparent Factors: PASSING OR LANE USAGE IMPROPERLY, NOT APPLICABLE
Veh :1 TRUCK Registered Weight: State of Registration: IN
Numof Occupants: 1 Driver's Age: 58 Sex: M Citation Issued: N
Pre-Accd Action: MAKING RIGHT TURN
Apparent Factors: FAILURE TO YIELD RIGHT OF WAY, NOT APPLICABLE
3 Meters West of Hiawatha Ave
10/20/2010 Wed 07:30 AM Persons Killed: 0 Persons Injured: 0 Extent of Injuries: Case: 2010-33628234
Manner of Collision: REAR END Weather: CLOUDY
Veh :2 OTHER Registered Weight: State of Registration:
Numof Occupants: 0 Driver's Age: Sex: Citation Issued:
***** CONTINUED
Apparent Factors: DRIVER INATTENTION, NOT APPLICABLE
2 Meters West of Ramp
11/2/2010 Tue 21:50 PM Persons Killed: 0 Persons Injured: 0 Extent of Injuries: Case: 2010-33636065
Date: 5/19/2014
4:36:41 PM
Page: 3
Page 2of 52
C - 2
Manner of Collision: OVERTAKING Weather: CLOUDY
Road Surface Condition: DRY Road Char.: STRAIGHT AND LEVEL Light Condition: DARK-ROAD LIGHTED
Direction of Travel: SOUTH Public Property Damage: OTHER School Bus Involved: OTHER
Pre-Accd Action: PARKED
Veh :1 OTHER Registered Weight: State of Registration: QC
30 Meters West of Walkway
11/6/2010 Sat 08:59 AM Persons Killed: 0 Persons Injured: 0 Extent of Injuries: Case: 2010-33641391
Manner of Collision: RIGHT ANGLE Weather: CLOUDY
Direction of Travel: WEST Public Property Damage: OTHER School Bus Involved: OTHER
Pre-Accd Action: MAKING LEFT TURN
Date: 5/19/2014
4:36:41 PM
Page: 4
Page 3of 52
C - 3
County: Onondaga Muni: Geddes(T) Ref. Marker: Street: STATE FAIR BLVD
805 Meters North of WILLIS AVE
12/7/2010 Tue 11:30 AM Persons Killed: 0 Persons Injured: 0 Extent of Injuries: Case: 2010-33688056
Manner of Collision: OVERTAKING Weather: SNOW
Road Surface Condition: SNOW/ICE Road Char.: STRAIGHT AND LEVEL Light Condition: DAYLIGHT
***** CONTINUED
Apparent Factors: NOT APPLICABLE, PAVEMENT SLIPPERY
Type Of Accident: COLLISION WITH OTHER Traffic Control: RR CROSSING GATES
Manner of Collision: OTHER Weather: CLEAR
Direction of Travel: NORTH-WEST Public Property Damage: OTHER School Bus Involved: OTHER
Apparent Factors: TRAF CNTRL DEV IMPROPER/NON-WRKING, DRIVER INATTENTION
Date: 5/19/2014
4:36:41 PM
Page: 5
Page 4of 52
C - 4
AT INTERSECTION WITH BRIDGE ST
1/24/2011 Mon 18:45 PM Persons Killed: 0 Persons Injured: 0 Extent of Injuries: Case: 2011-33747608
Type Of Accident: COLLISION WITH MOTOR VEHICLE Traffic Control: TRAFFIC SIGNAL
Manner of Collision: RIGHT TURN (AGAINST OTHER CAR) Weather: CLOUDY
Accident Class: NON-REPORTABLE Police Agency: ONONDAGA CO SHERIFF DEPT Numof Veh: 2
Manner of Collision: REAR END Weather: SNOW
Road Surface Condition: SNOW/ICE Road Char.: STRAIGHT AND LEVEL Light Condition: DARK-ROAD LIGHTED
***** CONTINUED
Date: 5/19/2014
4:36:41 PM
Page: 6
Date: 5/19/2014
4:36:41 PM
Page: 7
Page 5of 52
C - 5
Pre-Accd Action: BACKING
Apparent Factors: BACKING UNSAFELY, NOT APPLICABLE
5 Meters East of Hiawatha Ave
2/5/2011 Sat 17:30 PM Persons Killed: 0 Persons Injured: 2 Extent of Injuries: CC Case: 2011-33765230
Accident Class: INJ URY Police Agency: GEDDES TOWN PD Numof Veh: 2
Type Of Accident: COLLISION WITH MOTOR VEHICLE Traffic Control: STOP SIGN
Manner of Collision: RIGHT ANGLE Weather: SLEET/HAIL/FREEZING RAIN
***** CONTINUED
Direction of Travel: NORTH-EAST Public Property Damage: OTHER School Bus Involved: OTHER
Apparent Factors: VIEW OBSTRUCTED/LIMITED, PAVEMENT SLIPPERY
County: Onondaga Muni: Geddes(T) Ref. Marker: 297 33011022 Street: BRIDGE ST
30 Meters South of STATE FAIR BLVD
2/9/2011 Wed 17:15 PM Persons Killed: 0 Persons Injured: 1 Extent of Injuries: C Case: 2011-33771776
Accident Class: PROPERTY DAMAGE AND INJ URY Police Agency: GEDDES TOWN PD Numof Veh: 2
Date: 5/19/2014
4:36:41 PM
Page: 8
Page 6of 52
C - 6
Road Surface Condition: WET Road Char.: STRAIGHT AND LEVEL Light Condition: DUSK
Direction of Travel: NORTH Public Property Damage: OTHER School Bus Involved: OTHER
Numof Occupants: 1 Driver's Age: 44 Sex: F Citation Issued: Y
Apparent Factors: FOLLOWING TOO CLOSELY, NOT APPLICABLE
4 Meters East of Ramp
Manner of Collision: LEFT TURN (AGAINST OTHER CAR) Weather: CLOUDY
Apparent Factors: UNKNOWN, UNKNOWN
Date: 5/19/2014
4:36:41 PM
Page: 9
Page 7of 52
C - 7
AT INTERSECTION WITH Ramp
***** CONTINUED
33 Meters East of Willis Ave
5/3/2011 Tue 02:00 AM Persons Killed: 0 Persons Injured: 1 Extent of Injuries: C Case: 2011-33888776
Accident Class: PROPERTY DAMAGE AND INJ URY Police Agency: ONONDAGA CO SHERIFF DEPT Numof Veh: 1
Type Of Accident: OVERTURNED Traffic Control: NONE
Road Surface Condition: DRY Road Char.: STRAIGHT/ GRADE Light Condition: DARK-ROAD LIGHTED
Veh :1 MOTORCYCLE Registered Weight: State of Registration: NY
Numof Occupants: 1 Driver's Age: 30 Sex: M Citation Issued: Y
Pre-Accd Action: AVOIDING OBJ ECT IN ROADWAY
Apparent Factors: ALCOHOL INVOLVEMENT, REACTION TO OTHER UNINVOLVED VEHICL
Date: 5/19/2014
4:36:41 PM
Page: 10
Page 8of 52
C - 8
93 Meters East of Unnamed Street
6/15/2011 Wed 11:25 AM Persons Killed: 1 Persons Injured: 0 Extent of Injuries: K Case: 2011-33937544
Accident Class: FATAL Police Agency: GEDDES TOWN PD Numof Veh: 2
Manner of Collision: HEAD ON Weather: CLEAR
Road Surface Condition: DRY Road Char.: CURVE AND LEVEL Light Condition: DAYLIGHT
Veh :2 TRUCK Registered Weight: 71250 State of Registration: NY
7/10/2011 Sun 12:05 PM Persons Killed: 0 Persons Injured: 0 Extent of Injuries: Case: 2011-33942672
***** CONTINUED
Date: 5/19/2014
4:36:41 PM
Page: 11
Date: 5/19/2014
4:36:41 PM
Page: 12
Page 9of 52
C - 9
Pre-Accd Action: CHANGING LANES
46 Meters West of PUMPHOUSE RD
Manner of Collision: REAR END Weather: RAIN
Road Surface Condition: WET Road Char.: STRAIGHT AND LEVEL Light Condition: DAYLIGHT
***** CONTINUED
Apparent Factors: NOT APPLICABLE, FOLLOWING TOO CLOSELY
7/31/2011 Sun 00:15 AM Persons Killed: 0 Persons Injured: 1 Extent of Injuries: A Case: 2011-33971846
Type Of Accident: COLLISION WITH PEDESTRIAN Traffic Control: NONE
Date: 5/19/2014
4:36:41 PM
Page: 13
Page 10of 52
C - 10
Manner of Collision: OTHER Weather: CLOUDY
Loc. of Ped/Bicycle: PED/BICYCLIST NOT AT INTERSECTION Action of Ped/Bicycle: ALONG HIGHWAY WITH TRAFFIC
Veh :2 PEDESTRIAN Registered Weight: State of Registration:
Direction of Travel: NOT APPLICABLE Public Property Damage: OTHER School Bus Involved: OTHER
Pre-Accd Action: NOT APPLICABLE
Pre-Accd Action: UNKNOWN
Apparent Factors: DRIVER INATTENTION, UNKNOWN
Accident Class: NON-REPORTABLE Police Agency: ONEIDA SP Numof Veh: 2
Type Of Accident: COLLISION WITH MOTOR VEHICLE Traffic Control: POLICE/FIRE EMERGENCY
Pre-Accd Action: MERGING
Date: 5/19/2014
4:36:41 PM
Page: 14
Page 11of 52
C - 11
Manner of Collision: OTHER Weather: RAIN
***** CONTINUED
Veh :2 TRUCK Registered Weight: State of Registration: NY
Accident Class: PROPERTY DAMAGE Police Agency: SP SYLVAN BEACH (DHQT) Numof Veh: 2
Manner of Collision: RIGHT TURN (WITH OTHER CAR) Weather: CLEAR
Apparent Factors: TURNING IMPROPER, NOT APPLICABLE
Date: 5/19/2014
4:36:41 PM
Page: 15
Page 12of 52
C - 12
***** CONTINUED
Accident Class: NON-REPORTABLE Police Agency: SP SYLVAN BEACH (DHQT) Numof Veh: 2
AT INTERSECTION WITH Belle Isle Ave
9/2/2011 Fri 11:25 AM Persons Killed: 0 Persons Injured: 0 Extent of Injuries: Case: 2011-34007147
Date: 5/19/2014
4:36:41 PM
Page: 16
Date: 5/19/2014
4:36:41 PM
Page: 17
Page 13of 52
C - 13
Accident Class: NON-REPORTABLE Police Agency: PULASKI SP Numof Veh: 2
9/3/2011 Sat 09:25 AM Persons Killed: 0 Persons Injured: 1 Extent of Injuries: C Case: 2011-34007393
Accident Class: INJ URY Police Agency: PULASKI SP Numof Veh: 1
Type Of Accident: COLLISION WITH PEDESTRIAN Traffic Control: TRAFFIC SIGNAL
Loc. of Ped/Bicycle: PED/BICYCLIST NOT AT INTERSECTION Action of Ped/Bicycle: CROSSING WITH SIGNAL
***** CONTINUED
Date: 5/19/2014
4:36:41 PM
Page: 18
Page 14of 52
C - 14
Apparent Factors: FAILURE TO YIELD RIGHT OF WAY, VIEW OBSTRUCTED/LIMITED
County: Onondaga Muni: Geddes(T) Ref. Marker: 931B33011000 Street: COUNTY HWY 80
9/1/2011 Thu 15:00 PM Persons Killed: 0 Persons Injured: 0 Extent of Injuries: Case: 2011-34008751
Accident Class: PROPERTY DAMAGE Police Agency: SP SYLVAN BEACH (DHQT) Numof Veh: 2
Manner of Collision: UNKNOWN Weather: CLEAR
Veh :1 OTHER Registered Weight: State of Registration: NY
Pre-Accd Action: UNKNOWN
Apparent Factors: TURNING IMPROPER, UNKNOWN
***** CONTINUED
County: Onondaga Muni: Geddes(T) Ref. Marker: Street:
Type Of Accident: COLLISION WITH OTHER Traffic Control: NONE
Apparent Factors: UNSAFE LANE CHANGE, NOT APPLICABLE
Date: 5/19/2014
4:36:41 PM
Page: 19
Page 15of 52
C - 15
Accident Class: PROPERTY DAMAGE Police Agency: SP BALDWINSVILLE SATELLITE Num of Veh: 1
Type Of Accident: COLL. W/LIGHT SUPPORT/UTILITY POLE Traffic Control: NONE
***** CONTINUED
Veh :1 CAR/VAN/PICKUP Registered Weight: State of Registration: FL
Apparent Factors: NOT APPLICABLE, TURNING IMPROPER
Accident Class: NON-REPORTABLE Police Agency: AUBURN SP Numof Veh: 1
Type Of Accident: COLLISION WITH OTHER FIXED OBJ ECT Traffic Control: NONE
Road Surface Condition: DRY Road Char.: STRAIGHT AND LEVEL Light Condition: DARK-ROAD UNLIGHTED
Veh :1 OTHER Registered Weight: State of Registration: NY
Pre-Accd Action: MAKING U TURN
Apparent Factors: OBSTRUCTION/DEBRIS, VIEW OBSTRUCTED/LIMITED
9/16/2011 Fri 19:51 PM Persons Killed: 0 Persons Injured: 0 Extent of Injuries: Case: 2011-34021317
Manner of Collision: RIGHT TURN (AGAINST OTHER CAR) Weather: CLOUDY
Date: 5/19/2014
4:36:41 PM
Page: 20
Page 16of 52
C - 16
***** CONTINUED
AT INTERSECTION WITH STATE FAIR BLVD
Manner of Collision: HEAD ON Weather: CLEAR
Apparent Factors: ALCOHOL INVOLVEMENT, DRIVER INATTENTION
***** CONTINUED
Date: 5/19/2014
4:36:41 PM
Page: 21
Date: 5/19/2014
4:36:41 PM
Page: 22
Page 17of 52
C - 17
Veh :1 CAR/VAN/PICKUP Registered Weight: State of Registration: IL
Pre-Accd Action: STARTING IN TRAFFIC
10/15/2011 Sat 19:15 PM Persons Killed: 0 Persons Injured: 3 Extent of Injuries: CCC Case: 2011-34054049
Manner of Collision: LEFT TURN (WITH OTHER CAR) Weather: RAIN
Road Surface Condition: WET Road Char.: STRAIGHT AND LEVEL Light Condition: DARK-ROAD LIGHTED
Date: 5/19/2014
4:36:41 PM
Page: 23
Page 18of 52
C - 18
***** CONTINUED
Apparent Factors: GLARE, NOT APPLICABLE
Manner of Collision: OVERTAKING Weather: SNOW
Date: 5/19/2014
4:36:41 PM
Page: 24
Page 19of 52
C - 19
***** CONTINUED
County: Onondaga Muni: Geddes(T) Ref. Marker: Street: WILLIS AVE
Manner of Collision: REAR END Weather: SNOW
Apparent Factors: NOT APPLICABLE, PAVEMENT SLIPPERY
Date: 5/19/2014
4:36:41 PM
Page: 25
Page 20of 52
C - 20
1/13/2012 Fri 13:23 PM Persons Killed: 0 Persons Injured: 1 Extent of Injuries: C Case: 2012-34174028
Type Of Accident: COLLISION WITH GUIDE RAIL Traffic Control: NONE
Manner of Collision: OTHER Weather: SNOW
Apparent Factors: PAVEMENT SLIPPERY, NOT APPLICABLE
402 Meters West of PUMPHOUSE RD
Type Of Accident: OTHER NON-COLLISION Traffic Control: NONE
Manner of Collision: OTHER Weather: SNOW
***** CONTINUED
Apparent Factors: PAVEMENT SLIPPERY, NOT APPLICABLE
Date: 5/19/2014
4:36:41 PM
Page: 26
Date: 5/19/2014
4:36:41 PM
Page: 27
Page 21of 52
C - 21
1/23/2012 Mon 08:36 AM Persons Killed: 0 Persons Injured: 0 Extent of Injuries: Case: 2012-34186030
County: Onondaga Muni: Geddes(T) Ref. Marker: 695 33011019 Street: RAMP
Accident Class: PROPERTY DAMAGE Police Agency: NYSP ELBRIDGE Numof Veh: 1
Road Surface Condition: WET Road Char.: CURVE AND LEVEL Light Condition: DARK-ROAD UNLIGHTED
Apparent Factors: UNSAFE SPEED, FAILURE TO KEEP RIGHT
Date: 5/19/2014
4:36:41 PM
Page: 28
Page 22of 52
C - 22
***** CONTINUED
Manner of Collision: LEFT TURN (AGAINST OTHER CAR) Weather: RAIN
Road Surface Condition: WET Road Char.: STRAIGHT/ GRADE Light Condition: DAYLIGHT
Apparent Factors: FAILURE TO YIELD RIGHT OF WAY, VIEW OBSTRUCTED/LIMITED
Date: 5/19/2014
4:36:41 PM
Page: 29
Date: 5/19/2014
4:36:41 PM
Page: 30
Page 23of 52
C - 23
***** CONTINUED
5/29/2012 Tue 16:15 PM Persons Killed: 0 Persons Injured: 1 Extent of Injuries: C Case: 2012-34318439
AT INTERSECTION WITH WILLIS AVE
Manner of Collision: RIGHT ANGLE Weather: RAIN
Date: 5/19/2014
4:36:41 PM
Page: 31
Page 24of 52
C - 24
AT INTERSECTION WITH [Route] 297
***** CONTINUED
Direction of Travel: SOUTH-WEST Public Property Damage: OTHER School Bus Involved: OTHER
County: Onondaga Muni: Geddes(T) Ref. Marker: Street:
Accident Class: NON-REPORTABLE Police Agency: NYSP ELBRIDGE Numof Veh: 1
Type Of Accident: COLLISION WITH OTHER FIXED OBJ ECT Traffic Control: OTHER
Date: 5/19/2014
4:36:41 PM
Page: 32
Page 25of 52
C - 25
Road Surface Condition: DRY Road Char.: CURVE AND GRADE Light Condition: DAYLIGHT
Apparent Factors: ALCOHOL INVOLVEMENT, NOT APPLICABLE
7/29/2012 Sun 23:18 PM Persons Killed: 0 Persons Injured: 1 Extent of Injuries: C Case: 2012-34383986
Apparent Factors: ALCOHOL INVOLVEMENT, FOLLOWING TOO CLOSELY
Date: 5/19/2014
4:36:41 PM
Page: 33
Page 26of 52
C - 26
***** CONTINUED
Type Of Accident: COLLISION WITH SIGN POST Traffic Control: TRAFFIC SIGNAL
Apparent Factors: DRIVER INEXPERIENCE, NOT APPLICABLE
Apparent Factors: NOT APPLICABLE, DRIVER INEXPERIENCE
Date: 5/19/2014
4:36:41 PM
Page: 34
Date: 5/19/2014
4:36:41 PM
Page: 35
Page 27of 52
C - 27
Apparent Factors: NOT APPLICABLE, DRIVER INATTENTION
County: Onondaga Muni: Geddes(T) Ref. Marker: Street: HIAWATHA AVE
AT INTERSECTION WITH State Fair Blvd
Accident Class: NON-REPORTABLE Police Agency: WATERTOWN SP Numof Veh: 1
Type Of Accident: COLLISION WITH SIGN POST Traffic Control: STOP SIGN
County: Onondaga Muni: Geddes(T) Ref. Marker: Street: HIAWATHA AVE
***** CONTINUED
Date: 5/19/2014
4:36:41 PM
Page: 36
Page 28of 52
C - 28
Manner of Collision: RIGHT TURN (WITH OTHER CAR) Weather: RAIN
County: Onondaga Muni: Geddes(T) Ref. Marker: 931B33011002 Street: STATE RTE 931B
Type Of Accident: COLLISION WITH OTHER FIXED OBJ ECT Traffic Control: NONE
17 Meters East of Walkway
Accident Class: NON-REPORTABLE Police Agency: SP MORRISVILLE (DHQT) Numof Veh: 1
Type Of Accident: COLLISION WITH SIGN POST Traffic Control: NONE
Date: 5/19/2014
4:36:41 PM
Page: 37
Page 29of 52
C - 29
***** CONTINUED
Accident Class: NON-REPORTABLE Police Agency: PULASKI SP Numof Veh: 2
Type Of Accident: COLLISION WITH MOTOR VEHICLE Traffic Control: POLICE/FIRE EMERGENCY
Manner of Collision: RIGHT TURN (WITH OTHER CAR) Weather: CLOUDY
Road Surface Condition: DRY Road Char.: STRAIGHT AND LEVEL Light Condition: DUSK
Veh :1 BUS Registered Weight: State of Registration: NY
County: Onondaga Muni: Geddes(T) Ref. Marker: 690I33011035 Street: I 690
Date: 5/19/2014
4:36:41 PM
Page: 38
Date: 5/19/2014
4:36:41 PM
Page: 39
Page 30of 52
C - 30
Accident Class: PROPERTY DAMAGE Police Agency: FULTON SP Numof Veh: 2
Road Surface Condition: DRY Road Char.: STRAIGHT/ GRADE Light Condition: DAYLIGHT
Apparent Factors: DRUGS (ILLEGAL), FOLLOWING TOO CLOSELY
9/2/2012 Sun 22:35 PM Persons Killed: 0 Persons Injured: 1 Extent of Injuries: B Case: 2012-34419702
Accident Class: INJ URY Police Agency: SP SYLVAN BEACH (DHQT) Numof Veh: 1
Type Of Accident: COLLISION WITH PEDESTRIAN Traffic Control: OTHER
Loc. of Ped/Bicycle: PED/BICYCLIST NOT AT INTERSECTION Action of Ped/Bicycle: ALONG HIGHWAY WITH TRAFFIC
***** CONTINUED
Apparent Factors: ALCOHOL INVOLVEMENT, TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES DISREGARDED
Veh :2 PEDESTRIAN Registered Weight: State of Registration: -3
Numof Occupants: 1 Driver's Age: Sex: F Citation Issued: N
Date: 5/19/2014
4:36:41 PM
Page: 40
Page 31of 52
C - 31
County: Onondaga Muni: Geddes(T) Ref. Marker: Street: COUNTY HWY 80
Manner of Collision: RIGHT TURN (WITH OTHER CAR) Weather: CLEAR
County: Onondaga Muni: Geddes(T) Ref. Marker: Street: COUNTY HWY 80
***** CONTINUED
Numof Occupants: 1 Driver's Age: Sex: U Citation Issued: N
23 Meters East of BRIDGE ST
7/29/2012 Sun 11:00 AM Persons Killed: 0 Persons Injured: 0 Extent of Injuries: Case: 2012-34451615
Date: 5/19/2014
4:36:41 PM
Page: 41
Page 32of 52
C - 32
Apparent Factors: NOT APPLICABLE, FAILURE TO YIELD RIGHT OF WAY
Date: 5/19/2014
4:36:41 PM
Page: 42
Page 33of 52
C - 33
***** CONTINUED
Apparent Factors: PAVEMENT SLIPPERY, UNSAFE SPEED
10/26/2012 Fri 06:02 AM Persons Killed: 0 Persons Injured: 1 Extent of Injuries: C Case: 2012-34497797
Type Of Accident: COLL. W/EARTH ELE./ROCK CUT/DITCH Traffic Control: NONE
Road Surface Condition: DRY Road Char.: STRAIGHT/ GRADE Light Condition: DARK-ROAD UNLIGHTED
Apparent Factors: ANIMAL'S ACTION, NOT APPLICABLE
***** CONTINUED
Date: 5/19/2014
4:36:41 PM
Page: 43
Date: 5/19/2014
4:36:41 PM
Page: 44
Page 34of 52
C - 34
Pre-Accd Action: OVERTAKING
Apparent Factors: DRIVER INATTENTION, PASSING OR LANE USAGE IMPROPERLY
Pre-Accd Action: STARTING IN TRAFFIC
***** CONTINUED
AT INTERSECTION WITH [Route] 297
Date: 5/19/2014
4:36:41 PM
Page: 45
Page 35of 52
C - 35
Manner of Collision: LEFT TURN (WITH OTHER CAR) Weather: CLOUDY
Apparent Factors: UNSAFE SPEED, ALCOHOL INVOLVEMENT
12/7/2012 Fri 16:30 PM Persons Killed: 0 Persons Injured: 2 Extent of Injuries: AA Case: 2012-34563615
Apparent Factors: FAILURE TO YIELD RIGHT OF WAY, DRIVER INATTENTION
Date: 5/19/2014
4:36:41 PM
Page: 46
Page 36of 52
C - 36
Accident Class: NON-REPORTABLE Police Agency: NYSP NORTH SYRACUSE Numof Veh: 2
Type Of Accident: COLLISION WITH MOTOR VEHICLE Traffic Control: YIELD SIGN
***** CONTINUED
Apparent Factors: DRIVER INATTENTION, FOLLOWING TOO CLOSELY
10 Meters East of Belle Isle Ave
Accident Class: PROPERTY DAMAGE Police Agency: SP BALDWINSVILLE SATELLITE Num of Veh: 1
Type Of Accident: COLL. W/LIGHT SUPPORT/UTILITY POLE Traffic Control: NO PASSING ZONE
Apparent Factors: DRIVER INATTENTION, UNKNOWN
Date: 5/19/2014
4:36:41 PM
Page: 47
Page 37of 52
C - 37
Manner of Collision: LEFT TURN (WITH OTHER CAR) Weather: CLOUDY
Apparent Factors: FAILURE TO YIELD RIGHT OF WAY, TURNING IMPROPER
Manner of Collision: LEFT TURN (WITH OTHER CAR) Weather: CLEAR
***** CONTINUED
Date: 5/19/2014
4:36:41 PM
Page: 48
Date: 5/19/2014
4:36:41 PM
Page: 49
Page 38of 52
C - 38
Direction of Travel: SOUTH-WEST Public Property Damage: OTHER School Bus Involved: OTHER
Apparent Factors: ILLNESS, GLARE
1/16/2013 Wed 14:15 PM Persons Killed: 0 Persons Injured: 1 Extent of Injuries: B Case: 2013-34619903
Accident Class: PROPERTY DAMAGE AND INJ URY Police Agency: ONONDAGA CO SHERIFF DEPT Numof Veh: 2
Type Of Accident: COLLISION WITH MOTOR VEHICLE Traffic Control: STOPPED SCHOOL BUS W/RED LIGHT FLSH
***** CONTINUED
Veh :2 BUS Registered Weight: 44 State of Registration: NY
Date: 5/19/2014
4:36:41 PM
Page: 50
Page 39of 52
C - 39
Apparent Factors: NOT APPLICABLE, OVERSIZED VEHICLE
***** CONTINUED
3/11/2013 Mon 07:45 AM Persons Killed: 0 Persons Injured: 1 Extent of Injuries: C Case: 2013-34695868
Road Surface Condition: DRY Road Char.: STRAIGHT/ GRADE Light Condition: DAWN
Date: 5/19/2014
4:36:41 PM
Page: 51
Page 40of 52
C - 40
***** CONTINUED
Manner of Collision: OVERTAKING Weather: RAIN
Pre-Accd Action: MAKING U TURN
Date: 5/19/2014
4:36:41 PM
Page: 52
Page 41of 52
C - 41
AT INTERSECTION WITH PUMPHOUSE RD
Manner of Collision: LEFT TURN (AGAINST OTHER CAR) Weather: RAIN
Apparent Factors: TURNING IMPROPER, UNKNOWN
Veh :2 CAR/VAN/PICKUP Registered Weight: State of Registration: MD
***** CONTINUED
Date: 5/19/2014
4:36:41 PM
Page: 53
Date: 5/19/2014
4:36:41 PM
Page: 54
Page 42of 52
C - 42
County: Onondaga Muni: Geddes(T) Ref. Marker: 297 33011022 Street: STATE FAIR BLVD
6/13/2013 Thu 07:50 AM Persons Killed: 0 Persons Injured: 0 Extent of Injuries: Case: 2013-34812796
Accident Class: PROPERTY DAMAGE Police Agency: ONONDAGA CO SHERIFF DEPT Numof Veh: 2
Date: 5/19/2014
4:36:41 PM
Page: 55
Page 43of 52
C - 43
Veh :1 CAR/VAN/PICKUP Registered Weight: State of Registration: OH
Type Of Accident: COLLISION WITH MOTOR VEHICLE Traffic Control: RR CROSSING SIGN
***** CONTINUED
Date: 5/19/2014
4:36:41 PM
Page: 56
Page 44of 52
C - 44
Apparent Factors: NOT APPLICABLE, UNSAFE LANE CHANGE
***** CONTINUED
Veh :2 CAR/VAN/PICKUP Registered Weight: State of Registration: ON
County: Onondaga Muni: Geddes(T) Ref. Marker: 695 33011019 Street: [Route] 695
Type Of Accident: FIRE/EXPLOSION Traffic Control: NONE
Apparent Factors: OTHER (VEHICLE), NOT ENTERED
7/22/2013 Mon 13:53 PM Persons Killed: 0 Persons Injured: 1 Extent of Injuries: B Case: 2013-34861241
Type Of Accident: COLLISION WITH MOTOR VEHICLE Traffic Control: HIGHWAY WORK AREA
Date: 5/19/2014
4:36:41 PM
Page: 57
Date: 5/19/2014
4:36:41 PM
Page 45of 52
C - 45
***** CONTINUED
7/25/2013 Thu 21:35 PM Persons Killed: 0 Persons Injured: 1 Extent of Injuries: C Case: 2013-34866146
Manner of Collision: LEFT TURN (AGAINST OTHER CAR) Weather: CLEAR
Veh :1 CAR/VAN/PICKUP Registered Weight: State of Registration: CT
Apparent Factors: NOT APPLICABLE, FAILURE TO YIELD RIGHT OF WAY
***** CONTINUED
Page: 58
Date: 5/19/2014
4:36:41 PM
Page: 59
Page 46of 52
C - 46
Veh :1 MOTORCYCLE Registered Weight: State of Registration: NY
Accident Class: PROPERTY DAMAGE Police Agency: SP MORRISVILLE (DHQT) Numof Veh: 2
Type Of Accident: COLLISION WITH MOTOR VEHICLE Traffic Control: OFFICER/FLAGMAN/GUARD
Date: 5/19/2014
4:36:41 PM
Page: 60
Page 47of 52
C - 47
Veh :2 TRUCK Registered Weight: State of Registration: SC
AT INTERSECTION WITH Unnamed Street
Accident Class: PROPERTY DAMAGE Police Agency: ONEIDA SP Numof Veh: 2
Type Of Accident: COLLISION WITH MOTOR VEHICLE Traffic Control: OFFICER/FLAGMAN/GUARD
***** CONTINUED
Apparent Factors: UNSAFE LANE CHANGE, FOLLOWING TOO CLOSELY
Type Of Accident: COLLISION WITH PEDESTRIAN Traffic Control: OFFICER/FLAGMAN/GUARD
Loc. of Ped/Bicycle: PED/BICYCLIST NOT AT INTERSECTION Action of Ped/Bicycle: WORKING IN ROADWAY
Date: 5/19/2014
4:36:41 PM
Page: 61
Page 48of 52
C - 48
Apparent Factors: ALCOHOL INVOLVEMENT, TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES DISREGARDED
***** CONTINUED
Accident Class: NON-REPORTABLE Police Agency: SP MORRISVILLE (DHQT) Numof Veh: 2
Manner of Collision: OVERTAKING Weather: RAIN
Date: 5/19/2014
4:36:41 PM
Page: 62
Date: 5/19/2014
4:36:41 PM
Page 49of 52
C - 49
12 Meters South of Ramp
Accident Class: NON-REPORTABLE Police Agency: AUBURN SP Numof Veh: 1
Type Of Accident: COLLISION WITH FENCE Traffic Control: POLICE/FIRE EMERGENCY
Veh :1 BUS Registered Weight: State of Registration: NY
Accident Class: NON-REPORTABLE Police Agency: ALEXANDRIA BAY SP Numof Veh: 2
***** CONTINUED
Page: 63
Date: 5/19/2014
4:36:41 PM
Page: 64
Page 50of 52
C - 50
Accident Class: PROPERTY DAMAGE Police Agency: ONEIDA SP Numof Veh: 2
***** CONTINUED
County: Onondaga Muni: Geddes(T) Ref. Marker: 297 33011022 Street: STATE FAIR BLVD
Manner of Collision: RIGHT ANGLE Weather: CLEAR
Date: 5/19/2014
4:36:41 PM
Page: 65
Page 51of 52
C - 51
Apparent Factors: OTHER (VEHICLE), NOT APPLICABLE
Page 52of 52
C - 52
LakeviewAmphitheater Traffic Impact Study
Town of Geddes, Onondaga County, NY
Analysis Period: 10/1/10 to 9/30/2013
125.407.100
Light Roadway Character
Roadway
Surface
Weather
State Fair Blvd: West of Pumphouse Rd 17 2011-33949374 6/4/2011 Sat 12:45 PM 2 NR Coll with Mot Veh Rear End Daylight Straight &Level Wet Rain Following Too Closely
37 2012-34175721 1/13/2012 Fri 7:29 AM 1 NR Other Non-Coll Other Daylight Straight &Level Snow/Ice Snow Pavement Slippery
State Fair Blvd: Pumphouse Rd Intersection 73 2013-34734789 4/12/2013 Fri 8:50 PM 2 PDO Coll with Mot Veh Overtaking Dark-Road Lighted Straight &Level Wet Rain Driver Inattention
74 2013-34749508 4/24/2013 Wed 6:39 PM 2 NR Coll with Mot Veh Left Turn (against other car) Daylight Straight &Level Wet Rain Turning Improperly
State Fair Blvd: Pumphouse Rd to Bridge St 1 2010-33603662 10/9/2010 Sat 1:45 PM 2 NR Coll with Mot Veh Rear End Daylight Straight &Level Dry Clear Following Too Closely / Driver Inattention
2 2010-33607885 10/13/2010 Wed 2:10 PM 2 PDO Coll with Mot Veh Overtaking Daylight Straight &Level Dry Clear Passing or Lane Usage Improper / Failure to Yield Right of Way
3 2010-33628234 10/20/2010 Wed 7:30 AM 2 PDO Coll with Mot Veh Rear End Daylight Straight &Level Dry Cloudy Driver Inattention
5 2010-33641391 11/6/2010 Sat 8:59 AM 2 PDO Coll with Mot Veh Right Angle Daylight Straight &Level Dry Cloudy Failure to Yield Right of Way
7 2011-3378818 1/18/2011 Tue 3:15 PM 1 NR Coll with Other Other Daylight Straight &Level Dry Clear Traffic Control Device Improper/Not Working / Driver Inattention
10 2011-33765230 2/5/2011 Sat 5:30 PM 2 2 INJ Coll with Mot Veh Right Angle Dark-Road Lighted Straight &Level Snow/Ice Sleet/Hail/Freezing Rain ViewObstructed/Limited / Pavement Slippery
16 2011-33942672 7/10/2011 Sun 12:05 PM 2 PDO Coll with Mot Veh Overtaking Daylight Straight &Level Dry Clear Driver Inattention
19 2011-33973115 7/30/2011 Sat 10:55 AM 2 NR Coll with Mot Veh Overtaking Daylight Straight &Level Dry Clear Failure to Yield Right of Way
State Fair 21 2011-34004758 8/29/2011 Mon 4:30 PM 2 PDO Coll with Mot Veh Right Turn (against other car) Daylight Straight &Level Dry Clear Turning Improperly
State Fair 23 2011-34007147 9/2/2011 Fri 11:25 AM 2 NR Coll with Mot Veh Overtaking Daylight Straight &Level Dry Clear Passing or Lane Usage Improper
27 2011-34013059 9/8/2011 Thu 12:48 PM 1 PDO Coll with Light Support/Utility Pole Other Daylight Straight &Level Dry Cloudy Turning Improperly
34 2011-34152487 12/28/2011 Wed 5:45 PM 2 NR Coll with Mot Veh Overtaking Dark-Road Lighted Straight &Level Snow/Ice Snow Driver Inattention
36 2012-34174028 1/13/2012 Fri 1:23 PM 1 1 INJ Coll with Guide Rail Other Daylight Straight &Level Snow/Ice Snow Pavement Slippery
46 2012-34383986 7/29/2012 Sun 11:18 PM 4 1 INJ Coll with Mot Veh Other Dark-Road Lighted Straight &Level Dry Cloudy Alcohol Involvement / Following Too Closely
State Fair 49 2012-34408731 8/23/2012 Thu 10:50 PM 1 NR Coll with Sign Post Other Dark-Road Lighted Straight &Level Dry Clear Backing Unsafely
State Fair 50 2012-34414178 8/27/2012 Mon 9:25 PM 2 NR Coll with Mot Veh Right Turn (against other car) Dark-Road Lighted Straight &Level Wet Rain Turning Improperly
State Fair 51 2012-34417174 8/28/2012 Tue 6:04 PM 1 NR Coll with Other Fixed Object Other Daylight Straight &Level Dry Clear Driver Inattention
State Fair 52 2012-34417198 8/28/2012 Tue 3:38 PM 1 NR Coll with Sign Post Other Daylight Straight &Level Dry Clear Backing Unsafely
State Fair 53 2012-34419153 8/31/2012 Fri 7:20 PM 2 NR Coll with Mot Veh Right Turn (against other car) Dusk Straight &Level Dry Cloudy Unsafe Lane Change
State Fair 55 2012-34419702 9/2/2012 Sun 10:35 PM 1 1 INJ Coll with Pedestrian Other Dark-Road Unlighted Straight &Level Dry Clear Alcohol Involvement / Traffic Control Disregard
State Fair 56 2012-34419709 9/2/2012 Sun 6:18 PM 2 NR Coll with Mot Veh Right Turn (against other car) Daylight Straight &Level Dry Clear Turning Improperly
64 2012-34563615 12/7/2012 Fri 4:30 PM 2 2 INJ Coll with Mot Veh Left Turn (against other car) Dark-Road Lighted Straight &Level Wet Rain Failure to Yield Right of Way / Driver Inattention
66 2012-34592655 11/21/2012 Wed 6:31 AM 1 PDO Coll with Light Support/Utility Pole Other Dark-Road Lighted Straight &Level Dry Clear Driver Inattention / Unknown
75 2013-34802378 6/7/2013 Fri 4:35 PM 2 NR Coll with Mot Veh Rear End Daylight Straight &Level Wet Rain Following Too Closely
77 2013-34812796 6/13/2013 Thu 7:50 AM 2 PDO Coll with Mot Veh Rear End Daylight Straight &Level Wet Rain Driver Inattention / Following Too Closely
78 2013-34821518 6/20/2013 Thu 7:57 AM 2 PDO Coll with Mot Veh Rear End Daylight Straight &Level Dry Clear Following Too Closely / Driver Inattention
State Fair 83 2013-34898640 8/23/2013 Fri 6:24 PM 2 NR Coll with Mot Veh Rear End Daylight Straight &Level Dry Clear Following Too Closely
State Fair 84 2013-34902203 8/26/2013 Mon 5:50 PM 2 PDO Coll with Mot Veh Overtaking Daylight Straight &Level Wet Cloudy Unsafe Lane Change
State Fair 85 2013-34902265 8/25/2013 Sun 6:00 PM 2 PDO Coll with Mot Veh Rear End Daylight Straight &Grade Dry Cloudy Unsafe Lane Change / Following Too Closely
State Fair 86 2013-34906781 8/28/2013 Wed 7:16 PM 1 NR Coll with Pedestrian Other Daylight Straight &Level Dry Cloudy Alcohol Involvement / Traffic Control Disregard
State Fair 87 2013-34907078 8/30/2013 Fri 10:30 PM 2 NR Coll with Mot Veh Overtaking Dark-Road Lighted Straight &Level Wet Rain Failure to Yield Right of Way
State Fair 90 2013-34911369 8/30/2013 Fri 8:25 AM 2 PDO Coll with Mot Veh Overtaking Daylight Straight &Level Dry Clear Unsafe Lane Change
State Fair Blvd: Bridge St Intersection 4 2010-33636065 11/2/2010 Tue 9:50 PM 2 PDO Coll with Mot Veh Overtaking Dark-Road Lighted Straight &Level Dry Cloudy Driver Inattention
8 2011-33747608 1/24/2011 Mon 6:45 PM 2 PDO Coll with Mot Veh Right Turn (against other car) Dark-Road Lighted Straight &Level Dry Cloudy Failure to Yield Right of Way
11 2011-33771776 2/9/2011 Wed 5:15 PM 2 1 INJ Coll with Mot Veh Rear End Dusk Straight &Level Wet Clear Following Too Closely
12 2011-33795041 3/2/2011 Wed 7:20 PM 2 PDO Coll with Mot Veh Left Turn (against other car) Dark-Road Lighted Straight &Level Dry Cloudy Driver Inattention
13 2011-33815468 3/19/2011 Sat 1:08 PM 2 NR Coll with Mot Veh Rear End Daylight Straight &Level Dry Cloudy Following Too Closely / Driver Inattention
20 2011-33982239 8/9/2011 Tue 3:30 PM 2 NR Coll with Mot Veh Other Daylight Straight &Level Wet Rain Failure to Yield Right of Way
State Fair 25 2011-34008751 9/1/2011 Thu 3:00 PM 2 PDO Coll with Mot Veh Unknown Daylight Straight &Level Dry Clear Turning Improperly
29 2011-34021317 9/16/2011 Fri 7:51 PM 2 PDO Coll with Mot Veh Right Turn (against other car) Dark-Road Lighted Straight &Level Dry Cloudy Failure to Yield Right of Way
30 2011-34023081 9/18/2011 Sun 9:45 PM 2 NR Coll with Mot Veh Head On Dark-Road Lighted Straight &Level Dry Clear Alcohol Involvement / Driver Inattention
31 2011-34033610 9/27/2011 Tue 9:03 AM 2 1 INJ Coll with Mot Veh Rear End Daylight Straight &Level Dry Cloudy Driver Inattention
33 2011-34078627 11/2/2011 Wed 8:20 AM 2 NR Coll with Mot Veh Rear End Daylight Straight &Level Dry Clear Glare
40 2012-34229145 3/10/2012 Sat 11:07 AM 2 1 INJ Coll with Mot Veh Left Turn (against other car) Daylight Straight &Level Wet Cloudy Driver Inattention
41 2012-34284865 4/24/2012 Tue 7:49 AM 2 PDO Coll with Mot Veh Left Turn (against other car) Daylight Straight &Grade Wet Rain Failure to Yield Right of Way / ViewObstructed/Limited
42 2012-34318439 5/29/2012 Tue 4:15 PM 2 1 INJ Coll with Mot Veh Left Turn (against other car) Daylight Straight &Level Wet Rain Failure to Yield Right of Way
44 2012-34379443 7/24/2012 Tue 11:29 AM 2 PDO Coll with Mot Veh Left Turn (against other car) Daylight Straight &Level Dry Cloudy Failure to Yield Right of Way
47 2012-34393567 8/7/2012 Tue 8:40 AM 1 NR Coll with Sign Post Other Daylight Straight &Level Dry Clear Driver Inexperience
48 2012-34401385 8/13/2012 Mon 4:15 PM 2 PDO Coll with Mot Veh Rear End Daylight Straight &Level Dry Clear Driver Inattention
58 2012-34482778 10/3/2012 Wed 7:30 AM 2 NR Coll with Mot Veh Left Turn (against other car) Daylight Straight &Level Wet Cloudy Failure to Yield Right of Way
61 2012-34521156 11/4/2012 Sun 2:47 PM 2 NR Coll with Mot Veh Rear End Daylight Straight &Level Dry Cloudy Driver Inattention / Passing or Lane Usage Improper
62 2012-34521170 11/4/2012 Sun 2:45 PM 2 NR Coll with Mot Veh Rear End Daylight Straight &Level Dry Cloudy Driver Inattention
63 2012-3454514 11/17/2012 Sat 11:00 PM 2 PDO Coll with Mot Veh Left Turn (against other car) Dark-Road Lighted Straight &Grade Dry Cloudy Unsafe Speed / Alcohol Involvement
67 2013-34602311 1/5/2013 Sat 2:30 AM 2 PDO Coll with Mot Veh Left Turn (against other car) Dark-Road Lighted Straight &Level Dry Cloudy Failure to Yield Right of Way / Turning Improperly
68 2013-34607067 1/9/2013 Wed 3:15 PM 2 PDO Coll with Mot Veh Left Turn (against other car) Daylight Straight &Level Dry Clear Illness / Glare
70 2013-34664723 2/19/2013 Tue 9:53 AM 1 NR Coll with Sign Post Other Daylight Straight &Level Dry Cloudy Oversized Vehicle
71 2013-34686846 3/5/2013 Tue 7:45 AM 2 PDO Coll with Mot Veh Rear End Daylight Straight &Level Wet Cloudy Driver Inattention / Following Too Closely
76 2013-34807967 6/10/2013 Mon 3:15 PM 1 PDO Coll with Sign Post Other Daylight Straight &Level Wet Rain Driver Inattention
82 2013-34866146 7/25/2013 Thu 9:35 PM 2 1 INJ Coll with Mot Veh Left Turn (against other car) Dark-Road Lighted Straight &Level Dry Clear Failure to Yield Right of Way
91 2013-34939100 9/26/2013 Thu 8:55 AM 2 PDO Coll with Mot Veh Right Angle Daylight Straight &Level Dry Clear Failure to Yield Right of Way
State Fair Blvd: Bridge St to Exit 7 Connector Rd State Fair 24 2011-34007393 9/3/2011 Sat 9:25 AM 1 1 INJ Coll with Pedestrian Other Daylight Straight &Level Dry Cloudy Failure to Yield Right of Way / ViewObstructed/Limited
57 2012-34451615 7/29/2012 Sun 11:00 AM 2 NR Coll with Mot Veh Rear End Daylight Straight &Level Dry Clear Driver Inattention
State Fair Blvd: Exit 7 Connector Rd Intersection
Exit 7 Connector & 690 WB Off-Ramp (Exit 7)
Severity
Environment
Accident Type Manner of Collision Contributing Factor(s) Date Day Time # of Veh
Segment or Intersection
Key # Case #
Denotes accidents
occurring during 10
days of the NYS
State Fair ending on
Labor Day
6/2/2014 Page 1 of 2
C - 53
LakeviewAmphitheater Traffic Impact Study
125.407.100
Light Roadway Character
Roadway
Surface
Weather
Severity
Environment
Accident Type Manner of Collision Contributing Factor(s) Date Day Time # of Veh
Segment or Intersection
Key # Case #
Denotes accidents
occurring during 10
days of the NYS
State Fair ending on
Labor Day
Exit 7 Connector & 690 WB Off-Ramp (Exit 7) Intersection State Fair 54 2012-34419486 9/2/2012 Sun 2:21 PM 2 PDO Coll with Mot Veh Rear End Daylight Straight &Grade Dry Clear Drugs / Following Too Closely
State Fair Blvd: Exit 7 Connector Rd to Willis Ave 6 2010-33688056 12/7/2010 Tue 11:30 AM 2 PDO Coll with Mot Veh Overtaking Daylight Straight &Level Snow/Ice Snow Pavement Slippery
14 2011-33888776 5/3/2011 Tue 2:00 AM 1 1 INJ Overturned Other Dark-Road Lighted Straight &Level Dry Clear Alcohol Involvement / Reaction to Other Uninvolved Vehicle
15 2011-33937544 6/15/2011 Wed 11:15 AM 2 1 Killed Coll with Mot Veh Head On Daylight Curve &Level Dry Clear Passing or Lane Usage Improper
18 2011-33971846 7/31/2011 Sun 12:15 AM 1 1 INJ Coll with Pedestrian Other Dark-Road Lighted Straight &Grade Dry Cloudy Driver Inattention / Unknown
59 2012-34483420 10/6/2012 Sat 7:35 AM 1 1 INJ Coll with Guide Rail Other Daylight Straight &Level Wet Rain Pavement Slippery / Unsafe Speed
60 2012-34497797 10/26/2012 Fri 6:02 AM 1 1 INJ Coll with Earth Ele./Rock Cut/Ditch Other Dark-Road Unlighted Straight &Grade Dry Clear Animal's Action
81 2013-34861241 7/22/2013 Mon 1:53 PM 2 1 INJ Coll with Mot Veh Overtaking Daylight Straight &Level Dry Cloudy Following Too Closely / Driver Inattention
State Fair Blvd: Willis Ave Intersection 35 2012-34174021 1/13/2012 Fri 8:43 AM 2 PDO Coll with Mot Veh Rear End Daylight Straight &Level Snow/Ice Snow Pavement Slippery
43 2012-34340764 6/19/2012 Tue 7:16 AM 2 1 INJ Coll with Mot Veh Right Angle Daylight Straight &Level Wet Rain Passing or Lane Usage Improper / Failure to Yield Right of Way
State Fair Blvd: East of Willis Ave
Location Indeterminate or Not Indicated 9 2011-33759381 2/1/2011 Tue 10:50 PM 2 NR Coll with Mot Veh Rear End Dark-Road Lighted Straight &Level Snow/Ice Snow Backing Unsafely
State Fair 22 2011-34004761 8/30/2011 Tue 4:45 PM 2 NR Coll with Mot Veh Overtaking Daylight Straight &Level Dry Clear Passing or Lane Usage Improper / Passing or Lane Usage Improper
26 2011-34012378 9/4/2013 Wed 7:47 PM 1 NR Coll with Other Other Dark-Road Lighted Straight &Grade Dry Cloudy Unsafe Lane Change
State Fair 28 2011-34017795 8/31/2011 Wed 11:23 PM 1 NR Coll with Other Fixed Object Other Dark-Road Unlighted Straight &Level Dry Clear Obstruction/Debris / ViewObstructed/Limited
32 2011-34054049 10/15/2011 Sat 7:15 PM 2 3 INJ Coll with Mot Veh Left Turn (against other car) Dark-Road Lighted Straight &Level Wet Rain Failure to Yield Right of Way
38 2012-34186030 1/23/2012 Mon 8:36 AM 2 PDO Coll with Mot Veh Overtaking Daylight Straight &Level Wet Cloudy Driver Inattention
39 2012-34225055 2/25/2012 Sat 9:11 PM 1 PDO Coll with Guide Rail Other Dark-Road Unlighted Curve &Level Wet Cloudy Unsafe Speed / Failure to Keep Right
45 2012-34383869 7/29/2012 Sun 5:28 PM 1 NR Coll with Other Fixed Object Other Daylight Curve &Grade Dry Clear Alcohol Involvement
65 2012-34566418 11/28/2012 Wed 11:15 AM 2 NR Coll with Mot Veh Rear End Daylight Curve &Grade Dry Cloudy Driver Inattention / Following Too Closely
69 2013-34619903 1/16/2013 Wed 2:15 PM 2 I INJ Coll with Mot Veh Rear End Daylight Straight &Level Wet Cloudy Following Too Closely
72 2013-34695868 3/11/2013 Mon 7:45 AM 2 1 INJ Coll with Mot Veh Rear End Dawn Straight &Grade Dry Cloudy Driver Inattention
79 2013-34857471 7/19/2013 Fri 5:09 PM 2 PDO Coll with Mot Veh Overtaking Daylight Straight &Level Dry Clear Unsafe Lane Change
80 2013-34857473 7/21/2013 Sun 1:25 PM 1 PDO Fire/Explosion Other Daylight Curve &Grade Dry Clear Other Vehicular
State Fair 88 2013-34909070 8/28/2013 Wed 9:40 PM 1 NR Coll with Fence Other Dark-Road Lighted Straight &Level Dry Cloudy Turning Improperly
State Fair 89 2013-34909102 9/1/2013 Sun 12:45 PM 2 NR Coll with Mot Veh Rear End Daylight Straight &Grade Dry Cloudy Following Too Closely / Driver Inattention
6/2/2014 Page 2 of 2
C - 54
AVERAGE ACCIDENT RATES FOR STATE HIGHWAYS BY FACILITY TYPE
(BASED ON ACCIDENT DATA August 1, 2011 TO July 31, 2013)
MAINLINE ACCIDENTS ONLY: "Non-Intersection Accidents/MVM" is used for linear highway sections where there are no intersecting roads or
ramp junctions within analysis limits. An example of the correct use of these rates would involve a linear section of highway which contains no
intersections with other public highways, but may contain intersections with private roads or driveways.
MAINLINE & JUNCTURE ACCIDENTS: "Intersection & Non-Intersection Accidents/MVM" includes intersection and mainline accidents. They are
used for analysis of linear highway sections where intersections are involved within the analysis limits and are the most commonly used rates
for accident analysis purposes.
Average accident rates are based on both reportable and available non-reportable crashes.
C - 55
ALL TYPES WET ROAD FIXED OBJECT ALL TYPES WET ROAD FIXED OBJECT
UNDIVIDED ACC/MVM ACC/MVM ACC/MVM ACC/MVM ACC/MVM ACC/MVM
2 LANES 2.24 0.41 0.62 2.68 0.49 0.7
3 LANES 1.81 0.35 0.51 2.14 0.41 0.61
4 LANES 2.01 0.39 0.32 2.66 0.53 0.36
ALL LANES 2.22 0.41 0.6 2.67 0.49 0.7
DIVIDED
2 LANES 2.21 0.4 0.49 2.75 0.55 0.54
4 LANES 1.91 0.33 0.49 2.11 0.35 0.53
ALL LANES 2.01 0.36 0.5 2.31 0.41 0.53
UNDIVIDED
2 LANES 2.25 0.41 0.34 3.38 0.62 0.46
3 LANES 2.48 0.5 0.22 3.71 0.72 0.29
4 LANES 3.2 0.65 0.2 5.08 1.01 0.41
ALL LANES 2.46 0.46 0.31 3.75 0.7 0.42
DIVIDED
2 LANES 2.81 0.5 0.24 4.46 0.8 0.29
4 LANES 2.79 0.54 0.2 4.25 0.81 0.25
6 LANES 3.84 0.72 0.16 4.9 0.92 0.2
7 LANES 3.29 0.73 0.19 4.14 0.85 0.2
ALL LANES 3.07 0.58 0.19 4.48 0.84 0.26
MAINLINE & JUNCTURE ACCIDENTS MAINLINE ACCIDENTS ONLY
FACILITY TYPE
URBAN FUNCTION CLASS
FREE ACCESS CONTROLLED
RURAL FUNCTION CLASS
C - 56
MAINLINE & JUNCTURE ACCIDENTS
2 LANES 1.74 0.3 0.43 2.1 0.39 0.49
ALL LANES 1.73 0.29 0.44 2.08 0.38 0.47
DIVIDED
4 LANES 1.62 0.31 0.69 1.72 0.33 0.71
ALL LANES 1.64 0.31 0.69 1.75 0.33 0.71
UNDIVIDED
2 LANES 1.66 0.32 0.4 2.27 0.43 0.45
ALL LANES 1.99 0.38 0.35 2.89 0.56 0.39
DIVIDED
4 LANES 1.4 0.3 0.3 1.68 0.35 0.34
6 LANES 1.53 0.31 0.28 1.73 0.35 0.3
ALL LANES 1.49 0.31 0.31 1.79 0.36 0.32
UNDIVIDED
2 LANES 1.79 0.33 0.47 2.12 0.39 0.55
ALL LANES 1.85 0.34 0.48 2.18 0.4 0.56
DIVIDED
4 LANES 0.99 0.16 0.41 1.01 0.17 0.41
5 LANES 1.09 0.21 0.56 1.1 0.22 0.57
6 LANES 0.84 0.15 0.36 0.88 0.16 0.38
ALL LANES 1 0.17 0.42 1.02 0.17 0.42
CONTROLLED ACCESS (FULL)
MAINLINE ACCIDENTS ONLY PARTIAL CONTROL OF ACCESS
C - 57
ALL LANES 1.44 0.26 0.22 1.97 0.36 0.27
DIVIDED
4 LANES 1.01 0.21 0.28 1.09 0.22 0.3
5 LANES 0.94 0.17 0.33 1.11 0.22 0.36
6 LANES 1.04 0.2 0.21 1.09 0.21 0.21
7 LANES 1.28 0.38 0.43 1.38 0.4 0.46
ALL LANES 1.02 0.2 0.21 1.08 0.22 0.22
MAINLINE ACCIDENTS ONLY MAINLINE & JUNCTURE ACCIDENTS
C - 58
ALL WET LEFT REAR OVER- RIGHT RIGHT HEAD SIDE-
TYPES ROAD TURN END TAKING ANGLE TURN ON SWIPE
ACC/MEV ACC/MEV ACC/MEV ACC/MEV ACC/MEV ACC/MEV ACC/MEV ACC/MEV ACC/MEV
3 LEGGED INTERSECTIONS
SIGNAL ALL LANES 0.22 0.04 0.02 0.08 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00
SIGN ALL LANES 0.14 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00
NO CONTROL ALL LANES 0.07 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4LEGGED&>INTERSECTIONS
SIGNAL ALL LANES 0.49 0.09 0.05 0.13 0.02 0.12 0.02 0 0.01
SIGN ALL LANES 0.3 0.06 0.02 0.04 0.01 0.09 0.01 0 0.01
NO CONTROL ALL LANES 0.19 0.03 0 0.03 0.01 0.03 0.01 0 0
ON RAMP (ALL CONTROL)
MERGE W/ 1 LANE 0.57 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
MERGE W/ 2&> LANES 0.01 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
OFF RAMP (ALL CONTROL)
MERGE W/ 1 LANE 0.08 0.08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
MERGE W/ 2&> LANES 0.04 0.01 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
AVERAGE INTERSECTION ACCIDENT RATES FOR STATE HIGHWAYS BY INTERSECTION TYPE
(BASED ON ACCIDENT DATA August 1, 2011 TO July 31, 2013)
INTERSECTION TYPE
C - 59
ALL WET LEFT REAR OVER- RIGHT RIGHT HEAD SIDE-
TYPES ROAD TURN END TAKING ANGLE TURN ON SWIPE
ACC/MEV ACC/MEV ACC/MEV ACC/MEV ACC/MEV ACC/MEV ACC/MEV ACC/MEV ACC/MEV
3 LEGGED INTERSECTIONS
SIGNAL 1-4 LANES 0.27 0.05 0.02 0.1 0.03 0.03 0.01 0 0
SIGNAL W/ LEFT TURN 5 & > LANES 0.16 0.03 0.01 0.06 0.03 0.02 0.01 0 0
SIGNAL W/0 LEFT TURN 5 & > LANES 0.13 0.02 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.02 0 0 0
SIGN 1-3 LANES 0.15 0.03 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.02 0 0 0
SIGN 4 LANES 0.1 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.01 0 0 0
SIGN 5 & > LANES 0.06 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0 0 0
NO CONTROL ALL LANES 0.04 0.01 0 0.01 0 0 0 0 0
4 LEGGED &> INTERSECTIONS
SIGNAL 1-4 LANES
0.45 0.09 0.05 0.17 0.04 0.06 0.01 0.01 0
SIGNAL W/ LEFT TURN 5 & > LANES
0.21 0.04 0.02 0.09 0.03 0.03 0.01 0 0
SIGNAL W/0 LEFT TURN 5 & > LANES
0.14 0.03 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.03 0 0 0
SIGN 1-3 LANES
0.26 0.05 0.02 0.07 0.01 0.06 0.01 0 0
SIGN 4 & > LANES
0.14 0.03 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.03 0 0 0
NO CONTROL ALL LANES
0.13 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.01 0 0
ON RAMP (ALL CONTROL)
MERGE W/ 1 LANE 0.12 0.02 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
MERGE W/ 2 LANES 0.02 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
MERGE W/ 3&> LANES 0.01 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
OFF RAMP (ALL CONTROL)
MERGE W/ 1 LANE 0.08 0.01 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
MERGE W/ 2 LANES 0.02 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
MERGE W/ 3&> LANES 0.01 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
INTERSECTION TYPE
C - 60
125.407.100
Total # Accidents PDO Injury Fatality
Non-
Reportable
Exit 7 Connector Road & 690 WB Off-Ramp (Exit 7) 1 1 0 0 0
33 17 6 0 10
State Fair Boulevard: West of Pumphouse Road 2 0 0 0 2
State Fair Boulevard: Pumphouse Road to Bridge Street 32 12 5 0 15
State Fair Boulevard: Bridge Street to Exit 7 Connector Road 2 0 1 0 1
State Fair Boulevard: Exit 7 Connector Road to Willis Avenue 7 1 5 1 0
Totals 43 13 11 1 18
31 15 6 0 10
State Fair Boulevard: West of Pumphouse Road 2 0 0 0 2
State Fair Boulevard: Pumphouse Road to Bridge Street 17 8 4 0 5
State Fair Boulevard: Bridge Street to Exit 7 Connector Road 1 0 0 0 1
State Fair Boulevard: Exit 7 Connector Road to Willis Avenue 7 1 5 1 0
Totals 27 9 9 1 8
Entire Year Analysis
Total # Accidents
(over 3 years) AADT*
Segment
Length (mi)
Total Acc
Rate
(MEV) SWA Rate % > SWA
State Fair Boulevard at Pumphouse Road 2 5340 0.34 0.15 127%
State Fair Boulevard at Exit 7 Connector Road 0 6600 0.15
Exit 7 Connector Road & 690 WB Off-Ramp (Exit 7) 1 5190 0.18 0.13 38%
Total Acc
Rate
(MVM)
State Fair Boulevard: West of Pumphouse Road 2 5280 0.30 1.15 2.25 -49%
State Fair Boulevard: Pumphouse Road to Bridge Street 32 6600 0.90 4.92 2.48 98%
State Fair Boulevard: Bridge Street to Exit 7 Connector Road 2 5880 0.23 1.35 3.20 -58%
Exit 7 Connector Road & 690 WB Off-Ramp (Exit 7) 0 5190 0.22 2.25
State Fair Boulevard: Exit 7 Connector Road to Willis Avenue 7 2250 0.66 4.3 2.25 91%
State Fair Boulevard: East of Willis Avenue 0 1230 0.30 2.25
Total Acc
Rate
(MEV)
State Fair Boulevard at Pumphouse Road 2 5340 0.35 0.15 133%
State Fair Boulevard at Exit 7 Connector Road 0 6600 0.15
Exit 7 Connector Road & 690 WB Off-Ramp (Exit 7) 0 5190 0.13
Total Acc
Rate
(MVM)
State Fair Boulevard: West of Pumphouse Road 2 5280 0.30 1.19 2.25 -47%
State Fair Boulevard: Pumphouse Road to Bridge Street 17 6600 0.90 2.7 2.48 9%
State Fair Boulevard: Bridge Street to Exit 7 Connector Road 1 5880 0.23 0.70 3.20 -78%
Exit 7 Connector Road & 690 WB Off-Ramp (Exit 7) 0 5190 0.22 2.25
State Fair Boulevard: Exit 7 Connector Road to Willis Avenue 7 2250 0.66 4.45 2.25 98%
State Fair Boulevard: East of Willis Avenue 0 1230 0.30 2.25
*AADT for intersections estimated using existing PM peak hour entering volumes and the Suburban through route factor below to obtain AADT
October 2011 - September 2013
Accident Summary
Page 1 of 1
C - 61

C - 62
C - 63
C - 64
C - 65
C - 66
C - 67
C - 68
C - 69
C - 70
C - 71
C - 72


APPENDIX G
LEED CHECKLIST

LEED 2009 for New Construction and Major Renovations
Project Checklist - Onondaga Lake Amphitheater Building
15 0 11 Possible Points: 26
Y ? N d/C
Y C Prereq 1
1 d Credit 1 1
5 d Credit 2 5
1 d Credit 3 Brownfield Redevelopment 1
6 d Credit 4.1 6
1 d Credit 4.2 1
3 d Credit 4.3 Alternative TransportationLow-Emitting and Fuel-Efficient Vehicles 3
2 d Credit 4.4 2
1 C Credit 5.1 Site DevelopmentProtect or Restore Habitat 1
1 d Credit 5.2 Site DevelopmentMaximize Open Space 1
1 d Credit 6.1 Stormwater DesignQuantity Control 1
1 d Credit 6.2 Stormwater DesignQuality Control 1
1 C Credit 7.1 Heat Island EffectNon-roof 1
1 d Credit 7.2 1
1 d Credit 8 Light Pollution Reduction 1
Y ? N
Y d Prereq 1
4 d Credit 1 Water Efficient Landscaping 2 to 4
Reduce by 50% 2
X No Potable Water Use or Irrigation 4
Sustainable Sites
Water Efficiency
Alternative TransportationParking Capacity
Heat Island EffectRoof
Water Use Reduction20% Reduction
Construction Activity Pollution Prevention
Site Selection
Development Density and Community Connectivity
Alternative TransportationPublic Transportation Access
Alternative TransportationBicycle Storage and Changing Rooms
LEED 2009 for New Construction and Major Renovations Project Checklist 1 of 4
X No Potable Water Use or Irrigation 4
2 d Credit 2 Innovative Wastewater Technologies 2
2 2 d Credit 3 2 to 4
X Reduce by 30% 2
Reduce by 35% 3
Reduce by 40% 4
Water Use Reduction
Y ? N
Y C Prereq 1
Y d Prereq 2
Y d Prereq 3
10 9 d Credit 1 1 to 19
Improve by 12% for New Buildings or 8% for Existing Building Renovations 1
X Improve by 30% for New Buildings or 26% for Existing Building Renovations 10
Improve by 48%+ for New Buildings or 44%+ for Existing Building Renovations 19
7 d Credit 2 1 to 7
1% Renewable Energy 1
Fundamental Refrigerant Management
Fundamental Commissioning of Building Energy Systems
Optimize Energy Performance
On-Site Renewable Energy
Energy and Atmosphere
Minimum Energy Performance
X 13% Renewable Energy 7
2 C Credit 3 2
2 d Credit 4 2
3 C Credit 5 3
2 C Credit 6 2
Enhanced Commissioning
Enhanced Refrigerant Management
Measurement and Verification
Green Power
Y ? N
Y d Prereq 1
3 C Credit 1.1 1 to 3
Reuse 55% 1
Reuse 75% 2
Reuse 95% 3
1 C Credit 1.2 Building ReuseMaintain 50% of Interior Non-Structural Elements 1
1 1 C Credit 2 1 to 2
X 50% Recycled or Salvaged 1
75% Recycled or Salvaged 2
2 C Credit 3 1 to 2
Reuse 5% 1
Reuse 10% 2
2 C Credit 4 1 to 2
10% of Content 1
X 20% of Content 2
2 C Credit 5 1 to 2
10% of Materials 1
X 20% of Materials 2
1 C Credit 6 Rapidly Renewable Materials 1
1 C Credit 7 1
Materials and Resources
Storage and Collection of Recyclables
Building ReuseMaintain Existing Walls, Floors, and Roof
Construction Waste Management
Materials Reuse
Recycled Content
Regional Materials
Certified Wood
LEED 2009 for New Construction and Major Renovations Project Checklist 3 of 4 LEED 2009 for New Construction and Major Renovations Project Checklist 3 of 4
Y ? N
Y d Prereq 1
Y d Prereq 2
1 d Credit 1 1
1 d Credit 2 1
1 C Credit 3.1 1
1 C Credit 3.2 1
1 C Credit 4.1 1
1 C Credit 4.2 1
1 C Credit 4.3 1
1 C Credit 4.4 1
1 d Credit 5 1
1 d Credit 6.1 Controllability of SystemsLighting 1
1 d Credit 6.2 1
1 d Credit 7.1 1
1 d Credit 7.2 Thermal ComfortVerification 1
1 d Credit 8.1 1
1 d Credit 8.2 1
Y ? N
1 d/C Credit 1.1 1
1 d/C Credit 1.2 1
1 d/C Credit 1.3 1
1 d/C Credit 1.4 1
1 d/C Credit 1.5 1
1 d/C Credit 2 1
Indoor Environmental Quality
Innovation in Design: Specific Title
Minimum Indoor Air Quality Performance
Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) Control
Outdoor Air Delivery Monitoring
Increased Ventilation
Construction IAQ Management PlanDuring Construction
Construction IAQ Management PlanBefore Occupancy
Low-Emitting MaterialsAdhesives and Sealants
Low-Emitting MaterialsPaints and Coatings
Low-Emitting MaterialsFlooring Systems
Low-Emitting MaterialsComposite Wood and Agrifiber Products
LEED Accredited Professional
Innovation and Design Process
Indoor Chemical and Pollutant Source Control
Controllability of SystemsThermal Comfort
Thermal ComfortDesign
Daylight and ViewsDaylight
Daylight and ViewsViews
1 d/C Credit 2 1
Y ? N
1 d/C Credit 1.1 1
1 d/C Credit 1.2 1
1 d/C Credit 1.3 1
1 d/C Credit 1.4 1
Certified 40 to 49 points Silver 50 to 59 points Gold 60 to 79 points Platinum 80 to 110
LEED Accredited Professional
Regional Priority: Specific Credit
Total
Regional Priority Credits


APPENDIX H
SEWAGE GENERATION ESTIMATES

Onondaga County Lakeview Amphitheater Conceptual Design Report June 2014

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Onondaga County Lakeview Amphitheater Conceptual Design Report June 2014

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Onondaga County Lakeview Amphitheater Conceptual Design Report June 2014

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What are the main design considerations for the amphitheater facility?

What types of events will the amphitheater complex support?

Onondaga County Lakeview Amphitheater TC-1 Conceptual Design Report

NOTES: BASEMAP: ESRI STREETMAP NORTH AMERICA, 2008.

NOTES: BASEMAP: ESRI ARCGIS ONLINE "WORLD IMAGERY" MAP SERVICE.

NOTES: BASEMAP: ESRI ARCGIS ONLINE "WORLD IMAGERY" MAP SERVICE.

FIGURE 12: VIEWPOINT LOCATION MAP

You might also like