.

United Water Property Traffic Impact Analysis

Overview of traffic study submitted with site plans for proposed development of United Water property.

An engineering firm has prepared an analysis of the traffic impact that a proposed mixed-use development on the United Water Company property would have on New Milford. 

The analysis —prepared by Dolan & Dean Consulting Engineers LLC of Martinsville —assesses the existing infrastructure in the vicinity of the site, identifies existing traffic patterns, and projects future traffic volumes. Also included was an assessment of future roadway and intersection conditions surrounding the site of the proposed development.

Traffic volumes were observed on the following dates and times:

  • Sat. March 19, 2011: 11 a.m. - 2 p.m.
  • Tues. March 22, 2011: 4 p.m. - 6 p.m.
  • Tues. April 26, 2011: 2 p.m. - 4 p.m.
  • Tues. Sept. 27, 2011: 7 p.m. - 9 p.m.

According to the study, peak hour traffic counts were conducted during anticipated peak periods of the proposed development's operation. Based on the proposed retail and residential uses of the site, the study anticipates that peak driveway activity will be during weekday mornings and evenings, and midday Saturday.

Because New Milford High School is situated adjacent to the proposed development, additional traffic counts were performed to identify peak volumes involving school traffic.  

A summary of total peak hour estimates for the individual uses purpose was prepared and contained within the study.

      Total Trip Generation Projections: (Estimates)

PEAK HOUR VENUE ENTER EXIT TOTAL Morning Supermarket 155 100 255 Bank 11 8 19 Residential 22 91 113
TOTAL 188 199 387 School Hours Supermarket 350 315 665 Bank 26 24 50 Residential 88 49 137 TOTAL 464 388 852 Evening Supermarket 375 365 740 Bank 28 28 56 Residential 88 49 137 TOTAL 491 442 933 Saturday Supermarket 390 375 765 Bank 30 30 60 Residential 58 58 116 TOTAL 478 463 941

The study reports that a portion of the traffic will come from cars passing the proposed development on their way to some other destination that will stop for a retail trip. For the proposed supermarket, it is determined that approximately 10% of traffic may be drawn from the traffic flows along River Road and Main Street. The study also concludes that these types of retail trips "do not add new traffic to the adjacent street system."

For the purposes of the traffic analysis, a two-year build out was assumed. In order to project traffic volumes, the NJDOT Bergen County assumes a growth rate of 2.0% per year. This figure was applied to the existing traffic volumes as observed by the study team. 

The study determined that with the addition of traffic generated by the proposed development, the levels of service and delay for the River Road, Cecchino Drive, Milford Avenue signalized intersection will not cause any change in service. It was determined that all approaches will operate at "acceptable levels of service or better with the addition of site traffic."

Copies of the site plans and traffic report is on file and available for public review at the New Milford Building Department in Borough Hall. 

The developer, New Milford Redevelopment Associates, will be appearing before the Board of Adjustment on Tuesday, Feb. 14th at 7:30 p.m. in the council chambers of Borough Hall. The public is invited to attend.

Peter Hekemian, managing director of the New Milford Development Associates, LLC, is also the Principal and V.P. of Development for the S. Hekemian Group.

Bobby January 24, 2012 at 12:07 AM
Who contracted this company to do the analysis? The data seems suspiciously in favor of the developers.
Ann Piccirillo January 24, 2012 at 01:00 AM
The study was prepared on behalf of the developer as part of the site plan. The developer contracted them.
Bobby January 24, 2012 at 01:17 AM
Thanks Ann. That's what I thought
Nancy January 24, 2012 at 01:13 PM
What is going on in this town? Does anyone care that we're being boxed in. We are in big trouble.
Roy W. January 24, 2012 at 01:52 PM
the developer can afford the best analysis (for him) money can buy...
Ann Piccirillo January 24, 2012 at 03:23 PM
Celeste, this is the report that was filed with the application as it is written now and available for review in the Building Dpt. The above chart includes both the residential and the commercial breakdown of total peak hour estimates for the "individual uses purpose."
Debra Connolly January 24, 2012 at 04:04 PM
Why didn't the traffic analysis include a weekday 7 am to 9 am. It's a busy time at that area.
Denise January 24, 2012 at 05:18 PM
That figures....The developer. The more I hear about this guy Hekamian....The more I think his business practices are "somewhat shady".......
LMA January 24, 2012 at 05:20 PM
What planet is Dolan and Dean Consulting Engineers from? I guess they are from the new planet called "IDIOTSVILLE." Have they a medical issue in their brain which impedes their intelligence? How can ANYONE in their right mind come to the conclusion and make a statement saying that these types of retail trips do not add new traffic to the adjacent street system? Obviously, they need to take a remedial course in mathematics! Hekemian's plan includes over 200 apartments, in addition to the supermarket...how can they say that traffic will not be impacted? We are talking about the addition of perhaps 200-400 (2 cars per family) vehicles for the 200 apartments, and that does not contribute to the increased flow of traffic? Obviously, they have been bought by Hekemian. Also, Rich Henning, from United Water, stated that New Milford is OVER-DEVELOPED at a town meeting a month or so ago. He also stated that he
LMA January 24, 2012 at 05:32 PM
ctd. He also stated that no new development should take place as it will contribute to the flooding problem. The only solution Mr. Henning presented was for the State of NJ (aka "the taxpayers") to purchase flood-prone homes. The irony of it all! The residents of NM need to stand together and fight this tooth and nail. We do not need Hekemian to rape the town of NM solely to line his pockets! I have no problem with ratables; however, we HAVE A SERIOUS FLOODING PROBLEM and this proposed development will ONLY MAKE THE FLOODING MORE SEVERE! Mr. S. Hekemian has been portrayed as contributing to charitable organizations; therefore, let his company make a charitable donation to the town of NM by selling us the property for $1.00. Let's see how far is charitable arm will extend! As I said before, everyone needs to band together and make a lot of noise as the folks did in Paramus with Shamrock Developers. The residents of Paramus were victorious.
Denise January 24, 2012 at 05:40 PM
Anna, agree with all you have said above....in addition, the residents of Oradell who fought & won the fiasco against I believe the name is Daible or something similar when this builder wanted to knock down the restaurant Felice & build a Walgreens. Let the "New Milfordites" have the same constitution as the "Oradellians" have!!!
Bobby January 24, 2012 at 06:27 PM
Even more ludicrous is their statement that all approaches, meaning River Road, Cecchino Drive, and Milford Avenue, will operate at "acceptable levels of service or BETTER with the addition of site traffic." How can increasing the traffic in that area possibly make those areas operate better? The town needs to authorize a similiar survey to offset this obviously biased report.
Nancy January 24, 2012 at 06:32 PM
They talk out of both sides of their mouths. Enough already. If we stand together we CAN BEAT THIS.
Emily January 24, 2012 at 07:14 PM
I attended the meeting in April, and unfortunately was unable to attend anything concerning this new proposal. Can someone fill me in as to what happened with the first proposal with the "donated field"? Why and how did that proposal fall off the table?
Ann Piccirillo January 24, 2012 at 07:45 PM
Emily, as the borough attorney explained last night the presentation given by Hekemian in April did not result in an application to the Building Department. The presentation in April was only the schematic of what they would produce if they received the rezoning they wanted from the Mayor and Council. The site plans filed in early January 2012 are the only plans on file for that property. (See today's "Public Divided Over Development of UW Property.")
Bobby January 24, 2012 at 07:56 PM
Mark my words. Down the road they will dangle adding the field back into the plans only if we re-zone the property to mixed-use.
John DeSantis January 24, 2012 at 09:43 PM
I was at Monday's Council meeting. It seemed that the Mayor and Council were struggling between choosing the lesser of two evils. Only one council member, Austin Ashley, was willing to take a firm stand and not accept either choice. A new study is not necessary to know that the development would aggravate an already unacceptable flooding situation or that it would adversely affect the traffic on River Road. It seems to me that a very large utility company and a very large developer are pursuing their own interests and couldn't care less about the well being of this town or of the wishes of the people who live here. It seems clear that most of the folks in town are not in favor of this project. As our representatives the Mayor and Council should be scrambling to develop a strategy to stop this develoment. First and foremost the property should not be re-zoned. I believe that it is currently zoned for single family homes. If that is the case and the zoning remains as is, that would prevent the construction of a strip mall, Shop Rite, apartment buildings, and parking garages. That would leave the possibility of the construction of single family homes. In today's housing market, the developer may choose not to embark on such an endeavor. If he did, well, 30 to 50 new homes would have a lot less impact on the character of the town.
Lori Barton January 25, 2012 at 01:14 AM
As I have said in the past, I am against development of this property. With that said, I understand that a land owner has the right to develop property. But where does it say that any rezoning has to be granted? And where does it say that ANY variances have to be granted? If the developer bought this property with the current zoning, then why is it necessary to grant any changes? Don't change the zoning, don't grant the variances. If the developer wants to build on his land, then let him adhere to the current restrictions. It isn't profitable to do that. Too bad. Then the property shouldn't have been purchased. We ALL have to stand together on this: the Mayor & Council, the BOE, and the residents of this community.
Ulises January 25, 2012 at 01:44 AM
I agree with everyone's comments here but like Councilman Berner stated at yesterday's meeting, he's spoken to hundredth of people that want ratables... Which I view, that he's not on our side and neither are most of the M & C, so it's going to be difficult to get united on this front when our elected officials are not willing to stop this develoment. Our only hope is Attorney Alonso who suggested last night that he'll tie this up by appealing their applications over and over again. If a private citizen can do this why can't our elected officials??????? The answer is simple - they want this development to happen, on a flood plain, for the sake of the almighty dollar! Don't forget to vote in November...
Bobby January 25, 2012 at 02:43 AM
Maybe Councilman Berner should circulate himself amongst the people of New Milford and not just his friends and cronies. If he did he would find a lot more then 100 people opposed to this development, How could they even consider building in a flood zone and putting more people in harm's way. If this goes through make a note of all those that voted for it and send them packing this November or whatever November they come up for re-election.
Ann Piccirillo January 25, 2012 at 06:51 AM
There has been some great dialogue going on about an issue that will ultimately affect New Milford for generations to come. I encourage everyone to continue to share your opinion, but ask that we engage in civil debate and stay focused on the topic. I ask this not only to protect the integrity of this site, and all of the readers who come here everyday to read about this great town, but so that others are not discouraged from joining in the discussion. In an effort to provide everyone with the most comprehensive information about the plans as filed by the developer, I have spent many, many, many hours in borough hall studying every page of these plans and consulting with engineers to break each complex component down into digestible parts and present them in an easy to read form in an effort to keep everyone well-informed without having to go and study the plans yourself or rely on reports that offer only a cursory presentation of the details. I look forward to seeing all of you on Tuesday, February 14th when the developer is scheduled to appear before the Board of Adjustment at 7:30 p.m. in the council chambers of Borough Hall.
tony mac January 25, 2012 at 11:23 PM
Ann, I agree with you ten thousand percent. I used to read the Forum but hat became a battleground for most of the participants. I hope this doesn't follow suit
Ann Piccirillo January 25, 2012 at 11:46 PM
Thanks Tony--I won't let it.
David Morfe January 26, 2012 at 12:28 AM
You are right this data doesn't seems accurate. They have to find a neutral company to do this traffic analysis.
Mary McElroy January 26, 2012 at 03:38 AM
"this is an issue that will ultimatley affect New Milford for generations to come". Agreed. So I wonder then, where was everyone on Monday night for the M&C meeting? Yes, the turnout may have been bigger than the usual meeting, but given the plan recently submitted, one would think that people would have been standing on River Rd. to get in, particulary if you have children in the NM school system. Where were are all the parents who are constantly complaining about problem fields or constantly comparing our sports facilities to other towns? Where were all the parents who know that our school system is at capacity & over-crowded in many areas? I don't think there was more than a dozen parents at the meeting. How many kids are in our school system? How many kids are playing sports?The 3 championship girls soccer teams were in attendance to be acknowledged on their great season. Probably 50 parents & perhaps 3 stayed for the meeting. In Feb., the Junior Knights football team will be acknowledged-how many parents will make the sacrifice and stay for the meeting? So when these kids get to the HS and they are in crowded classes and we're wondering why they are playing in mud, part of the answer will lie with us, the parents of this town. Please do not be too busy to take the time to have a say in something that is CRUCIAL to this town - CRUCIAL to your children - CRUCIAL to future generations. Is that not our responsibility as parents, American citizens and taxpayers?
Nancy January 26, 2012 at 12:48 PM
I dont't think everyone knew about the meeting.
LMA January 26, 2012 at 10:10 PM
The meeting date appeared several times in the Bergen Record as there were several articles written in the past few days, as well as the Town News. Please take the time to read the paper to know what is going on in town. Additionally, the article appeared on-line in the New Milford Patch and if you go to the town of New Milford's website, the mayor and council meetings are always announced in advance. Sorry to say, but there were more than sufficient notices about the meeting.
John R. January 26, 2012 at 11:44 PM
The Dolan & Dean report appears to have significant flaws (oversights?) regarding traffic and quality of life issues for NM residents. Their research was performed on 1 Saturday and 3 Tuesdays. Peak supermarket shopping days are Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. Tuesdays are one of the lowest sales volume days of the week for supermarkets. Has the impact of the additional large trailer truck traffic from multiple vendors, as well as Shoprite fleet trailers, been analyzed regarding potential noise, air pollution (mostly overnight 24/7) and the additional stress to the town’s already burdened infrastructure? To gain a real perspective on the potential traffic issues, I would suggest a visit to the Paramus Shoprite parking lot on any weekend, or weekday for that matter, for a visual reference on the additional automobile volume NM would be subjected to. A supermarket the size of the one being planned can bring in 15,000 + customers per week. John R.
Anonymous April 22, 2012 at 05:03 PM
The study was conducted by a company hired by the developers. I agree with your statement, it is suspicious. Recently, a highschool student was hit by a car on this main road. This makes me wonder how the incoming traffic would affect the safety of the highschool students.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something