Glens Falls Downtown
Transportation Center/Parking
Ramp Feasibility Study
Final Report
July 2004
Prepared for
Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation Council
City of Glens Falls, New York
Greater Glens Falls Transit
Prepared by
Wilbur Smith Associates
in association with
KKO and Associates, LLC
The Chazen Companies
Wallace Floyd Design Group
Albany NY, Anaheim CA, Atlanta GA, Baltimore MD, Bangkok Thailand, Burlington VT, Charleston SC, Charleston WV, Chicago IL, Cincinnati OH, Cleveland OH
Columbia SC, Columbus OH, Dallas TX, Dubai UAE, Edmonton Canada, Falls Church VA, Greenville SC, Hong Kong, Houston TX, Iselin NJ, Kansas City MO, Knoxville
TN, Lansing MI, Lexington KY, London UK, Milwaukee WI, Mumbai India, Myrtle Beach SC, New Haven CT, Orlando FL, Philadelphia PA, Pittsburgh PA, Portland ME
Poughkeepsie NY, Raleigh NC, Richmond VA, Salt Lake City UT, San Francisco CA, Tallahassee FL, Tampa FL, Tempe AZ, Toronto Canada, Trenton NJ, Washington DC
Employee-Owned Company
Shelburne Commons
4076 Shelburne Road, Suite 7
Shelburne, Vermont 05482
(802) 985-2530
(802) 985-8175 fax
www.wilbursmith.com
July 30, 2004
Mr. Aaron Frankenfeld, Director
Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation Council
Washington County Municipal Center, A-204
383 Upper Broadway
Ft. Edward, NY 12828
RE: Glens Falls, NY Downtown Transportation Center/Parking Ramp
Feasibility Study
Dear Mr. Frankenfeld:
We are pleased to present our Final Report of the “Glens Falls Downtown Transportation
Center/Parking Ramp Feasibility Study.” We trust that the Site Selection, Preferred Site Design
Concepts Financial/Funding Evaluations and Renderings assist the Transportation Council, Greater
Glens Falls Transit and City of Glens Falls in advancing a multi-modal Transportation Center and
Parking Ramp for downtown Glens Falls.
We appreciate the opportunity to work with you and the entire Advisory Committee on this project.
Please do not hesitate to call if we can be of continued service in the next steps toward implementation
of this Transportation Center.
Respectfully submitted,
WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES
Robert P. Jurasin, P.E. Peter Plumeau
Senior Vice President Project Manager
Attachment
Wilbur Smith Associates Page i
April 2004
Table of Contents
Executive Summary 1
1. Introduction & Purpose 2
2. Refinement of Design Parameters for Elm Street Site 5
3. Transit Operations Associated with Facility 11
4. Traffic Operations Analysis 14
5. Facility Financial Assessment 22
6. CBD Parking Management Strategies 36
7. Funding Options 38
8. Architectural Renderings of Conceptual Facility Design 39
List of Tables
4.1 Anticipated Site Generated Traffic Volumes 16
4.2 LOS Criteria for Signalized Intersection 19
4.3 Anticipated LOS – Future (2004) Peak Hour Conditions 20
5.1 Project Order of Magnitude Capital Costs 23
5.2 Recommended Downtown Parking Fees 25
5.3 Projected Annual Operating Expenses 26
5.4 Projected Annual Net Revenues
5.4.1 Transportation Center/Parking Ramp Revenue Assumptions and
Projections
5.4.2 Other Off-Street and On-Street Parking Revenue Assumptions and
Projections 28
29
30
5.5 Impacts of Elm Street Location on GGFT Running Times 33
5.6 Changes in GGFT Vehicle Service Miles 33
7.1 Funding Options Summary 39-40
List of Figures
1.1 Alternative Sites Evaluated for Glens Falls Transportation Center/Parking
Ramp 4
2.1 Preferred Alternative Garage Functional Concept 6
2.2 Preferred Alternative Garage Functional Concept – Cross-section 7
2.3 Preferred Alternatives Functional Layout – Access/Egress 9
3.1 GGFT Bus Circulation 12
4.1 Future (2004) A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 15
4.2 Routing Distribution of Site Generated Traffic – A.M. and P.M. Peak
Hour Volumes 17
4.3 Future (2004) A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour Combined Traffic Volumes 18
4.4 Suggested Traffic Improvements – Vicinity of Elm Street Site 21
Appendices
Appendix A: Phase 1 Report
Appendix B: Candidate Site Evaluation Matrix & Site Evaluation Results
Appendix C: Alternative Designs for Elm Street Site
Glens Falls Downtown Transportation
Center/Parking Ramp Feasibility Study
Wilbur Smith Associates Page 1
April 2004
Executive Summary
The Adirondack/Glens Falls
Transportation Council (A/GFTC), in
coordination with the City of Glens Falls
and Greater Glens Falls Transit (GGFT)
system, retained a consultant team to
conduct a location analysis and feasibility
study for the proposed downtown Glens
Falls Transportation Center/Parking
Ramp Facility. Working with these three
entities and a steering committee
appointed jointly by them, the
consultants:
• Developed conceptual design
parameters and order of
magnitude cost estimates for the
facility;
• Reviewed and evaluated five
alternative facility sites in
downtown Glens Falls identified
by the steering committee;
• Recommended a site for the
facility on the existing Elm Street
public parking lot;
• Developed a refined conceptual
design for the facility based on
the selected site;
• Developed refined capital and
operating cost and revenue
estimates;
• Recommended a new downtown
Glens Falls parking system
strategy; and • Identified potential sources of
capital financing for the facility.
Two widely-announced public meetings
and events were also held as part of the
study process.
The consultants evaluated five sites within
downtown Glens Falls and recommended
the existing publicly-owned Elm Street
parking lot for the new facility. This site
was selected based primarily on its ease of
access to downtown amenities, its minimal
impact on private properties and its
relative advantageous location for public
transit operations.
The proposed facility would provide 514
parking spaces on five levels as well as a
downtown transportation center serving
both local transit and intercity or tour
buses. Retail space of 1,500 square feet
would also be part of the facility. The
facility would provide a net gain of
approximately 420 parking spaces at the
Elm Street location. Automobile access
and egress would be from Elm Street.
Parking fees would be levied using a meter
system.
The facility’s estimated order of
magnitude capital construction cost is $8.3
million, not including any funding or
financing costs.
Glens Falls Downtown Transportation
Center/Parking Ramp Feasibility Study
Wilbur Smith Associates Page 2
April 2004
1. Purpose and Background
Purpose
In October 2002, the A/GFTC and City of Glens Falls contracted with a consultant team
led by Wilbur Smith Associates (WSA) to conduct a feasibility study and siting analysis for
the Downtown Glens Falls Transportation Center and Parking Ramp. The proposed transit
center-parking ramp facility is intended to both be a hub for the Greater Glens Falls Transit
(GGFT) system and intercity buses (Greyhound and Trailways) and provide about 500
parking spaces for daily and special events use. In addition, the City intends for the facility
to include transit-supportive space, such as indoor transit patron waiting areas, and rental
retail space with street-level storefronts.
Background
This study was conducted to two phases: In Phase 1, the consultant developed a conceptual
design for the proposed transportation center/parking ramp. In Phase 2, alternative sites
were evaluated, a preferred site was selected and the conceptual design was refined to fit that
site. Phase 2 also included estimation of facility capital and operating costs, identification of
impacts on and options for traffic operations related to the facility and outlines proposed
parking strategies for downtown Glens Falls.
Phase 1 Results – Conceptual Facility Design
In Phase 1 of the study, a conceptual design was developed without regard to a specific site.
Based on the parking demand and transit operational parameters provided by the City and
the Greater Glens Falls Transit System, the WSA team developed a conceptual design
footprint for the proposed facility. It should be noted that WSA did not conduct any
independent parking demand analysis for this project; demand estimates are based on
information provided by the City of Glens Falls.
The characteristics of the conceptual design characteristics are summarized as follows:
• 250’ x 180’ footprint (45,000 square feet, or slightly more than 1 acre);
• 4 levels (about 40’ total height);
• 514 parking spaces (including disabled spaces on 2 levels);
• Exterior local transit and intercity bus parking (5-7 vehicles) under a
canopied roof;
• 2,500 sq. ft. Transportation Center, including:
ƒ Welcome Center & Waiting Area
ƒ Restrooms
ƒ Vending/Newstand
ƒ Ticketing Counter
Glens Falls Downtown Transportation
Center/Parking Ramp Feasibility Study
Wilbur Smith Associates Page 3
April 2004 ƒ Manager’s Office & Crew Rest Room
ƒ Utility Space;
• 1,500 sq. ft. Retail Space on street level (assume subdividing into three
vendor spaces).
Appendix A contains the text of the Phase 1 Report.
Phase 2 Results – Alternative Site Evaluation
After identifying the conceptual design parameters for the facility, the consultant team and
steering committee worked together to identify candidate sites within downtown Glens Falls.
As shown in Figure 1.1, the steering committee identified five sites for consideration. These
were evaluated by the consultant team based on the ability of the site to satisfy the specified
conceptual design parameters. This evaluation resulted in the steering committee selecting
the Elm Street site as the most desirable location for further planning and design work.
(Appendix B displays the site evaluation matrix.)
The remainder of this report focuses on the refined conceptual designs for the Elm Street
site, operational analyses (traffic and transit) of that site, and programmatic, policy and
funding strategies.
Figure 1.1: Alternative Sites Evaluated for Glens Falls Transportation
Center/Parking Ramp
Washington
St./Evergreen
Bank Lot
Elm Street
Lot
School
Street Lot
Hudson Ave
@ Glen St.
Site
Civic Center
Plaza Lot
Current Transit Hub
(NOT EVALUATED)
Glens Falls Downtown Transportation
Center/Parking Ramp Feasibility Study
Wilbur Smith Associates Page 5
April 2004
2. Preferred Design Parameters for Elm Street Site
The conceptual design of the proposed Transportation Center is a single structure consisting
of a parking garage, a 2,500 square foot transportation center and space for 1,500 square feet
of retail space. The Transportation Center would include space for a manager’s office,
restrooms, vending machines, and a bus information area. The retail component could
consist of up to three different vendors.
In a letter dated September 4, 2003, the client noted the following additional design
parameters as key considerations:
• Context sensitivity with the surrounding downtown environment (to be addressed
further via development of architectural renderings prior to study completion);
• On-street bus berths for GGFT services on Elm Street with a possible separate
means of access for intercity buses; and
• Preservation of existing delivery access to the rear facades of Glen Street businesses.
Figures 2.1 and 2.2 depict the preferred functional concept for the Transportation Center.
This concept which encompasses the elements identified through the Phase 1 work together
with the following technical design criteria in its development;
• 10 foot floor to floor dimension;
• 90 degree parking bays in most areas;
• 60 degree parking adjacent to the transportation / retail areas;
• 9 foot stall width; and,
• 12 foot handicapped parking stall width.
An elevator and stair tower have been proposed adjacent to the transportation center for
pedestrian access to the upper levels. Two other stair towers would also be provided. These
access points are located with 110 feet of any parking space.
Preferred Site Functional Layout
The consultant team worked with the steering committee to refine a set of alternate facility
layouts for the Elm Street site. From a total five alternates, a preferred functional layout was
developed. This layout incorporates a combination of features drawn from two of the five
original layouts.
1 The conceptual layout of the proposed facility on the preferred Elm Street
location is depicted in Figure 2.3.
The layout includes queuing space for five GGFT buses on Elm Street in their own lane, out
of the active traffic lane. In addition, the layout provides space for up to two intercity buses
(e.g., Greyhound or tour buses) to queue along a driveway on the northwest end of the
1 See Appendix C for illustrations of the five alternate functional layouts considered for the Elm Street site.
EL
20 Spaces in 180 Feet
9 Spaces in 81 feet
19 Spaces in 171 feet
RETAIL SPACE
(25’x60’) 1,500 so/ft9 Spaces in 81 feet
STAIRS180 feet
214 feet
FIRST LEVEL 71 Spaces7 Spaces
UP / DOWN RAMP 6.0% SLOPE
One Way
TRANSPORTATION CENTER
(25’x100’) 2,500 sq/ft
See Insert “A” for details
In
SidewalkOne Way
THIRD LEVEL (Typical) 118 SpacesROOF LEVEL 107 Spaces
7 Spaces in 63 feet
SECOND LEVEL 94 SpacesSTAIRSELEV.
STAIRS
Out
SECTION VIEW ‘A’ – “A”
“A”
“A”
7 Spaces in 63 feet
60’’
24’
24’
17’
EL
20 Spaces in 180 Feet19 Spaces in 171 feet
RETAIL SPACE
(25’x60’) 1,500 so/ft7 Spaces 19 Spaces in 171 feet
STAIRS180 feet
214 feet
UP / DOWN RAMP 6.0% SLOPE
5 Handicap
Spaces in 60 feet
One Way
TRANSPORTATION CENTER
(25’x100’) 2,500 sq/ft
See Insert “A” for details
10 Spaces in 90 feet
One Way
STAIRSELEV.
STAIRS
60’’
24’
24’
17’
3 Spaces
in 27 feet
19 Spaces in 171 feet
60’’
19 Spaces in 171 feet
EL
20 Spaces in 189 Feet19 Spaces in 171 feet
19 Spaces in 171 feet
180 feet
214 feet
UP / DOWN RAMP 6.0% SLOPE
S
T
A
IRS
60’’
24’
24’
19 Spaces in 171 feet
60’’
19 Spaces in 171 feet
21 Spaces in 189feet19 Spaces in 171 feet
60’’
EL
20 Spaces in 180 Feet19 Spaces in 171 feet
10 Spaces in 90 feet
STAIRS180 feet
214 feet
UP / DOWN RAMP 6.0% SLOPE
S
T
A
IRS
60’’
24’
24’
19 Spaces in 171 feet
10 Spaces in 90 feet
21 Spaces in 189 feet
19 Spaces in 171 feet
60’’
This Concept is based on the following:•Mapping provided to WSA
•10’ floor to floor dimension
•6 percent grade on ramps with parking
•60’ parking bay with parking on both sides
•35’ parking bay with 60 angle parking on one side
•9’ stall width, and
•12’ handicap stall width
o
And
FOURTH LEVEL (Typical) 118 Spaces
ELM STREET
ELEV.
STAIRS
ELEV.
STAIRS
ELEV.
STAIRS
ELEV.
STAIRS
ELEV.
STAIRS
7 Spaces
5 Handicap
Spaces in 60 feet
10 Spaces in 90 feet
ELEV.
STAIRS
FIGURE 2.1
PREFERRED PLAN
ELM STREET
TRANSPORTATION CENTER
Garage Functional Concept
Glens Falls, New York
Wilbur Smith AssociatesOctober 15, 2003 Scale 1 in = 30 feet
Sheet 1 of 2
Fifth Roof Level ………. 106 Spaces
Fourth level (Typical)… 117 Spaces
Third Level (Typical)….. 117 Spaces
Second Level………… 95 Spaces
First Level…………… 79 Spaces
GARAGE TOTAL …… 514 Total Spaces
GARAGE EFFICIENCY 349 sq/ft per space
Total Garage Spaces … 514
Displaced Spaces ……… 94
Net Gain ………………. 420 Spaces
Insert “A”
TRANSPORTATION CENTER
Conceptual Layout to Show Function and Scale
Scale: 1 inch = 10 feetTotal Area 2,500 Sq/Ft.
Legend:
A- Bus Info. Area (12.5’ x 8.0’) = 105.0 Sq/Ft.
B- Ticketing Counter (17.7’ x 7.0’) = 119.0 Sq/Ft.
C- Mgr. Office (12.5’ x 20.0’) = 250.0 Sq/Ft.
C-1 Restroom (12.5’ x 8.0’) = 100.0 Sq/Ft.
D-M Men’s Restroom (15.0’ x 12.5’) = 187.5 Sq/Ft.
D-W Women’s Restroom (15.0’ x 12.5’) = 187.5 Sq/Ft.
E- Waiting Area / Welcome Center = (1,283.5 Sq/Ft. and
F- Vending Areas and News Stand (15.0’ x 7.0’) = 105.0 Sq/Ft.
G-Misc./ Utility Space (12.5’ x 13.0’) = 162.5 Sq/Ft.
A
B
FD-W D-M
E
C-1
C
Men’s
Rest Room
Women’s
Rest Room Mgr. Office
Vending Areas and
News Stand
Ticketing Counter
Rest
Room
25 feet
Waiting Area
Welcome Center
100 feetBus Info. Area
GMisc./
Utility
Space
SECTION VIEW “A-A”Horizontal Scale: 1 inch = 30 feet
Vertical Scale: 1 inch = 14 feet
Third Level (Typical)
Second Level
First Level Fourth Level (Typical)
ELEV.
STAIRS
RETAI
L2
1
3
RETAIL
RETAIL
Transportati
on Center
50’±
ELEV.
STAIRS ELEV.
STAIRS
FIGURE 2.2
PREFERRED PLAN
ELM STREET
TRANSPORTATION CENTER
Garage Functional Concept
Glens Falls, New York
Wilbur Smith AssociatesOctober 15, 2003
2
14
’
ELEV.
STAIRS
Roof Level
ELEV.
STAIRSELEV.
STAIRS ELEV.
STAIRS ELEV.
STAIRS
Sheet 2 of 2
ELEV.
STAIRS ELEV.
STAIRS
Canopy Over Sidewalk
Over Elm Street and Over
Sidewalk Along Alleyway
At Building Line
Figure 2.3: Preferred Alternate Functional Layout
Glens Falls Downtown Transportation
Center/Parking Ramp Feasibility Study
Wilbur Smith Associates Page 6
April 2004 facility. It should be noted that several businesses on South Street currently require rear
entrance access, which is achieved via the current Elm Street parking lot. If this access is to
be maintained, the final design of the transportation center/garage structure will need to
account for the type and frequency of vehicles that typically access those establishments.
Options for accommodating access needs also include establishing delivery time “windows”
during the day that are coordinated with the hours during which buses are scheduled to be
parked on the northwest end of the facility.
It should also be noted that the City of Glens Falls has stated that it may consider closing
Clinton Street and using that space for parking and/or bus operations related to the
transportation center. If this were to occur, there would be additional flexibility for bus
queuing arrangements on Elm Street.
Facility Access for Automobiles
Access to the garage would be provided to and from Elm Street. A single entrance and exit
would be provided along with a dual use entrance/exit lane for use during peak periods.
Access to the different levels would be provided via a sloped parking ramp. The ramp
gradient would be limited to 6 percent. Ninety-degree parking would be provided along the
parking ramp and the outer bays.
Net Parking Capacity Change
The current parking lot is capable of parking approximately 94 vehicles. The preferred
alternative design is planned to handle 514 vehicles. This would result in a net increase in
parking capacity on the Elm Street site of approximately 420 vehicles.
Parking Garage Efficiency
“Parking garage efficiency” is a rating of the usefulness of the parking structure. An ideal
rating for a parking structure is approximately 325 square feet per usable parking space. Due
to site constraints, however, full build out of the ends of the parking structure are
prohibited. In addition the transportation and retail components of the structure further
reduce the number of available space such that the garage efficiency is lessened. The garage
efficiency for the preferred alternative is 349 square feet of structure per space.
Glens Falls Downtown Transportation
Center/Parking Ramp Feasibility Study
Wilbur Smith Associates Page 10
April 2004
3. Transit Operations Associated with Facility
Current Operations
GGFT currently operates nine year-round bus routes and one summer-only trolley route.
Five buses are used to operate the year-round service, and two trolleys are used to operate
the trolley route. Most of the year-round routes operate every 60 minutes throughout most
of the day, and have round trip running times of slightly less than 30 minutes. With these
times, most service is interlined, meaning that buses make a trip on one route and then a trip
on a second route before returning to make a second trip on the first route (or another
route). GGFT does not assign buses to specific combinations of routes; instead the
interlining is among multiple routes.
This interlining strategy means that many buses, rather than turning around at the Glens
Falls hub to return in the same direction from which they came, continue straight past hub
as a new trip on a different route. The optimal design for bus circulation in a new facility,
therefore, would be to allow buses to both turn around and continue past the facility in the
same direction.
Assessment of Preferred Elm Street Functional Layout
The preferred alternative is arranged with local transit services located on the north side of
Elm Street, parallel berths along the south side of the new transportation center/parking
ramp. Inter-city buses would also use a parallel berths arrangement, pulling off of Elm
Street and parking adjacent to the west side of the transportation center. This arrangement
would be convenient for passengers, as the bus berths would be located directly adjacent to
the passenger waiting area. It would also be relatively easy to re-route all bus service via bus
stops on the north side of Elm Street. As shown in Figure 3.1, Elm Street, South Street,
Glen Street, and Hudson Avenue could be used as a clockwise loop, which would allow
buses from all routes to easily access the bus berths.
The maximum number of GGFT buses that are currently scheduled to be at the hub at any
one time is five (including one trolley). As mentioned, space for up to two intercity buses
(e.g., Greyhound) is provided on the north end of the facility.
The current design, which is conceptual only, provides a somewhat restrictive turning radius
for a typical 45-foot intercity coach bus at the northwest corner of the facility. Refinements
and finalization of this conceptual design may therefore need to provide slightly more
turning radius than currently shown. Typical options in this regard include cutting off a
non-functional small corner of the structure to ensure a turning radius “cushion” for buses
making that movement.
Ability to Accommodate Future Expansion
Figure 3.1: GGFT Bus Circulation with
Elm Street Transportation Center/Parking Ramp as Transit Hub
Glens Falls Downtown Transportation
Center/Parking Ramp Feasibility Study
Wilbur Smith Associates Page 11
April 2004 An additional consideration is that the new facility should be able to accommodate both
changes to and potential increases in existing services. While future levels of GGFT and
intercity service are speculative, relatively large increases in service could be accommodated
by adding additional bus berths on the south side of Elm Street. At this stage of
development, it is reasonable to assume that the facility could accommodate large increases
in GGFT service through the conversion of on-street parking spaces into additional bus
berths on either side of Elm Street.
Glens Falls Downtown Transportation
Center/Parking Ramp Feasibility Study
Wilbur Smith Associates Page 13
April 2004
4. Traffic Operations Analysis
In considering the siting and operations of the transportation center/parking ramp in the
center of a busy downtown, it is important to understand and accommodate potential
impacts on the street system and associated traffic operations. This section assesses the
potential traffic operations impacts of the facility on the street system immediately adjacent
to the Elm Street site.
Existing Roadways
Elm Street is a two-way dual-lane roadway between South Street and Hudson Avenue. The
roadway width varies between 31 feet 10 inches at its southern intersection with Hudson
Avenue to 37 feet at its northern intersection with South Street. In the immediate vicinity of
the existing parking lot, the width of Elm Street is approximately 32 feet. There is limited
on-street parking on Elm Street near to the Elm Street parking lot with only 3 parking spaces
located in front of the Boston Candy Kitchen, each limited to a ten minute maximum.
Parking is also provided along Elm Street west of the South Street intersection.
Hudson Avenue is a two-way four-lane roadway oriented in a north-south direction in the
vicinity of the Transportation Center. The Hudson Avenue/Elm Street intersection is
signalized. Left turn lanes are provided on Elm Street and Hudson Avenue at the
intersection. Currently, parking is allowed in the area near to the intersection.
South Street is a two-way dual-lane roadway oriented in a north-south direction in the
vicinity of the Transportation Center. West of the South Street/Elm Street intersection,
South Street is approximately 47 feet wide with travel lanes approximately 11 feet-10 inches
wide. East of the South Street/Elm Street intersection, South Street is approximately 40 feet
wide with travel lanes approximately 9 feet-8 inches wide. A parking lane is provided along
South Street on both sides east and west of the intersection.
Existing and Future Traffic Volumes
Existing (2000) A.M. and P.M. peak hour traffic volume were obtained for this study from
the Adirondack-Glens Falls Transportation Council at the Elm Street/Hudson Avenue and
Elm Street/South Street intersections. A 2 percent per year growth factor was applied to the
existing (2000) peak hour traffic volumes to project future (2004) peak hour traffic
conditions. Figure 4.1 shows future (2004) A.M. and P.M. peak hour traffic volumes at the
two study area intersections in the vicinity of the Glens Falls Transportation Center.
Anticipated Site Generated Traffic Volumes
Glens Falls Downtown Transportation
Center/Parking Ramp Feasibility Study
Wilbur Smith Associates Page 14
April 2004 The proposed parking garage will consist of 508 parking spaces. For purposes of this
analysis, it was assumed that approximately 50 percent of the parking spaces will be utilized
by the monthly parkers and the remaining 50 percent by hourly/daily parkers.
Table 4.1 shows anticipated site generated traffic volumes by the proposed parking garage
during the A.M. and P.M. peak hour periods.
Table 4.1
Anticipated Site Generated Traffic Volumes
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
Description In Out Total In Out Total
Parking Garage (508 parking spaces) 250 50 300 100 250 350
Source: Wilbur Smith Associates based on ITE’s Trip Generation Manual, Sixth Edition.
Figure 4.2 shows the routing distribution of the site generated traffic and distribution of this
traffic at the two intersections during the A.M. and P.M. peak hour volumes.
Figure 4.3 shows the future (2004) A.M. and P.M. combined peak hour traffic volumes at
the two study area intersections.
Level of Service Analysis
A study of capacity is important in determining the ability of a specific roadway, intersection
or freeway to accommodate traffic under various levels of service. Level of service (LOS) is a
qualitative measure describing driver satisfaction with a number of factors that influence the
degree of traffic congestion. These factors include speed and travel time, traffic interruption,
freedom of maneuverability, safety, driving comfort and convenience, and delay.
In general there are six levels of service describing flow conditions. The highest, LOS A,
describes a condition of free flow, with low volumes and high speeds. LOS B represents a
stable traffic flow with operating speeds beginning to be restricted somewhat by traffic
conditions. LOS C, which is normally utilized for design purposes, describes a stable
condition of traffic operation. It entails moderately restricted movements due to higher
traffic volumes, but traffic conditions which are not objectionable to motorists. LOS D
reflects a condition of more restrictive movements for motorists and the influence of
congestion becomes more noticeable. LOS E is representative of the actual capacity of the
roadway or intersection and involves delays to all motorists due to congestion. The lowest
level of service, LOS F, is described as force flow and is characterized by volumes greater
than the theoretical roadway capacity. Complete congestion occurs, and in extreme cases, the
volume passing a given point drops to zero. This is considered an unacceptable traffic
operating condition.
FIGURE 4.1
FUTURE (2004) TRAFFIC VOLUMES
GLENS FALLS TRANSPORTATION CENTER
Glens Falls, New York
30
65
1535
245
40
15
95
30
5
320
55140
320
110
380
Hudson Ave.20
40
515
205
15
15
165
10
55
135
20190
235
65
210
South St.
Glens Falls
Transportation
Center
Elm St.
A.M. Peak
20
110
5550
315
20
40
115
555
335
50210
385
390
Hudson Ave
.
25
90
4040
290
10
20
100
55
60
185
20175
340
155
265
South St.
Glens Falls
Transportation
Center
Elm St.
P.M. Peak
N
Not to Scale
Note:
1. Existing (2000) A.M. and P.M. peak hour traffic volumes were obtained from the
Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation Council.
2. A 2 percent per year growth factor was used to project existing (2000) traffic volumes to future
(2004) traffic condition.
185
185190
110
190
365170
395230
105
290220
425385
200
130
165
FIGURE 4.2
SITE TRAFFIC ROUTING DISTRIBUTION
GLENS FALLS TRANSPORTATION CENTER
Glens Falls, New York
30%(15)
15%(10)
20%(10)30%(75)
15%(40)
(50) 20%
40
75
35
50
Hudson Ave.
10%(25)
10%(25)
10%(5)
10%(5)
15%(5)
(35) 15%
15
25
25
35South St.
Glens Falls
Transportation
Center
Elm St.
A.M. Peak
Glens Falls
Transportation
Center
Elm St.
P.M. Peak
N
Not to Scale
Note:
1. 508 Parking Spaces
2. 50 percent Monthly Parkers
3. No diversion of traffic
4. All New Traffic
5. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Conservatively
High
85
165
300 50 250Total Out In
350 250 100Total Out In
25%(65)
10%(25)
20%(50)25%(25)
10%(10)
(20) 20%
10
25
20
Hudson Ave.
55140
10%(10)
15%(15)
15%(35)
10%(25)
20%(50)
(20) 20%
110
15
10
20South St.
45
FIGURE 4.3
FUTURE (2004) COMBINED TRAFFIC VOLUMES
GLENS FALLS TRANSPORTATION CENTER
Glens Falls, New York
45
75
2535
245
115
15
135
30
5
320
105180
395
145
430
Hudson Ave.20
65
540
205
15
20
170
15
90
135
20205
260
90
245
South St.
Glens Falls
Transportation
Center
Elm St.
A.M. Peak
85
135
10550
315
45
40
125
555
335
70220
410
410
Hudson Ave
.
25
100
4055
290
10
55
125
105
80
185
20285
355
165
285
South St.
Glens Falls
Transportation
Center
Elm St.
P.M. Peak
N
Not to Scale
240
325235
195
355
380175
460265
115
300225
475435
205
190
155
Glens Falls Downtown Transportation
Center/Parking Ramp Feasibility Study
Wilbur Smith Associates Page 15
April 2004
Traffic analysis for this study was based on the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual and
conducted using the Highway Capacity Software (HCS).
Table 4.2 highlights the level of service criteria for signalized intersections. The level of
service criteria for signalized intersections is based on control delay per vehicle measured in
seconds.
Table 4.2
LOS Criteria for Signalized Intersections
Level of Service Control Delay Per Vehicle
(seconds)
A
≤10
B
>10 and ≤20
C
>20 and ≤35
D
>35 and ≤55
E
>55 and ≤80
F > 80
Source: 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board
Level of service was determined for the two study area intersections under future 2004
conditions with and without the new Parking Garage under the A.M. and P.M. peak hour
conditions. The results are presented in Table 4.3.
Glens Falls Downtown Transportation
Center/Parking Ramp Feasibility Study
Wilbur Smith Associates Page 16
April 2004 Table 4.3
Anticipated LOS – Future (2004) Peak Hour Conditions
Without Garage With Garage
Intersection A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M.
Signalized
Elm Street/Hudson Avenue B(12.7) B(12.9) B(13.0) B(13.1)
South Street/Hudson Avenue B(13.4) B(14.1) B(13.8) B(14.7)
Source: Wilbur Smith Associates
As shown in Table 4.3, the level of service at the two study area intersections remain at LOS
B with the proposed parking garage in place under both A.M. and P.M. peak hour
conditions.
Traffic Analysis Summary Assessment
The results of the traffic analysis associated with the proposed Parking Garage indicate that
the Elm Street/Hudson Avenue and Elm Street/South Street located in the immediate
vicinity of the proposed Parking Garage are anticipated to operate at acceptable levels of
service (LOS B) under all future (2004) traffic conditions.
2
Suggested Traffic Improvement Strategies
Figure 4.4 depicts suggested traffic improvement strategies in the vicinity of the Elm Street
site based on the traffic operations analysis and other characteristics of the site. The
suggestions include a new striping plan, additional crosswalks and other improvements.
2 At the time this report was published, the City of Glens Falls was considering closing Hudson Avenue at
Glen Street. If this were to occur, traffic operations on Elm Street and in the intersections analyzed in this
report could be significantly affected and additional study would be required to ensure transportation center
operations and traffic improvement strategies were harmonized with new traffic patterns.
Figure 4.4: Suggested Traffic Improvements in Vicinity of Elm Street
Facility Site
Glens Falls Downtown Transportation
Center/Parking Ramp Feasibility Study
Wilbur Smith Associates Page 20
April 2004
5. Facility Financial Assessment
This section describes the financial aspects of the proposed transportation center/parking
ramp – capital construction cost and operating costs and revenues, including transit cost
implications. A strategy to manage parking resources and levy appropriate parking fees for
the whole of the Glens Falls CBD is also proposed.
Estimated Capital Construction Cost
Table 5.1 provides estimated order of magnitude construction costs for the facility. The
estimated cost of approximately $8.3 million is based on the following assumptions:
1. Parking Garage Capacity – 514 spaces
2. Capital Cost (per space) (includes construction cost per space plus land cost (if
applicable), construction manager, contingencies, design, general liability) – $13,500
3. Capital Cost of $500 per each metered parking space
4. Cost of Issuance (Bond Counsel, Solicitor, Underwriter’s Counsel, Trustee, Bond
Printing, Official Statement Printing, Rating, Insurance, Discount) is not included in
Capital Cost
5. Bond Term – 30 years; interest rate – 5%
6. Amount to be financed does not
include:
a. Capitalized interest – first year’s debt service payment(s)
b. Debt Service Reserve – maximum annual one-year debt service
Operating Costs and Revenues
It is assumed the new transportation center/parking ramp would (a) charge a fee, through
either permits or hourly rates, for parking and (b) be an element of an overall downtown
Glens Falls parking system that includes a parking fee structure. This section also presents a
proposal for a downtown Glens Falls parking fee and system management structure. The
structure consists of estimates of parking system operating costs and revenues, including
those associated with the proposed transportation center/parking ramp. It is important to
note that estimated operating costs and revenues presented in this report do not assume any
offset from operating funds of the Greater Glens Falls Transit (GGFT) system.
Downtown Parking Fees
Parameters
Site Location – Elm St. Parking Lot
Parking Structure – 5-level, 514 Parking Spaces (404 new)
Parking Garage Efficiency – 1 space per 364 square feet
Transportation Center – 2,500 square feet
Commercial/Retail – 1,500 square feet
Order of Magnitude
Construction Cost Estimates
$13,500
$170
$90
10% of construction costs
Order of Magnitude Implementation Cost Estimates
$6,939,000
$425,000
$135,000
$7,499,000
Survey/Design Fees at 10% of Implementation Cost $749,900
TOTAL $8,248,900
NOTES:
(1) Elm Street Roadway Improvements, including Traffic Signal
Upgrades at Hudson and South Street, may have an
implementation cost of $150,000.
(2) Alternative E with 389 spaces (5 levels), an efficiency of 414
square feet per space, and constructoin cost estimate of
$15,500 per space – $7,248,450 Implementation Cost.
(3) Does not include Funding/Financial Costs of the
Transportation Center. Retail/Commercial at 1,500 square feet (shell only)
Subtotal Parking structure at 514 spaces
Table 5.1
Glens Falls Transportation Center/Parking Ramp
Capital Construction Cost Estimate
Transportation Center at 2,500 square feet (full build out) Construction Cost per Parking Space (Including site preparation.
Special architectural façade treatments may need to be added.)
Construction Cost for Transportation Center per square foot
(includes shell and full build out)
Construction Cost for Retail/Commercial per square foot (includes
shell/excludes full build out)
Surveys/Engineering/Architectural Design Fees
Glens Falls Downtown Transportation
Center/Parking Ramp Feasibility Study
Wilbur Smith Associates Page 21
April 2004 Establishing parking fees in Glens Falls must address two issues, namely the amount and
appropriateness of fees to be charged, and the fact that all municipal parking is currently
free. The latter will likely be the more difficult issue to confront considering that objections
to paying for parking may have the greatest consequences.
In order for the City to realize the revitalization of the Central Business District envisioned
by the Glens Falls Parking Committee in 1997, additional parking is required. Residents
must accept that construction of a multi-level parking structure is the only way to satisfy that
requirement. The burden of providing the parking structure, therefore, will fall on the city
government. Development of this structure together with implementation of parking fees
will be one segment of a comprehensive parking management strategy.
An additional factor in the development of parking fees is the understanding that the
decision to charge for parking must include all municipal off-street facilities as well as all on-
street parking spaces in the CBD, all of which are currently free.
Finally, because parking will be managed so that it serves all users of the CBD,
implementation of parking fees will not be a deterrent to parking in the CBD, nor will it be
an inhibitor to future development/revitalization. Experience with parking controls and fees
in other similar locations provide supporting evidence. Therefore, recognizing that the need
for a fee for parking is a reality, the question becomes what fees will be appropriate and
acceptable to the citizenry who currently park in the area and are expected to park there in
the future. The relatively compact size of the Glens Falls CBD and its focal
points/destinations are such that only a single scale of parking fees is necessary.
To develop a suggested parking fee structure, the consultant reviewed parking fee structures
in various “peer” cities in New York State, New Jersey, Vermont and Pennsylvania of
comparable size and similar activity profiles. While, it is acknowledged that no two
communities are precisely comparable, other similar communities have successfully
implemented parking controls and fee structures. These examples include Albany and Lake
George in New York, Rutland, Vermont and Williamsport, Pennsylvania.
Based on the consultant’s assessment of the different factors affecting parking fee options
and in consideration of the fact that parking is currently free and construction of a parking
garage in downtown Glens Falls will require a substantial financial investment by the City, it
is recommended that a parking fee system be implemented in the CBD using the rates
shown in Table 5.2 below.
Transient/hourly/daily fee: $0.50 per hour
Monthly parking fees: $40.00 per month
Event parking $3.00
Table 5.2:
R ecom m en ded D ow n t ow n Par kin g Fees
Glens Falls Downtown Transportation
Center/Parking Ramp Feasibility Study
Wilbur Smith Associates Page 22
April 2004
Estimated Annual Operating Expenses
Table 5.3 summarizes the estimated annual operating expenses for overall parking system
operations in the Glens Falls CBD, including the conceptual Elm Street Facility. The
estimated first-year operating expense of $275,000 is based on the assumption that an overall
fee-based parking system, using a combination of meters on streets and the parking ramp
together with the sale of monthly permits, would be implemented by the City. Additional
operating expense assumptions include the following:
1. Annual operating and maintenance expenses for the parking garage – $300 per space
includes Maintenance Reserve and pro rata share of personnel costs
2. Annual operating and maintenance expenses escalate at 3% per year; no operating
revenue increase during the initial five-year period of operation
3. Maintenance Reserve of $50,000 per year, held constant throughout
4. Personnel/Staffing required to service all on-street metered parking and all off-street
facilities, metered or permitted, are:
a. Administration/overhead of parking operations (e.g., accounting, issue of
permits, etc.) will continue to be handled by the City without additional
personnel
b. Enforcement personnel will increase from one (1) full-time employee to a
minimum of one (1) full-time (Monday-Friday) and one (1) part-time
(Wednesday through Saturday)
c. Meter collection personnel – one (1) part-time employee (24 hours per week, six
(6) hours each on Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, Friday)
d. Meter repair personnel – three (3) hours per day by part-time person, five (5)
days per week
e. Custodial – two (2) part-time employees; total four (4) hours per day, seven days
per week
f. Coin Counting – One (1) part-time employee; three (3) hours on Monday and
Thursday, two (2) hours on Tuesday and Friday
The annual operating expense includes estimated costs of operating the Elm Street facility,
other parking facilities and meters throughout the CBD and associated staffing requirements.
Projected expenses, however, do not include any possible debt financing payments, which
could substantially increase the annual cost of the facility to the City by as much as $500,000,
based on similar facilities elsewhere. However, only a detailed financial analysis, which is
beyond the scope of this study, can accurately determine potential financing costs.
Additional detail and notes related to this study’s cost estimate are shown in Table 5.3.
Elm Street Transportation Center/Parking Ramp
Utilities $30,000.00
Insurance $3,000.00
Repairs, maintenance and supply $21,000.00
Operating Supplies $10,000.00
Maintenance Res. $50,000.00
Subtotal Elm Street Operating Expenses $114,000.00
Other Parking
Utilities $5,000.00
Insurance $3,000.00
Repairs, Maintenance and Supplies $6,000.00
Subtotal Other Parking Expenses $14,000.00
Staffing Requirements (2)
Salaries (3) $120,000.00
Benefits (4) $36,000.00
Subtotal Staffing $156,000.00
TOTAL Estimated Annual Operating Expenses $284,000.00
NOTES:
(1) Assumes all spaces on-street will have parking meters and all
spaces off-street will either have parking meters or be
controlled by permits.
(2) Personnel requirements are calculated on the basis of 1196 total
parking spaces (732 off-street and 464 on-street) with all on-street
spaces metered and all off-street spaces either metered or permits.
(3) Staffing estimated at 10,000 hours per year at an average salary of
$12.00 per hour (includes security personnel)
(4) Benefits estimated at 30% of salary(All figures rounded to nearest $1,000)
Table 5.3
Estimated Annual Operating Expenses
CBD Parking Operations (1)
City of Glens Falls, New York
Glens Falls Downtown Transportation
Center/Parking Ramp Feasibility Study
Wilbur Smith Associates Page 23
April 2004 Projected Annual Revenues
Table 5.4 highlights revenues estimated for the proposed downtown Glens Falls fee-based
parking system for operating years 1 through 5, including revenues from on-street and off-
street parking as well as the Elm Street facility. In years 1 through 5 of operations, it is
estimated that total parking revenues would be $623,000. Annual projected revenues include
on-street and off-street meters, permit sales and fees collected at the Elm Street facility.
Revenue estimates are based on the occupancy and turnover rates assumed in the traffic
impact analysis. These rates are held constant over the five-year period. The estimate also
includes $165,000 in projected revenues from special event parking associated with the Civic
Center and Charles Wood (Woolworth) Theater.
3 In addition, it has been conservatively
assumed that downtown parking fees are not changed for the first five years of operations.
Tables 5.4.1 and 5.4.2 provide additional detail on the assumptions underlying the revenue
projections.
Projected Net Revenues
In year 1, projected net revenues are approximately $339,000. Using the assumption that
parking fees will remain unchanged for the first five years, net revenue declines to
approximately $320,000 by year 5 (change of -5.6%) due to slight increases in operating costs
over time. After five years of operating experience, the City may choose to revise parking
fees for all or certain specific facilities, thereby affecting the net revenue figure as well.
It should be noted that the estimated revenue figures are based on the conceptual
facility design and location and existing parking demand information from past
studies and plans. These figures are therefore subject to revision based on additional
parking demand analysis, refined facility design and the ultimate structure of the
City’s downtown parking system.
3 Based on actual and estimated event frequency information provided by the City of Glens Falls and the Glens
Falls Civic Center.
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Pro
jected Annual Revenues
(1)
On-Street $174,000 $174,000 $174,000 $174,000 $174,000
Off-Street (exclusive of Elm Street Garage) $93,000 $93,000 $93,000 $93,000 $93,000
Elm Street Garage $356,000 $356,000 $356,000 $356,000 $356,000
Total Projected Annual Revenue $623,000 $623,000 $623,000 $623,000 $623,000
Pro
jected Operatin
g Expenses
(2)
Elm Street Garage (3) $114,000 $117,000 $121,000 $125,000 $128,000
Other Parking $14,000 $14,000 $15,000 $15,000 $16,000
Personnel Staffing $156,000 $161,000 $166,000 $171,000 $176,000
Total Projected Annual Operating Expenses (4) $284,000 $292,000 $302,000 $311,000 $320,000
Net Revenues over Operating Expenses $339,000 $331,000 $321,000 $312,000 $303,000NOTES:(1) Assumes no change in parking fees for first 5 years
(2) Assumes operating expenses increase at the rate of
3% per year, except Maintenance Reserve which remains
constant at $50,000 per year
(3) Includes $50,000 per year Maintenance Reserve
(4) Does not include any costs associated with financing the project and paying debt service.
These costs could exceed $500,000 per year. A detailed financial analysis should be undertaken.
(5) A detailed parking needs study should be undertaken to determine long-term (monthly) and
short-term/transient (hourly) parking demands at this facility and in the entire downtown study area.
City of Glens Falls, New York(All figures rounded to nearest 1,000)
Table 5.4
Projected Annual Net Revenues
Proposed Downtown Parking System
Transportation Center/Parking Ramp
Total parking spaces = 514
Revenue Source
Total
Monthly Permits $123,360
(257 spaces x $40/space x 12 months)
Transient Parking $67,463
(257 spaces x $0.50/hour x 2 hours x 35% occupancy x 2.5
turnover/day x 300 days)
Subtotal Daily Garage Parking
$190,823
Event Parking (1)
Civic Center: 45 events @ 6000 people/year ~ 450 cars x $3$60,750
Civic Center: 45 events @ 3000 people/year ~ 225 cars x $3$30,375
Heritage Hall: 135 events x 100 cars/year x $3$40,500
Woolworth Theater: 150 events x 75 cars/year x $3$33,750
Subtotal Event Parking $165,375
Grand Total – Transportation Center/Parking Ramp Revenue $356,198
NOTES:
(1) Estimates of number of events provided by officials of GF Civic Center,
Woolworth Theater and City of Glens Falls
Glens Falls Transportation Center/Parking Ramp
Revenue Assumptions and ProjectionsTable 5.4.1
Other Off-Street Parking
Net of 218 Spaces (Total 312 minus 94 @ Elm Street lot)
Revenue Source
Total
Monthly Permits $52,320
(109 spaces x $40/space x 12 months)
Transient Parking $40,875
(109 spaces x $0.50/hour x 2 hours x 50% occupancy x 2.5
turnover/day x 300 days)
Total – Other Off-street Parking Revenue
$93,195
On-Street Parking
Total 464 Spaces
(464 spaces x $0.50/hour x 2 hours x 50% occupancy x 2.5 turnover
x 300 days)
$174,000
Total – On-Street Parking Revenue $174,000
Other Off-Street and On-Street Parking
Revenue Assumptions and ProjectionsTable 5.4.2
Glens Falls Downtown Transportation
Center/Parking Ramp Feasibility Study
Wilbur Smith Associates Page 27
July 2004 Transit Operations – Cost Implications
The proposed downtown transportation center/parking ramp is projected to result in minor
increases in GGFT vehicle operating costs. A proportion of utility, maintenance, and
cleaning costs may also be attributable to transit operations and facilities for transit
passengers. Very few of these facility-related costs, however, would be transit specific. It is
suggested that once total facility operating costs have been estimated, a share of the total
costs attributable to transit can be identified by the City of Glens Falls and GGFT.
Transit Operating Cost Components
Transit operating cost components of the proposed parking ramp/transit center would
primarily consist of:
ƒ Changes to vehicle operating costs
ƒ Changes to costs for ticket sales
ƒ Personnel (if any)
ƒ Utilities (heat, electricity, and water)
ƒ Snowplowing
ƒ Cleaning/routine maintenance
ƒ Security
Changes to Vehicle Operating Costs
The Elm Street location would impact GGFT vehicle operating costs to the extent that
service mile, hours, or vehicle requirements are altered significantly. Since the proposed Elm
Street location is less than 0.4 miles from the current Ridge Street hub, however, impacts on
vehicle operations, and thus operating costs, would be low:
ƒ Changes to round trip running times would range from –1.2 minutes to +1.3
minutes (see Table 5.5). Some minor service changes may be required, but it should
be possible to accommodate these changes without increasing vehicle hours or
vehicle requirements.
Glens Falls Downtown Transportation
Center/Parking Ramp Feasibility Study
Wilbur Smith Associates Page 28
July 2004 Table 5.5: Impacts of Elm Street Location on GGFT Running Times
Current Round
Trip Run Time Run Time Impact
(Minutes) Round Trip Run
Time at Elm
Street
2 Bay – College 27 0.6 27.6
3 Ridge-East Loop 20 1.3 21.3
4 Hudson Falls-Fort Edward 48 1.1 49.1
5 Moreau – South Glens Falls 29 0.1 29.1
6 West Loop 20 -1.2 18.8
7 West Glens Falls 25 -1.1 23.9
11/12 Glen-Robert Garden/Aviation Mall 28 0.6 28.6
19 Route 9 County Center 55 0.6 55.6
There would be an increase in vehicle service miles operated of 20,100, or approximately 7%
(see Table 5.6). This would increase mileage based costs (primarily vehicle maintenance) by
approximately 7%, or about $7,000 per year using the actual costs for vehicle maintenance in
2000 of $95,700.
Table 5.6: Changes in GGFT Vehicle Service Miles
Change in
Round Trip
Mileage Weekday
Round TripsSaturday
Round Trips Change in
Annual Vehicle
Service Miles
(VSMs)
2 Bay – College 0.14 6 2 2,257
3 Ridge-East Loop 0.32 11 8 9,527
4 Hudson Falls-Fort Edward 0.28 11.5 5 8,642
5 Moreau – South Glens Falls 0.03 9 5 610
6 West Loop -0.29 12 8 -9,425
7 West Glens Falls -0.27 6 2 -4,408
11/12 Glen-Robert Garden/Aviation Mall 0.14 12 10 4,559
19 Route 9 County Center 0.14 22 20 8,370
Total 20,130
Ticket Sales
The Glens Falls City Clerk’s office, at City Hall on Ridge Street, currently sells GGFT
tickets. With the shift of GGFT service to the transit center from the current Ridge Street
hub, this location would no longer be convenient, and provision would need to be made for
ticket sales at the new facility.
Relocating ticket sales could be accomplished via ticket vending machines or by a
concessionaire. If tickets are to be sold via a concessionaire, this arrangement would require
locating a complementary business as close as possible to the transit center, (i.e., a newsstand
or convenience store).
Glens Falls Downtown Transportation
Center/Parking Ramp Feasibility Study
Wilbur Smith Associates Page 29
July 2004
Currently, the City Clerk’s office sells approximately $500 worth of tickets per month.
Assuming a 10% commission fee, the commission cost would be $50 per month.
Personnel
There should be no need to assign additional personnel to the parking garage/transit center
for transit operations purposes. If a staffed information kiosk is located in the facility,
however, it may be appropriate to attribute a proportion of those costs to the transit
component.
Utilities
There would be heating, cooling, electricity, and water costs associated with the facility.
Costs that would specifically apply to transit include a share of heating, cooling, and lighting
of the passenger waiting room, and lighting costs for the bus berths and outside waiting
areas. Overall utility costs for the entire facility could attribute a proportion to transit based
on the size of the waiting area, which would be largely used by transit patrons.
Snowplowing
There would be snowplowing costs for the facility, which would be attributable to the
parking garage (the top level) and the bus access roads, bus berths, and outside waiting areas.
The proportion attributable to transit could reasonably be based on the area of bus access
roads, platforms, and outside waiting areas as a percentage of the total area that would need
to be cleared of snow.
Snowplowing at GGFT’s current hub on Ridge Street is performed by the city as part of its
normal plowing activities. Since GGFT’s bus berths at the new facility would be on the
street, and outside waiting facilities on the sidewalk, it is assumed that this practice would
continue, and that there would be no new direct GGFT costs.
Cleaning/Routine Maintenance
A proportion of cleaning and maintenance costs for the entire facility which would also be
attributable to the transit use. Transit’s share of these costs may be calculated according to
the area dedicated to transit operations as a percentage of the total area of the facility.
Security
Glens Falls Downtown Transportation
Center/Parking Ramp Feasibility Study
Wilbur Smith Associates Page 30
July 2004 It is assumed that security in the passenger waiting room would be provided by the same
personnel as for the entire garage. Therefore, there would be no direct cost for the transit
component, but some cost sharing of overall security cost would likely be appropriate.
4
Transit Revenue Generation
The new facility would not generate any significant new transit revenue.
4 Options for cost-effectively enhancing overall facility security include products such as “Code Blue,” which is
one of a number of available products that produces a variety of emergency and assistance voice
communications products designed for parking lots and garages. Units are available in a variety of styles,
power options and communication options, and are ADA compliant. The systems are visible and pro-active,
immediately activate a blue strobe light and provide 2-way hands free communication between the customer
and the police or other security personnel.
Glens Falls Downtown Transportation
Center/Parking Ramp Feasibility Study
Wilbur Smith Associates Page 31
July 2004
6. CBD Parking Management Strategies
The development of a Parking Management Program is a key factor in the success (or
failure) of the City’s efforts to revitalize the Central Business District and to construct and
finance a multilevel parking structure. A comprehensive program to manage parking
resources in the CBD, therefore, is recommended. A list of recommended strategies that
would support a parking management program includes:
a. Set parking in the CBD at a level which generates parking revenues required to finance
the parking garage and to cover annual operating and maintenance expenses associated
with the City Parking program.
b. Conduct a parking study to collect parking accumulation data and turnover/duration of
parking data as a means to identify the specific requirements for, and desired location of,
transient and monthly permit parking. This information will also help the City determine
appropriate times to charge for parking at both on-street and off-street facilities.
c. Eliminate or tightly control access to all free parking in the CBD. Access to private lots,
for example, should be limited to employees and patrons. Anyone wishing to park in the
CBD who does not have access to a private lot, therefore, would be forced to use City
provided public parking.
d. Review parking enforcement opportunities available to the City.
i. Ensure enforcement is consistent and fair;
ii. Employ the appropriate number of enforcement personnel required; and
iii. Review the price structure for parking violations to insure that they are
adequate to force compliance with parking rules and fees. As a
minimum, prices must be sufficient to defer parkers from taking a
chance of not paying the parking fee and the willingness to pay a small
fine.
e. Evaluate the potential of parking taxes in the event that private off-street parking
becomes fee-based. This form of taxation has become a common tool used by urban
communities to generate additional revenues to assist in the financing of parking
programs. Parking taxes typically start at about 10% and in a number of larger
metropolitan areas are in excess of 30%.
f. Review existing zoning requirements for parking to determine the adequacy of parking
requirements. In particular, the potential for a payment in lieu of parking scheme
specifically for redevelopment projects should be considered and evaluated. This is a
useful option in cases where it is not practical to provide parking required by City
ordinance.
g. Implement a parking strategy directed at employees and business owners to discourage
their use of on-street parking. The objective would be to free up prime parking for
visitors to the business and commercial establishments in the CBD. Tools to carry out
this strategy may include reduced off-street parking fees for people who work
downtown.
Glens Falls Downtown Transportation
Center/Parking Ramp Feasibility Study
Wilbur Smith Associates Page 32
July 2004 h. Consider a flat fee parking rate for evening and special event parking in off-street
facilities as well as charging for parking at meters during evening hours if there is
sufficient activity to warrant and enforcement personnel would be available.
i. Evaluate existing parking to determine if efficient improvements can be realized (e.g.,
efficiency of off-street facilities, angle parking versus parallel parking for on-street
parking, location and utilization of loading zones).
j. Review the effectiveness of wayfinding signage to identify parking locations and key
destinations. Signage may also be used to encourage park and walk opportunities for
tourists and shoppers.
k. Single out an office or individual within city government responsible for all parking
related matters, from parking meter collection, sale of monthly permits to enforcement.
In this regard, it may be appropriate to consider the creation of a parking authority to
better implement and manage the City parking management strategies.
l. Identify and assess parking needs of CBD residents, including daytime and overnight
parking requirements. Assess the potential for using special permits at off-street facilities
to satisfy requirements for residents of the CBD. This can be done, for example, by
selling (or issuing) reduced fee permits that restrict usage of the parking facility to off-
peak hours.
Glens Falls Downtown Transportation
Center/Parking Ramp Feasibility Study
Wilbur Smith Associates Page 33
July 2004
7. Funding Options
Opportunities for use of external funding sources to pay for major portions of the capital
construction and operating costs of the proposed transportation center/parking ramp have
been identified and evaluated. These sources represent important tools to help the City
leverage its limited revenue. A variety of public, private and public-private funding sources
exist, some of which potentially could be used by Glens Falls. Public funding includes
federal, state, regional and local sources.
The information below, and summarized in Table 7.1, is intended to provide guidance to
the City and its planning partners, but should not be considered exhaustive, as funding
source eligibility, restrictions, amounts and requirements change from year to year. This is
particularly relevant at this time because the federal government is involved with on-going
efforts to craft the follow-on legislation to TEA-21, the six-year federal surface
transportation legislation, which may substantially affect options and opportunities for using
federal transportation funds to build and/or operate similar types of projects.
1. Capital Costs
a. Tax increment Financing Districts
One means of generating revenue for public improvements is through the creation of a
special taxing district where increasing increments of property taxes are dedicated to
finance or pay the debt service of a specified project. Positive points: easy to formulate a
district; growth potential in a developing area; simple to collect; and, has proven itself
throughout the United States. Negative aspects: difficulty in gaining support from other
affected parties (e.g. school districts).
b. Business Improvement Districts
Business Improvement Districts are special assessment districts formed to levy and
collect funds from property owners in order to finance public improvements such as
parking garages. These types of districts generally collects funds based on an assessment
per square foot of property within the district. Positive points: direct benefit to those
who are paying; proven and tested; and the annual amount is known and secure.
Negative aspects: time required to establish and priority of funding if there are multiple
projects.
c. General Obligation (GO) Bonds
GO bonds are the traditional type of bonds issued by government bodies which have
authority to generate funds for capital investments. They are backed by the full faith and
credit of the government body. Positive points: generally lower interest rates; easily
marketed due to high security; understood and respected as a method of financing.
Negative aspects: credit analysis can be complex and expensive; delays may increase
construction costs; and impacts the government body’s borrowing limits.
Table 7.1
Funding Options Summary
Type of Primary Project Key Considerations
Funding Option Typically Used For Funding Application & Limitations
Tax Increment Financing (TIF) DistrictsDeveloping areas, especially areas targeted for
economic developmentLocal Taxes Capital Must balance with other tax districts
Business Improvement DistrictsDeveloping areas, especially areas targeted for
economic developmentLocal Taxes Capital & Operating Has lead time, requires prioritizing fund distribution
General Obligation Bonds Large capital projects Local Taxes Capital Requires credit analysis; impact on gov’t credit
Revenue Bonds Large capital projects User Fees CapitalRequires credit analysis & sufficient facility revenue
flow
Air Rights Development Urban area with tight development market Private / Developer Fees Capital Requires developer interest
Condominiumization Urban area with tight development market Selling of Assets Capital Requires developer interest
Transportation and Community and
System Preservation Pilot Program
(TCSP)Community-based, multi-modal projects Federal Grant CapitalCompetitive funds; historically 100% Congressional
earmarks
Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) Urban area with tight development market Combined Sources Capital Lead time; requires private sector partner
Payment-in-Lieu of Development Fund Urban area with tight development market Private / Developer Fees Capital Requires developer interest
Member Items High profile projects State Resources Capital Requires “champion” in State Legislature
Fines/Permits/Parking TaxNew parking facilities; locations with existing fees &
permit systemsUser Fees Operating Costs of enforcement; Possible public resistance
Parking RevenuesNew parking facilities; locations with existing fees &
permit systemsUser Fees Operating Possible public resistance
FTA Section 5309 “New Starts” Program Transit supportive facilities Federal Grant CapitalCompetitive funds; requires local match; primarily
Congressional earmarks
Table 7.1 (continued)
Funding Options Summary
Funding Option
Capital OperatingLocal Taxes User Fees
Private State / Federal
Funds*Private Sector
ParticipationSpecial Tax / Assessment
Districts Competitive
Tax Increment Financing (TIF)
Districts
999
Business Improvement Districts
9999 9
General Obligation Bonds
99
Revenue Bonds
999
Air Rights Development
9999
Condominiumization
999 9
Transportation and Community and
System Preservation Pilot Program
(TCSP)*
999
Public Private Partnerships (PPPs)
9999 9
Payment-in-Lieu of Development
Fund
999
Member Items*
999
Fines/Permits/Parking Tax
99
Parking Revenues
99
FTA Section 5309 “New Starts”
Program*
999
*May require local and/or state matching funds up to 50%.Funding Source Typical UseKey Considerations
Glens Falls Downtown Transportation
Center/Parking Ramp Feasibility Study
Wilbur Smith Associates Page 34
July 2004
d. Revenue Bonds
This is the most common source of funding for financing public parking because the
bonds are secured by revenues (i.e., parking fees). This is generally considered riskier
than property taxes, however, and may have a higher interest rate if not secured by a
government body with taxing authority. Positive points: credit analysis is straight
forward; users pay for the facility; default only burdens local tax payers if the
government body guarantees the financing; usually no referendum; may not be subject to
debt ceiling; promotes good fiscal management; and tax exempt if used for public
parking.
e. Air Rights Development
This technique involves transferring or selling the rights to construct within the air space
above a property or structure in order to develop or finance the cost of construction.
The right to build on top of a parking structure, for example, may be sold to a developer
seeking to build office space. While not widely used, this strategy has merit within an
urban center and is an excellent means of reducing land cost for development. Positive
points: creates value for under-utilized space; little downside risk; and parking garage
owner usually gains ownership at some point. Negative aspects: limited experience; and
willingness of developer and to accept.
f. Condominiumization
It may be possible to sell individual parking spaces to individuals or companies and, in a
way similar to condominium, establish an owners’ association to collect fees to finance
management operations, maintenance, security, etc. This option may be particularly
attractive to business owners since spaces represent an investment and improvements
can be depreciated, offering a tax shelter for businesses. On the other hand, it also
requires that the costs associated with building and maintaining parking spaces are
perceived by would-be buyers as real and substantial. Positive points: appreciation;
private sector pays; and conventional financing if spaces are pre-sold. Negative aspects:
front-end expense at risk if project unsuccessful; lack of experience of public sector; and
lack of private sector acceptance of concept.
g. Federal Funds/Transportation and Community and System Preservation Pilot
Program (TCSP)
Federal funds have been used in the past to finance parking structures and TEA-21
established a pilot program that enables grantees to implement or plan activities that
investigate and address the relationship between transportation and community and
system preservation. FHWA administers the program through a working group which
includes FTA and TCSP activities are coordinated with the MPO and/or state
transportation planning processes. Positive points: known source of funding, relative
ease of administration; and past track record. Negative aspects: limited or restricted use
based on federal guidelines; competition for funding; and limited amount of funds.
Glens Falls Downtown Transportation
Center/Parking Ramp Feasibility Study
Wilbur Smith Associates Page 35
July 2004
h. Public/Private Partnerships (PPPs)
PPPs are a successful method of financing used throughout the U.S. whereby the private
and public sectors form a partnership or some type of arrangement which shares the
responsibility and profits associated with ownership and operation of a facility. PPPs
were initially popularized through UDAG programs of HUD. Positive points: financing
by public sector and overall support by the private sector. Negative aspects: funding if
private partner becomes insolvent; time required to structure a deal; and potential citizen
opposition.
i. Payment-in-Lieu of Development Fund
In this case, the City would establish a development or parking fund. Developers could
contribute to this fund in-lieu of providing parking or other requirements associated with
another project within the same jurisdiction. This development fund, in turn, could be
used to finance the public parking facility. Positive points: private sector pays; citizen
support high; and funding program is relatively simple to plan and administer. Negative
aspects: restricts development in a soft market; existing building owners may not
support; and relatively few have been implemented.
j. Member Items
Each year, members of the New York State Legislature obtain funding for various
special projects in their districts through “member items,” which are special
appropriations earmarked in budget bills. Typically, those seeking state funding for
projects through member items communicate and work directly with their
representative(s) to develop justifications and related information to support the
member’s request for the special appropriation. The availability and amount of funds
available through member items varies from year to year and from member to member.
2. Operating Costs
a. Fines/Permits/Parking Tax
These three techniques represent potential sources to fund operating expenses
associated with parking structures and management programs. Fines for parking
violations are collected in most cities. It is also common for cities to sell parking
permits to both regulate on-street parking and generate revenue. Lastly, parking taxes
have become an increasingly popular tool in urban communities with a high number of
transient patrons. Positive points: follows user-pay principal; instituted nationally;
administration usually in place; and sources of revenue can be increased easily and
quickly. Negative aspects: public resistance to fines and taxes; high cost of
enforcement and administration; and can discourage use of commercial areas.
b. Parking Revenues
Glens Falls Downtown Transportation
Center/Parking Ramp Feasibility Study
Wilbur Smith Associates Page 36
July 2004
Parking fees are the single most important source of revenue to cover operating and
administrative costs associated with parking facilities. Positive points: general public
acceptance; rates can be adjusted as necessary; and voter approval not required.
Negative aspects: often insufficient in early years to cover all costs; and, public
resistance to rate increases.
c. Other Sources
Some sources such as Business Improvement Districts (BID) and Condominiumization
can be sources of funds for both Capital Costs and Operating Costs.
3. Funding Specific to Transit Aspects of Facility
Certain public transit and transit-supportive facilities may be eligible for capital funding
through the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) Section 5309 “New Starts”
Program. New Starts funds are usually allocated on an 80% federal/20% non-federal
matching basis; however, there are currently Federal efforts to change the allocation to
50%/50%.
Federal law requires that proposed New Starts projects be justified based on several criteria,
including the following:
• Mobility Improvements;
• Environmental Benefits;
• Operating Efficiencies;
• Cost Effectiveness;
• Transit Supportive Land Use and Future Patterns; and
• Other Factors, including, among other things, the technical capability of the project
sponsor to implement and operate the proposed investment.
In addition, federal law requires that New Starts project sponsors demonstrate adequate local
support for the proposed project, as measured by:
• The proposed share of total project costs from sources other than from the Section
5309 New Starts program, including Federal formula and flexible funds, the local
match required by Federal law, and any additional capital funding (“overmatch”);
• The strength of the proposed project’s capital financing plan; and
• The ability of the sponsoring agency to fund operation and maintenance of the
entire transit system as planned once the guideway project is built.
In recent years, competition for New Starts funding has grown increasingly fierce, with
almost all program funding allocated to Congressional earmarks. Thus, any efforts to obtain
New Starts funding for the new facility will not only need to address the criteria listed above,
Glens Falls Downtown Transportation
Center/Parking Ramp Feasibility Study
Wilbur Smith Associates Page 37
July 2004 but also have the strong sponsorship and advocacy of members of the region’s
Congressional delegation.
Glens Falls Downtown Transportation
Center/Parking Ramp Feasibility Study
Wilbur Smith Associates Page 38
July 2004
8. Architectural Renderings of Conceptual Facility
Design
Based on the conceptual facility design described in Chapter 2 of this report, the consultant
prepared a set of architectural renderings that depict a fully-constructed Glens Falls
Transportation Center/Parking Ramp, as shown in the following pages. Assumptions were
made regarding design elements such as façade treatments, window placement and other
aesthetic features based on the steering committee’s stated desire to develop a facility that fit
into downtown Glens Falls’ architectural and historic character. A total of nine (9)
renderings are provided, depicting the conceptual facility from a variety of perspectives and
elevations.
In addition, to illustrate how the conceptual facility might “fit” into the Elm Street
streetscape, a photosimulation was also prepared (see last image in following pages). This
image depicts the conceptual facility as if it were fully constructed on the preferred site and
allows decision-makers, stakeholders and residents to understand and appreciate the
potential visual and aesthetic impacts of the facility on the existing streetscape.
It should be noted that the architectural renderings and photosimulation are conceptual only
and do not necessarily depict a final design for the proposed facility. Rather, these images
are intended to inform discussions and decision-making regarding next steps in the process
for developing the Glens Falls Transportation Center/Parking Ramp.
Glens Falls Downtown Transportation
Center/Parking Ramp Feasibility Study
Wilbur Smith Associates
April 2004
Appendix A
Phase 1 Report
Albany NY, Anaheim CA, Atlanta GA, Baltimore MD, Bangkok Thailand, Burlington VT, Charleston SC, Charleston WV, Chicago IL, Cincinnati OH,
Cleveland OH Columbia SC, Columbus OH, Dallas TX, Dubai UAE, Edmonton Canada, Falls Church VA, Greenville SC, Hong Kong, Houston TX,
Iselin NJ, Kansas City MO, Knoxville TN, Lansing MI, Lexington KY, London UK, Milwaukee WI, Mumbai India, Myrtle Beach SC, New Haven CT,
Orlando FL, Philadelphia PA, Pittsburgh PA, Portland ME Poughkeepsie NY, Raleigh NC, Richmond VA, Salt Lake City UT, San Francisco CA,
Tallahassee FL, Tampa FL, Tempe AZ, Toronto Canada, Trenton NJ, Washington DC
Employee-Owned Company
Shelburne Commons
4076 Shelburne Road, Suite 7
Shelburne, Vermont 05482
(802) 985-2530
(802) 985-8175 fax
www.wilbursmith.com
March 3, 2003
Mr. Aaron Frankenfeld, Acting Director
Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation Council
Washington County Municipal Center, A-204
383 Upper Broadway
Ft. Edward, NY 12828
Mr. James Martin, Director
Economic Development Office
City of Glens Falls
City Hall
Glens Falls, NY 12801
RE: Downtown Glens Falls Transportation Center Feasibility Study – Phase 1 Report
Dear Messrs. Frankenfeld and Martin:
On behalf of Wilbur Smith Associates (WSA), I am pleased to present you with the Phase 1 Report
on the Downtown Glens Falls Transportation Center Feasibility Study. The purpose of this report is
to provide the A/GFTC and City of Glens Falls with preliminary information on facility design
concepts and pro forma facility financial information, which will be used by those entities to
determine whether to proceed with more detailed and refined facility planning and design.
Background
In October 2002, the A/GFTC and City of Glens Falls contracted with a consultant team led by
Wilbur Smith Associates (WSA) to conduct a feasibility study and siting analysis for a Downtown
Glens Falls Transportation Center and Parking Ramp. The proposed transit center-parking ramp
facility is intended to both be a hub for the Greater Glens Falls Transit (GGFT) system and intercity
buses (Greyhound and Trailways) and provide about 500 parking spaces for daily and special events
use. In addition, the City desires that the facility include transit-supportive space, such as indoor
transit patron waiting areas, and rental retail space with street-level storefronts. It should be noted
that WSA did not conduct any independent parking demand analysis for this project; demand
estimates are based on information provided by the City of Glens Falls.
For Phase 1, the conceptual design footprint was to be developed without regard to a specific site.
Potential facility sites are to be identified and evaluated in Phase 2.
Downtown Glens Falls Transportation Center
Feasibility Study – Phase 1 Report
Wilbur Smith Associates Page 2 March 3, 2003
Conceptual Design Footprint
Based on the parking demand and transit operational parameters provided by the City and the
Greater Glens Falls Transit System, the WSA team developed a conceptual design footprint for the
proposed facility. These are displayed in Figures 1-3. The characteristics of the conceptual design
characteristics are summarized as follows:
• 250’ x 180’ footprint (45,000 square feet, or slightly more than 1 acre);
• 4 levels (about 40’ total height);
• 525 parking spaces (including disabled spaces on 2 levels);
• Exterior local transit and intercity bus parking (5-7 vehicles) under a canopied roof;
• 2,500 sq. ft. Transportation Center, including:
ƒ Welcome Center & Waiting Area
ƒ Restrooms
ƒ Vending/Newstand
ƒ Ticketing Counter
ƒ Manager’s Office & Crew Rest Room
ƒ Utility Space;
• 1,500 sq. ft. Retail Space on street level (assume subdividing into three vendor
spaces).
Facility Construction Cost Estimate
Based on national averages and typical costs for facilities similar to that presented in the conceptual
design footprint, the estimated capital construction cost for the structure only
is about $7.4 million
(see Table 1). This estimate is based on unit costs of $13,000 per parking space for the parking ramp
element and $140 per square foot for the transportation center and retail space elements. The $7.4
million estimated cost should be considered a planning figure only. It does not
include the
costs of any land acquisition, infrastructure modifications, debt financing charges or other
legal/development costs. It is also subject to significant revision based on site-specific
considerations.
Five-Year Facility Operating Costs and Revenues
Table 2 displays the five-year estimated operating costs and revenues associated with the
parking element of the conceptual facility. In Year 1, the estimated operating revenue is
about $578,000, with estimated operating costs of about $210,000. It is assumed these costs
will rise by an average of 2 percent annually. Table 3 displays the breakout of estimated
revenue streams from monthly and daily parking uses. These
are planning estimates only,
and do not include key cost items that could significantly affect the facility’s operating
budget, including financing costs and debt service. In addition, these estimates do not account
for major changes to downtown parking demand or transit usage that might occur during the five-
year timeframe used for this estimate.
Downtown Glens Falls Transportation Center
Feasibility Study – Phase 1 Report
Wilbur Smith Associates Page 3 March 3, 2003
Table 2 does not
include any operating costs or revenues associated with the transportation center
element of the facility. However, it is reasonable to assume that transportation center operating costs
would be relatively minimal. Items that would most significantly affect operating costs would include
staffing, janitorial and security services. These costs could vary greatly depending on hours of
staffing and intensity of facility usage. Regarding the retail spaces, it is reasonable to assume that rent
would cover the costs of maintenance and upkeep of those spaces.
– – – – – – –
As you know, the information in this report will be discussed in detail during our March 4 steering
committee meeting in Glens Falls. Assuming the A/GFTC and City wish to proceed with Phase 2 of
this study, WSA is prepared to proceed with the site analysis and design and financial refinement
steps needed to develop a buildable facility. Thank you for the opportunity to support the City of
Glens Falls and the Greater Glens Falls Region.
Sincerely,
WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES
Peter E. Plumeau
Associate-in-Charge
EL
23 Spaces
9 Spaces
19 Spaces
RETAIL SPACE
1,500 so/ft7 Spaces 9 Spaces
15 Spaces 15 Spaces
STAIRS
180 feet
250 feet
FIRST LEVEL 110 Spaces7 Spaces
UP / DOWN RAMP 5.5% SLOPE
Bus 1Bus 2 Bus 3Bus 4Bus 5
5 Handicap
Spaces
One Way Ped.
Walk
TRANSPORTATION CENTER
2,500 sq/ft
See Insert “A” for details
In
Sidewalk6 Spaces2 SpacesOne Way
195 feet
EL
STAIRS
23 Spaces19 Spaces
RETAIL SPACE
1,500 so/ft7 Spaces 19 Spaces
15 Spaces 15 Spaces
STAIRS
180 feet
250 feet
SECOND LEVEL 126 Spaces
UP / DOWN RAMP 5.5% SLOPE5 Handicap
Spaces
One Way Ped.
Walk
TRANSPORTATION CENTER
2,500 sq/ft
See Insert “A” for details
6 Spaces
5 Spaces One Way
EL
23 Spaces
19 Spaces 19 Spaces
23 Spaces 19 Spaces
15 Spaces 15 Spaces
STAIRS
THIRD LEVEL (Typical) 150 Spaces
UP / DOWN RAMP 5.5% SLOPE
17 Spaces
EL
ELEV.
STAIRS
23 Spaces10 Spaces
23 Spaces
15 Spaces 15 Spaces
STAIRS
180 feet
250 feet
ROOF LEVEL 139 Spaces
10 Spaces
7 Spaces
19 Spaces
17 Spaces
UP / DOWN RAMP 5.5% SLOPE
STAIRS
ELEV.
STAIRS
ELEV.
STAIRS
19 Spaces
STAIRS
STAIRS
ELEV.
STAIRS
ELEV.
STAIRS
STAIRS
STAIRS
ELEV.
STAIRS
ELEV.
STAIRS STAIRS
STAIRS
ELEV.
STAIRS
ELEV.
STAIRS
Out
SECTION VIEW ‘A’ – “A”
“A”
“A”
180 feet
250 feet
Note:
Length, width, number of spaces,
number of floors and efficiency is
dependent upon specific site
opportunities.
Potential Functional Concept
TRANSPORTATION CENTER
Glens Falls, New York
Wilbur Smith AssociatesJanuary 16, 2003
Revised: February 7, 2003 Sheet 1 of 3
Sidewalk
Canopy
Potential Functional Concept
TRANSPORTATION CENTER
Glens Falls, New York
Wilbur Smith AssociatesJanuary 16, 2003
Revised: February 7, 2003 Sheet 2 of 3
ELEV.
STAIRS
TRANSPORTATION CENTER
24’
Backout
Space4
5’
1
2
’
3
5’ B
us
1 B
us
2 B
us
3 B
us
4 B
us
5 B
us
6 B
us
7
8’ SIDEWALK
RETAIL SPACE
ALTERNATE BUS PARKING LAYOUT
(45 Degrees)
145 feet
40’
Insert “A”
TRANSPORTATION CENTER
Conceptual Layout to Show Function and Scale
Scale: 1 inch = 10 feet Total Area 2,500 Sq/Ft.
Legend:
A- Bus Info. Area (12.5’ x 8.0’) = 105.0 Sq/Ft.
B- Ticketing Counter (17.7’ x 7.0’) = 119.0 Sq/Ft.
C- Mgr. Office (12.5’ x 20.0’) = 250.0 Sq/Ft.
C-1 Restroom (12.5’ x 8.0’) = 100.0 Sq/Ft.
D-M Men’s Restroom (15.0’ x 12.5’) = 187.5 Sq/Ft.
D-W Women’s Restroom (15.0’ x 12.5’) = 187.5 Sq/Ft.
E- Waiting Area / Welcome Center = (1,283.5 Sq/Ft. and
F- Vending Areas and News Stand (15.0’ x 7.0’) = 105.0 Sq/Ft.
G-Misc./ Utility Space (12.5’ x 13.0’) = 162.5 Sq/Ft.
ELEV.
STAIRSA
B
FD-W D-M
E
C-1
C
Men’s
Rest Room
Women’s
Rest Room Mgr. Office
Vending Areas and
News Stand
Ticketing Counter
Rest
Room
25 feet
Waiting Area
Welcome Center
Ped.
Walk
100 feetBus Info. Area
GMisc./
Utility
Space
SECOND VIEW FIRST VIEW
SECTION VIEW “A-A”
Fourth Level …………. 139 Spaces
Third Level (Typical)….. 150 Spaces
Second Level………… 126 Spaces
First Level…………… 1 1 0 Spaces
GARAGE TOTAL …… 525 Spaces
GARAGE EFFICIENCY 330 sq/ft per space
Horizontal Scale: 1 inch = 30 feet
Vertical Scale: 1 inch = 14 feet
ALTERNATE BUS PARKING LAYOUT
Parallel Parking
Scale: 1 inch = 30 feet
ELEV.
STAIRS
TRANSPORTATION CENTER
8’ SIDEWALK
RETAIL SPACE
195 feet
100’
Bus 5 Bus 4 Bus 3 Bus 2 Bus 1
Bus 6
Bus 7
35’
45’
Third Level (Typical)
Second Level
First Level Fourth Level
Scale: 1 inch = 30 feet
Note:
Other bus berth layouts are possible
and are dependent upon specific site
opportunities.
EL STAIR
S
ELEV.
STAIRS
ELEV.
STAIRS ELEV.
STAIRS ELEV.
STAIRS
RETA
IL2
1
3
RETAIL
RETAIL
Transportati
on Center
40’±
ELEV.
STAIRS
STAIRS STAIRS STAIRS
ELEV.
STAIRS ELEV.
STAIRS
In
Out
EL STAIR
S
ELEV.
STAIRS
ELEV.
STAIRS ELEV.
STAIRS ELEV.
STAIRSELEV.
STAIRS
STAIRS STAIRS STAIRS
ELEV.
STAIRS ELEV.
STAIRS
TRANSPORTATION CENTER
2,500 sq/ft
See Insert “A” for detailsRETAIL SPACE
1,500 so/ft
U
P
/
D
OW
N
R
A
MP
5.
5
%
S
LOP
E
TRANSPORTATION CENTER IN
CONTEXT WITH OTHER BUILDINGS
Glens Falls, New York
Wilbur Smith AssociatesScale: 1” = 20’February 7, 2003 Sheet 3 of 3
EL
23
4J
R
23
4J
R
12’
Alley
40’
250’
Transportation Center
30’
40’
50’
Parking Element Cost Estimate
Spaces Cost per Space* Estimated Total
525 $13,000 $6,825,000
Square Footage Cost per Sq. Foot* Estimated Total
4,000 $140 $560,000
Estimated Total Capital Cost – Structure Only
Parking Spaces$6,825,000
Transportation Center$560,000
Estimated Total$7,385,000
Notes:*Includes contingency factor
Does not
include land acquisition, infrastructure modifications, debt financing charges or other legal/development costs.
Not site-specificTABLE 1
Transportation Center Element Cost Estimate (including retail space)
FOR DISCUSSION ONLY TRANSPORTATION CENTER
GLENS FALLS, NY
CONCEPTUAL FACILITY DESIGN
ESTIMATED CAPITAL COSTS – STRUCTURE ONLY
3/1/03
Facility Element Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Five
-year
Total
Operating RevenueParking $578,340 $589,907 $601,705 $613,739 $626,014$3,009,705
Operating CostParking $210,000 $214,200 $218,484 $222,854 $227,311$1,092,848
Net Revenue/Cost $368,340 $375,707 $383,221 $390,885 $398,703 $1,916,856
Notes
:
Not site-specific
Does not include any financing or debt service costs
Based on information provided by City of Glens Falls – no independent needs or economic analysis conducted
Assumes 90% average parking occupancy
All figures in current (2003) dollars
Assumed 2% annual growth in operating revenues and costs
FOR DISCUSSION ONLYTABLE 2
GLENS FALLS TRANSPORTATION CENTER FEASIBILITY STUDY – PHASE 1
CONCEPTUAL FACILITY DESIGN
PRO FORMA OPERATING REVENUE & COST ESTIMATE
3/1/03
% of spacesTotal # of
spacesAverage
occupancy
rateRevenue per
spaceRevenue basis Annual revenue Notes
70% 368 90% $60 monthly $238,140 Monthly permit holders
30% 158 90% $8 daily $340,200 Equivalent of 300 days/year
100% 525 90% $578,340
Assumptions:Not site-specific
Monthly/daily parking ratio based on typicals of similar facilities in other jurisdictions – subject to adjustment
Per unit revenue figures based on typicals of similar facilities in other jurisdictions – subject to adjustment
TABLE 3
FOR DISCUSSION ONLYTRANSPORTATION CENTER
GLENS FALLS, NY
CONCEPTUAL FACILITY DESIGN
PRO FORMA OPERATING REVENUE ESTIMATE
Glens Falls Downtown Transportation
Center/Parking Ramp Feasibility Study
Wilbur Smith Associates
April 2004
Appendix B
Candidate Site Evaluation Matrix and Site Evaluation
Results
GLENS FALLS DOWNTOWN TRANSPORTATION CENTER/PARKING RAMP
CANDIDATE SITE EVALUATION MATRIX – REVISED 7/11/03
Priority
Level
Elm St. Lot
Individual
Rating1
Prioritized
Rating2
Hudson Ave. & Glen St.
Individual
Rating
Prioritized
Rating
Civic Center Plaza
Individual
Rating
Prioritized
Rating
Clinton/School Streets Lot
Individual
Rating
Prioritized
Rating
Evergreen Bank/Washington St.
Individual
Rating
Prioritized
Rating
1
OwnershipPublic – City
11
Public Roadway abutted by private property
11
Public/private mix; Need to provide commercial space
and parkign to displaced businesses
33
Public with private rights-of-way
33
Private; need to provide parking to owner if land is sold.
55
1
Parking & Bus Passenger Proximity to Central
Downtown AreaGood access to downtown. 1,000’± walk to Library,
City Hall, and Senior housing. 2,000’± walk to Civic
Center
11
Good access to downtown. 2,000’± walk to Library, Cit
y
Hall, Senior housing and Civic Center.
11
Fair access to downtown. Short walk to City Hall,
Senior housing and Civic Center. 2,000’± walk to
Library. Must cross Hudson/Glen intersection to
access most amenities
33
3,000’± walk to Library and Downtown.
55
2,000’±
walk
to Library. 3,000’± walk to Downtown, City Hall
and senior housing. 4,500’± walk to Civic Center.
33
1
Pedestrian AccessAcceptable. Could be better from Glen and
Exchange Streets.
33
Acceptable. Access would need to be in the location of
existing sidewalks.
33
Good from both Glen St. and Hudson Ave. Good
pedestrian connections to Ridge via Linear park, if
cross walk is added on Hudson. Long delays at
crosswalks around five corners would need to be
corrected.
11
Acceptable from Clinton and Elm.
33
Good from Washington and Maple, with good connections
to Glen St.
11
1
Facility Access and Egress for VehiclesEasy auto access from Elm and Glen St. Bus access
convenient from west only; Tight access for buses
due to narrow lanes on Elm St.
33
Easy access from five corners and Hudson Ave for
auto and bus.
55
Easy access for right turn movement for bus and auto
from Glen St. and Warren Ave. Left turns difficult
across Glen (3 lanes) and Warren (2 lanes).
55
Acceptable access for autos; tight access for buses
due to narrow lanes on Elm & Clinton Sts.
33
Easy access for auto and bus from Washington St. and
from Maple St. for autos.
11
1
Context SensitivityProximity to rear of buildings on Glen St. and
Exchange St. is an important issue. Potential for
more pedestrian space in the alley. Can fit into
facades on Elm St.
11
Bridging building over road could create a discordant
façade
55
Proper design could add interesting mass to five
corners area. May be possible to use the slope and
portions of lower site to expand capacity. Potential to
add small shops near heart of downtown.
11
Building mass could work well with adjacent
buildings.
11
Structure would work well with buildings on Maple St.
Parking structure may be out of scale for smaller residential
(existing or former) structures on north side of Washington
St. Use may not be compatible with residences on
Washington
55
1
Transit Center/Bus Operations InterfaceAcceptable – location of transit center potential
conflicts between north side toward on-site drop-off,
or south side to face street.
33
Transit center on adjacent property
33
Acceptable – buses adjacent off-street.
33
Acceptable – buses adjacent on-street.
33
Good – buses adjacent off street.
11
2
Facility Traffic Impacts on DowntownPotential for some traffic impacts due to access on
Elm Street.
36
Some disruption due to covering of Hudson Avenue
36
Potential for traffic impacts with left turns and access
on primary roadways.
510
Potential for some traffic impacts on Downtown due
to use.
36
Minimal traffic impacts on Downtown traffic.
12
2
Environmental ConsiderationsGood shade trees on site. Potential hazardous
waste
36
Potential hazardous waste
12
Potential hazardous waste
12
Potential hazardous waste
12
Potential hazardous waste.
12
2
Private Property Impacts/NeedsMinimal
12
Could affect circulation on adjacent properties
36
Requires relocation of existing business and
associated parking.
510
Could disrupt rights-of-way
36
Requires replacing private parking spaces; Some
modification to bank drive-in. Compensation to landowner
needed.
36
2
Bus Operations at FacilityPotential for good bus circulation on-site
12
No turn around one way circulation.
510
Potential for acceptable bus circulation on-site.
36
Acceptable – circulation offsite
36
Potential for good bus circulation around parking garage on-
site.
12
2
Site Preparation/Utilities ConsiderationsDrainage.
12
Utilities in street must work with foundations. Overhead
wires
510
Drainage; potential retaining walls; foundation issues;
demolition of other buildings
510
Overhead wires; demolition of other buildings
36
Overhead wires
36
2
Bus Routing ConsiderationsCentral location in downtown; proximate to Glen St.
&
library
12
Central location in downtown
36
Central location in downtown; proximate to Civic
Center
12
Fringe of central downtown area
510
Fringe of central downtown area; long walks to Civic
Center.
36
TOTAL:
32 58 56 54 40
1Individual Ratings:
1 – Good
3 – Acceptable
5 – Poor
The lower the overall score, the
more suitable the site.2Prioritized rating = Individual Rating x Priority Level
SITE EVALUATION CRITERIA
PRINTED 7/14/2003
Page 1
GLENS FALLS DOWNTOWN TRANSPORTATION CENTER/PARKING RAMP
CANDIDATE SITE EVALUATION MATRIX – REVISED 7/11/03
Priority
Criteria
Elm St. Lot
Individual
Rating
Prioritized
Rating
Hudson Ave. & Glen St.
Individual
Rating
Prioritized
Rating
Civic Center Plaza
Individual
Rating
Prioritized
Rating
Clinton/School Streets Lot
Individual
Rating
Prioritized
Rating
Evergreen Bank/Washington St.
Individual
Rating
Prioritized
Rating
Displaced Public Parking Spaces94 0 50 38 75
Proposed Spaces488 364 436 379 490
Net New Spaces399 364 386 341 415
Proposed Parking Levels57 45 5
Typical Spaces per level113 58 131 92 115
Proposed Building Height50 78 40 50 50
Garage Efficiency ( s.f./space)368 440 351 330 366
Transportation Center SpaceYes Yes (on existing Greyhound site) Yes Yes Yes
Commercial SpaceYes No Yes No Yes
Number of Bus Berths (5 local & 2 intercity desired)7 – Off Street 4 – On Street 5- Off Street 5-On Street 7-Off Street
Construction CostTo Be Determined To Be Determined To Be Determined To Be Determined To Be Determined
SITE CHARACTERISTICS
PRINTED 7/14/2003
Page 1
Glens Falls Downtown Transportation
Center/Parking Ramp Feasibility Study
Wilbur Smith Associates
April 2004
Appendix C
Alternative Designs for Elm Street Site