Final Report
Route 4 Corridor Study
Prepared for the Adirondack / Glens
Falls Transportation Council
July 2005
Prepared by Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.
In Association with:
Vollmer Associates LLP
Mathews Nielsen Landscape Architects, PC
Final Report
Route 4 Corridor Study
Prepared for the Adirondack / Glens Falls Transportation Council
July 2005
Prepared by:
Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.
115 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10003
www.bfjplanning.com
In Association with:
Vollmer Associates LLP
Mathews Nielsen Landscape Architects, PC
Route 4 Corridor Study Buckhurst Fish Jacquemart Inc./ May 2005
1
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION …………………………………………………………………………… 4
1.1 Purpose, Goals and Objectives…………………………………………………………………………… 4
1.2 Public Participation Process……………………………………………………………………………….. 4
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS …………………………………………………………………. 6
2.1 Roadway Conditions…………………………………………………………………………………………. 6
2.2 Daily Traffic Volumes (AADT) …………………………………………………………………………….. 6
2.3 Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes………………………………………………………………………………… 6
2.4 Existing Levels of Service……………………………………………………………………………………. 8
2.5 Vehicular Speeds…………………………………………………………………………………………….. 12
2.6 Accident History…………………………………………………………………………………………….. 12
2.7 Existing Land Uses …………………………………………………………………………………………… 13
2.8 Bus Transit…………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 13
2.9 Sidewalk Conditions ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 13
2.10 Bicycle Conditions………………………………………………………………………………………….. 18
3.0 ACCIDENT ANALYSIS …………………………………………………………………… 18
3.1 High Accident Non-Intersection Locations………………………………………………………….. 18
3.2 High Accident Intersections……………………………………………………………………………… 24
4.0 FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES ………………………………………………………….. 24
4.1 Traffic Forecasts……………………………………………………………………………………………… 24
5.0 ROUTE 4 IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM ……………………………………………. 28
5.1 Traffic and Safety Improvements – Major Intersections ………………………………………….. 28
5.2 Traffic and Safety Improvements – Unsignalized Intersections ……………………………….. 35
5.3 Traffic Improvements – Non-Intersection Locations ………………………………………………. 40
5.4 Bicycle & Pedestrian Safety Improvements ………………………………………………………….. 42
5.5 Buses and Public Transit………………………………………………………………………………….. 43
5.6 Landscaping Plan……………………………………………………………………………………………. 44
6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MUNICIPALITIES ………………………………….. 51
6.1 Future Land Use Plans……………………………………………………………………………………… 51
6.2 Access Management……………………………………………………………………………………….. 53
7.0 IMPLEMENTATION OF CORRIDOR PLAN ……………………………………….. 55
7.1 Summary of Route 4 Corridor Improvements ………………………………………………………. 55
7.2 Priorities and Funding……………………………………………………………………………………… 55
7.3 Right-of-way Restrictions ………………………………………………………………………………….. 56
APPENDIX…………………………………………………………………………………………….. 61
Route 4 Corridor Study Buckhurst Fish Jacquemart Inc./ May 2005
2
Tables and Figures
Figure 1.1 – Study Area Map for Route 4………………………………………………………………………….. 5
Figure 2.1 –Daily Peak Hour Traffic Volumes …………………………………………………………………… 7
Table 2.1 – Study Intersections……………………………………………………………………………………….. 8
Table 2.2 – Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections ………………………………………….. 9
Table 2.3 – Level of Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections ………………………………………. 9
Figure 2.2 – Existing AM Peak Hour Levels of Service………………………………………………………. 10
Figure 2.3 – Existing PM Peak Hour Levels of Service………………………………………………………. 11
Table 2.4 – Speed Statistics………………………………………………………………………………………….. 12
Figure 2.4 – Accident Summary ……………………………………………………………………………………. 14
Figure 2.5 – Existing Land Uses – Fort Ann ……………………………………………………………………… 15
Figure 2.6 – Existing Land Uses – Whitehall ……………………………………………………………………. 16
Figure 2.7 – Sidewalk Inventory……………………………………………………………………………………. 17
Figure 2.8 – Existing Bicycle Conditions …………………………………………………………………………. 19
Table 3.1 – Analysis of Accident Rates…………………………………………………………………………… 20
Figure 3.1 – Above Average Accident Segments ………………………………………………………………. 21
Figure 3.2 – High Non-Intersection Accident Locations ……………………………………………………. 22
Figure 4.1 – Historical Traffic Volumes and Expected Growth along Route 4 ……………………….. 25
Figure 4.2 – Traffic Forecasts for 2014 along Route 4……………………………………………………….. 26
Figure 4.3 – Traffic Forecasts for 2024 along Route 4……………………………………………………….. 27
Table 5.1 – Future Traffic Conditions with Improvements …………………………………………………. 28
Table 4.1 – Future Traffic Forecasts ……………………………………………………………………………….. 29
Figure 5.1 – Proposed Intersection Improvements along Route 4 ……………………………………….. 30
Figure 5.2 – Proposed Roundabout at Route 4 & 32 Intersection………………………………………… 32
Figure 5.3 – Proposed Upgrade at Route 4 & 149 Intersection…………………………………………… 33
Figure 5.4 – Proposed Roundabout at Route 4 & 149 Intersection – Fort Ann ………………………. 34
Figure 5.5 – Proposed Roundabout at Route 4/ Route 22 / Broadway – Whitehall………………… 36
Figure 5.6 – Intersection of Route 4 & Kingsbury Street …………………………………………………….. 37
Figure 5.7 –Route 4 & 149S Intersection Improvement …………………………………………………….. 38
Figure 5.8 – T Owens Lane Improvement……………………………………………………………………….. 39
Figure 5.9 – Proposed Non-intersection Improvements …………………………………………………….. 41
Figure 5.10 – Landscaping Plan…………………………………………………………………………………….. 45
Figure 5.11 – Gateway Design – Fort Ann Entry from South ………………………………………………. 46
Figure 5.12 – Gateway Design – Fort Ann Entry from North………………………………………………. 47
Figure 5.13 – Gateway Design –Fort Ann Entry from West………………………………………………… 48
Figure 5.14 – Gateway Design –Whitehall Entry from South ……………………………………………… 49
Figure 5.15 – Gateway Design –Whitehall Entry from East………………………………………………… 50
Figure 5.16 – Design of Information Kiosk and Turn Lanes at New York State Border ……………. 52
Table 7.1 – Summary of Route 4 Corridor Improvements………………………………………………….. 57
Figure 7.1 – Potential Right-of-Way Issues in Whitehall ……………………………………………………. 60
Route 4 Corridor Study Buckhurst Fish Jacquemart Inc./ May 2005
3
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Purpose, Goals and Objectives
The purpose of this study is to develop a corridor management plan for U.S. Route 4
through the Washington County communities of the Town and Village of Fort Ann, the
Town and Village of Whitehall, the Town of Kingsbury and the Town of Hampton. This
report is a planning study, and is designed to stimulate ideas, rather than offer concrete
solutions for any issue identified. All recommendations in this study will require further
study by the engineers at the New York State’s Department of Transportation before they
can be implemented. The corridor is over 25 miles in length and runs from the Route 4/32
intersection in Kingsbury to the New York/Vermont State border (Figure 1.1). Buckhurst
Fish & Jacquemart, Inc., together with Vollmer Associates and Mathews Nielsen as
subconsultants were retained by the Ad irondack-Glens Falls Transportation Council
(A/GFTC) to provide a long-term vision of the corridor, improve safety and suggest
improvements that may be needed to best ser ve its role within the surrounding community.
A/GFTC is the metropolitan planning organization for the region.
This section of U.S. Route 4 is a two-lane principal arterial and is part of the National
Highway System (NHS). The southernmost 1.8 miles lie within the Glens Falls Urban Area.
The remaining 23.8 miles are classified as rural. Route 4 is the primary means of north-
south travel in western Washington County an d connects the northern areas of the county
to the Glens Falls / Hudson Falls / Fort Edward area. It serves as the main street through a
number of communities and crosses through the villages of Fort Ann and Whitehall. It is a
vital component of the local transportation system, and serves as the primary connection
between New England and Interstate 87. Route 4 carries a high volume of heavy trucks in
addition to year-round recreational traffic.
BFJ analyzed existing conditions, traffic flows as well as accident rates and locations along
Route 4. This report provides planning recommendations to manage the corridor with a
focus on accident reduction. It is important to evaluate current and future conditions to
both identify problems and offer solutions. By analyzing traffic patterns and data, problem
areas can be brought to light and solutions put forward.
1.2 Public Participation Process
A Technical Advisory Committee was established to offer guidance to BFJ. The committee
included representatives from Washington County and from the municipalities along the
corridor as well as A/GFTC and the New York State Department of Transportation. BFJ met
three times with the committee during different phases of the study.
A core element of the study was a wide public participation effort. Four public workshops
were held at different stages of the study. The purpose of the workshops was to bring
committee members and residents together and benefit from their combined local
knowledge. At the Planning Workshops, held in Fort Ann on June 23
rd, 2004 and in
Whitehall on June 24th, 2004, BFJ presented the existing conditions along the corridor and
then the workshop participants were asked to share their own visions for Route 4.
Route 4 Corridor Study Buckhurst Fish Jacquemart Inc./ May 2005
4
Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.
0 2 miles
April 2004
F FI
IG
GU
UR
RE
E1
1.
.1
1
S
ST
TU
UD
DY
YA
AR
RE
EA
AF
FO
OR
RR
RO
OU
UT
TE
E4
4
ROUTE4 CORRIDORSTUDYsource: Census TIGER® 2000 Data from Geography Network
4
4
4
4
4
4W
ait
e
G
eer
BurgoyneD
ix
Ro
ck City
Stone Schoolhouse
Co
unty Route 36
Kingsbur
y
S tate Highway 149
Bald
win Corn
ers
T OwensNee
d
hamvil
le
Char
le s
Flat Ro
ck
State Highway 149
C
la
y Hill
Kelsey Pond
State Route 22
Deweys Bridg eOld Ro
ute 4
Ol
d Route 4
R
yd
er
Lo
ck II
Old
Stat
e Ro
ad
1s tM
a
ple
Mounta inWi
llia m
Br
oadw
ay
Coun
ty
Road
9ABuckleyCounty Ro
ad
18County Ro
ad
9B
Ol
d
Fair
Have
nDoug
las
Ch
apman
Golf Course
5th
Potter
3rd
Eliz
abeth
Fort AnnFort Ann
Kingsbury
KingsburyWhitehall
WhitehallHampton
Hampton
WhitehallWhitehall
Gran
vGranv
H udson F a lls F ort Ann
F ort Ann
S St
tu
ud
dy
y
A
Ar
re
ea
a
B
Be
eg
gi
in
ns
s
a
at
t
t
th
he
e
I In
nt
te
er
rs
se
ec
ct
ti
io
on
n
o
of
f
R
Ro
ou
ut
te
es
s
4
4
&
&
3
32
2
S
St
tu
ud
dy
y
A
Ar
re
ea
a
E
En
nd
ds
s
a
at
t
t
th
he
e
I In
nt
te
er
rs
se
ec
ct
ti
io
on
n
o
of
f
R
Ro
ou
ut
te
es
s
4
4
&
&
t th
he
e
N
NY
Y/
/V
Ve
er
rm
mo
on
nt
t
B
Bo
or
rd
de
er
r
Route 4 Corridor Study Buckhurst Fish Jacquemart Inc./ January 2005
6
Comments made at the workshop helped BFJ to further identify the core issues and
opportunities along the corridor. At the Design Workshops on September 21st, 2004 in Fort
Ann and September 22nd in Whitehall BFJ presented short, intermediate and long-term
recommendations based on existing and future conditions. Workshop participants had the
opportunity to respond to proposed improvem ent concepts and suggest other ideas and
priorities.
2.0 Existing Conditions
2.1 Roadway Conditions
The Route 4 study corridor is a major north-south principal arterial approximately 25 miles
in length that runs from the Town of Kingsbury to the New York/Vermont State border. The
roadway generally consists of one travel lane in each direction (approximately 12’ width)
with shoulders (varying widths) provided on each side. Pavement conditions are generally
perceived to be good. The study corridor passes through several communities in
Washington County, including: the Town of King sbury, the Town and Village of Fort Ann,
the Town and Village of Whitehall and the Town of Hampton. This is shown in Figure 1.1.
2.2 Daily Traffic Volumes (AADT)
A traffic report was obtained from New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT)
for the different segments of Route 4. The hourly report shows traffic volumes taken at a
certain location for a 24-hour period during one year, which are then multiplied by different
factors (seasonal, local conditions) to get the estimated Average Annual Daily Traffic
(AADT). Figure 2.1 shows the AADT volumes (with corresponding year taken) for the
various locations along the Route 4 corridor. As can be seen, the average daily traffic along
Route 4 from the intersection of Route 32 to Route 149 (north) in the
Town of Fort Ann is
from 5,880 to 6,876 vehicles. The section along Route 4 north of the intersection of Route
149 (north) to the New York/Vermont State line has an AADT of 8,726 to 9,873.
BFJ also installed Automatic Traffic Recorders (ATR) along the different sections of Route 4
to obtain the number of heavy vehicles that are passing through the various segments of
Route 4. The survey shows that along Route 4, approximately 13% to 15% of the total
vehicles are heavy vehicles. The average for this type of roadway is generally below 10%.
2.3 Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes
BFJ conducted manual turning movement counts at several critical intersections along the
study corridor. The morning and afternoon traffic counts were conducted from 7:00 AM to
9:00 AM and from 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM in May of 2004 (See Appendix A for details). Table
2.1 summarizes the different intersections that were counted. Of the five study intersections
that were counted, four are signalized and one is unsignalized.
4
4
4
4
4
4W
aite
G
eer
BurgoyneD
ix
Ro
ck City
Stone Schoolhouse
Co
unty R oute 36
Kingsbur
y
S tate Highway 149
Bald
win Corn
ers
T OwensNee
d
hamvil
le
Char
le s
Flat Ro
ck
State Highway 149
C
la
y Hill
Kelsey Pond
State Route 22
Deweys Bridg eOld Ro
ute 4
Ol
d Route 4
R
yd
er
Lo
ck II
Old
Stat
e Ro
ad
1s tM
a
ple
Mounta inWi
llia m
Br
oadw
ay
Coun
ty
Road
9ABuckleyCounty Ro
ad
18County Ro
ad
9B
Ol
d
Fair
Have
nDoug
las
Ch
apman
Golf Course
5th
Potte r
3rd
Eliz
abeth
Fort AnnFort Ann
Kingsbury
KingsburyWhitehall
WhitehallHampto
nHampton
WhitehallWhitehall
Gra
Gra
H udson F a lls F ort Ann
F ort Ann
F FI
IG
GU
UR
RE
E2
2.
.1
1
D
DA
AI
IL
LY
Y&
&
P
PE
EA
AK
K-
-H
HO
OU
UR
RT
TR
RA
AF
FF
FI
IC
CV
VO
OL
LU
UM
ME
ES
S
Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.
ROUTE4 CORRIDORSTUDYsource: NYS DOT, BFJ Field Study
0 2 miles
April 2004
53(91)
239(300)
73(177)
219(298)119(179)
58(56)
27(17)
132(126)
183(271)
172(90)231(261)
53(18)
39(44)
6(5)
155(238)5(4)
233(185)37(62)
63(166)
12(15)
93(190)
140(371)
153(101)
142(112)
59(74)61(77)351(234)
15(10)
22(22)
19(18)
182(227)
29(35)
144(214)
7(23)
180(210)
215(166)
0(4)4(6)
15(15)
27(17)
26(35)
13(21)
L LE
EG
GE
EN
ND
D
X
XX
X(
(X
XX
X)
):
:
A
AM
M(
(P
PM
M)
)
P
Pe
ea
ak
k
H
Ho
ou
ur
r
T
Tu
ur
rn
ni
in
ng
g
M Mo
ov
ve
em
me
en
nt
ts
s,
,
(
(2
20
00
04
4)
)
3
32
29
90
0
( (2
20
00
01
1)
)
AADT by direction
(year of count)
3 32
29
90
0(
(2
20
00
01
1)
)
A
AA
AD
DT
T
6
68
87
76
6
3
35
58
86
6(
(2
20
00
01
1)
)
2
28
89
95
5(
(2
20
00
02
2)
)
A
AA
AD
DT
T
5
58
88
80
0
2
29
98
85
5(
(2
20
00
02
2)
)
4
49
90
06
6(
(2
20
00
03
3)
)
A
AA
AD
DT
T
9
98
87
73
3
4
49
97
76
6(
(2
20
00
03
3)
)
4
43
30
06
6(
(2
20
00
00
0)
)
A
AA
AD
DT
T
8
87
72
26
6
4
44
42
20
0(
(2
20
00
00
0)
)
4
47
71
14
4(
(2
20
00
00
0)
)
A
AA
AD
DT
T
9
90
00
08
8
4
42
29
94
4(
(2
20
00
02
2)
)
R
Ro
ou
ut
te
es
s
4
4
&
&
2
22
2
N
No
or
rt
th
h
R
Ro
ou
ut
te
es
s
4
4
&
&
2
22
2
S
So
ou
ut
th
h
R
Ro
ou
ut
te
es
s
4
4
&
&
1
14
49
9
N
No
or
rt
th
h
R
Ro
ou
ut
te
es
s
4
4
&
&
1
14
49
9
S
So
ou
ut
th
h
R
Ro
ou
ut
te
es
s
4
4
&
&
3
32
2
Route 4 Corridor Study Buckhurst Fish Jacquemart Inc./ January 2005
8
Table 2.1 – Study Intersections
Intersection Type
Route 4 and Route 32 Signalized
Route 4 and Route 149 (south) Unsignalized
Route 4 and Route 149 (north) Signalized
Route 4 and Route 22 (south) Signalized
Route 4 and Route 22 / Broadway /
Poultney Signalized
Figure 2.1 shows the traffic volumes at the different study intersections for the weekday
morning and afternoon peak hours. Peak hours typically occurred from 7:15 AM to 8:15
AM in the morning, and 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM in the afternoon.
A comparison between the turning counts at Routes 4 & 32 between 19991 and 2004
showed an annual increase of 4% in traffic during the AM peak hour and an increase of 1%
during the PM peak hour.
2.4 Existing Levels of Service
Based on the peak-hour traffic volumes and on geometric m easurements made during the
site evaluation, all intersections were anal yzed using the Highway Capacity Manual method
(Transportation Research Board Special Report 209, Fourth Edition, 2000 Update). Traffic
conditions are described in terms of level of service (LOS) with the levels ranging from LOS
A, the best, to LOS F, the worst. Level of service C is generally considered the design l
evel
of service, while LOS D is generally consid ered as the acceptable limit during peak hours.
Level of service E is typically at or near th e capacity of the roadway or intersection and
generally involves unacceptable delays.
Levels of service for signalized intersections are defined in terms of a
verage control delay
per vehicle. Delay is dependent on a number of variables including the quality of signal
progression, cycle length, green ratio and the volume/capacity ratio for the lane group or
approach in question. For signalized inters ections, levels of service can be calculated and
expressed for each movement or approach and for the total intersection as a weighted
average of all movements. Specifically, level of service criteria are stated in terms of the
average control delay per vehicle for the wors t 15-minute period within the peak hour, as
shown in Table 2.2. Control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time,
stopped delay, and final acceleration delay.
1 Dix Avenue Corridor Study by the Sea r-Brown Group, June 2000, pg. 35-36
Route 4 Corridor Study Buckhurst Fish Jacquemart Inc./ January 2005
9
Table 2.2 – Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections
Level of Service Average Control Delay (seconds/vehicle)
A 10.0 or less
B 10.1 to 20.0
C 20.1 to 35.0
D 35.1 to 55.0
E 55.1 to 80.0
F more than 80.0
Source: Highway Capacity Manu al, TRB Special Report 209, Fourth Edition, 2000 Update.
Level of service analyses for an unsignalized intersection are based on average control
delay, defined as the total elapsed time from when a vehicle stops at the end of the queue
until the vehicle departs from the stop line. This includes the time required for the vehicle
to travel from the last-in-queue position to th e first-in-queue position. The total delay for a
particular minor movement is a function of the service rate or capacity of the approach and
the degree of saturation. The level of service criteria for unsignalized intersections are
shown in Table 2.3.
Table 2.3 – Level of Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections
Level of
Service Average Control Delay (seconds/vehicle)
A 10.0 or less
B 10.1 to 15.0
C 15.1 to 25.0
D 25.1 to 35.0
E 35.1 to 50.0
F more than 50.0
Source: Highway Capacity Manu al, TRB Special Report 209, Fourth Edition, 2000 Update.
Using the capacity analysis methodology desc ribed above, peak-hour traffic volumes were
analyzed to determine the existing levels of se rvice for the five study intersections for the
weekday morning and afternoon peak hours. Fi gures 2.2 and 2.3 show the existing levels
of service for each intersection approach as we ll as the overall level for the signalized
intersections.
As can be seen, most of the intersections with in the study area operate with good levels of
service for the peak hours analyzed, except for the intersection of Route 4 and Route 32.
This intersection operates with overall LOS E and LOS D during the morning and afternoon
peak hours, respectively. The westbound approach operates with a LOS F with delays of
about 2 minutes during the morning peak hour a nd a LOS E with delays of approximately 1
minute during the afternoon peak hour.
F FI
IG
GU
UR
RE
E2
2.
.2
2
E
EX
XI
IS
ST
TI
IN
NG
GA
AM
M
P
PE
EA
AK
KH
HO
OU
UR
RL
LE
EV
VE
EL
LS
SO
OF
FS
SE
ER
RV
VI
IC
CE
E
Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.
ROUTE4 CORRIDORSTUDY
0 2 miles
April 2004
4
4
4
4
4
4W
ait
e
G
eer
BurgoyneD
ix
Ro
ck City
Stone Schoolhouse
Co
unty R out
e 36
Kingsbur
y
S tate Highway 149
Bald
win Corn
ers
T OwensNee
d
hamvil
le
Char
le s
Flat Ro
ck
S tate Highway 149
C
la
y Hill
Kelsey Pond
State Route 22
Deweys Bridg eOld Ro
ute 4
Ol
d Route 4
R
yd
er
Lo
ck II
Old
St
at
e Ro
ad
1s tM
a
ple
Mounta inWi
llia m
Br
oadw
ay
Coun
ty
Road
9ABuckleyCounty Ro
ad
18County Ro
ad
9B
Ol
d
Fair
Have
nDoug
las
Ch
ap
man
Golf Course
5th
Potter
3rd
Eliz
abeth
Fort AnnFort Ann
Kingsbury
KingsburyWhitehall
WhitehallHampton
Hampton
WhitehallWhitehall
Gran
vGranv
H udson F a lls F ort Ann
F ort Ann
R Ro
ou
ut
te
es
s
4
4
&
&
2
22
2
N
No
or
rt
th
h
R
Ro
ou
ut
te
es
s
4
4
&
&
2
22
2
S
So
ou
ut
th
h
R
Ro
ou
ut
te
es
s
4
4
&
&
1
14
49
9
S
So
ou
ut
th
h
C(28.3)
B(15.7)
D(36.4)
F(150.5)*E(76.6)
R
Ro
ou
ut
te
es
s
4
4
&
&
3
32
2
A(9.7)
B(10.7)
A(7.8)
L
LE
EG
GE
EN
ND
D
B (0.0) : Level of Service for Movement
(Estimated Delay, Seconds/Vehicle)
*A (0.0) : Overall Intersection Level of Service
(Estimated Delay, Seconds/Vehicle)
B(19.5)
R Ro
ou
ut
te
es
s
4
4
&
&
1
14
49
9
N
No
or
rt
th
h
B(13.3)
B(14.4)
B(16.1)*
*B
B(
(1
17
7.
.3
3)
)Note:
These levels do not
reflect geometric
restraints of intersection.
A(8.3)
A(7.5)C(21.4)
A(8.1)
A(0.0)
*A(9.1)
B(17.2)
B(15.7)
B(13.1)
B(16.7)
A(0.0)
*B(12.4)
Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.
ROUTE4 CORRIDORSTUDY
0 2 miles
April 2004
F FI
IG
GU
UR
RE
E2
2.
.3
3
E
EX
XI
IS
ST
TI
IN
NG
GP
PM
M
P
PE
EA
AK
KH
HO
OU
UR
RL
LE
EV
VE
EL
LS
SO
OF
FS
SE
ER
RV
VI
IC
CE
E
4
4
4
4
4
4W
ait
e
G
eer
BurgoyneD
ix
Ro
ck City
Stone Schoolhouse
Co
unty R out
e 36
Kingsbur
y
S tate Highway 149
Bald
win Corn
ers
T OwensNee
d
hamvil
le
Char
le s
Flat Ro
ck
S tate Highway 149
C
la
y Hill
Kelsey Pond
State Route 22
Deweys Bridg eOld Ro
ute 4
Ol
d Route 4
R
yd
er
Lo
ck II
Old
St
at
e Ro
ad
1s tM
a
ple
Mounta inWi
llia m
Br
oadw
ay
Coun
ty
Road
9ABuckleyCounty Ro
ad
18County Ro
ad
9B
Ol
d
Fair
Have
nDoug
las
Ch
ap
man
Golf Course
5th
Potter
3rd
Eliz
abeth
Fort AnnFort Ann
Kingsbury
KingsburyWhitehall
WhitehallHampton
Hampton
WhitehallWhitehall
Gran
vGranv
H udson F a lls F ort Ann
F ort Ann
R Ro
ou
ut
te
es
s
4
4
&
&
2
22
2
N
No
or
rt
th
h
R
Ro
ou
ut
te
es
s
4
4
&
&
2
22
2
S
So
ou
ut
th
h
R
Ro
ou
ut
te
es
s
4
4
&
&
1
14
49
9
S
So
ou
ut
th
h
C(30.6)
C(31.4)
D(35.3)
E(62.4)*D(39.4)
R
Ro
ou
ut
te
es
s
4
4
&
&
3
32
2
A(10.0)
B(14.0)
A(8.0)
L
LE
EG
GE
EN
ND
D
B (0.0) : Level of Service for Movement
(Estimated Delay, Seconds/Vehicle)
*A (0.0) : Overall Intersection Level of Service
(Estimated Delay, Seconds/Vehicle)
B(17.5)
R Ro
ou
ut
te
es
s
4
4
&
&
1
14
49
9
N
No
or
rt
th
h
B(13.3)
B(15.7)
B(18.5)*
*B
B(
(1
17
7.
.1
1)
)Note:
These levels do not
reflect geometric
restraints of intersection.
A(9.1)
A(7.3)C(22.1)
A(8.6)
A(0.0)
*B(10.9)
B(18.9)
B(15.3)
B(13.5)
B(17.8)
A(0.0)
*B(15.5)
Route 4 Corridor Study Buckhurst Fish Jacquemart Inc./ January 2005
12
The intersection of Route 4 and Route 149 in Fo rt Ann is listed as operating at LOS B,
based on the peak-hour traffic volumes. The traffic model indicates it operates with a 17.3
second delay in the AM peak and 17.1 seconds in the PM peak. However, this level of
service calculation does not reflect the restricted geometry of the intersection and the fact
that the large trucks have a hard time making their turns. BFJ performed a field survey at
this intersection and found delays of 44 seconds in the PM peak, which corresponds to
LOS D. The increased delay of about 25 seconds appears to be caused by a combination
of the tight turning angles, the high percentage of heavy vehicles present and driver error.
The tight turning radius at this intersection requires tractor-trailers to make a very sharp
turn. In order to permit large trucks traveling southbound on Route 4 to turn westbound,
the stop bar is set back from the intersection for traffic traveling eastbound. Occasionally
drivers ignore or fail to notice the road markings and stop close to the pedestrian crossing,
impeding traffic. The physical constraints ar e affecting the capacity of this intersection.
2.5 Vehicular Speeds
BFJ collected speed data along the study corridor. Automatic Speed Data recorders were
installed at the following locations: 0.60 miles north of Route 4 and Charles Street; 1.10
miles north of Route 4 and Route 22; and 0.60 miles north of Route 4 and County Route
18, for a period of approximately one week to determine actual vehicle speeds along these
sections of the roadway. Table 2.4 below shows the result of the speed survey.
Table 2.4 – Speed Statistics
Location
Speed
Limit
Percent of
Vehicles Over
the Speed Limit
85%
Speed
0.6 miles north of Route 4 & Charles Street 55 mph31.2% 58 mph
1.1 miles north of Route 4 & Route 22(south) 55 mph52.3% 62 mph
0.6 miles north of Route 4 & Route 18 55 mph43.6% 61 mph
As shown in Table 2.4, vehicle speed data collected during this period indicated that the
85th percentile speeds along different sections of Route 4 range from 58 mph to 62 mph.
This means that 85 percent of the drivers were driving at those speeds or lower, or that
15% of the vehicles drove faster than those speeds. It is also interesting to note that the
vehicle speed data collected indicated that approximately 31% (0.60 miles north of Route
4 and Charles Street) to approximately 52% (1.1 miles north of Route 4 and Route 22
South) were traveling over the posted speed limit of 55 mph.
2.6 Accident History
An accident analysis was conducted along the Route 4 study corridor. Accident
information obtained from NYSDOT for a three year period from June 1999 to May 2002
indicated that there were a total of 388 accidents during this time period. There were 6
vehicular accidents that involved a fatality, 132 vehicular accidents that involved injuries,
159 vehicular accidents that involved property damage only, 91 non-reportable accidents
and no vehicular accidents that involved a pedest rian or a bicycle (Figure 2.4). The overall
Route 4 Corridor Study Buckhurst Fish Jacquemart Inc./ January 2005
13
accident rate for the entire corridor was 1.67 accidents / MVM (accidents per million
vehicle miles). This is lower than the New York State average or expected accident rate for
accidents on free access, rural, undivided two-lane roads, which is 2.81
2. However, there
are sections along Route 4 that have high accident frequencies. These high-accident
segments are analyzed in Section 3.
2.7 Existing Land Uses
Along the entire corridor, there is a diverse mix of commercial, residential, and industrial
uses, as well as some vacant, forest or agric ultural land. The character of the corridor
changes significantly. Figures 2.5 and 2.6 show the various land uses along Route 4 in the
Village of Fort Ann and Whitehall. As shown in both figures, land uses in the Village of Fort
Ann and Whitehall mostly consist of residentia l and commercial uses (i.e. retail, offices, and
restaurant). Outside of the villages the adj acent land uses are largely agricultural, forests
and some residential uses.
One of the major constraints along the corridor is the growth of suburban style development
along Route 4. The proliferation of driveways along the corridor hampers Route 4 from
functioning as an arterial. Every additional curb cut along the roadway has a direct effect of
both lowering traveling speeds and increasing the expected accident rate.
2.8 Bus Transit
At the current time there is no regularly scheduled public transit service in the study area.
The Greater Glens Falls Transit (GGFT) route #4 travels up to the intersection of Route 4 &
32, but does not travel within the Route 4 corridor. The only transit that exists in the
corridor is run by the schools systems and social service organizations.
2.9 Sidewalk Conditions
The sidewalk system serving the residential a nd commercial areas in the Village sections of
the study corridor are not continuous (Figure 2.7). In the Village of Fort Ann, sidewalks are
provided on both sides of Route 4 for most of the village. A gap in the sidewalk network
exists on the east side of Route 4 near th e intersection of Route 149/Clay Hill Road.
Pavement conditions are fair, and the sidewalk wi dth is between four and five feet. In the
Village of Whitehall, most of the west side of Route 4 has a continuous sidewalk starting
from south of 7th Street to north of Park Avenue. On the east side of Route 4, the sidewalk
is virtually non-existent, and is present only between the intersection of 1st Street and
Adams Street and between the intersection of Skene Street and Park Avenue. Pavement
conditions are fair to poor, with sidewalk widths between four and five feet and a lack of
continuity.
2 NYSDOT Traffic Engineering and Highway Safety Divis ion – Information Files, average accident rates for state
highways (http://dotwe b2.dot.state.ny.us/traffic/files/tableii8.pdf)
F FI
IG
GU
UR
RE
E2
2.
.4
4
A
AC
CC
CI
ID
DE
EN
NT
TS
SU
UM
MM
MA
AR
RY
Y
(June 1999 to May 2002)
Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.
ROUTE4 CORRIDORSTUDYsource:NYSDOT
0 2 miles
April 2004
4
4
4
4
4
4W
aite
G
eer
BurgoyneD
ix
Ro
ck City
Stone Schoolhouse
Co
unty R oute 36
Kingsbur
y
S tate Highway 149
Bald
win Corn
ers
T OwensNee
d
hamvil
le
Char
le s
Flat Ro
ck
S tate Highway 149
C
la
y Hill
Kelsey Pond
State Route 22
Deweys Bridg eOld Ro
ute 4
Ol
d Route 4
R
yd
er
Lo
ck II
Old
Stat
e Ro
ad
1s tM
a
ple
Mounta inWi
llia m
Br
oadw
ay
Coun
ty
Roa d
9ABuckleyCounty Ro
ad
18County Ro
ad
9B
Ol
d
Fair
Have
nDoug
las
Ch
apman
Golf Course
5th
Potter
3rd
Eliz
abeth
Fort AnnFort Ann
Kingsbury
KingsburyWhitehall
WhitehallHampto
nHampton
WhitehallWhitehall
Gra
nGran
H udson F a lls F ort Ann
F ort Ann
L LE
EG
GE
EN
ND
D
Total Accidents / Injuries / PDO crashes
INTERSECTION ACCIDENTS
Total Accidents / Injuries / PDO crashes
NON-INTERSECTION ACCIDENTS (6/99 to 5/02)
1
12
2/
/
4
4
/
/
7
7
1
13
3
/
/
2
2
/
/
8
8
1
10
0
/
/
3
3
/
/
4
4
1
16
6
/
/
1
1
/
/
8
8
1
10
0
/
/
4
4
/
/
6
6
2
24
4
/
/
1
10
0
/
/
8
8
1
12
2
/
/
3
3
/
/
8
8
5
5
/
/
2
2
/
/
2
2
1
13
3
/
/
2
2
/
/
9
9
1
13
3
/
/
5
5
/
/
4
4
1
12
2
/
/
8
8
/
/
2
2
8
8
/
/
3
3
/
/
1
1
5
5
/
/
2
2
/
/
1
1
7
7
/
/
1
1
/
/
3
3
5
5
/
/
1
1
/
/
2
2
9
9
/
/
1
1
/
/
3
3
6
6
/
/
3
3
/
/
2
2
5
5
/
/
2
2
/
/
2
2
6
6
/
/
2
2
/
/
3
3
7
7
/
/
6
6
/
/
1
1
3
3
/
/
2
2
/
/
1
1
(Old Fair Haven Road &
Route 4)
3 3
/
/
2
2
/
/
1
1
(Buckley & Route 4)
5 5
/
/
3
3
/
/
1
1
(Norton & Route 4)
1 15
5
/
/
2
2
/
/
9
9
(Williams & Route 4)
7 7
/
/
3
3
/
/
1
1
(Broadway / Poultney & Route 4)
3 3
/
/
1
1
/
/
2
2
(Kirtland St & Route 4)
1 10
0
/
/
2
2
/
/
4
4
(Route 22 & Route 4)
7 7
/
/
3
3
/
/
3
3
(Charles St & Route 4)
1 12
2
/
/
4
4
/
/
5
5
(Route 149 & Route 4)
3 3
/
/
1
1
/
/
0
0
(Victoria St & Route 4)
5 5
/
/
2
2
/
/
3
3
(Route 149 & Route 4)
5 5
/
/
1
1
/
/
3
3
(Geer Road & Route 4)
1 18
8
/
/
6
6
/
/
6
6
(Route 32 & Route 4)
V Vi
il
ll
la
ag
ge
e
o
of
f
F Fo
or
rt
t
A
An
nn
nV Vi
il
ll
la
ag
ge
e
o
of
f
W Wh
hi
it
te
eh
ha
al
ll
l
Fatality
F FI
IG
GU
UR
RE
E2
2.
.5
5
E
EX
XI
IS
ST
TI
IN
NG
GL
LA
AN
ND
DU
US
SE
ES
S-
–
F
FO
OR
RT
TA
AN
NN
N
Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.
ROUTE4 CORRIDORSTUDY
0 0.25 mile
April 2004
T
Ow
e
ns
N
ee
dh
amvi
lle
Char
le
s
Fort Ann
School
Village of
Fort Ann
Retail
Agri/forestVacant
Residential
Institutional
Commercial
Office
Park
0 0.25 0.50.125
Miles
t
u4
t
u4
Sta
t
eHi
gh
wa
y14
9
Legend
La
nd Use
Park
Vacant
Agri/forest
Uses not indicated
Commercial
Industrial
Institutional
Office
Residential
Retail/Restaurant
F FI
IG
GU
UR
RE
E2
2.
.6
6
E
EX
XI
IS
ST
TI
IN
NG
GL
LA
AN
ND
DU
US
SE
ES
S-
–
W
WH
HI
IT
TE
EH
HA
AL
LL
L
Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.
ROUTE4 CORRIDORSTUDY
0 0.25 mile
April 2004
t
u4
1st
Ma
p
le
M
ou
n
ta
in
W
il
lia
m
B
roa
dw
ay
Co
un
t
yR
5t
h
Po
t
te
r
3
rd
t
u4
S
k
e
ne
Village of Village of
Whitehall Whitehall
Agri/forest
Vacant
Industrial
Retail
Residential
Commercial
Institutional
Office
002 0012
Legend
Land Use
Park
Vacant
Water Bodies
Agri/forest
Uses not indicated
Commercial
Industrial
Institutional
Office
Residential
Retail
4
4
4
4
4
4W
aite
G
eer
BurgoyneD
ix
Ro
ck City
Stone Schoolhouse
Co
unty R oute 36
Kingsbur
y
S tate Highway 149
Bald
win Corn
ers
T OwensNee
d
hamvil
le
Char
le s
Flat Ro
ck
State Highway 149
C
la
y Hill
Kelsey Pond
State Route 22
Deweys Bridg eOld Ro
ute 4
Ol
d Route 4
R
yd
er
Lo
ck II
Old
Stat
e Ro
ad
1s tM
a
ple
Mounta inWi
llia m
Br
oadw
ay
Coun
ty
Roa d
9ABuckleyCounty Ro
ad
18County Ro
ad
9B
Ol
d
Fair
Have
nDoug
las
Ch
apman
Golf Course
5th
Potter
3rd
Eliz
abeth
Fort AnnFort Ann
Kingsbury
KingsburyWhitehall
WhitehallHampton
Hampton
WhitehallWhitehall
Gra
nGran
H udson F a lls F ort Ann
F ort Ann
F FI
IG
GU
UR
RE
E2
2.
.7
7
S
SI
ID
DE
EW
WA
AL
LK
KI
IN
NV
VE
EN
NT
TO
OR
RY
Y
Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.
ROUTE4 CORRIDORSTUDY
0 2 miles
April 2004
V Vi
il
ll
la
ag
ge
eo
of
fF
Fo
or
rt
tA
An
nn
n V Vi
il
ll
la
ag
ge
eo
of
fW
Wh
hi
it
te
eh
ha
al
ll
l
L
LE
EG
GE
EN
ND
D
W
Wi
it
th
h
S
Si
id
de
ew
wa
al
lk
ks
s
Without Sidewalks
Maple Street
W
illia
m
s Stre
etMountain StreetSkene StreetPotter Street
Davies Street
Pauline Street
Park Street
E
liza
b
eth
S
tre
etKirtland Street
Adams Street
1st Ave
2nd Ave
3rd Ave
4th Ave
7th Ave
5th Ave
Elizabeth Street
Victoria Street
Clay H
ill Road
Catherine Street
Charles Street
Queen Anne Dr.
2.10 Bicycle Conditions
Route 4 is a component of New York State’s Bike Route 9 from the Saratoga County
boundary north to the divergence of Routes 22 and 4 in Whitehall. As there are no separate
bike lanes provided along Route 4, cyclists are expected to use the shoulder. Most of the
shoulders along Route 4 have widths greater than four feet, but there are several sections
along Route 4 where the shoulders are too narro w or absent impeding convenient and safe
cycling (See Figure 2.8). There were no reported bicycle or pedestrian accidents between
June 1999 and May 2002, but areas within the corridor exist where the shoulders are too
narrow for safe cycling or absent (Figure 2.8).
3.0 Accident Analysis
3.1 High Accident Non-Intersection Locations
As stated in Section 2.6, there were 388 accidents along the corridor from June 1999 to
May 2002. The accident rate for the entire corridor was 1.67 accidents / MVM (accidents
per million vehicle miles) which is lower than the statewide average on free access, rural,
undivided two lane roads, which is 2.81. When the roadway is viewed in smaller
segments (Table 3.1), there are two areas which stand out as being more than 30% above
the expected accident rate of 2.81 accidents/MVM. As shown in Figure 3.1, starting from
the south, segment one is from mile marker 1144 to 1159, which represents a 1.5 mile
stretch of Route 4 from the intersection with Route 32 to just south of Geer Road. This
segment has the highest accident rate in the corridor at 4.07 ACC/MVM. The segment with
the second highest accident rate is the sout hern portion of the Village of Whitehall, south
of the intersection of Route 22 (N) and Route 4. This 1.8 mile segment has a 3.66
ACC/MVM rate.
In addition, there are four segments which are more than 35% above the expected
accident rate in New York State (0.743) for fatalities + injuries. The two previously
mentioned segments are also above the expected fatal + injury rate at 1.77 and 1.34
respectively. In addition, the 1.6 mile segment from mile marker 1159 to 1175, which
begins just south of Geer Road and is contiguous with the other high accident location on
the southern portion of the corridor, has a rate of 1.00 fatalities + injuries/MVM. The
fourth location is the 1.9 mile segment north of the intersection of Route 4 with Route 149
(south) with a rate of 1.06 fatal + injury/MVM.
Route 4 was investigated in greater depth to analyze the non-intersection locations along
the corridor in 0.3 mile segments. As shown in Figure 3.2 there are seven locations which
contained more than nine non-intersection accidents over a three year period.
A site visit was made to these seven locations in an effort to determine the causes of the
accidents. Ultimately, a more detailed look at the accidents that have occurred along the
corridor will be needed to see if any recurring accident type or patterns exist that could
benefit from specific improvements. Practically all segments are in transitional sections
3 NYSDOT Traffic Engineering and Highway Safety Divis ion – Information Files, average accident rates for state
highways (http://dotwe b2.dot.state.ny.us/traffic/files/tableii8.pdf)
Route 4 Corridor Study Buckhurst Fish Jacquemart Inc./ January 2005
18
F FI
IG
GU
UR
RE
E2
2.
.8
8
E
EX
XI
IS
ST
TI
IN
NG
GB
BI
IC
CY
YC
CL
LI
IN
NG
GC
CO
ON
ND
DI
IT
TI
IO
ON
NS
S
Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.
ROUTE4 CORRIDORSTUDY
0 2 miles
April 2004
4
4
4
4
4
4W
ait
e
G
eer
BurgoyneD
ix
Ro
ck City
Stone Schoolhouse
Co
unty R oute 36
Kingsbur
y
S tate Highway 149
Bald
win Corn
ers
T OwensNee
d
hamvil
le
Char
le s
Flat Ro
ck
S tate Highway 149
C
la
y Hill
Kelsey Pond
State Route 22
Deweys Bridg eOld Ro
ute 4
Ol
d Route 4
Ryd
er
Lo
ck II
Old
Stat
e Ro
ad
1s tM
a
ple
Mounta inWi
llia m
Br
oadw
ay
Coun
ty
Road
9ABuckleyCounty Ro
ad
18County Ro
ad
9B
Ol
d
Fair
Have
nDoug
las
Ch
ap
man
Golf Course
5th
Potter
3rd
Eliz
abeth
Fort AnnFort Ann
Kingsbury
KingsburyWhitehall
WhitehallHampton
Hampton
WhitehallWhitehall
Gran
Gran
H udson F a lls F ort Ann
F ort Ann
V Vi
il
ll
la
ag
ge
eo
of
fF
Fo
or
rt
tA
An
nn
n V Vi
il
ll
la
ag
ge
eo
of
fW
Wh
hi
it
te
eh
ha
al
ll
l
L
LE
EG
GE
EN
ND
D
S
Sh
ho
ou
ul
ld
de
er
r
G
Gr
re
ea
at
te
er
r
t
th
ha
an
n
4
4
F
Fe
ee
et
t
Shoulder Less than 4 Feet
Maple Street
W
illia
m
s S
tre
e
tMountain StreetSkene StreetPotter Street
Davies Street
Pauline Street
Park Street
E
liza
b
e
th
S
tre
e
tKirtland Street
Adams Street
1st Ave
2nd Ave
3rd Ave
4th Ave
7th Ave
5th Ave
Elizabeth Street
Victoria Street
Clay H
ill Road
Catherine Street
Charles Street
Queen Anne Dr.
No Shoulder
Intersection
with
Route 4Startin
g
Reference
MarkerFinishin
g
Reference
MarkerDist.
(miles) Accidents Fatal Injury PDO N/R AADTAccidents/
Year MVMAccidents/
MVMFatal +
Injuries /
MVMPDO+N/R
/ MVM
Rt. 32
1144 1159
1.5 46 0 20 11 15 6876 15.33 3.764.07 1.772.30
1159 1175
1.6 21 0 12 6 3 6876 7.00 4.02 1.741.000.75
1175 1190
1.5 18 0 6 12 0 6876 6.00 3.76 1.59 0.53 1.06
1190 1207
1.7 25 1 5 14 5 6876 8.33 4.27 1.95 0.47 1.48
Rt. 149 S.
1207 1226
1.9 34 0 13 14 7 5880 11.33 4.08 2.781.061.72
1226 1245
1.9 35 0 9 16 10 9873 11.67 6.85 1.70 0.44 1.27
1245 1265
2 30 2 4 14 10 9873 10.00 7.21 1.39 0.28 1.11
Rt 149 N
1265 1282
1.7 11 0 1 5 5 8726 3.67 5.41 0.68 0.06 0.62
1282 1299
1.7 13 1 6 6 0 8726 4.33 5.41 0.80 0.43 0.37
1299 1316
1.7 10 0 5 1 4 8726 3.33 5.41 0.62 0.31 0.31
1316 1334
1.8 63 0 23 24 16 8726 21.00 5.733.66 1.342.33
Rt 22 N.
1334 1350
1.6 35 0 13 14 8 9008 11.67 5.26 2.22 0.82 1.39
1350 1366
1.6 5 0 0 3 2 9008 1.67 5.26 0.32 0.00 0.32
1366 1382
1.6 17 0 4 11 2 9008 5.67 5.26 1.08 0.25 0.82
1382 1400
1.8 25 2 11 8 4 9008 8.33 5.92 1.41 0.73 0.68
Totals 25.6 388 6 132 159 91 129.33 77.62 1.67 0.59 1.07
NYS Average / Expected Accident Rate 2.81 0.74 2.07
Fatal = Crash which resulted in a fatality
Injury = Crash which resulted in an injury
PDO = Crash which resulted in Property Damage Only
Source: NYSDOT Safety Information Management System
N/R = Non-Reportable Accident (less than $2,500 in damage)
Dates: June 1, 1999 to May 31, 2002
AADT= Annual Average Daily Traffic
MVM = Million Vehicle Miles
Route 4 Corridor Study
BFJ Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart, Inc. /Jan, 2005
Table 3.1 – Analysis of Accident Rates Along Route 4 in Washington County
Shaded Areas are 30% above the New York Statewide
Average also know as the expected accident rate
F FI
IG
GU
UR
RE
E3
3.
.1
1
A
AB
BO
OV
VE
EA
AV
VE
ER
RA
AG
GE
EA
AC
CC
CI
ID
DE
EN
NT
TS
SE
EG
GM
ME
EN
NT
TS
S
Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.
ROUTE4 CORRIDORSTUDYsource: NYS DOT
0 2 miles
April 2004
4
4
4
4
4
4W
ait
e
G
eer
BurgoyneD
ix
Ro
ck City
Stone Schoolhouse
Co
unty R out
e 36
Kingsbur
y
S tate Highway 149
Bald
win Corn
ers
T OwensNee
d
hamvil
le
Char
le s
Flat Ro
ck
S tate Highway 149
C
la
y Hill
Kelsey Pond
State Route 22
Deweys Bridg eOld Ro
ute 4
Ol
d Route 4
R
yd
er
Lo
ck II
Old
St
at
e Ro
ad
1s tM
a
ple
Mounta inWi
llia m
Br
oadw
ay
Coun
ty
Road
9ABuckleyCounty Ro
ad
18County Ro
ad
9B
Ol
d
Fair
Have
nDoug
las
Ch
ap
man
Golf Course
5th
Potter
3rd
Eliz
abeth
Fort AnnFort Ann
Kingsbury
KingsburyWhitehall
WhitehallHampton
Hampton
WhitehallWhitehall
Gran
vGranv
H udson F a lls F ort Ann
F ort Ann
3.66 – Accidents/ MVM
1.34 – Fatal + Injury/ MVM
2.33 – PDO + N/R/ MVM
Reference Marker 1316 to 1334
L LE
EG
GE
EN
ND
D
Areas more than 30% above expected rate
for Accident/MVM & Fatal + Injuries/ MVM
Areas more than 30% above the expected
rate for Fatal + Injuries/ MVM
NYS Averages
2.81 Accidents/ MVM
0.74 – Fatal + Injury/ MVM
2.07 – PDO + N/R/ MVM
2.78 – Accidents/ MVM
1.06 – Fatal + Injury/ MVM
1.72 – PDO + N/R/ MVM
Reference Marker 1207 to 1226
1.74 – Accidents/ MVM
1.00 – Fatal + Injury/ MVM
0.75 – PDO + N/R/ MVM
Reference Marker 1159 to 1175
4.07 – Accidents/ MVM
1.77 – Fatal + Injury/ MVM
2.30 – PDO + N/R/ MVM
Reference Marker 1144 to 1159
F FI
IG
GU
UR
RE
E3
3.
.2
2
H
HI
IG
GH
HN
NO
ON
N-
-I
IN
NT
TE
ER
RS
SE
EC
CT
TI
IO
ON
NA
AC
CC
CI
ID
DE
EN
NT
TL
LO
OC
CA
AT
TI
IO
ON
NS
S
Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.
ROUTE4 CORRIDORSTUDYsource: NYS DOT
0 2 miles
April 2004
4
4
4
4
4
4W
aite
G
eer
BurgoyneD
ix
Ro
ck City
Stone Schoolhouse
Co
unty Route 36
Kingsbur
y
S tate Highway 149
Bald
win Corn
ers
T OwensNee
d
hamvil
le
Char
le s
Flat Ro
ck
S tate Highway 149
C
la
y Hill
Kelsey Pond
State Route 22
Deweys Bridg eOld Ro
ute 4
Ol
d Route 4
R
yd
er
Lo
ck II
Old
Stat
e Ro
ad
1s tM
a
ple
Mounta inWi
llia m
Br
oadw
ay
County
Road
9ABuckleyCounty Ro
ad
18County Ro
ad
9B
Ol
d
Fair
Have
nDoug
las
Ch
apman
Golf Course
5th
Potter
3rd
Eliz
abeth
Fort AnnFort Ann
Kingsbury
KingsburyWhitehall
WhitehallHampto
nHampton
WhitehallWhitehall
Gr
aGra
H udson F a lls F ort Ann
F ort Ann
1 12
2
A
Ac
cc
ci
id
de
en
nt
ts
s
0 Fatal
2 Injuries
7 Property Damage Only
3 Non-Reportable
Reference Marker 1337 to 1342
2 24
4
A
Ac
cc
ci
id
de
en
nt
ts
s
0 Fatal
10 Injuries
8 Property Damage Only
6 Non-Reportable
Reference Marker 1324 to 1330
9 9
A
Ac
cc
ci
id
de
en
nt
ts
s
1 Fatal
0 Injuries
6 Property Damage Only
2 Non-Reportable
Reference Marker 1263 to 1266
1 10
0
A
Ac
cc
ci
id
de
en
nt
ts
s
1 Fatal
3 Injuries
2 Property Damage Only
4 Non-Reportable
Reference Marker 1395 to 1398
9 9
A
Ac
cc
ci
id
de
en
nt
ts
s
0 Fatal
2 Injuries
4 Property Damage Only
3 Non-Reportable
Reference Marker 1226 to 1229
1 10
0
A
Ac
cc
ci
id
de
en
nt
ts
s
0 Fatal
8 Injuries
0 Property Damage Only
2 Non-Reportable
Reference Marker 1151 to 1154
9 9
A
Ac
cc
ci
id
de
en
nt
ts
s
0 Fatal
4 Injuries
1 Property Damage Only
4 Non-Reportable
Reference Marker 1144 to 1147
L LE
EG
GE
EN
ND
D
0.3 Mile Segments
Fatality
where vehicles have to change speeds because they enter into a village or they approach a
traffic light. These are also segments of Route 4 where there is a relatively high density of
driveways. In addition, the majority of the locations are preceded by an extended straight
stretch of roadway, where vehicles can attain high speeds.
The southernmost high accident location is where Route 4 intersects with Route 32, mile
marker 1144 to 1147, which contained nine accidents. This area of the roadway is flat
and straight with good sight lines. The number of curb cuts may be a reason for the high
number of accidents.
The second high accident location moving from south to north (mile marker 1151 to 1154)
is not directly adjacent to an intersection. For drivers headed southbound, this stretch of
roadway contains a driveway located on the left hand side at a leftward turn of the
roadway just after a dip in the road. This stretch of the roadway has an 80% injury rate,
which is the highest of any location in the corridor.
The third location (mile marker 1226 to 1229) occurs in the Village of
Fort Ann north of
the intersection with State Highway 149. At this location a total of 9 crashes took place.
The accidents in this area may be caused by southbound traffic traveling at high speeds
which fail to reduce speed sufficiently as they enter the Village of Fort Ann. Just to the
north of the intersection are a number of commercial establishments and their respective
driveways which may also lead to the high number of crashes.
The next location (reference marker 1263 to 1226) straddles the intersection of Route 4
with Route 22 South. This intersection contains one of the six fatal cr
ashes that occurred
in the study area between June 1999 to May 2002. The intersection of Route 4 and Route
22 South is also one of the high accident locations in the corridor. As this location has
very good sight lines, an excellent shoulder and is flat and straight, the crashes may be
caused by excessive speeds combined with the presence of the signalized intersection.
The next location (reference marker 1324 to 1330) contains the greatest number and
concentration of accidents in the study area. The area is in the Village of Whitehall just
south of the intersection with Route 22, and is the location of 24 accidents in the distance of
6/10
th of a mile. It is believed the high accident rate is caused by the large number of access
points connecting to Route 4. This small area contains curb cuts for private residences,
restaurants and businesses including Family Dollar, McDonalds, and a pet store. A factor
which exacerbates the problem is the rolling nature of the terrain which both reduces sight
lines and makes it more difficult for neighboring lots to interconnect.
The next location (reference marker 1337 to 1342) is located at the intersection of Route 4
and Williams Street, where 11 accidents took place at mile marker 1139. It is believed
that vehicles traveling westbound may be traveling at excessive speeds when entering the
Village.
The northernmost high accident location in the study area occurs near the Vermont border
(reference marker 1359 to 1398) where 10 accidents took place, including one fatality.
This segment is relatively straight, contains go od sight lines and is relatively flat. The
accidents at this location are probably related to the transitional character of this section of
Route 4 Corridor Study Buckhurst Fish Jacquemart Inc./ January 2005
23
Route 4. The 4-lane expressway character on the Vermont side may encourage excessive
speeds on the 2-lane section.
The northernmost portion of Route 4 has significant variations in the width of the roadway.
Route 4 is wider on the flat, straight portions which accommodate and allow greater
speeds. When the roadway contains hills and or turns, the width of the road narrows. This
causes accident spots as drivers accelerate durin g the straight roadway sections, but are not
always able to reduce speed sufficiently to avoid an incident along the narrower portion of
the roadway. Due to the high proportion of heavy vehicles on this roadway, greater
emphasis should be placed on maintaining consistent cross-sections.
3.2 High Accident Intersections
Starting from the south of the corridor, the in tersection of Route 4 and Route 32 (Dix Ave /
Burgoyne Ave) had 18 accidents and is the highest accident location in the corridor. This
section is also adjacent to one of the high-accident non-intersection locations and is
generally flat and straight with good sight lines. The combination of a high number of curb
cuts with excessive speeds may explain the high number of crashes. The traffic calming
effects of a roundabout should lead to a significant reduction in accidents.
The intersection of Routes 149 & 4 in the Village of Fort Ann is the site of 12 accidents
between June 1999 and May 2002. Geometric constraints force the westbound stop bar to
be placed to about 75 feet west of the intersection. This causes confusion among drivers
and leads some drivers to stop abruptly and other to stop in the center of the intersection.
The tight turning radius combined with the limited right-of-way and the drivers’ tendency
to accelerate through a traffic signal may influence a majority of the accidents.
At Route 4 and Route 22 South, 10 accidents occurred during the study period. This
intersection is preceded by a long straight way when traveling northbound. An excellent
shoulder is present. The area just to the north and south of the intersection is listed as a
non-intersection high accident location. The presence of the long northbound straight
section may lead to excessive speeds.
4.0 Future Traffic Volumes
4.1 Traffic Forecasts
Figure 4.1 summarizes the past growth trends in terms of traffic volumes along Route 4. It
can be seen that traffic volumes along Route have increased in generally by 1% to 3% per
year. Over the past 20 years traffic has grown mo re along the northern sections of Route 4.
This is probably due to the fact that regional (through) traffic has increased more than local
trips. Based on the past trends along Route 4 and general population forecasts, BFJ
developed traffic forecasts for Route 4 for the years 2014 and 2024, which are shown in
Figures 4.2 & 4.3. It can be seen that future AADTs are expected to rea
ch flows as high as
13,900 in 2024 along the section where Route 4 overlaps with Route 22.
Route 4 Corridor Study Buckhurst Fish Jacquemart Inc./ January 2005
24
ROUTE4 CORRIDORSTUDYsource: Census TIGER® 2000 Data from Geography Network
4
4
4
4
4
4W
aite
G
eer
BurgoyneD
ix
Ro
ck City
Stone Schoolhouse
Co
unty R oute 36
Kingsbur
y
S tate Highway 149
Bald
win Corn
ers
T OwensNee
d
hamvil
le
Char
le s
Flat Ro
ck
State Highway 149
C
la
y Hill
Kelsey Pond
State Route 22
Deweys Bridg eOld Ro
ute 4
Ol
d Route 4
R
yd
er
Lo
ck II
Old
Stat
e Ro
ad
1s tM
a
ple
Mounta inWi
llia m
Br
oadw
ay
Coun
ty
Road
9ABuckleyCounty Ro
ad
18County Ro
ad
9B
Ol
d
Fair
Have
nDoug
las
Ch
apman
Golf Course
5th
Potte r
3rd
Eliz
abeth
Fort AnnFort Ann
Kingsbury
KingsburyWhitehall
WhitehallHampto
nHampton
WhitehallWhitehall
Gra
Gra
H udson F a lls F ort Ann
F ort Ann
F FI
IG
GU
UR
RE
E4
4.
.1
1
–
–
H
HI
IS
ST
TO
OR
RI
IC
CA
AL
LT
TR
RA
AF
FF
FI
IC
CV
VO
OL
LU
UM
ME
ES
SA
AN
ND
DE
EX
XP
PE
EC
CT
TE
ED
DG
GR
RO
OW
WT
TH
HA
AL
LO
ON
NG
GR
RO
OU
UT
TE
E4
4
Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.
ROUTE4 CORRIDORSTUDY
0 2 miles
April 2004
L LE
EG
GE
EN
ND
D
AADT (year of count)
A
AA
AD
DT
T
5
56
65
50
0
(
(1
19
98
80
0)
)
A
AA
AD
DT
T
4
47
75
50
0(1982)
A
AA
AD
DT
T
6
67
75
50
0(
(1
19
97
79
9)
)
A
AA
AD
DT
T
4
47
70
00
0(
(1
19
97
79
9)
)
A
AA
AD
DT
T
5
50
05
50
0(
(1
19
98
82
2)
)
A
AA
AD
DT
T
5
59
95
50
0
(
(1
19
99
90
0)
)
A
AA
AD
DT
T
5
57
70
00
0(1989)
A
AA
AD
DT
T
1
10
01
10
00
0(
(1
19
99
91
1)
)
A
AA
AD
DT
T
8
86
65
50
0(
(1
19
99
91
1)
)
A
AA
AD
DT
T
7
79
95
50
0(
(1
19
98
89
9)
)
1
1.
.0
0%
%
E
Es
st
ti
im
ma
at
te
ed
d
G
Gr
ro
ow
wt
th
h
1
1.
.5
5%
%E
Es
st
ti
im
ma
at
te
ed
d
G Gr
ro
ow
wt
th
h
1
1.
.5
5%
%E
Es
st
ti
im
ma
at
te
ed
d
G Gr
ro
ow
wt
th
h
2
2.
.0
0%
%E
Es
st
ti
im
ma
at
te
ed
d
G Gr
ro
ow
wt
th
h
2
2.
.0
0%
%
E
Es
st
ti
im
ma
at
te
ed
d
G Gr
ro
ow
wt
th
h
Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.
ROUTE4 CORRIDORSTUDYsource: Census TIGER® 2000 Data from Geography Network
0 2 miles
April 2004
4
4
4
4
4
4W
aite
G
eer
BurgoyneD
ix
Ro
ck City
Stone Schoolhouse
Co
unty R oute 36
Kingsbur
y
S tate Highway 149
Bald
win Corn
ers
T OwensNee
d
hamvil
le
Char
le s
Flat Ro
ck
State Highway 149
C
la
y Hill
Kelsey Pond
State Route 22
Deweys Bridg eOld Ro
ute 4
Ol
d Route 4
R
yd
er
Lo
ck II
Old
Stat
e Ro
ad
1s tM
a
ple
Mounta inWi
llia m
Br
oadw
ay
Coun
ty
Road
9ABuckleyCounty Ro
ad
18County Ro
ad
9B
Ol
d
Fair
Have
nDoug
las
Ch
apman
Golf Course
5th
Potte r
3rd
Eliz
abeth
Fort AnnFort Ann
Kingsbury
KingsburyWhitehall
WhitehallHampto
nHampton
WhitehallWhitehall
Gra
Gra
H udson F a lls F ort Ann
F ort Ann
F FI
IG
GU
UR
RE
E4
4.
.2
2
–
–
T
TR
RA
AF
FF
FI
IC
CF
FO
OR
RE
EC
CA
AS
ST
TS
SF
FO
OR
R2
20
01
14
4
A
AL
LO
ON
NG
GR
RO
OU
UT
TE
E4
4
65(111)
291(366)
89(216)
267(363)145(218)
71(68)
33(21)
161(154)
223(330)
210(110)282(318)
65(22)
45(51)
7(6)
180(276)6(5)
270(215)43(72)
70(183)
13(17)
103(210)
155(410)
169(112)
157(124)
65(82)67(85)388(258)
17(11)
24(24)
21(20)
211(263)
34(41)
167(248)
8(27)
209(244)
250(193)
0(5)5(7)
17(17)
31(20)
30(41)
15(24)
A AA
AD
DT
T
7
79
94
44
4
A
AA
AD
DT
T
7
70
04
49
9
A
AA
AD
DT
T
1
11
16
63
30
0
A
AA
AD
DT
T
1
11
14
42
27
7
A
AA
AD
DT
T
1
11
13
39
99
9
R
Ro
ou
ut
te
es
s
4
4
&
&
2
22
2
N
No
or
rt
th
h
R
Ro
ou
ut
te
es
s
4
4
&
&
2
22
2
S
So
ou
ut
th
h
R
Ro
ou
ut
te
es
s
4
4
&
&
1
14
49
9
N
No
or
rt
th
h
R
Ro
ou
ut
te
es
s
4
4
&
&
1
14
49
9
S
So
ou
ut
th
h
R
Ro
ou
ut
te
es
s
4
4
&
&
3
32
2
L
LE
EG
GE
EN
ND
D
X
XX
X(
(X
XX
X)
):
:
A
AM
M(
(P
PM
M)
)
P
Pe
ea
ak
k
H
Ho
ou
ur
r
T
Tu
ur
rn
ni
in
ng
g
M Mo
ov
ve
em
me
en
nt
ts
s,
,
(
(2
20
01
14
4)
) AADT (2014)
Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.
ROUTE4 CORRIDORSTUDYsource: Census TIGER® 2000 Data from Geography Network
0 2 miles
April 2004
4
4
4
4
4
4W
aite
G
eer
BurgoyneD
ix
Ro
ck City
Stone Schoolhouse
Co
unty R oute 36
Kingsbur
y
S tate Highway 149
Bald
win Corn
ers
T OwensNee
d
hamvil
le
Char
le s
Flat Ro
ck
State Highway 149
C
la
y Hill
Kelsey Pond
State Route 22
Deweys Bridg eOld Ro
ute 4
Ol
d Route 4
R
yd
er
Lo
ck II
Old
Stat
e Ro
ad
1s tM
a
ple
Mounta inWi
llia m
Br
oadw
ay
Coun
ty
Road
9ABuckleyCounty Ro
ad
18County Ro
ad
9B
Ol
d
Fair
Have
nDoug
las
Ch
apman
Golf Course
5th
Potte r
3rd
Eliz
abeth
Fort AnnFort Ann
Kingsbury
KingsburyWhitehall
WhitehallHampto
nHampton
WhitehallWhitehall
Gra
Gra
H udson F a lls F ort Ann
F ort Ann
F FI
IG
GU
UR
RE
E4
4.
.3
3
–
–
T
TR
RA
AF
FF
FI
IC
CF
FO
OR
RE
EC
CA
AS
ST
TS
SF
FO
OR
R2
20
02
24
4
A
AL
LO
ON
NG
GR
RO
OU
UT
TE
E4
4
79(135)
355(446)
108(263)
325(443)177(266)
86(83)
40(25)
196(187)
272(403)
256(134)343(388)
79(27)
53(59)
8(7)
209(321)7(5)
314(249)50(84)
77(203)
15(18)
113(232)
171(453)
187(123)
173(137)
72(90)74(94)428(286)
18(12)
27(27)
23(22)
245(306)
39(47)
194(288)
9(31)
242(283)
290(224)
0(5)5(8)
20(20)
36(23)
35(470
18(28)
A AA
AD
DT
T
8
87
77
75
5
A
AA
AD
DT
T
8
81
18
80
0
A
AA
AD
DT
T
1
13
34
49
97
7
A
AA
AD
DT
T
1
13
39
92
29
9
A
AA
AD
DT
T
1
13
38
89
96
6
R
Ro
ou
ut
te
es
s
4
4
&
&
2
22
2
N
No
or
rt
th
h
R
Ro
ou
ut
te
es
s
4
4
&
&
2
22
2
S
So
ou
ut
th
h
R
Ro
ou
ut
te
es
s
4
4
&
&
1
14
49
9
N
No
or
rt
th
h
R
Ro
ou
ut
te
es
s
4
4
&
&
1
14
49
9
S
So
ou
ut
th
h
R
Ro
ou
ut
te
es
s
4
4
&
&
3
32
2
L
LE
EG
GE
EN
ND
D
X
XX
X(
(X
XX
X)
):
:
A
AM
M(
(P
PM
M)
)
P
Pe
ea
ak
k
H
Ho
ou
ur
r
T
Tu
ur
rn
ni
in
ng
g
M Mo
ov
ve
em
me
en
nt
ts
s,
,
(
(2
20
02
24
4)
) AADT (2024)
Traffic volumes along Route 4 do not warrant widening from its current two-lane
configuration into a four-lane roadway. The high volumes projected for 2024 are still
within the capacity limits of a two-lane highway. The congestion that does exist along the
corridor is primarily due to intersection issues and flow restrictions in the developed areas.
Improving conditions along these key locations is the best way to improve traffic flow in the
corridor. Table 4.1 shows the traffic forecasts for the major intersections along the corridor.
5.0 Route 4 Improvements Program
5.1 Traffic and Safety Improv ements – Major Intersections
There were no unsignalized intersections in the study area which have sufficient traffic
volumes and delays to warrant the installation of a traffic signal. BFJ proposes to modify
two signalized intersections with roundabouts and alter the signal timings of other
signalized intersections. The location of the intersection improvements can be found in
Figure 5.1.
Table 5.1 summarizes the year 2024 traffic condi tions (levels of service and delays) for the
major corridor intersections without improvements and with improvements.
Table 5.1 – Future Traffic Conditions with Improvements
2024 Traffic Conditions without Improvements 2024 Traffic Conditions with Improvements
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Intersection Approach Delay
Level of
Service
Delay
Level of Service
Delay
Level of Service
Delay
Level of Service
With Roundabout
Route 32 & Route 4 Eastbound 15.7 B 31.4 C 4.2 A 9.0 A
Westbound 150.5F 62.4 D 6.6 A 6.6 A
Northbound 28.3 C 30.6 C 4.8 A 10.2 B
Southbound 36.4 D 35.3 D 9.0 A 6.0 A
overall76.6 E 39.4 D 6.7 A 8.1 A
Shorter Cycle Length
Route 149 (N) & Route 4 Eastbound 16.1 B 18.5 B 26.5 C 27.9 C
Westbound 13.3 B 13.3 B 13.4 B 10.4 B
Northbound 14.4 B 15.7 B 8.7 A 13.9 B
Southbound 19.5 B 17. 5 B 15.9 B 20.4 C
overall17.3 B 17.1 B 17.0 B 20.4 C
Exclusive Left Turn Phase
Route 22 (S) & Route 4 Westbound 21.4 C 23.1 C 23.5 C 26.6 C
Northbound 4.2 A 6.5 A 12.2 B 19.6 B
Southbound 8.2 A 9.0 A 9.2 A 10.8 B
overall9.1 A 10.9 B 13.5 B 17.6 B
With Roundabout
Route 22 (N)& Route 4 westbound 14.4 B 16.2 B 4.2 A 5.4 A
northbound 3.9 A 6.2 A 5.4 A 9.6 A
southbound 15.8 B 17.0 B 4.2 A 6.0 A
overall10.5 B 12.7 B 4.7 A 7.3 A
Route 4 Corridor Study Buckhurst Fish Jacquemart Inc./ January 2005
28
Weekda
y AM Weekda
y PM Weekda
y AM Weekda
y PM Weekda
y AM Weekda
y PM
Background Growth Rate2.0% left 239 300 291 366 355 446
Build Years:2014 2024ri
ght 53 91 65 111 79 135
10 20 thru 73 177 89 216 108 263
Com
pounded Growth Rate1.22 1.49 ri
ght 219 298 267 363 325 443
left 58 56 71 68 86 83
thru 119 179 145 218 177 266
Back
ground Growth Rate2.0% left 132 126 161 154 196 187
Build Years:2014 2024ri
ght 27 17 33 21 40 25
10 20 thru 183 271 223 330 272 403
Com
pounded Growth Rate1.22 1.49 ri
ght 172 90 210 110 256 134
left 53 18 65 22 79 27
thru 231 261 282 318 343 388
Back
ground Growth Rate1.5% left 182 227 211 263 245 306
Build Years:2014 2024thru 7 23 8 27 9 31
10 20 ri
ght 29 35 34 41 39 47
Com
pounded Growth Rate1.16 1.35 left 27 17 31 20 36 23
thru 15 15 17 17 20 20
ri
ght 4 6 5 7 5 8
left 26 35 30 41 35 47
thru 144 214 167 248 194 288
right 13 21 15 24 18 28
left 4 5 5
thru 215 166 250 193 290 224
right 180 210 209 244 242 283
Background Growth Rate1.5% left 6 5 7 6 8 7
Build Years:2014 2024right 39 44 45 51 53 59
10 20 thru 155 238 180 276 209 321
Compounded Growth Rate1.16 1.35 right 5 4 6 5 7 5
left 37 62 43 72 50 84
thru 233 185 270 215 314 249
Back
ground Growth Rate1.0% left 63 166 70 183 77 203
Build Years:2014 2024thru 140 371 155 410 171 453
10 20 ri
ght 12 15 13 17 15 18
Com
pounded Growth Rate1.10 1.22 left 15 10 17 11 18 12
thru 351 234 388 258 428 286
ri
ght 61 77 67 85 74 94
left 22 22 24 24 27 27
thru 93 190 103 210 113 232
right 19 18 21 20 23 22
left 59 74 65 82 72 90
thru 142 112 157 124 173 137
right 153 101 169 112 187 123
Table 4.1 – Rt 4 Traffic Foreasts
2014 Volumes
westbound
northbound
southbound
Route 4 & Route
32
eastbound
westbound
northbound
southboundwestboundExisting Volumes 2004 2024 Volumes
Route 4 &
Broadway /
Poultney
northbound
southbound
Route 4 & Route 22
(south)
southbound
Route 4 & Route
149 (south)
northboundwestbound
southboundwestbound
northbound
Route 4 & Route
149 (north)
eastbound
Route 4 Corridor StudyBuckhurst Fish and Jacquemart Inc. January 2005
F FI
IG
GU
UR
RE
E5
5.
.1
1
P
PR
RO
OP
PO
OS
SE
ED
DI
IN
NT
TE
ER
RS
SE
EC
CT
TI
IO
ON
NI
IM
MP
PR
RO
OV
VE
EM
ME
EN
NT
TS
S
Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.
ROUTE4 CORRIDORSTUDY
0 2 miles
April 2004
4
4
4
4
4
4W
aite
G
eer
BurgoyneD
ix
Ro
ck City
Stone Schoolhouse
Co
unty Route 36
Kingsbur
y
S tate Highway 149
Bald
win Corn
ers
T OwensNee
d
hamvil
le
Char
le s
Flat Ro
ck
S tate Highway 149
C
la
y Hill
Kelsey Pond
State Route 22
Deweys Bridg eOld Ro
ute 4
Ol
d Route 4
R
yd
er
Lo
ck II
Old
Stat
e Ro
ad
1s tM
a
ple
Mounta inWi
llia m
Br
oadw
ay
County
Road
9ABuckleyCounty Ro
ad
18County Ro
ad
9B
Ol
d
Fair
Have
nDoug
las
Ch
apman
Golf Course
5th
Potter
3rd
Eliz
abeth
Fort AnnFort Ann
Kingsbury
KingsburyWhitehall
WhitehallHampto
nHampton
WhitehallWhitehall
Gr
aGra
H udson F a lls F ort Ann
F ort Ann
I In
ns
st
ta
al
ll
l
T
Tu
ur
rn
n
L
La
an
ne
es
s
a
at
t
I In
nt
te
er
rs
se
ec
ct
ti
io
on
n
w
wi
it
th
h
G
Go
ol
lf
f
C
Co
ou
ur
rs
se
e
R
Rd
d.
.
B
Bu
ui
il
ld
d
R
Ro
ou
un
nd
da
ab
bo
ou
ut
t
a
at
t
t
th
he
e
I In
nt
te
er
rs
se
ec
ct
ti
io
on
n
o
of
f
R Ro
ou
ut
te
es
s
4
4
&
&
2
22
2
(
(N
No
or
rt
th
h)
)
A
Ad
dd
d
E
Ex
xc
cl
lu
us
si
iv
ve
e
L
Le
ef
ft
t
T
Tu
ur
rn
n
P
Ph
ha
as
se
e
a
at
t
I In
nt
te
er
rs
se
ec
ct
ti
io
on
n
w
wi
it
th
h
R
Ro
ou
ut
te
e
2
22
2
(
(S
So
ou
ut
th
h)
)
P
Pr
ro
oh
hi
ib
bi
it
t
L
Le
ef
ft
t
T
Tu
ur
rn
ns
s
f fr
ro
om
m
N
Ne
ee
ed
dh
ha
am
mv
vi
il
ll
le
e
L
La
an
ne
e
R
Ro
ou
ut
te
es
s
4
4
&
&
1
14
49
9
(
(N
No
or
rt
th
h)
)
S Sh
ho
or
rt
t
T
Te
er
rm
m:
:
S
Sh
ho
or
rt
te
en
n
C
Cy
yc
cl
le
e
L Le
en
ng
gt
th
h
L Lo
on
ng
g
T
Te
er
rm
m:
:
A
Ad
dd
d
T
Tu
ur
rn
n
L
La
an
ne
es
s
o or
r
i
in
ns
st
ta
al
ll
l
R
Ro
ou
un
nd
da
ab
bo
ou
ut
tS
Sh
hi
if
ft
t
I
In
nt
te
er
rs
se
ec
ct
ti
io
on
n
S
So
ou
ut
th
hb
bo
ou
un
nd
d
t to
o
I
Im
mp
pr
ro
ov
ve
e
S
Si
ig
gh
ht
t
L
Li
in
ne
es
s
a at
t
T
T
O
Ow
we
en
ns
s
L
La
an
ne
e
I
In
ns
st
ta
al
ll
l
R
Ro
ou
un
nd
da
ab
bo
ou
ut
t
a at
t
t
th
he
e
I
In
nt
te
er
rs
se
ec
ct
ti
io
on
n
o
of
f
R Ro
ou
ut
te
es
s
4
4
&
&
3
32
2
A
At
t
R
Ro
ou
ut
te
e
4
4
&
&
K
Ki
in
ng
gs
sb
bu
ur
ry
y
S
St
t.
.
&
&
C
Co
ou
un
nt
ty
y
R
Rt
te
e
3
36
6
C Ch
ha
an
ng
ge
e
N
No
or
rt
th
h
F
Fo
or
rk
k
t
to
o
O
On
ne
e
W
Wa
ay
y
W
We
es
st
tb
bo
ou
un
nd
d
C Ch
ha
an
ng
ge
e
S
So
ou
ut
th
h
F
Fo
or
rk
k
t
to
o
O
On
ne
e
W
Wa
ay
y
E
Ea
as
st
tb
bo
ou
un
nd
d
W
Wi
id
de
en
n
S
Sh
ho
ou
ul
ld
de
er
r
o or
r
I
In
ns
st
ta
al
ll
l
T
Tu
ur
rn
n
L
La
an
ne
e
a at
t
I
In
nt
te
er
rs
se
ec
ct
ti
io
on
n
w
wi
it
th
h
C CR
R
9
9
/
/
C
CR
R
2
21
1
A
At
t
R
Ro
ou
ut
te
es
s
4
4
&
&
1
14
49
9
(
(S
So
ou
ut
th
h)
)
R Re
ed
du
uc
ce
e
A
An
ng
gl
le
e
o
of
f
N
No
or
rt
th
hb
bo
ou
un
nd
d
A Ap
pp
pr
ro
oa
ac
ch
h
t
to
o
6
60
0
D
De
eg
gr
re
ee
es
s
Routes 4 & 32
Starting from the southern portion of the corridor, BFJ recommends a roundabout to be
installed at the intersection of Routes 4 & Route 32. A preliminary schematic for the
proposed roundabout can be seen in Figure 5.2. Roundabouts are the safest form of at
grade intersections and are expected to reduce the total number of crashes by about 37%
and reduce the injury crashes by 75%
4. This intersection is currently operating at LOS E
with significant delays for westbound traffic at both the AM and PM peak periods. With the
roundabout installed, the intersection will operate at LOS A, with greatest delay being 10.1
seconds for northbound traffic during the PM peak period. As shown in Figure 5.2, some
minor right-of-way acquisitions are needed for the roundabout, which are discussed in
Section 6.
Routes 4 & 149 in Fort Ann
The next signalized intersection is located at th e corner of Routes 4 / 149 in Fort Ann. In
the short term BFJ recommends shortening the cycle length of the traffic signal from an 80
second cycle to a 55 second cycle. Our models show this will reduce the existing level of
delays at this intersection in the AM peak fr om 17.3 seconds to 12.1 seconds and in the PM
peak from 17.1 seconds to 13.6 seconds. Shorter phases may reduce the theoretical
capacity of the intersection, but it will also allow automobiles which are stopped in the
incorrect place to get out of the intersection fa ster. This should reduce the actual delays as
the shorter cycles will not lead to the extent of delays that occur under the current cycle
lengths.
As the property on the north-west corner of the intersection of Route 4/149 currently has a
willing seller, it could be acquired by NYSDOT. If the additional right-of-way at the
intersection is acquired, the intersection could be reconfigured to increase the turning
radius for tractor trailers and allow the addition of turning lanes (Figure 5.3). Alternatively,
the right-of-way would permit the installation of a roundabout. A possible configuration
for the proposed roundabout can be seen in Figure 5.4. In order to build a roundabout
with the optimal design, acquisition of another property on either the northeast or the
southwest corner may be required. This would have to be determined in the next design
phase of the roundabout. Both options would be less expensive and faster to implement
than a bypass around Fort Ann, but would have a negative impact on the village character
when compared with the bypass.
The implementation of either option (roundabout or added turn lanes in conjunction with
the purchase of the property on the north-west corner) would alleviate the congestion and
delays this intersection, but it would not reduce the overall traffic nuisances and related
impacts on the Village. Increasing amounts of traffic and trucks will drive through the
Village and will affect this community negativel y. Even if NYSDOT purchases the property
on the north-west corner, the Town of Fort Ann should map a bypass alignment on the
Town Plan bypassing the Village in the north-wes t quadrant to preserve this alternative for
future generations. See Appendix C for the discussion of the bypass.
4 Tollbox on Intersectoin Safety and De sign, Institute of Transportaion Engineers, FHWA, Page 134, Table 8.1
Route 4 Corridor Study Buckhurst Fish Jacquemart Inc./ January 2005
31
F FI
IG
GU
UR
RE
E5
5.
.2
2
P
PR
RO
OP
PO
OS
SE
ED
DR
RO
OU
UN
ND
DA
AB
BO
OU
UT
TR
RO
OU
UT
TE
E4
4
&
&
3
32
2
I
IN
NT
TE
ER
RS
SE
EC
CT
TI
IO
ON
N
Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.
ROUTE4 CORRIDORSTUDYsource: NYS GIS Clearinghouse
0 1100 ft
April 2004
F FI
IG
GU
UR
RE
E5
5.
.3
3
P
PR
RO
OP
PO
OS
SE
ED
DU
UP
PG
GR
RA
AD
DE
EA
AT
TR
RO
OU
UT
TE
E4
4
&
&
1
14
49
9
I
IN
NT
TE
ER
RS
SE
EC
CT
TI
IO
ON
N-
–
F
FO
OR
RT
TA
AN
NN
N
Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.
ROUTE4 CORRIDORSTUDY
0 40 ft
April 2004
R RO
OU
UT
TE
E
R
RO
OU
UT
TE
E
4
4
R
RO
OU
UT
TE
E
4
4
F FI
IG
GU
UR
RE
E5
5.
.4
4
P
PR
RO
OP
PO
OS
SE
ED
DR
RO
OU
UN
ND
DA
AB
BO
OU
UT
TA
AT
TR
RO
OU
UT
TE
E4
4
&
&
1
14
49
9
I
IN
NT
TE
ER
RS
SE
EC
CT
TI
IO
ON
N-
–
F
FO
OR
RT
TA
AN
NN
N
Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.
ROUTE4 CORRIDORSTUDY
0 40 ft
April 2004
R RO
OU
UT
TE
E
1
14
49
9
R
RO
OU
UT
TE
E
4
4
Route 4 & 22 South
At the intersection of Route 4 and Route 22 South, BFJ advises the introduction of an
exclusive southbound left-turn phase primarily to reduce accidents. With the exclusive
phase, the intersection operates at LOS B in both the AM and PM peak periods. The
introduction of an exclusive left-turn phase wi ll reduce the capacity of this intersection
slightly, but will improve safety. As this inte rsection is operating at LOS A, the improved
safety outweighs the increased delays.
Route 4 & 22 North
Traveling northbound, into the Village of Whiteha ll, BFJ recommends the installation of a
roundabout at the intersection of Route 4 and Route 22 North (Figure 5.5). This intersection
is currently operating at LOS B, and seven acc idents occurred at this intersection. A
roundabout is recommended due to the configura tion of the intersection and because it is in
the middle of a high accident corridor where 26 accidents occurred in a half-mile distance.
The presence of the roundabout will serve to calm traffic and lower the number of accidents
in this section of the corridor. With the r oundabout the level of service is expected to
improve to LOS A. The roundabout will also improve access to the center of Whitehall.
Preliminary engineering studies will have to de termine whether this roundabout is feasible
from the point of view of ava ilable right-of-way and grades.
5.2 Traffic and Safety Improvements – Unsignalized Intersections
There are several additional locations along the corridor where BFJ reco
mmends a
reconfiguration of the existing intersection. The intersections were brought to our attention
during the public workshops and contain non-standard configurations. With slight
modifications these intersections can operate more efficiently. Moving from south to north,
the first location is the intersection where Route 4 intersects with Kingsbury St. / County
Route 36. At the current time, the intersection on the west of Route 4 is a three-way fork
connecting to Route 4 with all three forks permitting two-way traffic (Figure 5.6). In order to
simplify this intersection, we advise that the northern fork (Kingsbury Street/ Route 36) be
converted to one-way operation westbound. The southern fork (Church Road) should be
modified to be one-way eastbound/southbound. The center fork (Kingsbury Road) should
continue to permit two-way traffic. Eventually this central intersection could be signalized
or could become a roundabout. The left turns would be made at this center fork. Both
Kingsbury Street and Church Road legs should be narrowed, with the former right-of-way
used to enlarge the park located in the triangular intersection. In addition, the trees located
north of Kingsbury Street along Route 4 should be cut back, to permit greater visibility to the
intersection.
The next intersection modification occurs at the intersection of 149 S and Route 4. (Figure
5.7) At this location the northbound approach connects with Route 4 at an angle which
requires the driver to turn his head sharply to the left to check for the presence of
northbound traffic on Route 4. The angle should be reduced to 60 degrees, which would
provide easier viewing of northbound traffic.
The next mitigation occurs where Route 4 intersects with T Owens Lane (Figure 5.8), which
is located just south of the Village of Fort Ann. At the current time, T Owens Lane has very
Route 4 Corridor Study Buckhurst Fish Jacquemart Inc./ January 2005
35
F FI
IG
GU
UR
RE
E5
5.
.5
5
P
PR
RO
OP
PO
OS
SE
ED
DR
RO
OU
UN
ND
DA
AB
BO
OU
UT
TA
AT
TR
RO
OU
UT
TE
E4
4/
/
R
RO
OU
UT
TE
E2
22
2/
/
B
BR
RO
OA
AD
DW
WA
AY
Y-
–
W
WH
HI
IT
TE
EH
HA
AL
LL
L
Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.
ROUTE4 CORRIDORSTUDY
0 30 ft
April 2004
F FI
IG
GU
UR
RE
E5
5.
.6
6
I
IN
NT
TE
ER
RS
SE
EC
CT
TI
IO
ON
NO
OF
FR
RO
OU
UT
TE
E4
4
&
&
K
KI
IN
NG
GS
SB
BU
UR
RY
YS
ST
TR
RE
EE
ET
T
Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.
ROUTE4 CORRIDORSTUDY
0 200 ft
April 2004
F FI
IG
GU
UR
RE
E5
5.
.7
7
R
RO
OU
UT
TE
E4
4
&
&
1
14
49
9S
S
I
IN
NT
TE
ER
RS
SE
EC
CT
TI
IO
ON
NI
IM
MP
PR
RO
OV
VE
EM
ME
EN
NT
T
Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.
ROUTE4 CORRIDORSTUDYsource:VollmerApril 2004
F FI
IG
GU
UR
RE
E5
5.
.8
8
T
T
O
OW
WE
EN
NS
SL
LA
AN
NE
EI
IM
MP
PR
RO
OV
VE
EM
ME
EN
NT
T
Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.
ROUTE4 CORRIDORSTUDY
0 160 ft
April 2004
short sight distance owing to both the topography and angle of intersection with Route 4.
BFJ recommends shifting the intersection southward approximately 100 yards along the
current existing dirt road, which would improve the sight lines and reduce the potential for
accidents at this location.
Another suggested modification is the installation of speed humps along Catherine Street in
the Village of Fort Ann. As Catherine Street runs parallel with Route 4, some drivers take
this residential street as a shortcut to avoid the intersection of Route 4 with Route 149. One
speed hump should be installed along Catherine Street south of Route 149 in front of 44
Catherine Street and one north of Route 149 at 84 Catherine Street. The installation of
speed humps will calm traffic along this street, encouraging drivers to stay on Route 4.
The next location is the intersection of Route 4 and CR 9 / CR 21 about 2 miles east of the
Vermont Border. This four-way intersection is in a valley in the roadway. Trucks travel at
high speeds down the hill to enable them to maintain speed on the uphill after the
intersection. As the roadway dips down there is a narrow shoulder with insufficient room
for a truck to pass. Widening of the road, either by putting in a dedicated left turn lane or
by expanding the size of the shoulder would tend to improve safety at this intersection.
Traveling southbound, the signage alerts drivers of the presence of a four-way intersection,
but if the vehicle does not slow down, it is impossible to stop as the sight lines are too short
for stopping.
The northernmost mitigation measure along the corridor is recommended at the intersection
of Route 4 & Golf Course Road. This location may see an increase in truck traffic as an
intermodal yard is planned just north of Route 4. BFJ recommends the installation of an
eastbound left-turn lane on Route 4 at Golf Course Road. This should be accompanied by a
right-turn lane/deceleration lane for traffic traveling westbound along Route 4. Lan
dscape
improvements are also proposed for this location (see section 5.6 for more information).
5.3 Traffic Improvements – Non-Intersection Locations
This section is a list of recommended improvements that are not located at a major
intersection. The main focus of these impro vements is to lower the number of crashes in
the corridor. Secondary importance is to impr ove traffic flow and improve the quality of
life along the corridor. The following suggestions are generally in order of location,
traveling from the southern to the northern portion of the study area and are listed
graphically in Figure 5.9. Any suggestion to flatten or straighten Route 4 needs to be
balanced, as the unintended effect of these actions could be to increase speeds along the
corridor.
• At mile marker 1151 & 1152 in Kingsbury, just north of the intersection with Wait
Road, there exists a high accident location. At a minimum we advise that a blind
driveway sign be erected to alert traffic prior to the sharp turn. Other mitigation
measures include widening the shoulder in the curve to provide more room for
vehicle avoidance for through vehicles to pass turning vehicles.
• Just to the south of the intersection of Route 4 with Geer Road we advise that the
roadway be flattened. At this location the presence of rolling terrain makes for
difficult visibility. By flattening the roadway, the sightlines can be improved. In
Route 4 Corridor Study Buckhurst Fish Jacquemart Inc./ January 2005
40
F FI
IG
GU
UR
RE
E5
5.
.9
9
P
PR
RO
OP
PO
OS
SE
ED
DN
NO
ON
N-
-I
IN
NT
TE
ER
RS
SE
EC
CT
TI
IO
ON
NI
IM
MP
PR
RO
OV
VE
EM
ME
EN
NT
TS
S
Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.
ROUTE4 CORRIDORSTUDY
0 2 miles
April 2004
t
u4
t
u4
t
u4
t
u4
t
u4
Wai
te
G
e
e
r
Burg
oyn
eDi
x
Ro
c
kCi
t
y
Sto
ne
Sch
oo
l
ho
use
C
ou
nty
R
ou
te3
6
Ki
n
gs
b
u
r
y
State Highway 149
B
aldw
i
n Cor
ners
T
O
we
n
sN
e
e
d
h
a
mvi
ll
e
C
ha
r
l es
Fl
at
Ro
ck
Sta
teH
i
gh
w
a
y14
9
C
lay
H
il
l
Ke
l
sey
Po
nd
St
ate
R
out
e22
D
ew
ey
sB
ri
dgeO
l
dRo
ut
e4
O
l
dR
o
u
te
4
R
y
der
Lo
c
kII
O
ld
S
ta
te
R
oad
1
stM
ap
le
Mo
un
ta
inWil
liam
Br
oa
d
wa
y
C
ou
n
t
yR
oa
d
9
ABu
ck
le
yCo
un
t
yRo
ad
1
8County
Ro
ad 9B
O
ld
Fa
i
r H
a
ve
nDo
ugl
as
Chapm
an
G
ol
fCou
rs
e
5
th
P
ott
e
r
3rd
El
iz
a
b e
t
h
Fort Ann
Kingsbury
Whitehall
Hampton
t
u4
Near Mile Marker 1152
Install Blind Driveway Sign
and/or Widen Shoulder and/or
Shift Driveway
Just South of Geer Road
Flatten Roadway and/or
Install Blind Driveway Sign
South of Needhamville Lane
Regrade and Widen Shoulder
Needhamville Lane
Install No Left Turn Signs
Add Parking Spaces
Adjacent to Town Hall
North of Post Office
Permit Two Hour Parking
Along Curbside
Catherine Street
Install Two Speed Humps
Fort Ann Post Office
Permit Shared Parking in Lot
Village of Fort Ann
Lower Speed Limit to
30 MPH
North of the Village of
Fort Ann
Widen Shoulder
Approx 1.2 Miles
Flatten and Straighten Route 4
Approx. mile marker 1291
200 yards
Village of Whitehall
Lower Speed Limit to
30 MPH
East of Skene St.
Upgrade Shoulder
Approx. 700 Yards
the short run, we recommend the installation of a “Blind Driveway – Reduce Speed”
sign.
• Just north of the intersection of Route 4 with Kingsbury Street, the trees overhanging
the roadway on the west side of the street need to be cut back to improve sight
lines.
• In Ft. Ann, near the Walker’s Home, Farm & Tack – 5565 Route 4 (south of
Needhamville Rd.), the shoulder on the east side of the road is graded at a 20
degree angle. This makes it difficult to use by heavy vehicles and cyclists. We
recommend that it be re-graded and made level.
• At the current time left turns are permitted from Needhamville Road onto Route 4.
Due to the difficult sight lines, BFJ recommends that only right turns be permitted
from Needhamville Road onto Route 4.
• The speed of traffic on the roadway directly affects the severity of any accident in a
vehicular/pedestrian conflict. BFJ recommends the speed limit within the Village of
Fort Ann to be lowered to 30 MPH to improve the pedestrian environment.
• Public parking spaces should be added in front of Fort Ann Town Hall.
• There appears to be capacity to open the United States Postal Service pa
rking lot to
use by the general public. In addition, to the north of the USPS Office some spaces
only permit ten minute parking, we recommend that these spaces be changed to
two-hour parking.
• North of Fort Ann, Route 4 has shoulders that are either non-existent or less than 6′
in width. BFJ recommends that consistent 6′ shoulders be provided for a length of
about 2 KM.
• North of Fort Ann, from mile marker 1291- 1803, the curve of the road and the
topography lead to short sight lines. This section of Route 4 (about 200 Meters)
should be flattened. However, the estimated cost ($520,000) may make the
improvement cost prohibitive.
• In the Village of Whitehall, we also advise that the speed limit should be reduced
to 30 MPH.
5.4 Bicycle & Pedestrian Safety Improvements
In the Village of Fort Ann, sidewalks line bot h sides of the road except for minor gaps. We
advise that the sidewalks be upgraded to be continuous within the Village. We also advise
that the sidewalk be extended south of the Village line on the east side of the street to
Needhamville Lane (approximately 500 meters ) to accommodate existing foot traffic.
Within the Village of Fort Ann, an additiona l crosswalk should be placed on Route 4 to
facilitate access to Fort Ann Central School located at 1 Catherine Street.
Route 4 Corridor Study Buckhurst Fish Jacquemart Inc./ January 2005
42
Within the Village of Whitehall, sidewalks are generally only available on the west side of
the street (Figure 2.7). We recommend that the sidewalk network be upgraded to be
contiguous on both sides of the street throughout the entire village. In addition, the
sidewalks should be extended on the west side of the street, south of the Village line to
extend to McDonalds, to accommoda te existing pedestrian traffic.
Regarding cycling, in order to improve the safety of cyclists along this corridor, we
recommend that the shoulders be extended to a minimum of six feet along the entire
corridor. Another improvement for cyclists would be the creation of off-street routes,
especially along the canal network. We recommend the initiative to develop bike routes
parallel to the existing canal corridor on land owned by the NYS Canal Corporation. The
addition of off-street routes that connect to neighboring communities will create a valuable
asset and lead to an increase in cycling. Fi nally, the villages should install bicycle racks at
strategic locations to attract and serve recreational bicyclists along the corridor.
5.5 Buses and Public Transit
Operating transit in this corridor is difficult due to the low population density, coupled with
long distances to neighboring destinations. The location within the corridor with the
greatest population density is the Village of Whitehall. Unfortunately, the nearest
destinations from Whitehall are Glens Falls, New York which is approximately 25 miles
south and Rutland, Vermont, approximately 25 miles to the northwest. The travel time by
transit is approximately one hour for each destination. The low density and dispersed
nature of these automobile based communities le ad to trip demand which is scattered over
a wide area.
Only two regularly operating transit networks provide services to segments of the
population. Social service networks operate services to transport the elderly and disabled,
while the school bus network provides transportation for students. In order to provide
transit to a greater number of residents, BFJ advises leveraging the current school bus
network to provide services to the general public. The idea of using the existing school
busses to carry non-students has been investigated by the GGFT, but they have not been
able to overcome the regulatory hurdles. At the current time, there are no school districts in
New York State which are integrating public transit with the school bus network.
Though there are both regulatory and logistical issues involved, pooling the resources of the
school bus network with public transit can accommodate greater access for all residents.
This would allow the area to leverage the limited funds that are dedicated for public transit
and make better use of the assets owned by the community. Although use integration of
school bus and public transit services is not widespread, there are several success stories in
the United States.
The following areas have experimented with integrating school bus services5:
Cheraw, South Carolina
Idlewild, Michigan
5 Integrating School Bus and Public Transportation Services in Non-Urban Communities, Transit Cooperative
Research Program Report # 56, Washington DC, 1999
Route 4 Corridor Study Buckhurst Fish Jacquemart Inc./ January 2005
43
Trumbull County, Ohio
Glendale, Oregon
Bonifay, Florida
Nampa, Idaho
Selkirk, Washington
Gillette, Wyoming
Some cases are as simple as allowing non-profit organizations to rent busses for nominal
fees during off hours (Gillette, Wyoming), while a Dial-A-Ride service (Idlewild Michigan)
allows the general public to ride with students along routes that are geared toward students.
A third method is being employed in Cheraw, South Carolina where parents, school
volunteers and school employees may request to ride on regular school bus routes. They
are looking to open this up to the general public, to fully utilize all capacity.
Another area to explore is ridesharing. As this is a low cost alternative, requiring only the
organizational ability to couple drivers and passengers, it is feasible from a budgetary
perspective. The main drawback of ridesharing is that it is difficult to recruit drivers to
participate in ridesharing programs, as they limit their options once they have a passenger
relying on them to be shuttled to their destination. By sharing a ride, the driver can reduce
the cost of their commute by half, but at the cost of reduced flexibility. Much of the
coordination between riders and passengers can be accomplished through the use of a
website.
5.6 Landscaping Plan
Route 4 serves dual functions as both a Main St reet or commercial strip within the Villages
of Fort Ann and Whitehall, as well as in Kingsbury and a rural highway between the
villages. This dual purpose leads to conflicts within the villages as drivers using the
roadway as a rural highway may drive at sp eeds which are excessive for the villages. In
order to slow traffic and extend a welcome to drivers passing through the villages, BFJ
recommends the development of a set of lands cape and traffic calming features along Route
4 which serve to reduce speeds and thereby lower accidents, beautify the roadway and
enhance civic pride and a sense of place.
BFJ recommends the installation of a series of median gateways which serve to mark the
entrance to the villages. Though these proposed median islands are not endorsed by the
NYSDOT Highway Design Manual, we believe th ey would serve a valuable purpose for this
corridor by acting as traffic calming devices which may reduce both vehicular speeds and
crashes. The gateway median islands would have to be built on a demonstration basis.
Three gateways are proposed for Fort Ann and two are proposed for Whitehall. The
gateways will generally be located at the vill age entrance where traffic has to slow down
(see Figure 5.10). In addition, an information kiosk is proposed along Route 4 in Hampton
for drivers entering NYS from Vermont.
The proposed locations for the Village of Fort Ann gateways are on Route 4 (at southern
portion of Green Thumb Nursery & near Village border in the north) and one on Route 149
(just east of Mountain View Road). Gateways are also recommended along Route 4 in the
south of Whitehall (south of 7th Avenue, North of McDonalds) and east of Whitehall along
Route 4 Corridor Study Buckhurst Fish Jacquemart Inc./ January 2005
44
F FI
IG
GU
UR
RE
E5
5.
.1
10
0
L
LA
AN
ND
DS
SC
CA
AP
PI
IN
NG
GP
PL
LA
AN
N
Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.
ROUTE4 CORRIDORSTUDY
0 2 miles
April 2004
t
u4
t
u4
t
u4
t
u4
t
u4
R
ockC
ihol
h
ou
se
Co
un
t
yRo
ut
e
36
Ki
n
g
sb
ur
y
State Highway 149
B
aldw
i
n Cor
n
ers
T
O
we
n
sNee
d
h
a
m
vi
ll
e
Ch
a
rle
s
F
la
tR
oc
k
S
ta
teHig
h
way
14
9
Cl
ay
Hi
l
l
Ke
lsey
P
ond
St
at
eR
out
e22
D
ewe
ysBri
dgeO
ld
R
ou
te
4
O
ldR
o
u
te
4
R
y
der
Lo
c
kII
O
ld
S
t
at
eRoa
d
1
stM
a
ple
Mo
un
ta
i
nWil
liam
B
r
oa
d
wa
y
C
ou
n
t
yR
oa
d
9
ABu
ck
le
y
Co
un
t
yRoad
1
8
Cou
ntyRoa
d9B
Ol
dFa
i
rHa
ve
n
D
oug
la
s
C
hapman
Go
lfC
ou
rs
e
5
th
P
ott
e
r
3
rd
El
i z
a
be
t
h
Fort Ann
Whitehall
Hampton
Site 1
Install Gateway
Site 2
Install Gateway
Site 4
Install Gateway
Site 3
Install Gateway
Site 6
Install
Information
Kiosk
Site 5
Install Gateway
F FI
IG
GU
UR
RE
E5
5.
.1
11
1
G
GA
AT
TE
EW
WA
AY
YD
DE
ES
SI
IG
GN
N-
–
F
FO
OR
RT
TA
AN
NN
NE
EN
NT
TR
RY
YF
FR
RO
OM
MS
SO
OU
UT
TH
H
Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.
ROUTE4 CORRIDORSTUDYsource: Mathews Neilsen Landscape architects, P.C.
NTS
April 2004
F FI
IG
GU
UR
RE
E5
5.
.1
12
2
G
GA
AT
TE
EW
WA
AY
YD
DE
ES
SI
IG
GN
N-
–
F
FO
OR
RT
TA
AN
NN
NE
EN
NT
TR
RY
YF
FR
RO
OM
MN
NO
OR
RT
TH
H
Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.
ROUTE4 CORRIDORSTUDYsource: Mathews Neilsen Landscape Architects, P.C.
0 45 ft
April 2004
F FI
IG
GU
UR
RE
E5
5.
.1
13
3
G
GA
AT
TE
EW
WA
AY
YD
DE
ES
SI
IG
GN
N-
–
F
FO
OR
RT
TA
AN
NN
NE
EN
NT
TR
RY
YF
FR
RO
OM
MW
WE
ES
ST
T
Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.
ROUTE4 CORRIDORSTUDYsource: Mathews Neilsen Landscape Architects, P.C.
NTS
April 2004
F FI
IG
GU
UR
RE
E5
5.
.1
14
4
G
GA
AT
TE
EW
WA
AY
YD
DE
ES
SI
IG
GN
N-
–
W
WH
HI
IT
TE
EH
HA
AL
LL
LE
EN
NT
TR
RY
YF
FR
RO
OM
MS
SO
OU
UT
TH
H
Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.
ROUTE4 CORRIDORSTUDYsource: Mathews Neilsen Landscape Architects, P.C.
0 45 ft
April 2004
F FI
IG
GU
UR
RE
E5
5.
.1
15
5
G
GA
AT
TE
EW
WA
AY
YD
DE
ES
SI
IG
GN
N-
–
W
WH
HI
IT
TE
EH
HA
AL
LL
LE
EN
NT
TR
RY
YF
FR
RO
OM
ME
EA
AS
ST
T
Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.
ROUTE4 CORRIDORSTUDYsource: Mathews Neilsen Landscape Architects, P.C.
0 45 ft
April 2004
Route 4 (west of Country Club Drive). Designs for the proposed median gateways are
displayed in Figures 5.11to 5.15. The primary purpose of these gateways will be to alert
drivers that they are entering a village and are re quired to reduce their speed to 30 MPH. In
addition, the gateways will be located in the center of the roadway, providing a slight
deflection to the roadway, and forcing drivers to reduce their speed as they approach. The
median gateway islands will act in a similar fa shion as roundabouts placed in a very visible
manner in the middle of the roadway and forcing drivers to slow down. The landscaping
will also provide an attractive welcome into the village and serve notice that the driver is
entering a different and important area within the corridor.
Figure 5.16 shows the proposed information kiosk to be located just to the west of Golf
Course Road on the north side of Route 4. The purpose of this information kiosk is to alert
drivers that they are entering the State of New York and to encourage them to visit locations
of interest in Washington County as well as to patronize local restaurants and hotels/motels.
The information kiosk is expected to be sheltered and open without any attendant. There
would be shelves and features that can hold brochures and maps.
6.0 Recommendations for Municipalities
6.1 Future Land Use Plans
It is expected that the Route 4 corridor will be under development press
ures and may face a
loss of open space in the future. Efforts should be made to concentrate growth and
development within the village settings. According to the Urban Land Institute, a home 10
miles from a village center on a lot that is a third of an acre costs taxpayers $69,000, while
if it is located near the village on a compact lot, it costs taxpayers $34,500
6. These one
time costs are based on the need to extend the infrastructure as well as provide services to
the location. Low-density growth patterns also produce traffic congestion and pollution, as
drivers are required to travel by car and travel further to meet their daily needs. We
recommend that smart-growth policies be adopted in an effort to maintain the historical
character of the villages. Neighborhoods which are of a walkable scale and provide smaller
stores in a village setting are a valuable resource for the area. By retaining and enhancing
the villages, residents can leave their cars an d perform multiple tasks on foot, which can
lead to a reduction in auto trips. These types of villages are also more attractive to tourists
and through travelers and will encour age them to stop and eat or shop.
Methods which can help strengthen the villages include the development of off-street
municipal parking, coupled with reducing or removing the parking requirements. Programs
such as these reduce the cost of development within the villages, as the cost associated with
land acquisition, construction and maintenance of the parking facility is shifted to the
municipality. Tax policies should favor busines ses and homes situated in the village to
encourage inward, rather than sprawling development.
6 SMART GROWTH is Smart Business- Boosting the Bottom Line & Community Prosperity, NALGEP and Smart
Growth Leadership Ins titute • 2004, pg. 5
Route 4 Corridor Study Buckhurst Fish Jacquemart Inc./ January 2005
51
F FI
IG
GU
UR
RE
ES
S5
5.
.1
16
6
D
DE
ES
SI
IG
GN
NO
OF
FI
IN
NF
FO
OR
RM
MA
AT
TI
IO
ON
NK
KI
IO
OS
SK
KA
AN
ND
DT
TU
UR
RN
NL
LA
AN
NE
ES
SA
AT
TN
NE
EW
WY
YO
OR
RK
KS
ST
TA
AT
TE
EB
BO
OR
RD
DE
ER
R
Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.
ROUTE4 CORRIDORSTUDYsource: Mathews Neilsen Landscape Architects, P.C.
0 45 ft
April 2004
Zoning should be structured such that developments are encouraged in the villages and
discouraged outside the villages. Maximum densities should be decreased significantly
outside the villages, and setback and frontage requirements should be increased
substantially. Such a development pattern will not only strengthen the character of the
villages, but will also maintain the rural character along Route 4 and, more importantly, will
maintain the function of through traffic of Route 4.
Smart-growth polices also encourage the development of mixed-use zoning in the villages,
which allow multiple uses to be collocated in a small geographical area. Villages need to
contain destination locations in order to remain relevant. Sidewalks need to be maintained
in a good state of repair to encourage walking. At the current time there are gaps in the
sidewalk network within the Village of Fort Ann and Whitehall. Crosswalks are another
necessary feature to ensure the safety of pedestrians. Dense mixed-use zoning will also
encourage cycling. To ensure safety for cyclists , a 6′ continuous shoulder on both sides of
the street should be maintained. In addition, installing bike racks at key destinations is an
inexpensive way to promote cycling. Finally, o ff-street bicycle paths, especially along the
canals are advised.
As discussed in the public workshops held for this study, a bypass on the northwest side of
Fort Ann may one day become the solution to resolving the traffic issues in the village. The
proposed route for the Fort Ann bypass road (see Figure in the Appendix) needs to be
included into the Town’s master plan to preserve this option for future generations.
6.2 Access Management
One way of improving the traffic flow and safety along the corridor is through the
implementation of an access management plan. Access management strategies aim to
alleviate the inherent conflicts between the function of through traffic of an arterial and the
local function of access to abutting properties. As traffic volumes inc
rease along these types
of roads, these conflicts become more and more problematic in terms of congestion and
accidents, and will eventually hamper the economic well being, as well as the quality of life
along the corridor. Eventually it will become d ifficult to make left turns onto and off Route
4, which may lead to an increase in accidents. Access management attempts to group the
turning movements in and out of properties, or shift them to side streets or service roads or
to minimize the more problematic turns, i.e. the left turns. The basic goal is to improve
traffic flow and safety along the arterial without reducing access. The elimination or
discouragement of certain turns in and out dr iveways is often seen as a reduction in
accessibility. However, this potential reduction is generally offset by increased accessibility
to the property from side streets or from adjacent properties. By facilitating traffic flow
along Route 4 these actions will make it easier fo r the volume of vehicles to grow in this
corridor, which will be beneficial in the long term and will increase property values.
Accident rates along arterials such as Rout e 4 are related to the density of driveways.
Studies have shown that an effective access management program can reduce crashes by as
much as 50%, increase roadway capacity by 25% to 45%, and reduce travel time and delay
Route 4 Corridor Study Buckhurst Fish Jacquemart Inc./ January 2005
53
as much as 40% to 60%7. The towns and villages along Route 4 share the responsibility for
the traffic flow along Route 4 even though it is a State Highway. Though property owners
need to get a permit from NYSDOT, the State has limited authority to control and manage
access along Route 4. The land use authority of the municipality offers the best regulatory
means to manage access along an arterial. By developing an access management program,
the towns and villages can work to minimize and possibly eliminate the most hazardous
movements (left turns in and out) along the corridor.
Among the many benefits of a managed roadway are increased public safety, reduction of
congestion, extended life of the roadway and improved appearance of the built
environment. Access management also serves to both preserve the transportation functions
of roadways as well as the long-term property values and the economic viability of abutting
development
8. A further benefit is the ability to concentrate commercial activity in a
smaller area, which is less damaging to landscapes and the environment.
Access management strategies have beneficial im pacts on pedestrian circulation in the
sense that the actions encourage more walkin g between adjacent properties (by providing
connections) and by making walking more pleasant along any sidewalk that may exist in
the area, due to reduced numbers of driveways and vehicular turns. Aesthetics are
generally also improved by access management plans.
The municipalities should consider the following actions for all properties along Route 4
and 149:
• Any subdivision plan must include side streets connecting to the State highway, and
no driveways are allowed onto the State highw ays. The side streets (collectors) must
connect as much as possible to other local st reets to form a road network that allows
flexibility and distributes the traffic loads over several roads. If no connection can
be achieved in the short term, the applicant must provide easements for future
connections.
• All commercial properties along Route 4 must provide a vehicular connection to
adjacent properties to allow vehicles to drive from one to the other without driving
onto the State highway. If no connection can be provided in the short term, the
applicant must provide an easement for a future connection. When the neighboring
property owner comes to the Town for a site plan approval or building approval, the
Town can then require the connection. These interconnections may eventually lead
to the equivalent of a service road between the commercial properties.
• Property owners along Route 4 are encouraged to combine and share their
driveways.
7 S&K Transportation Consultants, Inc. Access Managem ent, Location and Design. Participant notebook for NHI
Course 133078. National Highway Institute, Federal Highway Administration, April 1998, revised April 2000.
8 Committee on Access Management – Access Managemen t Manual. Transportation Research Board,
Washington, D.C. 2003
Route 4 Corridor Study Buckhurst Fish Jacquemart Inc./ January 2005
54
• All driveways along Route 4 require a special permit and are allowed on a
temporary basis only. If and when an alternate access can be found in the future the
driveway would then be discontinued.
The above actions seem restrictive, however, they are required in the long term to maintain
a safe and efficient highway. The access limitation off Route 4 will be more than offset by
the access improvements from side streets and from adjacent properties. Businesses will
benefit from the connections to adjacent properties, since a person in the adjacent property
is more likely to patronize the business than the drivers on Route 4. Property owners along
similar state highways with higher traffic volumes have learned that there is no other
alternative to managing traffic along these arterials, and that eventually the left turns
become very difficult anyway.
The access management plan along Route 4 does not require any municipal intervention in
the short term, other than adopting the above policies and regulations. It is a long-term
action plan requiring diligence and attention on the part of the Planning Boards. Access
management gets implemented gradually as new development applications come in front
of the Planning Boards.
7.0 Implementation of Corridor Plan
7.1 Summary of Route 4 Corridor Improvements
Table 7.1 lists all recommended improvements in the Route 4 corridor as discussed in
previous chapters. The improvements are listed in geographical order starting at the
southern end of the corridor. For each project we show the current condition/problem and
the proposed improvement.
7.2 Priorities and Funding
Table 7.1 also lists the cost estimates for each project (see Appendix C for more details).
The estimated cost is expressed in current 2004/2005 dollars. This table also indicates the
level of priority for each improvement, wh ether they should be undertaken in the short
term (less than 5 years), mid-term (5 to 8 years) or long term (more than 8 years). For
example, the median island gateways in Fort Ann are listed as a short-term priority,
whereas those in Whitehall are medium term. Since the median island gateways proposed
at the entrances of Fort Ann and Whitehall may not be allowed under current State
Highway Design Guidelines, it is recommended that they be installed on a demonstration
basis. It is felt that Fort Ann is a better testing ground for these traffic calming features.
Once these gateways have been tested successfully in Fort Ann, they can then be installed
in Whitehall.
For the median island gateways to be implemented it is also necessary that the respective
municipality agree to maintain the landscaped medians. This could either be done by the
Town/Village or by a private civic organization or corporation. The Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) will also need to approve the median gateways, as Route 4 is on
the National Highway System.
Route 4 Corridor Study Buckhurst Fish Jacquemart Inc./ January 2005
55
In the last column the table also lists the agency(ies) responsible for the implementation of
the projects. A great majority of the proposed improvements would be the responsibility of
NYSDOT and would have to become part of the regional improvement program. Some of
the projects along Route 4 such as a minor shoulder widening or correction may be
undertaken as part of major maintenance projec ts along the highway. Other projects fall
under the jurisdiction of the municipalities, the County or in some cases the private
property owners. It should be noted that currently there are no capital projects
programmed for this corridor and that funding and resource limitations require that any
future projects will need to be balanced agains t other regional and local priorities. It is up
to the municipalities to advance and implement capital projects based upon their own
assessments and that those assessments may or may not coincide with the findings of this
report.
7.3 Right-of-way Restrictions
Some of the improvement recommendations contained in this document (such as the
installation of roundabouts and wider shoulders) would require widening the existing
roadway and may require additional right-of -way. For example, a roundabout is proposed
for the intersection of Route 4 and 32 at the southern end of the corridor (see Figure 5.2).
The existing right-of-way width would not permit the installation of a modern roundabout.
Cooperation between municipalities and priv ate landowners would be necessary to
advance this concept.
Another example is in the Village of Fort Ann, where BFJ suggests that he Town adopts an
official map showing a bypass of the Village (see Figure in Appendix).
If the property is
acquired for the bypass, BFJ recommends that access not be granted to adjacent property
owners, but that the bypass be developed as a limited access roadway. It is important to
prevent this stretch of road from becoming a commercial strip, and compete with Village.
Another right-of-way constraint is in the Village of Whitehall, where it is advised that the
shoulder of Route 4 be widened. By an alyzing aerial photographs, we have identified
potential locations where the existing structures are located too close to the roadway and
may require right-of-way acquisitions if the ro ad is widened. Detailed engineering and
surveys are required to determine if the widened roadway would impact the existing
structures (see Figure 7.1).
Route 4 Corridor Study Buckhurst Fish Jacquemart Inc./ January 2005
56
Figure Location Project LengthEstimated
CostEstimated
Cost /Linear
FootPriorityJurisdiction /
Municipality
1 5.2Intersection of Route 4 and
Route 32 (Dix Ave /
Bur
goyne Ave)Installation of a
Roundabout$250,000 Short-Term NYSDOT
2Mile marker 1151 to 1154Accident Mitigation /
Widen Shoulder or shift
drivewa
y
Mid-Term NYSDOT
3Glen Falls – South of
Intersection of Geer Rd /
Route 4Flatten RoadwayRoughly 50
Meters$160,000 $970 Mid-Term NYSDOT
4Just South of Intersection of
Geer Rd / Route 4Install SignApprox 10
MetersShort-Term NYSDOT
5 5.6Kingsbury -Intersection of
Kingsbury St. / County Route
36 / Route 4Redesign traffic flow at
intersectionMid-TermWashington
County
6 5.7Kin
gsbur
y -Intersection 149 S
and Route 4Reconfigure Westbound
a
pp
roach$110,000 $550 Short-Term NYSDOT
7Ft. Ann – Near Walker’s
(south of Needhamville La.)Regrade and widen
shoulderApprox 200
Meters$150,000 $224 Mid-Term NYSDOT
8Needhamville LaneProhibit left turns from
Needhamville onto
Route 3Mid-Term Town of Fort Ann
9 5.8Ft. Ann
T Owens LaneAlter IntersectionApprox 100
MetersMid-TermTown of Fort Ann
/ Private Property
Owner
10 5.11South of Village of Fort Ann
at
5699 Route 4Install median island
“gateway”Approx 30
Meters$155,000 $646 Short-Term NYSDOT
11 2.7South of Ft. Ann Village Line Extend SidewalkApprox 500
meters$90,000 $55 Mid-TermNYSDOT / Town
of Fort Ann
Table 7.1- Route 4 Corridor – Upgrades and Improvements
Route 4 Corridor StudyBuckhurst Fish Jacquemart Inc. / May 2005
Figure Location Project LengthEstimated
CostEstimated
Cost /Linear
FootPriorityJurisdiction /
Municipality
Table 7.1- Route 4 Corridor – Upgrades and Improvements
12Village of Ft. AnnLower Speed Limit in
Villa
ge to 30 MPHShort-Term NYSDOT
13 2.7Village of Ft. AnnImprove / Upgrade
sidewalksApprox 800
meters$200,000 $76 Mid-TermNYSDOT / Town
of Fort Ann
14Near Intersection of Route 4
and Catherine St (south) Install Crosswalk Short-Term NYSDOT
15Fort Ann Town HallAdd Parking Spaces
Adjacent to Town HallMid-Term Village of Ft. Ann
16Fort Ann Post OfficePotential Public Parking
at Back of Post OfficeShort-TermVilla
ge of Ft. Ann /
USPS
17North of Post OfficeChange Ten Minute
Parking Rule to Two
Hour Parkin
g
Short-Term Village of Ft. Ann
18 AppendRoute 149 to Route 4 -West
and North of Ft. AnnBypass of Fort AnnApprox 1.6
Miles$11,300,000$ 7.06 Million /
MileLong-Term Town of Fort Ann
19 5.13West of Village of Ft. Ann –
Route 149Install – median island
”
gatewa
y”Approx 30
meters$155,000 Short-Term NYSDOT
20Catherine St – Fort Ann Install 2- Speed Humps Short-TermVillage of Fort
Ann
21 5.12North of Village of Fort AnnInstall – median island
”
gatewa
y”Approx. 30
Meters $155,000 Short-Term NYSDOT
22North of Fort Ann Widen ShoulderApprox 2
KM$445,000 $67 Short-Term NYSDOT
23North of Fort Ann – Mile
Marker 1291 – 1803Flatten and Straighten
Roadway
Approx 200
meters$520,000 $793 Long-Term NYSDOT
24 5.14Villa
ge of Whitehall southern
boundar
y
Install – median island
“gatewa
y”Mid-Term NYSDOT
25Village of WhitehallLower Speed Limit in
Villa
ge to 30 MPHShort-Term NYSDOT
Route 4 Corridor StudyBuckhurst Fish Jacquemart Inc. / May 2005
Figure Location Project LengthEstimated
CostEstimated
Cost /Linear
FootPriorityJurisdiction /
Municipality
Table 7.1- Route 4 Corridor – Upgrades and Improvements
26 2.7Village of Whitehall, West
side of Route 4Extend SidewalkApprox 1.0
KM$170,000 $52 Mid-TermNYSDOT / Villa
ge
of Whitehall
27 2.7Village of Whitehall, East
side of Route 4Extend SidewalkApprox 1.0
KM$170,000 $52 Mid-TermNYSDOT /
Pro
pert
y Owner
28 5.5Village of Whitehall,
Intersection of Route 4 and
Route 22 (Bwa
y)Install Roundabout $300,000 Mid-Term NYSDOT
29 2.7Village of Whitehall, East of
Route 22 (Bway)Extend SidewalkApprox 1.4
KM$235,000 $52 Mid-TermNYSDOT / Villa
ge
of Whitehall
32Village of Whitehall – East of
SkeneUpgrade ShoulderApprox 700
meters$170,000 $74 Mid-Term NYSDOT
33 5.15East of Village of WhitehallInstall median island
”
gatewa
y”Approx 30
Meters$155,000 $646 Mid-Term NYSDOT
34Intersection of Route 4 and
CR 9 / CR 21Widen Shoulder or
Install Turn LaneShort-Term NYSDOT
35 5.16Hampton – Just west of Golf
Course RoadInformation BoothApprox 200
Meters$75,000 $500 Mid-Term NYSDOT
36 5.16Hampton @ Golf Course
RoadTurn Lanes $155,000 $775 Short-TermNYSDOT /
Washin
gton Co.
$14,870,000
Route 4 Corridor StudyBuckhurst Fish Jacquemart Inc. / May 2005
F FI
IG
GU
UR
RE
E7
7.
.1
1
P
PO
OT
TE
EN
NT
TI
IA
AL
LR
RI
IG
GH
HT
T-
-O
OF
FW
WA
AY
Y-
-I
IS
SS
SU
UE
ES
SI
IN
NW
WH
HI
IT
TE
EH
HA
AL
LL
L
Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.
ROUTE4 CORRIDORSTUDYsource: NYS GIS Clearinghouse
0 200 ft
April 2004
F FI
IG
GU
UR
RE
EA
A1
1
P
PR
RO
OP
PO
OS
SE
ED
DF
FO
OR
RT
TA
AN
NN
NB
BY
YP
PA
AS
SS
SR
RO
OU
UT
TE
E
Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.
ROUTE4 CORRIDORSTUDY
0 0.5 mile
April 2004
t
u4
t
u4
149
Proposed Bypass Follows
Alignment of Kelsey Pond Road
Proposed Bypass Follows
Alignment of Powerline
Right of Way
Roundabout Proposed
At Interesection with
Route 149
Roundabout Proposed
At Interesection with
Route 4