Prepared For:
Bay Road & Cronin Road Intersection Assessment
Town of Queensbury, Warren County, NY April, 2012
Prepared By:
April 2012 Bay Rd/Cronin Rd Intersection Evaluation
Page ii
Table of Contents
Page
Table of Contents………………………………………………………………
……………………………….. ………… ii
List of Figures ………………………………………………………………
…………………………………. …………… ii
List of Tables………………………………………………………………
………………………………….. …………….iii
List of Appendices………………………………………………………………
………………………………. …………iii
Chapter 1. Introduction ………………………………………………………………
…………………………. ……… 1
A. Site Conditions ………………………………………………………………
…………………………………… 1
Chapter 2. Existing Conditions………………………………………………………………
…………………… ….. 2
A. Intersection Geometry ………………………………………………………………
…………………………. 2
B. Accident History ………………………………………………………………
………………………………….3
C. Traffic Volumes ………………………………………………………………
…………………………………..4
Chapter 3. Alternatives ………………………………………………………………
…………………………. ……… 6
A. Alternative 1 ………………………………………………………………
………………………………………. 6
B. Alternative 2 ………………………………………………………………
………………………………………. 6
C. Alternative 3 ………………………………………………………………
………………………………………. 6
D. Alternative 4 ………………………………………………………………
………………………………………. 7
Chapter 4. Evaluation ………………………………………………………………
…………………………… ……. 12
A. Traffic Analysis ………………………………………………………………
………………………………….12
1. Traffic Volume Forecasts:………………………………………………………………
…………….. 12
2. Level of Service and Capacity Analysis: …………………………………………………………. 13
B. Cost Estimates ………………………………………………………………
…………………………………. 1 5
C. Impacts………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………. 15
Chapter 5. Conclusions and Recommendations………………………………………………………………
17
List of Figures
Page
Figure 2.1 – 2012 (ETC) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes …………………………………………………………. 5
Figure 3.1 – Alternative 1: Re-stripe Northbound and Southbound Approaches ……………………. 8
Figure 3.2 – Alternative 2: Restrict Left-turns from Cronin Road with Striping Modifications……. 9
Figure 3.3 – Alternative 3: Install a Traffic Signal with Striping Modifications ………………………. 10
Figure 3.4 – Alternative 4: Construct a Single-Lane Roundabout ………………………………………. 11
Figure 4.1 – 2022 (ETC+10) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ………………………………………………….. 16
April 2012 Bay Rd/Cronin Rd Intersection Evaluation
Page iii
List of Tables
Page
Table 2.1 – Intersection Accident Summary ………………………………………………………………
……… 3
Table 4.1 – Traffic Volume Forecasts ………………………………………………………………
…………….. 12
Table 4.2 – Levels of Service………………………………………………………………
…………………….. …. 13
Table 4.3 – Peak Hour Level of Service Summary …………………………………………………………… 14
Table 4.4 – Alternatives Comparison ………………………………………………………………
……………… 15
List of Appendices
Appendix A………………………………………………………………
………………………… Accident Evalua tion
Appendix B………………………………………………………………
………………………… Traffic Volume Data
Appendix C ………………………………………………………………
………………. Signal Warrant Evaluation
Appendix D ………………………………………………………………
………………… Level of Service Analysi s
Appendix E………………………………………………………………
…………. Planning Level Cost Estimates
April 2012 Bay Rd/Cronin Rd Intersection Evaluation
Page 1
Chapter 1. Introduction
This report summarizes the results of an accident records review and the evaluation and
comparison of several intersection improvements for the Bay Road / Cronin Road intersection in
the Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York. The project location is shown in the
Google aerial image below:
A. Site Conditions
The Bay Road / Cronin Road intersection is located in the southern portion of the Town of
Queensbury approximately 1/3 mile north of the Quaker Road/NY Route 254 commercial
corridor. Bay Road (County Route 7) travels north/south through the Town connecting
Queensbury with the City of Glens Falls. Cronin Road is a Town road travelling east/west
through the Town from Bay Road to Ridge Road (NY Route 9L). There are several commercial
land uses at the intersection that impact operations including the Stewart’s Shop (with gas
pumps), the Harvest Restaurant, and the O’Leary Chiropractic Center. The intersection also
serves as the primary access route to Adirondack Community College.
Pedestrians are accommodated through a sidewalk on the west side of Bay Road extending
from Quaker Road to about 700 feet north of Cronin Road. On the east side of Bay Road, there
is a sidewalk extending from Cronin Road to Quaker Road. There are no sidewalks along
Cronin Road. Bicyclists are accommodated through a striped shoulder/bicycle lane on the east
and west sides of Bay Road north of Cronin Road.
April 2012 Bay Rd/Cronin Rd Intersection Evaluation
Page 2
Chapter 2. Existing Conditions
A. Intersection Geometry
The Bay Road / Cronin Road intersection is a four-way intersection operating under stop sign
control on the eastbound and westbound approaches. The northbound Bay Road approach to
Cronin Road provides a shared left-turn/through lane and a separate right-turn lane. The lack of
shoulder on the northbound approach makes the right-turn from Bay Road onto Cronin Road a
difficult maneuver that requires vehicle slowing and off-tracking, especially for large vehicles. In
addition, there is little separation between the travel lane and the flush sidewalk. This makes
walking in this quadrant of the intersection feel “unfriendly”, meaning that pedestrians may be
less comfortable at this location than in areas with a greater buffer between the sidewalk and
travel lane.
The southbound approach to the intersection provides a left-turn lane and a shared
through/right-turn lane with two receiving lanes exiting the intersection. The presence of two
southbound receiving lanes at the intersection creates confusion on all intersection approaches
by providing too many travel movement choices, increasing the potential for accidents. The
eastbound O’Leary Chiropractic Center driveway and westbound Cronin Road approaches
provide a single lane for shared through and turning movements. Departing the intersection,
there is a single northbound lane, two southbound lanes, a single lane eastbound on Cronin
Road and a single lane entering the chiropractor’s office. The intersection geometry is shown in
the following Bing aerial image.
Truck slowing and driving over the sidewalk to
maneuver the Bay Road northbound right-turn
movement onto Cronin Road Pedestrian walking northbound on Bay Road on the
innermost portion of the sidewalk away from vehicles
April 2012 Bay Rd/Cronin Rd Intersection Evaluation
Page 3
B. Accident History
An accident analysis was performed for the Bay Road / Cronin Road intersection using accident
data provided by the Warren County Department of Public Works and New York State
Department of Transportation. The analysis includes crashes that occurred from November 1,
2006 through December 31, 2011. Table 2.1 summarizes the accident history at the study area
intersection. In addition, a detailed accident summary sheet, collision diagram, and detailed
accident history are included in Appendix A.
Table 2.1 – Intersection Accident Summary
Accident Severity Accident Type
Fatal Injury Property
Damage
Non-
Reportable1
Total
Right Angle 0 10 19 2 31
Rear End 0 0 8 0 8
Left Turn 0 3 1 1 5
Overtaking/Sideswipe 0 0 1 0 1
Total 0 13 29 3 45 1 A non-reportable accident indicates no personal injuries occurred and property damages totaled less than $1,000.
Table 2.1 shows that there have been 45 accidents at the Bay Road / Cronin Road intersection
over the last six years. Based on the data, 30 of these accidents occurred within the last three
years. The data also shows the following:
April 2012 Bay Rd/Cronin Rd Intersection Evaluation
Page 4
All the accidents occurred between 6:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. which suggests that
night-time visibility is not the primary contributing factor of the crash history.
Almost 70% of the accidents involved right angle crashes between vehicles on the
Bay Road northbound and Cronin Road westbound intersection approaches.
Almost 15% of the accidents involved two or more southbound vehicles, indicating
that there is some confusion on the southbound approach to the intersection. Rear-
end collisions are the primary accident type on the southbound approach.
The intersection improvement alternatives developed and evaluated as part of this study will
consider options to improve the two accident trends identified above: the northbound/westbound
right angle vehicle crashes and the southbound rear-end crashes.
The intersection accident rate was calculated and compared to the statewide average for
intersections on state roads with similar geometry and traffic control. The accident rate for the
subject intersection is 1.37 accidents per million entering vehicles (acc/MEV) as compared to
the statewide average of 0.15 acc/MEV. It is noted that the statewide average is calculated for
state roadways only and that since the Bay Road and Cronin Road are county and local roads,
respectively, the characteristics may be slightly different.
C. Traffic Volumes
Intersection turning movement traffic counts were conducted at the Bay Road/Cronin Road
intersection on January 25, 2012 during the weekday AM peak period from 7:00 to 9:00 a.m.,
noon peak period from 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., and the PM peak period from 3:00 to 6:00 p.m.
The raw traffic volumes are included in Appendix B. Automatic Traffic Recorders (ATRs) were
placed on all approaches to the intersection from February 2, 2012 to February 3, 2012 to
collect daily volume and travel speed data. The peak hour traffic counts provide existing traffic
conditions at the study intersection as summarized on Figure 2.1 and form the basis for all traffic
forecasts. The following observations are evident based on the existing traffic volume data:
The weekday AM peak hour occurred from 8:00 to 9:00 a.m. Heavy vehicles and
school buses account for 1% of intersection volumes during the AM peak hour.
The noon peak hour occurred from 12:00 to 1:00 p.m. Heavy vehicles and school
buses account for 1% of intersection volumes during the noon peak hour.
The PM peak hour occurred from 3:15 to 4:15 p.m. Heavy vehicles and school
buses account for 1% of intersection volumes during the PM peak hour.
F:Projects2011
111-253 Bay & Cronincadddgn
figures111-253_
fig_traf.dgn
PROJECT: DATE: 111-253 04/2012 FIGURE:2.1
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
2012 (ETC) PEAK HOUR
N
306
775
CRONIN RD
BAY
RD
AM PEAK HOUR
771
472103
CRONIN RD
BAY
RD
724
496135
CRONIN RD
BAY
RD
NOON PEAK HOUR
PM PEAK HOUR
WARREN COUNTY, NY
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
BAY RD & CRONIN RD
N
N
12273140
962
006
05333160
1008
13347175
42010
April 2012 Bay Rd/Cronin Rd Intersection Evaluation
Page 6
Chapter 3. Alternatives
Based on a review of the existing traffic conditions and accident analysis, four alternatives have
been developed for evaluation. The proposed alternative and accident reduction benefit for
each is described below.
A. Alternative 1
Alternative 1 involves re-striping the northbound and southbound intersection approaches to
provide a dedicated left-turn lane and a shared through/right-turn lane on those approaches.
The two exclusive left-turn lanes would be striped opposite each other as is typical for an
intersection with a clearly delineated single departure lane. This improvement can be extended
to re-stripe Bay Road with a center two-way left-turn lane between Cronin Road and Glenwood
Avenue as shown on Figure 3.1. However, the expanded striping improvement is not needed
for accident reduction benefits at the Bay Road / Cronin Road intersection. The eastbound and
westbound intersection approaches would continue to operate under stop sign control with
single lane approaches.
By shifting the northbound travel lanes toward the Bay Road centerline and removing the right-
turn lane to create a shoulder, sight distances for vehicles on the Cronin Road approach would
be improved and off-tracking on the right-turn movement from Bay Road to Cronin Road would
be minimized. In addition, the increased buffer to the sidewalk will provide a higher level of
comfort for pedestrians walking in this area. Creating a single receiving lane on Bay Road
southbound reduces the confusion and potential for rear-end collisions on this intersection
approach. Based upon information published by the New York State Department of
Transportation in the Post Implementation Evaluation System (NYSDOT PIES), channelization,
with the addition of left-turn lanes with painted separation as proposed in this alternative, has
the potential to reduce left-turn crashes by 44%, rear end crashes by 43%, and right-angle
crashes by 46%.
B. Alternative 2
Alternative 2 includes installing the striping modifications identified in Alternative 1 in addition to
restricting left-turns and through movements from Cronin Road. This should be accomplished
through construction of a raised median on Cronin Road at the intersection as illustrated on
Figure 3.2. The physical restriction has the potential to eliminate almost 70% of the accidents at
the intersection. With the turn restriction from Cronin Road, vehicles have the option to access
Quaker Road via the traffic signal at Meadowbrook Road, which is immediately east of Cronin
Road. It is noted that with removal of the Cronin Road left-turn and through vehicles from the
intersection, the traffic volumes at the intersection do not meet the volume criteria for traffic
signal installation. Traffic signal criteria are discussed further under Alternative 3.
C. Alternative 3
Alternative 3 includes installing the re-striping improvements as identified in Alternative 1 in
conjunction with a traffic signal. Criteria for consideration of traffic signal installation are
contained in the 2009 Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (National MUTCD), published
by the Federal Highway Administration (FHW). This publication specifies the minimum criteria
which must be met in order for a new traffic signal to be justified. The satisfaction of a signal
warrant in itself is not necessarily justification for installation for a traffic signal. Other
engineering and operational factors need to be considered.
April 2012 Bay Rd/Cronin Rd Intersection Evaluation
Page 7
The existing traffic conditions, pedestrian characteristics, and physical characteristics of the
intersection were compared to the five of the nine signal warrants contained in the National
MUTCD that are applicable to this intersection. The analysis, as contained in Appendix C,
shows that the existing traffic conditions at the Bay Road / Cronin Road intersection meet the
traffic signal warrant criteria for the traffic volume warrants (warrants 1, 2, and 3). The criteria
are not met for the pedestrian volume warrant (warrant 4) or the crash experience warrant
(warrant 8). The crash experience warrant requires that “adequate trial of alternatives with
satisfactory observance and enforcement has failed to reduce the crash frequency”. Since
previous crash reduction alternatives have not been attempted at this intersection, the warrant is
not satisfied. However, due to the satisfaction of the traffic volume warrants, a traffic signal is
considered for installation at this intersection as illustrated on Figure 3.3.
Installation of a traffic signal would actively assign right of way to vehicles approaching the
intersection and reduce the need for drivers to judge the gap length for entering the traffic
stream on Bay Road, which could significantly reduce the northbound/westbound crashes.
Therefore, according to NYSDOT PIES data, in addition to the crash reduction factors as
identified with Alternative 1, installation of a traffic signal has the potential to reduced left-turn
crashes by 27%, rear end crashes by 12%, and right-angle by 42%.
D. Alternative 4
Alternative 4 includes the construction of a single-lane roundabout at the study intersection.
This improvement reduces the number and severity of crashes by reducing the potential for
conflict. Information published by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety show that
installation of a roundabout reduces the overall number of crashes by 40% and reduces the
severity, specifically injury accidents, by 80%. The roundabout provides the benefit of allowing
full movement at the intersection while reducing the potential for conflict. One primary difficulty
associated with a roundabout is the amount of space required for construction and the impacts
to private parcels. Figure 3.4 illustrates one potential alignment for the roundabout that
minimizes the number of private parcel and utility impacts.
TITLE
CRONIN RD
BAY RD
SHOPSTEWART’S
CENTERCHIROPRACTICO’LEARY
RESTAURANTHARVEST
PROJECT: DATE: 111-253 FIGURE: WARREN COUNTY, NY
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
BAY RD & CRONIN RD
RE-STRIPE NB & SB APPROACHES
ALTERNATIVE 1
3.1
USER =
F:Projects1I-253 Bay & CronincadddgnfiguresI-253_fi
g_alt-1.dgn4/4/2012dborjas
FILE NAME = DATE/TIME =
4/2012
N
050100150200’50
1″ = 100′
T
ITLE
CRONIN RD
BAY RD
SHOPSTEWART’S
CENTERCHIROPRACTICO’LEARY
RESTAURANTHARVEST
N
0255075100’25
1″ = 50’PROJECT: DATE: 111-253 FIGURE: WARREN COUNTY, NY
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
BAY RD & CRONIN RD
W/ STRIPING MODIFICATIONS
RESTRICT LEFT TURNS FROM CRONIN RD
ALTERNATIVE 2
3.2
USER =
F:Projects1I-253 Bay & CronincadddgnfiguresI-253_fi
g_alt-2.dgn4/4/2012dborjas
FILE NAME = DATE/TIME =
4/2012
T
ITLE
CRONIN RD
BAY RD
SHOPSTEWART’S
CENTERCHIROPRACTICO’LEARY
RESTAURANTHARVEST
N
0255075100’25
1″ = 50’PROJECT: DATE: 111-253 FIGURE: WARREN COUNTY, NY
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
BAY RD & CRONIN RD
W/ STRIPING MODIFICATIONS
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
ALTERNATIVE 3
3.3
USER =
F:Projects1I-253 Bay & CronincadddgnfiguresI-253_fi
g_alt-3.dgn4/4/2012dborjas
FILE NAME = DATE/TIME =
4/2012
T
ITLE
CRONIN RD
BAY RD
SHOPSTEWART’S
CENTERCHIROPRACTICO’LEARY
RESTAURANTHARVEST
N
0255075100’25
1″ = 50’PROJECT: DATE: 111-253 FIGURE: WARREN COUNTY, NY
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
BAY RD & CRONIN RD
CONSTRUCT A SINGLE-LANE ROUNDABOUT
ALTERNATIVE 4
3.4
USER =
F:Projects1I-253 Bay & CronincadddgnfiguresI-253_fi
g_alt-4.dgn4/4/2012dborjas
FILE NAME = DATE/TIME =
4/2012
April 2012 Bay Rd/Cronin Rd Intersection Evaluation
Page 12
Chapter 4. Evaluation
Four alternatives are being progressed for evaluation. The proposed alternative and accident
reduction benefit for each is described below.
A. Traffic Analysis
1. Traffic Volume Forecasts:
The design year or Estimated Time of Completion (ETC) for this project is expected during the
2012 construction season. To evaluate the four alternatives, traffic projections were prepared
for the ETC+10 (2022) conditions. The projected volumes include background traffic growth
and trips from other planned developments in the area. Based on a review of traffic volumes
collected by Creighton Manning in 2007, traffic volumes along Bay Road have increased by
approximately 2% per year over the last 5 years. Therefore, the existing 2012 traffic volumes
were increased by a 2% annual growth rate for 10 years to arrive at the 2022 background
growth volumes. Traffic from three additional projects was accounted for in the No-Build traffic
volumes. The projects include the following:
Fairfield Professional Office, which consists of approximately 96,000 square feet
(SF) of office space to be constructed along Baybridge Drive
Baybrook Professional Park, which consists of 40,000 SF of office space and 36
apartments to be constructed along Willowbrook Drive
Cottage Hill, which consists of 188 condominiums to be constructed along Baybridge
Drive
The trips associated with these developments were added to the background growth volumes to
arrive at the 2022 No-Build traffic volumes as shown in Table 4.1 and Figure 4.1.
Table 4.1 – Traffic Volume Forecasts
Year ADT DDHV
Bay Road – northbound
ETC 2012 7,915 8451
ETC+10 (2022) 11,240 1,2251
Bay Road – southbound
ETC 2012 7,140 8252
ETC+10 (2022) 10,585 1,2002
Driveway – eastbound
ETC 2012 230 123
ETC+10 (2022) 275 143
Cronin Road – westbound
ETC 2012 1,500 1253
ETC+10 (2022) 1,820 1503 1 AM Peak Hour 2 Noon Peak Hour 3 PM Peak Hour
ETC = Estimated Time of Completion
ADT = Average Daily Traffic (one-way)
DDHV = Directional Design Hourly Volume (one-way)
April 2012 Bay Rd/Cronin Rd Intersection Evaluation
Page 13
2. Level of Service and Capacity Analysis:
Intersection Level of Service (LOS) and capacity analysis relate traffic volumes to the physical
characteristics of an intersection. Intersection evaluations were made using Synchro8 which
automates the procedures contained in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual . Evaluations were
also completed using SIDRA software to analyze a roundabout at the study intersection. Levels
of service range from A to F with level of service A conditions considered excellent with very
little vehicle delay while level of service F generally represents conditions with long vehicle
delays. Table 4.2 identifies the levels of service and associated delay ranges for each type of
traffic control. Appendix D contains detailed descriptions of LOS criteria for signalized,
unsignalized, and roundabout controlled intersections, the detailed level of service reports, and
detailed level of service summary tables.
Table 4.2 – Levels of Service
Control Delay (sec/veh) Level of
Service Unsignalized
Intersection
Signalized or Roundabout
Intersection
A < 10.0 < 10.0 B >10.0 and < 15.0 >10.0 and < 20.0 C >15.0 and < 25.0 >20.0 and < 35.0 D >25.0 and < 35.0 >35.0 and < 55.0 E >35.0 and < 50.0 >55.0 and < 80.0 F >50.0 >80.0
The relative impact of the four alternatives proposed can be determined by comparing the level
of service during the design year for the No-Build and Build traffic conditions. Tables 3.3
through 3.5 summarize the results of the Level of Service calculations for the AM, noon, and PM
peak hours, respectively.
Standard traffic analysis procedures call for the collection of data during the peak periods. The
peak 1-hour traffic volumes are then determined, followed by the peak 15-minute period. It is
noted that during the AM peak hours, the 15-minute interval was highly influenced by students
arriving and departing the college. Therefore, the AM peak hour results are reflective of the
concentrated college traffic.
April 2012 Bay Rd/Cronin Rd Intersection Evaluation
Page 14
Table 4.3 – Peak Hour Level of Service Summary
Intersection Configuration Bay Rd/Cronin Rd
Approach and geometry
Existing Alt 1
Re-striping
Alt 2
Re-striping &
WB restriction
Alt 3
Re-striping &
Signal
Alt 4
Roundabout
AM Peak Hour: 2012 (ETC)
Chiropractor EB
Cronin Rd WB
Bay Rd NB Bay Rd SB B (11.0)
F (**)
A (0.4)
B (13.0) B (11.0)
F (**)
A (8.3)
B (13.1) B (11.0)
E (40.1)
A (8.3)
B (13.1) C (22.4)
C (25.9)
C (20.1)
A (4.0) A (5.8)
D (39.0)
A (6.5)
A (6.4)
Overall — — — B (16.5) A (9.3)
AM Peak Hour: 2022 (ETC+10)
Chiropractor EB
Cronin Rd WB Bay Rd NB
Bay Rd SB B (13.3)
F (**)
A (9.0)
C (23.8) B (13.3)
F (**)
A (9.0)
C (24.4) B (13.3)
F (**)
A (9.0)
C (24.4) C (24.3)
F (131)
F (141) A (4.4) A (8.4)
F (262)
F (118) A (6.4)
Overall — — — F (103) F (98.2)
Noon Peak Hour: 2012 (ETC)
Chiropractor EB
Cronin Rd WB Bay Rd NB
Bay Rd SB B (14.5)
F (75.3) A (0.0)
A (9.0) B (14.5)
F (101) A (9.3)
A (9.0) B (14.5)
B (11.7)
A (9.3)
A (9.0) B (15.6)
B (18.1)
A (6.1)
B (10.2) B (10.2)
B (12.4)
A (6.1)
A (6.5)
Overall — — — A (9.2) A (6.7)
Noon Peak Hour: 2022 (ETC+10)
Chiropractor EB
Cronin Rd WB
Bay Rd NB Bay Rd SB C (21.1)
F (**)
A (0.0)
B (10.4) C (21.1)
F (**)
B (11.0)
B (10.5) C (21.1)
B (14.9)
B (11.0)
B (10.5) C (24.8)
C (28.7)
A (6.2)
B (15.3) C (25.2)
B (15.0)
A (6.4)
A (9.0)
Overall — — — B (12.6) A (8.4)
PM Peak Hour: 2012 (ETC)
Chiropractor EB
Cronin Rd WB
Bay Rd NB Bay Rd SB C (19.0)
F (80.9)
A (0.1)
A (9.1) C (19.4)
F (124)
A (9.2)
A (9.1) C (19.4)
B (12.2)
A (9.2)
A (9.1) C (22.9)
C (27.0)
A (4.6)
A (5.3) A (9.6)
B (12.8)
A (5.9)
A (6.6)
Overall — — — A (6.9) A (6.8)
PM Peak Hour: 2022 (ETC+10)
Chiropractor EB
Cronin Rd WB Bay Rd NB
Bay Rd SB E (45.5)
F (**)
A (0.2)
B (10.6) F (51.3)
F (**)
B (10.7)
B (10.8) F (50.3)
C (16.3) B (10.7)
B (10.8) C (22.5)
C (32.2)
A (7.6)
B (13.3) C (20.7)
B (15.8) A (6.2)
A (8.6)
Overall — — — B (12.4) A (8.2)
EB, WB, NB, SB = Eastbound, Westbound, Northbound, Southbound
X (Y.Y) = Level of Service (average delay in seconds per vehicl e) reported for the critical movement for unsignalized intersect ions
and the overall approach for signalized intersections
— = Not Applicable
** = average delay greater than 200 seconds
The level of service analysis shows that under stop control, the westbound Cronin Road
approach to the intersection generally operates at longer level of service F conditions when left-
turns are allowed. This is especially true during the AM peak hour when the college arrival
period significantly affects operations at the intersection for a 15-minute period. The analysis
also shows that as funding is available, capacity improvements or turn restrictions (as identified
in Alternatives 2, 3, and 4) should be implemented at the intersection.
April 2012 Bay Rd/Cronin Rd Intersection Evaluation
Page 15
B. Cost Estimates
The estimated costs for the four alternatives at the Bay Road/Cronin Road intersection include
both construction costs and soft costs such as design engineering, detailed cost estimates,
preparation of construction documents, public bidding process, right-of-way acquisition, and
construction inspection. The estimates are considered planning level and do not include
potential relocation of existing utilities. Based on recent bid results and prior experience with
projects on New York State highways, planning level cost estimates for each of the four
alternatives are provided below. Additional cost estimate information is included in Appendix E.
Alternative 1 – Re-striping = $50,000
Alternative 2 – Re-striping & Westbound Turn Restriction = $75,000
Alternative 3 – Re-striping & Signal Installation = $200,000
Alternative 4 – Roundabout Construction = $1,725,000
All alternative cost estimates would be increased by $125,000 if the striping improvements are
extended to Glenwood Avenue as described in the Alternative 1 narrative in Section 3.A. The
striping improvements are completed through removing and replacing the top layer of asphalt to
provide a clean surface for re-striping.
C. Impacts
Table 4.6 provides a comparison of the four intersection alternatives. The table qualifies each
alternative as having high, medium, or low impacts associated with multiple criteria and good,
adequate, or poor operational characteristics.
Table 4.4 – Alternatives Comparison
Criteria Alternative
1
Re-striping
2
Re-striping &
WB restriction
3
Re-striping &
Signal
4
Roundabout
Accident reduction benefit Medium High Medium High
Intersection operations as compared to
existing Similar Improved Improved Improved
Access impacts to adjacent properties
and drivers Low High Medium High
Right-of-way impacts
None None Low High
Utility impacts None None Potentially High High
Maintenance concerns None Medium None Medium
Traffic diversion None High Low Low
Cost $50,000 $75,000 $200,000 $1,725,000
It is noted that similar to existing conditions, intersection operations, especially during the AM
peak hour, will be poor on the Cronin Road approach to the intersection. The traffic diversion
potential for Alternatives 3 and 4 refers to the access changes that would likely occur at the
adjacent land uses and is not associated with a slightly more regional diversion.
F:Projects2011
111-253 Bay & Cronincadddgn
figures111-253_
fig_traf.dgn
PROJECT: DATE: 111-253 04/2012 FIGURE:4.1
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
2022 (ETC + 10) PEAK HOUR
N
473
1137
CRONIN RD
BAY
RD
AM PEAK HOUR
1132
688126
CRONIN RD
BAY
RD
1075
718165
CRONIN RD
BAY
RD
NOON PEAK HOUR
PM PEAK HOUR
WARREN COUNTY, NY
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
BAY RD & CRONIN RD
N
N
12789149
1176
007
06540173
10010
14057191
52012
April 2012 Bay Rd/Cronin Rd Intersection Evaluation
Page 17
Chapter 5. Conclusions and Recommendations
This report summarizes the results of an accident analysis for the Bay Road / Cronin Road
intersection and the evaluation of several intersection improvements with the potential to
mitigate the intersection crash history. The evaluation compares the benefits and impacts
associated with the four alternatives developed, including operational analyses for the ETC
(2012) and ETC+10 (2022) conditions to identify future needs at the intersection.
Based on the accident analysis, the intersection crash rate is more than nine times higher than
the statewide average for similar intersections. The analysis shows there are two primary
accident patterns at the intersection. Almost 70% off all accidents in the study period involve
crashes between northbound and westbound vehicles and nearly 15% of the accidents involve
two or more southbound vehicles. Mitigating these two crash patterns is the primary concern
when determining the preferred intersection improvement strategy.
The four alternatives under consideration include:
Alternative 1: Re-stripe the northbound and southbound approaches to provide
separate left-turn and shared through/right-turn lanes
Alternative 2: Re-stripe the northbound and southbound approaches to provide left-
turn and shared through/right-turn lanes and restrict westbound left-turn and through
movements by constructing a raised median.
Alternative 3: Re-stripe the northbound and southbound approaches to provide left-
turn and shared through/right-turn lanes and install a traffic signal
Alternative 4: Construct a single-lane roundabout
When comparing the four alternatives, Alternative 1 provides the greatest potential accident
reduction benefit for the lowest cost and impacts. It is noted that consistent with existing
conditions, the westbound Cronin Road approach to the intersection will operate at level of
service F during the three peak hours. However, the trade-off between the intersection
operations, the minimal impacts, and low cost may outweigh the intersection operations
considerations. Therefore, implementation of Alternative 1 is recommended during the 2012
spring construction season. Subsequent to implementation, intersection accident records
should be reviewed annually to confirm the effectiveness of the improvements. If the
improvements are not proving effective in reducing the number and severity of accidents at the
intersection, further measures should be implemented.
Restriction of left-turn movements from Cronin Road (Alternative 2) or installation of a traffic
signal (Alternative 3) would both further reduce the number of accidents at the Bay Road /
Cronin Road intersection. While construction of a roundabout (Alternative 4) would also reduce
the number and severity of accidents, due to the cost, this alternative is considered not feasible
at this time.
Construction of a raised median on the Cronin Road approach to Bay Road to restrict left-turns
and through movements from Cronin Road onto Bay Road would be an unpopular decision for
the general traveling public from the east. In addition, the construction of a raised median can
make snow maintenance efforts cumbersome. However, restricting the left-turn movements has
the potential to eliminate future crashes. The crash data shows that these movements account
for almost 70% of the 45 crashes experienced at the intersection over the last five years.
Drivers have alternate routes on the existing transportation network that have sufficient capacity
to accommodate the re-routed traffic.
April 2012 Bay Rd/Cronin Rd Intersection Evaluation
Page 18
Several warrants for traffic signal installation
are met and capacity analyses indicate that the
intersection would operate with improved levels
of service under traffic signal control while
generally maintaining existing traffic patterns.
However, installation of a traffic signal is
problematic due to the existing overhead
utilities at the intersection. The adjacent
photograph shows some of the overhead utility
conflicts at the intersection. Existing utility
poles would likely require relocation in order to
meet utility spacing requirements. Review of
available mapping indicates that the existing
utility poles appear to be outside of the existing
right-of-way meaning that funding for utility pole
relocation is the responsibility of the project
sponsor.
It is recommended that Alternative 1 be implemented at the Bay Road / Cronin Road
intersection during the spring/summer 2012 construction season to mitigate the existing
accident patterns at the intersection. After one year, the accident records should be reviewed to
identify the effectiveness of the re-striping effort. Growth in the corridor should also be
monitored, as the level of service analysis shows that capacity improvements should be
provided as growth in the corridor increases.
If the accident and traffic volume data indicate that additional mitigation measures are needed,
Alternative 2 or Alternative 3 could be implemented. At this time, implementation of Alternative
2 represents a logical, low-cost, minimal impact option to further address existing safety
concerns if Alternative 1 proves insufficient. However, installation of a traffic signal is also a
viable intersection improvement. Therefore, if additional improvements are needed, the County
and other involved parties will need to evaluate the potential physical impacts and costs versus
the accident reduction and capacity benefits. The evaluation should include:
Further definition of right-of-way impacts
Capacity analyses to confirm expected corridor growth
Cost estimate comparison with specific utility impacts
Funding sources and budgetary constraints
Existing overhead utility conflicts at the Bay Road /
Cronin Road intersection
Appendix A
Accident Evaluation
Transportation Assessment Bay Road/Cronin Road
Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York
Appendix B
Traffic Volume Data
Transportation Assessment Bay Road/Cronin Road
Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York
Appendix C
Signal Warrant Evaluation
Transportation Assessment Bay Road/Cronin Road
Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York
Introduction
The purpose of this evaluation is to summarize the results of a traffic signal warrant analysis at
the intersection of Bay Road and Cronin Road. The existing and future traffic conditions,
pedestrian characteristics, and physical characteristics of the intersection were compared to five
of the nine signal warrants contained in the National Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(MUTCD). The intersection currently operates under stop sign control on the eastbound and
westbound approaches. The northbound approach provides an exclusive right-turn lane and a
shared through/left-turn lane while the southbound approach provides an exclusive left-turn lane
and a shared through/right-turn lane. The eastbound and westbound approaches provide a
single lane for shared travel movements.
Description of Warrants
Warrant 1, Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume
– This warrant is satisfied if for any eight hours of an
average day the traffic volumes for Condition A or Condition B specified in Table 4C-1 of the
MUTCD are met for the major-street and the higher volume minor-street approach to the
intersection.
Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume
– This warrant is met when for any four hours of an
average day, points plotted on the graph presented on Figure 4C-1 of the MUTCD fall above the
appropriate curve.
Warrant 3, Peak Hour
– This warrant is met when for any one hour of an average day, points
plotted on the graph presented on Figure 4C-3 of the MUTCD fall above the appropriate curve.
Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume
– This warrant is satisfied when for any four hours of an average
day, points plotted on the graph presented on Figure 4C-5 of the MUTCD fall above the
appropriate curve. This warrant is also satisfied if for any one hour of an average day, points
plotted on the graph presented on Figure 4C-7 fall above the appropriate curve.
Warrant 7, Crash Experience
– This warrant is used when the severity and frequency of crashes
are the primary reason for installation of a traffic signal. This warrant is satisfied when adequate
trial of alternatives has failed to reduce the crash frequency, five or more crashes of a type
susceptible to correction by a traffic signal have occurred within the last 12 months, and when
traffic volumes at the intersection exceed the 80% thresholds identified in warrant 1 for eight
hours of an average day.
Warrants 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7 are analyzed in detail in the next section.
Detailed Signal Warrants Analysis
Warrants 1, 2, and 3
– Average hourly traffic volumes recorded by Creighton Manning and
turning movement counts serve as the basis for the signal warrant analysis. Table 1
summarizes the analysis of Warrants 1, 2, and 3. A checkmark under the “Signal Warrants
Met?” column indicates that the criteria are satisfied for that hour.
Table 1 – Summary of Signal Warrant Analysis
Existing 2012 Volumes Signal Warrants Met?
#1 Time Begin
(1-hour period) Bay Rd Cronin Rd Cond. A Cond. B #2 #3
7:00 AM 786 89
8:00 AM 1,094 105
9:00 AM 1,009 102
10:00 AM 1,144 97
11:00 AM 1,168 97
12:00 PM 1,347 128
1:00 PM 1,242 125
2:00 PM 1,040 122
3:00 PM 1,438 146
4:00 PM 1,272 112
5:00 PM 1,151 115
6:00 PM 594 64
7:00 PM 481 39
8:00 PM 449 29
9:00 PM 264 29
One Lane Major Street 500 750 Required
Volumes One Lane Minor Street 150 75 See Figure
4C-1 See Figure
4C-4
Overall Warrant Met? No Yes Yes
Yes
Table 1 shows that the traffic volumes at the intersection meet the signal warrant thresholds for
installation of a traffic signal for the eight-hour, four-hour and peak hour scenarios.
Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume
– Review of the signal warrant criteria indicates that a minimum
of 107 pedestrians crossing the major street per hour is needed to satisfy criteria A and that a
minimum of 133 pedestrians crossing the major street per hour is needed to satisfy criteria B.
The corresponding vehicular volumes are 1,100 and 1,450 vehicles on the major street,
respectively. Review of the traffic volume data shows that only one pedestrian was observed
crossing the street during the AM peak hour while 7 pedestrians were observed crossing the
street during the PM peak hour. Based upon the available data, the pedestrian and vehicle
volumes at this intersection do not meet thresholds and the warrant is not satisfied.
Warrant 7, Crash Experience
– Review of the crash data at the Bay Rd/Cronin Rd intersections
shows that there were 45 accidents reported over the last six years, eleven of which occurred
within the last 12 months. The 45 reported accidents included 31 right-angle, 8 rear end, 5 left-
turn, and one overtaking accident. The right-angle, rear-end and left-turn accidents are
susceptible to correction by a traffic signal. However, installation of a traffic signal based upon
the crash experience warrant requires “adequate trial of alternatives with satisfactory
observance and enforcement has failed to reduce the crash frequency”.
Recommendation
The above analysis shows that the existing traffic conditions at the Bay Road/Cronin Road
intersection meet the traffic signal warrant criteria for Warrants 1, 2, and 3. Therefore, a traffic
signal should be considered for installation at this intersection.
Figure 4C-1
Four-Hour Vehicular Volume Warrant
Source: Federal MUTCD
0
100 200 300 400
500
600 700 800
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 Major Street-Total of Both Approaches-Vehicles Per Hour (VPH)
Minor Street Higher-Volume Approach-VPH
1 lane artery approaches and1 lane side road approaches
Figure 4C-3
Peak Hour Volume Warrant
Source: Federal MUTCD
0
100 200 300
400
500 600 700
800
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 Major Street-Total of Both Approaches-Vehicles Per Hour (VPH)
Minor Street Higher-Volume Approach-VPH
1 lane artery approaches and 1 lane side road approaches
Appendix D
Level of Service Analysis
Transportation Assessment Bay Road/Cronin Road
Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York
LOS Definitions
The following is an excerpt from the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual
(HCM).
Level of Service for Signalized Intersections
Level of service for a signalized intersection is define d in terms of control delay, which is a measure of
driver discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption, an d increased travel time. The delay experienced by a
motorist is made up of a number of factors that relate to control, geometrics, traffic, and incidents. Total
delay is the difference between the travel time actual ly experienced and the reference travel time that
would result during base conditions: in the absence of traffic control, geometric delay, any incidents, and
any other vehicles. Specifically, LOS criteria for traffic signals are stated in terms of the average control
delay per vehicle, typically for a 15-minute analysis period. Delay is a complex measure and depends on
a number of variables, including the quality of progress ion, the cycle length, the green ratio, and the v/c
ratio for the lane group. Levels of service are defined to represent r easonable ranges in control delay.
LOS A describes operations with low control delay, up to 10 s/veh. This LOS occurs when progression is
extremely favorable and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Many vehicles do not stop at all.
Short cycle lengths may tend to contribute to low delay.
LOS B describes operations with control delay greater than 10 and up to 20 s/veh. This level generally
occurs with good progression, short cy cle lengths, or both. More vehicles stop than with LOS A, causing
higher levels of delay.
LOS C describes operations with contro l delay greater than 20 and up to 35 s/veh. These higher delays
may result from only fair progression, longer cycle l engths, or both. Individual cycle failures may begin to
appear at this level. Cycle failure occurs when a given green phase does not serve queued vehicles, and
overflows occur. The number of v ehicles stopping is significant at this level, though many still pass
through the intersection without stopping.
LOS D describes operations with contro l delay greater than 35 and up to 55 s/veh. At LOS D, the
influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of
unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, and high v/ c ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion
of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable.
LOS E describes operations with control delay greater th an 55 and up to 80 s/veh. These high delay
values generally indicate poor progression, long cycl e lengths, and high v/c ratios. Individual cycle
failures are frequent.
LOS F describes operations with control delay in ex cess of 80 s/veh. This level, considered
unacceptable to most drivers, often occurs with oversa turation, that is, when arrival flow rates exceed the
capacity of lane groups. It may also occur at high v/c ratios with many individual cycle failures. Poor
progression and long cycle lengths may also be contribute significantly to high delay levels.
Average control delay and queue length at roundabout controlled intersections are calculated using
SIDRA Intersection. The physical geometry such as entry lane width and approach flare, and traffic
volume at the roundabout are factor s that influence the intersection’s performance. The average delay
reported using SIRA Intersection is based on the HCM Method of Delay for Level-of-Service.
Level of Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections
Four measures are used to describe the performance of two-way stop controlled intersections: control
delay, delay to major street through vehicles, queue l ength, and v/c ratio. The primary measure that is
used to provide an estimate of LOS is control delay. This measure can be estimated for any movement
on the minor (i.e., stop-controlled) street. By summing delay estimates for individual movements, a delay
estimate for each minor street movement and mino r street approach can be achieved. The level of
service criteria is given in Exhibit 17-2/22.
For all-way stop controlled (AWSC) intersections, the average control delay (in seconds per vehicle) is
used as the primary measure of performance. Control delay is the increased time of travel for a vehicle
approaching and passing through an AWSC intersection, compared with a free-flow vehicle if it were not
required to slow or stop at the intersection.
Exhibit 17-2/22: Level-of-Service Crit eria for Stop Controlled Intersections
Level of Service Control Delay (sec/veh)
A < 10.0 B >10.0 and < 15.0 C >15.0 and < 25.0 D >25.0 and < 35.0 E >35.0 and < 50.0 F >50.0
2012 AM Peak Hour
Intersection 2012 Existing Alt 1 Re-striping Alt 2 Re-striping & WB restriction
Alt 3 Re-striping & Signal
Alt 4 Roundabout
Bay Rd/Cronin Rd Chiropractor EB
Cronin Rd WB
Bay Rd NB
Cronin Rd SB LTR
LTR
LT
R
L
TR B (11.0)
F (**)
A (0.4)
A (0.0)
B (13.0)
A (0.0)
Chiropractor EB
Cronin Rd WB
Bay Rd NB
Cronin Rd SB LTR
L(TR)
L
L B (11.0)
F (**)
A (8.3)
B (13.1) B (11.0)
E (42.7)
A (8.3)
B (13.1)
Chiropractor EB
Cronin Rd WB Bay Rd NB
Cronin Rd SB LTR
LTR
L
TR
L
TR C (22.4)
C (25.9) A (2.3)
C (20.3) A (7.3)
A (3.7)
Overalll
B (16.5) Chiropractor EB
Cronin Rd WB Bay Rd NB
Cronin Rd SB LTR
LTR
LTR
LTR A (5.8)
D (39.0) A (6.5)
A (6.4)
Overall A (9.3)
Bay Rd/Glenwood Ave/Lowe’s Dwy Glenwood Ave EB
Lowe’s Dwy WB
Bay Rd NB
Bay Rd SB LTR
L,
LT
R
L
T,TR
L
T,TR E (56.6)
E (56.8)
E (56.0)
D (50.6)
C (20.5)
C (28.4)
C (21.8)
C (26.7) E (56.6)
D (56.8)
D (56.0)
D (50.6)
C (20.4)
C (28.4)
C (21.8)
C (26.3)
Overall
D (37.6) D (37.8)
Bay Rd/Quaker Rd Quaker Rd EB
Quaker Rd WB
Bay Rd NB
Bay Rd SB
L
T,TR
L
T,T
R
L
T,TR
L
T,TR B (14.3)
C (21.8)
B (15.8)
C (24.6) B (12.2)
C (24.0)
C (33.1)
C (22.0)
C (30.4) B (14.3)
C (21.4)
B (15.6)
C (24.7) B (12.3)
C (24.1)
C (33.1)
C (22.4)
C (30.5)
Overall
C (23.7) C (23.6)
Glenwood Ave/Quaker Rd Quaker Rd EB
Quaker Rd WB
Glenwood Ave NB
Glenwood Ave SB L
T,TR
L
T,TR
L
TR
L
TR B (18.7)
B (18.2)
C (20.8)
C (21.8)
C (25.8)
C (28.8)
C (26.3)
C (27.3) B (19.0)
B (18.4)
C (20.5)
C (21.8)
C (26.1)
C (29.1)
C (26.6)
C (27.5)
Overalll
C (21.1) C (21.1)
S = Signalized, R = Roundabout, TW = Two-Way Stop intersection.EB, WB, NB, SB = Eastbound, Westbound,
Northbound, Southbound
L, T, R = Left-turn, Through, Right-turn movements
X (Y.Y) = Level of Service (average delay per vehicle in seconds)
2022 AM Peak Hour
Intersection 2022 Existing Alt 1 Re-striping Alt 2 Re-striping & WB restriction
Alt 3 Re-striping & Signal
Alt 4 Roundabout
Bay Rd/Cronin Rd Chiropractor EB
Cronin Rd WB
Bay Rd NB
Cronin Rd SB LTR
LTR
LT
R
L
TR B (13.3)
F (**)
A (9.0)
A (0.0)
C (23.8)
A (0.0)
Chiropractor EB
Cronin Rd WB
Bay Rd NB
Cronin Rd SB LTR
L(TR)
L
L B (13.3)
F (**)
A (9.0)
C (24.4) B (13.3)
F (**)
A (9.0)
C (24.4)
Chiropractor EB
Cronin Rd WB Bay Rd NB
Cronin Rd SB LTR
LTR
L
TR
L
TR C (24.3)
F (131) A (1.8)
F (142) A (8.3)
A (4.4)
Overalll
F (103) Chiropractor EB
Cronin Rd WB Bay Rd NB
Cronin Rd SB LTR
LTR
LTR
LTR A (8.4)
F (262)
F (118) A (6.4)
Overall F (98.2)
Bay Rd/Glenwood Ave/Lowe’s Dwy Glenwood Ave EB
Lowe’s Dwy WB
Bay Rd NB
Bay Rd SB LTR
L,
LT
R
L
T,TR
L
T,TR F (275)
E (57.2)
E (56.3)
D (50.5) B (16.6)
C (25.8)
B (18.9)
C (24.1) F (**)
E (57.2)
E (56.3)
D (50.5) B (16.4)
C (25.8)
B (18.9)
C (23.7)
Overall
F (103) F (105)
Bay Rd/Quaker Rd Quaker Rd EB
Quaker Rd WB
Bay Rd NB
Bay Rd SB
L
T,TR
L
T,T
R
L
T,TR
L
T,TR C (27.8)
C (27.5)
B (19.9)
C (30.8) B (15.0)
C (30.5)
D (44.7)
C (28.9)
D (37.2) C (28.0)
C (26.9)
B (19.6)
C (31.2) B (15.2)
C (30.9)
D (45.5)
C (29.1)
D (37.4)
Overall
C (30.6) C (30.6)
Glenwood Ave/Quaker Rd Quaker Rd EB
Quaker Rd WB
Glenwood Ave NB
Glenwood Ave SB L
T,TR
L
T,TR
L
TR
L
TR D (37.0)
B (19.9)
C (25.8)
C (23.7)
C (30.3)
D (41.9)
C (30.4)
C (32.0) D (38.3)
C (20.1)
C (25.5)
C (23.7)
C (30.6)
D (42.8)
C (30.7)
C (32.2)
Overalll
C (26.0) C (26.2)
S = Signalized, R = Roundabout, TW = Two-Way Stop intersection.EB, WB, NB, SB = Eastbound, Westbound,
Northbound, Southbound
L, T, R = Left-turn, Through, Right-turn movements
X (Y.Y) = Level of Service (average delay per vehicle in seconds)
2012 Noon Peak Hour
Intersection 2012 Existing Alt 1 Re-striping Alt 2 Re-striping & WB restriction
Alt 3 Re-striping & Signal
Alt 4 Roundabout
Bay Rd/Cronin Rd Chiropractor EB
Cronin Rd WB
Bay Rd NB
Cronin Rd SB LTR
LTR
LT
R
L
TR B (14.5)
F (75.3)
A (0.0)
A (0.0)
A (9.0)
A (0.0)
Chiropractor EB
Cronin Rd WB
Bay Rd NB
Cronin Rd SB LTR
L(TR)
L
L B (14.5)
F (101)
A (9.3)
A (9.0) B (14.5)
B (12.7)
A (9.3)
A (9.0)
Chiropractor EB
Cronin Rd WB Bay Rd NB
Cronin Rd SB LTR
LTR
L
TR
L
TR B (15.6)
B (18.1) A (3.6)
A (6.1)
A (4.0)
B (10.7)
Overalll
A (9.2) Chiropractor EB
Cronin Rd WB Bay Rd NB
Cronin Rd SB LTR
LTR
LTR
LTR B (10.2)
B (12.4) A (6.1)
A (6.5)
Overall A (6.7)
Bay Rd/Glenwood Ave/Lowe’s Dwy Glenwood Ave EB
Lowe’s Dwy WB
Bay Rd NB
Bay Rd SB LTR
L,
LT
R
L
T,TR
L
T,TR C (27.0)
C (32.7)
C (32.6)
C (27.8)
B (17.5)
B (19.0)
B (15.5)
C (23.6) C (25.5)
C (31.6)
C (31.5)
C (26.9) B (17.3)
B (19.3)
B (15.9)
C (23.3)
Overall
C (23.5) C (23.0)
Bay Rd/Quaker Rd Quaker Rd EB
Quaker Rd WB
Bay Rd NB
Bay Rd SB
L
T,TR
L
T,T
R
L
T,TR
L
T,TR C (29.8)
C (27.1)
B (19.8)
C (30.8) B (13.5)
C (30.5)
D (40.0)
C (27.6)
D (35.4) C (31.6)
C (26.1)
B (19.4)
C (30.9) B (13.5)
C (31.2)
D (40.9)
C (28.2)
D (36.0)
Overall
C (30.0) C (30.1)
Glenwood Ave/Quaker Rd Quaker Rd EB
Quaker Rd WB
Glenwood Ave NB
Glenwood Ave SB L
T,TR
L
T,TR
L
TR
L
TR C (28.6)
C (22.2)
C (28.6)
C (26.3)
D (35.1)
F (94.9)
C (31.1)
D (40.1) C (28.6)
C (21.9)
C (27.9)
C (26.4)
D (35.4)
F (98.2)
C (31.6)
D (39.0)
Overalll
C (32.3) C (32.3)
S = Signalized, R = Roundabout, TW = Two-Way Stop intersection.EB, WB, NB, SB = Eastbound, Westbound,
Northbound, Southbound
L, T, R = Left-turn, Through, Right-turn movements
X (Y.Y) = Level of Service (average delay per vehicle in seconds)
2022 Noon Peak Hour
Intersection 2022 Existing Alt 1 Re-striping Alt 2 Re-striping & WB restriction
Alt 3 Re-striping & Signal
Alt 4 Roundabout
Bay Rd/Cronin Rd Chiropractor EB
Cronin Rd WB
Bay Rd NB
Cronin Rd SB LTR
LTR
LT
R
L
TR C (21.1)
F (**)
A (0.0)
A (0.0)
B (10.4)
A (0.0)
Chiropractor EB
Cronin Rd WB
Bay Rd NB
Cronin Rd SB LTR
L(TR)
L
L C (21.1)
F (**)
B (11.0)
B (10.5) C (21.1)
C (18.6)
B (11.0)
B (10.5)
Chiropractor EB
Cronin Rd WB Bay Rd NB
Cronin Rd SB LTR
LTR
L
TR
L
TR C (24.8)
C (28.7) A (2.1)
A (6.2)
A (3.2)
B (16.0)
Overalll
B (12.6) Chiropractor EB
Cronin Rd WB Bay Rd NB
Cronin Rd SB LTR
LTR
LTR
LTR C (25.2)
B (15.0) A (6.4)
A (9.0)
Overall A (8.4)
Bay Rd/Glenwood Ave/Lowe’s Dwy Glenwood Ave EB
Lowe’s Dwy WB
Bay Rd NB
Bay Rd SB LTR
L,
LT
R
L
T,TR
L
T,TR D (38.5)
D (38.6)
D (38.6)
C (32.7)
C (24.0)
C (23.3)
B (18.3)
E (56.8) D (38.5)
D (38.6)
D (38.6)
C (32.7)
C (24.0)
C (23.3)
B (18.3)
D (42.4)
Overall
D (42.8) D (35.8)
Bay Rd/Quaker Rd Quaker Rd EB
Quaker Rd WB
Bay Rd NB
Bay Rd SB
L
T,TR
L
T,T
R
L
T,TR
L
T,TR F (88.7)
C (29.2)
C (32.1)
D (36.1) B (15.6)
E (66.5)
E (62.1) F (96.4)
E (55.8) F (95.0)
C (28.5)
C (31.0)
D (36.5) B (15.4)
E (70.6)
E (64.9) F (87.1)
D (53.9)
Overall
D (47.8) D (47.4)
Glenwood Ave/Quaker Rd Quaker Rd EB
Quaker Rd WB
Glenwood Ave NB
Glenwood Ave SB L
T,TR
L
T,TR
L
TR
L
TR E (62.6)
C (31.8)
C (33.4)
C (34.5)
D (40.1)
F (**)
C (32.8) F (92.3) E (63.9)
C (31.9)
C (33.3)
D (36.7)
D (40.4)
F (**)
C (33.0) E (75.6)
Overalll
E (58.2) E (57.2)
S = Signalized, R = Roundabout, TW = Two-Way Stop intersection.EB, WB, NB, SB = Eastbound, Westbound,
Northbound, Southbound
L, T, R = Left-turn, Through, Right-turn movements
X (Y.Y) = Level of Service (average delay per vehicle in seconds)
2012 PM Peak Hour
Intersection 2012 Existing Alt 1 Re-striping Alt 2 Re-striping & WB restriction
Alt 3 Re-striping & Signal
Alt 4 Roundabout
Bay Rd/Cronin Rd Chiropractor EB
Cronin Rd WB
Bay Rd NB
Cronin Rd SB LTR
LTR
LT
R
L
TR C (19.0)
F (80.9)
A (0.1)
A (0.0)
A (9.1)
A (0.0)
Chiropractor EB
Cronin Rd WB
Bay Rd NB
Cronin Rd SB LTR
L(TR)
L
L C (19.4)
F (124)
A (9.2)
A (9.1) C (19.4)
B (12.9)
A (9.2)
A (9.1)
Chiropractor EB
Cronin Rd WB Bay Rd NB
Cronin Rd SB LTR
LTR
L
TR
L
TR C (22.9)
C (27.0) A (2.1)
A (4.6)
A (2.4)
A (5.3)
Overalll
A (6.9) Chiropractor EB
Cronin Rd WB Bay Rd NB
Cronin Rd SB LTR
LTR
LTR
LTR C (20.7)
B (15.8) A (6.2)
A (8.6)
Overall A (8.2)
Bay Rd/Glenwood Ave/Lowe’s Dwy Glenwood Ave EB
Lowe’s Dwy WB
Bay Rd NB
Bay Rd SB LTR
L,
LT
R
L
T,TR
L
T,TR C (26.4)
C (31.9)
C (31.7)
C (27.2)
B (17.4)
B (19.3)
B (15.5)
C (22.9) C (24.8)
C (30.8)
C (30.6)
C (26.2) B (17.1)
B (19.6)
B (15.8)
C (22.4)
Overall
C (22.8) C (22.3)
Bay Rd/Quaker Rd Quaker Rd EB
Quaker Rd WB
Bay Rd NB
Bay Rd SB
L
T,TR
L
T,T
R
L
T,TR
L
T,TR D (42.7)
C (26.0)
B (19.7)
C (32.7) B (14.6)
D (36.2)
D (45.0)
C (31.9)
D (38.9) D (44.4)
C (25.0)
B (19.2)
C (32.8) B (14.5)
D (37.2)
D (46.7)
C (32.4)
D (39.5)
Overall
C (32.9) C (33.1)
Glenwood Ave/Quaker Rd Quaker Rd EB
Quaker Rd WB
Glenwood Ave NB
Glenwood Ave SB L
T,TR
L
T,TR
L
TR
L
TR D (38.3)
C (27.5)
C (30.0)
C (30.5)
D (38.4)
E (63.0)
C (32.0) E (56.9) D (38.7)
C (27.4)
C (29.6)
C (31.9)
D (38.2)
E (62.4)
C (32.2)
D (50.4)
Overalll
C (34.7) C (34.4)
S = Signalized, R = Roundabout, TW = Two-Way Stop intersection.EB, WB, NB, SB = Eastbound, Westbound,
Northbound, Southbound
L, T, R = Left-turn, Through, Right-turn movements
X (Y.Y) = Level of Service (average delay per vehicle in seconds)
2022 PM Peak Hour
Intersection 2022 Existing Alt 1 Re-striping Alt 2 Re-striping & WB restriction
Alt 3 Re-striping & Signal
Alt 4 Roundabout
Bay Rd/Cronin Rd Chiropractor EB
Cronin Rd WB
Bay Rd NB
Cronin Rd SB LTR
LTR
LT
R
L
TR E (45.5)
F (**)
A (0.2)
A (0.0)
B (10.6)
A (0.0)
Chiropractor EB
Cronin Rd WB
Bay Rd NB
Cronin Rd SB LTR
L(TR)
L
L F (51.3)
F (**)
B (10.7)
B (10.8) F (51.3)
C (19.1)
B (10.7)
B (10.8)
Chiropractor EB
Cronin Rd WB Bay Rd NB
Cronin Rd SB LTR
LTR
L
TR
L
TR C (22.5)
C (32.2) A (2.5)
A 97.7) A (3.1)
B (13.7)
Overalll
B (12.4) Chiropractor EB
Cronin Rd WB Bay Rd NB
Cronin Rd SB LTR
LTR
LTR
LTR
Overall
Bay Rd/Glenwood Ave/Lowe’s Dwy Glenwood Ave EB
Lowe’s Dwy WB
Bay Rd NB
Bay Rd SB LTR
L,
LT
R
L
T,TR
L
T,TR D (36.1)
D (38.5)
D (38.1)
C (32.5)
C (26.7)
C (24.3)
B (18.7)
D (49.3) D (36.1)
D (38.5)
D (38.1)
C 932.5) C (26.7)
C (24.3)
B (18.7)
D (36.5)
Overall
D (38.5) C (32.6)
Bay Rd/Quaker Rd Quaker Rd EB
Quaker Rd WB
Bay Rd NB
Bay Rd SB
L
T,TR
L
T,T
R
L
T,TR
L
T,TR F (134.)
C (28.4)
C (24.8)
D (37.2) B (15.4)
F (114)
F (103)
F (85.2)
E (63.2) F (143)
C (27.7)
C (24.1)
D (38.0) B (15.1)
F (120)
F (109)
E (75.2)
E (58.7)
Overall
E (58.7) E (58.9)
Glenwood Ave/Quaker Rd Quaker Rd EB
Quaker Rd WB
Glenwood Ave NB
Glenwood Ave SB L
T,TR
L
T,TR
L
TR
L
TR E (65.2)
D (38.4)
D (41.4) E (73.9)
D (40.8)
F (138)
C (33.1) F (**) E (65.2)
D (38.4)
D (41.4) F (84.5)
D (40.8)
F (138)
C (33.1) F (165)
Overalll
E (78.0) E (76.9)
S = Signalized, R = Roundabout, TW = Two-Way Stop intersection.EB, WB, NB, SB = Eastbound, Westbound,
Northbound, Southbound
L, T, R = Left-turn, Through, Right-turn movements
X (Y.Y) = Level of Service (average delay per vehicle in seconds)
Appendix E
Planning Level Cost Estimates
Transportation Assessment Bay Road/Cronin Road
Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York