The following text has been provided to facilitate screen reader technology. For the full report, including figures, graphics, and appendices, please refer to the pdf version.
Harrison Avenue/Main Street
Intersection Evaluation
Draft Report
Prepared for:
Adirondack | Glens Falls Transportation
Council
11 South Street, Suite 203
Glens Falls, New York 12801
And
Village of South Glens Falls
May 2026 46 Saratoga Avenue
South Glens Falls NY 12803
Harrison Ave. & Main St. Intersection Evaluation A/GFTC and the Village of South Glens Falls
Harrison Avenue/Main Street Intersection Evaluation
May 2026
Prepared for:
Adirondack |Glens Falls Transportation Council
11 South Street, Suite 203
Glens Falls, New York 12801
And
Village of South Glens Falls
46 Saratoga Avenue
South Glens Falls NY 12803
Prepared by
Barton & Loguidice, D.P.C.
10 Airline Drive, Suite 200
Albany, New York 12205
1.0 INTRODUCTION
On behalf of the Village of South Glens Falls and the Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation Council
(A/GFTC), Barton & Loguidice has prepared this Intersection Evaluation Report to assess potential
improvement opportunities at the Harrison Avenue/Main Street intersection in the Village of South
Glens Falls, New York. Located one block east of Saratoga Avenue (US 9), the intersection is in close
proximity to educational and civic facilities, including Oliver W. Winch Middle School, Harrison
Elementary School, and the Moreau Community Center, which generate regular pedestrian activity
throughout the project area on the existing sidewalk system. The Village and its residents have
expressed concerns regarding overall safety at this location due to perceived traffic volumes,
intersection operations, and pedestrian and bicycle crossing activity. This report presents an evaluation
of existing conditions, traffic operations, crash history, public outreach efforts, and potential
improvement alternatives for the Harrison Avenue/Main Street intersection.
2.0 INVENTORY OF EXISTING CONDITIONS
A site visit to the project area was conducted on December 1, 2025 to inventory and document existing
conditions. The inventory included documentation of the existing signage, striping, pavement and travel
lane widths, objects that may restrict sight distance, and existing pedestrian features. Additionally, video
cameras were deployed for one 48-hour weekday period (November 12, 2025 to November 14, 2025) to
identify pedestrian and traffic patterns, safety concerns, and vehicular conflicts.
2.1. Harrison Avenue/Main Street Intersection – Roadway and Traffic
Characteristics
The Harrison Avenue/Main Street intersection is a four-way intersection with stop control on
the minor street approaches (Harrison
Avenue) and uncontrolled on Main
Street. Both roadways are owned and
maintained by the Village of South
Glens Falls and are subject to a Village-
wide speed limit of 30 miles per hour
(mph). The observed 85th percentile
speed was 35 mph.
Harrison Avenue is classified as a Local
Urban Minor Arterial and carries an
Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) of
approximately 2,532 vehicles per day
(vpd). Main Street is also classified as a Local Urban Minor Arterial and carries an AADT of
approximately 5,128 vpd. Harrison Avenue has a curb-to-curb width of approximately 26 feet
east of the intersection and approximately 22 feet west of the intersection, with sidewalks on
both sides and no on-street parking permitted. Main Street has a curb-to-curb width of
approximately 40 feet, sidewalks on both sides, and on-street parking permitted on both sides.
Main Street was recently paved, and new centerline pavement markings were installed through
the intersection.
2.2. Roadside Conditions
Sidewalks are present along both Harrison Avenue and Main Street, providing pedestrian access
to schools, residences, and businesses within the corridor, including Stewart’s Gas Station to the
north, Oliver W. Winch Middle School and Harrison Elementary School to the east, and nearby
other commercial properties and apartment buildings. The general setting within the immediate
vicinity of the intersection is residential with single and multi-family homes. The curb ramps at
the intersection are not ADA compliant; lacking detectable warning pads, the ramps are not
flush with the pavement at three of the four ramps.
2.3. Existing Signage and Pavement Markings
Pavement markings within the vicinity of the intersection are generally in fair condition. The
centerline full-barrier pavement marking is in good condition as this was replaced over the
winter of 2026 following the road was paving in the fall of 2025; however, there are no outer
edge line or parking lane markings. The lack of edge line or parking lane markings could make
the vehicular traveled way appear wider to
drivers; wider travel lanes can sometimes
result in higher vehicle speeds.
During the site visit, existing crosswalk
markings on Main Street were observed to
be faded and not continuous across the
street, as shown in Figure 2-4. However,
these same crosswalk markings were
repainted in January or February. “No
Parking” signs are installed on Harrison
Avenue approximately 10 feet from the
“Stop” sign. On Main Street, pedestrian
warning signs with diagonal downward-pointing arrows are installed in advance of each marked
crosswalk, consistent with the 2023 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) shown
in Figure 2-5 and 2-6. “No Parking” signs are not installed on either side of Main Street
approaching the intersection.
2.4. Vehicle Crash Data
Crash data was obtained from the NYSDOT CLEAR website for the intersection from December
18, 2022 to December 18, 2025 depicted in Table 2-1. Over this timeframe, no
pedestrian/vehicular incidents or crashes associated with the pedestrian crossings were
reported. Overall, 8 vehicle/vehicle crashes were reported at this intersection and included
various types of crashes such as right angle and rear-end incidents. Patterns such as rolling stop,
all-way stop confusion, and sight distance issues are noted on the table.
2.5. Sight Distance
An intersection sight distance evaluation was completed following the procedures outlined in
AASHTO’s A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (2018). Mainline stopping sight
distance was also evaluated to assess stopping capability along Main Street. Results, including
available sight distance for all movements, are provided in Table 2-2 based on the observed 85th
percentile speed of 35 mph.
Sight distances along Main Street exceed recommended minimum values due to the straight
alignment and level terrain. However, turning movements from Harrison Avenue fall below the
minimum requirements, primarily due to utility poles and vegetation within the Main Street
right-of-way. See section 5.3.2 for recommendations to improve the available sight distance
when turning from Harrison Ave. Additional details are provided in Section 5.3.2.
3.0 SITE ASSESSMENT AND OBSERVATIONS
The following notes and observations are based on our site visit to the area and a review of the
video data collected by traffic cameras.
1. Vehicles traveling eastbound or westbound on Harrison Avenue frequently stop
beyond the stop bar, often stopping on the crosswalk. While this positioning
improves sight distance for drivers, it obstructs pedestrian access to the sidewalk
and crossing area (see Figure 3-1).
2. Field observations indicated that vehicles rarely yield to pedestrians despite the
presence of a crosswalk. A crossing guard is provided during school hours to assist
students, but this support is limited to specific times, typically from 7:00-7:30 AM
and 2:00-2:30 PM, and is not available during evenings, weekends, or non-school
days. A summary of the interview with the crossing guard in section 4 below. While
vehicles are required to yield to pedestrians when they are crossing at an
intersection in an unmarked crosswalk, that requirement may not be apparent to all
drivers (see Figure 3-2). It should be noted that when field work by B&L staff was
first performed, there were no crosswalk markings across Main St. The crosswalk
markings were added in the winter of 2026 and have since improved driver
compliance in yielding to pedestrians.
3. Vehicles stopping on Harrison Avenue often make rolling stops rather than coming
to a full stop, sometimes stopping on or beyond the crosswalk, likely due to a lack of
available sight distance.
4. Nighttime lighting at the intersection is limited. Existing lighting is not focused on
the crosswalks, particularly on the east leg, reducing pedestrian visibility after dark.
5. Observed pedestrian activity at the intersections was minimal, with a total of seven
pedestrians noted during the morning school peak period 7:00–7:30 AM and three
pedestrians observed during the afternoon period 2:00–2:30 PM.
6. Bicycle and other micromobility traffic (including e-bikes and scooters) were
observed during the study period primarily within the roadway travel lanes. Under
New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law, Class 1 and Class 2 e-bikes and e-scooters
are generally permitted to operate on roadways with posted speed limits of 30 mph
or less and are subject to the same rights and duties as bicyclists (with the exception
that e-scooters are not permitted to operate on sidewalks). As such, their presence
within the travel lanes at this location is legally permissible, particularly in the
absence of dedicated bicycle facilities. From a safety perspective, mixed traffic
operations may increase exposure to conflicts with motor vehicles, particularly at
intersections, and may be sensitive to traffic speed, volume, and right-of-way
interactions associated with turning movements between modes, which are
important considerations in evaluating potential multimodal accommodations.
7. Multiple instances were observed where vehicles failed to stop for pedestrians
waiting at curb ramps. Drivers typically yielded only when pedestrians were already
within the crosswalk.
4.0 STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH
B&L contacted the school crossing guard who works at this intersection when school is in
session from 7-7:30 AM and 2-2:30 PM. Feedback indicated that pedestrian activity is
concentrated during brief morning and afternoon periods, 7:15-7:20 AM and 2:10-2:20 PM on
school days. The guard noted that observed safety concerns are largely related to driver
behavior, including speeding and misjudged gaps in traffic. The crossing guard also noted that
the primary concern involves drivers, particularly parents during pick-up and drop-off times,
who are often in a hurry and not fully attentive. The crossing guard did not identify a clear need
for a traffic signal or all-way stop control and noted that recent crosswalk striping has improved
conditions.
5.0 CONCEPT ALTERNATIVES
5.1. Standards
The proposed design layouts and recommendations are based on the following standards:
NYSDOT Highway Design Manual (HDM)
AASHTO Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets 2018, 7th ed.
National Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), 2023, 11th ed.
NYS Supplement to the MUTCD, 2010
National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) Urban Street Design Guide
5.2. Intersection Control Alternatives
The following alternatives were assessed for their applicability at this intersection:
1. All-Way Stop Control (AWSC) -Recommended Alternative
2. Enhanced Existing Intersection Control
3. Traffic Signal Control
The MUTCD provides guidance on the application of AWSC and Traffic Signal Control, including
associated warrants. Evaluation of these control types requires consideration of existing
operational performance and safety conditions, as well as the potential for improvement. The
satisfaction of one or more MUTCD warrants does not, in itself, justify installation. Final
determination should be based on the results of the warrant analysis in conjunction with
engineering judgment and site-specific conditions.
Each of the three alternatives is described in detail in the following sections.
5.2.1. Alternative #1 – All-Way Stop Control (AWSC): Recommended Alternative
AWSC requires all approaches to an intersection to stop, with right-of-way assigned
based on vehicle arrival sequence. This control promotes orderly and predictable traffic
movements.
An AWSC warrant analysis was conducted for the intersection and indicates that the
criteria for two MUTCD warrants are met: Crash Experience and Restricted Sight
Distance. Based on this evaluation and existing operating conditions, implementation of
AWSC is justified and expected to improve overall intersection safety.
AWSC is anticipated to reduce both the frequency and severity of crashes by requiring
all vehicles to stop prior to entering the intersection. It also improves operational
consistency along the corridor, as a nearby intersection currently operates under all-way
stop control. Additionally, AWSC mitigates sight distance limitations by requiring
vehicles to stop at a common location, improving visibility between approaches. The full
warrant analysis is provided in Appendix A.
AWSC is recommended and, at a minimum, should include the following elements:
1. Install STOP signs (MUTCD R1-1) on the Main Street approaches to establish
AWSC.
2. Install ALL WAY plaques (MUTCD R1-3P) beneath each STOP sign
3. Install 18-inch-wide stop bars on the northbound and southbound Main Street
approaches. Due to the proximity of adjacent schools and school bus activity,
stop bar placement should account for school bus turning movements to avoid
operational conflicts.
Estimated Cost = $1,000
Additional safety and conspicuity enhancements to the AWSC intersection may include:
1. Solar-powered LED-enhanced STOP signs
2. High-visibility crosswalks
3. Sight distance improvements
4. Improved lighting
5. Traffic Calming Bump Outs/Curb Extensions or Install “No Parking” signs
These enhancements, as shown in Figure 5-1, are further detailed in section 5.3.
Important to note about this intersection is that the existing diagonal crosswalk is
replaced in Figure 5-1 with a standardized four crosswalk layout, this is further discussed
in section 5.3.1.
5.2.2. Alternative #2 – Enhanced Existing Intersection Control -(Recommended if AWSC
is not pursued)
Under this alternative, the intersection would continue operating under the existing
control configuration, with stop control on the eastbound and westbound approaches of
Harrison Avenue and free-flow conditions on Main Street.
While this alternative does not provide the same level of operational control or safety
benefit as AWSC, targeted improvements could be implemented to enhance
intersection safety and visibility. These measures, described further in Section 5.3,
include:
1. High-visibility crosswalks
2. Sight distance improvements
3. Improved lighting
4. Traffic Calming Bump Outs/Curb Extensions or Install “No Parking” signs
5. Pedestrian warning devices
o Rectangular Flashing Beacons (RRFBs)
o Pedestrian warning signage
5.2.3. Alternative #3 – Traffic Signal (Not Warranted or Recommended)
The intersection does not meet any of the nine MUTCD traffic signal warrants, which
evaluate the need for signalization based on factors such as traffic volumes, delay,
pedestrian activity, and crash history.
The analysis indicates that traffic volumes and delays are insufficient to justify
signalization, pedestrian activity is limited, and crash patterns do not demonstrate a
need for a traffic signal. Based on these findings and the detailed warrant analysis
provided in Appendix B, installation of a traffic signal is not recommended at this time.
5.3. Intersection Safety Enhancements
The following additional enhancements were evaluated to supplement the intersection control
alternatives and improve pedestrian visibility, driver awareness, and overall intersection safety.
5.3.1. High-Visibility Crosswalks (Applicable to Alternatives #1 and #2)
To increase driver awareness of the crossing locations, high-visibility crosswalks should
be installed on Main Street and Harrison Avenue as indicated in Figure 5-1 above. The
crosswalk should be “NYSDOT Type LS” that includes parallel stripes and ladder bars to
enhance visibility as depicted in Figure 5-2. The pavement markings should be Epoxy
paint with glass beads for retro-reflectivity or retro-reflective thermoplastic pavement
markings.
The MUTCD permits diagonal crosswalk markings primarily at signalized intersections
with exclusive pedestrian phases. In addition, Type LS markings discourage diagonal
pedestrian crossings. Therefore, it is recommended that the existing diagonal crosswalk
be replaced with standard perpendicular crosswalks on all four approaches.
Estimated Cost = $5,000
5.3.2. Sight Distance Improvements (Optional for Alternative #1; Applicable to
Alternative #2)
Sight distance limitations at the intersection are primarily caused by vegetation and a
utility pole on the eastbound Harrison Avenue approach. Vehicles turning left from this
approach experience restricted visibility to the right due to the pole, which should be
relocated to meet minimum sight distance requirements. Coordination with the utility
owner will be required, and relocation costs are typically borne by the utility.
In addition, vegetation and trees located between the curb and sidewalk within
approximately 250 feet of the intersection (Figure 5-4) restrict sight distance for vehicles
on the westbound Harrison Avenue approach. Removal or trimming of this vegetation is
recommended to improve visibility for both left- and right-turning movements onto
Main Street.
Estimated Cost (Vegetation Removal) = $15,000
5.3.3. Improved Lighting (Applicable to Alternatives #1 and #2)
Existing intersection lighting is limited to a single fixture on the southwest utility pole,
which primarily illuminates the northwest portion of the Main Street crosswalk. The
remaining crosswalk areas, particularly on the east leg, are inadequately lit, reducing
pedestrian visibility during nighttime conditions. Video observations collected over a 48hour
weekday period (November 12–14, 2025) indicate that the existing fixture was not
operational during the monitoring period. To improve visibility and enhance pedestrian
safety, installation of an additional streetlight on the existing utility pole is
recommended to provide more uniform intersection illumination.
Estimated Cost = $ 5,000 per fixture
5.3.4. Bump Outs/Curb Extensions (Applicable to Alternatives #1 and #2)
This treatment can reduce pedestrian crossing distances, improve pedestrian visibility,
and provide traffic calming benefits by narrowing the roadway at the intersection,
thereby enhancing overall pedestrian safety. At this intersection, curb extensions could
be installed on Main Street as shown in Figure 5-1 above, allowing the pedestrian to be
more visible to drivers, especially if the parking lane is occupied. An example photo of a
typical Bump Out/Curb Extension at an intersection with a parking lane is provided in
Figure 5-5
Estimated Cost = $ 25,000 each X 4 = $100,000
5.3.5. No Parking sign (Relevant for Alternative #1 and #2)
Installation of “No Parking” signs are recommended to be installed 20 feet from the
crosswalk on Main Street on both sides of the road to improve sight distance obstructed
by parked vehicles. “No-Parking” signs are already present on the Harrison Avenue
intersection approaches, although the existing signs should be updated while the Main
Street signs are installed. These additional signs would not be necessary if the Traffic
Calming Bump Outs/Curb Extensions are installed.
Estimated Cost = $ 250 per sign x 4 = $1,000
5.3.6. Advanced pedestrian warning signs (Applicable to Alternative #2 Only)
If AWSC is not implemented, advance pedestrian warning signs should be installed on
Main Street in accordance with MUTCD guidance for uncontrolled crosswalks (Figure 56).
Fluorescent yellow-green signage is recommended for enhanced visibility and should
include retroreflective signpost striping to improve driver awareness.
Estimated Cost = $500 per sign location x 4 = $2,000
5.3.7. Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB) (Applicable to Alternative #2
Only)
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) may be considered to enhance driver
yielding behavior at uncontrolled crosswalks. RRFBs consist of high-intensity, rapidly
flashing yellow beacons mounted on pedestrian warning signs and activated by push
button. RRFBs are not appropriate for use at stop-controlled approaches and therefore
would only be applicable if AWSC is not implemented.
For this location, four RRFB assemblies are recommended on the east and west sides of
Main Street, at each crossing location. Each assembly should include dual-sided signage
and beacon units to provide visibility to both directions of traffic. Advance warning signs
should also be installed as described in Section 5.3.6.
Estimated Cost = $ 15,000 per pole x 4 poles = $ 60,000
6.0 IMPLEMENTATION
As noted in section 2, both Main Street and Harrison Avenue are under the jurisdiction of the
Village of South Glens Falls. From an implementation perspective, sole jurisdiction simplifies the
process. With both the recommended AWSC alternative and the Enhanced Existing Intersection
alternative, the Village can undertake many, if not most, of the needed improvements using
municipal resources. In the case of utility pole relocation, additional coordination will be
required with the utility company.
In the case of the optional improvements, such as curb extensions or RRFBs, additional funding
may be required. However, many infrastructure funding sources have minimum cost
requirements that the project has to meet. The Village may want to consider combining the
intersection improvements with other projects within the Village to exceed the minimum
requirements.
For example, the A/GFTC Make the Connection Program is a potential funding source for bicycle
and pedestrian improvements. This program supports intersection-level safety enhancements,
including traffic calming measures, ADA upgrades, and pedestrian accommodations. A minimum
total project cost of $75,000 is required for construction or combined design and construction,
with a 20% local match. As a federally funded program, the administration of this grant requires
substantial effort. Should the Village wish to pursue this option, it would be recommended to
combine relevant project elements with other pedestrian improvements (such as improved ADA
accommodations) in the same vicinity to meet the minimum project threshold.
A summary of expected costs for the recommended alternative is included in Table 6-1 below. It
is important to note that the cost estimates assume that the improvements would be funded
directly by the Village; the additional design and regulatory compliance requirements of grant
funding through State or Federal programs will increase project costs.
Table 6-1: Concept Level Cost Estimates
All-Way Stop Control (AWSC) – Recommended Alternative
Item Cost Notes
Stop Control Signs and Pavement Markings $1,000 LED enhanced Stop Signs optional
High-Visibility Crosswalks $5,000
Sight distance improvements $15,000 Utility relocation will require coordination with utility company
Improved lighting $5,000
“No Parking” signs $1,000
Subtotal: AWSC $27,000
Bump Outs/Curb Extensions (Optional) $100,000
Total: AWSC $127,000