Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan – Adirondack – Glens Falls Transportation Council

Prepared For:
Town of Queensbury,
Warren County, New York
Exit 20 Corridor
Management Plan
17 Computer Drive West
Albany, New York 12205
(518) 446-0396
Prepared By: September 2009

Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation Council
Washington County Municipal Center, A-231
383 Broadway
Fort Edward, NY 12828
357 Milton Avenue, Suite C
Ballston Spa, New York 12020
(518) 363-8200

Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan Page ii
Final Report September 2009

Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP GMB Engineers and Planners, Inc., P.C.
Acknowledgements
Active Advisory Committee

Stuart Baker – Town of Queensbury Community Development Department
Rob Fitch – New York State Department of Transportation
Len Fosbrook – Economic Development Council of Warren County
Aaron Frankenfeld – Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation Council
Sarah Gebbie-Measeck – Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation Council
Kevin Hajos – Warren County Department of Public Works
David Kenny – Business/Property Owner
William Lamy – Warren County Department of Public Works
John McCormack – Business/Property Owner
Anthony Metivier – Town of Queensbury Ward 1 Councilman
Laura Moore – Warren County Planning Department
Scott Sopczyk – Greater Glens Falls Transit
Daniel Stec – Supervisor, Town of Queensbury
John Strough – Town of Queensbury Ward 3 Councilman
Jeff Tennyson – Warren County Department of Public Works
Kathy Varney – Glens Falls Hospital
Mike Wyatt – New York State Department of Transportation

Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan Page iii
Final Report September 2009

Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP GMB Engineers and Planners, Inc., P.C.
Table of Contents
Page
Title Page ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… i
Acknowledgements ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. ii
Table of Contents ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..iii
List of Figures…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. iv
List of Tables ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. iv
List of Appendices …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… iv
Executive Summary …………………………………………………………………………………………………………. v

I.
Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 1
Study Overview ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 1
Study Area ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 1
Study Goals……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 1
History & Relevant Efforts ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 4
Approach …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 5
II. Existing Conditions……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 6
General Environment ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 6
1. Land Use and Zoning ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 6
2. Environmental Features ……………………………………………………………………………………. 6
3. Historic and Cultural Features ……………………………………………………………………………. 6
Transportation ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 6
1. Existing Roadway Conditions …………………………………………………………………………….. 6
2. Primary Intersections………………………………………………………………………………………… 9
3. Existing Traffic Characteristics …………………………………………………………………………. 10
4. Traffic Operations …………………………………………………………………………………………… 13
Bicycle and Pedestrian Access …………………………………………………………………………………… 17
Existing Public Transportation……………………………………………………………………………………..18
Crash History …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 19
Area Parking ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 22
Driveway Inventory……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 23
III. Land Use Scenarios ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 26
IV. Improvement Alternatives …………………………………………………………………………………………..37
Short-Term 2013 Level of Service Analysis ………………………………………………………………….. 37
Key Study Area Corridor Alternatives ………………………………………………………………………….. 39
1. US Route 9 Median Alternative ………………………………………………………………………… 47
2. Back Access Alternative ………………………………………………………………………………….. 49
3. Access Management Alternative ………………………………………………………………………. 49
Southern Corridor Study Area Intersection Improvements………………………………………………. 49
Low Cost Improvement Options ………………………………………………………………………………….. 49
1. Transit ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 49
2. Signing Improvements …………………………………………………………………………………….. 49
3. Other Considerations ……………………………………………………………………………………… 49
Interchange Options ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 49
1. Great Escape Interchange ………………………………………………………………………………. 49
2. NY Route 149 Interchange ………………………………………………………………………………. 49
3. Reconstruction of Exit 20 as a Single Point Interchange (SPI) ……………………………… 49
V. Implementation…………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 49

Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan Page iv
Final Report September 2009

Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP GMB Engineers and Planners, Inc., P.C.
List of Figures
Page
Figure I.1 – Regional Study Area Map ………………………………………………………………………………..2

Figure I.2 – Project Boundary Map ……………………………………………………………………………………. 3
Figure II.1 – Town of Queensbury Zoning…………………………………………………………………………… 7
Figure II.2 – Environmental Features …………………………………………………………………………………. 8
Figure II.3 – Peak Summer Daily Traffic Volumes ……………………………………………………………… 12
Figure II.4 – 2008 Existing Traffic Volumes – Saturday Peak Hour ………………………………………. 14
Figure II.5 – Existing Bike and Pedestrian Accommodations……………………………………………….. 20
Figure II.6 – Existing Transit Routes ………………………………………………………………………………… 21
Figure II.7 – Key Corridor Parking Lot Inventory ………………………………………………………………… 24
Figure II.8 – Key Corridor Driveway Inventory …………………………………………………………………… 25
Figure III.1 – Approved Development Projects ………………………………………………………………….. 28
Figure III.2 – Approved Development Projects Traffic Volumes – Saturday Peak Hour …………… 29
Figure III.3 – Potential Future Development Projects …………………………………………………………. 30
Figure III.4 – Potential Future Development Projects Traffic Volumes – Saturday Peak Hour ….. 31
Figure III.5 – 2013 Background Traffic Volumes – Saturday Peak Hour ……………………………….. 32
Figure III.6 – 2028 Background Traffic Volumes – Saturday Peak Hour ……………………………….. 33
Figure III.7 – 2013 Future Traffic Volumes – Saturday Peak Hour ……………………………………….. 34
Figure III.8 – 2028 Future Traffic Volumes – Low Growth – Saturday Peak Hour …………………… 35
Figure III.9 – 2028 Future Traffic Volumes – High Growth – Saturday Peak Hour ………………….. 36
Figure IV.1 – Route 9 Median Alternative Concept …………………………………………………………….. 48
Figure IV.2 – Back Access Alternative Concept…………………………………………………………………. 49
Figure IV.3 – Key Corridor Access Management Concept ………………………………………………….. 49
Figure IV.4 – Study Area Signing Concept ……………………………………………………………………….. 49
Figure IV.5 – Single Point Interchange Concept ………………………………………………………………… 49

List of Tables

Table II-1 – Roadway Character Summary (Saturday Peak Hour) ……………………………………….. 11
Table II-2 – Pedestrians (Saturday Peak Hour) …………………………………………………………………. 13
Table II-3 – Existing Level of Service (Saturday Peak Hour) ……………………………………………….. 15
Table II-4 – Crash History – January 2005 to December 2007 …………………………………………….. 19
Table II-5 – Key Study Area Corridor Driveway Inventory …………………………………………………… 23
Table IV-1 – Future 2013 Level of Service (Saturday Peak Hour) ………………………………………… 38
Table IV-2 – Key Study Area Intersection Level of Service (Saturday Peak Hour)………………….. 40
Table IV-3 – Back Access Alternative Level of Service (Saturday Peak Hour)……………………….. 49
Table IV-4 – South Corridor Level of Service (Saturday Peak Hour) …………………………………….. 49
Table V-1 – Implementation Matrix …………………………………………………………………………………..49

Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan Page v
Final Report September 2009

Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP GMB Engineers and Planners, Inc., P.C.
List of Appendices

Appendix A …………………………………………….. Advisory Committee and Public Workshop Summary
Appendix B …………………………………………………………………………. Automatic Traffic Recorder Data
Appendix C…………………………………………………………………………….Turning Movement Count Data
Appendix D……………………………………………………………………….. Existing Level of Service Analysis
Appendix E …………………………………………………………………………………………. Parking Lot Inventory
Appendix F ………………………………………………………………………………. Alternative Evaluation Matrix
Appendix G ………………………………………………………………… 2013 Future Level of Service Analysis
Appendix H…………………………………………………………………. 2028 Future Level of Service Analysis
Appendix I ………………………………………………………………………………………….. Access Management

Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan Page vi
Final Report September 2009

Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP GMB Engineers and Planners, Inc., P.C.
Executive Summary
The Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation Council (A/GFTC) initiated this Corridor
Management Study for the Exit 20 Interchange Area (Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan) within
Warren County, New York. The study focuses on the US Route 9 corridor in and around
Interstate 87 (I-87) Exit 20 in the Town of Queensbury, New York. The study area corridor
encompasses an approximate 2-mile segment of US Route 9, from Round Pond Road to ¼ mile
north of NY Route 149. It also includes Gurney Lane from West Mountain Road to US Route 9.
The key study area corridor has been identified as the area of US Route 9 from the Exit 20
Northbound (NB) Ramps to NY Route 149.

Key issues include traffic safety and capacity along the corridor; access management, the
seasonal nature of traffic, and known and proposed development in the area. Long-term
capacity issues are identified, although large scale corridor widening is not considered a viable
alternative due to the potential for significant property impacts, environmental impacts,
construction costs, and degradation to the character of the area.

The goal of the study is to develop a comprehensive and implementable recommendation plan
consistent with local planning and development objectives that includes evaluation and
recommendations for study area intersections, improved accommodations for pedestrians,
bicyclists, and public transit, congestion and accident mitigation strategies. The study
recommendations shall consider future development of the corridor consistent with current
zoning. The study will identify a comprehensive list of smaller-scale improvements to improve
traffic circulation in the corridor in addition to a conceptual level of detail for larger-scale
improvements.

Existing Conditions
Traffic volumes through the study area are highly seasonal due to the recreational nature of the
surrounding area with the Great Escape within the project corridor and Lake George to the
north. Traffic volumes peak during the summer months on Saturday during heavy regional
arrival periods. Although other peak travel times occur through the study corridor as a result of
other special events (i.e., Adirondack Balloon Festival) or seasonal travel (i.e., ski traffic to/from
Vermont), the peak summer conditions formed the basis for the study.

The results of the existing conditions assessment indicate that there is a need to identify
capacity and operational improvements within the corridor, specifically in the key corridor along
US Route 9 between the I-87 Exit 20 NB Ramps and NY Route 149. It is noted that the existing
Saturday peak hour traffic volumes are similar to Friday peak hour traffic volumes based on
automatic traffic recorder (ATR) data indicating that poor intersection operations exist during
other weekday and weekend periods during the peak conditions.

Future Development Volumes
The Exit 20 corridor has been subject to recent and on-going development pressure. The
Queensbury Planning Department identified six individual development projects that are under
consideration by the Town. In addition, six potential future development areas were identified.
Both short-term (5 year) and long-term (20 year) projections were assessed in the study with the
estimated time of completion (ETC) considered the existing 2008 condition. The study
evaluated three future land use/traffic volume scenarios that included a combination of
background growth and the approved/potential future developments and are as follows:

Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan Page vii
Final Report September 2009

Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP GMB Engineers and Planners, Inc., P.C.
• A short-term, ETC +5 year condition including growth expected from approved
development projects.
• A long-term, ETC +20 year condition including growth expected from approved
development projects (low-growth).
• A long-term, ETC +20 year condition expanded to include additional potential
growth from future potential development projects in the corridor (high-growth).

A review of the volumes indicate that when compared to the 2008 Existing traffic volumes, the
2013 Future traffic volumes show an increase in volumes of approximately 10%. In the 2028
Future traffic volume scenarios, the volumes increase by approximately 27% in the Low Growth
scenario and range from 33% to 48% in the High Growth scenario.

Potential Improvements
Intersection and Corridor Improvements – The study identifies a number of short and long-
term capacity and safety alternatives for the 2-mile segment of US Route 9. The study included
analysis of seven intersections; four signalized and three unsignalized. Table E.1 outlines
specific intersection and corridor related improvements identified in the study corridor. Each
improvement alternative is described in more detail in the main report. The project
recommendations were developed to preserve and improve the safety and capacity of area
roadways through arterial management and context sensitive improvements. Final
improvements should be multi-modal and also support pedestrians, bicyclists and transit.

The study also outlines four improvement alternatives for the Gurney Lane intersection with the
I-87 southbound ramps which includes an option for reconfiguring the interchange.

Two other interchange options were assessed and determined to not be feasible options for the
corridor. These interchange options included a direct access into the Great Escape and a new
interchange at NY Route 149.

Other Feasible Improvements – As part of the study, other feasible lower cost improvements
were identified that should be considered in the study corridor to meet the goals of the project.
Below is a brief summary of the potential improvements.

Transit – In the short-term, it is recommended that visible trolley stops for the seasonal
trolleys be established in the key corridor. The trolley stops should feature benches and
lighting that fit the character of the area with designated “trolley stop” signing. The more
defined trolley stops will result in more efficient runs while visibly enhancing the
pedestrian/transit friendliness of the corridor. This option is an enhancement to the
current trolley system operated by the Greater Glens Falls Transit. Additional transit
enhancement options may include the addition of park-and-ride lots to the north and
south of the key corridor to capture passenger vehicles onto the transit system before
traveling into the key corridor. It would be beneficial to use existing parking lots to avoid
the creation of additional parking areas and would thus require lot agreements to be
undertaken with individual property owners. This option could be pursued in numerous
ways by both public or private entities.

Table E.1- Summary of Intersection Related Improvements
Intersection/
Corridor
Summary of
Issues
Description of
Alternative/Improvement
Cost

Advocacy
Responsibility

Timing/
Priority

Key Study Area Improvement Alternatives
US Route 9
Median Alternative Conflicts from
numerous driveways
along Route 9 impact
traffic flow through
the corridor. Install a raised median along the entire
Route 9 corridor from Route 149 to the I-87
Exit 20 NB Ramp. This improvement would
require that the roundabout option be
pursued for each of the Key Study Corridor
intersections. $5-6 Million State/Fed, Town,
Property Owners Long-term
Back Access
Alternative Congestion on Route
9 will increase during
peak conditions in the
Key Study Area
corridor due to
approved and
potential
developments. Construct a public road on the east side of
Route 9 that connects Route 149 to I-87 Exit
20 NB Ramp. This corridor alternative
assumes roundabout control at the two
signalized intersections and unsignalized
control at the Route 9/French Mountain
Commons Drwy/Adirondack Factory Outlets
Drwy intersection. $3.5-4
Million Town, Property
Owners, State/Fed Long-term
Access
Management
Alternative

Conflicts from
numerous driveways,
lace of connectivity
between parcels Apply access management techniques in
key corridor to include closure of driveways,
consistent driveway layouts, cross-
connections for vehicles and pedestrians $1.5 – 2
Million Property Owners,
Town, State/Fed Short-term
Individual Intersection Improvement Alternatives
Signalized Option – Construct additional WB
left-turn lane, widen SB Route 9 departure
to accommodate two left-turn movements,
and re-stripe Route 9 for a NB left-turn lane. $1.5-2
Million State/Federal,
Town Short-term
US Route 9/NY
Route 149 Intersection has
existing capacity
concerns. Capacity
concerns continue
through the 20 year
condition. Roundabout Option – Construct a two lane
roundabout. $2-2.5
Million State/Federal,
Town Short-term
Unsignalized Option – Do not change
current intersection control and accept poor
levels of service on the minor street
approaches. $0 Property Owners,
State/Fed Short-term US Route 9/French
Mountain
Commons Dwy/
Adirondack Factory
Outlets Dwy Minor street approaches have short-term (2008) and long-term capacity concerns (2028). Heavy pedestrian crossing. Roundabout Option – Construct a single
lane roundabout. $1-1.5
Million Property Owners,
State/Fed Long-term Signalized Option – Construct additional EB
left-turn lane, widen NB Route 9 departure
to accommodate two left-turn movements,
and convert the SB Route 9 right-turn lane
into a shared through/right-turn lane. $1.5-2
Million State/Federal,
Town Short-term
US Route 9/I-87
Exit 20 NB Ramp
Intersection has existing capacity concerns. Capacity concerns continue through the 20 year condition. Roundabout Option – Construct a two lane
roundabout $2-2.5
Million State/Federal,
Town Short-term

Intersection/
Corridor
Summary of
Issues
Description of
Alternative/Improvement
Cost

Advocacy
Responsibility

Timing/
Priority

Southern Study Area Improvement Alternatives
Signalized Option – (Low Growth) Provide
separate SB left and right turn lanes and
construct an exclusive WB left-turn lane on
Gurney Lane by widening the bridge
structure over I-87. (High Growth) Widen
the I-87 On Ramp to accommodate two left-
turn movements. $3.5-4
Million Town
(Development
Conditions),
State/Fed Long-term
Signalized Right-In/Right-Out Option –
Modify intersection to provide only right-
turns exiting the I-87 Exit 20 SB Off-Ramp
and only right-turns movements onto the I-
87 Exit 20 SB On-Ramp. This would require
the construction of a roundabout at the
Gurney Lane/West Mountain Road
intersection. $2-2.5
Million Town
(Development
Conditions),
State/Fed Long-term
All-Way Stop Option – Install stop signs on
all approaches. This intersection will
continue to fail. $7,500 State/Federal,
Town Short-term
Gurney Lane/I-87
Exit 20 SB Ramp Intersection has
existing capacity
concerns. Capacity
concerns continue
through the 20 year
condition.
Reconfigure SB Ramps with new SPI
interchange $40-50
Million State/Fed Long-term
US Route
9/Gurney Lane Intersection has long-
term capacity
concerns (beyond
2028). Convert the SB Route 9 right-turn lane into
a shared through/right-turn lane and extend
it to the Glen Lake Road intersection. $350,000-
400,000 Town, State/Fed Long-term
US Route 9/Glen
Lake Rd/Six Flags
Dr Intersection signal is
not optimized Improve signal timing. $0 State/Fed Short-term
Unsignalized Option – Construct separate SB left and right turn lanes on Round Pond Rd $75,000
Town (Development Conditions), State/Fed
Long-Term
US Route 9/Round
Pond Road Intersection has long-
term capacity
concerns (2028).
Signalized Option – Install an actuated
traffic signal. $225,000-
300,000 Town
(Development
Conditions),
State/Fed Long-Term

Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan Page x
Final Report September 2009

Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP GMB Engineers and Planners, Inc., P.C.
Access Management – Although an access management alternative has been defined
in the corridor, it is important to maintain access management techniques throughout the
corridor as development continues. Currently, the Town of Queensbury codes include
guidelines on Access Management. These current standards provide specifics on the
layout, location, and design of driveways as well as the number of driveways and
spacing. These guidelines should be strictly adhered to by the Town in the approval and
development of new sites and redevelopment of sites in the project corridor. It is further
recommended that the Town of Queensbury adopt A/GFTC’s Access Management
Study as an additional support mechanism for the implementation of access
management principles through the corridor.

Signing Improvements – The use of additional signing in the corridor to provide clearer
directions for vehicles accessing areas/sites outside of the project corridor is a potential
low cost alternative to assist in reducing congestion in the corridor. Potential areas of
signing include variable message boards for use during times of excessive congestion
leading vehicles destined to locations north of the site to use Exit 21, permanent signs
indicating that it is not necessary to use Exit 20 to get to Lake George, and signing on
NY Route 149 westbound encouraging people heading north to use Exit 21.

Implementation
The implementation of the recommendations outlined in the study can occur in different stages
and will take commitment and the coordinated effort on the part of the various agencies and
land owners in the study area as outlined in Table E.1. The implementation of the larger scale
long term improvements will require solicitation for funding. There may be the potential for
NYSDOT to work with the Town and private land owners to identify funding sources for the
capacity improvements at the study area intersections through the corridor. Implementation in
this way would likely result from the advocacy of the Town or private land owners reaching out
to NYSDOT for assistance and guidance. The funding could be obtained through means such
as a Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) or a grant. This process will require
applications to be submitted by either the Town or A/GFTC. Funding through public/private
partnerships is also an option that could be pursued.

Other shorter-term recommendations could be implemented with a less defined process. For
example, capacity improvements recommended at the US Route 9/Round Pond Road
intersection may be the responsibility of the Great Escape as described in their Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS). The Great Escape monitors the traffic conditions in the corridor
annually to determine the need for this improvement based on their site generated traffic.
However, if volumes in the project corridor increase due to other factors, this improvement may
be initiated separately by the Town or NYSDOT. Improvements to accommodate increased
transit ridership on the trolleys should be advanced directly by the Town of Queensbury in
association with the Greater Glens Falls Transit.

Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan Page 1
Final Report September 2009

Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP GMB Engineers and Planners, Inc., P.C.
I. Introduction
Study Overview
The Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation Council (A/GFTC) initiated this Corridor
Management Study for the Exit 20 Interchange Area (Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan) within
Warren County, New York. The study focuses on the US Route 9 corridor in and around
Interstate 87 (I-87) Exit 20 in the Town of Queensbury, New York. The study will result in a
comprehensive list of smaller-scale improvements to improve traffic circulation in the corridor
and a conceptual level of detail for larger-scale improvements.

The consultant team for the Project, Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP (CME) and GMB
Engineers and Planners, Inc., P.C. (GMB), is responsible for organizing the vision and
completing the Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan.

Study Area
The Exit 20 Interchange area is located along US Route 9 east of I-87 just south and east of the
Adirondack Park borders. The study area corridor encompasses an approximate 2-mile
segment of US Route 9, from Round Pond Road to ¼ mile north of NY Route 149, in the Town
of Queensbury as shown on Figure I-1. It also includes Gurney Lane from West Mountain Road
to US Route 9. The key study area corridor has been identified as the area of US Route 9 from
the Exit 20 Northbound (NB) Ramps to NY Route 149. The study will also investigate the
feasibility of a new interchange for I-87 at the Great Escape and at NY Route 149. Figure I-2
outlines the project boundaries and key study area locations.

Key characteristics of the study area include the retail outlet shops along the stretch of US
Route 9 referred to as “The Million Dollar Half-Mile”, the Great Escape amusement park and
Lodge, and access to several campgrounds. Additionally, the northern end of the study area
corridor is a connector link between I-87 and NY Route 149 for travel to and from Vermont and
northern New England, a route commonly used by truck traffic.

Study Goals
The goal of the study is to develop a comprehensive and implementable recommendation plan,
consistent with local planning and development objectives that includes the following:

• Improved accommodations for pedestrians, bicyclists, and public transit
• Evaluation and recommendations for signalized intersections
• Congestion and accident mitigation strategies

The study will focus on strategies such as access management, land use recommendations,
and roadway/interchange reconfigurations to meet the study goals. Both small and large scale
recommendations plans will be provided in the study.

Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan Page 4
Final Report September 2009

Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP GMB Engineers and Planners, Inc., P.C.
History & Relevant Efforts
As part of a continuing effort by A/GFTC, the Town of Queensbury, and the New York State
Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) to provide a safe, efficient, and marketable corridor for
residents, business owners, and visitors, several studies have been conducted in recent years.
These projects and studies include:

• Corridor Management and Traffic Circulation Plan for the Million Dollar Half Mile – 1997
• A/GFTC Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan – 2001
• Town of Queensbury Population Projections & Buildout Study – 2005
• A/GFTC Access Management Study – 2006
• Town of Queensbury Comprehensive Plan – 2007

The Corridor Management and Traffic Circulation Plan for the Million Dollar Half-Mile was
a traffic study prepared by Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart, Inc. (BFJ) to provide short-term and
long-term plans for the corridor. The goals of this study were similar to the current study, but its
focus was on a smaller area. This study resulted in the implementation of some access
management and cross access connections in the study area.

A/GFTC’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan was prepared to provide municipalities with the tools
to preserve and enhance the area bicycling and pedestrian network and to improve the safety,
attractiveness, and the viability of cycling and walking as alternatives to vehicular transportation
modes. The study made recommendations for geometric standards for bicycle and pedestrian
facilities and made specific recommendations for enhancements within the A/GFTC
jurisdictional area.

The Town of Queensbury Population Projection & Build-out Study provides data on
demographic, housing and population projections in the Town as well as the resulting public
school enrollment trends. Although this study is not directly related to the scope of the corridor
Management Plan it does provide a detailed summary of the residential and commercial
development potentials in the Town.

A/GFTC’s Access Management Study was prepared to provide municipalities with a
guidebook on access management strategies. The study also provided four case studies of
existing corridors and future vision plans using access management. None of the four corridors
studied were within this project’s limits; however the US Route 9 corridor from the City of Glens
Falls to Round Pond Road was included. Potential access management strategies identified in
this corridor consisted of sharing/consolidating curb cuts, median treatments, and potential
future re-circulating traffic to alternate routes.

The Town of Queensbury Comprehensive Plan was adopted by the Town on August 6, 2007
and provides an implementation plan to shape future development of the Town. The
Comprehensive Plan includes planning objectives for neighborhoods, the natural environment,
neighborhood commercial centers, commercial corridors, industrial corridors, and historical and
cultural places. The Comprehensive Plan was an important tool in the development of the Exit
20 Corridor Management Plan.

In addition, numerous traffic studies were prepared for private development projects within and
adjacent to the project study area corridor. Many of these private developer studies were
conducted by CME and as a result have broadened CME’s knowledge of the future vision of the
study area.

Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan Page 5
Final Report September 2009

Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP GMB Engineers and Planners, Inc., P.C.

The Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan is another step in the efforts by A/GFTC with support
from the Town, County and NYSDOT to provide a plan that ensures that the US Route 9
corridor provides adequate service to residents, patrons, and visitors to the area.

Approach
In order to accomplish the study goals, the study involved several major tasks including:

• Development of an existing conditions inventory and needs assessment
• Review of other relevant studies and the zoning code
• Develop land use alternatives for development of future volume projections in the study
corridor
• Identify and analyze corridor improvement alternatives
• Evaluate Interchange options at Great Escape, NY Route 149 and Gurney Lane
• Develop recommendations
• Develop the Draft and Final Corridor Management plans
• Involve the public through a variety of outlets including three public meetings/workshops

Elected officials, local government, NYSDOT, the Advisory Committee, and community
residents and property owners have worked together to define the transportation plan and future
land use scenarios that represent the vision for the corridor. The Exit 20 Corridor Management
Plan has greatly benefited from the dedication and involvement by all of the Study Advisory
Committee at all of the committee meetings and public workshops. A list of the Advisory
Committee is included at the front of this document and a summary of the public workshops is
included in Appendix A.

Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan Page 6
Final Report September 2009

Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP GMB Engineers and Planners, Inc., P.C.
II. Existing Conditions
General Environment
1. Land Use and Zoning

A mix of land uses exist within the study area corridor. The majority of land use is commercial,
recreation commercial, and residential with dedicated open space interspersed through the
corridor. The southern end of the corridor is more recreational in nature while the middle to
northern end of the corridor is more a business setting with County office buildings and retail
centers.

Zoning district boundaries for the study area were obtained from the Warren County Planning
Department and are illustrated on Figure II.1. The study area includes residential zones
(Moderate Density Residential, and Rural Residential), mixed use zones (Mixed Use 9 North,
Mixed Use Bay Road and Mixed Use Intensive) which house the French Mountain Commons
outlet stores and the Adirondack Factory Outlet, a recreation commercial zone to the south
(Recreation Commercial) which houses The Six Flags Great Escape Fun Park, and a dedicated
land conservation zone (Land Conservation). Existing land uses are consistent with current
zoning as outlined in the Town of Queensbury Comprehensive Plan adopted August 6, 2007.

2. Environmental Features
Natural features such as wetlands and forest lands are present within the study area. As noted
in Figure II.2, there are a number of wetlands in the study area that are regulated by the New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). Just east of the Warren County
Municipal Building, the study area includes an area with land conservation zoning (LC-42A)
which limits development to one dwelling per 42 acres. According to the Town Zoning
Ordinance, these districts encompass areas where the land has limitations or unique
characteristics that warrant the restricted development densities.

3. Historic and Cultural Features
No historic or cultural features were found in the project corridor.

Transportation
1. Existing Roadway Conditions

US Route 9 provides north/south travel through the Town of Queensbury and is classified as a
Principal Arterial. In the key study corridor, US Route 9 overlaps with NY Route 149 and is part
of the National Highway System (NHS). The NHS roadways are identified as such due to their
importance to the nation’s economy, defense, and mobility. This section of US Route 9 and NY
Route 149 provide access between Interstate 87 and Vermont and is known as a route for
heavy vehicle traffic.

Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan Page 9
Final Report September 2009

Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP GMB Engineers and Planners, Inc., P.C.

In the key study corridor, US Route 9 consists of two 12-foot travel lanes with a center two-way
left turn lane (TWLTL), 5-foot wide sidewalks and maintenance strips along both sides of the
roadway. The right-of-way within the key study corridor varies between 66-78 feet. According
to the 2008 Highway Sufficiency Ratings published by the NYSDOT, the pavement is rated in
good condition along the study area corridor. The posted speed limit within the key corridor on
US Route 9 is 40 mph.

2. Primary Intersections
The traffic control and geometry of the seven primary study area intersections are as follows:
y US Route 9/NY Route 149 – This is a four-way intersection controlled with a traffic
signal. The northbound US Route 9 approach provides an exclusive right turn lane and
a shared through/left turn lane while the southbound US Route 9 approach provides an
exclusive left turn lane and a shared through/right turn lane. The NY Route 149
westbound approach provides an exclusive right turn lane and a shared through/left turn
lane. On the west side of US Route 9 at this intersection is a driveway entrance to a
retail business. This low volume driveway provides a single lane for shared travel
movements. Crosswalks and pedestrian accommodations are provided on the
northbound US Route 9 approach and on the westbound NY Route 149 approach.

y US Route 9/I-87 Exit 20 NB Ramp – This is a three-way intersection operating under
traffic signal control. The northbound approach of US Route 9 provides an exclusive left
turn lane and a through lane while the southbound approach provides a through travel
lane and an exclusive right turn separated by a raised island. The eastbound I-87 Exit
20 NB Ramp approach provides separate left and right turn lanes. Crosswalks and
pedestrian accommodations are provided on the southbound US Route 9 approach.

y I-87 Exit 20 Southbound Ramp/Gurney Lane (County Road 23) – This is a four-way
intersection operating under stop sign control on the I-87 Exit 20 Southbound (SB) Ramp
approach. The I-87 Exit 20 SB Ramp approach (north leg) provides a single lane for
shared left and right turn movements for southbound vehicles exiting I-87 while the south
leg provides a single, one-way travel lane for vehicles to access I-87 southbound. It is
noted that while the southbound approach only provides a single lane for shared travel
movements, field observations indicate that drivers currently use the existing large
shoulder to stack side-by-side thus providing a defacto right-turn lane. The eastbound
Gurney Lane approach provides a single lane for shared through and right-turn
movements while the westbound Gurney Lane approach provides a single lane for
shared left-turn and though movements. No crosswalks or pedestrian accommodations
are provided at this intersection. This intersection was not included in the initial scope of
services, but it was added to the project based on public comments.

y US Route 9/Gurney Lane (NY Route 149 & County Road 23) – This is a signalized
four-way intersection. US Route 9 provides exclusive left turn, through, and right turn
lanes northbound and southbound. Gurney Lane provides an exclusive right turn lane
and a shared through/left turn lane. Opposite Gurney Lane is the main entrance to the
Warren County Municipal Center, which provides a shared left-turn/through lane and an
exclusive right turn lane separated by a raised island.

Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan Page 10
Final Report September 2009

Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP GMB Engineers and Planners, Inc., P.C.
y US Route 9/Glen Lake Road/Six Flags Drive – This four-way intersection operates under
traffic signal control. The northbound US Route 9 approach provides an exclusive left
turn lane and a shared through/right turn lane while the southbound US Route 9
approach provides an exclusive left turn, a through lane and a free-flow right turn lane.
Six Flags Drive and Glen Lake Road both provide an exclusive right turn lane and a
shared left-turn/through lane.

y US Route 9/Round Pond Road (County Road 17) – This is a T-intersection operating
under stop-sign traffic control on the westbound Round Pond Road intersection
approach. The northbound approach of US Route 9 provides a single lane for shared
travel movements, while the southbound approach provides an exclusive left turn lane
and a separate through travel lane. Round Pond Road provides a single lane for shared
left and right turn travel movements.

Two of the busier offset driveways along US Route 9 at the outlet centers in the key corridor
were also included as a primary intersection in the study area. The driveways include the
French Mountain Commons Driveway on the west side of US Route 9 and the Adirondack
Factory Outlets Driveway on the east side of US Route 9. The French Mountain Commons
Driveway is approximately 50-feet south of the Adirondack Factory Outlets Driveway. US Route
9 provides a single lane in each direction with a center two-way left-turn lane. (TWLTL). Both
driveways provide a single lane for shared travel movements. A heavily used pedestrian
crosswalk is located approximately 40-feet to the north of the Adirondack Factory Outlets
Driveway.

3. Existing Traffic Characteristics
Typical peak season daily traffic volumes were determined based on July 2008 Automatic
Traffic Recorder (ATR) information recorded by CME. A total of four ATRs were placed in the
study area at the following locations:

• On US Route 9 between Gurney Lane and I-87 Exit 20 NB Ramp
• On US Route 9 in the vicinity of the French Mountain Commons Driveway
• On US Route 9 north of NY Route 149
• On NY Route 149 east of US Route 9

Figure II.3 summarizes the ATR data collected. The raw ATR data is included in Appendix B
and was used to determine the peak weekend travel period in the study area. Based on a
review of the data, it was determined that Saturday between 2:30 and 4:30 p.m. represented
peak conditions at the four corridor locations analyzed. Additionally, the following can be stated
based on a review of the data for peak weekend traffic in the study area:

• The daily traffic volumes in the key corridor are approximately 18,600 vehicles per day
(vpd).
• In the southern end of the study corridor, daily traffic volumes are between 20,500 and
22,000 vpd. The 22,000 vpd was determined based on previously conducted counts in
the study area.
• North of NY Route 149, traffic volumes on US Route 9 are approximately 13,400 vpd.
• NY Route 149 experiences approximately 11,200 vpd.
• In general, there are consistently high daily volumes in the key study area from 9:00 a.m.
to 9:00 p.m. with more than 1,000 vehicles per hour (vph).

Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan Page 11
Final Report September 2009

Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP GMB Engineers and Planners, Inc., P.C.
The data collected in the summer (July 2008) was compared to average daily traffic volume
information recorded by NYSDOT to confirm that the collected summer data represents peak
travel rates. For information, the NYSDOT data recorded in the 2007 Traffic Volume Report
indicates that the average daily traffic on US Route 9 in the study corridor is 17,680 vpd from
Aviation Road to the I-87 Exit 20 NB Ramps and 12,770 vpd from the I-87 Exit 20 NB Ramps to
NY Route 149. A comparison of the two data sets indicates that the July daily volumes are
between 25% and 45% higher than the average daily volumes recorded by NYSDOT.

In addition to ATR data, intersection turning movement counts were conducted at the six
primary study area intersections by CME during the Saturday peak hour from 2:30 to 4:30 p.m.
on Saturday, July 26, 2008 and August 2, 2008. Intersection turning movement counts at the I-
87 Exit 20 SB Ramp/Gurney Lane intersection were obtained from a PM peak hour count
conducted on August 1, 2007 from 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. A comparison of traffic volumes between
the 2007 PM peak hour count and 2008 Saturday peak hour counts on Gurney Lane indicate
that the 2007 traffic volumes are comparable to the 2008 counts and represent a worst case
operating condition. Figure II.4 summarized the 2008 Existing Saturday PM peak hour traffic
volumes at the study area intersections. The raw turning movement count data are included in
Appendix C. The following was apparent based on the turning movement count data:

• The Saturday afternoon peak hour typically occurred from 3:00 to 4:00 p.m.
• The two-way traffic volumes on the study area roadways are shown on Table II-1.
• Heavy vehicle traffic ranged between 1% and 10%. It is noted that the key corridor
experiences the highest volume of heavy vehicle traffic.

Table II-1 – Roadway Character Summary (Saturday Peak Hour)
Segment Two-Way Peak Hour Traffic Volume (vehicles per hour)
Round Pond Road (East of Route 9) 315
Glen Lake Road (East of Route 9)
210
Gurney Lane (West of Route 9)
975
I-87 Exit 20 NB Ramp (West of Route 9)
695
NY Route 149 (East of Route 9)
920
US Route 9 (North of Route 149)
1,180
US Route 9 (between Exit 20 NB Ramp and Route 149)
1,550
US Route 9 (between Gurney Lane and I-87 Exit 20 NB Ramp)
1,595
US Route 9 (between Glen Lake Road and Gurney Lane)
1,645
US Route 9 (between Round Pond Road and Glen Lake Road)
1,415
US Route 9 (South of Round Pond Road)
1,215

• The pedestrian volumes observed at the study area intersections during the Saturday
peak hour are shown on Table II-2. The total number of pedestrians shown in the table
includes the total number across all legs of the intersection with the exception of the
crosswalk location which only includes travel across US Route 9.

Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan Page 13
Final Report September 2009

Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP GMB Engineers and Planners, Inc., P.C.

Table II-2 – Pedestrians (Saturday Peak Hour)
Location Pedestrians per hour
US Route 9/NY Route 149 34 plus 2 bicyclists
Crosswalk on US Route 9 North of Adirondack Factory Outlet Drwy 353 plus 1 bicyclist
Route 9/French Mountain Commons Drwy/Adirondack Factory Outlets Drwy 345
US Route 9/I-87 Exit 20 NB Ramp 0
US Route 9/Gurney Lane 1
US Route 9/Glen Lake Road/Six Flags Drive 4 plus 3 bicyclists
US Route 9/Round Pond Road 53 plus 2 bicyclists
Note: Total pedestrians on all approaches to the intersection or mid-block crosswalk where applicable.

4. Traffic Operations

The study area intersection operations were evaluated using Synchro 6 Software, which
automates the procedures contained in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. Operations are
expressed in terms of “Level of Service” (LOS), which is a measure of delay ranging from LOS
A (indicating little or no delay) to LOS F (indicating long delays). It is noted that the
intersections of US Route 9 with the French Mountain Commons Driveway and the Adirondack
Factory Outlets Driveway were analyzed as a single, four-way intersection due to their close
spacing. Appendix D contains detailed descriptions of LOS criteria for unsignalized,
roundabout, and signalized intersections and the detailed HCS LOS reports. Table II-3
documents the result of the level of service evaluation for the existing conditions.

The following observations are evident from the existing conditions evaluation:

• US Route 9/NY Route 149
– The analysis indicates that this signalized intersection
currently operates at an overall LOS D during the Saturday peak hour, with the
eastbound left-turn/through approach and the westbound approach operating at a LOS E
with approximately 74 and 79 seconds of delay, respectively.

• US Route 9/French Mountain Commons Driveway/Adirondack Factory Outlets Driveway

– As an unsignalized intersection, the eastbound and westbound driveways operate at a
LOS F, with long vehicle delays. With the center TWLTL, left-turning traffic experiences
little delay and does not result in additional delays to through traffic.

It is noted that during the peak travel times, vehicles at this intersection and at other
driveways along the corridor rely on courtesy gaps to turn to and from US Route 9. In
general, the friction in the corridor with the number of driveways, the high volume of
traffic, and numerous pedestrian conflicts results in slow moving traffic from the I-87 Exit
20 NB ramps to NY Route 149. It is also not uncommon for the congestion to continue
north and south on US Route 9 in and outside of the study area corridor.

Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan Page 15
Final Report September 2009

Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP GMB Engineers and Planners, Inc., P.C.

Table II-3 – Existing Level of Service (Saturday Peak Hour)
Intersection
Control
Existing 2008
Route 9/Route 149 S
Driveway EB
Route 149 WB

Route 9 NB

Route 9 SB LTR
LT
R
LT
R
L
TR E (79.0)
E (73.9)
C (36.7)
D (47.1)
B (12.4)
D (49.0)
C (32.0)
Overall D (41.1)
Route 9/French Mountain Commons
Drwy/Adirondack Factory Outlets Drwy TW
French Mountain Drwy EB
Adirondack Factory Drwy WB
Route 9 NB
Route 9 SB LTR
LTR
L
L E (44.2)
F (57.1)
A (9.7)
B (10.3)
Route 9/I-87 Exit 20 NB Ramps S
I-87 Exit 20 NB Ramp EB

Route 9 NB

Route 9 SB L
R
L
T
T
R E (72.2)
D (43.1)
E (63.5)
B (15.6)
F (86.0)
A (0.1)
Overall E (57.0)
I-87 Exit 20 SB Ramp/Gurney Lane TW
Gurney Ln WB
I-87 Exit 20 SB Ramp SB
L
L
R A (7.7)
F (*)
B (10.5)
Route 9/Gurney Lane S
Gurney Ln EB

Municipal Center Dwy WB

Route 9 NB

Route 9 SB LT
R
LT
R
L
T
R
L
T
R C (31.0)
C (22.4)
C (21.8)
C (21.6)
B (10.7)
A (5.6)
A (3.0)
A (7.2)
B (11.3)
A (8.4)
Overall B (11.6)
Route 9/Glen Lake Rd/Six Flags Dr S
Six Flags Dr EB

Glen Lake Rd WB

Route 9 NB

Route 9 SB LT
R
LT
R
L
TR
L
T
R D (39.2)
C (27.5)
C (25.5)
C (26.5)
A (9.0)
B (17.6)
B (10.2)
B (15.4)
A (0.1)
Overall B (19.5)
Route 9/Round Pond Rd TW
Round Pond Rd WB
Route 9 SB LR
L C (21.0)
A (9.2)
Key: TW, AW, S, R = Two-way stop, All-way stop, Signal, or Roundabout controlled intersection
NB, SB, EB, WB = Northbound, Southbound, Eastbound, Westbound intersection approaches
L, T, R = Left-turn, through, and/or right-turn movements, — = Not applicable
L[T]R = LR represents the existing geometry, LTR represents the future geometry
X (Y.Y) = Level of Service (Average delay in seconds per vehicle), *= delay exceeds 1,000 seconds

Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan Page 16
Final Report September 2009

Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP GMB Engineers and Planners, Inc., P.C.
• US Route 9/I-87 Exit 20 NB Ramps – This intersection currently operates at an overall
LOS E, with long vehicle delays. The eastbound left-turn movement and northbound
left-turn movement operate at a LOS E with approximately 72 and 64 seconds of delay,
respectively. The southbound through movement on US Route 9 operates at poor levels
of service with delays in excess of 80 seconds.

• I-87 Exit 20 Southbound Ramp/Gurney Lane
– The unsignalized level of service analysis
indicates that the westbound Gurney Lane left-turn movement currently operates at a
LOS A. The analysis also indicates that the southbound left-turn movement fails during
the peak hour and experiences long delays while drivers look for adequate gaps in
traffic. The southbound right turn movement that utilizes the existing shoulder as a right-
turn lane operates at a LOS B with less than 11 seconds of delay. Right-turn vehicles
that do not utilize the shoulder experience long vehicle delays waiting behind left-turning
vehicles.

• US Route 9/Gurney Lane
– This signalized intersection currently operates at an overall
LOS B, with approximately 12 seconds of delay. All approaches operate at a LOS C or
better, with acceptable vehicle delays.

It is noted that the east leg of this intersection provides access to the Warren County
Municipal Center. During a Saturday, the municipal center experiences a very low
volume of traffic allowing the Gurney Lane approach to operate more efficiently. It is
expected that during a typical commuter peak period, this intersection would experience
more delay as the east leg would operate with higher volumes.

• US Route 9/Glen Lake Road
– The analysis indicates that this intersection operates at
an overall LOS B, with all approaches operating at a LOS D or better. The eastbound
approach operates at a LOS D with approximately 35 seconds of delay, while the
westbound Glen Lake Road approach operates at a LOS C with approximately 26
seconds of delay. The average delay for drivers traveling on US Route 9 is less than 18
seconds.

It is our understanding the NYSDOT is currently reviewing the signal phasing and
timings at this intersection. This review was a result of concerns expressed by the public
that the signal could better adjust to the changing flow of traffic. As currently operating,
the level of service on the intersection approaches range from A to D indicating that it
may be reasonable for timing adjustments to even out the intersection operation.
Improved timings will be reviewed and considered in the assessment of future conditions
at this intersection.

It was also noted in the public workshop meeting that the southbound right turn lane
from US Route 9 onto Six Flags Drive does not always operate as a free flow movement
as it is designed. Likely this is caused by the field conditions, since the free flow
movement is not separated by a raised median which is a more typical design. The lack
of a raised median likely causes confusion to drivers which results in less efficient
movements on this approach.

Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan Page 17
Final Report September 2009

Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP GMB Engineers and Planners, Inc., P.C.
• US Route 9/Round Pond Road – The analysis indicates that the unsignalized,
westbound Round Pond Road approach operates at a LOS C during the Saturday peak
hour with average vehicle delays of approximately 21 seconds or less. The southbound
left-turn movement from US Route 9 southbound operates at good levels of service with
little delay to vehicles.

Although the overall levels of service at this intersection are acceptable, it was observed
in the field and noted by the public that the single lane approach on Round Pond Road
can often create longer delays for right-turning vehicles that are held up by vehicles
waiting to turn left onto US Route 9 southbound. These delays can create longer
queues during peak travel times on Round Pond Road.

The results of the existing conditions assessment indicate that there is a need to identify
capacity and operational improvements within the corridor, specifically in the key corridor along
US Route 9 between the I-87 Exit 20 NB Ramps and NY Route 149. It is noted that the existing
Saturday peak hour traffic volumes are similar to Friday peak hour traffic volumes based on
ATR data collected by CME indicating that poor intersection operations exist during other
weekday and weekend periods.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Access
A substantial amount of pedestrians and cyclists were recorded in the key study area corridor
during field visits and while conducting the turning movement counts as shown in Table II-2.
Sidewalks are present on both sides of US Route 9 between the I-87 Exit 20 NB Ramps and NY
Route 149, where the majority of the pedestrians were recorded. The sidewalks are separated
from the roadway by small buffers (brick pavers or grass maintenance strips). Other amenities
such as lighting and street trees are also present creating an inviting and walkable environment
along US Route 9. It is noted that there are some inconsistencies within the corridor with
sidewalks and landscape design that take away from the attractiveness of the walkable corridor.
It is also noted that patrons of the retail and commercial businesses along the key study area
corridor typically do not travel out to the existing sidewalks along US Route 9 when walking
between storefronts on either side of the street. This is evident by the numerous worn dirt
walking paths located closer to the businesses. Improved pedestrian connectivity can be
provided between local businesses to ensure safe and efficient travel.

Marked crosswalks are located at the US Route 9/I-87 Exit 20 NB Ramps and US Route 9/NY
Route 149 intersections. In addition, two mid-block pedestrian crossings also exist within the
key study area; one located just north of the Adirondack Factory Outlets Driveway and the
second located approximately half-way between the Adirondack Factory Outlets Driveway and
NY Route 149. However, field observations indicate that not all pedestrians traverse US Route
9 at the marked crossings. Refer to Photographs 1 and 2 for existing pedestrian
accommodations in the key corridor.

Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan Page 18
Final Report September 2009

Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP GMB Engineers and Planners, Inc., P.C.
Photograph 1 – Crosswalks at the Route
9/I-87 Exit 20 NB Ramp Intersection Photograph 2–Pedestrians crossing
mid-block crossing on US Route 9

The Warren County Bikeway runs parallel to US Route 9 just east of the corridor. The trail
serves a variety of uses, including biking, walking, cross-country skiing, and in-line skating. It is
also wheelchair accessible. Figure II.5 shows the location of the Bikeway and other pedestrian
accommodations in the study area corridor.

South of the key study area corridor sidewalks continue along the east side of US Route 9
through the Glen Lake Road intersection. There are no pedestrian accommodations along US
Route 9 for approximately 1/3 mile south of Glen Lake Road. Sidewalks are again provided on
both sides of US Route 9 from the Great Escape Lodge south through the study area beyond
the Round Pond Road intersection.

There are no pedestrian accommodations on Gurney Lane in the study area.

Existing Public Transportation
The primary regional transit service provider that operates in the Exit 20 Corridor is the Greater
Glens Falls Transit (GGFT). The GGFT fixed bus route #19 provides year round service along
US Route 9. No service is provided on Sundays or on holidays. There are minor variations in
the northbound service limits depending on the time of year. Buses travel to Exit 21 on request
only between October and May. From May to June, the buses routinely travel to Exit 21. Buses
stop at the Warren County Municipal Center between June and Labor Day, with trolley service
continuing further north.

Seasonal trolleys are run in the corridor from the end of June through Labor Day. The seasonal
trolleys run every 30 minutes along US Route 9 from the City of Glens Falls to the Village of
Lake George with separate north and south routes. The trolleys run from 8:30 a.m. to 11:30
p.m. seven days a week. It was noted by the director of the GGFT that often times the runs are
delayed due to traffic congestion (typically Friday, Saturday, and Sunday). It was further noted
that in 2008, the occupancy of the trolleys was up by approximately 20%. This was likely
attributed to high gas prices and the overall economy. During busier times, extra trolleys are
sometimes added into the system to help accommodate the demand. The GGFT is also
considering the purchase of larger capacity trolleys to accommodate the increase in transit use.

Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan Page 19
Final Report September 2009

Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP GMB Engineers and Planners, Inc., P.C.

For those with disabilities, the Freedom and Mobility Express (F.A.M.E.) service is provided.
This service will pick-up eligible patrons and drop them off at destinations within ¾ of a mile
from a designated transit route.

The available transit routes are shown on Figure 11.6.

Crash History
Crash data was obtained to determine crash trends along the study area roadways. Crash
summaries and details were provided by the NYSDOT Safety and Information Management
System for the latest three years of available data from the period between January 1, 2005 and
December 31, 2007 for the road segment of US Route 9 in the study area. Table II-4
summarized the accident data at the study area intersections and roadway segments.

Table II-4 – Crash History – January 2005 to December 2007
Segment/Intersection Fatality Injury
Property
Damage
Only
Non
Reportable*
Total No.
of
Crashes
US Route 9/Round Pond Rd 0 0 2 1 3
US Route 9 from Round Pond Rd to
Glen Lake Rd 0 9 10 1 20
US Route 9/Glen Lake Rd/Six Flags Dr 0 4 1 0 5
US Route 9 from Glen Lake Rd
to Gurney La 0 3 1 0 4
US Route 9/Gurney La 0 4 6 4 14
US Route 9 from Gurney La to Exit 20
NB Ramps 0 1 0 1 2
US Route 9/I-87 Exit 20 NB Ramps 0 7 3 2 12
US Route 9 from I-87 Exit 20 NB
Ramps to NY Route 149 0 11 8 2 21
US Route 9/NY Route 149 0 0 0 2 2
*Non-Reportable Crashes are crashes that have property damage under $1,000

Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan Page 22
Final Report September 2009

Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP GMB Engineers and Planners, Inc., P.C.

The following observations are evident from a review of the latest three years of data:

• No fatalities were reported at any of the intersections/road segments.
• Five or less accidents occurred at the intersections of US Route 9/Round Pond Road,
US Route 9/Glen Lake Road/Six Flags Drive, and US Route 9/NY Route 149 over the
three year period.
• Less than 5 accidents occurred on the US Route 9 segments between Glen Lake Road
and Gurney Lane and between Gurney Lane and the Exit 20 NB Ramps during the three
year period.
• Of the 20 accidents on the segment of US Route 9 from Round Pond Road to Glen Lake
Road, 14 were rear end accidents caused by slowed or stopped traffic with the apparent
factor of following too closely. One of the recorded personal injury accidents involved
two vehicles and a pedestrian. The report did not detail the exact involvement of the
pedestrian in the incident. The crash rate on this segment of 1.26 accidents per million
vehicle miles (acc/mvm) is less than the statewide average of 1.39 acc/mvm.
• Of the 14 accidents at the US Route 9/Gurney Lane intersection, 6 were rear end
accidents while the remaining accidents were collisions at the intersection due to
vehicles failing to yield to the right-of-way (i.e., left-turn, right angle). The crash rate of
0.73 accidents per million entry vehicles (acc/mev) is higher than the statewide average
rate of 0.39 acc/mev.
• Seven of the 12 accidents at the US Route 9/I-87 Exit 20 NB Ramp intersection were
rear end accidents. The calculated accident rate of 0.71 acc/mev is significantly higher
than the statewide average rate of 0.22 acc/mev.
• A total of 21 accidents occurred on the segment of US Route 9 from the I-87 Exit 20 NB
Ramps to NY Route 149. Ten of the accidents were rear end accidents while another
six accidents were related to right or left turning vehicles. The calculated accident rate
of 3.0 acc/mvm is higher than the statewide average rate of 1.71 acc/mvm for a similar
type roadway. It is noted that the Corridor Management and Traffic Circulation Plan
conducted in 1997 recorded 100 accidents on this corridor for the years 1993 through
1995; more than four times the current number of accidents for the latest three year
period. Since completion of the 1997 study, the TWLTL has been installed in the
corridor. Based on a review of the accident history, it appears that the installation of the
center turn lane has substantially reduced the occurrence of accidents in the corridor.

Area Parking
A parking study was conducted in the key corridor at the off-site parking lots. The purpose of
the assessment was to determine if any of the congestion along US Route 9 in the key corridor
is due to capacity issues in the existing parking lots resulting in delays and back-ups on the
mainline. The parking study was conducted on Saturday, August 16, 2008 between 2:00 and
4:30 p.m. An inventory of the parking lots indicated that there are 1,600 available parking
spaces, 510 on the west side and 1,090 on the east side of US Route 9. Figure II.7 shows the
location and size of existing parking lots in the key study area corridor. At the time of the
parking study there were several vacant buildings along the west side of the corridor. These
buildings are detailed on Table II-5 and on Figure II-8 in the Driveway Inventory. The following
was noted based on the study:

• The highest occupancy on the west side of US Route 9 was at the French Mountain
Commons Lot with an average of 85% occupancy.

Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan Page 23
Final Report September 2009

Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP GMB Engineers and Planners, Inc., P.C.
• The highest occupancy on the east side of US Route 9 was at the Ralph Lauren outlets
with an average of 78% occupancy. Not including the rear parking area at this center,
the average occupancy was 99%.
• The Adirondack Factory Outlets Lot on the east side of US Route 9 average occupancy
was 58% in the front lot. If the additional 99 stalls in the rear of the building are added
into the calculation, the occupancy is reduced to approximately 41%.
• Numerous vacant buildings exist on the west side of US Route 9. A handful of vehicles
were parked at each of the vacant lots.
• During the study time, the overall demand ranged from 760 to 820 or 48% to 51%.
• The peak parking demand in the key corridor occurred between 2:00 and 3:00 p.m. with
820 occupied stalls.

The parking inventory indicated that the busiest parking locations are focused at the three larger
outlet centers in the corridor; French Mountain Commons, Adirondack Factory Outlets, and the
Ralph Lauren outlets. Further, the parking inventory indicated that there is some congestion in
the front parking lot of the Ralph Lauren outlets with it operating at full capacity during the study
period. In general, however, additional capacity for parking exists with the use of back parking
lots and further use of adjacent parking lots. Figure II.7 and Appendix E contains a detailed
breakdown of the parking lot inventory.

Driveway Inventory
A driveway inventory was conducted in the key corridor to assess the number of curb cuts along
US Route 9. There are currently 26 commercial driveways ranging in width from 23 to 63 feet.
Of the 26 driveways, approximately 40% provide shared access between parcels. Table II-5
and Figure II.8 summarize the driveway inventory for the key study area corridor.

Table II-5 – Key Study Area Corridor Driveway Inventory
West Side of US Route 9 East Side of US Route 9 Drwy # Width (feet) Business Served Other Connected Drwys
Drwy # Width (feet) Business Served Other Connected Drwys
1 37 Montcalm Restaurant 5,6 2 49 Mobil Gas 3 5 44 Montcalm Restaurant 1,6 3 45 Mobil Gas 2
6 46 Montcalm Restaurant 1,5 4 51 Lake George Plaza Outlet
Center 7
8 44 Sunoco 9 7 36 Lake George Plaza Outlet
Center 4
9 41 Sunoco 8 11 36 Adirondack Factory
Outlets 13,14,16,18
10 44 French Mountain
Commons 12 13 44 Adirondack Factory
Outlets 11,14,16,18
12 63 Roadway Inn 10 14 54 Olde Post Grill, Days Inn 11,13,16,18
15 32 VACANT BUILDING 17 16 39 Olde Post Grill, Days Inn,
Reebok, Rockport, The
Evergreens 11,13,14,18
17 53 VACANT BUILDING,
Scooters Rentals 15 18 42 Reebok, Rockport, The
Evergreens 11,13,14,16
19 40 VACANT BUILDING,
Scooters Rentals 20 25 Log Jam Outlet Center 23,24,25
21 34 VACANT BUILDING 23 23 Log Jam Outlet Center 20,24,25
22 36 Franks Pasta and Pizza
Restaurant 24 23 Log Jam Outlet Center 20,23,25
26 41 Super Shoes 25 23 Family Footwear,
Dominoes, Casual Male
XL, The Sox Market 20,23,24

Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan Page 26
Final Report September 2009

Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP GMB Engineers and Planners, Inc., P.C.
III. Land Use Scenarios
For this study, three future land use/traffic volume scenarios were analyzed for both short-term
and long term projections with the estimated time of completion (ETC) considered the existing
2008 condition. The following scenarios were analyzed:

• A short-term, ETC +5 year condition including growth expected from approved
development projects.
• A long-term, ETC +20 year condition including growth expected from approved
development projects (low-growth).
• A long-term, ETC +20 year condition expanded to include additional potential growth
from development projects in the corridor (high-growth).

Based on coordination with the Town of Queensbury Planning Department, the following
projects under consideration by the Town were included in all three development scenarios:

• Expansion of the Lake George Campground with an additional 46 RV sites.
• Expansion of Aviation Mall to include a movie theater, restaurant, mixed use building,
and a big box retail building.
• Redevelopment of the Monroe Muffler site to a Chili’s restaurant.
• Development of the Warren County Social Services Building on Glen Lake Road.
• Redevelopment of the Mobil Gas station on the corner of US Route 9/NY Route 254 to a
Jolley Store with gas pumps and a convenience store.
• Redevelopment of the Mobil Gas station on US Route 9 north of the I-87 Exit 20 NB
Ramps. (This station was under construction at the time of data collection)

The location and traffic volumes associated with the above projects under consideration by the
Town, are shown on Figure III.1 and Figure III.2, respectively. Since the development of the
future volumes, some of the plans at the noted parcels have been modified. Most of the
changes have reduced the size of the proposed developments which may result in lower trip
generation in the corridor; therefore, the projected volumes would still account for the expected
growth in the corridor. Although the volumes may be a little conservative based on recent site
plan modifications, the variation in traffic is not expected to alter the results of the study and
therefore the volumes were not recalculated.

Additional coordination with the Town of Queensbury was undertaken to identify more long-term
potential future development projects to include in the ETC +20 higher growth scenario. Five
additional sites were identified and are as follows:

• Development of the Schermerhorn parcel with an approximate 80,000 square foot (SF)
office building located south of Gurney Lane.
• Development of the two Warren County parcels currently for sale on US Route 9. Based
on the current zoning, one parcel was assumed to be developed with a 150-room hotel
and the second with 90,000 SF of mixed use with 50% office and 50% general retail.
• Development of the McCormack and Kenny parcels located on the eastern side of US
Route 9 at the northern end of the study corridor. Based on the current zoning, it was
assumed that 43 single family homes and a 150-room hotel could be constructed on the
McCormack and Kenny parcels, respectively.
• Re-development of the Montcalm restaurant property on US Route 9 with 75,000 SF of
general retail.

Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan Page 27
Final Report September 2009

Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP GMB Engineers and Planners, Inc., P.C.

The assumed land use and size of the potential future developments are consistent with the
zoning detailed in the recently completed Town Comprehensive Plan. The location and traffic
volumes associated with the future potential growth project sites are shown on Figure III.3 and
Figure III.4, respectively.

In addition to the specific development growth included in the three land development
scenarios, a general background growth rate was included in the development of future
volumes. Based on a review of historical traffic volume data published by the NYSDOT and a
review of other studies conducted in and adjacent to the project corridor, an annual growth rate
of 1% per year was applied to the study area intersection volumes. This general growth rate
accounts for general increases in traffic volumes and resulted in an increase of 1.05 between
2008 and 2013 (ETC +5) volumes and an increase of 1.22 between 2008 and 2028 (ETC +20)
volumes. This general growth rate also accounts for growth in traffic in the corridor as a result
of other development projects outside the immediate study corridor or in other municipalities.
Figures III.5 and III.6 summarize the projected traffic volumes in 2013 and 2028 with the general
background growth rate.

The land development growth scenarios were added to the traffic volumes with the projected
general background growth to develop the future traffic volume conditions assessed in the
study. The future volume conditions are summarized as follows:

• Figure III.7 – 2013 Future Traffic Volumes
• Figure III.8 – 2028 Future Traffic Volumes – Low Growth
• Figure III.9 – 2028 Future Traffic Volumes – High Growth

Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan Page 37
Final Report September 2009

Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP GMB Engineers and Planners, Inc., P.C.
IV. Improvement Alternatives
Improvement alternatives were identified to address the development pressures that are
anticipated with the three development scenarios listed in Chapter III. The following
development scenarios are discussed in detail in this chapter:

• A 2013 analysis illustrating the short-term impacts at the studied intersections in the
corridor associated with growth from known development projects.
• A 2028 analysis of the key corridor including several design alternative options and low
growth and high growth volume scenarios.
• A 2028 assessment of the southern corridor study area intersections limiting
improvements to the studied intersections.
• A discussion of low cost improvements for the corridor.
• A discussion of the interchange alternatives.

A table is included in Appendix F that summarized all of the alternatives that were considered.
A qualitative rating system was developed to evaluate various aspects of each alternative
including constructability, cost, affect on pedestrians, affect on traffic, and environmental
impacts.

Short-Term 2013 Level of Service Analysis
A level of service analysis was conducted at all of the study area intersections for the short-term
2013 Future traffic volume condition using the Synchro 6 Software which automates the
procedures contained in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. The relative impact of traffic
growth in the project corridor can be determined by comparing the 2008 Existing operations to
the 2013 Future traffic volume condition. Appendix G contains the detailed HCS LOS reports
for the 2013 Future volume condition. Table IV-1 shows the results of the level of service
analysis.

The analysis indicates the key study area corridor intersections and unsignalized driveways
currently operating at poor levels of service will continue to degrade as additional traffic is added
to the traffic network. Additional large increases in delay are expected on the US Route 9
southbound approach at the Exit 20 Northbound ramp intersections. Overall the increase in
traffic volumes is expected to continue to impact the flow of traffic through the key corridor and
impact traffic entering and exiting I-87.

The 2013 Future traffic volume condition indicates that the study area intersections located in
the Southern Corridor along US Route 9 will continue to operate adequately with the anticipated
growth in the project area through 2013. The intersection of Gurney Lane with the I-87 Exit 20
southbound ramps will continue to operate with long vehicle delays on the southbound
intersection approach.

The following sections address potential improvements that could be implemented at the study
area intersections that would maintain or improve intersection operations through the 2028
Future traffic volume conditions.

Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan Page 38
Final Report September 2009

Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP GMB Engineers and Planners, Inc., P.C.
Table IV-1 – Future 2013 Level of Service (Saturday Peak Hour)
Intersection
Control
Existing 2008 Future 2013
Route 9/Route 149 S
Driveway EB
Route 149 WB

Route 9 NB

Route 9 SB LTR
LT
R
LT
R
L
TR E (79.0)
E (73.9)
C (36.7)
D (47.1)
B (12.4)
D (49.0)
C (32.0) F (83.3)
F (80.5)
D (35.5)
E (70.8)
B (14.0)
E (59.5)
D (36.6)
Overall D (41.1) D (49.6)
Route 9/French Mountain Commons Drwy/
Adirondack Factory Outlets Drwy TW
French Mountain Drwy EB
Adirondack Factory Drwy WB
Route 9 NB
Route 9 SB LTR
LTR
L
L E (44.2)
F (57.1)
A (9.7)
B (10.3) F (76.1)
F (114.5)
B (10.1)
B (11.1)
Route 9/I-87 Exit 20 NB Ramps S
I-87 Exit 20 NB Ramp EB

Route 9 NB

Route 9 SB L
R
L
T
T
R E (72.2)
D (43.1)
E (63.5)
B (15.6)
F (86.0)
A (0.1) E (76.5)
D (42.9)
E (67.2)
B (18.1)
F (138.0)
A (0.1) Key Corridor Intersections
Overall E (57.0) E (77.7)
I-87 Exit 20 SB Ramp/Gurney Lane TW
Gurney Ln WB
I-87 Exit 20 SB Ramp SB
L
L
R A (7.7)
F (*)
B (10.5) A (8.4)
F (*)
B (10.7)
Route 9/Gurney La S
Gurney La EB

Municipal Center Dwy WB

Route 9 NB

Route 9 SB LT
R
LT
R
L
T
R
L
T
R C (31.0)
C (22.4)
C (21.8)
C (21.6)
B (10.7)
A (5.6)
A (3.0)
A (7.2)
B (11.3)
A (8.4) C (30.2)
C (23.9)
C (23.2)
C (22.9)
B (20.0)
A (7.9)
A (4.0)
B (11.0)
B (19.5)
B (12.2)
Overall B (11.6) B (16.1)
Route 9/Glen Lake Rd/Six Flags Dr S
Six Flags Dr EB

Glen Lake Rd WB

Route 9 NB

Route 9 SB LT
R
LT
R
L
TR
L
T
R D (39.2)
C (27.5)
C (25.5)
C (26.5)
A (9.0)
B (17.6)
B (10.2)
B (15.4)
A (0.1) D (39.8)
C (27.3)
C (25.5)
C (26.3)
B (10.9)
C (21.6)
B (12.7)
B (18.3)
A (0.1)
Overall B (19.5) C (21.8)
Route 9/Round Pond Rd TW
Southern Corridor Intersections
Round Pond Rd WB
Route 9 SB LR
L C (21.0)
A (9.2) D (26.9)
A (1.2)
Key: TW, AW, S, R = Two-way stop, All-way stop, Signal, or Roundabout controlled intersection
NB, SB, EB, WB = Northbound, Southbound, Eastbound, Westbound intersection approaches
L, T, R = Left-turn, through, and/or right-turn movements, — = Not applicable
L[T]R = LR represents the existing geometry, LTR represents the future geometry
X (Y.Y) = Level of Service (Average delay in seconds per vehicle)

Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan Page 39
Final Report September 2009

Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP GMB Engineers and Planners, Inc., P.C.
Key Study Area Corridor Alternatives
As described previously, the key study area corridor along US Route 9 extends from the NY
Route 149 intersection to the I-87 Exit 20 NB Ramp intersection. This area has been identified
as a critical component of the Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan due to current retail and
business demands of existing corridor traffic capacity on US Route 9 and the potential future
growth and/or economic opportunities that could be limited as a result of traffic congestion.
Therefore, a level of service analysis was conducted at each of the key study area corridor
intersections to determine impacts to the transportation network with future growth. The
analysis indicates that all of the studied intersections in the key corridor will require mitigation
once 2028 future conditions are met (both low growth and high growth). Table IV-2 outlines the
future operating conditions and potential mitigation options for each intersection. It is noted that
the intersection improvements can be implemented independent of one another; however,
individual intersection improvements to provide additional capacity is only one step in mitigating
congestion issues along the entire corridor.

In addition to Synchro 6 Software, SIDRA software was used to assess the roundabout
alternatives. Appendix H contains the detailed HCS LOS reports for the 2028 Build condition. A
level of service comparison of the proposed intersection improvements is shown on Table IV-2.

Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan Page 40
Final Report September 2009

Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP GMB Engineers and Planners, Inc., P.C.
Table IV-2 – Key Study Area Intersection Level of Service (Saturday Peak Hour)
Low Growth High Growth Intersection
Control Future 2028 Future 2028 w/Imp Future 2028 Future 2028 w/Imp
Route 9/Route 149 S
Driveway EB
Route 149 WB

Route 9 NB

Route 9 SB LTR
LT
R
[LL]
[TR]
[L]
[T]
LT
R
L
TR F (89.1)
F (92.5)
C (33.8)
—
—
—
—
F (394.4)
B (16.2)
E (79.8)
D (47.8) D (44.9)
—
—
D (44.3)
C (32.4)
B (17.7)
D (35.5)
—
B (10.6)
C (29.8)
B (18.0) F (89.1)
F (104.7)
C (34.0)
—
—
—
—
F (569.3)
B (16.3)
F (85.6)
D (52.3) D (44.9)
—
—
D (47.6)
C (32.4)
B (18.2)
D (40.6)
—
B (10.7)
C (31.7)
B (19.6)
Overall F (128.2) C (27.4) F (172.2) C (29.6)
Route 9 NB
Route 149 WB
Route 9 SB
Driveway EB LTR
LTR
LTR
LTR R —
—
—
— A (7.7)
B (18.8)
B (12.3)
B (13.1) —
—
—
— A (7.7)
C (20.7)
B (13.4)
B (13.8)
Overall — B (12.1) — B (13.0)
Route 9/French Mountain Commons Drwy/
Adirondack Factory Outlets Drwy TW
French Mountain Drwy EB
Adirondack Factory Drwy WB
Route 9 NB
Route 9 SB LTR
LTR
L
L F (479.6)
F (695.3)
B (10.8)
B (13.0) —
—
—
— F (*)
F (*)
B (11.2)
B (14.3) —
—
—
—
French Mountain Drwy EB

Adirondack Factory Drwy WB

Route 9 NB

Route 9 SB L
TR
L
TR
L
TR
L
TR S —
—
—
—
—
—
—
— E (68.3)
D (49.3)
F (99.5)
D (49.2)
C (34.3)
D (45.8)
B (17.5)
E (59.0) —
—
—
—
—
—
—
— E (68.3)
D (49.3)
F (99.5)
D (49.2)
E (65.0)
E (58.3)
B (17.5)
E (77.4)
Overall — D (52.1) — E (66.1) Route 9 NB
Adirondack Factory Drwy WB
Route 9 SB
French Mountain Drwy EB LTR
LTR
LTR
LTR R —
—
—
— C (24.3)
D (37.9)
C (28.0)
D (39.3) —
—
—
— C (34.5)
D (40.5)
D (39.9)
D (43.6)
Overall — C (27.6) — D (37.6)
Route 9/I-87 Exit 20 NB Ramps S I-87 Exit 20 NB Ramp EB

Route 9 NB

Route 9 SB [LL]
L
R
L
T
[TTR]
T
R —
F (98.9)
D (42.8)
E (77.3)
C (23.0)
—
F (230.1)
A (0.1) C (34.5)
—
B (16.3)
C (25.8)
A (9.8)
C (24.5)
—
— —
F (166.4)
D (44.8)
F (81.4)
C (27.8)
—
F (328.7)
A (0.1) D (41.0)
—
B (19.9)
D (42.0)
B (14.6)
C (33.7)
—
—
Overall F (117.7) C (22.0) F (167.1) C (29.7)
Route 9 NB
Back Access Rd WB
Route 9 SB
I-87 Exit 20 NB Ramp EB LT[R]
[LTR]
[L]TR
L[T]R R —
—
—
— B (17.4)
—
A (8.2)
C (33.9) —
—
—
— B (18.0)
—
A (9.8)
D (46.8)
Overall — B (17.6) — C (22.1)
Key: TW, AW, S, R = Two-way stop, All-way stop, Signal, or Roundabout controlled intersection
NB, SB, EB, WB = Northbound, Southbound, Eastbound, Westbound intersection approaches
L, T, R = Left-turn, through, and/or right-turn movements, — = Not applicable
L[T]R = LR represents the existing geometry, LTR represents the future geometry
X (Y.Y) = Level of Service (Average delay in seconds per vehicle)
* = Delay exceeds 1,000 seconds

Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan Page 41
Final Report September 2009

Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP GMB Engineers and Planners, Inc., P.C.
The following intersection observations are evident from the evaluation:

• US Route 9/NY Route 149
– The level of service analysis indicates that this signalized
intersection will operate at an overall LOS F during the Saturday peak hour with several
movements operating at a LOS F during the 2028 Future traffic volume condition for
both growth scenarios under existing geometric conditions. Two alternative traffic
control improvement options were evaluated at this location.

Signalized Control – The levels of service analysis indicates that this signalized
intersection can be improved if the existing hatched area located opposite the
southbound US Route 9 left-turn lane is restriped to provide an exclusive northbound
left-turn lane and if the westbound NY Route 149 approach is widened to accommodate
two exclusive left-turn lanes with a shared through/right-turn lane. The level of service
analysis indicates that this intersection will operate at an overall LOS C during the 2028
Future traffic volume condition for both growth scenarios with all movements operating at
a LOS D or better with these signalized improvements. It is noted that US Route 9
would have to be widened south of NY Route 149 to accommodate the two left-turn
lanes from NY Route 149. The following pros and cons are associated with this
improvement alternative:

Pros

• Increase capacity and improved levels of service.
• Red and green phases of a traffic signal result in vehicle platoon that maintain
gaps in traffic for pedestrians and business driveways along corridor.
Cons

• Increase pavement width for pedestrian crossings at signalized intersections.
• Vehicle queues at intersections remain long.
• Property impacts.
• Cost.

Roundabout Control – With the construction of a two lane roundabout at this
intersection, vehicle delays will be substantially reduced. A roundabout designed for
2028 Future traffic volumes for both growth scenarios will require a single lane on the
eastbound retail parking lot driveway approach and two lanes on the remaining
approaches as shown on the following page. The level of service analysis indicates that
this intersection will operate at an overall LOS B with all approaches operating at a LOS
C or better during the 2028 Future traffic volume condition for either growth scenario.
Route 9 southbound at Rt 9/Rt 149 as a
si
gnalized intersection
Route 149 westbound at Rt 9/Rt 149 as a
si
gnalized intersection

Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan Page 42
Final Report September 2009

Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP GMB Engineers and Planners, Inc., P.C.

The following pros and cons are associated with this improvement alternative:

Pros

• Increase capacity and improved levels of service.
• Decreased vehicular queues on the mainline.
• Safety benefits associated with less severe accidents and slower speeds.
• Reductions in speed as vehicles enter the key corridor.
• Staged pedestrian crossings on each intersection approach.
Cons

• Fewer gaps in mainline traffic flow at driveways and for pedestrian crossing due
to removal of traffic signal which creates vehicle platooning.
• Property impacts.
• Cost.

50
0
Route 9 – NB
300
Route 9 – SB
Roundabout geometry required at the Rt 9/Rt 149
intersection for the 2028 Future Traffic Volumes
Route 9 southbound at Rt 9/Rt 149 as a
roundabout controlled intersection Route 149 westbound at Rt 9/Rt 149 as a
roundabout controlled intersection

Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan Page 43
Final Report September 2009

Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP GMB Engineers and Planners, Inc., P.C.
• US Route 9/French Mountain Commons Driveway/Adirondack Factory Outlets Driveway
The level of service analysis indicates that the eastbound and westbound driveway
approaches to this offset unsignalized intersection will continue to operate poorly during
the 2028 Future traffic volume conditions for either growth scenario. The northbound
and southbound US Route 9 left-turn movements that use the TWLTL will continue to
operate at a LOS B during the Saturday peak hour. Vehicles that exit the driveways at
this intersection and at other driveways located along US Route 9 will continue to rely on
courtesy gaps. Two alternative traffic control improvement options were evaluated at
this location.

Signalized Control – The levels of service analysis indicates that delay on the minor
street approaches to this unsignalized intersection can be improved if they were widened
to accommodate exclusive left-turn lanes and a traffic signal was installed. Constraints
with the existing parking lots and building locations would make it difficult to create three
lane approaches at both driveways. The installation of a traffic signal would also result
in vehicle delays on the northbound and southbound US Route 9 approaches and long
vehicle queues extending into adjacent intersections. The level of service analysis
indicates that this intersection will operate at an overall LOS D/E during the 2028 Future
traffic volume condition for Low Growth and High Growth scenarios with some
movements operating at a LOS E/F after the installation of a traffic signal. The following
pros and cons are associated with this improvement alternative:

Pros

• Improved levels of service for the Outlet Driveways.
• Protected pedestrian accommodations would be provided for existing heavy
flows.
Cons

• Mainline US Route 9 delay will increase.
• Vehicles on US Route 9 will queue through adjacent intersections.
• Design constraints on driveway approaches creating impacts to businesses.
• Overall intersection operation still constrained with improvement.

It is noted that there were over 600 pedestrians observed crossing US Route 9 and the
side streets in and around this intersection during the Saturday peak hour data
collection. Therefore, the pedestrian warrant for the installation of a traffic signal is met
based on the criteria found in the Federal Manual of Traffic Control Devices (FMUTCD).
However, installation of a traffic signal with an exclusive pedestrian phase to
accommodate the heavy flow causes the mainline queues on US Route 9 to extend
through the adjacent intersections at NY Route 149 and the I-87 Exit 20 NB Ramp. A
review of the accident history on US Route 9 indicates that there were no pedestrian
accidents reported through the Key Study Area Corridor. A separate traffic signal
located mid-block on US Route 9 to facilitate pedestrian crossings or traffic exiting out of
the outlets would create long vehicular queues along US Route 9 extending back into
the adjacent intersections. It is noted that the pedestrian traffic should continually be
monitored in the key corridor. Some of the improvement options have the potential to
increase traffic flow and vehicle speed in the corridor that may result in more difficult
pedestrian movements.

Roundabout Control – The evaluation also indicates that the construction of single lane
roundabout as shown below will relieve congestion at this intersection. The level of

Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan Page 44
Final Report September 2009

Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP GMB Engineers and Planners, Inc., P.C.
service analysis indicates that a single lane roundabout at this intersection will operate at
an overall LOS C/D with all approaches operating at a LOS D or better during the 2028
Future traffic volume condition for the Low and High Growth scenario.

The following pros and cons are associated with this improvement alternative:

Pros

• Increase capacity and improved levels of service.
• Decreased vehicular queues on the Outlet Driveways.
• Safety benefits associated with less severe accidents and slower speeds.
• Improved pedestrian accommodations.
Cons

• Construction will require right-of-way and impact existing parking lots.
• Cost.

• US Route 9/I-87 Exit 20 NB Ramps
– The level of service analysis indicates that this
intersection will operate at an overall LOS F with several travel movements operating at
a LOS E/F during the 2028 Future traffic volume condition for either growth scenario
under existing geometric conditions. Two alternative traffic control improvement options
were evaluated at this location.

Signalized Control – The levels of service analysis indicates that this signalized
intersection can be improved if the existing southbound right-turn lane is converted to a
shared through/right-turn lane and if the eastbound I-87 Exit 20 NB Ramp approach is
widened to accommodate two exclusive left-turn lanes with a separate right-turn lane.
The level of service analysis indicates that this intersection will operate at an overall LOS
C during the 2028 Future traffic volume condition for both growth scenarios with all
Roundabout geometry required at the Rt 9/French Mountain
Commons/Factory Outlets intersection for the 2028 Future
Traffic Volumes

Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan Page 45
Final Report September 2009

Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP GMB Engineers and Planners, Inc., P.C.
movements operating at a LOS D or better with these signalized improvements. It is
noted that US Route 9 would have to be widened north of the ramp to accommodate two
exclusive left-turn lanes. The existing right turn lane from the US Route 9/Gurney Lane
intersection located to the south would also have to be extended back to the I-87 Exit 20
NB Ramp intersection to accommodate the two southbound through lanes. The
following pros and cons are associated with this improvement alternative:

Pros

• Increase capacity and improved levels of service.
• Maintains gaps in traffic for pedestrians and business driveways along corridor.
• Signalized control allows for the potential to control any back-ups onto I-87 with
signal detection.
Cons

• Increase pavement width for pedestrian crossings at signalized intersections.
• Vehicle queues at intersections remain long.
• Cost.

Signalized geometry required at the Rt 9/I-87 Exit 20 NB Ramp and Rt 9/Gurney Lane intersections
for the 2028 Future Traffic Volumes
See Inset 1
See Inset 2Inset 1
Inset 2

Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan Page 46
Final Report September 2009

Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP GMB Engineers and Planners, Inc., P.C.
Roundabout Control – The analysis indicates that a two-lane roundabout would be required to
accommodate future traffic volumes at this intersection. The geometry required at this
intersection is shown below and indicates slightly different geometry on the eastbound ramp
approach for the two growth scenarios. Future traffic volumes for both growth scenarios will
require two through lanes with a shared left-turn lane on the northbound US Route 9 approach.
It is noted that the two northbound through lanes should merge back into one lane before
entering the key study area corridor. The southbound US Route 9 approach will require two
through lanes with a shared right-turn lane. The two southbound through lanes should be
extended to the Gurney Lane intersection located to the south to create smooth flow of traffic
between these two closely spaced intersections. The level of service analysis indicates that this
intersection will operate at an overall LOS B with all approaches operating at a LOS B or better
in the Low Growth scenario and a LOS C with all approaches operating at a LOS D or better in
the High Growth scenario.

The following pros and cons are associated with this improvement alternative:

Pros

• Fewer gaps in mainline traffic flow at driveways and for pedestrian crossing.
• Unable to control back-ups onto I-87 without signal detection.
• Cost.

Roundabout geometry required at the Rt
9/I-87 Exit 20 intersection for the 2028
Future Traffic Volumes
–Low Growth
Roundabout geometry required at the Rt
9/I-87 Exit 20 intersection for the 2028
Future Traffic Volumes
– High Growth

Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan Page 47
Final Report September 2009

Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP GMB Engineers and Planners, Inc., P.C.
In addition to the specific intersection improvement alternatives, three corridor wide
improvement alternatives were evaluated. These alternatives are summarized below and
include a median alternative, a back access alternative, and an access management alternative.

1. US Route 9 Median Alternative
The US Route 9 Median Alternative includes the installation of a raised median along the entire
US Route 9 corridor from NY Route 149 to the I-87 Exit 20 NB ramp. The median would restrict
all left-turn movements in and out of the driveways located on US Route 9. This alternative
requires that roundabout control be provided at the NY Route 149 and I-87 Exit 20 NB ramp
intersections so that traffic can utilize the roundabouts to make U-turns at the end of the
corridor. In addition, the option includes a single lane roundabout at the US Route 9/French
Mountain Commons Driveway/ Adirondack Factory Outlets Driveway located at the midway
point of the corridor. The midway roundabout will improve the driveway access at two of the
larger outlet centers and will provide another point for vehicles to make U-turns. If the center
median is not included in the alternative, all vehicles in the corridor will utilize the NY Route 149
or Exit 20 NB ramp intersections for turning movements. This concept is shown on Figure IV.1.

The pros and cons associated with this alternative are similar to what is listed for the
roundabout alternatives for the individual intersections. Additional pros and cons include the
following:

Pros

• Center median provides a protected refuge for pedestrians.
• Reduction in left-turn conflicts with driveway restrictions.
Cons

• Change in access patterns to businesses along the corridor.

Route 9 northbound with a concrete median Route 9 northbound with a concrete median

Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan Page 49
Final Report September 2009

Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP GMB Engineers and Planners, Inc., P.C.
The accident history indicated that approximately 30% of the accidents were related to turning
vehicles. The access management recommended with this alternative will reduce the vehicle
conflicts from turning vehicles and has the potential to reduce accidents in the corridor. Overall,
this alternative provides the most affective means of access management by providing
consistent left-turn limitations to the driveways along the corridor. Since a center turn lane
currently exists through the key corridor, widening would not be required to construct a center
raised median. Providing additional internal connections between parcels will further reduce the
flow of traffic of US Route 9 in the corridor and further enhance the access management already
provided with this alternative.

2. Back Access Alternative
The Back Access Alternative assumes that a public road will be constructed on the east side of
US Route 9 that connects from the I-87 Exit 20 NB Ramp intersection and runs parallel to US
Route 9. In order to meet the FHWA break in access criteria at the I-87 northbound ramp
intersection, the back access connection would need to provide connectivity and therefore
would need to provide a connection either to NY Route 149 or to US Route 9 as shown on
Figure IV.2. In addition to connectivity through the corridor, the back access alternative will
provide secondary access to the backside of the existing outlet buildings.

The construction of the back access road would reduce the traffic through the Key Study Area
Corridor resulting from the diversion of vehicles. It was assumed that patrons accessing shops
on both the east and west side of US Route 9 will take advantage of the back access. It is
noted that the back access would be considered the primary access to the development of the
McCormack and Kenny properties included in the High Growth scenario. A back access
connection to NY Route 149 will result in the highest diversion of traffic through the US Route 9
key corridor. The revised 2028 Future traffic volumes for the Low and High Growth scenarios at
the three key affected intersections with a connection to NY Route 149 is shown below.

2028 Future Traffic Volumes–
Low Growth/Back Access
2028 Future Traffic Volumes–
High Growth/Back Access

Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan Page 51
Final Report September 2009

Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP GMB Engineers and Planners, Inc., P.C.
A level of service analysis was conducted for the Back Access Alternative at the Key Study Area
intersections on US Route 9 with a connection to NY Route 149. The alternative assumes
unsignalized traffic control at the French Mountain Commons Driveway/Adirondack Factory
Outlet Driveway intersection, roundabout control at the NY Route 149 intersection, and
assumes that a fourth leg will be added to the proposed roundabout at the I-87 Exit 20 NB
Ramp intersection. Appendix H contains the detailed HCS LOS reports for the 2028 Build
condition. The level of service analysis for the Back Access Alternative is shown on Table IV-3.

Table IV-3 – Back Access Alternative Level of Service (Saturday Peak Hour)
Future 2028 w/Imp Intersection
Control Low Growth High Growth
Route 9/Route 149 R Route 9 NB
Route 149 WB
Route 9 SB
Driveway EB LTR
LTR
LTR
LTR A (7.6)
B (15.5)
A (9.5)
B (11.2) A (7.6)
B (16.5)
A (9.5)
B (11.7)
Overall B (10.2) B (10.5)
Route 9/French Mountain Commons Drwy/
Adirondack Factory Outlets Drwy TW
French Mountain Drwy EB
Adirondack Factory Drwy WB
Route 9 NB
Route 9 SB LTR
LTR
L
L F (62.4)
D (33.7)
A (9.9)
B (10.5) F (71.9)
E (36.8)
B (10.1)
B (10.6)
Route 9/I-87 Exit 20 NB Ramps R Route 9 NB
Back Access WB
Route 9 SB
I-87 Exit 20 NB Ramp EB LTR
LTR
LTR
LTR B (16.5)
C (25.7)
B (11.5)
C (30.8) B (16.9)
D (42.5)
B (15.9)
D (45.3)
Overall B (19.0) C (26.1)
Key: TW, AW, S, R = Two-way stop, All-way stop, Signal, or Roundabout controlled intersection
NB, SB, EB, WB = Northbound, Southbound, Eastbound, Westbound intersection approaches
L, T, R = Left-turn, through, and/or right-turn movements, — = Not applicable
L[T]R = LR represents the existing geometry, LTR represents the future geometry
X (Y.Y) = Level of Service (Average delay in seconds per vehicle)
* = Delay exceeds 1,000 seconds
NA = Not Applicable

The following observations are evident from the Back Access Alternative evaluation:

• US Route 9/NY Route 149
– The level of service analysis indicates that this intersection
will operate at an overall LOS B during 2028 Future traffic conditions for the Low and
High Growth scenarios with all approaches operating at a LOS B or better. It is
recommended that the proposed roundabout be constructed similarly to the option
detailed earlier in this section.

• US Route 9/French Mountain Commons Driveway/Adirondack Factory Outlets Driveway

The level of service summary indicates that delay on the minor street approaches will
improve due to the construction of a back access road from the I-87 Exit 20 NB Ramp
intersection and diversion of traffic from the US Route 9 corridor. However, the
eastbound and westbound driveway approaches will continue to operate with poor levels
of service during the 2028 Future traffic volume conditions for both growth scenarios as
uncontrolled accesses.

• US Route 9/I-87 Exit 20 NB Ramps
– The level of service analysis indicates that this
intersection will operate at an overall LOS B/C during 2028 Future traffic conditions for
the Low and High Growth scenarios with all approaches operating at a LOS D or better.

Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan Page 52
Final Report September 2009

Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP GMB Engineers and Planners, Inc., P.C.
It is recommended that the proposed roundabout be constructed similarly to the option
detailed earlier in this section with the addition of a single lane on the westbound back
access road approach as shown below.

Back Access Rd – WB
30
0
I-87 Exit 20 NB Ramp – EB

Back Access Road – WB
30
0
I-87 Exit 20 NB Ramp – EB

The pros and cons associated with the study area intersection improvements are similar to the
discussions above. Additional pros and cons associated with the alternative include the
following:

Pros

• Reduction in traffic on US Route 9 with diversions.
• Increased capacity and improved operation at commercial driveways on US Route 9.
• Reduced flow of traffic on driveways with back access driveways.
• Better utilization of existing available parking lots at outlets.
Cons

• Design constraints associated with back access connector including offsets to the
Warren County Correctional Facility and offsets to the adjacent residential
neighborhoods.
• Improvements will be required to back of businesses.
• Potential environmental impacts, i.e., wetlands.
• FHWA break in access approval process.
• Potential property and ROW impacts.
• Potential impacts to the trail bridge with NY Route 149 connection.

As noted, a mid-block connection to US Route 9 from the back access is another option to this
alternative. This connection would not divert as much traffic off of US Route 9, however, would
still provide benefits to the corridor. It is also noted that the back access alternative allows for
the opportunity for changes to the vision of the US Route 9 corridor by allowing for access if
parking for the commercial developments in the corridor were shifted to the back of the buildings
2028 Future Traffic Volumes–
Low Growth/Back Access
2028 Future Traffic Volumes –
High Growth/Back Access

Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan Page 53
Final Report September 2009

Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP GMB Engineers and Planners, Inc., P.C.
and the building frontages were shifted closer to US Route 9. This type of corridor has been
implemented in Manchester, Vermont.

3. Access Management Alternative
The access management alternative will utilize key access management techniques to improve
the flow of traffic in the key corridor; including, elimination of driveways, consolidation of
driveways, providing consistent driveway cross-sections, and improving cross-connectivity
between parcels. A conceptual access management plan outlining potential modifications in the
corridor is provided on Figure IV-3. Access management provides an important means of
maintaining mobility by systematically controlling the location, spacing, design and operation of
driveways and street connections in a corridor. Access management balances mobility and
access in order to maximize the value of a land parcel while ensuring efficient traffic flow. Well
coordinated access management can reduce crash potential, preserve roadway capacity and
decrease congestion.

In addition to access management reducing vehicular conflict it also reduces conflicts with
pedestrian and bicycle traffic. The access management alternative would include the
implementation of improvements to the US Route 9 intersections with NY Route 149 and the
Exit 20 NB Ramps. Since implementation of access management in the corridor will not change
the traffic volumes in the corridor, the intersection analysis will be consistent with the analysis
presented earlier in this chapter. The intersection improvements could include the
implementation of either the roundabout or signalized improvements.

Regarding access management, it is noted that the current Town of Queensbury Codes include
guidelines on Access Management as included in Chapter 179, Article 19 of the Town of
Queensbury Code Book. A copy of Article 19 is included in Appendix I. These current
standards provide specifics on the layout, location, and design of driveways as well as the
number of driveways and spacing. These standards should be used during the implementation
of the access management alternative and in the future as growth continues in the corridor.
These guidelines should be strictly adhered to by the Town in the approval and development of
new sites and redevelopment sites in the project corridor. It is further recommended that the
Town of Queensbury adopt A/GFTC’s Access Management Study as an additional support
mechanism for the implementation of access management principles through the corridor.
Adhering to standards for consolidation of driveways or limiting the number of curb cuts will
result in a better defined access plan for the corridor as changes are made to individual parcels
beyond the implementation of the proposed alternative plan. In addition, a sample access
management checklist is included in Appendix I which could be used by the Town as an
additional reminder during the site plan review process. A table listing types of Access
Management Tools with typical advantages and disadvantages is also included in Appendix I.
Lastly, an article entitled Safe Access is Good for Business, published by the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), is provided in Appendix I. This article provides good information for the
Town to use and could be used as a tool to further educate the public.

Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan Page 55
Final Report September 2009

Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP GMB Engineers and Planners, Inc., P.C.
A challenge in the implementation of this alternative is to improve the existing conditions that do
not adhere to current access management principles. Focus in the key corridor should include
reducing the number of curb cuts, providing consistency in the driveway designs, and
enhancement of cross-connections. This plan aims to provide more consistent curb cut widths
which currently range between 23 and 63 feet and provide additional vehicular and pedestrian
cross-connections. The following implementation guidelines are presented to assist in the
success of this alternative.

Step 1 – Review the alternative concept and the current access management codes and
standards in place for the Town. This would include review of the codes contained in
Article 19 and the Town Comprehensive Plan. Adopting A/GFTC’s Access Management
Study should also be considered at this step in the process.

Step 2 – Hold Workshops with the Stakeholders to identify problem areas and present
ideas for solutions. In a process where the Stakeholders are not looking for changes to
their parcels, education and “buy in” is a critical step in the process especially for the
implementation of changes within the private property limits. Education could include
providing stakeholders with documentation on access management success stories
such as information contained in FHWA’s article entitled Safe Access is Good for
Business.

Step 3 – Form committees which include Agency representation (NYSDOT and the
Town) as well as stakeholders. During this step in the process details on the vision in
the corridor need to be identified. The development of this vision should include a rating
system on the positive and negative impacts that can be used in development of the final
plan for the corridor.

Step 4 – Summarize Step 3 into a detailed plan. Part of this step includes focusing on
the need for regulations and/or approvals in order to construct the improvements. This
step also includes definition of responsibility and the financial implications of the plan.

Southern Corridor Study Area Intersection Improvements
The southern corridor study area along US Route 9 extends from the Gurney Lane intersection
to the Round Pond Road intersection and includes the I-87 Exit 20 SB Ramp/Gurney Lane
intersection. The analysis and evolution of future traffic conditions at these intersections are not
impacted by the improvement alternatives discussed above for the key study area corridor. A
level of service analysis was conducted in the southern corridor to identify specific intersection
improvements necessary based on the increase in volumes expected with the growth in the Low
Growth and High Growth scenarios. Appendix H contains the detailed HCS LOS reports for the
2028 Build condition. Table IV-4 summarizes the level of service analysis.

The following observations are evident from the Southern Corridor evaluation:

• Gurney Lane/I-87 Exit 20 Southbound Ramps
– The level of service analysis indicates
that the southbound left-turn movement at this unsignalized intersection will operate at
an overall LOS F during the 2028 Future traffic volume condition for both growth
scenarios under existing geometric conditions. Three alternative traffic control
improvement options were evaluated at this location.

Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan Page 56
Final Report September 2009

Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP GMB Engineers and Planners, Inc., P.C.
All-Way Stop Control – The level of service analysis indicates that for the 2028 Future
traffic volume conditions, the eastbound Gurney Lane approach will operate at a LOS
E/F during the Low and High Growth scenarios while the westbound Gurney Lane
approach will operate at a LOS F during both growth scenarios. This alternative
intersection control will not provide adequate traffic operations at this intersection for
either future growth scenario.

Signalized Control – The level of service analysis indicates that this intersection will
operate adequately during the Future 2028 Low Growth traffic volume scenario if an
actuated traffic signal is installed and if the westbound Gurney Lane approach is
widened to provide a separate left-turn lane. However, it is noted that the existing bridge
structure over I-87 is not wide enough to accommodate an additional lane and would
need to be replaced to provide the recommended exclusive left-turn lane. If this traffic
control alternative is progressed, it is also recommended that actual separate left and
right turn lanes be constructed on the southbound I-87 Exit 20 SB Off Ramp so that
drivers do not utilize the existing shoulder as a travel lane. The level of service analysis
indicates that this intersection would operate at an overall LOS C with all movements
operating at a LOS D or better with this improvement.

The analysis indicates that this intersection will operate at adequate levels of service
during the Future 2028 High Growth traffic volume scenario if, in addition to the
improvements required for the low-growth scenario, left-turn movements westbound are
also allowed as a shared movement on the through lane. It is noted that the I-87 Exit 20
SB On Ramp would need to be widened to accommodate two left-turn movements from
the westbound approach. The level of service analysis indicates that this intersection
will operate at an overall LOS D with all movements operating at a LOS D or better with
these signalized improvements.

Signalized Right-In/Right-Out Control – The evaluation also indicates that this
intersection could be modified to provide only right-turn movements exiting the I-87 Exit
20 SB Off-Ramp and only right-turn movements entering the I-87 Exit 20 On-Ramp.
This intersection control would necessitate the construction of a roundabout at the
Gurney Lane/West Mountain Road intersection located approximately 450-feet to the
west so that drivers could use the roundabout to make u-turns and access US Route 9
or the SB On-Ramp. The level of service analysis indicates that this intersection will
operate at an overall LOS A/B during the 2028 Future traffic volume conditions for the
Low and High Growth scenarios. A separate eastbound right-turn lane should be
constructed on Gurney Lane to provide adequate capacity at the intersection.

A third alternative for this intersection includes reconstruction of the interchange. This
alternative is discussed in more detail later in this chapter.

Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan Page 57
Final Report September 2009

Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP GMB Engineers and Planners, Inc., P.C.
Table IV-4 – South Corridor Level of Service (Saturday Peak Hour)
Low Growth High Growth
Intersection
Control Build 2028 Build 2028 w/Imp Build 2028 Build 2028 w/Imp
I-87/Exit 20 SB Ramp/Gurney Lane TW Gurney Ln WB
I-87 Exit 20 SB Ramp SB L
L
R A (10.0)
F (*)
B (11.4) —
—
— C (17.0)
F (*)
B (12.9) —
—
—
Gurney Ln EB
Gurney Ln WB
I-87 Exit 20 SB Ramp SB
TR
LT
L
R AW —
—
—
— E (36.5)
F (266.2)
C (24.6)
B (11.8) —
—
—
— F (117.7)
F (486.6)
D (33.2)
B (12.3)
Overall — F (138.6) — F (272.9) Gurney Ln EB
Gurney Ln WB

I-87 Exit 20 SB Ramp SB
TR
L
T
(LT)
L
R S —
—
—
—
—
— C (27.6)
C (27.0)
A (4.7)
—
D (37.2)
C (22.3) —
—
—
—
—
— D (54.1)
D (49.5)
—
D (53.0)
D (50.2)
C (27.2)
Overall — C (24.7) — D (49.8) Gurney Ln EB

Gurney Ln WB
I-87 Exit 20 SB Ramp SB T
R
T
R S —
—
—
— A (02)
A (1.0)
B (16.1)
C (21.0) —
—
—
— A (0.1)
A (0.8)
C (29.1)
C (31.9)
Overall — A (8.6) — B (15.6)
Route 9/Gurney La (Route 149) S Gurney La EB

Municipal Center Dwy WB

Route 9 NB

Route 9 SB LT
R
LT
R
L
T
R
L
T
R
[TTR] D (41.7)
C (30.0)
C (29.1)
C (28.7)
C (31.8)
B (10.2)
A (4.4)
B (14.2)
C (28.3)
B (15.4)
— —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
— D (54.9)
C (29.9)
C (28.5)
C (28.1)
F (127.3)
B (16.6)
A (6.8)
B (19.7)
D (42.8)
C (20.2)
— D (53.9)
C (29.3)
C (27.9)
C (27.5)
D (54.8)
B (16.6)
A (6.8)
C (23.4)
—
—
D (53.6)
Overall C (22.3) — D (40.6) D (41.1)
Route 9/Glen Lake Rd/Six Flags Dr S Six Flags Dr EB

Glen Lake Rd WB

Route 9 NB

Route 9 SB LT
R
LT
R
L
TR
L
T
R D (42.0)
C (26.9)
C (25.0)
C (25.9)
B (16.3)
D (40.4)
B (20.0)
C (27.6)
A (0.1) D (50.7)
C (31.5)
C (29.5)
C (30.3)
B (16.1)
C (32.2)
C (20.9)
C (24.8)
A (0.1) D (43.8)
C (24.9)
C (23.2)
C (23.9)
C (21.7)
E (71.5)
C (24.2)
D (41.4)
A (0.2) D (54.6)
C (29.0)
C (27.3)
C (27.8)
C (21.5)
D (51.7)
C (26.3)
C (33.8)
A (0.2)
Overall C (31.3) C (29.6) D (44.7) D (38.5)
Route 9/Round Pond Rd TW Round Pond Rd WB

Route 9 SB LR
[L]
[R]
L E (45.3)
—
—
B (10.2) —
D (33.9)
C (20.7)
B (10.2) E (47.9)
—
—
B (10.3) —
D (34.6)
C (21.3)
B (10.3)
Round Pond Rd WB
Route 9 NB
Route 9 SB LR
TR
L
T S —
—
—
— B (19.0)
A (6.0)
A (4.5)
A (6.9) —
—
—
— B (19.2)
A (6.2)
A (4.6)
A (7.0)
Overall — A (7.8) — A (7.9) Key: TW, AW, S, R = Two-way stop, All-way stop, Signal, or Roundabout controlled intersection
NB, SB, EB, WB = Northbound, Southbound, Eastbound, Westbound intersection approaches
L, T, R = Left-turn, through, and/or right-turn movements
L[T]R = LR represents the existing geometry, LTR represents the future geometry
X (Y.Y) = Level of Service (Average delay in seconds per vehicle)
* = Delay exceeds 1,000 seconds
— = Not Applicable

Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan Page 58
Final Report September 2009

Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP GMB Engineers and Planners, Inc., P.C.

• US Route 9/Gurney Lane
– The level of service analysis indicates that this intersection
will operate adequately during the 2028 Future traffic volume low growth scenario.
However, the northbound US Route 9 left-turn movement will operate poorly during the
2028 future traffic volume high growth scenario. In order to improve the operating
conditions, the southbound US Route 9 separate right-turn lane should be converted into
a shared through/right-turn lane to provide two southbound through lanes at this
intersection. To provide consistency, the two southbound lanes should be extended to
the intersection of Glen Lake Road with the westerly lane becoming the free-flow right
turn lane at Six Flags Drive. The level of service analysis indicates that this intersection
will operate adequately for this condition with this improvement.

• US Route 9/Glen Lake Road/Six Flags Drive
– The level of service analysis indicates
that this intersection will operate adequate during the 2028 Future volume condition for
either growth scenario with minor signal timing adjustments. As noted previously in this
study, based on comments made at the first public workshop, NYSDOT is currently
reviewing the signal phasing and timings at this intersection. It is also noted that if the
Great Escape provides a southern access to their parking lots at the US Route 9/Round
Pond Road, traffic entering the Great Escape from the south will shift from this
intersection to the Round Pond Road intersection creating additional future capacity a
this intersection.

• US Route 9/Round Pond Road
– The level of service analysis indicates that the
westbound Round Pond Road approach will operate at a LOS E during the 2028 Future
volume condition for either growth scenario. The analysis also indicates that this
unsignalized intersection will operate adequately if separate left and right turn lanes are
provided on the westbound approach which was recommended during the public
meetings. In addition, this intersection will meet peak hour signal warrant criteria during
2028 Future traffic conditions for either growth scenario and that the intersection would
operate at very good levels of service after installation of a traffic signal. It is noted that
The Great Escape is responsible for the installation of a traffic signal at this intersection
based on a traffic evaluation and volume threshold analysis for expansion of the
amusement park site. In the event that Great Escape installs a traffic signal, this
intersection would become a 4-way intersection with a west leg providing access to the
Great Escape Parking lot from the south.

Low Cost Improvement Options
Numerous feasible lower cost improvements should be considered in the study corridor to meet
the goals of the project. These proposed improvements could be considered individually or in
combination with each other. It is noted that while these lower cost improvement options may
not necessarily result in a noticeable reduction in the congestion during peak traffic conditions
throughout the corridor, they will meet other project goals and help improve access during off-
peak traffic conditions. It is however noted that the combination of several lower cost
improvements could result in a large benefit to the study corridor.

1. Transit
In the short-term, it is recommended that visible trolley stops for the seasonal trolleys be
established in the key corridor. Currently, the trolleys stop at random locations within the key
corridor based on the demand and patron needs. This pattern can result in additional trolley

Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan Page 59
Final Report September 2009

Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP GMB Engineers and Planners, Inc., P.C.
stops and delays to motorists that could be avoided by consolidating the majority of the stops.
The trolley stops should be accommodated with benches and lighting that fit the character of the
area with designated “trolley stop” signing. The purpose of these stops is not to eliminate the
flexibility of the trolley stopping at specific locations, but to consolidate a percentage of the stops
to result in more efficient runs while visibly enhancing the pedestrian/transit friendliness of the
corridor. This option is an enhancement to the existing trolley system currently operated by the
Greater Glens Falls Transit.

An additional improvement option for transit in the corridor is to provide park-and-ride lots to the
north and south of the key corridor to capture passenger vehicles onto the transit system before
traveling into the key corridor. For this system to be most effective, parking lots on the north
and south ends of the corridor should be provided to capture vehicles traveling in both directions
along US Route 9. This option would require lot agreements to be undertaken with individual
property owners to provide the parking lots. It would be beneficial to use existing parking lots to
avoid the creation of additional parking areas. Potential options would be the Municipal Center
to the south and the Magic Forest to the north. This option could be implemented by numerous
different means; including the Greater Glens Falls Transit, Town of Queensbury, business
owners, or by a separate private party.

2. Signing Improvements
The use of additional signing in the corridor to provide clearer directions for vehicles accessing
areas/sites outside of the project corridor is a potential low cost alternative to assist in reducing
congestion in the corridor. Potential areas of signing include:

• Variable message boards for use during times of excessive congestion leading vehicles
destined to locations north of the site to use Exit 21.
• Permanent signs more clearly indicating to people not familiar to the area, that they do
not have to use Exit 20 to get to Lake George. It is believed that people tend to use the
first exit they see when unfamiliar with the area.
• Signing on NY Route 149 westbound encouraging people heading north to travel north
on US Route 9 to access I-87 at Exit 21.

A conceptual signing improvement plan is shown on Figure IV-4.

At the first public meeting, several area residents pointed out that additional way-finding signs
for the Great Escape would help direct vehicles onto Six Flags Drive. It was noted that some
patrons coming from the north on US Route 9 travel past Six Flags Drive and are forced to turn
around to properly access the parking lot.

3. Other Considerations
Numerous other improvement alternatives were considered as part of this study. During the first
public workshop, a suggestion was made to use police to control the signalized intersections of
US Route 9 with Gurney Lane and NY Route 149 during busy times. Although this low cost
alternative could improve flow through the intersections, it would be difficult to implement and
schedule to create a consistent condition and there are numerous safety concerns with this
improvement alternative; therefore, it was not considered further as part of this study.

Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan Page 61
Final Report September 2009

Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP GMB Engineers and Planners, Inc., P.C.
Concerns were also raised by the public regarding existing commercial parking lots that have
converted to “pay” parking lots for Great Escape patrons. These off-site parking lots create
additional conflicts on US Route 9 with a larger number of vehicles entering and exiting these
establishments than normal and also result in pedestrian traffic along US Route 9 that cross at-
grade instead of utilizing the pedestrian walkway. It is recommended that the Town reconsider
giving approvals to local commercial facilities along US Route 9 to utilize their parking lots in
such a manor. Elimination of the off-site parking lots will create better movement of traffic along
US Route 9 in the area surrounding the Great Escape. It is also noted that the Town consider
addressing the existing “VIP” parking lot located on the east side of US Route 9 creating
conflicting traffic movements along US Route 9. It may be beneficial to the corridor to limit this
parking to handicapped to reduce the volume and conflicting movements in the corridor.

Interchange Options
The evaluation of three interchange alternatives was included in this study. The interchange
options included a direct access into the Great Escape, an interchange at NY Route 149, and
reconstruction of the existing Exit 20 interchange as a Single Point Interchange (SPI). Below
are the findings of the evaluations.

1. Great Escape Interchange
Providing an interchange at the Great Escape is difficult since both the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) and the NYSDOT have policies that require interchanges to connect to
public roadways. Providing a direct access from I-87 into the Great Escape would violate this
policy and therefore would be very difficult to accomplish.

In general, the approval of an access modification to I-87 would require that the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process be followed. A full Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) would be required which would take a minimum of four years to complete. A cursory
review of the area indicated several environmental design constraints exist in the area including
Rush Pond and other wetland and streams. The connection from I-87 northbound to the Great
Escape would have minimal impacts; however, the remaining ramp connections would have
environmental impacts as well as impacts to commercial businesses and potential impacts to
school district property. The interchange at Great Escape would be located approximately 1
mile from the existing Exit 19 and less than one mile from the existing Exit 20 at Gurney Lane
and would not meet the Federal and State requirement for interchange spacing. Therefore, this
interchange would likely require changes to these existing access ramps.

A single off-ramp connection to the Great Escape would cost approximately 1 million dollars.
Providing other connections would increase the cost up to 10 to 15 million dollars. Based on the
premise for the ramp to provide access into a private property which would be difficult to obtain,
the seasonal nature of the Great Escape operations, the impact to other existing interchanges,
potential environmental impacts, and cost, this interchange was not considered a feasible
alternative for the corridor.

2. NY Route 149 Interchange
The most critical design consideration for this alternative is topography. I-87 in this area is
located along the side of a hill which rises approximately 50 feet from US Route 9 to the
northbound lanes and another 25 feet to the southbound lanes. West of I-87 the topography
continues to rise. An interchange at this location would require the southbound off/on ramps to
be constructed in deep cuts and would tie into the NY Route 149 at a non-standard 12% grade.
It is anticipated that substantial rock will be encountered that would require blasting creating

Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan Page 62
Final Report September 2009

Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP GMB Engineers and Planners, Inc., P.C.
additional design challenges and additional construction costs. Further, the interchange would
impact numerous businesses along US Route 9 adjacent to NY Route 149.

Providing a new interchange at NY Route 149 would violate the Federal and State interchange
spacing requirements with the existing Exit 20 Northbound ramps. Relocation of the
interchange to NY Route 149 would result in I-87 northbound traffic heading south (i.e., Great
Escape, Municipal Center) to travel south on US Route 9 through the key corridor. The National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process would need to be followed which would require a full
EIS and would take a minimum of 4 years to complete.

The extensive construction resulting from the topographical design constraints requiring
extensive cutting and the construction of structures for the ramp connections would result in a
cost greater than 25 million dollars. Due to the major topographical constraints for this design
alternative including the potential need to close the existing Exit 20 northbound ramp
interchange and excessive costs; this interchange alternative was not considered a feasible
alternative for the corridor.

3. Reconstruction of Exit 20 as a Single Point Interchange (SPI)
Reconstruction of the existing I-87 Exit 20 interchange as a SPI would require the removal of
the current Northbound and Southbound Ramp intersections located on US Route 9 and
Gurney Lane, respectively. A SPI interchange located on Gurney Lane would be beneficial to
users as it would bring all travel movements together at one location and eliminate the split
interchange currently provided at Exit 20. However, the proximity of the ramps to US Route 9
may be too close for the required weaving movements. In addition, the large ramp approaches
will significantly impact adjacent properties and will require right-of-way takings. It is also
anticipated that the new bridge structure on Gurney lane over I-87 would be extremely large to
accommodate traffic demand. The NEPA process would need to be followed which would
require a full EIS and would take a minimum of 4 years to complete.

The extensive right-of-way impacts necessary to develop the long ramps and the construction of
a new bridge structure over I-87 would result in a cost greater than 18 million dollars. However,
this interchange alternative may be considered a feasible alternative for the corridor in the future
as conditions deteriorate (20 years plus). A conceptual layout of this interchange alternative is
illustrated on Figure IV-5.

Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan Page 64
Final Report September 2009

Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP GMB Engineers and Planners, Inc., P.C.
V. Implementation
This planning study identified a number of short and long-term capacity and safety alternatives
for the 2-mile segment of US Route 9 in Warren County that extends from the intersection of NY
Route 149 to Round Pond Road.

Table V.1 summarizes the projects and recommendations described in Chapter IV of this report.
These recommendations were developed to preserve and improve the safety and capacity of
area roadways, through arterial management and context sensitive improvements. Final
improvements should be multi-modal and also support pedestrians, bicyclists and transit. The
table is intended to serve as a guide for potential future improvement projects in the corridor.

The implementation of the recommendations outlined in the study can occur in different stages
and will take commitment and the coordinated effort on the part of the various agencies and
land owners in the study area as outlined in Table V.1. The implementation of the larger scale
long term improvements will require solicitation for funding. There may be the potential for
NYSDOT to work with the Town and private land owners to identify funding sources for the
capacity improvements at the study area intersections through the corridor. Implementation in
this way would likely result from the advocacy of the Town or private land owners reaching out
to NYSDOT for assistance and guidance. The funding could be obtained through means such
as a Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) or a grant. This process will require
applications to be submitted by either the Town or A/GFTC. Funding through public/private
partnerships is also an option that could be pursued.

Other shorter-term recommendations could be implemented with a less defined process. For
example, capacity improvements recommended at the US Route 9/Round Pond Road
intersection may be the responsibility of the Great Escape as described in their EIS. The Great
Escape monitors the traffic conditions in the corridor annually to determine the need for this
improvement based on their site generated traffic. However, if volumes in the project corridor
increase due to other factors, this improvement may be initiated separately by the Town or
NYSDOT. Improvements to accommodate increased transit ridership on the trolleys should be
advanced directly by the Town of Queensbury in association with the Greater Glens Falls
Transit.

Table V.1- Summary of Intersection Related Improvements
Intersection/ Corridor
Summary of
Issues
Description of
Alternative/Improvement
Cost

Advocacy Responsibility

Timing/ Priority

Key Study Area Improvement Alternatives US Route 9 Median
Alternative Conflicts from
numerous driveways
along Route 9 impact
traffic flow through
the corridor. Install a raised median along the entire
Route 9 corridor from Route 149 to the I-87
Exit 20 NB Ramp. This improvement would
require that the roundabout option be
pursued for each of the Key Study Corridor
intersections. $5-6 Million State/Fed, Town,
Property Owners Long-term Back Access Alternative Congestion on Route
9 will increase during
peak conditions in the
Key Study Area
corridor due to
approved and
potential
developments. Construct a public road on the east side of
Route 9 that connects Route 149 to I-87 Exit
20 NB Ramp. This corridor alternative
assumes roundabout control at the two
signalized intersections and unsignalized
control at the Route 9/French Mountain
Commons Drwy/Adirondack Factory Outlets
Drwy intersection. $3.5-4 Million Town, Property
Owners,
State/Fed Long-term Access Management
Alternative

Conflicts from
numerous driveways,
lack of connectivity
between parcels Apply access management techniques in
key corridor to include closure of driveways,
consistent driveway layouts, cross-
connections for vehicles and pedestrians $1.5 – 2
Million Property Owners,
Town, State/Fed Short-term Individual Intersection Improvement Alternatives
Signalized Option – Construct additional WB
left-turn lane, widen SB Route 9 departure
to accommodate two left-turn movements,
and re-stripe Route 9 for a NB left-turn lane. $1.5-2
Million State/Federal,
Town Short-term
US Route 9/NY Route
149 Intersection has
existing capacity
concerns. Capacity
concerns continue
through the 20 year
condition. Roundabout Option – Construct a two lane
roundabout. $2-2.5
Million State/Federal,
Town Short-term
Unsignalized Option – Do not change
current intersection control and accept poor
levels of service on the minor street
approaches. $0 Property Owners,
State/Fed Short-term
US Route 9/French
Mountain Commons
Driveway/Adirondack
Factory Outlets
Driveway
Minor street approaches have short-term (2008) and long-term capacity concerns (2028). Heavy pedestrian crossing. Roundabout Option – Construct a single
lane roundabout. $1-1.5
Million Property Owners,
State/Fed Long-term
Signalized Option – Construct additional EB
left-turn lane, widen NB Route 9 departure
to accommodate two left-turn movements,
and convert the SB Route 9 right-turn lane
into a shared through/right-turn lane. $1.5-2
Million State/Federal,
Town Short-term
US Route 9/I-87 Exit 20
NB Ramp
Intersection has existing capacity concerns. Capacity concerns continue through the 20 year condition.
Roundabout Option – Construct a two lane
roundabout $2-2.5
Million State/Federal,
Town Short-term

Intersection/ Corridor
Summary of
Issues
Description of
Alternative/Improvement
Cost

Advocacy Responsibility

Timing/ Priority

Southern Study Area Improvement Alternatives
Signalized Option – (Low Growth) Provide
separate SB left and right turn lanes and
construct an exclusive WB left-turn lane on
Gurney Lane by widening the bridge
structure over I-87. (High Growth) Widen
the I-87 On Ramp to accommodate two left-
turn movements. $3.5-4 Million Town
(Development
Conditions),
State/Fed Long-term Signalized Right-In/Right-Out Option –
Modify intersection to provide only right-
turns exiting the I-87 Exit 20 SB Off-Ramp
and only right-turns movements onto the I-
87 Exit 20 SB On-Ramp. This would require
the construction of a roundabout at the
Gurney Lane/West Mountain Road
intersection. $2-2.5 Million Town
(Development
Conditions),
State/Fed Long-term All-Way Stop Option – Install stop signs on
all approaches. This intersection will
continue to fail. $7,500 State/Federal,
Town Short-term
Gurney Lane/I-87 Exit
20 SB Ramp Intersection has
existing capacity
concerns. Capacity
concerns continue
through the 20 year
condition.
Reconfigure SB Ramps with new SPUI
interchange
$40-50 Million State/Fed Long-term US Route 9/Gurney
Lane Intersection has long-
term capacity
concerns (beyond
2028). Convert the SB Route 9 right-turn lane into
a shared through/right-turn lane and extend
it to the Glen Lake Road intersection. $350,000-
400,000 Town, State/Fed Long-term US Route 9/Glen Lake
Rd/Six Flags Dr Intersection signal is
not optimized
Improve signal timing.
$0
State/Fed
Short-term
Unsignalized Option – Construct separate SB left and right turn lanes on Round Pond Rd
$75,000
Town
(Development Conditions), State/Fed
Long-Term
US Route 9/Round
Pond Road Intersection has long-
term capacity
concerns (2028).
Signalized Option – Install an actuated
traffic signal. $225,000-
300,000 Town
(Development
Conditions),
State/Fed Long-Term

Appendix A – Advisory Committee and Public
Workshop Summary

Exit 20 Corridor Management plan
Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York

Acknowledgements
Invited Advisory Committee

Town Supervisor Daniel Stec – Town of Queensbury
Stuart Baker – Town of Queensbury Planning
Anthony Metivier – Town of Queensbury Planning Board
John Strough – Town of Queensbury Planning Board
Scott Sopczyk – greater Glens Falls Transit System
Kathy Varney – Glens Falls Hospital
Jeff Tennyson – Warren County Department of Public Works
William Lamy – Warren County Department of Public Works
Kevin Hajos – Warren County Department of Public Works
Laura Moore – Warren County Planning Department
Mike Wyatt – New York State Department of Transportation
Rob Fitch – New York State Department of Transportation
Len Fosbrook – Economic Development Council of Warren County
Sharon Henderson – Representing State Senator Betty Little
David Kenny – Business/Property Owner
John McCormack – Business/Property Owner
Todd Shimkus – Adirondack Chamber of Commerce
Wayne LaMothe – Warren County Planning Department
Dave Wick – Warren County Soil and Water Conservation District
Rob Cherry – New York State Department of Transportation
Lisa Manzi – Representing US Congresswoman Kirsten Gillibrand
Ed Moore – Business/Property Owner

Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan

Public Workshop #1
September 4, 2009

PUBLIC MEETING SUMMARY

The first Public Meeting for the Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan was held on
September 4, 2009 at 6:00 pm at the Great Escape Lodge in Queensbury, NY. The
purpose of the meeting was to present existing conditions and to gather public
comments. The meeting was advertised online on the Project website, through
postcard mailings and flyers and through local news publications. The workshop was
attended by approximately 40 people, including several advisory committee members.

The meeting was facilitated by Aaron Frankenfeld from the Adirondack/Glens Falls
Transportation Council (A/GFTC) and Don Adams and Wendy Cimino of Creighton
Manning Engineering, LLP (CME). The meeting included a technical presentation
outlining the project goals and summarizing the existing conditions. The meeting
included group breakout sessions where input and comments from the public
participants were recorded. Below is a summary of the general themes, comments, and
concerns that were noted during the group breakout session.

General Themes, Comments, and Concerns

General

Participants discussed the existing traffic characteristics, noting that congestion, though
worse during the summer months (specifically between Memorial Day to Labor Day) is
not truly seasonal and occurs throughout the year. Other noted times of congestions
include holiday weekends, winter ski traffic, and special local events such as the balloon
festival and Great Escape events. General discussions of the corridor included truck
traffic, length of turn lanes, and informational signing concerns. Details on the
discussions for the northern, middle, and southern corridors are outlined below.

Northern Corridor

In the northern corridor between the Exit 20 Northbound ramps and Route 149,
participants noted the following comments and/or issues:
• Pedestrian bridge or tunnel needed at outlets
• Re-routing of trucks to/from Vermont
• Additional signage routing traffic to Lake George via Exit 21
• Signing to re-route trucks out of the corridor
• Bus turnouts needed
• Center median is used as a through lane during times of congestion
• More signs indicating need to yield to pedestrians (out of town visitors are
not familiar with laws)
• Retailers welcome pass-by traffic
• Need more cross connections in parking lots

• Use of back parking lots at outlets would allow more connections and
access management (example used was Manchester, Vermont)
• Add an additional lane north on Route 9 to encourage NB traffic to go
north from Route 149 to avoid congestion
• Extend turn lane northbound on Route 9 at Exit 20 NB Ramp intersection
• Use traffic cops at Route 149 intersection to control traffic during
congestion
• Potential roundabout at Route 149/Route 9
• Interchange at Route 149

Middle Corridor

In the middle corridor between Gurney Road and the NB Ramps, participants noted the
following comments and/or issues:
• An access to cut-through the municipal center would avoid congestion on
Glen Lake Road
• The Exit 20 Southbound ramps experience heavy queues year round
• The Exit 20 interchange should be moved to the north to connect to Route
149
• Improve bike and pedestrian accommodations from the bike trail across I-
87 on Gurney Lane bridge
• Install a roundabout at West Mountain Road and limit access at SB ramps
• Install a roundabout in front of the municipal center
• Lane delineation needed in Route 9 between Gurney Lane and the Exit 20
NB ramps
• Concern with accidents on the SB ramps
• What are traffic implications of Lake George campground development
• Pedestrians are not accommodated on Gurney Lane bridge
• Northbound left-turn lane at Gurney Lane is short, people drive in median

Southern Corridor

In the southern corridor between Glen Lake Road and Round Pond Road, the following
comments and/or issues are noted:
• Left-turns on Round Pond Road block right turning vehicles
• Direct access to Great Escape from I-87 should be constructed
• Congestion is caused by vehicles entering/exiting Great Escape it better
than it was, but additional signs are still needed since vehicles often pass
Six Flags Drive and then have to turn around
• Trolley drops off Great Escape employees on Route 9, then employees do
not use pedestrian bridge-dangerous
• Vehicles go around stopped trolleys
• Signal timing at Glen Lake Road intersection does not appear to address
summer peaks-in general timing at this intersection seems off
• Traffic is high around 3:00 during Great Escape season and around 4:30
Route 9 northbound toward Gurney Lane is backed up

• Left arrow needed at Municipal Center for southbound traffic
• Pedestrian accommodations needed at Round Pond Road
• Off-site parking areas for Great Escape causing congestion and
pedestrian issues

Written Comments
In addition to comments noted during the meeting there were a number of written
comments that were received. Below is a summary of the received comments:

1. There should be a pull off lane area for transit buses at pickup stops. Stop lights
should be traffic activated. Better signage related to parking for “Great Escape”,
including private parking lots should be installed.
2. An unpaved bicycle path behind the present Warren County Social Services Building
accesses the Gurney Lane. Recreation/Pool Area. Little to no signing exists to
direct cyclists to the recreation area, resulting in most cyclists using the dangerous,
lower, curved portion of Gurney Lane to the vehicle entrance to the Rec. Area.
Efforts should be addressed to improve a safer access by pedestrians and cyclists to
enter and exit the recreation area, in particular, better signing and paving of the
existing path.
3. Traffic rotaries could be helpful at the junction of Route9/Gurney Lane at the
entrance to Warren County Municipal Center. A second traffic circle could ease
traffic flow at Gurney Lane & the Exit 20 southbound entrance ramps. I would like to
see a full interchange for Exit 20 at the 149 & Rte 9 junction.
4. There is heavy traffic northbound on Route 9 from Round Pond due to exiting cars
from Great Escape. Illegal turns are common. Rerouting traffic from 149 to Oxbow
Hill Road to Glen Lake Road – too small a road. Use traffic cops at heaviest times.
Adjust lights for summer use. Maintain rural character west of 87. Better use of Exit
21 for Route 149 vehicles turning north. Better signage.
5. We know the traffic movement is slow to stop. I would believe some reduction of
traffic load should have been presented to suggest better movement. Not much said
about effect of taking away the Rt 149 load. Be interested in the % of truck to car
traffic.

6.
Please include traffic issues (vehicle counts, features of intersections, rights of way,
etc.) for West Mountain Road and Mountainview Lane in both the Exit 20 and
Aviation Rd. corridor studies. Residents of these roads are concerned that their
problems and area traffic impacts often fall through the cracks when, in fact, these 2
roads link 2 heavily traveled corridors.

Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan

Public Workshop #2
February 11, 2009

PUBLIC MEETING SUMMARY

The second Public Meeting for the Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan was held on
February 11, 2009 at 6:00 pm at the Ramada Inn – Exit 19. The purpose of the meeting
was to present and receive comments on the draft alternatives. The meeting was
advertised online on the Project website, through postcard mailings and flyers and
through local news publications. The workshop was attended by approximately 40
people including several members of the advisory committee.

The meeting was facilitated by Aaron
Frankenfeld of the Adirondack/Glens Falls
Transportation Council (A/GFTC) and Don
Adams and Wendy Cimino of Creighton
Manning Engineering, LLP (CME). The
meeting included a technical presentation and
question and answer session. Alternatives
for the corridor were also on display for
participants to review. CME staff and
A/GFTC representatives were present to
respond to any questions.

The presentation reviewed project goals and
gave details on the analysis conducted and
resulting design alternatives for the corridor.
In addition to intersection and corridor
alternatives, details on the three interchange
alternatives were presented. Additional
details on low-cost improvements including
access management, transit, and signing
were presented.

A question and answer period followed the
presentation. Below is a summary of the general themes and comments that were
noted during the meeting.

General Themes, Comments, and Concerns

Northern Section of the Corridor

Several design options were presented for the northern section of the corridor, referred
to as the “key corridor” of the study. After a review of the improvement alternatives,
participants questioned what would happen when the two lanes at the intersections
merge into one. There was concern that improvements to the two intersections would
not solve the current traffic issue. CME staff noted that adding lanes at the
intersections, even though they will merge down to single lanes in the key corridor,
would allow for increased capacity at the intersections increasing the flow of vehicles. It
was also noted that making Route 9 a four-lane section was not an option.

There was also discussion of truck traffic being a major issue for the corridor. Trucks
travel from I-87 to Route 9 and use Route 149 to go to Vermont. CME noted that heavy
vehicle traffic was accounted for in the traffic analysis.

Regarding the roundabout options, participants questioned the diameter of the
roundabouts and impacts to property owners. Specific concerns were raised regarding
the mid-block roundabout proposed near the outlets. CME noted that the size of the
each roundabout was taken into consideration and is based on specific design criteria.

Participants questioned how the proposed roundabout compared to the one in
Greenwich. There was also concern with constructing a roundabout in a tourist area.
There was concern that there would be increased safety issues due to drivers not
knowing where they are going. CME staff was not familiar with the roundabout at
Greenwich, but noted that roundabouts were noted to increase safety both for vehicles
and pedestrians.

Participants discussed the design work CME conducted in Glens Falls. There was
concern that there was more available space in Glen Falls and that the lack of space in
the corridor would be an issue. After reviewing the alternatives noting the two lane
roundabouts, there was discussion regarding the need and safety of constructing a two
lane roundabout. One participant noted that it is difficult for trucks (specifically 48 foot
tracker trailers) to get through a two lane roundabout. Cars try to pass the truck as it
needs to swing into both lanes to maneuver through the roundabout. CME staff noted
that two left lanes can cause the same type of issue. Another participant noted that
RVs (usually 45 feet in length with a 25 foot car attached) travel through the corridor
frequently and may experience similar issues when traveling through a roundabout.

A question was raised regarding the transport of wind turbines and the ability for trucks
caring the turbines to travel through the roundabouts. CME staff noted that trucks
carrying wind turbines travel on specific routes that are able to accommodate needed
turning radius. Movement of turbines is part of a construction plan and does not occur
randomly in any corridor.

Median Alternative
As noted, concerns with this alternative focused primarily around the mid-block
roundabout at the outlet driveways.

Back Access Road

The alternative detailing the construction of an access road east of the outlets
connecting Route 9 to 149 was discussed in detail. Many participants noted this access
road (which would create a four-leg intersection with the I-87 northbound exit
ramp/Route 9 intersection and would create a direct route for traffic specifically destined
for Route 149) as a viable option. Participants questioned if the road could be designed
in such a way to not affect private property and CME noted the potential for both
property and environmental impacts. There was some concern that a bypass would
hurt the local business by diverting pass-by traffic.

Access Management

There was detailed discussion regarding access management for the key corridor.
Participants noted their desire to reduce driveways and consolidate parking areas.
There was discussion regarding meeting with the current business owners to create an
understanding of the advantages of access management. CME noted that there has
been outreach to local business. One participant noted that business owners should
realize that gridlock is not good for business and that outreach should continue.

Pedestrian Activity

There was discussion of pedestrian activity; specifically at the outlet area and on the
Gurney Lane Bridge. It was suggested that a pedestrian tunnel mid-block at the outlets
be considered. The tunnel would be utilized during the peak outlet period (Memorial
Day to Labor Day) and could be closed during the winter months. CME noted that
making a pedestrian bridge or tunnel ADA compliant would likely result in substantial
impacts to properties. There was also discussion regarding the Gurney Lane bridge
and its need for repair. It was noted that pedestrian accommodations should be
considered when this bridge is repaired or replaced. A/GFTC representatives noted
that there are currently no funds dedicated to repairing/upgrading the Bridge.

Interchange Alternatives

Participants questioned the federal and state government involvement in the planning
and design of a new interchange. CME staff noted that there are strict federal/state
guidelines that must be followed when designing a new interchange and detailed some
of the guidelines.

Community members noted that an Interchange at Route 149 would alleviate traffic on
Route 9, but it might also hurt businesses by diverting traffic. Placing an interchange
half mile north of Route 149 was proposed.

Written Comments

In addition to comments noted during the meeting there were a number of written
comments that were received. Below is a summary of the received comments:

• The best bang for the buck is a right turn lane expansion for Route 149
westbound. It would also send a message to the business owners in the Corridor
that the matter needs their full cooperation.
• One thing that backs up traffic during the summer season is the Great Escape
parking lot entrance on the Park side. Traffic coming southbound on Route 9 is
backed up because the Great Escape parking attendance must collect fees and
direct cars to parking. While that process is going on the traffic on Route 9 is
waiting and backing up to the Route 9/Gureney Lane intersection. I do not think
this was anticipated in the original concept of their site plan. Traffic was
supposed to use the ring road at the Glen Lake traffic light.
• We like the option of the bypass on the eastside of the outlets.
• We would rather see signalized intersections. We do not like roundabouts, in
particular at the Route 9/Route 149 intersection.
• Push for interconnected driveways
• Absolutely no median.
• Avoid an anti-merchant feeling if you are looking for cooperation.
• Sidewalks are currently too close to the street and do not allow for proper snow
storage.

Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan

Public Workshop #3
July 1, 2009

PUBLIC MEETING SUMMARY

The third Public Meeting for the Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan was held on July 1,
2009 at 6:00 pm at the Ramada Inn – Exit 19. The purpose of the meeting was to
present and receive comments on the alternatives and share changes made in the
plans with the public. The meeting was advertised online on the Project website,
through postcard mailings and flyers and through local news publications. The
workshop was attended by approximately 25 people including several members of the
advisory committee.

The meeting was facilitated by Aaron Frankenfeld of the Adirondack/Glens Falls
Transportation Council (A/GFTC) and Don Adams and Wendy Cimino of Creighton
Manning Engineering, LLP (CME). The meeting included a technical presentation and
question and answer session. Alternatives for the corridor were also on display for
participants to review. CME staff and A/GFTC representatives were present to respond
to any questions.

The presentation reviewed the analysis conducted and resulting design alternatives for
the corridor and potential implementation strategies. In the key corridor, the “median
alternative” and “back access alternative” were reviewed. In addition, a third alternative
in the key corridor addressing access management was presented. This alternative
was focused on based on comments made at the 2
nd public workshop meeting.
Discussions of improvement alternatives on Gurney Lane were also presented. Details
on potential costs for each improvement option were presented. Additional discussions
regarding project implementation were included in the presentation.

A question and answer period followed the presentation. Below is a summary of the
general themes and comments that were noted during the meeting.

General Themes, Comments, and Concerns

A discussion took place regarding the economy, lack of funding, and how to proceed
with the document and concepts that will be a product of this study. This led to a
discussion on how the Town can prepare the corridor to plan for the future. It was noted
that whatever the Town can do now will prepare the corridor for future larger scale
improvements and will potentially put the corridor a “step ahead” of others. This
discussion noted the importance of having a champion for the project.

It was noted that this project will not provide a single recommendation for the corridor
and that the exact solution will be determined with additional studies. The additional

studies would include a more detailed look on the design and would include detailed
engineering and environmental studies.

Some attendees stressed that the corridor should not be changed too much. However,
it was agreed that improvement is needed.

Written Comments:

In addition to comments noted during the meeting there were a number of written
comments that were received. Below is a summary of the received comments:
• Would like to see a short-term solution for under $200,000
• Town needs to be pro-active with property owners
• Would like additional bike/pedestrian lanes
• Town needs to adopt the completed plan and use it to modify zoning to prepare
the corridor-potential overlay district
• Provide current zoning regulations and make recommendations to modify based
on improvements

Appendix B – Automatic Traffic Recorder Data

Exit 20 Corridor Management plan
Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York

Appendix C – Turning Movement Count Data

Exit 20 Corridor Management plan
Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York

Appendix D – Existing Level of Service Analysis

Exit 20 Corridor Management plan
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 defined in terms of control delay, which is a
measure of driver discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption, and 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 actually
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 progression, the cycle length, the green ratio, and
the v/c ratio for the lane group. Levels of service are defined to represent reasonable 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 cycle lengths, or both. More vehicles
stop than with LOS A, causing higher levels of delay.

LOS C describes operations with control delay greater than 20 and up to 35 s/veh.
These higher delays may result from only fair progression, longer cycle lengths, 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 vehicles stopping is significant at this level, though many still pass through the
intersection without stopping.

LOS D describes operations with control 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 than 55 and up to 80 s/veh.
These high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and
high v/c ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent.

LOS F describes operations with control delay in excess of 80 s/veh. This level,
considered unacceptable to most drivers, often occurs with oversaturation, 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.

LOS Definitions
The following is an excerpt from the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM).

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 length, 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
minor 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 Criteria 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

Appendix E – Parking Lot Inventory

Exit 20 Corridor Management plan
Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York

Existing Parking Lot Spaces for Exit 20 Key Corridor
West Side
Vendor/Store Business: Capacity # Occupied % Occupied
Montcalm Restaurant – 68 2:20 PM 13 19.1% 3:05 PM 9 13.2% 3:55 PM 4 5.9% Average 9 12.7% Tommy Hilfiger, Sunglasses Hut, Gap, Jockey, Nine West,
Banana Republic, Pfaltzgraff 211
2:12 PM 190 90.0% 3:00 PM 178 84.4% 3:50 PM 168 79.6% Average
179 84.7%
Sunoco 15 2:15 PM 4 26.7% 3:05 PM 10 66.7% 3:50 PM 15 100.0% Average 10 64.4% Rodeway Inn 25 2:05 PM 6 24.0% 3:05 PM 7 28.0% 3:45 PM 8 32.0% Average 7 28.0% VACANT BUILDING – Spirit Halloween Store Coming Soon 52 2:00 PM 3 5.8% 3:00 PM 2 3.8% 3:40 PM 2 3.8% Average 2 4.5% Scooters Rentals 2 2:00 PM 2 100.0% 2:55 PM 1 50.0% 3:40 PM 1 50.0% Average 1 66.7% VACANT BUILDING – Designer Warehouse Home & Garden 27 2:00 PM 2 7.4% 2:55 PM 3 11.1% 3:40 PM 4 14.8% Average 3 11.1% Franks Pasta and Pizza Restaurant 25 2:00 PM 10 40.0% 2:50 PM 13 52.0% 3:40 PM 11 44.0% Average 11 45.3% Super Shoes 85 2:00 PM 15 17.6% 2:50 PM 15 17.6% 3:40 PM 17 20.0% Average 16 18.4%
Total 510 238 46.7%

Existing Parking Lot Spaces for Exit 20 Key Corridor (Continued)
East Side
Vendor/Store Business: Capacity # Occupied % Occupied
Mobil Gas NA NA NA NA Ralph Lauren, Yankee Candle, KasperPerfumania, Jones
NY, Bass, IZOD, Timberland, Nautica, Lane Bryant, Harry
and David, Pacsun 102

2:20 PM 102 100.0% 3:10 PM 102 100.0% 4:00 PM 100 98.0% 101 99.3% Covered Parking Lot in Rear of Outlets 110
2:26 PM 66 60.0% 3:10 PM 72 65.5% 4:00 PM 55 50.0% Average 64 58.5% Eddie Bauer, Big Dogs, Factory Brand Shoes, Ck’s Eatery,
Dress Barn, Corning Ware 209

2:40PM 119 56.9%
3:20PM 130 62.2% 4:05 PM 115 55.0% Average 121 58.1% Lined Parking Lot in Rear of Outlets 99 2:30 PM 6 6.1% 3:20 PM 8 8.1% 4:05 PM 8 8.1% Average 7 7.4% Olde Pose Grill, Clarion Suites 198 2:35 PM 80 40.4% 3:20 PM 71 35.9% 4:05 PM 71 35.9% Average 74 37.4% Reebok Outlet 100 2:45 PM 35 35.0% 3:20 PM 26 26.0% 4:10 PM 26 26.0% Average 29 29.0% Brooks Brothers, Carter’s, Orvis, Olympia Sports, Log Jam
Restaurant 205

2:50 PM 115 56.1% 3:30 PM 101 49.3%
4:15 PM 116 56.6% Average 111 54.0% Family Footwear, Dominoes, Casual Male XL, The Sox
Market 67

2:51 PM 49 73.1% 3:30 PM 45 67.2% 4:20 PM 40 59.7% Average 45 66.7%
Total 1090 552 50.6%

East/West Side Parking Lot Summary 1600 790 49.3%

Appendix F – Alternative Evaluation Matrix

Exit 20 Corridor Management plan
Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York

Improvement
Improvement timeframe
Constructability
Cost
ROW
Effect on Pedestrian Access/ Accommodations
Effect on Traffic Flow
Anticipated Environmental Impacts
Meets Project Objectives
Key Study Area Corridor Alternatives: Alternative 1 Install roundabouts at Exit 20 NB Ramps and Route 149 Long-
term Complex staging
to maintain traffic $$$ Yes
At intersections
shorter crossing
distances More efficient
traffic flow through
intersections Will decrease
emissions connected
with idling vehicles Yes Alternative 2- Alternative 1 plus center median and mid-block
roundabout Long-
term Complex staging
to maintain traffic $$$ Yes Center median
refuge area for
pedestrians Less conflicts with
driveway traffic in
corridor Will decrease
emissions connected
with idling vehicles Yes Alternative 3- Alternative 1 plus a back connection at outlets Long-
term Minor Staging for
back connection $$ Yes Reduce vehicular
traffic on Route 9
will improve
pedestrian access Reduce vehicular
traffic/congestion on
Route 9
Potential wetland
impacts, increase
traffic/emissions
adjacent to
residential homes Yes Maintain signalized intersection at Route 9/Exit 20 Northbound Ramps Short-
term Minor Staging $$ Yes Longer crossing
distances with
additional vehicular
lanes. Additional lanes
required/limited
capacity available Limited capacity
would still exist,
additional through
lanes on Route 9
needed No Maintain signalized intersection at Route 9/NY Route 149 Short-
term Minor Staging $$ Yes Longer crossing
distances with
additional vehicular
lanes. Major geometric
improvements
would be needed
with limited
available capacity Limited capacity
would still exist,
additional through
lanes on Route 9
needed No Use police to control signal at Route 149 intersection with Route 9 Short-
term None $ No Could be improved
when police present Could be
improved/could
cause confusion and
inconsistency Safety concerns No Southern Corridor Study Area Intersection Improvements: Construct westbound left-turn lane on Round Pond Road at Route 9 Long-
Term Moderate staging
to maintain traffic $$ Yes Increase cross
distance on Round
Pond Road Improve queue on
Round Pond Road,
decrease delay for
right-turn vehicles Minimal No Install traffic signal at Round Pond Road Long-
Term Minor staging to
maintain traffic $$ No Improved pedestrian
accommodations at
signal Increased capacity at
intersection, better
accessibility for
Round Pond Road Additional queued
vehicles on mainline Partially

Improvement
Improvement timeframe
Constructability
Cost
ROW
Effect on Pedestrian Access/ Accommodations
Effect on Traffic Flow
Anticipated Environmental Impacts
Meets Project Objectives
Adjust signal timings at Glen Lake Road to better accommodate peak
hour flows Short-
Term None $ No Existing pedestrian
accommodations
maintained Improve flow
through intersection None Partially Use police to control signal at Gurney Lane intersection with Route 9 Short-
Term None $ No Could be improved
when police present Could be
improved/could
cause confusion and
inconsistency Safety concerns No Construct free flow right turn lane on Gurney Lane with exclusive lane
on Route 9 directly into Six Flags Drive Long-
term Moderate staging
to maintain traffic $$ Yes Existing pedestrian
accommodations
maintained Additional capacity
provided for
vehicles traveling to
private development None Partially Low Cost Improvement Options: Provide visible transit stops on Route 9 with amenities Short-
Term Minor $ Yes Better accommodate
pedestrians in
corridor Minimal Reduced emissions
with less stops for
transit between
designated stops Yes Provide shuttle bus loop exclusively for the outlets from the municipal
building lot to a lot north of Route 149 Short-
Term None $$ No Less conflict on
Route 9 with
reduced passenger
vehicle travel Decrease passenger
vehicle travel in
corridor Reduced emissions
with increased
transit use Yes Install additional pedestrian crossings on Route 9 (clearly marked
crosswalks) Short-
Term Minor $ No Improved access and
visibility Minimal effect None Partially Consolidate Outlet driveways Short-
Term Minor $ No Less conflicts with
driveway traffic Less conflicts with
turning vehicles None Partially Improve cross access between parking lots in outlet area Short-
Term Moderate $ No Less conflict on
Route 9/more
internal conflicts Reduces traffic
turning to/from
Route 9 None Partially Use VMS signs during peak travel times/seasons Short-
Term None $ No Reduced traffic will
reduce conflicts with
vehicles Reduce congestion
by redirecting traffic
out of corridor Maintenance
concerns Yes Additional signing in corridor to better direct traffic Short-
Term Minor $ No Minimal Reduce congestion
by better directing
traffic None Yes Increase pedestrian signing throughout corridor Short-
term Minor $ No Improved
knowledge and
visibility for Minimal effect None Partially

Improvement
Improvement timeframe
Constructability
Cost
ROW
Effect on Pedestrian Access/ Accommodations
Effect on Traffic Flow
Anticipated Environmental Impacts
Meets Project Objectives
pedestrians
Provide pedestrian bridge over Route 9 in the northern section of the
corridor adjacent to the outlets Long-
Term Complex staging
to maintain traffic $$$$ Yes Improved safety for
those who use
bridge. Character
of area makes
defined use difficult Improved flow with
less pedestrian
conflicts None Yes Install traffic signal at I-87 Exit 20 SB Ramps Long-
Term Moderate staging
to maintain traffic $$$ No Improved pedestrian
accommodations at
signal Increased capacity at
intersection Additional queued
vehicles on mainline Partially Restrict ‘outside’ private parking lots for the Great Escape Short-
Term None No No Better streamlines
pedestrian use the
pedestrian bridge Reduce turning
movements in/out of
adjacent business
lots None Partially Interchange Options: Construct additional interchange to allow direct access into Great
Escape from I-87 Long-
Term Complex staging
to maintain traffic $$$$ Yes Reduced vehicular
conflict in corridor Reduce congestion
by removing traffic
from Route 9
corridor Geometric issues
with grades Yes Construct additional interchange at Route 149 Long-
Term Complex staging
to maintain traffic $$$$ Yes Reduced vehicular
conflict in corridor Reduce congestion
by removing traffic
from Route 9
corridor Major impacts to
undeveloped land,
Geometric issues
with grades Yes

Appendix G – 2013 Future Level of Service
Analysis

Exit 20 Corridor Management plan
Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York

Appendix H – 2028 Future Level of Service
Analysis

Exit 20 Corridor Management plan
Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York

Key Study Area Intersection Level of Service

Back Access Alternative Level of Service

Southern Corridor Study Area Intersection Level of Service

Appendix I – Access Management

Exit 20 Corridor Management plan
Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York

ARTICLE 19, Access Management
179-19-010. Commercial driveway standards.
A. Purpose. The Town of Queensbury recognizes that one of the most important
objectives of access management is to reduce conflicts along the most heavily traveled
roadways to achieve safe and efficient movement of traffic. Conflict points can be
reduced through appropriate limitations on the number of driveways, driveway spacing,
and by establishing provisions for vehicles to move between parking areas to access
abutting properties.
B. General.
(1) The site layout, location and design of driveways, parking, and other access
management requirements should be based on full permissible development of a
property.

(2) Driveways should be limited to one per property. More than one driveway may be
permitted if:

(a) The additional driveway(s) does not degrade traffic operations and safety on
state or local roads; and

(b) The additional driveway(s) will improve the safe and efficient movement of
traffic between the property and the road.

(3) Driveways to properties with frontage on two or more roads shall be provided to the
road with the lowest functional classification serving the proposed use of the property.

(4) Properties with frontage on two or more roads do not have the right to driveways to all
roads.

(5) Driveways may be required to be located so as to provide shared driveways and/or
cross-access driveways with an abutting property or properties.

(a) Shared driveways and/or cross access driveways shall be of sufficient width
(minimum 20 feet, 6.0 meters) to accommodate two-way travel for automobiles
and service and loading vehicles. Wider driveways may be required to serve
traffic to major generators and/or large vehicles.

(b) Shared driveways, cross-access driveways, interconnected parking, and
private roads constructed to provide access to properties internal to a subdivision
shall be recorded as an easement and shall constitute a covenant running with the
land. Operating and maintenance agreements for these facilities shall be recorded
with the deed.
C. Driveway spacing standards.

(1) Driveway spacing standards shall apply to driveways located on the same side of a
road.
(2) Driveway spacing is to be measured along the road from the closest edge or curbline
of the driveway pavement to the closest edge or curbline of the next driveway.

(3) Driveways shall be located so as to meet or exceed the driveway spacing standards
shown in the chart below:

(a) PHT, peak hour trips, will be determined through the application of the most
current Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip generation methods and
statistics.

(b) PHT, peak hour trips, should be based on full build-out of the property.

(c) The larger of the minimum driveway spacing standards for the proposed
development or for existing developments at abutting properties will apply.
Driveways for infill development must meet the driveway spacing standards to
abutting properties on both sides.

(d) The Planning Board may waive the separation standards in the event the
applicant can demonstrate that no negative impact on the transportation system
will result in the relaxing of this standard and the applicant has provided for future
consolidation of curb cuts and cross-easements consistent with the intent of these
regulations.

D. Other guidance. The Planning Board shall utilize the NYSDOT Policy and Standards
for Entrances to State Highways (February 1998) or its most current version as a guide in
establishing other criteria for commercial development.

Development Size in Peak Hour Trips, PHT
Small Moderate Large
Road Classification 0 to 100
PHT 101 to 300
PHT Great than 300
PHT
Arterial 330 feet 440 feet 550 feet
Collector 220 feet 330 feet 440 feet
Access or
development 60% of the minimum frontage requirement

§ 179-19-020 Residential lots abutting collector or arterial roads.
A. Purpose. The Town of Queensbury realizes that unrestricted access onto arterial and
collector roads can hinder the safe and efficient movement of traffic. Subdivisions,
especially small subdivisions, have tended to provide direct access onto these roadways
from each single-family lot. Lots fronting on local roads rather than arterials or collector
roads shall be encouraged, while lots fronting on collector or arterial roads shall be
discouraged.

B. Designated roads. The following streets, roads and routes have been designated as
regional or local arterial roads or collector roads. Land fronting on these roads shall
comply with the requirements of this section.

(1) Regional arterial roads:
(a) Corinth Road.
(b) Main Street.
(c) Aviation Road from I-87 east to Route 9.
(d) Quaker Road.
(e) Dix Avenue.
(f) Ridge Road from Quaker Road north to Route 149.
(g) Route 149.
(h) Route 9.
(i) Bay Road.
(2) Local arterial roads:
(a) West Mountain Road.
(b) Mountain View Lane.
(c) Aviation Road from West Mountain Road east to I-87.
(d) Potter Road.
(e) East Shore Drive.
(f) Ridge Road from Route 149 north to East Shore Drive.
(g) Ridge Road from Glens Falls north to Quaker Road.
(h) Country Club Road.
(i) County Line Road.
(j) Highland Avenue.
(k) Lower Warren Street.
(l) River Street.
(m) Hicks Road.
(n) Glenwood Avenue.
(o) Round Pond Road/Blind Rock Road.
(p) Haviland Road.
(3) Collector roads:
(a) Pitcher Road.
(b) Luzerne Road.

(c) Sherman Avenue.
(d) Peggy Ann Road.
(e) Dixon Road.
(f) Park View Avenue.
(g) Cronin Road.
(h) Sweet Road.
(i) Glen Lake Road.
(j) Martindale Road.
(k) Moon Hill Road.
(l) Sunny Side Road.
(m) Sunny Side Road East.
(n) Pickle Hill Road.
(o) Van Dusen Road.
(p) Richardson Street.
(q) Meadowbrook Road.
(r) Rockwell Road.
(s) Gurney Lane Road.
(t) Jenkinsville Road.
(u) Pilot Knob Road.

C. Regulations. As of the effective date of this chapter, all residential lots fronting on a
collector or arterial road identified herein or any new collector or arterial roads shall have
two times the lot width permitted in the zone in which the lot is located, except that this
requirement shall not apply under circumstances where adjoining residential lots exist or
are proposed to be established and the width of each lot meets the required width of the
zone and ingress or egress is limited to and provided by a single common driveway,
which is documented on a plat and in a written legal document, which is recordable in the
Warren County Clerk’s office.

Click Here For PDF