Regional Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan

REGIONAL BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN PLAN
Adirondack/Glens Falls  Transportation Council
Adirondack/Glens
Falls  Transportation Council

July
2014
July
2014

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction  ………………………………………………………………………………………..  1
Purpose  ………………………………………………………………………………………..  1
Benefits  of  Bicycle  and  Pedestrian  Facilities  ………………………………………  2
Bicycle  Improvements  ………………………………………………………………………….  3
Existing  Conditions  …………………………………………………………………………  3
Priority  Bicycle  Network  ………………………………………………………………….  4
Design  Standards ……………………………………………………………………………  8
Bicycle  Shoulder  Physical  Feasibility  Analysis  …………………………………..  13
Bicycle  Facility  Improvement  Process   …………………………………………….  15
Other  Bicycle  Improvements  ………………………………………………………….  18
Pedestrian  Improvements  …………………………………………………………………..  19
Pedestrian  Facilities:  Policies  and  Legislation  …………………………………..  19
Pedestrian  Design  Features  ……………………………………………………………  22
Pedestrian  Facilities  in  Suburban  and  Rural  Environments  ………………..  29
Pedestrian  Priority  Map  ………………………………………………………………..  30
Implementation  …………………………………………………………………………………  32
Partnerships  ………………………………………………………………………………..  32
Funding  ……………………………………………………………………………………….  33
References:
AASHTO.  (July  2004).  Guide  for the  Planning,  Design,  and  Operation  of Pedestrian  Facili ‐
ties.
Hughes,  H.  H.  (2001).  Evaluation  of  Automated  Pedestrian  Detection  at Signalized  Inter‐
sections.  Federal Highway  Administration.
NYSDOT.  (2013).  Highway  Design  Manual,  Chapter  18:  Pedestrian  Facility  Design.
United  States Access  Board.  (2011).  Accessibility  Guidelines  for  Pedestrian  Facilities  in  the
Public  Right‐of‐Way.  Authority:  29  U.S.C.  792  and 42  U.S.C.  12204.

Regional Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan
Regional
Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan

Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
1
1

INTRODUCTION
Purpose
The Adirondack/Glens  Falls  Transportation  Council  (A/GFTC)  has
prepared  this  Regional  Bicycle  &  Pedestrian  Plan  with  the  intent  to
provide  a  framework  for  future  improvements  which  will  result  in
a  more  comprehensive  network  of  bicycle  and  pedestrian  facilities
in  Warren,  Washington,  and  northern  Saratoga  Counties.
This  plan,  which  updates  the  Bicycle  and  Pedestrian  Plan  prepared
by  A/GFTC  in  2000,  has  be en

created  in  conjunction  with  a  process
which  takes  into  account  the  priorities  of  the  local  municipalities
and  stakeholders  in  the  A/GFTC  region.  This process  is  intended  to
strengthen  ties  so  that  partnerships  can  continue  in  the  future
implementation  of the  priority  projects.  The  plan  in cl
udes:
An inventory  of  existing  conditions  at  a  regional  scale
A review  of all  available  community  plans  and  priorities  for
each  municipality
Identification  of  priority  bicycle  network  connections  and
pedestrian  priority  areas
Guidance  to  select  appropriate  design features
Identification  of  local  policies  to  support  bicycle  and
pedestrian  activity
A plan  for  implementation
This  process  has  resulted  in  a  plan  which  identifies  feasible,  real ‐
world  actions  that  can  be  taken  to  improve  biking  and  walking
within  the  region.  By  coordinating  implementation  across  local,
county,  and  state  levels,  it is  hoped  that  the  plan  will  increase  the
efficiency  and  efficacy  of  improvements.

Regional Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan
Regional
Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan

Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
2
2

Benefits of Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
Biking
and  walking,  whether  conducted  as  a mode  of
transportation  or  as  a recreational  activity, offer  a wide  variety  of
personal,  social,  and  environmental  benefits.  On  a  personal  level,
biking  and  walking  are not  only  ways  to  become  or  stay  physically
active,  but  also  affordable,  fun  transportation  methods  available  to
all  ages.  Socially,  these  ac ti
vities reduce  health  care  costs  and
vehicular  traffic,  can  provide  a healthy  activity  for  families  and
children,  and  can  provide  an  important  component  to  the  local
economy  in  terms  of tourism.  In  terms  of  the  environment,  biking
and  walking  can  be  an  effective  way  to  reduce  dependence  on  the
automobile,  and  subsequ ently re

duce  carbon  emissions.
With  all  these  benefits,  many  communities  are  demonstrating  a
strong  interest  in  strengthening  and  improving  bicycle  and
pedestrian  infrastructure,  on  both  a  local  and  regional  level.  Many
of  the  communities  within  the region  have  been  active  in  pursuing
ways  to  directly  and indirectly  im
prove  the  biki ng and  walking
experie

nce.  This has  included  innovative  partnerships,  physical
projects,  and  policies  that  encourage  improvements  to
infrastructure.  This plan  underscores  the  ongoing  commitment  to
encourage  pedestrian  and  bicycle  activity  for  the benefit  of
residents,  business owners,  and visitors  alike.

Regional Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan
Regional
Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan

Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
3
3

BICYCLE IMPROVEMENTS
Existing Conditions
This
section  of  the  plan  is  intended  to guide  the  improvement  of
bicycle  facilities  and  the  future  designation  of  bicycle  routes.  This
effort  is  not  “starting  from  scratch”,  but  is rather  the continuation
of  many  years  of  work  by  several  agencies.  A/GFTC,  local  bike
groups,  and  individual  municipalities  have  been  active  in
encouraging  accommodati ons for

cyclists.  It is  therefore  important
to  take  stock  of  the  conditions  for  cyclists  as  they  stand  today.
The  A/GFTC  region  currently  is  home  to  a  growing  bicycle  network,
including:
Separated  right ‐of ‐way  trails:  The A/GFTC  area  has
approximately  17  miles  of  trails  which  accommodate  non‐
roadway  travel. The  most  extensive  network  consists  of  the
Warren  County  Bikeway  and  Feeder  Canal  Trails, which  link  the
City  of  Glens  Falls  to  the  Villages  of  Fort  Edward,  Hudson  Falls,
and  Lake  George,  and  the  Towns  of  Queensbury,  Fort  Edward,
and  Ki ngsbur

y.  In addition,  there  are almost  5  miles  of  trail
located  in the  Village  and  Town  of  Granville.  This trail  is
located  along the  D&H  rail  bed  and extends  into  Vermont.
Finally,  the  Betar  Byway  in  South  Glens  Falls  links  the
downtown  to  the  Town  Beach  and  other  destinat ions.
Designated  cycling  routes: There are  currently  about  100
miles  of  on ‐road  bicycle  routes,  located  on  State  highways  and
local  roads  throughout  the  area.  These  include  US  Route  9  in
Saratoga  County,  NY  Route  197  in the  Town  of Moreau,  US
Route  4  and  NYS  22  (both  are elements  of  NYS  Bicycle  Route
9),  as  well  as  local  roads  in  the  Towns  of  Que ensbury,
Lake
Luzerne  and  the  City  of  Gl

ens Falls.  It is  anticipated  that  this
network  of  on ‐road  bicycle  routes  will  continue  to  grow  as
local  communities  adopt  policies  in  support  of  the  A/GFTC
Bicycle  and  Pedestrian  Plan  and  NYS  Complete  Streets
legislation.
There  are also  other  bi cy
cl

e  route  networks  and  facilities
surrounding  the  region,  especially  in  Saratoga,  Essex,  and  Hamilton
Counties.  These  include  networks  such  as  the  Saratoga  County
Heritage  Trail  and  the  “Bike  the  Byways”  network. Creating  and
maintaining  strong  connections  to  these  neighboring  opportunities
is  a  key  aspect  of  this  plan .

Regional Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan
Regional
Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan

Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
4
4

Priority Bicycle Network
The
goal  of  this  plan  is  to  provide  a  framework  for  future
improvements  which  will  result  in  a  more  expansive  and
comprehensive  network of  bicycle  and  pedestrian  facilities  in  the
A/GFTC  region.  Most  of  these  facilities  are  likely  to  be  located
along  existing  roadways.  However,  it is  not  realistic  to assume  tha
t
every  roadway  will be  the  focus  of  bi cycl

e  improvement  projects,
especially  given  current  funding  limitations.
As  such,  an  important  component  of  this  plan  involved  setting
priorities  to  identify  which  roadways  represent  the  highest  priority
for  designation  as  bike  routes  and/or  capital  improvements.  To  set
realistic  and  feasible  actions for  this  pla n,
several  factors  were
considered,  i n

cluding  local  priorities,  the  needs  of  the  cycling
community,  and  transportation  connectivity.
Local Priority  Routes: Many  local  municipalities  have
addressed  the  need  for bicycle  facilities  in  planning
documents.  All  available  local planning  documents  were
reviewed  to  determine  the  stated  bicycle  transportation
priorities  in  each  municipality.  Map  1  illustrates  the  roads
specifically  mentioned  within  a municipal  plan  as  being
suitable  for  current  bike  use  or  desired  for  bike  use  in  th e

future.   This  an a

lysis  highlights  the  fact  that  not  every
community  has  stated  priorities  concerning  cycling.  Some
communities  have  identified  specific  on ‐ and  off‐road
alignments,  while  others  include  a  general  statement  of
support  for  bicycling  issues.  Still  others  make  no mention  of
cycling  at all;  however,  this should  not  infer  that  the
commu

nity  does  not  support  bicycle  infrastructure.  Nothing  in
this  plan  is  intended  to  prevent  local  municipalities  from
supporting  the  establishment  of  additional  bicycle  facilities,
nor  to obligate  communities  to  engage  in projects  in  the
future.
Bicycle  Advocate  Priority  Routes:  Maintaining  and  promoting
safe,  functional  bicycle  facilities  along  the  roads  most  used  by
cyclists  is  a  key  goal  of  this  plan.  To facilitate  this,  several
stakeholder  groups  within  the  region  were  asked  to  generate  a
list  of  cycling  routes  and  desired  connections,  including  the
Warren  County  Safe  &  Quality  Bicycling  Organization  and  the
Cambridge  V a
lley  Cycling  Club.  These  road

ways  represent  the
 Terminology
Terminology

This
plan  makes  frequent  reference  to  two
important  concepts  relating  to  bicycle
networks.  These  include:
Bike Routes: A  system  or  network  of
roads,  streets,  paths  or  ways  that  have
been  designated  by the  jurisdiction
having  authority  with  directional  and/
or  informational  signage  or  pavement
markings.  It  should  not  be implied  that
roadways  not  designated  as  bike
routes  cannot  or  should  not  be  used
by  cyclists.
Bike Facilities:  The physical  surface on
which  the  cyclists  ride.  These  may
include,  but  are not  limited  to,  multi‐
use  trails,  bike  lanes,  road shoulders,
or  vehicle  travel  lanes. A  description  of
the  different  types  of  bicycle  facilities
is  included  in  this  plan.  Bike  facilities
can  also  include  other features
designed  to  accommodate/encourage
cycling,  such  as  bike  parki

ng  facilities.

Regional Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan
Regional
Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan

Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
5
5

alignments
of  existing  bike  events,  important
connections  to  recreation  destinations,  and
roadways  which  are enjoyable  to ride  (see Map
1).  Although  recreational  riding  is not  the  focus  of
this  plan,  it  is  important  to  recognize  those  routes
which  are  favored  by  the  biking  community.
The  maps  of  individual  priorities  provide  a  wide  range
of  on–  and  off‐road  options  for  a potential  bicycle
network.  From  among  these,  a  Priority  Bicycle
Network  was  selected  (Ma p 2).  Th

is  Priority  Network
balances  the  needs  of  the  local  municipalities  and
cycling  community  with  A/GFTC’s  focus  on  providing
transportation  options  throughout  the  region.  This
includes  connections  to  destinations  within  the  A/
GFTC  re g

ion,  as  well  as bike  routes  in  adjacent
counties.
This  network  is  intended  to  assist  in  the  decision ‐
making  process  for  both  designating  bicycle  routes
and  selecting  bicycle  improvement  projects.
However,  the  selection  of  capital  projects  involves
other  equally  important  factors.  The  following  section
of  this  pla n
a ddresses  the  design,  feasibility,  and
imple
mentation  of bicycle  improvement  projects.
Priority Bicycle Network
Priority
Bicycle Network

This
network  of  on ‐ and  off‐road  connections  balances
the  needs  of  the  local  municipalities  and  cycling
community  with  regional  transportation  connections.
A  detailed  map of  the  Priority  Bicycle  Network  can  be
found  online  here:
http://www.agftc.org/altern ativetransportation.htm

Regional Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan
Regional
Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan

Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |

Map 1: Municipal/Cyclist Group Bicycle Priority Map
6
6

Regional Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan
Regional
Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan

Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |

Map 2: A/GFTC Bicycle Priority Network
A
detailed  map  of  the  Priority  Bicycle Network
can  be  found  online  at
http://www.agftc.org/alternativetransportation.htm
7
7

Regional Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan
Regional
Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan

Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
8
8

Design Standards
Design
standards  for  bicycle  facilities  can  apply  to  the  location,
width,  pavement,  and other  features  such  as  drainage  grates  and
protective  railings.  These standards  may  be  applied  to  all  or part  of
an  on ‐road  facility  or  an  multi‐use  trail.
The  selection  of  a  bicycle  facility  depends  on  many  variables:  the
type  of cyclist  likely  to  use  the  facility;  tr affic

mix,  volume,  speed,
parking,  and  sight  distances  (for  on ‐road  facilities);  bicycle  speed,
grade,  multi‐ use capacity,  and  roadway/rail  crossings  (for  off‐road
facilities).  Several  agencies,  including NYSDOT,  FHWA,  and
AASHTO,  have  compiled  manuals  and  guidance  documents  which
can  help  to se lect
the  most  appropriate  design  standards  for  each
type  of  fa

cility.
For  the purposes  of  this  document,  the  most  commonly  applicable
design  standards  have  been  summarized  below. This  summary  is
intended  to  aid  in  the  prioritization  of  improvement  projects,  by
outlining  general  minimum  standards  for  the  types  of  facilities
most  likely  to  be  proposed  in  the  A/GFTC  region.  The design
standards  are  based  on  tho s

e in  the  NYSDOT  Highway  Design
Manual  Chapter  17 (Bicycle  Facility  Design),  and  on  AASHTO’s  2012
Guide  for the Development  of  Bicycle  Facilities.  Please  note that
these  standards  are  general;  specific  design  of  bicycle  facilities
must take  into  account  any  applicable  requirements  for  the
specific  roadway—i.e.  Federal,  State,  or  Local  regulations,  as
appropriate. Standards  for  features  such  as  bridges  or  railings
have  not  been  included;  refer  to  the  appropriate  guidance
document  for  detail  concerning  these  facilities.
This  summary  is  not  intended  to limit  the range  of  potential  bicycle
facilities  in  the  A/GFTC  region.  As  new  standards  are  adopted,  and
different  types  of  bicycle  facilities  teste d
and  de ployed,  it  is
recomme

nded  that these  new  techniques  be  reviewed  to
determine  if  they  may  be  appropriate  to conditions  in  the  A/GFTC
region.
Guidance Documents for
Guidance
Documents for
Bicycle Facility Design
Bicycle
Facility Design
Standards:
Standards:

American
Association  of State
Highway  and  Transportation
Officials  (AASHTO):  Guide for  the
Development  of  Bicycle  Facilities ,
2012
Federal  Highway  Administration
(FHWA):  Bikesafe:  Bicycle
Countermeasure  Selection  System ,
May  2006;  Selecting  Roadway
Design  Treatments  to
Accommodate  Bicycles , 1992
New  York State  Department  of
Transportation:  Highway  Design
Manual,  Chapter  17  Bicycle  Facility
Design,  2006

Regional Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan
Regional
Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan

Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
9
9

Bike
Shoulders (aka Wide Shoulders)
Most appropriate  for:  Rural/suburban  roadways  with limited
sections  of  curbing  and  without  on ‐street  parking.  This  is  a  space
that  can  be  used  by bicycles  but  is  not  specifically  devoted  to
them.
Design  standards:
4’‐wide (min.)  shoulder  for  non ‐curbed
roadways  with  speeds  under  40  MPH.  Width  increased  to 6’  for
higher ‐speed/higher ‐volume roadways,  roads which  exceed  5%
grade  for  6 miles  or  longer,  or  roads  with  curbs  or  other  obstacles
at  the  edge  of  pavement.   No  special  pavement  markings  are
required.
Advantages:

Many bike  shoulders  already  exist
No additional  maintenance  required  beyond  that  which  is
required  for  the roadway
Can sometimes  be  accommodated  via  re ‐striping
Appropriate  for rural  and  suburban  areas
No additional  striping  at  intersections
Disadvantages:

Less comfortable  for beginning/average  cyclists  than  bike  lanes
May require  additional  ROW  width
Cars parked  on  shoulder  can  reduce  space  available  in
shoulder  for  cyclists
6’ ‐ with  curb  4’ ‐ no  curb  Travel  lane
Above:  Wide  shoulder  designated  as a  bicycle  route
Diagram  of  typical  design  of  wide  shoulders

Regional Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan
Regional
Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan

Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
10
10

Bike
Lanes
Most appropriate  for:  Urban  roadways  with  curbing  and  on ‐street
parking.  Unlike  road  shoulders,  bike lanes  are  dedicated  solely  to
use  by  bicycles.
Design  standards:
4’‐wide (with  no  on ‐street  parking/curb)  or  5’‐
wide  (with  on‐street  parking/curb)  striped  lane  located  between
travel  lane  and  parking  lane/curb.   Requires  pavement  markings
and  directional  signage.
Advantages:

Higher profile/visibility  for  cyclists
Channelizes  bike  traffic
More  comfortable  for beginning/average  cyclists to  ride
Minimizes  cars  swerving  into  other  lane  to  avoid  cyclists
Can sometimes  be  accommodated  via  re ‐striping
Disadvantages:

Intersections can  become  complicated  with extra  bike  lane
striping  and  signage  (see  images  below  left)
May  require  additional  ROW  width
Mainly  an  urban  roadway  feature
Can pose  conflict  with  on ‐street  parking
Can be  blocked  by illegally  parked  cars
Top:  Bike  lane  without  on ‐street  parking
Bottom:  Bike  lane  with  on ‐street  parking
(photos  courtesy  of  pedbikeimages.org)
Top:  Striping  for  bike  lanes  at  intersection
Bottom:  Signage  for  bike  lanes
(photos  courtesy  of  pedbikeimages.org)

Regional Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan
Regional
Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan

Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
11
11

Shared
‐Use Lanes (a.k.a. Wide Curb Lanes)
Most appropriate  for:  Roadways  which  allow  bicycles  and  vehicles
to  ride  side‐by‐side,  but  in which  other  bicycle  facilities  cannot  be
accommodated.  Use  only  if  all  other  options  are  unfeasible.
Design  standards:
14’‐wide desired  travel  lane
Advantages:

Minimal striping  or  maintenance  required
Benefits to  non ‐bicycle  traffic:  accommodates  buses  and  truck
turning  movements/emergency  maneuvers
Disadvantages:

Least comfortable  for  beginning/average  cyclists
Wider travel  lanes  can  increase  traffic  speeds
Can pose  conflict  with  on ‐street  parking
No visual  indication  that the  roadway  contains a  bicycle  facility

14’‐wide  lane 14’‐wide  lane Parking  lane:
width  varies
Wide curb lane
(photo  courtesy  of pedbikeimages.org)
Typical  design standard  for  wide  curb  lane

Regional Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan
Regional
Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan

Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
12
12

Shared
‐Lane Markings
Most appropriate  for:  Roadways  with  lanes  less  than  14′  and
speeds  under  40  mph  where  no  other  dedicated  bicycle  facility  can
be  feasibly  accommodated.
Design  standards:
Set by  NYSDOT  supplement  of  the  MUTCD.
Pavement  markings  (“sharrow”)  and  signage  deployed  in
conjunction.
Advantages:

Less expensive  to deploy  than  facilities  which  require  road
widening  or  construction
No physical  changes  needed  to  roadway
Reduces  wrong ‐way cycling
Disadvantages:

Initial deployment  may  be  confusing  to  cyclists  and  motorists
May be  less  comfortable  for beginning/average  cyclists

Multi‐ Use Trail/Path (aka Off‐ Road Trail)
Most  appropriate  for:  Areas  with  existing  linear  ROW (rail/utility
corridors,  for  example)  which  link  destinations
Design  standards:
10’‐wide recommended  for  a two ‐way  path  (12’
preferred)
Advantages:

Least potential  for  vehicle/bike  conflict
Most comfortable  for  beginning/average  cyclists
Potential  to create  direct links
Recreation  amenity
Disadvantages:

Highest cost  to  implement  –  requires  ROW  acquisition,  design,
and  construction
Requires  separate  maintenance;  many  municipalities  may  be
unable  to  provide  maintenance
Top: Signage  for  shared‐ lane roadways
Bottom:  Pavement  marking  for  shared‐ lanes

Multi ‐use  trail

Regional Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan
Regional
Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan

Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
13
13

Bicycle Shoulder Physical Feasibility Analysis
In
addition  to identifying  the  location  of  important  bicycle
connections  (the  Priority  Network),  and  summarizing  the
applicable  design  standards  for  conditions  in  the  A/GFTC  region,
this  plan  also  analyzed  whether roadways  may  currently  have  the
requisite  pavement  width  to  meet  the  Design  Standard
appropriate  to the  context.  A  GIS  map  was  prepared  which
compares  the  existi ng
shoulder  width  to  the  bike  shoulders  Design
Standard.  Th is creates  a  co

nservative  analysis,  as the  width
necessary  for  the wide  shoulder  Design  Standard  is  greater  than or
equal  to  the  dimensions  needed  for  any  other  type  of  bicycle
facility.  As  such,  it  can  be  broadly  assumed  that  a  roadway  which  is
wide  e

nough  to  support  the  Design  Standard  for  bike  shoulders
will  likely  also  be  wide  enough  for shared  lanes,  bike lanes,  and so
forth.
The  existing  shoulder  width  was  based  on  GIS  information,  then
verified  via  inspection  by  A/GFTC  staff.  For  the  purposes  of  this
plan,  th
e average  paved  shoulder  width  was  measu r

ed  for  each
section  of roadway.   Roads  with  on ‐street  parking  were  not
included  in  this  analysis,  nor  were  gravel  shoulders.  This  analysis
does  not  take  into  account  the condition  of  the  pavement.  The
shoulder  width  was  then  compared  to the  posted  speed limit for
the  roadway.  It  sh o
u

ld  be  noted  that the  posted  speed  limit  is not
the  only  relevant  factor  when  determining  the  required  width  of  a
bike  shoulder.  Topography,  functional  classification  of  the
roadway,  traffic volume  and  mix,  and  sight  distance  are  all  other
factors  which  can  influence  the  appropriate  bike  sho ulder
width.
Posted  speed was  chosen  as  the  analysis  method  for

this  plan  to
facilitate  the  GIS  analysis.
The  results  of  this  analysis  are  shown  in  Map  3, which  indicates
that  the  majority  of  priority  roadways  do  not  have  current
sufficient  width to  meet  the  wide  shoulder  Design  Standard.  It is
crucial  to  note  tha t
lack  of  shoulder  width  does  not  im

ply  that  a
roadway  is inherently  unsafe  or  unsuitable  for  use  by  cyclists.  The
intent  of  this  mapping  exercise was  to determine  which,  if  any,
roadways  could  currently  meet  (or  come  close  to  meeting)  this
design  standard.  This  information  can be  usefu l
in  helping  roadw a
y
owners  determine  the  scope  of work  required  to  create  or
enhance  bicycle facilities  in  the  future.
Right
Right
‐
‐
of
of
‐
‐
Way
Way

Throughout
this document,  reference  is
made  to  “right‐of ‐way”, or ROW.   This
refers  to the  land  acquired  for, or
devoted  to,  transportation  purposes.  This
could  be a  road  (possibly  including
sidewalks)  or  a  path  or  trail  not
associated  with the  street  network.
In  many  cases,  the  ROW  is  owned
outright  by  the  enti
ty which  has  a utho
rity
over  the  road  or  trail—a  local
municipality,  a  county,  or  NYSDOT.  The
ROW  is  often  wider  than  the  actual  road
or   trail,  so  that  curbs,  sidewalks,
drainage,  signs,  and other  features  may
be  accommodated.
It   must  also  be  noted  that  many
roadways  in  the  A/GFTC  region  pr eda
t
e
formal  acquisition  by  the  municipality.
These  are  known  as  “user  highways”,
“highways  by  use”,  or “roads  by  use”.  The
public  right‐of ‐way  extends  only  to  the
“extent  of  actual  use”.  A  recent  NYS  court
opinion*  has  determined  that  “extent  of
actual  use  may  include,  in  addition  to  the
traveled  portion,  the  shoulders  an d
whatever

land  is  necessary  for  the safety
of  the   public  and  for  ordinary  repairs and
improvements.”
As  such,  widening  these  types  of  roads
past  the  extent  of  actual  use  usually
involves  acquisition  of  property  from
adjacent  landowners,  which  can
significantly  increase  the  cost  and  time
frame  of  cons truction
projects.
* Op  Atty  Gen (Informal) No.  99‐19
http://www.ag.ny.gov/sites/de fault/files/opinion/I%2099 ‐19%20pw.pdf

Regional Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan
Regional
Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan

Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |

Map 3: Shoulder Width Analysis
Note:
Road  sections  with on ‐street  parking  not  included  in  analysis.
14
14

Regional Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan
Regional
Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan

Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
15
15

Bicycle Facility Improvement Process
The
priority  network  identified  in  this  plan  is intended  to  serve  as  a
guide  for  the location  of  bicycle  facility  improvements.  However,
several  other  factors  will  play  an important  role  in the  timing  and
selection  of  projects  which  further  this plan.  These  are  listed
below.
Funding  availability. As  of  the  date  of  this  report,  traditional
A/GFTC  fund  sources  for  bicycle  facilities  are  very  limited  and
highly  competitive.  However,  funding through  the  NYS
Coordinated  Funding Application  process  or  other  sources  may
prove  to  be  viable  for  bicycle  projects  until  such  time  as
transportation  funds  through  A/GFTC  are  increased.
Complete Streets/Integration  with  other  transportation
projects.  Given the  current  funding  restrictions  facing  all
aspects  of  transportation,  combining  vehicle  and  bicycle
improvements  in  the  same  project  may  be the  most  efficient
and  effective  course  of  action.  Since  New  York State  recently
enacted  Complete  Streets  legislation  (see  page  20),  it  is  likely
that  bicycle  facilities  will  become  a  more  prominent  element  in
the  design  and  construction  of  roadways  at  the  St at

e and
County  level.  In  addition,  there  may  be opportunities  to  create
or  improve  a  bicycle  facility  during  a local  roadway  or bridge
project  in  the  future,  regardless  of  the  priority  level assigned
as  a part  of  this  plan.  Local  agencies  should  tak e
adv a
ntage of
these  opportunities  as  they  arise.
Target  Cyclist.  Cyclists  can  span  a  wide  range  of experience
levels  and  skill.  Experienced  cyclists  may  feel more
comfortable  using certain  types  of  bicycle  facilities  than  do
children  or less‐experienced  adults.  This  plan  does  not
differentiate  between  types  of  cyclists,  as  the  goal  is  to
encourage  cycling  for  everyone.  However,  the desire  to
accommoda t
e  a  wide  range  of  cy

clists  should  be  balanced  with
the  benefits  of  providing  a facility  where  none  currently  exists,
even  if  the  facility  may  not be  the  most  comfortable  for every
cyclist.  This balance  should be  informed  by  factors  such  as
proximate  land  uses,  location  of  the  proposed  facility, and
physical  constraints  of  the  roadway/trail  area.

Regional Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan
Regional
Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan

Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
16
16

To
further  facilitate  the  decision ‐making process,  a Bicycle  Facility
Improvement  Process  has  been  developed.  The first  step  in  that
process  is  to  select  the  appropriate  Design Standards  for  the
roadway  in question.  Not  every  roadway  will require  a  dedicated
bicycle  facility.  Roads  with  very  low  traffic  volumes,  for  example,
may  operate  adequately  as  bicycle  fa cili
ties without  any  physical
alterations.  The  next  step  is  to  determine  how additional
improvements,  if required,  can  be  funded  and  constructed.  The
flow  chart  on  page  17  is intended  to help  guide  this  process.
Factors  such  as  existing  pavement  width,  the  feasibility  of  off‐road
connections,  and  available  funding progr a
ms are  all  considered.
This  process  anticipates  that  most  roadway  owners  would  require
that  bicycle  facilities  are  largely  consistent  with  the  design
standards  prior  to  designation  as a bike  route;  however,  this  is  not
prerequisite.  The designation  itself  may  be an internal  process,  or
may  be at  the  be hest
of  a  separate  gro
up. For  example,  the
WCS&QBO  recently  petitioned  the  Town  of  Queensbury  to
designate  several  roadways  as  bike  routes;  the  Town  Board  passed
a  resolution  designating  the  roadways  as  this  plan  was  being
drafted.  This  process  could  be  replicated  for any  town  in  the  A/
GFTC  region.  Similarly,  this  group,  or  any  local  m uni
ci
pality, may
choose  to  petition  roadway  owners to  designate  their  roadways  as
bike  routes.
New  York State  maintains  a  separate  system of  bike  routes,
designed  to  encourage  long ‐distance  connections  across  the state.
However,  local  bike  route  signage  may  be added  along  State
roadways  with  appropriate  permit s and  mainte
nance agreements.
An  example  of  this  is  the  Saratoga  County  Heritage  Trail,  which  is
located  along NYS  Routes  9  and  197  in the  Town  of  Moreau.
Is a dedicated bicycle
Is a
dedicated bicycle
facility needed?
facility
needed?

Unless
prohibited  by  law,  bicycles  are
allowed  to travel  on  any  public  roadway.
Although  the  focus  of  this  plan  is  on
providing  facilities which  will  make  bicycle
travel  safer  and  more  comfortable,  there
are  situations  in which  an  existing  roadway
may  represent  an  adequate  facility  for
bicycles,  without  the  need  for  a  dedicated
facility  such  as  a  bike  lane.
These  i

nclude:
Minor roads  with  low  traffic  volumes  (>
1,000  vehicles  per  day)
Low‐speed  roads, such  as  within
neighborhoods
Rural roadways  with  adequate  sight
distance
Roadways  with  no  history  of  bicycle
accidents
Off
Off
‐
‐
Road Facilities
Road
Facilities

In
some  cases, there  may  be an opportunity
to  provide  an  off‐road  facility,  such  as  a
multi ‐use  trail.  This  option  usually  requires
acquisition  of right‐of ‐way, which  drives
costs  up.  However,  given that  multi ‐use
trails  can  sometimes  be  funded  through
alternative  grant  sources  (see  page  33), it
may  someti
mes  be  more  feasible  to
provide  an  off

‐road  connection  than  to
improve  a  roadway.  However,  the  potential
for  increased  costs  and  decreased
connectivity  must  be  weighed  in  this
decision.

Regional Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan
Regional
Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan

Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
17
17

START:
For  all proposed  bicycle  routes,  determine   whether  dedicated/
improved  bicycle facilities  are  warranted  and  desirable*
Ye s  No
Can  the  bicycle  facility  be  created  through  re ‐striping,
roadway  stencils, or  shared ‐lane markings?
Pavement  Width
Alteration  Needed
Is the  roadway  scheduled  for  re ‐paving  or  other  capital
improvement  which  involves  re ‐striping  the  roadway?
Restripe roadway  as  part  of
preservation  project
Designate  roadway  as a Bike
Route;  add  signage
Ensure facility  will  be
maintained,  if  necessary
Pursue funding  for multi‐ use trail
through  TAP,  MTC,  or CF  funding
Ensure facility  will  be  maintained,  if
necessary
Acquire ROW  (if  needed)  and
construct  trail
Could  an off‐ road  facility  feasibly  be
substituted?*
Pursue funding  for capital
improvement  through  TAP, STP,
MTC,  or CF  funding
Construct  facility
Designate  roadway  as a Bike
Route;  add  signage
Is there  a  demonstrated  history  of
bicycle  accidents?
Pursue funding  for capital
improvement  through  HSIP funding
Construct  HSIP  project
Designate  roadway  as a Bike  Route;
add  signage
Designate  roadway  as a
Bike  Route;  add signage
Ye s  No
Ye s  No
Ye s  No
*Note:  See sidebar  on page  16

Key:
TAP =  Transportation  Alternatives Program
STP  = Surface  Transportation  Program (for
Beyond  Preservation  projects)
MTC  = Make  the Connection  Program
CF  = NYS  Consolidated  Funding Solicitation
HSIP  = Highway  Safety Improvement  Program
Ye s
No

Regional Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan
Regional
Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan

Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
18
18

Other Bicycle Improvements
There
are many  opportunities  to  pursue  small‐scale  improvements
which  could  also  improve  the  biking  experience  in  the  A/GFTC
region.  These “spot”  improvements  address  issues which  may  not
require  significant  funding  to  complete.  Several  examples  are
included  below.
Drainage grate pattern
The direction  of  the  grating  pattern on  storm  drains  is  an  often ‐
overlooked  detail. Grate openings  which  run  parallel  to  the  travel
direction  can cause  havoc  for  thin  bicycle  tires.  Ideally,  grates
should  feature  a  “bike ‐friendly”  pattern.  If  this  is  not  feasible,  the
grate  should  be  situated  so  that  the  pattern  r
uns  p erpendi
cular to
the  travel  direction.
Individual hazards
Potholes,  cracks,  and sudden  changes  in  grade  near  utility  access
points  and  drainage  grates  can  be  difficult  for cyclists  to  maneuver,
especially  at  night.  In the  short  term,  pavement  markings  as
specified  in  Chapter  9C  of  the  MUTCD  can help  alert cyclists  that  a
potentially  hazardous  condition  exists.  These  hazards  can  the n
be
eliminated  or  mini mized  as  the  appropri

ate  roadway  or utility
project  is  undertaken  in  the  future.
Pavement overlays
Even if no  re ‐striping  or  widening  is called  for in a  paving  project,
there  may  still be  good  opportunities  to  improve  conditions  for
cyclists.   Ensuring  that  the  seam  of  the  pavement  is  properly
feathered  and  does  not  occur  in the  middle  of  the  shoulder,  will
provide  a  smooth,  regular  surface  for cyclists.

Roadway sweeping
Patches of  gravel,  especially  on corners,  can  pose  a  threat  to
cyclists.  With  the  help  of  the  cycling  community,  it  may  be  possible
to  identify  areas  where  significant  gravel  accumulation  is
hampering  safe  cycling.  Targeted  road  sweeping  can  help  to
reduce  the  potential  hazards.
Bicycle Racks
Although  some  communities  require  provision  of bicycle  racks
during  project  development  approval,  it can  still  be  difficult  for
cyclists  to  find  a  safe  place  to  lock  their  bike. Bike  racks  should  be
provided  near  public  buildings  such  as  schools,  municipal  centers,
and  post  offices,  as well  as in public  parking  areas.  Co mmercial

businesses  an d e

mployment  centers can  also  provide  bike  racks  as
a  service  to  their  customers  and employees.
Top: Grate  pattern  not  bike ‐
friendly
Bottom:  Bike ‐friendly  grate
(photos  courtesy  of  ped‐
bikeimages.org)
Above: MUTCD   standard  for  individual  hazard  striping
Existing  pavement
Existing pavement
Overlay
Overlay
Travel
Lane  Shoulder
Pavement  Overlay  Placement—NOT  Recommended
Pavement  Overlay  Placement—Recommended
Travel Lane  Shoulder

Regional Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan
Regional
Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan

Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
19
19

PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS
Although
creating  and maintaining  dedicated infrastructure  is  often  the  primary  goal
when  considering  pedestrian issues,  reducing  barriers  can also  make  a  positive  impact.
Typical  barriers  to pedestrian  transportation  include inadequate  space,  facilities  that  fail
to  connect  logical termini,  and  the  proliferation  of  land  use  patterns  and  street  designs
that  emphasize  motor  vehicle  travel.  High  traffic  and  tru c
k volumes  also  can  deter
pedestrian  mobility.
Within  the  A/GFTC  area,  there  are a  variety  of  pedestrian  issues  to  address.  The  City  of
Glens  Falls  and  most  of  the  area’s  villages  and  hamlets  were  built  prior  to the  automobile
era.  In  these  downtown  areas,  the  primary  emphasis  should  be  on  maintaini
ng an
d
preserving  the sidewalk  networks  that  already  exist,  particularly  along  major  streets  and
near  schools,  parks, and  commercial  districts.  The  second  priority  is  to  consider
pedestrian ‐motorist  interaction  at intersections  and  major  destination  points.  Finally,
where  warranted,  connections  need  to be  established  between  existing  pedestrian
facilities  and  areas  of new  developmen t.
In

some  of the  region’s  suburban  areas,  the  pedestrian  provisions  are  not  sufficient  to
meet  demand.  Commercial  areas  are often  designed  as  a singular  destination  and  do  not
include  connections  to  adjacent  developments.  In these  areas,  the  emphasis  should  be  on
establishing  a  continuous  pedestrian  network  t h
rou
ghout  commercial  developments.
New  residential  developments  should  anticipate  and  consider  pedestrian  activity.  Where
demand  exists,  improvements  should  be  made  to  connect  separated  neighborhoods  with
one  another.
Much  of  the  A/GFTC  region  is  rural.  Although  these  areas  are not  often  associated  with
heavy  pedestrian  activity,  there  is  nonetheless  a  need  to  en sure
safe,  accessibl e
accommoda

tion,  especially  near  clusters  of  pedestrian  generators  and  destinations.
Roadway  lighting, shoulder  width,  crosswalks,  and small ‐scale  infrastructure
improvements  can  all  be  key  to  making  sure  that,  when  people  walk  in  the  rural  areas,
they  can  do  so  safely  and  comfortably.
Pedestrian Facilities: Policies and Legislation
There are several  federal,  state,  and  local  laws  and  policies  which  affect  the  provision,
location,  and  design  of  pedestrian  facilities.
The Americans with Disabilities Act
The Americans  with  Disabilities  Act  of  1990  (ADA)  prohibits  discrimination  on  the  basis  of
disability.  Under  ADA,  buildings  and  facilities  are  to  be  designed  and  constructed  to
provide  accessibility  to  people with  disabilities.  This  law  applies  to  State  and  local
government  facilities  as  well  as  places  of  public  accommodations.   In general,  AD A
focuses
mainly  on  bui lding  faciliti

es  and  on  sites,  such as  parking  lots.  ADA  addresses  certain
features  common  to  public  sidewalks,  such as  curb  ramps.  These  standards  are  applied  to
construction  or  alteration  of  buildings  and  facilities.

Regional Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan
Regional
Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan

Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
20
20

The
standards  used  by NYSDOT  for  the design  and  construction  of
all  Department  projects  are  prescribed  within  the  Americans  with
Disabilities  Act  Accessibility  Guidelines  for  Buildings  and  Facilities
(ADAAG).  NYSDOT  requires  that all  pedestrian ‐related
improvements  conform  to  ADAAG  standards.
Transition Plans
To implement  ADA, most public  agencies  are  required  to complete
a  transition  plan.  This  is  intended  to  set  forth  the  agency’s  plan  for
bringing  public  facilities,  including  sidewalks,  into  compliance  with
federal  pedestrian  design  standards.  Transition  plans  can  reduce
liability  related  to ADA  non ‐compliance  claims,  as  long  as  the
agency  is  in  the  process  of  impl
eme n
ting the  plan.  Elements  of  the
plan  include  an inventory  of physical  conditions,   the  methods  that
will  be  used  to  make  the facilities  accessible;  the schedule  for
upgrading  pedestrian  access;  and   naming  the  official  responsible
for  implementation  of  the  plan.
A/GFTC  is  committed  to  assisting  municipalities  with  the  creatio n

and  implementation  of  transition  plans.  Technical  assistance  is
available  to perform  data  collection,  such  as  for  the required
inventory  of physical  obstacles,  which may  be difficult  for  a local
municipality  to  perform  on  its  own.  In  addition,  funding  programs
such  as  the  Make  The  Connection  grants,  can be  us ed
to bring
facilities  in t

o  compliance  with ADA,  thereby  implementing
transition  plans  in  the  local  municipality.
Public Right‐of‐Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG)
Sidewalks, street crossings,  and  other  elements  in  the  public  right ‐
of ‐way  can  pose  specific  challenges  to  accessibility,  which  may  not
be  fully  addressed  in ADA.  As  such,  in  2011,  the  Architectural  and
Transportation  Barriers  Compliance  Board issued  further  guidance
to  address  conditions  and  constraints  unique  to  public  rights‐of‐
way.  This  incl udes
access  for  blind  ped e
strians at  street  crossings,
wheelchair  access to on ‐street  parking,  and  various  constraints
posed  by  space  limitations,  roadway  design practices,  slope,  and
terrain.  The  new  guidelines  will  cover  pedestrian  access  to
sidewalks  and  streets,  including  crosswalks,  curb ramps,  street
furnishings,  pedestrian  signals,  parking,  and  other  components  of
publi c
rights ‐of ‐

way.  These  guidelines  are  anticipated  to be
adopted  as  standards  in  November  2014.
Pedestrian
Pedestrian

Accessibility and
Accessibility
and
Roadway Alterations
Roadway
Alterations

Both
ADA  and PROWAG  are  triggered  by  either
construction  or  alteration  projects.  In
transportation  terms,  the  definition  of
“alteration”  is  an  important  consideration.
According  to  joint  Department  of  Justice/US
Department  of  Transportation  technical
assistance,   alteration  is  defined  as  “a  change
that  affects  or  could  affect  the  usability  of  all
or  part  of  a  building  or  fa
cil i
ty. Alterations  of
streets,  roads,  or  highways  include  activities
such as  reconstruction,  rehabilitation,
resurfacing, widening,  and  projects  of  similar
scale and  effect.”Examples  include,  but  are  not
limited  to:  addition  of  a  new  layer  of  asphalt,
reconstruction,  concrete  pavement
rehabilitation  and  reconstruction,  open‐graded
surface  course,  micro‐surfacing  and  thin  lift
overlays,  cape  seals,  and  in ‐place  asphalt
recycling.  Since  resurfacing  of  streets
constitutes  an  alteration,  it  triggers  the
obligation  to  provide  curb ra
mps  if  it  in v
olves
work  on  a  street  or roadway  spanning  from
one  intersection  to  another,  and  includes
overlays  of  additional  material  to  the  road
surface,  with  or  without  milling.
Maintenance  activities, such  as  filling  potholes,
joint  crack  repairs,  crack  filling  and  sealing,  or
pavement  patching,  do  not  constitute  an
alteration.
For  more  details  concern
ing   ro

adway
alterations  and ADA,  see:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/civilrights/
programs/doj_fhwa_ta.cfm

Regional Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan
Regional
Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan

Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
21
21

Complete
Streets Legislation and Policies
Governor  Andrew  M.  Cuomo  signed  the  Complete  Streets  Act  (Chapter
398,  Laws  of  New  York)  on  August  15, 2011,  requiring  state,  county  and
local  agencies  to  consider  the  convenience  and mobility  of  all  users  when
developing  transportation  projects that  receive  state  and  federal  funding.
The  New  York State  Department  of  Transportation  (NYSDOT) is  wo rking  to
ensure  that  its  policies  and  proced

ures  meet  the  new  standards.  The
initiative  presents  an  opportunity  to  expand  upon existing  programs  and
collaborate  with  bicyclists,  pedestrians,  people with disabilities  and  others
to  identify  best  practices  and  designs  for  transportation  facilities.
It  is  important  to  note  that  the  Complete  Streets  le
gislation applies  to
planning,  design,  construction,   reconstruction,   and   rehabilitation
projects.  Resurfacing,  maintenance,  or  pavement  recycling  projects  are
exempt  from  the  law.  In  addition,  the  law  only  requires  that  Complete
Street  elements  be  considered  during  project  development;  the  law  does
not  guarantee  that  design  elements  will  be  included  in  the  finished
project.  Spec i

fically,  the  law  does  not  apply  when  the  any  of the  following
conditions  are  met:
use  by   bicyclists  and  pedestrians  is  prohibited  by  law,  such  as  within
interstate  highway  corridors;
the cost  would  be  disproportionate  to  the  need  as   determined   by
factors   including,  but  not  limited  to, the  following:  land  use  context,
current  and  projected  traffic  volumes,  and  population  density
(  Typically,  excessively  disproportionate  is  defined  as  exceeding  20%
of  the  cost  of  the  larger  transportation  project,  but  it should  be
determined  on  a  proje c
t‐
by‐project  basis);
demonstrated  lack  of  need  as  determined  by   factors,   including,  but
not   limited   to,   land  use,  current  and  projected  traffic  volumes,
including  population  density,  or  demonstrated  lack  of   community
support;
use of  the  design  features  would  have an  adverse  impact  on,  or  be
contrary  to, public  safety.
Local Complete Streets Policies
In addition  to the  New  York  State  legislation,  a  number  of  local
municipalities  have  passed  Complete  Streets  policies.  These  policies  range
in  applicability  from  statements  which  support  Complete  Streets
principles,  to  revisions  in  local  land  use  codes  which  mandate  Complete
Street  design  features.  The  current  list  of  local  Complete  Streets  policies  is
shown  at  lef t
.
 Complete Streets
Complete
Streets

A
Complete  Street  is  a  roadway
which  accommodates  safe,
convenient  access  and mobility  of
all  roadway  users of  all  ages  and
abilities.  This  includes  pedestrians,
bicyclists,  public  transportation
riders,  and motorists;  it  includes
children,  the  elderly,  and persons
with  disabilities.
Complete  Street   design  features
include  sidewalks,  lane striping,
bicycle  lanes,  paved  shoulders
suitable  for  use  by  bicycl
ists,
signage,  crosswalks,  pedestrian
control  si

gnals,  bus  pull ‐outs,  curb
cuts,  raised  crosswalks,  ramps and
traffic  calming  measures.

Municipalities with Complete
Streets Policies
City  of  Glens  Falls
Town  of  Warrensburg
Village of  Lake  George
Village &  Town  of  Fort  Edward
Town of  Lake  Luzerne
Town of  Queensbury
Village of  Hudson  Falls
Town  of  Greenwich
Town of  Kingsbury
Town of  Johnsburg

Regional Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan
Regional
Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan

Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
22
22

Pedestrian Design Features
The
presence  of  an  adequate  and  interconnected  pedestrian
network  can  reduce  the  number  of  trips  that  need  to be  made
with  a  vehicle,  thus  reducing  traffic  congestion,  noise,  and
pollution.  As  with  bicycle  facilities,  there are a  number  of  design
features  intended  to  promote  the  safety  and  comfort  of
pedestrians.  New  innovations  and  design  featur es co
ntinue to  be
developed  as  communities  seek  ways  to  make  the  pedestrian
environment  safer  and  more  inviting.
Sidewalks
As the  key  component  of  urban  pedestrian  circulation  systems,
functional  and accessible  sidewalks enrich  the  quality  of  life  in a
community.  Besides  providing  a transportation  function,  sidewalks
can  also  serve  as  a desirable  design element,  contributing  to  the
character  and strengthening  the  identity  of  a  community.
Sidewalks  are  the  most  common  form  of  pedestrian  facility  in
urbanize d
areas.  Although  most  peop le are  familiar  with  the
concre

te  walkways  found  in  city  and  village  settings,  there  are  a
number  of  design  considerations  which  should  be  taken  into
account  for sidewalk  projects.  These  include:
Sidewalk  width.  The mandated  minimum  width  for  sidewalks
can,  in  certain  limited  circumstances,  be  as  narrow  as 4′,
although  5 ‐6′  sidewalks  are  more  common  and  appropriate  for
neighborhood  environments.  Sidewalks  of  8 ‐12′  in  width  may
be  desirable  in  certain  environments,  especially busy
commercial  areas. This  extra  width  can  accommodate  the
heavier  pe destrian
traffic. A  wider  sidewalk  can  also  contri
bute
to  an  active,  vibrant community  setting,  by  serving  as  outdoor
seating/retail  display  area.
Landscaping/buffer  area.  To increase  the  feeling  of  security,  a
buffer  area  is  often  included  between  the  walkway  and  street.
This  strip  can  be  landscaped  or paved,  and  also  provides  space
for  street  lights,  utility  poles,  trees,  and other  amenities  like
benches,  signage,  and  mailboxes.  If  this  area  is  to  contain
landscaping,  it  is  crucial  th at
enough  soil  volume  is  pr ovided  to
maintain  th

e  health  of  plant  material  as  well  as to prevent
pavement  buckling.  For  sidewalk  buffers  that  are  to  contain
street  trees,  a minimum  width  of  6′  is  recommended.  The
planting  area  can  be  finished  with  turf,  gravel  or  mulch,  or
pavement  types  which  allow  water to  percolate  into  the soil,
Above:  Traditional  concrete  sidewalk  with wide landscaped  buffer.  Photo  courtesy
of  pedbikeimages.org

Regional Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan
Regional
Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan

Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
23
23

such
as  permeable  pavement  or  concrete  bricks. Solid,  non ‐
permeable  pavement is  not  recommended  for  use over  street
tree  buffers  unless  structural  soil  or  other  methods  are  used  to
promote  tree  root  health  and  prevent  pavement  buckling.
Paving material. Concrete  is the  most  common  material  used
for  sidewalks,  and  is  generally  recommended  for  urbanized
environments.  However,  other  materials  can also  be  used,
provided  the  pavement  meets  PROWAG  standards  for  a  stable,
firm,  and  slip ‐resistant  surface.  Highly  textured  pavement,
such  as  stamped  concrete,  is recommended  only  as  an accent
material  and  should  not  be  used  as  a pr imary
materi al on
pedestrian  access  routes,  si

nce it  can  cause  difficulties  for
some  wheelchair  users.  Asphalt  is  not  generally  recommended
for  urbanized  environments,  especially  in  situations  in  which
the  asphalt  walkway  will adjoin  concrete  walkways  or  curbs,  as
this  combination  can  increase  maintenance  due  to  se ttling
of
the  pavement  ma terial.

However,  in more  suburban  or  rural
areas,  especially  adjacent  to  non ‐curbed  roads,  asphalt  may  be
an  adequate  alternative  sidewalk  material.
Sidewalk  replacement.  In many  cases,  a  project  involves
replacing  an  existing  sidewalk.  It is  important  to  consider  that
the  new  sidewalks  will  need  to meet  ADAAG  and  other
applicable  standards.   This  may  result  in  wider  sidewalks  or  a
different  paving  material  than  was  used  previously.  Existing
vegetation,  signage,  and  utilities  will  also  have  to  be  taken  into
account.
Sidewalk  retrofits.  When new  sidewalks  are  added  to  an
existing  roadway,  which commonly  occurs in  suburban  and
rural  environments,  other factors  come  into  play.  The  available
right‐of ‐way is  usually  the  most  important  consideration,  as
this  affects  the  sidewalk  width  and  location.  In  addition,  the
roadway  may have curbs  or  open  drainage,  which  affect  th e

placement  of  sidewalks.  In  suburban  and  rural  areas,  curbs  are
not  ty pically  used,  and  stormwater

runs  freely  to  the  side  of
the  road,  often  collected  in ditches  or  swales.  These
stormwater  features can  take  up a  large  portion  of the
available  right of  way,  which  reduces  the space  available  for
sidewalks.  In  addition,  it  can  be  costly  to  alter  the  slope,  width,
and  surface/s u
b‐

surface  material  of  swales,  adding to  the
potential  cost  of  sidewalk  projects.  Finally,  it  is  important  to
consider  that  installing  new  sidewalks  along  existing  roadways
may  be a  controversial  topic  for  adjacent  landowners.
What is Structural Soil?
What
is Structural Soil?

Structural
or  gap ‐graded  soil  is  a
mixture  of  sized  gravel  and  soil,
which  meets  both  engineering
requirements  for  load ‐bearing  as
well  as providing  soil volume  for
tree  root  growth.  This  mixture  can
be  used  under  pavement  to  provide
more  useable  space  for  trees  in
urban  environments.
Why use Structural Soil?
Why
use Structural Soil?

Trees
in  urban  environments  are
subject  to  a  number  of
environmental  stressors, including
deicing  salts,  soil and  air  pollution,
heat  loads,  and drought.  However,
the  most  significant  issue  is
inadequate  or  compacted  soil. In
addition  to  severely  limiting  the
health  of  the  tree  by  inhibiting  root
growth,  this  can  lead  to  shallow
root  pene tration,
which  ca uses
pavement  buc

kling.
Using  structural  soil  can  alleviate
these  conditions  by  providing
adequate  soil  for  tree  roots  to
penetrate.  In  turn,  this  creates  a
healthier  tree  and  reduces
maintenance  needs  for  adjacent
sidewalks  or  other  pavement.

Regional Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan
Regional
Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan

Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
24
24

Pedestrian
Crossings
Many pedestrian  trips  involve  a street  crossing  at  some  point,
whether  at an  intersection,  a  midblock  location,  or  a  commercial
drive  or  parking  area.  Unlike  sidewalks,  crossings are  spaces  shared
by  vehicles  and  pedestrians.  As  such,  the  potential  for  pedestrian/
vehicle  conflicts  is  much  higher  than  in  strictly  pedestrian  facilities.
There  are a  nu mber
of  cri t
eria to  consider  when  addressing  the
need  for  pedestrians  to  cross  vehicular  travel  lanes.  These  include
volumes  of  pedestrian  and  vehicle  traffic,  vehicular  speed,
intersection  configuration  and  sight  distances,  school zones,
facilities  and  services  for  the elderly,  and surrounding  land  use.
Although  most  crossings  are  located  at  intersections,  midblock
crossings  are  also  sometimes  called  for.  (Details  concerning  th e
specifics  of  crossing

warrants  are discussed  in  the  subsections
below.)  In  some  cases, such  as  low  volume  roadway  intersections,
there  may  be no  need  to provide  a  formal  pedestrian  crossing
treatment  at  all.  However,  in  many  urban  or commercial
environments,  formal  crossings  are  be n
eficial
or  necessary.  Safety
is  also  a  crucial  consideration.  Crossings  should  never  be  located  in
places  where  sight  distance  or  other  physical  conditions  would  put
pedestrians  at  risk.
Once  the  need  for a crossing  is  determined,  there  are  factors
which  influence  the  design  of  a  crossing.  Again,  in  very  general
terms,  the  main  considera t
ion

is  to  allow  pedestrians  to  cross  the
street  safely.  There  are many  options  which  affect  this  issue,
discussed  in greater  detail  below.   In  some  cases,  it  is  beneficial  or
necessary  to  combine  two or  more  of  the  potential  crossing
treatments.  Relevant  regulatory  guidance is note d
whe r
e
applicable.
Marked Crosswalks
The pedestrian  right‐of‐way  across  vehicular  travel  lanes  is  known
as  a crosswalk.  According  to AASHTO,  “An  intersection  crosswalk is
defined  as  the  extension  of  a  sidewalk  or  shoulder  across  an
intersection,  whether  it is  marked  or  not….  It  is  legal  for  a
pedestrian  to  cross  the  street  at  any  intersection,  ev en
if  no
crosswalk  is  marked,  unle

ss  crossing  is  specifically
prohibited.”  (AASHTO,  July  2004)  Pedestrians  and vehicles  must
follow  applicable  right ‐of‐way  requirements  in  these  locations,
regardless  of  whether  a crosswalk  is  defined  by  pavement
markings.
Above: Marked  crosswalk.  Stripes  have  been  located  to  avoid  wheel  paths, which
reduces  maintenance.  Photo  courtesy  of  pedbikeimages.org

Regional Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan
Regional
Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan

Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
25
25

In
many  cases,  it  is  beneficial  or necessary  to  provide  pavement
markings  or  other  treatments  which  designate  the  crosswalk
boundaries,  with  a  visual  and/or  tactile pavement  treatment.
Marked  crosswalks  can  help  channel  pedestrians  to  specific
locations  and  improve  pedestrian  access  and  safety  at  night,  while
serving  to  warn  motorists  of  the  potential  for interaction  with
pedestrians.  However,  ma rked  crossings  can  also  cr

eate a false
sense  of  security  for  pedestrians,  who  may  assume  that the
crosswalk  markings  guarantees  motorist  compliance  with  right  of
way  regulations.
A  number  of  factors  must  be  considered,  prior to  installing  a
marked  crosswalk,  including  volumes  of  pedestrian  and vehicle
traffic,  vehi cular
speed,  in te

rsection  configuration  and  sight
distances,  school zones,  facilities  and  services  for  the elderly,  and
surrounding  land  use.   NYSDOT  sets  guidelines  for  state ‐owned
roads,  and  notes  that  marked  crosswalks  should  be  considered  at
the  following:  (NYSDOT,  2013)
Locations  that  feature  pedestrian ‐actuated traffic signals
Established  school  crossings
Traffic signals  located  within  central  business  districts  or  other
areas  where  crossing  pedestrian  volumes  are  significant
Areas that feature  development  on  both  sides  of  a  highway,
resulting  in  concentrated  pedestrian  volumes  crossing  the
highway  where no  intersection  exists
Signal ‐controlled  entrances to  commercial  properties
Curb Ramps and Blended Transitions
According to the  most  recent  guidelines  for  pedestrian  facilities  in
the  ROW,  curb  ramps,  blended  transitions,  or a  combination  of
curb  ramps  and  blended  transitions  must  connect  the  pedestrian
access  routes at  each  pedestrian  street  crossing.  Typically,  two
curb  ramps  are  provided  at  each  street  corner—one  for each
crosswalk.  In  places  where  existing  ph ysic
al constrai
nts prevent
two  curb  ramps  from being  installed,  a  single  diagonal  curb ramp  is
permitted.  However,  single diagonal  ramps can  be  confusing  for
the  visually  impaired,  as  the  curb  ramp  is  not  entirely  aligned to
the  crosswalk.  This  lack  of  directionality  could  create  a situation
where  pedestrians  walk dia gonally
into  the  in tersecti
on, rather
than  into  the  crosswalk.  As  such,  diagonal  ramps should  be  used
only  where  no  other  option  is  feasible.  Detectable  warnings are  to
be  employed  as required  (see  sidebar).
Detectable Wa r n in g s
Detectable Wa r n in g s

Detectable
warning  surfaces  consist of  small
truncated  domes  built  in  or  applied  to  a
walking  surface  that are  detectable
underfoot,  and  are  intended  for  pedestrians
who  are blind  or  have  low  vision.  On
pedestrian  access  routes,  detectable  warning
surfaces  indicate  the  boundary  between  a
pedestrian  route  and a  vehicular  route
where  there is  a  flush  rather  th
an  a
curbed
connection.  As such,  under  PROWAG,  they
are  required  to  be  installed  at  the  following
locations  on pedestrian  access  routes:
1.  Curb  ramps  and  blended  transitions  at
pedestrian  street  crossings;
2.  Pedestrian  refuge  islands;
3.  Pedestrian  at ‐grade  rail  crossings  not
located  within  a  street  or high way;
There

are  also  requirements  for  detectable
warnings  at  transit  boarding  stations  (See
PROWAG  for  more  details).
In  addition  to  providing  a  tactile  cue,
detectable  warning  surfaces  must  have  a
color  contrast  from the  surrounding
pavement  (light ‐on ‐dark  or  dark‐ on‐light).
Dark  Gray  is  the  default  color,  as  it  provides
good  contrast  with  portla

nd  cement
concrete  sidewalks  and  is  widely  available.
White  or  Safety  Yellow  are recommended
colors  for use  on  asphalt  concrete  or  other
dark  surfaces.  For  more  information  on
appropriate  colors for detectable  warning
surfaces,  see  NYSDOT  Highway  Design
Manual,  chapter  18.

Regional Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan
Regional
Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan

Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
26
26

Midblock
Crosswalks
Where there  is  significant  pedestrian crossing  demand,  crosswalks
can  also  be  marked  at  midblock  locations.  AASHTO  has  included  a
checklist  of  criteria  for  considering  a midblock  crossing:  (AASHTO,
July  2004)
The location  is  already  a source  of  a  substantial  number  of
midblock  crossings.
Where a  new  development  is  anticipated  to  generate  midblock
crossings.
The lane  use  is  such  that  pedestrians  are  highly  unlikely  to
cross  the  street  at  the  next  intersection.
The safety  and  capacity  of  adjacent  intersections  or  large
turning  volumes  create  a situation  where it  is  difficult  to  cross
the  street.
Spacing  between  adjacent  intersections  exceeds  200m  (600ft).
The vehicular  capacity of  the  roadway  may not be  substantially
reduced  by  the  midblock  crossing.
Adequate  sight  distance  for  both  pedestrians  and  motorists.
Since  motorists  are  more  likely  to expect  pedestrians  at
intersections,  midblock crossings  require  special considerations
above  and  beyond  pavement  markings.   Midblock  crossings  should
always  be  used  in conjunction  with  pavement  markings  and
warning  signs  that  concur  with  the  standards  of  the  MUTCD.
Additional  tr eatments
such  as  raised
crosswalks  and  HAWK  signals
are  discussed  in  greater  detail  below.
Care  must  be  taken  when  locating  midblock  crossings.  Defining  too
many  locations  where  pedestrians  are  encouraged  to  cross
roadways  can  cause  unwanted  motor  vehicle  circulation  delays
and  be  counterproductive  to the  aim  of  channeling  pedestrian
traffic.  Overuse  of  pavement  markings  also  may  lead to  a  ge neral

disrespect  of  intended  crossing  facili

ties by  motorists.
It  is  also  important  to  consider  pedestrian  behavior.  Many
pedestrians  will  cross  the  street  mid‐ block  whether  a  formal
crosswalk  is  provided  or  not,  if  the  perception  of  convenience  and
safety  is  sufficient.  In  certa in
cases,  it  may  be  necess
ary to  install
features  that  discourage  pedestrians  from  crossing  mid‐block  ,
such  as  areas  with  inadequate  sight  distance  or  other  safety
concerns.  Although  rarely  needed,  vegetation,  fencing,  or  other
barriers  may  be installed  to  channel  pedestrians  to  appropriate
crossing  locations.
Above: Midblock  crossing  with  refuge  island and  signage.  Photo  courtesy  of  ped‐
bikeimages.org

Regional Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan
Regional
Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan

Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
27
27

Curb Extensions

Curb extensions,  also  known  as  neck‐ downs  or  bulbouts,  are
designed  to  minimize  pedestrian  exposure  to  traffic  by  creating
shorter  crossing  distances.  Curb  extensions  can  also  increase  the
likelihood  that  a pedestrian  wanting  to  cross  will  be  seen  in
addition  to  improving  visibility of traffic  for  the pedestrian  by
allowing  the  pedestrian  to  safely  move  beyond  a row  of  parked
cars  before  crossing.   These features  also  serve  to  cal m traffic,  by
reduci

ng  visual  width  of  the  street  (for  midblock  crossings)  or
tightening  the turning  radii  of  the  intersection.  The  Highway
Design  Manual  recommends  that  curb  extensions  be  used  only  on
low‐ speed  streets  that  fe atu
re parking  lanes.  (NYSDOT,  2013)  Used
in  absence  of  parking  lanes,  curb  extensions  can  create  conflict
with  motor  vehicle  traffic  and  bicyclists,  and  also  can  complicate
transit  operations.
Curb  extensions  are  associated  with certain  infrastructure  and
maintenance  issues.  The  drainage  patterns  of  a  roadway  can be
changed  by creating  cur
b exte nsions,  which  may
require  additional
stormwater  infrastructure.  This  is  especially  important  to  consider
in  cases  where  the  extensions  are  installed  independently  of  a
larger  roadway  reconstruction.  Curb extensions  are  also
sometimes  controversial  because  of  a  perceived  conflict  with  snow
removal.  Although  curb  extensions  do  require  some
accommodation  on  the  part  of  mai nte
nance  crews,  the  impa
cts
can  be  minimized  through careful design.
Refuge Islands
Another way  to  reduce  crossing  distances  is  to  incorporate
pedestrian  refuge  islands.  Refuge  islands are  appropriate  where it
may  be difficult  for  pedestrians  to  cross  the  entire  roadway  all at
once.  Refuge  islands  allow  pedestrians  to  cross  one  segment  of  the
roadway  at a  time  by  providing  a safe  location  (removed  from
travel  lanes)  at  an  i nter
m

ediate  point within  the roadway  crossing.
Islands  may  be defined  by  paint,  curbs,  guideposts,  and  other
devices.  These  facilities  are  appropriate  in  environments  that
feature  50  ft  (15m)  or  wider  crossings  or  more  than  four  travel
lanes.  At  unsignalized  crossing  locations,  refuge  islands  can
actually  reduce ped estrian
crossing  times  by  allowing  for
one
direction  of traffic  to  be  negotiated  at  a  time,  potentially
shortening  the  time  between  gaps  in  traffic.  Refuge  islands  must
be  accessible  to  all  pedestrians,  and are  ideally  designed  with an  at
‐grade  crosswalk  passage  (as opposed  to a  ramp)  to  aid  those
users  with  dis a
bilities.

Minimizing winter
Minimizing
winter
maintenance conflicts
maintenance
conflicts

One
common  objection  to curb
extensions  is  the  perception  of
increased  burden  on  winter
maintenance  crews.  In  addition  to
careful  design of the  width  and
geometry  of  the  bulbout,  the
potential  for  conflicts  with
snowplows  can  be  minimized
through  a  variety  of  methods,
including:
Flush curbs and  /or  pavement
Tapered front  ends
Vertical  delineators  to  alert
snowplow  operators to  lift  their
blades  if  needed
In  addition  to conscientious  design,
additional  training  for  maintenance
crews  may  be  beneficial.
Above: Landscaped  refuge  island. Photo  courtesy  of pedbikeimages.org

Regional Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan
Regional
Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan

Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
28
28

Raised
Crosswalks
In certain  locations,  raised  crosswalks  can  serve  to  slow  traffic  and
increase  pedestrian  visibility.  By  extending  the  crossing  at  the
same  grade as  the  adjacent  sidewalks,  the  raised  crosswalk  acts  as
a  speed  hump. This  type  of facility  must  be  installed  in  conjunction
with  a  marked  crosswalk  and  is  suitable  only  for  low‐speed  local
streets  which  are  not  emergency  routes.   In addition,  if  the  raised
crosswalk  is  i

nstalled  independently  of  a  larger  roadway  project,
drainage  and stormwater  collection may  be  impacted.
Traffic Signals
Pedestrian  signals  are  traffic  signals  which  indicate  when  it is
appropriate  to cross  the  street.  There  are  two  main  types of
pedestrian  signals:  fixed‐time  and pedestrian  actuated.  In  fixed ‐
time  signals,  the  pedestrian  phasing  is pre ‐timed  and runs
concurrently  with  the  vehicular  signal.  The pedestrian  walk/don’t
walk  signal  indications  are  therefore  automatically  displayed  in
conjunction  with  the  gree n signal  for

vehicles.  These  types of
signals  are  appropriate  at intersections  where  the  existing  signal
phasing  provides  ample  opportunity  for  pedestrians  to  cross  the
street.
Pedestrian ‐actuated signals  alter  the  timing  of  the  traffic  light to
accommodate  pedestrian  activity,  either  by  advancing  th e
signal
phase  cy cle,  in

creasing  the  green  time  of the  light,  or  providing
brief  all‐red  phases  to reduce  conflicts  with  vehicle  turning
movements.  Actuation  of these  signals  is  most  commonly  achieved
through  a  pushbutton.  However,  research indicates that  many
pedestrians  ignore  the  button  or believe  that the button  is
malfunctioni n
g if  ther

e  is a  significant  delay (Hughes,  2001).
AASHTO  notes  that  pushbutton  usage  can  be  as  low  as 25‐33%.
Automated  pedestrian  detection  devices  use  microwave  or
infrared  technology  to  sense  waiting  pedestrians  and  then  send  a
signal  to  switch  to  a  pedestrian  WALK  phase  automatically.  These
devices  have  been  shown  to  significan t
ly  reduce  the  nu
mber of
vehicle‐ pedestrian  conflicts  at  intersections.  (Hughes, 2001)
It  is  also  important  to  consider  the  needs  of  the  vision ‐impaired.
Accessible  pedestrian  signals  use  audible  or  tactile  methods  to
transmit  the  WALK  signal  to  vision ‐impaired  pedestrians.   These
are  most  helpful  in  locations  where  th e
sounds  of  par a
llel or
perpendicular  traffic  do  not  provide  sufficient  audible  cues,  such  as
midblock  crossings or  other  locations.
Pedestrian Hybrid
Pedestrian
Hybrid
Beacons
Beacons

The
pedestrian  hybrid beacon  (also  known  as
the  High  intensity  Activated  crossWalK  (or
HAWK))  is  a  pedestrian ‐activated  warning
device  which  can  be  used  at  midblock
pedestrian  crossings.   The pedestrian  hybrid
beacon  is  an  intermediate  option  between  the
operational  requirements  and  effects  of  a
rectangular  rapid  flash  beacon  and  a  full
pedestrian  signal.  It  provid
es a  positive  stop
control  in  are

as  without  the  high  pedestrian
traffic  volumes  that typically  warrant  the
installation  of  a  signal.
Pedestrian  hybrid  beacons  should  only  be  used
in  conjunction  with  a  marked  crosswalk.  In
general,  they  are  appropriate  for locations  in
which  gaps  in  traffic  are  not  ad
equate  to  per m
it
pedestrians  to  cross,  if  vehicle  speeds on  the
major  street  are  too  high  to  permit  pedestrians
to  cross,  or  if  pedestrian  delay  is  excessive.
Currently,  pedestrian  hybrid beacons  are  not
widely  deployed  in  New  York  State.  Since  this  is
a  still ‐unfamiliar  traffic  control  device  to  many,
extensive  educational  out r

each  to  the  public  is
needed  prior  to  implementation,  to  reduce
confusion  for  drivers  and  pedestrians.

Above: Raised  crosswalk.  Photo  courtesy  of pedbikeimages.org

Regional Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan
Regional
Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan

Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
29
29

Multi
‐Use Paths
The discussion  for  pedestrian  facilities  is  usually  focused  on
sidewalks  and  pedestrian  crossings.  However,  in some
environments,  the  most  appropriate  pedestrian facility  is  a  multi ‐
use  path.  These  facilities  can  provide  travel  options  for  cyclists  and
pedestrians  and  are  not  necessarily  dependent on the  road
network.  This  can  be  useful  in  rural  and  suburban  env ironments
where  the  roads  do  not  le

nd  themselves  to  a  traditional  curb  and
sidewalk  treatment.  (See  page  12  for  discussion  about  the  design
of  multi ‐use paths.)  Multi ‐use  paths  are  also  desirable  to  many
cyclists  and  pedestrians  because  vehicle  use  is  restricted.
Pedestrian Facilities in Suburban and Rural
Environments
Sidewalks and  other  pedestrian  facilities are  often  provided  as  a
matter  of  course  in  an  urbanized  area,  such  as  a traditional
downtown  or  city/village  neighborhood.  But  there  are  many  “gray
areas”  in  the  A/GFTC  region  which  may  also benefit  from  the
provision  of some  pedestrian  accommodation.  These  include:
Isolated  suburban  neighborhoods.
Many communities  have
residential  developments  which  are  not  adjacent  to  pedestrian
generators  such as  commercial  areas or schools.  However,  that
doesn’t  mean  people  stop  walking,  either  for  exercise,  as a social
activity,  or  to  and  from  bus  stops.  Providing  sidewalks  in these
areas  confers  several  benefits.  Some suburban  developments
have  streets  with  pavement  wi dths
exceeding  30′.  Th is can  lead  to
higher  vehicle  speeds,  in

creased stormwater  runoff, and  increased
municipal  maintenance  cost.  In  areas  in which  all  homes  have
double ‐wide driveways,  on ‐street  parking  is  not  utilized  on  a
consistent  basis,  and extra  roadway  width is  not  always  necessary.
Providing  two 11′  lanes  and  sidewalks  with  tree  buf fers
mini mize
s
all  of these  impacts,  in  addition  to  creating  an  attractive  and  safe
place  to walk.
Hamlet  areas.
Much of  the  A/GFTC  planning  area is  rural.  In  these
areas,  there  are  often  small  pockets  of  commercial  or  residential
uses  clustered  together.  Since  these  places  can  act  as  a  focal  point
for  the community,  pedestrian  activity  should  be  accommodated.
AASHTO  recommends  that  these  rural  clusters  or  hamlets  may
receive  the  same  consideration
for  ped
estrian facilities  as  more
urban  areas  (AASHTO,  July  2004).  Even  if  sidewalks  are  not
warranted,  pedestrian crossings  should  be  considered.

Regional Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan
Regional
Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan

Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
30
30

Pedestrian Priority Map
One
of  the  biggest  challenges  in  planning  for  pedestrian  facilities  is
to  know  where  they  should  be  located  within  the  community.  In
cases  where  the  infrastructure  already  exists, the  question
becomes  a  matter  of  priority  for  maintenance  and  repair.  Many
agencies  have  issued  criteria  and  thresholds  for  the placement  of
pedestrian  facilities  for  new  develop m
ent. For  example,  NYSDOT
uses  a  Pedestrian  Generator  Checklist  to  determine  if  a  specific
project  warrants  inclusion  of  pedestrian  facilities.  These checklists
are  useful  on  a  project ‐by ‐project  basis,  but do  not  address  larger
pedestrian  needs  outside  of the  project  site.  In  addition,  these
checklists  can  sometimes  provide  a  narrow  picture  of  the
surrounding  environment,  due  to  their  li

mited scope.
Communities  with  limited  resources  struggle to  determine  where
their  pedestrian  improvement  efforts  are  most  needed.  In
addition,  development  patterns  often  drift  across  municipal
boundaries,  creating  situations  where  a  portion  of a  neighborhood
or  commercial  area has  sidewalks  and  the  rest  does  not.  A/ GFTC
has  therefore  creat

ed  a  Pedestrian  Priority  Map.  This  map  is  not
intended  to  indicate  precise  locations  for  pedestrian  facilities,  but
rather  to show  the  general  areas  in which  pedestrian  activity
would  be likely,  if  facilities  existed.  This  takes  into account
proximity  to  community  features  such as  schools,  bus lines,
pharmacies,  groceries, co nvenience
sto r

es, libraries,  and  municipal
centers;  housing  unit  density;  and “community  core”  areas,  such  as
downtowns  and  hamlet  centers,  which  have  a  high  density  of
commercial  uses.
Each  of  these  factors  was  weighted  to account  for relative
importance  in  terms  of  pedestrian  activity.  For example,  proxi m
ity
to  schools  received  more  weight  than  proximity  to  convenience
stores,

since  schools  traditionally  have  higher  rates  of  pedestrian
activity  among  children,  considered  “at ‐risk”  pedestrians.
This  map  can  be  used  to  determine  where  pedestrian  facilities  are
more  likely  to  be  used.  This  can  be  helpful  in  areas  of more  recent
growth  as  well  as along  th e
thr esholds  betwee

n  urban,  suburban,
and  rural  areas.  The  intent  is  not  to  mandate  that sidewalks  be
installed  in  all areas  of high  demand.

 Pedestrian Priority
Pedestrian
Priority
Map
Map

This
map  can  be  used  to  determine
where  pedestrian  facilities  are  more
likely  to  be  used
A  detailed  version of  the  map  can  be
found  online  here:

Adirondack / Glens Falls Transportation Council

alternativetransportation.htm
Who should use the
Who
should use the
Pedestrian Priority
Pedestrian
Priority
Map?
Map?

Planning
Boards,  when  reviewing
development  proposals  which  may
or  may  not call  for  pedestrian
features
Departments  of  Public  Works , when
planning  capital  improvements
Elected Officials , when  deciding
whether  to appropriate  funds for
pedestrian  improvements  and  when
completing  local  planning  efforts,
such  as  comprehensive  plans,
downtown  plans,  and  transportation
plans
A/GFTC  Policy  and  Technical
Advisory  Committees , when
reviewing  applicable  pedestrian
planning  efforts  and  project
proposals
NYSDOT staff , when  completing  the
pedestrian  generator  checklist

Regional Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan
Regional
Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan

Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |

Map 4: Pedestrian Priority Area Analysis
31
31

A
detailed  map  of  the  Pedestrian  Priority  Areas
can  be  found  online  at
http://www.agftc.org/alternativetransportation.htm

Regional Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan
Regional
Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan

Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
32
32

IMPLEMENTATION
Partnerships
The
improvements  outlined in  this  plan  are  extensive,  and  will  take
a  significant  and focused  effort  to  accomplish.  In  addition,
implementation  will be  at  the  hands  of  many  different  agencies.
For  on‐road  facilities,  the implementation  lead  is  likely  to  be  the
roadway  owner. For  off‐road  facilities,  a  wider  variety  of  lead
agencies  is  possible,  such  as  local  muni cipaliti

es  or  recreation  and
open  space  groups.  Any  projects  which  involve  acquisition  of
easements  or  rights ‐of‐way  will also  involve  the landowners  as  a
key  stakeholder.
In  terms  of maintenance,  it  can  be  assumed  that  on ‐road  bicycle
and  pedestrian  facilities  will be  the  responsibility  of  whichev er
agency  currently  maintains  the  roadway

itself,  unless  other  specific
provisions  are  made.  For multi ‐use  trails,  there  may  be partnership
opportunities  to  provide  some  or all  maintenance  services.  This
can  take  the forms  of  occasional  volunteer  events,  such as  trail‐
cleaning  days, or a  more  fo rmal
maintenance  agr
eement between
agencies  and  groups  to  perform  maintenance.
In  addition,  local  not ‐for‐ profit  organizations,  such as  the  Feeder
Canal  Alliance,  WCS&QBO,  or  Creating  Healthy Places  to  Live,
Work,  and  Play  may  be able  to assist  in  identifying  and
implementing  some  of the  spot  improvements  listed  in  this  plan.
For  example,  creating   an

d  maintaining  an  inventory  of individual
bicycle  and  pedestrian  hazards  may  be useful.  It may  also  be
possible  to  partner  to  perform  events  such  as  targeted  road
sweepings  or  trail  maintenance,  with  help  from the  local  and
county  DPWs.  Sponsored  community  events  would  also  raise  the
profile  of  th e
organizations  and  provide  an  importa n
t community
education  benefit.

Regional Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan
Regional
Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan

Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
33
33

Funding Sources
The
following  funding  sources  have  historically  been  available  for projects  which  involve  bicycle  and  pedestrian
facilities.  Not  all  of these  programs  are  currently  active;  conversely,  new programs  may  arise which  could  be  applied
towards  bicycle  and  pedestrian  facilities.  In  seeking  funding  sources,  it  is  important  to  keep  in  mind  the  stipulations  and
requirem ents of  the  funding  agency.  For

instance,  projects  funded  under NYSDOT’s  Transportation  Alternatives
Program  must  follow  the  State’s  design,  bidding,  and  grant  reporting  process,  which  can  be  very  involved.
Program Granting Agency On ‐ / Off ‐
Road

Eligible  Activities Local
Match

Transportation
Alternatives  Program

NYS  Department
of  Transportation
(NYSDOT)

Both Provision  of  Facilities  for  Bicycles  and  Pedestrians  (on‐  or
off ‐road)

Yes
Make  the  Connection A/GFTC Both Small‐ scale projects  that  improve  the  region’s  bicycle  and
pedestrian  travel  network

Yes
Highway  Safety
Improvement  Projects
(HSIP)

FHWA/NYSDOT Both Safety  improvement  projects  on  any  public  road  or
publically  owned  bicycle  or  pedestrian  pathway  or  trail.

Yes
National  Scenic
Byways  Discretionary
Grants

Federal  Highway
Administration
(FHWA)

On‐ Road Construction  along  a  scenic  byway  of  a  facility  for
pedestrians  and  bicyclists;  safety  improvements  for
deficiencies  resulting from  designation  as  a  Byway

Yes
Consolidated  Local
Street  and Highway
Improvement
Program  (CHIPS)

NYSDOT On‐ Road Local  highway  projects  which  can  include  elements  such
as:  Bike  lanes  and wide  curb  lanes;  shared  use  paths,  and
bike  paths  within  the  highway  ROW

No
Recreational  Trails
Program

NYS  Office  of
Parks,  Recreation,
and  Historic
Preservation  (NYS
OPRHP)

Off ‐Road Acquisition,  development,  rehabilitation  and
maintenance  of  multi‐ use trails

Yes
Local  Waterfront
Revitalization  Program

NYS  Department
of  State  (NYSDOS)

Both Implementation  of  projects  listed  in  a  locally  adopted
Waterfront  Revitalization  Plan;  communities  without  this
type  of  plan  are  not  eligible  to  apply

Yes
Adirondack  Smart
Growth  Grants

NYS  Department
of  Environmental
Conservation
(NYSDEC)

Both Focused  on  planning  and  design  projects  including:
Efficient  transportation  systems;  Main  streets,  including
bicycle  and  pedestrian  access; Public access
improvements,  including  trails

No
Creating  Healthy
Places  to  Live,  Work,
and  Play

NYS  Department
of  Health

Both Small  grants  available  to municipalities  to  pursue
Complete  Streets  projects  or  purchase  bicycle racks,  if
community  has  passed  Complete  Streets  policy

No
Cleaner  Greener
Communities

NYSERDA Both Implementation  of  regional  sustainability  projects,
including  bicycle  and  pedestrian  activities

Yes
Surface  Transportation
Program/National
Highway  Performance
Program*  (STP/NHPP)  FHWA/NYSDOT
On‐Road  Provision  of  Facilities  for  Bicycles  and  Pedestrians  (as  part
of  concurrent  construction  of  roadway  or  bridge
Yes

*Note:  STP/NHPP  funding  currently  constrained  by  preservation  funding  targets  set  by  NYSDOT