Click Here For PDF

Warren County Bicycle Plan

  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Warren County 
Bicycle Plan 
 
 
 
Prepared by: 
 
Project Partner: 
 
 
January 2012 

  
 
 
1.   Introduction  ………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………. …………………………..  1  
a.   Purpose  ………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………. ……………………………..  1  
b.   Previous  Studies/Process  ………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………. …….  1  
c.   Benefits  of  Bicycle  Facilities………………………………………………………………
……………………………………… …………..  1  
d.   Terminology  ………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………. ……………………….  3  
2.   Existing  Conditions  ………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………. …………………  4  
a.   Existing  Bike  Routes  ………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………. …………….  4  
b.   Existing  Destinations  ………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………. …………..  4  
3.   Priority  Connections  ………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………. ……………….  6  
a.   Local  Priority  Routes  ………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………. ……………  6  
b.   WCS&QBO  Priority  Rou t

es ………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………. …..  6  
c.   A/GFTC  Staff  Priority  Routes  ………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………. ..  7  
d.   Priority  Bicycle  Network  ………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………. ………  7  
4.   Design  Standards  ………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………. ……………………  8  
a.   Overview  ………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………. ……………………………  8  
b.   Types  of  Bicycle  Facilities  ………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………. …….  9  
5.   Physical  Feasibility  Analysis  ………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………. ……  13 
6.   Imple m

entation  ………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………. ……………………  14 
a.   Other  Improvements  ………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………. …………  17 
b.   Partnerships  ………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………. ……………………..  18 
c.   Funding  Sources  ………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………. ……………….  18 
Appendix  1: Detailed  Maps ………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………. …………..  20 

Warren County Bicycle Plan 

1. Introduction  
a. Purpose  
In  association  with  the  Warren  County  Safe  &  Quality  Bicycling  Organization  
(WCS&QBO),  the  Adirondack/Glens  Falls  Transportation  Council  (A/GFTC)  has  
prepared  this  Warren  County  Bicycle  Plan.  This  plan  is  intended  to  identify  
existing  conditions,  create  a  methodology  to  select  needed  improvements,  set  
priorities  for  short ‐ and  long‐ term goal s, and  facili
tate implementation  in  the  
future.  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 
facilities  in  Warren  County.  
This  plan  has  been  created  in  conjunction  with  a  public  outreach  process  which  
takes  into  account  the prio rities  of  the  loc
al municipalities  in  Warren  County.  All 
existing  community  master  plans have  been  reviewed,  stakeholder  interviews 
have  been  conducted,  and  a  public  meeting  has been  held  to  review  the  draft  
version  of  the  plan.  This  process  is  intended  to  strengthen  ties  between  the  local  
municipalities,  County  DPW, A/GFTC,  an d the  WCS&
QBO, so  that  partnerships  can 
continue  in  the  future  implementation  of the  priority  projects.   
b. Previous  Studies/Process  
This  plan  is  in  many  respects  an  update  to  the  Bicycle  and  Pedestrian  Plan  
prepared  by  A/GFTC  in  2000.  As  this  plan  was prepared  with  help  from  
WCS&QBO,  the  focus  of  th e
 up
date is  solely  on  bicycle  improvements  within  
Warren  County.  Pedestrian  systems  will  be  addressed  in  a  separate  planning  
effort;  however,  in  many  cases,  improvements  to  bicycle  facilities  will  also  benefit  
pedestrians.   
To  create  the  plan,  the  project  team  developed  a  work  plan  which  included:  
• An inventory  of  existing  conditions  
• A review  of all  available  co
mmu

nity plans  and  priorities  for  each  
municipality  in  the  County  
• Identification  of  priority  network  connections   
• A methodology  to  select  appropriate  design features,  and  
• A plan  for  implementation  
This  process  enabled  the  project  team  to  identify  feasible,  real ‐world  actions  that  
can  be taken  to  improve  bi

king  within  the  county  in  general.  By  coordinating  
implementation  across  local, county,  and state  levels,  it  is  hoped  that  the  plan  will 
increase  the  efficiency  and  efficacy  of  improvements  to  the  bicycle  network.  
c. Benefits  of  Bicycle  Facilities 
Biking,  whether  conducted  as  a mode  of  transportati on 
or as
 a  recreational  
activity,  offers  a  wide  variety  of  personal,  social,  and  environmental  benefits.  On a  
personal  level,  biking  is  not  only  a  method  to  become  or  stay  physically  active,  but  
is  also  an  affordable,  fun transportation  method  available  to all  ages.  Socially,  
Bicycle Plan  Goal:   
Provide  a  framework  for  
future  improvements  
which  will  result  in  a  
more  expansive  and  
comprehensive  network  
of  bicycle  facilities  in  
Warren  County.  

Warren County Bicycle Plan 

biking  reduces  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  can  be  an  
effective  way  to  reduce  dependence  on  the  automobile,  and  subsequently  reduce 
carbon  emissions.  In creasing  opportuni

ties  for  cycling  can  potentially  increase  the  
associated  benefits, which  include:  
Economic  Development:  Investing  in  bicycle  infrastructure  can  attract  
tourists  to  an  area,  where  they  might  otherwise  spend  their  vacation  
dollars  elsewhere.  One  example  is  North  Carolina’s  Outer  Banks,  which  
generates  $60  million  annually  in  economic  activity  through  bi cycle 
tourism,  after  spendi

ng  $6.7  million  on  bicycle  infrastructure.  This  one ‐
time  investment  has  resulted  in an  annual nine ‐to ‐one  return.  An  analysis  
of  the  demographics  of  visitors  drawn  to  bike  on  the  Outer  Banks  shows  
that  the  bicycle  tourists  tend  to  be  affluent  (50% earning  more  than 
$100,000  a  year  and  87%  earning  more  than  $50,000)  and  educated  (40% 
with  a  maste rs or  doctoral  degre

e). Finally,  expenditures  by  the  680,000  
annual  visiting  bicyclists  support  1,400  jobs  in  the  area.
1   
On  a local  level,  it is  estimated  long ‐distance,  multi ‐day  bicycling  
vacationers  in  New  York  spend  between  $100  and $300  per day on  food, 
lodging,  and  other  items.  A  group  of  six  cyclists,  therefore,  each spending  
$250  per day on  seven ‐day  trip  would  add up  to  $10,500.
2 This  type  of 
economic  benefit  could  add  up  to  significant  revenue  for  the  region.   
Separate  from  tourism,  economic  benefits  from  increased  bicycle  
infrastructure  also  abound.  Portland,  Oregon,  well known  for  being  a  
bike ‐friendly  city,  saw  $90  million  in  bicycle ‐related  activity  in  2008.  
Almost  60  percent  of  that  activity  was  comprised  of  r etail,
 rental,
 and  
repair,  with manufacturing  and distribution,  bicycle  events,  and 
professional  services.

Bike  trails  can  also  raise  the  value  of  nearby  homes.  According  to  a  study  
completed  for  the  Delaware  Department  of  Transportation,  proximity to  
an  off ‐road  bike  trail  can  raise  the  value  of a  home  by 4%  or more.
4 This  
supports  the  idea  that  more  and  more  people  are  seeking  to  live  in  
bikeable  communities.   
Quality  of  Life:  An  increase  in  cycling  is  often  associated  with an  
increased  quality  of  life.  Numerous  intangible  benefits  are  associated  with 
bicycling  and  walking.  Having  safe, accessible  bicycle  facilities  can  provide 
children  and families  with  another  option  for  recrea tion
 or  
                                                           
 1  Lawrie,  et  al, “Pathways  to  Prosperity:  the economic  impact  of  investments  in  bicycling  facilities,”  N.C.  Department  of 
Transportation  Division  of  Bicycle  and Pedestrian  Transportation,  Technical Report,  July  2004.  
http://www.ncdot.org/transit/bicycle/safety/safety_economicimpact.html
 2  “Bicyclists  Bring  Business  – A  Guide  for  Attracting  Bicyclists to  New  York’s  Canal  Communities,”  Erie  Canalway  National Heritage  
Corridor,  Parks  &  Trails  New  York,  and  New  York  State  Canal  Corporation,  2010.  
http://www.ptny.org/pdfs/canalway_trail/b3/Bicyclists_bring_business.pdf
 3 Alta  Planning  +  Design,  “Bicycle ‐related  Industry  Growth  in  Portland,”  September  2008  (updated  from  June  2006.)  
http://www.altaplanning.com /App_Content/files/fp_docs/2008%20Portland%20Bicycle ‐Related%20Economy%20Report.pdf 4 Racca,  David P.  and  Dhanju,  Amardeep,  “Property  Value/Desirability  Effects  of  Bike  Paths  Adjacent  to Residential  Areas,”  Center  
for  Applied  Demography  &  Survey  Research,  November  2006.  http://128.175.63.72/projects/DOCUMENTS/bikepathfinal.pdf 
Figure  1  ‐ Bicycle  tourists  (photo  courtesy  of  
Dauset  Trails  Nature  Center)  

Warren County Bicycle Plan 

transportation.  According to the  Pedestrian  and  Bicycle  Information  
Center,  “Providing  more  travel  options  can  increase  a  sense  of  
independence  in  seniors,  young  people,  and  others  who  cannot  or  choose 
not  to  drive.  Increased  levels  of  bicycling  and  walking  can  have  a  great  
impact  on  an  area’s  sense of  livability  by  creating  safe and  friendl y places  
for  people  to  live  and work.”  A  spe

cific  example  comes  again  from   
Portland,  where  policies  to  encourage  bicycling  have  reduced  auto ‐
dependency,  saving the residents  on  transportation  costs.  In  comparison  
with  the  median  American  city,  Portland  residents  save  $2.6  billion  a  year  
in  terms  of  miles  traveled  and  hours  spent  in  vehicles.

Transportation:  With  the  exception  of  recreational  riders,  every  cyclist  
represents  one  less  car on the  road.  Although  many  vehicle  trips  are  less 
than  three  miles  in  length,  which  could  easily  be  accomplished  by  most  
cyclists,  72  percent  of  these  short  trips  are  made  in  cars.  Bicyclists  in 
some  areas may arrive  at  their  destina t

ions faster  than if they  had  driven  
a  car,  since  they  can  often  bypass  congestion  and  gridlock  traffic.5 
Public  Health:  Cycling  is  a  great  form  of  exercise,  reducing the  risks  for 
many  cardiovascular  diseases.  Enabling  and  encouraging  residents  to  
bicycle  also  results  in  public  health benefits.  For example,  according  to 
the  American Heart  Association,  with  each  dollar  a  community  invests  in 
multi ‐use  trails,  $3  in medical  cost  savings  is  realize d
.6  
With  all  these  benefits,  many  communities  are  demonstrating  a  strong  interest  in 
strengthening  and  improving  bicycle infrastructure,  on  both  a  local  and  regional  
level.  Warren  County,  and  the  communities  within,  has  been  active  in  pursuing  
ways  to  directly  and indirectly  improve the  biking  experience  in  the  region.  This  
has  included  innovative  partnerships
 to  promote  bi
ke education  and  events  as 
well  as physical  projects  such  as  the  Warren  County  Bikeway.  With  this  plan,  
Warren  County  is  underscoring  its  ongoing  commitment  to encouraging  bicycle 
activity  for  the  benefit  of  residents,  business owners,  and visitors  alike.  
d. Terminology  
Throughout  this plan,  a  variety  of  spe cific
 terms
 are  used.  To  reduce  confusion,  a  
short  glossary  has been  provided:  
Bike  Routes:
 The  alignments  (on ‐ or  off ‐road)  along  which  bicycles  are  specifically 
accommodated,  as  designated  by  the  authority  of  the  roadway  owner.  Bike  
routes  typically  feature  directional  and/or  informational  route  markings.  Note:  
Roadway  not specifically  designated  as  a “bike  route”  does  not  imply  that  it  
cannot  or  should  not  be  used  by cyclists.  However,  some  cyclists  may  find  that  
non ‐designa

ted  roadways  are not  as  accommodating  to  cyclists.  
                                                           
 5  Pedestrian  and  Bicycle  Information  Center, “National  Bicycling  and  Walking  Study: 15–Year  Status  Report”,  May  2010  
http://katana.hsrc.unc.edu/cms/downloads/15 ‐year_report.pdf  
6 Weintraub,  William  S.  et  al, “Value  of  Primordial  and  Primary  Prevention  for  Cardiovascular  Disease  :  A  Policy  Statement  From  
the  American  Heart  Association,”  Circulation, online  publication  July 25, 2011  
http://http//circ.ahajournals.org/c ontent/early/2011/07/25/CIR.0b013e3182285a81 
Important Terms: 
Bike  ROUTE:  The  on ‐ 
or  off ‐road  alignment  
designated  specifically 
as  accommodating  to  
bicycles.   
Bike  FACILITY:
 The  
physical  surface  or  
feature  used  by 
cyclists.  

Warren County Bicycle Plan 

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  Section 
4  of  this  plan.  Bike  facilities  can  also  include  other  features  desi g
ned to  
accommodate/encourage  cycling,  such  as  bike  parking  facilities.  
Design  Standards:
 The  geometric  specifications  regarding  pavement  width  and  
other  elements  which  are  recommended  to  be  met  in  order  to be  considered  a  
bicycle  facility.   
2. Existing  Conditions   
This  plan  is  intended  to  guide  the  improvement  of  bicycle  facilities  and  the  future  
designation  of  bicycle  routes  throughout  the County.  However,  this  effort  is  not  
“starting  from scratch”,  bu

t  is  rather  the  continuation  of many  years  of  work  by  
several  agencies.  Warren  County,  along  with  A/GFTC,  local  bike groups,  and  
individual  municipalities,  has  been  active  in  encouraging  accommodations  for  
cyclists.  It  is  therefore  important  to take  stock  of  the  conditions  for  cyclists  as 
they  sta nd  today.   
a. Existing  Bike  Rout

es 
Bicycle  facilities  in  Warren  County  consist  of  on ‐road  designated  routes and  multi ‐
use  trail  systems.  (See  map  1)  The  centerpiece  of  this  system  is  the  Warren  
County  Bikeway,  a mainly  off ‐road  bike  facility  which  extends  from  the  City  of  
Glens  Falls  to  the  Village  of  Lake  George .
 This  paved  tr
ail provides  access  to many 
important  destinations  and  also  links  with  the  Feeder  Canal  Trail  via on ‐road  
connections.   In  addition  to  the  facilities  shown  in  Map  1,  other  on ‐road  facilities  
feature  “Share  the  Road”  or  other  bicycle ‐related  signage.   
The  Town  of  Queensbury  rec
ently designated  several  roadways  in  the  southwest  
part  of  the  Town  as  on‐street  Bicycle  Routes.  The  identification  of  these  roadways  
as  potential  bike  routes  was  facilitated  by  WCS&QBO  prior  to the  commencement  
of  this  plan;  the  designation  process  described  in  Section  6 of  this  plan  can  serve  
as  a model  for other  towns  as
 well.  
There  are  also  other  bicycle  route  networks  and  facilities  surrounding  Warren  
County,  especially  in  Saratoga,  Washington,  and  Hamilton  Counties.  These include 
networks  such  as  the  Saratoga  County  Heritage  Trail,  New  York State  Bike Route  
#9,  the Champlain  Canal  Trail,  and  the  “Bike  the  Byways”  network .
 Creating  and  
maintaini

ng  strong  connections  to  these  neighboring  opportunities  is  a  key  aspect 
of  this  plan.  
b. Existing  Destinations  
Warren  County  has  a  variety  of  potential  destinations  for  bike  trips.  (See  Map 1)  
Many  of  the  hamlet  areas,  shown  in  pink  on Map  1,  serve  as  centers  of  activity  for  
residents  and  visitors.  Stan d‐alone

  employment  centers are  located  throughout  
the  County,  including  industrial  parks  and  the  Warren  County  Municipal  Center.  
Schools  also  constitute  important  bicycle  destinations.  Finally,  many  of  the  

Warren County Bicycle Plan 

recreational  amenities  and  parks  in  the  County  are  also  biking  destinations,  both  
for  tourists  and  for  employees.  These  include  active  recreation  amenities,  such  as 
amusement  parks,  shopping,  and  cultural  features  located  in  and  around  the  city,  
village,  and  hamlets,  as  well  as passive  parks  and  natural  areas  spread  throughout  
the  County.     

Æ

b
Æ
b
Æ
b
Æ
b
^
_k
®q
®q
®q
ñ
ñ
ñ
ñ
ñ
ñ ñ
ñ
ñ
ñ ñ
ñ
ñ
ñ
ñ
kk
k
k kk
kk
k
k
k
k k
k
k
kk
k k
k
k
k
k
k k
kk k
k
k
k
k
k kkk
k
k
k
k
k
k k
k
k
k
k k
k
Bolton
S T
ATE
ROUTE
9
N^ _
Johnsburg
Hague
Chester
Thurman
Horicon
Stony Creek
Queensbury
Warrensburg
Lake Luzerne
Lake
George
Glens Falls
§
¨ ¦87
§
¨ ¦87
STATE ROUTE 8
STATE ROUTE 28
MAIN ST
STATE ROUTE 9
STATE ROUTE 9
STATE ROUTE 8
.
Map 1 – Bike Routes and Destinations
No Scale
Legend
kPublic Schools
ñGovernment Office
^
_Major Retail Center
Æ
bRail Station
Bike Routes
On-Road Bike Connections
Feeder Canal P ark Heritage Trail
Warren County Bikeway
Waterbodies
Parks (Local)
Hamlet Area (APA Designation)
^
_k
®q
ñ
ñ
ñ
ñ
k
k
k
k k
k
k
kk
k
k k
k
k
k k
k
k
k
k
k
k
k
^
_
Saratoga
Ridge RdBay StGlen St
Sherman Ave
Broad St
South St
DIX Ave
Warren St
Lake
George
§
¨ ¦87
§
¨ ¦87
STAT E ROUT E 9
Inset Area

Warren County Bicycle Plan 

3. Priority  Connections  
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  facilities  in 
Warren  County.  Most  of  these  facilities  are  likely  to  be  located  along  existing  
roadways.  However,  it  is  not  realistic  to  assume  that every  roadway  will  be  the  
focus  of  bi

cycle  improvement  projects,  especially  given  current  funding  
limitations.  Conversely,  even  if  a  roadway  meets  the  minimum  requirements  for  
the  appropriate  design standard,  there  may  be  reasons  to refrain  from  pursuing  
designation  as  a bicycle  route,  at  least  in  the  short ‐term.  Possible  reasons  to del ay 
designati

ng  a  roadway  as  a bicycle  route  include:  location  (does the  roadway  
provide  connections  to  other  bike  routes?);  maintenance  (will  the  bicycle  facility  
require  a  level  of  maintenance  which  is  currently  not feasible?);  and/or public 
input  (are  there  local  objections  to  formal  designation  as a bike  route?).   
  As  such,  an im p

ortant component  of  this  plan  involved  setting priorities  to  
identify  which  roadways  are recommended  to  be  designated  as  bike  routes.  To  
set  realistic  and feasible  actions  for  this  plan,  several  factors  were  considered,  
described  in greater  detail  below.   
a. Local  Priority  Routes  
Many  of  the  local  municipalities  have  a ddressed
 the  need  for  bicy
cle facilities  in  
planning  documents;  these  ideas  should  be  taken  into  account.  As  part  of  this  
plan,  all  local  planning  documents  were  reviewed  to  determine  the  stated  bicycle  
transportation  priorities  in  each  municipality.  On  Maps  2  and  3,  the  roadways 
shown  in  red  were  specifically  mentioned  within  the  individual  mu
nicipal plan  as 
being  suitable  for  current  bike  use,  or  desired  for  bike  use in  the  future.   
This  analysis  highlights  the  fact  that  not every  community  in  Warren  County  has  
stated  priorities  concerning  cycling.  Some communities  have  identified  specific  
on ‐ and  off ‐road  alignments,  while  others  include  a  gen eral
 statement  of  su
pport 
for  bicycling  issues.  Still  others  make  no  mention  of  cycling  at  all;  however,  this  
should  not  infer  that  the  community  does  not  desire  accommodation  of  bicycles  
on  the  roadways.  Nothing  in  this  plan  is  intended  to  prevent  local  municipalities  
from  supporting  the establishment  of  additional  bicycle  facilities,  nor  to obligate  
commu nities to  engage  in  projects  in  the  future.   

 
b. WCS&QBO  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, members  of the  
WCS&QBO  generated  a  list  of  cycling  routes.  These  road ways represent  the  
alignme

nts  of  existing  bike  events,  important  connections  to  recreation  
destinations,  and  roadways  which are  enjoyable  to  ride.  Although  recreational  
riding  is not  the  focus  of  this  plan,  it  is  important  to  recognize  those  routes  which  
are  favored  by  the  biking  community.  These  routes  are  shown  in  gold  on  Maps  2  
and  3.  
 
Local  Priorities:  Many  
municipalities  have  
specifically  addressed  
bicycle  facilities  in  their  
planning  documents,  
including:  
• Bolton  
• Chester  
• Horicon 
• Johnsburg  
• Town  and  Village  
of  Lake  George  
• Lake  Luzerne  
• Queensbury  
• Warrensburg  

Warren County Bicycle Plan 

c. A/GFTC  Staff  Priority  Routes   
In  addition  to the  priorities  stated  above,  it  will  be  important  to  include  regional  
transportation  needs  into  this  bicycle  plan.  A/GFTC  staff  therefore  identified  
several  roadway  alignments  which  fulfill  a  regional  transportation  role.  These  
include  connections  to  destinations  within  Warren  County,  as  well  as  bike  routes  
in  adjacent  counties.  Thes e

  routes,  shown in  green  on  Maps  2  and  3,  were  
selected  to  allow  for transportation  connectivity,  rather  than just  recreational  
enjoyment.   
d. Priority  Bicycle  Network  
As  part  of  this  plan,  a  methodology  to  prioritize  the  importance  of roadway  
improvements  was  developed.  Using  this methodology,  the Priority  Network  was  
developed.  Se e
 Maps  2  &  3,  as

  well  as the  more  detailed  maps for  each  
municipality  located  in  Appendix  1. This  includes  on ‐ and  off ‐road  connections  
which  are  proposed  to  be  the  focus  of  bicycle  improvements  in  the  future.  
Showing  the  needs  and  desires  of all  three  groups  simultan eously allows  for  a  
rudime

ntary  hierarchy  to  be  assigned.   
1. On ‐Road  Connections:
  Roadways  which  have  been  selected  by  all  three  
groups  are  considered  high  priority.  Whenever  feasible,  upgraded  bicycle 
facilities  such  as  bike  shoulders  or  shared  use  lanes  should  be  included  in 
improvement  projects  on  these  high  priority  routes.  Those  routes  
selected  by  two  of the  three  groups  are  considered  still important,  but  of  
a  lower  priority for  im

plementation.   If feasible,  bicycle  facilities  should  be  
included  in  any  upcoming  capital  improvement  projects.  If  bicycle  
facilities  cannot  be  accommodated,  “Share  the  Road”  signage  may be 
recommended  to raise  awareness  of cyclists  on  the  part  of  motorists.  
Roadways  which  are  important  to  only  one  group  are  inclu ded in
 this  plan  
as  well,  with  the  understanding  that  improvements  along  these  roadways 
may  take  place  in the  long ‐term.  
2. Multi ‐use  trails:
 In  terms  of  off ‐road  connections,  only those  previously  
proposed  in local  planning  documents  have  been  added  to  the  priority  
connections  map.  However,  many  other  multi ‐use  trails  may  be  feasible.  
If  pursuing  an off ‐road  connection  is  the  preferred  alternative,  the  need  
to  acquire  easements  or  rights ‐of ‐way  should  be  the  initial  consid eration.  
Trail

  alignments  through  recreation/open  space  areas  may  be  a  feasible  
option  which  minimizes  property  acquisition  burdens. In  addition,  
National  Grid  has  a  standard  process  and  dedicated  staff to  evaluate 
whether  they  will  grant  access  rights  for  multi ‐use  trails,  making  them 
another  potential  partner.   
This  hierarchy  is intend ed to  provide
 one  tool  in  the  decision ‐making  process.  It  
may  be  useful  in situations  in  which  there  is  some  leeway  in  selecting  among  
several  potential  projects. However,  the  selection  of  capital  projects  involves  
other  equally  important  factors.  The  remainder  of  this  plan  is  intended  to  address 
the  design,  f easibility,  and  i
mplementation of  bicycle  improvement  projects.  

DIAMOND POINT RD
GOL F C OURSE RD
SCHROON RIVER RD
PAD ANARUM RD
HARRISB URG RD
Johnsburg
Bolton
Hague
Chester
Thurman
Horicon
Stony CreekQueensbury
Warrensburg
Lake Luzerne
Lake
George
Glens
Falls
BAY RD
CALL ST
LAKE AVE
GLEN ATHOL RD
HIGH ST
STATE ROUTE 9ATATEKA DR
RIDGE RD
E RIVER DR
RIDGE RD
ROUTE 9
STA T
E
ROUT E
8
STATE ROUTE 28
LAKE SHORE DR
E S
HORE DR
WALL ST
VALENTIN E
P
OND RD
S TATE ROUTE
9
RIVER RD
STATE ROUTE 8
S T
A T
E ROUTE
2 8
.
Map 2 – Priorities for Bicycle Facilities
No Scale
Legend
Existing Warren County Bikeway
Bike Routes
Proposed Off-Road Trails
WCS&QBO Priority Routes
Local Priority Routes
A/GFTC Staff Priority Routes
Waterbodies

MUR RAY
VETERANS RD
RICHARDS ON
QU AKER AVE
RID GE RD
UPPER SH ERMAN AVE
BAY RD
HAVILAND RD
BAY ST
PO TTER RD
WEST MO UNTAIN RD
GURNEY LN
LUZERNE RD
CRONIN RD
DIXO N RD
AVIATION RD
COUNTRY CLUB RD
CORINTH RD
DIX AVE
WE
S
T MO U
NTAIN RDSTATE ROUTE 9
GLEN ST
STATE ROUTE 149
R
IDGE ST
BROAD ST
WARREN ST
BOULEVARD
C H
E
STNUT RIDGE RD
.
Map 3 – Priorities for Bicycle Facilities (Inset)
No Scale
Legend
Existing Warren County Bikeway
Bike Routes
Proposed Off-Road Trails
WCS&QBO Priority Routes
Local Priority Routes
A/GFTC Staff
Priority Routes
Waterbodies

Warren County Bicycle Plan 

4. Design  Standards  
a. Overview  
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  part  of  an  on ‐road  facility  or  an  multi ‐use  trail.   
The  selection  of  a  bicycle  facility  depends  on  many  va riables:  the  type
 of  cyclist  
likely  to  use  the  facility;  traffic 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  
select  th

e  most  appropriate  design  standards  for  each  facility.  
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  minimum  standards  for  the  
types  of  facilities  most  like ly
 to  be  proposed
 in  Warren  County.  The design  
standards  are  based  on  those  in  the  NYSDOT  Highway Design  Manual  Chapter  17 
(Bicycle  Facility  Design),  and  on  AASHTO’s  Guide  for  the Development  of  Bicycle  
Facilities . Standards  for  features  such  as  bridges  or  railings  have  not  been  
included;  refer  to  the  appropriate  gui
dance document  for  detail  concerning  these  
facilities.   
This  summary  is  not  intended  to  limit  the range  of  potential  bicycle  facilities  in  
Warren  County.  As  new  standards  are  adopted,  and  different  types  of  bicycle  
facilities  tested  and  deployed,  it  is  recommended  that  these  new  techniques  be  
reviewed  to  determine  if  they  may  be  appropriate  to condi tions in  Warren  
County.   
 
 
   
Guidance Documents 
for  Bicycle  Facility 
Design  Standards:  
American  Association  of 
State  Highway  and  
Transportation  Officials  
(AASHTO):  Guide  for  the 
Development  of  Bicycle  
Facilities , 1999 
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  Facili ty 
Design, 
2006 

Warren County Bicycle Plan 

b. Types  of  Bicycle  Facilities  
1. Bike  Shoulders  (aka  Wide  Shoulders)  
Most  appropriate  for:  Rural/suburban  roadways  with limited  
sections  of  curbing  and  without  on ‐street  parking  
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.  (See  Figure  2&3)  
 
Advantages:   
• Many  bike  shoulders  already  exist in  the  County  
• 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  (see  page  10)  
• May  require  widening  of the  roadway  in  certain  areas 
• Can pose  conflict  with on ‐street  parking  
 
  
4’ Shoulder –
no  curbTravel  Lane –
width variesTravel  Lane –
width varies6’ Shoulder  –  
with   curb
Figure  3  ‐ Bike  shoulders  (photo  courtesy  of  ANCA) 
Figure
 2  ‐  Design  Standard  for  bike  shoulders  

Warren County Bicycle Plan 
10 
2. Shared‐ Use Lanes  (a.k.a.  Wide Curb Lanes) 
Most  appropriate  for:  Roadways  with  width  constraints  
Design  standards:  14’ ‐wide  desired/12’ ‐wide  minimum  travel  
lane  (See Figure  4&5).  Some  shared ‐use  lanes  deploy  a  
“sharrow”  roadway  striping, which  reinforces  the  need  to  
share  the  road  with  cyclists. 
 
Advantages:   
• Minimal  striping  or  mainte nance requir
ed 
• Benefits  to  non ‐bicycle  traffic:  accommodates  buses  and  
truck  turning  movements/emergency  maneuvers 
• Greater  lateral  mobility  for  advanced  cyclists  (can  use  the 
whole  lane  if  needed  to  avoid  obstacles)    
Disadvantages:   
• Least  comfortable  for  beginning/average  cyclists 
• Wider  travel lanes  can  increase  traffic  speeds  
• Can pose  con flict  with  on ‐s
treet parking  
 
  
Figure  5  ‐ Example  of  cyclist  in  shared  lane  (photo  courtesy  
of  pedbikeinfo.org)  
Figure 4  ‐  Design  Standard  for  shared  lanes  
14’ desired 
travel  lane Shared  
travel  lane Parking 
lane 
(width  
varies)  
22’ minimum

Warren County Bicycle Plan 
11 
3. Bike  Lanes  
 
Most  appropriate  for:  Urban  roadways  with curbing  and  on ‐
street  parking 
 
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.  (Figure 6)  
 
Advantages:   
• Channelizes  bike  traffic  
• More  comfortable  for begi nning/average 
cy
clists to  ride   
• Minimizes  cars  swerving  into  other  lane  to avoid  cyclists  
• Higher  profile/visibility  for  cyclists   
 
Disadvantages:   
• Intersections  can  become  complicated  with  extra  bike  
lane  striping  and  signage  (Figure  7) 
• May  require  additional  ROW width  
• Mainly  an  urban  roadway  feature  
• Can be  blocked  by parke d
 cars   

Can  pose  conflict  with on ‐street  parking  
 
4. 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  pote ntial
 for  vehicl
e/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  
 
  
Figure  6  ‐ Striped  bike  lane  (photo  courtesy  of  pedbikeinfo.org)  
Figure 7  ‐ Example  of  bike  lane  signage  
Figure 8  – Multi ‐Use  trail  

Warren County Bicycle Plan 
12 
5. “Share  the  Road”  Signage  
 
Most  appropriate  for:  Roadways  which  do  not  have  sufficient  
shoulder  width  to  support  designated  use for  bicycles.  Note 
that  the  signs  themselves  do  not  constitute  a  bicycle  facility,  
but  can  be  deployed  along  on ‐road  connectors.  
 
Design  standards:  Set  by  the  Manual  of  Uniform  Traffic  
Control  Devices  (MUTCD)   
 
Advantages:   
• Inexp ensive 
to deploy  

No physical  changes  needed  to  roadway  
• Roadway  need not  be  a  designated  Bike  Route  to have  
Share  the  Road  signs 
 
Disadvantages:   
• Does  not  provide  dedicated  space  for  cyclists  
• Over‐deployment  dilutes  the  efficacy  of  the  signs  
   
Figure 9  ‐  Diagram  of Share  
the  Road  signage  

Warren County Bicycle Plan 
13 
5. 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  Warren  County,  this  plan  also  analyzed  whether roadways  may currently  have  
the  requisite  pavement  width  meet  the  Design  Standard  appropriate  to the  
context.  A  GIS  map  was  prepared  wh
ich compares  the  existing  shoulder  width  to 
the  width  required  by  the  bike  shoulders  Design  Standards  outlined in  Section  4.7 
This  assumption  creates  a  conservative  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  enough  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,  the  average  paved  
shoulder  width  was  measured  for  each  section  of  roadway.   Gravel  shoulders  
were  not  in cl

uded  in  this  analysis.  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  should  be  noted  that  the  posted  speed limit  is  not  
the  only  factor  which  can  be  taken  into  accou
nt 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  be taken  
into  account  to  determine  an  appropriate  bike  shoulder  width.   Posted  speed  was 
chosen  as the  analysis  method  for  th is pl
an to  facilitate  the GIS  analysis.     
The  results  of  this  analysis  are  shown  in  Map  4,  which  indicates  that  the majority  
of  roadways  do not  have  current  sufficient  width to  meet  the  wide  shoulder  
Design  Standard.  It is  crucial  to  note  that  lack  of  shoulder  width  does  not  im ply  
that  a  roadway  is  inher

ently  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)  the  appropriate  design  standard.  This  
information  can  be  useful  in  helping  roadway  owners  determine  the  scope  of  
work  required  to  create  or  enhan c

e  bicycle  facilities  in  the  future.   
It  must  also  be  noted  that  many  roadways  in  Warren  County  are  “user  highways”.  
These  are roadways  in which  the  right ‐of ‐way  width  is  the  same  as the  pavement  
width.  As  such,  widening  these  types  of  roads  usually  involves  acq u
isition of  
property  from  adjacent  landowners,  which can  significantly  increase  the cost  and  
time  frame  of  construction  projects.   
   
                                                           
 7  Not  all  roadways  on  the  priority  network  were analyzed  during  the  course  of this  
mapping  analysis.  

JohnsburgBolton
Hague
Chester
Thurman
Horicon
Stony Creek
Queensbury
Warrensburg
Lake Luzerne
Lake
George
Glens Falls
L A KE
S H
O
RE

D R
B A
Y R D
C
A
LL
S T
L
A K
E
A
V E
H
A R
R
IS B
UR G
R D
G
L
E N
ATH
O L

RD
S TA
TE
R O
UT
E
2 8
H
IG
H
S T
F
R I
E N D
S
L A
K E
R D
PA
L
IS
A D
ES
R
D
E S
H
O RE
D
R
M AI
N
S TSTA
TE
R O
U
TE

9
W AR
R E
N S
B U
R G
R
D
ST
A T
E
R
O UTE

8
A TA
TE KA
D
R
G O
L
F CO
URSE
R D
R
I
D G
E

R D
S
T
A TE
R O U
TE
9
N
B
EA
V E R
P
O
ND
R D
AT
HO L
R
D
CO R
I
N TH
R
D
HO
R
IC O
N
A V
E
PO
TT
E R

R D
CRO N
IN

R D
M
U
RR
AY
RD
E RIV E
R
D R
L
A KE
S
H O
R
E
D R
ST A
TE
RO
UT
E 9
L
A
KE
S H
O RE
DR
S T
A
TE R
O
UT
E
8
S TA
TE
R
O UT
E
9
R I
D G
E
R D
.
Map 4 – Physical Conditions Map
(Shoulder width vs. posted speed limit)
Legend
Shoulder Width Meets Applicable Bike Design Standard
No
Ye s
Other Roads
Waterbodies
Shoulder and posted speed conditions
based on field observation by A/GFTC
staff and may be subject to revision.
Information as presented is not to be
used for construction or engineering
and is intended for planning purposes only.
No Scale
No – Roadside Obstacles

Warren County Bicycle Plan 
14 
6. Implementation  
The  priority  network  identified  in  Section 3  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,  funding  for stand ‐
alone  on‐street  bicycle  features  is  so  limited  as  to be  essentially  
unavailable.  However, other  funding  streams  may become  available  
which  can  further  the  implementation  of  this  project.  For example,  
there  may  be  funding  for  off ‐road  connections  which  would  allow  for  
exte nsions  of  the  Warren  County  Bikeway,  or for  similar  facilities  to 
be

  constructed  in  the  County.   
• 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,  it  is  likely  that  bicycle  facilities  will  become  a  more  
prominent  element  in  the  design  and construction  of  roadways  at the  
State  and  Co unty
 level.  In  addition,  ther

e 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  take  advantage  of these  
opportuniti es as

  they  arise.   
• Phasing  of  Improvements
.  For  high ‐priority  roadways,  it may  be  
beneficial  to  adopt  a  phased  approach  to  bicycle  facility  
improvements.  For  instance,  if there  is  insufficient  pavement/right ‐
of ‐way  width  to  support  creation  of  bike  shoulders,  or if  the  roadway  
was  very recently  improved  (and  therefore  not  likely  to  be  the  focus  
of  a  capital  pr oject  in  the  near  futur
e), “Share  the  Road”  signage  can 
be  added  as  a short ‐term  solution.  This would  allow the  roadway  
owner  to designate  the  road  as  a Bike  Route  in  the  near  future,  while  
still  allowing  for  future  physical  improvements  to  take  place  in  the  
long  term.  In  addition,  ph asi
ng should  take  into account  the location  
of  the  facility.  Connections  to  existing  bike  facilities,  and  continuous  
routing  between  logical termini,  are  both  important  considerations.  
• 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  desi re to  
accommoda

te a  wide  range  of  cyclists  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, 
Complete  Streets:  
Complete  streets  provide  
transportation  options  for everyone  
by  creating  safer  places  to walk  and  
ride  bicycles.  They  also  provide  better  
access  to  public   transportation,  
improve  transit  efficiency,  and  calm  
traffic.  Complete  streets  create 
complete  communities.  
In  the  summer  of  2011,  the  NYS 
legislature  unanimously  passed  a 
statewide  Complete  Streets  bill,  which  
was  signed  by  the  governor  an

d  will  
go  into  effect  February  2012.  
This  law  calls  for  Complete  Street  
Designs  to  be  considered  for all  state,  
county,  and  local  transportation  
projects  that  are  undertaken  by  the  
Department  of  Transportation  or  
receive  both  federal  and  state  funding  
and  are  subject  to  Department  of  
Transportation  oversi

ght.  
Most  projects  that  receive  federal  
funding  also  receive  state  funding.  
However,  the  law  is  not  applicable  on  
many  roads  owned  by  villages,  towns  
and  counties.  

Warren County Bicycle Plan 
15 
location of  the  proposed  facility, and  physical  constraints  of  the  
roadway/trail  area. 
To  further  facilitate  the  decision‐ making process,  a  Bicycle  Facility  Improvement  
Process  has been  developed.  In  general,  the  end  goal  is  to  have  all  of  the  
roadways  in the  priority  network  include  a  functional  bicycle  facility.   
Theoretically,  the  roadway  owners  could  designa t
e these  roadways  as bicycle  
routes  at  any  time.  However,  most  agencies  would  prefer  that the roadways  that 
they  designate  as formal  bike  routes  meet  (or  come  close  to  meeting)  the  criteria  
for  accepted  design  standards,  such  as  those  listed  in  this  plan,  prior  to  making  
the  designation.   
The  first  step  in  that  proce s
s is  to  select  the  appropriate  Design Standards  for  the  
roadway  in  question.  The  next  step  is  to  determine  whether  the  roadway  will  
require  additional  improvements  in  order  to  be  in  compliance  with  the  Design  
Standards.  The  flow  chart  on  the  following  page  is intended  to  hel p gui
de  this  
process.  Factors  such as  existing pavement  width,  available  ROW, the feasibility  
of  off ‐road  connections,  and  whether  the  roadway  is  slated  for improvements  in  
the  5 ‐year  Transportation  Improvement  Program,  are all  considered.  
This  process  anticipates  that  most  roadway  owners  would  require  that  bicycle  
facilities  are  largely  consistent  wit

h 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  behest  of  a  separate  group. For  example,  the  
WCS&QBO  recently  petitioned  the  Town  of  Queensbury  to designate  several  
roadways  as bike  routes;  the  Town  Board  passed  a  re sol
ution designating  the 
roadways  as this  plan  was  being  drafted.  This  process  could  be  replicated  for  any  
town  in  Warren  County.  Similarly,  this  group,  or  any  local  municipality,  may  
choose  to petition  Warren  County  to  designate  their roadways  as bike  routes.   
New  York State  maintains  a  separate  system of  bike  routes,  design
ed to 
encourage  long‐ distance  connections  statewide.  However,  they  may  be  
petitioned  to  add  bike  route  signage  along  State  roadways.  These  can  then  
become  an  important  part  of  a  regional  cycling  promotion,  such  as  the  “Bike  the  
Byways”  efforts put  forth  by  the  Adirondack  North  Country  Association.   

Warren County Bicycle Plan 
16 
  
Is pavement  width  sufficient  to support  
appropriate  Design  Standard? 
Yes No 
Roadway  included  in  current  TIP?  
Yes No 
¾ Restripe  roadway 
as  part  of capital  
project  
¾ Designate  roadway  
as  a  Bike  Route; 
add  signage  
¾ Ensure  facility  will  
be  maintained,  if  
necessary  
Is restriping  necessary  to  create  appropriate  bike  
facility?  
No Yes  
¾ Designate  roadway  as  a  Bike  
Route  
¾ Add  directional/  informational  
Bike  Route  signage  
¾ Ensure  facility  will  be  
maintained,  if  necessar

¾ Add  Share  the  
Road  Signage  
¾ Designate  roadway  
as  a  Bike  Route  
¾ Restripe  roadway 
as  part  of long ‐
term  road  
improvements  
Is there  sufficient  ROW available  to  widen  pavement?
No  Yes  
Yes No 
¾ Widen  roadway  as 
part  of road  
improvements  
¾ Designate  roadway  
as  a  Bike  Route;  add 
signage  
¾ Ensure  facility  will  
be  maintained  
¾
¾ Add  Share  the  Road  
Signage  
¾ Designate  roadway  as  a  
Bike  Route  
¾ Widen  roadway  as part  of 
long ‐term  road  
improvements  
Is the  roadway  included in  current  TIP?  
Could  an  off ‐road  facility  feasibly  
be  substituted?  
Yes No 
¾ Pursue  funding  for  
multi ‐use  trail  
¾ Acquire  ROW  
¾ Construct  trail 
¾ Add  Share  the  Road  
signage  
¾ Designate  roadway  as  a  
Bike  Route  
Bicycle  Facility  Improvement  Selection  Process 
START:  Determine  the  most  appropriate  design 
standard  for  the  roadway.  

Warren County Bicycle Plan 
17 
Edge of travel  
lane  
Existin

Shoulder  
Pavement  Overlay:  NOT  
recommended  
Edge of travel  
lane  Shoulder  
Existin

Pavement  Overlay:  Recommended
a. Other  Improvements  
The  implementation  process  outlined  above  is  intended  to  apply  to  large ‐scale  
improvement  projects,  which  would  apply  to  significant  portions of  a  roadway.  
However,  there  are also  opportunities  to  pursue  small ‐scale  improvements,  which  
could  also  improve  the  biking  experience  in  Warren  County.  These “spot”  
improvements  are  focused  on  addressin g those  small ‐scale  issues  which  may  not  
require  significant  fundi

ng  to  complete.  Several  examples  are  included  below.  
1. Drainage  grates.  The direction  of  the  grating  pattern on  storm  drains  is  
an  often ‐overlooked  detail.  (See  figure  10).  Grate  openings  which  run  
parallel  to the  travel  direction  can cause  havoc  for  thin  b i

cycle tires.  
Ideally,  grates  should  be  selected  which  feature  a “bike ‐friendly”  
pattern.  If  this  is  not  feasible,  the  grate  should  be  situated  so that  the  
pattern  runs  perpendicular  to  the  travel  direction.   
2. Individual  hazards.  Over time, potholes  and  cracks  can  form  in  
pavement,  causing  hazardous  conditions  for  cyclists.  Sudde n chan
ges in 
grade,  whether  because  of pavement  failure  or  manholes  set  at  an  
improper  elevation,  can  be difficult  for  cyclists  to  maneuver,  especially 
at  night.  In  the  short  term,  pavement  markings  as  specified  in  Chapter 
3C  of  the  Manual  for  Uniform  Traffic Control  Devices  (figure  11)  can  
help  alert cyclists  that  a  po tentially  haza
rdous condition  exists.  These 
hazards  can  then  be eliminated  or  minimized  as  the  appropriate 
roadway  or  utility  project  is  undertaken  in  the  future.  
3. Pavement  overlays.  Even  if  no  re ‐striping  or  widening  is  called  for in  a  
paving  project,  there  may still  be  good  opportuniti es to  im
prove 
conditions  for  cyclists.   Ensuring  that  the  seam  of  the  pavement  does  
not  occur  in the  middle  of  the  shoulder,  or  is  properly feathered,  will 
provide  a smooth,  regular  surface for  cyclists.  (See  figure  12)  
4. Roadway  sweeping.  Patches  of  gravel,  especially  on  corners,  can  pose  a  
threat  to  cycl ists.
 With  the  help  of  the  cycling  com
munity, it  may  be 
possible  to  identify  areas  where  significant  gravel  accumulation  is  
hampering  safe cycling.  Targeted  road  sweeping,  even  just  a  few  times  
a  year,  can  help  to  reduce  the  potential  hazards.   
5. Bicycle  Racks.  Lack of  adequate  bike  racks  is a  freq uent  issue for  
cyclists.  Although  some  co

mmunities  are  beginning  to  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.  As a  starting 
point,  bike  racks  should  be  provided  in  locations  near  public  buildings 
such  as  schools,  municipal cent
ers, and  post  offices,  as  well  as in public 
parking  areas.  Commercial  businesses and  employment  centers  should  
also  be  encouraged  to  provide  bike racks  as  a service  to  their  customers  
and  employees.   
   
Figure 10 ‐ Above,  poor  drainage  
grate  choice;  Below,  bicycle ‐
friendly  grate  (photos  courtesy  of  
Syrcast)  
Figure 11 ‐ Example  of  bike  hazard  striping  
Figure 12 ‐ Pavement  Overlays  

Warren County Bicycle Plan 
18 
b. Partnerships  
The  improvements  outlined  in  this  plan  are extensive,  and  will  take  a significant  
and  focused  effort  to  bring  about.  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  lea

agencies  is  possible:  local  municipalities,  recreation  and  open  space  groups,  or  
the  WCS&QBO  itself. Any projects  which  involve  acquisition  of  easements  or  
rights ‐of ‐way  will  also  involve  the  landowners  as  a key  stakeholder.  WCS&QBO,  
along  with  A/GFTC,  will  play  important  roles  in  maintaining  open communication  
with  these  gr oups  as

  implementation  of  bicycle  improvement  projects  is  
undertaken.   
In  terms  of maintenance,  it  can  be  assumed  that  on ‐road  bike  facilities  will  be  the  
responsibility  of  whichever  agency  currently  maintains  the  roadway  itself,  unless  
other  specific  provisions  are  made.  For  multi ‐use  trails,  there  may  be  partnership 
opportuniti es to  provide  some

  or  all  maintenance  services.  This  can  take  the  
forms  of  occasional  volunteer  events, such  as  trail‐ cleaning  days,  or a  more  
formal  maintenance  agreement  between  agencies  and  groups  to  perform  
maintenance.   
In  addition,  WCS&QBO,  as  a  501(c)3  non‐profit  organization,  may  be  able  to  assist  
in  identifying  and  im plem
enting some  of the  spot  improvements  listed  in  this  
plan.  For example,  this  group  may be  able  to create  and  maintain  an  inventory  of 
individual  hazards,  and may  also be  able  to seek  funding  for the  roadway  owners  
to  address  these  concerns.  It  may  also  be  possible  to  partner  to pe rform  target
ed 
road  sweepings  or  trail  maintenance,  with  help  from the  local  and  county  DPWs.  
Sponsored  community  events  such  as  these  would  also raise  the  profile  of  the  
organization  and  provide  an  important  community  education  benefit.   
c. Funding  Sources  
The  following  funding  sources  have  historically  been  available  for projects  which  
involve  bicy cl

e  facilities.  Not all  of these  programs  are  currently  active;  
conversely,  new programs  may  arise  which  could  be  applied  towards  bicycle  
facilities.  In  selecting  funding  sources,  it  is  important  to  keep  in  mind  the  
stipulations  and  requirements  of  the  funding  agency.  For  instance,  projects  
funded  under  NYSDOT’s  Transportation  Enhancements  Program  mu st follow  the  
State’s  desi

gn,  bidding,  and  grant  reporting  process,  which  can  be  very  involved.  
  

Warren County Bicycle Plan 
19 
 
Program  Granting Agency  On‐or  Off‐
Road    Eligible
 Activities Local 
Match  
Transportation  
Enhancements  
Program   NYS
 Department  
of  Transportation  
(NYSDOT)   Both
Provision of  Facilities  for  Bicycles  and  Pedestrians  (on ‐
or  off ‐road)   Yes
Make
 the  Connection  A/GFTC   BothSmall‐scale  projects  that  improve  the  region’s  bicycle  
and  pedestrian  travel  network  Yes
Transportation,
 
Community,  System  
Preservation  
Program  (TCSP)   FHWA/NYSDOT
 On‐Road Planning, development,  and  implementation  of  
strategies  to  integrate  transportation,  community,  and  
system  preservation  plans  and  practices   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
  

Warren County Bicycle Plan 
20 
Appendix 1:  Detailed  Maps  
To  facilitate  implementation  among  individual  municipalities,  a  series  of  more  
detailed  priority  maps  has  been  prepared.  These  maps  depict  the same  content  as 
Maps  2  and  3  of  this  plan,  on  a  larger  scale. The  map  contents  include:  
Map  A:  Glens  Falls/Southern  Queensbury  
Map  B:  Lake  Luzerne  
Map  C:  Lake  George/Northern  Quee nsbury
 
Map  D:  Warrensburg  
Map  E:  Stony  Creek  
Map  F:

  Bolton 
Map  G:  Thurman  
Map  H:  Hague  
Map  I:  Horicon  
Map  J:  Chester  
Map  K:  Johnsburg  

^
_k
®qñ
ñ
ñ
ñ
ñSWEET RDI
A
Queensbury Glens Falls
Lake Luzerne
§
¨ ¦87
§
¨ ¦87
W Mounta in R d
Bay Rd
Quaker Rd
Luzerne Rd
DIX Ave
Ridge Rd
Dixon Rd
Corinth Rd
State R
out
e 9
Glen St
Hav
iland Rd
Bay St
Sanford St
Aviation Rd
Potter Rd
Upper Sherman
A ve
Ridge St
Cr
onin R
d
Meadowbrook Rd
Main St
Q u
eensbur
y Ave
W
arr
en St
Broad St
Hi
cks Rd
Ri ver StMaple St
Country Club Rd
Boulevard
Round Pond Rd
Platt St
South St
Elm St
Grant Ave
Sherman Ave
Lawrence St
G lenwood
A ve
Upper
Gl
en St
Staple St
Blind Rock R
d
Haskell Ave
Mohican St
Webster Ave
Mountain View Ln
Lower Warren St
Thomas St
Le
xi
ngto n

A v
e
Western Ave
Main St
.
Warren County Bicycle Plan
Map A – Glens Falls/South Queensbury Inset
No Scale
Legend
ñGovernment Office
®qWarren County Airport
kSUNY Adirondack
^
_Major Retail Center
kPublic Schools
Parks (Local)
Waterbodies
Bike Routes
Proposed Off-Road Trails
Warren County Bikeway
Feeder Canal Park Heritage Trail
WCS&QBO Priority Routes
Local Priority Routes
A/GFTC Priority Routes (Staff)
Other Roads
Interstate
Major Roads
Local Streets
Prepared by: A/GFTCI
AWarren County Bikeway Parking Lot

ñ
kk
k
Lake Luzerne
Queensbury
Warrensburg
Lake George
Stony Creek
L
a
k
e A
ve
S
tate Route
9
N
C a
ll
S t
R
a
lp
h R
d
How e

R d
E
R iv
er D
r
Be
art
o w
n
R d
O ld
S t
a g e
R d
V
ie l
e
P o
nd R d
G
ai
l
e y
H
ill

R d
H
al
l
H i
ll R
d
Riv
er
R d
G
l
e n s
F a
ll
s
M ou
n
ta i
n R
d
Th
o
m as
R
d
But
t e
rm
i
l
k
R d
S
c
o fi
e l
d
R d
H
ad
le
y R
d
V
an
are
L
n
La
ke
T
o u
r R
d
T
u t
h i
ll R d
G
ag e
H i
l
l R d
C
ori
n t
h R
d
Dunkle
y
R
d
Hy
la
n d
D
r
B
ay
R
d
Da
n ie
ls
R d
L
y
n ch
D
r
H arr
is
R
d
Tr
a
ve
r
R
d
B u
tl
er
P on
d
R d
7t
h
A
ve
R
ea
d
P
a
rk
R
d
Haw k
R
d
4W D
R
o
ad
M ain
S t
Te
rr
a ce D
r
Pin e
w oo
d
s
R d
M
aso n

D r
R
os
e
A v
e
S pi
er
F
all
s
R d
H
ar tm an
L
o
op
Iv y
L n
Le
d g
eb
ro o
k
L n
D
ri
v e
w a
y
C l
u te D
r
E R i
v er
D r
R
iv e
r
R
d
B e
ar
to
w n
R
d
.
Warren County Bicycle Plan
Map B – Lake Luzerne Inset
No Scale
Legend
Streets_ALIS selection
kPublic Schools
ñGovernment Office
Proposed Off-Road Trails
Existing Off-Road Trails
WCS&QBO Priority Routes
Local Priority Routes
A/GFTC Priority Routes (Staff)
Other Roads
Interstate
Major Roads
Local Streets
Waterbodies
NYS Recreation Areas
Parks (Local)Prepared by: A/GFTC

ññ
ñ
ñ
ñ
k
k
k
Queensbury
Lake George
Bolton
Warrensburg Lake
Luzerne
§
¨
¦87
§
¨
¦87
R i
d
ge
R d
US
Hwy 9
State Ro
ut e
9L
La ke Shore Dr
State
Route 9N
State Route 9
S tate
R
o
u
te 149
Canada S tL
ak
esh o
re
D r
Ba
y
R d
Be
ac
h
R
d
Ba y
R
d
M id
dl
e R
d
Tru
esda
le
H i
ll
R d
Fla t
R oc
k R
d
Cl
e ve
rd
al
e R
d
G
og
gi
n s
R d
Pi
c k
l
e
H i
l l
R d
B
lo
o d
y
Po
nd
R
d
Dump
R
d
Sh
a
w R
d
Big
H
ollo w
B r
Ru
ssell Hi ll
Rd
F o
x
R
d
Lake P
kw yA
ss
em b
ly
P oi
n t
R d
Pi
lo
t K
no
b
R dS
eely
e
R d
S
un
s
e t

T
rlBi
r
c h

A
ve
C l
e m
en
ts
R d
M u
d
P
o
nd
Rd
R o
ck
h u
rs t
R d
F
r
o
n t

S t
D
ri
v e
w ay
S
hop
R d
T
ra vi
s
T
rl
B a
rt
hel
L n
V i
t o
R d
Car
r
L n
La k
e Rd
A l
e x
y
R d
Ru
ss
e l
l H i
ll
R
d
O tt
a w
aD
ies
k
au
G ag
e
.
Warren County Bicycle Plan
Map C – Lake George/Nor th Queensbury Inset
No Scale
Legend
kPublic Schools
ñGovernment Office
Waterb odies
Proposed Off-Road Trails
Existing Off-Road Trails
WCS&QBO Priority Routes
Local Priority Routes
A/GFTC Staff Priority Routes Other Roads
Interstate
Major Roads
Local Streets
Prepared by: A/GFTC
Proposed off-road
connection to
Recreation Center
Proposed off-road
connection between
Bikeway & Route 9
k
k
C
A
N A
D A
O TT
A W
A
D
IES
KA U
WE
S T
B R O
O
KSEW EL
L
GAG
E
BIR
CH
P
R O
SP
E C
T
M T
N
M
OU
NTA
IN
L A
K E
S H
O R
E
D R
BE
A CH
R D
§
¨
¦87
Inset Area

ñññ
ñ
ñ
k
k
k
Bolton
Warrensburg
Lake George
§
¨ ¦87
§
¨ ¦87
State
Route 9
US Hwy 9
Main St
State Route 28
S
tate Rout e
418
River St
State Route 28
River Rd
Schroon River Rd
Pucker St
Mud St
E Schroon River Rd
Alden Ave
Glen Athol Rd
Atateka Dr
High St
Wall StGolf Course Rd
Friends Lake Rd
Dippikill Rd
Valley Rd
Viele Pond Rd
Bowen Hill R d
Athol Rd
Old Route 9
Harrington H ill Rd
Stock Farm Rd
Stony Creek Rd
Ramp
Fox Ln
Rock Ave
Tripp Lake Rd
Charles Olds Rd
Library Ave
Cameron Rd
Potter Brook R d
Frost St
Lamb Hill Rd
Big Hollow Br
Buyce C ross Rd
Cross Rd
Sweet Rd
Forest Lake Rd
Dump Rd
Hendricks Rd
Combs Rd
Oak St
Darrowsville Rd
River St
Jenni Jill Dr
Adirondack Park Preserve
Rollies Rd
Penman Dr
Warren St
Kathy Xing
Pinto Ln
River Ln
Ledgebrook Ln
Driveway
Ramp
Ramp
Ramp
Ramp
.
Warren County Bicycle Plan
Map D – Warrensburg
No Scale
Legend
kPublic Schools
ñGovernment Office
Waterbodies
Parks (Local)
Proposed Off-Road Trails
WCS&QBO Priority Routes
Local Priority Routes
A/GFTC Staff Priority Routes
Interstate
Major Roads
Local Streets
Prepared by: A/GFTC

ñ
ñ
ThurmanStony Creek Wa r re n s b u r g
Ha
rri
s b
u
rg

R d
M
ud S
t
H ig
h
S t
H
ad l
e y
R d
W
arr
e n s
b
u rg

R d
La
n
fe
a r
R d
S
t
a te s

R d
Le
n s L
ake

R dW
ol
f
P on
d
R d
D
ar
tm
ou
th
R d
Fo
dd
er R
d
Riv e
r
R
d
W ai
t e
R
d
Br
a n
n on
R
d
Z
al
t z
R
d
Mu r
ra
y
R d
Bu
tt e r
m
il
k R d
T
h
o m
a
s
R d
W
T uc ke
r
R
d
Be
a r

P o
nd
R d
D
re
xel
R
d
Van
au
ken
R d
Sta te s
R d E
R i
l e
y H ill
R d
Da
r
li n
g
R d
W al
s h

R d
S
n
o w
R d
L
e
d ge
b ro
ok
L
n
.
Warren County Bicycle Plan
Map E – Stony Creek
No Scale
Legendñ
Government OfficeWaterbodiesParks (Local)NYS Recreation AreasProposed Off-Road TrailsExisting Off-Road Trails
WCS&QBO Priority RoutesLocal Priority RoutesA/GFTC Priority Routes (Staff)
Other RoadsInterstateMajor RoadsLocal Streets
Prepared by: A/GFTC

ñ
ñ
k
Bolton Hague
Horicon
Warrensburg
Lake George
§
¨
¦87
§
¨
¦87
Lake S
hore
D
r
Lakeshore Dr
US Hwy 9
S
tat
e Route 8
Lake Shore
D r
S
c
h r
o
o n
R i
v er

R d
E
S ch
ro
o
n
R iv
e
r
R d
W
a
l
l
S t
P
a
d
an
a
r
u m
R
d
C ount y
H w
y
1 1
C
ooli
d
g
e
H i
l
l R d
F
ed e
r
a l
H
il
l R
d
D ia
m on
d
Po
in
t
R d
Valle y W oo
d
s R d
E
dg
ec
o m
b Po
nd R
d
H
ay
e s
b ur
g
R d
Po
tt
e r
H i
ll
R d
P
uc
k
er S
t
Tro
u t L
a
ke
R d
Bu
rn
t
H
il
l R
d
N
Bo
lt o n
Rd
H
en d
ri
c k
s
R d
L
am b
H
il
l
R d
Ne
w
V
e
rm
ont

R d
S
T r
o u
t
L a
k
e
R d
Al
d er
B ro
ok
R d
Tr
out
F all
s R d
H
ori
c
o n A
ve
R a
m p
Fi
n kl
e R
d
H a
rr is

R d
S
awm i
ll
R d
O a
k
Pl
H o
m er

P o
in
t
R d
Bro
ok
S t
D
uel
l
H
ill
R d
T
i
m lo
D
r
Pa
tr ic
k
L n
3
O
aks
D
r
Pi
n
to
L n
B r
a l
e y

P t
P
il o
t

K no
b R
d
All
e n R
d
S
er
v i
c e

R oa
d
R
ose
L
n
E v
a L
n
Ra m
p
.
Warren County Bicycle Plan
Map F – Bolton Inset
No Scale
Legend
kPublic Schools
ñGovernment Office
Waterbodies
Parks (Local)
NYS Recreation Areas
Proposed Off-Road Trails
Existing Off-Road Trails
WCS&QBO Priority Routes
Local Priority Routes
A/GFTC Priority Routes (Staff)
Other Roads
Interstate
Major Roads
Local Streets
Prepared by: A/GFTC

Æ b
ñ ñ
Johnsburg
Thurman
Stony Creek
Wa r re n s b u r g
State Hwy
8
S
ta
te
R
o
ute 41 8
S
t
ate Route 28
r is
b u
rg
R
d
Riv
e r
R
d
M
ud

S t
G l
e n
A
th
o l

R d
G
ar
n e
t
L
ak
e
R d
S
J
o
h ns
b u
r
g R
d
Hi
g h
S tV
al
le y
R
d
Dip
p
ik
i
l l
R
d
Ba
rt
m an
R
W a
rr e
n s
b ur
g
R d
A
ld en
A
ve
L a
n fe a
r
R
d
M ounta
in
R
d
Be
a
r
P on
d R d
G
o
lf
C o
u rs e
R d
S
ta t
e
s
R d
W
ol
f
P
on
d R
d
Dar
tm o
u t
h
R d
B
ow
en
H
il l
R
d
Ath ol
R
d
O l
d Ro
ut
e
9
S
ki
H i
R
d
S
to n
y
C
re e
k
R d
Arm
s
tr o
ng
R
d
Br a
n n
on
Rd
Z a
lt
z R
d
M
ur
r a
y R
d
Po
tt
e r
b ro
ok
R
d
W
Tu c
ker
R
d
Dr e
xel
R
d
Cha
rl
e s

O l
d s
R
d
Ca
m ero n
R
d
V
an a
u k
e n
R
d
Fro
st
S
t
Sta te s R d
E
B u
yc
e C
ro
s
s R
d
Buc
kle
y
R d
C
ro s
s
R d
P
ai
n
t B
e
d
R d
H
en
ry
W e
sc
o tt
Rd
C o
mb s

R d
D
ar
li
n g
R d
W
als
h R d
C
ro
sb
y
R d
B
ar
to
n R
d
Sn ow
geb r
o
ok
L n
.
Warren County Bicycle Plan
Map G – Thurman
No Scale
Legend
NYS Recreation AreasParks (Local)Waterbodies
ñ
Government Office
Æ b
Rail Station
Proposed Off-Road TrailsExisting Off-Road TrailsWCS&QBO Priority RoutesLocal Priority RoutesA/GFTC Priority Routes (Staff)
Other RoadsInterstateMajor RoadsLocal Streets
Prepared by: A/GFTC

ñ
Hague
Lakeshore Dr
G
ra
p
hi
t e
M
ou
nta
in

R d
Lake Shore Dr
State
R
oute 8
W ar
d s
b o r
o
R d
W e
st
H a
g u
e
R d
N e
w
H
ag
u e
R
d
B attl
e H
il
l
R
d
P
ad a
n a
ru m
R
d
Si
l v
e r
B
ay
R
d
D o
dd
H
il
l R d
S
um
m
it
D r
C a
m p
R
d
B
att
le
H
il l

S
pu r
C
om
st
o c
k R
d
O l
d Mi
ll
R d
T
e
rr
a
ce
R d
D r
iv e
w a
y
W
H oll
o w
R
d
Fr
o g
L n
N
ew
H ag u
e R
d
.
Warren County Bicycle Plan
Map H – Hague Inset
No Scale
Legend
kPublic Schools
ñGovernment Office
Waterbodies
Parks (Local)
NYS Recreation Areas
Proposed Off-Road Trails
Existing Off-Road Trails
WCS&QBO Priority Routes
Local Priority Routes
A/GFTC Priority Routes (Staff)
Other Roads
Interstate
Major Roads
Local Streets
Prepared by: A/GFTC

ññk
Horicon
§
¨
¦87
State Rou
t
e
8
Sta
te
Route 9
US H
wy 9
State Route
9
S tate
Route 8
E
S ho
re
D r
Pa
li
s a
d es
R d
V
a
l
e
n ti
n e
R d
P
ad a
n
ar
u m
R d
S
ch
ro
o
n
R i
v e
r R
d
B
ean
R d
C
am p
R
d
Do
rs et
R
d
B ea
ve
r
P o
nd
R
d
Sha
w H i
ll R d
Ro
ck
A
v
e
L an
do
n H
ill R
d
Hayesb u
r
g R
d
Pe
as
e
H
il
l R
d
Jo
hn
so
n
R d
G
ra
s s
vil
le
R
d
Bu
rn
t H
ill
R d
P
uck
er
S t
H
ori
c
o n
A
v
e
P h
ar
o h
R d
He
n
dri
c ks
R d
St
a rb
uck
H
il
l
R d
A l
d e
r B
ro
ok
R d
P
in e
S t
R am
p
Tr ou
t F alls
R d
Ca
r
l T u
rn
er
R
d
Du
e
l
l H
il
l R
d
Davi
s
R
d
Ne
w V
e
rm o
n
t
R d
S

I k e H
ayes
R d
L
i
ly
P
on
d
R
d
B l
a
ir
R
d
H a
rr is

R d
O l
d
S c
h
ro
on
R d
H
em
i
n gw
ay
R d
P
in
e L
n
S h
ort
S
t
In g
r
a h
am R
d
M ay
R d
R
ed
W i
n g
R d
B
en t
L
ee R
d
New
S
t
M a
ri
e
L n
P
in to
L n
C
am
p
R
d
Ram
p
.
Warren County Bicycle Plan
Map I – Horicon Inset
No Scale
Legend
kPublic Schools
ñGovernment Office
Waterbodies
Parks (Local)
NYS Recreation Areas
Proposed Off-Road Trails
Existing Off-Road Trails
WCS&QBO Priority Routes
Local Priority Routes
A/GFTC Priority Routes (Staff)
Other Roads
Interstate
Major Roads
Local Streets
Prepared by: A/GFTC

ññ
ñk
k
Chester
§
¨
¦87
§
¨
¦87
S
ta t
e
R
oute
2
8
State Ro u
te
9
US Hwy 9
State Ro
ute 8
Olmstedville RdSta
te Hwy
28N
Sta t
e Hwy
8
S tate
R
o
u
te
8
State Rou
te 9
State Route 28
State Rou
te 8
P
uck
e r
St
R
ive r
R
d
Ig e
rn
a R
d
E S
hor
e
D
r
Fri
e
n ds
L
a
ke
R d
V
al
e
n t
in
e R d
A
ta
te
ka
D
r
S
J o h
nsb
urg
R d
L
a
n d
on

H i
ll R
d
Sch
ro on

R iv e r
R d
B
e
a n
R
d
Hu
d so
n
S t
W
a
d d
el
l
R d
M
a
in
S t
S
haw
H
il
l
R d
R
ock
A ve
G
le
n A
th
ol
R
d
B yr
n e
s
R d
H
arr in
g to
n
R d
S
to
ck
F
ar
m
R d
J
o
h
n so
n
R
d
D ip
pik
ill
R d
Va
n
d
er
w
alk
er
R
d
O ld
R o
ut
e
9
L a
n e
R
d
Pa
r
k
R d
Bu r
n t
Hi
ll
Rd
P err
y
R
d
F
ox

L n
F
e
rr
i
s s

R d
H
a
rd s
c
ra
b b
le
R d
St
a rb
u
ck
H i
l
l R
d
Hea
th
R d
V
al
e n t
in
e P
ond
R
d
Ra
m p
G
ra
n d
vi
e w
Rd
D ur
k in
R d
P
o
tte
r B
ro
ok
R
d
D
av
is

R d
C
am
p
g r
o un
d
R d
T
h e
ri
o t
A
ve
W
e
st
R d
Va
car

R d
O
w
en
s
R d
D
r
iv
ew a
y
O
ld
S
ch r
o o n
R d
Pr
io
ry
D r
Pi
n
e L
n
Ver
n
T
e n
n yso n
R d
Sh
o r
t
S
t
Ta
n n
e
ry
R
d
M
ah o
ne
y D
r
Holl a
n d
R d
J
o
ne
s R
d
A
ust
in

P o
nd
R d
R
ed
W
in
g
R d
P
ort
e r
R d
M a
r
ie
L
n
E m i
ly
L n
E
S h
or
e
D
r
R am p
Ri
v er
R
d
.
Warren County Bicycle Plan
Map J – Chester Inset
No Scale
Legend
kPublic Schools
ñGovernment Office
Waterbodies
Parks (Local)
NYS Recreation Areas
Proposed Off-Road Trails
Existing Off-Road Trails
WCS&QBO Priority Routes
Local Priority Routes
A/GFTC Priority Routes (Staff)
Other Roads
Interstate
Major Roads
Local Streets
Prepared by: A/GFTC

ñ
k
Johnsburg
State Hwy
8
Stat e Rou te 28
State Hwy 28N
P
eac
eful Va
lley R
d
G a
r
n et
L
ak
e R
d
Riv
er

R d
Ba
rtm a
n
R d
Go
od
m a
n R d
H
u
d so
n
S t
1
3 th
L
ake

R d
M
ai
n S t
H
a
rv
ey
R d
O
ld

R i
v er
R d
S

J
o h ns
b u
r
g R d
C
ou
lt
e r

R d
S
ki H i
R
d
Ch at
ie
m ac
Rd
O l
d F
ar
m R
d
B y
rn e
s R
d
Ar
m s
t
r o
n g

R d
P
ark
R d
Ov en

M o
un ta i
n
R dB
a
ck
T
o S o
d om
R dE
dw
ar
ds

H ill
R d
R
oger
s
Rd
D u
rkin
Rd
Owe
n s
R
d
C ro
ss R
d
4
-H

R d
B
ar
n e
y H
il
l R d
Ho
l
la
n d R
d
A
usti
n P
o
nd
R d
S
he
ild s
R d
O s
h er
R d
.
Warren County Bicycle Plan
Map K – Johnsburg Inset
No Scale
Legend
kPublic Schools
ñGovernment Office
Waterbodies
Parks (Local)
NYS Recreation Areas
Proposed Off-Road Trails
Existing Off-Road Trails
WCS&QBO Priority Routes
Local Priority Routes
A/GFTC Priority Routes (Staff)
Other Roads
Interstate
Major Roads
Local Streets
Prepared by: A/GFTC