DRAFT Technical Memorandum
Village of Granville D&H Rail Trail
Crossings and Resurfacing Recommendations
Memo To: Mr. Jack Mance, Senior Transportation Planner Date: February 21, 2025
Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation Council
From: Barton & Loguidice, D.P.C. (B&L) File: 1896.011.001
I. Introduction:
On behalf of the Village of Granville, the Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation Council (A/GFTC) and
Barton & Loguidice, DPC (B&L) have prepared this Technical Memorandum to evaluate potential
improvements for a 4.75-mile section of the Delaware and Hudson (D&H) Rail Trail from Depot Street to
the Vermont border. The Village, in coordination with the Lake Champlain-Lake George Regional
Planning Board and the US EPA, recently completed a Community Action Plan for the Recreation
Economy for Rural Communities program. This plan established several goals and action items in the
Village including conducting a signage assessment and to improve the rail trail. Some improvements
have already been implemented including installing benches and landscaping along the trail. This report
provides a comprehensive overview of the existing conditions of the surface of the D&H Rail Trail and
roadway crossings within the noted limits of the Rail Trail and provides improvement recommendations.
Figure I-1: Project Location
Source: Google Earth
Page | 1
FINAL Technical Memorandum
Village of Granville D&H Rail Trail
Crossings and Resurfacing Recommendations
II. Existing Conditions
This section contains general information about the existing conditions along the D&H Rail Trail project
corridor. The existing conditions were assessed using ArcGIS Survey123, a mobile application enabling
real-time data collection. B&L personnel visited the trail corridor on August 29, 2024 to assess and
document the existing conditions utilizing the application to record data on surface conditions, signage,
pedestrian crossings, and other significant elements along the corridor. Each recorded data point was
supplemented with a photograph and a corresponding GPS location.
A. Land Use and Community Context
The D&H Rail Trail is a recreational resource, extensively used by
pedestrians, cyclists, and joggers, as well as functioning as a
snowmobile trail during the winter season. The trail exhibits
significant variability in its conditions and surrounding land use.
Starting at Depot St., the northern end of the study limits, the trail
passes through a densely wooded area. To the north of Granville,
it is surrounded by open fields and residential homes, with the
landscape characterized by natural forest and open terrain. As it
progresses southward, the trail enters the downtown setting, where
it passes through the central part of the Village, integrating with local
community features such as small businesses, restaurants, stores and residential homes. Southeast of
Village the segment of the trail transitions back to a mixed landscape of open fields and densely wooded
areas.
B. Trail Characteristics
The geometry of the trail, including surface conditions, width, and clear width, were systematically
documented throughout the corridor. Beginning at Depot Street, it was observed that the original gravel
surface has been overtaken by grass in many areas, although the trail is still mowed and maintained to
its full width in most locations. Despite the growth of
grass altering the surface composition and covering
parts of the original surface, the overall effective width
of the trail remains fully maintained. This grass-covered
surface extends for the first 1.5 miles from Depot St to
North St. (CR 24). Then from CR 24 to Main Street (0.5
miles), the trail surface was predominantly gravel,
though grass had started to impede from the edges.
From the Station House to Water Street (0.2 miles), the
trail was entirely grass with no visible remnants of the
former trail surface or rail bed. The trail then crosses
over the Mettawee River via a bridge before meeting
up with Water Street. This 0.1 mile section of the trail
has a gravel surface on each approach to the bridge.
From Morrison Ave. to Church Street, a 4 ft. wide
asphalt path was present (0.06 mi). For the following 0.5 miles southeast of Village, the trail remained
largely grass-covered, the final 1.9 miles that continued to the south consisted mainly of gravel, with
occasional grass strips along the center in certain sections.
Figure II-1 – D&H Trail Next to
Station house Bed and Breakfast.
Figure II-2- Trail Section Between Depot St. and CR 24
Page | 2
FINAL Technical Memorandum
Village of Granville D&H Rail Trail
Crossings and Resurfacing Recommendations
The clear width was measured from the edge of the
gravel trail to the edge of the adjacent vegetation,
with the total clear width calculated by summing the
clear space on both sides of the trail from the edge
of the trail to the edge of the pavement. The trail
width refers to the distance across the gravel surface
itself. In cases where the trail shoulder was
distinguishable, the clear width plus the trail width
were combined to determine the effective width. In
areas where no clear boundary existed between the
shoulder and trail surface, the total distance from
the vegetation on one side to the vegetation on the
other was recorded as the effective width (See
Figure II-3 for details). The average effective width is
approximately 19 ft., with a minimum recorded width of 10 ft. at one location between Depot St and CR
24.
The right-of-way (ROW) along the trail varies considerably, ranging from sections as narrow as 20 ft. to
others as wide as 130 ft. Across the evaluated section, the average ROW was determined to be 72 ft.
C. Signage
A comprehensive assessment of signage along the D&H Rail Trail identified a total of 113 signs. This
includes signage intended for both trail users and motorists at roadway crossings. Specifically, 33 signs
are pedestrian crossing warning signs intended to alert drivers. Six of the seven crossings had some level
of crossing signage for drivers. Additionally, 50 signs conform to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices (MUTCD) standards, providing clear guidance and information for trail users. The remaining 30
signs serve various functions, including navigational aids and informational displays about the trail.
D. Crossings
A total of seven roadway crossings of the trail were reviewed for
conformance with the current design standards for multi-use trail
crossings, including the American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials (“AASHTO”) Guide for the
Development of Bicycle Facilities 2012, NYSDOT Highway Design
Manual (HDM), 2023 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(MUTCD), FHWA Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at
Uncontrolled Crossing locations, and the Empire State Trail Design
Guide (further referred to as the “Trail Design Standards”). Of
those evaluated, five crossings included painted crosswalks to
enhance visibility of the crossing location. The trail crossing of CR
24 was the only crossing with advance warning signage for vehicles
and this signage was only present for southbound traffic. Additionally, several intersections featured
pedestrian crossing signs but lacked MUTCD-compliant elements, such as signage on both sides of the
crosswalk and both front and back of the sign post. Table II-1 provides a detailed summary of the
signage documented at each crossing.
Figure II-3: Measurement Diagram
Figure II-4 – Water Street Crossing
Page | 3
FINAL Technical Memorandum
Village of Granville D&H Rail Trail
Crossings and Resurfacing Recommendations
Trail Crossing Signage
Intersecting
StreetSign
Posts
Trail Crossing
W1115W16-7p(Bicycle/(Arrow)Ped)
Advance Warning
W1115SignW11-15p (Trail(Bicycle/PostsX-ing)Ped)
W16-9p
(Ahead)
North Street
Main Street
Water Street
Morrison Ave
Church
Street
E Potter Ave
Andrews lane
2
2
1
2
2
2
0
44
44
11
22
22
22
00
111
000
000
000
000
000
000
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
Table II-1-Trail Crossing Signage
The roadway classifications and traffic data for each roadway crossing were reviewed on the NYSDOT
Traffic Data Viewer to assist in the analysis of each roadway crossing on the D&H Rail Trail. See table III-2
below.
Trail Crossing Traffic Data
Intersecting StreetRoadwayPosted SpeedAADTClassificationLimit (MPH)
85th Percentile
Speed (MPH)
North Street
Main Street
Water Street
Morrison Ave
Church Street
E Potter Ave
Andrewslane
Rural Minor Collector2,37330
Rural Minor Collector4,34630
Rural LocalNo Data30*
Rural LocalNo Data30*
Rural Major Collector2,99730
Rural LocalNo Data30
Rural LocalNo Data30*
38.2
29.7
No Data
No Data
31.6
No Data
No Data
*No speed limit posted, 30mph assumed based on roadway characteristics
Table II-2- Crossing Traffic Data
Each crossing was also assigned an accessibility rating based on compliance with the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA). Elements of ADA compliance include the presence of a curb ramp, detectable
warning strips (DWS), slope of curb ramp, whether or not the pavement surface is flush with the edge of
the curb ramp, and the overall condition of the pavement in the crosswalk. The crossing located on Main
Street was the only crossing identified as fully accessible, meeting all relevant ADA criteria including curb
ramps on both sides of the crossing. The remaining crossings were rated as partially accessible,
indicating that improvements are needed to achieve full ADA compliance.
Page | 4
FINAL Technical Memorandum
Village of Granville D&H Rail Trail
Crossings and Resurfacing Recommendations
In addition to the roadway crossings, there were six driveway crossings, including one that passes
through an active farm where vehicles, livestock, and heavy equipment frequently cross. The high
volume and type of traffic at this crossing may impact trail user safety, warranting further consideration
in the trail’s design and operational planning. The remaining driveway crossings appear to exhibit low
traffic volumes and are not expected to significantly affect trail user access or safety.
Figure II-5 Crossing though active farmland
E. Other Notable Features
Additional features documented along the trail include three bridges and three culverts. A New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) posting was also observed, located in a small
stream next to Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics indicating an ongoing spill investigation in the area.
Within the farm section located at the Kenneth
property (parcel ID 108.-1-3.4), the farm’s operations
and much of its infrastructure are situated within the
trail right-of-way, utilizing dirt roadways on and across
the existing trail. The farm appears to use the trail ROW
for its regular operations as well as an area for storing
cow hutches. Additionally, the trail features a cow pass
located beneath it, which is a component of the farm’s
infrastructure. The cow pass stands approximately 7 ft.
high, resulting in a steep and unstable slope that trail
users must navigate. Figure II-7 displays a photograph of
the steep slope. It should be noted that this location is
outside of the Village of Granville and is assumed to be
under the jurisdiction of NYS Office of Parks and
Recreation. As such, no improvements are changes have
been proposed under the auspices of the current analysis.
Figure II-6 – Steep slope
Page | 5
FINAL Technical Memorandum
Village of Granville D&H Rail Trail
Crossings and Resurfacing Recommendations
III. Recommended Improvements
A. Trail Surface
This trail surface comparison will consider factors such as durability, maintenance requirements, and
user safety to determine the most appropriate material for ensuring long-term functionality, improved
usability, and overall trail sustainability. The trail surface material selected should be installed to
establish a 10-12 ft. wide trail with 2-5 ft. shoulders on each side, as recommended by the Empire State
Trail Design Guide. Additionally, this design guide recommends that trails accommodating snowmobile
use should have a width of 12-14 ft. (10 ft. minimum) to ensure safe operations during winter. As noted
in the field reconnaissance, the existing average effective width is 19 ft., therefore it is feasible to
establish a recommended trail width of 12 ft. with 2 ft. shoulders along this corridor.
1. Asphalt Surface
An Asphalt surface provides a smooth, durable top course that enhances accessibility for a variety of
users, including pedestrians, cyclists, and individuals with mobility impairments. Asphalt is well-suited
for trails due to its longevity and minimal maintenance requirements. The smooth, paved surface also
improves user comfort and safety, especially for cyclists, in-line skaters, and wheelchair users, reducing
the likelihood of rutting and
erosion.
Asphalt is best suited for
snowmobile trails in areas where
snow accumulates 1 ft. or more
and consistently covers the
surface. This snow layer acts as a
protective barrier, reducing wear
on the asphalt from snowmobiles’
studded tracks, which could
otherwise wear on the trail
surface.
Figure III-1-Kingston Rail Trail, Ulster County
Asphalt also offers a significant
advantage over gravel in terms of snow removal efficiency in areas that are not used as a snowmobile
trail. Plowing a paved surface is more straightforward and results in less wear on maintenance
equipment, as the smooth solid surface allows plows to glide over its surface. Furthermore, asphalt is
less susceptible to damage from snowmobiles compared to gravel, which can be displaced or eroded
during winter use, leading to a more durable and lower-maintenance surface throughout the year.
Page | 6
FINAL Technical Memorandum
Village of Granville D&H Rail Trail
Crossings and Resurfacing Recommendations
2. Crushed Stone
An alternative to the traditional hard surface material, is a crushed stone aggregate surface course that
is bound by clay particles. The natural materials of this surface course appeal to the environmental
setting of the project by maintaining the natural aesthetic and feel of the D&H corridor, blending with
the surrounding environment. Examples of this durable stone course system use includes the D&H Canal
Trail in the Town of Mamakating, NYS OPRHP Minnewaska State Park, the Rockefeller State Park
Preserve, and the Ashokan Rail Trail in Ulster County.
Figure III-2 D&H Canal Trail, Town of Mamakating
Crushed Stone paths provide a durable and relatively flat surface, making them suitable for various
types of trail users. While crushed stone trails can be ADA compliant, they may not offer the same level
of convenience and smoothness as other surface materials, such as asphalt. Crushed stone is susceptible
to vegetation growth impeding the trail width from the sides of the trail, which can occur if the trail is
not regularly maintained.
Page | 7
FINAL Technical Memorandum
Village of Granville D&H Rail Trail
Crossings and Resurfacing Recommendations
3. Cost Estimate
The cost estimate below for both an asphalt and stone surfaced trail assumes that full excavation of the
existing trail material is needed due to the heavy presence of organic material that is present within the
existing trail limits. Constructing the trail on top of the existing material could lead to pre-mature failure
of the trail system. Additionally, the clearing and grubbing line item includes trimming back the
vegetation that is encroaching onto the trail corridor. The estimate includes the cost of resurfacing the
entire length of the trail system. Cost per mile have been included below the table as well to facilitate
phase improvement planning.
Village of Granville -D&H Rail Trail Resurfacing
Cost Estimate
Items of Work / Road Crossing Asphalt Trail
Surface
Crushed
Stone
Surface
Lighting
(Entire Trail)
ASPHALT SURFACE COURSE $ 1,127,471 —
CRUSHED STONE TOP COURSE -$ 386,031 $ –
SUBBASE STONE $ 501,600 $ 501,600 $ –
EXCAVATION $ 445,867 $ 445,867 $ –
CLEARING AND GRUBBING $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ –
LIGHTING $ -$ -$ 1,400,000
MISCELLANEOUS —
ITEMIZED CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL: $ 2,125,000 $ 1,384,000 $ 1,400,000
FIELD CHANGE ORDER (5%)
MOBILIZATION (USE 4%)
CONTINGENCY / RISK (10%)
$ 106,250 $ 69,200 $ 70,000
$ 89,300 $ 58,200 $ 58,800
$ 212,500 $ 138,400 $ 140,000
PRIVATE CONTRACTOR SUBTOTAL: $ 2,534,000 $ 1,650,000 $ 1,669,000
ENGINEERING / APPROVALS $ 506,800 $ 330,000 $ 333,800
CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION $ 304,080 $ 198,000 $ 200,280
FEDERAL-AID PROJECT COSTS: $ 3,344,900 $ 2,178,000 $ 2,203,100
Cost / Mile
ITEMIZED CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL: $ 448,000 $ 292,000 $ 295,000
PRIVATE CONTRACTOR SUBTOTAL: $ 534,000 $ 348,000 $ 352,000
FEDERAL-AID PROJECT COSTS: $ 705,000 $ 459,000 $ 464,000
Table III-1: Trail Resurfacing Cost Estimate
Page | 8
FINAL Technical Memorandum
Village of Granville D&H Rail Trail
Crossings and Resurfacing Recommendations
B. Trail Crossings
The seven (7) road crossings were evaluated by assessing the existing features that are present at each
location, such as signage, pavement markings, detectable warning strips, etc. The crossings were then
compared to standardized crossing features established by the Trail Design Standards to determine if
features are missing and what improvements should be made to each crossing.
An ideal at-grade roadway crossing has a variety of features present that warn the trail users that there
is a roadway crossing present, and that warns roadway users that pedestrians and bicyclists may be
crossing the roadway. The emphasis of safety should be placed on both interactions equally as it is both
users responsibility to operate safely at crossings. Nearly all of the crossings evaluated need some level
of improvements to the warning signs posted at and in advance of the trail crossing. At a minimum, each
crossing should have pedestrian/bicyclist warning signs (B) and a crosswalk (A) installed at the location
of the trail crossing, and advanced pedestrian/bicyclist crossing warning signs (C). The advanced
pedestrian warning signage should be installed 200 ft. from all of the seven D&H Rail Trail crossings. See
figure below from the Empire State Trail design guide.
Figure III-3: Trail Crossing Components
On roadways with higher vehicle volumes, or where drivers regularly fail to yield at the crossings,
additional measures, such as Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacons (RRFB) should be installed at the
crossing to increase pedestrian and cyclist safety. Additionally, all pedestrian warning signs should be
made of retroreflective fluorescent yellow-green sign sheeting and should also include the
retroreflective sign post strip for enhanced visibility.
Page | 9
FINAL Technical Memorandum
Village of Granville D&H Rail Trail
Crossings and Resurfacing Recommendations
1. CR 24
This crossing currently includes some of the recommended signage, including pedestrian crossing signs
and advance warning signage, (only provided for southbound traffic). It is recommended that advance
warning signage be installed south of the crossing to alert northbound traffic of the crossing.
Due to the existing speeds on the roadway reportedly exceeding the posted speed limit, Rectangular
Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) should be installed at this location in addition to the standard
pedestrian-bicycle crossing signage. RRFBs are high-intensity flashing yellow beacons mounted on
standard pedestrian warning signs at
uncontrolled crosswalks, see Figure III-4 for an
installed example. These beacons are activated
by pedestrians pressing a button before
crossing. RRFB installations are cost-effective
and have been proven to significantly improve
motorist yield rates at marked crosswalks. The
beacons can be powered by either solar energy
or a connection to the electrical grid. For this
installation, two beacon assemblies should be
positioned on the west and east sides of CR 24, with flashing beacons installed on both sides of the posts
to provide coverage for each approach to the crosswalk.
During the evaluation of existing conditions, it was noted that both sides of the pavement have a slight
drop from the pavement edge to the trail surface, making the trail inaccessible to users with disabilities
and inconvenient for cyclists. To address this, a curb ramp should be installed across the full width of the
trail, providing a smooth transition from the trail to the roadway. To meet ADA compliance, the curb
ramp must include detectable warning strips (DWS) covering the entire width of the trail. This design will
improve accessibility for pedestrians and cyclists, ensuring a seamless transition between the roadway
and the trail. For specific signage requirements at each crossing, refer to Table III-2.
The crosswalk is currently oriented at an angle across the roadway. The crossing distance is 75 ft. and
prolongs pedestrian exposure to traffic. It is recommended that the crosswalk be reconfigured so that
the crossing is perpendicular to the roadway, which will reduce the crossing distance to 26 ft. and
therefore, reduce the time to cross the road.
2. Main Street
Figure III-3: RRFB Installation
The Main Street crossing appears to have been recently
constructed, featuring a painted crosswalk and ADA-compliant
curb ramps equipped with detectable warning strips. Proper
signage is also in place to warn motorists of the crossing.
Advance warning signage should be installed 200 ft. prior to
the crossing in each direction. For specific signage
requirements at each crossing, refer to Table III-2.
Figure III-5: Main St Crossing
Page | 10
FINAL Technical Memorandum
Village of Granville D&H Rail Trail
Crossings and Resurfacing Recommendations
3. Water Street, Morrison Ave, E. Potter Avenue
Water Street, Morrison Avenue, and E. Potter Avenue are all low-volume local roads used primarily for
residential traffic. Each crossing has faded or missing crosswalks and missing signage. The crosswalks at
each location should be repainted using the “NYSDOT Type LS” design (the same type as installed at the
Main St. crossing), which includes parallel stripes and ladder bars for enhanced visibility. The pavement
markings should be applied with epoxy paint containing glass beads for retro-reflectivity or retro-
reflective thermoplastic to ensure long-term durability and improved visibility, particularly at night.
In addition, a concrete slab similar to one described on CR 24 equipped with detectable warning strips
should be installed at all three crossings to meet ADA compliance. Each crossing must be marked with
signage on both approaches to the crosswalk, clearly indicating that pedestrians and cyclists may be
crossing the roadway in this location. Each post should have signage on both the front and back,
providing left and right crosswalk markings from the driver’s perspective. For details on recommended
signage at each crossing, refer to Table III-2.
4. Church Street
Church Street was identified as having the highest AADT among all the evaluated crossings with 2,997
vehicles per day. The current crossing features a
recently painted crosswalk with grass approaches on
both sides. However, these grass approaches exhibit
an elevation difference between the trail and the
edge of the pavement, making the crossing
inaccessible for users with disabilities and
inconvenient for cyclists. To address this issue, a curb
ramp matching the width of the trail should be
installed, with detectable warning strips spanning the
full width of the trail. This will provide a smooth
transition from the trail to the roadway while
ensuring compliance with ADA standards.
Additionally, the crosswalk is currently oriented at an
angle across the roadway, creating an 80 ft. crossing
distance and prolonging pedestrian exposure to
traffic. It is recommended that the crosswalk be
reconfigured so that the crossing is perpendicular to
the roadway, reducing the crossing distance to 30 ft.
and reducing the crossing time by more than 50%.
Reconfiguring the crossing to achieve a perpendicular alignment would likely necessitate minor property
acquisition to accommodate the trail adjustment.
The crossing currently includes warning signs on one side of each post. Signage should be added so it is
present on both sides of the posts, ensuring visibility from both directions of the crossing. Finally,
advance warning signage should be installed 200 ft. in advance of the crossing. See Table III-2 for details
on recommended signage. Additionally, due to the higher traffic volume, Rectangular Rapid Flashing
Beacons (RRFBs) should be installed to enhance driver awareness of the crossing location.
Figure III-6: Church St Crossing
Page | 11
FINAL Technical Memorandum
Village of Granville D&H Rail Trail
Crossings and Resurfacing Recommendations
5. Andrews Lane
Andrews Lane is a low volume gravel roadway, utilized by local traffic only. The crossing currently lacks
warning signs for drivers and does not have a painted crosswalk due to the gravel surface. This
evaluation identified an elevation change between the roadway and the trail, making the crossing
inaccessible to users with disabilities. It is recommended that this crossing be re-graded by adding
material to create an ADA compliant slope up to the roadway surface on both sides. A concrete curb
ramp with DWS should also be added at the crossing. The surface material of this slope should match
the existing trail surface to maintain consistency. Additionally, signage indicating the trail crossing from
both directions should be installed. See Table III-2 for detail on recommended signage.
Recommended Trail Crossing Signage
Intersecting
StreetSign
Posts
Trail Crossing
W1115W16-7p(Bike/(Arrow)Ped)
Advance Warning
W1115W1115pSign(Bike/(Trail X-PostsPed)ing)
W16-9p
(Ahead)
North Street
Main Street
Water Street
Morrison Ave
Church Street
E Potter Ave
Andrews lane
0
2
1
0
0
0
2
22
00
33
22
22
22
44
000
000
000
111
000
222
000
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
Table III-2- Recommended Crossing Signage
Page | 12
FINAL Technical Memorandum
Village of Granville D&H Rail Trail
Crossings and Resurfacing Recommendations
6. Cost Estimate
The total cost to implement the aforementioned improvements at each roadway crossing is shown in
the table below. A full breakdown by roadway crossing and improvements is included in Appendix 2, if
the Village wishes to make these recommended improvements incrementally.
Village of Granville – D&H Rail Trail
Road Crossing Improvements
Cost Estimate
Items of Work / Road Crossing Itemized
Total
SIGNS $ 10,500
STRIPING $ 10,500
ADA RAMPS / CONCRETE LANDING $ 60,000
RRFB’S $ 50,000
TRAIL APPROACH (Trail material, grading) $ 21,000
MISCELLANEOUS $ –
WORK ZONE TRAFFIC CONTROL $ 15,200
ITEMIZED CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL: $ 152,000
FIELD CHANGE ORDER (5%) $ 7,600
MOBILIZATION (USE 4%) $ 6,800
CONTINGENCY / RISK (20%) $ 30,400
PRIVATE CONTRACTOR SUBTOTAL: $ 196,800
ENGINEERING / APPROVALS $ 40,000
CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION $ 30,000
FEDERAL-AID PROJECT COSTS: $ 266,800
Table III-3: Roadway Crossing Improvement Cost Estimate
Page | 13