Publication Type: public comment

The following text has been provided to facilitate screen reader technology. For the full report, including figures, graphics, and appendices, please refer to the pdf version.

Harrison Avenue/Main Street
Intersection Evaluation

Draft Report

Prepared for:

Adirondack | Glens Falls Transportation
Council

11 South Street, Suite 203
Glens Falls, New York 12801

And

Village of South Glens Falls

May 2026 46 Saratoga Avenue
South Glens Falls NY 12803

Harrison Ave. & Main St. Intersection Evaluation A/GFTC and the Village of South Glens Falls

Harrison Avenue/Main Street Intersection Evaluation

 

May 2026

Prepared for:
Adirondack |Glens Falls Transportation Council
11 South Street, Suite 203
Glens Falls, New York 12801

And

Village of South Glens Falls
46 Saratoga Avenue
South Glens Falls NY 12803

Prepared by
Barton & Loguidice, D.P.C.
10 Airline Drive, Suite 200
Albany, New York 12205

1.0 INTRODUCTION
On behalf of the Village of South Glens Falls and the Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation Council
(A/GFTC), Barton & Loguidice has prepared this Intersection Evaluation Report to assess potential
improvement opportunities at the Harrison Avenue/Main Street intersection in the Village of South
Glens Falls, New York. Located one block east of Saratoga Avenue (US 9), the intersection is in close
proximity to educational and civic facilities, including Oliver W. Winch Middle School, Harrison
Elementary School, and the Moreau Community Center, which generate regular pedestrian activity
throughout the project area on the existing sidewalk system. The Village and its residents have
expressed concerns regarding overall safety at this location due to perceived traffic volumes,
intersection operations, and pedestrian and bicycle crossing activity. This report presents an evaluation
of existing conditions, traffic operations, crash history, public outreach efforts, and potential
improvement alternatives for the Harrison Avenue/Main Street intersection.

2.0 INVENTORY OF EXISTING CONDITIONS
A site visit to the project area was conducted on December 1, 2025 to inventory and document existing
conditions. The inventory included documentation of the existing signage, striping, pavement and travel
lane widths, objects that may restrict sight distance, and existing pedestrian features. Additionally, video
cameras were deployed for one 48-hour weekday period (November 12, 2025 to November 14, 2025) to
identify pedestrian and traffic patterns, safety concerns, and vehicular conflicts.

2.1. Harrison Avenue/Main Street Intersection – Roadway and Traffic
Characteristics
The Harrison Avenue/Main Street intersection is a four-way intersection with stop control on
the minor street approaches (Harrison
Avenue) and uncontrolled on Main
Street. Both roadways are owned and
maintained by the Village of South
Glens Falls and are subject to a Village-
wide speed limit of 30 miles per hour
(mph). The observed 85th percentile
speed was 35 mph.

Harrison Avenue is classified as a Local
Urban Minor Arterial and carries an
Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) of
approximately 2,532 vehicles per day
(vpd). Main Street is also classified as a Local Urban Minor Arterial and carries an AADT of
approximately 5,128 vpd. Harrison Avenue has a curb-to-curb width of approximately 26 feet
east of the intersection and approximately 22 feet west of the intersection, with sidewalks on
both sides and no on-street parking permitted. Main Street has a curb-to-curb width of
approximately 40 feet, sidewalks on both sides, and on-street parking permitted on both sides.
Main Street was recently paved, and new centerline pavement markings were installed through
the intersection.

2.2. Roadside Conditions
Sidewalks are present along both Harrison Avenue and Main Street, providing pedestrian access
to schools, residences, and businesses within the corridor, including Stewart’s Gas Station to the
north, Oliver W. Winch Middle School and Harrison Elementary School to the east, and nearby
other commercial properties and apartment buildings. The general setting within the immediate
vicinity of the intersection is residential with single and multi-family homes. The curb ramps at
the intersection are not ADA compliant; lacking detectable warning pads, the ramps are not
flush with the pavement at three of the four ramps.

2.3. Existing Signage and Pavement Markings
Pavement markings within the vicinity of the intersection are generally in fair condition. The
centerline full-barrier pavement marking is in good condition as this was replaced over the
winter of 2026 following the road was paving in the fall of 2025; however, there are no outer
edge line or parking lane markings. The lack of edge line or parking lane markings could make
the vehicular traveled way appear wider to
drivers; wider travel lanes can sometimes
result in higher vehicle speeds.

During the site visit, existing crosswalk
markings on Main Street were observed to
be faded and not continuous across the
street, as shown in Figure 2-4. However,
these same crosswalk markings were
repainted in January or February. “No
Parking” signs are installed on Harrison
Avenue approximately 10 feet from the
“Stop” sign. On Main Street, pedestrian
warning signs with diagonal downward-pointing arrows are installed in advance of each marked
crosswalk, consistent with the 2023 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) shown
in Figure 2-5 and 2-6. “No Parking” signs are not installed on either side of Main Street
approaching the intersection.

2.4. Vehicle Crash Data
Crash data was obtained from the NYSDOT CLEAR website for the intersection from December
18, 2022 to December 18, 2025 depicted in Table 2-1. Over this timeframe, no
pedestrian/vehicular incidents or crashes associated with the pedestrian crossings were
reported. Overall, 8 vehicle/vehicle crashes were reported at this intersection and included
various types of crashes such as right angle and rear-end incidents. Patterns such as rolling stop,
all-way stop confusion, and sight distance issues are noted on the table.

2.5. Sight Distance
An intersection sight distance evaluation was completed following the procedures outlined in
AASHTO’s A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (2018). Mainline stopping sight
distance was also evaluated to assess stopping capability along Main Street. Results, including
available sight distance for all movements, are provided in Table 2-2 based on the observed 85th
percentile speed of 35 mph.

Sight distances along Main Street exceed recommended minimum values due to the straight
alignment and level terrain. However, turning movements from Harrison Avenue fall below the
minimum requirements, primarily due to utility poles and vegetation within the Main Street
right-of-way. See section 5.3.2 for recommendations to improve the available sight distance
when turning from Harrison Ave. Additional details are provided in Section 5.3.2.

3.0 SITE ASSESSMENT AND OBSERVATIONS
The following notes and observations are based on our site visit to the area and a review of the
video data collected by traffic cameras.

1. Vehicles traveling eastbound or westbound on Harrison Avenue frequently stop
beyond the stop bar, often stopping on the crosswalk. While this positioning
improves sight distance for drivers, it obstructs pedestrian access to the sidewalk
and crossing area (see Figure 3-1).

2. Field observations indicated that vehicles rarely yield to pedestrians despite the
presence of a crosswalk. A crossing guard is provided during school hours to assist
students, but this support is limited to specific times, typically from 7:00-7:30 AM
and 2:00-2:30 PM, and is not available during evenings, weekends, or non-school
days. A summary of the interview with the crossing guard in section 4 below. While
vehicles are required to yield to pedestrians when they are crossing at an
intersection in an unmarked crosswalk, that requirement may not be apparent to all
drivers (see Figure 3-2). It should be noted that when field work by B&L staff was
first performed, there were no crosswalk markings across Main St. The crosswalk
markings were added in the winter of 2026 and have since improved driver
compliance in yielding to pedestrians.

3. Vehicles stopping on Harrison Avenue often make rolling stops rather than coming
to a full stop, sometimes stopping on or beyond the crosswalk, likely due to a lack of
available sight distance.
4. Nighttime lighting at the intersection is limited. Existing lighting is not focused on
the crosswalks, particularly on the east leg, reducing pedestrian visibility after dark.
5. Observed pedestrian activity at the intersections was minimal, with a total of seven
pedestrians noted during the morning school peak period 7:00–7:30 AM and three
pedestrians observed during the afternoon period 2:00–2:30 PM.
6. Bicycle and other micromobility traffic (including e-bikes and scooters) were
observed during the study period primarily within the roadway travel lanes. Under
New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law, Class 1 and Class 2 e-bikes and e-scooters
are generally permitted to operate on roadways with posted speed limits of 30 mph
or less and are subject to the same rights and duties as bicyclists (with the exception
that e-scooters are not permitted to operate on sidewalks). As such, their presence
within the travel lanes at this location is legally permissible, particularly in the
absence of dedicated bicycle facilities. From a safety perspective, mixed traffic
operations may increase exposure to conflicts with motor vehicles, particularly at
intersections, and may be sensitive to traffic speed, volume, and right-of-way
interactions associated with turning movements between modes, which are
important considerations in evaluating potential multimodal accommodations.

7. Multiple instances were observed where vehicles failed to stop for pedestrians
waiting at curb ramps. Drivers typically yielded only when pedestrians were already
within the crosswalk.
4.0 STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH
B&L contacted the school crossing guard who works at this intersection when school is in
session from 7-7:30 AM and 2-2:30 PM. Feedback indicated that pedestrian activity is
concentrated during brief morning and afternoon periods, 7:15-7:20 AM and 2:10-2:20 PM on
school days. The guard noted that observed safety concerns are largely related to driver
behavior, including speeding and misjudged gaps in traffic. The crossing guard also noted that
the primary concern involves drivers, particularly parents during pick-up and drop-off times,
who are often in a hurry and not fully attentive. The crossing guard did not identify a clear need
for a traffic signal or all-way stop control and noted that recent crosswalk striping has improved
conditions.

5.0 CONCEPT ALTERNATIVES
5.1. Standards
The proposed design layouts and recommendations are based on the following standards:

NYSDOT Highway Design Manual (HDM)
AASHTO Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets 2018, 7th ed.
National Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), 2023, 11th ed.
NYS Supplement to the MUTCD, 2010
National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) Urban Street Design Guide

5.2. Intersection Control Alternatives
The following alternatives were assessed for their applicability at this intersection:

1. All-Way Stop Control (AWSC) -Recommended Alternative
2. Enhanced Existing Intersection Control
3. Traffic Signal Control
The MUTCD provides guidance on the application of AWSC and Traffic Signal Control, including
associated warrants. Evaluation of these control types requires consideration of existing
operational performance and safety conditions, as well as the potential for improvement. The
satisfaction of one or more MUTCD warrants does not, in itself, justify installation. Final
determination should be based on the results of the warrant analysis in conjunction with
engineering judgment and site-specific conditions.

Each of the three alternatives is described in detail in the following sections.

5.2.1. Alternative #1 – All-Way Stop Control (AWSC): Recommended Alternative
AWSC requires all approaches to an intersection to stop, with right-of-way assigned
based on vehicle arrival sequence. This control promotes orderly and predictable traffic
movements.

An AWSC warrant analysis was conducted for the intersection and indicates that the
criteria for two MUTCD warrants are met: Crash Experience and Restricted Sight
Distance. Based on this evaluation and existing operating conditions, implementation of
AWSC is justified and expected to improve overall intersection safety.

AWSC is anticipated to reduce both the frequency and severity of crashes by requiring
all vehicles to stop prior to entering the intersection. It also improves operational
consistency along the corridor, as a nearby intersection currently operates under all-way
stop control. Additionally, AWSC mitigates sight distance limitations by requiring
vehicles to stop at a common location, improving visibility between approaches. The full
warrant analysis is provided in Appendix A.

AWSC is recommended and, at a minimum, should include the following elements:

1. Install STOP signs (MUTCD R1-1) on the Main Street approaches to establish
AWSC.
2. Install ALL WAY plaques (MUTCD R1-3P) beneath each STOP sign
3. Install 18-inch-wide stop bars on the northbound and southbound Main Street
approaches. Due to the proximity of adjacent schools and school bus activity,
stop bar placement should account for school bus turning movements to avoid
operational conflicts.
Estimated Cost = $1,000

Additional safety and conspicuity enhancements to the AWSC intersection may include:

1. Solar-powered LED-enhanced STOP signs
2. High-visibility crosswalks
3. Sight distance improvements
4. Improved lighting
5. Traffic Calming Bump Outs/Curb Extensions or Install “No Parking” signs
These enhancements, as shown in Figure 5-1, are further detailed in section 5.3.
Important to note about this intersection is that the existing diagonal crosswalk is
replaced in Figure 5-1 with a standardized four crosswalk layout, this is further discussed
in section 5.3.1.

5.2.2. Alternative #2 – Enhanced Existing Intersection Control -(Recommended if AWSC
is not pursued)
Under this alternative, the intersection would continue operating under the existing
control configuration, with stop control on the eastbound and westbound approaches of
Harrison Avenue and free-flow conditions on Main Street.

While this alternative does not provide the same level of operational control or safety
benefit as AWSC, targeted improvements could be implemented to enhance
intersection safety and visibility. These measures, described further in Section 5.3,
include:

1. High-visibility crosswalks
2. Sight distance improvements
3. Improved lighting
4. Traffic Calming Bump Outs/Curb Extensions or Install “No Parking” signs
5. Pedestrian warning devices
o  Rectangular Flashing Beacons (RRFBs)
o Pedestrian warning signage

5.2.3. Alternative #3 – Traffic Signal (Not Warranted or Recommended)
The intersection does not meet any of the nine MUTCD traffic signal warrants, which
evaluate the need for signalization based on factors such as traffic volumes, delay,
pedestrian activity, and crash history.

The analysis indicates that traffic volumes and delays are insufficient to justify
signalization, pedestrian activity is limited, and crash patterns do not demonstrate a
need for a traffic signal. Based on these findings and the detailed warrant analysis
provided in Appendix B, installation of a traffic signal is not recommended at this time.

5.3. Intersection Safety Enhancements
The following additional enhancements were evaluated to supplement the intersection control
alternatives and improve pedestrian visibility, driver awareness, and overall intersection safety.

5.3.1. High-Visibility Crosswalks (Applicable to Alternatives #1 and #2)
To increase driver awareness of the crossing locations, high-visibility crosswalks should
be installed on Main Street and Harrison Avenue as indicated in Figure 5-1 above. The
crosswalk should be “NYSDOT Type LS” that includes parallel stripes and ladder bars to
enhance visibility as depicted in Figure 5-2. The pavement markings should be Epoxy
paint with glass beads for retro-reflectivity or retro-reflective thermoplastic pavement
markings.

The MUTCD permits diagonal crosswalk markings primarily at signalized intersections
with exclusive pedestrian phases. In addition, Type LS markings discourage diagonal
pedestrian crossings. Therefore, it is recommended that the existing diagonal crosswalk
be replaced with standard perpendicular crosswalks on all four approaches.

Estimated Cost = $5,000

5.3.2. Sight Distance Improvements (Optional for Alternative #1; Applicable to
Alternative #2)
Sight distance limitations at the intersection are primarily caused by vegetation and a
utility pole on the eastbound Harrison Avenue approach. Vehicles turning left from this
approach experience restricted visibility to the right due to the pole, which should be
relocated to meet minimum sight distance requirements. Coordination with the utility
owner will be required, and relocation costs are typically borne by the utility.

In addition, vegetation and trees located between the curb and sidewalk within
approximately 250 feet of the intersection (Figure 5-4) restrict sight distance for vehicles
on the westbound Harrison Avenue approach. Removal or trimming of this vegetation is
recommended to improve visibility for both left- and right-turning movements onto
Main Street.

Estimated Cost (Vegetation Removal) = $15,000

5.3.3. Improved Lighting (Applicable to Alternatives #1 and #2)
Existing intersection lighting is limited to a single fixture on the southwest utility pole,
which primarily illuminates the northwest portion of the Main Street crosswalk. The
remaining crosswalk areas, particularly on the east leg, are inadequately lit, reducing
pedestrian visibility during nighttime conditions. Video observations collected over a 48hour
weekday period (November 12–14, 2025) indicate that the existing fixture was not
operational during the monitoring period. To improve visibility and enhance pedestrian
safety, installation of an additional streetlight on the existing utility pole is
recommended to provide more uniform intersection illumination.

Estimated Cost = $ 5,000 per fixture

5.3.4. Bump Outs/Curb Extensions (Applicable to Alternatives #1 and #2)
This treatment can reduce pedestrian crossing distances, improve pedestrian visibility,
and provide traffic calming benefits by narrowing the roadway at the intersection,
thereby enhancing overall pedestrian safety. At this intersection, curb extensions could
be installed on Main Street as shown in Figure 5-1 above, allowing the pedestrian to be
more visible to drivers, especially if the parking lane is occupied. An example photo of a
typical Bump Out/Curb Extension at an intersection with a parking lane is provided in
Figure 5-5

Estimated Cost = $ 25,000 each X 4 = $100,000

5.3.5. No Parking sign (Relevant for Alternative #1 and #2)
Installation of “No Parking” signs are recommended to be installed 20 feet from the
crosswalk on Main Street on both sides of the road to improve sight distance obstructed
by parked vehicles. “No-Parking” signs are already present on the Harrison Avenue
intersection approaches, although the existing signs should be updated while the Main
Street signs are installed. These additional signs would not be necessary if the Traffic
Calming Bump Outs/Curb Extensions are installed.
Estimated Cost = $ 250 per sign x 4 = $1,000

5.3.6. Advanced pedestrian warning signs (Applicable to Alternative #2 Only)
If AWSC is not implemented, advance pedestrian warning signs should be installed on
Main Street in accordance with MUTCD guidance for uncontrolled crosswalks (Figure 56).
Fluorescent yellow-green signage is recommended for enhanced visibility and should
include retroreflective signpost striping to improve driver awareness.

Estimated Cost = $500 per sign location x 4 = $2,000

5.3.7. Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB) (Applicable to Alternative #2
Only)
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) may be considered to enhance driver
yielding behavior at uncontrolled crosswalks. RRFBs consist of high-intensity, rapidly
flashing yellow beacons mounted on pedestrian warning signs and activated by push
button. RRFBs are not appropriate for use at stop-controlled approaches and therefore
would only be applicable if AWSC is not implemented.

For this location, four RRFB assemblies are recommended on the east and west sides of
Main Street, at each crossing location. Each assembly should include dual-sided signage
and beacon units to provide visibility to both directions of traffic. Advance warning signs
should also be installed as described in Section 5.3.6.

Estimated Cost = $ 15,000 per pole x 4 poles = $ 60,000

6.0 IMPLEMENTATION
As noted in section 2, both Main Street and Harrison Avenue are under the jurisdiction of the
Village of South Glens Falls. From an implementation perspective, sole jurisdiction simplifies the
process. With both the recommended AWSC alternative and the Enhanced Existing Intersection
alternative, the Village can undertake many, if not most, of the needed improvements using
municipal resources. In the case of utility pole relocation, additional coordination will be
required with the utility company.

In the case of the optional improvements, such as curb extensions or RRFBs, additional funding
may be required. However, many infrastructure funding sources have minimum cost
requirements that the project has to meet. The Village may want to consider combining the
intersection improvements with other projects within the Village to exceed the minimum
requirements.

For example, the A/GFTC Make the Connection Program is a potential funding source for bicycle
and pedestrian improvements. This program supports intersection-level safety enhancements,
including traffic calming measures, ADA upgrades, and pedestrian accommodations. A minimum
total project cost of $75,000 is required for construction or combined design and construction,
with a 20% local match. As a federally funded program, the administration of this grant requires
substantial effort. Should the Village wish to pursue this option, it would be recommended to
combine relevant project elements with other pedestrian improvements (such as improved ADA
accommodations) in the same vicinity to meet the minimum project threshold.

A summary of expected costs for the recommended alternative is included in Table 6-1 below. It
is important to note that the cost estimates assume that the improvements would be funded
directly by the Village; the additional design and regulatory compliance requirements of grant
funding through State or Federal programs will increase project costs.

Table 6-1: Concept Level Cost Estimates
All-Way Stop Control (AWSC) – Recommended Alternative
Item Cost Notes
Stop Control Signs and Pavement Markings $1,000 LED enhanced Stop Signs optional
High-Visibility Crosswalks $5,000
Sight distance improvements $15,000 Utility relocation will require coordination with utility company
Improved lighting $5,000
“No Parking” signs $1,000
Subtotal: AWSC $27,000
Bump Outs/Curb Extensions (Optional) $100,000
Total: AWSC $127,000

 

 

The following text has been excerpted from the full report to facilitate screen reader technology. For the full report including figures and graphics, please refer to the pdf file.

Lake Shore Drive Pedestrian Connections
Final Report
February 2026
Prepared for: Adirondack |Glens Falls Transportation Council 11 South Street, Suite 203 Glens Falls, New York 12801
And
Town of Bolton 4949 Lake Shore Drive Bolton Landing NY 12814
Prepared by
Barton & Loguidice, D.P.C. 10 Airline Drive, Suite 200 Albany, New York 12205
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION
2.0 STUDY AREA
3.0 INVENTORY OF EXISTING CONDITIONS
4.0 PUBLIC OUTREACH
5.0 CONCEPTUAL ALTERNATIVES
6.0 ADDITIONAL OPTIONS NOT PROGRESSED
7.0 Estimated costs

1.0 INTRODUCTION
On behalf of the Town of Bolton and the Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation Council (A/GFTC), Barton & Loguidice (B&L) prepared this report to evaluate potential Complete Streets improvements along Lake Shore Drive (NY Route 9N) within the Town of Bolton, New York.
The Town initiated this study to address the absence of formal pedestrian infrastructure within the corridor. Currently, pedestrians and bicyclists must rely on roadway shoulders or informal areas adjacent to the travel lanes. The corridor serves several popular lakeside destinations, including the Algonquin Restaurant and Chic s Marina, which generate substantial pedestrian and vehicular activity, particularly during the summer months.
This report presents an assessment of existing corridor conditions and identifies recommendations to enhance safety, accessibility, and mobility including the installation of continuous ADA-compliant sidewalks, improved pedestrian crossings, and other Complete Streets strategies.
2.0 STUDY AREA

Figure 1 – Project location map
Lake Shore Drive is classified as an NHS Rural Town Principal Arterial and an access highway. The Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) is 5,045 vehicles per day (vpd), based on 2022 NYSDOT data. The posted speed limit is 30 miles per hour (mph). The typical cross-section includes two 11-foot-wide travel lanes with shoulders varying from 2 to 7-feet-wide. Sidewalks or bicycle facilities are not present on either side of the road.
3.0 INVENTORY OF EXISTING CONDITIONS
On August 8, 2025, Barton & Loguidice (B&L) staff conducted a field inventory using ArcGIS Survey123 to document existing roadway features, pedestrian infrastructure, and sight distances. Data collected included pavement width and condition, sidewalk presence, drainage infrastructure, obstructions, and signage, please see Appendix A for mapping depicting the existing conditions. Photographs and GPS coordinates were used to support and verify field observations.
3.1. Roadside Conditions
The corridor transitions between residential and commercial land uses, with multiple retaining walls located approximately 5 to 7 feet from the outer pavement edge. Numerous driveways, parking areas, and building frontages are situated directly adjacent to the roadway. Sidewalks are absent on both sides of Lake Shore Drive.
Utility poles are predominantly located along the west side of the corridor and are generally situated within the roadway clear zone, with offsets varying from approximately 5 to 8 feet from the pavement edge. Additional obstructions beyond the shoulders include property fences, drainage structures, business signage, mature trees, guide rail, and landscaping features.

Figure 2 – Roadside conditions along the corridor, showing retaining walls on both sides of the roadway, a driveway, and utility poles on the west side.

3.2. Right Of Way
The Warren County GIS Web Map Parcel Viewer, based on tax mapping data, was referenced for this analysis. It should be noted that this resource is not a substitute for a formal property boundary survey. Based on field observations of utility locations and comparison with parcel boundaries from the GIS Parcel Viewer, the average right-of-way (ROW) width along the corridor is estimated at approximately 46 feet. The distance from the pavement edge to the ROW boundary varies from 4 to 7 feet, with some differences observed between the two sides of the roadway.

3.3. Additional Observations
Pedestrian activity along the corridor is frequent, particularly near Chic s Marina and the Algonquin Restaurant. Both businesses are located on the east side of the roadway, with their primary parking lots situated on the west side. Patrons also use parallel or angled parking directly adjacent to Lake Shore Drive.
Limited bicycle activity was observed within the corridor during the field review, with only a small number of cyclists (approximately two to three) observed. Bicycle activity is not predominant; however, the corridor does function as a shared roadway for cyclists due to the absence of dedicated bicycle facilities.
Sight distance for pedestrians is often limited by parked vehicles adjacent to the roadway. Pedestrians were observed walking along the east shoulder, where no designated sidewalks, crosswalks, or pedestrian warning signs are currently provided.
Additionally, northbound vehicles transition from a 40-mph speed zone into an area with high pedestrian activity. The existing 30-mph speed limit sign is positioned approximately 450 feet before the Algonquin Restaurant, providing drivers with a relatively short distance to perceive the lower speed limit and adjust accordingly. The Town Police Chief noted that the busiest days for this corridor occur from the end of June to mid-September, when pedestrian volumes significantly increase near the restaurant, marina, and waterfront areas. It was also emphasized that observed vehicle speeds in the corridor are often higher than the posted limit, particularly during non-congested periods. Currently, no speed reduction advance warning ( Reduced Speed Ahead ) sign is provided.

Figure 3 – Roadside conditions along the corridor, showing parking lots adjacent to corridor.

Figure 4 – Pedestrians walking on the east side of the corridor.

3.4. Crash History Data
Crash data for the study area was obtained from the NYSDOT CLEAR Crash Data Viewer for the five-year period between August 25, 2020, and August 25, 2025. During this period there were a total of 14 reported crashes. There were no crashes involving pedestrians or bicyclists on the roadway, indicating that all reported crashes were limited to motor vehicles and wildlife. Table 1 provides a summary of the crashes, and more detail can be found in Appendix B.
Crash number Severity Crash type Pattern Non-motorized users
38559038 Property damage Rear-end N
38774013 Property damage Rear-end N
38906547 Property damage Single vehicle fixed object Mohican intersection N
39377429 Property damage Deer N
39427021 Property damage Single vehicle fixed object N
39733689 Property damage Rear-end N
40287699 Property damage Deer N
40372669 Property damage Sideswipe Parked N
40417855 Property damage Head-on opposite direction N
40484874 Property damage Deer N
40594424 Property damage Angle (left turn) Mohican intersection N
40912317 Property damage Sideswipe Attempt to park N

Table 1 – Summary of crash history data.

4.0 PUBLIC OUTREACH
A public outreach event was held on September 5, 2025, at the Bolton Landing Farmers Market to engage the community and discuss the project with attendees. Two display boards illustrating the project area and examples of pedestrian and bicycle facility types were presented.
Approximately 40 participants provided feedback regarding pedestrian activity and conditions along the corridor. Attendees expressed strong support for adding sidewalks, noting that many people currently jog or walk directly adjacent to the roadway and that limited nighttime visibility makes it difficult for drivers to see pedestrians. While there was general consensus on the need for improved pedestrian accommodations, opinions were mixed regarding whether sidewalks should be constructed on one or both sides of Lake Shore Drive. Participants also emphasized the importance of preserving the existing stone walls as a defining corridor feature.
To reach a broader audience, a QR code linking to an online survey was provided. Responses reinforced that Chic s Marina and the Algonquin Restaurant are the primary destinations where people walk and cross the roadway, more details can be found in Appendix C.

5.0 CONCEPTUAL ALTERNATIVES
Each concept was evaluated for its effectiveness, constructability, and potential impacts on existing infrastructure and traffic operations.
5.1. Standards
The proposed design layouts and recommendations are based on the following standards:
. NYSDOT Highway Design Manual (HDM)

. AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities 2024, 5th ed.

. AASHTO Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets 2018, 7th ed.

. FHWA Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), 2023

. NYS Supplement to the MUTCD, 2010

. National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) Urban Street Design Guide

As this roadway corridor is owned and maintained by NYSDOT, a Highway Work Permit (HWP) from NYSDOT is required for any work considered on the roadway, and within the ROW, of Lake Shore Drive (State Route 9N). Additionally, the proposed work will need to meet the current published NYSDOT design standards and directives at the time of application for the permit. This includes all sidewalks, shoulders, pavement striping, signage, lane widths, and the RRFB s.

5.2. Sidewalk on the East side of Lake Shore Drive
This alternative proposes the installation of an ADA-compliant 5-foot-wide sidewalk with curb along the east side of Lake Shore Drive between Sweet Briar Lane and Bixby Road shown in Figure 5. A minimum construction zone of 7-feet from the travel lane edge line is needed to accommodate the sidewalk and a 2-foot shoulder, matching the shoulder conditions just north of the project limits. Based on available GIS ROW mapping, the corridor appears to generally provide sufficient width to accommodate the sidewalk; however, detailed survey and right-of way verification are required to confirm limits and assess potential private property impacts. In certain locations, the available clearance between the pavement edge and existing stone walls is limited. One segment on the east side has a clearance that varies between 5-6 feet between Chic s Marina and 200 feet north of Twin Bay Village, while most others range from 6-8 feet.
To address these constrained areas, where 5-6 feet of clearance exists, Lake Shore Drive could be shifted 2-3 feet to the west, which would minimize the potential for costly impacts to the stone walls. In locations with 6-7 feet of clearance, a roadway shift or wall relocation would generally not be necessary; however, the sidewalk width would need to be reduced to 4 feet instead of the preferred 5 feet to accommodate the constraint. When the sidewalk width is less than 5 feet, passing spaces that are at least 5 feet wide must be provided at intervals of no more than 200 feet, with existing driveways and street crossings allowed to serve this purpose. Where the existing clearance from the white pavement edge line to an obstruction is 7-8 feet, no roadway shift or wall relocation would be necessary.

Figure 5 – Proposed cross section alternative
Additionally, near the Algonquin Restaurant and Chic s Marina, approximately four parking spaces should be removed to accommodate the sidewalk. These spaces are currently used by delivery trucks servicing the Algonquin Restaurant.
The installation of the curb and sidewalk is not expected to create significant drainage impacts as stormwater will continue to flow in the same direction as it does now. Currently, water flows along concrete and asphalt gutters and is captured at low points by the existing catch basins where it enters a closed drainage system. In most situations, it appears that the existing catch basins may remain in place and the new curb and sidewalk can be built without effecting the existing drainage patterns.
A sidewalk on the east side is the more feasible option and is located where most pedestrians are already walking along the corridor. The primary pedestrian generators including Chic s Marina, the Algonquin Restaurant, the Lake, and nearby lakefront destinations are also located along the east side. Providing a sidewalk on this side will serve the greatest number of users and improve connectivity to existing commercial sites.

5.3. Pedestrian Crossings
Two new pedestrian crossings are recommended along Lake Shore Drive to accommodate existing pedestrian paths of travel: 1.) In front of Chic s Marina, where the concrete pedestrian ramp connects the west-side parking lot to the roadway 2.) Opposite the Algonquin Restaurant, where parking is located on the west side of the
roadway To accommodate the Algonquin crossing, parking lot entrances on the west side should be consolidated, and a driveway island added to create a direct, safe connection from the parking lot to the restaurant entrance. These crossing improvements as illustrated in Figure 6 would enhance pedestrian access and improve safety for the patrons of the lakeside amenities. All

Figure 6- Proposed sidewalk and crosswalk locations.
crosswalks should use high visibility crosswalk (ladder-bar) pavement markings. During detailed design, care should be taken that relevant standards for accessible routes according to the Americans with Disabilities Act are taken into account.
Based on the NYSDOT HDM Chapter 2 design criteria, the minimum stopping sight distance (SSD) for an Urban Principal Arterial with a design speed of 30 mph is 200 feet. The observed 85th-percentile operating speed along this corridor is 35 mph, which corresponds to a minimum SSD of 250 feet for an Urban Principal Arterial. The available sight distance at the proposed crosswalk locations is approximately 500 feet in the northbound direction and 600 feet in the southbound direction. Both distances exceed the applicable minimum SSD requirements.
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) should also be considered at each crossing location. RRFBs enhance crossing visibility and encourage driver yielding when installed at a crosswalk. The push button activated rapid flashing beacons are mounted below the pedestrian crossing sign (W11-2) and above the diagonal downward arrow plaque on both sides of the crosswalk to alert drivers that there is a pedestrian that wants to cross the roadway (see Figure7).
If RRFBs are not pursued it is recommended to install Pedestrian Warning (W11-2) signs 10 feet before the crossing location, as existing signage is currently not positioned to provide effective warning that there are specific locations where pedestrians may be crossing the road.
To further enhance safety, installation of a Reduced Speed Limit Ahead (W3-5) sign for northbound traffic is recommended to improve driver awareness of the speed zone. South of the project limits, the posted speed limit is 40 mph and is situated in a more remote setting. The existing 30-mph speed limit sign is located approximately 450 feet south of the Algonquin Restaurant. Although this provides sufficient distance for vehicles traveling 30 mph to stop if an a single vehicle or pedestrian is in the road, drivers approaching at 40 mph may not have adequate stopping sight distance if vehicles are queued in the travel lane near the crossing, if the pedestrian/vehicle in the road is further south or if they do not see the one speed limit sign. Placing an additional advance warning sign farther south provides earlier notice and encourages drivers to reduce speed before approaching the active pedestrian area. If installed, the W3-5 sign should be installed approximately 350 feet before the speed limit sign. A radar speed feedback sign may also be considered as a supplemental measure to improve driver compliance with the speed limit.

Figure 7 RRFB s installed on a B&L Project on Abendroth Ave. in Port Chester, NY.

6.0 ADDITIONAL OPTIONS NOT PROGRESSED
6.1. New Sidewalk on the West Side of the Corridor
This alternative would involve constructing a 5-foot-wide sidewalk along the west side of Lake Shore Drive. The implementation will require the relocation of numerous utility poles and impacts to the stone walls due to the limited clearance (5 6 feet) from the pavement edge. Additionally, field observations and community feedback indicate that most pedestrian activity occurs on the east side, where commercial destinations are located. When compared to the east side, this west side option encounters more impacts, higher costs, and does not fully address the needs of the public and is therefore not recommended.

6.2. New Sidewalks on Both Sides of the Corridor
This alternative would construct 5-foot sidewalks on both sides of the roadway. The space constraints and impacts to utility poles, stone walls, and ROW, as noted in the discussion of the east side only and west side only alternatives, would both be applicable with this alternative. The difference between the offset ROW and existing roadway pavement does not provide enough space to shift Lake Shore Drive and install sidewalks on both sides, as was noted in the east side only alternative. This alternative is not recommended at this time due to the higher construction cost, impacts to existing infrastructure, and acquisition of private property.

6.3. Side Path
A side path, an 8 to 12 foot-wide paved shared path for bicyclists and pedestrians that is physically separated from vehicles, was considered along the east side of Lake Shore Drive, as shown in Figure 8. This facility type provides a comfortable, low-stress environment for users of all ages and abilities. A 2-foot shoulder/clear zone is recommended on either side of the path, that can be reduced in constrained locations, along with a minimum 5-foot separation from the roadway. Due to the physical width of the improvement, this alternative has similar impacts to providing sidewalks on both sides of the road, and is therefore also not recommended.

Figure 8 – Side Path. Source: Empire State Trail Guide

7.0 ESTIMATED COSTS
The following table presents the estimated construction and design costs for the recommended improvements described in Section 5. Costs are itemized by general category of work. Because Lake Shore Drive is a State highway under the jurisdiction of NYSDOT, the cost estimate assumes project delivery as a federal-aid or grant-funded project in accordance with NYSDOT standards and procedures.
The total federal-aid project cost includes construction, engineering, surveying, permitting, and construction inspection services necessary to satisfy state and federal funding requirements and obtain required approvals.
Lake Shore Dr -Pedestrian Connections Preliminary Cost Estimate
CONSTRUCTION ITEMS: COSTS:
SIDEWALK EAST SIDE FROM BIXBY RD TO SWEET BRIAR LN $616,000
DRIVEWAY RECONSTRUCTION $21,000
DRAINAGE $9,000
SHIFTING THE ROAD $62,000
CROSSWALK $5,000
SIGNAGE $2,000
RAPID RECTANGULAR FLASHING BEACON (RRFB) $60,000
DRIVEWAY CONSOLIDATION $33,000
WORK ZONE TRAFFIC CONTROL $202,000
ITEMIZED CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL: $1,010,000
FIELD CHANGE ORDER (5%) $50,500
MOBILIZATION (USE 4%) $42,500
CONTINGENCY / RISK (20%) $202,000
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL: $1,305,000
AMOUNT INFLATED 4% (2028 DOLLARS) $1,412,000
ENGINEERING / APPROVALS $261,000
CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION $196,000
TOTAL FEDERAL-AID PROJECT COSTS: $1,869,000

Table 2 Preliminary cost estimate
The following assumptions were used to aid in the formulation of the construction and design cost estimate.
Shifting the road
. The roadway will be shifted only where necessary, over an approximate 700-foot segment between Chic s Marina and Town Bay Village.

. The existing gutter will be used as the shoulder in certain locations; shoulder widening is not anticipated.

. Pavement striping will be limited to the roadway shift area and crossings.

. The existing roadway will require milling and resurfacing to re-establish a traditional roadway crown where shifting occurs.

Drainage
. Drainage improvements include the installation of one catch basin and connecting pipe.
Signs/signals
. Cost estimates assume the installation of four (4) RRFB units at the proposed pedestrian crossings, one on each side of the crossing at two (2) locations.

. Assumes the installation of three (3) warning signs.

Plan to identify conceptual improvements for bicyclist and pedestrian travel between principal destinations in Queensbury: Rush Pond / Gurney Lane, the Warren County Municipal Center, the Warren County Bikeway, SUNY Adirondack, and commercial destinations on Route 9. Available for public comment until December 8, 2025.

This Complete Streets Report has been prepared in support of the Main Street (US Route 9) Corridor Study in the Town of Warrensburg. The Corridor Study was being undertaken by the Adirondack Glens Falls Transportation Council (A/GFTC) and the Town of Warrensburg to assess the safety and multimodal access along a critical transportation link in the Town of Warrensburg.

The focus of the study is to identify feasible conceptual improvements that would transform the Main Street corridor into a welcoming, safe, and accessible environment for pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists. Key areas of emphasis include enhancing pedestrian safety and improving traffic mobility along the corridor. Additionally, the study will address parking solutions to better accommodate both residents and visitors.

Please refer to the pdf file for the complete report and appendices.