Publication Type: Required/Core Documents

A/GFTC’s Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is a listing of federally‐funded
transportation projects that are programmed for design, construction, or purchase during a fiveyear
span. Federal transportation law requires that an Annual List of Obligated Projects be made
available to the public that shows obligations for all projects funded in part or in whole with
federal dollars. This document includes obligation amounts (federal funds only) for all federallyfunded
highway and transit projects within the A/GFTC Planning and Programming Area
(Warren County, Washington County, and the Town of Moreau in Saratoga County) during
Federal Fiscal Year 2017 (October 1, 2016 through September 30, 2017).

Adirondack / Glens Falls
Transportation Council

2016 – 2021
Transportation Improvement Program

A/GFTC Committees and Staff       2016
Policy Committee

Mitch Suprenant, Chair      Supervisor, Town of Fort Edward
John Strough, Vice‐Chair      Supervisor, Town of Queensbury
Sam Zhou, Secretary      Regional Director, NYSDOT Region 1
John E. Barton    Mayor, Village of Hudson Falls
Robert M. Blais    Mayor, Village of Lake George
R. Gardner Congdon      Supervisor, Town of Moreau
Dennis Dickinson    Supervisor, Town of Lake George
Jack Diamond    Mayor, City of Glens Falls
Catherine Fedler    Supervisor, Town of Cambridge
Kevin B. Geraghty    Chairman, Warren County Board of Supervisors
Robert Henke    Chairman, Washington County Board of Supervisors
Dana Hogan    Supervisor, Town of Kingsbury
John LaPointe    Chairman, LC/LG Regional Planning Board
Joseph Moloughney    Director, Albany Div. NYS Thruway Authority
Joe Orlow      Mayor, Village of South Glens Falls
Frank Thomas    Supervisor, Town of Stony Creek
Matthew Traver    Mayor, Village of Fort Edward
Arthur “Mo” Wright    Chairman, Saratoga County Board of Supervisors

Technical Advisory Committee

Mike Valentine, Co‐Chair      Saratoga County Planning Board
Brian Abare     Superintendent, Village of South Glens Falls DPW
Stuart Baker    Senior Planner, Town of Queensbury
Dan Barusch    Director, Town of Lake George Planning and Zoning
Edward Bartholomew, Jr.      Community and Econ. Dev. Director, City of Glens Falls
Frank Bonafide    RPPM, NYSDOT Region 1
Brian Brockway    Superintendent of Highways, Town of Fort Edward
Tracy Conlon    Trustee, Village of Fort Edward
Michael Fiorillo    Superintendent of Public Works, Village of Hudson Falls
David Harrington    Superintendent of Public Works, Village of Lake George
Dana Hogan    Supervisor, Town of Kingsbury
Steven Haskins    Superintendent of Public Works, Washington County
Wayne LaMothe    Director, Warren County Planning Department
Laura Oswald    Director, Washington County Economic Development
Scott Sopczyk    Director, Greater Glens Falls Transit
Gary Tatro, Jr.    Assistant Albany Canal Engineer, NYS Canal Corporation
Jeffery Tennyson    Superintendent, Warren County DPW
Walter Young    Executive Director, LC/LG Regional Planning Board

Advisory Members

Michael Canavan    FHWA Albany Division
Lisa Cataldo     NYSDOT, Statewide Planning Bureau
Richard Lenseth    Passenger Transport Division, NYSDOT
Daniel Moser    Community Planner, FTA
Marilyn Shazor    Regional Administrator, FTA Region II

A/GFTC Staff

Monika Bulman    Administrative Assistant
Aaron Frankenfeld    Director, TAC Co‐Chair
Jack Mance     Senior Transportation Planner

Overview of the Adirondack / Glens Falls Transportation Council
The Adirondack / Glens Falls Transportation Council (A/GFTC) is the Metropolitan Planning Organization
(MPO) designated by the  Governor of the State
of New York for Warren and Washington
Counties and the Town o f Moreau in Saratoga
County. It has the responsibility of developing
and maintaining both a Regional Transportation
Plan and a Transportation Improvement Program
for the area’s federal aid eligible highway and
public transit facilities.
The Council was estab lished in 1982 when the
population of the Glens Falls urbanized area
exceeded 50,000 as det ermined by the 1980
Census.  At that time the geographic area for
transportation planning was limited to the
Census‐defined urbanized area, and the original
name of the organization was the Glens Falls
Urban Area Transportation Council.   In 1993, the
Council voted to expand it s coverage to include
the rural areas of Warren and Washington
Counties and the entire town of Moreau in
Saratoga County, as shown in the map at right.
The official name of the Council was later
formally changed to the Adirondack / Glens Falls
Transportation  Council to reflect that expansion.
A/GFTC consists of two principal working groups – the Policy Committee and the Technical Advisory
Committee. The Policy Committee i s responsible for reviewing and approving all planning undertaken by
the Council and its staff.  This committee’s membership include s the Chairmen of the Boards of
Supervisors of Saratoga, Warren, and Washington Counties, the c hief elected officials from all urban
area cities, towns and villages  (Glens Falls, Queensbury, Morea u, Kingsbury, South Glens Falls, Hudson
Falls, Lake George and Fort Edwar d), the Chairman of the Lake Champlain‐Lake George Regional
Planning Board, the Regional Dire ctor from Region One of the New York State Department of
Transportation and a the Albany Division Director of the New Yo rk State Thruway Authority. In addition,
Warren and Washington Counties ea ch appoint one Town Supervisor from outside of the Glens Falls
Urban Area to act as rural repre sentatives. The Federal Highway  Administration, the Federal Transit
Administration, the U.S. Environ mental Protection Agency, and Greater Glens Falls Transit also provide
representation to the A/GFTC Po licy Committee in an Advisory Member capacity.
Policy Committee members also des ignate a representative to sit on the A/GFTC Technical Advisory
Committee (TAC). TAC members assume an active role in the devel opment of plans and programs

dealing with local transportation issues and addressing current and potential problems with the state
and local highway network and th e operation of the area’s transit service. Through the
intergovernmental forum of A/GFT C and its Technical Advisory Committee, local and regional
transportation issues are discussed and transportation policies  and programs are developed.  The result
of these planning activities is documented in the A/GFTC Long R ange Plan and in this Transportation
Improvement Program.
Transportation Improvement Program
The Transportation Improvement P rogram is a five‐year capital improvement program that allocates
federal highway and transit funds  to surface transportation projects that have been selected through
the MPO process. Inclusion of a project in this document allows  specific project development, design
and construction activities to p roceed using federal funds acco rding to the defined schedule. The TIP
provides information regarding federal funding assistance and p roject costs for the 2016‐2021 time
period. A/GFTC typically updates the TIP every two years to mai ntain a current list of projects and to
reflect its Long Range Transportation Plan (LRP) for the area.  The LRP is a planning tool that integrates
short‐term operational concerns with longer‐term system capacit y and maintenance issues for the
region.
Projects that appear in the first four years of the program are  incorporated into the Statewide
Transportation Improvement Progr am (STIP) and generally have first priority for funding. Projects that
appear in later years may be ad vanced if changes in the first four years of the programming occur so
that resources are reasonably available to implement the progra m.
Programming Instruction
The New York State Department of Transportation, as the direct  recipient for federal transportation
funds, has considerable latitude  in the distribution of funds and formulation of programming strategies.
Noting that transportation funding needs far outweigh funding r esources, NYSDOT issued capital
programming instructions for TIPs  and the STIP to all NYS MPOs in September 2015. The 2016 TIP/STIP
Update will continue the State’s  “forward four” guiding principles:

 Preservation first ‐  preserve the functionality of the existing transportation syste m through
prioritization of preventative maintenance and corrective repairs
 System not projects ‐  consideration of how a particula r infrastructure asset relates to the larger
transportation system as a whole
 Maximize return on investments ‐  identification of timely, cost effective t reatments that are
designed to maximize the useful life of the particular asset
 Make it sustainable ‐  cost‐effective investments that promote economic competitivenes s, social
equity, and environmental stewardship

This programming strategy consti tutes a fundamental shift from  A/GFTC TIPs prior to 2013. Previous
capital program rosters typically  contained larger and more costly  system renewal and replacement
projects that were generally bey ond the scope of what a sponsor ing municipality could reasonably
achieve without outside technica l or capital assistance. While some  capital renewal projects are
retained within this program, the programming focus is on  pres ervation projects that are designed to

prevent infrastructure that is presently in fair to good condition from deteriorating into poor condition
and thus becoming much more cost ly to repair or replace. The expectation of this strategy is that it will
allow municipalities to maintain a greater percentage of transp ortation infrastructure in fair to good
condition at a lower cost.  Antic ipated consequences of such a strategy are a near‐term decline in overall
infrastructure conditions as wor k is advanced to stabilize the system, as well as the continued
deterioration of  that infrastruc ture that is already in poor condition.
How Projects Are Selected for Funding
Prior to the programming of any  new projects for this update, projects with existing commitments from
the 2013‐2018 TIP were reviewed an d updated. Some projects required rescheduling and others needed
cost revisions. Most location‐sp ecific projects included in this update are projects that have been
advanced from the prior TIP.
Several factors have resulted in reduced programming capacity f or capital projects in comparison to
previous TIPs. Revised federal program eligibility has significantly reduced the amount of available
capital that is available for bri dge repair and replacements, particularly for structur es that carry or cross
roadways that are not eligible for federal aid by virtue of the ir respective Functional Classification. In
addition, the State of New York has set aside 30% of certain fe deral transportation funding sources for
competitive statewide solicitatio ns, emergencies, and NYSDOT Commissioner initiatives. Finally, the
programming instructions issued by NYSDOT were accompanied by a  preservation target that mandated
a certain percentage of the regi onal capital program from FFY 2 016‐17 through FFY 2020‐21  be
dedicated towards preservation pr ojects. For these reasons, a formal solicitation for new TIP projects
from area municipalities and other eligible project sponsors wa s not conducted for the 2016‐21 TIP
update. While adjusting the progra m to reflect changes in costs and schedules, a concerted effort was
made to maintain funding allocations within this TIP in accorda nce with fiscal constraints.
Project needs that exceed presen t resources have been identified as “illustrative” projects. These
projects were proposed for the c urrent or previous TIP periods or have emerged from A/GFTC planning
initiatives and have been conside red by A/GFTC and acknowledged  as being valuable investments in the
transportation system. However, financial constraints, regulatory limitations, and programming strategy
require that those projects be delayed until adequate funding o r programming capacity becomes
available. Should additional resources materialize, these projects could be considered as candidates for
programming provided that fiscal constraint is preserved within the overall program.
Amending the Transportat ion Improvement Program
This Transportation Improvement  Program is a staged, multi‐year program of transportation
improvement projects developed t hrough a cooperative planning process by A/GFTC and federal, state,
regional and local participants.  Projects are reviewed and eval uated by the Technical Advisory
Committee (TAC) and recommended f or adoption by the Policy Committee. The adopted TIP must be
fiscally constrained to the fede ral transportation funds that are projected to be available in each year of
the program. Changes to the TIP T able of Projects (including scope, year of work, cost or addition of new
projects) require the review and approval of the TAC and/or the  Policy Committee depending on the
nature of the amendment (specific procedural requirements are s hown on the following page). Minor

changes may be approved by the TAC or A/GFTC staff. More significant changes require approval by the
Policy Committee. Changes that require Policy Committee consideration are subjected to public review
and comment prior to adoption.

Project Funding Categories
The following abbreviations have been used to describe various  project funding sources. All projects
funded with Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit  Administration funds are required to
be listed in an approved TIP and  STIP. Certain non‐federally funded transportation ‐ related projects may
also be listed within the TIP for informational purposes.
Federal Funding Categories & Abbreviations
Highway
HSIP ‐   Highway Safety Improvement Program:  funding for projects designed to achieve
significant reductions in traffi c fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads
NHPP‐  National Highway Performance Program: funding  for projects that support
progress toward achievement of national performance goals for i mproving
infrastructure condition, safety , mobility, or freight movement  on the National
Highway System, consistent with Metropolitan and Statewide plan ning
requirements. Program combines the  following former programs: Interstate
Maintenance, National Highway Sy stem, and Highway Bridge Program.
STP Flex –   Surface Transportation Program (flexible):  funding for road and bridge projects
along any federal‐aid eligible r oadway. A portion of STP funds  is eligible for
transfer to transit capital purposes when warranted.
STP  Off ‐  Surface Transportatio n Program (Off System Bridge): funding for repair or replacement
Sys Br     for structures that do not carry or cross components of the f ederal aid eligible
highway network
Transit
5307 –   Urbanized area formula grant program. Annual apportionments mad e to
designated urbanized areas with a population of 50,000+. Eligible to be used for
capital purchases and/or to defray  transit operating expenses. Includes program
eligibility from former FTA 5316  (Job Access and Reverse Commute).
5310 ‐     Transportation for Elderly Persons and Persons with Disabili ties. Includes
program eligibility from for mer FTA 5317 (New Freedoms).
5339 ‐    Bus and Bus Facilities
5340 ‐    Growing States and High Density States Formula Program

Other
Enhancement –  Special category of federal STP  funds available on a competitive basis for a variety of
projects that enhance the overall transportation system.
SDF (New York State Dedicated Fund) ‐  Category of New York State funds  provided for transportation
projects. A/GFTC does not administer SDF; projects listed solel y with SDF funding are for information
purposes only.

Funding Balance and Fiscal Constraint
Federal transportation law, Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, requires that each MPO
TIP be balanced and fi scally constrained to the amount of federal funds that are reasonably expected to
be available over the TIP period.  A/GFTC is included in NYSDOT Region 1, which also includes the Capital
District and Essex and Greene Counties. This document has been  prepared in consultation with Region 1
staff to determine expected fu nding availability. Data listed in this TIP will be used in the development
of the Region’s program and the  Statewide TIP (STIP), which is also required to be balanced and fiscally
constrained.  A fiscal constrain t table is provided at the end of this document (Appendix A) that
demonstrates that programming proposed by this TIP is within su ballocated funding shares as agreed
upon by NYSDOT and A/GFTC.

Air Quality Impacts of the TIP

The A/GFTC Planning and Progra mming Area includes Warren County  and Washington County and the
Town of Moreau in Saratoga Count y. Warren and Washington Counties are designated as attainment
areas for air quality standards by  the US Environmental Protection Agency. Saratoga County (including
the Town of Moreau), as part of the Albany‐Schenectady‐Troy are a had been designated as a marginal
non‐attainment area  for ozone prior to July 2012. The Capital D istrict Transportation Committee (CDTC)
planning area borders A/GFTC and  carries out conformity testing for all of Saratoga County in
cooperation with A/GFTC and it s TIP. In July of 2012, the United States Environmental Protection Agency
revoked the Transportation Con formity requirements for 1997 8‐H our Ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS). The A lbany‐Schenectady‐Troy area is air quality attainment for the 2008 8‐
Hour Ozone NAAQS. For those reaso ns, an  Air Quality Conformity Determination is not required for this
2016‐21 Transportation Improvement Program.
Community Participation
Public involvement and consensus  are important and ongoing elements of the A/GFTC planning process.
The  A/GFTC  planning  process  strives  to  be  all‐inclusive  of  area   community  transportation  interests.
Beyond  the  representation  included  in  its  Technical  Advisory  and  Policy  Committees,  A/GFTC  seeks
additional  public  input  through  a  variety  of  media  that  include   attendance  at  area  community
expositions  and  fairs,  regular  contact  with  area  print  and  radio  media,  wide  distribution  of  documents
and plans as they are developed, and opinion surveys and direct mailings. Extensive public outreach was
conducted  as  part  of  the  ongoing  Long  Range  Plan  update  process .  Feedback  received  during  that
process affirms that the project  priorities programmed in this document as being current and relevant.

Notes on Project Listings:

 Project amounts are shown in $M (ex: 9.375 = $9,375,000). Unles s otherwise noted,
those amounts represent the total  cost of the project inclusive of all applicable local,
State and Federal shares.

 Projects listed in the Obligated column may be subject to rolling over or being carried
forward into the 2016‐17 throug h 2020‐21 program years. Those p rojects may be given
priority over other listed projects that have yet to be initiated. This may require that
other project schedules be adjusted as necessary to preserve fiscal constraint and
achieve the regional preservation target throughout the program .

 Project amounts were developed in Year 2016 dollars. The attached tables reflect Year
of Expenditure (YoE) adjustment s as recommended by NYSDOT. Infl ation factors were
applied to subsequent programming years as follows:

2017‐18    + 2.0%
2018‐19    + 4.0%
2019‐20    + 6.0%
2020‐21    + 8.0%
 Total matched programming for sp ecific projects to be obligated before October 1, 2021
is $121,424,000.  While the current program has b een reviewed and approved by
A/GFTC, no endorsement is given that this programming level is  an adequate sum to
allow our municipalities to meaningfully address the mounting t ransportation
infrastructure needs that face the region.

Highway and Bridge Projects

Capital Projects ‐ Highway and Bridge Reconstruction, Rehabilitation, or Repair
Design and ROW INC phases
Saratoga County and Warren County ROW ACQ and Construction / Inspection
TIP # Project Fund Source Obligated 5 yr fed $M Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Beyond Year 5
PIN 2016‐201
7
2017‐201
8
2018‐201
9
2019‐202
0
2020‐202
1
Post‐TIP
SAR 115 Route 9 over Interstate 87
NHPP
4.220 0.150
104342 Bridge Repair 4.070
Town of Moreau
Lead Agency: NYSDOT
SAR 122 Town of Moreau Pavement Preservation Projects STP Flex
0.2650.000
176012 Reservoir Road and Feeder Dam Road, Town of Moreau
Lead Agency: Town of Moreau
SAR 123 CR 31 Pavement Preservation Project STP Flex
0.057 0.000
176020 US Route 9 to Clark Road (1.8 miles), Town of Moreau 0.733
Lead Agency: Saratoga County
SAR 124 CR 27 Pavement Preservation Project STP Flex
0.574 0.055
176064 NYS Route 32 to CR 28 (1.22 miles), Town of Moreau 0.519
Lead Agency: Saratoga County
WAR 100 Middleton Bridge over the Schroon River STP Off Sys. Br.
0.325 3.706 0.127 3.579
175527 Bridge Replacement on new alignment
Town of Bolton / Town of Warrensburg
Lead Agency: Warren CountyWAR 131
I 87 R t 9 / P tt ill
IM
9 990
0 000
WAR 131 I‐87 over Route 9
/ Pottersville I‐M
9.9900.000
172204 Bridge Replacement State Bond funds
2.200
Town of Chester SDF
1.210
Lead Agency: NYSDOT
WAR 153 Blair Road over Mill Brook STP Off Sys. Br.
0.367 0.000
175913 Bridge Replacement 0.995
Town of Horicon
Lead Agency: Warren County
TOTAL 16.142 8.500 0.574 0.150 4.070 0.127 3.579 0.000

Capital Projects ‐ Highway and Bridge Reconstruction, Rehabilitation, or Repair
Design and ROW INC phases
Warren County ROW ACQ and Construction / Inspection
TIP # Project Fund Source Obligated 5 yr fed $M Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Beyond Year 5
PIN 2016‐201
7
2017‐201
8
2018‐201
9
2019‐202
0
2020‐202
1
Post‐TIP
WAR 154 Palisades Road (CR 26) over Brant Lake Inlet
STP Off Sys. Br.
1.5031.503
175928 Element‐specific repairs(scour abatement)
Town of Horicon
Lead Agency: Warren County
WAR 159 Lake George Complete Streets Project ‐ Route 9 TEP
1.3750.000
175969 Implementation of Complete Streets Concepts D. of State
0.200
Town of Lake George
WAR 160 Lake George Gateway Improvements ‐ Route 9 STP FLEX
0.900 0.000
175967 Access Management, Bike‐Ped Improvements STP FLEX
0.270
NHPP (STEP) 8.198
Lead Agency: Town of Lake George EFC / GIGP
0.629
WAR 161 Town of Warrensburg Sidewalk Improvements SRTS
0.2730.000
175956 Various Locations
Lead Agency: Town of Warrensburg
WAR 162 Route 9 over Trout Brook ‐ Bridge Replacement STP FLEX
2.3400.000
104354 Town of Chester
Lead Agency: NYSDOT
WAR 170 CR 44 (BIN 3305330) over the Hudson River Bridge Painting STP Flex
1.0791.079
176000 Town of Lake Luzerne / Town of Hadley
Lead Agency: Warren Count
y
WAR 171
Warren County Bridge Painting Project
STP Off Sys Br
0 913
0 000
WAR
171
Warren
County
Bridge
Painting
Project
STP
Off
Sys.
Br.
0.913
0.000
176001BIN 3305180 ‐ CR 31 over the Schroon, Chester
BIN 3305710 ‐ CR 13 over Patterson Brook, Thurman
Lead Agency: Warren County
TOTAL 15.098 2.582 1.079 1.503 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Capital Projects ‐ Highway and Bridge Reconstruction, Rehabilitation, or Repair
Design and ROW INC phases
Warren County ROW ACQ and Construction / Inspection
TIP # Project Fund Source Obligated 5 yr fed $M Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Beyond Year 5
PIN 2016‐2017 2017‐2018 2018‐2019 2019‐2020 2020‐2021 Post‐TIP
WAR 172 Warren County Asbestos Abatement / Bridge Painting Project
STP Off Sys. Br.0.776 0.055
176002 BIN 3305640 ‐ Denecker Road / Roaring Branch Brook, Stony Creek 0.721
BIN 3360330 ‐ CR 78 over 13th Lake Brook, Johnsburg
Lead Agency: Warren County
Note: BIN 3305340 ‐ Hudson Street over Mill Creek, Johnsburg, to
be advanced as a separate project.
WAR 173 Warren County Pavement Preservation Project STP Flex0.7850.000
176003 CR 17, 79, and 52 ‐ Town of Queensbury
Lead Agency: Warren Count
y
WAR 175 West Mountain Road Pavement Preservation Project STP Flex0.7490.000
176018 Aviation Road to Glen Court ‐ Town of Queensbury
Lead Agency: Warren Count
y
WAR 176 South Johnsburg Road (CR 57) over Mill Creek  STP Off Sys. Br.1.945 0.281
175727 Culvert Rehabilitation or Replacement 1.664
Town of Johnsburg
BIN 3305370
Lead Agency: Warren Count
y
WAR 177 Interstate 87 over Route 9, BINs 1005741 and 1005742 NHPP10.200 0.425
172246 Bridge Repair or Rehabilitation 0.425
Town of Lake George 9.350
Lead Agency: NYSDO
T
WAR 178 NYS Route 9N Pavement Repairs NHPP
1.1001.100
111658 Spot repairs between Lake George and Bolton
Town of Lake George, Town of Bolton
d
Lead Agency: NYSDO
T
WAR 179 Bay Road Pavement Preservation Project STP Flex1.140 0.086
176019 CR 17 to Cronin Road ‐ Town of Queensbury 1.054
Lead Agency: Warren Count
y
WAR 180 Sanford Street Pavement Preservation STP Flex0.402 0.027
176066 NYS 9L to City line (0.66 miles), City of Glens Falls 0.375
Lead Agency: City of Glens Falls
TOTAL 1.534 15.563 3.441 0.827 9.631 1.664 0.000 0.000

Capital Projects ‐ Highway and Bridge Reconstruction, Rehabilitation, or Repair
Design and ROW INC phases
Washington County ROW ACQ and Construction / Inspection
TIP # Project Fund Source Obligated 5 yr fed $M Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Beyond Year 5
PIN 2016‐201
7
2017‐201
8
2018‐201
9
2019‐202
0
2020‐202
1
Post‐TIP
WAS 101 County Route 113 over Batten Kill
STP Off Sys. Br.
0.473 5.569 5.569
175532 Bridge replacement
Town of Greenwich, Town of Easton
Lead Agency: Washington County
WAS 103 County Route 61 over Batten Kill (Shushan) STP Off Sys. Br.
2.644 0.338
175528 Bridge rehabilitation 2.306
Town of Jackson, Town of Salem
Lead Agency: Washington County
WAS 126 County Route 10 over the Poultney River STP Off Sys. Br.
0.618 0.618
175725 Bridge replacement
(Cost shown = 1/2; project costs shared with State of Vermont)
Town of Whitehall
Lead Agency: State of Vermont
WAS 138 Town of Putnam Rail Crossing Upgrade
HSIP‐Rail
0.340 0.000
193321 Installation of At‐Grade Rail Crossing Equipment
Town of Putnam
Lead Agency: NYSDOT
WAS 143 Kid Power & School Access Project
SRTS
0.488 0.000
175958
Install sidewalks, ramps, signs at various locationsPurchase safety equipment and develop educational materialsPurchase sa
fety equ
ipment an
d deve
lop e
ducat
iona
l  mater
ials
Lead Agency: Village of Fort Edward
WAS 145 Washington County Bridge Painting Project STP Off Sys. Br.
0.049 0.000
176005 BIN 3306120 ‐ Lower Turnpike over the Mettawee, Granville 1.055
BIN 3306710 ‐ Center Falls Road / Batten Kill, Greenwich / Jackson
Lead Agency: Washington County
WAS 150 East Street Pavement Preservation Project STP Flex
0.025 0.000
176007 Village of Fort Edward 0.333
Lead Agency: Village of Fort Edward
Lead Agency: Village of Fort Edward
WAS 151 CP Rail / NYS 149 Rail Crossing Upgrade
HSIP‐Rail
0.015 0.285
193329 Upgrade of At‐Grade Rail Crossing Equipment 0.285
Town of Kingsbury
Lead Agency: NYSDOT
TOTAL 9.116 0.285 5.569 0.956 2.306 0.000 0.000

Capital Projects ‐ Highway and Bridge Reconstruction, Rehabilitation, or Repair
Design and ROW INC phases
Washington County ROW ACQ and Construction / Inspection
TIP # Project Fund Source Obligated 5 yr fed $M Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Beyond Year 5
PIN 2016‐2017 2017‐2018 2018‐2019 2019‐2020 2020‐2021 Post‐TIP
WAS 152 NYS Route 196 over Dike Road / Champlain Canal
NHPP2.240 2.240
102409 Bridge Repair or Rehabilitation
Town of Kingsbury
Lead Agency: NYSDOT
WAS 153 NYS Route 67 over the Battenkill RR, BIN 1029260 NHPP7.765 0.340
118836 Bridge Rehabilitation or Replacement  7.425
Town of White Creek
Lead Agency: NYSDOT
WAS 154 NYS Route 29 over Batten Kill, BIN 1020720 NHPP4.190 0.330
123627 Bridge Replacement 3.860
Town of Easton, Town of Greenwich
Lead Agency: NYSDOT
WAS 155 Baldwin Corners Road over the Champlain Canal STP Off Sys. Br.4.9504.950
194097
Bridge Repair or Rehabilitation
Town of Fort AnnLead Agency: NYSDOT
WAS 156 CR 75 and CR 40 Pavement Preservation STP Flex0.714 0.071
176065CR 75 from Warren County line to US 4, Village of Hudson Falls
0.643
CR 40 from US4 to CR 37, Town of Fort Edward1.46 total milesL d A W hi t C tLead Agency:
Washington
Count
y
WAS 157 Wrights Ferry Road Rail Crossing Signalization Upgrade HSIP Rail0.283 0.015
193277
CP Rail Crossing at Wrights Ferry Road
0.268
Town of PutnamLead Agency: NYSDOT
WAS 158 Church Street over the Mettawee River, BIN 3‐20366‐0 NHPP5.200 0.610
176055 Bridge Replacement 4.590
Village of Granville
State MOU Project, no local match required
Lead Agency: Washington County
TOTAL 25.342 5.366 0.983 11.895 7.098 0.000 0.000

Regional Setasides ‐ State Highway System
Design and ROW INC phases
ROW ACQ and Construction / Inspection
TIP # Project Fund Source Obligated 5 yr fed $M Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Beyond Year 5
PIN 2016‐201
7
2017‐201
8
2018‐201
9
2019‐202
0
2020‐202
1
Post‐TIP
REG 15 Durable Pavement Markings and
PIN:
181010 181015 181036 181057 181065
181010CARDS installation NHPP2.250 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013
181015 NHPP0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013
181036 NHPP0.425 0.425 0.425 0.425 0.425
181057 Lead Agency: NYSDOT STP FLEX0.9380.188 0.188 0.188 0.188 0.188
181065 REG 23 Traffic Signal Rebuild PIN:
181006 181006 181016 181016 181063
181006NHPP0.450 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008
181016 NHPP0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008
181063 Lead Agency: NYSDOT NHPP0.075 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.075
STP FLEX 0.1560.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031
REG 110 State Bridge Preservation Setaside PIN:
180898 181027 181034 194130 TBD
180898
180957 180958
181027 NHPP4.875 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050
181034 NHPP0.075 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.075
194130 NHPP0.850 0.850 0.850 0.850 0.850
TBD STP FLEX1.8750.375 0.375 0.375 0.375 0.375
180957
180958 Lead Agency: NYSDOT
REG 117 State Pavement Preservation Setaside PIN:
181007 181012 181039 181066 181068
Various
180967 180968 181040 181067 181069
180961 180962 181059 181030
NHPP 10.188 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013
NHPP 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025
NHPP 2.000 2.000 2.000 2.000 2.000
Lead Agency: NYSDOT HSIP0.6250.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125
STP FLEX 12.5002.500 2.500 2.500 2.500 2.500
REG 118 ADA Compliance PIN:
181007 180971 181029 181066 181068
181007NHPP0.413 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003
180971 NHPP0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005
181029 NHPP0.075 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.075
181066
181068 Lead Agency: NYSDOT
TOTAL 34.269 6.854 6.854 6.854 6.854 6.854 0.000

Regional Setasides ‐ State Highway System
Design and ROW INC phases
ROW ACQ and Construction / Inspection
TIP # Project Fund Source Obligated 5 yr fed $M Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Beyond Year 5
PIN 2016‐2017 2017‐2018 2018‐2019 2019‐2020 2020‐2021 Post‐TIP
REG 119 Rustic Rail Replacement
PIN:
180996 180974 181031 181055 181073
180996STP FLEX
2.588 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017
180974 STP FLEX
0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023
181031 STP FLEX
0.478 0.478 0.478 0.478 0.478
181055
181073 Lead Agency: NYSDOT
REG 122 Guiderail Replacement PIN:
181003 181008 181013 181013 TBD
181003STP FLEX
0.863 0.009 0.009 0.009 0.009 0.009
181008 STP FLEX
0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013
181013 STP FLEX
0.150 0.150 0.150 0.150 0.150
TBD Lead Agency: NYSDOT
REG 123 Large Culvert Replacements PIN:
181004 181004 181009 181014 181035
181004NHPP
1.375 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125
181009 NHPP
0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125
181014 NHPP
0.250 0.250 0.250 0.250 0.250
181035 Lead Agency: NYSDOT STP Flex
0.7810.156 0.156 0.156 0.156 0.156
REG 124 Slope Repairs PIN:
180902181032
180902 STP FLEX
1.075 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010
181032 STP FLEX
0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015
Lead Agency: NYSDOT STP FLEX
0.190 0.190 0.190 0.190 0.190
REG 125 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan ‐ Phase 1 HSIP
3.310 0.100
10PS01 Amount shown is total for various locations in Region 1 3.210
TBD Lead Agency: NYSDO
T
REG 126 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan ‐ Phase 2 HSIP
3.310 0.050 0.050
10PS02 Amount shown is total for various locations in Region 1 3.210
TBD Lead Agency: NYSDOT
TOTAL 13.301 4.696 1.386 4.546 1.336 1.336 0.000

Regional Setasides and Bicycle / Pedestrian Program
Design and ROW INC phases
Local Highway System
ROW ACQ and Construction / Inspection
TIP # Project Fund Source Obligated 5 yr fed $M Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Beyond Year 5
PIN 2016‐2017 2017‐2018 2018‐2019 2019‐2020 2020‐2021 Post‐TIP
REG 102 Local System HSIP SolicitationHSIP
1.395 1.395
180752 Projects to be awarded through competitive solicitation
REG 120 Local Pavement Preservation STP FLEX
4.700 0.300 0.200 0.200
Lead Agency: Local Municipalities 1.800 1.100 1.100
1TO427 Projects to be awarded through competitive solicitation
REG 121 Local Bridge Preservation STP Off Sys. Br.
2.069 0.469
Lead Agency: Local Municipalities 1.600
Projects to be awarded through competitive solicitation
1TO428
BPS 200 Bicycle and Pedestrian Project Setaside STP FLEX
1.185 1.185
1RB001 Projects to be awarded through competitive solicitation
MTC 209 Make the Connection Program STP
0.0710.000
175931 Quaker Street Sidewalk Improvements
Town / Village of Granville
Lead Agency: Village of Granville
MTC 216 Make the Connection Program STP
0.0750.000
175946 West Brook Conservation Initiative ‐ Sidewalk Connection Project
Village of Lake George
Lead Agency: Warren County
MTC 218 Make the Connection Program STP
0.0000.093
175948 Town of Johnsburg Sidewalk Replacement Project
Town of Johnsburg
Lead Agency: Town of Johnsburg
MTC 221 Make the Connection Program STP
0.064 0.000
175966 Hudson Street Sidewalk Replacement 0.120
Town of Warrensburg
Lead Agency: Town of Warrensburg
WAR 174 Transportation Alternatives Program STP
0.102 0.000
176010 Fire Road, Crandall Park, and Kensington Road Elementary School 0.498
Bicycle and Pedestrian Programs ‐ City of Glens Falls
Lead Agency:  City of Glens Falls
TOTAL 0.432 9.940 0.591 0.000 6.749 1.300 1.300 0.000

Illustrative Highway and Bridge Projects
The following projects have been identified through ongoing discussions at A/GFTC as desired
improvements to the transportation system. Currently, insuffici ent programming capacity exists to allow
for the inclusion of these proje cts within the TIP. Cost estimates for all of the illustrative projects have
not been generated, bu t the cumulative total cost to implement  these improvements would easily
exceed the total amount of funds  available for this current program.
 U.S. Route 9 / NYS 149 / Exit 20 Congestion Improvements
(Queensbury)

 U.S. Route 4 / NYS 32 Intersec tion Improvements (Kingsbury)

 U.S. Route 9 Congestion Improvem ents ‐ Exit 17 to NYS 197, Town of
Moreau

 Replacement of functionally obsolete bridges:
o NYS 197 over the Hudson River (Fort Edward)
o U.S. Route 4 over the Hudson River (Greenwich)
o I‐87 over Corinth Road (Exit 18) (Queensbury)
o Baldwin Corners Road over the Champlain Canal (Hartford)
o East Street over the Champlain Canal (Fort Edward)

 Other bridge replacements:
o NYS Route 28 over the Hudson River (Thurman)
o Route 67 over Owl Kill (White Creek)
o Church Street over the Mettawee (Granville)

  County Route 19 Reconstruction (Chester)

 Murray Street Reconstruction (Glens Falls)

 Exit 18 reconfiguration (Queensbury)

 Route 4 geometric improvements (Washington County)

Transit Projects

Transit Projects
Construction / Purchase ‐ Federal $
FTA 5307, 5339, and 5340 Construction / Purchase ‐ NYS Public Transportation Modernization and Enhancement Program
Construction / Purchase ‐ NYS Accelerated Transit Capital Grant Program
TIP # Project Fund Source Obligated 5 yr fed $M Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Beyond Year 5
PIN 2016‐201
7
2017‐201
8
2018‐201
9
2019‐202
0
2020‐202
1
Post‐TIP
TR 102
Public Transportation Operating Assistance FTA 5307
1.7309.947 1.911 1.950 1.989 2.028 2.069
2.110
AGFTC02Greater Glens Falls Transit
(2022)
Federal Share of Listed Amount = 50%
TR 113 Replace Two (2) 2012 Paratransit Buses FTA 5307
0.1400.140
AGFT13 Greater Glens Falls Transit
Federal Share of Listed Amount = 80%
TR 115 Facility Rehabilitation FTA 5307, 5339
0.4500.150 0.090 0.150 0.150
AGFT15 Greater Glens Falls Transit and 5340
Federal Share of Listed Amount = 80%
Facility A/C and related improvements (orange) from NYS funds
(Public Transportation Modernization and Enhancement Program)
TR 127 GGFT Preventative Maintenance FTA 5307
0.1000.530 0.102 0.104 0.106 0.108 0.110
AGFT27 Greater Glens Falls Transit FTA 5340
Federal Share of Listed Amount = 80%
TR 137 Replace Four (4) 2009 30′ Transit Buses FTA 5307, 5339
1.350 1.350
AGFT37 Greater Glens Falls Transit and 5340
Federal Share of Listed Amount = 80%
One vehicle to be purchased with NYS Funds 0.450
(Public Transportation Modernization and Enhancement Program)
TR 138 Replace Battery Module on 2011 Hybrid Bus FTA 5307, 5339
0.0500.050
AGFT38 Greater Glens Falls Transit and 5340dlh fid %Federal Share of Listed Amount = 80
%
TR 139
Replace Three (3) 2006 Trolley Buses FTA 5307, 5339
0.6520.652
AGFT39 Greater Glens Falls Transit and 5340
Federal Share of Listed Amount = 80%
TR 140 Replace Two (2) 2009 Trolley Buses FTA 5307, 5339
0.420 0.420
AGFT40 Greater Glens Falls Transit and 5340
Federal Share of Listed Amount = 80%
TR 141 Replace Four (4) 2013 mini buses FTA 5307
0.2800.280
AGFT41 Greater Glens Falls Transit and 5339
Federal Share of Listed Amount = 80%
TR 142 Solar Panel Array for GGFT Operations / Maintenance Facility SDF
0.070
AGFT33 Greater Glens Falls Transit
100% funded from NYS Accelerated Transit Capital Program
TOTAL 1.830 13.819 3.285 2.144 4.045 2.556 2.329 2.110

Transit ProjectsFTA 5310Construction / Purchase
TIP # Project Fund Source Obligated 5 yr fed $M Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Beyond Year 5
PIN 2016‐2017 2017‐2018 2018‐2019 2019‐2020 2020‐2021 Post‐TIP
TBDTransportation Services for the Elderly and Disabled FTA 5310
0.4390.000 0.103 0.112 0.112 0.112
awarded on an annual basis by A/GFTC and NYSDOT, projects listed
for informational purposes($ shown is est. planning target)
TR 134 CWI ‐ Purchase Two 28‐Passenger 5310 Vehicles FTA 5310
0.1730.000
182398 Community Work and Independence, Inc.
TR 135 FHI ‐ Purchase Two 5310 (16 and 20 passenger) Vehicles FTA 5310
0.0800.000
182399 Fort Hudson Nursing Center, Inc
TR 136 VNA ‐ Purchase One 16‐Passenger 5310 vehicle  FTA 5310
0.0430.000
182400 Visiting Nurse Association
TR 142 Purchase One 4‐Passenger Vehicle FTA 5310
0.0420.042
182195 Fort Hudson Nursing Center
Federal Share of Listed Amount = 80%
TR 143 Purchase One 16‐Passenger Vehicle FTA 5310
0.0790.079
182196 Community Work and Independence, Inc.
Federal Share of Listed Amount = 80%
TOTAL 0.296 0.560 0.121 0.103 0.112 0.112 0.112 0.000

Appendix A ‐ Fiscal Constraint Table

Fiscal Constraint TableFFY 2016‐17 FFY 2017‐18 FFY 2018‐19 FFY 2019‐20 FFY 2020‐21 Total STIP Total TIP
Federal Fund Source Available Programmed Available Programmed Available Programmed Available Programmed Available Programmed Available Programmed Available Programmed
HSIP 0.404 0.125 0.404 0.125 0.404 1.520 0.404 0.125 0.404 0.125 1.616 1.895 2.020 2.020HSIP Rail
0.285 0.285 0.285 0.285 0.285 0.285
NHPP 8.368 10.325 8.368 8.195 8.368 13.260 8.368 6.150 8.368 3.910 33.472 37.930 41.840 41.840
STP Flex 7.738 8.758 7.738 11.580 7.738 7.440 7.738 5.455 7.738 5.455 30.950 33.233 38.688 38.688
STP Off System Bridge 4.696 12.497 4.696 0.618 4.696 2.688 4.696 4.097 4.696 3.579 18.783 19.900 23.479 23.479
Transit
FTA 5307, 5339 2.922 3.005 2.922 2.334 2.922 4.045 2.922 2.556 2.922 2.329 11.690 11.940 14.612 14.269
and 5340
FTA 5310 0.121 0.121 0.103 0.103 0.112 0.112 0.112 0.112 0.112 0.112 0.448 0.448 0.560 0.560
Total 24.534 35.116 24.231 22.955 24.240 29.065 24.240 18.495 24.240 15.510 97.244 105.631 121.484 121.141
Unprogrammed amounts from prior years are rolled into following years.
Amounts shown are matched (include State and Local shares)

Appendix B ‐ A/GFTC Self‐Certification

1
Adirondack / Glens Falls Transportation Council

2016 Self-Certification

A. REQUIRED AGREEMENTS

The Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation Council is the designated MPO for urban
transportation planning an d programming in the Glens Falls Urbanized Area. The
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Glens Falls Urban Area
Transportation Council (GFTC) and the Governor was signed in 1982 and amended
in 1985. The MOU describes the roles of GFTC and responsibilities of GFTC and its
committees. In October 1994, by resolu tion of the Council, the planning and
programming boundaries were extended to the entirety of Warren and Washington
Counties and the Town of Moreau in northern Saratoga County, and in March 1997
another resolution changed the name of the MPO to the Adirondack/Glens Falls
Transportation Council (A/GFTC) to reflect the expanded planning and programming
area.

As is the case with all MPOs in New York State, A/GFTC is not a legal entity in and
of itself. It depends upon a host agency to provide payroll and legal services and to
contract with consultants for planning studies. At its inception, the host agency for
A/GFTC was the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT). Due to a
desire on the part of area governments to assert local ownership of the MPO, a
change in the host agency arrangement was made in September 1996 that
established the Lake Champlain/Lake Ge orge Regional Planning Board (RPB) as
A/GFTC’s host agency. The current staff positions (the Transportation Planning
Director, the Senior Transportation Planner and an Administrative Assistant) are
employed by the RPB and work in the A/GF TC staff office located in the City of
Glens Falls at 11 South Street, Suite 203. The staff has the responsibility of
managing consultant studies specified in the UPWP, conducting technical analyses,
purchasing of supplies and equipment, and carrying out the balance of the duties
necessary to function as an MPO. The RPB serves as a member of the various
A/GFTC committees and provides payroll services, audits, accounting and legal
services. The RPB makes first instance payments of the bills for goods and services
contracted for by A/GFTC. The host agency agreement between the RPB and
NYSDOT was renewed in 2012 for a term of ten years. The Joint Cooperative
Planning Agreement was approved by A/GF TC’s Policy Committee in January 2010.
It has been signed by A/GFTC, GGFT and NYSDOT.

B. PLANNING/TECHNICAL

1. UPWP
The Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation Council adopted a Unified Planning Work
Program for 2016-2017 in March of 2016. The work program includes ongoing
public participation activities, data colle ction and performance measurement tasks,
traffic modeling, technical assistance to municipalities, Geographic Information
system (GIS) work, long range plan devel opment, and corridor-planning activities
described in support of issues identified in the current A/GFTC Long Range Plan.

2
The Local Transportation Planning and En gineering Assistance program is also
demand response to individual community requests and subject to regional
approval and is intended to help communities address issues in support of A/GFTC
goals, objectives, and principals.

2. Transportation Plan
A/GFTC’s 2035 Long Range Plan was adopted by the Council in November 2013.
Conformity approval will no longer be required for the A/GFTC TIP on account of the
classification of Albany-Schenectady-Troy area as air quality attainment for the
2008 ozone standard effective as of July 20, 2012 and the United States
Environmental Protection Agency’s revocati on of conformity requirements effective
on July 20 of 2013. The LRP lists all current State and Federal planning factors and
emphasis areas as well as A/GFTC’s own Twelve Planning Principles. Through
analysis of data, regional priorities and projects are identified as candidates for
implementation through A/GFTC’s Un ified Planning Work Program and
Transportation Improvement Program. Thorou gh public outreach (including surveys
and public meetings) was conducted to solicit input from individuals and public
agencies. A/GFTC staff participates on the Adirondack Gateway Council, a not-for-
profit organization involved in region al planning and economic development.

An update to the LRP will be initiated in 2017, with an anticipated horizon date of
2040.

3. The Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
The 2013-2018 Transportation Improvemen t Program is the current MPO capital
program. It was approved by A/GFTC in June 2013. The draft 2016-2021
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) was approved on May 4, 2016, for
public review and comment. As is the case with the LRP, conformity approval will no
longer be required for the TIP on acco unt of the classification of Albany-
Schenectady-Troy area as air quality attainment for the 2008 ozone standard
effective as of July 20, 2012 and the United States Environmental Protection
Agency’s revocation of conformity requir ements effective on July 20 of 2013.
During development of both TIP documents, fiscal constraint was applied in
coordination with NYSDOT Region 1. A/GFTC worked cl osely with its members and
NYSDOT Region 1 to identify appropriate projects that could safely be deferred as a
result of program limitations. Through th ese and similar coordinated efforts the
current TIP has remained both balanced and fi scally constrained. Individual projects
are clearly identifiable an d are consistent with the adopted A/GFTC Long Range
Plan. TIP amendment procedures are consistent with guidance from federal
regulatory agencies and were amended in January 2010 to refine the distinctions
between amendments and administrative modifications. The Annual Listing of
Obligated Projects for the most recently comp leted federal fiscal year is available on
A/GFTC’s website.

A/GFTC’s website features an interactive project viewer that was developed to

3
address the required visualization techniques. The viewer, based on the intuitive
GoogleMaps platform, displays project data, financial information, maps, and
photographs of planned and completed projects.

4. Technical Studies and Emphasis Areas
Technical studies are proceeding consiste nt with the current UPWP. Bicycle and
pedestrian planning continues to be an emphasis area for A/GFTC, and targeted
safety evaluations are an em erging focus. Studies and projects undertaken during
the last year include:

o A transportation impact analysis of proposed changes to commerc ial zoning in the area of
Interstate 87 Exit 18 in the Town of Queensbury.

o A bridge preservation and asset  management strategy for all locally‐owned bridges in the
A/GFTC area.

o Initiation of a reassessment of the Dix Avenue corridor.

o A streetscaping and bicycle and pedestrian improvement plan for  River Street in the Town
of Warrensburg.

o A draft crash data analysis for Warren County.

o A crash analysis of the CR 21 a nd CR 18 intersection in the Tow n of Whitehall.

o Data collection for an ADA Trans ition Plan for the Town of Queensbury.

o Initiation of an infrastructure flood vulnerability assessment  for the White Creek watershed
in the Town of Salem.

o Mapping and technical assistance  to Greater Glens Falls Transit, including completion of
updated map graphics to be used by  GGFT for enhanced outreach materials.

o Provided transportation‐related assistance, including bicycle a nd pedestrian trail planning,
to member municipalities as needed or requested.

o Collection of transportation related data, including completion  of the fourth cycle of
pavement scoring.

5. Special Considerations in the Transportation Planning Process
(a) Title VI: A/GFTC is a designated sub-recipient under NYSDOT’s DBE program
and maintains ongoing compliance efforts. Title VI/DBE reports are submitted
on a semi-annual basis to NYSDOT an d the Council has also signed on to

4
NYSDOT’s DBE plan. A/GFTC has never received any discrimination
complaints. The Environmental Justice review is updated as plans and
regional demographics change and will be updated in conjunction with the
approval of new TIP in 2016. Special considerations for elderly and disabled
persons are consistent with ADA requirements and are provided in the
transportation planning process and in community participation projects.
Specific outreach to senior organizations was conducted as part of the LRP
update and FTA 5310 solicitations. A/GF TC public transit planning efforts
includes consideration of services for elderly, disabled per sons and for those
who choose not to drive. MPO meetings are always held in ADA-accessible
facilities. Accessibility was a key crit erion in determining A/GFTC’s site
selection for staff offices in 2010; severa l non-accessible site candidates were
ruled out on that basis. ADA compliance is monitored through the ADA
paratransit services offered by the loca l transit operator and staff review of
federally-funded projects and plans. Periodic review of local demographics
continues to suggest that ethnic populations are insuffi ciently large to
warrant targeted Limited English Population programs at this time. That data
will be periodically reassessed in conj unction with future updates to the
Environmental Justice review.

(b) Private Operators – Consideration is given to private transportation
providers. Private transportation oper ators will be considered and involved
in any future planning efforts to devel op additional services to rural areas,
particularly as part of the implementation of the recently updated
Coordinated Human Services Transpor tation Plan. An update to a staff-
developed transportation provider service directory that includes
information about private services, including taxis and limousine services,
and was originally developed in 1996 and updated in 1999, is planned for
2016 as part of a rural mobility needs assessment.

(c) Planning Factors – Up-to-date State and F ederal planning factors and
emphasis areas are used to develop A/GFTC plans and programs and to
guide project selection processes. A/GFTC staff continues to maintain its
relationships with local land us e planning organizations through
communication and consultation. Progra mming instructions consistent with
NYSDOT’s Forward Four principles, emphasizing maintenance and
preservation activities over “worst-first” infrastructure replacement projects,
have been thoroughly incorporated within the development of the draft 2016-
21 TIP.

(d) Congestion Management Process – No process in place (not required for
A/GFTC).

(e) Public Involvement – The A/GFTC Public Involvement Policy was updated
and approved in 2014. A/GFTC actively solicits public involvement through

5
media, public meetings, mailings, and at events where the public gathers.
A/GFTC staff regularly meets with loca l officials, participates in public
meetings, and hold public informatio n meetings and planning forums to
involve the general public and concer ned businesses and agencies. Special
efforts are made to involve freight and transit users in all corridor and related
planning activities. All meetings of A/GFTC’s Technical Advisory and Policy
Committees are open to the public. Local newspapers are notified of
meetings. The agendas for those meetings regularly include a section for “Visitors Issues”. Legal notices are issu ed during the development of all core
publications, announcing the opportunity for public review and comment. The
A/GFTC website contains all recent MP O products , meeting minutes and the
most current versions of annual or recurring do cuments. The website allows
for public comment on publications and provides opportunities for the public
to contact staff to ask questions about any transportation concern they may
have, and is also a portal that allows for participation in the LRP survey.
A/GFTC staff also utilizes social media outlets, including Facebook, Twitter,
and a blog dedicated to outreach related to development of the LRP, to notify
the public of ongoing activities.

C. Administrative/Management

1. Progress Reports are prepared and submitted on a monthly basis at the
request of our Host Agency (RPB). They are complete and comprehensive.

2. Bills are submitted and paid based on the processing schedule of the host
agency, the LC/LGRPB. Vendor inquiries for delayed reimbursements are
infrequent. The RPB is a small organization that can encounter difficulty in first-
instancing funds when previous expenditures have not been reimbursed in a
timely manner (longer than 30 days); untimely payments have decreased
significantly in recent years.

3. Audits are completed in a timely manner in conjunction with the host agency.

4. Annual Program is closed out within 3 years in cooperation with NYSDOT.

5. MPO Budget is regularly monitored and updated as needed.

6. Consultant Selection Process A/GFTC has a consultant selection process that
is followed for all professional services agreements. Additional consideration is
given to consultants that contain a mi nimum of 10% DBE participation.

7. Central Staff/Host Relations are positive. MPO staff are accorded equal
status as LC/LGRPB staff. Quality office space and support services to
accommodate A/GFTC staff and activities are provided. Staff has good political
support within the planning and programming area.

8. Decision Making ability is effective in the A/GFTC area. The public is
outspoken on many issues and members listen and fully consider expressed

6
public concerns. Committees are competen tly and sufficiently staffed. Technical
Advisory Committee meetings are well at tended; reaching consensus decisions
has not been a problem. The Policy Committee typically meets twice a year with
additional meetings held if specific actions are required. Policy Committee
meetings are generally well attended. Members are consulted frequently on
regional and local matters concerning their jurisdictions.

9. Governance – In 2012 the A/GFTC host agency, the Lake Champlain/Lake
George Regional Pl anning Board, renewed its agreement with NYSDOT through
March 2012. The format of the new agreement was consistent with a new model
recently developed by NYSDOT. The hosting arrangement allows A/GFTC staff to
advance its work without any undue in fluence from any particular member
municipality. The Policy and Technical Advi sory committees have consistent and
balanced representation from throug hout the program area, including all urban
area municipalities. A/GFTC’s operating and staffing plans were last updated in
2000 and reconsidered as recently as January of 2013.

10. Procurement – A/GFTC staff is aware of the procurement requirements of
FTA funding recipients, including those lis ted within the FTA Circular Guidance
4220.1F, Third Party Contracting Requirem ents, and the FTA Master Agreement.
FTA-related expenditures are documented . Procurements by A/GFTC utilizing
FTA funds are infrequent, although one such solicitation will be conducted in
early SFY 16-17. A/GFTC staff has been in close communication with NYSDOT to
ensure that this process is followed carefully.

** Coming Soon **

A dirondack  / Glens Falls
Transportation  Council

Unified Planning Work Program
2017‐2019

– 1 –

Resolution 17‐1 of the Adirondack / Glens Falls Transportation  Council to Adopt its
2017 – 2019 Unified Planning Work Program

Whereas , the Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation Council is designat ed by the
Governor of New York State as the Metropolitan Planning Organiz ation (MPO) for the
Glens Falls Urbanized Area and th e entirety of Warren and Washington Counties and the
Town of Moreau in Saratoga County; and

Whereas,  Title 23 CFR Part 450 and Title 49 CFR Part 613 require that a  work program
describing the expected transpor tation planning activities be developed and adopted
each year by the Metropolitan Planning Organization; and

Whereas,  the Planning Committee to the Co uncil developed this Unified Planning Work
Program through the continuous,  comprehensive and cooperative transportation
planning process in coordination with state, regional and local  officials; and

Whereas,  this UPWP contains a full programming of existing fund balances  from
previous years; and

Whereas,  the Planning Committee recommend s that the Council adopt the 2017‐2019
UPWP;

Now Be It Therefore Resolved,  that the Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation Council
endorses the 2017‐2019 Unified  Planning Work Program; and

Be It Further Resolved,  that the Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation Council certifi es
that the requirements of 23 CFR  Part 450 have been met; and

Be It Further Resolved,  that the Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation Council
authorizes its Planning Committee to make necessary revisions t o this work program
during the course of the first year of this two‐year program; a nd

Be It Further Resolved,  that, as required, an administrative update to account for
revised financial estimates and  updated program status, to incl ude a new project
solicitation, will be conducted midway through this two‐year pr ogram;

Be It Further Resolved,  that the Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation Council
authorizes its Secretary to transmit this 2017‐2019 UPWP to the  New York State
Department of Transportation for  submission to the Federal Highway Administration to
secure highway planning funds; and

Be It Further Resolved,  that the Council also authorizes transmittal of this 2017‐2019
UPWP to NYSDOT to be used for an application by DOT to the Fede ral Transit
Administration to obtain transit planning funds on behalf of th e Council; and

– 3 –

A/GFTC Committees and Staff       2017

Policy Committee

Mitch Suprenant, Chair      Supervisor, Town of Fort Edward
John Strough, Vice‐Chair      Supervisor, Town of Queensbury
Sam Zhou, Secretary      Regiona l Director, NYSDOT Region 1
John E. Barton    Mayor, V illage of Hudson Falls
Robert M. Blais    Mayor, V illage of Lake George
R. Gardner Congdon      Supervisor, Town of Moreau
Ronald Conover    Chairman, Warren County Board of Supervisors
Jack Diamond    Mayor, City of Glens Falls
Dennis Dickinson    Supervisor, Town of Lake George
Catherine Fedler    Supervisor, Town of Cambridge
Robert Henke    Chairman, Washington County Board of Supervisor s
Dana Hogan    Supervisor, Town of Kingsbury
Edward Kinowski    Chairman, Saratoga County Board of Superviso rs
John LaPointe    Chairman, LC‐LG Regional Planning Board
Joseph Moloughney     Director, Albany Div. NYS Thruway Authority
Joe Orlow      Mayor, V illage of South Glens Falls
Frank Thomas    Supervisor, Town of Stony Creek
Matthew Traver    Mayor, V illage of Fort Edward

Planning Committee

Mike Valentine, Co‐Chair      Saratoga County Planning Board
Brian Abare     Superintendent, V illage of South Glens Falls DPW
Stuart Baker    Senior Planner, Town of Queensbury
Dan Barusch    Director, Town of Lake George Planning and Zonin g
Edward Bartholomew      Community a nd Econ. Dev. Director, City of Glens Falls
Frank Bonafide    RPPM, NYSDOT Region 1
Brian Brockway    Superintendent of Highways, Town of Fort Edwa rd
Tracy Conlon    Trustee, Village of Fort Edward
Michael Fiorillo     Superintendent of Public Works, V illage of Hudson Falls
David Harrington    Superintendent of Public Works, V illage of Lake George
Dana Hogan    Supervisor, Town of Kingsbury
Steven Haskins    Superintendent of Public Works, Washington Co unty
Wayne LaMothe    Director, Warren County Planning Department
Laura Oswald    Director, Washington County Economic Developmen t
Scott Sopczyk    Director, Greater Glens Falls Transit
Gary Tatro, Jr.    Assistant Albany Canal Engineer, NYS Canal C orporation
Jeffery Tennyson    Superintendent, Warren County DPW
Walter Young    Executive Director, LC/LG Regional Planning Boa rd

Advisory Members

Michael Canavan    FHWA Albany Division
Lisa Cataldo     NYSDOT, Statewide Planning Bureau
Richard Lenseth    Passenger Transport Division, NYSDOT
Daniel Moser    Community Planner, FTA
Marilyn Shazor    Regional Administrator, FTA Region II

A/GFTC Staff

Monika Bulman    Administrative Assistant
Aaron Frankenfeld    Director, Planning  Committee Co‐Chair
Jack Mance     Senior Transportation Planner

– 4 –

Overview of the
Adirondack / Glens Falls Transportation Council

The Adirondack / Glens Falls T ransportation Council Policy Committee (A/GFTC) is the
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) designated by the Gove rnor of the State of
New York for Warren and Washington Counties and the Town of Mor eau in Saratoga
County. It has the responsibility  of developing and maintaining both a Regional
Transportation Plan and a Transp ortation Improvement Program fo r the area’s federal
aid eligible highway and public transit facilities.

The Council was established in 1982, after the population of th e Glens Falls urbanized
area exceeded 50,000 as determine d by the 1980 Census.  At that time the geographic
area for the Council’s transportation planning was limited to t he Census‐defined
urbanized area, and the original name of the organization was t he Glens Falls Urban
Area Transportation Council.  In 1993, the Council voted  to expand its coverage to
include the rural areas of Warre n and Washington Counties and the entire town of
Moreau in Saratoga County. The o fficial name of the Council was later formally changed
to the Adirondack / Glens Falls Transportation  Council  to reflect that expansion .

The Council consists of two principal working groups – the Poli cy Committee and the
Planning Committee. The Policy Committee is responsible for rev iewing and approving
all planning undertaken by the Council and its staff.  This committee’s membership
includes the Chairmen of the Boards of Supervisors of Saratoga,  Warren and
Washington Counties, the Mayor of the City of Glens Falls, the  Mayors of the Villages of
South Glens Falls, Fort Edward, H udson Falls, and Lake George, the Supervisor of the
Town of Moreau in Saratoga County, the Supervisors of the Town  of Queensbury and
the Town of Lake George in Warren County, the Supervisors of th e Town of Fort Edward
and Town of Kingsbury in Washington County, the Chairman of the  Lake Champlain‐Lake
George Regional Planning Board,  the Regional Director from Region One of the New
York State Department of Transportation and the Albany Division  Director of the New
York State Thruway Authority. In addition, Warren and Washingto n Counties each
appoint one Town Supervisor from outside of the Glens Falls Urban Area to act as rural
representatives. The Federal Hig hway Administration, the Federa l Transit
Administration, and Greater Glens Falls Transit also provide re presentation to the
A/GFTC Policy Committee, each in  an Advisory Member capacity.

Policy Committee members also desi gnate a person to represent their municipality on
the A/GFTC Planning Committee.  Planning Committee members assu me an active role
in the development of plans and pr ograms dealing with local transportation issues and
addressing current and potential  problems with the state and local highway network
and the operation of the area’s transit service. Through the in tergovernmental forum of
A/GFTC and its Planning Committee, local and regional transport ation issues are
discussed and transportation plans and programs are developed.

– 5 –

Overview of the Unified Planning Work Program
The Unified Planning Work Progra m (UPWP) is the document that outlines the
transportation planning and programming activities that are to  be undertaken by
Council staff for the two State Fiscal Year (SFY) period betwee n April 1, 2017 and March
31, 2019.

This comprehensive work program is developed to advance the coordination of
transportation and transportation‐related planning activities i n the region. The
necessary funds that allow the Council to pursue the tasks listed in the UPWP are
provided by the Federal Highway  Administration and the Federal Transit Administration.

The tasks detailed in this docum ent will be conducted by staff working in the A/GFTC
offices in Glens Falls. Some addi tional technical assistance will be provided by staff at
the NYSDOT Region One Office of  Planning and Program Management  in Albany and
from Council members and their re spective agencies.  In addition, technical work may
be carried out under contract with private consulting firms.

2017 ‐ 2019 UPWP
This UPWP is formulated to provi de comprehensive, coordinated a nd continuing
transportation planning for the A/GFTC area. Infrastructure mai ntenance, safety
concerns, capacity and congestion problems, transit development , non‐motorized
transportation, and operations planning will receive appropriat e consideration. The
development and implementation o f federally‐aided transportation plans, programs,
and projects in the A/GFTC planning and programming area will be planned, approved,
and carried out in consultation and cooperation with officials  of federal, state, and local
agencies as well as the general  public. In‐kind services will be provided by Greater Glens
Falls Transit, NYSDOT and local agency staff as appropriate.

Typically, A/GFTC has adopted UPW Ps for a single State Fiscal Year at a time. By
preparing a two‐year program, t he Council was able to conduct a  more varied and
inclusive program solicitation.  An administrative update to re view financial status and
reassess program priorities (incl uding a new project solicitation) will be conducted prior
to the onset of the second year of the program.

Carryover Funds
Throughout its history, A/GFTC has accrued a positive fund balance of previously
unspent FHWA PL and FTA MPP funds. While MPP grants are drawn d own and closed
out on a three‐year cycle, small positive balances from year‐to ‐year are typical.  The
value of prior FHWA PL savings typically amounts to about one h alf of the amount of
new funds available to A/GFTC a nnually. The Council makes no effort to reserve or set
aside FHWA PL or FTA MPP carryover funds; this UPWP, like its preceding versions,
contains full programming of funds available from previous year s with the intention of
attempting to spend down those a ccrued savings. Organizational practice has been to
program the UPWP with a volume of tasks that provide the Counci l with options and the
opportunity to reassess prioritie s during the course of a given  year. By assigning all
previous savings from prior UPWPs towards a robust work program , staff flexibility to
entertain relevant work requests that are consistent with the i ncluded tasks and A/GFTC

– 6 –

planning principles is maximized, as is A/GFTC’s ability to wit hstand funding rescissions,
unforeseen amendments, or staffing changes during the course of  a program year.
Incomplete work elements or task s may be carried over into following years. Carryover
tasks from previous program years are identified as such within  this program.

Planning Factors and Emphasis Areas
A/GFTC  is  committed  towards  working  with  its  state  and  federal   partners  to  ensure
that  its  plans,  programs  and  activities  are  compliant  with  the   provisions  of  federal
transportation  law,  Fixing  America’s  Surface  Transportation  Act  (FAST  Act),  w hich
continues  the  policy  commitments  established  in  the  preceding  federal  law, Moving
Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP‐21).  Notably,  the  FAST  Act  requires  that
performance measurements and perf ormance‐based planning be  incorporated  into  the
MPO  process.  Specific  performanc e  measures  will  be  developed  to  advance
attainment of the following national goals:
 Safety—To achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and s erious injuries
on all public roads.
 Infrastructure condition—To maintain highway, bridge, and transit
infrastructure assets in a state of good repair.
 Congestion reduction—To achieve a significant reduction in congestion on the
NHS.
 System reliability—To improve the efficiency of the surface transportation
system.
 Freight movement and economic vitality—To improve the national freight
network, strengthen the ability of rural communities to access  national and
international trade markets, and  support regional economic deve lopment.
 Environmental sustainability—To enhance the performance of the
transportation system while protecting and enhancing the natura l environment.
 Reduced project delivery delays—To reduce project costs, promote jobs and the
economy, and expedite the movemen t of people and goods by accelerating
project completion through eliminating delays in the project de velopment and
delivery process, including reducing regulatory burdens and imp roving agencies’
work practices.
In addition to the federal planning factors, the following addi tional federal and State
emphasis areas identified to by  the New York State Department o f Transportation in its
UPWP Call Letter were considered during the formulation of the 2017‐2019 UPWP:
 In recognition of the need to  transition to performance‐based planning , UPWP
Task 2.10 includes the formulation  of a data collection strategy that is intended
to help A/GFTC identify and addr ess any noted deficiencies in information
gathering as is related to the satisfaction of performance reporting
requirements. Now that the relate d federal rulemaking is complete (as of
January 2017), that carryover t ask can now be advanced.
 Models of Regional Cooperation:   A/GFTC  is  an  active  participant  in  the  New
York  State  Association  of  Metropolitan  Planning  Organizations  ( NYSAMPO).
NYSAMPO  includes  all  MPOs  in  New  York  State  and  is  model  of  inf ormation

– 7 –

sharing  ;  technical  training,  and  working  groups  tasked  with  ad vancing  the  state
of  practice  within  specific  disciplines.  A/GFTC  also  enjoys  a  c ooperative  working
relationship  with  the  Capital  District  Transportation  Committee  (CDTC). In
addition  to  working  together  on  issues  related  to  traffic  model ing,  functional
classification,  regional  sustainability  and  economic  developmen t,  A/GFTC  and
CDTC (as well as two rural counties outside of the MPO areas) h ave been jointly
evaluating  regional  competitive  solicitation  funding  applicatio ns,  facilitated  as
needed  by  NYSDOT  Region  1.  This  arrangement  is  credited  to  have  resulted  in
more  funding  coming  in  to  the  Regi on  for  better  projects.  Other examples of
regional cooperation  A/GFTC participation with the Adirondack Gateway Council
and  an  infrastructure  vulnerability  assessment  that  involves  th e  neighboring
State of Vermont.
 Ladders of Opportunity:  Access to essential services has long been a priority for
A/GFTC.  Previous  work  program  products  have  resulted  in  access  plans  for  area
schools.  This  UPWP  features  several  tasks  designed  to  identify  improvements  to
mobility,  including  building  on  the  rural  transportation  recomm endations
developed  in  the  2016‐17  UPWP,  e xpanding  the  staff  coordination  between
A/GFTC and Greater Glens Falls Transit,  and expansion of the b icycle  and
pedestrian  transportation  netw ork  to  improve  access  to  established  recreation
areas.

Other priorities articulated i n the UPWP Call Letter include:
1. Planning Fund Allocations (see Appendix A)
2. FHWA PL Issues (see preceding narrative)
3. FTA Planning Grant Accounting (see Appendix C)
4. FTA  Compliance  and  Procurement  ‐  procedures  are  acknowledged  and  will  be
followed; FTA‐funded procurement successfully executed in SFY 1 6‐17
5. UPWP formatting (listings of cite d elements are inclusive and consistent)
6. Drawdown of FTA grants ‐ to the extent that is allowed by the t ask‐based
categorical  assignment  of  funds,  A/GFTC  makes  every  effort  to  c lose out FTA
grants in the order that those grants were opened
7. Timetable (draft UPWP is sche duled for approval by 3/08/17)

– 8 –

A/GFTC Accomplishments:   SFY 2016 ‐ 2017

o Completed and approved the 2016‐2021Transportation Improvement
Program.

o  Conducted solicitation and selection of Pavement Preservation Program
projects.

o Completed an infrast ructure flood vulnerability assessment for  the White
Creek watershed in t he Town of Salem.

o Completed a reassessment of the  Dix Avenue corridor, yielding substantial
capital project recommendation updates from the previous study conducted
in 2000.

o Completed an update and reprinti ng of the regional bicycling facilities map.

o Completed  a rural mobility needs assessment and options analys is for the
A/GFTC Planning and Programming A rea, including adherence to consultant
selection procedures as mandated by the FTA procurement guideli nes.

o Completed an access study from Av iation Road to the Queensbury Union Free
School District campus in  the Town of Queensbury.

o Initiated development of an RFP  for a regional traffic count program.

o Provided mapping and technical assistance to Greater Glens Fall s Transit.

o Provided transportation‐related  assistance, including bicycle and pedestrian
trail planning, to member muni cipalities as needed or requested .

o Continued to participate in  NYS Association of MPOs

o Continued to collect, maintain and disseminate transportation r elated data,
including completion of the fifth cycle of pavement scoring.

o Participated in Transportation Alternatives Program and FTA 5310 project
application reviews as coordinated by NYSDOT.

o Staff attended or participated in various professional developm ent seminars.

– 9 –

Adirondack  / Glens  Falls  Transportation  Council

2017‐2019
Unified Planning Work Program

Tasks

1. Program Support and Administration      Pg. 10
2. General Development and Comprehensive Planning      Pg. 13
3. Long Range Transportation Plan Activities     Pg. 20
4. Transportation Improvement  Program Development   Pg. 25

Financial Updates         Appendix A
A/GFTC Planning Principles       Appendix B
FTA Status Report         Appendix C

– 10 –

1.0                       Program Support and Administration
The effective operation of the Metropolitan Planning Organizati on is accomplished through the
coordination and communication of program goals and objectives  among A/GFTC, NYSDOT
staff, local officials, area residents, and other affected parties. The efforts and tasks described in
this work program are facilitated through essential administrative functions such as reporting,
accounting, meeting planning and related tasks.

The A/GFTC Transportation Planning Director reports to the LC‐L GRPB Executive Director
regarding routine administrative  matters as needed. As the host agency, the LC‐LGRPB provides
first instance funding for all MPO expenses.

Task 1.10                      General Administration

A/GFTC staff will :
 Carry out necessary administrative tasks as required, with assistance as needed from its
Host Agency, the Lake Champlain ‐ Lake George Regional Planning  Board (LC‐LGRPB), to:
o Satisfy administrative responsibilities associated with the operation of central staff
and the accomplishment of the Unified Planning Work Program, in cluding but not
necessarily limited to payment of rent, communications and corr espondence costs,
utilities, and procurement of materials, supplies, and  other a ccounting activities.
This will result in the enhanced and efficient operation of central staff and
administration of the UPWP.
o Plan, conduct and document necessary meetings of the various A/ GFTC active
committees, including the Planning  Committee and the Policy Committee.  Regular
scheduling and documentation of  A/GFTC committee meetings will be provided.
o Complete grant administrative re quirements, including the preparation and
submission of billings and required reports. This will provide essential accounting
functions to administer budget and grants.
o Facilitate the continuing professional development and educatio n of staff through
participation and attendance at relevant training programs, conferences, meetings
and workshops.
o Procure professional services t o update the A/GFTC website as n ecessary to enhance
utility as a communication portal.
o Plan and host relevant online seminars that will benefit and en hance the
professional development of the local transportation planning a nd engineering
community.
o Continue to participate within the New York State Association o f Metropolitan
Planning Organizations (NYSAMPO) and its various Working Groups .

Other Administrative Items:
 Administrative Costs:  As the designated host agency for A/GFTC, the Lake
Champlain‐Lake George Regional Planning Board will be reimbursed for expenses
incurred (not to exceed $22,000 an nually) for administrative services and support
that are necessary for the continued operation of the MPO.

– 11 –

 Equipment:  Maintain and replace computer h ardware and software, office
equipment and supplies as needed.
 Shared Cost Initiatives:  As part of UPWP development  each year, the 14 MPOs in
New York State collectively rese rve a limited amount of federal transportation
planning funds to fund a series of statewide shared cost initia tives (SCIs) and pay
annual dues to the Association of Metropolitan Planning Organiz ations (AMPO). As
available, NYSDOT has provided FHWA Statewide Planning and Rese arch funds to
NYSAMPO to supplement SCIs funded with FHWA PL and FTA MPP fund s. For SFY
2017‐18, the following activities will be advanced through the  SCI program:

 NYSAMPO Staff Support
Objective:  Provide administrative and technical support for
NYSAMPO efforts, including working groups.
Cost:  $250,000 ($150,000 FH WA PL and $100,000 FHWA
SPR via NYSDOT)  Lead Agency:  Capital Distric t Transportation Committee
 NYSAMPO Staff Training
Objective:  Provide relevant training and professional developm ent
opportunities for staffs and member agencies.
Cost:  $118,387  FHWA PL  and $29597 NYSDOT match (toll credits )
Lead Agency:  Genesee Transportation Council
 AMPO Dues
Objective:  Ensure that MPOs are aware of and considered in the
development of national transportation policy.
Cost:  $41,292 FHWA PL
Lead Agency:  Binghamton Metropolitan Transportation
Study (BMTS)
SCI Costs shown are total costs t o all MPOs. The required FHWA PL funds
are typically subtracted from the total funds available to the  MPOs in New York
State prior to a ‐formula‐based distribution.

Major Participants :   A/GFTC Staff
LC‐LGRPB Staff
NYSDOT Staff
Consultant Services (NYSAMPO Staff Support)
Staff from MPOs throughout NYS

Outcome / Products:  Continued administration of MPO process
Upgraded A/GFTC website
Timely and relevant information to member municipalities
Enhanced staff capabilities through training , peer
exchanges, and up‐to‐dat e hardware and software

Timeframe:        Ongoing

– 12 –

Task 1.20               Reporting and Compliance

A/GFTC staff  will :
 Complete and submit required FH WA and FTA grant reports on a mo nthly and
semiannual  basis to NYSDOT and relevant federal funding agenci es as required to
detail progress toward completi on of this work program.
 Complete and submit civil rights , self‐certification and other required reports as
necessary.  This will result in completed Title VI updates, upd ated Environmental
Justice reports triggered by changes to core planning documents , and other
documentation and submissions as necessary.
 Determine that the transportation planning process conducted by  A/GFTC is
addressing the major transportation issues in the metropolitan  area, and that the
process is in accordance with  applicable requirements.

Major Participants :   A/GFTC Staff
NYSDOT Staff

Outcome / Products:  Satisfaction of various reporting requirements and
completion of compliance documents

Timeframe:    Ongoing

Task 1.30                  UPWP Updates: 2017‐19 and 2019‐21

A/GFTC staff will:
 Complete the required administ rative update to the second year  of this work
program to reflect changes to funding levels and local and regi onal priorities.
Available resources and emerging planning needs will be examine d to incorporate
necessary changes as appropriate.  During the second year of this program, staff will
prepare the 2019‐‐21 UPWP.

Major Participants:    A/GFTC Staff
NYSDOT Staff
Local Agency Staff

Outcome / Products:  Updated set of regional transportation planning priorities
Completed administrative update of UPWP for SFY 2018‐19

Timeframe:    November 2017  ‐ March 2018 (2017‐19 admin. update)
November 2018  ‐ March 2019 (2019‐21 program)

– 13 –

2.0               General Development a nd Comprehensive Planning
The collection, organization, and sharing of transportation‐rel ated data and the provision of
transportation planning assistance to local communities serve t o support and add value to a
range of regional interests that participate in the operation a nd development of the regional
transportation system. A/GFTC will maintain those efforts throu gh the ongoing tasks outlined in
this section.
Transportation System Data Maintenance
Task 2.10        Transportation Data Inventory

A/GFTC staff will:
 Continue cooperative working relationships with various area ag encies and
municipalities to:
o Update and summarize transportat ion‐related system data.  This includes any
necessary data collection. Up‐to‐d ate regional transportation system
characteristics and information for the planning area will be s hared. For 2017‐18,
A/GFTC will restart its own traffic count program and will incl ude local, off‐
Federal‐aid highway network elements.
o Organize and report the data in a  manner and format that is suited to local
needs.  This includes providing a dditional analysis and related planning reviews
of the data as appropriate. Data and reports will be shared wit h member
municipalities and the public as is reasonable and appropriate.  Consideration will
be given towards developing an online data atlas in conjunction  with an
upgraded A/GFTC website and enhanced GIS capabilities.
o Monitor the ongoing system of data collection, and to change or  expand the
system to best reflect the changing needs of the local transpor tation system.
This includes the transition to performance based planning introduced by MAP‐
21 and continued in the FAST Ac t. Consultant assistance will be retained as
necessary and appropriate to identify, implement and maintain a  continuing
data collection process that sati sfies performance‐based reporting requirements.
o Continue collecting pavement condition data for the federal aid ‐eligible highway
system.

Major Participants:     A/GFTC Staff
NYSDOT Staff
Local Agency Staff
Consultant Services (as needed)

Outcome / Products:  Up‐to‐date transportation system information
Performance‐Based Planning Transition Strategy
Updated Pavement Condition Report
Schedules for
non‐recurring tasks :
Performance‐Based Planning Trans ition Strategy (carryover)  Apri l 2017 ‐ July 2017
Traffic count program       June  2017 ‐ Sept. 2017
June  2018 ‐ Sept. 2018
Pavement condition report      Oct. 2017 ‐ Dec.  2017
Oct. 2018‐ Dec.  2018

– 14 –

Task 2.20                   Transportation and Land Use

A/GFTC staff will:
 Continue to monitor current and emerging regional land use and development
patterns within the region and th e resulting effects on the transportation system.
This will be accomplished by tracking land use changes through communication and
interaction with local planning officials, including staff pres ence at municipal
meetings.
 Enhance the coordination of transportation and land use plannin g. Technical
assistance will also be provided to municipalities on potential traffic impacts of land
use decisions and proposals.  This will expand opportunities for transportation
planning input into local land use decisions.
 Provide improved traffic model outputs upon request.  Land use  changes will be
incorporated into the regional traffic simulation model and the  GIS.

Major Participants:   A/GFTC Staff
Local Agency Staff

Outcome / Products:  Enhanced coordination of local / regional planning efforts
Improved travel demand model

Timeframe:       Ongoing; assistance to  municipalities as requested

Task 2.30                          Transit Service Monitoring & Analysis

A/GFTC staff will:
Work with Greater Glens Falls Transit staff to update statistic al analyses of the area’s
public transit system performance.  Current GGFT service statistics for continuing
planning analysis and service improvement recommendations will  be produced as
requested. Passenger surveys will be considered as needed. Peri odic review of
GGFT’s ridership, expenditures, and safety performance within the context of
applicable targets and performanc e measures will be considered ass needed.
 Assist in the development of new and or improved intermodal lin ks where possible.
Additional service planning assistance will be provided as need ed.

Major Participants:  A/GFTC and GGFT Staff

Outcome / Products:  Updated system performance
Support to GGFT for planned system changes
Interagency coordination of tr ansit‐related data collection and
reporting

Timeframe:               Ongoing

Note:   A Memorandum of Understanding (MO U) was signed by GGFT and A/GFTC in
2003 that allows for additional direct contributions by GGFT st aff to advance
transit‐related UPWP tasks. That MOU will be updated for 2017 t o allow for

– 15 –

increased direct reimbursements from A/GFTC to GGFT (not to exc eed $20,000
annually)  for staff services related to the advancement of thi s and other transit‐
related planning tasks.

Task 2.40                           Safety Planning

A/GFTC staff will:
 Continue efforts to develop an are a highway safety monitoring program and
comprehensive safety planni ng process. This includes:
o Continuing to integrate availabl e data from ALIS, a portal that allows staff
efficient access to crash records.
o Updating regional crash summary reports, including updating the
compilations of crash incidents, rates and types for off‐State  system
highways on a countywide basis for Warren and Washington Counti es and
the Town of Moreau.
o Working to identify and address c orrectable deficiencies in support of
advancement of national safety goals and performance measures.
o Working in conjunction with the NYSMPO Safety Working Group and  state,
federal and local partners to de velop and implement a comprehen sive safety
planning process.
o Utilizing data to assist in the identification of needed transp ortation safety
improvements throughout the area.
o Coordinate Road Safety Assessmen ts (RSAs) to municipalities upon request.
o Work with GGFT to review safety performance related to public
transportation operations.
The desired result will be advance ment of an areawide comprehensive safety
planning program that is consist ent both with the state DOT program and with the
fundamentals of the Safety Conscious Planning initiative. Identification of high
accident rate locations off the State system will also be provi ded along with
recommendations for countermeasur es and inclusion in the TIP as warranted.

Major Participants :      A/GFTC Staff
NYSDOT Region 1 Staff
Local Agency Staff
NYSMPO Association

Outcome / Products:  Updated safety scans for all three counties
Upgraded methodology for system‐wide data
maintenance and reporting
Enhanced data for capital programming
Transit safety performance measurement

Timeframe:     Ongoing

– 16 –

Task 2.50                          Alternative Transportation Promotion and Development

A/GFTC staff will:
 Continue working with area bicyc ling, pedestrian and transit groups to plan and
promote the development and improvement of facilities for non‐a utomobile forms
of personal transportation. Th is will be accomplished through the following:
o Continuing to serve on the advis ory board for Greater Glens Falls Transit to
discuss and promote greater public  awareness and use of alternative
transportation modes.
o Production and distribution of the regional bicycle map.
o Continued participation with the Warren County Safe and Quality  Bicycling
Organization.
o Assisting in planning efforts to provide the necessary faciliti es to increase the
utility of shared facilities to accommodate alternative modes w ithin the area
transportation system. This may include streetscape improvements, route
system planning, sign placement, traffic calming and similar ac tivities.
o Reviewing capital project design s for inclusion of accommodations for
bicyclists and pedestrians.
o Integrating and jointly administering GGFT’s and A/GFTC’s websi te.
o Administering the Make the Connection Program, including capita l project
solicitation and sponsor assistance to implement small‐scale im provement to
the regional bicycle and pedestrian network.
o Promoting and encouraging the use of energy‐efficient transport ation
alternatives such as walking, bicycling, and transit.
o Maintaining integration with CDTC’s ipool2, the regional online ridesharing
matching service.
o Identifying opportunities to incorporate Complete Streets plann ing principles
into preservation and maintenance projects.

Major Participants :      A/GFTC Staff
Local Agency Staff
NYSDOT Region 1 Staff
Co nsultant Services

Outcome / Products:  Continued promotion of alternative transportation options
Inclusion of bicyclist and pedestrian accommodations in
capital projects

Timeframe:     Ongoing

– 17 –

Task 2.60                                Public Participation

A/GFTC staff will:
 Encourage and promote enhanced  understanding of and access to the
transportation planning process by elected officials, planning  and zoning boards and
the general public. This include s a continued commitment to pub lic outreach and
providing educational materials and publications.  Mechanisms f or the distribution
of transportation planning ‐ related information and opportunit ies for input will be
provided as appropriate.
 Continue to apply A/GFTC’s Public  Involvement Policy to all ongoing activities and
maintain compliance with federal  regulations for public outreach.
 Procure consultant service s to update A/GFTC’s website.
 Continue to explore ways that A/GFTC staff can reach a broader  public audience.
 Facilitate intermunicipal communication and coordination of pla nning activities.

Participants:     A/GFTC Staff

Outcome / Products:  Enhanced public outreach techniques and effectiveness.

Timeframe:    Ongoing; website update initiat ed in SFY 16‐17 to carry over into
Spring 2017

Task 2.70       Program Coordination  & Local Government Assistance (MPO staff)

A/GFTC staff will:
 Provide effective program development and coordination between  A/GFTC staff,
NYSDOT staff and various local a gencies and municipalities. Coordinating MPO
activities with municipal, NYS DOT and neighboring MPO efforts w ill ensure effective
and efficient transportation planning. It will also enhance awareness of
transportation/land use linkages and transportation planning at  the local
government level.
 Assist local governments in securing funding for transportation needs and in
assessing and mitigating traffic impacts of land use developmen t. This entails
communicating with local officials and A/GFTC members on a regu lar basis regarding
specific transportation infrastructure and planning issues. Coo rdination between
various agency staff and local officials will assist in complet ing the tasks identified in
the current work program. Administration of transportation‐rela ted grants that are
consistent with A/GFTC Planning Principles (see Appendix B) on  behalf of member
municipalities will be con sidered upon request.
 Provide transportation planning assistance as needed to local m unicipalities and the
public. Planning analyses of municipal transportation related p rojects that may have
regional significance will be c onducted by staff. All informati on and analysis
requested by local officials, the public, media and various area public and private
agencies will be compiled and distributed.
 Maintain a presence with local municipal officials and meet wit h various local
groups, government boards, and the public as necessary to discu ss transportation
issues and planning efforts. Increased staff presence at munici pal meetings will be

– 18 –

provided. This will strengthen the channels of communication co ncerning
transportation activities in the Glens Falls area.

Major Participants:    A/GFTC Staff
N YSDOT Staff
Local Agency Staff

Outcome / Products:  Staff assistance to municipalities.
Improved coordination of local and regional planning
efforts.

Timeframe:    Ongoing

Task 2.80        Local Transportation Planning and Engineering Assistance Program

A/GFTC staff will:
 Provide access to transportation planning and engineering exper tise on an as‐
needed basis for eligible municipal transportation projects and proposals that are
consistent with A/GFTC goals. This will result in quality local transportation projects
consistent with regional objectives.
 Facilitate convenient access by  area municipalities to professional transportation
engineering expertise for review  of developer traffic impact study proposals. This
will facilitate access to private  transportation planning/engineering consultants for
municipalities in situations where levels of assistance and exp ertise required are
beyond what would be readily available directly from A/GFTC sta ff through the
maintenance of hourly fee‐for‐se rvice contracts with up to three private consultants
for short term or minor Traffic  Impact Study reviews or similar  generic tasks.

Projects funded under this task w ill be reviewed and approved by the A/GFTC
Planning Committee. This arrangem ent could also be utilized to provide additional
expertise to the A/GFTC on an as‐needed basis to supplement ong oing MPO
activities and other tasks listed in this UPWP. A portion of th is program will be
awarded by way of competitive solicitation.

Major Participants:    A/GFTC Staff
Local  Agency Staff
Consultant Services

Outcome / Products:  Professional planning and engineering assistance to
municipalities for specific initiatives.

Timeframe:    Ongoing; candidate projects are c onsidered as they are proposed
and as funding allows.

Village of Greenwich parking and pedestrian study      July 2017 ‐ October 2017

– 19 –

Task 2.90                 Geographic  Information Systems (GIS) Support and Operation

A/GFTC staff will:

 Continue the utilization of GIS as a valuable and integral tool  that supports most of
the planning and support activities outlined in this program.
 Research and procure necessary hardware and software to optimiz e GIS utilization.
 Procure consultant assistance as n ecessary to develop databases and applications
that enhance staff productivity and capability.

Major Participants :   A/GFTC Staff
Local  Agency Staff
Consultant Services

Outcome / Products:  Functional and up‐to‐date GIS database and operating
platform to support ongoing A/GFTC activities.

Timeframe:    Ongoing

– 20 –

3.0            Long Range Transportation Planning
A principal task of the A/GFTC staff is to conduct studies and  develop plans that inform and
guide members of the Planning a nd  Policy Committees in their decisions towards planning and
implementing longer‐term improve ment concepts and developing the Transportation
Improvement Program.  While the Long Range Plan (LRP) sets the  direction for major
transportation investments in the A/GFTC Planning and Programmi ng Area over a 20‐ to 25‐
year horizon, tasks derived from the LRP require continued coor dination of program efforts and
data collection, refinements of the LRP, inclusion of the publi c in the scoping of major capital
investments, and the consideratio n of new transportation issues that may have arisen since the
adoption of the LRP.

Task 3.10               Long Range Plan (LRP) Update

A/GFTC staff will:
 Continue the commitments of  2035 Ahead, the A/GFTC  Long Range Plan.
 Update and amend  2035 Ahead as warranted by emerging federal guidance related
to performance measurement.
 Initiate LRP development f or a 2040 horizon date.

Major Participants:    A/GFTC Staff
NYSDOT Staff
Local Agency Staff

Outcome / Products:  Current and compliant LRP

Timeframe:    Ongoing; LRP cycle calls for completed update by June 2018.

Task 3.20                                    Travel Demand Modeling

A/GFTC staff will:
 Continue to improve the quality, accuracy and reliability of A/ GFTC’s regional  travel
demand model and its outputs for use in long range planning efforts. Consultant
expertise will be retained as n eeded to assist with validation  and improvements to
the model. The end products will be:  o Simulations for current and futu re conditions using the most current traffic
forecast and growth rates data  for use in project planning.
o Development and refinements of both peak and off‐peak seasonal  models to
better assess tourism‐related t raffic impacts and future demand .
o Identification of transportation  measures that reduce energy co nsumption
and pollution emissions.

Major Participants:    A/GFTC Staff
Consultant Services

– 21 –

Outcome / Products:  Improved and comprehensive long range travel demand
forecasting capabilities.

Timeframe:     Ongoing; model is updated as new inputs are available.

Task 3.30                    General Transit Planning

A/GFTC staff will:
 Assist GGFT with the effective p rogramming of its available and projected financial
resources as consistent with it s long term service goals. This  will include working
with GGFT to monitor its availabl e capital resources for operational and equipment
replacement needs.
 Provide long term planning and analytical assistance to local t ransportation service
providers as needed.
 Consider strategies to implement recommendations from the A/GFT C Rural Mobility
Needs Assessment and Options Analysis, initiated in 2016 as a comprehensive
analysis of rural transportati on challenges and mobility opport unities, with the goal
of formulating recommendations for improved and appropriately s caled
transportation service options.
 Work with GGFT to identify capital investments that will identi fy and advance
progress towards attaining and preserving state of good repair.
 Help transit providers gauge and prepare for the changing long  term transportation
demands of an aging population.  This will be accomplished by reviewing available
data and using regional long term population projections to ass ess impacts of
changing area demographics a nd residential patterns.
 Assist communities and the general public in quantifying existi ng and future needs
for transit services.
 Complete an update to the Coordina ted Human Services Transportation Plan.
 Continue to work towards a Regional Mobility Management Plan th at builds from
the priorities included in the C oordinated Human Services Transportation Plan and
establishes a strategy to develo p a functional and comprehensiv e system of mobility
management that improves transportation options and reduces dup lication of
operations.

Major Participants :   A/GFTC Staff
GGFT Staff
Local Agency Staff
Local Transportation and Human Service Providers
Consultant Services

Outcome / Products:  Enhanced regional planning for the continued efficient and
effective operation of public t ransportation, improved mobility
services, and mobility management

– 22 –

Timeframe:       Ongoing; Coordinated Human Services Transportation Plan upd ate to be
completed by March 2018

Note:   A Memorandum of Understanding (MO U) was signed by GGFT and A/GFTC in
2003 that allows for additional direct contributions by GGFT st aff to advance
transit‐related UPWP tasks. That MOU will be updated for 2017 t o allow for
increased direct reimbursements from A/GFTC to GGFT (not to exc eed $20,000
annually)  for staff services related to the advancement of thi s and other transit‐
related planning tasks.

Task 3.40        Intelligent Trans portation Systems (ITS) Architecture Development

A/GFTC staff will:
 Continue to collect relevant data  for congested components of the local
transportation system while working to identify and implement p ossible future ITS
project applications that will enhance the efficiency of the ar ea’s transportation
system by aiding in congestion management.
 Work to support the efforts of  NYSDOT and other area agencies a s needed to
identify potential ITS project applications in the area and to  develop an ITS
architecture that would permit f uture federal funding for ITS–related projects. This
will result in the identification and assessments of ITS projec t candidates for
inclusion in future Transportation Improvement Programs or prog ramming through
other local initiatives.

Major Participants :   A/GFTC Staff
Consultant Services
NYSDOT Staff
Local Agency Staff

Outcome / Products:  Completed ITS architecture document.

Timeframe:       Carryover task; Region 1 DOT staff has communicated to
A/GFTC that the development of a separate ITS
architecture for the Glens Falls area is not warranted at
this time, but the task to develop that architecture will be
retained on this work program should that
recommendation change.

Task 3.50                             Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning

A/GFTC staff will:
 Progress plans for a comprehensive  regional network of bicycle routes, sidewalks,
street crossings and shoulders to enhance and improve facilitie s for bicyclists and
pedestrians throughout the area as needed and appropriate. This  includes:
o Continuing with the implementation of projects and goals outlin ed in the
Bicycle and Pedestrian element o f the Long Range Plan and A/GFTC’ Regional
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan.

– 23 –

o Assisting municipalities in develo ping bicycle and pedestrian plans.
o Working with relevant municipalities, community groups, and oth er
organizations as appropriate to implement plan elements and dev elop new
bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. Specific initiatives identified during the
candidate project solicitatio n for this UPWP include:

Halfway Brook Trail Extension, Queensbury:     April 2017 ‐ July  2017
Murray Street / Pruyn’s Island Bike / Ped Access, GF   May 2017  ‐ August 2017
Warren County Bikeway Extension    June  2017 ‐ December 2017
North Creek / Ski Bowl Bike / Ped Access      July 2017 ‐ December  2017
Saratoga County Rail Trail and Reservoir
Connection,  Moreau / SGF    April  2018 ‐ July 2018
Connections to Recreational Facilities,
Queensbury (carryover)    April  2018 ‐ August 2018
Champlain Canalway / Feeder Canal,
Kingsbury (carryover)     June  2018  ‐ December 2018

Major Participants:    A/GFTC Staff
NYSDOT Staff
Local Agency Staff
Consultant Services

Outcome / Products:  Strategic and comprehensive development and
implementation of planned im provements to the bicycle
and pedestrian transportation network.

Timeframe:        Ongoing; candidate projects listed above that were identified
through the annual project solicitation are to be advanced  based
upon committee prioritization and municipal readiness.

Task 3.60                             Climate Change Adaptation Plan ning

A/GFTC staff will:
 Work with interested municipalities to identify and quantify tr ansportation
infrastructure that may be vulnerable to severe weather events  related to climate
change, and develop strategie s to assist municipalities in purs uing related
improvements. This includes:  o Working with state, county and local officials as well as envir onmental
stakeholders to determine a scope of work for a climate change  vulnerability
assessment on a county‐wide basis.
o Working with other relevant community groups, agencies, and org anizations
as appropriate.
o Assisting municipalities in developing specific strategies for  capital or other
improvements which address vulne rabilities identified as part of this task.

– 24 –

Major Participants:    A/GFTC Staff
NYSDOT Staff
Local Agency Staff
Consultant Services

Outcome / Products:  Vulnerability assessments and adaptation strategies for
participating municipalities

Timeframe:        Ongoing; requests for assistan ce to municipalities to be
considered as those are received

Task 3.70                 Route 9 Co rridor Study ‐ Glens Falls / Queensbury

A/GFTC staff will:
 Provide staff and consultant services to conduct a comprehensiv e transportation
analysis of the Route 9 Corridor in the City of Glens Falls and  the Town of
Queensbury.

Major Participants:  A/GFTC staff
NYSDOT staff
Local Agency staff
Consultant Services

Outcome / Products:  Corridor Study for the Route9 Corridor, from downtown Glens Fal ls
north to Round Pond Road.

Timeframe:       Carryover task dependent upo n completion of externally
administered activities prior to initiation; estimated project span
from April 2018 ‐ October 2018.

– 25 –

4.0                       Transportat ion Improvement Program
The current 2016‐2021 TIP was adopted in June 2016 . Development of the 2018‐2023 TIP is
scheduled for completion in June 2018.
Task 4.10                   2016 ‐ 2021 TIP Maintenance and Implementation

A/GFTC staff will:
 Maintain a current and accurate T IP that reflects the up‐to‐date status of all listed
projects. This includes processi ng requested TIP amendments as needed.
 Continue to work with NYSDOT Region 1 to identify and implement  project
candidates that can be advanced in  the event of targeted project solicitations.
 Conduct project solicitations and selection for the various loc al preservation and
safety setasides.

Major Participants:   A/GFTC Staff
NYSDOT Staff
GGFT staff
Consultant Services

Outcome / Products:  Continued program management in response to sponsor
requests in order to maximize project delivery

Timeframe:    Ongoing through September 2018
Task 4.20         2018 ‐ 2023 TIP Development and Implementation

A/GFTC staff will:
 Complete an update to the five yea r transportation program. This will include:
o Developing revenue projections for the new TIP period, in conjunction with
NYSDOT and GGFT.
o Reviewing and selecting projects for funding.
o Soliciting candidates for the capital project setasides.
o Amending and maintaining the TIP as necessary to reflect curren t priorities
and programming capacity.

Major Participants:    A/GFTC Staff
GGFT
Local Agency Staff
NYSDOT Staff

Outcome / Products:  Completed 2018 ‐ 2023 Transp ortation Improvement
Program.

Timeframe:     September 2017 ‐ September 2018.

– 26 –

Task 4.30    Bridge Preservation Analysis and Asset Management Plans ‐ update

A/GFTC staff will:
 Procure the services of a qualif ied transportation engineering  firm to analyze bridge
condition data for all locally‐owned bridges in the A/GFTC in o rder to provide repair
recommendations and investment st rategies for each County and for A/GFTC.
The result will be the updated br idge preservation and asset management plans for
each County in the A/GFTC area.

Major Participants:    Consultant Services
A/GFTC Staff
NYSDOT Staff
Local Agency Staff

Outcome / Products:  Updated bridge preservation and asset management
plans and supporting data.

Timeframe:     Initial asset management plans completed in 2015. Update
anticipated for May 2018 ‐ July 2018.

Appendix A

Financial Update

2017-2019 Planning Grants Available to A/GFTC
FHWA:2017/20182018/2019
Available
ProgrammedAvailableProgrammed
New Funds 311,951 311,951 311,951 311,951
Available Savings 111,495 111,495 111,494 111,494
FHWA PL Funds Programmed 423,44
6423,445
NYSDOT Required Match INK 79,39679,396
Local Required Match 26,46526,465
TOTAL FHWA Program 529,307529,306
FTA:*
Programmed Expended Unspent Programmed
Through 3-31-17
Through 3-31-17Balance 2017-2019
Grant No. X024
Federal 6,981 6,981 0 0
State 1,295 1,295 0 0
Local 2,720 2,720 0 0
TOTAL 10,996 10,996 0 0
Grant No. X025
Federal 44,190 43,545 645 645
State 8,300 6,500 1,800 1,800
Local 2,762 962 1,800 1,800
TOTAL 55,252 51,007 4,245 4,245
Grant No. X026
Federal 44,551 39,101 5,450 5,450
State 8,353 4,190 4,163 4,163
Local 2,784 279 2,505 2,505
TOTAL 55,688 43,570 12,118 12,118
Grant No. X027 (2017-18)
Federal 45,065 0 45,065 45,065
State 8,449 0 8,449 8,449
Local 2,816 0 2,816 2,816
TOTAL 56,330 0 56,330 56,330
Grant No. X028 (2018-19)
Federal 45,065 0 45,065 45,065
State 8,449 0 8,449 8,449
Local 2,816 0 2,816 2,816
TOTAL 56,330 0 56,330 56,330
TOTAL FTA Available & Programmed (federal $) 2017-201
851,160
TOTAL NYSDOT Match 14,412
TOTAL LOCAL Match 7,121
TOTAL FTA PROGRAM 72,693
TOTAL Combined Program (federal $) 474,606
TOTAL Matched Program (2017-18) 602,000
TOTAL FTA Available & Programmed (federal $) 2018-201
945,065
TOTAL NYSDOT Match 8,449
TOTAL LOCAL Match 2,816
TOTAL FTA PROGRAM 56,330
TOTAL Combined Program (federal $) 468,510
TOTAL Matched Program (2018-2019) 585,63
6
TOTAL Combined Program 2017-2019 (federal $)943,116
TOTAL Matched Program 2017-20191,187,636

A/GFTC AUDITABLE BUDGET2017-2019 FHWA PL BUDGET
OBLIGATION DATE 4/01/17
APPROVED PROJECT BUDGET TOTA
LFederal NYSDOT Local
P217.11.881
Central StaffMATCH*Match
44.20.01 PERSONNEL 382,709 348,304 34,405
44.20.02 FRINGE 144,525 126,000 18,525
44.20.03 TRAVEL, TRAINING 14,000 14,000
44.20.04 EQUIPMENT 13,000 13,000
44.20.05 SUPPLIES(INCLUDES 6,500 6,500 PRINTING & COPIES) 0
44.20.06 CONTRACTUAL 250,287 250,287
44.20.07 UTILITIES 1,800 1,800
44.20.08 TELEPHONE,POSTAGE 9,000 9,000
44.20.09 INDIRECT 78,000 78,000
TOLL CREDITS 158,792 158,792
TOTAL 1,058,613 846,891 158,792 52,930
TOTA
L
FEDERAL 846,891 846,891
STATE 158,792158,792
LOCAL 52,93052,930
TOTA
L1,058,613 846,891 158,792 52,930
APPROVED TASK BUDGE
TTOTAL
44.21.00 PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION 380,313 317,708 59,105 3,500
44.22.00 GEN. DEV. & COMP. PLANNING 352,391 284,129 39,492 28,770
44.23.00 LONG RANGE TRANSP. PLANNING 241,977 201,054 23,160 17,763
44.25.00 TRANSP. IMPROVEMENT PLAN 83,932 44,000 37,035 2,897
TOTA
L1,058,613 846,891 158,792 52,930

-Appendix A-

A/GFTC AUDITABLE BUDGET2017-2018 FHWA PL BUDGET
OBLIGATION DATE 4/01/17
APPROVED PROJECT BUDGET TOTAL Federal NYSDOTLocal
P217.11.881
Central StaffMATCH*Match
44.20.01 PERSONNEL 191,355 174,15217,203
44.20.02 FRINGE 72,262 63,0009,262
44.20.03 TRAVEL, TRAINING 7,000 7,000
44.20.04 EQUIPMENT 6,500 6,500
44.20.05 SUPPLIES(INCLUDES 3,250 3,250
PRINTING & COPIES)
44.20.06 CONTRACTUAL 125,144 125,144
44.20.07 UTILITIES 900 900
44.20.08 TELEPHONE,POSTAGE 4,500 4,500
44.20.09 INDIRECT 39,000 39,000
TOLL CREDITS 79,39679,396
TOTAL 529,307 423,446 79,396 26,465
TOTAL
FEDERAL 423,446 423,446
STATE 79,39679,396
LOCAL 26,46526,465
TOTAL 529,307 423,446 79,396 52,930
APPROVED
TASK BUDGET TOTAL
44.21.00 PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION 190,157 158,855 29,552 1,750
44.22.00 GEN. DEV. & COMP. PLANNING 176,195 142,064 19,746 14,385
44.23.00 LONG RANGE TRANSP. PLANNING 120,988 100,527 11,580 8,881
44.25.00 TRANSP. IMPROVEMENT PLAN 41,967 22,000 18,518 1,449
TOTAL 529,307 423,446 79,396 26,465

-Appendix A-

A/GFTC AUDITABLE BUDGET2018-2019 FHWA PL BUDGET
OBLIGATION DATE 4/01/18
APPROVED PROJECT BUDGET TOTAL Federal NYSDOTLocal
P218.11.881
Central StaffMATCH*Match
44.20.01 PERSONNEL 191,355 174,15217,203
44.20.02 FRINGE 72,262 63,0009,262
44.20.03 TRAVEL, TRAINING 7,000 7,000
44.20.04 EQUIPMENT 6,500 6,500
44.20.05 SUPPLIES(INCLUDES 3,250 3,250
PRINTING & COPIES) 0
44.20.06 CONTRACTUAL 125,143 125,143
44.20.07 UTILITIES 900 900
44.20.08 TELEPHONE,POSTAGE 4,500 4,500
44.20.09 INDIRECT 39,000 39,000
TOLL CREDITS 79,39679,396
TOTAL 529,306 423,445 79,396 26,465
TOTAL
FEDERAL 423,445 423,445
STATE 79,39679,396
LOCAL 26,46526,465
TOTAL 529,306 423,445 79,396 52,930
APPROVED
TASK BUDGET TOTAL
44.21.00 PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION 190,157 158,855 29,552 1,750
44.22.00 GEN. DEV. & COMP. PLANNING 176,194 142,063 19,746 14,385
44.23.00 LONG RANGE TRANSP. PLANNING 120,988 100,527 11,580 8,881
44.25.00 TRANSP. IMPROVEMENT PLAN 41,967 22,000 18,518 1,449
TOTAL 529,306 423,445 79,396 26,465

-Appendix A-

A/GFTC AUDITABLE BUDGET2017-2018
FTA ACCOUNTING TOTAL FTA 025 FTA 026 FTA 027
BUDGET
44.20.01 PERSONNEL 31,968 2,800 4,608 24,560
44.20.02 FRINGE 15,776 1,300 4,060 10,416
44.20.03 TRAVEL, TRAINING 27025 50 195
44.20.04 EQUIPMENT 1000 50 50
44.20.05 SUPPLIES(INCLUDES 1750 75 100
PRINTING & COPIES)
44.20.06 CONTRACTUAL 14,42000 14,420
44.20.07 UTILITIES 12525 50 50
44.20.08 TELEPHONE,POSTAGE 57550 325 200
44.20.09 INDIRECT 9,28445
2,900 6,339
TOTAL 72,693 4,245 12,118 56,330
TOTAL FTA 025 FTA 026 FTA 026
FEDERAL 51,160 645 5,450 45,065
STATE* 14,412 1,800 4,163 8,449
LOCAL 7,121 1,800 2,505 2,816
TOTAL 72,693 4,245 12,118 56,330
PROGRAM
TASK BUDGET TOTAL
CODE(FTA)
44.21.00 PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION 24,896 1,138 3,340 20,418
44.22.00 GEN. DEV. & COMP. PLANNING 25,544 1,716 4,950 18,878
44.23.00 LONG RANGE TRANSP. PLANNING 19,530 1,191 2,905 15,434
44.25.00 TRANSP. IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2,723 200 923 1,600
TOTAL 72,693 4,245 12,118 56,330
-Appendix A-

A/GFTC PROJECT BUDGETFTA Grant 025(carryover)
2017-18 FTA MPP BudgetTOTAL Federal NYSDOT Local
P215.11.80
ACentral StaffMATCH Match
44.20.01 PERSONNEL 2,800 400 1,200 1,200
44.20.02 FRINGE 1,300 100 600 600
44.20.03 TRAVEL, TRAINING 2525
44.20.04 EQUIPMENT 00
44.20.05 SUPPLIES(INCLUDES 00
PRINTING & COPIES)
44.20.06 CONTRACTUAL 00
44.20.07 UTILITIES 2525
44.20.08 TELEPHONE,POSTAGE 5050
44.20.09 INDIRECT 4545

TOTAL 4,245 645 1,800 1,800
FTA 2016 TOTAL
FEDERAL 645 645
STATE* 1,8001,800
LOCAL 1,8001,800
TOTAL 4,245 645 1,800 1,800
APPROVED
TASK BUDGET TOTAL
CODE(FTA)
44.21.00 PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION 1,138 245 625 268
44.22.00 GEN. DEV. & COMP. PLANNING 1,716 200 695 821
44.23.00 LONG RANGE TRANSP. PLANNING 1,191 200 370 621
44.25.00 TRANSP. IMPROVEMENT PLAN 200 – 110 90
TOTAL 4,245 645 1,800 1,800

-Appendix A-

A/GFTC PROJECT BUDGETFTA Grant 026(carryover)
2017-18 FTA MPP BudgetTOTAL Federal NYSDOT Local
P216.11.80
ACentral StaffMATCH Match
44.20.01 PERSONNEL 4,608 2,000 1,003 1,605
44.20.02 FRINGE 4,060 2,000 1,160 900
44.20.03 TRAVEL, TRAINING 5050
44.20.04 EQUIPMENT 5050
44.20.05 SUPPLIES(INCLUDES 7575
PRINTING & COPIES)
44.20.06 CONTRACTUAL 00
44.20.07 UTILITIES 5050
44.20.08 TELEPHONE,POSTAGE 325 325
44.20.09 INDIRECT 2,900 900 2,000
TOTAL 12,118 5,450 4,163 2,505
FTA 2016 TOTAL
FEDERAL 5,450 5,450
STATE* 4,1634,163
LOCAL 2,5052,505
TOTAL 12,118 5,450 4,163 2,505
APPROVED
TASK BUDGET TOTAL
CODE(FTA)
44.21.00 PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION 3,340 2,400 940
44.22.00 GEN. DEV. & COMP. PLANNING 4,950 1,900 1,550 1,500
44.23.00 LONG RANGE TRANSP. PLANNING 2,905 900 1,000 1,005
44.25.00 TRANSP. IMPROVEMENT PLAN 923 250 673
TOTAL 12,118 5,450 4,163 2,505

-Appendix A-

A/GFTC PROJECT BUDGETFTA Grant 027(new)
2017-18 FTA MPP BudgetTOTAL Federal NYSDOT Local
P217.11.80
ACentral StaffMATCH*Match
44.20.01 PERSONNEL 24,560 20,000 2,730 1,830
44.20.02 FRINGE 10,416 6,970 2,460 986
44.20.03 TRAVEL, TRAINING 195 195
44.20.04 EQUIPMENT 5050
44.20.05 SUPPLIES(INCLUDES 100 100
PRINTING & COPIES)
44.20.06 CONTRACTUAL 14,420 14,420
44.20.07 UTILITIES 5050
44.20.08 TELEPHONE,POSTAGE 200 200
44.20.09 INDIRECT 6,339 3,080 3,259
TOTAL 56,330 45,065 8,449 2,816
FTA 2016 TOTAL
FEDERAL 45,065 45,065
STATE* 8,4498,449
LOCAL 2,8162,816
TOTAL 56,330 45,065 8,449 2,816
APPROVED
TASK BUDGET TOTAL
CODE(FTA)
44.21.00 PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION 20,418 17,314 2,633 471
44.22.00 GEN. DEV. & COMP. PLANNING 18,878 15,325 2,400 1,153
44.23.00 LONG RANGE TRANSP. PLANNING 15,434 12,126 2,216 1,092
44.25.00 TRANSP. IMPROVEMENT PLAN 1,600 300 1,200 100
TOTAL 56,330 45,065 8,449 2,816
-Appendix A-

A/GFTC PROJECT BUDGETFTA Grant 028(new)
2018-19 FTA MPP BudgetTOTAL Federal NYSDOT Local
P218.11.80
ACentral StaffMATCH*Match
44.20.01 PERSONNEL 22,560 18,000 2,730 1,830
44.20.02 FRINGE 12,416 8,970 2,460 986
44.20.03 TRAVEL, TRAINING 9595
44.20.04 EQUIPMENT 5050
44.20.05 SUPPLIES(INCLUDES 100 100
PRINTING & COPIES)
44.20.06 CONTRACTUAL 15,000 15,000
44.20.07 UTILITIES 5050
44.20.08 TELEPHONE,POSTAGE 300 300
44.20.09 INDIRECT 5,759 2,500 3,259
TOTAL 56,330 45,065 8,449 2,816
FTA 2016 TOTAL
FEDERAL 45,065 45,065
STATE* 8,4498,449
LOCAL 2,8162,816
TOTAL 56,330 45,065 8,449 2,816
APPROVED
TASK BUDGET TOTAL
CODE(FTA)
44.21.00 PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION 20,418 17,314 2,633 471
44.22.00 GEN. DEV. & COMP. PLANNING 18,878 15,325 2,400 1,153
44.23.00 LONG RANGE TRANSP. PLANNING 15,434 12,126 2,216 1,092
44.25.00 TRANSP. IMPROVEMENT PLAN 1,600 300 1,200 100
TOTAL 56,330 45,065 8,449 2,816

-Appendix A-

2017-2019 A/GFTC UNIFIED PLANNING WORK PROGRAM
FHWA ProgramFTA ProgramLCLGRPBLCLGRPB
TASK TASK TOTAL$ FHWA $ A/GFTC NYSDOT LOCAL FTA $ A/GFTC NYSDOT LOCAL
NO. SUBTOTAL DIRECT $ $ IN-KIND IN-KIND SUBTOTAL DIRECT $ $ $
1.00
Program Support and Administration425,627 380,313 317,708 59,105 3,500 45,314 37,273 6,831 1,210
1.10 General Administration
1.20 Reporting and Compliance
1.30 UPWP Updates – 2018-19 and 2019-21
2.00
General Development and Comprehensive Planning396,813 352,391 284,129 39,492 28,770 44,422 32,750 7,045 4,627
2.10 Transportation Data Inventory
2.20 Transportation and Land Use
2.30 Transit Service Monitoring and Analysis
2.40 Safety Planning
2.50 Alternative Transportation Promotion and Development
2.60 Public Participation
2.70 Program Coordidation / Local Govt. Assistance (staff)
2.80
Local Transportation Planning & Engineering Assistance2.90 GIS Support & Operation
3.00
Long Range Transportation Planning276,941 241,977 201,054 23,160 17,763 34,964 25,352 5,802 3,810
3.10 Long Range Plan Update
3.20 Travel Demand Modeling
3.30 General Transit Planning
3.40 ITS Architecture Development
3.50 Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning
3.60 Climate Change Adaptation Planning
3.70 Route 9 Corridor Study – Glens Falls / Queensbury
4.00
Transportation Improvement Program88,255 83,932 44,000 37,035 2,897 4,323 850 3,183 290
4.10
2016-2021 TIP Maintenance and Implementation4.202018-2023 TIP Development and Implementation4.30Bridge Preservation Analysis and Asset Mgmt. Plans
TOTAL 1,187,636 1,058,613 846,891 158,792 52,930 129,023 96,225 22,861 9,937
A/GFTC PROGRAMMED USE OF
FEDERAL FUNDS 652,253
FHWA PL FUNDS 846,891
FTA PLANNING FUNDS 96,225

IN-KIND SERVICE MATCH BY NYSDOT 181,653
IKS BY LOCAL Municipalities 62,867
TOTAL MATCHING FUNDS 244,520
NYSDOT matches FHWA program with Toll Credits and FTA Program with In-Kind Services
-Appendix A-

Appendix B
A/GFTC Planning Principles

Twelve Planning  Principles  of the  Adirondack  /  Glens  Falls  Transportation  Council

Twelve  Principles  to  Guide  Future  A/GFTC  Planning  and  Programming  Activities  in  Support  of
Adopted  Goals and  Objectives

1. Transportation  plans  and  programs  will  seek  to  maintain  the  established  and  varied  settings  that
make  the area  an  attractive  place  to  live,  work,  and visit  while  bringing  positive  changes to  the
natural  and built  environments  that  outweigh  associated  costs.
2. Options  for  maintaining  the  existing  transportation  system and  maximizing  its  operating  utility
through  improvements  th
at address  surface  conditions,  safety  issues,  intersection  operations,
access,  and  multimodal  accommodati

ons  will  be  given  priority  over  costlier  and  more  disruptive
capacity  improvement  or  new  highway  alignment  concepts.
3. Maintaining  and  operating  an  integrated  transportation  system that  entails  minimal  risk  for  all
users  and  all  modes  is par
amount.
4. Current  travel  and  transportation  habits  will  intrinsically  create  some  degree of  traffic  cong

estion
in  some  locations.  Projects and  plans  intended  to  address  those locations  with  recurring  vehicle
congestion  should  also  incorporate  meaningful  demand  management  measures  including  transit
provisions  and  access  improvements.
5. Public  transit  is  essential  to progress  th
e evolution  of the  transportation  system. Improving  the
span,  scope  and coordination  of  existing  services  will  enhance  mobility  options  for  those  that
cannot  or  will  not  rely  up

on  automobiles  and  in  turn  help  reduce  the  physical,  environmental  and
capital  costs  associated  with transportation.
6. Bicycling  and walking  are modes  of  transportation  –  not  just  means  of  recreation.  Capital  projects
that  are  designed  to include  meaningful  accommoda ti

ons for  bicyclists  and  pedestrians  will  be
given  priority  as  future  programs  are  developed.
7. Developing  the  potential  of  passenger  rail and  commercial  shipping  of  water  borne  and  rail  borne
freight  will  lessen  the  demand  upon  and  improve  pe
rformance  of the  road ‐based  transportation
system.
8. Coordination  of  land  use  planning,  economic  development,  and  tran sportation  p

lanning activities
is  essential  to maximize  the  region’s  potential.
9. Regional  issues will  require  cooperation  of municipalities  and  organizations  that  transcend
established  jurisdictional  boundaries.
10. Encouraging  infill development  and  redevelopment  through  the  p
rioritization  of  system
investments  is  preferable  to  facilitating  large ‐scale  development  outside  of  established  r e

sidential
and  commercial  areas.
11. A/GFTC  will  continue  its  commitment  to public  participation  so  that  it  may  continue  to  plan  with
the  people,  not  for  the people.
12. Technology  and  data  collection  will  play  an important  role  in ide
ntifying,  prioritizing,  operating,
and  analyzing  transportation  system improvements.  A/GFTC  is  committed  to  improving  it

s
technological  and  analytical  capabilities.
Adirondack  /
G lens
Falls
T ransportation
C ouncil

Appendix C
FTA Grant Status Report

‐Appendix C‐
Adirondack / Glens Falls
Transportation Council
FTA Grant Status – SFY 2017-18

FTA Section 5303 Grant NY-80-X024 $ 44,323
Local Share $ 2,652

Total $ 46,975

Balance (begin SFY 2016 1
st Quarter) $ 5,112
projected
balance (end SFY 2017 4th Quarter) $ 0

Total Expenditures = $ 5,112

Expenditure Summary by ALI Code

44.21.00 (Administration) – $ 962
44.22.00 (General Development and
Comprehensive Planning) – $ 3,680
44.23.00 (Long Range Planning) – $ 470
44.25.00 (Transportation Improvement Program) – $

FTA Section 5303 Grant NY-80-X025 $ 44,190
Local Share $ 2,762

Total $ 46,952

Balance (begin SFY 2016 1
st Quarter) $ 28,707
projected
balance (end SFY 2017 4th Quarter) $ 2,445

Total Expenditures = $ 26,262

Expenditure Summary by ALI Code

44.21.00 (Administration) – $ 6,904
44.22.00 (General Development and
Comprehensive Planning) – $ 12,549
44.23.00 (Long Range Planning) – $ 6,239
44.25.00 (Transportation Improvement Program) – $ 570

‐Appendix C‐
FTA Section 5303 Grant NY-80-X026
$ 44,551
Local Share $ 2,784

Total $ 47,335

Balance (begin SFY 2016 1
st Quarter) $ 47,335
projected
balance (end SFY 2017 4th Quarter) $ 7,955

Total Expenditures = $ 39,380

Expenditure Summary by ALI Code

44.21.00 (Administration) – $ 10,794
44.22.00 (General Development and
Comprehensive Planning) – $ 15,838
44.23.00 (Long Range Planning) – $ 10,948
44.25.00 (Transportation Improvement Program) – $ 1,800

‐Appendix C ‐
Accomplishments

44.21.00  Administration

Items under 44.21.00 are proportionally charged to both FHWA an d FTA.
Task 1.10 – Genera l Administration
 Expenditures included staff salaries, fringe, rent, materials,  supplies, and training.

Task 1.20 – Reporting and Compliance
 Completed tasks included routine grant reporting.

Task 1.30 – 2017‐ 19 UPWP Update
 Completion and adoption of the  2017‐19 UPWP is anticipated by M arch 8, 2017.

44.22.00  General Development a nd Comprehensive Planning

Task 2.30 – Transit Service Monitoring and Analysis
 Continued to provide staff a ssistance to GGFT as needed.
 Updated MOU between GGFT and A/G FTC to allow A/GFTC to provide additional reimbursement
to GGFT staff for related activities.

Schedule:  Task 2.30 is ongoing with new subtasks identified as they emerg e.

Task 2.50 – Alternative Transportation Development and Promotio n
 Continued administration of A/GFTC and GGFT websites.

Schedule:  Task 2.50 is ongoing.

Task 2.90 – GIS Development
 Continued maintenance of interactive GGFT route map. Migrated s oftware platform to ArcGIS
Online  to allow for staff to maintain and edit the site rather  than relying upon outside
assistance.

Schedule:  Task 2.90 is ongoing, with furthe r tasks and refinements considered as needed.

44.23.00  Long Range Planning

Task 3.30 – General Transit Planning
 Continued to host the Coordinated Human Services Transportation  Committee.
 Initiated and advanced Rural Mo bility Needs Assessment and Options Analysis.
 Updated MOU between GGFT and A/G FTC to allow A/GFTC to provide additional reimbursement
to GGFT staff for related activities.

Schedule:  Task 3.30 is ongoing. Rural Mob ility Needs Assessment and Optio ns Analysis was advanced,
completion anticipated by Summer 2017; initiation required succ essful execution of FTA consultant
procurement procedures. Coordinated Human Services Transportati on Committee meets as events warrant.
That group continues to advocat e for a regional mobility management plan. Updated MOU between A/GFTC
and GGFT may enable advances in t he establishment of mobility management services.

‐Appendix C ‐
44.25.00  Transportation  Improvement Program

Task 4.10 – 2014‐2018 TIP Maintenance and Impl ementation
 Continued to administer the TIP and make program adjustments as  necessary to advance
investments in public transportation.
 Coordinated review of FTA 5310 applications

Schedule:  Maintenance of the 2014 TIP wa s completed in October 2016.

Task 4.20 – 2016‐2021 TIP Deve lopment and Maintenance
 Solicited for transit capital projects for the 2016‐2021 TIP.

Schedule:  2016‐2021 TIP was adopted in June  2016. Maintenance of this document is an ongoing task until
October 2018.

Adirondack  /  Glens  Falls
Transportation  Council

2014 – 2018
Transportation  Improvement Program

1

Policy
Committee

Mitchell  C.  Suprenant,  Chair     Supervisor, Town  of  Fort  Edward
Ralph  W.  Bentley,  Vice ‐Chair      Supervisor, Town  of  Horicon
Sam  Zhou,  Secretary     Regional  Director, NYSDOT  Region  1
John  E.  Barton     Mayor,  Village of  Hudson  Falls
Robert  M.  Blais    Mayor,  Village of  Lake  George
Dennis  Dickinson     Supervisor,  Town  of  Lake  George

Jack  Diamond     Mayor,  City of  Glens  Falls
Keith  Donohue     Mayor,  Village of  South  Glens  Falls
Kevin  Geraghty     Chairman,  Warren  County  Board  of  Supervisors
Alan  Grattidge     Chairman,  Saratoga  County  Board  of  Supervisors
Preston  L.  Jenkins,  Jr.    Supervisor,  Town  of  Moreau
John  LaPointe     Chairman,  LC/LG  Regional  Planning Board
James  T.  Lindsay     Supervisor,  Town  of  Kings bur

y
Michael  Loftus     Director,  Albany  Div.  NYS  Thruway  Authority
Ron  Montesi      Supervisor,  Town  of  Queensbury
John  Rymph      Chairman,  Washington  County  Board  of  Supervisors
Robert  Shay      Supervisor,  Town  of  White  Creek
Matthew  Traver     Mayor,  Village of  Fort  Edward

Technical  Advisory  Committee
Mike Valentine,  Chair     Saratoga  County Planning  Board
Brain  Abare      Superintendent,  Village  of  South  Glens  Falls DPW
Stuart  Baker      Senior  Planner, Town  of  Queensbury
Edward  Bartholomew,  Jr.     Community and  Econ.  Dev.  Director,  City  of  Glens  Falls
Frank  Bonafide     RPPM,  NYSDOT  R1
Brian  Brockway     Superintendent  of  Highways,  Town  of  Fort  Edward
Robert  Cherry     Director  of  Pla nnin

g, NYSDOT  R1
Trace  Conlon      Trustee,  Village  of  Fort  Edward
Michael  Fiorillo     Superintendent  of  Public  Works,  Village  of  Hudson  Falls
David  Harrington     Superintendent  of  Public  Works,  Village  of  Lake  George
Daniel  Hurley    Councilman,  Town  of  Lake  George
Preston  L.  Jenkins  Jr    Supervisor,  Town  of  Moreau
Wayne  LaMothe     Director,  Warren County Planning Department
James  T.  Lindsay     Supervisor,  Town  of  Kingsbury
Scott  Sopczyk     Director,  Greater  Glens  Falls  Transit
Steven  Sweeney     Division  Canal  Engineer,  NYS  Canal  Corporation
Jeffery  Tennyson     Superintendent,  Warren  County DPW
Richard  Wilson     Superintendent,  Washington  County  DPW
Walter  Young     Executive  Director,  LC/LG  Regional  Planning  Board

Advisory  Members
William Baker     Chief  of  Air  Program  Branch,  US  EPA
Chuck  Rappazzo    Passenger  Transport Division,  NYSDOT
Leah  Flax      Community  Planner,  FTA
Chirs  Gatchell    Acting  Division  Administrator,  FHWA
Brigid  Hynes ‐Cherin    Regional  Administrator, FTA  Region  II
Joseph  Ritchey    Commissioner  –  Saratoga  County  DPW
Janine  Simonsen     Director,  NYSDOT  Statewide  Planning  Section

A/GFTC  Staff
Monika  Bulman     Administrative  Assistant
Aaron  Frankenfeld     Director
Kate  Mance      Senior  Transportation Planner

2

Overview
of the  Adirondack  /  Glens  Falls  Transportation  Council

The  Adirondack  /  Glens  Falls  Transportation  Council  (A/GFTC)  is  the  Metropolitan  Planning
Organization  (MPO)  designated  by  the  Governor  of  the  State  of  New  York  for  Warren  and
Washington  Counties  and the Town  of
Moreau  in  Saratoga  County.  It  has  the
responsibility  of  developing  and  maintaining
both  a  Regional  Transportation  Plan  and  a Transportation  Improvement  Program  for
the  area’s  federal  aid eligible  highway  and public  transit  facilities.

The  Council  was  established  in  1982  when
the  population  of  the  Glens  Falls  urbanized
area  exceeded  50,000  as  determined  by  the
1980  Census.   At that  time  the  geographic
area  for  transportation  planning  was  limited
to  the  Census‐ defined  urbanized  area, and
the  original  name  of  the  organization  was  the
Glens  Falls  Urban  Area  Transportation
Council.  In  1993,  the  Council  voted  to
expand  its  coverage  to  include  the  rural
areas  of  Warren  and

Washington  Counties
and  the entire  town  of Moreau  in  Saratoga
County,  as  shown  in  the  map  at  right.  The
official  name  of  the  Council  was  later
formally  chan

ged  to  the  Adirondack  /  Glens
Falls  Transportation  Council  to  reflect  that
expansion.

A/GFTC  consists  of two  principal  working  groups  –  the  Policy  Committee  and  the Technical
Advisory  Committee.  The  Policy  Committee  is  responsible  for  reviewing  and  approving  all
planning  undertaken  by  the  Council  and

its  staff.   This  committee’s  membership  includes  the
Chairmen  of  the  Boards  of  Supervisors  of  Saratoga,  Warren,  and  Washington  Counties,  the  chief
elected  officials  from  all  urban  area cities,  towns  and villages  (Glens  Falls, Queensbury,  Moreau,
Kingsbury,  South  Glens  Falls,  Hudson  Falls,  Lake  George  and  Fort Edward),  the  Chairman  of the
Lake  Champlain‐ Lake George  Regional  Planning  Board,

the  Regional  Director  from  Region  One
of  the  New  York  State  Department  of Transportation  and  a the  Albany  Division  Director  of  the
New  York  State  Thruway  Authority.  In  addition,  Warren  and  Washington  Counties  each appoint
one  Town  Supervisor  from  outside  of  the  Glens  Falls
Urban  Area  to  act  as  rural  representatives.
The  Federal  Highway  Administration,  the Federal  Transit  Administration,  the  U.S.
Environmental  Protection  Agency,  and  Greater  Glens  Falls  Transit  also  provide  representation
to  the  A/GFTC  Policy  Committee  in  an  Advisory  Member  capacity.

Policy  Committee  members  also  designate  a  representative  to  sit  on  the  A/GFTC  Technical
Advisory  Committee  (TAC).  TAC  members  assume  an  activ

e role  in  the  development  of plans
and  programs  dealing  with local transportation  issues  and  addressing  current and potential
problems  with  the state  and  local  highway  network  and the operation  of  the  area’s  transit
service.  Through  the  intergovernmental  forum of  A/GFTC  and  its Technical  Advisory  Committee,
local  and  regional  transportation  issues  are  discussed  and  transportation  policies  and programs

3

are
developed.   The result  of  these  planning  activities  is  documented  in  the  A/GFTC  Long  Range
Plan  and  in this  Transportation  Improvement  Program.

Transportation  Improvement  Program

The  Transportation  Improvement  Program  is a  five ‐year  capital  improvement  program that
allocates  federal  highway  and  transit  funds to  surface  transportation  projects  that  have  been
selected  through  the  MPO  process.  Inclusion  of  a  project  in  this  document  allows  specific
project  development,  design and  construction  activities  to  proceed  using  federal  funds
according  to  the  defined  schedule.  The  TIP  provid

es  information  regarding  federal  funding
assistance  and  project  costs  for  the  2013 ‐2018  time  period.  A/GFTC  typically  updates  the  TIP
every  two  years  to  maintain  a  current  list of  projects  and  to reflect  its  Long  Range
Transportation  Plan  (LRP)  for the  area.  The  LRP  is  a  dynamic  planning  tool  that  integrates  short ‐
term  operational  concerns  with longer ‐term  system  capacity  and

maintenance  issues  for  the
region.

Projects  that  appear  in the  first  four years  of  the  program  are incorporated  into  the  Statewide
Transportation  Improvement  Program  (STIP) and  generally  have  first  priority  for  funding.
Projects  that  appear  in later  years  may  be  advanc
ed if  changes  in  the  first  four years  of  the
programming  of  listed  projects  so that  resources  are  reasonably  available  to  implement  the
program.

Programming  Instruction

The  New  York  State  Department  of Transportation,  as  the  direct  recipient  for  federal
transportation  funds,  has  considerable  latitude  in  the  distribution  of  funds  and  formulation  of
programming  strategies.  Noting  that transportation  funding  needs  far  outweigh  funding
resources,  NYSDOT issued  capital  programming  instructions for  TIPs  and  the STIP  to  all  NYS
MPOs  in  September  2012. The  2013  TIP/STIP  Up
date will  be  the  first  update  cycle  that  will
reflect  the  State’s  “forward  four”  guiding  principles;

 Preservation  first  ‐ preserve  the  functionality  of  the  existing  transportation  system
through  prioritization  of  preventative  maintenance  and  corrective  repairs
 System  not  projects  ‐ consideration  of  how  a  particular  infrastructure  ass
et relates  to
the  larger  transportation  system  as  a  whole
 Maximize  return on  investments  ‐ identification  of  timely,  cost  effective  treatments
that  are  designed  to  maximize  the  useful  life  of  the  particular  asset
 Make  it  sustainable  ‐ cost ‐effective  investments  that promote  economic
competitiveness,  social  equity,  and  environmental  stewardship

This  programming  strategy  constitutes

a  fundamental  shift  from  prior  A/GFTC  TIPs.  Previous
capital  program  rosters typically  contained larger  and  more  costly  system  renewal  and
replacement  projects  that  were  generally  beyond  the scope  of  what  a  sponsoring  municipality
could  reasonably  achieve  without  outside  technical or  capital  assistance.  While  a  small  number
of  capital  renewal  projects are  retaine
d within  this  program,  the  programming  focus has shifted
to  preservation  projects  that  are  designed  to  prevent  infrastructure  that  is  presently  in  fair  to
good  condition  from  deteriorating  into  poor  condition  and  thus becoming  much more  costly to
repair  or  replace.  The  expectation  of this  strategy  is  that  it  will  allow  municipalities  to  maintain
a  greater  percentage  of  transportation  infrastructure  in

fair  to  good  condition  at  a  lower  cost.
Anticipated  consequences  of  such  a  strategy  are  a  near‐ term decline  in  overall  infrastructure

4

conditions
as  work  is  advanced  to  stabilize  the  system  as  well  as  the  continued  deterioration  of
that  infrastructure  that  is  already  in  poor  condition.

How  Projects  Are  Selected  for  Funding

Prior  to  the  programming  of  any  new  projects  for  this  update,  projects  with  existing
commitments  from  the  2010 ‐2015  TIP  were  reviewed  and  updated.  Some projects  required
rescheduling  and  others  needed  cost  revisions.  Most location ‐specific  projects  included  in  this
update  are  projects  that  have  been  advanced  from  the  prior  TIP.

Several  factors

have  resulted  in  reduced  programming  capacity  for  capital  projects  in
comparison  to  previous  TIPs. Revised  federal  program  eligibility  has  significantly  reduced  the
amount  of  available  capital  that  is  available  for  bridge  repair  and replacements,  particularly for
structures  that  carry  or cross  roadways  that  are  not eligible  for  federal  aid  by virtue  of  their
respect

ive  Functional  Classification.  In  addition,  the  State  of  New  York  has  set  aside  30%  of
certain  transportation  funding  sources  for  competitive  statewide  solicitations,  emergencies,
and  NYSDOT  Commissioner  initiatives. Finally,  the  programming  instructions  issued  by  NYSDOT
were  accompanied  by a  preservation  target  that  mandated  a  certain  percentage  of  the  regional
capital  program  from FFY  2014 ‐15  thro

ugh  FFY  2017 ‐18   be  dedicated  towards preservation
projects.  For  these  reasons,  a  formal  solicitation  for  new  TIP  projects  from  area  municipalities
and  other  eligible  project  sponsors  was  not  conducted  for the  2014 ‐18  TIP  update.  While
adjusting  the  program  to reflect  chan
ges in  costs  and  schedules,  a  concerted  effort  was  made
to  maintain  funding  allocations  within this  TIP  in  accordance  with  fiscal  constraints.

Project  needs  that  exceed  present  resources  have  been  identified  as  “illustrative”  projects.
These  projects  were  proposed  for  the  current  or  previous  TIP periods  and have  been
considered  by  A/GFTC  and  endorsed  as  being  valuable  investments  in  the  transportation
system,   but financial  constraints,

regulatory  limitations and  programming  strategy  required
that  those  projects  be  delayed  until  adequate  funding  or  programming  capacity  becomes
available.  Should  additional  resources  become  available,  these  projects  could  be  considered  as
candidates  for programming  provided that  fiscal  constraint  is  preserved  within  the  overall
program.

Amending  the  Transportation  Improvement  Pr

ogram

This  Transportation  Improvement  Program  is a  staged,  multi ‐year  program  of  transportation
improvement  projects developed  through  a  cooperative  planning  process  by  A/GFTC  and
federal,  state,  regional  and local  participants.  Projects  are  reviewed  and  evaluated  by the
Technical  Advisory  Committee  (TAC)  and  recommended  for  adoption  by  the  Policy  Committee.
The  adopted  TIP must  be  fiscally  constrained  to  the  federal  transportation  funds  that  are

projected  to  be  available  in  each  year  of the  program.  Changes  to  the  TIP  Table  of  Projects
(including  scope,  year  of  work,  cost  or  addition  of  new  projects)  require  the  review  and
approval  of  the  TAC  and/or  the  Policy  Committee  depending  on  the  nature  of  the  amendment
(specific  procedural

requirements  are  shown  on  the  following  page).  Minor  changes  may  be
approved  by  the  TAC.  More  significant  changes  require  approval  by  the  Policy  Committee.

5

.

6

Project
Funding  Categories

The  following  abbreviations  have  been  used  to  describe  various project  funding  sources.  All
projects  funded  with  Federal  Highway  Administration  and  Federal  Transit Administration  funds
are  required  to  be  listed  in an  approved  TIP  and  STIP.  Certain  non ‐federally  funded
transportation  ‐ related  projects  may  also be listed  within  the  TIP  for  informational  purposes.

Federal  Funding  Categories  & Abbreviations
Highway

HSIP  ‐   Highway Safety Improvement  Program:  funding  for  projects  designed  to  achieve
significant  reductions  in traffic  fatalities  and  serious  injuries on  all  public  roads

NHPP‐  National Highway  Performance  Program:  funding  for  projects  that  support
progress  toward achievement  of  national  performance  goals  for  improving
infrastructure  condition,  safety,  mobility,  or  freight  movement  on the  National
Highway  Syst

em,  consistent  with  Metropolitan  and  Statewide  planning
requirements.  Program  combines  the  following  former  programs:  Interstate
Maintenance,  National  Highway  System,  and  Highway  Bridge Program.

STP  Flex  –    Surface  Transportation  Program  (flexible):  funding  for  road  and  bridge  projects
along  any federal ‐aid  eligible  roadway.  A  portion  of  STP  funds  is  eligible  for
transfer  to  transit  capital  purposes  when warranted.

STP

Off   Surface  Transportation  Program  (Off  System  Bridge):  funding  for  repair
Sys.  Br.   or replacement  for  structures  that  are  not  components  of the  federal  aid eligible
highway  network

Transit
5307 –    Urbanized  area  formula  grant  program.  Annual  apportionments  made  to
designated  urbanized  areas with  a population  of  50,000+.  Eligible  to  be  used  for
capital  purchases  and/or  to defray  transit  operating  expenses.  Includes  program
eligibility  from former  FTA  5316  (Job  Access  and  Reverse  Commute).
5310  ‐ Transportation  for  Elderly  Persons  and  Persons  with  Disabilities.  Includes

program  eligibility from  former  FTA  5317  (New  Freedoms).
5339  ‐   Bus and  Bus Facilities
5340  ‐    Growing States and  High  Density  States  Formula  Program

Other
Enhancement  –   Special  category  of  federal  STP  funds  available  on  a  competitive  basis  for  a variety  of
projects  that  enhance  the overall  transportation  system.
SDF  (New  York  State  Dedicated  Fund)  ‐  Category  of  New  York State  funds  provided  for  transportation
projects.  A/GFTC  does  not  administer  SDF;  Projects  listed  solely  with  SDF funding  are for  info rmation

purposes  only.

Funding  Balance  and  Fiscal  Constraint

Federal  transportation  law,  MAP ‐21,  requires  that  each  MPO  TIP  be  balanced  and  fiscally
constrained  to  the  amount  of  federal  funds  that  are  reasonably  expected  to  be  available  over
the  TIP  period.  A/GFTC  is  included  in  NYSDOT  Region  1,  which  also includes  the Albany  Capital
District  and  Essex  and  Greene  Counties.  This  document  has  been  prepared  in
consultation  with
Region  1  staff  to determine  expected  funding availability.  Data  listed  in this  TIP  will  be  used  in
the  development  of the  Region’s  program  and the Statewide  TIP  (STIP),  which is  also  required

7

to
be  balanced  and  fiscally  constrained.   A fiscal  constraint  table  is  provided  at  the  end  of  this
document  ( Appendix  A ) that  demonstrates  that  programming  proposed  by  this  TIP  is  within
suballocated  funding  shares  as  agreed  upon  by  NYSDOT  and  A/GFTC.

Air  Quality  Impacts  of  the  TIP

The  A/GFTC  Planning  and  Programming  Area  includes  Warren  County  and  Washington  County
and  the Town  of  Moreau  in  Saratoga  County.  Warren  and  Washington  Counties  are  designated
as  attainment  areas  for  air  quality  standards  by the  US  Environmental  Protection  Agency.
Saratoga  County  (including  the  Town  of  Moreau),  as  part  of  the  Albany ‐Schenectady ‐Troy  area
had  been  designated  as  a  marginal  non‐attainment  area  for  ozone  prior  to  July  2012.  The
Capital  District  Transportation  Committee  (CDTC)  planning  area  borders  A/GFTC  and  carries  out
conformity  testing  for all  of  Saratoga  County  in  cooperation  with  A/GFTC  and  its TIP.  In  July  of
2012,  the  United  States  Environmental  Protection  Agency  revoked  the  Transportation
Conformity  requiremen

ts for  1997  8 ‐Hour  Ozone  National  Ambient  Air  Quality  Standards
(NAAQS).  The  Albany ‐Schenectady ‐Troy  area  is  air  quality  attainment  for  the  2008  8 ‐Hour
Ozone  NAAQS.  For  those  reasons,  an   Air  Quality  Conformity  Determination  is  not  required  for
this  2014 ‐18  Transportati
on Improvement  Program.

Community  Participation

Public  involvement  and  consensus  are  important  and  ongoing  elements  of  the  A/GFTC  planning
process.  The  A/GFTC  planning  process  strives  to  be  all ‐inclusive  of  area  community
transportation  interests.  Beyond  the representation included  in  its Technical  Advisory  and
Policy  Committees,  A/GFTC  seeks  additional  public  input  through  a  variety  of  media  that
include  attendance  at  area  community  expositions  and  fairs,  regular  cont
act with  area print  and
radio  media,  wide  distribution  of  documents  and  plans  as they  are developed,  and  opinion
surveys  and  direct  mailings.  Extensive  public  outreach  is  being  conducted  as part  of  the  ongoing
Long  Range  Plan  update  process.  Feedback  received  during  that process  affirms  that  the  project
priorities  programmed  in  this  document  as  being  current  and relevant.

8

Notes
on  Project  Listings:

 Project  amounts  are shown  in $M  (ex:  9.375  =  $9,375,000).  Unless  otherwise  noted,
those  amounts  represent  the  total  cost  of  the  project  inclusive  of  all  applicable  local,
State  and  Federal  shares.

 Projects  listed  in the  Obligated  column  may be  subject  to rolling  over  or  being  carried
forward  into  the  2013 ‐14  through  2017 ‐18  program  years.  Those  projects  may  be  given
priority  over  other  listed

projects  not  yet  initiated.  This may  require  that  other  project
schedules  be  adjusted  as  necessary  to preserve  fiscal  constraint  and  achieve  the
regional  preservation  target  throughout  the  program.

 Project  amounts  were developed  in  Year  2013 dollars.  The  attached  tables  reflect  Year

of  Expenditure  (YoE)  adjustments  as recommended  by  NYSDOT.  Inflation  factors  were
applied  to  subsequent  programming  years  as  follows:
2013‐14    + 3.5%
2014 ‐15    + 3.0%
2015 ‐16    + 3.0%
2016 ‐17    + 3.5%
2017 ‐18    + 3.0%

 Total  federal  funding for  specific  projects  to  be  obligated  before  October  1,  2018  is
$91,319,000.  That  total  represents  an  initial  programmed  amount  that  is  only  76.7%  of
the  previous  A/GFTC 5 ‐year  program,  and

the  smallest  5 ‐year  program  since before
1991.  While  the  current  program  has been  reviewed  and  approved  by  A/GFTC,  no
endorsement  is given  that  this  programming  level  is  in

any  way  an  adequate  sum  to
meaningfully  address  the  mounting  transportation  infrastructure  needs  that  face  the
region.

 The  first  year of  this  program  (FFY 13‐ 14) does  not  count  against  meeting  regional
preservation  targets.  Those  targets  are  in effect  from  FFY14 ‐15  onward.  FFY  13 ‐14  is
largely  devoted  to  execut

ing  project  commitments  from  prior  program  years.

 The  TIP  is  also  viewable   online in  two  interactive  formats:
o The  A/GFTC  website  features  a  map ‐based  project  viewer  that  shows  the
location,  costs,  programming  status and photographs of  individual  projects:
http://www.giswebhosti

ng.com/AGFTCProjectViewer/

o NYSDOT  hosts  the  electronic  version  of the  Statewide  Transportation
Improvement  Program  at:
https://www.nysdot.gov/programs/stip/stip ‐project ‐rpt

9

Highway  and Bridge Projects

Capital Projects  ‐ Highway  and Bridge Reconstruction  or Major Rehabilitation
Design and ROW phases
Saratoga  County and Warren  County Construction
/ Inspection
TIP # Project Fund
Source Obligated 5  yr fed $M Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Beyond  Year 5
PIN 2013
‐2014 2014 ‐2015 2015‐2016 2016 ‐2017 2017‐2018 Post ‐TIP
SAR 114U.S. Route 9 Safety Improvements HSIP
3.8060.000
104338 Safety project ‐ Feeder Dam / William  St intersection to NYS 32
and River Street  to 5th Street
Village  of South  Glens Falls  / Town of Moreau
Lead Agency: NYSDOT
SAR 115 Route 9 over  Interstate  87 NHPP
4.7510.213 0.1634.375
104342 Bridge Rehabilitation
Town of Moreau
Lead Agency: NYSDOT
WAR  100 Middleton  Bridge over  the Schroon  River STP FLEX
0.325
0.000 3.314
175527 Bridge

Replacement on new alignment
Town of Bolton  / Town of Warrensburg
Lead Agency: Warren County
WAR  112 Beach Road  Reconstruction  Phase I (County ‐owned section) STP FLEX
5.2210.000
175728 Reconstruction  to correct deficient pavement / drainage
Town / Village  of Lake George
Lead Agency: Warren  County
WAR  130 I‐87 over County  Route 10 and  the Schroon  River I‐M
12.2680.000
172201
Bridge Replacement
State
Bond
funds
3.254
172201
Bridge
Replacement
State
Bond
funds
3.254
Town of Bolton  / Town of Warrensburg
Lead Agency: NYSDOT
WAR  131 I‐87 over Route  9 / Pottersville I‐M
9.9900.000
172204 Bridge Replacement State Bond
funds2.200
Town of Chester SDF
1.210
Lead Agency: NYSDOT
WAR  134 NYS 28N over  the Upper Hudson  Railroad STP FLEX
3.8230.000
122316 Bridge Rehabilitation
Town of Johnsburg
Lead Agency: NYSDOT
WAR  146 Aviation  Road  / Dixon Road  / Farr Lane Int.  Improvements STP FLEX
0.274
1.595 1.595
175906 Intersection

Reconstruction  to Correct Congestion  / Safety Issues
Town of Queensbury
Lead Agency: Town of Queensbury
TOTAL 6.346 1.595 0.213 0.163 4.375 0.000 3.314

Capital Projects  ‐ Highway  and Bridge Reconstruction  or Major Rehabilitation
Design and ROW phases
Warren  County Construction
/ Inspection
TIP
#
Project Fund Source Obligated 5  yr fed $M Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Beyond  Year 5
PIN 2013‐2014 2014 ‐2015 2015‐2016 2016‐2017 2017‐2018 Post ‐TIP
WAR 147 Hudson  Avenue Rehabilitation
STP FLEX0.42
4
3.331 0.040 3.291
175907 Pavement Rehabilitation  / Bike‐Ped Improvements  / Road Diet
City  of Glens Falls,  Glen Street to Broad Street
Lead Agency:  City of Glens Falls
WAR  148 Hicks Road  (CR 52) Reconstruction
STP FLEX3.0210.000
175908 Pavement Reconstruction
Town of Queensbury,  Ridge Road (NYS 9L) to Queensbury Ave.
Lead Agency:  Warren County
WAR  150 Lanfear Road  (CR 76) over Stony  Creek  Bridge Repairs
STP Off Sys. Br.0.250 0.000
17591
0
Element‐specific  repairs
Town of Stony  Creek
Lead Agency:  Warren County
WAR  151 Crane Mountain  Road over Mill Creek
STP Off Sys. Br.1.713 0.000
175911 Bridge Replacement
Town of Johnsburg
Lead Agency:  Warren County
WAR  152 Valley Road (CR 36)  over Patterson  Creek
STP Off Sys. Br. 1.878 0.092
175912 Bridge Replacement
1.786
Town of Thurman
Lead Agency:  Warren County
WAR  153 Blair Road  over Mill Brook
STP Off Sys. Br.0.228

1.13
4
0.139
11
175913Bridge Replacement
0.995
Town of Horicon
Lead Agency:  Warren County
WAR  154 Palisades  Road (CR 26)  over Brant  Lake Inlet
STP Off Sys. Br. 0.255 0.255 2.700
175928 Element‐specific  repairs(scour abatement)
Town of Horicon
Lead Agency:  Warren County
WAR  155 Beach Road  Reconstruction  Phase II (State‐owned  section)
STP FLEX5.0000.000
175935 Reconstruction  to correct deficient pavement  / drainage
Town of Lake George
Lead Agency:  NYSDOT
WAR  156 Broad Street Reconstruction
STP FLEX3.0200.000
17593
6
Reconstruction  to correct deficient pavement  / sidewalks
Hudson  Avenue  to South  Street, City of Glens Falls
WAR  159 Lake George  Complete Streets Project  ‐ Route 9
TEP1.5751.375
175969 Implementation  of Complete Streets  Concepts
D. of State 0.200
Town of Lake George
WAR  160 Lake George  Gateway Improvements ‐ Route  9
STP FLEX9.997 0.900
175967Access Management,  Bike‐Ped Improvements
STP FLEX 0.270
NHPP  (STEP) 8.198
Lead Agency:  Town of Lake George
EFC / GIGP 0.629
WAR  161 Town of Warrensburg  Sidewalk Improvements
SRTS0.2730.273
17595
6
Various  Locations
Lead Agency:  Town of Warrensburg
WAR  162 Route 9 over  Trout Brook  ‐ Bridge Replacement
STP FLEX2.340 2.340
10435
4
Town of Chester
Lead Agency:  NYSDOT
TOTAL 20.783 1.444 16.999 2.340 0.000 0.000 2.700

Capital Projects  ‐ Highway  and Bridge Reconstruction  or  Rehabilitation
Design and ROW phases
Washington  County Construction
/ Inspection
TIP # Project Fund
Source Obligated 5  yr fed $M Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Beyond  Year 5
PIN 2013‐2014 2014 ‐2015 2015‐2016 2016‐2017 2017‐2018 Post ‐TIP
WAS 38Route 4 Reconstruction,  Phase II NHS
5.0000.000
108961 Pavement reconstruction, sidewalks, curbs, water/sewer SDF
/ BOND 0.650
Village  of Hudson  Falls
Lead Agency:  NYSDOT
WAS 100 County Route 12 over  the Mettawee ‐ Bridge Replacement STP Off Sys.
Br.4.083 0.000
175518 Lower Turnpike  over the Mettawee ‐ Bridge Rehabilitation
Town of Granville
Lead Agency:  Washington County
WAS 101 County Route  113 over  Batten  Kill STP FLEX
6.163
0.709 0.039
5.415
175532 Bridge replacement
Town of Greenwich,  Town of Easton
Lead Agency:  Washington County
WAS 104 County Route 61 over  Batten Kill (Buffum’s Bridge) STP Off Sys.
Br.2.097 0.000
175522 Bridge replacement
Town of Salem, Town of Jackson
Lead Agency:  Washington County
WAS 106 County Route 16 over  Halfway  Brook STP
FLEX 0.346
2.2302.230
175514 Bridge replacement
Town of Fort AnnTown o
f Fort
Ann
Lead Agency:  Washington County
WAS 118 Dewey’s Bridge over  the Champlain  Canal STP Off Sys.
Br.0.281 0.000
175526 Bridge replacement,  repair or abandonment
Town of Fort Ann
Lead Agency:  Washington County
WAS 126 County Route 10 over  the Poultney  River STP Off Sys.
Br. 0.150 0.150
175725 Bridge replacement 0.606
(Cost  shown = 1/2;  project costs shared with State  of Vermont)
Town of Whitehall
Lead Agency:  State of Vermont
WAS 128 NYS Route  196 over  the Feeder  Canal STP FLEX
2.536

0.025
102407 Bridge replacement  or rehabilitation 2.511
Village  of Hudson  Falls
Lead Agency:  NYSDOT
TOTAL 11.079 4.766 0.859 0.039 5.415 0.000 0.606

Capital Projects  ‐ Highway  and Bridge Reconstruction  or Major Rehabilitation
Design and ROW phases
Washington  County Construction
/ Inspection
TIP # Project Fund
Source Obligated 5  yr fed $M Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Beyond  Year 5
PIN 2013
‐201
4
2014‐201
5
2015‐201
6
2016‐201
7
2017‐201
8
Post‐TIP
WAS 130 NYS Route  197 over  the Hudson  River (west branch) NHPP3.4720.000
102509 Bridge rehabilitation
Town of Moreau,  Village of Fort Edward
Lead Agency:  NYSDOT
WAS 134 U.S. Route 4 over the Champlain  Canal NHPP5.9805.980
194123 Bridge replacement  or rehabilitation
Village  of Whitehall
Lead Agency:  NYSDOT
WAS 136 County Route 12 / Hatch  Hill Road HSIP0.0870.000
175879 Safety Improvements
Town of Granville
Lead Agency:  Washington County
WAS 138 Town of Putnam  Rail Crossing Upgrade
HSIP‐Rail
0.340 0.000
193321 Installation  of At‐Grade  Rail Crossing  Equipment
Town of Putnam
Lead Agency:  NYSDOT
WAS 143 Kid Power  & School  Access Project
SRTS
0.488 0.488
175958
Install  sidewalks, ramps, signsat  various locations
Purchase safety equipment and develop educational   materialsLead Agency: Village of Fort Edward
WAS 150 CP Rail / NYS 149 Rail  Crossing Upgrade
HSIP‐Rail
0.275 0.015
193329 Upgrade of At‐Grade  Rail Crossing  Equipment 0.260
Town of Kingsbury
Lead Agency:  NYSDOT
TOTAL 6.743 6.468 0.015 0.260 0.000 0.000 0.000

Regional Setasides
Design and  ROW phases
Construction  / Inspection
TIP
#
Project Fund Source Obligated 5 yr fed $M Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Beyond Year 5
PIN 2013‐201
4
2014‐201
5
2015‐201
6
2016‐201
7
2017‐201
8
Post‐TIP
REG 15 Durable Pavement  Markings 5 (State Highway  System) STP FLEX
0.0750.025
180940 Lead Agency: NYSDOT NHPP
0.050
REG 15 Durable Pavement  Markings 6 (State Highway  System) STP FLEX
0.0750.025
181001 Lead Agency: NYSDOT NHPP
0.050
REG 15 Durable Pavement  Markings 7 (State Highway  System) STP FLEX
0.075 0.025
181005 Lead Agency: NYSDOT NHPP
0.050
REG 15 Durable Pavement  Markings 8 (State Highway  System) STP FLEX
0.075 0.025
181010 Lead Agency: NYSDOT NHPP
0.050
REG 15 Durable
Pavement

Markings  9 (State Highway  System) STP FLEX
0.075 0.025
181015 Lead Agency: NYSDOT NHPP
0.050
REG 16 Bridge Inspection  (State Forces) STP Off Sys.
Br. 1.406
Lead Agency: NYSDOT NHPP
1B1401 0.281
1B1501 0.281
1B1601 0.281
1B1701 0.281
1B1801 0.281
REG 22 Bridge Inspection  (Consultant) STP Off Sys.
Br. 1.563
Lead Agency: NYSDOT NHPP
1B1402 0.313
1B1502 0.313
1B1602 0.313
1B1702 0.313
1B1802 0.313
REG 110 Bridge
Preservation STP

FLEX8.438
Lead Agency: NYSDOT
180882 Bridge Preservation  5 1.875
180883 Bridge Preservation  6 2.813
180898 Bridge Preservation  7 1.875180957
Bridge Preservation 8
1 875
180957
Bridge
Preser
vation
8
1.875
REG 117 Pavement Maintenance
14A STP FLEX
1.2191.219
180942 Lead Agency: NYSDOT
REG 117 Pavement Maintenance  15A NHPP
1.1251.125
180947 Lead Agency: NYSDOT
REG 117 Pavement Maintenance  15B STP FLEX
1.4061.406
180915 Lead Agency: NYSDOT
REG 117 Pavement Maintenance  16A NHPP
1.125 1.125
181002 Lead Agency: NYSDOT
REG 117 Pavement Maintenance  16B STP FLEX
1.125 1.125
181002 Lead Agency: NYSDOT
REG 117 Pavement Maintenance  17A NHPP
1.406 1.406
181007 Lead Agency:  NYSDOT
REG 117 Pavement

Maintenance  17B STP FLEX
1.406 1.406
180967 Lead Agency: NYSDOT
REG 117 Pavement Maintenance  18A NHPP
1.406 1.406
181012 Lead Agency: NYSDOT
REG 118 ADA Compliance STP FLEX
0.625
Lead Agency: NYSDOT
180803 ADA Compliance  15 0.156
180804 ADA Compliance  16 0.156
180906 ADA Compliance  17 0.156
180907 ADA Compliance  18 0.156
TOTAL
22.625 1.888 5.231 5.888 4.106 5.513 0.000

Regional Setasides / Preservation Program
Design and ROW phases
Construction / Inspection
TIP # Project Fund Sourc
e
Obligated 5 yr fed $M Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Beyond Year 5
PIN 2013‐201
42014‐201
52015‐201
62016‐201
72017‐201
8
Post‐TIP
REG 120 Local Pavement Preservation
STP FLEX3.672 0.176 0.000 0.000 0.169
Lead Agency: Local Municipalities 0.000 0.000 1.639 1.688
1TO427 Projects to be award through competitive solicitation
REG 121 Local Bridge Preservation STP FLEX5.221 0.000 0.035 0.16
4
0.169
Lead Agency: Local Municipalities STP FLEX0.000 1.526 1.639 1.688
Projects to be award through competitive solicitation STP Off Sys. Br.0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
1TO428 STP Off Sys. Br.0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
REG 102 Short‐Term Accident Reduction Program HSIP3.3190.000 1.261 0.686 0.686 0.686
180752 Projects to be award through competitive solicitation
SAR 120 CR 27 Bridge (3368290) over the Hudson River  STP Off Sys. Br.0.660 0.025
175972 Bridge painting and associated repairs
0.635
Town of Moreau / Village of Hudson Falls
Lead Agency: Saratoga County
SAR 121 CR 24 Pavement Preservation Project STP Flex0.812 0.056
175973 US Route 9 to Potter Road, Town of Moreau
0.757
13
Lead Agency: Saratoga County
SAR 122 Town of Moreau Pavement Preservation Projects STP Flex0.000
176012 Reservoir Road and Feeder Dam Road, Town of Moreau
0.265
Lead Agency: Town of Moreau
SAR 123 CR 31 Pavement Preservation Project STP Flex0.000 0.057
17602
0
US Route 9 south to 1.3 miles, Town of Moreau 0.733
Lead Agency: Saratoga County
WAR 170 CR 44 (BIN 3305330) over the Hudson River Bridge Painting STP Off Sys. Br.0.0700.070
17600
0
Town of Lake Luzerne / Town of Hadley 1.079
Lead Agency: Warren County
WAR 171 Warren County Bridge Painting Project STP Off Sys. Br.0.970 0.057
176001 BIN 3305180 ‐ CR 31 over the Schroon, Chester
0.913
BIN 3305710 ‐ CR 13 over Patterson Brook, Thurman
Lead Agency: Warren County
WAR 172 Warren County Asbestos Abatement / Bridge Painting Project STP Off Sys. Br.0.000 0.055
176002 BIN 3305640 ‐ Denecker Road / Roaring Branch Brook, Stony Creek
0.405
BIN 3360330 ‐ CR 78 over 13th Lake Brook, Johnsburg
BIN 3305340 ‐ Hudson Street over Mill Creek, Johnsburg
Lead Agency: Warren County
WAR 173 Warren County Pavement Preservation Project STP Flex0.000 0.000
176003 CR 17, 79, and 52 ‐ Town of Queensbury
0.785
Lead Agency: Warren County
WAR 174 Bay Road Pavement Preservation Project STP Flex0.000 0.086
176019 CR 17 to Cronin Road ‐ Town of Queensbury
1.05
4
Lead Agency: Warren County
WAR 175 West Mountain Road Pavement Preservation Project STP Flex0.000
176018Aviation Road to Glen Court ‐ Town of Queensbury 0.749
Lead Agency: Warren County
WAS 145 Washington County Bridge Painting Project STP Flex1.10
4
0.049
176005 BIN 3306120 ‐ Lower Turnpike over the Mettawee, Granvill
e
1.055
BIN 3306710 ‐ Center Falls Road / Batten Kill, Greenwich / Jackson
Lead Agency: Washington County
WWS 100 Regional Bridge Preservation Analysis STP Flex0.065
181021 Lead Agency: A/GFTC
WAS 150 East Street Pavement Preservation Project STP Flex0.025
176007 Village of Fort Edward 0.333
Lead Agency: Village of Fort Edward
TOTAL 15.828 0.257 3.181 9.258 4.302 4.062 0.460

16

Illustrative  Highway  and  Bridge  Projects

The  following  projects  have  been  identified  as  desired  improvements  to the  transportation
system.  Currently,  insufficient  programming  capacity  exists  to  allow  for  the  inclusion  of  these
projects  within  the  TIP.  Cost  estimates  for  all  of  the  illustrative  projects  have  not  been
generated,  but  the  cumulative  total  cost  to  implement  these  improvements  would  easily
exceed  the  total  amount  of  funds  available  for  this  current

program.

 U.S.  Route  9  /  NYS  149  / Exit  20  Congestion  Improvements
(Queensbury)

 NYS  149  geometric  improvements  (Fort Ann)

 U.S.  Route  4  /  NYS  32  Intersection  Improvements  (Kingsbury)

 Replacement  of functionally  obsolete  bridges:
o NYS  197  over  the  Hudson  River (Fort  Edward)
o U.S.  Route  4  over  the  Hudson  River (Greenwi ch)
o I‐ 87

over  Corinth  Road  (Exit  18)  (Queensbury)
o Baldwin  Corners  Road  over  the  Champlain  Canal  (Hartford)
o East  Street  over  the  Champlain  Canal  (Fort Edward)

 Other  bridge  replacements:
o NYS  Route  28  over  the  Hudson  River (Thurman)
o Route  67  over  Owl  Kill (White  Creek)
o Church  Street  over  the  Mettawee  (Granville)

  NYS  Route  32  improvements  (Queensbury / Kingsbury)

 Exit  18 reconfiguration

(Queensbury)

 Route  4  geometric  improvements  (Washington County)

17

Transit  Projects

Transit Projects
Design phasesConstruction / Purchase
TIP # Project Fund Source Obligated 5 yr fed $M Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Beyond Year 5
PIN 2013‐2014 2014‐2015 2015‐2016 2016‐2017 2017‐2018 Post‐TIP
TR 102
Public Transportation Operating Assistance FTA 5307
1.7309.4601.782 1.835 1.890 1.947 2.006
2.066
AGFTC02Greater Glens Falls Transit
(2019)
Federal Share of Listed Amount = 50%
TR 113 Replace 2 2013 Paratransit Buses FTA 5307 and
0.140 0.140
0.140
AGFT13Greater Glens Falls Transit FTA 5340
Federal Share of Listed Amount = 80%
TR 114 Mid‐life Rebuild ‐ 4 2009 Gillig Buses FTA 5307, 5339
0.2000.200
AGFT14 Greater Glens Falls Transit and 5340
Federal Share of Listed Amount = 80%
TR 115 Facility Rehabilitation FTA 5307, 5339
0.200 0.100 0.100
AGFT15 Greater Glens Falls Transit and 5340
Federal Share of Listed Amount = 80%
TR 127 GGFT Preventative Maintenance FTA 5307
0.1000.5470.103 0.106 0.109 0.113 0.116
AGFT27 Greater Glens Falls Transit FTA 5340
Federal Share of Listed Amount = 80%
TR 128 Replace Four (4) 2008 Mini Buses FTA 5307 and
0.2800.000
AGFT28 Greater Glens Falls Transit FTA 5340
Federal Share of Listed Amount = 80%
TR 130 Replace One (1) 2004 Trolley Bus FTA 5307, 5339
0.1800.180
AGFT30 Greater Glens Falls Transit and 5340
Federal Share of Listed Amount = 80%
TR 131 Replace One (1) 2005 Trolley Bus FTA 5307, 5339
0.1800.180
AGFT31 Greater Glens Falls Transit and 5340
Federal Share of Listed Amount = 80%
TR 132 Replace Roof at GGFT Maintenance and Admin. Facility FTA 5307
0.0700.000
AGFT32 Greater Glens Falls Transit
Federal Share of Listed Amount = 80%
TR 133 Replace GGFT Operations Vehicle FTA 5307
0.026 0.026
AGFT33 Greater Glens Falls Transit
Federal Share of Listed Amount = 80%TBD
Transportation Services for the Elderly and Disabled FTA 5310
0.3880.000 0.000 0.104 0.142 0.142
awarded on an annual basis by A/GFTC and NYSDOT, projects listed
for informational purposes($ shown is est. planning target)
TR 134 CWI ‐ Purchase Two 28‐Passenger 5310 Vehicles FTA 5310
0.1730.000 0.000 0.173 0.142 0.142
182398 Community Work and Independence, Inc.
TR 135 FHI ‐ Purchase Two 5310 (16 and 20 passenger) Vehicles FTA 5310
0.080 0.080
182399 Fort Hudson Nursing Center, Inc
TR 136 VNA ‐ Purchase One 16‐Passenger 5310 vehicle  FTA 5310
0.043 0.043
182400 Visiting Nurse Association
TR 138 Replace Battery Module on 2011 Hybrid Bus FTA 5307, 5339
0.050 0.050
AGFT38 Greater Glens Falls Transit and 5340
Federal Share of Listed Amount = 80%
TR 139 Replace Three (3) 2006 Trolley Buses FTA 5307, 5339
0.652 0.652
AGFT39 Greater Glens Falls Transit and 5340
Federal Share of Listed Amount = 80%
TOTAL 2.180 12.319 2.065 2.321 3.227 2.444 2.546 2.206

19

Make the Connection and
Transportation Alternatives Programs

Transortation Alternatives Program and Make the Connection  Program
Design phases
Construction
TIP # Project Fund
Source Obligated 5  yr fed $M Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Beyond  Year 5
PIN 2013‐2014 2014 ‐2015 2015‐2016 2016‐2017 2017‐2018 Post ‐TIP
MTC 200 Make the Connection  Program STP FLEX1.0000.000 0.400 0.200 0.200 0.200
1RB001 Regional setaside for small ‐scale bicycle and
pedestrian improvements
Annual  selection process administered  by A/GFTC
MTC 209 Make the Connection  Program STP0.0710.071
175931 Quaker Street Sidewalk Improvements
Town / Village  of Granville
Lead Agency:  Village of Granville
MTC 216 Make the Connection  Program STP0.0750.075
175946 West Brook Conservation  Initiative  ‐ Sidewalk Connection  Project
Village  of Lake George
Lead Agency:  Warren County
20
MTC 218 Make the Connection  Program STP0.0000.093
175948 Town of Johnsburg  Sidewalk Replacement Project
Town of Johnsburg
Lead Agency:  Town of Johnsburg
MTC 220 Make the Connection  Program STP0.0210.021
175965 Schuyler Street Extension  Sidewalk Improvements
Town of Fort Edward
Lead Agency:  Washington County
MTC 221 Make the Connection  Program STP0.184 0.064
175966 Hudson Street Sidewalk Replacement 0.120
Town of  Warrensburg
Lead Agency:  Town of Warrensburg
WAR  174 Transportation  Alternatives Program STP0.600

0.102
176010 Fire Road, Crandall  Park, and Kensington Road Elementary School 0.498
Bicycle  and Pedestrian  Programs ‐ City  of Glens Falls
Lead Agency:   City of Glens Falls
TOTAL 0.000 1.951 0.184 1.260 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.000

19

Appendix
A  ‐ Fiscal  Constraint  Table

FFY2014 FFY2015 FFY2016 FFY2017 FFY2018 TOTAL
NHPP
6.328 7.285 7.285 7.285 7.285 35.468
REG 15 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.250
REG 117 0.000 1.125 1.125 1.406 1.406 5.063
REG 22 0.156 0.156 0.156 0.156 0.156 0.781
REG 16 0.141 0.141 0.141 0.141 0.141 0.703
WAS 134 5.980 5.980
SAR 115 0.213 0.164 4.375 4.751
Programmed
6.327 1.684 1.636 6.128 1.753 17.528
Difference0.001 5.601 5.649 1.157 5.532 17.939
FFY2014 FFY2015 FFY2016 FFY2017 FFY2018 TOTAL
STP FLEX
9.222 5.541 5.541 5.541 5.541 31.384
REG 118 0.000 0.156 0.156 0.156 0.156 0.625
REG 110 0.000 1.875 2.813 1.875 1.875 8.438
REG 115 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.125
REG 117 1.219 1.406 1.125 0.000 1.406 5.156
REG 120 0.232 2.393 1.755 1.808 1.688 7.876
REG 121 0.155 1.700 1.755 1.808 1.688 7.105
WAR 146 1.595 1.595
WAR 147 0.040 3.291 3.331
WAS 101 0.709 0.039 5.415 6.163
WAS 126 0.201 0.500 0.701
WAS 106 2.230 2.230
WAS 128 2.536 2.536
MTC 200 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200 1.000
Programmed 8.432 12.255 7.868 11.287 7.039 46.880
Balance
0.790 ‐6.714 ‐2.327 ‐5.746‐1.498 ‐15.496
FFY2014 FFY2015 FFY2016 FFY2017 FFY2018 TOTAL
STP Off System Bridge
5.847 1.106 1.106 1.106 1.106 10.272
REG 22 0.156 0.156 0.156 0.156 0.156 0.781
REG 16 0.141 0.141 0.141 0.141 0.141 0.703
REG 121 0.155 1.700 1.755 1.808 1.688 7.105
REG 1210.1551.7001.7551.8081.6887.105WAR 1521.549 1.549
WAR 153 0.139 1.239 1.378
WAR 154 0.460 0.460
Programmed 2.139 3.695 2.052 2.105 1.985 11.976
Difference
3.708 ‐2.589 ‐0.946 ‐0.999‐0.879 ‐1.704
FFY2014 FFY2015 FFY2016 FFY2017 FFY2018 TOTAL
Highway Safety Imp. Program
0.575 0.686 0.686 0.686 0.686 3.318
REG 1020.575 0.686 0.686 0.686 0.686 3.318
Programmed 0.575 0.686 0.686 0.686 0.686 3.318
Difference
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
TOTAL HIGHWAY PROGAM
Allocation
21.971 14.618 14.618 14.618 14.618 80.441
Programmed17.473 18.321 12.241 20.205 11.463 79.703
Difference4.498 ‐3.703 2.377‐5.588 3.155 0.739
TOTAL TRANSIT PROGAM
Allocation
2.278 2.278 2.278 2.278 2.278 11.390
Programmed2.206 2.563 2.141 2.302 2.404 11.616
Difference0.072‐0.285 0.137‐0.024‐0.126 ‐0.226
Note: Transit Program includes positive carryover balance in excess of n
egative balance shown.
TIP TOTAL
Allocation
24.249 16.896 16.896 16.896 16.896 91.831
Programmed19.679 20.884 14.382 22.507 13.867 91.319
Difference4.570‐3.988 2.514‐5.612 3.029 0.513

21

Appendix  B  ‐ A/GFTC  Self ‐Certification

1
Adirondack / Glens Falls Transportation Council

2013 Self-Certification

A. REQUIRED AGREEMENTS

The Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation Council is the designated MPO for urban
transportation planning and programming in the Glens Falls Urbanized Area. The
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Glens Falls Urban Area
Transportation Council (GFTC) and the Governor was signed in 1982 and amended
in 1985. The MOU describes the roles of GFTC and responsibilities of GFTC and its
committees. In October 1994, by resolution of the Council, the planning and
programming boundaries were extended to the entirety of Warren and Washington
Counties and the Town of Moreau in northern Saratoga County, and in March 1997
another resolution changed the name of the MPO to the Adirondack/Glens Falls
Transportation Council (A/GFTC) to reflec t the expanded planning and programming
area.

As is the case with all MPOs in New York State, A/GFTC is not a legal entity in and
of itself. It depends upon a host agency to provide payroll and legal services and to
contract with consultants for planning studies. At its inception, the host agency for
A/GFTC was the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT). Due to a
desire on the part of area governments to assert local ownership of the MPO, a
change in the host agency arrangement was made in September 1996 that
established the Lake Champlain/Lake George Regional Planning Board (RPB) as
A/GFTC’s host agency. The current staff positions (the Transportation Planning
Director, the Senior Transportation Planner and an Administrative Assistant) are
employed by the RPB and work in the A/GFTC staff office located in the City of
Glens Falls at 11 South Street, Suite 2 03. The staff has the responsibility of
managing consultant studies specified in the UPWP, conducting technical analyses,
purchasing of supplies and equipment, and carrying out the balance of the duties
necessary to function as an MPO. The RPB serves as a member of the various
A/GFTC committees and provides payroll services, audits, accounting and legal
services. The RPB makes first instance payments of the bills for goods and services
contracted for by A/GFTC. The host agency agreement between the RPB and
NYSDOT was renewed in 2012 for a term of ten years. The Joint Cooperative
Planning Agreement was approved by A/GFTC’s Policy Committee in January 2010.
It has been signed by A/GFTC, GGFT and NYSDOT.

B. PLANNING/TECHNICAL

1. UPWP
The Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation Council adopted a Unified Planning Work
Program for 2013-2014 in March of 2013. The work program includes ongoing
public participation activities, data colle ction and performance measurement tasks,
traffic modeling, technical assistance to municipalities, Geographic Information
system (GIS) work, long range plan development, and corridor-planning activities

2
described in the current Long Range Plan. The Local Transportation Planning and
Engineering Assistance program is also demand response to individual community
requests and subject to regional approval and is intended to help communities
address issues in support of A/GFTC goals, objectives, and principals.

2. Transportation Plan
A/GFTC’s 2030 Long Range Plan was adop ted by the Council in January 2010. A
public survey for the LRP was conducted and there was an aggressive outreach
campaign. A portion of the A/GFTC Planning and Programming Area (specifically the
Village of South Glens Falls and the Town of Moreau in Saratoga County) lies within
the Capital District air quality non-attainment area. Conformity determinations for
A/GFTC are coordinated efforts that include CDTC and NYSDOT. A/GFTC and CDTC
use the same horizon dates in their LRPs to avoid repetition of conformity analyses.
Conformity approval was issued in March of 2010 by FHWA and FTA. The LRP lists
all current State and Federal planning fa ctors and emphasis areas as well as
A/GFTC’s own Twelve Planning Principles. The LRP also contains an extensive
Environmental Considerations chapter, developed in consultation with several
natural resource agencies.

An update to the LRP was initiated in 2012. A public survey is ongoing, and data
collection and analysis has begun in antici pation of a January 2014 approval of a
2014-2039 LRP.

3. The Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
The 2010-2015 Transportation Improvemen t Program is the current MPO capital
program. It was approved by A/GFTC in June 2010; conformity was most recently
reaffirmed in March 2010. The 2014-201 9 draft Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) was approved on March 27, 2013 for public review and comment.
Conformity approval will no longer be required for the A/GFTC TIP on account of the
classification of Albany-Schenectady-Troy area as air quality attainment for the
2008 ozone standard effective as of July 20, 2012 and the United States
Environmental Protection Agency’s revocation of conformity requirements effective
on July 20 of 2013. During development of both TIP documents, fiscal constraint
was applied in coordination with NYSDOT Region 1. A/GFTC worked closely with its
members and NYSDOT Region 1 to identify appropriate projects that could safely be
deferred as a result of program limitation s. Through these and similar coordinated
efforts the current TIP has remained both balanced and fiscally constrained.
Individual projects are clearly identifiable and are consistent with the adopted
A/GFTC Long Range Plan. TIP amendment procedures are consistent with guidance
from federal regulatory agencies and were amended in January 2010 to refine the
distinctions between amendments and ad ministrative modifications. The Annual
Listing of Obligated Projects for the most recently completed federal fiscal year is
available on A/GFTC’s website.

3
A/GFTC’s website features an interactive project viewer that was developed to
address the required visualization techniques. The viewer, based on the intuitive
GoogleMaps platform, displays project data, financial information, maps, and
photographs of planned and completed projects.

4. Technical Studies and Emphasis Areas
Technical studies are proceeding consiste nt with the current UPWP. Bicycle and
pedestrian planning continues to be an emphasis area for A/GFTC, and targeted
safety evaluation are an emerging focus. Studies and projects undertaken during
the last year include:

 Safety evaluation for the intersection of Bay and Cronin Roads on behalf of Warren
County in response to elevated crash occurrences.

 School circulation study on behalf of th e City of Glens Falls and the Glens Falls
School District to analyze the impacts of aligning school start times on the
neighboring surface transportation system.

 Traffic signal warrant analysis and concep tual design for realignment of the Warren
County Bikeway at the intersection of Dix Avenue and Sagamore Street.

 Review of street and subdivision standards for the Town of Warrensburg and
assembled draft revisions designed to further integrate Complete Streets principles.

 Safety evaluation of the Crandall Street and Orville Street intersection in Glens Falls.

 Advancement of the update to the regional Long Range Transportation Plan.

 Review of school crossing guard lo cations in the City of Glens Falls.

 Administration and promotion of iPoolNort h, A/GFTC’s online carpooling service.

 Updated Coordinated Human Services Transportation Plan.

 Mapping and technical assistance to Greater Glens Falls Transit.

 Data collection and analysis, including comp letion of the second cycle of pavement
scoring.

5. Special Considerations in the Transportation Planning Process
(a) Title VI: A/GFTC is a designated sub-recipient under NYSDOT’s DBE program
and maintains ongoing compliance efforts. Title VI/DBE reports are submitted
on a semi-annual basis to NYSDOT and the Council has also signed on to
NYSDOT’s DBE plan. A/GFTC has never received any discrimination
complaints. The Environmental Justice review is updated as plans and

4
regional demographics change and will be updated in 2013. Special
considerations for elderly and disabled persons are consistent with ADA
requirements and are provided in the transportation planning process and in
community participation projects. Specific outreach to senior organizations
was conducted as part of the LRP update and FTA 5310, FTA 5316, and FTA
5317 solicitations. A/GFTC public transit planning efforts includes
consideration of services for elderly, disabled persons and for those who
choose not to drive. MPO meetings are always held in ADA-accessible
facilities. Accessibility was a key criterion in determining A/GFTC’s site
selection for staff offices in 2010; severa l non-accessible site candidates were
ruled out on that basis. ADA compliance is monitored through the ADA
paratransit services offered by the local transit operator and staff review of
federally-funded projects and plans. Pe riodic review of local demographics
continues to suggest that ethnic populations are insufficiently large to
warrant targeted Limited English Population programs at this time. That data
will be periodically reassessed in conjunction with future updates to the
Environmental Justice review.

(b) Private Operators – Consideration is given to private transportation
providers. Private transportation operators will be considered and involved
in any future planning efforts to devel op additional services to rural areas,
particularly as part of the implementation of the recently adopted
Coordinated Human Services Transportation Plan. An update to a staff-
developed transportation provider service directory that includes
information about private services, in cluding taxis and limousine services,
and was originally developed in 1996 and updated in 1999, is planned for
2013. An online mapping and service locator tool is also under
consideration. Both products will be advanced in close consultation with
the newly restarted Coordinated Human Services Transportation
Committee.

(c) Planning Factors – Up-to-date State and Federal planning factors and
emphasis areas are used to develop A/GFTC plans and programs and to
guide project selection processes. A/GFTC staff continues to maintain its
relationships with local land use planning organizations through
communication and consultation. New programming instructions consistent
with NYSDOT’s Forward Four principles, emphasizing maintenance and
preservation activities over “worst-fir st” infrastructure replacement projects,
have been thoroughly incorporated within the development of the draft 2014-
18 TIP.

(d) Congestion Management Process – No process in place (not required for
A/GFTC).

5
(e) Public Involvement – The A/GFTC Public Involvement Policy was updated
and approved in 2005. A/GFTC actively solicits public involvement through
media, public meetings, mailings, and at events where the public gathers. A/GFTC staff regularly meets with loca l officials, participates in public
meetings, and hold public information meetings and planning forums to
involve the general public and concer ned businesses and agencies. Special
efforts are made to involve freight and transit users in all corridor and related
planning activities. Further, all meetin gs of A/GFTC’s Technical Advisory and
Policy Committees are open to the publ ic. Local newspapers are notified of
meetings. The agendas for those meetings regularly include a section for “Visitors Issues”. Legal notices are issu ed during the development of all core
publications, announcing the opportunity for public review and comment. The
A/GFTC website contains all recent MPO products , meeting minutes and the
most current versions of annual or recurring do cuments. The website allows
for public comment on publications and provides opportunities for the public
to contact staff to ask questions about any transportation concern they may
have, and is also a portal that allows for participation in the LRP survey.
A/GFTC staff also utilizes social medi a outlets, including Facebook, Twitter,
and a blog dedicated to outreach related to development of the LRP, to notify
the public of ongoing activities. Copies of the UPWP, TIP, LRP Surveys and
other documents are regularly distribute d to libraries and municipalities as
those documents are drafted.

C. Administrative/Management

1. Progress Reports are prepared and submitted on a monthly basis at the
request of our Host Agency (RPB). They are complete and comprehensive.

2. Bills are submitted and paid based on the processing schedule of the host
agency, the LC/LGRPB. Vendor complaints are typically infrequent but increased
significantly in 2012, mostly due to del ayed State reimbursements to the RPB.
The RPB is a small organization that can encounter difficulty in first-instancing
funds when previous expenditures have not been reimbursed in a timely manner
(longer than 30 days).

3. Audits are completed in a timely manner in conjunction with the host agency.

4. Annual Program is closed out within 3 years in cooperation with NYSDOT.

5. MPO Budget is regularly monitored and updated as needed.

6. Consultant Selection Process A/GFTC has a consultant selection process that
is followed for all professional services agreements. Additional consideration is
given to consultants that contain a mi nimum of 10% DBE participation.

7. Central Staff/Host Relations are positive. MPO staff are accorded equal
status as LC/LGRPB staff. Quality office space and support services to

6
accommodate A/GFTC staff and activities are provided. Staff has good political
support within the planning and programming area.

8. Decision Making ability is effective in the A/GFTC area. The public is
outspoken on many issues and members listen and fully consider expressed
public concerns. Committees are competen tly and sufficiently staffed. Technical
Advisory Committee meetings are well attended; reaching consensus decisions
has not been a problem. The Policy Committee meets at least twice a year with
additional meetings if action is required. Policy Committee meetings are well
attended. Members are consulted frequently on regional and local matters
concerning their jurisdictions.

9. Governance – In 2012 the A/GFTC host agency, the Lake Champlain/Lake
George Regional Planning Board, rene wed its agreement with NYSDOT through
March 2012. The format of the new agreement was consistent with a new model
recently developed by NYSDOT. The hosting arrangement allows A/GFTC staff to
advance its work without any undue influence from any particular member
municipality. The Policy and Technical Advisory committees have consistent and
balanced representation from throughout the program area, including all urban
area municipalities. A/GFTC’s operating and staffing plans were last updated in
2000 and reconsidered as recently as January of 2013.

10. Procurement – A/GFTC staff is aware of the procurement requirements of
FTA funding recipients, including those lis ted within the FTA Circular Guidance
4220.1F, Third Party Contracting Requirem ents, and the FTA Master Agreement.
FTA-related expenditures are documented. Procurements by A/GFTC utilizing
FTA funds are infrequent.

1

11 South  S

Public Participation  Plan

The Adirondack  /  Glens  Falls  Transportation  Council  (A/GFTC)  is  the  designated  Metropolitan
Planning  Organization  (MPO)  for  the  Planning  and  Programming  Area  that  includes  all  of
Warren  County,  all of  Washington  County,  and  the Town  of  Moreau  and  Village  of  South  Glens
Falls  in northern  Saratoga  County.  A/GFTC  is  responsible  for  facilitating  a  regional
transportation  planning  and  programming  process that  is  continuing,  cooperative  and
comprehensive  for  all  area  projects  and activities  eligible  for  funding  through  the  Federal
Highway  and  Federal  Transit Administrations.  The  active  participation  of  the  public  and
community  as  a  whole,  in  addition  to  area  elected  officials  and  municipal  professionals,  is
necessary  in  order  for the  transportation  planning  process  to  be  effective.

A/GFTC  is  committed  to  facilitating  meaningful  public  participation.  This document  will  outline
a  standard  policy  for  encouraging  public input  and  ensuring  access to major  A/GFTC  activities
and  products.

A.  Meetings,  Appearances  and  Access  to  Staff

A/GFTC  holds  meetings  that  allow  frequent  access to the  planning  process,  including  Technical
Advisory  Committee  meetings  (generally  every  six  to  eight  weeks)  and  two to  three  Policy
Committee  meetings  annually.  These meetings  are  open  to  the  public  and  always  held  in
accessible  locations.  Hearing ‐ or sight ‐impaired  or  limited  English‐ speaking  individuals  will  be
provided  with

assistance  if  A/GFTC  is  given  timely  advance  notification.  All meetings  are
announced  at  least  one  week  prior  to  the  event  and  are open  to  the  public.  Time  is  allotted  on
all  Technical  Advisory  and  Policy  Committee  meeting  agendas  for  visitors issues.   Although rare,
any  special  meetings  of  these  committees  outside  of  those  that are  regularly  scheduled  will  beadvertised  and  conducted  under the  same  set  of  procedures.

Aside  from  regular  committee  meetings,  the  Council  periodically  engages  in  specific  planning
studies  that  require  involvement  of  individuals  that  may  have  a  direct  personal  or professional
stake  in  the  outcome  of  the  study.  Public  input  is  critical  during these  studies  to  ensure  that a
wide  variety  of  issues  and  alternatives  are identified  and addressed.  Outreach  efforts  need  to
be  appropriately  tailored  to  community  interests  in  order  to generate  involvement.  In  the  past,
A/GFTC  has  advertised  local  planning  initiatives  in  smaller  local print  publications  and  by
posting  notices  at  community  gathering  points  such as  banks,  churches,  restaurants, stores,  and
recreational  facilities.  The Council  also  strives  to  hold  public  meetings  at  locations  and  times
that  are  accessible  and  convenient  to  local  stakeholders,  often in  conjunction  with  recurring
Adirondack  /
G lens
Falls
T ransportation
C ouncil

2
municipal  meetings  to  maximize  outreach.  Non ‐traditional  meeting  venues  will  also  be
considered  provided  that  those  locations  are  universally  accessible.
Public  appearances  do  not  necessarily  have  to  be  tied  to  a  specific  project  or initiative.  A/GFTC
staff  has been  and  will continue  to  be  present  at  different  locations  throughout  the  year  such  as
local  commercial  centers,  recreational  areas,  libraries,  community  expos  and  other  locations  or
functions  that  could  generate  interaction  between  staff  and the public.  Informational  materials,
draft  documents  and  comment  forms are  provided  to  encourage  feedback  and  to communicate
the  significance  of  local  involvement  in the  planning  process.  Public  appearances  are
announced  in  advance  with  information  on  dates,  times,  and  locations.

The  A/GFTC  office  is  located  in downtown  Glens  Falls  within  the  handicap ‐accessible  Empire
Theater  Plaza, near  many  other  services  and  destinations  and  accessible  by  public  transit.  Staff
members  are  available  to  discuss  issues  and  concerns  with  members  of  the  public.  Response  to
public  requests  and  inquiries  is given  a  high  priority.

B.  Access  to  Planning  Documents

The  core  documents  produced  by  A/GFTC  that  serve  to  govern  the  Council’s  programs  and
policies  in accordance  with  the Final  Metropolitan  Planning Rule  are  the Long  Range  Plan , the
Transportation  Improvement  Program , and  the Unified  Planning  Work  Program .
 The  Long  Range  Plan  (LRP)  establishes  a program  of both  short ‐
and long‐term  goals  and recommendations  for  a  planning  horizon  of  20 ‐25  years,  and  is designed  to  facilitate  the
development  of an  integrated  and  efficient  intermodal  transportation  system.  The  LRP  is
updated  once every  four  years;  the current  LRP for  A/GFTC  is  2035  Ahead.

 The  Transportation  Improvement  Program  (TIP)  is  a  listing  of  capital  surface
transportation  projects  that  are  selected  and  programmed  to  receive  federal funding.
The  TIP  is  updated  every two  years  and  represents  a  prioritized  listing  of  projects
intended  to address  the  challenges  and  opportunities  listed  in the  LRP.
 The  Unified  Planning  Work  Program  (UPWP) is   the  annual  work  program
that  identifies
the  transportation  planning  and  programming  activities  that  are  to be  undertaken  by
the  staff  in support  of the  Council  during  the current  State  Fiscal  Year(s).  The  UPWP
coordinates  annual tasks  that  the  MPO  hopes  to accomplish  in  support  of the  LRP
through  the  use  of  FHWA  and  FTA funding  in  addition  to  local  and
state  contributions.

Figure  1  illustrates  the  relationship  between  the  major  products  of the  MPO  process  and  the
development  of capital  projects,  as  well  as the  numerous  opportunities  for  public  involvement
that  are  available  throughout  that  process.

In  addition  to  the  core  documents,  A/GFTC  will  typically  enga
ge in  1‐3  individual  projects  per
year  that  are  listed  in that  year’s  UPWP  as  distinct  tasks. The  reports  that  result  from  the
execution  of those  tasks  are  considered  to  be  major  planning  studies.

3

Local
Municipalities
(cities, towns, and villages) Federal and State
Transportation Officials
Counties
Adirondack / Glens Falls Transportation Council
Work Program
(UPWP)
Issue and Project Identification
Project
prioritization and selection
Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP)
Project design
and
construction
Long Range
Transportation Plan

Public
Involvement

Public
Involvement
Figure  1 ‐ Public  Involvement  Opportunities  in  the  MPO  Process
Public
Transportation
Operator (GGFT)

4

The  following  requirements  have  been  established  by  A/GFTC  and  will be  followed  during  the
production  of  the  Long  Range  Plan,  TIP, UPWP,  and major  planning  studies:

1. Core  documents  and  major  planning  studies  are  developed  in  consultation  with  the
public  and  affected  local,  State,  and  municipal  planning,  economic  development,  and
environmental  organizations.
2. Draft  versions  of  all  MPO  core  documents  and  major  planning  studies  will  be  made
available  to  the  public  for  review  and  comment  for a  period  of  at  least  thirty  days.
3. Legal  notices  will accompany   public comment  periods for draft  core  documents.  Copies
of  those  draft  core documents  are  to be  made  available  at  loca
l municipal  offices  and public  libraries.  Those  locations  are listed  on  the  A/GFTC  website  when  the  documents
are  distributed.
4. Copies  of  documents  will  be  made  available  to  individuals  with  disabilities  upon  request
by  mail  or  direct  consultation  by  appointment  as  is  reasonable  and  warranted.
5. All  draft  documents  are  available  on  A/GFTC’s  website.  The  site  features  links  to
comment  modules for  each  document.
6. All  public  comments  received  are  documented  and  considered  by  A/GFTC  staff  and the
TAC  for  incorporation  into  each  final  document  as  is  warranted  and  appropriate  prior  to
the  adoption  of  final  documents  by  the  Policy  Committee.
7. Major  comments  that  generate  significant  revisions  between  publically ‐distributed

draft documents  and  final  documents  will  be  summarized  and included  as  appendices  to
those  documents.

Throughout  any  given  program  year, A/GFTC  staff  utilizes  consultant  contracts  to  facilitate
smaller‐ scale planning  and  engineering  assistance  to  participating  memb
er municipalities.
These  efforts  are  typically  less  time  intensive  than  conventional  planning  studies  and  are
targeted  towards  addressing  a  local,  rather  than  a  regional  issue, transportation  issue.  The
resulting  reports  are  generally  not  adopted  by Policy  Committee.  A  process  similar  to  the  one
noted  above for  core  documents  and  major  planning  studies  will  be  followed  for  these  technical
assistance  contracts  and  other  A/GFTC  activities  that  result  in  a written  report,  hereby
referenced  collectively  as  technical  reports.
1. Technical  reports

are developed  in  consultation  with  the public  and  affected  local,
State,  and  municipal  planning,  economic  development,  and environmental
organizations.
2. Prior  to  finalizing  the  documents,  draft  versions
of  technical  reports  will  be  posted
online  at  the  A/GFTC  website  for  public  review  for  a  period  of  fourteen  days.
3. Copies  of  draft  documents  will  be  made  available  to  individuals  with  disabilities  upon
request  by mail  or  direct  consultation  by appointment  as  is  reasonable  and  warranted.
4. All  public  comments  received  are  documented  and

considered  by  A/GFTC  staff  and the
TAC  for  incorporation  into  each  final  document  as  is  warranted  and  appropriate.

5
5.
Major  comments  that  generate  significant  revisions  between  publically ‐distributed  draft
documents  and  final  documents  will  be  summarized  and included  as  appendices  to
those  documents.

C.   Communications

A/GFTC  Website
The  A/GFTC  website  ( www.agftc.org
) was  developed  in  2001  with  the goal  of  facilitating  public
involvement  as a  high  priority.  Draft  documents,  final  publications,  meeting  announcements,
agendas  and  meeting  minutes  are  all available  for  review  and  comment.  A/GFTC  requires
consultants  to  provide  electronic  copies  of  all  documents  produced  for  the  Council  to  facilitate
online  viewing  by  and  email  distribution  to  interested  parties.  A  separate  link  to  contact  staff
directly  is  easily  accessed  from  the  home  page,  and  all  draft  documents  include  an  electronic

comment  form that generates  an  e ‐mail  message  to  A/GFTC  staff  at the  request  of the  user  (the
site  also  contains  phone,  fax,  and  mailing  contact  information  for  A/GFTC  staff).  The  webs
ite
has  become  the  principal  mode  for  the  sharing  and distribution  of  documents.  Although  the  site
is  an  effective  tool  for  posting  news  on  recent  staff  activities  and  publishing  documents  and
announcements,  utilization  of  the  site  by  the  public  to  submit  comments  and  suggestions  is
infrequent.

Social  Media
A/GFTC  has  a  dedicated  organizational  Facebook  page  and  Twitter  account  that  can  used  to
distribute  project  development  updates  and

meeting  announcements  and to post  draft
documents.  The inherent  advantages  of  these  platforms is  that  they  allow  for  immediate  public
interaction  and  entail  minimal  staff  effort.  However,  the  effective  range  is  limited  to  enrollees
and

their  online  connections.  Staff will continue  to  use  these  platforms  as  a  supplement  to  the
website,  monitor  emerging  online interaction  platform  trends and adjust  outreach  activities
accordingly.

Conventional  media  (mailing,  print,  radio,  and  television)
Given  the  widespread  availability  and  usage  of  online  information  and  social  interaction  sites,
A/GFTC  has  become  less  reliant  upon  conventional  media.  Staff

has  determined  that  mass
circulation  of  printed  materials  is   generally  costly,  consumptive,  and  inefficient.  Printed
materials  are  still  deployed  on  a  limited  basis  and are individually  available  upon  request.
A/GFTC  periodically  conducts  targeted mailings  and  surveys  via  conventional  mail,  and mail
remains  the  primary  means  to  communicate  funding  and  programming  opportunities  to
A/GFTC  member  municipalities.

Print

media  coverage  of  A/GFTC  activities  from  daily  and  weekly  publications  has  been  poor.
Press  releases  often  do not  generate  the  desired  responses;  many  A/GFTC  planning  activities,
regardless  of  scale,  go  largely  unreported.  Advertising  in  print  media  has also  been  determined
by  staff  to be  of  high  cost  and  low yield.  A/GFTC  will  continue  to  purchase  legal  notices  to
announce  public  comment  periods

for  draft  core  documents.  Staff will also  continue  to  send
out  press  releases  regarding  ongoing planning  efforts  and  related  public  workshops

6

Utilization  of  local  radio  stations  has proven  to  yield  mixed  results  for A/GFTC.  Targeted
communications  to  local  stations  regarding  specific  ongoing  planning  studies  have  generated
favorable  responses  and  occasional  on ‐air  interview  opportunities.  However,  radio  advertising
has  not  proven  to  be  a  cost ‐effective  means  of  notification  regarding  A/GFTC  activities.

Television  coverage  opportunities  for  A/GFTC  are  limited.  The  A/GFTC  area  is  generally
considered  to  be  part  of  the  larger  Albany ‐Schene

ctady ‐Troy  media  market;  most  network
coverage  is  centered  around  the  greater  Capital District.  Coverage  from  Look  TV,  an
independent  station,  and  YNN,  a 24 ‐hour  cable  local  news  network,  has  been  fair,  with
occasional  responses  to  press  releases  resulting  in  on ‐air  interview  opportunities  as  well  as
televised  meeting  reports.  Staff

has  invested  no  money  directed  towards  TV  advertising,  but
will  continue  to  notify  TV  stations  of  ongoing  events  via  press  release.

D. Summary  of  Action  Items

Public  involvement  is  critical  to  the  transportation  planning  process  for  several  reasons,
including  broadening  the  array  of issues  that  can  be  identified  to maximize  responsiveness  to
public  issues  and  concerns,  increasing  the  sense  of  ownership  and  influence  on  a  project  or
initiative,  facilitating  public  consensus,  and  enhanced  public  awareness.  Providing  avenues for
public  access  to  the  planning  process  at  every  practical  opportunity  is  essential,

but  the
participating  public must  also  know  their  comments  and  suggestions  will be  taken  seriously.
A/GFTC  will  continue  to  implement  the  following  procedures  to  maximize  meaningful  and
ongoing  public  participation:

Meetings,  Appearances  and  Access  to  Staff

A. All  A/GFTC  Technical  Advisory  Committee  and  Policy  Committee  meetings  are  open  to
the  public  and  held  in accessible  locations.
B. Advance  notification  will  be  given  for  planned  public appearances.
C. A/GFTC  will  continue  to  staff  a professional  office  in  an  accessible  location.
D. Staff  is available  to  the  public  during  office hours  or  by  appointment  if  necessary.
E. Responsiveness  to  public  inquiries  will  be  given  top  priority.

Access  to  Planning  Documents

A. Core  documents  and  major  planning  studies  will  be:
1. produced  in  consultation  with  the public  as  well  as affected  public  and  regional
agencies.
2. made  available  in  draft  form  online  and  individually  upon  request  for  a  public
comment  period of  no  less  than  30  days,  with  public  comment  periods
advertised  in  local  media.  Copies  of  draft  core
documents will  also  be made
available  at  local  municipal  offices  and  libraries  during  the public  comment
periods.
3. finalized  via adoption  by  the  Policy  Committee  after  consideration  and
documentation  of  any  substantive  public  comments  submitted  and received
during  the public  comment  periods.

7
B.
Technical  reports  will be:
1. produced  in  consultation  with  the public  as  well  as affected  public  and  regional
agencies.
2. made  available  in  draft  form  online  for  a  period  of  14  days.
3. finalized  by the  Technical  Advisory  Committee  after  consideration  and
documentation  of  any  substantive  public  comments  submitted  and received
during

the  public  comment  periods.

Communications

A. The  A/GFTC  website  will  be  the  primary  means  of  outgoing  communication.  Draft and
final  documents,  meeting  announcements  and updates  of  ongoing  staff  and consultant
activities  will  continue  to  be  posted.
B. Social  media  sites  will  be  maintained  and  used  to  supplement  website  postings.  Postings
on  these  sites  are  to:
1. provide  public  notification  of  scheduled  meetings  and
appearances.
2. provide  public  notification  of  the  availability  of  draft  documents  and  public
comment  periods.
3. provide  alternative  means  for  public  comment  and questions.
C. Legal  notices  will be  purchased  to  announce  public  comment  periods for and  the
availability  of  draft  core  documents.
D. Press  releases  will  be  used  to  announce:
1. public  meet

ings  associated  with  major  planning  studies.
2. public  comment  periods for and  the availability  of  draft  core  documents.
E. Targeted  surveys,  mailings,  and  public  postings  will  be  used  to  publicize  and  generate
public  comment  on ongoing  major  planning  studies  and  technical  reports  as  is
warranted  by  the  scale  of  the  effort.

A/GFTC  will  continue  to  monitor  meeting  attendance,

public  comments,  web  inquiries,  and
general  feedback  as  a  means  of  improving  the  Council’s  outreach efforts.

November 12, 2013

Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation Council
11 South St., Suite 203, Glens Falls, NY 12801
P: 518‐223‐0086 F: 518‐223‐0584
Web: www.agftc.org Email: info@agftc.org

ADIRONDACK/
GLENS FALLS
TRANSPORTATION
COUNCIL

Long Range Plan
Update: 2035

Table of Contents

Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 1
Public Outreach and Input ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 6
Planning Principles for A/GFTC ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 15
Demographic Trends …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 17
Highways and Bridges ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 22
Public Transportation ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 34
Bicycle/Pedestrian Facilities …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 41
Freight …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 45
Safety ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 53
Air Quality, Climate Change, & Environmental Mitigation
………………………………………………………………………….. 58
Security ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 63
Financial Plan ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 66
Performance Measures …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 72

LONG RANGE PLAN 2035 Page 1
Introduction
The Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation Council (A/GFTC) is the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)
for the Planning and Programming Area comprised of Warren County, Washington County, and a portion of
Saratoga County that includes the Town of Moreau and the Village of South Glens Falls. Originally designated by
the Governor of the State
of New York in 1982, A/GFTC is a regional association of governments, public agencies,
and transportation providers that is responsible for conducting a continuing, cooperative and comprehensive
transportation planning process.
As an MPO, A/GFTC is responsible for producing and maintaining three core products. The foundation document
is this Long Range
Transportation Plan (LRP). Updated every four  years, the LRP sets the course for future
transportation system investments by detailing a vision of the desired direction and evolution of the
transportation system as described by area residents, businesses, and municipal leaders. The priorities and
projects identified within this plan will then be
incorporated into a realistic program for action through A/GFTC’s
annual Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and its biennial Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The
UPWP is a listing of planning activities undertaken by A/GFTC in support of goals and objectives contained in the
LRP. The TIP is a five‐year listing
of federally funded capital projects that result from the transportation planning
process.
An effective transportation plan cannot be inert. This LRP, 2035 Ahead, has been written to be adaptable to the
changing travel characteristics, evolving land use patterns, and other significant modifications to the
surrounding environment that may occur in
the next twenty years.
This Long Range Transportation Plan represents the synthesis of public input, regular interaction with local
officials, and technical studies undertaken by A/GFTC staff and professional transportation planning firms hired
to assist the Council with the execution of its UPWP. The Plan describes existing system conditions, projects
future
conditions, identifies transportation priorities, and recommends projects and strategies to maintain and
improve the system in the near and long term.
Setting
The A/GFTC Planning and Programming Area of Warren
County, Washington County, and northern Saratoga County is
situated in northeastern New York between the metropolitan
Capital District to the south and the Adirondack Park to the
north. Transportation infrastructure was critical to the
evolution of the region. The area was a base
of military
activity during the late 1700s, and the Hudson River was a
major energy source for industrial development in the century
that followed. The 1800s saw the advent of the state canal
system and railroads, modes of transport that enabled greater
industrial activity and in turn incurred additional settlement.
Modal emphasis shifted from  canals and railways to roads
and highways during the 20th century. However, the area’s
significance as a regional transportation link has not
diminished. The future of the region will be largely dependent upon how effectively the challenges of enabling
the safe and efficient movement of people and commodities are met.

Map 1: 300 mile radius around the A/GFTC
Planning & Programming Area

LONG RANGE PLAN 2035 Page 2
The A/GFTC area is characterized by the remarkable quality of life it provides for its residents. A diverse
economy, access to services and cultural and recreational resources, and affordable housing in a variety of
residential settings all contribute to the region’s significant appeal. The Glens Falls Urban Area is in close

proximity to Saratoga Springs and the Capital District (including Albany, Schenectady and Troy). The area is also
centered within easy driving distance of four major metropolitan areas ‐ New York City, Boston, Montréal, and
Buffalo.
A/GFTC Committee Structure
The Adirondack / Glens Falls Transportation Council consists of two principal working groups. The Policy
Committee is responsible for reviewing and approving all A/GFTC planning activities and documents, including
the TIP, UPWP, and the Long Range Plan. Policy Committee voting membership includes:
 Chairmen of the Boards of Supervisors of Warren,
Washington and Saratoga Counties
 Mayors of the City of Glens Falls and the Villages of South Glens Falls, Fort Edward, Hudson Falls, and
Lake George
 Supervisors of the Towns of Moreau, Fort Edward, Kingsbury, Queensbury, and Lake George
 One rural supervisor from Warren County and one from
Washington County
 The Chairman of the Lake Champlain/Lake George Regional Planning Board
 The Commissioner of The New York State Department of Transportation
 The Executive Director of the New York State Thruway Authority
In addition, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the United
States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and Greater Glens Falls Transit (GGFT) serve as advisory members
to the Council.
The Technical Advisory Committee serves as the recommending body to the Policy Committee. It reviews all
major documents and actions in advance of Policy Committee consideration and is responsible for oversight of
ongoing staff
activities. The Technical Advisory Committee is comprised of local highway superintendents,
planning officials and other representatives from the municipalities that vote on the Policy Committee.
Through the A/GFTC committee processes, local and regional transportation issues are considered.
Transportation policies, programs and projects are developed and prioritized for the area’s highway, bridge
and
public transportation facilities.  The Council must ensure the public’s involvement in this transportation decision‐
making process through public notices and hearings and access to complete information on a timely and
continuous basis.
Host Agency and Staffing Arrangement
The Lake Champlain‐Lake George Regional Planning Board (LC‐LGRPB) is the host agency for A/GFTC. The host
agency provides first‐instance funding for expenses incurred by the operation of the Council. By way of this
arrangement, A/GFTC staff members are considered employees of the LC‐LGRPB.
As one of nine
regional planning and development agencies operating in New York State, the LC‐LGRPB’s mission
is to promote sustainable economic development that strengthens our communities, provides quality jobs and
preserves the unique natural, historical and cultural characteristics for the region that includes the counties of
Clinton, Essex, Hamilton, Warren and Washington.
The LC‐LGRPB is also the designated Area‐wide Clearinghouse

LONG RANGE PLAN 2035 Page 3
for the intergovernmental review process. As such, it provides early notification and additional review
opportunities to local governments for a wide range of federally funded projects.
Federal Legislation and Requirements
MAP‐21
The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP‐21) was signed into law on July 6, 2012. MAP‐21
represents a transformation of the policy and programmatic framework for investments to guide the growth and
development of transportation infrastructure in the U.S. It creates a streamlined, performance‐based,
and
multimodal program to address improving safety, maintaining infrastructure condition, reducing traffic
congestion, improving efficiency of the system and freight movement, protecting the environment, and reducing
delays in project delivery.
MAP‐21 builds on and refines many of the highway, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian programs and policies
established in previous
years. Goals include:
 Strengthen America’s highways: MAP‐21 expands the National Highway System (NHS) to incorporate all
Principal Arterials. Investment targets the enhanced NHS, with more than half of highway funding going
to the new program devoted to preserving and improving the most important highways ‐‐ the National
Highway Performance Program
(NHPP).
 Establish a performance‐based program: Under MAP‐21, performance management will transform
Federal highway programs and provide a means to more efficient investment of Federal transportation
funds by focusing on national transportation goals, increasing the accountability and transparency of the
Federal highway programs, and improving transportation investment decision
making through
performance‐based planning and programming.
 Create jobs and support economic growth: MAP‐21 authorizes $82 billion in Federal funding for FYs 2013
and 2014 for road, bridge, bicycling, and walking improvements. In addition, MAP‐21 enhances
innovative financing and encourages private sector investment through a substantial increase
in funding
for the TIFIA program. It also includes a number of provisions designed to improve freight movement in
support of national goals.
 Support the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) aggressive safety agenda: MAP‐21 continues the
successful Highway Safety Improvement Program, doubling funding for infrastructure safety,
strengthening the linkage
among modal safety programs, and creating a positive agenda to make
significant progress in reducing highway fatalities. It also continues to build on other aggressive safety
efforts, including the Department’s fight against distracted driving and its push to improve transit and
motor carrier safety.
 Streamline Federal highway transportation programs:
The complex array of existing programs is
simplified, substantially consolidating the program structure into a smaller number of broader core
programs. Many smaller programs are eliminated, including most discretionary programs, with some
eligibilities generally continuing under core programs.
 Accelerate project delivery and promotes innovation: MAP‐21 incorporates a host
of changes aimed at
ensuring the timely delivery of transportation projects. Changes will improve innovation and efficiency
in the development of projects, through the planning and environmental review process, to project
delivery.

LONG RANGE PLAN 2035 Page 4
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
The Clean Air Act Amendments are intended to significantly affect transportation planning, not only to achieve
air quality goals but also to affect broader environmental goals related to land use, greater availability of mode
choice, and reductions in vehicle miles traveled. As the designated MPO, A/GFTC is the lead agency for
air
quality planning in the urban area.  It must insure consistency of the TIP with regional and Statewide
Implementation Plans for Air Quality.  If air quality standards are not attained, A/GFTC must evaluate and adopt
reasonable transportation strategies so that these standards are attained.
The Town of Moreau, in Saratoga
County, had been included within the Albany‐Schenectady‐Troy air quality
nonattainment area for ozone . However, in 2012, that area was classified as attainment for the 2008 ozone
standard, and conformity determinations are no longer necessary for A/GFTC plans and programs as of July 20,
2013.
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
The Americans with Disabilities Act (1990) makes it illegal to discriminate against anyone who has physical or
mental disabilities in the areas of employment, public services, public accommodations and
telecommunications. With regard to transportation, ADA prohibits State and local governments from
discriminating against people with disabilities in all programs, services, and
activities, including but not limited to
public transportation services provided by public entities.
New York State Legislation and Requirements
New York State Energy Plan
The New York State Energy Plan was adopted in 2002 and is scheduled to be revised in 2013. One of the many
goals of this plan is to increase the energy efficiency of the transportation system. The State Energy Plan lists a
number of measures intended to reduce resource consumption and
emissions. Examples include:
 Development of transportation programs for employers to reduce single‐occupant vehicle trips
 Speed limit reduction and enforcement
 Enhancement of bicycle and pedestrian programs
 Freight movement improvements
 Increased deployment of demand‐actuated traffic signals and coordinated signal systems
Statewide Planning Emphasis Areas
In conjunction with the development of the New York State Transportation Master Plan, the New York State
Department of Transportation has identified four forward‐looking principles (known as the “Forward Four”):
 Preservation First
 System not Projects
 Maximize Return on Investments
 Make It Sustainable
In addition, the Department
has established a “Hierarchy of Priorities” which all actions should satisfy:
a) Demand response: Safety of the system is the key component. Keep the system safe and reliable
through: demand and corrective maintenance to structures; demand maintenance to pavement and

LONG RANGE PLAN 2035 Page 5
roadside appurtenances; and response and restitution of system closures/restrictions due to human
and/or natural emergencies.
b)Preservation: Preserve the system through preventive maintenance and additional corrective
maintenance actions.
c)Enhance Safety: Enhance the safety of the system through nominal and substantive safety
countermeasures, including “systematic” improvements and spot locations.
d)System renewal: Strategically address
system critical bridge replacements/major rehabs, pavement
rehabs and reconstructions. System Renewal projects are considered “Beyond Preservation” projects.
e) Modernization: Improve the system through strategic added capacity projects (e.g., HOV lanes), major
widening, addition of lanes, rest areas, or other enhancements to existing facilities. Modernization
projects are considered “Beyond Preservation” projects.

Implementation of the Forward Four on a program‐wide basis has resulted in major shift in A/GFTC capital
programming, starting with the 2014‐2018 Transportation Improvement Program, with the emphasis moving
away from infrastructure replacement towards maintenance and repair.

LONG RANGE PLAN 2035 Page 6
Public Outreach and Input
A/GFTC has  demonstrated a strong commitment to including public outreach and input in all MPO products. As
the Long Range Plan sets the course for the next twenty years, public input is a crucial component of this
product. As such, a public involvement plan was developed and implemented during the drafting
of this LRP. The
public involvement plan was focused on gathering input at all phases of the LRP, including a public survey and
draft plan outreach. The results of these efforts are summarized below.
Public Survey
An electronic survey was created, with a paper version available as well. Press releases were submitted to all
local media and a short article appeared in the Post‐Star. Displays were established in the Warren County,
Washington County, and Town of Moreau offices. Paper copies were also sent to all town
and village clerks in
the MPO area. The survey was made available for one year (June 2012 to June 2013). In total, 144 responses
were submitted.
It is important to note that the Long Range Plan Survey was elective.  Although the results are very useful for
planning purposes and for
registering the opinions and concerns of those who responded, the results of the
survey should not be extrapolated to represent a broader population. Additionally, not all respondents
answered all of the questions. Depending upon the nature of the question, some of the following charts
illustrate the number of responses, while some
are presented in terms of the percentage of respondents who
answered that particular question.
Access to transportation facilities
In terms of access to transportation facilities, the survey focused on two aspects: the quality of access to
facilities (scaled poor to excellent, including a not applicable option), and how important those facilities are to
respondents (scaled from 1‐6, 1 being most important and 6 being least important). This distinction
allows for a
rudimentary assessment of priorities for future projects.
Interstate 87 was rated as having the most “good”,” very good”, and” excellent” quality of access (see Figure 1).
In contrast, passenger rail and public transportation had the most “poor” ratings in terms of access quality. In
terms of importance,
the facility rated as most important to respondents was Interstate 87, while the least
important was airport facilities (Figure 2). These responses indicate that maintaining good access to Interstate
87 and the other major highways should be a priority for the MPO. In addition, although access to public
transportation or bicycle/pedestrian
facilities may not be of the highest importance, respondents believe that
improvements to the quality of access to these facilities is clearly needed.

LONG RANGE PLAN 2035 Page 7
Figure 1: Quality of Access to Transportation Facilities

Figure 2: Importance of Access to Transportation Facilities

0 10 20 30 40
50 60 70Interstate 87 Other major
highwaysPublic
transportationBicycle/pedestrian
facilitiesPassenger rail Airport facilities
Number of Responses
Poor
Fair
Good
Very Good
Excellent
N/A
0 10
20 30 40
50
60
70
80
Interstate
87
Other major
highways
Public
transportati
on
Bicycle/
pedestrian
facilities
Passenger
rail
Airport
facilitiesNumber of Responses
Most Important
Very Important
Important
Somewhat
Important
Little Importance
Unimportant

LONG RANGE PLAN 2035 Page 8
Bicycle/Pedestrian Facilities
A majority (66.9%) of survey participants noted that bicycle and pedestrian facilities in their communities are
insufficient. Respondents expressed a preference for wide shoulders, bike lanes, and multi‐use trails as
improvements which would encourage bicycle and pedestrian activity (Figure 3). Only five respondents noted
that there are no improvements that
would encourage more walking/cycling behavior.
Figure 3: Desired improvements to encourage biking & walking
Public Transportation
Fifty‐five percent of respondents indicated that public transit does not adequately serve the needs of their
community, with 21% indicating that service is adequate, and 24% indicating “I Don’t Know.” (It is important to
note that this question is based on the perception of adequacy of public transportation, not whether
service
exists.) Figure 4 indicates the types of improvements that survey respondents felt were appropriate to their
community. The most popular responses included more routes and service extensions. For the open‐ended
“other” responses, common themes included:
 Expanded services on weekends
 Better connections to Saratoga/Wilton via CDTA

Bicycle carriers on trolley vehicles
Figure 4: Desired transit improvements

52
3748
31
25
0 10 20 30
40
50
60
More routes More frequent
serviceMy community is not
served by public
transit; service
should be extendedI don’t know Other (please
specify)
Number of Responses
5096
88
33 225672
523
0 20 40
60 80 100
120
Sidewalks Wide
shoulders
along
roadwaysBike lanes Crosswalks Pedestrian‐
actuated
traffic
signalsBicycle
parking/bike
racksMulti‐use
trailsNone Other
(please
specify)
Number of responses

LONG RANGE PLAN 2035 Page 9
Access to Area Destinations
Respondents were asked to rate the importance of access to certain types of destinations, seen in Figure 5
below. This indicates that the most important destinations are the community centers within the MPO area,
with access to commercial centers a close second. Access to Vermont was the least important.
Figure 5: Importance of Access to Area Destinations

The survey also asked people to indicate the zip code of their home (Figure 6), as well as the origin and
destination zip codes for the trips they make often. as well as the reason for making the trips. As can be seen in
Figure7, the majority of trips are
made for work.
The most numerous origin and destination points are within and adjacent to the MPO Urbanized area, mainly
Glens Falls and Queensbury (see Figure 8). Other common destinations include Saratoga Springs and Albany.

Community centers (cities, villages,
and hamlets)Commercial areas Recreation areas Adirondack Park Capital District Vermont
Least Important
Most Important

LONG RANGE PLAN 2035 Page 10

0 1020304050 Ballston Spa Clifton Park ManhattanAlbany North Creek UnknownCorinth Kattskill Bay Silver Bay Bolton Landing Granville S. Glens Falls Saratoga Springs Fort Ann Salem Greenwich WarrensburgChestertownHudson Falls Fort Edward Lake GeorgeOther Glens Falls Queensbury
DestinationOrigin
Work
60%
School
3%Other
35%I prefer
not to
answer
2%
Outside
MPO
8%
Rural
33%
Urbanized
Area
59%
Figure 8: Origin Vs. Destination Zip Codes
Figure 7:Reasons for Travel Trips Figure 6: Zip Codes of Survey Respondents
(Home)

LONG RANGE PLAN 2035 Page 11
Maintenance and Condition of Transportation Facilities
Survey respondents were asked to rate the maintenance and condition of transportation facilities, from “poor”
to “excellent”. For each type of transportation facility, the most common response for both condition and
maintenance was “good” (Figures 9 & 10). Major highways also rated the most “very good” and “excellent”
among the choices
in the survey.

115
1226
1635
34
27 4557
55
43 51
20
1819 22
9910
10611
0 10 20 30 40 50
60
Major highways Local roads Bridges Bike/pedestrian facilities
Number of Responses
Poor
Fair
Good
Very Good
Excellent
N/A
316
1119 2043
36
26 4651
47
39 39
1823
21 26
788
21922
0 10 20 30
40 50 60
Ma
jor highwaysLocal roads Bridges Bike/pedestrian facilities
Number of Responses
Poor
Fair
Good
Very Good
Excellent
N/A
Figure 10: Transportation Facility Condition
Figure 9: Maintenance of transportation facilities

LONG RANGE PLAN 2035 Page 12
Respondents were also asked to rank the importance of maintenance and condition of transportation facilities.
This is a way to determine if the current maintenance and condition of transportation facilities aligns with the
priorities of the public. (For example, the condition of a facility may be excellent, but of low importance
to the
survey respondent.)The ranked order of importance for both the maintenance and condition of transportation
facilities, from most important to least important, was: major highways, local roads, bridges, and bike/ped
facilities.

Specific Transportation Issues
The survey asked respondents to note whether specific types of transportation issues occur in their community
(Figure 11). Safety, alternative transportation, and infrastructure issues were the most frequently cited. In
addition, the survey contained open‐ended options for noting the location and details for each issue. These have
been summarized into
categories in Table 1.
Figure 11: Existence of Specific Transportation Issues

Table 1: Specific Transportation Issues Summary
Transportation Issue Common Comments/Issues
Safety
 Inadequate Bicycle/Pedestrian infrastructure
 Speed limit/cell phone enforcement not adequate
 Road conditions and maintenance are poor
 Turn arrows/lanes are needed
Congestion/Mobility
 Congested areas:
o Exit 20/Route9/Route149
o Aviation Road/Quaker Road
o Route 9, South Glens Falls
 Left‐turns with/without signal causes delays
 Traffic signal coordination is needed
89
64
5881
80
3461
59
3941
0 10
20 30 40
50 60 70
80 90 100
Safety Congestion/Mobility Quality of Life Alternative
TransportationInfrastructure
Number of responses
Yes
No

LONG RANGE PLAN 2035 Page 13
Transportation Issue Common Comments/Issues
Quality of Life
 Inadequate Bicycle/Pedestrian infrastructure
 Incompatible land uses
 Streetscape improvements
 Parking issues
 Transit service needed
 Residential traffic levels
Alternative Transportation
 Increase transit to rural areas
 Increase connections to/frequency of transit within current service area
 Improve bike/ped infrastructure
Infrastructure
 Road shoulders (width & condition)
 Roadway geometry/configuration
 Pavement Condition
 Traffic control devices/roadway signage
 Bicycle/pedestrian Infrastructure

Long‐term priorities
Survey respondents were asked to rank the importance of the specific transportation issues for their community
for the 10‐20 year planning horizon. As can be seen in Figure 12, quality of life and safety are the most
important, followed by transportation infrastructure and alternative transportation. Traffic congestion/mobility
was the lowest
priority.

18161623
49
5 2331
153343 53
4150
4048
45
2357
40
300 10 20 30
40 50 60
Safety Traffic
congestion/mobilityQuality of life Alternative transportation Transportation
infrastructure
Number of Responses
Not importantSomewhat importantImportantVery importantCritically important
Figure 12: Long Term Priorities

LONG RANGE PLAN 2035 Page 14
Draft Plan outreach
A public comment period for the draft plan was held from August 19 until September 30.  A series of
presentation boards, which summarized the goals and recommendations of the plan, were on display from
August 19‐August 22 at the Washington County Fair. This event was attended by thousands of residents
of the
A/GFTC area, and several hundred attendees reviewed the information on the presentation boards. Comments
received during this event were focused on specific transportation issues, and are included in Table 2 below.
Copies of the plan were posted online and in several locations throughout the urbanized area, including:

AGFTC Offices (11 South Street, second floor)
 Warren County Municipal Center (Clerk’s office)
 Washington County Municipal Center (Clerk’s office)
 Crandall Library
 Queensbury Town Hall
 South Glens Falls Village Hall
 Lake George Village Hall
In addition, a public meeting was held on September 9, 2013. This
meeting was announced via legal ad, direct
invitation to A/GFTC constituents, and social media, and 10 media outlets received press releases concerning the
event. During the meeting, several comments were received and are also summarized in Table 2 below.
Table 2: Draft Plan Public Comment Summary
“There is no Public Transportation in some areas of Washington, Warren or Northern Saratoga Counties. A map
can identify where those areas lacking transportation are located. These areas include all of Southern
Washington County, Northern Washington County and the Eastern portion around Granville. A definite need
exists to connect Southern Washington
County with the public transportation of Saratoga Springs that connects
with the greater Capital District and also with points north to the Glens Falls area. While local agencies like Van
Go and RSVP assist with medical transportation needs, other needs are not being met.”
“Would like sign for blind intersection at Meetinghouse Rd & Hoag Rd ‐ Easton. Dangerous intersection.”
“A sign at the bike path at Shermantown Rd where it turns off Warren Street would be very helpful. The path in
that neighborhood is hard to follow.”
There is a growing need for public transportation options to Saratoga Springs and Malta. Does the plan address
these options?
Ridesharing services could be useful, especially if the service could be offered directly to large employers.
There is a great need for public transportation in southern Washington County. This could be linked to the
Saratoga Springs bus lines which service the Capital District.
Several other counties have county‐wide public transportation, such as Essex County. Washington County needs
to move in this direction.
The plan should include a map of available public transportation services.
Preserving and enhancing connections to rural areas is important.

LONG RANGE PLAN 2035 Page 15
Planning Principles for A/GFTC
As the guiding document for all MPO activities for the next twenty years, 2035 Ahead seeks to synthesize the
stated priorities of those who live and travel within the A/GFTC area with a wide a variety of national, statewide,
and regional priorities for transportation. As part of previous long‐range planning
efforts, A/GFTC established a
series of twelve principles to guide the planning and programming activities in the MPO. These have been
reviewed, and are still relevant and appropriate for the 2035 Ahead plan. The principles are:
1. Transportation plans and programs will seek to maintain the established and varied settings
that
make the area an attractive place to live, work, and visit while bringing positive changes to the
natural and built environments that outweigh associated costs.
2. Options for maintaining the existing transportation system and maximizing its operating utility
through improvements that address surface conditions, safety issues, intersection operations,
access, and
multimodal accommodations will be given priority over costlier and more disruptive
capacity improvement or new highway alignment concepts.
3. Maintaining and operating an integrated transportation system for all modes that entails minimal
risk and maximum access for users of all ages and abilities is paramount.
4. Current travel and transportation
habits will intrinsically create some degree of traffic congestion in
certain locations. Projects and plans intended to address those locations with recurring vehicle
congestion should also incorporate meaningful demand management measures including transit
provisions and access improvements.
5. Public transit is essential to progress the evolution of the transportation system. Improving
the span,
scope and coordination of existing services will enhance mobility options for those that cannot or
will not rely upon automobiles and in turn help reduce the physical, environmental and capital costs
associated with transportation.
6. Bicycling and walking are modes of transportation – not just means of recreation.
Capital projects
that are designed to include meaningful accommodations for bicyclists and pedestrians will be given
priority as future programs are developed.
7. Developing the potential of passenger rail and commercial shipping of water borne and rail borne
freight will lessen the demand upon and improve performance of the road‐based
transportation
system.
8. Coordination of land use planning, economic development, and transportation planning activities is
essential to maximize the region’s potential.
9. Regional issues will require cooperation of municipalities and organizations that transcend
established jurisdictional boundaries.
10. Encouraging infill development and redevelopment through the prioritization of system investments
is preferable
to facilitating large‐scale development outside of established residential and
commercial areas.
11. A/GFTC will continue its commitment to public participation so that it may continue to plan with the
people, not for the people.
12. Technology and data collection will play an important role in identifying, prioritizing, operating, and
analyzing
transportation system improvements. A/GFTC is committed to improving its technological
and analytical capabilities.

LONG RANGE PLAN 2035 Page 16
These guiding principles influence decision‐making at all levels within the MPO, from large‐scale programming
efforts to site‐specific planning efforts. The remainder of the plan outlines a variety of factors which directly or
indirectly influence the transportation system in the A/GFTC area. For each of these factors, the plan
outlines
the existing condition as it relates to transportation, any challenges or opportunities which exist, and the
priorities or projects which the MPO will pursue. These priorities and projects will be directly linked back to one
or more of the twelve guiding principles. This will ensure consistency for MPO activities
over the long term, a
key goal of 2035 Ahead.

LONG RANGE PLAN 2035 Page 17
Demographic Trends

Population and Housing
Data
Population growth rates from the
2010 census indicated an overall
4% growth rate for the A/GFTC
area, with strong growth trends in
and around the Glens Falls
metropolitan area. Growth rates
for individual municipalities can be
seen in Map 2. The rates of
population change from 2000 to
2010 in the
A/GFTC region suggest
a few surprising trends. Most
municipalities experienced a
slowing growth trend. The
communities in shaded cells in
Table 3 experienced a positive rate
of growth from 1990‐2000, but
then a negative growth rate from
2000‐2010. However, four
communities experienced a
reversal in population growth as
compared to the 1990‐2000 period
(see bold cells in Table 3). This was
most evident in Kingsbury, which
reported a 13% growth rate from
2000‐2010, in strong contrast to
the–6% percentage of growth in
the Town from 1990‐2000.
1

1 Town officials in Kingsbury attribute some of this shift to undercounting in the 2000 census.   Table 3: Population Growth Rates by Municipality
Name 1990
Pop. 2000
Pop. 2010 Pop. 90‐00
Growth 00‐10
Growth
Bolton 185521172326 14.1%9.9%
Chester 346536143355 4.3%‐7.2%
Glens Falls 150231435414700 ‐4.5%2.4%
Hague 699854699 22.2%‐18.1%
Horicon 126914791389 16.5%‐6.1%
Johnsburg 235224502395 4.2%‐2.2%
Lake George 321135783515 11.4%‐1.8%
Lake Luzerne 281632193347 14.3%4.0%
Queensbury 226302544127901 12.4%9.7%
Stony Creek 670743767 10.9%3.2%
Thurman 104511991219 14.7%1.7%
Warrensburg 417442554094 1.9%‐3.8%
Warren County 592096330365707 6.9%3.8%
Argyle 303136883782 21.7%2.5%
Cambridge 193821522021 11.0%‐6.1%
Dresden 561677652 20.7%‐3.7%
Easton 220322592336 2.5%3.4%
Fort Ann 636864176190 0.8%‐3.5%
Fort Edward 633058926371 ‐6.9%8.1%
Granville 593564566669 8.8%3.3%
Greenwich 455748964942 7.4%0.9%
Hampton 756871938 15.2%7.7%
Hartford 198922792269 14.6%‐0.4%
Hebron 154017731853 15.1%4.5%
Jackson 158117181800 8.7%4.8%
Kingsbury 118511117112671 ‐5.7%13.4%
Putnam 477645609 35.2%‐5.6%
Salem 260827022715 3.6%0.5%
White Creek 319634113356 6.7%‐1.6%
Whitehall 440940354042 ‐8.5%0.2%
Washington County 593306104263216 2.9%3.6%
Saratoga County
(Moreau) 130221382614728 6.2%6.5%
A/GFTC Area 131561138171143651 5.0%4.0%
Source: US Census, 2000 & 2010

LONG RANGE PLAN 2035 Page 18
In terms of housing, each community in the
A/GFTC area experienced an increase in the
number of housing units between 2000 and
2010.
In every Town except Fort Edward, the rate of
housing unit growth was greater than the rate
of population growth. Map 3 compares the
rates of housing unit
growth to population.
Areas in which the rate of housing unit growth
outstrips the population growth are commonly
associated with “suburban sprawl”. The Towns
with the largest differences between housing
unit growth and population growth are mainly
rural areas. Hague and Cambridge had the
largest discrepancy between population
growth rates
and housing growth rates. In the
A/GFTC area, it is likely that this pattern could
also be associated with an increase in second
homes in rural/tourist areas. This can be an
important consideration, since seasonal homes
are associated with different traffic patterns
and infrastructure needs than primary homes.

Map 3: Comparison of Population
Vs. Housing Unit Growth  Map 2: Population Growth, 2000‐2010

LONG RANGE PLAN 2035 Page 19
Age Data
Like many areas of New York, many of the
communities in the A/GFTC area are facing an
aging population. Surprisingly, several of the
communities in the A/GFTC area were revealed
to have relatively young populations.
This trend towards a younger population can be
seen in Figure 13. For the majority of
the
municipalities, there was a decline in the number
of 20‐24 year old residents between 2000 and
2010. In these communities (seen with the red
trendline in the figure),  the highest percentage
of the population of residents is between the 45‐
65 age range (averaging about 8%), while the
20‐
40 years old populations makes up only about
3% of the total. However, for several
communities, including most of the Villages in
the A/GFTC area, the 20‐24 cohort grew
between 2000‐2010. In these municipalities (the
blue trend line), the 20‐30 age group represents
a much higher proportion
of the population ‐
averaging about 7%, which is about equal with
the 45‐65 age group. These younger
communities include the Villages of Argyle, Fort
Ann, Fort Edward, Hudson Falls, Whitehall, and
South Glens Falls, as well as the Towns of Fort
Ann, Fort Edward, Kingsbury and the City of
Glens Falls.
Employment
Across the country,  the recent economic climate
has been less than ideal. However, despite these
trends in the nation and across New York State,
the A/GFTC region has seen impressively high
employment statistics. For example, from 2011‐
2012, the NYS Department of Labor reported
that the Glens Falls Metropolitan Statistical Area
(defined as Warren and Washington Counties but not including
Moreau) had the highest rate of private sector job growth in the state at 3.6%, eclipsing the statewide rate
(1.6%) and national rate (1.7%). Although the Manufacturing, Information, and Government Industry super‐
sectors saw negative or 0% change over the past
10 years, all other industries saw strong job growth in the MSA
(see Figure 14). In terms of current employment rates by industry, residents of the A/GFTC area are mainly
employed in the education/health services, retail, and manufacturing sectors.
2
<0003000300030003000300030003000300030003000300030003000300030003000300030003000300030003000300030003000300030003000300030003000300030003000300030003000300030003000300030003000300030003000300030003000300 0300030003000300030003000300030003>

2 http://www.labor.state.ny.us/stats/cap/glensfalls.pdf
Data Source: NYS Department of Labor
Figure 14: % Change in Jobs by Super‐Sector, Glens Falls
MSA, Dec. 2002 ‐ Dec. 2012
Data Source: US Census 2010
Figure 13: Age by % of Population, 2010

LONG RANGE PLAN 2035 Page 20
Although it is important to have an understanding of
the types of jobs held by residents of the A/GFTC
area, it is perhaps more relevant to this plan to
examine where these jobs are located. Job location
affects transportation systems, both in terms of
commuting and public transportation.
According to the
U.S. Census, over 75% of the
employed residents of the A/GFTC area work 24
miles or less from their home. (See Figure 15.) In
terms of direction, most workers head south
towards their jobs. South‐bound commutes are also
significantly longer, as residents travel to Saratoga,
Wilton, and the Albany
area to get to work.
Another important consideration is the actual
location of jobs inside and outside the A/GFTC area.
According to the U.S. Census, about 45% of
employed residents in the A/GFTC area also work
within the MPO boundary (See Figure 16).
Conversely, about 34% travel outside the area to
get
to work, and just over 20% of people working in the
A/GFTC area live outside the MPO boundary. More
specifically, Table 4 lists the municipalities where
residents work. The City of Glens Falls and the
Town of Queensbury make up over 30% of the jobs
for A/GFTC residents. Outside
of the A/GFTC area,
the City of Saratoga Springs, Town of Colonie, City
of Albany, and Town of Wilton are the most
common destinations for employed residents.
Table 4:  Top 10 Locations of Employment for A/GFTC
Workers ‐ 2010
Location # of Jobs % of Total
All A/GFTC Jobs 60,933 100.0%
City of Glens Falls 9,968 16.4%
Town of Queensbury 9,121 15.0%
City of Saratoga Springs 2,903 4.8%
Town of Fort Edward 2,428 4.0%
Town of Colonie 1,995 3.3%
Town of Moreau 1,945 3.2%
City of Albany 1,876 3.1%
Town of Kingsbury 1,708 2.8%
Town of Wilton 1,355 2.2%
Town of Granville 1,312 2.2%
All Other Locations 26,322 43.2%
Note: locations in italics are located outside of the MPO
boundary
Data Source: US Census 2010
Figure 15: Jobs by Distance and Direction ‐ Work Census
Block to Home Census Block
20.5%45.3% 34.2%
Work in MPO
area, live outside  Live in MPO Area,
Work Outside Work and Live in
MPO Area
Data Source: US Census 2010
Figure 16: Inflow/Outflow Job Counts in 2010

LONG RANGE PLAN 2035 Page 21
Challenges and Opportunities
The demographic profile suggests a number of transportation‐related challenges and opportunities for the MPO,
both currently and in the future. These include:
 The gap between population growth and increase in housing units indicates development pressure in
outlying rural areas, although this trend may be partially due to an increase
in second homes.
Development of residential uses in the rural areas may create additional burdens on the transportation
infrastructure in those areas.
 A majority of residents in the MPO area work less than 10 miles from their home. These short commutes
may be conducive to alternative transportation modes, especially
biking, walking, and transit.
 Many of the rural towns have an aging population. Over time, the need for specialized transportation
services for this demographic will grow, as the population ages out of driving and given a continued
emphasis upon home‐based care for the elderly.
 The urban area has
seen strong population growth especially in younger age groups.  Recent studies
have indicated that younger people are more likely to use alternative transportation, and less likely to
drive
3, which could lessen future demand reduce the stress on the road network.

Demographic Priorities and Projects
Related Planning Principles: 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10
As a regional transportation agency, A/GFTC has a responsive, rather than proactive, role in demographics. The
MPO must seek ways to respond to demographic trends in a manner that supports the primary role of the
agency. As such, the following priorities have been identified:
1. Continue to promote biking, walking, and
transit use within the urbanized area and near employment
centers. The population  and aging patterns present a clear opportunity to encourage greater usage of
alternative transportation modes. A/GFTC is already committed to finding ways to increase biking,
walking, and public transit. Having a clear understanding of the demographic trends can
further support
this effort.
2. Actively participate in regional planning efforts, which can provide valuable insights and partnership
opportunities for employment, housing, and other factors which affect the transportation system. As an
MPO, A/GFTC currently participates in a wide variety of regional plans, both as a technical assistance
resource and as
a stakeholder. Continuing this participation will allow A/GFTC to identify synergies
which can be used to improve transportation in the region.
3. Continue to consider the transportation needs of an aging population. As the rural towns and villages
continue to age faster than the urbanized area, A/GFTC should seek solutions
to the unique challenges
presented by this demographic trend.

3 Transportation and the New Generation: Why Young People Are Driving Less and What It Means for Transportation Policy
http://www.uspirg.org/sites/pirg/files/reports/Transportation%20%26%20the%20New%20Generation%20vUS_0.pdf

LONG RANGE PLAN 2035 Page 22
Highways and Bridges
Highways comprise the vast majority of
regional transportation infrastructure.
Private automobiles and commercial
vehicles continue to be the dominant mode
of moving goods and people. Besides
providing basic mobility, a reliable,
predictable, and  functional surface
transportation system is directly linked to
sustained and expanded economic
development, tourism and recreation,
safety and
emergency response, and quality
of life. This section includes a description of
federal‐aid eligible roadways, a summary of
existing conditions and recent condition
history, and generalized traffic conditions
and trends.
Jurisdictional Responsibilities
Most of the Federal funding sources
adminstered by A/GFTC have restricted
applicability. Federal funds are generally
limited to the Federal aid ‐ eligible network
that is comprised of locally identified
roadways (as shown in Map 4) included on
the basis of their individual Functional
Classifications. Similarly, state funds are
generally limited to
use along state
highways. The total centerline mileage
(689.6) of regional streets and highways
that are eligible to receive federal and state
funds is less than 30% of the overall mileage
total. As a result, federal and state funds
are a comparatively small element of the
transportation funding equation. Cities,
villages, towns and counties also contribute
considerable resources to maintaining their
respective highways systems while working
to preserve local and regional mobility.

Functional Classification and the federal aid ‐ eligible network
Functional Classification is the grouping of streets and highways into classes
or systems according to the nature of service they provide. The classification
also defines the role that a road or street plays in the network. Selection
criteria for the various categories are
listed below. In addition to the
Interstate system, all roadways that are grouped into those categories listed
below are Federal aid‐eligible.
Principal Arterials – Rural and Urban
 Connected network of continuous routes that serve substantial
statewide or interstate travel
 Carry the major portion of trips entering and
leaving the area
Minor Arterials – Rural and Urban
 Work in conjunction with Principal Arterials to link cities and larger
towns
 Spaced at logical intervals so that developed areas are within
reasonable distance of an arterial highway
 Are designed to provide for relatively high overall travel speeds with

minimum interference to movements
 Carry significant intra‐area travel, such as between business districts
and outlying residential areas
 May link major suburban centers and carry bus routes
Collectors ‐ Urban
 Provides land access and traffic circulation within residential
neighborhoods, commercial and industrial areas.
 Accumulates traffic from local
streets in residential neighborhoods and
channels it into the arterial system
 Normally follows a grid pattern which is the most logical form for traffic
circulation
 Integrates interstate travel with the arterial street system and
augments  the principal system with a lower level of mobility
Major Collector ‐ Rural
 Constitute
routes on which the predominant travel distances are
shorter than on arterial routes; speeds may be more moderate
 Provide service to larger towns not directly served by higher roadway
systems, and to other traffic generators such as consolidated schools or
county parks
MostState highways, urban or rural, are Federal
aid‐eligible. Roadways
classified within the following categories are generally not eligible for
federal aid:
Minor Collectors ‐ Rural
 Provide service to smaller communities
 Bring traffic to developed areas and link locally important traffic
generators within their rural areas
Local Streets ‐ Urban/Rural
 Provide direct access to land and higher
ordered systems
 Lowest level of mobility; through traffic movements are usually
deliberately discouraged
 Primarily provide access to adjacent land; service travel over shorter
distances compared to collectors or other highway systems

LONG RANGE PLAN 2035 Page 23
Map 4: Functional Classes in the A/GFTC Area

LONG RANGE PLAN 2035 Page 24
Pavement Conditions
One important measure of the federal aid
road system is pavement condition. Figure
17 shows the average surface scores by
mileage for state‐ and local‐owned federal‐
aid roadways (FAR). Surface scores for local
highways are assessed using windshield
surveys. A reference manual with
photographs is used to maximize consistency
in
evaluations. However, it is important to
note the state system is assessed by NYSDOT
staff, while the local system is assessed
through A/GFTC.  Scores of 9‐10 represent
pavement that is in “excellent” condition,
with 7 or 8 being “good”, 6 being “fair”, and
1‐5 being “poor”. For 2012,
the State‐owned
roadways had an average condition rating of
6.56 for the entirety of the A/GFTC area, while local Federal Aid Network roadways had an average condition
rating of 7.77. A breakdown of state/local condition ratings by location and owner is available in Figure 18.
Perhaps the most noteworthy trend
here is the improvement of pavement conditions along locally‐owned
federal‐aid highways, while conditions along State roadways remains largely stable. The data is a reflection of
the difficulty encountered by NYSDOT in maintaining a large highway network within the constraints of the New
York State budget. It is anticipated
that the roadway conditions will remain steady or even decline slightly as the
State implements a “preservation first” strategy. However, this approach is designed to improve pavement
conditions over the long term, with the goal of maintaining the bulk of roads at a score of 7 or higher.
Figure 18: 2012 Pavement Scores by Location and Owner

7.297.638.54
6.446.67
6.46 6.886.97
6.71
0 2
4
6
8 10
Moreau Warren Washington
Pavement Score
Local FAR
State FAR
Overall FAR
6.81
6.737.16
6.87
6.566.57
5 6 7
8
2001 2005 2011
Pavement Score
Year
Local FAR
State FAR
Figure 17: Pavement Score Trends, 2001‐2011

LONG RANGE PLAN 2035 Page 25
System Performance ‐ Capacity
The historic trend of annual increases in Vehicle Miles Traveled, documented in previous editions of this LRP, is
no longer the case in the A/GFTC region. Indeed, a comparison of VMT on the State Touring Route from 2004 to
2011 levels shows a very minor increase in Washington County (0.57%) and
a decrease in Warren County
(‐2.61%)4. This could be attributable to increases in gas prices or other indirect economic factors.
Although VMT has held steady or decreased, system performance with regards to vehicle capacity is still an issue
in certain localized areas. Capacity issues have become increasingly difficult to accommodate within capital
programs as infrastructure conditions
deteriorate, the buying power of public funds continues to decline, and
the overall size of the programs decrease. As a consequence, A/GFTC’s 2014‐2018 Transportation Improvement
Program contains no highway improvement projects solely intended to address capacity or congestion issues.
Anticipated regional growth in the number of households and employment
will result in additional trip
generation which will in turn place additional pressure upon the functionality of the highway system.
To estimate the potential impacts of continued economic development and proliferation of households, the
A/GFTC regional travel demand model was used to generate volume to capacity ratio (V/C) data . The
V/C ratio
compares the amount of traffic along a given roadway to the amount of traffic that that roadway is capable of
carrying. The degree to which known site‐specific capacity issues are accurately represented within a regional
travel demand model can vary from location to location; for example, the
A/GFTC model notably under‐
represents existing traffic conditions at US Route 9 / NYS 149 in Queensbury and at US Route 9 in the Village of
South Glens Falls, two locations that feature significant and recurring congestion. However, comparison of
existing data to forecasted data within the regional model is a
useful measure that can be used to identify
potential system capacity constraints.
The following graphics (Maps 5 & 6) show current condition (2010) and projected (2035) PM peak hour summer
season V/C  data for federal aid  ‐ eligible roadways in the A/GFTC area. The 2035 forecast was developed using
data provided
to the New York State Department of Transportation by IHS Global. Using a conservative estimate
that forecasts no capacity improvement projects between now and 2035, the A/GFTC travel demand model
suggests that capacity constraints evident in 2010 will become more pronounced over time with growth, but
that capacity issues do not
appear to expand geographically. It is however logical to assume that a more
significant capacity constraint at a given location could indeed lead to delays and queue length increases on
adjacent segments. Noting that, the travel demand model suggests that future traffic conditions at the following
locations may approach or
exceed existing roadway capacities:

  US Route 9, between Quaker Road and Exit 20
 NYS 149 at US Route 9 (Gurney Lane / Exit 20 SB)
 Downtown Glens Falls (Glen Street / Ridge Street /Warren Street/Hudson Avenue)
 NB ramp from I‐87 to Diamond Point Road (Exit
23), Town of Lake George
 NB ramp from I‐87 to US Route 9 (Exit 22), Town of Lake George
 US Route 4 at NYS Route 196, Village of Hudson Falls
 US Route 4 between NYS 149 and NYS 22, Town of Fort Ann

4 Data provided by NYSDOT Highway Data Services Bureau

LONG RANGE PLAN 2035 Page 26

Map 5: 2010 Volume‐to‐Capacity Ratio
Map 6: 2035 Volume‐to‐Capacity Ratio

LONG RANGE PLAN 2035 Page 27
Bridges
The A/GFTC Planning and Programming Area is home to 593 highway bridges5.  Of those, state agencies own
41.6% (247 bridges), local municipalities own 51.6% (306 bridges), railroads own 5.7% (34 bridges), and the
remaining 1.1% (6 bridges) are privately owned.
NYSDOT is responsible for inspecting all the highway bridges in the state, regardless of ownership, according to
state and federal mandates. New
York State requires bridge inspection teams, led by licensed professional
engineers, to inspect highway bridges at least once every two years. These bridge inspectors assess all of a
bridge’s individual parts,  assign an overall condition score, and document the condition of up to 47 structural
elements.
The NYSDOT condition rating
scale ranges from 1.0 to 7.0, with a score of 7.0 indicating new condition and a
score of 5.0 or greater considered as good condition. Bridges with a condition rating of less than 5.0 are deemed
to be deficient, which indicates deterioration that requires corrective maintenance or rehabilitation. It is
important
to note that a deficient bridge is not necessarily unsafe.
Average condition ratings for highway bridge structures within the A/GFTC have improved slightly over the past
ten years (see Figure 19). While overall condition ratings have improved, the level of improvement varies by
municipality and by ownership.

Figure 19 shows
that the average condition ratings for bridges improved most substantially within Warren
County, although these bridges are still below the overall average for the A/GFTC region. The conditions of the
11 bridges in the Town of Moreau are above average for the A/GFTC area, and have held relatively steady over
the past 10 years. In Washington County, the average bridge ratings have declined recently, but are still better
than they were 10 years ago.
Another important consideration is condition of locally‐owned versus State‐owned bridges. As can be seen in
Figure 20, State‐owned bridges have improved over the past
10 years, but are still rated lower than locally‐
owned bridges on average.

5 All bridge condition data derived from NYSDOT GIS layers and/or Highway Bridge Data services
4.90 5.00 5.10 5.20 5.30 5.40
5.50 5.60 5.70 5.80
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Bridge Condition
Year
SARATOGA
WARREN
WASHINGTON
A/GFTC AREA
Figure 19:Bridge Conditions by Location, 2002‐2012

LONG RANGE PLAN 2035 Page 28
MAP‐21 also includes requires that data be collected according to the funding program for bridges. As such, the
most current bridge condition data was averaged for bridges on the Interstate System, on the National Highway
System, and local‐system bridges which are funded under the Surface Transportation Program. These ratings
are
summarized in Figure 21.
In addition to the inspection
rating system used by New York
State, it also required that rating
scales developed by FHWA be
used as the basis for annual,
state‐by‐state comparisons of
bridge conditions. Those federal
ratings are not as detailed as the
State
system and are the result of
overall average condition
assessments of only the bridge’s
five major structural
components.
The federal ratings are also used
to identify bridges that do not
meet contemporary Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA)
standards. Those bridges are
classified as either structurally
deficient (SD) or functionally obsolete (FO).
According to FHWA guidelines, structurally deficient bridges are
those that have any of the following characteristics:
 Significant load carrying elements in poor or worse condition due to deterioration and/or damage
 Inadequate load capacity
 Repeated bridge flooding that causes traffic delays
5.52
5.115.56
4.80 4.90 5.00
5.10 5.20 5.30
5.40 5.50 5.60
NHPP: Non‐interstate NHPP: Interstate STP
Current Bridge Rating
5.56
5.555.555.61
5.605.605.65
5.60
5.595.615.61
5.32
5.305.355.38
5.325.385.405.415.43
5.425.43
5.10 5.20 5.30 5.40
5.50
5.60 5.70
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Bridge Condition
Year
LOCAL
STATE
Figure 20:State vs. Local Bridge Conditions, 2002‐2012
Figure 21: Current Bridge Condition

LONG RANGE PLAN 2035 Page 29
The fact that a bridge is structurally deficient does not imply that it is unsafe or is on the verge of imminent
collapse. Many structurally deficient bridges remain in operation but require significant maintenance and repair
to continue to carry traffic. Load postings are often deployed to restrict weight over these
structures. Eventually,
rehabilitation or replacement is necessary to address the specific deficiencies. Bridges that fail to meet
contemporary standards for managing the type or volume of traffic they carry are classified as functionally
obsolete. This classification has nothing to do with the structural integrity of the bridge. Contributing factors to
functional obsolescence include narrow lanes, no shoulders, or low clearances.
Statewide data
6 indicates that about 12% of the highway bridges in New York are classified as structurally
deficient and about 25% are classified as functionally obsolete, yielding 37% of all bridges in New York State as
deficient. Within the A/GFTC area, 18% of the bridges are structurally deficient, and 12% of the
bridges are
classified as functionally obsolete.
Highlights of Highway/Bridge Projects (Completed or Initiated Since 2009)
Highway Projects:
Corinth Road / Exit 18 / Main Street / Broad Street Reconstruction: Town of Queensbury / City of Glens Falls
As the primary access route to the City of Glens Falls from Interstate 87, this corridor was one of the most
congested arterials in the A/GFTC area. After lengthy consideration of
design options, the final design called for
several new elements in addition to the three‐lane arterial reconstruction. Among those were additional lanes
under the I‐87 overpass, construction of a new north‐south connector road between Main Street and Luzerne
Road, realignment of Big Boom Road, a park‐and‐
ride lot near Exit 18, improved connectivity for bicyclists, and
installation of underground utilities.
Route 149 Reconstruction (Phase II)Town of Queensbury
Route 149 is a major component of the regional freight transportation system and is also subject to large
volumes of seasonal traffic during the summer and winter months. The
project was designed to improve the
transportation function of this important NHS corridor by establishing a consistent roadway width that was
more suitable to large truck traffic.  As part of the reconstruction, 12’ travel lanes and 6’ shoulders were
installed. A number of non‐standard vertical and horizontal curves were smoothed
out in order to reduce
crashes and crash severity. Phase I of the Route 149 reconstruction, from US Route 9 to the west and Martindale
Drive to the east, was completed in 2002. Phase II continued the reconstruction (or rehabilitation, where
existing roadway geometry allowed) eastward to the boundary between
Warren and Washington Counties.
Improvements at the Bay Road and Ridge Road (NYS Route 9L) intersections were also included.
Beach Road Reconstruction: Town and Village of Lake George
Originally intended to address the section of Beach Road owned by Warren County, this project was redefined
to include the entire length of
Beach Road, including sections owned by New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation. The roadway supports a variety of tourism and special event traffic and
experiences proportionally high volumes of pedestrians and bicyclists during the summer. The Warren County
portions of the project were complete in 2013, and included geometric
reconfigurations, pervious pavement and
stormwater controls, and bicycle‐pedestrian facilities. The NYSDEC portion of the project is scheduled to begin
construction in 2013.

6 NYS Highway Bridge Data Services: https://www.dot.ny.gov/main/bridgedata

LONG RANGE PLAN 2035 Page 30

NYS Route 4 Reconstruction: Town of Kingsbury, Village of Hudson Falls
This project is a full‐depth reconstruction, which will continue the improvements completed for Route 4 in the
Town of Fort Edward to the south. Construction began in early 2013. The project begins near Gibson Street
(where the Fort
Edward project ended) and continues north to the bridge over the Feeder Canal. River Street
and Park Place within Juckett Park will also be reconstructed. The reconstruction work will include new drainage
systems, granite curbing, concrete sidewalks, and asphalt concrete pavement. This project also includes
waterline and sewer improvements: a new
waterline and new house service connections will be installed
throughout the project limits.
NYS Route 9 Safety and Congestion Improvements, Village of South Glens Falls
This project is located along NYS Route 9 from the Village/Town boundary in the south, and the Hudson River
Bridge to the north. The objectives
of the project, funded through the Highway Safety Improvement Program,
are to reduce vehicle conflicts and accidents, accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians and ensure American
Disability Act compliance, mitigate vehicle conflict through the access management and operational techniques,
correct identified pavement deficiencies, and extend the useful life of the highway. The project
involves creating
a center‐turn lane for the majority of the length of the project, as well as adding sidewalks and curbs.
Construction began in 2013.
Bridge Projects
The following bridge projects are either currently under construction or have been completed since 2009:
Warren County
 Alder Brook Road over Alder Brook, Chester
 Grist Mill Bridge over Stony Creek, Stony Creek
 Harrington Road over Mill Creek, Johnsburg
 Interstate 87 over the Schroon River, Bolton / Warrensburg

 Interstate 87 over U.S. Route 9, Chester
 NYS 9N over the Hudson River, Lake Luzerne
 NYS 28 over Mill Creek and Glen Brook, Johnsburg
 Woolenmill Bridge over the Schroon River, Warrensburg
 Tannery Road Bridge over Stony Creek, Stony Creek

Washington County
 Clay Hill Road
over the Champlain Canal, Fort Ann
 Clinton Street and Saunders / Division Streets over CP Rail, Whitehall
 County Route 12 and Lower Turnpike Bridges over the Mettawee River, Granville
 County Route 61 over the Batten Kill, Jackson / Salem
 Dewey’s Bridge Road over the Champlain Canal,
Fort Ann
 NYS 372 over the Batten Kill, Greenwich

LONG RANGE PLAN 2035 Page 31
Planning Projects
Exit 20 Corridor Plan: Town of Queensbury
This Corridor Management Plan addressed the Exit 20 / Factory Outlets / Great Escape area in the Town of
Queensbury. The study area included the intersection of Route 9 and Route 149 south to the intersection of
Route 9 and Round Pond Road. The
Plan addressed existing  traffic congestion issues that are very acute during
the summer tourism season for Lake George. Transportation facility design elements, public transit operations,
existing and future land uses, development potential, access management, shared parking, improved bicycle and
pedestrian accommodations and intersection improvements were all considered as part of
this effort.
Queensbury Connector Road: Town of Queensbury
A/GFTC developed  a regional transportation analysis to determine the desirability and feasibility of a roadway
that would connect Quaker Road and Queensbury Avenue in the Town of Queensbury. This study was intended
to yield three basic products: (1) a quantification of the immediate
and longer term benefits and impacts of
establishing a new roadway linkage between Quaker Road and Queensbury Avenue, (2) a conceptual layout and
cross‐section of the proposed roadway based upon existing physical limitations, available ROW, and review of
alternatives, and (3) cost estimates for the construction of the preferred
concept. The fundamental conclusion
contained within the document is that the regional transportation benefits of the proposed roadway are
minimal, but there may be other compelling land use and access benefits that may compel the Town of
Queensbury or Warren County to consider the matter further.
Lake George Gateway Corridor Plan:
Town of Lake George
This plan entailed identifying existing issues and opportunities regarding pedestrian safety, access, and
streetscape amenities, as well as ways to improve the connectivity between Lake George’s waterfront, the Lake
George Battlegrounds, Warren County Bikeway, Prospect Mountain Veterans Memorial Highway, and the
Charles R. Wood Park. The
study area consists of the Route 9 corridor, from its intersection with Route 9N near
Exit 21 of the Adirondack Northway (I‐87), north to the Village of Lake George’s municipal boundary. The final
concept calls for a “Complete Street” approach, including sidewalks, medians, landscaping, signage and
gateways, lighting/utilities, crosswalks, access
management, stormwater, transit improvements, and
snowmobile access.
Exit 17/Route 9 Corridor Land Use and Transportation Study
A/GFTC is developing a regional transportation and land use analysis for the Exit 17 / U.S. Route 9 corridor in the
Town of Moreau.  The defined study area is the U.S. Route 9 corridor
in the Town of Moreau with the southern
terminus to include the operational area of Exit 17 of Interstate 87 and the northern limit to be the southern
boundary of the Village of South Glens Falls. This corridor is a critical access link to Interstate 87 for northern
Saratoga County as
well as central and northern Washington County. The southern section of the corridor
accommodates regional freight traffic between Interstate 87 and northern New England. The plan will analyze
existing conditions and capacities, develop growth projections, and formulate land use recommendations and
conceptual design alternatives that will help the Town of
Moreau plan for anticipated growth along the corridor
while preserving the utility of the existing surface transportation system.

LONG RANGE PLAN 2035 Page 32
Challenges and Opportunities
 In terms of pavement condition, the “preservation first” model promulgated by NYSDOT is a long‐term
strategy, which may result in a short term reduction in pavement scores, especially on the State system.
As physical conditions along individual links decline, trip distribution could be affected, which may cause
localized capacity
issues in adjacent links.
 The plateau in VMT may result in a reduced burden on the road system as a whole, which may ease the
deterioration of capacity in the short‐term. However, although VMT may have leveled off in the last few
years, previously identified capacity constraints still
remain. The extreme limitations on funding will limit
the MPO’s ability to program capital projects intended to address these issues.
 Changes in the funding mechanisms for MAP‐21 have limited the amount of funding available for local
system bridges. Although the funding for bridges on the NHS system has
increased, most structures
within the A/GFTC area are not NHPP ‐ eligible.
 As with the highway system, limited funding dictates that the vast majority of bridge funds are
expended on maintenance projects. As such, there are little to no opportunities to address functional
obsolescence. In addition, many bridges are nearing the
end of their design life. Bridges in poor
condition will likely go unaddressed in the short‐term, resulting in potential load postings (weight
restrictions) and closures.

Highway and Bridge Priorities and Projects
Related Planning Principles: 2, 3, 4, 12
Maintaining existing transportation facilities is of primary concern to the A/GFTC transportation planning
process. The following priorities and projects are intended to maximize the limited funding available, within the
targets set by NYSDOT.
1. Identify ways to assist local sponsors to maximize the benefit of bundled maintenance setasides on the
Transportation
Improvement Program. The current TIP includes annual regional setasides for
preservation/maintenance projects, including activities such as bridge inspection, pavement
maintenance, and ADA compliance. Traditionally, local sponsors would avoid using federal
transportation dollars for these types of projects, opting instead to utilize federal money for larger or
more intricate projects. A/GFTC
can provide assistance to sponsors to find ways to make the most out of
this new funding mechanism.
2. Actively pursue opportunities to complete Illustrative Projects. The following projects have been
identified as desired improvements to the transportation system and are listed on the TIP as “Illustrative
Projects”. Currently, insufficient programming
capacity exists to allow for these projects to be
programmed. However, as funding opportunities arise, these projects should be given priority
consideration:
a. U.S. Route 9 / NYS 149 / Exit 20 Congestion Improvements (Queensbury)
b. U.S. Route 4 / NYS 32 Intersection Improvements (Kingsbury)
c. Replace functionally obsolete bridges:
i. NYS 197 over the Hudson River ‐east branch (Fort Edward)
ii. U.S. Route 4 over the Hudson River (Greenwich)

LONG RANGE PLAN 2035 Page 33
iii. I‐87 over Corinth Road (Exit 18) (Queensbury)
iv. Baldwin Corners Road over the Champlain Canal (Hartford)
v. East Street over the Champlain Canal (Fort Edward)
d. Other bridge replacements:
i. NYS Route 28 over the Hudson River (Thurman)
ii. Route 67 over Owl Kill (White Creek)
iii. Church Street
over the Mettawee (Granville)
e. Dix Avenue/NYS Route 32 improvements (Glens Falls/Queensbury / Kingsbury)
f. Exit 18 reconfiguration (Queensbury)
g. Route 4 geometric improvements (Washington County)

LONG RANGE PLAN 2035 Page 34
Public Transportation
Whether considering the economic, community, or environmental health of a region, a vital and utilized public
transportation system has many well‐documented benefits, including:
 Providing essential mobility to the area’s population and workforce, potentially attracting both workers
and employers alike
 Increasing  capacity of key transportation corridors, particularly during the
peak summer tourist season
 Reducing air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from single‐occupant vehicles
 Expanding the range of bicycle and pedestrian transportation (all GGFT fixed route buses feature bicycle
carriers)
 Attracting  tourists and other visitors traveling without automobiles
Regional mobility and quality of life are dependent
upon the continued success and potential expansion of
public transportation operation.
Greater Glens Falls Transit (GGFT)
Greater Glens Falls Transit (GGFT) is the designated publicly operated local transit system that provides fixed
route bus service and demand responsive paratransit service throughout most of the urbanized area. (See Map
7). GGFT is a department of the City of Glens Falls. Services are funded in part with funds from
the Federal
Transit Administration and the NYS Department of Transportation, in addition to fares and local government
support. A summary of GGFT’s services is included below. See Table 5 for ridership trends and projections.
Fixed‐Route Service
The fixed‐route bus system consists of seven primary routes designed as a radial pulse system focused on
downtown Glens Falls, with all routes converging at an on‐street terminal located along the east side of Ridge
Street opposite City Hall. The pulse system allows passengers to easily transfer between routes;
GGFT offers
timed transfers and will hold buses for a few minutes to make sure services meet. The full system operates
primarily on weekdays between 6:00 AM and 6:30 PM. Selected routes also operate on Saturdays.
Seasonal Trolley Service
In addition to the regular route system, GGFT operates on‐road trolley service in Lake George during the
summer months from late June through Labor Day. Routes extend north and south from the Steel Pier on Beach
Road in the Village of Lake George for about 20 miles between Bolton Landing
and downtown Glens Falls. The
seasonal trolley routes operate seven days per week at times and service frequencies that are primarily oriented
to visitors’ travel schedules and itineraries.
Freedom and Mobility Express (FAME) Service
GGFT offers complementary paratransit service to individuals unable to access the fixed‐route services. This
service is branded as Freedom and Mobility Express (FAME). FAME is available for travel within ¾ mile of GGFT’s
fixed‐route services and all passenger pick‐ups and drop‐offs must be within this area. The
service is available
during the fixed‐route operating hours and based on the route schedule. Fares for FAME trips are double the
fare on the fixed‐route system.

LONG RANGE PLAN 2035 Page 35
Map 7: Greater Glens Falls Transit Service Area

LONG RANGE PLAN 2035 Page 36

Table 5: GGFT Ridership Trends
Year Fixed Route Trolley FAMETotal Passengers% Change‐ Annual Actual/Projection
2007 212045 114030 28853289604.0%Actual
2008 216930 119268 30903392883.1%“
2009 220907 94549 2961318417‐6.2%“
2010 227891 94773 24453251202.1%“
2011 231482 107407 21423410314.9%“
2012 232469 107566 18953419300.3%“
2013 237,118  108,642  1,800 347,560 1.6% Projection
2014 241,861  110,814  1,818 354,493 2.0% ”
2015 246,698  113,031  1,836 361,565 2.0% ”
2016 251,632  115,291  1,855 368,778 2.0% ”
2017 256,665  117,597  1,873 376,135 2.0% ”
2018 261,798  119,949  1,892 383,639 2.0% ”
Note: shaded boxes indicate years when GGFT operated a special EXPO shuttle for Americade
Data provided by GGFT
Other Agency Services
Several area public departments and social service agencies (including Offices for the Aging, Veterans Services,
and public senior health care facilities) as well as private organizations (examples include Glens Falls Home,
Community Work and Independence Inc, Hudson Headwaters Health Network) and others offer varying levels of
transportation services to their respective
clients.  Although these services are not truly public in that they are
only available to limited segments of the population or specific clients, they do serve particular mobility needs
for specific segments of the population and often operate in areas where sustained public transit is not feasible.
While many of
these operators cater to unique clients or geography, overlap of services does exist. Coordination
of human services transportation has the potential to increase significantly the efficiency and range of area
transportation services.
Intercity Bus
Northway Xpress
The Capital District Transit Authority (CDTA) operates this commuter‐oriented bus line, which  runs Monday
through Friday from a park & ride lot in South Glens Falls. The route stops at Exit 9 on the Northway and various
points in downtown Albany and the State Office campus.  Another trip returns to
the lot each evening. This
service is not coordinated with the GGFT route schedule. In addition, the route leaves quite early from South
Glens Falls, arriving in Albany at 7:35, while the return schedule in the afternoon leaves Albany well before 5
p.m. This schedule could be a potential barrier
to people looking for transportation predicated on a traditional 9‐
5 schedule.  Previous efforts to coordinate GGFT & CDTA services have yet to come to fruition, but remain a
possibility in the future.

LONG RANGE PLAN 2035 Page 37

Adirondack Trailways and Greyhound
These buses operate intercity and commuter services six days a week from a terminal on Hudson Avenue in the
City of Glens Falls.  An average of six bus trips per day operate between Glens Falls, the Albany area and points
south including New York City; one regular bus per day travels
north from Glens Falls to Canton, NY. Major local
service destinations include Warrensburg, Lake George, and Bolton Landing.  Adirondack Trailways does offer a
commuter‐oriented fare package from Warrensburg and Glens Falls to Albany. However, the fares are
significantly higher than the Northway Xpress and would not be a viable
daily transportation option for most
people.
Intercity Rail
AMTRAK
Passenger train service to the Glens Falls area is accessed by way of the AMTRAK station located in the Village of
Fort Edward.  There is twice daily north‐ and south‐bound service from the station provided by the Adiorndack
and Ethan Allen Express tains. GGFT’s Train Catcher service travels to and
from the train station and major area
destinations on a reservation basis. AMTRAK services to the Fort Edward / Glens Falls station are not practical
for regular commuting based upon departure and arrival times. However, the service is very useful for tourists,
and provides an important alternative travel mode to
Albany and New York City. The schedule of the Ethan Allen
is currently under review by  the New York –Vermont Bi‐State Intercity Passenger Rail Study. Reductions in
service are possible, depending on the outcome of this study. A/GFTC supports preserving the local level of
service currently provided by existing AMTRAK
operations.
Saratoga & North Creek Railway
Although long dormant, rail service on this line was reinstated in 1999 with scenic train rides offered by the
Upper Hudson Railroad, operating from North Creek. Since 2011, the Saratoga & North Creek Railway has
operated tourist passenger service between Saratoga Springs and North Creek with 7 station stops in between.

Saratoga & North Creek Railway extended the service to Saratoga Springs enabling a connection with the
National Rail Network
7.  This rail line provides a valuable tourist service, as well as limited freight, but is not
practical for regular commuting.
Regional Transit Issues
Although an inventory of current transportation services is useful, for the purposes of this Plan, it is of greater
importance to identify future transit needs and potential solutions. Land use patterns, commuter travel
demand, rural mobility, economic development, human service agency transportation systems, and new
technology all influence public transportation services.
A precise prediction of future need is not possible, but
the following factors are expected to influence public transportation usage and demand:
Land Use Patterns
The City of Glens Falls, all urban area villages and most major urban arterials are included within GGFT’s
coverage area. Existing GGFT services provide reasonably convenient access to most area employers, shopping
and older residential areas. However, development of residential and commercial centers has continued to

7 The term national rail network refers to the entire network of interconnected standard gauge rail lines in North America.
It does not include most subway or light rail lines.

LONG RANGE PLAN 2035 Page 38
occur in the more outlying suburban and rural areas. In addition, demand in outlying hamlets and villages
outside of the GGFT service area has continued.
Challenges posed by these trends:
 Routing and schedule adjustments necessary to serve new areas of development
 Poorly designed developments or individual establishments that do
not meet the accessibility
requirements of transit buses
 Residential areas that are not conducive to pedestrian activity that in turn increase the demand for
specialized demand‐responsive and route deviation type service – typically these are less productive
from a passenger volume standpoint and can be more expensive to
operate on a per passenger basis
than comparable fixed route services
To respond to these challenges, public transit systems should evaluate their operations periodically. This will
help to ensure that new demands can be met without eroding core services. This could include consideration of
alterations in service, utilizing different types of
vehicles or modifications to or additions of routes.
Consideration should be given to transit‐related issues of access and scale, by allowing transportation providers
review and comment on the design of major land use developments.
Although existing services to can sometimes be adapted to respond to changes in demand, expanding
service to
new areas often entails considerable costs. To be a truly viable alternative to private vehicles, an adequate
frequency of service is necessary. Establishing these new services should be balanced with the need to continue
predictable and reliable services to existing service areas.
While A/GFTC is not directly involved in
the operations of transit services, staff is available to provide technical
assistance to public transportation providers. In addition, the UPWP can be utilized to undertake more rigorous
planning efforts. For example, in 2009, A/GFTC and GGFT completed a Transit Development Plan. This plan
recommended a number of route and schedule
changes. GGFT has met with success in implementing this plan,
resulting in improved service for the greater Glens Falls area.
Commuter Travel Demands
Commuting patterns between residential and employment areas are somewhat fluid, depending on the location
of homes and businesses. Public and private transit capabilities can have a positive impact on reducing road
congestion, increasing road capacities and maintaining air quality.  Local public and intercity private commuter
systems should work together to improve
the transferability between systems and jointly market their services
to encourage maximum usage.
Since Glens Falls currently meets federal air quality standards and peak hour congestion does not yet constitute
a serious regional problem, localized reliance upon private automobile transportation has not yet deteriorated
to the point where there are
serious observable consequences. As a result, a strong need for dedicated intercity
commuter transit services has not yet developed.  Excluding smaller scale rural demands, present commuter
services are considered as adequate within the immediate Glens Falls area.
The commuter dynamic between the A/GFTC Planning and Programming Area and the greater Capital
District
(including the Albany and Saratoga areas) is expected to strengthen as large‐scale employment centers continue
to develop along Interstate 87 between the urban areas. As fuel prices increase, there may be an associated
increase in the need for new park and ride lots near Glens Falls area Northway
exits, expanded bus commuter
options, ridesharing services, and vanpooling services. Acceleration of these demands could be expected if the
Luther Forest Technology Park develops to its full potential. Among these new demands will likely be the need
for new and expanded commuter transit services from the A/GFTC area.

LONG RANGE PLAN 2035 Page 39
Rural Mobility
The Glens Falls area is the primary center for the location and delivery of many services, employers and
shopping for large areas of Warren, Washington and other outlying counties.  Currently, most public transit
services are limited to the urbanized area.  Transportation services to outlying rural areas are generally limited
to private
intercity carriers and restricted services from various public human service agencies.
A/GFTC and GGFT surveys from the past ten years, including the LRP survey results included in this plan, have
consistently identified unmet rural transportation needs as a primary issue for a number of small rural locations.
GGFT and other
area public service agencies have long studied the feasibility of instituting rural transit services
to selected larger rural population centers such as Warrensburg, Whitehall, Granville, and others. It may be
feasible to implement limited Trolley service to Warrensburg; however, no service agreement between the
Town and GGFT is yet in place.
Providing service to the more outlying communities poses an even greater
challenge, as these areas are not contiguous to the existing service boundary. To date, the demand has been too
diffuse in these areas to overcome the challenge inherent in expansion of GGFT service area.
A/GFTC has implemented a computerized
ridesharing program for Warren and Washington Counties that is
designed to begin to address some of the unmet rural mobility needs. This service, once known as iPoolNorth,
and now integrated into the larger iPool2 Capital District service, has addressed some previously unmet travel
needs. However, use of the service has been
somewhat limited in the A/GFTC area.
Economic Development
Effective transportation, inclusive of all modes, is critical to sustaining and growing the local and regional
economy.  Transit provides inexpensive transportation to the work force. In addition to providing access to jobs,
tourism plays a major role in the area economy. A 2010 white paper, prepared for the Economic Development
Corporation
of Warren County, indicates that tourism accounts for annual visitor spending of $450 million, and
the generation of over 8,100 jobs. The GGFT trolley service has seen increased ridership trends over the last few
years, indicating that demand for transit to tourist centers such as Lake George and Bolton Landing
continues to
grow.
Coordination of Human Services Transportation Programs
The need for public transportation is vital and continues to grow, especially among particular segments of the
population such as the elderly and persons with disabilities. Given the aging population noted in this plan, a
significant amount of the future growth in demand for transportation services is likely to be in
these specialized
areas of service.
Historically, much of this need has been addressed on a case‐by‐case basis by a variety of local agencies
providing services to their specific clients.  As a result, there are a number of area government agencies and not‐
for‐profit organizations that either operate
or sponsor client transportation services. Many of the vehicles used
for these transportation services have been purchased with assistance of State and Federal funds. While each of
these services are important and make small but valuable contributions to the local and regional mobility, there
are individuals and groups (such as rural
residents and young people) who are not served adequately or reliably.
Underutilization of publicly funded vehicles and duplication of services are also a consequence of a multi‐
provider system.  While no one operator can assume the roles of sole mobility provider for the entire region,
transportation coordination between agencies can
yield increased efficiencies and greater extent of services. It
is important that future planning efforts work to promote the coordination of services wherever feasible so that
available public resources are used as effectively and efficiently as possible.  A/GFTC maintains a Coordinated
Human Services Transportation Plan for the area to address Federal
requirements for FTA‐funded programs.
Recommendations of that Plan are focused on finding feasible, meaningful opportunities for the many human
service agencies to come together to coordinate transportation needs.

LONG RANGE PLAN 2035 Page 40
New Technologies and Equipment
The last ten years have seen the introduction of a variety of new ‘green’ and ‘smart’ technologies in the transit
industry. Small public transit operations like those in Glens Falls face challenges in adopting many of the new
beneficial technologies. Many of these new technologies have associated costs (new equipment, training,

operating, and infrastructure) that are difficult to reconcile without corresponding increases in ridership.
New technologies such as hybrid engines and smart card ‐ type systems will likely become more standardized
throughout the industry. Emissions regulations will mandate alternative fuels and cleaner vehicles. Small transit
operations will need to be provided with
sufficient time and resources to incorporate these changes into their
fleets and operations.
Challenges and Opportunities
Significant challenges that will face public transportation operators in the next 25 years are expected to include:
 Changes to regional north‐south commuting patterns and the resultant transit demand, potentially
accelerated by development in Malta and Saratoga
 Continued pressure to expand services to outlying rural areas, where expanding populations
and
increased percentages of elderly and disabled residents will likely trigger implementation of rural
transportation services during the planning horizon of this document
 Securing the requisite levels of federal, state and local funding support essential for continuing transit’s
critical role in the regional transportation system
 Coordinating the varied
public and private transportation providers as is needed for the region to
effectively address its transportation needs
Public Transportation Priorities and Projects
Related Planning Principles: 3, 5, 6, 8, 12
Although A/GFTC does not operate a transit system, the MPO takes an active role in advancing public
transportation options for the many residents and employees in the area. The following priorities and projects
are intended to continue this commitment to improving public transportation.
1. Promote mobility management by hosting a web
‐based application that links those in need of
transportation services with human service transportation providers. Currently, there are dozens of local
and regional agencies that provide transportation services. However, there is no single information
portal dedicated to providing data concerning geographic range, accessibility, or other qualifying factors.
A/GFTC is uniquely
suited to hosting a web‐based service to fulfill this need.
2. Continue to manage the Coordinated Human Services Transportation process through stakeholder
meetings and regular plan updates. A/GFTC provides staff support to the Coordinated Human Services
Transportation Committee. The MPO will continue to seek input and participation from this group
and
other stakeholders when updating the Coordinated Human Services Transportation Plan, as well as
during solicitations and selection of FTA competitive programs.
3. Continue to support GGFT through promotion, data needs, mapping, and technical assistance. A/GFTC
maintains a strong working relationship with Greater Glens Falls Transit. The MPO will continue
to
support GGFT as needed.

LONG RANGE PLAN 2035 Page 41
Bicycle/Pedestrian Facilities
Maintaining and expanding bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure has long been a key priority for A/GFTC. The
presence of safe, functional, and accessible bicycle and pedestrian facilities provides essential transportation
choices for those without practical access to private vehicles and for the increasing number of Americans
electing to limit their automobile usage.
Non‐motorized transportation modes have a number of benefits to
communities, including:
 Less vehicular congestion
 Reduced environmental consequences, such as air quality impacts, noise levels, resource consumption
and neighborhood disruptions
 Improved health and fitness for participants
 Increased economic activity through better access to urban commercial areas
and tourist spending, as
well as increased personal capital from reduced vehicle‐related costs
 Reduced reliance upon social services to provide transportation alternatives and a heightened sense of
independence for those with disabilities
 Increased interpersonal interaction within the community
Bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure in the A/GFTC area contributes to
the quality of life for residents and
workers as well as seasonal visitors. In addition to having numerous tourist destinations and attractions, the
A/GFTC region serves as a gateway to the Adirondack Park, Lake Champlain and Vermont. Tourism is a vital
component to the continued economic vitality of the region.
Promotion of existing recreational opportunities
can enhance the profile of the region as an attractive vacation destination.
Existing Assets
The A/GFTC region currently is home to a growing bicycle and pedestrian network, including:
 Separated right‐of‐way trails: The A/GFTC area has approximately 17 miles of trails which accommodate
non‐roadway travel. The most extensive network consists of the Warren County Bikeway and Feeder
Canal Trails, which link the
City of Glens Falls to the Villages of Fort Edward, Hudson Falls, South Glens
Falls, and Lake George, and the Towns of Queensbury, Fort Edward, and Kingsbury. In addition, there are
almost 5 miles of trail located in the Village and Town of Granville. This trail is located along the
D&H rail
bed and extends into Vermont.
 Designated cycling routes: There are currently about 100 miles of on‐road bicycle routes, located on
State highways and local roads throughout the area. These include US Route 9 in Saratoga County, NY
Route 197 in the Town of Moreau, US Route 4
and NYS 22 (both are elements of NYS Bicycle Route 9), as
well as local roads in the Towns of Queensbury, Lake Luzerne and the City of Glens Falls. It is anticipated
that this network of on‐road bicycle routes will continue to grow as local communities adopt policies in
support of the A/GFTC Bicycle Plan and NYS Complete Streets legislation.
In addition to dedicated bicycle facilities, the A/GFTC area is home to villages, hamlets, and the City of Glens
Falls that were built prior to the automobile and are inherently walkable communities. Conditions among the
associated pedestrian networks vary widely.
Many communities struggle to maintain, repair, and replace older
facilities that have degraded in condition and were not constructed to  ADAAG standards.  However, thanks to
dedicated funding programs such as the Transportation Enhancement Program and  Safe Routes to School (now

LONG RANGE PLAN 2035 Page 42
part of the Transportation Alternatives Program), and A/GFTC’s Make the Connection Program, many
communities have been able to make targeted improvements to the pedestrian network.
A/GFTC last completed an update to its Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (BPP) in 2000. The goal of the Plan was to
preserve and enhance the
area’s bicycling and pedestrian network and to improve safety, attractiveness and
overall viability of cycling and walking as legitimate transportation alternatives within the region. The BPP
contained both region‐wide and corridor‐specific recommendations as well as public comments intended to
enhance area bicycle and pedestrian accommodations.

Since the last
LRP, A/GFTC has worked steadily to improve bicycle and pedestrian conditions throughout the
MPO. These efforts have included:

 Preparing the Warren County Bicycle Improvement Plan. This plan, prepared with assistance from the
Warren County Safe & Quality Bicycling Organization, was completed in 2012. It set forth a framework
by
which local municipalities could plan for feasible improvements to bicycle infrastructure, taking into
account physical conditions, the priorities of various user groups, and current funding levels. This plan
has been adopted by the Warren County Board of Supervisors, and has been cited in other local and
regional efforts to improve
bicycle facilities. It is anticipated that A/GFTC will expand this plan to include
Washington County and the Town of Moreau, thereby updating the BPP from 2000.
 Updating the Regional Bike Map. A/GFTC staff  prepared a complete re‐design of the Regional Bike Map.
This included new on‐road bicycle
routes in Queensbury and Lake Luzerne, as well as off‐road trails in
Granville.
 Preparing local ordinances and policies intended to implement Complete Streets principles. Creating
Healthy Places to Live, Work, and Play, a program run by Glens Falls Hospital, hosted several Complete
Streets workshops in the area. In
particular, the Town of Warrensburg expressed a desire to review and
revise their local land use codes to be in compliance with the Complete Streets policy passed by the
Town Board. A/GFTC staff coordinated the preparation and adoption of these revisions.
 Completing a Bicycle and Pedestrian Assessment for the
Village of Greenwich. The Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council approached the Village of Greenwich to assist with a Bicycle and Pedestrian
Assessment in summer 2010. The intent of the bicycle and pedestrian network assessment within the
Village was not to direct bicyclists or pedestrians to use or avoid existing facilities based upon
their
present physical conditions. Rather, by providing this scoring and prioritization of the streets, the Village
may be better informed to decide how to prioritize funds towards implementing physical improvements
that would enhance the traveling experience for bicyclists and pedestrians.
 Conducting Dix Avenue/Sagamore Street intersection evaluation. This project involved
a traffic
assessment and evaluation of the intersection of Dix Avenue and Sagamore Street/Walnut Street in the
City of Glens Falls. The project identified potential geometric and operational improvements to the
intersection, and a traffic signal warrant analysis was also conducted. Potential intersection
improvements include narrowing the travel lanes for
the Dix Road and realigning the
pedestrian/bikeway crossing on eastbound approach of Dix Avenue. The results of the Traffic Signal
Warrant Analysis indicated that the intersection meets two of the accepted national traffic volume
warrants for the installation of a traffic signal. However it is recommended that the traffic signal should

be installed after the physical intersection improvements are made.
 Lake George Gateway Corridor Plan: Town of Lake George. This plan entailed identifying existing issues
and opportunities regarding pedestrian safety, access, and streetscape amenities, as well as ways to
improve the connectivity between Lake George’s waterfront, the Lake George Battlegrounds,
Warren

LONG RANGE PLAN 2035 Page 43
County Bikeway, Prospect Mountain Veterans Memorial Highway, and the Charles R. Wood Park. The
study area consists of the Route 9 corridor, from its intersection with Route 9N near Exit 21 of the
Adirondack Northway (I‐87), north to the Village of Lake George’s municipal boundary. The final concept
calls for
a “Complete Street” approach, including sidewalks, medians, landscaping, signage and
gateways, lighting/utilities, crosswalks, access management, stormwater, transit improvements, and
snowmobile access.
 Supporting local efforts to improve bicycle and pedestrian conditions. A/GFTC staff has participated in
several planning efforts sponsored by local municipalities and advocacy groups. This includes the City
of
Glens Falls Pedestrian and Bicycle Connectivity Study (2013), the Lake George Trails Master Plan (2013),
and the ongoing efforts of WCS&QBO.
Challenges and Opportunities
The projects above have made considerable progress in improving bicycle and pedestrian conditions, but much
work remains. The following are some of the challenges and opportunities that will inform this work.
 Despite the recent adoption by NYS of a Complete Streets law, bicycle and pedestrian improvements
are often given only
the minimally required consideration within the scope of larger transportation
projects. This is compounded by the “Preservation First” approach, since roadway maintenance projects
are exempt from the law. As such, many opportunities to redefine roadway user space are not taken
when maintenance projects are completed.
 The increasing demand for
bicycle and pedestrian facilities suggests that infrastructure needs are likely
to exceed the scale that can be addressed by the comparatively small funding amounts available
through the Make the Connection Program.
 Recent changes to FHWA policies have made it difficult for local municipalities to use in‐house design
and force
‐account labor to construct MTC projects.
 Support for bicycle and pedestrian issues is growing substantially, creating an opportunity for
partnerships and collaboration which did not exist even a few years ago. This can, in turn, create new
opportunities for improvements from non‐traditional funding sources. In addition, as local
municipalities become more supportive of bicycle and pedestrian needs, the opportunity to implement
small‐scale or phased improvements grows.

Priorities and Projects
Related Planning Principles: 1, 2, 6, 12
A/GFTC has identified the following projects and priorities, intended to continue the MPO commitment to
bicycle and pedestrian transportation, as well as take advantage of new opportunities.
1. Continue to provide staff support for local municipalities and agencies in plans involving bike/pedestrian
issues. As stated above, A/GFTC staff currently supports a
number of local and regional bicycle and
pedestrian oriented efforts. This assistance will continue to be provided, as staff resources allow.
2. Review/reorganize the Make the Connection program to address new FHWA requirements and the need
for project delivery. A/GFTC is committed to continuing the Make the Connection program. However,
given the problems faced by sponsors for project delivery, it may be worthwhile to explore ways to
modify the program to allow the local benefits to the bike/pedestrian infrastructure while minimizing
the administrative burden associated with small projects.

LONG RANGE PLAN 2035 Page 44
3. Update the Bicycle Pedestrian Plan (BPP), using the Warren County Bicycle Plan as a template. The
Warren County Bicycle Plan set forth a methodology for the identification of bicycle improvements
which could serve as a model for a regional plan. The updated regional plan could take into account
Complete Streets
principles, which apply to both bicycle and pedestrian issues.
4. Utilize UPWP and Engineering Assistance to plan for bicycle pedestrian improvements. The Engineering
Assistance task allows local sponsors to address the gap between concept and design, which is a
common obstacle for small projects. Similarly, the UPWP can be used
for larger‐scale projects which are
dedicated solely to bicycle/pedestrian issues, or contain those issues as components of a larger plan.
5. Complete previously‐identified bicycle/pedestrian projects. Currently, there are a number of ongoing
bike‐ped projects in the A/GFTC area. This includes Make the Connection projects, Safe Routes to School

projects, and a number of concepts identified in local planning efforts, such as the Dix Avenue/Sagamore
Street intersection improvements, Fire Road/Jerome Avenue/Kensington Avenue project, or the City of
Glens Falls Downtown Connectivity Plan. These projects are a priority for the MPO, whether in terms of
construction project delivery, or assistance
in bringing a concept plan to fruition.
6. Give priority in preservation project selection parameters to maintaining existing bicycle/pedestrian
facilities. One of the largest challenges, in terms of improving the bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure,
is that preservation/maintenance projects usually replace existing facilities in kind.  This leaves little or
no opportunity to
create wider shoulders or road striping which benefits cyclists. However, many roads
in the A/GFTC area are already amenable for bicycle use. Given the choice between two equal
candidates for preservation funding, one which accommodates bicycles adequately and one which does
not, it is logical to give priority to the
project which will benefit more than one mode.

LONG RANGE PLAN 2035 Page 45
Freight
Freight travels through the A/GFTC area on a variety of transportation modes, although the primary reliance is
on highways, and to a lesser extent, rail and waterways.  The movement of goods impacts the region in a variety
of ways. The provision of adequate freight facilities is of prime importance for
local and regional economic
development interests. However, in most cases, the same transportation facilities used for freight are also
shared by passenger vehicles, which creates the potential for competing interests among limited resources.
Freight Facilities:
Highways
In New York State, almost
93% of shipments originating
in the state (by weight) are
shipped via truck.
Commercial truck traffic
nationwide has more than
doubled since 1980. FHWA
estimates that, by 2040, the
tonnage of freight moved by
truck will increase almost
40% over 2011 levels.
With the exception of
local
deliveries and commodities
generated or consumed by
the local economy, the
majority of regional trucks
utilize the National Highway
System (NHS). The NHS is a
network  of highways identified as having strategic importance to the nation’s economy, defense, and mobility.
Within the urban area, most of these NHS components
are built and designed to handle considerable volumes of
heavy truck traffic. However, some rural Principal Arterials, including U.S. Route 4 and NYS 149, are already
experiencing strains exerted by increases in truck volumes.
Maps 8 and 9 depict data from FHWA’s Freight Analysis Framework that predicts peak hour congestion issues
on
the NHS to worsen considerably by 2040. Notably the model indicates that unlike today, some of the NHS
components in the A/GFTC Planning and Programming Area arterials will be subject to peak hour congestion.

Table 6: Modes of Transportation for Shipments Originating in New York
Mode of Transportation % of value % of weight
Truck 71.8 92.6
Air (including truck and air) 1.9 0
Rail 0.5 1.9
Water S S
Pipeline S 0.5
Multiple modes 23.2 3.3
Parcel, U.S.P.S. or courier 21.7 0.6
Other and unknown modes 2.6 S
Total 100.0 100.0
S = Estimate does not meet publication standards because of high sampling variability or poor
response quality.
SOURCE:  U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative
Technology Administration, Bureau of Transportation Statistics and U.S.
Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Commodity Flow Survey
data, March 2010.

LONG RANGE PLAN 2035 Page 46

Map 9: Peak‐Period Congestion on the National Highway System, 2040
Map 8: Peak‐period Congestion of the National Highway System, 2007

LONG RANGE PLAN 2035 Page 47
Since freight trucks share the same road network as other automobiles, the movement of freight over highways
is subject to the same congestion issues that affect all vehicles. In addition, freight vehicles are also affected by a
number of geometric limitations, as well as local limits on truck traffic along certain
roadways.  Although a
number of improvements have been made to the transportation system over the past decade, the following
locations are noted to have existing congestion or geometric issues that limit the regional mobility of larger
vehicles. These have been identified through the course of planning studies undertaken by A/GFTC.
NYS 197 Bridge over Hudson River, Village of Fort Edward
The bridge that carries NYS 197 over the east branch of the Hudson River is functionally obsolete. The bridge
deck has inadequate lane width and no shoulder (22 feet total pavement width). The intersection with Route 4
has geometric limitations for truck movements, although a recent reconstruction of that intersection
has
improved those limitations. Existing adjacent land uses limit right‐of‐way availability for larger, more functional
design alternatives.
Route 4 / NYS Route 32 Intersection, Town of Kingsbury

The intersection angle of Routes 4 and 32 in the Town of Kingsbury is an impediment to the safe and efficient
movement of larger trucks. Additionally, this location is subject to moderate peak hour congestion, particularly
on the east and west approaches. Previously programmed as a TIP project, funding for
this project was diverted
to other priority projects and has not been restored.
Exit 20 Corridor, Town of Queensbury

Traffic volumes along this section of Route 9 that carries the NYS 149 overlap from Exit 20 to NYS 149 exceed
capacity during the summer months. Local and regional freight movements, as well as heavy volumes of
seasonal tourists, result in substantial delays along this short segment of highway. A
high density of commercial
driveways further complicates traffic congestion along the corridor, and recent construction at the Warren
County Municipal Center limits practical bypass options. A/GFTC conducted a corridor study to (1) identify a low‐
cost short‐term improvement package focused on access management and (2) to model anticipated benefits of

a larger capital‐intensive solution such as a redesigned freeway interchange. The study identified a number of
short‐ and long‐term capacity and safety alternatives for the 2‐mile segment of US Route 9, as well as
recommendations for transit, access management, and signage.
NYS Route 149 Geometry/Alignment Improvements, Washington
County
NYSDOT reconstructed the westernmost portion of this NHS route in 2001 and 2008‐09. The remaining NHS
component of Route 149 in Washington County is a source of significant local concern. Maintenance resurfacing
of sections has taken place during recent years, but no reconstruction projects to address vertical or horizontal
curves or width constraints for this section are currently programmed on the TIP.
US Route 4, Various municipalities in Washington County

Route 4 is a major component of the primary truck route between Interstate 87, Washington County, Vermont,
and northern New England. Previous traffic counts taken for rural sections have shown heavy truck percentages
approaching 20% of overall traffic. Within the urban area, Phase I of the Route 4 reconstruction project
(Village
and Town of Fort Edward) was completed in 2010. As part of this project, the geometry of several intersections
was improved for large trucks. Phase II (Village of Hudson Falls/ Town of Kingsbury) is currently underway, but
the project’s physical scope does not include the intersection of Route 4 with
NYS 32 (listed earlier).
The rural section of U.S. Route 4, north and east from the Town of Kingsbury to the State of Vermont boundary,
features a number of substandard intersection angles, horizontal and vertical sight distance issues, varying
shoulder widths, and abrupt rural‐to‐village transitions. The intersection of
Route 4 and NYS 149 in the Village of
Fort Ann is a known capacity constraint with potential construction solutions largely limited by the surrounding

LONG RANGE PLAN 2035 Page 48
built environment. The 2005 Route 4 Corridor Study, commissioned by A/GFTC, contained the following
recommendations for safety, capacity, and aesthetic improvements:
 Roundabouts at the intersections of Routes 4/32 (Kingsbury) and 4/22 (Whitehall)
 Speed limit reductions in villages
 Widened shoulders to establish consistent profile and accommodate emergency maneuvers

Gateway‐style entrances to villages
 New turn lanes at selected intersections
Route 9, Town of Moreau and Village of South Glens Falls

Route 9 provides important access to commercial and industrial development in northern Saratoga County.
Congestion and delays frequently occur during peak hours, particularly in the Village of South Glens Falls. A
corridor study that contained recommendations that addressed signal coordination, truck conflicts, access
management controls and intersection improvements was completed
in 2002. Route 9 in the Village of South
Glens Falls is currently being reconstructed to allow for a continuous center‐turn lane. This project is intended to
alleviate safety issues; however it is anticipated that some congestion issues will also be mitigated. In addition,
A/GFTC is undertaking a large‐scale
land use corridor study of the Exit 17 corridor, which will examine freight
movement throughout Route 9 in the Town of Moreau.
Freight Facilities: Railroads
Rail infrastructure continues to be a valued if underutilized and disinvested component of the transportation
system. While the speed of contemporary consumer purchases and trade have moved a majority of shipments
to trucks, vans, and airplanes, rail transport remains as a viable alternative for the movement of high volume
bulk goods
that are not sensitive to time demands. Preserving and improving rail infrastructure could help to
sustain those businesses which use rail freight currently, as well as encourage new economic activity within the
region.  On a larger scale, maintaining existing railiroads in a state of good repair is vital to the
current and
future economic security of the United States. Regional efforts to alleviate rail congestion issues could lead to
further use of rail in the A/GFTC area. There are five distinct railroad systems within the A/GFTC region (see Map
10) of varying ownership, condition and function. More detailed information for the
major active rail lines are
listed below8. Please note that these are listed in terms of ownership of the rail lines and the name of the rail
service operated.
Delaware & Hudson Railway Company ‐ Canadian Pacific Railroad
Of the four main rail lines in the MPO, the most significant in terms of the economic activity, movement of
goods, and connectivity to major ports and terminals is the Canadian Pacific Railway (CP). CP is one of only seven
remaining Class I railroads still operating in North America (Class I
is defined by the Surface Transportation Board
as having minimum carrier operating revenues in excess of an inflation‐adjusted total of 433.2 million dollars in
2011
9).

8 General Electric Company owns and operates a short rail spur in Fort Edward. This rail line is not included as part of the
LRP.
9 Palley, Joel. “Freight Railroad Background”. March 2012. Office of Rail Policy and Development, Federal Railroad
Administration. http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/L03011

LONG RANGE PLAN 2035 Page 49
CP tracks connect Montreal, New York City,
and Philadelphia, as well as the following
communities within the A/GFTC area:
 Glens Falls
 Queensbury
 Moreau
 Fort Edward
 Kingbsury
 Fort Ann
 Whitehall
 Dresden
 Putnam
Industrial employers including Lehigh Cement,
Finch, Pruyn and Company and Irving
Tissue
rely upon rail service from CP for shipments of
commodities including coal, pulp paper,
cement and industrial chemicals. Other
smaller operations in the area involve the
transport of feedstock, scrap materials and
rock salt.
Intermodal service is necessary to optimize
the competitiveness of rail as a means of
shipping.
The area intermodal terminal for CP
is currently located at Kenwood Yard in
Albany. In addition, a recently upgraded rail switching yard in Mechanicville is a clear indicator in regional
interest in improving rail infrastructure. Within the A/GFTC area, significant rail infrastructure improvements at
the dewatering facility in Fort Edward, constructed
to faciltate the outbound shipment of PCB‐contaminated
sediment removed from the Hudson River, represent an important opportunity as the dewatering facility site is
redeveloped in the future.
Vermont Rail System ‐ Clarendon and Pittsford Railroad
Vermont Rail System acquired the Clarendon and Pittsford Railroad in 1972. The 6.8 miles of track in
Washington County crosses the towns of Whitehall and Hampton and connects the CP mainline to the Vermont
Railway in Rutland, VT. Commodity shipments along this line include fuel, rock salt, and slurry (mixtures of
water
and insoluble solids such as cement). AMTRAK also operates its Ethan Allen service to Rutland along this rail
section.
NE Rail ‐ Batten Kill Railroad
The Batten Kill Railroad is a Class III line, comprised of 34 miles of track in southern Washington and northern
Rensselaer Counties, with an eventual connection to the CP network via Guilford Transportation Industries
trackage that leads to Mechanicville, NY. Once servicing Cambridge, Salem, Greenwich and Clarks Mills, existing
operations along
the Batten Kill are limited to bulk shipments of animal feed and fertilizer to East Greenwich.
The 500 annual carloads shipped along the track result in transportation and commodity cost savings for local
Map 10: A/GFTC Area Railroads

LONG RANGE PLAN 2035 Page 50
farmers. NYSDOT has identified approximately 10 miles of track which require rehabilitation between Eagle
Bridge and East Greenwich10. Previous efforts by the State resulted in the recent improvement of three miles of
track, and the rehabilitation or replacement of several rail bridges. Currently, the railroad owner, NE Rail, is
working with Washington County and NYSDOT to complete a $1M track repair project.
Warren County ‐ Saratoga & North Creek Railway
After years of track dormancy, Warren County acquired the former Adirondack Branch of the Delaware and
Hudson Railroad in 1998. The Upper Hudson River Railroad began operations of an 8.5‐mile scenic excursion
train between North Creek and Riverside in 1999. In 2011, the railroad was acquired by the Saratoga &
North
Creek Railway. Through significant investments of county, state, and federal funds toward improving track, ties,
clearing and at‐grade crossings, 40 miles of railroad are now up‐to‐date and operational, from North River south
to the Town of Corinth in Saratoga County. The line is mainly used for
tourist passenger rail, but Barton Mines
began using the railway for freight in 2013. There is potential for other freight customers, such as logging and
mining companies, which could expand the usefulness of the railroad for the region.
Freight Facilities: Canals
Champlain Canal
The 63‐mile Champlain Canal connects Lake Champlain in the north to the Hudson River and Erie Canal to the
south and includes 49 miles of waterway in Washington County. Despite the fact that barge shipping is far more
fuel efficient, truck and rail‐based shipments dominate contemporary commodity movements.
The slow travel
rate of barge travel simply does not support the movement of low‐volume high‐value consumer goods that are
in continued demand. Besides speed, another constraint that limits the viability of barge shipments is canal
depth. As a legacy of historic PCB contamination in the Champlain Canal, the
controlling depth of the Champlain
Canal in the A/GFTC area is generally too shallow to accommodate larger vessels11. However, recent interest in
commercial shipping has increased, with transportation of low‐value, high‐volume products such as stone and
aggregate being the primary interest.  Deeper drafts are necessary in the Champlain Canal in order to make
these shipments more economically viable.  Through continued capital investments by the New York
State Canal
Corporation, the Champlain Canal remains operational and supports recreational boating as well as the recent
resurgence of commercial shipping.
The alignment of the Champlain Canal effectively parallels the Canadian Pacific Railway mainline. Both provide
unique modal access to hundreds of acres of industrial‐zoned property in the Towns
of Fort Edward and
Kingsbury. Anticipated fuel shortages and price fluctuations could trigger additional demand in water‐borne
shipping. In addition, the construction of a state of the art wharf at the dredge dewatering facility could prove to
be an asset to redevelopment of these properties in the future. While most
of that property is located less than
20 minutes from Interstate 87, there are a number of vehicle access issues relating to intersection alignment,
capacity restrictions, and deficient structures along the major connecting National Highway System routes.  The
Town and Village of Fort Edward have worked to identify potential solutions
to the issue of truck access, and
have pursued public‐private partnerships to establish improved vehicle connectors to this area.
Challenges and Opportunities
FHWA expects the value of commercial freight tonnage shipped in this country to nearly double from 2011
amounts by 203512, resulting in commercial truck traffic growth that should well exceed increases in passenger

10 https://www.dot.ny.gov/recovery/repository/RevisedAppendices.pdf 11 Data source: NYS Canal Corp. http://www.canals.ny.gov/navinfo/navinfo.cgi?waterway=champlain 12 FWHA Freight Analysis Framework Data Tabulation Tool http://faf.ornl.gov/fafweb/Extraction1.aspx

LONG RANGE PLAN 2035 Page 51
car usage. If realized, this growth will have an enormous impact upon mobility along our nation’s major
highways. The A/GFTC Planning and Programming Area is itself situated at a regional transportation crossroads
between the New York City – Montreal corridor and northern New England. The existing regional NHS network
features generally
adequate system redundancy that can temporarily absorb non‐recurring congestion events,
but the level of anticipated growth in truck traffic will create future capacity issues in locations where they do
not exist today.  Other specific challenges and opportunities include:
 Unstable fossil fuel prices and supplies could potentially result in
a shift of transport demand
proportionally away from trucks to more fuel efficient but less timely modes like barges and railcars.
Unique and diverse infrastructure assets advantageously position the A/GFTC area to accommodate
modal shifts in commodity transport, but continued investments in new accesses, system maintenance
and intersection capacity mitigations are
required if the region is to capitalize fully upon the inevitable
increase in the regional, national, and international movement of goods.
 Impediments to the multimodal accommodation of freight shipments in and through the A/GFTC
Planning and Programming Area include the following:
 Geometric deficiencies at intersections of  NHS components,
notably:
o US Route 4 and NYS 32 in the Town of Kingsbury
o US Route 4 and NYS 197 in the Village of Fort Edward
o US Route 4 and NYS 196 in the Village of Hudson Falls
 Intersection capacity issues along major routes, including:
o Exit 20 /
US Route 9 / NYS 149 in the Town of Queensbury
o Exit 19 / NYS 254 / Quaker Road in the Town of Queensbury
o NYS 32 (Dix Avenue) in the Town of Kingsbury
 NHS components that bisect established villages and activity centers
 Anticipated continued growth in
truck traffic, counter to other automobile usage trends
 Substandard access to existing and planned industrial parks and industrially zoned property
throughout the urban area
 Aging rail infrastructure
 Water depth limitations in the Champlain Canal
For a small urban area, the A/GFTC region features a number of unique freight
transportation assets that
collectively comprise a system that can likely adapt to the anticipated increases in freight traffic, including:
 Access to Interstate 87
 A comprehensive NHS network featuring system redundancy and generally adequate arterial link
capacity
 Diverse non‐highway shipping infrastructure that includes active rail, a regional
airport, and the
Champlain Canal
 Sites positioned for future development or redevelopment as intermodal transfer centers
 Hundreds of acres of vacant industrial property located in close proximity to major transportation
facilities

LONG RANGE PLAN 2035 Page 52
Priorities and Projects
Related Planning Principles: 1, 2, 7, 8, 9
Given the importance of freight to the economic welfare of the region, as well as the potential to impact the
transportation network, A/GFTC has identified the following priorities and projects relating to freight.
1. Continue to collaborate with local and regional agencies to identify innovative solutions to identified
surface transportation freight
obstacles:
 US 4/NYS 32 Intersection Improvements (Kingsbury)
 US 9/Exit 20/NYS 149 Congestion Improvements (Queensbury)
 NYS 197 over the Hudson River (Fort Edward)
 Dix Ave/NYS Route 32 Improvements (Glens Falls, Queensbury, Kingsbury)
2. Continue to collaborate on local, regional, and statewide planning efforts related to rail‐ and
water‐
based freight. This includes participation in regional planning efforts, as well as providing technical
assistance as needed.

LONG RANGE PLAN 2035 Page 53
Safety
Safety is an issue of paramount importance in transportation planning. A/GFTC has a strong commitment to
improving the safety of the transportation system, and will continue to pursue this goal. Previous efforts to
address safety issues in the MPO have included both planning and capital projects at a variety of scales.
This
includes:
 Capital projects. The MPO has used HSIP funds to program capital improvements on County Route 12 in
the Town of Granville (obligated for 2013‐2014), Route 9 in South Glens Falls (currently under
construction), and County Route 42/ East Road/ Mahaffy Road in the town of Fort
Edward. The County
Route 42 project has demonstrably lowered the incidence and severity of crashes.
 Intersection‐Specific  Assessments. Using the Engineering Assistance Program, the MPO has examined
the configuration of several intersections, including Bay/Sanford (currently underway) and
Crandall/Orville in the City of Glens Falls, and Bay/Cronin in the Town of
Queensbury. The completed
project allowed the municipalities to implement low‐cost striping and signage solutions at each
intersection. As these projects are recently completed, no data is available to determine the
effectiveness of the implemented solutions.
 Road Safety Assessments. Although the MPO has not conducted a Road Safety Assessment
in recent
years, this tool is available as a Unified Planning Work Program task, upon request of a member
municipality.
 Local System Safety Screening documents. A/GFTC prepared reports for Washington County and the
Town of Moreau which examine the crash patterns and locations along the local roadway system. These
reports
also list contributing factors, as well as a wide variety of conditions relating to vehicle crashes,
such as light condition, weather, and pavement conditions. The plans also look specifically at trends for
bicycle/pedestrian crashes. It is anticipated that a similar report will be prepared for Warren County in
the next
1‐2 years. These reports are intended to fulfill the requirement for HSIP projects to be “data‐
driven”.
In addition to local projects, there are a number of State‐wide efforts to  increase safety. The New York State
Strategic Highway Safety Plan, prepared and updated by NYSDOT, promotes best practices and
strategies that, if
implemented, could have a substantial impact on reducing fatal and injury crashes. The emphasis areas of this
plan include: driver behavior, pedestrians, large trucks, motorcycles, highways, emergency medical services, and
traffic safety information systems. The companion document to this is the New York State Highway Safety
Strategic
Plan, prepared and updated by the Governor’s Traffic Safety Committee (GTSC). This plan is focused on
enforcement and behavior‐related campaigns than on infrastructure improvements. As an MPO, A/GFTC
participates in the preparation and implementation of these plans at the local level.

LONG RANGE PLAN 2035 Page 54
Safety Trends and Patterns
To gather information about
safety, the Statewide Accident
Location Information System (ALIS)
was used
13. A five year period was
included in the analysis
(01/01/2007 ‐ 12/31/2011).
The most basic way to examine
crash trends is through the annual
number of crashes. As can be seen
in Figure 22, the total number of
crashes in Washington County and
the Town of Moreau has held
relatively steady,
while the number
of crashes in Warren County
increased by almost 22%. This
increase is not associated with an
increase in vehicle miles traveled.
The severity of crashes is another important
factor to consider. For this plan, severity was
measured as the number of accidents which
involved a fatality, injury,
or property damage
and injury was analyzed. For the five year period
analyzed, there were 436 crashes involving
fatality, injury, or property damage and injury.
Of these, 85 accidents involved a fatality. Figure
23 illustrates the number of severe crashes per
year by location. Each location in the MPO
experienced spikes
or dips in the 5‐year period
surveyed. However, the general trend in
Washington County and the Town of Moreau
was a reduction in the number of severe
crashes; Warren County had an increasing
trendline. Overall, Washington County had
significantly more severe crashes than Warren
County.

13 All safety data derived from ALIS Query Reporting Application, unless otherwise noted.
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Saratoga (Moreau)
347 437 375 410 404
Warren
1951 2121 2267 2387 2491
Washington
1338 1472 1533 1596 1559
0 500 1000
1500 2000 2500
3000
Number of Accidents
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Moreau
7103 9 6
Warren
19 35 37 40 32
Washington
48 47 52 54 37
0 10
20 30 40
50
60
Number of Fatal/Injury Crashes
Figure 22: Total Accidents, 2007‐2011
Figure 23: Crashes Involving Fatality/Injury

LONG RANGE PLAN 2035 Page 55
Crashes involving bicyclists or
pedestrians were also analyzed, as
these crashes carry a higher risk of
injury. For these accidents, 2010 saw
the greatest number of crashes for all
data groups, falling in 2011. In
general, the number of
bicycle/pedestrian crashes has
increased for the entire area over the
five years
studied. This could indicate
the fact that more and more people
are cycling and walking, or an
increase in driver behavior which
leads to accidents, or a combination
of both. In addition, these types of
accidents are often under‐reported,
so the actual number of crashes is
most likely higher
than shown in
Figure 24.

In addition to examining the types and severity of crashes that have occurred, it is also crucial to understand the
causes of vehicle crashes. This analysis was conducted by collecting data for “Accident Contributing Factors”
from the ALIS system. This data is included in many
(but not all) of the accident reports on ALIS, and usually
includes up to four factors (two per involved vehicle). As such, the number of contributing factors is not equal to
the number of accidents.
For the incidents within the reporting period, 51 contributing factors were noted on the accident reports.
These
were broadly classified into four categories:
 Behavior: includes contributing factors which are related to human behavior or condition, such as
speeding, driver distraction, or unsafe passing
 Environmental: includes contributing factors which are imposed by environmental or temporary
conditions, such as animal behavior or weather.
 Infrastructure: includes
any contributing factor relating to the roadway or traffic control devices.
 Mechanical: includes any contributing factor which resulted from vehicle malfunction.
For each county in the MPO, as well as the entire A/GFTC area, the contributing factors were sorted into the
above categories. As can be seen in Figure 25,
the overwhelming majority of accident contributing factors are
behavior‐related.
In Warren County and the Town of Moreau, the breakdown of accident contributing factors is almost identical,
with behavioral factors making up 74% of accidents. In Washington County, there was a much higher incidence
of contributing factors relating to animal
behavior (usually from vehicles striking deer).

59
556588
70
0 10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90 100
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Number of Accidents
Saratoga (Moreau)WarrenWashingtonOverall
Figure 24: Bicycle‐Pedestrian Accidents, 2007‐2011

LONG RANGE PLAN 2035 Page 56
Since behavioral contributing factors are so prevalent, a breakdown of the individual factors for the entire MPO
was prepared, as seen in Table 7.   This includes all contributing factors reported for crashes in the A/GFTC area
from 2007‐2011. To facilitate the readability of the data, certain similar factors were grouped
together.
This data shows that driver inattention is the most often cited contributing factor, with following too closely,
failure to yield right‐of‐way, and unsafe speed as the next most numerous categories.
Table 7: Common Contributing Factors, 2007‐2011
Contributing Factor Number of times cited
DRIVER INATTENTION   3229
FOLLOWING TOO CLOSELY   3026
FAILURE TO YIELD RIGHT OF WAY   2562
UNSAFE SPEED   2402
PASSING/IMPROPER LANE USE/UNSAFE LANE CHANGE 1409
BACKING UNSAFELY   1364
ALCOHOL INVOLVEMENT   799
FAILURE TO KEEP RIGHT   731
REACTION TO UNINVOLVED VEHICLE 599
FELL ASLEEP/LOST CONSCIOUSNESS/ FATIGUED/DROWSY   538
IMPROPER TURNING    515
TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES DISREGARDED   404
DRIVER INEXPERIENCE   354
OUTSIDE CAR/PASSENGER DISTRACTION   159
PEDESTRIAN’S ERROR/CONFUSION   131
ILLNESS/PHYSICAL DISABILITY 129
AGGRESSIVE DRIVING/ROAD RAGE   59
CELL PHONE/OTHER ELEC DEVICE 53
DRUGS (ILLEGAL)   27
PRESCRIPTION MEDICATION   23
OTHER 15

74%74%
65%71%
21%22%29%
24%
2%2%
2%
2% 3%
2%4%
3%
0% 10% 20%
30%
40% 50% 60%
70% 80%
Warren Moreau Washington MPO
Percent of Contributing Factors
Location
Behavior
Environmental
Infrastructure
Mechanical
Figure 25:Accident Contributing Factors by Location, 2007‐2011

LONG RANGE PLAN 2035 Page 57
Challenges/Opportunities
A/GFTC faces a number of challenges and opportunities regarding transportation safety over the next twenty
years. These include:
 Difficulty in addressing safety related to human behavior. As the analysis of contributing factors shows,
human behavior made the most significant contribution to crashes in the MPO.  As a transportation
planning agency,
it can be difficult for A/GFTC to make measurable improvements to driver behavior.
However, there are infrastructure safety countermeasures which help drivers to regain control of a
vehicle,  or to reduce the severity of a crash once it occurs.
 Changes to HSIP funding mechanism. MAP‐21 included a significant
increase in funding for safety
projects. However, the distribution of this funding has changed. Currently, 50% of the HSIP funding is
now distributed through a state‐wide competitive program, with a heavy emphasis on cost‐effectiveness
and data‐driven approaches to safety, usually involving engineering or other technical analyses. This
approach
may make it difficult for smaller municipalities, which do not have access to technical
expertise, to compete for these funds.
Priorities/Projects
Related Planning Principles: 2, 3, 12
This plan identifies a number of projects and priorities intended to increase safety while taking into account the
challenges facing the MPO. These include:
1. Continue to use engineering assistance to identify safety improvements. A/GFTC has demonstrated
success in applying engineering assistance contracts towards site‐specific safety improvements. As such,
the
MPO is committed to continuing to make this tool available to member municipalities.
2. Continue to monitor safety trends on the local road network and identify appropriate system‐wide
strategies and countermeasures. As stated above, the focus on data‐driven approaches to safety
planning can create a burden on local
municipalities. A/GFTC has created the Local System Safety
Screening documents for Warren and Washington Counties, and the Town of Moreau as a first step
towards fulfilling the requirements of the HSIP program. These will continue to be updated on a regular
basis, every 3‐5 years.
3. Continue partnership with Traffic
Safety Boards. A/GFTC has a positive, beneficial relationship with both
the Warren and Washington County Traffic Safety Boards. This collaboration should continue in the
future, so that all involved agencies can maximize the safety benefits for the region.

LONG RANGE PLAN 2035 Page 58
Air Quality, Climate Change, & Environmental Mitigation
Transportation plans and projects can have many direct and indirect effects on the environment, including air
and water quality, noise and vibration, historic and cultural properties, parklands, contaminated lands,
displacement of indigenous species, and community preservation.
MAP‐21 mandates the consideration of environmental issues as part of MPO transportation plans, as
well as the
consultation with Federal, State, and tribal wildlife, land management, and regulatory agencies.  In addition, the
plan must contain a list of potential environmental mitigation activities, including activities that may have the
greatest potential to restore and maintain the environmental functions affected by the plan.
As part of
the required consultation process for this Long Range Plan, A/GFTC solicited input from a wide variety
of agencies at all levels of government in an attempt to identify those issues that are of greatest significance or
sensitivity on a regional scale. The following includes a description of the air quality non
‐attainment designation
that affects A/GFTC as well as a summary of the issues identified by the responding environmental stakeholders
and how those issues relate to the future transportation planning and programming activities within the A/GFTC
area.
Air Quality
The Clean Air Act, amended in 1990, requires the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to
establish national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for various air pollutants. Areas not in compliance with
those standards are designated as “non‐attainment.” The New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC) is required to
produce a plan that outlines how emission reductions, including those from
mobile sources, will meet the NAAQS.
Previously, the Town of Moreau and Village of South Glens Falls were included in the Albany‐Schenectady‐Troy
ozone non‐attainment area. As such, A/GFTC TIPs and Long Range Plans were required to
be in conformity with
the State Implementation Plan for air quality (SIP), and included the required TIP/SIP conformity assessments to
meet the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, and the EPA’s final rules on conformity published in the Federal
Register on 8/15/97 (40 CFR parts 51 & 93). On May 21,
2012, the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA) promulgated the 2008 8‐Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), to be
effective on July 20, 2012, which classified the Albany‐Schenectady‐Troy area in attainment for the 2008 ozone
standard.
The EPA promulgated a new rule on July 20,
2012, revoking the Transportation Conformity requirements for
1997 8‐Hour Ozone NAAQS,  effective on July 20, 2013; and as a result, A/GFTC will not be required to make a
transportation conformity determination under the new 2008 8‐Hour Ozone NAAQS.
Climate Change
While there are many contributing factors to global climate fluctuations (including the cyclical nature of the
Earth’s climate itself), the relationship between fuel consumption and climate change is well established.
According to FHWA, the transportation sector directly accounts for about 29% of current total U.S. greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions. Across the
country, transportation agencies at all levels, whether local municipalities,
regional MPOs, state DOTs, or the Federal Highway and Transit Administrations, are actively seeking to reduce
the level of GHG emissions from the transportation sector.
In the A/GFTC planning area, warming trends can already be observed in the historical weather patterns.
In
addition, severe weather events, such as hurricanes Irene and Sandy, have had direct impacts on the A/GFTC

LONG RANGE PLAN 2035 Page 59
region. According to the ClimAID report14, the A/GFTC area is facing current and future climate change impacts
due to:
 Increases in annual average temperature: Warmer winters may reduce snow removal costs and extend
the construction season. However, the increased frequency of freeze/thaw cycles can cause potholes,
cracks, and frost heaves in pavement.
 Increases in
annual average precipitation, especially during the winter: When combined with warmer
winters and more extreme storms, this may lead to an increase in icing events, which affect vehicular
traffic, on‐road freight movements, and aviation.
 Extreme heat events: This can lead to damage of asphalt pavement and railroad tracks.
 Increased storm intensities: Extreme storms can overload stormwater systems, leading to flash flooding,
temporary road closures, and road washouts. These events can also increase the potential for scouring
of bridge foundations. High winds and intense storms can affect air transportation.
Challenges/Opportunities: Climate Change
 Identifying meaningful ways to reduce GHG emissions can be a challenge for MPOs. The most effective
methods to reduce GHGs, such as an increase in fuel efficiency standards, are not within the purview of
A/GFTC. In addition, it can be difficult to directly influence driver behavior; the rising cost of
fuel may
prove to be an effective, if unintended, way to reduce the number of vehicle miles traveled.
 Although advances in climate science have helped to determine the particular risks facing the A/GFTC
region, the actual incidence of these events (such as severe storms) is impossible to predict. This
makes
it difficult to determine where infrastructure improvements designed to adapt to climate change should
be located.
 Regional planning efforts have provided support  and potential funding streams for climate change
related plans at the local level. This may allow the MPO to partner with other agencies to complete
studies, such
as vulnerability assessments.
Priorities/Projects
Related Planning Principles: 1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 12
Many of the activities that A/GFTC is currently engaged in have climate change co‐benefits. The following is a list
of current or proposed priorities or projects which will help the A/GFTC area mitigate or adapt to climate change
impacts in the future.
1. Alternative Transportation: A/GFTC will continue its commitment
to increasing the use of alternative
modes of transportation, including public transportation, ridesharing facilities, and bicycle and
pedestrian infrastructure. In addition, A/GFTC will continue to pursue projects and collaborations which
encourage climate‐smart behavior, such as reducing automobile trips, distances traveled, and idle times,
increasing the number of people per
vehicle, using alternative fuels, and increasing fuel efficiency. These
efforts not only contribute incremental benefits to reducing GHG emissions, but also have numerous
financial and health‐related co‐benefits.

14 Rosenzweig, C., W. Solecki, A. DeGaetano, M. O’Grady, S. Hassol, P. Grabhorn (Eds.). 2011. Responding to Climate Change
in New York State: The ClimAID Integrated Assessment for Effective Climate Change Adaptation. Technical Report. New York
State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA), Albany, New York. Full report (NYSERDA Final Report
11‐18)
may be found at www.nyserda.ny.gov

LONG RANGE PLAN 2035 Page 60
2. Congestion/Idle Time: The longer a vehicle sits in traffic, the more greenhouse gases are emitted. The
A/GFTC planning area does not currently suffer from widespread congestion, although this is an issue in
specific locations. A continuing commitment to keep levels of congestion low by seeking ways to reduce
VMT is
one way that A/GFTC will address this issue. More directly, the MPO will identify ways to
improve intersection efficiencies, by installing roundabouts or coordinating traffic signals.
3. Access Management: Access management, at the system‐wide level, can contribute to a  logical and
efficient flow of vehicles between local streets, collectors,
arterials, and the freeway system.  This results
in decreased congestion and reduced travel times and can therefore decrease the amount of carbon
output. A/GFTC has a strong track record of encouraging sound access management techniques, and is
committed to maintaining this effort in the future.
4. Land Use and Design:
The pattern of development can have a direct impact on GHG emissions. In
general, dense urban neighborhoods with a grid street network are associated with fewer vehicle miles
traveled and less travel time, and therefore less GHG emissions, than neighborhoods with a less
compact development pattern. Encouraging Complete Streets principles can
improve the likelihood of
biking and walking as well. A/GFTC will continue to pursue projects which encourage efficient
development patterns, which can also improve livability, economic vitality, and public health.
5. Alternative Fuels: The usage and availability of alternative fuel vehicles (AFV) and associated refueling
infrastructure can supplement the goal
of energy independence while providing economic benefits.
Specifically, alternative fuels can benefit the Greater Glens Falls area by creating commercial
opportunities and jobs through the sale, conversion, and maintenance of AFVs and the associated
infrastructure.  However, more research and substantial investments are required before converting the
existing oil‐based transportation economy
to one based upon other sources of energy is imminent. Any
change will not happen quickly, but incremental steps such as fuel conversions of large public or private
vehicle fleets could enable larger transitions.
6. Infrastructure Vulnerability Assessments: In addition to finding ways to reduce greenhouse gases, it is
important
to identify ways that existing infrastructure can be adapted to the changes which are already
occurring. One method is to complete a vulnerability assessment, which identifies opportunities to
adapt transportation infrastructure and operations to climate change events, including more frequent
severe storms, road washouts, and flooding. This also has significant co
‐benefits in terms of system
preservation. The MPO has listed this task as a potential UPWP item, and will continue to make this tool
available to members.
Environmental Mitigation
Consultation with involved agencies
A/GFTC conducted specific outreach to local, county, regional and State agencies that routinely deal with
environmental considerations in order to solicit priorities, opinions and suggestions on how to best incorporate
environmental preservation and mitigation activities within the context of transportation planning. In general,
the responding agencies emphasized
corridor management as a mechanism to address three primary negative
impacts that result from transportation projects:
 Degradation of water quality due to runoff
 Proliferation of invasive species
 Disruption of wildlife habitat continuity

LONG RANGE PLAN 2035 Page 61
Water Quality Preservation
The construction and maintenance of roadways can cause significant impacts on nearby waterbodies and the
surrounding watershed.  During construction, soil erosion can cause sedimentation in waterbodies that create
deltas, decreased wildlife habitat and the overall eutrophication of the waterbody. These impacts can also
continue post‐construction if the road corridor has
not been properly graded and re‐seeded. Once the roadway
is constructed and in use, the impermeable surface of the pavement collects contaminants such as soil, oil,
grease, and litter, which is then carried to local waterbodies during storm events.
Road maintenance also impacts water quality. Salt and sand are
commonly deployed during the winter months
to improve driving conditions; this hastens the decline of pavement conditions and the quality of adjacent soils
and water bodies.
As discussed in the Climate Change section of this plan, flooding from storm events can also cause considerable
damage.  Excessive runoff  can wash out roads
and bridges, which can cut off crucial transportation routes.
To address these concerns, a stormwater study is conducted in conjunction with all new road projects. Best
management practices will be selected based on the most current relevant standards as required by the NYS
Department of Environmental Conservation, Adirondack Park Agency,
and/or Army Corps of Engineers.
Invasive Species
Controlling the proliferation of invasive species continues to a principal concern in the A/GFTC area. These
species spread rapidly and outcompete native plants for resources. Whether by accidental or intentional
introduction, invasive species often cause severe and irreversible impacts on agriculture, recreation, and natural
resources by threatening biodiversity, habitat quality, and
ecosystem function. Some common invasive plant
species along roadsides include Phragmites, Purple loosestrife, and Japanese knotweed.
Surface transportation activities can hasten the spread of invasive species. Seed and seed heads are readily
dispersed in the spring when road and roadside maintenance becomes more frequent. Mowing and plowing can
move soil
and roots of plants outside of their habitats, where they spread rapidly from recurring roadway
upkeep. Recognizing contaminated soils and properly disposing of them can eliminate the spread of plants that
are choking the habitation of native species.
The movement of freight by roadway or canal is also a potential vector
for the spread of invasive species.  Seeds
can be carried in cargo or the wheels of vehicles.  Pests, such as the Asian long horn beetle, can travel via wood
pallets and wood packing material in cargo shipments.  Other pests can travel in the cargo itself, especially in
produce and livestock.

Aquatic invasive species may have little direct impact on transportation, but they are easily spread via
transportation methods.  Plant fragments, seeds and animals can all accidently become attached to a boat,
whether for freight or recreation and travel upwards of hundreds of miles beyond their current range.  New
invasive species
are introduced in this manner and current invasive species spread even further.
A key element to stopping the spread of invasive species is to recognize them.  Once identified, a strategy can be
put in place to best manage them in order to contain and minimize their impact.  Eradication is rarely
obtainable.
Identifying potential vectors, such as contaminated soils and vehicles will also be considered when
undertaking roadway construction projects.
Habitat Continuity
Roadways can impede the natural migration and territory of wildlife. Limited access highways can be very
disruptive to native animal populations. Additionally, animal/vehicle collisions are a common cause of accidents
in the A/GFTC region. The following are examples of wildlife‐supportive highway design elements that can

LONG RANGE PLAN 2035 Page 62
reduce negative impacts on breeding cycles and habitat, heighten motorist awareness of the presence of
animals, and enhance territorial connectivity across a given highway corridor:
 Breaks in medians and fencing
 Visible and scalable fencing for larger mammals
 Construction of culverts and underpasses specifically for wildlife and fish passage

 Recreation of native habitats along newly constructed roadways
Challenges/Opportunities: Environmental Mitigation

The A/GFTC area is fortunate to have a great variety of local organizations devoted to protecting various
aspects of our unique environment. A key element of improving the locally administered transportation
planning process will be to expand the communication and professional consultation between these
organizations and transportation organizations to maximize awareness
of these and other priority
environmental issues that warrant consideration as the transportation system evolves.


As an MPO, A/GFTC is not directly involved in the design or construction of roadway projects. As such, it
is diffcult to introduce countermeasures to these project phases. However, there are many
opportunities to consider environmental issues during the many planning projects undertaken by
A/GFTC.

Priorities/Projects
Related Planning Principles: 1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 12
Although A/GFTC does not directly engage in the design or construction of transportation projects, there are still
activities and strategies which can be undertaken to ensure that environmental impacts are avoided.
1. Explore design alternatives that are less disruptive to the natural and built environment. The federal aid
design process already
includes a thorough environmental review process, including evaluation of
alternatives. In addition, A/GFTC will continue to include environmental considerations within all
relevant planning projects, to ensure that these issues are considered at all levels of project
development.
2. Improved outreach to and communication and coordination with environmental organizations. As an
MPO, A/GFTC does not have a formally established relationship with environmental organizations.
However, improvements in communication have been made as staff continues to explore regional
collaboration. A/GFTC is committed to further strengthening this coordination in the future.

LONG RANGE PLAN 2035 Page 63
Security
As noted previously, Moving Ahead for Progress (MAP‐21) requires that A/GFTC and all MPOs provide for
consideration of projects, strategies and services that increase the security of the transportation system for
motorized and non‐motorized users. That the issue of security is now a stand‐alone planning factor is largely
in
response to the terrorist attacks of 2001 and is indicative of a new and broader context of the concept of
security.
For the purpose of this discussion, security has been defined as actions to deal with significant and unforeseen
disruptions to the transportation system. In this area, this can
include disruptions caused by weather events, as
well as the more traditional security‐related issues. NYSDOT and Warren and Washington Counties have
repeatedly proven their ability to respond to major flooding events and resulting road washouts.
Presently, A/GFTC’s relationship to those entities charged with hazard response and mitigation can be classified

as limited. The primary responsibility for mobilization and operations rests with other organizations and
municipalities that A/GFTC interacts with on a regular basis and that are currently involved in the coordinated
regional transportation planning process.
Challenges/Opportunities
 Security is a difficult concept for smaller MPOs such as A/GFTC to integrate into their planning
processes. The A/GFTC Planning and Programming Area does not feature a major intermodal passenger
center such as an international airport or large‐scale rail station or for that matter an intermodal
transfer center like
a large port. Further, A/GFTC does not own or operate any transportation
infrastructure nor does it have any direct influence over the management or operations of any
transportation facility. The regional surface transportation system is generally devoid of access control
and thus immensely difficult to “secure” in the traditional sense.
 A/GFTC has the financial resources to engage targeted engineering consulting resources for the express
purpose of improving disaster planning efforts if such is identified by A/GFTC Policy and Technical
Advisory Committees. It is expected that such efforts could be conducted without disruption to other
A/GFTC planning and programming activities.

The MPO is currently engaged in a number of activities that have some relevance to the issue of
security. Most of those related activities are listed in the current Unified Planning and Work Program
and include:
• Task 2.10 ‐ Transportation Data Inventory: A/GFTC routinely collects data on transportation
facility characteristics
that could be of potential value to emergency response and
mitigation efforts.
• Task 2.20 ‐ Land Use Monitoring: As a regional planning organization, A/GFTC has access to
data and modeling outputs for the entire area, not just specific municipalities within. This
could prove useful in the event of a large‐scale
disruption.
• Task 2.70 ‐ Program Coordination and Local Government Assistance: Again, a regional
planning organization like A/GFTC is in an advantageous position to coordinate area‐wide
planning efforts should the need arise or desire on behalf of the municipalities be
expressed. With recent staff changes, A/GFTC has already initiated efforts
to enhance its
presence among its member municipalities and their committees and departments. Those
efforts would need to continue in order for those tasked with emergency response to
become familiar with A/GFTC and its resources.

LONG RANGE PLAN 2035 Page 64
• Task 2.80 ‐ Local Traffic Engineering and Assistance: A/GFTC retains contracts with up to
three transportation planning and engineering firms for the purpose of availing those firms’
services to its member municipalities. These agreements, although limited in scope so as not
to circumvent the coordinated planning process, could be utilized to
review
transportation‐specific operational elements of existing plans or to aid municipalities in
developing plan updates.
• Task 2.90 ‐ GIS Support and Operation: A/GFTC staff is available to supplement existing
municipal GIS resources if called upon to do so in the event of a significant regional
disruption.
• Task 3.20 ‐
Traffic Simulation and Modeling: A/GFTC staff has the ability to quickly analyze
potential alternatives for detours and evacuation routes. Those capabilities could be of
value in either the emergency planning or response stages.
• Task 3.40 ‐ Intelligent Transportation Systems Architecture Development: Intelligent
Transportation Systems (ITS) is a concept rooted in the
coordinated use of technology and
infrastructure to adapt to changing transportation patterns. The role of ITS in the
advancement of security of the transportation system is immense, particularly with regards
to emergency response, routing, and coordinated communications. At present, A/GFTC is
the only MPO area in New York State that
does not have an architecture for ITS investments
in place.
• Task 4.20 ‐ Transportation Improvement Program Update: The Transportation Improvement
Program is the capital programming document that identifies priority projects for federal
transportation funding. Through judicious application of the planning process, facilities that
are subjected to recurring disruption (eg: a flood
‐prone roadway) can be addressed through
the coordinated planning process. Additionally, in the event of infrastructure replacement,
the type of facility that is desired could potentially evolve through MPO discussions.

Priorities/Projects
Related Planning Principles: 3, 8, 9, 12
As stated above, addressing security within the context of a small MPO can be a challenge. In time, the
anticipated role of A/GFTC in security planning could change because of unforeseen events or legislative action.
As security planning is a comparatively new requirement for MPOs, it is expected that further guidance
and
responsibilities will emerge over time. The following are the priorities and projects which have been identified as
feasible ways to address transportation security within the A/GFTC area.
1.  Expand our outreach to the emergency planning and response community. To date, there has not been an
extensive amount of dialogue
between the MPO, public safety coordinators, and emergency responders other
than on corridor‐specific planning initiatives. Increased communication must transpire in order to foster a
universal understanding of capabilities and needs.
2.  Complete the ITS Architecture Development task. The initiative to prepare an ITS architecture for the A/GFTC
Planning and Programming
Area has stalled for a variety of reasons. As part of this effort, NYSDOT and A/GFTC
staff conducted outreach to regional highway departments and emergency coordinators. Working towards the
implementation of a regional ITS provides a natural vehicle to re‐engage those responsible for emergency
response.

LONG RANGE PLAN 2035 Page 65
3.  Identify methods to undertake a criticality assessment of road network, to determine network robustness. A
criticality assessment reveals those transportation network links which are most crucial to the operations of the
network as a whole. Traditionally, these were identified by examining traffic patterns and capacity. However,
new modeling techniques are
available which can identify links which, due to connectivity and lack of
redundancy, would result in a “domino effect” of backups and issues in the network as a whole. Having an
understanding of which network links are most critical can be a powerful tool for emergency planning, as well as
capital improvement plans.

LONG RANGE PLAN 2035 Page 66
Financial Plan
MAP ‐21 requires that all Long Range Plans produced by Metropolitan Planning Organizations include a financial
plan. The prior A/GFTC Long Range Plan was developed under anticipation that reauthorization of federal
transportation law would introduce new revenue sources and funding programs that would help to address
declining transportation infrastructure conditions and
performance. Those changes did not occur. Funding for
transportation infrastructure continues to be inadequate, and distribution formulas continue to reward states
for fuel consumption at the expense of transit utilization. The consolidation of federal programs has further
limited funding eligibility, particularly for rural off‐system bridges. Most municipalities do not
have the requisite
funding to keep pace with growing infrastructure maintenance needs even with the availability of federal
funding assistance, and merely increasing the share of the existing federal transportation program will not solve
this issue. Not only is new funding required, but also new mechanisms and formulas for funding.
Federal Transportation Funding Programs Available to A/GFTC
The 2014‐2018 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) serves as the near‐term capital programming plan for
the investment of federal transportation funding within MPO areas. A/GFTC administers the programming of the
following federal transportation funding sources through maintenance and biennial updates to the TIP. These
funding programs are subject to
change as the federal surface transportation bill is revised and updated.
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP):  funding for improvements designed to achieve a significant
reduction of traffic‐related fatalities and serious injuries on public roads.
National Highway Performance Program (NHPP): funding for improvements to rural and urban roads  and
bridges
that are part of the National Highway System, including the Interstate System, Principal Arterials and
designated connections to major intermodal terminals.
Surface Transportation Program (STP): funding for projects on any Federal‐ aid highway, bridge projects on any
public road, transit capital projects, and intracity and intercity bus terminals and facilities.
Transportation
Alternatives Program  (TAP): funding for alternative transportation projects, including bicycling
and pedestrian facilities, access to public transportation, transportation enhancement projects, recreation
trails, scenic byways, safe routes to schools, community improvement, and environmental mitigation.
Large Urban Cities (FTA 5307): funding for transit capital and operating assistance in urbanized areas and for
transportation related planning.
Rural and Small Urban Areas (FTA 5311): funding for supporting public transportation in areas of less than
50,000 populations.
Transportation for Elderly Persons and Persons with Disabilities (FTA 5310): funding for assisting private
nonprofit groups in meeting the transportation needs of the elderly and persons with disabilities when
the
existing transportation services provided are unavailable, insufficient, or inappropriate to meeting these needs.

For A/GFTC, the most significant change in funding from SAFETEA‐LU to MAP‐21 is the consolidation of former
Interstate Maintenance, National Highway System, and Highway Bridge Preservation Programs into a single
program, the National Highway Performance Program. While the consolidation was intended to simplify
program administration and assign greater
programming priority to major infrastructure, it also represents a
major reduction in dedicated funds available for locally owned bridges located off of the federal aid highway
system. Major rehabilitations and replacements of local bridges accounted for over 1/4 of the highway funds
programmed within the 2010‐2015 TIP.

LONG RANGE PLAN 2035 Page 67
Short‐term Core Program Funding History at A/GFTC
Capital programming at A/GFTC has been a collaborative process with Greater Glens Falls Transit and New York
State Department of Transportation. Typically, A/GFTC is provided with suballocated program targets for the core
highway transportation programs: NHPP and STP. Transit programming is largely driven by formula and
availability of local matching funds.

Federal transportation funding levels within the A/GFTC area have shown considerable variability over the period
that includes the last 5 Transportation Improvement Programs. NYSDOT Region 1 historically provides guidance
regarding the suballocation targets based upon formulas that are used for distribution within New York State,
localized needs and regional and
statewide balances. A greater degree of fund source overprogramming had
been permitted in the past, which accounts for the peak programming that occurred in 2005. Recently issued
programming instructions from New York State have had a considerable impact upon transportation funds
available to A/GFTC. The most recent federal funding suballocation formula
issued to the MPOs by the State of
New York withheld 30% of certain federal funding programs for statewide competitive solicitation and
Commissioner’s reserve. That percentage correlates with the drop in overall programmed federal funds between
the 2010 and 2014 TIPs. Due in large part to the reduction in available
highway funds to be programmed, the
2014‐2018 Transportation Improvement Program is the smallest A/GFTC capital program in terms of overall
dollars since 1991.
Figure 26: Federal Highway Funding Programming History ‐ Last 5 TIPs

2003 2005 2007 2010 2014 Average
$M
107.869 155.343 117.018 100.141 79.703 112.0148 0.0 20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0 100.0 120.0
140.0
160.0
180.0

LONG RANGE PLAN 2035 Page 68
In contrast to the combined highway programs, core transit funding has increased steadily in terms of overall
dollars since the 2005 TIP.
Figure 27: Federal Transit Funding Programming History ‐ Last 5 TIPs

Adequacy of Funding Levels
This Long Range Plan presents condition data and demand information for highways, intersections, bridges,
transit, rail and bicycle and pedestrian facilities. In general, average condition ratings for State and locally‐owned
bridges are better than they were ten years ago, but significant overprogramming beyond regional suballocated
funding levels has occurred in
the bridge program and it unlikely that those gains would have been realized had
expenditures been limited to suballocated planning targets over that time. It remains to be seen whether the
maintenance and preservation‐first strategy will have an immediate impact upon average conditions, as less‐
costly repairs and maintenance
will receive funding priority over replacement of structures in poor condition.
Average pavement condition ratings for the State highway system and for locally‐owned federal aid eligible
highways are also improved over a ten year span. Gains in locally‐owned pavement conditions are not entirely
attributable to federal funding levels, as
most previously programmed highway projects were pavement
reconstructions or major rehabilitations that only improved short sections of roadways. It is anticipated that
the maintenance and preservation‐first strategy will have a positive impact upon average pavement conditions
over time once municipalities begin to apply federal assistance to offset what were
once locally‐sourced
pavement expenditures.
Federal transit funding continues to be adequate to sustain existing public transportation operations only.
Greater Glens Falls Transit has been able to successfully maintain its fleet, staffing and operations with only
modest increases in fares and municipal contributions. The generally sufficient condition of GGFT’s present levels

of federal funding assistance could be quickly and significantly diminished with continued increases in demand
for services, particularly those that result from growth and development pressures and the ever‐increasing costs
associated with personal transportation.
Funding for bicycling and pedestrian projects tends to suffer at the expense of mounting highway and bridge

costs; that trend is likely to continue as funding for capital improvement projects becomes more scarce. The
maintenance and preservation‐first strategy is not likely to be effective in addressing bicycle and pedestrian
infrastructure deficiencies. The Safe Routes to School and Transportation Enhancement Program, two distinct
federal funding categories that
had been used to expand the scope of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure in
the A/GFTC region, have been consolidated under MAP‐21 into the new Transportation Alternatives Program.
While bicycle and pedestrian facilities remain eligible for funding under MAP‐21’s new Transportation
Alternatives Program, it remains to be seen as to
whether that program will have the same positive impact upon
non‐motorized transportation network as did the outgoing program.
2003 2005 2007 2010 2014 Average
$M
8.872 8.455 9.632 10.115 11.616 9.738 0.0 2.0
4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
12.0 14.0

LONG RANGE PLAN 2035 Page 69
Programming priority for improving railroad and canal facilities suffers from a general lack of profile based upon
stagnant or declining commercial usage. Demand for rail transportation (both freight and passenger) and
waterborne transportation is anticipated to increase along with rising fuel costs. Many railways throughout the
country, including the Batten Kill
Railroad, have deteriorated to the point where such demand cannot be met
given existing infrastructure conditions. And while the Champlain Canal remains open to recreational boat
traffic, the controlling depth of the canal in the A/GFTC area is shallower than the 12 feet needed to
accommodate larger commercial vessels.
Funding
for transportation improvements is quite simply insufficient. As noted previously, demand continues to
increase along major highways. Many of the region’s deficient structures have deteriorated beyond repair and
require major rehabilitation or replacement. NYSDOT Region 1 estimates a needed $315 million in yearly
construction letting targets to achieve and maintain a
state of good repair for area transportation system
components, while
realizing only $110 million in average yearly letting based upon current allocations.
The previous LRP noted  A/GFTC’s past programming philosophy of reserving federal funds to provide fiscal
relief to municipal project sponsors that were engaged in costly, large‐scale, or design‐intensive capital
replacement projects. It also noted that that strategy left
little or no funding for infrastructure maintenance. The
maintenance and preservation first strategy introduced by NYSDOT’s Forward Four is tied to an 83%
preservation program ‘target’. That effectively inverts the shortfalls of the previous programming strategy,
leaving little or no funding for capital improvements or infrastructure replacement. It is anticipated that

adjustments to the preservation target will need to be considered in the future.
Funding Projections
MAP‐21 requires that MPO Long Range Plans include an estimate of funds that are reasonably expected to be
available in order to implement those plans. The average overall federal program size based upon the last 5
previous programming cycles undertaken by A/GFTC is approximately $112M. Discarding the 2005 program
(substantially
overprogrammed) and the 2014 program (not anticipated to be a sustainable amount) yields an
average of $108M. This figure will be used as the basis for projected future funds. Factoring an increase of 2.5%
per year and an assumed 2014 federal reauthorization with accompanying revised programming guidance, A/GFTC staff
projects
that an average of federal program of $28.7M will be available over a 21 year period, leveraging an
approximate $725M worth of capital projects during that time. Previous estimates have concluded that
sustained levels of investments approaching $100M over twenty years (a total of 2 billion dollars) will be needed
in
the A/GFTC area just to attain and sustain a state of good repair for transportation infrastructure.
Transit Federal Funding Assistance
Public transit operations throughout the country rely upon Federal and State assistance to help fund current
levels of operations and capital purchases.  Table 8 includes estimates of required federal financial assistance to
support transit services over the next twenty years in increments of five years.  Capital estimates are based on a

federal participation level of 80% with State and local funds providing the required 20% match. Operating aid
estimates are based on present levels plus any additional anticipated need.  Estimates for FTA 5310 program
projects (Capital assistance for Elderly/Disabled services by private not‐for‐profits) are not available.
Given the long
timeframe involved in this plan, numbers used are only estimates that are based upon the
assumptions previously outlined in this section.  It is important to note such estimates become increasingly
speculative over time as unforeseen changes in legislation, demand, and technologies may greatly influence
future expenditures. The A/GFTC TIP process will
be the appropriate vehicle to address these changes.

LONG RANGE PLAN 2035 Page 70
Table 8: Twenty Year Transit Needs Estimate ($ M)a
Program Source 2014‐18 2019‐23 2024‐28 2029‐2033
Operating‐urban (5307) $9.0 (3.3) $9.0 (3.3) $9.0 (3.3) $9.0 (3.3)
Operating‐rural (5311) 0.15 (0.06) 0.15 (.06) 0.15
(0.06)
Capital‐urban (5307, 5339) b 1.5 (1.2) 2.5 (2.0) 1.5 (1.2) 1.5 (1.2)
Capital‐rural (Section 5311)c 0.2 (0.16) 0.2 (0.16) 0.2 (0.16)
Notes:
a ‐ All numbers are in constant 2013 dollars, no adjustment for inflation has been made.
b ‐ Capital replacements for urban systems assume a continuation of the cycle currently contained in the current TIP, which
a ten (10) year life for GGFT’s four large buses and a five (5) year life for
smaller vehicles.  Also includes trolley replacements
at 10‐year intervals.
c ‐ Rural figures include operation of potential expansions of rural transit service using two to three small buses.
Local, Regional, and State Impacts
Maintaining existing levels of funding for transportation infrastructure will result in the accelerated decline of
that infrastructure that will likely prove to be in direct conflict with national goals of economic viability and
personal mobility. Sustained shortfalls in needed transportation funding will negatively affect the quality of life
for residents, workers,
and visitors in a number of different ways, including:
 Decreased mobility and greater unpredictability in travel times resulting from failing or overburdened
infrastructure
 Increased personal transportation costs
 Slowed economic growth resulting from stagnant market areas, unreliable shipping and goods
movement operations, and the lack of infrastructure‐ related
job creation
 Continued environmental degradation resulting from transportation inefficiencies
Should the transportation sector within New York be able to address funding shortfalls in transportation
revenues, many of these impacts can be lessened, reduced, or eliminated.
Conclusion
Based upon resource estimates developed by staff, the A/GFTC region can reasonably expect to be able to
program close to 750 million dollars in transportation funds between now and the year 2035. Simply stated, this
will not be enough to keep pace with continued infrastructure decline and
increased demand upon public
transportation. Highway capacity projects are practically unsupported by maintenance‐first programming
strategies, and freight demand reduction strategies such as greater utilization of regional rail and canal facilities
entail additional capital programming that is currently not likely under existing funding scenarios.

The fact that needs dramatically exceed revenues is not surprising; that trend has been known throughout the
transportation sector for several years. A technical analysis of needs versus resources was prepared on behalf of
the NYS Metropolitan Planning Organization Association in 2002 by Wilbur Smith Associates and Cambridge
Systematics. A general
finding of that study was existing revenue mechanisms, regardless of scale, are not
adequate to address mounting transportation needs. Even doubling the size of the federal transportation
program does not address growing infrastructure and capacity demands.

LONG RANGE PLAN 2035 Page 71
Transportation often suffers from a lack of policy profile even though the efficient and reliable movement of
people and goods affect us all. A
functional and reliable multimodal transportation system is critical to support
economic growth, environmental sustainability, national security, tourism, and community character and
cohesion. New York State was once
a national leader in multimodal transportation and is well‐poised to capitalize
upon previous and progressive infrastructure investments should future funding scenarios improve.
Sources:
Federal Highway Adminstration.MAP‐21Fact Sheets. Retrieved July 2013 from: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/factsheets.cfm

Federal Transit Administration. FTA Programs. Retrieved July 2013 from: http://www.fta.dot.gov/grants.html

New York State Metropolitan Planning Organization Association (2003):Transportation Funding Needs Study. Cambridge Systematics and
Wilbur Smith Associates

LONG RANGE PLAN 2035 Page 72
Performance Measures
MAP‐21 expands the importance of accountability with a requirement that MPOs and States implement what is
called “performance‐based planning”. Section 1203 of the MAP‐21 calls for the establishment of performance
measures in the areas of the National Highway Performance Program (NHPP), Highway Safety Improvement
Program (HSIP), the Congestion
Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ), and the National
Freight Movement (Freight). Once these measures are put in place, A/GFTC will be required to document the
outcomes of projects in the Long Range Transportation Plan and programmed for construction or
implementation in the TIP. Ultimately, MPOs must demonstrate to
the public and their elected officials that
investment decisions have produced positive outcomes that are consistent with the adopted goals and
objectives.
One important distinction must be made between performance measures vs. performance targets. Performance
measures describe the specific, outcome‐oriented issues related to the operation of the transportation system.
This
includes pavement condition, bridge sufficiency, crash fatalities, congestion, and related factors.
Performance targets are the level of performance the MPO (or State) wishes to achieve during the TIP period, or
over the Plan horizon. For example, A/GFTC may adopt a target to reduce poor pavements by a certain
percentage every
year; reduce pedestrian fatalities by a certain number or percentage over ten years; or achieve
specific Levels of Service on NHS streets over the life of the Plan. The targets relate back to the goals and
objectives of the LRP, while the measures are the data needed to identify progress toward
the targets.
Under MAP‐21, USDOT, through the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration, is
responsible for identifying required performance measures that will relate to the seven National Goals in the
law. MPOs and State DOTs set and adopt targets for each of the performance measures. Currently, rulemaking
for
these performance measures is underway. These rules will be rolled out in three phases, over the first three
quarters of 2014. Final rules are anticipated to become effective in Spring 2015, at which time A/GFTC must also
have in place the relevant performance targets.
The NYS MPO Association performed a gap
analysis for performance measurement. As part of this document, a
list of possible
performance measures and data needs was created, based on the language of the national goals
and subsequent information from FHWA and FTA. This list includes:
(1) Safety
a. Fatalities/MVMT and/or total # for NHS roads
b. Fatalities/MVMT and/or total #for all roads
i. Possible disaggregation by type (car, transit, truck,
motorcycle, pedestrian, cyclist)
c. Serious injuries/MVMT and/or total # for NHS roads
d. Serious injuries/MVMT and/or total # for all roads
i. Possible disaggregation by type (car, transit, truck, motorcycle, pedestrian, cyclist)

(2) Infrastructure condition
a. Pavement condition
i. Average rating, NHS roads
ii. Percent good, fair, poor for NHS
roads
iii. Average rating, non‐NHS roads
iv. Percent good, fair, poor for non‐NHS roads
v. Segment rating, Interstate highways (required for NHPP performance plan)
b. Bridge condition
i. Number of NHS bridges Structurally Deficient

LONG RANGE PLAN 2035 Page 73
ii. Number of NHS bridges Functionally Obsolete
iii. Number of non‐NHS bridges Structurally Deficient
iv. Number of non‐NHS bridges Functionally Obsolete
v. Square feet of deck area of NHS bridges (required for NHPP performance plan)

(3) Congestion reduction [limited to the NHS]
a. Level of service
b. Vehicle‐
hours of delay

(4) System reliability [not limited to the NHS]
a. Travel time index, freeway
b. Travel time index, arterial
c. Transit measures, perhaps on‐time performance

(5) Freight movement and economic vitality
a. Freight volume by mode
b. For truck movements, the congestion and system reliability measures apply,
modified perhaps
by peak period or daily truck percentage of volume
c. For rail movement, system congestion; impact of highway‐rail grade crossings

(6) Environmental sustainability
a. GHG emissions
b. Air quality measures
c. Land use: compactness/open space consumption

(7) Reduced project delivery delays
a. Possibly enhanced Annual Listing
of Project Obligations, which allows monitoring of project
schedule versus programmed schedule
b. Total time from TIP initiation to construction
When these or similar performance measures become effective, A/GFTC will update this portion of the LRP
accordingly. Finally, it is important to note that performance‐based planning requires data collection, data

analysis, trend analysis over time, and information archiving. This requires staff and dollar resources. A/GFTC,
along with New York’s MPOs and New York State DOT, will be collaborating to find efficient ways to obtain
information, perform analyses, and archive information. There are no punitive measures nor reduction in
funding in
MAP‐21 related to failing to meet performance targets. However, in some cases, the law requires that
a state must redirect program funds to meet a documented deficiency, which may impact funding in the future.

Grievance Procedure
If you believe you have been a victim of discrimination on behalf of activities conducted by the
Adirondack / Glens Falls Transportation Council, submit your grievance to the Lake
Champlain/Lake George Regional Planning Board, attention Walter Young , Executive Director.
Grievances may be submitted in writing (signed by the person(s) or their representative( s) and
must include the complainant(s) name, address and telephone number ). Allegations of
discrimination received by fax or e -mail will be acknowledged and processed. Allegations
received by phone will be documented in writing and provided to the complai nant(s) for
confirmation or revision before processing.
Employees of contractors, consultants, other sub -recipients, cities, town and localities may use
this complaint procedure. Also, any person who believes they have been subjected to
discrimination, retaliation or prohibited by any of the Civil Rights authorities, based upon race,
color, sex, age, national origin, or disability may file a written complaint.
Mr. Young will investigate complaints and attempt to resolve the grievance within seven (7)
day s. If you believe your grievance has not been resolved, it will be referred to th e voting
membership of the Lake Champlain/Lake George Region al Planning Board at their next
scheduled meeting for discussion and resolution.
You will be notified of the Planning Board’s action within seven (7) days. If you are still
dissatisfied, your grievance will be presented to a mutually agreed upon representative from
the New York State Department of Civil Service who will review your grievance and respond
within thirty (30) days.
Every eff ort will be made to obtain early resolution of complaints at the lowest level possible.
The above procedures cover all complaints filed under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
(including its Disadvantaged Business Enterprises, Equal Employment Oppo rtunity and On-the –
Job Training Program components) Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Civil Rights
Restoration Act of 1987, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, regarding any program
or activity administered by NYSDOT as they relat e to local agencies, contractors and other sub
recipients of USDOT funds. These procedures apply to complaints filed against a program
and/or activity funded by either the Federal Highway Administration or the Federal Transit
Administration .
Intimidation or retaliation of any kind is prohibited per Title 49, Code of Federal Regulation,
Part 21.11(e).

Adirondack / Glens Falls Transportation Council
11 South Street, Suite 203
Glens Falls, NY 12801
p: (518) 223 – 0086 f: (518) 223 – 0584
info@agftc.org www.agftc.org

Any questions regarding the discrimination/grievance procedure should be directed to Mr.
Walter Young.

 Twelve Planning Principles of the Adirondack / Glens Falls Transportation Council

Twelve Principles to Guide Future A/GFTC Planning and Programming Activities in Support of 
Adopted Goals and Objectives 
 
1. Transportation plans and programs will seek to maintain the established and varied settings that 
make the area an attractive place to live, work, and visit while bringing positive changes to the 
natural and built environments that outweigh associated costs. 
2. Options for maintaining the existing transportation system and maximizing its
 operating utility 
through improvements that address surface conditions, safety issues, intersection operations, 
access, and multimodal accommodations will be given priority over costlier and more disruptive 
capacity improvement or new highway alignment concepts. 
3. Maintaining and operating an integrated transportation system that entails minimal risk for all 
users and all modes 
is paramount. 
4. Current travel and transportation habits will intrinsically create some degree of traffic congestion 
in some locations. Projects and plans intended to address those locations with recurring vehicle 
congestion should also incorporate meaningful demand management measures including transit 
provisions and access improvements. 
5. Public transit is essential to progress
 the evolution of the transportation system. Improving the 
span, scope and coordination of existing services will enhance mobility options for those that 
cannot or will not rely upon automobiles and in turn help reduce the physical, environmental and 
capital costs associated with transportation. 
6. Bicycling and walking are modes of 
transportation – not just means of recreation. Capital projects 
that are designed to include meaningful accommodations for bicyclists and pedestrians will be 
given priority as future programs are developed. 
7. Developing the potential of passenger rail and commercial shipping of water borne and rail borne 
freight will lessen the demand upon
 and improve performance of the road‐based transportation 
system. 
8. Coordination of land use planning, economic development, and transportation planning activities 
is essential to maximize the region’s potential. 
9. Regional issues will require cooperation of municipalities and organizations that transcend 
established jurisdictional boundaries. 
10. Encouraging infill development and redevelopment through 
the prioritization of system 
investments is preferable to facilitating large‐scale development outside of established residential 
and commercial areas. 
11. A/GFTC will continue its commitment to public participation so that it may continue to plan with 
the people, not for the people. 
12. Technology and data collection will play an important
 role in identifying, prioritizing, operating, 
and analyzing transportation system improvements. A/GFTC is committed to improving its 
technological and analytical capabilities. 
Adirondack / 
Glens 
Falls 
Transportation 
Council