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.
