Publication Type: Transportation Plans

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

GREENWICH
BIKE AND PEDESTRIAN
CONNECTIVITY IMPROVEMENTS

INTRODUCTION

The Town and Village of Greenwich Connectivity Plan provides a long-term vision
for improving bicycle and pedestrian connections. The Connectivity Plan is a direct
outcome of the 2023 Town and Village Comprehensive Plan, which identified the
importance of improving pedestrian and bicycle connectivity. The Greenwich
Connectivity Plan was developed with the support of Adirondack-Glens Falls
Transportation Council (AGFTC) funding.

Improving pedestrian and bicycle connectivity will allow residents and visitors alike
to better capitalize on the communities’ amenities. Safer connections and improved
signage will link Greenwich’s diverse parks, historic hamlets, community centers,
and downtown core. Clear connections between the Empire State Trail and the rest
of the Town and Village will support the local economy. Long-term alternate use of
underutilized railway corridors will create safe, off-road connections that highlight the
community’s history and landscape.

THE PLANNING PROCESS

The planning process for this project was guided by a dedicated committee that led
efforts to assess existing conditions, gather public input, and develop a comprehensive
connectivity strategy. The process followed a structured timeline, beginning with
a review of existing conditions, which analyzed land use and bicycle/pedestrian
conditions to identify opportunities for improvement. Public outreach played a
crucial role, with engagement efforts such as an interactive web map and community
meetings used to collect feedback on local needs and priorities. Using this input,
the committee worked on system development, identifying potential routes and
treatments to enhance bicycle and pedestrian connectivity. Finally, priority projects
were selected based on feasibility, demand, and safety considerations, ensuring that
recommendations align with community goals and long-term mobility improvements.

Project Advisory
Committee

Jim Nolan, Town of Greenwich
Supervisor

Amanda Hurley, Village of
Greenwich Mayor

Audrey Burneson, NYS
Department of Transportation

Pamela Landi, Washington County
Planning

Jack Mance, A/GFTC

Pamela Fuller, Greenwich resident

Teri Ptacek, Greenwich resident

Main Street in the Village

EXISTING
CONDITIONS

The existing conditions highlight
the need for improved bicycle and
pedestrian connectivity in Greenwich.

While the Village has a network of
sidewalks that aid connectivity, most
are not fully ADA-accessible and require
upgrades to improve accessibility and
safety. The Empire State Trail and State
Bicycle Route 9 provide existing cycling
infrastructure, but additional connections
are needed to enhance access to local
amenities.

High-traffic routes and intersections,
particularly along State Route 29 and
Main Street, present safety concerns
due to high vehicle speeds and crash
data indicating areas needing attention.
Land ownership considerations show
that most land is privately held, requiring
coordination for off-road infrastructure.

Additionally, road slopes vary throughout
the Town, influencing route feasibility
for cyclists and pedestrians. These
factors helped guide the planning
and prioritization of connectivity
improvements.

The full existing conditions memo can be
found in the appendix.

A pedestrian crossing at the Rte 29/40 roundabout in the Town

ADA non-compliant sidewalks in the Village

Multimodal trail connecting to Hudson Crossing Park

PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT

Public engagement played a critical role in shaping this plan by identifying key
community priorities and infrastructure needs. An interactive web map gathered 75
location-based contributions and 85 comments from 25 unique users, and suggestions
emphasized the need for bike racks, crosswalks, sidewalk improvements, flashing
pedestrian signage, and traffic calming measures throughout the Village and Town.

Other outreach efforts, including press releases, online media content, and local flyers,
helped drive participation. Additionally, an in-person engagement component featured
interactive boards at the Greenwich Library and Town and Village Halls, where residents
could mark maps and complete a written survey. While participation varied for each
type of engagement, responses consistently emphasized the need for safer, more
accessible, and better-connected walking and biking routes. Safety and accessibility
were top concerns, with a strong interest in expanded pathways, improved sidewalks,
and dedicated cycling infrastructure. These insights guided recommendations for future
pedestrian and bicycle improvements in Greenwich and helped to further prioritize projects.

FINAL PUBLIC

ENGAGEMENT

Once recommendations were
developed based on guidance
from the public and committee, the
draft concepts were presented to
the public for final feedback. A video
explaining the different concepts
was developed and participants
completed a survey to indicate
their thoughts, and preferences.
Generally, when asked whether the
recommended improvements would
encourage them to bike or walk more
in the Town and Village, all said yes or
maybe, with the majority choosing yes.
The top proirity identified by the public in
the survey was a rail to trail connection
to the Empire State Trail, but overall,
responses were very positive, higlighting
that the concepts could support
improved safety, access to key amenities
for residents and further encourage
walking and biking in the community.

Connectivity Plan

The Connectivity Plan for the
Town and Village of Greenwich
aims to enhance bicycle and
pedestrian access by linking
key destinations, including the
Empire State Trail, the Village
center, and Hudson Crossing
Park. Existing infrastructure
consists of both on- and off-road
bike facilities, but gaps remain
that limit safe and continuous
connections.

The map above highlights
existing green spaces and
proposed trails and facilities
identified in previous studies,
including the Empire State Trail
and State Bicycle Route 9. The
Empire State Trail is a 750-mile
route stretching north-south
from New York City to Rouses
Point on the New York-Quebec
border and east-west from
Albany to Buffalo. It consists of a
mix of on- and off-road trails with
varying surface types. The State
Bicycle Route 9 is a 345-mile
signed, on-road bicycle route
that follows a similar north-south
alignment from New York City to
Rouses Point. These two routes
run parallel for much of their
length, serving as key regional
cycling corridors.

A primary focus of the
Connectivity Plan is filling
in gaps within the existing
network to create a safer, more
seamless system for recreational
cyclists and other users. By
improving infrastructure and
addressing missing connections,
the plan enhances access to
local businesses, parks, and
community spaces, fostering
a more bike-friendly and well connected
community for
residents and visitors alike.

PRIORITY IMPROVEMENTS

Three priority improvement areas were identified with the committee and advanced to concept level design. This
section provides a description of each of the recommended improvements. Priority numbers one through three
are only used to identify the list and do not imply preference or level of importance of each priorty.

PRIORITY 1: EMPIRE
STATE TRAIL (EST)
CONNECTIONS

Priority 1 encompasses opportunities to
improve bicycle connections between
the Village and the Empire State
Trail, and presents an opportunity to
reuse a currently inactive section of
railroad within the town for residents
and visitors. Both on-road and offroad
opportunities were explored. The
Empire State Trail (EST) is a 750-mile trail
network connecting people to areas all
throughout New York State.

Due to high traffic volume and speed
on the road network, facilities such as
separated bike lanes or shared-use paths
are recommended. Both of these options
separate cyclists from vehicle traffic and
create infrastructure that’s safest and
most effective for users.

The conversion of underutilized sections
of the Battenkill Railroad to a trail was
identified by the Town and Village as
a priority due to its proximity to the
Empire State Trail and great potential for
recreational use by residents and visitors
for biking, walking, and jogging. The
Town and Village have initiated contact
in the past with the rail operator, and
the non-profit organization responsible
for preserving the railway, but based
on public feedback and committee
guidance, there was an interest in further
investigating alternatives in the context
of this planning document. To develop
concepts for this conversion, both rail-to-
trail and rail-with-trail options were
considered.

TIE-INS

When evaluating a bicycle and pedestrian network,
it is important to assess the existing conditions
at tie in points to ensure recommendations are
consistent with selections at either end of the
network. They are also used to identify if there are
opportunities to extend a treatment to a point of
interest or enhanced facility if within a reasonable
distance of our study area limit. Two tie-in locations
were identified.

WESTERN TIE-IN AT DIX
BRIDGE ROAD

The Empire State Trail, and the off-road segment
identified for analysis, terminates at the Dix
Bridge. The bridge crosses the Hudson River,
connecting the town of Greenwich with the town
of Schuylerville. While the Empire State Trail
continues into Greenwich, there is a transition from
a shared-use path into a shared-use road with no
designated on-street space for bicyclists. Hudson-
Crossing Park in Schuylerville and the entrance to
the Empire State Trail serve as key destinations at
the end of this study area.

EASTERN TIE-IN AT THE
VILLAGE BOUNDARY

NY-29 at Wilson Street is a high-volume, low speed
road through the village, serving as the
primary connector heading east and west. There
are currently sidewalks on both sides of the road,
with commercial buildings on the south side, and a
cemetery on the north side.

Both rail-to-trail and rail-with-trail
options have benefits and
challenges. Creating a rail-with-trail
path is a lower-cost option which
preserves a railbed for current
or future use, while providing a
facility for walkers and cyclists
that’s separated from motor vehicle
traffic. However, there are safety
considerations, especially along
an active corridor and it requires
more land to adhere to the required
space needed. The rail-to-trail option
creates a path on an area that has
already been cleared for use and
usually connects to destinations and
other corridors. While rail-to-trail
is often preferred, it is more costly
due to the construction needed to
remove the tracks and pave.

The on- and off-road options were
reviewed with the committee, and
the rail-to-trail off-road option was
selected as the preferred option.

The rail-to-trail design would take
the existing railroad line and convert
it to a shared-use path. This design
would allow users to enter and exit
the Empire State Trail and remain on
a separated facility from traffic. At its
current right-of-way width, a 15-foot
path would fit along the railbed. This
adheres to the American Association
of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO) and Empire State
Trail guidelines, which require a
minimum of 10 feet and 2 feet of
clearance on each side. Since it
provides a connection to the Empire
State Trail, the trail’s Design Guide
would be applicable here, providing
wayfinding recommendations and
accessibility requirements. This
would also reactivate a corridor that
has been inactive for many years due
to reduced passenger and freight
demand in the area. The figure below
shows an example of what the path
would look like along the railbed.

WAYFINDING

Wayfinding must be a key component
of any EST connection project,
including enhancing the Dix Bridge
connection, as it serves as a critical
link between the Town of Greenwich
and the regional trail network.
Improvements to this connection
would enhance safety, accessibility,
and overall user experience for
pedestrians and bicyclists. Potential
upgrades could include wayfinding
signage, surface enhancements, and
improved transitions between the
bridge and existing trail segments.
Strengthening this connection
would not only support increased
trail usage but also promote
tourism, local economic activity,
and seamless access to recreational
opportunities within the region.

The signs at the EST’s intersection with Ann Street creates visual clutter and user confusion.

Rail-to-Trail Path Example

PRIORITY 2: ROUTE
29 COMMERCIAL
CORRIDOR

A second priority was identified along
the Town’s Route 29 commercial
corridor, between the Route 29/40
roundabout and the Village border,
with a particular interest in improving
pedestrian safety and connections
at/around the former Big Lots Plaza
intersection. There are gaps in the
existing pedestrian and bicycle
networks along this segment of
Route 29. Improving access and
mobility to the businesses within
this area and facilitating connections
to community destinations within
walking/biking distance of the
project area is a main priority for this
section. There is also a need to fill in
the sidewalk gap on the south side of
the roadway. Along with connectivity,
a desire for safety improvements
exists due to historical crash injuries.

A 0.15-mile sidewalk is
recommended to be installed on the
south side of Route 29 to provide
pedestrian access and connections
to key destinations, including the
little league fields and Cumberland
Farms. This sidewalk would fill a
critical existing network gap.

While the sidewalk would help
with pedestrian connectivity, the
committee also identified a need to
improve cycling infrastructure along
the corridor. After evaluating the
context, volume, and user type, two
potential improvement options were
reviewed: constructing a shared use
path or establishing a bike lane.
The shared-use option was selected
as the preferred improvement as it
would require less space than a bike
lane due to it replacing the existing
north side sidewalk.

In addition to the above
improvements, signal upgrades
and protected crossings are also
recommended at the plaza’s
signalized entrance to improve
safety. This includes marked
crosswalks and curb ramps. These
upgrades ensure ADA compliance
and better serves pedestrians,
including those with disabilities.

effective for users.

Shared-Use Path and Sidewalk Cross Section

Route 29 Full Concept

PRIORITY 3:
ACADEMY/CHURCH/
MAIN/COTTAGE
INTERSECTION

The final priority identified with
the committee was the Academy/
Church/Main/Cottage Street
intersection in the Village. The
intersection has four main
approaches, with Cottage Street
forming a fifth approach just to the
west on Main Street. Main Street
is free flow, with the other legs
stop controlled. There are three
crosswalks across Main Street,
with the middle crossing located in
an area that causes confusion for
motorists. Students crossing the
intersection is a primary concern for
Greenwich, due to the proximity to
multiple community uses (library,
youth center, school). The focus
of this priority area is to improve
accessibility for pedestrians and
overall operations.

Potential improvements, including
physical roadway geometry changes,
signage, stop controls, and directional
restrictions, were identified and were
shared with the committee and
public for feedback. A signal warrant
analysis was also conducted for the
intersection to confirm the viability of
a signal at the intersection (refer to
Appendix 2).

Based on the feedback from the
committee and the public, a multi-pronged
approach is recommended.
This would involve first working
towards implementing physical
improvements to the intersection,
including curb bump outs and
reworking and realigning the marked
crosswalks..

Concurrently, traffic flow analyses
could be conducted to evaluate the
impacts of installing all-way stop
signs or a traffic signal. Installing a
traffic signal at the intersection offers
several key benefits, improving both
safety and efficiency for all road
users. A signal helps regulate traffic
flow, reducing confusion and the
likelihood of collisions, particularly
at high-traffic locations. It provides
dedicated crossing opportunities for
pedestrians and cyclists, enhancing
accessibility and safety. Additionally,
traffic signals can help manage
congestion by assigning right-of-way,
minimizing delays, and improving
overall intersection performance. In
areas with varying traffic volumes,
signal timing can be optimized to
accommodate peak travel periods,
ensuring smoother movement
through the intersection. By creating
a more controlled and predictable
environment, a traffic signal enhances
safety, mobility, and the overall
functionality of the roadway network.

These aspects could be completed
alongside continued assessment
and potential implementation of the
directional restriction at Cottage
Street.

When asked about preferred
design improvement for the
Academy/Church/Main/
Cottage intersection during
the final public survey,
participants preferred RRFBs,
raised intersections, and
raised crosswalks as potential
treatments, with some
participants also identifying
curb extensions and access
management (changing
Cottage to a one-way street) as
their preference.

Academy/Church/Main/Cottage Intersection Potential Improvements

Church Street crossing at Main Street

COST ESTIMATES

Priority Project

Component

Approximate
Distance (LF)
or Count

Areas

Average Unit
Cost

Estimated
Cost

1: Empire State
Trail Connections

Rail to Trail

6.1 miles

$1,000,000

$5.5M – $7M

Wayfinding
Signage

$15,000

Enhanced Multi
Use Path to Dix
Bridge

1,584 LF

12,672

$15

$150,000 –
$200,000

2: Rt2 29

Commercial
Corridor

Sidewalk Extension

792 LF

4,752

$10.000

$50,000 –
$75,000

Traffic

Signal

Modifications

2 (count)

$50,000

$75,000 –
$125,000

Shared-Use
Path

3,168 LF

31,680

$15

$425,000 –
$525,000

3: Academy/
Church/Main

Cottage/

Intersection

All-Way Stop
Control

4

$1,250

$10,000

RRFBs

4 (count)

$15,000

$50,000 –
$75,000

Traffic

Signal

1 (count)

$300,000

$250,000 –
$350,000

Directional
Restriction
Signage

1 (count)

$2,500

$2,500

Channelized
Intersection
Concept with
All Way Stop
Control (curb
extensions,
crosswalk
realignment
& supporting
infrastructure)

$300,000-
$500,000

 

 

IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

The implementation of trail and on-street projects in the Town and Village of Greenwich requires careful
consideration of right-of-way constraints and coordination with property owners. For Priority 1, which
involves the development of a multi-use path, the jurisdiction lies primarily with the Town and Village,
requiring close collaboration to ensure successful execution. Meanwhile, the redesign of key intersections
will necessitate a coordinated effort between the State and the Town/Village to address safety and
connectivity needs effectively. Open communication with property owners will also be critical to addressing
concerns, ensuring equitable solutions, and fostering community support for these improvements. This
approach will ensure the successful implementation of these priority projects.

PRIORITY 1: KEY
NEXT STEPS

Step 1: Continue Outreach and
Partnership Building

The Town and Village should
continue outreach to the non-profit
entity that owns the rail corridor
to establish a working relationship
and discuss the potential for railto-
trail conversion. Given the
uncertainty surrounding ownership
details and deed restrictions, open
communication with the property
owner will be essential to clarify their
interests, concerns, and willingness
to collaborate.

Step 2: Conduct a Title Report and
Ownership Review

To gain a clearer understanding
of property rights, easements,
and restrictions, the Town/Village
should pursue a Title Report for the
affected section of the railroad. This
involves working with the County
Clerk’s Office to review historical
deeds, property records, and any
existing rights-of-way. A title search
professional or attorney can assist
in identifying any legal obstacles,
such as reversionary clauses or
deed restrictions that could impact
conversion efforts.

Step 3: Assess Regulatory and
Funding Considerations

Once ownership and legal
considerations are clarified, the
Town/Village should evaluate
applicable local, state, and federal
regulations governing rail-to-trail
conversions. This will include
environmental permitting, zoning
requirements, and accessibility
standards. Additionally, identifying
potential funding sources, such as
state grants, federal transportation
programs, or private partnerships,
will be critical for implementation.
Some of these potential funding
sources are described in the
“Funding Opportunities” section
below.

PRIORITY 2: KEY
NEXT STEPS

Step 1: Identify and secure funding
for the projects

Potential funding sources include
safety grants. Additionally,
local funding opportunities and
partnerships may be explored to
supplement grant funding and
ensure the project moves forward
efficiently.

Step 2: Initiate the design and
engineering phase

This phase will develop detailed
plans for the intersection
improvements. Permitting and
approvals will be required to move
the project forward. The Town
should work with NYSDOT and
other relevant agencies to obtain
necessary permits for construction.

PRIORITY 3: KEY
NEXT STEPS

Step 1: Conduct a Traffic Flow
Analysis

The Village should prepare a traffic
flow analysis to compare the impacts
of installing a traffic signal or all-way
stop controls at the intersection.
The results of the analysis should be
shared with the public to address any
potential concerns with this major
project.

Step 2: Continued Public
Engagement

The Village should continue to
engage with stakeholders, including
residents on the roads comprising
the intersection to provide
updates and get feedback on key
components. Engaging with Cottage
Street residents will be critical to
any potential future advancement
of a directional restriction along the
roadway.

Step 3: Coordinate with the NYSDOT

The Village should coordinate with
NYS Department of Transportation
to formally propose the installation
of a traffic signal and/or all-way
stop control at the intersection.
Early discussions with NYSDOT will
help determine the feasibility of
the improvements and ensure that
design parameters align with State
standards.

Step 4: Identify and secure funding
for the projects

Potential funding sources include
safety grants, such as the Highway
Safety Improvement Program
(HSIP), as well as State and
Federal programs that support
pedestrian and intersection safety
improvements.

Step 5: Initiate the design and
engineering phase

This phase will develop detailed
plans for the intersection
improvements, incorporating the new
traffic signal/all-way stop control
and pedestrian enhancements
such as bump-outs and crosswalk
realignments. The design will ensure
compliance with ADA accessibility
requirements and include high visibility
crosswalk markings, and
potentially pedestrian countdown
signals. Permitting and approvals
will be required to move the project
forward. The Village should work
with NYSDOT and other relevant
agencies to obtain necessary permits
for construction.

FUNDING
OPPORTUNITIES

There are numerous funding
opportunities available to support
the implementation of bicycle
and pedestrian infrastructure and
connection improvements, in the
Town and Village of Greenwich.
These funding sources can play
a crucial role in advancing the
recommended designs by providing
financial support for planning, design,
and construction. Information on the
most relevant programs, including
their matching requirements, funding
limits, and timelines, is outlined
below to guide the Town and Village
in securing the necessary resources.

New York Forward

The Village of Greenwich, as of
March, 2025, was announced as a
recipient of $4.5 through the New
York Forward (NYF) program. NYF
is program meant to invigorate and
enliven downtowns in New York’s
smaller communities. The grant
can be used to fund transformative
projects identified as priorities by
the community, and could be used
to implement elements of this
connectivity plan.

A/GFTC Make the Connection
Program is available to assist
municipalities with funding to
improve the region’s non-motorized
travel network. Project types that are
considered in the program include
new sidewalk and trail connections,
pedestrian safety improvements, and
pavement marking improvements.
Make the Connection Funding
is available through the Federal
Highway Association (FHWA),
although this is not a specific FHWA
program, but rather an A/GFTC
program utilizing a setaside of FHWA
funds and administered by the A/
GFTC.

• 20 percent local match
• Design Only Projects have a
minimum of $25,000
• Design and Construction or
Construction Only Projects have
a minimum of $75,000
• Federal Aid procedures apply

NYSDOT Transportation
Alternatives Program (TAP) is
available for projects that improve
the quality of life of the community
through the construction of
pedestrian and bicycle facilities and
pedestrian safety improvements. The
program is a Set-Aside of funds from
the Surface Transportation Block
Grant Program. The FHWA has

set aside a minimum of $1.4 billion

annually for this program through

2026.

• The current round is open with
• applications due January 9, 2024
• 20 percent local match
• Federal Aid Procedures Apply
• Design and Construction:
• Minimum=$500,000; Maximum
$5 million

NYSOPRHP RTP provides funding for
the development and maintenance
of recreational trails or trail-related
facilities. RTP funding is available
through the FHWA and administered
by the NYSOPRHP. RTP can be
applied for through the NYS CFA in
2025.

• 20 percent local match
• Federal Aid procedures apply
• Design and construction:
Minimum = $25,000; Maximum =
$250,000

NYSOPRHP Municipal Parks and
Recreation (MPR) grant program
is a new grant program that was
launched by NYSOPRHP in March
2025. Applications are due on
May 2, 2025, with an anticipated
second round of funding later this
year. MPR funding is available for
the construction of recreational
facilities and other improvements to
municipally owned recreational sites
and parks.

• 10 percent local match
• Maximum = $1,000,000
• $20 million available through two
rounds of applications.
•

Hudson River Valley Greenway
Community Grants Program
provides funding to greenway
communities and compact
communities to develop plans
or projects consistent with the
five Greenway criteria: natural
and cultural resource protection,
economic development, public
access, regional planning, and
heritage and environmental
education.

• 50 percent local match
• Federal aid procedures apply
• Maximum = $10,000
• Applications accepted quarterly

Hudson River Valley Greenway
Conservancy Trail Grants
Program is dedicated to funding
recreational trail projects. Special
consideration is given to projects
that seek to implement the goals
of the Greenway Trail Program. The
application emphasizes connections
to the Empire State Trail. Eligible
projects include trail construction,
planning, and design; trail
rehabilitation or improvement; and
trail education or interpretation.

• Funding amount varies by project
type from a low of $25,000 for
maintenance projects to up to
$250,000 for construction
• 50% match requirement
• Applications accepted quarterly

Safe Streets and Roads for All
(SS4A) implementation grants
provide federal funds to implement
projects and strategies identified in
an eligible Action Plan to address a
roadway safety problem. Projects
and strategies may be infrastructural,
behavioral, and/or operational
activities. Implementation grant
funding requests may also include
project-level planning and design
activities, supplemental safety Action
Plan activities, in support of a plan,
and safety demonstration activities.

• LCLGRPB is currently progressing
a Safety Action Plan which is a
precursor to implementation
funding applications. The status
of this should continue to be
monitored for future potential
funding.

 

APPENDIX A:
Existing Conditions

 

Introduction

The intention of the Connectivity Plan for the Town and Village of Greenwich is to improve
bicycle and pedestrian connections for residents and visitors to local amenities in a safe and
accessible way. Clear connections between existing amenities and trail networks will help to
support the local economy, highlight the community’s history and landscape, and improve
safety and access to recreation and transportation for residents.

Bicycle Infrastructure and Trail Network

To help improve cyclist and pedestrian connectivity in the Town and Village of Greenwich,
new connections will build upon existing bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure and trail
networks. The below summarizes existing bike routes that travel through the Town and or
Village, which are also shown on the below map.

 

The Empire State Trail (EST) is a 750-mile bike trail in New York that includes routes from
New York City, through the Hudson River Valley, west to Buffalo along the Erie Canal, and
north to the Champlain Valley and Adirondacks. The EST runs through a part of the Town of

Greenwich along its western border, and aligns with the Champlain Canalway Trail through
the Town. It then runs outside of the Town to the north and south. The part of the EST that
passes through Greenwich is an asphalt, on-road portion of the trail and provides an
opportunity to connect cyclists with other amenities in the rest of the Town and Village.

State Bicycle Route 9 is a signed, on-road bicycle route that extends 345 miles from New
York City to Rouses Point on the New York – Quebec border. The route runs along roadways,
and a small portion of the route runs through the Town of Greenwich along its western edge.

In addition to existing bike trails in the Town and Village, there are also some proposed bike
trails and priority bike routes identified in previous local, regional, and State planning efforts.
Proposed trails include the potential NYS Greenway Trail, which runs along the southern
edge of the Town, and the proposed North Road Path that connects the Village with the
Hayes Reservoir Recreation Area.

The 2021 Statewide Greenway Trails Plan is a comprehensive plan intended to improve New
York’s statewide system of non-motorized multi-use trails (Greenway Trails). The plan
identifies potential Greenway Trails as viable corridors, like unused rail routes, that could
eventually be used for new greenway trails but would first require acquisition, abandonment,
planning, or other major steps to determine feasibility. The potential Greenway Trail Corridor
in Greenwich would run along the Battenkill Railway, within both the Town and Village, and
could serve as another multi-use connection through the community. The conversion of this
underutilized railway into a rails-with-trails facility was similarly identified in the Town and
Village’s 2022 Greenwich Revitalization Plan.

Additionally, the Adirondack – Glens Falls Transportation Council (A/GFTC) has mapped
regional priority bike routes, some of which run through Greenwich, specifically along Routes
40, 29, and 49. These mapped routes are intended to identify priority routes for cyclists
traveling for transportation, rather than for recreational purposes. They are on-road
connectors that would connect people to community services using only their bike and do
not necessarily indicate existing safe or preferred bike routes in the Town. These routes,
however, should be considered when assessing connectivity to ensure a good balance of
both recreational opportunities for cyclists and pedestrians, and transportation for those not
using a vehicle.

Lastly, there are several designated snowmobile trails within the Town of Greenwich. While
not designated for bicycle or pedestrian use, these trails, which run along roadways and
through both public and private property, represent an opportunity to explore for multiseason
recreational use.

Pedestrian Network and Accessibility

In addition to existing bike routes and trails, assessing existing conditions of pedestrian
infrastructure will help inform improved connectivity in Greenwich. Much of the Village is
served by sidewalk infrastructure and crosswalks. Outside of the Village, many of the roads
do not have sidewalks.

Accessibility of Village sidewalks and crosswalks was assessed based on data gathered by
an A/GFTC Traffic Study conducted in 2018-2019, with additional data on accessibility along

State Routes 29 and 372 provided by NYSDOT. This information is presented in the below
map and show several areas throughout the Village in need of improvements, especially
along Church Street and its adjoining side streets. Along State Route 29, pedestrian facilities
are in need of improvements but are considered partially accessible; many of the crosswalks
along Route 29 are unreviewed at this time, and only a few crosswalks reviewed throughout
the Village are considered fully accessible.

 

Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT)

When considering areas to prioritize for improved cycling and pedestrian connectivity in
Greenwich, it is also important to consider how much traffic frequents major routes. Annual
Average Daily Traffic (AADT) measures the volume of vehicles using a road on a typical day.
The most highly trafficked route in the Town and Village of Greenwich is State Route 29
where it intersects with State Route 40. AADT remains high along route 29 as it becomes
Main Street in the Village of Greenwich and travels east out of the Village. State Route 40 is a
busy route as well as it travels north out of the Town, and New York State Route 4 has an
AADT of 4,252 vehicles when it runs through the Town.

Roadway Posted Speeds

Most of the state routes throughout the Town and Village of Greenwich have a speed limit of
55 mph. Speeds through and around the Village tend to be slower, typically 30 mph. There is
other variation throughout the Town, but most of the highly trafficked routes also have higher
speed limits.

Crash Data

Crash data from 2018 to 2023 within the Town and Village were reviewed. Within Greenwich,
crashes were more common at intersections along major routes, with the highest
concentrations along Route 29 and within and adjacent to the Village. Zooming in on the

Village, the highest incidences of crashes are along Route 29/Main Street between Hill
Street and Bridge Street.

Most of the identified crashes in the Town and Village were with other motor vehicles or
were other types of crashes, but there was a bicyclist-involved crash and a pedestrianinvolved
crash within the Village, and one crash of each scenario within the Town outside of
the Village, as well.

 

Land Ownership and Land Use

Land ownership and land use within the Town and Village were reviewed to identify
potential opportunities for off-road bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. Most of the land in
the Village and Town of Greenwich is privately owned, with some exceptions for parcels
owned by the Town, Village, and Greenwich School District,. There are also several private
parcels that are conserved through a conservation easement with the Agricultural
Stewardship Association. In terms of land use, much of the land is residential use, in addition
to a commercial corridor, green spaces, and significant agricultural use, and some large
parcels identified as community services, like at the school.

 

 

Roadway Slope

The slope and steepness of Town and Village roadways was assessed to inform
identification of potential cyclist and pedestrian routes throughout Greenwich. The map
below shows all of the major roads on a color scale from least steep, to the steepest. Much
of the Village has flatter terrain, while the northeast portion of the Town, along with several
segments scattered throughout the Town have steeper slopes. Paths along steeper slopes
could discourage cyclists or pedestrians utilizing trails for recreation or travel but could be
considered for cyclists seeking more challenging routes.

 

APPENDIX B:
Signal Warrant
Analysis

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENT A

TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT DATA

 

GREENWICH BIKE PED CONNECTIVITY PLAN

MAIN STREET AND ACADEMY STREET/CHURCH STREET

VILLAGE OF GREENWICH

WASHINGTON COUNTY, NY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENT B

SIGNAL WARRANTS 2 AND 3

FIGURE 4C-2 AND FIGURE 4C-4

 

GREENWICH BIKE PED CONNECTIVITY PLAN

MAIN STREET AND ACADEMY STREET/CHURCH STREET

VILLAGE OF GREENWICH

WASHINGTON COUNTY, NY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX C:
Interactive
Map Summary

To: Norabelle Greenberger, LaBella; Mirren Galway, LaBella
From: Laura Byer, Byer Planning

Date: October 4, 2024

Re: Greenwich Bike/Ped Connectivity Plan– Interactive Map Summary

 

 

The following technical memorandum has been developed to summarize public input gathered via an
interactive webmap for the Greenwich Bike/Ped Connectivity Plan. An interactive webmap was
developed to gather public input to indicate areas in need of active transportation-related
improvements. The public were asked to add points within the Town and Village of Greenwich to
identify locations for where they think it would be beneficial to install new bike racks or crosswalks as
well as identify popular bike route locations and where sidewalks are in need of repair or where new
sidewalks are needed.

Executive Summary

• Timeline: The interactive webmap was open and active for 14 weeks.
• Communications: A wide variety of communications were used to promote the project and
interactive map to the general public:
o Press Release
o Email to committee members so they could share with their networks
o Flyers posted around town
o Several social media posts
o Pop-up on the Village website and the link to the map was featured on the home page

 

• Number of Points Added: 75
• Number of Individual Users: 25
• Number of Written Comments via Interactive Webmap: 85
• Number of “Agree” Votes on all Input: 27
• Number of “Disagree” Votes on all Input: 7

Interactive Webmap Input Received

The interactive webmap received 75 input points for complete streets improvements within the
Village of Cambridge. These recommendations were submitted by 25 individual users. Users had the
opportunity to vote “agree” or “disagree” on input points added by the public. There were a total of 27
“agree” votes split between 15 of the input points. There were a total of 7 “disagree” votes split
between 5 of the input points.

Table 1: Number of Input Types Added to Interactive Map

 

Input Type

Number of Points Added

Bike Rack: I would like to see a bike rack here

13

Popular Bike Route: This is a popular street for bicyclists

8

Crosswalk: I would like to see a crosswalk here

7

New Sidewalk: I would like to see a new sidewalk here

14

Sidewalk Repair: This sidewalk is in need of repair

7

Other: Please use this input point and include a comment describing

what type of improvement you would like to see at the location you
identify (e.g., traffic calming, bike amenity, wayfinding signs)

26

TOTAL

75

 

 

 

Bike Rack Input Locations:

• Gannon Park (2 points added)
• Greenwich Library
• Riverside Park
• Big Lots Plaza
• Main Street/Salem Street Intersection
• Main Street/John Street Intersection (Grooming Gail’s Pet Salon)
• Mowry Park
• Veteran’s Memorial Park
• Dorr Park
• Washington Square
• Main Street, just south of Hill Street
• Main Street, just north of John Street (Whipple City Health and Wellness Center)
Popular Bike Route Input Locations:
• Corliss Avenue (2 points added)
• Eddy Street – point located south of Route 372
• Hill Street
• County Route 52
• Richards Road

• North Road
• State Route 40
Crosswalk Input Locations:
• Gray Avenue, just south of Simpson Street
• Corliss Avenue / Hill Street Intersection
• Main Street / Van Ness Avenue (comment indicates existing crosswalk is in need of
repainting)
• State Route 29, at the light between Cumberland Farms and McDonald’s
• Main Street, midblock between Hill Street and John Street
• Main Street / Academy Street / Church Street Intersection (comment indicates a need for a
“push button” crossing with lights to alert drivers to crossing pedestrians)
• Main Street / Hill Street Intersection (comments indicates a desire for the existing crosswalk
to be positioned diagonally)

New Sidewalk Input Locations:

• Hill Street (2 points added) – south side from just east of Corliss Avenue to Van Ness Avenue
• Gray Avenue (2 points added) – both sides from existing sidewalks just west of Simpson
Street to Prospect Street/North Road
• State Route 40 – from north entrance of Galesville Drive south to the traffic circle
• Woodlawn Avenue – east side from Church Street to existing sidewalk
• John Street – south side between Bleecker Street and Corliss Avenue
• Academy Street – north side from Bleecker Street to Main Street
• Greenwich Town Hall – requests a pedestrian path which connects the Village Hall, Youth
Center, Town Hall, and Library
• Eddy Street – west side south of Route 372
• Main Street (general) – “commercial area needs new sidewalks and green area to be more
welcoming”
• Cottage Street – west side to connect existing sidewalk to the cemetery
• Van Ness Avenue – east side from existing sidewalk to Academy Street
• Prospect Street – no side or description listed; point is place between Highland Street and
Gray Avenue

Sidewalk Repair Input Locations:

• Main Street / Church Street Intersection – north side of Church Street just east of Main Street
• Main Street / Church Street Intersection – approximately 200 feet east of Main Street
• Main Street / Cottage Street Intersection – east side of Main Street just north of Cottage
Street
• Main Street / Cottage Street Intersection – just north of Main Street
• Hill Street – north side of Hill Street approximately 120 west of Main Street
• Gray Avenue – north side of Gray Avenue between Merritt Street and Whipple Place

• Main Street – south/west side of Main Street between Corliss Avenue and Academy Street
(approximate address: 162 Main Street)

Other Input Locations:

The public had the opportunity to utilize an “Other” category to identify requested improvements that
may not fall into the other categories listed above. These were further categorized into the subcategories
below:

• Traffic Calming
o 2 requests for speed limit reduction:
 State Route 40 – “Speed limit of 55 mph changed to 40 mph one mile north of
the north entrance of Galesville Road. TY”
 Hill Street (point located between Abeel Avenue and Dixson Drive) – “Popular
street for runners, walkers, and children walking to school. We should reduce
the speed limit for this block of Hill Street considering many will walk to Dixson
to loop back around to the village.”

 

o 2 requests for speed bumps:
 1 point added on Gray Avenue just west of intersection with Simpson Street
 1 point added on Gray Avenue just east of intersection with Merritt Street

 

o Reduce heavy truck traffic on Main Street – “People would walk and ride more
if there was less truck traffic along main st. Huge logging and tanker trucks
weave through the narrow lane available when cars are parked along the curb.
NYSDOT must be petitioned to limit weight or height of these vehicl”

 

• Pedestrian Crossing Signage
o “Flashing sign for pedestrians like they have in middle falls” – comment added for 4
locations:
 Main Street / Academy Street / Church Street intersection
 Main Street mid-block crossing at Stewart’s
 Main Street crossing at intersection with Washington Street
 Main Street / Corliss Avenue / Mowry Avenue intersection

 

o Main Street crossing at Hill Street intersection – “It’s difficult for pedestrians
to “see” the traffic light (red, yellow or green) at certain crossing areas here.
Is it possible to install “Walk” and “Don’t Walk” signals?”

 

• Trail Development
o 3 requests for Rail Trail development:
 Rail Trail from County Route 61 to Village center
 Rail Trail east of Village center
 “In the village we need an expansion of space for both biking and walking. It
would be wonderful if we could somehow utilize the railway beds that are no
longer functioning in our town. We could connect with Cambridge ,Salem and
other areas of interest.”

 

o Hayes Reservoir trail expansion – “Hiking trails and mountain biking trails”

 

• Bike Route

o “A bike and walking/running route from Helping Hands down Eddy Street over
Safford, Louse, Hegaman Bridge, Washington St. Great Route!”
o “Bike Route: Eddy Street, Rt. 372 to Old Cambridge Rd, back around to Rt. 29
into the Village of Greenwich.”

 

• Traffic Control Improvements
o Woodlawn Avenue at intersection with Gray Avenue – “Stop sign instead of Yield”
o Main Street / Academy Street / Church Street – “A better way to have traffic
stop when crossing the street. I feel this intersection needs something to help
those crossing.”
o Route 29 at Dunkin Donuts – “Something to reduce the line of cars for the
Dunkin drive thru that sometimes extends dangerously into the road”

 

• Public Parking Area
o 2 requests for public parking areas to promote local businesses:
 1 point placed on Main Street south of Hill Street
 1 point placed at private lot just northwest of 132 Main Street

 

 

• On-Street Parking Reduction
o 2 requests for on-street parking reductions:
 1 point placed on Main Street between Hill Street and John Street – “village
streets should have parking on one side only the other side should be a bike
lane, residents would have to use their driveways for parking instead of leaving
their cars on the street 24/7”
 1 point placed on Hill Street at intersection with Corliss Avenue – “One side
parking. When vehicles are parked on both sides for fire call, the corner
becomes blind. Crossing Hill becomes dangerous.”

 

 

• Sidewalk Maintenance
o General location – “All sidewalks in entire village should be cleaned within 48 hours of
any snowfall over 1 inch by hmeowners do away with village plow”
o Main Street – southwest side at intersection with Cottage Street – “Bushes need major
trimming, they impede the sidewalk”

 

• Cemetery Access
o “Possibly not within the scope of the town/village work, but why isn’t there a
working entrance to the cemetery at these gates? It is one of the best
places to walk in Greenwich, and it would be so nice to connect it to Main
Street”

 

 

Table 2: Top 3 Input Points with Most Public Consensus

 

Location

Input Type

Number of
People who

“Agree”

Consultant Summary

Intersection of
Main Street /
Academy
Street / Church

Street

Other
(Pedestrian
Crossing
Signage)

4

Flashing signage to improve safety for
pedestrians crossing

Main Street
mid-block
crossing at

Stewart’s

Other
(Pedestrian
Crossing

Signage)

4

Flashing signage to improve safety for
pedestrians crossing

Main Street

Other (Traffic
Calming)

3

Reduce heavy truck traffic along Main

Street to make commercial area more
comfortable for pedestrians and bicyclists

 

 

 

Communications

A wide variety of communications were used to promote the project and interactive map to the
general public:

o Press Release
o Email to committee members so they could share with their networks
o Flyers posted around town
o Several social media posts
o Pop-up on the Village website and the link to the map was featured on the home page

 

APPENDIX D:
Guidance

FINAL Technical Memorandum
Village of Granville Trail Connections Analysis
CR 24 (North Street) Complete Streets

Memo To: Mr. Jack Mance, Senior Transportation Planner Date: February 21, 2025
Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation Council

From: Barton & Loguidice, D.P.C. (B&L) File: 1896.011.001

I. Introduction & Goals
On behalf of the Village of Granville and Washington County, the Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation
Council (A/GFTC) and Barton & Loguidice, DPC (B&L), have prepared this Technical Memorandum to
evaluate potential complete streets improvements along County Route 24 (CR 24) from Riverside Drive
to East Main Street. This segment of CR 24 is frequently used by pedestrians and cyclists; however, it
currently lacks dedicated facilities to accommodate these users. Washington County DPW is planning a
pavement rehabilitation project for this corridor and expressed an interest to include potential complete
streets improvements, if feasible, prior to the construction of the rehabilitation project. The report
provides a comprehensive overview of existing conditions and evaluates potential complete streets
solutions.

Figure I-1:Project Location
Source: Google Earth

Page | 1

FINAL Technical Memorandum
Village of Granville Trail Connections Analysis
CR 24 (North Street) Complete Streets

II. Existing Conditions
This section provides an overview of the current conditions along County Route 24 that may impact the
design and construction of complete streets amenities. It is intended to inform the evaluation of
conceptual alternatives and should not be considered a substitute for detailed engineering design and
land survey. Using the mobile application ArcGIS Survey 123, B&L staff collected data on the existing
conditions within the CR 24 corridor. Data collected includes photos, GPS coordinates, roadway
measurements, existing sidewalk conditions, distance from pavement edge to an obstruction, signage,
and culvert conditions. The segment of CR 24 under consideration for a complete streets assessment is
primarily lined by residential properties and a few small businesses. In this stretch, the land use
transitions from a predominantly neighborhood-scale residential context to a more rural and agricultural
setting. This rural character gradually evolves into an urban environment as the roadway approaches
East Main Street.

A. Roadway Characteristics
CR 24 is classified as a Rural Minor Collector with an annual
average daily traffic (AADT) of 2,403 vehicles per day and an 85th
percentile speed of 38 mph, as documented by the NYSDOT
Traffic Data Viewer. The NYSDOT traffic and speed data were
collected near the Village line, approximately where the D&H Rail
Trail crosses CR 24. This area is more urban in setting with curbing
and buildings close to the road. North of where the data was
collected, the speed limits changes from 30mph to 35mph, and
traffic speeds likely similarly increase through the more rural
setting. The travel lanes are approximately 11 ft. wide, while
shoulder widths vary between 0 and 4 ft. Currently, the corridor
lacks designated bike lanes and appropriate signage to support
bicycles and most of the corridor does not include sidewalks to
accommodate pedestrians. For detailed measurements and
further information, please refer to Appendix 1.

B. Roadside Conditions
Figure II-1 – CR 24 Roadway
The roadside conditions along CR 24 vary significantly.
Drainage infrastructure is unevenly distributed; open ditches
are present intermittently, such as between some driveways,
but are notably absent in several adjacent areas. Many
private driveways are equipped with drainage pipes beneath
them to convey the stormwater to the ditches. The field
observations documented the existing conditions within 15 ft.
of the pavement edge on both sides of the roadway. The
identified constraints include 60 utility poles, 15 trees, 13
locations with ditches, and 1 culvert running perpendicular to
the roadway. In total, 69 physical constraints were recorded
on the East side of the roadway, while 37 were found on the

Figure II-2 Utility pole adjacent to CR 24
Page | 2

FINAL Technical Memorandum
Village of Granville Trail Connections Analysis
CR 24 (North Street) Complete Streets

West side of the roadway. The majority of the utility poles were located along the East side of the
roadway. Detailed information on these roadside conditions can be found in Appendix 1.

C. Existing Sidewalks
Sidewalks are present along the west side of CR 24 between
the intersection with E. Main St. in Granville and 63 North St.
(CR 24), and on the east side from E. Main St. to 28 North St.
The length of sidewalk on the west side is approximately 2,000
ft. long, and 900 ft. long on the east side. Additionally,
sidewalks are present at the north end of the project limits
from Chapmans General Store to 1330 North St. (CR 24), a
length of approximately 2,000 ft. All of the existing segments
were assessed for compliance with the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) and evaluated based on several key
criteria: missing panels, panel heaving, obstructions, and width.
This study also evaluated the 1.3 miles of CR 24 roadway
between 63 North St. and 1330 North St. for the addition of
pedestrian facilities.

Each existing sidewalk segment was analyzed individually, typically representing one block, unless
interrupted by significant features such as large commercial driveways or unusually lengthy segments.
The assessment revealed that, out of the eight locations surveyed, seven segments were rated as
partially accessible or not accessible resulting in non-compliant conditions with ADA standards. The
most common deficiency included heaving panels which were found in all but one segment, followed by
missing panels which were found in five segments. The segment of sidewalk from E. Main St to 13 North
St. was rated as mostly accessible, the only segment in the study corridor. Detailed ADA compliance
findings, including specific issues identified and ratings, are provided in Appendix 1.

D. Signage
The existing signage along CR 24 was documented, including details on sign type, location, and proximity
to the roadway edge. A total of 13 signs were recorded along the corridor, with their distances from the
edge of the roadway ranging from 4 to 10 ft. For a detailed breakdown of signage types and their
locations, refer to Appendix 1.

Figure II-3-Existing Sidewalk

Page | 3

FINAL Technical Memorandum
Village of Granville Trail Connections Analysis
CR 24 (North Street) Complete Streets

E. Pedestrian Crossings
The survey identified five pedestrian crossings. Two of these
crossings are marked with painted crosswalks: one at the D&H Trail
Crossing and the other at the intersection of North St. and E. Main
St. Both crosswalks were observed to be in good condition, with no
visible fading. Additionally, pedestrian crossing signage is present at
both locations to alert oncoming motorist of the crossing location.
One advance warning sign was documented North of the D&H Trail
crossing. The intersection located at North St. and E. Main St. was
the only location equipped with an ADA-compliant curb ramp,
including a detectable warning unit, which was only present on one Figure II-4 Crosswalk on CR 24 and

Main St.

side of the crosswalk. Please refer to Appendix 1 for further details.

F. Right of Way
The right-of-way (ROW) is a critical factor when evaluating the feasibility of pedestrian facilities along
the corridor. It dictates the available space for constructing sidewalks, multi-use paths, or other
infrastructure without encroaching on private property. Adequate ROW ensures that such facilities can
be integrated into the existing transportation network while minimizing the need for costly land
acquisition or reconfiguration of adjacent land uses. It is important to highlight that Washington
County’s GIS Web Map Parcel Viewer is developed through available tax mapping and is not a substitute
for detailed property boundary surveys. There were some inconsistencies found in the parcel viewer,
most notably showing sections where the roadway appears to extend beyond the ROW boundary on the
east side. Despite these discrepancies, the average ROW width was estimated to be 53.5 ft. from the site
review of utility locations and a comparison to the tax mapping boundary corridor. The average distance
from the edge of pavement to the edge of the ROW is estimated to be approximately 15 ft. on the east
side and 10 ft. on the west side.

III. Complete Streets Improvement Options
This section introduces four alternative concepts for improving pedestrian and bicyclist accommodations
along CR 24. These alternatives are intended to address current deficiencies in non-motorized user
safety and connectivity. Each concept will be evaluated for its effectiveness, constructability, and
potential impacts on existing infrastructure and traffic operations.

A. Sidewalk – Preferred Alternative
The first alternative involves maintaining the existing
roadway and shoulder dimensions while constructing
a sidewalk along the west side of the corridor. The
recommended sidewalk width is 5 ft., with a grass
buffer space between the edge of the pavement and
the sidewalk ranging from 4 to 5 ft. This buffer would
provide space for snow storage, leaf collection,
utilities, and transitions in grade where necessary.
The existing paved shoulder would remain along the

Figure III-1 – Typical Pedestrian Path without curb
Source: FHWA
Page | 4

FINAL Technical Memorandum
Village of Granville Trail Connections Analysis
CR 24 (North Street) Complete Streets

roadway, preserving the current conditions for vehicular traffic.

This alternative would require coordination with all landowners along the corridor. Although the
proposed sidewalk and buffer space width would generally fit within the existing right-of-way in most
areas, construction easements would be necessary for grading and drainage work. Utility poles and
mailboxes would need to be relocated, and a limited number of trees would need to be removed to
accommodate the design. The existing shoulder (varying width between 0 and 4 ft.) does not meet the
requirements to accommodate cyclists, therefore this would be a pedestrian only improvement.

1. Repair Existing Sidewalk
a) Sidewalk Repair from W. Main St. to approx. 63 North St. (CR 24)
The sidewalk segment from 63 North St. to 13 North St. has been rated as
“Not Accessible” due to its narrow width, cracked, and missing panels. The
current conditions necessitate a full replacement with a new 5 ft. wide
sidewalk to meet ADA standards. The west side of CR 24 from 13 North St.
to East Main St. includes a 4 ft. wide sidewalk that widens to over 5 ft. as
it nears E. Main St. A driveway between south of 5 Main St. shows signs of
deterioration at the sidewalk crossing, with uneven pavement, creating
obstacles for individuals with disabilities. Similar conditions were
observed at the driveway of the Veterans of Foreign Wars eatery. This
segment of the sidewalk is rated as “Partially Accessible” as outside of the
noted deficiencies, it is in relatively good shape. The segment from 28
North St. to E. Main St. on the east side of CR 24 has been rated as “Not
Accessible” due to minor deficiencies within the sidewalk concrete and
utility poles placed in the middle of the sidewalk that restrict the sidewalk
width to less than 4 ft. North of 28 North St., the sidewalk diverges onto
Pine St. The 900 ft. segment of sidewalk on the east side of CR 24 from E.
Main St. to 28 North St. should be replaced with a new 5 ft. sidewalk, and the utility poles should be
relocated to behind the new sidewalk to meet ADA requirements. On the west side of CR 24, the 300 ft.
segment between E. Main St. and 13 North St. should be spot repaired where panels are heaving,
uneven, exhibit large cracks, or where crossings of driveways are not flush with the pavement. North of
13 North St. (CR 24) the entire sidewalk and curb should be replaced, approximately 1,650 ft. Ideally a 45
ft. snow storage buffer would be provided between the sidewalk and the curb. However, there does
not appear to be adequate width to accommodate this buffer due to roadside features such as retaining
walls, buildings, and the existing topography behind the existing sidewalk.

Figure III-2: 13 North St. to E.
Main St.

Page | 5

FINAL Technical Memorandum
Village of Granville Trail Connections Analysis
CR 24 (North Street) Complete Streets

b) From Approx. 1330 CR 24 to Chapman’s General Store
The existing 4-foot-wide sidewalk is located on the west side of the
roadway only and exhibits several deficiencies, including panel
heaving or missing sections, surface deterioration, and overgrown
vegetation. Given the extent of these issues, a complete
reconstruction of the sidewalk is necessary. This includes
excavation and replacement of the approximately 2,000 ft. of 5 ft.
sidewalk, with integrated curb ramps and detectable warning strips
at intersections. Reconstruction would not require additional rightof-
way acquisitions, as the new sidewalk would be installed in the
same location as the existing sidewalk. Minor trimming of
overgrown vegetation, including tree branches, may also be

Figure III-3: Existing Sidewalk near Cove

required.

Lane intersection

2. Extend New Sidewalk
a) To Amazon Warehouse located at 1159 CR 24
Extending the CR 24 sidewalk North from 63 North St. to the Amazon Warehouse would require the
construction of approximately 2,700 ft. (0.5 miles) of new sidewalk on the west side of CR 24. This
section passes through predominantly open land, providing sufficient space for the sidewalk
construction. However, the installation may necessitate the relocation of 1-2 utility poles, signs,
mailboxes, and the removal of vegetation to clear the right-of-way for the proposed sidewalk. The
property at 1147 CR 24 poses a challenge due to the presence of trees and shrubs encroaching into the
right-of-way. However, the sidewalk could be constructed next to the vegetation and still maintain the
desired buffer between the pavement edge and the sidewalk. The ROW boundary obtained from the
county GIS database does not appear to be completely accurate but appears to be approximately 10 ft.
or more from the edge of pavement. It is likely a few ROW takings will be required to install the new
sidewalk. The sidewalk should include a buffer of 4-5 ft. from the edge of the existing pavement. The
sidewalk should be installed flush with the existing ground, eliminating the need for curb and drainage
installation. There is also a stream running under CR 24 through a culvert that will necessitate the
extension of this culvert. Some of the obstructions noted, such as mailboxes and utility poles, on the
west side of the roadway will be able to remain as they would be within the buffer between the edge of
the pavement and the sidewalk.

b) From Amazon Warehouse to 1330 CR 24
Constructing a sidewalk connection from the Amazon Warehouse North to 1330 CR 24 will require
approximately 4,250 ft. (0.8 miles) of new sidewalk construction on the west side of the roadway. The
new 5 ft. wide sidewalk should be installed 4-5 ft. from the edge of the existing pavement and be flush
with the existing ground so no curb or drainage improvements are needed. 6-7 utility poles along the
will need to be relocated to be between the buffer between the sidewalk and the roadway, or relocated
to be behind the new sidewalk. Additionally, many trees will need to be cut or avoided with a smaller
buffer space between the sidewalk and the edge of pavement. Other items such as stone walls,
mailboxes, signs, and timber fencing will need to be relocated. Similar to the previous section of CR 24,
the ROW boundary obtained from the county GIS database does not appear to be completely accurate
but appears to be approximately 10 ft. or more from the edge of pavement. It is likely a few minor rightof-
way acquisitions will be required to construct the new sidewalk.

Page | 6

FINAL Technical Memorandum
Village of Granville Trail Connections Analysis
CR 24 (North Street) Complete Streets

Cost estimates for the aforementioned sidewalk repair and sidewalk extension work is shown in the
table below. The costs are broken into the previously discussed segments, and then further separated
by the cost of each general item of proposed work. The overall costs are separated into three categories,
an itemized construction subtotal, followed by additional costs if a private contractor were to perform
the work, and a total cost if federal aid were received. The itemized construction subtotal assumes that
the project sponsor could perform this work with their crews for this approximate cost, including
materials and labor. The federal-aid cost includes all of the necessary construction costs, and the
additional engineering/permitting and construction inspection costs to meet the federal aid contract
requirements and approvals.

County Route 24 Pedestrian Safety Improvements
Preliminary Cost Estimate
CONSTRUCTION ITEMS:
Main St. to 13
North St.
(West)
13 North St.
to 63 North
St. (West)
Main St. to 28
North St.
(East)
1330 North St.
to Chapmans
General
Store
63 North St.
to Amazon
Amazon to
1330 North St.
SIDEWALK $ 35,000 $ 352,000 $ 203,000 $ 241,000 $ 316,000 $ 483,000
DRIVEWAYS & ROAD CROSSINGS $ -$ 17,000 $ 11,000 $ 23,000 $ 27,000 $ 66,000
DRAINAGE $ -$ -$ -$ -$ 25,000 $ –
SIGNING & STRIPING $ -$ -$ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 12,000 $ 8,000
MISC. RELOCATIONS $ -$ -$ 5,000 $ -$ 10,000 $ 20,000
CLEARING/TRIMMING/GRUBBING $ -$ -$ -$ -$ 15,000 $ 40,000
WORK ZONE TRAFFIC CONTROL $ 4,000 $ 37,000 $ 23,000 $ 27,000 $ 41,000 $ 62,000
ITEMIZED CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL: $ 39,000 $ 406,000 $ 244,000 $ 293,000 $ 446,000 $ 679,000
FIELD CHANGE ORDER (5%) $ 1,950 $ 20,300 $ 12,200 $ 14,650 $ 22,300 $ 33,950
MOBILIZATION (USE 4%) $ 1,700 $ 17,100 $ 10,300 $ 12,400 $ 18,800 $ 28,600
CONTINGENCY / RISK (20%) $ 7,800 $ 81,200 $ 48,800 $ 58,600 $ 89,200 $ 135,800
PRIVATE CONTRACTOR SUBTOTAL: $ 51,000 $ 525,000 $ 316,000 $ 379,000 $ 577,000 $ 878,000
ENGINEERING / APPROVALS $ 10,200 $ 105,000 $ 63,200 $ 75,800 $ 115,400 $ 175,600
CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION $ 6,120 $ 63,000 $ 37,920 $ 45,480 $ 69,240 $ 105,360
FEDERAL-AID PROJECT COSTS: $ 67,400 $ 693,000 $ 417,200 $ 500,300 $ 761,700 $ 1,159,000

Table III-1: Preliminary Cost Estimate

As the addition of sidewalks to CR24 does not address the needs of cyclists that wish to access the
Amazon Warehouse, they will be encouraged to use the adjacent D&H Rail Trail to the north of CR 24. A
potential access point from CR 24 to the rail trail is located at the driveway to the St. Peter & Paul
Cemetery. The driveway is installed between two commercial properties, one being the Slate Valley
Lanes Bowling Alley, and the other is a small apartment complex. This access location is less than 200 ft.
from the driveway access to the Amazon warehouse facility and would provide convenient access to the
facility from the D&H Rail Trail. A mid-block crossing consisting of signage, striping, and Rapid
Rectangular Flashing beacons should be installed at the mid-block crossing. The shoulder of CR 24
should also be widened between the driveway and the crossing to provide room for pedestrians and
bicyclists to walk on the side of the roadway. This mid-block crossing is anticipated to cost
approximately $35,000. See figure below.

Page | 7

FINAL Technical Memorandum
Village of Granville Trail Connections Analysis
CR 24 (North Street) Complete Streets

Figure III-4: D&H Rail Trail to Amazon Warehouse Connection Option

B. Additional Options Not Progressed
1. Bike Lane
This alternative proposes the construction of
four to five-foot-wide bike lanes on both sides
of the roadway, in addition to the sidewalk
outlined in the sidewalk alternative. This would
involve widening the existing shoulders on both
sides of the roadway by two to four ft. The bike lanes Figure III-5-Typical Pedestrian Path Plus Bikeway-

Source: Empire State Design Guide

would be clearly delineated with standard pavement
markings and signage, installed per details and notes provided on NYSDOT Standard Sheet 685-01 to
ensure proper compliance with safety regulations. This alternative is fundamentally similar to a widened
shoulder option; however, it incorporates dedicated striping specifically designed for cyclists.

This alternative provides the benefits of the sidewalk alternative while offering dedicated facilities for
cyclists along both sides of the roadway.

Page | 8

FINAL Technical Memorandum
Village of Granville Trail Connections Analysis
CR 24 (North Street) Complete Streets

The implementation of this alternative may require the relocation of a limited number of utility poles on
the east side to accommodate the wider pavement. Additionally, on the west side, the roadway
expansion presents the same obstacles outlined in the sidewalk alternative with the possibility of
additional tree removals, depending on the final alignment and grading requirements.

2. Shared Use Trail (Multi-Use Trail)
A shared use path (also known as a multi-use
path or side path) is an 8-12 ft. path designed
for use by both cyclists and pedestrians along
the east side of the roadway, as shown in
Figure II-5. By providing a paved asphalt facility
separate from non-motorized traffic, shared
use paths create a low-stress experience and
comfortable environment for users of every
age and ability. A 2 ft. shoulder/clear zone is
recommended on either side of the path to
facilitate drainage and user safety; however,
this may be reduced in constrained
environments. In addition, the minimum
recommended separation from the roadway is
5 ft.

Figure III-6 -Typical Shared Use Path configuration
Source: FHWA
This alternative would require the relocation of numerous utility poles to create the necessary space for
the construction of a multi-use trail, as a minimum of 2 ft. between a utility pole and trail edge is
required. The presence of a cattle farm on the east side of the roadway introduces an important
consideration: the frequent crossing of heavy equipment over the path could significantly accelerate its
deterioration over time and could pose safety concerns to users with the frequent vehicle traffic across
the trail. The impact of such equipment on the path’s surface should be carefully assessed to prevent
long-term damage. Additionally, this option would involve the largest right-of-way acquisition on one
side of the roadway, likely requiring multiple property acquisitions from adjacent landowners.

3. Shared Roadway
The shared roadway alternative
involves a design where travel lanes are
shared between motorists and cyclists,
while a sidewalk is installed as outlined
in the sidewalk alternative. This option
maintains the existing roadway

Figure III-7: Shared Roadway

configuration but includes signage designating the road

Source: Empire State Trail Guide

as a shared roadway, along with pavement markings to
alert motorists of the potential presence of cyclists. This alternative is suitable for roadways with an
AADT volume below 6,000 vehicles per day and an operating speed under 35 mph. Due to the 85th
percentile speed of 38 mph near the village line, and likely higher speeds to the north, the shared
roadway alternative is not recommended for CR 24.

Page | 9

FINAL Technical Memorandum
Village of Granville Trail Connections Analysis
CR 24 (North Street) Complete Streets

Discussions with the project advisory committee, consisting of representatives from the Town and
Village of Granville, AGFTC, and B&L were held on 10/30/2024 and 1/31/2025. These discussions
indicated that separate pedestrian facilities (sidewalks) are desired along the entire stretch of CR 24
within the project limits. Bicycle accommodations along this stretch of roadway are not feasible due to
the speed present within the corridor and the existing obstacles such as a meandering ROW and
obstructions such as trees and numerous utility poles. Bicyclists that wish to ride within this corridor will
be directed to use the adjacent D&H Rail Trail, which runs parallel to this corridor.

Page | 10

Granville D&H Trail Recommendations – FINAL Technical Memorandum
Village of Granville D&H Rail Trail
Crossings and Resurfacing Recommendations

Memo To: Mr. Jack Mance, Senior Transportation Planner Date: February 21, 2025
Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation Council

From: Barton & Loguidice, D.P.C. (B&L) File: 1896.011.001

I. Introduction:
On behalf of the Village of Granville, the Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation Council (A/GFTC) and
Barton & Loguidice, DPC (B&L) have prepared this Technical Memorandum to evaluate potential
improvements for a 4.75-mile section of the Delaware and Hudson (D&H) Rail Trail from Depot Street to
the Vermont border. The Village, in coordination with the Lake Champlain-Lake George Regional
Planning Board and the US EPA, recently completed a Community Action Plan for the Recreation
Economy for Rural Communities program. This plan established several goals and action items in the
Village including conducting a signage assessment and to improve the rail trail. Some improvements
have already been implemented including installing benches and landscaping along the trail. This report
provides a comprehensive overview of the existing conditions of the surface of the D&H Rail Trail and
roadway crossings within the noted limits of the Rail Trail and provides improvement recommendations.

Figure I-1: Project Location
Source: Google Earth

Page | 1

FINAL Technical Memorandum
Village of Granville D&H Rail Trail
Crossings and Resurfacing Recommendations

II. Existing Conditions
This section contains general information about the existing conditions along the D&H Rail Trail project
corridor. The existing conditions were assessed using ArcGIS Survey123, a mobile application enabling
real-time data collection. B&L personnel visited the trail corridor on August 29, 2024 to assess and
document the existing conditions utilizing the application to record data on surface conditions, signage,
pedestrian crossings, and other significant elements along the corridor. Each recorded data point was
supplemented with a photograph and a corresponding GPS location.

A. Land Use and Community Context
The D&H Rail Trail is a recreational resource, extensively used by
pedestrians, cyclists, and joggers, as well as functioning as a
snowmobile trail during the winter season. The trail exhibits
significant variability in its conditions and surrounding land use.
Starting at Depot St., the northern end of the study limits, the trail
passes through a densely wooded area. To the north of Granville,
it is surrounded by open fields and residential homes, with the
landscape characterized by natural forest and open terrain. As it
progresses southward, the trail enters the downtown setting, where
it passes through the central part of the Village, integrating with local
community features such as small businesses, restaurants, stores and residential homes. Southeast of
Village the segment of the trail transitions back to a mixed landscape of open fields and densely wooded
areas.

B. Trail Characteristics
The geometry of the trail, including surface conditions, width, and clear width, were systematically
documented throughout the corridor. Beginning at Depot Street, it was observed that the original gravel
surface has been overtaken by grass in many areas, although the trail is still mowed and maintained to
its full width in most locations. Despite the growth of
grass altering the surface composition and covering
parts of the original surface, the overall effective width
of the trail remains fully maintained. This grass-covered
surface extends for the first 1.5 miles from Depot St to
North St. (CR 24). Then from CR 24 to Main Street (0.5
miles), the trail surface was predominantly gravel,
though grass had started to impede from the edges.
From the Station House to Water Street (0.2 miles), the
trail was entirely grass with no visible remnants of the
former trail surface or rail bed. The trail then crosses
over the Mettawee River via a bridge before meeting
up with Water Street. This 0.1 mile section of the trail
has a gravel surface on each approach to the bridge.
From Morrison Ave. to Church Street, a 4 ft. wide
asphalt path was present (0.06 mi). For the following 0.5 miles southeast of Village, the trail remained
largely grass-covered, the final 1.9 miles that continued to the south consisted mainly of gravel, with
occasional grass strips along the center in certain sections.

Figure II-1 – D&H Trail Next to
Station house Bed and Breakfast.

Figure II-2- Trail Section Between Depot St. and CR 24

Page | 2

FINAL Technical Memorandum
Village of Granville D&H Rail Trail
Crossings and Resurfacing Recommendations

The clear width was measured from the edge of the
gravel trail to the edge of the adjacent vegetation,
with the total clear width calculated by summing the
clear space on both sides of the trail from the edge
of the trail to the edge of the pavement. The trail
width refers to the distance across the gravel surface
itself. In cases where the trail shoulder was
distinguishable, the clear width plus the trail width
were combined to determine the effective width. In
areas where no clear boundary existed between the
shoulder and trail surface, the total distance from
the vegetation on one side to the vegetation on the
other was recorded as the effective width (See
Figure II-3 for details). The average effective width is
approximately 19 ft., with a minimum recorded width of 10 ft. at one location between Depot St and CR
24.

The right-of-way (ROW) along the trail varies considerably, ranging from sections as narrow as 20 ft. to
others as wide as 130 ft. Across the evaluated section, the average ROW was determined to be 72 ft.

C. Signage
A comprehensive assessment of signage along the D&H Rail Trail identified a total of 113 signs. This
includes signage intended for both trail users and motorists at roadway crossings. Specifically, 33 signs
are pedestrian crossing warning signs intended to alert drivers. Six of the seven crossings had some level
of crossing signage for drivers. Additionally, 50 signs conform to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices (MUTCD) standards, providing clear guidance and information for trail users. The remaining 30
signs serve various functions, including navigational aids and informational displays about the trail.

D. Crossings
A total of seven roadway crossings of the trail were reviewed for
conformance with the current design standards for multi-use trail
crossings, including the American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials (“AASHTO”) Guide for the
Development of Bicycle Facilities 2012, NYSDOT Highway Design
Manual (HDM), 2023 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(MUTCD), FHWA Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at
Uncontrolled Crossing locations, and the Empire State Trail Design
Guide (further referred to as the “Trail Design Standards”). Of
those evaluated, five crossings included painted crosswalks to
enhance visibility of the crossing location. The trail crossing of CR
24 was the only crossing with advance warning signage for vehicles
and this signage was only present for southbound traffic. Additionally, several intersections featured
pedestrian crossing signs but lacked MUTCD-compliant elements, such as signage on both sides of the
crosswalk and both front and back of the sign post. Table II-1 provides a detailed summary of the
signage documented at each crossing.

Figure II-3: Measurement Diagram

Figure II-4 – Water Street Crossing

Page | 3

FINAL Technical Memorandum
Village of Granville D&H Rail Trail
Crossings and Resurfacing Recommendations

Trail Crossing Signage􀀃
Intersecting􀀃
Street􀀃Sign􀀃
Posts􀀃
Trail Crossing􀀃
W11􀀃15􀀃W16-7p(Bicycle/􀀃(Arrow)􀀃Ped)􀀃
Advance Warning􀀃
W11􀀃15Sign􀀃W11-15p (Trail􀀃(Bicycle/􀀃Posts􀀃X-ing)􀀃Ped)􀀃
W16-9p􀀃
(Ahead)􀀃
North Street􀀃
Main Street􀀃
Water Street􀀃
Morrison Ave􀀃
Church􀀃
Street􀀃
E Potter Ave􀀃
Andrews lane􀀃
2􀀃
2􀀃
1􀀃
2􀀃
2􀀃
2􀀃
0􀀃
4􀀃4􀀃
4􀀃4􀀃
1􀀃1􀀃
2􀀃2􀀃
2􀀃2􀀃
2􀀃2􀀃
0􀀃0􀀃
1􀀃1􀀃1􀀃
0􀀃0􀀃0􀀃
0􀀃0􀀃0􀀃
0􀀃0􀀃0􀀃
0􀀃0􀀃0􀀃
0􀀃0􀀃0􀀃
0􀀃0􀀃0􀀃
1􀀃
0􀀃
0􀀃
0􀀃
0􀀃
0􀀃
0􀀃

Table II-1-Trail Crossing Signage

The roadway classifications and traffic data for each roadway crossing were reviewed on the NYSDOT
Traffic Data Viewer to assist in the analysis of each roadway crossing on the D&H Rail Trail. See table III-2
below.

Trail Crossing Traffic Data􀀃
Intersecting Street􀀃Roadway􀀃Posted Speed􀀃AADTClassification􀀃Limit (MPH)􀀃
85th Percentile􀀃
Speed (MPH)􀀃
North Street􀀃
Main Street􀀃
Water Street􀀃
Morrison Ave􀀃
Church Street􀀃
E Potter Ave􀀃
Andrews􀀃lane􀀃
Rural Minor Collector􀀃2,373􀀃30􀀃
Rural Minor Collector􀀃4,346􀀃30􀀃
Rural Local􀀃No Data􀀃30*􀀃
Rural Local􀀃No Data􀀃30*􀀃
Rural Major Collector􀀃2,997􀀃30􀀃
Rural Local􀀃No Data􀀃30􀀃
Rural Local􀀃No Data􀀃30*􀀃
38.2􀀃
29.7􀀃
No Data􀀃
No Data􀀃
31.6􀀃
No Data􀀃
No Data􀀃

*No speed limit posted, 30mph assumed based on roadway characteristics

Table II-2- Crossing Traffic Data

Each crossing was also assigned an accessibility rating based on compliance with the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA). Elements of ADA compliance include the presence of a curb ramp, detectable
warning strips (DWS), slope of curb ramp, whether or not the pavement surface is flush with the edge of
the curb ramp, and the overall condition of the pavement in the crosswalk. The crossing located on Main
Street was the only crossing identified as fully accessible, meeting all relevant ADA criteria including curb
ramps on both sides of the crossing. The remaining crossings were rated as partially accessible,
indicating that improvements are needed to achieve full ADA compliance.

Page | 4

FINAL Technical Memorandum
Village of Granville D&H Rail Trail
Crossings and Resurfacing Recommendations

In addition to the roadway crossings, there were six driveway crossings, including one that passes
through an active farm where vehicles, livestock, and heavy equipment frequently cross. The high
volume and type of traffic at this crossing may impact trail user safety, warranting further consideration
in the trail’s design and operational planning. The remaining driveway crossings appear to exhibit low
traffic volumes and are not expected to significantly affect trail user access or safety.

Figure II-5 Crossing though active farmland

E. Other Notable Features
Additional features documented along the trail include three bridges and three culverts. A New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) posting was also observed, located in a small
stream next to Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics indicating an ongoing spill investigation in the area.

Within the farm section located at the Kenneth
property (parcel ID 108.-1-3.4), the farm’s operations
and much of its infrastructure are situated within the
trail right-of-way, utilizing dirt roadways on and across
the existing trail. The farm appears to use the trail ROW
for its regular operations as well as an area for storing
cow hutches. Additionally, the trail features a cow pass
located beneath it, which is a component of the farm’s
infrastructure. The cow pass stands approximately 7 ft.
high, resulting in a steep and unstable slope that trail
users must navigate. Figure II-7 displays a photograph of
the steep slope. It should be noted that this location is
outside of the Village of Granville and is assumed to be
under the jurisdiction of NYS Office of Parks and
Recreation. As such, no improvements are changes have
been proposed under the auspices of the current analysis.

Figure II-6 – Steep slope

Page | 5

FINAL Technical Memorandum
Village of Granville D&H Rail Trail
Crossings and Resurfacing Recommendations

III. Recommended Improvements
A. Trail Surface
This trail surface comparison will consider factors such as durability, maintenance requirements, and
user safety to determine the most appropriate material for ensuring long-term functionality, improved
usability, and overall trail sustainability. The trail surface material selected should be installed to
establish a 10-12 ft. wide trail with 2-5 ft. shoulders on each side, as recommended by the Empire State
Trail Design Guide. Additionally, this design guide recommends that trails accommodating snowmobile
use should have a width of 12-14 ft. (10 ft. minimum) to ensure safe operations during winter. As noted
in the field reconnaissance, the existing average effective width is 19 ft., therefore it is feasible to
establish a recommended trail width of 12 ft. with 2 ft. shoulders along this corridor.

1. Asphalt Surface
An Asphalt surface provides a smooth, durable top course that enhances accessibility for a variety of
users, including pedestrians, cyclists, and individuals with mobility impairments. Asphalt is well-suited
for trails due to its longevity and minimal maintenance requirements. The smooth, paved surface also
improves user comfort and safety, especially for cyclists, in-line skaters, and wheelchair users, reducing
the likelihood of rutting and
erosion.

Asphalt is best suited for
snowmobile trails in areas where
snow accumulates 1 ft. or more
and consistently covers the
surface. This snow layer acts as a
protective barrier, reducing wear
on the asphalt from snowmobiles’
studded tracks, which could
otherwise wear on the trail
surface.

Figure III-1-Kingston Rail Trail, Ulster County

Asphalt also offers a significant
advantage over gravel in terms of snow removal efficiency in areas that are not used as a snowmobile
trail. Plowing a paved surface is more straightforward and results in less wear on maintenance
equipment, as the smooth solid surface allows plows to glide over its surface. Furthermore, asphalt is
less susceptible to damage from snowmobiles compared to gravel, which can be displaced or eroded
during winter use, leading to a more durable and lower-maintenance surface throughout the year.

Page | 6

FINAL Technical Memorandum
Village of Granville D&H Rail Trail
Crossings and Resurfacing Recommendations

2. Crushed Stone
An alternative to the traditional hard surface material, is a crushed stone aggregate surface course that
is bound by clay particles. The natural materials of this surface course appeal to the environmental
setting of the project by maintaining the natural aesthetic and feel of the D&H corridor, blending with
the surrounding environment. Examples of this durable stone course system use includes the D&H Canal
Trail in the Town of Mamakating, NYS OPRHP Minnewaska State Park, the Rockefeller State Park
Preserve, and the Ashokan Rail Trail in Ulster County.

Figure III-2 D&H Canal Trail, Town of Mamakating

Crushed Stone paths provide a durable and relatively flat surface, making them suitable for various
types of trail users. While crushed stone trails can be ADA compliant, they may not offer the same level
of convenience and smoothness as other surface materials, such as asphalt. Crushed stone is susceptible
to vegetation growth impeding the trail width from the sides of the trail, which can occur if the trail is
not regularly maintained.

Page | 7

FINAL Technical Memorandum
Village of Granville D&H Rail Trail
Crossings and Resurfacing Recommendations

3. Cost Estimate
The cost estimate below for both an asphalt and stone surfaced trail assumes that full excavation of the
existing trail material is needed due to the heavy presence of organic material that is present within the
existing trail limits. Constructing the trail on top of the existing material could lead to pre-mature failure
of the trail system. Additionally, the clearing and grubbing line item includes trimming back the
vegetation that is encroaching onto the trail corridor. The estimate includes the cost of resurfacing the
entire length of the trail system. Cost per mile have been included below the table as well to facilitate
phase improvement planning.

Village of Granville -D&H Rail Trail Resurfacing
Cost Estimate
Items of Work / Road Crossing Asphalt Trail
Surface
Crushed
Stone
Surface
Lighting
(Entire Trail)
ASPHALT SURFACE COURSE $ 1,127,471 —
CRUSHED STONE TOP COURSE -$ 386,031 $ –
SUBBASE STONE $ 501,600 $ 501,600 $ –
EXCAVATION $ 445,867 $ 445,867 $ –
CLEARING AND GRUBBING $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ –
LIGHTING $ -$ -$ 1,400,000
MISCELLANEOUS —
ITEMIZED CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL: $ 2,125,000 $ 1,384,000 $ 1,400,000
FIELD CHANGE ORDER (5%)
MOBILIZATION (USE 4%)
CONTINGENCY / RISK (10%)
$ 106,250 $ 69,200 $ 70,000
$ 89,300 $ 58,200 $ 58,800
$ 212,500 $ 138,400 $ 140,000
PRIVATE CONTRACTOR SUBTOTAL: $ 2,534,000 $ 1,650,000 $ 1,669,000
ENGINEERING / APPROVALS $ 506,800 $ 330,000 $ 333,800
CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION $ 304,080 $ 198,000 $ 200,280
FEDERAL-AID PROJECT COSTS: $ 3,344,900 $ 2,178,000 $ 2,203,100

Cost / Mile
ITEMIZED CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL: $ 448,000 $ 292,000 $ 295,000
PRIVATE CONTRACTOR SUBTOTAL: $ 534,000 $ 348,000 $ 352,000
FEDERAL-AID PROJECT COSTS: $ 705,000 $ 459,000 $ 464,000
Table III-1: Trail Resurfacing Cost Estimate

Page | 8

FINAL Technical Memorandum
Village of Granville D&H Rail Trail
Crossings and Resurfacing Recommendations

B. Trail Crossings
The seven (7) road crossings were evaluated by assessing the existing features that are present at each
location, such as signage, pavement markings, detectable warning strips, etc. The crossings were then
compared to standardized crossing features established by the Trail Design Standards to determine if
features are missing and what improvements should be made to each crossing.

An ideal at-grade roadway crossing has a variety of features present that warn the trail users that there
is a roadway crossing present, and that warns roadway users that pedestrians and bicyclists may be
crossing the roadway. The emphasis of safety should be placed on both interactions equally as it is both
users responsibility to operate safely at crossings. Nearly all of the crossings evaluated need some level
of improvements to the warning signs posted at and in advance of the trail crossing. At a minimum, each
crossing should have pedestrian/bicyclist warning signs (B) and a crosswalk (A) installed at the location
of the trail crossing, and advanced pedestrian/bicyclist crossing warning signs (C). The advanced
pedestrian warning signage should be installed 200 ft. from all of the seven D&H Rail Trail crossings. See
figure below from the Empire State Trail design guide.

Figure III-3: Trail Crossing Components

On roadways with higher vehicle volumes, or where drivers regularly fail to yield at the crossings,
additional measures, such as Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacons (RRFB) should be installed at the
crossing to increase pedestrian and cyclist safety. Additionally, all pedestrian warning signs should be
made of retroreflective fluorescent yellow-green sign sheeting and should also include the
retroreflective sign post strip for enhanced visibility.

Page | 9

FINAL Technical Memorandum
Village of Granville D&H Rail Trail
Crossings and Resurfacing Recommendations

1. CR 24

This crossing currently includes some of the recommended signage, including pedestrian crossing signs
and advance warning signage, (only provided for southbound traffic). It is recommended that advance
warning signage be installed south of the crossing to alert northbound traffic of the crossing.

Due to the existing speeds on the roadway reportedly exceeding the posted speed limit, Rectangular
Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) should be installed at this location in addition to the standard
pedestrian-bicycle crossing signage. RRFBs are high-intensity flashing yellow beacons mounted on
standard pedestrian warning signs at
uncontrolled crosswalks, see Figure III-4 for an
installed example. These beacons are activated
by pedestrians pressing a button before
crossing. RRFB installations are cost-effective
and have been proven to significantly improve
motorist yield rates at marked crosswalks. The
beacons can be powered by either solar energy
or a connection to the electrical grid. For this
installation, two beacon assemblies should be
positioned on the west and east sides of CR 24, with flashing beacons installed on both sides of the posts
to provide coverage for each approach to the crosswalk.

During the evaluation of existing conditions, it was noted that both sides of the pavement have a slight
drop from the pavement edge to the trail surface, making the trail inaccessible to users with disabilities
and inconvenient for cyclists. To address this, a curb ramp should be installed across the full width of the
trail, providing a smooth transition from the trail to the roadway. To meet ADA compliance, the curb
ramp must include detectable warning strips (DWS) covering the entire width of the trail. This design will
improve accessibility for pedestrians and cyclists, ensuring a seamless transition between the roadway
and the trail. For specific signage requirements at each crossing, refer to Table III-2.

The crosswalk is currently oriented at an angle across the roadway. The crossing distance is 75 ft. and
prolongs pedestrian exposure to traffic. It is recommended that the crosswalk be reconfigured so that
the crossing is perpendicular to the roadway, which will reduce the crossing distance to 26 ft. and
therefore, reduce the time to cross the road.

2. Main Street
Figure III-3: RRFB Installation

The Main Street crossing appears to have been recently
constructed, featuring a painted crosswalk and ADA-compliant
curb ramps equipped with detectable warning strips. Proper
signage is also in place to warn motorists of the crossing.
Advance warning signage should be installed 200 ft. prior to
the crossing in each direction. For specific signage
requirements at each crossing, refer to Table III-2.

Figure III-5: Main St Crossing

Page | 10

FINAL Technical Memorandum
Village of Granville D&H Rail Trail
Crossings and Resurfacing Recommendations

3. Water Street, Morrison Ave, E. Potter Avenue
Water Street, Morrison Avenue, and E. Potter Avenue are all low-volume local roads used primarily for
residential traffic. Each crossing has faded or missing crosswalks and missing signage. The crosswalks at
each location should be repainted using the “NYSDOT Type LS” design (the same type as installed at the
Main St. crossing), which includes parallel stripes and ladder bars for enhanced visibility. The pavement
markings should be applied with epoxy paint containing glass beads for retro-reflectivity or retro-
reflective thermoplastic to ensure long-term durability and improved visibility, particularly at night.

In addition, a concrete slab similar to one described on CR 24 equipped with detectable warning strips
should be installed at all three crossings to meet ADA compliance. Each crossing must be marked with
signage on both approaches to the crosswalk, clearly indicating that pedestrians and cyclists may be
crossing the roadway in this location. Each post should have signage on both the front and back,
providing left and right crosswalk markings from the driver’s perspective. For details on recommended
signage at each crossing, refer to Table III-2.

4. Church Street
Church Street was identified as having the highest AADT among all the evaluated crossings with 2,997
vehicles per day. The current crossing features a
recently painted crosswalk with grass approaches on
both sides. However, these grass approaches exhibit
an elevation difference between the trail and the
edge of the pavement, making the crossing
inaccessible for users with disabilities and
inconvenient for cyclists. To address this issue, a curb
ramp matching the width of the trail should be
installed, with detectable warning strips spanning the
full width of the trail. This will provide a smooth
transition from the trail to the roadway while
ensuring compliance with ADA standards.

Additionally, the crosswalk is currently oriented at an
angle across the roadway, creating an 80 ft. crossing
distance and prolonging pedestrian exposure to
traffic. It is recommended that the crosswalk be
reconfigured so that the crossing is perpendicular to
the roadway, reducing the crossing distance to 30 ft.
and reducing the crossing time by more than 50%.
Reconfiguring the crossing to achieve a perpendicular alignment would likely necessitate minor property
acquisition to accommodate the trail adjustment.

The crossing currently includes warning signs on one side of each post. Signage should be added so it is
present on both sides of the posts, ensuring visibility from both directions of the crossing. Finally,
advance warning signage should be installed 200 ft. in advance of the crossing. See Table III-2 for details
on recommended signage. Additionally, due to the higher traffic volume, Rectangular Rapid Flashing
Beacons (RRFBs) should be installed to enhance driver awareness of the crossing location.

Figure III-6: Church St Crossing

Page | 11

FINAL Technical Memorandum
Village of Granville D&H Rail Trail
Crossings and Resurfacing Recommendations

5. Andrews Lane
Andrews Lane is a low volume gravel roadway, utilized by local traffic only. The crossing currently lacks
warning signs for drivers and does not have a painted crosswalk due to the gravel surface. This
evaluation identified an elevation change between the roadway and the trail, making the crossing
inaccessible to users with disabilities. It is recommended that this crossing be re-graded by adding
material to create an ADA compliant slope up to the roadway surface on both sides. A concrete curb
ramp with DWS should also be added at the crossing. The surface material of this slope should match
the existing trail surface to maintain consistency. Additionally, signage indicating the trail crossing from
both directions should be installed. See Table III-2 for detail on recommended signage.

Recommended Trail Crossing Signage􀀃
Intersecting􀀃
Street􀀃Sign􀀃
Posts􀀃
Trail Crossing􀀃
W11􀀃15􀀃W16-7p(Bike/􀀃(Arrow)􀀃Ped)􀀃
Advance Warning􀀃
W11􀀃15􀀃W11􀀃15pSign􀀃(Bike/􀀃(Trail X-Posts􀀃Ped)􀀃ing)􀀃
W16-9p􀀃
(Ahead)􀀃
North Street􀀃
Main Street􀀃
Water Street􀀃
Morrison Ave􀀃
Church Street􀀃
E Potter Ave􀀃
Andrews lane􀀃
0􀀃
2􀀃
1􀀃
0􀀃
0􀀃
0􀀃
2􀀃
2􀀃2􀀃
0􀀃0􀀃
3􀀃3􀀃
2􀀃2􀀃
2􀀃2􀀃
2􀀃2􀀃
4􀀃4􀀃
0􀀃0􀀃0􀀃
0􀀃0􀀃0􀀃
0􀀃0􀀃0􀀃
1􀀃1􀀃1􀀃
0􀀃0􀀃0􀀃
2􀀃2􀀃2􀀃
0􀀃0􀀃0􀀃
0􀀃
0􀀃
0􀀃
1􀀃
0􀀃
2􀀃
0􀀃

Table III-2- Recommended Crossing Signage

Page | 12

FINAL Technical Memorandum
Village of Granville D&H Rail Trail
Crossings and Resurfacing Recommendations

6. Cost Estimate
The total cost to implement the aforementioned improvements at each roadway crossing is shown in
the table below. A full breakdown by roadway crossing and improvements is included in Appendix 2, if
the Village wishes to make these recommended improvements incrementally.

Village of Granville – D&H Rail Trail
Road Crossing Improvements
Cost Estimate
Items of Work / Road Crossing Itemized
Total
SIGNS $ 10,500
STRIPING $ 10,500
ADA RAMPS / CONCRETE LANDING $ 60,000
RRFB’S $ 50,000
TRAIL APPROACH (Trail material, grading) $ 21,000
MISCELLANEOUS $ –
WORK ZONE TRAFFIC CONTROL $ 15,200
ITEMIZED CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL: $ 152,000
FIELD CHANGE ORDER (5%) $ 7,600
MOBILIZATION (USE 4%) $ 6,800
CONTINGENCY / RISK (20%) $ 30,400
PRIVATE CONTRACTOR SUBTOTAL: $ 196,800
ENGINEERING / APPROVALS $ 40,000
CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION $ 30,000
FEDERAL-AID PROJECT COSTS: $ 266,800

Table III-3: Roadway Crossing Improvement Cost Estimate

Page | 13

Final report of the conceptual plan to improve the connection between the Empire State Trail and Town and Village of Fort Ann.

Final report identifying pedestrian safety improvement concepts for two locations – Hudson Avenue / South Street and GFH parking lot / 14 Hudson.

Study requested by the Glens Falls School District and the City of Glens Falls to identify transportation alternatives to improve safe and efficient access to Glens Falls Middle School and Glens Falls High School during arrival and dismissal periods.