Regional Bicycle Plan

The following text has been provided to facilitate the use of screen-reader technology. For the full report including graphics, please refer to the .pdf document.2.17.21_FINAL_bikeplan

A/GFTC Regional Bicycle Plan, February 2021

Bicycle Facility: A general term for any infrastructure specifically designed and/or designated to
accommodate bicycles; the physical surface on which the cyclists ride. These may include, but are not
limited to:

Bike Boulevard: Streets with low motorized traffic volumes and speeds,
designated and designed to give bicycle travel priority. Bicycle
Boulevards use signs, pavement markings, and speed and volume
management measures to discourage through trips by motor vehicles
and create safe, convenient bicycle crossings of busy arterial streets.
Photo courtesy Andersem at English Wikipedia, CC0, via Wikimedia Commons

Bike Lane: A portion of a roadway designated by striping, pavement
markings and signing for the preferential use of bicyclists. A
“separated” bike lane, also known as “cycle tracks” or “protected bike
lane”, is an exclusive facility for bicyclists that is located within or
directly adjacent to the roadway and that is physically separated from
motor vehicle traffic with a vertical element such as bollards.
Photo courtesy / Carl Sundstrom

Multi-use Path: An off-road facility designed to accommodate
pedestrians, cyclists, and/or other non-vehicular travel modes (such as
in-line skates, horseback riders, or snowmobiles). These may be
located within the highway right-of-way or an independent right-of-
way. Multi-use Paths are always physically separated from motor
vehicle traffic by an open space or barrier.

Shared Lane: A travel lane of a street or road that is open to both
vehicle and bicycle travel. These are sometimes supported by
pavement markings, often referred to as “sharrows”. Unless specifically
prohibited, bicycles are legally allowed to ride in the travel lane on all
roadways in New York State.
Photo courtesy / Dan Gutierrez

Shoulder: The portion of the roadway adjacent to the travel lane that
accommodates stopped/parked vehicles and emergency use.
Standards have been issued for shoulders designed to accommodate
bicycle use. These are sometimes demarcated with pavement
markings to encourage use by bicycles; however, unlike bike lanes,
vehicles may pull over or park on a shoulder (unless specifically noted).
Photo courtesy ANCA via
Bicycle Route: A roadway that has been specifically designated by the jurisdictional authority with
directional and/or informational signage or pavement markings. It should not be implied that roadways not
designated as bike routes cannot or should not be used by cyclists.
Bike Trail/Bikeway: A named alignment of bicycle infrastructure; may include on-road and/or off-road
bicycle facilities. Unlike a Bicycle Route, Bike Trails/Bikeways usually incorporate one or more roadways
and/or sections of Multi-use Path.


Project background
In recognition of the ongoing need to support and promote cycling, the Adirondack/Glens Falls
Transportation Council (A/GFTC) has prepared this Regional Bicycle Plan. The goal of this plan is to
support and encourage policies and projects that increase bicycling activity in the region. This
includes both the frequency that residents choose a bicycle over other modes of transportation and
expanding the regional network of bicycle infrastructure.
Cycling brings many benefits to our local communities, including:
* Increased mobility: Access to an affordable method of transportation expands the range of
opportunities for those without access to a vehicle some or all of the time.
* Economic development and tourism: Studies conducted along the Erie Canal Trail corridor
indicate that bicycle tourism represents a significant economic driver for communities located
along the trail . With the recent development of the Empire State Trail, which passes through
the A/GFTC region, the economic benefits of bicycle tourism in the area is likely to increase.
* Improved health outcomes: Like any form of physical exercise, cycling offers a range of
health benefits, whether undertaken for recreation or transportation purposes. A recent study
in the British Medical Journal indicated that cycling to work was associated with a 41% lower
risk of death from all causes than people who drove or took public transportation.
* Decreased greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions: As part of a comprehensive strategy to reduce
GHG emissions, increasing the number of trips taken by bicycle and/or walking offers
measurable benefits.

In recognition of the importance of bicycling, many communities in the A/GFTC region have
stepped up efforts to support the planning and construction of bike facilities. These initiatives
include adopting Complete Streets policies, hosting Complete Street Workshops, planning and
building new bicycle/pedestrian trails, designating local roadways as bike routes, and installing
bicycle lanes.
To build on and further support these initiatives, A/GFTC has prepared this Regional Bicycle Plan
to guide future improvements on a regional basis and to foster a more comprehensive network of
bicycle and pedestrian facilities in Warren, Washington, and northern Saratoga Counties.
This plan has been created with the guidance of a subcommittee comprised of local planners,
engineers, and cycling advocates, bringing a diverse range of expertise and perspective to the
resulting plan. This process is intended to strengthen ties so that partnerships can continue in the
future implementation of the priority projects.

There are many local communities and advocacy organizations working to improve conditions for
cycling in the region. Although an MPO cannot undertake capital improvements, as a regional
agency, A/GFTC is uniquely suited to bring together the individual efforts of our partners at the local,
county, and state levels.
To this end, the following objectives were established for the Regional Bicycle Plan:
i) Establish priorities for future bicycle improvements, including general planning principles
and a Bicycle Priority Network, to foster the ability of cyclists to travel throughout and
between each community in the A/GFTC region
ii) Provide relevant guidance and data to support the improvement and expansion of the
regional bicycle network by local project sponsors and bicycle advocates
iii) Document and inventory bicycle improvement projects and provide a regional framework
for local project sponsors to pursue funding and implementation
The objectives and priorities set by this plan will have direct application within the A/GFTC
Transportation Improvement Program, which sets forth capital project priorities, and Unified Planning
Work Program, which outlines the planning projects undertaken by the MPO. For our project partners
at the local, county, and State-wide level, this plan serves as an advisory document. It should also be
noted that recommendations for additional planning efforts or capital projects in no way obligates
A/GFTC or our partner agencies to action, nor does this plan obligate any planning or capital funds.

The first step in any transportation planning process is to undertake an inventory of existing
conditions. This includes both physical features, such as bike lanes and multi-use paths, as well
as intangible elements such as policy, advocacy, and promotion for cycling activities. Safety
trends also play an important role. A thorough understanding of these conditions will provide a
realistic foundation to guide future efforts to improve cycling conditions in the A/GFTC region.

The A/GFTC region is made up of forty local municipalities spread among three counties. As such,
cycling priorities vary widely from community to community. Some municipalities take a very
active role in the promoting cycling activity, while others may provide more passive support. The
economic development, tourism, and planning departments in both Warren and Washington
counties are active in promoting biking opportunities and events. In Warren County, the Board of
Supervisors also designated a bicycle advocacy group, the Adirondack Cycling Advocates
(formerly Warren County Safe & Quality Bicycling Organization) that administers various events
and efforts throughout the county. In addition, many of the local municipalities support cycling
efforts through their planning and/or recreation departments. Community groups, such as
chambers of commerce, also play an active role in the promotion of bike activities.
Complete Street programs and policies are one way that communities have worked to support
cycling activity in the region. In 2011, New York State adopted the Complete Streets Act, which
legislated the consideration of Complete Streets features for a broad array of transportation
projects, including local projects that receive State and Federal funding. In addition, there has
been a groundswell of grassroots efforts in the region to promulgate Complete Streets policies
and procedures. Many local communities in the A/GFTC area have adopted Complete Streets
policies, undertaken demonstration projects, or hosted Complete Streets training sessions.

Advocacy and Promotion
In addition to municipal efforts to support cycling, there are several advocacy organizations that
promote cycling activities and/or trail improvements in the region. These include:

Adirondack Cycling Advocates ( — As stated above, the
Adirondack Cycling Advocates (ACA) is a not-for-profit organization that promotes safe and
quality bicycling in Warren County through active promotional events such as the annual Harry
Elkes ride, educational campaigns, advocacy efforts for infrastructure improvements, and direct
support for mountain bike and single-track trails.

Feeder Canal Alliance ( — The Feeder Canal Alliance (FCA) is a not-for-
profit organization created to preserve, promote and maintain the historic Feeder Canal, the last
remaining original canal in New York State. Although cycling is not the main focus of this group,
the FCA maintains the Feeder Canal Trail, a crucial east-west multi-use path that spans the
communities of Queensbury, Glens Falls, Hudson Falls, and Kingsbury.
Cambridge Valley Cycling ( – Though it does not act as
an advocacy organization, this recreational cycling club is affiliated with the League of American
Bicyclists and has over 100 members. CVC hosts many group rides and maintains cuesheets for
club rides throughout northern Rensselaer and southern Washington counties, as well as

Champlain Canalway Trail Working Group ( — The Champlain
Canalway Trail Working Group (CCTWG) is a volunteer, ad hoc partnership that includes local and
regional canal and trail groups, public agencies, and park and preservation organizations in
Saratoga, Rensselaer, and Washington counties. Champlain Canalway Working Group’s focus
since its inception has been the planning and implementation of the Champlain Canalway Trail,
which is part of the Empire State Trail system. This includes the related Fort Ann – Whitehall
working group. As the trail segments are moving to completion the group mission continues with
the promotion, programming, and stewardship of the trail.

Slate Valley Rail Trail Working Group — In 2016 an ad hoc working group was brought together to
begin working towards creating and connecting the Slate Valley Rail Trail in Granville and Salem.
The development of the proposed 22 mile multi-use recreational trail offers an opportunity to
bring economic benefit and recreational opportunities to the region, with connections to Vermont
and trails beyond in New Hampshire and Maine.

Public Transit
Greater Glens Falls Transit (GGFT) is the primary provider of public transportation within the
A/GFTC region. For over a decade, all GGFT buses have been equipped with bike racks. These
racks are used daily and year-round, emphasizing the dedicated use among the GGFT ridership.
Bicycles can be used to expand the reach of transit services, by providing “first- and last-mile”
transportation, or by allowing riders to travel by bicycle from their destination stop. GGFT is also
working to study the feasibility of bikeshare services, which would further complement the transit

Off-Road Trails
Often viewed as recreational amenities, off-road trails can nevertheless fulfill critical
transportation functions. By separating bicycles from vehicles, off-road facilities provide a more
comfortable riding experience for cyclists who may be uncomfortable navigating traffic.
The A/GFTC region is home to an expansive and expanding network of off-road trails. Since 2014,
the length of off-road trails has almost doubled, from 17 to just under 34 miles, and several
planned trail projects may increase this total in the next few years. A brief description of these
facilities is included below. See the associated online map for more information.

Bike Routes and On-Road Bicycle Facilities
Legally, cyclists in New York State may use the vehicle travel lanes of public roadways, except in
cases where bicycles are specifically prohibited (such as on Interstates). Some communities elect
to designate certain roads as official bike routes. It is important to point out that not all
designated bike routes have dedicated bicycle infrastructure. Rather, by designating a bike route,
a municipality is encouraging cyclists to use these specific roads. This usually is accomplished
through a municipal resolution followed by the installation of signage and/or pavement markers
to indicate the status of the roadway as a bike route. There are a number of reasons a
municipality might designate bike routes, including:
* To direct cyclists to roadways that are particularly amenable to bicycle travel (for example,
roadways with wide shoulders, low vehicle traffic, etc.)
* To provide an alternative travel route for roadways that are not conducive to use by
* To highlight roadways that provide a good cycling experience (for example, those that
include scenic views, challenging hills, or other features)
* To provide on-road links between sections of off-road trails
There are currently about 100 miles of on?road bicycle routes, located on State highways and
local roads throughout the area. These include US Route 9 in Saratoga County, NY Route 197 in
the Town of Moreau, US Route 4 and NYS 22 (both are elements of NYS Bicycle Route 9), as well
as local roads in the Towns of Queensbury, Bolton, Lake Luzerne, and the City of Glens Falls. It is
anticipated that this network of on?road bicycle routes will continue to grow as local communities
adopt bike-friendly policies.
In addition, some local cycling organizations maintain recommended riding routes. These touring
routes are not supported by on-road signage; wayfinding is provided to individual riders through
GPS, printed maps, or cuesheets. For the most part, these routes are selected with recreation or
physical fitness in mind and may or may not support transportation connectivity between

Other On-Road Bicycle Facilities
In addition to designated bike routes, on-road bicycle facilities are becoming more common.
These can range from infrastructure that allots roadway space to only to cyclists and prohibits
vehicles, such as bike lanes, or shared-lane pavement markings (also known as “sharrows”) that
indicate that the lane is intended for use by bicycles and vehicles alike. These facilities might be
located on bike routes, but it is not necessary to designate an official bicycle route to include
bicycle facilities on the road. In the A/GFTC region, bike lanes have been installed on Hudson
Avenue in the City of Glens Falls, and shared-lane markings can be found on Broad Street.
In rural areas, road shoulders may also have pavement markings denoting bicycle use; in some
cases, these are referred to as bike shoulders. These shoulders are slightly different from bike
lanes in that vehicles are not expressly prohibited, as the shoulders may still be used by vehicles
to pull off the road for emergencies. Bike shoulders are also usually located along roadways
without curbs. A portion of Bay Road in the Town of Queensbury features bicycle shoulders, as
well as many of the on-road segments of the Empire State Trail.
Although it is not legally necessary to provide bike lanes or shoulders as bicycles are allowed to
“take the lane”, many riders feel more comfortable having the additional protection from traffic. In
urban areas with high volumes of bicycle traffic, separating the cyclists from the vehicles using
bike lanes can also support orderly traffic flow. In suburban and rural areas where roads have
higher posted speeds, shoulders allow people to ride a comfortable distance from the travel lane.
Safety Trends
In terms of transportation safety, the factors which contribute to crashes fall into several broad
categories. For example, vehicular contributing factors include mechanical issues with the car or
bicycle, while environmental factors might include slippery pavement or glare. Animal behavior,
such as deer running into the road, contributes to many vehicle crashes as well. But according to
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHSTA), on a national level, human
behavioral factors such as speed, alcohol, distraction, and poor compliance with traffic laws are
major contributing causes to bicycle crashes.
These national trends hold true for the A/GFTC region as well. Figure 2 illustrates the contributing
factors for bicycle crashes in Warren and Washington counties for 2015-2019, as reported by the
Institute for Traffic Safety Management and Research (ITSMR). (The Town of Moreau and Village
of South Glens Falls, located in Saratoga County, are not included as the data is available on a
county-wide basis.) This indicates that human behavior, whether on the part of the driver or
cyclist, is the largest contributor to bicycle accidents by an overwhelming margin.

As stated previously, a primary objective of this plan is to establish priorities for bicycle
improvements in the A/GFTC region. These priorities can be used to inform the decisions of the
Planning and Policy Committees, as well as provide guidance to local municipalities, Departments
of Public Works, and NYS Department of Transportation for capital planning and policymaking.
The priorities for bicycle improvements include four categories: Safety and Comfort, Guiding
Principles, the Priority Bicycle Network, and the Priority Project Inventory. These capture
concepts at a range of scales, from broad policy recommendations to specific infrastructure
projects. This approach is also intended to allow for frequent updates as ongoing planning efforts
lead to design and construction.

Safety and Comfort
This document is intended to guide and foster the expansion of bicycle infrastructure throughout
the region. As such, safety is an overarching priority inherent in every level of decision-making
from policy to planning, design, and construction. A/GFTC’s primary focus regarding safety is
evaluation/planning and engineering; the MPO takes an active role in planning and funding
projects which improve the infrastructure on which cyclists ride. In addition, AGFTC can also
assist municipalities, traffic safety boards, and partner agencies with data analysis, education
resources, and technical assistance.
In terms of bicycle safety, the most critical engineering consideration is minimizing the potential
for conflicts with higher-speed vehicles. The risks for crashes and fatalities rises for vulnerable
roadway users such as cyclists and pedestrians once vehicle speeds rise above 25 mph. This is
not to suggest that complete separation of bicycles and vehicles is always warranted or even
desired; in certain circumstances, low-speed, low-volume roadways, such as bike boulevards or
quiet neighborhood streets, are relatively safe and comfortable for cyclists and drivers alike.
However, as vehicle speed and traffic volume increase, dedicated facilities such as bike lanes or
shared-use paths reduce the potential for crashes by limiting conflict points between cyclists and
However, bicycle safety is not merely about designing infrastructure to the minimum standard.
The perception of safety is a crucial factor. Simply put, many people would rather avoid cycling
altogether than have a stressful experience while biking. The perception that a roadway or
bicycle facility is unsafe is a key factor in determining whether a cycling experience is stressful. In
essence, it may not matter whether a road or bike facility meets the minimum standards for safety
if the riding experience still exposes cyclists to stressful interactions with vehicle traffic.
According to FHWA, exposure to high motor vehicle traffic speeds and volumes is the primary
contributor of stress.
The FHWA Bikeway Selection Guide estimates that 51-56% of people in the US are “Interested
but Concerned” when it comes to cycling. This group has “the lowest tolerance for traffic stress.
Those who fit into this group tend to avoid bicycling except where they have access to networks
of separated bikeways or very low-volume streets with safe roadway crossings.” The document
also estimates that only 9-16% of people are “Somewhat” or “Highly” Confident, i.e. cyclists
willing to ride in bike lanes, on shoulders, or with traffic. (The remaining portion of the population
is not interested in/not able to ride bicycles under any circumstances.)
A/GFTC therefore reasserts the FHWA recommendation that bicycle facilities be designed to
accommodate the “Interested but Concerned” category of user whenever possible. This will
increase the number of people on bicycles, itself a laudable goal. In turn, increasing the number
of cyclists increases safety. Decades of research indicate that bicyclist risk decreases as the
number of bicyclists increases. By increasing both comfort and safety, more people get on their
bicycles, creating a feedback loop which further decreases risk.

Guiding Principles
The following Guiding Principles are intended to influence the policies and planning efforts
enacted by A/GFTC. This can include project selection criteria for the Transportation
Improvement Program, planning efforts undertaken through the Unified Planning Work Program,
and collaborations with local and regional project partners.
1. Prioritize safe and comfortable bicycle access between neighborhoods and schools,
government buildings, retail clusters, and employment centers. As a transportation agency,
A/GFTC is primarily concerned with enabling the mobility of the region’s residents,
employees, and visitors. Any opportunity to improve bicycle access between the land uses
listed above, whether on- or off-road, will further enable people to access the necessities of
daily life without relying solely on vehicles.
2. Expand connections to the existing trail system. Without links to the larger regional network,
the benefit of an individual trail is limited to the immediate area. The rapid expansion of the
Empire State Trail/Champlain Canalway Trail, which also links to the Feeder Canal Trail and
the Warren County Bikeway, has created new opportunities to connect nearby community
centers to the regional trail network. In addition, significant progress has been made to
expand the Slate Valley Rail Trail in eastern Washington County, and there have been
numerous planning studies to connect Moreau Lake State Park to the Betar Byway in
northern Saratoga County. Fostering additional connections to this network will expand the
benefits to more parts of the region.
3. Continue to prioritize the maintenance/expansion of bicycle/pedestrian facilities in
pavement preservation project selection parameters. Pavement preservation/maintenance
projects usually replace existing facilities in kind. This leaves little or no opportunity to create
wider shoulders or road striping that benefits cyclists. However, many roads in the A/GFTC
area are already suitable for bicycle use. Given the choice between two equal candidates for
preservation funding, one that accommodates bicycles adequately and one that does not, it is
logical to give priority to the project that will benefit more than one mode.
4. Support incremental capital improvements, especially on the Priority Bicycle Network. All
too often, opportunities to make small, but meaningful, improvements can be overshadowed
by big-ticket projects and “all-or-nothing” approach to bicycle projects. The long-term goal
should be to provide comfortable, interconnected bicycle facilities throughout the region.
However, it is also important to take advantage of opportunities to improve conditions in the
short term, taking into consideration factors such as logical termini and engineering
judgement. In rural areas, consider adding a foot or two of width to a narrow shoulder
whenever possible; in suburban and urban areas, if bike lanes are not feasible for an entire
roadway corridor, consider installing bike lanes for a few blocks to link important destinations.
These small changes can make a significant difference in the comfort level of a cyclist and tip
the balance towards a trip taken on the bike versus in the car.

Priority Projects
Although this plan has a regional perspective, multi-jurisdictional projects such as the Empire
State Trail initiative are rare, leaving the majority of improvements to occur in an incremental
basis within individual communities. This can result in a fragmented approach to implementation.
In addition, bicycle improvements are often included in a wide variety of plans administered by
different funding agencies, further splintering efforts to collaborate across municipal and
regulatory boundaries.
A/GFTC has therefore created a Priority Project inventory. This is composed of the online
mapping interface at as well as the project summaries
contained in Appendix 1. To create this inventory, A/GFTC reviewed recent planning efforts in
and around the region, focusing on efforts that originated from robust public planning processes.
In addition, projects were proposed for inclusion by the report subcommittee and the A/GFTC
Planning Committee. Any specific improvements that target bicycles were extracted from these
sources and summarized for inclusion in this report.
The map and associated Project Summaries provide a region-wide inventory of proposed
improvements. Though this information is primarily intended for use by the A/GFTC Planning and
Policy Committees, it is also intended to foster inter-municipal coordination and provide
transparency for residents and advocacy groups. In addition, the Project Summaries can act as
supporting information for grant applications to agencies outside of the A/GFTC purview.
This Priority Project inventory will be updated on an ongoing basis. Although the intent is not to
provide up-to-the-minute project tracking, it is anticipated that the summaries and map will be
updated to reflect major status changes to accommodate implementation in the future. In
addition, new projects will be added as needed.

Priority Bicycle Network
The Priority Bicycle Network represents the ideal system of on-and off-road trails to support
bicycle mobility on a regional basis. The Priority Bicycle Network, which can be accessed at, is based on routes identified in the 2014 A/GFTC Regional
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, formulated from the input of local communities, regional cycling
advocates, and A/GFTC staff priorities.
It is not realistic to assume that every roadway will be the focus of bicycle improvement projects,
given competing priorities for other transportation modes. As such, the Priority Bicycle Network
identifies which roadways represent the highest priority for designation as bike routes and/or
capital improvements.
This network strikes a balance between the need for transportation alternatives within and
between community centers and support for a positive cycling experience. By prioritizing these
roadways, A/GFTC intends to provide a framework for future improvements that will result in a
more expansive and comprehensive network of bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the A/GFTC
To assist our municipal partners in planning for capital improvements, the Priority Bicycle
Network online map contains a variety of data that can guide the selection and design of bicycle
facilities. This includes the number of travel lanes, shoulder width, posted speed limit, on-street
parking, and range of traffic volume. Existing dedicated bicycle features are also noted, as well as
bicycle route or on-road trail designation. The Implementation section of this report contains
guidance for the selection and design of bicycle features.

At the MPO level, implementation of this plan will arise out of adherence to the Guiding Principles and,
as appropriate, planning or capital support for Priority Projects or improvements to the Priority Bicycle
Network. However, as stated previously, A/GFTC does not have regulatory authority over local policy or
capital planning. Therefore, the implementation of this plan will largely rely on local municipalities,
counties, and state agencies such as NYSDOT and the Canal Corporation.
The improvements outlined in this plan are extensive and will take a significant and focused effort to
accomplish. In addition, implementation will be at the hands of many different agencies. For on?road
facilities, the implementation lead is likely to be the roadway owner. For off?road facilities, a wider variety
of lead agencies is possible, such as local municipalities or recreation and open space groups. Any
projects that involve acquisition of easements or rights?of?way will also involve the landowners as a key
In addition, local not?for?profit organizations and ad-hoc working groups, such as the Feeder Canal
Alliance, Adirondack Cycling Advocates, and Champlain Canalway Trail Working Group, may be able to
assist with ongoing planning, implementation, maintenance, community education, and/or fundraising
efforts. Collaborations between municipalities and community groups is encouraged.
The following sections contain guidance and recommendations for municipalities or community groups
seeking to improve bicycle conditions at the local and regional level.
Policy Recommendations

Complete Streets
As stated in the Existing Conditions portion of this plan, several communities within the A/GFTC
area have adopted Complete Streets resolutions or legislation. A/GFTC supports this effort and
encourages all communities, especially those with extensive roadway and sidewalk infrastructure,
to adopt a Complete Street Policy.
However, merely adopting a resolution does not improve conditions for cyclists. It is crucial that
Complete Streets policy be applied to land use decisions (such as site plan review and
subdivisions) and capital planning.
The Complete Streets Act (Chapter 398, Laws of New York) of August 15, 2011, requires state,
county and local agencies to consider the convenience and mobility of all users when developing
transportation projects that receive state and federal funding. However, this legislation applies to
planning, design, construction, reconstruction, and rehabilitation projects; resurfacing,
maintenance, or pavement recycling projects are exempt from the law. In addition, the law only
requires that Complete Street elements be considered during project development; the law does
not guarantee that design elements will be included in the finished project. Although NYS is
currently considering ways to close this loophole, local municipalities can still take the initiative to
plan for Complete Streets elements even within resurfacing, maintenance, and pavement
recycling projects.
One common barrier to the implementation of Complete Streets policies is embedded in the
institutional capital planning procedure. Historically, municipalities did not consider the need for
bicycle improvements when selecting which roads to resurface. For very large communities with
extensive infrastructure, a formal Complete Streets audit, followed by an implementation plan, is
sometimes necessary to adapt capital planning procedures. However, in smaller communities,
the process may be as simple as applying a quick checklist, consulting the A/GFTC Priority
Bicycle Network map, and making minor changes to the restriping plans. A/GFTC can also assist
municipalities to find easy, cost-effective ways to integrate Complete Streets into existing capital
planning procedures. As stated previously, small-scale, incremental changes can result in
extensive benefits in the long term.

Maintenance/Spot Improvements
There are many opportunities to pursue small?scale improvements that also improve the biking
experience in the A/GFTC region. These “spot” improvements address issues that may not
require significant funding to complete. Several examples are included below.
Drainage grate pattern
The direction of the grating pattern on storm drains is an often-overlooked detail. Grate openings
that run parallel to the travel direction can cause havoc for thin bicycle tires. Ideally, grates should
feature a “bike?friendly” pattern. If this is not feasible, the grate should be situated so that the
pattern runs perpendicular to the travel direction.
Individual hazards
Potholes, cracks, and sudden changes in grade near utility access points and drainage grates
can be difficult for cyclists to maneuver, especially at night. In the short term, pavement markings
as specified in Chapter 9C of the MUTCD can help alert cyclists that a potentially hazardous
condition exists. These hazards can then be eliminated or minimized as the appropriate roadway
or utility project is undertaken in the future.
Pavement overlays
Even if no re-striping or widening is called for in a paving project, there may still be good
opportunities to improve conditions for cyclists. Ensuring that the seam of the pavement is
properly feathered and does not occur in the middle of the shoulder, will provide a smooth,
regular surface for cyclists.
Roadway sweeping
Patches of gravel, especially on corners, can pose a threat to cyclists. With the help of the cycling
community, it may be possible to identify areas where significant gravel accumulation is
hampering safe cycling. Targeted road sweeping can help to reduce the potential hazards.
Bicycle Racks
Although some communities require provision of bicycle racks during project development
approval, it can still be difficult for cyclists to find a safe place to lock their bike. Bike racks should
be provided near public buildings such as schools, municipal centers, and post offices, as well as
in public parking areas. Commercial businesses and employment centers can also provide bike
racks as a service to their customers and employees.

Although the primary focus of this plan is on bicycle infrastructure, another key consideration to
increase cycling is the availability of bicycles themselves. Many residents in the A/GFTC area who
want or need to own a bicycle already have one; however, simply owning a bicycle doesn’t
guarantee access (for example, employees and college students who commute by car may not
have access to a bicycle at their job or campus). Similarly, tourists who visit the A/GFTC area may
have left their bicycles at home.
At the most basic level, bike share is a service that provides bicycles for short-term use. Although
the idea has existed since the 1960’s, mainstream deployment began in earnest in the mid-90’s
and has gained significant traction in the last decade, helped in part by recent advances in
technology. Today, bike share is considered part of a larger platform of “micro-mobility” services,
which include other modes such as e-bikes and e-scooters. Although micro-mobility programs
were once relegated to large cities, smaller communities have also begun to adopt these
In recognition of the growing popularity of bikesharing, Greater Glens Falls Transit, working with
Warren County Employment & Training Administration and A/GFTC, has recently begun to
explore the feasibility of establishing a pilot bikeshare program in the Glens
Falls/Queensbury/Lake George area. One possibility would be to work with the Capital District
Transit Authority (CDTA) to expand the existing CDPHP Cycle! Program, currently located in Albany,
Schenectady, Troy, and Saratoga Springs.
Micro-mobility services can fill a variety of needs, depending on the target user group. This is an
especially important consideration for smaller communities seeking to maximize the potential
user base. For example, the system can be geared toward a student population,
employees/daytime commuters without access to bicycles, tourists, or any combination of the
Before third-party vendors stepped in to fill demand for micro-mobility systems, the financial and
liability risk to establish a locally administered service was primarily on the program sponsor. In
the last five years, vendor-based micro-mobility services exploded in popularity around the
country, including into smaller cities in upstate New York. However, the drawback to vendor-
based approaches is the volatility of the marketplace. In the last few years, many independent
bikeshare vendors were acquired by large rideshare companies, notably Uber and Lyft. After an
initial expansion, these companies have drastically reduced or eliminated their micro-mobility
services. It should be noted that, given rapid shifts in technology, the availability of different
transportation modes, and current trends towards work-at-home and reduced tourist activity due
to Covid-19, the short-term feasibility of micro-mobility platforms may be difficult to predict.
From a long-term planning perspective, the pursuit of micro-mobility platforms may once again
become a priority. When considering the viability of micro-mobility services, the following factors
should be taken into account:
Target demographic
Before the feasibility of a bikeshare program can be estimated, the primary targeted users of the
service should be identified. In the broadest of terms, this group is made up of people without
immediate access to a bicycle, and who have the ability and desire to ride a bike instead of, or in
supplement to, other modes of transportation. In practice, this includes:
* College students. A common denominator among successful bike share programs is the
presence of a high number of college students, especially those who live on-campus or in
the community and lack access to a vehicle or bike.
* Tourists. Although some visitors to the area bring bicycles, for those that do not, access to
bikeshare may be a desirable amenity.
* Commuters. Although most employees in the region drive their personal vehicles to work,
some may choose to utilize bikeshare for quick trips at lunch or after work, either for
recreation/exercise or to avoid the inconvenience of having to find parking.
Service type
The earliest formal bike share programs were dock-based systems, wherein the bicycles were loaned
out from, and returned to, designated stations. This type of system is still used today, especially in
large urban areas. The benefit of a docked system is that users can enjoy a high degree of
confidence that a bike will be available at a specific location, especially given contemporary
technological tie-ins with mobile apps. However, if the stations are too far apart, the usefulness
declines, as people will be less willing to walk a significant distance to get to a bicycle. Conversely,
dockless systems rapidly gained traction across the country in 2017-18, aided by the ability to track
the locations of bikes using GPS. These programs are almost always administered by third-party
vendors that developed the technology and apps to make the service possible. Most dockless
system requires users to download an app, both to pay for the rides and to find bicycles via GPS.
Dockless systems can result in reduced travel to and from a station, which is beneficial for
spontaneous bicycle trips or for one-way trips. To operate efficiently, a large number of bikes must be
deployed, to ensure relatively even distribution through the community.
Equipment type
E-bikes have significant potential to increase the accessibility of cycling overall by reducing
physical barriers to the activity. For example, e-bikes can make it easier to climb hills and
maintain consistent speeds. This can make riding a bicycle easier for people who might
otherwise face physical challenges with traditional bicycles.
E-bike rideshare systems are not without potential drawbacks. For example, the increased speed
of e-bikes may create safety conflicts. E-bikes are legally limited to speeds below 20 or 25 miles
per hour in New York State (depending on the type of equipment). This is comparable to the
maximum speed of a traditional bicycle. However, studies have shown that the average speed of
e-bikes can be up to 5 mph greater than regular bicycles. This could increase the potential for
safety issues, especially in locations shared by pedestrians such as multi-use paths.
Also, e-bikes tend to be more expensive, which may make shared services less affordable to low-
income residents. Shared Mobility Inc., a not-for-profit based out of Buffalo, New York, is currently
piloting an e-bike “library” system in communities across the state. This public-private partnership
may make access to e-bikes more equitable.
Municipalities seeking to establish bikeshare systems should take a proactive approach to e-
bikes and e-scooters. As noted in the sidebar, shared-systems which include e-bikes are
prohibited by default; municipal authorization, whether via resolution or local law, is required to
establish e-bike shared systems. Cost, equity, and potential safety implications of e-bikes in
certain locations should be taken into account when planning a rideshare system.
Geographic scope
It is unlikely that any single municipality within the A/GFTC region could sustain a bikeshare or
other micro-mobility platform on its own. However, expanding the service to nearby communities,
especially taking into consideration tourist destinations, could increase the feasibility of the
Local Funding
The volatility of vendor-based platforms makes the question of local funding difficult to predict. At
one time, local funding was not necessarily a requirement to attract a micro-mobility platform to a
community. However, it is likely that a certain level of public investment will be required in the
future as new micro-mobility partnerships are brokered.
The most successful bike share services are backed up by a strong public outreach effort. This
may include media/social media campaigns to introduce the system, as well as ongoing
promotion efforts. Community partners may play a key role in public outreach campaigns.

Guidance and Resources for Capital Improvements
One of the objectives of this plan is to provide guidance to local communities and advocates relating
to the siting and design of bicycle facilities. The online map of the Priority Bicycle Network was
created to facilitate these decisions. The map contains data about the factors that influence the
selection and design of bicycle facilities, including:
* Number of Lanes. For streets with more than two lanes, there may be opportunities to create
a “road diet”. This approach, which was used on the recent reconstruction of Hudson Avenue
in Glens Falls, reduces the number of lanes from four to three (two directional lanes and a
center turn lane), thereby freeing up space to dedicate for bike lanes.
* Existing Shoulder Width. This data was derived from digital mapping and is therefore
approximate; field verification should be conducted prior to design. In general, a 4’ minimum
shoulder width is recommended for shoulders that are intended to support bicycle traffic; this
width increases as the posted speed and traffic volume of the roadway increases.
* Posted Speed Limit. This data was derived from digital mapping and is therefore
approximate; field verification should be conducted prior to design. Vehicle speed is a crucial
factor when considering where and how to design bicycle facilities. In general, the higher the
speed, the more separation should be provided between cyclists and vehicles.
* Range of Traffic Volume. This data provides a range of expected Annual Average Daily Traffic
(AADT). As AADT data is collected on an ongoing basis, the exact number of cars per day is
not provided; refer to the NYSDOT Traffic Data Viewer or contact A/GFTC for the most recent
available traffic counts. Many of the design guidelines recommend design features and facility
types based partially on traffic volume. For the purposes of the Priority Bicycle Network, the
AADT ranges are Low (less than 2000 AADT), Medium (2000-6500 AADT) and High (over
6500 AADT).
* On-Street Parking. In urban areas and village/hamlet settings, on-street parking is often
available. This is a factor in the selection and design of on-street bicycle facilities, as there is a
potential for conflict between cyclists and car doors opening suddenly, or parked cars pulling
into and out of traffic.
This data is helpful to narrow down the range of potential options for dedicated bicycle facilities. Not
every roadway will require a dedicated bicycle facility. Low-speed roads with low traffic volumes may
operate adequately as bicycle facilities without any physical alterations. Similarly, for high-speed,
high-volume roadways, it may be preferable to move bicycle traffic off the road entirely by building a
multi-use path. Many, if not most, decisions regarding the selection and design of bicycle facilities will
require a tradeoff as various factors are weighed against each other.
Since the last Regional Bicycle Plan was updated, new materials have been developed to help
communities select, design, and build better bicycle facilities. As these resources are updated on an
ongoing basis, they have been incorporated by reference into this plan to prevent the
recommendation of outdated guidance. Table 2 on the following page contains a list of selected
resources for bicycle project planning, bicycle facility selection, and/or bicycle facility design.
Project Funding
The following programs and agencies offer funding for design and/or construction of bicycle facilities. In
addition, project sponsors are encouraged to incorporate bicycle facilities into roadway projects funded
by the Federal Surface Transportation Program (STP), Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), or
the NYS Consolidated Local Street and Highway Improvement Program (CHIPS).
Transportation Alternatives Program (NYSDOT): Provision of Facilities for Bicycles and Pedestrians (on-
or off-road)
Make the Connection Program (A/GFTC): Small-scale projects that improve the region’s bicycle and
pedestrian travel network
Recreational Trails Program (NYS OPRHP): Acquisition, development, rehabilitation and maintenance of
multi-use trails
Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (NYSDOS): Implementation of projects listed in a locally adopted
Waterfront Revitalization Plan; communities without this type of plan are not eligible to apply
Adirondack Smart Growth Grants (NYSDEC): For communities within the Adirondack Park. Projects may
include providing bike-friendly routes and amenities and developing multi-use trails
Climate Smart Communities Program (NYSDEC): Funds climate change adaptation and mitigation
projects. In the past this program has provided funding for trails and biking facilities. See current CFA
solicitation for more information.
Hudson River Valley Greenway Grants: Provides matching grants up to $10,000 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. Eligible
municipalities include the Villages and Towns of Fort Edward, Whitehall, Greenwich, Fort Ann and
Granville; Town of Kingsbury, Salem, and Moreau; and Village of South Glens Falls.
State Economic & Infrastructure Development Investment Program (NBRC): Provides matching grants for
large-scale infrastructure and other eligible projects with an emphasis on projects which will have
positive economic development impacts in the region. The match amount varies depending on location.

Bikeway Selection Guide
FHWA, 2019
This document helps transportation practitioners make informed decisions when
selecting bikeway types. This practical, process-oriented guide draws on research
where available and emphasizes engineering judgment, design flexibility,
documentation, and experimentation.
* Urban
* Suburban
* Rural
Empire State Trail Design Guide
Hudson River Valley Greenway, 2017
This guide is intended for state agencies, local governments, engineering design
firms, and trail organizations charged with designing, building, and operating
segments of the Empire State Trail. The Design Guide is a compilation of the latest
guidelines and approaches for creating shared-used trails and serves as a reference
for design professionals developing trail projects anywhere in New York.
* Urban
* Suburban
* Rural
Small Town and Rural Multimodal Networks
FHWA, 2016
This resource helps small towns and rural communities support safe, accessible,
comfortable, and active travel for people of all ages and abilities. It bridges existing
guidance on bicycle and pedestrian design and rural practice, encourages innovation
in the development of safe and appealing networks for bicycling and walking in small
towns and rural areas, and provides examples of peer communities and project
implementation appropriate for rural communities.
* Suburban
* Rural
Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide
FHWA, 2016
This resource outlines planning considerations, case studies, and best practices for
separated bike lanes. It highlights options for providing separation, while also
documenting midblock design considerations for driveways, transit stops, accessible
parking, and loading zones. It also provides intersection design including turning
movement operations, signalization, signage, and on-road markings.
* Urban
* Suburban
* Rural
Incorporating On-Road Bicycle Networks into Resurfacing Projects
FHWA, 2015
This workbook recommends ways to integrate bicycle facilities into a roadway
resurfacing program. The workbook also provides methods for fitting bicycle facilities
onto existing roadways, cost considerations, and case studies. The workbook does
not present detailed design guidance, but highlights existing guidance, justifications,
and best practices for providing bikeways during resurfacing projects.
* Urban
* Suburban
* Rural
Highway Design Manual Ch. 17 – Bicycle Facility Design
NYSDOT (rev. 2015)
This chapter of the Highway Design Manual provides design guidance for bicyclist
facilities built using State or Federal funding sources. Minimum design standards and
guidelines are included or referenced to assist in the selection and design of
* Urban
* Suburban
* Rural
Urban Bikeway Design Guide, Second Edition
NACTO, 2014
This resource provides cities with state-of-the-practice solutions to create streets that
are safe and enjoyable for bicyclists. Most of these treatments are not directly
referenced in the current version of the AASHTO Guide to Bikeway Facilities,
although they are virtually all permitted under the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices (MUTCD).
* Urban
Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 4th Edition
AASHTO, 2012
This guide provides information on how to accommodate bicycle travel and
operations in most riding environments. Flexibility is permitted to encourage designs
that are sensitive to local context and incorporate the needs of bicyclists,
pedestrians, and motorists. Note: an updated version of this document is expected to
be released in 2020-2021.
* Urban
* Suburban
* Rural


TIP Amendment Summary 2021-01

Summary of requested TIP Amendments from January 2021, available for public comment prior to Policy Committee consideration until February 16, 2021.

North Creek – Ski Bowl Connectivity Study

The following text has been excerpted from the plan to facilitate screen reader technology. For figures, graphics, and appendicies, please see the .pdf file.

Prepared for the Town of Johnsburg July 15, 2020

1 Introduction and Project Goals
The hamlet of North Creek, located in the Town of Johnsburg, is facing a convergence of projects which
provide an opportunity to shape the future of the community. Several large – scale developments, both public and private, are planned in or around Ski Bowl Park, located across New York State Route 28 from the heart of the hamlet. These projects will bring together a wide variety of recreational and residential uses, which in turn create the potential for additional traffic impacts.

In addition to concerns that the traffic volume from these projects will exceed the capacity of the existing
intersections, there is potential for quality – of – life impacts and increased congestion, especially during peak events. Another key priority for the Town is improving pedestrian accommodation at existing and proposed crossings of New York State Route 28 (NY 28) .
The Town is also planning to reclaim an area currently being used for sand and gravel mining by the
Department of Public Works. This area, located adjacent to the current Ski Bowl Park, will be redesigned to provide additional recreational amenities for the community. In addition, it has been a long – standing desire to strength en the connection between the hamlet and Ski Bowl Park, especially in terms of bicycle/pedestrian accommodations and gateway amenities.

To address these concerns, the Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation Council enlisted MJ Engineering and Land Surveying for transportation planning and engineering assistance on behalf of the Town of Johnsburg.

This report is intended to fulfill two goals:
• Complete a comprehensive analysis of traffic impacts from all of the projected development activity in and around Ski Bowl Park
• Provide technical support as a framework for the Town to redesign Ski Bowl Park Project Area
The project study area encompasses NY 28 between Peaceful Valley Road to the south and Ski Bowl Road to the north, and includes the section of NY 28N between NY 28 and Main Street.

2 Existing Conditions
Within the study area, NY 28 and 28N carry the majority of vehicular traffic. Although NY 28 provides critical north – south connectivity in the region, locally this highway acts as a by – pass of the hamlet, as well as a barrier between Ski Bowl Park and North Creek. As described in greater detail below, the roadway itself is typical of rural state highways in Warren County in terms of lane width and speed limit; roadway shoulders along NY 28 in the study area are somewhat wider than found in the region at large. Both sides of NY 28 are undeveloped or sparsely developed, with topography and vegetation screening both the hamlet and the park.
Before any recommendations for future improvements can be made, a thorough analysis of existing
conditions must be undertaken. This includes the measurements of the roadway geometry, traffic counts, accident rates, sight distance, and pedestrian/bicycle amenities and constraints.
Roadway Geometry :
Measurements were taken for lane width, shoulder width and stopping sight distance within the study
area. The New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) Highway Inventory classifies NY 28 as a Rural Minor Arterial. Chapter 2 of NYSDOT Highway Design Manual (HDM) provides
standards for lane widths and shoulder widths along with other elements such as stopping sight distance.
For this roadway classification, the standard for lane width is 11 feet (minimum) and shoulder width is four feet. Table 1 includes a summary of the field measurements for the roadway widths.

3 Traffic Data Collection
Automatic Traffic Recorders (ATRs) are tubes installed across the roadway connected to a data collection device used to collect data related to traffic volume , vehicle classification or type and speed. ATRs were installed at six (6) locations between August 6 and 14, 2019 within the study area as indicated on Figure 3.
See Table 2 for a breakdown of Average Daily Traffic volumes ; detailed ATR count data is included in
Appendix 1.

A review of the available data from NYSDOT for this section of NY 28 revealed the peak travel commuter
periods to be from 7:00am to 9:00am and 3:00 pm to 5:00pm. Turning movement volumes were collected on Tuesday, August 6, 2019 during the peak travel commuter periods at the following three (3) intersections
with NY 28:
• Ski Bowl Road North ( Intersection A )
• NY 28N ( Intersection B )
• Ski Bowl Road South ( Intersection C )
Turning movements were also collected for Manor Road near Ski Bowl Road North which provides access to the Senior Center and senior housing. The tabulations of the turning movement counts for each intersection are located in Appendix 1 .
ADT Volumes (vehicles/day)
ATR Location No. | Southbound | Northbound | Two – Way Total
1 | 1,704 | 1,691 | 3,395
2 | 1,795 | 1,657 | 3,452
3 | 2,597 | 1,975 | 4,572
4 | 2,349 | 2,238 | 4,587
5 | 2,447 | 2,162 | 4,609
6 | 1,147 | 993 | 2,140

Figure 3 — Traffic Count/Intersection Count Locations

5 Accident Analysis
Accident data was requested from the NYSDOT and A/GFTC for the study area along NY 28 between the
intersection with Main Street to the north and the intersection of County Route 29 (Peaceful Valley Road) to the south. The accident data was provided for the five – year period from May 2014 to January 2019 and is summarized in Appendix 2.
Accident rates are calculated according to the NYSDOT Highway Design Manual Chapter 5 and compared to the statewide average accident rate for similar facilities. Accident rates are measured in Accidents per Million Vehicle Miles (MVM) for linear segments of roadways and Million Entering Vehicles (MEV) for intersections and are summarized in Table 3.
Accident Rates
Segment | Accident Rate (acc/MVM) | Statewide Avg. Rate (acc/MVM)
NY 28 | 1.84 | 2.11
Intersection | Accident Rate (acc/MEV) | Statewide Avg. Rate (acc/MEV)
NY 28 & Ski Bowl Road N | 2.42 | 0.4
NY 28 & NY 28N | 0.21 | 0.17
NY 28 & Ski Bowl Road S | 0.35 | 0.17
NY 28 & Peaceful Valley Rd. | 1.04 | 0.17
NY 28 & Manor Rd. | 0.35 | 0.12
NY 28N & Main St. | 0.34 | 0.4

While the segment accident rate is below the statewide average accident rate for similar facilities, the
intersections are higher than the statewide average accident rate . For the NY 28 & 28N, NY 28 & Ski Bowl Road South, NY 28 & Manor Road, and NY 28N & Main Street intersections , there was only a single accident in each of the five (5) years examined. Additionally, at the intersection of NY 28 with Peaceful Valley Road, two (2) of the three (3) accidents were collisions with deer. Since NY 28 has a comparatively low ADT, even a small number of identified accidents will result in an accident rate higher than the statewide average. Three intersections have accident rates more than two times the statewide average for similar facilities. The intersections of NY 28 with Ski Bowl Road North and Peaceful Valley Road have rates approximately six (6) times the statewide average while the intersection with Manor Road has a rate three (3) times the statewide average.
A severity distribution was also performed for the study area. There were no fatal accidents and only two (2) of the 30 accidents resulted in a personal injury. The severity distribution for the study area was determined to be not significant.

6 Intersection Sight Distance (ISD)
Adequate intersection sight distances are required at each intersection to allow drivers to identify potential conflicts. Intersection sight distances are measured using sight triangles, which are defined by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) as “specified areas along intersection approach legs and across their included corners that should be clear of obstructions that might block a driver’s view of potentially conflicted vehicles.” Table 4 summarizes the intersection sight distances.
Intersection Sight Distances (ft)
Location Left Turn Right Turn Crossing
Standard Looking Standard Looking Standard Looking
North South North South North South
Ski Bowl Rd North 665 >750 >1 000 575 >750 >1000 575 750 >1000
NY 28N (Bridge St) 665 750 >1000 575 NA >1000 575 NA NA
Ski Bowl Rd South 665 >1000 500 575 >1000 NA 575 NA NA

The only location that does not meet the minimum required intersection sight distances is at Ski Bowl Road South looking south , where the sight lines are obscured by the Adopt – A – Highway sign as seen in Figure 4 . This non – standard feature can be resolved by relocating the existing sign a minimum of 165 ft
away from the intersection; relocation will allow for all minimum sight distance qualifications to be met in both the north and south directions for the Ski Bowl Road South intersection.

Stopping Sight Distance (SSD) :
Sufficient stopping sight distance allows drivers enough time to perceive, react, and stop for an obstruction in the roadway; it is measured based on an eye height of 3.5 feet and object height of 2.0 feet. Stopping sight distances are evaluated when intersection sight distances requirements are not satisfied, or a potential pedestrian crossing is being investigated. AASHTO recommends a minimum stopping Sight distance of 570 feet for a 60 – mph design speed.
All uncontrolled approaches to the study area intersections satisfy the stopping sight distance requirements ; NY 28N (Bridge Street) and Ski Bowl Road South having a continuous line of sight lines between the intersections. Table 5 summarizes the stopping sight distances along NY 28.

Figure 4 — Intersection C Looking South, Sight Distance blocked by sign

Stopping Sight Distances (ft)
ID | Location | Traveling North Standard vs Available | Traveling South Standard vs Available
A | NY 28 & Ski Bowl Rd North | 570 > 750 | 570 >1000
B | NY 28 & Bridge St (NY 28N) | 570 >1000 | 570 > 750
C | NY 28 & Ski Bowl Rd South | 570 > 750 | 570 >1000

Pedestrian Facilities
There are currently minimal pedestrian accommodations within the project corridor. There is one existing crosswalk, also known as a high visibility crosswalk, located at the south side of the intersection of NY 28 with Ski Bowl Road North. This crosswalk is currently heavily worn and faded to the point where striping is only visible in the northbound lane as shown in Figure 5 . This crossing does not connect to any dedicated pedestrian facilities. The wide shoulders along NY 28 provide access to the Senior Citizen Center via Manor Road and to Ski Bowl Road North which leads to the North Creek Health Center. However, the crosswalk connects from pavement edge to pavement edge with
no dedicated pedestrian facilities accessible beyond the shoulders on NY 28. This results in the crosswalk connecting a large front lawn on the west side to a drainage ditch on the east. Ski Bowl Road North on the east side of NY 28 does not have delineated shoulders and the pavement width is not sufficient to safely support two vehicles in addition to pedestrians.
Although the crosswalk is demarcated with signs placed according to the guidance of the MUTCD (six total, with three in each direction), two of these signs lack a retroreflective strip on the pole. To upgrade the signs to current standards, the proper reflective markings on the posts should be installed on the signs where they are missing. This is a cost – effective upgrade to bring more attention to the presence of pedestrians in the study area.

The shoulders along NY 28 and 28N exceed the minimum 4 ’ width to accommodate pedestrians. However, the high vehicle speeds and unprotected nature of the road shoulder act as deterrents for pedestrian activity. While there were some pedestrians observed in the study area during data collection, for pedestrian users, a small number or lack of use does not necessarily indicate a low demand. There are no dedicated pedestrian facilities on Ski Bowl Road North or South; with the narrow pavement widths of 21 ’ , there is minimal room for a pedestrian if two vehicles are using the roadway at the same time.

Figure 5 – Faded crosswalk marking at Intersection A
One additional pedestrian accommodation to note is the underpass located south of Ski Bowl Road South. Located on the Carol Thomas Trail, this underpass has the potential to connect Ski Bowl Park to Town Hall and Main Street. It currently terminates just north of the Dr. Jacques Grunblatt Memorial Beach, but does not currently provide direct access to the center of Ski Bowl Park.

Bicycle Facilities
There are no dedicated bicycle facilities within the study area. Cyclists on NY 28 and 28N can use the wide shoulders. Ski Bowl Road and Peaceful Valley Road, in contrast, do not feature wide shoulders, so cyclists must use the travel lane. Within the park itself, the narrow roadway is low speed and does not currently receive heavy traffic; the roadside is also relatively flat, unobstructed lawn, which some cyclists may also utilize when seasonal conditions permit. Peaceful Valley Road, however, has higher traffic speeds and volumes. In addition, the roadsides are heavily vegetated, steeply sloped, and feature extensive guiderails. This can reduce the comfort and confidence of casual cyclists, though those more experienced with on – road cycling may be willing to utilize this route.

9 Proposed Developments
Future development of Ski Bowl Park is comprised of both private and public projects . Table 6 below
contains the proposed developments and anticipated year for completion of construction.
Ski Bowl Park Future Developments
Development | Location | Estimated Year of Completion
Olympic Regional Development Authority (ORDA) | Existing Ski Mountain and Adjacent Land |2024
Town Park Expansion | Town Highway Garage & Surrounding Area | 2024
Museum of Skiing and Ski Hall of Fame | Town Park Expansion | 2027
Front Street Development | Hotel Parcel B | 2029
Front Street Seasonal Housing Mountain Development | 2029
Retail | Parcel B | 2029

See Figure 6 for a map of the proposed areas and the following paragraphs for description of the
• The ORDA site will include new lighting for night operation, replacement of two ski lifts, and
establish new ski trails and multi – season activities including a zip coaster, miniature golf and a
summer/winter tubing hill.
• The Town Park expansion will occur on the existing Town Highway Garage property once it is
vacated. Preliminary plans include a skating rink, expanded fields, relocated tennis courts and
parking modifications.
• The Museum of Skiing and Ski Hall of Fame is proposed to be located within the Town Park
Expansion with the exact location yet to be determined.
• The Front Street Development i s proposed to include a new hotel, new ski hut, and retail at the base
of the Ski Bowl mountain area, with additional seasonal housing which will expand the existing
housing that exists to the north.

10 Figure 6 – Proposed Development Location Plan

11 Impacts of Future Development An analysis of the future conditions was performed that included the projected increase in traffic volumes from the proposed future developments planned for Ski Bowl Park and the surrounding properties. The types and quantities of development were based on the most recent available information regarding the proposed development projects. The Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition (ITE Manual) was utilized for guidance while developing the proposed trips. The Land Use Codes (LUC) selected for this site are as follows:
• LUC 466 – Snow Ski Area (Visitors: Winter Season 215,000; Summer Season 40,000)
• LUC 411 – Town Park Expansion (Additional 14 Acres)
• LUC 580 – Museum of Skiing and Ski Hall of Fame (25,000 visitors per year)
• LUC 310 – Hotel (300 R ooms)
• LUC 260 – Recreational Homes (150 Units)
• LUC 861 – Retail (94,000 GSF)
A summary of the proposed trips generated by the proposed development is presented in Table 7 .
Use Description | LUC | AM Peak Hour Trips Enter Exit Total | PM Peak Hour Trips Enter Exit Total
Snow Ski Area | 466 | 62 3  65 | 3 83 86
Public Park | 411 | 0 0 0 | 1 1 2
Museum | 580 | 7 1 8 | 1 4 5
Hotel | 310 | 86 59 154 | 101 98 199
Recreational Homes | 260 | 22 11 33 | 18 24 42
Retail | 861 | 26 6 32 | 96 105 201
Totals | NA | 202 81 283 | 221 313 535

With the Ski Bowl Park redevelopment, this area will be transformed into a resort area with multiple land uses and will experience some internal trip capture between the retail, recreational, and residential land uses. The anticipated adjustment during the AM peak is minimal at 1% while the PM is higher at 11%. Internal trips are trips with origins and destinations within the same site and do not use the external roadway network. The internal trip capture rates provided in the ITE Manual were utilized. This analysis does not include these reductions to provide a conservative analysis.

Existing and Future Capacity Analysis
One way to measure the functionality of an intersection is by quantifying Level of Service (LOS), which
measures the average vehicle delay in seconds . Levels of Service are graded from LOS A (less than 10
seconds of delay per vehicle) to F (more than 80 seconds of delay per vehicle). LOS E and F are usually considered failing conditions.

LOS analysis was performed using traffic analysis software Synchro 10© to examine the collected turning movements at the study intersections for Existing, No – Build 2029, and N o – Build 2039 conditions. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 8 below. For the overall intersection LOS, all intersections currently operate at LOS A and will continue under the No – Build conditions , with the largest delay being 3.1 seconds for the PM 2039 peak. This indicates there are no LOS concerns for the future No – Build conditions. Examining the LOS of the individual legs, the only movements with a LOS lower than A are the eastbound and westbound approaches to Intersection 1, westbound approach to Intersection 2, and the eastbound to Intersection 3 with the largest delay in this group of 12 seconds corresponding to LOS B.
To model the intersection capacity for future 2039 Buildout conditions, the results of the trip generation
analysis were distributed on the adjacent roadway network considering existing travel patterns, volumes, as well as population centers and origins. These trips were then added to the no – build volumes and resulted in the 2039 Buildout volumes. Most of the intersections will continue to operate at LOS A in the future Buildout condition. However, the intersection with Ski Bowl Road South is anticipated to operate at LOS E in the PM peak due to the large number of exiting vehicles and associated increase in delay.

Summary of Anticipated Traffic Impacts
• Future development is projected to increase trips in/out of Ski Bowl Park by 283 trips in the AM peak
hour and 535 trips in the PM peak hour in 2039 .
• All intersections are projected to continue to operate at LOS A in future No – build and Build
conditions, with the exception of Ski Bowl Road South, which will operate at LOS E in the 2039 Build
condition for the PM peak hour.
Overall Intersection LOS Table (Delay in Seconds)
Location | Existing AM PM | No-Build 2029 AM PM | No-Build 2039 AM PM | Buildout, 2039 AM PM
1 NY 28 & Ski Bowl Rd North | A (1.6) A (2.0) | A (2.7) A (2.3) | A (2.6) A (2.3) | A (3.1) A (6.0)
2 NY 28 & Bridge St (NY 28N) | A (2.9) A (2.9) | A (2.9) A (3.0) | A (3.0) A (3.1) | A (4.6) A (6.8)
3 NY 28 & Ski Bowl Rd South | A (1.6) A (1.0) | A (1.7) A ( 1.1) | A (1.7) A (1.1) | A (5.7) E (46.4)

13 Access Alternatives
In addition to the goals of the community of Johnsburg, the analysis of existing and future conditions
revealed a number of opportunities, constraints, and impacts which will affect the development and design of Ski Bowl Park, including:
• The need to connect Ski Bowl Park more directly with the hamlet
• Level – of – service impacts at Ski Bowl Road South during future 2039 buildout conditions
• Inadequate pedestrian accommodations , as well as high operational/posted speed limit on NY 28
• The need to create a gateway from NY 28
• The potential for private development to further limit access/through traffic to the park from Ski
Bowl Road North
Many of these concerns could be partially addressed by creating a 4 – way intersection at the junction of NY 28 & 28N, thereby opening a new access into Ski Bowl Par k. This would create a direct connection from the center of the hamlet, bring an entrance to the Park within reasonable walking distance, create the opportunity for a gateway, and potentially provide traffic calming.
However, adding a new access point may not solve future congestion issues at existing intersections . There are agreements between the Town and FrontStreet Development which may restrict through traffic access along the west side of the park, thereby limiting the potential for a connection between the Health Center and the Park in the future . As such, three alternatives were developed that modify the access to Ski Bowl Park:
1. Access Alternative 1 – Access to Ski Bowl Park is granted from all three intersections
2. Access Alternative 2 – Access to Ski Bowl Park is restricted from Ski Bowl Road North (entrance to
North Cr eek Health Center would remain); Ski Bowl Road South remains open
3. Access Alternative 3 – Access to Ski Bowl Park is limited to NY 28 & 28N only
These alternatives were analyzed for the 2039 Future Buildout condition, outlined in Table 10. For Access Alter natives 2 and 3, the anticipated trips distributed to Ski Bowl Road North and South were redistributed to the proposed 4 – way intersection at NY 28 & 28N. The figures depicting the trip distribution, assignment, and build volumes are presented in Appendix 5.
In the Access Alternative 1 and 2 scenarios , a significant LOS impact would be experienced during the PM Peak hour at the intersection of Ski Bowl Road South/ NY 28. This intersection is anticipated to operate at LOS E in the PM peak due to the large number of exiting vehicles and associated increase in delay. Although it may be possible to mitigate this impact by adding turn lanes to this intersection, this intervention would not meet the other goals of the community, such as fostering a gateway to the hamlet, and may further degrade access for pedestrians.

If Ski Bowl Road South is closed, as proposed in Alternative 3, the burden of access would shift northward to the intersection of NY 28 & 28N, which would operate at LOS D in the PM peak hour. This is due to the concentration of entering and exiting traffic from Ski Bowl Park to only one access point where previously, the trips were distributed among three access points. However, it is likely that the p.m. peak hour LOS could be improved further by adding turning lanes, a traffic signal, or a roundabout, as discussed further below.
Signal Warrant Analysis
A signal warrant analysis is the study of traffic volumes, pedestrian characteristics, and physical
characteristics of an intersection to determine if consideration of a traffic signal is justified. The investigation of the need for a traffic signal includes analysis of factors related to the existing operation and safety at the study intersection and the potential to improve these conditions. Signal warrant thresholds and analysis requirements are set forth in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways, 2009 Edition as published by the Federal Highway Administration. The warrant analysis worksheets are included in Appendix 3.
A signal warrant analysis was performed for Access Alternative 3 at the intersection of NY 28 & 28N. Since the Town is seeking to be proactive with the design of Ski Bowl Park, the analysis was performed using existing traffic volumes with the access modifications described in Alternative 3 . This scenario includes restricting access to and from Ski Bowl Park to the proposed 4 – way intersection at NY 28 & 28N. The existing trips associated with the park were estimated using the 24 – hour distribution of other roadways within the study area and redistributed to the proposed fourth leg . In effect, this would indicate whether a signal is called for if the Town chooses to enact Alternative 3 as part of the park redesign, regardless of whether other development occurs. In addition, the signal warrant analysis was conducted using the future build volumes discussed in the previous section. If access to the park is limited to the intersection of NY 28 & 28N, as called for in Alternative 3, two warrants relating to traffic volume are satisfied with 2019 traffic volumes. With regards to future increases in traffic in 2029 and 2039 (due to development and/or background growth), the number of hours satisfying the volume
thresholds increase as the volumes increase, but all the design years satisfy the same warrants. There is no threshold that modified the results of the warrant analysis.

Access Alternatives – Overall Intersection LOS , 2039 Buildout ( Delay in Seconds)
Location Access Alt 1 AM PM Access Alt 2 AM PM Access Alt 3 AM PM
NY 28 & Ski Bowl Rd North* | 3.1 (A) 6.0 (A) | 2.4 (A) 2.9 (A) | 2.3 (A) 2.9 (A)
NY 28 & Bridge St (NY 28N) | 4.6 (A) 6.8 (A) | 4.7 (A) 7.6 (A) | 7.8 (A) 34.2 (D)
NY 28 & Ski Bowl Rd South | 5.7 (A) 46.4 (E) | 5.1 (A) 45.7 (E) | NA
*Note: Values for Ski Bowl Road North intersection in Alternatives 2 & 3 assume that vehicles are
restricted to accessing the Health Center only.

Table 9
Signal Warrant Summary,  Access Alternative 3 (2019 volumes w/ single access to Ski Bowl Park at NY 28 & 28N)
Eight – Hour Vehicular Volume YES
Four – Hour Vehicular Volume YES
Peak Hour Vehicular Volume NO
Pedestrian Volume NO
School Crossing N/A
Coordinated Signal System N/A
Crash Experience NO
Roadway Network N/A
Intersection Near a Grade Crossing N/A

It is important to note that although the signal warrant thresholds are satisfied under Access Alternative 3, it does not mean that a signal must be installed. In this case, the intersection in question, NY 28 & 28N, currently operates at LOS A, and is anticipated to continue to operate satisfactorily in the No – Build Condition. Conversely, installing a signal at NY 28 & 28N will not alleviate future congestion at Ski Bowl Road South if that entrance remains open to traffic.

Intersection Design Concepts
Since the intersection of NY 28 & 28N would meet signal warrants under Access Alternative 3, three concept designs were developed to address future LOS impacts which might result from increased development. As noted previously in Table 10, in the 2039 Buildout condition, the proposed 4 – way intersection at NY 28 & 28N would experience LOS D during the p.m. peak hour. To potentially improve this condition, three options were modeled for this intersection:
Access Alternative 3 – Intersection Concepts
a. Turn Lanes added at NY 28 & 28N
b. Traffic Signal installed at NY 28 & 28N
c. Roundabout installed at NY 28 & 28N
For each concept, the 2039 Build out traffic volumes were assigned and evaluated to determine LOS, as
shown in Table 11. A table that includes the LOS for all approach lanes are included in Appendix 5 with all the Synchro© output files included in Appendix 6.

Table 11
Intersection Alternatives – Overall Intersection LOS , 2039 Build out (Delay in Seconds)
Location | Alt 3a Turn Lanes PM | Alt 3b Signal PM | Alt 3c Roundabout**AM PM
NY 28 & Ski Bowl Rd North* | 2.9 (A) | 2.9 (A) | 2.3 (A) 2.9 (A)
NY 28 & Bridge St (NY 28N) | 17.1 (B)  .2 (A) 5.5  A) 7.1 (A)
NY 28 & Ski Bowl Rd South NA
*Note: Values for Ski Bowl Road North intersection in Alternatives 2 & 3 assume that vehicles are
restricted to accessing the Health Center only.
** Note: Roundabout LOS was modeled using Synchro 10 © , which may result in a more optimistic result than other traffic modeling software such as Vissum. If a roundabout is selected as the preferred option, the LOS should be confirmed according to NYSDOT protocols during the detailed design phase.

The results of the analysis indicate that all three options would improve the LOS at the intersection, with the traffic signal and roundabout providing LOS A. As such, these two intersection concepts were further
developed with the project goals of improving vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle access between North
Creek and the Park. The two intersection concepts are as follows:

A. Traffic Signal at intersection
of NY 28 & 28N , featuring the new access to Ski Bowl Park
• 100 feet long curbed islands on intersection approaches on NY 28 & 28N for traffic calming and pedestrian refuge at crossing locations
• Sidewalk/multi – use path connection to Main Street on north side of NY 28N with pedestrian signals and count – down timers

Figure 7 — Traffic Signal Concept

B. Single Lane Roundabout at intersection of NY 28 & 28N , featuring the new access to Ski Bowl Park
(Figure 8)
• Curbed islands along NY 28 & a portion of NY 28N for traffic calming and pedestrian refuge at crossing locations
• Sidewalk/multi – use path connection to Main Street on north side of NY 28N

Figure 8 – Single – Lane Roundabout

Both intersection concepts include a connection to the sidewalks at the intersection of NY 28N / Main Street. This would allow for a dedicated pedestrian and/or bicycle facility to access Ski Bowl Park. For more detail concerning bicycle and pedestrian facilities, see the “Re commendations” section of this report.
The typical cross section of NY 28 within the study area is largely the same for both the traffic signal and
roundabout options . Lane widths are 11 ’ with 8’ shoulders. The raised medians with curb must be a minimum of 6’ wide; when use d on intersection approaches, these are required to be a minimum of 100’ long. The shoulders adjacent to the raised median would be 4’ wide. The circulatory roadway inside the roundabout is 21 ’ wide with varying shoulder widths, a truck apron , and center island. See Appendix 4 for typical sections and corresponding concept plan drawings.

The traffic analysis contained in this study is intended to guide the Town of Johnsburg in future efforts to redevelop Ski Bowl Park. As such, it presents a menu of options to select from at such time as the Town reclaims the gravel mining operation and moves forward with park design. Given the analysis that has been completed, creating a 4 – way intersection at NY 28 & 28N could improve traffic operations related to future development while also providing tangible co – benefits by strengthening connections to the hamlet and increasing opportunities for pedestrian access. An overview of recommendations has been mapped on Figure 9.
In terms of vehicle circulation, creating a new access to Ski Bowl Park at NY 28 & 28N will provide the most benefit if it is combined with closing off access from Ski Bowl Park South. Introducing a traffic signal or roundabout at this location would allow for the best Level – of – Service by reducing the impact of increased traffic volumes from the additional development , as well as providing a safe and comfortable pedestrian crossing and opportunity for an attractive gateway to the hamlet. If the new intersection is created while Ski Bowl Road South remains open, the traffic signal may not be warranted and the southern intersection will likely still face degraded operations in future buildout conditions.

Table 12 outlines the Pros and Cons of adding a traffic signal or roundabout at the intersection of NY 28 & 28N.
Intersection Alternatives, Pros and Cons
NY 2 8 & 28N — Proposed Access to Ski Bowl Park Concept Pros Cons
Traffic Signal Pros
• Includes pedestrian signals and countdown timers
• Can be implemented in a phased approach (i. e., install turning lanes first, then introduce signal when Ski Bowl Road South is closed)
Traffic Signal Cons
Signal maintenance time and cost
• Increased emissions from stopped vehicles
• Less potential to create a gateway feature
Roundabout Pros
• Traffic calming
• Less perceived delay, vehicles in motion
• Through vehicles don’t need to stop if there are no vehicles or pedestrians in the roundabout
• Slower speeds and less severe accidents
• Gateway feature for Hamlet and Ski Bowl
• Improved landscape features
Roundabout Cons
• No pedestrian signals
• Increased construction costs compared to traffic signal

Figure 9 — Recommended Improvements

As revealed in the analysis in the previous section, both options have the potential to handle increased traffic due to future development. The roundabout offers a greater number of benefits but comes with a higher potential construction cost. However, if a traffic signal is installed, this may require more landscaping, signage, pedestrian amenities (as discussed in the following section) and design features in order to accomplish the goal of creating a gateway into the hamlet ; these additional features may increase construction cost.
Ultimately, the evaluation of a traffic signal or a roundabout should be included in the comprehensive
redesign of Ski Bowl Park. This will allow for the final design to be fully integrated into the Park, taking into consideration all of the goals of the community. In addition, this will allow for a true estimate of costs to be developed, which will give the Town a concrete goal to solicit funding. (See Implementation for more information.)

Pedestrian /Bicycle Recommendations
Improving pedestrian access to Ski Bowl Park is one of the primary goals of this project. The downtown
hamlet core is within a 5 – minute walk of the proposed entrance to the Park at NY 28 & 28N. North Creek itself has an extensive pedestrian network along Main Street, which could allow visitors to park in the hamlet and walk to Ski Bowl, and vice versa. The following recommendations are intended to guide the development of pedestrian facilities which link to Ski Bowl Park.
There are many factors which influence the design and location of crosswalks: traffic volume and speed,
roadway width, number of travel lanes, sight distances, traffic signal timing (if applicable) and pedestrian volume. The 2016 NYSDOT Pedestrian Safety Action Plan (PSAP) recommends that pedestrian crossings are best accommodated across roadways with a maximum speed of 45 mph; the posted speed limit on NY 28 is 55 mph. Within New York State, changes to posted speed limits are enacted by NYSDOT. Historically, such changes are not undertaken often, and very rarely without a material change to the context of the roadway itself, such as a significant increase in development density or vehicle crashes. Ultimately, given enough redevelopment in Ski Bowl Park, it may be feasible to request a reduction in the speed limit on NY 28 within the study area upon full buildout.

However, in the meantime, the Town should make every effort to improve pedestrian crossing facilities on NY 28. For roadway corridors with posted speeds of 50mph and above, the NYSDOT  recommendation is to implement measures to reduce operational speeds and then to consider enhanced treatments. Lowering operational speeds without changing the posted speed limit can be a challenge. Even if the posted speed limit was reduced, the current roadway configuration – wide shoulders, relatively low traffic, and unobstructed views — does not encourage drivers to slow down. One method to provide traffic calming would be to install raised medians along NY 28 as shown in the concepts in Appendix 4. This would emulate a boulevard, which would not only provide the visual friction to signal to drivers to slow down, but would also add to the sense of arriving at a gateway. With careful design it may be possible to establish landscaping features within the medians, to create further visual interest. If continuous medians are not feasible, it is recommended to install shorter sections in conjunction with the crosswalk treatments, described further below.

Additional traffic calming treatments to consider during next phase of design could be to install speed limit markings in the roadway per the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (MUTCD) and the New York State Supplement; however, this treatment has never been used within NYSDOT Region 1. Another option would be to install speed feedback signs, which are a more common intervention within the region. Typically the maintenance of speed feedback signs would be the responsibility of the local municipality.
With appropriate traffic calming measures in place, the use of enhanced crosswalk treatments is also
recommended. These include:
• Pedestrian crossing signs installed in advance of and at the high – visibility crosswalk (Figure 10 )
• Rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFBs) (Figure 10 )
•  Raised median refuge island s (Figure 1 1 )
• High – intensity activated crosswalk (HAWK) beacon. (not shown)

In combination with enforcement efforts, these enhanced treatments would also contribute to traffic calming, which may lower speeds without a change in posted speed limit. In particular, the raised median islands also offer co – benefits relating to the goal of establishing a gateway between Ski
Bowl Park and the hamlet. The location of roadway crossings is as important as their design. As stated in the Existing Conditions section of this report, there is only one designated crosswalk located at NY 28 & Ski Bowl Road North. It i s recommended that this crossing be improved to foster a safe, accessible connection between the Health Center and the Senior Center. It is also recommended that an additional crossing should be created at the intersection of NY 28 & 28N.

Both of these locations would be appropriate for the installation of a raised median/pedestrian refuge island. The installation of a pedestrian refuge median island is recommended in the guidelines provided by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Guide for Pedestrian Facilities, 1st Edition 2004 (or most current version) and the NYSDOT PSAP. The design must meet all NYSDOT standards including the installation of detectable warnings on each side of the island. Additional enhancements such as signage and beacons may also be beneficial. The exact configuration should be determined in the design phase.

Figure 10 – Signage and RRFB
Figure 11 — Pedestrian Refuge Island

If a roundabout is selected as the preferred intersection treatment at NY 28 & 2 8N, the pedestrian refuge islands would be integrated directly into the design. A single – lane roundabout reduces vehicle/pedestrian exposure to one lane at a time, similar to a refuge island. However, unlike traffic signals which stop vehicle movement, in a roundabout motorists must yield to pedestrians in the crosswalks. This can create challenges for visually – impaired pedestrians who may be less able to judge the movement of approaching vehicles. This should be taken into consideration during the design phase.

In addition, the town should take advantage of the existing pedestrian underpass, which is accessed via
the Carol Thomas Memorial Trail (figure 12). This provides a way for pedestrians to cross NY 28
completely separate from traffic. This facility could be improved with features such as lighting, improved
handicap accessibility, and resurfacing, which could make it a more attractive way to access the park on
foot in the short term.

Sidewalks/Multi – use Paths
In addition to providing safe and accessible facilities to cross NY 28 on foot, pedestrian amenities such as sidewalks and multi – use paths should also be constructed. These will ideally link to the existing pedestrian network within North Creek.
A sidewalk /multi – use trail should be considered along the eastern leg of Ski Bowl Road North and NY 28N, both of which connect to Main Street. These could tie into the recommended crosswalk locations, providing direct access to the Park from the hamlet.
Dedicated pedestrian accommodations should also be created on the west side of NY 28 between Ski Bowl Road North and South. This facility, which could be comprised of a sidewalk or multi – use path with pedestrian level lighting , should be incorporated into the proposed redesign of the park and be located outside the highway boundary. Similarly, the redesign effort should foster a more direct connection between the proposed pedestrian accommodations west of NY 28, the Park itself, and the Carol Thomas Memorial Trail. Currently, this trail head connects to a larger network of trails within Ski Bowl Park but does not provide direct access to the main area of the lodge, tennis courts and pavilion.
Peaceful Valley Road, which provides access to Gore Mountain, is located approximately 0.5 miles to the
south of Ski Bowl Road South. Due to the proximity of the creek on the west side of NY 28 between these
two roads and the steep side slopes, the best option for a connection to the park from Peaceful Valley Road would be a dedicated trail connecting to The Loop, south of the Dr. Jacques Grunblatt Memorial Beach near the camp sites.

Figure 12 — Pedestrian underpass, Carol Thomas Memorial Trail

Bicycle Recommendations
Although this study has focused on improving connections for pedestrians, cyclists must be accommodated as well. Along NY 28, this can be accomplished by adhering to the proposed cross – section concepts, which call for an 8’ shoulder, well above the 4’ minimum required for bicycle use. The aforementioned traffic calming will also benefit cyclists as well. In addition, the Town should strongly consider using multi – use pathways (as opposed to sidewalks) to connect Main Street to Ski Bowl Park along NY 28N. This would allow cyclists to use the facility separate from vehicle traffic, which is preferable to many casual cyclists. To cross NY 28, these cyclists could dismount and walk their bicycles across the roadway. More experienced cyclists could use the vehicle lanes as allowed under NYS law. Within the park, multi – use paths should also be integrated to encourage bicycle use.

Summary of Recommended Pedestrian /Bicycle Improvements:
• Install raised median/pedestrian refuge islands at the intersections of NY 28 & Ski Bowl Road North
and NY 28 & 28N. Consider other enhancements, such as RRFBs, during the design phase.
• Install sidewalk/multi – use trail connections to Main Street on NY 28N and Ski Bowl Road North.
• Create multi – use trail west of NY 28 as part of the park redevelopment effort. This should connect to
the proposed crossings as well as to the established trail system and Peaceful Valley Road.
• Work with NYSDOT to promote traffic calming measures such as speed feedback signs, and with NYS
Police for increased enforcement efforts, to lower operational speeds on NY 28 within the study
• Continue to improve Carol Thomas Trail and consider promoting this as a primary pedestrian access
point as an interim solution until the crosswalks on NY 28 can be improved.

Implementation & Next Steps
As stated previously, the purpose of this study is to provide a framework for the town to pursue efforts to
reclaim/redevelop Ski Bowl Park. The intention was to provide a solid background of transportation
engineering data for future use by design professionals when the Town moves forward with the reclamation of the gravel pit and DPW facility. The analysis contained in this document is contingent on the best available information concerning development in and around the Park. Should conditions change significantly, the recommendations may no longer be valid and should be reassessed.

From a planning perspective, undertaking the design of the Park and improvements to associated pedestrian infrastructure at the same time would theoretically create efficiencies which might result in reduced design costs and a shorter approval process. However, any improvements to the roadway on State – owned roadways, or which receive Federal Highway (FHWA) funds, must adhere to NYSDOT design standards and process for locally – administered projects. This includes intersection improvements as well as any pedestrian features within the highway boundary.

Historically, it has been possible to include the design of recreation park amenities within the
scope of Federally – funded alternative transportation projects; the Charles R Wood park
in Lake George is a regional example. However, recent changes to funding mechanisms make it
unlikely that a project with extensive recreation facilities would be likely to receive Federal transportation dollars. Similarly, it is unlikely that the Town would be able to find sufficient funding to allow for construction of both the Park and the transportation facilities from another source.

As such, the Town should consider pursuing a conceptual design for the Park and related transportation
improvements, which will be used to guide the implementation of the project as a whole. As stated in the
previous section, the decision to select either a traffic signal or a roundabout for the proposed 4 – way
intersection at NY 28 & 28N should be heavily influenced by the potential design for the Park. For example, if the existing DPW structure is to remain in place, the traffic signal option may allow more room for the entrance road. Other non – transportation amenities like gateway treatments could also be folded into the design, even if the construction is later conducted in phases. It would also be crucial to gain the input from stakeholders, especially FrontStreet Development and ORDA. A single concept would also allow for comprehensive public outreach and could help create a feasible phasing plan for construction, including realistic cost estimates. The Town could then pursue appropriate funding channels for the Park and the transportation facilities.

Intersection /Roadway Improvements
• Transportation Improvement Program (A/GFTC)
• USDOT BUILD grants
Recreation Park
• Office of Parks, Recreation, & Historic Preservation (OPRHP): Environmental Protection Fund Program for Parks, Preservation, and Heritage
• Environmental Facilities Corporation Green Innovation Grant Program
Pedestrian Improvements
• OPRHP : Recreational T rails Program
• NYSDOT Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP)
• NYSDOT Pedestrian Safety Action Plan (PSAP)
• A/GFTC Make the Connection Program

The drawback to this approach is that there may be some replication of steps or inefficiencies during
detailed design. As stated above, the NYSDOT design procedure would be required for improvements to NY 28. This process also mandates public input and consideration of environmental impacts as well as an analysis of feasible alternatives. This may lead to confusion or frustration for community members.
However, a pragmatic and transparent public information campaign can go a long way towards engendering continuing support for the project.