Publication Type: Transportation Plans

The following text was extracted from the full report to facilitate screen reader technology. For the full report including diagrams and images, please refer to the pdf.

 

Final Glen St. Intersections Pedestrian Study

Memo To: Mr. Aaron Frankenfeld, Director Date: 12/23/2021
Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation Council (A/GFTC)
11 South Street, Suite 203
Glens Falls, NY 12801

From: Barton & Loguidice, D.P.C. File: 1896.002.001

I. Introduction
A/GFTC and the City of Glens Falls initiated the Glen St. Intersections Pedestrian Study to evaluate
pedestrian circulation, pedestrian safety, and provide improvement recommendations to the
intersections of Glen St. at South St./Bay St. (Intersection # 1) and Glen St. at Sherman
Ave./Washington St. (Intersection #2). The study is administered through the A/GFTC
Transportation Planning and Engineering Assistance Program.

This Report summarizes the existing conditions of the two intersections, provides observations of
the intersection operations, and provides recommended next steps to implement improvements.

II. Existing Conditions
A site visit was conducted to observe and inventory existing field conditions. Video cameras were
deployed for one 24-hour, weekday period at each intersection to identify pedestrian traffic
patterns, safety concerns and/or vehicular conflicts, and any confusion that was observed when
pedestrians were accessing the intersection(s).

Glen St. at South St./Bay St.: This is a four leg signalized intersection with pedestrian signals that is
centrally located in the City of Glens Falls and surrounded by +local businesses, restaurants, and the
Crandall Library. Sidewalks are located on all intersection roadway approaches with sidewalk ramps
and crosswalks.

Glen St. (Rt. 9) is a mainline route in the east/west direction with one through lane in each direction,
a two-way left turn lane, and parking along each side of the street. Approaching the intersection in
the westbound direction, the parking lane and center median end 80 feet before the intersection to
allow for a dedicated right and left turn lane. The eastbound approach maintains a parking lane all
the way to the intersection with a through-right lane adjacent and the median ending/transitioning
to a left turn lane 130 ft. back from the intersection. Mid-block crossings are located 200 ft. and 330
ft. to the west and east of the intersection respectively.

The northbound South St. approach to the intersection features one travel lane in each direction
with adjacent parallel parking. A mid-block crossing with curb bump-outs is located 200 ft. south of
the approach. Just north of the bump-outs the northbound travel lane transitions into a left turning
lane and what was a parking lane becomes a through-right lane for shared movements.

Bay St. has a curbed median at the approach to the intersection with a monument and landscaping.
The southbound approach has a left turn lane and through-right shared lane. The opposing direction

is a single lane with no parking on either side.
Figure 2.1 – Glen St. at South St./Bay St. Intersection

The intersection is four way signalized with two mast arm signal poles located at the northwest and
southeast corners. There are ADA pedestrian signals/push buttons at all approaches with the
button for each direction mounted on the same signal pole with the heads above. Curb ramps were
previously installed to ADA standards at each corner of the intersection.

Glen St. at Sherman Ave./Washington St.: This intersection is located west of the South St./Bay St.
intersection. It is four way signalized for vehicles and does not include pedestrian signal equipment.
This intersection is also centrally located in the City of Glens Falls, surrounded by local businesses.
There are sidewalks on each corner of the intersection with curb ramps that do not meet current
ADA requirements.

Figure 2.2 – Glen St. at Sherman Ave./Washington St.
Glen St. (Rt. 9) is a mainline route in the east/west direction. The westbound approach consists of
one travel lane in each direction, a two-way left turn lane in the middle and no parking on either
side of the street. The two-way left turn lane converts to a left turn lane 175 ft. from the
intersection. The eastbound approach consists of one travel lane and parking lane in each direction.
The parking lane in the eastbound direction transitions to a right turn lane with the through-left lane
adjacent.

Washington St., the southbound approach, features a travel lane and parking lane in the
northbound direction and two travel lanes in the southbound direction that transition into a right
turn lane and a through-left lane on approach to the intersection. The northbound approach,
Sherman Ave., consists of two travel lanes (one in each direction) with no provisions for turning
lanes or on-street parking. An entrance to Stewart’s is located on the east side of Sherman Ave. with
the driveway in front of the stop bar on the northbound approach.

III. Site Assessment and Observations
Glen St. at South St./Bay St.:

1. Pavement striping – Existing striping is faded and not visible in some locations. Please see
Figure 3.1 below.
2. Curb ramps – Several of the ramps are showing signs of deterioration with damaged
sections of concrete, curb, detectable warning units, and ponding water, as shown in Figure
3.1. Several pedestrians with strollers were witnessed having a difficult time traversing the
existing ramps.
Figure 3.1 – Glen/South/Bay intersection striping and sidewalk ramp condition

3. Many of the pedestrians did not press the push button when crossing. This was more
common during non-peak hours or at early hours in the morning when vehicle traffic was
lighter. Many of these pedestrians would cross without hesitation, in some instances
caused conflict between vehicles with the green light having to wait on pedestrians.
Figure 3.2 – Pedestrians crossing without using the push button

Figure 3.2 was captured during the video recordings. The two pedestrians were attempting
to cross South St. without using the push button. The vehicle in the left turn lane had the
left turn green arrow but had to wait for the pedestrians to cross in this instance.

4. The pedestrian refugee island at the Bay St. crossing was also problematic causing people to
get trapped on the island for one of two reasons.
a. Some would stop to read the Civil War monument
b. Pedestrians traveling westbound (on Glen St.) that did not use the push button and
wait for the “walk” light; would begin to cross, and southbound vehicles would get
the green light, trapping them at the island.
Figure 3.3 – Pedestrians stopped in the Bay St. Median

5. There were numerous occurrences of turning vehicles having to stop and wait for
pedestrians in the crosswalk. In this scenario the pedestrians had the right of way with the
walk symbol activated while the same direction vehicular movement was green. The City
notified us of several public comments citing this same scenario where there was
heightened tension between the driver and pedestrian. The observations for this study did
not witness any frustrated or “road rage” type interactions. However, it is noted that this
could be a safety concern if there were an inattentive driver or pedestrian.
6. Several bicyclists were observed utilizing the sidewalk, sidewalk ramps, and crosswalks to
travel through the intersection.
Figure 3.4 – Bicyclists using the sidewalk

7. There were many instances of pedestrian confusion when looking for the push button to
cross South St on both sides of South St. At the southeast corner, the push buttons to cross
Glen St. and South St. are both located on the traffic signal pole that is adjacent to the Glen
St. crosswalk, this pole is 15 ft. away from the South St. sidewalk ramp which may
contribute to the confusion. At the southwest corner both push buttons to cross Glen St.
and South St. are located on the same pedestrian signal pole that is adjacent to the Glen St.
sidewalk ramp and 14 ft. away from the South St. sidewalk ramp.
Figure 3.5 – Pedestrians searching for the push button

Glen St. at Sherman Ave./Washington St.:

1. Pedestrian volume overall was lower than at the Glen St. and South St./Bay St. intersection.
2. Pavement striping – Existing striping is faded and not visible in some locations. Please see
Figure 3.6 below.
3. The existing curb ramps do not meet current ADA requirements. The ramps do not include
detectable warning units, there are drainage structures located at the base of the ramp, and
the positioning of the ramps do not line up with the crosswalk direction. Please see Figure
3.6 below for a close-up view of the south side ramps.
Figure 3.6

4. Pedestrians were observed to be hesitant to cross the street at this location. This appears
to be due to the lack of pedestrian signals to guide them. Pedestrians were observed to run
to cross the street when there was a gap in vehicle traffic and others would avoid crossing at
the intersection completely and defer to crossing mid-block.
5. There were numerous occurrences of turning vehicles having to stop and wait for
pedestrians in the crosswalk. The observations for this study did not witness any frustrated
or “road rage” type interactions. However, as noted at the other intersection in the study,
this could be a safety concern if there were an inattentive driver or pedestrian.
6. The existing signal system is operating satisfactorily. Longer queues of vehicles were
witnessed on Sherman Ave. and Washington St. as a result of separate phases being utilized
in the signal cycle in lieu of concurrent phases (which is currently restricted due to the one
lane approach of Sherman Ave.).
7. Pedestrians were observed to walk through Stewart’s parking lot and cross the street mid-
block behind the crosswalk. This crossing pattern is most likely due to the stop bar being
located behind the Stewart’s driveway.
Figure 3.7 – Pedestrians crossing at the Stewart’s driveway

IV. Recommendations
Recommended improvements to each intersection are provided below that will address the safety
and operational issues that were observed. Most of the recommendations are low cost
improvements that could completed by the City or through contracted services. The
recommendations are presented as standalone improvements that could be completed one at a
time or all at once, dependent on available funding.

Glen St. at South St./Bay St.:

1. Install Turning Vehicles Yield to Pedestrians (MUTCD # R10-15) signs on all intersection
approaches, see Figure 4.4 below. Overhead installation on the signal mast arm will be
most effective and should be placed in direct view of drivers in the left turn lanes.
Figure 4.4

An analysis of the existing traffic signal poles was completed based on the as-built record
plans. It was determined that the existing signal pole footings have enough moment
capacity to support the installation of these four (4) additional overhead signs on the mast
arms.

Probable Cost to Implement = $1,000 Each x 4 Signs = $ 4,000. Installation includes bracket
and mounting hardware, bucket truck, traffic control, and sign panel.

2. Adjust the signal phasing and timing to include a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI). A LPI is
typically a 3-7 second head start for pedestrians when entering an intersection with a
corresponding green signal in the same direction of travel. LPI’s are recommended at
intersections where high vehicular turning volumes come into conflict with higher volumes
of crossing pedestrians during their shared phase of the signal cycle. Coupled with
recommendation #1, the Yield to Pedestrian sign, these two items would increase driver
awareness of pedestrians at this intersection.
Source: National Association of Transportation Officials

Figure 4.3 – LPI Phasing Diagram

Probable Cost to Implement = N/A. The LPI can be implemented at no cost through
modifications to the signal phasing and timings.

3. Re-Striping the pavement would aid in guiding vehicles through the intersection and bring
attention to the crosswalks.
a. High Visibility Crosswalks should be installed at this intersection to provide
improved driver awareness of the pedestrian crossing locations. The crosswalks
include the addition of two transverse lines to the perpendicular ladder bars that
are on site currently as shown in the figure below. The pavement markings should
be Epoxy paint with glass bead for retro-reflectivity or retro-reflective thermoplastic
pavement marking tape.
Figure 4.1 – High Visibility Crosswalk Striping
Probable Cost to Implement = $ 10,000

b. It is suggested that all other intersection pavement markings are also replaced with
Epoxy based retro-reflective paint.
Probable Cost to Implement = $ 5,000

4. Provide an additional push button only pole at the southeast and southwest corners for
pedestrians looking to cross South St.
Probable Cost to Implement = $ 7,000. Installation includes standard push button, pole,
pedestrian crossing sign, conduit, and wiring.

5. Replace the existing pedestrian push buttons with Latching Pedestrian Push Buttons. The
Latching pedestrian push button assembly provides visual confirmation with a red LED light
that the button was activated and the call was placed to the signal controller. The button
itself can be fabricated with an arrow for direction of travel or even upgraded to include the
City logo or a theme for the area.
Figure 4.2 – Latching Pedestrian Push Buttons

Probable Cost to Implement = $900 Each x 8 locations = $ 6,000

6. Replace the existing static No Turn on Red signs with Overhead No Turn on Red Variable
Message Signs (MUTCD # R10-11), please see Figure 4.5. These dynamic signs provide a
dual benefit by allowing the no turn restriction when the pedestrian push button is
activated and also improves vehicular efficiency by allowing right turns when pedestrians
are not present. The signs are installed overhead in line with the right turn movement,
wired directly into the signal controller, and activated through the pedestrian push button.
When the push button is not activated, the sign is blacked out, allowing right turn
movements.
Figure 4.5

An analysis of the existing traffic signal poles was completed based on the as-built record
plans. It was determined that the existing signal pole footings have enough moment
capacity to support the installation of these four (4) additional overhead signs on the mast
arms, as well as the four (4) Yield to Pedestrian signs recommended in #1 above.

Probable Cost to Implement = $4,500 Each x 4 locations = $ 18,000. Installation includes
removal of existing signs, bracket and mounting hardware, new signs, and wiring to the
signal cabinet.

7. Reconstructing the curb ramps to provide new detectable warning units, address the areas
of ponding water, and provide a continuous smooth transition between the sidewalk and
road surface.
Probable Cost to Implement = $ 50,000. Installation includes excavation, subbase,
concrete, pavement restoration and grading, and detectable warning units.

8. Install Shared Lane Markings (also known as “Sharrows”) to notify vehicles and bicyclists to
share the roadway and help deter bicyclists from using the sidewalk.
Figure 4.6 – Shared Lane Marking
Probable Cost to Implement = $200 Each
Glen St. at Sherman Ave./Washington St.:

1. Install Pedestrian Cross Only on Green sign (MUTCD # R10-1).
Figure 4.8
Probable Cost to Implement = $ 100 Each x 8 Locations = $800

2. Re-Striping the pavement would aid in guiding vehicles through the intersection and bring
attention to the crosswalks.
a. High Visibility Crosswalks should be installed at this intersection to provide
improved driver awareness of the pedestrian crossing locations. The crosswalks
include the addition of two transverse lines to the perpendicular ladder bars that
are on site currently as shown in the figure below. The pavement markings should
be Epoxy paint with glass bead for retro-reflectivity or retro-reflective thermoplastic
pavement marking tape.
Figure 4.7 – High Visibility Crosswalk Striping

Probable Cost to Implement = $ 11,000

b. It is suggested that all other intersection pavement markings are also replaced with
Epoxy based retro-reflective paint.
Probable Cost to Implement = $ 3,000

3. Install Turning Vehicles Yield to Pedestrians (MUTCD # R10-15) signs on all intersection
approaches, see Figure 4.4 below. Overhead installation on the signal mast arm will be
most effective. Due to the unknown foundation conditions and age of the signal equipment
an analysis of the moment capacity of the footings could not be completed. It is suggested
that these signs are installed on the signal poles or roadside rather than installed overhead.
If the traffic signal is replaced in the future, these signs can be relocated overhead.
Figure 4.9
Probable Cost to Implement = $1,000 Each x 4 Signs = $ 4,000.

4. Reconstructing the curb ramps to meet current ADA requirements, provide new detectable
warning units, relocate drainage structures, and provide a continuous smooth transition
between the sidewalk and road surface.
Probable Cost to Implement = $ 60,000

5. An additional intersection traffic study could be conducted to evaluate vehicle and
pedestrian operation at this intersection, including a pedestrian signal warrant analysis. The
study could also analyze the potential benefits of constructing a turn lane on Sherman Ave.,
increased optimization of the traffic signal, and improved pedestrian measures (such as
some or all of the individual items included above).

V. Public Comments
The Draft Study was advertised and available for review or download by the City of Glens Falls on
their website and Instagram account in addition to the A/GFTC website and Facebook account. The
Draft Study was open for public review and comment from November 4, 2021 through November
19, 2021. A/GFTC and B&L also provided an overview of the project, findings, and
recommendations at the November 3, 2021 City of Glens Falls Board of Public Safety meeting. The
comments received are summarized below:

1. Michael Lingle, via e-mail on November 10, 2021 – I met with the traffic safety committee
several years ago. I am a frequent walker. I told them that the crossing at Sherman and
Washington was dangerous. There is no crossing signal for pedestrians. The light allows
traffic from Washington to proceed down Sherman Westbound when the light is red for
Eastbound. How would a pedestrian know?
The site assessment and observations of the Glen St. at Sherman Ave./Washington St.
intersection in this report are consistent with Mr. Lingle’s experiences. The Sherman Ave.
and Washington St. phases of the traffic signal do operate separately as a result of the
singular southbound travel lane on the Sherman Ave. approach. The first recommendation
at this intersection is the installation of “Cross Only on Green” signs to provide guidance to
pedestrians here with the absence of pedestrian signals. The study also recommends an
additional engineering study of the intersection to evaluate the vehicular signal operation
and also warrants for pedestrian signal.

2. Discussion held during the November 3, 2021 Board of Public Safety Meeting – At the Glen
St. at South St./Bay St. intersection, could the countdown timers be added to the current
pedestrian signals?
Yes, this is a good observation noted by the public in attendance with the November 3rd
meeting. Pedestrian countdown timer signals could be added to the current signal system
at the intersection in addition to the other recommendations presented in this report.
Currently, each direction has a single 16” x 18” signal unit that displays the Hand/Person
figures. These units can be replaced with 16” x 18” combination Countdown and Pedestrian
Signal units, See figure 5.1. Many current pedestrian signal applications will include two
side by side 12” x 12” units for each direction of control, one unit displays the Hand/Person
symbols and the other is the countdown timer. These side by side units could be installed
here if a full scale replacement is undertaken by the City, although the singular combination
units will allow for a more economical upgrade with a direct replacement of the existing
signal heads.

Figure 5.1 – Existing Hand/Person Signal and Replacement Combination Signal
Probable Cost to Implement = $1,200 Each x 8 Signals = $ 9,600.

 

Table of Contents
I. Introduction & Goals 1
A. Existing Conditions 1
1. Land Use and Community Context 1
2. Roadway Geometry 1
3. Roadside Conditions 2
4. Traffic Counts & Speed 2
5. Environmental Concerns 3
II. Evaluation of Alternatives 3
A. Widen Shoulders (Not Recommended) 3
B. Pedestrian Path 4
C. Shared Use Path 5
D. Path Alignment 6
1. East Side 6
2. Alternate Sides 6
E. Advisory Shoulder (Village Portion Only) 8
III. Cost Estimate 9
IV. Implementation & Next Steps 9
A. Grant Funding 10
Appendix 1 – Roadside Obstacles and Constraints A-1
Appendix 2 – Environmental Constraints A-2
Appendix 3 – Preferred & Alternate Alignment A-3
Appendix 4 – Detailed Cost Estimate A-4

I. Introduction & Goals
On behalf of the Town of Greenwich, the Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation Council (A/GFTC), in conjunction with Barton & Loguidice, has prepared this Feasibility Report for a pedestrian connection along North Road to provide access to the Thunder Mountain Recreation Area. This stretch of roadway is a popular route for pedestrians and cyclists of all ages, yet there are no dedicated facilities to accommodate these activities.
The goal of this Feasibility Report is to provide an overview of existing conditions, a framework to evaluate alternatives, concept-level cost estimates, and information concerning funding opportunities and implementation. This information is furnished to the Town to guide further decision making; it is recommended that outreach to affected landowners, town residents, and the Village of Greenwich be conducted prior to moving forward with future planning, design, and/or construction.
A. Existing Conditions
This section contains general information about conditions which may affect the design and/or construction of pedestrian amenities. This information is provided only to inform the evaluation of conceptual alternatives and is not a substitution for a land survey.
1. Land Use and Community Context
The project study area includes the portions of Prospect Street/North Road located between Gray Avenue in the Village of Greenwich and the Thunder Mountain Recreation Area entrance within the Town. In this area the land use transitions from neighborhood-scale residential to a more agricultural/rural context.
As stated previously, North Road is heavily used by walkers, cyclists, joggers, and people using strollers (see Figure 1). The road connects to the main entrance to Thunder Mountain Recreation Area, a Village-owned and maintained facility which contains trails and a popular fishing spot. In addition, there is a farm/bakery stand on the west side of the roadway which has become a local destination.
2. Roadway Geometry
North Road is a town-maintained facility with a functional classification of a rural local road. The pavement width is approximately 20-22’ within the study corridor. The pavement is unmarked and the shoulders are grass turf. Slopes and curves along the corridor are gentle, providing long lines of sight for the most part.
3. Roadside Conditions
Roadside conditions vary widely within the corridor. Although there are long stretches of open field, in other areas pockets of forest or mature hedgerows are located 10’ or less from the edge of pavement. In addition, numerous utility poles, large trees, fences, mailboxes, stone walls, and built structures are located near the edge of pavement. See Appendix 1 for more detail. Any future construction must take into account the need to avoid or relocate these elements; coordination with adjoining landowners will be necessary.
In particular, there are three structures located relatively close to the roadway on the west side of the street. This includes two homes and a barn (see Figure 3.) Although it may be physically feasible to construct a path between these structures and the edge of pavement, this may result in an undesirable condition for both the path users and the residents of the homes.
4. Traffic Counts & Speed
Traffic volume and speed data was collected for one week between Thursday, August 19, 2021 and Thursday, August 26, 2021. The data was collected using two roadside radar Automatic Traffic Recorders (ATRs) that were located approximately 1,000 ft. and 1,750 ft. south of the Thunder Mountain Recreation Area entrance. It is noted that the farm/bakery stand is located between the two counters and was in operation during the data collection period. The traffic and speed data is summarized in Table 1.

North Road is a low volume road with an Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) less than 400 vehicles per day (vpd). The peak hours between the count locations were not consistent, but this is due to the relatively low roadway volume. A review into the hourly volumes revealed consistent hourly volumes in the 20 to 30 vehicle per hour range throughout the regular daytime hours, with the peak hour determined by only one or two additional vehicles.
Speed data was also collected at the two count locations, both within the posted 45 MPH zone. The 85th percentile speed represents the speed at which 85% of vehicles travel at or below. The 85th percentile speeds at the two locations were 42 and 45 MPH, respectively.
5. Environmental Concerns
To determine the likelihood of potential environmental impacts, the NYSDEC Environmental Resource Mapper was consulted. See Appendix 2 for the environmental overview map. The map indicates that there may be freshwater wetlands in the project area. These are located primarily on the west side of North Road along an unnamed Class C stream. This stream runs under North Road via a culvert, eventually connecting to the former reservoir on the Thunder Mountain Recreation site. The culvert, which runs diagonally under the roadway, extends a few feet beyond the edge of pavement. It is likely that an off-road pedestrian amenity would require an extension of the culvert. In addition, all wetlands within the project area will require delineation during project design. A NYS Freshwater Wetlands Permit is required for any physical disturbance within the designated wetland or within the adjacent area of a state protected freshwater wetland. The adjacent area usually extends 100 feet from the wetland but has been extended beyond 100 feet under unusual circumstances. Ideally, the proposed pedestrian amenity will minimize or avoid impacts to the wetland and stream.
The environmental resource mapper also indicates the possible presence of rare animals or plants within a portion of the study area. NYSDEC should be consulted during project design to determine whether a permit will be required.
To determine the presence of agricultural lands within the project area, the Washington County Real Property Service Web Map was consulted. There are several identified farmland parcels along North Road that are included in Consolidated Agricultural District 4, as shown in Appendix 2. Potential project impacts and property easements on farmlands will need to be identified during the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR) process when the project design and construction is progressed.
II. Evaluation of Alternatives
For the purpose of this analysis, three bicycle/pedestrian facility types were examined. The factors which affect the feasibility of construction include right-of-way impacts (as measured by number of parcels affected), roadside obstacles, environmental impacts, and stormwater/drainage. In addition, the desirability of each alternative in terms of the pedestrian and/or cyclist experience was also addressed.
A. Widen Shoulders (Not Recommended)
The first alternative is to widen the roadway to create shoulders on each side, which would allow space for pedestrians and cyclists to travel without the need for drivers to veer into the opposite lane to pass them. This can reduce the likelihood of pedestrian and bicycle crashes. The FHWA “Small Town and Rural Multimodal Networks” guide recommends a minimum shoulder width of 4’, though a width of 5-6.5’ is more desirable. To create a visual separation from the travel lane, the shoulders should be delineated, preferably in conjunction with rumble strips. To further enhance the visual separation, an 8” wide white stripe, or two 4” white stripes with an 18” buffer between them, can be used.
From a mobilization standpoint, widening the road would require coordination with every landowner in the corridor. Although the wider roadway will fit likely within the existing ROW, construction easements will be required for grading and drainage, utility poles and mailboxes will need to be relocated, and a significant number of trees will need to be removed on both sides of the roadway. This may cause major impacts to the surrounding community character and visual environment.
It is important to note that a shoulder is not a dedicated pedestrian or bicycle facility; it is considered part of the roadway. As such, vehicles may use the shoulder to pull over and park, blocking use by pedestrians and cyclists. In addition, increased roadway width is correlated to higher vehicle speed1. Widening the roadway may therefore lead to higher traffic speeds, which would be further detrimental to the pedestrian bicycle experience. For this reasons, wide shoulders are not recommended.
B. Pedestrian Path
The next alternative entails the construction of a 5’-wide pedestrian path (see Figures 4 & 5). These differ from sidewalks in that they are not immediately adjacent to the roadway and do not require a curb. Pedestrian paths are generally set back from the road and separated by a ditch, green area, or tree plantings. These paths can be constructed along, but not immediately adjacent to, a roadway. The recommended minimum separation between a pedestrian pathway and the roadway is 4’ (noted as the ‘furnishing zone’ in Figure 4); however, this can be reduced to as little as 2’ in constrained areas.2
Recommended pavement applications for a pedestrian path include concrete, stone dust, and asphalt. Asphalt in particular offers a level of design flexibility to create a meandering alignment which can easily wind around large trees, utility poles, and other constraints while providing an easy-to-maintain, durable surface.
It is important to note that this alternative does not specifically provide accommodation to cyclists; as with sidewalks, pedestrian paths are designed for use by pedestrians. However, there is no legislation that would prevent cyclists from using the facility. The pedestrian path could be useful for children and cyclists who are not comfortable riding in the travel lane; however, with only 5’ of pathway width, this could create conflicts with pedestrians using the path at the same time.
To support cyclists on North Road, a “Narrow Lane” bicycle warning sign (Figure 6) may be installed in conjunction with the pedestrian path.3 This will alert drivers to the increased presence of bicycles along this stretch of roadway.
C. Shared Use Path
A shared use path (also known as a multi-use path or sidepath) is an 8-12’ wide paved facility designed for use by both cyclists and pedestrians, as shown in figures 7 and 8. By providing a facility separate from non-motorized traffic, shared use paths create a low-stress experience and comfortable environment for users of every age and ability. A 2’ shoulder/clear zone is recommended on either side of the path to facilitate drainage and user safety; however, this may be reduced in constrained environments. In addition, the minimum recommended separation from the roadway is 5’. Recommended pavement applications for a shared use path include asphalt and stone dust.
This facility would face the same constraints as the pedestrian path regarding the location, with an additional constraint posed by existing stone retaining walls on the east side of the roadway. The stone walls are located approximately 8’-10’ from the edge of pavement. As such, there may not be room to fit a shared-use path between the wall and the roadway in this location while maintaining a buffer from the edge of the pavement. If a shared use path is desired, this constraint may be accommodated by reducing the width of the path in this location (with provision of appropriate warning signage) and/or providing a vertical barrier or rumble strips between the roadway and the path.
Since the shared use path is wider than a pedestrian path, it is likely that additional ROW acquisitions will be required, most likely for the majority of the approximately 25 parcels affected. In addition, the wider shared use path may require more extensive vegetative clearing. However, this option provides a comfortable experience for both cyclists and pedestrians, as both groups are fully separated from traffic.
D. Path Alignment
1. East Side
It is recommended that the location of a pedestrian or shared use path should reduce the need for users to cross the street to access the facility. NYSDOT notes that in cases where paths or sidewalks are located across from residences, “Pedestrians may cross where drivers of vehicles do not expect them, but rather where it is more convenient for the pedestrian to access the sidewalk. For example, a pedestrian originating from a residence on the side of a road without pedestrian facilities may opt to cross midblock rather than travel along the roadway to reach an intersection in order to cross and access the sidewalk.”4 As noted above, although traffic volume is light, vehicle speeds in the corridor can reach 45 mph. This further underscores the need to reduce unnecessary pedestrian road crossings as much as possible from a safety perspective.
Given that the residential development along North Road is not evenly distributed, the pedestrian path is recommended to be located on the side of the road which could be accessed by the most residents – in this case, the east side. This will require coordination from approximately 25 landowners. This option also avoids potential conflicts with the structures and wetlands on the west side of the road. To further reduce the potential for uncontrolled pedestrian crossings, the Town could consider adding a dedicated crosswalk leading to the farm stand/bakery, as it is a pedestrian generator within the corridor.
2. Alternate Sides
As noted above, the recommended alignment of either a pedestrian or multi-use path would be along the east side of the roadway. However, if there is an unsurmountable constraint (for example, needed ROW cannot be acquired, or a physical/ environmental obstacle cannot be mitigated), it may be necessary to locate a portion of the facility along the west side of the road. As discussed previously, there are several constraints on the east side of North Road, including ROW, fencing, retaining walls, and others. To determine the potential ROW impacts, the Washington County Real Property Services Parcel Viewer was reviewed. It is noted that the public highway boundary is not centered on the roadway (see Figure 9). This may be due to alignment errors between the digital parcel lines and the available aerial photography; in the absence of other data (such as a survey), this apparent offset is assumed to be accurate for the purposes of this report. A survey would be required to determine the actual available ROW on either side of the roadway.
With the possibility of constrained availability of public ROW, the west side of North Road was investigated as an alignment option for the path.
While the east side option provides the more desirable connection to Thunder Mountain Recreation Area by reducing the need for pedestrian crossings, due to construction and ROW constraints it may be necessary to align the path on alternating sides of the road, beginning on the east side and then crossing to the west. In this case, the path would begin on the east side of Prospect Street at Sloan Drive, avoiding the residences which are close to the road, then would cross North Road at the northern intersection of Queens Gate Drive. This would require a marked crosswalk. The path could then continue along the west side of the road, ultimately crossing back at the entrance of Thunder Mountain Recreation Park, again using a marked crosswalk. Both the preferred and alternate alignments are shown in Appendix 3.
E. Advisory Shoulder (Village Portion Only)
As noted above and on the map in Appendix 1, there is an existing stone wall located along a residential driveway just north of the Gray Avenue intersection. This feature presents a constraint to the construction of a path; as such it is recommended that any off-road path facility should begin at the intersection of Sloan Drive.
However, this leaves the section of Prospect Street between Sloan Drive and Gray Avenue without any accommodation for cyclists and pedestrians. A potential solution would be to create a facility known as Advisory Shoulders (see Figures 10 & 11). This treatment is only suitable for roadways with vehicle speeds of 35 m.p.h. or less; as such, it could be located only within the Village 30 m.p.h. speed zone.
Advisory shoulders demarcate space for bicyclists and pedestrians on a roadway that is otherwise too narrow for other options. The shoulder is delineated by pavement marking, creating two 4’ – 6’ wide shoulders with a 10’ – 13.5’ center lane. Motorists may enter the shoulder when no bicyclists or pedestrians are present and must overtake these users with caution due to potential oncoming traffic. It should be noted that advisory shoulders are a new treatment type in the United States. To install advisory shoulders, an approved Request to Experiment is required as detailed in Section 1A.10 of the Manual of Unified Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).
This alternative could be used as an interim solution to provide a bike/ped facility within the Village to connect to an off-road pedestrian or shared-use path as described previously. Given that the Village recently paved Prospect Road, the advisory shoulders could be implemented (pending FWHA approval) simply by adding pavement markings to the roadway. This alternative could be located along Prospect Street between Gray Avenue and Sloan Drive, or it could extend further south on Prospect Street to the intersection of Cooper Street. It is not recommended to extend south past Cooper Street due to sight distance constraints.
III. Cost Estimate
Planning level cost estimates were prepared for each alternative, summarized below in Table 3. For the detailed cost breakdown, see Appendix 4. The estimate also includes project “soft” costs for the survey, design, construction inspection, and ROW (easement) phases that would be required through the state or federal aid grant programs.
The cost estimates were prepared assuming the project would be funded through a federal or state grant and constructed through a traditional design-bid-build process. Typical grant programs through NYSDOT or the NYS Consolidated Funding Application range from 50-80% project funding; as such, the potential cost to the Town has also been included in Table 3 in the event that grant funding is procured. In some cases, the local match may be cash or in-kind labor.
IV. Implementation & Next Steps
This report was prepared to outline the physical feasibility of the various alternatives for a bicycle/pedestrian facility. It is recommended that, should the Town decide to pursue design and construction, a robust public outreach effort should be commenced. As noted above, both the pedestrian path and shared use path alternatives will require extensive coordination with the residents of the adjoining parcels. Although in some cases the narrower pedestrian path may be accommodated within the existing ROW, some residents and landowners may choose to grant additional easements to reduce the need to remove large trees or landscaping features. In other areas, additional ROW may be needed to allow for proper grading and drainage. Once the path is constructed, residents may have concerns about ongoing maintenance, for example concerning snow removal in the winter.
As such, reaching out to residents in a proactive manner is a crucial element of the process. In addition, demonstrating community support for the path may increase the favorability of the project from a grant funding perspective. On a related note, coordination with the Village will also be necessary for the portions of the corridor located in that jurisdiction.
A. Grant Funding
There are a variety of funding sources for pedestrian/shared use path design and construction. When seeking funding sources, it is important to consider funding minimum/maximums as well as any stipulations regarding local match and funding procurement, project deliverability, and any requirements specific to the funding program. In addition, the grant sources listed below are reimbursement programs; the Town must first-instance project costs before funds will be disbursed.
Potential Funding Sources
Notes*
Hudson River Valley Greenway: Conservancy Trail Grant
* Trail Construction: Up to $75,000
* Trail Design or planning: Up to $40,000
* 50% local/non-state match, in-kind allowed
OPRHP: Recreational Trails Program
* Trail development/construction: Min. $25,000, max $250,000
* Property acquisition is allowed in ask
* 20% local match, in-kind allowed
NYSDOT Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP)
* Project Design/Construction: Min. $500,000, Max $5M
* 20% local match
* Federal aid procedural requirements apply
A/GFTC Make the Connection Program
* Trail Design Only: Min. $20,000
* Trail Construction or Design & Construction: Min. $60,000
* 20% local match
* Federal aid procedural requirements apply
*Grant requirements subject to change

One option which may increase the chances of receiving a significant award, such as the Transportation Alternatives Program, is to leverage a smaller grant, such as the Hudson River Valley Greenway, to begin the survey/design process. This would enable the Town to determine the exact ROW constraints and create a more robust cost estimate. In addition, leveraging more than one funding source can be an advantage on grant applications.

Final version, accepted as final by the A/GFTC Planning Committee on August 11, 2021 following a 14-day public comment period.

2010 plan including recommendations to improve accessibility to Big Cross Street School.

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

GLOSSARY OF TERMS
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 pedbikeimages.org / 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 pedbikeimages.org / 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 bikethebyways.org
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.

 

INTRODUCTION/GOALS
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.

Objectives
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.

EXISTING CONDITIONS
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.

Policy
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 (https://www.bikewarrenco.org/) — 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 (http://feedercanal.org/) — 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 (http://www.cambridgevalleycycling.org/) – 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
Vermont.

Champlain Canalway Trail Working Group (http://champlaincanalwaytrail.org/) — 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
network.

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
cyclists
* 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
communities.

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.

REGIONAL PRIORITIES
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
vehicles.
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 https://agftc.org/bicycle-pedestrian/ 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
https://agftc.org/bicycle-pedestrian/, 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
region.
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.

IMPLEMENTATION
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
stakeholder.
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.

Bikesharing/micromobility
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
services.
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
above.
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
system.
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.
Marketing/outreach
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
facilities.
* 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