Publication Type: Transportation Plans

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

Prepared for the Town of Johnsburg July 15, 2020

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Figure 3 — Traffic Count/Intersection Count Locations

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

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

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

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

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

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

TABLE 5
Stopping Sight Distances (ft)
ID | Location | Traveling North Standard vs Available | Traveling South Standard vs Available
A | NY 28 & Ski Bowl Rd North | 570 > 750 | 570 >1000
B | NY 28 & Bridge St (NY 28N) | 570 >1000 | 570 > 750
C | NY 28 & Ski Bowl Rd South | 570 > 750 | 570 >1000

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

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

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

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

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

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

10 Figure 6 – Proposed Development Location Plan

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

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

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

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

Summary of Anticipated Traffic Impacts
• Future development is projected to increase trips in/out of Ski Bowl Park by 283 trips in the AM peak
hour and 535 trips in the PM peak hour in 2039 .
• All intersections are projected to continue to operate at LOS A in future No – build and Build
conditions, with the exception of Ski Bowl Road South, which will operate at LOS E in the 2039 Build
condition for the PM peak hour.
TABLE 8
Overall Intersection LOS Table (Delay in Seconds)
Location | Existing AM PM | No-Build 2029 AM PM | No-Build 2039 AM PM | Buildout, 2039 AM PM
1 NY 28 & Ski Bowl Rd North | A (1.6) A (2.0) | A (2.7) A (2.3) | A (2.6) A (2.3) | A (3.1) A (6.0)
2 NY 28 & Bridge St (NY 28N) | A (2.9) A (2.9) | A (2.9) A (3.0) | A (3.0) A (3.1) | A (4.6) A (6.8)
3 NY 28 & Ski Bowl Rd South | A (1.6) A (1.0) | A (1.7) A ( 1.1) | A (1.7) A (1.1) | A (5.7) E (46.4)

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

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

TABLE 10
Access Alternatives – Overall Intersection LOS , 2039 Buildout ( Delay in Seconds)
Location Access Alt 1 AM PM Access Alt 2 AM PM Access Alt 3 AM PM
NY 28 & Ski Bowl Rd North* | 3.1 (A) 6.0 (A) | 2.4 (A) 2.9 (A) | 2.3 (A) 2.9 (A)
NY 28 & Bridge St (NY 28N) | 4.6 (A) 6.8 (A) | 4.7 (A) 7.6 (A) | 7.8 (A) 34.2 (D)
NY 28 & Ski Bowl Rd South | 5.7 (A) 46.4 (E) | 5.1 (A) 45.7 (E) | NA
*Note: Values for Ski Bowl Road North intersection in Alternatives 2 & 3 assume that vehicles are
restricted to accessing the Health Center only.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Figure 7 — Traffic Signal Concept

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

Figure 8 – Single – Lane Roundabout

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

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

Table 12 outlines the Pros and Cons of adding a traffic signal or roundabout at the intersection of NY 28 & 28N.
TABLE 1 2
Intersection Alternatives, Pros and Cons
NY 2 8 & 28N — Proposed Access to Ski Bowl Park Concept Pros Cons
Traffic Signal Pros
• Includes pedestrian signals and countdown timers
• Can be implemented in a phased approach (i. e., install turning lanes first, then introduce signal when Ski Bowl Road South is closed)
Traffic Signal Cons
Signal maintenance time and cost
• Increased emissions from stopped vehicles
• Less potential to create a gateway feature
Roundabout Pros
• Traffic calming
• Less perceived delay, vehicles in motion
• Through vehicles don’t need to stop if there are no vehicles or pedestrians in the roundabout
• Slower speeds and less severe accidents
• Gateway feature for Hamlet and Ski Bowl
• Improved landscape features
Roundabout Cons
• No pedestrian signals
• Increased construction costs compared to traffic signal

Figure 9 — Recommended Improvements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Figure 12 — Pedestrian underpass, Carol Thomas Memorial Trail

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

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

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

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

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

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

TABLE 13 : POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES
Intersection /Roadway Improvements
• Transportation Improvement Program (A/GFTC)
• USDOT BUILD grants
Recreation Park
• Office of Parks, Recreation, & Historic Preservation (OPRHP): Environmental Protection Fund Program for Parks, Preservation, and Heritage
• Environmental Facilities Corporation Green Innovation Grant Program
Pedestrian Improvements
• OPRHP : Recreational T rails Program
• NYSDOT Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP)
• NYSDOT Pedestrian Safety Action Plan (PSAP)
• A/GFTC Make the Connection Program

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

END

Intersection evaluation commissioned by A/GFTC at the request by the City of Glens Falls, completed by Creighton Manning Engineering. Focus on improving accommodations for pedestrians.

Text of plan to follow — please use .pdf link

PLEASE NOTE: Text below provided for screen reader facilitation only. See pdf for full plan including graphics.

Lake George – Warrensburg
Bikeway Extension Concept Plan
April 2019

Disclaimer:
This report was funded in part through a grant from the Federal
Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. The
views and opinions expressed herein do not necessarily state or
reflect those of the U.S. Department of Transportation. This study
includes preliminary cost estimates prepared by A/GFTC project
consultants on behalf of the Town and Village of Lake George and
the Town of Warrensburg. These estimates are based on conceptual
plans and provide an order-of-magnitude tabulation of costs, such
that a project sponsor may seek funding for design and construction.
Actual project costs may vary as the project undergoes detailed
design. The adoption of this document by the A/GFTC Planning
or Policy Committee in no way implies a commitment to include
proposed projects in future Transportation Improvement Programs.

INTRODUCTION
The Warren County Bikeway is one of the most important bicycle-
pedestrian facilities in the region. As a stand-alone facility, it connects the
City of Glens Falls to the Village of Lake George. Regionally, the Bikeway
is part of a larger network of off- and on-road trails, connecting to the
Feeder Canal Trail, the Betar Byway, and will soon provide access to New
York State’s Empire Trail. Locally, the Bikeway fulfills crucial transportation
and recreation functions and is well-loved by residents and tourists alike.
Currently, the Bikeway terminates in Battlefield Park, near the junction of
West Brook Road and Beach Road. The extension of the Bikeway north
through the Village and Town of Lake George has long been a priority for
both the local municipalities and A/GFTC itself. In addition, the town of
Warrensburg has also identified the desire for a bike-ped connection from
Route 9 south of the hamlet. However, in both cases a number of challenges
exist which complicate the selection of an ideal route.

As such, A/GFTC was asked by the Town of Lake George, in conjunction
with the Village of Lake George and the Town of Warrensburg, to prepare
a concept plan to evaluate a potential extension from the terminus of the
existing Warren County Bikeway through the Village of Lake George and
north to Warrensburg. These concepts can then provide the basis for the
local municipalities to pursue detailed planning, design and construction.

WHAT IS A BIKEWAY?
For the purposes of this report, the term Bikeway refers
to a variety of different types of infrastructure, which
together have been designated as a facility for non-
vehicular use with a priority given to cycling. These may
include:
• Shared-use paths can be used by cyclists or
pedestrians. These are typically 10-12’ wide and
paved with asphalt or stone dust. Usually, these
are located outside of the road right-of-way; when
located beside a road, they are sometimes referred
to as sidepaths.
• Bike lanes are on-road facilities designated for
bicycle use only, located adjacent to vehicle lanes
with or without a buffer. If on-street parking is also
accommodated on the road, the bike lane is located
between the driving lane and the parking lane.
Pedestrians are not allowed on bike lanes and would
be accommodated via sidewalks. Bike lanes are
typically designated with pavement markings.
• Wide shoulders, which are often located in more
rural settings. Unlike a bike lane, pedestrians may
be accommodated on wide shoulders, especially if
no sidewalks exist. Wide shoulders along a Bikeway
may be delineated with pavement markings.
• Cycle tracks are exclusive bike facilities located
adjacent to vehicle lanes, but physically separated
from vehicular traffic. Two-way cycle tracks allow for
bicycle travel in both directions along one side of
the street.
• Although bicycles are allowed on all public roads,
shared-use lanes offer additional accommodation
for cyclists via extra lane width and pavement
markings.

METHODOLOGY

To guide the project, a steering committee was formed,
with representatives from the Town and Village of
Lake George, Warren County Planning, NYSDOT
Region 1 Planning, and A/GFTC staff. The Town of
Warrensburg participated as a critical stakeholder, with
municipal staff and elected officials providing feedback
on the portions of the project located outside of Lake
George. In addition, several public meetings were held
to gather input.

For this project, the major challenges lay in selecting
potential routes through the Village of Lake George
and the hamlet area in Warrensburg. As with any
developed area, the alignment of a bicycle facility must
take into account the constraints of existing infrastructure,
buildings and structures, rights-of-way, and
natural features. In addition, the safety of future Bike-
way users will be affected by the speed, volume, and
traffic patterns of vehicles on nearby roadways.
As such, for the purposes of this report, the potential
alignment is discussed in terms of three distinct
segments: the Village of Lake George, the Route 9
connector, and the hamlet of Warrensburg. For each
area, route options were evaluated in terms of feasibility,
safety, and user experience, by examining a range of
factors specific to the context of the surrounding area.

SECTION 1: LAKE GEORGE VILLAGE
The Village of Lake George poses a particular set of
challenges for the Bikeway extension. For example, the
high volume of vehicular and pedestrian traffic on the
main thoroughfares and major intersections can make
navigation via bicycle difficult, especially on Beach
Road and Canada Street. The Village itself is densely
developed, which limits available space for additional
infrastructure. In addition, maintaining on-street park-
ing is a high priority for the municipality. Topography
also comes into play, as many of the local streets are
quite steep; combined with the stop-and-go nature of
biking through a developed area, these slopes can be a
barrier for casual or inexperienced cyclists.
The steering committee discussed many options and
potential routes. The various alternatives were evaluat-
ed for safety, feasibility, street/bridge width, steepness
of the route, potential disruption of on-street parking,
private property concerns, connection to the commu –
nity core, directness, and overall user experience. In
almost every case, this involved one or more tradeoffs.
In conducting this analysis within the Village of Lake
George, three primary alignments were identified, each
having potential optional routing. A summary of the
key considerations for these options is included on the
following pages.

Bikeway Evaluation Factors
Safety was evaluated in terms of exposure of cyclists
and pedestrians to vehicle traffic, specifically at
intersections and road crossings, which have an
increased potential for conflict.
Slope was considered as it impacts user experience.
Although some cyclists enjoy the challenge of steep
slopes, the Bikeway is intended to be desireable to
cyclists at every skill level.
Right-of-way was a critical consideration, as alignments
which traverse private property will also increase costs
and project complexity. In general, the more preferred
alternatives avoid private property.
On-street parking was an important factor in both Lake
George and Warrensburg. Alternatives which minimize
disruption to on-street parking resources were
prioritized.
Road and bridge width affect the amount of available
space for dedicated bicycle facilities. For the purposes
of this plan, most alternatives assumed no significant
reconstruction of the road or bridge infrastructure.
Physical barriers, such as embankments or highway
ramps, were considered. The steering committee
considered non-traditional means, such as tunnels, to
overcome barriers when possible.

Option 1: Beach Road/Canada Street
Key Considerations:
• Adding bicycle facilities to Beach Road will require
major reconstruction of the roadway. Given that
the road recently underwent significant improve-
ments involving the use of federal funds, it will be
at least several years before additional funds would
be available to undertake improvements of this
scale. Although Beach Road has wide sidewalks,
the presence of obstacles and the high pedestrian
volume precludes their use as multi-use paths.
• The Beach Road/Canada Street intersection has
multiple turning lanes and cross traffic; this would
require pedestrians and bicyclists to check multiple
locations for oncoming traffic, increasing exposure
to vulnerable road users.
• The traffic volumes and roadway configuration on
Canada Street through the heart of the Village are
not conducive to cycling and lane widths do not
support the introduction of bike lanes. In addition,
the peak hourly vehicular volume makes this section
of the roadway a poor candidate for a road diet. As
such, the steering committee removed this option
from further consideration.

Option 2: Southwest Route
Key considerations:
• Slopes on southern Dieskau Street, western Mc-
Gillis Ave, and western Chestnut Street pose major
impediments to cycling.
• Routing is circuitous and offers poor connection to
the Village core.

Preferred Option: West Brook & West
Neighborhoods
The preferred option is a two-way sidepath, separated
from vehicular traffic, along West Brook Road to
Route 9. This would be located on the north side of
the southern branch of West Brook Road, between the
roadway and the brook itself. Although there are many
options for locating the Bikeway alongside the road
or within West Brook Park, this option was selected
by the steering committee after consultation with the
Warren County Department of Public Works as it
offers a balance of feasibility and connectivity to Route
9.
The Bikeway then travels alongside Route 9 between
West Brook Road and Mohican Street. In this section,
there are two options: bike lanes on either side of the
roadway, or a separated two-way cycle track on the
west side of Route 9. Each option offers pros and cons.
Bike lanes would be easier to design and construct, and
could be implemented with re-striping the roadway
as part of routine maintenance. However, this would
require an additional crossing at the north branch
of West Brook Road, which is currently configured
as a slip lane. This intersection would need to be
reconfigured as shown on page 6. In addition, bikes
traveling north would then have to cross Route 9 at
Mohican Street, which is unsignalized. This could be
accomplished by merging into the left lane and turning
with traffic, or by dismounting and walking the bike
across the road at the existing crosswalk.

If the separated two-way option is chosen, only one crossing of Route 9 would be needed,
at the West Brook Road intersection as seen to the top left. This is also an unsignalized
intersection, and there is currently no crosswalk at this location. Adequate signage and
striping would need to be installed to increase the visibility of the crossing to motorists. No
crossing would be needed at Mohican Street, as the Bikeway users would already be on the
west side of the road.
At Mohican Street, the preferred alternative traverses the neighborhoods as a shared
roadway, following Dieskau, McGillis, Helen, Montcalm, and finally to Cooper St. Though
it is indirect, it provides good connection to the village, direct connection to the Prospect
Mountain, and a visual connection to the lake. Public bicycle parking can be located on
McGillis, just before Helen.
From Cooper Street, the Bikeway would transition to an off-road facility, utilizing the
National Grid right-of-way. The preferred but high cost option is to bore a tunnel under the
Exit 22 ramps to Cherry Street. Although costly, this route is an optimal opportunity for the
trail to avoid the slip ramps and intersections around the Exit 22 and Route 9 convergence.
From Cherry St. the trail could continue to the National Grid right of way at the end of
Thompson Street before using Big Hollow Road to intersect with Route 9 and continue
north.
The more feasible option is for the trail route to continue northeast past the Town/Village
office complex, paralleling the Exit 22 ramps. This trail proposal may be encumbered by
two private properties near the Route 9 intersection with Exit 22 ramp. However, the
steering committee feels that the property owners may be amenable to an agreement. Upon
intersecting with Route 9, the proposed route would continue north under the overpass as
a two-way separated cycle track on the west side of the road. This would then transition
to bike lanes on both sides of the road, requiring a crossing to be located near the Upper
Hubbell intersection.

SECTION 2: TOWN OF LAKE
GEORGE ROUTE 9 CONNECTOR
To connect Lake George to Warrensburg, several
alignment options were considered. In addition to uti-
lizing the Route 9 corridor (discussed on the following
page), the other alternatives included:
Option 1:
• Utilize the dirt roads/jeep trails and paths north
of Prospect Mountain to travel west toward Harrington
Hill Road. This option was considered too
indirect, substantially hilly and potentially significantly
costly to explore further.
Option 2:
• An eastern route using Flat Rock Road to Trues-
dale Road was considered too hilly and indirect.
Option 3:
• The old trolley line corridor, which runs parallel to
the west side of Route 9, was also considered as it
would provide a direct off-road connection between
Lake George and Warrensburg. Due to the cost of
improving the power corridor, moving poles and
installing drainage, installing a multi-use path on
the National Grid right of way, the concept was
removed from consideration as a transportation
facility. However, this concept would be ideal for
future consideration as a recreational mountain bike
connection.

Preferred Option
The preferred conceptual alignment utilizes the Route
9 right of way. The existing pavement is approximate-
ly 44’ wide, providing ample space for either buffered
bike lanes on either side or a separated two-way shared
use path on one side of the road. Either option can be
accommodated within the existing pavement width.
However, the buffered bike lane option could be imple-
mented by restriping the pavement, a relatively low-
cost option which could be accomplished as a stand –
alone project or during the next round of pavement
maintenance. The two-way shared use path would
require construction of a physical barrier as well as
re-grading the crown of the roadway. This would be
more costly. Given that much of Route 9 in this section
was recently re-surfaced, the likelihood of quick imple –
mentation is reduced.
The most significant challenge is how to traverse the
north end of this portion of the Bikeway. The inter-
section of Diamond Point Road and Route 9 presents a
challenge for bicycle/pedestrian activity. There are two
slip lanes at this signalized intersection, as well as a
left-turn lane heading southbound on Route 9 from the
hamlet of Warrensburg. Although there are shoulders
on both sides of the roadway, the width is constrained
on the east side of Route 9 by guiderails.
As such, the preferred alternative is to construct
buffered bike lanes for most of the length of Route 9
between Lake George Village and Warrensburg, uti-
lizing the two-way shared use path at the north end
of this section of the Bikeway. If located on the west
side of Route 9, the Bikeway will thereby avoid the
intersection slip lanes at Diamond Point Road. This
requires designating a crossing point at a safe location
for cyclists traveling northbound (east lane).

SECTION 3: WARRENSBURG

In the Town of Warrensburg, the Bikeway is proposed
to terminate at the Warrensburg Recreation Field on
Library Avenue. This provides a logical destination from
which future Bikeway continuation concepts can extend.
There are a number of challenges to creating an inviting
and functional Bikeway within Warrensburg. From the
south, a 2-way cycle track on the west side of Route 9
is proposed, approaching the Warrensburg town bound-
ary. However, right-of-way and other physical features
preclude the continuation north of Prosser Road. North
of the Schroon River bridge, Route 9/Main Street has
an urbanized cross-section with sidewalks, curbs, and
narrow shoulders or on-street parking. This limits the
available space for dedicated bicycle facilities. In terms
of alternate facilities, River Road is narrow, winding and
has a limited shoulder. All of the bridges from River
Street to the north side of the Schroon River are narrow,
with sidewalks on only one side. Given these constraints,
three options were evaluated for this plan.

Option 1 National Grid/Swan Street:
This option was eliminated from further consideration
but is included in the plan for the purposes of discussion.
Key Considerations:
• This option would require easements from National
Grid and a private property owner to access Swan
Street.
• The blind corner and steep grade at Sunset Street
are impediments to routing the Bikeway along this
alignment.
• This option would require a significant amount of
back-tracking to reach the Recreation Field.

Option 2: Baker’s Crossing/River Street
Key Considerations:
• Baker’s Crossing and Harrington Hill are narrow streets with sections of steep
grade. Although both facilities have low vehicle traffic, current lane widths are too
narrow to support shared lane markings. Baker’s Crossing in particular has no pave-
ment markings at all. The lack of pavement markings on a local roadway does not
imply that the street is unsuitable for bicycle use; however, it may be undesireable for
some cyclists.
• River Street is currently too narrow for dedicated bicycle lanes to be accommodated
without extensive reconstruction of the roadway. However, given the slower speeds
and volumes of this roadway, shared use lanes would be an acceptable alternative.
• Milton Street and Richards Avenue bridges are narrow, as noted above. The existing
travel lane widths are too narrow to support shared lane markings. Cyclists would
need to share the lane with traffic or dismount and use the sidewalks. The intersec-
tion of Richards Avenue and Water Street also has issues with sight distance and
above-average accident rates, which have previously been examined by the town and
NYSDOT.

Option 3: Route 9
Key Considerations:
• This option continues the 2-way cycle track from Lake George north. At Prosser
Road, the 2-way cycle track would end, in favor of bike lanes or shared use lanes. As
such, cyclists would use the Route 9 crossing to continue northward. The installa-
tion of a crosswalk signal actuation button that can be accessed by bicyclists without
needing to dismount is recommended.
• If the existing road width is utilized and the maintenance of parking facilities a
priority, space will be limited for dedicated bicycle facilities. With the current curb-
to-curb width, a dedicated bike lane is only feasible on the east side for some portions
of the roadway, with the Bikeway on the west side being carried in a shared use lane.
Although this would increase the amount of dedicated bicycle infrastructure over
the current condition, the inconsistency of facility type on either side of the road –
way is not a desireable long-term solution.

Preferred option:
In selecting from among the feasible alternatives in
Warrensburg, each option involves considerable trade-
offs. Although the River Road option is less direct and
does not expose cyclists directly to the core of the
hamlet, the roadways carry considerably less traffic
and may therefore result in a more desirable cycling
experience. The Main St./Route 9 option, conversely,
brings the Bikeway into the heart of the community;
however, without continuous dedicated bicycle lanes,
the higher traffic and on-street parking along Route 9
are considerable disincentives to cycling.
As such, the preferred option in Warrensburg
involves a phased approach. In the short-term, Bakers
Crossing/River Street could serve as a viable route
for the Bikeway. Much of this section was previously
studied in the River Street Streetscape Revitalization
Plan; the recommendations of that plan are still valid
for this project as well. The off-road connector behind
the school is also feasible for construction in the short-
to medium-term, as it poses no right-of-way challenges
and could serve as a stand-alone facility.
In the long term, the 2-way cycle track could be
extended to Prosser Road, as shown at left. This would
require a crossing (see inset) to separate north and
south bound bicycle traffic to the appropriate side of
the roadway. Pedestrian push-buttons which could
be activated by cyclists without dismounting would
provide an ideal crossing opportunity.

Continuing north, every effort should be
made to redesign the roadway to include
dedicated bicycles facilities when NYSDOT
undertakes future large-scale resurfacing
or reconstruction projects on Route 9. The
Bikeway could then be redesignated to follow
Main Street, which would in turn facilitate
further extensions to northern Warren
County in the future. Illustrated at left are
conceptual designs which maximize available
curb-to-curb width. As can be seen, given
current configuration of sidewalks and on-
street parking, there is not sufficient room
to include bike lanes for the entire length
of Main Street. The future large-scale
reconstruction effort for this section of Route
9 would ideally prioritize consistent dedicated
bicycle facilities on both sides of the street.

IMPLEMENTATION
Bringing a project from concept to construction can be a daunting prospect. This is
especially true in cases involving infrastructure owned by another agency, such as
NYSDOT. However, a careful approach and long-term planning can spell success. Indeed,
one example of successful collaboration between state and local project sponsors can be
seen in the recently completed Lake George Gateway project. The lessons learned from
that process can be applied to future implementation efforts for the Bikeway extension.
Key considerations for implementation include:
Sponsorship, Ownership, and Maintenance
Deciding which agency will be responsible for ongoing pursuing design and construction,
as well as ongoing operations and maintenance, is a critical first step. Although this plan
involves extending the Warren County Bikeway, there is no implied burden on the County
to implement the recommendations in this document. As this plan was undertaken on
behalf of the Town and Village of Lake George, it would be reasonable to identify the
municipality as a potential project sponsor. Similarly, the Town of Warrensburg could
pursue these recommendations within their jurisdiction. These local municipalities should
continue to coordinate all implementation efforts with NYSDOT for the portions of the
Bikeway which align with state-owned facilities.

Right-of-Way Acquisition
Before a trail can be designed and constructed, the project sponsor must secure the rights
to access the land. For the sections of trail that are located along a public roadway, this is
likely to be straightforward, as access can likely be granted with proper permitting and
maintenance agreements. Similarly, the section of off-road connector along the Schroon
River in Warrensburg is also located in publicly owned parcels. However, in the Village
of Lake George, the preferred alternative includes a section of off-road Bikeway along
a National Grid utility corridor. It is therefore recommended that the project sponsor
begin the negotiation process as early as possible, preferably by demonstrating that the
conditions which are most likely to be requested by the utility company can be met. Even
still, there is no guarantee that National Grid will be willing to enter an agreement to
grant access.

IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE: UTILITY EASEMENTS
Every utility company has a unique
policy regarding trail on their
property. There are considerations
for liability and maintenance, as
well as ensuring future access for
equipment maintenance. Historically,
National Grid has required a full set of
design documents as a pre-requisite
to granting an easement for trail
construction. This approach allows
the company to fully vet all aspects
of the proposed trail ahead of time.
However, since most grant sources
require that an applicant demonstrate
site control before funding will be
given out, this poses a difficulty for
local municipalities; transportation
funding often bundles design and
construction as one package. Given
that trail design can cost tens of
thousands of dollars, not many local
agencies can afford to design a trail
without receiving grant funding.
Recently, National Grid has struck an
agreement with the Hudson Valley
Greenway to provide access for the
Empire State Trail. This long-term
lease agreement was granted before
detailed design was completed. As a
condition of the agreement, National
Grid will be involved in the design
process. The agreement also calls
for conditions relating to the trail
specifications and other factors.

Cost/Funding
Obtaining funding for design and construction can be a challenge. Concept-level
cost estimates have been prepared based on the preferred alternatives listed in this
document. (For detailed cost breakdowns, see Appendix 1). These estimates are order-
of-magnitude costs, intended to allow project sponsors to gain a rough idea of how
much funding might be needed before pursuing design and construction. There are a
number of grant programs which provide funding for design, construction, or both.
The list below includes several options, however, non-traditional sources of funding,
such as public-private partnerships or other groups, may provide additional assistance.
The grant programs listed below have historically allowed for trail or trail-related
projects; future eligibility is not guaranteed.
• Recreational Trails Program: 80/20 grant, $25,000/$200,000 project min./max.
• Make the Connection Program: 80/20 grant, $75,000 project min.
• Transportation Alternatives Program: 80/20 grant, $250,000/$5M project
min./max.
• Waterfront Revitalization Program Implementation: 75/25grant, $2M project
max.
• Climate Smart Communities (Mitigation Category): 50/50 grant, $10,000/$2M
project min./max.
• Green Innovation Grant Program (Permeable Pavement): match varies, no project min.

Study to analyze recommended pedestrian infrastructure improvements to connect the central village area of the Village of Argyle with the Dollar General in the Town of Argyle; copy for public review and comment prior to committee consideration

Halfway Brook to Hudson Pointe Trail Connector Study
Prepared for the Town of Queensbury
September 2018

NOTE: The text of the plan is included below to facilitate use by screen reader technology. For the full plan, including maps and graphics, please see the pdf file.

Introduction

Over the past several years, the Town of Queensbury has worked steadily to improve conditions for cyclists and pedestrians. This has involved designating bike routes, constructing trails, and training local officials in the principles of Complete Streets. As part of this effort, the Town of Queensbury reached out to the Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation Council (A/GFTC) for assistance in creating a conceptual plan for future trail connections in West Queensbury, from the southern terminus of the planned Halfway Brook trail to the Hudson Pointe preserve along the Hudson River. This north-south connection has long been noted as a priority in local and regional planning efforts.

The intent of this plan is to document existing conditions, compare potential alternative alignments for an on- or off-road connection, and document order-of-magnitude costs for a preferred concept. This has been completed with the assistance of Alta Planning + Design and Creighton Manning Engineering, as well as the guidance of a steering committee of stakeholders and the general public. This plan will provide the framework to allow the Town to pursue funding for implementation in a future phase of project development.

Please note that for the purposes of this plan, the term “trail” refers to the proposed bicycle/pedestrian connection as a whole, which may be made up of a variety of on- and off-road facilities. See page 2 for examples.

The first step in identifying a trail alignment is to understand the conditions and features that may affect the viability of a trail. To facilitate this, a GIS analysis was performed, in which several factors were mapped, including regional connections, existing bike/ped features, topography and environmental features, vacant and developed land, traffic volumes/speeds, and crash history.

Existing Conditions

The study area is located in the southwest portion of the Town of Queensbury, within Warren County, New York. The Regional Map shows the study area and the surrounding trails and bicycle routes throughout the region. As the map indicates, there is a lack of dedicated bicycle/pedestrian facilities within the study area. However, there are potential connections to the Rush Pond/Halfway Brook trail system in the north and the Feeder Canal Trail to the east, which in turn connects to the Warren County Bikeway, an important regional facility.

The existing trails and designated bike routes in the study area are documented in the map to the left. This includes the proposed Halfway Brook Trail (still under development), town designated bicycle routes, and the priority bicycle network and pedestrian areas identified by the A/GFTC Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. Although the study area contains designated bicycle routes, these roadways do not have dedicated bicycle lanes; cyclists and pedestrians use the road shoulders (where available) or share space with vehicular traffic. In addition, the road network is not conducive to north-south travel; there is no easily-identifiable way to get from Peggy Ann road to Corinth Road without crossing private property or traveling miles to the east or west.

Elevation and slope of the topography in the study area is an important consideration, as steep slopes can inhibit trail development. The elevation within the study area ranges from 284 feet to 502 feet, as shown in the map to the left. For the most part, the study area has flat-to-moderate slopes. However, the steep slopes south of Corinth Road where Clendon Brook meets the Hudson pose a challenge. There are existing trails in this vicinity, including a small bridge over the brook; however these facilities do not meet contemporary standards for access.

In terms of environmental features, there are limited amounts of wetland areas along Clendon Brook, as well as an isolated wetland between Michaels Drive and Richmond Hill Road. Neither of these wetlands areas are anticipated to directly impact any of the proposed trail alignments; however, as detailed design is undertaken, further analysis of wetlands should be undertaken if needed. In addition, previous environmental analyses have indicated the probable presence of Karner Blue Butterfly habitat in the study area. This should also be taken into account as part of the design process.

Property that is predominantly undeveloped (currently void of a commercial or residential building) can offer opportunity for integrating pedestrian and bicycle accommodations in site planning ahead of development. Some of these properties may already be in conservation and undeveloped in order to serve another purpose or remain in a natural state. There are also large parcels which are publicly owned. These lots, owned by the Town of Queensbury, the City of Glens Falls, and the Queensbury Land Conservancy, represent opportunities for off-road or expanded on-road facilities.

The average annual daily traffic (AADT) indicates the average traffic volumes on the roadway in a 24-hour period. It is important to consider the AADT of roadways when planning on-road bicycling and walking routes, as people tend to be more comfortable using on-road bicycling and walking facilities located on lower-volume roadways rather than higher volume roadways. This data is collected by the New York State Department of Transportation; the most recent AADT data available for this area was gathered in 2015. Map 6 shows the AADT for all recorded roadways within the study area.

Corinth Road has the highest traffic volume within the study area, reaching over 8700 cars per day in certain sections. Upper Sherman also experiences traffic volumes of over 5000 cars per day, with about 3600 cars per day on Luzerne Road. Although current traffic counts are not available for Peggy Ann Road, A/GFTC staff estimates traffic volumes of between 3000-4000 cars per day, based on historic counts.

For the most part, the neighborhood streets and roadways have a speed limit of 30 mph. However, the major east-west roads (Peggy Ann, Upper Sherman, Luzerne, and Corinth) have speed limits of 40-45 mph. The higher speed limit can affect the comfort and safety of cyclists and pedestrians, and is a factor to consider when selecting a trail alignment.

Crash data was analyzed for the five years of crashes reported in the region from the beginning of April 2012 through the end of March 2017. This dataset includes multiple types of vehicle crashes. Especially important to this particular study are the crashes between vehicles and bicyclists and pedestrians. There are two crashes with bicyclists (noted by the yellow points on the map), one in July 2012 and one in June 2014, and each was located at an intersection. The 2012 crash occurred at the intersection of Corinth Road and Rhode Island Avenue and the 2014 crash was located at the intersection of Luzerne Road and Indiana Avenue. The pedestrian collision (noted by the blue point on the map) occurred in February 2017 on Minnesota Avenue. These isolated incidents do not indicate an easily identifiable pattern of bicycle or pedestrian crashes.

Analysis of Alternatives

In attempting to identify the best possible location for a north-south connection, several ideas were put forth. The overall goal of creating a trail is to provide access, both to the trail itself, and to the destinations along the trail. Of the initial trail alignments, the concept of an on-road connection along the western edge of the project site, utilizing Peggy Ann and West Mountain roads, was rejected as not warranting further discussion. This concept was determined to not meet the goals of the project, in that it was too far removed from many of the neighborhoods in the study area to provide meaningful access, especially for pedestrians.

From the initial discussions, the four remaining alternatives were put forth, shown at left. These include:

Utility Line Corridor (2.96 miles, off-road)
Clendon Brook (3.62 miles, on- and off-road)
East Side (4.71 miles, on- and off-road)
Burnt Hills (4.1 miles, on- and off-road)

Each option is described in greater detail on the following pages.

Utility Line Corridor

The majority of this trail alternative is off-road. The northern terminus of this alignment is at the proposed Halfway Brook trailhead on Peggy Ann Road. From there, the trail would travel east along the north side of Peggy Ann for approximately ¼ mile as a shared use path, separated from the roadway. At the National Grid utility line, the trail would head south, following the utility corridor all the way to the Hudson Pointe Nature Preserve. There is a significant topographic challenge in crossing Clendon Brook within the utility line corridor. Alternately, the trail could break away from the utility corridor as it passes through the Clendon Brook Preserve, following a meandering path through the open space preserves as it crosses Clendon Brook at the existing bridge deck.

Clendon Brook

This option includes a combination of on- and off-road facilities. From the Halfway Brook trailhead, this trail travels west along the north side of Peggy Ann for approximately 1/3 mile, turning south on Quail Run/Lambert Drive and transitioning to a bike boulevard. At Upper Sherman, the trail heads east, transitioning to bike lanes/shoulders and sidewalks. The trail then follows Richmond Hill Drive as a bike boulevard or a shared-use path. At the southern end of Richmond Hill, private easements would be required to make the connection to cross Luzerne Road. The trail then continues south along Van Dusen Road as bike lanes and sidewalks. Crossing Corinth Road, the trail jogs west as a shared use path for a few hundred feet, then utilizes existing and proposed trails in the Clendon Brook Preserve. The crossing and trail alignment at Corinth Road would require easement(s), enhanced crossing signage, and possible re-grading of the road shoulder to allow room for a trail. As with option 1, the crossing of Clendon Brook poses a topographic challenge; however, it may be possible to improve the existing bike/ped bridge to bring the facility up to contemporary standards for access.

East Side

From the Halfway Brook trailhead, this trail travels east as a shared use path along the north side of Peggy Ann for just under 1 mile before turning south along the National Grid utility corridor. The trail continues off-road, crossing Upper Sherman and Luzerne roads. The trail would then continue west along East and Central Avenues, turning south at Michigan Avenue. The on-road portions of the trail in this section would be bike boulevards or yield roadways. Utilizing Warren County property, the trail would transition to a shared use path, cross Corinth Road, then continue within the rights-of-way of Carey and Native roads as shared use paths. The trail would then cross into open spaces in the Big Bay preserve, following existing and proposed trails to Hudson Pointe. As with Option 2, the Clendon Brook crossing is anticipated to be accomplished by improving the existing bike/ped bridge, to bring the facility up to contemporary standards for access.

Burnt Hills

From the Halfway Brook trailhead, this trail travels east along the north side of Peggy Ann for about half a mile before turning south and utilizing the trails and open space associated with the Queen Victoria’s Grant development, which would likely require an easement and potentially approval of the Homeowner’s Association. Another private easement would be required to make the connection to Upper Sherman road. The trail then travels east to Kylian’s Way, following the roadway south to Burnt Hills Drive. The trail crosses Luzerne Road near Pinewood Road, which has limited sight distance and may require additional engineering consideration. Alternately, the trail could continue along the east side of the residences on Pinewood, which would require private easements. At Corinth Road, the trail jogs to the east, then turns south on Carey Road. As with Option 3, the trail continues within the rights-of-way of Carey and Native roads. The trail would then cross into open spaces in the Big Bay preserve, following existing and proposed trails to Hudson Pointe. As with Option 2 and 3, the Clendon Brook crossing is anticipated to be accomplished by improving the existing bike/ped bridge, to bring the facility up to contemporary standards for access.

Selection of Preferred Alternative

To enable the Town to make an informed choice between the conceptual alignments, a series of criteria were developed in collaboration with the Steering Committee. These represent the complexity concerning trail development and broadly include the consideration of topography, traffic volumes and conflicts, crossings, environmental impacts, cultural and economic resources, as well as site control and acquisition. Specifically, the Steering Committee sought to incorporate the following: ease of use, safety, exposure to motorized traffic (especially at higher speeds), cost, winter use, and environmental engineering issues such as stormwater and drainage. While not all of these are explicitly analyzed, they are integrated into the larger concepts detailed at left.

The decision to select one alignment is not merely a matter of assigning ratings and rankings to objective criteria. The evaluation matrix is an important tool to clarify consideration factors, but not all factors are of equal importance to the community. For example, it may be more important to provide access to neighborhoods and destinations than to select the alignment which is easiest to build. In addition, some of the factors influencing the criteria rankings can be mitigated through careful engineering and design.
Based on the criteria, the consensus of the Steering Committee was that the Utility Line alternative was the preferred alignment. There was also a preference expressed by Town representatives for the East Side alternative, due to the connections to destinations such as the West End Park, Rocksport Indoor Climbing Gym and Adirondack Sports Complex. In addition, this alternative offers strong potential for future connections to the Feeder Canal Trail.

Although the input of the Steering Committee is important, it is crucial to select an alternative supported by the community. An alternative may look suitable on paper, but may have hidden drawbacks that are not apparent through objective analysis. After all, bicycle and pedestrian facilities are meant to be used. By providing a thorough public outreach process, the Town can be more confident that the selected alternative will e enjoyed by the community.

A public meeting was held in December 2017. The meeting was well attended, with approximately 40-50 Queensbury residents and interested individuals. After a brief presentation on the project area and proposed alignments, attendees were asked to vote for their first and second choices for the trail. In addition, steering committee members and staff were present to answer questions. The vote tally is shown at left.

As can be seen from the results of the voting, the Utility Line alternative had the most support from attendees. In addition, there was strong support for the East Side alignment, as well as a moderate support for the Clendon Brook alternative as a “back-up”. The Burnt Hills option was the least popular.
There was clear consensus between public opinion and the Steering Committee. It is important to note that both the Utility Line and East Side options are dependent on securing access rights from National Grid, as discussed further in the Implementation section of this plan. In terms of selecting the preferred alignment, the Steering Committee opted to combine both the Utility Line and East Side alignments in a phased approach, also discussed in more detail in the Implementation section.

Implementation

There are many factors to consider before undertaking design and construction of the preferred trail. These include right-of-way acquisition, operation & maintenance, engineering considerations, cost, and phasing. Each of these is discussed in greater detail in this section of the plan. In addition, a list of potential funding sources and next steps has been included to further facilitate implementation.

Right-of-Way Acquisition

Before a trail can be designed and constructed, the Town of Queensbury must secure the rights to access the land. For the sections of trail that are located along a public roadway, this is likely to be straightforward, as the land is owned by either the Town itself or Warren County, which will likely grant access with proper permitting and maintenance agreements. Similarly, the sections of trail along the Hudson River are also located in publicly owned parcels. However, the majority of the off-road portions of the preferred alignment is located along National Grid utility corridors.

Each utility company has a different policy regarding providing access for trail construction along their property. There are considerations for liability and maintenance, as well as ensuring future access for equipment maintenance. Historically, National Grid has required a full set of design documents before granting an easement for trail construction. This approach allows the company to fully vet all aspects of the proposed trail ahead of time. However, this poses a difficulty for local municipalities, since transportation funding often bundles design and construction as one package. In addition, most grant sources require that an applicant demonstrate site control before funding will be given out. Given that trail design can cost tens of thousands of dollars, not many local agencies can afford to design a trail without receiving grant funding.

Recently, National Grid has struck an agreement with the Hudson Valley Greenway to provide access for the Empire State Trail. This long-term lease agreement was granted before detailed design was completed. As a condition of the agreement, National Grid will be involved in the design process. The agreement also calls for conditions relating to the trail specifications and other factors.

It is important to note that there is no guarantee that National Grid would be willing to enter into a similar agreement with the Town of Queensbury. It is recommended that the Town ensure that similar conditions can be met when reaching out to National Grid concerning access.

Operation and Maintenance

A crucial consideration regarding the development of this trail is which agency will be responsible for ongoing operations and maintenance. As this plan was undertaken on behalf of the Town of Queensbury, it would be reasonable to identify the municipality as a potential trail owner, especially as the Town already owns and maintains trails. However, there are other groups which could take on this responsibility as well. These include Warren County, which currently owns and maintains the Warren County Bikeway, or a not-for-profit group, such as the Feeder Canal Alliance. Another option is for the Town to create a formal partnership with another organization for aspects of the maintenance while retaining primary ownership of the trail. It is important to keep in mind that much of the trail is dependent on securing access to National Grid utility corridors, as noted previously. A Trail Maintenance Agreement is likely to be required for all parties involved in the operation of the trail, including third-party organizations.

Trail Maintenance Considerations & Cost

The ongoing maintenance of the trail will have an associated cost. It is difficult to predict the exact amount; however, according to the Maintenance Practices and Costs of Rail-Trails report issued in 2015 by the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, trail maintenance can average about $1,000/year/mile for non-asphalt surface trails, and about $2,000/year/mile for asphalt surfaces.

The exact cost is likely to fluctuate from year to year. In addition, stone dust trails are likely to require less expensive, but more frequent, maintenance activities, as they are subject to more immediate effects of erosion and vegetative encroachment. Asphalt paths, conversely, may require significant resurfacing or repair every few years. In addition to trail surface, other factors which influence maintenance costs include:

• The availability of volunteer labor
• Mowing and vegetative clearing
• Litter clean-up
• Maintenance of signs and pavement markings

Some of these factors will depend on trail design, while others will be affected by weather and human behavior.

Phasing

As stated in the previous section, the Town has expressed interest in pursuing a phased implementation approach, whereby the Utility Line and East Side alternatives could be combined. There are several ways the Town could phase the project; one option is detailed below.

Phase 1: Pursue ROW, design, and construction of the trail sections located along utility corridors. As both the Utility Line and East Side trails are dependent on National Grid owned parcels, it makes sense to bundle these sections into one phase. The longer, western section of trail effectively accomplishes much of the stated goal of the project, which is to connect the Halfway Brook Trail and Hudson Pointe Nature Preserve. Although it may seem counter-intuitive to construct an isolated section of trail in the eastern portion of the project area, this short length provides crucial connections between the Hidden Hills, Lupine/Arbutus, and State Avenue neighborhoods and the Adirondack Sports Complex and West End Park. The conceptual cost estimate for this phase is $2.7m.

Phase 2: Pursue ROW, design, and construction of the Peggy Ann section. This section of trail is largely dependent on publicly-owned land. Although there are some topographic challenges in the eastern section of the trail, for the most part this shared path would be a straightforward construction project, as the area is largely undeveloped. Theoretically, if the Town of Queensbury and City of Glens Falls were to collaborate and construct portions of the trail using in-kind labor, this section could be used as a match in grant applications. The conceptual cost estimate for this phase is $0.9 m.

Phase 3: Pursue ROW, design, and construction of the southern loop connection. Much of this section of trail is located in the Hudson Pointe and Big Bay Preserve areas, which contain existing trails and are public lands. The on-road portions of the trail are anticipated to be located within the public ROW, however, a proper survey and detailed design are required. As with any on-road bicycle/pedestrian facility, the design phase may uncover hidden pitfalls (such as utility relocation or minor ROW requirements) that could slow the process. The conceptual cost estimate for this phase is $1.7m.

The preferred trail alignment was reviewed by engineers at Creighton Manning as a way to highlight considerations for design and construction. This review was intended only to flag potential issues which may need further study during the design phase. For copies of the detailed cost estimates and engineering review memos, see the pdf version of the plan.