Publication Type: Transportation Plans

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.

Text Version Not Currently Available

 

July 2017
FINAL REPORT
RURAL TRANSPORTATION NEEDS

ASSESSMENT AND OPTIONS ANALYSIS

Submitted by:
6 First Ave, Montpelier, VT 05602
In association with:

1
1
INTRODUCTION
INVENTORY
OF EXISTING SERVICES
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT
NON-PROFIT AND SOCIAL SERVICE AGENCIES
WASHINGTON COUNTY AGENCIES
WARREN COUNTY AGENCIES
MEDICAID TRANSPORTATION
TAXI COMPANIES
DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
2
4
10
10
11
12
12
RURAL MOBILITY STUDY i
38

Rural Mobility Study Final Report

Introduction
This report presents the results of the Rural Transportation Needs Assessment
and Options Analysis . The first task consisted of an inventory of transportation
resources in the rural area in Washington, Warren and northern Saratoga
counties surrounding the Glens Falls metropolitan area. The second task
identified the transportation challenges facing resid ents of this area and
quantified the mobility needs based on demographic analysis of the region. The
third task produced a set of alternatives for addressing those needs and the
fourth task consisted of public outreach and a survey to gather input on the
findings of the study.
While social service agency clients and other transportation -disadvantaged
individuals (older adults, people with disabilities, low -income families) constitute
much of the population that faces m obility challenges in the study region, the
study is not restricted to them. It also includes consideration of working-age
people with no disabilities and moderate income who may, nonetheless, face
mobility challenges or be one unlucky break away from facing serious hardship.
While it is far b eyond the scope of this study to solve the economic challenges
facing rural upstate New York, identifying the relationship between trends in the
employment landscape and mobility is crucial to understanding the feasibility of
potential improvements in transportation access in rural areas.
Inventory of Existing Services
The study was intended to assess gaps in rural transportation for the entire
population. Some of the transportation services listed below are available only to
certain segments of the populat ion. Since non- driving populations are by default
most vulnerable to the need for transportation, this inventory attempts to catalog
the existing services. Hence, the limitations of the systems are listed in terms of
trip purpose, trip length, timing, etc. By showing which services are provided,
this plan attempts to highlight the gaps in services that are missing.
The first step in building the inventory of existing services was assembling the list
of agencies to contact. A/GFTC provided lists of agencies that had been involved
with the Coordinated Human Services Transportation Plan (latest update 2014)
and requests for funding from the federal section 5310 (Elders and Persons with
Disabilities) program. The consultant team augmented this list with a few ot her
organizations that were found through Internet searches and recommendations
from other agencies .
The next step was to develop a series of questions to ask the agencies during
telephone interviews. The questions covered details about transportation serv ices
RURAL MOBILITY STUDY
1

that the agencies operated or contracted for, as well as information about
transportation needs among their client populations. In this way, the interview
served as both a means to assemble the inventory as well as stakeholder outreach
regarding unmet needs.
The following sections present the results of the inventory. Greater Glens Falls
Transit is included for the sake of completeness, even though the urban area
where its service operates is not the focus of the study.
Greater Glens Falls Transit
GGFT began operation in 1984 through a collaborative agreement among 11
contiguous municipalities . Today it operates a fleet of 18 transit vehicles and
carries over 350,000 riders a year primarily in the census defined Glens Falls
urban area which stretch es across portions of Warren, Washington and northern
Saratoga counties from Lake George ( and Bolton Landing in the summer) south
to the Towns of Moreau and Fort Edward . Its sole mission is transportation and
has an annual operating budget of $1.8 million . Year -round service operates from
6:30am through 10:00pm Monday through Friday with a somewhat more limited
schedule on Saturdays. GGFT also operates a significant summer season trolley
bus s ervice between the Bolton Landing/Lake George area and Glens Falls seven
days a week from 8:00am through 10:45pm from late June through Labor Day
( and on weekends in spring and Fall). See Figure 1 for a map of GGFT bus routes.
The service level varies by route, with headways 30 minutes along a principal
main north-south travel corridor that includes US Rte 4 in Fort Edward north
along Rt 32 and US Rt 9 to Queensbury. Less frequent hourly and feeder routes
extend this corridor to Lake George and additional point s west and south to
Moreau. Summer trolley service operates along Rt 9 and 9N at 15 -30 minute
intervals. GGFT also operates ADA complementary paratransit service, called
FAME.
Over the years in general, GGFT has periodically studied and considered various
types of scheduled transit services in more rural portions of the area but has
consistently found insufficient demand to justify the local financial support to
make them feasible. The only exception to this has been its summer service along
the west shore of Lake George to Bolton La nding. This summer operation to
Bolton Landing runs every two hours and carries approximately 2,500 riders per
season. In 2014 GGFT did try extending the Bolton Landing operating season in
the spring and fall but found very limited passenger demand and dis continued
the service. Other rural service attempts include: a shuttle connection between
Lake George and Warrensburg/Thurman to connect to a scenic train in 2015 but
here also found very limited passenger demand and subsequent ly could not
justify necessar y local funding to support continued operation; and many years
ago (1990’s) GGFT ran a local shuttle in and around the Village of Whitehall but
here again found the passenger demand to be very limited and the service was
discontinued.
RURAL MOBILITY STUDY
2

Figure 1
RURAL MOBILITY STUDY 3

Non-profit and Social Service Agencies
Of the 24 non -profit organizations on the contact list, the consultant team was
able to conduct interviews with and obtain information from 15. The other
organizations were non -responsive in spite of multiple attempts via telephone
and email. The results of the interviews are presented below and summarized in
Table 1.
The largest transportation resource among the non -profit and social service
agencies belongs to CWI (Community, Work and Independence). This agency
owns five large buses and 16 cutaway vans based on a Ford F450 chassis. These
vehicles transport individuals to CWI’s many facilities for its day programs
covering a wide range of services. It also owns a fleet of sedans and minivans for
its resident program . W hile much of its service is operated in the urban area,
CWI’s reach does cover the rural portions of the A/GFTC region as well. Its
vehicles operate primarily between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. and then between
1:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. to transport clients to and from the day programs. CWI
employs 23 full -time drivers and resident employees drive the smaller vehicles as
needed. Annual funding, consisting of state and federal funds, amounts to about
$1 million. The transit vehicles carry an average of 486 rider s per day, with
annual ridership of 107,000. CWI serves all ages, from youth to elderly , as well as
low -income individuals.
The next largest operation surveyed is the Fort Hudson Nursing Center . It
owns seven wheelchair -accessible vans, which operate primarily between 7:00
a.m. and 9:00 a.m. and then between 2:00 p.m. and 5:30 p.m. These are
operated by 6 part -time drivers. Half of the funding comes from the federal
section 5310 program administered by NYSDOT and the other half comes from
internal sources. Total annual funding is roughly $150,000, serving an annual
ridership of about 20,000 passengers. The vehicles can operate within a 15 -mile
radius of the facility , meaning that much of the service occurs within the urban
area. The passengers are mostly Medicaid -eligible and fit within the guidelines of
the 5310 program . Riders are carried to and from adult day programs at the
facility, and residents are transported to medical appointments, to grocery stores,
and to social activities.
The third largest operation interviewed is the Liberty House Foundation ,
which primarily serves mentally ill and developmentally disabled people. It owns
five vans, four with a capacity of 12 passengers and one with a capacity of 8
passengers. A total of e ight drivers are employed. Funding is derived from a
variety of sources, including the Office for Persons with Developmental
Disabilities, Office of Mental Health, ACCES -VR, and Counties (Warren &
Washington) . The vehicles carry about 40 passengers per day for an annual total
of about 8,000 trips. These trips include going to and from the facility, as well as
medical appointments, grocery shopping and social activities. The geographic
area served includes Warren and Washington counties, specifically Warrensburg,
Bolton Landing, Lake George, Fort Edward, Hudson Falls, Queensbury, Glens
Falls, South G lens Falls and part of Fort Ann. Much of the transportation service
occurs in the urban area.
RURAL MOBILITY STUDY
4

Eight of the respondents had small fleets of three or fewer vehicles .
RURAL MOBILITY STUDY
5

RURAL MOBILITY STUDY
6

mile) for the service, but some do not. The total outlay for volunteer
reimbursement in 2016 was $18,985, resulting in a cost per mile of just 44 cents.
There is significant unmet demand for service, as RSVP cannot find enough
drivers to meet all of the requests for rides. As a result, trips are limited to
medical appointments and clients are limited to 4 rides per month. RSVP tries
not to carry Medicaid- eligible individuals, as they are supposed to use the
Medical Answering Service network. There is no cost to the rider for these trips,
but donations are accepted. RSVP provides an umbrella insurance policy for the
drivers.
The final two respondents, Hudson Headwaters Health Network and Glens Falls
Housing Authority, provi de no transportation service. The information gained
from these agencies is incorporated into the section on needs, below.
RURAL MOBILITY STUDY
7

–

Table 1: Summary of Non -profit Organization Transportation Resources
Agency Vehicle Type Num­
ber
Number of
Drivers
Funding Annual
Funding
Rider­
ship
Geographic
area
Population Served
CWI
L arge bus es;
F450
cutaways
21 23 for day
programs
State &
Federal $1M
486/
day;
107K
annual
AGFTC area Youth to elder; low
income
Fort Hudson Nursing
Center, Inc.
Wheelchair
accessible
vans
7 6 part -time
50% from
5310; rest
self
$150K 20K within 15
miles E&D, mostly
Medicaid eligible
Liberty House
Foundation
Vans: 12
­
passenger
and 8­
passenger
5 8 Various govt
agencies N/A
40/day
8,000
last
year
Warren/
Washington
various
villages
18-80 with mental
health or
dev/learning
disability; 80%
below poverty level
Cornell Cooperative
Extension Warren
County
Minivans 3 10 Fundraising $30K N/A Warren
County Program
participants
Conkling Center Minivans 2 4
Endowment,
donations,
grants
$120K 350 in
2015
Within 25
miles of
Glens Falls
55 and older,
ambulatory
Greenwich Interfaith
Fellowship, Inc. 10-
passenger
van ; small
van 2 5-
7 PT plus
23
volunteers in own vehicles
United Fund
and
Interfaith
Council of
Churches
N/A 450
per
year Southern
Washington
County Seniors for medical
appts and
occasional
shopping
trips
Warren Hamilton
Counties Community
Action
15- passenger
van s 2 Staff
members
Towns (from
Office for
Aging)
$50K
700­
1,000
per
year
Warren
County
60 and older; all trip
purposes
RURAL MOBILITY STUDY
8

–

Agency
Glens Falls Hospital
Behavioral Health
Services
Glens Falls Senior
Center
Lake Luzerne Senior
Center
Moreau Community
Center
Tri County United Way
RSVP
Vehicle Type Num­
ber
12- pass enger
van 1
12- passenger
van 1
12- passenger
van 1
16- pass bus 1
Van 1
Personal cars 27
Number of
Drivers
Staff
members
Staff
members
Staff
member
1
N/A 27
Funding Annual
Funding
General
funds;
cannot use
Medicaid N/A
Donations,
grants $3,300
Office of
Aging and
Town of LL
(50-50)
N/A
5310 to buy;
20%
donations,
30% Town,
50% from
fees
N/A
N/A N/A
Mary
McClellan
Foundation
$19,000
( for
reim ­
burse ­
ment)
Rider­
ship
Geographic
area
Population Served
serves
20 of
the 30
in Day
Prog
Glens Falls
and Hudson
Falls 18 and up; psych
patients
250
rides
per
month
10-
mi radius
of Glens
Falls Senior Center
members –
ambulatory with
low income
N/A Shopping
trips to
Glens Falls 60+
N/A Within
school
district 55+, disabled
N/A
Kingsbury/
Ft. Edward
Senior center
members
92 per
month;
1,110
in 2016 Warren and
Washington
counties
55+ and disabled
for medical trips
only
RURAL MOBILITY STUDY
9

Washington County Agencies
On December 1, the consultant team met with a group of officials representing
Washington County agencies and non- profits that work closely with the County.
Among these were the United Way and the Greenwich Interfaith Fellowship
which have already been discussed above . Information about transportation
resources available at these agencies is presented below.
The Washington County Economic Opportunity Council, Inc. is a non­
profit organization, but works closely with County agencies. It has three cars that
it operates with $38,000 provided by the Office of Aging. These cars are used to
provide medical trips and also social and shopping trips to a lesser extent for
older adults in Washington Count y. They can also serve younger people with low
incomes thanks to community services block grant funds. The agency also works
with Granville and uses two days per week on Granville’s van for network
transport. EOC is also involved in the Headstart program f or young children to
provide transportation to medical appointments when Medicaid is not available,
using seven or eight vans. This program serves 420 children younger than five
years old.
The County’s Department of Social Services does not own vehicles to
provide transportation to clients, but its workers will occasionally do so. The
agency uses taxis for the homeless population and will buy bus tokens for its
employment unit to distribute to low -income individuals needing transportation
to jobs.
Likewise the Department of Public Health does not provide transportation,
but does contract for transportation for preschool programs to serve children age
3 to 5. This program is paid for with 50% County funds.
The Aging and Disability Resource Center (part of the Department of Social
Services and the Office of Aging) provides home care and adult protective
services for people 18 and older. Staff members transport clients to shopping and
medical appointments using their cars, and also transport them to the agency
o ffice for meetings. The agency provides meals on wheels to over 300 seniors.
Finally, Veterans Affairs serves about 5,000 veterans in Washington County.
In a given year, the agency provides transportation to about 900 veterans, taking
them to the Albany Veterans Administration Hospital using either a van or a bus.
The agency employs one full -time driver. The vehicle carries up to 10 riders per
day, but it has a limited schedule due to inadequate funding. The agency is trying
to develop a connection to a community health clinic in Glens Falls to provide
more convenient healthcare access to its clients.
Warre n County Agencies
Agencies in Warren County were contacted by email and telephone. Information
collected during these interviews is presented below.
The County’s Department of Social Services, which includes the Youth
Bureau, has a fleet of eight vehicles including seven cars and one van. These were
RURAL MOBILITY STUDY 10

purchased with County funds, and the County has an additional van available
that can be signed out when needed. The vehicles are used by case workers to
reach clients and also to transport clients for visitation s, to attend counseling
sessions, school meetings, etc. For clients with great needs, the caseworkers will
take them to grocery stores for shopping and other essential errands. DSS
encourages people living in Glens Falls to use the bus system and distribut es
tokens to those who cannot afford the bus fare. The agency will also pay for taxis
to take homeless people back to their temporary lodgings. The greatest need seen
by DSS is for transportation in the northern reaches of Warren County where
there is no bus service and to which it is difficult to find volunteer drivers to
drive.
The Office of Aging provides home care and adult protective services for people
18 and older. The agency has no vehicles but refers people to RSVP and the
Conkling Center when they need transportation. The Office will help fund
transportation for social events in various towns (while the towns provide the
vehicles).
Veterans Affairs operates trips from two pick-up points to the Albany VA
medical center every weekday, accommodating appointments from 9:30 a.m. to
1:00 p.m. It owns two vans, one of which is wheelchair accessible, and transports
70 riders per month on average. The agency has three part -time drivers to
operate the vans. The vans are also used for occasional other purposes, such as
taking veterans to 4
th of July and Memorial Day celebrations, and four trips per
year to Albany airport. The vans will carry veterans who live in other counties
whenever space is available (as long as those veterans are willing and able to
make i t to one of the pick -up points) . In the past, volunteer groups named Ricky
Rides and Thank s for Your Service had provided local transportation to veterans,
but these have a very limited scale. The agency does not coordinate or schedule
rides for the volunteers, but just provides contact information to any veterans
who need such transportation.
Medicaid Transportation
In New York State, non- emergency medical transportation (NEMT) funded by
the federal Medicaid program is provided through the Medical An swering
Ser vice, or MAS. This is a private -sector brokerage that accepts trip requests from
Medicaid -eligible individuals and schedules trips through the “most medically
appropriate and cost -effective ” means. The great majority of trips, particularly in
ru ral areas, are completed by taxi companies. MAS has been working with GGFT
to provide some NEMT trips within the Glens Falls urban area . MAS has had the
statewide contract only since 2014, but it has been operating in New York since
2003. Prior to MAS, NEM T was offered through public transit agencies and other
non- profit organizations, though in the rural areas of Washington and Warren
counties, taxi companies have always provided most if not all of the NEMT
service.
RURAL MOBILITY STUDY 11

Taxi Companies
Taxis are used for a wide variety of purposes. For those lacking an automobile
and access to any government -funded transportation program, a taxi may be the
only source of mobility available. The MAS website lists 46 taxi companies
serving Warren County and 50 taxi companies serv ing Washington County.
Accounting for overlap, there are 54 distinct taxi companies listed for the two
counties. It should be noted that not all of the taxi companies listed provide
service to the general public; many are Medicaid -funded services that prov ide
transportation to medical appointments only.
A survey of citizens of the Adirondack Gateway Region, commissioned by the
Adirondack Gateway Council, found that about 20% of respondents stated that
they used taxis on a weekly basis. The main purposes for these trips were
medical, shopping, and work, with a few students taking taxis to school. About
75% of taxi users said that they paid less than $10 per trip. The typical fare for
trips within Glens Falls is likely about $5, but trips in rural areas can cost
substantially more. Some taxi companies offer small discounts (50 cents or a
dollar) for frequent riders who use taxis to get to work. However, taxis are not
typically seen as a long -term and sustainable transportation option for any given
individual be cause of the cost and inconvenience of having to schedule every ride.
Ridehailing
On June 29, 2017, it became legal to operate ridehailing services in upstate New
York. These services, such as Uber or Lyft, rely on individual contractors driving
their own vehicles, dispatched through a smartphone app. Since there is no
centralized fleet, this type of service could theoretically allow for increased taxi-
style service to rural areas. However, it remains to be seen whether the cost of
rides and low population density will make ridehailing a feasible transportation
option in rural areas.
Demographic Analysis
A n analysis of demographics in the study region was conducted to provide an
objective basis for evaluating the feasibility of potential mobility improvements.
The viability of traditional transit services depend s heavily on population density
and the prevalence of people who rely on transit for mobility , typically older
adults, people with low incomes, and especially people without access to an
automobile. Demand response service and recent innovative solutions may
depend somewhat less on these traditional measures for their success, but
nonetheless, it is important t o quantify potential demand and the location of
vulnerable populations to the extent it is possible.
The following sections provide an overview of the study region in terms of its
development pattern, distribution of household density and key demographic
c haracteristics. The data source for household density is the 2010 Census, since it
provides information at the Census block level —the most fine -grained level of
geography. The other maps are based on the American Community Survey (ACS),
RURAL MOBILITY STUDY 12

representing an average of data from 2010 to 2014. These are presented at the
Census block group level. In general, the maps presented here are an update of
those contained in A/GFTC’s 2014 Coordinated Human Service Transportation
Plan.
Description of Regional Development Pa ttern
The core of the region is the Glens Falls urbanized area, including the city of
Glens Falls, and portions of four surrounding towns: Queensbury, Kingsbury,
Fort Edward and Moreau. The portions of these towns that are in the urbanized
area include West Glens Falls, Glens Falls North, Hudson Falls, Fort Edward, and
South Glens Falls. These neighborhoods include suburban residential areas,
village centers, industrial zones, and strip retail development. Beyond this
urbanized area lies the majority of the region, in the rural portions of Warren and
Washington counties, plus the rest of the Town of Moreau.
The development and population of Warren County is concentrated in the
Queensbury area. Moving north and west from there, the rest of the county has
extr emely low population density and much of it lies in wilderness areas, with the
exception of a few hamlets such as Warrensburg, Chestertown and Lake George.
Washington County is different, in that it has a larger number of villages and
hamlets spread out t hrough its long north -south expanse. The far northern
portion of the county is largely devoid of development, but the US 4, NY 40 and
NY 22 corridors (among others) connect numerous small towns and villages.
Many farms fill in the areas in between the vill ages, to a much greater extent than
in Warren County. The northern portion of the county is closely tied to the
economy of Glens Falls (with some linkage to Rutland, VT) , but the southern
portion is more closely tied to the Albany -Troy metropolitan area and Saratoga.
Household Density
Figure 2 shows the density of households per acre for the study region in the year
2010 by Census block. It is immediately obvious that the great majority of the
region is very rural, with a density of less than one household per acre. The
various villages and ham lets have blocks with densities of one to three
households per acre, with perhaps a block or two with higher densities. According
to the Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual (a TCRP report),
traditional fixed- route transit requires a density of a t least 3 households per acre,
which is roughly equivalent to quarter -acre zoning ( after the land used by roads
and sidewalks is accounted for). It is clear that only the Glens Falls urban area
has enough blocks with a density at least that high to support regular bus routes.
As described above, almost all of Warren County , outside of the southeast corner,
falls in to the lowest category of density. The hamlet of Warrensburg contains a
small cluster of moderate density blocks, with a sprinkling of density farther
north in Chestertown along US 9 and in North Creek where NY 28 joins the
Hudson River. In Washington County, there are several larger villages such as
Whitehall, Granville, S alem, Greenwich and Cambridge, plus other smaller
RURAL MOBILITY STUDY 13

villages that are not labeled on the map. Unfortunately, from a transit
perspective, these villages are separated by long distances, making any sort of
scheduled service linking them together an expensive p roposition.
Figure 3 shows close -ups of the Glens Falls area and several of the other larger
villages in the study region. The Glens Falls map shows that the GGFT bus system
(superimposed in orange lines) is closely aligned to the areas with the highest
ho usehold density. All of the blocks with densities of at least 3 households per
acre are within walking distance of a route, and indeed there are deviations from
the main roadways that are clearly intended to serve specific housing
developments. This is esp ecially clear in Glens Falls North. Hudson Falls, which
has the most extensive area of high density housing outside of Glens Falls, is
served by GGFT’s Route 4, which has the highest level of service of any of the
routes in the GGFT system.
RURAL MOBILITY STUDY 14

Figure 2

RURAL MOBILITY STUDY 15

Figure 3

RURAL MOBILITY STUDY 16

Age
The age profile of the study region is displayed in a series of maps, shown in
figures 4 through 10. Each map shows the percentage of the population in each
Census block group that belongs to a specific age cohort. The maps also show the
absolute number of people in that age group, since the block groups vary greatly
in their geographic area. These maps are based on ACS data from 2010 to 2014.
Figure 4 shows the location and concentration of young children, age 14 and
under. Since children of this age rarely move about independently, they are
important more for showing where young families are located. These families
may have need for child care services, and for those families who cannot afford a
car (or a second car if the primary breadwinner takes a car to work every day),
transportation can be a major challenge. The southern portion of Washington
County has relatively high percentages of children, perhaps representing families
with commuters to Saratoga and Albany, though the low densit y of many of these
block groups means that the absolute numbers of children are not very high. The
highest absolute figures are in the suburban areas around Glens Falls.
The next map (Figure 5 ) focuses on the teenage population which is beginning to
enter the labor force and may have mobility needs independent of their parents.
Most of the higher percentages and absolute numbers are in the block groups
surrounding Glens Falls, though the large block group at the northern edge of
Warren County has a relative ly high percentage and over 200 individuals in this
age group. The GGFT bus system reaches some of the higher -percentage block
groups near Glens Falls, but not all of them.
Figure 6 shows young adults of college age. The highest incidence of this age
group is a swath through the middle of Washington County from Granville
through Fort Ann, as well as some sections of Glens Falls. There are very few
people in this age group in southern Washington County and in most of Warren
County. The departure of people in this age group from rural areas to major
metro areas is a concern for much of the country.
Figure 7 covers a 15-year segment of the population, including the younger half of
people of “working age ” from 25 to 39. For most of the rural portions of Warren
a nd Washington counties, this group represents between 10 and 19% of the
population. In the central portion of the area, from the western section of Moreau
through some of Glens Falls and then heading northeast to Whitehall, the
percentage rises to over 20%. The absolute number of people in that age cohort in
many of those block groups is over 500. It is safe to say that much of the
workforce in Glens Falls lives in these block groups along US 4 to the north and
east and along US 9 to the south and west.
RURAL MOBILITY STUDY 17

Figure 4

RURAL MOBILITY STUDY 18

Figure 5
RURAL MOBILITY STUDY 19

Figure 6

RURAL MOBILITY STUDY 20

Figure 7

RURAL MOBILITY STUDY 21

Figure 8 represents the largest age cohort of any of the maps in this series. As a
result, the percentages and absolute figures are higher than on any of the other
maps. The US 4 corridor does not show up as clearly on this map, other than the
block group south of Whitehall with over 1,100 people age 40 -59. Central
Washington County appears more prominently than on Figure 6. The south and
west sides of Glens Falls, includ ing most of Moreau, has more than 40% of its
residents in this age group, and the absolute numbers are large as well. As with
the previous map, many of the people in this age group in close proximity to
Glens Falls are likely working in the urbanized core of the region.
Younger seniors, those age 60 -69, are concentrated along Lake George and, to a
lesser extent, in the western portion of Washington County, as shown in Figure 9.
The highest absolute figures are in some of the block groups surrounding Glens
F alls, plus a block group between Whitehall and Granville, but there is a clear
pattern of younger retirees settling around Lake George. These block groups are
sparsely populated, so the absolute figures are not high. Presumably, the vast
majority of these retirees are able to afford an automobile and are not yet so old
as to be unable to drive.
The final map in the series (Figure 10) shows the concentration of seniors 70
years of age and older. There is again a clear concentration near Lake George,
though m ore on the western shore. There are also large numbers and a high
concentration of older seniors in block groups on the north side of Glens Falls.
Many of these residents live in assisted living or other housing oriented toward
seniors. The village of Granville also appears to host similar facilities. A
significant number of older seniors live in the northwest corner of Warren
County, with many of them likely in the hamlet of North Creek.
RURAL MOBILITY STUDY 22

Figure 8
RURAL MOBILITY STUDY 23

Figure 9

RURAL MOBILITY STUDY 24

Figure 10

RURAL MOBILITY STUDY 25

Income
There are many definitions of low income used in different studies. For the
purpose of this study, “very low income” is defined by the HUD threshold for a
three- person family in the A/GFTC area. For the 2010 -2014 period, this
threshold was $29,200. Among all households in the A/ GFTC area, 26% qualify
as very low income according to this definition.
Figure 11 shows the concentration of very low income households by block group.
Outside of Glens Falls, the highest concentrations are in four block groups
scattered across the area: Granville, Whitehall, the area south and west of
Warrensburg, and the far northwest corner of Warren County, including such
hamlets as Bakers Mills and North Creek. As with other maps, some of the
highest absolute figures are in the block groups in and aro und Glens Falls. The
block group containing much of Hudson Falls has nearly 500 very low income
households as well as a high percentage. Three other block groups in the urban
area also fall into the top percentage category. Most of the block groups in the
south western portion of Washington County and the eastern portion of Warren
County , as well as the suburban areas around Glens Falls, have relatively few very
low income households.
Automobile Availability
There are several reasons a household may not own an automobile. The most
common reasons in a generally rural area revolve around the inability to drive or
to afford a car. These reasons would be correlated with age (older seniors),
disability status, or very low income. Within cities or dense villages, some people
may choose to live without a car if they are able to walk or take transit to their
jobs and to take care of other personal business and shopping. No matter the
reason, the lack of an automobile is the clearest marker of dependency on public
tran sportation.
As shown in Figure 1 2, there are relatively few households overall that own zero
vehicles. Many block groups have 20 or fewer such households, and several block
groups have zero. Several block groups in Washington County have higher figures
and moderate percentages of zero -vehicle households, most of which are in the
larger villages such as Whitehall, Granville, Greenwich and Cambridge. The far
northwest corner of Warren County again shows up as a moderate percentage
and a not -insignificant numb er of households.
By far the highest numbers and highest percentages of zero -vehicle households
are in the downtown area of Glens Falls and Hudson Falls. Several of these block
groups have more than 100 households with no vehicles, and two of them have
mor e than 200 such households, representing over 30% of the population.
Fortunately, these areas are among the best served by the GGFT fixed route
system and have excellent walking access to businesses in downtown Glens Falls
or Hudson Falls.
RURAL MOBILITY STUDY 26

Trip Generators
Figure 1 3 shows important trip destinations in the rural portion of the study area
( destinations in the Glens Falls urban area are excluded to make the map easier
to read). Large employers (more than 50 employees), government offices, grocery
stores, and p ost offices are mapped to show places where people need to go on a
regular basis.
1
In Washington County, the map shows five grocery stores outside of the urban
area: three in the Greenwich/Cambridge area, one in Granville and one in
Whitehall. For people living outside of these towns and villages, shopping is a
time- consuming chore, and for those without ready access to an automobile, it
can be nearly impossible. Most of the large employers are located along or near
NY 40 in Argyle and Greenwich. Many towns have no large employers.
In Warren County, most of the grocery stores are located either along US 9 or NY
9N, covering Warrensburg, Lake Luzerne, Bolton and Chestertown. There is also
a market in North Creek. Although it is very sparsely populated, the southwestern
portion of the county has poor access to grocery stores. There are few large
employers outside of Warrensburg.
External Trip Generators
Figure 14 shows the study area in a broader context and highlights the influence
of some of the more import ant activity centers outside of the A/GFTC region.
Rutland, Saratoga Springs, Troy, Bennington, and Ticonderoga all have hospitals
and significant employment and retail bases. Of course, the center of the Albany
metropolitan area is not much further to the southwest from Troy.
A 20 -mile radius around each of these activity centers is shown, to indicate which
parts of the study region may have stronger linkages to these external generators,
for the purposes of commuting, shopping, medical or entertainment t rips rathern
than Glens Falls. It can be seen that southern Washington County experiences
the strongest pull to generators outside of the region, and that most of Warren
County and the central portion of Washington County are beyond these 20 -mile
rings and thus are less likely to generate frequent trips to these external areas.
In terms of the potential for transit connections to the external job centers, CDTA
already operates the Northway Express along I -87 (with one trip per day
originating in South Glens Falls) which connects to downtown Albany. It is very
unlikely that any of the other external job centers have enough demand coming
from a compact area to be able to support a scheduled bus service. Ridesharing
and vanpools would be appropriate means of pr oviding alternatives to driving to
reach these locations.
1 Locations of pharmacies and libraries were also examined. In all cases, pharmacies were located
in close proximity to grocery stores and in almost every case, libraries were located in close
proximity to government offices. Thus, for the sake of map clarity, pharmacies and libraries are
not shown separately.
RURAL MOBILITY STUDY 27

Figure 11
28 RURAL MOBILITY STUDY

Figure 12

RURAL MOBILITY STUDY 29

Figure 13

RURAL MOBILITY STUDY 30

Figure 14

RURAL MOBILITY STUDY 31

Unmet Needs and Underlying Causes
A critical portion of this study was to identify transportation needs in the rural
study region. The RFP for this project posed four questions to be answered:
RURAL MOBILITY STUDY 32

For people living in small towns, villages and hamlets, cars have also become
almost indispensible. Sweeping trends such as globalization, market
consolidation, automation, and technological innovation have drastically affected
employment and retail in small communities. Gone are the days when every
small town has a sustainable employment base, as well as a grocery store, and
other shops to take care of residents’ needs. Economies of scale have largely
driven small employers and shops out of busi ness, replaced by supermarkets and
superstores , not to mention online retailers. While in the past, people living in
small towns may have been able to get to work and acco mplish most or all of their
shopping and personal business on foot, now it is rare to find such cases.
As shown in the previous section, there are people living in rural areas and small
towns who have no cars available, and many more people with low income or of
advanced age who may find it difficult to afford or drive a car. Even if they would
like to move to a city or transit -accessible location, they may not be able to for a
variety of reasons.
In spite of the mobility needs in rural areas and small town s/villages, traditional
transit services are not well suited to meet these needs. Bus services require a
minimum level of population density to be viable (see Household Density section
above) , and rural areas, by definition, do not have this level of density. Demand
response service can meet some of these needs, but as will be discussed below,
tends to be restricted to specific populations by existing funding sources, is very
expensive to provide on a per -passenger basis, and for the rider has traditionally
required advance planning and reservations, which makes it far inferior to the
mobility provided by a car.
Other than relocation, new solutions are needed to increase mobility in rural
areas. The next section considers mobility needs for various demograph ic groups.
Needs by Demographic Group
Each segment of the resident population has its own distinct need for mobility.
These needs differ by the type of trips taken (trip purpose), time of day, and
accessibility, both in terms of physical accessibility for a person in a wheelchair,
and the feasible walking distance between the vehicle and the origin and
destination locations on either end of the trip.
Youth
For the purposes of this study, the Youth population segment is defined as people
from age 15 to age 19. These are people who are beginning to have mobility needs
separate from their family, perhaps because of after -school jobs, entertainment,
sports, and other activities. While some of them may be fortunate enough to have
access to a car for most or all o f their needs, many of them do not. The most likely
means of transport for this age group is getting a ride, either with a family
member or with a friend. Other possible means of transport include walking or
bicycling for short -to medium -range trips or taking transit for those located in
Glens Falls and the immediately -surrounding areas .
RURAL MOBILITY STUDY 33

Youths with after -school jobs would likely need transport from their high school
to wherever their job is (a village center or a shopping mall, etc.) between 2:30
p.m. and 3:30 p.m., and then transport to a location near their home between
5:30 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. These trips would occur every day school is in session.
Trips for social activities would be more likely to occur on Friday and Saturday
evenings. Sports activities could happen almost any time, from the hours before
to school starts, to the after school period and on weekends.
With respect to accessibility, teenagers are more likely than other demographic
groups to be able to walk some distance between where the vehicle picks them up
or drops them off and their origin and destination locations. In terms of the
“severity” of the mobility need, it may be that teenagers’ mobility needs are not
quite as critical as those for other groups, in that they are unlikely to go hungry or
lack medical treatment without independent mobility. That is not to say that
independent mobility would not be a significant benefit to some teens, whose
families could desperately use the extra income, or whose quality of life would be
greatly enhanced by being able to participate in more activities than their current
mobility situation allows.
Working Age
Referring back to the series of age maps in the prior section, the working age
population covers people age 20 -24, 25 -39, and 40- 59. There are certainly plenty
of people in their sixties working as well, but for the purpose of this study, we will
consider people 60 -69 as “young retirees.” People with disabilities in the working
age group are considered separately below.
The primary concern of p eople in this age cohort is being able to get to work. As
one stakeholder plainly put it during an interview, if you live in a rural area, “no
car, no job.” As described above, even in villages and small towns, the job
opportunities are limited —more limite d than in the past —so that people need to
be able to commute to an urban area or industrial park.
Many of these commuting trips take place at “normal” weekday rush hours, such
as 7:00 to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 to 6:00 p.m., but many workers at industrial parks
or health care facilities work second or third shift and may need to work on
weekends. For new entrants to these jobs, the mobility need may be short -lived,
since holding down the job could allow them to purchase an automobile, solving
their mobility chal lenge.
However, until they can start a job, low -income people in rural areas are “stuck”
in a situation that is difficult to emerge from, because any of the solutions require
money. This situation may affect their health as well, especially if they are not
eligible for or enrolled in Medicaid.
Working age people, of course, need to make other trips as well, for shopping,
personal business, medical, child care, and social and recreational activities. But,
as just stated, if they have a job, then they can lik ely afford a car. Thus, providing
some form of mobility, at least on a temporary basis, to people in rural areas, can
help solve their general mobility problem for the longer term.
RURAL MOBILITY STUDY 34

Older Adults
Most programs design ed to aid senior citizens begin at age 60, though there are
some available to anyone 55 or older. It is difficult to treat all people 60 or older
as a single group regarding transportation needs, because the needs of someone
who is 62 may be very different from someone who is 87. Setting aside for the
moment the younger seniors (who are more similar to working age adults, and
likely do not have significant mobility needs unless they have a very low income
or a disability ), as people move toward the upper end of this age range, their
needs have less to do with getting to jobs and more to do with medical
appointments and basic needs such as meals and shopping.
Most programs geared toward older adults make medical transportation the
highest priority, with weekly or biweekly shopping trips also provided when
funding allows. Seniors who are enrolled in adult day programs usually are
eligible for transportation to those programs. Some of these programs also
provide transportation for occasional excursions and social activities. Please refer
to the earlier section in this report about transportation resources available from
non- profit agencies in the region.
Many older adults, when they can no longer drive, choose to relocate to housing
that includes services for them, such as assisted living, or tha t is in an area where
they can walk to take care of their basic needs. Seniors in rural areas who decide
not to , or cannot afford to relocate, can have the greatest mobility needs and pose
the greatest challenge to agencies that serve this population becau se of the costs
involved in transporting them between their far -removed homes and the medical
and other facilities that they need to reach. These challenges grow as their health
declines. For instance, those with kidney disease need transportation three times
per week for dialysis, but most programs only have enough resources to offer one
or two trips per week. The patients must then rely on family and friends to
provide the other rides.
While older adults are perhaps the group with the greatest transportation needs ,
they are also the group that benefits most from existing programs. It is generally
recognized that the existing programs do not have sufficient funding to meet all
of the needs of this population . Innovative solutions may help address the unmet
needs of this population, but more funding in existing programs may be the
simplest solution.
People with Disabilities
As was true of older adults, “people with disabilities” is a broad category covering
people facing a wide range of challenges, from phys ical disabilities to sensory,
mental or cognitive disabilities. They can be of any age or income level, and live
independently or with families. For many , but not all, people with disabilities,
driving a car is not a feasible option.
The primary funding pr ogram from the Federal Transit Administration for older
adults (section 5310) also covers people with disabilities. Thus, what was true
about seniors benefitting from existing programs (and suffering from inadequate
funding of those programs) is also true of people with disabilities.
RURAL MOBILITY STUDY 35

People with disabilities who are working age may have little need to get to
medical appointments but a significant need to get to a job. They may have other
sources of income because of their disability, but still desire to ha ve a job and be a
productive member of society. If they can live independently, then they can
choose to live in a place that offers access to their job via public transportation,
but if not, then they may struggle with the choice between living with family
members or in a facility that provides the support they need and being able to
work outside of the home.
Transportation for people with disabilities obviously needs to account for
accessibility for people using wheelchairs or other mobility devices, as well as
visual and other impairments. As was found in the inventory of non- profit
agencies, many of the vehicles being used in the region are not wheelchair
accessible, but agencies make an effort to coordinate with others that have this
resource (such as th e Conkling Center) when the need arises.
Needs by Specific Geographic Area
The following list summarizes the results of the demographic analysis and
highlights areas with high degrees of transportation needs.
RURAL MOBILITY STUDY 36

RURAL MOBILITY STUDY 37

RURAL MOBILITY STUDY 38

All of the ratings are summarized for easy comparison in a table at the end of the
section.
ITN Country
• Needs addressed: S eniors, visually -impaired adults
Independent Transportation Network of America is developing a new initiative
called ITN Country, targeted at rural areas. ITNCountry is intended to be a
program within an existing organization, which would have a large say in its
service parameters , such as hours of operation, limitations on eligibility, fares,
etc. To facilitate the spread of ITN Country, ITN is building a large on-line
learning community where all of ITN’s innovative programs are taught and
supported.
The features of ITNCountry include personal transportation accounts in which
members can accumulate and spend ride credits. S eniors can trade in their
vehicles for ride credits or earn credits as volunteer drivers themselves, banking
them to pl an for their own future needs. Relatives in other areas with ITN can
also earn credits for a senior who needs rides.
The ITN Country program is still in development, with national rollout at least
three years away. Communities interested in early adoption c an pay a $15,000
fee to be part of the research phase. In the longer term, ITN is hoping to charge
only $2,500 annually year for this service.
A/GFTC would need to work with existing service agencies, including those
involved in the Coordinated Human Services Transportation Plan, to identify
possible organizations under which ITN Country could operate. The options
include:
RURAL MOBILITY STUDY 39

�
RURAL MOBILITY STUDY 40

Telephone Call Center/Online Trans portation Coordination
• Needs addressed: A wareness of available services among all vulnerable
populations
F or transit services to be used effectively, the riding public must be aware of their
existence in order to to take advantage of them. A centralized call center paired
with online resources that gather and provide information about all options
available to the public make it much simpler to find out about and use these
services. Two counties in New York have made significant efforts to establish
these information clearinghouses.
The Schuyler County Transportation Call Center (Schuyler County, NY) connects
riders with a network of providers, incl uding Schuyler County Transit, Schuyler
County Office for the Aging, RSVP, The Arc of Schuyler, and Veterans Services
volunteer drivers. Options include public transit, door -to -door, rideshare,
carpool, vanpool and voucher programs. Reservations must be ma de two days in
advance, and payment varies by transportation providers; trip types (medical,
shopping, etc.) vary by transportation provider. Funding comes from the
Veterans Community Living Initiative, NYS DOT (Mobility Management from
FTA 5311 funds) , and Schuyler County Office for the Aging. It operates Monday-
Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. The staff consists of one part -time person and
a full -time supervisor (who mainly performs other activities). The training for
this work, which includes the use o f RouteMatch scheduling software, takes one
to two months. The call center receives 200 to 250 calls per month.
Way2GO -Tompkins County (Tompkins County, NY) is an online resource and a
2-1- 1 service that connects riders with medical transportation providers,
carsharing, taxis, vanpool service s, Zimride, and TDM employer services .
Reservations and payment vary by transportation provider; trip types (medical,
shopping, etc.) vary by transportation provid er. Funding comes from Tompkins
County Department of Social Services .
GGFT already provides informal call center services for the region, in that its staff
often provides information on transportation options well beyond what GGFT
itself operates. To upgra de this capacity to a formalized call center would mainly
involve establishing the regular transfer of information from all service providers
to GGFT so that it has up -to -date information on all transportation options, as
well as an upgrade to the website to provide this information online. This would
also likely involve additional staffing, either part -or full -time, to deal with
additional call volume and to act as a liaison between the call center and the
transportation providers. GGFT or A/GFTC may want to partner with Cornell
Cooperative Extension Offices in Hudson Falls and Warrensburg on this effort;
Way2Go is a project of the Cornell Cooperative Extension of Tompkins County, in
partnership with the Tompkins County Department of Social Services.
�
RURAL MOBILITY STUDY 41

�
RURAL MOBILITY STUDY 42

Seasonal/Tourism Workforce
Ten of the largest employers outside of the Glens Falls urbanized area are in the
tourism industry, with a cluster of smaller employers centered around Lake
George .
2 A/GFTC, in partnership with the Adirondack Regional Chamber of
Commerce, could work with r egional resorts, camps, and conference facilities to
coordinate with ZimRide to develop a “Lake George Trusted Network” to help
facilitate rides for seasonal employees. ZimRide offers an online sign -up site for
organizations, but the seasonal employers would need to work with their own HR
departments to promote the program within their work places (this could also be
facilitated in part by a local Chamber of Commerce, or similar organization).
Employers in Saratoga Springs may also be a potential ZimRide ne twork.
Year-round Employers
As with seasonal employers, there are a number of large year -round industries in
the region, mostly located in the urban area. One exception is the Fort Miller
Group , the largest employer in the A/GFTC rural area, with over 250 employees.
Creating an independent vanpool or carpool program would be costly and time –
consuming, but A/G FTC could encourage large employers to create and promote
a trusted ZimRide network for their employees, similar to the seasonal example
above. It shou ld be noted that ZimRide would be equally valuable for large
employers in the urban part of the Glens Falls area, since many of the employees
of those firms live in the rural areas and could benefit from ridesharing. The
formation of carpools and vanpools from the rural areas into Glens Falls would
open up employment opportunities for people who currently cannot drive.
�
RURAL MOBILITY STUDY 43

previously merged with A/GFTC's iPoolNorth; the consolidation was intended as
a cost -sharing initiative, as well as to link the systems to reflect commutation
patterns. However, now that the program is hosted by the 511NY system (rather
than a standalone database), there may be benefit to reverting to separate online
portals. This would allow for local promotion and an online presence customized
to the A/GFTC area, while still allowing for ridematching to occur throughout the
greater Capital District. It would also b e possible to set up a vanpool service,
similar to the one currently administered by CDTA through iPool2.
�
RURAL MOBILITY STUDY 44

deduction and VFC's financial return. All proceeds go toward preparing more
vehicles for deserving families.
A third component of VFC is an automotive repair training program . VFC’s Full
Circle Service Center in Halethorpe, MD has a program for ex -offenders who
have been released from the corrections system . These trainees receive
certification and can obtain jobs at auto repair shops. VFC has developed a
partnership with the Maryland Transit Administration so that trainees can
qualify to work as bus mechanic s at MTA.
The greatest challenge for VFC is acquiring enough cars. They are able to award
only about one out of five cars donated. In a northern climate with greater use of
road salt and therefore more issues with rust, the award ratio may drop to one
out of six or one out of seven. VFC partners with schools, charities, and car
d ealerships to increase vehicle donations. However, there are also many other
charitable organizations competing for donated cars, including public radio
stations, Kars for Kids, and other non -profits. None of these has the vehicle
award component of VFC, w hich is its primary benefit to rural mobility. In
Vermont and elsewhere in northern New England, Good News Garage, part of
Ascentria Care Alliance, has a program very similar to VFC, but it has no current
plans to expand into upstate New York.
VFC is begin ning to expand its programs outside the Maryland -Virginia –
Washington D.C. region; in 2015, it opened a second location in Detroit,
Michigan. An expansion of VFC’s program to the A/GFTC region could be set up
as a franchise, with VFC providing knowledge, accounting and management
support. VFC also suggest s building partnerships with auto dealerships, which
helps with car donations and repairs.
�
RURAL MOBILITY STUDY 45

a list of grant -writing resources (websites, online courses, etc .) for transportation
service providers.
�
RURAL MOBILITY STUDY 46

Table 2: Summary of Ratings of Alternatives
Service/Need
Addressed
ITNCountry
S eniors, visually –
impaired adults
Rides to Wellness
Medical and
wellness trips for
anyone with
transportation
challenges
Transportation Call
Center/ Online
Transportation
Coordination
Awareness of
available services
among all
vulnerable
populations Timeline
(Short -Medium -Ability to
Scale
Program Regionally
(1 to 5 – low score is Level of Investment
Needed
(1 to 5 – low score is Barriers
-Legal,
Institutional or Other
(1 to 5 – low score is Ongoing Personnel
Resources Needed
Long) better) better) better) (1 to 5 – low score is better)
Medium 2 2 2 2
Scalability depends on
promotion, driver
recruitment and rider sign- ups; a non- profit
may need additional
resources to promote
the program. There is a $15,000 fee
to join during Phase 2 .
Ongoing fees may be
as little as $2,500 when national roll- out
occu rs. ITN
Country is still in
development; however, ITNAmerica is a well-
established program. An ITN
Country affiliate in
the A/GFTC region would
receive technical support
from ITNAmerica, but may need A/GFTC resources to promote the program.
Short-Medium 2 2 3 2
Short if local
program run by healthcare
provider;
Medium if a
regional or state –
run program. Low if local program
run by healthcare provider or state;
Medium if A /GFTC
plays an active role. Low if local program
run by healthcare provider or state;
Medium if A/GFTC
plays an active role. The program does not
yet exist at a regional level; after
development, Vermont
will provide an example of a Rides to Wellness
program administrative framework. Low if local program run by
healthcare provider or
state; High if A/GFTC plays
an active role.
Short 2 3 1 2
A/GFTC resources to promote new
website/2 -1-1 service. A/GFTC Coordination
with transportation
service providers for updated service
information; website development. GGFT is already doing
this and has indicated willingness to expand
this capability Way2Go has five staffers,
but that includes employer outreach and education
programs. A more limited
onl ine/2 -1-1 program would
require fewer staff.
Potential for shared -staffing
arrangement funded by
more than one agency.
RURAL MOBILITY STUDY 47

Service/Need
Addressed
Tech-enabled
ridesharing
Access to jobs,
other trip purposes
for rural individuals
without personal
transportation
ZimRide
A ccess to jobs
Ipool2
Access to jobs
GoGo Grandparent
Senior transportation
Timeline
(Short -Medium –
Long)
Medium -Long
Short
Short-Medium
Short
Ability to Scale Level of Investment Barriers -Legal,
Program Regionally Needed Institutional or Other Ongoing Personnel
(1 to 5 – low score is (1 to 5 – low score is (1 to 5 – low score is Resources
Needed
better) better) better) (1 to 5 – low score is better)
2 4 5 3
Once the program has Vehicle acquisition; The program does not Fee for use of software
started, expanding it hiring and paying yet exist, nor is there a platform
will make it cheaper drivers (partly offset by pilot program. Bridj
on a per unit basis fare revenue and/or went out of business but
government subsidy software may be
applied to this purchased by another
program) entity.
2 1 1 1
A/GFTC outreach to No direct cost for ZimRide already Little or none required
businesses with a A/GFTC after initial operates in Tompkins
large commuting outreach; companies County as Finger Lakes
workforce. could contact ZimRide Rideshare.
for cost information
2 2 2 2
Promote customized Coordination with Coordination with Promote customized
A/GFTC ridematching 511NY Rideshare to 511NY Rideshare to A/GFTC ridematching
service. create separate online create separate online service.
portals. portals.
1 1 2 1
Could scale as fast as Some marketing and Ridehailing services are Little intervention needed
ridehailing services. promotion would be legal in New York State other than promotion.
needed. as of 6/29/17 but not
yet well established
RURAL MOBILITY STUDY 48

Service /Need
Addressed
Timeline
(Short-Medium –
Long)
Ability to Scale
Program Regionally
(1 to 5 – low score is
better)
Level of Investment
Needed
(1 to 5 – low score is
better)
Barriers -Legal,
Institutional or Other
(1 to 5 – low score is
better)
Ongoing Personnel
Resources Needed
(1 to 5 – low score is better)
Vehicles for Change
Zero -vehicle
households in rural
areas; access to
jobs and other trip
purposes
Medium 4
Requires a high level
of upfront investment
or seed money; would need a local sponsor.
3
Cost effectiveness of
the program depends
on the number of cars donated, fixed, and
sold; A/GFTC may need
to
actively promote the
program.
4
Uncertain of legal
barriers; the program
does not yet exist in the A/GFTC region, and
would require a local advocate, as well as seed money.
2
“Vehicles for Change” could assist a local franchise, but community champions
wo uld need to develop and
maintain partnerships.
Grant Writing
Technical Assistance
O lder adults,
people with
disabilities
Short 2
Depends on available
staff time
1
A/GFTC could contract
with a grant -writing
consultant or develop
its own grant -writing
workshop.
1
No barriers
2
A/GFTC staff hours to
identify grant -writing
resources; annual cost of
grant -writing workshop.
RURAL MOBILITY STUDY 49

Outreach
Following the development of the alternatives described above, A/GFTC and the
consultant team sought to obtain input from as many relevant parties as possible.
These included the non -profits and governmental agencies contacted in the early
phases of the st udy, additional social service organizations, and members of the
general public reached through a variety of means.
A/GFTC prepared a brief survey with input from the steering committee that was
made available to all of the key stakeholder groups. These gr oups then
distributed paper surveys to their constituents and/or encouraged them to go
online to fill out the survey there. The survey form is shown in the appendix.
The Study Advisory Committee helped to identify the key stakeholder groups
which included County agencies as well as non -profit organizations. The key
agencies are listed below:
RURAL MOBILITY STUDY 50

General Questions
The survey covered a wide geographic range with respondents living in a total of
37 different municipalities. Glens Falls had the most respondents with 59
returned surveys . Queensbury was the next with 31 returned surveys, followed by
Hudson Falls with 24 and Granville with 17. Figure 15 shows the self -reported
geographic distribution of survey respondents.
Figure 1 5
RURAL MOBILITY STUDY 51

Figure
16 shows the responses to the first three survey questions.
Figure 1 6
Respondent Characteristics
180

160

120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Do you have a Drivers Do you have regular access Are there transportation
License to a vehicle that you can services in your area
use
Yes No Not Sure
140
# Responses
As seen in Figure 17, the
majorit y of respondents
Access to Technology
(70%) stated that they have 100access to a smartphone
while under half (4 4%)
80
Both Neither Computer
Only
have a computer with
Internet access. About 1 6%
of respondents have
neither a smartphone nor
# Responses
60
40
Internet access while 31 %
have access to both. The 20
0
widespread availabili ty of Smartphone
smartphones among the Only
RURAL MOBILITY STUDY 52

respondents suggests that information dissemination and the arrangement of
transportation through smartphone apps may be more successful than traditional
web
-based methods.
The survey prompted respondents to identify any government benefits that they
receive. The results are shown in Figure 18.
0
20 40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
# Responses
Services Received
Tra
nsportation Specific Questions
The survey questions 5 to 7 inquired about the timing and frequency of
transportation problems people face and the types of trip for which they have
difficulty find ing a ride. Figure 19 shows the frequency of transportation
p roblems for respondents in general. 60 respondents (2 5% of the total survey)
left this question blank, presumably indicating that they do not have
transportation problems. The percentages shown in Figure 19 represent the
percentages of all surveys , but among people who answered this question:
RURAL MOBILITY STUDY 53

Figure 19
How often do you have transportation
problems?
A few times a month About once a week More than once a week
Almost every day No answer
41%
8%
11%
15% 25%
These
results are consistent with the responses to question 7 (shown below in
Figure 21) that indicate the majority of problems experienced by survey
respondents are for trip purposes that require occasional trips (rather than daily
trips) such as medical appoin tments and shopping.
The survey showed that transportation barriers are spread over a variety of times .
The percentages in Figure 20
reflect the 1 72 respondents
Figure 20
who answered this
question, indicating that
they faced problems at least
on occasion.
Is there a time when it is
harder to find rides?
Weekends
Evenings
All the time
Other
30%
29%
22%
19%
RURAL MOBILITY STUDY 54

• Some responses also noted seasonal difficulties and issues with
transportation on holidays. A few “other” responses indicated problems
only when their car broke down.
The next question asked about what kind of trips (trip purposes) respondents had
difficulty making. There were 1 60 responses to this question, with the other 80
surveys leaving thi s question blank, likely because they feel it did not apply to
them. Figure 21 shows that just under one third of the people who answered this
question (31%) had difficulties finding rides for all types of trips. Medical and
shopping trips were identified as trips that were difficult to accomplish. Work
and school trips figured less prominently into the responses.
Figure 21
What kind of trips are the hardest to find
rides for?
Medical Shopping Work School All
27%
26%
12%
4%
31%
The prominence of medical trips in this result could indicate that many of the
respondents were ineligible for Medicaid transportatio n, possibly because their
household owned a car, or other reasons. The relatively low percentages for work
and school could indicate that few of the respondents currently had jobs or were
in school, or that if they were unable to hold a job because of a la ck of
transportation, they may have answered “All.”
Q uestion 8 on the survey sought to identify specific geographic locations that
respondents had trouble reaching. Many of the responses were more generic in
nature, reflecting tr ip purposes (such as “shopp ing” or “doctor” ) rather than
RURAL MOBILITY STUDY 55

specific locations.
Among the geographical locations mentioned, the most
common (with at least three responses), in descending order, were as follows :
Which of these do you need to travel?
60
50
# Responses
40
30
20
10
0
48
30
7 5 13
Help Scheduling Car Seat Wheelchair Help in/out of Other
Rides
access car
RURAL MOBILITY STUDY 56

Potential Solutions
The reverse side of the survey form asked respondents to react to the potential
solutions developed during the study. This list of solutions is a simplified version
of the alternatives discussed in detail earlier in this report. It was not possible in
this format to provide detailed
descriptions of how each solution would work,
thus the goal was to gauge a general reaction to a concept rather than determine
the feasibility of an alternative in a robust way. Figure 23 shows the responses to
potential transportation solutions. The percentages shown below represent
responses divided by total surveys collected rather than the percentage of people
who answered the question. For each option, there were between 25 and 37
respondents who did not fill in any choices.
Potential Transportation Solutions
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Call Center Donated Cars Website or App Rural Taxi Volunteer Driver
Program
I would use it often I would try it I would never use it
RURAL MOBILITY STUDY 57

•
The website/app to facilitate r idesharing and the expanded volunteer
driver program for seniors were somewhat less popular, with 3 5% and
42%, respectively, saying they would never use it. The volunteer driver
program likely scored low because respondents who were not older adults
likely felt that it was not open to them.
Figure 24 summarizes the reactions to the options by combining the first two
choices into a “favorable” response. This graph makes it clear that the rural taxi
was the most favored option, while the volunteer driver program for seniors had
the fewest favorable responses. Again, it is possible that if the volunteer program
had not been restricted to seniors, it may have scored better. In addition, the
existence or lack of favorable response is only one element to take into account
regarding the potential for implementation. It should be noted that the donated
cars program and the volunteer driver program had the highest number of non –
responses (37 each).
Figure 2 4
Summary of Reactions to Options
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Call Center Donated Cars Website or App Rural Taxi Volunteer Driver
Program
Favorable Unfavorable
Other Comments
There were 31 other comments received in the survey. Six comments noted the
economic impacts of transportation. These included the expense of driving and
vehicle ownership as well as the inability to earn money because of limited access
to jobs. Eight comments were mode specific —noting lack of bus service and the
unreliability and perceived lack of safety associated with taxi cabs. A few
comments noted communication difficulty with Medicab drivers (due to a
language barrier ) and the ability to schedule more than one appointment at a
time.
RURAL MOBILITY STUDY 58

Follow -up Communication
According to the survey responses, Facebook is the best way to communicate
information to the public with 70 responses. Newspaper and email were the next
most popular methods of communication followed by websites and public agency
staff. Eight respondents selected the other category. These responses included
phone calls, text message, Instagram, and open door.
RURAL MOBILITY STUDY 59

Conclusion
Transportation access in rural areas has been a problem for a long time,
exacerbated in recent decades as economic opportunities have shrunk and as the
population in the northeastern US has aged. Globalization of manufacturing and
consolidation of retail by superstores have reduced the viability of locally –
provided jobs and increased the transportation burdens on rural residents who
have had to travel farther than they used to when each town or village had its own
employment base.
Even in a period of relatively inexpensive fuel (Spring 2017), the cost of owning
and operating a car can be prohibitive for many rural resid ents. For older
residents and people with disabilities, driving may not be an option because of
physical limitation. Sprawling development patterns that assume the availability
of automobiles for everyone present major barriers to people who cannot drive.
There are unfortunately many facilities oriented toward people who tend to be
transportation -disadvantaged that are located far from village centers or existing
public transportation services.
This study has attempted to identify transportation barriers an d unmet needs in
the rural region surrounding Glens Falls, and then to list potential options to
address these needs. These options exhibit a wide range of potential effectiveness
and scalability, as well as a range of resources needed for implementation.
The initial survey undertaken through area non -profits and county agencies
shows a receptiveness to several of the options, especially for a call center and
rural taxi service. Proponents of some of the programs, such as ITNCountry and
Vehicles for Change, stand ready to work with the Glens Falls region to create
new rural mobility initiatives.
In all cases, in order for a program to succeed, it needs a local champion and a
source of funding. Fortunately, many of the options do not have high price tags,
a nd with local leadership and cooperation, they do have the potential to make a
difference in the mobility options available to rural residents.
Next Steps/Recommendations
As shown in the analysis of the alternatives, no one course of action will fulfill al l
of the transportation needs in the region. However, several options for
implementation seem to have a greater potential to balance efficacy with
feasibility. In addition, there are other actions that can be taken in the short term
to maintain the momentu m of this project into the future. It is recommended that
the following action items be pursued:
RURAL MOBILITY STUDY 60

to enable assistance for training and implementation, if needed. RSVP
staff has noted plenty of unmet demand and a lack of sufficient numbers
of volunteers. The boost that would be provided by ITNCountry would
make this very effective program much more widely available and create a
more significant regional impact.
RURAL MOBILITY STUDY 61

Report to identify operational improvements to Aviation Road to be pursued in conjunction with planned QUFSD capital projects.