Publication Type: Transportation Plans

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.

White Creek Watershed Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability
and Mitigation Assessment
August 23, 2016 Final Report
Prepared by:
Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC.
18 Severance Green, Suite 203
Colchester, VT 05446
in partnership with:
MSK Engineering and Design
150 Depot Street
Bennington, VT 05201

Prepared under contract to:
Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation Council
11 South Street, Suite 203
Glens Falls, NY 12801

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. I
1.0 INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 1
1.1 P ROJECT BACKGROUND …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 1
1.2 P ROJECT OBJECTIVES ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 1
2.0 WHITE CREEK WATERSHED BACKGROUND ……………………………………………………………………………………… 2
2.1 C URRENT AND HISTORICAL LAND USE ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 2
2.2 W ATERSHED GRADIENTS …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 3
3.0 GEOMORPHIC ASSESSMENT …………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 5
3.1 G EOMORPHIC ASSESSMENT A PPROACH ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 5
3.2 G EOMORPHIC ASSESSMENT RESULTS …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 8
4.0 HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 10
4.1 R EVIEW OF USGS R EGIONAL REGRESSIONS ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 10
4.2 R EVIEW OF USGS R EGIONAL GAGES …………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 11
4.3 H YDROLOGIC ANALYSIS SUMMARY ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 12
5.0 HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. . 13
5.1 F IELD SURVEY …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 14
5.2 MODELING DETAILS ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 14
5.3 MODEL CALIBRATION ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 15
6.0 FLOOD MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS AND FEASIBILITY STUDIES ………………………………………….. 17
6.1 U PSTREAM ALTERNATIVES ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 17
Evaluation of White Creek Bridge Flood Capacity …………………………………………………………………………………. 19
Alternative 1: Floodplain Reconnection Upstream (East) of Blind Buck Road ……………………………………………. 21
Alternative 2: Beatty Hollow Bridge Retrofit or Replacement …………………………………………………………………. 23
Alternative 3: County Road 153 Unstable Embankment near Braymer Road ……………………………………………. 27
Alternative 4: Floodplain Reconnection Downstream (West) of Chambers Road ………………………………………. 30
Alternative 5: Floodplain Reconnection Upstream (East) of Railroad Bridge #4 ………………………………………… 32
Alternative 6: County Route 153 Bridge Upstream Constriction ……………………………………………………………… 34
Alternative 7: Lowering of Railroad Bed and Removal of Culvert at Lenhardt Residence ……………………………. 35
Alternative 8: Replace Undersized Railroad Bridge #5 …………………………………………………………………………… 37
6.2 S ALEM VILLAGE ALTERNATIVES ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. . 38
Alternative 2 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 40
Alternative 2a ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 41
Alternatives 3, 3a, and 4 …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 42
Alternatives 5 and 6 …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 43

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study

Alternative 7
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 44
6.3 MITIGATION PROJECT P RIORITIZATION AND POTENTIAL FUNDING ………………………………………………………………………… 46
Upstream Project Prioritization ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 46
Village Project Prioritization ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 46
7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS …………………………………………………………………………………….. 47
7.1 N EXT STEPS ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 47
7.2 P ROJECT AND P LANNING RECO MMENDATIONS ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 47
8.0 LITERATURE CITED …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 49
APPENDICES:
Appendix 1 Hydrologic Analysis Maps (8.5” x 11”)
Appendix 2 Tropical Storm Irene Flood Simulation Maps (11” x 17”)
Appendix 3 Village Alternatives Analysis Maps (11” x 17”)
Appendix 4 Mitigation Project Matrices (11” x 17”)
Appendix 5 White Creek Overall Flood Study Map ( 24” x 36”)

List of Figures
Figure 1.1. White Creek study area map. …………………………………………………………………………………………. 1
Figure 2.1. Historic channel locations downstream of Salem Village ……………………………………………………. 3
Figure 2.2. White Creek watershed and channel slope map ……………………………………………………………….. 4
Figure 3.1. LIDAR terrain model for river valley wall delineation …………………………………………………………. 5
Figure 3.2. Geomorphic reach delineation map ………………………………………………………………………………… 6
Figure 3.3. Typical channel evolution models for F-stage and D-stage …………………………………………………. 7
Figure 3.4. Broad level stream type classification per Rosgen …………………………………………………………….. 9
Figure 5.1. Hydraulic model cross-sections through the Village of Salem ……………………………………………. 13
Figure 5.2. Ineffective flow area example for cross-section 19271 …………………………………………………….. 15
Figure 6.1. Model hydrograph illustrating the impact of floodplain encroachment ……………………………… 17
Figure 6.2 Overview of upstream project alternatives …………………………………………………………………….. 18
Figure 6.3 Bridge flood capacity for public and private crossings on White Creek ……………………………….. 20
Figure 6.4 Berms along field edge at cross-section 14897 ………………………………………………………………… 21
Figure 6.5. T.S. Irene flood depth map showing berms and floodplain east of Blind Buck Road …………….. 22
Figure 6.6. Upstream bank armoring and bridge abutment at Beatty Hollow crossing …………………………. 23
Figure 6.7. Flood elevation changes with increased bridge opening ………………………………………………….. 23
Figure 6.8. Water surface longitudinal profile through the Beatty Hollow crossing ……………………………… 24
Figure 6.9. View of Beatty Hollow bridge and downstream constriction …………………………………………….. 25
Figure 6.10. Proposed realignment for Beatty Hollow bridge ……………………………………………………………. 26
Figure 6.11. Longitudinal profile through abandoned meander near Braymer Road ……………………………. 27
Figure 6.12. Alternative 3 site location map …………………………………………………………………………………… 27
Figure 6.13. Proposed grade control locations along Route 153 ………………………………………………………… 28
Figure 6.14. Unstable bank along Route 153 and diversion weir ……………………………………………………….. 29
Figure 6.15. Alternative 4: Floodplain partially blocked by berm downstream of Chambers Road …………. 30
Figure 6.16. T.S. Irene flood depth map showing berms near Chambers Road ……………………………………. 31
Figure 6.17. Alternative 5: Berm upstream of railroad bridge #4 ………………………………………………………. 32
Figure 6.18. T.S. Irene flood depth map for floodplain near railroad bridge #4 ……………………………………. 33
Figure 6.19. Alternative 6: Laid up stone abutment upstream of Route 153 bridge ……………………………… 34
Figure 6.20. Alternative 7: Ditch leading to culvert under railbed ……………………………………………………… 35

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study

Figure 6.21. T.S. Irene flood depth map with proposed rail bed lowering
…………………………………………… 36
Figure 6.22. Alternative 8: Railroad bridge #5 …………………………………………………………………………………. 37
Figure 6.23. Map of channel, floodplain, and bridge modifications for Village alternatives …………………… 39
Figure 6.24. Berm along field edge west of Park Place ……………………………………………………………………… 40
Figure 6.25. Alternative 2: Proposed berm removal downstream of Archibald bridge …………………………. 40
Figure 6.26.Alternative 2a: Channel and water surface profile with proposed deepening ……………………. 41
Figure 6.27. Archibald bridge at capacity during the Christmas 2014 flood …………………………………………. 42
Figure 6.28. Moderate bank cut example at cross-section 8684 ……………………………………………………….. 43
Figure 6.29. Large bank cut example at cross-section 7117 ………………………………………………………………. 43
Figure 6.30. Undeveloped floodplain approaching the Archibald bridge …………………………………………….. 44
Figure 6.31. Large floodplain cut at Archibald Street including bridge and house removal ……………………. 44
Figure 6.32. Typical cross-section of channel modifications for alternatives 6 and 7 ……………………………. 45

List of Tables
Table 2.1. Land cover characteristics for the White Creek watershed …………………………………………………. 2
Table 3.1. Summary of reach geomorphic characterstics …………………………………………………………………… 8
Table 3.2 Summary of reach stream types, incision, and channel evolution ……………………………………….. 8
Table 4.1. Recurrence interval flow rates for White Creek ………………………………………………………………. 11
Table 4.2. USGS gages with similar basin characteristrics ………………………………………………………………… 11
Table 5.1. Flow estimates for selected recurrence interval floods on White Creek ……………………………… 16
Table 6.1. Summary of channel and floodplain modification from Village alternatives analysis ……………. 38

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
I
Executive Summary
White Creek Geomorphology and Historical Human Impacts  White Creek has a drainage area of approximately 23 square miles at the VT-NY border and 36
square miles in Salem Village. The agricultural and residential development patterns found in
the watershed are characteristic of typical rural watersheds in this area of Vermont and New
York. Agriculture and moderate density development are more prevalent in the New York
portion; however more than 70% of the watershed is undeveloped and classified as forest or
shrub.
 The White Creek corridor has been historically manipulated along most of its length from West
Rupert into Salem. Channel and floodplain manipulation likely started as early as the 1700’s as
agriculture expanded within the valley, and over the years has included channel straightening,
dredging, berming, and extensive floodplain encroachment from roads and railroads.
 Most of the river valley in Salem is occupied by alluvium parent material, or fine-grained soils
that have been deposited by White Creek over thousands of years. The New York portion of
White Creek is found in an unconfined valley with a low sloped valley and channel (i.e., typically
less than 0.5%). Under reference conditions in this setting we would expect a gravel-bottom,
pool-riffle channel with a moderate to high sinuosity. However due to historic channel
manipulation the resulting planform of the creek is very different from its original state, with
low sinuosity in most reaches and stream type departures observed in several reaches.
White Creek Hydrology and Hydraulics
 Estimating flood discharges for different recurrence intervals in the White Creek watershed in
Vermont and New York is challenging for several reasons:
o White Creek has never had a long term USGS gage to measure continuous discharge.
o White Creek straddles two very different landscapes: steep, mountainous terrain in
Vermont where orographic rainfall is common and annual precipitation may exceed 60
inches; lower elevation terrain in New York where annual precipitation totals are
typically less than 35 inches.
o The USGS hydrologic region where White Creek is found – Region 1 – spans a vast area
of upstate New York. The average parameter values used to develop flow regressions
across this large region may not be appropriate for the White Creek watershed. Region
2 estimates may be more appropriate for White Creek.
 Our review of the USGS regressions and gages in the region suggests that the flood flow
estimates used by NYSDOT and Washington County for evaluating the hydraulic capacity of
bridge openings likely underestimate the range of possible flows in the watershed. For example,
the value used by the State and the County for the 100-year flow at the Village of Salem has
been in the range of 3,500 to 3,700 cfs. Our analysis suggests that the range of flows for this
event likely falls between 5,000 cfs and 6,000 cfs.
 The wide river valley though the Town of Salem and the associated roads, railroad, buildings,
and bridges created a complex environment for hydraulic modeling. Extensive field verification

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
II
and survey was required to understand the flooding dynamics within the study area.
Documentation of Tropical Storm Irene damage and flooding extents collected by the Salem
Flood Study Committee was invaluable for calibrating the hydraulic model and improving the
overall accuracy of the study.
 HEC-GeoRAS and HEC-RAS 4.1 software were used to create a one-dimensional river and
floodplain hydraulics model for White Creek from the Route 153 bridge in Vermont downstream
to the confluence with Blind Buck Brook. LiDAR was used to determine elevations for most
cross-sections in the model, however all bridge openings (and upstream/downstream sections)
were field surveyed. Channel bottom elevations were checked and adjusted throughout the
study area to account for LiDAR error in channel depth.
Infrastructure Vulnerability and Flood Mitigation Alternatives  Our hydraulic analysis included an evaluation of bridge flood capacity for all 17 public and
private bridges on White Creek. 10 of the 17 bridges have limited capacity to pass only the 10-
year flood or less, indicating that most bridges on White Creek are hydraulically undersized by
county and state standards. These assessments assume “clear flow” hydraulics, i.e., t hey do not
account for sediment and debris accumulation upstream or within the bridge opening during
flood events. Therefore the capacity at bridges prone to sediment aggradation and debris
clogging is likely lower during moderate and large flood events.
 Our hydraulic analysis of the White Creek corridor indicated that there are greater opportunities
to mitigate flooding depths and extents during moderate floods, as the flooding is not nearly as
extensive in comparison to large floods (i.e., 2011 Irene flood). The moderate floods, those
which have a 10-20% chance of occurring on any given year, occur on a frequency that regularly
affects residents’ lives and property in the valley.
 We evaluated 8 project alternatives upstream of Salem Village. We began by focusing on flood
resiliency for transportation infrastructure; we explored opportunities for larger bridge
openings, roadway embankment stabilization compatible with river stability. Another focus was
on flood flow attenuation opportunities for moderate floods including berm removals to
reconnect severed floodplains, improvement of drainage beneath the rail bed to reconnect
adjacent floodplains, and riparian buffer restoration.
 We evaluated over 10 project alternatives in Salem Village, and summarized the benefits and
costs for 7 alternatives in greater detail. These alternatives included removal of berms, removal
of the Archibald Street bridge, channel widening and deepening, and floodplain restoration with
home buyouts.
Next Steps  Upstream and Village proje cts were prioritized for “near term” and “long term” benefits to
reducing flood vulnerability in Salem, providing a “roadmap” for the community to follow. We
recommend the following steps for the community to advance these projects over time:

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
III
o
Solicit input from individuals, businesses, and officials from the Towns of Salem and
Rupert at future community meetings regarding specific projects and overall project
prioritization.
o Prioritize one to two projects to pursue each year with assistance from WCDPW,
A/GFTC, and other participating groups to identify appropriate funding sources and
partners.
o Apply for one to two grants each year to advance project development and/or designs.
o Implement projects as funding allows, and monitor project success.
 To further identify and evaluate upstream floodplain restoration and reconnection
opportunities, we recommend a field-based geomorphic study and river corridor plan for the
White Creek reaches in Salem to complement similar work in the Vermont portion of the
watershed.
 River science needs to be better incorporated into future public infrastructure projects in the
watershed to ensure proper sizing and scour protection measures for bridges and roadway
stabilization measures.
 There is a need for better coordination amongst partners working in the watershed, including
the towns, A/GFTC, WCDPW, USFWS, Trout Unlimited, and Battenkill Watershed Alliance. The
need for this coordination is two-fold: 1. to ensure that habitat enhancement work (i.e., weirs)
does not increase flood vulnerability for nearby homes, farmland, and infrastructure; 2. To
ensure that public infrastructure and flood mitigation projects summarized in this report are
conducted in a way to minimize impacts to aquatic habitat and downstream water quality.

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
1
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Project Background The White Creek flows out of steep terrain
in the Taconic Mountains of Vermont and
descends into a broad valley in New York
with a long history of agricultural land use
(see Figure 1 .1). During large floods, the
surge of floodwaters and sediment carried
by White Creek poses a hazard to
infrastructure and public safety along the
river corridor from Rupert to Salem. In the
headwaters area of Rupert, severe erosion
along roads and at critical bridge crossings
has led to costly repair work in recent floods
such as Tropical Storm Irene in 2011. As
White Creek enters the Town of Salem,
inundation hazards are prevalent,
particularly in areas where out of bank flow
occurs and is diverted around and along the
rail bed. In between the state line and the
Village of Salem, White Creek flows approximately 8 river miles along farm fields and adjacent to
Route 153 and the historic rail bed. Along this stretch, the potential for floodplains bordering White
Creek to attenuate or diminish the flood surge downstream is compromised due to historical
manipulation of the channel (i.e., berming along farm fields, channel dredging, confinement along
Route 153 and the rail bed). If these floodplain areas are enhanced and allowed to function at their
full potential, they may be critical in lowering flood risks to transportation infrastructure on the New
York side of the watershed as well as other public and private infrastructure in downstream Salem
Village.
The Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation Council (A/GFTC) hired Fitzgerald Environmental
Associates (FEA) and project partner MSK Engineering and Design (MSK) to complete a hydrologic
and hydraulic study of the White Creek watershed in Rupert, Vermont and Salem, New York for the
purpose of evaluating infrastructure flood vulnerability and potential mitigation opportunities. The
findings from this study present a “road map” for future flood mitigation efforts including the
prioritization of projects based on their benefits and costs, and recommendations for next steps.
1.2 Project Objectives Flood vulnerability and mitigation studies are most successful when conducted at the watershed
scale beginning with characterization of watershed hydrology and continuing through the evaluation
of reach geomorphology and local channel and floodplain hydraulics. The scope of this project
covered the hydrology, geomorphology, and hydraulics of the White Creek corridor as a basis for
flood resiliency planning. The primary project objectives included: Figure 1 .1 : White Creek watershed boundary and the extents of
the 2012 – 2013 White Creek/Mill Brook SGA study area and the
2016 White Creek Study.

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
2

Characterize the White Creek corridor in Salem to understand the channel’s natural
geomorphic tendencies and historical context;
 Complete a defensible hydrologic and hydraulic study of the watershed to understand the
flood magnitudes and dynamics of the White Creek corridor;
 Assess flood vulnerability of transportation infrastructure and public and private property in
the Town of Salem;
 Identify and evaluate flood resiliency strategies and projects upstream of the Village of
Salem;
 Identify and evaluate flood resiliency strategies and projects in the Village of Salem;
 Develop a “roadmap ” for future flood mitigation efforts in the Town of Salem by weighing
each project’s benefits and costs.
2.0 White Creek Watershed Background
White Creek originates from steep forested headwaters within the Towns of Rupert and Sandgate in
the southwestern corner of Vermont. The mainstem of White Creek converges with Mill Brook near
the Vermont/New York state line. The channel then descends through a wide valley shared with
Route 153 and the abandoned railroad bed until reaching the Village of Salem. White Creek is a
prominent feature within the Village with several streets and numerous houses located adjacent to
the stream banks. Downstream of the Village the channel continues to flow through a wide valley
primarily occupied with corn and hay fields until it reaches the confluence with Black Creek,
approximately 3 miles downstream.
2.1 Current and Historical Land Use Land cover data based on imagery from 2011 (Homer et al., 2015) are summarized in Table 2.1. The
agricultural and residential development patterns found in the watershed are characteristic of
typical rural watersheds in this area of Vermont and New York. Agriculture and moderate density
development are more prevalent in the New York portion; however more than 70% of the
watershed is undeveloped and classified as forest or shrub. Table 2 .1: Land cover characteristics of White Creek watershed (values expressed as a percent) .
Land Cover VT Watershed (22.5 mi 2
) NY Watershed (26.1 mi 2
) Ent ire Watershed (48.6 mi 2
)
Developed 1.8 4.9 3.4
Forest 83.6 57.3 69.7
Shrub 0.6 3.9 2.4
Grassland 0.2 0.4 0.3
Pasture 12.0 21.8 17.1
Cultivated Crops 1.1 10.3 6.0
Wetland 0.7 1.3 1.1
Water 0 0.1 0.1
Historic channel manipulation is a prominent feature along White Creek, especially through the wide
agricultural valleys along the New York portion of the watershed. Channel manipulation likely
started as early as the 1700’s as agriculture expanded within the valley. Large scale channel

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
3
straightening in rural watersheds is typically associated with road and railroad construction, as well
as agricultural land uses. Analysis of historic imagery and mapping (Scott and Smith, 1853; UNH,
2012
) indicates areas where White Creek was completely relocated during the construction of the
railroad (Figure 2.1). Residential and agricultural land use along the river banks and floodplains
further restricts channel migration and floodplain accessibility. Decades of channel manipulation
cause the stream to lock in to an erosional process referred to incision or degradation. As channel
migration is limited by straightening and armoring, the channel begins to cut downward (incision)
which further reduces floodplain access. Berms were constructed in many areas along White Cree k
in response to flooding events. While these berms protect agricultural fields and buildings on the
floodplains, they reduce floodwater storage potential and increase the volume and rate of
floodwaters conveyed downstream toward the Village of Salem.

Fi gure 2.1: Historic channel locations indicate major channel manipulation during
railroad construction and development within the Village of Salem.
2.2 Watershed Gradients Channel slopes within the watershed follow the typical pattern of steep headwater reaches
gradually transitioning to moderate slopes as tributaries converge and the channel increases in size
(Figure 2.2). Channel slopes continue to decrease as the streams enter wide river valleys. As the
stream reaches the state line the channel slope drops below 1% and enters a very wide and
unconfined river valley. Channel slopes through the Village and extending down to the confluence
with Black Brook are typically under 0.5%. The transition from high/moderate slope in Vermont to
low slope in New York also signifies a shift in the types of expected flooding damage from erosion
and inundation in Vermont to predominantly inundation in New York.

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
4

Figure 2.2: White Creek watershed and channel slope map.

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
5
3.0 Geomorphic Assessment
A preliminary geomorphic assessment of the White Creek corridor was conducted to tie into the existing
geomorphic database and River Corridor Plan completed by FEA in Rupert in 2013 (FEA, 2013). The
existing database of geomorphic conditions ends in Rupert at Hebron Road, approximately ½ mile east
of the state line. Our assessments began downstream (west) of Salem Village at the confluence of White
Creek and Blind Buck Stream, and continued upstream to West Rupert (see Figure 3.2). In order to work
within the project time frame through the winter and spring months, we followed an abbreviated
version of the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation’s Stream Geomorphic Assessment
(SGA) Phase 1 Protocols (VTDEC, 2009), as described below.
3.1 Geomorphic Assessment Approach
 The Salem portion of White Creek was delineated into 8 reaches (along approximately 8 river
miles) following VTDEC’s SGA Phase 1 protocol for reach delineation.
 Step 2 of VTDEC’s SGA protocol was populated, including valley and channel slope, watershed
drainage area, sinuosity, reference channel
geometry per Mulvihill et al. (2007),
reference stream type (Rosgen, 1994), and
reference bedform (Montgomery and
Buffington, 1997). Valley width and
confinement were generated using a
percent slope map, generated from the
LiDAR elevation data, to identify valley
walls and measure valley width (Figure
3.1). The Step 2 data is summarized in
Tables 3.1 and 3.2.
 The study area was scanned remotely
using high-resolution aerial photography
and LiDAR data to locate areas with
excessive sedimentation or lateral
movement post-Irene flood, i.e., significant
channel features such as bank erosion, large gravel deposits, debris jams, etc.
 Cross-sections cut from the HEC-RAS model at regular intervals were used to characterize
reference and existing stream type, channel evolution stage, channel geometry and
channel/floodplain connectivity, and estimate entrenchment and incision ratios. This data is
summarized in Table 3.2.
 A windshield survey was conducted to verify data generated remotely. This included
observations at access points along the Creek, such as bridge crossings and the railroad bed
adjacent the channel. Valley
Width
Figure 3.1 : LiDAR Terrain Model for
River Valley Wall Delineation.

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
6

Figure 3.2: Geomorphic reach delineations along White Creek in Salem.

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
7
The information collected in this assessment assist
ed with assigning a channel evolution model (CEM)
stage for each reach (Schumm, 1977). Channel evolution models provide a basis for understanding
the temporal scale of channel adjustments and departure in the context of SGA results. Both the “D”
sta ge and “F” stage CEMs (VTDEC, 2009) are helpful for explaining the channel adjustment processes
underway in the White Creek watershed. The “F” stage CEM is used to understand the process that
occurs when a stream degrades (incises) its bed. The more domina nt adjustment process for the “D”
stage channel evolution is aggradation, widening and planform change. D-stage CEM typically occurs
where grade controls prevent severe channel incision and abandonment of the adjacent floodplain.
The common stages of both CEMs are depicted in Figure 3.3 below.

Figure 3.3: Typical channel evolution models for F-stage and D-stage (VTDEC, 2009).

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
8
3.2 Geomorphic Assessment Results Table 3.1 : Summary o f reach geomorphic characteristics for the White Creek corridor in Salem, NY.
Reach Elevation River Valley River Channel
Sinuosity Drainage
Area (mi 2
) HGR Channel Width*
Valley
Width (ft) Confinement
Up
(ft) Down
(ft) Length
(ft) Slope
(%) Length
(ft) Slope
(%) VT (ft) NY (ft) Ratio
(NY) Type
Reach 1 466 455 3,712 0.30 3, 908 0.28 1.05 42.4 68.1 83.5 2,050 24.6 Very Broad
Reach 2 490 466 6,656 0.36 6,805 0.35 1.02 35.8 63.2 78.5 2,250 28.7 Very Broad
Reach 3 505 490 2,880 0.52 3,350 0.45 1.16 35.4 63.0 78.2 1,900 24.3 Very Broad
Reach 4 527 505 4,170 0.53 4,545 0.48 1.09 32.8 60.8 76.0 1,050 13.8 Very Broad
Reach 5 552 527 4,380 0.57 5,094 0.49 1.16 28.2 56.9 72.0 1,650 22.9 Very Broad
Reach 6 588 552 5,030 0.72 6,159 0.58 1.22 27.0 55.9 70.9 1,250 17.6 Very Broad
Reach 7 626 588 4,559 0.83 4,668 0.81 1.02 25.5 54.5 69 .5 1,500 21.6 Very Broad
Reach 8 691 626 6,940 0.94 7,244 0.90 1.04 23.2 52.2 67.1 1,800 26.8 Very Broad
*
Hydraulic Geometry Regressions (HGRs) for bankfull channel width estimates from Mulvihill et al. (2007) for New York and VTANR (2009) for Vermont.
Table 3.2 : Summary o f reach stream typing, incision, and channel evolution.
Reach Reference Existing
Stream
Type ᶧ Substrate Bedform ᶧ Stream
Type ᶧ Incision
Ratio CEM
Stage ᶧ
Reach 1 C Gravel Riffle – Pool C Moderate F/III
Reach 2 C Gravel Riffle – Pool C Moderate F/III
Reach 3 C Gravel Riffle – Pool F Poor F/II
Reach 4 C Gravel Riffle – Pool B Moderate F/III
Reach 5 C G ravel Riffle – Pool C Good F/IV
Reach 6 C Gravel Riffle – Pool C Good F/III
Reach 7 C Gravel Riffle – Pool F Poor F/II
Reach 8 C Gravel Riffle – Pool C /F Good F/II
ᶧ Stream types per Montgomery and Buffington (1997) and Rosgen (1994)
Channel evolution model (CEM) per Schumm (1997)

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
9
Geomorphic conclusions:
The preliminary geomorphic assessment provides a basis for understanding the river valley setting
and predicting what types of channel forms would be expected under
“reference ,” or undisturbed
conditions. This effort is useful for understanding the tendency of the White Creek corridor to
support natural river forms that may be beneficial for reducing flood vulnerability in downstream
areas such as Salem Village. Some key conclusions are outlined below.
 Most of the river valley is occupied by alluvium parent material (see Figure 3.2), or fine-grained
soils that have been deposited by White Creek over thousands of years.
 The New York portion of White Creek is found in an unconfined valley, with a low sloped valle y
and channel (i.e., typically less than 0.5%). Under reference conditions in this setting, we would
expect a gravel-bottom C or E-type channel (see Figure 3.4) with a sinuosity of 1.2 to 1.5 .
Sinuosity sometimes exceeds 1.5 in these settings. Given the high bedload supplied by the steep
mountainous headwaters in the Vermont portion of the watershed, it is likely that some reaches
of White Creek historically supported braided channel forms, particularly near the inflection
point in the valley near the state line.
 Every reach of White Creek in New York has been heavily manipulated in the past. These
manipulations include channel straightening and relocation, bank armoring, berms and levees,
clearing of riparian vegetation, channel dredging, and others. The resulting planform of White
Creek is very different from its original state, with sinuosity less than 1.2 in most reaches, and
stream type departures observed in 3 of the 7 reaches, indicating a severe departure from the
reference condition.
 Floodplain connectivity, as measured by the ability of a 2-year flood to access the adjacent
benches or low floodplain, ranged from poor to good along the corridor. Areas with the most
restricted floodplain access due to berms and levees along the channel include Reach 3
upstream of Blind Buck Road, and Reach 7 downstream of the NY Route 153 crossing.
 Channel evolution stages indicated a high bedload channel that is aggrading following the large
floods of the last 20 years; however further field observations would be required to verify these
conditions.

Figure 3.4: Broad level stream type classification per Rosgen (1996)

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
10
4 .0 Hydrologic Analysis
This section provides a summary of the hydrologic data analysis used to estimate flood flows for
different recurrence intervals in the White Creek watershed. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has
never operated a continuous gage in the watershed. Therefore, the records available to complete this
analysis include USGS regional regressions and gage records.
4.1 Review of USGS Regional Regressions We used USGS Regional Regression for three (3) regions to calculate flow rates in the White Creek
watershed at a range of recurrence intervals: 1.5-year (bankfull), 2-year, 10-year, 25-year, 50-year,
100-year, and 500-year (abbreviated as Q1.5, Q2, etc). The USGS Streamstats program enables a user
to quickly calculate flow rates at numerous locations within a watershed, based on the point location
for the watershed delineation. The Streamstats program utilizes the regional hydrologic regressio n
equation based on the location of the watershed delineation point.
White Creek in Salem, NY is located within hydrologic region 1 for New York State. Approximately half
of the 49 square mile watershed is located in Vermont, and at the state line the upstream watershed
is approximately 23 square miles. The portion of the watershed draining through the Village of Salem
is approximately 35.8 square miles. We tested the Streamstats calculations at the state line by
calculating recurrence interval flows based on a watershed drawn in NY (using Region 1 regressions)
and a watershed drawn immediately upstream using the VT regressions. This yielded results with
significantly larger flows predicted from the Vermont regression. Salem is located near the southern
boundary of NY hydrologic region 1 (see Figure 1 in Appendix 1); therefore we also calculated flows
using the regression equations for NY hydrologic region 2 (Table 4.1). Each regional calculation
utilizes a different set of calculation variables shown below:
NY Region 1: Q100 = 10,300 * (Drainage Area)0.96 * (Basin Storage + 1)-0.202 * (Annual Rainfall)1.106 *
(Basin Lag Factor + 1)-0.539 * (Basin Forested Area + 80)-1.638
NY Region 2: Q100 = 52.3 * (Drainage Area)0.9 * (Basin Storage + 5)-0.918 * (Basin Lag Factor +1)-0.461
* (Mean Annual Runoff)1.104
Vermont: Q100 = 0.251 * (Drainage Area)0.854 * (Basin Wetland Area)-0.297 * (Annual Rainfall)1.809
The rainfall and runoff estimates for the NY regressions were generated from a 1951-1980 dataset
(R andall, 1996; Lumia et al., 2006). The Vermont regressions were recently updated and utilize a
1981-2010 rainfall dataset from the PRISM Group at Oregon State University (Olson, 2014). The data
sources used for the NY Region 1 and Vermont regressions have a large difference in mean annual
rainfall estimates for the watershed draining to the VT/NY border (40.3 inches from Randall; 55.3
inches from PRISM Group). Both rainfall datasets indicate an area of increased annual rainfall in the
headwaters south of Rupert (see Figures 2 and 3 in Appendix 1); however the Randall estimate (45
inches) is much lower than the PRISM estimate (63.7 inches). This is likely due to a combination of
data quality/resolution and a well documented trend of increased annual precipitation depth in the
region in recent decades (Stager and Thill, 2010). The PRISM dataset predicts a mean annual rainfall

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
11
depth of 48.3 inches for the 35.8 mi
2
watershed draining to Salem. This value was used for regression
calculations in Salem (Table 4.1).
Table 4.1: Recurrence interval flow rates for White Creek at the VT/NY border and in Salem. Location
(Drainage Area) Regression Q1.5 Q2 Q10 Q25 Q50 Q100 Q500
VT – NY Border
( 23.2 mi 2
) NY (Region 1) 691 846 1,577 1,980 2,284 2,628 3,422
NY (Region 2) 845 1 ,075 2,386 3,279 4,043 4,897 7,269
VT NA 1,212 2,413 3,255 3,955 4,720 6,864
Salem Village
( 35.8 mi 2
) NY (Region 1) 1,006 1,228 2,270 2,843 3,275 3,765 4,891
NY (Region 2) 1,115 1 , 468 3 , 156 4 , 290 5 , 250 6 , 319 9 , 252
VT NA 1 , 323 2 , 533 3 , 427 4 , 129 4 , 882 6 , 976
4.2 Review of USGS Regional Gages
We compared the regression equation flow estimates to recurrence interval flows described for USGS
gaging stations in New York, Vermont, Massachusetts, and Connecticut (Lumia et al., 2006; Olson,
2014). We identified 20 USGS gaging stations that were similar to White Creek in Salem NY based on
the following characteristics: drainage area, slope, rainfall, wetlands, and basin land cover (see Figure
1 in Appendix 1). From these we selected a subset of 11 gages which best matched the White Creek
basin characteristics and are either currently operational or recently decommissioned (Table 4.2). Table
4.2: USGS gages wit h similar basin characteristics; gages selected for analysis are shown in bold.
100 -year and 2 -year fl ow rates are area -normalized as CSM (cubic feet per second per square mile) Source Stream State USGS ID Years of
Record Drainage
Area (mi 2
) Basin Slope
(ft/mi) Q2
(CSM) Q100
(CSM) Lumia et al. 2006

Salmon Cr. CT 01199050 1961 – 2014 29.4 124.8 20 152
WB S acandaga River NY 01319000 1933 – 1978 28.9 81.2 40 81
Little Hoosic River NY 01333500 1948 – 2014 56.1 60.3 35 128
Bushnellsville Cr. NY 01362197 1952 – 2012 11.4 142 31 223
Chestnut Cr. NY 01365500 1938 – 2014 20.9 88.5 57 295
Sandburg Cr. NY 01366650 19 57 – 1977 52.8 60.8 36 127
Little Delaware River NY 01422500 1938 – 2014 49.8 49.9 42 115
Trout Cr. NY 01424500 1941 – 1996 49.5 48.4 43 111
WB Neversink River NY 01434498 1938 – 2014 33.8 75.8 127 541
Neversink River NY 01435000 1938 – 2014 66.6 69.7 92 336
Little Chazy River NY 04271815 1990 – 2014 50.3 43.7 12 51
Putnam Cr. NY 04276842 1990 – 2014 51.6 80.0 25 81
Olson 2014

Ayers Br. VT 01142500 1927 – 2014 30.5 58 25 114
Ottauquechee River VT 01150900 1984 – 2014 23.3 53 43 197
Saxtons River VT 01154000 1936 – 2014 72.2 86 39 194
NB Hoosic River MA 01332000 1927 – 2011 40.9 69.2 60 306
Green River MA 01333000 1948 – 2014 42.6 67.7 35 119
Mettawee River VT 04280350 1985 – 2008 70.2 72 31 131
Little Otter Cr. VT 04282650 1990 – 2014 57.1 19 15 54
Laplatte R iver VT 04282795 1990 – 2014 44.6 47 22 92
White Creek in Salem, NY 35.8 74 —
Median value for selected gages 41 72 35 152
Predicted flow (cfs) at VT/NY Border (23.2 mi 2
) 812 3,526
Predicted flow (cfs) in Salem ( 35.8 mi 2
) 1,253 5,442

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
12
4.3 Hydrologic Analysis Summary Estimating flood discharges for different recurrence intervals in the White Creek watershed in
Vermont and New York is challenging for the following reasons:
 White Creek has never had a long term USGS gage to measure continuous discharge.
 White Creek straddles two very different landscapes: steep, mountainous terrain in Vermont
where orographic rainfall is common and annual precipitation may exceed 60 inches; lower
elevation terrain in New York where annual precipitation totals are typically less than 35
inches.
 The USGS hydrologic region where White Creek is found – Region 1 – spans a vast area of
upstate New York. The average parameter values used to developed flow regressions across
this large region may not be appropriate for the White Creek watershed. Region 2 estimates
may be more appropriate for White Creek.
Our extensive review of the USGS regressions and gages in the region suggests that the flood flow
estimates used by NYSDOT and Washington County for evaluating the hydraulic capacity of bridge
openings likely underestimate the range of possible flows in the watershed. For example, the value
used by the State and the County for the 100-year flow at the Village of Salem has been in the range
of 3,500 to 3,700 cfs. Our analysis suggests that the range of flows for this event likely falls between
5,000 cfs and 6,000 cfs. Our hydraulic analysis using a HEC-RAS model and high water marks from
Tropical Storm Irene (2011) suggests that we are within this range, as described in further detail in
the following section.

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
13
5 .0 Hydraulic Analysis
The wide river valley though the Town of Salem and the associated roads, railroad, buildings, and
bridges created a complex environment for hydraulic modeling. Extensive field verification and
survey was required to understand the flooding dynamics within the study area. Documentation of
Tropical Storm Irene damage and flooding extents collected by the Salem Flood Study Committee
was invaluable for calibrating
the hydraulic model and
improving the overall accuracy
of the study.
HEC-GeoRAS and HEC-RAS 4.1
software were used to create a
one-dimensional river and
floodplain hydraulics model for
White Creek from the Route 153
bridge in Vermont downstream
to the confluence with Blind
Buck Brook. A floodplain digital
elevation model (DEM) was
created for the study area using
high-resolution LiDAR elevation
surfaces from a dataset covering
the Hudson, Hoosic, and
Deerfield basins collected by
FEMA in 2012. We converted
the DEM from meters to feet
and used it to create a
Triangulated Irregular Network
(TIN). The TIN is an alternate method for representing the elevation surface that is much easier and
faster to process for hydraulic modeling purposes.
The HEC-GeoRAS model was set up by first digitizing the stream centerline and the top of each bank.
We constructed the hydraulic model as a single reach for the 48,300 foot long study area. The next
step was to classify the land cover and the associated roughness values (Mannings N values) for the
channel and floodplain areas. Based on 2014 aerial imagery, we manually traced areas of different
land cover and assigned roughness values ranging from 0.035 (gravel bottom stream channel) to 0.08
(forest) following Chow (1959) and Arcement et al. (1989). Next, cross-sections were drawn
perpendicular to channel and floodplain flow stretching across the valley to contain all areas of
overbank flow (Figure 5.1). HEC-GeoRas allows the user to “slice” cross-sections across the floodplain
and channel and the software automatically samples the DEM to create an accurate 3D lateral profile
of the floodplain.
Figure 5.1 : Modeled cross – sections through the Village of Salem

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
14
5.1 Field Survey Field verification of important floodplain features and road crossings was completed for the entire
study area in February and March, 2016. This is very important when constructing a large hydraulic
model based on LiDAR derived DEMs which are inherently less accurate in areas of steep slope
transitions,
at bridges and along road embankments where the DEM is sometimes adjusted to reflect
the “bare earth” condition, and sometimes in areas with dense coniferous tree cover. LiDAR
technology also has limited ability to penetrate water, therefore channel bottom and channel bank
elevations in the DEM are typically less accurate than elevations along the floodplain. The LiDAR data
are processed to remove the elevation of vegetation, buildings, bridges, etc. to create a surface that
represents the “bare earth” elevation. Bridge dimensions and accurate channel and bank elevations
and dimensions are critical components for HEC-RAS modeling. For each of the 17 bridges in the
study area we surveyed upstream and downstream sections, high and low chords, spans, and
heights. A licensed surveyor from MSK collected detailed survey around all major roadway bridges
within the study area using a Sprectra Precision Epoch 50 equipped with RTK smart rover. Staff from
FEA collected additional survey for railroad and private road bridges and collected channel bottom
and bank elevation surveys using a CST-Berger® 32x SAL Automatic Level (+ 1.0mm accuracy @ 1km
run) and standard survey rods. Horizontal data such as top of bank and bridge opening dimensions
were collected using a handheld Ashtech MobileMapper™ M100 Series GPS device (sub half-meter
accuracy). Channel bottom elevations were surveyed along any HEC-RAS cross-sections that were
visible from the bridges. 5.2 Modeling Details
The output file generated from HEC-GeoRAS can be directly opened in HEC-RAS 4.1. Given the scale
of the project and the width of the cross-sections, we had to manually check each “sliced” cross-
section for accuracy and make adjustments as needed. Typical adjustments included bank station
locations and smoothing of elevations around buildings and areas of dense vegetation. Channel
bottom elevations were checked and adjusted in any areas that were field surveyed. Typical channel
bottom adjustments ranged from 0.5 to 2 feet based on canopy density and water depth. We also
plotted the channel longitudinal profile and looked for any unnatural slope changes. Channel width
and bank profile were typically very accurate based on field measurements, LiDAR floodplain
elevations were unchanged except in areas of dense development.
We included a total of 89 cross-sections in the model with added detail around bridges and
important areas for overbank flow and past flood damage. The rail bed and roads through most of
the study area create important lateral flow boundaries and were challenging to represent with a
one-dimensional model. We utilized a combination of levees to block off areas where flooding has
not been observed, and ineffective flow areas (both permanent and non-permanent ) to reduce the
volume of water that can be conveyed through an area that does flood. The latter approach was
used to reduce the volume that is conveyed in the model to best represent downslope flow
restrictions (Figure 5.2). Permanent structures (houses, barns, etc.) were digitized in ArcGIS and
added to the GeoRAS database as obstructions.

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
15
5.3 Model Calibration
We created an existing conditions plan and ran a steady flow model simulation with a mixed flow
regime. The estimated discharges for different flood recurrence intervals were calculated from a
series of regional regressions and from comparison to nearby USGS gaging stations in watersheds
with similar size, slope, and rainfall (see Section 4). Flow change locations were designated at six (6)
points along White Creek to adjust flows based on upstream drainage areas (Table 5.1); the flow
change locations were generally located at tributary junctions. After generating water surface
elevations and extents we fine-tuned the model with additional levees and ineffective flow area
adjustments. The water surface elevations were calibrated to known high water marks and to
estimated inundation extents from direct flood observations, photographs,
and a series of maps and
flooding descriptions provided by the Salem Flood Study Group. Two high water marks were
surveyed near the Route 22 bridge and the Archibald Street bridge, providing valuable data for
improving the model in this critical area.

Figure 5.2: Cross – section 19271 upstream of Beatty Hollow Road where the ineffective flow
area (green hashed lines) reduces the amount of floodplain available for conveyance until the
water surface is high enough to flow over Route 153.

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
16
Table 5.1 : Flow estimates for select recurrence interval floods on White Creek scaled to the drainage
area at each flow change location.
Recurrence interval flow estima tes (cfs)
Cross –
Section Drainage
Area (mi 2
) Q2 Q5 Q10 Q50 Q100 Q500
48227 16.2 632 942 1,287 2,122 2,534 3,672
44614 23.2 905 1,348 1,843 3,039 3,630 5,258
40229 27.0 1,053 1,569 2,145 3,537 4,224 6,119
27218 28.2 1,099 1,639 2,241 3,694 4,412 6,391
20698 32.8 1,279 1,906 2,606 4,297 5,131 7,434
13547 35.8 1,396 2,081 2,844 4,690 5,601 8,114

The estimated 100-year flood discharge from our hydrologic analysis (5,600 cfs), when routed through
the existing conditions model, aligns well with observed water levels and flooding extents during the
2011 Tropical Storm Irene flood on White Creek, both in the Village and upstream (see maps in
Appendix B). In addition, we ran a simulation that accounted for partial debris blockage (approximately
50%) of the Archibald Street bridge opening and channel aggradation (approximately 1-2 ft) in the
Village, based on observations provided by the Town and the Flood Study Group. The results from this
simulation indicated high water elevation agreement within 2 inches at the two high water marks in the
Village. It is reasonable to assume that Tropical Storm Irene was between a 50-year and 100-year flood
on White Creek, as a USGS review of the annual exceedance probabilities (AEP) on gages in Vermont and
New York classified the 2011 flood as a 100-year flood (or greater) in most basins in southern Vermont
(Suro
et al., 2015). We reviewed the 4 gages nearest and surrounding the White Creek watershed and
found that the average AEP exceeded the 2% flood (i.e., 50-year flood).

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
17
6.0 Flood Mitigation Alternatives Analysis and Feasibility Studies
6.1 Upstream Alternatives We used the results of our geomorphic, hydrologic, and hydraulic analyses to identify potential flood
resiliency opportunities along the White Creek corridor upstream of Salem Village. We began by
reviewing the projects highlighted in the 2012 CT Male report (CT Male, 2012) to ensure that past
work was not duplicated. The sites we evaluated represent a wide spectrum of near-term and long-
term project types. The primary focus was on flood resiliency for transportation infrastructure; we
explored opportunities for larger bridge openings, roadway embankment stabilization compatible
with river stability, and other practices highlighted in the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources
Standard River Principles and Practices (Schiff et al., 2015). In addition, with the objective of
ameliorating the historical impacts of channel straightening, berming, and other encroachments on
the surge of floodwaters in Salem (Figure 6.1), we explored flood flow attenuation opportunities for
moderate floods including berm removals to reconnect severed floodplains, improvement of
drainage beneath the rail bed to reconnect adjacent floodplains, and riparian buffer restoration.
Our hydraulic analysis of the White Creek corridor indicated that there are greater opportunities to
mitigate flooding depths and extents during moderate floods, as the flooding is not nearly as
extensive in comparison to large floods (i.e., 2011 Irene flood). The moderate floods, those which
have a 10-20% chance of occurring on any given year, occur on a frequency that regularly affect
residents’ lives and property. The sites we prioritized and explored in further detail are shown in
Figure 6.2 on the following page.

Figure 6.1: Model hydrograph illustrating the impact of floodplain encroachment
on the downstream flood wave (USACE, 1980).

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
18

Figure 6.2: Overview map of upstream project alternatives.

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
19
Evaluation of White Creek Bridge Flood Capacity
Our upstream analysis included an evaluation of bridge flood capacity for all
17 public and private
bridges on White Creek. Using our detailed hydraulic model, we evaluated the capacity of bridges to
pass flood discharge associated with each flood frequency without increasing flooding to adjacent
properties. In some cases the water elevation associated with a flood event is estimated to be near or
above the low chord of the bridge deck without increased risk of flooding to adjacent properties (e.g.,
2-year flood for Archibald Street bridge). In these cases, this flood discharge was assumed to be the
maximum capacity of the bridge. A summary of key observations from this analysis is provided below
to go along with Figure 6.3 on the following page.
 Only 2 bridges can safely pass the estimated 100-year flood without increasing flooding to
adjacent property.
 10 of the 17 bridges have capacity to safely pass the 10-year flood or less, indicating that
most bridges on White Creek are hydraulically undersized by county and state standards.
 All railroad bridges have a capacity of the 10-year flood or less.
 There are 3 severely undersized bridges in Salem Village: Route 22, Archibald Street, and the
downstream railroad bridge (RR-1) . These constrictions aggravate the problem of sediment
aggradation in the channel by slowing floodwater velocity and causing gravel and sand
bedload to deposit through the Village, thereby increasing flood vulnerability to properties in
the Village.
 Archibald Street bridge is severely hydraulically undersized; further detailed information
about the capacity of this bridge is provided in Section 6.2.
 Railroad Bridge #5 in West Rupert, a bridge over the rail trail, is severely undersized. The
reference bankfull channel width at this crossing is 53 feet; the structure span is 23 feet and
is poorly aligned with the channel. In addition, the abutment scour protection on the south
bank further constricts the channel. This undersized bridge causes channel backwater during
large floods and contributes to overbank flow along the southeast side of the railroad tracks
(see Section page 37 for further detail about this problematic structure).
 These assessments of flood capacity assume “clear flow” hydraulics, i.e., they do not account
for sediment and debris accumulation upstream or within the bridge opening during flood
events. Therefore the capacity at bridges prone to sediment aggradation and debris clogging,
such as the Archibald Street bridge, is likely lower during moderate and large flood events.

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
20

Figure 6.3: Bridge flood capacity for public and private crossings on White Creek.

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
21
Alternative 1: Floodplain Reconnection Upstream (East) of Blind Buck Road
Berms are found on the east and west banks along a farm field east of Route 153 and upstream of Blind Buck Road (Figures 6.4 and 6.5 ). The
berms vary between 2 to 4 feet tall and restrict access to floodplains in agricultural use along both banks. During large flood events such as Irene
in 2011, flow jumps out of bank at a bend in the stream between sections 14432 and 14897. However, the berms partially restrict access to a
large floodwater storage area under moderate flood conditions. We estimate these floodplains contain approximately 1,500,000 cubic feet of
storage, or 4% of the approximate 10-year flood volume. Reconnecting these floodplains for moderate floods would not appear to increase flood
vulnerability to improved property in the immediate vicinity, and would serve to dampen the flood wave downstream in Salem. This work would
require an estimated 1,800 cubic yards of excavation and easements from the farmer. The ability of the floodplain to slow the velocity of out of
bank flow would be significantly enhanced by taking this farmland out of production and re-establishing native woody vegetation, however this
would come at a significant loss to the farmer, perhaps beyond an amount a permanent conservation easement would reasonably cover.

Figure 6.4: Cross-section 14897 located approximately 1,000 feet upstream (east) of Blind Buck Road. Berms along edge
of field
Route 153 500 1000 1500 2000498500502504506508510512 G e o Ra s_ m o d e l P l a n : Ap ri l _ 7 _ l o w_ fl o o d _ e xi sti n g 5 /1 0 /2 0 1 6
RS = 14897
Station (ft)E levation (ft) Legend
WS SS Mean Q100
WS SS Mean Q10
WS SS Mean Q2
Ground
Levee
Bank Sta.05 .
0
8 .04 .
0
7 .05 .06 .
0
8

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
22

Figure 6.5: T.S. Irene flood depth map showing berms and floodplain east of Blind Buck Road. Berms along
edge of field

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
23
Alternative 2: Beatty Hollow Bridge Retrofit or Replacement
The Beatty Hollow crossing of White Creek is located at a natural pinch in the valley where bedrock ledge is found on the bounding slopes to the
east and west. Our hydraulic modeling of large floods suggests that this pinch point in the valley causes depths exceeding 12 feet upstream of
the Beatty Hollow Road bridge (see page 7 of Appendix 2). During a large flood, water has to squeeze between the valley walls and through the
current clear bridge span of 44 feet; this has caused road embankment erosion in past floods (Figure 6.6). We evaluated how a bridge span
approximating the reference bankfull width (see Figure 6.7) would change local hydraulics and potentially reduce the volume of water leaving
the channel upstream, and reduce the risk of embankment failure. Our analysis indicates that a bankfull span with the same height as the
existing structure would lower the 100-year flood elevation by 2.7 feet (Figure 6.8), thereby reducing flooding at the adjacent house to the east.
A span of this size may also help to reduce out of bank flows upstream of the railroad bridge which get trapped along the west side of Route 153
to the south a nd exacerbate flooding downstream near the Village. Channel velocity during large floods would be reduced by as much as 25%,
reducing the vulnerability of the Route 153 and Beatty Hollow Road embankments to erosion failure.
Figure 6. 6 : Looking west at upstream approach of White Creek to
Beatty Hollow Bridge. Note the embankment armor from repairs
following the 2000 flood, and the steep bedrock slope in the
background. The western abutment was moved toward Route 153 in
1999 to increase the clear span from 35 feet to 44 feet . Figure 6. 7 : Upstream face of Beatty Hollow bridge showing the existing 100 – year flood
level and proposed with the increased span to 65 feet to provide a bankfull channel.
Note that floodwaters impact the adjacent house under exist ing conditions as was
observed during the Tropical Storm Irene flood. Q10 0 EX
Q100 PR 200 300 400 500 600515520525530535540545 G e o Ra s_ m o d e l P l a n : 1 ) q 1 0 0_ b e a tty1 2 ) Ap ri l 2 0 _ h i g h N
RS = 18850 BR Station (ft)E levation (ft) Legend
WS SS Mean Q100 – April20_hig hN WS SS Mean Q100 – q 100_beatty1 – April20_hig hN
– April20_hig hN
– April20_hig hN
Ground – April20_hig hN
Ineff – April20_hig hN
Bank Sta – April20_hig hN – q100_beatty1
– q100_beatty1
– q100_beatty1
Ground – q100_beatty1
Ineff – q 100_beatty1
Bank Sta – q 100_beatty1

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
24

Figure 6.8: Profile of 100-year flood in the vicinity of Beatty Hollow Road crossing. Blue line represents existing conditions profile and magenta
line represents proposed conditions profile with the span increased to 65 feet to provide a bankfull channel.

18000 19000 20000 21000510515520525530 G e o Ra s_ m o d e l P l a n : 1 ) Ap ri l 2 0 _ h i g h N 4 /2 2 /2 0 1 6 2 ) q 1 0 0 _ b e a tty1 5 /1 0 /2 0 1 6
Main Channel Distance (ft)E levation (ft) Legend
Q100 Existing
Q100 Proposed
Ground
B e attie HollowRR2A d de d p o st L iDA R b e rm on rig ht ba n kWhite Creek 1

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
25
A more immediate solution to increasing the hydraulic capacity of the bridge opening is to remove a constriction caused by riprap armor at the
downstream side of the bridge (Figure 6.9). We estimate this riprap is obstructing the downstream hydraulic opening by 10-15%. This
encroachment causes further channel constriction to approximately 35 feet. This armor does not appear to be protecting critical infrastructure;
The stone could be repositioned to create more of a stacked stone wall to protect the road pull-off while eliminating the encroachment. Figure 6. 9 : View of Beatty Hollow Bridge
opening from upstream (taken by Evan
Fitzgerald, May, 2016). Note the riprap
stone projec ting out into the channel at
the downstream end of the bridge.

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
26
In the long term a realignment of the road crossing would significantly improve the hydraulic capacity of this pinch point in the valley. Figure
6.10 illustrates a possible realignment of the road intersection; this would need to be evaluated further by the County to ensure safety with
respect to traffic patterns and sight distances. The realignment would reduce the sharp bend in the channel immediately upstream of the
current bridge opening. In addition, the west bank upstream of the bridge could be lowered in elevation (hatched area) to allow for some
overbank conveyance, thereby improving the hydraulics upstream of the structure. Finally, if a more comprehensive flood resiliency project i s
considered in the future with the bridge realignment, the removal of the railroad embankment upstream (north) of the bridge may also provide
additional flood reduction benefits. Removal of the railroad embankment would allow floodwaters leaving the channel upstream of the next
upstream railroad bridge to rejoin the main channel near Beatty Hollow Road, assuming the headwater depth is reduced with a large span. This
could alleviate flooding downstream in the Village by reducing the volume of water crossing Route 153 to the west.
Figure 6.1 0 : Beatty Hollow Bridge
current alignment versus an
alternative alignment which
would improve the channel
approach and hydraulic capacity .

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
27

Alternative 3: County Road 153 Unstable Embankment near Braymer Road
This site was addressed in 2012 as part of the post-flood recovery work planned and
engineered by CT Male for the Town and Village of Salem. The purpose of the
project was to reconnect an abandoned meander to the east (Figure 6.12), which
would lead to lower flood flow velocity and erosion risk along Route 153. The
abandoned channel is currently steeper than the reconnected meander; the
reconnected meander dissipates energy over a longer run. The diversion weir at the
upstream end has likely exacerbated erosion along the Route 153 embankment
(Figure 6.14), as it has further steepened the head of an already over-steepened
channel, leading to higher flood velocities (Figure 6.11). To prevent further erosion
along the embankment, we propose bank armor in conjunction with grade control in
the channel adjacent the road either in the form of 2-3 discrete weirs or vanes
(Figure 6.13), or naturalized bed armor to raise the channel grade at or near the
adjacent meander channel.

Figure 6.1 1 : Longitudinal profile from LiDAR and field observations. Figure 6.1 2 : Site location map

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
28

Figure 6.13: Looking south along Route 153 at site of proposed grade control to prevent further downcutting and
undermining of roadway embankment. The roadway embankment would need to be armored. Stone from the
downstream diversion, which we deem unnecessary, could be repurposed for a portion of the grade control and bank
armor. Erosion along
Rt . 153 Toe of
Embankment
Diversion Weir Pr oposed Grade
Control Weirs

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
29

Figure 6.14 : Looking north (upstream) at the unstable bank. Route 153 is on the top of the slope, and the upstream
diversion weir is seen in the background.

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
30
Alternative 4: Floodplain Reconnection Downstrea m (West) of Chambers Road
A berm stretches along the south bank downstream from the Chambers Road bridge and adjacent railroad bridge for approximately 900 ft,
extending beyond cross-section 22800 (Figures 6.15 and 6.16). The berm is typically 1.5ft tall and restricts access to a 5 acre floodplain in
agricultural use that is bounded by the railroad to the east. In addition, the railroad bed severs a portion of the floodplain to the east. These
combined areas represent approximately 530,000 cubic feet of floodplain storage. Reconnecting these floodplains for moderate floods would
not increase flood vulnerability to improved property in the immediate vicinity (i.e., out of bank flows would return to the channel safely without
affecting residences), and would serve to dampen the flood wave downstream in Salem. This work would require an estimated 8,600 cubic yards
of excavation and easements from the farmer. The ability of the floodplain to slow the velocity of out of bank flow would be significantly
enhanced by taking this farmland out of production and re-establishing native woody vegetation to increase floodplain roughness.

Figure 6.15 : Model cross-section 22800 downstream of Chambers Road showing a near bank berm and the railroad bed which both sever th e
channel from the floodplain in the 10-year flood. Removing both confining features would reconnect an estimated 530,000 cubic feet of
floodplain storage, which represents approximately 1% of the runoff volume in this flood event. Railroad bed Berm along edge
of field 0 2 00 4 00 6 00 8 00 1 00 0 1 20 0 1 40 0 1 60 05 305 355 405 455 505 555 60 Ge o Ra s_mod el Pla n : April_2 0 _Q 10 0 _lo w_ rou g h 4 /25 /20 1 6

S ta tio n (ft)E levation (ft) Lege nd
WS S S Mea n Q1 00
WS S S Mea n Q2 5
WS S S Mea n Q1 0
Gro u nd
L eve e
In eff
B an k Sta.0 5 .0 5 .0 4 .
0
7 .0 65

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
31

Figure 6.16: T.S. Irene flood depth map showing floodplain, berms, and railroad bed. Berm along
edge of field

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
32
Alternative 5: Floodplain Reconnection Upstream (East) of Railroad Bridge #4
Berms are found along the north bank along a farm field west of the Route 153 crossing (Figures 6.17 and 6.18). The berms vary between 2 to 5
feet tall and restrict access to a large floodplain in agricultural use that is bounded by Route 153 to the west. During large flood events such as
Irene, flow jumps out of bank at a low point along the channel at Section 34583. However, the berms restrict access to a large floodwater
storage area under moderate flood conditions. We estimate this floodplain contains approximately 1,400,000 cubic feet of storage, or 4% of the
approximate 10-year flood volume. Reconnecting these floodplains for moderate floods would not appear to increase flood vulnerability to
improved property in the immediate vicinity, and would serve to dampen the flood wave downstream in Salem. This work would require an
estimated 4,000 cubic yards of excavation and easements from the farmer. The ability of the floodplain to slow the velocity of out of bank flow
would be significantly enhanced by taking this farmland out of production and re-establishing native woody vegetation.

Figure 6.17 : Model cross- section 33573 upstream of Railroad Bridge #4 showing a near bank berm which severs the channel from the floodplain.
Removing the berm would reconnect an estimated 1,400,000 cubic feet of floodplain storage. Berm along edge
of field 0 2 00 4 00 6 00 8 00 1 00 0 1 20 0 1 40 0 1 60 05 905 956 006 056 106 156 206 25 Ge o Ra s_mod el Pla n : April_2 0 _Q 10 0 _lo w_ rou g h 4 /25 /20 1 6

S ta tio n (ft)E levation (ft) Lege nd
WS S S Mea n Q1 00
WS S S Mea n Q1 0
WS S S Mea n Q2
Gro u nd
In eff
B an k Sta.0 7 .0 4 .0 7 .0 5 .0 6

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
33

Figure 6.18: T.S. Irene flood depth map showing floodplain and berms. Approx location of b erm s
along edge of field

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
34
Alternative 6: County Route 153 Bridge Upstream Constriction
An old laid up stone abutment upstream of the Route 153 bridge constricts the channel (Figure 6.19), aggravating out of bank flows and flooding
of adjacent properties to the south and east during large floods. The bridge has an estimated capacity of the 10-year flood, and the constriction
further reduces the channel capacity. The bankfull channel upstream and downstream of the bridge ranges from 30 to 35 feet, while the
constriction at the abutment is approximately 20 feet. There is good machinery access to remove the stone (approximately 90 cubic yards) from
a private gravel road west of Route 153. A temporary easement from the landowner would be needed as the stone is likely outside of the road
right- of-way. Figure 6. 19 : View of County
Route 153 Bridge opening
from upstream (taken by Evan
Fitzgerald, May, 2016). Note
the old laid up stone abutment
projecting into the channel
upstream of the bridge.

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
35
Alternative 7: Lowering of Railroad Bed and Removal of Culvert at Lenhardt Residence
During large floods water is diverted out of the bank in West Rupert at the rail trail bridge and gets trapped on the east side of the rail bed.
Ponded water south of the Atwater farm cannot easily return to the White Creek channel after the floodwaters recede due to limited capacity
through a 30-inch culvert. Lowering a portion of the rail bed around the culvert will provide additional relief back to the Creek, thereby relieving
trapped floodwaters and reducing prolonged flooding of homes. Figure 6. 20 : View north along rail bed where a dit ch
crosses through a 30 – inch culvert (taken by Evan
Fitzgerald, May, 2016).

3
3
0
0 –
– i
i
n
n
c
c
h
h
R
R C
C
P
P

c
c
u
u
l
l
v
v
e
e
r
r
t
t
L
L
o
o
w
w
e
e
r
r

r
r
a
a
i
i
l
l

b
b
e
e
d
d

t
t
o
o

h
h
e
e
r
r
e
e

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
36

Figure 6.21: Map of proposed rail bed lowering to allow out of bank floodwaters from the north to return
to the White Creek floodplain and channel following recession of flood surge.

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
37
Alternative 8: Replace Undersized Railroad Bridge #5
The rail trail bridge in West Rupert in severely undersized and poorly aligned, and contributes to out of bank flows during large floods.
Floodwaters get trapped on the south side of the rail bed and cannot return to the Creek. The current bridge span is 23 feet. The bridge span
should be at least 50 feet to match the channel bankfull width. In addition, riprap stone placed along the south bank along the toe of the new
abutment appea rs to have been placed for scour protection, however this further constricts the channel. Figure 6.22: View west at upstream end
of rail trail bridge in Rupert. The
confluence of White Creek and Mill
Brook is just downstream in the photo
background (taken by Evan Fitzgerald,
April , 2016).
R
R
i
i
p
p
r
r
a
a
p
p

a
a
r
r
m
m
o
o
r
r
c
c
o
o
n
n
s
s
t
t
r
r
i
i
c
c
t
t
i
i
n
n
g
g
c
c
h
h
a
a
n
n
n
n
e
e
l
l

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
38
6.2 Salem Village Alternatives We created two different HEC-RAS geometry files to model small floods (Q2-Q10) and large floods
(Q50-Q500) in the Village of Salem. Levees and ineffective flow areas specific to flood depth were
required in many areas to control flood extents across the variable topography in the very wide river
valley. The two existing geometry files were used as the basis for a series of alternatives models to
evaluate flood mitigation options .
Most of the Village-specific alternatives we considered had only minimal flood risk reduction in the
large floods (Q100) in comparison to the more frequent moderate floods (Q5 or Q10). This is due to
the simple fact that during a very large flood a significant portion of the Village along White Creek is
inundated, and there are fewer practical opportunities besides extensive property buyouts to
significantly reduce flood risk. Whereas, during the moderate floods there are greater opportunities
to mitigate the flooding depths and extents, as the flooding is not nearly as extensive. The moderate
floods, those which have a 10-20% chance of occurring on any given year, occur on a frequency that
affects residents’ lives with enough regularity that we chose to focus our efforts on mitigating these
floods.
We selected the 10-year flood, with a modeled discharge of 2,844 cfs, as the representative flood to
analyze mitigation opportunities in the Village. The alternatives analysis for the Village included six
(6) types of channel and floodplain modifications which were investigated for flood depth and
velocity reductions both independently and iteratively (Table 6.1 and Figure 6.23 ). All alternatives
were compared to the “do nothing” alternative, and the incremental flood risk reduction with each
added intervention was reviewed. A series of flood depth maps for key alternatives is provided in
Appendix 3, and each alternative is described in greater detail in the following sections. Table 6.1 : Summary of channel and floodplain modifications from Village alternatives analysis.
Alternative Remove Berms
along Field Deepen
Channel Remove
Archibald Bridge Overflow
Box Culvert Widen Channel w/
Flood Benches Create Floodplain
near Archibald
1 Do Nothing – Existing Conditions
2 X
2a X X
3 X
3a X
4 X X
5 X X X
6 X X X X
7 X X X X X

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
39

Figure 6.23: Map of channel, floodplain, and bridge modifications considered during the alternatives analysis.

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
40
Alternative 2
This scenario involves the removal of berms along the south bank extending from the end of Park Place to the railroad crossing. Berm removal
will restore access to a large floodplain during small to medium sized flood events. The berms are typically 1.5-2.5 f eet tall and are continuous
except for a small break near the railroad (Figures 6.24 and 6.25). The berms total approximately 1,200ft in length and we estimate the total
berm volume to be 1,000-1,400 CY. Coordination with the owner (Woody Hill Farms) would be required. In talking with staff from the
Washington County Soil and Water Conservation District, we understand that the farmer placed these berms along the river to prevent overflow
on to the crop fields and reduce erosion. However, this has the effect of creating tailwater in small and moderate floods (Figure 6.25), before the
berms are overtopped, exacerbating flooding on the west end of the Village.

Figure 6.2 4 : Berm along fi eld edge west of Park Place. Figure 6.25 : Berm removed at XS 7117 in the model resulting in a 6 – inch
decrease in the 10 – year flood ( Q10 ) water surface elevation .

Q10 EX
Q10 PR BERM 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600466468470472474 476 G e o Ra s_ m o d e l P l a n : 1 ) Ap ri l _ 7 _ l o w_ e x 2 ) Ap ri l _ 7 _ a l t2
RS = 7117 Station (ft)E levation (ft) Legend
WS SS Mean Q10 – April_7_low_ex WS SS Mean Q10 – April_7_alt2
Ground – April_7_alt2
Levee – April_7_alt2
Bank Sta – April_7_alt2
Ground – April_7_low_ex
Levee – April_7_low_ex
Bank Sta – April_7_low_ex

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
41
Alternative 2a
This scenario involves the removal of berms along the south bank extending from the end of Park Place to the railroad crossing and deepening
the channel from the Route 22 bridge through cross-section 7117. We estimate the channel has aggraded approximately 1-2 feet of gravel and
sand through this section compared to pre-Irene conditions (Figure 6.26). This is supported by the 2005 County site plans for the construction of
the Archibald bridge, which indicate a maximum clearance of 7.5 feet at the upstream face of the bridge in 2005 in comparison to 6 feet
currently . Some minor bank shaping may be required to maintain stable bank slopes of no greater than 2H:1V as the channel bed is excavated.
We estimate that approximately 3,000-4,000 CY of material would be removed over the 2,200 foot length of channel, in addition to the berm
removal volume described in Alternative 2. Figure 6.26 : Channel deepening
to increase capacity from Route
22 to Archibald Street. The
magenta line s represent the
proposed channel bottom (solid)
and 10 – year flood profile
(dashed ) . The predicted 10 – year
surf ace water elevation does not
overtop the Archibald bridge
following channel deepening,
however flooding upstream of
the bridge is not reduced.

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
42
Alternatives 3, 3a, and 4
Alternatives 3 and 4 include removing the Archibald Street bridge and the north abutment to increase channel width and capacity. The bridge is
currently a significant obstruction to flows at or above the 2-year event (Figure 6.27). Tailwater from the constricted channel increases water
surface elevation upstream to the Route 22 bridge in large events. Water surface elevations for the 10-year flood are predicted to drop 1 to 1.5
feet during moderate floods at cross-section 8062 following bridge removal. This would significantly decrease the number of vulnerable homes
along Archibald Street, Nichols Street, and Park Place during moderate storm events. Alternative 4 includes the removal of the downstream
berms and is predicted to further reduce water surface elevations during the 10-year storm by approximately 0.5 to 1ft at the west end of the
Village. Berm removal further reduces water surface elevations through the farm fields and allows the 10-year storm to pass through the
railroad bridge below the low chord. Alternative 3a does not remove the bridge and includes a 20ft wide by 5ft tall concrete box culvert installed
under Archibald Street immediately north of the bridge. Based on the hydraulic model, the box culvert will achieve the same flood water
elevation reductions as bridge removal in Alternative 3. It is important to note that bridge removal will reduce the risk debris catchment during
storms and will likely improve sediment transport. Adding a second hydraulic opening (culvert) may actually increase debris catchment risk over
the current configuration. We estimate that alternative 3a will require approximately 1,500CY of excavation to create the overflow channel
through the culvert. Additional heavy stone armoring will be recommended for the banks of the overflow channel to protect adjacent properties
and the bridge abutment. Figure 6.27 : Archibald Street bridge at capacity during
the Christmas 2014 flood which we estimated to be an
approximate 1 – year flood, based on records from
nearby USGS gages for this event . Our hydraulic model
indicates that a discharge between the 1 – year flood
estimate ( 1,250 cfs) and the 2 – year flood estimate
( 1,400 cfs) will exceed the current capacity of the
opening. This is further evidence that our model aligns
well with large and small flood hydraulics in the Village .
Photo courtesy of the Salem Flood Stud y Committee .

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
43
Alternatives 5 and 6
Alternatives 5 and 6 include berm removal, channel deepening, and bank cuts to create flood benches. The flood benches are located below the
predicted 2-year flow elevation and increase the available channel and floodplain width during the 2-year and 5-year floods from 40-70 feet to
90-120 feet. The bank cuts between Route 22 and Archibald are typically 20-40 feet wide on the north bank. A larger cut is proposed at cross-
section 7117, where the channel is currently very narrow and along the berm (Figures 6.28 and 6.29). These widths are well above the predicted
bankfull width for White Creek based on the NY Region 1 regressions, however it is important to increase available floodplain given the repeat
flood damage through the Village and the current lack of undeveloped floodplain. Bank cuts will require the removal of approximately 90 large
trees that are currently along the top of the north bank in between Route 22 and Archibald Street. The design plans will require dense plantings
of native trees and fast growing shrub species (i.e., willows) along the flood bench and the banks. We estimate that the bank cuts will require
approximately 5,500-6,500 CY of excavation in addition to the 4,000-5,000 CY described in Alternative 2a for channel deepening.
Figure 6.28 : Moderate bank cut (40ft) at cross – section 8684. The magenta
line s represents proposed channel bottom and flood profile . Figure 6. 29 : Large bank cut (45 – 50ft), channel deepening, and berm removal
at cross – section 7 117. The magenta line s represents proposed channel
bottom and flood profile . 400 600 800 1000 1200468470472474476478480482 484 G e o Ra s_ m o d e l P l a n : 1 ) Ap ri l _ 7 _ l o w_ e x 2 ) Ap ri l _ 7 _ A l t5
RS = 8684 Station (ft)E levation (ft) Legend
WS SS Mean Q5 – April_7_low_ex WS SS Mean Q5 – April_7_Alt5
– April_7_Alt5
Ground – April_7_Alt5 Levee – April_7_Alt5Ineff – April_7_Alt5
Bank Sta – April_7_Alt5 – April_7_low_ex
Ground – April_7_low_ex
Levee – April_7_low_exIneff – April_7_low_ex
Bank Sta – April_7_low_ex 800 1000 1200 1400466468470472 474 G e o Ra s_ m o d e l P l a n : 1 ) Ap ri l _ 7 _ l o w_ e x 2 ) Ap ri l _ 7 _ A l t5
RS = 7117 Station (ft)E levation (ft) Legend
WS SS Mean Q5 – April_7_low_ex WS SS Mean Q5 – April_7_Alt5 Ground – April_7_Alt5
Levee – April_7_Alt5
Bank Sta – April_7_Alt5
Ground – April_7_low_ex
Levee – April_7_low_ex
Bank Sta – April_7_low_ex

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
44
Alternative 7
Alternative 7 includes the berm removal, channel deepening, and bank cuts described in Alternative 6 with the addition of a large floodplain cut
centered on the current Archibald bridge location. The existing floodplain area along the north bank of White Creek approaching the Archibald
bridge is somewhat elevated and we predict that it is only accessed during storm events larger than the 2-year flow (Figure 6.30). Unfortunately
there is little relief between the floodplain elevation and adjacent houses, therefore floodplain access is likely associated with property damage.
The proposed floodplain cut will lower the elevation of the floodplain by approximately 2 feet and extend 90-100 from the current river bank.
This cut will require the removal of the house at 41 Archibald St and the removal of approximately 110 ft of roadway extending to the north of
the bridge (Figure 6.31). The new floodplain will be accessible at the 2-year storm and is predicted to reduce flood depths upstream to the Route
22 bridge by 0.2 to 0.6 feet compared to Alternative 6, and approximately 2 feet of flood elevation reduction compared to Alternative 1. We
estimate that Alternative 7 will require approximately 3,500-4,000 CY of excavation in addition to Alternative 6.

Figure 6.30 : Undeveloped floodplain on the north bank approaching the
Archibald bridge. The floodplain elevation is only slightly lower than
surrounding houses and the road. Figure 6.31 : Large floodplain cut at Archibald Street including removal of the bridge
and the house at 41 Archibald. The magenta line s represents proposed channel
bank cuts, channel bottom , and flood profile .
400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
1800468470472474476478 G e o Ra s_ m o d e l P l a n : 1 ) Ap ri l _ 7 _ l o w_ e x 2 ) Ap ri l _ 7 _ a l t7
RS = 8062 Station (ft)E levation (ft) Legend
WS SS Mean Q10 – April_7_low_ex WS SS Mean Q10 – April_7_alt7 – April_7_alt7
– April_7_alt7
Ground – April_7_alt7 Levee – April_7_alt7
Ineff – April_7_alt7
Bank Sta – April_7_alt7 – April_7_low_ex
– April_7_low_ex
Ground – April_7_low_ex Levee – April_7_low_ex
Ineff – April_7_low_ex
Bank Sta – April_7_low_ex

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
45

Figure 6.32: Typical cross-section of Alternative 6 and 7 channel widening and deepening to lower flood levels.

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
46
6.3 Mitigation Project Prioritization and Potential Funding Included in Appendix 4 are alternatives matrices summarizing the benefits, ballpark costs, estimated
implementation time frame, and permitting jurisdictions for each alternative. These tables provide a
way for the community and other stakeholders to compare each alternative and chart a path forward
to reduce flood vulnerability in Salem. Below we have used our professional judgment to prioritize
projects for near and long term implementation, with potential funding sources listed for each
alternative.
Upstream Project Prioritization Near Term Projects Potential Funding Source s
1. Unstable embankment along County Route 153 near
Br aymer Road (Alternative 3)  WCDPW
2. Improve downstream hydraulic opening at Beatty
Hollow Road Bridge (Alternative 2)  WCDPW
3. Remove Upstream Constriction at County Route 153
Bridge (Alternative 6)  WCDPW
Long Term Projects Funding Source
1. Floodplain reconnection upstream of Blind Buck
Road (Alternative 1)  FEMA; NRCS
2. Replace Beatty Hollow Road Bridge to improve
alignment and hydraulic capacity (Alternative 2)  WCDPW; FEMA
3. Floodplain reconnection upstream of Railroad
Bridge #4 (Alternative 5)  FE MA; NRCS
Village Project Prioritization
Near Term Projects Potential Funding Source s
1. Remove Archibald Street Bridge Deck and North
Abutment (Alternative 3)  WCDPW; NYDEC
2. Deepen channel through Village and develop a long –
term sediment maintenance pl an. (Alternative 2a)  FEMA; Town of Salem
3. Remove berms on south bank downstream of Salem
Village. (Alternative 2)  NRCS
Long Term Projects Funding Source
1. Bank cut on north bank in between Route 22 and
Archibald Street. (Alternative 6)  FEMA; Town of Salem
2. Bank cut and floodplain restoration on north bank in
between Route 22 and Archibald Street; Buyout of
home at 41 Archibald Street . (Alternative 7)  FEMA; Town of Salem

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
47
7 .0 Conclusions and Recommendations
The White Creek corridor has been historically manipulated along most of its length from West
Rupert into Salem, leading to increased flood vulnerability in the Village of Salem. The lack of
historical flow monitoring on White Creek and the highly modified channel and floodplain made it
challenging to estimate watershed flood hydrology and model river corridor hydraulics. We put
significant effort into the hydrologic and hydraulic analysis to develop a sound basis for evaluating
flood mitigation alternatives in Salem. The hydraulic model served as a tool for this evaluation, and
can be used and refined in the future to support subsequent steps such as engineering design, grant
applications, and permitting. Below we suggest next steps for the communities in the watershed to
move this planning process forward, including project and planning recommendations.
7.1 Next Steps As part of the ongoing community discussion regarding flood resiliency planning in the White Creek
watershed, we recommend the following steps to incorporate the community’s input i nto the final
prioritization and advance the projects over time:
 Solicit input from individuals, businesses, and officials from the Towns of Salem and Rupert at
future community meetings regarding specific projects and overall project prioritization.
 Prioritize one to two projects to pursue each year with assistance from WCDPW, A/GFTC, and
other participating groups to identify appropriate funding sources and partners.
 Apply for one to two grants each year to advance project development and/or designs.
 Implement projects as funding allows, and monitor project success.
7.2 Project and Planning Recommendations  Improving hydraulic capacity at the Archibald Street crossing, either by removing the bridge
deck and north abutment or installing an overflow box culvert, should be a priority for reducing
flood vulnerability in Salem Village.
 Sediment management options for the White Creek channel in Salem Village should be explore d
in further detail in the near-term to reduce flood vulnerability in the Village. This will require
additional survey work to set benchmarks for long-term monitoring and aggradation levels that
trigger maintenance, and extensive coordination with NYDEC, USACE, and other stakeholders to
ensure impacts to aquatic habitat and downstream water quality are minimized.
 Floodplain restoration and reconnection projects upstream of the Village are a priority for
reducing flood vulnerability in the long-term. Our modeling indicates that floodplain
reconnections totaling 10% of the volume of a moderate flood (i.e., 10-year flood), could reduce
the peak discharge in Salem Village by as much as 25%. The three (3) upstream floodplain
reconnection projects we scoped in this study could cumulatively achieve this reduction over
the long-term.
 River science needs to be better incorporated into future public infrastructure projects in the
watershed to ensure proper sizing and scour protection measures for bridges and roadway
stabilization.

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
48

To further identify and evaluate upstream floodplain restoration and reconnection
opportunities, we recommend a field-based geomorphic study and river corridor plan for the
White Creek reaches in Salem to complement similar work in the Vermont portion of the
watershed. This work would follow the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources Protocols
referenced in this report (VTANR, 2009; VTANR, 2010).
 There is a need for better coordination amongst partners working in the watershed, including
the towns, A/GFTC, WCDPW, USFWS, Trout Unlimited, and Battenkill Watershed Alliance. The
need for this coordination is two-fold: 1. to ensure that habitat enhancement work (i.e., weirs)
does not increase flood vulnerability for nearby homes, farmland, and infrastructure; 2. To
ensure that public infrastructure and flood mitigation projects summarized in this report are
conducted in a way to minimize impacts to aquatic habitat and downstream water quality.

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
49
8 .0 Literature Cited
Arcement, George J., and V. R. Schneider, 1989. Guide for Selecting Manning’s Roughness Coefficients for Natural Channels and Flood Plains. USGS Paper 2339.
Chow, V.T., 1959. Open Channel Hydraulics. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book Co.
CT Male Associates, 2012. Project Work Plan for DEC/ESD Grant Application Post-Hurricane Irene, Tropical Storm Lee Restoration, White Creek, Salem, NY. Prepared for Town of Salem and Village
of Salem.
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency), 1985. Flood Insurance Rate Map, Village of Salem, New York. Community Number 360888 B. Effective April 17, 1985.
Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC (FEA), 2013. White Creek and Mill Brook Corridor Plan, April 13, 2013. Prepared for the Bennington County Conservation District. Homer, C.G., Dewitz, J.A., Yang, L., Jin, S., Danielson, P., Xian, G., Coulston, J., Herold, N.D., Wickham,
J.D., and Megown, K., 201
5, Completion of the 2011 National Land Cover Database for the
conterminous United States
-Representing a decade of land cover change information .
Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing
, v. 81, no. 5, p. 345-354
Lumia, Richard, Freehafer, D.A., and Smith, M.J., 2006, Magnitude and frequency of floods in New York: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2006 –5112, 152 p.
Montgomery, D. R., & Buffington, J. M., 1997, Channel-reach morphology in mountain drainage basins, Geological Society of America Bulletin, 109(5), 596-611.
Mulvihill, C.I., Filopowicz, Amy, Coleman, Arthur, and Baldigo, B P., 2007, Regionalized Equations for Bankfull Discharge and Channel Characteristics of Streams in New York State —Hydrologic
Regions 1 and 2 in the Adirondack Region of Northern New York: U.S. Geological Survey
Scientific Investigations Report 2007-5189, 18 p., online only.
Randall, D. A. 1996. Mean Annual Runoff, Precipitation, and Evapotranspiration in the Glaciated Northeastern United States, 1951-1980. United States Geological Survey Open-File Report 96-
395.
Rosgen, D. L., 1994, A classification of natural rivers, Catena, 22(3), 169 – 199.
Rosgen, D. L., 1996, Applied River Morphology , Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, Colorado
Schiff, R., E. Fitzgerald, J. MacBroom, M. Kline, and S. Jaquith, 2015. Vermont Standard River Management Principles and Practices (Vermont SRMPP): Guidance for Managing Vermont’s Rivers
Based on Channel and Floodplain Function. Prepared by Milone & MacBroom, Inc. and Fitzgerald
Environmental Associates, LLC for and in collaboration with Vermont Rivers Program, Montpelier,
Vermont.
Schumm, S. A., 1977, The Fluvial System, John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Scott, J. D. and R. P. Smith, 1853. Map of Washington County from actual Surveys by Morris Levey. Available at http://www.co.washington.ny.us/DocumentCenter/View/1526
Stager, J.C. and Thill, M. 2010. Climate change in the Champlain Basin: what natural resource managers can expect and do. Report prepared for The Nature Conservan cy

Fitzgerald Environmental Associates, LLC
White Creek Infrastructure Flood Vulnerability Study
50
Suro, T.P., Roland, M.A., and Kiah, R.G., 2015, Flooding in the Northeastern United States, 2011: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1821, 32 p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/pp1821.
USACE (US Army Corps of Engineers), 2008. Effects of Flood Plain Encroachment on Peak Flow . USACE
Hydrologic Engineering Center. September, 1980
USACE (US Army Corps of Engineers), 2010. HEC-RAS River Analysis System, Version 4.1. Available at: http://www.hec.usace.army.mil/software/hec-ras/documentation.aspx
USGS StreamStats Program for New York, 2015. Available at: http://water.usgs.gov/osw/streamstats/new_york.html
UNH (University of New Hampshire), 2002. Historic USGS Maps of New England & New York. Cambridge, NY-VT Quadrangle. Available at: http://docs.unh.edu/nhtopos/Cambridge.htm
VTANR (Vermont Agency of Natural Resources), 2009, Stream Geomorphic Assessment – Phase 1 & 2 Handbook. Rapid Stream Assessment. VTANR Publication.
VTANR (Vermont Agency of Natural Resources), 2010, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources River Corridor Planning Guide. April, 2010.

APPENDIX 1:
HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS MAPS

Best C om paris o n G ages

O th er S im ila r G ag es

W hit e C re e k W ate rs h e d

S ta te B ou nd ary

C ou nty B ou nd ary

N Y U SG S H yd ro lo gic R eg io ns

1

2

3

4

5

6

W hit e C re ek S tu dy H yd ro lo gic M odelin g

Fig ure 1 : U SG S H yd ro lo gic R egio ns a nd
G agin g S ta tio n C om paris o n

Fit z g era ld
En vir o nm enta l
A sso cia te s, L LC
1 8 S e ve ra nce G re e n, Su it e 2 03 C olc he ste r, V T 0 54 46
Te le p ho ne: 8 02.87 6.7 77 8
w ww.fit z g e ra ld envir o n m enta l. c o m

0
40
20

M ile s

D ate : J a n 1 8, 2 01 6D ra w n: J H B

Note s:-U SG S c o m pa ris o n g ag in g s ta tio n s w ere s e le cte d base d o n s e ve ra l b a sin c h a ra cte ris tic s: d ra in ag e are a, b asin s lo p e, a nn ua l p re cip it a it o n, b a sin ru n off , b asin s to ra g e, a n d la g .
µ

S ale m , N Y
White Creek Appendix 1 – Page 1 of 3

Best C om paris o n U SG S
Str e am flo w G ag es

O th er S im ila r U SG S
Str e am flo w G ag es

W hit e C re e k W ate rs h e d

S ta te B ou nd ary

C ou nty B ou nd ary

P R IS M M ea n A nnual
P re c ip it a tio n ( in ch es)

< 35 35 – 4 5 45 – 5 5 55 – 6 5 65 – 7 5 > 75

W hit e C re ek S tu dy H yd ro lo gic M odelin g

Fig ure 2 : R eg io nal A nnual P re cip it a tio n E stim ate s

Fit z g era ld
En vir o nm enta l
A sso cia te s, L LC
1 8 S e ve ra nce G re e n, Su it e 2 03 C olc he ste r, V T 0 54 46
Te le p ho ne: 8 02.87 6.7 77 8
w ww.fit z g e ra ld envir o n m enta l. c o m

0
50
25

M ile s

D ate : J a n 1 8, 2 01 6D ra w n: J H Bµ

Sale m , N Y

N ote s:- R ain fa ll is o p le th s a re b ase d o n a 1 95 1- 1 9 80 d ata se t d escrib ed b y R and all ( 1 9 96).- P R IS M r a in fa ll g rid d a ta is b ase d o n 1 98 1- 2 0 10 d ata se t d escrib ed b y O ls o n ( 2 0 14 ).- U SG S c o m paris o n g ag in g s ta tio ns w ere s e le cte d b a se d o n s e ve ra l b asin c h ara cte ris tic s: d ra in a ge a re a , b a sin s lo pe, a n nu al p re cip it a it o n , b asin r u no ff, b a sin s to ra ge , a nd la g.
White Creek Appendix 1 – Page 2 of 3

^
_
^
_
^
_
^
_
^
_
^
_^
_

42
44
46
38
40
36
48
50
55
60
42
38
42
42
38
40
36
44
40

^
_P re cip it a tio n M onit o rin g S ta tio ns
W hit e C re e k W ate rs h e d
S ta te B ou nd ary
M ean A nnu al P re cip it a tio n I s o ple th ( in ch e s)
M ean A nnual P re cip it a tio n ( P R IS M )Hig h: 7 1 in ch es
Low : 3 8 in ch e s
W hit e C re ek S tu dy H yd ro lo gic M odelin g
Fig ure 3 : R ecu rre nce In te rv a l
R ain fa ll D ep th E stim ate s

Fit z g era ld
En vir o nm enta l
A sso cia te s, L LC 1 8 S e ve ra nce G re e n, Su it e 2 03 C olc he ste r, V T 0 54 46 Te le p ho ne: 8 02.87 6.7 77 8 w ww.fit z g e ra ld envir o n m enta l. c o m
0105
M ile s
D ate : J a n 0 7, 2 01 6D ra w n: J H B
Note s:- R ain fa ll is o p le th s a re b ase d o n a 1 95 1- 1 9 80 d ata se t d escrib ed b y R and all ( 1 9 96).- P R IS M r a in fa ll g rid d a ta is b ase d o n 1 98 1- 2 0 10 d ata se t d escrib ed b y O ls o n ( 2 0 14 ).- P re cip it a tio n m onit o rin g s ta tio ns u se d to d e te rm in e r e cu rr e n ce in te rv a l r a in fa ll d ep th s fr o m N CRC /N RCS E xtr e m e P re cip it a tio n M ode lµ
S ale m , N Y
White Creek Appendix 1 – Page 3 of 3

APPENDIX 2:
TROPICAL STORM IRENE FLOOD SIMULATION MAPS

^
_
^
_
^
_
^
_

Shee t 1S hee t 2

4 82 27
448 33
458 91
444 66
452 00
446 14
448 94
435 56
464 83472 64
468 96
471 22

V T R O UTE 1 53
C RO SS R D
EA ST S T
M IL L R D

Fit z g era ld
En vir o nm enta l
A sso cia te s, L LC
1 8 S e ve ra nce G re e n, Su it e 2 03 C olc he ste r, V T 0 54 46
Te le p ho ne: 8 02.87 6.7 77 8
w ww.fit z g e ra ld envir o n m enta l. c o m

W hit e C re e k S tu dyH yd ra u li c M odeli n g
S ale m , N Y
Note s: – F lo od d epth g rid is m ap ped fr o m w ate r s u rfa ce e le va tio ns c a lc u la te d a t e ach c ro ss-s e ctio n u sin g a H EC -R AS h yd ra u li c m ode l a n d p re dic te d flo w s fr o m a h yd ro lo gic a na ly sis- M ap til e o rie nta tio n is v a ria ble to b est fo llo w th e s tr e a m c h ann el
D ra w n:
J H B a n d E PF
D ate :
A pr 1 , 2 016
F lo o d D ep th M ap pin gS im ula te d T .S . I r e ne2011 F lo od±M ap 1 o f 1 1
08 00400F eet
Appendix 2 – Page 1 of 11

^
_
^
_
^
_
^
_
^
_
^
_
^
_

Shee t 1
S hee t 3
S hee t 2
S hee t 2
4 48 33
444 66
402 29
452 00
446 14
448 94
417 43413 66
435 56
411 34
422 53
401 29
458 91
399 69

V T R O UTE 1 53
C RO SS R D

4W D R oad
C ounty R oute 1 53

Fit z g era ld
En vir o nm enta l
A sso cia te s, L LC
1 8 S e ve ra nce G re e n, Su it e 2 03 C olc he ste r, V T 0 54 46
Te le p ho ne: 8 02.87 6.7 77 8
w ww.fit z g e ra ld envir o n m enta l. c o m

W hit e C re e k S tu dyH yd ra u li c M odeli n g
S ale m , N Y
Note s: – F lo od d epth g rid is m ap ped fr o m w ate r s u rfa ce e le va tio ns c a lc u la te d a t e ach c ro ss-s e ctio n u sin g a H EC -R AS h yd ra u li c m ode l a n d p re dic te d flo w s fr o m a h yd ro lo gic a na ly sis- M ap til e o rie nta tio n is v a ria ble to b est fo llo w th e s tr e a m c h ann el
D ra w n:
J H B a n d E PF
D ate :
A pr 1 , 2 016
F lo o d D ep th M ap pin gS im ula te d T .S . I r e ne2011 F lo od
±
M ap 2 o f 1 1
08 00400F eet
Appendix 2 – Page 2 of 11

^
_
^
_
^
_
^
_
^
_

Shee t 3
S hee t 4S hee t 3
S hee t 2

3 65 32
371 57
379 23
395 60
376 27
374 68
390 66
386 09
399 69401 29
402 29
411 34
355 24

C ounty R oute 1 53
B lo sso m R d

Fit z g era ld
En vir o nm enta l
A sso cia te s, L LC
1 8 S e ve ra nce G re e n, Su it e 2 03 C olc he ste r, V T 0 54 46
Te le p ho ne: 8 02.87 6.7 77 8
w ww.fit z g e ra ld envir o n m enta l. c o m

W hit e C re e k S tu dyH yd ra u li c M odeli n g
S ale m , N Y
Note s: – F lo od d epth g rid is m ap ped fr o m w ate r s u rfa ce e le va tio ns c a lc u la te d a t e ach c ro ss-s e ctio n u sin g a H EC -R AS h yd ra u li c m ode l a n d p re dic te d flo w s fr o m a h yd ro lo gic a na ly sis- M ap til e o rie nta tio n is v a ria ble to b est fo llo w th e s tr e a m c h ann el
D ra w n:
J H B a n d E PF
D ate :
A pr 1 , 2 016
F lo o d D ep th M ap pin gS im ula te d T .S . I r e ne2011 F lo od
±
M ap 3 o f 1 1
08 00400F eet
Appendix 2 – Page 3 of 11

^
_
^
_

Shee t 5
S hee t 4
S hee t 4
S hee t 3

3 45 83
348 26
355 24
365 32
334 16
322 77
335 73
314 36

C ounty R oute 1 53
B lo sso m R d

Fit z g era ld
En vir o nm enta l
A sso cia te s, L LC
1 8 S e ve ra nce G re e n, Su it e 2 03 C olc he ste r, V T 0 54 46
Te le p ho ne: 8 02.87 6.7 77 8
w ww.fit z g e ra ld envir o n m enta l. c o m

W hit e C re e k S tu dyH yd ra u li c M odeli n g
S ale m , N Y
Note s: – F lo od d epth g rid is m ap ped fr o m w ate r s u rfa ce e le va tio ns c a lc u la te d a t e ach c ro ss-s e ctio n u sin g a H EC -R AS h yd ra u li c m ode l a n d p re dic te d flo w s fr o m a h yd ro lo gic a na ly sis- M ap til e o rie nta tio n is v a ria ble to b est fo llo w th e s tr e a m c h ann el
D ra w n:
J H B a n d E PF
D ate :
A pr 1 , 2 016
F lo o d D ep th M ap pin gS im ula te d T .S . I r e ne2011 F lo od
±
M ap 4 o f 1 1
08 00400F eet
Appendix 2 – Page 4 of 11

^
_^
_
^
_

Shee t 6
S hee t 5
S hee t 5
S hee t 4

2 98 26
322 77
314 36283 00
272 18
306 09
292 00
262 18

C ounty R oute 1 53
U nnam ed S tr e et

Fit z g era ld
En vir o nm enta l
A sso cia te s, L LC
1 8 S e ve ra nce G re e n, Su it e 2 03 C olc he ste r, V T 0 54 46
Te le p ho ne: 8 02.87 6.7 77 8
w ww.fit z g e ra ld envir o n m enta l. c o m

W hit e C re e k S tu dyH yd ra u li c M odeli n g
S ale m , N Y
Note s: – F lo od d epth g rid is m ap ped fr o m w ate r s u rfa ce e le va tio ns c a lc u la te d a t e ach c ro ss-s e ctio n u sin g a H EC -R AS h yd ra u li c m ode l a n d p re dic te d flo w s fr o m a h yd ro lo gic a na ly sis- M ap til e o rie nta tio n is v a ria ble to b est fo llo w th e s tr e a m c h ann el
D ra w n:
J H B a n d E PF
D ate :
A pr 1 , 2 016
F lo o d D ep th M ap pin gS im ula te d T .S . I r e ne2011 F lo od
±
M ap 5 o f 1 1
08 00400F eet
Appendix 2 – Page 5 of 11

^
_
^
_^
_

Shee t 6
S hee t 7S hee t 6
S hee t 5

2 41 65247 75
236 56
235 98
235 41
228 00
262 18
254 46
272 18
220 82
214 07
283 00
206 98

C ounty R oute 1 53
C ham bers R d
M cK eig han L n
B ra y m er L n

Fit z g era ld
En vir o nm enta l
A sso cia te s, L LC
1 8 S e ve ra nce G re e n, Su it e 2 03 C olc he ste r, V T 0 54 46
Te le p ho ne: 8 02.87 6.7 77 8
w ww.fit z g e ra ld envir o n m enta l. c o m

W hit e C re e k S tu dyH yd ra u li c M odeli n g
S ale m , N Y
Note s: – F lo od d epth g rid is m ap ped fr o m w ate r s u rfa ce e le va tio ns c a lc u la te d a t e ach c ro ss-s e ctio n u sin g a H EC -R AS h yd ra u li c m ode l a n d p re dic te d flo w s fr o m a h yd ro lo gic a na ly sis- M ap til e o rie nta tio n is v a ria ble to b est fo llo w th e s tr e a m c h ann el
D ra w n:
J H B a n d E PF
D ate :
A pr 1 , 2 016
F lo o d D ep th M ap pin gS im ula te d T .S . I r e ne2011 F lo od
±
M ap 6 o f 1 1
08 00400F eet
Appendix 2 – Page 6 of 11

^
_
^
_
^
_^
_

Shee t 7
S hee t 8S hee t 7
S hee t 6

1 70 67
181 86
206 98
202 85
228 00
220 82
214 07
187 85
199 84
198 10
189 52
177 22
192 71
235 41

C ounty R oute 1 53
B eatty H oll o w R d
Bra y m er L n

Fit z g era ld
En vir o nm enta l
A sso cia te s, L LC
1 8 S e ve ra nce G re e n, Su it e 2 03 C olc he ste r, V T 0 54 46
Te le p ho ne: 8 02.87 6.7 77 8
w ww.fit z g e ra ld envir o n m enta l. c o m

W hit e C re e k S tu dyH yd ra u li c M odeli n g
S ale m , N Y
Note s: – F lo od d epth g rid is m ap ped fr o m w ate r s u rfa ce e le va tio ns c a lc u la te d a t e ach c ro ss-s e ctio n u sin g a H EC -R AS h yd ra u li c m ode l a n d p re dic te d flo w s fr o m a h yd ro lo gic a na ly sis- M ap til e o rie nta tio n is v a ria ble to b est fo llo w th e s tr e a m c h ann el
D ra w n:
J H B a n d E PF
D ate :
A pr 1 , 2 016
F lo o d D ep th M ap pin gS im ula te d T .S . I r e ne2011 F lo od
±
M ap 7 o f 1 1
08 00400F eet
Appendix 2 – Page 7 of 11

^
_^
_
^
_
^
_

Shee t 9
S hee t 8
S hee t 8
S hee t 7

1 8 E . B ro ad w ay
S urv ey = 4 84.7
M odel = 4 8 4.6

1 44 32
141 36148 97
124 33
135 47132 35
161 30
170 67
129 48
177 22
181 86

E B ro ad w ay
B li n d B uck R d
County R oute 1 53

Fit z g era ld
En vir o nm enta l
A sso cia te s, L LC
1 8 S e ve ra nce G re e n, Su it e 2 03 C olc he ste r, V T 0 54 46
Te le p ho ne: 8 02.87 6.7 77 8
w ww.fit z g e ra ld envir o n m enta l. c o m

W hit e C re e k S tu dyH yd ra u li c M odeli n g
S ale m , N Y
Note s: – F lo od d epth g rid is m ap ped fr o m w ate r s u rfa ce e le va tio ns c a lc u la te d a t e ach c ro ss-s e ctio n u sin g a H EC -R AS h yd ra u li c m ode l a n d p re dic te d flo w s fr o m a h yd ro lo gic a na ly sis- M ap til e o rie nta tio n is v a ria ble to b est fo llo w th e s tr e a m c h ann el
D ra w n:
J H B a n d E PF
D ate :
A pr 1 , 2 016
F lo o d D ep th M ap pin gS im ula te d T .S . I r e ne2011 F lo od
±
M ap 8 o f 1 1
08 00400F eet
Appendix 2 – Page 8 of 11

^
_
^
_
^
_^
_^
_

!
!

Shee t 9
S hee t 9S hee t 1 0
S hee t 8

3 3 P ark P la ce
S urv ey=478.9
M odel= 478 .4
1 8 E . B ro ad w ay
S urv ey = 4 84.7
M odel = 4 8 4.6

8 06 2
840 4
997 2
906 7
868 4
895 2
930 1
793 1
11 1 8 6
11 085
108 26
11 300
124 33
129 48
132 35

E B ro ad w ay
N M ain S t
M ain S t
E H ig h S t
Park P l
Vale S t
A rc h ib ald S t
Sta n to n H il l R d
S M ain S t
W B ro ad w ay
R ailr o ad S t
W arre n S t
N ic h ol S t
Thom as S t
C ato S t
N orth S t
B li n d B uck R d
Bla n ch ard S t
C ary R d
W ill ia m s S t
Vin ce n t L n
A cad em y S t
U nnam ed S tr e et

Fit z g era ld
En v ir o nm enta l
A sso cia te s, L LC
1 8 S e ve ra nce G re e n, Su it e 2 03 C olc he ste r, V T 0 54 46
Te le p ho ne: 8 02.87 6.7 77 8
w ww.fit z g e ra ld envir o n m enta l. c o m

W hit e C re e k S tu dyH yd ra u li c M odeli n g
S ale m , N Y
Note s: – F lo od d epth g rid is m ap ped fr o m w ate r s u rfa ce e le va tio ns c a lc u la te d a t e ach c ro ss-s e ctio n u sin g a H EC -R AS h yd ra u li c m ode l a n d p re dic te d flo w s fr o m a h yd ro lo gic a na ly sis- M ap til e o rie nta tio n is v a ria ble to b est fo llo w th e s tr e a m c h ann el
D ra w n:
J H B a n d E PF
D ate :
A pr 1 , 2 016
F lo o d D ep th M ap pin gS im ula te d T .S . I r e ne2011 F lo od
±
M ap 9 o f 1 1
08 00400F eet
Appendix 2 – Page 9 of 11

^
_
^
_
^
_
^
_

!
!

Shee t 1 1
S hee t 1 0S hee t 1 1
S hee t 9S hee t 1 0

33 P ark P la ce
S urv ey=478.9
M odel= 478 .4
1 8 E . B ro ad w ay
S urv ey = 4 84.7
M odel = 4 8 4.6

8 06 2
840 4
868 4
793 1
518 5
618 8
461 5
895 2
394 0
756 1
636 2
906 7
711 7
930 1
997 2

S M ain S t
W B ro ad w ay
P ark P l
M ain S t
A rc h ib ald S t
C ary R d
Railr o ad S t
N ic h ol S t
Vale S t
Sta n to n H il l R d
County R oute 3 0
E B ro ad w ay
T hom as S t
Vin ce n t L n
W ill ia m s S t
Sta te R ou te 2 2
A cad em y S t
U nnam ed S tr e et

Fit z g era ld
En vir o nm enta l
A sso cia te s, L LC
1 8 S e ve ra nce G re e n, Su it e 2 03 C olc he ste r, V T 0 54 46
Te le p ho ne: 8 02.87 6.7 77 8
w ww.fit z g e ra ld envir o n m enta l. c o m

W hit e C re e k S tu dyH yd ra u li c M odeli n g
S ale m , N Y
Note s: – F lo od d epth g rid is m ap ped fr o m w ate r s u rfa ce e le va tio ns c a lc u la te d a t e ach c ro ss-s e ctio n u sin g a H EC -R AS h yd ra u li c m ode l a n d p re dic te d flo w s fr o m a h yd ro lo gic a na ly sis- M ap til e o rie nta tio n is v a ria ble to b est fo llo w th e s tr e a m c h ann el
D ra w n:
J H B a n d E PF
D ate :
A pr 1 , 2 016
F lo o d D ep th M ap pin gS im ula te d T .S . I r e ne2011 F lo od
±
M ap 1 0 o f 1 1
08 00400F eet
Appendix 2 – Page 10 of 11

^
_
^
_
^
_

!

Shee t 1 1
S hee t 1 0S hee t 1 1

3 3 P ark P la ce
S urv ey=478.9
M odel= 478 .4

3 3
518 5
461 5
394 0317 8
174 3

S ta te R ou te 2 2
C em ete ry R d
Bora d or W ay
C ounty R oute 3 0
S M ain S t
D riv ew ay
U nnam ed S tr e et
W B ro ad w ay
D riv ew ay
D riv ew ay

Fit z g era ld
En vir o nm enta l
A sso cia te s, L LC
1 8 S e ve ra nce G re e n, Su it e 2 03 C olc he ste r, V T 0 54 46
Te le p ho ne: 8 02.87 6.7 77 8
w ww.fit z g e ra ld envir o n m enta l. c o m

W hit e C re e k S tu dyH yd ra u li c M odeli n g
S ale m , N Y
Note s: – F lo od d epth g rid is m ap ped fr o m w ate r s u rfa ce e le va tio ns c a lc u la te d a t e ach c ro ss-s e ctio n u sin g a H EC -R AS h yd ra u li c m ode l a n d p re dic te d flo w s fr o m a h yd ro lo gic a na ly sis- M ap til e o rie nta tio n is v a ria ble to b est fo llo w th e s tr e a m c h ann el
D ra w n:
J H B a n d E PF
D ate :
A pr 1 , 2 016
F lo o d D ep th M ap pin gS im ula te d T .S . I r e ne2011 F lo od
±
M ap 1 1 o f 1 1
08 00400F eet
Appendix 2 – Page 11 of 11

APPENDIX 3:
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS MAPS

^
_
^
_
^
_

#
0
#
0
#
0#
0
#
0
#
0
#
0

756 1
618 8
793 1
806 2
711 7
840 4
636 2
868 4
895 2
906 7
930 1

P ark P l
S M ain S t
A rc h ib ald S t
N ic h ol S t
M ain S t

W hit e C re e k S tu dyH yd ra u li c M odeli n g
S ale m , N Y
Note s: – F lo od d epth g rid is m ap ped fr o m w ate r s u rfa ce e le va tio ns c a lc u la te d a t e ach c ro ss-s e ctio n u sin g a H EC -R AS h yd ra u li c m ode l a n d p re dic te d flo w s fr o m a h yd ro lo gic a na ly sis- F lo od d epth s a re b a se d o n a n e stim ate d 5 -y e ar s to rm f lo w o f 2 ,0 80 cfs a nd a n e stim ate d 1 0-y e ar s to rm flo w o f 2 ,8 44 cfs
D ra w n:
J H B a nd E PF
D ate :
M ay 9 , 2 01 6
F lo o d D ep th M ap pin gA lt e rn a tiv e 2A ppro xim ate 10-y e a r f lo od
^
_
^
_
^
_
#
0
#
0
#
0#
0
#
0
#
0
#
0
756 1
793 1
618 8
806 2
711 7
840 4
636 2
868 4
895 2
906 7
930 1
P ark P l
S M ain S t
A rc h ib ald S t
N ic h ol S t
M ain S t
±
A lt e rn ativ e # 2: R em ove b e rm s a lo ng fie ld e d ge
0600300F eet
A lt e rn ativ e # 1: D o n oth in g – e xis tin g c o n dit io n s
B erm a lo ng fa rm f ie ld

F it z g era ld
En viro nm enta l
A ss o cia te s, L LC
White Creek Appendix 3 – Page 1 of 6

^
_
^
_
^
_

#
0
#
0
#
0#
0
#
0
#
0
#
0

756 1
618 8
793 1
806 2
711 7
840 4
636 2
868 4
895 2
906 7
930 1

P ark P l
S M ain S t
A rc h ib ald S t
N ic h ol S t
M ain S t

W hit e C re e k S tu dyH yd ra u li c M odeli n g
S ale m , N Y
Note s: – F lo od d epth g rid is m ap ped fr o m w ate r s u rfa ce e le va tio ns c a lc u la te d a t e ach c ro ss-s e ctio n u sin g a H EC -R AS h yd ra u li c m ode l a n d p re dic te d flo w s fr o m a h yd ro lo gic a na ly sis- F lo od d epth s a re b a se d o n a n e stim ate d 5 -y e ar s to rm f lo w o f 2 ,0 80 cfs a nd a n e stim ate d 1 0-y e ar s to rm flo w o f 2 ,8 44 cfs
D ra w n:
J H B a nd E PF
D ate :
M ay 9 , 2 01 6
F lo o d D ep th M ap pin gA lt e rn a tiv e 2 aA ppro xim ate 10-y e a r f lo od
^
_
^
_
^
_
#
0
#
0
#
0#
0
#
0
#
0
#
0
756 1
793 1
618 8
806 2
711 7
840 4
636 2
868 4
895 2
906 7
930 1
P ark P l
S M ain S t
A rc h ib ald S t
N ic h ol S t
M ain S t
±
A lt e rn ativ e # 2a : R em ove b erm a lo ng fie ld e d ge a n d d ee pen c h ann el
0600300F eet
A lt e rn ativ e # 1: D o n oth in g – e xis tin g c o n dit io n s
B erm a lo ng fa rm f ie ld

F it z g era ld
En viro nm enta l
A ss o cia te s, L LC
White Creek Appendix 3 – Page 2 of 6

^
_
^
_
^
_

#
0
#
0
#
0#
0
#
0
#
0
#
0

756 1
618 8
793 1
806 2
711 7
840 4
636 2
868 4
895 2
906 7
930 1

P ark P l
S M ain S t
A rc h ib ald S t
N ic h ol S t
M ain S t

W hit e C re e k S tu dyH yd ra u li c M odeli n g
S ale m , N Y
Note s: – F lo od d epth g rid is m ap ped fr o m w ate r s u rfa ce e le va tio ns c a lc u la te d a t e ach c ro ss-s e ctio n u sin g a H EC -R AS h yd ra u li c m ode l a n d p re dic te d flo w s fr o m a h yd ro lo gic a na ly sis- F lo od d epth s a re b a se d o n a n e stim ate d 5 -y e ar s to rm f lo w o f 2 ,0 80 cfs a nd a n e stim ate d 1 0-y e ar s to rm flo w o f 2 ,8 44 cfs
D ra w n:
J H B a nd E PF
D ate :
M ay 9 , 2 01 6
F lo o d D ep th M ap pin gA lt e rn a tiv e 3A ppro xim ate1 0-y e a r f lo od
^
_
^
_
^
_
#
0
#
0
#
0#
0
#
0
#
0
#
0
756 1
793 1
618 8
806 2
711 7
840 4
636 2
868 4
895 2
906 7
930 1
P ark P l
S M ain S t
A rc h ib ald S t
N ic h ol S t
M ain S t
±
A lt e rn ativ e # 3: R em ove A rc h ib ald b rid ge
0600300F eet
A lt e rn ativ e # 1: D o n oth in g – e xis tin g c o n dit io n s
B erm a lo ng fa rm f ie ld

F it z g era ld
En viro nm enta l
A ss o cia te s, L LC
White Creek Appendix 3 – Page 3 of 6

^
_
^
_
^
_

#
0
#
0
#
0#
0
#
0
#
0
#
0

756 1
618 8
793 1
806 2
711 7
840 4
636 2
868 4
895 2
906 7
930 1

P ark P l
S M ain S t
A rc h ib ald S t
N ic h ol S t
M ain S t

W hit e C re e k S tu dyH yd ra u li c M odeli n g
S ale m , N Y
Note s: – F lo od d epth g rid is m ap ped fr o m w ate r s u rfa ce e le va tio ns c a lc u la te d a t e ach c ro ss-s e ctio n u sin g a H EC -R AS h yd ra u li c m ode l a n d p re dic te d flo w s fr o m a h yd ro lo gic a na ly sis- F lo od d epth s a re b a se d o n a n e stim ate d 5 -y e ar s to rm f lo w o f 2 ,0 80 cfs a nd a n e stim ate d 1 0-y e ar s to rm flo w o f 2 ,8 44 cfs
D ra w n:
J H B a nd E PF
D ate :
M ay 9 , 2 01 6
F lo o d D ep th M ap pin gA lt e rn a tiv e 4A ppro xim ate1 0-y e a r f lo od
^
_
^
_
^
_
#
0
#
0
#
0#
0
#
0
#
0
#
0
756 1
793 1
618 8
806 2
711 7
840 4
636 2
868 4
895 2
906 7
930 1
P ark P l
S M ain S t
A rc h ib ald S t
N ic h ol S t
M ain S t
±
A lt e rn ativ e # 4: R em ove b e rm s a lo ng fie ld e d ge a n d A rc h ib ald b rid ge
0600300F eet
A lt e rn ativ e # 1: D o n oth in g – e xis tin g c o n dit io n s
B erm a lo ng fa rm f ie ld

F it z g era ld
En viro nm enta l
A ss o cia te s, L LC
White Creek Appendix 3 – Page 4 of 6

^
_
^
_
^
_

#
0
#
0
#
0#
0
#
0
#
0
#
0

756 1
618 8
793 1
806 2
711 7
840 4
636 2
868 4
895 2
906 7
930 1

P ark P l
S M ain S t
A rc h ib ald S t
N ic h ol S t
M ain S t

W hit e C re e k S tu dyH yd ra u li c M odeli n g
S ale m , N Y
Note s: – F lo od d epth g rid is m ap ped fr o m w ate r s u rfa ce e le va tio ns c a lc u la te d a t e ach c ro ss-s e ctio n u sin g a H EC -R AS h yd ra u li c m ode l a n d p re dic te d flo w s fr o m a h yd ro lo gic a na ly sis- F lo od d epth s a re b a se d o n a n e stim ate d 5 -y e ar s to rm f lo w o f 2 ,0 80 cfs a nd a n e stim ate d 1 0-y e ar s to rm flo w o f 2 ,8 44 cfs
D ra w n:
J H B a nd E PF
D ate :
M ay 9 , 2 01 6
F lo o d D ep th M ap pin gA lt e rn a tiv e 6A ppro xim ate1 0-y e a r f lo od
^
_
^
_
^
_
#
0
#
0
#
0#
0
#
0
#
0
#
0
756 1
793 1
618 8
806 2
711 7
840 4
636 2
868 4
895 2
906 7
930 1
P ark P l
S M ain S t
A rc h ib ald S t
N ic h ol S t
M ain S t
±
A lt e rn ativ e # 6: R em ove A rc h ib ald b rid ge a n d in cre ase c h a nne l w id th a nd d e pth
06 00300F eet
A lt e rn ativ e # 1: D o n oth in g – e xis tin g c o n dit io n s
B erm a lo ng fa rm f ie ld

F it z g era ld
En viro nm enta l
A ss o cia te s, L LC
White Creek Appendix 3 – Page 5 of 6

^
_
^
_
^
_

#
0
#
0
#
0#
0
#
0
#
0
#
0

756 1
618 8
793 1
806 2
711 7
840 4
636 2
868 4
895 2
906 7
930 1

P ark P l
S M ain S t
A rc h ib ald S t
N ic h ol S t
M ain S t

W hit e C re e k S tu dyH yd ra u li c M odeli n g
S ale m , N Y
Note s: – F lo od d epth g rid is m ap ped fr o m w ate r s u rfa ce e le va tio ns c a lc u la te d a t e ach c ro ss-s e ctio n u sin g a H EC -R AS h yd ra u li c m ode l a n d p re dic te d flo w s fr o m a h yd ro lo gic a na ly sis- F lo od d epth s a re b a se d o n a n e stim ate d 5 -y e ar s to rm f lo w o f 2 ,0 80 cfs a nd a n e stim ate d 1 0-y e ar s to rm flo w o f 2 ,8 44 cfs
D ra w n:
J H B a nd E PF
D ate :
M ay 9 , 2 01 6
F lo o d D ep th M ap pin gA lt e rn a tiv e 7A ppro xim ate1 0-y e a r f lo od
^
_
^
_
^
_
#
0
#
0
#
0#
0
#
0
#
0
#
0
756 1
793 1
618 8
806 2
711 7
840 4
636 2
868 4
895 2
906 7
930 1
P ark P l
S M ain S t
A rc h ib ald S t
N ic h ol S t
M ain S t
±
A lt e rn ativ e # 7: R em ove A rc h ib ald b rid ge, w id en a n d d ee pen c h an nel,
a nd c u t flo od b e nch es a lo n g n orth b ank
0600300F eet
A lt e rn ativ e # 1: D o n oth in g – e xis tin g c o n dit io n s
B erm a lo ng fa rm f ie ld

F it z g era ld
En viro nm enta l
A ss o cia te s, L LC
White Creek Appendix 3 – Page 6 of 6

APPENDIX 4:
MITIGATION PROJECT MATRICES

White Creek Watershed, Rupert, VT & Salem, NY
Legend

Recommended Projects to Protect Infrastructure, Residences,EffectiveLimitedIneffective

and Businesses from Future Flooding

July 19, 2016

ProjectWhat is At Risk?
Reduces Flood
Risk1

10-year Flood
Level Reduction in
Village

Reduces
Erosion Risk2

Protects Businesses,
Infrastructure, and
Property

Ease of
Implementation

Implementation Cost
Range

Estimated Time for
Implementation

Permitting
Jurisdictions
Comments

Upstream Alternatives

Alternative 1: Floodplain Reconnection
Upstream (East) of Blind Buck Road

Businesses, Residences,
& County/Town
Infrastructure
●0.5 – 1ft●●Difficult
$100K-150K2-3 yearsNYDEC; USACE

Berms along both banks restrict access to floodplains on both sides of river during 10-year floods and greater. Approximately 33 acre-ft of floodplain storage could be reconnected for moderate floods. Berm removal would require excavation of approximately 1,800CY of material along the banks, with some tree removal likely. Temporary and permanent easements with farm owner would be needed.

Alternative 2: Beatty Hollow Bridge Retrofit
or Replacement; Improve downstream
hydraulic opening

Businesses, Farms,
Residences, &
County/Town
Infrastructure
●N/A●●Difficult

$500K (replacement);
$10K-$15K (improve
opening)

2-3 years
(replacement);
<1 year (improve opening) NYDEC; USACE Widening clear span to predicted bankfull width of 65 feet (from USGS regression) and realigning opening would lower flood depths during large floods by 3 feet or more, reducing risk of neaby flooding and erosion along the road embankment. A temporary solution to increasing capacity involves removing a downstream constriction caused by existing bank riprap projecting into the channel (approximately 60CY). Alternative 3: Unstable Embankment along County Road 153 near Braymer Road County Transportation Infrastructure ○N/A●●Moderate$60K-$75K 1-2 yearsNYDEC; USACE The well intentioned Irene recovery work to reconnect an abandoned meander made the Rt 153 embankment more vulnerable to erosion by increasing floodwater velocity over the upstream diversion weir. Embankment armoring and grade control with large stone (approximately 220CY) would protect the roadway during future flood events. Alternative 4: Floodplain Reconnection Downstream (West) of Chambers Road Businesses, Farms, Residences, & County/Town Infrastructure ●0.5 – 1ft●●Difficult $250K-$300K2-3 yearsNYDEC; USACE Berms and the abandoned railroad bed east of the Creek restrict access to floodplains during 10-year floods and greater. Approximately 12 acre-ft of floodplain storage could be reconnected for moderate floods. Berm removal would require excavation of approximately 8,600CY of material, with some tree removal likely along the banks. Temporary and permanent easements with farm owner would be needed. Alternative 5: Floodplain Reconnection Upstream (East) of Railroad Bridge #4 Businesses, Farms, Residences, & County/Town Infrastructure ●0.5 – 1ft●●Difficult$150-$200K 2-3 yearsNYDEC; USACE Berms along the west bank restrict access to floodplains during 10-year floods and greater. Approximately 32 acre-ft of floodplain storage could be reconnected for moderate floods. Berm removal would require excavation of approximately 4,000CY of material along the banks, with some tree removal likely. Temporary and permanent easements with farm owner would be needed. Alternative 6: County Route 153 Bridge Upstream Constriction Businesses, Farms, Residences, & County/Town Infrastructure )N/A))Easy$5K-$10K 1 yearNone An old laid up stone abutment upstream of the Rt 153 bridge constricts the channel, aggravating out of bank flows and flooding of adjacent property during large floods. There is good access to remove the stone (approximately 90CY) from a private gravel road west of Rt 153. A temporary easement from the landowner would be needed as the stone is likely outside the road ROW. Alternative 7: Lowering of Railroad Bed and Removal of 30-inch RCP at Lenhardt Residence Farms and Residences)N/A○)Moderate$15K-$20K1-2 yearsNYDEC; USACE During large floods water is diverted out of the bank in West Rupert at the rail trail bridge and gets trapped on the east side of the rail bed. Ponded water south of the Atwater farm cannot easily return to the White Creek channel after the floodwaters recede due to limited capacity through a 30-inch culvert. Lowering a portion of the rail bed around the culvert will provide additional relief back to the Creek. Alternative 8: Replace Undersized Railroad Bridge #5 Farms and Residences●N/A●●Difficult$150K-$200K2-3 years NYDEC; USACE; VTrans The rail trail bridge in West Rupert in severely undersized and poorly aligned, and contributes to out of bank flows during large floods. Floodwaters get trapped on the south side of the rail bed and cannot return to the Creek. The current bridge span is 23 feet. The bridge span should be at least 50 feet to match the channel bankfull width. ) ○ ● OBJECTIVES FEASIBILITY 1Reduces Flood Risk – The proposed project/strategy lowers the flood level.2Reduces Erosion Risk – The proposed project/strategy lessens the vulnerability of a location to erosion. White Creek Appendix 4 Page 1 of 2 White Creek Watershed, Rupert, VT & Salem, NYLegend Recommended Projects to Protect Infrastructure, Residences,EffectiveLimitedIneffective and Businesses from Future Flooding July 19, 2016 ProjectWhat is At Risk? Reduces Flood Risk1 10-year Flood Level Reduction in Village Reduces Erosion Risk2 Protects Businesses, Infrastructure, and Property Ease of Implementation Implementation Cost Range Estimated Time for Implementation Permitting Jurisdictions Comments Salem Village Alternatives Alternative 2: Remove Berms Downstream of Salem Village Businesses, Residences, & County/Town Infrastructure ○0 – 0.5ft○○Moderate $40-50K1-2 yearsNone Project involves coordination with landowner (Woody Hill Farms) to remove berms along farm fields for approx. 1,200 linear feet. Total volume estimated to be 1,000-1,400 CY. Berms create minor tailwater in small to moderate floods and affects the western edge of the Village. Alternative 2a: Remove Berms Downstream of Salem Village; Deepen Channel Businesses, Residences, & County/Town Infrastructure )0.5 – 1ft○○Moderate $50K-$80K1-2 yearsNYDEC; USACE Deepening the channel from the Route 22 bridge through cross-section 7117. Channel has aggraded approximately 1-2 feet compared to pre-Irene conditions. Some minor bank shaping may be required. We estimate that approximately 3,000-4,000 CY of material would be removed over the 2,200 foot length of channel. A sediment maintenance plan would need to be established in conjunction with state and federal agencies. This would requre additional channel survey work to establish benchmarks associated with levels of aggradation that increase flood vulnerability. Alternative 3 & 3a: Remove Archibald Street Bridge or Install an Overflow Box Culvert to North of Existing Bridge Businesses, Residences, & County/Town Infrastructure ●1 – 1.5ft))Moderate $50K (removal); $250K-$350K (overflow culvert) 2-3 years SEQR; NYDEC; USACE For removal option, the south abutment would be left in place to accommodate a future pedestrian crossing, but the north abutment would be removed to widen the floodway. Overflow box culvert (20ft span, 5ft height) would be installed on the north bank and would require an easement from the property owner to create an overflow channel. Alternative 4: Remove Berms Downstream of Salem Village; Remove Archibald Street Bridge Businesses, Residences, & County/Town Infrastructure ●1 – 1.5ft))Moderate $80K-$100K2-3 years SEQR; NYDEC; USACE See above comments. The combination of berm removal with bridge removal (or overflow box culvert) provides only marginal improvement over Alternative 3. Alternative 5: Remove Berms Downstream of Salem Village; Deepen Channel; Widen Channel with Flood Benches Businesses, Residences, & County/Town Infrastructure )0.5 – 1ft))Difficult$250K-$350K 3-5 years SEQR; NYDEC; USACE Widening of the channel without Archibald Street bridge removal (or overflow culvert) provides only limited flood reduction, as the bridge constriction remains severe. This is not a viable alternative considering the high costs and limited benefits. Alternative 6: Remove Berms Downstream of Salem Village; Deepen Channel; Widen Channel with Flood Benches; Remove Archibald Street Bridge Businesses, Residences, & County/Town Infrastructure ●1.5 – 2ft))Difficult$400K-$500K 3-5 years SEQR; NYDEC; USACE Easements would be required on approximately 14 properties to excavate the flood benches, primarily along the north bank in between Route 22 and Archibald Street. Many large trees lining the north bank would need to be removed. A revegetation plan would be required as part of the final design and permitting. Alternative 7: Remove Berms Downstream of Salem Village; Deepen Channel; Widen Channel with Flood Benches; Remove Archibald Street Bridge; Businesses, Residences, & County/Town Infrastructure ●1.5 – 2ft●●Difficult$500K-$700K >5 years
SEQR; NYDEC;
USACE; FEMA

See above comments. The Fleming house (41 Archibald Street) would be bought-out and demolished to allow for the re-establishment of a floodplain on the north bank. This alternative would also reduce the 100-year flood elevations in the Village 1-1.5 feet.

OBJECTIVES

●

FEASIBILITY

)
○

1Reduces Flood Risk – The proposed project/strategy lowers the flood level.2Reduces Erosion Risk – The proposed project/strategy lessens the vulnerability of a location to erosion.
White Creek Appendix 4 Page 2 of 2

Beaver B ro o k
D ry C re ek
W hit e C re e k
B li n d B uck S tr e am
S an dg ate B ro ok
B utte rm il k F alls B ro o k
W hit e C re e k

B ogto w n R d
Sm it h R d
Prie st R d
Q uarr y R d
Sta te R oute 2 2
A ll e n L n
B lo sso m R d
County R oute 1 5 3
S co tt L ake R d
Bla c k C re e k R d
Dil lo n H ill R d
Cham bers R d
County R oute 3 0
B li n d B uck R d
Dunnig an R d
Cem ete ry R d
Coon L n
E B ro ad w ay
B eatty H ollo w R d
Bria n sk y L nP att e rs o n H ill R d
Ferg uso n L n
S M ain S t
Parq ui L n
H an ks R d
Ril e y H ill R d
Pit ts H ill L n
P ark P l
Fle m in g L n
S ta n to n H ill R d
G illi s H ill L n
B ora d or W ay
W B ro ad w ay
S ky P arlo r W ay
N M ain S t
Vale S t
Sta te H w y 2 2
N ic h ol S t
Pfiit z e R d
Cary R dRail r o ad S t

R UPER T R DW S A NDG ATE R D
W EST R D
KEN T H O LLO W R D
CRO SS R D
EA ST S T
PER KIN S H O LLO W R D
SA NDG ATE R D

R R-5
R R-4
R R-3
R R-2
C ato
R R-1
C ro ss
B lin d B uck
R t 2 2
V T 1 53
L o urie
N Y 1 53 ( S herm an B rid ge)
S herm an
A tw ate r
B ea ttie H ollo w
C ham bers
A rc h ib ald

S ale m
S andgate
H eb ro n
R up ert

V C G I

W hit e C re ek F lo o d S tu dyP ro je ct A re a M apS ale m , N Y
N ote s:

– A ll la ye rs d ow nlo aded fr o m N Y G IS C le arin gh ouse a nd t h e V erm ont C ente r fo r G eo gra phic I n fo rm atio n- B ackg ro un d I m agery is fr o m 2 01 4- C ro ss s e ctio ns w ere a naly ze d u sin g H EC -G eoR AS s o ft w are
D ra w n:
J H B, E PF
D ate :
M ay 1 0, 2 016
0
3,0 00
1,5 00
F eet
1 in ch = 1 ,5 00 f e et
M ap 1
S tu dy R each esS urfa ce W ate rsR oad sR ailr o adH is to ric R ail r o adS ta te B oundaryT o w n B oundaryW hit e C re ek W ate rs h ed
A ppro xim ate B rid ge C apacit y
2 -y e ar flo o d10-y e ar f lo od25-y e ar f lo od50-y e ar f lo od100-y e ar f lo odH EC -R AS C ro ss S ectio nsA ppro x. 1 00-y e ar F lo od E xte nt

Online Text Currently Unavailable

Exit 18 Rezone Study
Town of Queensbury
Warren County, New York

February 2016

Prepared for: Prepared
by:

III Winners Circle
Albany, NY 12205
CHA File: 30230

Exit 18 Rezone Study – Queensbury, NY Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION …………………………………………………………………………………………………………1
A. Study Background, Overview, and Purpose …………………………………………………………………… 1
B. Study Area ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 1
C. Study Objectives ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 4
D. Study Approach …………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 5
2.0 EXISTING AREA CONDITIONS ………………………………………………………………………………………..5
A. Roadway Network ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 5
B. Traffic Volumes ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 8
C. Transit Service …………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 10
D. Pedestrians and Bicyclists ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 11
3.0 NO-BUILD TRAFFIC VOLUMES …………………………………………………………………………………….. 12
4.0 LAND USE ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 15
5.0 BUILD TRAFFIC VOLUMES ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 19
A. Trip Generation ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 19
B. Site Trip Distribution ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 22
C. Future Build Volumes ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 23
6.0 CAPACITY ANALYSIS …………………………………………………………………………………………………. 25
A. Existing Traffic Operations ………………………………………………………………………………………… 26
B. No-Build Traffic Operations ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 27
C. Build Traffic Operations …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 28
7.0 QUEUE ANALYSIS …………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 34
8.0 MITIGATION IMPROVEMENTS ……………………………………………………………………………………. 37
9.0 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS………………………………………………………………………………………………. 43
10.0 PEDESTRIAN & BICYCLE CONSIDERATIONS ……………………………………………………………………. 47
11.0 ZONING CONSIDERATIONS ………………………………………………………………………………………… 48
12.0 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES ………………………………………………………………………………….. 49
13.0 CONCLUSION ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 51

Exit 18 Rezone Study – Queensbury, NYPage ii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Study Location Map …………………………………………………………………………………………………… 2
Figure 2: Exit 18 Rezone Area …………………………………………………………………………………………………… 3
Figure 3: Study Intersections ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 4
Figure 4: 2015 Existing DHV Traffic Volumes ……………………………………………………………………………….. 9
Figure 5: 2015 Intersection Volume Comparison………………………………………………………………………… 10
Figure 6: GGFT Bus Route 7 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 10
Figure 7: No-Build Traffic Volumes …………………………………………………………………………………………… 13
Figure 8: Intersection Volume Comparison – Existing/No-Build …………………………………………………….. 14
Figure 9: Parcel Consolidation Concept …………………………………………………………………………………….. 18
Figure 10: Intersection Volume Comparison – Existing/No-Build/Build ………………………………………….. 23
Figure 11: 2020 Build Volumes ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 24
Figure 12: Intersection Improvements – Big Bay Road & Corinth Road …………………………………………… 38
Figure 13: Intersection Improvements – Big Boom Road/Media Drive/Main Street ………………………….. 40
Figure 14: Reduced Development Improvement Concept – Big Boom Road …………………………………….. 43
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: NYSDOT AADT volumes ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 8
Table 2: 2015 Two-Way Design Hour Volumes …………………………………………………………………………….. 8
Table 3: 2015 Peak Hour Pedestrian and Bicycle Volumes ……………………………………………………………. 11
Table 4: Existing Zoning …………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 15
Table 5: Parcel Consolidation and Development Concept ……………………………………………………………. 19
Table 6: CI-18 Development Trip Generation …………………………………………………………………………….. 21
Table 7: HCM Intersection LOS ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 25
Table 8: Level of Service Summary – AM Peak Hour ……………………………………………………………………. 30
Table 9: Level of Service Summary – PM Peak Hour …………………………………………………………………….. 32
Table 10: Queue Summary – AM Peak Hour ………………………………………………………………………………. 35
Table 11: Queue Summary – PM Peak Hour ………………………………………………………………………………. 36
Table 12: LOS Summary Build with Improvements ……………………………………………………………………… 41
Table 13: Trip Generation Scenario Comparison ………………………………………………………………………… 44
Table 14: LOS Summary – Reduced Build Scenario ………………………………………………………………………. 45
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A …………………………………………………………………………………………………. Traffic Volume Data
Appendix B …………………………………………………………………………………… Trip Generation & Distribution
Appendix C ……………………………………………………………………………………. Capacity Analysis Worksheets
Appendix D ……………………………………………………………………… Mitigation Improvement Cost Estimates

Exit 18 Rezone Study – Queensbury, NY Page 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

A. Study Background, Overview, and Purpose

The Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation Council (A/GFTC) initiated this study to provide a technical
analysis of the transportation system impacts associated with proposed changes in commercial zoning in
the area of the I-87 (Adirondack Northway) Interchange 18 in the Town of Queensbury, Warren County,
New York. The Commercial Intensive Exit 18 (CI-18) District proposed by the Town of Queensbury is
intended to provide for flexible development opportunities on key sites, creating economic development
while encouraging the overall improvement and appearance of these areas, including attractive building
designs and enhanced pedestrian access.

The Corinth Road/Main Street corridor, which is the primary east-west arterial route serving the study
area, was reconstructed in 2011 (PIN 1753.80). This reconstruction involved capacity and safety
enhancements including construction of a two-way center left-turn lane, intersection improvements,
pedestrian/bicycle accommodations and new traffic signal systems. The basis of design for this road
reconstruction included projections of traffic growth associated with a land development scenario within
the study area that considered more than 1.6 million square feet of new commercial and industrial uses
and approximately 1,200 new residential units. The timeline for that projected growth was 2015. The
basis of the roadway design for the reconstruction also considered additional traffic growth to a 2025
planning horizon.

This Exit 18 Rezone Study identifies the changes in traffic that has occurred over the past 10 years since
the original design studies were conducted, including documentation of traffic volumes, turning patterns,
and pedestrian/bicycle activity in the corridor, and provides analysis of traffic operations to identify the
transportation improvements recommended to support anticipated development under the proposed CI-
18 zoning.

The study includes the following:

• Land use and development assessment of properties within the rezone area
• Documentation of existing traffic volumes and transportation system operations
• Projections of future travel demand generated by development under the proposed rezone
• Identification of traffic impacts of the potential development
• Identification of mitigation alternatives and implementation strategies

B. Study Area

The project study area is located in the vicinity of the I-87 Interchange 18 with Corinth Road/Main Street
(Warren County Route 28), in the southern part of the Town (See Figure 1). The proposed CI-18 District
comprises approximately 65 acres of land around the interchange, extending north and south of Corinth
Road/Main Street from Big Bay Road (west of I-87) to Big Boom Road (east of I-87), as shown in Figure 2.

Exit 18 Rezone Study – Queensbury, NY Page 2

The limits of the study of the transportation system extend further east to the municipal boundary of the
City of Glens Falls, and includes the following intersections (see also Figure 3):

• Corinth Road (CR28) and Big Bay Road
• Corinth Road (CR 28) and I-87 Exit 18 Southbound ramps
• Corinth Road (CR 28) and I-87 Exit 18 Northbound ramps
• Main Street (CR 28) and Big Boom Road/Media Drive
• Main Street (CR 28) and Pine Street
• Main Street (CR 28) and Richardson Street

Figure 1: Study Location Map

Exit 18 Rezone Study – Queensbury, NY Page 3

Figure 2: Exit 18 Rezone Area

Exit 18 Rezone Study – Queensbury, NY Page 4

Figure 3: Study Intersections
Aerial Image Source: Google Maps

C. Study Objectives

The objectives identified for this study are to:

• Quantify the estimated traffic impacts resulting from development allowable under the
proposed zoning changes on the function and capacity of the transportation system, including
considerations of motorized and non-motorized traffic.
• Recommend modifications to the proposed zoning changes that would allow for the
preservation of surface transportation capacity while still fostering the Town of Queensbury’s
goals to encourage desirable new development.
• Recommend conceptual transportation system improvements that would be required to
maintain acceptable transportation system operations with the forecasted development
conditions.
• Identify alternative funding mechanisms that are permissible under State and local
regulations that could be used to leverage transportation system improvements.

Exit 18 Rezone Study – Queensbury, NY Page 5

D. Study Approach

The study approach employed to complete this technical study consisted of:

• Inventory of existing transportation and land use conditions, and environmental constraints.
• Development of future land use and transportation conditions, considering
planned/approved projects and local development trends.
• Assessment of impacts to the transportation system, and evaluation of mitigation strategies
including transportation system management, capacity enhancements, and land use
alternatives.
• Assessment of potential funding and implementation strategies.
• Town, A/GFTC and agency coordination.

This technical study is consistent with the foundational aspect of A/GFTC’s Planning Principles for planning
and program development by providing a coordinated assessment of land use and transportation. The
alternatives for mitigation strategies were similarly developed in accordance with these principles to
maximize utilization of available system capacity, and to consider mobility, access and safety for all modes
and users.

2.0 EXISTING AREA CONDITIONS
A. Roadway Network
County Route 28 is an Urban Principal Arterial and is owned and maintained by Warren County. West of
the Exit 18 interchange this road is named Corinth Road, and east of the interchange it is named Main
Street. As mentioned previously, this roadway was recently reconstructed to improve mobility and safety
for motorized and active transportation. The segment of the corridor (Corinth Road) between Big Bay
Road and the I-87 southbound ramps has a basic typical section of one 12-foot travel lane for each
direction, with a 5-ft. sidewalk on the north side of the road. The segment of the corridor through the
interchange consists of two lanes in each direction (a through travel lane and a left-turn lane in each
direction), and sidewalks on both sides of the street. East of the interchange, Main Street transitions from
the four-lane section to a three-lane section comprised of a single 14-foot shared travel lane in each
direction and a center two-way left turn lane (TWLTL). At the signalized intersections of Main Street at Big
Boom Road, Pine Street and Richardson Street, the TWLTL becomes a dedicated directional left-turn lane.
Five-foot sidewalks are provided on both sides of Main Street from the I-87 interchange to beyond the
Richardson Street limits of the study area. The posted speed limit along CR 28 throughout the study area
is 35 mph.

Main Street from I-87 to its termination at US 9 in Glens Falls is part of the National Highway System and
is a Designated Truck Access Highway in New York State. The corridor is a mix of commercial and
residential uses. With the exception of the interchange area, access to the corridor is uncontrolled,
meaning that driveway access to abutting properties is permitted.

Exit 18 Rezone Study – Queensbury, NY Page 6

Study Area Intersections
All six of the study area intersections are controlled by multi-phased, traffic-actuated traffic signals. The
NYSDOT owns and maintains the coordinated signals at the I-87 Exit 18 northbound and southbound
ramps and at the adjacent intersection of Main Street, Big Boom Road and Media Drive. The current signal
timing and phasing plans for these intersections were obtained from NYSDOT. Although Warren County
owns and maintains the roadway infrastructure for the remaining segments of the study corridor, the
traffic signals at the three other study intersections are locally managed through an agreement between
the Town and the City of Glens Falls. The traffic signal timing and phasing data for these three locally-
managed signals was obtained by field observations. The reconstruction of the corridor included provision
for the interchange ramp signals to also operate in coordination with the signal at Big Boom Road, but
currently they do not operate in this coordinated mode.

The geometry of the intersections are as follows:

 Big Bay Road / Corinth Road – This is a “T” intersection controlled with a traffic signal. The Corinth
Road eastbound approach consists of a shared through /right-turn lane while the westbound
approach provides an exclusive left turn lane and an exclusive through lane. The Big Bay Road
northbound approach provides a shared left / right turn lane. A crosswalk with pedestrian
accommodations exists on the west leg of the intersection. The traffic signal is fully-actuated and
operates in a 3-phase sequence, including permitted/protected turn movements.

 I-87 Exit 18 Southbound (SB) Ramp / Corinth Road – This is a four-way intersection operating
under traffic signal control. The Corinth Road eastbound approach provides two exclusive
through lanes and an exclusive right turn lane while the Corinth Road westbound approach
provides an exclusive left turn lane and an exclusive through lane. I-87 Exit 18 SB Ramp approach
(north leg) provides two lanes; a shared left-turn / through lane and an exclusive right turn lane
for southbound vehicles exiting I-87 while the south leg provides a single, one-way travel lane for
vehicles to access I-87 southbound. Crosswalks and pedestrian accommodations exist on the
north and east legs of this intersection. This signal is owned and maintained by the NYSDOT and
is coordinated with the I-87 Exit 18 Northbound Ramp / Corinth Road intersection using a single
controller to mutually operate both ramp intersections.

 I-87 Exit 18 Northbound Ramp/ Corinth Road – This is a four-way intersection operating under
traffic signal control. The Corinth Road eastbound approach provides an exclusive left-turn lane
and an exclusive through lane while the Corinth Road westbound approach provides an exclusive
through lane and a shared through / right turn lane. The I-87 Exit 18 northbound approach
provides an exclusive left turn lane, a shared through / right-turn lane and an exclusive right turn
lane while the north leg provides a single, one-way travel lane for vehicles to access I-87
northbound. Crosswalks and pedestrian accommodations are provided on both the I-87 on and
off ramps. This signal is owned and maintained by the NYSDOT and is coordinated with the I-87
Exit 18 Southbound Ramp / Corinth Road intersection using a single controller to mutually operate
both ramp intersections.

 Big Boom Road / Media Drive / Main Street – This is a signalized four-way intersection. The Main
Street eastbound approach provides an exclusive left-turn lane, an exclusive through lane and a
shared through / right-turn lane. The Main Street westbound approach provides an exclusive left-
turn lane and a shared through / right-turn lane. The Big Boom northbound approach provides a

Exit 18 Rezone Study – Queensbury, NY Page 7

shared left-turn / through / right-turn lane while the Media Drive southbound approach provides
an exclusive left-turn lane and a shared through / right-turn lane. Crosswalks and pedestrian
accommodations exist on the north, east, and west legs of this intersection. The traffic signal is
fully-actuated and operates in a 4-phase sequence, including permitted/protected turn
movements.

 Pine Street / Main Street – This is a signalized four-way intersection. The Main Street eastbound
and westbound approaches provide an exclusive left-turn lane and a shared through / right-turn
lane. The Pine Street northbound and southbound approaches each consists of a shared left-turn
/ through / right-turn lane. The north leg (southbound approach) is offset to the east from the
south leg (northbound approach) and therefore, has split phasing for the northbound and
southbound approaches. The Speedway (formerly Hess) gas station driveway exists opposite the
Pine Street northbound approach. Crosswalks and pedestrian accommodations exist on the north
and south legs of this intersection.

 Richardson Street / Main Street – This is a signalized four-way intersection. The Main Street
eastbound and westbound approaches provide an exclusive left-turn lane and a shared through /
right-turn lane. The Richardson Street northbound and southbound approaches each consists of
a shared left-turn / through / right-turn lane. Crosswalks and pedestrian accommodations exist
on all four legs of this intersection. The traffic signal is fully-actuated and operates in an 8-phase
sequence, including permitted/protected turn movements.

Exit 18 Rezone Study – Queensbury, NY Page 8

B. Traffic Volumes
Traffic volume data compiled from the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) Traffic
Data Viewer provides the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) on Corinth Road / Main Street as shown in Table 1:

Table 1: NYSDOT AADT volumes
Location From To Existing (2011)
(vehicles per day)
Existing (2011)
Peak Hour Volume
(vehicles)
Forecasted (2013)
(vehicles per day)
AM PM
Corinth Rd. Pinewood Rd. I-87 8,020 664 711 8,011
Main St. I-87 Richardson St. Not provided NA NA 21,347
Main St. Richardson St. City Line 13,753 1,037 1,107 13,727
I-87 Southbound off ramp Corinth Rd 6,500 (2009) 493 611 Not provided
I-87 Northbound off ramp Corinth Road 5,021 (2009) 430 543 Not provided

Traffic volumes were counted at the six study intersections to document the current volumes and patterns
of traffic movement during peak-hour conditions. These counts were conducted on Wednesday, May 20,
2015 and Thursday, May 21, 2015 for the weekday AM peak period (7 am to 9 am) and weekday PM peak
period (4 pm to 6 pm). The existing traffic volumes were summarized and a monthly seasonal adjustment
factor applied, based upon NYSDOT published factors, to reflect peak design conditions. The 2015 Existing
Design Hour Volumes (DHV) are shown on Figure 4 (next page). The two-way traffic volumes on the study
area roadways are shown on Table 2.

Table 2: 2015 Two-Way Design Hour Volumes
Segment

Two-Way Peak Hour Volume
(vehicles)
AM PM
West of Big Bay Rd. / Corinth Rd. – 1,050 1,025
Big Bay Rd. / Corinth Rd. Exit 18 SB ramps 1,345 1,330
Exit 18 SB ramps Exit 18 NB ramps 1,535 1,625
Exit 18 NB ramps Big Boom Rd. / Media Dr. / Main St. 1,880 1,940
Big Boom Rd. / Media Dr. / Main St. Pine St. / Main St. 1,570 1,620
Pine St. / Main St. Richardson St. / Main St. 1,545 1,500
East of Richardson St. / Main St. – 1,235 1,280

Trucks and other heavy vehicles comprise 4-7% of the total traffic volumes on Corinth Road / Main Street
during the AM peak hour and 3-5% during the PM peak hour. This count data is provided in Appendix A.

Exit 18 Rezone Study – Queensbury, NY Page 10

The current 2015 DHV intersection volumes in the study area were compared to the forecasted 2015
Design Volumes that had been developed as the basis of design for the Corinth Road Reconstruction
project. The data shows that the actual volumes are lower than the volumes that were used as the design
condition for the reconstruction project. A comparison of volumes for the PM peak hour is provided in
Figure 5.

Figure 5: 2015 Intersection Volume Comparison

C. Transit Service

Greater Glens Falls Transit (GGFT)
currently operates transit service in the
study area via Bus Route 7 (West Glens
Falls). The service operates weekdays from
7:00 a.m. to 5:05 p.m. and on Saturdays
from 9:00 am to 5:10 pm, with average
service headways of approximately 2
hours. A bus stop is located at the
McDonald’s on Corinth Road, just west of
the I-87 southbound ramps, although
there is no shelter or bus turn-out.

Figure 6: GGFT Bus Route 7

Exit 18 Rezone Study – Queensbury, NY Page 11

D. Pedestrians and Bicyclists

A sidewalk is provided along the north side of Corinth Road/Main Street throughout the limits of the study
area. A sidewalk is also provided on the south side of the street from the I-87 southbound ramps to beyond
the eastern limits of the study area. Crosswalks and pedestrian signals are provided at all of the signalized
intersections, as noted in the intersection descriptions above. Pedestrian crossings of Main Street are also
provided at two non-signalized intersections: at Ryan Avenue and at Rozelle Street.

Bicycles are accommodated in the
shared 14-ft wide travel lanes on
Main Street east of Big Boom Road.
Because of the constraints of the
interchange bridge structure,
bicyclists either share the travel
lanes or utilize the sidewalk to
move through the interchange
area. The facility was intentionally
designed for this level of
accommodation.

Counts of pedestrians and bicyclists were recorded at each study intersection during the weekday AM and
PM study periods concurrently with the vehicle traffic counts in May 2015. The pedestrian/bicyclist
volumes occurring during the AM and PM peak hours are shown in Table 3. The total number of
pedestrians shown in the table includes the total number across all legs of the intersection. This summary
shows there was minimal pedestrian and bicycle movements at the time of the counts. This is not to imply
that the infrastructure supporting these transportation modes is not vital to the corridor, but these
volumes provide a basis for understanding the effect of pedestrian and bicycle activity in the analysis of
vehicle traffic operations.

Table 3: 2015 Peak Hour Pedestrian and Bicycle Volumes
Intersection

Pedestrians Bicyclists
AM PM AM PM
Big Bay Rd. / Corinth Rd. 0 0 0 0
Exit 18 SB ramps 2 1 0 0
Exit 18 NB ramps 1 1 2 2
Big Boom Rd. / Media Dr. / Main St. 0 1 0 1
Pine St. / Main St. 0 1 0 0
Richardson St. / Main St. 0 1 0 1

Unsignalized pedestrian crossing at intersection of Main Street and Rozelle Street

Exit 18 Rezone Study – Queensbury, NY Page 12

3.0 NO-BUILD TRAFFIC VOLUMES

In order to assess the traffic impacts associated with rezoning within the project area, it is first necessary
to estimate the traffic volumes on the adjacent roadways for the future condition without the project (No-
Build Condition) and then apply the traffic generated from the proposed project to obtain the future
conditions with the project (Build Condition).

The Final Design Report (FDR) for the Corinth Road/Main Street Reconstruction project (PIN 1753.80), was
reviewed to obtain historic baseline intersection traffic volumes for the project area. Comparison of the
2015 Existing Design Hour volumes and the 2004 traffic volumes contained in the FDR indicates that the
traffic volumes within the project area have generally been relatively stable with 0% to 2% per year
growth, depending on location. Intersections at the westerly project limits have experienced more growth
than the intersections at the easterly project limit. For the purposes of this study, an annual growth rate
of 1% was applied to adjust the 2015 Design Hour volumes to the 5-year 2020 planning horizon established
for the study.

The Town Planning Department identified three approved development projects that would add future
traffic volume to the study area:

 Parillo Mixed Use: 2,832 s.f. Fast Food and 20,000 s.f. of office/retail
 30,300 s.f. expansion of existing 30,502 s.f. warehouse (approved 12/2013).
 Four (4) 200’ x 30’ self-storage buildings and associated site work (approved 4/15).

Based on the traffic projections developed for each of these projects, it is estimated they will add a
combined 28 vehicle trips during the weekday AM peak hour and 39 vehicle trips during the weekday PM
peak hour through the I-87 Exit 18 interchange.

The traffic generated by these developments were combined with the general background growth to
represent the future No-Build volumes, which will be the basis for evaluating the impact of the projected
development under the proposed CI-18 zoning. The resulting 2020 No-Build traffic volumes are shown on
Figure 7 (next page). The No-Build intersection volumes for the PM peak hour are shown in comparison
to the volumes that were used as the design condition for the Reconstruction project and the 2015 current
volumes on Figure 8 (page 14).

Exit 18 Rezone Study – Queensbury, NY Page 14

Figure 8: Intersection Volume Comparison – Existing/No-Build

Exit 18 Rezone Study – Queensbury, NY Page 15

4.0 LAND USE

The proposed CI-18 rezone area is approximately 65.5 acres. Land use within the boundaries of the
proposed CI-18 zone includes undeveloped parcels and a variety of small-scale commercial and service
uses, as follows:

Restaurants
Carl R’s Café, Restaurant & Bar
McDonalds
Subway
Taco Bell

General Commercial
U-Haul Moving and Storage

Convenience/Fuel Services
Capital Food and Fuel
Cumberland Farms

Lodging
Days Inn Queensbury/Lake George
Super 8 Queensbury

The current zoning of the proposed CI-18 district includes Commercial Intensive (CI), Commercial Light
Industrial (CLI) and Main Street (MS) zones. The land area associated with each of the current zones is
shown in Table 4:

Table 4: Existing Zoning

Zone
Size
(acres)
Commercial Intensive (CI)
Commercial Light Industrial (CLI)
Main Street (MS)
28.93
7.14
29.43
Total 65.5

The statement of intent for the proposed CI-18 zone is to take advantage of an area of Queensbury that
already has intense commercial development proximate to the Exit 18 Interchange with US Interstate 87
(Adirondack Northway) by allowing for flexible development opportunities on key sites, creating economic
development while encouraging the overall improvement and appearance of these areas, including
attractive building designs and enhanced pedestrian access

The CI and MS zones allow many of the same uses. One difference is the listing of Enclosed Shopping
Center as an allowable use in the proposed CI-18 zone; a use that is not allowed in the existing zones in
the study area. The second “new” use is Amusement Center which is allowed in the proposed CI-18 zone,

Exit 18 Rezone Study – Queensbury, NY Page 16

the existing CL but not in the CLI or MS zone. Many of the most intensive uses allowable only under the
existing CLI zone are not included in the proposed CI-18 zone.

The proposed CI-18 zone also will allow buildings up to 70 feet depending on the building setback. Existing
zoning allows for a maximum height of 40 in the CI and MS zone and 60 in the CLI zone. Finally to further
encourage well planned and attractive projects, language to be included in 179-7-050 Design Districts has
been developed for the proposed zone. This will address issues such as facades, rooflines entrance design
and location, building materials within the context of overall site planning.

The development potential of the CI-18 zone was evaluated based on considerations of existing physical
constraints (such as wetlands, steep slopes and floodplains) and the proposed zoning criteria. The
evaluation also incorporated approved projects not yet built in the Study Area. A review of National
Wetlands Inventory (NWI) wetlands mapping, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) soils mapping and
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) floodplain mapping did not identify resources that
would constrain development within the proposed CI-18 zone.

The proposed CI-18 zone consists of approximately 20 separate parcels varying in size from approximately
1 acre to over 17 acres. The buildable acreage of the proposed CI-18 zone was determined by deducting
land necessary to accommodate the infrastructure for roads (access and traffic circulation) and utilities,
and considering the adjustments for zoning requirements related to lot coverage,
landscaping/greenspace, and permeable surfaces. Typically the road and utility infrastructure for
development will comprise 15-20% of a site. For the purposes of this analysis, 15% was used to provide a
higher estimate of the development potential of the area.

The Town of Queensbury zoning code requires site development to provide a minimum of 30%
landscaping/30% permeable surfaces. In addition, the use of permeable pavement earns a 50% bonus
that is used to meet the landscaping/permeable pavement requirements. It is assumed that over the
entire study area approximately 20% of parcels will utilize permeable pavement, reducing the required
landscaping/permeable pavement requirements.

Based on these considerations of infrastructure and zoning criteria, it is estimated that the CI-18 rezone
area will support approximately 38 buildable acres.

Available acreage calculation 65.5 acres total
Subtract roads, utilities (15%) 9.83
Subtract constraints (wetlands/steep slopes/floodplains) 0
Subtract landscaping/permeable surfaces requirements ¹ 17.69
Approximate acreage available for development 37.98
¹ It is assumed that over the entire study area approximately 20% of parcels will utilize permeable
pavement

A land use scenario for this buildable area was developed for a 2020 planning horizon for the purpose of
the transportation analysis. Prior to identifying conceptual land uses for this development scenario,
parcels within the study area were consolidated to ensure that parcels meet the acreage requirements of
the proposed zoning and thus will be developable. This parcel consolidation concept is shown on Figure
9. It is noted that the geographic location of Parcel F (Capital Food and Fuel) does not allow it to be

Exit 18 Rezone Study – Queensbury, NY Page 17

combined with any other parcel. Because of this, Parcel F was considered to remain an undersized lot with
a non-conforming use (convenience/fuel services) under the proposed zoning.

Gas stations are not identified as an allowable use in the proposed zoning language resulting in a second
non-conforming use on the south side of Main Street (Parcel K). Again, for the purpose of this analysis,
two undersized adjoining parcels are proposed to be combined. The undersized lots are not adjacent to
any other parcels in the study area.

The Parcel Consolidation and Concept Development Table (Table 5) identifies the estimated maximum
build-out focused on high traffic generators. Alternative uses have been identified for some parcels, which
were also considered for the purpose of identifying a development scenario for the transportation
analysis.

Exit 18 Rezone Study – Queensbury, NY Page 18

Figure 9: Parcel Consolidation Concept

Exit 18 Rezone Study – Queensbury, NY Page 19

Table 5: Parcel Consolidation and Development Concept
Parcel

Size
(Acres)
Existing
Zoning
Proposed
Zoning
Estimated
Buildable
Area
(Acres)
Estimated Build-out Land Use

A 16.59 CI CI-18 9.62 Hotel with meeting rooms: 170 rooms
Office: 60,000 sq. ft.
Bank or other service use with drive-thru: 7,000 sq.
ft.
B 3.14 CI CI-18 1.82 Maintain existing use – fast food with drive thru:
4,000 sq. ft. ¹
C 1.25 CI CI-18 0.73 Business commercial (service)/small retail/food
strip: 12,000 sq. ft.
D 5.46 CI CI-18 3.16 Commercial office: 50,000 sq. ft.
E 2.49 CI CI-18 1.44 Expansion of existing Hotel: 110 added rooms
F 0.98 MS CI-18 0.57 Existing use to remain
G 3.28 MS CI-18 1.91 Expansion of existing Hotel: 120 rooms
H² 1.85 MS CI-18 1.07 Commercial Office: 11,000 sq. ft.
I² 1.10 MS CI-18 0.64 Commercial Office: 7,000 sq. ft.
J 2.41 MS CI-18 1.40 Retail/fast food: 9,000 sq. ft.
K 2.35 MS CI-18 1.36 Existing use to remain; redevelop as expanded
convenience/fuel services or similar use & include
adjoining non-conforming parcels³
L 17.46 MS CI-18 10.12 Hotel w/meeting rooms & restaurant: 200 rooms
Commercial office: 80,000 sq. ft. ⁴
M 7.14 MS CI-18 4.14 Retail Shopping Mall/Plaza: 80,000 sq. ft.
65.5 37.98
¹Site currently does not meet proposed landscape or percent permeable requirements; site redevelopment to meet these
requirements.
²H and I represent one parcel divided by Big Boom Road.
³Gas stations are not an allowable use in the proposed CI-18 zone; redevelopment/expansion of this use will require a variance.
The 2 adjacent parcels do not meet minimum lot size in the CI-18 zone and therefore were combined and included in Parcel K.
⁴Alternate concept- possible 100,000 GLFA SF shopping mall/plaza with outparcel, 500-550 parking spaces.
5.0 BUILD TRAFFIC VOLUMES
A. Trip Generation

The transportation impacts associated with development of the proposed CI-18 zone was based on a
development scenario for the 2020 planning horizon established in coordination with the Town and
A/GFTC. This Build development scenario consists of the following uses:

Exit 18 Rezone Study – Queensbury, NY Page 20

Land Use Size

Hotel
Office
Bank with Drive-thru service
Fast food Restaurant with Drive-thru service
Specialty/Neighborhood Retail
Shopping Center Retail

294
128,000
7,000
4,000
17,000
180,000

rooms*
sq. ft.
sq. ft.
sq. ft.
sq. ft.
sq. ft.

*this is in addition to the 106 existing hotel rooms in the zone

The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 9th edition, is the industry
standard for determining trip generation for various land uses and is based on data collected at case study
sites throughout the United States. The applicable ITE Land Use Codes (LUC) corresponding to the land
uses for the Build scenario are as follows:

 ITE LUC 310: Hotels
 ITE LUC 710: General Office
 ITE LUC 912: Bank with Drive-Thru
 ITE LUC 820: Retail
 ITE LUC 934: Fast Food Restaurant w/ Drive-Thru

The traffic generated by the development with the CI-18 zone will be composed of the following basic trip
categories; primary trips and pass-by trips. Primary trips represent motorists whose primary destination
is within the zone and travel along the adjacent road is not linked to additional purposes. Pass-by trips
are secondary trips that are attracted from traffic passing the individual development sites on an adjacent
street that offers direct access to the generator.

The ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition, which provides pass-by trip rates for the various land uses,
was used to assess the number of new trips that would be associated with each of the proposed
developments as pass-by trips. The following pass-by trip rates were estimated for the development,
based on the ITE information and engineering experience/judgement:

 Bank with Drive-Thru: 30% pass-by trips
 Shopping Center retail: 35% pass-by trips
 Fast-food and smaller retail sites: 50% pass-by trips
 Hotels and offices: are not uses that would include pass-by trips.

Internal capture is another trip generation concept, which is related to travel between parcels within the
CI-18 zone. ITE has limited information pertaining to this effect, but what information does exist shows
that the interaction between the proposed uses would not be significant. In the case of the CI-18 zone,
many of these trips would also still involve travel on the public street network. Consequently, the trip

Exit 18 Rezone Study – Queensbury, NY Page 21

generation estimates for the Build condition did not consider a trip reduction for these types of trips
between parcels.

Based on the ITE information, it is estimated that the Build development scenario will generate 1,048
vehicle trips during the AM peak hour and 2,123 trips during the PM peak hour. Of these trips, 794 trips
are estimated to be new to the network during the AM peak hour and 1,503 trips will be new during the
PM peak hour. Although transit service is provided in the corridor, existing ridership characteristics
discussed with GGFT suggest that transit will not significantly influence the trip generation characteristics
of travel to the study area, so the trip generation estimates were not reduced for transit use for the
purpose of this study.

Table 6 summarizes the estimated site traffic generated by the Build scenario, grouped by land use.
Appendix B provides the detailed trip generation and distribution estimates for each parcel within the CI-
18 zone.

Table 6: CI-18 Development Trip Generation

EnterExitTotalEnterExitTotalEnterExitTotal
SUMMARY OF BUILD OUT USES
Tota l1,2021,2002,40292641569185176
Pa s s -By000000000
Pri ma ry1,2021,2002,40292641569185176
Tota l9339301,8632343126553253306
Pa s s -By000000000
Pri ma ry9339301,8632343126553253306
Tota l5195181,0374837858585170
Pa s s -By (30%)155156311131326252651
Pri ma ry3643627263524596059119
Tota l9929921,98493891826863131
Pa s s -By (50%)496496992454691333366
Pri ma ry496496992484391353065
Tota l1,3411,3412,682422668108117225
Pa s s -By (50%)6706701,3401717345656112
Pri ma ry6716711,342259345261113
Tota l6,3336,33212,6651811112925365791,115
Pa s s -By (35%)2,2162,2174,4335152103195196391
Pri ma ry4,1174,1158,23213059189341383724
TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY
Total11,32011,31322,6336903581,0489411,1822,123
Pass-By3,5373,5397,076126128254309311620
Primary7,7837,77415,5575642307946328711,503
Total of All Parcels
C, JReta i l82017,000
s .f.
L, MShoppi ng
Center820180,000
s .f.
ABa nk w/ Dri ve-
Thru9127,000 s .f.
B, J
Fa s t Food
Res ta ura nt w/
Dri ve-Thru
9344,000 s .f.
A, D, H,
IGenera l Offi ce710128,000
s .f.
AM Peak HourPM Peak Hour
A, E, G,
LHotel310294
rooms
ParcelBuild UseLUCSizeTrip TypeWeekday

Exit 18 Rezone Study – Queensbury, NY Page 22

B. Site Trip Distribution

The traffic generated by the Build scenario was distributed to the network based on the overall traffic flow
patterns in the study area and considering the type of use, and proximity of the site to other regional
activity centers and residential populations. The trips were distributed to the network for each of the
parcels. The overall distribution for all new primary trips resulted in the following general distribution:

To/From: Main Street East ………………………………. 23%
Corinth Road West: …………………………… 23%
I-87 North: ………………………………………. 20%
I-87 South: ………………………………………. 20%
Media Drive North: …………………………… 13%
Big Bay Rd South: ……………………………….. 1%
TOTAL ……………………………………………. 100%

The distribution and turning movement assignments of site traffic to the study area roadways for pass-by
and primary trips is provided in Appendix B.

Exit 18 Rezone Study – Queensbury, NY Page 23

C. Future Build Volumes

The site generated traffic was combined with the 2020 No-Build volumes to represent the estimated
future volume conditions for the project area with the rezone development. The future 2020 Build
volumes are shown on Figure 11 (next page).

A comparison of the intersection volumes for the 2020 Build Condition to the 2015 Design Volumes that
had been developed for the Corinth Road Reconstruction project (FDR, 2004) are shown in Figure 10. This
data shows that the 2020 Build volumes for the four intersections between Big Bay Road and Big Boom
Road are substantially higher (15%-30%) than the volumes that were used as the design condition for the
Reconstruction project. The Build volumes for the intersections east of Big Boom Road are projected to
be lower than the design volumes used as the basis of the reconstruction project design.

Figure 10: Intersection Volume Comparison – Existing/No-Build/Build

Exit 18 Rezone Study – Queensbury, NY Page 25

6.0 CAPACITY ANALYSIS

The operating conditions of transportation facilities are evaluated based on the relationship of existing or
projected traffic volumes to the theoretical capacity of the highway. Various factors affect highway
capacity, including traffic volume, speed, roadway geometry, grade, number and width of travel lanes and
intersection control. The current standards for evaluating capacity and operating conditions are
contained in the Highway Capacity Manual 2010 (HCM 2010), published by the Transportation Research
Board (TRB). The procedures describe operating conditions in terms of Level of Service (LOS). In general,
LOS “A” represents the best operating conditions and LOS “F” represents the worst.

Level of Service (LOS) criteria are equated to average delay per vehicle (seconds), and range from LOS A
to LOS F. An overall intersection LOS of D or better is generally considered to be acceptable during peak
periods for signalized intersections. A LOS F represents levels of congestion that are generally considered
to be unacceptable at any intersection; however, again, other metrics should also be considered in
determining a need for improvements. Table 5 below presents the level of service thresholds for
signalized intersections.

Table 7: HCM Intersection LOS
LOS Control Delay per Vehicle
(Seconds)
A 10 or less
B 10-20
C 20-35
D 35-55
E 55-80
F greater than 80

Capacity analyses were performed for the following conditions using SYNCHRO 8 software:
 2015 Existing
 2020 No-Build
 2020 Build

These analyses were completed using the HCM 2010 guidance on recommended practices for treatment
of various data inputs to develop the models, such as considerations of peak hour factor adjustments, and
heavy vehicle factors. However, the operational analysis models that were used to produce the level-of –
service results used the computational methods from the earlier HCM 2000 version because of limitations
in the HCM 2010 methodology for analyzing the signal phasing at some of the study area intersections,
such as the clustered signal operations of the interchange.

Table 8 and Table 9 at the end of this Section summarize the LOS and delay results for each of the
intersections for the weekday AM and PM peak periods, respectively. Summary reports of these analyses
are provided in Appendix C.

Exit 18 Rezone Study – Queensbury, NY Page 26

A. Existing Traffic Operations
The capacity analyses show that the overall intersection operations in the corridor are acceptable, with
weekday AM and PM peak periods at all intersections operating at LOS D or better. In fact, the overall
intersection levels of service for much of the study area is LOS B. Similarly, all approaches and lane groups
operate at LOS D or better during peak hours, except at the Big Boom Road/Media Drive/ Main Street
intersection where the northbound approach (Big Boom Road) operates at LOS F during both peak
periods. The LOS F condition for this approach is not because of a high volume demand (55 veh/hr in the
AM peak and 80 veh/hr in the PM peak), but is a result of the interaction of this traffic with the conflicting
traffic entering the intersection at the same time from Media Drive.

Traffic moves along the corridor in long groups, or platoons, during the peak hours. Queue conditions that
sometimes extend beyond the designated storage areas within the lanes and/or extend to an adjacent
intersection can reduce the effective operations in the corridor. These factors will periodically produce
congestion in the corridor that is not reflected by the intersection level of service results. The queue
conditions in the corridor are discussed in Section 7.0 of this report.

It is noted that the Corinth Road Reconstruction project included the capability for the signal at the Big
Boom Road/Media Drive/Main Street intersection to be operated in coordination with the signals at the
I-87 Exit 18 interchange. However, the existing signal timing plans for these signals shows that this
coordination is not currently being deployed by NYSDOT. NYSDOT has indicated that they will be making
minor adjustments to some timing inputs to improve the efficiency of the signal operations, but they
consider that the coordination would not have an overall benefit to corridor operations at this time.

Exit 18 Rezone Study – Queensbury, NY Page 27

The field observations of conditions at the Main Street/Richardson Street intersection indicate that the
northbound approach of Richardson Street is operating in a ‘Vehicle Recall’ mode, which means that green
time is allocated for this approach even when there are no vehicles present on Richardson Street to be
served. In contrast, the southbound approach operates in a ‘Vehicle Actuation’ mode, so that a call for
GREEN is not placed for this approach unless a vehicle is present. This current recall mode of operation
for the northbound approach reduces the efficiency of traffic operations because of the unnecessary
traffic stops on Main Street. The signal was designed so that both the northbound and southbound
approaches would operate in ‘Vehicle-actuation’ mode.

Another characteristic of the signal operations at the Main Street/Richardson Street intersection is that
the Richardson Street phases of the signal do not appear to be programmed for northbound and
southbound approaches of Richardson Street to both receive a GREEN signal at the same time regardless
of which direction activated the call (known as ‘Dual Entry’). Instead, the current operations have the
signals facing southbound traffic remain RED if there is no vehicle call on this approach even when the
northbound approach is GREEN. This is not a common phasing treatment, and is not how the signal was
designed to operate. While this does not negatively impact delays at the intersection, it may cause
confusion for pedestrians. This is because the pedestrian signals to cross Main Street on the east side of
the intersection are associated with the northbound traffic phase while the pedestrian signals to cross
Main Street on the west side of the intersection are associated with the southbound traffic phase. Because
the signal is not using the Dual Entry function, the pedestrian signals will display WALK for the east side
crossing at the same time that the signals display DON’T WALK for the west side crossing.

B. No-Build Traffic Operations
The No-Build capacity analysis identifies the traffic operations for the 2020 planning horizon considering
status quo development and socio-economic trends for the area. This analysis provides the context for
evaluating the impact of the development in the CI-18 zone. The analyses assumes the existing geometrics
and signal phasing configurations, but with optimized signal cycle and green time allocations.

The analyses show similar operations as the Existing conditions, with all intersections operating at an
overall LOS D or better during the weekday AM and PM peak periods. All approaches to each of the
intersections continue to operate at acceptable LOS (LOS D or better) except for the Big Boom Road
northbound approach (AM and PM periods) and the Main Street eastbound approach at Richardson Street
(AM period). As with the Existing Conditions, the Big Boom northbound approach continues to experience
long delays with unacceptable LOS (LOS F). The increase in traffic associated with background growth
results in additional delay (16.3 seconds) to the Main Street eastbound approach at Richardson Street
during the weekday AM peak period, such that the LOS deteriorates from LOS D to LOS E. This level of
service also reflects the inefficiency created by the current recall mode operation of the Richardson Street
approach.

Exit 18 Rezone Study – Queensbury, NY Page 28

C. Build Traffic Operations

The analysis of the Build condition operations considered these operations in the context of the existing
geometry and traffic control. However, for the purpose of analysis, it is assumed that the access to Parcel
A will be provided from Corinth Road opposite Big Bay Road, which is the preferred access location. The
initial base assumptions for the geometry needed at this intersection to support the access to Parcel A
used in the Build analysis are as follows:

 Big Bay Road/Corinth Road –
o Site access to Corinth Road opposite Big Bay Road, modifying this from a “T” intersection
to a 4-way intersection.
o Provide a single lane on the new southbound approach from Parcel A to provide a shared
left-turn/through/right-turn lane.
o Provide a separate left-turn lane on Corinth Road eastbound approach (for traffic entering
Parcel A)

In addition to these geometric modifications, the Build capacity analyses assumes modified signal phasing
to accommodate the new fourth leg of the Big Bay Road/Corinth Road intersection. The geometry and
signal phasing at the other study intersections are the same as existing for this analysis.

The results of the capacity analyses show that the overall level of service for all the study intersections
except Big Boom Road/Media Drive/Main Street will operate at LOS D or better. The intersection of Big
Boom Road/Media Drive/Main Street will be LOS E in the AM peak hour and LOS F in the PM peak hour.

Exit 18 Rezone Study – Queensbury, NY Page 29

The Build analysis also shows LOS E/F operations at the following intersection approaches, even though
the overall intersection operations are LOS D or better:

 Big Bay Road/Corinth Road: SB approach (AM & PM)
 Pine Street/Main Street: EB approach (AM)
NB & SB approaches (PM)

It is noted that the analysis of the intersection of Main Street/Richardson Street shows an improvement
in LOS from the No-Build condition to the Build condition. This is because the Build analysis is based on
signal operations with both the northbound and southbound approaches operating in ‘Vehicle Actuation’
mode, and with associated signal timing re-optimization.

These analyses show that specific areas of the transportation system, particularly in the area of the Big
Boom Road/Media Drive/Main Street intersection, will require improvements to accommodate the traffic
increases associated with projected CI-18 rezone development. Consideration of these mitigation
improvements are discussed in Section 8.0.

Exit 18 Rezone Study – Queensbury, NY Page 30

Table 8: Level of Service Summary – AM Peak Hour

EBLeft-turnA8.3
Through/Ri ght-turnB13.3B14.9C21.1
Overa l l Approa chB13.3B14.9C20.3
WBLeft-turnA7.2A8.5C26.1
ThroughA3.2A3.2
Through/Ri ght-turnB13.9
Overa l l Approa chA4.3A4.7B17.5
NBLeft-turn/Ri ght-turnC23.1C23.5
Left-turn/Through/Ri ght-turnC31.5
Overa l l Approa chC23.1C23.5C31.5
SBLeft-turn/Through/Ri ght-turnF83.5
Overa l l Approa chF83.5
B11.7B12.7C23.5
EBThroughB15.9B17.2C27.9
Ri ght-turnB13.5B14.4C20.6
Overa l l Approa chB15.2B16.4B26.0
WBLeft-turnB19.2B23.9B22.1
ThroughA2.7A2.9A3.2
Overa l l Approa chB11.5B13.9B11.3
SBLeft-turn/ThroughD33.9D36.8D39.8
Ri ght-turnC27.3C28.8C29.5
Overa l l Approa chC30.8C33.0C34.4
B16.8B18.6C22.0
EBLeft-turnB18.3C20.5C30.1
ThroughA3.7A4.1A7.3
Overa l l Approa chA8.1A9.1B13.8
WBThrough/Ri ght-turnB16.3B18.5B24.5
Overa l l Approa chB16.3B18.5C24.5
NBLeft-turnC29.9C32.4D40.0
Through/Ri ght-turnC27.8C29.2C31.7
Overa l l Approa chC28.2C29.9C34.0
B16.9B18.5C23.5
IntersectionStreetApproachLane GroupLOS
Exi t 18-SB Off Ra mp
Overall Intersection
2020 Build
LOS
Delay
(sec/veh)
Cori nth Rd (Rte 28)
Delay
(sec/veh)
Bi g Ba y Rd
Delay
(sec/veh)
2015 Existing 2020 No-Build
LOS
Cori nth Rd (CR 28) &
Exi t 18-SB Ra mps
Cori nth Rd (Rte 28)
Cori nth Rd (CR 28) &
Bi g Ba y Rd
Overall Intersection
Ma i n St (CR 28) &
Exi t 18-NB Ra mps
Ma i n St (Rte 28)
Exi t 18-NB Off Ra mp
Overall Intersection

Exit 18 Rezone Study – Queensbury, NY Page 31

Table 8: Level of Service Summary – AM Peak Hour (continued)

EBLeft-turnB18.4C20.2F107.3
Through/Ri ght-turnA8.9B10.6D43.7
Overa l l Approa chB10.3B12.0D52.1
WBLeft-turnB16.7B15.2D41.7
Through/Ri ght-turnC26.2C24.1E63.5
Overa l l Approa chC26.0C23.9E60.6
NBLeft-turn/Through/Ri ght-turnF106.9F163.5F104.7
Overa l l Approa chF106.9F163.5F104.7
SBLeft-turnC31.8D35.3D36.2
Through/Ri ght-turnC31.4C34.4C28.4
Overa l l Approa chC31.4C34.5C28.8
C20.1C22.3E58.0
EBLeft-turnB13.4B15.0C20.4
Through/Ri ght-turnC29.0D43.4E62.6
Overa l l Approa chC28.5D42.4E61.2
WBLeft-turnC23.9C26.6C26.5
Through/Ri ght-turnB12.7B14.0B19.9
Overa l l Approa chB12.7B14.1B19.9
NBLeft-turn/Through/Ri ght-turnC29.6C29.3C29.2
Overa l l Approa chC29.6C29.3C29.2
SBLeft-turn/Through/Ri ght-turnC26.8C26.4C26.3
Overa l l Approa chC26.8C26.4C26.3
C22.2C30.7D42.8
EBLeft-turnB11.0B11.3A6.3
Through/Ri ght-turnD53.0E69.5B16.7
Overa l l Approa chD52.4E68.7B16.6
WBLeft-turnB16.1B16.1B10.3
Through/Ri ght-turnB16.8B17.8A9.5
Overa l l Approa chB16.8B17.8A9.5
NBLeft-turn/Through/Ri ght-turnC20.8C21.2D35.5
Overa l l Approa chC20.8C21.2D35.5
SBLeft-turn/Through/Ri ght-turnB18.0B18.0C29.5
Overa l l Approa chB18.0B18.0C29.5
D36.5D45.7B15.9
2015 Existing 2020 No-Build2020 Build
LOS
Delay
(sec/veh)LOS
Delay
(sec/veh)LOS
Delay
(sec/veh)
Ma i n St (CR 28) &
Ri cha rds on St
Ma i n St (Rte 28)
Ri cha rds on St
Overall Intersection
Ma i n St (CR 28) &
Pi ne St
Ma i n St (Rte 28)
Pi ne St
Overall Intersection
Overall Intersection
Ma i n St (CR 28) &
Bi g Boom Rd/Medi a Dr
Ma i n St (Rte 28)
Bi g Boom Rd
Medi a Dr
IntersectionStreetApproachLane Group

Exit 18 Rezone Study – Queensbury, NY Page 32

Table 9: Level of Service Summary – PM Peak Hour

EBLeft-turnC25.9
Through/Ri ght-turnB11.9B12.2D39.8
Overa l l Approa chB11.9B12.2D39.0
WBLeft-turnA4.9A5.3C25.2
ThroughA4.0A4.1
Through/Ri ght-turnC31.9
Overa l l Approa chA4.2A4.3C30.4
NBLeft-turn/Ri ght-turnB17.7B18.6
Left-turn/Through/Ri ght-turnC30.2
Overa l l Approa chB17.7B18.6C30.2
SBLeft-turn/Through/Ri ght-turnF81.7
Overa l l Approa chF81.7
A9.4A9.7D39.0
EBThroughB17.7B18.0D37.2
Ri ght-turnB15.3B15.5C21.6
Overa l l Approa chB17.1B17.4C33.5
WBLeft-turnB13.2B18.4D46.5
ThroughA2.2A2.5A2.6
Overa l l Approa chA8.2B11.1C23.2
SBLeft-turn/ThroughC32.5C33.9D37.5
Ri ght-turnC27.4C28.4C27.5
Overa l l Approa chC29.8C30.9C32.3
B15.7B17.4C28.9
EBLeft-turnC20.4C23.2D39.2
ThroughA3.4A3.7A6.8
Overa l l Approa chA8.8A10.0B16.5
WBThrough/Ri ght-turnB16.3B18.4D38.6
Overa l l Approa chB16.3B18.4D38.6
NBLeft-turnC32.5C34.4C34.6
Through/Ri ght-turnC27.6C28.6C29.2
Overa l l Approa chC29.0C30.3C30.8
B17.8B19.3C29.0
IntersectionStreetApproachLane Group
2020 Build
LOS
Delay
(sec/veh)LOS
Delay
(sec/veh)LOS
Delay
(sec/veh)
2015 Existing
Cori nth Rd (CR 28) &
Bi g Ba y Rd
Cori nth Rd (Rte 28)
Bi g Ba y Rd
Overall Intersection
2020 No-Build
Cori nth Rd (CR 28) &
Exi t 18-SB Ra mps
Cori nth Rd (Rte 28)
Exi t 18-SB Off Ra mp
Overall Intersection
Ma i n St (CR 28) &
Exi t 18-NB Ra mps
Ma i n St (Rte 28)
Exi t 18-NB Off Ra mp
Overall Intersection

Exit 18 Rezone Study – Queensbury, NY Page 33

Table 9: Level of Service Summary – PM Peak Hour (continued)

EBLeft-turnB19.1C21.6F325.4
Through/Ri ght-turnB11.3B11.3F183.6
Overa l l Approa chB12.2B12.6F199.8
WBLeft-turnB13.4B14.0F377.3
Through/Ri ght-turnC23.5C24.1F210.3
Overa l l Approa chC23.2C23.8F250.7
NBLeft-turn/Through/Ri ght-turnF216.0F278.5F319.6
Overa l l Approa chF216.0F278.5F319.6
SBLeft-turnC32.5D35.2C29.7
Through/Ri ght-turnC31.1C33.3B17.5
Overa l l Approa chC31.2C33.5B18.1
C26.3C29.3F222.9
EBLeft-turnB12.3B13.9C20.9
Through/Ri ght-turnB14.5B16.9B13.4
Overa l l Approa chB14.3B16.7B13.9
WBLeft-turnC20.2C22.6C31.7
Through/Ri ght-turnB17.6B19.9B19.5
Overa l l Approa chB17.6B19.9B19.5
NBLeft-turn/Through/Ri ght-turnC30.3C30.2E56.3
Overa l l Approa chC30.3C30.2E56.3
SBLeft-turn/Through/Ri ght-turnC29.5C29.6E55.7
Overa l l Approa chC29.5C29.6E55.7
B16.1B18.4B17.2
EBLeft-turnB11.8B12.0A5.7
Through/Ri ght-turnC32.1D38.9B13.2
Overa l l Approa chC31.6D38.1B12.9
WBLeft-turnB14.4B15.6A8.9
Through/Ri ght-turnB19.1C22.2A9.5
Overa l l Approa chB19.0C22.1A9.5
NBLeft-turn/Through/Ri ght-turnB18.9B19.6D36.5
Overa l l Approa chB18.9B19.6D36.5
SBLeft-turn/Through/Ri ght-turnB17.6B18.1C32.7
Overa l l Approa chB17.6B18.1C32.7
C25.6C30.3B13.0
Lane Group
2015 Existing 2020 No-Build2020 Build
LOS
Delay
(sec/veh)LOS
Delay
(sec/veh)LOS
Delay
(sec/veh)
Pi ne St
Overall Intersection
IntersectionStreetApproach
Ma i n St (CR 28) &
Ri cha rds on St
Ma i n St (Rte 28)
Ri cha rds on St
Overall Intersection
Ma i n St (CR 28) &
Bi g Boom Rd/Medi a Dr
Ma i n St (Rte 28)
Overall Intersection
Bi g Boom Rd
Medi a Dr
Ma i n St (CR 28) &
Pi ne St
Ma i n St (Rte 28)

Exit 18 Rezone Study – Queensbury, NY Page 34

7.0 QUEUE ANALYSIS

Vehicle queue conditions are a factor in the quality of performance of the transportation system, where
queues extend beyond the storage lengths of the turn lanes or where queues extend to the adjacent
upstream intersection. In both these cases, the queue spillback can affect traffic mobility by impairing
access to adjacent travel lanes. The queue analysis is presented in Table 10 for the AM peak hour and in
Table 11 for the PM peak hour. These tables show the 50th percentile and 95th percentile queue lengths
for each peak hour. The 95th percentile queue is defined to be the queue length that has only a 5-percent
probability of being exceeded during the analysis time period. It is typically used in design to identify the
appropriate length of turn-lanes, but it is not typical of what an average driver would experience. The 50th
percentile queue length is a better characterization of the driver experiences. Queues that exceed the
lane storage capacity are highlighted in red.

As shown in these tables, the 95th percentile queue nominally exceeds the available storage at the
following locations in the 2015 existing condition:

I-87 Exit 18 NB Ramps: NB left-turn (PM peak hour)
EB through (AM peak hour)
WB through (PM peak hour)
Big Boom Road/Media Drive: EB through (AM and PM peak hour)

These queue conditions will periodically impede progression of traffic through these two intersections
during the peak hours, adding to vehicle delay which is not reflected in the level of service analysis
discussed in Section 6.0. It is noted that while the NB ramp approach to Main Street is shown to exceed
the formally designated storage lane capacity, the queue is contained within the length of the ramp. The
50th percentile peak hour queues are shorter than the available storage capacity at the locations noted
above. This indicates that the queue-related congestion that does occur at these intersections is of
relatively short duration within the peak hours and does not significantly affect corridor mobility.

The analysis of future No-Build conditions shows that the 95th percentile queue will exceed the available
storage at the following additional locations:

I-87 Exit 18 SB Ramps: WB left-turn (PM peak hour)
Pine Street: EB through (AM peak hour)

The 50th percentile queue conditions in the 2020 No-Build condition are shorter than the available storage
capacity, indicating that the queue-related congestion will continue to be contained to short durations
within the peak hours and that these conditions will not significantly affect mobility in the corridor.

The analysis of the 2020 Build condition shows that the queue demand at these intersections will increase
substantially as a result of the projected development within the CI-18 zone. These changes are consistent
with the changes in level of service noted in Section 6.0. Consideration of mitigation improvements are
discussed in Section 8.0.

Exit 18 Rezone Study – Queensbury, NY Page 35

Table 10: Queue Summary – AM Peak Hour

EBLeft-turn1001236
Through/Ri ght-turn800-173568193617353730
WBLeft-turn247945104783222
Through650-2611029118
Through/Ri ght-turn650-229462
NBLeft-turn/Ri ght-turn200-13621465
Left-turn/Through/Ri ght-turn200-30100
SBLeft-turn/Through/Ri ght-turn200-40109
EBThrough650-121218146233232331
Ri ght-turn235046048057
WBLeft-turn330102253140308216337
Through330-44725279100136
SBLeft-turn/Through400-109188123198151240
Ri ght-turn260053055065
EBLeft-turn3305315983186147241
Through330-8446095494486665
WBThrough/Ri ght-turn315-158284196309289415
NBLeft-turn1607914492155145232
Through/Ri ght-turn20004306750147
EBLeft-turn1151686189194254
Through/Ri ght-turn325-6038368413427570
WBLeft-turn10031441439101
Through/Ri ght-turn1100-215686247757542873
Bi g Boom RdNBLeft-turn/Through/Ri ght-turn500-20722479227450
SBLeft-turn100726827926
Through/Ri ght-turn500-35735863139
EBLeft-turn150133134134
Through/Ri ght-turn1100-132109714811631691239
WBLeft-turn50040404
Through/Ri ght-turn1100-7379180846105993
NBLeft-turn/Through/Ri ght-turn500214214214
SBLeft-turn/Through/Ri ght-turn500332334335
EBLeft-turn50282918
Through/Ri ght-turn1100-302688335741232819
WBLeft-turn65020202
Through/Ri ght-turn775-146322159350127425
NBLeft-turn/Through/Ri ght-turn500-3386359152117
SBLeft-turn/Through/Ri ght-turn500-144615482059
Ma i n St (CR 28) &
Pi ne St
Ma i n St (Rte 28)
Pi ne St
Ma i n St (CR 28) &
Ri cha rds on St
Ma i n St (Rte 28)
Ri cha rds on St
Ma i n St (CR 28) &
Exi t 18-NB Ra mps
Ma i n St (Rte 28)
Exi t 18-NB Off Ra mp
Ma i n St (CR 28) &
Bi g Boom Rd/Medi a Dr
Ma i n St (Rte 28)
Medi a Dr
Cori nth Rd (CR 28) &
Bi g Ba y Rd
Cori nth Rd (Rte 28)
Bi g Ba y Rd
Cori nth Rd (CR 28) &
Exi t 18-SB Ra mps
Cori nth Rd (Rte 28)
Exi t 18-SB Off Ra mp
2020 Build
50th95th50th95th50th95th
2020 No-Build
IntersectionStreetApproachLane Group
2015 Existing
Link Distance
(ft)
Turn Bay
Length (ft)

Exit 18 Rezone Study – Queensbury, NY Page 36

Table 11: Queue Summary – PM Peak Hour

EBLeft-turn1001540
Through/Ri ght-turn800-103307117355365655
WBLeft-turn24783984178154
Through650-3815443167
Through/Ri ght-turn650-383686
NBLeft-turn/Ri ght-turn200-10611265
Left-turn/Through/Ri ght-turn200-132268
SBLeft-turn/Through/Ri ght-turn200-142329
EBThrough650-99174119190237395
Ri ght-turn235039041058
WBLeft-turn330117290165357301*
Through330-558863948199
SBLeft-turn/Through400-98173111182134214
Ri ght-turn2600570591681
EBLeft-turn3304714882177159251
Through330-7511884122109594
WBThrough/Ri ght-turn315-182322225347342566
NBLeft-turn160103181119193127205
Through/Ri ght-turn200000755143
EBLeft-turn11514651669160314
Through/Ri ght-turn325-6232671356778920
WBLeft-turn100518519277458
Through/Ri ght-turn1100-2277262598029211174
Bi g Boom RdNBLeft-turn/Through/Ri ght-turn500-331204213611801441
SBLeft-turn100625726719
Through/Ri ght-turn500-564667127196
EBLeft-turn150049052651
Through/Ri ght-turn1100-0983010471951474
WBLeft-turn50040403
Through/Ri ght-turn1100-79853869062941209
NBLeft-turn/Through/Ri ght-turn500112112117
SBLeft-turn/Through/Ri ght-turn500328329748
EBLeft-turn50413413316
Through/Ri ght-turn1100-255604283657219882
WBLeft-turn65151515
Through/Ri ght-turn775-175427189467137630
NBLeft-turn/Through/Ri ght-turn500-215922613580
SBLeft-turn/Through/Ri ght-turn500-7318321140
* queue is metered by upstream signal
Ma i n St (CR 28) &
Ri cha rds on St
Ma i n St (Rte 28)
Ri cha rds on St
Ma i n St (CR 28) &
Bi g Boom Rd/Medi a Dr
Ma i n St (Rte 28)
Medi a Dr
Ma i n St (CR 28) &
Pi ne St
Ma i n St (Rte 28)
Pi ne St
Cori nth Rd (CR 28) &
Exi t 18-SB Ra mps
Cori nth Rd (Rte 28)
Exi t 18-SB Off Ra mp
Ma i n St (CR 28) &
Exi t 18-NB Ra mps
Ma i n St (Rte 28)
Exi t 18-NB Off Ra mp
2020 Build
50th95th50th95th50th95th
2015 Existing
Cori nth Rd (CR 28) &
Bi g Ba y Rd
Cori nth Rd (Rte 28)
Bi g Ba y Rd
2020 No-Build
IntersectionStreetApproachLane Group
Link Distance
(ft)
Turn Bay
Length (ft)

Exit 18 Rezone Study – Queensbury, NY Page 37

8.0 MITIGATION IMPROVEMENTS

The capacity and queue analyses of the 2020 Build condition shows that the CI-18 zone development will
require new transportation system improvements at the following locations to support the projected
traffic demand:

Big Bay Road/Corinth Road intersection
Big Boom Road/Media Drive/Main Street intersection
I-87 Exit 18 NB Ramp/Main Street intersection

Big Bay Road/Corinth Road Intersection

The improvements at this intersection are primarily associated with providing access to the Parcel A
development in the northwest quadrant of the CI-18 zone. The recommended access configuration is to
provide one lane for traffic entering the parcel and two lanes for exiting traffic. An eastbound left-turn
lane on Corinth Road is also recommended.

The additional geometric improvement to address the cumulative development of Parcels A, C and D is to
provide a separate right-turn lane on the northbound approach of Big Bay Road. Traffic signal
improvements and/or replacement will also be required to accommodate the new geometry and signal
phasing. Other improvements may also be needed at the intersection to address sidewalk, drainage and
other ancillary roadway features that may be impacted by the design of the roadway improvements.
Figure 12 shows a concept of these improvements.

Exit 18 Rezone Study – Queensbury, NY Page 38

Figure 12: Intersection Improvements – Big Bay Road & Corinth Road

Big Boom Road/Media Drive/Main Street intersection
The following geometric improvements have been identified for this intersection:

Big Boom Road northbound approach: Provide two left-turn lanes
Provide a separate right-turn lane
Maintain a single through lane

Media Drive southbound approach: Provide a median to align lanes with northbound approach
Provide a separate right-turn lane
Maintain a single through lane

Main Street westbound approach: Provide an additional westbound travel lane
Extend length of the left-turn lane

Exit 18 Rezone Study – Queensbury, NY Page 39

Figure 13 depicts these geometric improvements. The traffic signal equipment at this intersection will also
need to be replaced to accommodate these geometric changes and the attendant changes to signal
phasing. Other ancillary improvements will also be needed to relocate existing sidewalks, drainage and
other roadway features to accommodate the widening needed for these roadway improvements. It is
noted that the southbound left-turn movement will operate at LOS F in this condition because of the long
cycle length; however, this involves a low volume of traffic and is not considered to be an unacceptable
operating condition in this context.

I-87 Exit 18 NB Ramps/Main Street Intersection
The following geometric improvements have been identified for this intersection:

Main Street westbound approach: Provide two through lanes for entire connecting link between
this intersection and Media Drive
Provide a separate right-turn lane

These geometric improvements are also depicted on Figure 13. The traffic signal equipment at this
intersection will also need to be modified/replaced to accommodate these geometric changes and the
attendant changes to signal phasing. Other ancillary improvements will also be needed to relocate existing
sidewalks, drainage and other roadway features to accommodate the widening needed for these roadway
improvements.

Table 12 summarizes the results of the capacity analysis for the 2020 Build Condition with this mitigation
improvements.

The extent of improvements required to accommodate the projected development scenario under the CI-
18 zoning is significant in the area of the Big Boom Road/Media Drive/Main Street area, including potential
impact to the West Glens Falls Cemetery located along the north side of Main Street east of Media Drive.
Because of these impacts, a sensitivity analysis was conducted to identify a threshold of development in
the CI-18 zone that could be supported with a smaller package of mitigation improvements, which is
discussed in Section 9.0.

Exit 18 Rezone Study – Queensbury, NY Page 40

Figure 13: Intersection Improvements – Big Boom Road/Media Drive/Main Street

Exit 18 Rezone Study – Queensbury, NY Page 41

Table 12: LOS Summary Build with Improvements

EBLeft-turnA6.0A8.7
Through/Ri ght-turnB19.2C22.6
Overa l l Approa chB18.4C21.8
WBLeft-turnC20.5B13.2
Through/Ri ght-turnA6.1B10.5
Overa l l Approa chB10.4B11.1
NBLeft-turn/ThroughC33.3C23.0
Ri ght-turnC24.6B17.2
Overa l l Approa chC26.6B18.7
SBLeft-turnC34.9C31.6
Through/Ri ght-turnC30.7C20.6
Overa l l Approa chC33.9C28.6
B17.0B17.9
EBThroughC28.7D37.2
Ri ght-turnB20.0C21.6
Overa l l Approa chC26.5C33.5
WBLeft-turnC20.6D50.3
ThroughA7.0A6.7
Overa l l Approa chB12.8C27.2
SBLeft-turn/ThroughC34.1D37.5
Ri ght-turnC26.5C27.4
Overa l l Approa chC30.1C32.3
C21.9C30.6
EBLeft-turnB10.8C28.9
ThroughA2.4A2.0
Overa l l Approa chA4.8B10.1
WBThrough/Ri ght-turnC20.7C22.9
Ri ght-turnB16.5B16.7
Overa l l Approa chB19.7C21.3
NBLeft-turnC34.2C34.6
Through/Ri ght-turnC29.4C29.2
Overa l l Approa chC30.8C30.8
B17.6B19.9
PM Peak Hour
LOS
Delay
(sec/veh)
Ma i n St (CR 28) &
Exi t 18-NB Ra mps
Ma i n St (Rte 28)
Exi t 18-NB Off Ra mp
Overall Intersection
Exi t 18-SB Off Ra mp
Overall Intersection
Cori nth Rd (Rte 28)
Cori nth Rd (CR 28) &
Exi t 18-SB Ra mps
Cori nth Rd (Rte 28)
Cori nth Rd (CR 28) &
Bi g Ba y Rd
Overall Intersection
IntersectionStreetApproachLane Group
AM Peak Hour
LOS
Delay
(sec/veh)

Exit 18 Rezone Study – Queensbury, NY Page 42

Table 12: LOS Summary Build with Improvements (continued)

EBLeft-turnB12.1B16.0
Through/Ri ght-turnC28.0D39.4
Overa l l Approa chC25.9D36.8
WBLeft-turnB14.9D51.4
Through/Ri ght-turnB19.5C22.8
Overa l l Approa chB18.9C29.7
NBLeft-turnC29.0E65.5
ThroughC21.3C28.2
Ri ght-turnB17.3C20.2
Overa l l Approa chC23.9D45.6
SBLeft-turnF93.0D50.4
ThroughC28.6D39.1
Ri ght-turnC24.5C33.8
Overa l l Approa chC29.5D36.3
C23.9D36.9
EBLeft-turnB14.9C21.3
Through/Ri ght-turnB17.3B18.2
Overa l l Approa chB17.2B18.4
WBLeft-turnC28.8C33.6
Through/Ri ght-turnB15.0C22.2
Overa l l Approa chB15.0C22.2
NBLeft-turn/Through/Ri ght-turnD46.1D43.7
Overa l l Approa chD46.1D43.7
SBLeft-turn/Through/Ri ght-turnD42.2D41.6
Overa l l Approa chD42.2D41.6
B17.1C20.6
EBLeft-turnA6.3A5.7
Through/Ri ght-turnB16.7B13.2
Overa l l Approa chB16.6B12.9
WBLeft-turnB10.3A8.9
Through/Ri ght-turnA9.5A9.5
Overa l l Approa chA9.5A9.5
NBLeft-turn/Through/Ri ght-turnD35.5D36.5
Overa l l Approa chD35.5D36.5
SBLeft-turn/Through/Ri ght-turnC29.5C32.7
Overa l l Approa chC29.5C32.7
B15.9B13.0
AM Peak Hour
LOS
Delay
(sec/veh)
PM Peak Hour
LOS
Delay
(sec/veh)
Overall Intersection
Ma i n St (CR 28) &
Bi g Boom Rd/Medi a Dr
Ma i n St (Rte 28)
Medi a Dr
IntersectionStreetApproachLane Group
Ma i n St (CR 28) &
Ri cha rds on St
Ma i n St (Rte 28)
Ri cha rds on St
Overall Intersection
Ma i n St (CR 28) &
Pi ne St
Ma i n St (Rte 28)
Pi ne St
Overall Intersection

Exit 18 Rezone Study – Queensbury, NY Page 43

9.0 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

A sensitivity analysis was conducted to identify the threshold of reduced development in the CI-18 zone
that would not require the extent of improvements that were identified for the development based on
the proposed rezoning. In particular, the focus of this sensitivity analysis considered a reduced retail
development scenario for parcels L and M. Based on the proposed zoning and the size of these parcels,
it is estimated that 180,000 sq. ft. could be
physically built on these two parcels
(combined). The process used for this
sensitivity analysis was to conduct capacity
analysis of iteratively-reduced trip
generation of these two parcels to identify
the amount of traffic that could be
supported by the following set of
improvements, and then to correlate that
level of traffic to the size of development:

Big Bay Road/Corinth Road intersection
Same as recommended for Full-Build scenario
(see Section 8.0)

Big Boom Road/Media Drive intersection
• Northbound: Provide a separate left-turn
lane
• Southbound: Convert the lane designations
o from separate left-turn lane and shared
through/right-turn lane
o to shared left-turn/through lane and
separate right-turn lane
• Eastbound: no changes from existing
• Westbound: no changes from existing

The improvement concept for the Big
Boom Road/Media Drive/Main Street
intersection is shown on Figure 14. These
improvements will also require
modification/replacement of the traffic
signal at this intersection, and minor
relocation/modification of other ancillary
roadside elements such as sidewalks and
drainage. There are no other
improvements considered for the study
area for this reduced development
scenario.

Figure 14: Reduced Development Improvement Concept – Big Boom Road

Exit 18 Rezone Study – Queensbury, NY Page 44

The iterative capacity analysis identified that this improvement concept would support the traffic
generated by the CI-18 rezone development with a 40% reduction of the number of primary and pass-by
trips generated by parcels L and M. Because the traffic generation of retail uses is exponentially related
to the size of the building, this equates generally to a combined size of approximately 85,000 square feet
of retail building area on these properties.

The primary trips generated by each parcel within the CI-18 zone are shown in Table 13 for the original
Build scenario and for the Reduced Build scenario for comparison.

Table 13: Trip Generation Scenario Comparison

The capacity analysis of
the 2020 Reduced Build
scenario shows that the
overall level of service for
each study intersection
will be LOS C or better
during AM and PM peak
hours in the 2020
Reduced Build scenario.
Queue management will
continue to be a factor
that will contribute to
periodic short-term
congestion that is not
reflected by the LOS
analysis.

AM Peak HourPM Peak Hour
EnterExitTotalEnterExitTotalEnterExitTotalEnterExitTotal
A2007627620076276A137230367137230367
B——B——
C1652116521C343973343973
D97131109713110D2311113423111134
E151126151126E161430161430
F——F——
G241640241640G232144232144
H1521715217H3131631316
I1011110111I28102810
J57471045747104J53521055352105
K——K——
L7031101421961L183206389110124234
M602888351752M15817733594108202
Total564230794511207718Total63287115034957201215
Reduced Build ScenarioParcelOriginal Build ScenarioOriginal Build ScenarioParcelReduced Build Scenario

Exit 18 Rezone Study – Queensbury, NY Page 45

Table 14: LOS Summary – Reduced Build Scenario

EBLeft-turnA6.3B10.2
Through/Ri ght-turnB19.6C22.1
Overa l l Approa chB18.8C21.4
WBLeft-turnB18.7B10.8
Through/Ri ght-turnA7.6B14.5
Overa l l Approa chB10.9B13.7
NBLeft-turn/ThroughC33.4C25.3
Ri ght-turnC24.0B17.6
Overa l l Approa chC26.1B19.6
SBLeft-turnC35.0C34.7
Through/Ri ght-turnC30.8C22.7
Overa l l Approa chC34.1C31.5
B17.4B19.3
EBThroughC22.3C34.3
Ri ght-turnB16.4C21.6
Overa l l Approa chC20.8C31.2
WBLeft-turnD44.3C33.9
ThroughA4.8A2.5
Overa l l Approa chC21.8B17.5
SBLeft-turn/ThroughC27.6C34.3
Ri ght-turnC23.4C27.1
Overa l l Approa chC25.4C30.4
C22.1C25.3
EBLeft-turnC21.9C33.7
ThroughA5.6A5.8
Overa l l Approa chB10.3B14.6
WBThrough/Ri ght-turnC28.9C34.0
Overa l l Approa chC28.9C34.0
NBLeft-turnC28.4C34.9
Through/Ri ght-turnC24.7C28.4
Overa l l Approa chC25.8C30.4
C21.5C26.3
Ma i n St (CR 28) &
Exi t 18-NB Ra mps
Ma i n St (Rte 28)
Exi t 18-NB Off Ra mp
Overall Intersection
Cori nth Rd (CR 28) &
Bi g Ba y Rd
Cori nth Rd (Rte 28)
Overall Intersection
Cori nth Rd (CR 28) &
Exi t 18-SB Ra mps
Cori nth Rd (Rte 28)
Exi t 18-SB Off Ra mp
Overall Intersection
IntersectionStreetApproachLane Group
AM Peak HourPM Peak Hour
LOS
Delay
(sec/veh)LOS
Delay
(sec/veh)

Exit 18 Rezone Study – Queensbury, NY Page 46

Table 14: LOS Summary – Reduced Build Scenario (continued)

EBLeft-turnC22.0C28.4
Through/Ri ght-turnB18.1C25.7
Overa l l Approa chB18.6C26.0
WBLeft-turnB13.0B15.9
Through/Ri ght-turnC32.0D43.1
Overa l l Approa chC29.8D38.2
NBLeft-turnC33.2D42.2
Through/Ri ght-turnC30.5C20.6
Overa l l Approa chC31.9C31.6
SBLeft-turn/ThroughD47.5C31.3
Ri ght-turnD36.8C26.8
Overa l l Approa chD39.2C28.2
C25.4C30.8
EBLeft-turnB14.4B19.2
Through/Ri ght-turnB17.1B16.4
Overa l l Approa chB17.0B16.6
WBLeft-turnC28.0C30.5
Through/Ri ght-turnB14.1C20.3
Overa l l Approa chB14.1C20.3
NBLeft-turn/Through/Ri ght-turnD45.9D43.4
Overa l l Approa chD45.9D43.4
SBLeft-turn/Through/Ri ght-turnD42.0D41.3
Overa l l Approa chD42.0D41.3
B16.6B18.7
EBLeft-turnA6.1A5.4
Through/Ri ght-turnB16.3B12.0
Overa l l Approa chB16.2B11.8
WBLeft-turnA10.0A8.0
Through/Ri ght-turnA9.3A9.1
Overa l l Approa chA9.3A9.1
NBLeft-turn/Through/Ri ght-turnC34.9D35.2
Overa l l Approa chC34.9D35.2
SBLeft-turn/Through/Ri ght-turnC29.4C31.9
Overa l l Approa chC29.4C31.9
B15.5B12.2
Ma i n St (CR 28) &
Ri cha rds on St
Ma i n St (Rte 28)
Ri cha rds on St
Overall Intersection
Ma i n St (CR 28) &
Bi g Boom Rd/Medi a Dr
Ma i n St (Rte 28)
Medi a Dr
Overall Intersection
Ma i n St (CR 28) &
Pi ne St
Ma i n St (Rte 28)
Pi ne St
Overall Intersection
AM Peak HourPM Peak Hour
LOS
Delay
(sec/veh)LOS
Delay
(sec/veh)IntersectionStreetApproachLane Group

Exit 18 Rezone Study – Queensbury, NY Page 47

10.0 PEDESTRIAN & BICYCLE CONSIDERATIONS

Although the documentation of existing conditions indicated relatively low pedestrian and bicycle activity
in the corridor during periods of peak vehicular traffic volumes, the infrastructure supporting these
transportation modes is vital for providing a sustainable multimodal corridor that is accessible to all users.
The development within the CI-18 zone is also anticipated and encouraged to create uses that foster
increased pedestrian and bicycle activity within the zone.

The impact of development within the CI-18 zone on the public transportation accommodations for
pedestrian and bike activity were considered in the context of these factors:

 Impact of expanded roadway infrastructure on mobility and safety for pedestrians and bicyclists
 Connectivity for active transportation users generated by new development within the zone to
existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities and destinations in the area.

Impact of expanded roadway infrastructure
Section 8.0 – Mitigation Improvements described the roadway improvements identified to provide the
additional capacity to accommodate the vehicular traffic generated by the projected Build condition. At
the intersection of Corinth Road and Big Bay Road, these capacity enhancements are primarily associated
with providing access to the development site at the northwest quadrant of Corinth Road and I-87
Interchange 18 (Parcel A). The extent of these improvements are relatively modest and do not
substantially change the character of the intersection. These improvements will not significantly increase
the walking distance for pedestrians to cross Corinth Road. While the construction of the access to Parcel
A will create a new point of interaction of pedestrians/bicyclists with turning vehicular traffic, this
interaction will be typical of other intersections in the corridor, and is not anticipated to have a significant
impact to pedestrian/bicycle mobility or safety. Pedestrian signals should be provided for the crossing of
the new Parcel A driveway as part of the signal improvements to accommodate this new access.

The vehicular capacity improvements identified at the Main Street/Big Boom Road/Media Drive
intersection to accommodate the projected Build condition include the addition of multiple turn lanes
and an additional through lane on Main Street (westbound). The large size of the intersection created by
these improvements will increase the time required for pedestrians and bicyclists to cross the
intersection. This added crossing distance, along with the added complexities of driver operations also
increases safety risk for pedestrians and bicyclists crossing at the intersection and interacting with turning
traffic from multiple lanes. This is not to say that the larger intersection would be unsafe for pedestrians
and bicyclists, but it would change the character and complexity of navigation by these users. The more
complex signal phasing associated with the geometry of this intersection would also increase the delay
time for pedestrians waiting to cross the street.

The Reduced Build scenario for development within the CI-18 zone correspondingly reduces the extent of
improvements for the Main Street/Big Boom Road/Media Drive intersection. In this scenario, the
improvements consist of widening to provide a new left-turn lane on Big Boom Road (northbound). The
southbound approach of Media Drive may also need to be widened (as shown on Figure 14 in Section 9.0)
to properly align the northbound and southbound travel lanes, but the extent of this widening would be
subject to detailed design. In any case, these improvements would add about 12-14 feet of additional
crossing distance. The distance to cross Main Street would be the same as existing. This geometry is much

Exit 18 Rezone Study – Queensbury, NY Page 48

less complex than for the full Build scenario and is consistent with typical crossing situations on urban
arterials.

Connectivity
The increased pedestrian and bicycle activity generated by the new development within the CI-18 District
will create new demand for infrastructure to support their mobility and access. The proposed zoning is
designed to provide on-site amenities to support pedestrian and bicycle accommodation. Consideration
should also be given in the site planning processes to provide for active transportation connections
between parcels and to create spaces for public gathering.

A stated goal of the proposed CI-18 zone is to provide pedestrian connectivity to the Main Street District.
Sidewalks and bicycle accommodations should also be provided along Big Boom Road and Big Bay Road
through the CI-18 zone to connect the active transportation infrastructure at each site to the existing
pedestrian and bike facilities along Corinth Road and Main Street. These accommodations along Big Boom
Road would also facilitate bike connection to the Hudson River waterfront recreation area at the end of
Big Boom Road.

11.0 ZONING CONSIDERATIONS

The Town’s proposed CI-18 zoning was reviewed to identify recommended modifications to meet the
objectives of the zone and to maintain transportation mobility along the Corinth Road/Main Street
corridor. This essentially involved considerations to reduce the density for larger retail uses within the
zone. To achieve this result, it is recommended that a density requirement be incorporated into § 179-3-
040, Section 8.B(b), as follows:

[12] Density Requirements CI-18

(a) Buildings, or portions thereof, that are located greater than 400 feet from the centerline of County
Route 28 (Corinth Road/Main Street), shall be limited in size to conform with the following maximum
development densities, based on the parcel’s area greater than 400 feet from the centerline of Corinth
Road:

• Retail (LUC 820): 4,000 square feet gross floor area per acre
• Fast Food/Convenience/Gas (LUC 934): 500 square feet gross floor area per acre
• Restaurant (LUC 932): 1,000 square feet gross floor area per acre
• General Office (LUC 710): 8,000 square feet gross floor area per acre
• Hotel (LUC 310): 20 rooms/acre

Land uses not listed above shall have a density limitation based on the most applicable ITE Land Use Code
as equated to General Office (LUC 710).

Other recommended changes to the zoning code for the CI-18 district are as follows:

Exit 18 Rezone Study – Queensbury, NY Page 49

 Remove ‘Enclosed Shopping Center’ as an allowed use within the zone (Town of Queensbury Table 3,
Summary of Allowed Uses on Commercial Districts).
 Recommend that parcels adjacent to residential uses be required to have a minimum 50’ side yard
and rear yard setback with 25’ vegetated buffer.
 § 179-7-050. (A) Design Districts: remove reference to ‘large retail’ and replace with “supporting
retail”.

The Town is also considering options to establish Special Use Permit criteria for the CI-18 District, and to
establish certain uses as requiring a Special Use Permit. These requirements include provisions for
additional traffic impact analysis, requirements for consistency with the findings and recommendations
of this Exit 18 Rezone Study, and provision for the Town to utilize a Developer’s Agreement to memorialize
the conditions of approval.

12.0 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES

The recent Corinth Road/Main Street reconstruction project was a publicly financed project (80% Federal,
15% State and 5% County financing) which increased capacity in the corridor through geometric
enhancements, multimodal accommodations and improved traffic system management technologies. The
planning and design of these improvements included considerations for future growth of travel in the
corridor associated with general socio-economic conditions in the region and with new development. The
analysis of traffic operations shows that current and future No-Build levels of service in the corridor are
comparable to or better than the level of service objectives established for the design of the
reconstruction project.

The preceding analyses of the traffic impacts associated with development potential in the proposed CI-
18 zone show that additional improvements will be required to the transportation system to
accommodate the additional traffic generated by that development. Some of these improvements are
directly related to providing site access to Parcel A. These improvements involve the construction of the
site access road opposite Big Bay Road, construction of an eastbound left-turn lane (for traffic entering
the site), modification/replacement of signal equipment, and other ancillary reconstruction/relocation of
roadway elements (sidewalk, drainage) as may be affected by the design detail for providing the site
access. These improvements are considered to be the responsible of that developer to fund and
implement.

The other identified transportation improvements have similar correlation to specific groups of parcels.
In identifying strategies to fund these improvements, the costs for these improvements are considered to
be private-sector funded in light of the recent public investment in the corridor, considering the limited
scope of additional improvements that are required, and the nexus of these improvements to specific
groups of parcels in the zone.

The Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) process is the broadest and most comprehensive
approach to provide a mechanism to fund the improvements and to equitably distribute these costs to all
involved parties. The GEIS process also allows the community to look at the cumulative impacts of a
variety of environmental and community issues in addition to transportation. The GEIS process is most

Exit 18 Rezone Study – Queensbury, NY Page 50

effective when it is used to study the implications of development over large land areas and where there
are issues of public/private cost-sharing for the mitigation improvements. For example, the Town of
Halfmoon’s (Saratoga County) GEIS for the northern part of the Town encompassed almost 9,000 acres,
and the Town of Colonie (Albany County) has prepared GEIS’s for three areas of the Town totaling 15,000
acres. The larger the study area the more equitable and effective the process is in terms of the allocation
of mitigation costs and the Town’s administration of the program. The timeframe to complete the GEIS
process and to implement a mitigation fee structure can take several years depending on the size of the
study area and the complexity of issues. For the CI-18 rezone area it is expected that the process would
take 9-12 months. There would also be an on-going commitment of Town resources to manage the
mitigation fee program through the full development of the CI-18 zone.

The use of the GEIS process does not guarantee that the necessary funds will be available at the time that
specific transportation improvements are needed. In these cases, or in cases where the required
improvement is greater than a developers calculated share, the Town would need to either front the
difference and be reimbursed by future mitigation fees or to negotiate with that developer to fund the
improvement so the project can move ahead, with later reimbursement of the difference to the developer
once funds are collected from other projects in the GEIS study. The risk associated with this issue is that
there is no guarantee of the timeline for recovery of these up-fronted costs (either to the Town or the
developer) because that is tied to the pace and types of development that occurs.

The GEIS may not be a cost-effective or efficient mechanism to fund the transportation improvements for
the CI-18 Rezone area because of the following considerations:

 The relatively small size of the study area (65 acres).
 The mitigation improvements identified to address the transportation impacts are
focused on two locations in the corridor.
 The mitigation improvements are primarily associated with providing site access.
 There is no expected public participation requirement in the funding of the
improvements.

Other broadly-based funding mechanisms like Tax Increment Financing (TIF) or Transportation
Improvement Districts/Transportation Development Districts (TID/TDD) are similarly not considered to be
applicable or feasible for the CI-18 rezone area due to the relatively small size of the zone and the limited
transportation improvements required. These types of funding strategies are also more commonly used
to stimulate investment for redevelopment in economically depressed areas.

In a traditional Direct Landowner Negotiation, each development undergoes a separate SEQR review as
the project is submitted. If the project results in the need for the improvement, the developer can either
pay for the improvement to address the identified impact or not receive the required approval. The
advantage of this approach is that it is the simplest to administer by the Town; however the disadvantage
is that there is not a formal mechanism to distribute the mitigation improvement costs to the involved
developers. This typically leads to a scenario where either the first or last development finances a
disproportionate share of the transportation mitigation cost relative to the traffic generated by their
project. One way to address this would be for the Town to facilitate collective negotiations with the
developers/property owners in the zone to establish a funding agreement. This strategy is most effective
if the involved owners are actively pursuing a development approval/action. If this approach is not

Exit 18 Rezone Study – Queensbury, NY Page 51

successful or feasible due to local circumstances, then the recommended approach would be to engage
the GEIS process.

13.0 CONCLUSION

The Exit 18 Rezone Study was prepared to identify the transportation impacts associated with the Town’s
proposal to rezone a 65-acre +/- area around I-87 Interchange 18 to a Commercial Intensive Exit 18 (CI-
18) District to provide for flexible development opportunities on key sites, creating economic
development while encouraging the overall improvement and appearance of these areas, including
attractive building designs and enhanced pedestrian access.

This technical study involved an inventory of existing transportation and land use conditions, and
environmental constraints; projections of future land use and transportation conditions; assessment of
transportation impacts mitigation strategies; and, a review of potential funding and implementation
strategies.

The study considered the transportation impacts associated with the projected CI-18 zone development
Build scenario and a Reduced Build scenario. The Reduced Build scenario was established from a
sensitivity analysis considering reduced retail development along Big Boom Road.

Build Scenario Improvements
The study identified that the following transportation system improvements to support the projected
traffic demand of CI-18 zone development in the Build scenario:

Big Bay Road/Corinth Road Intersection
Parcel A southbound approach: Provide new site access opposite Big Bay Road with two lanes for
existing traffic
Big Bay Road northbound approach: Provide a separate right-turn lane
Corinth Road eastbound approach: Provide a separate left-turn lane

Modify/replace the traffic signal equipment to accommodate new geometry and signal phasing
Modify/replace other ancillary roadway features as necessary to accommodate the new lane geometry

Big Boom Road/Media Drive/Main Street intersection
Big Boom Road northbound approach: Provide two left-turn lanes
Provide a separate right-turn lane
Maintain a single through lane

Media Drive southbound approach: Provide a median to align lanes with northbound approach
Provide a separate right-turn lane
Maintain a single through lane

Main Street westbound approach: Provide an additional westbound travel lane
Extend length of the left-turn lane

Exit 18 Rezone Study – Queensbury, NY Page 52

Modify/replace the traffic signal equipment to accommodate new geometry and signal phasing
Modify/replace other ancillary roadway features as necessary to accommodate the new lane geometry

I-87 Exit 18 NB Ramps/Main Street Intersection
Main Street westbound approach: Provide two through lanes for entire connecting link between this
intersection and Media Drive
Provide a separate right-turn lane

Modify/replace the traffic signal equipment to accommodate new geometry and signal phasing
Modify/replace other ancillary roadway features as necessary to accommodate the new lane geometry

Reduced Build Scenario Improvements
The study identified that the following transportation system improvements to support the projected
traffic demand of CI-18 zone development in the Reduced Build scenario:

Big Bay Road/Corinth Road Intersection
Same improvements as identified for the Build scenario

Big Boom Road/Media Drive/Main Street intersection
Big Boom Road northbound approach: Provide one separate left-turn lane
Maintain a single through/right-turn lane

Media Drive southbound approach: Convert lane-use designations
From – separate left-turn lane & shared through/right-turn lane
To- shared left-turn/through lane and separate right-turn lane

Main Street westbound approach: No changes from existing
Main Street eastbound approach: No changes from existing

Modify/replace the traffic signal equipment to accommodate new geometry and signal phasing
Modify/replace other ancillary roadway features as necessary to accommodate the new lane geometry

The increased pedestrian and bicycle activity generated by the new development within the CI-18 zone
will create new demand for infrastructure to support their mobility and access. Sidewalks and bicycle
accommodations are recommended to be provided along Big Boom Road and Big Bay Road through the
CI-18 zone to connect the active transportation infrastructure at each site to the existing pedestrian and
bike facilities along Corinth Road and Main Street.

The Town’s proposed CI-18 zoning was reviewed to identify recommended modifications to meet the
transportation and land use objectives of the zone for the Reduced Build scenario. The primary
recommendation from this review is to include a density requirement into § 179-3-040, Section 8.B(b) to
limit the size of development based on maximum densities for development that is located greater than
400 feet from the centerline of County Route 28 (Corinth Road/Main Street). The Town is also considering
options to establish Special Use Permit criteria for the CI-18 District, and to establish certain uses as
requiring a Special Use Permit. These requirements include provisions for additional traffic impact
analysis, requirements for consistency with the findings and recommendations of this Exit 18 Rezone

Exit 18 Rezone Study – Queensbury, NY Page 53

Study, and provision for the Town to utilize a Developer’s Agreement to memorialize the conditions of
approval.

The recent Corinth Road/Main Street reconstruction project was a publicly financed project which
increased capacity in the corridor through geometric enhancements, multimodal accommodations and
improved traffic system management technologies. In consideration of this public investment and the
types of improvements recommended to accommodate the future development with the CI-18 zone, the
costs for these improvements are considered to be a private-sector responsibility for funding.

To provide a means to equitably allocate the costs for funding these improvements, the Town could
facilitate collective negotiations with the developers/property owners in the zone to establish a funding
agreement. This strategy is most effective if the involved owners are actively pursuing a development
approval/action. If this approach is not successful or feasible due to local circumstances, then the
recommended approach would be to engage in a formal Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS)
process.

Exit 18 Rezone Study – Queensbury, NY

Appendix A

Traffic Volume Data

File Name : Corinth-Big Bay AM
Site Code : 00000001
Start Date : 5/20/2015
Page No : 1Corinth Rd & Big Bay Rd
Town of Queensbury, Warren County, NY
CHA File 30230
Groups Printed- Passenger Cars – SU Trucks – MU Trucks
From North Corinth Rd
From East Big Bay Rd
From South Corinth Rd
From West
Start Time Right Thru Left Peds
App. Total Right Thru Left Peds
App. Total Right Thru Left Peds
App. Total Right Thru Left Peds
App. Total Int. Total
07:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 25 0 85 35 0 8 0 43 3 158 0 0 161 289
07:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 72 35 0 107 46 0 11 0 57 4 156 0 0 160 324
07:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 29 0 109 39 0 12 0 51 4 180 0 0 184 344
07:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 97 35 0 132 28 0 7 0 35 5 172 0 0 177 344
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 309 124 0 433 148 0 38 0 186 16 666 0 0 682 1301
08:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 76 31 0 107 30 0 7 1 38 2 124 0 0 126 271
08:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 73 30 0 103 50 0 10 0 60 4 125 0 0 129 292
08:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 57 26 0 83 39 0 14 0 53 3 123 0 0 126 262
08:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 74 23 0 97 27 0 8 0 35 3 132 0 0 135 267
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 280 110 0 390 146 0 39 1 186 12 504 0 0 516 1092
Grand Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 589 234 0 823 294 0 77 1 372 28 1170 0 0 1198 2393
Apprch % 0 0 0 0 0 71.6 28.4 0 79 0 20.7 0.3 2.3 97.7 0 0
Total % 0 0 0 0 0 0 24.6 9.8 0 34.4 12.3 0 3.2 0 15.5 1.2 48.9 0 0 50.1
Passenger Cars 0 0 0 0 0 0 556 215 0 771 268 0 67 0 335 26 1132 0 0 1158 2264
% Passenger Cars 0 0 0 0 0 0 94.4 91.9 0 93.7 91.2 0 87 0 90.1 92.9 96.8 0 0 96.7 94.6
SU Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 14 0 29 19 0 5 1 25 2 24 0 0 26 80
% SU Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 6 0 3.5 6.5 0 6.5 100 6.7 7.1 2.1 0 0 2.2 3.3
MU Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 5 0 23 7 0 5 0 12 0 14 0 0 14 49
% MU Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.1 2.1 0 2.8 2.4 0 6.5 0 3.2 0 1.2 0 0 1.2 2CHA Consulting, Inc.
3 Winners Circle
Albany, NY 12205
(518) 453-4500
www.chacompanies.com

File Name : Corinth-Big Bay AM
Site Code : 00000001
Start Date : 5/20/2015
Page No : 2Corinth Rd & Big Bay Rd
Town of Queensbury, Warren County, NY
CHA File 30230
Corinth Rd
Corinth Rd
Big Bay Rd Right 0
0
0
0
Thru 0
0
0
0
Left 0
0
0
0
Peds 0
0
0
0 InOut Total
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0
0
0
Right
0 0 0 0
Thru556 15 18 589
Left215 14 5 234
Peds
0 0 0 0
Out
Total
In
1400
771
2171
43
29
72
21
23
44
1464
2287
823
Left
67
5
5
77 Thru
0
0
0
0 Right
268
19
7
294 Peds
0
1
0
1
Out TotalIn241 335 576
16 25 41
5 12 17
262 634 372
Left
0 0 0 0
Thru1132 24 14 1170
Right26 2 0 28
Peds
0 0 0 0
Total
Out
In
623
1158
1781
20
26
46
23
14
37
666
1864
1198 5/20/2015 07:00 AM
5/20/2015 08:45 AM

Passenger Cars
SU Trucks
MU Trucks NorthCHA Consulting, Inc.
3 Winners Circle
Albany, NY 12205
(518) 453-4500
www.chacompanies.com

File Name : Corinth-Big Bay AM
Site Code : 00000001
Start Date : 5/20/2015
Page No : 3Corinth Rd & Big Bay Rd
Town of Queensbury, Warren County, NY
CHA File 30230
From North Corinth Rd
From East Big Bay Rd
From South Corinth Rd
From West
Start Time Right Thru Left Peds
App. Total Right Thru Left Peds
App. Total Right Thru Left Peds
App. Total Right Thru Left Peds
App. Total Int. Total
Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM – Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:00 AM
07:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 25 0 85 35 0 8 0 43 3 158 0 0 161 289
07:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 72
35 0 107
46 0 11 0
57 4 156 0 0 160 324
07:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 29 0 109 39 0
12 0 51 4
180 0 0
184 344
07:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0
97 35 0
132 28 0 7 0 35
5 172 0 0 177 344
Total Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 309 124 0 433 148 0 38 0 186 16 666 0 0 682 1301
% App. Total 0 0 0 0 0 71.4 28.6 0 79.6 0 20.4 0 2.3 97.7 0 0
PHF .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .796 .886 .000 .820 .804 .000 .792 .000 .816 .800 .925 .000 .000 .927 .945
Passenger Cars 0 0 0 0 0 0 290 118 0 408 136 0 37 0 173 15 649 0 0 664 1245
% Passenger Cars 0 0 0 0 0 0 93.9 95.2 0 94.2 91.9 0 97.4 0 93.0 93.8 97.4 0 0 97.4 95.7
SU Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 3 0 11 12 0 0 0 12 1 12 0 0 13 36
% SU Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.6 2.4 0 2.5 8.1 0 0 0 6.5 6.3 1.8 0 0 1.9 2.8
MU Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 3 0 14 0 0 1 0 1 0 5 0 0 5 20
% MU Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.6 2.4 0 3.2 0 0 2.6 0 0.5 0 0.8 0 0 0.7 1.5CHA Consulting, Inc.
3 Winners Circle
Albany, NY 12205
(518) 453-4500
www.chacompanies.com

File Name : Corinth-Big Bay AM
Site Code : 00000001
Start Date : 5/20/2015
Page No : 4Corinth Rd & Big Bay Rd
Town of Queensbury, Warren County, NY
CHA File 30230
Corinth Rd
Corinth Rd
Big Bay Rd Right 0
0
0
0
Thru 0
0
0
0
Left 0
0
0
0
Peds 0
0
0
0 InOut Total
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0
0
0
Right
0 0 0 0
Thru290 8 11 309
Left118 3 3 124
Peds
0 0 0 0
Out
Total
In
785
408
1193
24
11
35
5
14
19
814
1247
433
Left
37
0
1
38 Thru
0
0
0
0 Right
136
12
0
148 Peds
0
0
0
0
Out TotalIn133 173 306
4 12 16
3 1 4
140 326 186
Left
0 0 0 0
Thru649 12 5 666
Right15 1 0 16
Peds
0 0 0 0
Total
Out
In
327
664
991
8
13
21
12
5
17
347
1029
682 Peak Hour Begins at 07:00 AM

Passenger Cars
SU Trucks
MU TrucksPeak Hour Data
NorthCHA Consulting, Inc.
3 Winners Circle
Albany, NY 12205
(518) 453-4500
www.chacompanies.com

File Name : Corinth-Big Bay AM
Site Code : 00000001
Start Date : 5/20/2015
Page No : 5Corinth Rd & Big Bay Rd
Town of Queensbury, Warren County, NY
CHA File 30230
From North Corinth Rd
From East Big Bay Rd
From South Corinth Rd
From West
Start Time Right Thru Left Peds
App. Total Right Thru Left Peds
App. Total Right Thru Left Peds
App. Total Right Thru Left Peds
App. Total Int. Total
Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM – Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at:
07:00 AM 07:15 AM 07:00 AM 07:00 AM
+0 mins. 0 0 0 0 0 0 72
35 0 107 35 0 8 0 43 3 158 0 0 161
+15 mins. 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 29 0 109
46 0 11 0
57 4 156 0 0 160
+30 mins. 0 0 0 0 0 0
97 35 0
132 39 0
12 0 51 4
180 0 0
184
+45 mins. 0 0 0 0 0 0 76 31 0 107 28 0 7 0 35
5 172 0 0 177
Total Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 325 130 0 455 148 0 38 0 186 16 666 0 0 682
% App. Total 0 0 0 0 0 71.4 28.6 0 79.6 0 20.4 0 2.3 97.7 0 0
PHF .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .838 .929 .000 .862 .804 .000 .792 .000 .816 .800 .925 .000 .000 .927
Passenger Cars 0 0 0 0 0 0 305 124 0 429 136 0 37 0 173 15 649 0 0 664
% Passenger Cars 0 0 0 0 0 0 93.8 95.4 0 94.3 91.9 0 97.4 0 93 93.8 97.4 0 0 97.4
SU Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 4 0 14 12 0 0 0 12 1 12 0 0 13
% SU Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.1 3.1 0 3.1 8.1 0 0 0 6.5 6.2 1.8 0 0 1.9
MU Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 2 0 12 0 0 1 0 1 0 5 0 0 5
% MU Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.1 1.5 0 2.6 0 0 2.6 0 0.5 0 0.8 0 0 0.7CHA Consulting, Inc.
3 Winners Circle
Albany, NY 12205
(518) 453-4500
www.chacompanies.com

File Name : Corinth-Big Bay AM
Site Code : 00000001
Start Date : 5/20/2015
Page No : 6Corinth Rd & Big Bay Rd
Town of Queensbury, Warren County, NY
CHA File 30230
Corinth Rd
Corinth Rd
Big Bay Rd Right 0
0
0
0
Thru 0
0
0
0
Left 0
0
0
0
Peds 0
0
0
0 In – Peak Hour: 07:00 AM
0
0
0
0
Right
0 0 0 0
Thru305 10 10 325
Left124 4 2 130
Peds
0 0 0 0
In – Peak Hour: 07:15 AM
429 14 12 455
Left
37
0
1
38 Thru
0
0
0
0 Right
136
12
0
148 Peds
0
0
0
0
In – Peak Hour: 07:00 AM 173
12
1
186
Left
0 0 0 0
Thru649 12 5 666
Right15 1 0 16
Peds
0 0 0 0 In – Peak Hour: 07:00 AM
664 13 5 682 Passenger Cars
SU Trucks
MU TrucksPeak Hour Data
NorthCHA Consulting, Inc.
3 Winners Circle
Albany, NY 12205
(518) 453-4500
www.chacompanies.com

File Name : Corinth-Big Bay PM
Site Code : 00000002
Start Date : 5/20/2015
Page No : 1Corinth Road & Big Bay Rd
Town of Queensbury, Warren County, NY
CHA File 30230
Groups Printed- Passenger Cars – SU Trucks – MU Trucks
From North Corinth Road
From East Big Bay Road
From South Corinth Road
From West
Start Time Right Thru Left Peds
App. Total Right Thru Left Peds
App. Total Right Thru Left Peds
App. Total Right Thru Left Peds
App. Total Int. Total
04:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 107 24 0 131 34 0 12 0 46 6 95 0 0 101 278
04:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 118 29 0 147 32 0 14 0 46 5 121 0 0 126 319
04:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 101 28 0 129 35 0 9 0 44 4 139 0 0 143 316
04:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 109 29 0 138 41 0 13 0 54 6 118 0 0 124 316
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 435 110 0 545 142 0 48 0 190 21 473 0 0 494 1229
05:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 111 23 0 134 34 0 9 0 43 5 121 0 0 126 303
05:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 124 17 0 141 31 0 11 0 42 4 105 0 0 109 292
05:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 26 0 116 18 0 8 0 26 5 115 0 0 120 262
05:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 83 15 0 98 22 0 8 0 30 4 89 0 0 93 221
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 408 81 0 489 105 0 36 0 141 18 430 0 0 448 1078
Grand Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 843 191 0 1034 247 0 84 0 331 39 903 0 0 942 2307
Apprch % 0 0 0 0 0 81.5 18.5 0 74.6 0 25.4 0 4.1 95.9 0 0
Total % 0 0 0 0 0 0 36.5 8.3 0 44.8 10.7 0 3.6 0 14.3 1.7 39.1 0 0 40.8
Passenger Cars 0 0 0 0 0 0 830 182 0 1012 241 0 83 0 324 35 879 0 0 914 2250
% Passenger Cars 0 0 0 0 0 0 98.5 95.3 0 97.9 97.6 0 98.8 0 97.9 89.7 97.3 0 0 97 97.5
SU Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 2 0 7 3 0 0 0 3 4 14 0 0 18 28
% SU Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.6 1 0 0.7 1.2 0 0 0 0.9 10.3 1.6 0 0 1.9 1.2
MU Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 7 0 15 3 0 1 0 4 0 10 0 0 10 29
% MU Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.9 3.7 0 1.5 1.2 0 1.2 0 1.2 0 1.1 0 0 1.1 1.3CHA Consulting, Inc.
3 Winners Circle
Albany, NY 12205
(518) 453-4500
www.chacompanies.com

File Name : Corinth-Big Bay PM
Site Code : 00000002
Start Date : 5/20/2015
Page No : 2Corinth Road & Big Bay Rd
Town of Queensbury, Warren County, NY
CHA File 30230
Corinth Road
Corinth Road
Big Bay Road Right 0
0
0
0
Thru 0
0
0
0
Left 0
0
0
0
Peds 0
0
0
0 InOut Total
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0
0
0
Right
0 0 0 0
Thru830 5 8 843
Left182 2 7 191
Peds
0 0 0 0
Out
Total
In
1120
1012
2132
17
7
24
13
15
28
1150
2184
1034
Left
83
0
1
84 Thru
0
0
0
0 Right
241
3
3
247 Peds
0
0
0
0
Out TotalIn217 324 541
6 3 9
7 4 11
230 561 331
Left
0 0 0 0
Thru879 14 10 903
Right35 4 0 39
Peds
0 0 0 0
Total
Out
In
913
914
1827
5
18
23
9
10
19
927
1869
942 5/20/2015 04:00 PM
5/20/2015 05:45 PM

Passenger Cars
SU Trucks
MU Trucks NorthCHA Consulting, Inc.
3 Winners Circle
Albany, NY 12205
(518) 453-4500
www.chacompanies.com

File Name : Corinth-Big Bay PM
Site Code : 00000002
Start Date : 5/20/2015
Page No : 3Corinth Road & Big Bay Rd
Town of Queensbury, Warren County, NY
CHA File 30230
From North Corinth Road
From East Big Bay Road
From South Corinth Road
From West
Start Time Right Thru Left Peds
App. Total Right Thru Left Peds
App. Total Right Thru Left Peds
App. Total Right Thru Left Peds
App. Total Int. Total
Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM – Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:15 PM
04:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0
118 29 0
147 32 0
14 0 46 5 121 0 0 126
319
04:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 101 28 0 129 35 0 9 0 44 4
139 0 0
143 316
04:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 109 29 0 138
41 0 13 0
54 6 118 0 0 124 316
05:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 111 23 0 134 34 0 9 0 43 5 121 0 0 126 303
Total Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 439 109 0 548 142 0 45 0 187 20 499 0 0 519 1254
% App. Total 0 0 0 0 0 80.1 19.9 0 75.9 0 24.1 0 3.9 96.1 0 0
PHF .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .930 .940 .000 .932 .866 .000 .804 .000 .866 .833 .897 .000 .000 .907 .983
Passenger Cars 0 0 0 0 0 0 433 104 0 537 136 0 45 0 181 16 483 0 0 499 1217
% Passenger Cars 0 0 0 0 0 0 98.6 95.4 0 98.0 95.8 0 100 0 96.8 80.0 96.8 0 0 96.1 97.0
SU Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 5 3 0 0 0 3 4 9 0 0 13 21
% SU Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.9 0.9 0 0.9 2.1 0 0 0 1.6 20.0 1.8 0 0 2.5 1.7
MU Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 0 6 3 0 0 0 3 0 7 0 0 7 16
% MU Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 3.7 0 1.1 2.1 0 0 0 1.6 0 1.4 0 0 1.3 1.3CHA Consulting, Inc.
3 Winners Circle
Albany, NY 12205
(518) 453-4500
www.chacompanies.com

File Name : Corinth-Big Bay PM
Site Code : 00000002
Start Date : 5/20/2015
Page No : 4Corinth Road & Big Bay Rd
Town of Queensbury, Warren County, NY
CHA File 30230
Corinth Road
Corinth Road
Big Bay Road Right 0
0
0
0
Thru 0
0
0
0
Left 0
0
0
0
Peds 0
0
0
0 InOut Total
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0
0
0
Right
0 0 0 0
Thru433 4 2 439
Left104 1 4 109
Peds
0 0 0 0
Out
Total
In
619
537
1156
12
5
17
10
6
16
641
1189
548
Left
45
0
0
45 Thru
0
0
0
0 Right
136
3
3
142 Peds
0
0
0
0
Out TotalIn120 181 301
5 3 8
4 3 7
129 316 187
Left
0 0 0 0
Thru483 9 7 499
Right16 4 0 20
Peds
0 0 0 0
Total
Out
In
478
499
977
4
13
17
2
7
9
484
1003
519 Peak Hour Begins at 04:15 PM

Passenger Cars
SU Trucks
MU TrucksPeak Hour Data
NorthCHA Consulting, Inc.
3 Winners Circle
Albany, NY 12205
(518) 453-4500
www.chacompanies.com

File Name : Corinth-Big Bay PM
Site Code : 00000002
Start Date : 5/20/2015
Page No : 5Corinth Road & Big Bay Rd
Town of Queensbury, Warren County, NY
CHA File 30230
From North Corinth Road
From East Big Bay Road
From South Corinth Road
From West
Start Time Right Thru Left Peds
App. Total Right Thru Left Peds
App. Total Right Thru Left Peds
App. Total Right Thru Left Peds
App. Total Int. Total
Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM – Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at:
04:00 PM 04:15 PM 04:00 PM 04:15 PM
+0 mins. 0 0 0 0 0 0
118 29 0
147 34 0 12 0 46 5 121 0 0 126
+15 mins. 0 0 0 0 0 0 101 28 0 129 32 0
14 0 46 4
139 0 0
143
+30 mins. 0 0 0 0 0 0 109 29 0 138 35 0 9 0 44
6 118 0 0 124
+45 mins. 0 0 0 0 0 0 111 23 0 134
41 0 13 0
54 5 121 0 0 126
Total Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 439 109 0 548 142 0 48 0 190 20 499 0 0 519
% App. Total 0 0 0 0 0 80.1 19.9 0 74.7 0 25.3 0 3.9 96.1 0 0
PHF .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .930 .940 .000 .932 .866 .000 .857 .000 .880 .833 .897 .000 .000 .907
Passenger Cars 0 0 0 0 0 0 433 104 0 537 136 0 48 0 184 16 483 0 0 499
% Passenger Cars 0 0 0 0 0 0 98.6 95.4 0 98 95.8 0 100 0 96.8 80 96.8 0 0 96.1
SU Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 5 3 0 0 0 3 4 9 0 0 13
% SU Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.9 0.9 0 0.9 2.1 0 0 0 1.6 20 1.8 0 0 2.5
MU Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 0 6 3 0 0 0 3 0 7 0 0 7
% MU Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 3.7 0 1.1 2.1 0 0 0 1.6 0 1.4 0 0 1.3CHA Consulting, Inc.
3 Winners Circle
Albany, NY 12205
(518) 453-4500
www.chacompanies.com

File Name : Corinth-Big Bay PM
Site Code : 00000002
Start Date : 5/20/2015
Page No : 6Corinth Road & Big Bay Rd
Town of Queensbury, Warren County, NY
CHA File 30230
Corinth Road
Corinth Road
Big Bay Road Right 0
0
0
0
Thru 0
0
0
0
Left 0
0
0
0
Peds 0
0
0
0 In – Peak Hour: 04:00 PM
0
0
0
0
Right
0 0 0 0
Thru433 4 2 439
Left104 1 4 109
Peds
0 0 0 0
In – Peak Hour: 04:15 PM
537 5 6 548
Left
48
0
0
48 Thru
0
0
0
0 Right
136
3
3
142 Peds
0
0
0
0
In – Peak Hour: 04:00 PM 184
3
3
190
Left
0 0 0 0
Thru483 9 7 499
Right16 4 0 20
Peds
0 0 0 0 In – Peak Hour: 04:15 PM
499 13 7 519 Passenger Cars
SU Trucks
MU TrucksPeak Hour Data
NorthCHA Consulting, Inc.
3 Winners Circle
Albany, NY 12205
(518) 453-4500
www.chacompanies.com

CHA Consulting, Inc.3 Winners Circle P.O. Box 5269Albany, New York, United States 12205518 453 3983 dkahlbaugh@chacompanies.com
Count Name: Main St & I87 Exit 18 SB RampsSite Code:Start Date: 05/20/2015Page No: 1
Turning Movement Data

Start Time
I87 X18 SB Off RampMain St WBI87 X18 SB On RampCorinth Rd EBSouthboundWestboundNorthboundEastboundRightThruLeftPedsApp. TotalThruLeftU-TurnPedsApp. TotalPedsApp. TotalRightThruU-TurnPedsApp. TotalInt. Total7:00 AM2403405865102001670065133001984237:15 AM3304117480109001890058142002004637:30 AM4604909581114001950066158002245147:45 AM45043088937800171004717500222481Hourly Total1480167131531940300722002366080084418818:00 AM4205811007683001590047127001744338:15 AM3904208183106001890030141001714418:30 AM300410717994001730043161002044488:45 AM330710104906800158003215500187449Hourly Total1440212135632835100679001525840073617719:00 AM000000000000000000*** BREAK ***——————Hourly Total0000000000000000004:00 PM6805121198593001780034125001594564:15 PM50046096103116002190047103001504654:30 PM6104101029099001890040141001814724:45 PM51051010210311500218104613800184504Hourly Total2300189241938142300804101675070067418975:00 PM48149098101134002350046121001675005:15 PM550510106100121002210029135001644915:30 PM4803908798119002170046109001554595:45 PM340390738510100186202611700143402Hourly Total1851178036438447500859201474820062918526:00 PM000000000000000000Grand Total707174641454141216520030643070221810028837401Approach %48.60.151.3–46.153.90.0—-24.375.70.0—Total %9.60.010.1-19.619.122.30.0-41.4-0.09.529.50.0-39.0-Lights6720706-1378132915880-2917-067720680-27457040% Lights95.00.094.6-94.894.196.1–95.2–96.494.8–95.295.1Mediums28029-5766510-117-021930-114288% Mediums4.00.03.9-3.94.73.1–3.8–3.04.3–4.03.9Articulated Trucks7111-1917130-30-04180-2271% Articulated Trucks1.0100.01.5-1.31.20.8–1.0–0.60.8–0.81.0Bicycles on Road000-0000-0-0020-22% Bicycles on Road0.00.00.0-0.00.00.0–0.0–0.00.1–0.10.0Pedestrians—4—-0-3—-0–% Pedestrians—100.0——100.0——-

CHA Consulting, Inc.3 Winners Circle P.O. Box 5269Albany, New York, United States 12205518 453 3983 dkahlbaugh@chacompanies.com
Count Name: Main St & I87 Exit 18 SB RampsSite Code:Start Date: 05/20/2015Page No: 2
Turning Movement Data Plot05/20/2015 7:00 AMEnding At05/20/2015 6:15 PMLightsMediumsArticulated TrucksBicycles on RoadPedestrians
I87 X18 SB Off Ramp [SB]OutInTotal0137813780575701919000000014541454
67207060280290711100000000470717464RTLP

2265022657207218018000000235502355OutInTotalI87 X18 SB On Ramp [NB]
P000033

2927 0 2 29 122 2774 Out 3064 0 0 30 117 2917 In 5991 0 2 59 239 5691 Total Main St WB [WB] T 1412 0 0 17 66 1329 L 1652 0 0 13 51 1588 U 0 0 0 0 0 0 P 0 0 0 0 0 0 Corinth Rd EB [EB] Total 4746 208 46 2 0 5002 In 2745 114 22 2 0 2883 Out 2001 94 24 0 0 2119 0 0 0 0 0 0 U 2068 93 18 2 0 2181 T 677 21 4 0 0 702 R 0 0 0 0 0 0 P

CHA Consulting, Inc.3 Winners Circle P.O. Box 5269Albany, New York, United States 12205518 453 3983 dkahlbaugh@chacompanies.com
Count Name: Main St & I87 Exit 18 SB RampsSite Code:Start Date: 05/20/2015Page No: 3
Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (7:15 AM)

Start Time
I87 X18 SB Off RampMain St WBI87 X18 SB On RampCorinth Rd EBSouthboundWestboundNorthboundEastboundRightThruLeftPedsApp. TotalThruLeftU-TurnPedsApp. TotalPedsApp. TotalRightThruU-TurnPedsApp. TotalInt. Total7:15 AM3304117480109001890058142002004637:30 AM4604909581114001950066158002245147:45 AM450430889378001710047175002224818:00 AM420581100768300159004712700174433Total166019123573303840071400218602008201891Approach %46.50.053.5–46.253.80.0—-26.673.40.0—Total %8.80.010.1-18.917.520.30.0-37.8-0.011.531.80.0-43.4-PHF0.9020.0000.823-0.8930.8870.8420.000-0.915-0.0000.8260.8600.000-0.9150.920Lights1530183-3363023610-663-02145600-7741773% Lights92.2-95.8-94.191.594.0–92.9–98.293.0–94.493.8Mediums1006-1626220-48-04370-41105% Mediums6.0-3.1-4.57.95.7–6.7–1.86.1–5.05.6Articulated Trucks302-5210-3-0050-513% Articulated Trucks1.8-1.0-1.40.60.3–0.4–0.00.8–0.60.7Bicycles on Road000-0000-0-0000-00% Bicycles on Road0.0-0.0-0.00.00.0–0.0–0.00.0–0.00.0Pedestrians—2—-0-0—-0–% Pedestrians—100.0————–

CHA Consulting, Inc.3 Winners Circle P.O. Box 5269Albany, New York, United States 12205518 453 3983 dkahlbaugh@chacompanies.com
Count Name: Main St & I87 Exit 18 SB RampsSite Code:Start Date: 05/20/2015Page No: 4
Turning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (7:15 AM)Peak Hour Data
05/20/2015 7:15 AMEnding At05/20/2015 8:15 AMLightsMediumsArticulated TrucksBicycles on RoadPedestrians
I87 X18 SB Off Ramp [SB]OutInTotal0336336016160550000000357357
153018301006030200000000216601912RTLP

5750575260261010000006020602OutInTotalI87 X18 SB On Ramp [NB]
P000000

793 0 0 7 43 743 Out 714 0 0 3 48 663 In 1507 0 0 10 91 1406 Total Main St WB [WB] T 330 0 0 2 26 302 L 384 0 0 1 22 361 U 0 0 0 0 0 0 P 0 0 0 0 0 0 Corinth Rd EB [EB] Total 1229 77 10 0 0 1316 In 774 41 5 0 0 820 Out 455 36 5 0 0 496 0 0 0 0 0 0 U 560 37 5 0 0 602 T 214 4 0 0 0 218 R 0 0 0 0 0 0 P

CHA Consulting, Inc.3 Winners Circle P.O. Box 5269Albany, New York, United States 12205518 453 3983 dkahlbaugh@chacompanies.com
Count Name: Main St & I87 Exit 18 SB RampsSite Code:Start Date: 05/20/2015Page No: 5
Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (4:30 PM)

Start Time
I87 X18 SB Off RampMain St WBI87 X18 SB On RampCorinth Rd EBSouthboundWestboundNorthboundEastboundRightThruLeftPedsApp. TotalThruLeftU-TurnPedsApp. TotalPedsApp. TotalRightThruU-TurnPedsApp. TotalInt. Total4:30 PM6104101029099001890040141001814724:45 PM510510102103115002181046138001845045:00 PM48149098101134002350046121001675005:15 PM55051010610012100221002913500164491Total215119204083944690086310161535006961967Approach %52.70.247.1–45.754.30.0—-23.176.90.0—Total %10.90.19.8-20.720.023.80.0-43.9-0.08.227.20.0-35.4-PHF0.8810.2500.941-0.9620.9560.8750.000-0.918-0.0000.8750.9490.000-0.9460.976Lights2090180-3893824600-842-01595130-6721903% Lights97.20.093.8-95.397.098.1–97.6–98.895.9–96.696.7Mediums409-13940-13-01160-1743% Mediums1.90.04.7-3.22.30.9–1.5–0.63.0–2.42.2Articulated Trucks213-6350-8-0160-721% Articulated Trucks0.9100.01.6-1.50.81.1–0.9–0.61.1–1.01.1Bicycles on Road000-0000-0-0000-00% Bicycles on Road0.00.00.0-0.00.00.0–0.0–0.00.0–0.00.0Pedestrians—0—-0-1—-0–% Pedestrians———-100.0——-

CHA Consulting, Inc.3 Winners Circle P.O. Box 5269Albany, New York, United States 12205518 453 3983 dkahlbaugh@chacompanies.com
Count Name: Main St & I87 Exit 18 SB RampsSite Code:Start Date: 05/20/2015Page No: 6
Turning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (4:30 PM)Peak Hour Data
05/20/2015 4:30 PMEnding At05/20/2015 5:30 PMLightsMediumsArticulated TrucksBicycles on RoadPedestrians
I87 X18 SB Off Ramp [SB]OutInTotal0389389013130660000000408408
20901800409021300000000021511920RTLP

61906195057070000006310631OutInTotalI87 X18 SB On Ramp [NB]
P000011

727 0 0 9 25 693 Out 863 0 0 8 13 842 In 1590 0 0 17 38 1535 Total Main St WB [WB] T 394 0 0 3 9 382 L 469 0 0 5 4 460 U 0 0 0 0 0 0 P 0 0 0 0 0 0 Corinth Rd EB [EB] Total 1263 30 12 0 0 1305 In 672 17 7 0 0 696 Out 591 13 5 0 0 609 0 0 0 0 0 0 U 513 16 6 0 0 535 T 159 1 1 0 0 161 R 0 0 0 0 0 0 P

CHA Consulting, Inc.3 Winners Circle P.O. Box 5269Albany, New York, United States 12205518 453 3983 dkahlbaugh@chacompanies.com
Count Name: Main St & I87 Exit 18 SB RampsSite Code:Start Date: 05/20/2015Page No: 7

CHA Consulting, Inc.3 Winners Circle P.O. Box 5269Albany, New York, United States 12205518 453 3983 dkahlbaugh@chacompanies.com
Count Name: Main Street & I87 Exit 18 NBRampsSite Code:Start Date: 05/20/2015Page No: 1
Turning Movement Data

Start Time
I87 X18 NB On-RampMain St WBI87 X18 NB Off-RampMain St EBSouthboundWestboundNorthboundEastbound
PedsApp. TotalRightRight onRedThruU-TurnPedsApp. TotalRightRight onRedThruLeftPedsApp. TotalThruLeftU-TurnPedsApp. TotalInt. Total
7:00 AM004731490019919450200849370001634467:15 AM10515168002245839031012812052001725247:30 AM00530150002039346036017513767002045827:45 AM0048713100186916904302031407100211600Hourly Total101991559800812261199013005904902600075021528:00 AM00441123001681793030014014949001985068:15 AM00400165002052569023011711762001795018:30 AM00590151002103670020012612079001995358:45 AM005401390019320560210971715700228518Hourly Total001971578007769828809404805572470080420609:00 AM00000000000000000000*** BREAK ***——————–Hourly Total000000000000000000004:00 PM205715138002107960041018012750001775674:15 PM0054616600226866005201989253001455694:30 PM00621157002206247043015212754001815534:45 PM0061115500217884205601861186400182585Hourly Total202342361600873315209019207164642210068522745:00 PM00683195012666553045016311957001766055:15 PM00610182002434863050016113951001905945:30 PM00621195002586268039016910250001525795:45 PM0047116200210554403721361035300156502Hourly Total00238573401977230228017126294632110067422806:00 PM00000000000000000000Grand Total3086844252601343890492405872241519749390029138766Approach %–25.21.373.50.0–37.438.30.024.3–67.832.20.0—Total %-0.09.90.528.80.0-39.210.310.50.06.7-27.522.510.70.0-33.2-Lights-08194324280-32908688930555-231618898960-27858391% Lights–94.497.796.1–95.796.096.6-94.5-95.995.795.4–95.695.7Mediums-0351720-1082625026-7756390-95280% Mediums–4.02.32.9–3.12.92.7-4.4-3.22.84.2–3.33.2Articulated Trucks-0130250-3810606-222340-2787% Articulated Trucks–1.50.01.0–1.11.10.6-1.0-0.91.20.4–0.91.0Bicycles on Road-01010-20000-0600-68% Bicycles on Road–0.10.00.0–0.10.00.0-0.0-0.00.30.0–0.20.1Pedestrians3—–1—–2—-0–% Pedestrians100.0—–100.0—–100.0——-

CHA Consulting, Inc.3 Winners Circle P.O. Box 5269Albany, New York, United States 12205518 453 3983 dkahlbaugh@chacompanies.com
Count Name: Main Street & I87 Exit 18 NBRampsSite Code:Start Date: 05/20/2015Page No: 2
Turning Movement Data Plot05/20/2015 7:00 AMEnding At05/20/2015 6:15 PMLightsMediumsArticulated TrucksBicycles on RoadPedestrians
I87 X18 NB On-RampOutInTotal1758017587507517017101000185101851
000033P

0231623160777702222000000024152415OutInTotalI87 X18 NB Off-Ramp
LTRP5550176102605106016000000002587018282

3802 0 6 39 107 3650 Out 3438 0 2 38 108 3290 In 7240 0 8 77 215 6940 Total Main St WB [WB] R 912 0 1 13 36 862 T 2526 0 1 25 72 2428 U 0 0 0 0 0 0 P 1 1 0 0 0 0 Main St EB [EB] Total 5768 193 58 7 0 6026 In 2785 95 27 6 0 2913 Out 2983 98 31 1 0 3113 0 0 0 0 0 0 U 896 39 4 0 0 939 L 1889 56 23 6 0 1974 T 0 0 0 0 0 0 P

CHA Consulting, Inc.3 Winners Circle P.O. Box 5269Albany, New York, United States 12205518 453 3983 dkahlbaugh@chacompanies.com
Count Name: Main Street & I87 Exit 18 NBRampsSite Code:Start Date: 05/20/2015Page No: 3
Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (7:15 AM)

Start Time
I87 X18 NB On-RampMain St WBI87 X18 NB Off-RampMain St EBSouthboundWestboundNorthboundEastbound
PedsApp. TotalRightRight onRedThruU-TurnPedsApp. TotalRightRight onRedThruLeftPedsApp. TotalThruLeftU-TurnPedsApp. TotalInt. Total
7:15 AM10515168002245839031012812052001725247:30 AM00530150002039346036017513767002045827:45 AM00487131001869169043020314071002116008:00 AM0044112300168179303001401494900198506Total10196135720078125924701400646546239007852212Approach %–25.11.773.20.0–40.138.20.021.7–69.630.40.0—Total %-0.08.90.625.90.0-35.311.711.20.06.3-29.224.710.80.0-35.5-PHF-0.0000.9250.4640.8510.000-0.8720.6960.6640.0000.814-0.7960.9160.8420.000-0.9300.922Lights-0176125440-7322472400127-6145222240-7462092% Lights–89.892.395.1–93.795.497.2-90.7-95.095.693.7–95.094.6Mediums-0161240-41106013-2917140-31101% Mediums–8.27.74.2–5.23.92.4-9.3-4.53.15.9–3.94.6Articulated Trucks-04040-82100-3510-617% Articulated Trucks–2.00.00.7–1.00.80.4-0.0-0.50.90.4–0.80.8Bicycles on Road-00000-00000-0200-22% Bicycles on Road–0.00.00.0–0.00.00.0-0.0-0.00.40.0–0.30.1Pedestrians1—–0—–0—-0–% Pedestrians100.0——————-

CHA Consulting, Inc.3 Winners Circle P.O. Box 5269Albany, New York, United States 12205518 453 3983 dkahlbaugh@chacompanies.com
Count Name: Main Street & I87 Exit 18 NBRampsSite Code:Start Date: 05/20/2015Page No: 4
Turning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (7:15 AM)Peak Hour Data
05/20/2015 7:15 AMEnding At05/20/2015 8:15 AMLightsMediumsArticulated TrucksBicycles on RoadPedestrians
I87 X18 NB On-RampOutInTotal4120412310315050000004480448
000011P

0614614029290330000000646646OutInTotalI87 X18 NB Off-Ramp
LTRP1270487013016000300000000014005060

1052 0 2 8 33 1009 Out 781 0 0 8 41 732 In 1833 0 2 16 74 1741 Total Main St WB [WB] R 209 0 0 4 17 188 T 572 0 0 4 24 544 U 0 0 0 0 0 0 P 0 0 0 0 0 0 Main St EB [EB] Total 1417 68 10 2 0 1497 In 746 31 6 2 0 785 Out 671 37 4 0 0 712 0 0 0 0 0 0 U 224 14 1 0 0 239 L 522 17 5 2 0 546 T 0 0 0 0 0 0 P

CHA Consulting, Inc.3 Winners Circle P.O. Box 5269Albany, New York, United States 12205518 453 3983 dkahlbaugh@chacompanies.com
Count Name: Main Street & I87 Exit 18 NBRampsSite Code:Start Date: 05/20/2015Page No: 5
Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (4:45 PM)

Start Time
I87 X18 NB On-RampMain St WBI87 X18 NB Off-RampMain St EBSouthboundWestboundNorthboundEastbound
PedsApp. TotalRightRight onRedThruU-TurnPedsApp. TotalRightRight onRedThruLeftPedsApp. TotalThruLeftU-TurnPedsApp. TotalInt. Total
4:45 PM00611155002178842056018611864001825855:00 PM00683195012666553045016311957001766055:15 PM00610182002434863050016113951001905945:30 PM0062119500258626803901691025000152579Total0025257270198426322601900679478222007002363Approach %–25.60.573.90.0–38.733.30.028.0–68.331.70.0—Total %-0.010.70.230.80.0-41.611.19.60.08.0-28.720.29.40.0-29.6-PHF-0.0000.9260.4170.9320.000-0.9250.7470.8310.0000.848-0.9130.8600.8670.000-0.9210.976Lights-024457160-9652542220186-6624572160-6732300% Lights–96.8100.098.5–98.196.698.2-97.9-97.595.697.3–96.197.3Mediums-05060-116302-111640-2042% Mediums–2.00.00.8–1.12.31.3-1.1-1.63.31.8–2.91.8Articulated Trucks-02050-73102-6420-619% Articulated Trucks–0.80.00.7–0.71.10.4-1.1-0.90.80.9–0.90.8Bicycles on Road-01000-10000-0100-12% Bicycles on Road–0.40.00.0–0.10.00.0-0.0-0.00.20.0–0.10.1Pedestrians0—–1—–0—-0–% Pedestrians——100.0————-

CHA Consulting, Inc.3 Winners Circle P.O. Box 5269Albany, New York, United States 12205518 453 3983 dkahlbaugh@chacompanies.com
Count Name: Main Street & I87 Exit 18 NBRampsSite Code:Start Date: 05/20/2015Page No: 6
Turning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (4:45 PM)Peak Hour Data
05/20/2015 4:45 PMEnding At05/20/2015 5:45 PMLightsMediumsArticulated TrucksBicycles on RoadPedestrians
I87 X18 NB On-RampOutInTotal46504659094041010004790479
000000P

0662662011110660000000679679OutInTotalI87 X18 NB Off-Ramp
LTRP18604760209020400000000019004890

967 0 1 8 25 933 Out 984 0 1 7 11 965 In 1951 0 2 15 36 1898 Total Main St WB [WB] R 257 0 1 2 5 249 T 727 0 0 5 6 716 U 0 0 0 0 0 0 P 1 1 0 0 0 0 Main St EB [EB] Total 1575 28 13 1 0 1617 In 673 20 6 1 0 700 Out 902 8 7 0 0 917 0 0 0 0 0 0 U 216 4 2 0 0 222 L 457 16 4 1 0 478 T 0 0 0 0 0 0 P

CHA Consulting, Inc.3 Winners Circle P.O. Box 5269Albany, New York, United States 12205518 453 3983 dkahlbaugh@chacompanies.com
Count Name: Main Street & I87 Exit 18 NBRampsSite Code:Start Date: 05/20/2015Page No: 7

CHA Consulting, Inc.3 Winners Circle P.O. Box 5269Albany, New York, United States 12205518 453 3983 dkahlbaugh@chacompanies.com
Count Name: Main St & Big Boom RdSite Code:Start Date: 05/21/2015Page No: 1
Turning Movement Data

Start Time
Media Drive SBMain Street WBBig Boom Road NBMain Street EBSouthboundWestboundNorthboundEastbound
RightThruLeftU-TurnPedsApp.TotalRightThruLeftU-TurnPedsApp.TotalRightThruLeftU-TurnPedsApp.TotalRightThruLeftU-TurnPedsApp.TotalInt. Total
7:00 AM4102004311413001455160012313914001563567:15 AM511201544155110017011110013114512001583957:30 AM5735006531382001438140013220831002414627:45 AM3806004471604001716211001932215000274508Hourly Total1874150120615594200062920532005797131070082917218:00 AM3330003611376001443190013318436002234168:15 AM3513003931485001564170012619225002234308:30 AM4004004441345001436190016119126002184218:45 AM2985004261449001596010001641973600237454Hourly Total137121200161145632500602193350057147641230090117219:00 AM0000000000000000000000000*** BREAK ***————————-Hourly Total00000000000000000000000004:00 PM5666006841574001654060010116434001994424:15 PM46540155316950017791100020322528002565084:30 PM66330072316940017661100017219727002264914:45 PM5224005811659001759210002121722500199453Hourly Total22016170125311660220069328436006887581140088018945:00 PM52230057116960017651160022319435002324875:15 PM572210624155701166315039120453102594965:30 PM45460055517090018475130025120434002395035:45 PM3028014041288001401009001931963600235434Hourly Total18410191121414622300166625743037587981581096519206:00 PM0000000000000000000000000Grand Total728426313834542439970125909219146032573930335021035757256Approach %87.35.07.60.1–2.194.23.70.0–35.87.456.80.0–1.184.814.00.0—Total %10.00.60.90.0-11.50.733.61.30.0-35.71.30.32.00.0-3.50.541.86.90.0-49.3-Lights71040621-813522317860-245581181160-2153129354961-34636946% Lights97.595.298.4100.0-97.596.395.088.7–94.888.094.779.5–83.779.596.898.8100.0-96.995.7Mediums17210-20290110-103111270-3977660-89251% Mediums2.34.81.60.0-2.43.73.711.3–4.012.05.318.5–15.217.92.51.20.0-2.53.5Articulated Trucks1000-103200-320030-312100-2258% ArticulatedTrucks0.10.00.00.0-0.10.01.30.0–1.20.00.02.1–1.22.60.70.00.0-0.60.8
Bicycles on Road0000-00000-00000-00100-11% Bicycles onRoad0.00.00.00.0-0.00.00.00.0–0.00.00.00.0–0.00.00.00.00.0-0.00.0
Pedestrians—-3—–1—–3—–0–

% Pedestrians—-100.0—–100.0—–100.0——–

CHA Consulting, Inc.3 Winners Circle P.O. Box 5269Albany, New York, United States 12205518 453 3983 dkahlbaugh@chacompanies.com
Count Name: Main St & Big Boom RdSite Code:Start Date: 05/21/2015Page No: 3
Turning Movement Data Plot05/21/2015 7:00 AMEnding At05/21/2015 6:15 PMLightsMediumsArticulated TrucksBicycles on RoadPedestrians
Media Drive SB [SB]OutInTotal5678131380920290110000005768341410
710406210172100100000000000003728426313RTLUP

157215372203959134000000178257435OutInTotalBig Boom Road NB [NB]
ULTRP0116188100271110030000000000003014619923

3188 0 1 21 88 3078 Out 2590 0 0 32 103 2455 In 5778 0 1 53 191 5533 Total Main Street WB [WB] R 54 0 0 0 2 52 T 2439 0 0 32 90 2317 L 97 0 0 0 11 86 U 0 0 0 0 0 0 P 1 1 0 0 0 0 Main Street EB [EB] Total 6607 223 58 1 0 6889 In 3463 89 22 1 0 3575 Out 3144 134 36 0 0 3314 1 0 0 0 0 1 U 496 6 0 0 0 502 L 2935 76 21 1 0 3033 T 31 7 1 0 0 39 R 0 0 0 0 0 0 P

CHA Consulting, Inc.3 Winners Circle P.O. Box 5269Albany, New York, United States 12205518 453 3983 dkahlbaugh@chacompanies.com
Count Name: Main St & Big Boom RdSite Code:Start Date: 05/21/2015Page No: 4
Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (7:30 AM)

Start Time
Media Drive SBMain Street WBBig Boom Road NBMain Street EBSouthboundWestboundNorthboundEastbound
RightThruLeftU-TurnPedsApp.TotalRightThruLeftU-TurnPedsApp.TotalRightThruLeftU-TurnPedsApp.TotalRightThruLeftU-TurnPedsApp.TotalInt. Total
7:30 AM5735006531382001438140013220831002414627:45 AM38060044716040017162110019322150002745088:00 AM3330003611376001443190013318436002234168:15 AM351300393148500156417001261922500223430Total1637140018414583170061421531005714805142009611816Approach %88.63.87.60.0–2.395.02.80.0–36.88.854.40.0–1.583.814.80.0—Total %9.00.40.80.0-10.10.832.10.90.0-33.81.20.31.70.0-3.10.844.37.80.0-52.9-PHF0.7150.5830.5830.000-0.7080.5000.9110.7080.000-0.8980.6560.6250.7050.000-0.7500.5830.9110.7100.000-0.8770.894Lights1587140-17914542150-571185230-46127811370-9301726% Lights96.9100.0100.0–97.3100.093.088.2–93.085.7100.074.2–80.785.797.096.5–96.895.0Mediums5000-503620-383060-921850-2577% Mediums3.10.00.0–2.70.06.211.8–6.214.30.019.4–15.814.32.23.5–2.64.2Articulated Trucks0000-00500-50020-20600-613% ArticulatedTrucks0.00.00.0–0.00.00.90.0–0.80.00.06.5–3.50.00.70.0–0.60.7
Bicycles on Road0000-00000-00000-00000-00% Bicycles onRoad0.00.00.0–0.00.00.00.0–0.00.00.00.0–0.00.00.00.0–0.00.0
Pedestrians—-0—–0—–0—–0–% Pedestrians————————-

CHA Consulting, Inc.3 Winners Circle P.O. Box 5269Albany, New York, United States 12205518 453 3983 dkahlbaugh@chacompanies.com
Count Name: Main St & Big Boom RdSite Code:Start Date: 05/21/2015Page No: 5
Turning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (7:30 AM)Peak Hour Data
05/21/2015 7:30 AMEnding At05/21/2015 8:30 AMLightsMediumsArticulated TrucksBicycles on RoadPedestrians
Media Drive SB [SB]OutInTotal1561793355510000000000161184345
158714005000000000000000000016371400RTLUP

3446804913022000000385795OutInTotalBig Boom Road NB [NB]
ULTRP0235180060300200000000000000315210

840 0 0 6 21 813 Out 614 0 0 5 38 571 In 1454 0 0 11 59 1384 Total Main Street WB [WB] R 14 0 0 0 0 14 T 583 0 0 5 36 542 L 17 0 0 0 2 15 U 0 0 0 0 0 0 P 0 0 0 0 0 0 Main Street EB [EB] Total 1653 72 13 0 0 1738 In 930 25 6 0 0 961 Out 723 47 7 0 0 777 0 0 0 0 0 0 U 137 5 0 0 0 142 L 781 18 6 0 0 805 T 12 2 0 0 0 14 R 0 0 0 0 0 0 P

CHA Consulting, Inc.3 Winners Circle P.O. Box 5269Albany, New York, United States 12205518 453 3983 dkahlbaugh@chacompanies.com
Count Name: Main St & Big Boom RdSite Code:Start Date: 05/21/2015Page No: 6
Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (4:15 PM)

Start Time
Media Drive SBMain Street WBBig Boom Road NBMain Street EBSouthboundWestboundNorthboundEastbound
RightThruLeftU-TurnPedsApp.TotalRightThruLeftU-TurnPedsApp.TotalRightThruLeftU-TurnPedsApp.TotalRightThruLeftU-TurnPedsApp.TotalInt. Total
4:15 PM46540155316950017791100020322528002565084:30 PM66330072316940017661100017219727002264914:45 PM52240058116590017592100021217225001994535:00 PM5223005711696001765116002231943500232487Total2161214012428672240070429546008010788115009131939Approach %89.35.05.80.0–1.195.53.40.0–36.36.357.50.0–1.186.312.60.0—Total %11.10.60.70.0-12.50.434.71.20.0-36.31.50.32.40.0-4.10.540.65.90.0-47.1-PHF0.8180.6000.8750.000-0.8400.6670.9940.6670.000-0.9940.8060.6250.7190.000-0.9090.8330.8760.8210.000-0.8920.954Lights21111140-2368648220-678284390-7177651140-8861871% Lights97.791.7100.0–97.5100.096.491.7–96.396.680.084.8–88.870.097.199.1–97.096.5Mediums4100-501920-211170-931810-2257% Mediums1.98.30.0–2.10.02.88.3–3.03.420.015.2–11.330.02.30.9–2.42.9Articulated Trucks1000-10500-50000-00400-410% ArticulatedTrucks0.50.00.0–0.40.00.70.0–0.70.00.00.0–0.00.00.50.0–0.40.5
Bicycles on Road0000-00000-00000-00100-11% Bicycles onRoad0.00.00.0–0.00.00.00.0–0.00.00.00.0–0.00.00.10.0–0.10.1
Pedestrians—-1—–0—–0—–0–% Pedestrians—-100.0——————–

CHA Consulting, Inc.3 Winners Circle P.O. Box 5269Albany, New York, United States 12205518 453 3983 dkahlbaugh@chacompanies.com
Count Name: Main St & Big Boom RdSite Code:Start Date: 05/21/2015Page No: 7
Turning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (4:15 PM)Peak Hour Data
05/21/2015 4:15 PMEnding At05/21/2015 5:15 PMLightsMediumsArticulated TrucksBicycles on RoadPedestrians
Media Drive SB [SB]OutInTotal126236362257011000000128242370
21111140041000100000000000001216121401RTLUP

407111169150000000004680126OutInTotalBig Boom Road NB [NB]
ULTRP0394280071100000000000000000465290

831 0 1 4 19 807 Out 704 0 0 5 21 678 In 1535 0 1 9 40 1485 Total Main Street WB [WB] R 8 0 0 0 0 8 T 672 0 0 5 19 648 L 24 0 0 0 2 22 U 0 0 0 0 0 0 P 0 0 0 0 0 0 Main Street EB [EB] Total 1784 52 10 1 0 1847 In 886 22 4 1 0 913 Out 898 30 6 0 0 934 0 0 0 0 0 0 U 114 1 0 0 0 115 L 765 18 4 1 0 788 T 7 3 0 0 0 10 R 0 0 0 0 0 0 P

CHA Consulting, Inc.3 Winners Circle P.O. Box 5269Albany, New York, United States 12205518 453 3983 dkahlbaugh@chacompanies.com
Count Name: Main St & Big Boom RdSite Code:Start Date: 05/21/2015Page No: 8

File Name : Main-Pine AM
Site Code : 00000003
Start Date : 5/21/2015
Page No : 1Main Street & Pine Street
Town of Queensbury, Warren County, NY
CHA File 30230
Groups Printed- Passenger Cars – SU Trucks – MU Trucks
Pine Street
From North Main Street
From East Pine Street
From South Main Street
From West
Start Time Right Thru Left Peds
App. Total Right Thru Left Peds
App. Total Right Thru Left Peds
App. Total Right Thru Left Peds
App. Total Int. Total
07:00 AM 5 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 9
07:15 AM 10 0 2 0 12 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 17
07:30 AM 12 0 4 0 16 2 0 0 0 2 1 0 2 0 3 0 0 6 0 6 27
07:45 AM 5 0 2 0 7 4 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 11 22
Total 32 0 8 0 40 7 0 1 0 8 1 0 2 0 3 0 0 24 0 24 75
08:00 AM 5 0 1 0 6 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 7 0 7 15
08:15 AM 6 0 2 0 8 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 6 0 7 18
08:30 AM 9 0 1 0 10 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 7 0 7 19
08:45 AM 4 0 5 0 9 4 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 17
Total 24 0 9 0 33 8 0 0 0 8 0 0 3 0 3 1 0 24 0 25 69
Grand Total 56 0 17 0 73 15 0 1 0 16 1 0 5 0 6 1 0 48 0 49 144
Apprch % 76.7 0 23.3 0 93.8 0 6.2 0 16.7 0 83.3 0 2 0 98 0
Total % 38.9 0 11.8 0 50.7 10.4 0 0.7 0 11.1 0.7 0 3.5 0 4.2 0.7 0 33.3 0 34
Passenger Cars 51 0 16 0 67 14 0 1 0 15 1 0 5 0 6 1 0 44 0 45 133
% Passenger Cars 91.1 0 94.1 0 91.8 93.3 0 100 0 93.8 100 0 100 0 100 100 0 91.7 0 91.8 92.4
SU Trucks 3 0 1 0 4 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 7
% SU Trucks 5.4 0 5.9 0 5.5 6.7 0 0 0 6.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.2 0 4.1 4.9
MU Trucks 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 4
% MU Trucks 3.6 0 0 0 2.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.2 0 4.1 2.8CHA Consulting, Inc.
3 Winners Circle
Albany, NY 12205
(518) 453-4500
www.chacompanies.com

File Name : Main-Pine AM
Site Code : 00000003
Start Date : 5/21/2015
Page No : 2Main Street & Pine Street
Town of Queensbury, Warren County, NY
CHA File 30230
Pine Street Main Street
Main Street
Pine Street Right 51
3
2
56
Thru 0
0
0
0
Left 16
1
0
17
Peds 0
0
0
0 InOut Total
58 67 125
3 4 7
2 2 4
63
136
73
Right14 1 0 15
Thru
0 0 0 0
Left
1 0 0 1 Peds
0 0 0 0
Out
Total
In
17
15
32
1
1
2
0
0
0
18
34
16
Left
5
0
0
5 Thru
0
0
0
0 Right
1
0
0
1 Peds
0
0
0
0
Out TotalIn2 6 8
0 0 0
0 0 0
2 8 6
Left44 2 2 48
Thru
0 0 0 0
Right
1 0 0 1
Peds
0 0 0 0
Total
Out
In
56
45
101
3
2
5
2
2
4
61
110
49 5/21/2015 07:00 AM
5/21/2015 08:45 AM

Passenger Cars
SU Trucks
MU Trucks NorthCHA Consulting, Inc.
3 Winners Circle
Albany, NY 12205
(518) 453-4500
www.chacompanies.com

File Name : Main-Pine AM
Site Code : 00000003
Start Date : 5/21/2015
Page No : 3Main Street & Pine Street
Town of Queensbury, Warren County, NY
CHA File 30230
Pine Street
From North Main Street
From East Pine Street
From South Main Street
From West
Start Time Right Thru Left Peds
App. Total Right Thru Left Peds
App. Total Right Thru Left Peds
App. Total Right Thru Left Peds
App. Total Int. Total
Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM – Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:30 AM
07:30 AM
12 0
4 0
16 2 0 0 0 2
1 0
2 0
3 0 0 6 0 6
27
07:45 AM 5 0 2 0 7
4 0 0 0
4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
11 0
11 22
08:00 AM 5 0 1 0 6 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 7 0 7 15
08:15 AM 6 0 2 0 8 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 1
1 0 6 0 7 18
Total Volume 28 0 9 0 37 9 0 0 0 9 1 0 4 0 5 1 0 30 0 31 82
% App. Total 75.7 0 24.3 0 100 0 0 0 20 0 80 0 3.2 0 96.8 0
PHF .583 .000 .563 .000 .578 .563 .000 .000 .000 .563 .250 .000 .500 .000 .417 .250 .000 .682 .000 .705 .759
Passenger Cars 24 0 9 0 33 8 0 0 0 8 1 0 4 0 5 1 0 29 0 30 76
% Passenger Cars 85.7 0 100 0 89.2 88.9 0 0 0 88.9 100 0 100 0 100 100 0 96.7 0 96.8 92.7
SU Trucks 3 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
% SU Trucks 10.7 0 0 0 8.1 11.1 0 0 0 11.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.9
MU Trucks 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2
% MU Trucks 3.6 0 0 0 2.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.3 0 3.2 2.4CHA Consulting, Inc.
3 Winners Circle
Albany, NY 12205
(518) 453-4500
www.chacompanies.com

File Name : Main-Pine AM
Site Code : 00000003
Start Date : 5/21/2015
Page No : 4Main Street & Pine Street
Town of Queensbury, Warren County, NY
CHA File 30230
Pine Street Main Street
Main Street
Pine Street Right 24
3
1
28
Thru 0
0
0
0
Left 9
0
0
9
Peds 0
0
0
0 InOut Total
37 33 70
1 3 4
1 1 2
39
76
37
Right
8 1 0 9
Thru
0 0 0 0
Left
0 0 0 0 Peds
0 0 0 0
Out
Total
In
10
8
18
0
1
1
0
0
0
10
19
9
Left
4
0
0
4 Thru
0
0
0
0 Right
1
0
0
1 Peds
0
0
0
0
Out TotalIn1 5 6
0 0 0
0 0 0
1 6 5
Left29 0 1 30
Thru
0 0 0 0
Right
1 0 0 1
Peds
0 0 0 0
Total
Out
In
28
30
58
3
0
3
1
1
2
32
63
31 Peak Hour Begins at 07:30 AM

Passenger Cars
SU Trucks
MU TrucksPeak Hour Data
NorthCHA Consulting, Inc.
3 Winners Circle
Albany, NY 12205
(518) 453-4500
www.chacompanies.com

File Name : Main-Pine AM
Site Code : 00000003
Start Date : 5/21/2015
Page No : 5Main Street & Pine Street
Town of Queensbury, Warren County, NY
CHA File 30230
Pine Street
From North Main Street
From East Pine Street
From South Main Street
From West
Start Time Right Thru Left Peds
App. Total Right Thru Left Peds
App. Total Right Thru Left Peds
App. Total Right Thru Left Peds
App. Total Int. Total
Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM – Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at:
07:15 AM 07:15 AM 07:30 AM 07:45 AM
+0 mins. 10 0 2 0 12 1 0
1 0 2
1 0
2 0
3 0 0
11 0
11
+15 mins.
12 0
4 0
16 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 7
+30 mins. 5 0 2 0 7
4 0 0 0
4 0 0 1 0 1
1 0 6 0 7
+45 mins. 5 0 1 0 6 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 7 0 7
Total Volume 32 0 9 0 41 8 0 1 0 9 1 0 4 0 5 1 0 31 0 32
% App. Total 78 0 22 0 88.9 0 11.1 0 20 0 80 0 3.1 0 96.9 0
PHF .667 .000 .563 .000 .641 .500 .000 .250 .000 .563 .250 .000 .500 .000 .417 .250 .000 .705 .000 .727
Passenger Cars 27 0 9 0 36 7 0 1 0 8 1 0 4 0 5 1 0 28 0 29
% Passenger Cars 84.4 0 100 0 87.8 87.5 0 100 0 88.9 100 0 100 0 100 100 0 90.3 0 90.6
SU Trucks 3 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2
% SU Trucks 9.4 0 0 0 7.3 12.5 0 0 0 11.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.5 0 6.2
MU Trucks 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
% MU Trucks 6.2 0 0 0 4.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.2 0 3.1CHA Consulting, Inc.
3 Winners Circle
Albany, NY 12205
(518) 453-4500
www.chacompanies.com

File Name : Main-Pine AM
Site Code : 00000003
Start Date : 5/21/2015
Page No : 6Main Street & Pine Street
Town of Queensbury, Warren County, NY
CHA File 30230
Pine Street Main Street
Main Street
Pine Street Right 27
3
2
32
Thru 0
0
0
0
Left 9
0
0
9
Peds 0
0
0
0 In – Peak Hour: 07:15 AM
36
3
2
41
Right
7 1 0 8
Thru
0 0 0 0
Left
1 0 0 1 Peds
0 0 0 0
In – Peak Hour: 07:15 AM
8 1 0 9
Left
4
0
0
4 Thru
0
0
0
0 Right
1
0
0
1 Peds
0
0
0
0
In – Peak Hour: 07:30 AM 5
0
0
5
Left28 2 1 31
Thru
0 0 0 0
Right
1 0 0 1
Peds
0 0 0 0 In – Peak Hour: 07:45 AM
29 2 1 32 Passenger Cars
SU Trucks
MU TrucksPeak Hour Data
NorthCHA Consulting, Inc.
3 Winners Circle
Albany, NY 12205
(518) 453-4500
www.chacompanies.com

File Name : Main-Pine PM
Site Code : 00000004
Start Date : 5/21/2015
Page No : 1Main Street and Pine Street
Town of Queensbury, Warren County, NY
CHA File: 30230
Groups Printed- Passenger Cars – SU Trucks – MU Trucks
Pine St
From North Main St
From East Pine St
From South Main St
From West
Start Time Right Thru Left Peds
App. Total Right Thru Left Peds
App. Total Right Thru Left Peds
App. Total Right Thru Left Peds
App. Total Int. Total
04:30 PM 5 0 1 0 6 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 2 1 0 11 0 12 22
04:45 PM 5 0 1 0 6 3 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 11 0 11 21
Total 10 0 2 0 12 5 0 0 0 5 1 0 1 1 3 1 0 22 0 23 43
05:00 PM 4 0 3 0 7 4 0 0 0 4 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 15 0 15 28
05:15 PM 6 0 1 0 7 6 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 15 28
05:30 PM 6 0 3 0 9 4 0 0 0 4 1 1 1 0 3 3 0 12 0 15 31
05:45 PM 10 0 2 0 12 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 4 0 4 19
Total 26 0 9 0 35 15 0 1 0 16 2 2 2 0 6 3 0 46 0 49 106
Grand Total 36 0 11 0 47 20 0 1 0 21 3 2 3 1 9 4 0 68 0 72 149
Apprch % 76.6 0 23.4 0 95.2 0 4.8 0 33.3 22.2 33.3 11.1 5.6 0 94.4 0
Total % 24.2 0 7.4 0 31.5 13.4 0 0.7 0 14.1 2 1.3 2 0.7 6 2.7 0 45.6 0 48.3
Passenger Cars 36 0 8 0 44 19 0 1 0 20 3 2 3 1 9 4 0 66 0 70 143
% Passenger Cars 100 0 72.7 0 93.6 95 0 100 0 95.2 100 100 100 100 100 100 0 97.1 0 97.2 96
SU Trucks 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 5
% SU Trucks 0 0 27.3 0 6.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.9 0 2.8 3.4
MU Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
% MU Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 4.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.7CHA Consulting, Inc.
3 Winners Circle
Albany, NY 12205
(518) 453-4500
www.chacompanies.com

File Name : Main-Pine PM
Site Code : 00000004
Start Date : 5/21/2015
Page No : 2Main Street and Pine Street
Town of Queensbury, Warren County, NY
CHA File: 30230
Pine St Main St
Main St
Pine St Right 36
0
0
36
Thru 0
0
0
0
Left 8
3
0
11
Peds 0
0
0
0 InOut Total
87 44 131
2 3 5
1 0 1
90
137
47
Right19 0 1 20
Thru
0 0 0 0
Left
1 0 0 1 Peds
0 0 0 0
Out
Total
In
11
20
31
3
0
3
0
1
1
14
35
21
Left
3
0
0
3 Thru
2
0
0
2 Right
3
0
0
3 Peds
1
0
0
1
Out TotalIn5 9 14
0 0 0
0 0 0
5 14 9
Left66 2 0 68
Thru
0 0 0 0
Right
4 0 0 4
Peds
0 0 0 0
Total
Out
In
39
70
109
0
2
2
0
0
0
39
111
72 5/21/2015 04:30 PM
5/21/2015 05:45 PM

Passenger Cars
SU Trucks
MU Trucks NorthCHA Consulting, Inc.
3 Winners Circle
Albany, NY 12205
(518) 453-4500
www.chacompanies.com

File Name : Main-Pine PM
Site Code : 00000004
Start Date : 5/21/2015
Page No : 3Main Street and Pine Street
Town of Queensbury, Warren County, NY
CHA File: 30230
Pine St
From North Main St
From East Pine St
From South Main St
From West
Start Time Right Thru Left Peds
App. Total Right Thru Left Peds
App. Total Right Thru Left Peds
App. Total Right Thru Left Peds
App. Total Int. Total
Peak Hour Analysis From 04:30 PM to 05:45 PM – Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:45 PM
04:45 PM 5 0 1 0 6 3 0 0 0 3
1 0 0 0 1 0 0 11 0 11 21
05:00 PM 4 0
3 0 7 4 0 0 0 4 1 0
1 0 2 0 0
15 0
15 28
05:15 PM
6 0 1 0 7
6 0 0 0
6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 15 28
05:30 PM 6 0 3 0
9 4 0 0 0 4 1
1 1 0
3 3 0 12 0 15
31
Total Volume 21 0 8 0 29 17 0 0 0 17 3 1 2 0 6 3 0 53 0 56 108
% App. Total 72.4 0 27.6 0 100 0 0 0 50 16.7 33.3 0 5.4 0 94.6 0
PHF .875 .000 .667 .000 .806 .708 .000 .000 .000 .708 .750 .250 .500 .000 .500 .250 .000 .883 .000 .933 .871
Passenger Cars 21 0 6 0 27 16 0 0 0 16 3 1 2 0 6 3 0 51 0 54 103
% Passenger Cars 100 0 75.0 0 93.1 94.1 0 0 0 94.1 100 100 100 0 100 100 0 96.2 0 96.4 95.4
SU Trucks 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 4
% SU Trucks 0 0 25.0 0 6.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.8 0 3.6 3.7
MU Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
% MU Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 5.9 0 0 0 5.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.9CHA Consulting, Inc.
3 Winners Circle
Albany, NY 12205
(518) 453-4500
www.chacompanies.com

File Name : Main-Pine PM
Site Code : 00000004
Start Date : 5/21/2015
Page No : 4Main Street and Pine Street
Town of Queensbury, Warren County, NY
CHA File: 30230
Pine St Main St
Main St
Pine St Right 21
0
0
21
Thru 0
0
0
0
Left 6
2
0
8
Peds 0
0
0
0 InOut Total
68 27 95
2 2 4
1 0 1
71
100
29
Right16 0 1 17
Thru
0 0 0 0
Left
0 0 0 0 Peds
0 0 0 0
Out
Total
In
9
16
25
2
0
2
0
1
1
11
28
17
Left
2
0
0
2 Thru
1
0
0
1 Right
3
0
0
3 Peds
0
0
0
0
Out TotalIn3 6 9
0 0 0
0 0 0
3 9 6
Left51 2 0 53
Thru
0 0 0 0
Right
3 0 0 3
Peds
0 0 0 0
Total
Out
In
23
54
77
0
2
2
0
0
0
23
79
56 Peak Hour Begins at 04:45 PM

Passenger Cars
SU Trucks
MU TrucksPeak Hour Data
NorthCHA Consulting, Inc.
3 Winners Circle
Albany, NY 12205
(518) 453-4500
www.chacompanies.com

File Name : Main-Pine PM
Site Code : 00000004
Start Date : 5/21/2015
Page No : 5Main Street and Pine Street
Town of Queensbury, Warren County, NY
CHA File: 30230
Pine St
From North Main St
From East Pine St
From South Main St
From West
Start Time Right Thru Left Peds
App. Total Right Thru Left Peds
App. Total Right Thru Left Peds
App. Total Right Thru Left Peds
App. Total Int. Total
Peak Hour Analysis From 04:30 PM to 05:45 PM – Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at:
05:00 PM 04:45 PM 04:45 PM 04:45 PM
+0 mins. 4 0
3 0 7 3 0 0 0 3
1 0 0 0 1 0 0 11 0 11
+15 mins. 6 0 1 0 7 4 0 0 0 4 1 0
1 0 2 0 0
15 0
15
+30 mins. 6 0 3 0 9
6 0 0 0
6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 15
+45 mins.
10 0 2 0
12 4 0 0 0 4 1
1 1 0
3 3 0 12 0 15
Total Volume 26 0 9 0 35 17 0 0 0 17 3 1 2 0 6 3 0 53 0 56
% App. Total 74.3 0 25.7 0 100 0 0 0 50 16.7 33.3 0 5.4 0 94.6 0
PHF .650 .000 .750 .000 .729 .708 .000 .000 .000 .708 .750 .250 .500 .000 .500 .250 .000 .883 .000 .933
Passenger Cars 26 0 7 0 33 16 0 0 0 16 3 1 2 0 6 3 0 51 0 54
% Passenger Cars 100 0 77.8 0 94.3 94.1 0 0 0 94.1 100 100 100 0 100 100 0 96.2 0 96.4
SU Trucks 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2
% SU Trucks 0 0 22.2 0 5.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.8 0 3.6
MU Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
% MU Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 5.9 0 0 0 5.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0CHA Consulting, Inc.
3 Winners Circle
Albany, NY 12205
(518) 453-4500
www.chacompanies.com

File Name : Main-Pine PM
Site Code : 00000004
Start Date : 5/21/2015
Page No : 6Main Street and Pine Street
Town of Queensbury, Warren County, NY
CHA File: 30230
Pine St Main St
Main St
Pine St Right 26
0
0
26
Thru 0
0
0
0
Left 7
2
0
9
Peds 0
0
0
0 In – Peak Hour: 05:00 PM
33
2
0
35
Right16 0 1 17
Thru
0 0 0 0
Left
0 0 0 0 Peds
0 0 0 0
In – Peak Hour: 04:45 PM
16 0 1 17
Left
2
0
0
2 Thru
1
0
0
1 Right
3
0
0
3 Peds
0
0
0
0
In – Peak Hour: 04:45 PM 6
0
0
6
Left51 2 0 53
Thru
0 0 0 0
Right
3 0 0 3
Peds
0 0 0 0 In – Peak Hour: 04:45 PM
54 2 0 56 Passenger Cars
SU Trucks
MU TrucksPeak Hour Data
NorthCHA Consulting, Inc.
3 Winners Circle
Albany, NY 12205
(518) 453-4500
www.chacompanies.com

CHA Consulting, Inc.3 Winners Circle P.O. Box 5269Albany, New York, United States 12205518 453 3983 dkahlbaugh@chacompanies.com
Count Name: Main St & Richardson StSite Code:Start Date: 05/21/2015Page No: 1
Turning Movement Data

Start Time
Richardson St SBMain St WBRichardson NBMain St EBSouthboundWestboundNorthboundEastbound
RightThruLeftU-TurnPedsApp.TotalRightThruLeftU-TurnPedsApp.TotalRightThruLeftU-TurnPedsApp.TotalRightThruLeftU-TurnPedsApp.TotalInt. Total
7:00 AM21600901010001010219002181193001302617:15 AM21501821150001170120002121301001332797:30 AM3450012111200011314300035171743001943547:45 AM128001141250001292319002425196200223387Hourly Total88240140745300046031088001015261990068012818:00 AM4570016012300012322230027101593001723388:15 AM348001521150001171315001971652001743258:30 AM11600811320001331314001881741001833428:45 AM72300121106000107101700189173400186323Hourly Total151224005144760004805869008234671100071513289:00 AM0000000000000000000100011*** BREAK ***————————-Hourly Total00000000000000000001000114:00 PM223007414710015206200026101502001623474:15 PM331017414210014702180020201805002053794:30 PM304007214520014914160021151788002013784:45 PM1620090136200138127001013157300173330Hourly Total9111001301057060058621461007758665180074114345:00 PM2750014314210014606140020141513001683485:15 PM242008414200014613190123261634001933705:30 PM6510012112920013212140117201712001933545:45 PM34501121106100108019001013179601198328Hourly Total1320130146951940053221256027073664150175214006:00 PM0000000000000000000000000Grand Total45517103167302018100020581244274023302172620520128895444Approach %26.930.542.50.0–1.598.10.50.0–3.613.383.00.0–7.590.71.80.0—Total %0.80.91.30.0-3.10.637.10.20.0-37.80.20.85.00.0-6.14.048.11.00.0-53.1-Lights4051680-159301920100-196012412670-3202112538500-27995238% Lights88.9100.095.8–95.2100.095.1100.0–95.2100.093.297.4–97.097.296.996.2–96.996.2Mediums5030-807000-700370-1066020-68156% Mediums11.10.04.2–4.80.03.50.0–3.40.06.82.6–3.02.82.33.8–2.42.9Articulated Trucks0000-002800-280000-002100-2149% ArticulatedTrucks0.00.00.0–0.00.01.40.0–1.40.00.00.0–0.00.00.80.0–0.70.9
Bicycles on Road0000-00000-00000-00100-11% Bicycles onRoad0.00.00.0–0.00.00.00.0–0.00.00.00.0–0.00.00.00.0–0.00.0
Pedestrians—-3—–0—–2—–1–

% Pedestrians—-100.0———–100.0—–100.0–

CHA Consulting, Inc.3 Winners Circle P.O. Box 5269Albany, New York, United States 12205518 453 3983 dkahlbaugh@chacompanies.com
Count Name: Main St & Richardson StSite Code:Start Date: 05/21/2015Page No: 3
Turning Movement Data Plot05/21/2015 7:00 AMEnding At05/21/2015 6:15 PMLightsMediumsArticulated TrucksBicycles on RoadPedestrians
Richardson St SB [SB]OutInTotal1211592805813000000000126167293
405168005030000000000000000345517103RTLUP

27232059261016000000000278330608OutInTotalRichardson NB [NB]
ULTRP02674112007300000000000000002027444122

2703 0 1 21 63 2618 Out 2058 0 0 28 70 1960 In 4761 0 1 49 133 4578 Total Main St WB [WB] R 30 0 0 0 0 30 T 2018 0 0 28 70 1920 L 10 0 0 0 0 10 U 0 0 0 0 0 0 P 0 0 0 0 0 0 Main St EB [EB] Total 5026 150 49 1 0 5226 In 2799 68 21 1 0 2889 Out 2227 82 28 0 0 2337 0 0 0 0 0 0 U 50 2 0 0 0 52 L 2538 60 21 1 0 2620 T 211 6 0 0 0 217 R 0 0 0 0 1 1 P

CHA Consulting, Inc.3 Winners Circle P.O. Box 5269Albany, New York, United States 12205518 453 3983 dkahlbaugh@chacompanies.com
Count Name: Main St & Richardson StSite Code:Start Date: 05/21/2015Page No: 4
Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (7:30 AM)

Start Time
Richardson St SBMain St WBRichardson NBMain St EBSouthboundWestboundNorthboundEastbound
RightThruLeftU-TurnPedsApp.TotalRightThruLeftU-TurnPedsApp.TotalRightThruLeftU-TurnPedsApp.TotalRightThruLeftU-TurnPedsApp.TotalInt. Total
7:30 AM3450012111200011314300035171743001943547:45 AM1280011412500012923190024251962002233878:00 AM4570016012300012322230027101593001723388:15 AM34800152115000117131500197165200174325Total1115280054747500048261287001055969410007631404Approach %20.427.851.90.0–1.598.50.00.0–5.711.482.90.0–7.791.01.30.0—Total %0.81.12.00.0-3.80.533.80.00.0-34.30.40.96.20.0-7.54.249.40.70.0-54.3-PHF0.6880.7500.8750.000-0.8440.4380.9500.0000.000-0.9340.7500.7500.7250.000-0.7500.5900.8850.8330.000-0.8550.907Lights915260-50745000-457611810-985667590-7401345% Lights81.8100.092.9–92.6100.094.7—94.8100.091.793.1–93.394.997.390.0–97.095.8Mediums2020-402100-210160-731310-1749% Mediums18.20.07.1–7.40.04.4—4.40.08.36.9–6.75.11.910.0–2.23.5Articulated Trucks0000-00400-40000-00600-610% ArticulatedTrucks0.00.00.0–0.00.00.8—0.80.00.00.0–0.00.00.90.0–0.80.7
Bicycles on Road0000-00000-00000-00000-00% Bicycles onRoad0.00.00.0–0.00.00.0—0.00.00.00.0–0.00.00.00.0–0.00.0
Pedestrians—-0—–0—–0—–0–% Pedestrians————————-

CHA Consulting, Inc.3 Winners Circle P.O. Box 5269Albany, New York, United States 12205518 453 3983 dkahlbaugh@chacompanies.com
Count Name: Main St & Richardson StSite Code:Start Date: 05/21/2015Page No: 5
Turning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (7:30 AM)Peak Hour Data
05/21/2015 7:30 AMEnding At05/21/2015 8:30 AMLightsMediumsArticulated TrucksBicycles on RoadPedestrians
Richardson St SB [SB]OutInTotal275077246000000000295483
91526002020000000000000000011152800RTLUP

7198169371000000000074105179OutInTotalRichardson NB [NB]
ULTRP0811160061000000000000000000871260

728 0 0 6 15 707 Out 482 0 0 4 21 457 In 1210 0 0 10 36 1164 Total Main St WB [WB] R 7 0 0 0 0 7 T 475 0 0 4 21 450 L 0 0 0 0 0 0 U 0 0 0 0 0 0 P 0 0 0 0 0 0 Main St EB [EB] Total 1280 46 10 0 0 1336 In 740 17 6 0 0 763 Out 540 29 4 0 0 573 0 0 0 0 0 0 U 9 1 0 0 0 10 L 675 13 6 0 0 694 T 56 3 0 0 0 59 R 0 0 0 0 0 0 P

CHA Consulting, Inc.3 Winners Circle P.O. Box 5269Albany, New York, United States 12205518 453 3983 dkahlbaugh@chacompanies.com
Count Name: Main St & Richardson StSite Code:Start Date: 05/21/2015Page No: 6
Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (4:15 PM)

Start Time
Richardson St SBMain St WBRichardson NBMain St EBSouthboundWestboundNorthboundEastbound
RightThruLeftU-TurnPedsApp.TotalRightThruLeftU-TurnPedsApp.TotalRightThruLeftU-TurnPedsApp.TotalRightThruLeftU-TurnPedsApp.TotalInt. Total
4:15 PM331017414210014702180020201805002053794:30 PM304007214520014914160021151788002013784:45 PM16200901362001381270010131573001733305:00 PM275001431421001460614002014151300168348Total91612013795656005802145500716266619007471435Approach %24.343.232.40.0–1.697.41.00.0–2.819.777.50.0–8.389.22.50.0—Total %0.61.10.80.0-2.60.639.40.40.0-40.40.11.03.80.0-4.94.346.41.30.0-52.1-PHF0.7500.5710.6000.000-0.6610.5630.9740.7500.000-0.9730.5000.5830.7640.000-0.8450.7750.9250.5940.000-0.9110.947Lights816120-36954360-558214550-7161650180-7291394% Lights88.9100.0100.0–97.3100.096.1100.0–96.2100.0100.0100.0–100.098.497.694.7–97.697.1Mediums1000-101600-160000-011210-1431% Mediums11.10.00.0–2.70.02.80.0–2.80.00.00.0–0.01.61.85.3–1.92.2Articulated Trucks0000-00600-60000-00300-39% ArticulatedTrucks0.00.00.0–0.00.01.10.0–1.00.00.00.0–0.00.00.50.0–0.40.6
Bicycles on Road0000-00000-00000-00100-11% Bicycles onRoad0.00.00.0–0.00.00.00.0–0.00.00.00.0–0.00.00.20.0–0.10.1
Pedestrians—-1—–0—–0—–0–% Pedestrians—-100.0——————–

CHA Consulting, Inc.3 Winners Circle P.O. Box 5269Albany, New York, United States 12205518 453 3983 dkahlbaugh@chacompanies.com
Count Name: Main St & Richardson StSite Code:Start Date: 05/21/2015Page No: 7
Turning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (4:15 PM)Peak Hour Data
05/21/2015 4:15 PMEnding At05/21/2015 5:15 PMLightsMediumsArticulated TrucksBicycles on RoadPedestrians
Richardson St SB [SB]OutInTotal413677112000000000423779
8161200100000000000000000019161201RTLUP

83711541010000000008471155OutInTotalRichardson NB [NB]
ULTRP0551420000000000000000000000551420

680 0 1 3 12 664 Out 580 0 0 6 16 558 In 1260 0 1 9 28 1222 Total Main St WB [WB] R 9 0 0 0 0 9 T 565 0 0 6 16 543 L 6 0 0 0 0 6 U 0 0 0 0 0 0 P 0 0 0 0 0 0 Main St EB [EB] Total 1335 31 9 1 0 1376 In 729 14 3 1 0 747 Out 606 17 6 0 0 629 0 0 0 0 0 0 U 18 1 0 0 0 19 L 650 12 3 1 0 666 T 61 1 0 0 0 62 R 0 0 0 0 0 0 P

CHA Consulting, Inc.3 Winners Circle P.O. Box 5269Albany, New York, United States 12205518 453 3983 dkahlbaugh@chacompanies.com
Count Name: Main St & Richardson StSite Code:Start Date: 05/21/2015Page No: 8

STATION:
173000 New York State Department of Transportation
Traffic Count Hourly Report
Page 1 of 1
ROAD #:
RAMPROAD NAME:
I-87 EXIT 18 FROM:
I-87 NB (OFF) TO:
CR28 CORINTH RD COUNTY:
Warren
DIRECTION: Northbound FACTOR GROUP: 30 REC. SERIAL #: 1115 FUNC. CLASS: 11 TOWN:
QUEENSBURY
STATE DIR CODE: 3 WK OF YR: 44 PLACEMENT: I 87 NB OFF RAMP NHS: no LION#:
DATE OF COUNT: 10/26/2009 @ REF MARKER: JURIS: NYSDOT BIN:
NOTES LANE 1: NORTH ADDL DATA: CC Stn: RR CROSSING:
COUNT TYPE: AXLE PAIRS BATCH ID: DOT-WW43 HPMS SAMPLE:
COUNT TAKEN BY: ORG CODE: DOT INITIALS: DS PROCESSED BY: ORG CODE: DOT INITIALS: jl
12
TO
11
TO
22
TO
33
TO
44
TO
55
TO
66
TO
77
TO
88
TO
99
TO
1010
TO
1111
TO
1212
TO
11
TO
22
TO
33
TO
44
TO
55
TO
66
TO
77
TO
88
TO
99
TO
1010
TO
1111
TO
12DAILY DAILY
DAILY HIGH HIGH
AMPM
DATE
DAY
TOTAL
COUNT
HOUR
1T
2F
3S
4S
5M
6T
7W
8T
9F
10 S
11 S
12 M
13 T
14 W
15 T
16 F
17 S
18 S
19 M
20 T
21 W
22 T
23 F
24 S
25 S
26 M
27 T
28 W
29 T
30 F
31 S24 22 10 46 52 188 462 421 354 298 245 329 321 392 458 583 642 440 237 180 175 114 70
47 28 12 20 26 68 181 500 465 336 318 293 298 344 379 454 603 638 414 231 220 156 132 826245 638 17
46 36 38 13 33 52 182 486 421 329 293 279 331 342 336 443 549 577 424 237 204 183 127 966057 577 17
43 26 49 14 35 68 172 511 439 331 291 304
AVERAGE WEEKDAY HOURS (Axle Factored, Mon 6AM to Fri Noon) ADT
40 26 29 14 27 55 159 430 383 297 263 246 280 295 324 397 507 543 374 206 176 150 109 73 5403
DAYS
Counted
4HOURS
Counted
83WEEKDAYS
Counted
3WEEKDAY
Hours
78AVERAGE WEEKDAY
High Hour
543% of day
10%Axle Adj.
Factor
0.878Seasonal/Weekday
Adjustment Factor
1.076ESTIMATED
AADT
5021
ROAD #:
RAMPROAD NAME:
I-87 EXIT 18 FROM:
I-87 NB (OFF) TO:
CR28 CORINTH RD COUNTY:
Warren
STATION:
173000STATE DIR CODE:
3PLACEMENT:
I 87 NB OFF RAMP DATE OF COUNT: 10/26/2009

STATION:
173001 New York State Department of Transportation
Traffic Count Hourly Report
Page 1 of 1
ROAD #:
RAMPROAD NAME:
I-87 EXIT 18 FROM:
CR28 CORINTH RD TO:
I-87 NB (ON) COUNTY:
Warren
DIRECTION: Northbound FACTOR GROUP: 30 REC. SERIAL #: 1316 FUNC. CLASS: 11 TOWN:
QUEENSBURY
STATE DIR CODE: 3 WK OF YR: 44 PLACEMENT: I 87 ON RAMP NHS: no LION#:
DATE OF COUNT: 10/26/2009 @ REF MARKER: JURIS: NYSDOT BIN:
NOTES LANE 1: NORTH ADDL DATA: CC Stn: RR CROSSING:
COUNT TYPE: AXLE PAIRS BATCH ID: DOT-WW43 HPMS SAMPLE:
COUNT TAKEN BY: ORG CODE: DOT INITIALS: DS PROCESSED BY: ORG CODE: DOT INITIALS: jl
12
TO
11
TO
22
TO
33
TO
44
TO
55
TO
66
TO
77
TO
88
TO
99
TO
1010
TO
1111
TO
1212
TO
11
TO
22
TO
33
TO
44
TO
55
TO
66
TO
77
TO
88
TO
99
TO
1010
TO
1111
TO
12DAILY DAILY
DAILY HIGH HIGH
AMPM
DATE
DAY
TOTAL
COUNT
HOUR
1T
2F
3S
4S
5M
6T
7W
8T
9F
10 S
11 S
12 M
13 T
14 W
15 T
16 F
17 S
18 S
19 M
20 T
21 W
22 T
23 F
24 S
25 S
26 M
27 T
28 W
29 T
30 F
31 S12 24 13 25 63 171 369 372 297 314 355 379 364 341 415 359 323 314 171 140 80 64 55
27 7 11 17 30 64 190 411 394 320 340 284 327 339 333 355 449 360 251 187 146 125 74 525093 449 16
18 14 10 20 28 43 187 407 411 291 316 307 345 312 337 367 392 393 292 175 121 98 73 705027 411 8
28 16 14 19 26 53 193 394 346 348 359 342 401
AVERAGE WEEKDAY HOURS (Axle Factored, Mon 6AM to Fri Noon) ADT
21 11 11 17 25 47 162 347 335 276 291 283 319 297 296 333 351 315 251 156 119 89 61 52 4465
DAYS
Counted
4HOURS
Counted
84WEEKDAYS
Counted
3WEEKDAY
Hours
79AVERAGE WEEKDAY
High Hour
351% of day
8%Axle Adj.
Factor
0.878Seasonal/Weekday
Adjustment Factor
1.076ESTIMATED
AADT
4150
ROAD #:
RAMPROAD NAME:
I-87 EXIT 18 FROM:
CR28 CORINTH RD TO:
I-87 NB (ON) COUNTY:
Warren
STATION:
173001STATE DIR CODE:
3PLACEMENT:
I 87 ON RAMP DATE OF COUNT: 10/26/2009

STATION:
173003 New York State Department of Transportation
Traffic Count Hourly Report
Page 1 of 1
ROAD #:
RAMPROAD NAME:
I-87 EXIT 18 FROM:
CR28 CORINTH RD TO:
I-87 SB (ON) COUNTY:
Warren
DIRECTION: Southbound FACTOR GROUP: 30 REC. SERIAL #: 0325 FUNC. CLASS: 11 TOWN:
QUEENSBURY
STATE DIR CODE: 3 WK OF YR: 44 PLACEMENT: I 87 ON RAMP NHS: no LION#:
DATE OF COUNT: 10/26/2009 @ REF MARKER: JURIS: NYSDOT BIN:
NOTES LANE 1: SOUTH ADDL DATA: CC Stn: RR CROSSING:
COUNT TYPE: AXLE PAIRS BATCH ID: DOT-WW43 HPMS SAMPLE:
COUNT TAKEN BY: ORG CODE: DOT INITIALS: DS PROCESSED BY: ORG CODE: DOT INITIALS: jl
12
TO
11
TO
22
TO
33
TO
44
TO
55
TO
66
TO
77
TO
88
TO
99
TO
1010
TO
1111
TO
1212
TO
11
TO
22
TO
33
TO
44
TO
55
TO
66
TO
77
TO
88
TO
99
TO
1010
TO
1111
TO
12DAILY DAILY
DAILY HIGH HIGH
AMPM
DATE
DAY
TOTAL
COUNT
HOUR
1T
2F
3S
4S
5M
6T
7W
8T
9F
10 S
11 S
12 M
13 T
14 W
15 T
16 F
17 S
18 S
19 M
20 T
21 W
22 T
23 F
24 S
25 S
26 M
27 T
28 W
29 T
30 F
31 S17 20 41 110 297 721 874 629 528 453 479 543 465 583 671 614 702 460 249 234 167 106 67
38 29 37 49 84 303 771 865 680 502 461 510 492 438 575 599 661 736 347 285 248 198 132 739113 865 7
47 28 20 39 65 277 670 779 689 505 485 504 511 492 470 517 685 650 395 266 187 134 124 728611 779 7
41 33 44 33 71 266 747 817 720 521 460 464 501
AVERAGE WEEKDAY HOURS (Axle Factored, Mon 6AM to Fri Noon) ADT
37 26 30 35 64 248 638 732 597 451 408 429 450 408 477 523 573 611 352 234 196 146 106 62 7833
DAYS
Counted
4HOURS
Counted
84WEEKDAYS
Counted
3WEEKDAY
Hours
79AVERAGE WEEKDAY
High Hour
732% of day
9%Axle Adj.
Factor
0.878Seasonal/Weekday
Adjustment Factor
1.076ESTIMATED
AADT
7280
ROAD #:
RAMPROAD NAME:
I-87 EXIT 18 FROM:
CR28 CORINTH RD TO:
I-87 SB (ON) COUNTY:
Warren
STATION:
173003STATE DIR CODE:
3PLACEMENT:
I 87 ON RAMP DATE OF COUNT: 10/26/2009

Exit 18 Rezone Study – Queensbury, NY

Appendix B

Trip Generation & Distribution

EXIT 18 REZONE STUDY
Town of Queensbury, Warren County, NY
CHA: 30230
TRIP GENERATION – NO-BUILD
July 6, 2015
Page 1 of 1
EnterExitTotalEnterExitTotalEnterExitTotal
Total54541087293710
Pass-By000000000
Primary54541087293710
Total54541087293710
Pass-By000000000
Primary54541087293710
EnterExitTotalEnterExitTotalEnterExitTotal
Total112101011
Pass-By000000000
Primary112101011
Total112101011
Pass-By000000000
Primary112101011
EnterExitTotalEnterExitTotalEnterExitTotal
Total
Pass-By (50%)EXISTINGEXISTINGEXISTING
Primary
Total55551101421631215
Pass-By000000000
Primary55551101421631215
Total2322334659514202545
Pass-By (30%)70701402247714
Primary1621633257310131831
Total28728857523730233760
Pass-By70701402247714
Primary21721843521526163046
EnterExitTotalEnterExitTotalEnterExitTotal
TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY
Total34234368531940264571
Pass-By70701402247714
Primary27227354529736193857
* PM Peak Hour trip generation for this parcel obtained from Parillo Access Feasibility Study (May 27, 2011)
Trip TypeWeekdayAM Peak HourPM Peak Hour
Total of All Parcels
Specialty Retail 826 10,000 s.f.
Total of Parcel 3
ParcelBuild UseLUCSize
WeekdayAM Peak HourPM Peak Hour *
3
Fast Food with
Drive Thru9342832 s.f.
General Office710 10,000 s.f.
Total of Parcel 2
ParcelBuild UseLUCSizeTrip Type
WeekdayAM Peak HourPM Peak Hour
2Self Storage
Unit1514 units
Total of Parcel 1
ParcelBuild UseLUCSizeTrip Type
AM Peak HourPM Peak Hour
1Expansion of
Warehouse150 30,000 s.f
ParcelBuild UseLUCSizeTrip TypeWeekday

EXIT 18 REZONE STUDY
Town of Queensbury, Warren County, NY
CHA: 30230
TRIP GENERATION
July 24, 2015
Page 1 of 4
EnterExitTotalEnterExitTotalEnterExitTotal
Total6956941,3895337905250102
Pass-By000000000
Primary6956941,3895337905250102
Total4454458901121512725121146
Pass-By000000000
Primary4454458901121512725121146
Total5195181,0374837858585170
Pass-By (30%)155156311131326252651
Primary3643627263524596059119
Total1,6591,6573,31621389302162256418
Pass-By155156311131326252651
Primary1,5041,5013,00520076276137230367
EnterExitTotalEnterExitTotalEnterExitTotal
Total000000000
Pass-By (xx%)
Primary000000000
Total000000000
Pass-By000000000
Primary000000000
EnterExitTotalEnterExitTotalEnterExitTotal
Total8568561,7122716437075145
Pass-By (50%)428428856111122363672
Primary42842885616521343973
Total8568561,7122716437075145
Pass-By428428856111122363672
Primary42842885616521343973
Trip TypeWeekdayAM Peak HourPM Peak Hour
A
Hotel310 170 rooms
ParcelBuild UseLUCSize
General Office710 60,000 s.f.
Bank w/ Drive-
Thru912 7000 s.f.
Trip TypeWeekdayAM Peak HourPM Peak Hour
B
Fast Food
Restaurant w/
Drive-Thru
assumed that
existing use will
not change
Total of Parcel A
ParcelBuild UseLUCSize
AM Peak HourPM Peak Hour
CRetail820 12,000 s.f.
Total of Parcel B
ParcelBuild UseLUCSizeTrip TypeWeekday
Total of Parcel C

EXIT 18 REZONE STUDY
Town of Queensbury, Warren County, NY
CHA: 30230
TRIP GENERATION
July 24, 2015
Page 2 of 4
EnterExitTotalEnterExitTotalEnterExitTotal
Total388387775971311023111134
Pass-By000000000
Primary388387775971311023111134
Total388387775971311023111134
Pass-By000000000
Primary388387775971311023111134
EnterExitTotalEnterExitTotalEnterExitTotal
Total205204409151126161430
Pass-By000000000
Primary205204409151126161430
Total205204409151126161430
Pass-By000000000
Primary205204409151126161430
EnterExitTotalEnterExitTotalEnterExitTotal
Total302302604241640232144
Pass-By000000000
Primary302302604241640232144
Total302302604241640232144
Pass-By000000000
Primary302302604241640232144
AM Peak HourPM Peak Hour
DGeneral Office710 50,000 s.f.
ParcelBuild UseLUCSizeTrip TypeWeekday
Total of Parcel D
ParcelBuild UseLUCSizeTrip TypeWeekday
Total of Parcel E
AM Peak HourPM Peak Hour
EHotel (Build)31050
Total of Parcel G
Trip TypeWeekdayAM Peak HourPM Peak Hour
GHotel (Build)310 74 rooms
ParcelBuild UseLUCSize

EXIT 18 REZONE STUDY
Town of Queensbury, Warren County, NY
CHA: 30230
TRIP GENERATION
July 24, 2015
Page 3 of 4
EnterExitTotalEnterExitTotalEnterExitTotal
Total61601211521731316
Pass-By000000000
Primary61601211521731316
Total61601211521731316
Pass-By000000000
Primary61601211521731316
EnterExitTotalEnterExitTotalEnterExitTotal
Total393877101112810
Pass-By000000000
Primary393877101112810
Total393877101112810
Pass-By000000000
Primary393877101112810
EnterExitTotalEnterExitTotalEnterExitTotal
Total485485970151025384280
Pass-By (50%)2422424846612202040
Primary2432434869413182240
Total9929921,98493891826863131
Pass-By (50%)496496992454691333366
Primary496496992484391353065
Total1,4771,4772,95410899207106105211
Pass-By7387381,47651521035353106
Primary7397391,47857471045352105
Trip TypeWeekdayAM Peak HourPM Peak Hour
HGeneral Office710 11,000 s.f.
ParcelBuild UseLUCSize
AM Peak HourPM Peak Hour
IGeneral Office710 7,000 s.f.
Total of Parcel H
ParcelBuild UseLUCSizeTrip TypeWeekday
Total of Parcel I
ParcelBuild UseLUCSizeTrip TypeWeekday
Fast Food
Restaurant w/
Drive-Thru
934 4,000 s.f.
Total of Parcel J
AM Peak HourPM Peak Hour
J
Retail820 5,000 s.f.

EXIT 18 REZONE STUDY
Town of Queensbury, Warren County, NY
CHA: 30230
TRIP GENERATION
July 24, 2015
Page 4 of 4
EnterExitTotalEnterExitTotalEnterExitTotal
Proposed Use
Total3,3963,3956,7919759156288311599
Pass-By (35%)1,1881,1892,377272855105105210
Primary2,2082,2064,4147031101183206389
Total3,3963,3956,7919759156288311599
Pass-By1,1881,1892,377272855105105210
Primary2,2082,2064,4147031101183206389
EnterExitTotalEnterExitTotalEnterExitTotal
Total2,9372,9375,8748452136248268516
Pass-By (35%)1,0281,0282,0562424489091181
Primary1,9091,9093,818602888158177335
Total2,9372,9375,8748452136248268516
Pass-By1,0281,0282,0562424489091181
Primary1,9091,9093,818602888158177335
Total11,320 11,31322,633690358 1,048941 1,182 2,123
Pass-By3,537 3,5397,076126128254309311620
Primary7,783 7,77415,557564230794632871 1,503
Shopping
Center820100,000
s.f.
Total of Parcel L
Trip TypeWeekdayAM Peak HourPM Peak Hour
L
ParcelBuild UseLUCSize
Trip TypeWeekdayAM Peak HourPM Peak Hour
MShopping
Center820 80,000 s.f.
ParcelBuild UseLUCSize
Total of Parcel M
Total of All Parcels

EXIT 18 REZONE STUDY
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY, NY
TRIP ROUTE ASSIGNMENT
PRIMARY TRIPS
COMBINED ALL PARCELS
OCTOBER 27, 2015
16060↖155 [ 105 ]8743↖22 [ 77 ]26400↖0[ 0 ]500↖0[ 0 ]500↖0[ 0 ][ 56 ] [ 0 ] [ 174 ]←30 [ 100 ]←272 [ 267 ][ 52 ][ 69 ]←199 [ 229 ]←138 [ 258 ]←160 [ 335 ][ 17 ] [ 80 ] [ 0 ]←61 [ 49 ][ 3 ] [ 0 ] [ 0 ]←113 [ 151 ][ 3 ] [ 0 ] [ 0 ]←98 [ 140 ]↙↓↘↙88 [ 63 ]CORINTH RD↙14 [ 14 ]↙↘↙19 [ 74 ]↙↓↘↙57 [ 105 ]↙↓↘↙0[ 0 ]↙↓↘↙0[ 0 ]MAIN ST
45 [ 32 ]↗↖↑↗↖↗29 [ 97 ]↗↖↗↗7 [ 32 ]↗↖↑↗0 [ 11 ]↗↖↑↗0[ 7 ]↗↖↑↗
50 [ 84 ]→4020129 [ 387 ]→110115 [ 309 ]→129 [ 281 ]→8041118 [ 243 ]→327 [ 84 ]→73212855 [ 186 ]→00054 [ 169 ]→100028 [ 13 ]↘[ 38 ] [ 0 ] [ 131 ]1[ 2 ]↘[ 1 ][ 13 ]24 [ 91 ]↘[ 45 ][ 67 ]52 [ 105 ]↘[ 5 ]87 [ 132 ]↘[ 269 ] [ 89 ] [ 114 ]0[ 1 ]↘[ 0 ] [ 0 ] [ 0 ]1 [ 10 ]↘[ 8 ] [ 0 ] [ 0 ]
3 113↖18 [ 150 ][ 19 ] [ 57 ]All Parcels↓↘↙0[ 0 ]AMPM↑↗Enter564 [ 632 ]60Exit230 [ 871 ][ 19 ] [ 0 ]Total794 [ 1503 ]
BIGBAYROAD
RICHARDSONST
OLDBIGBOOMRD
I-87EXIT18NBRAMP
I-87EXIT18SBRAMP
MEDIADR
PINEST
BIGBOOMRD

EXIT 18 REZONE STUDY
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY, NY
TRIP ROUTE ASSIGNMENT
PRIMARY TRIPS
PARCEL A – Bank/Service Trips
OCTOBER 27, 2015
Parcel A: Bank-Service
AMPMEnter35 [ 60 ]Exit24 [ 59 ]Total59 [ 119 ]
8016↖23 [ 39 ]4↖5↖0↖0↖
[ 21 ] [ 0 ] [ 38 ]←←23 [ 39 ][ 6 ]←19 [ 33 ]←15 [ 27 ]←15 [ 27 ][ 9 ]←10 [ 18 ][ 0 ]←10 [ 18 ][ 0 ]←10 [ 18 ]↙↓↘↙CORINTH RD↙↙↘↙↙↓↘↙↙↓↘↙↙↓↘↙MAIN ST
12 [ 21 ]↗↖↑↗↖↗2[ 6 ]↗↖↗↗4[ 9 ]↗↖↑↗0[ 0 ]↗↖↑↗0↗↖↑↗→016 [ 38 ]→14 [ 32 ]→12 [ 26 ]→412 [ 26 ]→8 [ 17 ]→08 [ 17 ]→08 [ 17 ]→0↘[ 0 ]↘2[ 6 ]↘[ 6 ]↘↘[ 0 ]0[ 0 ]↘[ 0 ]0↘[ 0 ]
0↖
[ 0 ]↓↘↙
↑↗
0[ 0 ]
BIGBAYROAD
BIGBOOMRD
MEDIADR
PINEST
RICHARDSONST
OLDBIGBOOMRD
I-87EXIT18NBRAMP
I-87EXIT18SBRAMP

EXIT 18 REZONE STUDY
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY, NY
TRIP ROUTE ASSIGNMENT
PRIMARY TRIPS
PARCEL A – Office Trips
OCTOBER 27, 2015
Parcel A: Office
AMPMEnter 112 [ 25 ]Exit15 [ 121 ]Total127 [ 146 ]
4011↖84 [ 19 ]34↖8↖0↖2↖
[ 30 ] [ 0 ] [ 91 ]←←84 [ 19 ][ 8 ]←50 [ 11 ]←22[ 5 ]←22[ 5 ][ 1 ]←14[ 4 ][ 0 ]←14[ 4 ][ 0 ]←10[ 4 ]↙↓↘↙CORINTH RD↙↙↘↙↙↓↘↙↙↓↘↙↙↓↘↙MAIN ST
28[ 6 ]↗↖↑↗↖↗4 [ 36 ]↗↖↗↗1[ 6 ]↗↖↑↗0[ 2 ]↗↖↑↗0[ 2 ]↗↖↑↗→011 [ 91 ]→7 [ 61 ]→3 [ 25 ]→283 [ 25 ]→2 [ 19 ]→02 [ 17 ]→02 [ 15 ]→2↘[ 0 ]↘4 [ 30 ]↘[ 6 ]↘↘[ 0 ]0[ 0 ]↘[ 0 ]0[ 0 ]↘[ 0 ]
0↖
[ 0 ]↓↘↙
↑↗
0[ 0 ]
BIGBAYROAD
MEDIADR
PINEST
BIGBOOMRD
RICHARDSONST
OLDBIGBOOMRD
I-87EXIT18NBRAMP
I-87EXIT18SBRAMP

EXIT 18 REZONE STUDY
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY, NY
TRIP ROUTE ASSIGNMENT
PRIMARY TRIPS
PARCEL A – Hotel Trips
OCTOBER 27, 2015
Parcel A: Hotel
AMPMEnter53 [ 52 ]Exit37 [ 50 ]Total90 [ 102 ]
4033↖48 [ 47 ]21↖0↖0↖0↖
[ 5 ] [ 0 ] [ 45 ]←←48 [ 47 ][ 20 ]←27 [ 27 ]←10 [ 12 ]←10 [ 12 ][ 0 ]←10 [ 12 ][ 0 ]←10 [ 12 ][ 0 ]←10 [ 12 ]↙↓↘↙CORINTH RD↙↙↘↙↙↓↘↙↙↓↘↙↙↓↘↙MAIN ST
5[ 5 ]↗↖↑↗↖↗15 [ 20 ]↗↖↗↗0[ 0 ]↗↖↑↗0[ 0 ]↗↖↑↗0[ 0 ]↗↖↑↗→033 [ 45 ]→22 [ 30 ]→7 [ 10 ]→177 [ 10 ]→7 [ 10 ]→07 [ 10 ]→07 [ 10 ]→0↘[ 0 ]↘11 [ 15 ]↘[ 15 ]↘↘[ 0 ]0[ 0 ]↘[ 0 ]0[ 0 ]↘[ 0 ]
0↖
[ 0 ]↓↘↙
↑↗
0[ 0 ]
BIGBAYROAD
MEDIADR
PINEST
BIGBOOMRD
RICHARDSONST
OLDBIGBOOMRD
I-87EXIT18NBRAMP
I-87EXIT18SBRAMP

EXIT 18 REZONE STUDY
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY, NY
TRIP ROUTE ASSIGNMENT
PRIMARY TRIPS
PARCEL A – ALL TRIPS
OCTOBER 27, 2015
Parcel A
AMPMEnter 200 [ 137 ]Exit76 [ 230 ]Total276 [ 367 ]
16060↖155 [ 105 ]59↖13↖0↖2↖
[ 56 ] [ 0 ] [ 174 ]←←155 [ 105 ][ 34 ]←96 [ 71 ]←47 [ 44 ]←47 [ 44 ][ 10 ]←34 [ 34 ][ 0 ]←34 [ 34 ][ 0 ]←30 [ 34 ]↙↓↘↙CORINTH RD↙↙↘↙↙↓↘↙↙↓↘↙↙↓↘↙MAIN ST
45 [ 32 ]↗↖↑↗↖↗21 [ 62 ]↗↖↗↗5 [ 15 ]↗↖↑↗0[ 2 ]↗↖↑↗0[ 2 ]↗↖↑↗→060 [ 174 ]→43 [ 123 ]→22 [ 61 ]→4922 [ 61 ]→17 [ 46 ]→017 [ 44 ]→017 [ 42 ]→2↘[ 0 ]↘17 [ 51 ]↘[ 27 ]↘↘[ 0 ]0[ 0 ]↘[ 0 ]0[ 0 ]↘[ 0 ]
0↖
[ 0 ]↓↘↙
↑↗
0[ 0 ]
BIGBAYROAD
MEDIADR
PINEST
OLDBIGBOOMRD
I-87EXIT18NBRAMP
I-87EXIT18SBRAMP
BIGBOOMRD
RICHARDSONST

EXIT 18 REZONE STUDY
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY, NY
TRIP ROUTE ASSIGNMENT
PRIMARY TRIPS
PARCEL C
OCTOBER 27, 2015
↖3↖3↖0↖1↖←←12 [ 26 ][ 7 ]←9 [ 19 ]←6 [ 12 ]←6 [ 12 ][ 5 ]←3[ 7 ][ 1 ]←3[ 6 ][ 1 ]←2[ 5 ]↙↓↘↙12 [ 26 ]CORINTH RD↙↙↘↙↙↓↘↙↙↓↘↙↙↓↘↙MAIN ST
↗↖↑↗↖↗1[ 7 ]↗↖↗↗1[ 6 ]↗↖↑↗0[ 0 ]↗↖↑↗0[ 1 ]↗↖↑↗→144 [ 29 ]→3 [ 21 ]→2 [ 14 ]→32 [ 14 ]→1[ 8 ]→01[ 8 ]→01[ 6 ]→04[ 8 ]↘[ 10 ][ 29 ]↘1[ 8 ]↘[ 7 ]↘↘[ 0 ]0[ 0 ]↘[ 0 ]0[ 1 ]↘[ 0 ]
016↖5 [ 39 ][ 0 ] [ 34 ]Parcel C↓↘↙0[ 0 ]AMPM↑↗Enter16 [ 34 ]00Exit5 [ 39 ][ 0 ] [ 0 ]Total21 [ 73 ]
BIGBAYROAD
MEDIADR
PINEST
BIGBOOMRD
RICHARDSONST
OLDBIGBOOMRD
I-87EXIT18NBRAMP
I-87EXIT18SBRAMP

EXIT 18 REZONE STUDY
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY, NY
TRIP ROUTE ASSIGNMENT
PRIMARY TRIPS
PARCEL D
OCTOBER 27, 2015
↖19↖10↖2↖2↖←←73 [ 18 ][ 5 ]←54 [ 13 ]←30[ 7 ]←30[ 7 ][ 2 ]←20[ 5 ][ 0 ]←18[ 5 ][ 0 ]←15[ 5 ]↙↓↘↙73 [ 18 ]CORINTH RD↙↙↘↙↙↓↘↙↙↓↘↙↙↓↘↙MAIN ST
↗↖↑↗↖↗3 [ 22 ]↗↖↗↗1 [ 11 ]↗↖↑↗0[ 2 ]↗↖↑↗0[ 2 ]↗↖↑↗→31010 [ 83 ]→7 [ 55 ]→4 [ 33 ]→244 [ 33 ]→3 [ 22 ]→03 [ 20 ]→03 [ 17 ]→124[ 5 ]↘[ 28 ][ 83 ]↘3 [ 28 ]↘[ 6 ]↘↘[ 0 ]0[ 0 ]↘[ 0 ]0[ 1 ]↘[ 0 ]
097↖13 [ 111 ][ 0 ] [ 23 ]Parcel D↓↘↙0[ 0 ]AMPM↑↗Enter97 [ 23 ]00Exit13 [ 111 ][ 0 ] [ 0 ]Total110 [ 134 ]
BIGBAYROAD
MEDIADR
PINEST
BIGBOOMRD
RICHARDSONST
OLDBIGBOOMRD
I-87EXIT18NBRAMP
I-87EXIT18SBRAMP

EXIT 18 REZONE STUDY
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY, NY
TRIP ROUTE ASSIGNMENT
PRIMARY TRIPS
PARCEL E
OCTOBER 27, 2015
↖6↖0↖0↖0↖←1[ 1 ]←[ 6 ]←8[ 8 ]←4[ 3 ]←4[ 3 ][ 0 ]←4[ 3 ][ 0 ]←4[ 3 ][ 0 ]←4[ 3 ]↙↓↘↙CORINTH RD↙14 [ 14 ]↙↘↙↙↓↘↙↙↓↘↙↙↓↘↙MAIN ST
↗↖↑↗↖↗4[ 6 ]↗↖↗↗0[ 0 ]↗↖↑↗0[ 0 ]↗↖↑↗0[ 0 ]↗↖↑↗
1[ 2 ]→0→1107[ 9 ]→3[ 3 ]→43[ 3 ]→3[ 3 ]→03[ 3 ]→03[ 3 ]→0↘[ 0 ]1[ 2 ]↘[ 1 ][ 13 ]3[ 4 ]↘[ 5 ]↘↘[ 0 ]0[ 0 ]↘[ 0 ]0[ 0 ]↘[ 0 ]
Parcel E
AMPM0↖Enter15 [ 16 ][ 0 ]Exit11 [ 14 ]↓↘↙Total26 [ 30 ]
↑↗
0[ 0 ]
BIGBAYROAD
MEDIADR
PINEST
BIGBOOMRD
RICHARDSONST
OLDBIGBOOMRD
I-87EXIT18NBRAMP
I-87EXIT18SBRAMP

EXIT 18 REZONE STUDY
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY, NY
TRIP ROUTE ASSIGNMENT
PRIMARY TRIPS
PARCEL G
OCTOBER 27, 2015
↖10↖6[ 8 ]0↖0↖0↖←2[ 2 ]←2 [ 2 ][ 9 ]←2[ 2 ]←7[ 8 ]←13 [ 16 ][ 0 ]←[ 0 ]←5[ 5 ][ 0 ]←5[ 5 ]↙↓↘↙CORINTH RD↙↙↘↙5[ 6 ]↙↓↘↙5[ 5 ]↙↓↘↙↙↓↘↙MAIN ST
↗↖↑↗↖↗↗↖↗↗0[ 0 ]↗↖↑↗0[ 0 ]↗↖↑↗0[ 0 ]↗↖↑↗
2[ 2 ]→02[ 2 ]→2[ 2 ]→12 [ 11 ]→7→33[ 5 ]→13003[ 5 ]→03[ 5 ]→0↘[ 0 ]↘↘[ 7 ]19 [ 18 ]↘[ 5 ]↘[ 16 ] [ 0 ] [ 0 ]0[ 0 ]↘[ 0 ]0[ 0 ]↘[ 0 ]
↖
↓↘↙Parcel G
↑↗AMPM0Enter24 [ 23 ][ 0 ]Exit16 [ 21 ]Total40 [ 44 ]
BIGBAYROAD
MEDIADR
PINEST
BIGBOOMRD
RICHARDSONST
OLDBIGBOOMRD
I-87EXIT18NBRAMP
I-87EXIT18SBRAMP

EXIT 18 REZONE STUDY
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY, NY
TRIP ROUTE ASSIGNMENT
PRIMARY TRIPS
PARCEL H
OCTOBER 27, 2015
↖3↖1[ 3 ]1↖0↖0↖←0[ 3 ]←0 [ 3 ][ 1 ]←0[ 3 ]←0[ 6 ]←1[ 9 ][ 0 ]←[ 0 ]←3[ 1 ][ 0 ]←3[ 1 ]↙↓↘↙CORINTH RD↙↙↘↙0[ 3 ]↙↓↘↙3[ 1 ]↙↓↘↙↙↓↘↙MAIN ST
↗↖↑↗↖↗↗↖↗↗↗↖↑↗0[ 0 ]↗↖↑↗0[ 0 ]↗↖↑↗
4[ 1 ]→04[ 1 ]→4[ 1 ]→7[ 2 ]→411[ 2 ]→0→1011[ 3 ]→01[ 3 ]→0↘[ 0 ]↘↘[ 0 ]↘[ 0 ]11[ 2 ]↘[ 9 ] [ 1 ] [ 3 ]0[ 0 ]↘[ 0 ]0[ 0 ]↘[ 0 ]
↖
Parcel H↓↘↙
AMPM↑↗Enter15 [ 3 ]0Exit2 [ 13 ][ 0 ]Total17 [ 16 ]
BIGBAYROAD
MEDIADR
PINEST
BIGBOOMRD
RICHARDSONST
OLDBIGBOOMRD
I-87EXIT18NBRAMP
I-87EXIT18SBRAMP

EXIT 18 REZONE STUDY
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY, NY
TRIP ROUTE ASSIGNMENT
PRIMARY TRIPS
PARCEL I
OCTOBER 27, 2015
↖2↖1[ 1 ]2↖0↖0↖←0[ 2 ]←0 [ 2 ][ 0 ]←0[ 2 ]←0[ 3 ]←1[ 4 ][ 0 ]←[ 0 ]←2[ 1 ][ 0 ]←2[ 1 ]↙↓↘↙CORINTH RD↙↙↘↙0[ 1 ]↙↓↘↙2[ 1 ]↙↓↘↙↙↓↘↙MAIN ST
↗↖↑↗↖↗↗↖↗↗↗↖↑↗0[ 0 ]↗↖↑↗0[ 0 ]↗↖↑↗
2[ 0 ]→02[ 0 ]→2[ 0 ]→4[ 0 ]→26[ 1 ]→0→1000[ 2 ]→00[ 2 ]→0↘[ 0 ]↘↘[ 1 ]↘[ 0 ]6[ 1 ]↘[ 4 ] [ 2 ] [ 2 ]0[ 0 ]↘[ 0 ]0[ 0 ]↘[ 0 ]
↖
Parcel H↓↘↙
AMPM↑↗Enter10 [ 2 ]0Exit1 [ 8 ][ 0 ]Total11 [ 10 ]
BIGBAYROAD
MEDIADR
PINEST
BIGBOOMRD
RICHARDSONST
OLDBIGBOOMRD
I-87EXIT18NBRAMP
I-87EXIT18SBRAMP

EXIT 18 REZONE STUDY
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY, NY
TRIP ROUTE ASSIGNMENT
PRIMARY TRIPS
PARCEL J
OCTOBER 27, 2015
↖9↖7[ 8 ]11↖1↖0↖←12 [ 13 ]←12 [ 13 ][ 8 ]←12 [ 13 ]←19 [ 21 ]←26 [ 29 ][ 11 ]←[ 0 ]←13 [ 13 ][ 0 ]←11 [ 12 ]↙↓↘↙CORINTH RD↙↙↘↙7[ 8 ]↙↓↘↙14 [ 13 ]↙↓↘↙↙↓↘↙MAIN ST
↗↖↑↗↖↗↗↖↗↗↗↖↑↗0[ 1 ]↗↖↑↗0[ 0 ]↗↖↑↗
14 [ 13 ]→014 [ 13 ]→14 [ 13 ]→23 [ 21 ]→932 [ 29 ]→0→2691212 [ 12 ]→011 [ 11 ]→2↘[ 0 ]↘↘[ 8 ]↘[ 0 ]32 [ 29 ]↘[ 29 ] [ 10 ] [ 13 ]0[ 0 ]↘[ 0 ]1[ 1 ]↘[ 1 ]
↖
Parcel J↓↘↙
AMPM↑↗Enter57 [ 53 ]0Exit47 [ 52 ][ 0 ]Total104 [ 105 ]
BIGBAYROAD
MEDIADR
PINEST
BIGBOOMRD
RICHARDSONST
OLDBIGBOOMRD
I-87EXIT18NBRAMP
I-87EXIT18SBRAMP

EXIT 18 REZONE STUDY
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY, NY
TRIP ROUTE ASSIGNMENT
PRIMARY TRIPS
PARCEL L – Retail Trips
OCTOBER 27, 2015
↖10↖5 [ 31 ]14↖1↖0↖←7 [ 42 ]←7 [ 52 ][ 27 ]←7 [ 52 ]←12 [ 82 ]←17 [ 113 ][ 37 ]←[ 1 ]←17 [ 45 ][ 1 ]←14 [ 40 ]↙↓↘↙0 [ 10 ]CORINTH RD↙↙↘↙5 [ 30 ]↙↓↘↙18 [ 46 ]↙↓↘↙↙↓↘↙MAIN ST
↗↖↑↗↖↗↗↖↗↗↗↖↑↗0[ 3 ]↗↖↑↗0[ 1 ]↗↖↑↗
15 [ 36 ]→318 [ 46 ]→18 [ 46 ]→28 [ 73 ]→1038 [ 100 ]→0→17688 [ 49 ]→08 [ 44 ]→3↘[ 10 ]↘↘[ 27 ]↘[ 0 ]38 [ 100 ]↘[ 113 ] [ 41 ] [ 52 ]0[ 0 ]↘[ 0 ]0[ 4 ]↘[ 4 ]
0↖
[ 10 ]Parcel L: Retail↓↘↙
AMPM↑↗Enter70 [ 183 ]3Exit31 [ 206 ][ 10 ]Total101 [ 389 ]
BIGBAYROAD
MEDIADR
PINEST
BIGBOOMRD
RICHARDSONST
OLDBIGBOOMRD
I-87EXIT18NBRAMP
I-87EXIT18SBRAMP

EXIT 18 REZONE STUDY
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY, NY
TRIP ROUTE ASSIGNMENT
PRIMARY TRIPS
PARCEL L – Hotel Trips
OCTOBER 27, 2015
↖0↖0[ 0 ]0↖0↖0↖←0[ 0 ]←0 [ 0 ][ 0 ]←0[ 0 ]←0[ 0 ]←0[ 0 ][ 0 ]←[ 0 ]←0[ 0 ][ 0 ]←0[ 0 ]↙↓↘↙0[ 0 ]CORINTH RD↙↙↘↙0[ 0 ]↙↓↘↙0[ 0 ]↙↓↘↙↙↓↘↙MAIN ST
↗↖↑↗↖↗↗↖↗↗↗↖↑↗0[ 0 ]↗↖↑↗0[ 0 ]↗↖↑↗
0[ 0 ]→00[ 0 ]→0[ 0 ]→0[ 0 ]→00[ 0 ]→0→0000[ 0 ]→00[ 0 ]→0↘[ 0 ]↘↘[ 0 ]↘[ 0 ]0[ 0 ]↘[ 0 ] [ 0 ] [ 0 ]0[ 0 ]↘[ 0 ]0[ 0 ]↘[ 0 ]
0↖
[ 0 ]Parcel L: Hotel↓↘↙
AMPM↑↗Enter0 [ 0 ]0Exit0 [ 0 ][ 0 ]Total0 [ 0 ]
NO HOTEL TRIPS IN COMBINATION WITH RETAIL (PARCEL L)
BIGBAYROAD
MEDIADR
PINEST
BIGBOOMRD
RICHARDSONST
OLDBIGBOOMRD
I-87EXIT18NBRAMP
I-87EXIT18SBRAMP

EXIT 18 REZONE STUDY
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY, NY
TRIP ROUTE ASSIGNMENT
PRIMARY TRIPS
PARCEL L ALL
OCTOBER 27, 2015
↖10↖5 [ 31 ]14↖1↖0↖←7 [ 42 ]←7 [ 52 ][ 27 ]←7 [ 52 ]←12 [ 82 ]←17 [ 113 ][ 37 ]←[ 1 ]←17 [ 45 ][ 1 ]←14 [ 40 ]↙↓↘↙0 [ 10 ]CORINTH RD↙↙↘↙5 [ 30 ]↙↓↘↙18 [ 46 ]↙↓↘↙↙↓↘↙MAIN ST
↗↖↑↗↖↗↗↖↗↗↗↖↑↗0[ 3 ]↗↖↑↗0[ 1 ]↗↖↑↗
15 [ 36 ]→318 [ 46 ]→18 [ 46 ]→28 [ 73 ]→1038 [ 100 ]→0→17688 [ 49 ]→08 [ 44 ]→3↘[ 10 ]↘↘[ 27 ]↘[ 0 ]38 [ 100 ]↘[ 113 ] [ 41 ] [ 52 ]0[ 0 ]↘[ 0 ]0[ 4 ]↘[ 4 ]
0↖
[ 10 ]Parcel L: Total↓↘↙
AMPM↑↗Enter70 [ 183 ]3Exit31 [ 206 ][ 10 ]Total101 [ 389 ]
BIGBAYROAD
MEDIADR
PINEST
BIGBOOMRD
RICHARDSONST
OLDBIGBOOMRD
I-87EXIT18NBRAMP
I-87EXIT18SBRAMP

EXIT 18 REZONE STUDY
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY, NY
TRIP ROUTE ASSIGNMENT
PRIMARY TRIPS
PARCEL M
OCTOBER 27, 2015
↖9↖2 [ 26 ]12↖1↖0↖←8 [ 37 ]←11 [ 46 ][ 24 ]←11 [ 46 ]←13 [ 72 ]←15 [ 98 ][ 32 ]←[ 1 ]←14 [ 38 ][ 1 ]←12 [ 34 ]↙↓↘↙3[ 9 ]CORINTH RD↙↙↘↙2 [ 26 ]↙↓↘↙15 [ 39 ]↙↓↘↙↙↓↘↙MAIN ST
↗↖↑↗↖↗↗↖↗↗↗↖↑↗0[ 3 ]↗↖↑↗0[ 1 ]↗↖↑↗
12 [ 30 ]→315 [ 39 ]→15 [ 39 ]→24 [ 63 ]→90 [ 0 ]→0→15677 [ 40 ]→07 [ 36 ]→2↘[ 9 ]↘↘[ 24 ]33 [ 87 ]↘[ 0 ]0[ 0 ]↘[ 98 ] [ 35 ] [ 44 ]0[ 1 ]↘[ 0 ]0[ 3 ]↘[ 3 ]
3↖
[ 9 ]Parcel M↓↘↙
AMPM↑↗Enter60 [ 158 ]3Exit28 [ 177 ][ 9 ]Total88 [ 335 ]
BIGBAYROAD
I-87EXIT18SBRAMP
RICHARDSONST
MEDIADR
PINEST
BIGBOOMRD
OLDBIGBOOMRD
I-87EXIT18NBRAMP

EXIT 18 REZONE STUDY
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY, NYTRIP ROUTE ASSIGNMENT
PASS-BY TRIPS
COMBINED ALL PARCELS
OCTOBER 27. 2015
319↖4[ 11 ]00↖0[ 0 ]-10100↖0[ 0 ]000↖0[ 0 ]000↖0[ 0 ][ 11 ][ 2 ][ 13 ]←-6[ -22 ]←0[ 0 ][ 0 ][ 0 ]←0[ 0 ]←0[ 0 ]←0[ 0 ][ -27 ][ 27 ][ 0 ]←-34[ -89 ][ 0 ][ 0 ][ 0 ]←0[ 0 ][ 0 ][ 0 ][ 0 ]←0[ 0 ]↙↓↘↙2[ 11 ]CORINTH RD↙0[ 0 ]↙↘↙0[ 0 ]↙↓↘↙34[ 89 ]↙↓↘↙0[ 0 ]↙↓↘↙0[ 0 ]MAIN ST
7[ 10 ]↗↖↑↗↖↗0[ 0 ]↗↖↗↗-8[ -17 ]↗↖↑↗0[ 0 ]↗↖↑↗0[ 0 ]↗↖↑↗-13[ -24 ]→3240[ 0 ]→000[ 0 ]→0[ 0 ]→000[ 0 ]→0-50[ -115 ]→4410500[ 0 ]→0000[ 0 ]→0006[ 14 ]↘[ 12 ][ 4 ][ 11 ]0[ 0 ]↘[ 0 ][ 0 ]0[ 0 ]↘[ 0 ][ 0 ]0[ 0 ]↘[ 0 ]58[ 132 ]↘[ 116 ][ 18 ] [ 115 ]0[ 0 ]↘[ 0 ][ 0 ][ 0 ]0[ 0 ]↘[ 0 ][ 0 ][ 0 ]
-110↖10[ 32 ][ -4 ][ 31 ]All Parcels↓↘↙1[ 4 ]AMPM↑↗Enter126 [ 309 ]-11Exit128 [ 311 ][ -5 ][ 5 ]Total254 [ 620 ]
BIGBAYROAD
MEDIADR
PINESTRICHARDSONST
I-87EXIT18SBRAMP
I-87EXIT18NBRAMP
OLDBIGBOOMRD
BIGBOOMRD

Exit 18 Rezone Study – Queensbury, NY

Appendix C

Capacity Analysis Worksheets

QueuesEXISTING AM
1: Big Bay Rd & Corinth Rd (Rte 28)12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 Report
CHAPage 1
Lane GroupEBTWBL WBTNBL
Lane Group Flow (vph)747134339204
v/c Ratio0.730.340.270.54
Control Delay19.66.34.712.4
Queue Delay0.00.00.00.0
Total Delay19.66.34.712.4
Queue Length 50th (ft)17392613
Queue Length 95th (ft)#5684511062
Internal Link Dist (ft)589656426
Turn Bay Length (ft)247
Base Capacity (vph)1025476 1380691
Starvation Cap Reductn0000
Spillback Cap Reductn0000
Storage Cap Reductn0000
Reduced v/c Ratio0.730.280.250.30
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity AnalysisEXISTING AM
1: Big Bay Rd & Corinth Rd (Rte 28)12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 Report
CHAPage 2
MovementEBTEBRWBL WBTNBLNBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)6801512531540150
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width121211121212
Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.0
Lane Util. Factor1.001.001.001.00
Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.00
Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.00
Frt1.001.001.000.89
Flt Protected1.000.951.000.99
Satd. Flow (prot)18551662 1792 1571
Flt Permitted1.000.181.000.99
Satd. Flow (perm)1855315 1792 1571
Peak-hour factor, PHF0.930.930.930.930.930.93
Adj. Flow (vph)7311613433943161
RTOR Reduction (vph)10001360
Lane Group Flow (vph)7460134339680
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)555
Heavy Vehicles (%)2%6%5%6%3%8%
Turn TypeNApm+ptNAProt
Protected Phases1253
Permitted Phases5
Actuated Green, G (s)32.742.842.89.2
Effective Green, g (s)32.742.842.89.2
Actuated g/C Ratio0.550.710.710.15
Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.0
Vehicle Extension (s)3.03.03.03.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)1010361 1278240
v/s Ratio Protc0.40c0.040.19 c0.04
v/s Ratio Perm0.23
v/c Ratio0.740.370.270.28
Uniform Delay, d110.46.63.022.5
Progression Factor1.001.001.001.00
Incremental Delay, d22.90.60.10.6
Delay (s)13.37.23.223.1
Level of ServiceBAAC
Approach Delay (s)13.34.323.1
Approach LOSBAC
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay11.7HCM 2000 Level of ServiceB
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.61
Actuated Cycle Length (s)60.0Sum of lost time (s)12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization65.1%ICU Level of ServiceC
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group

QueuesEXISTING AM
2: Exit 18-SB ON Ramp/Exit 18-SB OFF Ramp & Main St12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 Report
CHAPage 3
Lane GroupEBTEBRWBL WBTSBTSBR
Lane Group Flow (vph)663245424370212185
v/c Ratio0.460.300.780.330.660.44
Control Delay18.53.725.22.942.98.6
Queue Delay0.00.00.10.00.00.0
Total Delay18.53.725.32.942.98.6
Queue Length 50th (ft)1210102441090
Queue Length 95th (ft)21846 #2537218853
Internal Link Dist (ft)656424 1060
Turn Bay Length (ft)235260
Base Capacity (vph)1686912669 1294561594
Starvation Cap Reductn009000
Spillback Cap Reductn3300000
Storage Cap Reductn000000
Reduced v/c Ratio0.400.270.640.290.380.31
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity AnalysisEXISTING AM
2: Exit 18-SB ON Ramp/Exit 18-SB OFF Ramp & Main St12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 Report
CHAPage 4
MovementEBLEBTEBRWBL WBT WBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)061022539034000001950170
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width111112101188121281212
Total Lost time (s)5.05.05.05.05.05.0
Lane Util. Factor0.951.001.001.001.001.00
Frpb, ped/bikes1.000.971.001.001.000.97
Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.00
Frt1.000.851.001.001.000.85
Flt Protected1.001.000.951.000.951.00
Satd. Flow (prot)3261 1539 1588 17011736 1454
Flt Permitted1.001.000.341.000.951.00
Satd. Flow (perm)3261 1539565 17011736 1454
Peak-hour factor, PHF0.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.92
Adj. Flow (vph)066324542437000002120185
RTOR Reduction (vph)0013600000000150
Lane Group Flow (vph)06631094243700000021235
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)555
Heavy Vehicles (%)0%7%2%6%8%0%0%0%0%4%0%8%
Turn TypeNA Perm pm+ptNAPermNA Perm
Protected Phases12 1 2 53
Permitted Phases1 1 2 533
Actuated Green, G (s)35.935.951.851.815.115.1
Effective Green, g (s)35.935.951.851.815.115.1
Actuated g/C Ratio0.450.450.640.640.190.19
Clearance Time (s)5.05.05.05.05.0
Vehicle Extension (s)4.04.02.02.02.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)1452685548 1093325272
v/s Ratio Prot0.20c0.140.22
v/s Ratio Perm0.07 c0.360.120.02
v/c Ratio0.460.160.770.340.650.13
Uniform Delay, d115.613.315.06.630.327.3
Progression Factor1.001.000.920.381.001.00
Incremental Delay, d20.30.15.50.23.60.1
Delay (s)15.913.519.22.733.927.3
Level of ServiceBBBACC
Approach Delay (s)15.211.50.030.8
Approach LOSBBAC
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay16.8HCM 2000 Level of ServiceB
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.76
Actuated Cycle Length (s)80.6Sum of lost time (s)15.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization63.9%ICU Level of ServiceB
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group

QueuesEXISTING AM
3: Exit 18-NB OFF Ramp/Exit 18-NB ON Ramp & Main St12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 Report
CHAPage 5
Lane GroupEBLEBTWBTNBLNBTNBR
Lane Group Flow (vph)266609870158283282
v/c Ratio0.600.500.570.510.530.53
Control Delay20.75.318.438.16.16.1
Queue Delay0.00.30.10.00.00.0
Total Delay20.75.518.638.16.16.1
Queue Length 50th (ft)53841587900
Queue Length 95th (ft)1594602841444343
Internal Link Dist (ft)424376672
Turn Bay Length (ft)290380
Base Capacity (vph)594 1358 1702535686686
Starvation Cap Reductn0239168000
Spillback Cap Reductn000000
Storage Cap Reductn000000
Reduced v/c Ratio0.450.540.570.300.410.41
Intersection Summary

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity AnalysisEXISTING AM
3: Exit 18-NB OFF Ramp/Exit 18-NB ON Ramp & Main St12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 Report
CHAPage 6
MovementEBLEBTEBRWBL WBT WBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)245560005852151450520000
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width10118812111212128128
Total Lost time (s)5.05.05.05.05.05.0
Lane Util. Factor1.001.000.951.000.950.95
Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.000.991.000.980.98
Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.00
Frt1.001.000.961.000.850.85
Flt Protected0.951.001.000.951.001.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1589 176632331656 1446 1446
Flt Permitted0.241.001.000.951.001.00
Satd. Flow (perm)401 176632331656 1446 1446
Peak-hour factor, PHF0.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.92
Adj. Flow (vph)266609006362341580565000
RTOR Reduction (vph)00003400230229000
Lane Group Flow (vph)2666090083601585353000
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)555
Heavy Vehicles (%)6%4%0%0%5%10%9%0%4%0%0%0%
Turn Typepm+ptNANAPermNA Perm
Protected Phases6 1 5 657
Permitted Phases1 5 677
Actuated Green, G (s)50.555.537.215.115.115.1
Effective Green, g (s)50.555.537.215.115.115.1
Actuated g/C Ratio0.630.690.460.190.190.19
Clearance Time (s)5.05.05.05.05.0
Vehicle Extension (s)2.04.02.02.02.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)447 12161492310270270
v/s Ratio Prot0.10 c0.340.260.04
v/s Ratio Permc0.27c0.100.04
v/c Ratio0.600.500.560.510.200.20
Uniform Delay, d117.06.015.829.427.627.6
Progression Factor1.000.561.001.001.001.00
Incremental Delay, d21.30.40.60.50.10.1
Delay (s)18.33.716.329.927.827.8
Level of ServiceBABCCC
Approach Delay (s)8.116.328.20.0
Approach LOSABCA
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay16.9HCM 2000 Level of ServiceB
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.59
Actuated Cycle Length (s)80.6Sum of lost time (s)15.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization63.9%ICU Level of ServiceB
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group

QueuesEXISTING AM
4: Big Boom Rd/Media Dr & Main St12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 Report
CHAPage 7
Lane GroupEBLEBTWBL WBTNBTSBLSBT
Lane Group Flow (vph)178 1023176846117195
v/c Ratio0.410.430.060.740.730.060.50
Control Delay15.810.410.324.674.629.410.0
Queue Delay0.00.30.00.00.00.00.0
Total Delay15.810.710.324.674.629.410.0
Queue Length 50th (ft)166032152073
Queue Length 95th (ft)8638314 #686722657
Internal Link Dist (ft)376131742425
Turn Bay Length (ft)11560100
Base Capacity (vph)533 2497471 1138196524964
Starvation Cap Reductn074600000
Spillback Cap Reductn0000000
Storage Cap Reductn0000000
Reduced v/c Ratio0.330.580.040.600.310.030.20
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity AnalysisEXISTING AM
4: Big Boom Rd/Media Dr & Main St12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 Report
CHAPage 8
MovementEBLEBTEBRWBL WBT WBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)16090515156001530520155170
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width11121212128812812128
Total Lost time (s)5.05.05.05.05.05.05.0
Lane Util. Factor1.000.951.001.001.001.001.00
Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.000.991.000.97
Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.001.00
Frt1.001.001.001.000.951.000.85
Flt Protected0.951.000.951.000.970.951.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1678 34881612 177114751805 1534
Flt Permitted0.211.000.221.000.380.791.00
Satd. Flow (perm)363 3488375 17715691492 1534
Peak-hour factor, PHF0.900.900.900.900.900.900.900.900.900.900.900.90
Adj. Flow (vph)178 100617176671733622176189
RTOR Reduction (vph)010010018001560
Lane Group Flow (vph)178 10220176830043017390
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)5555
Heavy Vehicles (%)4%3%14%12%7%0%25%0%14%0%0%3%
Turn Typepm+ptNApm+ptNAPermNApm+ptNA
Protected Phases6125347
Permitted Phases1537
Actuated Green, G (s)64.056.845.343.18.215.915.9
Effective Green, g (s)64.056.845.343.18.215.915.9
Actuated g/C Ratio0.710.630.500.480.090.180.18
Clearance Time (s)5.05.05.05.05.05.05.0
Vehicle Extension (s)2.05.02.05.02.02.02.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)490 220321984951273271
v/s Ratio Protc0.06 c0.290.00 c0.390.00 c0.03
v/s Ratio Perm0.190.04c0.080.01
v/c Ratio0.360.460.080.810.840.060.15
Uniform Delay, d118.28.616.619.840.231.731.3
Progression Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.001.00
Incremental Delay, d20.20.30.16.466.70.00.1
Delay (s)18.48.916.726.2106.931.831.4
Level of ServiceBABCFCC
Approach Delay (s)10.326.0106.931.4
Approach LOSBCFC
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay20.1HCM 2000 Level of ServiceC
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.70
Actuated Cycle Length (s)89.9Sum of lost time (s)20.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization76.8%ICU Level of ServiceD
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group

QueuesEXISTING AM
5: Pine St & Main St12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 Report
CHAPage 9
Lane GroupEBLEBTWBL WBTNBTSBT
Lane Group Flow (vph)339401667845
v/c Ratio0.070.730.000.530.030.17
Control Delay11.120.012.017.320.312.8
Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.0
Total Delay11.120.012.017.320.312.8
Queue Length 50th (ft)113207323
Queue Length 95th (ft)33 #10974 #7911432
Internal Link Dist (ft)9201135476583
Turn Bay Length (ft)15050
Base Capacity (vph)534 1291313 1254802688
Starvation Cap Reductn000000
Spillback Cap Reductn000000
Storage Cap Reductn000000
Reduced v/c Ratio0.060.730.000.530.010.07
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity AnalysisEXISTING AM
5: Pine St & Main St12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 Report
CHAPage 10
MovementEBLEBTEBRWBL WBT WBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)30845115901051110130
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width111281112881188118
Total Lost time (s)5.05.05.05.05.05.0
Lane Util. Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.00
Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.000.98
Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.00
Frt1.001.001.001.000.980.90
Flt Protected0.951.000.951.000.960.99
Satd. Flow (prot)1694 18441745 180217351453
Flt Permitted0.271.000.121.000.960.99
Satd. Flow (perm)474 1844217 180217351453
Peak-hour factor, PHF0.900.900.900.900.900.900.900.900.900.900.900.90
Adj. Flow (vph)33939116561161111133
RTOR Reduction (vph)0000000100300
Lane Group Flow (vph)339400166700700150
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)5555
Heavy Vehicles (%)3%3%0%0%5%11%0%0%0%0%0%14%
Turn Typepm+ptNApm+ptNASplitNASplitNA
Protected Phases61253344
Permitted Phases15
Actuated Green, G (s)35.034.134.433.82.65.5
Effective Green, g (s)35.034.134.433.82.65.5
Actuated g/C Ratio0.560.540.550.540.040.09
Clearance Time (s)5.05.05.05.05.05.0
Vehicle Extension (s)3.03.03.03.03.03.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)281 100113396971127
v/s Ratio Protc0.00 c0.510.000.37c0.00c0.01
v/s Ratio Perm0.060.00
v/c Ratio0.120.940.010.690.100.12
Uniform Delay, d113.313.423.910.629.026.4
Progression Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.00
Incremental Delay, d20.215.70.02.00.60.4
Delay (s)13.429.023.912.729.626.8
Level of ServiceBCCBCC
Approach Delay (s)28.512.729.626.8
Approach LOSCBCC
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay22.2HCM 2000 Level of ServiceC
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.77
Actuated Cycle Length (s)62.8Sum of lost time (s)20.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization59.2%ICU Level of ServiceB
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group

QueuesEXISTING AM
6: Richardson St & Main St12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 Report
CHAPage 11
Lane GroupEBLEBTWBL WBTNBTSBT
Lane Group Flow (vph)11856154511761
v/c Ratio0.030.950.000.610.280.13
Control Delay7.940.38.017.419.815.8
Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.0
Total Delay7.940.38.017.419.815.8
Queue Length 50th (ft)230201463314
Queue Length 95th (ft)8 #68823228646
Internal Link Dist (ft)1135550599330
Turn Bay Length (ft)5065
Base Capacity (vph)702898529888415472
Starvation Cap Reductn000000
Spillback Cap Reductn000000
Storage Cap Reductn000000
Reduced v/c Ratio0.020.950.000.610.280.13
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity AnalysisEXISTING AM
6: Richardson St & Main St12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 Report
CHAPage 12
MovementEBLEBTEBRWBL WBT WBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)10710601485590105301510
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width1112812121281188118
Total Lost time (s)5.05.05.05.05.05.0
Lane Util. Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.00
Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.000.99
Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.00
Frt1.000.991.001.000.990.98
Flt Protected0.951.000.951.000.960.97
Satd. Flow (prot)1745 18161805 180716361622
Flt Permitted0.301.000.121.000.730.84
Satd. Flow (perm)545 1816224 180712411394
Peak-hour factor, PHF0.900.900.900.900.900.900.900.900.900.900.900.90
Adj. Flow (vph)117896715396100116331711
RTOR Reduction (vph)030010020080
Lane Group Flow (vph)11853015440011500530
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)5555
Heavy Vehicles (%)0%3%5%0%5%0%7%8%0%7%0%18%
Turn Typepm+ptNApm+ptNAPermNAPermNA
Protected Phases612537
Permitted Phases1537
Actuated Green, G (s)35.234.135.034.023.123.1
Effective Green, g (s)35.234.135.034.023.123.1
Actuated g/C Ratio0.480.470.480.460.320.32
Clearance Time (s)5.05.05.05.05.05.0
Vehicle Extension (s)3.03.03.03.03.03.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)280845128839391439
v/s Ratio Protc0.00 c0.470.000.30
v/s Ratio Perm0.020.00c0.090.04
v/c Ratio0.041.010.010.650.290.12
Uniform Delay, d110.919.616.115.018.917.8
Progression Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.00
Incremental Delay, d20.133.40.01.71.90.1
Delay (s)11.053.016.116.820.818.0
Level of ServiceBDBBCB
Approach Delay (s)52.416.820.818.0
Approach LOSDBCB
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay36.5HCM 2000 Level of ServiceD
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.71
Actuated Cycle Length (s)73.2Sum of lost time (s)15.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization68.5%ICU Level of ServiceC
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group

QueuesEXISTING PM
1: Big Bay Rd & Corinth Rd (Rte 28)12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 Report
CHAPage 1
Lane GroupEBTWBL WBTNBL
Lane Group Flow (vph)540112459194
v/c Ratio0.640.240.380.46
Control Delay16.65.55.910.5
Queue Delay0.00.00.00.0
Total Delay16.65.55.910.5
Queue Length 50th (ft)10383810
Queue Length 95th (ft)3073915461
Internal Link Dist (ft)589656426
Turn Bay Length (ft)247
Base Capacity (vph)1187583 1689857
Starvation Cap Reductn0000
Spillback Cap Reductn0000
Storage Cap Reductn0000
Reduced v/c Ratio0.450.190.270.23
Intersection Summary

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity AnalysisEXISTING PM
1: Big Bay Rd & Corinth Rd (Rte 28)12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 Report
CHAPage 2
MovementEBTEBRWBL WBTNBLNBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)5102011045045145
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width121211121212
Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.0
Lane Util. Factor1.001.001.001.00
Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.00
Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.00
Frt0.991.001.000.90
Flt Protected1.000.951.000.99
Satd. Flow (prot)18231661 1881 1634
Flt Permitted1.000.261.000.99
Satd. Flow (perm)1823462 1881 1634
Peak-hour factor, PHF0.980.980.980.980.980.98
Adj. Flow (vph)5202011245946148
RTOR Reduction (vph)20001210
Lane Group Flow (vph)5380112459730
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)555
Heavy Vehicles (%)3%20%5%1%0%4%
Turn TypeNApm+ptNAProt
Protected Phases1253
Permitted Phases5
Actuated Green, G (s)22.632.332.38.9
Effective Green, g (s)22.632.332.38.9
Actuated g/C Ratio0.460.660.660.18
Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.0
Vehicle Extension (s)3.03.03.03.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)837442 1234295
v/s Ratio Protc0.300.03 c0.24 c0.04
v/s Ratio Perm0.14
v/c Ratio0.640.250.370.25
Uniform Delay, d110.24.63.817.3
Progression Factor1.001.001.001.00
Incremental Delay, d21.70.30.20.4
Delay (s)11.94.94.017.7
Level of ServiceBAAB
Approach Delay (s)11.94.217.7
Approach LOSBAB
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay9.4HCM 2000 Level of ServiceA
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.52
Actuated Cycle Length (s)49.2Sum of lost time (s)12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization55.6%ICU Level of ServiceB
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group

QueuesEXISTING PM
2: Exit 18-SB ON Ramp/Exit 18-SB OFF Ramp & Main St12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 Report
CHAPage 3
Lane GroupEBTEBRWBL WBTSBTSBR
Lane Group Flow (vph)546168500418194224
v/c Ratio0.410.240.750.350.620.48
Control Delay19.34.021.43.041.18.3
Queue Delay0.00.00.00.10.00.0
Total Delay19.34.021.43.141.18.3
Queue Length 50th (ft)99011755980
Queue Length 95th (ft)17439 #2908817357
Internal Link Dist (ft)656424 1060
Turn Bay Length (ft)235260
Base Capacity (vph)1733882723 1267549642
Starvation Cap Reductn00015900
Spillback Cap Reductn1800000
Storage Cap Reductn000000
Reduced v/c Ratio0.320.190.690.380.350.35
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity AnalysisEXISTING PM
2: Exit 18-SB ON Ramp/Exit 18-SB OFF Ramp & Main St12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 Report
CHAPage 4
MovementEBLEBTEBRWBL WBT WBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)053516549041000001900220
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width111112101188121281212
Total Lost time (s)5.05.05.05.05.05.0
Lane Util. Factor0.951.001.001.001.001.00
Frpb, ped/bikes1.000.971.001.001.000.97
Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.00
Frt1.000.851.001.001.000.85
Flt Protected1.001.000.951.000.951.00
Satd. Flow (prot)3355 1554 1650 17831703 1524
Flt Permitted1.001.000.401.000.951.00
Satd. Flow (perm)3355 1554690 17831703 1524
Peak-hour factor, PHF0.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.98
Adj. Flow (vph)054616850041800001940224
RTOR Reduction (vph)0010100000000182
Lane Group Flow (vph)0546675004180000019442
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)555
Heavy Vehicles (%)0%4%1%2%3%0%0%0%0%6%0%3%
Turn TypeNA Perm pm+ptNAPermNA Perm
Protected Phases12 1 2 53
Permitted Phases1 1 2 533
Actuated Green, G (s)32.032.055.455.415.015.0
Effective Green, g (s)32.032.055.455.415.015.0
Actuated g/C Ratio0.400.400.690.690.190.19
Clearance Time (s)5.05.05.05.05.0
Vehicle Extension (s)4.04.02.02.02.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)1335618695 1228317284
v/s Ratio Prot0.16c0.160.23
v/s Ratio Perm0.04 c0.330.110.03
v/c Ratio0.410.110.720.340.610.15
Uniform Delay, d117.415.211.85.130.027.4
Progression Factor1.001.000.900.391.001.00
Incremental Delay, d20.30.12.60.22.50.1
Delay (s)17.715.313.22.232.527.4
Level of ServiceBBBACC
Approach Delay (s)17.18.20.029.8
Approach LOSBAAC
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay15.7HCM 2000 Level of ServiceB
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.73
Actuated Cycle Length (s)80.4Sum of lost time (s)15.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization67.5%ICU Level of ServiceC
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group

QueuesEXISTING PM
3: Exit 18-NB OFF Ramp/Exit 18-NB ON Ramp & Main St12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 Report
CHAPage 5
Lane GroupEBLEBTWBTNBLNBTNBR
Lane Group Flow (vph)235505964204255255
v/c Ratio0.560.420.600.620.430.43
Control Delay22.14.719.041.02.22.2
Queue Delay0.00.20.20.00.00.0
Total Delay22.14.919.241.02.22.2
Queue Length 50th (ft)477518210300
Queue Length 95th (ft)14811832218100
Internal Link Dist (ft)424376672
Turn Bay Length (ft)290380
Base Capacity (vph)586 1393 1767571743743
Starvation Cap Reductn0271205000
Spillback Cap Reductn000000
Storage Cap Reductn000000
Reduced v/c Ratio0.400.450.620.360.340.34
Intersection Summary

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity AnalysisEXISTING PM
3: Exit 18-NB OFF Ramp/Exit 18-NB ON Ramp & Main St12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 Report
CHAPage 6
MovementEBLEBTEBRWBL WBT WBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)230495007002452000500000
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width10118812111212128128
Total Lost time (s)5.05.05.05.05.05.0
Lane Util. Factor1.001.000.951.000.950.95
Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.000.991.000.980.98
Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.00
Frt1.001.000.961.000.850.85
Flt Protected0.951.001.000.951.001.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1635 176633681770 1460 1460
Flt Permitted0.201.001.000.951.001.00
Satd. Flow (perm)353 176633681770 1460 1460
Peak-hour factor, PHF0.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.98
Adj. Flow (vph)235505007142502040510000
RTOR Reduction (vph)00003100207207000
Lane Group Flow (vph)2355050093302044848000
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)555
Heavy Vehicles (%)3%4%0%0%2%3%2%0%3%0%0%0%
Turn Typepm+ptNANAPermNA Perm
Protected Phases6 1 5 657
Permitted Phases1 5 677
Actuated Green, G (s)50.455.437.815.015.015.0
Effective Green, g (s)50.455.437.815.015.015.0
Actuated g/C Ratio0.630.690.470.190.190.19
Clearance Time (s)5.05.05.05.05.0
Vehicle Extension (s)2.04.02.02.02.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)422 12161583330272272
v/s Ratio Protc0.09 c0.29c0.280.03
v/s Ratio Perm0.26c0.120.03
v/c Ratio0.560.420.590.620.170.17
Uniform Delay, d117.95.415.630.127.527.5
Progression Factor1.090.571.001.001.001.00
Incremental Delay, d20.90.30.72.40.10.1
Delay (s)20.43.416.332.527.627.6
Level of ServiceCABCCC
Approach Delay (s)8.816.329.00.0
Approach LOSABCA
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay17.8HCM 2000 Level of ServiceB
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.60
Actuated Cycle Length (s)80.4Sum of lost time (s)15.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization67.5%ICU Level of ServiceC
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group

QueuesEXISTING PM
4: Big Boom Rd/Media Dr & Main St12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 Report
CHAPage 7
Lane GroupEBLEBTWBL WBTNBTSBLSBT
Lane Group Flow (vph)132916267278416243
v/c Ratio0.350.420.070.730.990.060.54
Control Delay14.514.48.623.6 127.428.19.6
Queue Delay0.00.40.00.00.00.00.0
Total Delay14.514.88.623.6 127.428.19.6
Queue Length 50th (ft)14625227~3365
Queue Length 95th (ft)6532618 #726 #1202564
Internal Link Dist (ft)376131742425
Turn Bay Length (ft)11560100
Base Capacity (vph)519 2270516 1119171518956
Starvation Cap Reductn075100000
Spillback Cap Reductn0000000
Storage Cap Reductn0000000
Reduced v/c Ratio0.250.600.050.650.490.030.25
Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity AnalysisEXISTING PM
4: Big Boom Rd/Media Dr & Main St12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 Report
CHAPage 8
MovementEBLEBTEBRWBL WBT WBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)125860102568010455301510220
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width11121212128812812128
Total Lost time (s)5.05.05.05.05.05.05.0
Lane Util. Factor1.000.951.001.001.001.001.00
Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.000.991.000.97
Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.001.00
Frt1.001.001.001.000.951.000.86
Flt Protected0.951.000.951.000.970.951.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1728 34861671 182315731805 1548
Flt Permitted0.201.000.251.000.320.721.00
Satd. Flow (perm)357 3486441 18235091376 1548
Peak-hour factor, PHF0.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.95
Adj. Flow (vph)132905112671611475321611232
RTOR Reduction (vph)000000020001870
Lane Group Flow (vph)1329160267270064016560
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)5555
Heavy Vehicles (%)1%3%30%8%4%0%15%20%3%0%8%2%
Turn Typepm+ptNApm+ptNAPermNApm+ptNA
Protected Phases6125347
Permitted Phases1537
Actuated Green, G (s)63.953.152.346.59.917.617.6
Effective Green, g (s)63.953.152.346.59.917.617.6
Actuated g/C Ratio0.700.580.570.510.110.190.19
Clearance Time (s)5.05.05.05.05.05.05.0
Vehicle Extension (s)2.05.02.05.02.02.02.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)435 202333092655277297
v/s Ratio Protc0.04 c0.260.00 c0.400.00 c0.04
v/s Ratio Perm0.170.04c0.130.01
v/c Ratio0.300.450.080.781.170.060.19
Uniform Delay, d118.910.913.418.440.832.531.0
Progression Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.001.00
Incremental Delay, d20.10.30.05.1175.20.00.1
Delay (s)19.111.313.423.5216.032.531.1
Level of ServiceBBBCFCC
Approach Delay (s)12.223.2216.031.2
Approach LOSBCFC
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay26.3HCM 2000 Level of ServiceC
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.75
Actuated Cycle Length (s)91.5Sum of lost time (s)20.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization82.8%ICU Level of ServiceE
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group

QueuesEXISTING PM
5: Pine St & Main St12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 Report
CHAPage 9
Lane GroupEBLEBTWBL WBTNBTSBT
Lane Group Flow (vph)588521716733
v/c Ratio0.130.590.000.590.030.13
Control Delay13.416.413.020.916.615.1
Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.0
Total Delay13.416.413.020.916.615.1
Queue Length 50th (ft)0007913
Queue Length 95th (ft)49 #9834 #8531228
Internal Link Dist (ft)9201135476583
Turn Bay Length (ft)15050
Base Capacity (vph)479 1443322 1204725681
Starvation Cap Reductn000000
Spillback Cap Reductn000000
Storage Cap Reductn000000
Reduced v/c Ratio0.120.590.000.590.010.05
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity AnalysisEXISTING PM
5: Pine St & Main St12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 Report
CHAPage 10
MovementEBLEBTEBRWBL WBT WBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)55805516651511510120
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width111281112881188118
Total Lost time (s)5.05.05.05.05.05.0
Lane Util. Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.00
Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.000.980.98
Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.00
Frt1.001.001.001.000.900.91
Flt Protected0.951.000.951.000.990.98
Satd. Flow (prot)1678 18611745 181916161498
Flt Permitted0.221.000.141.000.990.98
Satd. Flow (perm)394 1861257 181916161498
Peak-hour factor, PHF0.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.95
Adj. Flow (vph)58847517001611511121
RTOR Reduction (vph)0000000500200
Lane Group Flow (vph)588520171600200130
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)5555
Heavy Vehicles (%)4%2%0%0%4%6%0%0%0%25%0%0%
Turn Typepm+ptNApm+ptNASplitNASplitNA
Protected Phases61253344
Permitted Phases15
Actuated Green, G (s)43.437.833.432.82.64.1
Effective Green, g (s)43.437.833.432.82.64.1
Actuated g/C Ratio0.670.580.510.500.040.06
Clearance Time (s)5.05.05.05.05.05.0
Vehicle Extension (s)3.03.03.03.03.03.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)373 10801459166494
v/s Ratio Protc0.01 c0.460.000.39c0.00c0.01
v/s Ratio Perm0.090.00
v/c Ratio0.160.790.010.780.030.14
Uniform Delay, d112.110.620.213.230.028.8
Progression Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.00
Incremental Delay, d20.23.90.04.40.20.7
Delay (s)12.314.520.217.630.329.5
Level of ServiceBBCBCC
Approach Delay (s)14.317.630.329.5
Approach LOSBBCC
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay16.1HCM 2000 Level of ServiceB
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.65
Actuated Cycle Length (s)65.1Sum of lost time (s)20.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization60.4%ICU Level of ServiceB
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group

QueuesEXISTING PM
6: Richardson St & Main St12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 Report
CHAPage 11
Lane GroupEBLEBTWBL WBTNBTSBT
Lane Group Flow (vph)2178456167538
v/c Ratio0.070.860.020.690.150.07
Control Delay8.228.87.819.718.314.1
Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.0
Total Delay8.228.87.819.718.314.1
Queue Length 50th (ft)42551175217
Queue Length 95th (ft)13 #6045 #4275931
Internal Link Dist (ft)1135550599330
Turn Bay Length (ft)5065
Base Capacity (vph)649907529896484538
Starvation Cap Reductn000000
Spillback Cap Reductn000000
Storage Cap Reductn000000
Reduced v/c Ratio0.030.860.010.690.150.07
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity AnalysisEXISTING PM
6: Richardson St & Main St12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 Report
CHAPage 12
MovementEBLEBTEBRWBL WBT WBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)206806555751055151101510
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width1112812121281188118
Total Lost time (s)5.05.05.05.05.05.0
Lane Util. Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.00
Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.000.99
Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.00
Frt1.000.991.001.001.000.96
Flt Protected0.951.000.951.000.960.99
Satd. Flow (prot)1662 18341805 182217641672
Flt Permitted0.231.000.121.000.790.94
Satd. Flow (perm)409 1834224 182214511591
Peak-hour factor, PHF0.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.95
Adj. Flow (vph)217166856051158161111611
RTOR Reduction (vph)030010010080
Lane Group Flow (vph)2178105615007400300
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)5555
Heavy Vehicles (%)5%2%2%0%4%0%0%0%0%0%0%11%
Turn Typepm+ptNApm+ptNAPermNAPermNA
Protected Phases612537
Permitted Phases1537
Actuated Green, G (s)35.434.235.034.023.123.1
Effective Green, g (s)35.434.235.034.023.123.1
Actuated g/C Ratio0.480.470.480.460.320.32
Clearance Time (s)5.05.05.05.05.05.0
Vehicle Extension (s)3.03.03.03.03.03.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)218855128845457501
v/s Ratio Protc0.00 c0.430.000.34
v/s Ratio Perm0.040.02c0.050.02
v/c Ratio0.100.910.040.730.160.06
Uniform Delay, d111.618.214.315.918.117.5
Progression Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.00
Incremental Delay, d20.214.00.13.20.80.1
Delay (s)11.832.114.419.118.917.6
Level of ServiceBCBBBB
Approach Delay (s)31.619.018.917.6
Approach LOSCBBB
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay25.6HCM 2000 Level of ServiceC
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.60
Actuated Cycle Length (s)73.3Sum of lost time (s)15.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization67.3%ICU Level of ServiceC
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group

QueuesNo Build AM
1: Big Bay Rd & Corinth Rd (Rte 28)12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 Report
CHAPage 1
Lane GroupEBTWBL WBTNBL
Lane Group Flow (vph)793142362216
v/c Ratio0.770.390.280.56
Control Delay21.57.14.812.6
Queue Delay0.00.00.00.0
Total Delay21.57.14.812.6
Queue Length 50th (ft)193102914
Queue Length 95th (ft)#6174711865
Internal Link Dist (ft)589656426
Turn Bay Length (ft)247
Base Capacity (vph)1025449 1367692
Starvation Cap Reductn0000
Spillback Cap Reductn0000
Storage Cap Reductn0000
Reduced v/c Ratio0.770.320.260.31
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity AnalysisNo Build AM
1: Big Bay Rd & Corinth Rd (Rte 28)12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 Report
CHAPage 2
MovementEBTEBRWBL WBTNBLNBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)7201813233743158
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width121211121212
Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.0
Lane Util. Factor1.001.001.001.00
Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.00
Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.00
Frt1.001.001.000.89
Flt Protected1.000.951.000.99
Satd. Flow (prot)18541662 1792 1571
Flt Permitted1.000.151.000.99
Satd. Flow (perm)1854267 1792 1571
Peak-hour factor, PHF0.930.930.930.930.930.93
Adj. Flow (vph)7741914236246170
RTOR Reduction (vph)10001440
Lane Group Flow (vph)7920142362720
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)555
Heavy Vehicles (%)2%6%5%6%3%8%
Turn TypeNApm+ptNAProt
Protected Phases1253
Permitted Phases5
Actuated Green, G (s)33.043.243.29.2
Effective Green, g (s)33.043.243.29.2
Actuated g/C Ratio0.550.720.720.15
Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.0
Vehicle Extension (s)3.03.03.03.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)1012334 1281239
v/s Ratio Protc0.43c0.040.20 c0.05
v/s Ratio Perm0.26
v/c Ratio0.780.430.280.30
Uniform Delay, d110.97.63.122.7
Progression Factor1.001.001.001.00
Incremental Delay, d24.00.90.10.7
Delay (s)14.98.53.223.5
Level of ServiceBAAC
Approach Delay (s)14.94.723.5
Approach LOSBAC
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay12.7HCM 2000 Level of ServiceB
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.65
Actuated Cycle Length (s)60.4Sum of lost time (s)12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization68.4%ICU Level of ServiceC
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group

QueuesNo Build AM
2: Exit 18-SB ON Ramp/Exit 18-SB OFF Ramp & Main St12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 Report
CHAPage 3
Lane GroupEBTEBRWBL WBTSBTSBR
Lane Group Flow (vph)702258446404223202
v/c Ratio0.490.320.830.350.690.47
Control Delay19.83.730.63.045.78.5
Queue Delay0.00.00.00.30.00.0
Total Delay19.83.730.63.345.78.5
Queue Length 50th (ft)1460140521230
Queue Length 95th (ft)23348 #3087919855
Internal Link Dist (ft)656424 1060
Turn Bay Length (ft)235260
Base Capacity (vph)1593882620 1265530583
Starvation Cap Reductn00036300
Spillback Cap Reductn3500000
Storage Cap Reductn000000
Reduced v/c Ratio0.450.290.720.450.420.35
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity AnalysisNo Build AM
2: Exit 18-SB ON Ramp/Exit 18-SB OFF Ramp & Main St12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 Report
CHAPage 4
MovementEBLEBTEBRWBL WBT WBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)064623741037200002050186
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width111112101188121281212
Total Lost time (s)5.05.05.05.05.05.0
Lane Util. Factor0.951.001.001.001.001.00
Frpb, ped/bikes1.000.971.001.001.000.97
Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.00
Frt1.000.851.001.001.000.85
Flt Protected1.001.000.951.000.951.00
Satd. Flow (prot)3261 1539 1588 17011736 1453
Flt Permitted1.001.000.311.000.951.00
Satd. Flow (perm)3261 1539521 17011736 1453
Peak-hour factor, PHF0.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.92
Adj. Flow (vph)070225844640400002230202
RTOR Reduction (vph)0014400000000164
Lane Group Flow (vph)07021144464040000022338
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)555
Heavy Vehicles (%)0%7%2%6%8%0%0%0%0%4%0%8%
Turn TypeNA Perm pm+ptNAPermNA Perm
Protected Phases12 1 2 53
Permitted Phases1 1 2 533
Actuated Green, G (s)37.337.354.454.415.815.8
Effective Green, g (s)37.337.354.454.415.815.8
Actuated g/C Ratio0.440.440.640.640.190.19
Clearance Time (s)5.05.05.05.05.0
Vehicle Extension (s)4.04.02.02.02.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)1439679542 1095324271
v/s Ratio Prot0.22c0.160.24
v/s Ratio Perm0.07 c0.370.130.03
v/c Ratio0.490.170.820.370.690.14
Uniform Delay, d116.814.216.57.032.128.7
Progression Factor1.001.000.960.381.001.00
Incremental Delay, d20.40.28.00.24.80.1
Delay (s)17.214.423.92.936.828.8
Level of ServiceBBCADC
Approach Delay (s)16.413.90.033.0
Approach LOSBBAC
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay18.6HCM 2000 Level of ServiceB
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.80
Actuated Cycle Length (s)84.5Sum of lost time (s)15.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization66.3%ICU Level of ServiceC
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group

QueuesNo Build AM
3: Exit 18-NB OFF Ramp/Exit 18-NB ON Ramp & Main St12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 Report
CHAPage 5
Lane GroupEBLEBTWBTNBLNBTNBR
Lane Group Flow (vph)280645924172298297
v/c Ratio0.620.530.620.560.580.58
Control Delay24.15.820.640.48.88.7
Queue Delay0.00.50.20.00.00.0
Total Delay24.16.220.840.48.88.7
Queue Length 50th (ft)83951969200
Queue Length 95th (ft)1864943091556767
Internal Link Dist (ft)424376672
Turn Bay Length (ft)290380
Base Capacity (vph)545 1329 1611505650650
Starvation Cap Reductn0286157000
Spillback Cap Reductn000000
Storage Cap Reductn000000
Reduced v/c Ratio0.510.620.640.340.460.46
Intersection Summary

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity AnalysisNo Build AM
3: Exit 18-NB OFF Ramp/Exit 18-NB ON Ramp & Main St12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 Report
CHAPage 6
MovementEBLEBTEBRWBL WBT WBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)258593006242261580547000
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width10118812111212128128
Total Lost time (s)5.05.05.05.05.05.0
Lane Util. Factor1.001.000.951.000.950.95
Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.000.991.000.980.98
Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.00
Frt1.001.000.961.000.850.85
Flt Protected0.951.001.000.951.001.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1589 176632351656 1446 1446
Flt Permitted0.211.001.000.951.001.00
Satd. Flow (perm)351 176632351656 1446 1446
Peak-hour factor, PHF0.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.92
Adj. Flow (vph)280645006782461720595000
RTOR Reduction (vph)00003400242241000
Lane Group Flow (vph)2806450089001725656000
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)555
Heavy Vehicles (%)6%4%0%0%5%10%9%0%4%0%0%0%
Turn Typepm+ptNANAPermNA Perm
Protected Phases6 1 5 657
Permitted Phases1 5 677
Actuated Green, G (s)53.758.738.015.815.815.8
Effective Green, g (s)53.758.738.015.815.815.8
Actuated g/C Ratio0.640.690.450.190.190.19
Clearance Time (s)5.05.05.05.05.0
Vehicle Extension (s)2.04.02.02.02.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)453 12261454309270270
v/s Ratio Protc0.11 c0.370.280.04
v/s Ratio Permc0.28c0.100.04
v/c Ratio0.620.530.610.560.210.21
Uniform Delay, d118.26.217.731.229.029.0
Progression Factor1.040.591.001.001.001.00
Incremental Delay, d21.60.50.91.20.10.1
Delay (s)20.54.118.532.429.229.2
Level of ServiceCABCCC
Approach Delay (s)9.118.529.90.0
Approach LOSABCA
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay18.5HCM 2000 Level of ServiceB
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.61
Actuated Cycle Length (s)84.5Sum of lost time (s)15.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization66.3%ICU Level of ServiceC
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group

QueuesNo Build AM
4: Big Boom Rd/Media Dr & Main St12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 Report
CHAPage 7
Lane GroupEBLEBTWBL WBTNBTSBLSBT
Lane Group Flow (vph)187 1079187276518207
v/c Ratio0.440.470.050.740.870.070.52
Control Delay16.713.68.324.5 103.130.110.1
Queue Delay0.00.60.00.00.00.00.0
Total Delay16.714.38.324.5 103.130.110.1
Queue Length 50th (ft)186842472483
Queue Length 95th (ft)9141314 #757792758
Internal Link Dist (ft)376131742425
Turn Bay Length (ft)11560100
Base Capacity (vph)495 2326430996161475872
Starvation Cap Reductn079800000
Spillback Cap Reductn0000000
Storage Cap Reductn0000000
Reduced v/c Ratio0.380.710.040.730.400.040.24
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity AnalysisNo Build AM
4: Big Boom Rd/Media Dr & Main St12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 Report
CHAPage 8
MovementEBLEBTEBRWBL WBT WBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)16895516166381632521165181
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width11121212128812812128
Total Lost time (s)5.05.05.05.05.05.05.0
Lane Util. Factor1.000.951.001.001.001.001.00
Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.000.991.000.97
Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.001.00
Frt1.001.001.001.000.951.000.85
Flt Protected0.951.000.951.000.970.951.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1678 34881612 177114731805 1532
Flt Permitted0.201.000.201.000.350.761.00
Satd. Flow (perm)360 3488342 17715231443 1532
Peak-hour factor, PHF0.900.900.900.900.900.900.900.900.900.900.900.90
Adj. Flow (vph)187 106118187091836623186201
RTOR Reduction (vph)010000018001670
Lane Group Flow (vph)187 10780187270047018400
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)5555
Heavy Vehicles (%)4%3%14%12%7%0%25%0%14%0%0%3%
Turn Typepm+ptNApm+ptNAPermNApm+ptNA
Protected Phases6125347
Permitted Phases1537
Actuated Green, G (s)70.560.156.050.69.016.616.6
Effective Green, g (s)70.560.156.050.69.016.616.6
Actuated g/C Ratio0.730.620.580.520.090.170.17
Clearance Time (s)5.05.05.05.05.05.05.0
Vehicle Extension (s)2.05.02.05.02.02.02.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)463 215826792248256261
v/s Ratio Protc0.06 c0.310.00 c0.410.00 c0.03
v/s Ratio Perm0.230.03c0.090.01
v/c Ratio0.400.500.070.790.980.070.15
Uniform Delay, d120.010.215.218.943.935.334.3
Progression Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.001.00
Incremental Delay, d20.20.40.05.2119.60.00.1
Delay (s)20.210.615.224.1163.535.334.4
Level of ServiceCBBCFDC
Approach Delay (s)12.023.9163.534.5
Approach LOSBCFC
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay22.3HCM 2000 Level of ServiceC
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.73
Actuated Cycle Length (s)97.1Sum of lost time (s)20.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization80.1%ICU Level of ServiceD
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group

QueuesNo Build AM
5: Pine St & Main St12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 Report
CHAPage 9
Lane GroupEBLEBTWBL WBTNBTSBT
Lane Group Flow (vph)369921708850
v/c Ratio0.080.780.000.570.030.19
Control Delay11.622.112.017.820.012.4
Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.0
Total Delay11.622.112.017.820.012.4
Queue Length 50th (ft)114808023
Queue Length 95th (ft)34 #11634 #8461434
Internal Link Dist (ft)9201135476583
Turn Bay Length (ft)15050
Base Capacity (vph)500 1280317 1242815699
Starvation Cap Reductn000000
Spillback Cap Reductn000000
Storage Cap Reductn000000
Reduced v/c Ratio0.070.780.000.570.010.07
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity AnalysisNo Build AM
5: Pine St & Main St12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 Report
CHAPage 10
MovementEBLEBTEBRWBL WBT WBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)32892116261151111133
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width111281112881188118
Total Lost time (s)5.05.05.05.05.05.0
Lane Util. Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.00
Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.000.98
Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.00
Frt1.001.001.001.000.980.90
Flt Protected0.951.000.951.000.960.99
Satd. Flow (prot)1694 18441745 180217351451
Flt Permitted0.231.000.121.000.960.99
Satd. Flow (perm)415 1844222 180217351451
Peak-hour factor, PHF0.900.900.900.900.900.900.900.900.900.900.900.90
Adj. Flow (vph)36991116961261112137
RTOR Reduction (vph)0000000100340
Lane Group Flow (vph)369920170800700160
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)5555
Heavy Vehicles (%)3%3%0%0%5%11%0%0%0%0%0%14%
Turn Typepm+ptNApm+ptNASplitNASplitNA
Protected Phases61253344
Permitted Phases15
Actuated Green, G (s)34.133.333.733.12.55.6
Effective Green, g (s)34.133.333.733.12.55.6
Actuated g/C Ratio0.550.540.540.530.040.09
Clearance Time (s)5.05.05.05.05.05.0
Vehicle Extension (s)3.03.03.03.03.03.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)24499013596269131
v/s Ratio Protc0.00 c0.540.000.39c0.00c0.01
v/s Ratio Perm0.080.00
v/c Ratio0.151.000.010.740.100.12
Uniform Delay, d114.714.426.611.128.725.9
Progression Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.00
Incremental Delay, d20.329.10.03.00.70.4
Delay (s)15.043.426.614.029.326.4
Level of ServiceBDCBCC
Approach Delay (s)42.414.129.326.4
Approach LOSDBCC
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay30.7HCM 2000 Level of ServiceC
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.82
Actuated Cycle Length (s)62.0Sum of lost time (s)20.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization61.7%ICU Level of ServiceB
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group

QueuesNo Build AM
6: Richardson St & Main St12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 Report
CHAPage 11
Lane GroupEBLEBTWBL WBTNBTSBT
Lane Group Flow (vph)12903157812467
v/c Ratio0.031.010.000.650.300.14
Control Delay7.952.18.018.420.215.7
Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.0
Total Delay7.952.18.018.420.215.7
Queue Length 50th (ft)233501593515
Queue Length 95th (ft)9 #74123509148
Internal Link Dist (ft)1135550599330
Turn Bay Length (ft)5065
Base Capacity (vph)692898529888411468
Starvation Cap Reductn000000
Spillback Cap Reductn000000
Storage Cap Reductn000000
Reduced v/c Ratio0.021.010.000.650.300.14
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity AnalysisNo Build AM
6: Richardson St & Main St12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 Report
CHAPage 12
MovementEBLEBTEBRWBL WBT WBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)11750631515595115321612
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width1112812121281188118
Total Lost time (s)5.05.05.05.05.05.0
Lane Util. Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.00
Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.000.99
Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.00
Frt1.000.991.001.000.990.97
Flt Protected0.951.000.951.000.960.97
Satd. Flow (prot)1745 18161805 180716371615
Flt Permitted0.271.000.121.000.720.83
Satd. Flow (perm)492 1816224 180712281378
Peak-hour factor, PHF0.900.900.900.900.900.900.900.900.900.900.900.90
Adj. Flow (vph)128337015726106126361813
RTOR Reduction (vph)030010020090
Lane Group Flow (vph)12900015770012200580
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)5555
Heavy Vehicles (%)0%3%5%0%5%0%7%8%0%7%0%18%
Turn Typepm+ptNApm+ptNAPermNAPermNA
Protected Phases612537
Permitted Phases1537
Actuated Green, G (s)35.234.135.034.023.123.1
Effective Green, g (s)35.234.135.034.023.123.1
Actuated g/C Ratio0.480.470.480.460.320.32
Clearance Time (s)5.05.05.05.05.05.0
Vehicle Extension (s)3.03.03.03.03.03.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)255845128839387434
v/s Ratio Protc0.00 c0.500.000.32
v/s Ratio Perm0.020.00c0.100.04
v/c Ratio0.051.070.010.690.320.13
Uniform Delay, d111.219.616.115.419.017.9
Progression Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.00
Incremental Delay, d20.149.90.02.42.10.1
Delay (s)11.369.516.117.821.218.0
Level of ServiceBEBBCB
Approach Delay (s)68.717.821.218.0
Approach LOSEBCB
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay45.7HCM 2000 Level of ServiceD
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.75
Actuated Cycle Length (s)73.2Sum of lost time (s)15.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization70.8%ICU Level of ServiceC
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group

QueuesNo Build PM
1: Big Bay Rd & Corinth Rd (Rte 28)12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 Report
CHAPage 1
Lane GroupEBTWBL WBTNBL
Lane Group Flow (vph)578119489208
v/c Ratio0.660.260.400.49
Control Delay17.45.76.011.2
Queue Delay0.00.00.00.0
Total Delay17.45.76.011.2
Queue Length 50th (ft)11784312
Queue Length 95th (ft)#3554116765
Internal Link Dist (ft)589656426
Turn Bay Length (ft)247
Base Capacity (vph)1140564 1653834
Starvation Cap Reductn0000
Spillback Cap Reductn0000
Storage Cap Reductn0000
Reduced v/c Ratio0.510.210.300.25
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity AnalysisNo Build PM
1: Big Bay Rd & Corinth Rd (Rte 28)12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 Report
CHAPage 2
MovementEBTEBRWBL WBTNBLNBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)5442311747950154
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width121211121212
Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.0
Lane Util. Factor1.001.001.001.00
Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.00
Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.00
Frt0.991.001.000.90
Flt Protected1.000.951.000.99
Satd. Flow (prot)18211661 1881 1636
Flt Permitted1.000.251.000.99
Satd. Flow (perm)1821431 1881 1636
Peak-hour factor, PHF0.980.980.980.980.980.98
Adj. Flow (vph)5552311948951157
RTOR Reduction (vph)20001290
Lane Group Flow (vph)5760119489790
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)555
Heavy Vehicles (%)3%20%5%1%0%4%
Turn TypeNApm+ptNAProt
Protected Phases1253
Permitted Phases5
Actuated Green, G (s)24.334.034.09.1
Effective Green, g (s)24.334.034.09.1
Actuated g/C Ratio0.480.670.670.18
Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.0
Vehicle Extension (s)3.03.03.03.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)865423 1251291
v/s Ratio Protc0.320.03 c0.26 c0.05
v/s Ratio Perm0.16
v/c Ratio0.670.280.390.27
Uniform Delay, d110.34.93.918.1
Progression Factor1.001.001.001.00
Incremental Delay, d22.00.40.20.5
Delay (s)12.25.34.118.6
Level of ServiceBAAB
Approach Delay (s)12.24.318.6
Approach LOSBAB
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay9.7HCM 2000 Level of ServiceA
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.55
Actuated Cycle Length (s)51.1Sum of lost time (s)12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization58.8%ICU Level of ServiceB
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group

QueuesNo Build PM
2: Exit 18-SB ON Ramp/Exit 18-SB OFF Ramp & Main St12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 Report
CHAPage 3
Lane GroupEBTEBRWBL WBTSBTSBR
Lane Group Flow (vph)593187526445204241
v/c Ratio0.430.250.820.360.630.50
Control Delay19.83.927.73.242.18.1
Queue Delay0.00.00.00.40.00.0
Total Delay19.83.927.73.642.18.1
Queue Length 50th (ft)1190165631110
Queue Length 95th (ft)19041 #3579418259
Internal Link Dist (ft)656424 1060
Turn Bay Length (ft)235260
Base Capacity (vph)1650857685 1275523634
Starvation Cap Reductn00039700
Spillback Cap Reductn3200000
Storage Cap Reductn000000
Reduced v/c Ratio0.370.220.770.510.390.38
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity AnalysisNo Build PM
2: Exit 18-SB ON Ramp/Exit 18-SB OFF Ramp & Main St12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 Report
CHAPage 4
MovementEBLEBTEBRWBL WBT WBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)058118351543600002000236
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width111112101188121281212
Total Lost time (s)5.05.05.05.05.05.0
Lane Util. Factor0.951.001.001.001.001.00
Frpb, ped/bikes1.000.971.001.001.000.97
Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.00
Frt1.000.851.001.001.000.85
Flt Protected1.001.000.951.000.951.00
Satd. Flow (prot)3355 1554 1650 17831703 1524
Flt Permitted1.001.000.371.000.951.00
Satd. Flow (perm)3355 1554639 17831703 1524
Peak-hour factor, PHF0.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.98
Adj. Flow (vph)059318752644500002040241
RTOR Reduction (vph)0011000000000195
Lane Group Flow (vph)0593775264450000020446
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)555
Heavy Vehicles (%)0%4%1%2%3%0%0%0%0%6%0%3%
Turn TypeNA Perm pm+ptNAPermNA Perm
Protected Phases12 1 2 53
Permitted Phases1 1 2 533
Actuated Green, G (s)34.534.556.956.916.116.1
Effective Green, g (s)34.534.556.956.916.116.1
Actuated g/C Ratio0.410.410.680.680.190.19
Clearance Time (s)5.05.05.05.05.0
Vehicle Extension (s)4.04.02.02.02.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)1377638654 1207326292
v/s Ratio Prot0.18c0.180.25
v/s Ratio Perm0.05 c0.370.120.03
v/c Ratio0.430.120.800.370.630.16
Uniform Delay, d117.715.313.95.831.228.3
Progression Factor1.001.000.930.391.001.00
Incremental Delay, d20.30.15.60.22.70.1
Delay (s)18.015.518.42.533.928.4
Level of ServiceBBBACC
Approach Delay (s)17.411.10.030.9
Approach LOSBBAC
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay17.4HCM 2000 Level of ServiceB
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.80
Actuated Cycle Length (s)84.0Sum of lost time (s)15.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization70.4%ICU Level of ServiceC
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group

QueuesNo Build PM
3: Exit 18-NB OFF Ramp/Exit 18-NB ON Ramp & Main St12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 Report
CHAPage 5
Lane GroupEBLEBTWBTNBLNBTNBR
Lane Group Flow (vph)257540 1017218269268
v/c Ratio0.620.450.650.650.460.46
Control Delay27.05.121.042.43.13.1
Queue Delay0.00.30.30.00.00.0
Total Delay27.05.321.342.43.13.1
Queue Length 50th (ft)828422511900
Queue Length 95th (ft)17712234719377
Internal Link Dist (ft)424376672
Turn Bay Length (ft)290380
Base Capacity (vph)540 1346 1685544708708
Starvation Cap Reductn0285190000
Spillback Cap Reductn000000
Storage Cap Reductn000000
Reduced v/c Ratio0.480.510.680.400.380.38
Intersection Summary

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity AnalysisNo Build PM
3: Exit 18-NB OFF Ramp/Exit 18-NB ON Ramp & Main St12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 Report
CHAPage 6
MovementEBLEBTEBRWBL WBT WBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)252529007402572140526000
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width10118812111212128128
Total Lost time (s)5.05.05.05.05.05.0
Lane Util. Factor1.001.000.951.000.950.95
Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.000.991.000.980.98
Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.00
Frt1.001.000.961.000.850.85
Flt Protected0.951.001.000.951.001.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1635 176633691770 1460 1460
Flt Permitted0.181.001.000.951.001.00
Satd. Flow (perm)305 176633691770 1460 1460
Peak-hour factor, PHF0.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.98
Adj. Flow (vph)257540007552622180537000
RTOR Reduction (vph)00003100217217000
Lane Group Flow (vph)2575400098602185251000
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)555
Heavy Vehicles (%)3%4%0%0%2%3%2%0%3%0%0%0%
Turn Typepm+ptNANAPermNA Perm
Protected Phases6 1 5 657
Permitted Phases1 5 677
Actuated Green, G (s)52.957.938.516.116.116.1
Effective Green, g (s)52.957.938.516.116.116.1
Actuated g/C Ratio0.630.690.460.190.190.19
Clearance Time (s)5.05.05.05.05.0
Vehicle Extension (s)2.04.02.02.02.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)420 12171544339279279
v/s Ratio Protc0.10 c0.31c0.290.04
v/s Ratio Perm0.28c0.120.04
v/c Ratio0.610.440.640.640.180.18
Uniform Delay, d119.65.817.431.328.528.4
Progression Factor1.090.581.001.001.001.00
Incremental Delay, d21.80.31.03.10.10.1
Delay (s)23.23.718.434.428.628.6
Level of ServiceCABCCC
Approach Delay (s)10.018.430.30.0
Approach LOSABCA
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay19.3HCM 2000 Level of ServiceB
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.65
Actuated Cycle Length (s)84.0Sum of lost time (s)15.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization70.4%ICU Level of ServiceC
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group

QueuesNo Build PM
4: Big Boom Rd/Media Dr & Main St12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 Report
CHAPage 7
Lane GroupEBLEBTWBL WBTNBTSBLSBT
Lane Group Flow (vph)140971277688817256
v/c Ratio0.380.440.070.751.100.060.56
Control Delay16.214.38.724.5 160.428.69.8
Queue Delay0.00.50.00.00.00.00.0
Total Delay16.214.88.724.5 160.428.69.8
Queue Length 50th (ft)16715259~4276
Queue Length 95th (ft)6935619 #802 #1362667
Internal Link Dist (ft)376131742425
Turn Bay Length (ft)11560100
Base Capacity (vph)483 2285482 1028148489903
Starvation Cap Reductn077500000
Spillback Cap Reductn0000000
Storage Cap Reductn0000000
Reduced v/c Ratio0.290.640.060.750.590.030.28
Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity AnalysisNo Build PM
4: Big Boom Rd/Media Dr & Main St12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 Report
CHAPage 8
MovementEBLEBTEBRWBL WBT WBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)133911112671811475321611232
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width11121212128812812128
Total Lost time (s)5.05.05.05.05.05.05.0
Lane Util. Factor1.000.951.001.001.001.001.00
Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.000.991.000.97
Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.001.00
Frt1.001.001.001.000.951.000.86
Flt Protected0.951.000.951.000.970.951.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1728 34861671 182315731805 1547
Flt Permitted0.181.000.231.000.290.711.00
Satd. Flow (perm)328 3486412 18234701346 1547
Peak-hour factor, PHF0.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.95
Adj. Flow (vph)140959122775612495341712244
RTOR Reduction (vph)000000020001980
Lane Group Flow (vph)1409710277680068017580
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)5555
Heavy Vehicles (%)1%3%30%8%4%0%15%20%3%0%8%2%
Turn Typepm+ptNApm+ptNAPermNApm+ptNA
Protected Phases6125347
Permitted Phases1537
Actuated Green, G (s)68.858.057.051.210.718.318.3
Effective Green, g (s)68.858.057.051.210.718.318.3
Actuated g/C Ratio0.710.600.590.530.110.190.19
Clearance Time (s)5.05.05.05.05.05.05.0
Vehicle Extension (s)2.05.02.05.02.02.02.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)414 208231796151265291
v/s Ratio Protc0.04 c0.280.01 c0.420.00 c0.04
v/s Ratio Perm0.200.04c0.140.01
v/c Ratio0.340.470.090.801.320.060.20
Uniform Delay, d121.410.913.918.743.235.233.2
Progression Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.001.00
Incremental Delay, d20.20.30.05.4235.30.00.1
Delay (s)21.611.314.024.1278.535.233.3
Level of ServiceCBBCFDC
Approach Delay (s)12.623.8278.533.5
Approach LOSBCFC
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay29.3HCM 2000 Level of ServiceC
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.79
Actuated Cycle Length (s)97.1Sum of lost time (s)20.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization86.2%ICU Level of ServiceE
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group

QueuesNo Build PM
5: Pine St & Main St12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 Report
CHAPage 9
Lane GroupEBLEBTWBL WBTNBTSBT
Lane Group Flow (vph)629021756735
v/c Ratio0.150.630.000.630.030.14
Control Delay14.416.813.021.716.615.1
Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.0
Total Delay14.416.813.021.716.615.1
Queue Length 50th (ft)0008613
Queue Length 95th (ft)52 #10474 #9061229
Internal Link Dist (ft)9201135476583
Turn Bay Length (ft)15050
Base Capacity (vph)448 1443304 1203726682
Starvation Cap Reductn000000
Spillback Cap Reductn000000
Storage Cap Reductn000000
Reduced v/c Ratio0.140.630.000.630.010.05
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity AnalysisNo Build PM
5: Pine St & Main St12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 Report
CHAPage 10
MovementEBLEBTEBRWBL WBT WBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)59852517021611511121
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width111281112881188118
Total Lost time (s)5.05.05.05.05.05.0
Lane Util. Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.00
Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.000.980.98
Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.00
Frt1.001.001.001.000.900.92
Flt Protected0.951.000.951.000.990.98
Satd. Flow (prot)1678 18611745 181916161496
Flt Permitted0.191.000.121.000.990.98
Satd. Flow (perm)343 1861225 181916161496
Peak-hour factor, PHF0.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.95
Adj. Flow (vph)62897517391711512122
RTOR Reduction (vph)0000000500210
Lane Group Flow (vph)629020175600200140
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)5555
Heavy Vehicles (%)4%2%0%0%4%6%0%0%0%25%0%0%
Turn Typepm+ptNApm+ptNASplitNASplitNA
Protected Phases61253344
Permitted Phases15
Actuated Green, G (s)43.337.733.332.72.64.1
Effective Green, g (s)43.337.733.332.72.64.1
Actuated g/C Ratio0.670.580.510.500.040.06
Clearance Time (s)5.05.05.05.05.05.0
Vehicle Extension (s)3.03.03.03.03.03.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)343 10791299156494
v/s Ratio Protc0.02 c0.480.000.42c0.00c0.01
v/s Ratio Perm0.100.00
v/c Ratio0.180.840.010.830.030.15
Uniform Delay, d113.611.122.613.730.028.8
Progression Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.00
Incremental Delay, d20.35.70.06.20.20.8
Delay (s)13.916.922.619.930.229.6
Level of ServiceBBCBCC
Approach Delay (s)16.719.930.229.6
Approach LOSBBCC
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay18.4HCM 2000 Level of ServiceB
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.69
Actuated Cycle Length (s)65.0Sum of lost time (s)20.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization63.7%ICU Level of ServiceB
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group

QueuesNo Build PM
6: Richardson St & Main St12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 Report
CHAPage 11
Lane GroupEBLEBTWBL WBTNBTSBT
Lane Group Flow (vph)2383056507942
v/c Ratio0.080.900.020.760.170.08
Control Delay8.232.37.825.019.214.4
Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.0
Total Delay8.232.37.825.019.214.4
Queue Length 50th (ft)42831189228
Queue Length 95th (ft)13 #6575 #4676132
Internal Link Dist (ft)1135550599330
Turn Bay Length (ft)5065
Base Capacity (vph)630920524851473527
Starvation Cap Reductn000000
Spillback Cap Reductn000000
Storage Cap Reductn000000
Reduced v/c Ratio0.040.900.010.760.170.08
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity AnalysisNo Build PM
6: Richardson St & Main St12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 Report
CHAPage 12
MovementEBLEBTEBRWBL WBT WBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)227206856061158161111612
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width1112812121281188118
Total Lost time (s)5.05.05.05.05.05.0
Lane Util. Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.00
Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.000.99
Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.00
Frt1.000.991.001.001.000.96
Flt Protected0.951.000.951.000.960.99
Satd. Flow (prot)1662 18341805 182217651663
Flt Permitted0.191.000.121.000.790.94
Satd. Flow (perm)329 1834225 182214401579
Peak-hour factor, PHF0.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.95
Adj. Flow (vph)237587256381261171121713
RTOR Reduction (vph)030010010090
Lane Group Flow (vph)2382705649007800330
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)5555
Heavy Vehicles (%)5%2%2%0%4%0%0%0%0%0%0%11%
Turn Typepm+ptNApm+ptNAPermNAPermNA
Protected Phases612537
Permitted Phases1537
Actuated Green, G (s)37.735.234.933.823.123.1
Effective Green, g (s)37.735.234.933.823.123.1
Actuated g/C Ratio0.510.470.470.450.310.31
Clearance Time (s)5.05.05.05.05.05.0
Vehicle Extension (s)3.03.03.03.03.03.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)211867128827447490
v/s Ratio Protc0.00 c0.450.000.36
v/s Ratio Perm0.050.02c0.050.02
v/c Ratio0.110.950.040.790.180.07
Uniform Delay, d111.818.815.517.218.718.1
Progression Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.00
Incremental Delay, d20.220.00.14.90.90.1
Delay (s)12.038.915.622.219.618.1
Level of ServiceBDBCBB
Approach Delay (s)38.122.119.618.1
Approach LOSDCBB
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay30.3HCM 2000 Level of ServiceC
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.64
Actuated Cycle Length (s)74.4Sum of lost time (s)15.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization69.6%ICU Level of ServiceC
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group

QueuesBuild AM (Existing Cycle & Optimized Splits)
1: Big Bay Rd & Corinth Rd (Rte 28)12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 Report
CHAPage 1
Lane GroupEBLEBTWBL WBTNBTSBT
Lane Group Flow (vph)5687023955925295
v/c Ratio0.090.860.740.590.650.86
Control Delay11.528.233.421.318.185.2
Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.0
Total Delay11.528.233.421.318.185.2
Queue Length 50th (ft)12353832293040
Queue Length 95th (ft)36 #730 #222 #462100 #109
Internal Link Dist (ft)58965642650
Turn Bay Length (ft)100247
Base Capacity (vph)720 1044371945559192
Starvation Cap Reductn000000
Spillback Cap Reductn000000
Storage Cap Reductn000000
Reduced v/c Ratio0.080.830.640.590.450.49
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Build AM (Existing Cycle & Optimized Splits)
1: Big Bay Rd & Corinth Rd (Rte 28)12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 Report
CHAPage 2
MovementEBLEBTEBRWBL WBT WBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)527575222236115950218269119
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width111212111212121212111111
Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.0
Lane Util. Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.00
Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.000.991.000.99
Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.00
Frt1.000.991.000.950.900.97
Flt Protected0.951.000.951.000.990.96
Satd. Flow (prot)1711 18401678 171415861673
Flt Permitted0.451.000.131.000.920.36
Satd. Flow (perm)819 1840227 17141478631
Peak-hour factor, PHF0.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.93
Adj. Flow (vph)568145623938817154219674120
RTOR Reduction (vph)0200130015700120
Lane Group Flow (vph)568680239546009500830
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)55555
Heavy Vehicles (%)2%2%3%4%6%2%2%2%7%2%2%2%
Turn Typepm+ptNApm+ptNAPermNAPermNA
Protected Phases612537
Permitted Phases1537
Actuated Green, G (s)44.044.041.841.812.112.1
Effective Green, g (s)44.044.041.841.812.112.1
Actuated g/C Ratio0.560.560.530.530.150.15
Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.0
Vehicle Extension (s)3.03.03.03.03.03.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)603 102731790922696
v/s Ratio Prot0.02 c0.47c0.100.32
v/s Ratio Perm0.040.300.06c0.13
v/c Ratio0.090.840.750.600.420.87
Uniform Delay, d18.214.516.412.730.232.6
Progression Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.00
Incremental Delay, d20.16.59.81.11.351.0
Delay (s)8.321.126.113.931.583.5
Level of ServiceACCBCF
Approach Delay (s)20.317.531.583.5
Approach LOSCBCF
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay23.5HCM 2000 Level of ServiceC
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.83
Actuated Cycle Length (s)78.8Sum of lost time (s)12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization80.1%ICU Level of ServiceD
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group

QueuesBuild AM (Existing Cycle & Optimized Splits)
2: Exit 18-SB ON Ramp/Exit 18-SB OFF Ramp & Main St12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 Report
CHAPage 3
Lane GroupEBTEBRWBL WBTSBTSBR
Lane Group Flow (vph)827284466621270297
v/c Ratio0.720.390.800.530.740.55
Control Delay32.05.028.94.446.67.9
Queue Delay0.90.00.20.80.00.0
Total Delay32.95.029.05.246.67.9
Queue Length 50th (ft)23202161001510
Queue Length 95th (ft)33157 m# 33713624065
Internal Link Dist (ft)656424 1060
Turn Bay Length (ft)235260
Base Capacity (vph)1146720660 1265492628
Starvation Cap Reductn001233900
Spillback Cap Reductn12100000
Storage Cap Reductn000000
Reduced v/c Ratio0.810.390.720.670.550.47
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Build AM (Existing Cycle & Optimized Splits)
2: Exit 18-SB ON Ramp/Exit 18-SB OFF Ramp & Main St12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 Report
CHAPage 4
MovementEBLEBTEBRWBL WBT WBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)076126142957100002480273
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width111112101188121281212
Total Lost time (s)5.05.05.05.05.05.0
Lane Util. Factor0.951.001.001.001.001.00
Frpb, ped/bikes1.000.971.001.001.000.97
Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.00
Frt1.000.851.001.001.000.85
Flt Protected1.001.000.951.000.951.00
Satd. Flow (prot)3292 1538 1589 17331752 1480
Flt Permitted1.001.000.211.000.951.00
Satd. Flow (perm)3292 1538355 17331752 1480
Peak-hour factor, PHF0.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.92
Adj. Flow (vph)082728446662100002700297
RTOR Reduction (vph)0018500000000235
Lane Group Flow (vph)0827994666210000027062
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)555
Heavy Vehicles (%)0%6%2%6%6%0%0%0%0%3%0%6%
Turn TypeNA Perm pm+ptNAPermNA Perm
Protected Phases12 1 2 53
Permitted Phases1 1 2 533
Actuated Green, G (s)31.531.561.361.318.918.9
Effective Green, g (s)31.531.561.361.318.918.9
Actuated g/C Ratio0.350.350.680.680.210.21
Clearance Time (s)5.05.05.05.05.0
Vehicle Extension (s)4.04.02.02.02.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)1149537580 1177367310
v/s Ratio Prot0.25c0.220.36
v/s Ratio Perm0.06 c0.320.150.04
v/c Ratio0.720.180.800.530.740.20
Uniform Delay, d125.520.418.87.233.329.4
Progression Factor1.001.000.900.391.001.00
Incremental Delay, d22.30.25.10.46.50.1
Delay (s)27.920.622.13.239.829.5
Level of ServiceCCCADC
Approach Delay (s)26.011.30.034.4
Approach LOSCBAC
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay22.0HCM 2000 Level of ServiceC
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.82
Actuated Cycle Length (s)90.2Sum of lost time (s)15.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization72.1%ICU Level of ServiceC
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group

QueuesBuild AM (Existing Cycle & Optimized Splits)
3: Exit 18-NB OFF Ramp/Exit 18-NB ON Ramp & Main St12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 Report
CHAPage 5
Lane GroupEBLEBTWBTNBLNBTNBR
Lane Group Flow (vph)312785 1098259320319
v/c Ratio0.770.660.770.740.670.66
Control Delay35.99.427.646.917.917.7
Queue Delay0.05.30.80.00.00.0
Total Delay35.914.728.346.917.917.7
Queue Length 50th (ft)1474862891455050
Queue Length 95th (ft)m241665 #415232147146
Internal Link Dist (ft)424376672
Turn Bay Length (ft)290380
Base Capacity (vph)489 1289 1428473568568
Starvation Cap Reductn0432111000
Spillback Cap Reductn000000
Storage Cap Reductn000000
Reduced v/c Ratio0.640.920.830.550.560.56
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Build AM (Existing Cycle & Optimized Splits)
3: Exit 18-NB OFF Ramp/Exit 18-NB ON Ramp & Main St12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 Report
CHAPage 6
MovementEBLEBTEBRWBL WBT WBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)287722007622482380588000
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width10118812111212128128
Total Lost time (s)5.05.05.05.05.05.0
Lane Util. Factor1.001.000.951.000.950.95
Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.000.991.000.980.98
Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.00
Frt1.001.000.961.000.850.85
Flt Protected0.951.001.000.951.001.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1604 176632811687 1447 1447
Flt Permitted0.131.001.000.951.001.00
Satd. Flow (perm)218 176632811687 1447 1447
Peak-hour factor, PHF0.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.92
Adj. Flow (vph)312785008282702590639000
RTOR Reduction (vph)00002900178178000
Lane Group Flow (vph)31278500 10690259142141000
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)555
Heavy Vehicles (%)5%4%0%0%4%9%7%0%4%0%0%0%
Turn Typepm+ptNANAPermNA Perm
Protected Phases6 1 5 657
Permitted Phases1 5 677
Actuated Green, G (s)56.361.338.618.918.918.9
Effective Green, g (s)56.361.338.618.918.918.9
Actuated g/C Ratio0.620.680.430.210.210.21
Clearance Time (s)5.05.05.05.05.0
Vehicle Extension (s)2.04.02.02.02.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)408 12001404353303303
v/s Ratio Protc0.15 c0.440.330.10
v/s Ratio Permc0.33c0.150.10
v/c Ratio0.760.650.760.730.470.47
Uniform Delay, d124.38.321.933.331.331.2
Progression Factor1.010.751.001.001.001.00
Incremental Delay, d25.51.02.66.70.40.4
Delay (s)30.17.324.540.031.731.6
Level of ServiceCACDCC
Approach Delay (s)13.824.534.00.0
Approach LOSBCCA
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay23.5HCM 2000 Level of ServiceC
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.77
Actuated Cycle Length (s)90.2Sum of lost time (s)15.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization72.1%ICU Level of ServiceC
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group

QueuesBuild AM (Existing Cycle & Optimized Splits)
4: Big Boom Rd/Media Dr & Main St12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 Report
CHAPage 7
Lane GroupEBLEBTWBL WBTNBTSBLSBT
Lane Group Flow (vph)186 121511975731618280
v/c Ratio0.950.870.430.961.010.050.42
Control Delay96.041.040.557.491.825.413.9
Queue Delay0.047.70.00.00.00.00.0
Total Delay96.088.740.557.491.825.413.9
Queue Length 50th (ft)9442739542227963
Queue Length 95th (ft)#254570101 #873 #45026139
Internal Link Dist (ft)376131742425
Turn Bay Length (ft)11560100
Base Capacity (vph)196 1416274788313379705
Starvation Cap Reductn032000000
Spillback Cap Reductn0000000
Storage Cap Reductn0000000
Reduced v/c Ratio0.951.110.430.961.010.050.40
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Build AM (Existing Cycle & Optimized Splits)
4: Big Boom Rd/Media Dr & Main St12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 Report
CHAPage 8
MovementEBLEBTEBRWBL WBT WBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)1679321611076651614936991655197
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width11121212128812812128
Total Lost time (s)5.05.05.05.05.05.05.0
Lane Util. Factor1.000.951.001.001.001.001.00
Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.000.991.000.97
Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.001.00
Frt1.000.981.001.000.951.000.88
Flt Protected0.951.000.951.000.970.951.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1678 34111752 177116721805 1591
Flt Permitted0.081.000.071.000.530.551.00
Satd. Flow (perm)144 3411138 17719051054 1591
Peak-hour factor, PHF0.900.900.900.900.900.900.900.900.900.900.900.90
Adj. Flow (vph)186 103617911973918166401101861219
RTOR Reduction (vph)0110010016001040
Lane Group Flow (vph)186 12040119756003000181760
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)5555
Heavy Vehicles (%)4%3%3%3%7%0%6%2%4%0%2%3%
Turn Typepm+ptNApm+ptNAPermNApm+ptNA
Protected Phases6125347
Permitted Phases1537
Actuated Green, G (s)59.349.268.954.040.045.445.4
Effective Green, g (s)59.349.268.954.040.045.445.4
Actuated g/C Ratio0.480.400.550.430.320.360.36
Clearance Time (s)5.05.05.05.05.05.05.0
Vehicle Extension (s)2.05.02.05.02.02.02.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)193 1347269768290386580
v/s Ratio Protc0.080.35c0.05 c0.430.00 c0.11
v/s Ratio Perm0.380.19c0.330.02
v/c Ratio0.960.890.440.981.040.050.30
Uniform Delay, d153.735.241.234.842.236.228.3
Progression Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.001.00
Incremental Delay, d253.68.50.428.762.40.00.1
Delay (s)107.343.741.763.5104.736.228.4
Level of ServiceFDDEFDC
Approach Delay (s)52.160.6104.728.8
Approach LOSDEFC
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay58.0HCM 2000 Level of ServiceE
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.99
Actuated Cycle Length (s)124.5Sum of lost time (s)20.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization95.2%ICU Level of ServiceF
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group

QueuesBuild AM (Existing Cycle & Optimized Splits)
5: Pine St & Main St12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 Report
CHAPage 9
Lane GroupEBLEBTWBL WBTNBTSBT
Lane Group Flow (vph)36 10531833855
v/c Ratio0.100.820.000.660.030.20
Control Delay14.024.312.018.919.912.0
Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.0
Total Delay14.024.312.018.919.912.0
Queue Length 50th (ft)1169010523
Queue Length 95th (ft)34 #12394 #9931435
Internal Link Dist (ft)9201135476583
Turn Bay Length (ft)15050
Base Capacity (vph)367 1277318 1257819705
Starvation Cap Reductn000000
Spillback Cap Reductn000000
Storage Cap Reductn000000
Reduced v/c Ratio0.100.820.000.660.010.08
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Build AM (Existing Cycle & Optimized Splits)
5: Pine St & Main St12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 Report
CHAPage 10
MovementEBLEBTEBRWBL WBT WBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)32947117391151111138
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width111281112881188118
Total Lost time (s)5.05.05.05.05.05.0
Lane Util. Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.00
Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.000.98
Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.00
Frt1.001.001.001.000.980.90
Flt Protected0.951.000.951.000.960.99
Satd. Flow (prot)1694 18441745 182117351452
Flt Permitted0.141.000.121.000.960.99
Satd. Flow (perm)252 1844223 182117351452
Peak-hour factor, PHF0.900.900.900.900.900.900.900.900.900.900.900.90
Adj. Flow (vph)36 1052118211261112142
RTOR Reduction (vph)0000000100380
Lane Group Flow (vph)36 10530183300700170
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)5555
Heavy Vehicles (%)3%3%0%0%4%9%0%0%0%0%0%13%
Turn Typepm+ptNApm+ptNASplitNASplitNA
Protected Phases61253344
Permitted Phases15
Actuated Green, G (s)33.833.133.633.02.55.6
Effective Green, g (s)33.833.133.633.02.55.6
Actuated g/C Ratio0.550.540.540.530.040.09
Clearance Time (s)5.05.05.05.05.05.0
Vehicle Extension (s)3.03.03.03.03.03.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)15498713697270131
v/s Ratio Protc0.00 c0.570.000.46c0.00c0.01
v/s Ratio Perm0.120.00
v/c Ratio0.231.070.010.860.100.13
Uniform Delay, d119.614.326.512.428.625.9
Progression Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.00
Incremental Delay, d20.848.20.07.50.60.4
Delay (s)20.462.626.519.929.226.3
Level of ServiceCECBCC
Approach Delay (s)61.219.929.226.3
Approach LOSEBCC
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay42.8HCM 2000 Level of ServiceD
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.87
Actuated Cycle Length (s)61.8Sum of lost time (s)20.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization64.6%ICU Level of ServiceC
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group

QueuesBuild AM (Existing Cycle & Optimized Splits)
6: Richardson St & Main St12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 Report
CHAPage 11
Lane GroupEBLEBTWBL WBTNBTSBT
Lane Group Flow (vph)12964168713573
v/c Ratio0.030.790.000.570.580.28
Control Delay5.418.25.011.337.723.0
Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.0
Total Delay5.418.25.011.337.723.0
Queue Length 50th (ft)123201275220
Queue Length 95th (ft)8 #819242511759
Internal Link Dist (ft)1135550599330
Turn Bay Length (ft)5065
Base Capacity (vph)453 1216276 1208399435
Starvation Cap Reductn000000
Spillback Cap Reductn000000
Storage Cap Reductn000000
Reduced v/c Ratio0.030.790.000.570.340.17
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Build AM (Existing Cycle & Optimized Splits)
6: Richardson St & Main St12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 Report
CHAPage 12
MovementEBLEBTEBRWBL WBT WBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)118046416135105115321617
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width1112812121281188118
Total Lost time (s)5.05.05.05.05.05.0
Lane Util. Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.00
Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.000.99
Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.00
Frt1.000.991.001.000.990.96
Flt Protected0.951.000.951.000.960.98
Satd. Flow (prot)1745 18181805 180716351618
Flt Permitted0.301.000.141.000.770.84
Satd. Flow (perm)550 1818257 180713101390
Peak-hour factor, PHF0.900.900.900.900.900.900.900.900.900.900.900.90
Adj. Flow (vph)128937116816117126361819
RTOR Reduction (vph)0300000200160
Lane Group Flow (vph)12961016870013300570
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)5555
Heavy Vehicles (%)0%3%5%0%5%0%7%9%0%6%0%12%
Turn Typepm+ptNApm+ptNAPermNAPermNA
Protected Phases612537
Permitted Phases1537
Actuated Green, G (s)51.851.051.851.013.613.6
Effective Green, g (s)51.851.051.851.013.613.6
Actuated g/C Ratio0.640.630.640.630.170.17
Clearance Time (s)5.05.05.05.05.05.0
Vehicle Extension (s)3.03.03.03.03.03.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)366 1153180 1146221235
v/s Ratio Protc0.00 c0.530.000.38
v/s Ratio Perm0.020.00c0.100.04
v/c Ratio0.030.830.010.600.600.24
Uniform Delay, d16.211.410.38.730.928.9
Progression Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.00
Incremental Delay, d20.05.30.00.94.60.5
Delay (s)6.316.710.39.535.529.5
Level of ServiceABBADC
Approach Delay (s)16.69.535.529.5
Approach LOSBADC
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay15.9HCM 2000 Level of ServiceB
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.78
Actuated Cycle Length (s)80.4Sum of lost time (s)15.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization66.9%ICU Level of ServiceC
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group

QueuesBuild PM (Existing Cycle & Optimized Splits)
1: Big Bay Rd & Corinth Rd (Rte 28)12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 Report
CHAPage 1
Lane GroupEBLEBTWBL WBTNBTSBT
Lane Group Flow (vph)43667195686408261
v/c Ratio0.130.920.640.830.700.97
Control Delay22.647.629.936.225.178.9
Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.0
Total Delay22.647.629.936.225.178.9
Queue Length 50th (ft)1536578383132142
Queue Length 95th (ft)40 #655154 #686268 #329
Internal Link Dist (ft)58965642634
Turn Bay Length (ft)100247
Base Capacity (vph)494724418822581270
Starvation Cap Reductn000000
Spillback Cap Reductn000000
Storage Cap Reductn000000
Reduced v/c Ratio0.090.920.470.830.700.97
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Build PM (Existing Cycle & Optimized Splits)
1: Big Bay Rd & Corinth Rd (Rte 28)12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 Report
CHAPage 2
MovementEBLEBTEBRWBL WBT WBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)42604501915571161004296187267
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width111212111212121212111111
Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.0
Lane Util. Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.00
Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.000.991.000.99
Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.00
Frt1.000.991.000.970.900.96
Flt Protected0.951.000.951.000.990.96
Satd. Flow (prot)1711 18081678 181916461662
Flt Permitted0.241.000.141.000.870.45
Satd. Flow (perm)431 1808244 18191442774
Peak-hour factor, PHF0.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.98
Adj. Flow (vph)43616511955681181024302191268
RTOR Reduction (vph)030070010000120
Lane Group Flow (vph)43664019567900308002490
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)55555
Heavy Vehicles (%)2%3%11%4%1%2%1%2%3%2%2%2%
Turn Typepm+ptNApm+ptNAPermNAPermNA
Protected Phases612537
Permitted Phases1537
Actuated Green, G (s)38.738.741.741.731.131.1
Effective Green, g (s)38.738.741.741.731.131.1
Actuated g/C Ratio0.410.410.440.440.330.33
Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.0
Vehicle Extension (s)3.03.03.03.03.03.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)308739301801474254
v/s Ratio Prot0.01 c0.370.09 c0.37
v/s Ratio Perm0.040.200.21c0.32
v/c Ratio0.140.900.650.850.650.98
Uniform Delay, d125.726.120.423.627.131.4
Progression Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.00
Incremental Delay, d20.213.74.78.33.150.2
Delay (s)25.939.825.231.930.281.7
Level of ServiceCDCCCF
Approach Delay (s)39.030.430.281.7
Approach LOSDCCF
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay39.0HCM 2000 Level of ServiceD
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.94
Actuated Cycle Length (s)94.6Sum of lost time (s)12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization91.4%ICU Level of ServiceF
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group

QueuesBuild PM (Existing Cycle & Optimized Splits)
2: Exit 18-SB ON Ramp/Exit 18-SB OFF Ramp & Main St12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 Report
CHAPage 3
Lane GroupEBTEBRWBL WBTSBTSBR
Lane Group Flow (vph)908280601679274294
v/c Ratio0.890.421.020.570.740.56
Control Delay41.05.552.73.643.19.9
Queue Delay3.80.00.01.20.00.0
Total Delay44.85.552.74.843.19.9
Queue Length 50th (ft)2370 ~3018113416
Queue Length 95th (ft)#39558 m# 161m9921481
Internal Link Dist (ft)656424 1060
Turn Bay Length (ft)235260
Base Capacity (vph)1023664592 1185519638
Starvation Cap Reductn00028600
Spillback Cap Reductn6500000
Storage Cap Reductn000000
Reduced v/c Ratio0.950.421.020.760.530.46
Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Build PM (Existing Cycle & Optimized Splits)
2: Exit 18-SB ON Ramp/Exit 18-SB OFF Ramp & Main St12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 Report
CHAPage 4
MovementEBLEBTEBRWBL WBT WBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)089027458966500002690288
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width111112101188121281212
Total Lost time (s)5.05.05.05.05.05.0
Lane Util. Factor0.951.001.001.001.001.00
Frpb, ped/bikes1.000.971.001.001.000.97
Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.00
Frt1.000.851.001.001.000.85
Flt Protected1.001.000.951.000.951.00
Satd. Flow (prot)3388 1554 1651 17831719 1524
Flt Permitted1.001.000.151.000.951.00
Satd. Flow (perm)3388 1554257 17831719 1524
Peak-hour factor, PHF0.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.98
Adj. Flow (vph)090828060167900002740294
RTOR Reduction (vph)0019500000000201
Lane Group Flow (vph)0908856016790000027493
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)555
Heavy Vehicles (%)0%3%1%2%3%0%0%0%0%5%0%3%
Turn TypeNA Perm pm+ptNAPermNA Perm
Protected Phases12 1 2 53
Permitted Phases1 1 2 533
Actuated Green, G (s)25.125.155.255.217.817.8
Effective Green, g (s)25.125.155.255.217.817.8
Actuated g/C Ratio0.300.300.670.670.210.21
Clearance Time (s)5.05.05.05.05.0
Vehicle Extension (s)4.04.02.02.02.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)1024469592 1185368326
v/s Ratio Prot0.27c0.310.38
v/s Ratio Perm0.05 c0.370.160.06
v/c Ratio0.890.181.020.570.740.28
Uniform Delay, d127.621.422.17.530.527.3
Progression Factor1.001.000.780.301.001.00
Incremental Delay, d29.60.329.30.47.00.2
Delay (s)37.221.646.52.637.527.5
Level of ServiceDCDADC
Approach Delay (s)33.523.20.032.3
Approach LOSCCAC
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay28.9HCM 2000 Level of ServiceC
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.99
Actuated Cycle Length (s)83.0Sum of lost time (s)15.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization85.5%ICU Level of ServiceE
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group

QueuesBuild PM (Existing Cycle & Optimized Splits)
3: Exit 18-NB OFF Ramp/Exit 18-NB ON Ramp & Main St12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 Report
CHAPage 5
Lane GroupEBLEBTWBTNBLNBTNBR
Lane Group Flow (vph)356827 1359264303302
v/c Ratio0.890.700.960.700.660.66
Control Delay43.68.940.640.118.918.8
Queue Delay0.043.74.30.00.00.0
Total Delay43.652.644.940.118.918.8
Queue Length 50th (ft)1591093421275554
Queue Length 95th (ft)m# 251 m594 #566205143142
Internal Link Dist (ft)424376672
Turn Bay Length (ft)290380
Base Capacity (vph)398 1185 1420534571571
Starvation Cap Reductn042144000
Spillback Cap Reductn004000
Storage Cap Reductn000000
Reduced v/c Ratio0.891.080.990.490.530.53
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Build PM (Existing Cycle & Optimized Splits)
3: Exit 18-NB OFF Ramp/Exit 18-NB ON Ramp & Main St12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 Report
CHAPage 6
MovementEBLEBTEBRWBL WBT WBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)349810009983342590593000
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width10118812111212128128
Total Lost time (s)5.05.05.05.05.05.0
Lane Util. Factor1.001.000.951.000.950.95
Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.000.991.000.980.98
Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.00
Frt1.001.000.961.000.850.85
Flt Protected0.951.001.000.951.001.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1636 178333741770 1461 1461
Flt Permitted0.121.001.000.951.001.00
Satd. Flow (perm)202 178333741770 1461 1461
Peak-hour factor, PHF0.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.98
Adj. Flow (vph)35682700 10183412640605000
RTOR Reduction (vph)00003500145145000
Lane Group Flow (vph)35682700 13240264158157000
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)555
Heavy Vehicles (%)3%3%0%0%2%3%2%0%3%0%0%0%
Turn Typepm+ptNANAPermNA Perm
Protected Phases6 1 5 657
Permitted Phases1 5 677
Actuated Green, G (s)50.255.234.117.817.817.8
Effective Green, g (s)50.255.234.117.817.817.8
Actuated g/C Ratio0.600.670.410.210.210.21
Clearance Time (s)5.05.05.05.05.0
Vehicle Extension (s)2.04.02.02.02.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)400 11851386379313313
v/s Ratio Protc0.17 c0.46c0.390.11
v/s Ratio Perm0.37c0.150.11
v/c Ratio0.890.700.960.700.500.50
Uniform Delay, d128.08.723.730.128.728.7
Progression Factor0.930.651.001.001.001.00
Incremental Delay, d213.01.114.94.50.50.5
Delay (s)39.26.838.634.629.229.1
Level of ServiceDADCCC
Approach Delay (s)16.538.630.80.0
Approach LOSBDCA
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay29.0HCM 2000 Level of ServiceC
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.87
Actuated Cycle Length (s)83.0Sum of lost time (s)15.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization85.5%ICU Level of ServiceE
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group

QueuesBuild PM (Existing Cycle & Optimized Splits)
4: Big Boom Rd/Media Dr & Main St12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 Report
CHAPage 7
Lane GroupEBLEBTWBL WBTNBTSBLSBT
Lane Group Flow (vph)156 121523272684817358
v/c Ratio1.441.251.611.311.580.040.37
Control Delay286.2 162.6 340.0 190.8 296.014.713.4
Queue Delay0.00.80.00.00.00.00.0
Total Delay286.2 163.4 340.0 190.8 296.014.713.4
Queue Length 50th (ft)~160 ~778 ~277 ~921 ~11807127
Queue Length 95th (ft)#314 #920 #458 #1174 #144119196
Internal Link Dist (ft)376131742425
Turn Bay Length (ft)11560100
Base Capacity (vph)108974144556537447987
Starvation Cap Reductn013500000
Spillback Cap Reductn0000000
Storage Cap Reductn0000000
Reduced v/c Ratio1.441.451.611.311.580.040.36
Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Build PM (Existing Cycle & Optimized Splits)
4: Big Boom Rd/Media Dr & Main St12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 Report
CHAPage 8
MovementEBLEBTEBRWBL WBT WBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)1488802752206781143211226116118222
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width11121212128812812128
Total Lost time (s)5.05.05.05.05.05.05.0
Lane Util. Factor1.000.951.001.001.001.001.00
Frpb, ped/bikes1.000.991.001.000.991.000.98
Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.001.00
Frt1.000.961.001.000.961.000.90
Flt Protected0.951.000.951.000.970.951.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1728 33521752 182317121805 1636
Flt Permitted0.101.000.091.000.560.411.00
Satd. Flow (perm)173 3352164 1823984783 1636
Peak-hour factor, PHF0.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.95
Adj. Flow (vph)1569262892327141245511827517124234
RTOR Reduction (vph)020001001100460
Lane Group Flow (vph)156 11950232725008370173120
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)5555
Heavy Vehicles (%)1%3%3%3%4%0%3%3%2%0%3%2%
Turn Typepm+ptNApm+ptNAPermNApm+ptNA
Protected Phases6125347
Permitted Phases1537
Actuated Green, G (s)47.042.053.045.079.084.684.6
Effective Green, g (s)47.042.053.045.079.084.684.6
Actuated g/C Ratio0.310.280.350.300.530.570.57
Clearance Time (s)5.05.05.05.05.05.05.0
Vehicle Extension (s)2.05.02.05.02.02.02.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)106941143548519446925
v/s Ratio Prot0.050.36c0.090.400.00 c0.19
v/s Ratio Perm0.41c0.49c0.850.02
v/c Ratio1.471.271.621.321.610.040.34
Uniform Delay, d169.253.867.552.335.329.717.5
Progression Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.001.00
Incremental Delay, d2256.2 129.8309.7 158.0284.30.00.1
Delay (s)325.4 183.6377.3 210.3319.629.717.5
Level of ServiceFFFFFCB
Approach Delay (s)199.8250.7319.618.1
Approach LOSFFFB
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay222.9HCM 2000 Level of ServiceF
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio1.65
Actuated Cycle Length (s)149.6Sum of lost time (s)20.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization128.3%ICU Level of ServiceH
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group

QueuesBuild PM (Existing Cycle & Optimized Splits)
5: Pine St & Main St12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 Report
CHAPage 9
Lane GroupEBLEBTWBL WBTNBTSBT
Lane Group Flow (vph)74 10991915738
v/c Ratio0.190.720.000.720.060.27
Control Delay10.415.69.020.836.731.2
Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.0
Total Delay10.415.69.020.836.731.2
Queue Length 50th (ft)6195029417
Queue Length 95th (ft)51 #14743 #12091748
Internal Link Dist (ft)9201135476583
Turn Bay Length (ft)15050
Base Capacity (vph)427 1566224 1348332322
Starvation Cap Reductn000000
Spillback Cap Reductn000000
Storage Cap Reductn000000
Reduced v/c Ratio0.170.700.000.680.020.12
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Build PM (Existing Cycle & Optimized Splits)
5: Pine St & Main St12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 Report
CHAPage 10
MovementEBLEBTEBRWBL WBT WBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)70 1038618531611511124
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width111281112881188118
Total Lost time (s)5.05.05.05.05.05.0
Lane Util. Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.00
Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.000.980.98
Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.00
Frt1.001.001.001.000.900.91
Flt Protected0.951.000.951.000.990.98
Satd. Flow (prot)1694 18611745 182016081485
Flt Permitted0.171.000.121.000.990.98
Satd. Flow (perm)297 1861213 182016081485
Peak-hour factor, PHF0.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.95
Adj. Flow (vph)74 1093618981711512125
RTOR Reduction (vph)0000000500240
Lane Group Flow (vph)74 10990191500200140
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)5555
Heavy Vehicles (%)3%2%0%0%4%6%0%0%0%27%0%0%
Turn Typepm+ptNApm+ptNASplitNASplitNA
Protected Phases61253344
Permitted Phases15
Actuated Green, G (s)94.789.077.676.94.46.4
Effective Green, g (s)94.789.077.676.94.46.4
Actuated g/C Ratio0.790.740.640.640.040.05
Clearance Time (s)5.05.05.05.05.05.0
Vehicle Extension (s)3.03.03.03.03.03.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)381 1374146 11615878
v/s Ratio Protc0.02 c0.590.000.50c0.00c0.01
v/s Ratio Perm0.130.00
v/c Ratio0.190.800.010.790.040.18
Uniform Delay, d120.610.131.715.956.054.6
Progression Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.00
Incremental Delay, d20.33.40.03.60.31.1
Delay (s)20.913.431.719.556.355.7
Level of ServiceCBCBEE
Approach Delay (s)13.919.556.355.7
Approach LOSBBEE
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay17.2HCM 2000 Level of ServiceB
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.73
Actuated Cycle Length (s)120.5Sum of lost time (s)20.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization73.0%ICU Level of ServiceD
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group

QueuesBuild PM (Existing Cycle & Optimized Splits)
6: Richardson St & Main St12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 Report
CHAPage 11
Lane GroupEBLEBTWBL WBTNBTSBT
Lane Group Flow (vph)31 101857978745
v/c Ratio0.070.740.020.610.430.19
Control Delay4.815.25.013.935.821.6
Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.0
Total Delay4.815.25.013.935.821.6
Queue Length 50th (ft)321911373511
Queue Length 95th (ft)16 #8825 #6308040
Internal Link Dist (ft)1135550599330
Turn Bay Length (ft)5065
Base Capacity (vph)453 1371303 1298409476
Starvation Cap Reductn000000
Spillback Cap Reductn000000
Storage Cap Reductn000000
Reduced v/c Ratio0.070.740.020.610.210.09
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Build PM (Existing Cycle & Optimized Splits)
6: Richardson St & Main St12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 Report
CHAPage 12
MovementEBLEBTEBRWBL WBT WBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)298897857461166161111615
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width1112812121281188118
Total Lost time (s)5.05.05.05.05.05.0
Lane Util. Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.00
Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.000.99
Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.00
Frt1.000.991.001.001.000.95
Flt Protected0.951.000.951.000.960.99
Satd. Flow (prot)1678 18361805 182317631666
Flt Permitted0.241.000.151.000.740.92
Satd. Flow (perm)432 1836282 182313571546
Peak-hour factor, PHF0.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.95
Adj. Flow (vph)319368257851269171121716
RTOR Reduction (vph)0200000100140
Lane Group Flow (vph)31 101605797008600310
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)5555
Heavy Vehicles (%)4%2%2%0%4%0%0%0%0%0%0%7%
Turn Typepm+ptNApm+ptNAPermNAPermNA
Protected Phases612537
Permitted Phases1537
Actuated Green, G (s)58.856.355.654.710.110.1
Effective Green, g (s)58.856.355.654.710.110.1
Actuated g/C Ratio0.710.680.680.660.120.12
Clearance Time (s)5.05.05.05.05.05.0
Vehicle Extension (s)3.03.03.03.03.03.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)346 1255207 1211166189
v/s Ratio Protc0.00 c0.550.000.44
v/s Ratio Perm0.060.02c0.060.02
v/c Ratio0.090.810.020.660.520.16
Uniform Delay, d15.69.28.98.233.832.3
Progression Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.00
Incremental Delay, d20.14.00.01.32.70.4
Delay (s)5.713.28.99.536.532.7
Level of ServiceABAADC
Approach Delay (s)12.99.536.532.7
Approach LOSBADC
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay13.0HCM 2000 Level of ServiceB
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.76
Actuated Cycle Length (s)82.3Sum of lost time (s)15.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization72.3%ICU Level of ServiceC
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group

QueuesBuild AM: Improvements 3A
1: Big Bay Rd & Corinth Rd (Rte 28)12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 Report
CHAPage 1
Lane GroupEBLEBTWBL WBTNBTNBRSBLSBT
Lane Group Flow (vph)56870239559561967421
v/c Ratio0.090.840.680.250.300.380.400.09
Control Delay4.926.022.07.033.911.436.913.8
Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0
Total Delay4.926.022.07.033.911.436.913.8
Queue Length 50th (ft)632636522531330
Queue Length 95th (ft)23 #755 #15911358777319
Internal Link Dist (ft)58965642650
Turn Bay Length (ft)100247200
Base Capacity (vph)1027 1052404 2267379560370447
Starvation Cap Reductn00000000
Spillback Cap Reductn00000000
Storage Cap Reductn00000000
Reduced v/c Ratio0.050.830.590.250.150.350.200.05
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity AnalysisBuild AM: Improvements 3A
1: Big Bay Rd & Corinth Rd (Rte 28)12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 Report
CHAPage 2
MovementEBLEBTEBRWBL WBT WBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)527575222236115950218269119
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width111212111212121211111111
Total Lost time (s)5.05.05.05.05.05.05.05.0
Lane Util. Factor1.001.001.000.951.001.001.001.00
Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.000.991.001.001.000.98
Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.000.991.001.001.00
Frt1.000.991.000.951.000.851.000.86
Flt Protected0.951.000.951.000.951.000.951.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1711 18401678 32561768 1459 1711 1518
Flt Permitted0.441.000.121.000.721.000.721.00
Satd. Flow (perm)797 1840220 32561331 1459 1297 1518
Peak-hour factor, PHF0.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.93
Adj. Flow (vph)568145623938817154219674120
RTOR Reduction (vph)020025000800180
Lane Group Flow (vph)56868023953400561167430
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)55555
Heavy Vehicles (%)2%2%3%4%6%2%2%2%7%2%2%2%
Turn Typepm+ptNApm+ptNAPermNA pm+ov PermNA
Protected Phases6125327
Permitted Phases15337
Actuated Green, G (s)48.744.959.450.69.318.89.39.3
Effective Green, g (s)48.744.959.450.69.318.89.39.3
Actuated g/C Ratio0.620.570.750.640.120.240.120.12
Clearance Time (s)5.05.05.05.05.05.05.05.0
Vehicle Extension (s)3.03.03.03.03.03.03.03.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)537 1049342 2093157441153179
v/s Ratio Prot0.01 c0.47c0.080.160.030.00
v/s Ratio Perm0.060.440.040.05 c0.06
v/c Ratio0.100.830.700.250.360.260.480.02
Uniform Delay, d15.913.714.46.031.924.332.530.7
Progression Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00
Incremental Delay, d20.15.56.10.11.40.32.40.0
Delay (s)6.019.220.56.133.324.634.930.7
Level of ServiceABCACCCC
Approach Delay (s)18.410.426.633.9
Approach LOSBBCC
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay17.0HCM 2000 Level of ServiceB
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.76
Actuated Cycle Length (s)78.7Sum of lost time (s)15.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization79.4%ICU Level of ServiceD
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group

QueuesBuild AM: Improvements 3A
2: Exit 18-SB ON Ramp/Exit 18-SB OFF Ramp & Main St12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 Report
CHAPage 3
Lane GroupEBTEBRWBL WBTSBTSBR
Lane Group Flow (vph)827284466621270297
v/c Ratio0.780.410.830.290.700.55
Control Delay32.95.328.98.140.09.2
Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.0
Total Delay32.95.328.98.140.09.2
Queue Length 50th (ft)2080875813112
Queue Length 95th (ft)#33757 #26213621176
Internal Link Dist (ft)656424 1060
Turn Bay Length (ft)235260
Base Capacity (vph)1063689601 2216543650
Starvation Cap Reductn000000
Spillback Cap Reductn000000
Storage Cap Reductn000000
Reduced v/c Ratio0.780.410.780.280.500.46
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity AnalysisBuild AM: Improvements 3A
2: Exit 18-SB ON Ramp/Exit 18-SB OFF Ramp & Main St12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 Report
CHAPage 4
MovementEBLEBTEBRWBL WBT WBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)076126142957100002480273
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width111112101188121281212
Total Lost time (s)5.05.05.05.05.05.0
Lane Util. Factor0.951.001.000.951.001.00
Frpb, ped/bikes1.000.971.001.001.000.98
Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.00
Frt1.000.851.001.001.000.85
Flt Protected1.001.000.951.000.951.00
Satd. Flow (prot)3292 1539 1589 32921752 1498
Flt Permitted1.001.000.201.000.951.00
Satd. Flow (perm)3292 1539341 32921752 1498
Peak-hour factor, PHF0.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.92
Adj. Flow (vph)082728446662100002700297
RTOR Reduction (vph)0019200000000210
Lane Group Flow (vph)0827924666210000027087
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)555
Heavy Vehicles (%)0%6%2%6%6%0%0%0%0%3%0%6%
Turn TypeNA Perm pm+ptNAPermNA Perm
Protected Phases12 1 2 53
Permitted Phases1 1 2 533
Actuated Green, G (s)26.326.353.553.517.817.8
Effective Green, g (s)26.326.353.553.517.817.8
Actuated g/C Ratio0.320.320.660.660.220.22
Clearance Time (s)5.05.05.05.05.0
Vehicle Extension (s)4.04.02.02.02.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)1064497565 2166383327
v/s Ratio Prot0.25c0.230.19
v/s Ratio Perm0.06 c0.320.150.06
v/c Ratio0.780.180.820.290.700.27
Uniform Delay, d124.919.818.15.929.326.3
Progression Factor1.001.000.721.181.001.00
Incremental Delay, d23.90.27.50.14.80.2
Delay (s)28.720.020.67.034.126.5
Level of ServiceCCCACC
Approach Delay (s)26.512.80.030.1
Approach LOSCBAC
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay21.9HCM 2000 Level of ServiceC
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.83
Actuated Cycle Length (s)81.3Sum of lost time (s)15.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization72.1%ICU Level of ServiceC
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group

QueuesBuild AM: Improvements 3A
3: Exit 18-NB OFF Ramp/Exit 18-NB ON Ramp & Main St12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 Report
CHAPage 5
Lane GroupEBLEBTWBT WBRNBLNBTNBR
Lane Group Flow (vph)312785828270259320319
v/c Ratio0.660.360.610.380.700.700.69
Control Delay15.12.925.15.140.321.120.9
Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.00.0
Total Delay15.12.925.15.140.321.120.9
Queue Length 50th (ft)475417501256564
Queue Length 95th (ft)m8474 #30856203158158
Internal Link Dist (ft)424376672
Turn Bay Length (ft)200290380
Base Capacity (vph)592 2170 1353706523577577
Starvation Cap Reductn0000000
Spillback Cap Reductn0000000
Storage Cap Reductn0000000
Reduced v/c Ratio0.530.360.610.380.500.550.55
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity AnalysisBuild AM: Improvements 3A
3: Exit 18-NB OFF Ramp/Exit 18-NB ON Ramp & Main St12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 Report
CHAPage 6
MovementEBLEBTEBRWBL WBT WBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)287722007622482380588000
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width10118812111212128128
Total Lost time (s)5.05.05.05.05.05.05.0
Lane Util. Factor1.000.950.951.001.000.950.95
Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.000.971.000.980.98
Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.001.00
Frt1.001.001.000.851.000.850.85
Flt Protected0.951.001.001.000.951.001.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1604 33553471 1392 1687 1448 1448
Flt Permitted0.191.001.001.000.951.001.00
Satd. Flow (perm)327 33553471 1392 1687 1448 1448
Peak-hour factor, PHF0.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.92
Adj. Flow (vph)312785008282702590639000
RTOR Reduction (vph)000001640144144000
Lane Group Flow (vph)31278500828106259176175000
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)555
Heavy Vehicles (%)5%4%0%0%4%9%7%0%4%0%0%0%
Turn Typepm+ptNANA PermPermNA Perm
Protected Phases6 1 5 657
Permitted Phases1 5 6577
Actuated Green, G (s)53.553.531.831.817.817.817.8
Effective Green, g (s)53.553.531.831.817.817.817.8
Actuated g/C Ratio0.660.660.390.390.220.220.22
Clearance Time (s)5.05.05.05.05.05.0
Vehicle Extension (s)2.04.04.02.02.02.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)477 22071357544369317317
v/s Ratio Protc0.130.230.240.12
v/s Ratio Permc0.300.08 c0.150.12
v/c Ratio0.650.360.610.190.700.560.55
Uniform Delay, d19.36.219.816.329.328.228.2
Progression Factor0.980.371.001.001.001.001.00
Incremental Delay, d21.70.10.90.24.91.21.2
Delay (s)10.82.420.716.534.229.429.4
Level of ServiceBACBCCC
Approach Delay (s)4.819.730.80.0
Approach LOSABCA
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay17.6HCM 2000 Level of ServiceB
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.70
Actuated Cycle Length (s)81.3Sum of lost time (s)15.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization72.1%ICU Level of ServiceC
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group

QueuesBuild AM: Improvements 3A
4: Big Boom Rd/Media Dr & Main St12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 Report
CHAPage 7
Lane GroupEBLEBTWBL WBTNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR
Lane Group Flow (vph)186 1215119757166401101861219
v/c Ratio0.520.850.490.580.380.090.200.120.240.71
Control Delay18.827.721.221.531.718.93.936.128.834.9
Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0
Total Delay18.827.721.221.531.718.93.936.128.834.9
Queue Length 50th (ft)36232221293212072476
Queue Length 95th (ft)#120 #564#95 #2807537283156140
Internal Link Dist (ft)376131742425
Turn Bay Length (ft)115200200200100100
Base Capacity (vph)356 1436245 1300888719554502720308
Starvation Cap Reductn0000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn0000000000
Storage Cap Reductn0000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio0.520.850.490.580.190.060.200.040.080.71
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity AnalysisBuild AM: Improvements 3A
4: Big Boom Rd/Media Dr & Main St12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 Report
CHAPage 8
MovementEBLEBTEBRWBL WBT WBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)1679321611076651614936991655197
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width11121212128111111121211
Total Lost time (s)5.05.05.05.05.05.05.05.05.05.0
Lane Util. Factor1.000.951.000.950.971.001.001.001.001.00
Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.000.991.001.000.99
Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00
Frt1.000.981.001.001.001.000.851.001.000.85
Flt Protected0.951.000.951.000.951.001.000.951.001.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1678 34141752 33653193 1801 1483 1805 1863 1503
Flt Permitted0.241.000.151.000.951.001.000.951.001.00
Satd. Flow (perm)421 3414284 33653193 1801 1483 1805 1863 1503
Peak-hour factor, PHF0.900.900.900.900.900.900.900.900.900.900.900.90
Adj. Flow (vph)186 103617911973918166401101861219
RTOR Reduction (vph)01300100076000
Lane Group Flow (vph)186 12020119756016640341861219
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)5555
Heavy Vehicles (%)4%3%3%3%7%0%6%2%4%0%2%3%
Turn Typepm+ptNApm+ptNAProtNA pm+ovProtNA pm+ov
Protected Phases6125832476
Permitted Phases1537
Actuated Green, G (s)35.228.031.226.09.116.521.71.08.415.6
Effective Green, g (s)35.228.031.226.09.116.521.71.08.415.6
Actuated g/C Ratio0.500.400.440.370.130.230.310.010.120.22
Clearance Time (s)5.05.05.05.05.05.05.05.05.05.0
Vehicle Extension (s)2.05.02.05.03.02.02.02.02.02.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)337 1352233 123741042056025221437
v/s Ratio Prot0.06 c0.350.040.22c0.050.020.000.010.03 c0.05
v/s Ratio Perm0.220.190.020.09
v/c Ratio0.550.890.510.610.400.100.060.720.280.50
Uniform Delay, d111.019.914.118.228.321.217.334.728.424.1
Progression Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00
Incremental Delay, d21.18.10.81.30.70.00.058.20.20.3
Delay (s)12.128.014.919.529.021.317.393.028.624.5
Level of ServiceBCBBCCBFCC
Approach Delay (s)25.918.923.929.5
Approach LOSCBCC
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay23.9HCM 2000 Level of ServiceC
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.77
Actuated Cycle Length (s)70.7Sum of lost time (s)20.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization61.8%ICU Level of ServiceB
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group

QueuesBuild AM: Improvements 3A
5: Pine St & Main St12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 Report
CHAPage 9
Lane GroupEBLEBTWBL WBTNBTSBT
Lane Group Flow (vph)36 10531833855
v/c Ratio0.090.750.000.650.050.30
Control Delay9.217.110.017.636.020.7
Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.0
Total Delay9.217.110.017.636.020.7
Queue Length 50th (ft)3174022147
Queue Length 95th (ft)31 #13203 #9921946
Internal Link Dist (ft)9201135476583
Turn Bay Length (ft)15050
Base Capacity (vph)407 1408230 1288454409
Starvation Cap Reductn000000
Spillback Cap Reductn000000
Storage Cap Reductn000000
Reduced v/c Ratio0.090.750.000.650.020.13
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity AnalysisBuild AM: Improvements 3A
5: Pine St & Main St12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 Report
CHAPage 10
MovementEBLEBTEBRWBL WBT WBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)32947117391151111138
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width111281112881188118
Total Lost time (s)5.05.05.05.05.05.0
Lane Util. Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.00
Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.000.98
Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.00
Frt1.001.001.001.000.980.90
Flt Protected0.951.000.951.000.960.99
Satd. Flow (prot)1694 18441745 182117341448
Flt Permitted0.211.000.101.000.960.99
Satd. Flow (perm)376 1844185 182117341448
Peak-hour factor, PHF0.900.900.900.900.900.900.900.900.900.900.900.90
Adj. Flow (vph)36 1052118211261112142
RTOR Reduction (vph)0000000100390
Lane Group Flow (vph)36 10530183300700160
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)5555
Heavy Vehicles (%)3%3%0%0%4%9%0%0%0%0%0%13%
Turn Typepm+ptNApm+ptNASplitNASplitNA
Protected Phases61253344
Permitted Phases15
Actuated Green, G (s)70.665.060.860.13.27.3
Effective Green, g (s)70.665.060.860.13.27.3
Actuated g/C Ratio0.730.680.630.620.030.08
Clearance Time (s)5.05.05.05.05.05.0
Vehicle Extension (s)3.03.03.03.03.03.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)352 1245128 113757109
v/s Ratio Protc0.01 c0.570.000.46c0.00c0.01
v/s Ratio Perm0.070.00
v/c Ratio0.100.850.010.730.120.15
Uniform Delay, d114.711.828.812.545.141.5
Progression Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.00
Incremental Delay, d20.15.50.02.51.00.6
Delay (s)14.917.328.815.046.142.2
Level of ServiceBBCBDD
Approach Delay (s)17.215.046.142.2
Approach LOSBBDD
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay17.1HCM 2000 Level of ServiceB
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.72
Actuated Cycle Length (s)96.2Sum of lost time (s)20.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization64.6%ICU Level of ServiceC
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group

QueuesBuild AM: Improvements 3A
6: Richardson St & Main St12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 Report
CHAPage 11
Lane GroupEBLEBTWBL WBTNBTSBT
Lane Group Flow (vph)12964168713573
v/c Ratio0.030.790.000.570.580.28
Control Delay5.418.25.011.337.723.0
Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.0
Total Delay5.418.25.011.337.723.0
Queue Length 50th (ft)123201275220
Queue Length 95th (ft)8 #819242511759
Internal Link Dist (ft)1135550599330
Turn Bay Length (ft)5065
Base Capacity (vph)453 1216276 1208399435
Starvation Cap Reductn000000
Spillback Cap Reductn000000
Storage Cap Reductn000000
Reduced v/c Ratio0.030.790.000.570.340.17
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity AnalysisBuild AM: Improvements 3A
6: Richardson St & Main St12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 Report
CHAPage 12
MovementEBLEBTEBRWBL WBT WBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)118046416135105115321617
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width1112812121281188118
Total Lost time (s)5.05.05.05.05.05.0
Lane Util. Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.00
Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.000.99
Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.00
Frt1.000.991.001.000.990.96
Flt Protected0.951.000.951.000.960.98
Satd. Flow (prot)1745 18181805 180716351618
Flt Permitted0.301.000.141.000.770.84
Satd. Flow (perm)550 1818257 180713101390
Peak-hour factor, PHF0.900.900.900.900.900.900.900.900.900.900.900.90
Adj. Flow (vph)128937116816117126361819
RTOR Reduction (vph)0300000200160
Lane Group Flow (vph)12961016870013300570
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)5555
Heavy Vehicles (%)0%3%5%0%5%0%7%9%0%6%0%12%
Turn Typepm+ptNApm+ptNAPermNAPermNA
Protected Phases612537
Permitted Phases1537
Actuated Green, G (s)51.851.051.851.013.613.6
Effective Green, g (s)51.851.051.851.013.613.6
Actuated g/C Ratio0.640.630.640.630.170.17
Clearance Time (s)5.05.05.05.05.05.0
Vehicle Extension (s)3.03.03.03.03.03.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)366 1153180 1146221235
v/s Ratio Protc0.00 c0.530.000.38
v/s Ratio Perm0.020.00c0.100.04
v/c Ratio0.030.830.010.600.600.24
Uniform Delay, d16.211.410.38.730.928.9
Progression Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.00
Incremental Delay, d20.05.30.00.94.60.5
Delay (s)6.316.710.39.535.529.5
Level of ServiceABBADC
Approach Delay (s)16.69.535.529.5
Approach LOSBADC
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay15.9HCM 2000 Level of ServiceB
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.78
Actuated Cycle Length (s)80.4Sum of lost time (s)15.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization66.9%ICU Level of ServiceC
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group

QueuesBuild PM: Improvements 3A
1: Big Bay Rd & Corinth Rd (Rte 28)/Corinth Rd (Rt 28)12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 Report
CHAPage 1
Lane GroupEBLEBTWBL WBTNBTNBRSBLSBT
Lane Group Flow (vph)4366719568610630219170
v/c Ratio0.090.870.620.380.360.420.670.18
Control Delay6.631.319.011.825.98.836.57.4
Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0
Total Delay6.631.319.011.825.98.836.57.4
Queue Length 50th (ft)623030903940751
Queue Length 95th (ft)20 #471 #117156809514029
Internal Link Dist (ft)58965642634
Turn Bay Length (ft)100247200
Base Capacity (vph)702917318 1802423725411546
Starvation Cap Reductn00000000
Spillback Cap Reductn00000000
Storage Cap Reductn00000000
Reduced v/c Ratio0.060.730.610.380.250.420.460.13
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity AnalysisBuild PM: Improvements 3A
1: Big Bay Rd & Corinth Rd (Rte 28)/Corinth Rd (Rt 28)12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 Report
CHAPage 2
MovementEBLEBTEBRWBL WBT WBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)42604501915571161004296187267
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width111212111212121211111111
Total Lost time (s)5.05.05.05.05.05.05.05.0
Lane Util. Factor1.001.001.000.951.001.001.001.00
Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.000.991.001.001.000.98
Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00
Frt1.000.991.000.971.000.851.000.85
Flt Protected0.951.000.951.000.951.000.951.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1711 18091678 34591787 1516 1711 1513
Flt Permitted0.391.000.161.000.681.000.691.00
Satd. Flow (perm)704 1809286 34591279 1516 1240 1513
Peak-hour factor, PHF0.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.98
Adj. Flow (vph)43616511955681181024302191268
RTOR Reduction (vph)0400160001060530
Lane Group Flow (vph)43663019567000106196191170
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)55555
Heavy Vehicles (%)2%3%11%4%1%2%1%2%3%2%2%2%
Turn Typepm+ptNApm+ptNAPermNA pm+ov PermNA
Protected Phases6125327
Permitted Phases15337
Actuated Green, G (s)33.730.140.933.714.922.114.914.9
Effective Green, g (s)33.730.140.933.714.922.114.914.9
Actuated g/C Ratio0.500.450.610.500.220.330.220.22
Clearance Time (s)5.05.05.05.05.05.05.05.0
Vehicle Extension (s)3.03.03.03.03.03.03.03.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)406810323 1734283611274335
v/s Ratio Prot0.01 c0.37c0.060.190.030.01
v/s Ratio Perm0.050.300.080.09 c0.15
v/c Ratio0.110.820.600.390.370.320.700.05
Uniform Delay, d18.616.210.110.422.216.924.120.6
Progression Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00
Incremental Delay, d20.16.53.20.10.80.37.50.1
Delay (s)8.722.613.210.523.017.231.620.6
Level of ServiceACBBCBCC
Approach Delay (s)21.811.118.728.6
Approach LOSCBBC
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay17.9HCM 2000 Level of ServiceB
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.76
Actuated Cycle Length (s)67.2Sum of lost time (s)15.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization77.1%ICU Level of ServiceD
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group

QueuesBuild PM: Improvements 3A
2: Exit 18-SB ON Ramp/Exit 18-SB OFF Ramp & Corinth Rd (Rt 28)/Main St12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 Report
CHAPage 3
Lane GroupEBTEBRWBL WBTSBTSBR
Lane Group Flow (vph)908280601679274294
v/c Ratio0.890.421.020.300.740.55
Control Delay41.05.556.77.843.19.8
Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.0
Total Delay41.05.556.77.843.19.8
Queue Length 50th (ft)2370 ~1226513416
Queue Length 95th (ft)#39558 #36513121480
Internal Link Dist (ft)656424 1060
Turn Bay Length (ft)235260
Base Capacity (vph)1023664592 2251519644
Starvation Cap Reductn000000
Spillback Cap Reductn000000
Storage Cap Reductn000000
Reduced v/c Ratio0.890.421.020.300.530.46
Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity AnalysisBuild PM: Improvements 3A
2: Exit 18-SB ON Ramp/Exit 18-SB OFF Ramp & Corinth Rd (Rt 28)/Main St12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 Report
CHAPage 4
MovementEBLEBTEBRWBL WBT WBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)089027458966500002690288
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width111112101188121281212
Total Lost time (s)5.05.05.05.05.05.0
Lane Util. Factor0.951.001.000.951.001.00
Frpb, ped/bikes1.000.971.001.001.000.98
Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.00
Frt1.000.851.001.001.000.85
Flt Protected1.001.000.951.000.951.00
Satd. Flow (prot)3388 1554 1651 33881719 1541
Flt Permitted1.001.000.151.000.951.00
Satd. Flow (perm)3388 1554257 33881719 1541
Peak-hour factor, PHF0.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.98
Adj. Flow (vph)090828060167900002740294
RTOR Reduction (vph)0019500000000202
Lane Group Flow (vph)0908856016790000027492
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)555
Heavy Vehicles (%)0%3%1%2%3%0%0%0%0%5%0%3%
Turn TypeNA Perm pm+ptNAPermNA Perm
Protected Phases12 1 2 53
Permitted Phases1 1 2 533
Actuated Green, G (s)25.125.155.255.217.817.8
Effective Green, g (s)25.125.155.255.217.817.8
Actuated g/C Ratio0.300.300.670.670.210.21
Clearance Time (s)5.05.05.05.05.0
Vehicle Extension (s)4.04.02.02.02.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)1024469592 2253368330
v/s Ratio Prot0.27c0.310.20
v/s Ratio Perm0.05 c0.370.160.06
v/c Ratio0.890.181.020.300.740.28
Uniform Delay, d127.621.422.15.830.527.2
Progression Factor1.001.000.681.141.001.00
Incremental Delay, d29.60.335.30.17.00.2
Delay (s)37.221.650.36.737.527.4
Level of ServiceDCDADC
Approach Delay (s)33.527.20.032.3
Approach LOSCCAC
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay30.6HCM 2000 Level of ServiceC
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.99
Actuated Cycle Length (s)83.0Sum of lost time (s)15.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization85.5%ICU Level of ServiceE
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group

QueuesBuild PM: Improvements 3A
3: Exit 18-NB OFF Ramp/Exit 18-NB ON Ramp & Main St12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 Report
CHAPage 5
Lane GroupEBLEBTWBT WBRNBLNBTNBR
Lane Group Flow (vph)356827 1018341264303302
v/c Ratio0.820.370.720.430.700.660.66
Control Delay30.32.526.84.540.118.918.8
Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.00.0
Total Delay30.32.526.84.540.118.918.8
Queue Length 50th (ft)795224701275554
Queue Length 95th (ft)m128m66 #39358205143142
Internal Link Dist (ft)424376672
Turn Bay Length (ft)200290380
Base Capacity (vph)487 2251 1416793534571571
Starvation Cap Reductn0000000
Spillback Cap Reductn0000000
Storage Cap Reductn0000000
Reduced v/c Ratio0.730.370.720.430.490.530.53
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity AnalysisBuild PM: Improvements 3A
3: Exit 18-NB OFF Ramp/Exit 18-NB ON Ramp & Main St12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 Report
CHAPage 6
MovementEBLEBTEBRWBL WBT WBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)349810009983342590593000
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width10118812111212128128
Total Lost time (s)5.05.05.05.05.05.05.0
Lane Util. Factor1.000.950.951.001.000.950.95
Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.000.971.000.980.98
Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.001.00
Frt1.001.001.000.851.000.850.85
Flt Protected0.951.001.001.000.951.001.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1635 33883539 1473 1770 1461 1461
Flt Permitted0.131.001.001.000.951.001.00
Satd. Flow (perm)217 33883539 1473 1770 1461 1461
Peak-hour factor, PHF0.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.98
Adj. Flow (vph)35682700 10183412640605000
RTOR Reduction (vph)000002050145145000
Lane Group Flow (vph)35682700 1018136264158157000
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)555
Heavy Vehicles (%)3%3%0%0%2%3%2%0%3%0%0%0%
Turn Typepm+ptNANA PermPermNA Perm
Protected Phases6 1 5 657
Permitted Phases1 5 6577
Actuated Green, G (s)55.255.233.233.217.817.817.8
Effective Green, g (s)55.255.233.233.217.817.817.8
Actuated g/C Ratio0.670.670.400.400.210.210.21
Clearance Time (s)5.05.05.05.05.05.0
Vehicle Extension (s)2.04.04.02.02.02.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)434 22531415589379313313
v/s Ratio Protc0.170.240.290.11
v/s Ratio Permc0.380.09 c0.150.11
v/c Ratio0.820.370.720.230.700.500.50
Uniform Delay, d119.16.221.016.530.128.728.7
Progression Factor1.170.311.001.001.001.001.00
Incremental Delay, d26.70.11.90.34.50.50.5
Delay (s)28.92.022.916.734.629.229.1
Level of ServiceCACBCCC
Approach Delay (s)10.121.330.80.0
Approach LOSBCCA
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay19.9HCM 2000 Level of ServiceB
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.82
Actuated Cycle Length (s)83.0Sum of lost time (s)15.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization85.5%ICU Level of ServiceE
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group

QueuesBuild PM: Improvements 3A
4: Big Boom Rd/Media Dr & Main St12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 Report
CHAPage 7
Lane GroupEBLEBTWBL WBTNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR
Lane Group Flow (vph)156 121523272645511827517124234
v/c Ratio0.420.890.850.500.900.230.360.160.530.71
Control Delay15.436.651.223.763.829.33.849.547.642.7
Queue Delay0.08.70.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0
Total Delay15.445.351.223.763.829.33.849.547.642.7
Queue Length 50th (ft)41340871611415201073126
Queue Length 95th (ft)98 #596 #283292 #2771104735127183
Internal Link Dist (ft)376364742425
Turn Bay Length (ft)115200200200100100
Base Capacity (vph)519 1368273 1463506525769278473473
Starvation Cap Reductn013900000000
Spillback Cap Reductn0000000000
Storage Cap Reductn0000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio0.300.990.850.500.900.220.360.060.260.49
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity AnalysisBuild PM: Improvements 3A
4: Big Boom Rd/Media Dr & Main St12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 Report
CHAPage 8
MovementEBLEBTEBRWBL WBT WBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)1488802752206781143211226116118222
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width11121212128111111121211
Total Lost time (s)5.05.05.05.05.05.05.05.05.05.0
Lane Util. Factor1.000.951.000.950.971.001.001.001.001.00
Frpb, ped/bikes1.000.991.001.001.001.000.991.001.000.99
Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00
Frt1.000.961.001.001.001.000.851.001.000.85
Flt Protected0.951.000.951.000.951.001.000.951.001.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1728 33561752 34633286 1783 1511 1805 1845 1513
Flt Permitted0.291.000.101.000.951.001.000.951.001.00
Satd. Flow (perm)528 3356179 34633286 1783 1511 1805 1845 1513
Peak-hour factor, PHF0.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.95
Adj. Flow (vph)1569262892327141245511827517124234
RTOR Reduction (vph)026001000168000
Lane Group Flow (vph)156 11890232725045511810717124234
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)5555
Heavy Vehicles (%)1%3%3%3%4%0%3%3%2%0%3%2%
Turn Typepm+ptNApm+ptNAProtNA pm+ovProtNA pm+ov
Protected Phases6125832476
Permitted Phases1537
Actuated Green, G (s)48.139.252.341.315.128.139.12.515.524.4
Effective Green, g (s)48.139.252.341.315.128.139.12.515.524.4
Actuated g/C Ratio0.480.390.520.410.150.280.390.020.150.24
Clearance Time (s)5.05.05.05.05.05.05.05.05.05.0
Vehicle Extension (s)2.05.02.05.03.02.02.02.02.02.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)357 1305264 141849249766144283441
v/s Ratio Prot0.040.35c0.100.21c0.140.070.020.010.07 c0.05
v/s Ratio Perm0.17c0.360.050.11
v/c Ratio0.440.910.880.510.920.240.160.390.440.53
Uniform Delay, d115.729.225.622.242.328.120.148.438.733.2
Progression Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00
Incremental Delay, d20.310.325.70.623.30.10.02.00.40.6
Delay (s)16.039.451.422.865.528.220.250.439.133.8
Level of ServiceBDDCECCDDC
Approach Delay (s)36.829.745.636.3
Approach LOSDCDD
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay36.9HCM 2000 Level of ServiceD
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.86
Actuated Cycle Length (s)100.8Sum of lost time (s)20.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization77.2%ICU Level of ServiceD
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group

QueuesBuild PM: Improvements 3A
5: Pine St & Main St12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 Report
CHAPage 9
Lane GroupEBLEBTWBL WBTNBTSBT
Lane Group Flow (vph)74 10991915738
v/c Ratio0.240.740.010.740.040.22
Control Delay14.716.710.021.026.122.2
Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.0
Total Delay14.716.710.021.026.122.2
Queue Length 50th (ft)5190026316
Queue Length 95th (ft)55 #13903 #11951540
Internal Link Dist (ft)6871135476583
Turn Bay Length (ft)15050
Base Capacity (vph)429 1476197 1239452432
Starvation Cap Reductn000000
Spillback Cap Reductn000000
Storage Cap Reductn000000
Reduced v/c Ratio0.170.740.010.740.020.09
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity AnalysisBuild PM: Improvements 3A
5: Pine St & Main St12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 Report
CHAPage 10
MovementEBLEBTEBRWBL WBT WBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)70 1038618531611511124
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width111281112881188118
Total Lost time (s)5.05.05.05.05.05.0
Lane Util. Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.00
Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.000.980.98
Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.00
Frt1.001.001.001.000.900.91
Flt Protected0.951.000.951.000.990.98
Satd. Flow (prot)1694 18611745 182016121488
Flt Permitted0.141.000.071.000.990.98
Satd. Flow (perm)249 1861134 182016121488
Peak-hour factor, PHF0.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.95
Adj. Flow (vph)74 1093618981711512125
RTOR Reduction (vph)0000000500230
Lane Group Flow (vph)74 10990191500200150
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)5555
Heavy Vehicles (%)3%2%0%0%4%6%0%0%0%27%0%0%
Turn Typepm+ptNApm+ptNASplitNASplitNA
Protected Phases61253344
Permitted Phases15
Actuated Green, G (s)68.662.955.454.73.06.0
Effective Green, g (s)68.662.955.454.73.06.0
Actuated g/C Ratio0.740.680.600.590.030.06
Clearance Time (s)5.05.05.05.05.05.0
Vehicle Extension (s)3.03.03.03.03.03.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)323 126492 10755296
v/s Ratio Protc0.02 c0.590.000.50c0.00c0.01
v/s Ratio Perm0.150.01
v/c Ratio0.230.870.010.850.040.15
Uniform Delay, d120.911.633.615.643.440.9
Progression Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.00
Incremental Delay, d20.46.60.06.60.30.7
Delay (s)21.318.233.622.243.741.6
Level of ServiceCBCCDD
Approach Delay (s)18.422.243.741.6
Approach LOSBCDD
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay20.6HCM 2000 Level of ServiceC
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.78
Actuated Cycle Length (s)92.6Sum of lost time (s)20.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization73.0%ICU Level of ServiceD
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group

QueuesBuild PM: Improvements 3A
6: Richardson St & Main St12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 Report
CHAPage 11
Lane GroupEBLEBTWBL WBTNBTSBT
Lane Group Flow (vph)31 101857978745
v/c Ratio0.070.740.020.610.430.19
Control Delay4.815.25.013.935.821.6
Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.0
Total Delay4.815.25.013.935.821.6
Queue Length 50th (ft)321911373511
Queue Length 95th (ft)16 #8825 #6308040
Internal Link Dist (ft)1135550599330
Turn Bay Length (ft)5065
Base Capacity (vph)453 1371303 1298409476
Starvation Cap Reductn000000
Spillback Cap Reductn000000
Storage Cap Reductn000000
Reduced v/c Ratio0.070.740.020.610.210.09
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity AnalysisBuild PM: Improvements 3A
6: Richardson St & Main St12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 Report
CHAPage 12
MovementEBLEBTEBRWBL WBT WBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)298897857461166161111615
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width1112812121281188118
Total Lost time (s)5.05.05.05.05.05.0
Lane Util. Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.00
Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.000.99
Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.00
Frt1.000.991.001.001.000.95
Flt Protected0.951.000.951.000.960.99
Satd. Flow (prot)1678 18361805 182317631666
Flt Permitted0.241.000.151.000.740.92
Satd. Flow (perm)432 1836282 182313571546
Peak-hour factor, PHF0.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.95
Adj. Flow (vph)319368257851269171121716
RTOR Reduction (vph)0200000100140
Lane Group Flow (vph)31 101605797008600310
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)5555
Heavy Vehicles (%)4%2%2%0%4%0%0%0%0%0%0%7%
Turn Typepm+ptNApm+ptNAPermNAPermNA
Protected Phases612537
Permitted Phases1537
Actuated Green, G (s)58.856.355.654.710.110.1
Effective Green, g (s)58.856.355.654.710.110.1
Actuated g/C Ratio0.710.680.680.660.120.12
Clearance Time (s)5.05.05.05.05.05.0
Vehicle Extension (s)3.03.03.03.03.03.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)346 1255207 1211166189
v/s Ratio Protc0.00 c0.550.000.44
v/s Ratio Perm0.060.02c0.060.02
v/c Ratio0.090.810.020.660.520.16
Uniform Delay, d15.69.28.98.233.832.3
Progression Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.00
Incremental Delay, d20.14.00.01.32.70.4
Delay (s)5.713.28.99.536.532.7
Level of ServiceABAADC
Approach Delay (s)12.99.536.532.7
Approach LOSBADC
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay13.0HCM 2000 Level of ServiceB
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.76
Actuated Cycle Length (s)82.3Sum of lost time (s)15.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization72.3%ICU Level of ServiceC
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group

QueuesBuild AM: Improvements 4A 60% Retail
1: Big Bay Rd & Corinth Rd (Rte 28)12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 – Report
CHAPage 1
Lane GroupEBLEBTWBL WBTNBTNBRSBLSBT
Lane Group Flow (vph)56858238553561947421
v/c Ratio0.090.840.650.460.300.370.400.09
Control Delay4.926.719.710.734.310.837.313.8
Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0
Total Delay4.926.719.710.734.310.837.313.8
Queue Length 50th (ft)6342331312629340
Queue Length 95th (ft)23 #740 #15730758737319
Internal Link Dist (ft)58965642650
Turn Bay Length (ft)100247200
Base Capacity (vph)769 1065408 1198382564374446
Starvation Cap Reductn00000000
Spillback Cap Reductn00000000
Storage Cap Reductn00000000
Reduced v/c Ratio0.070.810.580.460.150.340.200.05
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity AnalysisBuild AM: Improvements 4A 60% Retail
1: Big Bay Rd & Corinth Rd (Rte 28)12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 – Report
CHAPage 2
MovementEBLEBTEBRWBL WBT WBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)527465222135515950218069119
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width111212111212121211111111
Total Lost time (s)5.05.05.05.05.05.05.05.0
Lane Util. Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00
Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.000.991.001.001.000.97
Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.000.991.001.001.00
Frt1.000.991.000.951.000.851.000.86
Flt Protected0.951.000.951.000.951.000.951.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1711 18401678 17131759 1459 1711 1498
Flt Permitted0.451.000.121.000.721.000.721.00
Satd. Flow (perm)807 1840221 17131325 1459 1297 1498
Peak-hour factor, PHF0.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.93
Adj. Flow (vph)568025623838217154219474120
RTOR Reduction (vph)020011000820180
Lane Group Flow (vph)56856023854200561127430
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)55555
Heavy Vehicles (%)2%2%3%4%6%2%2%2%7%2%2%2%
Turn Typepm+ptNApm+ptNAPermNA pm+ov PermNA
Protected Phases6125327
Permitted Phases15337
Actuated Green, G (s)47.944.259.450.79.219.49.29.2
Effective Green, g (s)47.944.259.450.79.219.49.29.2
Actuated g/C Ratio0.610.560.760.650.120.250.120.12
Clearance Time (s)5.05.05.05.05.05.05.05.0
Vehicle Extension (s)3.03.03.03.03.03.03.03.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)534 1034356 1104155452151175
v/s Ratio Prot0.00 c0.47c0.090.320.030.00
v/s Ratio Perm0.060.420.040.04 c0.06
v/c Ratio0.100.830.670.490.360.250.490.02
Uniform Delay, d16.214.114.07.232.023.732.530.7
Progression Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00
Incremental Delay, d20.15.64.70.31.40.32.50.0
Delay (s)6.319.618.77.633.424.035.030.8
Level of ServiceABBACCCC
Approach Delay (s)18.810.926.134.1
Approach LOSBBCC
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay17.4HCM 2000 Level of ServiceB
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.76
Actuated Cycle Length (s)78.6Sum of lost time (s)15.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization78.4%ICU Level of ServiceD
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group

QueuesBuild AM: Improvements 4A 60% Retail
2: Exit 18-SB ON Ramp/Exit 18-SB OFF Ramp & Main St12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 – Report
CHAPage 3
Lane GroupEBTEBRWBL WBTSBTSBR
Lane Group Flow (vph)813284463613261297
v/c Ratio0.710.390.990.620.650.57
Control Delay25.54.652.35.632.411.0
Queue Delay0.20.00.00.00.00.0
Total Delay25.74.652.35.632.411.0
Queue Length 50th (ft)16101657410524
Queue Length 95th (ft)26352 m# 312 m10117488
Internal Link Dist (ft)656424 1060
Turn Bay Length (ft)235260
Base Capacity (vph)1150722466993612666
Starvation Cap Reductn000000
Spillback Cap Reductn4800000
Storage Cap Reductn000000
Reduced v/c Ratio0.740.390.990.620.430.45
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity AnalysisBuild AM: Improvements 4A 60% Retail
2: Exit 18-SB ON Ramp/Exit 18-SB OFF Ramp & Main St12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 – Report
CHAPage 4
MovementEBLEBTEBRWBL WBT WBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)074826142656400002400273
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width111112101188121281212
Total Lost time (s)5.05.05.05.05.05.0
Lane Util. Factor0.951.001.001.001.001.00
Frpb, ped/bikes1.000.971.001.001.000.97
Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.00
Frt1.000.851.001.001.000.85
Flt Protected1.001.000.951.000.951.00
Satd. Flow (prot)3292 1541 1589 17331752 1482
Flt Permitted1.001.000.221.000.951.00
Satd. Flow (perm)3292 1541366 17331752 1482
Peak-hour factor, PHF0.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.92
Adj. Flow (vph)081328446361300002610297
RTOR Reduction (vph)0018400000000176
Lane Group Flow (vph)081310046361300000261121
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)555
Heavy Vehicles (%)0%6%2%6%6%0%0%0%0%3%0%6%
Turn TypeNA Perm pm+ptNAPermNA Perm
Protected Phases12 1 2 53
Permitted Phases1 1 2 533
Actuated Green, G (s)25.225.241.341.316.616.6
Effective Green, g (s)25.225.241.341.316.616.6
Actuated g/C Ratio0.350.350.570.570.230.23
Clearance Time (s)5.05.05.05.05.0
Vehicle Extension (s)4.04.02.02.02.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)1153540467995404342
v/s Ratio Prot0.25c0.210.35
v/s Ratio Perm0.06 c0.360.150.08
v/c Ratio0.710.180.990.620.650.35
Uniform Delay, d120.116.219.710.125.023.2
Progression Factor1.001.000.730.401.001.00
Incremental Delay, d22.10.230.00.82.70.2
Delay (s)22.316.444.34.827.623.4
Level of ServiceCBDACC
Approach Delay (s)20.821.80.025.4
Approach LOSCCAC
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay22.1HCM 2000 Level of ServiceC
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.91
Actuated Cycle Length (s)71.9Sum of lost time (s)15.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization71.3%ICU Level of ServiceC
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group

QueuesBuild AM: Improvements 4A 60% Retail
3: Exit 18-NB OFF Ramp/Exit 18-NB ON Ramp & Main St12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 – Report
CHAPage 5
Lane GroupEBLEBTWBTNBLNBTNBR
Lane Group Flow (vph)312762 1083259315315
v/c Ratio0.770.690.880.670.660.66
Control Delay28.77.932.033.517.317.3
Queue Delay0.03.00.30.00.00.0
Total Delay28.710.932.333.517.317.3
Queue Length 50th (ft)109882211045151
Queue Length 95th (ft)m# 244534 #407175132132
Internal Link Dist (ft)424376672
Turn Bay Length (ft)290380
Base Capacity (vph)407 1111 1229589627627
Starvation Cap Reductn02410000
Spillback Cap Reductn0012000
Storage Cap Reductn000000
Reduced v/c Ratio0.770.880.890.440.500.50
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity AnalysisBuild AM: Improvements 4A 60% Retail
3: Exit 18-NB OFF Ramp/Exit 18-NB ON Ramp & Main St12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 – Report
CHAPage 6
MovementEBLEBTEBRWBL WBT WBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)287701007522452380580000
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width10118812111212128128
Total Lost time (s)5.05.05.05.05.05.0
Lane Util. Factor1.001.000.951.000.950.95
Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.000.991.000.980.98
Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.00
Frt1.001.000.961.000.850.85
Flt Protected0.951.001.000.951.001.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1604 176632821687 1448 1448
Flt Permitted0.151.001.000.951.001.00
Satd. Flow (perm)258 176632821687 1448 1448
Peak-hour factor, PHF0.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.92
Adj. Flow (vph)312762008172662590630000
RTOR Reduction (vph)00003700142142000
Lane Group Flow (vph)31276200 10460259173173000
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)555
Heavy Vehicles (%)5%4%0%0%4%9%7%0%4%0%0%0%
Turn Typepm+ptNANAPermNA Perm
Protected Phases6 1 5 657
Permitted Phases1 5 677
Actuated Green, G (s)40.345.326.216.616.616.6
Effective Green, g (s)40.345.326.216.616.616.6
Actuated g/C Ratio0.560.630.360.230.230.23
Clearance Time (s)5.05.05.05.05.0
Vehicle Extension (s)2.04.02.02.02.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)408 11121195389334334
v/s Ratio Prot0.15 c0.43c0.320.12
v/s Ratio Perm0.28c0.150.12
v/c Ratio0.760.690.880.670.520.52
Uniform Delay, d121.58.721.325.124.124.1
Progression Factor0.750.471.001.001.001.00
Incremental Delay, d25.81.57.63.30.60.6
Delay (s)21.95.628.928.424.724.7
Level of ServiceCACCCC
Approach Delay (s)10.328.925.80.0
Approach LOSBCCA
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay21.5HCM 2000 Level of ServiceC
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.81
Actuated Cycle Length (s)71.9Sum of lost time (s)15.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization71.3%ICU Level of ServiceC
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group

QueuesBuild AM: Improvements 4A 60% Retail
4: Big Boom Rd/Media Dr & Main St12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 – Report
CHAPage 7
Lane GroupEBLEBTWBL WBTNBLNBTSBTSBR
Lane Group Flow (vph)188 11969776514112465221
v/c Ratio0.670.630.360.860.450.270.400.49
Control Delay26.721.913.936.834.710.752.68.6
Queue Delay0.01.10.00.00.00.00.00.0
Total Delay26.723.013.936.834.710.752.68.6
Queue Length 50th (ft)46285224357616433
Queue Length 95th (ft)#20155466 #911126578659
Internal Link Dist (ft)376131742425
Turn Bay Length (ft)11560200100
Base Capacity (vph)282 1907353891369772392451
Starvation Cap Reductn0439000000
Spillback Cap Reductn00000000
Storage Cap Reductn00000000
Reduced v/c Ratio0.670.810.270.860.380.160.170.49
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity AnalysisBuild AM: Improvements 4A 60% Retail
4: Big Boom Rd/Media Dr & Main St12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 – Report
CHAPage 8
MovementEBLEBTEBRWBL WBT WBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)169942134876721612729831642199
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width11121212128111111121211
Total Lost time (s)5.05.05.05.05.05.05.05.0
Lane Util. Factor1.000.951.001.001.001.001.001.00
Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.000.991.000.99
Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00
Frt1.000.981.001.001.000.891.000.85
Flt Protected0.951.000.951.000.951.000.991.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1678 34261752 17711646 15561847 1494
Flt Permitted0.131.000.161.000.461.000.871.00
Satd. Flow (perm)226 3426297 1771802 15561622 1494
Peak-hour factor, PHF0.900.900.900.900.900.900.900.900.900.900.900.90
Adj. Flow (vph)188 1047149977471814132921847221
RTOR Reduction (vph)070000068000177
Lane Group Flow (vph)188 1189097765014156006544
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)5555
Heavy Vehicles (%)4%3%3%3%7%0%6%2%4%0%2%3%
Turn Typepm+ptNApm+ptNApm+ptNAPermNA pm+ov
Protected Phases61258376
Permitted Phases15377
Actuated Green, G (s)68.458.260.054.027.827.89.219.4
Effective Green, g (s)68.458.260.054.027.827.89.219.4
Actuated g/C Ratio0.640.540.560.500.260.260.090.18
Clearance Time (s)5.05.05.05.05.05.05.05.0
Vehicle Extension (s)2.05.02.05.03.02.02.02.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)282 1863248893315404139340
v/s Ratio Protc0.060.350.02 c0.43c0.060.040.01
v/s Ratio Perm0.360.20c0.060.040.02
v/c Ratio0.670.640.390.860.450.140.470.13
Uniform Delay, d117.417.012.723.132.230.446.636.7
Progression Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00
Incremental Delay, d24.61.00.48.91.00.10.90.1
Delay (s)22.018.113.032.033.230.547.536.8
Level of ServiceCBBCCCDD
Approach Delay (s)18.629.831.939.2
Approach LOSBCCD
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay25.4HCM 2000 Level of ServiceC
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.75
Actuated Cycle Length (s)107.0Sum of lost time (s)20.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization73.0%ICU Level of ServiceD
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group

QueuesBuild AM: Improvements 4A 60% Retail
5: Pine St & Main St12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 – Report
CHAPage 9
Lane GroupEBLEBTWBL WBTNBTSBT
Lane Group Flow (vph)36 10471819855
v/c Ratio0.090.740.000.630.050.30
Control Delay9.217.010.016.836.020.6
Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.0
Total Delay9.217.010.016.836.020.6
Queue Length 50th (ft)3173020936
Queue Length 95th (ft)31 #13103 #9431946
Internal Link Dist (ft)9201135476583
Turn Bay Length (ft)15050
Base Capacity (vph)380 1406236 1296456411
Starvation Cap Reductn000000
Spillback Cap Reductn000000
Storage Cap Reductn000000
Reduced v/c Ratio0.090.740.000.630.020.13
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity AnalysisBuild AM: Improvements 4A 60% Retail
5: Pine St & Main St12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 – Report
CHAPage 10
MovementEBLEBTEBRWBL WBT WBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)32941117261151111138
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width111281112881188118
Total Lost time (s)5.05.05.05.05.05.0
Lane Util. Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.00
Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.000.98
Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.00
Frt1.001.001.001.000.980.90
Flt Protected0.951.000.951.000.960.99
Satd. Flow (prot)1694 18441745 182117341448
Flt Permitted0.221.000.101.000.960.99
Satd. Flow (perm)394 1844192 182117341448
Peak-hour factor, PHF0.900.900.900.900.900.900.900.900.900.900.900.90
Adj. Flow (vph)36 1046118071261112142
RTOR Reduction (vph)0000000100390
Lane Group Flow (vph)36 10470181900700160
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)5555
Heavy Vehicles (%)3%3%0%0%4%9%0%0%0%0%0%13%
Turn Typepm+ptNApm+ptNASplitNASplitNA
Protected Phases61253344
Permitted Phases15
Actuated Green, G (s)69.664.661.060.33.27.3
Effective Green, g (s)69.664.661.060.33.27.3
Actuated g/C Ratio0.730.670.640.630.030.08
Clearance Time (s)5.05.05.05.05.05.0
Vehicle Extension (s)3.03.03.03.03.03.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)354 1243133 114657110
v/s Ratio Protc0.01 c0.570.000.45c0.00c0.01
v/s Ratio Perm0.070.00
v/c Ratio0.100.840.010.710.120.15
Uniform Delay, d114.311.828.012.044.941.3
Progression Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.00
Incremental Delay, d20.15.40.02.11.00.6
Delay (s)14.417.128.014.145.942.0
Level of ServiceBBCBDD
Approach Delay (s)17.014.145.942.0
Approach LOSBBDD
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay16.6HCM 2000 Level of ServiceB
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.72
Actuated Cycle Length (s)95.8Sum of lost time (s)20.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization64.3%ICU Level of ServiceC
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group

QueuesBuild AM: Improvements 4A 60% Retail
6: Richardson St & Main St12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 – Report
CHAPage 11
Lane GroupEBLEBTWBL WBTNBTSBT
Lane Group Flow (vph)12958167513273
v/c Ratio0.030.790.000.560.560.28
Control Delay5.417.95.011.136.923.1
Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.0
Total Delay5.417.95.011.136.923.1
Queue Length 50th (ft)122601225120
Queue Length 95th (ft)8 #811241311559
Internal Link Dist (ft)1135550599330
Turn Bay Length (ft)5065
Base Capacity (vph)463 1216282 1208405439
Starvation Cap Reductn000000
Spillback Cap Reductn000000
Storage Cap Reductn000000
Reduced v/c Ratio0.030.790.000.560.330.17
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity AnalysisBuild AM: Improvements 4A 60% Retail
6: Richardson St & Main St12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 – Report
CHAPage 12
MovementEBLEBTEBRWBL WBT WBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)117986416025103115321617
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width1112812121281188118
Total Lost time (s)5.05.05.05.05.05.0
Lane Util. Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.00
Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.000.99
Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.00
Frt1.000.991.001.000.990.96
Flt Protected0.951.000.951.000.960.98
Satd. Flow (prot)1745 18171805 180716351618
Flt Permitted0.311.000.141.000.770.84
Satd. Flow (perm)565 1817264 180713131389
Peak-hour factor, PHF0.900.900.900.900.900.900.900.900.900.900.900.90
Adj. Flow (vph)128877116696114126361819
RTOR Reduction (vph)0300000200160
Lane Group Flow (vph)12955016750013000570
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)5555
Heavy Vehicles (%)0%3%5%0%5%0%7%9%0%6%0%12%
Turn Typepm+ptNApm+ptNAPermNAPermNA
Protected Phases612537
Permitted Phases1537
Actuated Green, G (s)51.350.551.350.513.313.3
Effective Green, g (s)51.350.551.350.513.313.3
Actuated g/C Ratio0.640.630.640.630.170.17
Clearance Time (s)5.05.05.05.05.05.0
Vehicle Extension (s)3.03.03.03.03.03.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)375 1152185 1146219232
v/s Ratio Protc0.00 c0.530.000.37
v/s Ratio Perm0.020.00c0.100.04
v/c Ratio0.030.830.010.590.590.25
Uniform Delay, d16.111.210.08.530.628.8
Progression Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.00
Incremental Delay, d20.05.10.00.84.20.6
Delay (s)6.116.310.09.334.929.4
Level of ServiceABBACC
Approach Delay (s)16.29.334.929.4
Approach LOSBACC
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay15.5HCM 2000 Level of ServiceB
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.77
Actuated Cycle Length (s)79.6Sum of lost time (s)15.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization66.4%ICU Level of ServiceC
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group

QueuesBuild PM: Improvements 4A 60% Retail
1: Big Bay Rd & Corinth Rd (Rte 28)12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 – Report
CHAPage 1
Lane GroupEBLEBTWBL WBTNBTNBRSBLSBT
Lane Group Flow (vph)4364118765410629419170
v/c Ratio0.110.830.510.660.370.390.690.18
Control Delay6.930.011.017.630.47.741.78.9
Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0
Total Delay6.930.011.017.630.47.741.78.9
Queue Length 50th (ft)6238312224029781
Queue Length 95th (ft)19 #45865396979117233
Internal Link Dist (ft)58965642634
Turn Bay Length (ft)100247200
Base Capacity (vph)459 1072456 1196414838404532
Starvation Cap Reductn00000000
Spillback Cap Reductn00000000
Storage Cap Reductn00000000
Reduced v/c Ratio0.090.600.410.550.260.350.470.13
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity AnalysisBuild PM: Improvements 4A 60% Retail
1: Big Bay Rd & Corinth Rd (Rte 28)12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 – Report
CHAPage 2
MovementEBLEBTEBRWBL WBT WBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)42578501835251161004288187267
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width111212111212121211111111
Total Lost time (s)5.05.05.05.05.05.05.05.0
Lane Util. Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00
Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.000.991.001.001.000.97
Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.000.991.001.001.00
Frt1.000.991.000.971.000.851.000.85
Flt Protected0.951.000.951.000.951.000.951.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1711 18071678 18171780 1516 1711 1496
Flt Permitted0.301.000.171.000.681.000.691.00
Satd. Flow (perm)548 1807308 18171275 1516 1240 1496
Peak-hour factor, PHF0.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.98
Adj. Flow (vph)43590511875361181024294191268
RTOR Reduction (vph)030080001220530
Lane Group Flow (vph)43638018764600106172191170
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)55555
Heavy Vehicles (%)2%3%11%4%1%2%1%2%3%2%2%2%
Turn Typepm+ptNApm+ptNAPermNA pm+ov PermNA
Protected Phases6125327
Permitted Phases15337
Actuated Green, G (s)36.533.047.338.816.025.316.016.0
Effective Green, g (s)36.533.047.338.816.025.316.016.0
Actuated g/C Ratio0.500.450.650.530.220.350.220.22
Clearance Time (s)5.05.05.05.05.05.05.05.0
Vehicle Extension (s)3.03.03.03.03.03.03.03.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)328813372961278626270326
v/s Ratio Prot0.01 c0.35c0.06 c0.360.030.01
v/s Ratio Perm0.060.260.080.08 c0.15
v/c Ratio0.130.780.500.670.380.280.710.05
Uniform Delay, d110.017.19.712.624.417.426.522.7
Progression Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00
Incremental Delay, d20.25.01.11.90.90.28.20.1
Delay (s)10.222.110.814.525.317.634.722.7
Level of ServiceBCBBCBCC
Approach Delay (s)21.413.719.631.5
Approach LOSCBBC
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay19.3HCM 2000 Level of ServiceB
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.73
Actuated Cycle Length (s)73.3Sum of lost time (s)15.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization75.3%ICU Level of ServiceD
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group

QueuesBuild PM: Improvements 4A 60% Retail
2: Exit 18-SB ON Ramp/Exit 18-SB OFF Ramp & Main St12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 – Report
CHAPage 3
Lane GroupEBTEBRWBL WBTSBTSBR
Lane Group Flow (vph)873280579638253294
v/c Ratio0.850.420.960.540.690.54
Control Delay38.05.541.33.640.18.1
Queue Delay1.70.00.01.00.00.0
Total Delay39.75.541.34.640.18.1
Queue Length 50th (ft)2240274801226
Queue Length 95th (ft)#37258 m# 157 m10119766
Internal Link Dist (ft)656424 1060
Turn Bay Length (ft)235260
Base Capacity (vph)1025665603 1186519656
Starvation Cap Reductn00030300
Spillback Cap Reductn5700000
Storage Cap Reductn000000
Reduced v/c Ratio0.900.420.960.720.490.45
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity AnalysisBuild PM: Improvements 4A 60% Retail
2: Exit 18-SB ON Ramp/Exit 18-SB OFF Ramp & Main St12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 – Report
CHAPage 4
MovementEBLEBTEBRWBL WBT WBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)085627456762500002480288
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width111112101188121281212
Total Lost time (s)5.05.05.05.05.05.0
Lane Util. Factor0.951.001.001.001.001.00
Frpb, ped/bikes1.000.971.001.001.000.97
Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.00
Frt1.000.851.001.001.000.85
Flt Protected1.001.000.951.000.951.00
Satd. Flow (prot)3388 1554 1651 17831719 1524
Flt Permitted1.001.000.171.000.951.00
Satd. Flow (perm)3388 1554287 17831719 1524
Peak-hour factor, PHF0.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.98
Adj. Flow (vph)087328057963800002530294
RTOR Reduction (vph)0019500000000220
Lane Group Flow (vph)0873855796380000025374
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)555
Heavy Vehicles (%)0%3%1%2%3%0%0%0%0%5%0%3%
Turn TypeNA Perm pm+ptNAPermNA Perm
Protected Phases12 1 2 53
Permitted Phases1 1 2 533
Actuated Green, G (s)25.125.155.255.217.717.7
Effective Green, g (s)25.125.155.255.217.717.7
Actuated g/C Ratio0.300.300.670.670.210.21
Clearance Time (s)5.05.05.05.05.0
Vehicle Extension (s)4.04.02.02.02.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)1025470604 1187367325
v/s Ratio Prot0.26c0.290.36
v/s Ratio Perm0.05 c0.350.150.05
v/c Ratio0.850.180.960.540.690.23
Uniform Delay, d127.221.320.97.230.126.9
Progression Factor1.001.000.800.311.001.00
Incremental Delay, d27.20.317.20.34.30.1
Delay (s)34.321.633.92.534.327.1
Level of ServiceCCCACC
Approach Delay (s)31.217.50.030.4
Approach LOSCBAC
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay25.3HCM 2000 Level of ServiceC
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.93
Actuated Cycle Length (s)82.9Sum of lost time (s)15.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization82.4%ICU Level of ServiceE
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group

QueuesBuild PM: Improvements 4A 60% Retail
3: Exit 18-NB OFF Ramp/Exit 18-NB ON Ramp & Main St12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 – Report
CHAPage 5
Lane GroupEBLEBTWBTNBLNBTNBR
Lane Group Flow (vph)356770 1273264292292
v/c Ratio0.850.650.920.700.610.61
Control Delay38.87.736.240.314.714.7
Queue Delay0.018.60.90.00.00.0
Total Delay38.826.237.140.314.714.7
Queue Length 50th (ft)159973141273737
Queue Length 95th (ft)m# 256 m570 #521205115115
Internal Link Dist (ft)424376672
Turn Bay Length (ft)290380
Base Capacity (vph)419 1186 1382535589589
Starvation Cap Reductn042123000
Spillback Cap Reductn000000
Storage Cap Reductn000000
Reduced v/c Ratio0.851.010.940.490.500.50
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity AnalysisBuild PM: Improvements 4A 60% Retail
3: Exit 18-NB OFF Ramp/Exit 18-NB ON Ramp & Main St12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 – Report
CHAPage 6
MovementEBLEBTEBRWBL WBT WBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)349755009363122590572000
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width10118812111212128128
Total Lost time (s)5.05.05.05.05.05.0
Lane Util. Factor1.001.000.951.000.950.95
Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.000.991.000.980.98
Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.00
Frt1.001.000.961.000.850.85
Flt Protected0.951.001.000.951.001.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1636 178333741770 1461 1461
Flt Permitted0.121.001.000.951.001.00
Satd. Flow (perm)208 178333741770 1461 1461
Peak-hour factor, PHF0.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.98
Adj. Flow (vph)356770009553182640584000
RTOR Reduction (vph)00003400165165000
Lane Group Flow (vph)35677000 12390264127127000
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)555
Heavy Vehicles (%)3%3%0%0%2%3%2%0%3%0%0%0%
Turn Typepm+ptNANAPermNA Perm
Protected Phases6 1 5 657
Permitted Phases1 5 677
Actuated Green, G (s)50.255.233.117.717.717.7
Effective Green, g (s)50.255.233.117.717.717.7
Actuated g/C Ratio0.610.670.400.210.210.21
Clearance Time (s)5.05.05.05.05.0
Vehicle Extension (s)2.04.02.02.02.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)420 11871347377311311
v/s Ratio Protc0.17 c0.43c0.370.09
v/s Ratio Perm0.34c0.150.09
v/c Ratio0.850.650.920.700.410.41
Uniform Delay, d126.48.123.630.128.128.1
Progression Factor0.930.601.001.001.001.00
Incremental Delay, d29.10.810.44.70.30.3
Delay (s)33.75.834.034.928.428.4
Level of ServiceCACCCC
Approach Delay (s)14.634.030.40.0
Approach LOSBCCA
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay26.3HCM 2000 Level of ServiceC
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.85
Actuated Cycle Length (s)82.9Sum of lost time (s)15.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization82.4%ICU Level of ServiceE
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group

QueuesBuild PM: Improvements 4A 60% Retail
4: Big Boom Rd/Media Dr & Main St12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 – Report
CHAPage 7
Lane GroupEBLEBTWBL WBTNBLNBTSBTSBR
Lane Group Flow (vph)161 1168167755287278102243
v/c Ratio0.750.830.610.940.880.480.430.65
Control Delay37.928.522.745.349.410.834.621.4
Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0
Total Delay37.928.522.745.349.410.834.621.4
Queue Length 50th (ft)3224433319111374553
Queue Length 95th (ft)#166 #510 #133 #7391779286112
Internal Link Dist (ft)376131742425
Turn Bay Length (ft)11560200100
Base Capacity (vph)216 1401291799328906564374
Starvation Cap Reductn00000000
Spillback Cap Reductn00000000
Storage Cap Reductn00000000
Reduced v/c Ratio0.750.830.570.940.880.310.180.65
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity AnalysisBuild PM: Improvements 4A 60% Retail
4: Big Boom Rd/Media Dr & Main St12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 – Report
CHAPage 8
MovementEBLEBTEBRWBL WBT WBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)15391619415970611273761881681231
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width11121212128111111121211
Total Lost time (s)5.05.05.05.05.05.05.05.0
Lane Util. Factor1.000.951.001.001.001.001.001.00
Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.000.991.000.98
Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00
Frt1.000.971.001.001.000.891.000.85
Flt Protected0.951.000.951.000.951.000.991.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1728 33971752 18231694 15851838 1503
Flt Permitted0.131.000.121.000.451.000.891.00
Satd. Flow (perm)241 3397227 1823804 15851650 1503
Peak-hour factor, PHF0.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.95
Adj. Flow (vph)16196420416774312287801981785243
RTOR Reduction (vph)0170010012000082
Lane Group Flow (vph)161 11510167754028715800102161
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)5555
Heavy Vehicles (%)1%3%3%3%4%0%3%3%2%0%3%2%
Turn Typepm+ptNApm+ptNApm+ptNAPermNA pm+ov
Protected Phases61258376
Permitted Phases15377
Actuated Green, G (s)35.330.239.932.522.522.59.414.5
Effective Green, g (s)35.330.239.932.522.522.59.414.5
Actuated g/C Ratio0.470.400.530.430.300.300.130.19
Clearance Time (s)5.05.05.05.05.05.05.05.0
Vehicle Extension (s)2.05.02.05.03.02.02.02.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)214 1366270788336474206390
v/s Ratio Prot0.050.34c0.06 c0.41c0.090.100.03
v/s Ratio Perm0.300.27c0.160.060.08
v/c Ratio0.750.840.620.960.850.330.500.41
Uniform Delay, d115.920.313.020.623.620.530.626.6
Progression Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00
Incremental Delay, d212.45.43.022.518.60.20.70.3
Delay (s)28.425.715.943.142.220.631.326.8
Level of ServiceCCBDDCCC
Approach Delay (s)26.038.231.628.2
Approach LOSCDCC
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay30.8HCM 2000 Level of ServiceC
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.97
Actuated Cycle Length (s)75.1Sum of lost time (s)20.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization81.9%ICU Level of ServiceD
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group

QueuesBuild PM: Improvements 4A 60% Retail
5: Pine St & Main St12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 – Report
CHAPage 9
Lane GroupEBLEBTWBL WBTNBTSBT
Lane Group Flow (vph)72 10611880738
v/c Ratio0.210.720.000.710.040.21
Control Delay13.116.110.020.526.022.2
Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.0
Total Delay13.116.110.020.526.022.2
Queue Length 50th (ft)5174024415
Queue Length 95th (ft)53 #13273 #11471540
Internal Link Dist (ft)9201135476583
Turn Bay Length (ft)15050
Base Capacity (vph)475 1474214 1232456435
Starvation Cap Reductn000000
Spillback Cap Reductn000000
Storage Cap Reductn000000
Reduced v/c Ratio0.150.720.000.710.020.09
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity AnalysisBuild PM: Improvements 4A 60% Retail
5: Pine St & Main St12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 – Report
CHAPage 10
MovementEBLEBTEBRWBL WBT WBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)68 1003518201611511124
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width111281112881188118
Total Lost time (s)5.05.05.05.05.05.0
Lane Util. Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.00
Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.000.980.98
Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.00
Frt1.001.001.001.000.900.91
Flt Protected0.951.000.951.000.990.98
Satd. Flow (prot)1694 18611745 182016121488
Flt Permitted0.161.000.091.000.990.98
Satd. Flow (perm)283 1861159 182016121488
Peak-hour factor, PHF0.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.95
Adj. Flow (vph)72 1056518631711512125
RTOR Reduction (vph)0000000500230
Lane Group Flow (vph)72 10610188000200150
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)5555
Heavy Vehicles (%)3%2%0%0%4%6%0%0%0%27%0%0%
Turn Typepm+ptNApm+ptNASplitNASplitNA
Protected Phases61253344
Permitted Phases15
Actuated Green, G (s)68.062.354.854.13.06.0
Effective Green, g (s)68.062.354.854.13.06.0
Actuated g/C Ratio0.740.680.600.590.030.07
Clearance Time (s)5.05.05.05.05.05.0
Vehicle Extension (s)3.03.03.03.03.03.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)345 1260106 10705297
v/s Ratio Protc0.02 c0.570.000.48c0.00c0.01
v/s Ratio Perm0.130.01
v/c Ratio0.210.840.010.820.040.15
Uniform Delay, d118.811.230.515.143.140.6
Progression Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.00
Incremental Delay, d20.35.30.05.20.30.7
Delay (s)19.216.430.520.343.441.3
Level of ServiceBBCCDD
Approach Delay (s)16.620.343.441.3
Approach LOSBCDD
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay18.7HCM 2000 Level of ServiceB
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.75
Actuated Cycle Length (s)92.0Sum of lost time (s)20.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization71.3%ICU Level of ServiceC
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group

QueuesBuild PM: Improvements 4A 60% Retail
6: Richardson St & Main St12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 – Report
CHAPage 11
Lane GroupEBLEBTWBL WBTNBTSBT
Lane Group Flow (vph)3198157668445
v/c Ratio0.070.720.020.590.410.18
Control Delay4.814.45.213.434.821.3
Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.0
Total Delay4.814.45.213.434.821.3
Queue Length 50th (ft)319811263411
Queue Length 95th (ft)16 #8335 #5907740
Internal Link Dist (ft)1135550599330
Turn Bay Length (ft)5065
Base Capacity (vph)457 1372328 1311426497
Starvation Cap Reductn000000
Spillback Cap Reductn000000
Storage Cap Reductn000000
Reduced v/c Ratio0.070.720.020.580.200.09
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity AnalysisBuild PM: Improvements 4A 60% Retail
6: Richardson St & Main St12/29/2015
30230-Exit 18 Rezone StudySynchro 8 – Report
CHAPage 12
MovementEBLEBTEBRWBL WBT WBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)298577557161163161111615
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width1112812121281188118
Total Lost time (s)5.05.05.05.05.05.0
Lane Util. Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.00
Frt1.000.991.001.001.000.95
Flt Protected0.951.000.951.000.960.99
Satd. Flow (prot)1678 18401805 182417641684
Flt Permitted0.261.000.171.000.740.91
Satd. Flow (perm)459 1840318 182413601553
Peak-hour factor, PHF0.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.95
Adj. Flow (vph)319027957541266171121716
RTOR Reduction (vph)0200000100140
Lane Group Flow (vph)3197905766008300310
Heavy Vehicles (%)4%2%2%0%4%0%0%0%0%0%0%7%
Turn Typepm+ptNApm+ptNAPermNAPermNA
Protected Phases612537
Permitted Phases1537
Actuated Green, G (s)56.954.553.752.99.89.8
Effective Green, g (s)56.954.553.752.99.89.8
Actuated g/C Ratio0.710.680.670.660.120.12
Clearance Time (s)5.05.05.05.05.05.0
Vehicle Extension (s)3.03.03.03.03.03.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)362 1251228 1204166190
v/s Ratio Protc0.00 c0.530.000.42
v/s Ratio Perm0.060.01c0.060.02
v/c Ratio0.090.780.020.640.500.16
Uniform Delay, d15.38.78.08.032.931.5
Progression Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.00
Incremental Delay, d20.13.30.01.12.40.4
Delay (s)5.412.08.09.135.231.9
Level of ServiceABAADC
Approach Delay (s)11.89.135.231.9
Approach LOSBADC
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay12.2HCM 2000 Level of ServiceB
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.73
Actuated Cycle Length (s)80.1Sum of lost time (s)15.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization69.0%ICU Level of ServiceC
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group

Exit 18 Rezone Study – Queensbury, NY
Appendix D

Mitigation Improvement Cost Estimates

Exit 18 Rezone Study
Town of Queensbury, New York
Mitigation Improvements
Planning-level Cost Estimate
Big Bay Rd/Corinth Rd
Figure 12 Improvement Concept
ITEMCOST
pavement120,000.00$
sidewalk7,700.00$
excavation23,000.00$
curb10,500.00$
traffic signal upgrades/ modifications100,000.00$
drainage170,000.00$
431,200.00$
Contingency:40%172,500.00$
Total:603,700.00$
Say:605,000.00$
Concept 1 subtotal:
CHA File: 30230

Exit 18 Rezone Study
Town of Queensbury, New York
Mitigation Improvements
Planning-level Cost Estimate
Big Boom Rd/Main St
Figure 13 Improvement Concept
ITEMCOST
pavement232,000.00$
sidewalk43,000.00$
excavation45,000.00$
curb35,000.00$
traffic signal upgrades/ modifications(at Big Boom Rd and at I87 NB)225,000.00$
drainage250,000.00$
basin at Big Boom Road10,000.00$
840,000.00$
Contingency:40%336,000.00$
Total:1,176,000.00$
Say:1,200,000.00$
Figure 14 Improvement Concept
ITEMCOST
pavement96,000.00$
sidewalk7,000.00$
excavation18,000.00$
curb7,000.00$
traffic signal upgrades/ modifications(Big Boom)175,000.00$
drainage86,000.00$
basin at Big Boom Road5,000.00$
394,000.00$
Contingency:40%157,600.00$
Total:551,600.00$
Say:555,000.00$
Concept 1 subtotal:
Concept 2 subtotal:
CHA File: 30230