Publication Type: Transportation Plans

Text Version Not Currently Available

REGIONAL BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN PLAN
Adirondack/Glens Falls  Transportation Council
Adirondack/Glens
Falls  Transportation Council

July
2014
July
2014

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction  ………………………………………………………………………………………..  1
Purpose  ………………………………………………………………………………………..  1
Benefits  of  Bicycle  and  Pedestrian  Facilities  ………………………………………  2
Bicycle  Improvements  ………………………………………………………………………….  3
Existing  Conditions  …………………………………………………………………………  3
Priority  Bicycle  Network  ………………………………………………………………….  4
Design  Standards ……………………………………………………………………………  8
Bicycle  Shoulder  Physical  Feasibility  Analysis  …………………………………..  13
Bicycle  Facility  Improvement  Process   …………………………………………….  15
Other  Bicycle  Improvements  ………………………………………………………….  18
Pedestrian  Improvements  …………………………………………………………………..  19
Pedestrian  Facilities:  Policies  and  Legislation  …………………………………..  19
Pedestrian  Design  Features  ……………………………………………………………  22
Pedestrian  Facilities  in  Suburban  and  Rural  Environments  ………………..  29
Pedestrian  Priority  Map  ………………………………………………………………..  30
Implementation  …………………………………………………………………………………  32
Partnerships  ………………………………………………………………………………..  32
Funding  ……………………………………………………………………………………….  33
References:
AASHTO.  (July  2004).  Guide  for the  Planning,  Design,  and  Operation  of Pedestrian  Facili ‐
ties.
Hughes,  H.  H.  (2001).  Evaluation  of  Automated  Pedestrian  Detection  at Signalized  Inter‐
sections.  Federal Highway  Administration.
NYSDOT.  (2013).  Highway  Design  Manual,  Chapter  18:  Pedestrian  Facility  Design.
United  States Access  Board.  (2011).  Accessibility  Guidelines  for  Pedestrian  Facilities  in  the
Public  Right‐of‐Way.  Authority:  29  U.S.C.  792  and 42  U.S.C.  12204.

Regional Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan
Regional
Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan

Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
1
1

INTRODUCTION
Purpose
The Adirondack/Glens  Falls  Transportation  Council  (A/GFTC)  has
prepared  this  Regional  Bicycle  &  Pedestrian  Plan  with  the  intent  to
provide  a  framework  for  future  improvements  which  will  result  in
a  more  comprehensive  network  of  bicycle  and  pedestrian  facilities
in  Warren,  Washington,  and  northern  Saratoga  Counties.
This  plan,  which  updates  the  Bicycle  and  Pedestrian  Plan  prepared
by  A/GFTC  in  2000,  has  be en

created  in  conjunction  with  a  process
which  takes  into  account  the  priorities  of  the  local  municipalities
and  stakeholders  in  the  A/GFTC  region.  This process  is  intended  to
strengthen  ties  so  that  partnerships  can  continue  in  the  future
implementation  of the  priority  projects.  The  plan  in cl
udes:
An inventory  of  existing  conditions  at  a  regional  scale
A review  of all  available  community  plans  and  priorities  for
each  municipality
Identification  of  priority  bicycle  network  connections  and
pedestrian  priority  areas
Guidance  to  select  appropriate  design features
Identification  of  local  policies  to  support  bicycle  and
pedestrian  activity
A plan  for  implementation
This  process  has  resulted  in  a  plan  which  identifies  feasible,  real ‐
world  actions  that  can  be  taken  to  improve  biking  and  walking
within  the  region.  By  coordinating  implementation  across  local,
county,  and  state  levels,  it is  hoped  that  the  plan  will  increase  the
efficiency  and  efficacy  of  improvements.

Regional Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan
Regional
Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan

Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
2
2

Benefits of Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
Biking
and  walking,  whether  conducted  as  a mode  of
transportation  or  as  a recreational  activity, offer  a wide  variety  of
personal,  social,  and  environmental  benefits.  On  a  personal  level,
biking  and  walking  are not  only  ways  to  become  or  stay  physically
active,  but  also  affordable,  fun  transportation  methods  available  to
all  ages.  Socially,  these  ac ti
vities reduce  health  care  costs  and
vehicular  traffic,  can  provide  a healthy  activity  for  families  and
children,  and  can  provide  an  important  component  to  the  local
economy  in  terms  of tourism.  In  terms  of  the  environment,  biking
and  walking  can  be  an  effective  way  to  reduce  dependence  on  the
automobile,  and  subsequ ently re

duce  carbon  emissions.
With  all  these  benefits,  many  communities  are  demonstrating  a
strong  interest  in  strengthening  and  improving  bicycle  and
pedestrian  infrastructure,  on  both  a  local  and  regional  level.  Many
of  the  communities  within  the region  have  been  active  in  pursuing
ways  to  directly  and indirectly  im
prove  the  biki ng and  walking
experie

nce.  This has  included  innovative  partnerships,  physical
projects,  and  policies  that  encourage  improvements  to
infrastructure.  This plan  underscores  the  ongoing  commitment  to
encourage  pedestrian  and  bicycle  activity  for  the benefit  of
residents,  business owners,  and visitors  alike.

Regional Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan
Regional
Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan

Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
3
3

BICYCLE IMPROVEMENTS
Existing Conditions
This
section  of  the  plan  is  intended  to guide  the  improvement  of
bicycle  facilities  and  the  future  designation  of  bicycle  routes.  This
effort  is  not  “starting  from  scratch”,  but  is rather  the continuation
of  many  years  of  work  by  several  agencies.  A/GFTC,  local  bike
groups,  and  individual  municipalities  have  been  active  in
encouraging  accommodati ons for

cyclists.  It is  therefore  important
to  take  stock  of  the  conditions  for  cyclists  as  they  stand  today.
The  A/GFTC  region  currently  is  home  to  a  growing  bicycle  network,
including:
Separated  right ‐of ‐way  trails:  The A/GFTC  area  has
approximately  17  miles  of  trails  which  accommodate  non‐
roadway  travel. The  most  extensive  network  consists  of  the
Warren  County  Bikeway  and  Feeder  Canal  Trails, which  link  the
City  of  Glens  Falls  to  the  Villages  of  Fort  Edward,  Hudson  Falls,
and  Lake  George,  and  the  Towns  of  Queensbury,  Fort  Edward,
and  Ki ngsbur

y.  In addition,  there  are almost  5  miles  of  trail
located  in the  Village  and  Town  of  Granville.  This trail  is
located  along the  D&H  rail  bed  and extends  into  Vermont.
Finally,  the  Betar  Byway  in  South  Glens  Falls  links  the
downtown  to  the  Town  Beach  and  other  destinat ions.
Designated  cycling  routes: There are  currently  about  100
miles  of  on ‐road  bicycle  routes,  located  on  State  highways  and
local  roads  throughout  the  area.  These  include  US  Route  9  in
Saratoga  County,  NY  Route  197  in the  Town  of Moreau,  US
Route  4  and  NYS  22  (both  are elements  of  NYS  Bicycle  Route
9),  as  well  as  local  roads  in  the  Towns  of  Que ensbury,
Lake
Luzerne  and  the  City  of  Gl

ens Falls.  It is  anticipated  that  this
network  of  on ‐road  bicycle  routes  will  continue  to  grow  as
local  communities  adopt  policies  in  support  of  the  A/GFTC
Bicycle  and  Pedestrian  Plan  and  NYS  Complete  Streets
legislation.
There  are also  other  bi cy
cl

e  route  networks  and  facilities
surrounding  the  region,  especially  in  Saratoga,  Essex,  and  Hamilton
Counties.  These  include  networks  such  as  the  Saratoga  County
Heritage  Trail  and  the  “Bike  the  Byways”  network. Creating  and
maintaining  strong  connections  to  these  neighboring  opportunities
is  a  key  aspect  of  this  plan .

Regional Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan
Regional
Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan

Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
4
4

Priority Bicycle Network
The
goal  of  this  plan  is  to  provide  a  framework  for  future
improvements  which  will  result  in  a  more  expansive  and
comprehensive  network of  bicycle  and  pedestrian  facilities  in  the
A/GFTC  region.  Most  of  these  facilities  are  likely  to  be  located
along  existing  roadways.  However,  it is  not  realistic  to assume  tha
t
every  roadway  will be  the  focus  of  bi cycl

e  improvement  projects,
especially  given  current  funding  limitations.
As  such,  an  important  component  of  this  plan  involved  setting
priorities  to  identify  which  roadways  represent  the  highest  priority
for  designation  as  bike  routes  and/or  capital  improvements.  To  set
realistic  and  feasible  actions for  this  pla n,
several  factors  were
considered,  i n

cluding  local  priorities,  the  needs  of  the  cycling
community,  and  transportation  connectivity.
Local Priority  Routes: Many  local  municipalities  have
addressed  the  need  for bicycle  facilities  in  planning
documents.  All  available  local planning  documents  were
reviewed  to  determine  the  stated  bicycle  transportation
priorities  in  each  municipality.  Map  1  illustrates  the  roads
specifically  mentioned  within  a municipal  plan  as  being
suitable  for  current  bike  use  or  desired  for  bike  use  in  th e

future.   This  an a

lysis  highlights  the  fact  that  not  every
community  has  stated  priorities  concerning  cycling.  Some
communities  have  identified  specific  on ‐ and  off‐road
alignments,  while  others  include  a  general  statement  of
support  for  bicycling  issues.  Still  others  make  no mention  of
cycling  at all;  however,  this should  not  infer  that  the
commu

nity  does  not  support  bicycle  infrastructure.  Nothing  in
this  plan  is  intended  to  prevent  local  municipalities  from
supporting  the  establishment  of  additional  bicycle  facilities,
nor  to obligate  communities  to  engage  in projects  in  the
future.
Bicycle  Advocate  Priority  Routes:  Maintaining  and  promoting
safe,  functional  bicycle  facilities  along  the  roads  most  used  by
cyclists  is  a  key  goal  of  this  plan.  To facilitate  this,  several
stakeholder  groups  within  the  region  were  asked  to  generate  a
list  of  cycling  routes  and  desired  connections,  including  the
Warren  County  Safe  &  Quality  Bicycling  Organization  and  the
Cambridge  V a
lley  Cycling  Club.  These  road

ways  represent  the
 Terminology
Terminology

This
plan  makes  frequent  reference  to  two
important  concepts  relating  to  bicycle
networks.  These  include:
Bike Routes: A  system  or  network  of
roads,  streets,  paths  or  ways  that  have
been  designated  by the  jurisdiction
having  authority  with  directional  and/
or  informational  signage  or  pavement
markings.  It  should  not  be implied  that
roadways  not  designated  as  bike
routes  cannot  or  should  not  be  used
by  cyclists.
Bike Facilities:  The physical  surface on
which  the  cyclists  ride.  These  may
include,  but  are not  limited  to,  multi‐
use  trails,  bike  lanes,  road shoulders,
or  vehicle  travel  lanes. A  description  of
the  different  types  of  bicycle  facilities
is  included  in  this  plan.  Bike  facilities
can  also  include  other features
designed  to  accommodate/encourage
cycling,  such  as  bike  parki

ng  facilities.

Regional Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan
Regional
Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan

Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
5
5

alignments
of  existing  bike  events,  important
connections  to  recreation  destinations,  and
roadways  which  are enjoyable  to ride  (see Map
1).  Although  recreational  riding  is not  the  focus  of
this  plan,  it  is  important  to  recognize  those  routes
which  are  favored  by  the  biking  community.
The  maps  of  individual  priorities  provide  a  wide  range
of  on–  and  off‐road  options  for  a potential  bicycle
network.  From  among  these,  a  Priority  Bicycle
Network  was  selected  (Ma p 2).  Th

is  Priority  Network
balances  the  needs  of  the  local  municipalities  and
cycling  community  with  A/GFTC’s  focus  on  providing
transportation  options  throughout  the  region.  This
includes  connections  to  destinations  within  the  A/
GFTC  re g

ion,  as  well  as bike  routes  in  adjacent
counties.
This  network  is  intended  to  assist  in  the  decision ‐
making  process  for  both  designating  bicycle  routes
and  selecting  bicycle  improvement  projects.
However,  the  selection  of  capital  projects  involves
other  equally  important  factors.  The  following  section
of  this  pla n
a ddresses  the  design,  feasibility,  and
imple
mentation  of bicycle  improvement  projects.
Priority Bicycle Network
Priority
Bicycle Network

This
network  of  on ‐ and  off‐road  connections  balances
the  needs  of  the  local  municipalities  and  cycling
community  with  regional  transportation  connections.
A  detailed  map of  the  Priority  Bicycle  Network  can  be
found  online  here:
http://www.agftc.org/altern ativetransportation.htm

Regional Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan
Regional
Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan

Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |

Map 1: Municipal/Cyclist Group Bicycle Priority Map
6
6

Regional Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan
Regional
Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan

Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |

Map 2: A/GFTC Bicycle Priority Network
A
detailed  map  of  the  Priority  Bicycle Network
can  be  found  online  at
http://www.agftc.org/alternativetransportation.htm
7
7

Regional Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan
Regional
Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan

Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
8
8

Design Standards
Design
standards  for  bicycle  facilities  can  apply  to  the  location,
width,  pavement,  and other  features  such  as  drainage  grates  and
protective  railings.  These standards  may  be  applied  to  all  or part  of
an  on ‐road  facility  or  an  multi‐use  trail.
The  selection  of  a  bicycle  facility  depends  on  many  variables:  the
type  of cyclist  likely  to  use  the  facility;  tr affic

mix,  volume,  speed,
parking,  and  sight  distances  (for  on ‐road  facilities);  bicycle  speed,
grade,  multi‐ use capacity,  and  roadway/rail  crossings  (for  off‐road
facilities).  Several  agencies,  including NYSDOT,  FHWA,  and
AASHTO,  have  compiled  manuals  and  guidance  documents  which
can  help  to se lect
the  most  appropriate  design  standards  for  each
type  of  fa

cility.
For  the purposes  of  this  document,  the  most  commonly  applicable
design  standards  have  been  summarized  below. This  summary  is
intended  to  aid  in  the  prioritization  of  improvement  projects,  by
outlining  general  minimum  standards  for  the  types  of  facilities
most  likely  to  be  proposed  in  the  A/GFTC  region.  The design
standards  are  based  on  tho s

e in  the  NYSDOT  Highway  Design
Manual  Chapter  17 (Bicycle  Facility  Design),  and  on  AASHTO’s  2012
Guide  for the Development  of  Bicycle  Facilities.  Please  note that
these  standards  are  general;  specific  design  of  bicycle  facilities
must take  into  account  any  applicable  requirements  for  the
specific  roadway—i.e.  Federal,  State,  or  Local  regulations,  as
appropriate. Standards  for  features  such  as  bridges  or  railings
have  not  been  included;  refer  to  the  appropriate  guidance
document  for  detail  concerning  these  facilities.
This  summary  is  not  intended  to limit  the range  of  potential  bicycle
facilities  in  the  A/GFTC  region.  As  new  standards  are  adopted,  and
different  types  of  bicycle  facilities  teste d
and  de ployed,  it  is
recomme

nded  that these  new  techniques  be  reviewed  to
determine  if  they  may  be  appropriate  to conditions  in  the  A/GFTC
region.
Guidance Documents for
Guidance
Documents for
Bicycle Facility Design
Bicycle
Facility Design
Standards:
Standards:

American
Association  of State
Highway  and  Transportation
Officials  (AASHTO):  Guide for  the
Development  of  Bicycle  Facilities ,
2012
Federal  Highway  Administration
(FHWA):  Bikesafe:  Bicycle
Countermeasure  Selection  System ,
May  2006;  Selecting  Roadway
Design  Treatments  to
Accommodate  Bicycles , 1992
New  York State  Department  of
Transportation:  Highway  Design
Manual,  Chapter  17  Bicycle  Facility
Design,  2006

Regional Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan
Regional
Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan

Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
9
9

Bike
Shoulders (aka Wide Shoulders)
Most appropriate  for:  Rural/suburban  roadways  with limited
sections  of  curbing  and  without  on ‐street  parking.  This  is  a  space
that  can  be  used  by bicycles  but  is  not  specifically  devoted  to
them.
Design  standards:
4’‐wide (min.)  shoulder  for  non ‐curbed
roadways  with  speeds  under  40  MPH.  Width  increased  to 6’  for
higher ‐speed/higher ‐volume roadways,  roads which  exceed  5%
grade  for  6 miles  or  longer,  or  roads  with  curbs  or  other  obstacles
at  the  edge  of  pavement.   No  special  pavement  markings  are
required.
Advantages:

Many bike  shoulders  already  exist
No additional  maintenance  required  beyond  that  which  is
required  for  the roadway
Can sometimes  be  accommodated  via  re ‐striping
Appropriate  for rural  and  suburban  areas
No additional  striping  at  intersections
Disadvantages:

Less comfortable  for beginning/average  cyclists  than  bike  lanes
May require  additional  ROW  width
Cars parked  on  shoulder  can  reduce  space  available  in
shoulder  for  cyclists
6’ ‐ with  curb  4’ ‐ no  curb  Travel  lane
Above:  Wide  shoulder  designated  as a  bicycle  route
Diagram  of  typical  design  of  wide  shoulders

Regional Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan
Regional
Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan

Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
10
10

Bike
Lanes
Most appropriate  for:  Urban  roadways  with  curbing  and  on ‐street
parking.  Unlike  road  shoulders,  bike lanes  are  dedicated  solely  to
use  by  bicycles.
Design  standards:
4’‐wide (with  no  on ‐street  parking/curb)  or  5’‐
wide  (with  on‐street  parking/curb)  striped  lane  located  between
travel  lane  and  parking  lane/curb.   Requires  pavement  markings
and  directional  signage.
Advantages:

Higher profile/visibility  for  cyclists
Channelizes  bike  traffic
More  comfortable  for beginning/average  cyclists to  ride
Minimizes  cars  swerving  into  other  lane  to  avoid  cyclists
Can sometimes  be  accommodated  via  re ‐striping
Disadvantages:

Intersections can  become  complicated  with extra  bike  lane
striping  and  signage  (see  images  below  left)
May  require  additional  ROW  width
Mainly  an  urban  roadway  feature
Can pose  conflict  with  on ‐street  parking
Can be  blocked  by illegally  parked  cars
Top:  Bike  lane  without  on ‐street  parking
Bottom:  Bike  lane  with  on ‐street  parking
(photos  courtesy  of  pedbikeimages.org)
Top:  Striping  for  bike  lanes  at  intersection
Bottom:  Signage  for  bike  lanes
(photos  courtesy  of  pedbikeimages.org)

Regional Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan
Regional
Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan

Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
11
11

Shared
‐Use Lanes (a.k.a. Wide Curb Lanes)
Most appropriate  for:  Roadways  which  allow  bicycles  and  vehicles
to  ride  side‐by‐side,  but  in which  other  bicycle  facilities  cannot  be
accommodated.  Use  only  if  all  other  options  are  unfeasible.
Design  standards:
14’‐wide desired  travel  lane
Advantages:

Minimal striping  or  maintenance  required
Benefits to  non ‐bicycle  traffic:  accommodates  buses  and  truck
turning  movements/emergency  maneuvers
Disadvantages:

Least comfortable  for  beginning/average  cyclists
Wider travel  lanes  can  increase  traffic  speeds
Can pose  conflict  with  on ‐street  parking
No visual  indication  that the  roadway  contains a  bicycle  facility

14’‐wide  lane 14’‐wide  lane Parking  lane:
width  varies
Wide curb lane
(photo  courtesy  of pedbikeimages.org)
Typical  design standard  for  wide  curb  lane

Regional Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan
Regional
Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan

Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
12
12

Shared
‐Lane Markings
Most appropriate  for:  Roadways  with  lanes  less  than  14′  and
speeds  under  40  mph  where  no  other  dedicated  bicycle  facility  can
be  feasibly  accommodated.
Design  standards:
Set by  NYSDOT  supplement  of  the  MUTCD.
Pavement  markings  (“sharrow”)  and  signage  deployed  in
conjunction.
Advantages:

Less expensive  to deploy  than  facilities  which  require  road
widening  or  construction
No physical  changes  needed  to  roadway
Reduces  wrong ‐way cycling
Disadvantages:

Initial deployment  may  be  confusing  to  cyclists  and  motorists
May be  less  comfortable  for beginning/average  cyclists

Multi‐ Use Trail/Path (aka Off‐ Road Trail)
Most  appropriate  for:  Areas  with  existing  linear  ROW (rail/utility
corridors,  for  example)  which  link  destinations
Design  standards:
10’‐wide recommended  for  a two ‐way  path  (12’
preferred)
Advantages:

Least potential  for  vehicle/bike  conflict
Most comfortable  for  beginning/average  cyclists
Potential  to create  direct links
Recreation  amenity
Disadvantages:

Highest cost  to  implement  –  requires  ROW  acquisition,  design,
and  construction
Requires  separate  maintenance;  many  municipalities  may  be
unable  to  provide  maintenance
Top: Signage  for  shared‐ lane roadways
Bottom:  Pavement  marking  for  shared‐ lanes

Multi ‐use  trail

Regional Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan
Regional
Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan

Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
13
13

Bicycle Shoulder Physical Feasibility Analysis
In
addition  to identifying  the  location  of  important  bicycle
connections  (the  Priority  Network),  and  summarizing  the
applicable  design  standards  for  conditions  in  the  A/GFTC  region,
this  plan  also  analyzed  whether roadways  may  currently  have  the
requisite  pavement  width  to  meet  the  Design  Standard
appropriate  to the  context.  A  GIS  map  was  prepared  which
compares  the  existi ng
shoulder  width  to  the  bike  shoulders  Design
Standard.  Th is creates  a  co

nservative  analysis,  as the  width
necessary  for  the wide  shoulder  Design  Standard  is  greater  than or
equal  to  the  dimensions  needed  for  any  other  type  of  bicycle
facility.  As  such,  it  can  be  broadly  assumed  that  a  roadway  which  is
wide  e

nough  to  support  the  Design  Standard  for  bike  shoulders
will  likely  also  be  wide  enough  for shared  lanes,  bike lanes,  and so
forth.
The  existing  shoulder  width  was  based  on  GIS  information,  then
verified  via  inspection  by  A/GFTC  staff.  For  the  purposes  of  this
plan,  th
e average  paved  shoulder  width  was  measu r

ed  for  each
section  of roadway.   Roads  with  on ‐street  parking  were  not
included  in  this  analysis,  nor  were  gravel  shoulders.  This  analysis
does  not  take  into  account  the condition  of  the  pavement.  The
shoulder  width  was  then  compared  to the  posted  speed limit for
the  roadway.  It  sh o
u

ld  be  noted  that the  posted  speed  limit  is not
the  only  relevant  factor  when  determining  the  required  width  of  a
bike  shoulder.  Topography,  functional  classification  of  the
roadway,  traffic volume  and  mix,  and  sight  distance  are  all  other
factors  which  can  influence  the  appropriate  bike  sho ulder
width.
Posted  speed was  chosen  as  the  analysis  method  for

this  plan  to
facilitate  the  GIS  analysis.
The  results  of  this  analysis  are  shown  in  Map  3, which  indicates
that  the  majority  of  priority  roadways  do  not  have  current
sufficient  width to  meet  the  wide  shoulder  Design  Standard.  It is
crucial  to  note  tha t
lack  of  shoulder  width  does  not  im

ply  that  a
roadway  is inherently  unsafe  or  unsuitable  for  use  by  cyclists.  The
intent  of  this  mapping  exercise was  to determine  which,  if  any,
roadways  could  currently  meet  (or  come  close  to  meeting)  this
design  standard.  This  information  can be  usefu l
in  helping  roadw a
y
owners  determine  the  scope  of work  required  to  create  or
enhance  bicycle facilities  in  the  future.
Right
Right
‐
‐
of
of
‐
‐
Way
Way

Throughout
this document,  reference  is
made  to  “right‐of ‐way”, or ROW.   This
refers  to the  land  acquired  for, or
devoted  to,  transportation  purposes.  This
could  be a  road  (possibly  including
sidewalks)  or  a  path  or  trail  not
associated  with the  street  network.
In  many  cases,  the  ROW  is  owned
outright  by  the  enti
ty which  has  a utho
rity
over  the  road  or  trail—a  local
municipality,  a  county,  or  NYSDOT.  The
ROW  is  often  wider  than  the  actual  road
or   trail,  so  that  curbs,  sidewalks,
drainage,  signs,  and other  features  may
be  accommodated.
It   must  also  be  noted  that  many
roadways  in  the  A/GFTC  region  pr eda
t
e
formal  acquisition  by  the  municipality.
These  are  known  as  “user  highways”,
“highways  by  use”,  or “roads  by  use”.  The
public  right‐of ‐way  extends  only  to  the
“extent  of  actual  use”.  A  recent  NYS  court
opinion*  has  determined  that  “extent  of
actual  use  may  include,  in  addition  to  the
traveled  portion,  the  shoulders  an d
whatever

land  is  necessary  for  the safety
of  the   public  and  for  ordinary  repairs and
improvements.”
As  such,  widening  these  types  of  roads
past  the  extent  of  actual  use  usually
involves  acquisition  of  property  from
adjacent  landowners,  which  can
significantly  increase  the  cost  and  time
frame  of  cons truction
projects.
* Op  Atty  Gen (Informal) No.  99‐19
http://www.ag.ny.gov/sites/de fault/files/opinion/I%2099 ‐19%20pw.pdf

Regional Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan
Regional
Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan

Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |

Map 3: Shoulder Width Analysis
Note:
Road  sections  with on ‐street  parking  not  included  in  analysis.
14
14

Regional Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan
Regional
Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan

Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
15
15

Bicycle Facility Improvement Process
The
priority  network  identified  in  this  plan  is intended  to  serve  as  a
guide  for  the location  of  bicycle  facility  improvements.  However,
several  other  factors  will  play  an important  role  in the  timing  and
selection  of  projects  which  further  this plan.  These  are  listed
below.
Funding  availability. As  of  the  date  of  this  report,  traditional
A/GFTC  fund  sources  for  bicycle  facilities  are  very  limited  and
highly  competitive.  However,  funding through  the  NYS
Coordinated  Funding Application  process  or  other  sources  may
prove  to  be  viable  for  bicycle  projects  until  such  time  as
transportation  funds  through  A/GFTC  are  increased.
Complete Streets/Integration  with  other  transportation
projects.  Given the  current  funding  restrictions  facing  all
aspects  of  transportation,  combining  vehicle  and  bicycle
improvements  in  the  same  project  may  be the  most  efficient
and  effective  course  of  action.  Since  New  York State  recently
enacted  Complete  Streets  legislation  (see  page  20),  it  is  likely
that  bicycle  facilities  will  become  a  more  prominent  element  in
the  design  and  construction  of  roadways  at  the  St at

e and
County  level.  In  addition,  there  may  be opportunities  to  create
or  improve  a  bicycle  facility  during  a local  roadway  or bridge
project  in  the  future,  regardless  of  the  priority  level assigned
as  a part  of  this  plan.  Local  agencies  should  tak e
adv a
ntage of
these  opportunities  as  they  arise.
Target  Cyclist.  Cyclists  can  span  a  wide  range  of experience
levels  and  skill.  Experienced  cyclists  may  feel more
comfortable  using certain  types  of  bicycle  facilities  than  do
children  or less‐experienced  adults.  This  plan  does  not
differentiate  between  types  of  cyclists,  as  the  goal  is  to
encourage  cycling  for  everyone.  However,  the desire  to
accommoda t
e  a  wide  range  of  cy

clists  should  be  balanced  with
the  benefits  of  providing  a facility  where  none  currently  exists,
even  if  the  facility  may  not be  the  most  comfortable  for every
cyclist.  This balance  should be  informed  by  factors  such  as
proximate  land  uses,  location  of  the  proposed  facility, and
physical  constraints  of  the  roadway/trail  area.

Regional Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan
Regional
Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan

Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
16
16

To
further  facilitate  the  decision ‐making process,  a Bicycle  Facility
Improvement  Process  has  been  developed.  The first  step  in  that
process  is  to  select  the  appropriate  Design Standards  for  the
roadway  in question.  Not  every  roadway  will require  a  dedicated
bicycle  facility.  Roads  with  very  low  traffic  volumes,  for  example,
may  operate  adequately  as  bicycle  fa cili
ties without  any  physical
alterations.  The  next  step  is  to  determine  how additional
improvements,  if required,  can  be  funded  and  constructed.  The
flow  chart  on  page  17  is intended  to help  guide  this  process.
Factors  such  as  existing  pavement  width,  the  feasibility  of  off‐road
connections,  and  available  funding progr a
ms are  all  considered.
This  process  anticipates  that  most  roadway  owners  would  require
that  bicycle  facilities  are  largely  consistent  with  the  design
standards  prior  to  designation  as a bike  route;  however,  this  is  not
prerequisite.  The designation  itself  may  be an internal  process,  or
may  be at  the  be hest
of  a  separate  gro
up. For  example,  the
WCS&QBO  recently  petitioned  the  Town  of  Queensbury  to
designate  several  roadways  as  bike  routes;  the  Town  Board  passed
a  resolution  designating  the  roadways  as  this  plan  was  being
drafted.  This  process  could  be  replicated  for any  town  in  the  A/
GFTC  region.  Similarly,  this  group,  or  any  local  m uni
ci
pality, may
choose  to  petition  roadway  owners to  designate  their  roadways  as
bike  routes.
New  York State  maintains  a  separate  system of  bike  routes,
designed  to  encourage  long ‐distance  connections  across  the state.
However,  local  bike  route  signage  may  be added  along  State
roadways  with  appropriate  permit s and  mainte
nance agreements.
An  example  of  this  is  the  Saratoga  County  Heritage  Trail,  which  is
located  along NYS  Routes  9  and  197  in the  Town  of  Moreau.
Is a dedicated bicycle
Is a
dedicated bicycle
facility needed?
facility
needed?

Unless
prohibited  by  law,  bicycles  are
allowed  to travel  on  any  public  roadway.
Although  the  focus  of  this  plan  is  on
providing  facilities which  will  make  bicycle
travel  safer  and  more  comfortable,  there
are  situations  in which  an  existing  roadway
may  represent  an  adequate  facility  for
bicycles,  without  the  need  for  a  dedicated
facility  such  as  a  bike  lane.
These  i

nclude:
Minor roads  with  low  traffic  volumes  (>
1,000  vehicles  per  day)
Low‐speed  roads, such  as  within
neighborhoods
Rural roadways  with  adequate  sight
distance
Roadways  with  no  history  of  bicycle
accidents
Off
Off
‐
‐
Road Facilities
Road
Facilities

In
some  cases, there  may  be an opportunity
to  provide  an  off‐road  facility,  such  as  a
multi ‐use  trail.  This  option  usually  requires
acquisition  of right‐of ‐way, which  drives
costs  up.  However,  given that  multi ‐use
trails  can  sometimes  be  funded  through
alternative  grant  sources  (see  page  33), it
may  someti
mes  be  more  feasible  to
provide  an  off

‐road  connection  than  to
improve  a  roadway.  However,  the  potential
for  increased  costs  and  decreased
connectivity  must  be  weighed  in  this
decision.

Regional Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan
Regional
Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan

Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
17
17

START:
For  all proposed  bicycle  routes,  determine   whether  dedicated/
improved  bicycle facilities  are  warranted  and  desirable*
Ye s  No
Can  the  bicycle  facility  be  created  through  re ‐striping,
roadway  stencils, or  shared ‐lane markings?
Pavement  Width
Alteration  Needed
Is the  roadway  scheduled  for  re ‐paving  or  other  capital
improvement  which  involves  re ‐striping  the  roadway?
Restripe roadway  as  part  of
preservation  project
Designate  roadway  as a Bike
Route;  add  signage
Ensure facility  will  be
maintained,  if  necessary
Pursue funding  for multi‐ use trail
through  TAP,  MTC,  or CF  funding
Ensure facility  will  be  maintained,  if
necessary
Acquire ROW  (if  needed)  and
construct  trail
Could  an off‐ road  facility  feasibly  be
substituted?*
Pursue funding  for capital
improvement  through  TAP, STP,
MTC,  or CF  funding
Construct  facility
Designate  roadway  as a Bike
Route;  add  signage
Is there  a  demonstrated  history  of
bicycle  accidents?
Pursue funding  for capital
improvement  through  HSIP funding
Construct  HSIP  project
Designate  roadway  as a Bike  Route;
add  signage
Designate  roadway  as a
Bike  Route;  add signage
Ye s  No
Ye s  No
Ye s  No
*Note:  See sidebar  on page  16

Key:
TAP =  Transportation  Alternatives Program
STP  = Surface  Transportation  Program (for
Beyond  Preservation  projects)
MTC  = Make  the Connection  Program
CF  = NYS  Consolidated  Funding Solicitation
HSIP  = Highway  Safety Improvement  Program
Ye s
No

Regional Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan
Regional
Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan

Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
18
18

Other Bicycle Improvements
There
are many  opportunities  to  pursue  small‐scale  improvements
which  could  also  improve  the  biking  experience  in  the  A/GFTC
region.  These “spot”  improvements  address  issues which  may  not
require  significant  funding  to  complete.  Several  examples  are
included  below.
Drainage grate pattern
The direction  of  the  grating  pattern on  storm  drains  is  an  often ‐
overlooked  detail. Grate openings  which  run  parallel  to  the  travel
direction  can cause  havoc  for  thin  bicycle  tires.  Ideally,  grates
should  feature  a  “bike ‐friendly”  pattern.  If  this  is  not  feasible,  the
grate  should  be  situated  so  that  the  pattern  r
uns  p erpendi
cular to
the  travel  direction.
Individual hazards
Potholes,  cracks,  and sudden  changes  in  grade  near  utility  access
points  and  drainage  grates  can  be  difficult  for cyclists  to  maneuver,
especially  at  night.  In the  short  term,  pavement  markings  as
specified  in  Chapter  9C  of  the  MUTCD  can help  alert cyclists  that  a
potentially  hazardous  condition  exists.  These  hazards  can  the n
be
eliminated  or  mini mized  as  the  appropri

ate  roadway  or utility
project  is  undertaken  in  the  future.
Pavement overlays
Even if no  re ‐striping  or  widening  is called  for in a  paving  project,
there  may  still be  good  opportunities  to  improve  conditions  for
cyclists.   Ensuring  that  the  seam  of  the  pavement  is  properly
feathered  and  does  not  occur  in the  middle  of  the  shoulder,  will
provide  a  smooth,  regular  surface  for cyclists.

Roadway sweeping
Patches of  gravel,  especially  on corners,  can  pose  a  threat  to
cyclists.  With  the  help  of  the  cycling  community,  it  may  be  possible
to  identify  areas  where  significant  gravel  accumulation  is
hampering  safe  cycling.  Targeted  road  sweeping  can  help  to
reduce  the  potential  hazards.
Bicycle Racks
Although  some  communities  require  provision  of bicycle  racks
during  project  development  approval,  it can  still  be  difficult  for
cyclists  to  find  a  safe  place  to  lock  their  bike. Bike  racks  should  be
provided  near  public  buildings  such  as  schools,  municipal  centers,
and  post  offices,  as well  as in public  parking  areas.  Co mmercial

businesses  an d e

mployment  centers can  also  provide  bike  racks  as
a  service  to  their  customers  and employees.
Top: Grate  pattern  not  bike ‐
friendly
Bottom:  Bike ‐friendly  grate
(photos  courtesy  of  ped‐
bikeimages.org)
Above: MUTCD   standard  for  individual  hazard  striping
Existing  pavement
Existing pavement
Overlay
Overlay
Travel
Lane  Shoulder
Pavement  Overlay  Placement—NOT  Recommended
Pavement  Overlay  Placement—Recommended
Travel Lane  Shoulder

Regional Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan
Regional
Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan

Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
19
19

PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS
Although
creating  and maintaining  dedicated infrastructure  is  often  the  primary  goal
when  considering  pedestrian issues,  reducing  barriers  can also  make  a  positive  impact.
Typical  barriers  to pedestrian  transportation  include inadequate  space,  facilities  that  fail
to  connect  logical termini,  and  the  proliferation  of  land  use  patterns  and  street  designs
that  emphasize  motor  vehicle  travel.  High  traffic  and  tru c
k volumes  also  can  deter
pedestrian  mobility.
Within  the  A/GFTC  area,  there  are a  variety  of  pedestrian  issues  to  address.  The  City  of
Glens  Falls  and  most  of  the  area’s  villages  and  hamlets  were  built  prior  to the  automobile
era.  In  these  downtown  areas,  the  primary  emphasis  should  be  on  maintaini
ng an
d
preserving  the sidewalk  networks  that  already  exist,  particularly  along  major  streets  and
near  schools,  parks, and  commercial  districts.  The  second  priority  is  to  consider
pedestrian ‐motorist  interaction  at intersections  and  major  destination  points.  Finally,
where  warranted,  connections  need  to be  established  between  existing  pedestrian
facilities  and  areas  of new  developmen t.
In

some  of the  region’s  suburban  areas,  the  pedestrian  provisions  are  not  sufficient  to
meet  demand.  Commercial  areas  are often  designed  as  a singular  destination  and  do  not
include  connections  to  adjacent  developments.  In these  areas,  the  emphasis  should  be  on
establishing  a  continuous  pedestrian  network  t h
rou
ghout  commercial  developments.
New  residential  developments  should  anticipate  and  consider  pedestrian  activity.  Where
demand  exists,  improvements  should  be  made  to  connect  separated  neighborhoods  with
one  another.
Much  of  the  A/GFTC  region  is  rural.  Although  these  areas  are not  often  associated  with
heavy  pedestrian  activity,  there  is  nonetheless  a  need  to  en sure
safe,  accessibl e
accommoda

tion,  especially  near  clusters  of  pedestrian  generators  and  destinations.
Roadway  lighting, shoulder  width,  crosswalks,  and small ‐scale  infrastructure
improvements  can  all  be  key  to  making  sure  that,  when  people  walk  in  the  rural  areas,
they  can  do  so  safely  and  comfortably.
Pedestrian Facilities: Policies and Legislation
There are several  federal,  state,  and  local  laws  and  policies  which  affect  the  provision,
location,  and  design  of  pedestrian  facilities.
The Americans with Disabilities Act
The Americans  with  Disabilities  Act  of  1990  (ADA)  prohibits  discrimination  on  the  basis  of
disability.  Under  ADA,  buildings  and  facilities  are  to  be  designed  and  constructed  to
provide  accessibility  to  people with  disabilities.  This  law  applies  to  State  and  local
government  facilities  as  well  as  places  of  public  accommodations.   In general,  AD A
focuses
mainly  on  bui lding  faciliti

es  and  on  sites,  such as  parking  lots.  ADA  addresses  certain
features  common  to  public  sidewalks,  such as  curb  ramps.  These  standards  are  applied  to
construction  or  alteration  of  buildings  and  facilities.

Regional Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan
Regional
Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan

Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
20
20

The
standards  used  by NYSDOT  for  the design  and  construction  of
all  Department  projects  are  prescribed  within  the  Americans  with
Disabilities  Act  Accessibility  Guidelines  for  Buildings  and  Facilities
(ADAAG).  NYSDOT  requires  that all  pedestrian ‐related
improvements  conform  to  ADAAG  standards.
Transition Plans
To implement  ADA, most public  agencies  are  required  to complete
a  transition  plan.  This  is  intended  to  set  forth  the  agency’s  plan  for
bringing  public  facilities,  including  sidewalks,  into  compliance  with
federal  pedestrian  design  standards.  Transition  plans  can  reduce
liability  related  to ADA  non ‐compliance  claims,  as  long  as  the
agency  is  in  the  process  of  impl
eme n
ting the  plan.  Elements  of  the
plan  include  an inventory  of physical  conditions,   the  methods  that
will  be  used  to  make  the facilities  accessible;  the schedule  for
upgrading  pedestrian  access;  and   naming  the  official  responsible
for  implementation  of  the  plan.
A/GFTC  is  committed  to  assisting  municipalities  with  the  creatio n

and  implementation  of  transition  plans.  Technical  assistance  is
available  to perform  data  collection,  such  as  for  the required
inventory  of physical  obstacles,  which may  be difficult  for  a local
municipality  to  perform  on  its  own.  In  addition,  funding  programs
such  as  the  Make  The  Connection  grants,  can be  us ed
to bring
facilities  in t

o  compliance  with ADA,  thereby  implementing
transition  plans  in  the  local  municipality.
Public Right‐of‐Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG)
Sidewalks, street crossings,  and  other  elements  in  the  public  right ‐
of ‐way  can  pose  specific  challenges  to  accessibility,  which  may  not
be  fully  addressed  in ADA.  As  such,  in  2011,  the  Architectural  and
Transportation  Barriers  Compliance  Board issued  further  guidance
to  address  conditions  and  constraints  unique  to  public  rights‐of‐
way.  This  incl udes
access  for  blind  ped e
strians at  street  crossings,
wheelchair  access to on ‐street  parking,  and  various  constraints
posed  by  space  limitations,  roadway  design practices,  slope,  and
terrain.  The  new  guidelines  will  cover  pedestrian  access  to
sidewalks  and  streets,  including  crosswalks,  curb ramps,  street
furnishings,  pedestrian  signals,  parking,  and  other  components  of
publi c
rights ‐of ‐

way.  These  guidelines  are  anticipated  to be
adopted  as  standards  in  November  2014.
Pedestrian
Pedestrian

Accessibility and
Accessibility
and
Roadway Alterations
Roadway
Alterations

Both
ADA  and PROWAG  are  triggered  by  either
construction  or  alteration  projects.  In
transportation  terms,  the  definition  of
“alteration”  is  an  important  consideration.
According  to  joint  Department  of  Justice/US
Department  of  Transportation  technical
assistance,   alteration  is  defined  as  “a  change
that  affects  or  could  affect  the  usability  of  all
or  part  of  a  building  or  fa
cil i
ty. Alterations  of
streets,  roads,  or  highways  include  activities
such as  reconstruction,  rehabilitation,
resurfacing, widening,  and  projects  of  similar
scale and  effect.”Examples  include,  but  are  not
limited  to:  addition  of  a  new  layer  of  asphalt,
reconstruction,  concrete  pavement
rehabilitation  and  reconstruction,  open‐graded
surface  course,  micro‐surfacing  and  thin  lift
overlays,  cape  seals,  and  in ‐place  asphalt
recycling.  Since  resurfacing  of  streets
constitutes  an  alteration,  it  triggers  the
obligation  to  provide  curb ra
mps  if  it  in v
olves
work  on  a  street  or roadway  spanning  from
one  intersection  to  another,  and  includes
overlays  of  additional  material  to  the  road
surface,  with  or  without  milling.
Maintenance  activities, such  as  filling  potholes,
joint  crack  repairs,  crack  filling  and  sealing,  or
pavement  patching,  do  not  constitute  an
alteration.
For  more  details  concern
ing   ro

adway
alterations  and ADA,  see:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/civilrights/
programs/doj_fhwa_ta.cfm

Regional Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan
Regional
Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan

Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
21
21

Complete
Streets Legislation and Policies
Governor  Andrew  M.  Cuomo  signed  the  Complete  Streets  Act  (Chapter
398,  Laws  of  New  York)  on  August  15, 2011,  requiring  state,  county  and
local  agencies  to  consider  the  convenience  and mobility  of  all  users  when
developing  transportation  projects that  receive  state  and  federal  funding.
The  New  York State  Department  of  Transportation  (NYSDOT) is  wo rking  to
ensure  that  its  policies  and  proced

ures  meet  the  new  standards.  The
initiative  presents  an  opportunity  to  expand  upon existing  programs  and
collaborate  with  bicyclists,  pedestrians,  people with disabilities  and  others
to  identify  best  practices  and  designs  for  transportation  facilities.
It  is  important  to  note  that  the  Complete  Streets  le
gislation applies  to
planning,  design,  construction,   reconstruction,   and   rehabilitation
projects.  Resurfacing,  maintenance,  or  pavement  recycling  projects  are
exempt  from  the  law.  In  addition,  the  law  only  requires  that  Complete
Street  elements  be  considered  during  project  development;  the  law  does
not  guarantee  that  design  elements  will  be  included  in  the  finished
project.  Spec i

fically,  the  law  does  not  apply  when  the  any  of the  following
conditions  are  met:
use  by   bicyclists  and  pedestrians  is  prohibited  by  law,  such  as  within
interstate  highway  corridors;
the cost  would  be  disproportionate  to  the  need  as   determined   by
factors   including,  but  not  limited  to, the  following:  land  use  context,
current  and  projected  traffic  volumes,  and  population  density
(  Typically,  excessively  disproportionate  is  defined  as  exceeding  20%
of  the  cost  of  the  larger  transportation  project,  but  it should  be
determined  on  a  proje c
t‐
by‐project  basis);
demonstrated  lack  of  need  as  determined  by   factors,   including,  but
not   limited   to,   land  use,  current  and  projected  traffic  volumes,
including  population  density,  or  demonstrated  lack  of   community
support;
use of  the  design  features  would  have an  adverse  impact  on,  or  be
contrary  to, public  safety.
Local Complete Streets Policies
In addition  to the  New  York  State  legislation,  a  number  of  local
municipalities  have  passed  Complete  Streets  policies.  These  policies  range
in  applicability  from  statements  which  support  Complete  Streets
principles,  to  revisions  in  local  land  use  codes  which  mandate  Complete
Street  design  features.  The  current  list  of  local  Complete  Streets  policies  is
shown  at  lef t
.
 Complete Streets
Complete
Streets

A
Complete  Street  is  a  roadway
which  accommodates  safe,
convenient  access  and mobility  of
all  roadway  users of  all  ages  and
abilities.  This  includes  pedestrians,
bicyclists,  public  transportation
riders,  and motorists;  it  includes
children,  the  elderly,  and persons
with  disabilities.
Complete  Street   design  features
include  sidewalks,  lane striping,
bicycle  lanes,  paved  shoulders
suitable  for  use  by  bicycl
ists,
signage,  crosswalks,  pedestrian
control  si

gnals,  bus  pull ‐outs,  curb
cuts,  raised  crosswalks,  ramps and
traffic  calming  measures.

Municipalities with Complete
Streets Policies
City  of  Glens  Falls
Town  of  Warrensburg
Village of  Lake  George
Village &  Town  of  Fort  Edward
Town of  Lake  Luzerne
Town of  Queensbury
Village of  Hudson  Falls
Town  of  Greenwich
Town of  Kingsbury
Town of  Johnsburg

Regional Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan
Regional
Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan

Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
22
22

Pedestrian Design Features
The
presence  of  an  adequate  and  interconnected  pedestrian
network  can  reduce  the  number  of  trips  that  need  to be  made
with  a  vehicle,  thus  reducing  traffic  congestion,  noise,  and
pollution.  As  with  bicycle  facilities,  there are a  number  of  design
features  intended  to  promote  the  safety  and  comfort  of
pedestrians.  New  innovations  and  design  featur es co
ntinue to  be
developed  as  communities  seek  ways  to  make  the  pedestrian
environment  safer  and  more  inviting.
Sidewalks
As the  key  component  of  urban  pedestrian  circulation  systems,
functional  and accessible  sidewalks enrich  the  quality  of  life  in a
community.  Besides  providing  a transportation  function,  sidewalks
can  also  serve  as  a desirable  design element,  contributing  to  the
character  and strengthening  the  identity  of  a  community.
Sidewalks  are  the  most  common  form  of  pedestrian  facility  in
urbanize d
areas.  Although  most  peop le are  familiar  with  the
concre

te  walkways  found  in  city  and  village  settings,  there  are  a
number  of  design  considerations  which  should  be  taken  into
account  for sidewalk  projects.  These  include:
Sidewalk  width.  The mandated  minimum  width  for  sidewalks
can,  in  certain  limited  circumstances,  be  as  narrow  as 4′,
although  5 ‐6′  sidewalks  are  more  common  and  appropriate  for
neighborhood  environments.  Sidewalks  of  8 ‐12′  in  width  may
be  desirable  in  certain  environments,  especially busy
commercial  areas. This  extra  width  can  accommodate  the
heavier  pe destrian
traffic. A  wider  sidewalk  can  also  contri
bute
to  an  active,  vibrant community  setting,  by  serving  as  outdoor
seating/retail  display  area.
Landscaping/buffer  area.  To increase  the  feeling  of  security,  a
buffer  area  is  often  included  between  the  walkway  and  street.
This  strip  can  be  landscaped  or paved,  and  also  provides  space
for  street  lights,  utility  poles,  trees,  and other  amenities  like
benches,  signage,  and  mailboxes.  If  this  area  is  to  contain
landscaping,  it  is  crucial  th at
enough  soil  volume  is  pr ovided  to
maintain  th

e  health  of  plant  material  as  well  as to prevent
pavement  buckling.  For  sidewalk  buffers  that  are  to  contain
street  trees,  a minimum  width  of  6′  is  recommended.  The
planting  area  can  be  finished  with  turf,  gravel  or  mulch,  or
pavement  types  which  allow  water to  percolate  into  the soil,
Above:  Traditional  concrete  sidewalk  with wide landscaped  buffer.  Photo  courtesy
of  pedbikeimages.org

Regional Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan
Regional
Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan

Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
23
23

such
as  permeable  pavement  or  concrete  bricks. Solid,  non ‐
permeable  pavement is  not  recommended  for  use over  street
tree  buffers  unless  structural  soil  or  other  methods  are  used  to
promote  tree  root  health  and  prevent  pavement  buckling.
Paving material. Concrete  is the  most  common  material  used
for  sidewalks,  and  is  generally  recommended  for  urbanized
environments.  However,  other  materials  can also  be  used,
provided  the  pavement  meets  PROWAG  standards  for  a  stable,
firm,  and  slip ‐resistant  surface.  Highly  textured  pavement,
such  as  stamped  concrete,  is recommended  only  as  an accent
material  and  should  not  be  used  as  a pr imary
materi al on
pedestrian  access  routes,  si

nce it  can  cause  difficulties  for
some  wheelchair  users.  Asphalt  is  not  generally  recommended
for  urbanized  environments,  especially  in  situations  in  which
the  asphalt  walkway  will adjoin  concrete  walkways  or  curbs,  as
this  combination  can  increase  maintenance  due  to  se ttling
of
the  pavement  ma terial.

However,  in more  suburban  or  rural
areas,  especially  adjacent  to  non ‐curbed  roads,  asphalt  may  be
an  adequate  alternative  sidewalk  material.
Sidewalk  replacement.  In many  cases,  a  project  involves
replacing  an  existing  sidewalk.  It is  important  to  consider  that
the  new  sidewalks  will  need  to meet  ADAAG  and  other
applicable  standards.   This  may  result  in  wider  sidewalks  or  a
different  paving  material  than  was  used  previously.  Existing
vegetation,  signage,  and  utilities  will  also  have  to  be  taken  into
account.
Sidewalk  retrofits.  When new  sidewalks  are  added  to  an
existing  roadway,  which commonly  occurs in  suburban  and
rural  environments,  other factors  come  into  play.  The  available
right‐of ‐way is  usually  the  most  important  consideration,  as
this  affects  the  sidewalk  width  and  location.  In  addition,  the
roadway  may have curbs  or  open  drainage,  which  affect  th e

placement  of  sidewalks.  In  suburban  and  rural  areas,  curbs  are
not  ty pically  used,  and  stormwater

runs  freely  to  the  side  of
the  road,  often  collected  in ditches  or  swales.  These
stormwater  features can  take  up a  large  portion  of the
available  right of  way,  which  reduces  the space  available  for
sidewalks.  In  addition,  it  can  be  costly  to  alter  the  slope,  width,
and  surface/s u
b‐

surface  material  of  swales,  adding to  the
potential  cost  of  sidewalk  projects.  Finally,  it  is  important  to
consider  that  installing  new  sidewalks  along  existing  roadways
may  be a  controversial  topic  for  adjacent  landowners.
What is Structural Soil?
What
is Structural Soil?

Structural
or  gap ‐graded  soil  is  a
mixture  of  sized  gravel  and  soil,
which  meets  both  engineering
requirements  for  load ‐bearing  as
well  as providing  soil volume  for
tree  root  growth.  This  mixture  can
be  used  under  pavement  to  provide
more  useable  space  for  trees  in
urban  environments.
Why use Structural Soil?
Why
use Structural Soil?

Trees
in  urban  environments  are
subject  to  a  number  of
environmental  stressors, including
deicing  salts,  soil and  air  pollution,
heat  loads,  and drought.  However,
the  most  significant  issue  is
inadequate  or  compacted  soil. In
addition  to  severely  limiting  the
health  of  the  tree  by  inhibiting  root
growth,  this  can  lead  to  shallow
root  pene tration,
which  ca uses
pavement  buc

kling.
Using  structural  soil  can  alleviate
these  conditions  by  providing
adequate  soil  for  tree  roots  to
penetrate.  In  turn,  this  creates  a
healthier  tree  and  reduces
maintenance  needs  for  adjacent
sidewalks  or  other  pavement.

Regional Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan
Regional
Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan

Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
24
24

Pedestrian
Crossings
Many pedestrian  trips  involve  a street  crossing  at  some  point,
whether  at an  intersection,  a  midblock  location,  or  a  commercial
drive  or  parking  area.  Unlike  sidewalks,  crossings are  spaces  shared
by  vehicles  and  pedestrians.  As  such,  the  potential  for  pedestrian/
vehicle  conflicts  is  much  higher  than  in  strictly  pedestrian  facilities.
There  are a  nu mber
of  cri t
eria to  consider  when  addressing  the
need  for  pedestrians  to  cross  vehicular  travel  lanes.  These  include
volumes  of  pedestrian  and  vehicle  traffic,  vehicular  speed,
intersection  configuration  and  sight  distances,  school zones,
facilities  and  services  for  the elderly,  and surrounding  land  use.
Although  most  crossings  are  located  at  intersections,  midblock
crossings  are  also  sometimes  called  for.  (Details  concerning  th e
specifics  of  crossing

warrants  are discussed  in  the  subsections
below.)  In  some  cases, such  as  low  volume  roadway  intersections,
there  may  be no  need  to provide  a  formal  pedestrian  crossing
treatment  at  all.  However,  in  many  urban  or commercial
environments,  formal  crossings  are  be n
eficial
or  necessary.  Safety
is  also  a  crucial  consideration.  Crossings  should  never  be  located  in
places  where  sight  distance  or  other  physical  conditions  would  put
pedestrians  at  risk.
Once  the  need  for a crossing  is  determined,  there  are  factors
which  influence  the  design  of  a  crossing.  Again,  in  very  general
terms,  the  main  considera t
ion

is  to  allow  pedestrians  to  cross  the
street  safely.  There  are many  options  which  affect  this  issue,
discussed  in greater  detail  below.   In  some  cases,  it  is  beneficial  or
necessary  to  combine  two or  more  of  the  potential  crossing
treatments.  Relevant  regulatory  guidance is note d
whe r
e
applicable.
Marked Crosswalks
The pedestrian  right‐of‐way  across  vehicular  travel  lanes  is  known
as  a crosswalk.  According  to AASHTO,  “An  intersection  crosswalk is
defined  as  the  extension  of  a  sidewalk  or  shoulder  across  an
intersection,  whether  it is  marked  or  not….  It  is  legal  for  a
pedestrian  to  cross  the  street  at  any  intersection,  ev en
if  no
crosswalk  is  marked,  unle

ss  crossing  is  specifically
prohibited.”  (AASHTO,  July  2004)  Pedestrians  and vehicles  must
follow  applicable  right ‐of‐way  requirements  in  these  locations,
regardless  of  whether  a crosswalk  is  defined  by  pavement
markings.
Above: Marked  crosswalk.  Stripes  have  been  located  to  avoid  wheel  paths, which
reduces  maintenance.  Photo  courtesy  of  pedbikeimages.org

Regional Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan
Regional
Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan

Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
25
25

In
many  cases,  it  is  beneficial  or necessary  to  provide  pavement
markings  or  other  treatments  which  designate  the  crosswalk
boundaries,  with  a  visual  and/or  tactile pavement  treatment.
Marked  crosswalks  can  help  channel  pedestrians  to  specific
locations  and  improve  pedestrian  access  and  safety  at  night,  while
serving  to  warn  motorists  of  the  potential  for interaction  with
pedestrians.  However,  ma rked  crossings  can  also  cr

eate a false
sense  of  security  for  pedestrians,  who  may  assume  that the
crosswalk  markings  guarantees  motorist  compliance  with  right  of
way  regulations.
A  number  of  factors  must  be  considered,  prior to  installing  a
marked  crosswalk,  including  volumes  of  pedestrian  and vehicle
traffic,  vehi cular
speed,  in te

rsection  configuration  and  sight
distances,  school zones,  facilities  and  services  for  the elderly,  and
surrounding  land  use.   NYSDOT  sets  guidelines  for  state ‐owned
roads,  and  notes  that  marked  crosswalks  should  be  considered  at
the  following:  (NYSDOT,  2013)
Locations  that  feature  pedestrian ‐actuated traffic signals
Established  school  crossings
Traffic signals  located  within  central  business  districts  or  other
areas  where  crossing  pedestrian  volumes  are  significant
Areas that feature  development  on  both  sides  of  a  highway,
resulting  in  concentrated  pedestrian  volumes  crossing  the
highway  where no  intersection  exists
Signal ‐controlled  entrances to  commercial  properties
Curb Ramps and Blended Transitions
According to the  most  recent  guidelines  for  pedestrian  facilities  in
the  ROW,  curb  ramps,  blended  transitions,  or a  combination  of
curb  ramps  and  blended  transitions  must  connect  the  pedestrian
access  routes at  each  pedestrian  street  crossing.  Typically,  two
curb  ramps  are  provided  at  each  street  corner—one  for each
crosswalk.  In  places  where  existing  ph ysic
al constrai
nts prevent
two  curb  ramps  from being  installed,  a  single  diagonal  curb ramp  is
permitted.  However,  single diagonal  ramps can  be  confusing  for
the  visually  impaired,  as  the  curb  ramp  is  not  entirely  aligned to
the  crosswalk.  This  lack  of  directionality  could  create  a situation
where  pedestrians  walk dia gonally
into  the  in tersecti
on, rather
than  into  the  crosswalk.  As  such,  diagonal  ramps should  be  used
only  where  no  other  option  is  feasible.  Detectable  warnings are  to
be  employed  as required  (see  sidebar).
Detectable Wa r n in g s
Detectable Wa r n in g s

Detectable
warning  surfaces  consist of  small
truncated  domes  built  in  or  applied  to  a
walking  surface  that are  detectable
underfoot,  and  are  intended  for  pedestrians
who  are blind  or  have  low  vision.  On
pedestrian  access  routes,  detectable  warning
surfaces  indicate  the  boundary  between  a
pedestrian  route  and a  vehicular  route
where  there is  a  flush  rather  th
an  a
curbed
connection.  As such,  under  PROWAG,  they
are  required  to  be  installed  at  the  following
locations  on pedestrian  access  routes:
1.  Curb  ramps  and  blended  transitions  at
pedestrian  street  crossings;
2.  Pedestrian  refuge  islands;
3.  Pedestrian  at ‐grade  rail  crossings  not
located  within  a  street  or high way;
There

are  also  requirements  for  detectable
warnings  at  transit  boarding  stations  (See
PROWAG  for  more  details).
In  addition  to  providing  a  tactile  cue,
detectable  warning  surfaces  must  have  a
color  contrast  from the  surrounding
pavement  (light ‐on ‐dark  or  dark‐ on‐light).
Dark  Gray  is  the  default  color,  as  it  provides
good  contrast  with  portla

nd  cement
concrete  sidewalks  and  is  widely  available.
White  or  Safety  Yellow  are recommended
colors  for use  on  asphalt  concrete  or  other
dark  surfaces.  For  more  information  on
appropriate  colors for detectable  warning
surfaces,  see  NYSDOT  Highway  Design
Manual,  chapter  18.

Regional Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan
Regional
Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan

Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
26
26

Midblock
Crosswalks
Where there  is  significant  pedestrian crossing  demand,  crosswalks
can  also  be  marked  at  midblock  locations.  AASHTO  has  included  a
checklist  of  criteria  for  considering  a midblock  crossing:  (AASHTO,
July  2004)
The location  is  already  a source  of  a  substantial  number  of
midblock  crossings.
Where a  new  development  is  anticipated  to  generate  midblock
crossings.
The lane  use  is  such  that  pedestrians  are  highly  unlikely  to
cross  the  street  at  the  next  intersection.
The safety  and  capacity  of  adjacent  intersections  or  large
turning  volumes  create  a situation  where it  is  difficult  to  cross
the  street.
Spacing  between  adjacent  intersections  exceeds  200m  (600ft).
The vehicular  capacity of  the  roadway  may not be  substantially
reduced  by  the  midblock  crossing.
Adequate  sight  distance  for  both  pedestrians  and  motorists.
Since  motorists  are  more  likely  to expect  pedestrians  at
intersections,  midblock crossings  require  special considerations
above  and  beyond  pavement  markings.   Midblock  crossings  should
always  be  used  in conjunction  with  pavement  markings  and
warning  signs  that  concur  with  the  standards  of  the  MUTCD.
Additional  tr eatments
such  as  raised
crosswalks  and  HAWK  signals
are  discussed  in  greater  detail  below.
Care  must  be  taken  when  locating  midblock  crossings.  Defining  too
many  locations  where  pedestrians  are  encouraged  to  cross
roadways  can  cause  unwanted  motor  vehicle  circulation  delays
and  be  counterproductive  to the  aim  of  channeling  pedestrian
traffic.  Overuse  of  pavement  markings  also  may  lead to  a  ge neral

disrespect  of  intended  crossing  facili

ties by  motorists.
It  is  also  important  to  consider  pedestrian  behavior.  Many
pedestrians  will  cross  the  street  mid‐ block  whether  a  formal
crosswalk  is  provided  or  not,  if  the  perception  of  convenience  and
safety  is  sufficient.  In  certa in
cases,  it  may  be  necess
ary to  install
features  that  discourage  pedestrians  from  crossing  mid‐block  ,
such  as  areas  with  inadequate  sight  distance  or  other  safety
concerns.  Although  rarely  needed,  vegetation,  fencing,  or  other
barriers  may  be installed  to  channel  pedestrians  to  appropriate
crossing  locations.
Above: Midblock  crossing  with  refuge  island and  signage.  Photo  courtesy  of  ped‐
bikeimages.org

Regional Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan
Regional
Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan

Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
27
27

Curb Extensions

Curb extensions,  also  known  as  neck‐ downs  or  bulbouts,  are
designed  to  minimize  pedestrian  exposure  to  traffic  by  creating
shorter  crossing  distances.  Curb  extensions  can  also  increase  the
likelihood  that  a pedestrian  wanting  to  cross  will  be  seen  in
addition  to  improving  visibility of traffic  for  the pedestrian  by
allowing  the  pedestrian  to  safely  move  beyond  a row  of  parked
cars  before  crossing.   These features  also  serve  to  cal m traffic,  by
reduci

ng  visual  width  of  the  street  (for  midblock  crossings)  or
tightening  the turning  radii  of  the  intersection.  The  Highway
Design  Manual  recommends  that  curb  extensions  be  used  only  on
low‐ speed  streets  that  fe atu
re parking  lanes.  (NYSDOT,  2013)  Used
in  absence  of  parking  lanes,  curb  extensions  can  create  conflict
with  motor  vehicle  traffic  and  bicyclists,  and  also  can  complicate
transit  operations.
Curb  extensions  are  associated  with certain  infrastructure  and
maintenance  issues.  The  drainage  patterns  of  a  roadway  can be
changed  by creating  cur
b exte nsions,  which  may
require  additional
stormwater  infrastructure.  This  is  especially  important  to  consider
in  cases  where  the  extensions  are  installed  independently  of  a
larger  roadway  reconstruction.  Curb extensions  are  also
sometimes  controversial  because  of  a  perceived  conflict  with  snow
removal.  Although  curb  extensions  do  require  some
accommodation  on  the  part  of  mai nte
nance  crews,  the  impa
cts
can  be  minimized  through careful design.
Refuge Islands
Another way  to  reduce  crossing  distances  is  to  incorporate
pedestrian  refuge  islands.  Refuge  islands are  appropriate  where it
may  be difficult  for  pedestrians  to  cross  the  entire  roadway  all at
once.  Refuge  islands  allow  pedestrians  to  cross  one  segment  of  the
roadway  at a  time  by  providing  a safe  location  (removed  from
travel  lanes)  at  an  i nter
m

ediate  point within  the roadway  crossing.
Islands  may  be defined  by  paint,  curbs,  guideposts,  and  other
devices.  These  facilities  are  appropriate  in  environments  that
feature  50  ft  (15m)  or  wider  crossings  or  more  than  four  travel
lanes.  At  unsignalized  crossing  locations,  refuge  islands  can
actually  reduce ped estrian
crossing  times  by  allowing  for
one
direction  of traffic  to  be  negotiated  at  a  time,  potentially
shortening  the  time  between  gaps  in  traffic.  Refuge  islands  must
be  accessible  to  all  pedestrians,  and are  ideally  designed  with an  at
‐grade  crosswalk  passage  (as opposed  to a  ramp)  to  aid  those
users  with  dis a
bilities.

Minimizing winter
Minimizing
winter
maintenance conflicts
maintenance
conflicts

One
common  objection  to curb
extensions  is  the  perception  of
increased  burden  on  winter
maintenance  crews.  In  addition  to
careful  design of the  width  and
geometry  of  the  bulbout,  the
potential  for  conflicts  with
snowplows  can  be  minimized
through  a  variety  of  methods,
including:
Flush curbs and  /or  pavement
Tapered front  ends
Vertical  delineators  to  alert
snowplow  operators to  lift  their
blades  if  needed
In  addition  to conscientious  design,
additional  training  for  maintenance
crews  may  be  beneficial.
Above: Landscaped  refuge  island. Photo  courtesy  of pedbikeimages.org

Regional Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan
Regional
Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan

Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
28
28

Raised
Crosswalks
In certain  locations,  raised  crosswalks  can  serve  to  slow  traffic  and
increase  pedestrian  visibility.  By  extending  the  crossing  at  the
same  grade as  the  adjacent  sidewalks,  the  raised  crosswalk  acts  as
a  speed  hump. This  type  of facility  must  be  installed  in  conjunction
with  a  marked  crosswalk  and  is  suitable  only  for  low‐speed  local
streets  which  are  not  emergency  routes.   In addition,  if  the  raised
crosswalk  is  i

nstalled  independently  of  a  larger  roadway  project,
drainage  and stormwater  collection may  be  impacted.
Traffic Signals
Pedestrian  signals  are  traffic  signals  which  indicate  when  it is
appropriate  to cross  the  street.  There  are  two  main  types of
pedestrian  signals:  fixed‐time  and pedestrian  actuated.  In  fixed ‐
time  signals,  the  pedestrian  phasing  is pre ‐timed  and runs
concurrently  with  the  vehicular  signal.  The pedestrian  walk/don’t
walk  signal  indications  are  therefore  automatically  displayed  in
conjunction  with  the  gree n signal  for

vehicles.  These  types of
signals  are  appropriate  at intersections  where  the  existing  signal
phasing  provides  ample  opportunity  for  pedestrians  to  cross  the
street.
Pedestrian ‐actuated signals  alter  the  timing  of  the  traffic  light to
accommodate  pedestrian  activity,  either  by  advancing  th e
signal
phase  cy cle,  in

creasing  the  green  time  of the  light,  or  providing
brief  all‐red  phases  to reduce  conflicts  with  vehicle  turning
movements.  Actuation  of these  signals  is  most  commonly  achieved
through  a  pushbutton.  However,  research indicates that  many
pedestrians  ignore  the  button  or believe  that the button  is
malfunctioni n
g if  ther

e  is a  significant  delay (Hughes,  2001).
AASHTO  notes  that  pushbutton  usage  can  be  as  low  as 25‐33%.
Automated  pedestrian  detection  devices  use  microwave  or
infrared  technology  to  sense  waiting  pedestrians  and  then  send  a
signal  to  switch  to  a  pedestrian  WALK  phase  automatically.  These
devices  have  been  shown  to  significan t
ly  reduce  the  nu
mber of
vehicle‐ pedestrian  conflicts  at  intersections.  (Hughes, 2001)
It  is  also  important  to  consider  the  needs  of  the  vision ‐impaired.
Accessible  pedestrian  signals  use  audible  or  tactile  methods  to
transmit  the  WALK  signal  to  vision ‐impaired  pedestrians.   These
are  most  helpful  in  locations  where  th e
sounds  of  par a
llel or
perpendicular  traffic  do  not  provide  sufficient  audible  cues,  such  as
midblock  crossings or  other  locations.
Pedestrian Hybrid
Pedestrian
Hybrid
Beacons
Beacons

The
pedestrian  hybrid beacon  (also  known  as
the  High  intensity  Activated  crossWalK  (or
HAWK))  is  a  pedestrian ‐activated  warning
device  which  can  be  used  at  midblock
pedestrian  crossings.   The pedestrian  hybrid
beacon  is  an  intermediate  option  between  the
operational  requirements  and  effects  of  a
rectangular  rapid  flash  beacon  and  a  full
pedestrian  signal.  It  provid
es a  positive  stop
control  in  are

as  without  the  high  pedestrian
traffic  volumes  that typically  warrant  the
installation  of  a  signal.
Pedestrian  hybrid  beacons  should  only  be  used
in  conjunction  with  a  marked  crosswalk.  In
general,  they  are  appropriate  for locations  in
which  gaps  in  traffic  are  not  ad
equate  to  per m
it
pedestrians  to  cross,  if  vehicle  speeds on  the
major  street  are  too  high  to  permit  pedestrians
to  cross,  or  if  pedestrian  delay  is  excessive.
Currently,  pedestrian  hybrid beacons  are  not
widely  deployed  in  New  York  State.  Since  this  is
a  still ‐unfamiliar  traffic  control  device  to  many,
extensive  educational  out r

each  to  the  public  is
needed  prior  to  implementation,  to  reduce
confusion  for  drivers  and  pedestrians.

Above: Raised  crosswalk.  Photo  courtesy  of pedbikeimages.org

Regional Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan
Regional
Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan

Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
29
29

Multi
‐Use Paths
The discussion  for  pedestrian  facilities  is  usually  focused  on
sidewalks  and  pedestrian  crossings.  However,  in some
environments,  the  most  appropriate  pedestrian facility  is  a  multi ‐
use  path.  These  facilities  can  provide  travel  options  for  cyclists  and
pedestrians  and  are  not  necessarily  dependent on the  road
network.  This  can  be  useful  in  rural  and  suburban  env ironments
where  the  roads  do  not  le

nd  themselves  to  a  traditional  curb  and
sidewalk  treatment.  (See  page  12  for  discussion  about  the  design
of  multi ‐use paths.)  Multi ‐use  paths  are  also  desirable  to  many
cyclists  and  pedestrians  because  vehicle  use  is  restricted.
Pedestrian Facilities in Suburban and Rural
Environments
Sidewalks and  other  pedestrian  facilities are  often  provided  as  a
matter  of  course  in  an  urbanized  area,  such  as  a traditional
downtown  or  city/village  neighborhood.  But  there  are  many  “gray
areas”  in  the  A/GFTC  region  which  may  also benefit  from  the
provision  of some  pedestrian  accommodation.  These  include:
Isolated  suburban  neighborhoods.
Many communities  have
residential  developments  which  are  not  adjacent  to  pedestrian
generators  such as  commercial  areas or schools.  However,  that
doesn’t  mean  people  stop  walking,  either  for  exercise,  as a social
activity,  or  to  and  from  bus  stops.  Providing  sidewalks  in these
areas  confers  several  benefits.  Some suburban  developments
have  streets  with  pavement  wi dths
exceeding  30′.  Th is can  lead  to
higher  vehicle  speeds,  in

creased stormwater  runoff, and  increased
municipal  maintenance  cost.  In  areas  in which  all  homes  have
double ‐wide driveways,  on ‐street  parking  is  not  utilized  on  a
consistent  basis,  and extra  roadway  width is  not  always  necessary.
Providing  two 11′  lanes  and  sidewalks  with  tree  buf fers
mini mize
s
all  of these  impacts,  in  addition  to  creating  an  attractive  and  safe
place  to walk.
Hamlet  areas.
Much of  the  A/GFTC  planning  area is  rural.  In  these
areas,  there  are  often  small  pockets  of  commercial  or  residential
uses  clustered  together.  Since  these  places  can  act  as  a  focal  point
for  the community,  pedestrian  activity  should  be  accommodated.
AASHTO  recommends  that  these  rural  clusters  or  hamlets  may
receive  the  same  consideration
for  ped
estrian facilities  as  more
urban  areas  (AASHTO,  July  2004).  Even  if  sidewalks  are  not
warranted,  pedestrian crossings  should  be  considered.

Regional Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan
Regional
Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan

Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
30
30

Pedestrian Priority Map
One
of  the  biggest  challenges  in  planning  for  pedestrian  facilities  is
to  know  where  they  should  be  located  within  the  community.  In
cases  where  the  infrastructure  already  exists, the  question
becomes  a  matter  of  priority  for  maintenance  and  repair.  Many
agencies  have  issued  criteria  and  thresholds  for  the placement  of
pedestrian  facilities  for  new  develop m
ent. For  example,  NYSDOT
uses  a  Pedestrian  Generator  Checklist  to  determine  if  a  specific
project  warrants  inclusion  of  pedestrian  facilities.  These checklists
are  useful  on  a  project ‐by ‐project  basis,  but do  not  address  larger
pedestrian  needs  outside  of the  project  site.  In  addition,  these
checklists  can  sometimes  provide  a  narrow  picture  of  the
surrounding  environment,  due  to  their  li

mited scope.
Communities  with  limited  resources  struggle to  determine  where
their  pedestrian  improvement  efforts  are  most  needed.  In
addition,  development  patterns  often  drift  across  municipal
boundaries,  creating  situations  where  a  portion  of a  neighborhood
or  commercial  area has  sidewalks  and  the  rest  does  not.  A/ GFTC
has  therefore  creat

ed  a  Pedestrian  Priority  Map.  This  map  is  not
intended  to  indicate  precise  locations  for  pedestrian  facilities,  but
rather  to show  the  general  areas  in which  pedestrian  activity
would  be likely,  if  facilities  existed.  This  takes  into account
proximity  to  community  features  such as  schools,  bus lines,
pharmacies,  groceries, co nvenience
sto r

es, libraries,  and  municipal
centers;  housing  unit  density;  and “community  core”  areas,  such  as
downtowns  and  hamlet  centers,  which  have  a  high  density  of
commercial  uses.
Each  of  these  factors  was  weighted  to account  for relative
importance  in  terms  of  pedestrian  activity.  For example,  proxi m
ity
to  schools  received  more  weight  than  proximity  to  convenience
stores,

since  schools  traditionally  have  higher  rates  of  pedestrian
activity  among  children,  considered  “at ‐risk”  pedestrians.
This  map  can  be  used  to  determine  where  pedestrian  facilities  are
more  likely  to  be  used.  This  can  be  helpful  in  areas  of more  recent
growth  as  well  as along  th e
thr esholds  betwee

n  urban,  suburban,
and  rural  areas.  The  intent  is  not  to  mandate  that sidewalks  be
installed  in  all areas  of high  demand.

 Pedestrian Priority
Pedestrian
Priority
Map
Map

This
map  can  be  used  to  determine
where  pedestrian  facilities  are  more
likely  to  be  used
A  detailed  version of  the  map  can  be
found  online  here:

Adirondack / Glens Falls Transportation Council

alternativetransportation.htm
Who should use the
Who
should use the
Pedestrian Priority
Pedestrian
Priority
Map?
Map?

Planning
Boards,  when  reviewing
development  proposals  which  may
or  may  not call  for  pedestrian
features
Departments  of  Public  Works , when
planning  capital  improvements
Elected Officials , when  deciding
whether  to appropriate  funds for
pedestrian  improvements  and  when
completing  local  planning  efforts,
such  as  comprehensive  plans,
downtown  plans,  and  transportation
plans
A/GFTC  Policy  and  Technical
Advisory  Committees , when
reviewing  applicable  pedestrian
planning  efforts  and  project
proposals
NYSDOT staff , when  completing  the
pedestrian  generator  checklist

Regional Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan
Regional
Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan

Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |

Map 4: Pedestrian Priority Area Analysis
31
31

A
detailed  map  of  the  Pedestrian  Priority  Areas
can  be  found  online  at
http://www.agftc.org/alternativetransportation.htm

Regional Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan
Regional
Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan

Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
32
32

IMPLEMENTATION
Partnerships
The
improvements  outlined in  this  plan  are  extensive,  and  will  take
a  significant  and focused  effort  to  accomplish.  In  addition,
implementation  will be  at  the  hands  of  many  different  agencies.
For  on‐road  facilities,  the implementation  lead  is  likely  to  be  the
roadway  owner. For  off‐road  facilities,  a  wider  variety  of  lead
agencies  is  possible,  such  as  local  muni cipaliti

es  or  recreation  and
open  space  groups.  Any  projects  which  involve  acquisition  of
easements  or  rights ‐of‐way  will also  involve  the landowners  as  a
key  stakeholder.
In  terms  of maintenance,  it  can  be  assumed  that  on ‐road  bicycle
and  pedestrian  facilities  will be  the  responsibility  of  whichev er
agency  currently  maintains  the  roadway

itself,  unless  other  specific
provisions  are  made.  For multi ‐use  trails,  there  may  be partnership
opportunities  to  provide  some  or all  maintenance  services.  This
can  take  the forms  of  occasional  volunteer  events,  such as  trail‐
cleaning  days, or a  more  fo rmal
maintenance  agr
eement between
agencies  and  groups  to  perform  maintenance.
In  addition,  local  not ‐for‐ profit  organizations,  such as  the  Feeder
Canal  Alliance,  WCS&QBO,  or  Creating  Healthy Places  to  Live,
Work,  and  Play  may  be able  to assist  in  identifying  and
implementing  some  of the  spot  improvements  listed  in  this  plan.
For  example,  creating   an

d  maintaining  an  inventory  of individual
bicycle  and  pedestrian  hazards  may  be useful.  It may  also  be
possible  to  partner  to  perform  events  such  as  targeted  road
sweepings  or  trail  maintenance,  with  help  from the  local  and
county  DPWs.  Sponsored  community  events  would  also  raise  the
profile  of  th e
organizations  and  provide  an  importa n
t community
education  benefit.

Regional Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan
Regional
Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan

Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council |
33
33

Funding Sources
The
following  funding  sources  have  historically  been  available  for projects  which  involve  bicycle  and  pedestrian
facilities.  Not  all  of these  programs  are  currently  active;  conversely,  new programs  may  arise which  could  be  applied
towards  bicycle  and  pedestrian  facilities.  In  seeking  funding  sources,  it  is  important  to  keep  in  mind  the  stipulations  and
requirem ents of  the  funding  agency.  For

instance,  projects  funded  under NYSDOT’s  Transportation  Alternatives
Program  must  follow  the  State’s  design,  bidding,  and  grant  reporting  process,  which  can  be  very  involved.
Program Granting Agency On ‐ / Off ‐
Road

Eligible  Activities Local
Match

Transportation
Alternatives  Program

NYS  Department
of  Transportation
(NYSDOT)

Both Provision  of  Facilities  for  Bicycles  and  Pedestrians  (on‐  or
off ‐road)

Yes
Make  the  Connection A/GFTC Both Small‐ scale projects  that  improve  the  region’s  bicycle  and
pedestrian  travel  network

Yes
Highway  Safety
Improvement  Projects
(HSIP)

FHWA/NYSDOT Both Safety  improvement  projects  on  any  public  road  or
publically  owned  bicycle  or  pedestrian  pathway  or  trail.

Yes
National  Scenic
Byways  Discretionary
Grants

Federal  Highway
Administration
(FHWA)

On‐ Road Construction  along  a  scenic  byway  of  a  facility  for
pedestrians  and  bicyclists;  safety  improvements  for
deficiencies  resulting from  designation  as  a  Byway

Yes
Consolidated  Local
Street  and Highway
Improvement
Program  (CHIPS)

NYSDOT On‐ Road Local  highway  projects  which  can  include  elements  such
as:  Bike  lanes  and wide  curb  lanes;  shared  use  paths,  and
bike  paths  within  the  highway  ROW

No
Recreational  Trails
Program

NYS  Office  of
Parks,  Recreation,
and  Historic
Preservation  (NYS
OPRHP)

Off ‐Road Acquisition,  development,  rehabilitation  and
maintenance  of  multi‐ use trails

Yes
Local  Waterfront
Revitalization  Program

NYS  Department
of  State  (NYSDOS)

Both Implementation  of  projects  listed  in  a  locally  adopted
Waterfront  Revitalization  Plan;  communities  without  this
type  of  plan  are  not  eligible  to  apply

Yes
Adirondack  Smart
Growth  Grants

NYS  Department
of  Environmental
Conservation
(NYSDEC)

Both Focused  on  planning  and  design  projects  including:
Efficient  transportation  systems;  Main  streets,  including
bicycle  and  pedestrian  access; Public access
improvements,  including  trails

No
Creating  Healthy
Places  to  Live,  Work,
and  Play

NYS  Department
of  Health

Both Small  grants  available  to municipalities  to  pursue
Complete  Streets  projects  or  purchase  bicycle racks,  if
community  has  passed  Complete  Streets  policy

No
Cleaner  Greener
Communities

NYSERDA Both Implementation  of  regional  sustainability  projects,
including  bicycle  and  pedestrian  activities

Yes
Surface  Transportation
Program/National
Highway  Performance
Program*  (STP/NHPP)  FHWA/NYSDOT
On‐Road  Provision  of  Facilities  for  Bicycles  and  Pedestrians  (as  part
of  concurrent  construction  of  roadway  or  bridge
Yes

*Note:  STP/NHPP  funding  currently  constrained  by  preservation  funding  targets  set  by  NYSDOT

Bay Street & Sanford Street
Glens Falls, NY INTERSECTION SAFETY STUDYDecember 2013
prepared for:
Prepared by: 3 Winners Circle
Albany, NY 12205CHA File: 25857

Bay St. and Sanford St. Safety Study, Glens Falls, NY i TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.0INTRODUCTION …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 4
2.0EXISTING CONDITIONS …………………………………………………………………………………………………. 4
A. SITE AREA …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 4
B. SITE OBSERVATIONS / POTENTIAL FACTORS ……………………………………………………………….. 8
C. ACCIDENT HISTORY ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 9
D. TRAFFIC VOLUMES ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 10
E. LEVEL OF SERVICE AND CAPACITY ANALYSIS …………………………………………………………….. 13
3.0IMPROVEMENT INITIATIVES ………………………………………………………………………………………… 14
4.0CONCLUSION …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 16
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Types of Collisions ………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 9
Table 2: Traffic Volumes ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 10
Table 3: HCM Intersection LOS ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 13
Table 4: LOS Summary – PM peak period ………………………………………………………………………………….. 13
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Bay Street and Sanford Street ……………………………………………………………………………………… 5
Figure 2: AADT Hourly Traffic Volumes …………………………………………………………………………………….. 11
Figure 3: PM Peak Hour Volumes …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 12
Figure 4: Backplate with Retroreflective Border …………………………………………………………………………. 15
LIST OF PHOTOS
Photo 1: On Bay Street looking south at Sanford Street ………………………………………………………………… 6
Photo 2: Pedestal pole on southeast corner………………………………………………………………………………… 6
Photo 3: On Bay Street looking north (Hunter St. on Right) …………………………………………………………… 7
Photo 4: On Hunter Street looking westbound toward Bay St. ……………………………………………………….. 7
Photo 5: On Sanford Street at stop line looking westbound …………………………………………………………… 8
Photo 6: On Hunter St. at stop bar and sign looking north …………………………………………………………….. 8
Photo 7: On Sanford Street looking westbound …………………………………………………………………………… 8
Photo 8: Signal Pole at northeast corner …………………………………………………………………………………… 14
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A-Accident Evaluation
Appendix B – Traffic Volume Data

Bay and Sanford Street, Glens Falls, NY: Safety StudyPage 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CHA conducted a study to evaluate the accident history and identify measures to improve safety at the
Bay Street and Sanford Street intersection, located in Glens Falls, New York. The tasks performed for
this traffic study included the following:
1.Review of accident data for a 5-year period to determine the most frequent types of accidents
and common contributing factors in those accidents.
2.Collection of traffic data by means of field visit including manual turning movement counts,
geometric measurements and signal timing and phasing.
3.Analysis of collected traffic data.
4.Development of measures to improve traffic and safety conditions at this intersection.
Bay Street and Sanford Street intersect at a four-way intersection operating under traffic signal control.
Each approach consists of a shared left/ through/right turn lane with parking permitted on both sides of
all approaches. Bay Street and Sanford Street are essentially straight and level. Pedestrians are
accommodated through a sidewalk on the both sides of Bay Street and Sanford Street with a utility strip
separating the concrete curb from the sidewalk. Pedestrian signals exist to accommodate crossings on
all approaches. There are no separate bicyclist accommodations. Bus stops exist on both the Bay Street
north and south approaches. There is street lighting and overhead utilities that run along the south side
of Sanford Street and the west side of Bay Street. The posted speed limits of Bay Street and Sanford
Street are 30 mph. Approximately 145 ft. south of this intersection, Hunter Street intersects Bay Street
at an unsignalized “T” intersection.
The accident analysis was performed for the Bay Street and Sanford Street intersection using accident
data provided by the City of Glens Falls Police Department. The analysis includes crashes for a five year
period that occurred from April 24, 2008 through April 24, 2013. Detailed accident summary sheet,
collision diagram, and detailed accident history are included in Appendix A.
There were 25 accidents at the Bay Street and Sanford Street intersection over the last five years. Based
on the data, 16 of these accidents occurred within the last three year period. There were 9 (36%)
injury, 13 (52%) property damage only, and 3 (12%) non-reportable or unknown accidents. There were
no fatalities. There were 5 accidents (20%) that occurred at the Bay Street and Hunter Street
intersection. The two predominate types of accidents were angle vehicle crashes and rear-end crashes,
although there was no identifiable pattern associated with the rear-end accidents. See Section 2.0C for
a complete discussion of the accident history.
A capacity analysis was performed for the PM peak period which shows that the intersection is
operating at an overall LOS B with all approaches operating at LOS A or B. See Sections 2.0D and 2.0E
for a complete discussion of the traffic volumes and capacity analysis.
Based upon a site visit and a review of the existing geometrics, operations and accident history, several
observations and potential contributing factors were identified and are discussed in Section 2.0B.
Among the observations are limited visibility of the traffic signals for the Sanford Street approaches and
close spacing and limited visibility for Hunter Street. Although the accident data did not indicate a
safety issue associated with pedestrians, some of the pedestrian signals were not functioning according

Bay and Sanford Street, Glens Falls, NY: Safety StudyPage 2 to the intended operation and the pedestrian signal at the northwest corner of the intersection was
missing at the time of this study due to an accident that occurred in April 2013.
Improvements have been identified for the City of Glens Falls’ consideration to improve safety at this
intersection. Detailed descriptions of the recommended improvements are provided in Section 3.0 of
this report. These improvements include removing vegetation, modifying the pedestrian signals,
modifying the vehicular signals, removing or delineating the parking spaces and providing access
management.
A brief description of these improvements is as follows:
Vegetation
Trees, bushes and overgrown vegetation limit visibility at the northeast corner of the Bay Street and
Hunter Street intersection and along Sanford Street on the north side of the westbound approach. Lines
of sight should be maintained by trimming and removing as necessary, the trees, bushes and overgrown
vegetation.
Pedestrian Signals
While the accident data did not indicate a safety issue, the pedestrian signals at the southwest and
southeast corners are not functioning according to the intended operation. The pushbuttons at the
southwest corner operate the opposite approach than designated by placement and signage (e.g.
button to cross Bay Street south leg operates Sanford Street west leg and the button to cross the
Sanford Street west leg operates the Bay Street south leg) and there is no accommodation to cross the
Bay Street south leg from the southeast corner, since the pedestrian button at the southeast corner
controls the Sanford Street west leg crossing. In addition, the pedestrian signal at the northwest corner
of the intersection is missing due to an accident that occurred in April 2013. The pushbuttons, signs and
pedestrian signals at the southeast and southwest corners should be corrected and the signal at the
northwest corner installed to accommodate pedestrian crossings through the intersection.
Vehicular Signals
Sections 2.0B and 3.0 provide a detailed discussion of the placement, layout and visibility of the
vehicular traffic signals. Given the longitudinal positioning and the mounting height over the pavement,
the visibility of the signals may be a contributing factor in the accidents at this intersection.
Adjust Signal Head PositionThe signals controlling the westbound approach should be lowered at least 2.5 to 3 feet. The signals
controlling the eastbound approach should be lowered at least 1.5 to 2 feet. Determination of the
need for lowering the mast arm, installing new or providing signal brackets to effectively lower the
signals should be assessed. A detailed evaluation of the signals and the structural capacity of the
supports will be necessary prior to implementing this measure. This evaluation could be
approached by having a structural engineer review and evaluate the design shop drawings of the
mast arm poles that were installed and/or work with the pole manufacturer to determine the ability
of the poles to accept loading revisions based on their design load.

Bay and Sanford Street, Glens Falls, NY: Safety StudyPage 3 Install backplates Backplates with retroreflective borders is a low cost safety treatment that can be added to the
existing traffic signal indication. A signal head equipped with a backplate with a retroreflective
border enhances the visibility of the illuminated signal faces, in both daytime and nighttime
conditions, which has the potential to reduce unintentional red-light running crashes. Prior to
implementing this measure, the structural capacity of the supports will need to be evaluated. An
average estimated cost for a backplate with yellow retroreflective border is $120 to $150 per
backplate.
Access Management
Five of the 25 accidents over the 5 year period occurred at the Bay Street and Hunter Street
intersection. Long term, evaluation of permitting only right turns in and right turns out of Hunter Street
and restricting left turn movements could be considered. This evaluation would need to consider the
impact the diverted left turn movements would have to the adjacent intersections.

Bay and Sanford Street, Glens Falls, NY: Safety StudyPage 4 1.0INTRODUCTION
CHA conducted a study to evaluate and recommend measures to improve safety at the Bay Street and
Sanford Street intersection located in Glens Falls, New York. The study was initiated by a request from
the Glens Falls Police Department to the Adirondack/ Glens Falls Transportation Council (AGFTC) to
evaluate safety concerns at this intersection, which has been the location of several accidents over the
last few years. To address the concerns, AGFTC retained CHA to perform an analysis of existing traffic
and safety conditions at this intersection and to develop engineering solutions that will result in
improvements of the safety for all users, while minimizing impacts to the local community. Tasks
performed for this traffic study included the following:
1.Review of accident data for a 5-year period to determine the most frequent types of accidents
and common contributing factors in those accidents.
2.Collection of traffic data by means of site visit including manual turning movement counts,
geometric measurements and signal timing and phasing.
3.Analysis of collected traffic data.
4.Development of alternatives to improve traffic and safety conditions at this intersection.
2.0EXISTING CONDITIONS
A.SITE AREA
Bay Street [CR 7] and Sanford Street are classified as Urban Minor Arterials. Bay Street is a north-south
roadway that intersects at Glen Street (US Route 9) at its southern end and extends northerly beyond
Douglas Street where it becomes Bay Road. It is generally a two-lane roadway that widens at various
intersections to accommodate turn lanes.
Sanford Street is an east-west roadway that intersects with Quaker Road (State Route (SR) 254) at its
easterly end and at Glen Street (US Route 9) at its westerly end. It is generally a two-lane roadway that
widens at select intersections to accommodate turn lanes. Sanford Street provides access to the old
Sanford Street School, now occupied by BOCES, which is located at the corner of Sanford Street and Ash
Avenue, west of the Sanford Street and Bay Street intersection. Sanford Street is a well-traveled
pedestrian route through the City to the Glens Falls High School, Glens Falls Middle School, and Jackson
Heights Elementary Schools.
The Bay Street and Sanford Street intersection is located in a highly urbanized setting. Land use of the
area within the intersection includes commercial establishments consisting of Bay Optical of Glens Falls
on the northwest corner, a strip building on the southwest corner consisting of multiple uses including
Bellaggio Pizza and Bellissima Salon, Global Tech & Media, Inc. on the north east corner and Main Moon
Chinese Restaurant on the southeast corner. Beyond the intersection along Bay Street, both to the
north and south, the land use is commercial and along Sanford Street, to the east and west the land use
is residential. The intersection is shown in the following Google aerial image below.

Bay and Sanford Street, Glens Falls, NY: Safety StudyPage 5 Figure 1: Bay Street and Sanford Street
Bay Street and Sanford Street are essentially straight and level. The two streets are nearly
perpendicular but there is a slight horizontal curve on Sanford Street just west of the intersection.
Bay Street and Sanford Street intersect at a four-way intersection operating under traffic signal control.
Each approach consists of a shared left/ through/right turn lane with parking permitted on both sides of
all approaches. Parking areas on Bay Street are highlighted with a single white edge line but individual
spaces are not designated within these areas. On street parking is also permitted on both sides of
Sanford Street although no parking areas are defined with pavement markings. Pedestrians are
accommodated through a sidewalk on the both sides of Bay Street and Sanford Street with a utility strip
separating the concrete curb from the sidewalk. There are no separate bicyclist accommodations.
Each approach is controlled by a pair of standard 3-section vehicular signal heads vertically mounted on
mast arms. The mast arm poles are located on the northeast and southwest corners of the intersection
and are angled diagonally through the intersection. The existing operation of the signals consists of two
phases (Bay Street north/south and Sanford Street east/west). The north/south phase was observed to
be approximately 35 seconds with the east/west phase observed to be approximately 18 seconds for a
total cycle length of 65 seconds. Each phase included approximately 4 seconds yellow and 2 seconds all
red. The signal is not part of a coordinated system. No Turn on Red signs are mounted on the mast
arms for each of the approaches to the intersection. See Photo 1.Glens Falls Bay OpticalMain MoonChineseGlobal Text &MediaBellaggio Pizza andBellissima Salon

Bay and Sanford Street, Glens Falls, NY: Safety StudyPage 6 Photo 1: On Bay Street looking south at Sanford Street
The height of the signals, from the top of pavement to the bottom of the signal head housing was
measured in the field. The signals that control the northbound and westbound approaches were at 20.5
ft. and 20.9 ft. The signals that control the southbound and eastbound approaches were approximately
19.5 ft. and 20 ft.
Pedestrian signals exist on each of the corners, consisting of one-section pedestrian signal heads with
the upraised hand and walking person symbol overlaid
upon each other. No countdown timers exist at this
intersection. The pedestrian signal heads, buttons and
signs are mounted on the mast arm at the northeast and
southwest corners. At the southeast corner, the pedestrian
signals, pushbuttons and signs for crossing the south leg of
Bay Street and the east leg of Sanford Street are both
mounted on the same pedestal pole. At the time of this
study, the pedestrian signal at the northwest corner, which
would have consisted of the pedestrian signals,
pushbuttons and signs for crossing the north leg of Bay
Street and the west leg of Sanford Street, both mounted on
the same pedestal pole, was missing due to a recent accident that occurred which demolished the Bay
Optical sign and the pedestrian signals.Photo 2: Pedestal pole on southeast corner

Bay and Sanford Street, Glens Falls, NY: Safety StudyPage 7 In addition, some of the existing pedestrian push buttons were not operating the intended approach as
noted below:
Southwest corner pedestrian signal·Pushbutton to cross the Bay Street south leg operates the Sanford Street west leg crossing.
·Pushbutton to cross the Sanford Street west leg operates the Bay Street south leg crossing.
Southeast corner pedestrian signal·Pushbutton to cross the Bay Street south leg operates the Sanford Street west leg crossing.
Hence, there is no accommodation for pedestrians to cross the Bay Street south leg from the
southeast corner of the intersection.
Double yellow centerline and white lane line pavement markings along with the stop bars and crosswalk
markings exist on Bay Street. A double yellow centerline pavement marking exists for a minimal
distance along Sanford Street on both the east and west legs of the intersection with no other pavement
markings beyond that, aside from the stop bar and crosswalk lines.
A bus stop exists on both the Bay Street north and south approaches. There is street lighting and
overhead utilities that run along the south side of Sanford Street and the west side of Bay Street. The
posted speed limits of Bay Street and Sanford Street are 30 mph.
Hunter Street intersects Bay Street approximately 145 feet south of the Bay Street and Sanford Street
intersection. See Photo 3. Hunter Street is a two-lane east-west roadway that is Stop controlled and
intersects Bay Street forming an unsignalized “T” intersection. See Photo 4. The Hunter Street
westbound approach consists of a shared left/ right turn lane. Pedestrians are accommodated through
a sidewalk on both sides of Hunter Street with a grassed utility strip separating the concrete curb from
the sidewalk. There are no separate bicyclist accommodations. There are no pavement markings on
Hunter Street. Overgrown brush and vegetation on the northeast corner of the intersection limit the
intersection sight distance.
Photo 3: On Bay Street looking north (Hunter St. on Right) Photo 4: On Hunter Street looking westbound toward Bay St.

Bay and Sanford Street, Glens Falls, NY: Safety StudyPage 8 B.SITE OBSERVATIONS / POTENTIAL FACTORS
The following is a summary of some observations from the field visits:
·Pedestrian pushbuttons are not operating as intended. The pedestrian signal at the northwest
corner is missing, the pushbuttons at the southwest corner operate the opposite approach than
designated by placement and signage (e.g. button to cross Bay Street south leg operates Sanford
Street west leg), and there is no accommodation to cross the Bay Street south leg from the
southeast corner, since the pedestrian button at the southeast corner controls the Sanford
Street west leg crossing. See Section 2.0A.
·Visibility of the signals and signage for
vehicles at the Sanford Street eastbound and
westbound approach stop lines is limited due
to the height and longitudinal placement of
the signals.

·Visibility of the signal and overhead signage is
impeded for Sanford Street westbound
vehicles due to the tree canopy overhanging
the Sanford Street westbound approach. See
Photo 7.
·Visibility of southbound vehicles, pedestrians
and bicyclists on Bay Street is impeded for the
Hunter Street vehicles due to the northbound
queue at Sanford Street, on-street parking
and overgrown bushes at the northwest corner of the Hunter Street and Bay Street intersection.
See Photos 2 and 6.
·Vehicles use the parking lanes on the Bay Street north and south approaches to overtake the
leading vehicles waiting to turn left at the intersection.
·The unmarked eastbound and westbound approach lanes are wide enough to allow vehicles to
overtake other vehicles stopped and turning left on these approaches. As a result, drivers may
overtake the leading vehicles waiting to travel through or turn left at the intersection. See
Photo 1 above.Photo 6: On Hunter St. at stop bar and sign looking north Photo5: On Sanford Streetat stop line looking westboundPhoto7: On Sanford Street looking westbound

Bay and Sanford Street, Glens Falls, NY: Safety StudyPage 9 ·Bicyclists ride both on the sidewalk and on the roadway.
·Parking within the immediate vicinity of the intersection was not observed during the field visits.
However, on-street parking provided close to the intersection would impede sight distance. The
parallel parking maneuvers increases potential for collisions between vehicles parking and those
following who might need to suddenly stop as well as for those parked vehicles entering traffic
which may force vehicles to stop abruptly.
·The close spacing of Hunter Street to the Bay Street and Sanford Street intersection and the
volumes southbound on Bay Street has the potential to increase accidents due to the turning
maneuvers into and out of this Hunter Street intersection.
C.ACCIDENT HISTORY
An accident analysis was performed for the Bay Street and Sanford Street intersection using accident
data provided by the City of Glens Falls Police Department. The analysis includes crashes for a five year
period that occurred from April 24, 2008 through April 24, 2013. Table 1 summarizes the accident
history at the study area intersection. In addition, a detailed accident summary sheet and a collision
diagram are included in Appendix A.
There were 25 accidents at the Bay Street and Sanford Street intersection over the last five years. Based
on the data, 16 of these accidents occurred within the last three year period. There were 9 (36%)
injury, 13 (52%) property damage only, and 3 (12%) non-reportable or unknown accidents. There were
no fatalities.
Table 1: Types of CollisionsType of CollisionNumberPercentageRear-End832%Right Angle936%Left Turn28%Sideswipe312%Overtaking14%Pedestrian/Bicyclist28%Total25100%The data also shows the following:
·Eighty percent (80%) of the accidents occurred in daylight which suggests that night-time
visibility is not the primary contributing factor of the crash history.
·Seventeen accidents (68%) occurred with dry pavement conditions, with the remaining 8
accidents (32%) occurring with wet (5), snow/ice (2), slush (1) conditions.
·Five accidents (20%) occurred at the Hunter Street intersection.
·There was no distinct pattern of the rear-end accidents as 5 occurred at the Bay and Sanford
Street intersection (2 on each of the northbound and southbound approaches and 1 on the
westbound approach) and 3 occurred at the Bay Street and Hunter Street intersection (2 on the
Bay Street southbound and 1 on the northbound approaches).
·The two bicyclist accidents involved a westbound vehicle from Sanford Street and Hunter Street
and a southbound bicyclist traveling against traffic.
·One of the right angle accidents involved alcohol.

Bay and Sanford Street, Glens Falls, NY: Safety StudyPage 10 ·The predominate type of angle accidents involved eastbound vehicles with either the north- or
southbound Bay Street vehicles.
The intersection accident rate was calculated and compared to the statewide average for intersections
on state roads with similar geometry and traffic control. The accident rate for the subject intersection
(not including the 5 Hunter Street accidents) is approximately 0.80 accidents per million entering
vehicles (acc/MEV) as compared to the statewide average of 0.34 acc/MEV. It is noted that the
statewide average is calculated for state roadways only and that since the Bay Street and Sanford Street
are county and local roads, respectively, the characteristics may be slightly different. In addition,
accident rates are typically reported for a 3-year rather than a 5-year period.

D.TRAFFIC VOLUMES
The New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) Traffic Volume Data Viewer was used to
obtain the Average Annual Daily Traffic Volume (AADT) data for Bay Street and Sanford Street. Table 2
below summarizes the 2010 AADT. Figure 2 below shows hourly volumes approaching the intersection.
See Appendix B for the Traffic Hourly Data Report.
Table 2: Traffic VolumesStreetFrom – ToAADTAM PeakHourPM PeakHourNB/ EB1SB/ WB1TotalBay StreetWashington St. to Sanford St5022537510397683897Bay StreetSanford St. to City Line4845546110306615857Sanford Street Bay Street to Ridge Street1816186536812583371
northbound (NB) and southbound (SB) directions for Bay Street and eastbound (EB) and westbound (WB) directions for Sanford Street.
The Traffic Volume Report provided vehicle classification and speed data for Bay Street for the roadway
segment of Sanford Street to the City Line. NYSDOT used an automatic traffic recorder (ATR) device,
placed just north of Hope Avenue to collect the data. Vehicle classification data showed that
approximately 4% of the daily traffic on this segment of Bay Street was heavy vehicles, comprised as 3%
traveling north and 5% traveling south. The speed data showed that the 85th
percentile speed was 35.9
mph in the north direction and 36.8 mph in the south direction with a 50th
percentile speed of
approximately 31.5 mph for each of the directions.
Three signalized intersections exist on Bay Street between Washington Street and Sanford Street (at
Washington Street, Grand Street, Sanford Street). No signalized intersections exist on Bay Street north
of Sanford Street to the City line. North of the City line, there is one midblock crossing, to accommodate
the Warren County Bikeway, and a signalized intersection at NYS Route 254. The data indicates that
motorists travel at a slightly higher 85th
percentile speed in the southbound direction than the
northbound direction. This suggests that the motorists are traveling at a slightly higher speed in the
roadway segment where there is uninterrupted flow and a slightly lower speed in the roadway segment
where there is interrupted flow due to the signals. Bay Street is posted 30 mph so the results of the
speed study are consistent with expected 50th
and 85th
percentile speeds for this posted speed limit and
the character of this area of Bay Street.

Bay and Sanford Street, Glens Falls, NY: Safety StudyPage 11 Figure 2: AADT Hourly Traffic Volumes
Intersection turning movement traffic counts were conducted at the Bay Street and Sanford Street and
Hunter Street intersections on July 30, 2013 during the weekday PM peak period from 4:00 pm to 6:00
pm. Traffic counts were recorded at 15-minute increments. Pedestrian counts were also recorded at
the intersections concurrently with the vehicle counts. The PM peak hour occurred from 4:30 pm to
5:30 pm. See Figure 3 below for the PM peak period volumes. The traffic volumes are included in
Appendix B.
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500HourlyTrafficVolume
Time of Day Average Weekday Traffic Volume: 2010
Bay Street and Sanford Street IntersectionBay Street
NorthboundBay Street
SouthboundSanford Street
Westbound

Bay and Sanford Street, Glens Falls, NY: Safety StudyPage 12 The volumes show the following:
·The two-way PM peak period volume on Bay Street is approximately 820 vehicles, which is more
than twice the two-way PM peak period volume on Sanford Street (375 vehicles).
·Approximately 60% of the traffic entering Hunter Street is from the north (turning left).
·Approximately 85% of the traffic exiting Hunter Street is to the north (turning right).
·The primary pedestrian movement during the PM peak period was from the south (17
pedestrians).

415
402
39
353
27
Sanford Street
211
29
28
178
103
131
164
32
19
158
45
345
28
404
418
382
22
Hunter
Street
32
38
6
35
386
13
388
399
BayStreetFigure 3: PM Peak Hour Volumes

Bay and Sanford Street, Glens Falls, NY: Safety StudyPage 13 E.LEVEL OF SERVICE AND CAPACITY ANALYSIS
Intersection capacity analyses were conducted for the intersection using methodology outlined in the
Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM 2000) published by the Transportation Research Board. Level of
service (LOS) criteria are measured in average delay per vehicle (seconds), and range from LOS A to LOS
F. LOS range from A to F with LOS A considered excellent with very little vehicle delay while level of
service F generally represents conditions with long vehicle delays. Table 3 identifies the levels of service
and associated delay ranges for each type of traffic control.
Capacity analyses were performed for the 2013 Existing PM peak period conditions. Summaries of these
analyses are shown in Table 4. See Appendix B for the LOS analyses. The analyses show that the
intersection operates at overall LOS B with each approach operating at LOS A or B. No geometric
improvements are necessary to accommodate the operations at this intersection.
Table 3: HCM Intersection LOSLOSSignalizedControl Delay per Vehicle (second)A≤ 10B> 10-20C> 20-35D> 35-55E> 55-80F> 80Table 4: LOS Summary – PM peak periodIntersection & ApproachLaneGroup2013 ExistingLOSDelayBay Street and Sanford StreetEastbound
Westbound
Northbound
SouthboundLTR
LTR
LTR
LTRB
B
A
A19.4
19.7
9.6
9.6OverallB12.8

Bay and Sanford Street, Glens Falls, NY: Safety StudyPage 14 3.0IMPROVEMENT INITIATIVES
Based on a review of the existing traffic conditions and accident analysis, several improvements have
been identified as discussed below.
Vegetation
While most of the intersection and surrounding area is open (Photo 1), there are a few locations where
trees and vegetation have become overgrown impairing visibility. At the northeast corner of the Bay
Street and Hunter Street intersection, there is a bush and some overgrown vegetation that limits
visibility (Photo 6) to pedestrians and bicyclists riding on the sidewalk.
Likewise, the trees along the north side of the Sanford Street westbound approach have canopies that
are overhanging the roadway and impacting the view of the traffic signal. The overhead No Right Turn
on Red sign is not visible due to the canopy from these trees (Photo 7). Trees and brush should be
trimmed and removed as necessary to maintain adequate lines of sight.
Pedestrian Signals
While the accident data did not indicate a pedestrian/bicycle safety issue, the pedestrian signals are not
functioning according to the intended operation. In addition, the pedestrian signal at the northwest
corner of the intersection is missing due to an accident that occurred in April 2013. As discussed in
Section 2.0B, the pedestrian signals at the southwest and the southeast are not functioning correctly.
The pushbuttons, signs and pedestrian signals at the northeast corner (Photo 8) are functioning
correctly.
Photo 8: Signal Pole at northeast corner
The pushbuttons, signs and pedestrian signals at the southeast and southwest corners should be
corrected so that the buttons activate the correct signals, and the damaged/missing signals at the
northwest corner should be re-installed to accommodate pedestrian crossings through the intersection.
Vehicular Traffic Signals
The traffic signals that control the Sanford Street eastbound and westbound approaches exceed the
maximum standard for mounting heights of signal faces, as noted in Section 4D.15 of the MUTCD and
NYS Supplement. In accordance with these documents, vehicular signal faces located over any portion

Bay and Sanford Street, Glens Falls, NY: Safety StudyPage 15 of a highway that can be used by motor vehicles shall be at least 15 feet above the pavement and not
more than 19 feet. All of the existing vehicular signal faces exceed this maximum mounting height with
the signals ranging in height from 19.5 feet to 20.9 feet (from top of pavement to bottom of signal
housing). Since all of the signals exceed the maximum height to the bottom of the signal housing,
several of the signals also exceed the maximum top of signal head mounting height.
Visibility of the signals, given the longitudinal positioning and the mounting height over the pavement,
may be a contributing factor in the accidents at this intersection.
Adjust Signal Head PositionsThe signals controlling the westbound approach should be lowered at least 2.5 to 3 feet. The signals
controlling the eastbound approach should be lowered at least 1.5 to 2 feet. Determination of the
appropriate method to lower the signal heads, including the use of new signal brackets, lowering the
mast arm, or installing new signals should be assessed. A detailed engineering evaluation, including
an assessment of the structural capacity of the supports, impact on utilities, and visibility of the
signal heads will be necessary prior to implementing this measure. This evaluation could be
approached by having a structural engineer review and evaluate the design shop drawings of the
mast arm poles that were installed and/or work with the pole manufacturer to determine the ability
of the poles to accept loading revisions based on their design load.
Install backplates Backplates with retroreflective borders is a low cost safety treatmentthat
can be added to the existing traffic signal indication. A signal head equipped
with a backplate with a retroreflective border enhances the visibility of the
illuminated face of the signals, in both daytime and nighttime conditions,
which has the potential to reduce unintentional red-light running crashes.
Prior to implementing this measure, the structural capacity of the supports
will need to be evaluated.
Access Management
Five of the 25 accidents over the 5 year period occurred at the Bay Street and Hunter Street
intersection. Long term, evaluation of permitting only right turns in and right turns out of Hunter Street
and restricting left turn movements could be considered. This evaluation would need to consider the
impact the diverted left turn movements would have to the adjacent intersections.Figure4: Backplate withRetroreflective Border

Bay and Sanford Street, Glens Falls, NY: Safety StudyPage 16 4.0CONCLUSION
This report summarizes the results of an accident analysis for the Bay Street and Sanford Street
intersection and identifies several improvements that can be implemented to improve safety and bring
existing vehicular and pedestrian signal in compliance with the MUTCD and NYS Supplement.
Tasks performed for this traffic study included the following:
1.Review of accident data for a 5-year period to determine the most frequent types of accidents
and common contributing factors in those accidents.
2.Collection of traffic data by means of site visit including manual turning movement counts,
geometric measurements and signal timing and phasing.
3.Analysis of collected traffic data.
4.Development of alternatives to improve traffic and safety conditions at this intersection.
An accident analysis was performed for the Bay Street and Sanford Street intersection using accident
data provided by the City of Glens Falls Police Department. The analysis includes crashes over a five
year period that occurred from April 24, 2008 through April 24, 2013. Detailed accident summary sheets
and a collision diagram are included in Appendix A. A summary of the data showed that there were 20
accidents at the Bay Street and Sanford Street intersection and 5 accidents at the Bay Street and Hunter
Street intersection over the last five years. Based on the data, 16 of these accidents occurred within the
last three year period. There were 9 (36%) injury, 13 (52%) property damage only, and 3 (12%) non-
reportable or unknown accidents. There were no fatalities.
Based on the accident analysis, the intersection crash rate is more than two times higher than the
statewide average for similar intersections. The analysis shows that the two primary accident patterns
at the intersection were rear end accidents and angle accidents between the eastbound approach and
either the north- or southbound approaches. Although 32% of the accidents were rear- end accidents,
there was no pattern associated with these types of accidents.
While the accident data did not indicate a pedestrian/bicycle safety issue, the pedestrian signals at the
southwest and southeast corners are not functioning according to the intended operation and the
pedestrian signal at the northwest corner of the intersection is missing due to an accident that occurred
in April 2013. The pushbuttons, signs and pedestrian signals at the southeast and southwest corners
should be corrected and the signal at the northwest corner installed to accommodate pedestrian
crossings through the intersection.
Average Annual Daily Traffic Volume (AADT) data were obtained from the New York State Department
of Transportation (NYSDOT) Traffic Volume Data Viewer and turning movement counts were performed
for the PM peak period (4 pm to 6 pm) on July 30, 2013. Based upon the existing traffic volumes and
capacity analysis, there is sufficient capacity and acceptable operations at this intersection such that no
geometric improvements are necessary. The capacity analyses performed for the 2013 Existing PM peak
period conditions show that the intersection operates at overall LOS B with each approach operating at
LOS A or B. The traffic volume data is included in Appendix B.

Bay and Sanford Street, Glens Falls, NY: Safety StudyPage 17 Several measures have been identified for the City of Glens Falls’ consideration to improve safety at this
intersection including:
·Removing vegetation along the east side of Bay Street between Hunter Street and Sanford
Street and trim the trees along the north side of the Sanford Street eastbound approach
between Stoddard Avenue and Bay Street.
·Modifying the pedestrian signals at the southwest and southeast corners and install the
pedestrian signal at the northwest corner.
·Lower the signal heads to comply with MUTCD standards.
·Install signal backplates (subject to confirmation of design loads).
·Providing access management.

APPENDIX A
ACCIDENT DATA

No. of
Accidents
% of AccidentNo. ofAccidents% of AccidentNo. ofAccidents% of Accident
00%832%526%
936%28%421%
1352%936%00%
14%312%15%
28%00%421%
25100%14%316%
28%211%
00%00%
00%00%
00%
19100%
25100%No. ofAccidents% of AccidentNo. ofAccidents% of AccidentNo. ofAccidents% of Accident
312%00%832%
312%312%520%
728%728%624%
312%936%624%
728%624%
28%00%
25100%25100%25100%
No. of
Accidents% of AccidentNo. of
Accidents% of AccidentNo. of
Accidents% of Accident
1456%1768%2080%
728%520%00%
312%00%14%
14%28%416%
00%14%00%
00%00%00%
00%00%
25100%25100%25100%No. ofAccidents% of AccidentNo. ofAccidents% of AccidentNo. ofAccidents% of Accident
25100%728%521%
00%416%1354%
00%624%625%
00%28%24100%
00%312%
00%28%
14%
25100%25100%Wednesday>55
ThursdayTotal Straight and Level
Straight and Grade
Staright at Hillcrest
Curve and Level
Curve and Grade
Curve at Hillcrest
TotalMonday16-25
Tuesday26-55
Sunday
Total TotalTotalTotal
Day of WeekAge of Driver
Friday
Saturday Roadway CharacteristicsFog/Smog/SmokeFloodedUnknown
UnknownOther/Unknown SnowSnow/IceDark Road – Lighted
Sleet/Hail/Freezing RainSlushDark Road – Unlighted CloudyWetDawn
RainMuddyDusk WeatherPavementLight Conditions
ClearDryDaylight 2012
Unknown
TotalTotalTotal 20114 PM – 7 PMFall (Sept.- Nov.)
7 PM – 12 AM
2013 20096 AM – 10 AMSpring (Mar. – May)
201010 AM- 4 PMSummer (June – Aug.) YearTime of DayTime of Year
200812 AM – 6 AMWinter (Dec. – Feb.) TotalOvertaking
Other
TotalTotal Pedestrian/Bicyclist Non-ReportableSideswipeWest
UnknownHead-on
Unknown AnimalNorth & West
North & East Property Damage OnlyRight AngleEast25857Accident Summary SheetSeverityTypeDirection
FatalRear-EndNorth April 24, 2008 to April 24, 2013Sanford StreetSUMMARY OF ACCIDENT HISTORYApril 24, 2008 – April 24, 2013PIN
CHA Project No. 25857Route No. or Street Name:
Bay Street
South & West
Fixed ObjectSouth & East City
Glens Falls
DateCHA Project No. Project Name:
AGFTC Safety Study
County
WarranAt Intersection with / or Between
InjuryLeft TurnSouth

TE 213 (Equivalent)
Diagram No.:
County: WarrenPIN:Route No. or Street Name:Case No:
Town:Bay StreetFile:
City:Glens FallsAt Intersection with/ or Between:By:AGFTC
Village of:Sanford StreetDate:6/4/2013
Time Period
From:04/24/08
To:04/24/13SeverityApparent
No. of Months:60(NR, PDO,Contributing
ID No.DateTimeINJ, FAT)FactorsTypeDirectionDescriptionLocation
104/24/1311:492PDO11119REN, NBay / Hunter
24/8/1316:122INJ11112RAN,WBay / Sanford
312/8/129:262PDO11227LTSW, SEBay / Hunter
411/16/1212:362UNK111118, 7OTNE, NEMV 1 entered path of MV 2 and was struck by MV 2.Bay / Sanford
511/09/1210:292PDO11117,4LTW, NMV 1 struck MV 2 as MV 2 was turning left in front of MV 1Bay / Sanford
607/17/1215:132UNK111113, 13SSN, NMV 1 struck MV 2 in the parking laneBay / Sanford
707/16/1217:452INJ11117, 42RAS, WMV 1 failed to yield ROW to MV 2Bay / Hunter
804/17/1220:102INJ41124,9REW,WMV 1 struck MV 2Bay / Sanford
903/16/1213:252INJ11232,17RANW, SWDriver of MV 1 intoxicated, ran red light, struck MV 2, MV 2 struck building.Bay / Sanford
1011/09/1119:182PDO411117RAE, NMV 1 failed to yield ROW to MV 2; MV 1 struck MV 2Bay / Sanford
1110/29/1117:322PDO311217, 4RAN, WMV 1 disregarded traffic device and collided with MV 2Bay / Sanford
1201/24/118:512PDO115117RAE,NMV 1 skidded through red light and struck MV 2Bay / Sanford
1311/04/1015:362PDO11239RES, SMV 1 struck MV 2 from behind as MV 2 was attempting LTBay / Sanford
1408/24/1015:192INJ11119RES, SMV 1 struck MV 2Bay / Hunter
1507/19/1014:523PDO11129RES,S,SMV 1 struck MV 2, forcing MV 2 to strike MV 3 while MV 3 waiting to make LTBay / Hunter
1604/12/1014:512PDO11119REN, NMV 1 struck MV 2 from behindBay / Sanford
1702/24/1011:102INJ11444, 66REN,NMV 1 struck MV 2 from behindBay / Sanford
1802/03/1014:373PDO11214RES, SMV 1struck MV 2 from behind, forcing MV 2 to strike MV 3Bay / Sanford
1901/17/1013:522INJ111217, 4RANE, SMV 2 failed to obey red light and struck MV 1Bay / Sanford
2012/23/0912:402NR111213SSS,SWMV 1 was struck by MV 2 while MV 1 attempted to pass MV 2 on rightBay / Sanford
2108/25/098:422PDO111114RASE, NMV 1 was truck by MV 2 (bicyclist)Bay / Sanford
2202/09/0915:442INJ112117RAE, SMV 1 struck MV 2Bay / Sanford
2312/24/0822:162PDO414317, 66RAN, WMV 1 ran red light, struck MV 2Bay / Sanford
2410/20/0820:412PDO411213SSS, SMV 1 was struck by MV 2 while MV 1 attempted to pass MV 2 on rightBay / Sanford
2508/21/0816:522INJ111217RAS, WMV 1 ran red light, struck MV 2Bay / Sanford
26
27
28
29
30
31
unk – unknownContributing Factors Legendnr = non reportable2=alcohol
4 = Driver Inattention19 = Unsafe Speed
Accident Type Legend7 = Failure to Yield Right-of Way20 = Unsafe Lane Changing
RA – Right Angle9 = Follwing Too Closely42 = Brakes defective
RE – Rear End13= passing or lane usage improper66 = Pavement Slippery
LT – Left Turn17 = Traffic Control Disregarded
OT – Overtaking18 = Turning Improperly
SS – SideswipeDETAILS OF ACCIDENT HISTORY FOR LOCATION
MV 1 struck MV 2
MV 1 entered path of MV 2 and was struck by MV 2. MV1 struck MV2LightConditions
Roadway
Character
Roadway
Surface
Condition
Weather
No.ofVeh.V:ProjectsANYK325857DataOtherTrafficTE 213 Accident Summary_bay_sanfordPage 1 of 1

APPENDIX B
TRAFFIC DATA

SHORT REPORT
General Information
Site Information
Analyst
Agency or Co.
CHA
Date Performed
8/6/2013
Time PeriodPM peak period IntersectionBay St. / Sanford St. Area TypeAll other areas JurisdictionCity of Glens Falls Analysis Year2013 Volume and Timing InputEBWBNBSBLTTHRTLTTHRTLTTHRTLTTHRT Number of Lanes010010010010 Lane GroupLTRLTRLTRLTR Volume (vph)2910332191312845345282735339 % Heavy Vehicles010000000010 PHF0.830.830.830.820.820.820.960.960.960.930.930.93 Pretimed/Actuated (P/A)AAAAAAAAAAAA Startup Lost Time2.02.02.02.0 Extension of Effective Green2.02.02.02.0 Arrival Type3333 Unit Extension3.03.03.03.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume2003001700700 Lane Width16.014.012.012.0 Parking/Grade/ParkingN0NN0NN0NN0N Parking/Hour Bus Stops/Hour0000 Minimum Pedestrian Time3.23.23.33.2 PhasingEW Perm020304NS Perm060708 Timing G =18.0 G = G = G = G =35.0 G =0.0 G =0.0 G =0.0 Y =6 Y = Y = Y = Y =6 Y =0 Y =0 Y =0 Duration of Analysis (hrs) =0.25 Cycle Length C =65.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS DeterminationEBWBNBSB Adjusted Flow Rate198217435451 Lane Group Capacity525522932960 v/c Ratio0.380.420.470.47 Green Ratio0.280.280.540.54 Uniform Delay d
119.019.29.29.3 Delay Factor k0.110.110.110.11 Incremental Delay d
20.50.50.40.4 PF Factor1.0001.0001.0001.000 Control Delay19.419.79.69.6 Lane Group LOSBBAA Approach Delay19.419.79.69.6 Approach LOSBBAA Intersection Delay12.8Intersection LOSBCopyright©2007 University of Florida, All Rights ReservedHCS+TM
Version 5.3Generated: 8/6/2013 8:26 AMPage1 of1Short Report8/6/2013file://C:Usersô4AppDataLocalTemps2k329F.tmp

STATION:
174936 New York State Department of Transportation
Traffic Count Hourly Report
Page 1 of 2
ROAD #:
0100ROAD NAME:
BAY ST FROM:
SANFORD ST TO:
CITY LINE COUNTY:
Warren
DIRECTION: Northbound FACTOR GROUP: 30 REC. SERIAL #: 2573 FUNC. CLASS: 16 CITY:
GLENS FALLS
STATE DIR CODE: 1 WK OF YR: 40 PLACEMENT: 105FT N OF HOPE AVE NHS: no LION#:
DATE OF COUNT: 10/01/2010 @ REF MARKER: JURIS: City BIN:
NOTES LANE 1: WEEK 40 NB ADDL DATA: Class Speed CC Stn: RR CROSSING:
COUNT TYPE: VEHICLES BATCH ID: DOT-R1ww40b HPMS SAMPLE:
COUNT TAKEN BY: ORG CODE: TST INITIALS: BJF PROCESSED BY: ORG CODE: DOT INITIALS: mab
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
1F
2S
3S
4M
5T
6W
7T
8F
9S
10 S
11 M
12 T
13 W
14 T
15 F
16 S
17 S
18 M
19 T
20 W
21 T
22 F
23 S
24 S
25 M
26 T
27 W
28 T
29 F
30 S
31 S379 388 471 381 444 494 439 328 292 203 126 115 116 56
31 28 16 26 22 22 42 101 178 256 291 319 316 244 255 235 232 237 190 164 106 115 69 503545 319 11
28 21 17 25 20 23 38 57 137 160 218 276 260 229 212 227 217 192 159 148 101 54 44 322895 276 11
12 18 7 15 53 69 100 279 391 353 340 401 478 449 366 430 424 379 223 173 116 89 66 375268 478 12
21 9 11 25 53 69 113 299 369 388 350 346 396 405 363 435 420 385 257 182 132 102 58 405228 435 15
23 9 8 13 52 69 102 293 366 319 300 317 427 414 381 410 396 341 254 191 146 84 58 345007 427 12
26 12 16 24 50 67 105 273 344 388 358 397
AVERAGE WEEKDAY HOURS (Axle Factored, Mon 6AM to Fri Noon) ADT
23 10 12 21 52 68 105 286 368 362 345 370 434 423 370 425 413 368 245 182 131 92 61 37 5203
DAYS
Counted
7HOURS
Counted
146WEEKDAYS
Counted
4WEEKDAY
Hours
80AVERAGE WEEKDAY
High Hour
434% of day
8%Axle Adj.
Factor
1.000Seasonal/Weekday
Adjustment Factor
1.074ESTIMATED (one way)
AADT
4845
ROAD #:
0100ROAD NAME:
BAY ST FROM:
SANFORD ST TO:
CITY LINE COUNTY:
Warren
STATION:
174936STATE DIR CODE:
1PLACEMENT:
105FT N OF HOPE AVE DATE OF COUNT: 10/01/2010

STATION:
174936 New York State Department of Transportation
Traffic Count Hourly Report
Page 2 of 2
ROAD #:
0100ROAD NAME:
BAY ST FROM:
SANFORD ST TO:
CITY LINE COUNTY:
Warren
DIRECTION: Southbound FACTOR GROUP: 30 REC. SERIAL #: 2573 FUNC. CLASS: 16 CITY:
GLENS FALLS
STATE DIR CODE: 2 WK OF YR: 40 PLACEMENT: 105FT N OF HOPE AVE NHS: no LION#:
DATE OF COUNT: 10/01/2010 @ REF MARKER: JURIS: City BIN:
NOTES LANE 1: WEEK 40 SB ADDL DATA: Class Speed CC Stn: RR CROSSING:
COUNT TYPE: VEHICLES BATCH ID: DOT-R1ww40b HPMS SAMPLE:
COUNT TAKEN BY: ORG CODE: TST INITIALS: BJF PROCESSED BY: ORG CODE: DOT INITIALS: mab
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
1F
2S
3S
4M
5T
6W
7T
8F
9S
10 S
11 M
12 T
13 W
14 T
15 F
16 S
17 S
18 M
19 T
20 W
21 T
22 F
23 S
24 S
25 M
26 T
27 W
28 T
29 F
30 S
31 S417 473 472 479 572 520 530 478 418 276 199 179 127 75
52 33 18 17 10 20 40 86 145 241 270 276 324 331 282 329 299 286 287 180 177 135 136 654039 331 13
39 35 18 22 14 19 28 64 98 135 192 248 285 290 246 280 282 285 250 196 150 90 40 393345 290 13
13 17 9 16 15 45 96 236 305 340 401 396 487 511 545 493 490 439 325 260 170 163 103 495924 545 14
32 19 10 15 15 54 118 254 308 316 317 412 451 417 492 486 544 480 352 241 194 155 97 515830 544 16
28 17 8 10 13 55 108 229 278 301 351 398 530 503 484 448 487 435 346 229 201 146 129 545788 530 12
24 26 8 14 22 43 105 240 299 291 330 378
AVERAGE WEEKDAY HOURS (Axle Factored, Mon 6AM to Fri Noon) ADT
28 21 9 13 17 51 107 240 298 312 363 411 489 477 507 476 507 451 341 243 188 155 110 51 5865
DAYS
Counted
7HOURS
Counted
146WEEKDAYS
Counted
4WEEKDAY
Hours
80AVERAGE WEEKDAY
High Hour
507% of day
9%Axle Adj.
Factor
1.000Seasonal/Weekday
Adjustment Factor
1.074ESTIMATED (one way)
AADT
5461
ROAD #:
0100ROAD NAME:
BAY ST FROM:
SANFORD ST TO:
CITY LINE COUNTY:
Warren
STATION:
174936STATE DIR CODE:
2PLACEMENT:
105FT N OF HOPE AVE DATE OF COUNT: 10/01/2010

New York State Department of Transportation
Classification Count Average Weekday Data Report
ROAD #: 0100 ROAD NAME: BAY ST YEAR: 2010 STATION:174936COUNTY NAME: Warren MONTH: October
REGION CODE: 1
FROM: SANFORD ST
TO: CITY LINE
REF-MARKER:
END MILEPOINT: 0110103 NO. OF LANES: 2
FUNC-CLASS: 16 HPMS NO:
STATION NO: 4936 LION#:
COUNT TAKEN BY: ORG CODE: TST INITIALS: BJF
PROCESSED BY: ORG CODE: DOT INITIALS: mab BATCH ID: DOT-R1ww40bDIRECTION
NUMBER OF VEHICLES
NUMBER OF AXLES
% HEAVY VEHICLES (F4-F13)
% TRUCKS AND BUSES (F3-F13)
AXLE CORRECTION FACTORNorth
5197
10447
2.91%
20.63%
0.99South
5844
11753
5.30%
23.13%
0.99TOTAL
11041
22200
4.18%
21.95%
0.99
VEHICLE CLASS F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 TOTAL
NO. OF AXLES 2 2 2 2.5 2 3 4 3.5 5 6 5 6 8.75
ENDING HOUR
DIRECTION
North
ENDING HOUR
DIRECTION
South1:00 0 20 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
23
2:00 0 7 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10
3:00 0 9 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
11
4:00 0 18 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
21
5:00 0 39 11 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
51
6:00 1 52 14 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
69
7:00 1 79 22 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
104
8:00 3 225 45 2 8 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
286
9:00 2 284 70 0 8 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
366
10:00 3 271 70 0 14 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
361
11:00 3 262 68 0 9 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0
345
12:00 7 280 69 1 8 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0
369
13:00 6 352 69 1 10 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
441
14:00 5 335 71 1 7 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
420
15:00 5 283 66 1 9 3 1 1 1 1 0 0 0
371
16:00 9 328 77 0 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
424
17:00 5 331 67 0 7 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
413
18:00 4 289 67 0 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
367
19:00 3 192 46 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
245
20:00 0 141 36 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
181
21:00 0 109 19 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
131
22:00 1 79 10 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
91
23:00 0 53 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
60
24:00 0 29 6 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
37
TOTAL VEHICLES
TOTAL AXLES58
1164067
8134921
18428
20109
21820
602
88
283
151
60
00
00
05197
10447
1:00 0 24 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
28
2:00 0 18 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
20
3:00 0 6 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
9
4:00 0 11 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
13
5:00 0 13 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
16
6:00 1 35 11 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
51
7:00 1 81 18 0 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
106
8:00 4 165 45 2 19 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
238
9:00 3 222 52 0 17 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
297
10:00 2 211 74 0 19 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
310
11:00 3 255 80 0 22 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
362
12:00 7 299 83 1 17 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
411
13:00 7 373 78 2 19 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
484
14:00 5 351 94 2 19 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
475
15:00 4 377 102 0 19 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
506
16:00 5 355 84 1 22 4 0 3 0 0 0 0 0
474
17:00 5 394 80 0 23 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0
506
18:00 5 358 73 0 12 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
451
19:00 4 271 51 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
340
20:00 1 189 41 0 10 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
242
21:00 2 156 24 0 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
188
22:00 1 132 18 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
155
23:00 1 93 13 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
110
24:00 0 42 8 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
52
TOTAL VEHICLES
TOTAL AXLES61
1224431
88621042
20848
20254
50830
900
015
523
150
00
00
00
05844
11753
GRAND TOTAL VEHICLES
GRAND TOTAL AXLES119
2388498
169961963
3926
16
40363
72650
1502
823
806
301
60
00
00
011041
22200
— North – -South
PEAK HOUR DATA
DIRECTION HOUR COUNT 2-WAY HOUR COUNT
North 13 441 A.M. 12 780
South 15 506 P.M. 13 925VEHICLE CLASSIFICATION CODES:
F1. Motorcycles
F2. Autos*
F3. 2 Axle, 4-Tire Pickups, Vans, Motorhomes*
F4. Buses
F5. 2 Axle, 6-Tire Single Unit Trucks
F6. 3 Axle Single Unit Trucks
F7. 4 or More Axle Single Unit Trucks
F8. 4 or Less Axle Vehicles, One Unit is a Truck
F9. 5 Axle Double Unit Vehicles, One Unit is a Truck
F10. 6 or More Double Unit Vehicles, One Unit is a Truck
F11. 5 or Less Axle Multi-Unit Trucks
F12. 6 Axle Multi-Unit Trucks
F13. 7 or More Axle Multi-Unit Trucks
* INCLUDING THOSE HAULING TRAILERS
FUNCTIONAL CLASS CODES:
RURAL URBAN SYSTEM
01
02
02
06
07
08
0911
12
14
16
17
17
19PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL-INTERSTATE
PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL-EXPRESSWAY
PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL-OTHER
MINOR ARTERIAL
MAJOR COLLECTOR
MINOR COLLECTOR
LOCAL SYSTEM
SOURCE: NYSDOT DATA SERVICES BUREAU

— North
– – South
New York State Department of Transportation Page 1 of 2
Speed Count Average Weekday Report Date: 12/09/2010
Station: 174936 Start date: Fri 10/01/2010 10:00 Count duration: 147 hours
Road #: 0100 Road name: BAY ST End date: Thu 10/07/2010 12:45 Functional class: 16
From: SANFORD ST County: Warren Factor group: 30
To: CITY LINE Town: GLENS FALLS Batch ID: DOT-R1ww40b
Direction: NorthCount taken by: Org: TST Init: BJF Speed limit: 30
LION#: Processed by: Org: DOT Init: mab
Counts have been summarized into NYSDOT EI standard bins
Speeds, mph
0.0- 20.1- 25.1- 30.1- 35.1- 40.1- 45.1- 50.1- 55.1- 60.1- 65.1- 70.1- 75.1- % Exc % Exc % Exc % Exc % Exc
Hour 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 55.0 60.0 65.0 70.0 75.0 95.0 45.0 50.0 55.0 60.0 65.0 Avg 50th% 85th% Total
1:00 1 2 4 10610000000 0.00.00.00.00.030.0 32.6 37.9 24
2:00 0016300000000 0.00.00.00.00.033.2 33.4 37.6 10
3:00 0115320000000 0.00.00.00.00.033.2 34.0 40.6 12
4:00 0 0 2 12510000000 0.00.00.00.00.033.4 33.4 38.0 20
5:00 0 2 8 25 16 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 32.5 33.2 37.9 52
6:00 3 3 10 33 18 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.5 32.9 37.7 69
7:00 5 6 16 48 24 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.2 32.7 38.0 105
8:00 12 14 72 126 52 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 29.6 31.8 36.8 285
9:00 17 26 91 171 55 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 29.1 31.5 35.7 367
10:00 15 18 92 172 58 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 29.5 31.7 36.0 362
11:00 19 28 99 149 45 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.4 31.0 35.0 346
12:00 22 21 100 170 50 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.5 31.3 35.1 369
13:00 31 17 145 202 46 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.0 30.8 34.6 443
14:00 34 25 142 171 46 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 27.4 30.4 34.7 424
15:00 24 19 100 172 48 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.4 31.3 35.0 370
16:00 23 28 113 194 58 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.7 31.3 35.3 425
17:00 22 13 91 206 77 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 29.5 32.0 36.3 413
18:00 23 23 69 181 65 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.9 32.0 36.4 369
19:00 9 14 66 113 38 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 29.5 31.5 35.9 245
20:00 8 14 37 87 32 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 29.3 31.9 36.3 181
21:00 4 10 32 54 27 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 29.9 31.9 37.2 131
22:00 5 5 18 40 19 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 29.5 32.2 37.5 91
23:00 1 5 11 26 17 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.9 32.6 37.7 61
24:00 0 3 7 18721000000 2.60.00.00.00.031.8 32.6 38.1 38
Avg. Daily Total 278 297 1327 2391 815 95 9 0 0 0 0 0 05212 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 29.0 31.5 35.9
Percent
Cum. Percent
Average hour5.3%
5.3%
125.7%
11.0%
1225.5%
36.5%
5545.9%
82.4%
10015.6%
98.0%
341.8%
99.8%
40.2%
100.0%
00.0%
100.0%
00.0%
100.0%
00.0%
100.0%
00.0%
100.0%
00.0%
100.0%
00.0%
100.0%
0217
Avg. Speed 50th% Speed 85th% Speed
North 29.0 31.5 35.9
South 28.8 31.6 36.8
Peak Hour Data
Direction Hour Count 2-way Hour Count
North 13 443 A.M. 12 780
South 17 506 P.M. 13 928

— North
– – South New York State Department of Transportation Page 2 of 2
Speed Count Average Weekday Report Date: 12/09/2010
Station: 174936 Start date: Fri 10/01/2010 10:00 Count duration: 147 hours
Road #: 0100 Road name: BAY ST End date: Thu 10/07/2010 12:45 Functional class: 16
From: SANFORD ST County: Warren Factor group: 30
To: CITY LINE Town: GLENS FALLS Batch ID: DOT-R1ww40b
Direction: SouthCount taken by: Org: TST Init: BJF Speed limit: 30
LION#: Processed by: Org: DOT Init: mab
Counts have been summarized into NYSDOT EI standard bins
Speeds, mph
0.0- 20.1- 25.1- 30.1- 35.1- 40.1- 45.1- 50.1- 55.1- 60.1- 65.1- 70.1- 75.1- % Exc % Exc % Exc % Exc % Exc
Hour 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 55.0 60.0 65.0 70.0 75.0 95.0 45.0 50.0 55.0 60.0 65.0 Avg 50th% 85th% Total
1:00 0 0 5 14710000000 0.00.00.00.00.032.8 33.1 37.9 27
2:00 1149500000000 0.00.00.00.00.029.6 32.3 37.0 20
3:00 0014210000000 0.00.00.00.00.033.9 33.8 39.6 8
4:00 0144410000000 0.00.00.00.00.031.6 32.6 38.7 14
5:00 1 0 4 10100000000 0.00.00.00.00.028.8 31.6 34.4 16
6:00 3 2 8 24 13 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 29.8 32.7 37.5 51
7:00 4 8 12 46 27 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.7 33.1 38.6 105
8:00 17 25 50 88 50 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.3 31.6 37.4 240
9:00 14 21 61 120 65 14 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 29.7 32.2 37.9 297
10:00 20 17 73 130 62 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.9 31.8 37.0 311
11:00 20 27 96 151 61 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.7 31.3 36.2 363
12:00 30 28 105 170 66 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.2 31.3 36.3 411
13:00 36 36 131 192 83 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.0 31.1 36.1 485
14:00 42 36 122 186 82 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 27.6 31.1 36.2 477
15:00 34 46 132 200 80 11 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.1 31.1 36.1 505
16:00 33 30 119 202 79 11 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.4 31.4 36.4 476
17:00 26 39 118 221 89 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 29.0 31.6 36.5 506
18:00 24 30 104 195 85 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 29.1 31.8 36.8 451
19:00 16 30 81 146 59 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 29.0 31.5 36.5 341
20:00 6 16 50 123 41 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.3 32.1 36.5 243
21:00 8 14 39 86 35 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 29.6 32.0 36.9 188
22:00 5 9 26 67 39 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.7 32.8 38.0 153
23:00 2 7 15 50 30 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 31.6 33.2 38.3 110
24:00 2 2 10 25 10 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.3 32.4 37.2 51
Avg. Daily Total 344 425 1370 2463 1075 158 13 1 0 0 0 0 05849 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.8 31.6 36.8
Percent
Cum. Percent
Average hour5.9%
5.9%
147.3%
13.1%
1823.4%
36.6%
5742.1%
78.7%
10318.4%
97.1%
452.7%
99.8%
70.2%
100.0%
10.0%
100.0%
00.0%
100.0%
00.0%
100.0%
00.0%
100.0%
00.0%
100.0%
00.0%
100.0%
0244
Avg. Speed 50th% Speed 85th% Speed
North 29.0 31.5 35.9
South 28.8 31.6 36.8
Peak Hour Data
Direction Hour Count 2-way Hour Count
North 13 443 A.M. 12 780
South 17 506 P.M. 13 928

STATION:
174954 New York State Department of Transportation
Traffic Count Hourly Report
Page 1 of 2
ROAD #:
0100ROAD NAME:
BAY ST FROM:
WASHINGTON ST TO:
SANFORD ST COUNTY:
Warren
DIRECTION: Northbound FACTOR GROUP: 30 REC. SERIAL #: 0051 FUNC. CLASS: 16 CITY:
GLENS FALLS
STATE DIR CODE: 1 WK OF YR: 47 PLACEMENT: 81FT SOUTH OF HUNTER NHS: no LION#:
DATE OF COUNT: 11/16/2010 @ REF MARKER: JURIS: City BIN:
NOTES LANE 1: WEEK 47 NB ADDL DATA: CC Stn: RR CROSSING:
COUNT TYPE: AXLE PAIRS BATCH ID: DOT-R1_SC_WW47 HPMS SAMPLE:
COUNT TAKEN BY: ORG CODE: TST INITIALS: BJF PROCESSED BY: ORG CODE: DOT INITIALS: JSR
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
1M
2T
3W
4T
5F
6S
7S
8M
9T
10 W
11 T
12 F
13 S
14 S
15 M
16 T
17 W
18 T
19 F
20 S
21 S
22 M
23 T
24 W
25 T
26 F
27 S
28 S
29 M
30 T377 303 479 387 371 437 402 390 226 154 147 114 69 49
17 16 11 18 52 60 77 240 402 299 351 354 440 433 394 468 522 391 246 202 135 96 62 375323 522 16
29 11 12 22 42 59 86 255 364 339 329 377 473 391 406 457 470 399 258 196 146 100 88 525361 473 12
21 19 21 29 61 46 74 245 352 357 347 385 427 399 420 449 416 362 222 198 168 129 92 745313 449 15
57 32 22 21 15 26 40 85 121 218 307 339 299 266 266 204 244 239 153 158 116 95 84 543461 339 11
40 31 26 22 10 25 26 58 92 117 176 219 225 163 219 243 215 177 136 116 114 60 48 342592 243 15
19 12 13 20 38 48 80 252 397
AVERAGE WEEKDAY HOURS (Axle Factored, Mon 6AM to Fri Noon) ADT
22 15 15 22 51 54 77 243 371 325 343 347 454 395 381 444 455 384 238 180 140 101 71 45 5173
DAYS
Counted
7HOURS
Counted
143WEEKDAYS
Counted
4WEEKDAY
Hours
77AVERAGE WEEKDAY
High Hour
455% of day
9%Axle Adj.
Factor
0.978Seasonal/Weekday
Adjustment Factor
1.030ESTIMATED (one way)
AADT
5022
ROAD #:
0100ROAD NAME:
BAY ST FROM:
WASHINGTON ST TO:
SANFORD ST COUNTY:
Warren
STATION:
174954STATE DIR CODE:
1PLACEMENT:
81FT SOUTH OF HUNTER DATE OF COUNT: 11/16/2010

STATION:
174954 New York State Department of Transportation
Traffic Count Hourly Report
Page 2 of 2
ROAD #:
0100ROAD NAME:
BAY ST FROM:
WASHINGTON ST TO:
SANFORD ST COUNTY:
Warren
DIRECTION: Southbound FACTOR GROUP: 30 REC. SERIAL #: 0098 FUNC. CLASS: 16 CITY:
GLENS FALLS
STATE DIR CODE: 2 WK OF YR: 47 PLACEMENT: 81FT SOUTH OF HUNTER NHS: no LION#:
DATE OF COUNT: 11/16/2010 @ REF MARKER: JURIS: City BIN:
NOTES LANE 1: WEEK 47 SB ADDL DATA: CC Stn: RR CROSSING:
COUNT TYPE: AXLE PAIRS BATCH ID: DOT-R1_SC_WW47 HPMS SAMPLE:
COUNT TAKEN BY: ORG CODE: TST INITIALS: BJF PROCESSED BY: ORG CODE: DOT INITIALS: JSR
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
1M
2T
3W
4T
5F
6S
7S
8M
9T
10 W
11 T
12 F
13 S
14 S
15 M
16 T
17 W
18 T
19 F
20 S
21 S
22 M
23 T
24 W
25 T
26 F
27 S
28 S
29 M
30 T296 436 407 434 463 474 427 391 258 185 149 138 85 49
24 16 8 21 15 61 118 246 322 329 325 382 489 446 495 495 501 437 277 206 193 173 95 335707 501 16
19 13 13 19 16 65 108 243 340 306 305 409 427 531 475 505 490 451 294 209 187 155 93 465719 531 13
35 17 22 13 18 67 108 233 348 392 387 451 448 464 441 472 451 394 277 188 191 172 101 755765 472 15
56 29 18 14 16 27 57 89 134 258 288 328 311 274 288 317 254 248 200 178 164 117 112 603837 328 11
46 22 26 19 15 21 32 78 104 154 200 215 292 211 251 238 210 197 182 161 110 69 58 272938 292 12
20 11 11 15 14 68 124 243 348
AVERAGE WEEKDAY HOURS (Axle Factored, Mon 6AM to Fri Noon) ADT
25 15 14 18 16 63 111 236 333 334 321 411 431 460 467 480 463 417 270 196 172 152 89 42 5536
DAYS
Counted
7HOURS
Counted
143WEEKDAYS
Counted
4WEEKDAY
Hours
77AVERAGE WEEKDAY
High Hour
480% of day
9%Axle Adj.
Factor
0.978Seasonal/Weekday
Adjustment Factor
1.030ESTIMATED (one way)
AADT
5375
ROAD #:
0100ROAD NAME:
BAY ST FROM:
WASHINGTON ST TO:
SANFORD ST COUNTY:
Warren
STATION:
174954STATE DIR CODE:
2PLACEMENT:
81FT SOUTH OF HUNTER DATE OF COUNT: 11/16/2010

STATION:
174951 New York State Department of Transportation
Traffic Count Hourly Report
Page 1 of 2
ROAD #:
1930ROAD NAME:
SANFORD ST FROM:
BAY ST TO:
RIDGE ST COUNTY:
Warren
DIRECTION: Eastbound FACTOR GROUP: 30 REC. SERIAL #: 0060 FUNC. CLASS: 16 CITY:
GLENS FALLS
STATE DIR CODE: 1 WK OF YR: 39 PLACEMENT: 150FT WEST OF RIDGE ST NHS: no LION#:
DATE OF COUNT: 09/22/2010 @ REF MARKER: JURIS: City BIN:
NOTES LANE 1: WEEK 39 EB ADDL DATA: CC Stn: RR CROSSING:
COUNT TYPE: AXLE PAIRS BATCH ID: DOT-DOTWW39b HPMS SAMPLE:
COUNT TAKEN BY: ORG CODE: TST INITIALS: BJF PROCESSED BY: ORG CODE: DOT INITIALS: JSR
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
1W
2T
3F
4S
5S
6M
7T
8W
9T
10 F
11 S
12 S
13 M
14 T
15 W
16 T
17 F
18 S
19 S
20 M
21 T
22 W
23 T
24 F
25 S
26 S
27 M
28 T
29 W
30 T96 110 115 139 102 95 128 159 126 99 58 60 35 19
152195204813715288113117124150156177161179232148746527192219 232 18
935362256140166124121120157153164172211186144108918363272334 211 16
13 6 5 6 27 48 38 46 68 101 139 147 134 141 134 156 173 121 121 86 60 72 47 291918 173 16
18 10 9 9 13 45 32 33 45 87 93 101 132 99 109 110 108 107 111 67 63 21 23 131458 132 12
83365235614813499899812313016217311716511170735124121883 173 15
7542421471461439775
AVERAGE WEEKDAY HOURS (Axle Factored, Mon 6AM to Fri Noon) ADT
103355215114014610097109118137137145132164153104675828171950
DAYS
Counted
7HOURS
Counted
145WEEKDAYS
Counted
4WEEKDAY
Hours
79AVERAGE WEEKDAY
High Hour
164% of day
8%Axle Adj.
Factor
0.978Seasonal/Weekday
Adjustment Factor
1.074ESTIMATED (one way)
AADT
1816
ROAD #:
1930ROAD NAME:
SANFORD ST FROM:
BAY ST TO:
RIDGE ST COUNTY:
Warren
STATION:
174951STATE DIR CODE:
1PLACEMENT:
150FT WEST OF RIDGE ST DATE OF COUNT: 09/22/2010

STATION:
174951 New York State Department of Transportation
Traffic Count Hourly Report
Page 2 of 2
ROAD #:
1930ROAD NAME:
SANFORD ST FROM:
BAY ST TO:
RIDGE ST COUNTY:
Warren
DIRECTION: Westbound FACTOR GROUP: 30 REC. SERIAL #: 0060 FUNC. CLASS: 16 CITY:
GLENS FALLS
STATE DIR CODE: 2 WK OF YR: 39 PLACEMENT: 150FT WEST OF RIDGE ST NHS: no LION#:
DATE OF COUNT: 09/22/2010 @ REF MARKER: JURIS: City BIN:
NOTES LANE 1: WEEK 39 WB ADDL DATA: CC Stn: RR CROSSING:
COUNT TYPE: AXLE PAIRS BATCH ID: DOT-DOTWW39b HPMS SAMPLE:
COUNT TAKEN BY: ORG CODE: TST INITIALS: BJF PROCESSED BY: ORG CODE: DOT INITIALS: JSR
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
1W
2T
3F
4S
5S
6M
7T
8W
9T
10 F
11 S
12 S
13 M
14 T
15 W
16 T
17 F
18 S
19 S
20 M
21 T
22 W
23 T
24 F
25 S
26 S
27 M
28 T
29 W
30 T121 121 115 149 147 184 182 191 120 92 75 55 31 21
886431029105126102127116141119172210251240125125935422212217 251 16
98344830120148117148140149133177205210169186154889285462433 210 16
261486551650109130140133168168116148148129132137828162352048 168 12
168787915287090901281151181171291289412488604121191530 129 15
6526211301001208211112311511714917216617411885592829191829 174 17
108552103210614110592
AVERAGE WEEKDAY HOURS (Axle Factored, Mon 6AM to Fri Noon) ADT
9854392910613110011712212112515318519619811899744526202003
DAYS
Counted
7HOURS
Counted
145WEEKDAYS
Counted
4WEEKDAY
Hours
79AVERAGE WEEKDAY
High Hour
198% of day
10%Axle Adj.
Factor
0.978Seasonal/Weekday
Adjustment Factor
1.074ESTIMATED (one way)
AADT
1865
ROAD #:
1930ROAD NAME:
SANFORD ST FROM:
BAY ST TO:
RIDGE ST COUNTY:
Warren
STATION:
174951STATE DIR CODE:
2PLACEMENT:
150FT WEST OF RIDGE ST DATE OF COUNT: 09/22/2010

File Name : GREEN
Site Code : 12111111
Start Date : 7/30/2013
Page No : 1AGFTC
SAFETY STUDY
PM
4 TO 6
Groups Printed- PASSENGER CARS – SU TRUCKS & BUSES – MU TRUCKS
From North From East From South 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 9 76 5 1 91 4 36 5 1 46 4 80 12 1 97 12 14 7 0 33 267
04:15 PM 10 100 7 1 118 10 32 5 0 47 3 73 8 2 86 7 20 6 0 33 284
04:30 PM 10 91 6 3 110 9 39 7 0 55 5 90 14 3 112 7 30 7 0 44 321
04:45 PM 9 71 11 0 91 3 30 4 0 37 6 90 11 2 109 5 26 10 0 41 278
Total 38 338 29 5 410 26 137 21 1 185 18 333 45 8 404 31 90 30 0 151 1150
05:00 PM 11 95 5 3 114 7 27 2 2 38 10 85 13 5 113 9 31 8 2 50 315
05:15 PM 9 96 5 1 111 9 35 6 1 51 7 80 7 7 101 11 16 4 0 31 294
05:30 PM 7 82 4 4 97 7 18 6 0 31 5 53 10 3 71 7 28 7 2 44 243
05:45 PM 9 80 7 0 96 5 30 3 1 39 10 51 4 2 67 5 19 1 1 26 228
Total 36 353 21 8 418 28 110 17 4 159 32 269 34 17 352 32 94 20 5 151 1080
Grand Total 74 691 50 13 828 54 247 38 5 344 50 602 79 25 756 63 184 50 5 302 2230
Apprch % 8.9 83.5 6 1.6 15.7 71.8 11 1.5 6.6 79.6 10.4 3.3 20.9 60.9 16.6 1.7
Total % 3.3 31 2.2 0.6 37.1 2.4 11.1 1.7 0.2 15.4 2.2 27 3.5 1.1 33.9 2.8 8.3 2.2 0.2 13.5
PASSENGER CARS 74 683 49 13 819 54 246 38 5 343 50 598 78 25 751 63 183 50 5 301 2214
% PASSENGER CARS 100 98.8 98 100 98.9 100 99.6 100 100 99.7 100 99.3 98.7 100 99.3 100 99.5 100 100 99.7 99.3
SU TRUCKS & BUSES 0 8 1 0 9 0 1 0 0 1 0 3 1 0 4 0 1 0 0 1 15
% SU TRUCKS & BUSES 0 1.2 2 0 1.1 0 0.4 0 0 0.3 0 0.5 1.3 0 0.5 0 0.5 0 0 0.3 0.7
MU TRUCKS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
% MU TRUCKS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0

File Name : GREEN
Site Code : 12111111
Start Date : 7/30/2013
Page No : 2AGFTC
SAFETY STUDY
PM
4 TO 6

Right 74
0
0
74
Thru 683
8
0
691
Left 49
1
0
50
Peds 13
0
0
13 InOut Total
702 819 1521
3 9 12
1 0 1
706
1534
828
Right54 0 0 54
Thru246 1 0 247
Left38 0 0 38
Peds
5 0 0 5
Out
Total
In
282
343
625
2
1
3
0
0
0
284
628
344
Left
78
1
0
79 Thru
598
3
1
602 Right
50
0
0
50 Peds
25
0
0
25
Out TotalIn784 751 1535
8 4 12
0 1 1
792 1548 756
Left50 0 0 50
Thru183 1 0 184
Right63 0 0 63
Peds
5 0 0 5
Total
Out
In
398
301
699
2
1
3
0
0
0
400
702
302 7/30/2013 04:00 PM
7/30/2013 05:45 PM

PASSENGER CARS
SU TRUCKS & BUSES
MU TRUCKS North

File Name : GREEN
Site Code : 12111111
Start Date : 7/30/2013
Page No : 3AGFTC
SAFETY STUDY
PM
4 TO 6
From North From East From South 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 04:30 PM
04:30 PM 10 91 6
3 110
9 39 7 0
55 5
90 14 3 112 7 30 7 0 44
321
04:45 PM 9 71
11 0 91 3 30 4 0 37 6 90 11 2 109 5 26
10 0 41 278
05:00 PM
11 95 5 3
114 7 27 2
2 38
10 85 13 5
113 9
31 8
2 50 315
05:15 PM 9
96 5 1 111 9 35 6 1 51 7 80 7
7 101
11 16 4 0 31 294
Total Volume 39 353 27 7 426 28 131 19 3 181 28 345 45 17 435 32 103 29 2 166 1208
% App. Total 9.2 82.9 6.3 1.6 15.5 72.4 10.5 1.7 6.4 79.3 10.3 3.9 19.3 62 17.5 1.2
PHF .886 .919 .614 .583 .934 .778 .840 .679 .375 .823 .700 .958 .804 .607 .962 .727 .831 .725 .250 .830 .941
PASSENGER CARS 39 350 27 7 423 28 131 19 3 181 28 344 45 17 434 32 102 29 2 165 1203
% PASSENGER CARS 100 99.2 100 100 99.3 100 100 100 100 100 100 99.7 100 100 99.8 100 99.0 100 100 99.4 99.6
SU TRUCKS & BUSES 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 5
% SU TRUCKS & BUSES 0 0.8 0 0 0.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.3 0 0 0.2 0 1.0 0 0 0.6 0.4
MU TRUCKS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
% MU TRUCKS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

File Name : GREEN
Site Code : 12111111
Start Date : 7/30/2013
Page No : 4AGFTC
SAFETY STUDY
PM
4 TO 6

Right 39
0
0
39
Thru 350
3
0
353
Left 27
0
0
27
Peds 7
0
0
7 InOut Total
401 423 824
1 3 4
0 0 0
402
828
426
Right28 0 0 28
Thru131 0 0 131
Left19 0 0 19
Peds
3 0 0 3
Out
Total
In
157
181
338
1
0
1
0
0
0
158
339
181
Left
45
0
0
45 Thru
344
1
0
345 Right
28
0
0
28 Peds
17
0
0
17
Out TotalIn401 434 835
3 1 4
0 0 0
404 839 435
Left29 0 0 29
Thru102 1 0 103
Right32 0 0 32
Peds
2 0 0 2
Total
Out
In
215
165
380
0
1
1
0
0
0
215
381
166 Peak Hour Begins at 04:30 PM

PASSENGER CARS
SU TRUCKS & BUSES
MU TRUCKSPeak Hour Data
North

File Name : BLUE
Site Code : 11111222
Start Date : 7/30/2013
Page No : 1AGFTC
SAFTEY STUDY
PM
4 TO 6
Groups Printed- PASSENGER CARS – SU TRUCKS & BUSES – MU TRUCKS
From North From East From South 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 5 0 5 13 0 2 0 15 4 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 24
04:15 PM 0 0 5 0 5 9 0 3 0 12 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 20
04:30 PM 0 0 6 1 7 5 0 0 0 5 4 0 1 4 9 0 0 0 2 2 23
04:45 PM 0 0 6 4 10 5 0 1 0 6 2 0 0 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 20
Total 0 0 22 5 27 32 0 6 0 38 13 0 1 6 20 0 0 0 2 2 87
05:00 PM 0 0 8 3 11 9 0 0 0 9 3 0 0 3 6 0 0 0 0 0 26
05:15 PM 0 0 7 1 8 7 0 1 0 8 2 0 0 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 20
Grand Total 0 0 37 9 46 48 0 7 0 55 18 0 1 11 30 0 0 0 2 2 133
Apprch % 0 0 80.4 19.6 87.3 0 12.7 0 60 0 3.3 36.7 0 0 0 100
Total % 0 0 27.8 6.8 34.6 36.1 0 5.3 0 41.4 13.5 0 0.8 8.3 22.6 0 0 0 1.5 1.5
PASSENGER CARS 0 0 36 9 45 48 0 7 0 55 18 0 1 11 30 0 0 0 2 2 132
% PASSENGER CARS 0 0 97.3 100 97.8 100 0 100 0 100 100 0 100 100 100 0 0 0 100 100 99.2
SU TRUCKS & BUSES 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
% SU TRUCKS & BUSES 0 0 2.7 0 2.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.8
MU TRUCKS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
% MU TRUCKS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

File Name : BLUE
Site Code : 11111222
Start Date : 7/30/2013
Page No : 2AGFTC
SAFTEY STUDY
PM
4 TO 6

Right 0
0
0
0
Thru 0
0
0
0
Left 36
1
0
37
Peds 9
0
0
9 InOut Total
48 45 93
0 1 1
0 0 0
48
94
46
Right48 0 0 48
Thru
0 0 0 0
Left
7 0 0 7 Peds
0 0 0 0
Out
Total
In
54
55
109
1
0
1
0
0
0
55
110
55
Left
1
0
0
1 Thru
0
0
0
0 Right
18
0
0
18 Peds
11
0
0
11
Out TotalIn7 30 37
0 0 0
0 0 0
7 37 30
Left
0 0 0 0
Thru
0 0 0 0
Right
0 0 0 0
Peds
2 0 0 2
Total
Out
In
1
2
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
2 7/30/2013 04:00 PM
7/30/2013 05:15 PM

PASSENGER CARS
SU TRUCKS & BUSES
MU TRUCKS North

File Name : BLUE
Site Code : 11111222
Start Date : 7/30/2013
Page No : 3AGFTC
SAFTEY STUDY
PM
4 TO 6
From North From East From South 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 05:15 PM – Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:15 PM
04:15 PM 0 0 5 0 5
9 0
3 0
12 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 20
04:30 PM 0 0 6 1 7 5 0 0 0 5
4 0
1 4 9 0 0 0
2 2 23
04:45 PM 0 0 6
4 10 5 0 1 0 6 2 0 0 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 20
05:00 PM 0 0
8 3
11 9 0 0 0 9 3 0 0 3 6 0 0 0 0 0
26
Total Volume 0 0 25 8 33 28 0 4 0 32 12 0 1 9 22 0 0 0 2 2 89
% App. Total 0 0 75.8 24.2 87.5 0 12.5 0 54.5 0 4.5 40.9 0 0 0 100
PHF .000 .000 .781 .500 .750 .778 .000 .333 .000 .667 .750 .000 .250 .563 .611 .000 .000 .000 .250 .250 .856
PASSENGER CARS 0 0 24 8 32 28 0 4 0 32 12 0 1 9 22 0 0 0 2 2 88
% PASSENGER CARS 0 0 96.0 100 97.0 100 0 100 0 100 100 0 100 100 100 0 0 0 100 100 98.9
SU TRUCKS & BUSES 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
% SU TRUCKS & BUSES 0 0 4.0 0 3.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.1
MU TRUCKS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
% MU TRUCKS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

File Name : BLUE
Site Code : 11111222
Start Date : 7/30/2013
Page No : 4AGFTC
SAFTEY STUDY
PM
4 TO 6

Right 0
0
0
0
Thru 0
0
0
0
Left 24
1
0
25
Peds 8
0
0
8 InOut Total
28 32 60
0 1 1
0 0 0
28
61
33
Right28 0 0 28
Thru
0 0 0 0
Left
4 0 0 4 Peds
0 0 0 0
Out
Total
In
36
32
68
1
0
1
0
0
0
37
69
32
Left
1
0
0
1 Thru
0
0
0
0 Right
12
0
0
12 Peds
9
0
0
9
Out TotalIn4 22 26
0 0 0
0 0 0
4 26 22
Left
0 0 0 0
Thru
0 0 0 0
Right
0 0 0 0
Peds
2 0 0 2
Total
Out
In
1
2
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
2 Peak Hour Begins at 04:15 PM

PASSENGER CARS
SU TRUCKS & BUSES
MU TRUCKSPeak Hour Data
North

Resource Systems Group, Inc.
60 Lake Street, Suite 1E

Burlington, VT 05401
TEL 802.295.4999 | FAX 802.295.1006
www.rsginc.com

Glens Falls School District
Traffic Circulation Study

Technical Report
August 9, 2012
Prepared for
Glens Falls School District and
Adirondack / Glens Falls
Transportation Council
Prepared
by
Resource Systems Group, Inc.

i

Table of Contents
1 . 0 I n t r o d u c t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 Study Area …………………………………. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 1
1.1.1 School Characteristics ………………………. ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 2
1.1.2 Adjacent Street Network ……………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………. 2
1.1.3 Travel Options to School …………………….. …………………………………………………………………………………….. 4
1.1.4 Pick-up and Drop-off Procedures ………………. ……………………………………………………………………………. 4
1.2 Purpose and Need ……………………………. …………………………………………………………………………………………………. 6
2 . 0 R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1 Short Term Recommendations …………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… 6
2.1.1 Expand Quade Street Drop-Off Area …………….. ………………………………………………………………………… 6
2.1.2 Shift Sherman Avenue Parking to North Side of Stree t ……………………………………………………….. 7
2.1.3 Encourage Counter Clockwise Circulation ……….. …………………………………………………………………… 8
2.1.4 Increase Temporary Barrier Ballast ……………. ………………………………………………………………………….. 8
2.1.5 Install All-Way Stop Controls at Shippey / Empire . ……………………………………………………………… 8
2.2 Long Term Streetscape Enhancements ……………. ……………………………………………………………………………. 9
2.2.1 Improve City Sidewalk Network ………………… ……………………………………………………………………………. 9
2.2.2 Automatic Quade Street Closure Features ……….. ……………………………………………………………………. 9
2.2.3 Quade Street – Sherman Avenue Loop ……………. ……………………………………………………………………. 10
2.3 Programmatic Strategies ……………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………. 10
2.3.1 Promote Coordination with Transit …………….. ……………………………………………………………………….. 11
2.3.2 Participate in Active Transportation Encouragement Programs …………………………………….. 11
3 . 0 T r a f f i c O b s e r v a t i o n s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1
3.1 Observed Traffic Volumes …………………….. ………………………………………………………………………………………… 12
3.2 Tube Count Data Collection …………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 15
3.3 Observed Vehicle Queues ……………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………… 15
3.4 Vehicle and Pedestrian Observation Summary …….. ……………………………………………………………………. 16
4 . 0 C r a s h A n a l y s i s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 6
4.1 Western Avenue / Sherman Avenue Intersection …… …………………………………………………………………. 17
4.2 Sherman Avenue / Quade Street Intersection …….. ……………………………………………………………………… 18
4.3 Quade Street / West Notre Dame Street Intersection ……………………………………………………………….. 18
4.4 Shippey Street / Empire Avenue / Harrison Avenue In tersection ………………………………………….. 18
4.5 Sherman Avenue Corridor ……………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………. 1 8
4.6 Quade Street Corridor ……………………….. …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 19
5 . 0 E f f e c t o f A l i g n e d S c h o o l D a y s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 9
5.1 Approximating the Existing Demand …………….. ……………………………………………………………………………… 19
5.2 Typical Glens Falls Street Traffic Characteristics ……………………………………………………………………….. 20
5.3 Isolating High School Related Traffic …………. …………………………………………………………………………………. 21
5.4 Effect of Aligned School Days ………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 23
5.5 Sherman Avenue & Quade Street Intersection Analysis ……………………………………………………………. 25
5.6 Effect on Observed Vehicle Queuing ……………. ……………………………………………………………………………….. 26
5.7 Summary of Effects of Aligned School Days ……… …………………………………………………………………………. 27

Adirondack / Glens Falls Transportation Council
Glens Falls School District Traffic Circulation Stu dy

ii August 9, 2012

6 . 0 C o n g e s t i o n M i t i g a t i o n S t r a t e g i e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 7
6.1 Develop Alternate On-Street Pick-Up and Drop-Off Lo cations ………………………………………………… 27
6.1.1 Encourage the Use of Clayton Avenue and Grant Avenu e Entrance Points …………………… 28
6.1.2 Restrict Parking along Quade Street South of West N otre Dame Street ………………………… 28
6.1.3 Move the parking aisle along Sherman Avenue ……. …………………………………………………………….. 28
6.1.4 Encourage counter-clockwise circulation ……….. …………………………………………………………………… 28
6.2 Restrict Access to School Parking Lots…………. ………………………………………………………………………………. 29
6.3 Enhanced Temporary Street Closure Barriers …….. …………………………………………………………………….. 29
6.4 Construct New Site Circulation Patterns ……….. …………………………………………………………………………….. 30
6.4.1 Alternative 1: Sherman Avenue High School Loop …. ………………………………………………………….. 30
6.4.2 Alternative 2: Quade Street to Sherman Avenue Drop- Off ……………………………………………….. 30
6.4.3 Alternative 3: Grant Avenue Access Road ……….. …………………………………………………………………… 30
6.4.4 Alternative 4: Quade Street Middle School Loop …. …………………………………………………………….. 30
6.5 Increase the Percentage of Students that Walk / Bik e / Bus to School ………………………………….. 30
7 . 0 I m p l e m e n t a t i o n M a t r i x . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1

List of Figures
Figure 1: School campus within Glens Falls. ……. …………………………………………………………………………………………… 1
Figure 2: Glens Falls School District High School a nd Middle School Campuses. ………………………………….. 2
Figure 3: Street operational characteristics and in tersection controls near the study area campus. .. 3
Figure 4: Bus staging areas and primary entrances t o the high school and middle school. ………………… 3
Figure 5: Maintained pedestrian paths accessing the school campus. …………………………………………………….. 4
Figure 6: Schematic illustrating on-street parking, assigned student parking, and pick-up and drop-
off designated areas. (Not to scale) ………….. …………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 5
Figure 7: Recommended drop off area expansion, look ing south along Quade Street near High
School entrance. ……………………………. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 7
Figure 8: Realigned parking on north side of Sherma n Avenue. ………………………………………………………………. 7
Figure 9: Short-term recommendations to enhance saf ety and reduce congestion at the Glens Falls
School District Campus. ……………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 8
Figure 10: A view of the recommended automatic gate s at Quade Street and West Notre Dame
Street. Similar treatments are recommended at Quade Street and Shippey Avenue. …………………………… 9
Figure 11: Potential high school drop-off loop. Req uired sidewalk reconstruction not illustrated. .. 10
Figure 12: Clean, colorful, and fun new bicycle rac ks may attract additional bicycle ridership.
Pictured: the Loop Rack from Muchi East. ………. ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 11
Figure 13: AM peak hour traffic volumes in the stud y area ……………………………………………………………………… 12
Figure 14: PM peak hour traffic volumes in the stud y area ……………………………………………………………………… 13
Figure 15: 15 minute volumes through three studied intersections along Quade Street in the AM
arrival period………………………………. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 14
Figure 16: 15 minute volumes through three studied intersections along Quade Street in the PM
arrival period………………………………. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 14

iii

Figure 17: Road volume data from street network adj acent to the school campus from January 18,
2012. ……………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 15
Figure 18: Reported vehicle collisions near the pro ject areas from 2008 to 2011. …………………………….. 17
Figure 19: Lincoln Avenue Traffic Calming Study wee kday traffic calming data, July 28 – August 3,
2011. ……………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 20
Figure 20: One-hour incremental data from other nea rby Glens Falls City streets. ……………………………. 21
Figure 21: Approximate volume of the traffic relate d to the school campus along Quade Street and
Sherman Avenue. …………………………….. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 22
Figure 22: Approximate expected shift in volumes al ong Quade Street and Sherman Avenue under
aligned school days. ………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 22
Figure 23: Approximate anticipated volumes along Qu ade Street and Sherman Avenue under
aligned school days. ………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 23
Figure 24: Approximate anticipated volumes along Qu ade Street and Sherman Avenue under
aligned school days, with specific traffic peaks an notated. ……………………………………………………………………… 25
List of Tables
Table 1: Level-of-Service Criteria for Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections ………………………………. 26
Attachments
Attachment A: Conceptual Cost Estimates for Recomme nded Improvements
Attachment B: Off Street Parking and Drop-Off Expan sion Alternatives and Evaluation Comparison

Technical Report

Resource Systems Group, Inc. 1
Insights and Solutions for a Better World

1 . 0 IN T R O D U C T I O N
Resource Systems Group, Inc. was contracted by the
Adirondack / Glens Falls Transportation
Council (A/GFTC) to evaluate and address site circu lation, vehicle access, and pedestrian safety
issues around the Glens Falls High School and Middl e School campus. Beginning in the 2012-2013
school year, the arrival departure times of the hig h school and middle school are to be aligned. The
objectives of this study include:

An evaluation of the current access patterns,

A projection of access issues under aligned arrival and dismissal times, and

Proposed short and long term congestion mitigation strategies with improvements to the
circulation patterns and bicycle and pedestrian saf ety considerations.
This report summarizes the methods of data collecti on, the analysis techniques, a review of the
alternatives investigated, and short-term and long- term recommendations. This study has been
organized into the following sections:
Section 1.0 – Introduction : Provides background information, explains the goa ls of this report,
states the formal purpose and need of the study and provides a general description of the campus
area, school characteristics, and adjacent street n etwork within the City of Glens Falls.
Section 2.0 – Recommendations: The short and long term recommendations are present ed early
in this report for those that are most interested i n the conclusions to be able to quickly and easily
reach this information.
Section 3.0 – Traffic Observations: Documents the data collection methodology and pres ents the
observed operational characteristics of the pick-up and drop-off periods.
Section 4.0 – Crash Analysis: Reviews the available crash records and documents a ny safety
hazards near the study area.
Section 5.0 – Effect of Aligned School Times: Discusses the methodology used to project the
resulting traffic under aligned school days and rev iews the resulting data.
Section 6.0 – Congestion Mitigation Strategies:
Presents the investigations into the various short- term
and long-term congestion mitigation strategies.
Section 7.0 – Implementation : Identifies the leader
and other partners that will participate in or supp ort
the implementation of the recommendations.
1 . 1 S t u dy A r e a
The study area for the circulation analysis surroun ds
the Glens Falls School District Campus in west-cent ral
Glens Falls, roughly bounded by Quade Street,
Sherman Avenue, Clayton Avenue, and Grant Avenue,
specifically focusing on the primary school entranc e
locations for the Middle and High Schools along Qua de
Street. Additionally, the intersections of Shippey Street
and West Notre Dame Street with Empire Avenue
were included in the evaluation.
Figure 1: School campus within Glens Falls.

Adirondack / Glens Falls Transportation Council
Glens Falls School District Traffic Circulation Stu dy

2 August 9, 2012

1 . 1 . 1 S c h o o l C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s
The Glens Falls School District campus serves as th e only public high school and middle school
facility in the City of Glens Falls. The High Schoo l and Middle School serves grades 9 – 12 and 5 – 8,
respectively. The High School serves approximately 770 students and Middle School student
population numbers at around 575 pupils. This
difference in student population is a combination
of unusually high and low class sizes in the High
School and Middle School respectively and not
indicative of a declining population. In recent
years, the population of the city has declined but
is currently stable. Future classes, currently in
grades 1 – 4, total approximately 650 students.
The school campus hosts a variety of facilities for
extracurricular activities. Along with the many
classrooms and academic facilities, the campus
contains a theater, several athletic fields and
practice grounds, including an indoor
gymnasium, a joint football and soccer field, an
outdoor track, a practice baseball diamond, and
batting cages. The nearby Morse Athletic
Complex, west of the campus along Sherman
Avenue, provides additional recreational
opportunities.
1 . 1 . 2 A d j a c e n t S t r e e t N e t w o r k
In the study area, Sherman, Western, and Grant Aven ues operate similarly to minor arterial streets.
As arterials, these roads provide through traffic w ith a route across the project area. In general,
these streets, operating as arterials, focus more o n through traffic mobility then the remaining
streets in the study area.
The remaining streets in the project area, includin g Quade Street, Shippey Street, and Clayton,
Harrison, and Empire Avenues operate most similarly to the collector street classification.
Typically, the corresponding streetscape to this cl assification emphasizes accessibility to
neighboring properties and land uses.
The surrounding street network consists of stop con trolled intersections; there are no stop lights in
the immediate vicinity of the school campus. In gen eral, the arterial streets are free movements,
meaning these streets do not have to stop, at inter sections with the neighborhood streets. When
these arterials intersect, all approaches are gener ally required to stop; the same is generally true
for the intersection of neighborhood streets. The i ntersection controls and road classifications are
presented in Figure 3.
As an urban school district in a neighborhood setti ng, the streetscape generally includes two lanes
of traffic, parking on one or both sides of the roa d, and sidewalks on both sides of the road. There
are no bike lanes or paths near the school. Sidewal ks are notably absent on the south side of
Shippey Street, the south side of Grant Avenue bord ering the school, the east side of Quade Street
north of Shippey Street, and both sides of Clayton Avenue. Additionally, the sidewalk network
bounded by Garfield Street, Shippey Street, and Har rison Avenue has several missing walkway
segments.
Figure 2: Glens Falls School District High
School and Middle School Campuses.

Technical Report

Resource Systems Group, Inc. 3
Insights and Solutions for a Better World

The Glens Falls School District does not provide bu
ssing to a majority of its students. As a walking
school district, bus service is only provided for s tudents with disabilities or for field trips, athletic
events, and other extracurricular activities. The b us staging areas for the high school and middle
school are located within the faculty-only parking lots, as shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4: Bus staging areas and primary entrances t o the high school and middle school.
Figure 3: Street operational characteristics and intersection controls near
the study area campus.

Adirondack / Glens Falls Transportation Council
Glens Falls School District Traffic Circulation Stu dy

4 August 9, 2012

1 . 1 . 3 T r a v e l O p t i o n s t o S c h o o l
The available modes of travel to and from
the school include walking, bicycling,
students driving alone or with other
students, public transit through the Greater
Glens Falls Transit system, or students being
driven to or from the campus by a parent,
relative, or other adult.
On-street parking is available on all streets
adjacent to the school campus, including the
south side of Sherman Avenue and both
sides of all other streets. East of Quade
Street, parking is allowed only on the north
side of Sherman Avenue. There are pick-up
and drop-off only parking restrictions along
the west side of Quade Street north of Notre
Dame Street. The on-campus parking lots
are for faculty members only. Assigned
parking is available to High School Seniors
south east of the campus at the Calvary
Assembly of God Church parking lot. A
schematic of the parking inventory is
illustrated in Figure 6.
There are two pedestrian paths accessing the main s chool buildings from the north and west sides
of the campus. One path leads from mid-block along Clayton Avenue, through the football fields
north of the bleachers and to the main buildings. T he second path leads from Grant Avenue across
from Austin Street along a new sidewalk, adjacent t o the practice baseball field and batting cage,
and into the Middle School parking lot. These paths are shown in Figure 5.
Bicycle racks were located at the two primary entra nce points. Due to the cold and windy weather
few bikes were expected during observations. Only o ne bicycle, which appeared to have been
damaged and abandoned, was noted in the racks durin g the day of observations in January. Later
campus observations during the spring noticed a hig her utilization rate of bicycles in the racks
during the school day.
Based upon previous school travel surveys conducted at surrounding elementary schools
1, around
55-60% of the students were picked up or dropped of f at the school by their parents.
Approximately 30-35% walked to and from school, wit h the remaining 10% split by carpooling and
biking. As these results represent the travel chara cteristics of two elementary schools, the drive-
alone option was not available and the older studen ts found at the Middle and High Schools are
likely to exhibit greater independence. However, wi th only a small percentage of students eligible to
drive themselves, and the potential for inclement w eather, a similar mode share could be expected.
1 . 1 . 4 P i c k – u p a n d D r o p – o f f P r o c e d u r e s
Currently, the high school day begins at 7:45 and ends at 2:20. The middle school day begins at 8:30
running to 3:00. Arrivals to the school campus were noted to begin prior to 7:30 AM.

1 Abe Wing and Big Cross Elementary School Access Pl ans, 2010
Figure 5: Maintained pedestrian paths
accessing the school campus.

Technical Report

Resource Systems Group, Inc. 5
Insights and Solutions for a Better World

With primary entrances to both the high school and
middle school on Quade Street, many students
are dropped off along either side of Quade Street. As a measure to combat congestion, reduce
through vehicles, and separate high school and midd le school traffic, temporary barriers are set up
along Quade Street north of West Notre Dame Street and south of Shippey Street during the arrival
and departure periods. While this has been effectiv e at managing through traffic, considerable
congestion still exists at the peak arrival and dis missal times. When the closest parking spaces to
the school entrances were occupied, double parked v ehicles were observed allowing passengers to
enter and exit the vehicle. In the dismissal peak p eriod, double parked vehicles were waiting for the
students to exit the school, while other vehicles w ere noted parked in unmarked spaces to wait for
the students to exit the building.

Figure 6: Schematic illustrating on-street parking, assigned student parking, and pick-up and
drop-off designated areas. (Not to scale)

Adirondack / Glens Falls Transportation Council
Glens Falls School District Traffic Circulation Stu dy

6 August 9, 2012

In addition to vehicle congestion, many students we re dropped off or picked up from the east side
of Quade Street. This location requires that studen ts cross Quade Street, and many were noted to
forego the marked crosswalk locations in favor of c rossing directly in front of the school in the
straightest line possible. This increased the poten tial for students to enter traffic unexpectedly from
between parked vehicles, contributing to additional vehicle-pedestrian conflicts and potentially
unsafe conditions.
1 . 2 P u r p o s e a n d N e e d
This study was initiated to analyze and address the changing school campus population, operating
characteristics, and arrival and departure patterns . Recently, the middle school has taken on all fifth
grade students in the district, increasing the numb er of students attending the campus. As noted
earlier, the arrival and departure times of the hig h school will be aligned with the middle school
beginning with the 2012-2013 school year, potential ly increasing the peak travel period. Lastly, the
overall pick-up and drop-off operational patterns h ave been evaluated with the recent
implementation of temporary traffic barriers.
As described earlier, the purpose of this study inc ludes:

An evaluation of the current access patterns,

Projection of access issues under aligned arrival a nd dismissal times, and

Proposed short and long term improvements to the ci rculation patterns.
The following section outlines the recommended shor t-term and long-term strategies that address
the identified queuing, congestion, and safety issu es identified during the course of the study. These
issues are documented in Sections 3, 4, and 5.
2 . 0 RE C O M M E N D AT I O N S
The proposed recommendations for the project fall u nder two main categories: modifications to the
streetscape environment to improve vehicle flow, re duce congestion, and enhance bicycle and
pedestrian safety, or programmatic strategies to ch ange behavior, encourage a greater percentage
of walking and biking rates, and reduce the number of vehicle trips to the school.
Additional explanation of the impacts and considera tions of these and other improvements is
presented in Section 6.0. More detailed cost estima tes of several of the more complex
recommendations are included in Attachment A.
2 . 1 S h o r t Te r m Re c o m m e n d a t i o n s
The following four recommendations are immediately implementable at a minimal cost. The
primary goal of these recommendations is to provide additional vehicle queuing capacity, improve
safety of the students walking to school and to and from the pick-up and drop-off vehicles, and to
address the anticipated congestion associated with the aligned school days.
2 . 1 . 1 E x p a n d Q u a d e S t r e e t D r o p – O f f A r e a
Approximate Cost: $1000
To provide more waiting areas near the school, it i s recommended that the long-term parking
spaces on the west side of Quade Street between She rman Avenue and West Notre Dame Street are
converted to pick-up and drop-off spaces only. This designation will be consistent with the existing

Technical Report

Resource Systems Group, Inc. 7
Insights and Solutions for a Better World

parking restrictions on the west side of Quade
Street from West Notre Dame Street to Grant
Avenue. The vehicles that currently utilize the
west-side Quade Street parking will be dispersed
to other on-street parking locations. Students may
be encouraged to utilize the assigned parking lot a
t
the Assembly of God Church.
2 . 1 . 2 S h i f t S h e r m a n A v e n u e
P a r k i n g t o N o r t h S i d e o f
S t r e e t
Approximate Cost: $2,250
Similar to the counter-clockwise circulation
strategy, parking and waiting areas on the north
side of Sherman Avenue adjacent to the school will reduce the number of pedestrian crossings from
the south side of the street. Additionally, there a re fewer drives on the north side of Sherman
Avenue, allowing for a greater number of spaces tha n the south side. The drop-off area should allow
for parking during off-peak evening hours, weekends , and for special events. Parking restrictions
should only be placed in this alternate drop-off ar ea during school hours.
Along the entire remaining corridor, parking is cur rently allowed on the south side of Sherman
Avenue. On the studied segment of Sherman Avenue, v ehicles will be forced to weave into and out
of the realigned traveled way. Due to the stop-cont rolled intersection entering this segment,
traveling speeds are anticipated to be low and the transition should be acceptable.
It is recommended that the drop off area maintains a 20-foot no parking restriction adjacent to all
driveways, roadways, and crosswalks. The realigned park on the north side of Sherman Avenue is
illustrated in Figure 8.

Figure 8: Realigned parking on north side of Sherman Avenue.
Extend drop-off
area south to
Sherman Avenue
Quade Street School
Campus
Figure 7: Recommended drop off area
expansion, looking south along Quade Street
near High School entrance.

Adirondack / Glens Falls Transportation Council
Glens Falls School District Traffic Circulation Stu dy

8 August 9, 2012

2 . 1 . 3 E n c o u r a g e C o u n t e r C l o c k w i s e C i r c u l a t i o n
Approximate Cost: N/A (Include in existing newslett er mailings)
In the district’s communication to parents, it is recommended that the district encourage
counterclockwise circulation for both the high scho ol and middle school drop off areas. This
circulation pattern provides students access to and from vehicles directly from the sidewalk
adjacent to the school, reducing the number of pede strian crossings. Furthermore, vehicles
approaching the campus from West Notre Dame Street and heading south on Quade Street will have
access to the newly expanded drop-off and pick-up a rea; vehicles traveling northbound would not
have safe and legal access to these spaces. Lastly, by encouraging this circulation pattern, the schoo l
district will be able to promote this additional pi ck-up and drop-off area expansion.
2 . 1 . 4 I n c r e a s e T e m p o r a r y B a r r i e r B a l l a s t
Approximate Cost: $100
During our observations, the temporary barriers wer e noted to blow over in strong gusts. If
possible, increasing the ballast in the bottom of t he barriers may improve their stability. The
increased weight of the barriers will decrease thei r ease of implementation, but it is important for
the temporary barriers to remain visible to be effe ctive.
2 . 1 . 5 I n s t a l l A l l – W a y S t o p C o n t r o l s a t S h i p p e y / E m p i r e
Approximate Cost: $800
Given the neighborhood setting, adjacent school cam pus, localized lack of sidewalk infrastructure,
and crash data, all-way stop control is recommended at the Shippey Street / Empire Avenue /
Harrison Avenue intersection. Warning flags are als o recommended on the new sign for the first six
months after installation.
The four short-term recommendations discussed above are illustrated in Figure 9.

Figure 9: Short-term recommendations to enhance saf ety and reduce congestion at the Glens
Falls School District Campus.

Technical Report

Resource Systems Group, Inc. 9
Insights and Solutions for a Better World

2 . 2 L o n g Te r m S t re e t s c a p e E n h a n c e m e n t s
The long term streetscape enhancements are larger p
rojects that attempt to address safety issues
and vehicle congestion. The projects typically repr esent a greater capital expenditure and will likely
require significant planning and engineering design , with potential grant funding opportunities.
2 . 2 . 1 I m p r o v e C i t y S i d e w a l k N e t w o r k
Approximate Cost: $100 – $200 per foot of sidewalk
Several critical segments of sidewalk are missing n ear the school campus. It is recommended that
these sidewalks are constructed to emphasize the Ci ty’s commitment to walking and to improve the
pedestrian environment for students en route to sch ool. The three most critical sidewalk segments
include:
1. South side of Shippey Street from Quade Street to L iberty Avenue ($60,000 – $120,000)
2. South side of Grant Avenue from Clayton Avenue to A ustin Avenue ($40,000 – $80,000)
3. Both sides of Harrison Avenue from Garfield Avenue to Shippey Street ($150,000 –
$300,000)
In addition, specific sidewalk treatments such bulb -outs, accessible sidewalk ramps, and detectable
warning surfaces should be installed where feasible .
2 . 2 . 2 A u t o m a t i c Q u a d e S t r e e t C l o s u r e F e a t u r e s
Approximate Cost: $95,000
The intersections of Quade Street at West Notre Dam e Street and at Shippey Street should be
redeveloped for a more automated and visible street closure. Proposed features may include:

Bulb-outs to reduce crossing distance and street cl osure width,

Automatic gates with flashing lights that close at predetermined times, and

Permanent warning signs indicating the street closu re times.

Figure 10: A view of the recommended automatic gate s at Quade Street and West Notre Dame
Street. Similar treatments are recommended at Quade Street and Shippey Avenue.

Adirondack / Glens Falls Transportation Council
Glens Falls School District Traffic Circulation Stu dy

10 August 9, 2012

2 . 2 . 3 Q u a d e S t r e e t – S h e r m a n A v e n u e L o o p
Approximate Cost: $550,000
A one way loop, beginning approximately 75 feet nor th of Sherman Avenue, continuing west with
pick-up and drop-off spaces, turning south and inte rsecting with Stevens Street is proposed as the
most feasible off-street parking and waiting area e xpansion. This alignment provides up to 12
vehicle waiting spaces, plus the greatest coordinat ion within the existing street network, reducing
additional vehicle conflicts as much as possible.
Several immediately identifiable issues include:

Sacrifice of the open green space in front of the school for vehicle waiting areas,

Potential for additional congestion within the new loop, specifically if vehicles double park
to wait, or if left turning vehicles cannot exit th e loop,

Loss of on-street parking / drop-off area queue spa ce if parking is shifted to the north side
of Sherman Avenue,

Two new pedestrian – vehicle conflict areas at loop entrance and exit, and

Significant reconstruction of existing campus walkw ays would be required.
This proposed driveway loop is illustrated in Figur e 8.

Figure 11: Potential high school drop-off loop. Req uired sidewalk reconstruction not
illustrated.
2 . 3 P ro g ra m m a t i c S t ra te g i e s
The following strategies are immediately implementa ble and are intended to change travel
behaviors over the long term, ultimately to increas e the number of students who walk, bike, and
ride the bus to school. These programs may reduce c ongestion while also promoting healthier
lifestyles.

Technical Report

Resource Systems Group, Inc. 11
Insights and Solutions for a Better World

2 . 3 . 1 P r o m o t e C o o r d i n a t i o n w i t h T r a n s i t
The School District should coordinate with the loca
l transit provider, Greater Glens Falls Transit
(GGFT) to increase bus ridership as much as feasibl e. Potential collaborative programs may include:

At the beginning of every school year, the district should include a bus route map and time
table for the East-West Commuter Route which access es the school site,

Provide and promote school subsidized passes for th e East-West Commuter Route,

Modify the afternoon East-West Commuter Route so th at the bus picks up on Sherman
Avenue directly adjacent to the school, rather than along the existing route along Grant
Avenue,

Construct a waiting shelter for the East-West Route stop at the High School, and

Provide intuitive internet access, including a rout e map, for information on the East-West
Commuter Route.
2 . 3 . 2 P a r t i c i p a t e i n A c t i v e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n E n c o u r a g e m e n t
P r o g r a m s
The purpose of these programs is to incentivize act ive forms of transportation, including walking,
bicycling. These programs may include:

Safe Routes to School events for the Middle School, including Walk to School Day and Bike
to School Day,

Offer students incentives to walk or
bike to school, potentially with prizes
for highest weekly, monthly, or annual
walking or biking trip totals,

Replace old bike racks with new,
functional, well maintained racks in
prominent locations close to the
school entrances. Consider adding
additional bicycle racks, and

Increase awareness amongst students
and parents on the health, lifestyle and
educational benefits of biking and
walking to school; emphasize the
generally lower safety risks on
walking or biking to school as
compared to driving.
The above recommendations discuss the proposed solu tions to address the identified congestion,
queuing, and safety issues observed through this st udy. The following sections describe the site
reconnaissance, background investigations, safety r esearch, analysis methodology, and alternative
assessments.
3 . 0 TR A F F I C OB S E RVAT I O N S
The traffic observations were conducted throughout the day on January 18, 2012. The weather was
cold, clear, and windy, with temperatures around 25 degrees Fahrenheit. To begin observations,
road tube traffic data collectors were placed on Sh erman Avenue, Quade Street, Grant Avenue, and
Clayton Avenue. The high school and middle school p eak arrival and dismissal periods were
Figure 12: Clean, colorful, and fun new bicycle
racks may attract additional bicycle ridership.
Pictured: the Loop Rack from Muchi East.

Adirondack / Glens Falls Transportation Council
Glens Falls School District Traffic Circulation Stu dy

12 August 9, 2012

observed from the two intersections nearest the pri mary entrances, with short duration turning
movement counts at adjacent intersections throughou t the day. The resulting traffic volumes,
pedestrian counts, vehicle queues, and general obse rvations were compiled into an overall traffic
model.
3 . 1 O b s e r ve d Tra f f i c Vo l u m e s
The one hour traffic volumes around the school camp us is for the AM and PM school arrival and
dismissal peaks are shown in Figure 13 and Figure 1 4, respectively. Note that Quade Street is closed
to through traffic between West Notre Dame Street a nd Shippey Street during these periods, but
open throughout the rest of the day.

Figure 13: AM peak hour traffic volumes in the stud y area

30 438 0
6 00 26 0
21 0
0
31 70 86 79
36 22 182
39 00
58 155167 141
19 0 26
57 177
39 237 97 19 12
7 49 49
11 8
23
185 118
0
97
3 84
125 351 18 9 13 24 22 50
15 19 20
135 214 165
74 19
101 12 23
244 398
252
95 12
143 256 149 18 44 28
School Campus
MS Parking Lot
HS Parking Lot
HS Entrance
MS Entrance
Grant Ave Ext
Sherman Ave
Cortland StS Western Ave
Western AveAustin StGoodmanSt
Sherman Ave
Grant
Ave
Shippey St
W Notre Dame St
Quade St
Clayton AveWestern Ave

Technical Report

Resource Systems Group, Inc. 13
Insights and Solutions for a Better World

Figure 14: PM peak hour traffic volumes in the stud
y area
The volumes illustrated in Figure 13 and Figure 14 represent the peak hour volumes through the
studied intersections. Operating most nearly as art erial streets, Sherman Avenue, Western Avenue
and Grant Avenue are expected to have a greater pro portion of through vehicles and trips unrelated
to the school traffic, and would be less likely to be affected by the sudden peak in traffic due to
school arrivals and departures. As local collector roads directly serving the school entries, Quade
Street, Shippey Street, and West Notre Dame Street are likely to be more affected by these sudden
traffic peaks.
The peaking behavior caused by the arrival and dism issal of students is best illustrated when
viewing the data in 15-minute periods. Along Quade Street, the southern intersections at West
Notre Dame Street and Sherman Avenue more directly serve the High School, and the northern
intersection at Shippey Street more directly serves the middle school. With High School classes
beginning at 7:45 and ending at 2:20, the Sherman A venue and Notre Dame Street intersections are
expected to experience peak traffic related to the school from 7:30 – 7:45, and 2:15 – 2:30.
Similarly, the peak traffic related to the Middle S chool would be expected in the period prior to the
19 284 0
5 00 12 0
23 0
0
34 67 77 71
40 15 82
19 00
29 7797 85
10 0 12
6 100
19 194 48 29 20
6 41 41
23
12 5
112 69
1
82
0 104
84 237 12 6 9 29 15 38
21 29 27
181 295 245
99 22
68 20 29
165 257
196
64 18
96 173 100 16 48 25
School Campus
MS Parking Lot
HS Parking Lot
HS Entrance
MS Entrance
Grant Ave Ext
Sherman Ave
Cortland StS Western Ave
Western AveAustin StGoodmanSt
Sherman Ave
Grant
Ave
Shippey St
W Notre Dame St
Quade St
Clayton AveWestern Ave

Adirondack / Glens Falls Transportation Council
Glens Falls School District Traffic Circulation Stu dy

14 August 9, 2012

beginning and after the commencement of classes, or approximately 8:15-8:30 and 3:00 – 3:15.
During the observations conducted January 18, the t raffic data collected at these intersections
followed that pattern.

Figure 15: 15 minute volumes through three studied intersections along Quade Street in the
AM arrival period.
As expected, the observed volume through these inte rsections along Quade Street show a clear,
short duration increase in the traffic from 7:30 – 7:45 for the Notre Dame Street and Sherman
Avenue intersections. The increase in traffic at th e Shippey Street intersection includes the two 15-
minute periods prior to the first class from 8:00 – 8:30.

Figure 16: 15 minute volumes through three studied intersections along Quade Street in the
PM arrival period.
Also as expected, the observed volume through the N otre Dame Street and Sherman Avenue
intersections along Quade Street show a clear, shor t duration increase in the traffic from 2:15 –
2:30, and the Shippey Street intersection peaks at 3:00 – 3:15.
It should be noted that in past mode share surveys, the walking and biking percentage often
increases and the pick-up percentage decreases in t he evening as many parents are still working,

Technical Report

Resource Systems Group, Inc. 15
Insights and Solutions for a Better World

and many students participate in extracurricular ac
tivities. This indicates that the afternoon peak
period is expected to be less pronounced than the m orning peak.
3 . 2 Tu b e C o u n t D a t a C o l l e c t i o n
Tube counters were placed on the streets adjacent to the school to collect traffic data over the
course of the day. The resulting data are shown in Figure 17.

Figure 17: Road volume data from street network adj acent to the school campus from January
18, 2012.
As expected, all neighboring streets display two di stinct peak periods in the morning and afternoon
hours. This AM and PM peaking behavior is common on many streets as residents commute to and
from work. However, the peak is particularly notice able along Quade Street and Grant Avenue,
likely due to traffic related to the schools.
Between 9:00 AM and 2:00 PM, the daytime average v ehicle count on Quade Street and Sherman
Avenue was approximated to be 16 and 103 vehicles p er 15 minutes. These averages are illustrated
by the dashed lines in Figure 17.
3 . 3 O b s e r ve d Ve h i c l e Q u e u e s
As demonstrated by the above figures, the vehicle t ravel patterns to and from the school are
characterized by sharp, short duration increases in traffic for drivers to pick up or drop off
students. In both the morning drop-off and afternoo n pick-up periods vehicle queues were
observed. When no street parking space was availab le, drivers were noted to momentarily double-
park and allow the student to enter or exit the veh icle. Depending on the amount of time used in
this process, a queue would often form behind the o bstructing vehicle. The maximum observed
queue was approximately five vehicles.
In addition to blocking traffic, the double parking created a rushed atmosphere in which students
hurried to or from the vehicles. In several instanc es, students were observed to cross the roadway
at unexpected locations, entering traffic from with in the vehicle queues.

Adirondack / Glens Falls Transportation Council
Glens Falls School District Traffic Circulation Stu dy

16 August 9, 2012

Fortunately, as Quade Street is a low volume neighb orhood street, almost all traffic observed near
the school during the arrival and dismissal periods was associated with the school. In this case,
most drivers were aware of the potential for pedest rians, were prepared for expected queues, and
generally operated appropriately.
3 . 4 Ve h i c l e a n d Pe d e s t r i a n O b s e r va t i o n S u m m a r y
The following summarizes the general traffic and tr avel characteristics observed on January 18,
2012:

The two primary modes to and from the school were w alking and being driven / dropped
off and picked up. Some students drove themselves a nd with others.

Considerable traffic related to the dropping-off an d picking-up of students can be expected
30 minutes prior to and following the beginning and ending of the school day, respectively.

Many students cross Quade Street in the most direct path between their destination and the
school entrance.

Queue lengths were reasonable, and it appeared that most drivers understood that a
significant number of students and pedestrians woul d be present.

The temporary barriers used to close off Quade Stre ets were blown over in strong gusts of
wind.
4 . 0 CR A S H AN A LY S I S
All traffic collisions reported to the Glens Falls Police Department were compiled within the study
area. From 2008 to 2011, there were 35 collisions r esulting in two injuries and zero fatalities. There
were no reported collisions involving pedestrians. There was one collision involving a bicyclist
resulting in injury. All reported collisions are il lustrated in Figure 18.
The collision involving the bicyclist occurred outs ide the school peak hours and is unlikely to be
related to school transportation. In addition, this collision occurred at Morton Street and Sherman
Avenue, generally outside the project area. It is i llustrated in the far southeast corner of Figure 18 .

Technical Report

Resource Systems Group, Inc. 17
Insights and Solutions for a Better World

Figure 18: Reported vehicle collisions near the pro
ject areas from 2008 to 2011.
From Figure 18, several areas appear to have a high number of collisions, including:

The Western Avenue / Sherman Avenue intersection,

The Sherman Avenue / Quade Street intersection,

The Quade Street / Notre Dame Street intersection,

The Shippey Street / Empire Avenue / Harrison Avenu e intersection

The Sherman Avenue corridor, and

The Quade Street corridor.
4 . 1 We s te r n Ave n u e / S h e r m a n Ave n u e I n t e r s e c t i o n
There were seven collisions at this intersection. S ince the intersection is all-way stop controlled, the
predominant crash type would be expected to be rear end collisions common at locations where
vehicles are often changing speed. However, six of the seven collisions were reported as right angle
crashes, indicating that the vehicle did not stop a nd yield at the intersection. Sight distance is not
limited at this location. Advance warning signs or enhanced visibility treatments at the stop sign,
such as a retroreflective post, may reduce the numb er of collisions at this intersection. Two of the
seven collisions took place during the school peak hour, and none of these crashes resulted in
injury.
Crash
Investigation Area

Adirondack / Glens Falls Transportation Council
Glens Falls School District Traffic Circulation Stu dy

18 August 9, 2012

4 . 2 S h e r m a n Ave n u e / Q u a d e S t r e e t I n te r s e c t i o n
Five collisions were reported at this intersection, one of which took place during the peak hour of
school traffic. No injuries resulted from the colli sions. Four of the five collisions were right angle
collisions from Cortland Avenue or Quade Street. Th is may indicate that the offset geometry of the
intersection may be adding to confusion.
Although not recommended in this study, the offset entrances to the intersection and the
availability of public right of way to the northwes t may indicate that this may be an acceptable
location for future construction of a roundabout. D ue to the operating characteristics of
roundabouts, right-angle collisions would likely be reduced significantly. If this collision scenario
continues, additional study may be required to dete rmine if a roundabout would improve the safety
and operation of this intersection.
4 . 3 Q u a d e S t re e t / We s t N o t r e D a m e S t r e e t I n t e r s e c t i o n
Four collisions were reported at this intersection, three of which occurred during the school peak
hour with one injury resulting. Two of the four col lisions appeared to be between a vehicle
performing a parallel parking maneuver and the adja cent parked vehicles. A third collision,
resulting in an injury, was reported to have been l eaving a parked position with a contributing
factor listed as driver inexperience. The fourth co llision took place outside of the normal school day .
The collisions were recorded before May of 2010. Th e current practice of closing Quade Street
between West Notre Dame Street and Shippey Street w ill likely have an impact on collision rates
into the future.
4 . 4 S h i p p ey S t re e t / E m p i re Ave n u e / H a r r i s o n Ave n u e
I n t e r s e c t i o n
Five collisions were recorded at this intersection, two of which occurred during the school peak
hour, none of which resulted in injury. Four of the five causes of the crashes are reported as failure
to yield right of way. At this intersection, the Em pire and Harrison Avenue approaches are stop
controlled, while the Shippey Street approaches are free. Providing stop control on all approaches
will likely correct this collision type.
In addition, an all-way stop controlled intersectio n is warranted based on MUTCD criteria
2B.07.05B:
“The need to control vehicle/pedestrian conflicts n ear locations that generate high pedestrian
volumes;”
And criteria 2B.07.05D: “An intersection of two residential neighborhood co llector (through) streets of similar design and
operating characteristics where multi-way stop cont rol would improve traffic operational
characteristics of the intersection.”
4 . 5 S h e r m a n Ave n u e C o r r i d o r
Outside of the Quade Street and Western Avenue inte rsection collisions, there were seven collisions
along this length of street. Two of these seven occ urred during the school peak hours and were
recorded as vehicles performing parallel parking ma neuvers. The remaining five do not appear to
be related to school traffic.

Technical Report

Resource Systems Group, Inc. 19
Insights and Solutions for a Better World

4 . 6 Q u a d e S t r e e t C o r r i d o r
Outside of the Quade Street intersections with Sher
man Avenue and West Notre Dame Street, there
were six collisions along the corridor, five of whi ch occurred during the school peak hour. Of these
five, all were related to vehicle overtaking maneuv ers, indicating that a vehicle was blocking the
traveled way. This is potentially due to double par ked vehicles waiting for children to enter or exit.
These types of collisions may be corrected if addit ional convenient queue space is available.
5 . 0 EF F E C T O F AL I G N E D SC H O O L DAY S
The current staggered high school and middle school arrival and departure times have the effect of
distributing the school related traffic impact over two distinct peaks, separated by 45 minutes. By
aligning the school days, these peaks will effectiv ely be combined into one, as students from both
schools arrive and depart from at the same time.
5 . 1 A p p ro x i m a t i n g t h e E x i s t i n g D e m a n d
During the 2012-2013 school year, the high school a rrival and departure times will be aligned with
the middle school. In effect, the days for both sch ools will begin at 8:30 AM and end at 3:00 PM. To
determine the anticipated change in traffic due to this alignment, the vehicle trips associated with
the high school arrival patterns need to be isolate d, and combined with the middle school traffic.
Several key assumptions to assist in this analysis follow:

Families with students in both the high school and middle school are assumed to not
currently be making two separate drop-off and pick- up trips. This will result in a
conservative traffic estimate, as the aligned times will allow for one of these trips to be
removed.

The mode share of high school students will be appr oximated at:
50% – Driven By Parents / Other
25% – Walk / Bike / Bus
25% – Drive alone or with student-aged family / fri ends
This mode share is important. The 25% of high schoo l students (approximately 190 students) that
walk, bike, or take the bus to school do not signif icantly contribute to vehicle congestion. Another
25% of the high school students, again approximatel y 190 students, park off site or along the side
streets, resulting in two vehicle trips over the co urse of the day: to the school in the morning, and
away from the school in the afternoon. The remainin g 50% of the high school population, or
approximately 385 students, are being driven by a p arent or other person. These students are
responsible for four trips each, to and from the sc hool in the morning and again in the afternoon.

All vehicles will be assumed to be carrying two stu dents. This assumption, based on the
mode share above, indicates that approximately 195 vehicles will be dropping off and
picking up high school students, and 95 vehicles wi ll be driven and parked near the school.
This results in approximately 290 vehicles related to the high school student travel patterns
expected to access the school campus.

Adirondack / Glens Falls Transportation Council
Glens Falls School District Traffic Circulation Stu dy

20 August 9, 2012

5 . 2 Ty p i c a l G l e n s Fa l l s S t r e e t Tra f f i c C h a ra c te r i s t i c s
To approximate the traffic demand related to the school, the observed traffic on the adjacent street
network was compared to similar streets in Glens Fa lls. A previous study
2 produced the tube count
data illustrated in Figure 19 on Lincoln Avenue, Ho ricon Avenue, and Coolidge Avenue in Glens
Falls. Operating similarly to a combination of arte rial streets (Horicon Avenue) and local collector
streets (Coolidge Avenue and Lincoln Avenue), these streets are representative of the mixture of
roadway classifications found adjacent to the schoo l campus.

Figure 19: Lincoln Avenue Traffic Calming Study wee kday traffic calming data, July 28 – August
3, 2011.
As shown above, the daytime average volume of vehic les for Lincoln, Horicon, and Coolidge
Avenues is 16, 29, and 18 vehicles per 15 minutes r espectively. Relating these averages to the
observed morning and afternoon maximums, the peak 1 5-minute volume to average 15-minute
volume ratio is shown in the table below.

Other similar streets within the city were also com pared to the traffic volumes measured adjacent
to the school. While the general characteristic sha pe is similar, the data analyzed were only
available in one-hour increments. As this study is specifically interested in short-duration peaks
caused by the school arrival and dismissal periods, the broad, one-hour increment data is too blunt
to be applied to this study.
This one-hour increment data is presented in Figure 20 .

2 Lincoln Avenue Traffic Calming Study, October 2011 . Traffic data taken from 7/28/11 to 8/3/11, excluding the weekend dates of 7/30/11 and
7/31/11.
AM Peak*PM Peak*
Lincoln Avenue
16 16 20 1.00 1.25
Horicon Avenue29 41 37 1.41 1.28
Coolidge Avenue18 23 27 1.28 1.50
*Vehi cl es per 15 mi nutes
Daytime
Average*
AM Peak :
Average Ratio
PM Peak :
Average Ratio

Technical Report

Resource Systems Group, Inc. 21
Insights and Solutions for a Better World

Figure 20: One-hour incremental data from other nea
rby Glens Falls City streets.
5 . 3 I s o l a t i n g H i g h S c h o o l Re l a te d Tra f f i c
Using the peak to average ratio calculated on similar streets, we can approximate the volumes on
Sherman Avenue and Quade Street that are assumed to be independent of the school campus. Since
Sherman and Horicon Avenues behave as arterial stre ets, the peak : average ratios obtained from
Horicon Avenue are the most appropriate comparison analytic for Sherman Avenue. Similarly, the
ratios from Lincoln and Coolidge Avenues, both oper ating similar to local collector streets, were
averaged to be used in approximating the vehicle vo lumes along Quade Street. These approximated
volumes are shown in the table on the following pag e.

These approximate “normal” peaks shown in the table above are plotted with the observed volumes
along Quade Street and Sherman Avenue. The effect o f the school campus is approximated by the
difference in this “normal” peak and the observed p eak, illustrated by the shaded area shown below
in Figure 21.
Approx. Approx.
AM Peak* PM Peak*
Quade Street
1.14 1.38 16 18 22
Sherman Avenue1.41 1.28 103 146 131
*Vehi cl es per 15 mi nutes
Daytime
Average*
AM Peak :
Average Ratio
PM Peak :
Average Ratio

Adirondack / Glens Falls Transportation Council
Glens Falls School District Traffic Circulation Stu dy

22 August 9, 2012

Figure 21: Approximate volume of the traffic relate d to the school campus along Quade Street
and Sherman Avenue.
The shaded regions above illustrate approximately 6 70 vehicles traveling to the school campus on
an average day.
To approximate the traffic shift that will likely o ccur when the school days are aligned, the
difference in the observed vehicles and the indepen dent vehicles arriving from 7:15 – 7:45 and
from 2:00 – 2:30 should be shifted and added to the observed vehicles from 8:00 – 8:30 and 2:45 –
3:15. This shift is illustrated below in Figure 22.

Figure 22: Approximate expected shift in volumes al ong Quade Street and Sherman Avenue
under aligned school days.

Technical Report

Resource Systems Group, Inc. 23
Insights and Solutions for a Better World

The shaded regions illustrated above from 7:15 to 7
:45 and 2:00 – 2:30 represent approximately
300 vehicles traveling to and from the school campu s along Quade Street and Sherman Avenue
every day. This is similar to the approximate deman d calculated by the assumptions outlined in
Section 5.1.
The approximate traffic resulting from the alignmen t of the Middle School and High School day
along Quade Street and Sherman Avenue is illustrate d on Figure 23.

Figure 23: Approximate anticipated volumes along Qu ade Street and Sherman Avenue under
aligned school days.
5 . 4 E f f e c t o f A l i g n e d S c h o o l D ays
The overall effect of aligning the High School and Middle School days is best illustrated in Figure 23 .
The total number of vehicles accessing the school c ampus is assumed to remain the same, however
the time period in which these vehicles arrive and depart will be shortened. The peak periods
shown above have been condensed from 7:15 AM – 8:30 AM and 2:15 – 3:15 PM to 7:45 – 8:15 AM
and 2:45 – 3:15 PM. This results in a more pronounc ed, sharper morning and afternoon peak traffic
volume. The changes in these peak 15-minute volumes are illustrated in the table below.

AM / PM 15- Minute Vehicle Peak: Separate AM / PM 15-
Minute Vehicle Peak: Aligned AM / PM% Change
Sherman Avenue 209 / 159 218 / 201 +4.8% / +26.4%
Quade Street 103 / 82 132 / 100 +28.2% / +21.6%

The effect of the aligned school days is not expect
ed to significantly change the maximum hourly
volume of vehicles through the street network, but it is anticipated to create a spike in the peak 15-
minute volume. The relationship between the peak 15 -minute period within the peak hour of traffic
is represented by the Peak Hour Factor (PHF). The P HF is a measure of the fluctuation of traffic

Adirondack / Glens Falls Transportation Council
Glens Falls School District Traffic Circulation Stu dy

24 August 9, 2012

demand within the peak hour. A PHF equal to 1.0 ind icates that there is no fluctuation in the 15
minute intervals within the peak hour. As the PHF d ecreases, the variation between the peak 15
minute interval and the average 15 minute interval becomes greater.

Separate School Days Aligned School Days
Peak Hour
Volume (veh) Peak 15
Minute
Volume (veh)

Peak Hour Factor (PHF) Peak Hour
Volume (veh) Peak 15
Minute
Volume (veh)

Peak Hour
Factor (PHF)
AM
Sherman Avenue

647 208 0.78 667 219 0.76
Quade
Street

303 103 0.74 310 132 0.59
PM
Sherman
Avenue

590 159 0.93 606 201 0.75
Quade
Street

211 82 0.64 229 100 0.58
PHF = Peak Hour Volume / (4 x Peak 15-Minute Volume )
As expected, the peak hour factor dropped along bot h Quade Street and Sherman Avenue under the
aligned school times, most notably along Quade Stre et in the morning from 0.74 to 0.59, a -20%
change, and Sherman Avenue in the afternoon from 0. 93 to 0.75, a change of -19%.
In practical terms, the decrease in the PHF indicat es that about the same number of vehicles will be
accessing the school campus in a shorter window of time, likely leading to increased congestion.
From a visual perspective, the peak represented by (1) in Figure 24 is shifted about 45 minutes
later in the day to peak (2). There is no change in the size from (1) – (2) because the middle school
has little effect on the traffic along Sherman Stre et in the morning. However, in the evening, the hig h
school peak (3) compounds with the middle school pe ak to create a significantly larger 15-minute
traffic demand at 3:00 PM represented by peak (4). This is also represented by the change in the
PHF discussed above.

Technical Report

Resource Systems Group, Inc. 25
Insights and Solutions for a Better World

Figure 24: Approximate anticipated volumes along Qu
ade Street and Sherman Avenue under
aligned school days, with specific traffic peaks an notated.
Similarly, the high school peak compounds the middl e school peak on Quade Street in the morning
(5) but appears to have a relatively minor effect i n the afternoon (6). This is also demonstrated in
the change of the PHF. Overall, the data suggest th at congestion will be worsened during the arrival
and dismissal periods with the aligned school times , particularly during the peak 15 minutes in the
morning drop off period along Quade Street and the afternoon pick up period along Sherman
Avenue.
5 . 5 S h e r m a n Ave n u e & Q u a d e S t r e e t I n te r s e c t i o n A n a lys i s
The intersection at Sherman Avenue, Quade Street, and Cortland Street was analyzed using traffic
simulation software under the existing separate sch ool days. The existing traffic operation
characteristics were then compared to the anticipat ed conditions under aligned school days. The
analytical software used was Synchro Version 7. The primary measure of traffic operation is Level-
of-service (LOS), which is a qualitative measure de scribing the operating conditions as perceived by
motorists driving in a traffic stream. LOS is estim ated using the procedures outlined in the 2000
Highway Capacity Manual.
The 2000 Highway Capacity Manual defines six qualit ative grades to describe the level of service at
an intersection. Level-of-Service is based on the a verage control delay per vehicle. Table 1 shows
the various LOS grades and descriptions for signali zed and unsignalized intersections.

Adirondack / Glens Falls Transportation Council
Glens Falls School District Traffic Circulation Stu dy

26 August 9, 2012

Table 1: Level-of-Service Criteria for Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections
Unsignalized Signalized
LOS Characteristics Total Delay (sec) Total Delay ( sec)
A Little or no delay ≤ 10.0 ≤ 10.0
B Short delays 10.1-15.0 10.1-20.0
C Average delays 15.1-25.0 20.1-35.0
D Long delays 25.1-35.0 35.1-55.0
E Very long delays 35.1-50.0 55.1-80.0
F Extreme delays > 50.0 > 80.0
For stop-controlled intersections such as the Sherman Avenue / Quade Street intersection, the LOS
provides a tool to compare the existing traffic ope rations to future, aligned school day traffic
operations. Typically, LOS C or above is considered acceptable.
As discussed earlier, the only change in the antici pated traffic characteristics will be the
concentration of vehicles into a shorter 15-minute period. This is represented by the peak hour
factor. The level-of-service results for the Sherma n Avenue / Quade Street intersection is presented
in the table below.

Since the morning peak hour factor at this intersection was relatively stable, the AM peak period
level-of-service essentially remained unchanged. In the afternoon, the peak hour factor dropped
from 0.93 to 0.75 and the resulting intersection de lay is increased as expected. In all aligned cases
the delay for each specific entrance into the inter section, as well as the delay for overall
intersection, is below 15 seconds, with a resulting acceptable LOS B.
5 . 6 E f f e c t o n O b s e r ve d Ve h i c l e Q u e u i n g
During the observation period, vehicle queuing was cited as a significant issue adding to congestion
along Quade Street. With the aligned school days, q ueuing is expected to increase as more vehicles
arrive in the condensed 15-minute peak. This partic ular queuing is difficult to anticipate as it is
based on driver behavior (i.e. double parking, slow ly creeping, etc.) and student behavior (time
taken to enter and exit vehicle, walking speed, etc .). As queuing has been identified as an issue
under the existing drop-off and pick-up patterns, i t is evident that the short-term parking supply
AM
Sherman Ave/Quade
St/Cortland StLOS Delay (s) LOS Delay (s)
OverallB12B12
EB, Sherman Ave B 13 B 14
WB, Sherman Ave B 11 B 11 NB, Cortland St A 10 B 10SB, Quade St B 10 B 10 PM
Sherman Ave/Quade
St/Cortland StLOS Delay (s) LOS Delay (s)
OverallB10B13
EB, Sherman Ave B 10 B 13
WB, Sherman Ave B 11 B 14 NB, Cortland St A 9 B 10
SB, Quade St A 9 B 10 Separate School Days
Separate School Days
Aligned School Days
Aligned School Days

Technical Report

Resource Systems Group, Inc. 27
Insights and Solutions for a Better World

near the school has been exhausted. With aligned sc
hool days, the additional vehicles will add
further demand to this limited supply and queuing w ill likely increase substantially.
5 . 7 S u m m a r y o f E f f e c t s o f A l i g n e d S c h o o l D ays
The anticipated effects of shifting the start and end times of the High School to align with the Middl e
School are summarized below:

No additional increase in total traffic is anticipa ted with the school alignment; a slight
decline is possible as some parents may combine two trips into one.

Traffic will be condensed primarily into one 30-min ute period before school begins and as
school ends, resulting in an increase in the peak 1 5-minute traffic, but no significant change
in the peak hour traffic.

The Sherman Avenue / Quade Street / Cortland Street intersection will likely continue to
operate acceptably under the proposed aligned schoo l day.

Queuing along Quade Street is anticipated to increa se substantially as vehicles may double
park to drop students off or allow students to ente r the vehicle.
6 . 0 CO N G E S T I O N MI T I G AT I O N ST R AT E G I E S
The primary issues that have arisen out of this study are summarized below:

A high percentage of students in the school distric t are dropped-off and picked-up at both
schools.

Many of these pick-ups and drop-offs occur along Qu ade Street, and the aligned school days
will likely condense the current hour of minor cong estion into 30 minutes of greater
congestion.

Several complaints arose about parents waiting in t he Middle School Parking Lot, although
it is clearly marked for “Authorized Vehicles Only” .

The existing temporary barriers used to block of Qu ade Street between West Notre Dame
Street and Shippey Street were noticed to be easily blown over.
The following sections discuss the potential strate gies that may be employed to address these
issues.
6 . 1 D e ve l o p A l t e r n a te O n – S t r e e t P i c k – U p a n d D r o p – O f f
L o c a t i o n s
The most effective congestion mitigation and safety enhancement strategy would involve
increasing the number of students that walk and bik e to school. However, it is unrealistic to expect
considerable change in school commuting behavior be fore the next school year when school days
will be aligned. Until more active modes of transpo rtation are the dominant transportation choice,
additional on-street waiting areas may alleviate so me queuing and congestion in the short term.
The following potential alternatives may be employe d to distribute traffic and provide additional
queue storage.

Adirondack / Glens Falls Transportation Council
Glens Falls School District Traffic Circulation Stu dy

28 August 9, 2012

6 . 1 . 1 E n c o u r a g e t h e U s e o f C l a y t o n A v e n u e a n d G r a n t A v e n u e
E n t r a n c e P o i n t s
The pedestrian access points at Grant Avenue to the north and Clayton Avenue to the west were
underutilized. Both streets had ample on-street par king and maintained paths leading to school
entrance points. However, neither street had a cove red waiting area or sidewalks along the street,
amenities that would likely be needed for the area to be fully utilized. Additionally, the path to
Clayton Avenue crosses athletic fields, is not a pa ved or concrete surface and may be difficult to
maintain in the winter, and may not be suitable for pedestrian traffic at all times.
This alternative may be popular with parents as stu dents will be directly dropped off to and picked
up from the school campus, yet these parents will n ot have to navigate the more congested Quade
Street and Sherman Avenue.
6 . 1 . 2 R e s t r i c t P a r k i n g a l o n g Q u a d e S t r e e t S o u t h o f W e s t N o t r e
D a m e S t r e e t
The majority of parking along Quade Street is being used throughout the day by students.
Restricting parking along one or both sides of Quad e Street during the primary start and end times
for picking-up and dropping-off only will provide a great deal additional queue storage. The
displaced students will likely park on nearby neigh borhood streets, and many residents may resist
this daily influx of vehicles.
6 . 1 . 3 M o v e t h e p a r k i n g a i s l e a l o n g S h e r m a n A v e n u e
The existing parking aisle on the south side of She rman Avenue does not directly serve the High
School. By moving the parking aisle to the north si de of Sherman Avenue, westbound vehicles may
be able to drop off and pick up students directly t o the campus, eliminating the need for students to
have to cross Sherman Avenue. Additionally, the sou th side of Sherman Avenue has 11 driveways
and two roads intersecting the street between Clayt on Avenue and Cortland Street. Each roadway
and driveway breaks up the parking aisle, reduces t he number of parking spaces, and limits sight
distance. On the north side of Sherman Avenue, ther e are only three curbs to the school campus in
the same block: two for the high school parking lot and one for access to the athletic fields. Placing
the parking aisle on the north side of the street w ould maximize both pedestrian safety and queue
capacity.
The transition along Sherman Avenue from parking on the south side to parking on the north side
of would need to be thoroughly reviewed and coordin ated with neighboring property owners. Signs
would need to be placed and it may be appropriate t o coordinate the change in parking with a
paving project in order to place centerline and par king aisle pavement markings to clearly delineate
the change in traffic pattern. It would be advisabl e to continue the north side parking west to the
next four-way stop intersection at Western Avenue.
Lastly, this adjustment in parking may be combined with hardscape treatments such as bulb-outs to
shorten crossing distances and deflect vehicles int o the newly realigned driving lane. Bulb-outs may
also be helpful at the midblock crosswalks between Larose Street and Cortland Street. At all school
driveways parking should be restricted within 20-fe et to provide for adequate sight distances.
6 . 1 . 4 E n c o u r a g e c o u n t e r – c l o c k w i s e c i r c u l a t i o n
Parents should be educated to encourage counter clo ckwise circulation along West Notre Dame
Street – Quade Street – Sherman Avenue and Grant Av enue – Quade Street – Shippey Street. This

Technical Report

Resource Systems Group, Inc. 29
Insights and Solutions for a Better World

counter clockwise circulation will allow students t
o directly access the school campus to and from
the vehicles without having to cross the street, el iminating many jaywalking instances.
6 . 2 Re s t r i c t A c c e s s to S c h o o l Pa r k i n g L o t s
Congestion within the existing school parking lots was cited as a concern. Currently, the school
parking lot entrance is signed to restrict unauthor ized vehicles. Beyond educating parents that the
lot is not for picking-up or dropping-off students, additional measures may be warranted such as
automatic gates further restricting access to the l ot, or potential officer enforcement of restrictions.
6 . 3 E n h a n c e d Te m p o ra r y S t r e e t C l o s u re B a r r i e r s
The temporary street closure barriers were effectiv e at keeping most
traffic from driving through the closed portion of Quade Street
between Shippey Street and West Notre Dame Street. This closure is
valuable in the reduction of through traffic and it s ability to create a
slower vehicle environment, allowing for enhanced p edestrian
circulation. Since these effects are only desired d uring the arrival and
dismissal periods, it is imperative that the barrie rs be temporary and
portable. The current temporary barriers, marketed as the Multi-
Gate Extendable Barricade and pictured at left set up on Quade
Street, suit this application.

According to the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(MUTCD), the temporary closure of the roadway for
approximately one hour would fall into a Category D , or short
duration, temporary traffic control situation (Sect ion 6G.02).
Under these circumstances, “simplified control proc edures may
be warranted”. A typical duration road closure invo lves advance
warning signs and type 3 barricades. However, given the short
duration of the closure, the amount of time to set up and remove
these control devices would be too difficult to reg ularly
implement. Additionally, the slow-speed neighborhoo d
environment, coupled with low traffic volumes and g eneral
driver familiarity with the devices allows drivers greater time to process the non-traditional traffic
control setup. The pedestrian benefits of the road closure outweigh the potential risks associated
with this method of street closure.
While the current barriers are acceptable for short term closures on these low volume streets, the
barriers were noted to be light and unstable. The b arriers were observed to be easily blown onto
the ground. The Multi-Gate Extendable Barricade pro duct specification indicates that these barriers
may be stabilized with up to 20 pounds of sand or w ater ballast in the base of the devices, and it is
recommended that this feature is utilized.
Based on the observed operation of Quade Street und er aligned school days and road closure
between West Notre Dame and Shippey Streets, more p ermanent, automated, and standard road
closure devices should be used. These devices may i nclude changeable LED “DO NOT ENTER” signs,
railroad-style gates, and flashing red lights that are activated during the arrival and dismissal
periods. Additionally, regulatory road signs may ne ed to be installed indicating the closure periods.
A more formal evaluation of the effectiveness of th e current practices under the aligned school days
is advised prior to the installation of these devic es.

Adirondack / Glens Falls Transportation Council
Glens Falls School District Traffic Circulation Stu dy

30 August 9, 2012

6 . 4 C o n s t r u c t N e w S i t e C i r c u l a t i o n Pa t te r n s
Four new site circulation patterns have been prelim inarily developed to review the potential
impacts to circulation. These alternatives are illu strated as attachments to this memorandum.
These hardscape enhancements would generally repres ent large investments. Illustrations of the
alternatives, including cost estimates and an alter natives evaluation chart, are presented in
Attachment B.
6 . 4 . 1 A l t e r n a t i v e 1 : S h e r m a n A v e n u e H i g h S c h o o l L o o p
The Sherman Avenue loop would build a new one-way d rop off roadway, intersecting with Stevens
Street. The loop may provide queue storage for 10 v ehicles. Additional congestion issues may arise
as eastbound Sherman Avenue vehicles queue to turn left, not allowing vehicles from the loop to
exit, which may create gridlock conditions as the l oop fills up. The entrance to the loop is close to
the Quade Street / Cortland Street intersection.
6 . 4 . 2 A l t e r n a t i v e 2 : Q u a d e S t r e e t t o S h e r m a n A v e n u e D r o p – O f f
The Quade to Sherman Drop-Off is similar to Alternative 1 but avoids some of the potential gridlock
conditions. The drop off drive may provide queue st orage for 12 vehicles. The entrance to the drop-
off drive is notably close to the Quade Street / Sh erman Avenue intersection.
6 . 4 . 3 A l t e r n a t i v e 3 : G r a n t A v e n u e A c c e s s R o a d
The Grant Avenue Access Road would create a one-way roadway from the Austin Street / Grant
Avenue intersection into the rear of the Middle Sch ool parking lot. The roadway would bisect some
athletic fields and provide queue storage for 5 veh icles. This access road would provide additional
vehicle access to the currently access restricted a nd congested Middle School Parking Lot.
6 . 4 . 4 A l t e r n a t i v e 4 : Q u a d e S t r e e t M i d d l e S c h o o l L o o p
The Quade Street Loop would create a one-way loop s outh of the Middle School entrance north of
Shippey Street. The southern exit from the loop wou ld intersect offset from Shippey Street. The
loop may potentially provide queue storage for 6 ve hicles.
6 . 5 I n c re a s e t h e Pe rc e n t a g e o f S t u d e n t s t h a t Wa l k / B i k e
/ B u s to S c h o o l
Increasing the number of students that utilize acti ve transportation as their primary transportation
method to school will decrease the number of vehicl es accessing the campus, thereby reducing
congestion and queuing. As described by the Centers for Disease Control, the National Center for
Safe Routes to School, and other advocacy groups ci te additional benefits to active commutes to
school, including:

Increased levels of physical activity,

Improved alertness,

Heightened self-image and independence,

Contribution to healthy social and emotional develo pment, and

Increased likelihood of future active lifestyles.
To increase the mode share of active transportation , the following actions are recommended:

Technical Report

Resource Systems Group, Inc. 31
Insights and Solutions for a Better World

Walk / Bike Bus
Educate parents on the health, lifestyle and
educational benefits of biking and walking to
school; encourage students to walk or bike to
school on their own. Increase awareness of bus route and schedule,
and encourage greater bus ridership in
district newsletter.
Educate parents on reality of safety risks on
walking or biking to school, and compare to
the generally higher risk of driving.
Subsidize free or reduced student boarding
passes to East-West Commuter Route serving
the School.
Participate and register for Safe Routes to
School events, such as the annual Walk to
School Day and Bike to School Day (available
only for middle school). Construct / install a shelter for students to
wait protected from the elements.
Offer students incentives to walk or bike to
school, potentially with prizes for highest
annual weekly or monthly walking or biking
trip totals. Offer students incentives to ride the bus,
potentially with prizes for highest annual
weekly, monthly, or annual ridership
Replace old bike racks with new, functional,
well maintained racks in prominent locations
close to the school entrances.

Work with the City and A/GFTC to prioritize,
seek funding for, and construct missing
sidewalk segments, particularly the missing
curb ramps at new crossing locations and the
missing sections to the east of campus.
7 . 0 IM P L E M E N TAT I O N MAT R I X
The following implementation task schedule for the
recommended enhancements described in
Section 2.0 follows below:
Short Term Improvements:
Recommendation Description and Responsible Party (R P) Approximate Cost
Expand Quade Street Drop Off
Area Striping and signs between Sherman
Avenue and West Notre Dame Street
RP: Coordination between City of Glens
Falls DPW, School District $1,000
Shift Sherman Avenue Parking to
North Side of Street
New striping and signs, removing old
signs
RP: DPW, School District $2,250
Encourage Counter Clockwise
Circulation
Temporary signs and mailers
RP: School District N/A

Adirondack / Glens Falls Transportation Council
Glens Falls School District Traffic Circulation Stu dy

32 August 9, 2012

Recommendation Description and Responsible Party (R P) Approximate Cost
Increase Temporary Barrier
Ballast Sand bags placed in barrier ballast
containers
RP: School District $100
Install All-Way Stop Control at
Shippey Street and Empire Avenue
Installation of signs and striping, plus
temporary warning flags
RP: DPW, Glens Falls Police
Department (GFPD) $800

Long Term Improvements:
Recommendation Description and Responsible Party (R
P) Approximate Cost
Improve City Sidewalk
Network Sidewalk and curb construction
RP: School District, DPW, A/GFTC $100 – $200 per
foot of sidewalk
Automatic Quade Street
Closure Features
New gates, signs, curbing, bulb-outs, and
crosswalks
RP: School District, DPW $95,000
Quade Street to Sherman
Avenue Loop Waiting Area
New curb, asphalt, sidewalk and drive
entrances
RP: School District, DPW $550,000

Programmatic Improvements:
Recommendation Description and Responsible Party (R
P) Approximate Cost
Promote Coordination with
Transit Publish transit maps and timetables with
school flyers; re-route PM East-West
Corridor route; waiting shelter at school on
Sherman Avenue; potential fare subsidies
RP: School District; GGFT; A/GFTC annual expenses to
promote activities
Participate in Active
Transportation Encouragement
Programs
Participate in national and statewide
events when possible; incentivize and
promote highest rider- / walker-ship
RP: School District; A/GFTC annual expenses to
promote activities

PROJECT:
CALCULATED BY:DATE:08/09/12
CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE FOR RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Short Term Improvements
Expand Quade Street Drop-Off AreaItem UnitQuantity
Unit Price Item Price
4″ YELLOW STRIPING LF 835 0.25 208.75 $
STREET CLEANING LS 1 250 250.00 $
TRAFFIC SIGNS EA 3 50 150.00 $
SIGN POSTS EA 3 100 300.00 $
Subtotal 908.75 $
Contingency (10%)90.88$ TOTAL 999.63$
Shift Sherman Avenue Parking to North Item UnitQuantity
Unit Price Item Price
4″ WHITE STRIPING LF 440 0.25 110.00 $
STREET CLEANING LS 1 250 250.00 $
REMOVING SIGNS & POSTS EA 5 35 175.00 $
TRAFFIC SIGNS EA 10 50 500.00 $
SIGN POSTS EA 10 100 1,000.00 $
Subtotal 2,035.00 $
Contingency (10%)203.50$ TOTAL 2,238.50$
Stop Signs at Shippey and Empire Item UnitQuantity
Unit Price Item Price
24″ STOP BAR LF 24 5 120.00 $
“STOP” MARKING EA 2 100 200.00 $
TRAFFIC SIGNS EA 2 100 200.00 $
SIGN POSTS EA 2 100 200.00 $
Subtotal 720.00 $
Contingency (10%)72.00$ TOTAL 792.00$
Long Term Improvements
Automatic Quade Street Closure FeaturesItem UnitQuantity
Unit Price Item Price
SIDEWALK SF 1200 30 $36,000.00
CURB LF 350 35 $12,250.00
CROSSWALK STRIPING LF 48 10 $480.00
TURF / ESTABLISHMENT / LANDSCAPING LS 1 5000 $5,000.00
DRAINAGE MODIFICATIONS LS 1 15000 $15,000.00
AUTOMATIC VERTICAL SWING GATES EA 4 10000 $40,000.00
MOBILIZATION / DEMOBILIZATION LS 1 10900 $10,900.00 Subtotal 70,900.00$
Engineering (20%)14,180.00$
Contingency (10%) 7,090.00 $
TOTAL 92,170.00 $
Quade Street to Sherman Avenue Loop Item UnitQuantity
Unit Price Item Price
SITE PREPARATION LS 1
20000 20,000.00 $
ASPHALT ROADWAY SF 6670 35 233,450.00 $
SIDEWALK SF 2801 30 84,030.00 $
CURB LF 665 50 33,250.00$
4″ WHITE STRIPING LF 240 0.25 60.00 $
CROSSWALK STRIPING LF 32 10 320.00 $
TURF / ESTABLISHMENT / LANDSCAPING LS 1 15000 15,000.00 $
DRAINAGE MODIFICATIONS LS 1 15000 15,000.00 $
TRAFFIC SIGNS EA 3 50 150.00 $
SIGN POSTS EA 3 100 300.00 $
MOBILIZATION / DEMOBILIZATION EA 1 40200 40,200.00 $
Subtotal 421,760.00 $
Engineering (20%) 84,352.00 $
Contingency (10%)42,176.00$ TOTAL548,288.00$
Assumptions for all short term
improvements: No paving is
necessary, only street cleaning,
striping, and signs
CDM
A/GFTC – GFSD Traffic Circulation Study

SHERMANXAVENUE

SHERMANXAVENUE
SHERMANXAVENUE

SHERMANXAVENUE

SHERMANXAVENUE

SHERMANXAVENUE

SHERMANXAVENUE

SHERMANXAVENUE

SHERMANXAVENUE

SHERMANXAVENUE
SHERMANXAVENUE
SHERMANXAVENUE
SHERMANXAVENUE
SHERMANXAVENUE
SHERMANXAVENUE
SHERMANXAVENUE

STEVENSXSTREET

CORTLANDXSTREET
CORTLANDXSTREET

QUADEXSTREET

QUADEXSTREET

QUADEXSTREET

QUADEXSTREET
QUADEXSTREET
QUADEXSTREET
QUADEXSTREET
QUADEXSTREET
QUADEXSTREET
QUADEXSTREET

QUADEXSTREET

QUADEXSTREET

QUADEXSTREET

QUADEXSTREET

QUADEXSTREET

QUADEXSTREET
QUADEXSTREET
HIGH

SCHOOL
HIGH

SCHOOL
HIGH

SCHOOL
HIGH

SCHOOL
HIGH

SCHOOL
HIGH

SCHOOL
HIGH

SCHOOL
HIGH

SCHOOL
HIGH

SCHOOL
HIGH

SCHOOL
HIGH

SCHOOL
HIGH

SCHOOL
HIGH

SCHOOL
HIGH

SCHOOL
HIGH

SCHOOL
HIGH

SCHOOL
HIGH

SCHOOL

sq.ft.

1891

1609

5763
SidewalkX(removed)

SidewalkX(new)

PavementX(new)
AlternativeX1

SHERMANXAVENUE

SHERMANXAVENUE
SHERMANXAVENUE

SHERMANXAVENUE

SHERMANXAVENUE

SHERMANXAVENUE

SHERMANXAVENUE

SHERMANXAVENUE

SHERMANXAVENUE

SHERMANXAVENUE
SHERMANXAVENUE
SHERMANXAVENUE
SHERMANXAVENUE
SHERMANXAVENUE
SHERMANXAVENUE
SHERMANXAVENUE

STEVENSXSTREET

CORTLANDXSTREET
CORTLANDXSTREET

QUADEXSTREET

QUADEXSTREET

QUADEXSTREET

QUADEXSTREET
QUADEXSTREET
QUADEXSTREET
QUADEXSTREET
QUADEXSTREET
QUADEXSTREET
QUADEXSTREET

QUADEXSTREET

QUADEXSTREET

QUADEXSTREET

QUADEXSTREET

QUADEXSTREET

QUADEXSTREET
QUADEXSTREET
HIGH

SCHOOL
HIGH

SCHOOL
HIGH

SCHOOL
HIGH

SCHOOL
HIGH

SCHOOL
HIGH

SCHOOL
HIGH

SCHOOL
HIGH

SCHOOL
HIGH

SCHOOL
HIGH

SCHOOL
HIGH

SCHOOL
HIGH

SCHOOL
HIGH

SCHOOL
HIGH

SCHOOL
HIGH

SCHOOL
HIGH

SCHOOL
HIGH

SCHOOL

sq.ft.

1926

2801

6669
SidewalkX(removed)

SidewalkX(new)

PavementX(new)
AlternativeX2

GRANTXAVENUE

GRANTXAVENUE
GRANTXAVENUE
GRANTXAVENUE
GRANTXAVENUE
GRANTXAVENUE
GRANTXAVENUE
GRANTXAVENUE
GRANTXAVENUE

GRANTXAVENUE
GRANTXAVENUE
GRANTXAVENUE
GRANTXAVENUE
GRANTXAVENUE
GRANTXAVENUE
GRANTXAVENUE
SCHOOL
MIDDLE

SCHOOL
MIDDLE

SCHOOL
MIDDLE

SCHOOL
MIDDLE

SCHOOL
MIDDLE

SCHOOL
MIDDLE

SCHOOL
MIDDLE

SCHOOL
MIDDLE

SCHOOL
MIDDLE

SCHOOL
MIDDLE

SCHOOL
MIDDLE

SCHOOL
MIDDLE

SCHOOL
MIDDLE

SCHOOL
MIDDLE

SCHOOL
MIDDLE

SCHOOL
MIDDLE

SCHOOL

QUADEXSTREET
QUADEXSTREET

QUADEXSTREET
QUADEXSTREET
QUADEXSTREET
QUADEXSTREET
QUADEXSTREET
QUADEXSTREET
QUADEXSTREET
QUADEXSTREET

QUADEXSTREET

QUADEXSTREET

QUADEXSTREET

QUADEXSTREET

QUADEXSTREET
QUADEXSTREET

QUADEXSTREET

QUADEXSTREET

QUADEXSTREET
QUADEXSTREET
QUADEXSTREET
QUADEXSTREET
QUADEXSTREET
QUADEXSTREET
QUADEXSTREET
QUADEXSTREET

QUADEXSTREET

QUADEXSTREET

QUADEXSTREET

QUADEXSTREET

QUADEXSTREET
QUADEXSTREET

AUSTINXSTREET
AUSTINXSTREET
sq.ft.

94

2303

8120
SidewalkX(removed)

SidewalkX(new)

PavementX(new)

SCHOOL

MIDDLE

SCHOOL
MIDDLE

SCHOOL

MIDDLE

SCHOOL

MIDDLE

SCHOOL
MIDDLE

SCHOOL

MIDDLE

SCHOOL
MIDDLE

SCHOOL

MIDDLE

SCHOOL
MIDDLE

SCHOOL

MIDDLE

SCHOOL

MIDDLE

SCHOOL
MIDDLE

SCHOOL

MIDDLE

SCHOOL
MIDDLE

SCHOOL

MIDDLE

SCHOOL

MIDDLE

SCHOOL

QUADEXSTREET

QUADEXSTREET
QUADEXSTREET

QUADEXSTREET

QUADEXSTREET

QUADEXSTREET

QUADEXSTREET

QUADEXSTREET

QUADEXSTREET

QUADEXSTREET
QUADEXSTREET
QUADEXSTREET
QUADEXSTREET
QUADEXSTREET
QUADEXSTREET
QUADEXSTREET

sq.ft.

195
919
5660

SidewalkX(removed)

SidewalkX(new)

PavementX(new)

AlternativeX4

PROJECT:
DATE:08/09/12
ATTACHMENT BOFF STREET PARKING AND DROP-OFF EXPANSION ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION COMPARISON
Alternative 1: Sherman Ave Loop
Approximate Cost:Evaluation of Features:
Site Preparation: LS 1 5000 5,000.00 $ Add. Parking 200′ (10 vehicles)
New Sidewalk: SF 1609 35 56,315.00$ Convenience Good
New Roadway: SF 5763 45 259,335.00 $ Circulation Good
Landscaping: LS 1 5000 5,000.00$ Safety Fair
Drainage: LS 1 10000 10,000.00$ Incidentals:LS120002,000.00$
Subtotal: 337,650.00$ Notes:
Engineering (10%): 33,765.00 $ Drive entrance close to Quade/Cortland and Stevens;
Contingency (20%): 67,530.00 $ Requires substantial landscaping to school green
Total: 438,945.00$
Alternative 2: Quade St to Sherman Ave Loop – PREFE RRED ALTERNATIVE
Approximate Cost:
Evaluation of Features:
Site Preparation: LS 1 8000 8,000.00 $ Add. Parking 240′ (12 vehicles)
New Sidewalk: SF 2801 35 98,035.00$ Convenience Good
New Roadway: SF 6609 45 297,405.00 $ Circulation Good
Landscaping: LS 1 7000 7,000.00$ Safety Good
Drainage: LS 1 10000 10,000.00$ Incidentals:LS130003,000.00$
Subtotal: 423,440.00$ Notes:
Engineering (10%): 42,344.00 $ Requires substantial landscaping to school green;
Contingency (20%): 84,688.00 $ Creates break in extended Quade St drop off zone
Total: 550,472.00$
Alternative 3: Grant Ave to Middle School Parking L ot
Approximate Cost:
Evaluation of Features:
Site Preparation: LS 1 5000 5,000.00 $ Add. Parking 320′ (16 vehicles)
New Sidewalk: SF 2303 35 80,605.00$ Convenience Fair
New Roadway: SF 8120 45 365,400.00 $ Circulation Fair
Landscaping: LS 1 5000 5,000.00$ Safety Fair
Drainage: LS 1 10000 10,000.00$ Incidentals:LS11500015,000.00$
Subtotal: 481,005.00$ Notes:
Engineering (10%): 48,100.50 $ Encourages access to Middle School lot, which has be en
Contingency (20%): 96,201.00$ identified as congested; Impacts to athletic fields
Total: 625,306.50$
Alternative 4: Quade Street Loop Approximate Cost:Site Preparation: LS 1 3000 3,000.00 $
Evaluation of Features:
New Sidewalk: SF 919 35 32,165.00$ Add. Parking 216′ (10 vehicles)
New Roadway: SF 5660 45 254,700.00 $ Convenience Good
Landscaping: LS 1 3000 3,000.00$ Circulation Fair
Drainage: LS 1 10000 10,000.00$ Safety Fair
Incidentals:LS150005,000.00$
Subtotal: 307,865.00$ Notes:
Engineering (10%): 30,786.50 $
Contingency (20%): 61,573.00 $
Total: 400,224.50 $
Overall: Safety concerns with the drive entrance
proximity to adjacent intersections discounted this
alternative as preferred
Overall: Reduced conflict with adjacent drives
enhances the viability of this alternative
Overall: Safety concerns with additional traffic through the congested Middle School lot, plus the
impacts to the athletic fields reduce the viability of
this alternative
Overall: Safety concerns with offset intersection
reduce the viability of this alternative
Creates new offset intersection at Quade and Shippe
y;
Potential impacts to bike racks and Middle School
entrance
A/GFTC – GFSD Traffic Circulation Study

Prepared For:
Bay Road & Cronin Road Intersection Assessment
Town of Queensbury, Warren County, NY April, 2012
Prepared By:

April 2012 Bay Rd/Cronin Rd Intersection Evaluation
Page ii
Table of Contents
Page
Table of Contents………………………………………………………………
……………………………….. ………… ii
List of Figures ………………………………………………………………
…………………………………. …………… ii
List of Tables………………………………………………………………
………………………………….. …………….iii
List of Appendices………………………………………………………………
………………………………. …………iii

Chapter 1. Introduction ………………………………………………………………
…………………………. ……… 1

A. Site Conditions ………………………………………………………………
…………………………………… 1
Chapter 2. Existing Conditions………………………………………………………………
…………………… ….. 2
A. Intersection Geometry ………………………………………………………………
…………………………. 2
B. Accident History ………………………………………………………………
………………………………….3
C. Traffic Volumes ………………………………………………………………
…………………………………..4
Chapter 3. Alternatives ………………………………………………………………
…………………………. ……… 6
A. Alternative 1 ………………………………………………………………
………………………………………. 6
B. Alternative 2 ………………………………………………………………
………………………………………. 6
C. Alternative 3 ………………………………………………………………
………………………………………. 6
D. Alternative 4 ………………………………………………………………
………………………………………. 7
Chapter 4. Evaluation ………………………………………………………………
…………………………… ……. 12
A. Traffic Analysis ………………………………………………………………
………………………………….12
1. Traffic Volume Forecasts:………………………………………………………………
…………….. 12
2. Level of Service and Capacity Analysis: …………………………………………………………. 13
B. Cost Estimates ………………………………………………………………
…………………………………. 1 5
C. Impacts………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………. 15
Chapter 5. Conclusions and Recommendations………………………………………………………………
17

List of Figures
Page
Figure 2.1 – 2012 (ETC) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes …………………………………………………………. 5

Figure 3.1 – Alternative 1: Re-stripe Northbound and Southbound Approaches ……………………. 8
Figure 3.2 – Alternative 2: Restrict Left-turns from Cronin Road with Striping Modifications……. 9
Figure 3.3 – Alternative 3: Install a Traffic Signal with Striping Modifications ………………………. 10
Figure 3.4 – Alternative 4: Construct a Single-Lane Roundabout ………………………………………. 11
Figure 4.1 – 2022 (ETC+10) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ………………………………………………….. 16

April 2012 Bay Rd/Cronin Rd Intersection Evaluation
Page iii
List of Tables
Page
Table 2.1 – Intersection Accident Summary ………………………………………………………………
……… 3

Table 4.1 – Traffic Volume Forecasts ………………………………………………………………
…………….. 12
Table 4.2 – Levels of Service………………………………………………………………
…………………….. …. 13
Table 4.3 – Peak Hour Level of Service Summary …………………………………………………………… 14
Table 4.4 – Alternatives Comparison ………………………………………………………………
……………… 15

List of Appendices
Appendix A………………………………………………………………
………………………… Accident Evalua tion
Appendix B………………………………………………………………
………………………… Traffic Volume Data
Appendix C ………………………………………………………………
………………. Signal Warrant Evaluation
Appendix D ………………………………………………………………
………………… Level of Service Analysi s
Appendix E………………………………………………………………
…………. Planning Level Cost Estimates

April 2012 Bay Rd/Cronin Rd Intersection Evaluation
Page 1
Chapter 1. Introduction
This report summarizes the results of an accident records review and the evaluation and
comparison of several intersection improvements for the Bay Road / Cronin Road intersection in
the Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York. The project location is shown in the
Google aerial image below:

A. Site Conditions
The Bay Road / Cronin Road intersection is located in the southern portion of the Town of
Queensbury approximately 1/3 mile north of the Quaker Road/NY Route 254 commercial
corridor. Bay Road (County Route 7) travels north/south through the Town connecting
Queensbury with the City of Glens Falls. Cronin Road is a Town road travelling east/west
through the Town from Bay Road to Ridge Road (NY Route 9L). There are several commercial
land uses at the intersection that impact operations including the Stewart’s Shop (with gas
pumps), the Harvest Restaurant, and the O’Leary Chiropractic Center. The intersection also
serves as the primary access route to Adirondack Community College.

Pedestrians are accommodated through a sidewalk on the west side of Bay Road extending
from Quaker Road to about 700 feet north of Cronin Road. On the east side of Bay Road, there
is a sidewalk extending from Cronin Road to Quaker Road. There are no sidewalks along
Cronin Road. Bicyclists are accommodated through a striped shoulder/bicycle lane on the east
and west sides of Bay Road north of Cronin Road.

April 2012 Bay Rd/Cronin Rd Intersection Evaluation
Page 2
Chapter 2. Existing Conditions
A. Intersection Geometry
The Bay Road / Cronin Road intersection is a four-way intersection operating under stop sign
control on the eastbound and westbound approaches. The northbound Bay Road approach to
Cronin Road provides a shared left-turn/through lane and a separate right-turn lane. The lack of
shoulder on the northbound approach makes the right-turn from Bay Road onto Cronin Road a
difficult maneuver that requires vehicle slowing and off-tracking, especially for large vehicles. In
addition, there is little separation between the travel lane and the flush sidewalk. This makes
walking in this quadrant of the intersection feel “unfriendly”, meaning that pedestrians may be
less comfortable at this location than in areas with a greater buffer between the sidewalk and
travel lane.

The southbound approach to the intersection provides a left-turn lane and a shared
through/right-turn lane with two receiving lanes exiting the intersection. The presence of two
southbound receiving lanes at the intersection creates confusion on all intersection approaches
by providing too many travel movement choices, increasing the potential for accidents. The
eastbound O’Leary Chiropractic Center driveway and westbound Cronin Road approaches
provide a single lane for shared through and turning movements. Departing the intersection,
there is a single northbound lane, two southbound lanes, a single lane eastbound on Cronin
Road and a single lane entering the chiropractor’s office. The intersection geometry is shown in
the following Bing aerial image.

Truck slowing and driving over the sidewalk to
maneuver the Bay Road northbound right-turn
movement onto Cronin Road Pedestrian walking northbound on Bay Road on the
innermost portion of the sidewalk away from vehicles

April 2012 Bay Rd/Cronin Rd Intersection Evaluation
Page 3

B. Accident History
An accident analysis was performed for the Bay Road / Cronin Road intersection using accident
data provided by the Warren County Department of Public Works and New York State
Department of Transportation. The analysis includes crashes that occurred from November 1,
2006 through December 31, 2011. Table 2.1 summarizes the accident history at the study area
intersection. In addition, a detailed accident summary sheet, collision diagram, and detailed
accident history are included in Appendix A.

Table 2.1 – Intersection Accident Summary
Accident Severity Accident Type
Fatal Injury Property
Damage
Non-
Reportable1
Total
Right Angle 0 10 19 2 31
Rear End 0 0 8 0 8
Left Turn 0 3 1 1 5
Overtaking/Sideswipe 0 0 1 0 1
Total 0 13 29 3 45 1 A non-reportable accident indicates no personal injuries occurred and property damages totaled less than $1,000.

Table 2.1 shows that there have been 45 accidents at the Bay Road / Cronin Road intersection
over the last six years. Based on the data, 30 of these accidents occurred within the last three
years. The data also shows the following:

April 2012 Bay Rd/Cronin Rd Intersection Evaluation
Page 4

 All the accidents occurred between 6:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. which suggests that
night-time visibility is not the primary contributing factor of the crash history.
 Almost 70% of the accidents involved right angle crashes between vehicles on the
Bay Road northbound and Cronin Road westbound intersection approaches.
 Almost 15% of the accidents involved two or more southbound vehicles, indicating
that there is some confusion on the southbound approach to the intersection. Rear-
end collisions are the primary accident type on the southbound approach.

The intersection improvement alternatives developed and evaluated as part of this study will
consider options to improve the two accident trends identified above: the northbound/westbound
right angle vehicle crashes and the southbound rear-end crashes.

The intersection accident rate was calculated and compared to the statewide average for
intersections on state roads with similar geometry and traffic control. The accident rate for the
subject intersection is 1.37 accidents per million entering vehicles (acc/MEV) as compared to
the statewide average of 0.15 acc/MEV. It is noted that the statewide average is calculated for
state roadways only and that since the Bay Road and Cronin Road are county and local roads,
respectively, the characteristics may be slightly different.

C. Traffic Volumes
Intersection turning movement traffic counts were conducted at the Bay Road/Cronin Road
intersection on January 25, 2012 during the weekday AM peak period from 7:00 to 9:00 a.m.,
noon peak period from 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., and the PM peak period from 3:00 to 6:00 p.m.
The raw traffic volumes are included in Appendix B. Automatic Traffic Recorders (ATRs) were
placed on all approaches to the intersection from February 2, 2012 to February 3, 2012 to
collect daily volume and travel speed data. The peak hour traffic counts provide existing traffic
conditions at the study intersection as summarized on Figure 2.1 and form the basis for all traffic
forecasts. The following observations are evident based on the existing traffic volume data:

 The weekday AM peak hour occurred from 8:00 to 9:00 a.m. Heavy vehicles and
school buses account for 1% of intersection volumes during the AM peak hour.
 The noon peak hour occurred from 12:00 to 1:00 p.m. Heavy vehicles and school
buses account for 1% of intersection volumes during the noon peak hour.
 The PM peak hour occurred from 3:15 to 4:15 p.m. Heavy vehicles and school
buses account for 1% of intersection volumes during the PM peak hour.

F:Projects2011
111-253 Bay & Cronincadddgn
figures111-253_
fig_traf.dgn
PROJECT: DATE: 111-253 04/2012 FIGURE:2.1
TRAFFIC VOLUMES

2012 (ETC) PEAK HOUR

N
306
775
CRONIN RD
BAY
RD
AM PEAK HOUR
771
472103
CRONIN RD
BAY
RD
724
496135
CRONIN RD
BAY
RD
NOON PEAK HOUR
PM PEAK HOUR
WARREN COUNTY, NY
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY

BAY RD & CRONIN RD

N
N
12273140
962
006
05333160
1008
13347175
42010

April 2012 Bay Rd/Cronin Rd Intersection Evaluation
Page 6
Chapter 3. Alternatives
Based on a review of the existing traffic conditions and accident analysis, four alternatives have
been developed for evaluation. The proposed alternative and accident reduction benefit for
each is described below.

A. Alternative 1
Alternative 1 involves re-striping the northbound and southbound intersection approaches to
provide a dedicated left-turn lane and a shared through/right-turn lane on those approaches.
The two exclusive left-turn lanes would be striped opposite each other as is typical for an
intersection with a clearly delineated single departure lane. This improvement can be extended
to re-stripe Bay Road with a center two-way left-turn lane between Cronin Road and Glenwood
Avenue as shown on Figure 3.1. However, the expanded striping improvement is not needed
for accident reduction benefits at the Bay Road / Cronin Road intersection. The eastbound and
westbound intersection approaches would continue to operate under stop sign control with
single lane approaches.

By shifting the northbound travel lanes toward the Bay Road centerline and removing the right-
turn lane to create a shoulder, sight distances for vehicles on the Cronin Road approach would
be improved and off-tracking on the right-turn movement from Bay Road to Cronin Road would
be minimized. In addition, the increased buffer to the sidewalk will provide a higher level of
comfort for pedestrians walking in this area. Creating a single receiving lane on Bay Road
southbound reduces the confusion and potential for rear-end collisions on this intersection
approach. Based upon information published by the New York State Department of
Transportation in the Post Implementation Evaluation System (NYSDOT PIES), channelization,
with the addition of left-turn lanes with painted separation as proposed in this alternative, has
the potential to reduce left-turn crashes by 44%, rear end crashes by 43%, and right-angle
crashes by 46%.

B. Alternative 2
Alternative 2 includes installing the striping modifications identified in Alternative 1 in addition to
restricting left-turns and through movements from Cronin Road. This should be accomplished
through construction of a raised median on Cronin Road at the intersection as illustrated on
Figure 3.2. The physical restriction has the potential to eliminate almost 70% of the accidents at
the intersection. With the turn restriction from Cronin Road, vehicles have the option to access
Quaker Road via the traffic signal at Meadowbrook Road, which is immediately east of Cronin
Road. It is noted that with removal of the Cronin Road left-turn and through vehicles from the
intersection, the traffic volumes at the intersection do not meet the volume criteria for traffic
signal installation. Traffic signal criteria are discussed further under Alternative 3.

C. Alternative 3
Alternative 3 includes installing the re-striping improvements as identified in Alternative 1 in
conjunction with a traffic signal. Criteria for consideration of traffic signal installation are
contained in the 2009 Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (National MUTCD), published
by the Federal Highway Administration (FHW). This publication specifies the minimum criteria
which must be met in order for a new traffic signal to be justified. The satisfaction of a signal
warrant in itself is not necessarily justification for installation for a traffic signal. Other
engineering and operational factors need to be considered.

April 2012 Bay Rd/Cronin Rd Intersection Evaluation
Page 7
The existing traffic conditions, pedestrian characteristics, and physical characteristics of the
intersection were compared to the five of the nine signal warrants contained in the National
MUTCD that are applicable to this intersection. The analysis, as contained in Appendix C,
shows that the existing traffic conditions at the Bay Road / Cronin Road intersection meet the
traffic signal warrant criteria for the traffic volume warrants (warrants 1, 2, and 3). The criteria
are not met for the pedestrian volume warrant (warrant 4) or the crash experience warrant
(warrant 8). The crash experience warrant requires that “adequate trial of alternatives with
satisfactory observance and enforcement has failed to reduce the crash frequency”. Since
previous crash reduction alternatives have not been attempted at this intersection, the warrant is
not satisfied. However, due to the satisfaction of the traffic volume warrants, a traffic signal is
considered for installation at this intersection as illustrated on Figure 3.3.

Installation of a traffic signal would actively assign right of way to vehicles approaching the
intersection and reduce the need for drivers to judge the gap length for entering the traffic
stream on Bay Road, which could significantly reduce the northbound/westbound crashes.
Therefore, according to NYSDOT PIES data, in addition to the crash reduction factors as
identified with Alternative 1, installation of a traffic signal has the potential to reduced left-turn
crashes by 27%, rear end crashes by 12%, and right-angle by 42%.

D. Alternative 4
Alternative 4 includes the construction of a single-lane roundabout at the study intersection.
This improvement reduces the number and severity of crashes by reducing the potential for
conflict. Information published by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety show that
installation of a roundabout reduces the overall number of crashes by 40% and reduces the
severity, specifically injury accidents, by 80%. The roundabout provides the benefit of allowing
full movement at the intersection while reducing the potential for conflict. One primary difficulty
associated with a roundabout is the amount of space required for construction and the impacts
to private parcels. Figure 3.4 illustrates one potential alignment for the roundabout that
minimizes the number of private parcel and utility impacts.

TITLE
CRONIN RD
BAY RD
SHOPSTEWART’S
CENTERCHIROPRACTICO’LEARY
RESTAURANTHARVEST
PROJECT: DATE: 111-253 FIGURE: WARREN COUNTY, NY

TOWN OF QUEENSBURY

BAY RD & CRONIN RD

RE-STRIPE NB & SB APPROACHES

ALTERNATIVE 1

3.1
USER =
F:Projects1I-253 Bay & CronincadddgnfiguresI-253_fi
g_alt-1.dgn4/4/2012dborjas
FILE NAME = DATE/TIME =
4/2012
N
050100150200’50
1″ = 100′

T
ITLE
CRONIN RD
BAY RD
SHOPSTEWART’S
CENTERCHIROPRACTICO’LEARY
RESTAURANTHARVEST
N
0255075100’25
1″ = 50’PROJECT: DATE: 111-253 FIGURE: WARREN COUNTY, NY

TOWN OF QUEENSBURY

BAY RD & CRONIN RD

W/ STRIPING MODIFICATIONS
RESTRICT LEFT TURNS FROM CRONIN RD

ALTERNATIVE 2

3.2
USER =
F:Projects1I-253 Bay & CronincadddgnfiguresI-253_fi
g_alt-2.dgn4/4/2012dborjas
FILE NAME = DATE/TIME =
4/2012

T
ITLE
CRONIN RD
BAY RD
SHOPSTEWART’S
CENTERCHIROPRACTICO’LEARY
RESTAURANTHARVEST
N
0255075100’25
1″ = 50’PROJECT: DATE: 111-253 FIGURE: WARREN COUNTY, NY

TOWN OF QUEENSBURY

BAY RD & CRONIN RD

W/ STRIPING MODIFICATIONS
TRAFFIC SIGNAL

ALTERNATIVE 3

3.3
USER =
F:Projects1I-253 Bay & CronincadddgnfiguresI-253_fi
g_alt-3.dgn4/4/2012dborjas
FILE NAME = DATE/TIME =
4/2012

T
ITLE
CRONIN RD
BAY RD
SHOPSTEWART’S
CENTERCHIROPRACTICO’LEARY
RESTAURANTHARVEST
N
0255075100’25
1″ = 50’PROJECT: DATE: 111-253 FIGURE: WARREN COUNTY, NY

TOWN OF QUEENSBURY

BAY RD & CRONIN RD

CONSTRUCT A SINGLE-LANE ROUNDABOUT

ALTERNATIVE 4

3.4
USER =
F:Projects1I-253 Bay & CronincadddgnfiguresI-253_fi
g_alt-4.dgn4/4/2012dborjas
FILE NAME = DATE/TIME =
4/2012

April 2012 Bay Rd/Cronin Rd Intersection Evaluation
Page 12
Chapter 4. Evaluation
Four alternatives are being progressed for evaluation. The proposed alternative and accident
reduction benefit for each is described below.

A. Traffic Analysis
1. Traffic Volume Forecasts:
The design year or Estimated Time of Completion (ETC) for this project is expected during the
2012 construction season. To evaluate the four alternatives, traffic projections were prepared
for the ETC+10 (2022) conditions. The projected volumes include background traffic growth
and trips from other planned developments in the area. Based on a review of traffic volumes
collected by Creighton Manning in 2007, traffic volumes along Bay Road have increased by
approximately 2% per year over the last 5 years. Therefore, the existing 2012 traffic volumes
were increased by a 2% annual growth rate for 10 years to arrive at the 2022 background
growth volumes. Traffic from three additional projects was accounted for in the No-Build traffic
volumes. The projects include the following:

 Fairfield Professional Office, which consists of approximately 96,000 square feet
(SF) of office space to be constructed along Baybridge Drive
 Baybrook Professional Park, which consists of 40,000 SF of office space and 36
apartments to be constructed along Willowbrook Drive
 Cottage Hill, which consists of 188 condominiums to be constructed along Baybridge
Drive

The trips associated with these developments were added to the background growth volumes to
arrive at the 2022 No-Build traffic volumes as shown in Table 4.1 and Figure 4.1.

Table 4.1 – Traffic Volume Forecasts
Year ADT DDHV
Bay Road – northbound
ETC 2012 7,915 8451
ETC+10 (2022) 11,240 1,2251
Bay Road – southbound
ETC 2012 7,140 8252
ETC+10 (2022) 10,585 1,2002
Driveway – eastbound
ETC 2012 230 123
ETC+10 (2022) 275 143
Cronin Road – westbound
ETC 2012 1,500 1253
ETC+10 (2022) 1,820 1503 1 AM Peak Hour 2 Noon Peak Hour 3 PM Peak Hour
ETC = Estimated Time of Completion
ADT = Average Daily Traffic (one-way)
DDHV = Directional Design Hourly Volume (one-way)

April 2012 Bay Rd/Cronin Rd Intersection Evaluation
Page 13
2. Level of Service and Capacity Analysis:
Intersection Level of Service (LOS) and capacity analysis relate traffic volumes to the physical
characteristics of an intersection. Intersection evaluations were made using Synchro8 which
automates the procedures contained in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual . Evaluations were
also completed using SIDRA software to analyze a roundabout at the study intersection. Levels
of service range from A to F with level of service A conditions considered excellent with very
little vehicle delay while level of service F generally represents conditions with long vehicle
delays. Table 4.2 identifies the levels of service and associated delay ranges for each type of
traffic control. Appendix D contains detailed descriptions of LOS criteria for signalized,
unsignalized, and roundabout controlled intersections, the detailed level of service reports, and
detailed level of service summary tables.

Table 4.2 – Levels of Service
Control Delay (sec/veh) Level of
Service Unsignalized
Intersection
Signalized or Roundabout
Intersection
A < 10.0 < 10.0 B >10.0 and < 15.0 >10.0 and < 20.0 C >15.0 and < 25.0 >20.0 and < 35.0 D >25.0 and < 35.0 >35.0 and < 55.0 E >35.0 and < 50.0 >55.0 and < 80.0 F >50.0 >80.0

The relative impact of the four alternatives proposed can be determined by comparing the level
of service during the design year for the No-Build and Build traffic conditions. Tables 3.3
through 3.5 summarize the results of the Level of Service calculations for the AM, noon, and PM
peak hours, respectively.

Standard traffic analysis procedures call for the collection of data during the peak periods. The
peak 1-hour traffic volumes are then determined, followed by the peak 15-minute period. It is
noted that during the AM peak hours, the 15-minute interval was highly influenced by students
arriving and departing the college. Therefore, the AM peak hour results are reflective of the
concentrated college traffic.

April 2012 Bay Rd/Cronin Rd Intersection Evaluation
Page 14
Table 4.3 – Peak Hour Level of Service Summary
Intersection Configuration Bay Rd/Cronin Rd
Approach and geometry
Existing Alt 1
Re-striping
Alt 2
Re-striping &
WB restriction
Alt 3
Re-striping &
Signal
Alt 4
Roundabout
AM Peak Hour: 2012 (ETC)
Chiropractor EB
Cronin Rd WB
Bay Rd NB Bay Rd SB B (11.0)
F (**)
A (0.4)
B (13.0) B (11.0)
F (**)
A (8.3)
B (13.1) B (11.0)
E (40.1)
A (8.3)
B (13.1) C (22.4)
C (25.9)
C (20.1)
A (4.0) A (5.8)
D (39.0)
A (6.5)
A (6.4)
Overall — — — B (16.5) A (9.3)
AM Peak Hour: 2022 (ETC+10)
Chiropractor EB
Cronin Rd WB Bay Rd NB
Bay Rd SB B (13.3)
F (**)
A (9.0)
C (23.8) B (13.3)
F (**)
A (9.0)
C (24.4) B (13.3)
F (**)
A (9.0)
C (24.4) C (24.3)
F (131)
F (141) A (4.4) A (8.4)
F (262)
F (118) A (6.4)
Overall — — — F (103) F (98.2)
Noon Peak Hour: 2012 (ETC)
Chiropractor EB
Cronin Rd WB Bay Rd NB
Bay Rd SB B (14.5)
F (75.3) A (0.0)
A (9.0) B (14.5)
F (101) A (9.3)
A (9.0) B (14.5)
B (11.7)
A (9.3)
A (9.0) B (15.6)
B (18.1)
A (6.1)
B (10.2) B (10.2)
B (12.4)
A (6.1)
A (6.5)
Overall — — — A (9.2) A (6.7)
Noon Peak Hour: 2022 (ETC+10)
Chiropractor EB
Cronin Rd WB
Bay Rd NB Bay Rd SB C (21.1)
F (**)
A (0.0)
B (10.4) C (21.1)
F (**)
B (11.0)
B (10.5) C (21.1)
B (14.9)
B (11.0)
B (10.5) C (24.8)
C (28.7)
A (6.2)
B (15.3) C (25.2)
B (15.0)
A (6.4)
A (9.0)
Overall — — — B (12.6) A (8.4)
PM Peak Hour: 2012 (ETC)
Chiropractor EB
Cronin Rd WB
Bay Rd NB Bay Rd SB C (19.0)
F (80.9)
A (0.1)
A (9.1) C (19.4)
F (124)
A (9.2)
A (9.1) C (19.4)
B (12.2)
A (9.2)
A (9.1) C (22.9)
C (27.0)
A (4.6)
A (5.3) A (9.6)
B (12.8)
A (5.9)
A (6.6)
Overall — — — A (6.9) A (6.8)
PM Peak Hour: 2022 (ETC+10)
Chiropractor EB
Cronin Rd WB Bay Rd NB
Bay Rd SB E (45.5)
F (**)
A (0.2)
B (10.6) F (51.3)
F (**)
B (10.7)
B (10.8) F (50.3)
C (16.3) B (10.7)
B (10.8) C (22.5)
C (32.2)
A (7.6)
B (13.3) C (20.7)
B (15.8) A (6.2)
A (8.6)
Overall — — — B (12.4) A (8.2)
EB, WB, NB, SB = Eastbound, Westbound, Northbound, Southbound
X (Y.Y) = Level of Service (average delay in seconds per vehicl e) reported for the critical movement for unsignalized intersect ions
and the overall approach for signalized intersections
— = Not Applicable
** = average delay greater than 200 seconds

The level of service analysis shows that under stop control, the westbound Cronin Road
approach to the intersection generally operates at longer level of service F conditions when left-
turns are allowed. This is especially true during the AM peak hour when the college arrival
period significantly affects operations at the intersection for a 15-minute period. The analysis
also shows that as funding is available, capacity improvements or turn restrictions (as identified
in Alternatives 2, 3, and 4) should be implemented at the intersection.

April 2012 Bay Rd/Cronin Rd Intersection Evaluation
Page 15
B. Cost Estimates
The estimated costs for the four alternatives at the Bay Road/Cronin Road intersection include
both construction costs and soft costs such as design engineering, detailed cost estimates,
preparation of construction documents, public bidding process, right-of-way acquisition, and
construction inspection. The estimates are considered planning level and do not include
potential relocation of existing utilities. Based on recent bid results and prior experience with
projects on New York State highways, planning level cost estimates for each of the four
alternatives are provided below. Additional cost estimate information is included in Appendix E.

 Alternative 1 – Re-striping = $50,000
 Alternative 2 – Re-striping & Westbound Turn Restriction = $75,000
 Alternative 3 – Re-striping & Signal Installation = $200,000
 Alternative 4 – Roundabout Construction = $1,725,000

All alternative cost estimates would be increased by $125,000 if the striping improvements are
extended to Glenwood Avenue as described in the Alternative 1 narrative in Section 3.A. The
striping improvements are completed through removing and replacing the top layer of asphalt to
provide a clean surface for re-striping.

C. Impacts
Table 4.6 provides a comparison of the four intersection alternatives. The table qualifies each
alternative as having high, medium, or low impacts associated with multiple criteria and good,
adequate, or poor operational characteristics.

Table 4.4 – Alternatives Comparison
Criteria Alternative
1
Re-striping
2
Re-striping &
WB restriction
3
Re-striping &
Signal
4
Roundabout
Accident reduction benefit Medium High Medium High
Intersection operations as compared to
existing Similar Improved Improved Improved
Access impacts to adjacent properties
and drivers Low High Medium High
Right-of-way impacts
None None Low High
Utility impacts None None Potentially High High
Maintenance concerns None Medium None Medium
Traffic diversion None High Low Low
Cost $50,000 $75,000 $200,000 $1,725,000

It is noted that similar to existing conditions, intersection operations, especially during the AM
peak hour, will be poor on the Cronin Road approach to the intersection. The traffic diversion
potential for Alternatives 3 and 4 refers to the access changes that would likely occur at the
adjacent land uses and is not associated with a slightly more regional diversion.

F:Projects2011
111-253 Bay & Cronincadddgn
figures111-253_
fig_traf.dgn
PROJECT: DATE: 111-253 04/2012 FIGURE:4.1
TRAFFIC VOLUMES

2022 (ETC + 10) PEAK HOUR

N
473
1137
CRONIN RD
BAY
RD
AM PEAK HOUR
1132
688126
CRONIN RD
BAY
RD
1075
718165
CRONIN RD
BAY
RD
NOON PEAK HOUR
PM PEAK HOUR
WARREN COUNTY, NY
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY

BAY RD & CRONIN RD

N
N
12789149
1176
007
06540173
10010
14057191
52012

April 2012 Bay Rd/Cronin Rd Intersection Evaluation
Page 17
Chapter 5. Conclusions and Recommendations
This report summarizes the results of an accident analysis for the Bay Road / Cronin Road
intersection and the evaluation of several intersection improvements with the potential to
mitigate the intersection crash history. The evaluation compares the benefits and impacts
associated with the four alternatives developed, including operational analyses for the ETC
(2012) and ETC+10 (2022) conditions to identify future needs at the intersection.

Based on the accident analysis, the intersection crash rate is more than nine times higher than
the statewide average for similar intersections. The analysis shows there are two primary
accident patterns at the intersection. Almost 70% off all accidents in the study period involve
crashes between northbound and westbound vehicles and nearly 15% of the accidents involve
two or more southbound vehicles. Mitigating these two crash patterns is the primary concern
when determining the preferred intersection improvement strategy.

The four alternatives under consideration include:
 Alternative 1: Re-stripe the northbound and southbound approaches to provide
separate left-turn and shared through/right-turn lanes
 Alternative 2: Re-stripe the northbound and southbound approaches to provide left-
turn and shared through/right-turn lanes and restrict westbound left-turn and through
movements by constructing a raised median.
 Alternative 3: Re-stripe the northbound and southbound approaches to provide left-
turn and shared through/right-turn lanes and install a traffic signal
 Alternative 4: Construct a single-lane roundabout

When comparing the four alternatives, Alternative 1 provides the greatest potential accident
reduction benefit for the lowest cost and impacts. It is noted that consistent with existing
conditions, the westbound Cronin Road approach to the intersection will operate at level of
service F during the three peak hours. However, the trade-off between the intersection
operations, the minimal impacts, and low cost may outweigh the intersection operations
considerations. Therefore, implementation of Alternative 1 is recommended during the 2012
spring construction season. Subsequent to implementation, intersection accident records
should be reviewed annually to confirm the effectiveness of the improvements. If the
improvements are not proving effective in reducing the number and severity of accidents at the
intersection, further measures should be implemented.

Restriction of left-turn movements from Cronin Road (Alternative 2) or installation of a traffic
signal (Alternative 3) would both further reduce the number of accidents at the Bay Road /
Cronin Road intersection. While construction of a roundabout (Alternative 4) would also reduce
the number and severity of accidents, due to the cost, this alternative is considered not feasible
at this time.

Construction of a raised median on the Cronin Road approach to Bay Road to restrict left-turns
and through movements from Cronin Road onto Bay Road would be an unpopular decision for
the general traveling public from the east. In addition, the construction of a raised median can
make snow maintenance efforts cumbersome. However, restricting the left-turn movements has
the potential to eliminate future crashes. The crash data shows that these movements account
for almost 70% of the 45 crashes experienced at the intersection over the last five years.
Drivers have alternate routes on the existing transportation network that have sufficient capacity
to accommodate the re-routed traffic.

April 2012 Bay Rd/Cronin Rd Intersection Evaluation
Page 18
Several warrants for traffic signal installation
are met and capacity analyses indicate that the
intersection would operate with improved levels
of service under traffic signal control while
generally maintaining existing traffic patterns.
However, installation of a traffic signal is
problematic due to the existing overhead
utilities at the intersection. The adjacent
photograph shows some of the overhead utility
conflicts at the intersection. Existing utility
poles would likely require relocation in order to
meet utility spacing requirements. Review of
available mapping indicates that the existing
utility poles appear to be outside of the existing
right-of-way meaning that funding for utility pole
relocation is the responsibility of the project
sponsor.

It is recommended that Alternative 1 be implemented at the Bay Road / Cronin Road
intersection during the spring/summer 2012 construction season to mitigate the existing
accident patterns at the intersection. After one year, the accident records should be reviewed to
identify the effectiveness of the re-striping effort. Growth in the corridor should also be
monitored, as the level of service analysis shows that capacity improvements should be
provided as growth in the corridor increases.

If the accident and traffic volume data indicate that additional mitigation measures are needed,
Alternative 2 or Alternative 3 could be implemented. At this time, implementation of Alternative
2 represents a logical, low-cost, minimal impact option to further address existing safety
concerns if Alternative 1 proves insufficient. However, installation of a traffic signal is also a
viable intersection improvement. Therefore, if additional improvements are needed, the County
and other involved parties will need to evaluate the potential physical impacts and costs versus
the accident reduction and capacity benefits. The evaluation should include:
 Further definition of right-of-way impacts
 Capacity analyses to confirm expected corridor growth
 Cost estimate comparison with specific utility impacts
 Funding sources and budgetary constraints

Existing overhead utility conflicts at the Bay Road /
Cronin Road intersection

Appendix A
Accident Evaluation

Transportation Assessment Bay Road/Cronin Road
Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York

Appendix B
Traffic Volume Data

Transportation Assessment Bay Road/Cronin Road
Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York

Appendix C
Signal Warrant Evaluation

Transportation Assessment Bay Road/Cronin Road
Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York

Introduction
The purpose of this evaluation is to summarize the results of a traffic signal warrant analysis at
the intersection of Bay Road and Cronin Road. The existing and future traffic conditions,
pedestrian characteristics, and physical characteristics of the intersection were compared to five
of the nine signal warrants contained in the National Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(MUTCD). The intersection currently operates under stop sign control on the eastbound and
westbound approaches. The northbound approach provides an exclusive right-turn lane and a
shared through/left-turn lane while the southbound approach provides an exclusive left-turn lane
and a shared through/right-turn lane. The eastbound and westbound approaches provide a
single lane for shared travel movements.

Description of Warrants
Warrant 1, Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume
– This warrant is satisfied if for any eight hours of an
average day the traffic volumes for Condition A or Condition B specified in Table 4C-1 of the
MUTCD are met for the major-street and the higher volume minor-street approach to the
intersection.

Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume
– This warrant is met when for any four hours of an
average day, points plotted on the graph presented on Figure 4C-1 of the MUTCD fall above the
appropriate curve.

Warrant 3, Peak Hour
– This warrant is met when for any one hour of an average day, points
plotted on the graph presented on Figure 4C-3 of the MUTCD fall above the appropriate curve.

Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume
– This warrant is satisfied when for any four hours of an average
day, points plotted on the graph presented on Figure 4C-5 of the MUTCD fall above the
appropriate curve. This warrant is also satisfied if for any one hour of an average day, points
plotted on the graph presented on Figure 4C-7 fall above the appropriate curve.

Warrant 7, Crash Experience
– This warrant is used when the severity and frequency of crashes
are the primary reason for installation of a traffic signal. This warrant is satisfied when adequate
trial of alternatives has failed to reduce the crash frequency, five or more crashes of a type
susceptible to correction by a traffic signal have occurred within the last 12 months, and when
traffic volumes at the intersection exceed the 80% thresholds identified in warrant 1 for eight
hours of an average day.

Warrants 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7 are analyzed in detail in the next section.

Detailed Signal Warrants Analysis
Warrants 1, 2, and 3
– Average hourly traffic volumes recorded by Creighton Manning and
turning movement counts serve as the basis for the signal warrant analysis. Table 1
summarizes the analysis of Warrants 1, 2, and 3. A checkmark under the “Signal Warrants
Met?” column indicates that the criteria are satisfied for that hour.

Table 1 – Summary of Signal Warrant Analysis
Existing 2012 Volumes Signal Warrants Met?
#1 Time Begin
(1-hour period) Bay Rd Cronin Rd Cond. A Cond. B #2 #3
7:00 AM 786 89 

8:00 AM 1,094 105 


9:00 AM 1,009 102 


10:00 AM 1,144 97 


11:00 AM 1,168 97 


12:00 PM 1,347 128 
 
1:00 PM 1,242 125 


2:00 PM 1,040 122 


3:00 PM 1,438 146 
 
4:00 PM 1,272 112 


5:00 PM 1,151 115 


6:00 PM 594 64
7:00 PM 481 39
8:00 PM 449 29
9:00 PM 264 29
One Lane Major Street 500 750 Required
Volumes One Lane Minor Street 150 75 See Figure
4C-1 See Figure
4C-4
Overall Warrant Met? No Yes Yes
Yes

Table 1 shows that the traffic volumes at the intersection meet the signal warrant thresholds for
installation of a traffic signal for the eight-hour, four-hour and peak hour scenarios.

Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume
– Review of the signal warrant criteria indicates that a minimum
of 107 pedestrians crossing the major street per hour is needed to satisfy criteria A and that a
minimum of 133 pedestrians crossing the major street per hour is needed to satisfy criteria B.
The corresponding vehicular volumes are 1,100 and 1,450 vehicles on the major street,
respectively. Review of the traffic volume data shows that only one pedestrian was observed
crossing the street during the AM peak hour while 7 pedestrians were observed crossing the
street during the PM peak hour. Based upon the available data, the pedestrian and vehicle
volumes at this intersection do not meet thresholds and the warrant is not satisfied.

Warrant 7, Crash Experience
– Review of the crash data at the Bay Rd/Cronin Rd intersections
shows that there were 45 accidents reported over the last six years, eleven of which occurred
within the last 12 months. The 45 reported accidents included 31 right-angle, 8 rear end, 5 left-
turn, and one overtaking accident. The right-angle, rear-end and left-turn accidents are
susceptible to correction by a traffic signal. However, installation of a traffic signal based upon
the crash experience warrant requires “adequate trial of alternatives with satisfactory
observance and enforcement has failed to reduce the crash frequency”.

Recommendation
The above analysis shows that the existing traffic conditions at the Bay Road/Cronin Road
intersection meet the traffic signal warrant criteria for Warrants 1, 2, and 3. Therefore, a traffic
signal should be considered for installation at this intersection.

Figure 4C-1
Four-Hour Vehicular Volume Warrant
Source: Federal MUTCD
0
100 200 300 400
500
600 700 800
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 Major Street-Total of Both Approaches-Vehicles Per Hour (VPH)
Minor Street Higher-Volume Approach-VPH
1 lane artery approaches and1 lane side road approaches

Figure 4C-3
Peak Hour Volume Warrant
Source: Federal MUTCD
0
100 200 300
400
500 600 700
800
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 Major Street-Total of Both Approaches-Vehicles Per Hour (VPH)
Minor Street Higher-Volume Approach-VPH
1 lane artery approaches and 1 lane side road approaches

Appendix D
Level of Service Analysis

Transportation Assessment Bay Road/Cronin Road
Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York

LOS Definitions

The following is an excerpt from the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual
(HCM).

Level of Service for Signalized Intersections
Level of service for a signalized intersection is define d in terms of control delay, which is a measure of
driver discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption, an d increased travel time. The delay experienced by a
motorist is made up of a number of factors that relate to control, geometrics, traffic, and incidents. Total
delay is the difference between the travel time actual ly experienced and the reference travel time that
would result during base conditions: in the absence of traffic control, geometric delay, any incidents, and
any other vehicles. Specifically, LOS criteria for traffic signals are stated in terms of the average control
delay per vehicle, typically for a 15-minute analysis period. Delay is a complex measure and depends on
a number of variables, including the quality of progress ion, the cycle length, the green ratio, and the v/c
ratio for the lane group. Levels of service are defined to represent r easonable ranges in control delay.

LOS A describes operations with low control delay, up to 10 s/veh. This LOS occurs when progression is
extremely favorable and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Many vehicles do not stop at all.
Short cycle lengths may tend to contribute to low delay.

LOS B describes operations with control delay greater than 10 and up to 20 s/veh. This level generally
occurs with good progression, short cy cle lengths, or both. More vehicles stop than with LOS A, causing
higher levels of delay.

LOS C describes operations with contro l delay greater than 20 and up to 35 s/veh. These higher delays
may result from only fair progression, longer cycle l engths, or both. Individual cycle failures may begin to
appear at this level. Cycle failure occurs when a given green phase does not serve queued vehicles, and
overflows occur. The number of v ehicles stopping is significant at this level, though many still pass
through the intersection without stopping.

LOS D describes operations with contro l delay greater than 35 and up to 55 s/veh. At LOS D, the
influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of
unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, and high v/ c ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion
of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable.

LOS E describes operations with control delay greater th an 55 and up to 80 s/veh. These high delay
values generally indicate poor progression, long cycl e lengths, and high v/c ratios. Individual cycle
failures are frequent.

LOS F describes operations with control delay in ex cess of 80 s/veh. This level, considered
unacceptable to most drivers, often occurs with oversa turation, that is, when arrival flow rates exceed the
capacity of lane groups. It may also occur at high v/c ratios with many individual cycle failures. Poor
progression and long cycle lengths may also be contribute significantly to high delay levels.

Average control delay and queue length at roundabout controlled intersections are calculated using
SIDRA Intersection. The physical geometry such as entry lane width and approach flare, and traffic
volume at the roundabout are factor s that influence the intersection’s performance. The average delay
reported using SIRA Intersection is based on the HCM Method of Delay for Level-of-Service.

Level of Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections

Four measures are used to describe the performance of two-way stop controlled intersections: control
delay, delay to major street through vehicles, queue l ength, and v/c ratio. The primary measure that is
used to provide an estimate of LOS is control delay. This measure can be estimated for any movement
on the minor (i.e., stop-controlled) street. By summing delay estimates for individual movements, a delay
estimate for each minor street movement and mino r street approach can be achieved. The level of
service criteria is given in Exhibit 17-2/22.

For all-way stop controlled (AWSC) intersections, the average control delay (in seconds per vehicle) is
used as the primary measure of performance. Control delay is the increased time of travel for a vehicle
approaching and passing through an AWSC intersection, compared with a free-flow vehicle if it were not
required to slow or stop at the intersection.

Exhibit 17-2/22: Level-of-Service Crit eria for Stop Controlled Intersections
Level of Service Control Delay (sec/veh)
A < 10.0 B >10.0 and < 15.0 C >15.0 and < 25.0 D >25.0 and < 35.0 E >35.0 and < 50.0 F >50.0

2012 AM Peak Hour
Intersection 2012 Existing Alt 1 Re-striping Alt 2 Re-striping & WB restriction
Alt 3 Re-striping & Signal
Alt 4 Roundabout
Bay Rd/Cronin Rd Chiropractor EB
Cronin Rd WB
Bay Rd NB
Cronin Rd SB LTR
LTR
LT
R
L
TR B (11.0)
F (**)
A (0.4)
A (0.0)
B (13.0)
A (0.0)
Chiropractor EB
Cronin Rd WB
Bay Rd NB
Cronin Rd SB LTR
L(TR)
L
L B (11.0)
F (**)
A (8.3)
B (13.1) B (11.0)
E (42.7)
A (8.3)
B (13.1)
Chiropractor EB
Cronin Rd WB Bay Rd NB

Cronin Rd SB LTR
LTR
L
TR
L
TR C (22.4)
C (25.9) A (2.3)
C (20.3) A (7.3)
A (3.7)
Overalll
B (16.5) Chiropractor EB
Cronin Rd WB Bay Rd NB
Cronin Rd SB LTR
LTR
LTR
LTR A (5.8)
D (39.0) A (6.5)
A (6.4)
Overall A (9.3)
Bay Rd/Glenwood Ave/Lowe’s Dwy Glenwood Ave EB
Lowe’s Dwy WB

Bay Rd NB
Bay Rd SB LTR
L,
LT
R
L
T,TR
L
T,TR E (56.6)
E (56.8)
E (56.0)
D (50.6)
C (20.5)
C (28.4)
C (21.8)
C (26.7) E (56.6)
D (56.8)
D (56.0)
D (50.6)
C (20.4)
C (28.4)
C (21.8)
C (26.3)
Overall
D (37.6) D (37.8)
Bay Rd/Quaker Rd Quaker Rd EB

Quaker Rd WB

Bay Rd NB
Bay Rd SB
L
T,TR
L
T,T
R
L
T,TR
L
T,TR B (14.3)
C (21.8)
B (15.8)
C (24.6) B (12.2)
C (24.0)
C (33.1)
C (22.0)
C (30.4) B (14.3)
C (21.4)
B (15.6)
C (24.7) B (12.3)
C (24.1)
C (33.1)
C (22.4)
C (30.5)
Overall
C (23.7) C (23.6)
Glenwood Ave/Quaker Rd Quaker Rd EB

Quaker Rd WB
Glenwood Ave NB

Glenwood Ave SB L
T,TR
L
T,TR
L
TR
L
TR B (18.7)
B (18.2)
C (20.8)
C (21.8)
C (25.8)
C (28.8)
C (26.3)
C (27.3) B (19.0)
B (18.4)
C (20.5)
C (21.8)
C (26.1)
C (29.1)
C (26.6)
C (27.5)
Overalll
C (21.1) C (21.1)
S = Signalized, R = Roundabout, TW = Two-Way Stop intersection.EB, WB, NB, SB = Eastbound, Westbound,
Northbound, Southbound
L, T, R = Left-turn, Through, Right-turn movements
X (Y.Y) = Level of Service (average delay per vehicle in seconds)

2022 AM Peak Hour
Intersection 2022 Existing Alt 1 Re-striping Alt 2 Re-striping & WB restriction
Alt 3 Re-striping & Signal
Alt 4 Roundabout
Bay Rd/Cronin Rd Chiropractor EB
Cronin Rd WB
Bay Rd NB
Cronin Rd SB LTR
LTR
LT
R
L
TR B (13.3)
F (**)
A (9.0)
A (0.0)
C (23.8)
A (0.0)
Chiropractor EB
Cronin Rd WB
Bay Rd NB
Cronin Rd SB LTR
L(TR)
L
L B (13.3)
F (**)
A (9.0)
C (24.4) B (13.3)
F (**)
A (9.0)
C (24.4)
Chiropractor EB
Cronin Rd WB Bay Rd NB

Cronin Rd SB LTR
LTR
L
TR
L
TR C (24.3)
F (131) A (1.8)
F (142) A (8.3)
A (4.4)
Overalll
F (103) Chiropractor EB
Cronin Rd WB Bay Rd NB
Cronin Rd SB LTR
LTR
LTR
LTR A (8.4)
F (262)
F (118) A (6.4)
Overall F (98.2)
Bay Rd/Glenwood Ave/Lowe’s Dwy Glenwood Ave EB
Lowe’s Dwy WB

Bay Rd NB
Bay Rd SB LTR
L,
LT
R
L
T,TR
L
T,TR F (275)
E (57.2)
E (56.3)
D (50.5) B (16.6)
C (25.8)
B (18.9)
C (24.1) F (**)
E (57.2)
E (56.3)
D (50.5) B (16.4)
C (25.8)
B (18.9)
C (23.7)
Overall
F (103) F (105)
Bay Rd/Quaker Rd Quaker Rd EB

Quaker Rd WB

Bay Rd NB
Bay Rd SB
L
T,TR
L
T,T
R
L
T,TR
L
T,TR C (27.8)
C (27.5)
B (19.9)
C (30.8) B (15.0)
C (30.5)
D (44.7)
C (28.9)
D (37.2) C (28.0)
C (26.9)
B (19.6)
C (31.2) B (15.2)
C (30.9)
D (45.5)
C (29.1)
D (37.4)
Overall
C (30.6) C (30.6)
Glenwood Ave/Quaker Rd Quaker Rd EB

Quaker Rd WB
Glenwood Ave NB

Glenwood Ave SB L
T,TR
L
T,TR
L
TR
L
TR D (37.0)
B (19.9)
C (25.8)
C (23.7)
C (30.3)
D (41.9)
C (30.4)
C (32.0) D (38.3)
C (20.1)
C (25.5)
C (23.7)
C (30.6)
D (42.8)
C (30.7)
C (32.2)
Overalll
C (26.0) C (26.2)
S = Signalized, R = Roundabout, TW = Two-Way Stop intersection.EB, WB, NB, SB = Eastbound, Westbound,
Northbound, Southbound
L, T, R = Left-turn, Through, Right-turn movements
X (Y.Y) = Level of Service (average delay per vehicle in seconds)

2012 Noon Peak Hour
Intersection 2012 Existing Alt 1 Re-striping Alt 2 Re-striping & WB restriction
Alt 3 Re-striping & Signal
Alt 4 Roundabout
Bay Rd/Cronin Rd Chiropractor EB
Cronin Rd WB
Bay Rd NB
Cronin Rd SB LTR
LTR
LT
R
L
TR B (14.5)
F (75.3)
A (0.0)
A (0.0)
A (9.0)
A (0.0)
Chiropractor EB
Cronin Rd WB
Bay Rd NB
Cronin Rd SB LTR
L(TR)
L
L B (14.5)
F (101)
A (9.3)
A (9.0) B (14.5)
B (12.7)
A (9.3)
A (9.0)
Chiropractor EB
Cronin Rd WB Bay Rd NB

Cronin Rd SB LTR
LTR
L
TR
L
TR B (15.6)
B (18.1) A (3.6)
A (6.1)
A (4.0)
B (10.7)
Overalll
A (9.2) Chiropractor EB
Cronin Rd WB Bay Rd NB
Cronin Rd SB LTR
LTR
LTR
LTR B (10.2)
B (12.4) A (6.1)
A (6.5)
Overall A (6.7)
Bay Rd/Glenwood Ave/Lowe’s Dwy Glenwood Ave EB
Lowe’s Dwy WB

Bay Rd NB
Bay Rd SB LTR
L,
LT
R
L
T,TR
L
T,TR C (27.0)
C (32.7)
C (32.6)
C (27.8)
B (17.5)
B (19.0)
B (15.5)
C (23.6) C (25.5)
C (31.6)
C (31.5)
C (26.9) B (17.3)
B (19.3)
B (15.9)
C (23.3)
Overall
C (23.5) C (23.0)
Bay Rd/Quaker Rd Quaker Rd EB

Quaker Rd WB

Bay Rd NB
Bay Rd SB
L
T,TR
L
T,T
R
L
T,TR
L
T,TR C (29.8)
C (27.1)
B (19.8)
C (30.8) B (13.5)
C (30.5)
D (40.0)
C (27.6)
D (35.4) C (31.6)
C (26.1)
B (19.4)
C (30.9) B (13.5)
C (31.2)
D (40.9)
C (28.2)
D (36.0)
Overall
C (30.0) C (30.1)
Glenwood Ave/Quaker Rd Quaker Rd EB

Quaker Rd WB
Glenwood Ave NB

Glenwood Ave SB L
T,TR
L
T,TR
L
TR
L
TR C (28.6)
C (22.2)
C (28.6)
C (26.3)
D (35.1)
F (94.9)
C (31.1)
D (40.1) C (28.6)
C (21.9)
C (27.9)
C (26.4)
D (35.4)
F (98.2)
C (31.6)
D (39.0)
Overalll
C (32.3) C (32.3)
S = Signalized, R = Roundabout, TW = Two-Way Stop intersection.EB, WB, NB, SB = Eastbound, Westbound,
Northbound, Southbound
L, T, R = Left-turn, Through, Right-turn movements
X (Y.Y) = Level of Service (average delay per vehicle in seconds)

2022 Noon Peak Hour
Intersection 2022 Existing Alt 1 Re-striping Alt 2 Re-striping & WB restriction
Alt 3 Re-striping & Signal
Alt 4 Roundabout
Bay Rd/Cronin Rd Chiropractor EB
Cronin Rd WB
Bay Rd NB
Cronin Rd SB LTR
LTR
LT
R
L
TR C (21.1)
F (**)
A (0.0)
A (0.0)
B (10.4)
A (0.0)
Chiropractor EB
Cronin Rd WB
Bay Rd NB
Cronin Rd SB LTR
L(TR)
L
L C (21.1)
F (**)
B (11.0)
B (10.5) C (21.1)
C (18.6)
B (11.0)
B (10.5)
Chiropractor EB
Cronin Rd WB Bay Rd NB

Cronin Rd SB LTR
LTR
L
TR
L
TR C (24.8)
C (28.7) A (2.1)
A (6.2)
A (3.2)
B (16.0)
Overalll
B (12.6) Chiropractor EB
Cronin Rd WB Bay Rd NB
Cronin Rd SB LTR
LTR
LTR
LTR C (25.2)
B (15.0) A (6.4)
A (9.0)
Overall A (8.4)
Bay Rd/Glenwood Ave/Lowe’s Dwy Glenwood Ave EB
Lowe’s Dwy WB

Bay Rd NB
Bay Rd SB LTR
L,
LT
R
L
T,TR
L
T,TR D (38.5)
D (38.6)
D (38.6)
C (32.7)
C (24.0)
C (23.3)
B (18.3)
E (56.8) D (38.5)
D (38.6)
D (38.6)
C (32.7)
C (24.0)
C (23.3)
B (18.3)
D (42.4)
Overall
D (42.8) D (35.8)
Bay Rd/Quaker Rd Quaker Rd EB

Quaker Rd WB

Bay Rd NB
Bay Rd SB
L
T,TR
L
T,T
R
L
T,TR
L
T,TR F (88.7)
C (29.2)
C (32.1)
D (36.1) B (15.6)
E (66.5)
E (62.1) F (96.4)
E (55.8) F (95.0)
C (28.5)
C (31.0)
D (36.5) B (15.4)
E (70.6)
E (64.9) F (87.1)
D (53.9)
Overall
D (47.8) D (47.4)
Glenwood Ave/Quaker Rd Quaker Rd EB

Quaker Rd WB
Glenwood Ave NB

Glenwood Ave SB L
T,TR
L
T,TR
L
TR
L
TR E (62.6)
C (31.8)
C (33.4)
C (34.5)
D (40.1)
F (**)
C (32.8) F (92.3) E (63.9)
C (31.9)
C (33.3)
D (36.7)
D (40.4)
F (**)
C (33.0) E (75.6)
Overalll
E (58.2) E (57.2)
S = Signalized, R = Roundabout, TW = Two-Way Stop intersection.EB, WB, NB, SB = Eastbound, Westbound,
Northbound, Southbound
L, T, R = Left-turn, Through, Right-turn movements
X (Y.Y) = Level of Service (average delay per vehicle in seconds)

2012 PM Peak Hour
Intersection 2012 Existing Alt 1 Re-striping Alt 2 Re-striping & WB restriction
Alt 3 Re-striping & Signal
Alt 4 Roundabout
Bay Rd/Cronin Rd Chiropractor EB
Cronin Rd WB
Bay Rd NB
Cronin Rd SB LTR
LTR
LT
R
L
TR C (19.0)
F (80.9)
A (0.1)
A (0.0)
A (9.1)
A (0.0)
Chiropractor EB
Cronin Rd WB
Bay Rd NB
Cronin Rd SB LTR
L(TR)
L
L C (19.4)
F (124)
A (9.2)
A (9.1) C (19.4)
B (12.9)
A (9.2)
A (9.1)
Chiropractor EB
Cronin Rd WB Bay Rd NB

Cronin Rd SB LTR
LTR
L
TR
L
TR C (22.9)
C (27.0) A (2.1)
A (4.6)
A (2.4)
A (5.3)
Overalll
A (6.9) Chiropractor EB
Cronin Rd WB Bay Rd NB
Cronin Rd SB LTR
LTR
LTR
LTR C (20.7)
B (15.8) A (6.2)
A (8.6)
Overall A (8.2)
Bay Rd/Glenwood Ave/Lowe’s Dwy Glenwood Ave EB
Lowe’s Dwy WB

Bay Rd NB
Bay Rd SB LTR
L,
LT
R
L
T,TR
L
T,TR C (26.4)
C (31.9)
C (31.7)
C (27.2)
B (17.4)
B (19.3)
B (15.5)
C (22.9) C (24.8)
C (30.8)
C (30.6)
C (26.2) B (17.1)
B (19.6)
B (15.8)
C (22.4)
Overall
C (22.8) C (22.3)
Bay Rd/Quaker Rd Quaker Rd EB

Quaker Rd WB

Bay Rd NB
Bay Rd SB
L
T,TR
L
T,T
R
L
T,TR
L
T,TR D (42.7)
C (26.0)
B (19.7)
C (32.7) B (14.6)
D (36.2)
D (45.0)
C (31.9)
D (38.9) D (44.4)
C (25.0)
B (19.2)
C (32.8) B (14.5)
D (37.2)
D (46.7)
C (32.4)
D (39.5)
Overall
C (32.9) C (33.1)
Glenwood Ave/Quaker Rd Quaker Rd EB

Quaker Rd WB
Glenwood Ave NB

Glenwood Ave SB L
T,TR
L
T,TR
L
TR
L
TR D (38.3)
C (27.5)
C (30.0)
C (30.5)
D (38.4)
E (63.0)
C (32.0) E (56.9) D (38.7)
C (27.4)
C (29.6)
C (31.9)
D (38.2)
E (62.4)
C (32.2)
D (50.4)
Overalll
C (34.7) C (34.4)
S = Signalized, R = Roundabout, TW = Two-Way Stop intersection.EB, WB, NB, SB = Eastbound, Westbound,
Northbound, Southbound
L, T, R = Left-turn, Through, Right-turn movements
X (Y.Y) = Level of Service (average delay per vehicle in seconds)

2022 PM Peak Hour
Intersection 2022 Existing Alt 1 Re-striping Alt 2 Re-striping & WB restriction
Alt 3 Re-striping & Signal
Alt 4 Roundabout
Bay Rd/Cronin Rd Chiropractor EB
Cronin Rd WB
Bay Rd NB
Cronin Rd SB LTR
LTR
LT
R
L
TR E (45.5)
F (**)
A (0.2)
A (0.0)
B (10.6)
A (0.0)
Chiropractor EB
Cronin Rd WB
Bay Rd NB
Cronin Rd SB LTR
L(TR)
L
L F (51.3)
F (**)
B (10.7)
B (10.8) F (51.3)
C (19.1)
B (10.7)
B (10.8)
Chiropractor EB
Cronin Rd WB Bay Rd NB

Cronin Rd SB LTR
LTR
L
TR
L
TR C (22.5)
C (32.2) A (2.5)
A 97.7) A (3.1)
B (13.7)
Overalll
B (12.4) Chiropractor EB
Cronin Rd WB Bay Rd NB
Cronin Rd SB LTR
LTR
LTR
LTR
Overall

Bay Rd/Glenwood Ave/Lowe’s Dwy Glenwood Ave EB
Lowe’s Dwy WB

Bay Rd NB
Bay Rd SB LTR
L,
LT
R
L
T,TR
L
T,TR D (36.1)
D (38.5)
D (38.1)
C (32.5)
C (26.7)
C (24.3)
B (18.7)
D (49.3) D (36.1)
D (38.5)
D (38.1)
C 932.5) C (26.7)
C (24.3)
B (18.7)
D (36.5)
Overall
D (38.5) C (32.6)
Bay Rd/Quaker Rd Quaker Rd EB

Quaker Rd WB

Bay Rd NB
Bay Rd SB
L
T,TR
L
T,T
R
L
T,TR
L
T,TR F (134.)
C (28.4)
C (24.8)
D (37.2) B (15.4)
F (114)
F (103)
F (85.2)
E (63.2) F (143)
C (27.7)
C (24.1)
D (38.0) B (15.1)
F (120)
F (109)
E (75.2)
E (58.7)
Overall
E (58.7) E (58.9)
Glenwood Ave/Quaker Rd Quaker Rd EB

Quaker Rd WB
Glenwood Ave NB

Glenwood Ave SB L
T,TR
L
T,TR
L
TR
L
TR E (65.2)
D (38.4)
D (41.4) E (73.9)
D (40.8)
F (138)
C (33.1) F (**) E (65.2)
D (38.4)
D (41.4) F (84.5)
D (40.8)
F (138)
C (33.1) F (165)
Overalll
E (78.0) E (76.9)
S = Signalized, R = Roundabout, TW = Two-Way Stop intersection.EB, WB, NB, SB = Eastbound, Westbound,
Northbound, Southbound
L, T, R = Left-turn, Through, Right-turn movements
X (Y.Y) = Level of Service (average delay per vehicle in seconds)

Appendix E
Planning Level Cost Estimates

Transportation Assessment Bay Road/Cronin Road
Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York