Transit Development Plan

Transit
Development
Plan
Final Plan
Submitted by:
September 22, 2009
In association with:
RLS & Associates
This document was printed on recycled paper

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Table of Contents
Page
Page i • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Executive Summary ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ES-1
Principles and System Development ……………………………………………………………………… ES-1
Recommendations ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ES-3
Chapter 1. Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………………… 1-1
Chapter 2. System Overview …………………………………………………………………………………. 2-1
Fixed- Route System ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 2-1
Chapter 3. Community Profile ……………………………………………………………………………….. 3-1
Demographic Analysis …………………………………………………………………………………………… 3-1
Employment …………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 3-4
Chapter 4. Stakeholder and Public Input ……………………………………………………………….. 4-1
Stakeholder Interviews …………………………………………………………………………………………… 4-1
Existing GGFT Transit Riders …………………………………………………………………………………. 4-3
Non -Riders Living in Glens Falls Service Area …………………………………………………………… 4-5
Meeting with GGFT Bus Drivers ……………………………………………………………………………… 4-6
Chapter 5. Service Evaluation ……………………………………………………………………………….. 5-1
Route 2: Bay Road, ACC, and Quaker Road …………………………………………………………….. 5-2
Route 3: East Loop ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 5-7
Route 4: Fort Edward and Hudson Falls …………………………………………………………………. 5- 11
Route 5: South Glens Falls …………………………………………………………………………………… 5- 16
Route 6: West Loop …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 5- 21
Route 7: West Glens Falls ……………………………………………………………………………………. 5- 26
Route 11/12: Upper Glen Street, Aviation Road ……………………………………………………….. 5-30
Route 19: Warren County Municipal Center …………………………………………………………….. 5- 36
Seasonal Trolley Routes ………………………………………………………………………………………. 5- 41
Freedom and Mobility Express (FAME) ………………………………………………………………….. 5- 54
Chapter 6. Service Improvement Options ………………………………………………………………. 6-1
Chapter 7. Recommendations and Implementation ………………………………………………… 7-1
Overview ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 7-1
Scenario Analysis ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 7- 15
Appendix A. Results from the On- Board Passenger Survey
Appendix B. Results from Non- Rider Survey and Public Outreach Efforts
Appendix C. Sample Operations Schedules for Proposed Recommendations
Appe ndix D. Select Examples of Transit Agency Passenger Schedules

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Table of Figures
Page
Page ii • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Figure ES-1 Short -Term Implementation Recommendations ……………………………………… ES-4

Figure 2-1 A/GFTC Region and GGFT Service Area ………………………………………………… 2-3
Figure 2-2 Overview of GGFT Fixed Route Service ………………………………………………….. 2-4
Figure 2-3 GGFT System Map ………………………………………………………………………………. 2-6
Figure 2-4 City of Glens Falls GGFT Routes …………………………………………………………… 2-7

Figure 3-1 Population Change by Town and City ……………………………………………………… 3-1
Figure 3-2 Geographic and Demographic Characteristics ………………………………………….. 3-2
Figure 3-3 Population Density per Square Mile by Block Group ………………………………….. 3-3
Figure 3-4 Location of Workers per Block Group ……………………………………………………… 3-5
Fig ure 3 -5 Major Employers in the Glens Falls Region ……………………………………………… 3-6
Figure 3-6 List of Large Private Employers in GGFT Service Area ……………………………… 3-7
Figure 3-7 Activity Centers in the GGFT Service Area ………………………………………………. 3-9
Figure 3-8 Composite Distribution of Persons with High Propensity Transit Use
Characteristics …………………………………………………………………………………… 3- 12
Figure 3-9 Residential Location of Persons with High Propensity Transit
Use Characteristics ……………………………………………………………………………. 3-13
Figure 3- 10 Youth (5 -17) as a Percent of Total Population ………………………………………… 3- 14
Figure 3- 11 Older Adults (65+) as a Percent of Total Population ………………………………… 3-15
Figure 3- 12 Persons with Disabilities as a Percent of Total Population ………………………… 3-16
Figure 3- 13 Persons with Low Income as a Percent of Total Population ………………………. 3-17

Figure 4-1 List of Interviewed Stakeholders …………………………………………………………….. 4-1
Figure 4-2 Primary Travel Patterns by Percent of Total Tr ips Surveyed ……………………….. 4-4

Figure 5-1 GGFT System Productivity ……………………………………………………………………. 5-2
Figure 5-2 Route 2 ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 5-3
Figure 5-3 Route 2 Service Statistics ……………………………………………………………………… 5-3
Figure 5-4 Route 2: Changes in Annual Ridership 2006- 2007 …………………………………… 5-4
Figure 5-5 Ridership by Month ………………………………………………………………………………. 5-4
Figure 5-6 R
oute 2 – Ridership by Time of Day ………………………………………………………… 5-5
Figure 5-7 Route 2 Productivity …………………………………………………………………………….. 5-5
Figure 5-8 Route 3 Map ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 5-7
Figure 5-9 Route 3 Service Statistics ……………………………………………………………………… 5-8
Figure 5- 10 Route 3 Changes in Annual Ridership 2006- 2008 …………………………………….. 5-8
Figure 5- 11 Route 3: Ridership by Month (2006- 2008) ………………………………………………. 5-9
Figure 5- 12 Rout e 3 – Weekday Ridership by Time of Day …………………………………………. 5-9
Figure 5- 13 Route 3 Productivity …………………………………………………………………………… 5- 10
Figure 5- 14 Route 4 Map ……………………………………………………………………………………… 5- 12
Figure 5- 15 Route 4 Service Statistics ……………………………………………………………………. 5- 12
Figure 5- 16 Route 4: Changes in Annual Ridership 2006- 2007 …………………………………. 5- 13
Figure 5- 17 Route 4: Ridership by Month (2006- 2008) …………………………………………….. 5- 13
Figure 5- 18 Route 4 – Weekday Ridership by Time of Day ……………………………………….. 5- 14
Figure 5- 19 Route 4 – Saturday Ridership by Time of Day ………………………………………… 5- 14
Figure 5- 20 Route 4 Productivity …………………………………………………………………………… 5- 15
Figure 5- 21 Route 5 Map ……………………………………………………………………………………… 5- 17

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Table of Figures
Page
Page iii • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Figure 5-22 Route 5 Service Statistics ……………………………………………………………………. 5- 17
Figure 5- 23 Route 5 Changes in Annual Ridership 2006- 2008 …………………………………… 5- 18
Figure 5- 24 Route 5 – Ridership by Month (2006 – 2008) ………………………………………….. 5- 18
Figure 5- 25 Route 5: Weekday Ridership by Time of Day ………………………………………… 5- 19
Figure 5- 26 Route 5: Saturday Ridership by Time of Day …………………………………………. 5- 19
Figure 5- 27 Route 5 Weekday and Saturday Service Productivity ………………………………. 5- 20
Figure 5- 28 Route 6 Map ……………………………………………………………………………………… 5- 22
Figure 5- 29 Service Statistics ……………………………………………………………………………….. 5- 23
Figure 5- 30 Route 6 Changes in Annual Ridership 2006- 2008 …………………………………… 5- 23
Figure 5- 31 Route 6: Ridership by Month (2006- 2008) …………………………………………….. 5- 24
Figure 5- 32 Rou te 6 Ridership by Time of Day ………………………………………………………… 5- 24
Figure 5- 33 Route 6 Productivity ……………………………………………………………………………. 5-25
Figure 5- 34 Route 7 Map ……………………………………………………………………………………… 5- 26
Figure 5- 35 Route 5 Service Statistics ……………………………………………………………………. 5- 27
Figure 5- 36 Route 6 Changes in Annual Ridership 2006- 2008 …………………………………… 5- 27
Figure 5- 37 Route 7 – Ridership by Month (2006 – 2008) ………………………………………….. 5- 28
Figure 5- 38 Route 7 Weekday Ridership by Time of Day ………………………………………….. 5- 28
Figure 5- 39 Route 7 Productivity ……………………………………………………………………………. 5-29
Figure 5- 40 Route Map ………………………………………………………………………………………… 5- 31
Figure 5- 41 Route 11/12 Service Statistics ……………………………………………………………… 5- 31
Figure 5- 42 Route 11/12: Changes in Annual Ridership 2006 -2007 …………………………… 5- 31
Fig ure 5 -43 Route 11/12: Ridership by Month (2006- 2008) ………………………………………. 5- 32
Figure 5- 44 Route 11/12 – Weekday Ridership by Time of Day ………………………………….. 5- 33
Figure 5- 45 Route 11/12 – Saturday Ridership by Time of Day ………………………………….. 5- 33
Figure 5- 46 R
oute 11/12: Weekday and Saturday Productivity* ………………………………….. 5- 34
Figure 5- 47 Route 11/12: Evening Service Productivity …………………………………………….. 5- 35
Figure 5- 48 Route 19 Map ……………………………………………………………………………………. 5- 37
Figure 5- 49 Route 19 Service Statistics ………………………………………………………………….. 5- 38
Figure 5- 50 Route 19: Changes in Annual Ridership 2006- 2007 ……………………………….. 5- 38
Figure 5- 51 Route 19: Ridership by Month (2006- 2008) …………………………………………… 5- 39
Figure 5- 52 Route 19 – Ridership by Time of Day ……………………………………………………. 5- 39
Figure 5- 53 Productivity Statistics: Route 19 Weekday Service …………………………………. 5- 40
Figure 5- 54 Route Map ………………………………………………………………………………………… 5- 43
Figure 5- 55 Lake George Trolley Route Service Statistics …………………………………………. 5- 44
Figure 5- 56 Lake George Trolley Routes: Seasonal Ridership Memorial Day to
Labor Day 2008 …………………………………………………………………………………. 5- 45
Figure 5- 57 Lake George/Glens Falls Trolley Weekday Ridership by Time of Day –
Southbound ………………………………………………………………………………………. 5- 46
Figure 5- 58 Glens Falls – Lake George Trolley Weekday Ridership by Time of Day –
Northbound ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 5- 46
Figure 5- 59 Lake George/Glens Falls Trolley Weekend Ridership by Time of Day –
Southbound ………………………………………………………………………………………. 5- 47
Figure 5- 60 Glens Falls / Lake George Trolley Weekend Ridership by Time of Day –
Northbound ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 5- 47
Figure 5- 61 South RV A Trolley Weekday Ridership by Time of Day …………………………… 5- 48
Fig ure 5 -62 South RV A Trolley Weekend Ridership by Time of Day …………………………… 5- 49
Figure 5- 63 South RV B Trolley Weekday Ridership by Time of Day …………………………… 5- 49

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Table of Figures
Page
Page iv • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Figure 5-64 South RV B Trolley Weekend Ridership by Time of Day ………………………….. 5- 50
Figure 5- 65 North Lake George Trolley Weekday Ridership by Time of Day ………………… 5- 50
Figure 5- 66 North Lake George Trolley Weekend Ridership by Time of Day ………………… 5- 51
Figure 5- 67 Lake George Trolleys Productivity by Service Day, 2008 ………………………….. 5-52
Figure 5- 68 FAME Paratransit Origin and Destination Locations ………………………………… 5- 56

Figure 6-1 GGFT Conceptual Service Improvements ……………………………………………….. 6-6
Figure 6-2 Possible Improvements to Routes 3 and 6 ……………………………………………….. 6-7
Figure 6-3 Greater Glens Falls Transit – DRAFT of Possible Ideas for Service
I mprovements ……………………………………………………………………………………… 6-8
Figure 6-4 Initial and Final Proposals for Service Improvements ………………………………. 6- 11

Figure 7-1 Sample Weekday Schedule for Route 2 ………………………………………………….. 7-3
Figure 7-2 Immediate- Term Implementation Recommendations …………………………………. 7-5
Figure 7-3 Sample Weekday Schedule for Route 4: Hudson Falls/Fort Edward ……………. 7-7
Figure 7-4 Sample Weekday Schedule for Route 5: South Glens Falls ………………………. 7-8
Figure 7-5 Sample Weekday Schedule for Route 7: West Glens Falls ………………………… 7-9
Figure 7-6 Recommended Improvements – Overall System …………………………………….. 7- 11
Figure 7-7 Recommended Improvements – City of Glens Falls …………………………………. 7- 12
Figure 7-8 Longer Term Route by Route Recommendations ……………………………………. 7- 13
Figure 7-9 Scenario Analysis Recommendations with Base Case Implemented ………….. 7- 15
Figure 7- 10 Scenario Analysis Recommendations with Base Case Implemented ………….. 7- 16

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page ES-1 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Executive Summar y
The Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation Council (A/GFTC) and Greater Glens Falls Transit
(GGFT) retained Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates to create a transit development plan
(TDP). The objective of the TDP was to develop a five- year plan for service and system
improvements.
The TDP was prepared according to a work program with several major tasks, including
developing a community profile of the service area’s demographic, socio- economic and land use
characteristics. Nelson Nygaard also worked with GGFT and A/GFTC to understand the
perspectives, experiences and needs of existing passengers as well as residents not currently
using GGFT services. We also interviewed community leaders and public officials with a stake in
transit services to ascertain their view on the need for service changes and improvements. This
research was conducted using a combination of on- board surveys, intercept and mail-back
surveys and telephone interviews.
Building on this data and in conjunction with GGFT system statis tics, NelsonNygaard evaluated
each route individually to assess route strengths and weaknesses and identify potential
improvements that would strengthen not only the individual routes but also the system as a
whole. Our review of the individual services and overall system led us to develop a series of
service improvement concepts, which were subsequently used to shape and define proposals for
service improvements. These concepts are to:
• Improve service efficiency through elimination of unproductive routes and route segments
and reducing competition between routes.
• Simplify the service and make it easier to use by creating consistent, evenly spaced
schedules, straightening route alignments, and making information about the routes,
schedules and service s easier to understand.
• Strengthen the existing trunk and feeder network by improving service along key
corridors, creating links between regional centers, and where possible, interlining service
between feeder and trunk routes to create direct, one- seat rides for passengers.
• Improve operations by alleviating schedule pressure on select services.
These concepts were translated into specific service improvements, which were subsequently
presented and discussed with GGFT and A/GFTC staff. Based on this input, Nelson Nygaard
prepared maps and created informational materials and brought these ideas to members of the
public, further refining and defining the potential service recommendations. As a final step to
assess project feasibility, we drafted service s chedules. By trying to schedule our
recommendations, we were able to investigate operational challenges, assess financial impacts
and make a final determination of suitability and feasibility. Through this process, we were
ultimately able to identify a set of service and system improvements and develop a plan for
implementation.
Principles and System Development
TDP recommendations are based on strengthening the organization of transit routes into a series
of trunk and feeder routes and creating simple, easy to use services. The benefit of this
approach will be to provide direct, understandable and efficient transit services that provide a high
level of service on the region’s key commercial corridors and access to these routes from
residential areas. In the most densely developed parts of the service area, passengers will be
able to walk to the trunk corridors. In less intensely developed areas, residents may use feeder

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page ES-2 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
services to travel to/from the trunk routes. This approach will ensure that each route in the
system has a clearly defined role within the service network and is designed to serve a specific
market. The service guidelines that support moving towards this approach are outlined in the
following text.
• Trunk routes should be designed to transport passengers along the service area’s most
developed corridors and to/from the region’s most important destinations.
− Trunk routes will have a higher level of service and longer span of service and be
located along the system’s strongest transit corridors.
− Weekday service levels for trunk routes should be, at a minimum, 30 minute peak/60
minute off -peak (during the mid- day) service level. Ideally service levels will be 30
minutes throughout the day. Service levels should be consistent throughout the day
with even spacing of trips.
− Evening and Saturday service levels may be lower as compared to weekdays, but
should be based on a 30 minute peak/60 minute off -peak schedule, also adding
service to create a 30 minute schedule through the day. Schedules should be based
on easily understandable, evenly spaced trips.
− Routes 11/12 and 4 are designed as trunk routes, although the service levels on
Route 11/12 are higher and more consistent than on Route 4.
• Collector/distributor routes should be designed to transport people from primarily
residential areas and areas with a lower density of services, employment and activity
centers.
− Collector distributor routes will have a lower level and span of service as compared
with trunk routes.
− Fully implemented collector/distributor routes will provide a minimum level of service of
hourly service during the peak periods and 120 minute service during the off -peak. As
resources become available, frequencies may increase to hourly service throughout
the day.
− Saturday service levels on collector/distributor routes may be lower as compared to
weekdays, but should be based on consistent, evenly spaced service schedules.
− Examples of collector/distributor routes in the GGFT system are:
o Route 2 Bay College
o Route 5 South Glens Falls
o Route 7 West Glens Falls
o Route 19 Warren County Municipal Center/Factory Outlet Malls/Lake George
Village
• Vehicles should remain in revenue service as long as possible to increase geographic
coverage and minimize unproductive vehicle time.

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page ES-3 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Recommendations
Specific projects that will work towards implementation of these concepts are listed in Table ES -1.
These projects involve eliminating unproductive services in some parts of the system and re-
investing these resources to the most productive aspects of the system. Estimated costs
associated with each recommendation are noted, however, the plan is largely revenue neutral
with proposed service reductions used to support recommended service improvements.
In terms of project implementation, the TDP has identified a series of projects that may be
implemented fairly quickly and without significant disruption to the existing service schedule or
agency operations. We recommend that GGFT move forward with these projects in the
immediate term:
• Add mid-day service on Route 2 and create a consistent, evenly spaced service schedule.
• Expanded service on GGFT Route 19 with both increased frequency and expanded
geographic coverage.
• Maintain existing evening services on Routes 11/12, 4/5 and 2.
• Adjus t schedule to put deadhead vehicles in service.
A second set of projects are recommended for implementation over the next several months.
These projects are slightly more complicated to implement and will require a slightly longer lead
time. Challenges include, among other things, implementing several changes concurrently, as
some routes will need to be eliminated in order to redeploy resources to more productive parts of
the system. After the initial recommendations are implemented, the TDP recommends that
GGFT begin work on the following projects:
• Eliminate Route 3 East Loop
• Eliminate Route 6 West Loop
• Increase service on Route 4 Hudson Falls
• Streamline schedule on Routes 5 South Glens Falls and schedule three trips per day to
Lamplighter Acres
• Add three trips on Route 7 West Glens Falls, reverse service direction and streamline
schedule to even out trip spacing
• Develop color GGFT system map, update agency schedules and improve marketing
materials.
After these identified system improvements are achieved, the TDP recommends that GGFT
evaluate the changes to ascertain improvements in customer satisfaction and agency
productivity. Assuming ridership and productivity data show continued support for the
improvements, GGFT may fill in the existing services as outlined in the principles and system
development section until the recommended service levels are achieved, i.e. trunk routes operate
at half -hourly headways on weekdays and Saturday and feeder routes operate on hourly
headways on weekdays and Saturdays.

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page ES-4 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Figure ES-1 Short -Term Implementation Recommendations

Description of Existing Service Proposed Changes Justification
Estimated Annual
Service Hour
Requirements *
Route 2
Bay -College Service along Bay Street to Bay Road to
Queensbury
. Major markets :
• Adirondack Community College
• the Cedars (assisted living)
• Queensbury Town Hall and Queensbury
Senior Center
Add mid-
day trip to provide hourly service all day .

Ridership is fairly strong during mid-
day, with more than 7
riders per trip.

Mid- day trip will create consistent service throughout day,
making route easier to understand and use.

Anticipated ridership is between 7- 10 riders per trip. Requires 130 VRH

Route 3
East Loop Neighborhood service in eastern section of City of
Glens Falls. Major markets:

• Jackson Heights and Abraham Wings
schools
• Kmart
• Price Chopper
• Stichman Towers Eliminate service.

Deploy services to higher need/more productive
services.

Serve some eliminated destinations with re
-aligned
Route 4 and putting deadhead vehicles in service . Low ridership on existing route.

Eliminate competition between Routes 3 and 4 at key
locations
.
Savings of 1,339 VRH

Savings equate to 1,300
VRH from weekday
service and 39 VRH from
Saturday service.
Route 4
Hudson Falls –
Fort Edward
Service from Glens Falls to Hudson Falls and Fort
Edward. Bus has two alignments, along Dix and
Boulevard Avenues.
Major markets:
• BOCES
• Washington County Municipal Ctr
• Super K -Mart
• Eden and Village Parks
Establish Route 4 as trunk route.

Increase service level to half
-hourly departures during
peak periods and hourly during mid- day.
Frequencies should be increased as resources
become available.

Service will continue to serve two alignments. With
minor adjustments, this approach will support serving
the new Walmart, when store opens.

Saturday service level also increases .
Route 4 is a highly productive service with growing
demand.

Comments from stakeholder, public and survey request
additional
service.

Corridor has several important destinations for travelers.
New Walmart store will strengthen route.

Serves population with high propensity to use transit and
increases service to regional facilities (Washington County
Municipal Center) . Requires 2,301 VRH

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page ES-5 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Description of Existing Service Proposed Changes Justification
Estimated Annual
Service Hour
Requirements *
Route 5
Moreau -South Glens
Falls
Service from Glens Falls to South Glens Falls and
Moreau. Select routes travel to Lamplighter on
request. Major markets:

• Village of South Glens Falls
• Midtown Plaza
• Glens Falls Civic Center
• South Glens Falls High School
Minor alignment changes to make service more
direct
.

Implement regularly scheduled service to Lamplighter
(upgrade from existing demand response service).

Adjust schedule to meet Northway Express commuter
service .

Interline with Route 11/12 to create Route 9 service
(where possible).

Increase service frequency and span as funding
permits .

Create evenly spaced consistent schedules on
weekday and Saturday services . Current schedule has clustered service making it hard to
remember and difficult to use.
Create consistent, easily
understa ndable schedules will address this concern.

Existing riders rely on transit and are appreciative of
service. Increased service frequency will help attract
additional and choice riders.

Survey/public requests for service to Lamplighter .

Meeting Northway Express will support regional
connections and expand employment opportunities .
Implementing proposed
schedule changes will
likely require small
increases in VR
H
Route 6
West Loop Neighborhood service to western Glens Falls.
Major markets:

• Glens Falls Hospital
• Hannafords
• Glens Falls Middle & High Schools
• Irongate Center Eliminate service, except for morning and afternoon
peak service trips.

Deploy services to higher need/more productive
services. Low productivity on existing routes, except for tripper
services to schools, which have high ridership.

Some segments of Routes 6 and 7 overlap and compete
for passengers on Main and Broad Streets. Savings of 1,209 VR
H
Savings equate to 1,170
VRH from weekday
service and 39 VRH from
Saturday service.
Route 7
West Glens Falls Service from Glens Falls to West Glens Falls.
Major markets:

• Glens Falls Hospital
• Hannafords
• Homestead Homes

Re-align to continue service to key elements of
Route 6

Reverse direction so inbound travelers don’t have to
cross street ; also avoids recurring congestion

Increase service frequency and span as funding
permits

Create evenly spaced consistent schedules . Route 7 service area has strong potential
.

Reversing direction and adding trips will make service
more attractive and easier to use.

Public outreach effort indicated interest for more service.

Increased service consistent with HHS use of hotels along
route. Requires 403 VRH

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page ES-6 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Description of Existing Service Proposed Changes Justification
Estimated Annual
Service Hour
Requirements *
Route 11/12
Glen Street/Aviation
Mall/Walmart/
John Burke
Service from Glens Falls along Upper Glens
Street. Major markets:

• Aviation Mall
• Walmart
• John Burke Apartments
• Shopping and employment along Glen Street No major changes proposed.

Interline
trips with collector routes .

Potential to eliminate one mid- day trip to John Burke
Apartments . Route
performs well and has good productivity .

Interline helps address schedule concerns and creates
one- seat rides .

Eliminate trip to John Burke to alleviate schedule pressure. No change

Route 19
Rt. 9 County Center Service from Glens Falls to Gooney Golf on Route
9 outside of Lake George Village

Major stops:
• Warren County Municipal Center and Annex
• Lake George Factory Outlet Stores
Five trips per day between 9:15 am and 4:25 pm,
plus one evening trip at 6:15 pm Warren County Municipal Center Annex is scheduled
to close in 2009
. When Annex closes:
• Stop in at Warren County Municipal Center on
outbound and inbound leg
• Extend service to Lake George Village (when
trolleys are not running)
• Add two trips per day to streamline schedule Ridership is fairly strong, with most trips carrying 8+
passengers.

Additional trips will create more consistent, easily to
understand schedule.

Additional trips support employment at
Stores.

Public input demonstrated strong interest in year -round
service to Lake George V illage.

Off- season, some Lake George hotels are used to meet ad
hoc housing needs. 183.6 VRH
to operate five
trips to Lake George

414 VRH to add two trips
Assumptions:
• Adding one trip to Route 2 assumes marginal service increases amount to .5 VRH per day. Estimate is based on service operating 5 days per week, 52 weeks per year.
Estimate is rounded.
• Extending existing service to Lake George assumes an additional .17 VRH per trip or 1.02 VRH per day (including night service). Assumes service operates 5 days per week
for 36 weeks per year (excludes trolley seasons). Estimate is rounded.
• Adding two trips to Route 19 with service to Lake George assumes marginal service increase amounts to 2.3 VRH per day. Both estimates are based on service operating 5
days per week, 36 weeks per year. Estimate is rounded.

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 1-1 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Chapter 1. Int roduction
The Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation Council (A/GFTC) and Greater Glens Falls Transit
(GGFT) retained Nelson Nygaard to conduct a transit development plan (TDP). The objective of
the TDP is to develop a five- year plan for service and system improvements.
The TDP was prepared according to a work program with several major tasks, including
developing a community profile of service area’s demographic, socio- economic and land use
characteristics. Nelson Nygaard also worked with GGFT and A/GFTC to understand the
perspectives, experiences and needs of existing passengers as well as community residents not
currently using GGFT services. We also interviewed community leaders and public officials with
a stake in transit services to ascertain their view on the need for service changes and
improvements. This research was conducted using a combination of on -board surveys, intercept
and mail -back surveys and telephone interviews.
Using this data, in conjunction with GGFT system statistics, Nelson Nygaard evaluated each
route individually to assess route strengths and weaknesses. Route evaluation results were
combined with input from riders and members of the public to develop a series of
recommendations. We evaluated these through discussions with GGFT and A/GFTC staff and
members of the public. We also prepared maps and drafted service schedules to refine the
preliminary recommendations into a set of recommended serv ice improvements. These service
improvement recommendations form the basis of the transit development plan and are presented
as a phased implementation plan.
This final report documents the TDP process, key findings and proposed implementation plan.
Mate rial included in the plan represents the culmination of earlier working papers that help frame
existing service needs and guide the development of future services. The draft final report is
organized into six chapters immediately following this introducto ry section, including:
Chapter 2 : System Overview – Describes existing public and community transportation
services;
Chapter 3 : Community and Market Analysis – Examines the distribution of the population,
employment and key activity centers in GGFT’s service area to assess how well
transit services are structured to meet the local market. Much of this information is
provided in a series of maps;
Chapter 4 : Stakeholder and Public Input – Documents the results of stakeholder interviews,
surveys with rider s and non-riders and discussions with GGFT drivers;
Chapter 5 : Service Evaluation – Describes the analysis and evaluation of individual services
and routes within the GGFT system;
Chapter 6 : Development and Evaluation of Alternatives – Presents the recommendations for
new service options; and,
Chapter 7 : Recommendations and Implementation – Provides draft service plans and
schedules and discusses funding and implementation options.

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 2-1 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Chapter 2. System Over view
GGFT currently operates three major services consisting of the regular fixed route system,
complementary paratransit branded as the Freedom and Mobility Express (FAME), and
seasonally trolley service to Lake George. These services operate in an area that encompasses
the City of Glens Falls and adjoining Towns of Fort Edward, Kingsbury, Lake George, Moreau
and Queensbury (see Figure 2 -1). Four incorporated villages are situated within the service area:
Fort Edward in Fort Edward Township; Hudson Falls in Kingsbury Township; Lake George in
Lake George Township; and South Glens Falls in Moreau Township. In addition, to the
administrative boundaries, GGFT’s service area is also shaped by two major roadways:

US 9

functions as a parallel local business route for the Northway, crossing at Exit 17 to
the east side of I -87 and running north through the Village of South Glens Falls over the
Hudson River into downtown Glens Falls, and continuing as Glen Street and Lake George
Roa d through Lake George before crossing back over to the west side of I -87. Several
GGFT routes operate on US 9, including Routes 11/12 between downtown and the
Aviation Mall, Route 19 from Quaker Road to Exit 21, and the Lake George Trolley
(summers only). US 4
Fixed-Route System
runs along the eastern side of the GGFT service area, providing regional
connections between Whitehall and Fort Edward and local connections between Hudson
Falls and Fort Edward. GGFT Route 4 currently travels along US 4 between Hudson Falls
and Fort Edward.
GGFT operates nine fixed- routes that operate year-round. These routes are designed as a radial
“pulse” system
1
GGFT system and individual route characteristics are summarized in Figure 2- 1. The full system
operates primary on weekdays between 6:00 am and 6:30 pm. Eight of nine routes also operate
on Saturdays, although several are on abbreviated schedules covering only part of the day.
Weeknight service was introduced on three routes in November 2007 . Cash-fares on the fixed-
route system are currently set at $1.00 for adult passengers and $0.50 for adults aged 60 or
more, per sons with disabilities and holders of Medicare cards. Transfers between routes are
currently priced at $0.50. GGFT also sells monthly passes and other fare media, such as tokens
that are available from public agencies and local businesses.

focused on downtown Glens Falls. The complete route network is displayed in
Figure 2- 1, and route alignments within the City of Glens Falls are shown in more detail in Figure
2- 2. All routes converge at an on -street terminal located along the east side of Ridge Street
opposite City Hall. The Ridge Street Terminal is favorably located for transit riders within Glens
Falls’ central business district and near several key services, including senior housing. Selected
route pairs are connected or “interlined” through the terminal; this scheduling strategy helps
ensure vehicles are used effectively and helps facilitate eff icient transfers between routes.
Except at the Ridge Street Terminal and a small number of selected locations where bus stops
are specifically designated, GGFT passengers may get on or off buses anywhere along a route
where it is safe to do so. This approach generally improves access by minimizing the distance

1 The pulse system refers to a commonly used system design whereby transit routes are scheduled to meet at a single
transfers point. Most or all of a system’s routes end and begin their trips at a single location according to regularly
scheduled times, such as on the hour or half -hour. This arrangement makes it easy for passengers to transfer between
routes.

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 2-2 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
riders must travel to reach their boarding point. However, GGFT is beginning to install bus stops
and shelters along more heavily traveled corridors such as Glen Street to improve bus operating
speeds and manage schedule reliability. A process of educating passengers to use the marked
stops is underway. To further enhance access, GGFT also accommodates rider requests for
route deviation service to selected destinations. These are limited by time of day and to specific
trips where schedules permit.

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 2-3 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Figure 2-1 A/GFTC Region and GGFT Service Area

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 2-4 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Figure 2-2 Overview of GGFT Fixed Route Service
Route
No. Service Area
Weekday Service Saturday Service
Schedule Trips/day Schedule Trips/day
2 Queensbury Town Hall via Adirondack
Community College* 7:30 am–
5:07 pm
7:00 pm – 9:15 pm 7
2 10:00 am
-12:55 pm 2
3 East Glens Falls Loop 7:20 am–5:00 pm 10 9:30 am–1:50 pm 3
4 Fort Edward, Hudson Falls 6:30 am–6:40 pm
9:45 pm – 10:25 pm 13
1 8:00 am–
6:30 pm 7
5 West Glens Falls 6:00 am–5:39 pm 9 8:30 am–5:29 pm 5
6 West Glens Falls Loop 7:00 am–5:30 pm 12 9:00 am–1:20 pm 3
7 South Glens Falls and Moreau 6:30 am–5:05 pm 6 11:00 am–3:53 pm 3
11/12 Glen Street – Aviation Mall 6:30 am–6:08 pm
6:15 pm – 9:45 pm* 22
4 8:00 am–
5:58 pm 20
19 Warren County Municipal Center and
Factory Outlet Stores 9:15 am
– 4:25 pm 5 n/a
Freedom and Mobility Express (FAME)
FAME is GGFT’s complementary paratransit service providing demand response, curb- to-curb
transportation to individuals unable to use the regular fixed- route system. Passengers must
have a qualifying disability and complete an application with GGFT to be eligible for the service.
Once eligible, riders may schedule a ride at least 24 hours (and up to 14 days) in advance for
travel to any destination within ¾ mile of existing fixed- route service; travel must also take place
within the same operating hours as the fixed- route system. FAME’s service schedule, therefore,
parallels the fixed- route services and is available Monday through Friday from 6:00 am to 6:30
pm and on Saturdays from 8:00 am to 6:00 pm, depending on the trip origin and destination.
Seasonal Trolley Service
GGFT began operating two trolley buses on a single route in 1994. The trolley component has
grown steadily over the years to the current six vehicles running on three routes. The three
trolley routes are briefly described as follows:

Lake George South
• –
operates every 20- 30 minutes from Beach Road in Lake George
south to Glens Falls and all points in between, including The Great Escape and factory
outlet stores. All trolley routes pick up and discharge passengers on Beach Road near
th e Steamboat Dock in Lake George. Many destinations are available via transfer. Lake George South RV Parks
• –
operates from Lake George south via Route 9 to RV
parks and motels. The SOUTH – RV A route travels Route 9 to Route 149 and the Lake
George RV Pa rk once an hour. The SOUTH – RV B route travels to the Best
Western/Travelodge Motels and the Wild West Ranch off Route 9. Lake George North – operates Beach Road in Lake George north along Canada Street
(Rte 9) and Lakeshore Road (Rte 9N) to the Hearthstone State Campground, Diamond
Point and Bolton Landing. Trolleys that display a “NORTH A” sign serve Canada Street
and Lakeshore Road as far as Hearthstone State Campground. Trolleys that display a
“NORTH B/C” sign travel to Diamond Point and Bolton Landi ng.

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 2-5 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Trolley service operates between mid-May and Columbus Day with schedules varying during late
spring, peak summer and autumn periods. The cash fare to ride a trolley to most destinations is
$1.00 for adult passengers and $0.50 for persons 60 years of age and over, as well as for
persons with disabilities. Transfers are available for $0.50 between the North and South routes
but are not valid between the trolleys and year -round route services.

3
76
5
4
2
19
Lake George Trolley
1112
!
.!
.
!
.
n
!
.!
.
!
.
nn
!
.
^
!
.
®v
n
n
¤
!
.
W a r r e n
W a r r e n
W a s h i n g t o n
W a s h i n g t o n
S a r a t o g a
S a r a t o g a
Fort Edward
Hudson Falls
South Glens Falls
BayegdiR
Dean
Vaughn
East
Butler
Quaker
Saratoga
Reynolds
Geer
Luzerne
Burgoyne
Corinth
Tripoli
Burt
Glen
Dixon
River
Gansevoort
Aviation
Reservoir
Farle
Wait
5th
Potter
Sisson
Harrison
Big Boom
Sanford
Broadway
Rock City
FT Edward
Gurney
Towpath
Cronin
John
Main
Plum
Patten Mills
3rd
Bluebird
Peggy Ann
Meadowbrook
Burquist
Hicks
Queensbury
Broad
Upper Sherman
Elm
Bentley
Boulevard
Sweet
Hunter
Rockwell
Feeder
County Route 46
Country Club
Nolan
Casey
Haviland
Pitcher
Western
Crandall
Merritt
Everts
Murray
Wincrest
Chestnut Ridge
Dubes
North
Crawford
McCrea
William
Ohio
McIntyre
County Rte 36
Haskell
Tanglewood
Old Military
Walkup
Ellsworth
Eagan
Pine
Cherry
Clements
Wood
Frankie
Van Dusen
Franklin
Kelly
Sunnyside
Weeks
Hilton
Killian
Wolf
May
Schuyler
Horicon
FaxonFeeder Tow
Baker
Dove
Ogden
Highland
Water
Nacy
Mason
Chestnut
Keech
Warren
Pine Hill
Ryan
Wilson
Marion
Rocky
Jones
Hudson Pointe
Citizens
Browns
Silver
Windy
LindenJackson
Native
French Mountain
Edgewater
GreenMain
East
Main6th
1st
River
§
¨ ¦87
¬
«197
¬
«9L
¬
«149
¬
«254
¬
«32
¬
«196
Dix
£
¤4
£
¤4
£
¤9
Queensbury
Moreau
Kingsbury
Fort Ann
Fort Edward
Glens Falls
Lake George
Wal-Mart
HannafordHannaford
Kmart
RidgeTerminal
Aviation
Mall
Factory Outlets
QueensburyTown Hall
Glens Falls High School
Glens Falls Middle School Adirondack
Community College
South Glens FallsHigh School
Warren County
Municipal Center
Washington CountyMunicipal Center
Amtrak Station
GIS Data Source: Adirondack Glens Falls Transportation Council
Figure 2-3 GGFT System Map
Lake George
Middle
Canada
Flat Rock
Birch
Beach
Lakeshore
Carefree
Oak
Brook
Hubbell
Kirker
Carey
Cotherman
¬
«9N
¬
«9L
£9
0 0.5 1Miles
01 2
Miles
Transit Routes
GGFT Year-Round Routes
Request-Only Service
Route Number
Lake George Trolley
Villages
Towns and Cities
County Boundaries
7

GIS Data Source: Adirondack Glens Falls Transportation Council
Figure 2-4 City of Glens Falls GGFT Routes
3
7
6
5
4
3
19
11
12
Lake George Trolley
yaB
Dix
Glen
Ridge
Main
Sanford
4th
5th
3rd
Warren
Quaker
Ferry
Broad
South
1st
Maple
Hunter
ttalP
Harrison
Elm
Western
Crandall
repooC
Bush
Murray2nd
Hudson
Sherman
Saratoga
Everts
htroN
Knight
lleksaH
Fire
Orville
Lawrence
elpatS
State
Garrison
Grove
yrrehC
tunlaW
Spring
tcepsorP
Larose
Beacon
Pine
Sheridan
Mohican
Duke
enryB
drahcrO
dlanoDcM
Montcalm
kcePNotre Dame
New
dranoeL
sacnU
Webster
Horicon
noxaF
May
Baker
Tremont
LexingtonArbor
Garfield
Henry
Davis
Water
MasonemoreJ
Lincoln
Park
Chestnut
Grand
Pruyns Island
RiversamohT
Homer
William
Oakland
Upper Glen
Rogers
Quade
Fulton
Coolidge
Baldwin
Grant
Wilson
Lake
Marion
arreiS
Van Buren
Union
Arlington
MacArthur
Fort Amherst
Shippey
gniW
Chester
Windy
Ash
Driveway
Glenwood
Clark
Race
Gage
ssorC giB
Stewart
Oneida
lraeP
Ogden
Church
Thornberry
Smith
McHugh
Ida
Hope
koorbwodaeM
Franklin
Newton
Washington
Birch
Kensington
hceT sllaF snelG
Apollo
Jay
Haviland
Alley
6th
Logan
Lewis
Hoyt
Beach
Jackson
eromagaS
kaO
Charles
Clayton
Goodwin
dnaleL
Katherine
Basin
Cunningham
Delure
Thomson
Riverview
Unnamed Street
Circle
Stevens
Halsey
Graves
Lydia
Moreau
Empire
Kidder
Monument
John
dnaltroC
Foster
narruC
Cline
Windy HillPatton
Morgan
Boylston
reeG
Auburn
Bacon
Hartford
Reed
Douglas
tomliW
Edgewater
Fielding
Woodard
Morton
Terra Cotta
Roosevelt
Stoddard
Lawton
Nelson
Windsor
Liberty
School
Parker
Willis
Namic
Wait
TerraceHamilton
Carleton
State Hwy 32
Division
Sargent
Catherine
Juvet
Darwin
Polly Beeman
James
Fairview
Dorrer
East
Wallace
Culvert
Towpath
Mission
Kenworthy
Edison
Shermantown
oruaM
BowmanSarella
Luzerne
Paul
Monroe
Philo
Holman
Cameron
Dixon
Dudley
CottageNew Pruyn
Washburn
Ackley
Cooper’s Cave
Frederick
Professional
PulverttalP reppU
Delaware
Woodlawn
Exeter
Exchange
Ramp
Grant
North
eromagaS
Wilson
reeG
Spring
Prospect
Charles
3rd
1st
Coolidge
Maple
2nd
John
Robertson
Haviland
Spring
5th
Luzerne
New
Glen
Sanford
Prospect
4th
Water
South
nosduH
Harrison
Main
Stewart
Hudson
Park
Jackson
Jackson
Grand
Driveway
Crandall
£
¤9
! .
!
. !
.
n
n
n
n! . !
.
n
! .
^
!
.
n
®v
! .
8
!
.
South Glens Falls
¬
«254
¬
«9L
¬
«32
Main
Glens Falls
Moreau
Queensbury
Hannaford KMart
Price Chopper
Ridge Terminal
Price Chopper
Big Cross School Community Workshop
Glens Falls Hospital
Glens Falls
Middle School
Glens Falls
High School Sanford Street
School Jackson Heights
School
Abraham WingSchool
Stichman Towers
Irongate
Center Library
Civic Center
0 0.25 0.5 Miles
Transit Routes
GGFT Year-Round Routes
Request-Only Service
Route Number
Lake George Trolley
Villages
Towns and Cities
County Boundaries
7

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 3-1 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Chapter 3. Community Profile
A key aspect to gauging the effectiveness of the GGFT system is to understand the service area
operating environment. To facilitate this analysis, Nelson Nygaard prepared the following
community profile highlighting demographic, employment and economic conditions in the study
area. Key elements of the community profile include population and population density,
distribution of workforce and major employers, the location of non -employment trip generators
and the spatial distribution of residents with characteristics suggesting a higher propensity to
utilize public transportation. For each element, the extent to which GGFT services respond to
current needs is discussed and deficiencies noted.
Demographic Analysis
The estimated 2007 population of the service area is 77,791 persons1
The GGFT service area is relatively large, covering nearly 206 square miles with an average
population density of 361 persons per square mile. GGFT services, however, are concentrated in
the region’s most densely populated regions. The City of Glens Falls, for example, has a
population density of 3,771 persons per square mile. , a 4.8% increase over the
2000 US Census population of 74,262 persons. The calculated average annual population
growth rate approaches 0.7%, compared with 0.2% statewide. As shown in Figure 3 -1, most of
the growth occurred in Kingsbury and Queensbury. The City of Glens Falls lost population during
this same period.
2
Figure 3-1 Population Change by T own and City Likewise, east of Glens Falls, the adjacent
Village of Hudson Falls has nearly the same population density (3,765), and immediately south of
Glens Falls, the Village of South Glens Falls has a population density of 2,500 persons per
square mile. These three communities form the “urban core” of the GGFT service area . The
Villages of Fort Edward (1,692) and Lake George (1,620) have population density characteristics
that are more reflective of suburban style development. Population density information by
community is summarized in Figure 3 -2 and shown graphically in Figure 3-3.

Pop 1990 Pop 2000 % Change Pop 2007
%
Change
Glens Falls 15,023 14,354 -4% 13,968 -3%
Moreau 13,022 13,826 6% 14,176 3%
Lake George 3,211 3,578 11% 3,600 1%
Queensbury 22,630 25,441 12% 27,802 9%
Fort Edward 6,330 5,892 -7% 6,019 2%
Kingsbury 11,851 11,171 -6% 12,406 11%
GGFT Service Area 72,067 74,262 3% 77,971 5%
New York State 17,990,455 18,976,457 5% 19,297,729 2%
Source: US Census 2000 and 2007 American Community Survey

1 Per 2007 American Community Survey. 2 In comparison, the population density of the City of Albany is 4,474 persons per square mile.

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 3-2 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Figure 3-2 Geographic and Demographic Characteristics
Name
Total
Population
Land Area
(sq. miles)
Population
Density
Median
Age
Average
HH Size
Glens Falls 14,444 3.83 3,771 35.6 2.3
Moreau 13,826 42.16 328 37.3 2.5
Lake George 3,578 30.24 118 42.4 2.3
Queensbury 25,351 63.01 402 39.3 2.5
Fort Edward 5,892 26.8 220 38.1 2.5
Kingsbury 11,171 39.87 280 36.8 2.4
GGFT Service Area 74,262 205.91 361 38.3 2.4
New York State 18,976,457 47,214 402 35.9 2.6
Source: US Census 2000

§
¨ ¦87
¬197
¬196
¬9L
¬149
¬40
¬32
¬9N
¬9N
¬149
Mountain
Corinth
Burgoyne
County Route 49
Dix
Hicks
Elm
Feeder
Main
Quaker
£9
£
¤4
£9
£9
£4
Fort Ann
Argyle
Moreau
Queensbury
Kingsbury
Lake Luzerne
Lake George
Hartford
Fort Edward
Warrensburg
Bolton
Greenwich
Thurman
GlensFalls
FortEdward
HudsonFallsSouthG. F.
Argyle
LakeGeorge
Fort Ann
GGFT Routes
Population per Square Mile
Villages
City and Towns
Figure 3-3 Population Density per Square Mile by Block Group
0 42
Miles
GIS Data Source: Adirondack Glens Falls Transportation Council, US Census 2000 SF3
41 – 999
1,000 – 1,999
2,000 – 3,499
3,500 – 7,804

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 3-4 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Employment
Jobs located in the GGFT service area are heavily concentrated in the City of Glens Falls and
contiguous sections of Kingsbury and Queensbury Townships, as indicated in Figure 3 -4. This
figure reflects 2000 Census data compiling the number of workers reported by block group.
Lesser concentrations of employment occur within the Villages of Lake George and Fort Edward,
and in the I -87 corridor primarily around Exits 19 and 20.
Similarly, most major employers are located within the City of Glens Falls. This does not include
the numerous small employers also located within the City of Glens Falls both in downtown Glens
Falls and along Glen Street and Upper Glen Street. Among the region’s 25 largest employers, 22
are within the GGFT service area as shown in Figure 3-5. The name and workforce size of these
employers are listed in Figure 3 -6
3
Most of the large employers identified currently are accessible via GGFT regular fixed route
service. There are few large employers not currently served, however, in each case there are
strategic reasons why service is limited or not provided:
. Nine of the 22 employers are located in Glens Falls; eight
are in the Town of Queensbury; three are in Fort Edward; and one each are in South Glens Falls
and Bolton Landing. Glens Falls Hospital, which employs 2,800 workers, is by far the largest
employer in the service area.
• Angio Dynamics, the area’s sixth largest employer
4
• Employment at factory outlet stores, located near the Exit 20, have excellent trolley
service during the summer months when employment is highest. Off -season, the area
has bus service, including an evening service, but the number of trips traveling between
Glens Falls and the factory outlet stores is greatly reduced. This level reflects area
employment, which is also significantly higher during the summer months a s compared to
the off -season.
with 540 workers located on
Queensbury Avenue near the Glens Falls Airport, is not currently on a GGFT route.
GGFT suggested this is a difficult employer to serve due to higher wage employees.
• Community, Work and Independence (CWI), the fifth largest employer and second largest
not -for -profit agency in the region with 741 workers. CWI’s headquarters is located on
Everts Avenue south of Quaker Road in the Town of Queensbury. A portion of workers
travel to this site, which is accessible by the by -request only portion of GGFT Route 19.
Most of CWI’s workers, however, are employed at smaller workshops located throughout
the region. Some but not all of these workshops are accessible by GGFT. In addition,
CWI has its own transportation services, Transit Connections, which provides
transportation to most CWI employees.
Other larger employers located in Argyle, Granville and Greenwich are not served because they
are well beyond current GGFT service area boundaries.

3 Identification numbers displayed in Figure 6 correspond to employers listed in Figure 7. One major employer,
National Grid, was not mapped because its workforce is highly dispersed.
4 Since the community profile was originally prepared in Fall, 2008, Angio Dynamics has relocated part of its workforce
away from this site. Thus, it may no longer be the region’s 6th largest employer.

Johnsburg
Bolton
Fort Ann
Hague
Chester
Thurman
Horicon
Easton
Argyle
Salem
Hebron
Stony Creek
Dresden
Granville
Whitehall
Moreau
QueensburyHartford
Jackson
Putnam
Greenwich
Kingsbury
Warrensburg
Lake Luzerne
White CreekCambridge
Lake George
Hampton
Fort Edward
Glens Falls
W a r r e n
W a r r e n
W a s h i n g t o n
W a s h i n g t o n
S a r a t o g a
S a r a t o g a
§
¨ ¦87
River
£9
£4
0
105
Miles
GIS Data Source: Adirondack Glens Falls Transportation Council, CTPP Part 2
Figure 3-4 Location of Workers per Block Group
Queensbury
Moreau
Kingsbury
Fort Edward
Glens Falls
W a r r e n
W a r r e n
S a r a t o g a
S a r a t o g a W a s h i n g t o n
W a s h i n g t o n
Fort Edward
Hudson Falls
South
Glens FallsSouth
Glens Falls
§
¨ ¦87
£9
£4
0 21
Miles
Workers per Block Group
40 – 499
500 – 1,499
1,500 – 2,499
2,500 – 5,260
Towns and City
Villages
County Boundary
Block Group Boundary

!
(
!
(
!( !
(
!
( !
(
!
( !
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
( !
(
!(
!
(
!(
!
(
Retail Corridor
G
Medical Offices
DixRidge
Dean
Saratoga
Quaker
Gansevoort
Ferry
Luzerne
East
Glen
Bay
Aviation
Harrison
Burgoyne
Broadway
Cronin
Bluebird
Meadowbrook
Queensbury
Broad
South
Potter
Boulevard
Hunter
Tracy
Feeder Dam
Casey
Western
Crandall
Merritt
Bush
County Route 46
Sherman
Maple
HaskellLawrence
Staple
State
Upper Glen
Gurney
Van Dusen
Larose
Weeks
Veterans
Horicon
Baker
Highland
Mountain View
Jerome
Warren
Van Buren
Burke
Minnesota
Breton
Washington
Lamos
Culver
Henderson
Maple
Grant
Maple
Haviland
Broad
Main
§
¨ ¦87
¬
«197
¬
«9L
¬
«254
¬
«32
Corinth
FT Edward
Main
Hicks
Main
£
¤9
£
¤4
Queensbury
Kingsbury
Fort Edward
Glens Falls
Moreau
Moreau
SouthGlens Falls
Fort
Edward Hudson
Falls
0 10.5
Miles
GIS Data Source: Adirondack Glens Falls Transportation Council, Adirondack Chamber of Commerce
Figure 3-5 Major Employers Ranked by Number of Employees
Number of Employees
!
(187 – 299
! (300 – 499
!
(500 – 999
!
(1,000 – 2,810
GGFT Routes
!(
Lake Shore
Wall
Coolidge Hill
Potter Hill
Canada
Flat Rock
Dixon Hill
Horicon
Lakeshore
Fish Point
Patrick
Stone Schoolhouse
Cotton Point
Bolton
Landing
Diamond Point
9
8
6
5
4
3
2
1
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
13
12
11
10
7
14
14
11
10 15
13
0 21 Miles

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 3-7 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Figure 3-6 List of Large Private Employers in GGFT Service Area
Label Name Municipality Employees
1 Glens Falls Hospital Glens Falls 2,810
2 C.R. Bard Queensbury 941
3 Finch Paper Glens Falls 880
4 Navilyst Medical Glens Falls 812
5 Community, Work & Independence Glens Falls 741
6 Angio Dynamics Queensbury 540
7 The Sagamore5Bolton Landing
500
8 Hudson Headwaters Health Network Glens Falls 408
9 Glens Falls National Bank & Trust Glens Falls 405
10 Tribune Media Services Queensbury 400
11 Wal-Mart Queensbury 400
12 SCA Tissue South Glens Falls 370
13 Travelers Glens Falls 358
14 TD Banknorth Glens Falls 326
15 Warren/Washington ARC Queensbury 314
16 Irving Tissue Fort Edward 297
17 General Electric Fort Edward 290
18 Fort Hudson Health System Fort Edward 268
19 Great Escape Theme Park Queensbury 265
— National Grid Glens Falls 224
20 The Pines Glens Falls 190
21 Prospect Child & Family Center Queensbury 187
Major Public Employers
Washington County Queensbury 650
Warren County Fort Edward 550
Major Private Employers outside GGFT Service Area
Telescope Casual Furniture Granville 256
Covidien Argyle 210
Hollingsworth & Vose Greenwich 208
Source: Adirondack Chamber of Commerce

5 Employment at the Sagamore is seasonal.

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 3-8 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Activity Centers
In addition to employment destinations, GGFT also provides access to key facilities, services and
activity centers located within the service area. These include shopping centers, grocery stores,
medical facilities, social and human service centers, educational institutions, job training sites and
community centers. Figure 3 -7 shows the approximate location and distribution of major trip
generators relative to the GGFT regular route network. Nearly all locations are accessible via
public transit.

Gn
#
G!G
G#®v!G!^
G
GG#nG!#GGG
n
G#G!
k!n!
!
k
yaB
Dix
Mountain
Saratoga
Luzerne
Quaker
Corinth
Burgoyne
Gansevoort
Aviation
Broadway
FT Edward
Peggy Ann
Gurney
Cronin
Main
Canada
Upper Sherman
koorbwodaeMHicks
yrubsneeuQ
Boulevard
Lake Shore
Feeder
Feeder Dam
Casey
Western
Round Pond
Merritt
Farm
oihO
Weeks
Jacobie
Feeder Tow
snareteV
Baker
Highland
emoreJ
Michael
Linden
Old Lake
daorB
Mountain
Potter
Pine
nesueD naV
Haviland
Queensbury
Fort Ann
Moreau
Kingsbury
Lake George
Argyle
Fort Edward
Glens Falls
South GlensFalls
Ford EdwardHudson Falls
Lake George
Village
§
¨ ¦87
¬
«149
¬«9L
¬«9N
£
¤9
¬
«32
¬
«197
£
¤4
¬
«254
¬
«196
BOCES
BOCES
Wal-Mart
Hannaford
Hannaford
Hannaford
Super K Mart
Price
Chopper
Aviation Mall Cedars
Senior Living
St. Anne’s Institute
Northgate
Enterprises
Six Flags
Great Escape Coleman Factory Outlets
The Landing
of Queensbury
Warrensburg
Health Center Adirondack Manor
Adult Home
Samaritan
Counseling Center
Adirondack
Community College
Fort Edward
Internal Medicine
Queensbury Senior Citizens Inc
Hudson Falls
Internal Medicine
Lake George Plaza Outlet Center
Adirondack Nautilus Health Center
Warren Co.
Employment & Training
Senior Center of
Kingbury & Fort Edward
Washington Co.
Ec. Opportunity Council & Municipal Center
Midtown Shopping
Center
Warren County
Municipal Center
0 21
Miles
GIS Data Source: Adirondack Glens Falls Transportation Council, Internet searches
Figure 3-7 Activity Centers in the GGFT Service Area
Facility Type
®vHospital
#Job Training
GMedical/Health
kRecreation
Retail
^Ridge Terminal
nEducation
!Senior
GGFT Routes
City and Towns
Villages
Government
G#®v
!G
!^G
G
#nG
!#GG
GDixGlen
Bay
Ridge
Warren
Broad
Main
South
Maple
HunterElm
Crandall
Quaker
Hudson
Sherman
lleksaH
Lawrence
elpatS
State
Bush
LaroseMontcalm
sacnU
Webster
Horicon
Garfield
Park
Grand
Haviland
edauQ
Union
Arlington
Shippey
Saratoga
Stewart
Washington
Kensington
Sagamore
kaO
Katherine
Boylston
Hartford
Stoddard
Carleton
oruaM
eromagaS
Water
Grant
BOCES
Hannaford Super
K Mart
Price Chopper
Competitive Edge Glens Falls
Hospital
Warren
Washington ARC Adirondack
Cancer Care
Senior Citizens Center Liberty House
Foundation
Broad St
Medical Group
Hudson
Headwaters Health Center for
Children & Families
Meal Site:
Office for the Aging Warren County
Employment & Training Warren & Washington
Community Services
Adirondack Psychological
Health Services
Community,Work,
Independence

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 3-10 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
High Propensity Transit Markets
Understanding the composition and characteristics of a community’s demographics, employment
and land use are essential to designing and developing effective public transportation services.
Generally there are two key markets for public transportation services:
• “Transit dependent” riders who largely use public transportation services due to a lack of
other transportation alternatives. Many of these individuals lack access to or are unable
to operate a private vehicle.
• “Choice” riders who have adequate resources and capabilities to operate a private vehicle
but choose to use transit because public transit offers them comparable convenience
and/or because of other personal lifestyle and value choice.
While GGFT is concerned with both of these population segments, the spatial distribution and
density of persons with demographic characteristics typically associated with higher use of public
transit services are of particular interest. Individuals most likely to depend on public
transportation are typically characterized by age (youths aged 5 -17 and older adults aged 65 or
more), disability, income and access to a personal automobile. A composite distribution of
residential locations of all persons with a higher propensity to use transit within the GGFT service
area is shown graphically in Figure 3.8 and summarized in tabular format in Figure 3 -9. The
mapped data is based on census block data. In rural areas, census blocks cover geographically
large areas and thus can obscure the distribution of the described population.
These figures suggest that the area with the greatest concentration of transit needs is mostly in
the City of Glens Falls. A band just sout h of Glens Falls extending from South Glens Falls,
Hudson Falls and Fort Edward is also a higher need area. The Village of Lake George also
contains an area with a population suggesting high propensity to use transit. As seen in Figure 3-
8, much of exist ing areas with characteristics associated with higher transit usage are served by
fixed -route service.
The individual groups that comprise the composite distribution are highlighted in the following
paragraphs.
• Youth (Ages 5- 17): Nearly 16,441 individuals (19% of the total population) in the GGFT
service area are between 5 and 17 years of age (see Figure 3 -10). The highest
concentration of youths is located in Western Queensbury, along West Mountain Road.
This area is just outside of existing GGFT routes, located to the west and north of the
West Glens Falls route.
• Older Adults (Ages 65+) : The distribution of older adults is fairly even across the GGFT
service area. In total, 12,761 older adults (18% of the total population) live in the Great er
Glens Falls region; about one- quarter of these older adults live in Queensbury (see Figure
3- 11). The area around Quaker Road in Queensbury contains high densities of older
adults, reflecting the assisted living homes located in this corridor. A block group in
southeast Glens Falls also has a high density of older adults. Most of the areas with the
highest concentration of older adults are served by GGFT.
• Persons with Disabilities: Approximately 22% (16,451 individuals) of the service area
population are classified as persons with disabilities. The City of Glens Falls, especially
along Warren and South Streets contains the highest density of persons with disabilities in
the service area (see Figure 3 -12). The Village of Hudson Falls, Village of Lake George
and Town of Kingsbury also have relatively higher proportions of individuals with
disabilities. In the Town of Kingsbury and Village of Lake George persons with disabilities

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 3-11 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
are dispersed throughout the communities. The Village of Hudson Falls an d Town of
Kingsbury has transit service while the Village of Lake George currently has seasonal
service only.
• Persons with Low Income: In the 2000 Census, there were 15,405 individuals (22% of
total) with low incomes
6

6 For purposes of this study, individuals with low income include individuals living at or below 150% of the federal
poverty level.
living in the GGFT service area. This population is concentrated
in a contiguous set of block groups from downtown Glens Falls along Warren Street,
through Hudson Falls, and south to the Village of Fort Edward (see Figure 3- 13). The low
income population straddles GGFT Route 4. Within Glens Falls, low income populations
are most dense near Broad and Main Streets, between Glen Street and Ridge Street and
between Dix Avenue and Warren Street. These areas are also served by transit.

§
¨ ¦87
¬197
¬196
¬9L
¬149
¬40
¬32
¬9N
¬9N
¬149
Mountain
Corinth
Burgoyne
County Route 49
Dix
Hicks
Elm
Feeder
Main
Quaker
£9
£
¤4
£9
£9
£4
Fort Ann
Argyle
Moreau
Queensbury
Kingsbury
Lake Luzerne
Lake George
Hartford
Fort Edward
Warrensburg
Bolton
Greenwich
Thurman
GlensFalls
FortEdward
HudsonFallsSouthG. F.
Argyle
LakeGeorge
Fort Ann
GGFT Routes
Villages
City and Towns
0 42
Miles
GIS Data Source: Adirondack Glens Falls Transportation Council, US Census 2000 SF3
Figure 3-8 Composite Distribution of Persons with High Propensity Transit Use Characteristics
Target Population Percentage
43% – 61%
62% – 77%
78% – 99%
100% – 137%

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 3-13 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Figure 3-9 Residential Location of Persons with High Propensity Transit Use Characteristics
Geography
Type Name
Total
Population
Youth Age 5-17 Older Adults
65+
Persons with
Disabilities
Persons with Low
Income
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
City Glens Falls 14,444 2,672 18% 2,019 14% 3,287 23% 3,701 26%
Town Moreau
13,826 2,466 18% 1,774 13% 2,362 17% 1,664 12%
Lake George 3,578 585 16% 536 15% 695 19% 573 16%
Queensbury 25,351 4,959 20% 3,801 15% 3,413 13% 2,672 11%
Fort Edward 5,892 1,119 19% 958 16% 1,017 17% 1,284 22%
Kingsbury 11,171 2,090 19% 1,595 14% 2,486 22% 2,235 20%
Village Fort Edward
2,921 522 18% 339 12% 597 20% 675 23% Hudson Falls 6,927 1,274 18% 1,013 15% 1,668 24% 1,723 25%
Lake George 988 191 19% 132 13% 181 18% 215 22%
South Glens Falls 3,368 563 17% 594 18% 745 22% 663 20%
Service
Area GGFT 88,466 16,441 19% 12,761 14% 16,451 19% 15,405 17%
State New York 18,976,457 3,446,844 18% 2,450,697 13% 3,606,147 19% 4,178,786 22%
Source: US Census 2000, Summary File 3, Tables P8, P42, P88

§
¨ ¦87
¬197
¬196
¬9L
¬149
¬40
¬32
¬9N
¬9N
¬149
Mountain
Corinth
Burgoyne
County Route 49
Dix
Hicks
Elm
Feeder
Main
Quaker
£9
£
¤4
£9
£9
£4
Fort Ann
Argyle
Moreau
Queensbury
Kingsbury
Lake Luzerne
Lake George
Hartford
Fort Edward
Warrensburg
Bolton
Greenwich
Thurman
GlensFalls
FortEdward
HudsonFallsSouthG. F.
Argyle
LakeGeorge
Fort Ann
GGFT Routes
Villages
City and Towns
0 42
Miles
GIS Data Source: Adirondack Glens Falls Transportation Council, US Census 2000 SF3
Figure 3-10 Youth (Age 5-17) as a Percent of Total Population
Youth Percentage
6% – 9%
10% – 14%
15% – 24%
25% – 30%

042
Miles
GIS Data Source: Adirondack Glens Falls Transportation Council, US Census 2000 SF3
Figure 3-11 Older Adults (65+) as a Percent of Total Population
Older Adult Percentage
6% – 9%
10% – 14%
15% – 24%
25% – 36%
§
¨ ¦87
¬197
¬196
¬9L
¬149
¬40
¬32
¬9N
¬9N
¬149
Mountain
Corinth
Burgoyne
County Route 49
Dix
Hicks
Elm
Feeder
Main
Quaker
£9
£
¤4
£9
£9
£4
Fort Ann
Argyle
Moreau
Queensbury
Kingsbury
Lake Luzerne
Lake George
Hartford
Fort Edward
Warrensburg
Bolton
Greenwich
Thurman
Glens
Falls
FortEdward
HudsonFallsSouthG. F.
Argyle
LakeGeorge
Fort Ann
GIS Data Source: Adirondack Glens Falls Transportation Council, US Census 2000 SF3
GGFT Routes
Villages
City and Towns

§
¨ ¦87
¬197
¬196
¬9L
¬149
¬40
¬32
¬9N
¬9N
¬149
Mountain
Corinth
Burgoyne
County Route 49
Dix
Hicks
Elm
Feeder
Main
Quaker
£9
£
¤4
£9
£9
£4
Fort Ann
Argyle
Moreau
Queensbury
Kingsbury
Lake Luzerne
Lake George
Hartford
Fort Edward
Warrensburg
Bolton
Greenwich
Thurman
GlensFalls
FortEdward
HudsonFallsSouthG. F.
Argyle
LakeGeorge
Fort Ann
GGFT Routes
Villages
City and Towns
0 42
Miles
GIS Data Source: Adirondack Glens Falls Transportation Council, US Census 2000 SF3
Figure 3-12 Persons with Disabilities as a Percent of Total Population
Persons with Disabilities
Percentage
6% – 9%
10% – 19%
20% – 24%
25% – 36%

§
¨ ¦87
¬197
¬196
¬9L
¬149
¬40
¬32
¬9N
¬9N
¬149
Mountain
Corinth
Burgoyne
County Route 49
Dix
Hicks
Elm
Feeder
Main
Quaker
£9
£
¤4
£9
£9
£4
Fort Ann
Argyle
Moreau
Queensbury
Kingsbury
Lake Luzerne
Lake George
Hartford
Fort Edward
Warrensburg
Bolton
Greenwich
Thurman
GlensFalls
FortEdward
HudsonFallsSouthG. F.
Argyle
LakeGeorge
Fort Ann
GGFT Routes
Villages
City and Towns
0 42
Miles
GIS Data Source: Adirondack Glens Falls Transportation Council, US Census 2000 SF3
Figure 3-13 Persons with Low Income as a Percent of Total Population
Low Income Percentage
5% – 9%
10% – 14%
15% – 24%
25% – 37%

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 4-1• Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Chapter 4. Stakeholder and Public Input
In addition to looking at the GGFT services from a quantitative and analytical perspective, the
TDP study team also reached out to members of the community, including individuals who
currently ride the bus and those who do not. The objective of this outreach was to gauge
people’s perception of the current service, understand their priorities for service improvements,
and identify their preferences for service improvements. Our outreach efforts focused on
stakeholders, existing transit riders, bus drivers, and individuals living near existing GGFT routes
but who do not regularly ride the bus. A brief overview of the approach used to reach out to each
of these audiences and the key lessons learned from their input is summarized in the following
sections.
Stakeholder Interviews
The study team conducted ten interviews with social service providers and representatives from
local employers and the business community. With a couple of exceptions, interviews were
conducted primarily over the phone in November and December 2008. Figure 4- 1 displays the
list of stakeholders interviewed as part of this study. The purpose of this section is to document
the community’s need for transit and the perception of the current system’s effectiveness and
ability to meet those needs.
Figure 4-1 List of Interviewed Stakeholders
Name Title Organization
Kevin Geraghty Supervisor Town of Warrensburg
Brian Durant Dean of Student Services Adirondack Community College
Shelia Weaver Commissioner Warren County Department of Social Services
Dave Standton Commissioner Washington County Department of Social Services
Staff Person Lake George Chamber of Commerce
Matt Brasfield Store Manager Walmart
Dave King Owner/Manager Lake George RV Park
Lou Tessier Supervisor Town of Lake George
Bob Orlando Manager Aviation Mall
Nick Caimano Staff Adirondack Regional Chamber of Commerce
Interviews were tailored to the individual stakeholder. However, the questions generally covered:
• Is transit important to your clients/patrons/community? If yes, how/why?
• How do your clients/program participants/patrons use the existing service?
• Are you satisfied with the service available? Why/why not?

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 4-2• Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
• In your opinion, what groups should be a priority for transit to serve? What are their
needs?
• What times and days should transit service run?
• What locations should transit serve?
• Are there other groups that could be served by transit? Who/how?
• How can transit support economic development and quality of life goals?
• What are the strengths and potential improvements of the current transit system?
Key Findings – Stakeholders
In general, stakeholders were very supportive of the existing public transportation services and
most comments revolved around ideas to expand and improve the service. An overview of some
of the ideas expressed in the stakeholder interviews include:
Geo graphic Expansion
• There is an interest in service to Warrensburg. A large proportion of its population is
transit dependent and commuter service would benefit people, especially as gas prices
get higher. Demand will largely be to travel south. Potential for some service on
Saturdays for the garage sales, but this market might not be as strong.
• Bus service is very important to the Department of Social Services. This is true in both
Washington and Warren County.
• Serving Route 9 is very important and ideally there should be more service, especially
during the middle of the day and later in the day.
• Need to expand the service to more areas of Washington County, such as Granville,
Whitehall and Fort Ann.
Service Hours and Days of Week
• Potential to expand services later in to the evening and on weekends, especially to
Walmart, Aviation Mall and Hudson Falls/Fort Edward.
• Bus service is essential for many of the region’s large employers, especially retail.
Employees at some locations depend on the bus to get to and from work. Some
employers will work and try to schedule shifts around bus schedules, but service
expansions will help everyone.
• Trolley service is extremely important to the success of the region.
• Service frequency is important. Many buses and trolleys only run hourly, which is not
really enough.
Information Systems and Marketing • GGFT could improve its visibility, especially of the trolley service, because getting more
people to ride the bus is an important part of reducing traffic congestion. There is also a
need for more shelters, also in relation to the trolleys. Visitors do not like to stand out in
the sun (or rain) and wait for the bus.

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 4-3• Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
• The environmental conservation aspect of the transit service is becoming more and more
important to people. GGFT should capitalize on this.
• The bus schedules and timetables are not easy to read. Improving the information would
help more people understand and use the service. This is true for both regular bus
service and the trolleys.
Existing GGFT Transit Riders
NelsonNygaard (NN) also conducted a survey of GGFT transit users. The purpose for surveying
GGFT transit riders was to understand existing travel patterns and gain insight into traveler
attitudes, preferences and priorities. The survey was administered over a two day period,
Wednesday, November 12 and Thursday, November 13, and staggered over these days to
ensure all service hours were surveyed. The following section summarizes the findings.
A goal of the survey administration was to collect as large a sample as possible. Therefore,
surveyors were assigned to ride the busiest routes in the GGFT system, ask passengers to fill out
the survey and once completed, collect the survey. On routes with lower ridership, bus drivers
distributed and co llected pre-coded surveys. Passengers who filled out the survey also received
a bus token for a future trip on GGFT; this was greatly appreciated and significantly increased the
survey response rate. Overall, the refusal rate was very low, and a high percentage of riders
traveling on GGFT on Wednesday and Thursday completed surveys. In total 334 surveys were
completed. A copy of the full survey report is included as Appendix A.
Key findings from the survey suggest the following about existing GGFT riders:
• Passengers are very appreciative of GGFT services. They ride the bus frequently and are
generally pleased with the service.
• Most passengers use the bus to travel between home and work, but a considerable
number of passengers also use GGFT for other trip destinations, such as shopping,
recreation and other purposes.
• Passengers expressed a strong desire for more service. They are interested in more trips
on existing services as well as more evening and weekend service.
• Several passengers expressed an interest in service to regional destinations, including (in
the order of most frequent suggestions) Saratoga, Lake George Village (year round) and
Warrensburg.
By analyzing trip origin and destination locations, we were able to gauge how existing passenger s
use the service. Figure 4- 2 maps the travel flows of passengers using GGFT services. This data
largely reflects ridership data, but also reveals that passengers use the bus to travel to/from Exit
18 area (Walmart and Aviation Mall), within Glens Falls, and to/from Hudson Falls.

Dix
Boulevard
!
.!
.
!
.
n
!
.!
.
!
.
^
!
.
®v
n
¤
Moreau
Kingsbury
Glens Falls
Town of
Fort Edward
Queensbury
Zone 2
Queensbury
Zone 3
W a r r e n
W a r r e n
S a r a t o g a
S a r a t o g a W a s h i n g t o n
W a s h i n g t o n
Village of
Hudson Falls
South
Glens Falls
West
Glens Falls
§
¨ ¦87
¬
«197
¬
«9L
¬
«149
¬
«32
Main
Hicks
Kmart
Village of
Fort Edward
Moreau
Queensbury
Zone 1
Kingsbury
Glens Falls
Town of
Fort Edward
Queensbury
Zone 2 Queensbury
Zone 3
Village of
Hudson Falls
South
Glens Falls
West
Glens Falls
Village of
Fort Edward
Queensbury
Zone 1
QuakerWal-Mart
Factory Outlets
Queensbury Town HallAdirondack Community College
Warren County
Municpal Center
AviationMall
Hannaford
£ £
¤
4
¤9
5%
15%
13%9%
8%
7%
GIS Data Source: Adirondack Glens Falls Transportation Council
Figure 4-2 Primary Travel Patterns by Percent of Total Trips Surveyed
0 12
Miles
Mapped data was collected via passenger surveys
distributed on November 12 & 13, 2008

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 4-5• Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Non-Riders Living in Glens Falls Service Area
The study team also conducted surveys to gain insights into non- riders perceptions of GGFT
services and understand why people don’t use the bus. Accordingly, we conducted two surveys
with non- riders. The first attempt was an intercept survey specifically targeting South Glens Falls
and West Glens Falls, two areas where transit ridership is lower than would be expected. This
process yielded 53 completed interviews. A second attempt to reach out to non-riders involved
mailing a survey to residents in Sout h Glens Falls and West Glens Falls. This survey yielded 86
responses. Although the survey questions were different in each effort, we generally summarized
the findings across each effort and presented them in the following section. Reports on each of
th e independent efforts are included as Appendix B.
Survey results suggest that awareness of GGFT services in these neighborhoods is good. Nearly
half of the individuals participating in the intercept survey had ridden the bus at least once and
another 40% had ridden the bus at least three times. Individuals responding to the mail -back
survey were also familiar with the bus services. According to the mail -back survey:
• 69% (59 people) said they had bus service near their home;
• 60% (52 people) reported being able to walk to a bus route in 5 minutes or less.
• 16% (14 individuals) were not sure if they lived near a bus stop or not.
• Nearly half (48%) said they had ridden on GGFT in the past.
Most respondents had a positive image of GGFT, even if they are not fr equent riders. When
asked to choose which statement best describes their most recent experience on GGFT, the
majority said their last experience on GGFT was great. The findings include:
• Most (74%) said “The last time I used GGFT was great. I would like to ride the bus more
often” as the statement that best described their most recent experience.
• 21% agreed with “The last time I used GGFT, I got where I needed to go. I prefer not to
use GGFT.”
• 5% agreed with the statement that read, “I don’t like usi ng GGFT buses.”
The primary reasons given for not taking the bus were 1) bus takes too long (26%); 2) other –
typically that they had a vehicle available (16%); 3) I don’t know where to catch the bus (14%)
and 4) I don’t feel safe on the bus (12%).
When gi ven a list of potential improvements, respondents reported they would be more likely to
take the bus if:
• Increased service hours
• Regularly scheduled service to Lamplighter Acres
• More information about the service
• Saturday and weekend service
• More covered waiting areas and bus shelters
• Expanded geographic coverage, including stopping closer to home or work

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 4-6• Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
The mail back survey also had an open ended question about public transportation in Glens Falls.
Most responses were very favorable. A sample of the responses is included below.
“I have used the bus for past 15 years. It is our only transportation and it works out good for us.”
“I have been around for many, many years and it has always been great. Keep up the good
work.”
“I used the bus once about 20 years ago when my car wouldn’t start. Was good alternative
transportation to work (Queensbury to downtown Glens Falls)”.
“I may have to ride the bus later on in years.”
“Keep up the good work.”
Meeting with GGFT Bus Drivers
NelsonNygaard (NN) held a drop -in session with GGFT drivers on Thursday, December 18,
2008. The purpose of this session was to talk directly with drivers and hear their perspective on
challenges in the existing system and get their ideas to improve routing and scheduling. We also
asked drivers about rider needs and for recommendations to improve communication with the
riders. The following documents the main ideas, concerns and perspectives of the drivers that
they expressed to us during our meeting with them.
Overview of Key Points
• Potential to increase service along main travel corridor (Glen Street) to Aviation Mall, Wal –
Mart and John Burke Apartments.
• Hail and ride policy challenges drivers. Passengers flag the bus in unsafe locations, at
high traffic locations and close proximity to other stops. Drivers also said efforts to
educate passengers about where to flag the bus have not been successful.
• East and West loops can be improved – suggested ideas include shortening and/or
combining the two loops and/or replacing one loop with a cross -town service.
• Drivers are frustrated by a lack of clear consistent rules regarding key service policies,
such as fares, rider conduct, route deviation service, and hail and ride.
• The effectiveness of route deviations in system varies by route. Deviations on Route 2
are more challenging than those offered on Routes 5/7.
• Communicating with the customer base is challenging, despite ongoing efforts to educate
passengers by staff and drivers.
Routing/Scheduling
• In general, drivers had mixed comments about route scheduling. Most drivers agreed that
the mall runs are scheduled too tightly. For other routes (such as Route 5), however, the
schedule might be tight in the morning but in other parts of the day they have extra time.
• Aviation Mall routes (11/12) would benefit from increased frequency and travel time.
Drivers felt there is potential to add another bus on the mall route, improve service
frequency to every 20 minutes and increase the scheduled travel time to 40 minutes.
Service could still be organized with alternating service to Wal -Mart and John Burke
Apartments.

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 4-7• Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
• Current schedule on Route 19/County run has sufficient time in the schedule to go all the
way into Lake George Village and turn into Westmont (Warren County Annex Building) as
requested. Several drivers said that turning at Gooney Golf makes no sense, especially
when they sit and wait at the county building so they won’t be early at Ridge St. Terminal.
• Service coordination with Route 19/County Bus needs to be improved. This bus does not
operate on the pulse system and thus connections can be challenging. Some of the
connecting services, especially the WGF and SGF routes frustrated passengers; these
services tend to arrive just after Route 19 departs or just before it arrives, leaving
passengers with long wait times or stranding them downtown.
• Hudson Falls 2 pm bus should be unchanged. Need this run to meet BOCES.
• West Glens Falls route has low ridership but riders need the service.
• WGF need to coordinate stops; there is a lot of traffic in some spots and letting the bus
stop frequently creates problems for traffic and sometimes means passengers board in
unsafe locations.
• East and West Loops could be improved; potential ideas include:
− East and West Loops have large “dead” segments where there is consistently a lack
of riders. For example, on the East Loop very few riders get on or off along Ridge
Street, Dix Avenue or Sanford/Hunter segments. The key destinations and productive
segments of this route are Kmart; and along Maple. The West Loop also has several
segments with few riders, especially the loops out to Horicon Avenue and south to
State Street has low ridership.
− Potential to replace East and West Loops with cross town route that would serve new
Wal -Mart and connect to Routes 4 and 7.
− Shortening East and West Loops and doing both in 30 minutes. Extra time could be
used in other parts of the system.
• SGF is a good route. Request only service to Lamplighter works. The only challenge is
the gap between 11:30 – 2:30; this is the biggest gap in service in the GGFT network.
Communication
• There is a lack of consistency with GGFT rules and regulation, including fare policy.
Some drivers expressed frustration over the lack of consistency with rider conduct
(number of bags allowed, cell phones, etc.), hail and ride and fare policy. This makes it
challenging for drivers trying to enforce the rules. It also frustrates them when there is
abuse in the fare policy and passengers hail the bus in unsafe locations.
• Communicating with passengers is challenging. On one hand, the schedules are not that
easy to read, but even fairly simple things are hard for many passengers to comprehend,
such as hourly service to John Burke and half -hourly services to Wal -Mart.
• Several passengers recognize the route by the driver; when drivers change passengers
get confused.

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 4-8• Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Miscellaneous
• Drivers were mixed about route deviation service, depending on the route. Drivers on
Route 2 said some deviations prevent them from staying on schedule. For other routes,
such as Routes 5/7, drivers were more positive and felt that the deviations make sense.
• Riders need more education about where to hail the bus. They often want to be picked up
in unsafe or problematic locations.
• Snow banks are a challenge with regards to safe places to pick -up and drop- off
passengers. Bus shelters and stops are not always shoveled out. Need to coordinate
with community service groups to get the shelters and stops shoveled out.
• GGFT staff said they offer travel training to several of the senior housing complexes, but
have never had anyone take them up on it.
• Drivers like using a trolley on the mall run during the holidays. It is festive and the
passengers like it.
• Bikes on buses are great – a lot of people use them.

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 5-1 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Chapter 5. Ser vice Evaluation
Overview
This chapter provides an evaluation of each of the fixed- routes as well as the trolley and FAME
services individually to assess potential improvements or service changes that offer opportunities
to improve the accessibility and effectiveness of the public transportation system. A full range of
service improvements is included. Our intention with this evaluation exercise is to be as inclusive
as possible, with all ideas subjected to review and discussion before being carried forward for
more detailed analysis. We recognize that several of the proposed options may be mutually
exclusive, may need to be implemented in tandem in order to work well and/or may not support
other GGFT service priorities.
Service Overview
As discussed, GGFT operates three types of public transportation services: fixed- route buses,
seasonal trolleys and ADA complementary paratransit. The fixed- route bus system consists of
nine routes designed as a radial pulse system focused on downtown Glens Falls, with most
routes converging at an on- street terminal located along the east side of Ridge Street opposite
City Hall. The pulse system allows passengers to easily transfer between routes; GGFT offers
timed transfers and will hold buses for a few minutes to make sure services meet. The ful l system
operates primarily on weekdays between 6:00 am and 6:30 pm. Eight of nine routes also operate
on Saturdays, although several are abbreviated schedules that cover only part of the day.
The seasonal trolley service provides public transportation around the Lake George resort areas
and between the Village of Lake George and Glens Falls. Service operates between mid-May
and Columbus Day with schedules varying during late spring, peak summer and autumn periods.
In total there are three trolley routes; Lake George South, Lake George South RV Parks and Lake
George North. The South Route provides service from Lake George Village to the Ridge Street
Terminal in downtown Glens Falls and is integrated with other GGFT fixed- route bus service.
GGFT’s third se rvice, Freedom and Mobility Express (FAME), is designed to meet Federal
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements by providing paratransit service to individuals
unable to use the regular fixed- route system.
System Productivity
In 2007, GGFT provided 329,461 one -way trips on its public transportation system, including
326,576 trips on the fixed- route system and 2,885 trips on the demand response services. A
breakdown of the regular fixed- route bus service productivity is provided in Figure 5 -1.

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 5-2 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Figure 5-1 GGFT System Productivity
Daily
Passengers
Passengers
per Trip
Passengers per
Service Hour
Cost per
Passenger
Weekdays 743.6 8.96 15.3 $4.12
Weekday Evening 15.1 2.52 3.9 $16.31
Total Weekday 758.7 8.52 14.4 $4.37
Saturday 375.5 8.73 14.4 $4.35
Saturday Evening 27.0 6.75 9.3 $6.80
Total Saturday 402.5 8.56 13.9 $4.52
All Weekday Service 1161.2 8.54 14.2 $4.42
Source: GGFT/Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates
Based on data from the week of October, 6, 2008
Route 2: Bay Road, ACC, and Quaker Road
Route Description
Route 2 travels north from the Ridge Street Terminal on Bay Street to Bay Road, turning on
Haviland Road to serve the Queensbury Town Hall and Queensbury Senior Center . It travels off-
route into Adirondack Community College (ACC) and the Cedars, a senior living community (see
Figure 5- 2). Drivers on Route 2 will also accommodate requests to travel to portions of Glenwood
Avenue on trips after 9:00 am. Route 2’s alignment along Bay Street to Quaker Road is shared
with Route 19.
Service on Route 2 includes two evening trips, but has no Saturday service. There is a Bay-
Quaker -Glen Street loop which operates two trips on Saturdays in a similar corridor as Route 2.
Tra vel statistics for Route 2 are shown in Figure 5- 3.
Major stops on Route 2:
• C.R. Bard (private employer)
• Adirondack Community College
• Queensbury Senior Center
• Queensbury Town Hall
• Medical clinics and offices along Bay Road
• Social Security Building (by request only)
• Regency Park Apartments (by request only)

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 5-3 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Figure 5-2 Route 2

Figure 5-3 Route 2 Service Statistics
Weekday Evening
Span of Service 7:30 am – 5:07 pm 7:00 pm – 9:00 pm
Round Trips 7 2
Frequency (min) 60 peak

n/a
90-120 off peak
Route Length (miles) 9.1 9.1
Travel time 30 min 30 min
Source: GGFT
* Trip length varies depending on requests. Length shown represents average.

Ridership
Ridership on Route 2 increased substantially between 2006 and 2007, gaining more than 10%. It
also grew between 2007 and 2008, albeit by a slower rate of 3.8% (see Figure 5 -4).

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 5-4 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Figure 5-4 Route 2: Changes in Annual Ridership 2006- 2007
Year Annual Total Monthly Average Annual Change
2006 10,471 872.6
2007 11,631 969.3 11.1%
2008 10,058 1,006 3.8%
Source: GGFT
* Represents 10 months of data
Ridership data by month shows ridership peaking in September, falling off in December and
January, but increasing again during the spring and dropping off during the summer (see Figure
5- 5). This ridership pattern likely reflects the schedule of the Adirondack Community College,
one of the routes major destinations. This finding is consistent with survey data, that suggests
that ACC is one of the biggest passenger generators on the route, with students comprising the
majority of the riders. Of the Route 2 riders responding to the survey, 67% were traveling to/from
ACC and all of these riders were traveling to ACC for school.
Figure 5-5 Ridership by Month
0
200 400
600 800
1000 1200
1400
JANU ARYFEBRUA RY
MARCHAP RILMAYJUNEJULY
AUGUS T
SE PT EMBERO C T OB ERNOVE MB ERDEC EMBER
Average Monthly Riders
2006
2007
2008

Source: GGFT

As shown in Figure 5- 6, ridership is strongest during the morning and afternoon hours, but
declines after the 3:30 pm trip. Ridership on the evening services is low.

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 5-5 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Figure 5-6 Route 2 – Ridership by Time of Day
0 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9
10
7:30 8:30 9:30 11:00 1:30 3:30 4:40 7:00 8:45
Tr ip Tim e
Number of Riders

Source: GGFT

Productivity
Figure 5-7 shows Route 2’s productivity, broken down by daytime and evening service. In
general, Route 2 has good productivity, performing near to the system average for all metrics
measured. The evening service is also productive relative to other evening services; however,
evening trips are significantly less productive as compared with the daytime service.
Figure 5-7 Route 2 Productivity
Weekday
System
Average
Evening
Service
Evening
Service Average
Operating Cost per Passenger $4.28 $4.12 $14.29 $16.31
Average Daily Ridership 51.4 82.6 4.4 3.8
Passengers per Trip 7.3 8.96 2.2 2.5
Passengers per Vehicle
Service Hour 14.7
15.3 4.4 3.9
Passengers per mile 0.8 1.0 0.3 0.2

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 5-6 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Input from 2008 Passenger Survey
Passenger survey data reveals unique characteristics of riders using Route 2, in particular that
the majority of trips originated at home (39%) or school (39%) and ended at home (44%) or
school (33%). As compared with other GGFT services, Route 2 had a high portion of transfers
(39%), monthly pass users (61%) and a very loyal ridership with 72% of the riders saying they
used GGFT every day. Twenty -two percent of passengers ride GGFT buses between 2 and 4
days per week.
Strengths and Weakn esses
Strengths
• Good productivity in relation to the rest of the system.
• Higher levels of loyalty among passengers as compared with other routes.
• Inc reased productivity over time.
• ACC is a strong source of ridership.
Weaknesses
• Productivity on late afternoon and evening trips is poor.
• Deviations on Route 2 are more challenging than on some other routes and can throw
route off schedule – the full deviation takes the driver down Meadowbrook to Quaker
Road, then back north to Cronin Road.
• Low summer ridership – monthly ridership patterns indicate that student ridership falls off
during the course of the school year.
Potential Improvements
• Reach out to C.R. Bard regarding commuting patterns – this manufacturing center
employs 941 people and could provide more year-round ridership on Route 2.
• Increase service to ACC – great potential for increasing ridership, as ACC enrolls more
than 2,000 full -time students, 1,400 part -time students, and staff/faculty.
• Decrease service during the summer months, when ACC is not in session.
• Potential to develop “UPass” program and leverage institutional support for increased
service.
• New development along Bay Road suggests route productivity will increase over time.
• Shorten or limit distance for deviations – survey data suggests Regency Park Apartments
and Social Security have limited importance to riders.
• Eliminate evening service.

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 5-7 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Route 3: East Loop
Route Description
The East Loop is a neighborhood route operated in a small transit vehicle that serves the eastern
half of Glens Falls. The route is interlined with Route 6; thus service is alternated such that
Route 3 leaves on the half hour and Route 6 leaves on the hour. Route 3 travels north out of the
Ridge Street Terminal along Ridge Street to Hartford Street, jogging t hrough the neighborhood
and turning on Dix Avenue, where it provides service to Price Chopper, East Field and Super K –
Mart. From Dix Avenue, Route 3 turns on Haskell Avenue working its way through Jackson
Heights neighborhoods to Warren Street, returning back to the Ridge Street Terminal (see Figure
5 -8). Route 3 primarily runs through residential areas. The service area includes areas with
higher population densities and concentrations of persons with low income. Route 3 provides
nine hours of service on weekdays and three Saturday trips. Service statistics for Route 3 are
shown in Figure 5-9 .
Major Stops on Route 3:
• Jackson Heights School
• Super Kmart
• Abraham Wing School
• Stichman Towers
• Price Chopper (Dix Avenue)
Figure 5-8 Route 3 Map

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 5-8 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Figure 5-9 Route 3 Service Statistics
Weekday Saturday
Span of Service 7:20 am – 5:00 pm 9:30 am – 1:50 pm
Round Trips 10 3
Frequency (min) 60* 120
Route Length (miles) 5.8 5.8
Travel time 7:20 am – 5:00 pm 9:30 am – 1:50 pm
Note: * First two morning trips are spaced 40 minutes apart;
Source: GGFT
Ridership
Data on annual ridership shows that ridership increased considerably between 2006 and 2007.
Ridership data from 2008, however, shows the trend reversing, with an estimated loss of 3% of
ridership based on data collected from January to October (see Figure 5-10).
Figure 5-10 Route 3 Changes in Annual Ridership 2006- 2008
Year Annual Total Monthly Average Annual Change
2006 9,721 810
2007 11,446 954 18%
2008 9,295* 930 -3%
*Represents 10 months of data
Source: GGFT
Ridership levels by month for the three year period between 2006 and 2008 are shown in Figure
5-11 (partial data available for 2008). This data suggests that ridership in 2006 was heavily
dominated by school trips; average monthly ridership dropped significantly in the summer
months, but increased again in September. As compared with 2006, data for 2007 and 2008
show more constant levels of riders. While 2008 has a very similar pattern as 2007, it shows
lower ridership overall.

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 5-9 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Figure 5-11 Route 3: Ridership by Month (2006 -2008)

Note: 2008 represents 10 months of data only
Source: GGFT
Ridership data by time of day shows that the number of riders using Route 3 is low generally, with
no trip carrying more than eight passengers. Among Route 3’s ten trips, ridership is highest
during the middle of the day. On most trips, however, the rou te carries five or fewer riders. The
8:00 am trip had only a single rider (see Figure 5- 12).
Figure 5-12 Route 3 – Weekday Ridership by Time of Day

Source: GGFT

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 5-10 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Productivity
Route 3 has the lowest productivity in the GGFT system with operating costs per passengers
88% higher than the system average (see Figure 5- 13). Productivity on the Saturday service is
likewise low. The service carries very few riders overall; low productivity is further exacerbat ed
by a relatively generous schedule, allowing the service to travel 5.8 miles in 30 minutes with
minimal stops.
Figure 5-13 Route 3 Productivity
Weekday
Weekday
System Average Saturday
Saturday Route
Average
Operating Cost per
Passenger* $7.75
$4.12 $11.10 $4.35
Average Daily Ridership 40.6 82.6 8.5 41.7
Passengers per Trip 4.06 8.96 2.83 8.73
Passengers per Vehicle
Service Hour 8.1
15.3 5.7 14.4
Passengers per Mile 0.7 1.0 0.49 1.0
Source: GGFT and NelsonNygaard
Input from 2008 Passenger Survey
Survey data shows that passengers riding Route 3 were primarily traveling between home (29%)
and shopping (32%). Most people walked to the bus (62%) but as compared with other routes,
walking times were considerably shorter – closer to 2.6 minutes. A large number of passengers
also reported that they transferred to (23%) or from another route (42%) to another route. Most
travelers were making a round trip (61%) and 81% of the passengers surveyed on Route 3 said
they ride GGFT daily.
Strengths and Weaknesses
Strengths
• Serves geographic area with medium -high population density and areas with relatively
high concentrations of individuals with low income.
• Ridership is low, but many riders are loyal and use the route daily.
Weaknesses
• Highest per passenger operating costs in GGFT system; this is true for weekday and
Saturday service.
• Drivers suggest that route has segments with very few or no passenger boardings.
• Alignment is circuitous, travels through neighborhoods and has one out and back
segment, increasing travel time for many riders.

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 5-11 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
• Few stron g destinations along route.
Potential Improvements
• Eliminate Route 3.
• Replace Route 3 with demand response service.
• Combine Route 3 and 6 into single route with shorter, more direct alignment that link to
more important destinations. This shortened and combined route may require less
operating time, freeing vehicle service hours for other parts of the system.
• Combine Route 3 and 6 into single route with a new alignment that provides cross town
service and is linked to Routes 4 and 7 at key locations.
• E xpand/realign Route 3 to provide service along Dix Avenue, potentially serving the new
Walmart.
• Try to build and expand ridership on Route 3 by working with schools and reaching out to
Navilyst Medical, who employs 812 people.
Route 4: Fort Edward and Hudson Falls
Route Description
Route 4 travels between the Ridge Street Terminal in downtown Glens Falls and the Villages of
Hudson Falls and Fort Edward. All trips depart from the Ridge Street Terminal and travel
outbound along Warren Street to River Street in Queensbury. From River Street, Route 4
alternates its alignment between traveling 1) directly to the Villages of Hudson Falls and Fort
Edward via Boulevard, Broadway and Main Streets; and 2) turning off River Street onto Dix
Avenue, turning onto Main Street north of the Village of Hudson Falls and rejoining the first
alignment. The second alignment serves the Super K -Mart and BOCES center (see Figure 5- 14)
on Dix Avenue. Traveling via Dix Avenue adds 2.6 miles and approximately eight minutes to
Route 4 as compared with the Boulevard route.
Route 4 currently operates 12 trips a day; service frequencies are hourly during the morning and
throughout the day. The Saturday schedule is reduced to hourly departures in the morning and
once every two hours in the afternoon. There is also a single evening service that combines key
destinations on Routes 4 and 11/12. Travel statistics for Route 4 are shown in Figure 5 -15.
Route 4’s alignment from the Ridge Street Terminal along Warren Street to Oak St reet
(outbound) and from Oak Street to Maple Street (inbound) is parallel with Route 3. Route 3 and
Route 4 also both serve the Super K -Mart on Dix Avenue, although Route 3 pulls directly into the
Super K -Mark parking lot, while Route 4 drops passengers off at the street and requires a long
walk to the store’s front entrance.
Major stops on Route 4:
• Eden Park
• Village Park
• Washington County Municipal Center
• Amtrak Station
• General Electric

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 5-12 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
• BOCES (every other trip only)
• Super K -Mart (every other trip only)
Figure 5-14 Route 4 Map

Figure 5-15 Route 4 Service Statistics
Weekday Saturday
Span of Service 6:30 am – 6:49 pm 8:00 am – 6:39 pm
Round Trips 13 7
Frequency (min) 30 am *; 60 daily 60-120
Route Length (miles) 14.1; 16.7 14.1; 16.7
Travel time 45-52 min 45-48 min
Note: * 30 minute headways for first three trips only.
Source: GGFT
Ridership
Ridership on Route 4 was steady between 2006 and 2007, increasing by 1%. Between 2007 and
2008, however, ridership increased significantly, with nearly 10% more riders in 2008 as
compared with 2007 (see Figure 5 -16).

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 5-13 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Figure 5-16 Route 4: Changes in Annual Ridership 2006- 2007
Year Annual Total Monthly Average Annual Change
2006 69,520 5,793
2007 70,257 5,855 1.0%
2008 64,352 6,435 9.9%
Source: GGFT * Represents 10 months of data
Ridership patterns by month are shown in Figure 5- 17 for the three year period between 2006
and 2008 (partial data available for 2008). Average monthly ridership on Route 4 is fairly steady
at approximately 6,000 riders per month, with higher monthly ridership observed duri ng the spring
and fall months. The winter months (December, January and February) generally show lower
ridership.
Figure 5-17 Route 4: Ridership by Month (2006 -2008)
0
1,000 2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
J AN UA RYFE BR UA RY
MA RCHA PR ILMAYJ UNEJ ULY
A UGU ST
SEPTEMBERO C TO BE RNO VE M BE RDECEMBER
2006
2007
2008

Source: GGFT

Note: 2008 represents 10 months of data only
Ridership data by time of day shows that Route 4 ridership is highest during the mid- day between
10 am and 4 pm. Trips that travel via Dix Avenue have slightly higher ridership as compared with
routes that travel directly to Fort Edward and Hudson Falls (see Figure 5- 18). Increased ridership
on the Dix Avenue afternoon trips benefits from passengers traveling to/from BOCES. This data
also shows that travel during the morning peak is higher as compared with the afternoon peak.
Sat urday service shows a similar pattern; ridership is highest in the middle of the day and lowest
on the first and last trips of the day (see Figure 5- 19).

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 5-14 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Figure 5-18 Route 4 – Weekday Ridership by Time of D ay
0 5
10
15 20 25 30 35
6:30*
6:30
7:30
8:30
10:00
11:00
12:00 1:00
2:00
3:00
4:00
5:10
6:10
9:45
Trip Time
Riders per Trip
Direc t Servic e
Servic e via Dix Avenue

Source: GGFT
Figure 5-19 Route 4 – Saturday Ridership by Time of Day
0 .0 5 .0
10.0
15.0 20.0 25.0
8:00 9:00 10:00 12:00 2:00 4:00 6:00
Tr ip Tim e
Riders per Trip

Source: GGFT

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 5-15 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Productivity
The Route 4 weekday service is the most productive service among the GGFT regular fixed-
routes. The route travels a long distance and carries a lot of passengers; an average of 265
passengers per day and 20.4 passengers per trip. Operating costs per passenger are also well
below the system average. Productivity on the Saturday service is also strong; Rout e 4 is equal
to or surpasses the system average on nearly all productivity metrics (see Figure 5- 20).
Figure 5-20 Route 4 Productivity
Weekday Route
Average
Weekday
System Average Saturday
Saturday
System Average
Operating Cost per
Passenger* $2.97
$4.12 $4.36 $4.35
Average Daily Ridership 264.8 82.6 101 41.7
Passengers per Trip 20.4 8.96 14.4 8.73
Passengers per Vehicle
Service Hour 21.2
15.3 14.4 14.4
Passengers per Mile 1.4 1.0 .97 1.0
Note: Statistics do not include evening service
Source: GGFT and Nelson Nygaard
Input from 2008 Passenger Survey
Passengers on Route 4 comprise a large portion of GGFT’s ridership overall, therefore, survey
results are consistent with the system -wide findings. While most (61%) people begin their trip at
home, passengers also reported traveling to home (27%), work (22%), and to other destinations
(22%). Among the passengers traveling for other reasons, many riders reported traveling to the
Department of Social Services (DSS), the Courthouse, or the East Side Center. Survey data also
shows a relatively high portion of riders (20%) said they would transfer to another bus to get to
their final destination.
Strengths and Weaknesses
Strengths
• Highly productive route with strong ridership. Ridership is strong throughout the day,
except for an early trip originating from Hudson Falls and the evening service.
• Route passes by several key destinations including the Villages of Hudson Falls and Fort
Edward, the Washington County Municipal Center and BOCES.
• Most passengers are regular riders.
• Service is fairly stable – both in terms of monthly ridership and time of day.

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 5-16 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Weaknesses
• Alternating alignment along Dix Avenue increases travel time for passengers not traveling
to destinations along Dix Avenue.
• Service operates at half hourly schedule during AM peak, but on hourly frequencies for
the remainder of the day.
• Saturday service is low – hourly in the morning but every two hours in the afternoon.
• Route 4 overlaps with Route 3 in downtown Glens Falls.
Potential Improvements
• Change alignment to serve new Walmart.
• Increase service levels to 30 minute frequencies.
• Combine portions of Route 3 and Route 4, especially if Route 4 frequencies are
increased.
• Break Route 4 into two services with similar number scheme, schedule and service
pattern as Route 11/12.
Route 5: South Glens Falls
Route Description
Route 5 provides connecting service from downtown Glens Falls to the Village of South Glens
Falls and the Town of Moreau. Route 5 runs south out of Glens Falls on Glen Street, traveling
along Main Street into the Village of South Glens Falls. On request, passengers can travel off
Main Street to Second, Riverview and Third Streets. From South Glens Falls, Route 5 conti nues
to Moreau to South Glens Falls High School and returns via Bluebird Road to Gansevoort Road
(see Figure 5- 21). On three of the daily trips, Route 5 will travel on request to Lamplighter Acres,
a high -density housing complex north of Exit 17.
Route 5 has nine weekday departures that are roughly spaced every 60 minutes, although there
is a long break in the service between 11:30 pm to 2:30 pm. There are five trips on Saturday.
However, unlike the weekday service, Saturday trips are not allowed to deviate from the primary
alignment. A summary of service characteristics is shown in Figure 5 -22.
Major Stops:
• Village of South Glens Falls
• Midtown Plaza
• South Glens Falls High School
• Lamplighter Acres
• Glens Falls Civic Center

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 5-17 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Figure 5-21 Route 5 Map

Figure 5-22 Route 5 Service Statistics
Weekday Saturday
Span of Service 6:00- am – 5:39 pm 8:30 am – 5:29 pm
Round Trips 9 4
Frequency (min) 30-90* 180
Route Length (miles) 8.7* 7.8
Source: GGFT
Note: * Does not include mid- day break.
** This is an average of the regular route and route with deviations

Ridership
Ridership on Route 5 has decreased steadily from 2006 to 2008 (see Figure 5 -23), losing nearly
30% of its ridership over the three year period.

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 5-18 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Figure 5-23 Route 5 Changes in Annual Ridership 2006- 2008
Year Annual Total Monthly Average Annual Change
2006 14,129 1,177
2007 12,906 1,076 -9%
2008 10,930* 911 -15%
Source: GGFT
*Estimated based on 10 months of data
The loss in ridership is illustrated by Figure 5- 24, which shows ridership by month for the three
year period between 2006 and 2008 (10 months of data for 2008). This figure shows a trend of
declining ridership beginning in March/April and continuing to t he summer months. While
ridership increases during the summer months, it begins to decline again in August.
Figure 5-24 Route 5 – Ridership by Month (2006 – 2008)

Ridership by hour (see Figures 5- 25 and 5 -26) further illustrates low ridership on Route 5. These
figures show that most individual trips carry six or fewer passengers. The weekday trip with the
highest boardings, the 4:00 pm, carries eight passengers. A similar pattern is observed for t he
Saturday service. Among the five trips, only one trip at 3:00 pm carries more than six
passengers, the remaining trips have five or fewer riders.

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 5-19 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Figure 5-25 Route 5: Weekday Ridership by Time of Day

Figure 5-26 Route 5: Saturday Ridership by Time of Day

Productivity
Not surprisingly, productivity on Route 5 is low. A relatively long trip distance combined with low
ridership means the route carries fewer passengers per mile of service than any other route
(except Route 7 which also carries 0.5 passengers per mile). As a result, operating costs per
passenger are nearly 75% higher than the average for the GGFT week day services (see
Figure 5-27). Route 5’s Saturday service is also low. However, the Saturday service has higher
productivity than the weekday service, with marginally lower operating costs per passenger.

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 5-20 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Figure 5-27 Route 5 Weekday and Saturday Service Productivity

Weekday
Weekday System
Average Saturday
Saturday System
Average
Operating Cost per Passenger $7.22 $4.12 $6.99 $4.35
Average Daily Ridership 39.2 82.6 22.5 41.7
Passengers per Trip 4.36 8.96 4.5 8.7
Passengers per Vehicle
Service Hour 8.7
15.3 9.0 14.4
Passengers per mile 0.5 1.0 0.6 1.0

Input from 2008 Passenger Survey
Passenger survey data shows that existing riders are most likely to be traveling between home
and work. Most passengers reported that they walk to (71%) and from (79%) the bus to get
to/from their destinations. Walk times are slightly lower than average in the range of 6 to 8
minutes. A relatively smaller proportion of riders said they were making a round trip (36%) on
GGFT. Passengers were also equally likely to pay for their fare using cash (29%), discount cash
(29%) and tokens (29%). Ridership is fairly loyal with nearly 86% saying the ride GGFT at least 2
to 4 days per week.
Strengths and Weaknesses
Strengths
• Route 5 uses deviations to expand service area on an as -need basis.
• Route 5 serves an area and population with a high propensity to use transit. Likely that
there is potential to attract more riders to the route.
• Public outreach and survey results show existing passengers rely on Route 5 for travel
and are highly appreciative of service.
• Saturday ridership is stronger and has higher productivity as compared to weekday
service.
Weaknesses
• Route has low productivity.
• Ridership patterns show a steady decline over the past three years.
• Route schedule is irregular, despite being interlined with Route 7. Services are not evenly
spaced throughout the day, and there is a gap in service from 11:30 am to 2:30 pm.
• Route 5 travels close to the West Marion Avenue Park and Ride lot, but service is not
timed to meet the Northway Express commuter services, which depart from the park and
ride at 6:50 AM and arrive back at 5:40 pm.

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 5-21 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
• Route scheduling works well in the morning, but drivers suggest they have extra time in
the afternoon.
Potential Improvements
• Eliminate route.
• Replace fixed- route service with demand response service.
• Streamline and simplify route schedule so that departures are evenly spaced and mid- day
gap is eliminated.
• Restructure route to pass more important destinations. Consider running every trip to
Lamplighter Acres.
• Schedule services to meet Northway Express commuter routes. This will increase
regional connectivity and expand employment opportunities for individuals depending on
transit.
• Reach out to South Glens Falls High School to increase student ridership.
• Realign route to create regularly schedule service specifically timed (i.e. tripper services)
to meet scheduled institution times . Other trips continue on Saratoga Road to Moreau,
improving travel time. All non- tripper services may continue out to Lamplighter.
• Consider realigning route to out -and- back pattern rather than looping to simplify service
and improve travel times.
• Explore whether Finch Paper and SCA employees could be served by Route 5 (company
employs 880 people).
Route 6: West Loop
Route Description
The West Loop, like Route 3 (East Loop) is a neighborhood service that circulates through the
western part of Glens Falls. Route 6 is interlined with Route 3; thus it is also operated using a
small transit vehicle. Route 6 follows a 5.8 mile loop that begins at the Ridge Street Terminal and
heads south on South Street to State Street, traveling through neighborhoods to Hannaford,
Glen s Falls High School and Glens Falls Middle School. From the schools Route 6 continues
north, turning on Horicon Avenue and heading south on Crandall Street to Elm Street and back to
the Ridge Street Terminal.
Route 6 is one of two routes that serves the Glens Falls Hospital, a major regional destination
and employer. The route travels mostly through residential neighborhoods, including areas with
high population densities and high concentrations of persons with low income. There are 12
weekday trips and three Saturday trips on Route 6. Travel statistics are shown in Figure 5-29.

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 5-22 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Major Stops:
• Hannaford
• Glens Falls Middle and High Schools
• Sanford School (3 PM route only)
• Glens Falls Hospital
• Irongate Center
Figure 5-28 Route 6 Map

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 5-23 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Figure 5-29 Service Statistics
Weekday Saturday
Span of Service 7:00 am – 5:30 pm 9:00 am – 1:20 pm
Round Trips 11 3
Frequency (min) 60* 120
Route Length (miles) 5.8** 5.8
Source: GGFT
Note: * First two trips are 40 minutes apart
** 7:40 AM route measures 10 miles
Ridership
Data on annual ridership, suggests that Route 6 has been losing riders steadily over the latest
three year period. Between 2006 and 2008, ridership is down by nearly 26% (see Figure 5- 30).
Figure 5-30 Route 6 Changes in Annual Ridership 2006- 2008
Year Annual Total Monthly Average Annual Change
2006 22,173 1,848
2007 20,020 1,668 -9.7%
2008 13,678* 1,368 -18%
Source: GGFT
*Represents 10 months of data
Ridership data by month suggests that annual trends in ridership were similar for 2006 and 2008.
However, 2007 was an unusual year for Route 6 with ridership fluctuating considerably during the
first half of the year. Ridership in 2008 was lower than 2006 and 2007 for every month especially
during the first half of the year (see Figure 5- 31).

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 5-24 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Figure 5-31 Route 6: Ridership by Month (2006 -2008)

Ridership by time of day (see Figure 5- 32) shows that the school trips (7:30 am and 3:00 pm)
carry the most passengers as compared with other trips in the day. Outside of these two trips,
Route 6 carried fewer than six passengers per trip; school trips account for 40 percent of total
weekly ridership.
Figure 5-32 Route 6 Ridership by Time of Day

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 5-25 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Productivity
Weekday productivity on Route 6 is poor with operating costs per passenger 43% higher than the
system average. If school trips are excluded from the analysis, operating costs are even higher
at $8.08 per passenger. Without the school trips, Route 6 would have the lowest productivity of
all routes. Saturday productivity is also very low. Only Route 3 has lower productivity on its
Saturday service (see Figure 5 -33).
Figure 5-33 Route 6 Productivity

Weekday
Weekday
System
Average Saturday
Saturday
System
Average
Operating Cost per
Passenger* $5.90
$4.12 $9.68 $4.35
Average Daily Ridership 58.6 82.6 9.75 41.7
Passengers per Trip 5.3 8.96 3.25 8.73
Passengers per Vehicle
Service Hour 10.7
15.3 6.5 14.4
Passengers per Mile 0.9 1.0 0.6 1.0
Source: GGFT and Nelson Nygaard
Input from 2008 Passenger Survey
Data from the passenger survey shows that most passengers on Route 6 were traveling between
home and work. A smaller portion of people also used Route 6 to travel to/from school. Most
people walked to the bus (70%) and from the bus (75%). About half of the riders were making a
round trip and about half paid for their fare with a token. Route 6 passengers are regular GGFT
customers, but only 60% reported using the route daily as compared with 81% on Route 3.
Strengths and Weaknesses
Strengths
• Route operates in areas with relatively high population densities and serves an area that
has a strong market for transit ridership.
• Route provides service to Glens Falls Hospital, one of the region’s largest employers and
most important destinations.
Weaknesses
• Ro ute demographics suggest transit ridership, but route remains low in productivity
• Route productivity is inflated due to ridership on school trips.
• Route has several segments where no passengers board or disembark.
• Saturday service has very low ridership and productivity.

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 5-26 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
• Alignment is circuitous, travels through neighborhoods and has one out and back
segment, increasing travel time for many riders.
Potential Improvements
• Eliminate route.
• Replace Route 6 to demand response service.
• Work with schools to of fer passes or programs that will increase ridership from school
students – drivers stated that school ridership has decreased over time
• Re -schedule Route 6 so that it meets hospital shift schedules and /or work with Hospital to
create employer transportati on program with specific routes/runs that will meet employee
needs.
• Combine Routes 3 and 6 into a single route with a shorter, more direct alignment that link
more and more important destinations. This shortened route may be run in less time,
freeing ca pacity for other parts of the system.
• Re -align Routes 3 and 6 to provide cross -town service.
• Eliminate Saturday service
Route 7: West Glens Falls
Route Description
Route 7 provides connecting service between Glens Falls and West Glens Falls. It travels from
the Ridge Street Terminal along Broad Street and Main Street to West Glens Falls where it
makes a large loop along Corinth, Van Dusen and Luzerne Roads (see Figure 5 -34). Route 7 is
interlined with Route 5 and operates six trips on weekdays and three on Saturdays. There is no
evening service on Route 7. Service statistics for Route 7 are shown in Figure 5 -35.
Major Stops:
• Glens Falls Hospital
• Hannaford
• Homestead Mobile Park Home
Figure 5-34 Route 7 Map

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 5-27 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Figure 5-35 Route 5 Service Statistics
Weekday Saturday
Span of Service 6:30 am – 5:05 pm 8:30 am – 5:29 pm
Round Trips 6 4
Frequency (min) 90 – 160 180
Route Length (miles) 8.4 7.8
Source: GGFT
Note: * Does not include mid- day break.
** This is an average of the regular route and route with deviations
Ridership
Relative to other GGFT routes, Route 7 has a low annual ridership. However, ridership on the
route has increased significantly between 2006 and 2008. In the three year period, ridership has
grown by nearly 26% (see Figure 5-36).
Figure 5-36 Route 6 Changes in Annual Ridership 2006- 2008
Year Annual Total Monthly Average Annual Change
2006 7,447 621
2007 7,752 646 4%
2008 7,817* 782 21%
Source: GGFT
*Represents 10 months of data
Changes in ridership are broadly shown in Figure 5- 37, which shows ridership by month for the
period between 2006 and 2008. Although ridership in 2008 is higher overall as compared with
2006 and 2007, ridership patterns are not stable and show sharp peaks (April, 2008) and declines
(June, 2008).

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 5-28 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Figure 5-37 Route 7 – Ridership by Month (2006 – 2008)

Ridership by hour (Figure 5- 38) shows five of the six trips on Route 7 carry four passengers or
less each. One trip at 9:00 am carries seven passengers. Ridership on the Saturday service is
not shown graphically, but each of the three trips carries an average of between two and three
passengers each.
Figure 5-38 Route 7 Weekday Ridership by Time of Day

Productivity
Productivity on Route 7 is poor. The route has the lowest passengers per mile among all GG FT
bus services and the operating cost per passenger is only marginally ($0.02 per passenger)
higher than the lowest performing route, Route 5 (see Figure 5- 39).

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 5-29 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Productivity on the Saturday service is also low. Route 7 attracts only a handful of riders on its
Saturday service. On the three trips (11:00 am, 1:00 pm and 3:00 pm), data shows ridership as
3.5, 2.3 and 3.0 riders respectively. With few riders and a relatively long round trip length, cost
per passenger is 50% more expensive than the weekday system average.
Figure 5-39 Route 7 Productivity
Weekday
Weekday System
Average
Saturday
Service
Saturday System
Average
Operating Cost per Passenger $7.20 $4.12 $3.11 $4.35
Average Daily Ridership 26.2 82.6 8.75 41.7
Passengers per Trip 4.37 8.96 2.92 8.73
Passengers per Vehicle
Service Hour 8.7
15.3 5.8 14.4
Passengers per Mile 0.5 1.0 0.35 1.0
Input from 2008 Passenger Survey
The passenger survey yielded ten responses from Route 7 riders. The data suggests that most
people use Route 7 to travel between work and home. Most people reported walking to the bus,
but some said they would transfer or get picked up on the destination end of their trip. About half
were making a round trip and most used cash (either full or half) to pay their fare. All ten of the
survey respondents said they use GGFT at least 2 and 4 days per week.
Strengths and Weaknesses
Strengths
• Ridership has increased significantly between 2006 and 2008.
• Existing land uses and development along the area support transit use. Demographic
characteristics also suggest the area should be a strong market for transit.
• Route serves major regional destinations, including Glens Falls Hospital and Homestead
Mobile Park. Potential to attract more riders from these destinations.
• Straight -forward route alignment with only a single loop at external end.
• Land uses along the route are zoned for industrial uses. As development occurs, there is
potential for growth along route.
Weaknesses
• Despite gains in ridership, route carries a very small number of riders and its productivity
is low. This is true for weekday and Saturday service.
• Service is not consistently scheduled throughout the day; morning trips are spaced every
90 minutes and afternoon services every 120 minutes making the departure times difficult
to remember.

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 5-30 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
• Route has no external ‘anchor’ to draw passengers on outbound trips.
• Service ends early (last departure from Ridge Street Terminal is 4:40 pm) making it
difficult for some workers.
Potential Improvements
• Eliminate route.
• Replace route with demand response service.
• Eliminate Saturday service
• Consider reversing operating direction to reduce delay on Main Street heading into
downtown Glens Falls. Traffic primarily occurs during the afternoon peak period.
• Combine Routes 7 and 6 into a single route that serves Hannaford on Broad Street, Glens
Falls Hospital, and destinations in West Glens Falls.
• Eliminate loo p in West Glens Falls to create out -and -back service alignment to simplify
service and reduce travel time.
• Reschedule route with more frequent, regularly scheduled departures that can be more
easily used by workers at the Glens Falls Hospital.
Route 11/12: Upper Glen Street, Aviation Road
Route Description
Routes 11 and 12 are a pair of services that follow a similar alignment for much of their routes,
but have different outer ends. Both routes operate from the Ridge Street Terminal to Aviation
Mall, trave ling along Glen Street and Upper Glen Street (US 9). At the intersection of US 9 and
Quaker/Aviation Roads, Route 11 continues on US 9, turning off US 9 onto Weeks Road to serve
the Robert Gardens Apartments and Walmart. Except for the early morning trips, Route 11
travels from Walmart to the Aviation Mall as part of its return trip.
At the intersection of US 9 and Quaker/Aviation Roads, Route 12 turns on Aviation Road,
traveling to the John Burke Apartments. Like Route 11, Route 12 serves the Aviation Mall after
the John Burke Apartments as it heads inbound. Departures are timed so that service to Walmart
(Route 11) leaves on the half -hour and service to John Burke Apartments (Route 12) leaves on
the hour (see Figure 5 -40).
For purposes of this analysis, Routes 11 and 12 are considered a single route (Route 11/12).
Route 11/12 has 22 trips per day, more than any other route in the GGFT system. It also
operates four evening trips and nine and half hours of service on Saturdays (see Figure 5- 41).
Maj or stops on Route 11/12:
• Sanford Street School
• Crandall Park/YMCA
• Price Chopper
• Aviation Mall
• Robert Gardens Apartments (Route 11)

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 5-31 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
• Walmart (Route 11)
• John Burke Apartments (Route 12)
Figure 5-40 Route Map

Figure 5-41 Route 11/12 Service Statistics
Weekday Weekday Evening Saturday
Span of Service 6:30 am – 5:40 pm 6:15 9m – 9:45 pm 8:00 am – 5:30 pm
Round Trips 22 4 20
Frequency (min) 30 min 45 – 75 min 30 min
Route Length (miles) 5.4 – 9.9 7.8 (11.8*) 7.8 (11.8*)
Travel time 25-29 min 45 min 25-29 min
Source: GGFT
Notes: 6:15 evening service travels to Lake G eorge Factory Outlet Stores, thus has a longer travel time.
Ridership
Ridership on Route 11/12 was nearly unchanged between 2006 and 2007, but increased by 11%
between 2007 and 2008 (see Figure 5-42). As shown on Figure 2, 2008 ridership is higher for
every month, but gains are most pronounced in the spring (May and June) and fall (September
and Oc tober).
Figure 5-42 Route 11/12: Changes in Annual Ridership 2006- 2007
Year Annual Total Monthly Average Annual Change
2006 63,085 5,257
2007 63,254 5,271 0.3%
2008 58,581* 5,858 11.1%
Source: GGFT * Represents 10 months of data

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 5-32 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Figure 5-43 Route 11/12: Ridership by Month (2006 -2008)
0
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
J AN UA RYFE BR UA RY
MA RCHA PR ILMAYJ UNEJ ULY
A UGU ST
SEPTEMBERO C TO BE RNO VE M BE RDECEMBER
Av erage Monthly Riders hip
2006
2007
2008

Source: GGFT

Note: Date for 2008 represents January through October only (10 months)
Route 11/12 makes 22 trips on weekdays and 20 trips on Saturdays; both weekdays and
Saturdays also have four evening trips. Ridership is fairly consistent throughout the day,
although the early trips on Route 11 (6:30 am) and Route 12 (8:00 am and 9:00 am) have lower
ridership with fewer than six passengers (see Figure 5-44). Figure 5 -44 also shows that weekday
ridership is consistently higher on Route 11 (to Walmart) as compared to Route 12 (John Burke
Apartments).
Similar patterns are also observed for Saturday service; ridership peaks during the middle of the
day and ridership on Route 11 is generally higher as compared with Route 12 (see Figure 5- 55),
although this difference is not as pronounced as on weekdays. Evening service has fewer riders
per trip generally, with the last tr ip of the day attracting the most riders. This is true for weekdays
and Saturdays.

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 5-33 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Figure 5-44 Route 11/12 – Weekday Ridership by Time of Day

Source: GGFT

Figure 5-45 Route 11/12 – Saturday Ridership by Time of Day

Source: GGFT

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 5-34 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Productivity
Route 11/12 has excellent productivity as compared with the GGFT system, with lower per
passenger operating costs and more passengers per hour, mile and trip (see Figure 5- 46). This
is true for weekday and Saturday service. Indeed, Route 11/12 Saturday service is slightly more
productive than weekday service with regards to passengers per trip and passengers per vehicle
service hour. This likely reflects the fact that Saturday service does not include the earliest
morning trips that carry fewer passengers. In addition, Saturdays are typically the busiest days
for retailers.
Figure 5-46 Route 11/12: Weekday and Saturday Productivity*
Weekday Service Saturday Service

Route 11/12
Weekday System
Average Route 11/12
Saturday System
Average
Operating Cost per
Passenger* $3.19
$4.12 $3.11 $4.35
Average Daily Ridership 216.8 82.63 201.5 41.7
Passengers per Trip 9.85 8.96 10.1 8.73
Passengers per Vehicle
Service Hour 19.7
15.3 20.6 14.4
Passengers per Mile 1.5 1.0 1.5 1.0
Note: Statistics do not include evening service
Source: GGFT and Nelson Nygaard
In terms of evening service, as compared with other GGFT evening services, Route 11/12
performs poorly during weekdays but excellent on Saturdays (see Figure 5 -47). Differences in
productivity are because ridership on Saturday is significantly higher than any other evening
service.

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 5-35 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Figure 5-47 Route 11/12: Evening Service Productivity
Evening Service

Weekday
Weekday System
Average Saturday
Saturday System
Average
Operating Cost per
Passenger* $27.75
$16.31 $5.84 $6.80
Average Daily Ridership 5.1 3.8 24.2 9.0
Passengers per Trip 1.7 2.5 8.1 6.8
Passengers per Vehicle
Service Hour 2.3
3.9 10.8 9.3
Passengers per Mile 0.1 0.2 0.7 1.0
Note: Statistics do not include evening service
Source: GGFT and Nelson Nygaard
Input from 2008 Passenger Survey
The passenger survey results show that most passengers on Route 11/12 are traveling between
home, work, and shopping. As expected, passengers on Route 11/12 are more likely to be
coming from (13%) or going to (27%) shopping as compared with other routes. Most people
walk to/from the bus, with an average of 7.7 minutes walking to the bus and 5.2 minutes walking
from the bus to their final destination.
Consistent with the system overall, riders on Route 11/12 are loyal riders; 44% ride daily and 39%
ride 2 to 4 days per week.
Strengths and Weaknesses
Strengths
• Highly productive route that carries a lot of passengers throughout the day and on
Saturdays.
• Combining Routes 11/12 and operating at a fairly high frequency provides a high level of
service along Upper Glen Street (US 9), one of the region’s primary corridors for shopping
and employment.
• Destinations along route include regional attractions (Aviation Mall and Walmart) as well
as a larger number of smaller retail and service establishments, such as Queensbury
Plaza, Price Chopper, Northway Plaza, and Crandall Park/YMCA.
• Route also serves several housing complexes, including Robert Gardens and John Burke
and passes by other areas with relatively high housing density off of Glen Street in Glens
Falls.

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 5-36 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Weaknesses
• Route alignment serves Aviation Mall on the inbound portion of the trip, after g oing to
Walmart or Burke Apartments. While this alignment provides access to the Mall for
people boarding at Robert Gardens and John Burke Apartments, it increases travel time
for other passengers.
• Route 11 attracts about 30% more passengers than Route 12, resulting in an imbalance in
the combined service.
• The time allocated to complete the trip (30 minutes) is tight for the drivers, especially
during the morning peak periods.
• Ridership is low during early morning trips. This is partially due to the service hours of key
destinations along the corridor, which have a later opening time.
• Evening service, especially during the weekdays, has poor productivity.
Potential Improvements
• Increase daytime service frequency to 15- 20 minutes.
• Increase span of service to offer continuous service between 5:30 pm and 9:30 pm. This
service schedule could be extended to weekdays and Saturdays.
• Use Route 12 to provide direct service to Aviation Mall and, at the same time, realign
Route 12 and combine with Route 19, so that it continues along US 9 to Exit 20.
• Operate Route 11/12 on Sundays.
• Consider adding extra service during peak shopping seasons e.g., in December.
Route 19: Warren County Municipal Center
Route Description
Route 19 is a longer distance route as compared with other routes in GGFT, traveling from the
Ridge Street Terminal along Bay Street, to Quaker Road, turning on US 9 and ending at Gooney
Golf about 1 mile south of Lake George Village. Outbound trips turn into the Warren County
Municipal Center and continue on Route 9 to the Lake George Factory Outlet Stores near Exit 20.
Inbound trips make an additional stop at the County Annex Building; on the west side of I -87 (see
Figure 5- 48). There is no Saturday service on Route 19, but one of the Route 11/12 evening trips
travels north to the Lake George Factory Outlet Stores (see Figure 5 -49).
Route 19 operates along a similar alignment as the seasonal Lake George Village Trolley Route
South and its schedule varies accordingly. When trolley service is available on weekends only
(late May to late June and September to late October), Route 19 travels to Lake George Village
on every trip. When the trolley is operating (late June to Labor Day), Route 19 terminates at the
Warren County Municipal Center.

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 5-37 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Major stops on Route 19:
• C.R. Bard (private employer)
• Hannaford (on Bay Road)
• Warren County Municipal Center
• Warren County Municipal Center Annex
• Lake George Factory Outlet Stores (Exit 20)
Figure 5-48 Route 19 Map

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 5-38 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Figure 5-49 Route 19 Service Statistics
Weekday
Span of Service 9:15 am – 4:25 pm
Round Trips 5
Frequency (min) 60 morning/afternoon
120-135 mid -day
Route Length (miles)
Travel time 55 min
Source: GGFT
Ridership
Ridership on Route 19 decreased slightly between 2006 and 2007. Data from the first 10 months
of 2008 shows an increase in ridership over both 2006 and 2007 levels. 2008 ridership is 9%
higher than 2007 levels and 5% higher than recorded in 2006 (see Figure 5- 50).
Figure 5-50 Route 19: Changes in Annual Ridership 2006- 2007
Year Annual Total Monthly Average Annual Change
2006 12,263 1,022
2007 11,826 986 -3.6%
2008 10,778* 1,078 9.4%
Source: GGFT * Represents 10 months of data
Ridership patterns by month are shown in Figure 5- 51 for the three year period between 2006
and 2008 (partial data available for 2008). Monthly ridership patterns suggest that ridership on
Route 19 is highest during the tourist “shoulder periods”, i.e. May and June and September and
October. These are the time periods when there are still tourists in the region and trolley service
is only available on weekends. Lower ridership in summer r eflects the trolley service, which
operates along a similar alignment with more departures.

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 5-39 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Figure 5-51 Route 19: Ridership by Month (2006- 2008)
0
200 400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
J AN UA RYFE BR UA RY
MA RCHA PR ILMAYJ UNEJ ULYA UGU ST
SEPTEMBERO C TO BE RNO VE M BE RDECEMBER
Average Monthly Riders
2006
2007
2008

As shown in Figure 5- 52, Route 19 has five trips each day and carries just over nine riders per
trip. Ridership data by time of day shows that ridership is slightly higher in the afternoon as
compared with the morning trips.
Figure 5-52 Route 19 – Ridership by Time of Day
0 2
4 6 8
10
12
9:20
10:15 12:30 2:303:30
Trip Tim e
Number of Riders

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 5-40 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Productivity
As compared with other routes in the GGFT system, Route 19’s productivity is moderate (see
Figure 5-53). The route performs well in terms of passengers carried per trip and operating costs
per passenger are just marginally higher as compared with the system average. Route 19’s
productivity on other metrics, such as passengers per mile and passengers per vehicle service
hour is lower. Many of these metrics are influenced by the fact that Route 19 travels a long
distance between destinations and takes more time to complete.
Figure 5-53 Productivity Statistics: Route 19 Weekday Service

Route 19

Weekday
GGFT Route
Average
Operating Cost per
Passenger $5.13
$4.12
Average Daily Ridership 46.0 82.60
Passengers per Trip 9.2 8.96
Passengers per Vehicle
Service Hour 12.3
15.3
Passengers per Mile .65 1.0
Input from 2008 Passenger Survey
Survey results suggest that the majority (75%) of trip origins are from home, while the main
destinations are work (29%) and other (29%). Riders traveling to work, said they work at the
factory outlet stores, Aviation Mall and Hannafords. Among those who said they were traveling
f or “other” purposes, more than half of the riders defined other as the Department of Social
Services (DSS).
As compared with the GGFT system overall, passengers surveyed on Route 19 reported being
less frequent riders but more likely to be making a round trip. There was also a high portion of
riders using a token (38%) suggesting ad hoc travel to the Warren County Municipal Center.
Strengths and Weaknesses
Strengths
• Route 19 provides service to important destinations not served by other routes, including
Warren County Municipal Center, Municipal Center Annex and Factory Outlet Stores.
• Service is coordinated with trolley services to avoid duplication; coordination helps to
maintain service for riders who need service.
• Alignment increases service level on Bay Street.

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 5-41 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Weaknesses
• Ridership drops off considerably during winter months. This reflects that part of the
route’s target market (tourists and workers at tourism facilities) is not traveling. However,
ridership from other key markets (i.e. workers at fact ory outlet stores and Warren County
Municipal Center) is also low.
• Ridership outside of tourist season tends to be casual riders traveling for specific
purposes, i.e., to Warren County Municipal Center or the Annex, rather than people
traveling along corridor for daily travel needs (e.g., employees).
• Existing trip times are not timed to support employment.
• Route 19 travels long distance to Gooney Golf with very limited ridership; potential to
terminate route at factory outlet stores or continue all trips into Village of Lake George.
• Service schedule allows too much time; drivers sit and wait at Municipal Center Annex so
they do not arrive early to inbound destinations.
• Departures from Ridge Street Terminal are not well timed with rest of system.
Consequen tly people traveling between routes must wait 15 – 45 minutes for connections,
significantly increasing overall trip times. Extending service schedule to 60 minutes would
coordinate service with pulse but would may have idle time at Ridge Street Terminal,
which would lower service productivity.
Potential Improvements
• Terminate service at Factory Outlet stores and provide service to Gooney Golf on select
trips only. This is already suggested in schedule but was not observed in the field.
• Extend service from Gooney Golf to Lake George Village – service extension may be for
all trips or select runs. Drivers feel they have time to drive the extra mile.
• Combine with Route 11; travel along Glen Street, stop outside of Walmart and continue
along Route 9 to Exit 20. Increase service level to support employment.
• Eliminate deviation service to Solomon Heights Apartments. This is shown on schedule
but apparently not frequently requested.
• Expand Route 19 to create employment runs that link Glens Falls, Lake George V illage
and Warrensburg.
Seasonal Trolley Routes
Route Description
In addition to the regular route system, GGFT operates on road (rubber -tire) trolley service in
Lake George during the summer months from late June through Labor Day . Two routes extend
nort h and south from the Steel Pier on Beach Road in the Village of Lake George for about 20
miles between Bolton Landing and downtown Glens Falls (see Figure 5- 54).

Lake George North – operates along the west shore of Lake George between the Village
of Lake George and Bolton Landing via Beach Road, Canada Street (US Rte 9) and
Lakeshore Drive (Rte 9N). Most trips (designated “North A”) operate only as far north as
the Hearthstone Point State Campground located south of Flatrock Road. Five of 36 total
daily r ound trips continue north to Bolton Landing (designated “North B”).

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 5-42 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
• Lake George South
The seasonal trolley routes operate seven days per week at times and service frequencies that
are primarily oriented to visitors’ travel schedules and itineraries. Weekday and weekend
schedules are the same (see Figure 5- 55).

operates between the Village of Lake George and downtown Glens
Falls via Beach Road, Lake George Road, Upper Glen and Glen Street (US Rte 9).
Approximately 60% of 49 daily round trips extend the full distance to Glens Falls. The
remaini ng trips terminate either at the Lake George RV Park on Rte 149 (designated
“South RV A ”) or at the Wild West Ranch near Rte 9 (designated “South RV B”).
Major stops on North Trolley:
• Bolton Landing
• Town of Bolton
• Diamond Point
• Hearthstone Point State Campground
• Lake George central business district
• Beach Road terminal
Major stops on South Trolley:
• Beach Road terminal
• Best Western Motel
• Wild West Ranch
• The Great Escape
• Factory outlets stores
• Aviation Mall
• Downtown Glens Falls

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 5-43 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Figure 5-54 Route Map

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 5-44 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Figure 5-55 Lake George Trolley Route Service Statistics

North A
Hearthstone
North B
Bolton Landing
South
Glens Falls
South RV A
LG RV Park
South B
Wild West
Span of Service 8:30a – 10:30p 8:30a – 9:30p 8:30a – 11:22p 9:45a – 10:45p 8:24a – 11:22p
Round Trips 31 (36) 5 29 13 9
Frequency (min)
AM– 30; PM -15 AM–180; PM -225 20 – 40 60 Variable 1 -20

Route Length
(miles) 3.0 10.5 9.5 6.5 2.3
Travel time (min) 15 30 30 15 4-6
Ridership
The Lake George Trolleys cumulatively carried 82,056 passengers in calendar year 2008,
including 80,350 during the Summer 2008 season (Memorial Day through Labor Day); an
additional 979 passengers during the week of limited schedule service preceding Memorial Day;
and 727 passengers on post -season Saturday service running during the month of September.
Average weekday Trolley ridership between Memorial Day and Labor Day (when full s chedules
are in effect) was 1,340 passengers on weekdays, 1,372 on Saturdays, and 1,174 on Sundays.
South Trolley service between Lake George and downtown Glens Falls accounts for nearly 59%
of all trips during the official summer season (see Figure 5- 55). Approximately 27% ride the
North Trolley; 12% use the South RV -A route serving the Lake George RV Park; and just 2% use
the South RV -B route serving Wild West Ranch and the Best Western Motel only.

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 5-45 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Figure 5-56 Lake George Trolley Routes: Seasonal Ridership Memorial Day
to Labor Day 2008
North Trolley
21,790
Glens Falls NB
23,692
Glens Falls SB
23,353
South RV A
10,026
South RV B 1,489

South Trolley – Lake George / Glens Falls
On weekdays, South Trolley ridership between Lake George and Glens Falls is highest on the
first trip of the day in the southbound direction (Figure 5 -56), and in the evening hours in the
northbound direction (Figure 5 -57). The first southbound trip, which departs Lake George at
9:00am averages over 30 passengers per trip; and the first northbound trip departs Glens Falls at
8:30am averages over 20 passengers per trip. Later morning and early afternoon buses carry
smaller loads averaging 10- 15 passengers per trip in both directions. Ridership picks up
beginning around 2:00pm and peaks at 20- 25 passengers per trip between 7:00pm and 9:00pm
in the northbound direction. The 7:30pm northbound trip carries 34 passengers. Southbound
passenger volumes peak in the late afternoon.

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 5-46 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Figure 5-57 Lake George/Glens Falls Trolley Weekday Ridership by Time of Day –
Southbound

Figure 5-58 Glens Falls – Lake George Trolley Weekday Ridership by Time of Day –
Northbound

The pattern is similar on weekends , with the first southbound trip leaving Lake George with nearly
35 passengers both on Saturdays (Figure 5 -58) and Sundays (Figure 5- 59). In the northbound
direction, average loads peak at 20- 25 passengers per trip between 8:30pm and 9:30pm.

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 5-47 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Figure 5-59 Lake George/Glens Falls Trolley Weekend Ridership by Time of Day –
Southbound

Figure 5-60 Glens Falls / Lake George Trolley Weekend Ridership by Time of Day –
Northbound

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 5-48 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
South Trolley – Lake George / RV Park (RV-A)
On weekdays, South Trolley RV -A trips serving the Lake George RV Park on Rte. 149 east of
Rte. 9 carry fairly consistent passenger volumes across the service day (Figure 5- 60). After
11:00am, this route averages 10-15 passengers per round trip and experiences its highest
patronage between 2:15pm and 5:15pm.
Figure 5-61 South RV A Trolley Weekday Ridership by Time of Day

The pattern is somewhat similar on weekends , although ridership on the first northbound trip from
the RV Park is extremely low and mid to late afternoon trips carry slightly more riders than on
weekdays (Figure 5 -61).

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 5-49 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Figure 5-62 South RV A Trolley Weekend Ridership by Time of Day

South Trolley – Lake George / RV Park (RV-A)
Ridership on South Trolley “RV -B” trips generally is low both on weekdays and weekends. These
trips are short, running only as far south as Wild West Ranch, and carry fewer than five
passengers per round trip on weekdays (Figure 5 -62); up to eight passengers per trip on
Saturdays and two to five passengers per trip on Sundays (Figure 5- 63).
Figure 5-63 South RV B Trolley Weekday Ridership by Time of Day

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 5-50 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Figure 5-64 South RV B Trolley Weekend Ridership by Time of Day

North Trolley – Lake George / Hearthstone Campground / Bolton Landing
North Trolley ridership is fairly consistent across the service day, generally averaging 6 to 10
passengers on most trips with individual loads spiking up to 19 passengers (Figure 5- 64).
Weekend passenger loads are about 20% higher on weekends than on weekdays (Figure 5 -65).
Figure 5-65 North Lake George Trolley Weekday Ridership by Time of Day

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 5-51 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Figure 5-66 North Lake George Trolley Weekend Ridership by Time of Day

Productivity
GGFT Trolley service is very productive relative to the regular fixed route network. For example,
cumulative weekday service productivity is 23.6 passengers per revenue vehicle hour (see Figure
5-66), compared to 15.3 passengers per hour on the daytime fixed routes, and 14.4 passengers
per hour including evening service. Saturday service productivity is even higher than on
weekdays (27.1 passengers per hour); Sunday service productivity is 20.6 passengers per hour.

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 5-52 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Figure 5-67 Lake George Trolleys Productivity by Service Day, 2008

All
Trolleys
North
Trolley
South Trolley
Glens Falls
South RV A
LG RV Park
South RV B
Wild West
Weekday
Average Ridership* 1,340 365 791 161 23
Passengers per
Revenue Service Hour 23.6
17.8 28.3 23.7 14.4
Passengers per
Revenue Service Mile 1.3
1.0 1.5 1.2 0.6
Passengers per
One- way Trip 7.4
4.5 14.1 6.0 1.4
Operating Cost per
Passenger $2.67
$3.53 $2.23 $2.66 $4.37
Saturday
Passengers per
Revenue Service Hour 27.1
20.9 26.2 25.3 23.8
Passengers per
Revenue Service Mile 1.3
1.2 1.4 1.3 0.9
Passengers per
One- way Trip 7.6
5.2 13.1 6.4 2.4
Operating Cost per
Passenger $2.61
$3.01 $2.40 $2.49 $2.65
Sunday
Average Ridership* 1,174 428 586 139 21
Passengers per
Revenue Service Hour 20.6
20.9 20.9 20.4 13.1
Passengers per
Revenue Service Mile 1.1
1.2 1.1 1.1 0.5
Passengers per
One- way Trip 6.5
5.2 10.5 5.1 1.3
Operating Cost per
Passenger $3.05
$3.01 $3.00 $3.08 $4.79
Note *: Data reflects Memorial Day through Labor Day only

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 5-53 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Among individual routes, South Trolley trips running between Lake George and Glens Falls are
the most productive. On weekdays, these trips average 28.3 passengers per hour and cost $2.23
per passenger, which is 25% lower than most cost effective regular fixed route (Route 4 at $2.97
per passenger). South Trolley RV A trips serving the Lake George RV Park similarly are more
productive than Route 4 as well as above the average of the Trolleys as a group. The North
Trolley is more productive on weekends (20.9 passengers per hour) than on weekdays (17.8
passengers per hour). South Trolley RV B trips are significantly less productive on weekdays and
Sundays than on Saturdays. On a cost per passenger basis, these trips are the least productive
at $4.37 per passenger on weekdays and $4.79 per passenger on Sundays. The average cost
per passenger for the Trolleys as a group ranges from $2.61 per passenger on Saturday to $2.65
on weekdays and $3.05 on Sundays. In contrast, the average cost per passenger on the regular
fixed route system is $4.37 on weekdays and $4.35 on Saturdays.
Strengths and Weaknesses
Strengths
• The Trolleys carry substantially more riders per day than the regular fixed route system,
and operate at significantly higher productivity.
• The Trolley routes are consistently utilized on weekdays and weekends. Passenger
volumes do not vary greatly from weekdays to weekends, and total ridership actually is
slightly greater on Saturdays than on weekdays. This suggests that the trolley service is
effectively addressing the visitors’ local travel needs as intended.
Weaknesses
• South RV -B Trolley trips generate low ridership and are significantly less productive than
the other trolley routes. The route is short and it is difficult to maintain even spacing
between longer trips serving the Lake George RV Park or Glens Falls.
• At least in the case of South Trolley service between Lake George and Glens Falls on
Saturday and Sunday, the lack of morning service before 8:30am may pose some
inconvenience for riders. The first morning trip in both directions generates average loads
of 30- 35 passengers both on Saturdays and Sundays.
• Trolley service overlaps portions of Routes 11, 12 and 19.
Potential Improvements
• Discontinue South Trolley RV -B trips and reschedule South Trolley service.
• Begin South Trolley service between Lake George and Glens Falls one hour earlier on
weekdays and weekends.
• Consider route and schedule coordination opportunities involving the South Trolley and
regular GGFT routes operating in the Rte. 9 corridor.

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 5-54 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Freedom and Mobility Express (FAME)
Service Description
GGFT offers complementary paratransit service to individuals unable to use the fixed- route
service. This service is branded as Freedom and Mobility Express (FAME). FAME is available
for travel within ¾ mile of GGFT’s fixed -route services and all passenger pick -ups and drop- offs
must be within this area. The service is available during the fixed- route operating hours and
based on the route schedule. While GGFT’s overall operating hours are Monday through Friday
6:00 am to 9:30 pm and on Saturdays from 8:00 am to 9:30 pm, not all parts of the service area
are served during these times. For example, if the last scheduled fixed- route bus to an area is at
3:15 pm, FAME cannot schedule a drop -off in that area later than 3:15 pm.
All trips on FAME must be scheduled in advance. Passengers wishing to schedule a trip must
call at least 24 hours and up to 14 days in advance of a desired travel date. All information about
the trip must be recorded as part of the reservation process; drivers are not allowed to change the
schedule.
Fares for FAME trips are $2.00 per one- way trip, double the fare on the fixed-route system. For
trips that would require a transfer on the fixed -route system, an additional $0.50 is charged.
Likewise, additional fares are charged for each destination, therefore, if a passenger requests to
travel to the store and the doctor’s office, their fare would be $3.00, assuming no transfers would
have been required on the fixed- route. GGFT will allow a personal care attendant (PCA) to travel
with a rider free of charge. Non- FAME eligible travel companions are also allowed to use FAME
on a space available basis, if they have same pick -up and drop -off locations. Travel companions
must also pay the same fare as the FAME eligible rider.
Service Overview
The focus of the TDP was on fixed- route services, therefore, FAME service statistics and cost
data were not analyzed. Instead, our analysis of the service concentrated on examining trip
origins and destinations. Consistent with the service design, FAME travel patterns are clustered
around existing fixed- route services. As shown in Figure 5 -67, most trips origins are clustered on
the eastern and western borders of Glens Falls and destinations are primarily clustered at the
hospital and along Bay Road. Smaller clusters of trips are scattered around the service area,
although there are few generated to/from Fort Edward and Hudson Falls.
Strengths and Weaknesses
Strengths
• FAME service meets ADA requirements and provides complementary paratransit service
to passengers who need it.
• Service is concentrated around downtown Glens Falls, helping GGFT to operate an
efficient and effective service.
• Rules about using the service are clearly laid out and accessible to members of the public.
• No complaints about the FAME service were voiced during the public outreach process.
This includes stakeholders, transit riders, survey respondents and bus drivers .

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 5-55 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Weaknesses
• None
Potential Improvements
• Explore possibilities to coordinate FAME with other human service transportation, such as
the Transit Connection, to help improve service capacity and efficiency.

Queensbur y
Moreau Kingsbur y
Fort Edward
Glens Falls
Lake George
Fort Ann
Lake Luzerne
I 87
BayegdiRDIX
Dean
Mountain
Saratoga
Luzerne
Quaker
Corinth
Vaughn
Reynolds
ButlerBurt
Gansevoort
Ferry
State Route 149
Glen
Potter
Dixon
Spier Falls
yaB giB
Aviation
Tripoli
River
Wait
Reservoir
4th
Glen Lake
5th
nossiS
FT Edward
State Route 9
Peggy Ann
Harrison
Gurney
Broadway
Sanford
Main
Burgoyne
Goggins
East
Cronin
4 ywH SU
John
Upper Sherman
Redmond
Bluebird
Meadowbrook
Elm
nanraF
Queensbury
Hicks
Patten Mills
3rd
Broad
South
Tracy
Burquist
Buck Bee
Iris
Selfridge
Boulevard
Park
Dyke
Pitcher
Sweet
Rockwell
Feeder
Hall
Butler Pond
Nolan
Platt
Feeder Dam
Casey
Ash
Country Club
Haviland
Round Pond
Tee Hill
Farley
F
Western
Bush
Crandall7th
Jenkinsville
Hudson
Willow
State Route 9N
rraF
Everts
Towpath
Wall
Mannis
Mill
Chestnut Ridge
Murray
Fuller
Wincrest
Ferris
Herald
Merritt
9th
Glenwood
Maple
Owen
Dump
Ohio
Doe
McCrea
8th
William
North
Montray
Knight
Walkup
Amy
Lisa
Haskell
Tanglewood
Central
Bardin
McIntyre
Fire
Revere
Lawrence
Nicole
OrvilleBurchStaple
Curts
Case
6th
State
Konci
Richardson
Grove
Garrison
Stonehurst
Upper Glen
Kiley
Leo
Blind Rock
Argyle
Pine
MyronRest Area
Old Forge
County Line
Coleman
Gates
Van Dusen
Paris
Walnut
Center
Bank
Mud Pond
Cedar
Kelly
Frankie
Cherry
Fitzgerald
Crawford
Lupine
Beacon
Bridge
Fortsville
Duke
Larose
CareyLinette
Notre DameLa Claire
Prospect
Weeks
Mohican
Plantation
Abbey
1st
Ellsworth
Sunnyside
Sheridan
Karen
May
New
Oak
Donna
Birdsall
Wolf
Bonner
Faxon
Peck
West
Oak View
Uncas
Hilton
Jacobie
Leonard
Moon Hill
Hidden Hills
Walker
OgdenAllen
Helen
Dove
Kettles
Lincoln
Algonquin
Manor
Trail End
Sylvan
Palmer
Webster
Lambert
Queens
Schuyler
Fawn
Jan
Woodscape
Veterans
Stephanie
Horicon
Baker
Lexington
County Route 46
Davis
Mason
Highland
Haven
Pinewood
Nacy
Mountain View
Henry
Belle
Bell Mt
Lori
Sweenor
Oakwood
Bayberry
Lafond
Sanders
Myrtle
GrandPershing
ArborOld Mill
Holden
Coriander
Chestnut
Lower Allen
Factory
Moreau Rec
Sunset
Jerome
Reardon
Quade
Mill Site
Lamos
Pruyns Island
Brookfield
La Fayette
Parry
Keech
Homer
Walton
Michael
2ndLower Warren
Holly
Courthouse
School
Six Flags
Pasco
Briggs
Meadow
Tomahawk
Ryan
King
Balsam
Lake
Van Buren
Poplar
Mallory
Warren
Division
Fort Edward
Pine Valley
Birch
Coolidge
Wilson
knorB
Tee
Dream Lake
June
Hunt
Rocky
Minnesota
Olde Coach
Michaels
Sanford Ridge
Zenas
Grant
Frederick
gnitfirD
Hampton
Marion
Lee
Burke
BerryNottingham
Stage
Sugar Pine
Union
Northway
Wincoma
Lyndon
Traver
White Birch
Crownwood
Laurel
Transfer
Lower Feeder
Old Bend
JonestopeD
Hudson Pointe
Overlook
Peachtree
Dineen
Shippey
Sarah Jen
Windy
Coby
Citizens
Quincy
Collins
Hudson Falls
Elmwood
River Crest
Brickoven
MacArthur
CanalHobbs
Fox Farm
Easy
Cashmere
Unnamed Street
Hopkins
Amethyst
Ryder
Hiland
Spruce
Lewis
Sullivan
Speakman
Morgan
Waverly
amlA
Breton
Bullard
Orchard
Hope
Silver
Masters
Loop F
Old West Mountain
ClarkLynn
Clendon Brook
Big Cross
Eldridge
Linden
Dennis
lliH egattoC
Heresford
Oak Tree
Sumpter
Never Rest
Marine
adI
Grey Fox
Thomas
Jennifer
Loren
Pearl
Newton
Washington
Fox Hollow
Butternut Hill
Franklin
Nelson
Brookshire
Rose
Stewart
Old Bay
Acres
Illinois
Fernwood
Thornberry
Logan
Aviator
Underwood
Jenkins
Noble
Gentry
Griffin
Beach
Blenor
Reserve
Deer
Lehland
Jay
Sagamore
Terry
Pine Cone
Barber
Jon Kay
Williams
Jackson
Wolfe
Kvale
Lilac
Goldfinch
Cobblestone
Tamarac
Dustin
Penbrook
Woodvale
Culver
Hyde
Columbine
Riverview
Lydia
Native
Westberry
Twicwood
Appletree
HeinrickWindy Hill
Seward
ssergorP
Geer
McEchron
Mohawk
Aviation Mall
Twin Channels
Cortland
Woodcrest
Veranda
Kimberly
Beverly
Howe
Lester
Lomas
Mable
State Hwy 32
Rockland
Adgro
Country
edislliH
MargaretMinor
Quail
Carmella
Quaker Service
Namic
Hazen
Wayne
Briwood
Westwood
Martindale
Rudley
Clearview
Earl
Electric
Terrace
Griffing
Big Head
Polly Beeman
Chrystal
Arberger
McKie
Parson
Moon
Norton
Willowbrook
High
Sperry
kraM
Roslyn
Stonegate
Blackberry
Cardinale
Evanna
Thornapple
Ralph
Martin
Robin
Lady Slipper
Pender
Elder
Thunderbird
Prescott
Hiddenfarm
Liberty
New Aviation
Apple
Philo
Stonewall
Louise
Weston
Susan
Marcelle
Brookwood
Bellows
Fairway
Jefferson
Par
Westcott
Reader
Van
Ramp
Northway
US Hwy 4
Ramp
I 87
Dean
River
Noble
Oak
West
Ramp
Willow
Unnamed Street
East
North
Glen
Maple
Unnamed Street
River
Main
Pearl
4th
King
William
Cedar
JacksonHudson
8th
Park
Unnamed Street
Thomas
5th
Pine
Park
Oak
Glen
Fawn
Park
Allen
4th
Ramp
North
Driveway
Park
Haviland
Elm
Driveway
Warren
Lincoln
Main
River
River
John
Driveway
Orchard
Main
Park
Baker
Vaughn
Mountain
Grant
Hudson Pointe
Mill
Laurel
Unnamed Street
South
Sanford
Potter
Ramp
Oak
Sullivan
1st1st
Park
North
Driveway
Margaret
Ramp
Potter
4th
Amy
GIS Data Source: Adirondack Glens Falls Transportation Council
0
12
Miles
Figure 5-68 FAME Paratransit Origin and Destination Locations
Queensbur y
La
ke
George
LakeyaB
Knox
Assembly Point
Brayton
Holly
North
Crossover
Polk
Harding
Pine Tree
Lake
George
Glens Falls
Moreau MoreauBay
Glen
DIX
egdiR
Sanford
1st
Maple
Hunter
Broad
Elm
Cooper
Hudson
Crandall
Warren
Orville
LawrenceGrove
Murray
Grant
Sherman
Walnut
Cherry
Pine
2nd
Prospect
Mohican
McDonald
New
Byrne
Notre Dame
Uncas
Orchard
South
LeonardDavis
Mason
Montcalm
Harrison
Grand
ParkOakland
River
William
Fulton
Lake
ArborBaldwin
Lincoln
Lexington
Garfield
Wing
Shippey
Sierra
GageAsh
OgdenOneida
Sagamore
Chester
Hope
SpringIda
Church
Webster
lraeP
Smith
Main
Oak
Alley
Hoyt
Birch
Jay
Goodwin
Coolidge
Thomson
Basin
Marion
Henry
Graves
Unnamed Street
Chestnut
Monument
Staple
SheridanMorgan
Cortland
Bacon
Horicon
Auburn
Curran
Fielding
Wilmot
Lawton
Morton
John
School
Liberty
Division
Parker
Center
Darwin
Juvet
Raymond
Wallace
Fredella
Mission
CulvertKeenan
Jackson
Bowman
Kenworthy
Charlotte
Sarella
Lapham
Philo
Cameron
Cottage
Jefferson
New Pruyn
East
Broad Street
Pulver
Civic CenterDelaware
Robertson
Exchange
Glen
South
Maple
tcepsorP
Gage
Spring
1st
FAME Trip Locations
Origins
1
Number per location 5
10
Destinations

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 6-1 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Chapter 6. Ser vice Improvement Options
Overview
The primary purpose of preparing a transit development plan is to identify a series of short term
(3-5 year) improvement options. The data and analysis presented in the previous chapters
documents our evaluation of the existing system as well as comments and suggestions raised by
stakeholders, riders and non- riders. This next chapter outlines the process used to develop
service improvement options. It begins with service improvement concepts developed by the
consu lting team in conjunction with GGFT and A/GFTC staff. Subsequent sections document the
process whereby these initial service concepts are modified and developed into a series of final
recommendations. The development process included discussions between the project team,
input from the public and review by GGFT staff as well as more detailed technical analysis.
Service Improvement Concepts
Building on the survey results and route analyses, members of the Nelson Nygaard team
conducted additional field work so that we could re- examine GGFT service while discussing travel
patterns and observing land uses. Through this process we identified potential service
improvement concepts that are based in transit design principles and are intended to create a
system t hat is easy to understand, easy to use and encourages ridership. The initial service
concepts are the basis upon which we developed and redefined proposals for service
improvements. The concepts for service improvements are presented here, followed by
re commendations as they apply to GGFT.
• Eliminate unproductive routes and route segments – Within the GGFT network, there are
some routes that, with the exception of one or two trips, carry only a few passengers and
demonstrate poor productivity overall. Parts of other routes travel through low density
areas with few or no attractions and thus have very low passenger boardings. Our goal is
to eliminate these unproductive routes and segments and divert resources to more
productive parts of the system.
• Strengthen the trunk and feeder system – GGFT service is currently structured around a
pulse system and a loosely organized trunk and feeder network. The two trunk routes,
Routes 11/12 and 4, operate along the service area’s main corridors, serve a multitude of
activity centers (employment, social services, shopping) and are the system’s most
p roductive routes. The remaining routes (Routes 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 19) are primarily feeder
routes and bring people from residential areas into activity centers. These routes typically
carry fewer riders but are essential to the system because they provide access from
outlying areas to the region’s service areas. Our initial analysis suggests that the
structure of the trunk and feeder routes could be strengthened to carry more riders.
• Smooth out service schedules so trips are evenly spaced throughout the day – As
discussed, most of GGFT’s routes adhere to a pulse system, and therefore, depart from
the Ridge Street Terminal at the half hour and top of the hour, making departure times
easy to remember. Many routes, however, have awkward schedules whereby trips are
not evenly spaced throughout the day and/or have large gaps between trips. Irregular
schedule spacing make it difficult for passengers to easily remember when service is
available and makes the service more challenging to use. One of our objectives,
therefore, is to even out schedules and schedule all services according to a system that is
easy to understand and to remember.

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 6-2 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
• Eliminate competition between routes – GGFT is a fairly small system that serves a
compact area. The pulse system design requires that services converge at a common
point; in Glens Falls this is the Ridge Street Terminal. Consequently, some of the routes
overlap as they enter and exit from Ridge Street and around the roundabout at the center
of town. Our analysis, however, suggests there is additional overlap in other areas such
that routes inadvertently compete for the same passengers. While some key destinations
may be served by more than one route to improve service frequency or alleviate capacity
problems, competition among routes at small destinations and low density segments
should be avoided.
• Straighten route alignments to close loops and create more direct alignments – It is very
common for rural and small urban systems to design transit routes as one- way, single
dire ction loops. This approach increases geographic coverage and maximizes the
number of people in the service area who live within walking distance to a route. On the
downside, however, loop service significantly increases travel time for the passenger.
Loops are also difficult to understand because they often mean passengers get on and off
the bus at different locations. Where possible, therefore, we will look for opportunities to
close loops and encourage two- way, bi-directional alignments.
• Alleviate sch edule pressure on select services – GGFT’s current system design is based
on a pulse system with a high level of service along its most important service corridor
(Glen Street to Upper Glen Street) served by Route 11/12. This is an effective approach
that brings people in from residential areas and allows them to easily connect to service
along the Glen Street corridor. A key challenge in the system, however, is that during
some times of the day, drivers are challenged to complete their trip on Route 11/12 within
the 30 minutes allocated. This means that some trips are late into Ridge Street Terminal,
creating problems for the pulse system and putting pressure on drivers. There are a
variety of ways to alleviate schedule pressure, each of which has advantages and
disadvantages. Options include shortening the route, increasing the scheduled travel
time, and interlining service.
• Create opportunities for one- seat rides between key origins and destinations – All
travelers, including transit riders, prefer fast, direct trips. By creating a pulse system,
GGFT has traded- off direct service by offering a timed transfer. This is an effective
strategy for a small system and successfully increases travel options. It is possible,
however, to create some direct trips by interlining key routes between the largest origins
and destinations. Interlining routes will create one -seat rides for some riders and,
although passengers will continue to stop at the Ridge Street Terminal, they are
guaranteed to meet their connection and will not have to get off one bus and onto another.
• Improve service along key corridors – As discussed, within GGFT’s pulse system, Route
11/12 is designated as a “trunk corridor” that operates with higher frequency and a longer
span of service on both weekdays and weekend days. This is one of GGFT’s most
successful and well used services in the system. Based on passenger volumes, survey
input and our review of the existing services, we recommend expanding the trunk service
concept to create a second higher frequency travel corridor to Hudson Falls and Fort
Edward. Similar with the Glen Street/Upper Glen Street corridor, there are several key
destinations and high density housing along the corridor. In addition, existing ridership
data suggests this corridor could support increased service.
• Create links between key regional service centers – When asked about their preference
for service expansions, passengers consistently recommended expanding service to
provide regional connections, primarily to Saratoga and Lake George but also to

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 6-3 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Warrensburg. Existing GGFT service does connect to the early morning Northway
Express (NX 12) trip, operated by the Capital District Transit Authority (CDTA). In
addition, after seasonal trolley services end, there are no transit services to Lake George
Village. Service improvements, therefore, look for opportunities to support and increase
regional travel.
• Improve information systems – Information about GGFT’s service is readily available
through schedules, information posted at the Ridge Street Terminal and on the system’s
web -site. In general, however, the information systems is geared towards people already
using the service, rather than attracting new riders. The information contained in the
schedules, system maps and web- site as well as the format and presentation of the
information could be improved so that it is more attractive, more interesting and easier to
understand.
• Develop new service marketing and branding image – GGFT’s branding overall, including
its logo, name and bus paint schemes could be updated to make the system more user –
friendly and attractive to riders. Cut -away vehicles which currently serve several routes
are indistinguishable from Transit Connections vehicles, the local operator that exclusively
serves individuals with disabilities. Ideas for improving the service, therefore, include
ideas to increase service visibility, improve information systems and enhance the system’s
image. This may involve developing an appealing color scheme and logo that reflects
GGFT’s role in the community, potentially capitalizing on the environmental benefit
provided by the service (and people using the service). This color scheme could be
implemented by on agency vehicles, passenger information systems, on -street signage
and agency web materials.
Service Improvement Options
Building on these concepts, the Nelson Nygaard team identified a series of service improvement
options, which were presented to and discussed with members of GGFT and A/GFTC staf f. As
we discussed the ideas, GGFT and A/GFTC staff offered local insights and made suggestions to
several of the ideas proposed. Through this process, the combined team prepared a series of
preliminary service improvement options. NelsonNygaard documented these recommendations
into a series of potential service improvements that were deemed appropriate for discussion with
members of the general public. This information does not include improvement options for
service information and marketing material s. These options were carried forward but were not
included in the options discussed with members of the public. The following text highlights the
service improvement options. Materials presented to members of the general public and their
comments are documented in the following section of this chapter.
• Eliminate neighborhood collector service Routes 3 and 6, but combine key segments of
these routes with other routes, specifically incorporating segments of an eliminated Route
6 into a re -aligned Route 7 (or new route) and incorporating segments of an eliminated
Route 3 into Route 4.
• Create new “back door” route to serve John Burke Apartments and Aviation Mall. This
route would be designed to pick up key segments of the existing Route 6 by traveling
through west Glens Falls to the John Burke Apartments and Aviation Mall. Under this
proposal, Route 11/12 would no longer serve the John Burke Apartments, helping to
alleviate schedule pressure.
• Create system of long and short services in Route 5 and Route 7. Both Route 5 and
Route 7 have inner segments that serve destinations, such as Glens Falls Hospital and

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 6-4 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
South Glens Falls Village as well as several dense neighborhoods. The outer segments
of the routes, however, travel through areas with significantly lower housing density and
fewer services and amenities. As a result, the outer segments attract few riders. One
service improvement option, therefore, would be to create a series of short and long trips
that alternate between serving the close in neighborhoods and attractions and the more
rural areas. This design would ensure areas with more population and amenities would
receive more service, while the outer areas would continue to be served with fewer trips.
• Increase service along Route 4 corridor to half -hourly service and provide service to the
new Walmart store scheduled to open in the Town of Queensbury along Route 254. The
existing Route 4 is one of GGFT’s most successful routes and can support an increased
frequency, especially because the exist ing route operates along two alignments.
Increasing service to half -hourly departures creates hourly service on the alternate
alignments. In addition, the new Walmart store will generate demand from residents in
east Glens Falls, Hudson Falls and Fort Edward.
• Interline Route 4 and Route 11/12 to create single trunk corridor between Fort Edward
and Exit 19 area via downtown Glens Falls. By interlining Routes 4 and 11/12, GGFT
would create a transit “spine” with consistent, reliable service along the most productive
corridor in the system. Offering a one- seat ride benefits passengers by eliminating
concerns about missed connections. It also makes the service easy to understand and
convenient to use.
• Add mid- day trip on Route 2 and extend route to serve Glens Falls Hospital. Route 2
operates on Bay Road, which is a good corridor for transit service with several higher
density housing units, medical offices and the Adirondack Community College. This idea
would include adding a mid- day trip on Route 2 to eliminate the existing gap in service.
There is also potential to extend the route to offer two- way service to Glens Falls Hospital,
providing a direct connection between senior housing and medical offices.
• Add peak period trip on Route 19, serve Warren County Municipal Center on inbound and
outbound trip, and extend route to Lake George Village. The study team suggests adding
a morning trip to support employment trips to the factory outlet stores. Our proposal also
includes extending the route to La ke George Village when the trolleys are not operating.
In addition, because the Warren County Annex Building, located on the west side of I -87
will close in the fall of this year, Route 19 will have time to stop in front of the Warren
County Municipal Center on both the inbound and outbound trips. Combined these
improvements will increase route attractiveness and help attract additional passengers.
• Create “super corridor” along Route 9 with high frequent service to Exit 19 and extended
service year round to the factory outlet stores and Lake George Village. This proposal
would call for moving the existing GGFT Route 19 to Glen Street and staggering routes so
that every third trip traveled along Glen Street to Lake George Village. A high level of
service along this corridor means passengers could use all three services to get to
destinations between the Ridge Street Terminal and Exit 19 area.
Public Review of Service Improvement Options
As discussed, the next step associated with developing recommended service improvements
involved vetting the potential ideas with existing transit riders and members of the general public.
These comments and views were incorporated into the final system recommendations which are
presented in the subsequent chapter.

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 6-5 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
For this stage of public input, GGFT, A/GFTC and Nelson Nygaard held a public meeting on
Monday March 9 at the Crandall Public Library, located a short walk from the Ridge Street
Terminal in downtown Glens Falls. The meeting was structured as a workshop format and
attendees were encouraged to drop by to the meeting as their schedule permitted. Visual aids
included maps showing existing GGFT service and the possible service changes (see Figures 6- 1
and 6- 2). When members of the public came to the meeting, staff explained the potential
changes, asked for their feedback and gave them an opportunity to draw new routes, ask
questions and make comments. Individuals who had specific comments were encouraged to
write them down. The open house was staffed from 2:00 pm until 6:00 pm. In total,
approximately 20 people stopped by during the four -hour period.
In addition to meeting with members of the public at the library, Nelson Nygaard staff also brought
the maps to the Ridge Street terminal and discussed potential service changes with riders as they
waited for the bus. Staff was available at this location for about an hour between 12:00 pm and
1:00 pm. Results from this outreach effort mirrored those received at the Crandall Library.
In general, people were amenable to the possible service changes. Hudson Falls residents were
excited about increased service, especially people who need to travel on Boulevard or Dix as
service to these locations is currently only available once every two hours. There was also
speci fic support for increasing service on Route 2 along Bay Road and adding mid- day service on
the South Glens Falls route (Route 5). At least one participant also expressed her frustration with
trying to read and understand the existing bus schedules. There were, however, exceptions to
the proposal, including:
• Need for service on both Main and Saratoga Streets in South Glens Falls Village
• Need to keep Route 3 operating through neighborhoods, especially to Hartford and
Sagamore Streets.
Meeting attendees and people interviewed at Ridge Street Terminal also voiced several of their
own ideas for service improvements. These recommendations primarily centered around
providing service on Sundays, operating more evening service, and increasing service to
Walmart.

3
7
6
5
4
2
19
Lake George Trolley
1112
!
.!
.
!
.
n
!
.
nn^
®v
n
n
¤
!
.
!
!
!
!!
!
!
.
W a r r e n
W a r r e n
W a s h i n g t o n
W a s h i n g t o n
S a r a t o g a
S a r a t o g a
Fort Edward
Hudson Falls
South Glens Falls
Bay
Ridge
Dean
Vaughn
East
Butler
Quaker
Saratoga
Reynolds
Geer
Luzerne
Burgoyne
Corinth
Tripoli
Burt
Glen
Dixon
River
Gansevoort
Aviation
Reservoir
Farle
Wait
5th
Potter
Sisson
Harrison
Big Boom
Sanford
Broadway
Rock City
FT Edward
Gurney
Towpath
Cronin
John
Main
Plum
Patten Mills
3rd
Bluebird
Peggy Ann
Meadowbrook
Burquist
Hicks
Queensbury
Broad
Upper Sherman
Elm
Bentley
Boulevard
Sweet
Hunter
Rockwell
Feeder
County Route 46
Country Club
Nolan
Casey
Haviland
Pitcher
Western
Crandall
Merritt
Everts
Murray
Wincrest
Chestnut Ridge
Dubes
North
Crawford
McCrea
William
Ohio
McIntyre
County Rte 36
Haskell
Tanglewood
Old Military
Walkup
Ellsworth
Eagan
Pine
Cherry
Clements
Wood
Frankie
Van Dusen
Kelly
Sunnyside
Weeks
Hilton
Killian
Wolf
May
Schuyler
Horicon
FaxonFeeder Tow
Baker
Dove
Highland
Water
Nacy
Mason
Chestnut
Keech
Warren
Pine Hill
Ryan
Wilson
Marion
Rocky
Jones
Hudson Pointe
Citizens
Browns
Windy
LindenJackson
French Mountain
Edgewater
GreenMain
East
Main6th
1st
River
§
¨ ¦87
¬
«197
¬
«9L
¬
«149
¬
«254
¬
«32
¬
«196
Dix
£
¤4
£
¤4
£
¤9
Queensbury
Moreau
Kingsbury
Fort Ann
Fort Edward
Glens Falls
Lake George
Wal-Mart
HannafordHannaford
Kmart
RidgeTerminal
AviationMall
Factory Outlets
QueensburyTown Hall
Glens Falls High School
Glens Falls Middle School Adirondack
Community College
South Glens FallsHigh School
Warren County
Municipal Center
Washington CountyMunicipal Center
Amtrak Station
John
Burke Apt.
HannafordNew Wal-Mart
Two to three
trips per day go to Van Dusen
Route will accessmunicipal center both ways
Two to three trips per day go to Lamplighter Acres
Possible crosstown route to Mall
Route 2 servesHannafordRoute 19
operates on Route 9
GIS Data Source: Adirondack Glens Falls Transportation Council
Figure 6-1 GGFT Conceptual Service Improvements
Lake George
Middle
Canada
Flat Rock
Birch
Beach
Lakeshore
Carefree
Oak
Brook
Hubbell
Kirker
Carey
Cotherman
¬
«9N
¬
«9L
£9
!
0 0.5 1 Miles
01 2
Miles
Transit Routes
GGFT Year-Round Routes
Request-Only Service
Route Number
Lake George Trolley
Villages
Towns and Cities
County Boundaries
7
!Top Destinations

W a s h i n g t o n
W a s h i n g t o n
!
.
nn
®v
n
!
.
!
!
!
!!
!
!
.
Hudson Falls
South Glens Falls
Bay
Ridge
Dean
East
Quaker
Luzerne
Burgoyne
Corinth
Glen
Dixon
River
Gansevoort
Wait
5th
Sisson
Harrison
Big Boom
Sanford
Broadway
FT Edward
Towpath
Cronin
John
Main3rd
Bluebird
Peggy Ann
Meadowbrook
Hicks
Queensbury
Broad
Upper Sherman
Elm
Boulevard
Sweet
HunterFeeder
Country Club
Casey
Western
Crandall
Merritt
Everts
Murray
Wincrest
Chestnut Ridge
North
William
Ohio
McIntyre
Haskell
Tanglewood
Eagan
Pine
Cherry
Kelly
Weeks
HiltonWolf
May
Schuyler
Horicon
FaxonFeeder Tow
Baker
Dove
Highland
Water
Mason
Chestnut
Warren
Ryan
Wilson
Jones
Hudson Pointe
Windy
LindenJackson
Edgewater
GreenMain
East
Main6th
1st
§
¨ ¦87
¬
«9L
¬
«254
Dix
£
¤9
Kingsbury
Fort Edward
Glens Falls
John
Burke Apt.
Hannaford
New Wal-Mart
Possible crosstown
route to Mall
Hannaford Hannaford
Ridge Terminal
Aviation
Mall
Wal-Mart
K-Mart
Washington CountyMunicipal Center
Glens Falls High School
GIS Data Source: Adirondack Glens Falls Transportation Council
Figure 6-2 Possible Improvements to Routes 3 and 6
Transit Routes
Current Route 6
Route Number
Villages
Towns and Cities
County Boundaries
7
!Top Destinations
Proposed Route 6
Current Route 3
Proposed Route 3
0 1 2
Miles
63
Glens Falls Middle School^

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 6-8 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Figure 6-3 Greater Glens Falls Transit – DRAFT of Possible Ideas for Service Improvements
These are potential ideas that are for comment only
Route Description of Existing Service Possible Changes to Service
Route 2
Bay -College Service along Bay Street to Bay Road to Queensbury

Major stops:
• Adirondack Community College
• the Cedars (assisted living)
• Queensbury Town Hall and Queensbury Senior Center
Will travel off -route on request to Meadowbrook
7 trips a day on weekdays with 2 -hour break in middle of day Add mid
-day trip to provide hourly service all day
Re -route to link with Glens Falls Hospital
• Create direct link between doctor offices, senior housing and hospital

Route 3
East Loop Neighborhood service in eastern Glens Falls

Major stops
• Jackson Heights and Abraham Wing Schools
• Kmart
• Price Chopper
• Stichman Towers
Hourly service (10 trips on weekdays) When new Walmart opens:

• Re-route along Dix Avenue to Main Street
• Connect into Village of Hudson Falls
• Eliminate portions of Glens Falls neighborhood service
• Coordinate with Route 4
Maintain as hourly service
Route 4
Hudson Falls -Fort
Edward Service from Glens Fal
ls to Hudson Falls and Fort Edward
Bus has two travel routes
• along Dix Avenue
• along Boulevard Avenue
Hourly service (13 trips) on weekdays; 7 trips on Saturday When Walmart opens, coordinate Routes 4 and 3 so that

• Re-aligned Route 3 serves Dix Avenue to Hudson Falls
• Route 4 travels along Boulevard Avenue to Hudson Falls and Fort Edward
Coordinate Routes 3 and 4 so Hudson Falls has half -hour service

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 6-9 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Route Description of Existing Service Possible Changes to Service
Route 5
Moreau- South Glens
Falls Service from Glens Falls to South Glens Falls and Moreau

Route has two loops through Village of South Glens and to South Glens
Falls High School
Select routes travel to Lamplighter on request
Roughly hourly service (9 trips) on weekday with 2 -hour in middle of day; 5
trips on Saturday Make service more direct and travel out and back on Saratoga Avenue.
Create short and long trips

• Most trips travel to Midtown Plaza only
• One morning and afternoon long trips travel to Lamplighter
Coordinate some trips with Route 11/12 so that passengers boarding Route 5
can travel to Walmart and Aviation Mall without getting off bus at Ridge St
Terminal
Route 6
West Loop Neighborhood service to western Glens Falls

Major stops
• Glens Falls Hospital
• Hannaford
• Glens Falls Middle and High school
• Irongate Center
Hourly service (10 trips) on weekdays Create new cross
-town service:
• Continue to serve Glens Falls Hospital, Hannaford and schools
• Travel on Dixon Road to John Burke Apartments and Aviation Mall
• Eliminate portions of Glens Falls neighborhood serv ice
Maintain as hourly service
Route 7
West Glens Falls Service from Glens Falls to West Glens Falls

Route has big loop traveling out on Main/Corinth Road to Van Dusen and
back on Luzerne Street
Service every 90 minutes or two hours for 6 weekday trips;
3 trips on Saturdays Create short and long trips

• operate most trips as short trips, turning on Ohio Street
• operate 2 -3 trips per day as “long trips” that turn on Van Dusen Street
Coordinate some trips with Route 11/12 so that passengers boarding Route 7
c an travel to Walmart and Aviation Mall without getting off bus at Ridge Street
Route 11/12
Glen -Aviation Mall Service from Glens Falls along Upper Glen Street

Major stops: Aviation Mall, Walmart, John Burke Apartments and Shopping
plazas along Upper Glen Street
Half -hourly service throughout the day with 22 weekday trips Coordinate with new Route 6

• All trips travel to Walmart and Aviation Mall
• John Burke Apartments served by new Route 6
Changes will make it easier for Route 11/12 to keep schedule

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 6-10 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Route Description of Existing Service Possible Changes to Service
Route 19
Rt. 9 County Center Service from Glens Falls to Gooney Golf on Route 9 outside of Lake
George Village

Major stops:
• Warren County Municipal Center
• Warren County Municipal Center Annex
• Lake George Factory Outlet Stores
Five trips per day between 9:15 am and 4:25 pm Warren County Municipal Center Annex is scheduled to close in 2008. When
Annex closes:

• Stop in at Warren County Municipal Center on outbound and inbound leg
• Extend service to Lake George Village (when trolleys are not running)
• Add two trips pe r day to streamline schedule

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 6-11 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Analysis of Service Improvement Options
After the public reviewed the potential service improvements, Nelson Nygaard was charged to
create scenarios that included both increased and reduced funding levels. Our base case service
proposals, however, needed to be achievable within existing resources. This critical last step in
the design of recommended improvements meant not only incorporating input from the public
review process but also considering the service improvements from a detailed cost perspective
and determining if the proposals could be implemented within GGFT’s existing resources. As
part of our analysis, therefore, Nelson Nygaard prepared a series of draft service schedules to
examine the impact of individual proposals within GGFT’s existing service hours and capital
equipment.
This process served to narrow down the proposals to a handful of options, in particular, the
following service options were either eliminated or altered. A summary of the initial proposals and
final recommendations is shown in Figure 6- 4. The main changes from the original service
options under consideration include:
• The concept of creating short and long trips on Routes 5 and 7 was dropped not only in
respons e to the public reaction but also because constraints associated with the pulse
operating system make it difficult to redeploy vehicle service hours.
• The ‘back door’ route to John Burke Apartments was not carried forward. Upon closer
evaluation, the service would offer only limited value to riders and thus was determined
not to be the most effective use of system resources.
• Existing schedules make it challenging to consistently interline routes. In particular,
because service levels are not even, it is challenging to interline most services with Route
11/12.
A full analysis of the final recommendations is documented in Chapter 7.
Figure 6-4 Initial and Final Proposals for Service Improvements
Initial Proposal Final Recommendation
Route 2
Bay -College Add mid
-day trip to provide hourly service all day
Re -route to link with Glens Falls Hospital
• Create direct link between doctor offices,
senior housing and hospital Add mid
-day trip
Eliminate proposal for direct link to Glens Falls
Hospital – required routing would be too time
consuming
Route 3
East Loop When new Walmart opens:

• Re-route along Dix Avenue to Main Street
• Connect into Village of Hudson Falls
• Eliminate portions of Glens Falls
neighborhood ser vice
• Coordinate with Route 4
Maintain as hourly service Same as proposed

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 6-12 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Initial Proposal Final Recommendation
Route 4
Hudson Falls -Fort
Edward When Walmart opens, coordinate Routes 4 and 3
so that
• Re-aligned Route 3 serves Dix Avenue to
Hudson Falls
• Route 4 travels along Boulevard Avenue to
Hudson Falls and Fort Edward
Coordinate Routes 3 and 4 so Hudson Falls has
half- hour service Create new Route 4:

• Half -hourly departures from Ridge Street
Terminal
• All service travels to Fort Edward and
Hudson Fall s
• Provide hourly service on each alignment
(Boulevard and Dix)
Route 5
Moreau- South Glens
Falls Make service more direct and travel out and back
on Saratoga Avenue. Create short and long trips
• Most trips travel to Midtown Plaza only
• One morning and afternoon long trips travel
to Lamplighter
Coordinate some trips with Route 11/12 so that
passengers boarding Route 5 can travel to
Walmart and Aviation Mall without getting off bus
at Ridge St Terminal All trips operate full length of existing route.

Se lect trips will be scheduled to Lamplighter.
Coordinate last Route 5 trip to meet NX
commuter service.
Route 6
West Loop Create new cross
-town service:
• Continue to serve Glens Falls Hospital,
Hannafords and schools
• Travel on Dixon Road to John Burke
Apa rtments and Aviation Mall
• Eliminate portions of Glens Falls
neighborhood service
Maintain as hourly service Proposal for new cross
-town service is
dropped.

Additional analysis suggests low ridership.
Resources needed to support other higher need
options.
Route 7
West Glens Falls Create short and long trips

• operate most trips as short trips, turning on
Ohio Street
• operate 2 -3 trips per day as “long trips” that
turn on Van Dusen Street
Coordinate some trips with Route 11/12 so that
passengers boarding Route 7 can travel to
Walmart and Aviation Mall without getting off bus
at Ridge Street All trips operate full length of existing route.

Operate in reverse direction.
Use Route 7 to continue service to some of
Route 6’s most important destinations,
including
the Glens Falls Hospital and the Broad Street
Hannafords.
Route 11/12
Glen -Aviation Mall Coordinate with new Route 6

• All trips travel to Walmart and Aviation Mall
• John Burke Apartments served by new
Route 6
Changes will make it easier for Route 11/12 to
keep schedule No changes proposed to Route 11/12.

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 6-13 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Initial Proposal Final Recommendation
Route 19
Rt. 9 County Center Warren County Municipal Center Annex is
scheduled to close in 200
9. When Annex closes:
• Stop in at Warren County Municipal Center
on outbound and inbound leg
• Ext end service to Lake George Village
(when trolleys are not running)
• Add two trips per day to streamline schedule
Service to Lake George Village is
recommended as is service into Warren County
Municipal Center on inbound and outbound trip.

Route 19 continues to operate on Bay Road
south of Quaker Road.
Additional service limited to a one or two trips.

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 7-1 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Chapter 7. Recommendations and
Implementation
Overview
As discussed, the objective of the TDP was to develop a five- year plan for service and system
improvements. Specifically, the goals of the project were to:
• Improve the viability and utility of public transit as a mode of transportation choice in the
greater Glens Falls area.
• Review current transit service structure and recommend updates to reflect current
demand and development patterns.
• Develop recommendations to optimize the productivity of available transit r esources in the
near, intermediate, and long term time horizons and under different l evels of funding
availability.
The following section documents Nelson Nygaard’s proposed recommendation and a phased
implementation plan.
Recommended System Objectives
In addition to identifying specific project recommendations, Nelson Nygaard, working in
conjunction with GGFT and A/GFTC staff, identified a series of system objectives, or service
standards to support future development of transit services. These system objectives are
guidelines that can shape implementation of projects recommended as part of this TDP as well as
future opportunities. The guidelines include standards that may be achieved over time; however,
at all times before adding service, GGFT should review ridership and allocate additional service
based on demand and ridership patterns.
Recommendations are based on strengthening the organization of GGFT services into trunk and
feeder routes and where possible simplifying service. Trunk routes will serve primary corridors in
the Glens Falls service area and provide access to the region’s largest destinations. These
routes will have higher service levels (higher frequencies and longer spans of service) and carry
the most riders. Feeder routes, in turn, will serve primarily residential areas and provide access
to the trunk routes. They will have lower service levels and carry fewer riders as compared with
trunk routes.
• Trunk routes should be designed to transport passengers along the service area’s most
developed corridors and to/from the region’s most important destinations.
− Trunk routes will have a higher level of service and longer span of service and be
located along the systems strongest transit corridors.
− Weekday service levels for trunk routes should be, at a minimum, 30 minute peak/60
minute off -peak (during the mid- day) service level. Ideally service levels will be 30
minutes throughout the day. Service levels should be consistent throughout the day
with even spacing of trips.
− Evening and Saturday service levels may be lower as compared to weekdays, but
should be based on a 30 minute peak/60 minute off -peak schedule, also adding

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 7-2 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
service to create a 30 minute schedule through the day. Schedules should be based
on easily understandable, evenly spaced trips.
− Route 11/12 is designed as a trunk route. Currently, it is the only trunk route in
GGFT’s system.
• Collector/distributor routes should be designed to transport people from primarily
residential areas and areas with a lower density of services, employment and activity
centers.
− Collector distributor routes will have a lower level and span of service as compared
with trunk routes.
− Fully implemented collector/distributor routes will provide a minimum level of service of
hourly service during the peak periods and 120 minute service during the off -peak. As
resources become available, frequencies may increase to hourly service throughout
the day.
− Saturday service levels on collector/distributor routes may be lower as compared to
weekdays, but should be based on consistent, evenly spaced service schedules.
− Examples of collector/distributor routes in the GGFT system are:
o Route 2 Bay College
o Route 5 South Glens Falls
o Route 7 West Glens Falls
o Route 19 Warren County Municipal Center/Factory Outlet Malls/Lake George
Village
• Vehicles should remain in revenue service as long as possible to increase geographic
coverage and minimize unproductive vehicle time.
An additional overall improvement for the GGFT system not directly related to service design is
improving the presentation and availability of the information about GGFT’s service. System
marketing and information systems for transit, like any other product used by members of the
public, is paramount to success. GGFT should ensure its information systems are up -to -date,
easy to read and accessible to riders and non -riders. As possible, increase community
awareness of GGFT services by signing routes (not stops), creating colorful, easy- to-read system
maps and schedules, establish a distinctive and attractive “brand” to define service image, and
potentially capitalizing on the system’s environmental attributes. This may also involve making
the GGFT vehicles external appearance more appealing and friendly and coordinating the color
schemes with any branding efforts.
Recommended Improvements and Implementation
Recommendations to improve the service follow the above described guidelines. We also
recommend implementing the recommendations in two phases. In the first phase, we suggest a
series of projects that have lower costs and are less disruptive for riders, but at the same time will
begin to strengthen and improve services. The second phase of improvements will take more
time to implement, may require discussions with stakeholders, public education and will definitely
require updating information systems prior to moving forward. Accordingly, we have organized
the recommendations into those that can be implemented as quickly as in the next few months
and those that will require a longer lead time.

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 7-3 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Immediate Term
There are a several recommendations that GGFT can implement fairly quickly and without
significant disruption to the existing service schedule. These recommendations are summarized
in Figure 7-1 and are described below:
• Add mid -day service on Route 2 and create a consistent, evenly spaced service
schedule. This route currently provides seven trips per weekday, with roughly hourly
service during the morning peak and late afternoon, but service only once every two hours
in the middle of the day. Route 2 also has two evening trips. By increasing frequency
along the corridor so that the service is more consistent, bus service will be easier to
understand and use. A sample schedule is shown in Figure 7 -2. The Bay Road corridor
is significant because of the employment opportunities associated with assisted living
facilities, and doctor’s offices/medical clinics. Improved service on Route 2 would also
increase access to the Adirondack Community College (ACC), one of the region’s
important job t raining facilities.
Figure 7-1 Sample Weekday Schedule for Route 2
Current Schedule
Time Between Trips
(in minutes) Proposed Schedule
Time Between Trips
(in minutes)
7:30 am 7:30 am
8:30 am 60 8:30 am 60
9:30 am 60 9:30 am 60
11:00 am 90 11:00 am 90
1:30 pm 150 12:30 pm 90
3:30 pm 120 2:00 pm 90
4:40 pm 70 3:30 pm 90
4:40 pm 70
Source: NelsonNygaard Consulting Associates
• Expanded service on GGFT Route 19 with both increased frequency and expanded
geographic coverage. Route 19 currently provides limited service between Glens Falls
and Gooney Golf, a turn- around point about 1 mile south of Lake George Village. The
route also serves the Lake George Factory Outlet stores located near the intersection of
Routes 9 and 149. There are currently six trips per day inclusive of evening service.
Service is offered between 9:15 am and 4:25 pm, plus a single evening trip at 6:15 pm,
making the span of service supportive for some but not all retail workers. Furthermore, by
stopping the service just short of Lake George, the only way to access off -season
employment in Lake George Village is by walking one mile from Gooney Golf. The TDP
recommends extending the existing route to Lake George Village when trolley service is
not operating and adding two additional trips, one in the early morning and a second in the
late afternoon. The expanded service will increase regional connections, expand
employment opportunities and maintain year -round service between Glens Falls and Lake
George.
• Maintain existing evening services on Routes 11/12, 4/5 and 2. GGFT currently offers
just over four hours of evening service to support employment opportunities for people
working outside of the traditional business hours. Evening service was initiated in Fall

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 7-4 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
2008 and is scheduled to operate between 6:15 pm and 10:25 Monday through Saturday.
While productivity on the services is lower as compared with weekday or Saturday
daytime services (estimated at 4.4 riders per trip), the service is new and awareness is
still under development. In addition, the expanded temporal coverage meets needs for
after hour connections from employment areas to residential neighborhoods. In this
capacity the evening routes are “lifeline” services.
Evening services on Route 11/12 are not needed when seasonal trolleys offer evening
services; however, evening service for Route 4/5 should be maintained. Evening service
on Route 2 may be reduced when ACC is not in session, but ideally, at least one evening
service would be maintained to support existing commuters relying on the service in the
corridor.
• Adjust schedule to put deadhead vehicles in service. Currently, GGFT buses leave
the bus garage on Queensbury Avenue and travel as deadhead service to the Ridge
Street Terminal in downtown Glens Falls. They change their head signs at Ridge Street
and begin revenue service with their first scheduled trip. GGFT may put vehicles into
revenue service at the intersection of Queensbury Avenue and Dix Avenue and allow
passengers to ride the bus along Dix Avenue to Ridge Street en route to the Ridge Street
Terminal. Out of service vehicles leaving the Ridge Street Terminal may carry
passengers in the reverse direction, from RST to the intersection of Dix and Queensbury.
This service will be difficult to explain to passengers, but will allow GGFT to add additional
trips during the morning, mid- day and late afternoon at no additional cost to the agency.
In fact, it will result in a gain of resources based on the New York State Operating
Assistance (STOA) program which funds agencies based on miles traveled. In the short
term, putting buses in revenue service on Ridge Street will overlap somewhat with the
existing Route 3. Starting the service now, however, will help passengers get accustomed
to proposed changes (elimination of Route 3) and build support and trust for up- coming
changes.

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 7-5 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Figure 7-2 Immediate- Term Implementation Recommendations
Assumptions:
Adding one trip to Route 2 assumes marginal service increases amount to .5 VRH per day and an hourly operating cost of $62.89. Estimate is based on service operating 5 days
per week, 52 weeks per year. Estimate is rounded.
Extending existing service to Lake George assumes an additional .17 VRH per trip or 1.02 VHR per day (including night service). Assumes service operates 5 days per week for 36
weeks per year (excludes trolley seasons). Estimate is rounded.
Adding two trips to Route 19 with service to Lake George assumes marginal service increase amounts to 2.3 VRH per day and an hourly operating cost of $62.89. Both estimates
are based on service operating 5 days per week, 36 weeks per year. Estimate is rounded.
Maintaining evening service on Routes 4/5 and Route 2 assumes 1.5 VRH of service operating 6 days per week. With hourly costs of $62.89, weekly costs are estimated at about
$750. Seasonal trolleys operate 16 weeks per year. The seasonal reduced evening service will cost an estimated $9,100 per year (rounded) .

Proposed Changes Justification Estimated Annual Cost*
Route 2
Bay -College Add mid
-day trip
Ridership is strong mid
-day, with more than 7 riders per trip.
Mid -day trip will create consistent service throughout day, making route easier to
understand and use.
Anticipated ridership is between 7- 10 riders per trip. $8,200 per trip

Route 19
Rt. 9 County
Center Warren County Municipal Center
Annex is scheduled to close in 2009.
When Annex closes:

• Stop in at Warren County
Municipal Center on outbound
and inbound leg
• Extend service to Lake George
Village (when trolleys are not
running)
• Add two trips per day to
streamline schedule Ridership is strong, with most trips carrying 8+ passengers.

Additional trips will create more consistent schedule that is easier to understand and use.
Additional trips support employment at both Lake George and factory outlet stores.
Although employment at Lake George and the factory outlet stores is largely seasonal,
opportunities do exist in off -season. Survey data showed strong interest in ye ar-round
service to these destinations for work and other purposes.
In off-season, some Lake George hotels are used to meet ad hoc housing needs. $11,600 to operate five trips
to Lake George

$26,000 to add two trips
Evening
Service on
Route 4/5 and
Route 2 When trolley services are operating,
evening service on Route 11/12 may
be stopped, but service on Routes 2
and 4/5 should be maintained.
Evening service is new, but riders rely on service to travel to/from work.

Evening service will provide connections to/from trolley services in evening, strengthening
access to seasonal employment.
Regular schedule will help build and maintain ridership. Estimated cost $9,100 for 16
weeks of services

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 7-6 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Longer-Term
Implementation of the longer term recommendations, which are mapped in Figures 7 -3 and 7- 4,
and summarized in Figure 7- 5, may begin as soon as the immediate term proposals are
underway. These recommendations are described in the following section. By implementing
these longer -term recommendations GGFT will work towards achieving the system objectives
outlined at the beginning of this chapter. This will help GGFT move towards a system that is
more direct and responsive to passenger needs, easier to understand, and more straight -forward
to use. Nelson Nygaard also expects that the combined changes will increase ridership overall.
A draft schedule demonstrating how these recommended changes may be implemented is
included as Appendix C as one potential example of how the changes may work. It also
demonstrates that the recommendations are feasible. Appendix C also documents the changes
in vehicle service hours associated with recommendations. Both analyses include both weekday,
Saturday and evening service.
Most of the recommendations must be implemented concurrently as some routes will need to be
eliminated in order to redeploy resources to more productive parts of the system. This will require
stakeholder and public outreach efforts as the proposals will change the existing route network.
• Eliminate Route 3 East Loop. Productivity on Route 3 is low, with an average of four
riders per trip on weekdays and 3 per trip on Saturdays, making the route about half as
productive as the system average. In addition, portions of the route overlap with Route 4
along Maple and Warren Streets. As a result, the TDP recommends eliminating Route 3.
The portions of Route 3 which overlap with Route 4 will continue to be available when
Route 3 is eliminated. In addition, other route segments along Dix Avenue and Ridge
Street can be served by deadheading vehicles. We recommend eliminating this route and
redeploying the 1,339 VRH (1,300 weekday, 39 Saturday) to other parts of the GGFT
network.
We recommend eliminating Route 3 during the spring months when the weather is better
and there is more daylight. We make this suggestion because while nearly all passengers
will continue to have access to service, some will have to walk longer distances to get to
thei r service. It will be more manageable for passengers to get used to service changes
and find optimal walking routes during good weather and when there is more daylight.
• Eliminate Route 6 West Loop. With the exception of two trips (7:40 am and 3:00 pm ),
productivity on Route 6 is low, carrying fewer than four riders per trip on weekdays and 3
per trip on Saturdays. Similarly with Route 3, portions of the route overlap with Route 5
overlap with another route, which in this case is Route 7 along Broad Street. In addition,
Route 6’s routing along Crandall Street is two blocks from Glen Street; therefore a higher
frequency service is within walking distance. We recommend retaining the 7:40 am and
3:00 pm trips but eliminating all other portions of Route 6, including Saturday service.
This will save the system an estimated 1209 VRH annually.
Similar with Route 3, we also recommend eliminating Route 6 during the spring months.
This recommendation is for the same reason; service changes are easier to get used to
when they are walking or waiting in daylight and good weather.
• Increase service on Route 4 Hudson Falls to strengthen trunk corridor. Route 4 is
one of the most productive routes in GGFT’s network, carrying more than 20 passengers
per trip on weekdays and 14 passengers per trip on Saturdays. Recommendations
include increasing the service to 30 minute peak period frequencies and hourly service
during the middle of the day on weekdays and hourly service throughout the day on

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 7-7 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Saturdays (see Figure 7-6). Route 4 currently alternates service between Boulevard and
Dix Avenue before joining Main Street in Hudson Falls. We recommend retaining both of
these alignments and alternating service to create hourly service on each alignment. The
TDP also recomm ends vehicles start revenue service at the intersection of Dix and
Feeder when they are traveling to the Amtrak Station in Fort Edward and ending the last
revenue service trip at Walmart, rather than the Ridge Street Terminal. Implementing this
recommendation will require an additional 2301 VRH.
Figure 7-3 Sample Weekday Schedule for Route 4: Hudson Falls/Fort Edward
Scheduled Departures
Times from RST
Time Between Trips
(in Minutes)
Proposed Departure
Times from RST
Time Between Trips
(in Minutes)
6:30 am* 6:30 am** 30
7:30 am 60 7:00 am** 30
8:30 am 60 7:30 am 30
10:00 am 90 8:00 am 30
11:00 am 60 8:30 am 30
12:00 9m 60 9:00 am 30
1:00 pm 60 9:30 am 30
2:00 pm 60 10:00 am 30
3:00 pm 60 10:30 am 30
4:00 pm 60 11:00 am 30
5:10 pm 70 12:00 pm 60
6:10 pm 30 1:00 pm 60
1:30 pm 30
2:00 pm 30
2:30 pm 30
3:00 pm 30
3:30 pm 30
4:00 pm 30
4:30 pm 30
5:00 pm 60
6:00 pm 60
Source: NelsonNygaard Consulting Associates
* Departs from Amtrak Station in Fort Edward; ** Goes into revenue service at Dix/Feeder, time shown is for departure
from Amtrak Station in Fort Edward.
• Streamline schedule on Routes 5 South Glens Falls and schedule three trips per
day to Lamplighter Acres. Route 5 currently provides nine trips on weekdays, with
roughly hourly service during the morning peak and an ad hoc schedule for the remainder
of the day. There are five trips per day on Saturday, spaced between 90 and 120 minutes

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 7-8 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
apart. Currently, there is no scheduled service to Lamplighter Acres but passengers may
asked to be picked up or dropped off at Lamplighter Acres on the 8:30 am and 10:30 am
trips. In addition, Route 5 does not serve the regional Northway Express (NX) commuter
service to Saratoga, Albany and Rensselaer, which departs from the West Marion Avenue
Park and Ride Lot in South Glens Falls at 6:50 AM and arrives back at the park and ride
at 5:40 PM.
At this time, we are not recommending an increase in service, but suggest minor
adjustments to the schedule (sample shown in Figure 7 -7) to accommodate scheduling
three trips to Lamplighter Acres and meeting the NX commuter service. Results from the
survey research suggest an interest in service to Lamplighter Acres and a
misunderstanding about the availability of service. Operating service to the manufactured
home park three times a day will increase awareness of service and attract riders.
Service to Saratoga and Albany were also requested in the survey data and public
comments. These changes will require adjustments to vehicle scheduling and driver
deployments and, consequently, increase vehicle revenue hours assigned to the route.
Actual increases are difficult to estimate and will be based on final scheduling and work
assignment s.
Figure 7-4 Sample Weekday Schedule for Route 5: South Glens Falls
Scheduled Departures Times
from RST
Time Between
Trips
(in Minutes)
Proposed Departure
Times from RST
Time B etween Trips
(in Minutes)
6:00 am 6:30 am*
7:00 am 60 7:00 am 30
L 8:00 am 60 8:00 am 60
L 8:30 am 30 9:00 am L* 60
10:00 am 90 11:00 am 120
11:30 am 120 1:00 pm L* 120
2:30 pm 180 3:00 pm 120
L 4:00 pm 90 4:00 pm L* 60
5:10 pm 70 5:30 pm* 90
Source: NelsonNygaard Consulting Associates
Note: L indicates route will travel to Lamplighter Acres on request. L* indicates route is schedule to travel to
Lamplighter Acres. * Scheduled to meet NX commuter service departing from West Marion Ave Park and Ride lot.
• Add three trips on Route 7 West Glens Falls, reverse service direction and
streamline schedule to even out trip spacing. Route 7 currently has six scheduled
weekday and three scheduled weekend trips. While ridership on the service is fairly low, it
has been increasing over the past several months, largely as a result of the Department of
Social Service’s increased use of hotel accommodations near I -87 Exit 18. Ridership on
Route 7 will also be supported as the route serves some key destinations formerly served
by Route 6, including Glens Falls Hospital and the Broad Street Hannafords. Our
recommendations to improve the service are three- fold:
− Add three trips to the existing service weekday schedule and one trip on Saturdays for
a total of nine weekday and four Saturday trips. This will create a comparable service

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 7-9 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
level as implemented on other collector/distributor routes and work to attract additional
riders.
− Reverse the direction of the service. Route 7 currently travels outbound on Main
Street to Corinth Road, turning at Van Dusen Road and heading back towards Glens
Falls on Luzerne Road. By reversing direction (heading outbound, turn on Richardson
Street to Luzerne Road to Van Dusen Road and Corinth Road), will help avoid traffic
delays at key time near Exit -18. In addition, many passengers board the bus from
hotels located on the southern side of Corinth Road. Reversing the direction means
passengers will not have to cross the street to board the bus traveling inbound.
− The addition of additional trips provides an opportunity to create a streamlined
schedule with consistent trip spacing throughout the day. A potential service schedule
is shown in Figure 7- 8.
Reversing the service direction and streamlining the schedule do not require additional VRH.
Ad ding three new trips on weekdays and one additional trip on Saturdays will require an addition
of 403 VRH.
Figure 7-5 Sample Weekday Schedule for Route 7: West Glens Falls
Scheduled Departures
Times from RST
Time Between
Trips
(in Minutes)
Proposed Departure
Times from RST
Time B etween Trips
(in Minutes)
6:30 am 6:30 am
9:00 am 150 7:30 am 60
10:30 am 90 8:30 am 60
12:00 pm 90 10:00 am 90
2:00 pm 120 11:30 am 90
4:00 pm 120 1:30 pm 120
3:00 pm 90
4:00 pm 60
5:00 pm 60
Source: NelsonNygaard Consulting Associates
Note: L indicates route will travel to Lamplighter Acres on request. L* indicates route is schedule to travel to
Lamplighter Acres
• Update system brochures and schedules . Implementing the proposed
recommendations requires that GGFT update its existing passenger information systems.
This , in turn, creates an opportunity to improve the current information systems, including
printed schedules, system maps, and web-based inf ormation. As a result, we recommend
that GGFT develop a full color system brochure that includes a system map and printed
information on the routing and schedule of individual routes. We recognizes that color
schedules are expensive to produce. To insure system maps and timetables are used
wisely by consumers, we suggest that GGFT provide free system maps and timetables for
a limited time after the schedule changes are implemented (potentially three to six
months). After this initial time period, the system maps may be sold for a nominal cost of
$0.50 or $1.00. Individual route schedules may be provided free of charge. The purpose
of selling the schedules is to avoid people requesting multiple copies. Several examples

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 7-10 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
of transit agency system maps and schedule timetables are included as a reference, in
Appendix C. Most of these schedules were designed cost effectively. The Portland Metro
(Maine) system map, for example, was developed for approximately $15,000, not
including printing.
• Create public outreach campaign. In addition to needing new passenger information
systems, i mplementing the proposed recommendations also requires that GGFT conduct
an outreach campaign to educate riders and non- riders about the service changes.
Similar to the system brochures and information systems, the route changes provide
GGFT with an opportunity to update the system image. GGFT may use this opportunity to
re -brand the service as a green, easy -to -use and user -friendly system. This effort may
include developing an appealing name for the system as a whole (e.g., “The Ride” “the
Bee Line”) or developing a new naming convention for individual routes. Marketing and
branding opportunities may also include developing a clearly identifiable color scheme for
GGFT that is incorporated into agency buses, logos and passenger information systems.

future
Wal-Mart
3
7
5
4
2
9
Lake George Trolley
1112
6
!
!
.
!
.
!
.
n
!
.!
.
!
. !
.
nn
!
.
^
.
®v
n
n ¤
!
!
.
.
!
.
W a r r e n
W a r r e n
W a s h i n g t o n
W a s h i n g t o n
S a r a t o g a
S a r a t o g a
Fort Edward
Hudson Falls
South Glens Falls
BayegdiR
Vaughn
East
Quaker
Saratoga
Reynolds
Geer
Luzerne
Burgoyne
Corinth
Tripoli
Burt
Glen
River
Gansevoort
Aviation
Reservoir
Farley
Harrison
yawdaorB
Rock City
FT Edward
Cronin
Main
Patten Mills
3rd
Bluebird
Peggy Ann
Meadowbrook
Burquist
Hicks
Queensbury
Broad
Upper Sherman
Bentley
Boulevard
Sweet
HunterFeeder
Country Club
Bluebird
Haviland
Crandall
Merritt
Murray
Wincrest
Dubes
Crawford
Ohio
County Rte 36
Haskell
Tanglewood
Old Military
Pine
Cherry
Clements
Wood
Van Dusen
Franklin
Sunnyside
Weeks
Hilton
May
Schuyler
Horicon
Faxon
Baker
Dove
Ogden
Highland
Water
Keech
Warren
Pine Hill
Ryan
Wilson
Rocky
Citizens
Browns
LindenJackson
French Mountain
Main
East
Main1st
Marion
§
¨ ¦87
¬
«197
¬
«9L
¬
«149
¬
«254
¬
«32
¬
«196
Dix
£
¤4
£
¤4
£
¤9
Queensbury
Moreau
Kingsbury
Fort Ann
Fort Edward
Glens Falls
Lake George
Wal-Mart
HannafordHannaford
Kmart
RidgeTerminal
Aviation
Mall
Factory Outlets
QueensburyTown Hall
Glens Falls High School
Glens Falls Middle School Adirondack
Community College
South Glens FallsHigh School
Warren County
Municipal Center
Washington CountyMunicipal Center
Amtrak Station
Hannaford
BOCES
Route 6 will run at
bell times only
Three trips perday access
Lamplighter Acres
Increase service level
Routes 3 & 4
Service to futureWalmart site
Routes 3 & 4
Add midday trip
Increase service level & improve service schedule
Timed serviceto meet NX
commuter to Albany
GIS Data Source: Adirondack Glens Falls Transportation Council
Figure 7-6 Recommended Improvements – Overall System
Lake George
Middle
Canada
Flat Rock
Birch
Beach
Lakeshore
Carefree
Oak
Brook
Hubbell
Kirker
Carey
Cotherman
¬
«9N
¬
«9L
£9
Year-round service
to Lake George Village
Serve Municipal Center on
inbound and
outbound trips
Operate deadhead vehicles as revenue service
0 0.5 1 Miles
01 2
Miles
Transit Routes
GGFT Year-Round Routes
Request-Only Service
Route Number
Lake George Trolley
Villages
Towns and Cities
County Boundaries
7
Special Service

GIS Data Source: Adirondack Glens Falls Transportation Council
Figure 7-7 Recommended Improvements – City of Glens Falls
3
7
5
4
2
9
11
12
Lake George Trolley
yaB
Dix
Glen
Ridge
Sanford
4th
5th
3rd
Warren
Quaker
Ferry
Broad
South
1st
Maple
Hunter
Harrison
Elm
Western
Crandall
repooC
Bush
Murray2nd
Hudson
Sherman
Saratoga
Everts
Knight
lleksaH
Fire
Orville
Lawrence
elpatS
State
Garrison
Grove
yrrehCtunlaW
Spring
tcepsorP
Larose
Beacon
Pine
Sheridan
Mohican
Duke
enryB
drahcrOdlanoDcM
Montcalm
Notre Dame
New
dranoeL
sacnU
Webster
Horicon
noxaF
Baker
Tremont
LexingtonArbor
Garfield
Water
Mason
Park
Chestnut
Grand
River
William
Upper Glen
Rogers
Quade
Fulton
Baldwin
Wilson
Lake
Marion
arreiS
Van Buren
Union
MacArthur
Shippey
gniW
Chester
Glenwood
Race
Gage
ssorC giB
Stewart
Oneida
lraeP
Ogden
Church
Thornberry
Smith
McHugh
Hope
koorbwodaeM
Franklin
Newton
Washington
Kensington
Apollo
Haviland
Hoyt
Jackson
kaO
Goodwin
dnaleL
Katherine
Cunningham
Thomson
Riverview
Halsey
Graves
Empire
Monument
John
dnaltroC
narruC
Patton
Boylston
Douglas
tomliW
Fielding
Woodard
Morton
Terra Cotta
Stoddard
Nelson
Windsor
Liberty
School
Parker
TerraceHamilton
Carleton
State Hwy 32
Sargent
Catherine
Darwin
Fairview
Dorrer
Wallace
Culvert
Mission
KenworthyoruaM
Monroe
Holman
Cameron
Dixon
New Pruyn
WashburnttalP reppU
DelawareExchange
Grant
North
eromagaS
Wilson
reeG
Spring
3rd
1st
Coolidge
Maple
2nd
John
Haviland
5th
Luzerne
New
Glen
Sanford
Prospect
Water
South
nosduH
Harrison
Main
Stewart
Hudson
Park
Jackson
Grand
£
¤9
Operate deadhead vehicles as revenue service
! .
!
. !
.
n
n
n
n! .
n
! .
^
!
.
n
®v
! .
8
!
.
South Glens Falls
¬
«254
¬
«9L
¬
«32
Main
Glens Falls
Moreau
Queensbury
Hannaford Price Chopper
Ridge Terminal
Price Chopper
Big Cross School Community Workshop
Glens Falls Hospital
Glens Falls
Middle School
Glens Falls
High School Sanford Street
School Jackson Heights
School
Abraham WingSchool
Stichman Towers
Irongate
Center Library
Civic Center
Route 6 will run atbell times only
Will serve futureWalmart site
Routes 3 & 4
Add midday trip
Increase service level & improve service schedule
Timed serviceto meet NX
commuter to Albany
Increase service level Routes 3 & 4
Serve Municipal Centeron inbound andoutbound tripsYear-round service
to Lake George Village
Three trips per day access
Lamplighter Acres
0 0.25 0.5 Miles
Transit Routes
GGFT Year-Round Routes
Route Number
Lake George Trolley
Villages
Towns and Cities
County Boundaries
7
Special Service

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 7-13 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Figure 7-8 Longer Term Route by Route Recommendations
Proposed Changes Justification Estimated Cost/Savings
Route 3
East Loop Eliminate service

Deploy services to higher need/more productive services
Serve some eliminated destinations with re -aligned Route
4 and putting deadhead vehicles in service Low ridership on existing route

Eliminate competition between Routes 3 and 4 at key
locations
Annual savings: 1,339 VRH

(Weekday 1,300 VRH
Saturday 39 VRH)
Route 4
Hudson Falls – Fort
Edward
Establish Route 4 as trunk route with higher service level –
half-
hourly during peak service and hourly during mid- day
Saturday service level also increases
Current productivity on Route 4 is excellent

Comments from stakeholder, public and survey request
service
Serves population with high propensity to use transit and
increases service to regional facilities (Washington
County Municipal Center) Requires addition of 2,301
VRH annually

Route 5
Moreau- South Glens
Falls
Minor alignment changes to make service more direct

Implement scheduled service to Lamplighter
Adjust schedule to meet Northway Express commuter
service (6:50 am and 5:40 pm)
Interline with Route 11/12 to create Route 9 service
Increase service frequency and span as funding permits
Create evenly spaced consistent schedules on weekday
and Saturday services Current schedule has clustered service – more difficult to
use

Create consistent, easily understandable schedule
Increased service frequency helps attract riders
Survey/public requests for service to Lamplighter
Meeting Northway Express will support regional
connections and expand employment opportunities
Implementing proposed
schedule changes will likely
require small increas
es in
VHR
Route 6
West Loop Eliminate service

Deploy services to higher need/more productive services Low productivity on existing routes

Eliminate competition between Routes 6 and 7 at key
locations Annual savings: 1,209 VHR

(Weekdays 1,170 VRH from
and Saturdays 39 VRH)
Route 7
West Glens Falls Re
-align to continue service to key elements of Route 6,
retain school tripper services
Reverse direction so inbound travelers don’t have to cross
street
Increase service frequency and span as funding permit s
Create evenly spaced consistent schedules on weekday
and Saturday services Route 7 service area has strong potential

Reversing direction and adding trips will make service
more attractive and easier to use
Public outreach effort included interest for more service
Increased service consistent with HHS use of hotels along
route Requires addition of 403 VRH
annually

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 7-14 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Proposed Changes Justification Estimated Cost/Savings
Route 11/12
Glen Street/Aviation
Mall/Walmart/John
Burke No major changes proposed

Interline with some collector routes (Route 5)
Potential to eliminate one mid -day trip to John Burke
Apartments Route performs well and has good productivity
Interline helps address schedule concerns and creates
one
-seat rides
Eliminate trip to John Burke to alleviate schedule pressure No change

Improve Information
Systems Improve route schedules to make them clearer, easier to
read and use (sample schedules included as Appendix D.

Create stand -alone web -site.
Develop to scale system map and post at Ridge Street
Terminal and other key stops. Existing schedules are functional but have a lot of detail
that confuses readers and makes them difficult to
understand.

Existing web- based information is buried in City of Glens
Falls web -site and is hard to find and use. Schedules
may be posted as PDF rather than excel files.
Existing schedule is not to scale and is not intuitive to
riders. Costs estimated at $5,000 to
$10,000. Does not include
on-
going costs to update
schedules and web -site
periodically.

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 7-15 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Scenario Analysis
Part of the analysis tasked for the TDP was to analyze scenarios associated with an increase and
decrease in revenues. Our analysis is based on changes to GGFT’s existing service network, the
“base case” which, for purposes of this analysis, includes the eight year -round fixed- route
services. In this scenario, we assumed that none of the proposed recommendations have been
implemented. Under this case, if service cuts are required, the likely targets for service
reductions are:
• Eliminating weekday services with the lowest productivity (i.e., Routes 3 and 6).
• Closing Saturday service on all feeder routes and/or reducing service frequency on
Saturday trunk service.
• Terminating all evening services.
There are advantages and disadvantages associated with each of these proposals. Saturday
and evening services are less productive as compared with other parts of the system, however,
they provide essential lifeline service to the individuals who use them. Saturday and evening
services are also less resource intensive. As a result, to realize the necessary cost savings, all or
most services would need to be eliminated. Routes 3 and 6, on the other hand, also have
relatively lower productivity and many segments on these routes are close to other GGFT routes.
A s a result, many riders using Routes 3 and 6 will continue to have access to transit. These two
routes also operate all day and on Saturdays, thus the potential to realize significant savings is
greater.
In the event a service reduction is required, the TDP recommends eliminating all or partial service
provided by Routes 3 and 6. If the service cuts are less drastic, on the order of 5% of total
service hours, savings may be realized by eliminating Saturday services on Routes 3 and 6 and
reducing weekday service schedules. If the service cuts are more dramatic and require reducing
operating costs by 10%, weekday and Saturday service on Routes 3 and 6 will need to be
eliminated. These cuts will generate more savings than necessary. However, in order to retain
some service quality, we would recommend retaining the productive Route 6 weekday tripper
service and reinvesting some of the saved resources to expand service on Routes 4 and 7 (see
Figure 7- 9). Scheduling additional service on Routes 4 and 7 will help minimize the impact of
service reductions for some passengers in some neighborhoods.
Figure 7-9 Scenario Analysis Recommendations with Base Case Implemented
Scenario Change
Total
Service
Hours Service Change Highlights
Existing
Network –
80.5 Existing GGFT Route Network – 8 year- round fixed-routes
Scenario A -10% 73.5 Eliminate weekday and Saturday service on Routes 3 and 6 (save 16 VRH)
Reinvest some of the saved resources:
• Retain two scheduled tripper services on Route 6 (2 VRH)
• Increase service on Routes 4 and 7 to maintain service in key
neighborhoods and areas (add 4 VRH)
Net savings 8 VRH

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 7-16 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Scenario Change
Total
Service
Hours Service Change Highlights
Scenario B -5% 76.5 Eliminate Saturday service on Routes 3 and 6 (save 3 VRH)
Eliminate mid -day trip on each Route 3 and 6 (save 1 VRH)
Estimated savings 4 VRH
Scenario C +10% 89.85 Add two trips on Route 19 to Lake George
Add two trips during off peak (mid -day) to Route 4 (consistent all day 30 min)
Add one Saturday trip on Routes 4 and 11/12 even out schedule
Source: NelsonNygaard Consulting Associates
As a second analysis, we proposed service cuts or service increases based on a base case that
assumed the recommendations laid out in the TDP are implemented ( our recommendations for
this scenario analysis are to follow the system objectives described in the beginning of this
chapter ). Under this scenario, as resources increase, GGFT should build the trunk and
collector/distributor network until all routes operate at the recommended standards on weekdays
and then on Saturday. Once the minimum standards are met, service frequency on
collector/distributor routes may be increased to hourly service throughout the day, again filling out
the schedule on weekdays first and then on Saturdays. Likewise, when services need to be
reduced, GGFT may cut service during the off -peak period, initially by extending the span of the
off -peak period.
For example, the proposed schedule for the new Route 4 has hourly service between 11:00 am
and 1:00 pm. If additional resources become available, trips may be added to create a half –
hourly service during this period. If GGFT is required to reduce service, the off -peak period (with
hourly instead of half -hourly service) may be extended to include the hours between 10:00 am
and 2:00 pm. This approach ensures consistency in the schedule and that there is a clearly
understandable operating approach. It will also be straight -forward to communicate with
stakeholders and members of the public. Scenario analysis recommendations assuming the base
case is implemented are shown in Figure 7 -10.
Figure 7-10 Scenario Analysis Recommendations with Base Case Implemented
Scenario Change
Total
Service
Hours Service Change Highlights
Base Case – 81.75 System of 6 routes
Scenario A -10% 73.75 Increase duration of hourly service during off -peak (mid- day) on Route 4
Implement off- peak (mid-day) hourly schedule (11 am to 1 pm) on Route
11/12
Eliminate single trip on Route 2, 5 and 7
Scenario B -5% 77.85 Increase duration of hourly service during off -peak (mid- day) on Route 4
Eliminate single trip on Route 7
Slight reduction of Saturday service during off -peak (mid- day) on Routes 4
and 11/12

Transit Development Plan • Final Plan
GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT

Page 7-17 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Scenario Change
Total
Service
Hours Service Change Highlights
Scenario C +10% 89.85 Add two trips on Route 19 to Lake George
Add two trips during off peak (mid -day) to Route 4 (consistent all day 30 min)
Add one Saturday trip on Routes 4 and 11/12 even out schedule
Source: NelsonNygaard Consulting Associates

APPENDIX A
RESULTS FROM THE ON-BOARD
P
ASSENGER SURVEY

47 Maple Street , Suite 103
B urlington, VT 05401
( 802) 658-3247 FAX: (802 ) 860 -0310

M E M O R A N D U M
To: Scott Scopczyk, Transportation Director, GGFT
Aaron Frankenfeld, Transportation Planning Director, A/GFTC
From: Bethany Whitaker, NelsonNygaard
Date: December 3, 2008
Subject: TDP Ridership Survey Results

Overview
As part of the TDP process , Nelson Nygaard (NN) carried out two surveys: a rider survey with
GGFT transit users and intercept interviews with non-riders. In total, we collected 334 surveys
and 53 intercept interviews. This data will be used to support several aspects of the TDP,
including detailed origin and destination analysis, route and system evaluations. The purpose of
this memo , however, is to provide an overview of the survey results. Copies of the surveys are
attached at the end of the memo.

Our initial evaluation of the survey results, suggests the following about exiting GGFT riders:
• Passengers are very appreciative of GGFT services. They ride the bus frequently and
are generally pleased with the service.
• Most passengers use the bus to travel between home and work, however, a
considerable number of passengers also use GGFT for other trip destinations, such as
shopping, recreation and other purposes.
• Passengers expressed a strong desire for more service. They are interested in more
trips on existing services as well as more evening and weekend service.
• Several passengers expressed an interest in service to regional destinations, including
Saratoga, Lake George Village (year round) and Warrensburg.
Preliminary data from non- riders suggests a lack of awareness and understanding of GGFT
service among non- riders. A key perception among non- riders is that GGFT is not convenient for
them. That said, 17% of those interviewed said they would consider riding the bus if gasoline
prices rose to $4.00 per gallon.
Survey Administration
Transit Riders
The purpose for surveying GGFT transit riders was to understand existing travel patterns and
gain insight into traveler attitudes, preferences and priorities. The survey was administered over

Page 2 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
a two day period, Wednesday, November 12 and Thursday, November 13, and staggered over
these days to ensure all service hours were surveyed. S urveyors were in the field from 12:30 pm
to 10:45 pm on Wednesday and from 5:45 am until 1:00 pm on Thursday.

A key goal of the survey administration was to collect as large a sample as possible. Therefore,
surveyor s were assigned to ride the busiest routes in the GGFT system , ask passengers to fill out
the survey and collect it from them. On routes with lower ridership, bus drivers distributed and
collected pre -coded surveys. Passengers who filled out the survey also received a bus token for
a future trip on GGFT; this was greatly appr eciated and significantly increased the survey
response rate . Overall, the refusal rate was very low, and a high percentage of riders traveling on
GGFT on Wednesday and Thursday completed surveys. In total 334 surveys were completed.
Non-Riders
NN also c onducted a survey with non- riders, specifically targeting South Glens Falls and West
Glens Falls; two areas where transit ridership is lower than would be expected. Our original plan
was to interview people outside of the Stewart’s shop at the corner of Corinth and Big Bay Roads
in West Glens Falls and Hannafords on Saratoga Avenue and William Street in South Glens
Falls . Hannafords, however, has a no solicitation policy ; thus , surveyors were not allowed on the
premises. NN did conduct interviews outside of Stewart’s on Wednesday afternoon and
Thursday morning and collected a total of 53 competed interviews. While this is not considered
an adequate sample size, this memo provides an overview of the results. NN will make additional
efforts to interview m embers of the general public later in the study.
Results – Existing GGFT Transit Riders
As discussed the goal of the transit rider survey was to understand how passenger use GGFT
service and gain insights into their attitudes and priorities for new service. As mentioned, this
data will support a detailed analysis of individual routes and the overall system, however, this
memo is intended to provide an overview of the results. Survey results are presented in two
parts ; the first section presents information about the passenger’s trip and the second section
presents results on attitudes and priorities for new service.
Part I: Travel characteristics
Trip Origin and Destinations
• Most riders use GGFT to
travel between work and
home.
Ride r Trip Origins a nd De stina tions
0%
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Ho meWo rk
Recreation/Social
Scho olOtherShopp ing
Medic al/D ental
Coming f romGoing to

Access and Egress Modes
• Most riders walked to and
from their bus stop.
• The average walking time at
the beginning of the trip was
6.9 minutes and 7.1 minutes
at the end of the trip.

Ride r Acce ss a nd Egre ss Mode s
0%
10% 20%
30%
40% 50% 60%
70%
80%
90%Trans f erred Walked
BikedDrov e to bus
s top Was dropped
of f Other

Type of Fare Paid

Just under 40% of the riders
paid a cash fare for their trip.
• A bout 20% used a monthly
pass and 18% used a bus
token.
Type of Fa re Pa id
$1.00 c as h f are,
39.8%
$0.50 dis c ount c as h, 13.0%Bus token, 18.1%
Monthly pas s , 21.1%
Other, 8.1%

Frequency of Riding GGFT
• Most riders are frequent users
of the system .
• 51% ride the bus 5 days per
week.
• 36% use the system between
2 and 4 days per week.
Fre que ncy of Riding GGFT
5 day s per w eek, 50.9%
Les s than 1
day /month, 1.8%
2 to 4 day s per w eek, 35.5%
1 to 4 day s per month, 9.4%
First time, 2.4%

Rider Travel Options without GGFT
• Riders depend on GGFT.
• If transit service was not
available:
o 28% of the riders would
take a taxi ;
o 27% would walk ; and,
o 20% would get a ride from
someone else.

Mode of Tra ve l if GGFT w a s not Ava ila ble
0.0% 5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0% 25.0% 30.0%Dr iv e
alone Someone
w ould
driv e me Carpool
Ta x iOtherHitc hhike Walk BikeWould
not make this tr ip

Age of Survey Respondents
• Surveyed transit riders are
fairly equally distributed
across a
ge categories, with
fewer riders aged 20 or less.
• The median age of Warren
county area residents is 39.0
(US Census) suggesting the
age of bus riders is generally
consistent with the general
population.

Age Ca te gory of Re sponde nts
0.0% 5.0%
10.0% 15.0% 20.0%
25.0%under 20
21-25 26-34 35-44 45-55 55 plus

Part II: Traveler Attitudes and Preferences
Passengers were asked to rank GGFT service on ten service characteristics. In general, riders
gave GGFT high marks; all categories of service received considerably more “excellent” ratings
than “poor” ratings.
The service characteristics with the highest rankings were 1) safety; 2) affordable fares; 3)
condition of buses; and 4) service is easy to understanding. GGFT characteristics with the lowest
ratings were 1) days and hours of operation; and 2) buses run on time.

Page 5 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
GGFT Pa sse nge r Surve y Re sults: Pa sse nge r Attitude s
050 100 150 200250
Affordable fare
Servic e frequenc y
Day s /hours of operation Loc ations s erved
Trans fer c onvenienc e Bus es run on time
Convenienc e of routing
Servic e eas y to unders tand Condition of busPers onal s afety
Poor
Ac c eptable
Ex c ellent

When asked to rank the relative priority for potential service changes, passenger rankings placed
the highest priority on running additional trips and a general interest in extending the service.
Improving schedule reliability was ranked as a high priority, but only marginally more so than
lowering fares . Getting more information from drivers received the fewest number of high priority
rankings.
GGFT Passengers Relative Priority for Potential Service Improvements
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%
Lower fares & pas s
pric es
Run additional trips Improve s c hedule
reliability
More information from
driver
Ex tend bus to
Low
Moderate
High

Passengers were also asked to select two of the potential changes as their highest priorities. In
this case, passengers were most likely to select “run additional trips”; this potential change
received the highest number of first and second priority rankings . “Lower fares and pass prices”
received the second highest number of first priority rankings.

Page 6 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Pas s enger Rank ings of Two Highes t Priorities
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%
Lower fares & pas s pric esRun additional tripsImprove s c hedule
reliability
More information from
driver
Ex tend bus to
Firs t Priorit y
Sec ond Priority

The survey also provided passengers with three opportunities to write in new destinations or
types of service improvements. For purposes of this analysis, t he answers provided in all three
questions were tallied together. While a wide range of suggestions were provided, the top
recommendat ions included:
• Provide service to Saratoga (42 votes)
• Extend evening service (37 votes)
• Provide service to Lake George Village year round (31 votes)
• Expand w eekend service – includes increased Saturday service and Sunday service (20
votes)
• Offer service to Warrensburg (9 votes)
• Other ideas included extending West Glens Fall service; service on Manor Drive; more
service to outlets and service to West Mountain Road.
Results – Non -Riders
As discussed, NN also conducted an intercept interview survey with non- riders to get a sense of
their knowledge and awareness of existing service and to understand their reluctance to use
GGFT service s. Challenges in the administration of the survey resulted in a lower than
anticipated response level, therefore, NN will follow-up with non- riders and conduct another
survey later in the study. The following provides a brief overview of non- rider attitudes collected
to date:
• While 60% of survey respondents knew that there was public transportation available,
40% did not. This suggests a sizable portion of the non-riding public has low
awareness of GGFT services.
• Among the people who knew of the service, 69% identified the provider as GGFT.

Page 7 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
• 44% of the respondents had ridden GGFT at least once in the past. Among those with
exper ience on GGFT, 44% had ridden the bus at least 3 times and 30% more than 3
times.
• The primary reasons given for not taking the bus were 1) bus takes too long (26%); 2)
other – typically that they had a vehicle available (16%); 3) I don’t know where to cat ch
the bus (14%) and 4) I don’t feel safe on the bus (12%).
• When given a list of potential improvements, respondents reported they would be
more likely to take the bus if :
o The bus stopped closer to my home or work (31%)
o Gasoline prices rise to $4.00 a gallon; (17%)
o N othing – they’ll never take the bus (15%) ; and
o The bus started earlier and finished later (10%) .
• The majority of individuals interviewed reported living in Kingsbury (61%), outside
Washington and Warren County (14%) and in South Glens Falls (10%).
• The vast majority (96%) were licensed drivers.

APPENDIX B
RESULTS FROM NON-RIDER SURVEY AND
PUBLIC OUTREACH EFFORTS

47 Maple Street , Suite 103
B urlington, VT 05401
( 802) 658-3247 FAX: (802 ) 860 -0310

M E M O R A N D U M
To: Scott Scopczyk, Transportation Director, GGFT
Aaron Frankenfeld, Transportation Planning Director, A/GFTC
Sarah Gebbie-Measeck
From: Bethany Whitaker, NelsonNygaard
Date: March 26, 2009
Subject: Public Outreach and Mail back Survey Results

Overview
This memo reports on the results of two public outreach efforts conducted as part of the Greater
Glens Falls Transit (GGFT) Transit Development Plan (TDP): 1) a mail survey distributed to
residents of South Glens Falls and West Glens Falls; 2) a public meeting held on Monday, March
9 at the Crandall Public Library in downtown Glens Falls. Results from each effort are described
in subsequent sections with m ajor implications for the TDP are summarized as follows:

• Survey results and comments at the public meeting efforts reinforce early findings that
show passenger s are very appreciation of GGFT services.
• Proposed service changes that suggest operating on Saratoga Street only through
South Glens Falls should be revisited. A small group of residents from SGF village
expressed the importance of keeping service on Main and Saratoga Street.
• Scheduled service to Lamplighter Acres should be r e-visited. Several respondents
said they would like to see scheduled service to Lamplighter Acres, including a
designed stop.
• Hudson Falls residents are excited about the addition of an additional route. However,
no residents of Fort Edward participated in the outreach.
• There is a need for more information and awareness about the bus service. Nearly
60% of the survey respondents reported living within a 5 minute walk of bus service.
Despite generally favorably impressions of the GGFT, only a handful of survey
respondents were regular riders.
• Consistent with transit riders everywhere, people asked for extended service hours
and more geographic coverage. This includes additional evening service and
weekend service.

Page 2 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
Mail Survey with West Glens Falls and South Glens Falls Residents
A/GFTC mailed a survey to residents of South Glens Falls and West Glens Falls in an attempt to
reach GGFT riders and non-riders. The objective of this survey was to understand residents’
experience with GGFT service and evaluate how service could be improved to attract more
riders. By design, the survey was short and open- ended; the study team wanted to encourage
responses, present no bias in the questioning and allow for any reasons might give regarding
their experience using transit. The survey also produced 26 names for the GGFT mailing list. A
copy of the survey is attached as Appendix A.

In total, 86 people responded to the survey. The distribution of responses by residents was
Queensbury (51%); South Glens Falls (22%); Moreau (26%) and other (1%). The majority (73%)
of the respondents reported having access to an automobile.

A series of questions asked people about their awareness of bus service near their homes:

• 69% (59 people) said they had bus service near their home;
• 60% (52 people) reported being able to walk to a bus route in 5 minutes or less.
• 16% (14 individuals) were not sure if they lived near a bus stop or not.
• Nearly half (48%) said they had ridden on GGFT in the past .

The survey also had a question which asked people which statement best describes their most
recent experience on GGFT. A sub- set of the total respondents (39 individuals) responded to the
question. The people who responded to the question reported the following:

• Most (74%) said “The last time I used GGFT was great. I would like to ride the bus more
often” as the statement that best described their most recent experience.
• 21% agreed with “The last time I used GGFT, I got where I needed to go. I prefer not to
use GGFT.”
• 5% agreed with the statement that read, “I don’t like using GGFT buses.”

The survey also included an open- ended question asking people for specific changes that would
encourage them to ride the bus. Respondents said the following would encourage them to use
GGFT:

• Increase d service hours (8)
• Regularly scheduled service to Lamplighter Acres (7)
• More information about the service (5)
• Saturday and weekend service (3)
• More covered waiting areas and bus shelters (2)
• Expanded geographic coverage (2)

The survey also had an open ended question about public transportation in Glens Falls. Most
responses were very favorabl e. A sample of the responses is included below.

“I have used the bus for past 15 years. Our only transportation. Works out good for us.”

“I have been around for many, many years and it has always been great. Keep up the good
work.”

“Used the bus once about 20 years ago when my car wouldn’t start. Was good alternative
transportation to work (Queensbury to downtown Glens Falls)”.

Page 3 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
“May have to ride the bus later on in years.”

“Keep up the good work.”

Public Meeting

Staff from GGFT, A/GFTC and Nelson Nygaard held a public meeting at the Crandall Public
Library in downtown Glens Falls. Announcements for the meeting were placed in all GGFT
vehicles, at major transit stops and in public places and community centers. The meeting was
structured as a workshop format and attendees were encouraged to drop by to the meeting as
their schedule permitted. Visual aids included maps showing existing GGFT service and the
possible service changes. When members of the public came to the meeting, staff explained the
potential changes, asked for their feedback and gave them an opportunity to draw new routes,
ask questions and make comments. Individuals who had specific comments were encouraged to
write them down. In addition, the Washington County Department of Social Services also
submitted written comments. The open house was staffed from 2:00 pm until 6:00 pm. In total,
approximately 20 people stopped by during the four -hour period. Summarized comments
received as part of this meeting included (in no particular order):
• Most people were amenable to the possible service changes. Exceptions to this included:
o Need for service on both Main and Saratoga Streets in South Glens Falls Village
o Need to keep Route 3 operating through neighborhoods, especially to Hartford and
Sagamore Streets.
• A dd a bus run extending from Burgoyne Avenue to Dix Avenue to Quaker Road.
• Trolley service should start earlier in the season.
• Operate service to Aviation Mall later in the evening.
• A bus to go all the way up Route 4 to Route 149 in Fort Ann and then to Lake George.
• As a rural county, it would be helpful to reach some of the out -lying areas.
• Add evening runs to the Hudson Falls/Fort Edward routes as well as the Bay Street area.
• Add evening hours to some of the primary runs to accommodate peop le who work later or
who have non- traditional shifts.
• S ome clients have difficulty reading/translating the bus schedules.
• Add mid- day service on South Glens Falls run.
• Add a stop at Aldi
• Make Stichman Tower request only stop
• Add service to Saratoga Springs
• Sunday service to Wal- Mart during the non-trolley season

Page 4 • Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.
• Increase service to Hudson Falls – hourly service is not enough
• Increase frequency on Bay Road – college students want and need it
• Advertise
• Add Sunday service (2)
• More evening service
In addition to meeting with members of the public at the library , NelsonNygaard staff also brought
the maps to the Ridge Street terminal and discussed potential service changes with rider s as they
waited for the bus. Staff was available at this location for about an hour between 12:00 pm and
1:00 pm. Results from this outreach effort mirrored those received at the Crandall Library:
• Most people were interested and open to the potential service changes. No major
negative comments were received.
• Hudson Falls residents were excited about increased service, especially people who need
to travel on Boulevard or Dix as service to these locations is only available once every two
hours.
• Increase Sunday and evening service
• Add more service to Exit 18.

APPENDIX C
SAMPLE OPERATIONS SCHEDULES FOR
PROPOSED RECOMMENDATIONS

Weekday
Weekday Block SummaryBLK PO
INOUT
PI RVH DH TVH
101 5:45 AM 6:00 AM 12:57 PM 1:12 PM 6:57:00 0:30:00 7:27:00
102 6:15 AM 6:30 AM 5:58 PM 6:13 PM 11:28:00 0:30:00 11:58:00
103 6:07 AM 6:12 AM 6:42 PM 6:47 PM 12:30:00 0:10:00 12:40:00
104 6:37 AM 6:42 AM 11:58 AM 12:13 PM 5:16:00 0:20:00 5:36:00
105 8:15 AM 8:30 AM 11:37 AM 11:52 AM 3:07:00 0:30:00 3:37:00
AM -1 7:30 AM 7:58 AM 0:28:00 0:28:00
AM – 2 10:00 AM 10:25 AM 0:25:00 0:25:00 151 1:15 PM 1:30 PM 5:39 PM 5:54 PM 4:09:00 0:30:00 4:39:00
152 2:15 PM 2:30 PM 5:25 PM 5:40 PM 2:55:00 0:30:00 3:25:00
153 12:00 PM 12:15 PM 5:12 PM 5:17 PM 4:57:00 0:20:00 5:17:00
PM – 2 4:00 PM 4:25 PM 0:25:00 0:25:00
Subtotal 52:37:00 3:20:00 55:57:00 191 6:25 PM 6:30 PM 9:09 PM 9:19 PM 2:39:00 0:15:00 2:54:00
Total 55:16:00 3:35:00 58:51:00 09ij
Route 2 – Bay / College
Lv Bay BayQ’bury Hannaford Ar
PO Block RST Sanford Quaker ACC Town Hall Plaza RST PI
101 7:30 AM 7:33 AM 7:37 AM 7:41 AM 7:42 AM 7:49 AM 7:57 AM to 5 Changes
101 8:30 AM 8:33 AM 8:37 AM 8:41 AM 8:42 AM 8:49 AM 8:57 AM to 5Increase schedule from 7 trips to 8 trips
101 9:45 AM 9:48 AM 9:52 AM 9:56 AM 9:57 AM 10:04 AM 10:12 AM to 5 Replace Regency Park w/ Hannaford Plaza
101 11:00 AM 11:03 AM 11:07 AM 11:11 AM 11:12 AM 11:19 AM 11:27 AM to 5
101 12:30 PM 12:33 PM 12:37 PM 12:41 PM 12:42 PM 12:49 PM 12:57 PM 1:12 PM
151 2:00 PM 2:03 PM 2:07 PM 2:11 PM 2:12 PM 2:19 PM 2:27 PM to 5
151 3:30 PM 3:33 PM 3:37 PM 3:41 PM 3:42 PM 3:49 PM 3:57 PM to 5
151 4:40 PM 4:43 PM 4:47 PM 4:51 PM 4:52 PM 4:59 PM 5:07 PM to 5
6:25 PM 191 6:30 PM 6:33 PM 6:37 PM 6:41 PM 6:42 PM 6:49 PM 6:57 PM
Routes 3/4 – Glens Falls / Hudson Falls / Fort Edward
` Lv Warren Dix Super Wal Boulevard Dix Main St County Broadway Amtrak County Main St Dix Boulevard Wal Super Dix Warren AR
PO Block RST McDonald McDonald K Mart Feeder Feeder Villlage Park Center East Station Center Villlage Park Feeder Feeder Mart K McDonald McDonald RS TPI6:07 AM 103 6:12 AM 6:19 AM 6:22 AM 6:27 AM 6:30 AM 6:33 AM 6:39 AM 6:42 AM 6:46 AM 6:48 AM 6:52 AM 6:56 AM to 3
6:37 AM 104 6:42 AM 6:49 AM 6:52 AM 6:57 AM 7:00 AM 7:03 AM 7:09 AM 7:12 AM 7:16 AM 7:18 AM 7:22 AM 7:26 AM to 4
103 7:00 AM — 7:03 AM 7:06 AM 7:08 AM 7:12 AM — 7:16 AM 7:19 AM 7:24 AM 7:27 AM 7:30 AM 7:36 AM 7:43 AM 7:47 AM 7:49 AM 7:53 AM 7:57 AM to 3 104 7:30 AM 7:34 AM — 7:37 AM 7:39 AM — 7:42 AM 7:49 AM 7:52 AM 7:57 AM 8:00 AM 8:03 AM 8:09 AM 8:12 AM 8:16 AM 8:18 AM 8:22 AM 8:26 AM to 4
103 8:00 AM — 8:03 AM 8:06 AM 8:08 AM 8:12 AM — 8:16 AM 8:19 AM 8:24 AM 8:27 AM 8:30 AM 8:36 AM 8:43 AM 8:47 AM 8:49 AM 8:53 AM 8:57 AM to 3
104 8:30 AM 8:34 AM — 8:37 AM 8:39 AM — 8:42 AM 8:49 AM 8:52 AM 8:57 AM 9:00 AM 9:03 AM 9:09 AM 9:12 AM 9:16 AM 9:18 AM 9:22 AM 9:26 AM to 4
103 9:00 AM — 9:03 AM 9:06 AM 9:08 AM 9:12 AM — 9:16 AM 9:19 AM 9:24 AM 9:27 AM 9:30 AM 9:36 AM 9:43 AM 9:47 AM 9:49 AM 9:53 AM 9:57 AM to 3
104 9:30 AM 9:34 AM — 9:37 AM 9:39 AM — 9:42 AM 9:49 AM 9:52 AM 9:57 AM 10:00 AM 10:03 AM 10:09 AM 10:12 AM 10:16 AM 10:18 AM 10:22 AM 10:26 AM to 4
103 10:00 AM — 10:03 AM 10:06 AM 10:08 AM 10:12 AM — 10:16 AM 10:19 AM 10:24 AM 10:27 AM 10:30 AM 10:36 AM 10:43 AM 10:47 AM 10:49 AM10:53 AM 10:57 AM to 3
104 10:30 AM 10:34 AM — 10:37 AM 10:39 AM– 10:42 AM 10:49 AM 10:52 AM 10:57 AM 11:00 AM 11:03 AM 11:09 AM 11:12 AM 11:16 AM 11:18 AM 11:22 AM11:26 AM to 12
103 11:00 AM — 11:03 AM 11:06 AM 11:08 AM 11:12 AM — 11:16 AM 11:19 AM 11:24 AM 11:27 AM 11:30 AM 11:36 AM 11:43 AM 11:47 AM 11:49 AM11:53 AM 11:57 AM to 3
103 12:00 PM 12:04 PM — 12:07 PM 12:09 PM– 12:12 PM 12:19 PM 12:22 PM 12:27 PM 12:30 PM 12:33 PM 12:39 PM 12:42 PM 12:46 PM 12:48 PM 12:52 PM12:56 PM to 4
103 1:00 PM — 1:03 PM 1:06 PM 1:08 PM 1:12 PM — 1:16 PM 1:19 PM 1:24 PM 1:27 PM 1:30 PM 1:36 PM 1:43 PM 1:47 PM 1:49 PM1:53 PM 1:57 PM to 3
153 1:30 PM 1:34 PM — 1:37 PM 1:39 PM– 1:42 PM 1:49 PM 1:52 PM 1:57 PM 2:00 PM 2:03 PM 2:09 PM 2:12 PM 2:16 PM 2:18 PM 2:22 PM2:26 PM to 4
103 2:00 PM — 2:03 PM 2:06 PM 2:08 PM 2:12 PM — 2:16 PM 2:19 PM 2:24 PM 2:27 PM 2:30 PM 2:36 PM 2:43 PM 2:47 PM 2:49 PM2:53 PM 2:57 PM to 3
153 2:30 PM 2:34 PM — 2:37 PM 2:39 PM– 2:42 PM 2:49 PM 2:52 PM 2:57 PM 3:00 PM 3:03 PM 3:09 PM 3:12 PM 3:16 PM 3:18 PM 3:22 PM3:26 PM to 4
103 3:00 PM — 3:03 PM 3:06 PM 3:08 PM 3:12 PM — 3:16 PM 3:19 PM 3:24 PM 3:27 PM 3:30 PM 3:36 PM 3:43 PM 3:47 PM 3:49 PM3:53 PM 3:57 PM to 3
153 3:30 PM 3:34 PM — 3:37 PM 3:39 PM– 3:42 PM 3:49 PM 3:52 PM 3:57 PM 4:00 PM 4:03 PM 4:09 PM 4:12 PM 4:16 PM 4:18 PM 4:22 PM4:26 PM to 4
103 4:00 PM — 4:03 PM 4:06 PM 4:08 PM 4:12 PM — 4:16 PM 4:19 PM 4:24 PM 4:27 PM 4:30 PM 4:36 PM 4:43 PM 4:47 PM 4:49 PM4:53 PM 4:57 PM to 3
153 4:30 PM 4:34 PM — 4:37 PM 4:39 PM– 4:42 PM 4:49 PM 4:52 PM 4:57 PM 5:00 PM 5:03 PM 5:09 PM 5:12 PM 5:17 PM
103 5:00 PM — 5:03 PM 5:06 PM 5:08 PM 5:12 PM — 5:16 PM 5:19 PM 5:24 PM 5:27 PM 5:30 PM 5:36 PM 5:43 PM 5:47 PM 5:49 PM5:53 PM 5:57 PM to 3
103 6:00 PM 6:04 PM — 6:07 PM 6:09 PM– 6:12 PM 6:19 PM 6:22 PM 6:27 PM 6:30 PM 6:33 PM 6:39 PM 6:42 PM 6:47 PM
191 7:30 PM 7:34 PM — 7:37 PM 7:39 PM– 7:42 PM 7:49 PM 7:52 PM 7:57 PM 8:00 PM 8:03 PM 8:09 PM 8:12 PM 8:16 PM 8:18 PM 8:22 PM8:26 PM to 12
191 9:00 PM 9:04 PM — 9:07 PM 9:09 PM 9:19 PM

Route 5 – South Glens Falls / Moreau
`Lv Main SGF Lamplighter Bluebird Main AR
PO Block RST Saratoga HS Acres Gansevoort Fifth RST PI
Changes
5:45 AM 101 6:00 AM 6:09 AM 6:13 AM 6:19 AM 6:23 AM 6:29 AM to 12 Maintain 9 scheduled trips
101 7:00 AM 7:09 AM 7:13 AM 7:19 AM 7:23 AM 7:29 AM to 2 Shift 8:30a trip to 9:00a
101 8:00 AM 8:09 AM 8:13 AM 8:19 AM 8:23 AM 8:29 AM to 2Shift 10:00a trip to 10:15a
101 9:00 AM 9:09 AM 9:13 AM 9:20 AM 9:28 AM 9:32 AM 9:38 AM to 2 Shift Lamplighter trips for even spacing
101 10:15 AM 10:24 AM 10:28 AM 10:34 AM 10:38 AM 10:44 AM to 2 Operate Lamlighter as fixed route service
101 11:30 AM 11:39 AM 11:43 AM 11:50 AM 11:58 AM 12:02 PM 12:08 PM to 2
151 2:30 PM 2:39 PM 2:43 PM 2:49 PM 2:53 PM 2:59 PM to 12
151 4:00 PM 4:09 PM 4:13 PM 4:20 PM 4:28 PM 4:32 PM 4:38 PM to 2
151 5:10 PM 5:19 PM 5:23 PM 5:29 PM 5:33 PM 5:39 PM 5:54 PM
Route 7 – West Glens Falls
`Lv GF Knight Sanford GF Hannaford Van Dusen Main Hannaford Knight GF Ar
PO Block RST Hospital Staple Glen HS Plaza Luzerne McDonalds Plaza Staple Hospital RST PI6:15 AM 102 6:30 AM 6:34 AM 6:37 AM6:39 AM 6:44 AM 6:47 AM 6:50 AM 6:52 AM 6:55 AM 6:58 AM to 11
102 7:30 AM 7:34 AM 7:37 AM >>>Non-school Days>>>> 7:39 AM 7:44 AM 7:47 AM 7:50 AM 7:52 AM 7:55 AM 7:58 AM to 11 Changes
102 7:30 AM>>>School Days Only>>> 7:35 AM 7:38 AM 7:41 AM — — 7:41 AM 7:43 AM 7:46 AM 7:49 AM to 11 Consolidate 17 trips (6/7) into 9 trips
102 8:30 AM 8:34 AM 8:37 AM 8:39 AM 8:44 AM 8:47 AM 8:50 AM 8:52 AM 8:55 AM 8:58 AM to 11 60 minute peak headway; 90-120 minute base headway
102 10:00 AM 10:04 AM 10:07 AM 10:09 AM 10:14 AM 10:17 AM 10:20 AM 10:22 AM 10:25 AM 10:28 AM to 11 School day routing of 7:30 am & 3:00 pm trips
102 11:30 AM 11:34 AM 11:37 AM 11:39 AM 11:44 AM 11:47 AM 11:50 AM 11:52 AM 11:55 AM 11:58 AM to 11
102 1:30 PM 1:34 PM 1:37 PM 1:39 PM 1:44 PM 1:47 PM 1:50 PM 1:52 PM 1:55 PM 1:58 PM to 11
102 3:00 PM >>>School Days Only>>> 3:05 PM 3:08 PM 3:11 PM — — 3:11 PM 3:13 PM 3:16 PM 3:19 PM to 11
102 3:00 PM 3:04 PM 3:07 PM >>>Non-school Days>>>> 3:09 PM 3:14 PM 3:17 PM 3:20 PM 3:22 PM 3:25 PM 3:28 PM to 11
102 4:00 PM 4:04 PM 4:07 PM 4:09 PM 4:14 PM 4:17 PM 4:20 PM 4:22 PM 4:25 PM 4:28 PM to 11
102 5:00 PM 5:04 PM 5:07 PM 5:09 PM 5:14 PM 5:17 PM 5:20 PM 5:22 PM 5:25 PM 5:28 PM to 11
Routes 11/12 -Glen Street
Ar Lv
` Lv Glen Glen Glen Aviation J. Burke Ar Lv J. Burke Aviation Glen GlenAr
PO Block RST Sanford YMCA Quaker Mall Apts Walmart Walmart Apts Mall YMCA Sanford RST PI
101 6:30 AM 6:33 AM 6:35 AM 6:37 AM6:42 AM 6:42 AM 6:47 AM 6:51 AM 6:53 AM 6:58 AM to 5
102 7:00 AM 7:03 AM 7:05 AM 7:07 AM 7:10 AM 7:15 AM 7:15 AM 7:20 AM 7:22 AM 7:25 AM to 7
AM – 1 7:30 AM 7:33 AM 7:35 AM 7:37 AM 7:42 AM 7:42 AM 7:47 AM 7:51 AM 7:53 AM 7:58 AM
102 8:00 AM 8:03 AM 8:05 AM 8:07 AM 8:12 AM 8:14 AM 8:18 AM 8:20 AM 8:23 AM to 7
8:15 AM 105 8:30 AM 8:33 AM 8:35 AM 8:37 AM 8:42 AM 8:42 AM8:48 AM 8:50 AM 8:55 AM to 9
102 9:00 AM 9:03 AM 9:05 AM 9:07 AM 9:12 AM9:12 AM 9:14 AM 9:18 AM 9:20 AM 9:25 AM to 2
102 9:30 AM 9:33 AM 9:35 AM 9:37 AM 9:43 AM 9:43 AM9:48 AM 9:51 AM 9:53 AM 9:58 AM to 7
AM – 2 10:00 AM 10:03 AM 10:05 AM 10:07 AM 10:12 AM10:12 AM 10:14 AM 10:18 AM 10:20 AM 10:25 AM
102 10:30 AM 10:33 AM 10:35 AM 10:37 AM 10:42 AM 10:42 AM10:48 AM 10:51 AM 10:53 AM 10:58 AM to 2
102 11:00 AM 11:03 AM 11:05 AM 11:07 AM 11:12 AM11:12 AM 11:14 AM 11:18 AM 11:20 AM 11:25 AM to 7
104 11:30 AM 11:33 AM 11:35 AM 11:37 AM 11:42 AM 11:42 AM11:48 AM 11:51 AM 11:53 AM 11:58 AM 12:13 PM
102 12:00 PM 12:03 PM 12:05 PM 12:07 PM 12:12 PM12:12 PM 12:14 PM 12:21 PM 12:23 PM 12:28 PM to 2
102 12:30 PM 12:33 PM 12:35 PM 12:37 PM 12:42 PM 12:42 PM12:48 PM 12:51 PM 12:53 PM 12:58 PM to 2
102 1:00 PM 1:03 PM 1:05 PM 1:07 PM 1:12 PM1:12 PM 1:14 PM 1:18 PM 1:20 PM 1:25 PM to 7
1:15 PM 151 1:30 PM 1:33 PM 1:35 PM 1:37 PM 1:42 PM 1:42 PM1:48 PM 1:51 PM 1:53 PM 1:58 PM to 2
102 2:00 PM 2:03 PM 2:05 PM 2:07 PM 2:09 PM 2:09 PM 2:13 PM 2:15 PM 2:20 PM to 2
102 2:30 PM 2:33 PM 2:35 PM 2:37 PM 2:42 PM 2:42 PM2:48 PM 2:51 PM 2:53 PM 2:58 PM to 7
151 3:00 PM 3:03 PM 3:05 PM 3:07 PM 3:12 PM3:12 PM 3:14 PM 3:18 PM 3:20 PM 3:25 PM to 2
102 3:30 PM 3:33 PM 3:35 PM 3:37 PM 3:42 PM 3:42 PM3:48 PM 3:51 PM 3:53 PM 3:58 PM to 7
PM – 2 4:00 PM 4:03 PM 4:05 PM 4:07 PM 4:12 PM4:12 PM 4:14 PM 4:18 PM 4:20 PM 4:25 PM
102 4:30 PM 4:33 PM 4:35 PM 4:37 PM 4:42 PM 4:42 PM4:48 PM 4:51 PM 4:53 PM 4:58 PM to 7
152 5:00 PM 5:03 PM 5:05 PM 5:07 PM 5:09 PM 5:13 PM 5:13 PM 5:18 PM 5:20 PM 5:25 PM 5:40 PM
102 5:30 PM 5:33 PM 5:35 PM 5:37 PM 5:42 PM 5:42 PM5:48 PM 5:51 PM 5:53 PM 5:58 PM 6:13 PM
191 7:00 PM 7:03 PM 7:05 PM 7:07 PM 7:12 PM 7:12 PM7:18 PM 7:21 PM 7:23 PM 7:28 PM
191 8:30 PM 8:33 PM 8:35 PM 8:37 PM 8:42 PM 8:42 PM8:48 PM 8:51 PM 8:53 PM 8:58 PM
Route 9 – Glens Falls / Lake George
`Lv Hannaford Wal County Rt 9 Rt 9 LG LGRt 9 Rt 9 County Wal Hannaford Ar
PO Block RST Quaker mart Center Rt 149 Rt 9N Village Village Rt 9N Rt 149 Center mart Quaker RST PI
105 9:15 AM 9:20 AM 9:25 AM 9:33 AM 9:36 AM 9:41 AM 9:46 AM 9:50 AM 9:55 AM 10:00 AM 10:03 AM 10:11 AM 10:17 AM 10:22 AM to 9 Changes
105 10:30 AM 10:35 AM 10:40 AM 10:48 AM 10:51 AM 10:56 AM 11:01 AM 11:05 AM 11:10 AM 11:15 AM 11:18 AM 11:26 AM 11:32 AM 11:37 AM 11:52 AMExtend to Lake George Village
12:00 PM 153 12:15 PM 12:20 PM 12:25 PM 12:33 PM 12:36 PM 12:41 PM 12:46 PM 12:50 PM 12:55 PM 1:00 PM 1:03 PM 1:11 PM 1:17 PM 1:22 PM to 4 Change 12:30p trip to 12:15p
2:15 PM 152 2:30 PM 2:35 PM 2:40 PM 2:48 PM 2:51 PM 2:56 PM 3:01 PM 3:05 PM 3:10 PM 3:15 PM 3:18 PM 3:26 PM 3:32 PM 3:37 PM to 9 152 3:45 PM 3:50 PM 3:55 PM 4:03 PM 4:06 PM 4:11 PM 4:16 PM 4:20 PM 4:25 PM 4:30 PM 4:33 PM 4:41 PM 4:47 PM 4:52 PM to 11

SATURDAY
Saturday Block SummaryBLK PO
INOUT
PI RVH DH TVH
201
7:45 AM 8:00 AM 5:58 PM 6:13 PM 9:58:00 0:30:00 10:28:00
202
8:15 AM 8:30 AM 1:58 PM 2:13 PM5:28:00 0:30:00 5:58:00
203
7:37 AM 7:42 AM 6:12 PM 6:17 PM10:30:00 0:10:00 10:40:00
251 2:45 PM 3:00 PM 3:58 PM 4:13 PM 0:58:00 0:30:00 1:28:00
Total 26:54:00 1:40:00 28:34:00
Route 2 – Bay / College
Lv Bay Bay Q’buryGlen Hannaford Robert Wal Aviation Price Ar
PO Block RST Sanford Quaker Town Hall Hiland Meadows Quaker Gardens mart Mall Chopper RST
202 10:00 AM 10:03 AM 10:05 AM 10:10 AM 10:15 AM 10:21 AM 10:26 AM 10:31 AM 10:38 AM 10:43 AM 10:53 AM to 7
202 12:00 PM 12:03 PM 12:05 PM 12:10 PM 12:15 PM 12:21 PM 12:26 PM 12:31 PM 12:38 PM 12:43 PM 12:53 PM to 5Routes 3/4 – Glens Falls / Hudson Falls / Fort Edward
`Lv Warren Dix Super Wal Boulevard Dix Main St County Broadway Amtrak County Main St Dix Boulevard Wal Super Dix Warren AR
PO Block RST McDonald McDonald K MartFeeder Feeder Villlage Park Center East Station Center Villlage Park Feeder Feeder Mart K McDonald McDonald RS TPI
7:37 AM 203
7:42 AM 7:46 AM 7:48 AM 7:52 AM 7:56 AM
203 8:00 AM — 8:03 AM 8:06 AM 8:08 AM 8:12 AM– 8:16 AM 8:19 AM 8:24 AM 8:27 AM 8:30 AM 8:36 AM 8:43 AM 8:47 AM 8:49 AM8:53 AM 8:57 AM
203 9:00 AM 9:04 AM — 9:07 AM9:09 AM– 9:12 AM 9:19 AM 9:22 AM 9:27 AM 9:30 AM 9:33 AM 9:39 AM 9:42 AM 9:46 AM 9:48 AM 9:52 AM9:56 AM
203 10:00 AM — 10:03 AM 10:06 AM 10:08 AM 10:12 AM– 10:16 AM 10:19 AM 10:24 AM 10:27 AM 10:30 AM 10:36 AM 10:43 AM 10:47 AM 10:49 AM10:53 AM 10:57 AM
203 11:00 AM 11:04 AM — 11:07 AM11:09 AM– 11:12 AM 11:19 AM 11:22 AM 11:27 AM 11:30 AM 11:33 AM 11:39 AM 11:42 AM 11:46 AM 11:48 AM 11:52 AM11:56 AM
203 12:00 PM — 12:03 PM 12:06 PM 12:08 PM 12:12 PM– 12:16 PM 12:19 PM 12:24 PM 12:27 PM 12:30 PM 12:36 PM 12:43 PM 12:47 PM 12:49 PM12:53 PM 12:57 PM
203 1:00 PM 1:04 PM — 1:07 PM1:09 PM– 1:12 PM 1:19 PM 1:22 PM 1:27 PM 1:30 PM 1:33 PM 1:39 PM 1:42 PM 1:46 PM 1:48 PM 1:52 PM1:56 PM
203 2:00 PM — 2:03 PM 2:06 PM 2:08 PM 2:12 PM– 2:16 PM 2:19 PM 2:24 PM 2:27 PM 2:30 PM 2:36 PM 2:43 PM 2:47 PM 2:49 PM2:53 PM 2:57 PM
203 3:00 PM 3:04 PM — 3:07 PM3:09 PM– 3:12 PM 3:19 PM 3:22 PM 3:27 PM 3:30 PM 3:33 PM 3:39 PM 3:42 PM 3:46 PM 3:48 PM 3:52 PM3:56 PM
203 4:00 PM — 4:03 PM 4:06 PM 4:08 PM 4:12 PM– 4:16 PM 4:19 PM 4:24 PM 4:27 PM 4:30 PM 4:36 PM 4:43 PM 4:47 PM 4:49 PM4:53 PM 4:57 PM to 5
203 5:30 PM 5:34 PM — 5:37 PM5:39 PM– 5:42 PM 5:49 PM 5:52 PM 5:57 PM 6:00 PM 6:03 PM 6:09 PM 6:12 PM 6:17 PM
Route 5 – South Glens Falls / Moreau
` Lv Main SGF Bluebird Main AR
PO Block RST Saratoga HS Gansevoort Fifth RST PI
8:15 AM
202 8:30 AM 8:39 AM 8:44 AM 8:49 AM 8:53 AM 8:59 AM to 7
202 9:30 AM 9:39 AM 9:44 AM 9:49 AM 9:53 AM 9:59 AM to 2Add 9:30a trip
202 11:30 AM 11:39 AM 11:43 AM 11:49 AM 11:53 AM 11:59 AM to 2
202 1:00 PM 1:09 PM 1:13 PM 1:19 PM 1:23 PM 1:29 PM to 7
2:45 PM
251 3:00 PM 3:09 PM 3:13 PM 3:19 PM3:23 PM 3:29 PM to 7
203 5:00 PM 5:09 PM 5:13 PM 5:19 PM 5:23 PM 5:29 PM to 3

Route 7 – West Glens Falls
` Lv GF Knight Hannaford Van Dusen Main Hannaford Knight GF Ar
PO Block RST Hospital Staple Plaza Luzerne McDonalds Plaza Staple Hospital RST PI
202 9:00 AM 9:04 AM 9:07 AM 9:09 AM 9:14 AM 9:17 AM 9:20 AM 9:22 AM 9:25 AM 9:28 AM to 5
202 11:00 AM 11:04 AM 11:07 AM 11:09 AM 11:14 AM 11:17 AM 11:20 AM 11:22 AM 11:25 AM 11:28 AM to 5
202 1:30 PM 1:34 PM 1:37 PM 1:39 PM 1:44 PM 1:47 PM 1:50 PM 1:52 PM 1:55 PM 1:58 PM 2:13 PM Change from 1:00p to 1:30p
251 3:30 PM 3:34 PM 3:37 PM 3:39 PM 3:44 PM 3:47 PM 3:50 PM 3:52 PM 3:55 PM 3:58 PM 4:13 PMRoutes 11/12 -Glen Street
ArLv
` Lv Glen Glen Glen Aviation J. Burke Ar Lv J. Burke Aviation Glen Glen Ar
PO Block RST Sanford YMCA Quaker MallApts Walmart Walmart Apts Mall YMCA Sanford RST PI7:45 AM 201 8:00 AM 8:03 AM 8:05 AM 8:07 AM 8:12 AM 8:14 AM 8:18 AM 8:20 AM 8:23 AM
201 8:30 AM 8:33 AM 8:35 AM 8:37 AM 8:42 AM 8:42 AM8:48 AM 8:50 AM 8:55 AM
201 9:00 AM 9:03 AM 9:05 AM 9:07 AM 9:12 AM9:12 AM 9:14 AM 9:18 AM 9:20 AM 9:25 AM
201 9:30 AM 9:33 AM 9:35 AM 9:37 AM 9:43 AM 9:43 AM9:48 AM 9:51 AM 9:53 AM 9:58 AM
201 10:00 AM 10:03 AM 10:05 AM 10:07 AM 10:12 AM10:12 AM 10:14 AM 10:18 AM 10:20 AM 10:25 AM
201 10:30 AM 10:33 AM 10:35 AM 10:37 AM 10:42 AM 10:42 AM10:48 AM 10:51 AM 10:53 AM 10:58 AM
201 11:00 AM 11:03 AM 11:05 AM 11:07 AM 11:12 AM11:12 AM 11:14 AM 11:18 AM 11:20 AM 11:25 AM
201 11:30 AM 11:33 AM 11:35 AM 11:37 AM 11:42 AM 11:42 AM11:48 AM 11:51 AM 11:53 AM 11:58 AM
201 12:00 PM 12:03 PM 12:05 PM 12:07 PM 12:12 PM12:12 PM 12:14 PM 12:21 PM 12:23 PM 12:28 PM
201 12:30 PM 12:33 PM 12:35 PM 12:37 PM 12:42 PM 12:42 PM12:48 PM 12:51 PM 12:53 PM 12:58 PM
201 1:00 PM 1:03 PM 1:05 PM 1:07 PM 1:12 PM1:12 PM 1:14 PM 1:18 PM 1:20 PM 1:25 PM
201 1:30 PM 1:33 PM 1:35 PM 1:37 PM 1:42 PM 1:42 PM1:48 PM 1:51 PM 1:53 PM 1:58 PM
201 2:00 PM 2:03 PM 2:05 PM 2:07 PM 2:09 PM2:09 PM 2:13 PM 2:15 PM 2:20 PM
201 2:30 PM 2:33 PM 2:35 PM 2:37 PM 2:42 PM 2:42 PM2:48 PM 2:51 PM 2:53 PM 2:58 PM
201 3:00 PM 3:03 PM 3:05 PM 3:07 PM 3:12 PM3:12 PM 3:14 PM 3:18 PM 3:20 PM 3:25 PM
201 3:30 PM 3:33 PM 3:35 PM 3:37 PM 3:42 PM 3:42 PM3:48 PM 3:51 PM 3:53 PM 3:58 PM
201 4:00 PM 4:03 PM 4:05 PM 4:07 PM 4:12 PM4:12 PM 4:14 PM 4:18 PM 4:20 PM 4:25 PM
201 4:30 PM 4:33 PM 4:35 PM 4:37 PM 4:42 PM 4:42 PM4:48 PM 4:51 PM 4:53 PM 4:58 PM
201 5:00 PM 5:03 PM 5:05 PM 5:07 PM 5:09 PM 5:13 PM5:13 PM 5:18 PM 5:20 PM 5:25 PM
201 5:30 PM 5:33 PM 5:35 PM 5:37 PM 5:42 PM 5:42 PM5:48 PM 5:51 PM 5:53 PM 5:58 PM 6:13 PM

APPENDIX D
SELECT EXAMPLES OF TRANSIT AGENCY
PASSENGER SCHEDULES

BUS SCHEDULE
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Call: 
##4!sGo online: cctaride.org
STEP 2: FOLD ALONG LINE
STEP 1: FOLD ALONG LINE
Holidays
There is no bus service on the following holidays: New Year’s Day, Easter
(only AM Sunday Special; no Sunday UMall or Sunday Special in PM),
Memorial Day, July 4th, Labor Day, Thanksgiving, Christmas.
Other Services
BIKES ON THE BUS
All CCTA buses are equipped with easy to use bike racks. Bike racks hold
a maximum of two bikes and are available on a first come, first served basis.
There is no extra charge for bringing your bike on the bus.
WHEELCHAIRS ON THE BUS
All CCTA buses are equipped with wheelchair lifts and two wheelchair tie-
down spaces. Just ask the driver if you need assistance.
PARATRANSIT SERVICE
Lift-equipped vans are available for those who cannot use the regular bus
service. For information and to apply for eligibility, please call 864-CCTA
(2282).
HEARING AND SIGHT SERVICES

CCTA phone lines are equipped with a telecommunications device for
the deaf (TDD). Our TTY # is 264-1033. Passengers can also contact CCTA
through the Vermont Relay system by calling 800-253-0191. System Guides
in large print are available on request. Please call 864-CCTA (2282).Complete maps of all CCTA routes are available
by going online to www.cctaride.org
Welcome to CCTA!
Thank you for choosing us for your transportation needs!
By using public transportation, you’re helping the en-
vironment, reducing congestion on our roadways, and
saving money!
Our mission is to promote and operate safe, convenient,
accessible, innovative and sustainable public transporta-
tion services in the Chittenden County region that reduce
congestion and pollution, encourage transit-oriented
development and enhance the quality of life for all.
It’s Easy to Ride!
Plan to get to the bus stop 5 minutes before the bus is scheduled to arr
ive.
Have your fare ready. All CCTA buses have electronic fare boxes that accept
coins and dollar bills. Drivers however, CANNOT make change. You may also
use coupons, a Ten-Ride Ticket, or a Monthly Bus Pass.
TRANSFERS
: If you need to take more than one bus to get where you want
to go, ALWAYS ask the driver for a transfer to the next bus when you exit
the first bus. Please keep in mind that you cannot transfer back on the same
route you received the transfer from.
1
University Mall / Airport
SERVICE TO:
University Mall
Burlington International Airport UVM
Downtown Burlington
CCTA Fares
REGULAR:
$1.25/One-way $10/Adult Ten-Ride Ticket
$42/Adult Monthly Pass
Exact fare required; drivers will not make change.
DISCOUNT:
$.60/One-way $5/Ten-Ride Ticket $21/Monthly Pass
CCTA discount fares available to those age 6 to 17, seniors 60 and over,
Medicare card holders and riders with a CCTA Disabled & Senior ID.
Children under 6 ride free when accompanied by a fare-paying passenger.
UVM AND CHAMPLAIN COLLEGE “RIDE CCTA FREE”:
Students, faculty, and staff with a valid ID ride all CCTA buses for free!
If you need to change buses, be sure to ask for a transfer. Visit CCTA’s
website for complete program information.
ST. MICHAEL’S COLLEGE “RIDE CCTA FREE”:
Students with a valid ID ride all CCTA buses, with the exception of the LINK
Express routes, for free! If you need to change buses, be sure to ask for a
transfer. Visit CCTA’s website for complete program information.
How to Buy Tickets
BY PHONE: Ten-Ride Tickets and Monthly Bus Passes can be purchased by
calling 864-CCTA (2282) Mon through Fri, 8:00am to 5:00 pm. TTY# (802)

s6ERMONT2ELAY3ERVICE s-ASTER#ARD6ISAACCEPTED
AT TICKET OUTLETS: Tickets are available at many locations within
Chittenden County. Please call 864-CCTA (2282) for a complete list of
CCTA ticket outlets.

ROUTE*
SCHEDULE
1University Mall/Airport
Cherry Street
Main & Univ. Hgts.
UMall
Airport
UMall Country ParkS. Union
S. Willard
Staples Plaza
Barnes & Noble
Dorset Square Mall
South Burlington H.S.
Timberlane Medical Ctr.
Grand Union Shop. Ctr.
Timberlane Medical Ctr.
South Burlington H.S.
Staples Plaza
S. Willard
Battery St.
TT
via Main St.via Kennedy Dr. via Hinesburg Rd. via Main St.2
1
345 32 1
MONDAY–FRIDAYSATURDAY
SUNDAY
Main & Univ. Hgts.
Cherry Street
Cherry
Street
Main &
Univ. Hgts.
UMall
T
Country
Park
Airport
UMall
T
Main &
Univ. Hgts.
Cherry
Street
12345321
6:15 6:19 6:25R6:36 6:49 6:56 7:08
6:45 6:49 6:55 R7:06 7:19 7:26 7:38
7:15 7:20 7:25 7:33 7:36 7:49 7:57 8:08
7:45 7:50 7:55 – 8:06 8:19 8:27 8:38
8:15 8:20 8:25 – 8:36 8:49 8:57 9:08
8:45 8:50 8:55 – 9:06 9:20 9:27 9:38
9:15 9:20 9:25 – 9:36 9:49 9:57 10:08
9:45 9:50 9:55 10:03 10:08 10:23 10:31 10:39
10:15 10:20 10:25 – 10:36 10:49 10:57 11:08
10:45 10:50 10:55 – 11:06 11:20 11:27 11:38
11:15 11:20 11:25 – 11:36 11:49 11:57 12:08
AM11:45 11:50 11:55 – 12:06 12:20 12:27 12:38PM12:15 12:20 12:25 – 12:36 12:49 12:57 1:08
12:45 12:50 12:55 1:03 1:08 1:21 1:29 1:40 1:15 1:20 1:25 – 1:36 1:49 1:57 2:08
1:45 1:50 1:55 2:03 2:08 2:21 2:29 2:40
2:15 2:20 2:25 – 2:36 2:49 2:57 3:08
2:45 2:52 2:58 – 3:10 3:25 3:3 3:45
3:15 3:20 3:25 – 3:36 3:49 3:57 4:08
3:45 3:50 3:55 – 4:08 4:21 4:29 4:40
4:15 4:20 4:25 – 4:36 4:49 4:57 5:08
4:30 4:35 4:45 4:53 5:00 5:19 5:25 5:40
4:45 4:52 5:00 – 5:12 5:27 5:35 5:45
5:15 5:20 5:30 – 5:41 5:55 6:03 6:15
5:45 5:50 5:55 R6:06 6:17 6:25 6:36
6:15 6:20 6:25 R6:36 6:47 6:55 7:06
7:15 7:20 7:25 R7:36 7:47 7:55 8:06
8:20 8:25 8:30 R8:41 8:52 9:00 9:08
9:30 9:35 9:40 R9:51† 10:02 10:10 10:21
Cherry
Street
Main &
Univ. Hgts.
UMall
T
Country
Park
Airport
UMall
T
Main &
Univ. Hgts.
Cherry
Street
12345321
6:15 6:20 6:25 R6:36 6:48 6:57 7:06
7:15
7:20 7:25 R7:36 7:48 7:57 8:06
8:15
8:20 8:25 R8:36 8:48 8:57 9:06
9:15
9:20 9:25 – 9:36 9:48 9:57 10:06
9:45 9:50 9:55 10:03 10:08 10:20 10:29 10:39
10:15 10:20 10:25 – 10:36 10:48 10:57 11:06
10:45 10:50 10:55 11:03 11:08 11:20 11:29 11:39
11:15 11:20 11:25 – 11:36 11:48 11:57 12:06
AM11:45 11:50 11:55 12:03 12:08 12:20 12:29 12:39PM12:15 12:20 12:25 – 12:36 12:48 12:57 1:06
12:45 12:50 12:55 1:03 1:08 1:20 1:29 1:39 1:15 1:20 1:25 – 1:36 1:48 1:57 2:06
1:45 1:50 1:55 2:03 2:08 2:20 2:29 2:39
2:15 2:20 2:25 – 2:36 2:48 2:57 3:06
2:45 2:50 2:55 3:03 3:08 3:20 3:29 3:39
3:15 3:20 3:25 – 3:36 3:48 3:57 4:06
3:45 3:50 3:55 4:03 4:08 4:20 4:29 4:39
4:15 4:20 4:25 – 4:36 4:48 4:57 5:06
4:45 4:50 4:55 5:03 5:08 5:20 5:29 5:39
5:15 5:20 5:25 R5:36 5:48 5:57 6:06
5:45

5:50 5:55 R6:06 6:18 6:27 6:38
6:15
6:20 6:25 R6:36 6:48 6:57 7:06
7:15
7:20 7:25 R7:36 7:48 7:57 8:06
Cherry
Street
Main &
Univ. Hgts.
UMall
T
Country
Park
Airport
UMall
T
Main &
Univ. Hgts.
Cherry
Street
12345321
8:45 8:50 8:55 9:00 9:06 9:20 9:25 9:35
9:45 9:50 9:55 10:00 10:06 10:20 10:25 10:35
10:45 10:50 10:55 11:00 11:06 11:20 11:25 11:35
AM11:45 11:50 11:55 12:00 12:06 12:20 12:25 12:35
PM12:45 12:50 12:55 1:00 1:06 1:20 1:25 1:35 1:45 1:50 1:55 2:00 2:06 2:20 2:25 2:35
2:45 2:50 2:55 3:00 3:06 3:20 3:25 3:35
3:45 3:50 3:55 4:00 4:06 4:20 4:25 4:35
4:45 4:50 4:55 5:00 5:06 5:20 5:25 5:35
5:45 5:50 5:55 6:00 6:06 6:20 6:25 6:35
T Please ask driver if Williston route transfer is possible.R On-board request only.† This bus will travel as far as the intersection of North Street and
North Avenue on request.

Aviation Road Corridor Study

AVIATION ROAD CORRIDOR STUDY

TOWN OF QUEENSBURY, NY
&
THE ADIRONDACK/GLENS FALLS TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL

FINAL REPORT

Wilbur Smith Associates
The Chazen Companies
MJ Engineering & Land Surveying

September 2008

Aviation Road Corridor Study
September 2008

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION
Goals and Objectives…………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………….1

II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
A. Aviation Road Corridor Study Area………………………………………………………………
……………… ………….. 3
B. Roadway Ch aracteristics ………………………………………………………………
………………………. ………………….. 3
C. Transporta tion Network ………………………………………………………………
……………………….. …………………. 5
D. Safety ………………………………………………………………
……………………………………… ………………………………13
E. Ut ilities ………………………………………………………………
…………………………………… ………………………………15
F. Land Us e and Zoning………………………………………………………………
………………………….. …………………15
G. Environmental an d Cultural Resources ………………………………………………………………
…………… ………17
H. Transit ………………………………………………………………
…………………………………….. ……………………………..17
I. Other Existi ng Conditions ………………………………………………………………
…………………….. ……………….17
J. Conc lusion ………………………………………………………………
………………………………….. ………………………….17

III. MANAGING FUTURE VEHICULAR, PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE TRAFFIC
A. Expected Future Growth………………………………………………………………………………………. ………………….18
B. Intersections……………………………………………………………………………………………….. …………………………….18
C. Roundabouts…………………………………………………………………………………………………. ………………………….25
D. Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety…………………………………………………………………………………. …………………34
E. Corridor Enhancements/Plan Elements……………………………………………………………………………. ……..35

IV. TRANSIT SERVICE
GGFT & Queensbury School District ………………………………………………………………………. ……………………. .37

V. LIGHTING AND LANDSCAPING
A. Overview………………………………………………………………
……………………………………. …………………………..38
B. The I-87 West Entrance/Exit Ra mp to Midnight/Manor Drive ……………………………………………..38
C. Manor/Midnight Drive to Potter/Fox Farm Road ………………………………………………………………
….39
D. Potter/Fox Farm Road to West Mountain Road ………………………………………………………………
……..4 0

VI. COST ESTIMATES ………………………….. ………………………………………………….………40

VII. IMPLEMENTATION
A. Overview………………………………………………………………
……………………………………. …………………………..43
B. Tools an d Techniques ………………………………………………………………
…………………………. ………………….43
C. Res ponsibility ………………………………………………………………
………………………………. …………………………43
D. Financing………………………………………………………………
…………………………………… ……………………………43

Tables
Table II-1. Comparison of AM, Midday, and PM Two-way Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ……………. 9
Table II-2. LOS Criteria fo r Signalized Intersections ………………………………………………………………
.. .. 10
Table II-3. LOS Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections …………………………………………………………….. 1 1
Table II-4. Existing (2006) Level of Se rvice for Signalized Intersections……………………………………. 11
Table II-5. Existing (2005) Level of Se rvice for Unsignalized Intersections……………………………….. 12
Table III-1 Future (2016) Intersec tion Level of Service (LOS) …………………………………………………… 19
Table III-2 Intersection an d Segment Alternatives………………………………………………………………
…… … 22
Table III-3. Future (2016) Level of Service for Roundabouts………………………………………………………. 25
Table III-4 Roundabout Concept – Aviation Rd at School Driv eway………………………………….. ……….28
Table III-5 Roundabout Concept – Aviation Rd. at Manor Dr ./Midnight Dr ……………………………..30
Table III-6 Roundabout Concept – Aviation Rd. at Dixon Rd ./Farr Lane…………………………… ………32
Table III-7 Alternative Tran sportation Facility Users ………………………………………………………………
.. .. 34
Table IV-1 Cost Estimates – I-87 S.B. Ramp to Po tter/Fox Farm Road Transportation……………..40
Table IV-2 Cost Estimates – Potter/Fox Farm Road to West Mountain Road Transportation…….40
Table IV-3 Cost Estimates – I-87 S.B. Ramp to Midn ight/Manor Drive Landscaping………………….41
Table IV-4 Cost Estimates – Manor/Midnight Drive to Potter/Fox Farm Road Landscaping……..41
Table IV-5 Cost Estimates – Potter/Fox Farm Road to West Mountain Road Landscaping…………41

Table V-1 Impl ementation ………………………………………………………………
…………………………. …………….46

Figures
Figure II-1. Study Area
Figure II-2. Aviation Road Characteristics
Figure II-3. Existing (2006) AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
Figure II-4. Existing (2006) Midday Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
Figure II-5. Existing (2006) PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
Figure II-6. Existing (2006) AM Peak Hour – Level of Service
Figure II-7. Existing (2006) Midday Peak Hour – Level of Service
Figure II-8. Existing (2006) PM Peak Hour – Level of Service
Figure II-9 Land Use in the Study Area
Figure III-1 Zoning Districts
Figure III-2 Future (2016) Base AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
Figure III-3 Future (2016) Base PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
Figure III-4 Roadway Impr ovements Segment 1
Figure III-5 Roadway Impr ovements Segment 2
Figure III-6 Roadway Impr ovements Segment
3
Figure III-7 Roadway Impr ovements Segment 4
Figure III-8 Roundabout Conceptual Plan – Aviation Rd. at School Driveway
Figure III-9 Roundabout Conceptual Plan – Aviation Rd. at Manor Dr./Midnight Dr
Figure III-10 Roundabout Conceptual Plan – Aviation Rd. at Dixon Rd./Farr. Ln
Figure IV-1 Landscape Improvements Segment 1
Figure IV-2 Landscape Improvements Segment 2
Figure IV-3 Landscape Improvements Segment 3
Figure IV-4 Landscape Improvements Segment

Appendix
Appendix A Accident Analysis Report
Appendix B Representative Corridor Photos
Appendix C Queensbury Un ion Free School District— Master Site Plan
Appendix D Alternative De velopment Process Summary

THIS DOCUMENT IS FORMATTED FOR DOUBLE SIDED PRINTING

1
Aviation Road Corridor Study
September 2008

I. INTRODUCTION

A. OVERVIEW

The Adirondack / Glens Fa lls Transportation Coun-
cil (A/GFTC) initiated the Aviation Road Corridor
Study at the request of the Town of Queensbury in
response to citizen concerns regarding roadway traf-
fic and safety conditions. In May of 2006, the con-
sultant team of Wilbur Smith Associates, Chazen
Companies and MJ Engineering and Land Surveying
was selected to carry out development of the future
vision of the Aviation Road corridor west of I-87,
the Adirondack Northway.

The Study Area for the Aviation Road Corridor
Study lies between and includes the northbound
entrance/exit ramps for Interstate 87 on Aviation
Road on the east, to the intersection of Aviation
Road and West Mountain Road on the west, a dis-
tance of approximately 2.0 miles, see Figure II-1.

This plan includes recommendations for balancing
traffic circulation with access, addressing accident
frequencies, improving the visual appearance of the
corridor, and accommodating non-automobile
modes of travel, including pedestrians, bicyclists and
public transit. Throughout this effort, this project’s
Study Team has maintained close coordination with
the Queensbury Union Free School District as they
develop their Master Site Pl an update. This plan is
designed to provide direction on future access to
Aviation Road by the School District, but allow for
flexibility in design and implementation due to the
unknown final design and timeline for such improve-
ments.

B. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

The final outcome of this study is a cohesive corri-
dor plan that addresses the issues discussed above
with a focus on the functionality of the roadway net-
work, the visual character of the area and the ability
to provide infrastructure for different types of users.

The goals and objectives of a plan represent the
overall ideas that the plan is intended to create, en-
hance or address. They are intended to help direct
the ideas of the implementation plan.

Goal 1: Develop alternatives that enhance multi-
modal interaction and improve safety of all
modes of users throughout the corridor.

Objectives:
Improve the interaction between the
bicycle, pedestrian, autom obile and public transit
uses throughout the corridor. Enhance the bicycle
and pedestrian infrastructure by providing additional
amenities and upgrading existing amenities while
integrating pedestrians and bicyclists into the domi-
nant vehicular use(s) along the corridor.

Goal 2: Provide for improvements that enhance
traffic flow and multi-modal interaction that are
consistent with planned Queensbury School Dis-
trict Campus improvements and ideas.

Objectives:
Plan for future improvements along
Aviation Road that can be receptive to the general
ideas and plans proposed for the School Campus,
including additional access onto Aviation Road and
improving bicycling and walking options for school
students, faculty and staff living within walking/
bicycling distance.

Goal 3: Enhance vehicular flow while also en-
hancing the pedestrian environment

Objectives:
Provide new technologies and design
standards to roadway intersections to enhance ve-
hicular flow overall, while calming traffic, slowing
the speed of vehicles and improving safety of all
users.

Goal 4: Provide Useful and Necessary Pedes-
trian Infrastructure, where needed.

Objectives:
Create a more viable pedestrian environ-
ment which will encourage walking and bicycling.
Provide improvements near the school campus that
will protect students who walk to school and also
encourage more walking by those who may currently
be able to walk, but who chose not to.

Goal 5: Create a better visual aesthetic along the
corridor, especially from I-87 to Dixon Road
through replacement and redesign of existing
landscaping and lighting.

Objectives:
Utilizing existing landscaping and light-
ing, and paying particular attention to the existing
positive characteristics and traits of the different land
uses and neighborhoods along the corridor, provide
additional landscaping and lighting treatments that
enhance the corridor, provid e a more visually pleas-
ing aesthetic and create a “sense of place” that im-
proves quality-of-life for residents and visitors.

2 Aviation Road Corridor Study
September 2008

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Aviation Road Corridor Study
September 2008

Aviation Road
Corridor Study
The Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation Council
Town of Queensbury, New York
Figure II-1
Study Area

Aviation Road Corridor Study
September 2008

3
Aviation Road Corridor Study
September 2008

II. EXISTING CONDITIONS

A. AVIATION ROAD CORRIDOR
STUDY AREA

The Study Area for the Aviation Road Corridor
Study lies between and includes the northbound
entrance/exit ramps for Interstate 87 on Aviation
Road on the east to the intersection of Aviation
Road and West Mountain Road on the west, a dis-
tance of approximately 2.0 miles. The Study also
extends approximately 450 feet on either side of the
roadway. Figure II-1 graphically depicts the Study
Area. The larger traffic-contributing area, which was
used to project future traffic volumes on the road,
extends further to the north and south to include:

• The land between Potter Road and Aviation
Road;
• The properties on either si de of West Mountain
Road north of Potter Road; and
• The parcels along the numerous roadways north
of Aviation Road between the Interstate and
West Mountain Road.

Traffic signals control vehicular and pedestrian traf-
fic at two intersections – the two entrance/exit
ramps for Interstate 87 and the entrance to the com-
bined school parcels.

Other important intersections are controlled by stop
signs on the side streets. There are no stop signs on
Aviation Road itself within the Study Area until it
intersects with West Mountain Road, where Aviation
Road has a stop sign with flashing red lights. West
Mountain Road at this intersection is the through-
road and therefore does not have a stop sign.

B. ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS

1. Travel Lanes

Aviation Road consists of two 11 foot wide travel
lanes, one in either dire ction, between West Moun-
tain Road and Potter Road and two 12-foot wide
travel lanes, one in either direction, between Potter
Road to the western High School parking lot exit.
East of this exit, the road widens to include a 12-foot
wide center turning lane. This configuration contin-
ues to the intersection with Burke Drive. East of
Burke Drive, Aviation Road widens again to be a
four lane road with a left turn center lane. Figure
II-1 provides an overview of Aviation Road in the
Study Area.
2. Paved Shoulders

The paved shoulders along Aviation Road vary sig-
nificantly through the Study Area.
Figure II-2 high-
lights these changes. From West Mountain Road to
Mountain View Lane, the north shoulder is approxi-
mately 3.5 feet in width, except in front of the mo-
bile homes where the shoulder narrows to less than 1
foot and is essentially incorporated into the curb cut
running the length of this frontage to Mountain
View Lane. The south shoulder is approximately 4’
in width from West Mountain Drive to the western
entrance to the Prospect School building. From the
Prospect School building western entrance to Buena
Vista Avenue, the south side paved shoulder widens
to 5’ and on the north side from Mountain View
Lane to Gilmore Avenue, the paved shoulder is also
5’. The paved south side shoulder at Buena Vista
Avenue widens to 6’ and remains 6’ to Potter Road.
From Gilmore Avenue to Fox Farm Road, the north
side paved shoulder is 4’ wi de and is adjacent to a 1’
wide paved concave drainage swale.

Directly east of Potter Road, the north side paved
shoulder is approximately three-feet wide, while the
south side is six-feet wide. The north side paved
shoulder widens to eight-fe et wide in front of the
new development east of the intersection with Dixon
Road, but narrows again to fo ur-feet east of the east-
ern entrance to the Stewart’s Shops. The paved
shoulders remain at approximately four-feet wide on
the north side and five to six-feet wide on the south
side to the intersection with Midnight Drive. East of
this intersection, the pave d shoulders gradually nar-
row to approximately six inches wide on both sides
of the travel lanes as the roadway widens to accom-
modate the center turning lane. The paved shoulder
widens again to five-feet on the north side and one
to three-feet on the south side east of the signalized
entrance to the school campus es. East of the school
campus entrance drive, the paved shoulders stabilize
at five-feet wide on both sides of the roadway to the
eastern end of the Study Area.
Aviation Road at the School Driveway Intersection

4 Aviation Road Corridor Study
September 2008

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Aviation Road Corridor Study
September 2008

Aviation Road
Corridor Study
The Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation Council
Town of Queensbury, New York
Figure II-2
Aviation Road
Characteristics

Aviation Road Corridor Study
September 2008

5
Aviation Road Corridor Study
September 2008

3. Curbs

Curbing lines the north side of the street east of the
signaled entrance to the school campus to the I-87
overpass, as shown on Figure II-2. A curb also
lines the south side of the street east of the entrance
driveway to the Methodist Church to the I-87 over-
pass. From these locations west, there are no curbs
located along Aviation Road.

4. Sidewalks

Figure II-2 shows the extent of sidewalks in the
right-of-way in the Study Area. The eastern end of
the Aviation Road right-of-way features sidewalks on
both sides of the street. On the south side of the
road, the sidewalk extends westward from the I-97
overpass to the signalized entrance to the school
campus. The north side sidewalk continues further
west to just west of the western exit from the high
school parking lot. Both of these sidewalks are five-
feet wide and in generally in good condition.

There is a short section of sidewalk further west on
the north side of the street in front of the new office
building west of the Mountain View Commons and
the single family residence to the west. This is bal-
anced on the south side of the street by a sidewalk
that runs from the intersection with Dixon Road to
the eastern end of the shoppi ng center, although the
sidewalk has been covered with asphalt in front of
the shopping center. The re st of the sidewalk on the
south side of the street that is visible and the side-
walk in front of the residence on the north side are
old and in poor condition. The sidewalk in front of
the new office building is new and in good condi-
tion. It is separated by a single step from the older
sidewalk to the west. Ther e are no sidewalks west of
the Dixon Road/Farr Lane and Aviation Road inter-
section, however along the front of the Prospect
School property, a sidewalk located approximately
25’ from the shoulder of Av iation Road serves as an
entryway to the front of the building.

5. Crosswalks

Five crosswalks cross Aviation Road – one between
the Prospect School and the Child and Family Cen-
ter, one east of the sign alized school entrance, one
west of Burke Drive, one on the west side of the
southbound Interstate entrance/exit and one east of
the of the eastern Interstate entrance/exit. Figure
II-2 shows the location of these crosswalks. Cross-
walks also link the sidewalks on the south side of the
street on Burke Drive and the two Interstate en-
trance/exit ramps. C. Transportation Network
1. Study Area Intersections

Signalized Intersections

Aviation Road and I-87 SB On/Off Ramp

The Aviation Road and I-87 SB On/Off Ramp is a
three way signalized intersection at the eastern end
of the study area. The I-87 SB on-ramp is a two-lane
roadway oriented in the southbound direction with
exclusive left and right tu rn lanes on Aviation Road,
and forms the northbound approach of the intersec-
tion. In the eastbound direction, Aviation Road has
two lanes with a through lane and a shared through-
right turn lane. In the westbound direction, Aviation
Road has three lanes with an exclusive left turn lane,
a shared left turn-through lane and a through lane.
No parking is permitted on Aviation Road or the I-
87 SB On/Off ramps at the intersection. The traffic
signal at this intersection is coordinated with the I-87
NB On/Off ramps on the eastern side of the bridge
that carries Aviation Road over I-87.

Aviation Road and Queensbury School Drive/ Church
Driveway
The Aviation Road and Queensbury School Drive/ Church
Driveway is a four way signalized intersection. In the
southbound direction, the Queensbury School Drive
has two lanes with a shared left turn-through lane
and a shared through-right turn lane. In the
northbound direction, the Church driveway has a
single lane with shared le ft-through-right turn move-
ments. In the eastbound di rection, Aviation Road
has two lanes with an exclusive left turn lane and a
shared through-right turn lane. In the westbound
direction, Aviation Road has a single lane with
shared left-through-right tu rn movements. No park-
ing is permitted on Aviation Road, Queensbury
School Drive or the Church driveway at the intersec-
tion.

Unsignalized Intersections

Aviation Road and Burke Drive

The intersection of Aviation Road and Burke Drive
is controlled by a stop sign on Burke Drive. Burke
Drive is a two-way two-lane roadway which forms
the southern leg of the intersection. In the
northbound direction it has a single lane with shared
left-right turn movements. In the eastbound direc-
tion, Aviation Road has a single lane with shared
through-right turn movements. In the westbound
direction, Aviation Road has two lanes with an exclu-
sive left turn lane and a through lane. No parking is
permitted on either road at the intersection.

6 Aviation Road Corridor Study
September 2008

Aviation Road and Cottage Hill Road

The intersection of Avia tion Road and Cottage Hill
Road is controlled by a stop sign on Cottage Hill
Road. Cottage Hill Road is a two-way two-lane road-
way which forms the southern leg of the intersec-
tion. In the northbound direct ion it has a single lane
with shared left-right turn movements. In the east-
bound direction, Aviation Road has a single lane
with shared through-right turn movements. In the
westbound direction, Aviation Road has a center left
turn lane and a through lane. No parking is permit-
ted on Aviation Road or Cottage Hill Road at the
intersection.

Aviation Road and Queensbury School Parking Driveway

The Queensbury School parking driveway is a one-
way one-lane roadway oriented in the northbound
direction. In the eastbound direction, Aviation Road
has a center left turn lane and a through lane. In the
westbound direction, Aviati on Road has a single lane
with a shared through- right turn lane. No parking is
permitted on Aviation Road or the School parking
driveway at the intersection. Designated parking
spaces are provided in the School parking lot.

Aviation Road and Midnight Drive/Manor Drive

The intersection of Aviation Road and Midnight
Drive/Manor Drive is controlled by stop signs on
Midnight Drive and Manor Drive. Midnight Drive
and Manor Drive are two- way two-lane roadways
oriented in the northbound and southbound direc-
tions respectively. Midnight Drive and Manor Drive
are located at an offset to each other geometrically.
All approaches of this intersection have a single lane
with shared left-through and right turn movements.
No parking is allowed along Aviation Road, Mid-
night Drive and Manor Drive at the intersection.

Aviation Road and Dixon Road/Farr Lane

The intersection of Aviati on Road and Dixon Road/
Farr Lane is controlled by stop signs on Dixon Road
and Farr Lane. Dixon Road and Farr Lane are two-
way two-lane roadways or iented in the northbound
and southbound directions respectively. All ap-
proaches of this intersecti on have a single lane with
shared left-through and right turn movements. No
parking is allowed along Aviation Road, Dixon Road
or Farr Lane at the inters ection. Dixon Road inter-
sects with Aviation Road at an acute angle on the
southeastern corner as Figure II-2 shows. The an-
gle forces vehicles crossing or turning onto Aviation
Road from Dixon Road to approach Aviation Road
from an acute angle. The center line of Dixon
Road does not align with the center line of Farr
Lane, creating additional problems in the interactions
of the left turning vehicles from both Farr Lane and
Dixon Road entering the intersection.

Aviation Road and Potter Road/Fox Farm Road

The intersection of Aviation Road and Potter Road/
Fox Farm Road is controlled by stop signs on Potter
Road and Fox Farm Road re spectively. Potter Road
and Fox Farm Road
are two-way two-lane roadways
oriented in the northbound and southbound direc-
tions respectively. All approaches of this intersection
have a single lane with sh ared left-through and right
turn movements. No parking is allowed along Avia-
tion Road, Potter Road or Fox Farm Road at the
intersection.

Aviation Road and Sylvan Avenue/Owen

Avenue

The intersection of Avia tion and Sylvan Avenue/
Owen Avenue is controlled by stop signs on Sylvan
Avenue and Owen Avenue. Sylvan Avenue and
Owen Avenue are geometrically off-set two-way
two-lane roadways oriented in the northbound and
southbound directions respectively. All approaches
to this intersection have a single lane with shared
left-through and right turn movements. There are no
signs prohibiting parking, however parking is not
permitted at the intersection on Aviation Road, Syl-
van Avenue or Owen Avenue.

Aviation Road and Westmore Avenue/Buena Vista Avenue

The intersection of Aviation Road and Westmore
Avenue/Buena Vista Avenue is controlled by stop
signs on Westmore Avenue and Buena Vista Ave-
nue. Both Westmore Avenue and Buena Vista Ave-
nue are two-way two-lane ro adways oriented in the
northbound and southbound directions respectively.
All approaches to this intersection have a single lane
with shared left-through and right turn movements.
There are no signs posted prohibiting parking, how-
ever parking is not permitted at the intersection on
Aviation Road, Westmore Avenue or Buena Vista
Avenue.

Aviation Road and Pinewood Avenue

The intersection of Aviation Road and Pinewood
Avenue is controlled by a stop sign on Pinewood
Avenue. Pinewood Avenue is a two-way two-lane
roadway oriented in the southbound direction. All
approaches to this intersection have a single lane
with shared left-through and right turn movements.

7
Aviation Road Corridor Study
September 2008

There are no signs posted prohibiting parking, how-
ever parking is not permitted at the intersection on
Aviation Road or Pinewood Avenue.

Aviation Road and Mountain View Lane

The intersection of Aviation Road and Mountain
View Lane is controlled by a stop sign on Mountain
View Lane. Mountain View Lane is a two-way two-
lane roadway oriented in the southbound direction.
All approaches to this intersection have a single lane
with shared left-through and right turn movements.
Mountain View Lane intersects with Aviation Road
at an acute angle on the northwestern corner as Fig-
ure II-2 shows. The angle forces vehicles turning
onto Aviation Road from Mountain View Lane to
approach from an acute angle. Just a few feet east of
this intersection is a cro sswalk linking the Prospect
School with the Child and Family Center. There are
no signs posted prohibiting parking, however park-
ing is not permitted at the intersection on Aviation
Road or Mountain View Lane.

Aviation Road and West Mountain Road

The intersection of Avia tion Road and West Moun-
tain Road is controlled by a stop sign on both the
north and south sides of Aviation Road headed west,
with the sign on the north side of Aviation Road
enhanced by flashing re d lights. West Mountain
Road is a two-way two-lane through-road and does
not have a stop sign. All approaches to this intersec-
tion have a single lane with shared left-through and
right turn movements. There are no signs posted
prohibiting parking, however parking is not permit-
ted at the intersection of Aviation Road and West
Mountain Road. 2. Existing 2006 Traffic Condition Analysis

Data Collection

Manual turning movement counts were taken on
Tuesday, May 9, 2006 at
the intersection of:

• Aviation Road & I-87 SB On-Off Ramp;
• Aviation Road & Burke Drive;
• Aviation Road & Queensbury School Drive/
Church Driveway;
• Aviation Road & Cottage Hill Road;
• Aviation Road & School Parking Driveway;
• Aviation Road & Midnight Drive/Manor
Drive;
• Aviation Road & Dixon Road/Farr Lane; and
• Aviation Road & Potter Road/Fox Farm Road.

Additional manual turning movement counts were
taken on March 23, 2007 at the intersections of:
• Aviation Road and Mountain View Lane; and
• Aviation Road and West Mountain Road.

These traffic counts were conducted during the fol-
lowing periods:

• Weekday AM Peak Period (6:45- 9:00 AM)
• Weekday Midday Peak Period (2:00- 4:00 PM)
• Weekday PM Peak Period (4:00- 7:45 PM)

Figure II-3 represents existing (2006/2007) traffic
volumes during the AM Peak Hour period (7:15-8:15
AM). Figure II-4 represents existing (2006/2007)
traffic volumes during the Midday Peak Hour period
(3:00-4:00 PM). Figure II-5 represents existing
(2006/2007) traffic volumes during the PM Peak
Hour period (4:45-5:45 PM).

Table II-1 provides a comparison of existing
(2006/2007) AM, Midday and PM two-way peak
hour volumes at various locations within the analysis
area.

As indicated in Table II-1, the existing two-way
peak hour traffic volumes on Aviation Road west of
W. Mountain Road are low. Traffic volumes on
Aviation Road drop significantly west of Mountain
View Lane . Ba

sed on the existing traffic volumes, a
high percentage of westbound traffic on Aviation
Road makes a right turn on Mountain View Lane to
head towards West Mountain Road and Gurney
Lane.

Aviation Road approaching the intersection with
West Mountain Road

8 Aviation Road Corridor Study
September 2008

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Aviation Road Corridor Study
September 2008

12
7
1 37
4

7 9

1

A
vi
a
tio n
R d
. M
o
u nt
a
in

V i
e w
L
n .
5 6

4 3

1
6
1
1 6
1
3 7
1

1
2
2
0

1 14

5 4 A
vi
a ti
o n
R d
.

B ur
k e

Q u
een sbu
r
y S ch . C
hu
rc
h
D r.
Cottage Hill
A
vi at i
o n
R d
.
F
ar r

L n
.
D ix
on Rd.

P
ot
te
r
R d.

F ox
Fa
rm Rd
.

M a
n
or
D
r.
Popl
ar

M
id
ni ght

Prospect Dr.
Non-Signalized Inter-
section
Signalized Intersection
LEGEND

M oun
ta
i
n
V i
e w
Ln.

W
.
Mo
un t
a i
n
Rd
.

A viati
on

R d
.
Aviation Road Corridor
Study Area
2
1
1 3
3
6
8 0

6 4
6
82

4 8

B ur k
e D r.

Avi a
ti
o n
R d
.
5
6

3 5
8
6
8 0

2 9 0

5 66
2 49
Avi a
ti
o n
R d
.
I
– 8
7 S
B
O ff
R
a
m p

1
27

3 70

7
1
30

0
1 74

2
42

5 97

9
7
0
1 0
A
vi
at i
on
Rd.

Qu
e
ensb
ury

S ch
ool Dr
.

Ch u
rc
h Dr
.
12

1 3
5
4
6 1

3 0
7
12

5
Co
tta
ge
Hi
ll
Rd .
Avia
ti
o n
R d
.
1
51
7 17
1
4
9
3 2
3
A
vi
a t
io
n
R d
. Q
ue
e ns
b
ury

S ch
o o
l
P
kn g
.
1
3
3 55

2 4
4

8
2 2
3
6 27

1
3
2
3 8

A v
ia t
io n
R d.
M a
no
r
D r.
M i
d ni
g h t
D r.
F
ox F
arm
R
d.
6

2 19

6
2
1 6
2
4 73

0
0
3
2 84
A v
ia t
io n
R d.
P o
t
t e
r

R d.
F a
rr
L n.
A
vi a
tio
n
Rd .
1 5

3 0
4
1 9

6
1 3

3 0
50

1
1 6

9
6 44
1 28
Dixon Rd.
1

0
0
Aviation Road
Corridor Study
The Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation Council
Town of Queensbury, New York
Non-Signalized Intersection
Signalized Intersection

LEGEND

Aviation Road Corridor
Study Area
Figure II-3
Existing (2006) AM Peak Hour
Traffic Volumes
Wes
t
M oun
tai
n
R d.

Aviation Road Corridor Study
September 2008

Aviation Road Corridor Study
September 2008

Aviation Road
Corridor Study
The Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation Council
Town of Queensbury, New York
Figure II-4
Existing (2006) Midday
Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
B
ur
k e

Q u
een sbu
r
y S ch . C
hu
rc
h
D r.

Cottage Hill Rd.
A vi at i
o n
R d
.
F
ar r

D ix
on Rd.

P
ot
te
r
R d.

F ox
Fa
rm Rd
.
M a
n
or
D
r.
Popl
a r

M
idn
i
gh t

Prospect Dr.
Non-Signalized Inter-
section
Signalized Intersection
LEGEND

M oun
ta
i
n
V i
e w
Ln.

W .
Mo
un t
a i
n
Rd
.
A
viati
on

R d
.
Aviation Road Corridor
Study Area
F
ox F
arm
R
d.

1 5
3 16

2 27

2
2
7 2
2 62

1
3
0
1 52
A v
ia t
io n
R d.

P o
t
t e
r

R d.

F a
rr
L n.
A
via
tio
n
R d
.
1 9

4 8
3
1 7

8
5
2 6
70

1
25
8
3 15
1 00
Dixon Rd.

3
2
5 30

3 0

4
5
3 3 4

3 6
6
1

6
2 2 A
v
ia t
io n
R d. M
a
no
r
D r.

M i
d ni
g h t
D r.

F
a
rr
L n. A
via
tio
n
R d
.
1 9

4 8
3
1 7

8
5
2 6
70
1
25
8
3 15
1 00
Dixon Rd.
5

4 8

61 2

5 6
4
62

7
Co
tta
ge
Hi
ll

Avi a
ti
o n
R d
.
1
0
4 69
2
9

5 5
4
A
vi
a t
io
n
R d
. Q
ue
e ns
b
ury

S ch
o o
l
P
kn g
.
1
10

4 71

1
95

1
2 86
130

3 82

1
2
0
0 A
vi
at i
on
Rd.

Qu
e
ensb
ury

S ch
. D r.
Ch u
rc
h Dr
.
55

2 8
3
7
0 6

5 1 3

5 51

1 69

Avi a
ti
o n
R d
.
I
– 8
7 S
B
O
f
f R
am
p
1 4

1 0
6
6
3 3

1 2 8

6 14
5 2

B urk
e Dr .
Avi a
ti
o n
R d
.
3

3
1 08 2

5 2

0
A
vi
a
tio n
R d
.
M o
u nt
a
in

V i
e w
L
n .

8 0

9 5

1
1
8
1 3
4 5
4
99 5

1
7
1
4
84
32 A
vi
a ti
o n
R d
.

2
3
1
Non-Signalized Intersection
Signalized Intersection
LEGEND

Aviation Road Corridor
Study Area
W
es
t
M oun
tai
n
R d.

Aviation Road Corridor Study
September 2008

Aviation Road Corridor Study
September 2008

Aviation Road
Corridor Study
The Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation Council
Town of Queensbury, New York
Figure II-5
Existing (2006) PM Peak Hour
Traffic Volumes
Bur
k e
D
r
.
Q u
een sbu
r
y S ch . C
hu
rc
h
D r.
Cottage Hill Rd.
A
vi at i
o n
R d
.
F
ar r

D ix
on Rd.

P
ot
te
r
R d.

F
ox
Fa
rm Rd
.

M a
n
or
D
r.
P
opl
a r

M
idn
i
gh t

Prospect Dr.
M oun
ta
i
n
V i
e w
Ln.
W
.
Mo
un t
a i
n
Rd
.
A viati
on

R d
.
4

8 6
5
7 3

5 6
5
83

8
Co
tta
ge
Hi
ll

Avi a
ti
o n
R d
.
1
0
5 91
2
3

5 5
4
A
vi
a t
io
n
R d
. Q
ue
e ns
b
ury

S ch
. P
ar
k n
g
2
7

5 52
2 1
1
0
1 0
3 4 9

5 27

4
4

4
2 5 A
v
ia t
io n
R d. M
a
no
r
D r.
M i
d ni
g h t
D r.

F
a
rr
L n.
A
via
tio
n
R d
.
3
4

5 0
6
1 9

1 7
6
2 8
95
9
12
1 2
4 21
8 2
Dixon Rd.
F
ox F
arm
R
d.
1
7
3 38

2 38

2

1
1 9
5
2 79

5
0

2
1 84
A v
ia t
io n
R d.
P o
t
t e
r

R d.
Non-Signalized Inter-
section
Signalized Intersection
LEGEND

Aviation Road Corridor
Study Area
4
7 0

0
A
vi
a
tio n
R d
.
M o
u nt
a
in

V i
e w
L
n .

9 1

8 2

0
9
7
5 5
1
12 3
12 1
7
2
8

90
48 A
vi
a ti
o n
R d
.

1
1
0
8
7 4

5 8 6

5 21

1 78

Avi a
ti
o n
R d
.
I

8
7 S
B
O ff
R
a
m p

7
4 2

1 9 3

5 85

3 0
B
urk
e Dr .

Avi a
ti
o n
R d
.
1
8
1 1
4
1
38

5 28

1
127

0
1 71

1
0
0 A vi
at i
on
Rd.

Qu
e
ensb
ury

S ch
. D r.

Ch u
rc
h Dr
.
2
78

4 18

0
Non-Signalized Intersection
Signalized Intersection

LEGEND

Aviation Road Corridor
Study Area

1 3
1
3 0
8
W
.
M oun
tai
n
R d.
6

1
1 12

Aviation Road Corridor Study
September 2008

9
Aviation Road Corridor Study
September 2008

Table II-1
Comparison of AM, Midday and PM Two-way Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
Location
Existing (2006/2007) Peak Hour Traffic Vol-
umes
AM
Peak Hour Midday
Peak Hour PM
Peak Hour
Aviation Road
West of Potter Road/Fox Farm Road 700 586 647
West of W. Mountain Road 7 30 26
W. Mountain Road *
North of Aviation Road 164 211 236
South of Aviation Road 191 265 326
Mountain View Lane*
North of Aviation Road 216 199 216
Potter Road
South of Aviation Road 408 385 430
Fox Farm Road
North of Aviation Road 35 28 46
Dixon Road
South of Aviation Road 227 217 221
Farr Lane
North of Aviation Road 74 67 104
Midnight Drive
South of Aviation Road 76 64 68
Manor Drive

North of Aviation Road 52 84 94
Cottage Hill Road
South of Aviation Road 182 116 166
Queensbury School Driveway
North of Aviation Road 673 722 714
Burke Drive
South of Aviation Road 266 300 355
I-87 SB On-off ramp
South of Aviation Road 953 1020 1211
Aviation Road
East of I-87 SB On-off ramp 1902 2053 2234
Source: Based on turning movement counts conducted on May 09, 2006.
* Based on turning movements counts conducted March 23, 2007

10 Aviation Road Corridor Study
September 2008

The existing (2006) two-way peak hour traffic vol-
umes during the AM peak hour period on Aviation
Road (West of Potter Road /Fox Farm Road), Potter
Road, Dixon Road, Midnight Drive and Cottage Hill
Road are higher than the Midday and PM peak hour
periods. Queensbury School Drive experiences the
highest volume during the Midday peak hour period.
Fox Farm Road, Farr Lane, Manor Drive, Burke
Drive, I-87 SB On-off ramp and Aviation Road
(East of I-87 SB On-off ramp) experience the high-
est volume during the PM peak hour period.

In addition, Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation
Council provided Automatic Traffic Recorder (ATR)
count data along Aviation Road. The ATR counts
were conducted during the week of May 8 though
May 12, 2006. The location of the count was near the
signalized school access driveway. The Average
Weekday Daily Traffic (AWDT) recorded on Avia-
tion Road during that week was 11,833 vehicles per
day.

Capacity Analysis

A study of capacity is im portant in determining the
ability of a specific roadway, intersection, or freeway
to accommodate traffic under various levels of ser-
vice. Level of service (LOS) is a qualitative measure
describing driver satisfac tion with a number of fac-
tors that influence the degree of traffic congestion.
These factors include speed and travel time, traffic
interruption, freedom of maneuverability, safety,
driving comfort and conv enience, and delay.

In general there are six leve ls of service describing
flow conditions. The high est, LOS A, describes a
condition of free flow, with low volumes and high
speeds. LOS B represents a stable traffic flow with
operating speeds beginning to be restricted some-
what by traffic conditions . LOS C, which is normally
utilized for design purposes , describes a stable condi-
tion of traffic operation. It entails moderately re-
stricted movements due to higher traffic volumes,
but traffic conditions are not objectionable to motor-
ists. LOS D reflects a condition of more restrictive
movements for motorists and influence of conges-
tion becomes more noticeable. LOS E is representa-
tive of the actual capacity of the roadway or intersec-
tion and involves delay to all motorists due to con-
gestion. The lowest, LOS F, is described as force
flow and is characterized by volumes greater than the
theoretical roadway capacity. Complete congestion
occurs, and in extreme cases, the volume passing a
given point drops to zero. This is considered as an
unacceptable traffic operating condition.
For this analysis, level of service was performed for
signalized and un-signalized intersections. The traffic
analysis software Synchro
6 was used to determine
the existing peak hour level of service at all the inter-
sections along the analysis area.

Tables II-2 and II-3 highlight the level of service
criteria for signalized and un-signalized intersections
respectively. The level of se rvice criteria for signal-
ized and un-signalized intersections is based on con-
trol delay per vehicle me asured in seconds.

Level of service was determined for the study area
intersections under existi ng (2006/2007) conditions
during the weekday AM, Midday and PM peak hour
conditions. The results of the analyses are presented
in Table II-4 and Figures II-6, II-7, and II-8 for
signalized intersections.

There is queuing on Aviation Road and the School
Drive during the drop-off times in the AM peak
period. However, queuing occurs over a short period
during the drop-off activity and does not carry over
during the entire peak hour. The analysis reflects
results over the peak hour period.

Below is a list of findings from the level of service
analysis of signalized inte rsections in the study area:

Aviation Road and I-87 SB On-Off Ramp
– This
intersection operates at an overall LOS of C during
the AM, Midday and PM peak hour periods. All ap-
proaches of this intersection currently operate at
LOS C during the AM, Midday and PM peak hour
periods.

Table II-2:
LOS Criteria for Signalized Intersections
LEVEL
OF
S
ERVICE
CONTROL DELAY
PER VEHICLE
(SECONDS)
A
≤10
B
>10 and ≤20
C
>20 and ≤35
D
>35 and ≤55
E
>55 and ≤80
F > 80
Source: 2000 Highway Capacity Manual , Transportation Research Board

Aviation Road Corridor Study
September 2008

Aviation Road
Corridor Study
The Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation Council
Figure II-6
Existing (2006) AM Peak Hour
Level of Service

Aviation Road Corridor Study
September 2008

Aviation Road Corridor Study
September 2008

Aviation Road
Corridor Study
The Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation Council
Town of Queensbury, New York
Figure II-7
Existing (2006) Midday
Peak Hour Level of Service
0
0
B ur
k
e
D r
.
Q u
ee ns
b
u
ry
Sc h
. D r
.C h
u r
c
h
D
r.
Cottage Hill Rd.
A
vi
a t
io
n R
d.
F
a
rr

L
n
.
D ix
o n
R d.
P o
tt
er
R d
.
F ox

F a
rm
R d.
M
an
or
Dr
.
Pop
la
r

R d
.
M
i
d
n i
g h
t
D r
.
Prospect Dr.
M ou
nta
in
V
ie w
L n
.
W.
Mo
unt
a in
R d.
A
v
iat
io
n
R d.
Non-Signalized
Intersection
Signalized Intersection
LEGEND
Aviation Road Corridor
Study Area Overall Intersection
Level of ServiceNon-Signalized
Intersection
Signalized Intersection
LEGEND
Aviation Road Corridor
Study AreaOverall Intersection
Level of Service
Overall Intersection
Level of Service
Non-Signalized
Intersection
Signalized IntersectionLEGEND
Aviation Road Corridor Study AreaOverall Intersection
Level of Service
Non-Signalized
Intersection
Signalized IntersectionLEGEND
Aviation Road Corridor Study AreaOverall Intersection
Level of Service
Overall Intersection Level of Service
Note: Overall LOS is not calculated for unsignalized intersections.

Aviation Road Corridor Study
September 2008

Aviation Road Corridor Study
September 2008

Aviation Road
Corridor Study
The Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation Council
Town of Queensbury, New York
Figure II-8
Existing (2006) PM Peak Hour
Level of Service
B
ur
k
e
D r
.
Q u
een s
b u
ry Sc
h
. D
r.Chu
rc h
D
r.
Cottage Hill Rd.
A
vi
a ti
o n

R d.
F
ar
r
L
n
.
D i
x o
n
R d
.
P o
tter
Rd
.
Fo x
F a
r
m R
d
.
M an
or
D r
.
P
op
l
a
r

R d.
M
i
d n
ig h
t
D
r.
Prospect Dr.
M
ou
n
ta
in
V
ie w
L n .
W.
M o
un t
a in
R
d.
A
v
ia t
ion R d.
Non-Signalized
Intersection
Signalized Intersection
LEGEND
Aviation Road Corridor
Study Area Overall Intersection
Level of ServiceNon-Signalized
Intersection
Signalized Intersection
LEGEND
Aviation Road Corridor
Study AreaOverall Intersection
Level of Service
Overall Intersection
Level of Service
Non-Signalized
Intersection
Signalized IntersectionLEGEND
Aviation Road Corridor Study AreaOverall Intersection
Level of Service
Non-Signalized
Intersection
Signalized IntersectionLEGEND
Aviation Road Corridor Study AreaOverall Intersection
Level of Service
Overall Intersection Level of Service
Note: Overall LOS is not calculated for unsignalized intersections.

Aviation Road Corridor Study
September 2008

11
Aviation Road Corridor Study
September 2008

proaches operate at LO S B during the AM, Mid-
day and PM peak hour periods.

• Aviation Road and Mountain View Lane/
School Driveway – The left turn movements on
Aviation Road currently operate at LOS A dur-
ing the AM, Midday and PM peak hour periods.
The side-street approaches operate at LOS B
during the AM, Midday and PM peak hour peri-
ods.

• Aviation Road and Potter Road/Fox Farm
Road- The southbound approach of Fox Farm
Road operates at LOS F during the AM and PM
peak hour periods and at LOS E during the
Midday peak hour period . All other approaches
operate at LOS C or bett er during the AM, Mid-
day and PM peak hour periods.

• Aviation Road and Dixon Road/Farr Lane- The
northbound approach of Dixon Road operates
at LOS E and LOS F during the AM and PM
peak hour periods and LOS D during the Mid-
day peak hour. The southbound approach of
Farr Lane operates at LOS E during the AM
peak hour period. During the Midday and PM
peak hour periods it operates at LOS D or bet-
ter. All approaches of Aviation Road currently
operate at LOS A during the AM, Midday and
PM peak hour periods.

Aviation Road and Queensbury School Drive/
Church Driveway- This intersection operates at LOS
C or better during the AM, Midday and PM peak
hour periods. All approach es of this intersection
currently operate at LOS C or better during the AM,
Midday and PM peak hour periods.

The results of the analyses are presented in Table
II-5 and Figures II-6, II-7, and I-8 for unsignalized
intersections.

Below is a list of findings from the level of service
analysis of unsignalized intersections in the analysis
area:
• Aviation Road and West Mountain Road – The
left turn movements on Aviation Road currently
operate at LOS B during the AM, Midday and
PM peak hour periods. The side-street ap-
Table II-3:
LOS Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections
LEVEL
OF
S
ERVICE
CONTROL DELAY
PER VEHICLE
(
SECONDS)
A
≤10
B
>10 and ≤15
C
>15 and ≤25
D
>25 and ≤35
E
>35 and ≤50
F > 50
Source: 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board
Table II-4
Existing (2006) Level of Servi ce for Signalized Intersections
Location
Existing (2006) LOS/Delay (in sec.)
AM Peak
Hour Midday Peak
Hour PM Peak
Hour
Signalized
Aviation Road at I-87 SB On-Off ramp C (25.1) C (27.0) C (26.7)
Aviation Road E.B. C (26.4) C (34.9) C (26.3)
Aviation Road W.B. C (23.4) C (21.8) C (26.9)
I-87 SB Off ramp N.B. C (26.5) C (26.6) C (26.5)

Aviation Road at Queensbu ry School Drive/Church
Driveway C (20.3) B (19.0) B (17.8)
Aviation Road E.B. A (9.9) A (8.2) B (11.8)
Aviation Road W.B. C (28.8) C (21.4) C (23.8)
Church Driveway N.B. B (19.0) B (15.4) B (17.5)
Queensbury School Drive S.B. C (26.3) C (25.4) B (19.9)
Source: Wilbur Smith Associates

12 Aviation Road Corridor Study
September 2008

Table II-5
Existing (2006/2007) Level of Service for Unsignalized Intersections
Location
Existing (2006/2007) LOS/Delay
(in sec.)
AM
Peak
Hour
Midday
Peak Hour
PM
Peak
Hour
Unsignalized
Aviation Road at W. Mountain Road
Left turn on W. Mountain Road N.B. B (10.2) B (10.3) B (10.6)
Left turn on W. Mountain Road S.B. B (10.1) B (11.9) B (11.1)
Aviation Road E.B. B (10.1) B (13.4) B (12.5)
Aviation Road W.B. B (10.3) B (12.6) B (11.3)

Aviation Road at Mountain View Ln./School
Drive
Left turn on Aviation Road E.B. A(7.5) A(7.6) A(7.6)
Left turn on Aviation Road W.B. A(7.4) A(7.4) A(7.4)
School Drive N.B. B(10.3) B(10.3) B(10.6)
Mountain View Ln. S.B. B(11.7) B(11.9) B(11.1)

Aviation Road at Potter Road/Fox Farm
Road
Left turn on Aviation Road E.B. A (7.7) A (8.0) A (8.1)
Left turn on Aviation Road W.B. A (9.0) A (8.5) A (8.7)
Potter Road N.B. C (20.6) B (11.9) B (12.6)
Fox Farm Road S.B. F (65.1) E (37.7) F (72.9)
Aviation Road at Dixon Road/Farr Lane
Left turn on Aviation Road E.B. A (8.0) A (8.6) A (8.7)
Left turn on Aviation Road W.B. A (9.7) A (8.3) A (8.7)
Dixon Road N.B. E (41.9) D (29.6) F (77.2)
Farr Lane S.B. E (36.5) C (23.9) D (28.7)

Aviation Road at Midnight Drive/Manor
Drive
Left turn on Aviation Road E.B. A (8.2) A (8.9) A (8.7)
Left turn on Aviation Road W.B. A (9.6) A (8.3) A (8.6)
Midnight Drive N.B. C (19.5) B (14.9) C (17.2)
Manor Drive S.B. F (51.3) E (36.0) E (38.2)

Aviation Road at School Parking Driveway
Left turn on Aviation Road E.B.
A (9.3) A (9.1) A (9.0)

Aviation Road at Cottage Hill Road
Left turn on Aviation Road W.B. A (9.7) A (8.7) A (9.1)
Cottage Hill Road N.B. D (28.1) B (14.8) C (17.0)

Aviation Road at Burke Drive
Left turn on Aviation Road W.B. B (10.4) B (10.3) B (10.4)
Burke Drive N.B. F (97.8) F (50.7) F (264.0)

13
Aviation Road Corridor Study
September 2008

• Aviation Road and Midnight Drive/Manor
Drive- The southbound approach of Manor
Drive operates at LOS E or worse during the
AM, Midday and PM peak hour periods. All
other approaches operat e at LOS C or better
during the AM, Midday and PM peak hour peri-
ods.

• Aviation Road and School Parking Driveway-
The eastbound left turn movement on Aviation
Road into the School Parking driveway currently
operates at LOS A during the AM, Midday and
PM peak hour periods.

• Aviation Road and Cottage Hill Road – The
Aviation Road westbound le ft turn at this inter-
section currently operate at LOS A, while the
Cottage Hill Road approach currently operates
at LOS D or better during the AM, Midday and
PM peak hour periods. Because through traffic
does not have a stop sign, it was not evaluated

• Aviation Road and Burke Drive – The
northbound approach of Burke Drive currently
operates at LOS F during the AM, Midday and
PM peak hour periods. Th e left turn movement
on the westbound approach of Aviation Road
currently operates at LOS B during the AM,
Midday and PM peak hour periods.

D. SAFETY

1. Crash Data

Overview

Crash data for Aviation Road for the five-year period
from January 2000 to December 2005 provides valu-
able information about the relative safety of the cor-
ridor and the intersections, especially as related to
other similar corridors and intersections around the
State of New York. The accident analysis considers six separate sections
within the study area:


Segment 1 – West Mountain Rd/Butler Pond
Rd to Mountain View Lane intersection;
• Segment 2 – Mountain View Lane to Fox Farm
Road/Potter Road intersection;
• Segment 3 – Fox Farm Road/Potter Road to
Dixon Road/Farr Lane intersection;
• Segment 4 – Dixon Road/Farr Lane to Mid-
night Drive/Manor Drive intersection;
• Segment 5 – Midnight Drive/Manor Drive to
Cottage Hill Road intersection; and
• Segment 6 – Cottage Hill Road to Burke Drive
intersection.

No analyses were completed for the portions of
Aviation Road east of Burk e Drive or west of West
Mountain Road.

The accident data includes non-reportable accidents,
with some limited information available for these
types. Appendix A provides more information on
specific accident descripti ons and collision diagrams.

Segment 1

Segment 1, West Mountain Rd/Butler Pond Road
to the Mountain View Lane intersection, was the
scene of fifteen accidents during the five-year analy-
sis period. Thirteen of these accidents occurred at
the intersection of West Mountain Road with Avia-
tion Road. This intersection was on the High Risk
Rural Roads Accident Summary sent to NYSDOT
Region 1 in November 2006. It was determined that
drivers may find it difficult to judge the speed of
approaching traffic on West Mountain Road when
at a stop sign on Aviation Road. The accident rate
for the West Mountain Road / Butler Road intersec-
tion is 1.86 accidents per million entering vehicles
(acc/MEV) compared to the expected statewide rate
of 0.27 acc/MEV for similar facilities. This is 6.9
times the expected rate and may be caused by the
difficulty in judging vehicle speed when turning onto
West Mountain Road. The severity distribution of
the accidents is normal.

The accident rate for the Mountain View Lane inter-
section is 0.14 acc/MEV compared to the expected
statewide rate of 0.16 acc/ MEV for similar facilities.
A cluster of right-angle accidents is evident on this
segment with eight of the fifteen total accidents in-
volving right angle or left turns.

Aviation Road/Burke Drive Intersection

14 Aviation Road Corridor Study
September 2008

Segment 2

This segment, Mountain View Lane to the Fox Farm
Road/Potter Road intersection, was the scene of 29
accidents for the five-year analysis period. Fifteen of
those accidents were directly related to the intersec-
tion of Fox Farm Road / Potter Road intersection
with Aviation Road. A cluster of right-angle acci-
dents were found in this segment with six located at
the intersection and three related to the roadway to
the west. The accident rate for the Fox Farm Road /
Potter Road intersection with Aviation Road is 0.67
acc/MEV compared to the expected statewide rate
of 0.27 acc/MEV for similar facilities. The accidents
do not reveal any other significant patterns except
that the accident rate is high for this location. The
severity distribution of the accidents is normal.

Segment 3

Ten accidents occurred in Segment 3, Fox Farm
Road/Potter Road to th e Dixon Road/Farr Lane
intersection, seven of whic h were attributed to the
Dixon Road/Farr Lane intersection, for the five-year
analysis period. The accidents occur for a variety of
reasons, with no one reason clearly standing out. The
accident rate for the Dixon Road/Farr Lane intersec-
tion with Aviation Road is 0.28 acc/MEV compared
to the statewide expected rate of 0.27 acc/MEV for
a four leg intersection with two-way stop control.
The severity distribution of the accidents along this
segment is normal. Five of the ten accidents were
rear-end accidents of varyin g contributing factors.

Segment 4

Segment 4, Dixon Road/Farr Lane to the Midnight
Drive/Manor Drive intersection, was the scene of
eighteen accidents. The accident rate for the Mid-
night Drive/Manor Drive intersection with Aviation
Road is 0.24 acc/MEV compared to the statewide
expected rate of 0.27 acc/ME V for similar facilities.
Six of eighteen accidents within the segment oc-
curred at this intersection. Two of the accidents, one
of which was at the intersection, involved bicyclists.
Accident history shows the occurrence of six rear-
end crashes, with four rela ted to the linear portion of
the segment west of the intersection and one at the
intersection. Each of these occurred while a vehicle
was stopped in traffic and struck from behind, and
all of these accidents involved vehicles traveling east-
bound on Aviation Road. Time of day does not ap-
pear to be a contributing fa ctor. The severity distri-
bution of the accidents is normal.

Segment 5

Twelve accidents occurred in Segment 5, Midnight
Drive/Manor Drive to the Cottage Hill Road inter-
section, in the five year analysis period. Four of
these were related to the intersection of Cottage Hill
Road and Aviation Road. The accident rate for the
intersection, 0.15 acc/MEV,
was slightly less than
the statewide expected rate for similar intersections
of 0.16 acc/MEV. Four of the twelve crashes on this
segment were rear-end type s, all of which occurred
while a vehicle was stopped in traffic and struck
from behind. Three of thes e occurred while vehicles
were traveling east on Aviation Road. The severity
distribution of the a ccidents is normal.

Segment 6

During the five-year analysis period, twenty one
crashes occurred in Segmen t 6, Cottage Hill Road to
the Burke Drive intersection. The accident rate for
the Burke Drive intersection is 0.32 acc/MEV,
slightly higher than the statewide expected rate of
0.29 acc/MEV for similar facilities. One of the acci-
dents west of the intersection involved a bicyclist.
Rear-end collisions are ag ain the most predominant
type of crash in this segment, but only one occurred
at the intersection. The severity distribution of the
accidents is normal.

Accident Anal ysis

The overall study area has a

high number of rear-
end, left turn and right angle accidents. Reviewing
the accident descriptions revealed that many of the
rear end accidents occurred while one vehicle was
stopped in traffic, either turning or waiting for an-
other vehicle to turn. The presence and close prox-
imity of driveways, both co mmercial and residential,
is a contributing factor to the number of rear end,
left turn and right angle accidents.

The accident rates for three of the six intersections
were below the expected statewide averages. Two of
the other intersections are considered high accident
locations, and the remaining intersection is at ap-
proximately the expected average rate. The West
Mountain Road / Butler Pond Road intersection
with Aviation Road accide nt rate of 1.86 acc/MEV
is 6.9 times the expected statewide rate of 0.27 acc/
MEV for similar facilities. The accident rate at the
Fox Farm Road / Potter Road intersection with
Aviation is 0.67 acc/MEV, which is 2.5 times the
expected statewide rate of 0.27 acc/MEV. Both of
these are four-way intersections with two-way stop
control. The Burke Drive intersection with Aviation
Road accident rate is 0.32 acc/MEV, which is just

15
Aviation Road Corridor Study
September 2008

above the expected statewide rate of 0.29 acc/MEV
for three-leg intersections with left turn lanes and
five or more lanes under signal control.

Pedestrians were not involv ed in the accidents re-
ported during the five-year study period. Three of
the ninety-two total accidents involved bicycles. One
of the bicycle accidents occurred due to the bicyclist
crossing Aviation Road at an unexpected location
and not waiting for an appropriate gap in the traffic
to cross. The other two acci dents were the result of
the bicycle traveling on the wrong side of the road
and the drivers’ failure to notice the bicyclist.

2. Bicycle Facilities

Portions of the Aviation Road Corridor have very
wide shoulders that can easily accommodate bicy-
clists. However, there ar e other portions, notably in
front of the western portion of the school campus
and along the modular homes adjacent to Mountain
View Lane, where bicycling space is very limited. In
these locations, the width of the paved shoulder is
six inches and one foot or less, respectively. There
are no shared use paths in the Aviation Road Corri-
dor to accommodate bicyclists off-road.

3. Pedestrian Facilities

Sidewalks in front of the school campus provide
space for pedestrians that is separated from vehicular
traffic lanes. Connections to other pedestrian facili-
ties off-campus are limited to the crosswalk connec-
tion to the sidewalk along Burke Drive. West of the
campus area, pedestrians must walk in the grass adja-
cent to the roadway or along the shoulder of the
road. Even with a mini mum paved shoulder width
of three feet for the rest of the Study Area, this is not
a particularly safe situat ion for pedestrians.

E. UTILITIES

Aviation Road has storm drains along both sides of
the road. The inlets are typically several feet away
from the current travel lane s. Municipal water lines
service the properties along Aviation Road in the
Study Area; the pipes lie in the Aviation Road right-
of-way.

Overhead utility poles line the south side of the
roadway along the entire length of Aviation Road
within the Study Area. Utility poles also line the
north side of the road from Dixon Road to West
Mountain Road. The poles are situated variable dis-
tances off the edge of pavement, ranging from one-
to twelve-feet away. A large phone switching center sits in the southwest corner of the Aviation Road/
Dixon Road/Manor Drive
intersection and a con-
crete utility building lies at the edge of the paved
shoulder just west of th e Prospect School western
entrance. Fire hydrants are located at varying dis-
tances from Aviation Road along the north side at
several intersections.

F. LAND USE AND ZONING

Aviation Road in the Study Area supports a mix of
land uses; Figure II-9 shows the land use in the
Study Area. At the eastern end, the largest single
land use is the School Di strict Campus, which in-
cludes a grade school on the northern portions of
the parcel, a middle school close to Aviation Road
on the east side of the campus, and the high school,
which is situated close to Aviation Road on the west
side of the campus. Park ing lots lie between both
secondary schools and the roadway itself. Two
churches lie across the street east of the central sig-
nalized entrance to the Campus. Single family resi-
dences lie west of this intersection between the inter-
section itself and a State Police headquarters oppo-
site the western exit from the High School parking
lot.

Beyond the school and th e State Police barracks
westward to Poplar Lane are single and two-family
residential units. West of Poplar Lane, the land uses
switch to small offices on the south side and com-
mercial uses of single family residential structures
and a church on the north side. These uses transi-
tion to retail commercial on the south side of the
street further to the west to Dixon Road and mixed
commercial uses on the north side of the road to
Manor Drive.

Single and two family residences line Aviation Road
from Farr Lane to Fox Farm Road on the north; a
forested area lines the south side of the road between
Dixon and Potter Roads. West of Potter Road and
Fox Farm Road, the land use is almost entirely single
family until reachi ng just west of Crownwood Lane
where the Prospect School, Child and Family Center
and fire house are grouped together as a public ser-
vice land use node. Just west of the Prospect School
western entrance on the south side of Aviation Road
is a concrete utility buildin g. West of the Child and
Family Center on the north side and the concrete
utility building on the south side, the land use returns
to single family residences to West Mountain Road.

16 Aviation Road Corridor Study
September 2008

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Aviation Road Corridor Study
September 2008

Aviation Road
Corridor Study
The Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation Council
Town of Queensbury, New York
Figure II-9
Existing Land Use

Aviation Road Corridor Study
September 2008

Aviation Road Corridor Study
September 2008

Aviation Road
Corridor Study
The Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation Council
Town of Queensbury, New York
Figure III-1
Existing Zoning Districts

Aviation Road Corridor Study
September 2008

17
Aviation Road Corridor Study
September 2008

G. ENVIRONMENTAL AND
CULTURAL RESOURCES

There are minimal natural resources of concern in
the Study Area. There is a large forested parcel
within the study area that is a City of Glens Falls
watershed property. There ar e no significant State or
Federal wetlands with the Study Area, nor are there
significant waterbodies, watercourses or steep slopes.
Western Queensbury contains rare species such as
the Karner Blue and Frosted Elfin butterflies as well
as unique ecological communities. Locations of
these natural resources, although not occurring di-
rectly within the immediate corridor area, should be
taken into account as access modifications to Avia-
tion Road are considered.
There are no historic re-
sources, or structures or neighborhoods listed on or
eligible to be listed on th e National Register of His-
toric Places.

H. TRANSIT

The Greater Glens Falls Transit (GGFT) provides
fixed route and paratransi t public transportation
services in the greater Glens Falls area (Figure I-10).
GGFT currently operates Routes 11 and 12 along
Aviation Road. Both routes begin northbound ser-
vice at Ridge Street Terminal in Glens Falls. Route
11 operates hourly along Glen Street (Rt 9) to Wal-
Mart, with most routes turning onto Aviation Road
to terminate at Aviation Mall. Route 12 also operates
hourly along Glen Street (Rt 9) turning onto Avia-
tion Road to service the John Burke apartments
within the Study Area. Routes 11 and 12 operate
from 6:30 AM until 6:00 PM on weekdays and com-
bine to provide half-hourl y service. Saturday sched-
ules operate a similar level of service.

The fare on all GGFT fixed route services is $1.00
per trip.

GGFT previously provided on-demand services
along Aviation Road beyond Burke Drive, but it was
discontinued for lack of use.

I. OTHER EXISTING CONDITIONS

Numerous signs line both sides of the roadway with
no particular organization or common design to
make comprehension easier. Mailboxes are also com-
mon along Aviation Road, especially west of Potter
Road/Fox Farm Road. Appendix B includes several
images of the corridor showing the different types of
signage currently posted with the Aviation Road
Corridor.

J. CONCLUSION

The analysis of existing conditions on Aviation Road
reveals several issues that sh ould be addressed as part
of future plans for the corridor, including:

• Lack of turning lanes at roadways and heavily
used driveways;
• Lack of adequate shoulders for bicycle use,
• A disjointed sidewalk system;
• High crash rates at the intersections of Aviation
Road with Fox Farm/Potter Roads and West
Mountain Road;
• Alignment / LOS of the Aviation/Dixon/Farr
Lane intersection;
• Minimal transit services or facilities; and
• Failing or near failing levels of service on nu-
merous approaches to several intersections.

Additionally, proposed changes relating to the access
to the school campus, shown in Appendix C, may
also impact future operations of this portion of Avia-
tion Road.
Sidewalk segments properly required by the
Town to be installed with newer development
along Aviation Road contribute to the develop-
ment of a complete sidewalk system

18 Aviation Road Corridor Study
September 2008

III. MANAGING FUTURE
VEHICULAR, PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE TRAFFIC

A. FUTURE GROWTH AREAS

In order to establish estimate s of future traffic levels
on Aviation Road, the study team examined the cur-
rent traffic patterns and established the “traffic-
shed” for Aviation Road. This is the area that can be
expected to contribute tr affic to Aviation Road on a
regular basis. Figure III-1 shows the existing zon-
ing in the corridor with the “traffic-shed” overlain.
Figure III-1 also highlights proposed development
that is being considered within the study area. The
Study Team projected traffic volumes into the future
using a standard growth rate, with the addition of
additional traffic expected to be generated by the
proposed developments, base d on their size and land
use. Figures III-2 and III-3 shows the future traf-
fic projections for the corridor. These projections
were advanced through 2016, the year selected as the
ending date for the projections. The 2016 traffic
projections became the basi s of the future intersec-
tion alternatives analysis presented in Section III.

The LOS for the No Action condition projected to
2016 is included in Table III-1 . It is combined with
the future analysis of different future alternatives so
that it is easy to compare the various options. These
numbers were also used for the 2016 roundabout
alternatives analysis, which Table III-3 presents.

B. INTERSECTIONS

1. Overview

As vehicular traffic continues to grow on Aviation
Road, congestion at inters ections will increase.
There are several options that can be pursued to
address this increase, including:

• Adding additional traffic through and turn lanes
at the intersections;
• Adding stops signs;
• Adding signals; or
• Constructing roundabouts.

Not all of these options are available or appropriate
at each intersection. Warrants for either a stop sign
or traffic signal must be met before these options
can be exercised at an intersection. The addition of
through or turning lanes at intersections is also, for most cases, only acceptable on Aviation Road when
used in conjunction with a stop sign or traffic signal.

This section of the report
describes the alternatives
that were considered for each intersection and seg-
ment. It then examines which options are appropri-
ate for each intersection to address future conditions
projected for 2016. It explores how the viable op-
tions may change the future operations at the Avia-
tion Road intersections under consideration. Table
III-2 summarizes the different alternatives consid-
ered for each intersection and segment. Figures
III-4, III-5, III-6, and III-7 show the general loca-
tion of the proposed roadway improvements along
Aviation Road. Appendix D contains a more de-
tailed discussion of the development of the various
alternatives.

The intersection analysis used the following parame-
ters in the evaluation of traffic signals at the intersec-
tions along the Aviation Road Corridor:

• The traffic signals will operate in accordance to
the New York State Manual of Uniform Traffic
Control Devices;
• The signals will be fully actuated signals, with all
intersection approaches having vehicle detec-
tion, consistent with NYSDOT policy;
• Signal phasing will provide one phase for Avia-
tion Road traffic and one phase for side road
traffic (a two phase operation) unless intersec-
tion geometry or heavy conflicting vehicle
movements indicate the need for analysis of
additional phasing;
• Left turns will be allowed during the regular
green phase for each roadway section;
• If exclusive left turn signaling is appropriate,
based on the initial signaliz ed analysis, left turns
will also be allowed during the normal green
phase; and
• Signal timing will be consistent with existing
timing parameters, modified when required to
accommodate additiona l signal operational
phases.

The roundabout analysis assumed that each round-
about wo uld h

ave only a single lane and a single ap-
proach lane in each direction. Table III-3 provides
a summary of the analysis.

Aviation Road Corridor Study
September 2008

Aviation Road
Corridor Study
The Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation Council
Town of Queensbury, New York
Figure III-2
Future (2016) AM Peak Hour
Traffic Volumes
15
8
2 37 5

1 3
1

1
A
vi
a
tio n
R d
.
M
o
u nt
a
in

V i
e w
L
n .

1 5
8
8 2

1
1 2

1
4 0
1
45
6

1
2
2
1
13 9

91 A
vi
a ti
o n
R d
.

B ur
k e

Q u
een sbu
r
y S ch . C
hu
rc
h
D r.

Cottage Hill Rd.
A vi at i
o n
R d
.
F
ar r

L n
.
D
ix
on Rd.
P
ot
te
r
R d.

F
ox
Fa
rm Rd
.

M a
n
or
D
r.
Popl
a r

M
idn
i
gh t

Prospect Dr.
M oun
ta
i
n
V i
e w
Ln.
W
.
Mo
un t
a i
n
Rd
.
A viati
on

R d
.
Non-Signalized Inter-
section
Signalized Intersection
LEGEND

Aviation Road Corridor
2
6

1 6
2
9
7 9

7 8
9 61

5 9

B urk
e Dr .
Avi a
ti
o n
R d
.
1
3
3
4 3
6
9
1 4

3 5 4

7 65

3 59

Avi a
ti
o n
R d
.
I
– 8
7 S
B
O ff
R
a
m p

1
58

1
2 12

295

8 58

1 1
8
1
1 2 A
vi
at i
on
Rd.
Q
u
e
ensb
ury

S ch
. D r.

Ch u
rc
h Dr
.
15

1 6
5
7
0 7

3 7
9
98

6
Co tta
ge
Hi
ll
Rd .
Avia
ti
o n
R d
.
1
84
1 00 4

18
2
5 3
9
A
vi
a t
io
n
R d
.
Q
ue
e ns
b
ury

S ch
o o
l
P k
n g
.
1 6
5 78

2 9

5
1 0
2 7 4

8 94

1
4

2
4 6 A
v
ia t
io n
R d.
M a
no
r
D r.
M i
d ni
g h t
D r.
F
ox F
arm
R
d.

7
3 87

1 55

7

2
2 0
2
6 82

1
1
4
3 51
A v
ia t
io n
R d.
P
o
t
t e
r

R d.
F a
rr
L n. A
via
tio
n
R d
.
1 8

5 0
1
2 3

7
1 6

3 7
61

1
20
11
9 15
1 56
Dixon Rd.
1
0
0
Includes the following back-
ground projects •Professional Office Park
•Office Space
•Vacant Getty Station
•Western Reserve Single Family
•Kings Court Single Family
•Crownwood Subdivision
•Dunkin’ Donuts Restaurant
Note:
Wes
t
M oun
tai
n
R d.

1 55

6 01

8

Aviation Road Corridor Study
September 2008

Aviation Road Corridor Study
September 2008

Aviation Road
Corridor Study
The Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation Council
Town of Queensbury, New York
Figure III-3
Future (2016) PM Peak Hour
Traffic Volumes
7
1
2 21 5

1 2
5
0
A vi
a
tio n
R d
.
M
o
u nt
a
in

V i
e w
L
n .

1 8
1

1 2
5
0
1
6
8
8 7

1
15 0
25

1
8
2
10
11 0
88 A vi
a ti
o n
R d
.

B ur
k e

Q u
een sbur
y S ch . C
hu
rc
h

Cottage Hill
A vi at i
o n

F
ar r

L n
.
D
ix
on
P ot
te
r
R d.

F ox
Fa
rm
M a
n
or
D
r.
Popl
a r

M
idn
i
gh t

Prospect
M oun
ta
i
n
V i
e w
Ln.

W
.
Mo
un t
a i
n
Rd
.
A
viati
on

R d
.
22

1 3
9
1
0 2
9
2 3 5

8 53

3 7
B
urk
e Dr .
Avi a
ti
o n
R d
.
1
3
1
3 0
8
1
1 4
0

7 1 4

7 20
2 72

Avi a
ti
o n
R d
.
I
– 8
7 S
B
O ff
R
a
m p

1
68

7 69

1
1
55

1
2 08
3
39

6 50

1
1
1
1
A
vi
at i
on
Rd.

Q u
e
ensb
ury

S ch
. D r.
Ch
u
rc
h Dr
.
5
1 1
9
8
1 8

6 8
8
56

1 0
Co
tta
ge
Hi
ll
Rd .
Avia
ti
o n
R d
.
1
2
8 65
28

7 9
5
A
vi
a t
io
n
R d
.
Q
ue
e ns
b
ury

S ch
o o
l
P k
n g
.
3 3
7 93

2 6
1
2
1 2

4 1
1 1
7 87

5
5
5
3 0 A v
ia t
io n
R d.
M a
no
r
D r.
M i
d ni
g h t
D r.

F ox F
arm
R
d.

2 1
5 07

3 10

2

1
2 3 6

4 87

6
1
2
2 39
A v
ia t
io n
R d.
P
o
t
t e
r

R d.
F
a
rr
L n. A
via
tio
n
R d
.
4
1

7 3
2
2 3

21

7
3 2

11
5
11
15
15
6 61
1 00
Dixon Rd.
1
1
0
Non-Signalized Inter-
section
LEGEND

Aviation Road Corridor
Study Area

Includes the following background
projects
•Professional Office Park
•Office Space
•Vacant Getty Station
•Western Reserve Single Family
•Kings Court Single Family
•Crownwood Subdivision
•Dunkin’ Donuts Restaurant
We
st
Mo u
n ta
in

Rd

Aviation Road Corridor Study
September 2008

Aviation Road Corridor Study
September 2008

Aviation Road
Corridor Study
The Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation Council
Town of Queensbury, New York
Figure III-4
Roadway Improvements
Segment 1

Aviation Road Corridor Study
September 2008

Aviation Road Corridor Study
September 2008

Aviation Road
Corridor Study
The Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation Council
Town of Queensbury, New York
Figure III-5
Roadway Improvements
Segment 2

Aviation Road Corridor Study
September 2008

Aviation Road Corridor Study
September 2008

Aviation Road
Corridor Study
The Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation Council
Figure III-6
Roadway Improvements
Segment 3

Aviation Road Corridor Study
September 2008

Aviation Road Corridor Study
September 2008

Aviation Road
Corridor Study
The Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation Council
Town of Queensbury, New York
Figure III-7
Roadway Improvements
Segment 4

Aviation Road Corridor Study
September 2008

19
Aviation Road Corridor Study
September 2008

2. Analysis and Recommendations

Aviation Road at Burke Drive

Stop Sign Control:

Under stop control for 2016 volumes, Burke Drive
operates at LOS F, with Aviation Road operating at
LOS B during both peak periods.

Three-Phase Fully Actuated Signal Operation:

The signal analysis performed for the Aviation
Road / Burke Drive intersection is for an isolated
signal not tied into the operation of the I-87 on-off
ramp signals. The first si gnalized evaluation included
a three phase, full actuated traffic signal control, with
a left turn phase being pr ovided for existing west-
bound Aviation Road left turn lane onto Burke
Drive. The results show an overall intersection LOS
C for both the AM and PM peak periods, with some
approaches operating at LOS D or worse. The Avia-
tion Road eastbound approach exhibited LOS D
during both AM and PM peaks. Westbound Aviation
road exhibited LOS C for the AM peak period, while
exhibiting LOS E for th e PM peak. Burke Drive
operates at LOS C during the morning peak and
LOS B during the evening peak.

A second evaluation was undertaken that included a
right turn lane for eastbound Aviation Road into
Burke Drive. Under this co ndition, the intersection
exhibited an overall LOS C during both peak periods
with improved approach LOS. Eastbound Aviation
Road exhibited LOS C for both AM and PM peak
periods. Aviation Road we stbound exhibited LOS C
during the morning peak and LOS D during the eve- ning peak hour. Burke Drive improved to LOS B
during the morning peak and continued at LOS B
during the evening peak.

The results of the LOS analysis show acceptable
LOS under the three phase operation with the added
eastbound Aviation Road right turn lane.

Other Considerations:

Burke Drive is immediately to the west of the signal-
ized intersection at I-87 (Adirondack Northway)
southbound ramps. Cons equently, a roundabout
was not considered to be appropriate at the Burke
Drive intersection. The Burke Drive and
southbound I-87 ramp intersections, if both con-
trolled by traffic signals, will function inefficiently if
the signal operations are not coordinated or con-
trolled by a single opera tion and controller. How-
ever, the two signals at the SB and NB I-87 ramps
are operated by NYSDOT, and are run by one con-
troller as a single inters ection operation. Based on
past experience working with NYSDOT on traffic-
related issues, and specifically on traffic signals, it is
not anticipated that NYSDOT would be receptive to
the installation of a signal at Burke Drive due to the
close proximity of Burke Drive to the two I-87 sig-
nals.

To further facilitate discussi on of future intersection
control at Burke Drive, the analysis considered the
concept of looking at the intersections at Burke
Drive and I-87 Southbound ramps as one access
point on Aviation Road. NYSDOT policy for con-
trol of access at expressway rams is set forth in
Chapter 6, section 6.04.09 in the NYSDOT Highway
Design Manual. The Manual indicates that “There

LOS/Delay (in sec.)
Unsignalized

Signalized
2016
AM Peak Hour
2016
PM Peak Hour 2016
AM Peak Hour 2016
PM Peak Hour
Aviation Road at Potter Road/Fox Farm
Road

Stop Control
Aviation Road EB. A (8.2) A (8.6)
Aviation Road WB B (10.3) B (10.2)
Potter Road NB F D (25.8)
Fox Farm Road SB F F
Overall intersection N/A N/A
Table III-1
Future (2016) Intersection Level of Service (LOS)

20 Aviation Road Corridor Study
September 2008

2 Phase Operation
Aviation Road EB. B (13.0) A (4.9)
Aviation Road WB C (25.3) C (33.3)
Potter Road NB C (21.7) B (13.9)
Fox Farm Road SB B (16.2) D (48.4)
Overall intersection B (19.1) C (21.9)

3 Phase Operation – Aviation Rd Left Turn
Lanes and Potter Rd Right Turn Lane

Aviation Road EB. C (29.3) C (21.6)
Aviation Road WB B (11.2) B (12.9)
Potter Road NB C (15.9) A (6.9)
Fox Farm Road SB B (18.3) C (22.9)
Overall intersection C (20.0) B (14.8)

Aviation Road at Dixon Road/Farr Lane .

Stop Control
Aviation Road EB A (8.7) A (9.5)
Aviation Road WB B (11.4) A (10.0)
Dixon Road NB F F
Farr Lane SB F F
Overall intersection N/A N/A

3 Phase Operation
Aviation Road EB D (42.0)
Aviation Road WB B (10.5)
Dixon Road NB D (53.3)
Farr Lane SB D (54.5)
Overall intersection C (32.8)

2 Phase Operation
Aviation Road EB B (15.4) B (19.3)
Aviation Road WB A (5.2) B (14.8)
Dixon Road NB C (33.7) C (32.2)
Farr Lane SB C (31.5) B (14.7)
Overall intersection B (13.2) B (918.5)

LOS/Delay (in sec.)
Unsignalized

Signalized
2016
AM Peak Hour 2016
PM Peak Hour 2016
AM Peak Hour 2016
PM Peak Hour
Table III-1 (Cont’d)
Future (2016) Intersection Level of Service (LOS)

21
Aviation Road Corridor Study
September 2008

should be control of access along the whole of all
ramps. To insure safety and free flow of traffic,
ramps must be kept free of any intermediate roadway
connections either by ac quisition or outer frontage
roads. At the crossroad end of interchange ramps,
control of access is required for several hundred feet
along the crossroad.” Additionally, NYSDOT wants
ramps to exist onto main roads rather than smaller
side roads. These policies make it unlikely that NYS-
DOT will consider either ch anging the end point of
the southbound ramp to be on Burke Drive in the
vicinity of Abbey Lane or allowing Burke Drive to
intersect the ramp at the same location.

Public Meeting and Advisory Committee Meeting
Outcome/Recommendations:
Potential consolidation of the roadways is a very
long term option which will not provide assistance in
Aviation Road corridor upgrades under the timeline
of this study. For the short term, the recommenda-
tions are to change existing lane configuration/paint
to provide two left turn only lanes onto the
southbound on-ramp, providing one lane only for
Aviation Road westbound. This work should be
done in conjunction with construction of a round-
about at the Queensbury School District driveway. Preservation of left turns into and out of Burke
Drive was identified as essential.

Aviation Road and Queensbury School Drive/
Church Driveway

This intersection currently operates under signal
control and therefore the analysis did not include
consideration of a stop sign at this intersection.

Existing Signal Control with One New Turn Lane:
The 2016 signal evaluation included the introduction
of a right turn lane for westbound Aviation Road
traffic into the Queensbury School. Under 2016
conditions and a modified
timing plan, the intersec-
tion exhibited an overall LOS of B in the AM peak
period and LOS C during the PM peak period. Avia-
tion Road eastbound exhibited LOS B during both
the AM and PM peak periods. Westbound Aviation
Road exhibited LOS B during the AM peak and LOS
C during the PM peak. The Queensbury School ap-
proach exhibited LOS C du ring both peak periods.
The Church driveway approach operated at LOS B
during the AM peak period and LOS C during the
PM peak.
Aviation Road at Burke Drive

Stop Control
Aviation Road WB – Left turn B (13.5) B (14.4)
Burke Drive NB F F
Overall intersection N/A N/A

3 Phase Operation Existing Geometry
Aviation Road EB D (40.9) D (42.6)
Aviation Road WB – Through C (24.8) D (37.3)
Aviation Road WB – Left turn B (12.4) F
Burke Drive NB C (21.7) B (17.6)
Overall intersection C (31.4) C (27.0)

3 Phase With EB Right Turn Lane
Aviation Road EB C (29.2) C (30.2)
Aviation Road WB – Through C (27.4) D (36.4)
Aviation Road WB – Left turn B (10.6) C (29.4)
Burke Drive NB B (19.5) B (17.5)
Overall intersection C (27.0) C (31.8)
Table III-1 (Cont’d)
Future (2016) Intersection Level of Service (LOS)
Source: Wilbur Smith Associates

22 Aviation Road Corridor Study
September 2008

The draft Queensbury School District Campus Mas-
ter Plan encourages the installation of a roundabout
at this intersection. A roundabout would not have a
new right turn lane on the westbound Aviation Road
approach to the intersection. A roundabout at this
intersection would operate at LOS A through 2016.

Public Meeting and Advisory Committee Meeting
Outcome/Recommendation:
Construct a roundabout. Construction of the round-
about must be done in c onjunction with re-striping
the intersection of Aviation Road and the I-87
(Adirondack Northway) southbound on-ramps.

Aviation Road and Midnight Drive/Manor Drive

The analysis of the Aviation Road intersection with
Midnight and Manor Drives assumed that the cur-
rent misalignment of the two side streets would re-
main.

Stop Sign Control
:
The analysis initially evaluated this intersection for
2016 conditions with just stop signs for Midnight
Drive and Manor Drive. This analysis indicated LOS
F for both Midnight Drive and Manor Drive ap-
proaches during the morning and evening peak
hours for 2016 volumes. Aviation Road operated at
LOS A for eastbound and westbound traffic during
both peak periods.

Two Phase Signal Control
:
The analysis then evaluated the intersection under a
two phase signal scenarios. This scenario allowed the
two side roads to operate together under a common
green signal phase. During the AM peak period, the
intersection operated at an overall LOS B, with all
approaches operating at LO S C or better. During the
PM peak period, the inte rsection operated at an
overall LOS A, with all approaches operating at LOS
C or better. Eastbound Av iation road exhibits LOS
B during the AM peak an d LOS A during the PM
peak period, while west bound operated at LOS A
during both peak periods. Midnight Drive operated
at LOS B during both AM and PM peak periods.
Manor Drive operated at LOS C during both peak
periods.

Side Road Split Phasing Control
:
The analysis considered a second signal phasing sce-
nario that included separate green phases for the two
side roads in response to the minor offset alignment
of Midnight Drive and Manor Drive with Aviation
Road. During both the AM and PM peak periods,
the intersection operated at an overall LOS B, with
all approaches operating at LOS C or better. East- bound Aviation Road exhibited LOS C during the
AM peak period and LOS B during the PM peak
period. Aviation road we
stbound operated at LOS B
during both peak periods. Midnight Drive exhibited
LOS B during both the AM and PM peak periods.
Manor drive operated at LOS C during both peak
periods.

Roundabout
:
The draft Queensbury School District Campus Mas-
ter Plan also encourages installation of a roundabout
at this intersection. To operate properly, a round-
about would need to be centered on Aviation Road
between the existing Manor and Midnight Drive
intersections. It would most likely require the acqui-
sition of additional property, most likely the house
on the northeast corner of Manor Drive and Avia-
tion Road. The roundabout is projected to operate
at LOS A for all approaches to the roundabout.

Public Meeting and Advisory Committee Meeting
Outcome/Recommendations:
Construct a roundabout only in conjunction with the
School District Campus Ma ster Plan. Construct a
roundabout only if conditions require it. This is a
future option to be considered in conjunction with
potential school campus access improvements.

Aviation Road at Dixon Road/ Farr Lane

Stop Sign Control
:
This intersection exhibited LOS F for both Dixon
Road and Farr Lane approaches during the morning
and evening peak hours under stop sign control and
2016 volumes. Aviation Road operated at LOS A for
eastbound traffic during both peak periods and LOS
B for westbound traffic during the morning peak
hour and LOS A during the evening peak.

The significant skew of the Dixon Road approach to
Aviation Road creates opera tional concerns for the
flow of side road traffic. In response to this concern,
the analysis included two evaluations with the inter-
section under signal control.

Three Phase Signal Control
:
The first evaluation used a three phase operation,
providing for separate movements for Dixon Road
and Farr Lane. The results of this analysis show
Aviation Road operating at LOS B for the west-
bound approach, but at LOS D for the eastbound
approach during the morning peak hour. Dixon
Road operates at LOS D during the morning peak
hour. Farr Lane will operate at LOS D during the
morning peak. Due to LOS D for three of the four
approaches, the analysis for the evening peak was
not undertaken.

Aviation Road Corridor Study
September 2008

Table III-2 Intersection and Segment Alternatives
No Action
Right-In/Right-Out onto Burke, left turns onto Burke from Aviation Road westbound
Right-In/Right-Out onto Burke
Joint Burke Drive and Northway access lanes to create one intersection with Aviation Road
No Action
Minimum 4′ shoulders on both sides of Aviation Road
Dedicated bicycle lanes on Aviation Road
Planted Median between travel lanes on Aviation Road
Mid-Block Crossing close to High School pedestrian entrance
Sidewalks 5′ wide, Min. 2′ grass strip adjacent to curb, both sides of Aviation Road
Street trees along both sides of Aviation Road
No Action
Roundabout
No Action
Roundabout (needs to be moved east on school plans)
Midnight Drive as main connection between Dixon Road and Aviation Road
No Action
Reduce curb-cut widths
Minimum 4′ shoulders on both sides of Aviation Road
Dedicated bicycle lanes on Aviation Road
Sidewalks 5′ wide, Min. 2′ grass strip adjacent to curb, both sides of Aviation Road
Street trees along both sides of Aviation Road
No Action
Intersection modification with Stop Signs
Roundabout
No Action
Minimum 4′ shoulders on both sides of Aviation Road
Dedicated bicycle lanes on Aviation Road
Sidewalks 5′ wide, Min. 2′ grass strip adjacent to curb on both sides of Aviation Road
Off-Street Multi-Use Pathway (off-line improvement)
No Action
Signalized Intersection
Roundabout
No Action
Minimum 4′ shoulders on both sides of Aviation Road
Dedicated bicycle lanes on Aviation Road
Wide shoulders on Aviation Road
Sidewalks 5′ wide along northern side of Aviation Road with a 2′ grass strip
No Action
Three Way or Four Way Stop Signs
No Action
Minimum 4′ shoulders on both sides of Aviation Road
No Action
Four Way Stop Signs
Flashing lights on Stop Signs on Butler Pond Road
Intersection warning sign on West Mountain Road
Flashing light on West Mountain Road
Roundabout
Narrow travel lanes on West Mountain Road Add flashing lights similar to those on Aviation Road at West Mountain Road.
Dixon Road to Potter Road
Segment
Construct a minimum 10′ width multi-use pathway along the utility ROW from Potter Road to Dixon Road. This off-line improvement would provide a direct connection between these two roads for bicyclists and
pedestrians.
Widen paved shoulders to provide space for pedestrians and bicyclists to share the side of the road.
Fox Farm Lane to Mountain View Lane Potter Road/Fox Farm Lane No changes will be undertaken.Allows continuous bicycle movement on both sides of Aviation Road.
Works best with planted center median, but could also work with center lane.
Mountain View Lane to West Mountain Road Segment No changes will be undertaken. Sidewalks should be constructed from Fox Farm to Mountain View Lane on the north side of Aviation Road with a minimum 2′ separa
tion between the roadway and the sidewalk.
Sidewalks will need to be constructed from the High School driveway to Manor Drive on the north side of Aviation Road, and from
the Church Driveway to Midnight Drive on the south side
of Aviation Road.
Add signals to the intersection, either with or without modifications to the layout of the intersection. Keeps easy accedss to Burke Drive from Northway.
Benefits from Roundabouts to help u-turns, indirect route from Northway.
Long Term solution; Needs more analysis to determine if this may be acceptable to NYSDOT.
Improvement Options
DescriptionComments
Burke Drive to Midnight Drive
IntersectionSegment No changes will be undertaken.
Construct a roundabout to replace the existing traffic light.
No changes will be undertaken.
No changes will be undertaken.
Queensbury School Campus Main Driveway/ Church
Driveway
Intersection
Intersection
Dixon Road/Farr Lane Burke Drive/Aviation Road Intersection Restrict left turns from Burke Drive onto Aviation Road; this movement uses other roadways.
Restrict turns onto Burke Drive to right-in/right-out only. Westbound traffic uses School District main entrance roundabout for
U-turn back to Burke Drive, Burke left turn uses other
roadway intersections. No changes will be undertaken.
Eliminate conflict of two intersections on Aviati on Road within close proximity to each other.
Location
No changes will be undertaken.
4′ width shoulders provided throughout this segment. Additional widening of the paved sh oulder will be needed in this segment from the School Campus Main Drive to Midnight Drive.
Segment
Improvement Type
Infill trees as needed to help enclose the roadway for aesthetic and traffic calming reasons. Construct a planted median in the existing middle turn lane. Provide a left-out, 10′ width cut in the median for State Police t o exit westbound to Aviation Road, left turn lane for bus entry to
school campus and possibly at other select locations.
Construct a pedestrian crosswalk, at a location to be determined, between Cottage Hill Road and Prospect Drive that will line up with the future main entrance to the High School building. Construct 5′ wide bic
ycle lanes on both sides of Aviation Road from the school Campus Drive to Midni
ght Drive, requirin
g additional pavin
g on both sides of the road, preferabl
y using school
district ROW whenever possible which means a slight shift in the centerline.
Midnight Drive/Manor Drive With a roundabout proposed for the Aviation Road/Midnight Drive/Manor Drive intersection, and potential restrictions on turning movements at the Dixon Road/Aviation Road and Burke
Drive/Aviation Road intersections, it is feasible to consider uses Midnight Drive as the main connector between Dixon Road and Aviation Road.
Midnight Drive to Dixon Road Infill trees as needed to help enclose the roadway for aesthetic and traffic calming reasons. Shoulders are currently adequate width, no widening should be necessary.
Add a signal to this intersection, a left turn lane on Aviation Road westbound to Potter Road, and a right turn lane on Potter Road at Aviation Road.
Intersection
Segment No changes will be undertaken.
Shoulders are currently adequate width, no widening should be necessary. Add a roundabout to this intersectio
n, provide sidewalks around the entire roundabout with crosswalks.
No changes will be undertaken
Shoulders are currently adequate width, no widening should be necessary.
Sidewalks should be constructed from Dixon Road/Farr Lane to Potter
Road on the south side of Aviation Road and to Fox Farm Lane on the north side of Aviation Road.
No changes will be undertaken. Allows continuous bicycle movement on both sides of Aviation Road.
Helps calm traffic, improve aesthetics and maintains capacity. Works best with roundabouts for u-turns.
Reduce curb cut width(s) for businesses between Poplar Lane and Dixon Road. Considered to be an essential improvement.
Use of Midni
ght Drive could be needed if left turn movements are limited at Dixon Road and Aviation Road.

Would not be needed with a full signalized intersection or Roundabout at Dixon Road.
Consolidation of wide curb cuts at commercial driv
eways can improve circulation on Aviation Road and
reduce potential conflict points.
Allows continuous bicycle movement on both sides of Aviation Road.
Considered to be an essential improvement.
Reconfiguration of the intersection to reduce acute angle of Dixon Road with Aviation Road and align with
Farr Lane may be difficult if one of the properties on ei ther side of Dixon Road is not available for additional
ROW.
Allows continuous bicycle movement on both sides of Aviation Road.
Allows continuous bicycle movement on both sides of Aviation Road.
Improvements meant to address high crash rate at this intersection.
Improvements meant to address high crash rate at this intersection.
Allows continuous bicycle movement on both sides of Aviation Road.
Allows continuous bicycle movement on both sides of Aviation Road.
Construct a roundabout to provide full movement from all roads wh
en Manor Drive is extended into School Campus. Will need some relocation of Manor Drive to align more closely with Midnight Drive and the taking of
private property.
Sidewalks should be constructed from Manor Drive to the Stewarts Shop sidewalk, fill
gaps in the existin
g sidewalk alon
g non-residential properties, and then extend from the office buildin
gs
to Farr Lane on the north side of Aviation Road, and from Midnight Drive to the Dixon Road, along the existing paved-over sidew alk alignment visible in front of the shopping center on the
south side of Aviation Road. Allows continuous bicycle movement on both sides of Aviation Road.
Modifications meant to address confusing traffic patterns at the intersection
Allows continuous bicycle movement on both sides of Aviation Road.
Requires removal of numersou trees and fences and relocation of utility poles.
Note: Intersections and segments in the corridor not listed above are not proposed for upgrades/changes. Construct 5′ wide bicycle lanes on both sides of Aviation Road, requiring restriping, some additional paving along portions of
this segment.
Signalized Intersection Construct a roundabout; address awkward intersection angle of Dixon and Aviation.
Construct 5′ wide bicycle lanes on both sides of Aviation Road, requiring restriping and some widening.
Construct 5′ wide bicycle lanes on both sides of Aviation Road Four intersection choices: 1) Farr Lane full movement, Dixon Road right-in only; 2) Farr Lane Right-In/Right-Out, Dixon Rod rig
ht-in only; 3) Farr lane full movement, Dixon Road no
movements; 4) Farr Lane and Dixon Road full movements.
West Mountain Road Create wider paved shoulers by moving the fog line (white stripe) inward to create narrower travel lanes. Narrower travel lanes tend to slow traffic.
Flashing yellow light at the intersection for West Mountain Road traffic. Yellow warning signs for upcoming intersection in both directions on West Mountain Road.
Add a roundabout to this intersection.
Mountain View Lane/Pro
spect School Driveway
Add Stop signs to West Mountain Road in both directions.
Intersection
No changes will be undertaken.
Add Stop signs to Aviation Road, Mountain View Lane
(and the Prospect School Driveway, if feasible).
Intersection No changes will be undertaken. Shoulders are currently adequate width along the south side of Av
iation Road, however additional shoulder width is needed in this entire segment along the north side of Aviation Road.
Add flashing lights to the existing stop sign(s).

Aviation Road Corridor Study
September 2008

23
Aviation Road Corridor Study
September 2008

Two-Phase Signal Operation:
The second analysis considered a two phase opera-
tion for this intersection. Under this scenario, during
the morning peak hour eastbound Aviation Road
operates at LOS B with we stbound operating at LOS
A. During the evening peak hour eastbound Aviation
Road operates at LOS B and westbound operates at
LOS B. Both Dixon Road and Farr Lane operate at
LOS C during the morning peak hour. During the
evening peak hour, Dixon road operates at LOS C
and Farr Lane at LOS B.

The results of the LOS analysis show acceptable
LOS under the two phase signal operation.

Roundabout
:
A roundabout at the Dixon Road Farr Lane intersec-
tion with Aviation Road is projected to operate at
LOS A for all approaches during both the AM and
PM peak hours. Various locations for a roundabout
could work at this intersec tion, although all of them
would require the acquisition of additional property
from adjacent pr operty owners.

Because the former gas station on the tight southeast
corner is currently vacant and for sale, the analysis
looked closely at whether ac quisition of this parcel
by the Town would facilitate the construction of a
roundabout and reduce the right-of-way impacts on
adjacent properties. The study indicates that the ac-
quisition of this parcel does not limit impacts on
other parcels. It actually has the opposite affect.

The further to the east that the center of the round-
about is situated along Aviation Road, the more land
is needed from the parcel on the northeast corner of
the intersection. Additionally, the layout of the
needed right-of-way on the property is such that it
removes much of the development potential of the
site. This is because of the need to evenly distribute
the access points from the intersecting streets, which
locates the Farr Lane approach to the roundabout
near the center of the prope rty. The relocated Farr
Lane would need to pass close to or through the
existing house on the propert y. Even when rotating
the access points counterclockwise to make the Farr
Lane access point facing northwest rather than
north, the disruption to the property is significant.
For each of the layouts that try to use the former gas
station site, the amount of right-of-way needed on
the northeast corner is greater, and the location of
the right-of-way more intrusive, than a layout that
places the roundabout closer to the center of the
existing intersection
.

It appears that acquisition of the former gas station
property will not facilitate easier implementation of a
roundabout at this location
.

Public Meeting and Advisory Committee Meeting
Outcome/Recommendations:
Construct a roundabout. This is a high priority inter-
section for this Study. Consideration of right-of-way
needs and a right-of-way as sessment should be un-
dertaken as soon as possible.

Aviation Road at Potter Road/ Fox Farm Road

Stop Sign Control
:
The analysis evaluated this intersection for 2016 con-
ditions under stop control for Potter Road and Fox
Farm Road. As expected Potter Road and Fox Farm
Road operates at LOS F in the morning peak hour,
with Potter Road at LOS D and Fox Farm road at
LOS F during the evening peak hour. Aviation road
will operate at LOS A eastbound and LOS B west-
bound during the morning and evening peak periods
for 2016 volumes.

The analysis also considered an additional option of
maintaining a two way stop system on Potter and
Fox Farm Roads, but adding a left turn lane on Avia-
tion road for westbound traffic turning south onto
Potter Road and a right turn lane on Potter Road for
northbound traffic turning east onto Aviation Road.
No additional LOS analysis was completed for this
alternative, but it would address the largest reasons
for the poor LOS performance in the stop sign con-
trol analysis described above. This alternative also
addresses one of the appare nt reasons for the higher
than normal crash rates at this intersection.

Fully Actuated Signal Control
:
The analysis then evaluated this intersection under
two phase, full actuated traffic signal control. The
results show that Aviation Road will operate at LOS
B on the eastbound approach and LOS C on the
westbound approach during the morning peak pe-
riod for 2016 volumes. During the evening peak
hour eastbound Aviation Road operates at LOS A
while westbound continues at LOS C. Potter Road
will operate at LOS C during the morning peak hour
and LOS B during the evening peak. Fox Farm Road
will operate at LOS B during the morning peak pe-
riod and LOS D during th e evening peak. Overall,
the intersection operated at LOS B during the AM
peak and LOS C during the PM peak.

24 Aviation Road Corridor Study
September 2008

Signal Control with Turn Lanes:
The analysis included further evaluation that ana-
lyzed the intersection under signal control with left
turn lanes for Aviation Road and a right turn lane for
northbound Potter Road approach. Under this signal
operation eastbound Aviati on Road operated at LOS
C during both the AM and PM peak periods, while
westbound operated at LOS B during both peak
periods. Potter Road opera ted at LOS C during the
AM peak period and LOS A during the PM peak
period. Fox Farm Road exhibited LOS B during the
AM peak period and LOS C during the PM peak
period. The overall intersection operation exhibited
LOS C for the AM peak period and LOS B for the
PM peak period.

Roundabout
:
The last part of the analysis examined a roundabout
at this intersection. A ro undabout would operate at
LOS A through 2016. It would also require the addi-
tion of additional right-of-way in order to be con-
structed.

Public Meeting and Advisory Committee Meeting
Outcome/Recommendations:
Provide a left turn lane from westbound Aviation
Road to southbound Potter Road. Also provide a
right turn lane from northbound Potter Road to
eastbound Aviation Road. Crosswalks and appropri-
ate signage should also be provided. If the proposed
turn lanes do not solve the existing crash rate issue at
this intersection, considering a roundabout at this
location will be necessary.

Aviation Road at Mountain View Lane

Stop Sign Control
:
Traffic volumes at this intersection are not high
enough to warrant a traffic signal. The analysis con-
sidered adding a three way stop sign and maintaining
the existing stop sign on Mountain View Lane with
no stop sign on Aviation Road. The primary con-
cern at the intersection is the interaction of side traf-
fic from the school as well as Mountain View Lane
with traffic on Aviation Road and the number of
pedestrians associated with the Prospect School that
cross Aviation Road. No significant change to exist-
ing operations are anticipated through 2016.

Public Meeting and Advisory Committee Meeting
Outcome/Recommendations:
No action is needed at this time or through this plan.
Future issues at this intersection shall be addressed
when deemed appropriate or necessary.

Aviation Road at West Mountain Road

Traffic volumes at this
intersection are not high
enough to warrant a traffic signal. Because the con-
cerns at this intersection are primarily safety related,
the Study Team considered other methods of man-
aging the traffic, including:

• Maintaining the stops signs on both approaches
of Aviation Road with the addition of flashers
on both;
• Installing four way stop signs;
• Adding intersection warning signs on West
Mountain Road;
• Installing a roundabout;
• Narrowing the lanes on West Mountain Road by
moving the white fog line and widening the
paved shoulders; and
• Adding flashing yellow lights on West Mountain
Road.

Public Meeting and Advisory Committee Meeting
Outcome/Recommendations:

• Consider adding a black and yellow speed
“warning” sign to West Mountain Road;
• Add speed radar controlled signs on West
Mountain Road;
• Place flashing red lights on the top of the 2
nd
stop sign on Aviation Road on the eastbound
side of Aviation Road;
• Narrow the West Mountain Road travel lanes by
moving the “fog line” toward the center of the
road – making the lanes narrower and the shoul-
der wider; and
• Research potential road paint options for Avia-
tion Road to warn motorists of the stop ahead
at the intersection with West Mountain Road.

Summary

Each intersection exhibited an overall LOS of C or
better for 2016 operating conditions under signal
control with the operational or intersection configu-
ration improvements noted above. The approaches
to all intersections exhibited LOS C or better with
the exception of Fox Farm Road during the PM peak
period, eastbound Aviation Road at Burke Drive
during the AM peak under exiting geometry, and
westbound Aviation Road at Burke Drive during the
PM peak under revised geometry – LOS D; and
westbound Aviation Road at Burke Drive during the
POM peak period under existing geometry – LOS E.
It is noted that these locations were analyzed as iso-
lated intersections.

25
Aviation Road Corridor Study
September 2008

Each of the intersections for which the analysis con-
sidered a roundabout operated at LOS A, except the
Aviation Road and Church Drive roundabout during
the AM Peak which operated at a LOS B.

Table III-1 and III-3 presents the results of the
LOS analysis for the intersec tions analyzed for instal-
lation of signals or roundabouts.

C. PROPOSED ROUNDABOUTS

As a result of the discussions with the Study Advi-
sory Committee and the overwhelming desire by the
majority of the public that provided comments for
this study, a more detailed roundabout planning-level
analysis for intersections within the corridor was
conducted. This analysis was based on the significant
design and safety considerations that could be ad-
dressed through development of a more detailed
roundabout analysis.

Figures III-8, III-9 and III-10 provide conceptual
design layouts on the potential planning-level pre-
ferred design and alignments for roundabouts at the
Queensbury School Campus intersection with Avia-
tion Road, Manor Drive/Mi dnight Drive intersec-
tion with Aviation Road, and Farr Lane/Dixon Road
intersection with Aviation Road. The conceptual
plans were prepared using an aerial base map. Pedes-
trian and bicycle accommodations were considered
and provided for along Aviation Road. Detailed cost
estimates for each roundabout, without right-of-way
acquisition costs, can be found as tables III-4, III-5
and III-6.

Priorities for each proposed roundabout have been
created as follows:

1) Construction of a roundabout at the Farr Lane/ Dixon Road intersection with Aviation Road is
a top priority;
2) Construction of a roundabout at the Queens-
bury School Campus intersection with Aviation
Road is also a top priority; and
3) Construction of a roundabout at the Manor Drive/Midnight Drive intersection with Avia-
tion Road may be warranted in the future and is
thus included in this document as a recommen-
dation, however it should only be considered
after the other proposed corridor improvements
have been constructed or ruled-out and the need
for a roundabout at this intersection remains.

The next steps will likely invo lve a survey of the area,
detailed utility location as sessment, and roundabout
design and engineering.
RODEL- Roundabout analysis AM Peak
Hour PM Peak Hour
Aviation Road and Fox Farm Rd/
Potter Road A (4.7) A (5.0)
Aviation Road EB approach A (0.09) A (0.08)
Aviation Road WB approach A (0.06) A (0.09)
Potter Road NB approach A (0.09) A (0.06)
Fox Farm Road SB approach A (0.05) A (0.06)

Aviation Road and Farr Lane/
Dixon Rd. A (8.7) A (5.5)
Aviation Road EB approach A (0.18) A (0.09)
Aviation Road WB approach A (0.07) A (0.10)
Dixon Road NB approach A (0.07) A (0.07)
Farr Lane SB approach A (0.06) A (0.07)

Aviation Road and Manor Dr./
Midnight Dr. A (7.4) A (6.9)
Aviation Road EB approach A (0.15) A (0.12)
Aviation Road WB approach A (0.12) A (0.12)
Midnight Dr. NB approach A (0.08) A (0.07)
Manor Dr. SB approach A (0.08) A (0.11)

Aviation Road and Church Dr,/
Queensbury School Dr. B (10.3) A (7.7)
Aviation Road EB approach A (0.2) A (0.09)
Aviation Road WB approach A (0.18) A (0.16)
Church Dr. NB approach A (0.08) A (0.06)
Queensbury School Dr. SB approach
A (0.08) A (0.08)
Table III-3
Future (2016) Level of Service for Roundabouts
Benefits of Roundabouts

A modern roundabout is an unsignalized circular intersection engineered
to maximize safety and minimize traffic delay. The average delay at a
roundabout is estimated to be less than half of that at a typical signal-
ized intersection. Decreased delay may mean that fewer lanes are needed
for an intersection improvement – si gnalized intersections often require
multiple approach lanes and multiple receiving lanes.

The safety benefits of roundabouts are significant. One study, detailed in
the NYSDOT publication “A Citi zens Guide to Roundabouts” dem-
onstrated that of the 23 studied inte rsections converted from signals to
roundabouts, all types of crashes were reduced by 39%, injury crashes
were reduced by 76%, and serious inju ry and fatal crashes were reduced
by 89%.

Traffic flow and level of service, as shown in the chart above, is also
vastly improved when a roundabout is installed at an intersection. In the
NYSDOT study SPR C-01-47, 2002-2004, delay data available for
40 approach roads to 10 roundabout-controlled intersections showed
delays were reduced by 50% or more.

26 Aviation Road Corridor Study
September 2008

Aviation Road at School Driveway – Interim &
Alternative Intersection Improvement Option

Prior to the construction of a roundabout at the
Queensbury School Drive (the main driveway be-
tween the High School and Middle School) or in
place of construction of a roundabout at the inter-
section with Aviation Road should it not be devel-
oped, a right turn lane from Aviation Road to the
Queensbury School Drive is a potential option to
facilitate traffic flow into the school property which
without any intersection improvement will have a
failing LOS condition in 2026.

In order for a right turn lane to be constructed, the
existing middle school driveway near Burke Drive
must be closed. No ingr ess to the school campus
can be provided between the Burke Drive intersec-
tion with Aviation Road and Queensbury School
Drive if a right turn lane is provided.

Currently approximately 20% of the westbound trips
through the intersection of Aviation Road and the
Queensbury School Drive turn right into the school
campus and as such, a righ t turn lane is justified
solely from a volume perspective. In addition, since
count information was not obtained for the number
of right turns into the existing Middle School drive-
way, when it is closed, the percentage of right turn
traffic onto Queensbury School Drive from Aviation
Road will likely increase, adding additional volume
to the intersection and further solidifying the ration-
ale for a right turn lane. While the proposed right turn lane is justified and
viable for traffic flow, it is not entirely consistent
with the future roundabout design recommendation
in this plan. A roundabout is the preferred intersec-
tion improvement and assuming that the recommen-
dation is implemented in the future, it will likely be
necessary to remove some of the right turn lane
improvements. However, du
ring construction of the
roundabout, the right turn lane has a high potential
to be useful in the Maintenance and Protection of
Traffic (MPT) by providing additional roadway
width as a travel lane.

A full engineering review of all other potential is-
sues, such as property impa cts, right-of-way, topog-
raphy, drainage, and others should be conducted
prior to design and construction of the right turn
lane. A conceptual cost estimate is included in sec-
tion VI– Cost Estimates.

A right turn only lane would be constructed between the existing travel lane(s) and school
parking lot. This potential capacity expansion would need to be compatible with school im-
provement plans and must ensure that sidewalk(s ) be replaced should the existing concrete
be removed.

27
Aviation Road Corridor Study
September 2008

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Aviation Road Corridor Study
September 2008
28
OR PAVERS, AS APPROPRIATE

Aviation Road Corridor Study
September 2008
29
Aviation Road At School Driveway
Conceptual Cost Estimate
May 2008Item No.Item Description Unit Quantit
y
Unit Price Cost
201.06 Clearing and Grubbing LS 1
$5,000.00 $5,000
203.02 Unclassified Excavation and DisposalCY 2041
$12.00 $24,492
203.03 Embankment In Place CY 35
$12.00$420
207.11 Geotextile Separation SF 24877
$1.75 $43,535
209.13 Silt Fence-Temporary FT 120
$32.00 $3,840
304.12 Subbase Course, Type 2CY 973
$35.00 $34,055
403.118902 Hot Mix Asphalt, Type 1 Base Course T 876
$200.00 $175,200
403.138902 HMA, Type 3 Binder Course T 467
$200.00 $93,400
403.178902 HMA, Type 6 Top Course T 329
$200.00 $65,800
407.0101 Tack CoatGAL 118
$4.00$472
502.93 Sealing Longitudinal Joints LF 2200
$5.00 $11,000
604.xx Drainage Structures, Leaching Basins and ManholesEA 8
$2,000.00 $16,000
608.0101 Concrete Sidewalks and DrivewaysCY 653
$400.00 $261,200
608.9401 07 Imprinting And Coloring of Asphalt Concrete Pavement SF 1395
$5.00 $6,975
609.0401 Cast-In-Place Concrete Curb Type VF150 LF 2200
$20.00 $44,000
609.0403 Cast-In-Place Concrete Curb Type M150LF 252
$25.00 $6,300
609.15 Resetting Existing Curb LF 288
$18.00 $5,184
610.0203 Establishing TurfSY 370
$1.50$555
613.0101 Placing Topsoil – Type A CY 72
$31.00 $2,232
645.7101 Ground Mounted Sign Panel, MUTCD Codes R,P,W ,And M. SF 144
$30.00 $4,320
647.11 Relocating Signs Size A (0 to 10 sf)EA 4
$150.00$600
685.11 W hite Epoxy Reflective Pavement Stripe LF 1049
$0.50$525
685.14 W hite Epoxy Reflective Pavement Symbols E
A
24
$160.00 $3,840
Subtotal =
$809,000
Note: Contingencies (20%) =
$161,800
Cost of right-of-way acquisition is not included.MPT/ Construction Signs (5%) =
$40,500
Survey Operations =
$10,000
Utility Relocation (Est.) =
$100,000
Construction Subtotal:
$1,121,300
Item 699.040001 Mobilization
$44,900
Project Total in 2008:
$1,166,200
Project Total in 2009 (8% Inflation Rate):
$1,259,500
Table III-4: Roundabout Conceptual Cost Estimate

Aviation Road Corridor Study
September 2008
30
OR PAVERS, AS APPROPRIATE

Aviation Road Corridor Study
September 2008
31
Aviation Road At Manor Dr./Midnight Dr.
Conceptual Cost EstimateItem No.Item Description Unit Quantit
y
Unit Price Cost
201.06 Clearing and Grubbing LS 1
$5,000.00 $5,000
202.01xx Disposal of BuildingsLS 1
$30,000.00 $30,000
203.02 Unclassified Excavation and DisposalCY 2239
$12.00 $26,868
203.03 Embankment In Place CY 31
$12.00$372
207.11 Geotextile Separation SF 24561
$1.75 $42,982
209.13 Silt Fence-Temporary FT 96
$32.00 $3,072
304.12 Subbase Course, Type 2CY 962
$35.00 $33,670
403.118902 Hot Mix Asphalt, Type 1 Base Course T 867
$200.00 $173,400
403.138902 HMA, Type 3 Binder Course T 461
$200.00 $92,200
403.178902 HMA, Type 6 Top Course T 325
$200.00 $65,000
407.0101 Tack CoatGAL 117
$4.00$468
502.93 Sealing Longitudinal Joints LF 1737
$5.00 $8,685
604.xx Drainage Structures, Leaching Basins and ManholesEA 8
$2,000.00 $16,000
608.0101 Concrete Sidewalks and DrivewaysCY 359
$400.00 $143,600
608.9401 07 Imprinting And Coloring of Asphalt Concrete Pavement SF 1395
$5.00 $6,975
609.0401 Cast-In-Place Concrete Curb Type VF150 LF 1737
$20.00 $34,740
609.0403 Cast-In-Place Concrete Curb Type M150LF 252
$25.00 $6,300
609.15 Resetting Existing Curb LF 144
$18.00 $2,592
610.0203 Establishing TurfSY 247
$1.50$371
613.0101 Placing Topsoil – Type A CY 31
$31.00$961
645.7101 Ground Mounted Sign Panel, MUTCD Codes R,P,W ,And M. SF 144
$30.00 $4,320
647.11 Relocating Signs Size A (0 to 10 sf)EA 4
$150.00$600
685.11 W hite Epoxy Reflective Pavement Stripe LF 1137
$0.50$569
685.14 W hite Epoxy Reflective Pavement Symbols E
A
24
$160.00 $3,840
Subtotal =
$702,600
Note: Contingencies (20%) =
$140,600
Cost of right-of-way acquisition is not included.MPT/ Construction Signs (5%) =
$35,200
Survey Operations =
$10,000
Utility Relocation (Est.) =
$100,000
Construction Subtotal:
$988,400
Item 699.040001 Mobilization
$39,600
Project Total in 2008:
$1,028,000
Project Total in 2009 (8% Inflation Rate):
$1,110,300
May 2008Table III-5: Roundabout Conceptual Cost Estimate

Aviation Road Corridor Study
September 2008
32
OR PAVERS, AS APPROPRIATE

Aviation Road Corridor Study
September 2008
33
Aviation Road At Dixon Rd./Farr Ln.
Conceptual Cost Estimate
May 2008Item No.Item Description Unit Quantit
y
Unit Price Cost
201.06 Clearing and Grubbing LS 1
$5,000.00 $5,000
202.01xx Disposal of BuildingsLS 1
$30,000.00 $30,000
203.02 Unclassified Excavation and DisposalCY 2751
$12.00 $33,012
203.03 Embankment In Place CY 20
$12.00$240
207.11 Geotextile Separation SF 30271
$1.75 $52,974
209.13 Silt Fence-Temporary FT 96
$32.00 $3,072
304.12 Subbase Course, Type 2CY 1173
$35.00 $41,055
403.118902 Hot Mix Asphalt, Type 1 Base Course T 1056
$200.00 $211,200
403.138902 HMA, Type 3 Binder Course T 568
$200.00 $113,600
403.178902 HMA, Type 6 Top Course T 396
$200.00 $79,200
407.0101 Tack CoatGAL 139
$4.00$556
502.93 Sealing Longitudinal Joints LF 1307
$5.00 $6,535
604.xx Drainage Structures, Leaching Basins and ManholesEA 8
$2,000.00 $16,000
608.0101 Concrete Sidewalks and DrivewaysCY 409
$400.00 $163,600
608.9401 07 Imprinting And Coloring of Asphalt Concrete Pavement SF 1395
$5.00 $6,975
609.0401 Cast-In-Place Concrete Curb Type VF150 LF 1307
$20.00 $26,140
609.0403 Cast-In-Place Concrete Curb Type M150LF 252
$25.00 $6,300
609.15 Resetting Existing Curb LF 96
$18.00 $1,728
610.0203 Establishing TurfSY 855
$1.50 $1,283
613.0101 Placing Topsoil – Type ACY 234
$31.00 $7,254
645.7101 Ground Mounted Sign Panel, MUTCD Codes R,P,W ,And M. SF 144
$30.00 $4,320
647.11 Relocating Signs Size A (0 to 10 sf)EA 4
$150.00$600
685.11 W hite Epoxy Reflective Pavement Stripe LF 1263
$0.50$632
685.14 W hite Epoxy Reflective Pavement Symbols E
A
24
$160.00 $3,840
Subtotal =
$815,200
Note: Contingencies (20%) =
$163,100
Cost of right-of-way acquisition is not included.MPT/ Construction Signs (5%) =
$40,800
Survey Operations =
$10,000
Utility Relocation (Est.) =
$100,000
Construction Subtotal:
$1,129,100
Item 699.040001 Mobilization
$45,200
Project Total in 2008:
$1,174,300
Project Total in 2009 (8% Inflation Rate):
$1,268,300
Table III-6: Roundabout Conceptual Cost Estimate

34 Aviation Road Corridor Study
September 2008

D. BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN SAFETY

1. Use and Need of Bicycle and Pedestrian
Facilities
Bicycle and pedestrian activity within Aviation Road
has historically been signific ant, and there is a history
of related fatalities. Pl anning and providing appro-
priate facilities for such user s is a significant part of
this study.

According to the Institute of Transportation Engi-
neers document Design and Safety of Pedestrian Facilities ,
“[Pedestrian] Collision involvement rates (collisions
per 100,000 population) are the highest for 5 to 9
year old males, which is rela ted in part to their ten-
dency to dart out into th e street.” Pedestrian colli-
sion involvement rates for older adults (Age 65+) are
lower than that for most other groups likely due to
their exercising more caution, however older pedes-
trians are more vulnerable to serious injury or death
when involved in a conflict with an automobile.

With the high level of grade-school children walking
to school and the small but significantly used mixed-
use/commercial node in the middle of the corridor,
walking and bicycling within the corridor by all age
groups is common and expected to increase, espe- cially if new and improved facilities are provided.
Therefore, significant consideration and planning for
the safety of bicyclists and pedestrians is a part of
this study.

2. Projected Users
Alternative transportation facilities, such as those for
bicyclists and pedestrians,
should be designed to
accommodate a wide variety of potential users. Ta-
ble III-7 below summarizes the needs of different
potential users within the Aviation Road Corridor.
While this table does not fit all types of users or their
varying ability and comfort levels, it does provide a
summary of the typical type of user and associated
traits.

With the Queensbury School District Campus lo-
cated at the eastern end of the Aviation Road Corri-
dor Study Area, there is already significant use in this
area by grade-school ch ildren walking to school.
With the exception of the area directly in front of the
School Campus, there are no sidewalks for children
to use to access the Campus from the surrounding
neighborhoods. Subsequently, they either walk along
the shoulder of Aviation Road and adjacent side-
streets or in the lawn area of private property own-
ers.

Type of User Destinations Ability
Level Comfort Level Comments
Pedestrian
Pre-School Very Close to
Home
Basic
Low to no other
nearby vehicular traf-
fic
Needs supervision and
an isolated sidewalk or
path

Grade School Close to
Home
Basic
Low nearby vehicular
traffic levels accept-
able
Separated sidewalks or
paths preferred

High School/
College, Adult Town-wide
Intermediate
to Advanced High nearby vehicular
traffic levels poten-
tially acceptable
None

Elderly Variable Variable Variable None
Bicyclist
Basic 1-Mile Radius Variable Some adjacent vehicu-
lar traffic volumes
acceptable
Usually younger riders –
only separated paths or
very wide shoulders

Intermediate Town-wide Intermediate Variable Separated paths or 4-
foot wide shoulders
appropriate

Advanced Regional Advanced High adjacent vehicu-
lar traffic volumes
acceptable
Narrower shoulders and
all types of facilities
acceptable

Table III-7
Alternative Transportation Facility Users

35
Aviation Road Corridor Study
September 2008

Current conditions are no t considered adequate
given the level of walking and bicycling, the prox-
imity to schools and the existing traffic volumes.
Proposed upgrades to the bicycle and pedestrian
system should result in an increase in walking and
bicycling activity and safety. The design and layout of
future bicycle and pedestrian facilities therefore must
be integrated into the section of the plan which pro-
vides for traffic calming, roadway improvements,
access management and ve hicular flow along Avia-
tion Road and with adjace nt connecting roadways.
The overall purpose of providing new and enhanced
bicycle and pedestrian fa cilities along the Aviation
Road Corridor would be to provide all age groups
with a convenient, accessible pedestrian and bicycle
link along a significantly traveled corridor.

The recommended bi cycle and pedestrian facilities
are specifically intended to do the following:

• Connect residential neig hborhoods, commercial
and institutional uses, wi th specific emphasis on
accessing the Queensbury School District cam-
pus in the eastern end of the corridor study area
and the commercial areas in the center of the
corridor;
• Expand the availability of non-vehicular trans-
portation connections;
• Provide future connectivity to a growing re-
gional bicycle and pedestrian facility network;
and
• Reduce the number of current and future
vehicular trips along Aviation Road by providing
an alternative for those parents that now drive
their children to school.

3. Creating a Pedestrian-Friendly Environment

Integration with Vehicular Improvements
Designing the roadway corridor to provide effective
interaction between differen t users requires develop-
ing a corridor plan that takes into account realistic
and achievable design criteria and traffic controls.
For this study, safety crit eria that has been consid-
ered in the development of the overall corridor de-
sign includes:

• Controlling vehicular speeds throughout the
corridor;
• Minimizing potential conflict points between
vehicles and pedestrians and bicyclists;
• Reducing conflicting at tention demands through
improved design and clearer signage;
• Ensuring adequate pede strian walkway separa-
tion from Aviation Road, with clear sight-lines
at intersections to provide maximum visibility of pedestrians crossi
ng side streets;
• Providing an aesthetic desi gn consistent with the
character of the corridor or corridor segment
that enhances the “sense of place” letting users
know that this segment of the corridor is used
by several different modes of transportation;
• Providing ADA compliant pedestrian facilities
and upgrading existing non-compliant pedes-
trian infrastructure;
• Ensuring adequate vehicular flow along Avia-

tion Road while providing for ample and safe
cross-road access.

E. CORRIDOR ENHANCEMENTS/
PLAN ELEMENTS

1. Overview
To address the community concerns and provide
adequate non-vehicular fac ilities along the corridor,
the study team developed several potential options
for consideration by the public, Study Advisory
Committee and town officials.

2. Corridor Segment Improvement(s)
The potential bicycle and pedestrian related elements
that were considered to enhance the bicycle and pe-
destrian environment, discussed at the August 22,
2007 public meeting and then by the advisory com-
mittee, included the follo wing, listed by road seg-
ment:

Burke Drive to Midnight Drive Segment Op-
tions
• No Action;
• Provide a minimum 4-foot shoulder on both
sides of Aviation Road;
• Provide dedicated bicy cle lanes on Aviation
Road;
• Provide a planted median on Aviation Road
between the travel lanes;
• Provide a mid-block crossi ng & signage close to
the proposed new High School Main entrance;
• Provide a minimum 5-foot sidewalk with mini-
mum 2-foot grass strip adjacent to the curb,
along both sides of Aviation Road; and/or
• Provide street trees along Aviation Road.

36 Aviation Road Corridor Study
September 2008

Public Meeting and Advisory Committee Meeting
Outcome/recommendation:
• Provide a 5-foot wide bicycle lane on both sides
of Aviation Road;
• Develop the planted median in place of the ex
isting center turn-lane;
• Provide a mid-block crossing to the High
School from the south side of Aviation Road;
• Develop a 5-foot sidewalk with 2-foot minimum
grass strip or hardscaping along the southern
side of Aviation Road;
• Expand the sidewalk system on the north side
of Aviation Road, extending sidewalk east to the
I-87 bridge and west to Manor Road; and/or
• Provide street trees along both sides of Aviation
Road where appropriate and needed.

Midnight Drive to Dixon Road Segment Op-
tions
• No Action;
• Reduce curb-cut widths;
• Provide a minimum 4-foot shoulder on both
sides of Aviation Road;
• Provide dedicated bicycle lanes along Aviation
Road;
• Provide a minimum 5-foot sidewalk with mini-
mum 2-foot grass strip or hardscaping adjacent
to the curb, along both sides of Aviation Road;
and/or
• Provide street trees along Aviation Road.

Public Meeting and Advisory Committee Meeting
Outcome/Recommendation:
• Implement access manageme nt for driveways,
especially non-residential uses;
• Provide 5-foot width bicycle lane on both sides
of Aviation Road;
• Provide a mid-block cro ssing & signage between
non-residential uses;
• Complete sidewalk system with 5-foot mini-
mum width sidewalks and a 2-foot minimum
width grass strip or hardscaping adjacent to the
curb; and/or
• Provide new street trees where needed.

Dixon Road to Potter Road Segment Options
• No Action;
• Provide a minimum 4-foot shoulder on both
sides of Aviation Road;
• Provide dedicated bicycle lanes along Aviation
Road;


Provide a minimum 5-foot sidewalk with mini-
mum 2-foot grass strip or hardscaping adjacent
to the curb along both sides of Aviation Road;
and/or
• Develop an off-street multi-use pathway (off-
line improvement).

Public Meeting and Advisory Committee Meeting
Outcome/Recommendation:
• Provide a 5-foot width bicycle lane on both
sides of Aviation Road; and/or
• Create an off-street multi-use pathway through
the City of Glens Falls property.

Fox Farm Lane to Mountain View Lane Seg-
ment Options
• No Action;
• Maintain a minimum 4-foot shoulder on both
sides of Aviation Road;
• Provide dedicated bicycle lanes along Aviation
Road; and/or
• Provide a minimum 5-foot sidewalk with mini-
mum 2-foot grass strip or hardscaping adjacent
to the curb, along both sides of Aviation Road.

Public Meeting and Advisory Committee Meeting
Outcome/Decision:
• Maintain a minimum 4-foot shoulder on both
sides of Aviation Road (which already exists).

Mountain View Lane to West Mountain Road
Segment Options
• No Action; or
• Provide a minimum 4-foot shoulder on both
sides of Aviation Road.

Public Meeting and Advisory Committee Meeting
Outcome/Decision:
• Provide a minimum 4-foot shoulder on both
sides of Aviation Road (which will require wid-
ening of most of the road by approximately 1
foot, with a short section near Mountain View
Road needing to be widened by approximately 4
feet, most likely, on the north side where there
is almost no shoulder now).

37
Aviation Road Corridor Study
September 2008

IV. TRANSIT SERVICE &
SCHOOL DISTRICT
BUSING POLICY
A. GREATER GLENS FALLS TRANSIT
(GGFT)

The GGFT provides public transportation options
to the greater Glens Falls area, including the Aviation
Road Corridor. Current se rvice includes two routes
that serve only the eastern end of the corridor. Route
12 serves the John Burke Apartments with multiple
trips daily.

GGFT has discussed, reviewed and considered the
need for expanded public transit service in the corri-
dor in the past. They have studied potential exten-
sion of existing routes west toward neighborhoods
near the Prospect School, bu t thus far, expansion of
service has not been implemented due to low rider
projections.

With a general aging of the population and increased
walkability of the corridor, it may be feasible in the
future to reconsider expans ion of bus service toward
the western half of the Aviation Road Corridor.
Potential ideas for expanded service include provid-
ing a bus-stop at the Dixon Road/Farr Lane inter-
section with Aviation Road, where a bus would then
be able to easily turn around to head eastbound to-
ward Glens Falls. With the potential for a round-
about at this intersection and the existing mixed-use
walkable nature of this section of the corridor, pro-
viding a bus route and stop may be reasonable and
feasible for GGFT.

If adequate ridership was achieved with the expan-
sion of service to this location, future expansion
further westward may be possible. A likely location
for a bus stop on the western half of the corridor
would be at the Prospect School, and with appropri-
ate permissions and planni ng, the school could be
used as the turn-around point for service to this part
of the corridor.
B. QUEENSBURY SCHOOL DISTICT
BUS POLICY

The Queensbury School District has a busing policy
that was most recently revised on May 3, 2005 and
adopted in June of that same year. This policy is in-
tended to provide “…a re asonably safe and economi-
cal transportation system for District Students…who
are eligible as authorized by the Board.”

The policy has general criteria that are used to deter-
mine eligibility for school di strict students. The pol-
icy states the following:

• All students in grades kindergarten through five
shall be transported, and shall not walk more
than 0.5 miles to a pick up or drop off point;
and
• All students in grades six through twelve resid-
ing greater than 0.5 miles from the school will
be transported, and shall not walk more than 0.5
miles to a pick-up or drop-off point.

38 Aviation Road Corridor Study
September 2008

V. LIGHTING AND LANDSCAPING

A. OVERVIEW

The lighting and landscaping treatments proposed
for Aviation Road are intended to create a more
visually pleasing corridor and a “sense of place” that
improves the quality of life for residents and visitors
alike. To achieve this, three distinct treatments are
proposed for the three segments of Aviation Road:

• The I-87 west entrance/exit ramp to Manor/
Midnight Drive;
• Manor/Midnight Drive to Potter/Fox Farm
Road; and
• Potter/Fox Farm Road to West Mountain
Road.

Figures IV-1, IV-2, IV-3, and IV-4 illustrate the
improvements described below.
B. THE I-87 WEST ENTRANCE/ EXIT RAMP TO MIDNIGHT/
MANOR DRIVE

1. Overview

Along this section of Aviation Road are some mature
trees, especially in front of the church properties,
and there are several small, immature trees planted in
front of the school property. However, because of
the width of the road and the spacing of the trees,
the trees do not frame the road space or help create a
pedestrian space on the sidewalk. The lack of a raised
median, that would allow fo r tree planting, means
that trees planted on both sides of the road will
never create an overhead canopy. Gooseneck lamps
placed on utility poles provide the only lighting. The
scale and quality of this type of lighting are beneficial
for vehicular traffic. However, they do little to pro-
vide pedestrians with human scale lighting.

2. Roadway Improvements

The roadway improvements proposed for this seg-
ment provide the opportunity to add landscaping
and lighting treatments to improve the visual quality
of the corridor:

• A 10 foot wide raised median in the middle of
Aviation Road;
• Dedicated 5-foot wide bicycle lanes on both sides of Aviation Road;
• 5 foot wide sidewalks on both sides of Aviation
Road;
• Grass strips (or pavers, if required) between the
bicycle lanes and the sidewalks; and
• Two roundabouts, one at the entrance to the
school and church complexes and one at Mid-
night Drive (the latter being a longer-term im-
provement primarily linked to future school
improvements).

3. Proposed Landscaping Improvements

This section of roadway is in the greatest need of
landscaping treatments to visually improve the corri-
dor and create a sense of place. A formal and closely
spaced arrangement of tree s and light poles placed
between the road and the sidewalk will reduce the
scale of the road right-of-way and improve the sepa-
ration between pedestrian and vehicular space.

4. Gateway Treatment

A gateway treatment located just past the I-87 ramp
would reinforce the sense of place. A decorative sign
placed in the raised median will announce the “ Town
of Queensbury .” The sign would be lit in the evening
and enhanced with plantings of perennials and annu-
als for seasonal color. Closely spaced trees placed in
the median and along the sidewalk reinforce the
gateway by creating a canopy which gives visual scale
and welcome shade.

5. Roundabouts

Low growing accent plantings in the middle of the
roundabouts will visually enhance the roundabout
without compromising vehicl e or pedestrian safety.
Additional lighting will surround the roundabouts
for nighttime safety.

6. Tree Planting and Grass Strips

To create a more visually pleasing corridor, the pro-
posed plan has large shad e trees placed approxi-
mately 35 feet apart on both sides of the road and
within the proposed raised median. This spacing is
close enough to form a continuous, arched canopy
which creates a visually unifying feature for the
mixed use corridor. Native tree species that are com-
mon to the region are chosen to enhance the sense
of place.

39
Aviation Road Corridor Study
September 2008

The trees are placed in the grass strip between the
road curb and the sidewalk. The benefit of planting
trees close to the curb is their effect on the overall
street scale. By extending the branch canopy over the
street the immensity of the right-of-way is reduced.

Placing the trees between the curb and the sidewalk
also achieves a visual and psychological separation
between vehicles and pedestrians. Existing mature
trees should be preserved wherever it is possible to
do so. Planting trees in the raised median is necessary
for the trees to become an appropriately dominant
element in the wide road space. The specific spacing
of trees would be set with consideration of driver
sight distances at inters ections and driveways.

And finally, overhead wires are another factor affect-
ing tree placement and growth. Trees and overhead
wires can co-exist where the wires are high enough.
However selecting the proper tree to minimize the
need for pruning, as well as correct pruning practices
are needed to ensure healthy and attractive trees.
Where overhead wires are very low, it may be best to
avoid planting trees under them.

Tree health in this type of exposed and often dry
environment is affected by two major factors: good
soil for root growth and ample water. The trees
would be placed in close proximity to paved surfaces
which have compacted sub- bases. Tree roots have
difficulty penetrating these compacted materials. As
a result trees often are st unted and unhealthy, expos-
ing them to disease and other stresses. There are
ways to mitigate this affect by using a specially for-
mulated material as the sub-base for new paving
surfaces in proximity to trees. Irrigation of trees and
grass areas is recommended for good vegetative
growth in these dry exposed sites. Without irrigation,
the grass in these narrow st rips often thins, leaving
places for weeds to germin ate and grow. This leads
to an unkempt appearance. Without ample water,
trees can be stunted and more likely to suffer from
disease and extreme temperatures.

7. Lighting

New pedestrian scale decora tive light poles and lumi-
naries will be placed along the sidewalks at regular
intervals to enhance the evening visual ambience and
safety. Overhead lighting is coordinated with the tree
planting to achieve a beneficial integration of the
two. The light poles are located to reinforce the vis-
ual rhythm and pattern of the trees. The pole height
chosen should take advantage of the tree branch
structure’s ability to shield the luminaires without
interfering with the gr ound lighting pattern. C. Manor/Midnight Drive to Potter/
Fox Farm Road

1. Existing Conditions
This segment of Aviation Road is mixed use residen-
tial and commercial. Mature evergreen and decidu-
ous trees exist in a random pattern and varying dis-
tance from the road. Some existing trees have been
heavily pruned because of low overhead utility wires.
Some commercial properties have been improved in
the last ten years and new trees have been planted
that will add considerably to the visual quality of the
road when they mature. Street lighting is supplied by
gooseneck lamps mounted on utility poles.

2. Roadway Improvements

The roadway improvements proposed for this seg-
ment provide the opportunity to add landscaping
and lighting treatments to improve the visual quality
of the corridor. The pr oposed roadway improve-
ments are:

• Dedicated five foot wide bicycle lanes on both
sides of Aviation Road;
• A five foot wide sidewalks on both sides of
Aviation Road;
• A grass strip (or pavers, if required) between the
bicycle lane and the sidewalk; and
• One roundabout at the intersection of Dixon
and Aviation Roads.

3. Proposed Landscaping Improvements
Roundabout

Low growing accent plantings in the middle of the
roundabout will visually enhance the roundabout
without compromising vehicl e or pedestrian safety.
Additional lighting will surround the roundabout for
nighttime safety.

4. Tree Planting and Grass Strip

Since street trees exist in many locations—some
mature and some newly pl anted—new trees will be
added where needed to enhance the existing trees.
Mature trees should be sa ved wherever possible. The
goal is to achieve a visua lly attractive corridor that
provides shade, provides vehicle and pedestrian
separation, and is less form al than the segment from
I-87 to Midnight/Manor Drive.

40 Aviation Road Corridor Study
September 2008

5. Lighting

The commercial properties in this segment have
added their own lighting to enhance their visibility.
No new lighting is proposed for the predominately
residential areas. Additional lighting will surround
the roundabouts for nighttime safety.

D. Potter/Fox Farm Road to West
Mountain Road
1. Existing Conditions

This section is predominan tly residential. There are
no sidewalks or bicycle lanes. The road shoulder is
minimal. An attractive mixture of mature evergreen
and deciduous trees exist along the road in a random
pattern and varying distances from the road. Some
existing trees have been heavily pruned because of
low overhead utility wires. Some commercial proper-
ties have been improved in the last ten years and new
trees have been planted that will add considerably to
the visual quality of the road when they mature.
Street lighting is suppl ied by gooseneck lamps
mounted on utility poles.

2. Road Improvements

The roadway improvements proposed for this sec-
tion are minimal and provide little opportunity to
add landscaping and lighting treatments. The pro-
posed roadway improvement consists of adding a
four foot wide shoulder on both sides of Aviation
Road.

3. Proposed Landscaping Improvements
Tree Planting

New shade trees will be placed in select locations
currently lacking trees to enhance the varied tree
canopy along Aviation Road. Existing healthy and
mature trees will be saved where possible.

4. Lighting
No new street lighting is proposed along this seg-
ment.

VI. COST ESTIMATES

The following are preliminary order of magnitude
cost estimates for landscap ing and road-related im-
provements, except roundabouts which have sepa-
rate cost estimates provided with the roundabout
design sketches. These calculated without benefit of
survey information. Costs could change significantly
as the design is refined with benefit of a survey.

Tables IV-1 and IV-2 show estimated costs for
road-related recommended improvements. Tables
IV-3, IV-4 and IV-5 show estimated costs for land-
scape-related recommended elements.
Table IV-1
I-87 S.B. Ramp to Potter/Fox Farm Road
Transportation-Related Cost Estimates
Roundabouts (excluding ri ght-of-way acquisition) $3,638,100

Total: $4,434,210
Shoulder Widening
From just west of the trailer park to West Mountain
Road an additional 1’ of paving width is necessary to
achieve 4’ wide shoulders. (1’ x 2200’)
$6,660
From Mountain View Lane to just west of the trailer
park an additional 8’ of paving width is necessary to
achieve 4’ wide shoulders. (8’ x 600’)
$14,400
Total: $21,000
Table IV-2
Potter/Fox Farm Road to West Mountain Road
Transportation-Related Cost Estimates
Demolition/Removals
Pavement removals in medians
(to allow installation of curbing and trees)

$16,800
Bicycle Lane
5’ wide asphalt lane on both sides of road
$122,250
Sidewalks
5’ wide concrete sidewalks on both sides of road
$227,560
Curbing
6” wide granite curbing along both sides of road and
around medians
$413,750
Pavement Markings
crosswalks, bike lane, centerline, bike symbols, striping
at medians
$15,750
Total: $796,110
Conceptual right-turn lane (at Queensbury School Driveway)
(assumes 100’ storage, 100’ taper, excludes right-of-way acquisition)
Pavement, Excavation, Striping $40,280
Contingencies (30%) $12,085
MPT (5%) $2,015
2008 Total: $54,380

Note: Add 9% inflation (per yea r) for future year dollars

41
Aviation Road Corridor Study
September 2008

Other possible costs as su rvey information is ac-
quired and design is refined:
Tree removals and pruning
Sidewalk removal
Light or utility pole re-location or removal
Re-location or addition of drainage structures
and pipes

Items not included in this cost estimate:

Costs increases due to inflation
Contractor mobilization costs
Design fees and other soft costs
Traffic protection and maintenance
Construction Inspection/ Oversight
and Management
Replacement or additi on of road signage
Right-of-Way Acquisition Costs Aviation Road Right-of-Way Considerations

Three entities have jurisdiction over Aviation Road
within the study area – NYSDOT, Warren County
and the Town of Queensbury. Aviation Road from
I-87 west to Burke Drive is a state road, but at this
point it becomes a Town road west to West Moun-
tain Road. Warren County is responsible for West
Mountain Road and would have jurisdiction over
intersection im provements.

It is recommended that the state-owned section of
road remain the same width with sidewalks remain-
ing in their current location or being built on the
south side of Aviation Road within the existing
paved area, therefore, the road right-of-way (ROW)
will not be affected. From Burke Drive to its end at
West Mountain Road, the current ROW is 50’. The
recommendations of this study call for the widening
of Aviation Road from Burke Drive to Manor/
Midnight Drive through the addition of a 5’ bicycle
lane on both sides of the road. It will need to be
determined through a survey how these proposed
road features will affect the ROW. This includes
sidewalks, grass strips, bicy cle lanes, travel lanes,
shoulders, and median.

The section of road from Manor Drive to Fox
Farm/Potter Road should be able to incorporate the
recommended features within the current 50’ ROW.

The study recommends the addition of 4’ wide
shoulders from Fox Farm /Potter Road to West
Mountain Road. This work should be able to be ac-
commodated except for the area from Mountain
View Lane west to the edge of the mobile-home park
on the north and the utility building on the south. In
this area, the existing shoulder width is minimal and
site constraints may create an issue that makes any
road widening in this area difficult. Again, a survey
of the roadway will assist in determining the actual
site constraints more fully.
Table IV-3
I-87 S.B. Ramp to Midnight/Manor Drive
Landscaping-Related Cost Estimates
Table IV-4
Manor/Midnight Drive to Potter/Fox Farm Road
Landscaping-Related Cost Estimates
Tree Planting: as needed
24 trees (typical 2.5-3” DBH)

$14,400
Table IV-5
Potter/Fox Farm Road to West Mountain Road
Landscaping-Related Cost Estimates
Gateway Signage
Sign
Lighting
Accent Planting $8,000
$2,000
$300
Tree Planting: sides of the road and in median
145 trees (typical 2.5-3” DBH)
$87,000
2 Roundabouts: shrub planting in the center of the circle
100 shrubs
$6,000
Grass Strip: sides of the road and median
32,000 SF of area for topsoil and seed ($4 pe r SF)
Hardscape Alternative: sides of the road and median
32,00 0 SF fo r b rick or pavers ($15 per SF)
3 2,0 00 S F for sta mpe d 4” th ic k co nc re te ($ 6 pe r SF
)
$128,000

(Not calculated in total) $480,000
$192 ,000
Lighting
54 Poles and luminaries, conduit and wiring
$162,000
Drip Irrigation: in grass s trip and median $45,000
Structural Soil: under sidewalks
1140 tons x $40 per ton
$45,600
Total: $484,900
Tree Planting: sides of the road as needed
32 trees (typical 2.5-3” DBH)
$19,200
1 Roundabouts shrub planting in the center of the circle
50 shrubs
$3,000
Grass Strip: between road and sidewalk on both sides
12,000 SF of area for top soil and seed ($4 pe r SF)

Ha rd sc ap e Alte rn at ive : si de s o f the ro ad an d med ia n
12,000 SF for brick or pavers ($15 per SF)
12,000 SF for stamped 4” thick concrete ($6 per SF
)

$48,000

(Not calculated in total) $180, 000
$72,000
Lighting and Electrical: lights at roundabout
4 Light poles and luminaries, conduit and wiring
$12,000
Total: $82,200

42 Aviation Road Corridor Study
September 2008

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Aviation Road Corridor Study
September 2008

Aviation Road
Corridor Study
The Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation Council
Figure IV-1
Landscape Improvements
Segment 1

Aviation Road Corridor Study
September 2008

Aviation Road Corridor Study
September 2008

Aviation Road
Corridor Study
The Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation Council
Town of Queensbury, New York
Figure IV-2
Landscape Improvements
Segment 2

Aviation Road Corridor Study
September 2008

Aviation Road Corridor Study
September 2008

Aviation Road
Corridor Study
The Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation Council
Town of Queensbury, New York
Figure IV-3
Landscape Improvements
Segment 3

Aviation Road Corridor Study
September 2008

Aviation Road Corridor Study
September 2008

Aviation Road
Corridor Study
The Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation Council
Town of Queensbury, New York
Figure IV-4
Landscape Improvements
Segment 4

Aviation Road Corridor Study
September 2008

43
Aviation Road Corridor Study
September 2008

VII. IMPLEMENTATION

A. OVERVIEW

This section of the plan describes the tools and tech-
niques, responsible parties, and funding sources that
can help implement the Plan’s recommendations.
Table V-1 lists the recommendation as well as ap-
propriate tools and techniqu es, responsibility, financ-
ing and time frame.

B. TOOLS AND TECHNIQUES

1. Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)

Projects seeking to use federal transportation funds
must be included on the A/GFTC’s Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP). The TIP is a staged,
multi-year capital progra m of transportation im-
provements that implemen ts planning process rec-
ommendations. Conceptual recommendations, such
as those included in this plan, if placed on the TIP,
would be eligible to receive the funds necessary to
finalize design and cost, id entify and mitigate for
resource impacts, acquire right-of-way, and con-
struct.

2. NYSDOT Annual Program

Aviation Road is partially a Town road and may not
be fully eligible for this program, but annual NYS-
DOT programs that might be used to implement the
recommendations include annual pavement marking
replacement and traffic signal retiming until such
time as the recommended roundabout can be in-
stalled. Other NYSDOT programs may be able to
assist with continued monitoring of the corridor
such as the traffic count program, analysis or im-
provements of locations wi th safety concerns (such
as the intersection with West Mountain Road), and
pavement condition inventories.

3. Private/Voluntary Actions

Some of the recommendations could depend on
voluntary actions from private land owners. Exam-
ples include providing an easement for a new side-
walk or initiating indivi dual agreements to share
driveway access or connect adjacent parking, a prac-
tice that already occurs between non-residential
properties within the corridor.

C. RESPONSIBILITY

This section, specifically Table V-1, identifies the
partners most likely to be involved throughout im-
plementation. It identifies the party who would lead
the project and other partners who would be in-
volved in different stages of implementation. Desig-
nating a lead was based on ownership and authority
to change regulations.

D. FINANCING

1. Overview

With the current uncertain funding times combined
with the demands and needs of aging existing infra-
structure and other projects
needs, available funds
for roadway projects are extremely competitive. Ad-
ditionally, municipal budgets are stretched to provide
the services and infrastructure expected by residents
and businesses.

Financial realities bring about genuine concern re-
garding the ability of future projects and needs to
obtain the necessary funding allocation to be carried
through to completion. It is generally agreed by
transportation professionals that under current fund-
ing allocations, fiscal cons traint regulations, and in-
flation, if current highway sp ending levels were to be
projected out into future years, available funds will
not provide adequate invest ment to fully maintain,
let alone enhance, the tran sportation system that
exists today.

In the 2008 NYSDOT publication Multimodal Invest-
ment Needs & Goals For the Future it was stated that
“The dilemma facing New York State’s transporta-
tion infrastructure is being replicated across the
country…A new policy framework for investing in
our transportation infrastruc ture is needed to pre-
serve the vital transportation network and to im-
prove it for meeting the new demands of competing
in the global economy. This new policy framework
should allow us to overcome the deficiencies in our
transportation assets and, more importantly, to make
cost-effective investment s that will support our
transportation system.”

Transportation projects in Queensbury are funded
with federal, New York State, local, and private
funds. In some cases, a project draws upon all of
these sources.

44 Aviation Road Corridor Study
September 2008

2. Federal Transportation Funding

Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds
have the most flexible uses of any federal transporta-
tion funds. STP funds may be used for highway,
transit, and non-motorize d facility construction and
improvements.

Facilities must be classi fied by the A/GFTC and
New York State as eligible for federal aid, although
sidewalks on local roads which are not on the federal
aid system may also be e ligible for STP funding.
Non-federal match requirement is 20 percent. Avia-
tion Road is eligible. It s hould be noted that this
funding source is extremely competitive.

Transportation Enhancement Program funds are
another source of federal funds. Enhancement
funding may be used for a variety of non-highway
related projects such as bi ke paths, sidewalks, and
streetscapes. Enhancement Funds awards are made
through a competitive process. Applications are
submitted for review by the A/GFTC. The A/
GFTC evaluates the applicat ions within its planning
area and identifies a short list of high priority pro-
jects that NYS then uses to make its final selections.
Enhancement projects require a 20 percent non-
federal match.

Safe Routes to School funds can be used to im-
prove sidewalks or bicycle paths leading to schools
within a 2 mile radius of a school. Since a good num-
ber of students now use Av iation Road as their route
to school and more could in the future if it included
facilities that parents tho ught provided good protec-
tion for their children, these improvements could
potentially be funded thro ugh this source. Safe
Routes to School applications are currently due
yearly at the beginning of April and have been in
limited supply. The Town of Queensbury and the
Queensbury School District could work together to
submit multi-party applications that benefit the
Town and School District. Funding for this program
is competitive and open to all municipalities, school
districts and other eligible entities within NYSDOT
Region 1. Past funding priori ty has been assigned to
school districts that rely less on busing than the
Queensbury School District.

Transportation, Community and System Preser-
vation Program (TCSP)
This program provides grant funding to states,
MPOs, local governments and tribal governments to:
• Develop projects that integrate transportation,
community and system preservation plans and
practices that improve the efficiency of the transportation system in the U.S.;
• Reduce environmental impacts of transporta-
tion; reduce the need for costly future public
infrastructure investments;
• Ensure efficient access to jobs, services and
centers of trade; and
• Examine community development patterns and
identify strategies to encourage private sector
development patterns and investments that sup-
port these goals.

Other Federal Programs
The Recreational Trails Prog ram is available for trail
projects for both motorized and non-motorized
trails. These funds could be used for rail-trail and
shared use paths (such as the recommended Dixon
Road to Potter Road path). This is a matching grant
program administered by the Office of Parks, Rec-
reation and Historic Pres ervation. Funds are avail-
able to non-profit organizatio n

s, municipal state and
federal agencies, Indian tribal governments and other
public agencies and author ities for the acquisition,
development, rehabilitation and maintenance of trails
and trail-related projects.

MPOs have a Unified Planning Work Program
which outlines how federal planning funds can be
spent. Some of these funds could be used to ad-
vance the planning for some of the specific recom-
mended elements of the plan.

Urbanized Area Formula Grants and Capital Invest-
ment Grants for Transit ar e used for improving bicy-
cle and pedestrian access to transit facilities. These
funds could be used for the sidewalks, bicycle routes,
shared use paths leading to Aviation Road/Burke
Road to meet the current transit route or to more of
Aviation Road if and when transit service is extended
beyond Burke Road.

The Transit Enhancement Activity Program pro-
vides funds for pedestrian and bicycle access to tran-
sit facilities, bicycle stor age facilities and equipment
for transporting bicycles on mass transportation ve-
hicles. These funds could be used for the sidewalks,
bicycle routes, shared use paths leading to Aviation
Road/Burke Road to meet the current transit route
or to more of Aviation Road if and when transit
service is extended beyond Burke Road for transit
stop facilities for pede strians and bicyclists.

3. State Sources of Funding

NYSDOT may completely fund and implement pro-
jects on facilities it owns or assist locals in funding
their non-federal match for projects using the Con-

45
Aviation Road Corridor Study
September 2008

solidated Highway Improv ement Program System
(CHIPS) or Marchiselli fund ing. CHIPS provides
support for improvements to roads with expected
life spans of seven to ten ye ars or more and is typi-
cally used for pavement rehabilitation and bridge
repairs. Marchiselli funding covers 75 percent of the
local share of federally-fun ding projects leaving the
local municipality responsib le for 25 percent of the
non-federal match (25 percent of 20 percent is 5
percent).

State funding sources for transportation related pro-
jects or services are available from State Agencies
other than NYSDOT. For example, the Governor’s
Traffic Safety Committee and the New York State
Department of Health of fer funding programs to
support safety education that could be offered on the
school campus adjacent to Aviation Road. Funds are
also available for walking and bicycle trails from the
New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and
Historic Preservation (OPR HP), which could poten-
tially assist with the off road trail between Dixon and
Potter Road.

State funding of transporta tion projects or services
may also be provided through legislative member
items from State Senate or Assembly representatives.
These funding sources are also very competitive.

4. Local Sources of Funding

A portion of the non-federal match will often come
from local sources. If significant enough, these
funds maybe identified in a municipal capital pro-
gram. Smaller and less costly projects which do not
use federal or State sources may be funded through a
local highway public works or park department an-
nual budget. Towns also ha ve the option to establish
special assessment tax distri cts that raise funds for
specific purposes such as sidewalks or roadway re-
pairs. The Town of Queensbury maintains a Capital
Improvement Plan. This project should be listed on
that plan.

5. Special Grants

There are several special grant programs available for
specific local transportati on projects which become
available from time to time. The Town should con-
tact NYSDOT and AGFTC when they are looking
for funding for specific purp oses to see what is cur-
rently available.

6. Public-Private Partnership Options

As transportation needs have grown in recent years
at a rate which has outpaced public funding availabil- ity, particularly at the
local level, innovative ap-
proaches to paying for tran sportations projects have
emerged. One such approach entails creative part-
nerships between the public an d private sectors. In
New York State, these type s of arrangements have
often involved roadway intersections and capacity
improvements associated with commercial develop-
ments, as well as intercha nges on area freeways. The
common thread in any public-private partnership is
that involved parties receive some benefit from their
resource contribution. Wh ile these partnerships
could not fund 100 percent of the Aviation Corridor
Plan’s implementation, they could represent an im-
portant piece of the over all funding framework.

Options which could be explored in this regard in-
cluded:

• Identifying and working with business owners
and developers in the Corridor to co-underwrite
the costs of access management, p

edestrian or
bicycle amenities, or landscaping; and

• Formation of a non-prof it neighborhood group
focused on development of the bicycle and pe-
destrian accommodations along Aviation Road
and in the neighborhood.

This is not an exhaustive list of options for designat-
ing public-private partners hips targeted at imple-
menting the Corridor Plan. Other arrangements may
be possible, and, in light of continuing constraints on
public funding so urces, the Town should aggres-
sively pursue such arrangem ents to add another tool
to the Town’s funding “toolkit.”

7. Private Development

Sidewalks, bike paths, bi ke lanes, and streetscape
improvements can be funded by developers within
residential and commercial developments as long as
the requirements have been incorporated into the
subdivision or site plan regu lations. It is easier to
request and/or require thes e facilities from develop-
ers if such improvements are generally detailed in a
plan that supports, and prov ides a rationale for, the
requested elements.

8. School Funding Sources

Because the two proposed eastern roundabouts re-
late to the updating of the Queensbury School Dis-
trict Campus, there is the potential that the School
District may be able to assist in securing grants or
other funding for their construction.

46 Aviation Road Corridor Study
September 2008

ActionTIP Town ActionPrivate
Action Town of
Queensbury School
District Private Federal
STPEnhancement SR2S TCSP Rec Trails Grants for
TransitLocal
Funding School
Funding Special
Grants Urban
Forestry Grants Public/
Private
Private
Develop. Immediate Short Term (1

3 years)Mid Term (4-
8 years) Long Term
(More than 8
years)
Burke – Midni
ght
Bike Lanes
xx x x x xxx x x
Sidewalks
xxx xx xx xx x
Crosswalks
xxxxx x
Center Median
xx xx x xx x x
Midnight Roundabout
xx xxxxx x
School Roundabout
xx xxxxx x
Street Trees
xxxxx x xxxxxxx
Lighting
xx xxx x
Irrigation
xx x x x xxx x
Midnight -Potter
Bike Lanes
xx x x xxx x x
Sidewalks
xxxxxxx x
Crosswalks
xx xxxxx
Dixon Roundabout
xx x x x x
Potter intersction upgrades
xxx xx x
Street Trees
xxx x x xxxxxxx
Multi-Use Path
xx x xx xx
Potter – Mountain
4 Ft Shoulder
xx x x x x
Street Trees
xxx x x xxxxxxx
Intersection Signage
xx x x x
Tools or TechniquesResponsibility Financing Options
Timing
Table V-1
Implementation Matrix

First
Aviation Road Corridor Study
September 2008

APPENDIX A
ACCIDENT
ANALYSIS

Second Aviation Road Corridor Study
September 2008

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Accident Analysis Report

A v
iation Road Corridor Study
To w

n of Queensbury, Warren County

April 7, 2007

Pre

pared for:

A d

irondack / Glens Falls Transportation Council, Fort Edward, N.Y.

Prepared by:

M J

Engineering and Land Surveying, P.C.
1533 Crescent Road
Clifton Park, NY 12065
Phone: (518) 371-0799
Fax: (518) 371-0822

M.J. Engineering and Land Surveying, P.C.
Ac
cident Analysis Sheet 1 of 3
Aviation Road Corridor Study
4/10/2007
Accident Analysis Summary

A vi

ation Road, Town of Queensbury, Warren County

T h

e project area has been broken up into six (6) segments for the purpose of this analysis:
1. West Mountain Rd / Butler Rd to Mountain View Lane intersection
2. Mountain View Lane to Fox Farm Road / Potter Road intersection
3. Fox Farm Road / Potter Road to Dixon Road / Farr Lane intersection
4. Dixon Road / Farr Lane to Midnight Dr / Manor Dr intersection
5. Midnight Dr / Manor Dr to Cottage Hill Road intersection
6. Cottage Hill Road to Burke Drive intersection

Accident data was collected for the five-year period from January 2000 to December 2005. The
accident data includes non-reportable accidents, with some limited information available for these
types. See Appendix A for accident descriptions and collision diagrams. The overall accident rate
for the entire study area is 1.79 accidents per million vehicle kilometers (acc/MVkM). Aviation Road
has been divided into two sections with different highway characteristics and land uses. The first
section of Aviation Road is from the West Mountain Road / Butler Road intersection to east of the
Midnight Drive / Manor Drive intersection, which consists of a two-lane, undivided two-way roadway
servicing personal dwellings. The accident rate for this section is 1.84 acc/MVkM. The second
section of Aviation Road is from east of the Midnight Drive / Manor Drive intersection to east of the
Burke Drive intersection. This section consists of a three-lane section with left turn lanes at
intersections and a continuous two-way left turn lane. This section of Aviation Road is mainly
commercial to the south, with the Queensbury school campus to the north. The accident rate for
this section is 3.02 acc/MVkM. The comparable expected statewide rate is 3.66 acc/MVkM for
facilities similar to Aviation Road.

Segment No. 1

T h

e first segment is from the intersection of West Mountain Road / Butler Road to the Mountain
View Lane intersection and was the scene of 15 accidents during the five-year analysis period.
Thirteen (13) of these accidents occurred at the intersection of West Mountain Road / Butler Road
with Aviation Road. The severity distribution is normal. Seven (7) of the accidents were right angle
due to drivers failing to yield the right-of-way to through vehicles. Three (3) accidents were
classified as other collisions, which involved left turning vehicles failing to yield the right-of-way, and
one (1) accident was a left-turn accident. The remaining two (2) accidents were non-reportable
accidents. This intersection was on the High Risk Rural Roads Accident Summary sent to
NYSDOT Region 1 on 11/21/06. It was determined that drivers may find it difficult to judge the
speed of approaching traffic on West Mountain Road (CR 58) when at a stop control on the minor
approaches. The accident rate for the West Mountain Road / Butler Road intersection is 1.86
accidents per million entering vehicles (acc/MEV) compared to the expected statewide rate of 0.27
acc/MEV for similar facilities. One (1) rear-end accident due to driver illness occurred between
West Mountain Road and Mountain View Lane.

One (1) non-reportable accident was attributed to the intersection of Mountain View lane. The
accident rate for the Mountain View Lane intersection is 0.14 acc/MEV compared to the expected
statewide rate of 0.16 acc/MEV for similar facilities. A cluster of right-angle accidents is evident on
this segment with eight (8) of the fifteen (15) total accidents involving right angle or left-turn
accidents.

M.J. Engineering and Land Surveying, P.C.
Ac
cident Analysis Sheet 2 of 3
Aviation Road Corridor Study
4/10/2007
Segment No. 2

T h

e second segment is from the intersection of Mountain View Lane to the Fox Farm Road / Potter
Road intersection and was the scene of 29 accidents for the five-year analysis period. Fifteen (15)
of the accidents were directly related to the intersection of Fox Farm Road / Potter Road with
Aviation Road. The severity distribution of the accidents is normal. A cluster of right-angle
accidents were found in this segment with six (6) located at the intersection and three (3) related to
the roadway to the west. Four (4) of the six (6) intersection accidents were the result of drivers on
the side street approaches failing to yield the right-of-way to the vehicles on the mainline route. The
accident rate for the Fox Farm Road / Potter Road intersection is 0.67 acc/MEV compared to the
expected statewide rate of 0.27 acc/MEV for similar facilities. The accidents do not reveal any
other significant patterns except that the accident rate is high for this location.

Segment No. 3

T h

e next segment of Aviation Road is from the Fox Farm Road / Potter Road intersection to the
Dixon Road / Farr Lane intersection which was the scene of ten (10) accidents. Seven (7) of those
accidents were contributed to the Dixon Road / Farr Lane intersection for the five-year analysis
period. The severity distribution of accidents along this segment is normal. The accident rate for
the Dixon Road / Farr Lane intersection is 0.28 acc/MEV compared to the expected statewide rate
of 0.27 acc/MEV for four-leg intersections with two-way stop control. The severity distribution of the
accidents is normal. Half of the accidents for this area, five (5) of the ten (10), were rear-end
accidents with varying contributing factors. The remaining accidents consisted of two (2) left-turn,
one (1) right angle and one (1) fixed object accident along with one (1) non-reportable accident.

Segment No. 4

T h

e segment from the Dixon Road / Farr Lane intersection to the Midnight Drive / Manor Drive
intersection with Aviation Road was the scene of a total of eighteen (18) accidents. The accident
rate for the Midnight Drive / Manor Drive intersection is 0.24 acc/MEV compared to the expected
statewide rate of 0.27 acc/MEV for four-leg intersections with two-way stop control. The severity
distribution of the accidents is normal. Six (6) of the eighteen (18) segment accidents were
attributed to the intersection. Two (2) of the accidents involved a bicyclist with one (1) of them
occurring to the west of the intersection and one (1) at the intersection. The accidents were the
result of vehicles striking the bicyclists while making turns. The only cluster of accidents in this
location is the history of five (5) rear end accidents with four (4) related to the linear section west of
the intersection and one (1) to the intersection. All of the rear end accidents occurred while
vehicles were traveling east on Aviation Road at varying times of day. One (1) rear end accident
was attributed to glare with the rest occurring while one vehicle was stopped in traffic and was
struck from behind. One (1) of the accidents was also non-reportable.

Segment No. 5

T h

is segment is from the Midnight Drive / Manor Drive intersection to the Cottage Hill Road
intersection and was the scene of twelve (12) total accidents, four (4) of which were related to the
Cottage Hill Road intersection. The accident rate for the Cottage Hill Road intersection is 0.15
acc/MEV compared to the expected statewide rate of 0.27 acc/MEV for four-leg intersections with
two-way stop control. The severity distribution of the accidents is normal. Four (4) accidents
related to the intersection and roadway to the west were non-reportable, therefore no accident type
was available. Four (4) of the remaining eight (8) accidents were rear end type accidents with three
(3) related to the roadway and one (1) related to the intersection. All of the rear end accidents

M.J. Engineering and Land Surveying, P.C.
Ac
cident Analysis Sheet 3 of 3
Aviation Road Corridor Study
4/10/2007
occurred while a vehicle was stopped in traffic and struck from behind. Three of the four accidents
o
ccu

rred as vehicles traveled east on Aviation Road.

Segment No. 6

T h

e last segment of the analysis is from the Cottage Hill Road intersection to the Burke Drive
intersection, which was the scene of twenty-one (21) accidents. Ten (10) of the twenty-one (21)
accidents were attributed to the Burke Drive intersection. The accident rate for the Burke Drive
intersection is 0.32 acc/MEV compared to the expected statewide rate of 0.29 acc/MEV for a three-
leg intersection with left turn lanes and five (5) or more lanes under signal control. The severity
distribution of the accidents is normal. Five (5) of the accidents were of the non-reportable variety.
Six (6) of the remaining fifteen (15) accidents and two (2) of the non-reportable accidents were rear
end collisions. Only one (1) of the rear end accidents was related to the intersection and was a
result of a vehicle being struck while stopped in traffic. One (1) accident located to the west of
Burke Drive involved a bicycle, whose operator failed to yield the right-of-way to a vehicle traveling
at an unsafe speed. The remaining accidents consisted of one (1) right angle, three (3) left turn,
one (1) head on, one (1) overtake, and three (3) other collision accidents.

Overview

T h

e overall study area has a high number of rear-end, left turn and right angle accidents.
Reviewing the accident descriptions revealed that many of the rear end accidents occurred while
one vehicle was stopped in traffic, either turning or waiting for another vehicle to turn. The inclusion
of a two-way left turn lane is one possible solution that could reduce the number of accidents in this
area by removing the stopped vehicles from the thru lanes.

The accident rates for three (3) of the six (6) intersections were below the expected statewide
averages. The West Mountain Road / Butler Road intersection with Aviation Road accident rate of
1.86 acc/MEV is 6.9 times the expected statewide rate of 0.27 acc/MEV for similar facilities. The
accident rate at the Fox Farm Road / Potter Road intersection with Aviation is 0.67 acc/MEV, which
is 2.5 times the expected statewide rate of 0.27 acc/MEV. Both of these are four-way intersections
with two-way stop control. The Burke Drive intersection with Aviation Road accident rate is 0.32
acc/MEV, which is just above the expected statewide rate of 0.29 acc/MEV for three-leg
intersections with left turn lanes and five (5) or more lanes under signal control.

The presence and close proximity of driveways, both commercial and residential, is a contributing
factor to the number of rear end, left turn and right angle accidents. Utilizing traffic calming
measures is one possible method to reduce speed in this area. Reducing the speed will increase
the safety of the traveling public with respect to the Queensbury School campus, located on the
north side of Aviation Road, and would allow more gap time for left turning movements. The
installation of stop signs, a traffic signal or roundabout at a major intersection west of Cottage Hill
Road would reduce the travel speeds in the study area.

Pedestrians were not involved in any of the accidents reported during the five-year study period.
Only three (3) of the ninety-two total accidents involved bicycles. One of the bicycle accidents
occurred due to the bicyclist crossing Aviation Road at an unexpected location and not allowing
sufficient gap time to cross. The other two accidents were the result of the bicycle traveling on the
wrong side of the road and the drivers’ inability to notice the bicycle. The number of bicycle
accidents and lack of pedestrian accidents does not reveal a problem with bicycle or pedestrian
safety in the study area and no improvements are recommended beyond allowing sufficient
shoulder width to allow for safe pedestrian and bicycle travel.

APPENDIX A

A C
CIDENT DESCRIPTIONS
AND COLLISION DIAGRAMS

AVIATION ROAD ACCIDENT SUMMARY TABLE
Non Reportable
Uknown
Rear End
W est Mountain Rd / Butler Rd Intersection 7 1 3 2 13 4 6 1
Between W est Mountain Rd / Butler Rd &
Mountain View Ln Intersections 1
1 1
Mountain View Ln Intersection 1 1
Between Mountain View Ln & Fox Farm Rd /
Potter Rd Intersections 3 1 3 1 3 3 14 6 5
Fox Farm Rd / Potter Rd Intersection 6 3 2 1 315 4 7 1
Between Fox Farm Rd / Potter Rd & Dixon Rd /
Farr Ln Intersections 2
13 1 1
Dixon Rd / Farr Ln Intersection 1 2 3 1 7 2 5
Between Dixon Rd / Farr Ln & Midnight Dr /
Manor Dr Intersections 2 4
1 12 1 1 12 6 4
Midnight Dr / Manor Dr Intersection 11 1 2 16 3 2
Between Midnight Dr / Manor Dr & Cottage Hill
Rd Intersections 1 1 3
1 28 2 3 1
Cottage Hill Rd Intersection 1 1 24 2
Between Cottage Hill Rd & Burke Dr
Intersections 1
5 11 1 2 11 5 3
Burke Dr Intersection 3 113 2 10 3 4 1
Totals 19 14 23 4 1 3 2 1 1 15 19 3 105 39 40 4
Section
Right Angle
Head OnAnimalOther
Overtake
Left Turn
Rear End
Sideswipe Bicycle
Fixed Object
Total Accidents
Property Damage Only
Injury and Property Damage
Personal Injury

4/10/2007, SHEET 2 OF 7
NO.
CONTR
REF
REF
DIR
DIR
DIR
DIR
DIR
NO.
DATE
DAY
TIME
VEH
SEVER*
LC
RC
RSC
WEATH
FACT.
MARK
MARK
ACC TYPE
N
S
E
W
UNKN
DESCRIPTION OF ACCIDENT
WEST MOUNTAIN RD / BUTLER RD INTERSECTION 1 5/18/01 FRI 18:30 2 NR 30040
2 6/24/01 SUN 16:00 2 PDO 1 1 2 2 7 30040 RIGHT-ANGLE 11V1, W B ON AVIATION, FAILED TO YIELD R-O-W AT STOP SIGN AND STRUCK V2, NB ON W EST MOUNTAIN
3 10/28/01 SUN 10:13 2 PI 1 1 1 1 4, 69 30040 RIGHT-ANGLE1 1V1, SB ON W EST MOUNTAIN, W AS STRUCK BY V2, EB ON BUTLER, DUE TO OBSTRUCTED VIEW & INATTENTION
4 12/12/01 W ED 08:15 2 NR 30040
5 1/18/03 SAT 16:55 2 PDO U 1 1 2 UNKN. 30040 COLLISION 11V1, W B ON AVIATION, W AS MAKING A LEFT AND V2, NB ON W EST MOUNTAIN, W ERE INVOLVED IN A COLLISION
6 5/23/03 FRI 12:45 2 PDO 1 1 1 2 7 30040 RIGHT-ANGLE 11V1, W B ON AVIATION, FAILED TO YIELD R-O-W AT STOP SIGN AND STRUCK V2, NB ON W EST MOUNTAIN
7 1/28/04 W ED 12:28 2 PI 1 1 4 4 7 30040 RIGHT-ANGLE 11V1, EB ON BUTLER, FAILED TO YEILD R-O-W AT STOP SIGN AND STRUCK V2, NB ON W EST MOUNTAIN
8 4/7/04 W ED 15:35 2 PI 1 2 1 1 4, 7 30040 RIGHT-ANGLE 11V1, EB ON BUTLER, FAILED TO YEILD R-O-W AT STOP SIGN AND STRUCK V2, NB ON W EST MOUNTAIN
9 5/27/04 THU – 1 PDO 4 1 1 1 UNKN. 30040 OTHER 1V1, NB ON W EST MOUNTAIN, W AS MAKING A LEFT AND COLLIDED W / EARTH EMBANKMENT AND DITCH
10 7/3/04 SAT 13:54 2 PI, PDO 1 1 1 1 7 30040 RIGHT-ANGLE 1 1V1, SB ON W EST MOUNTAIN, FAILED TO YEILD R-O-W TURNING LEFT STRIKING V2, NB ON W EST MOUNTAIN
11 7/13/05 MON 10:01 2 PI 1 1 1 2 7 30040 OTHER 1 1V1, SB ON W EST MOUNTAIN, FAILED TO YEILD R-O-W TURNING LEFT STRIKING V2, NB ON W EST MOUNTAIN
12 7/19/05 TUE 05:09 2 PDO 1 1 1 1 UNKN. 30040 LEFT-TURN 11V1, NB ON W EST MOUNTAIN, MAKING A LEFT FAILED TO YEIDL R-O-W AND STRUCK V2, EB ON BUTLER
13 10/20/05 THU 15:30 2 PDO 1 1 1 2 UNKN. 30040 RIGHT-ANGLE11 V1, SB ON W EST MOUNTAIN, AND V2, W B ON AVIATION, W ERE INVOLVED IN A RIGHT ANGLE COLLISION
WEST MOUNTAIN RD / BUTLER RD TO MOUNTIAN VIEW LANE INTERSECTION
14 9/24/02 TUE 17:00 2 PI 1 2 1 1 10 30040 30530 REAR-END 2V1, W B ON AVIATION, W AS REAR ENDED BY V2, W B ON AVIATION, DUE TO ILLNESS
MOUNTIAN VIEW LANE INTERSECTION
15 1/11/02 FRI 22:50 3 NR 30532
MOUNTAIN VIEW LN TO FOX FARM RD / POTTER RD INTERSECTION
16 10/11/00 W ED 14:00 2 PI 1 1 1 1 7 30532 30533 RIGHT-ANGLE 2V1, SE, SLOW ED TO MAKE LEFT TURN AND STRUCK V2, EB ON AVIATION
17 9/23/00 SAT 23:00 1 PI 4 1 U U 4, 17 30533 FIXED-OBJECT1V1, TRAVELING W B ON AVIATION RD, MAKING A LEFT TURN STRUCK A TREE
18 1/7/02 MON 08:50 1 NR 30533
19 3/20/02 W ED 14:36 2 NR 30533
20 8/15/01 W ED 18:00 2 PI 1 1 1 1 4 30534 30535 RIGHT-ANGLE 1 1V1, NB, W AS BACKING INTO ROAD AND W AS STRUCK BY V2, EB ON AVIATION
21 10/21/03 TUE 21:00 1 PDO U U 10 10 UNKN. 30534 30535 ANIMAL 1 V1 STRUCK A DEER
22 10/10/00 TUE 18:00 1 PDO 3 1 2 2 64 30536 OTHER1V1, W B ON AVIATION, COLLISION W ITH OBSTRUCTION OR DEBRIS
23 1/14/02 MON 17:18 2 NR 30536 30537
24 12/22/00 FRI 07:00 2 PDO 1 1 2 1 7, 62 30537 RIGHT-ANGLE11 V1, SB LT ONTO AVIATION, FAILED TO YIELD R-O-W AT STOP SIGN DUE TO GLARE AND W AS STRUCK BY V2
25 9/9/03 TUE 07:15 2 PDO U 1 1 1 UNKN. 30537 COLLISION11 V1, W B ON AVIATION, W AS STRUCK BY V2, SB ON OW EN W HILE SLOW ING OR STOPPING
26 3/21/05 MON 07:18 2 PDO 1 1 1 2 5, 7 30538 LEFT-TURN1 1V1, W B ON AVIATION, W AS STRUCK BY V2, EB ON AVIATION, W HILE MAKING A LEFT TURN
27 7/24/02 W ED 14:06 1 PI 1 1 1 1 13 30538 30489 FIXED-OBJECT 1V1, W B ON AVIATION, STRUCK A UTILITY POLE
28 1/3/03 FRI 17:43 2 PI 4 1 4 4 66 30538 30489 COLLISION 1 1V1, EB ON AVIATION, SLID AND STRUCK V2, W B ON AVIATION
29 1/29/04 THU 16:57 1 PI 4 1 4 1 66 30538 30489 FIXED-OBJECT 1V1, EB ON AVIATION, W AS OVERTAKING AND STRUCK A UTILITY POLE
AVIATION ROAD ACCIDENT SUMMARY DESCRIPTIONS
* – SEVERITY OF THE ACCIDENT: PI = PERSONAL INJURY, PDO = PROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY AND NR = NON-REPORTABLE

4/10/2007, SHEET 3 OF 7
NO.
CONTR
REF
REF
DIR
DIR
DIR
DIR
DIR
NO.
DATE
DAY
TIME
VEH
SEVER*
LC
RC
RSC
WEATH
FACT.
MARK
MARK
ACC TYPE
N
S
E
W
UNKN
DESCRIPTION OF ACCIDENT
AVIATION ROAD ACCIDENT SUMMARY DESCRIPTIONS
FOX FARM RD / POTTER RD INTERSECTION
30 10/27/00 FRI 19:00 2 PDO 4 1 1 1 7 30489 RIGHT-ANGLE 11 V1, SB ON FOX FARM, STARTING IN TRAFFIC FAILED TO YIELD R-O-W AND STRUCK V2, W B ON AVIATION
31 11/19/00 SUN 14:00 2 PI 1 1 1 2 7, 40 30489 RIGHT-ANGLE 11V1, NB ON POTTER, GOING STRAIGHT FAILED TO YIELD R-O-W AND STRUCK V2, EB ON AVIATION
32 5/15/01 TUE 13:17 2 PDO 1 1 1 1 7 30489 RIGHT-ANGLE 11V1, W B ON AVIATION, GOING STRAIGHT W AS STRUCK BY V2, NB ON POTTER, W HO FAILED TO YIELD R-O-W
33 6/8/01 FRI 20:00 2 PI 3 1 1 1 7 30489 RIGHT-ANGLE1 1V1, SB ON FOX FARM, GOING STRAIGHT FAILED TO YIELD R-O-W AND STRUCK V2, EB ON AVIATION
34 7/18/01 W ED 11:00 2 PDO 1 1 1 2 40 30489 REAR-END 2V1, NB ON POTTER, STOPPED IN TRAFFIC W AS STRUCK BY V2, NB ON POTTER
35 11/23/01 FRI 14:55 2 NR 30489
36 11/24/01 SAT 15:15 0 NR 30489
37 3/9/02 SAT 20:53 1 NR 30489
38 11/6/02 W ED 21:00 2 PDO U U U U UNKN. 30489 RIGHT-ANGLE 11V1, EB ON AVIATION, COLLIDED W ITH V2, NB ON POTTER, W HO W AS SLOW ED OR STOPPING
39 1/14/03 TUE 08:30 2 PI, PDO 1 1 2 1 7 30489 LEFT-TURN1 1V1, W B ON AVIATION, FAILED TO YIELD R-O-W W HILE MAKING A LEFT STRUCK V2, EB ON AVIATION
40 12/5/03 FRI 13:05 2 PDO U U U U UNKN. 30489 COLLISION2 V1 W AS AVOIDING AN OBJECT ON ROAD AND COLLIDED W ITH V2
41 11/24/04 W ED – 2 PDO 1 1 1 2 UNKN. 30489 RIGHT-ANGLE 11V1, W B ON AVIATION, COLLIDED W ITH V2, NB ON POTTER
42 6/3/05 FRI 21:06 2 PDO 5 1 1 1 UNKN. 30489 LEFT-TURN1 1V1, EB ON AVIATION, COLLIDED W ITH V2, W B ON AVIATION
43 6/8/05 W ED 07:50 2 PI 1 1 1 1 7 30489 LEFT-TURN1 1 V1, SB ON FOX FARM, MAKING A LEFT STRUCK V2, EB ON AVIATION
44 11/9/05 W ED 17:01 2 PI 4 1 2 3 9, 66 30489 REAR-END2V1, W B ON AVIATION, REAR-ENDED V2, W B ON AVIATION, W HO W AS STOPPED IN TRAFFIC
FOX FARM RD / POTTER RD INTERSECTION TO DIXON RD / FARR LN INTERSECTION
45 2/15/00 TUE 17:00 2 PI 3 1 2 1 9 30489 30490 REAR-END 2V1, EB ON AVIATION, REAR-ENDED V2, EB ON AVIATION, W HO W AS STOPPED IN TRAFFIC
46 10/16/00 MON – U NR 30489 30490
47 3/24/04 W ED 07:50 2 PDO U 1 2 1 UNKN 30489 30490 REAR-END 2V1 & V2, BOTH EB ON AVIATION, W ERE IN REAR-END COLLISION
DIXON RD / FARR LN INTERSECTION
48 3/10/01 SAT 11:00 2 PDO 1 1 2 2 40 30490 LEFT-TURN1 1V1, EB ON AVIATION, AND V2, W B ON AVIATION, W ERE BOTH MAKING LEFTS AND COLLIDED
49 6/16/01 SAT 23:00 2 PDO 3 1 2 3 7 30490 RIGHT-ANGLE 11V1, NB ON DIXON, FAILED TO YIELD R-O-W W HILE MAKING A LEFT AND STRUCK V2, EB ON AVIATION
50 11/29/01 THU 07:25 2 PI 1 1 2 3 9 30490 REAR-END2V1 , EB ON AVIATION, REAR-ENDED V2, EB ON AVIATION
51 12/12/01 W ED 17:30 2 PDO U 1 1 1 UNKN 30490 REAR-END 2V1 & V2, BOTH NB ON DIXON, W ERE IN A REAR-END COLLISION
52 2/2/04 MON 13:49 2 PDO 1 1 1 1 UNKN 30490 REAR-END2V1 & V2, BOTH W B ON AVIATION, W ERE IN REAR-END COLLISION
53 3/25/04 THU – 1 PDO 1 1 1 1 UNKN 30490 FIXED-OBJECT 1V1, NB ON DIXON, ENTERING A PARKED POSITION STRUCK A SIGN POST
54 4/5/04 MON 15:01 2 PI 1 1 1 1 7 30490 LEFT-TURN 11V1, NB ON DIXON, MAKING A LEFT FAILED TO YIELD R-O-W AND STRUCK V2, EB ON AVIATION
* – SEVERITY OF THE ACCIDENT: PI = PERSONAL INJURY, PDO = PROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY AND NR = NON-REPORTABLE

4/10/2007, SHEET 4 OF 7
NO.
CONTR
REF
REF
DIR
DIR
DIR
DIR
DIR
NO.
DATE
DAY
TIME
VEH
SEVER*
LC
RC
RSC
WEATH
FACT.
MARK
MARK
ACC TYPE
N
S
E
W
UNKN
DESCRIPTION OF ACCIDENT
AVIATION ROAD ACCIDENT SUMMARY DESCRIPTIONS
DIXON RD / FARR LN INTERSECTION TO MIDNIGHT DR / MANOR DR INTERSECTION
55 11/14/00 TUE 07:00 2 PDO 1 1 2 2 9 30490 30491 REAR-END 2V1, EB ON AVIATION, W AS REAR-ENDED BY V2, EB ON AVIATION, W HO W AS STOPPED IN TRAFFIC
56 8/11/01 SAT 16:00 2 PI 1 1 1 1 18 30490 30491 LEFT-TURN 1 1V1, W B ON AVIATION, STRUCK V2, EB ON AVIATION, W HILE V2 W AS MAKING A LEFT
57 7/12/02 FRI 09:54 2 PI 1 1 1 1 13 30490 30491 HEAD-ON 1 1V1, EB ON AVIATION, W AS STRUCK BY V2, W B ON AVIATION, W HILE FAILING TO STAY IN LANE
58 10/14/02 MON 14:00 2 PDO U 1 1 1 UNKN 30490 30491 COLLISION 11 V1, EXITING PARKING SB, W AS IN A COLLISION W ITH V2, W B ON AVIATION
59 7/18/03 FRI 14:43 2 PDO 1 1 1 1 UNKN 30490 30491 COLLISION 2V1, EB ON AVIATION, MAKING A LEFT COLLIDED W ITH V2, EB ON AVIATION, MAKING A RIGHT
60 1/27/04 TUE 08:15 2 NR 1 1 1 1 9 30490 30491 REAR-END 2V1, EB ON AVIATION, REAR-ENDED V2, EB ON AVIATION, W HILE STOPPED IN TRAFFIC
61 2/1/00 TUE – U NR 30491
62 4/29/02 MON 07:31 2 PI 1 1 2 3 9 30491 REAR-END2V1, EB ON AVIATION, REAR-ENDED V2, EB ON AVIATION, W HILE STOPPED IN TRAFFIC
63 12/3/00 SUN 08:00 2 PDO 1 1 1 1 62 30492 30493 REAR-END 2V1, EB ON AVIATION, DUE TO GLARE REAR-ENDED V2, EB ON AVIATION, W HILE PARKED
64 1/20/01 SAT 17:00 2 PI 4 1 1 2 5, 7 30492 30493 LEFT-TURN 1 1V1, EB ON AVIATION, W HILE MAKING A LEFT STRUCK V2, W B ON AVIATION
65 10/28/03 TUE 15:00 2 PI 1 1 1 1 4 30492 30493 REAR-END 2V1, EB ON AVIATION, REAR-ENDED V2, EB ON AVIATION, W HILE STOPPING OR SLOW ING
66 7/19/05 TUE 10:00 1 PI 1 1 1 1 UNKN 30492 30493 BICYCLE 1V1, SB, MAKING A RIGHT TURN STRUCK A BICYCLE, EB ON AVIATION
MIDNIGHT DR / MANOR DR INTERSECTION
67 1/27/00 THU 08:00 2 PDO 1 1 4 1 66 30493 SIDESW IPE1 1V1, W B ON AVIATION, SLID AND SIDESW IPED V2 EB ON AVIATION
68 2/16/01 FRI 07:00 4 PI 1 1 4 1 4, 66 30493 COLLISION4V1, EB ON AVIATION, DUE TO DRIVER INATTENTION CAUSED A CHAIN REACTION COLLISION
69 4/21/01 SAT 02:00 1 PDO 4 4 1 2 2, 8 30493 COLLISION1V1, W B ON AVIATION, DUE TO ALCOHOL, FELL ASLEEP AND STRUCK A SIGN POST AND THEN A TREE
70 9/10/01 MON 07:20 2 PI 1 4 1 1 4 30493 REAR-END2V1, EB ON AVIATION, REAR-ENDED V2, EB ON AVIATION, W HO W AS STOPPED IN TRAFFIC
71 9/27/03 SAT 04:15 1 PI 1 1 1 1 UNKN 30493 BICYCLEV1, EB ON AVIATION, W HILE MAKING A RIGHT STRUCK A BICYCLE, W B ON AVIATION
72 3/4/04 THU 07:10 3 NR 1 1 2 2 19, 66 30493 COLLISION3V1, EB ON AVIATION, W AS TRAVELING AT UNSAFE SPEED AND CAUSED A CHAIN REACTION COLLISION
MIDNIGHT DR / MANOR DR TO COTTAGE HILL ROAD INTERSECTION
73 5/8/00 MON 06:00 2 PI 1 1 2 3 7 30493 30494 RIGHT-ANGLE 11 V1, SB, W HILE MAKING A LEFT FAILED TO YIELD R-O-W AND STRUCK V2, W B ON AVIATION, W HO HIT A TREE
74 11/28/00 TUE 14:00 2 PDO 1 1 1 2 4 30493 30494 REAR-END 2V1, W B ON AVIATION, DUE TO DRIVER INATTENTION REAR-ENDED V2, W B ON AVIATION, STOPPED IN TRAFFIC
75 6/5/02 W ED – 3 PI, PDO 1 1 1 2 9 30493 30494 COLLISION 3ALL W B ON AVIATION, W ITH V1 STOPPED IN TRAFFIC, V2 SLOW ING W AS STRUCK BY V3
76 10/2/03 THU 07:20 2 PI 1 1 2 2 9 30493 30494 REAR-END 2V1, EB ON AVIATION, FOLLOW ING TOO CLOSE REAR-ENDED V2, EB ON AVIATION, W HO W AS STOPPED
77 1/11/01 THU 15:00 2 PDO 1 1 1 1 7 30494 LEFT-TURN 11V1, NB ON PROSPECT, W HILE MAKING A LEFT FILED TO YIELD R-O-W AND STRUCK V2, W B ON AVIATION
78 11/21/00 THU 07:00 2 PDO 1 1 2 2 9 30494 30495 REAR-END 2V1, EB ON AVIATION, FOLLOW ING TOO CLOSE REAR-ENDED V2, EB ON AVIATION, W HO W AS STOPPED
79 10/24/01 W ED 18:51 U NR 30494 30495
80 12/21/01 FRI 01:19 U NR 30494 30495
COTTAGE HILL RD INTERSECTION
81 6/2/01 SAT – U NR 30495
82 9/19/01 W ED 22:31 U NR 30495
83 4/19/03 SAT 10:15 2 PI, PDO 1 1 1 1 7 30495 LEFT-TURN1 1V1, EB ON AVIATION, W AS STRUCK BY V2, W B ON AVIATION, W HO W AS MAKING A LEFT
84 9/27/03 SAT 14:30 2 PI 1 1 2 3 9, 47 30495 REAR-END2V1, EB ON AVIATION, W AS STOPPED AND REAR-ENDED BY V2, EB ON AVIATION
* – SEVERITY OF THE ACCIDENT: PI = PERSONAL INJURY, PDO = PROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY AND NR = NON-REPORTABLE

4/10/2007, SHEET 5 OF 7
NO.
CONTR
REF
REF
DIR
DIR
DIR
DIR
DIR
NO.
DATE
DAY
TIME
VEH
SEVER*
LC
RC
RSC
WEATH
FACT.
MARK
MARK
ACC TYPE
N
S
E
W
UNKN
DESCRIPTION OF ACCIDENT
AVIATION ROAD ACCIDENT SUMMARY DESCRIPTIONS
COTTAGE HILL RD INTERSECTION TO BURKE DR INTERSECTION
85 5/8/00 MON 07:00 2 PI 1 1 2 3 7 30495 30383 RIGHT-ANGLE 1 1V1, EB ON AVIATION, W AS STRUCK BY V2, NB, W HO FAILED TO YEILD R-O-W
86 7/26/00 W ED 01:00 2 PDO 1 1 1 1 40 30495 30383 OVERTAKING 2V1 & V2, BOTH W B ON AVIATION, W ERE INVOLVED IN AN OVERTAKING COLLISION
87 10/8/00 SUN 11:00 1 PI 1 1 1 1 7, 19 30495 30383 BICYCLE 1V1, W B ON AVIATION, AT AN UNSAFE SPEED STRUCK A BICYCLE, NB, W HO FAILED TO YEILD R-O-W
88 9/23/01 SUN 17:39 U NR 30495 30383
89 4/10/02 W ED 15:43 2 NR 1 1 1 1 UNKN 30495 30383 REAR-END 2V1, EB ON AVIATION, REAR-ENDED V2, EB ON AVIATION, W HO W AS SLOW ED OR STOPPING
90 5/2/02 THU 15:41 2 PDO 1 1 2 3 9 30495 30383 REAR-END 2V1, EB ON AVIATION, FOLLOW ING TOO CLOSE REAR-ENDED V2, EB ON AVIATION
91 9/25/02 W ED 15:39 2 PI 1 1 1 1 4 30495 30383 REAR-END 2V1, EB ON AVIATION, STARTING IN TRAFFIC REAR-ENDED V2, EB ON AVIATION, W HILE V2 SLOW ED
92 8/4/03 MON 17:15 2 PI 1 2 1 1 4, 9 30495 30383 REAR-END 2V1, W B ON AVIATION, FOLLOW ING TOO CLOSE REAR-ENDED V2, W B ON AVIATION
93 11/5/03 W ED 09:12 2 PI 1 1 2 2 9 30495 30383 REAR-END 2V1, EB ON AVIATION, W AS STOPPED AND REAR-ENDED BY V2, EB ON AVIATION
94 2/1/05 TUE 07:25 5 PDO 1 1 1 1 9 30495 30383 REAR-END 5V5, W B ON AVIATION, REAR-ENDED V4 STARTING A CHAIN REACTION COLLISION
95 2/4/05 FRI 14:16 2 NR 1 1 1 1 4 30495 30383 REAR-END 2V1, EB ON AVIATION, REAR-ENDED V2, EB ON AVIATION, W HO W AS SLOW ED OR STOPPING
BURKE DR INTERSECTION
96 2/27/00 SUN – U NR 30383
97 11/8/00 W ED – U NR 30383
98 12/28/00 THU 11:00 2 PI 1 1 1 2 7 30383 LEFT-TURN1 1V1, W B ON AVIATION, MAKING A LEFT FAILED TO YEILD R-O-W AND STRUCK V2, EB ON AVIATION
99 8/3/01 FRI 15:00 2 PI 1 1 2 3 9 30383 REAR-END2V1, EB ON AVIATION, FOLLOW ING TOO CLOSE REAR-ENDED V2, EB ON AVIATION, W HO W AS STOPPED
100 1/11/03 SAT 00:20 1 PDO U 3 4 U UNKN 30383 UNKOW N1 V1 LOST CONTROL
101 6/26/03 THU 04:06 2 PI, PDO 1 1 1 1 UNKN 30383 HEAD-ON2 V1 AND V2 W ERE INVOLVED IN A HEAD ON COLLISION
102 11/22/04 MON 19:24 2 PDO U U U U UNKN 30383 LEFT-TURN2 V1 AND V2 W ERE INVOLVED IN A LEFT TURN COLLISION
103 2/2/05 W ED 08:41 2 PI 1 1 1 1 7, 62 30383 UNKOW N 11V1, SB, FAILED TO YEILD R-O-W W HILE MAKING A LEFT AND STRUCK V2, NB ON BURKE
104 9/15/05 THU 16:20 2 PDO 1 1 1 2 7 30383 LEFT-TURN1 1V1, EB ON AVIATION, W AS IN A COLLISION W ITH V2, W B ON AVIATION, W HILE V2 W AS MAKING A LEFT
105 10/15/05 SAT 20:15 2 PDO U 1 2 2 UNKN 30383 UNKOW N 11V1, EB ON AVIATION, W AS IN A COLLISION W ITH V2, NB ON BURKE
* – SEVERITY OF THE ACCIDENT: PI = PERSONAL INJURY, PDO = PROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY AND NR = NON-REPORTABLE

ACCIDENT DESCRIPTION CODES
LIGHT CONDITION (LC) ROADW AY CHARACTER (RC)
1. Daylight
1. Straight and Level
2. Dawn 2. Straight and Grade
3. Dusk 3. Straight at Hillcrest
4. Dark – Road Lighted 4. Curve and Level
5. Dark – Road Unlighted 5. Curve and Grade
U. Unknown 6. Curve at Hillcrest
U. Unknown
ROADW AY SURFACE CONDITION (RSC) W EATHER (W )
1. Dry
1.
Clear
2. W et 2. Cloudy
3. Muddy 3. Rain
4. Snow/Ice 4. Snow
5. Slush 5. Sleet/Hail/Freezing Rain
U. Unknown 6. Fog/Smog/Smoke
10. Other U. Unknown
10. Other
APPARENT CONTRIBUTING FACTORS HUMAN VEHICULAR
2. Alcohol Involvement
41
. Accelerator Defective
3. Backing Unsafely 42. Brakes Defective
4. Driver Inattention 43 Headlights Defective
5. Driver Inexperience 44. Other Lighting Defects
6. Drugs (Illegal) 45. Oversized Vehicle
7. Failure to Yield Right-of-W ay 46. Steering Failure
8. Fell Asleep 47. Tire Failure/Inadequate
9. Following Too Closely 48. Tow Hitch Defective
10. Illness 49. W indshield Defective
11. Lost Consciousness 60. Other Vehicular Factor
12. Passenger Distraction
13. Passing or Improper Lane Usage
14. Pedestrian’s Error or Confusion ENVIRONMENTAL15. Physical Disability
1
6

. Prescription Medication 61. Animal’s Action
17. Traffic Control Disregarded 62. Glare
18. Turning Improperly 63. Lane Marking Improper/Inadequate
19. Unsafe Speed 64. Obstruction/Debris
20. Unsafe Lane Change 65. Pavement Defective
40. Other Human Factor 66. Pavement Slippery
67. Shoulders Defective/Improper
68. Traffic Control Device Improper/Not W orking
69. View Obstructed/Limited
80. Other Environmental Factor

Aviation Road Accident Analysis Reference Marker Descriptions
Reference Marker Intersecting Road(s)
fr
om to from to
30040 30530 W est Mountain Rd Unknown
30532 Mountian View Lane
30532 30533 Mountian View Lane Crownwood Lane
30533 Crownwood Lane
30534 30535 Unknown
Unknown
30536 30535 Sylvan Ave Unknown
30536 30537 Sylvan Ave Owen Ave
30537 Owen Ave
30538 Gilmore Ave
30538 30489 Gilmore Ave Fox Farm Rd / Potter Rd
30489 Fox Farm Rd / Potter Rd
30489 30490 Fox Farm Rd / Potter Rd Dixon Rd / Farr Ln
30490 Dixon Rd / Farr Ln
30490 30491 Dixon Rd / Farr Ln Poplar Ln
30491 Poplar Ln
30492 30493 Unknown
Manor Dr / Midnight Dr
30493 Manor Dr / Midnight Dr
30493 30494 Manor Dr / Midnight Dr Prospect Dr
30494 Prospect Dr
30494 30495 Prospect Dr Cottage Hill Rd
30495 Cottage Hill Rd
30495 30383 Cottage Hill Rd Burke Dr / NY 254
30383 Burke Dr / NY 254

1 OF 5
~
AVIATION ROAD
DRIVEWAY
(TYP.)
MATCH LINE SHEET 2 OF 5
ELDRIDGE ROADBENNETT ROADQUEEN DIANA LANESHORT END DRIVE
MIDWAY DRIVE
WEST MOUNTAIN ROAD
BUTLER ROAD
SCHOOL ACCESS
3
5
2 ,68, 7
9
10, 11
12
1314
Aviation Rd – West Mountain Rd to Mountain View Ln
Municipality
Period
County
YearsMonthsFromTo
SYMBOLSMANNER OF COLLISION
NOT TO SCALE
BM
P
50
XWET PAVEMENT
Moving Vehicle
Motorcycle
Backing Vehicle
Stopped Vehicle
Parked Vehicle
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Fixed Object
Personal Injury
Fatal Injury
Rear-end
Overtake
Out of control
Skidding
Overturned
Head-on
Side-swipe
Left-turn

Right-angle
ACCIDENT ANALYSIS
COLLISION DIAGRAM
Roadway
X SNOW AND ICY PAVEMENT1533 CRESCENT ROAD CLIFTON PARK, NEW YORK
M.J. ENGINEERING AND
LAND SURVEYING, P.C.
FILE NAME = DATE/TIME = USER =
DGN$USERNAMEDGN$SPEC01234567890123456789012345678901234$DATE$
$TIME$
ACCIDENT NO. IN ATTACHED TABLEX
Town of QueensburyWarren
1/1/00012/31/05

2 OF 5
~
AVIATION ROAD
MOUNTAIN VIEW LANECROWNWOOD LANE
PINEWOOD LANEWESTMORE AVENUE
OWEN AVENUE
SYLVAN AVENUE
BUENA VISTA
DRIVEWAY
(TYP.)
16
1720
2224
25
MATCH LINE SHEET 3 OF 5
Aviation Road – Mountain View Lane to Owen Avenue
MATCH LINE SHEET 1 OF 5
Municipality
Period
County
YearsMonthsFromTo
SYMBOLSMANNER OF COLLISION
NOT TO SCALE
BM
P
50
XWET PAVEMENT
Moving Vehicle
Motorcycle
Backing Vehicle
Stopped Vehicle
Parked Vehicle
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Fixed Object
Personal Injury
Fatal Injury
Rear-end
Overtake
Out of control
Skidding
Overturned
Head-on
Side-swipe
Left-turn

Right-angle
ACCIDENT ANALYSIS
COLLISION DIAGRAM
Roadway
X SNOW AND ICY PAVEMENT1533 CRESCENT ROAD CLIFTON PARK, NEW YORK
M.J. ENGINEERING AND
LAND SURVEYING, P.C.
FILE NAME = DATE/TIME = USER =
DGN$USERNAMEDGN$SPEC01234567890123456789012345678901234$DATE$
$TIME$
ACCIDENT NO. IN ATTACHED TABLEX
Town of QueensburyWarren
1/1/00012/31/05

3 OF 5
~
AVIATION ROAD
GILMORE AVENUE
POTTER ROAD
DRIVEWAY
(TYP.)
MATCH LINE SHEET 4 OF 5MATCH LINE SHEET 2 OF 5
Aviation Road – Gilmore Avenue to Poplar Lane
POPLAR LANE
DIXON ROAD
FOX FARM ROAD
FARR LANE
2729
2628
30
3244
34
43, 33
52
COMMERCIAL
DRIVEWAY
COMMERCIAL
DRIVEWAY
~~~
48
50
60, 59, 55
56
58
6257
51
41, 38
31
42
39
45
47
54
49
53
Municipality
Period
County
YearsMonthsFromTo
SYMBOLSMANNER OF COLLISION
NOT TO SCALE
BM
P
50
XWET PAVEMENT
Moving Vehicle
Motorcycle
Backing Vehicle
Stopped Vehicle
Parked Vehicle
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Fixed Object
Personal Injury
Fatal Injury
Rear-end
Overtake
Out of control
Skidding
Overturned
Head-on
Side-swipe
Left-turn

Right-angle
ACCIDENT ANALYSIS
COLLISION DIAGRAM
Roadway
X SNOW AND ICY PAVEMENT1533 CRESCENT ROAD CLIFTON PARK, NEW YORK
M.J. ENGINEERING AND
LAND SURVEYING, P.C.
FILE NAME = DATE/TIME = USER =
DGN$USERNAMEDGN$SPEC01234567890123456789012345678901234$DATE$
$TIME$
ACCIDENT NO. IN ATTACHED TABLEX
Town of QueensburyWarren
1/1/00012/31/05

4 OF 5
~
AVIATION ROAD
DRIVEWAY
(TYP.)
MATCH LINE SHEET 5 OF 5MATCH LINE SHEET 3 OF 5
Aviation Road – Poplar Lane to Cottage Hill Road
MANOR DRIVE
MIDNIGHT DRIVE
PROSPECT DRIVE
COTTAGE HILL ROAD
SCHOOLSCHOOL
83
8478
77
75
APT’S
76
74
73
69
B66
64
636568
72
67
70
B71
Municipality
Period
County
YearsMonthsFromTo
SYMBOLSMANNER OF COLLISION
NOT TO SCALE
BM
P
50
XWET PAVEMENT
Moving Vehicle
Motorcycle
Backing Vehicle
Stopped Vehicle
Parked Vehicle
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Fixed Object
Personal Injury
Fatal Injury
Rear-end
Overtake
Out of control
Skidding
Overturned
Head-on
Side-swipe
Left-turn

Right-angle
ACCIDENT ANALYSIS
COLLISION DIAGRAM
Roadway
X SNOW AND ICY PAVEMENT1533 CRESCENT ROAD CLIFTON PARK, NEW YORK
M.J. ENGINEERING AND
LAND SURVEYING, P.C.
FILE NAME = DATE/TIME = USER =
DGN$USERNAMEDGN$SPEC01234567890123456789012345678901234$DATE$
$TIME$
ACCIDENT NO. IN ATTACHED TABLEX
Town of QueensburyWarren
1/1/00012/31/05

5 OF 5
~
MATCH LINE SHEET 4 OF 5
Aviation Road – Cottage Hill Road to Burke Drive
SCHOOLSCHOOL
BURKE DRIVE
94
85
86
87
B
78
AVIATION ROAD
COMMERCIAL
DRIVEWAY
98
95, 90 ,89
93 ,91
103
102, 104
101
105
99
Municipality
Period
County
YearsMonthsFromTo
SYMBOLSMANNER OF COLLISION
NOT TO SCALE
BM
P
50
XWET PAVEMENT
Moving Vehicle
Motorcycle
Backing Vehicle
Stopped Vehicle
Parked Vehicle
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Fixed Object
Personal Injury
Fatal Injury
Rear-end
Overtake
Out of control
Skidding
Overturned
Head-on
Side-swipe
Left-turn

Right-angle
ACCIDENT ANALYSIS
COLLISION DIAGRAM
Roadway
X SNOW AND ICY PAVEMENT1533 CRESCENT ROAD CLIFTON PARK, NEW YORK
M.J. ENGINEERING AND
LAND SURVEYING, P.C.
FILE NAME = DATE/TIME = USER =
DGN$USERNAMEDGN$SPEC01234567890123456789012345678901234$DATE$
$TIME$
ACCIDENT NO. IN ATTACHED TABLEX
Town of QueensburyWarren
1/1/00012/31/05

Second Aviation Road Corridor Study
September 2008

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

1
Aviation Road Corridor Study
September 2008

APPENDIX B
REPRESENTATIVE
CORRIDOR PHOTOS

2 Aviation Road Corridor Study
September 2008

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

1
Aviation Road looking east at the Aviation Road/Burke Drive Intersection and I-87 overpass

2
Aviation Road looking east at the Queensbury Middle School/Main Entrance

3
Aviation Road looking east at the Queensbury High School eastern driveway

4
Aviation Road looking east at the Queensbury High School western driveway

5
Aviation Road north side looking east along Commercial and Office Development east of Farr Lane

6
Aviation Road south side looking east along Commercial Development east of Dixon Road

7
Aviation Road looking east at the intersection of Dixon Road/Farr Lane

8
Aviation Road looking west at the intersection of Fox Farm/Potter Road

9
Aviation Road looking west toward the Westmore Avenue/Buena Vista Avenue Intersection

10
Aviation Road looking west toward the Mountain View Lane Intersection

11
Aviation Road looking west from the Mountain View Lane Intersection

12
Aviation Road looking west at the West Mountain Road Intersection

1
Aviation Road Corridor Study
September 2008

APPENDIX C
QUEENSBURY UNION FREE
SCHOOL DISTRICT— MASTER SITE PLAN

2 Aviation Road Corridor Study
September 2008

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

This page intentionally left blank

1
Aviation Road Corridor Study
September 2008

APPENDIX D
ALTERNATIVES
DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
SUMMARY

2 Aviation Road Corridor Study
September 2008

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

3
Aviation Road Corridor Study
September 2008

Alternatives Development Process

To begin the development of possible future alterna-
tives for the Aviation Road corridor, the WSA pre-
pared traffic projections for the corridor for the year
2016 for both the AM and PM peak periods. Using
the projections, as well as th e analysis of the existing
conditions and comments from the Study Advisory
Committee and the public generated at the first pub-
lic work session, the WSA Team developed numer-
ous alternatives for the intersections and the various
different segment of roadway between the intersec-
tions. Table III-2 summarizes the different alterna-
tives developed for the intersections and the various
segments of the corridor.

For the intersections, the Team examined options
including roundabouts, signalization with or without
additional turning lanes, additional turning lanes
without signalization and doing nothing. Table III-
1 presents the 2016 projected LOS for the intersec-
tion signalization alternatives; Table III-3 presents
the projected LOS for the intersections where
roundabouts are considered.

The two high accident locations were examined in
more detail to determine if there were additional
modifications that could be considered to address
the issues that appear to be causing the majority of
accidents.

For the roadway corridor itself, the Team considered
possible future modifications to address congestion,
pedestrian and bicyclist ci rculation, vehicle speeds,
and aesthetics.

While congestion is not gene rally an issue in the cor-
ridor, there are very short periods of time, especially
in the morning as the schools are opening, that there
is congestion on the roadway, especially for east-
bound vehicular traffic. One of the causes of the
congestion is the number of vehicles making a left
turn from Aviation Road onto the school campus.
The Team’s review of the issue indicated that the
most appropriate way to address the issue was to
limit the number of free left turns on Aviation Road,
and to direct left turn tra ffic to more efficient inter-
sections. The team therefore considered a center
median as a possible alternative to address this prob-
lem.

For pedestrian circulation, the Team considered ei-
ther alone or in some combination with each other:

• A full extension of the sidewalk along the entire
corridor on both sides of the road; •
A full extension of the sidewalk along the entire
corridor on one side of the road;
• A partial extension of the sidewalk along the
eastern portion of the corridor on both sides of
the road;
• A partial extension of the sidewalk along the
eastern portion of the corridor on one sides of
the road;
• Wide paved shoulders for pedestrian circulation
along the western portion of the corridor,
• A 10-foot wide sidepath on one side of the cor-
ridor;
• Additional intersections and mid-block cross-
walks;
• Refuge islands to make it easier to cross one
lane of traffic at a time; and
• Pedestrian signals at the intersections.

For bicycle circulation, the Team considered:

• Bicycle lanes on both sides of the roadway for
the enti
re corridor;
• Wide paved shoulders on both sides of the
roadway for the entire corridor;
• A 10-foot wide sidepath on one side of the cor-
ridor; and
• Closing wide driveways to create clearer vehicu-
lar turning circulation patterns.

To address the speeding issues on Aviation Road,
the Team considered several traffic calming tech-
niques, including:

• Street trees along both sides of the roadway;
• Narrower travel lanes cr eated by restriping the
sides of the roadway; and
• A center median.

The various alternative that were developed for the
items above also provided several good opportuni-
ties to improve the overall aesthetic character of the
corridor and so no additional alternatives were devel-
oped solely to address aesthetic concerns.

The Study Advisory Committee reviewed the infor-
mation and provided input on the feasibility of the
various options. After refining the alternatives, the
team presented them at a second public work ses-
sion, in order to gather comments and to develop a
list of preferred alternatives. After the second public
work session, the WSA Team, along with the Study
Advisory Committee, reviewed the gathered infor-
mation and made a draft recommendations of the
final corridor improvement recommendations.

Second Aviation Road Corridor Study
September 2008

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Crandall / Sherman Intersection Evaluation

©2013 The Chazen Companies

January 1 0, 201 4

Prepared for:

Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation Council
Washington County Municipal Center
11 South Street, Suite 203
Glens Falls, NY 12801

Intersection Evaluation Study
Report
Crandall Street/Sherman Avenue
Intersection Evaluation

City of Glens Falls
Warre n County, New York

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. COPY OR REPRODUCTION OF THIS DRAWING OR DOCUMENT, OR ANY PORTION THEREOF, WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF CHAZEN ENGINEERING, LAND SURVEYING & LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE CO., D. P.C. IS PROHIBITED.
THIS DRAWING OR DOCUMENT IS NOT INTENDED OR REPRESENTED TO BE SUITABLE FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIC PROJECT, APPLI CATION AND SITUATION FOR WHICH IT WAS INTENDED. ANY MODIFICATION OF THIS DRAWING OR DOCUMENT, OR
ANY USE FOR ANY PROJECT, APPLICATION OR SITUATION OTHER THAN THAT FOR WHICH IT WAS INTENDED, WILL BE AT USER’S SOLE RISK AND WITHOUT LIABILITY TO CHAZEN ENGINEERING, LAND SURVEYING & LANDSCAPE ARCHI TECTURE CO., D.P.C.
IT IS A VIOLATION OF NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION LAW FOR ANY PERSON TO ALTER THIS DRAWING OR DOCUMENT IN ANY WAY, UNLESS HE OR SHE IS ACTING UNDER THE DIRECTION OF A LICENSED DESIGN PROFESSIONAL (PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, LAND
SURVEYOR, ARCH ITECT OR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT). IF THIS DRAWING OR DOCUMENT IS ALTERED, THE ALTERING DESIGN PROFESSIONAL SHALL AFFIX TO THE D RAWING OR DOCUMENT HIS OR HER SEAL, THE NOTATION “ALTERED BY” FOLLOWED BY HIS OR HER
SIGNATURE, THE DATE OF SUCH ALTERATION, AND A SPECIFIC DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERATION.

Chazen Project #: 31348.00

Prepared by:

The Capital District Office
The Chazen Companies
Engineering, Land Surveying & Landscape Architecture Co., D.P.C.
Chazen Environmental Services, Inc.
547 River Street
Troy, New York 12180
(518) 273- 0055

Intersection Evaluation Study
Report
Crandall Street/Sherman Avenue
Intersection Evaluation

City of Glens Falls
Warren County, New York

Hudson Valley Office North Country Office
(845) 454-3980 (518) 812-0513

Intersection Evaluation Study
Crandall Street/Sherman Avenue Intersection Page i
The Chazen Companies
Project Number: 31348.00 January 10, 2014
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY …………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 3
1.0 INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 4
1.1 Study Methodology …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 4
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 7
2.1 Study Intersection ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 7
2.2 Adjacent Intersections …………………………………………………………………………………………. 8
2.3 Traffic Volumes (Vehicular, Pedestrian, Bicyclist) ……………………………………………………. 8
3.0 ANALYSIS ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 11
3.1 Capacity/Level of Service Analysis ……………………………………………………………………… 11
3.2 Signal Warrant Analysis ……………………………………………………………………………………. 13
3.3 Four -Way Stop Analysis ……………………………………………………………………………………. 14
3.4 Accident Data Analysis ……………………………………………………………………………………… 15
4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS …………………………………………………………………. 16
4.1 Conclusions …………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 16
4.2 Recommendations …………………………………………………………………………………………… 16
5.0 ESTIMATED COSTS – RECOMMENDED ACTION A ND ALTERNATIVES ……………………………… 18
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 – Signalized Intersection LOS Criteria ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 11
Table 2 Level of Service Summary (Signalized – fix ed timed) ………………………………………………………………………….. 12
Table 3 Level of Service Summary (Signalized – Semi -actuated) ……………………………………………………………………… 12
Table 4 Signal Warrant Analysis ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 13

Intersection Evaluation Study
Crandall Street/Sherman Avenue Intersection Page ii
The Chazen Companies
Project Number: 31348.00 January 10, 2014
Table 5 – Un -Signalized Intersection LOS Criteria …………………………………………………………………………………………… 14
Table 6 – Level of Service Summary (All way stop control) ………………………………………………………………………………. 14
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 – Area Map ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 6

Figure 2 – Existing Traffic Volumes ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 10
Figure 3 – All Way STOP Sign Control …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 19
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Traffic Movement Counts
Appendix B: Level of Service Analysis
Appendix C: Accident Data
Appendix D: Intersection Photos

Intersection Evaluation Study
Crandall Street/Sherman Avenue Intersection Page 3
The Chazen Companies
Project Number: 31348.00 January 10, 2014
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

An Intersection Evaluation has been completed for the Adirondack/ Glenss Falls Transportation Council
(AGFTC), on behalf of the City of Glenss Falls, for the intersection of Crandall Street and Sherman
Avenue. This intersection is currently under fixed time traffic signal control. The evaluation was
performed to exami ne the intersection operation and recommend actions to facilitate a more efficient
operation for all intersection users.

As a result of this evaluation it is recom mended that the existing traffic signal be removed and th e
intersection placed under all way stop control, with pavement markings and signing in accordance with
the National and NYSDOT Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).

This recommended ch ange in intersection control would r educe overall vehicle delays , decrease the
likelihood for rear end and right angle accidents, and l essen conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians .
In addition it would r elieve the City of Glenss Falls from the responsi bility for signal maintenance.

Intersection Evaluation Study
Crandall Street/Sherman Avenue Intersection Page 4
The Chazen Companies
Project Number: 31348.00 January 10, 2014
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Adirondack/ Glenss Falls Transportation Council (AGFTC), on behalf of the City of Glens s Falls, tasked
The Chazen Companies to perform a Traffic Intersection Evaluation at the intersection of Crandall Street
and Sherman Avenue in the City of Glens s Falls. The traffic evaluation reviewed the appropriateness of
the existing traffic signal control, and developed potential operational improvements to the
intersection .
The study examined the traff ic operations and accident history at the intersection of Crandall Street and
Sherman Avenue and conducted field observation of nearby intersections under alternative traffic
control such as the four -way stop sign control.
The intersection evaluation stu dy follows accepted national engineering practice and utilizes accepted
engineering data sources and software analysis programs. Field reviews were undertaken. Manual
vehicular turning counts and automatic traffic recording (ATR) data were completed for th e study
intersection. All field data and analysis results are presented in the Appendices to this report.
1. 1 Study Methodology
Traffic and accident data were collected for the intersection of Crandall Street and Sherman Avenue as
well as field review/evaluation of nearby intersections, such as the Sherman Avenue/Quade Street
intersection and the Sherman Avenue/Western Avenue intersection. The following is a brief description
of the detailed tasks, which were a part of the analysis.
• Information pertinent to the existing traffic and roadway conditions was collected and analyzed
relative to its effect on operating characteristics.
• Field observations were made to observe traffic movement , including pedestrian and bicycle
movements within the existing roadwa y network to determine and verify traffic patterns and
distributions.
• 2013 Existing traffic volumes were determined.
• Accident Data provided by the Glenss Falls Police Department for the study intersection was
reviewed and analyzed.
• Operational analysis o f the study intersections were conducted for the AM and PM peak hours
to assist in the determination of possible improvem ents to the intersection operation.
• A Signal Warrant analysis was conducted at the study inters ection to determine the
appropriateness of the curr ent intersection control based on accepted national guidelines.
• Adjacent intersectio ns were reviewed relative to operational sim ilarities with the study
intersection.

Intersection Evaluation Study
Crandall Street/Sherman Avenue Intersection Page 5
The Chazen Companies
Project Number: 31348.00 January 10, 2014
• Conclusions and recommendations were made of the potential traffic improveme nts a s a result
of the data, facts gathered, and analyses in this study.
Figure 1 shows the project intersection and the immediate adjacent roadways.

Intersection Evaluation Study
Crandall Street/Sherman Avenue Intersection Page 6
The Chazen Companies
Project Number: 31348.00 January 10, 2014
Figure 1 – Area Map
Crandall Street & Sherman Avenue
Project Site
Location
Project #: 31348.00Date: December 2013
Intersection Evaluation Study
City of Glen Falls
Warren County, New York
Figure: #1
North

Intersection Evaluation Study
Crandall Street/Sherman Avenue Intersection Page 7
The Chazen Companies
Project Number: 31348.00 January 10, 2014
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
2.1 Study Intersection
Crandall Street at Sherman Avenue is a four way intersection under two -phase fixed time traffic signal
control. Crandall Street runs in a general north/south orientation, with Sherman Avenue running in an
east/west orientation . Crandall Street consists of an unmarked 2 4-foot wide travel roadway section
from the north and an unmarked 20 -foot wide travel roadway from the south. Sherman Avenue consists
of an unmarked 30 -foot wide travel roadway section from the west and an unmarked 28 -foot w ide
travel roadway from the east.
The intersection is in the City of Glens s Falls School District, which is a walking school district with bus
transport provided to handicapped students only. Consequently, school age pedestrian traffic is
significant along Sherman Avenue and at this intersection, as is school destined vehicular traffic and
some bicycle traffic.
There are 4-foot wide sidewalks along both side s of each intersection approach with marked pedestrian
crosswalk s and stop bars on each approach. Pedestrian signing, pedestrian push buttons , or
“Walk/Don’t Walk” signal indications are not present at this intersection. Pedestrians must cross an
approach by determining if that approach has a red or green indication. If crossing at the appropriate
time, when the approach being crossed is under a red indication, a pedestrian has no way of knowing
for how long that red indication will remain before changing to a green indication.
The traffic signal control consists of one signal face ( red/yellow/green indic ations ) for each intersection
approach. While the use of one signal face per approach is allowed in the NYSDOT MUTCD (Manual of
Uniform Traffic Control Devices) for an intersection with one lane approaches not on a State or F ederal
highway , the standard fo r traffic signal control is two signal faces for an approach. Two faces per
approach increases signal visibility and the second indication provides redundancy in the event that one
indication goes out. Since the signal is supported by a single mast arm, an upgrade to two faces per
approach is not feasible due to signal face sight line requirements. In addition the added additional
weight imposed on the mast arm would be problematical.
The signal also does not have vehicle detection and operates on a fixed time basis with each roadway
receiving a fixed amount of green time r egardless of the traffic demand. Crandall Street, for example,
receives green time even when there are no vehicles on the approach.
“No Parking” restrictions are in effect on the west side of the Crandall Street northbound approach , on
both side s of the Crandall Street southbound approach and the Sherman Avenue westbound approach,
and on the north side of Sherman Avenue eastbound approach to the intersection. Both Crandall Street
and Sherma n Avenue are characteriz ed by residential land use . There is no posted speed limit in the
vicinity of the intersection, and accordingly the City of Glens s Falls 30 mph city wide speed limit is in
effect.
The intersection is memorialized by photographs in A ppendix D.

Intersection Evaluation Study
Crandall Street/Sherman Avenue Intersection Page 8
The Chazen Companies
Project Number: 31348.00 January 10, 2014
2.2 Adjacent Intersections
Th e Sherman Avenue and Quade Street/Cortland Street intersection is approximately 1,500 -feet west
of the study intersection with the City of Glens Falls Middle and High School campus in the northwest
quadrant of the in tersection. This intersection is a four way intersection operating under all- way stop
sign control. Each approach provides an unmarked single travel lane. Quade Street and Cortland Street
are slightly offset from each other with Cortland Street being sligh tly more to the west. Quade Street
provides access driveways to both the Glens s Falls Middle School and High School . Parking is provided
on the west side of the street. There are sidewalks along each side of each approach at the intersection .
Marked pedestrian crosswalk s are present on all intersection approaches, as well as at three locations
crossing Sherman A venue in front of the school campus. The eastbound and southbound approaches are
under a “15 -mph School Speed Limit” , with the northbound and westbound approaches under the city
wide 30 -mph speed limit.
The intersection is memorialized by photographs in Appendix D
The Sherman and Western Avenue intersection is located 0.5± mile west from the study intersection.
This intersection is a four way inters ection operating under all- way stop sign control. Sidewalk s are
provided on the east side of both Western Avenue approaches, as well as the south side of the Sherman
Avenue westbound approach. There are no sidewalk s on the Sherman Avenue eastbound approach .
Pedestrian crosswalk markings are provided on the southbound and westbound approaches. The city
wide “30 -mph City Speed Limit” applies to each intersection approach except for the westbound
approach which is under a “15-mph School Speed Limit”. By obser vation, this intersection operates well
under similar traffic volumes as the Crandall Street at Sherman Avenue
2. 3 Traffic Volumes (Vehicular, Pedestrian, Bicyclist)
Traffic counts were conducted in October and November of 2013 to capture current traffic p atterns and
volumes while local schools wer e in session. The hourly traffic volumes were collected by Automatic
Traffic Recorders (ATRs) from Monday, October 28 , 2013 to Thurs day, October 31 , 2013. Manual traffic
turning movement counts as well as pedestri an and bicyclist counts were also undertaken in the same
October timeframe during the morning (7:00AM to 9:00AM on Tuesday October 29
th) weekday
commuter peak hour and during the afternoon (2:45PM to 6:00PM on Wednes day October 30th)
weekday school and co mmuter peak hours . Manual counts were also undertaken at the Sherman
Avenue and Quade Street intersection on Wednes day, November 20
th during the afternoon (2 :45 PM to
3 :45 PM) peak hour as th is time represented the highest traffic volumes from the October c ounts.
Appendix A pr esent s the vehicular count data as well as the pedestrian and bicyclist count data .
Based upon the traffic count data collected the following observations are evident:
• The morning and afternoon peak period s for vehicular traffic in October, while local schools
were in session , was 7:45AM to 8:45AM and 2: 45PM to 3:45PM respectively. These times
co incide with school arrivals/commuter peak in the morning , and with school dismissals, but not
commuter peak, in the afternoon. The PM peak hou r (2:45 to 3:45) is the busiest time frame for
this intersection for vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle traffic

Intersection Evaluation Study
Crandall Street/Sherman Avenue Intersection Page 9
The Chazen Companies
Project Number: 31348.00 January 10, 2014
• Intersection volumes at the study intersection are 717 vehicles in the AM peak and 791 vehicles
during the PM peak. The two-way traffic volume on Crandall Street is 197 vehicles during the
AM peak hour and 199 vehicles during the PM peak hour. The two -way traffic volume on
Sherman Avenue is 522 vehicles during the AM peak hour and 592 vehicles during the PM peak
hour.


Thirty -seven (37 ) pedestrians and bicyclists crossed the intersection during the PM (2:45 to 3:45
PM) peak hour during the October counts , coinciding with school dismissal. The number of
pedestrians and bicyclists decreased during the November counts, coinciding with colder
weather.


Th e October AM peak pedestrian /bicyclist numbers were less than the PM numbers with
twenty -one ( 21) pedestrians and bicyclists crossing the intersection.


The afternoon peak hour (2:45 -3:45PM) count at the intersection of Sherman Avenue and
Quade Street/Cortl and Street showed a two -way traffic volume on Sh erman Avenue of 515
vehicles with 172 vehicles traveling on Quade Street/Cortland Street.


Figure 2 provides t he AM and PM peak vehicular/ pedestrian/bicyclist volumes.

Intersection Evaluation Study
Crandall Street/Sherman Avenue Intersection Page 10
The Chazen Companies
Project Number: 31348.00 January 10, 2014
Figure 2 – Ex isting Traffic Volumes
Crandall Street & Sherman Avenue2013
Existing Traffic
Volumes
Project #: 31348.00Date: December 2013
Intersection Evaluation Study
City of Glen Falls
Warren County, New York
Figure: #2
North
North
11
59
77
20168
9
1429
71529713
Crandall Street
Sherman Avenue
AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES(XX) = Pedestrian/Bicyclist Volume
PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES(XX) = Pedestrian/Bicyclist Volume
Sherman Avenue
Crandall Street
186030
37266
19
10711018237 15
(2)
(2)
(6)
(3)
(1)(0)
(6)
(1)
Crandall Street
Sherman Avenue
Sherman Avenue
Crandall Street
(3)
(4)
(0)
(6)
(4)(6)
(1)
(13)

Intersection Evaluation Study
Crandall Street/Sherman Avenue Intersection Page 11
The Chazen Companies
Project Number: 31348.00 January 10, 2014
3.0 ANALYSIS
3.1 Capacity/Level of Service Analysis
A level of service analysis of the signalized intersection of Crandall Street and Sherman Avenue was
conducted for the morning and evening weekday peak hour s. The analysis utilized the latest version of
Synchro software by McTrans
1. This analysis determines the operational efficiency of the intersection
associated with the prescribed traffic control by estimating the vehicle delay experienced.
The capacity analysis methodology is based upon the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual which utilizes
“levels -of -service” (LOS) designations to identify traffic flow based on vehicle delay. A LOS A represents
the best condition and a LOS F represents the worst conditi on. A LOS C is generally used as a design
standard while a LOS D is acceptable during peak periods. LOS E represents an operation at or near
capacity. In order to identify a signalized intersection’s level- of-service, the average amount of vehicle
delay is computed for each approach to the intersection as well as for the over- all intersection.
Tables 1 summarize the level- of-service criteria for signalized intersections.
Table 1 – Signalized Intersection LOS Criteria
Level of Service (LOS) Control Delay Per Vehicle in Seconds
A Less than or equal to 10
B Greater than 10 and less than or equal to 20
C Greater than 20 and less than or equal to 35
D Greater than 35 and less than or equal to 55
E Greater than 55 and less than or equal to 80
F Greater than 80
The signal operation at the study intersection is a fixed time operation providing for a constant amount
of green time for each roadway regardless of traffic demand. Accordingly traffic may wait on the
Sherman approaches ev en when there is no traffic utilizing the green time provided for the Crandall
approaches. Fixed time operations, especially at an intersection with a predominant traffic flow on one
roadway, may cause drivers to try and beat the red indication , resulting in rear end and right angle
accidents.
As indicate d in Table 2 below, the study intersection currently operates at good to acceptable level of
service with moderate vehicle delays. Each approach at the Crandall Street & Sherman Avenue
intersection operates at level of service “C” or better with an overall intersection level of service of “B”
during both peak hours with average delays of 18 seconds. It is noted that the “C” LOSs are only
fractions of a second above an LOS of “B”. The level of service analys is outputs are presented in
Appendix B to this report .

1 Synchro 8 Software

Intersection Evaluation Study
Crandall Street/Sherman Avenue Intersection Page 12
The Chazen Companies
Project Number: 31348.00 January 10, 2014

Table 2 Level of Service Summary (Signalized – fixed timed )
Level of Service/Estimated Delay (Seconds per Vehicle)

Crandall Street/Sherman Avenue
fixed time Signalized
2013 Existing
Traffic Volumes
AM Peak PM Peak
Intersection Approach

C (20.1 )
B (17.4)
B (15.2)
B (18.0)
B (19.0)
C (20.3 )
B (15.8)
B (16.3)
Sherman Avenue EB
Sherman Avenue W B
Crandall Street NB
Crandall Street SB L
TR
L TR
LTR
LTR
Overall B (18.6) B (18.8)
Key: X (Y.Y) = Level of Service/Estimate Delay (Seconds per Vehicle).
NB, SB, WB, EB = Northbound, Southbound, Westbound, Eastbound intersection approaches.
LTR = Left -turn, through, and/or right -turn movements.

Since fixed timed signal operation is usually less efficient than an actuated signal operation, t he
signalized analysis was then run under a semi-actuated signal operation. This operation takes int o
account vehicle demand on the lesser volume roadway and should eliminate unnecessary delays to
Sherman Avenue traffic by only servicing traffic that is actually on Crandall Street.
As indicate d in Table 3 below, the study intersection , as a semi-actuated signal, operates at excellent to
acceptable level of service with moderate veh icle delays. The overall intersection operates at LOS “B”
during both peak periods, with t he Crandall Street approaches operating at LOS “C”, and the Sherman
Avenue , the heavier traveled roadway, at LOS “A”. The overall intersection delays (12.7 and 11.4
seconds) are less under this operation than under the current fixed time operation. The level of service
analysis outputs are presented in Appendix B to this report.

Table 3 Level of Service Summary (Signalized – Semi -actuated)
Level of Service/Estimated Delay (Seconds per Vehicle)

Crandall Street/Sherman Avenue
Semi-actuated Signalized
2013 Existing
Traffic Volumes
AM Peak PM Peak
Intersection Approach

A ( 9.3)
A (8.2 )
C (20.3 )
C ( 23.4 )
A ( 7.3)
A (7.8 )
C (22.6 )
C (23.2 )
Sherman Avenue EB
Sherman Avenue W B
Crandall Street NB
Crandall Street SB L
TR
L TR
LTR
LTR
Overall B (12.7) B (11.4)
Key: X (Y.Y) = Level of Service/Estimate Delay (Seconds per Vehicle).
NB, SB, WB, EB = Northbound, Southbound, Westbound, Eastbound intersection approaches.
LTR = Left -turn, through, and/or right -turn movements.

Intersection Evaluation Study
Crandall Street/Sherman Avenue Intersection Page 13
The Chazen Companies
Project Number: 31348.00 January 10, 2014
An analysis of this intersection operating as a fully actuated signal with vehicle detection on all
approaches produced the same results as under the semi -actuated operation scenario.
3. 2 Signal Warrant Analysis

Traffic signal warrants are guidelines used in the determination of the need for a signal, a d ecision which
must be accompanied by engineering judgment and other factors. The same can be said of the
evaluation of an existing signal, in that removal of a signal should not be predicated simply on meeting
or not meeting the signal warrants. Other fact ors such as intersection operation without the signal and
intersection safety should be given considerable weight in the decision process.
A traffic signal warrant analysis was conducted in accordance with procedures documented in the
National Manual on Un iform Traffic Control Devices, 2009 Edition (MUTCD) by the Federal Highway
Administration. The analysis process consists of comparing the current traffic conditions with the traffic
signal warrants for an average weekday. Warrants 4- School Crossing , 5 -Pro gressive Movement, 7-
Systems Warrant , 8-Combination of Warrants and 10-Peak Hour Delay were not evaluated due to a lack
of available data or non -relevance. A discussion of the analysis for Warrant 6 – Accident Experience is
presented following Table 4.

T able 4 Signal Warrant Analysis

Time Major Street Volume
Minor Street Volume
Warrant 1 Minimum Vehicular Volume
Warrant 2 Interruption of Continuous Traffic
Warrant 9 Four Hour Volumes
Warrant 11 Peak Hour Volume
Pedestrian and Bicyclist Volume
Warrant 3 Minimum Pedestrian Volume
7:00 AM 364 80 No No No No 20 No
8:00 AM 433 141 No No No No 5 No
9:00 AM 352

59 No

No

No

No

— —
10:00 AM 315 72 No

No

No

No

— —
11:00 AM 406 70 No

No

No

No

— —
12:00 PM

380 68 No

No

No

No

— —
1:00 PM 393 88 No

No

No

No

— —
2:00 PM 477 95 No

No

No

No

8 No
3:00 PM 583 106 No

No

No

No

27 No
4:00 PM 494 70 No

No

No

No

21 No
5:00 PM 559

81 No

No

No

No

18

No
6:00 PM 392

58 No

No

No

No

— —
War rant Met? (Yes/No) No No No No — No

The intersection of Crandall Street and Sherman Avenue did not meet any of the applicable traffic
volume based warrants analyzed.

The accident warrant is satisfied when five or more accidents are susceptible of corre ction with the
installation of a traffic signal control. Accidents historically correctable by the installation of a traffic
signal include “Left -Turns”, “Overtaking”, and “Right Angle” types of accidents. Each year’s total is below
the minimum threshold o f five accidents per year required for the meeting of Warrant 6 -Crash
Experience. Therefore Warrant 6 – Accident Experience is not met.

Intersection Evaluation Study
Crandall Street/Sherman Avenue Intersection Page 14
The Chazen Companies
Project Number: 31348.00 January 10, 2014
3.3 Four -Way Stop Analysis

As the Crandall Street and Sherman Avenue intersection failed to meet any warrants for sig nalization, a
capacity/level of service analysis was conducted for the intersection operating under all way stop
control , as a means of assisting in the determination of appropriate traffic control for this location. Table
5 pre sents the level of service c riteria for un-signalized intersections .
Table 5 – Un -Signalized Intersection LOS Criteria
Level of Service (LOS) Control Delay Per Vehicle (seconds)
A Less than or equal to 10
B Greater than 10 and less than or equal to 15
C Greater than 15 and less than or equal to 25
D Greater than 25 and less than or equal to 35
E Greater than 35 and less than or equal to 50
F Greater than 50

As indicate d in Table 6 below, the study intersection would operate at good to excellent levels of service
with minimal vehicle delays under all way stop control. Each approach would operate at level of service
” A ” or “B” with an overall intersection level of service of “B” during both peak hours with intersection
delay of 10.7 seconds in the AM pe ak and 11.3 seconds in the PM peak. T he intersection operation is
less than 2 seconds from LOS “A” during the worst peak period.

Table 6 – Level o f Servic e Summary (All way stop control )
Level of Service/Estimated Delay (Seconds per Vehicle)

Crandall Street/Sherman Avenue
All way stop control
2013 Existing
Traffic Volumes
AM Peak PM Peak
Intersection Approach

B (11.8)
A ( 9.9)
A (8.9)
B (10.1)
B (11.3)
B (12.1)
A (9.7)
A (9.9)
Sherman Avenue EB
Sherman Avenue W B
Crandall St reet NB
Crandall Street SB L
TR
L TR
LTR
LTR
Overall B (10.7) B (11.3)
Key: X (Y.Y) = Level of Service/Estimate Delay (Seconds per Vehicle).
NB, SB, WB, EB = Northbound, Southbound, Westbound, Eastbound intersectio n approaches.
LTR = Left -turn, through, and/or right -turn movements.

These results show a better intersection operation with less vehicle delay under all way stop control
than currently experienced under fixed time traffic signal control. The all way stop control operation
also provides a slightly better operation than a semi actuated traffic signal would. The level of service
analysis outputs are presented in Appendix B to this report .

Intersection Evaluation Study
Crandall Street/Sherman Avenue Intersection Page 15
The Chazen Companies
Project Number: 31348.00 January 10, 2014
An all way stop intersection operation slows down the overa ll intersection speed and removes the
concern for vehicles s peeding to beat a red light. Since all vehicles must stop, pedestrian crossings are
made safer as possible conflicts with vehicles moving thro ugh the intersection are decreased.
All approaches to this intersection provide good sight distance to the intersection, and consequently to
stop signs if installed. There would be no need for additional signs w arning of a new stop condition at
the intersection. Sight lines on each approach are presented pi ctorially in Appendix D.
3. 4 Accident Data Analysis
Accident data for the study intersection was obtained from the Glens Falls Police Department for the
latest available 3 -year period, from 09/30 /2010 to 09/30/2013. During this period there were a total of
11 accidents at the study intersection; one in 2010, four in 201 1, two in 2012 and four in 201 3. The
accident history shows that 10 of the 11 accidents were classified as “Rear End” (5) and “Right Angle”
( 5 ), two acci dents types usually associated with t raffic signal control. The primary contributing factors
were identified as “Following Too Cl osely” and “Driver Inattention”. There was only one “ Injury”
accident , with the rest being “Property Damage Only”.

There were no reported accidents involving ped estrians and/or bicyclists at this location within the
three year study period. Details of the three year accident history, with accident summaries and tables,
are present in the Appendix C to this report.

As previously noted in Section 3.2, this accident history does not meet the “Accident Experience”
guideline associated with the installation of a traffic signal.

Intersection Evaluation Study
Crandall Street/Sherman Avenue Intersection Page 16

The Chazen Companies
Project Number: 31348.00 January 10, 2014
4.0 CONCLUSION S AND RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 Conclusions
1) The intersection of Crandall Street and Sherman Avenue operates at good levels of s ervice (LOSs
of “B” and “C”) under the current fixed ti me signal operation, with vehicle delays between 15
and 20 seconds.
2) The operation would improve slightly with th e addition of vehicle detection on Crandall Street,
with LOSs of “A” and “C”, and but wit h a wider range of vehicle delays of between 7 and 23
seconds.
3) The intersection operates at excellent to good levels of service (LOS “A” and “B”) under all way
stop control, with vehicle delays decreasing to between 8 and 11 seconds.
4) Each of the three intersection operations is considered an efficient operation with acceptable
vehicle delays.
5) The results do not indicate a significant benefit to the intersection operation by upgrading the
traffic signal with vehicle detection. Nor would a change in signal timing under the current
operation result in any significant benefit.
6) A change to an all way stop control intersection would remove safety concerns for both vehicles
and pedestrians in that all vehicles must stop before traversing the intersection. This w ould help
ameliorate some vehicle to vehicle type accidents and also vehicle/pedestrian conflicts .
Pedestrians would have a clearer understanding of the requirements for vehicles to stop as
without a signal, all vehicles must stop before entering the inter section.
7) An all way stop control intersection would also be consistent with other intersections in the
local roadway network includin g Sherman Avenue at Western Avenue.
4.2 Recommendations

Based on studies conducted and the conclusions formed, the follo wing recommendations are presented.
1) It is recommended that the existing traffic signal be removed and the intersection placed under
all way stop control with appropriate signing ( “Stop” signs supplemented by “All Way” or “4
Way” signs) on each approach . The existing pavement markings (crosswalks and stop bars) are
in good condition. The stop bar locations should be reviewed in the field in regard to location
and new stop bars installed closer to the intersection if appropriate. An all way stop controlled
i ntersection would provide the following benefits.

a) Reduce vehicle delays
b) Decrease the likelihood for rea r end and right angle accidents
c) Lessen conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians

Intersection Evaluation Study
Crandall Street/Sherman Avenue Intersection Page 17

The Chazen Companies
Project Number: 31348.00 January 10, 2014
d) Provide pedestrians with a clear understanding of the responsibility for all vehicles to stop
prior to entering the intersection.
e) Relieve the City of Glens s Falls of the responsibility for signal maintenance .

2) Based on a cursory review of the Sherman Avenue at t he Sherman Avenue and Quade
Street/Cortland Street intersection it is recommended that future consideration be given to
conduc ting an intersection evaluation, with particular emphasis on the appropriateness of
installing a traffic signal. This evaluation would complement the June 1, 2012 Glenss Falls School
District Traffic Circulation Study prepared by Resource Systems Group, Inc.

Intersection Evaluation Study
Crandall Street/Sherman Avenue Intersection Page 18

The Chazen Companies
Project Number: 31348.00 January 10, 2014
5.0 ESTIMATED COST S – RECOMMENDED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
Figure 3 presents the all way stop control recommendation. Preliminary cost estim ates for the
recommended action, as well as o ther alternatives analyzed are presented.
1. All Way Stop : The recommended action would remove the existing traffic signal and install
“Stop” signs with “ All W ay” or “4 Way” supplemental signs on each intersection approach. The
sign work c ould be accomplished by the City Department of Public Works with a minimal cost
for materials. The removal of the traffic signal would cost an estimated $2,500 if contracted out.
Due to the simple single pole/mast arm signal configuration, the removal could also be
performed by City personnel.
2. Install Vehicle Detection: Under this analyzed , but not recommended, alternative , two types of
vehicle detection could be utilized at this location.
a. Detection loops in the roadway would require a system of conduit runs and pull boxes to
carry the detection cables to the signal controller, in addition to the installation of the actual
detection loops. Based on recent contract bids and the fact that this would be an isolated
installation , the cost to install vehicle detection on Crandall St reet is estimated at $ 3,750.
This does not include replacement of the signal controller/cabinet which may be necessary
and would cost a minimum of $5,000.
b. Overhead detectors, mounted on the existing signal pole would also provide acceptable
detection opera tion. Due to possible sight line restrictions it may be necessary to mount one
overhead detector on an existing utility pole with cable run overhead to the signal
controller. Installation of this type of detection is estimated at $4,250, and as per the abo ve
estimate does not include the possible replacement of the signal controller/cabinet.
3. Do Nothing : This alternative keeps the fixed time signal operation and presents no cost to the
City other than signal maintenance. Regardless, this is not t he recommended course of action

Intersection Evaluation Study
Crandall Street/Sherman Avenue Intersection Page 19

The Chazen Companies
Project Number: 31348.00 January 10, 2014
Figure 3 – All Way STOP Sign Control

Intersection Evaluation Study
Crandall Street/Sherman Avenue Intersection

The Chazen Companies
Project Number: 31348.00 December 8, 2013

Appendix A:
Traffic Movement Counts

File Name : 31348.00_TMC_10-30-2013_AM
Site Code : 3134800
Start Date : 10/30/2013
Page No : 1Project No.: 31348.00
Counted By: E. Droz
Intersection: Crandall St/Sherman Ave
Time: 7:00 – 9:00AM
Groups Printed- Passenger Vehicles – Heavy Vehicles – School Busses
Crandall Street
Southbound Sherman Avenue
Westbound Crandall Street
Northbound Sherman Avenue
Eastbound
Start Time Left
Thru
Right
RTOR
App. Total Left
Thru
Right
RTOR
App. Total Left
Thru
Right
RTOR
App. Total Left
Thru
Right
RTOR
App. Total Int. Total
Factor 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
07:00 AM 8 7 4 0 19 0 21 2 1 24 1 5 0 0 6 1 40 0 0 41 90
07:15 AM 9 12 6 3 30 1 23 1 0 25 1 2 1 0 4 2 48 2 0 52 111
07:30 AM 8 14 0 0 22 2 41 3 0 46 1 8 3 1 13 1 61 2 0 64 145
07:45 AM 16 13 4 0 33 2 46 4 1 53 1 10 5 0 16 3 77 4 0 84 186
Total 41 46 14 3 104 5 131 10 2 148 4 25 9 1 39 7 226 8 0 241 532
08:00 AM 17 18 5 0 40 5 53 8 0 66 4 12 4 0 20 7 66 2 2 77 203
08:15 AM 36 16 1 0 53 2 35 3 0 40 2 3 1 0 6 2 73 1 0 76 175
08:30 AM 8 12 1 0 21 0 34 5 0 39 0 4 4 1 9 3 81 6 0 90 159
08:45 AM 8 20 2 0 30 2 46 5 0 53 1 8 5 3 17 6 56 3 0 65 165
Total 69 66 9 0 144 9 168 21 0 198 7 27 14 4 52 18 276 12 2 308 702
Grand Total 110 112 23 3 248 14 299 31 2 346 11 52 23 5 91 25 502 20 2 549 1234
Apprch %
44.4 45.2 9.3 1.2 4
86.4 9 0.6
12.1 57.1 25.3 5.5 4.6
91.4 3.6 0.4
Total % 8.9 9.1 1.9 0.2 20.1 1.1
24.2 2.5 0.2 28 0.9 4.2 1.9 0.4 7.4 2
40.7 1.6 0.2 44.5
Passenger Vehicles 109 112 22 3 246 14 279 29 2 324 11 51 23 5 90 24 492 20 2 538 1198
% Passenger Vehicles 99.1 100
95.7 100 99.2 100
93.3 93.5 100 93.6 100
98.1 100 100 98.9 96 98 100 100 98 97.1
Heavy Vehicles 1 0 0 0 1 0 16 2 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 0 0 7 26
% Heavy Vehicles 0.9 0 0 0 0.4 0 5.4 6.5 0 5.2 0 0 0 0 0 4 1.2 0 0 1.3 2.1
School Busses 0 0 1 0 1 0 4 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 1 0 4 0 0 4 10
% School Busses 0 0 4.3 0 0.4 0 1.3 0 0 1.2 0 1.9 0 0 1.1 0 0.8 0 0 0.7 0.8The Chazen Companies
547 River Street
Troy, New York, 12180
www.chazencompanies.com

File Name : 31348.00_TMC_10-30-2013_AM
Site Code : 3134800
Start Date : 10/30/2013
Page No : 2Project No.: 31348.00
Counted By: E. Droz
Intersection: Crandall St/Sherman Ave
Time: 7:00 – 9:00AM
Crandall Street
Southbound Sherman Avenue
Westbound Crandall Street
Northbound Sherman Avenue
Eastbound
Start
Time Left Thr
u Rig
ht RT
OR
App. Total Left Thr
u Rig
ht RT
OR
App. Total Left Thr
u Rig
ht RT
OR
App. Total Left Thr
u Rig
ht RT
OR
App. Total Int.
Total
Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM – Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:45 AM
07:45 AM 16 13 4 0 33 2 46 4
1 53 1 10
5 0 16 3 77 4 0 84 186
08:00 AM 17
18 5 0 40
5 53 8 0
66 4 12 4 0
20 7 66 2
2 77
203
08:15 AM
36 16 1 0
53 2 35 3 0 40 2 3 1 0 6 2 73 1 0 76 175
08:30 AM 8 12 1 0 21 0 34 5 0 39 0 4 4
1 9 3
81 6 0
90 159
Total Volume 77 59 11 0 147 9 168 20 1 198 7 29 14 1 51 15 297 13 2 327 723
% App. Total 52.4 40.1 7.5 0 4.5
84.8 10.1 0.5
13.7 56.9 27.5 2 4.6
90.8 4 0.6
PHF
.535 .819 .550 .000 .693
.450 .792 .625 .250 .750
.438 .604 .700 .250 .638
.536 .917 .542 .250 .908 .890
Passenger Vehicles 76 59 11 0 146 9 155 19 1 184 7 28 14 1 50 14 291 13 2 320 700
% Passenger Vehicles 98.7 100 100 0 99.3 100
92.3 95.0 100 92.9 100
96.6 100 100 98.0
93.3 98.0 100 100 97.9 96.8
Heavy Vehicles 1 0 0 0 1 0 12 1 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 5 19
% Heavy Vehicles 1.3 0 0 0 0.7 0 7.1 5.0 0 6.6 0 0 0 0 0 6.7 1.3 0 0 1.5 2.6
School Busses 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 2 4
% School Busses 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.6 0 0 0.5 0 3.4 0 0 2.0 0 0.7 0 0 0.6 0.6
Crandall Street Sherman Avenue
Sherman Avenue
Crandall Street Right 11
0
0
11
Thru 59
0
0
59
Left 76
1
0
77
RTOR 0
0
0
0 InOut Total
61 146 207
2 1 3
1 0 1
64
211
147
Right19 1 0 20
Thru155 12 1 168
Left
9 0 0 9 RTOR
1 0 0 1
Out
Total
In
381
184
565
5
13
18
2
1
3
388
586
198
Left
7
0
0
7 Thru
28
0
1
29 Right
14
0
0
14 RTOR
1
0
0
1
Out TotalIn81 50 131
0 0 0
0 1 1
81 132 51
Left14 1 0 15
Thru291 4 2 297
Right13 0 0 13
RTOR
2 0 0 2
Total
Out
In
173
320
493
12
5
17
1
2
3
186
513
327 Peak Hour Begins at 07:45 AM

Passenger Vehicles
Heavy Vehicles
School BussesPeak Hour Data
NorthThe Chazen Companies
547 River Street
Troy, New York, 12180
www.chazencompanies.com

Time:
1 9– 1 9
2 10– 2 10
3 11– 3 11
4 12– 4 12
5 13– 5 13
6 14– 6 14
7 15– 7 15
8 16– 8 16
8 7 6
5
4 3 2 1
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1616 15 14
13
12 11 10 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
88 7 6
5
4 3 2 1
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1616 15 14
13
12 11 10 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
9– 1I 9
2 10– 2B 10
3 11– 3 11
4 12– 4I12
5 13– 5 13
6
14 — 6 14
7 15– 7 15
8 16– 8 16
Notes: B
I

Peak Hour was 7:45-8:45AM (Based on the Manual Vehicular Turning Movement Count)
Sherman Avenue
= Not Applicable
= Bicyclists= Pedestrians


I
Crandall Street
Crandall Street
Sherman Avenue






IIII
— —






II
II
— —








IBB








IIII
II —







I
B
I






Recorder:
Pedestrian Movement Count
Date:Project No.:Intersection:
10/30/20137-9AM31348.00Crandall Street & Sherman AvenueE. Droz
North

File Name : 31348.00_TMC_10-30-2013_PM
Site Code : 03134800
Start Date : 10/29/2013
Page No : 1Project No.: 31348.00
Counted By: E. Droz
Intersection: Crandall St/Sherman Ave
Time: 2:45 – 6:00PM
Groups Printed- Passenger Vehicles – Heavy Vehicles – School Busses
Crandall Street
Southbound Sherman Avenue
Westbound Crandall Street
Northbound Sherman Avenue
Eastbound
Start Time Left
Thru
Right
RTOR
App. Total Left
Thru
Right
RTOR
App. Total Left
Thru
Right
RTOR
App. Total Left
Thru
Right
RTOR
App. Total Int. Total
Factor 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
02:45 PM 6 18 7 1 32 4 79 8 0 91 3 19 3 0 25 3 39 4 2 48 196
Total 6 18 7 1 32 4 79 8 0 91 3 19 3 0 25 3 39 4 2 48 196
03:00 PM 8 18 2 1 29 5 53 8 3 69 0 14 2 0 16 6 70 2 0 78 192
03:15 PM 2 14 3 2 21 4 60 7 1 72 3 14 2 0 19 4 60 3 1 68 180
03:30 PM 14 10 6 0 30 6 74 14 1 95 4 24 3 0 31 5 68 6 2 81 237
03:45 PM 4 13 2 0 19 4 66 6 1 77 3 14 4 2 23 2 49 1 0 52 171
Total 28 55 13 3 99 19 253 35 6 313 10 66 11 2 89 17 247 12 3 279 780
04:00 PM 4 14 6 1 25 4 59 6 0 69 4 12 3 2 21 4 51 2 1 58 173
04:15 PM 2 8 2 0 12 3 62 8 1 74 2 10 2 2 16 3 51 1 0 55 157
04:30 PM 3 9 7 3 22 2 71 10 0 83 4 20 5 1 30 3 47 1 1 52 187
04:45 PM 2 10 5 2 19 2 64 5 0 71 3 17 2 0 22 5 32 1 0 38 150
Total 11 41 20 6 78 11 256 29 1 297 13 59 12 5 89 15 181 5 2 203 667
05:00 PM 3 8 5 2 18 7 79 13 1 100 3 13 2 1 19 2 75 2 0 79 216
05:15 PM 5 7 7 3 22 2 77 6 1 86 1 13 2 1 17 1 67 2 1 71 196
05:30 PM 2 13 2 1 18 3 63 6 1 73 3 14 3 1 21 4 45 3 0 52 164
05:45 PM 4 9 4 1 18 3 68 6 0 77 3 10 3 1 17 1 43 2 1 47 159
Total 14 37 18 7 76 15 287 31 3 336 10 50 10 4 74 8 230 9 2 249 735
Grand Total 59 151 58 17 285 49 875 103 10 1037 36 194 36 11 277 43 697 30 9 779 2378
Apprch %
20.7 53
20.4 6 4.7
84.4 9.9 1 13 70 13 4 5.5
89.5 3.9 1.2
Total % 2.5 6.3 2.4 0.7 12 2.1
36.8 4.3 0.4 43.6 1.5 8.2 1.5 0.5 11.6 1.8
29.3 1.3 0.4 32.8
Passenger Vehicles 58 151 58 17 284 49 866 102 10 1027 36 193 36 11 276 42 678 30 9 759 2346
% Passenger Vehicles 98.3 100 100 100 99.6 100 99 99 100 99 100
99.5 100 100 99.6
97.7 97.3 100 100 97.4 98.7
Heavy Vehicles 1 0 0 0 1 0 4 1 0 5 0 1 0 0 1 1 11 0 0 12 19
% Heavy Vehicles 1.7 0 0 0 0.4 0 0.5 1 0 0.5 0 0.5 0 0 0.4 2.3 1.6 0 0 1.5 0.8
School Busses 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 8 13
% School Busses 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.6 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.1 0 0 1 0.5The Chazen Companies
547 River Street
Troy, New York, 12180
www.chazencompanies.com

File Name : 31348.00_TMC_10-30-2013_PM
Site Code : 03134800
Start Date : 10/29/2013
Page No : 2Project No.: 31348.00
Counted By: E. Droz
Intersection: Crandall St/Sherman Ave
Time: 2:45 – 6:00PM
Crandall Street
Southbound Sherman Avenue
Westbound Crandall Street
Northbound Sherman Avenue
Eastbound
Start
Time Left Thr
u Rig
ht RT
OR
App. Total Left Thr
u Rig
ht RT
OR
App. Total Left Thr
u Rig
ht RT
OR
App. Total Left Thr
u Rig
ht RT
OR
App. Total Int.
Total
Peak Hour Analysis From 02:45 PM to 05:45 PM – Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 02:45 PM
02:45 PM 6
18 7 1
32 4
79 8 0 91 3 19
3 0 25 3 39 4
2 48 196
03:00 PM 8 18 2 1 29 5 53 8
3 69 0 14 2 0 16
6 70 2 0 78 192
03:15 PM 2 14 3
2 21 4 60 7 1 72 3 14 2 0 19 4 60 3 1 68 180
03:30 PM
14 10 6 0 30
6 74
14 1
95 4 24 3 0
31 5 68
6 2
81 237
Total Volume 30 60 18 4 112 19 266 37 5 327 10 71 10 0 91 18 237 15 5 275 805
% App. Total 26.8 53.6 16.1 3.6 5.8
81.3 11.3 1.5 11 78 11 0 6.5
86.2 5.5 1.8
PHF
.536 .833 .643 .500 .875
.792 .842 .661 .417 .861
.625 .740 .833 .000 .734
.750 .846 .625 .625 .849 .849
Passenger Vehicles 30 60 18 4 112 19 261 36 5 321 10 70 10 0 90 18 227 15 5 265 788
% Passenger Vehicles 100 100 100 100 100 100
98.1 97.3 100 98.2 100
98.6 100 0 98.9 100
95.8 100 100 96.4 97.9
Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 6 0 0 6 9
% Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.4 2.7 0 0.6 0 1.4 0 0 1.1 0 2.5 0 0 2.2 1.1
School Busses 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 8
% School Busses 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.5 0 0 1.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.7 0 0 1.5 1.0
Crandall Street Sherman Avenue
Sherman Avenue
Crandall Street Right 18
0
0
18
Thru 60
0
0
60
Left 30
0
0
30
RTOR 4
0
0
4 InOut Total
124 112 236
2 0 2
0 0 0
126
238
112
Right36 1 0 37
Thru261 1 4 266
Left19 0 0 19
RTOR
5 0 0 5
Out
Total
In
267
321
588
6
2
8
4
4
8
277
604
327
Left
10
0
0
10 Thru
70
1
0
71 Right
10
0
0
10 RTOR
0
0
0
0
Out TotalIn94 90 184
0 1 1
0 0 0
94 185 91
Left18 0 0 18
Thru227 6 4 237
Right15 0 0 15
RTOR
5 0 0 5
Total
Out
In
289
265
554
1
6
7
4
4
8
294
569
275 Peak Hour Begins at 02:45 PM

Passenger Vehicles
Heavy Vehicles
School BussesPeak Hour Data
NorthThe Chazen Companies
547 River Street
Troy, New York, 12180
www.chazencompanies.com

Time:2:45-6:00PM
1 91II 9
2 10 210
3 11 311
4 12BI 4IIII 12
5 13 5I13
6 14– 6I14
7 15– 7 15
8 16– 8I16
8 7 6
5
4 3 2 1
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1616 15 14
13
12 11 10 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
88 7 6
5
4 3 2 1
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1616 15 14
13
12 11 10 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
919
2 10 2BBIIII 10
3 11 3IIII 11
4 12 4BIB 12
5 13BII 5 13
6 14–
6 14
7 15– 7IIII 15
8 16– 8 16
Notes: B
I

Peak Hour was 2:45-3:45AM (Based on the Manual Vehicular Turning Movement Count)
Recorder:
Pedestrian Movement Count
Date:Project No.:Intersection:
10/30/201331348.00Crandall Street and Sherman AvenueE. Droz
III
II



II
II
I
I



I



B
I
III I
B



I
B B
BBB BI
II
II
BI IBII



Crandall Street
Crandall Street
Sherman Avenue
BB
B
III
IIB

Sherman Avenue
= Not Applicable
= Bicyclists= Pedestrians


I
BB
North

File Name : Not Named 1
Site Code : 31348001
Start Date : 11/20/2013
Page No : 1Project No.: 31348.00
Counted By: E Droz
Intersection: Sherman Ave/Quade St
Time: 2:45 – 3:45 PM
Groups Printed- Passenger Vehicles – Heavy Vehicles – School Busses
Quade Street
Southbound Sherman Avenue
Westbound Cortland Street
Northbound Sherman Avenue
Eastbound
Start Time Left
Thru
Right
RTOR
App. Total Left
Thru
Right
RTOR
App. Total Left
Thru
Right
RTOR
App. Total Left
Thru
Right
RTOR
App. Total Int. Total
Factor 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
02:45 PM 0 1 2 0 3 3 50 4 0 57 7 13 13 0 33 10 38 5 0 53 146
Total 0 1 2 0 3 3 50 4 0 57 7 13 13 0 33 10 38 5 0 53 146
03:00 PM 12 5 17 0 34 7 48 5 0 60 4 9 6 0 19 3 48 4 0 55 168
03:15 PM 6 8 22 0 36 7 65 3 0 75 2 8 2 0 12 9 73 2 0 84 207
03:30 PM 9 5 10 0 24 8 47 3 0 58 6 2 3 0 11 15 57 1 0 73 166
Grand Total 27 19 51 0 97 25 210 15 0 250 19 32 24 0 75 37 216 12 0 265 687
Apprch %
27.8 19.6 52.6 0 10 84 6 0
25.3 42.7 32 0 14
81.5 4.5 0
Total % 3.9 2.8 7.4 0 14.1 3.6
30.6 2.2 0 36.4 2.8 4.7 3.5 0 10.9 5.4
31.4 1.7 0 38.6
Passenger Vehicles 27 19 49 0 95 24 205 15 0 244 19 32 24 0 75 37 208 12 0 257 671
% Passenger Vehicles 100 100
96.1 0 97.9 96
97.6 100 0 97.6 100 100 100 0 100 100
96.3 100 0 97 97.7
Heavy Vehicles 0 0 1 0 1 1 4 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 7 13
% Heavy Vehicles 0 0 2 0 1 4 1.9 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.2 0 0 2.6 1.9
School Busses 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 3
% School Busses 0 0 2 0 1 0 0.5 0 0 0.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 0.4 0.4The Chazen Companies
547 River Street
Troy, New York, 12180
www.chazencompanies.com

File Name : Not Named 1
Site Code : 31348001
Start Date : 11/20/2013
Page No : 2Project No.: 31348.00
Counted By: E Droz
Intersection: Sherman Ave/Quade St
Time: 2:45 – 3:45 PM
Quade Street
Southbound Sherman Avenue
Westbound Cortland Street
Northbound Sherman Avenue
Eastbound
Start
Time Left Thr
u Rig
ht RT
OR
App. Total Left Thr
u Rig
ht RT
OR
App. Total Left Thr
u Rig
ht RT
OR
App. Total Left Thr
u Rig
ht RT
OR
App. Total Int.
Total
Peak Hour Analysis From 02:45 PM to 03:30 PM – Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 02:45 PM
02:45 PM 0 1 2 0 3 3 50 4 0 57
7 13 13 0
33 10 38
5 0 53 146
03:00 PM
12 5 17 0 34 7 48
5 0 60 4 9 6 0 19 3 48 4 0 55 168
03:15 PM 6
8 22 0
36 7
65 3 0
75 2 8 2 0 12 9
73 2 0
84 207
03:30 PM 9 5 10 0 24
8 47 3 0 58 6 2 3 0 11
15 57 1 0 73 166
Total Volume 27 19 51 0 97 25 210 15 0 250 19 32 24 0 75 37 216 12 0 265 687
% App. Total 27.8 19.6 52.6 0 10 84 6 0
25.3 42.7 32 0 14
81.5 4.5 0
PHF
.563 .594 .580 .000 .674
.781 .808 .750 .000 .833
.679 .615 .462 .000 .568
.617 .740 .600 .000 .789 .830
Passenger Vehicles 27 19 49 0 95 24 205 15 0 244 19 32 24 0 75 37 208 12 0 257 671
% Passenger Vehicles 100 100
96.1 0 97.9
96.0 97.6 100 0 97.6 100 100 100 0 100 100
96.3 100 0 97.0 97.7
Heavy Vehicles 0 0 1 0 1 1 4 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 7 13
% Heavy Vehicles 0 0 2.0 0 1.0 4.0 1.9 0 0 2.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.2 0 0 2.6 1.9
School Busses 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 3
% School Busses 0 0 2.0 0 1.0 0 0.5 0 0 0.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 0.4 0.4
Quade Street Sherman Avenue
Sherman Avenue
Cortland Street Right 49
1
1
51
Thru 19
0
0
19
Left 27
0
0
27
RTOR 0
0
0
0 InOut Total
84 95 179
0 1 1
0 1 1
84
181
97
Right15 0 0 15
Thru205 4 1 210
Left24 1 0 25
RTOR
0 0 0 0
Out
Total
In
259
244
503
7
5
12
1
1
2
267
517
250
Left
19
0
0
19 Thru
32
0
0
32 Right
24
0
0
24 RTOR
0
0
0
0
Out TotalIn55 75 130
1 0 1
0 0 0
56 131 75
Left37 0 0 37
Thru208 7 1 216
Right12 0 0 12
RTOR
0 0 0 0
Total
Out
In
273
257
530
5
7
12
2
1
3
280
545
265 Peak Hour Begins at 02:45 PM

Passenger Vehicles
Heavy Vehicles
School BussesPeak Hour Data
NorthThe Chazen Companies
547 River Street
Troy, New York, 12180
www.chazencompanies.com

Time:2:45-3:45PM
1 9– 1 9
2 10– 2
IIII10
3 11– 3I11
4 12– 4B 12
5 13– 5– 13
6 14– 6– 14
7 15– 7– 15
8 16– 8– 16
8 7 6
5
4 3 2 1
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1616 15 14
13
12 11 10 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
88 7 6
5
4 3 2 1
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1616 15 14
13
12 11 10 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
9– 1I 9
2 10– 2
IIII10
3 11– 3 11
4 12– 4I12
5 13– 5– 13
6 14– 6– 14
7 15– 7– 15
8 16– 8– 16
Notes: B
I

Peak Hour was 2:45-3:45AM (Based on the Manual Vehicular Turning Movement Count)
Recorder:
Pedestrian Movement Count
Date:Project No.:Intersection:
11/20/201331348.00Sherman Ave & Quade St/Cortland StE. Droz








I












III
II I
III —











I=0 & B=0
I=109 & B=2 I=28 & B=0
I=16 & B=1 —



— —





—-



— —



IIII
— —





Quade Street
Cortland Street
Sherman Avenue







Sherman Avenue
= Not Applicable
= Bicyclists= Pedestrians





North

Page 1

Location: Glens Falls, NY
Road: Crandall St (North Side)
Segment:~240ft north of Sherman Ave
Counter: Metro5600/cp20

Tristate Traffic Data, Inc.
184 Baker Road
Coatesville, PA 19320

Start 28-Oct-13 Northbound Southbound Combined 29-Oct- Northbound Southbound Combined
Time Mon A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. Tue A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M.
12:00 * * * * * * 3 22 0 13 3 35
12:15 * * * * * * 4 11 0 16 4 27
12:30 * * * * * * 2 15 0 14 2 29
12:45 * * * * * * 3 18 2 25 5 43
01:00 * * * * * * 2 15 0 18 2 33
01:15 * * * * * * 0 7 0 20 0 27
01:30 * * * * * * 0 12 0 22 0 34
01:45 * * * * * * 1 15 0 28 1 43
02:00 * 18 * 16 * 34 1 11 0 22 1 33
02:15 * 20 * 16 * 36 0 32 0 17 0 49
02:30 * 26 * 19
* 45
0 22 0 28
0 50
02:45 * 21 * 25
* 46
1 27
1 28
2 55
03:00 * 25 * 32
* 57
1 33
1 26
2 59
03:15 * 32 * 29
* 61
0 27
2 29
2 56
03:30 * 26 * 14 * 40 0 45
0 25 0 70
03:45 * 23 * 26 * 49 1 19 1 26 2 45
04:00 * 31 * 18 * 49 0 29 1 21 1 50
04:15 * 23 * 14 * 37 0 13 2 14 2 27
04:30 * 22
* 21 * 43 0 38 2 21 2 59
04:45 * 30
* 27 * 57 0 28 1 14 1 42
05:00 * 29
* 14 * 43 0 32 1 19 1 51
05:15 * 37
* 19 * 56 0 21 3 19 3 40
05:30 * 19 * 14 * 33 0 25 1 21 1 46
05:45 * 17 * 17 * 34 1 21 4 22 5 43
06:00 * 22 * 12 * 34 2 16 2 24 4 40
06:15 * 20 * 4 * 24 1 17 5 14 6 31
06:30 * 10 * 15 * 25 3 17 14 14 17 31
06:45 * 14 * 14 * 28 6 16 19 6 25 22
07:00 * 7 * 11 * 18 7 9 12 3 19 12
07:15 * 11 * 11 * 22 4 15 20 8 24 23
07:30 * 7 * 5 * 12 9 7 18 4 27 11
07:45 * 9 * 6 * 15 14 11 30
5 44
16
08:00 * 8 * 3 * 11 25 10 33
5 58
15
08:15 * 7 * 4 * 11 14 7 53
9 67
16
08:30 * 9 * 7 * 16 12 6 27
2 39
8
08:45 * 10 * 2 * 12 11 6 28 4 39 10
09:00 * 6 * 3 * 9 15 10 21 7 36 17
09:15 * 10 * 3 * 13 10 5 9 7 19 12
09:30 * 8 * 2 * 10 9 4 14 5 23 9
09:45 * 10 * 6 * 16 12 6 15 2 27 8
10:00 * 3 * 4 * 7 9 2 17 3 26 5
10:15 * 4 * 8 * 12 10 6 16 1 26 7
10:30 * 4 * 2 * 6 19 3 21 2 40 5
10:45 * 2 * 2 * 4 10 1 18 4 28 5
11:00 * 6 * 3 * 9 18
6 15 3 33 9
11:15 * 1 * 3 * 4 12
2 19 2 31 4
11:30 * 1 * 2 * 3 19
2 14 2 33 4
11:45 * 0 * 0 * 0 23
1 22 0 45 1
Total 0 588 0 453 0 1041 294 723 484 644 778 1367
Day Total 588 453 1041 1017 1128 2145
% Total 0.0% 56.5% 0.0% 43.5% 13.7% 33.7% 22.6% 30.0%

Peak – – 04:30 – 02:30 – 02:30 – 11:00 02:45 07:45 02:30 07:45 02:45
Vol. – – 118 – 105 – 209 – 72 132 143 111 208 240
P.H.F. 0.797 0.820 0.857 0.720 0.733 0.675 0.957 0.776 0.857

Page 2

Location: Glens Falls, NY
Road: Crandall St (North Side)
Segment:~240ft north of Sherman Ave
Counter: Metro5600/cp20

Tristate Traffic Data, Inc.
184 Baker Road
Coatesville, PA 19320

Start 30-Oct-13 Northbound Southbound Combined 31-Oct- Northbound Southbound Combined
Time Wed A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. Thu A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M.
12:00 3 13 3 13 6 26 3 15
2 25
5 40
12:15 3 19 2 16 5 35 3 18
2 12
5 30
12:30 1 24 2 21 3 45 1 15
2 23
3 38
12:45 2 19 1 22 3 41 1 18
0 25
1 43
01:00 0 18 1 28 1 46 1 12 0 17 1 29
01:15 0 18 0 21 0 39 1 19 0 10 1 29
01:30 0 10 0 23 0 33 0 0 1 0 1 0
01:45 0 15 3 23 3 38 1 0 0 0 1 0
02:00 0 13 0 17 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 0
02:15 0 15 0 23 0 38 0 0 0 0 0 0
02:30 2 17 0 22 2 39 1 0 1 0 2 0
02:45 1 18 0 25
1 43 0 0 1 0 1 0
03:00 1 32 0 32
1 64
1 0 0 0 1 0
03:15 2 19 0 37
2 56
1 0 1 0 2 0
03:30 0 29 0 29
0 58
0 * 0 * 0 *
03:45 0 23 1 24 1 47
0 * 2 * 2 *
04:00 1 25 0 11 1 36 0 * 0 * 0 *
04:15 1 27 1 20 2 47 0 * 2 * 2 *
04:30 0 21 1 25 1 46 0 * 3 * 3 *
04:45 1 24
0 30 1 54 0 * 0 * 0 *
05:00 0 35
2 25 2 60 0 * 2 * 2 *
05:15 0 31
3 31 3 62 0 * 2 * 2 *
05:30 0 23
1 17 1 40 1 * 2 * 3 *
05:45 1 23 1 19 2 42 2 * 3 * 5 *
06:00 3 21 5 13 8 34 4 * 3 * 7 *
06:15 2 18 9 24 11 42 2 * 9 * 11 *
06:30 6 15 10 13 16 28 2 * 13 * 15 *
06:45 3 12 25 11 28 23 4 * 15 * 19 *
07:00 8 18 20 13 28 31 7 * 13 * 20 *
07:15 5 14 24 13 29 27 12 * 22 * 34 *
07:30 9 10 22 10 31 20 7 * 23 * 30 *
07:45 13 6 34
9 47
15 13 * 36
* 49
*
08:00 28 15 35
7 63
22 14 * 38
* 52
*
08:15 14 11 60
5 74
16 18 * 52
* 70
*
08:30 14 6 25
5 39
11 8 * 30
* 38
*
08:45 12 9 27 5 39 14 17 * 23 * 40 *
09:00 12 7 19 10 31 17 6 * 12 * 18 *
09:15 15 2 19 3 34 5 18 * 24 * 42 *
09:30 6 13 12 2 18 15 6 * 17 * 23 *
09:45 7 13 19 4 26 17 11 * 25 * 36 *
10:00 14 4 17 6 31 10 10 * 12 * 22 *
10:15 10 9 11 5 21 14 10 * 19 * 29 *
10:30 19
2 15 1 34 3 13 * 14 * 27 *
10:45 17
6 11 4 28 10 9 * 14 * 23 *
11:00 14
8 23 3 37 11 14
* 23 * 37 *
11:15 21
5 19 3 40 8 18
* 15 * 33 *
11:30 15 1 21 3 36 4 15
* 17 * 32 *
11:45 21 0 29 2 50 2 16
* 18 * 34 *
Total 307 736 533 728 840 1464 271 97 513 112 784 209
Day Total 1043 1261 2304 368 625 993
% Total 13.3% 31.9% 23.1% 31.6% 27.3% 9.8% 51.7% 11.3%

Peak – 10:30 04:45 07:45 02:45 07:45 03:00 – 11:00 12:00 07:45 12:00 07:45 12:00
Vol. – 71 113 154 123 223 225 – 63 66 156 85 209 151
P.H.F. 0.634 0.807 0.642 0.831 0.753 0.879 0.875 0.917 0.750 0.850 0.746 0.878

ADT ADT 2,076 AADT 2,076

Page 1

Location: Glens Falls, NY
Road: Crandall St (North Side)
Segment: ~240 ft north of Sherman Ave
Counter: Metro5600/cp20

Tristate Traffic Data, Inc.
184 Baker Road
Coatesville, PA 19320
NB
Start 0 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71
Time 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 Total
10/28/13 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
01:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
02:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
03:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
04:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
05:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
06:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
07:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
08:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
09:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
10:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
11:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
12 PM * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
13:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
14:00 0 0 0 8 45 23 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 85
15:00 0 0 0 10 61 31 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 106
16:00 0 1 0 7 56 41 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 106
17:00 0 0 5 7 56 30 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 102
18:00 0 1 2 10 22 27 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 66
19:00 0 0 0 3 18 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34
20:00 0 0 1 3 22 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34
21:00 0 0 0 1 20 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34
22:00 0 0 0 1 4 6 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13
23:00 0 0 0 1 3 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8
Total 0 2 8 51 307 190 29 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 588

Page 2

Location: Glens Falls, NY
Road: Crandall St (North Side)
Segment: ~240 ft north of Sherman Ave
Counter: Metro5600/cp20

Tristate Traffic Data, Inc.
184 Baker Road
Coatesville, PA 19320
NB
Start 0 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71
Time 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 Total
10/29/13 0 0 0 1 6 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12
01:00 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
02:00 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
03:00 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
04:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
05:00 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
06:00 0 0 0 0 5 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12
07:00 0 0 0 3 18 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34
08:00 0 0 2 6 34 17 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 62
09:00 0 0 0 5 30 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 46
10:00 0 0 0 2 21 23 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 48
11:00 0 0 1 5 38 27 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 72
12 PM 0 0 0 5 30 29 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 66
13:00 0 0 1 2 22 19 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 49
14:00 0 0 1 8 43 37 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92
15:00 0 0 2 12 60 45 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 124
16:00 0 1 1 10 49 43 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 108
17:00 0 1 4 11 49 29 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 99
18:00 0 0 3 9 32 21 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 66
19:00 0 0 0 5 16 17 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42
20:00 0 0 0 0 12 14 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29
21:00 0 0 1 1 9 9 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25
22:00 0 0 0 0 6 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12
23:00 0 0 0 1 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11
Total 0 2 16 86 491 376 45 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1017

Page 3

Location: Glens Falls, NY
Road: Crandall St (North Side)
Segment: ~240 ft north of Sherman Ave
Counter: Metro5600/cp20

Tristate Traffic Data, Inc.
184 Baker Road
Coatesville, PA 19320
NB
Start 0 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71
Time 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 Total
10/30/13 0 0 0 0 2 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9
01:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
02:00 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
03:00 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
04:00 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
05:00 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
06:00 0 0 0 3 5 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14
07:00 0 0 2 3 20 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35
08:00 0 0 0 9 33 25 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 68
09:00 0 0 0 1 22 15 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40
10:00 0 0 0 2 35 19 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60
11:00 0 0 8 12 30 17 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 71
12 PM 0 0 0 8 36 24 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75
13:00 0 0 3 5 35 15 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 61
14:00 0 1 0 7 34 20 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 63
15:00 0 0 1 8 61 27 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 103
16:00 0 0 0 5 46 37 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 97
17:00 0 0 1 10 56 38 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 112
18:00 0 0 3 5 26 28 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 66
19:00 0 0 0 4 25 18 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 48
20:00 0 0 1 3 20 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41
21:00 0 0 0 1 22 11 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35
22:00 0 0 2 3 8 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21
23:00 0 0 0 1 4 8 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14
Total 0 1 21 91 523 352 49 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1043

Page 4

Location: Glens Falls, NY
Road: Crandall St (North Side)
Segment: ~240 ft north of Sherman Ave
Counter: Metro5600/cp20

Tristate Traffic Data, Inc.
184 Baker Road
Coatesville, PA 19320
NB
Start 0 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71
Time 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 Total
10/31/13 0 0 0 0 3 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8
01:00 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
02:00 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
03:00 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
04:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
05:00 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
06:00 0 0 0 1 6 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12
07:00 0 0 2 3 22 10 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39
08:00 0 0 0 10 26 20 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 57
09:00 0 1 1 2 14 20 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41
10:00 0 0 0 6 21 13 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42
11:00 0 0 0 7 33 20 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 63
12 PM 0 0 0 4 30 28 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 66
13:00 0 0 1 4 13 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31
14:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
15:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
16:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
17:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
18:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
19:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
20:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
21:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
22:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
23:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Total 0 1 4 38 172 133 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 368

Grand
Total 0 6 49 266 1493 1051 143 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3016

Stats 15th Percentile : 19 MPH
50th Percentile : 24 MPH
85th Percentile : 28 MPH
95th Percentile : 31 MPH

Mean Speed(Average) : 25 MPH
10 MPH Pace Speed : 20-29 MPH
Number in Pace : 2301
Percent in Pace : 76.3%
Number of Vehicles > 30 MPH : 151
Percent of Vehicles > 30 MPH : 5.0%

Page 5

Location: Glens Falls, NY
Road: Crandall St (North Side)
Segment: ~240 ft north of Sherman Ave
Counter: Metro5600/cp20

Tristate Traffic Data, Inc.
184 Baker Road
Coatesville, PA 19320
SB
Start 0 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71
Time 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 Total
10/28/13 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
01:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
02:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
03:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
04:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
05:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
06:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
07:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
08:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
09:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
10:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
11:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
12 PM * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
13:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
14:00 0 0 1 11 39 23 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 76
15:00 0 1 1 18 42 34 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 101
16:00 0 0 1 17 34 21 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80
17:00 0 0 2 10 26 23 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 64
18:00 0 0 0 9 16 18 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 45
19:00 0 0 0 5 17 9 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33
20:00 0 0 3 4 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16
21:00 0 0 0 3 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14
22:00 0 0 1 7 3 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16
23:00 0 0 0 1 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8
Total 0 1 9 85 196 139 20 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 453

Page 6

Location: Glens Falls, NY
Road: Crandall St (North Side)
Segment: ~240 ft north of Sherman Ave
Counter: Metro5600/cp20

Tristate Traffic Data, Inc.
184 Baker Road
Coatesville, PA 19320
SB
Start 0 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71
Time 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 Total
10/29/13 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
01:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
02:00 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
03:00 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
04:00 0 0 0 1 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
05:00 0 0 0 0 5 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9
06:00 0 1 0 3 20 14 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40
07:00 0 0 2 14 36 25 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80
08:00 0 2 7 35 62 31 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 141
09:00 0 0 1 12 28 14 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 59
10:00 0 0 2 11 28 24 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 72
11:00 0 0 4 9 31 19 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70
12 PM 0 0 1 7 25 30 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 68
13:00 0 0 3 16 42 22 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 88
14:00 0 1 3 22 42 22 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 95
15:00 0 0 8 17 55 21 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 106
16:00 0 0 4 11 30 22 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70
17:00 0 0 2 12 39 25 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 81
18:00 0 1 3 10 25 16 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 58
19:00 0 0 0 0 10 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20
20:00 0 0 0 3 10 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20
21:00 0 0 1 3 10 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21
22:00 0 0 0 1 5 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10
23:00 0 0 0 1 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
Total 0 5 41 190 516 312 60 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1128

Page 7

Location: Glens Falls, NY
Road: Crandall St (North Side)
Segment: ~240 ft north of Sherman Ave
Counter: Metro5600/cp20

Tristate Traffic Data, Inc.
184 Baker Road
Coatesville, PA 19320
SB
Start 0 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71
Time 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 Total
10/30/13 0 0 0 0 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8
01:00 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
02:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
03:00 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
04:00 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
05:00 0 0 0 0 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
06:00 0 1 0 6 14 23 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 49
07:00 0 0 5 19 42 29 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100
08:00 0 1 8 32 68 29 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 147
09:00 0 0 3 11 25 21 7 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 69
10:00 0 0 0 8 24 20 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 54
11:00 0 0 0 12 49 28 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92
12 PM 0 0 1 12 29 25 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 72
13:00 0 0 3 15 47 25 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 95
14:00 0 1 5 10 47 22 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 87
15:00 0 0 10 36 45 29 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 122
16:00 0 0 2 19 45 16 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 86
17:00 0 0 0 18 47 23 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92
18:00 0 0 2 12 25 16 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 61
19:00 0 2 0 3 19 18 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 45
20:00 0 0 0 4 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22
21:00 0 0 1 4 10 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19
22:00 0 0 1 2 9 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16
23:00 0 0 0 0 8 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11
Total 0 5 41 224 573 352 56 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1261

Page 8

Location: Glens Falls, NY
Road: Crandall St (North Side)
Segment: ~240 ft north of Sherman Ave
Counter: Metro5600/cp20

Tristate Traffic Data, Inc.
184 Baker Road
Coatesville, PA 19320
SB
Start 0 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71
Time 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 Total
10/31/13 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
01:00 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
02:00 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
03:00 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
04:00 0 0 0 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
05:00 0 0 0 0 3 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9
06:00 0 0 0 2 19 16 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40
07:00 0 0 2 12 41 32 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 94
08:00 0 0 4 32 58 40 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 143
09:00 0 1 1 15 36 22 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 78
10:00 0 0 3 11 27 15 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 59
11:00 0 0 2 14 40 15 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 73
12 PM 0 0 6 14 37 24 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 85
13:00 0 1 1 1 17 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27
14:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
15:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
16:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
17:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
18:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
19:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
20:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
21:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
22:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
23:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Total 0 2 19 104 285 182 32 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 625

Grand
Total 0 13 110 603 1570 985 168 17 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3467

Stats 15th Percentile : 18 MPH
50th Percentile : 23 MPH
85th Percentile : 28 MPH
95th Percentile : 31 MPH

Mean Speed(Average) : 24 MPH
10 MPH Pace Speed : 20-29 MPH
Number in Pace : 2406
Percent in Pace : 69.4%
Number of Vehicles > 30 MPH : 186
Percent of Vehicles > 30 MPH : 5.4%

Page 1

Location: Glens Falls, NY
Road: Crandall St (South Side)
Segment: ~90ft South of Sherman Ave
Counter: Metro5600/cp27

Tristate Traffic Data, Inc.
184 Baker Road
Coatesville, PA 19320

Start 28-Oct-13 NB SB Combined 29-Oct- NB SB Combined
Time Mon A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. Tue A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M.
12:00 * * * * * * 2 19 2 16 4 35
12:15 * * * * * * 2 10 0 16 2 26
12:30 * * * * * * 2 13 0 15 2 28
12:45 * * * * * * 1 16 1 24 2 40
01:00 * * * * * * 2 17 1 8 3 25
01:15 * * * * * * 1 11 0 17 1 28
01:30 * * * * * * 0 12 0 21 0 33
01:45 * * * * * * 1 11 0 17 1 28
02:00 * 12 * 13 * 25 0 10 0 19 0 29
02:15 * 17 * 17 * 34 0 19 0 20 0 39
02:30 * 19 * 24
* 43
0 20 0 29
0 49
02:45 * 22
* 24
* 46
0 25
0 21
0 46
03:00 * 23
* 26
* 49
1 19
0 20
1 39
03:15 * 20
* 21
* 41
0 19
1 31
1 50
03:30 * 22
* 11 * 33 0 34
0 15 0 49
03:45 * 18 * 24 * 42 1 22 1 24 2 46
04:00 * 23 * 14 * 37 0 22 2 19 2 41
04:15 * 16 * 16 * 32 0 8 1 15 1 23
04:30 * 19 * 15 * 34 0 32 2 12 2 44
04:45 * 26 * 22 * 48 0 22 0 11 0 33
05:00 * 23 * 18 * 41 0 22 2 17 2 39
05:15 * 15 * 18 * 33 0 15 2 12 2 27
05:30 * 12 * 11 * 23 0 19 0 21 0 40
05:45 * 11 * 14 * 25 1 20 3 15 4 35
06:00 * 11 * 9 * 20 0 15 1 21 1 36
06:15 * 13 * 4 * 17 2 16 7 9 9 25
06:30 * 5 * 10 * 15 4 11 9 10 13 21
06:45 * 11 * 11 * 22 7 10 14 6 21 16
07:00 * 10 * 8 * 18 2 3 5 3 7 6
07:15 * 5 * 8 * 13 4 5 11 4 15 9
07:30 * 6 * 4 * 10 11 5 11 7 22 12
07:45 * 6 * 4 * 10 8 7 17 2 25 9
08:00 * 6 * 5 * 11 19 9 21
3 40
12
08:15 * 6 * 3 * 9 10 3 23
7 33
10
08:30 * 1 * 4 * 5 13 3 17
1 30
4
08:45 * 5 * 4 * 9 11 4 20
8 31
12
09:00 * 6 * 2 * 8 11 4 18 4 29 8
09:15 * 5 * 3 * 8 8 5 9 5 17 10
09:30 * 5 * 5 * 10 11 4 9 2 20 6
09:45 * 6 * 5 * 11 18 3 12 2 30 5
10:00 * 2 * 2 * 4 10 1 14 4 24 5
10:15 * 2 * 5 * 7 7 4 16 2 23 6
10:30 * 6 * 5 * 11 12 1 14 1 26 2
10:45 * 3 * 1 * 4 9 2 20 1 29 3
11:00 * 4 * 5 * 9 15
5 13 0 28 5
11:15 * 1 * 3 * 4 10
1 17 2 27 3
11:30 * 0 * 1 * 1 15
0 16 1 31 1
11:45 * 1 * 1 * 2 17
1 18 0 35 1
Total 0 424 0 400 0 824 248 559 350 540 598 1099
Day Total 424 400 824 807 890 1697
% Total 0.0% 51.5% 0.0% 48.5% 14.6% 32.9% 20.6% 31.8%

Peak – – 02:45 – 02:30 – 02:30 – 11:00 02:45 08:00 02:30 08:00 03:15
Vol. – – 87 – 95 – 179 – 57 97 81 101 134 186
P.H.F. 0.946 0.913 0.913 0.792 0.713 0.880 0.815 0.838 0.930

Page 2

Location: Glens Falls, NY
Road: Crandall St (South Side)
Segment: ~90ft South of Sherman Ave
Counter: Metro5600/cp27

Tristate Traffic Data, Inc.
184 Baker Road
Coatesville, PA 19320

Start 30-Oct-13 NB SB Combined 31-Oct- NB SB Combined
Time Wed A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. Thu A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M.
12:00 3 10 3 16 6 26 3 17
3 13
6 30
12:15 1 11 1 18 2 29 4 12
2 11
6 23
12:30 1 15 0 16 1 31 2 16
3 21
5 37
12:45 0 16 0 15 0 31 1 12
1 22
2 34
01:00 1 12 1 22 2 34 0 6 0 10 0 16
01:15 0 14 0 17 0 31 0 14 0 7 0 21
01:30 0 7 1 17 1 24 0 2 0 4 0 6
01:45 0 14 2 23 2 37 1 0 0 0 1 0
02:00 2 10 1 23 3 33 0 0 1 0 1 0
02:15 0 13 0 15 0 28 0 0 0 0 0 0
02:30 0 14 0 18 0 32 1 0 0 0 1 0
02:45 0 16 1 24
1 40
0 0 1 0 1 0
03:00 2 26 0 24
2 50
0 0 0 0 0 0
03:15 1 19 1 33
2 52
1 0 1 0 2 0
03:30 0 25 0 24
0 49
0 * 0 * 0 *
03:45 0 18 1 21 1 39 0 * 2 * 2 *
04:00 0 18 0 13 0 31 1 * 1 * 2 *
04:15 1 26
0 21 1 47 0 * 1 * 1 *
04:30 0 19
1 25 1 44 0 * 2 * 2 *
04:45 0 21
0 21 0 42 0 * 0 * 0 *
05:00 1 31
4 15 5 46 0 * 3 * 3 *
05:15 2 25 1 19 3 44 0 * 1 * 1 *
05:30 0 14 0 13 0 27 4 * 2 * 6 *
05:45 2 11 1 15 3 26 2 * 3 * 5 *
06:00 1 12 2 12 3 24 0 * 2 * 2 *
06:15 0 9 8 13 8 22 3 * 6 * 9 *
06:30 5 10 10 9 15 19 3 * 12 * 15 *
06:45 5 9 15 13 20 22 6 * 9 * 15 *
07:00 6 11 10 11 16 22 3 * 8 * 11 *
07:15 3 7 15 6 18 13 7 * 9 * 16 *
07:30 10 6 16 7 26 13 7 * 20 * 27 *
07:45 11 10 17 9 28 19 9 * 16
* 25 *
08:00 21 5 26
6 47
11 11
* 20
* 31
*
08:15 10 3 23
3 33
6 18
* 33
* 51
*
08:30 8 2 20
4 28
6 9
* 22
* 31
*
08:45 10 9 22
5 32
14 13
* 13 * 26
*
09:00 11 2 16 6 27 8 4 * 18 * 22 *
09:15 12 2 13 4 25 6 15 * 19 * 34 *
09:30 9 10 14 5 23 15 7 * 13 * 20 *
09:45 5 7 15 2 20 9 12 * 19 * 31 *
10:00 13 4 7 2 20 6 9 * 15 * 24 *
10:15 9 7 11 2 20 9 10 * 11 * 21 *
10:30 14 1 12 2 26 3 13 * 10 * 23 *
10:45 13 4 12 5 25 9 9 * 9 * 18 *
11:00 13
5 17 1 30 6 13 * 20 * 33 *
11:15 13
1 14 3 27 4 14 * 19 * 33 *
11:30 15
3 19 4 34 7 12 * 13 * 25 *
11:45 19
2 19 5 38 7 10 * 16 * 26 *
Total 253 546 372 607 625 1153 237 79 379 88 616 167
Day Total 799 979 1778 316 467 783
% Total 14.2% 30.7% 20.9% 34.1% 30.3% 10.1% 48.4% 11.2%

Peak – 11:00 04:15 08:00 02:45 08:00 02:45 – 08:00 12:00 07:45 12:00 08:00 12:00
Vol. – 60 97 91 105 140 191 – 51 57 91 67 139 124
P.H.F. 0.789 0.782 0.875 0.795 0.745 0.918 0.708 0.838 0.689 0.761 0.681 0.838

ADT ADT 1,622 AADT 1,622

Page 1

Location: Glens Falls, NY
Road: Crandall St (South Side)
Segment: ~90ft south of Sherman Ave
Counter: Metro5600/cp27

Tristate Traffic Data, Inc.
184 Baker Road
Coatesville, PA 19320
nb
Start 0 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71
Time 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 Total
10/28/13 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
01:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
02:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
03:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
04:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
05:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
06:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
07:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
08:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
09:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
10:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
11:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
12 PM * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
13:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
14:00 0 2 0 10 36 16 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70
15:00 0 0 9 21 32 16 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 83
16:00 0 1 7 21 31 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 84
17:00 0 0 8 18 23 10 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 61
18:00 0 0 2 11 20 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40
19:00 0 0 1 11 10 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27
20:00 0 0 1 4 9 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18
21:00 0 0 1 9 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22
22:00 0 0 0 0 10 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13
23:00 0 1 0 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
Total 0 4 29 107 183 86 12 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 424

Page 2

Location: Glens Falls, NY
Road: Crandall St (South Side)
Segment: ~90ft south of Sherman Ave
Counter: Metro5600/cp27

Tristate Traffic Data, Inc.
184 Baker Road
Coatesville, PA 19320
nb
Start 0 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71
Time 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 Total
10/29/13 0 0 0 2 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
01:00 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
02:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
03:00 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
04:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
05:00 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
06:00 0 1 0 2 7 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13
07:00 0 0 1 8 15 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25
08:00 0 0 2 18 23 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 53
09:00 0 0 1 8 26 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 48
10:00 0 0 0 12 17 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38
11:00 0 0 2 14 29 10 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 57
12 PM 0 1 3 11 30 10 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 58
13:00 0 0 1 9 27 11 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 51
14:00 0 0 4 16 35 16 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 74
15:00 0 1 7 25 35 22 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 94
16:00 0 0 2 21 44 14 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 84
17:00 0 0 7 21 30 13 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 76
18:00 0 1 1 15 21 13 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 52
19:00 0 0 0 4 7 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20
20:00 0 0 1 5 10 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19
21:00 0 0 2 2 6 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16
22:00 0 0 1 2 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8
23:00 0 0 0 1 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
Total 0 4 35 198 375 162 31 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 807

Page 3

Location: Glens Falls, NY
Road: Crandall St (South Side)
Segment: ~90ft south of Sherman Ave
Counter: Metro5600/cp27

Tristate Traffic Data, Inc.
184 Baker Road
Coatesville, PA 19320
nb
Start 0 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71
Time 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 Total
10/30/13 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
01:00 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
02:00 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
03:00 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
04:00 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
05:00 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
06:00 0 0 0 1 6 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11
07:00 0 0 2 10 14 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30
08:00 0 0 1 21 21 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 49
09:00 0 0 0 13 17 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37
10:00 0 1 6 8 22 8 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 49
11:00 0 1 4 18 24 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60
12 PM 0 0 2 7 29 10 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 52
13:00 0 0 4 10 22 6 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 47
14:00 0 0 1 16 27 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 53
15:00 0 1 9 32 28 14 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 88
16:00 0 1 3 26 35 17 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 84
17:00 0 0 8 21 34 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 81
18:00 0 0 1 9 20 6 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40
19:00 0 1 2 8 16 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34
20:00 0 1 0 4 10 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19
21:00 0 0 1 5 10 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21
22:00 0 0 0 3 8 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16
23:00 0 0 0 1 6 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11
Total 0 6 44 217 354 146 30 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 799

Page 4

Location: Glens Falls, NY
Road: Crandall St (South Side)
Segment: ~90ft south of Sherman Ave
Counter: Metro5600/cp27

Tristate Traffic Data, Inc.
184 Baker Road
Coatesville, PA 19320
nb
Start 0 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71
Time 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 Total
10/31/13 0 0 1 4 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10
01:00 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
02:00 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
03:00 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
04:00 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
05:00 0 0 0 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
06:00 0 0 0 2 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12
07:00 0 0 3 7 11 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26
08:00 0 2 7 17 18 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 51
09:00 0 1 3 6 16 9 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38
10:00 0 0 1 10 18 9 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41
11:00 0 0 3 9 30 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 49
12 PM 0 1 2 24 17 9 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 57
13:00 0 0 0 7 9 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22
14:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
15:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
16:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
17:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
18:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
19:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
20:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
21:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
22:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
23:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Total 0 4 20 88 135 55 12 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 316

Grand
Total 0 18 128 610 1047 449 85 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2346

Stats 15th Percentile : 16 MPH
50th Percentile : 21 MPH
85th Percentile : 27 MPH
95th Percentile : 30 MPH

Mean Speed(Average) : 22 MPH
10 MPH Pace Speed : 18-27 MPH
Number in Pace : 1591
Percent in Pace : 67.8%
Number of Vehicles > 30 MPH : 94
Percent of Vehicles > 30 MPH : 4.0%

Page 5

Location: Glens Falls, NY
Road: Crandall St (South Side)
Segment: ~90ft south of Sherman Ave
Counter: Metro5600/cp27

Tristate Traffic Data, Inc.
184 Baker Road
Coatesville, PA 19320
sb
Start 0 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71
Time 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 Total
10/28/13 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
01:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
02:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
03:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
04:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
05:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
06:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
07:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
08:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
09:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
10:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
11:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
12 PM * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
13:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
14:00 0 0 4 17 47 9 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 78
15:00 0 0 2 21 35 21 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 82
16:00 0 0 2 20 38 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 67
17:00 0 0 1 19 29 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 61
18:00 0 0 0 6 17 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34
19:00 0 0 1 3 17 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24
20:00 0 0 1 3 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16
21:00 0 1 2 5 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15
22:00 0 0 0 5 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13
23:00 0 1 2 1 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10
Total 0 2 15 100 210 67 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 400

Page 6

Location: Glens Falls, NY
Road: Crandall St (South Side)
Segment: ~90ft south of Sherman Ave
Counter: Metro5600/cp27

Tristate Traffic Data, Inc.
184 Baker Road
Coatesville, PA 19320
sb
Start 0 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71
Time 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 Total
10/29/13 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
01:00 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
02:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
03:00 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
04:00 0 0 0 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
05:00 0 0 0 0 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
06:00 0 0 0 4 22 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31
07:00 0 0 1 7 22 13 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44
08:00 0 0 1 21 48 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 81
09:00 0 0 1 7 19 20 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 48
10:00 0 0 1 13 35 14 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 64
11:00 0 0 2 17 32 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 64
12 PM 0 1 1 9 37 20 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 71
13:00 0 0 0 17 29 16 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 63
14:00 0 0 3 22 49 14 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 89
15:00 0 1 1 27 50 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90
16:00 0 1 1 13 29 10 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 57
17:00 0 1 2 16 36 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65
18:00 0 2 3 15 18 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 46
19:00 0 0 1 3 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16
20:00 0 0 3 5 8 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19
21:00 0 0 1 4 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13
22:00 0 0 1 0 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8
23:00 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
Total 0 6 23 205 467 175 13 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 890

Page 7

Location: Glens Falls, NY
Road: Crandall St (South Side)
Segment: ~90ft south of Sherman Ave
Counter: Metro5600/cp27

Tristate Traffic Data, Inc.
184 Baker Road
Coatesville, PA 19320
sb
Start 0 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71
Time 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 Total
10/30/13 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
01:00 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
02:00 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
03:00 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
04:00 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
05:00 0 0 0 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
06:00 0 0 0 3 20 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35
07:00 0 0 1 5 39 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 58
08:00 0 0 3 27 48 11 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 91
09:00 0 0 4 13 29 10 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 58
10:00 0 0 5 11 21 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42
11:00 0 1 1 19 36 10 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 69
12 PM 0 0 3 15 37 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65
13:00 0 1 2 22 43 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 79
14:00 0 0 4 18 41 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80
15:00 0 0 4 33 53 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 102
16:00 0 0 1 31 37 9 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80
17:00 0 0 1 24 27 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 62
18:00 0 0 3 10 24 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 47
19:00 0 1 3 9 13 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33
20:00 0 1 1 6 7 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18
21:00 0 0 1 6 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17
22:00 0 0 1 2 6 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11
23:00 0 0 0 3 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13
Total 0 4 38 260 508 153 15 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 979

Page 8

Location: Glens Falls, NY
Road: Crandall St (South Side)
Segment: ~90ft south of Sherman Ave
Counter: Metro5600/cp27

Tristate Traffic Data, Inc.
184 Baker Road
Coatesville, PA 19320
sb
Start 0 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71
Time 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 Total
10/31/13 0 0 1 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9
01:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
02:00 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
03:00 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
04:00 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
05:00 0 0 0 1 3 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9
06:00 0 0 1 2 21 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29
07:00 0 0 1 8 33 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 53
08:00 0 0 1 19 50 17 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 88
09:00 0 0 3 20 38 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 69
10:00 0 0 2 9 23 9 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 45
11:00 0 0 4 26 29 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 68
12 PM 0 0 1 20 39 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 67
13:00 0 0 0 8 9 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21
14:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
15:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
16:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
17:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
18:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
19:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
20:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
21:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
22:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
23:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Total 0 0 14 118 254 76 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 467

Grand
Total 0 12 90 683 1439 471 37 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2736

Stats 15th Percentile : 17 MPH
50th Percentile : 22 MPH
85th Percentile : 26 MPH
95th Percentile : 29 MPH

Mean Speed(Average) : 22 MPH
10 MPH Pace Speed : 18-27 MPH
Number in Pace : 2036
Percent in Pace : 74.4%
Number of Vehicles > 30 MPH : 41
Percent of Vehicles > 30 MPH : 1.5%

Page 1

Location: Glens Falls, NY
Road: Sherman Ave (East Side)
Segment: ~180ft East of Crandall St
Counter: Metro5600/CP38

Tristate Traffic Data, Inc.
184 Baker Road
Coatesville, PA 19320

Start 28-Oct-13 EB WB Combined 29-Oct- EB WB Combined
Time Mon A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. Tue A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M.
12:00 * * * * * * 1 38 4 57 5 95
12:15 * * * * * * 2 36 5 51 7 87
12:30 * * * * * * 1 45 4 62 5 107
12:45 * * * * * * 4 59 8 48 12 107
01:00 * * * * * * 1 47 4 50 5 97
01:15 * * * * * * 1 52 4 46 5 98
01:30 * * * * * * 3 61 1 57 4 118
01:45 * * * * * * 2 59 5 52 7 111
02:00 * 50 * 59 * 109 1 47 1 62 2 109
02:15 * 41 * 66 * 107 1 39 2 47 3 86
02:30 * 46 * 68 * 114 1 66 1 90 2 156
02:45 * 44 * 62 * 106 0 46 5 82 5 128
03:00 * 76
* 85 * 161 2 79
2 68 4 147
03:15 * 83
* 63 * 146 2 63
0 72 2 135
03:30 * 51
* 75 * 126 1 76
1 86 2 162
03:45 * 61
* 69 * 130 3 71
1 76 4 147
04:00 * 62 * 78 * 140 5 55 4 75 9 130
04:15 * 55 * 83 * 138 4 54 3 72 7 126
04:30 * 60 * 82
* 142
3 56 4 78 7 134
04:45 * 55 * 84
* 139
2 40 2 68 4 108
05:00 * 51 * 93
* 144
6 71 0 94
6 165
05:15 * 63 * 86
* 149
5 72 4 78
9 150
05:30 * 53 * 75 * 128 17 56 4 77
21 133
05:45 * 53 * 67 * 120 11 47 4 71
15 118
06:00 * 43 * 56 * 99 10 60 14 66 24 126
06:15 * 51 * 65 * 116 21 56 16 54 37 110
06:30 * 41 * 44 * 85 33 45 24 43 57 88
06:45 * 46 * 47 * 93 35 40 32 53 67 93
07:00 * 43 * 45 * 88 41 29 12 45 53 74
07:15 * 22 * 48 * 70 70 27 21 37 91 64
07:30 * 22 * 33 * 55 80
24 31 32 111
56
07:45 * 21 * 21 * 42 88
16 46 34 134
50
08:00 * 25 * 35 * 60 73
27 53 23 126
50
08:15 * 20 * 22 * 42 98
21 43 22 141
43
08:30 * 24 * 31 * 55 67 14 30 41 97 55
08:45 * 18 * 30 * 48 81 7 42 25 123 32
09:00 * 23 * 28 * 51 52 13 51 31 103 44
09:15 * 14 * 14 * 28 35 9 33 20 68 29
09:30 * 11 * 18 * 29 46 22 45 20 91 42
09:45 * 10 * 20 * 30 61 11 50 17 111 28
10:00 * 12 * 22 * 34 49 5 42 19 91 24
10:15 * 9 * 11 * 20 44 5 34 18 78 23
10:30 * 11 * 16 * 27 48 10 34 8 82 18
10:45 * 10 * 8 * 18 36 8 40 9 76 17
11:00 * 8 * 11 * 19 54 11 44
10 98 21
11:15 * 5 * 7 * 12 56 1 49
3 105 4
11:30 * 6 * 7 * 13 55 7 40
6 95 13
11:45 * 3 * 3 * 6 58 0 65
7 123 7
Total 0 1402 0 1837 0 3239 1370 1803 964 2262 2334 4065
Day Total 1402 1837 3239 3173 3226 6399
% Total 0.0% 43.3% 0.0% 56.7% 21.4% 28.2% 15.1% 35.3%

Peak – – 03:00 – 04:30 – 04:30 – 07:30 03:00 11:00 05:00 07:30 03:00
Vol. – – 271 – 345 – 574 – 339 289 198 320 512 591
P.H.F. 0.816 0.927 0.963 0.865 0.915 0.762 0.851 0.908 0.912

Page 2

Location: Glens Falls, NY
Road: Sherman Ave (East Side)
Segment: ~180ft East of Crandall St
Counter: Metro5600/CP38

Tristate Traffic Data, Inc.
184 Baker Road
Coatesville, PA 19320

Start 30-Oct-13 EB WB Combined 31-Oct- EB WB Combined
Time Wed A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. Thu A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M.
12:00 7 53 3 60 10 113 5 63
7 55 12 118
12:15 0 50 4 61 4 111 3 52
6 46
9 98
12:30 3 53 4 61 7 114 2 55
2 65
4 120
12:45 1 55 4 53 5 108 1 54
4 61
5 115
01:00 1 60 3 55 4 115 0 54 2 62
2 116
01:15 0 60 2 62 2 122 1 34 2 39 3 73
01:30 3 50 2 42 5 92 1 0 3 0 4 0
01:45 1 49 5 54 6 103 5 0 1 0 6 0
02:00 2 43 1 68 3 111 2 0 6 0 8 0
02:15 2 55 4 63 6 118 1 0 2 0 3 0
02:30 2 54 4 73 6 127 1 0 1 0 2 0
02:45 0 48 1 68 1 116 1 0 3 0 4 0
03:00 2 61
4 82 6 143 1 0 1 0 2 0
03:15 2 82
3 70 5 152 1 0 0 0 1 0
03:30 0 76
1 76 1 152 0 * 2 * 2 *
03:45 1 54
2 69 3 123 1 * 1 * 2 *
04:00 2 56 5 78 7 134 7 * 6 * 13 *
04:15 2 75 2 82
4 157
1 * 4 * 5 *
04:30 2 56 3 80
5 136
2 * 3 * 5 *
04:45 1 70 7 93
8 163
5 * 0 * 5 *
05:00 6 66 3 91
9 157
6 * 1 * 7 *
05:15 13 64 5 82 18 146 10 * 6 * 16 *
05:30 14 54 8 64 22 118 17 * 7 * 24 *
05:45 12 63 7 77 19 140 8 * 4 * 12 *
06:00 10 46 14 58 24 104 13 * 13 * 26 *
06:15 17 45 15 54 32 99 19 * 13 * 32 *
06:30 25 35 17 70 42 105 31 * 22 * 53 *
06:45 42 45 24 39 66 84 38 * 21 * 59 *
07:00 33 38 25 60 58 98 46 * 20 * 66 *
07:15 62 32 24 39 86 71 68 * 26 * 94 *
07:30 70 30 35 45 105 75 72
* 41 * 113
*
07:45 93
29 50
39 143
68 87
* 59 * 146
*
08:00 75
28 74
38 149
66 87
* 49 * 136
*
08:15 117
17 52
23 169
40 83
* 52 * 135
*
08:30 79
19 41
39 120
58 64 * 33 * 97 *
08:45 76 27 49 38 125 65 71 * 56 * 127 *
09:00 57 16 40 30 97 46 55 * 40 * 95 *
09:15 54 24 46 20 100 44 56 * 39 * 95 *
09:30 47 16 41 25 88 41 45 * 29 * 74 *
09:45 31 15 43 30 74 45 58 * 41 * 99 *
10:00 58 12 52 15 110 27 39 * 39 * 78 *
10:15 41 16 38 17 79 33 48 * 44 * 92 *
10:30 44 7 47 11 91 18 41 * 44 * 85 *
10:45 49 7 51 13 100 20 34 * 54 * 88 *
11:00 56 11 48 11 104 22 52 * 51
* 103 *
11:15 58 7 58 19 116 26 48 * 63
* 111 *
11:30 67 5 53 6 120 11 46 * 50
* 96 *
11:45 46 6 52 6 98 12 47 * 57
* 104 *
Total 1386 1940 1076 2409 2462 4349 1330 312 1030 328 2360 640
Day Total 3326 3485 6811 1642 1358 3000
% Total 20.3% 28.5% 15.8% 35.4% 44.3% 10.4% 34.3% 10.9%

Peak – 07:45 03:00 07:45 04:15 07:45 04:15 – 07:30 12:00 11:00 00:15 07:30 12:00
Vol. – 364 273 217 346 581 613 – 329 224 221 234 530 451
P.H.F. 0.778 0.832 0.733 0.930 0.859 0.940 0.945 0.889 0.877 0.900 0.908 0.940

ADT ADT 6,256 AADT 6,256

Page 1

Location: Glens Falls NY
Road: Sherman Ave (East Side)
Segment: ~180ft East of Crandall St
Counter: Metro5600/cp38

Tristate Traffic Data, Inc.
184 Baker Road
Coatesville, PA 19320
EB
Start 0 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71
Time 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 Total
10/28/13 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
01:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
02:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
03:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
04:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
05:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
06:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
07:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
08:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
09:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
10:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
11:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
12 PM * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
13:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
14:00 0 0 1 6 45 98 25 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 181
15:00 0 0 1 29 98 106 30 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 271
16:00 0 3 2 9 80 101 35 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 232
17:00 0 0 1 7 62 114 34 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 220
18:00 0 0 1 4 47 111 16 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 181
19:00 0 0 0 3 33 60 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 108
20:00 0 0 0 0 21 47 17 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 87
21:00 0 0 0 0 4 31 22 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 58
22:00 0 0 0 1 11 18 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42
23:00 0 0 0 1 2 11 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22
Total 0 3 6 60 403 697 208 22 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1402

Page 2

Location: Glens Falls NY
Road: Sherman Ave (East Side)
Segment: ~180ft East of Crandall St
Counter: Metro5600/cp38

Tristate Traffic Data, Inc.
184 Baker Road
Coatesville, PA 19320
EB
Start 0 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71
Time 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 Total
10/29/13 0 0 0 0 2 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8
01:00 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
02:00 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
03:00 0 1 0 0 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8
04:00 0 0 1 0 2 8 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14
05:00 0 0 0 0 0 23 13 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39
06:00 0 0 0 0 19 61 17 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 99
07:00 0 0 1 4 88 141 41 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 279
08:00 0 0 1 5 94 177 39 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 319
09:00 0 0 0 3 69 81 37 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 194
10:00 0 0 3 7 50 86 29 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 177
11:00 0 0 5 9 73 102 33 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 223
12 PM 0 2 1 8 62 75 28 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 178
13:00 0 0 2 17 52 120 26 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 219
14:00 0 1 8 10 55 95 24 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 198
15:00 0 2 6 38 103 115 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 289
16:00 0 0 4 9 43 113 35 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 205
17:00 0 0 2 13 70 127 30 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 246
18:00 0 0 0 7 69 96 27 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 201
19:00 0 0 0 1 17 52 21 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 96
20:00 0 0 0 1 9 34 22 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 69
21:00 0 0 0 2 2 33 17 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55
22:00 0 0 0 0 2 15 9 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28
23:00 0 0 0 1 3 8 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19
Total 0 6 34 135 889 1579 483 45 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3173

Page 3

Location: Glens Falls NY
Road: Sherman Ave (East Side)
Segment: ~180ft East of Crandall St
Counter: Metro5600/cp38

Tristate Traffic Data, Inc.
184 Baker Road
Coatesville, PA 19320
EB
Start 0 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71
Time 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 Total
10/30/13 0 0 0 0 2 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11
01:00 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
02:00 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
03:00 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
04:00 0 0 0 0 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
05:00 0 0 1 0 2 19 18 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 45
06:00 0 0 0 0 13 48 29 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 94
07:00 0 0 0 10 81 120 42 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 258
08:00 0 1 1 14 141 157 32 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 347
09:00 0 0 5 9 51 95 28 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 189
10:00 0 0 5 8 57 93 25 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 192
11:00 0 0 3 19 67 106 31 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 227
12 PM 0 0 1 0 51 124 32 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 211
13:00 0 1 3 13 59 114 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 219
14:00 0 0 1 6 59 107 24 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 200
15:00 0 1 2 19 112 118 17 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 273
16:00 0 0 0 4 72 138 41 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 257
17:00 0 1 2 6 49 150 34 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 247
18:00 0 0 0 7 55 83 22 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 171
19:00 0 0 0 1 36 59 31 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 129
20:00 0 0 0 0 24 49 16 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 91
21:00 0 1 0 0 17 29 20 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 71
22:00 0 0 0 0 2 28 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42
23:00 0 0 0 0 2 14 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29
Total 0 5 24 116 961 1668 501 46 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 3326

Page 4

Location: Glens Falls NY
Road: Sherman Ave (East Side)
Segment: ~180ft East of Crandall St
Counter: Metro5600/cp38

Tristate Traffic Data, Inc.
184 Baker Road
Coatesville, PA 19320
EB
Start 0 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71
Time 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 Total
10/31/13 0 0 0 0 1 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11
01:00 0 0 0 0 2 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
02:00 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
03:00 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
04:00 0 0 1 0 4 5 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15
05:00 0 0 0 0 2 19 16 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41
06:00 0 0 0 5 15 61 19 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 101
07:00 0 0 0 9 73 145 42 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 273
08:00 0 0 1 16 96 153 33 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 305
09:00 0 0 0 8 73 101 25 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 214
10:00 0 0 0 7 53 69 32 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 162
11:00 0 1 0 5 64 104 18 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 193
12 PM 0 0 2 15 80 97 29 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 224
13:00 0 2 4 13 21 38 8 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 88
14:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
15:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
16:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
17:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
18:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
19:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
20:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
21:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
22:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
23:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Total 0 3 8 78 487 803 233 28 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1642

Grand
Total 0 17 72 389 2740 4747 1425 141 9 1 1 0 0 0 1 9543

Stats 15th Percentile : 21 MPH
50th Percentile : 26 MPH
85th Percentile : 30 MPH
95th Percentile : 34 MPH

Mean Speed(Average) : 27 MPH
10 MPH Pace Speed : 22-31 MPH
Number in Pace : 6996
Percent in Pace : 73.3%
Number of Vehicles > 30 MPH : 1578
Percent of Vehicles > 30 MPH : 16.5%

Page 5

Location: Glens Falls NY
Road: Sherman Ave (East Side)
Segment: ~180ft East of Crandall St
Counter: Metro5600/cp38

Tristate Traffic Data, Inc.
184 Baker Road
Coatesville, PA 19320
WB
Start 0 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71
Time 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 Total
10/28/13 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
01:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
02:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
03:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
04:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
05:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
06:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
07:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
08:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
09:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
10:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
11:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
12 PM * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
13:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
14:00 0 3 5 19 70 117 38 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 255
15:00 0 1 11 30 93 130 23 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 292
16:00 0 8 21 51 92 114 37 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 327
17:00 0 12 17 52 99 106 30 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 321
18:00 0 0 2 15 68 95 31 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 212
19:00 0 0 1 6 47 66 25 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 147
20:00 0 1 0 4 33 54 22 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 118
21:00 0 0 0 4 19 34 18 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80
22:00 0 0 2 0 9 29 15 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 57
23:00 0 0 0 0 6 12 7 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28
Total 0 25 59 181 536 757 246 32 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1837

Page 6

Location: Glens Falls NY
Road: Sherman Ave (East Side)
Segment: ~180ft East of Crandall St
Counter: Metro5600/cp38

Tristate Traffic Data, Inc.
184 Baker Road
Coatesville, PA 19320
WB
Start 0 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71
Time 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 Total
10/29/13 0 0 0 0 3 11 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21
01:00 0 0 0 0 5 4 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14
02:00 0 0 0 0 2 3 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9
03:00 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
04:00 0 0 0 0 0 4 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13
05:00 0 0 0 0 0 3 5 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12
06:00 0 0 0 2 23 37 20 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 86
07:00 0 0 0 3 32 41 31 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 110
08:00 0 0 3 11 53 78 21 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 168
09:00 0 0 1 11 56 78 30 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 179
10:00 0 0 1 5 52 67 22 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 150
11:00 0 0 2 9 55 105 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 198
12 PM 0 2 0 8 66 106 35 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 218
13:00 0 0 2 17 52 102 26 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 205
14:00 0 2 6 46 83 95 46 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 281
15:00 0 2 13 46 114 92 34 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 302
16:00 0 1 17 30 103 109 26 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 293
17:00 0 7 20 65 98 102 27 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 320
18:00 0 1 5 12 67 107 22 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 216
19:00 0 1 3 5 38 75 25 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 148
20:00 0 0 0 3 18 57 29 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 111
21:00 0 1 0 2 12 46 24 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 88
22:00 0 0 0 0 8 22 18 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 54
23:00 0 0 0 2 4 11 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26
Total 0 17 73 277 945 1356 496 55 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 3226

Page 7

Location: Glens Falls NY
Road: Sherman Ave (East Side)
Segment: ~180ft East of Crandall St
Counter: Metro5600/cp38

Tristate Traffic Data, Inc.
184 Baker Road
Coatesville, PA 19320
WB
Start 0 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71
Time 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 Total
10/30/13 0 0 0 1 0 11 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15
01:00 0 0 0 1 1 4 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12
02:00 0 0 0 0 0 3 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10
03:00 0 0 0 0 1 4 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10
04:00 0 0 0 0 2 5 7 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 17
05:00 0 0 0 1 1 9 9 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23
06:00 0 0 0 2 10 36 19 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70
07:00 0 0 2 11 43 54 23 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 134
08:00 0 2 9 26 71 83 22 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 216
09:00 0 0 2 16 47 78 25 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 170
10:00 0 0 11 23 46 78 29 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 188
11:00 0 0 4 27 48 96 31 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 211
12 PM 0 0 2 16 74 103 35 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 235
13:00 0 1 8 25 73 82 22 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 213
14:00 0 2 12 30 89 105 30 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 272
15:00 0 2 3 42 103 112 31 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 297
16:00 0 2 10 35 108 131 46 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 333
17:00 0 1 7 56 109 91 47 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 314
18:00 0 0 3 15 79 90 31 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 221
19:00 0 0 3 24 53 71 29 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 183
20:00 0 1 0 2 30 73 28 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 138
21:00 0 0 2 6 15 54 24 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 105
22:00 0 0 1 4 13 25 10 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 56
23:00 0 0 0 0 9 16 14 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 42
Total 0 11 79 363 1025 1414 529 59 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 3485

Page 8

Location: Glens Falls NY
Road: Sherman Ave (East Side)
Segment: ~180ft East of Crandall St
Counter: Metro5600/cp38

Tristate Traffic Data, Inc.
184 Baker Road
Coatesville, PA 19320
WB
Start 0 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71
Time 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 Total
10/31/13 0 0 1 0 2 10 4 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 19
01:00 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8
02:00 0 0 0 0 4 2 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12
03:00 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
04:00 0 0 0 0 1 4 5 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 13
05:00 0 0 0 1 1 7 5 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 18
06:00 0 0 0 1 17 35 14 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 69
07:00 0 0 0 11 51 60 22 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 146
08:00 0 2 4 17 48 92 24 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 190
09:00 0 1 0 12 43 57 31 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 149
10:00 0 0 3 13 55 84 25 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 181
11:00 0 0 2 15 88 86 25 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 221
12 PM 0 0 5 41 76 84 18 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 227
13:00 0 1 2 8 42 41 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 101
14:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
15:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
16:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
17:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
18:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
19:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
20:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
21:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
22:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
23:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Total 0 4 17 119 428 567 188 27 6 1 0 0 0 0 1 1358

Grand
Total 0 57 228 940 2934 4094 1459 173 19 1 0 0 0 0 1 9906

Stats 15th Percentile : 20 MPH
50th Percentile : 25 MPH
85th Percentile : 30 MPH
95th Percentile : 34 MPH

Mean Speed(Average) : 26 MPH
10 MPH Pace Speed : 22-31 MPH
Number in Pace : 6544
Percent in Pace : 66.1%
Number of Vehicles > 30 MPH : 1653
Percent of Vehicles > 30 MPH : 16.7%

Page 1

Location: Glens Falls, NY
Road: Sherman Ave (West Side)
Segment: ~270ft west of Crandall St
Counter: Metro5600/cp31

Tristate Traffic Data, Inc.
184 Baker Road
Coatesville, PA 19320

Start 28-Oct-13 EB WB Combined 29-Oct- EB WB Combined
Time Mon A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. Tue A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M.
12:00 * * * * * * 2 35 2 48 4 83
12:15 * * * * * * 2 30 3 46 5 76
12:30 * * * * * * 2 46 3 59 5 105
12:45 * * * * * * 2 51 7 43 9 94
01:00 * 18 * 21 * 39 2 42 4 52 6 94
01:15 * 44 * 44 * 88 1 46 5 45 6 91
01:30 * 52 * 41 * 93 3 51 1 48 4 99
01:45 * 52 * 32 * 84 1 49 4 46 5 95
02:00 * 49 * 49 * 98 1 43 0 62 1 105
02:15 * 34 * 49 * 83 1 49 2 48 3 97
02:30 * 48 * 56 * 104 1 60 1 73 2 133
02:45 * 40 * 61 * 101 0 44 5 82 5 126
03:00 * 72
* 73 * 145 1 80
2 63 3 143
03:15 * 72
* 54 * 126 2 68
1 64 3 132
03:30 * 50
* 72 * 122 1 74
0 76 1 150
03:45 * 64
* 65 * 129 3 59
2 66 5 125
04:00 * 67 * 73 * 140 4 55 3 78 7 133
04:15 * 53 * 71 * 124 4 58 4 65 8 123
04:30 * 53 * 75
* 128
3 49 4 71
7 120
04:45 * 55 * 85
* 140
2 39 3 69
5 108
05:00 * 54 * 87
* 141
7 73 0 91
7 164
05:15 * 60 * 75
* 135
6 65 4 71
10 136
05:30 * 50 * 63 * 113 15 56 6 71 21 127
05:45 * 53 * 62 * 115 10 45 4 67 14 112
06:00 * 46 * 52 * 98 13 52 13 61 26 113
06:15 * 52 * 57 * 109 22 44 20 53 42 97
06:30 * 39 * 41 * 80 28 46 23 39 51 85
06:45 * 44 * 49 * 93 33 34 36 43 69 77
07:00 * 39 * 47 * 86 41 28 14 40 55 68
07:15 * 20 * 45 * 65 69 26 24 30 93 56
07:30 * 24 * 32 * 56 62
27 32
29 94
56
07:45 * 20 * 22 * 42 82
17 45
36 127
53
08:00 * 26 * 26 * 52 65
22 57
22 122
44
08:15 * 16 * 19 * 35 71
22 45
20 116
42
08:30 * 22 * 24 * 46 62 13 31 38 93 51
08:45 * 20 * 25 * 45 67 8 35 19 102 27
09:00 * 21 * 25 * 46 44 13 46 25 90 38
09:15 * 17 * 10 * 27 34 11 34 20 68 31
09:30 * 10 * 12 * 22 41 16 44 22 85 38
09:45 * 9 * 16 * 25 54 11 43 15 97 26
10:00 * 9 * 23 * 32 38 5 36 15 74 20
10:15 * 11 * 13 * 24 43 5 27 15 70 20
10:30 * 11 * 11 * 22 42 11 33 7 75 18
10:45 * 9 * 9 * 18 42 5 37 9 79 14
11:00 * 10 * 9 * 19 49 7 39 10 88 17
11:15 * 5 * 7 * 12 51 2 46 3 97 5
11:30 * 7 * 6 * 13 56 7 33 6 89 13
11:45 * 1 * 2 * 3 52 0 60 7 112 7
Total 0 1528 0 1790 0 3318 1237 1699 923 2088 2160 3787
Day Total 1528 1790 3318 2936 3011 5947
% Total 0.0% 46.1% 0.0% 53.9% 20.8% 28.6% 15.5% 35.1%

Peak – – 03:00 – 04:30 – 04:30 – 07:30 03:00 07:30 04:30 07:30 02:45
Vol. – – 258 – 322 – 544 – 280 281 179 302 459 551
P.H.F. 0.896 0.925 0.965 0.854 0.878 0.785 0.830 0.904 0.918

Page 2

Location: Glens Falls, NY
Road: Sherman Ave (West Side)
Segment: ~270ft west of Crandall St
Counter: Metro5600/cp31

Tristate Traffic Data, Inc.
184 Baker Road
Coatesville, PA 19320

Start 30-Oct-13 EB WB Combined 31-Oct- EB WB Combined
Time Wed A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. Thu A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M.
12:00 6 42 2 57 8 99 6 49
7 56
13 105
12:15 1 54 3 51 4 105 1 53
5 39
6 92
12:30 1 47 3 55 4 102 3 49
2 55
5 104
12:45 1 48 2 48 3 96 1 54
2 59
3 113
01:00 2 59 6 49 8 108 0 47 1 54 1 101
01:15 0 54 2 50 2 104 2 16 2 24 4 40
01:30 3 43 1 42 4 85 1 0 4 0 5 0
01:45 1 43 5 44 6 87 5 0 1 0 6 0
02:00 2 40 1 59 3 99 2 0 5 0 7 0
02:15 2 47 3 50 5 97 1 0 2 0 3 0
02:30 3 49 3 72 6 121 0 0 1 0 1 0
02:45 1 42 1 66 2 108 1 0 3 0 4 0
03:00 1 57 3 75 4 132 1 0 0 0 1 0
03:15 3 70 3 71 6 141 1 0 0 0 1 0
03:30 0 73
1 70 1 143 0 * 2 * 2 *
03:45 2 53
1 62 3 115 0 * 0 * 0 *
04:00 1 53
5 74 6 127 6 * 6 * 12 *
04:15 3 75
3 74 6 149
1 * 5 * 6 *
04:30 1 49 3 73
4 122
3 * 4 * 7 *
04:45 1 64 6 87
7 151
5 * 0 * 5 *
05:00 7 61 3 99
10 160
6 * 1 * 7 *
05:15 10 60 6 80
16 140 10 * 7 * 17 *
05:30 14 56 10 67 24 123 15 * 9 * 24 *
05:45 11 61 6 65 17 126 8 * 4 * 12 *
06:00 11 46 16 51 27 97 13 * 11 * 24 *
06:15 19 47 13 56 32 103 17 * 15 * 32 *
06:30 28 29 22 63 50 92 30 * 22 * 52 *
06:45 33 42 29 32 62 74 31 * 25 * 56 *
07:00 33 39 28 47 61 86 45 * 20 * 65 *
07:15 50 29 26 41 76 70 60 * 25 * 85 *
07:30 59 30 36 40 95 70 65
* 39 * 104
*
07:45 80
20 42 37 122
57 63
* 50 * 113
*
08:00 67
29 65
32 132
61 74
* 55
* 129
*
08:15 80
19 53
21 133
40 70
* 56
* 126
*
08:30 78
19 35
34 113
53 56 * 34
* 90 *
08:45 68 22 46
33 114 55 66 * 57
* 123 *
09:00 48 13 34 27 82 40 56 * 32 * 88 *
09:15 43 25 40 20 83 45 50 * 32 * 82 *
09:30 44 14 35 18 79 32 42 * 33 * 75 *
09:45 34 13 45 23 79 36 47 * 37 * 84 *
10:00 42 11 43 17 85 28 36 * 34 * 70 *
10:15 37 16 35 18 72 34 40 * 47 * 87 *
10:30 44 7 36 8 80 15 35 * 42 * 77 *
10:45 42 8 44 10 86 18 29 * 47 * 76 *
11:00 48 9 43 9 91 18 44 * 41 * 85 *
11:15 49 9 46 14 95 23 48 * 58 * 106 *
11:30 53 5 47 9 100 14 39 * 46 * 85 *
11:45 42 5 49 4 91 9 43 * 51 * 94 *
Total 1209 1806 990 2204 2199 4010 1178 268 982 287 2160 555
Day Total 3015 3194 6209 1446 1269 2715
% Total 19.5% 29.1% 15.9% 35.5% 43.4% 9.9% 36.2% 10.6%

Peak – 07:45 03:30 08:00 04:30 07:45 04:15 – 07:30 12:00 08:00 12:00 07:30 12:00
Vol. – 305 254 199 339 500 582 – 272 205 202 209 472 414
P.H.F. 0.953 0.847 0.765 0.856 0.940 0.909 0.919 0.949 0.886 0.886 0.915 0.916

ADT ADT 5,754 AADT 5,754

Page 1

Location: Glens Falls, NY
Road: Sherman Ave (West Side)
Segment: ~270ft West of Crandall St
Counter: Metro5600/cp31

Tristate Traffic Data, Inc.
184 Baker Road
Coatesville, PA 19320
EB
Start 0 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71
Time 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 Total
10/28/13 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
01:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
02:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
03:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
04:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
05:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
06:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
07:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
08:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
09:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
10:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
11:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
12 PM * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
13:00 0 0 0 3 18 79 50 14 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 166
14:00 0 0 1 2 20 80 61 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 171
15:00 0 0 1 14 41 118 73 9 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 258
16:00 0 0 1 9 50 105 50 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 228
17:00 0 0 0 7 48 107 50 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 217
18:00 0 0 3 6 55 84 27 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 181
19:00 0 0 0 1 12 55 29 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 103
20:00 0 0 0 1 8 36 34 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 84
21:00 0 0 1 2 6 17 22 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 57
22:00 0 0 0 0 4 20 14 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40
23:00 0 0 0 0 1 11 7 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 23
Total 0 0 7 45 263 712 417 76 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 1528

Page 2

Location: Glens Falls, NY
Road: Sherman Ave (West Side)
Segment: ~270ft West of Crandall St
Counter: Metro5600/cp31

Tristate Traffic Data, Inc.
184 Baker Road
Coatesville, PA 19320
EB
Start 0 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71
Time 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 Total
10/29/13 0 0 0 0 0 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8
01:00 0 0 0 0 2 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
02:00 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
03:00 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
04:00 0 0 0 1 2 4 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13
05:00 0 0 1 0 1 11 20 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38
06:00 0 0 0 1 11 42 35 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 96
07:00 0 0 1 9 47 105 82 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 254
08:00 0 0 0 4 69 127 60 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 265
09:00 0 0 0 3 29 80 51 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 173
10:00 0 0 0 2 25 88 40 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 165
11:00 0 0 2 3 48 102 51 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 208
12 PM 0 1 0 2 46 69 41 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 162
13:00 0 0 0 4 49 88 41 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 188
14:00 0 1 0 11 33 108 32 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 196
15:00 0 0 3 22 80 112 57 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 281
16:00 0 0 0 4 38 75 78 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 201
17:00 0 0 0 7 43 127 54 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 239
18:00 0 0 1 10 38 75 44 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 176
19:00 0 0 3 4 12 48 28 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 98
20:00 0 0 0 0 6 37 19 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65
21:00 0 0 0 2 5 21 19 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 51
22:00 0 0 0 0 1 9 14 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26
23:00 0 0 0 0 1 7 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16
Total 0 2 11 89 588 1347 782 108 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 2936

Page 3

Location: Glens Falls, NY
Road: Sherman Ave (West Side)
Segment: ~270ft West of Crandall St
Counter: Metro5600/cp31

Tristate Traffic Data, Inc.
184 Baker Road
Coatesville, PA 19320
EB
Start 0 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71
Time 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 Total
10/30/13 0 0 0 0 0 5 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9
01:00 0 0 0 1 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
02:00 0 0 0 0 2 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8
03:00 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
04:00 0 0 0 0 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
05:00 0 0 1 0 1 13 18 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 42
06:00 0 0 1 0 6 30 38 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 91
07:00 0 0 0 7 46 104 57 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 222
08:00 0 1 2 17 80 126 61 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 293
09:00 0 1 3 7 20 85 47 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 169
10:00 0 0 4 9 35 68 44 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 165
11:00 0 0 4 8 50 89 36 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 192
12 PM 0 0 0 1 31 90 55 13 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 191
13:00 0 0 0 5 29 104 55 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 199
14:00 0 0 1 8 38 84 42 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 178
15:00 0 0 4 11 81 114 40 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 253
16:00 0 0 1 4 46 105 70 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 241
17:00 0 0 1 5 28 111 73 18 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 238
18:00 0 0 0 2 38 73 46 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 164
19:00 0 0 2 0 16 59 41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 118
20:00 0 0 1 0 20 39 26 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 89
21:00 0 1 0 3 5 33 16 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 65
22:00 0 0 0 0 3 16 20 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42
23:00 0 0 0 0 0 8 17 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28
Total 0 3 25 88 577 1365 818 129 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 3015

Page 4

Location: Glens Falls, NY
Road: Sherman Ave (West Side)
Segment: ~270ft West of Crandall St
Counter: Metro5600/cp31

Tristate Traffic Data, Inc.
184 Baker Road
Coatesville, PA 19320
EB
Start 0 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71
Time 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 Total
10/31/13 0 0 0 0 1 3 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11
01:00 0 0 0 0 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8
02:00 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
03:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
04:00 0 0 2 0 1 3 6 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 15
05:00 0 0 2 0 5 7 16 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39
06:00 0 0 0 0 5 41 33 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 91
07:00 0 0 1 7 45 110 64 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 233
08:00 0 1 1 11 51 112 76 11 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 266
09:00 0 0 2 5 36 90 46 15 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 195
10:00 0 0 0 0 21 55 57 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 140
11:00 0 0 1 2 17 82 69 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 174
12 PM 0 0 2 1 27 96 70 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 205
13:00 0 0 0 6 9 32 13 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 63
14:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
15:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
16:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
17:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
18:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
19:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
20:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
21:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
22:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
23:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Total 0 1 11 32 220 635 461 80 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 1446

Grand
Total 0 6 54 254 1648 4059 2478 393 29 4 0 0 0 0 0 8925

Stats 15th Percentile : 23 MPH
50th Percentile : 28 MPH
85th Percentile : 33 MPH
95th Percentile : 35 MPH

Mean Speed(Average) : 29 MPH
10 MPH Pace Speed : 24-33 MPH
Number in Pace : 6205
Percent in Pace : 69.5%
Number of Vehicles > 30 MPH : 2904
Percent of Vehicles > 30 MPH : 32.5%

Page 5

Location: Glens Falls, NY
Road: Sherman Ave (West Side)
Segment: ~270ft West of Crandall St
Counter: Metro5600/cp31

Tristate Traffic Data, Inc.
184 Baker Road
Coatesville, PA 19320
WB
Start 0 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71
Time 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 Total
10/28/13 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
01:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
02:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
03:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
04:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
05:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
06:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
07:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
08:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
09:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
10:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
11:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
12 PM * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
13:00 0 0 1 2 13 62 53 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 138
14:00 0 0 0 3 27 88 83 13 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 215
15:00 0 3 0 5 37 134 73 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 264
16:00 0 0 0 15 52 119 104 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 304
17:00 0 0 0 2 59 149 69 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 287
18:00 0 0 1 0 34 107 50 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 199
19:00 0 0 0 1 9 67 58 8 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 146
20:00 0 0 0 0 6 44 38 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 94
21:00 0 0 0 0 3 24 30 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 63
22:00 0 0 0 0 3 23 22 6 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 56
23:00 0 0 0 0 0 8 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24
Total 0 3 2 28 243 825 596 82 9 1 0 0 0 1 0 1790

Page 6

Location: Glens Falls, NY
Road: Sherman Ave (West Side)
Segment: ~270ft West of Crandall St
Counter: Metro5600/cp31

Tristate Traffic Data, Inc.
184 Baker Road
Coatesville, PA 19320
WB
Start 0 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71
Time 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 Total
10/29/13 0 0 0 1 1 6 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 15
01:00 0 0 1 1 0 4 5 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 14
02:00 0 0 0 0 0 5 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8
03:00 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
04:00 0 0 0 0 0 4 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14
05:00 0 0 0 0 0 3 7 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14
06:00 0 0 1 3 4 34 40 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92
07:00 0 0 1 1 15 55 34 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 115
08:00 0 0 0 3 24 100 38 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 168
09:00 0 0 0 0 33 84 43 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 167
10:00 0 0 0 0 14 63 45 9 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 133
11:00 0 0 0 4 27 96 45 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 178
12 PM 0 0 1 0 19 92 67 15 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 196
13:00 0 0 1 0 31 103 48 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 191
14:00 0 1 0 2 44 119 84 14 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 265
15:00 0 1 0 7 45 130 77 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 269
16:00 0 0 1 2 48 147 68 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 283
17:00 0 0 0 11 66 146 70 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 300
18:00 0 0 0 3 28 94 60 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 196
19:00 0 1 0 2 10 72 44 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 135
20:00 0 0 0 3 8 44 37 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 99
21:00 0 0 0 0 7 40 29 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 82
22:00 0 0 0 0 0 16 25 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 46
23:00 0 0 0 0 2 10 10 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 26
Total 0 3 6 43 426 1468 891 156 17 1 0 0 0 0 0 3011

Page 7

Location: Glens Falls, NY
Road: Sherman Ave (West Side)
Segment: ~270ft West of Crandall St
Counter: Metro5600/cp31

Tristate Traffic Data, Inc.
184 Baker Road
Coatesville, PA 19320
WB
Start 0 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71
Time 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 Total
10/30/13 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10
01:00 0 1 0 1 0 4 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14
02:00 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8
03:00 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8
04:00 0 0 0 0 1 6 5 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 17
05:00 0 0 0 0 1 8 14 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25
06:00 0 0 0 1 3 31 38 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 80
07:00 0 0 0 2 18 69 38 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 132
08:00 0 0 4 8 44 89 47 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 199
09:00 0 1 0 4 19 82 41 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 154
10:00 0 0 0 5 29 71 46 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 158
11:00 0 0 0 0 33 93 49 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 185
12 PM 0 0 2 4 18 114 67 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 211
13:00 0 0 0 2 35 94 48 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 185
14:00 0 0 1 7 48 125 55 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 247
15:00 0 0 2 22 60 123 63 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 278
16:00 0 0 2 11 37 172 76 7 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 308
17:00 0 0 2 10 52 149 88 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 311
18:00 0 0 0 3 37 97 50 13 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 202
19:00 0 0 2 2 22 90 41 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 165
20:00 0 0 0 1 13 59 45 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 120
21:00 0 0 0 0 4 39 37 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 88
22:00 0 0 0 1 3 21 25 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 53
23:00 0 0 0 0 1 11 20 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 36
Total 0 2 15 84 478 1556 911 127 20 1 0 0 0 0 0 3194

Page 8

Location: Glens Falls, NY
Road: Sherman Ave (West Side)
Segment: ~270ft West of Crandall St
Counter: Metro5600/cp31

Tristate Traffic Data, Inc.
184 Baker Road
Coatesville, PA 19320
WB
Start 0 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71
Time 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 Total
10/31/13 0 0 0 0 1 8 4 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 16
01:00 0 0 0 0 1 1 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8
02:00 0 0 0 0 0 3 5 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 11
03:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
04:00 0 0 0 0 0 3 8 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15
05:00 0 0 0 1 1 5 10 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21
06:00 0 0 0 0 3 40 26 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 73
07:00 0 0 0 2 8 76 44 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 134
08:00 0 2 2 6 27 110 48 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 202
09:00 0 0 0 3 22 45 56 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 134
10:00 0 0 0 0 15 95 47 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 170
11:00 0 0 0 0 31 95 60 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 196
12 PM 0 0 1 6 25 127 42 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 209
13:00 0 1 5 4 10 30 26 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 78
14:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
15:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
16:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
17:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
18:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
19:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
20:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
21:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
22:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
23:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Total 0 3 8 22 144 638 382 66 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 1269

Grand
Total 0 11 31 177 1291 4487 2780 431 51 3 1 0 0 1 0 9264

Stats 15th Percentile : 24 MPH
50th Percentile : 28 MPH
85th Percentile : 33 MPH
95th Percentile : 36 MPH

Mean Speed(Average) : 29 MPH
10 MPH Pace Speed : 25-34 MPH
Number in Pace : 6747
Percent in Pace : 72.8%
Number of Vehicles > 30 MPH : 3267
Percent of Vehicles > 30 MPH : 35.3%

Intersection Evaluation Study
Crandall Street/Sherman Avenue Intersection

The Chazen Companies
Project Number: 31348.00 December 8, 2013

Appendix B:
Level of Service Analysis

HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis AM Peak Hour
3: Crandall Street & Sherman Avenue – Actuated Signal Control
12/10/2013
The Chazen CompaniesSynchro 8 Software
E. DrozPage 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 15 297 13 9 168 20 7 29 14 77 59 11
Movement Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16
Initial Queue, veh000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj. Factor (A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking, Bus Adj. Factors 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Adj. Sat. Flow Rate, veh/h/ln 1883 1883 1883 1884 1884 1884 1867 1867 1867 1900 1900 1900
Lanes010010010010
Lane Assignment
Capacity, veh/h 63 651 28 60 607 70 103 386 169 273 195 32
Proportion Arriving On Green 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38
Movement Delay, s/veh 20.1 0.0 0.0 17.4 0.0 0.0 15.2 0.0 0.0 18.0 0.0 0.0
Movement LOS C B B B
Approach Volume, veh/h 353 214 54 160
Approach Delay, s/veh 20.1 17.4 15.2 18.0
Approach LOS C B B B
Timer:12345678
Assigned Phase2468
Case No 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0
Phase Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 38.00 38.00 38.00 38.00
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00
Max. Allowable Headway (MAH), s 5.36 5.30 5.36 5.30
Maximum Green Setting (Gmax), s 29.00 29.00 29.00 29.00
Max. Queue Clearance Time (g_c+l1), s 3.48 12.95 8.65 8.15
Green Extension Time (g_e), s 1.24 3.18 1.14 3.49
Probability of Phase Call (p_c) 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Probability of Max Out (p_x) 0.000 0.092 0.001 0.032
Left-Turn Movement Data
Assigned Movement5713
Mvmt. Sat Flow, veh/h 221.38 83.61 586.63 82.19
Through Movement Data
Assigned Movement2468
Mvmt. Sat Flow, veh/h 917.15 1655.39 449.50 1534.18
Right-Turn Movement Data
Assigned Movement 12 14 16 18
Mvmt. Sat Flow, veh/h 442.76 72.46 83.80 182.64
Left Lane Group Data
Assigned Movement05070103
Lane Assignment L+T+R L+T+R L+T+R L+T+R
Lanes in Group01010101
Group Volume (v), veh/h 0.0 54.3 0.0 353.3 0.0 159.8 0.0 214.1
Group Sat. Flow (s), veh/h/ln 0.0 1581.3 0.0 1811.5 0.0 1119.9 0.0 1799.0
Queue Serve Time (g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.8 0.0 0.0
Cycle Queue Clear Time (g_c), s 0.0 1.5 0.0 10.9 0.0 6.6 0.0 6.1

HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis AM Peak Hour
3: Crandall Street & Sherman Avenue – Actuated Signal Control
12/10/2013
The Chazen CompaniesSynchro 8 Software
E. DrozPage 2
Perm LT Sat Flow Rate (s_l), veh/h/ln 0.0 722.8 0.0 697.7 0.0 773.1 0.0 636.3
Shared LT Sat Flow (s_sh), veh/h/ln 0.0 1867.4 0.0 1882.8 0.0 1900.0 0.0 1884.0
Perm LT Eff. Green (g_p), s 0.0 29.0 0.0 29.0 0.0 29.0 0.0 29.0
Perm LT Serve Time (g_u), s 0.0 22.4 0.0 22.9 0.0 27.5 0.0 18.1
Perm LT Que Serve Time (g_ps), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.8 0.0 0.0
Time to First Blk (g_f), s 0.0 10.9 0.0 16.7 0.0 1.8 0.0 19.1
Serve Time pre Blk (g_fs), s 0.0 1.5 0.0 10.9 0.0 1.8 0.0 6.1
Proportion LT Inside Lane (P_L) 0.000 0.140 0.000 0.046 0.000 0.524 0.000 0.046
Lane Group Capacity (c), veh/h 0.0 657.4 0.0 740.8 0.0 499.5 0.0 736.0
Volume-to-Capacity Ratio (X) 0.000 0.083 0.000 0.477 0.000 0.320 0.000 0.291
Available Capacity (c_a), veh/h 0.0 657.4 0.0 740.8 0.0 499.5 0.0 736.0
Upstream Filter Factor (I) 0.000 1.000 0.000 1.000 0.000 1.000 0.000 1.000
Uniform Delay (d1), s/veh 0.0 15.0 0.0 17.9 0.0 16.3 0.0 16.4
Incremental Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.2 0.0 2.2 0.0 1.7 0.0 1.0
Initial Queue Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Control Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 15.2 0.0 20.1 0.0 18.0 0.0 17.4
First-Term Queue (Q1), veh/ln 0.0 0.6 0.0 4.4 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.5
Second-Term Queue (Q2), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2
Third-Term Queue (Q3), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Percentile bk-of-que factor (f_B%) 0.000 1.000 0.000 1.000 0.000 1.000 0.000 1.000
Percentile Back of Queue (Q%), veh/ln 0.0 0.6 0.0 4.9 0.0 2.2 0.0 2.7
Percentile Storage Ratio (RQ%) 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.39 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.19
Initial Queue (Qb), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Final (Residual) Queue (Qe), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Saturated Delay (ds), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Saturated Queue (Qs), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Saturated Capacity (cs), veh/h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Initial Queue Clear Time (tc), h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Middle Lane Group Data
Assigned Movement02040608
Lane Assignment
Lanes in Group00000000
Group Volume (v), veh/h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Group Sat. Flow (s), veh/h/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Queue Serve Time (g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cycle Queue Clear Time (g_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Lane Group Capacity (c), veh/h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Volume-to-Capacity Ratio (X) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Available Capacity (c_a), veh/h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Upstream Filter Factor (I) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Uniform Delay (d1), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Incremental Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Initial Queue Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Control Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
First-Term Queue (Q1), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Second-Term Queue (Q2), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Third-Term Queue (Q3), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Percentile bk-of-que factor (f_B%) 0.000 1.000 0.000 1.000 0.000 1.000 0.000 1.000
Percentile Back of Queue (Q%), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Percentile Storage Ratio (RQ%) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis AM Peak Hour
3: Crandall Street & Sherman Avenue – Actuated Signal Control
12/10/2013
The Chazen CompaniesSynchro 8 Software
E. DrozPage 3
Initial Queue (Qb), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Final (Residual) Queue (Qe), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Saturated Delay (ds), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Saturated Queue (Qs), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Saturated Capacity (cs), veh/h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Initial Queue Clear Time (tc), h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Right Lane Group Data
Assigned Movement 0 12 0 14 0 16 0 18
Lane Assignment
Lanes in Group00000000
Group Volume (v), veh/h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Group Sat. Flow (s), veh/h/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Queue Serve Time (g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cycle Queue Clear Time (g_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Prot RT Sat Flow Rate (s_R), veh/h/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Prot RT Eff. Green (g_R), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Proportion RT Outside Lane (P_R) 0.000 0.280 0.000 0.040 0.000 0.075 0.000 0.102
Lane Group Capacity (c), veh/h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Volume-to-Capacity Ratio (X) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Available Capacity (c_a), veh/h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Upstream Filter Factor (I) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Uniform Delay (d1), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Incremental Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Initial Queue Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Control Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
First-Term Queue (Q1), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Second-Term Queue (Q2), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Third-Term Queue (Q3), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Percentile bk-of-que factor (f_B%) 0.000 1.000 0.000 1.000 0.000 1.000 0.000 1.000
Percentile Back of Queue (Q%), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Percentile Storage Ratio (RQ%) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Initial Queue (Qb), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Final (Residual) Queue (Qe), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Saturated Delay (ds), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Saturated Queue (Qs), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Saturated Capacity (cs), veh/h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Initial Queue Clear Time (tc), h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 18.6
HCM Level of Service B

HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis PM Peak Hour
3: Crandall Street & Sherman Avenue
12/10/2013
The Chazen CompaniesSynchro 8 Software
E. DrozPage 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 18 237 15 19 266 37 10 71 10 30 60 18
Movement Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16
Initial Queue, veh000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj. Factor (A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking, Bus Adj. Factors 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Adj. Sat. Flow Rate, veh/h/ln 1867 1867 1867 1869 1869 1869 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lanes010010010010
Lane Assignment
Capacity, veh/h 70 612 37 68 573 77 89 547 72 174 332 89
Proportion Arriving On Green 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38
Movement Delay, s/veh 19.0 0.0 0.0 20.3 0.0 0.0 15.8 0.0 0.0 16.3 0.0 0.0
Movement LOS B C B B
Approach Volume, veh/h 293 350 99 117
Approach Delay, s/veh 19.0 20.3 15.8 16.3
Approach LOS B C B B
Timer:12345678
Assigned Phase2468
Case No 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0
Phase Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 38.00 38.00 38.00 38.00
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00
Max. Allowable Headway (MAH), s 5.34 5.33 5.34 5.33
Maximum Green Setting (Gmax), s 29.00 29.00 29.00 29.00
Max. Queue Clearance Time (g_c+l1), s 4.63 10.87 5.19 13.10
Green Extension Time (g_e), s 1.22 3.89 1.21 3.69
Probability of Phase Call (p_c) 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Probability of Max Out (p_x) 0.000 0.087 0.000 0.133
Left-Turn Movement Data
Assigned Movement5713
Mvmt. Sat Flow, veh/h 188.78 116.74 389.61 103.16
Through Movement Data
Assigned Movement2468
Mvmt. Sat Flow, veh/h 1340.31 1537.14 779.23 1444.20
Right-Turn Movement Data
Assigned Movement 12 14 16 18
Mvmt. Sat Flow, veh/h 188.78 97.29 233.77 200.88
Left Lane Group Data
Assigned Movement05070103
Lane Assignment L+T+R L+T+R L+T+R L+T+R
Lanes in Group01010101
Group Volume (v), veh/h 0.0 98.9 0.0 293.5 0.0 117.4 0.0 350.0
Group Sat. Flow (s), veh/h/ln 0.0 1717.9 0.0 1751.2 0.0 1402.6 0.0 1748.2
Queue Serve Time (g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cycle Queue Clear Time (g_c), s 0.0 2.6 0.0 8.9 0.0 3.2 0.0 11.1

HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis PM Peak Hour
3: Crandall Street & Sherman Avenue
12/10/2013
The Chazen CompaniesSynchro 8 Software
E. DrozPage 2
Perm LT Sat Flow Rate (s_l), veh/h/ln 0.0 742.7 0.0 637.7 0.0 751.6 0.0 662.2
Shared LT Sat Flow (s_sh), veh/h/ln 0.0 1900.0 0.0 1867.2 0.0 1900.0 0.0 1869.1
Perm LT Eff. Green (g_p), s 0.0 29.0 0.0 29.0 0.0 29.0 0.0 29.0
Perm LT Serve Time (g_u), s 0.0 25.8 0.0 17.9 0.0 26.4 0.0 20.1
Perm LT Que Serve Time (g_ps), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Time to First Blk (g_f), s 0.0 13.2 0.0 15.7 0.0 5.2 0.0 15.4
Serve Time pre Blk (g_fs), s 0.0 2.6 0.0 8.9 0.0 3.2 0.0 11.1
Proportion LT Inside Lane (P_L) 0.000 0.110 0.000 0.067 0.000 0.278 0.000 0.059
Lane Group Capacity (c), veh/h 0.0 708.1 0.0 718.7 0.0 595.7 0.0 717.3
Volume-to-Capacity Ratio (X) 0.000 0.140 0.000 0.408 0.000 0.197 0.000 0.488
Available Capacity (c_a), veh/h 0.0 708.1 0.0 718.7 0.0 595.7 0.0 717.3
Upstream Filter Factor (I) 0.000 1.000 0.000 1.000 0.000 1.000 0.000 1.000
Uniform Delay (d1), s/veh 0.0 15.3 0.0 17.3 0.0 15.5 0.0 18.0
Incremental Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.4 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.7 0.0 2.4
Initial Queue Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Control Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 15.8 0.0 19.0 0.0 16.3 0.0 20.3
First-Term Queue (Q1), veh/ln 0.0 1.1 0.0 3.5 0.0 1.3 0.0 4.4
Second-Term Queue (Q2), veh/ln 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.5
Third-Term Queue (Q3), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Percentile bk-of-que factor (f_B%) 0.000 1.000 0.000 1.000 0.000 1.000 0.000 1.000
Percentile Back of Queue (Q%), veh/ln 0.0 1.1 0.0 3.9 0.0 1.4 0.0 4.9
Percentile Storage Ratio (RQ%) 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.31 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.36
Initial Queue (Qb), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Final (Residual) Queue (Qe), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Saturated Delay (ds), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Saturated Queue (Qs), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Saturated Capacity (cs), veh/h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Initial Queue Clear Time (tc), h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Middle Lane Group Data
Assigned Movement02040608
Lane Assignment
Lanes in Group00000000
Group Volume (v), veh/h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Group Sat. Flow (s), veh/h/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Queue Serve Time (g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cycle Queue Clear Time (g_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Lane Group Capacity (c), veh/h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Volume-to-Capacity Ratio (X) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Available Capacity (c_a), veh/h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Upstream Filter Factor (I) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Uniform Delay (d1), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Incremental Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Initial Queue Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Control Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
First-Term Queue (Q1), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Second-Term Queue (Q2), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Third-Term Queue (Q3), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Percentile bk-of-que factor (f_B%) 0.000 1.000 0.000 1.000 0.000 1.000 0.000 1.000
Percentile Back of Queue (Q%), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Percentile Storage Ratio (RQ%) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis PM Peak Hour
3: Crandall Street & Sherman Avenue
12/10/2013
The Chazen CompaniesSynchro 8 Software
E. DrozPage 3
Initial Queue (Qb), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Final (Residual) Queue (Qe), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Saturated Delay (ds), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Saturated Queue (Qs), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Saturated Capacity (cs), veh/h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Initial Queue Clear Time (tc), h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Right Lane Group Data
Assigned Movement 0 12 0 14 0 16 0 18
Lane Assignment
Lanes in Group00000000
Group Volume (v), veh/h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Group Sat. Flow (s), veh/h/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Queue Serve Time (g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cycle Queue Clear Time (g_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Prot RT Sat Flow Rate (s_R), veh/h/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Prot RT Eff. Green (g_R), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Proportion RT Outside Lane (P_R) 0.000 0.110 0.000 0.056 0.000 0.167 0.000 0.115
Lane Group Capacity (c), veh/h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Volume-to-Capacity Ratio (X) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Available Capacity (c_a), veh/h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Upstream Filter Factor (I) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Uniform Delay (d1), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Incremental Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Initial Queue Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Control Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
First-Term Queue (Q1), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Second-Term Queue (Q2), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Third-Term Queue (Q3), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Percentile bk-of-que factor (f_B%) 0.000 1.000 0.000 1.000 0.000 1.000 0.000 1.000
Percentile Back of Queue (Q%), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Percentile Storage Ratio (RQ%) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Initial Queue (Qb), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Final (Residual) Queue (Qe), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Saturated Delay (ds), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Saturated Queue (Qs), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Saturated Capacity (cs), veh/h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Initial Queue Clear Time (tc), h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 18.8
HCM Level of Service B

HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis AM Peak Hour
3: Crandall Street & Sherman Avenue – Semi-Actuated Signal Control
12/10/2013
The Chazen CompaniesSynchro 8 Software
E. DrozPage 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 15 297 13 9 168 20 7 29 14 77 59 11
Movement Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16
Initial Queue, veh000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj. Factor (A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking, Bus Adj. Factors 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Adj. Sat. Flow Rate, veh/h/ln 1883 1883 1883 1884 1884 1884 1867 1867 1867 1900 1900 1900
Lanes010010010010
Lane Assignment
Capacity, veh/h 82 877 37 78 817 94 88 194 82 178 108 15
Proportion Arriving On Green 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17
Movement Delay, s/veh 9.3 0.0 0.0 8.2 0.0 0.0 20.3 0.0 0.0 23.4 0.0 0.0
Movement LOS A A C C
Approach Volume, veh/h 353 214 54 160
Approach Delay, s/veh 9.3 8.2 20.3 23.4
Approach LOS A A C C
Timer:12345678
Assigned Phase2468
Case No 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0
Phase Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 18.73 38.00 18.73 38.00
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00
Max. Allowable Headway (MAH), s 5.36 0.06 5.36 0.06
Maximum Green Setting (Gmax), s 29.00 29.00 29.00 29.00
Max. Queue Clearance Time (g_c+l1), s 3.48 0.00 8.93 0.00
Green Extension Time (g_e), s 1.24 0.00 1.14 0.00
Probability of Phase Call (p_c) 0.966 1.000 0.966 1.000
Probability of Max Out (p_x) 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000
Left-Turn Movement Data
Assigned Movement5713
Mvmt. Sat Flow, veh/h 237.84 83.92 625.04 82.47
Through Movement Data
Assigned Movement2468
Mvmt. Sat Flow, veh/h 985.35 1661.57 478.93 1539.35
Right-Turn Movement Data
Assigned Movement 12 14 16 18
Mvmt. Sat Flow, veh/h 475.68 72.73 89.29 183.26
Left Lane Group Data
Assigned Movement05070103
Lane Assignment L+T+R L+T+R L+T+R L+T+R
Lanes in Group01010101
Group Volume (v), veh/h 0.0 54.3 0.0 353.3 0.0 159.8 0.0 214.1
Group Sat. Flow (s), veh/h/ln 0.0 1698.9 0.0 1818.2 0.0 1193.3 0.0 1805.1
Queue Serve Time (g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.4 0.0 0.0
Cycle Queue Clear Time (g_c), s 0.0 1.5 0.0 6.5 0.0 6.9 0.0 3.6

HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis AM Peak Hour
3: Crandall Street & Sherman Avenue – Semi-Actuated Signal Control
12/10/2013
The Chazen CompaniesSynchro 8 Software
E. DrozPage 2
Perm LT Sat Flow Rate (s_l), veh/h/ln 0.0 722.8 0.0 697.7 0.0 773.1 0.0 636.3
Shared LT Sat Flow (s_sh), veh/h/ln 0.0 1867.4 0.0 1882.8 0.0 1900.0 0.0 1884.0
Perm LT Eff. Green (g_p), s 0.0 9.7 0.0 29.0 0.0 9.7 0.0 29.0
Perm LT Serve Time (g_u), s 0.0 2.8 0.0 25.4 0.0 8.2 0.0 22.5
Perm LT Que Serve Time (g_ps), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.4 0.0 0.0
Time to First Blk (g_f), s 0.0 5.8 0.0 18.1 0.0 1.5 0.0 20.2
Serve Time pre Blk (g_fs), s 0.0 1.5 0.0 6.5 0.0 1.5 0.0 3.6
Proportion LT Inside Lane (P_L) 0.000 0.140 0.000 0.046 0.000 0.524 0.000 0.046
Lane Group Capacity (c), veh/h 0.0 363.6 0.0 995.9 0.0 301.3 0.0 989.2
Volume-to-Capacity Ratio (X) 0.000 0.149 0.000 0.355 0.000 0.530 0.000 0.216
Available Capacity (c_a), veh/h 0.0 860.3 0.0 995.9 0.0 664.7 0.0 989.2
Upstream Filter Factor (I) 0.000 1.000 0.000 1.000 0.000 1.000 0.000 1.000
Uniform Delay (d1), s/veh 0.0 20.1 0.0 8.4 0.0 22.0 0.0 7.7
Incremental Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.2 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.5
Initial Queue Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Control Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 20.3 0.0 9.3 0.0 23.4 0.0 8.2
First-Term Queue (Q1), veh/ln 0.0 0.6 0.0 2.1 0.0 2.0 0.0 1.2
Second-Term Queue (Q2), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1
Third-Term Queue (Q3), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Percentile bk-of-que factor (f_B%) 0.000 1.000 0.000 1.000 0.000 1.000 0.000 1.000
Percentile Back of Queue (Q%), veh/ln 0.0 0.6 0.0 2.4 0.0 2.1 0.0 1.3
Percentile Storage Ratio (RQ%) 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.10
Initial Queue (Qb), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Final (Residual) Queue (Qe), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Saturated Delay (ds), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Saturated Queue (Qs), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Saturated Capacity (cs), veh/h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Initial Queue Clear Time (tc), h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Middle Lane Group Data
Assigned Movement02040608
Lane Assignment
Lanes in Group00000000
Group Volume (v), veh/h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Group Sat. Flow (s), veh/h/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Queue Serve Time (g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cycle Queue Clear Time (g_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Lane Group Capacity (c), veh/h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Volume-to-Capacity Ratio (X) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Available Capacity (c_a), veh/h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Upstream Filter Factor (I) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Uniform Delay (d1), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Incremental Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Initial Queue Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Control Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
First-Term Queue (Q1), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Second-Term Queue (Q2), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Third-Term Queue (Q3), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Percentile bk-of-que factor (f_B%) 0.000 1.000 0.000 1.000 0.000 1.000 0.000 1.000
Percentile Back of Queue (Q%), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Percentile Storage Ratio (RQ%) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis AM Peak Hour
3: Crandall Street & Sherman Avenue – Semi-Actuated Signal Control
12/10/2013
The Chazen CompaniesSynchro 8 Software
E. DrozPage 3
Initial Queue (Qb), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Final (Residual) Queue (Qe), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Saturated Delay (ds), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Saturated Queue (Qs), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Saturated Capacity (cs), veh/h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Initial Queue Clear Time (tc), h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Right Lane Group Data
Assigned Movement 0 12 0 14 0 16 0 18
Lane Assignment
Lanes in Group00000000
Group Volume (v), veh/h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Group Sat. Flow (s), veh/h/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Queue Serve Time (g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cycle Queue Clear Time (g_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Prot RT Sat Flow Rate (s_R), veh/h/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Prot RT Eff. Green (g_R), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Proportion RT Outside Lane (P_R) 0.000 0.280 0.000 0.040 0.000 0.075 0.000 0.102
Lane Group Capacity (c), veh/h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Volume-to-Capacity Ratio (X) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Available Capacity (c_a), veh/h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Upstream Filter Factor (I) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Uniform Delay (d1), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Incremental Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Initial Queue Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Control Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
First-Term Queue (Q1), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Second-Term Queue (Q2), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Third-Term Queue (Q3), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Percentile bk-of-que factor (f_B%) 0.000 1.000 0.000 1.000 0.000 1.000 0.000 1.000
Percentile Back of Queue (Q%), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Percentile Storage Ratio (RQ%) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Initial Queue (Qb), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Final (Residual) Queue (Qe), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Saturated Delay (ds), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Saturated Queue (Qs), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Saturated Capacity (cs), veh/h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Initial Queue Clear Time (tc), h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 12.7
HCM Level of Service B

HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis PM Peak Hour
3: Crandall Street & Sherman Avenue – Semi-Actuated Signal Control
12/10/2013
The Chazen CompaniesSynchro 8 Software
E. DrozPage 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 18 237 15 19 266 37 10 71 10 30 60 18
Movement Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16
Initial Queue, veh000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj. Factor (A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking, Bus Adj. Factors 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Adj. Sat. Flow Rate, veh/h/ln 1867 1867 1867 1869 1869 1869 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lanes010010010010
Lane Assignment
Capacity, veh/h 95 883 53 93 825 110 87 172 23 121 118 30
Proportion Arriving On Green 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12
Movement Delay, s/veh 7.3 0.0 0.0 7.8 0.0 0.0 22.6 0.0 0.0 23.2 0.0 0.0
Movement LOS A A C C
Approach Volume, veh/h 293 350 99 117
Approach Delay, s/veh 7.3 7.8 22.6 23.2
Approach LOS A A C C
Timer:12345678
Assigned Phase2468
Case No 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0
Phase Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 15.34 38.00 15.34 38.00
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00
Max. Allowable Headway (MAH), s 5.34 0.09 5.34 0.09
Maximum Green Setting (Gmax), s 29.00 29.00 29.00 29.00
Max. Queue Clearance Time (g_c+l1), s 4.63 0.00 5.40 0.00
Green Extension Time (g_e), s 1.22 0.00 1.21 0.00
Probability of Phase Call (p_c) 0.959 1.000 0.959 1.000
Probability of Max Out (p_x) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Left-Turn Movement Data
Assigned Movement5713
Mvmt. Sat Flow, veh/h 191.53 117.64 427.49 103.84
Through Movement Data
Assigned Movement2468
Mvmt. Sat Flow, veh/h 1359.88 1548.99 854.98 1453.70
Right-Turn Movement Data
Assigned Movement 12 14 16 18
Mvmt. Sat Flow, veh/h 191.53 98.04 256.49 202.21
Left Lane Group Data
Assigned Movement05070103
Lane Assignment L+T+R L+T+R L+T+R L+T+R
Lanes in Group01010101
Group Volume (v), veh/h 0.0 98.9 0.0 293.5 0.0 117.4 0.0 350.0
Group Sat. Flow (s), veh/h/ln 0.0 1742.9 0.0 1764.7 0.0 1539.0 0.0 1759.7
Queue Serve Time (g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0
Cycle Queue Clear Time (g_c), s 0.0 2.6 0.0 4.6 0.0 3.4 0.0 5.7

HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis PM Peak Hour
3: Crandall Street & Sherman Avenue – Semi-Actuated Signal Control
12/10/2013
The Chazen CompaniesSynchro 8 Software
E. DrozPage 2
Perm LT Sat Flow Rate (s_l), veh/h/ln 0.0 742.7 0.0 637.7 0.0 751.6 0.0 662.2
Shared LT Sat Flow (s_sh), veh/h/ln 0.0 1900.0 0.0 1867.2 0.0 1900.0 0.0 1869.1
Perm LT Eff. Green (g_p), s 0.0 6.3 0.0 29.0 0.0 6.3 0.0 29.0
Perm LT Serve Time (g_u), s 0.0 2.9 0.0 23.3 0.0 3.7 0.0 24.4
Perm LT Que Serve Time (g_ps), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0
Time to First Blk (g_f), s 0.0 2.8 0.0 17.5 0.0 1.7 0.0 17.3
Serve Time pre Blk (g_fs), s 0.0 2.6 0.0 4.6 0.0 1.7 0.0 5.7
Proportion LT Inside Lane (P_L) 0.000 0.110 0.000 0.067 0.000 0.278 0.000 0.059
Lane Group Capacity (c), veh/h 0.0 282.0 0.0 1031.4 0.0 269.1 0.0 1028.2
Volume-to-Capacity Ratio (X) 0.000 0.351 0.000 0.285 0.000 0.436 0.000 0.340
Available Capacity (c_a), veh/h 0.0 960.0 0.0 1031.4 0.0 824.4 0.0 1028.2
Upstream Filter Factor (I) 0.000 1.000 0.000 1.000 0.000 1.000 0.000 1.000
Uniform Delay (d1), s/veh 0.0 21.9 0.0 6.6 0.0 22.1 0.0 6.9
Incremental Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.7 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.9
Initial Queue Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Control Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 22.6 0.0 7.3 0.0 23.2 0.0 7.8
First-Term Queue (Q1), veh/ln 0.0 1.1 0.0 1.4 0.0 1.3 0.0 1.7
Second-Term Queue (Q2), veh/ln 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.3
Third-Term Queue (Q3), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Percentile bk-of-que factor (f_B%) 0.000 1.000 0.000 1.000 0.000 1.000 0.000 1.000
Percentile Back of Queue (Q%), veh/ln 0.0 1.1 0.0 1.6 0.0 1.4 0.0 1.9
Percentile Storage Ratio (RQ%) 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.14
Initial Queue (Qb), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Final (Residual) Queue (Qe), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Saturated Delay (ds), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Saturated Queue (Qs), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Saturated Capacity (cs), veh/h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Initial Queue Clear Time (tc), h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Middle Lane Group Data
Assigned Movement02040608
Lane Assignment
Lanes in Group00000000
Group Volume (v), veh/h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Group Sat. Flow (s), veh/h/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Queue Serve Time (g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cycle Queue Clear Time (g_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Lane Group Capacity (c), veh/h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Volume-to-Capacity Ratio (X) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Available Capacity (c_a), veh/h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Upstream Filter Factor (I) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Uniform Delay (d1), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Incremental Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Initial Queue Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Control Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
First-Term Queue (Q1), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Second-Term Queue (Q2), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Third-Term Queue (Q3), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Percentile bk-of-que factor (f_B%) 0.000 1.000 0.000 1.000 0.000 1.000 0.000 1.000
Percentile Back of Queue (Q%), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Percentile Storage Ratio (RQ%) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis PM Peak Hour
3: Crandall Street & Sherman Avenue – Semi-Actuated Signal Control
12/10/2013
The Chazen CompaniesSynchro 8 Software
E. DrozPage 3
Initial Queue (Qb), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Final (Residual) Queue (Qe), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Saturated Delay (ds), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Saturated Queue (Qs), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Saturated Capacity (cs), veh/h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Initial Queue Clear Time (tc), h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Right Lane Group Data
Assigned Movement 0 12 0 14 0 16 0 18
Lane Assignment
Lanes in Group00000000
Group Volume (v), veh/h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Group Sat. Flow (s), veh/h/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Queue Serve Time (g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cycle Queue Clear Time (g_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Prot RT Sat Flow Rate (s_R), veh/h/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Prot RT Eff. Green (g_R), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Proportion RT Outside Lane (P_R) 0.000 0.110 0.000 0.056 0.000 0.167 0.000 0.115
Lane Group Capacity (c), veh/h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Volume-to-Capacity Ratio (X) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Available Capacity (c_a), veh/h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Upstream Filter Factor (I) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Uniform Delay (d1), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Incremental Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Initial Queue Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Control Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
First-Term Queue (Q1), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Second-Term Queue (Q2), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Third-Term Queue (Q3), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Percentile bk-of-que factor (f_B%) 0.000 1.000 0.000 1.000 0.000 1.000 0.000 1.000
Percentile Back of Queue (Q%), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Percentile Storage Ratio (RQ%) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Initial Queue (Qb), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Final (Residual) Queue (Qe), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Saturated Delay (ds), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Saturated Queue (Qs), veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Saturated Capacity (cs), veh/h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Initial Queue Clear Time (tc), h 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 11.4
HCM Level of Service B

HCM 2010 AWSC AM Peak Hour
3: Crandall Street & Sherman Avenue
12/10/2013
The Chazen CompaniesSynchro 8 Software
E. DrozPage 1
Intersection
Intersection Delay (sec/veh) 10.7
Intersection LOS B
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Volume (vph) 15 297 13 9 168 20 7 29 14 77 59 11
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Heavy Vehicles(%)010010030000
Movement Flow Rate 16 323 14 10 183 22 8 32 15 84 64 12
Number of Lanes010010010010

Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes1111
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left1111
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right1111
HCM Control Delay 11.8 9.9 8.9 10.1
HCM LOSBAAB

Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1
Volume Left (%) 14% 5% 5% 52%
Volume Thru (%) 58% 91% 85% 40%
Volume Right (%) 28% 4% 10% 7%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Volume by Lane 50 325 197 147
Left Turning Volume 29 297 168 59
Through Volume 14 13 20 11
Right Turning Volume 7 15 9 77
Lane Flow Rate 54 353 214 160
Geometry Group1111
Degree of Utilization, X 0.082 0.462 0.288 0.237
Departure Headway, Hd 5.441 4.71 4.835 5.349
Convergence(Y/N) Yes Yes Yes Yes
Capacity 663 760 734 663
Service Time 3.441 2.782 2.917 3.444
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.081 0.464 0.292 0.241
HCM Control Delay 8.9 11.8 9.9 10.1
HCM Lane LOSABAB
HCM 95th Percentile Queue 0.3 2.6 1.2 0.9

HCM 2010 AWSC PM Peak Hour
3: Crandall Street & Sherman Avenue
12/10/2013
The Chazen CompaniesSynchro 8 Software
E. DrozPage 1
Intersection
Intersection Delay (sec/veh) 11.3
Intersection LOS B
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Volume (vph) 18 237 15 19 266 37 10 71 10 30 60 18
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Heavy Vehicles(%)020020000000
Movement Flow Rate 20 258 16 21 289 40 11 77 11 33 65 20
Number of Lanes010010010010

Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes1111
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left1111
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right1111
HCM Control Delay 11.3 12.1 9.7 9.9
HCM LOSBBAA

Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1
Volume Left (%) 11% 7% 6% 28%
Volume Thru (%) 78% 88% 83% 56%
Volume Right (%) 11% 6% 11% 17%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Volume by Lane 91 270 322 108
Left Turning Volume 71 237 266 60
Through Volume 10 15 37 18
Right Turning Volume 10 18 19 30
Lane Flow Rate 99 293 350 117
Geometry Group1111
Degree of Utilization, X 0.156 0.398 0.465 0.184
Departure Headway, Hd 5.667 4.995 4.89 5.629
Convergence(Y/N) Yes Yes Yes Yes
Capacity 636 725 742 641
Service Time 3.674 2.995 2.89 3.635
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.156 0.404 0.472 0.183
HCM Control Delay 9.7 11.3 12.1 9.9
HCM Lane LOSABBA
HCM 95th Percentile Queue 0.6 2 2.6 0.7

Intersection Evaluation Study
Crandall Street/Sherman Avenue Intersection

The Chazen Companies
Project Number: 31348.00 December 8, 2013

Appendix C:
Accident Data

Diagram No.:
County: Warren PIN: Route No. or Street Name:Case No:
Town: Sherman AvenueFile:
City: Glens Falls At Intersection with/ or Between:By: AF
Village of: Crandall StreetDate: 10/28/2013
Time Period
From: 09/30/10
To: 09/30/13 Severity Apparent
No. of Months: (NR, PDO, Contributing
ID No. Date Time INJ, FAT) Factors Type Direction Description
Location
1 08/24/13 14:14 2 PDO1111 9 RESW, SWSherman / Crandall
2 5/1/13 11:04 2 PDO1111 4 RA E, SSherman / Crandall
3 2/6/13 19:19 2 PDO41124, 17RA N, ESherman / Crandall
4 01/29/13 8:32 2 PDO11223, 60RES, WSherman / Crandall
5 06/25/12 15:41 2 PDO1122 4 REW,WSherman / Crandall
6 06/11/12 9:33 2 PDO1111 4 REW,WSherman / Crandall
7 7/5/11 9:31 2 INJ1111 9 REW,WSherman / Crandall
8 5/24/11 15:04 2 PDO111117, 7 RA S, ESherman / Crandall
9 03/03/11 11:53 2 PDO1111 13 SSW, ESherman / Crandall
10 03/25/11 13:51 2 PDO1111 17 RANW, NESherman / Crandall
11 12/14/10 8:12 3 PDO1114 66RA, HO S,W,E MV 1 struck MV 2, sending MV 2 into MV 3 Sherman / Crandall
unk – unknown
Accident Type Legend
RA – Right Angle
RE – Rear End
SS – sideswipe, opposite
HO – head onMV 1 disregarded flagger and struck MV 2 MV 1 struck MV 2 from behind, claiming foot slipped off of brake pedal.
MV 1 struck MV 2 from behind
MV 1 struck MV 2 from behind
MV 1 ran red light and struck MV 2
MV 1 entered lane of MV 2, sidesuiping vehicle and forcing MV 2 into snowbank
No. of Veh.
MV 1 struck MV 2 from behind
MV 2 struck MV 1; both claimed green light
MV 1 ran red light and struck MV 2
MV 1 reversed at intersection to yield to left turning veh. and struck MV 2
DETAILS OF ACCIDENT HISTORY FOR LOCATION
Light Conditions
Roadway
Character
Roadway
Surface
Condition
Weather
S:Projects – Plans – Studiescrandall_shermancrash summary – crandall_shermanPage 1 of 1

Intersection Evaluation Study
Crandall Street/Sherman Avenue Intersection

The Chazen Companies
Project Number: 31348.00 December 8, 2013

Appendix D:
Intersection Photos

Photo #1
Description: Crandall Street Southbound A pproach

Photo #2
Description: Crandall S treet Northbound Approach

Photo #3
Description: Sherman Avenue Eastbound Approach

Photo #4
Description: Sherman Avenue Westbound Approach

Photo #5
Description: Crandall Street and Sherman Avenue – Intersection Layout

Photo #6
Description: Sherman Avenue and Quade Street/Cortland Street – Intersection Layout

Access Management Guide

The purpose of this Guidebook is to provide an access management resource tailored to the needs of
A/GFTC’s planning and programming area. The importance and many benefits of access management have been well-documented during the past decade. This introduction will provide an overview of the field with following chapters providing more in-depth resources and reference tools. The guidebook includes eight chapters addressing the following topics:

  • Chapter 1 provides a general introduction to access management and its implementation
    techniques.
  • Chapter 2 summarizes the tools and principles introduced in Chapter 1 using national
    materials.
  • Chapter 3 provides case studies of the A/GFTC Area.
  • Chapter 4 provides sample regulations from across the state.
  • Chapter 5 includes information on permitting new access points.
  • Chapter 6 includes a sample slide show for illustrating and educating the public on access
    management.
  • Chapter 7 addresses the impacts of access management techniques on other user groups
    including bicycle, pedestrian and transit users.
  • Chapter 8 provides reference information. (Not available digitally. Contact A/GFTC.)

Route 4 Corridor Study: Kingsbury – Hampton

Final Report

Route 4 Corridor Study

Prepared for the Adirondack / Glens
Falls Transportation Council

July 2005

Prepared by Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.

In Association with:
Vollmer Associates LLP
Mathews Nielsen Landscape Architects, PC

Final Report

Route 4 Corridor Study

Prepared for the Adirondack / Glens Falls Transportation Council

July 2005

Prepared by:
Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.
115 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10003

www.bfjplanning.com

In Association with:
Vollmer Associates LLP
Mathews Nielsen Landscape Architects, PC

Route 4 Corridor Study Buckhurst Fish Jacquemart Inc./ May 2005
1

Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION …………………………………………………………………………… 4
1.1 Purpose, Goals and Objectives…………………………………………………………………………… 4
1.2 Public Participation Process……………………………………………………………………………….. 4
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS …………………………………………………………………. 6
2.1 Roadway Conditions…………………………………………………………………………………………. 6
2.2 Daily Traffic Volumes (AADT) …………………………………………………………………………….. 6
2.3 Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes………………………………………………………………………………… 6
2.4 Existing Levels of Service……………………………………………………………………………………. 8
2.5 Vehicular Speeds…………………………………………………………………………………………….. 12
2.6 Accident History…………………………………………………………………………………………….. 12
2.7 Existing Land Uses …………………………………………………………………………………………… 13
2.8 Bus Transit…………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 13
2.9 Sidewalk Conditions ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 13
2.10 Bicycle Conditions………………………………………………………………………………………….. 18
3.0 ACCIDENT ANALYSIS …………………………………………………………………… 18
3.1 High Accident Non-Intersection Locations………………………………………………………….. 18
3.2 High Accident Intersections……………………………………………………………………………… 24
4.0 FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES ………………………………………………………….. 24
4.1 Traffic Forecasts……………………………………………………………………………………………… 24
5.0 ROUTE 4 IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM ……………………………………………. 28
5.1 Traffic and Safety Improvements – Major Intersections ………………………………………….. 28
5.2 Traffic and Safety Improvements – Unsignalized Intersections ……………………………….. 35
5.3 Traffic Improvements – Non-Intersection Locations ………………………………………………. 40
5.4 Bicycle & Pedestrian Safety Improvements ………………………………………………………….. 42
5.5 Buses and Public Transit………………………………………………………………………………….. 43
5.6 Landscaping Plan……………………………………………………………………………………………. 44
6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MUNICIPALITIES ………………………………….. 51
6.1 Future Land Use Plans……………………………………………………………………………………… 51
6.2 Access Management……………………………………………………………………………………….. 53
7.0 IMPLEMENTATION OF CORRIDOR PLAN ……………………………………….. 55
7.1 Summary of Route 4 Corridor Improvements ………………………………………………………. 55
7.2 Priorities and Funding……………………………………………………………………………………… 55
7.3 Right-of-way Restrictions ………………………………………………………………………………….. 56
APPENDIX…………………………………………………………………………………………….. 61

Route 4 Corridor Study Buckhurst Fish Jacquemart Inc./ May 2005
2

Tables and Figures

Figure 1.1 – Study Area Map for Route 4………………………………………………………………………….. 5
Figure 2.1 –Daily Peak Hour Traffic Volumes …………………………………………………………………… 7
Table 2.1 – Study Intersections……………………………………………………………………………………….. 8
Table 2.2 – Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections ………………………………………….. 9
Table 2.3 – Level of Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections ………………………………………. 9
Figure 2.2 – Existing AM Peak Hour Levels of Service………………………………………………………. 10
Figure 2.3 – Existing PM Peak Hour Levels of Service………………………………………………………. 11
Table 2.4 – Speed Statistics………………………………………………………………………………………….. 12
Figure 2.4 – Accident Summary ……………………………………………………………………………………. 14
Figure 2.5 – Existing Land Uses – Fort Ann ……………………………………………………………………… 15
Figure 2.6 – Existing Land Uses – Whitehall ……………………………………………………………………. 16
Figure 2.7 – Sidewalk Inventory……………………………………………………………………………………. 17
Figure 2.8 – Existing Bicycle Conditions …………………………………………………………………………. 19
Table 3.1 – Analysis of Accident Rates…………………………………………………………………………… 20
Figure 3.1 – Above Average Accident Segments ………………………………………………………………. 21
Figure 3.2 – High Non-Intersection Accident Locations ……………………………………………………. 22
Figure 4.1 – Historical Traffic Volumes and Expected Growth along Route 4 ……………………….. 25
Figure 4.2 – Traffic Forecasts for 2014 along Route 4……………………………………………………….. 26
Figure 4.3 – Traffic Forecasts for 2024 along Route 4……………………………………………………….. 27
Table 5.1 – Future Traffic Conditions with Improvements …………………………………………………. 28
Table 4.1 – Future Traffic Forecasts ……………………………………………………………………………….. 29
Figure 5.1 – Proposed Intersection Improvements along Route 4 ……………………………………….. 30
Figure 5.2 – Proposed Roundabout at Route 4 & 32 Intersection………………………………………… 32
Figure 5.3 – Proposed Upgrade at Route 4 & 149 Intersection…………………………………………… 33
Figure 5.4 – Proposed Roundabout at Route 4 & 149 Intersection – Fort Ann ………………………. 34
Figure 5.5 – Proposed Roundabout at Route 4/ Route 22 / Broadway – Whitehall………………… 36
Figure 5.6 – Intersection of Route 4 & Kingsbury Street …………………………………………………….. 37
Figure 5.7 –Route 4 & 149S Intersection Improvement …………………………………………………….. 38
Figure 5.8 – T Owens Lane Improvement……………………………………………………………………….. 39
Figure 5.9 – Proposed Non-intersection Improvements …………………………………………………….. 41
Figure 5.10 – Landscaping Plan…………………………………………………………………………………….. 45
Figure 5.11 – Gateway Design – Fort Ann Entry from South ………………………………………………. 46
Figure 5.12 – Gateway Design – Fort Ann Entry from North………………………………………………. 47
Figure 5.13 – Gateway Design –Fort Ann Entry from West………………………………………………… 48
Figure 5.14 – Gateway Design –Whitehall Entry from South ……………………………………………… 49
Figure 5.15 – Gateway Design –Whitehall Entry from East………………………………………………… 50
Figure 5.16 – Design of Information Kiosk and Turn Lanes at New York State Border ……………. 52
Table 7.1 – Summary of Route 4 Corridor Improvements………………………………………………….. 57
Figure 7.1 – Potential Right-of-Way Issues in Whitehall ……………………………………………………. 60

Route 4 Corridor Study Buckhurst Fish Jacquemart Inc./ May 2005
3

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Purpose, Goals and Objectives
The purpose of this study is to develop a corridor management plan for U.S. Route 4
through the Washington County communities of the Town and Village of Fort Ann, the
Town and Village of Whitehall, the Town of Kingsbury and the Town of Hampton. This
report is a planning study, and is designed to stimulate ideas, rather than offer concrete
solutions for any issue identified. All recommendations in this study will require further
study by the engineers at the New York State’s Department of Transportation before they
can be implemented. The corridor is over 25 miles in length and runs from the Route 4/32
intersection in Kingsbury to the New York/Vermont State border (Figure 1.1). Buckhurst
Fish & Jacquemart, Inc., together with Vollmer Associates and Mathews Nielsen as
subconsultants were retained by the Ad irondack-Glens Falls Transportation Council
(A/GFTC) to provide a long-term vision of the corridor, improve safety and suggest
improvements that may be needed to best ser ve its role within the surrounding community.
A/GFTC is the metropolitan planning organization for the region.

This section of U.S. Route 4 is a two-lane principal arterial and is part of the National
Highway System (NHS). The southernmost 1.8 miles lie within the Glens Falls Urban Area.
The remaining 23.8 miles are classified as rural. Route 4 is the primary means of north-
south travel in western Washington County an d connects the northern areas of the county
to the Glens Falls / Hudson Falls / Fort Edward area. It serves as the main street through a
number of communities and crosses through the villages of Fort Ann and Whitehall. It is a
vital component of the local transportation system, and serves as the primary connection
between New England and Interstate 87. Route 4 carries a high volume of heavy trucks in
addition to year-round recreational traffic.

BFJ analyzed existing conditions, traffic flows as well as accident rates and locations along
Route 4. This report provides planning recommendations to manage the corridor with a
focus on accident reduction. It is important to evaluate current and future conditions to
both identify problems and offer solutions. By analyzing traffic patterns and data, problem
areas can be brought to light and solutions put forward.

1.2 Public Participation Process
A Technical Advisory Committee was established to offer guidance to BFJ. The committee
included representatives from Washington County and from the municipalities along the
corridor as well as A/GFTC and the New York State Department of Transportation. BFJ met
three times with the committee during different phases of the study.

A core element of the study was a wide public participation effort. Four public workshops
were held at different stages of the study. The purpose of the workshops was to bring
committee members and residents together and benefit from their combined local
knowledge. At the Planning Workshops, held in Fort Ann on June 23
rd, 2004 and in
Whitehall on June 24th, 2004, BFJ presented the existing conditions along the corridor and
then the workshop participants were asked to share their own visions for Route 4.

Route 4 Corridor Study Buckhurst Fish Jacquemart Inc./ May 2005
4

Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.
0 2 miles
April 2004
F FI
IG
GU
UR
RE
E1
1.
.1
1
S
ST
TU
UD
DY
YA
AR
RE
EA
AF
FO
OR
RR
RO
OU
UT
TE
E4
4
ROUTE4 CORRIDORSTUDYsource: Census TIGER® 2000 Data from Geography Network
4
4
4
4
4
4W
ait
e
G
eer
BurgoyneD
ix
Ro
ck City
Stone Schoolhouse
Co
unty Route 36
Kingsbur
y
S tate Highway 149
Bald
win Corn
ers
T OwensNee
d
hamvil
le
Char
le s
Flat Ro
ck
State Highway 149
C
la
y Hill
Kelsey Pond
State Route 22
Deweys Bridg eOld Ro
ute 4
Ol
d Route 4
R
yd
er
Lo
ck II
Old
Stat
e Ro
ad
1s tM
a
ple
Mounta inWi
llia m
Br
oadw
ay
Coun
ty
Road
9ABuckleyCounty Ro
ad
18County Ro
ad
9B
Ol
d
Fair
Have
nDoug
las
Ch
apman
Golf Course
5th
Potter
3rd
Eliz
abeth
Fort AnnFort Ann
Kingsbury
KingsburyWhitehall
WhitehallHampton
Hampton
WhitehallWhitehall
Gran
vGranv
H udson F a lls F ort Ann
F ort Ann
S St
tu
ud
dy
y
A
Ar
re
ea
a
B
Be
eg
gi
in
ns
s
a
at
t
t
th
he
e
I In
nt
te
er
rs
se
ec
ct
ti
io
on
n
o
of
f
R
Ro
ou
ut
te
es
s
4
4
&
&
3
32
2
S
St
tu
ud
dy
y
A
Ar
re
ea
a
E
En
nd
ds
s
a
at
t
t
th
he
e
I In
nt
te
er
rs
se
ec
ct
ti
io
on
n
o
of
f
R
Ro
ou
ut
te
es
s
4
4
&
&
t th
he
e
N
NY
Y/
/V
Ve
er
rm
mo
on
nt
t
B
Bo
or
rd
de
er
r

Route 4 Corridor Study Buckhurst Fish Jacquemart Inc./ January 2005
6

Comments made at the workshop helped BFJ to further identify the core issues and
opportunities along the corridor. At the Design Workshops on September 21st, 2004 in Fort
Ann and September 22nd in Whitehall BFJ presented short, intermediate and long-term
recommendations based on existing and future conditions. Workshop participants had the
opportunity to respond to proposed improvem ent concepts and suggest other ideas and
priorities.

2.0 Existing Conditions

2.1 Roadway Conditions
The Route 4 study corridor is a major north-south principal arterial approximately 25 miles
in length that runs from the Town of Kingsbury to the New York/Vermont State border. The
roadway generally consists of one travel lane in each direction (approximately 12’ width)
with shoulders (varying widths) provided on each side. Pavement conditions are generally
perceived to be good. The study corridor passes through several communities in
Washington County, including: the Town of King sbury, the Town and Village of Fort Ann,
the Town and Village of Whitehall and the Town of Hampton. This is shown in Figure 1.1.

2.2 Daily Traffic Volumes (AADT)
A traffic report was obtained from New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT)
for the different segments of Route 4. The hourly report shows traffic volumes taken at a
certain location for a 24-hour period during one year, which are then multiplied by different
factors (seasonal, local conditions) to get the estimated Average Annual Daily Traffic
(AADT). Figure 2.1 shows the AADT volumes (with corresponding year taken) for the
various locations along the Route 4 corridor. As can be seen, the average daily traffic along
Route 4 from the intersection of Route 32 to Route 149 (north) in the
Town of Fort Ann is
from 5,880 to 6,876 vehicles. The section along Route 4 north of the intersection of Route
149 (north) to the New York/Vermont State line has an AADT of 8,726 to 9,873.

BFJ also installed Automatic Traffic Recorders (ATR) along the different sections of Route 4
to obtain the number of heavy vehicles that are passing through the various segments of
Route 4. The survey shows that along Route 4, approximately 13% to 15% of the total
vehicles are heavy vehicles. The average for this type of roadway is generally below 10%.

2.3 Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes
BFJ conducted manual turning movement counts at several critical intersections along the
study corridor. The morning and afternoon traffic counts were conducted from 7:00 AM to
9:00 AM and from 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM in May of 2004 (See Appendix A for details). Table
2.1 summarizes the different intersections that were counted. Of the five study intersections
that were counted, four are signalized and one is unsignalized.

4
4
4
4
4
4W
aite
G
eer
BurgoyneD
ix
Ro
ck City
Stone Schoolhouse
Co
unty R oute 36
Kingsbur
y
S tate Highway 149
Bald
win Corn
ers
T OwensNee
d
hamvil
le
Char
le s
Flat Ro
ck
State Highway 149
C
la
y Hill
Kelsey Pond
State Route 22
Deweys Bridg eOld Ro
ute 4
Ol
d Route 4
R
yd
er
Lo
ck II
Old
Stat
e Ro
ad
1s tM
a
ple
Mounta inWi
llia m
Br
oadw
ay
Coun
ty
Road
9ABuckleyCounty Ro
ad
18County Ro
ad
9B
Ol
d
Fair
Have
nDoug
las
Ch
apman
Golf Course
5th
Potte r
3rd
Eliz
abeth
Fort AnnFort Ann
Kingsbury
KingsburyWhitehall
WhitehallHampto
nHampton
WhitehallWhitehall
Gra
Gra
H udson F a lls F ort Ann
F ort Ann
F FI
IG
GU
UR
RE
E2
2.
.1
1
D
DA
AI
IL
LY
Y&
&
P
PE
EA
AK
K-
-H
HO
OU
UR
RT
TR
RA
AF
FF
FI
IC
CV
VO
OL
LU
UM
ME
ES
S
Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.
ROUTE4 CORRIDORSTUDYsource: NYS DOT, BFJ Field Study
0 2 miles
April 2004
53(91)
239(300)
73(177)
219(298)119(179)
58(56)
27(17)
132(126)
183(271)
172(90)231(261)
53(18)
39(44)
6(5)
155(238)5(4)
233(185)37(62)
63(166)
12(15)
93(190)
140(371)
153(101)
142(112)
59(74)61(77)351(234)
15(10)
22(22)
19(18)
182(227)
29(35)
144(214)
7(23)
180(210)
215(166)
0(4)4(6)
15(15)
27(17)
26(35)
13(21)
L LE
EG
GE
EN
ND
D
X
XX
X(
(X
XX
X)
):
:
A
AM
M(
(P
PM
M)
)
P
Pe
ea
ak
k
H
Ho
ou
ur
r
T
Tu
ur
rn
ni
in
ng
g
M Mo
ov
ve
em
me
en
nt
ts
s,
,
(
(2
20
00
04
4)
)
3
32
29
90
0
( (2
20
00
01
1)
)
AADT by direction
(year of count)
3 32
29
90
0(
(2
20
00
01
1)
)
A
AA
AD
DT
T
6
68
87
76
6
3
35
58
86
6(
(2
20
00
01
1)
)

2
28
89
95
5(
(2
20
00
02
2)
)
A
AA
AD
DT
T
5
58
88
80
0
2
29
98
85
5(
(2
20
00
02
2)
)

4
49
90
06
6(
(2
20
00
03
3)
)
A
AA
AD
DT
T
9
98
87
73
3
4
49
97
76
6(
(2
20
00
03
3)
)

4
43
30
06
6(
(2
20
00
00
0)
)
A
AA
AD
DT
T
8
87
72
26
6
4
44
42
20
0(
(2
20
00
00
0)
)

4
47
71
14
4(
(2
20
00
00
0)
)

A
AA
AD
DT
T
9
90
00
08
8
4
42
29
94
4(
(2
20
00
02
2)
)

R
Ro
ou
ut
te
es
s
4
4
&
&
2
22
2
N
No
or
rt
th
h
R
Ro
ou
ut
te
es
s
4
4
&
&
2
22
2
S
So
ou
ut
th
h
R
Ro
ou
ut
te
es
s
4
4
&
&
1
14
49
9
N
No
or
rt
th
h
R
Ro
ou
ut
te
es
s
4
4
&
&
1
14
49
9
S
So
ou
ut
th
h
R
Ro
ou
ut
te
es
s
4
4
&
&
3
32
2

Route 4 Corridor Study Buckhurst Fish Jacquemart Inc./ January 2005
8
Table 2.1 – Study Intersections

Intersection Type
Route 4 and Route 32 Signalized
Route 4 and Route 149 (south) Unsignalized
Route 4 and Route 149 (north) Signalized
Route 4 and Route 22 (south) Signalized
Route 4 and Route 22 / Broadway /
Poultney Signalized

Figure 2.1 shows the traffic volumes at the different study intersections for the weekday
morning and afternoon peak hours. Peak hours typically occurred from 7:15 AM to 8:15
AM in the morning, and 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM in the afternoon.

A comparison between the turning counts at Routes 4 & 32 between 19991 and 2004
showed an annual increase of 4% in traffic during the AM peak hour and an increase of 1%
during the PM peak hour.

2.4 Existing Levels of Service
Based on the peak-hour traffic volumes and on geometric m easurements made during the
site evaluation, all intersections were anal yzed using the Highway Capacity Manual method
(Transportation Research Board Special Report 209, Fourth Edition, 2000 Update). Traffic
conditions are described in terms of level of service (LOS) with the levels ranging from LOS
A, the best, to LOS F, the worst. Level of service C is generally considered the design l
evel
of service, while LOS D is generally consid ered as the acceptable limit during peak hours.
Level of service E is typically at or near th e capacity of the roadway or intersection and
generally involves unacceptable delays.

Levels of service for signalized intersections are defined in terms of a
verage control delay
per vehicle. Delay is dependent on a number of variables including the quality of signal
progression, cycle length, green ratio and the volume/capacity ratio for the lane group or
approach in question. For signalized inters ections, levels of service can be calculated and
expressed for each movement or approach and for the total intersection as a weighted
average of all movements. Specifically, level of service criteria are stated in terms of the
average control delay per vehicle for the wors t 15-minute period within the peak hour, as
shown in Table 2.2. Control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time,
stopped delay, and final acceleration delay.

1 Dix Avenue Corridor Study by the Sea r-Brown Group, June 2000, pg. 35-36

Route 4 Corridor Study Buckhurst Fish Jacquemart Inc./ January 2005
9

Table 2.2 – Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections
Level of Service Average Control Delay (seconds/vehicle)

A 10.0 or less
B 10.1 to 20.0
C 20.1 to 35.0
D 35.1 to 55.0
E 55.1 to 80.0
F more than 80.0
Source: Highway Capacity Manu al, TRB Special Report 209, Fourth Edition, 2000 Update.

Level of service analyses for an unsignalized intersection are based on average control
delay, defined as the total elapsed time from when a vehicle stops at the end of the queue
until the vehicle departs from the stop line. This includes the time required for the vehicle
to travel from the last-in-queue position to th e first-in-queue position. The total delay for a
particular minor movement is a function of the service rate or capacity of the approach and
the degree of saturation. The level of service criteria for unsignalized intersections are
shown in Table 2.3.

Table 2.3 – Level of Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections
Level of
Service Average Control Delay (seconds/vehicle)

A 10.0 or less
B 10.1 to 15.0
C 15.1 to 25.0
D 25.1 to 35.0
E 35.1 to 50.0
F more than 50.0
Source: Highway Capacity Manu al, TRB Special Report 209, Fourth Edition, 2000 Update.

Using the capacity analysis methodology desc ribed above, peak-hour traffic volumes were
analyzed to determine the existing levels of se rvice for the five study intersections for the
weekday morning and afternoon peak hours. Fi gures 2.2 and 2.3 show the existing levels
of service for each intersection approach as we ll as the overall level for the signalized
intersections.

As can be seen, most of the intersections with in the study area operate with good levels of
service for the peak hours analyzed, except for the intersection of Route 4 and Route 32.
This intersection operates with overall LOS E and LOS D during the morning and afternoon
peak hours, respectively. The westbound approach operates with a LOS F with delays of
about 2 minutes during the morning peak hour a nd a LOS E with delays of approximately 1
minute during the afternoon peak hour.

F FI
IG
GU
UR
RE
E2
2.
.2
2
E
EX
XI
IS
ST
TI
IN
NG
GA
AM
M
P
PE
EA
AK
KH
HO
OU
UR
RL
LE
EV
VE
EL
LS
SO
OF
FS
SE
ER
RV
VI
IC
CE
E
Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.
ROUTE4 CORRIDORSTUDY
0 2 miles
April 2004
4
4
4
4
4
4W
ait
e
G
eer
BurgoyneD
ix
Ro
ck City
Stone Schoolhouse
Co
unty R out
e 36
Kingsbur
y
S tate Highway 149
Bald
win Corn
ers
T OwensNee
d
hamvil
le
Char
le s
Flat Ro
ck
S tate Highway 149
C
la
y Hill
Kelsey Pond
State Route 22
Deweys Bridg eOld Ro
ute 4
Ol
d Route 4
R
yd
er
Lo
ck II
Old
St
at
e Ro
ad
1s tM
a
ple
Mounta inWi
llia m
Br
oadw
ay
Coun
ty
Road
9ABuckleyCounty Ro
ad
18County Ro
ad
9B
Ol
d
Fair
Have
nDoug
las
Ch
ap
man
Golf Course
5th
Potter
3rd
Eliz
abeth
Fort AnnFort Ann
Kingsbury
KingsburyWhitehall
WhitehallHampton
Hampton
WhitehallWhitehall
Gran
vGranv
H udson F a lls F ort Ann
F ort Ann
R Ro
ou
ut
te
es
s
4
4
&
&
2
22
2
N
No
or
rt
th
h
R
Ro
ou
ut
te
es
s
4
4
&
&
2
22
2
S
So
ou
ut
th
h
R
Ro
ou
ut
te
es
s
4
4
&
&
1
14
49
9
S
So
ou
ut
th
h
C(28.3)
B(15.7)
D(36.4)
F(150.5)*E(76.6)
R
Ro
ou
ut
te
es
s
4
4
&
&
3
32
2
A(9.7)
B(10.7)
A(7.8)
L
LE
EG
GE
EN
ND
D
B (0.0) : Level of Service for Movement
(Estimated Delay, Seconds/Vehicle)
*A (0.0) : Overall Intersection Level of Service
(Estimated Delay, Seconds/Vehicle)
B(19.5)
R Ro
ou
ut
te
es
s
4
4
&
&
1
14
49
9
N
No
or
rt
th
h
B(13.3)
B(14.4)
B(16.1)*
*B
B(
(1
17
7.
.3
3)
)Note:
These levels do not
reflect geometric
restraints of intersection.
A(8.3)
A(7.5)C(21.4)
A(8.1)
A(0.0)
*A(9.1)
B(17.2)
B(15.7)
B(13.1)
B(16.7)
A(0.0)
*B(12.4)

Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.
ROUTE4 CORRIDORSTUDY
0 2 miles
April 2004
F FI
IG
GU
UR
RE
E2
2.
.3
3
E
EX
XI
IS
ST
TI
IN
NG
GP
PM
M
P
PE
EA
AK
KH
HO
OU
UR
RL
LE
EV
VE
EL
LS
SO
OF
FS
SE
ER
RV
VI
IC
CE
E
4
4
4
4
4
4W
ait
e
G
eer
BurgoyneD
ix
Ro
ck City
Stone Schoolhouse
Co
unty R out
e 36
Kingsbur
y
S tate Highway 149
Bald
win Corn
ers
T OwensNee
d
hamvil
le
Char
le s
Flat Ro
ck
S tate Highway 149
C
la
y Hill
Kelsey Pond
State Route 22
Deweys Bridg eOld Ro
ute 4
Ol
d Route 4
R
yd
er
Lo
ck II
Old
St
at
e Ro
ad
1s tM
a
ple
Mounta inWi
llia m
Br
oadw
ay
Coun
ty
Road
9ABuckleyCounty Ro
ad
18County Ro
ad
9B
Ol
d
Fair
Have
nDoug
las
Ch
ap
man
Golf Course
5th
Potter
3rd
Eliz
abeth
Fort AnnFort Ann
Kingsbury
KingsburyWhitehall
WhitehallHampton
Hampton
WhitehallWhitehall
Gran
vGranv
H udson F a lls F ort Ann
F ort Ann
R Ro
ou
ut
te
es
s
4
4
&
&
2
22
2
N
No
or
rt
th
h
R
Ro
ou
ut
te
es
s
4
4
&
&
2
22
2
S
So
ou
ut
th
h
R
Ro
ou
ut
te
es
s
4
4
&
&
1
14
49
9
S
So
ou
ut
th
h
C(30.6)
C(31.4)
D(35.3)
E(62.4)*D(39.4)
R
Ro
ou
ut
te
es
s
4
4
&
&
3
32
2
A(10.0)
B(14.0)
A(8.0)
L
LE
EG
GE
EN
ND
D
B (0.0) : Level of Service for Movement
(Estimated Delay, Seconds/Vehicle)
*A (0.0) : Overall Intersection Level of Service
(Estimated Delay, Seconds/Vehicle)
B(17.5)
R Ro
ou
ut
te
es
s
4
4
&
&
1
14
49
9
N
No
or
rt
th
h
B(13.3)
B(15.7)
B(18.5)*
*B
B(
(1
17
7.
.1
1)
)Note:
These levels do not
reflect geometric
restraints of intersection.
A(9.1)
A(7.3)C(22.1)
A(8.6)
A(0.0)
*B(10.9)
B(18.9)
B(15.3)
B(13.5)
B(17.8)
A(0.0)
*B(15.5)

Route 4 Corridor Study Buckhurst Fish Jacquemart Inc./ January 2005
12
The intersection of Route 4 and Route 149 in Fo rt Ann is listed as operating at LOS B,
based on the peak-hour traffic volumes. The traffic model indicates it operates with a 17.3
second delay in the AM peak and 17.1 seconds in the PM peak. However, this level of
service calculation does not reflect the restricted geometry of the intersection and the fact
that the large trucks have a hard time making their turns. BFJ performed a field survey at
this intersection and found delays of 44 seconds in the PM peak, which corresponds to
LOS D. The increased delay of about 25 seconds appears to be caused by a combination
of the tight turning angles, the high percentage of heavy vehicles present and driver error.
The tight turning radius at this intersection requires tractor-trailers to make a very sharp
turn. In order to permit large trucks traveling southbound on Route 4 to turn westbound,
the stop bar is set back from the intersection for traffic traveling eastbound. Occasionally
drivers ignore or fail to notice the road markings and stop close to the pedestrian crossing,
impeding traffic. The physical constraints ar e affecting the capacity of this intersection.

2.5 Vehicular Speeds
BFJ collected speed data along the study corridor. Automatic Speed Data recorders were
installed at the following locations: 0.60 miles north of Route 4 and Charles Street; 1.10
miles north of Route 4 and Route 22; and 0.60 miles north of Route 4 and County Route
18, for a period of approximately one week to determine actual vehicle speeds along these
sections of the roadway. Table 2.4 below shows the result of the speed survey.
Table 2.4 – Speed Statistics
Location

Speed
Limit
Percent of
Vehicles Over
the Speed Limit
85%
Speed
0.6 miles north of Route 4 & Charles Street 55 mph31.2% 58 mph
1.1 miles north of Route 4 & Route 22(south) 55 mph52.3% 62 mph
0.6 miles north of Route 4 & Route 18 55 mph43.6% 61 mph

As shown in Table 2.4, vehicle speed data collected during this period indicated that the
85th percentile speeds along different sections of Route 4 range from 58 mph to 62 mph.
This means that 85 percent of the drivers were driving at those speeds or lower, or that
15% of the vehicles drove faster than those speeds. It is also interesting to note that the
vehicle speed data collected indicated that approximately 31% (0.60 miles north of Route
4 and Charles Street) to approximately 52% (1.1 miles north of Route 4 and Route 22
South) were traveling over the posted speed limit of 55 mph.

2.6 Accident History
An accident analysis was conducted along the Route 4 study corridor. Accident
information obtained from NYSDOT for a three year period from June 1999 to May 2002
indicated that there were a total of 388 accidents during this time period. There were 6
vehicular accidents that involved a fatality, 132 vehicular accidents that involved injuries,
159 vehicular accidents that involved property damage only, 91 non-reportable accidents
and no vehicular accidents that involved a pedest rian or a bicycle (Figure 2.4). The overall

Route 4 Corridor Study Buckhurst Fish Jacquemart Inc./ January 2005
13

accident rate for the entire corridor was 1.67 accidents / MVM (accidents per million
vehicle miles). This is lower than the New York State average or expected accident rate for
accidents on free access, rural, undivided two-lane roads, which is 2.81
2. However, there
are sections along Route 4 that have high accident frequencies. These high-accident
segments are analyzed in Section 3.

2.7 Existing Land Uses
Along the entire corridor, there is a diverse mix of commercial, residential, and industrial
uses, as well as some vacant, forest or agric ultural land. The character of the corridor
changes significantly. Figures 2.5 and 2.6 show the various land uses along Route 4 in the
Village of Fort Ann and Whitehall. As shown in both figures, land uses in the Village of Fort
Ann and Whitehall mostly consist of residentia l and commercial uses (i.e. retail, offices, and
restaurant). Outside of the villages the adj acent land uses are largely agricultural, forests
and some residential uses.

One of the major constraints along the corridor is the growth of suburban style development
along Route 4. The proliferation of driveways along the corridor hampers Route 4 from
functioning as an arterial. Every additional curb cut along the roadway has a direct effect of
both lowering traveling speeds and increasing the expected accident rate.

2.8 Bus Transit
At the current time there is no regularly scheduled public transit service in the study area.
The Greater Glens Falls Transit (GGFT) route #4 travels up to the intersection of Route 4 &
32, but does not travel within the Route 4 corridor. The only transit that exists in the
corridor is run by the schools systems and social service organizations.

2.9 Sidewalk Conditions

The sidewalk system serving the residential a nd commercial areas in the Village sections of
the study corridor are not continuous (Figure 2.7). In the Village of Fort Ann, sidewalks are
provided on both sides of Route 4 for most of the village. A gap in the sidewalk network
exists on the east side of Route 4 near th e intersection of Route 149/Clay Hill Road.
Pavement conditions are fair, and the sidewalk wi dth is between four and five feet. In the
Village of Whitehall, most of the west side of Route 4 has a continuous sidewalk starting
from south of 7th Street to north of Park Avenue. On the east side of Route 4, the sidewalk
is virtually non-existent, and is present only between the intersection of 1st Street and
Adams Street and between the intersection of Skene Street and Park Avenue. Pavement
conditions are fair to poor, with sidewalk widths between four and five feet and a lack of
continuity.
2 NYSDOT Traffic Engineering and Highway Safety Divis ion – Information Files, average accident rates for state
highways (http://dotwe b2.dot.state.ny.us/traffic/files/tableii8.pdf)

F FI
IG
GU
UR
RE
E2
2.
.4
4
A
AC
CC
CI
ID
DE
EN
NT
TS
SU
UM
MM
MA
AR
RY
Y
(June 1999 to May 2002)
Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.
ROUTE4 CORRIDORSTUDYsource:NYSDOT
0 2 miles
April 2004
4
4
4
4
4
4W
aite
G
eer
BurgoyneD
ix
Ro
ck City
Stone Schoolhouse
Co
unty R oute 36
Kingsbur
y
S tate Highway 149
Bald
win Corn
ers
T OwensNee
d
hamvil
le
Char
le s
Flat Ro
ck
S tate Highway 149
C
la
y Hill
Kelsey Pond
State Route 22
Deweys Bridg eOld Ro
ute 4
Ol
d Route 4
R
yd
er
Lo
ck II
Old
Stat
e Ro
ad
1s tM
a
ple
Mounta inWi
llia m
Br
oadw
ay
Coun
ty
Roa d
9ABuckleyCounty Ro
ad
18County Ro
ad
9B
Ol
d
Fair
Have
nDoug
las
Ch
apman
Golf Course
5th
Potter
3rd
Eliz
abeth
Fort AnnFort Ann
Kingsbury
KingsburyWhitehall
WhitehallHampto
nHampton
WhitehallWhitehall
Gra
nGran
H udson F a lls F ort Ann
F ort Ann
L LE
EG
GE
EN
ND
D
Total Accidents / Injuries / PDO crashes
INTERSECTION ACCIDENTS
Total Accidents / Injuries / PDO crashes
NON-INTERSECTION ACCIDENTS (6/99 to 5/02)
1
12
2/
/
4
4
/
/
7
7
1
13
3
/
/
2
2
/
/
8
8
1
10
0
/
/
3
3
/
/
4
4
1
16
6
/
/
1
1
/
/
8
8
1
10
0
/
/
4
4
/
/
6
6
2
24
4
/
/
1
10
0
/
/
8
8
1
12
2
/
/
3
3
/
/
8
8
5
5
/
/
2
2
/
/
2
2
1
13
3
/
/
2
2
/
/
9
9
1
13
3
/
/
5
5
/
/
4
4
1
12
2
/
/
8
8
/
/
2
2
8
8
/
/
3
3
/
/
1
1
5
5
/
/
2
2
/
/
1
1
7
7
/
/
1
1
/
/
3
3
5
5
/
/
1
1
/
/
2
2
9
9
/
/
1
1
/
/
3
3
6
6
/
/
3
3
/
/
2
2
5
5
/
/
2
2
/
/
2
2
6
6
/
/
2
2
/
/
3
3
7
7
/
/
6
6
/
/
1
1
3
3
/
/
2
2
/
/
1
1
(Old Fair Haven Road &
Route 4)
3 3
/
/
2
2
/
/
1
1

(Buckley & Route 4)
5 5
/
/
3
3
/
/
1
1

(Norton & Route 4)
1 15
5
/
/
2
2
/
/
9
9

(Williams & Route 4)
7 7
/
/
3
3
/
/
1
1

(Broadway / Poultney & Route 4)
3 3
/
/
1
1
/
/
2
2

(Kirtland St & Route 4)
1 10
0
/
/
2
2
/
/
4
4

(Route 22 & Route 4)
7 7
/
/
3
3
/
/
3
3

(Charles St & Route 4)
1 12
2
/
/
4
4
/
/
5
5

(Route 149 & Route 4)
3 3
/
/
1
1
/
/
0
0

(Victoria St & Route 4)
5 5
/
/
2
2
/
/
3
3

(Route 149 & Route 4)
5 5
/
/
1
1
/
/
3
3

(Geer Road & Route 4)
1 18
8
/
/
6
6
/
/
6
6

(Route 32 & Route 4)
V Vi
il
ll
la
ag
ge
e
o
of
f
F Fo
or
rt
t
A
An
nn
nV Vi
il
ll
la
ag
ge
e
o
of
f
W Wh
hi
it
te
eh
ha
al
ll
l
Fatality

F FI
IG
GU
UR
RE
E2
2.
.5
5
E
EX
XI
IS
ST
TI
IN
NG
GL
LA
AN
ND
DU
US
SE
ES
S-

F
FO
OR
RT
TA
AN
NN
N
Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.
ROUTE4 CORRIDORSTUDY
0 0.25 mile
April 2004
T
Ow
e
ns
N
ee
dh
amvi
lle
Char
le
s
Fort Ann
School
Village of
Fort Ann
Retail
Agri/forestVacant
Residential
Institutional
Commercial
Office
Park
0 0.25 0.50.125
Miles
t
u4
t
u4
Sta
t
eHi
gh
wa
y14
9
Legend
La
nd Use
Park
Vacant
Agri/forest
Uses not indicated
Commercial
Industrial
Institutional
Office
Residential
Retail/Restaurant

F FI
IG
GU
UR
RE
E2
2.
.6
6
E
EX
XI
IS
ST
TI
IN
NG
GL
LA
AN
ND
DU
US
SE
ES
S-

W
WH
HI
IT
TE
EH
HA
AL
LL
L
Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.
ROUTE4 CORRIDORSTUDY
0 0.25 mile
April 2004
t
u4
1st
Ma
p
le
M
ou
n
ta
in
W
il
lia
m
B
roa
dw
ay
Co
un
t
yR
5t
h
Po
t
te
r
3
rd
t
u4
S
k
e
ne
Village of Village of
Whitehall Whitehall
Agri/forest
Vacant
Industrial
Retail
Residential
Commercial
Institutional
Office
002 0012
Legend
Land Use
Park
Vacant
Water Bodies
Agri/forest
Uses not indicated
Commercial
Industrial
Institutional
Office
Residential
Retail

4
4
4
4
4
4W
aite
G
eer
BurgoyneD
ix
Ro
ck City
Stone Schoolhouse
Co
unty R oute 36
Kingsbur
y
S tate Highway 149
Bald
win Corn
ers
T OwensNee
d
hamvil
le
Char
le s
Flat Ro
ck
State Highway 149
C
la
y Hill
Kelsey Pond
State Route 22
Deweys Bridg eOld Ro
ute 4
Ol
d Route 4
R
yd
er
Lo
ck II
Old
Stat
e Ro
ad
1s tM
a
ple
Mounta inWi
llia m
Br
oadw
ay
Coun
ty
Roa d
9ABuckleyCounty Ro
ad
18County Ro
ad
9B
Ol
d
Fair
Have
nDoug
las
Ch
apman
Golf Course
5th
Potter
3rd
Eliz
abeth
Fort AnnFort Ann
Kingsbury
KingsburyWhitehall
WhitehallHampton
Hampton
WhitehallWhitehall
Gra
nGran
H udson F a lls F ort Ann
F ort Ann
F FI
IG
GU
UR
RE
E2
2.
.7
7
S
SI
ID
DE
EW
WA
AL
LK
KI
IN
NV
VE
EN
NT
TO
OR
RY
Y
Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.
ROUTE4 CORRIDORSTUDY
0 2 miles
April 2004
V Vi
il
ll
la
ag
ge
eo
of
fF
Fo
or
rt
tA
An
nn
n V Vi
il
ll
la
ag
ge
eo
of
fW
Wh
hi
it
te
eh
ha
al
ll
l
L
LE
EG
GE
EN
ND
D
W
Wi
it
th
h
S
Si
id
de
ew
wa
al
lk
ks
s
Without Sidewalks
Maple Street
W
illia
m
s Stre
etMountain StreetSkene StreetPotter Street
Davies Street
Pauline Street
Park Street
E
liza
b
eth
S
tre
etKirtland Street
Adams Street
1st Ave
2nd Ave
3rd Ave
4th Ave
7th Ave
5th Ave
Elizabeth Street
Victoria Street
Clay H
ill Road
Catherine Street
Charles Street
Queen Anne Dr.

2.10 Bicycle Conditions
Route 4 is a component of New York State’s Bike Route 9 from the Saratoga County
boundary north to the divergence of Routes 22 and 4 in Whitehall. As there are no separate
bike lanes provided along Route 4, cyclists are expected to use the shoulder. Most of the
shoulders along Route 4 have widths greater than four feet, but there are several sections
along Route 4 where the shoulders are too narro w or absent impeding convenient and safe
cycling (See Figure 2.8). There were no reported bicycle or pedestrian accidents between
June 1999 and May 2002, but areas within the corridor exist where the shoulders are too
narrow for safe cycling or absent (Figure 2.8).

3.0 Accident Analysis

3.1 High Accident Non-Intersection Locations
As stated in Section 2.6, there were 388 accidents along the corridor from June 1999 to
May 2002. The accident rate for the entire corridor was 1.67 accidents / MVM (accidents
per million vehicle miles) which is lower than the statewide average on free access, rural,
undivided two lane roads, which is 2.81. When the roadway is viewed in smaller
segments (Table 3.1), there are two areas which stand out as being more than 30% above
the expected accident rate of 2.81 accidents/MVM. As shown in Figure 3.1, starting from
the south, segment one is from mile marker 1144 to 1159, which represents a 1.5 mile
stretch of Route 4 from the intersection with Route 32 to just south of Geer Road. This
segment has the highest accident rate in the corridor at 4.07 ACC/MVM. The segment with
the second highest accident rate is the sout hern portion of the Village of Whitehall, south
of the intersection of Route 22 (N) and Route 4. This 1.8 mile segment has a 3.66
ACC/MVM rate.

In addition, there are four segments which are more than 35% above the expected
accident rate in New York State (0.743) for fatalities + injuries. The two previously
mentioned segments are also above the expected fatal + injury rate at 1.77 and 1.34
respectively. In addition, the 1.6 mile segment from mile marker 1159 to 1175, which
begins just south of Geer Road and is contiguous with the other high accident location on
the southern portion of the corridor, has a rate of 1.00 fatalities + injuries/MVM. The
fourth location is the 1.9 mile segment north of the intersection of Route 4 with Route 149
(south) with a rate of 1.06 fatal + injury/MVM.

Route 4 was investigated in greater depth to analyze the non-intersection locations along
the corridor in 0.3 mile segments. As shown in Figure 3.2 there are seven locations which
contained more than nine non-intersection accidents over a three year period.

A site visit was made to these seven locations in an effort to determine the causes of the
accidents. Ultimately, a more detailed look at the accidents that have occurred along the
corridor will be needed to see if any recurring accident type or patterns exist that could
benefit from specific improvements. Practically all segments are in transitional sections
3 NYSDOT Traffic Engineering and Highway Safety Divis ion – Information Files, average accident rates for state
highways (http://dotwe b2.dot.state.ny.us/traffic/files/tableii8.pdf)

Route 4 Corridor Study Buckhurst Fish Jacquemart Inc./ January 2005
18

F FI
IG
GU
UR
RE
E2
2.
.8
8
E
EX
XI
IS
ST
TI
IN
NG
GB
BI
IC
CY
YC
CL
LI
IN
NG
GC
CO
ON
ND
DI
IT
TI
IO
ON
NS
S
Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.
ROUTE4 CORRIDORSTUDY
0 2 miles
April 2004
4
4
4
4
4
4W
ait
e
G
eer
BurgoyneD
ix
Ro
ck City
Stone Schoolhouse
Co
unty R oute 36
Kingsbur
y
S tate Highway 149
Bald
win Corn
ers
T OwensNee
d
hamvil
le
Char
le s
Flat Ro
ck
S tate Highway 149
C
la
y Hill
Kelsey Pond
State Route 22
Deweys Bridg eOld Ro
ute 4
Ol
d Route 4
Ryd
er
Lo
ck II
Old
Stat
e Ro
ad
1s tM
a
ple
Mounta inWi
llia m
Br
oadw
ay
Coun
ty
Road
9ABuckleyCounty Ro
ad
18County Ro
ad
9B
Ol
d
Fair
Have
nDoug
las
Ch
ap
man
Golf Course
5th
Potter
3rd
Eliz
abeth
Fort AnnFort Ann
Kingsbury
KingsburyWhitehall
WhitehallHampton
Hampton
WhitehallWhitehall
Gran
Gran
H udson F a lls F ort Ann
F ort Ann
V Vi
il
ll
la
ag
ge
eo
of
fF
Fo
or
rt
tA
An
nn
n V Vi
il
ll
la
ag
ge
eo
of
fW
Wh
hi
it
te
eh
ha
al
ll
l
L
LE
EG
GE
EN
ND
D
S
Sh
ho
ou
ul
ld
de
er
r
G
Gr
re
ea
at
te
er
r
t
th
ha
an
n
4
4
F
Fe
ee
et
t
Shoulder Less than 4 Feet
Maple Street
W
illia
m
s S
tre
e
tMountain StreetSkene StreetPotter Street
Davies Street
Pauline Street
Park Street
E
liza
b
e
th
S
tre
e
tKirtland Street
Adams Street
1st Ave
2nd Ave
3rd Ave
4th Ave
7th Ave
5th Ave
Elizabeth Street
Victoria Street
Clay H
ill Road
Catherine Street
Charles Street
Queen Anne Dr.
No Shoulder

Intersection
with
Route 4Startin
g
Reference
MarkerFinishin
g
Reference
MarkerDist.
(miles) Accidents Fatal Injury PDO N/R AADTAccidents/
Year MVMAccidents/
MVMFatal +
Injuries /
MVMPDO+N/R
/ MVM
Rt. 32
1144 1159
1.5 46 0 20 11 15 6876 15.33 3.764.07 1.772.30
1159 1175
1.6 21 0 12 6 3 6876 7.00 4.02 1.741.000.75
1175 1190
1.5 18 0 6 12 0 6876 6.00 3.76 1.59 0.53 1.06
1190 1207
1.7 25 1 5 14 5 6876 8.33 4.27 1.95 0.47 1.48
Rt. 149 S.
1207 1226
1.9 34 0 13 14 7 5880 11.33 4.08 2.781.061.72
1226 1245
1.9 35 0 9 16 10 9873 11.67 6.85 1.70 0.44 1.27
1245 1265
2 30 2 4 14 10 9873 10.00 7.21 1.39 0.28 1.11
Rt 149 N
1265 1282
1.7 11 0 1 5 5 8726 3.67 5.41 0.68 0.06 0.62
1282 1299
1.7 13 1 6 6 0 8726 4.33 5.41 0.80 0.43 0.37
1299 1316
1.7 10 0 5 1 4 8726 3.33 5.41 0.62 0.31 0.31
1316 1334
1.8 63 0 23 24 16 8726 21.00 5.733.66 1.342.33
Rt 22 N.
1334 1350
1.6 35 0 13 14 8 9008 11.67 5.26 2.22 0.82 1.39
1350 1366
1.6 5 0 0 3 2 9008 1.67 5.26 0.32 0.00 0.32
1366 1382
1.6 17 0 4 11 2 9008 5.67 5.26 1.08 0.25 0.82
1382 1400
1.8 25 2 11 8 4 9008 8.33 5.92 1.41 0.73 0.68
Totals 25.6 388 6 132 159 91 129.33 77.62 1.67 0.59 1.07
NYS Average / Expected Accident Rate 2.81 0.74 2.07
Fatal = Crash which resulted in a fatality
Injury = Crash which resulted in an injury
PDO = Crash which resulted in Property Damage Only
Source: NYSDOT Safety Information Management System
N/R = Non-Reportable Accident (less than $2,500 in damage)
Dates: June 1, 1999 to May 31, 2002
AADT= Annual Average Daily Traffic
MVM = Million Vehicle Miles
Route 4 Corridor Study
BFJ Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart, Inc. /Jan, 2005
Table 3.1 – Analysis of Accident Rates Along Route 4 in Washington County
Shaded Areas are 30% above the New York Statewide
Average also know as the expected accident rate

F FI
IG
GU
UR
RE
E3
3.
.1
1
A
AB
BO
OV
VE
EA
AV
VE
ER
RA
AG
GE
EA
AC
CC
CI
ID
DE
EN
NT
TS
SE
EG
GM
ME
EN
NT
TS
S
Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.
ROUTE4 CORRIDORSTUDYsource: NYS DOT
0 2 miles
April 2004
4
4
4
4
4
4W
ait
e
G
eer
BurgoyneD
ix
Ro
ck City
Stone Schoolhouse
Co
unty R out
e 36
Kingsbur
y
S tate Highway 149
Bald
win Corn
ers
T OwensNee
d
hamvil
le
Char
le s
Flat Ro
ck
S tate Highway 149
C
la
y Hill
Kelsey Pond
State Route 22
Deweys Bridg eOld Ro
ute 4
Ol
d Route 4
R
yd
er
Lo
ck II
Old
St
at
e Ro
ad
1s tM
a
ple
Mounta inWi
llia m
Br
oadw
ay
Coun
ty
Road
9ABuckleyCounty Ro
ad
18County Ro
ad
9B
Ol
d
Fair
Have
nDoug
las
Ch
ap
man
Golf Course
5th
Potter
3rd
Eliz
abeth
Fort AnnFort Ann
Kingsbury
KingsburyWhitehall
WhitehallHampton
Hampton
WhitehallWhitehall
Gran
vGranv
H udson F a lls F ort Ann
F ort Ann
3.66 – Accidents/ MVM
1.34 – Fatal + Injury/ MVM
2.33 – PDO + N/R/ MVM
Reference Marker 1316 to 1334
L LE
EG
GE
EN
ND
D
Areas more than 30% above expected rate
for Accident/MVM & Fatal + Injuries/ MVM
Areas more than 30% above the expected
rate for Fatal + Injuries/ MVM
NYS Averages
2.81 Accidents/ MVM
0.74 – Fatal + Injury/ MVM
2.07 – PDO + N/R/ MVM
2.78 – Accidents/ MVM
1.06 – Fatal + Injury/ MVM
1.72 – PDO + N/R/ MVM
Reference Marker 1207 to 1226
1.74 – Accidents/ MVM
1.00 – Fatal + Injury/ MVM
0.75 – PDO + N/R/ MVM
Reference Marker 1159 to 1175
4.07 – Accidents/ MVM
1.77 – Fatal + Injury/ MVM
2.30 – PDO + N/R/ MVM
Reference Marker 1144 to 1159

F FI
IG
GU
UR
RE
E3
3.
.2
2
H
HI
IG
GH
HN
NO
ON
N-
-I
IN
NT
TE
ER
RS
SE
EC
CT
TI
IO
ON
NA
AC
CC
CI
ID
DE
EN
NT
TL
LO
OC
CA
AT
TI
IO
ON
NS
S
Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.
ROUTE4 CORRIDORSTUDYsource: NYS DOT
0 2 miles
April 2004
4
4
4
4
4
4W
aite
G
eer
BurgoyneD
ix
Ro
ck City
Stone Schoolhouse
Co
unty Route 36
Kingsbur
y
S tate Highway 149
Bald
win Corn
ers
T OwensNee
d
hamvil
le
Char
le s
Flat Ro
ck
S tate Highway 149
C
la
y Hill
Kelsey Pond
State Route 22
Deweys Bridg eOld Ro
ute 4
Ol
d Route 4
R
yd
er
Lo
ck II
Old
Stat
e Ro
ad
1s tM
a
ple
Mounta inWi
llia m
Br
oadw
ay
County
Road
9ABuckleyCounty Ro
ad
18County Ro
ad
9B
Ol
d
Fair
Have
nDoug
las
Ch
apman
Golf Course
5th
Potter
3rd
Eliz
abeth
Fort AnnFort Ann
Kingsbury
KingsburyWhitehall
WhitehallHampto
nHampton
WhitehallWhitehall
Gr
aGra
H udson F a lls F ort Ann
F ort Ann
1 12
2
A
Ac
cc
ci
id
de
en
nt
ts
s
0 Fatal
2 Injuries
7 Property Damage Only
3 Non-Reportable
Reference Marker 1337 to 1342
2 24
4
A
Ac
cc
ci
id
de
en
nt
ts
s
0 Fatal
10 Injuries
8 Property Damage Only
6 Non-Reportable
Reference Marker 1324 to 1330
9 9
A
Ac
cc
ci
id
de
en
nt
ts
s
1 Fatal
0 Injuries
6 Property Damage Only
2 Non-Reportable
Reference Marker 1263 to 1266
1 10
0
A
Ac
cc
ci
id
de
en
nt
ts
s
1 Fatal
3 Injuries
2 Property Damage Only
4 Non-Reportable
Reference Marker 1395 to 1398
9 9
A
Ac
cc
ci
id
de
en
nt
ts
s
0 Fatal
2 Injuries
4 Property Damage Only
3 Non-Reportable
Reference Marker 1226 to 1229
1 10
0
A
Ac
cc
ci
id
de
en
nt
ts
s
0 Fatal
8 Injuries
0 Property Damage Only
2 Non-Reportable
Reference Marker 1151 to 1154
9 9
A
Ac
cc
ci
id
de
en
nt
ts
s
0 Fatal
4 Injuries
1 Property Damage Only
4 Non-Reportable
Reference Marker 1144 to 1147
L LE
EG
GE
EN
ND
D
0.3 Mile Segments
Fatality

where vehicles have to change speeds because they enter into a village or they approach a
traffic light. These are also segments of Route 4 where there is a relatively high density of
driveways. In addition, the majority of the locations are preceded by an extended straight
stretch of roadway, where vehicles can attain high speeds.

The southernmost high accident location is where Route 4 intersects with Route 32, mile
marker 1144 to 1147, which contained nine accidents. This area of the roadway is flat
and straight with good sight lines. The number of curb cuts may be a reason for the high
number of accidents.

The second high accident location moving from south to north (mile marker 1151 to 1154)
is not directly adjacent to an intersection. For drivers headed southbound, this stretch of
roadway contains a driveway located on the left hand side at a leftward turn of the
roadway just after a dip in the road. This stretch of the roadway has an 80% injury rate,
which is the highest of any location in the corridor.

The third location (mile marker 1226 to 1229) occurs in the Village of
Fort Ann north of
the intersection with State Highway 149. At this location a total of 9 crashes took place.
The accidents in this area may be caused by southbound traffic traveling at high speeds
which fail to reduce speed sufficiently as they enter the Village of Fort Ann. Just to the
north of the intersection are a number of commercial establishments and their respective
driveways which may also lead to the high number of crashes.

The next location (reference marker 1263 to 1226) straddles the intersection of Route 4
with Route 22 South. This intersection contains one of the six fatal cr
ashes that occurred
in the study area between June 1999 to May 2002. The intersection of Route 4 and Route
22 South is also one of the high accident locations in the corridor. As this location has
very good sight lines, an excellent shoulder and is flat and straight, the crashes may be
caused by excessive speeds combined with the presence of the signalized intersection.

The next location (reference marker 1324 to 1330) contains the greatest number and
concentration of accidents in the study area. The area is in the Village of Whitehall just
south of the intersection with Route 22, and is the location of 24 accidents in the distance of
6/10
th of a mile. It is believed the high accident rate is caused by the large number of access
points connecting to Route 4. This small area contains curb cuts for private residences,
restaurants and businesses including Family Dollar, McDonalds, and a pet store. A factor
which exacerbates the problem is the rolling nature of the terrain which both reduces sight
lines and makes it more difficult for neighboring lots to interconnect.

The next location (reference marker 1337 to 1342) is located at the intersection of Route 4
and Williams Street, where 11 accidents took place at mile marker 1139. It is believed
that vehicles traveling westbound may be traveling at excessive speeds when entering the
Village.

The northernmost high accident location in the study area occurs near the Vermont border
(reference marker 1359 to 1398) where 10 accidents took place, including one fatality.
This segment is relatively straight, contains go od sight lines and is relatively flat. The
accidents at this location are probably related to the transitional character of this section of

Route 4 Corridor Study Buckhurst Fish Jacquemart Inc./ January 2005
23

Route 4. The 4-lane expressway character on the Vermont side may encourage excessive
speeds on the 2-lane section.

The northernmost portion of Route 4 has significant variations in the width of the roadway.
Route 4 is wider on the flat, straight portions which accommodate and allow greater
speeds. When the roadway contains hills and or turns, the width of the road narrows. This
causes accident spots as drivers accelerate durin g the straight roadway sections, but are not
always able to reduce speed sufficiently to avoid an incident along the narrower portion of
the roadway. Due to the high proportion of heavy vehicles on this roadway, greater
emphasis should be placed on maintaining consistent cross-sections.

3.2 High Accident Intersections
Starting from the south of the corridor, the in tersection of Route 4 and Route 32 (Dix Ave /
Burgoyne Ave) had 18 accidents and is the highest accident location in the corridor. This
section is also adjacent to one of the high-accident non-intersection locations and is
generally flat and straight with good sight lines. The combination of a high number of curb
cuts with excessive speeds may explain the high number of crashes. The traffic calming
effects of a roundabout should lead to a significant reduction in accidents.

The intersection of Routes 149 & 4 in the Village of Fort Ann is the site of 12 accidents
between June 1999 and May 2002. Geometric constraints force the westbound stop bar to
be placed to about 75 feet west of the intersection. This causes confusion among drivers
and leads some drivers to stop abruptly and other to stop in the center of the intersection.
The tight turning radius combined with the limited right-of-way and the drivers’ tendency
to accelerate through a traffic signal may influence a majority of the accidents.

At Route 4 and Route 22 South, 10 accidents occurred during the study period. This
intersection is preceded by a long straight way when traveling northbound. An excellent
shoulder is present. The area just to the north and south of the intersection is listed as a
non-intersection high accident location. The presence of the long northbound straight
section may lead to excessive speeds.

4.0 Future Traffic Volumes

4.1 Traffic Forecasts
Figure 4.1 summarizes the past growth trends in terms of traffic volumes along Route 4. It
can be seen that traffic volumes along Route have increased in generally by 1% to 3% per
year. Over the past 20 years traffic has grown mo re along the northern sections of Route 4.
This is probably due to the fact that regional (through) traffic has increased more than local
trips. Based on the past trends along Route 4 and general population forecasts, BFJ
developed traffic forecasts for Route 4 for the years 2014 and 2024, which are shown in
Figures 4.2 & 4.3. It can be seen that future AADTs are expected to rea
ch flows as high as
13,900 in 2024 along the section where Route 4 overlaps with Route 22.

Route 4 Corridor Study Buckhurst Fish Jacquemart Inc./ January 2005
24

ROUTE4 CORRIDORSTUDYsource: Census TIGER® 2000 Data from Geography Network
4
4
4
4
4
4W
aite
G
eer
BurgoyneD
ix
Ro
ck City
Stone Schoolhouse
Co
unty R oute 36
Kingsbur
y
S tate Highway 149
Bald
win Corn
ers
T OwensNee
d
hamvil
le
Char
le s
Flat Ro
ck
State Highway 149
C
la
y Hill
Kelsey Pond
State Route 22
Deweys Bridg eOld Ro
ute 4
Ol
d Route 4
R
yd
er
Lo
ck II
Old
Stat
e Ro
ad
1s tM
a
ple
Mounta inWi
llia m
Br
oadw
ay
Coun
ty
Road
9ABuckleyCounty Ro
ad
18County Ro
ad
9B
Ol
d
Fair
Have
nDoug
las
Ch
apman
Golf Course
5th
Potte r
3rd
Eliz
abeth
Fort AnnFort Ann
Kingsbury
KingsburyWhitehall
WhitehallHampto
nHampton
WhitehallWhitehall
Gra
Gra
H udson F a lls F ort Ann
F ort Ann
F FI
IG
GU
UR
RE
E4
4.
.1
1


H
HI
IS
ST
TO
OR
RI
IC
CA
AL
LT
TR
RA
AF
FF
FI
IC
CV
VO
OL
LU
UM
ME
ES
SA
AN
ND
DE
EX
XP
PE
EC
CT
TE
ED
DG
GR
RO
OW
WT
TH
HA
AL
LO
ON
NG
GR
RO
OU
UT
TE
E4
4
Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.
ROUTE4 CORRIDORSTUDY
0 2 miles
April 2004
L LE
EG
GE
EN
ND
D
AADT (year of count)
A
AA
AD
DT
T
5
56
65
50
0

(
(1
19
98
80
0)
)
A
AA
AD
DT
T
4
47
75
50
0(1982)
A
AA
AD
DT
T
6
67
75
50
0(
(1
19
97
79
9)
)
A
AA
AD
DT
T
4
47
70
00
0(
(1
19
97
79
9)
)
A
AA
AD
DT
T
5
50
05
50
0(
(1
19
98
82
2)
)
A
AA
AD
DT
T
5
59
95
50
0

(
(1
19
99
90
0)
)
A
AA
AD
DT
T
5
57
70
00
0(1989)
A
AA
AD
DT
T
1
10
01
10
00
0(
(1
19
99
91
1)
)
A
AA
AD
DT
T
8
86
65
50
0(
(1
19
99
91
1)
)
A
AA
AD
DT
T
7
79
95
50
0(
(1
19
98
89
9)
)
1
1.
.0
0%
%

E
Es
st
ti
im
ma
at
te
ed
d
G
Gr
ro
ow
wt
th
h
1
1.
.5
5%
%E
Es
st
ti
im
ma
at
te
ed
d
G Gr
ro
ow
wt
th
h
1
1.
.5
5%
%E
Es
st
ti
im
ma
at
te
ed
d
G Gr
ro
ow
wt
th
h
2
2.
.0
0%
%E
Es
st
ti
im
ma
at
te
ed
d
G Gr
ro
ow
wt
th
h
2
2.
.0
0%
%
E
Es
st
ti
im
ma
at
te
ed
d
G Gr
ro
ow
wt
th
h

Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.
ROUTE4 CORRIDORSTUDYsource: Census TIGER® 2000 Data from Geography Network
0 2 miles
April 2004
4
4
4
4
4
4W
aite
G
eer
BurgoyneD
ix
Ro
ck City
Stone Schoolhouse
Co
unty R oute 36
Kingsbur
y
S tate Highway 149
Bald
win Corn
ers
T OwensNee
d
hamvil
le
Char
le s
Flat Ro
ck
State Highway 149
C
la
y Hill
Kelsey Pond
State Route 22
Deweys Bridg eOld Ro
ute 4
Ol
d Route 4
R
yd
er
Lo
ck II
Old
Stat
e Ro
ad
1s tM
a
ple
Mounta inWi
llia m
Br
oadw
ay
Coun
ty
Road
9ABuckleyCounty Ro
ad
18County Ro
ad
9B
Ol
d
Fair
Have
nDoug
las
Ch
apman
Golf Course
5th
Potte r
3rd
Eliz
abeth
Fort AnnFort Ann
Kingsbury
KingsburyWhitehall
WhitehallHampto
nHampton
WhitehallWhitehall
Gra
Gra
H udson F a lls F ort Ann
F ort Ann
F FI
IG
GU
UR
RE
E4
4.
.2
2


T
TR
RA
AF
FF
FI
IC
CF
FO
OR
RE
EC
CA
AS
ST
TS
SF
FO
OR
R2
20
01
14
4
A
AL
LO
ON
NG
GR
RO
OU
UT
TE
E4
4
65(111)
291(366)
89(216)
267(363)145(218)
71(68)
33(21)
161(154)
223(330)
210(110)282(318)
65(22)
45(51)
7(6)
180(276)6(5)
270(215)43(72)
70(183)
13(17)
103(210)
155(410)
169(112)
157(124)
65(82)67(85)388(258)
17(11)
24(24)
21(20)
211(263)
34(41)
167(248)
8(27)
209(244)
250(193)
0(5)5(7)
17(17)
31(20)
30(41)
15(24)
A AA
AD
DT
T
7
79
94
44
4
A
AA
AD
DT
T
7
70
04
49
9
A
AA
AD
DT
T
1
11
16
63
30
0
A
AA
AD
DT
T
1
11
14
42
27
7
A
AA
AD
DT
T
1
11
13
39
99
9
R
Ro
ou
ut
te
es
s
4
4
&
&
2
22
2
N
No
or
rt
th
h
R
Ro
ou
ut
te
es
s
4
4
&
&
2
22
2
S
So
ou
ut
th
h
R
Ro
ou
ut
te
es
s
4
4
&
&
1
14
49
9
N
No
or
rt
th
h
R
Ro
ou
ut
te
es
s
4
4
&
&
1
14
49
9
S
So
ou
ut
th
h
R
Ro
ou
ut
te
es
s
4
4
&
&
3
32
2
L
LE
EG
GE
EN
ND
D
X
XX
X(
(X
XX
X)
):
:
A
AM
M(
(P
PM
M)
)
P
Pe
ea
ak
k
H
Ho
ou
ur
r
T
Tu
ur
rn
ni
in
ng
g
M Mo
ov
ve
em
me
en
nt
ts
s,
,
(
(2
20
01
14
4)
) AADT (2014)

Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.
ROUTE4 CORRIDORSTUDYsource: Census TIGER® 2000 Data from Geography Network
0 2 miles
April 2004
4
4
4
4
4
4W
aite
G
eer
BurgoyneD
ix
Ro
ck City
Stone Schoolhouse
Co
unty R oute 36
Kingsbur
y
S tate Highway 149
Bald
win Corn
ers
T OwensNee
d
hamvil
le
Char
le s
Flat Ro
ck
State Highway 149
C
la
y Hill
Kelsey Pond
State Route 22
Deweys Bridg eOld Ro
ute 4
Ol
d Route 4
R
yd
er
Lo
ck II
Old
Stat
e Ro
ad
1s tM
a
ple
Mounta inWi
llia m
Br
oadw
ay
Coun
ty
Road
9ABuckleyCounty Ro
ad
18County Ro
ad
9B
Ol
d
Fair
Have
nDoug
las
Ch
apman
Golf Course
5th
Potte r
3rd
Eliz
abeth
Fort AnnFort Ann
Kingsbury
KingsburyWhitehall
WhitehallHampto
nHampton
WhitehallWhitehall
Gra
Gra
H udson F a lls F ort Ann
F ort Ann
F FI
IG
GU
UR
RE
E4
4.
.3
3


T
TR
RA
AF
FF
FI
IC
CF
FO
OR
RE
EC
CA
AS
ST
TS
SF
FO
OR
R2
20
02
24
4
A
AL
LO
ON
NG
GR
RO
OU
UT
TE
E4
4
79(135)
355(446)
108(263)
325(443)177(266)
86(83)
40(25)
196(187)
272(403)
256(134)343(388)
79(27)
53(59)
8(7)
209(321)7(5)
314(249)50(84)
77(203)
15(18)
113(232)
171(453)
187(123)
173(137)
72(90)74(94)428(286)
18(12)
27(27)
23(22)
245(306)
39(47)
194(288)
9(31)
242(283)
290(224)
0(5)5(8)
20(20)
36(23)
35(470
18(28)
A AA
AD
DT
T
8
87
77
75
5
A
AA
AD
DT
T
8
81
18
80
0
A
AA
AD
DT
T
1
13
34
49
97
7
A
AA
AD
DT
T
1
13
39
92
29
9
A
AA
AD
DT
T
1
13
38
89
96
6
R
Ro
ou
ut
te
es
s
4
4
&
&
2
22
2
N
No
or
rt
th
h
R
Ro
ou
ut
te
es
s
4
4
&
&
2
22
2
S
So
ou
ut
th
h
R
Ro
ou
ut
te
es
s
4
4
&
&
1
14
49
9
N
No
or
rt
th
h
R
Ro
ou
ut
te
es
s
4
4
&
&
1
14
49
9
S
So
ou
ut
th
h
R
Ro
ou
ut
te
es
s
4
4
&
&
3
32
2
L
LE
EG
GE
EN
ND
D
X
XX
X(
(X
XX
X)
):
:
A
AM
M(
(P
PM
M)
)
P
Pe
ea
ak
k
H
Ho
ou
ur
r
T
Tu
ur
rn
ni
in
ng
g
M Mo
ov
ve
em
me
en
nt
ts
s,
,
(
(2
20
02
24
4)
) AADT (2024)

Traffic volumes along Route 4 do not warrant widening from its current two-lane
configuration into a four-lane roadway. The high volumes projected for 2024 are still
within the capacity limits of a two-lane highway. The congestion that does exist along the
corridor is primarily due to intersection issues and flow restrictions in the developed areas.
Improving conditions along these key locations is the best way to improve traffic flow in the
corridor. Table 4.1 shows the traffic forecasts for the major intersections along the corridor.

5.0 Route 4 Improvements Program

5.1 Traffic and Safety Improv ements – Major Intersections
There were no unsignalized intersections in the study area which have sufficient traffic
volumes and delays to warrant the installation of a traffic signal. BFJ proposes to modify
two signalized intersections with roundabouts and alter the signal timings of other
signalized intersections. The location of the intersection improvements can be found in
Figure 5.1.

Table 5.1 summarizes the year 2024 traffic condi tions (levels of service and delays) for the
major corridor intersections without improvements and with improvements.
Table 5.1 – Future Traffic Conditions with Improvements

2024 Traffic Conditions without Improvements 2024 Traffic Conditions with Improvements
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Intersection Approach Delay
Level of
Service
Delay
Level of Service
Delay
Level of Service
Delay
Level of Service
With Roundabout
Route 32 & Route 4 Eastbound 15.7 B 31.4 C 4.2 A 9.0 A
Westbound 150.5F 62.4 D 6.6 A 6.6 A
Northbound 28.3 C 30.6 C 4.8 A 10.2 B
Southbound 36.4 D 35.3 D 9.0 A 6.0 A
overall76.6 E 39.4 D 6.7 A 8.1 A
Shorter Cycle Length
Route 149 (N) & Route 4 Eastbound 16.1 B 18.5 B 26.5 C 27.9 C
Westbound 13.3 B 13.3 B 13.4 B 10.4 B
Northbound 14.4 B 15.7 B 8.7 A 13.9 B
Southbound 19.5 B 17. 5 B 15.9 B 20.4 C
overall17.3 B 17.1 B 17.0 B 20.4 C
Exclusive Left Turn Phase
Route 22 (S) & Route 4 Westbound 21.4 C 23.1 C 23.5 C 26.6 C
Northbound 4.2 A 6.5 A 12.2 B 19.6 B
Southbound 8.2 A 9.0 A 9.2 A 10.8 B
overall9.1 A 10.9 B 13.5 B 17.6 B
With Roundabout
Route 22 (N)& Route 4 westbound 14.4 B 16.2 B 4.2 A 5.4 A
northbound 3.9 A 6.2 A 5.4 A 9.6 A
southbound 15.8 B 17.0 B 4.2 A 6.0 A
overall10.5 B 12.7 B 4.7 A 7.3 A

Route 4 Corridor Study Buckhurst Fish Jacquemart Inc./ January 2005
28

Weekda
y AM Weekda
y PM Weekda
y AM Weekda
y PM Weekda
y AM Weekda
y PM
Background Growth Rate2.0% left 239 300 291 366 355 446
Build Years:2014 2024ri
ght 53 91 65 111 79 135
10 20 thru 73 177 89 216 108 263
Com
pounded Growth Rate1.22 1.49 ri
ght 219 298 267 363 325 443
left 58 56 71 68 86 83
thru 119 179 145 218 177 266
Back
ground Growth Rate2.0% left 132 126 161 154 196 187
Build Years:2014 2024ri
ght 27 17 33 21 40 25
10 20 thru 183 271 223 330 272 403
Com
pounded Growth Rate1.22 1.49 ri
ght 172 90 210 110 256 134
left 53 18 65 22 79 27
thru 231 261 282 318 343 388
Back
ground Growth Rate1.5% left 182 227 211 263 245 306
Build Years:2014 2024thru 7 23 8 27 9 31
10 20 ri
ght 29 35 34 41 39 47
Com
pounded Growth Rate1.16 1.35 left 27 17 31 20 36 23
thru 15 15 17 17 20 20
ri
ght 4 6 5 7 5 8
left 26 35 30 41 35 47
thru 144 214 167 248 194 288
right 13 21 15 24 18 28
left 4 5 5
thru 215 166 250 193 290 224
right 180 210 209 244 242 283
Background Growth Rate1.5% left 6 5 7 6 8 7
Build Years:2014 2024right 39 44 45 51 53 59
10 20 thru 155 238 180 276 209 321
Compounded Growth Rate1.16 1.35 right 5 4 6 5 7 5
left 37 62 43 72 50 84
thru 233 185 270 215 314 249
Back
ground Growth Rate1.0% left 63 166 70 183 77 203
Build Years:2014 2024thru 140 371 155 410 171 453
10 20 ri
ght 12 15 13 17 15 18
Com
pounded Growth Rate1.10 1.22 left 15 10 17 11 18 12
thru 351 234 388 258 428 286
ri
ght 61 77 67 85 74 94
left 22 22 24 24 27 27
thru 93 190 103 210 113 232
right 19 18 21 20 23 22
left 59 74 65 82 72 90
thru 142 112 157 124 173 137
right 153 101 169 112 187 123
Table 4.1 – Rt 4 Traffic Foreasts
2014 Volumes
westbound
northbound
southbound
Route 4 & Route
32
eastbound
westbound
northbound
southboundwestboundExisting Volumes 2004 2024 Volumes
Route 4 &
Broadway /
Poultney
northbound
southbound
Route 4 & Route 22
(south)
southbound
Route 4 & Route
149 (south)
northboundwestbound
southboundwestbound
northbound
Route 4 & Route
149 (north)
eastbound
Route 4 Corridor StudyBuckhurst Fish and Jacquemart Inc. January 2005

F FI
IG
GU
UR
RE
E5
5.
.1
1
P
PR
RO
OP
PO
OS
SE
ED
DI
IN
NT
TE
ER
RS
SE
EC
CT
TI
IO
ON
NI
IM
MP
PR
RO
OV
VE
EM
ME
EN
NT
TS
S
Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.
ROUTE4 CORRIDORSTUDY
0 2 miles
April 2004
4
4
4
4
4
4W
aite
G
eer
BurgoyneD
ix
Ro
ck City
Stone Schoolhouse
Co
unty Route 36
Kingsbur
y
S tate Highway 149
Bald
win Corn
ers
T OwensNee
d
hamvil
le
Char
le s
Flat Ro
ck
S tate Highway 149
C
la
y Hill
Kelsey Pond
State Route 22
Deweys Bridg eOld Ro
ute 4
Ol
d Route 4
R
yd
er
Lo
ck II
Old
Stat
e Ro
ad
1s tM
a
ple
Mounta inWi
llia m
Br
oadw
ay
County
Road
9ABuckleyCounty Ro
ad
18County Ro
ad
9B
Ol
d
Fair
Have
nDoug
las
Ch
apman
Golf Course
5th
Potter
3rd
Eliz
abeth
Fort AnnFort Ann
Kingsbury
KingsburyWhitehall
WhitehallHampto
nHampton
WhitehallWhitehall
Gr
aGra
H udson F a lls F ort Ann
F ort Ann
I In
ns
st
ta
al
ll
l
T
Tu
ur
rn
n
L
La
an
ne
es
s
a
at
t
I In
nt
te
er
rs
se
ec
ct
ti
io
on
n
w
wi
it
th
h
G
Go
ol
lf
f
C
Co
ou
ur
rs
se
e
R
Rd
d.
.
B
Bu
ui
il
ld
d
R
Ro
ou
un
nd
da
ab
bo
ou
ut
t
a
at
t
t
th
he
e
I In
nt
te
er
rs
se
ec
ct
ti
io
on
n
o
of
f
R Ro
ou
ut
te
es
s
4
4
&
&
2
22
2
(
(N
No
or
rt
th
h)
)
A
Ad
dd
d
E
Ex
xc
cl
lu
us
si
iv
ve
e
L
Le
ef
ft
t
T
Tu
ur
rn
n
P
Ph
ha
as
se
e
a
at
t
I In
nt
te
er
rs
se
ec
ct
ti
io
on
n
w
wi
it
th
h
R
Ro
ou
ut
te
e
2
22
2
(
(S
So
ou
ut
th
h)
)
P
Pr
ro
oh
hi
ib
bi
it
t
L
Le
ef
ft
t
T
Tu
ur
rn
ns
s
f fr
ro
om
m
N
Ne
ee
ed
dh
ha
am
mv
vi
il
ll
le
e
L
La
an
ne
e
R
Ro
ou
ut
te
es
s
4
4
&
&
1
14
49
9
(
(N
No
or
rt
th
h)
)
S Sh
ho
or
rt
t
T
Te
er
rm
m:
:
S
Sh
ho
or
rt
te
en
n
C
Cy
yc
cl
le
e
L Le
en
ng
gt
th
h
L Lo
on
ng
g
T
Te
er
rm
m:
:
A
Ad
dd
d
T
Tu
ur
rn
n
L
La
an
ne
es
s

o or
r
i
in
ns
st
ta
al
ll
l
R
Ro
ou
un
nd
da
ab
bo
ou
ut
tS
Sh
hi
if
ft
t
I
In
nt
te
er
rs
se
ec
ct
ti
io
on
n
S
So
ou
ut
th
hb
bo
ou
un
nd
d
t to
o
I
Im
mp
pr
ro
ov
ve
e
S
Si
ig
gh
ht
t
L
Li
in
ne
es
s
a at
t
T
T
O
Ow
we
en
ns
s
L
La
an
ne
e
I
In
ns
st
ta
al
ll
l
R
Ro
ou
un
nd
da
ab
bo
ou
ut
t
a at
t
t
th
he
e
I
In
nt
te
er
rs
se
ec
ct
ti
io
on
n
o
of
f
R Ro
ou
ut
te
es
s
4
4
&
&
3
32
2
A
At
t
R
Ro
ou
ut
te
e
4
4
&
&
K
Ki
in
ng
gs
sb
bu
ur
ry
y
S
St
t.
.
&
&
C
Co
ou
un
nt
ty
y
R
Rt
te
e
3
36
6
C Ch
ha
an
ng
ge
e
N
No
or
rt
th
h
F
Fo
or
rk
k
t
to
o
O
On
ne
e
W
Wa
ay
y
W
We
es
st
tb
bo
ou
un
nd
d
C Ch
ha
an
ng
ge
e
S
So
ou
ut
th
h
F
Fo
or
rk
k
t
to
o
O
On
ne
e
W
Wa
ay
y
E
Ea
as
st
tb
bo
ou
un
nd
d
W
Wi
id
de
en
n
S
Sh
ho
ou
ul
ld
de
er
r
o or
r
I
In
ns
st
ta
al
ll
l
T
Tu
ur
rn
n
L
La
an
ne
e
a at
t
I
In
nt
te
er
rs
se
ec
ct
ti
io
on
n
w
wi
it
th
h
C CR
R
9
9
/
/
C
CR
R
2
21
1
A
At
t
R
Ro
ou
ut
te
es
s
4
4
&
&
1
14
49
9
(
(S
So
ou
ut
th
h)
)
R Re
ed
du
uc
ce
e
A
An
ng
gl
le
e
o
of
f
N
No
or
rt
th
hb
bo
ou
un
nd
d
A Ap
pp
pr
ro
oa
ac
ch
h
t
to
o
6
60
0
D
De
eg
gr
re
ee
es
s

Routes 4 & 32
Starting from the southern portion of the corridor, BFJ recommends a roundabout to be
installed at the intersection of Routes 4 & Route 32. A preliminary schematic for the
proposed roundabout can be seen in Figure 5.2. Roundabouts are the safest form of at
grade intersections and are expected to reduce the total number of crashes by about 37%
and reduce the injury crashes by 75%
4. This intersection is currently operating at LOS E
with significant delays for westbound traffic at both the AM and PM peak periods. With the
roundabout installed, the intersection will operate at LOS A, with greatest delay being 10.1
seconds for northbound traffic during the PM peak period. As shown in Figure 5.2, some
minor right-of-way acquisitions are needed for the roundabout, which are discussed in
Section 6.

Routes 4 & 149 in Fort Ann
The next signalized intersection is located at th e corner of Routes 4 / 149 in Fort Ann. In
the short term BFJ recommends shortening the cycle length of the traffic signal from an 80
second cycle to a 55 second cycle. Our models show this will reduce the existing level of
delays at this intersection in the AM peak fr om 17.3 seconds to 12.1 seconds and in the PM
peak from 17.1 seconds to 13.6 seconds. Shorter phases may reduce the theoretical
capacity of the intersection, but it will also allow automobiles which are stopped in the
incorrect place to get out of the intersection fa ster. This should reduce the actual delays as
the shorter cycles will not lead to the extent of delays that occur under the current cycle
lengths.

As the property on the north-west corner of the intersection of Route 4/149 currently has a
willing seller, it could be acquired by NYSDOT. If the additional right-of-way at the
intersection is acquired, the intersection could be reconfigured to increase the turning
radius for tractor trailers and allow the addition of turning lanes (Figure 5.3). Alternatively,
the right-of-way would permit the installation of a roundabout. A possible configuration
for the proposed roundabout can be seen in Figure 5.4. In order to build a roundabout
with the optimal design, acquisition of another property on either the northeast or the
southwest corner may be required. This would have to be determined in the next design
phase of the roundabout. Both options would be less expensive and faster to implement
than a bypass around Fort Ann, but would have a negative impact on the village character
when compared with the bypass.

The implementation of either option (roundabout or added turn lanes in conjunction with
the purchase of the property on the north-west corner) would alleviate the congestion and
delays this intersection, but it would not reduce the overall traffic nuisances and related
impacts on the Village. Increasing amounts of traffic and trucks will drive through the
Village and will affect this community negativel y. Even if NYSDOT purchases the property
on the north-west corner, the Town of Fort Ann should map a bypass alignment on the
Town Plan bypassing the Village in the north-wes t quadrant to preserve this alternative for
future generations. See Appendix C for the discussion of the bypass.
4 Tollbox on Intersectoin Safety and De sign, Institute of Transportaion Engineers, FHWA, Page 134, Table 8.1

Route 4 Corridor Study Buckhurst Fish Jacquemart Inc./ January 2005
31

F FI
IG
GU
UR
RE
E5
5.
.2
2
P
PR
RO
OP
PO
OS
SE
ED
DR
RO
OU
UN
ND
DA
AB
BO
OU
UT
TR
RO
OU
UT
TE
E4
4
&
&
3
32
2
I
IN
NT
TE
ER
RS
SE
EC
CT
TI
IO
ON
N
Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.
ROUTE4 CORRIDORSTUDYsource: NYS GIS Clearinghouse
0 1100 ft
April 2004

F FI
IG
GU
UR
RE
E5
5.
.3
3
P
PR
RO
OP
PO
OS
SE
ED
DU
UP
PG
GR
RA
AD
DE
EA
AT
TR
RO
OU
UT
TE
E4
4
&
&
1
14
49
9
I
IN
NT
TE
ER
RS
SE
EC
CT
TI
IO
ON
N-

F
FO
OR
RT
TA
AN
NN
N
Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.
ROUTE4 CORRIDORSTUDY
0 40 ft
April 2004
R RO
OU
UT
TE
E
R
RO
OU
UT
TE
E
4
4
R
RO
OU
UT
TE
E
4
4

F FI
IG
GU
UR
RE
E5
5.
.4
4

P
PR
RO
OP
PO
OS
SE
ED
DR
RO
OU
UN
ND
DA
AB
BO
OU
UT
TA
AT
TR
RO
OU
UT
TE
E4
4
&
&
1
14
49
9
I
IN
NT
TE
ER
RS
SE
EC
CT
TI
IO
ON
N-

F
FO
OR
RT
TA
AN
NN
N
Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.
ROUTE4 CORRIDORSTUDY
0 40 ft
April 2004
R RO
OU
UT
TE
E
1
14
49
9
R
RO
OU
UT
TE
E
4
4

Route 4 & 22 South
At the intersection of Route 4 and Route 22 South, BFJ advises the introduction of an
exclusive southbound left-turn phase primarily to reduce accidents. With the exclusive
phase, the intersection operates at LOS B in both the AM and PM peak periods. The
introduction of an exclusive left-turn phase wi ll reduce the capacity of this intersection
slightly, but will improve safety. As this inte rsection is operating at LOS A, the improved
safety outweighs the increased delays.

Route 4 & 22 North
Traveling northbound, into the Village of Whiteha ll, BFJ recommends the installation of a
roundabout at the intersection of Route 4 and Route 22 North (Figure 5.5). This intersection
is currently operating at LOS B, and seven acc idents occurred at this intersection. A
roundabout is recommended due to the configura tion of the intersection and because it is in
the middle of a high accident corridor where 26 accidents occurred in a half-mile distance.
The presence of the roundabout will serve to calm traffic and lower the number of accidents
in this section of the corridor. With the r oundabout the level of service is expected to
improve to LOS A. The roundabout will also improve access to the center of Whitehall.
Preliminary engineering studies will have to de termine whether this roundabout is feasible
from the point of view of ava ilable right-of-way and grades.

5.2 Traffic and Safety Improvements – Unsignalized Intersections
There are several additional locations along the corridor where BFJ reco
mmends a
reconfiguration of the existing intersection. The intersections were brought to our attention
during the public workshops and contain non-standard configurations. With slight
modifications these intersections can operate more efficiently. Moving from south to north,
the first location is the intersection where Route 4 intersects with Kingsbury St. / County
Route 36. At the current time, the intersection on the west of Route 4 is a three-way fork
connecting to Route 4 with all three forks permitting two-way traffic (Figure 5.6). In order to
simplify this intersection, we advise that the northern fork (Kingsbury Street/ Route 36) be
converted to one-way operation westbound. The southern fork (Church Road) should be
modified to be one-way eastbound/southbound. The center fork (Kingsbury Road) should
continue to permit two-way traffic. Eventually this central intersection could be signalized
or could become a roundabout. The left turns would be made at this center fork. Both
Kingsbury Street and Church Road legs should be narrowed, with the former right-of-way
used to enlarge the park located in the triangular intersection. In addition, the trees located
north of Kingsbury Street along Route 4 should be cut back, to permit greater visibility to the
intersection.

The next intersection modification occurs at the intersection of 149 S and Route 4. (Figure
5.7) At this location the northbound approach connects with Route 4 at an angle which
requires the driver to turn his head sharply to the left to check for the presence of
northbound traffic on Route 4. The angle should be reduced to 60 degrees, which would
provide easier viewing of northbound traffic.

The next mitigation occurs where Route 4 intersects with T Owens Lane (Figure 5.8), which
is located just south of the Village of Fort Ann. At the current time, T Owens Lane has very

Route 4 Corridor Study Buckhurst Fish Jacquemart Inc./ January 2005
35

F FI
IG
GU
UR
RE
E5
5.
.5
5
P
PR
RO
OP
PO
OS
SE
ED
DR
RO
OU
UN
ND
DA
AB
BO
OU
UT
TA
AT
TR
RO
OU
UT
TE
E4
4/
/
R
RO
OU
UT
TE
E2
22
2/
/
B
BR
RO
OA
AD
DW
WA
AY
Y-

W
WH
HI
IT
TE
EH
HA
AL
LL
L
Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.
ROUTE4 CORRIDORSTUDY
0 30 ft
April 2004

F FI
IG
GU
UR
RE
E5
5.
.6
6
I
IN
NT
TE
ER
RS
SE
EC
CT
TI
IO
ON
NO
OF
FR
RO
OU
UT
TE
E4
4
&
&
K
KI
IN
NG
GS
SB
BU
UR
RY
YS
ST
TR
RE
EE
ET
T
Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.
ROUTE4 CORRIDORSTUDY
0 200 ft
April 2004

F FI
IG
GU
UR
RE
E5
5.
.7
7
R
RO
OU
UT
TE
E4
4
&
&
1
14
49
9S
S
I
IN
NT
TE
ER
RS
SE
EC
CT
TI
IO
ON
NI
IM
MP
PR
RO
OV
VE
EM
ME
EN
NT
T
Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.
ROUTE4 CORRIDORSTUDYsource:VollmerApril 2004

F FI
IG
GU
UR
RE
E5
5.
.8
8
T
T
O
OW
WE
EN
NS
SL
LA
AN
NE
EI
IM
MP
PR
RO
OV
VE
EM
ME
EN
NT
T
Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.
ROUTE4 CORRIDORSTUDY
0 160 ft
April 2004

short sight distance owing to both the topography and angle of intersection with Route 4.
BFJ recommends shifting the intersection southward approximately 100 yards along the
current existing dirt road, which would improve the sight lines and reduce the potential for
accidents at this location.

Another suggested modification is the installation of speed humps along Catherine Street in
the Village of Fort Ann. As Catherine Street runs parallel with Route 4, some drivers take
this residential street as a shortcut to avoid the intersection of Route 4 with Route 149. One
speed hump should be installed along Catherine Street south of Route 149 in front of 44
Catherine Street and one north of Route 149 at 84 Catherine Street. The installation of
speed humps will calm traffic along this street, encouraging drivers to stay on Route 4.

The next location is the intersection of Route 4 and CR 9 / CR 21 about 2 miles east of the
Vermont Border. This four-way intersection is in a valley in the roadway. Trucks travel at
high speeds down the hill to enable them to maintain speed on the uphill after the
intersection. As the roadway dips down there is a narrow shoulder with insufficient room
for a truck to pass. Widening of the road, either by putting in a dedicated left turn lane or
by expanding the size of the shoulder would tend to improve safety at this intersection.
Traveling southbound, the signage alerts drivers of the presence of a four-way intersection,
but if the vehicle does not slow down, it is impossible to stop as the sight lines are too short
for stopping.

The northernmost mitigation measure along the corridor is recommended at the intersection
of Route 4 & Golf Course Road. This location may see an increase in truck traffic as an
intermodal yard is planned just north of Route 4. BFJ recommends the installation of an
eastbound left-turn lane on Route 4 at Golf Course Road. This should be accompanied by a
right-turn lane/deceleration lane for traffic traveling westbound along Route 4. Lan
dscape
improvements are also proposed for this location (see section 5.6 for more information).

5.3 Traffic Improvements – Non-Intersection Locations
This section is a list of recommended improvements that are not located at a major
intersection. The main focus of these impro vements is to lower the number of crashes in
the corridor. Secondary importance is to impr ove traffic flow and improve the quality of
life along the corridor. The following suggestions are generally in order of location,
traveling from the southern to the northern portion of the study area and are listed
graphically in Figure 5.9. Any suggestion to flatten or straighten Route 4 needs to be
balanced, as the unintended effect of these actions could be to increase speeds along the
corridor.

• At mile marker 1151 & 1152 in Kingsbury, just north of the intersection with Wait
Road, there exists a high accident location. At a minimum we advise that a blind
driveway sign be erected to alert traffic prior to the sharp turn. Other mitigation
measures include widening the shoulder in the curve to provide more room for
vehicle avoidance for through vehicles to pass turning vehicles.

• Just to the south of the intersection of Route 4 with Geer Road we advise that the
roadway be flattened. At this location the presence of rolling terrain makes for
difficult visibility. By flattening the roadway, the sightlines can be improved. In

Route 4 Corridor Study Buckhurst Fish Jacquemart Inc./ January 2005
40

F FI
IG
GU
UR
RE
E5
5.
.9
9
P
PR
RO
OP
PO
OS
SE
ED
DN
NO
ON
N-
-I
IN
NT
TE
ER
RS
SE
EC
CT
TI
IO
ON
NI
IM
MP
PR
RO
OV
VE
EM
ME
EN
NT
TS
S
Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.
ROUTE4 CORRIDORSTUDY
0 2 miles
April 2004
t
u4
t
u4
t
u4
t
u4
t
u4
Wai
te
G
e
e
r
Burg
oyn
eDi
x
Ro
c
kCi
t
y
Sto
ne
Sch
oo
l
ho
use
C
ou
nty
R
ou
te3
6
Ki
n
gs
b
u
r
y
State Highway 149
B
aldw
i
n Cor
ners
T
O
we
n
sN
e
e
d
h
a
mvi
ll
e
C
ha
r
l es
Fl
at
Ro
ck
Sta
teH
i
gh
w
a
y14
9
C
lay
H
il
l
Ke
l
sey
Po
nd
St
ate
R
out
e22
D
ew
ey
sB
ri
dgeO
l
dRo
ut
e4
O
l
dR
o
u
te
4
R
y
der
Lo
c
kII
O
ld
S
ta
te
R
oad
1
stM
ap
le
Mo
un
ta
inWil
liam
Br
oa
d
wa
y
C
ou
n
t
yR
oa
d
9
ABu
ck
le
yCo
un
t
yRo
ad
1
8County
Ro
ad 9B
O
ld
Fa
i
r H
a
ve
nDo
ugl
as
Chapm
an
G
ol
fCou
rs
e
5
th
P
ott
e
r
3rd
El
iz
a
b e
t
h
Fort Ann
Kingsbury
Whitehall
Hampton
t
u4
Near Mile Marker 1152
Install Blind Driveway Sign
and/or Widen Shoulder and/or
Shift Driveway
Just South of Geer Road
Flatten Roadway and/or
Install Blind Driveway Sign
South of Needhamville Lane
Regrade and Widen Shoulder
Needhamville Lane
Install No Left Turn Signs
Add Parking Spaces
Adjacent to Town Hall
North of Post Office
Permit Two Hour Parking
Along Curbside
Catherine Street
Install Two Speed Humps
Fort Ann Post Office
Permit Shared Parking in Lot
Village of Fort Ann
Lower Speed Limit to
30 MPH
North of the Village of
Fort Ann
Widen Shoulder
Approx 1.2 Miles
Flatten and Straighten Route 4
Approx. mile marker 1291
200 yards
Village of Whitehall
Lower Speed Limit to
30 MPH
East of Skene St.
Upgrade Shoulder
Approx. 700 Yards

the short run, we recommend the installation of a “Blind Driveway – Reduce Speed”
sign.

• Just north of the intersection of Route 4 with Kingsbury Street, the trees overhanging
the roadway on the west side of the street need to be cut back to improve sight
lines.

• In Ft. Ann, near the Walker’s Home, Farm & Tack – 5565 Route 4 (south of
Needhamville Rd.), the shoulder on the east side of the road is graded at a 20
degree angle. This makes it difficult to use by heavy vehicles and cyclists. We
recommend that it be re-graded and made level.

• At the current time left turns are permitted from Needhamville Road onto Route 4.
Due to the difficult sight lines, BFJ recommends that only right turns be permitted
from Needhamville Road onto Route 4.

• The speed of traffic on the roadway directly affects the severity of any accident in a
vehicular/pedestrian conflict. BFJ recommends the speed limit within the Village of
Fort Ann to be lowered to 30 MPH to improve the pedestrian environment.

• Public parking spaces should be added in front of Fort Ann Town Hall.

• There appears to be capacity to open the United States Postal Service pa
rking lot to
use by the general public. In addition, to the north of the USPS Office some spaces
only permit ten minute parking, we recommend that these spaces be changed to
two-hour parking.

• North of Fort Ann, Route 4 has shoulders that are either non-existent or less than 6′
in width. BFJ recommends that consistent 6′ shoulders be provided for a length of
about 2 KM.

• North of Fort Ann, from mile marker 1291- 1803, the curve of the road and the
topography lead to short sight lines. This section of Route 4 (about 200 Meters)
should be flattened. However, the estimated cost ($520,000) may make the
improvement cost prohibitive.

• In the Village of Whitehall, we also advise that the speed limit should be reduced
to 30 MPH.

5.4 Bicycle & Pedestrian Safety Improvements
In the Village of Fort Ann, sidewalks line bot h sides of the road except for minor gaps. We
advise that the sidewalks be upgraded to be continuous within the Village. We also advise
that the sidewalk be extended south of the Village line on the east side of the street to
Needhamville Lane (approximately 500 meters ) to accommodate existing foot traffic.
Within the Village of Fort Ann, an additiona l crosswalk should be placed on Route 4 to
facilitate access to Fort Ann Central School located at 1 Catherine Street.

Route 4 Corridor Study Buckhurst Fish Jacquemart Inc./ January 2005
42

Within the Village of Whitehall, sidewalks are generally only available on the west side of
the street (Figure 2.7). We recommend that the sidewalk network be upgraded to be
contiguous on both sides of the street throughout the entire village. In addition, the
sidewalks should be extended on the west side of the street, south of the Village line to
extend to McDonalds, to accommoda te existing pedestrian traffic.

Regarding cycling, in order to improve the safety of cyclists along this corridor, we
recommend that the shoulders be extended to a minimum of six feet along the entire
corridor. Another improvement for cyclists would be the creation of off-street routes,
especially along the canal network. We recommend the initiative to develop bike routes
parallel to the existing canal corridor on land owned by the NYS Canal Corporation. The
addition of off-street routes that connect to neighboring communities will create a valuable
asset and lead to an increase in cycling. Fi nally, the villages should install bicycle racks at
strategic locations to attract and serve recreational bicyclists along the corridor.

5.5 Buses and Public Transit
Operating transit in this corridor is difficult due to the low population density, coupled with
long distances to neighboring destinations. The location within the corridor with the
greatest population density is the Village of Whitehall. Unfortunately, the nearest
destinations from Whitehall are Glens Falls, New York which is approximately 25 miles
south and Rutland, Vermont, approximately 25 miles to the northwest. The travel time by
transit is approximately one hour for each destination. The low density and dispersed
nature of these automobile based communities le ad to trip demand which is scattered over
a wide area.

Only two regularly operating transit networks provide services to segments of the
population. Social service networks operate services to transport the elderly and disabled,
while the school bus network provides transportation for students. In order to provide
transit to a greater number of residents, BFJ advises leveraging the current school bus
network to provide services to the general public. The idea of using the existing school
busses to carry non-students has been investigated by the GGFT, but they have not been
able to overcome the regulatory hurdles. At the current time, there are no school districts in
New York State which are integrating public transit with the school bus network.

Though there are both regulatory and logistical issues involved, pooling the resources of the
school bus network with public transit can accommodate greater access for all residents.
This would allow the area to leverage the limited funds that are dedicated for public transit
and make better use of the assets owned by the community. Although use integration of
school bus and public transit services is not widespread, there are several success stories in
the United States.

The following areas have experimented with integrating school bus services5:

Cheraw, South Carolina
Idlewild, Michigan
5 Integrating School Bus and Public Transportation Services in Non-Urban Communities, Transit Cooperative
Research Program Report # 56, Washington DC, 1999

Route 4 Corridor Study Buckhurst Fish Jacquemart Inc./ January 2005
43

Trumbull County, Ohio
Glendale, Oregon
Bonifay, Florida
Nampa, Idaho
Selkirk, Washington
Gillette, Wyoming

Some cases are as simple as allowing non-profit organizations to rent busses for nominal
fees during off hours (Gillette, Wyoming), while a Dial-A-Ride service (Idlewild Michigan)
allows the general public to ride with students along routes that are geared toward students.
A third method is being employed in Cheraw, South Carolina where parents, school
volunteers and school employees may request to ride on regular school bus routes. They
are looking to open this up to the general public, to fully utilize all capacity.

Another area to explore is ridesharing. As this is a low cost alternative, requiring only the
organizational ability to couple drivers and passengers, it is feasible from a budgetary
perspective. The main drawback of ridesharing is that it is difficult to recruit drivers to
participate in ridesharing programs, as they limit their options once they have a passenger
relying on them to be shuttled to their destination. By sharing a ride, the driver can reduce
the cost of their commute by half, but at the cost of reduced flexibility. Much of the
coordination between riders and passengers can be accomplished through the use of a
website.

5.6 Landscaping Plan
Route 4 serves dual functions as both a Main St reet or commercial strip within the Villages
of Fort Ann and Whitehall, as well as in Kingsbury and a rural highway between the
villages. This dual purpose leads to conflicts within the villages as drivers using the
roadway as a rural highway may drive at sp eeds which are excessive for the villages. In
order to slow traffic and extend a welcome to drivers passing through the villages, BFJ
recommends the development of a set of lands cape and traffic calming features along Route
4 which serve to reduce speeds and thereby lower accidents, beautify the roadway and
enhance civic pride and a sense of place.

BFJ recommends the installation of a series of median gateways which serve to mark the
entrance to the villages. Though these proposed median islands are not endorsed by the
NYSDOT Highway Design Manual, we believe th ey would serve a valuable purpose for this
corridor by acting as traffic calming devices which may reduce both vehicular speeds and
crashes. The gateway median islands would have to be built on a demonstration basis.
Three gateways are proposed for Fort Ann and two are proposed for Whitehall. The
gateways will generally be located at the vill age entrance where traffic has to slow down
(see Figure 5.10). In addition, an information kiosk is proposed along Route 4 in Hampton
for drivers entering NYS from Vermont.

The proposed locations for the Village of Fort Ann gateways are on Route 4 (at southern
portion of Green Thumb Nursery & near Village border in the north) and one on Route 149
(just east of Mountain View Road). Gateways are also recommended along Route 4 in the
south of Whitehall (south of 7th Avenue, North of McDonalds) and east of Whitehall along

Route 4 Corridor Study Buckhurst Fish Jacquemart Inc./ January 2005
44

F FI
IG
GU
UR
RE
E5
5.
.1
10
0
L
LA
AN
ND
DS
SC
CA
AP
PI
IN
NG
GP
PL
LA
AN
N
Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.
ROUTE4 CORRIDORSTUDY
0 2 miles
April 2004
t
u4
t
u4
t
u4
t
u4
t
u4
R
ockC
ihol
h
ou
se
Co
un
t
yRo
ut
e
36
Ki
n
g
sb
ur
y
State Highway 149
B
aldw
i
n Cor
n
ers
T
O
we
n
sNee
d
h
a
m
vi
ll
e
Ch
a
rle
s
F
la
tR
oc
k
S
ta
teHig
h
way
14
9
Cl
ay
Hi
l
l
Ke
lsey
P
ond
St
at
eR
out
e22
D
ewe
ysBri
dgeO
ld
R
ou
te
4
O
ldR
o
u
te
4
R
y
der
Lo
c
kII
O
ld
S
t
at
eRoa
d
1
stM
a
ple
Mo
un
ta
i
nWil
liam
B
r
oa
d
wa
y
C
ou
n
t
yR
oa
d
9
ABu
ck
le
y
Co
un
t
yRoad
1
8
Cou
ntyRoa
d9B
Ol
dFa
i
rHa
ve
n
D
oug
la
s
C
hapman
Go
lfC
ou
rs
e
5
th
P
ott
e
r
3
rd
El
i z
a
be
t
h
Fort Ann
Whitehall
Hampton
Site 1
Install Gateway
Site 2
Install Gateway
Site 4
Install Gateway
Site 3
Install Gateway
Site 6
Install
Information
Kiosk
Site 5
Install Gateway

F FI
IG
GU
UR
RE
E5
5.
.1
11
1
G
GA
AT
TE
EW
WA
AY
YD
DE
ES
SI
IG
GN
N-

F
FO
OR
RT
TA
AN
NN
NE
EN
NT
TR
RY
YF
FR
RO
OM
MS
SO
OU
UT
TH
H
Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.
ROUTE4 CORRIDORSTUDYsource: Mathews Neilsen Landscape architects, P.C.
NTS
April 2004

F FI
IG
GU
UR
RE
E5
5.
.1
12
2
G
GA
AT
TE
EW
WA
AY
YD
DE
ES
SI
IG
GN
N-

F
FO
OR
RT
TA
AN
NN
NE
EN
NT
TR
RY
YF
FR
RO
OM
MN
NO
OR
RT
TH
H
Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.
ROUTE4 CORRIDORSTUDYsource: Mathews Neilsen Landscape Architects, P.C.
0 45 ft
April 2004

F FI
IG
GU
UR
RE
E5
5.
.1
13
3
G
GA
AT
TE
EW
WA
AY
YD
DE
ES
SI
IG
GN
N-

F
FO
OR
RT
TA
AN
NN
NE
EN
NT
TR
RY
YF
FR
RO
OM
MW
WE
ES
ST
T
Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.
ROUTE4 CORRIDORSTUDYsource: Mathews Neilsen Landscape Architects, P.C.
NTS
April 2004

F FI
IG
GU
UR
RE
E5
5.
.1
14
4
G
GA
AT
TE
EW
WA
AY
YD
DE
ES
SI
IG
GN
N-

W
WH
HI
IT
TE
EH
HA
AL
LL
LE
EN
NT
TR
RY
YF
FR
RO
OM
MS
SO
OU
UT
TH
H
Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.
ROUTE4 CORRIDORSTUDYsource: Mathews Neilsen Landscape Architects, P.C.
0 45 ft
April 2004

F FI
IG
GU
UR
RE
E5
5.
.1
15
5
G
GA
AT
TE
EW
WA
AY
YD
DE
ES
SI
IG
GN
N-

W
WH
HI
IT
TE
EH
HA
AL
LL
LE
EN
NT
TR
RY
YF
FR
RO
OM
ME
EA
AS
ST
T
Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.
ROUTE4 CORRIDORSTUDYsource: Mathews Neilsen Landscape Architects, P.C.
0 45 ft
April 2004

Route 4 (west of Country Club Drive). Designs for the proposed median gateways are
displayed in Figures 5.11to 5.15. The primary purpose of these gateways will be to alert
drivers that they are entering a village and are re quired to reduce their speed to 30 MPH. In
addition, the gateways will be located in the center of the roadway, providing a slight
deflection to the roadway, and forcing drivers to reduce their speed as they approach. The
median gateway islands will act in a similar fa shion as roundabouts placed in a very visible
manner in the middle of the roadway and forcing drivers to slow down. The landscaping
will also provide an attractive welcome into the village and serve notice that the driver is
entering a different and important area within the corridor.

Figure 5.16 shows the proposed information kiosk to be located just to the west of Golf
Course Road on the north side of Route 4. The purpose of this information kiosk is to alert
drivers that they are entering the State of New York and to encourage them to visit locations
of interest in Washington County as well as to patronize local restaurants and hotels/motels.
The information kiosk is expected to be sheltered and open without any attendant. There
would be shelves and features that can hold brochures and maps.

6.0 Recommendations for Municipalities

6.1 Future Land Use Plans
It is expected that the Route 4 corridor will be under development press
ures and may face a
loss of open space in the future. Efforts should be made to concentrate growth and
development within the village settings. According to the Urban Land Institute, a home 10
miles from a village center on a lot that is a third of an acre costs taxpayers $69,000, while
if it is located near the village on a compact lot, it costs taxpayers $34,500
6. These one
time costs are based on the need to extend the infrastructure as well as provide services to
the location. Low-density growth patterns also produce traffic congestion and pollution, as
drivers are required to travel by car and travel further to meet their daily needs. We
recommend that smart-growth policies be adopted in an effort to maintain the historical
character of the villages. Neighborhoods which are of a walkable scale and provide smaller
stores in a village setting are a valuable resource for the area. By retaining and enhancing
the villages, residents can leave their cars an d perform multiple tasks on foot, which can
lead to a reduction in auto trips. These types of villages are also more attractive to tourists
and through travelers and will encour age them to stop and eat or shop.

Methods which can help strengthen the villages include the development of off-street
municipal parking, coupled with reducing or removing the parking requirements. Programs
such as these reduce the cost of development within the villages, as the cost associated with
land acquisition, construction and maintenance of the parking facility is shifted to the
municipality. Tax policies should favor busines ses and homes situated in the village to
encourage inward, rather than sprawling development.
6 SMART GROWTH is Smart Business- Boosting the Bottom Line & Community Prosperity, NALGEP and Smart
Growth Leadership Ins titute • 2004, pg. 5

Route 4 Corridor Study Buckhurst Fish Jacquemart Inc./ January 2005
51

F FI
IG
GU
UR
RE
ES
S5
5.
.1
16
6
D
DE
ES
SI
IG
GN
NO
OF
FI
IN
NF
FO
OR
RM
MA
AT
TI
IO
ON
NK
KI
IO
OS
SK
KA
AN
ND
DT
TU
UR
RN
NL
LA
AN
NE
ES
SA
AT
TN
NE
EW
WY
YO
OR
RK
KS
ST
TA
AT
TE
EB
BO
OR
RD
DE
ER
R
Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.
ROUTE4 CORRIDORSTUDYsource: Mathews Neilsen Landscape Architects, P.C.
0 45 ft
April 2004

Zoning should be structured such that developments are encouraged in the villages and
discouraged outside the villages. Maximum densities should be decreased significantly
outside the villages, and setback and frontage requirements should be increased
substantially. Such a development pattern will not only strengthen the character of the
villages, but will also maintain the rural character along Route 4 and, more importantly, will
maintain the function of through traffic of Route 4.

Smart-growth polices also encourage the development of mixed-use zoning in the villages,
which allow multiple uses to be collocated in a small geographical area. Villages need to
contain destination locations in order to remain relevant. Sidewalks need to be maintained
in a good state of repair to encourage walking. At the current time there are gaps in the
sidewalk network within the Village of Fort Ann and Whitehall. Crosswalks are another
necessary feature to ensure the safety of pedestrians. Dense mixed-use zoning will also
encourage cycling. To ensure safety for cyclists , a 6′ continuous shoulder on both sides of
the street should be maintained. In addition, installing bike racks at key destinations is an
inexpensive way to promote cycling. Finally, o ff-street bicycle paths, especially along the
canals are advised.

As discussed in the public workshops held for this study, a bypass on the northwest side of
Fort Ann may one day become the solution to resolving the traffic issues in the village. The
proposed route for the Fort Ann bypass road (see Figure in the Appendix) needs to be
included into the Town’s master plan to preserve this option for future generations.

6.2 Access Management
One way of improving the traffic flow and safety along the corridor is through the
implementation of an access management plan. Access management strategies aim to
alleviate the inherent conflicts between the function of through traffic of an arterial and the
local function of access to abutting properties. As traffic volumes inc
rease along these types
of roads, these conflicts become more and more problematic in terms of congestion and
accidents, and will eventually hamper the economic well being, as well as the quality of life
along the corridor. Eventually it will become d ifficult to make left turns onto and off Route
4, which may lead to an increase in accidents. Access management attempts to group the
turning movements in and out of properties, or shift them to side streets or service roads or
to minimize the more problematic turns, i.e. the left turns. The basic goal is to improve
traffic flow and safety along the arterial without reducing access. The elimination or
discouragement of certain turns in and out dr iveways is often seen as a reduction in
accessibility. However, this potential reduction is generally offset by increased accessibility
to the property from side streets or from adjacent properties. By facilitating traffic flow
along Route 4 these actions will make it easier fo r the volume of vehicles to grow in this
corridor, which will be beneficial in the long term and will increase property values.
Accident rates along arterials such as Rout e 4 are related to the density of driveways.

Studies have shown that an effective access management program can reduce crashes by as
much as 50%, increase roadway capacity by 25% to 45%, and reduce travel time and delay

Route 4 Corridor Study Buckhurst Fish Jacquemart Inc./ January 2005
53

as much as 40% to 60%7. The towns and villages along Route 4 share the responsibility for
the traffic flow along Route 4 even though it is a State Highway. Though property owners
need to get a permit from NYSDOT, the State has limited authority to control and manage
access along Route 4. The land use authority of the municipality offers the best regulatory
means to manage access along an arterial. By developing an access management program,
the towns and villages can work to minimize and possibly eliminate the most hazardous
movements (left turns in and out) along the corridor.

Among the many benefits of a managed roadway are increased public safety, reduction of
congestion, extended life of the roadway and improved appearance of the built
environment. Access management also serves to both preserve the transportation functions
of roadways as well as the long-term property values and the economic viability of abutting
development
8. A further benefit is the ability to concentrate commercial activity in a
smaller area, which is less damaging to landscapes and the environment.

Access management strategies have beneficial im pacts on pedestrian circulation in the
sense that the actions encourage more walkin g between adjacent properties (by providing
connections) and by making walking more pleasant along any sidewalk that may exist in
the area, due to reduced numbers of driveways and vehicular turns. Aesthetics are
generally also improved by access management plans.

The municipalities should consider the following actions for all properties along Route 4
and 149:

• Any subdivision plan must include side streets connecting to the State highway, and
no driveways are allowed onto the State highw ays. The side streets (collectors) must
connect as much as possible to other local st reets to form a road network that allows
flexibility and distributes the traffic loads over several roads. If no connection can
be achieved in the short term, the applicant must provide easements for future
connections.

• All commercial properties along Route 4 must provide a vehicular connection to
adjacent properties to allow vehicles to drive from one to the other without driving
onto the State highway. If no connection can be provided in the short term, the
applicant must provide an easement for a future connection. When the neighboring
property owner comes to the Town for a site plan approval or building approval, the
Town can then require the connection. These interconnections may eventually lead
to the equivalent of a service road between the commercial properties.

• Property owners along Route 4 are encouraged to combine and share their
driveways.

7 S&K Transportation Consultants, Inc. Access Managem ent, Location and Design. Participant notebook for NHI
Course 133078. National Highway Institute, Federal Highway Administration, April 1998, revised April 2000.
8 Committee on Access Management – Access Managemen t Manual. Transportation Research Board,
Washington, D.C. 2003

Route 4 Corridor Study Buckhurst Fish Jacquemart Inc./ January 2005
54

• All driveways along Route 4 require a special permit and are allowed on a
temporary basis only. If and when an alternate access can be found in the future the
driveway would then be discontinued.

The above actions seem restrictive, however, they are required in the long term to maintain
a safe and efficient highway. The access limitation off Route 4 will be more than offset by
the access improvements from side streets and from adjacent properties. Businesses will
benefit from the connections to adjacent properties, since a person in the adjacent property
is more likely to patronize the business than the drivers on Route 4. Property owners along
similar state highways with higher traffic volumes have learned that there is no other
alternative to managing traffic along these arterials, and that eventually the left turns
become very difficult anyway.

The access management plan along Route 4 does not require any municipal intervention in
the short term, other than adopting the above policies and regulations. It is a long-term
action plan requiring diligence and attention on the part of the Planning Boards. Access
management gets implemented gradually as new development applications come in front
of the Planning Boards.

7.0 Implementation of Corridor Plan

7.1 Summary of Route 4 Corridor Improvements

Table 7.1 lists all recommended improvements in the Route 4 corridor as discussed in
previous chapters. The improvements are listed in geographical order starting at the
southern end of the corridor. For each project we show the current condition/problem and
the proposed improvement.

7.2 Priorities and Funding
Table 7.1 also lists the cost estimates for each project (see Appendix C for more details).
The estimated cost is expressed in current 2004/2005 dollars. This table also indicates the
level of priority for each improvement, wh ether they should be undertaken in the short
term (less than 5 years), mid-term (5 to 8 years) or long term (more than 8 years). For
example, the median island gateways in Fort Ann are listed as a short-term priority,
whereas those in Whitehall are medium term. Since the median island gateways proposed
at the entrances of Fort Ann and Whitehall may not be allowed under current State
Highway Design Guidelines, it is recommended that they be installed on a demonstration
basis. It is felt that Fort Ann is a better testing ground for these traffic calming features.
Once these gateways have been tested successfully in Fort Ann, they can then be installed
in Whitehall.

For the median island gateways to be implemented it is also necessary that the respective
municipality agree to maintain the landscaped medians. This could either be done by the
Town/Village or by a private civic organization or corporation. The Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) will also need to approve the median gateways, as Route 4 is on
the National Highway System.

Route 4 Corridor Study Buckhurst Fish Jacquemart Inc./ January 2005
55

In the last column the table also lists the agency(ies) responsible for the implementation of
the projects. A great majority of the proposed improvements would be the responsibility of
NYSDOT and would have to become part of the regional improvement program. Some of
the projects along Route 4 such as a minor shoulder widening or correction may be
undertaken as part of major maintenance projec ts along the highway. Other projects fall
under the jurisdiction of the municipalities, the County or in some cases the private
property owners. It should be noted that currently there are no capital projects
programmed for this corridor and that funding and resource limitations require that any
future projects will need to be balanced agains t other regional and local priorities. It is up
to the municipalities to advance and implement capital projects based upon their own
assessments and that those assessments may or may not coincide with the findings of this
report.

7.3 Right-of-way Restrictions
Some of the improvement recommendations contained in this document (such as the
installation of roundabouts and wider shoulders) would require widening the existing
roadway and may require additional right-of -way. For example, a roundabout is proposed
for the intersection of Route 4 and 32 at the southern end of the corridor (see Figure 5.2).
The existing right-of-way width would not permit the installation of a modern roundabout.
Cooperation between municipalities and priv ate landowners would be necessary to
advance this concept.

Another example is in the Village of Fort Ann, where BFJ suggests that he Town adopts an
official map showing a bypass of the Village (see Figure in Appendix).
If the property is
acquired for the bypass, BFJ recommends that access not be granted to adjacent property
owners, but that the bypass be developed as a limited access roadway. It is important to
prevent this stretch of road from becoming a commercial strip, and compete with Village.

Another right-of-way constraint is in the Village of Whitehall, where it is advised that the
shoulder of Route 4 be widened. By an alyzing aerial photographs, we have identified
potential locations where the existing structures are located too close to the roadway and
may require right-of-way acquisitions if the ro ad is widened. Detailed engineering and
surveys are required to determine if the widened roadway would impact the existing
structures (see Figure 7.1).

Route 4 Corridor Study Buckhurst Fish Jacquemart Inc./ January 2005
56

Figure Location Project LengthEstimated
CostEstimated
Cost /Linear
FootPriorityJurisdiction /
Municipality
1 5.2Intersection of Route 4 and
Route 32 (Dix Ave /
Bur
goyne Ave)Installation of a
Roundabout$250,000 Short-Term NYSDOT
2Mile marker 1151 to 1154Accident Mitigation /
Widen Shoulder or shift
drivewa
y
Mid-Term NYSDOT
3Glen Falls – South of
Intersection of Geer Rd /
Route 4Flatten RoadwayRoughly 50
Meters$160,000 $970 Mid-Term NYSDOT
4Just South of Intersection of
Geer Rd / Route 4Install SignApprox 10
MetersShort-Term NYSDOT
5 5.6Kingsbury -Intersection of
Kingsbury St. / County Route
36 / Route 4Redesign traffic flow at
intersectionMid-TermWashington
County
6 5.7Kin
gsbur
y -Intersection 149 S
and Route 4Reconfigure Westbound
a
pp
roach$110,000 $550 Short-Term NYSDOT
7Ft. Ann – Near Walker’s
(south of Needhamville La.)Regrade and widen
shoulderApprox 200
Meters$150,000 $224 Mid-Term NYSDOT
8Needhamville LaneProhibit left turns from
Needhamville onto
Route 3Mid-Term Town of Fort Ann
9 5.8Ft. Ann
T Owens LaneAlter IntersectionApprox 100
MetersMid-TermTown of Fort Ann
/ Private Property
Owner
10 5.11South of Village of Fort Ann
at
5699 Route 4Install median island
“gateway”Approx 30
Meters$155,000 $646 Short-Term NYSDOT
11 2.7South of Ft. Ann Village Line Extend SidewalkApprox 500
meters$90,000 $55 Mid-TermNYSDOT / Town
of Fort Ann
Table 7.1- Route 4 Corridor – Upgrades and Improvements
Route 4 Corridor StudyBuckhurst Fish Jacquemart Inc. / May 2005

Figure Location Project LengthEstimated
CostEstimated
Cost /Linear
FootPriorityJurisdiction /
Municipality
Table 7.1- Route 4 Corridor – Upgrades and Improvements
12Village of Ft. AnnLower Speed Limit in
Villa
ge to 30 MPHShort-Term NYSDOT
13 2.7Village of Ft. AnnImprove / Upgrade
sidewalksApprox 800
meters$200,000 $76 Mid-TermNYSDOT / Town
of Fort Ann
14Near Intersection of Route 4
and Catherine St (south) Install Crosswalk Short-Term NYSDOT
15Fort Ann Town HallAdd Parking Spaces
Adjacent to Town HallMid-Term Village of Ft. Ann
16Fort Ann Post OfficePotential Public Parking
at Back of Post OfficeShort-TermVilla
ge of Ft. Ann /
USPS
17North of Post OfficeChange Ten Minute
Parking Rule to Two
Hour Parkin
g
Short-Term Village of Ft. Ann
18 AppendRoute 149 to Route 4 -West
and North of Ft. AnnBypass of Fort AnnApprox 1.6
Miles$11,300,000$ 7.06 Million /
MileLong-Term Town of Fort Ann
19 5.13West of Village of Ft. Ann –
Route 149Install – median island

gatewa
y”Approx 30
meters$155,000 Short-Term NYSDOT
20Catherine St – Fort Ann Install 2- Speed Humps Short-TermVillage of Fort
Ann
21 5.12North of Village of Fort AnnInstall – median island

gatewa
y”Approx. 30
Meters $155,000 Short-Term NYSDOT
22North of Fort Ann Widen ShoulderApprox 2
KM$445,000 $67 Short-Term NYSDOT
23North of Fort Ann – Mile
Marker 1291 – 1803Flatten and Straighten
Roadway
Approx 200
meters$520,000 $793 Long-Term NYSDOT
24 5.14Villa
ge of Whitehall southern
boundar
y
Install – median island
“gatewa
y”Mid-Term NYSDOT
25Village of WhitehallLower Speed Limit in
Villa
ge to 30 MPHShort-Term NYSDOT
Route 4 Corridor StudyBuckhurst Fish Jacquemart Inc. / May 2005

Figure Location Project LengthEstimated
CostEstimated
Cost /Linear
FootPriorityJurisdiction /
Municipality
Table 7.1- Route 4 Corridor – Upgrades and Improvements
26 2.7Village of Whitehall, West
side of Route 4Extend SidewalkApprox 1.0
KM$170,000 $52 Mid-TermNYSDOT / Villa
ge
of Whitehall
27 2.7Village of Whitehall, East
side of Route 4Extend SidewalkApprox 1.0
KM$170,000 $52 Mid-TermNYSDOT /
Pro
pert
y Owner
28 5.5Village of Whitehall,
Intersection of Route 4 and
Route 22 (Bwa
y)Install Roundabout $300,000 Mid-Term NYSDOT
29 2.7Village of Whitehall, East of
Route 22 (Bway)Extend SidewalkApprox 1.4
KM$235,000 $52 Mid-TermNYSDOT / Villa
ge
of Whitehall
32Village of Whitehall – East of
SkeneUpgrade ShoulderApprox 700
meters$170,000 $74 Mid-Term NYSDOT
33 5.15East of Village of WhitehallInstall median island

gatewa
y”Approx 30
Meters$155,000 $646 Mid-Term NYSDOT
34Intersection of Route 4 and
CR 9 / CR 21Widen Shoulder or
Install Turn LaneShort-Term NYSDOT
35 5.16Hampton – Just west of Golf
Course RoadInformation BoothApprox 200
Meters$75,000 $500 Mid-Term NYSDOT
36 5.16Hampton @ Golf Course
RoadTurn Lanes $155,000 $775 Short-TermNYSDOT /
Washin
gton Co.
$14,870,000
Route 4 Corridor StudyBuckhurst Fish Jacquemart Inc. / May 2005

F FI
IG
GU
UR
RE
E7
7.
.1
1
P
PO
OT
TE
EN
NT
TI
IA
AL
LR
RI
IG
GH
HT
T-
-O
OF
FW
WA
AY
Y-
-I
IS
SS
SU
UE
ES
SI
IN
NW
WH
HI
IT
TE
EH
HA
AL
LL
L
Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.
ROUTE4 CORRIDORSTUDYsource: NYS GIS Clearinghouse
0 200 ft
April 2004

F FI
IG
GU
UR
RE
EA
A1
1
P
PR
RO
OP
PO
OS
SE
ED
DF
FO
OR
RT
TA
AN
NN
NB
BY
YP
PA
AS
SS
SR
RO
OU
UT
TE
E
Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.
ROUTE4 CORRIDORSTUDY
0 0.5 mile
April 2004
t
u4
t
u4
149
Proposed Bypass Follows
Alignment of Kelsey Pond Road
Proposed Bypass Follows
Alignment of Powerline
Right of Way
Roundabout Proposed
At Interesection with
Route 149
Roundabout Proposed
At Interesection with
Route 4

Glens Falls Transportation Center Feasibility Study

Glens Falls Downtown
Transportation Center/Parking
Ramp Feasibility Study

Final Report

July 2004

Prepared for

Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation Council
City of Glens Falls, New York
Greater Glens Falls Transit

Prepared by

Wilbur Smith Associates

in association with

KKO and Associates, LLC
The Chazen Companies
Wallace Floyd Design Group

Albany NY, Anaheim CA, Atlanta GA, Baltimore MD, Bangkok Thailand, Burlington VT, Charleston SC, Charleston WV, Chicago IL, Cincinnati OH, Cleveland OH
Columbia SC, Columbus OH, Dallas TX, Dubai UAE, Edmonton Canada, Falls Church VA, Greenville SC, Hong Kong, Houston TX, Iselin NJ, Kansas City MO, Knoxville
TN, Lansing MI, Lexington KY, London UK, Milwaukee WI, Mumbai India, Myrtle Beach SC, New Haven CT, Orlando FL, Philadelphia PA, Pittsburgh PA, Portland ME
Poughkeepsie NY, Raleigh NC, Richmond VA, Salt Lake City UT, San Francisco CA, Tallahassee FL, Tampa FL, Tempe AZ, Toronto Canada, Trenton NJ, Washington DC
Employee-Owned Company
Shelburne Commons
4076 Shelburne Road, Suite 7
Shelburne, Vermont 05482
(802) 985-2530
(802) 985-8175 fax
www.wilbursmith.com
July 30, 2004

Mr. Aaron Frankenfeld, Director
Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation Council
Washington County Municipal Center, A-204
383 Upper Broadway
Ft. Edward, NY 12828

RE: Glens Falls, NY Downtown Transportation Center/Parking Ramp
Feasibility Study

Dear Mr. Frankenfeld:

We are pleased to present our Final Report of the “Glens Falls Downtown Transportation
Center/Parking Ramp Feasibility Study.” We trust that the Site Selection, Preferred Site Design
Concepts Financial/Funding Evaluations and Renderings assist the Transportation Council, Greater
Glens Falls Transit and City of Glens Falls in advancing a multi-modal Transportation Center and
Parking Ramp for downtown Glens Falls.

We appreciate the opportunity to work with you and the entire Advisory Committee on this project.
Please do not hesitate to call if we can be of continued service in the next steps toward implementation
of this Transportation Center.

Respectfully submitted,

WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES

Robert P. Jurasin, P.E. Peter Plumeau
Senior Vice President Project Manager

Attachment

Wilbur Smith Associates Page i
April 2004
Table of Contents

Executive Summary 1
1. Introduction & Purpose 2
2. Refinement of Design Parameters for Elm Street Site 5
3. Transit Operations Associated with Facility 11
4. Traffic Operations Analysis 14
5. Facility Financial Assessment 22
6. CBD Parking Management Strategies 36
7. Funding Options 38
8. Architectural Renderings of Conceptual Facility Design 39

List of Tables
4.1 Anticipated Site Generated Traffic Volumes 16
4.2 LOS Criteria for Signalized Intersection 19
4.3 Anticipated LOS – Future (2004) Peak Hour Conditions 20
5.1 Project Order of Magnitude Capital Costs 23
5.2 Recommended Downtown Parking Fees 25
5.3 Projected Annual Operating Expenses 26
5.4 Projected Annual Net Revenues
5.4.1 Transportation Center/Parking Ramp Revenue Assumptions and
Projections
5.4.2 Other Off-Street and On-Street Parking Revenue Assumptions and
Projections 28
29

30
5.5 Impacts of Elm Street Location on GGFT Running Times 33
5.6 Changes in GGFT Vehicle Service Miles 33
7.1 Funding Options Summary 39-40

List of Figures
1.1 Alternative Sites Evaluated for Glens Falls Transportation Center/Parking
Ramp 4
2.1 Preferred Alternative Garage Functional Concept 6
2.2 Preferred Alternative Garage Functional Concept – Cross-section 7
2.3 Preferred Alternatives Functional Layout – Access/Egress 9
3.1 GGFT Bus Circulation 12
4.1 Future (2004) A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 15
4.2 Routing Distribution of Site Generated Traffic – A.M. and P.M. Peak
Hour Volumes 17
4.3 Future (2004) A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour Combined Traffic Volumes 18
4.4 Suggested Traffic Improvements – Vicinity of Elm Street Site 21

Appendices
Appendix A: Phase 1 Report
Appendix B: Candidate Site Evaluation Matrix & Site Evaluation Results
Appendix C: Alternative Designs for Elm Street Site

Glens Falls Downtown Transportation
Center/Parking Ramp Feasibility Study

Wilbur Smith Associates Page 1
April 2004
Executive Summary

The Adirondack/Glens Falls
Transportation Council (A/GFTC), in
coordination with the City of Glens Falls
and Greater Glens Falls Transit (GGFT)
system, retained a consultant team to
conduct a location analysis and feasibility
study for the proposed downtown Glens
Falls Transportation Center/Parking
Ramp Facility. Working with these three
entities and a steering committee
appointed jointly by them, the
consultants:

• Developed conceptual design
parameters and order of
magnitude cost estimates for the
facility;
• Reviewed and evaluated five
alternative facility sites in
downtown Glens Falls identified
by the steering committee;
• Recommended a site for the
facility on the existing Elm Street
public parking lot;
• Developed a refined conceptual
design for the facility based on
the selected site;
• Developed refined capital and
operating cost and revenue
estimates;
• Recommended a new downtown
Glens Falls parking system
strategy; and • Identified potential sources of
capital financing for the facility.

Two widely-announced public meetings
and events were also held as part of the
study process.

The consultants evaluated five sites within
downtown Glens Falls and recommended
the existing publicly-owned Elm Street
parking lot for the new facility. This site
was selected based primarily on its ease of
access to downtown amenities, its minimal
impact on private properties and its
relative advantageous location for public
transit operations.

The proposed facility would provide 514
parking spaces on five levels as well as a
downtown transportation center serving
both local transit and intercity or tour
buses. Retail space of 1,500 square feet
would also be part of the facility. The
facility would provide a net gain of
approximately 420 parking spaces at the
Elm Street location. Automobile access
and egress would be from Elm Street.
Parking fees would be levied using a meter
system.

The facility’s estimated order of
magnitude capital construction cost is $8.3
million, not including any funding or
financing costs.

Glens Falls Downtown Transportation
Center/Parking Ramp Feasibility Study

Wilbur Smith Associates Page 2
April 2004
1. Purpose and Background

Purpose

In October 2002, the A/GFTC and City of Glens Falls contracted with a consultant team
led by Wilbur Smith Associates (WSA) to conduct a feasibility study and siting analysis for
the Downtown Glens Falls Transportation Center and Parking Ramp. The proposed transit
center-parking ramp facility is intended to both be a hub for the Greater Glens Falls Transit
(GGFT) system and intercity buses (Greyhound and Trailways) and provide about 500
parking spaces for daily and special events use. In addition, the City intends for the facility
to include transit-supportive space, such as indoor transit patron waiting areas, and rental
retail space with street-level storefronts.

Background

This study was conducted to two phases: In Phase 1, the consultant developed a conceptual
design for the proposed transportation center/parking ramp. In Phase 2, alternative sites
were evaluated, a preferred site was selected and the conceptual design was refined to fit that
site. Phase 2 also included estimation of facility capital and operating costs, identification of
impacts on and options for traffic operations related to the facility and outlines proposed
parking strategies for downtown Glens Falls.

Phase 1 Results – Conceptual Facility Design

In Phase 1 of the study, a conceptual design was developed without regard to a specific site.
Based on the parking demand and transit operational parameters provided by the City and
the Greater Glens Falls Transit System, the WSA team developed a conceptual design
footprint for the proposed facility. It should be noted that WSA did not conduct any
independent parking demand analysis for this project; demand estimates are based on
information provided by the City of Glens Falls.

The characteristics of the conceptual design characteristics are summarized as follows:

• 250’ x 180’ footprint (45,000 square feet, or slightly more than 1 acre);
• 4 levels (about 40’ total height);
• 514 parking spaces (including disabled spaces on 2 levels);
• Exterior local transit and intercity bus parking (5-7 vehicles) under a
canopied roof;
• 2,500 sq. ft. Transportation Center, including:
ƒ Welcome Center & Waiting Area
ƒ Restrooms
ƒ Vending/Newstand
ƒ Ticketing Counter

Glens Falls Downtown Transportation
Center/Parking Ramp Feasibility Study

Wilbur Smith Associates Page 3
April 2004 ƒ Manager’s Office & Crew Rest Room
ƒ Utility Space;
• 1,500 sq. ft. Retail Space on street level (assume subdividing into three
vendor spaces).

Appendix A contains the text of the Phase 1 Report.

Phase 2 Results – Alternative Site Evaluation

After identifying the conceptual design parameters for the facility, the consultant team and
steering committee worked together to identify candidate sites within downtown Glens Falls.
As shown in Figure 1.1, the steering committee identified five sites for consideration. These
were evaluated by the consultant team based on the ability of the site to satisfy the specified
conceptual design parameters. This evaluation resulted in the steering committee selecting
the Elm Street site as the most desirable location for further planning and design work.
(Appendix B displays the site evaluation matrix.)

The remainder of this report focuses on the refined conceptual designs for the Elm Street
site, operational analyses (traffic and transit) of that site, and programmatic, policy and
funding strategies.

Figure 1.1: Alternative Sites Evaluated for Glens Falls Transportation
Center/Parking Ramp
Washington
St./Evergreen
Bank Lot
Elm Street
Lot
School
Street Lot
Hudson Ave
@ Glen St.
Site
Civic Center
Plaza Lot
Current Transit Hub
(NOT EVALUATED)

Glens Falls Downtown Transportation
Center/Parking Ramp Feasibility Study

Wilbur Smith Associates Page 5
April 2004
2. Preferred Design Parameters for Elm Street Site

The conceptual design of the proposed Transportation Center is a single structure consisting
of a parking garage, a 2,500 square foot transportation center and space for 1,500 square feet
of retail space. The Transportation Center would include space for a manager’s office,
restrooms, vending machines, and a bus information area. The retail component could
consist of up to three different vendors.

In a letter dated September 4, 2003, the client noted the following additional design
parameters as key considerations:

• Context sensitivity with the surrounding downtown environment (to be addressed
further via development of architectural renderings prior to study completion);
• On-street bus berths for GGFT services on Elm Street with a possible separate
means of access for intercity buses; and
• Preservation of existing delivery access to the rear facades of Glen Street businesses.

Figures 2.1 and 2.2 depict the preferred functional concept for the Transportation Center.
This concept which encompasses the elements identified through the Phase 1 work together
with the following technical design criteria in its development;

• 10 foot floor to floor dimension;
• 90 degree parking bays in most areas;
• 60 degree parking adjacent to the transportation / retail areas;
• 9 foot stall width; and,
• 12 foot handicapped parking stall width.

An elevator and stair tower have been proposed adjacent to the transportation center for
pedestrian access to the upper levels. Two other stair towers would also be provided. These
access points are located with 110 feet of any parking space.

Preferred Site Functional Layout

The consultant team worked with the steering committee to refine a set of alternate facility
layouts for the Elm Street site. From a total five alternates, a preferred functional layout was
developed. This layout incorporates a combination of features drawn from two of the five
original layouts.
1 The conceptual layout of the proposed facility on the preferred Elm Street
location is depicted in Figure 2.3.

The layout includes queuing space for five GGFT buses on Elm Street in their own lane, out
of the active traffic lane. In addition, the layout provides space for up to two intercity buses
(e.g., Greyhound or tour buses) to queue along a driveway on the northwest end of the

1 See Appendix C for illustrations of the five alternate functional layouts considered for the Elm Street site.

EL
20 Spaces in 180 Feet
9 Spaces in 81 feet
19 Spaces in 171 feet
RETAIL SPACE
(25’x60’) 1,500 so/ft9 Spaces in 81 feet
STAIRS180 feet
214 feet
FIRST LEVEL 71 Spaces7 Spaces
UP / DOWN RAMP 6.0% SLOPE
One Way
TRANSPORTATION CENTER
(25’x100’) 2,500 sq/ft
See Insert “A” for details
In
SidewalkOne Way
THIRD LEVEL (Typical) 118 SpacesROOF LEVEL 107 Spaces
7 Spaces in 63 feet
SECOND LEVEL 94 SpacesSTAIRSELEV.
STAIRS
Out
SECTION VIEW ‘A’ – “A”
“A”
“A”
7 Spaces in 63 feet
60’’
24’
24’
17’
EL
20 Spaces in 180 Feet19 Spaces in 171 feet
RETAIL SPACE
(25’x60’) 1,500 so/ft7 Spaces 19 Spaces in 171 feet
STAIRS180 feet
214 feet
UP / DOWN RAMP 6.0% SLOPE
5 Handicap
Spaces in 60 feet
One Way
TRANSPORTATION CENTER
(25’x100’) 2,500 sq/ft
See Insert “A” for details
10 Spaces in 90 feet
One Way
STAIRSELEV.
STAIRS
60’’
24’
24’
17’
3 Spaces
in 27 feet
19 Spaces in 171 feet
60’’
19 Spaces in 171 feet
EL
20 Spaces in 189 Feet19 Spaces in 171 feet
19 Spaces in 171 feet
180 feet
214 feet
UP / DOWN RAMP 6.0% SLOPE
S
T
A
IRS
60’’
24’
24’
19 Spaces in 171 feet
60’’
19 Spaces in 171 feet
21 Spaces in 189feet19 Spaces in 171 feet
60’’
EL
20 Spaces in 180 Feet19 Spaces in 171 feet
10 Spaces in 90 feet
STAIRS180 feet
214 feet
UP / DOWN RAMP 6.0% SLOPE
S
T
A
IRS
60’’
24’
24’
19 Spaces in 171 feet
10 Spaces in 90 feet
21 Spaces in 189 feet
19 Spaces in 171 feet
60’’
This Concept is based on the following:•Mapping provided to WSA
•10’ floor to floor dimension
•6 percent grade on ramps with parking
•60’ parking bay with parking on both sides
•35’ parking bay with 60 angle parking on one side
•9’ stall width, and
•12’ handicap stall width
o
And
FOURTH LEVEL (Typical) 118 Spaces
ELM STREET
ELEV.
STAIRS
ELEV.
STAIRS
ELEV.
STAIRS
ELEV.
STAIRS
ELEV.
STAIRS
7 Spaces
5 Handicap
Spaces in 60 feet
10 Spaces in 90 feet
ELEV.
STAIRS
FIGURE 2.1
PREFERRED PLAN
ELM STREET
TRANSPORTATION CENTER
Garage Functional Concept
Glens Falls, New York
Wilbur Smith AssociatesOctober 15, 2003 Scale 1 in = 30 feet
Sheet 1 of 2

Fifth Roof Level ………. 106 Spaces
Fourth level (Typical)… 117 Spaces
Third Level (Typical)….. 117 Spaces
Second Level………… 95 Spaces
First Level…………… 79 Spaces
GARAGE TOTAL …… 514 Total Spaces
GARAGE EFFICIENCY 349 sq/ft per space
Total Garage Spaces … 514
Displaced Spaces ……… 94
Net Gain ………………. 420 Spaces
Insert “A”
TRANSPORTATION CENTER
Conceptual Layout to Show Function and Scale
Scale: 1 inch = 10 feetTotal Area 2,500 Sq/Ft.
Legend:
A- Bus Info. Area (12.5’ x 8.0’) = 105.0 Sq/Ft.
B- Ticketing Counter (17.7’ x 7.0’) = 119.0 Sq/Ft.
C- Mgr. Office (12.5’ x 20.0’) = 250.0 Sq/Ft.
C-1 Restroom (12.5’ x 8.0’) = 100.0 Sq/Ft.
D-M Men’s Restroom (15.0’ x 12.5’) = 187.5 Sq/Ft.
D-W Women’s Restroom (15.0’ x 12.5’) = 187.5 Sq/Ft.
E- Waiting Area / Welcome Center = (1,283.5 Sq/Ft. and
F- Vending Areas and News Stand (15.0’ x 7.0’) = 105.0 Sq/Ft.
G-Misc./ Utility Space (12.5’ x 13.0’) = 162.5 Sq/Ft.
A
B
FD-W D-M
E
C-1
C
Men’s
Rest Room
Women’s
Rest Room Mgr. Office
Vending Areas and
News Stand
Ticketing Counter
Rest
Room
25 feet
Waiting Area
Welcome Center
100 feetBus Info. Area
GMisc./
Utility
Space
SECTION VIEW “A-A”Horizontal Scale: 1 inch = 30 feet
Vertical Scale: 1 inch = 14 feet
Third Level (Typical)
Second Level
First Level Fourth Level (Typical)
ELEV.
STAIRS
RETAI
L2
1
3
RETAIL
RETAIL
Transportati
on Center
50’±
ELEV.
STAIRS ELEV.
STAIRS
FIGURE 2.2
PREFERRED PLAN
ELM STREET
TRANSPORTATION CENTER
Garage Functional Concept
Glens Falls, New York
Wilbur Smith AssociatesOctober 15, 2003
2
14

ELEV.
STAIRS
Roof Level
ELEV.
STAIRSELEV.
STAIRS ELEV.
STAIRS ELEV.
STAIRS
Sheet 2 of 2
ELEV.
STAIRS ELEV.
STAIRS
Canopy Over Sidewalk
Over Elm Street and Over
Sidewalk Along Alleyway
At Building Line

Figure 2.3: Preferred Alternate Functional Layout

Glens Falls Downtown Transportation
Center/Parking Ramp Feasibility Study

Wilbur Smith Associates Page 6
April 2004 facility. It should be noted that several businesses on South Street currently require rear
entrance access, which is achieved via the current Elm Street parking lot. If this access is to
be maintained, the final design of the transportation center/garage structure will need to
account for the type and frequency of vehicles that typically access those establishments.
Options for accommodating access needs also include establishing delivery time “windows”
during the day that are coordinated with the hours during which buses are scheduled to be
parked on the northwest end of the facility.

It should also be noted that the City of Glens Falls has stated that it may consider closing
Clinton Street and using that space for parking and/or bus operations related to the
transportation center. If this were to occur, there would be additional flexibility for bus
queuing arrangements on Elm Street.

Facility Access for Automobiles

Access to the garage would be provided to and from Elm Street. A single entrance and exit
would be provided along with a dual use entrance/exit lane for use during peak periods.
Access to the different levels would be provided via a sloped parking ramp. The ramp
gradient would be limited to 6 percent. Ninety-degree parking would be provided along the
parking ramp and the outer bays.

Net Parking Capacity Change

The current parking lot is capable of parking approximately 94 vehicles. The preferred
alternative design is planned to handle 514 vehicles. This would result in a net increase in
parking capacity on the Elm Street site of approximately 420 vehicles.

Parking Garage Efficiency

“Parking garage efficiency” is a rating of the usefulness of the parking structure. An ideal
rating for a parking structure is approximately 325 square feet per usable parking space. Due
to site constraints, however, full build out of the ends of the parking structure are
prohibited. In addition the transportation and retail components of the structure further
reduce the number of available space such that the garage efficiency is lessened. The garage
efficiency for the preferred alternative is 349 square feet of structure per space.

Glens Falls Downtown Transportation
Center/Parking Ramp Feasibility Study

Wilbur Smith Associates Page 10
April 2004
3. Transit Operations Associated with Facility

Current Operations

GGFT currently operates nine year-round bus routes and one summer-only trolley route.
Five buses are used to operate the year-round service, and two trolleys are used to operate
the trolley route. Most of the year-round routes operate every 60 minutes throughout most
of the day, and have round trip running times of slightly less than 30 minutes. With these
times, most service is interlined, meaning that buses make a trip on one route and then a trip
on a second route before returning to make a second trip on the first route (or another
route). GGFT does not assign buses to specific combinations of routes; instead the
interlining is among multiple routes.

This interlining strategy means that many buses, rather than turning around at the Glens
Falls hub to return in the same direction from which they came, continue straight past hub
as a new trip on a different route. The optimal design for bus circulation in a new facility,
therefore, would be to allow buses to both turn around and continue past the facility in the
same direction.

Assessment of Preferred Elm Street Functional Layout

The preferred alternative is arranged with local transit services located on the north side of
Elm Street, parallel berths along the south side of the new transportation center/parking
ramp. Inter-city buses would also use a parallel berths arrangement, pulling off of Elm
Street and parking adjacent to the west side of the transportation center. This arrangement
would be convenient for passengers, as the bus berths would be located directly adjacent to
the passenger waiting area. It would also be relatively easy to re-route all bus service via bus
stops on the north side of Elm Street. As shown in Figure 3.1, Elm Street, South Street,
Glen Street, and Hudson Avenue could be used as a clockwise loop, which would allow
buses from all routes to easily access the bus berths.

The maximum number of GGFT buses that are currently scheduled to be at the hub at any
one time is five (including one trolley). As mentioned, space for up to two intercity buses
(e.g., Greyhound) is provided on the north end of the facility.

The current design, which is conceptual only, provides a somewhat restrictive turning radius
for a typical 45-foot intercity coach bus at the northwest corner of the facility. Refinements
and finalization of this conceptual design may therefore need to provide slightly more
turning radius than currently shown. Typical options in this regard include cutting off a
non-functional small corner of the structure to ensure a turning radius “cushion” for buses
making that movement.

Ability to Accommodate Future Expansion

Figure 3.1: GGFT Bus Circulation with
Elm Street Transportation Center/Parking Ramp as Transit Hub

Glens Falls Downtown Transportation
Center/Parking Ramp Feasibility Study

Wilbur Smith Associates Page 11
April 2004 An additional consideration is that the new facility should be able to accommodate both
changes to and potential increases in existing services. While future levels of GGFT and
intercity service are speculative, relatively large increases in service could be accommodated
by adding additional bus berths on the south side of Elm Street. At this stage of
development, it is reasonable to assume that the facility could accommodate large increases
in GGFT service through the conversion of on-street parking spaces into additional bus
berths on either side of Elm Street.

Glens Falls Downtown Transportation
Center/Parking Ramp Feasibility Study

Wilbur Smith Associates Page 13
April 2004
4. Traffic Operations Analysis

In considering the siting and operations of the transportation center/parking ramp in the
center of a busy downtown, it is important to understand and accommodate potential
impacts on the street system and associated traffic operations. This section assesses the
potential traffic operations impacts of the facility on the street system immediately adjacent
to the Elm Street site.

Existing Roadways

Elm Street is a two-way dual-lane roadway between South Street and Hudson Avenue. The
roadway width varies between 31 feet 10 inches at its southern intersection with Hudson
Avenue to 37 feet at its northern intersection with South Street. In the immediate vicinity of
the existing parking lot, the width of Elm Street is approximately 32 feet. There is limited
on-street parking on Elm Street near to the Elm Street parking lot with only 3 parking spaces
located in front of the Boston Candy Kitchen, each limited to a ten minute maximum.
Parking is also provided along Elm Street west of the South Street intersection.

Hudson Avenue is a two-way four-lane roadway oriented in a north-south direction in the
vicinity of the Transportation Center. The Hudson Avenue/Elm Street intersection is
signalized. Left turn lanes are provided on Elm Street and Hudson Avenue at the
intersection. Currently, parking is allowed in the area near to the intersection.

South Street is a two-way dual-lane roadway oriented in a north-south direction in the
vicinity of the Transportation Center. West of the South Street/Elm Street intersection,
South Street is approximately 47 feet wide with travel lanes approximately 11 feet-10 inches
wide. East of the South Street/Elm Street intersection, South Street is approximately 40 feet
wide with travel lanes approximately 9 feet-8 inches wide. A parking lane is provided along
South Street on both sides east and west of the intersection.

Existing and Future Traffic Volumes

Existing (2000) A.M. and P.M. peak hour traffic volume were obtained for this study from
the Adirondack-Glens Falls Transportation Council at the Elm Street/Hudson Avenue and
Elm Street/South Street intersections. A 2 percent per year growth factor was applied to the
existing (2000) peak hour traffic volumes to project future (2004) peak hour traffic
conditions. Figure 4.1 shows future (2004) A.M. and P.M. peak hour traffic volumes at the
two study area intersections in the vicinity of the Glens Falls Transportation Center.

Anticipated Site Generated Traffic Volumes

Glens Falls Downtown Transportation
Center/Parking Ramp Feasibility Study

Wilbur Smith Associates Page 14
April 2004 The proposed parking garage will consist of 508 parking spaces. For purposes of this
analysis, it was assumed that approximately 50 percent of the parking spaces will be utilized
by the monthly parkers and the remaining 50 percent by hourly/daily parkers.

Table 4.1 shows anticipated site generated traffic volumes by the proposed parking garage
during the A.M. and P.M. peak hour periods.

Table 4.1
Anticipated Site Generated Traffic Volumes

A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
Description In Out Total In Out Total

Parking Garage (508 parking spaces) 250 50 300 100 250 350

Source: Wilbur Smith Associates based on ITE’s Trip Generation Manual, Sixth Edition.

Figure 4.2 shows the routing distribution of the site generated traffic and distribution of this
traffic at the two intersections during the A.M. and P.M. peak hour volumes.

Figure 4.3 shows the future (2004) A.M. and P.M. combined peak hour traffic volumes at
the two study area intersections.

Level of Service Analysis

A study of capacity is important in determining the ability of a specific roadway, intersection
or freeway to accommodate traffic under various levels of service. Level of service (LOS) is a
qualitative measure describing driver satisfaction with a number of factors that influence the
degree of traffic congestion. These factors include speed and travel time, traffic interruption,
freedom of maneuverability, safety, driving comfort and convenience, and delay.

In general there are six levels of service describing flow conditions. The highest, LOS A,
describes a condition of free flow, with low volumes and high speeds. LOS B represents a
stable traffic flow with operating speeds beginning to be restricted somewhat by traffic
conditions. LOS C, which is normally utilized for design purposes, describes a stable
condition of traffic operation. It entails moderately restricted movements due to higher
traffic volumes, but traffic conditions which are not objectionable to motorists. LOS D
reflects a condition of more restrictive movements for motorists and the influence of
congestion becomes more noticeable. LOS E is representative of the actual capacity of the
roadway or intersection and involves delays to all motorists due to congestion. The lowest
level of service, LOS F, is described as force flow and is characterized by volumes greater
than the theoretical roadway capacity. Complete congestion occurs, and in extreme cases, the
volume passing a given point drops to zero. This is considered an unacceptable traffic
operating condition.

FIGURE 4.1
FUTURE (2004) TRAFFIC VOLUMES
GLENS FALLS TRANSPORTATION CENTER
Glens Falls, New York
30
65
1535
245
40
15
95
30
5
320
55140
320
110
380
Hudson Ave.20
40
515
205
15
15
165
10
55
135
20190
235
65
210
South St.
Glens Falls
Transportation
Center
Elm St.
A.M. Peak
20
110
5550
315
20
40
115
555
335
50210
385
390
Hudson Ave
.
25
90
4040
290
10
20
100
55
60
185
20175
340
155
265
South St.
Glens Falls
Transportation
Center
Elm St.
P.M. Peak
N
Not to Scale
Note:
1. Existing (2000) A.M. and P.M. peak hour traffic volumes were obtained from the
Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation Council.
2. A 2 percent per year growth factor was used to project existing (2000) traffic volumes to future
(2004) traffic condition.
185
185190
110
190
365170
395230
105
290220
425385
200
130
165

FIGURE 4.2
SITE TRAFFIC ROUTING DISTRIBUTION
GLENS FALLS TRANSPORTATION CENTER
Glens Falls, New York
30%(15)
15%(10)
20%(10)30%(75)
15%(40)
(50) 20%
40
75
35
50
Hudson Ave.
10%(25)
10%(25)
10%(5)
10%(5)
15%(5)
(35) 15%
15
25
25
35South St.
Glens Falls
Transportation
Center
Elm St.
A.M. Peak
Glens Falls
Transportation
Center
Elm St.
P.M. Peak
N
Not to Scale
Note:
1. 508 Parking Spaces
2. 50 percent Monthly Parkers
3. No diversion of traffic
4. All New Traffic
5. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Conservatively
High
85
165
300 50 250Total Out In
350 250 100Total Out In
25%(65)
10%(25)
20%(50)25%(25)
10%(10)
(20) 20%
10
25
20
Hudson Ave.
55140
10%(10)
15%(15)
15%(35)
10%(25)
20%(50)
(20) 20%
110
15
10
20South St.
45

FIGURE 4.3
FUTURE (2004) COMBINED TRAFFIC VOLUMES
GLENS FALLS TRANSPORTATION CENTER
Glens Falls, New York
45
75
2535
245
115
15
135
30
5
320
105180
395
145
430
Hudson Ave.20
65
540
205
15
20
170
15
90
135
20205
260
90
245
South St.
Glens Falls
Transportation
Center
Elm St.
A.M. Peak
85
135
10550
315
45
40
125
555
335
70220
410
410
Hudson Ave
.
25
100
4055
290
10
55
125
105
80
185
20285
355
165
285
South St.
Glens Falls
Transportation
Center
Elm St.
P.M. Peak
N
Not to Scale
240
325235
195
355
380175
460265
115
300225
475435
205
190
155

Glens Falls Downtown Transportation
Center/Parking Ramp Feasibility Study

Wilbur Smith Associates Page 15
April 2004
Traffic analysis for this study was based on the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual and
conducted using the Highway Capacity Software (HCS).

Table 4.2 highlights the level of service criteria for signalized intersections. The level of
service criteria for signalized intersections is based on control delay per vehicle measured in
seconds.

Table 4.2
LOS Criteria for Signalized Intersections

Level of Service Control Delay Per Vehicle
(seconds)
A
≤10
B
>10 and ≤20
C
>20 and ≤35
D
>35 and ≤55
E
>55 and ≤80
F > 80
Source: 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board

Level of service was determined for the two study area intersections under future 2004
conditions with and without the new Parking Garage under the A.M. and P.M. peak hour
conditions. The results are presented in Table 4.3.

Glens Falls Downtown Transportation
Center/Parking Ramp Feasibility Study

Wilbur Smith Associates Page 16
April 2004 Table 4.3
Anticipated LOS – Future (2004) Peak Hour Conditions

Without Garage With Garage
Intersection A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M.
Signalized
Elm Street/Hudson Avenue B(12.7) B(12.9) B(13.0) B(13.1)
South Street/Hudson Avenue B(13.4) B(14.1) B(13.8) B(14.7)

Source: Wilbur Smith Associates

As shown in Table 4.3, the level of service at the two study area intersections remain at LOS
B with the proposed parking garage in place under both A.M. and P.M. peak hour
conditions.

Traffic Analysis Summary Assessment

The results of the traffic analysis associated with the proposed Parking Garage indicate that
the Elm Street/Hudson Avenue and Elm Street/South Street located in the immediate
vicinity of the proposed Parking Garage are anticipated to operate at acceptable levels of
service (LOS B) under all future (2004) traffic conditions.
2

Suggested Traffic Improvement Strategies

Figure 4.4 depicts suggested traffic improvement strategies in the vicinity of the Elm Street
site based on the traffic operations analysis and other characteristics of the site. The
suggestions include a new striping plan, additional crosswalks and other improvements.

2 At the time this report was published, the City of Glens Falls was considering closing Hudson Avenue at
Glen Street. If this were to occur, traffic operations on Elm Street and in the intersections analyzed in this
report could be significantly affected and additional study would be required to ensure transportation center
operations and traffic improvement strategies were harmonized with new traffic patterns.

Figure 4.4: Suggested Traffic Improvements in Vicinity of Elm Street
Facility Site

Glens Falls Downtown Transportation
Center/Parking Ramp Feasibility Study

Wilbur Smith Associates Page 20
April 2004
5. Facility Financial Assessment

This section describes the financial aspects of the proposed transportation center/parking
ramp – capital construction cost and operating costs and revenues, including transit cost
implications. A strategy to manage parking resources and levy appropriate parking fees for
the whole of the Glens Falls CBD is also proposed.

Estimated Capital Construction Cost

Table 5.1 provides estimated order of magnitude construction costs for the facility. The
estimated cost of approximately $8.3 million is based on the following assumptions:

1. Parking Garage Capacity – 514 spaces
2. Capital Cost (per space) (includes construction cost per space plus land cost (if
applicable), construction manager, contingencies, design, general liability) – $13,500
3. Capital Cost of $500 per each metered parking space
4. Cost of Issuance (Bond Counsel, Solicitor, Underwriter’s Counsel, Trustee, Bond
Printing, Official Statement Printing, Rating, Insurance, Discount) is not included in
Capital Cost
5. Bond Term – 30 years; interest rate – 5%
6. Amount to be financed does not
include:
a. Capitalized interest – first year’s debt service payment(s)
b. Debt Service Reserve – maximum annual one-year debt service

Operating Costs and Revenues

It is assumed the new transportation center/parking ramp would (a) charge a fee, through
either permits or hourly rates, for parking and (b) be an element of an overall downtown
Glens Falls parking system that includes a parking fee structure. This section also presents a
proposal for a downtown Glens Falls parking fee and system management structure. The
structure consists of estimates of parking system operating costs and revenues, including
those associated with the proposed transportation center/parking ramp. It is important to
note that estimated operating costs and revenues presented in this report do not assume any
offset from operating funds of the Greater Glens Falls Transit (GGFT) system.

Downtown Parking Fees

Parameters
Site Location – Elm St. Parking Lot
Parking Structure – 5-level, 514 Parking Spaces (404 new)
Parking Garage Efficiency – 1 space per 364 square feet
Transportation Center – 2,500 square feet
Commercial/Retail – 1,500 square feet
Order of Magnitude
Construction Cost Estimates
$13,500
$170
$90
10% of construction costs
Order of Magnitude Implementation Cost Estimates
$6,939,000
$425,000
$135,000
$7,499,000
Survey/Design Fees at 10% of Implementation Cost $749,900
TOTAL $8,248,900
NOTES:
(1) Elm Street Roadway Improvements, including Traffic Signal
Upgrades at Hudson and South Street, may have an
implementation cost of $150,000.
(2) Alternative E with 389 spaces (5 levels), an efficiency of 414
square feet per space, and constructoin cost estimate of
$15,500 per space – $7,248,450 Implementation Cost.
(3) Does not include Funding/Financial Costs of the
Transportation Center. Retail/Commercial at 1,500 square feet (shell only)
Subtotal Parking structure at 514 spaces
Table 5.1
Glens Falls Transportation Center/Parking Ramp
Capital Construction Cost Estimate
Transportation Center at 2,500 square feet (full build out) Construction Cost per Parking Space (Including site preparation.
Special architectural façade treatments may need to be added.)
Construction Cost for Transportation Center per square foot
(includes shell and full build out)
Construction Cost for Retail/Commercial per square foot (includes
shell/excludes full build out)
Surveys/Engineering/Architectural Design Fees

Glens Falls Downtown Transportation
Center/Parking Ramp Feasibility Study

Wilbur Smith Associates Page 21
April 2004 Establishing parking fees in Glens Falls must address two issues, namely the amount and
appropriateness of fees to be charged, and the fact that all municipal parking is currently
free. The latter will likely be the more difficult issue to confront considering that objections
to paying for parking may have the greatest consequences.

In order for the City to realize the revitalization of the Central Business District envisioned
by the Glens Falls Parking Committee in 1997, additional parking is required. Residents
must accept that construction of a multi-level parking structure is the only way to satisfy that
requirement. The burden of providing the parking structure, therefore, will fall on the city
government. Development of this structure together with implementation of parking fees
will be one segment of a comprehensive parking management strategy.

An additional factor in the development of parking fees is the understanding that the
decision to charge for parking must include all municipal off-street facilities as well as all on-
street parking spaces in the CBD, all of which are currently free.

Finally, because parking will be managed so that it serves all users of the CBD,
implementation of parking fees will not be a deterrent to parking in the CBD, nor will it be
an inhibitor to future development/revitalization. Experience with parking controls and fees
in other similar locations provide supporting evidence. Therefore, recognizing that the need
for a fee for parking is a reality, the question becomes what fees will be appropriate and
acceptable to the citizenry who currently park in the area and are expected to park there in
the future. The relatively compact size of the Glens Falls CBD and its focal
points/destinations are such that only a single scale of parking fees is necessary.

To develop a suggested parking fee structure, the consultant reviewed parking fee structures
in various “peer” cities in New York State, New Jersey, Vermont and Pennsylvania of
comparable size and similar activity profiles. While, it is acknowledged that no two
communities are precisely comparable, other similar communities have successfully
implemented parking controls and fee structures. These examples include Albany and Lake
George in New York, Rutland, Vermont and Williamsport, Pennsylvania.

Based on the consultant’s assessment of the different factors affecting parking fee options
and in consideration of the fact that parking is currently free and construction of a parking
garage in downtown Glens Falls will require a substantial financial investment by the City, it
is recommended that a parking fee system be implemented in the CBD using the rates
shown in Table 5.2 below.

Transient/hourly/daily fee: $0.50 per hour
Monthly parking fees: $40.00 per month
Event parking $3.00
Table 5.2:
R ecom m en ded D ow n t ow n Par kin g Fees

Glens Falls Downtown Transportation
Center/Parking Ramp Feasibility Study

Wilbur Smith Associates Page 22
April 2004

Estimated Annual Operating Expenses

Table 5.3 summarizes the estimated annual operating expenses for overall parking system
operations in the Glens Falls CBD, including the conceptual Elm Street Facility. The
estimated first-year operating expense of $275,000 is based on the assumption that an overall
fee-based parking system, using a combination of meters on streets and the parking ramp
together with the sale of monthly permits, would be implemented by the City. Additional
operating expense assumptions include the following:

1. Annual operating and maintenance expenses for the parking garage – $300 per space
includes Maintenance Reserve and pro rata share of personnel costs
2. Annual operating and maintenance expenses escalate at 3% per year; no operating
revenue increase during the initial five-year period of operation
3. Maintenance Reserve of $50,000 per year, held constant throughout
4. Personnel/Staffing required to service all on-street metered parking and all off-street
facilities, metered or permitted, are:
a. Administration/overhead of parking operations (e.g., accounting, issue of
permits, etc.) will continue to be handled by the City without additional
personnel
b. Enforcement personnel will increase from one (1) full-time employee to a
minimum of one (1) full-time (Monday-Friday) and one (1) part-time
(Wednesday through Saturday)
c. Meter collection personnel – one (1) part-time employee (24 hours per week, six
(6) hours each on Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, Friday)
d. Meter repair personnel – three (3) hours per day by part-time person, five (5)
days per week
e. Custodial – two (2) part-time employees; total four (4) hours per day, seven days
per week
f. Coin Counting – One (1) part-time employee; three (3) hours on Monday and
Thursday, two (2) hours on Tuesday and Friday

The annual operating expense includes estimated costs of operating the Elm Street facility,
other parking facilities and meters throughout the CBD and associated staffing requirements.
Projected expenses, however, do not include any possible debt financing payments, which
could substantially increase the annual cost of the facility to the City by as much as $500,000,
based on similar facilities elsewhere. However, only a detailed financial analysis, which is
beyond the scope of this study, can accurately determine potential financing costs.
Additional detail and notes related to this study’s cost estimate are shown in Table 5.3.

Elm Street Transportation Center/Parking Ramp
Utilities $30,000.00
Insurance $3,000.00
Repairs, maintenance and supply $21,000.00
Operating Supplies $10,000.00
Maintenance Res. $50,000.00
Subtotal Elm Street Operating Expenses $114,000.00
Other Parking
Utilities $5,000.00
Insurance $3,000.00
Repairs, Maintenance and Supplies $6,000.00
Subtotal Other Parking Expenses $14,000.00
Staffing Requirements (2)
Salaries (3) $120,000.00
Benefits (4) $36,000.00
Subtotal Staffing $156,000.00
TOTAL Estimated Annual Operating Expenses $284,000.00
NOTES:
(1) Assumes all spaces on-street will have parking meters and all
spaces off-street will either have parking meters or be
controlled by permits.
(2) Personnel requirements are calculated on the basis of 1196 total
parking spaces (732 off-street and 464 on-street) with all on-street
spaces metered and all off-street spaces either metered or permits.
(3) Staffing estimated at 10,000 hours per year at an average salary of
$12.00 per hour (includes security personnel)
(4) Benefits estimated at 30% of salary(All figures rounded to nearest $1,000)
Table 5.3
Estimated Annual Operating Expenses
CBD Parking Operations (1)
City of Glens Falls, New York

Glens Falls Downtown Transportation
Center/Parking Ramp Feasibility Study

Wilbur Smith Associates Page 23
April 2004 Projected Annual Revenues

Table 5.4 highlights revenues estimated for the proposed downtown Glens Falls fee-based
parking system for operating years 1 through 5, including revenues from on-street and off-
street parking as well as the Elm Street facility. In years 1 through 5 of operations, it is
estimated that total parking revenues would be $623,000. Annual projected revenues include
on-street and off-street meters, permit sales and fees collected at the Elm Street facility.
Revenue estimates are based on the occupancy and turnover rates assumed in the traffic
impact analysis. These rates are held constant over the five-year period. The estimate also
includes $165,000 in projected revenues from special event parking associated with the Civic
Center and Charles Wood (Woolworth) Theater.
3 In addition, it has been conservatively
assumed that downtown parking fees are not changed for the first five years of operations.
Tables 5.4.1 and 5.4.2 provide additional detail on the assumptions underlying the revenue
projections.

Projected Net Revenues

In year 1, projected net revenues are approximately $339,000. Using the assumption that
parking fees will remain unchanged for the first five years, net revenue declines to
approximately $320,000 by year 5 (change of -5.6%) due to slight increases in operating costs
over time. After five years of operating experience, the City may choose to revise parking
fees for all or certain specific facilities, thereby affecting the net revenue figure as well.

It should be noted that the estimated revenue figures are based on the conceptual
facility design and location and existing parking demand information from past
studies and plans. These figures are therefore subject to revision based on additional
parking demand analysis, refined facility design and the ultimate structure of the
City’s downtown parking system.

3 Based on actual and estimated event frequency information provided by the City of Glens Falls and the Glens
Falls Civic Center.

Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Pro
jected Annual Revenues
(1)
On-Street $174,000 $174,000 $174,000 $174,000 $174,000
Off-Street (exclusive of Elm Street Garage) $93,000 $93,000 $93,000 $93,000 $93,000
Elm Street Garage $356,000 $356,000 $356,000 $356,000 $356,000
Total Projected Annual Revenue $623,000 $623,000 $623,000 $623,000 $623,000
Pro
jected Operatin
g Expenses
(2)
Elm Street Garage (3) $114,000 $117,000 $121,000 $125,000 $128,000
Other Parking $14,000 $14,000 $15,000 $15,000 $16,000
Personnel Staffing $156,000 $161,000 $166,000 $171,000 $176,000
Total Projected Annual Operating Expenses (4) $284,000 $292,000 $302,000 $311,000 $320,000
Net Revenues over Operating Expenses $339,000 $331,000 $321,000 $312,000 $303,000NOTES:(1) Assumes no change in parking fees for first 5 years
(2) Assumes operating expenses increase at the rate of
3% per year, except Maintenance Reserve which remains
constant at $50,000 per year
(3) Includes $50,000 per year Maintenance Reserve
(4) Does not include any costs associated with financing the project and paying debt service.
These costs could exceed $500,000 per year. A detailed financial analysis should be undertaken.
(5) A detailed parking needs study should be undertaken to determine long-term (monthly) and
short-term/transient (hourly) parking demands at this facility and in the entire downtown study area.
City of Glens Falls, New York(All figures rounded to nearest 1,000)
Table 5.4
Projected Annual Net Revenues
Proposed Downtown Parking System

Transportation Center/Parking Ramp
Total parking spaces = 514
Revenue Source
Total
Monthly Permits $123,360
(257 spaces x $40/space x 12 months)
Transient Parking $67,463
(257 spaces x $0.50/hour x 2 hours x 35% occupancy x 2.5
turnover/day x 300 days)
Subtotal Daily Garage Parking
$190,823
Event Parking (1)
Civic Center: 45 events @ 6000 people/year ~ 450 cars x $3$60,750
Civic Center: 45 events @ 3000 people/year ~ 225 cars x $3$30,375
Heritage Hall: 135 events x 100 cars/year x $3$40,500
Woolworth Theater: 150 events x 75 cars/year x $3$33,750
Subtotal Event Parking $165,375
Grand Total – Transportation Center/Parking Ramp Revenue $356,198
NOTES:
(1) Estimates of number of events provided by officials of GF Civic Center,
Woolworth Theater and City of Glens Falls
Glens Falls Transportation Center/Parking Ramp
Revenue Assumptions and ProjectionsTable 5.4.1

Other Off-Street Parking
Net of 218 Spaces (Total 312 minus 94 @ Elm Street lot)
Revenue Source
Total
Monthly Permits $52,320
(109 spaces x $40/space x 12 months)
Transient Parking $40,875
(109 spaces x $0.50/hour x 2 hours x 50% occupancy x 2.5
turnover/day x 300 days)
Total – Other Off-street Parking Revenue
$93,195
On-Street Parking
Total 464 Spaces
(464 spaces x $0.50/hour x 2 hours x 50% occupancy x 2.5 turnover
x 300 days)
$174,000
Total – On-Street Parking Revenue $174,000
Other Off-Street and On-Street Parking
Revenue Assumptions and ProjectionsTable 5.4.2

Glens Falls Downtown Transportation
Center/Parking Ramp Feasibility Study

Wilbur Smith Associates Page 27
July 2004 Transit Operations – Cost Implications

The proposed downtown transportation center/parking ramp is projected to result in minor
increases in GGFT vehicle operating costs. A proportion of utility, maintenance, and
cleaning costs may also be attributable to transit operations and facilities for transit
passengers. Very few of these facility-related costs, however, would be transit specific. It is
suggested that once total facility operating costs have been estimated, a share of the total
costs attributable to transit can be identified by the City of Glens Falls and GGFT.

Transit Operating Cost Components

Transit operating cost components of the proposed parking ramp/transit center would
primarily consist of:

ƒ Changes to vehicle operating costs
ƒ Changes to costs for ticket sales
ƒ Personnel (if any)
ƒ Utilities (heat, electricity, and water)
ƒ Snowplowing
ƒ Cleaning/routine maintenance
ƒ Security

Changes to Vehicle Operating Costs

The Elm Street location would impact GGFT vehicle operating costs to the extent that
service mile, hours, or vehicle requirements are altered significantly. Since the proposed Elm
Street location is less than 0.4 miles from the current Ridge Street hub, however, impacts on
vehicle operations, and thus operating costs, would be low:

ƒ Changes to round trip running times would range from –1.2 minutes to +1.3
minutes (see Table 5.5). Some minor service changes may be required, but it should
be possible to accommodate these changes without increasing vehicle hours or
vehicle requirements.

Glens Falls Downtown Transportation
Center/Parking Ramp Feasibility Study

Wilbur Smith Associates Page 28
July 2004 Table 5.5: Impacts of Elm Street Location on GGFT Running Times
Current Round
Trip Run Time Run Time Impact
(Minutes) Round Trip Run
Time at Elm
Street
2 Bay – College 27 0.6 27.6
3 Ridge-East Loop 20 1.3 21.3
4 Hudson Falls-Fort Edward 48 1.1 49.1
5 Moreau – South Glens Falls 29 0.1 29.1
6 West Loop 20 -1.2 18.8
7 West Glens Falls 25 -1.1 23.9
11/12 Glen-Robert Garden/Aviation Mall 28 0.6 28.6
19 Route 9 County Center 55 0.6 55.6

There would be an increase in vehicle service miles operated of 20,100, or approximately 7%
(see Table 5.6). This would increase mileage based costs (primarily vehicle maintenance) by
approximately 7%, or about $7,000 per year using the actual costs for vehicle maintenance in
2000 of $95,700.

Table 5.6: Changes in GGFT Vehicle Service Miles
Change in
Round Trip
Mileage Weekday
Round TripsSaturday
Round Trips Change in
Annual Vehicle
Service Miles
(VSMs)
2 Bay – College 0.14 6 2 2,257
3 Ridge-East Loop 0.32 11 8 9,527
4 Hudson Falls-Fort Edward 0.28 11.5 5 8,642
5 Moreau – South Glens Falls 0.03 9 5 610
6 West Loop -0.29 12 8 -9,425
7 West Glens Falls -0.27 6 2 -4,408
11/12 Glen-Robert Garden/Aviation Mall 0.14 12 10 4,559
19 Route 9 County Center 0.14 22 20 8,370
Total 20,130

Ticket Sales

The Glens Falls City Clerk’s office, at City Hall on Ridge Street, currently sells GGFT
tickets. With the shift of GGFT service to the transit center from the current Ridge Street
hub, this location would no longer be convenient, and provision would need to be made for
ticket sales at the new facility.

Relocating ticket sales could be accomplished via ticket vending machines or by a
concessionaire. If tickets are to be sold via a concessionaire, this arrangement would require
locating a complementary business as close as possible to the transit center, (i.e., a newsstand
or convenience store).

Glens Falls Downtown Transportation
Center/Parking Ramp Feasibility Study

Wilbur Smith Associates Page 29
July 2004
Currently, the City Clerk’s office sells approximately $500 worth of tickets per month.
Assuming a 10% commission fee, the commission cost would be $50 per month.

Personnel

There should be no need to assign additional personnel to the parking garage/transit center
for transit operations purposes. If a staffed information kiosk is located in the facility,
however, it may be appropriate to attribute a proportion of those costs to the transit
component.

Utilities

There would be heating, cooling, electricity, and water costs associated with the facility.
Costs that would specifically apply to transit include a share of heating, cooling, and lighting
of the passenger waiting room, and lighting costs for the bus berths and outside waiting
areas. Overall utility costs for the entire facility could attribute a proportion to transit based
on the size of the waiting area, which would be largely used by transit patrons.

Snowplowing

There would be snowplowing costs for the facility, which would be attributable to the
parking garage (the top level) and the bus access roads, bus berths, and outside waiting areas.
The proportion attributable to transit could reasonably be based on the area of bus access
roads, platforms, and outside waiting areas as a percentage of the total area that would need
to be cleared of snow.

Snowplowing at GGFT’s current hub on Ridge Street is performed by the city as part of its
normal plowing activities. Since GGFT’s bus berths at the new facility would be on the
street, and outside waiting facilities on the sidewalk, it is assumed that this practice would
continue, and that there would be no new direct GGFT costs.

Cleaning/Routine Maintenance

A proportion of cleaning and maintenance costs for the entire facility which would also be
attributable to the transit use. Transit’s share of these costs may be calculated according to
the area dedicated to transit operations as a percentage of the total area of the facility.

Security

Glens Falls Downtown Transportation
Center/Parking Ramp Feasibility Study

Wilbur Smith Associates Page 30
July 2004 It is assumed that security in the passenger waiting room would be provided by the same
personnel as for the entire garage. Therefore, there would be no direct cost for the transit
component, but some cost sharing of overall security cost would likely be appropriate.
4

Transit Revenue Generation

The new facility would not generate any significant new transit revenue.

4 Options for cost-effectively enhancing overall facility security include products such as “Code Blue,” which is
one of a number of available products that produces a variety of emergency and assistance voice
communications products designed for parking lots and garages. Units are available in a variety of styles,
power options and communication options, and are ADA compliant. The systems are visible and pro-active,
immediately activate a blue strobe light and provide 2-way hands free communication between the customer
and the police or other security personnel.

Glens Falls Downtown Transportation
Center/Parking Ramp Feasibility Study

Wilbur Smith Associates Page 31
July 2004
6. CBD Parking Management Strategies

The development of a Parking Management Program is a key factor in the success (or
failure) of the City’s efforts to revitalize the Central Business District and to construct and
finance a multilevel parking structure. A comprehensive program to manage parking
resources in the CBD, therefore, is recommended. A list of recommended strategies that
would support a parking management program includes:

a. Set parking in the CBD at a level which generates parking revenues required to finance
the parking garage and to cover annual operating and maintenance expenses associated
with the City Parking program.
b. Conduct a parking study to collect parking accumulation data and turnover/duration of
parking data as a means to identify the specific requirements for, and desired location of,
transient and monthly permit parking. This information will also help the City determine
appropriate times to charge for parking at both on-street and off-street facilities.
c. Eliminate or tightly control access to all free parking in the CBD. Access to private lots,
for example, should be limited to employees and patrons. Anyone wishing to park in the
CBD who does not have access to a private lot, therefore, would be forced to use City
provided public parking.
d. Review parking enforcement opportunities available to the City.
i. Ensure enforcement is consistent and fair;
ii. Employ the appropriate number of enforcement personnel required; and
iii. Review the price structure for parking violations to insure that they are
adequate to force compliance with parking rules and fees. As a
minimum, prices must be sufficient to defer parkers from taking a
chance of not paying the parking fee and the willingness to pay a small
fine.

e. Evaluate the potential of parking taxes in the event that private off-street parking
becomes fee-based. This form of taxation has become a common tool used by urban
communities to generate additional revenues to assist in the financing of parking
programs. Parking taxes typically start at about 10% and in a number of larger
metropolitan areas are in excess of 30%.
f. Review existing zoning requirements for parking to determine the adequacy of parking
requirements. In particular, the potential for a payment in lieu of parking scheme
specifically for redevelopment projects should be considered and evaluated. This is a
useful option in cases where it is not practical to provide parking required by City
ordinance.
g. Implement a parking strategy directed at employees and business owners to discourage
their use of on-street parking. The objective would be to free up prime parking for
visitors to the business and commercial establishments in the CBD. Tools to carry out
this strategy may include reduced off-street parking fees for people who work
downtown.

Glens Falls Downtown Transportation
Center/Parking Ramp Feasibility Study

Wilbur Smith Associates Page 32
July 2004 h. Consider a flat fee parking rate for evening and special event parking in off-street
facilities as well as charging for parking at meters during evening hours if there is
sufficient activity to warrant and enforcement personnel would be available.
i. Evaluate existing parking to determine if efficient improvements can be realized (e.g.,
efficiency of off-street facilities, angle parking versus parallel parking for on-street
parking, location and utilization of loading zones).
j. Review the effectiveness of wayfinding signage to identify parking locations and key
destinations. Signage may also be used to encourage park and walk opportunities for
tourists and shoppers.
k. Single out an office or individual within city government responsible for all parking
related matters, from parking meter collection, sale of monthly permits to enforcement.
In this regard, it may be appropriate to consider the creation of a parking authority to
better implement and manage the City parking management strategies.
l. Identify and assess parking needs of CBD residents, including daytime and overnight
parking requirements. Assess the potential for using special permits at off-street facilities
to satisfy requirements for residents of the CBD. This can be done, for example, by
selling (or issuing) reduced fee permits that restrict usage of the parking facility to off-
peak hours.

Glens Falls Downtown Transportation
Center/Parking Ramp Feasibility Study

Wilbur Smith Associates Page 33
July 2004
7. Funding Options

Opportunities for use of external funding sources to pay for major portions of the capital
construction and operating costs of the proposed transportation center/parking ramp have
been identified and evaluated. These sources represent important tools to help the City
leverage its limited revenue. A variety of public, private and public-private funding sources
exist, some of which potentially could be used by Glens Falls. Public funding includes
federal, state, regional and local sources.

The information below, and summarized in Table 7.1, is intended to provide guidance to
the City and its planning partners, but should not be considered exhaustive, as funding
source eligibility, restrictions, amounts and requirements change from year to year. This is
particularly relevant at this time because the federal government is involved with on-going
efforts to craft the follow-on legislation to TEA-21, the six-year federal surface
transportation legislation, which may substantially affect options and opportunities for using
federal transportation funds to build and/or operate similar types of projects.

1. Capital Costs

a. Tax increment Financing Districts

One means of generating revenue for public improvements is through the creation of a
special taxing district where increasing increments of property taxes are dedicated to
finance or pay the debt service of a specified project. Positive points: easy to formulate a
district; growth potential in a developing area; simple to collect; and, has proven itself
throughout the United States. Negative aspects: difficulty in gaining support from other
affected parties (e.g. school districts).

b. Business Improvement Districts

Business Improvement Districts are special assessment districts formed to levy and
collect funds from property owners in order to finance public improvements such as
parking garages. These types of districts generally collects funds based on an assessment
per square foot of property within the district. Positive points: direct benefit to those
who are paying; proven and tested; and the annual amount is known and secure.
Negative aspects: time required to establish and priority of funding if there are multiple
projects.

c. General Obligation (GO) Bonds

GO bonds are the traditional type of bonds issued by government bodies which have
authority to generate funds for capital investments. They are backed by the full faith and
credit of the government body. Positive points: generally lower interest rates; easily
marketed due to high security; understood and respected as a method of financing.
Negative aspects: credit analysis can be complex and expensive; delays may increase
construction costs; and impacts the government body’s borrowing limits.

Table 7.1
Funding Options Summary
Type of Primary Project Key Considerations
Funding Option Typically Used For Funding Application & Limitations
Tax Increment Financing (TIF) DistrictsDeveloping areas, especially areas targeted for
economic developmentLocal Taxes Capital Must balance with other tax districts
Business Improvement DistrictsDeveloping areas, especially areas targeted for
economic developmentLocal Taxes Capital & Operating Has lead time, requires prioritizing fund distribution
General Obligation Bonds Large capital projects Local Taxes Capital Requires credit analysis; impact on gov’t credit
Revenue Bonds Large capital projects User Fees CapitalRequires credit analysis & sufficient facility revenue
flow
Air Rights Development Urban area with tight development market Private / Developer Fees Capital Requires developer interest
Condominiumization Urban area with tight development market Selling of Assets Capital Requires developer interest
Transportation and Community and
System Preservation Pilot Program
(TCSP)Community-based, multi-modal projects Federal Grant CapitalCompetitive funds; historically 100% Congressional
earmarks
Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) Urban area with tight development market Combined Sources Capital Lead time; requires private sector partner
Payment-in-Lieu of Development Fund Urban area with tight development market Private / Developer Fees Capital Requires developer interest
Member Items High profile projects State Resources Capital Requires “champion” in State Legislature
Fines/Permits/Parking TaxNew parking facilities; locations with existing fees &
permit systemsUser Fees Operating Costs of enforcement; Possible public resistance
Parking RevenuesNew parking facilities; locations with existing fees &
permit systemsUser Fees Operating Possible public resistance
FTA Section 5309 “New Starts” Program Transit supportive facilities Federal Grant CapitalCompetitive funds; requires local match; primarily
Congressional earmarks

Table 7.1 (continued)
Funding Options Summary
Funding Option
Capital OperatingLocal Taxes User Fees
Private State / Federal
Funds*Private Sector
ParticipationSpecial Tax / Assessment
Districts Competitive
Tax Increment Financing (TIF)
Districts
999
Business Improvement Districts
9999 9
General Obligation Bonds
99
Revenue Bonds
999
Air Rights Development
9999
Condominiumization
999 9
Transportation and Community and
System Preservation Pilot Program
(TCSP)*
999
Public Private Partnerships (PPPs)
9999 9
Payment-in-Lieu of Development
Fund
999
Member Items*
999
Fines/Permits/Parking Tax
99
Parking Revenues
99
FTA Section 5309 “New Starts”
Program*
999
*May require local and/or state matching funds up to 50%.Funding Source Typical UseKey Considerations

Glens Falls Downtown Transportation
Center/Parking Ramp Feasibility Study

Wilbur Smith Associates Page 34
July 2004
d. Revenue Bonds

This is the most common source of funding for financing public parking because the
bonds are secured by revenues (i.e., parking fees). This is generally considered riskier
than property taxes, however, and may have a higher interest rate if not secured by a
government body with taxing authority. Positive points: credit analysis is straight
forward; users pay for the facility; default only burdens local tax payers if the
government body guarantees the financing; usually no referendum; may not be subject to
debt ceiling; promotes good fiscal management; and tax exempt if used for public
parking.

e. Air Rights Development

This technique involves transferring or selling the rights to construct within the air space
above a property or structure in order to develop or finance the cost of construction.
The right to build on top of a parking structure, for example, may be sold to a developer
seeking to build office space. While not widely used, this strategy has merit within an
urban center and is an excellent means of reducing land cost for development. Positive
points: creates value for under-utilized space; little downside risk; and parking garage
owner usually gains ownership at some point. Negative aspects: limited experience; and
willingness of developer and to accept.

f. Condominiumization

It may be possible to sell individual parking spaces to individuals or companies and, in a
way similar to condominium, establish an owners’ association to collect fees to finance
management operations, maintenance, security, etc. This option may be particularly
attractive to business owners since spaces represent an investment and improvements
can be depreciated, offering a tax shelter for businesses. On the other hand, it also
requires that the costs associated with building and maintaining parking spaces are
perceived by would-be buyers as real and substantial. Positive points: appreciation;
private sector pays; and conventional financing if spaces are pre-sold. Negative aspects:
front-end expense at risk if project unsuccessful; lack of experience of public sector; and
lack of private sector acceptance of concept.

g. Federal Funds/Transportation and Community and System Preservation Pilot
Program (TCSP)

Federal funds have been used in the past to finance parking structures and TEA-21
established a pilot program that enables grantees to implement or plan activities that
investigate and address the relationship between transportation and community and
system preservation. FHWA administers the program through a working group which
includes FTA and TCSP activities are coordinated with the MPO and/or state
transportation planning processes. Positive points: known source of funding, relative
ease of administration; and past track record. Negative aspects: limited or restricted use
based on federal guidelines; competition for funding; and limited amount of funds.

Glens Falls Downtown Transportation
Center/Parking Ramp Feasibility Study

Wilbur Smith Associates Page 35
July 2004
h. Public/Private Partnerships (PPPs)

PPPs are a successful method of financing used throughout the U.S. whereby the private
and public sectors form a partnership or some type of arrangement which shares the
responsibility and profits associated with ownership and operation of a facility. PPPs
were initially popularized through UDAG programs of HUD. Positive points: financing
by public sector and overall support by the private sector. Negative aspects: funding if
private partner becomes insolvent; time required to structure a deal; and potential citizen
opposition.

i. Payment-in-Lieu of Development Fund

In this case, the City would establish a development or parking fund. Developers could
contribute to this fund in-lieu of providing parking or other requirements associated with
another project within the same jurisdiction. This development fund, in turn, could be
used to finance the public parking facility. Positive points: private sector pays; citizen
support high; and funding program is relatively simple to plan and administer. Negative
aspects: restricts development in a soft market; existing building owners may not
support; and relatively few have been implemented.

j. Member Items

Each year, members of the New York State Legislature obtain funding for various
special projects in their districts through “member items,” which are special
appropriations earmarked in budget bills. Typically, those seeking state funding for
projects through member items communicate and work directly with their
representative(s) to develop justifications and related information to support the
member’s request for the special appropriation. The availability and amount of funds
available through member items varies from year to year and from member to member.

2. Operating Costs

a. Fines/Permits/Parking Tax

These three techniques represent potential sources to fund operating expenses
associated with parking structures and management programs. Fines for parking
violations are collected in most cities. It is also common for cities to sell parking
permits to both regulate on-street parking and generate revenue. Lastly, parking taxes
have become an increasingly popular tool in urban communities with a high number of
transient patrons. Positive points: follows user-pay principal; instituted nationally;
administration usually in place; and sources of revenue can be increased easily and
quickly. Negative aspects: public resistance to fines and taxes; high cost of
enforcement and administration; and can discourage use of commercial areas.

b. Parking Revenues

Glens Falls Downtown Transportation
Center/Parking Ramp Feasibility Study

Wilbur Smith Associates Page 36
July 2004
Parking fees are the single most important source of revenue to cover operating and
administrative costs associated with parking facilities. Positive points: general public
acceptance; rates can be adjusted as necessary; and voter approval not required.
Negative aspects: often insufficient in early years to cover all costs; and, public
resistance to rate increases.

c. Other Sources

Some sources such as Business Improvement Districts (BID) and Condominiumization
can be sources of funds for both Capital Costs and Operating Costs.

3. Funding Specific to Transit Aspects of Facility

Certain public transit and transit-supportive facilities may be eligible for capital funding
through the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) Section 5309 “New Starts”
Program. New Starts funds are usually allocated on an 80% federal/20% non-federal
matching basis; however, there are currently Federal efforts to change the allocation to
50%/50%.

Federal law requires that proposed New Starts projects be justified based on several criteria,
including the following:

• Mobility Improvements;
• Environmental Benefits;
• Operating Efficiencies;
• Cost Effectiveness;
• Transit Supportive Land Use and Future Patterns; and
• Other Factors, including, among other things, the technical capability of the project
sponsor to implement and operate the proposed investment.
In addition, federal law requires that New Starts project sponsors demonstrate adequate local
support for the proposed project, as measured by:
• The proposed share of total project costs from sources other than from the Section
5309 New Starts program, including Federal formula and flexible funds, the local
match required by Federal law, and any additional capital funding (“overmatch”);
• The strength of the proposed project’s capital financing plan; and
• The ability of the sponsoring agency to fund operation and maintenance of the
entire transit system as planned once the guideway project is built.
In recent years, competition for New Starts funding has grown increasingly fierce, with
almost all program funding allocated to Congressional earmarks. Thus, any efforts to obtain
New Starts funding for the new facility will not only need to address the criteria listed above,

Glens Falls Downtown Transportation
Center/Parking Ramp Feasibility Study

Wilbur Smith Associates Page 37
July 2004 but also have the strong sponsorship and advocacy of members of the region’s
Congressional delegation.

Glens Falls Downtown Transportation
Center/Parking Ramp Feasibility Study

Wilbur Smith Associates Page 38
July 2004
8. Architectural Renderings of Conceptual Facility
Design

Based on the conceptual facility design described in Chapter 2 of this report, the consultant
prepared a set of architectural renderings that depict a fully-constructed Glens Falls
Transportation Center/Parking Ramp, as shown in the following pages. Assumptions were
made regarding design elements such as façade treatments, window placement and other
aesthetic features based on the steering committee’s stated desire to develop a facility that fit
into downtown Glens Falls’ architectural and historic character. A total of nine (9)
renderings are provided, depicting the conceptual facility from a variety of perspectives and
elevations.

In addition, to illustrate how the conceptual facility might “fit” into the Elm Street
streetscape, a photosimulation was also prepared (see last image in following pages). This
image depicts the conceptual facility as if it were fully constructed on the preferred site and
allows decision-makers, stakeholders and residents to understand and appreciate the
potential visual and aesthetic impacts of the facility on the existing streetscape.

It should be noted that the architectural renderings and photosimulation are conceptual only
and do not necessarily depict a final design for the proposed facility. Rather, these images
are intended to inform discussions and decision-making regarding next steps in the process
for developing the Glens Falls Transportation Center/Parking Ramp.

Glens Falls Downtown Transportation
Center/Parking Ramp Feasibility Study

Wilbur Smith Associates
April 2004
Appendix A

Phase 1 Report

Albany NY, Anaheim CA, Atlanta GA, Baltimore MD, Bangkok Thailand, Burlington VT, Charleston SC, Charleston WV, Chicago IL, Cincinnati OH,
Cleveland OH Columbia SC, Columbus OH, Dallas TX, Dubai UAE, Edmonton Canada, Falls Church VA, Greenville SC, Hong Kong, Houston TX,
Iselin NJ, Kansas City MO, Knoxville TN, Lansing MI, Lexington KY, London UK, Milwaukee WI, Mumbai India, Myrtle Beach SC, New Haven CT,
Orlando FL, Philadelphia PA, Pittsburgh PA, Portland ME Poughkeepsie NY, Raleigh NC, Richmond VA, Salt Lake City UT, San Francisco CA,
Tallahassee FL, Tampa FL, Tempe AZ, Toronto Canada, Trenton NJ, Washington DC

Employee-Owned Company
Shelburne Commons
4076 Shelburne Road, Suite 7
Shelburne, Vermont 05482
(802) 985-2530
(802) 985-8175 fax
www.wilbursmith.com
March 3, 2003

Mr. Aaron Frankenfeld, Acting Director
Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation Council
Washington County Municipal Center, A-204
383 Upper Broadway
Ft. Edward, NY 12828

Mr. James Martin, Director
Economic Development Office
City of Glens Falls
City Hall
Glens Falls, NY 12801

RE: Downtown Glens Falls Transportation Center Feasibility Study – Phase 1 Report

Dear Messrs. Frankenfeld and Martin:

On behalf of Wilbur Smith Associates (WSA), I am pleased to present you with the Phase 1 Report
on the Downtown Glens Falls Transportation Center Feasibility Study. The purpose of this report is
to provide the A/GFTC and City of Glens Falls with preliminary information on facility design
concepts and pro forma facility financial information, which will be used by those entities to
determine whether to proceed with more detailed and refined facility planning and design.

Background

In October 2002, the A/GFTC and City of Glens Falls contracted with a consultant team led by
Wilbur Smith Associates (WSA) to conduct a feasibility study and siting analysis for a Downtown
Glens Falls Transportation Center and Parking Ramp. The proposed transit center-parking ramp
facility is intended to both be a hub for the Greater Glens Falls Transit (GGFT) system and intercity
buses (Greyhound and Trailways) and provide about 500 parking spaces for daily and special events
use. In addition, the City desires that the facility include transit-supportive space, such as indoor
transit patron waiting areas, and rental retail space with street-level storefronts. It should be noted
that WSA did not conduct any independent parking demand analysis for this project; demand
estimates are based on information provided by the City of Glens Falls.

For Phase 1, the conceptual design footprint was to be developed without regard to a specific site.
Potential facility sites are to be identified and evaluated in Phase 2.

Downtown Glens Falls Transportation Center
Feasibility Study – Phase 1 Report
Wilbur Smith Associates Page 2 March 3, 2003
Conceptual Design Footprint

Based on the parking demand and transit operational parameters provided by the City and the
Greater Glens Falls Transit System, the WSA team developed a conceptual design footprint for the
proposed facility. These are displayed in Figures 1-3. The characteristics of the conceptual design
characteristics are summarized as follows:

• 250’ x 180’ footprint (45,000 square feet, or slightly more than 1 acre);

• 4 levels (about 40’ total height);

• 525 parking spaces (including disabled spaces on 2 levels);

• Exterior local transit and intercity bus parking (5-7 vehicles) under a canopied roof;

• 2,500 sq. ft. Transportation Center, including:
ƒ Welcome Center & Waiting Area
ƒ Restrooms
ƒ Vending/Newstand
ƒ Ticketing Counter
ƒ Manager’s Office & Crew Rest Room
ƒ Utility Space;

• 1,500 sq. ft. Retail Space on street level (assume subdividing into three vendor
spaces).

Facility Construction Cost Estimate

Based on national averages and typical costs for facilities similar to that presented in the conceptual
design footprint, the estimated capital construction cost for the structure only
is about $7.4 million
(see Table 1). This estimate is based on unit costs of $13,000 per parking space for the parking ramp
element and $140 per square foot for the transportation center and retail space elements. The $7.4
million estimated cost should be considered a planning figure only. It does not
include the
costs of any land acquisition, infrastructure modifications, debt financing charges or other
legal/development costs. It is also subject to significant revision based on site-specific
considerations.

Five-Year Facility Operating Costs and Revenues

Table 2 displays the five-year estimated operating costs and revenues associated with the
parking element of the conceptual facility. In Year 1, the estimated operating revenue is
about $578,000, with estimated operating costs of about $210,000. It is assumed these costs
will rise by an average of 2 percent annually. Table 3 displays the breakout of estimated
revenue streams from monthly and daily parking uses. These
are planning estimates only,
and do not include key cost items that could significantly affect the facility’s operating
budget, including financing costs and debt service. In addition, these estimates do not account
for major changes to downtown parking demand or transit usage that might occur during the five-
year timeframe used for this estimate.

Downtown Glens Falls Transportation Center
Feasibility Study – Phase 1 Report
Wilbur Smith Associates Page 3 March 3, 2003

Table 2 does not
include any operating costs or revenues associated with the transportation center
element of the facility. However, it is reasonable to assume that transportation center operating costs
would be relatively minimal. Items that would most significantly affect operating costs would include
staffing, janitorial and security services. These costs could vary greatly depending on hours of
staffing and intensity of facility usage. Regarding the retail spaces, it is reasonable to assume that rent
would cover the costs of maintenance and upkeep of those spaces.

– – – – – – –

As you know, the information in this report will be discussed in detail during our March 4 steering
committee meeting in Glens Falls. Assuming the A/GFTC and City wish to proceed with Phase 2 of
this study, WSA is prepared to proceed with the site analysis and design and financial refinement
steps needed to develop a buildable facility. Thank you for the opportunity to support the City of
Glens Falls and the Greater Glens Falls Region.

Sincerely,
WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES

Peter E. Plumeau
Associate-in-Charge

EL
23 Spaces
9 Spaces
19 Spaces
RETAIL SPACE
1,500 so/ft7 Spaces 9 Spaces
15 Spaces 15 Spaces
STAIRS
180 feet
250 feet
FIRST LEVEL 110 Spaces7 Spaces
UP / DOWN RAMP 5.5% SLOPE
Bus 1Bus 2 Bus 3Bus 4Bus 5
5 Handicap
Spaces
One Way Ped.
Walk
TRANSPORTATION CENTER
2,500 sq/ft
See Insert “A” for details
In
Sidewalk6 Spaces2 SpacesOne Way
195 feet
EL
STAIRS
23 Spaces19 Spaces
RETAIL SPACE
1,500 so/ft7 Spaces 19 Spaces
15 Spaces 15 Spaces
STAIRS
180 feet
250 feet
SECOND LEVEL 126 Spaces
UP / DOWN RAMP 5.5% SLOPE5 Handicap
Spaces
One Way Ped.
Walk
TRANSPORTATION CENTER
2,500 sq/ft
See Insert “A” for details
6 Spaces
5 Spaces One Way
EL
23 Spaces
19 Spaces 19 Spaces
23 Spaces 19 Spaces
15 Spaces 15 Spaces
STAIRS
THIRD LEVEL (Typical) 150 Spaces
UP / DOWN RAMP 5.5% SLOPE
17 Spaces
EL
ELEV.
STAIRS
23 Spaces10 Spaces
23 Spaces
15 Spaces 15 Spaces
STAIRS
180 feet
250 feet
ROOF LEVEL 139 Spaces
10 Spaces
7 Spaces
19 Spaces
17 Spaces
UP / DOWN RAMP 5.5% SLOPE
STAIRS
ELEV.
STAIRS
ELEV.
STAIRS
19 Spaces
STAIRS
STAIRS
ELEV.
STAIRS
ELEV.
STAIRS
STAIRS
STAIRS
ELEV.
STAIRS
ELEV.
STAIRS STAIRS
STAIRS
ELEV.
STAIRS
ELEV.
STAIRS
Out
SECTION VIEW ‘A’ – “A”
“A”
“A”
180 feet
250 feet
Note:
Length, width, number of spaces,
number of floors and efficiency is
dependent upon specific site
opportunities.
Potential Functional Concept
TRANSPORTATION CENTER
Glens Falls, New York
Wilbur Smith AssociatesJanuary 16, 2003
Revised: February 7, 2003 Sheet 1 of 3
Sidewalk
Canopy

Potential Functional Concept
TRANSPORTATION CENTER
Glens Falls, New York
Wilbur Smith AssociatesJanuary 16, 2003
Revised: February 7, 2003 Sheet 2 of 3
ELEV.
STAIRS
TRANSPORTATION CENTER
24’
Backout
Space4
5’
1
2

3
5’ B
us
1 B
us
2 B
us
3 B
us
4 B
us
5 B
us
6 B
us
7
8’ SIDEWALK
RETAIL SPACE
ALTERNATE BUS PARKING LAYOUT
(45 Degrees)
145 feet
40’
Insert “A”
TRANSPORTATION CENTER
Conceptual Layout to Show Function and Scale
Scale: 1 inch = 10 feet Total Area 2,500 Sq/Ft.
Legend:
A- Bus Info. Area (12.5’ x 8.0’) = 105.0 Sq/Ft.
B- Ticketing Counter (17.7’ x 7.0’) = 119.0 Sq/Ft.
C- Mgr. Office (12.5’ x 20.0’) = 250.0 Sq/Ft.
C-1 Restroom (12.5’ x 8.0’) = 100.0 Sq/Ft.
D-M Men’s Restroom (15.0’ x 12.5’) = 187.5 Sq/Ft.
D-W Women’s Restroom (15.0’ x 12.5’) = 187.5 Sq/Ft.
E- Waiting Area / Welcome Center = (1,283.5 Sq/Ft. and
F- Vending Areas and News Stand (15.0’ x 7.0’) = 105.0 Sq/Ft.
G-Misc./ Utility Space (12.5’ x 13.0’) = 162.5 Sq/Ft.
ELEV.
STAIRSA
B
FD-W D-M
E
C-1
C
Men’s
Rest Room
Women’s
Rest Room Mgr. Office
Vending Areas and
News Stand
Ticketing Counter
Rest
Room
25 feet
Waiting Area
Welcome Center
Ped.
Walk
100 feetBus Info. Area
GMisc./
Utility
Space
SECOND VIEW FIRST VIEW
SECTION VIEW “A-A”
Fourth Level …………. 139 Spaces
Third Level (Typical)….. 150 Spaces
Second Level………… 126 Spaces
First Level…………… 1 1 0 Spaces
GARAGE TOTAL …… 525 Spaces
GARAGE EFFICIENCY 330 sq/ft per space
Horizontal Scale: 1 inch = 30 feet
Vertical Scale: 1 inch = 14 feet
ALTERNATE BUS PARKING LAYOUT
Parallel Parking
Scale: 1 inch = 30 feet
ELEV.
STAIRS
TRANSPORTATION CENTER
8’ SIDEWALK
RETAIL SPACE
195 feet
100’
Bus 5 Bus 4 Bus 3 Bus 2 Bus 1
Bus 6
Bus 7
35’
45’
Third Level (Typical)
Second Level
First Level Fourth Level
Scale: 1 inch = 30 feet
Note:
Other bus berth layouts are possible
and are dependent upon specific site
opportunities.
EL STAIR
S
ELEV.
STAIRS
ELEV.
STAIRS ELEV.
STAIRS ELEV.
STAIRS
RETA
IL2
1
3
RETAIL
RETAIL
Transportati
on Center
40’±
ELEV.
STAIRS
STAIRS STAIRS STAIRS
ELEV.
STAIRS ELEV.
STAIRS
In
Out
EL STAIR
S
ELEV.
STAIRS
ELEV.
STAIRS ELEV.
STAIRS ELEV.
STAIRSELEV.
STAIRS
STAIRS STAIRS STAIRS
ELEV.
STAIRS ELEV.
STAIRS
TRANSPORTATION CENTER
2,500 sq/ft
See Insert “A” for detailsRETAIL SPACE
1,500 so/ft
U
P
/

D
OW
N

R
A
MP

5.
5
%
S
LOP
E

TRANSPORTATION CENTER IN
CONTEXT WITH OTHER BUILDINGS
Glens Falls, New York
Wilbur Smith AssociatesScale: 1” = 20’February 7, 2003 Sheet 3 of 3
EL
23
4J
R
23
4J
R
12’
Alley
40’
250’
Transportation Center
30’
40’
50’

Parking Element Cost Estimate
Spaces Cost per Space* Estimated Total
525 $13,000 $6,825,000
Square Footage Cost per Sq. Foot* Estimated Total
4,000 $140 $560,000
Estimated Total Capital Cost – Structure Only
Parking Spaces$6,825,000
Transportation Center$560,000
Estimated Total$7,385,000
Notes:*Includes contingency factor
Does not
include land acquisition, infrastructure modifications, debt financing charges or other legal/development costs.
Not site-specificTABLE 1
Transportation Center Element Cost Estimate (including retail space)
FOR DISCUSSION ONLY TRANSPORTATION CENTER
GLENS FALLS, NY
CONCEPTUAL FACILITY DESIGN
ESTIMATED CAPITAL COSTS – STRUCTURE ONLY
3/1/03

Facility Element Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Five
-year

Total
Operating RevenueParking $578,340 $589,907 $601,705 $613,739 $626,014$3,009,705
Operating CostParking $210,000 $214,200 $218,484 $222,854 $227,311$1,092,848
Net Revenue/Cost $368,340 $375,707 $383,221 $390,885 $398,703 $1,916,856
Notes
:
Not site-specific
Does not include any financing or debt service costs
Based on information provided by City of Glens Falls – no independent needs or economic analysis conducted
Assumes 90% average parking occupancy
All figures in current (2003) dollars
Assumed 2% annual growth in operating revenues and costs
FOR DISCUSSION ONLYTABLE 2
GLENS FALLS TRANSPORTATION CENTER FEASIBILITY STUDY – PHASE 1
CONCEPTUAL FACILITY DESIGN
PRO FORMA OPERATING REVENUE & COST ESTIMATE
3/1/03

% of spacesTotal # of
spacesAverage
occupancy
rateRevenue per
spaceRevenue basis Annual revenue Notes
70% 368 90% $60 monthly $238,140 Monthly permit holders
30% 158 90% $8 daily $340,200 Equivalent of 300 days/year
100% 525 90% $578,340
Assumptions:Not site-specific
Monthly/daily parking ratio based on typicals of similar facilities in other jurisdictions – subject to adjustment
Per unit revenue figures based on typicals of similar facilities in other jurisdictions – subject to adjustment
TABLE 3
FOR DISCUSSION ONLYTRANSPORTATION CENTER
GLENS FALLS, NY
CONCEPTUAL FACILITY DESIGN
PRO FORMA OPERATING REVENUE ESTIMATE

Glens Falls Downtown Transportation
Center/Parking Ramp Feasibility Study

Wilbur Smith Associates
April 2004
Appendix B

Candidate Site Evaluation Matrix and Site Evaluation
Results

GLENS FALLS DOWNTOWN TRANSPORTATION CENTER/PARKING RAMP
CANDIDATE SITE EVALUATION MATRIX – REVISED 7/11/03
Priority
Level
Elm St. Lot
Individual
Rating1
Prioritized
Rating2
Hudson Ave. & Glen St.
Individual
Rating
Prioritized
Rating
Civic Center Plaza
Individual
Rating
Prioritized
Rating
Clinton/School Streets Lot
Individual
Rating
Prioritized
Rating
Evergreen Bank/Washington St.
Individual
Rating
Prioritized
Rating
1
OwnershipPublic – City
11
Public Roadway abutted by private property
11
Public/private mix; Need to provide commercial space
and parkign to displaced businesses
33
Public with private rights-of-way
33
Private; need to provide parking to owner if land is sold.
55
1
Parking & Bus Passenger Proximity to Central
Downtown AreaGood access to downtown. 1,000’± walk to Library,
City Hall, and Senior housing. 2,000’± walk to Civic
Center
11
Good access to downtown. 2,000’± walk to Library, Cit
y
Hall, Senior housing and Civic Center.
11
Fair access to downtown. Short walk to City Hall,
Senior housing and Civic Center. 2,000’± walk to
Library. Must cross Hudson/Glen intersection to
access most amenities
33
3,000’± walk to Library and Downtown.
55
2,000’±
walk
to Library. 3,000’± walk to Downtown, City Hall
and senior housing. 4,500’± walk to Civic Center.
33
1
Pedestrian AccessAcceptable. Could be better from Glen and
Exchange Streets.
33
Acceptable. Access would need to be in the location of
existing sidewalks.
33
Good from both Glen St. and Hudson Ave. Good
pedestrian connections to Ridge via Linear park, if
cross walk is added on Hudson. Long delays at
crosswalks around five corners would need to be
corrected.
11
Acceptable from Clinton and Elm.
33
Good from Washington and Maple, with good connections
to Glen St.
11
1
Facility Access and Egress for VehiclesEasy auto access from Elm and Glen St. Bus access
convenient from west only; Tight access for buses
due to narrow lanes on Elm St.
33
Easy access from five corners and Hudson Ave for
auto and bus.
55
Easy access for right turn movement for bus and auto
from Glen St. and Warren Ave. Left turns difficult
across Glen (3 lanes) and Warren (2 lanes).
55
Acceptable access for autos; tight access for buses
due to narrow lanes on Elm & Clinton Sts.
33
Easy access for auto and bus from Washington St. and
from Maple St. for autos.
11
1
Context SensitivityProximity to rear of buildings on Glen St. and
Exchange St. is an important issue. Potential for
more pedestrian space in the alley. Can fit into
facades on Elm St.
11
Bridging building over road could create a discordant
façade
55
Proper design could add interesting mass to five
corners area. May be possible to use the slope and
portions of lower site to expand capacity. Potential to
add small shops near heart of downtown.
11
Building mass could work well with adjacent
buildings.
11
Structure would work well with buildings on Maple St.
Parking structure may be out of scale for smaller residential
(existing or former) structures on north side of Washington
St. Use may not be compatible with residences on
Washington
55
1
Transit Center/Bus Operations InterfaceAcceptable – location of transit center potential
conflicts between north side toward on-site drop-off,
or south side to face street.
33
Transit center on adjacent property
33
Acceptable – buses adjacent off-street.
33
Acceptable – buses adjacent on-street.
33
Good – buses adjacent off street.
11
2
Facility Traffic Impacts on DowntownPotential for some traffic impacts due to access on
Elm Street.
36
Some disruption due to covering of Hudson Avenue
36
Potential for traffic impacts with left turns and access
on primary roadways.
510
Potential for some traffic impacts on Downtown due
to use.
36
Minimal traffic impacts on Downtown traffic.
12
2
Environmental ConsiderationsGood shade trees on site. Potential hazardous
waste
36
Potential hazardous waste
12
Potential hazardous waste
12
Potential hazardous waste
12
Potential hazardous waste.
12
2
Private Property Impacts/NeedsMinimal
12
Could affect circulation on adjacent properties
36
Requires relocation of existing business and
associated parking.
510
Could disrupt rights-of-way
36
Requires replacing private parking spaces; Some
modification to bank drive-in. Compensation to landowner
needed.
36
2
Bus Operations at FacilityPotential for good bus circulation on-site
12
No turn around one way circulation.
510
Potential for acceptable bus circulation on-site.
36
Acceptable – circulation offsite
36
Potential for good bus circulation around parking garage on-
site.
12
2
Site Preparation/Utilities ConsiderationsDrainage.
12
Utilities in street must work with foundations. Overhead
wires
510
Drainage; potential retaining walls; foundation issues;
demolition of other buildings
510
Overhead wires; demolition of other buildings
36
Overhead wires
36
2
Bus Routing ConsiderationsCentral location in downtown; proximate to Glen St.
&
library
12
Central location in downtown
36
Central location in downtown; proximate to Civic
Center
12
Fringe of central downtown area
510
Fringe of central downtown area; long walks to Civic
Center.
36
TOTAL:
32 58 56 54 40
1Individual Ratings:
1 – Good
3 – Acceptable
5 – Poor
The lower the overall score, the
more suitable the site.2Prioritized rating = Individual Rating x Priority Level
SITE EVALUATION CRITERIA
PRINTED 7/14/2003
Page 1

GLENS FALLS DOWNTOWN TRANSPORTATION CENTER/PARKING RAMP
CANDIDATE SITE EVALUATION MATRIX – REVISED 7/11/03
Priority
Criteria
Elm St. Lot
Individual
Rating
Prioritized
Rating
Hudson Ave. & Glen St.
Individual
Rating
Prioritized
Rating
Civic Center Plaza
Individual
Rating
Prioritized
Rating
Clinton/School Streets Lot
Individual
Rating
Prioritized
Rating
Evergreen Bank/Washington St.
Individual
Rating
Prioritized
Rating
Displaced Public Parking Spaces94 0 50 38 75
Proposed Spaces488 364 436 379 490
Net New Spaces399 364 386 341 415
Proposed Parking Levels57 45 5
Typical Spaces per level113 58 131 92 115
Proposed Building Height50 78 40 50 50
Garage Efficiency ( s.f./space)368 440 351 330 366
Transportation Center SpaceYes Yes (on existing Greyhound site) Yes Yes Yes
Commercial SpaceYes No Yes No Yes
Number of Bus Berths (5 local & 2 intercity desired)7 – Off Street 4 – On Street 5- Off Street 5-On Street 7-Off Street
Construction CostTo Be Determined To Be Determined To Be Determined To Be Determined To Be Determined
SITE CHARACTERISTICS
PRINTED 7/14/2003
Page 1

Glens Falls Downtown Transportation
Center/Parking Ramp Feasibility Study

Wilbur Smith Associates
April 2004
Appendix C

Alternative Designs for Elm Street Site