Publication Type: Transportation Plans

Prepared For:
Town of Queensbury,
Warren County, New York
Exit 20 Corridor
Management Plan
17 Computer Drive West
Albany, New York 12205
(518) 446-0396
Prepared By: September 2009

Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation Council
Washington County Municipal Center, A-231
383 Broadway
Fort Edward, NY 12828
357 Milton Avenue, Suite C
Ballston Spa, New York 12020
(518) 363-8200

Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan Page ii
Final Report September 2009

Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP GMB Engineers and Planners, Inc., P.C.
Acknowledgements
Active Advisory Committee

Stuart Baker – Town of Queensbury Community Development Department
Rob Fitch – New York State Department of Transportation
Len Fosbrook – Economic Development Council of Warren County
Aaron Frankenfeld – Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation Council
Sarah Gebbie-Measeck – Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation Council
Kevin Hajos – Warren County Department of Public Works
David Kenny – Business/Property Owner
William Lamy – Warren County Department of Public Works
John McCormack – Business/Property Owner
Anthony Metivier – Town of Queensbury Ward 1 Councilman
Laura Moore – Warren County Planning Department
Scott Sopczyk – Greater Glens Falls Transit
Daniel Stec – Supervisor, Town of Queensbury
John Strough – Town of Queensbury Ward 3 Councilman
Jeff Tennyson – Warren County Department of Public Works
Kathy Varney – Glens Falls Hospital
Mike Wyatt – New York State Department of Transportation

Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan Page iii
Final Report September 2009

Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP GMB Engineers and Planners, Inc., P.C.
Table of Contents
Page
Title Page ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… i
Acknowledgements ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. ii
Table of Contents ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..iii
List of Figures…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. iv
List of Tables ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. iv
List of Appendices …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… iv
Executive Summary …………………………………………………………………………………………………………. v

I.
Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 1
Study Overview ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 1
Study Area ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 1
Study Goals……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 1
History & Relevant Efforts ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 4
Approach …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 5
II. Existing Conditions……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 6
General Environment ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 6
1. Land Use and Zoning ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 6
2. Environmental Features ……………………………………………………………………………………. 6
3. Historic and Cultural Features ……………………………………………………………………………. 6
Transportation ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 6
1. Existing Roadway Conditions …………………………………………………………………………….. 6
2. Primary Intersections………………………………………………………………………………………… 9
3. Existing Traffic Characteristics …………………………………………………………………………. 10
4. Traffic Operations …………………………………………………………………………………………… 13
Bicycle and Pedestrian Access …………………………………………………………………………………… 17
Existing Public Transportation……………………………………………………………………………………..18
Crash History …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 19
Area Parking ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 22
Driveway Inventory……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 23
III. Land Use Scenarios ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 26
IV. Improvement Alternatives …………………………………………………………………………………………..37
Short-Term 2013 Level of Service Analysis ………………………………………………………………….. 37
Key Study Area Corridor Alternatives ………………………………………………………………………….. 39
1. US Route 9 Median Alternative ………………………………………………………………………… 47
2. Back Access Alternative ………………………………………………………………………………….. 49
3. Access Management Alternative ………………………………………………………………………. 49
Southern Corridor Study Area Intersection Improvements………………………………………………. 49
Low Cost Improvement Options ………………………………………………………………………………….. 49
1. Transit ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 49
2. Signing Improvements …………………………………………………………………………………….. 49
3. Other Considerations ……………………………………………………………………………………… 49
Interchange Options ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 49
1. Great Escape Interchange ………………………………………………………………………………. 49
2. NY Route 149 Interchange ………………………………………………………………………………. 49
3. Reconstruction of Exit 20 as a Single Point Interchange (SPI) ……………………………… 49
V. Implementation…………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 49

Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan Page iv
Final Report September 2009

Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP GMB Engineers and Planners, Inc., P.C.
List of Figures
Page
Figure I.1 – Regional Study Area Map ………………………………………………………………………………..2

Figure I.2 – Project Boundary Map ……………………………………………………………………………………. 3
Figure II.1 – Town of Queensbury Zoning…………………………………………………………………………… 7
Figure II.2 – Environmental Features …………………………………………………………………………………. 8
Figure II.3 – Peak Summer Daily Traffic Volumes ……………………………………………………………… 12
Figure II.4 – 2008 Existing Traffic Volumes – Saturday Peak Hour ………………………………………. 14
Figure II.5 – Existing Bike and Pedestrian Accommodations……………………………………………….. 20
Figure II.6 – Existing Transit Routes ………………………………………………………………………………… 21
Figure II.7 – Key Corridor Parking Lot Inventory ………………………………………………………………… 24
Figure II.8 – Key Corridor Driveway Inventory …………………………………………………………………… 25
Figure III.1 – Approved Development Projects ………………………………………………………………….. 28
Figure III.2 – Approved Development Projects Traffic Volumes – Saturday Peak Hour …………… 29
Figure III.3 – Potential Future Development Projects …………………………………………………………. 30
Figure III.4 – Potential Future Development Projects Traffic Volumes – Saturday Peak Hour ….. 31
Figure III.5 – 2013 Background Traffic Volumes – Saturday Peak Hour ……………………………….. 32
Figure III.6 – 2028 Background Traffic Volumes – Saturday Peak Hour ……………………………….. 33
Figure III.7 – 2013 Future Traffic Volumes – Saturday Peak Hour ……………………………………….. 34
Figure III.8 – 2028 Future Traffic Volumes – Low Growth – Saturday Peak Hour …………………… 35
Figure III.9 – 2028 Future Traffic Volumes – High Growth – Saturday Peak Hour ………………….. 36
Figure IV.1 – Route 9 Median Alternative Concept …………………………………………………………….. 48
Figure IV.2 – Back Access Alternative Concept…………………………………………………………………. 49
Figure IV.3 – Key Corridor Access Management Concept ………………………………………………….. 49
Figure IV.4 – Study Area Signing Concept ……………………………………………………………………….. 49
Figure IV.5 – Single Point Interchange Concept ………………………………………………………………… 49

List of Tables

Table II-1 – Roadway Character Summary (Saturday Peak Hour) ……………………………………….. 11
Table II-2 – Pedestrians (Saturday Peak Hour) …………………………………………………………………. 13
Table II-3 – Existing Level of Service (Saturday Peak Hour) ……………………………………………….. 15
Table II-4 – Crash History – January 2005 to December 2007 …………………………………………….. 19
Table II-5 – Key Study Area Corridor Driveway Inventory …………………………………………………… 23
Table IV-1 – Future 2013 Level of Service (Saturday Peak Hour) ………………………………………… 38
Table IV-2 – Key Study Area Intersection Level of Service (Saturday Peak Hour)………………….. 40
Table IV-3 – Back Access Alternative Level of Service (Saturday Peak Hour)……………………….. 49
Table IV-4 – South Corridor Level of Service (Saturday Peak Hour) …………………………………….. 49
Table V-1 – Implementation Matrix …………………………………………………………………………………..49

Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan Page v
Final Report September 2009

Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP GMB Engineers and Planners, Inc., P.C.
List of Appendices

Appendix A …………………………………………….. Advisory Committee and Public Workshop Summary
Appendix B …………………………………………………………………………. Automatic Traffic Recorder Data
Appendix C…………………………………………………………………………….Turning Movement Count Data
Appendix D……………………………………………………………………….. Existing Level of Service Analysis
Appendix E …………………………………………………………………………………………. Parking Lot Inventory
Appendix F ………………………………………………………………………………. Alternative Evaluation Matrix
Appendix G ………………………………………………………………… 2013 Future Level of Service Analysis
Appendix H…………………………………………………………………. 2028 Future Level of Service Analysis
Appendix I ………………………………………………………………………………………….. Access Management

Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan Page vi
Final Report September 2009

Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP GMB Engineers and Planners, Inc., P.C.
Executive Summary
The Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation Council (A/GFTC) initiated this Corridor
Management Study for the Exit 20 Interchange Area (Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan) within
Warren County, New York. The study focuses on the US Route 9 corridor in and around
Interstate 87 (I-87) Exit 20 in the Town of Queensbury, New York. The study area corridor
encompasses an approximate 2-mile segment of US Route 9, from Round Pond Road to ¼ mile
north of NY Route 149. It also includes Gurney Lane from West Mountain Road to US Route 9.
The key study area corridor has been identified as the area of US Route 9 from the Exit 20
Northbound (NB) Ramps to NY Route 149.

Key issues include traffic safety and capacity along the corridor; access management, the
seasonal nature of traffic, and known and proposed development in the area. Long-term
capacity issues are identified, although large scale corridor widening is not considered a viable
alternative due to the potential for significant property impacts, environmental impacts,
construction costs, and degradation to the character of the area.

The goal of the study is to develop a comprehensive and implementable recommendation plan
consistent with local planning and development objectives that includes evaluation and
recommendations for study area intersections, improved accommodations for pedestrians,
bicyclists, and public transit, congestion and accident mitigation strategies. The study
recommendations shall consider future development of the corridor consistent with current
zoning. The study will identify a comprehensive list of smaller-scale improvements to improve
traffic circulation in the corridor in addition to a conceptual level of detail for larger-scale
improvements.

Existing Conditions
Traffic volumes through the study area are highly seasonal due to the recreational nature of the
surrounding area with the Great Escape within the project corridor and Lake George to the
north. Traffic volumes peak during the summer months on Saturday during heavy regional
arrival periods. Although other peak travel times occur through the study corridor as a result of
other special events (i.e., Adirondack Balloon Festival) or seasonal travel (i.e., ski traffic to/from
Vermont), the peak summer conditions formed the basis for the study.

The results of the existing conditions assessment indicate that there is a need to identify
capacity and operational improvements within the corridor, specifically in the key corridor along
US Route 9 between the I-87 Exit 20 NB Ramps and NY Route 149. It is noted that the existing
Saturday peak hour traffic volumes are similar to Friday peak hour traffic volumes based on
automatic traffic recorder (ATR) data indicating that poor intersection operations exist during
other weekday and weekend periods during the peak conditions.

Future Development Volumes
The Exit 20 corridor has been subject to recent and on-going development pressure. The
Queensbury Planning Department identified six individual development projects that are under
consideration by the Town. In addition, six potential future development areas were identified.
Both short-term (5 year) and long-term (20 year) projections were assessed in the study with the
estimated time of completion (ETC) considered the existing 2008 condition. The study
evaluated three future land use/traffic volume scenarios that included a combination of
background growth and the approved/potential future developments and are as follows:

Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan Page vii
Final Report September 2009

Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP GMB Engineers and Planners, Inc., P.C.
• A short-term, ETC +5 year condition including growth expected from approved
development projects.
• A long-term, ETC +20 year condition including growth expected from approved
development projects (low-growth).
• A long-term, ETC +20 year condition expanded to include additional potential
growth from future potential development projects in the corridor (high-growth).

A review of the volumes indicate that when compared to the 2008 Existing traffic volumes, the
2013 Future traffic volumes show an increase in volumes of approximately 10%. In the 2028
Future traffic volume scenarios, the volumes increase by approximately 27% in the Low Growth
scenario and range from 33% to 48% in the High Growth scenario.

Potential Improvements
Intersection and Corridor Improvements – The study identifies a number of short and long-
term capacity and safety alternatives for the 2-mile segment of US Route 9. The study included
analysis of seven intersections; four signalized and three unsignalized. Table E.1 outlines
specific intersection and corridor related improvements identified in the study corridor. Each
improvement alternative is described in more detail in the main report. The project
recommendations were developed to preserve and improve the safety and capacity of area
roadways through arterial management and context sensitive improvements. Final
improvements should be multi-modal and also support pedestrians, bicyclists and transit.

The study also outlines four improvement alternatives for the Gurney Lane intersection with the
I-87 southbound ramps which includes an option for reconfiguring the interchange.

Two other interchange options were assessed and determined to not be feasible options for the
corridor. These interchange options included a direct access into the Great Escape and a new
interchange at NY Route 149.

Other Feasible Improvements – As part of the study, other feasible lower cost improvements
were identified that should be considered in the study corridor to meet the goals of the project.
Below is a brief summary of the potential improvements.

Transit – In the short-term, it is recommended that visible trolley stops for the seasonal
trolleys be established in the key corridor. The trolley stops should feature benches and
lighting that fit the character of the area with designated “trolley stop” signing. The more
defined trolley stops will result in more efficient runs while visibly enhancing the
pedestrian/transit friendliness of the corridor. This option is an enhancement to the
current trolley system operated by the Greater Glens Falls Transit. Additional transit
enhancement options may include the addition of park-and-ride lots to the north and
south of the key corridor to capture passenger vehicles onto the transit system before
traveling into the key corridor. It would be beneficial to use existing parking lots to avoid
the creation of additional parking areas and would thus require lot agreements to be
undertaken with individual property owners. This option could be pursued in numerous
ways by both public or private entities.

Table E.1- Summary of Intersection Related Improvements
Intersection/
Corridor
Summary of
Issues
Description of
Alternative/Improvement
Cost

Advocacy
Responsibility

Timing/
Priority

Key Study Area Improvement Alternatives
US Route 9
Median Alternative Conflicts from
numerous driveways
along Route 9 impact
traffic flow through
the corridor. Install a raised median along the entire
Route 9 corridor from Route 149 to the I-87
Exit 20 NB Ramp. This improvement would
require that the roundabout option be
pursued for each of the Key Study Corridor
intersections. $5-6 Million State/Fed, Town,
Property Owners Long-term
Back Access
Alternative Congestion on Route
9 will increase during
peak conditions in the
Key Study Area
corridor due to
approved and
potential
developments. Construct a public road on the east side of
Route 9 that connects Route 149 to I-87 Exit
20 NB Ramp. This corridor alternative
assumes roundabout control at the two
signalized intersections and unsignalized
control at the Route 9/French Mountain
Commons Drwy/Adirondack Factory Outlets
Drwy intersection. $3.5-4
Million Town, Property
Owners, State/Fed Long-term
Access
Management
Alternative

Conflicts from
numerous driveways,
lace of connectivity
between parcels Apply access management techniques in
key corridor to include closure of driveways,
consistent driveway layouts, cross-
connections for vehicles and pedestrians $1.5 – 2
Million Property Owners,
Town, State/Fed Short-term
Individual Intersection Improvement Alternatives
Signalized Option – Construct additional WB
left-turn lane, widen SB Route 9 departure
to accommodate two left-turn movements,
and re-stripe Route 9 for a NB left-turn lane. $1.5-2
Million State/Federal,
Town Short-term
US Route 9/NY
Route 149 Intersection has
existing capacity
concerns. Capacity
concerns continue
through the 20 year
condition. Roundabout Option – Construct a two lane
roundabout. $2-2.5
Million State/Federal,
Town Short-term
Unsignalized Option – Do not change
current intersection control and accept poor
levels of service on the minor street
approaches. $0 Property Owners,
State/Fed Short-term US Route 9/French
Mountain
Commons Dwy/
Adirondack Factory
Outlets Dwy Minor street approaches have short-term (2008) and long-term capacity concerns (2028). Heavy pedestrian crossing. Roundabout Option – Construct a single
lane roundabout. $1-1.5
Million Property Owners,
State/Fed Long-term Signalized Option – Construct additional EB
left-turn lane, widen NB Route 9 departure
to accommodate two left-turn movements,
and convert the SB Route 9 right-turn lane
into a shared through/right-turn lane. $1.5-2
Million State/Federal,
Town Short-term
US Route 9/I-87
Exit 20 NB Ramp
Intersection has existing capacity concerns. Capacity concerns continue through the 20 year condition. Roundabout Option – Construct a two lane
roundabout $2-2.5
Million State/Federal,
Town Short-term

Intersection/
Corridor
Summary of
Issues
Description of
Alternative/Improvement
Cost

Advocacy
Responsibility

Timing/
Priority

Southern Study Area Improvement Alternatives
Signalized Option – (Low Growth) Provide
separate SB left and right turn lanes and
construct an exclusive WB left-turn lane on
Gurney Lane by widening the bridge
structure over I-87. (High Growth) Widen
the I-87 On Ramp to accommodate two left-
turn movements. $3.5-4
Million Town
(Development
Conditions),
State/Fed Long-term
Signalized Right-In/Right-Out Option –
Modify intersection to provide only right-
turns exiting the I-87 Exit 20 SB Off-Ramp
and only right-turns movements onto the I-
87 Exit 20 SB On-Ramp. This would require
the construction of a roundabout at the
Gurney Lane/West Mountain Road
intersection. $2-2.5
Million Town
(Development
Conditions),
State/Fed Long-term
All-Way Stop Option – Install stop signs on
all approaches. This intersection will
continue to fail. $7,500 State/Federal,
Town Short-term
Gurney Lane/I-87
Exit 20 SB Ramp Intersection has
existing capacity
concerns. Capacity
concerns continue
through the 20 year
condition.
Reconfigure SB Ramps with new SPI
interchange $40-50
Million State/Fed Long-term
US Route
9/Gurney Lane Intersection has long-
term capacity
concerns (beyond
2028). Convert the SB Route 9 right-turn lane into
a shared through/right-turn lane and extend
it to the Glen Lake Road intersection. $350,000-
400,000 Town, State/Fed Long-term
US Route 9/Glen
Lake Rd/Six Flags
Dr Intersection signal is
not optimized Improve signal timing. $0 State/Fed Short-term
Unsignalized Option – Construct separate SB left and right turn lanes on Round Pond Rd $75,000
Town (Development Conditions), State/Fed
Long-Term
US Route 9/Round
Pond Road Intersection has long-
term capacity
concerns (2028).
Signalized Option – Install an actuated
traffic signal. $225,000-
300,000 Town
(Development
Conditions),
State/Fed Long-Term

Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan Page x
Final Report September 2009

Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP GMB Engineers and Planners, Inc., P.C.
Access Management – Although an access management alternative has been defined
in the corridor, it is important to maintain access management techniques throughout the
corridor as development continues. Currently, the Town of Queensbury codes include
guidelines on Access Management. These current standards provide specifics on the
layout, location, and design of driveways as well as the number of driveways and
spacing. These guidelines should be strictly adhered to by the Town in the approval and
development of new sites and redevelopment of sites in the project corridor. It is further
recommended that the Town of Queensbury adopt A/GFTC’s Access Management
Study as an additional support mechanism for the implementation of access
management principles through the corridor.

Signing Improvements – The use of additional signing in the corridor to provide clearer
directions for vehicles accessing areas/sites outside of the project corridor is a potential
low cost alternative to assist in reducing congestion in the corridor. Potential areas of
signing include variable message boards for use during times of excessive congestion
leading vehicles destined to locations north of the site to use Exit 21, permanent signs
indicating that it is not necessary to use Exit 20 to get to Lake George, and signing on
NY Route 149 westbound encouraging people heading north to use Exit 21.

Implementation
The implementation of the recommendations outlined in the study can occur in different stages
and will take commitment and the coordinated effort on the part of the various agencies and
land owners in the study area as outlined in Table E.1. The implementation of the larger scale
long term improvements will require solicitation for funding. There may be the potential for
NYSDOT to work with the Town and private land owners to identify funding sources for the
capacity improvements at the study area intersections through the corridor. Implementation in
this way would likely result from the advocacy of the Town or private land owners reaching out
to NYSDOT for assistance and guidance. The funding could be obtained through means such
as a Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) or a grant. This process will require
applications to be submitted by either the Town or A/GFTC. Funding through public/private
partnerships is also an option that could be pursued.

Other shorter-term recommendations could be implemented with a less defined process. For
example, capacity improvements recommended at the US Route 9/Round Pond Road
intersection may be the responsibility of the Great Escape as described in their Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS). The Great Escape monitors the traffic conditions in the corridor
annually to determine the need for this improvement based on their site generated traffic.
However, if volumes in the project corridor increase due to other factors, this improvement may
be initiated separately by the Town or NYSDOT. Improvements to accommodate increased
transit ridership on the trolleys should be advanced directly by the Town of Queensbury in
association with the Greater Glens Falls Transit.

Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan Page 1
Final Report September 2009

Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP GMB Engineers and Planners, Inc., P.C.
I. Introduction
Study Overview
The Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation Council (A/GFTC) initiated this Corridor
Management Study for the Exit 20 Interchange Area (Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan) within
Warren County, New York. The study focuses on the US Route 9 corridor in and around
Interstate 87 (I-87) Exit 20 in the Town of Queensbury, New York. The study will result in a
comprehensive list of smaller-scale improvements to improve traffic circulation in the corridor
and a conceptual level of detail for larger-scale improvements.

The consultant team for the Project, Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP (CME) and GMB
Engineers and Planners, Inc., P.C. (GMB), is responsible for organizing the vision and
completing the Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan.

Study Area
The Exit 20 Interchange area is located along US Route 9 east of I-87 just south and east of the
Adirondack Park borders. The study area corridor encompasses an approximate 2-mile
segment of US Route 9, from Round Pond Road to ¼ mile north of NY Route 149, in the Town
of Queensbury as shown on Figure I-1. It also includes Gurney Lane from West Mountain Road
to US Route 9. The key study area corridor has been identified as the area of US Route 9 from
the Exit 20 Northbound (NB) Ramps to NY Route 149. The study will also investigate the
feasibility of a new interchange for I-87 at the Great Escape and at NY Route 149. Figure I-2
outlines the project boundaries and key study area locations.

Key characteristics of the study area include the retail outlet shops along the stretch of US
Route 9 referred to as “The Million Dollar Half-Mile”, the Great Escape amusement park and
Lodge, and access to several campgrounds. Additionally, the northern end of the study area
corridor is a connector link between I-87 and NY Route 149 for travel to and from Vermont and
northern New England, a route commonly used by truck traffic.

Study Goals
The goal of the study is to develop a comprehensive and implementable recommendation plan,
consistent with local planning and development objectives that includes the following:

• Improved accommodations for pedestrians, bicyclists, and public transit
• Evaluation and recommendations for signalized intersections
• Congestion and accident mitigation strategies

The study will focus on strategies such as access management, land use recommendations,
and roadway/interchange reconfigurations to meet the study goals. Both small and large scale
recommendations plans will be provided in the study.

Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan Page 4
Final Report September 2009

Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP GMB Engineers and Planners, Inc., P.C.
History & Relevant Efforts
As part of a continuing effort by A/GFTC, the Town of Queensbury, and the New York State
Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) to provide a safe, efficient, and marketable corridor for
residents, business owners, and visitors, several studies have been conducted in recent years.
These projects and studies include:

• Corridor Management and Traffic Circulation Plan for the Million Dollar Half Mile – 1997
• A/GFTC Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan – 2001
• Town of Queensbury Population Projections & Buildout Study – 2005
• A/GFTC Access Management Study – 2006
• Town of Queensbury Comprehensive Plan – 2007

The Corridor Management and Traffic Circulation Plan for the Million Dollar Half-Mile was
a traffic study prepared by Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart, Inc. (BFJ) to provide short-term and
long-term plans for the corridor. The goals of this study were similar to the current study, but its
focus was on a smaller area. This study resulted in the implementation of some access
management and cross access connections in the study area.

A/GFTC’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan was prepared to provide municipalities with the tools
to preserve and enhance the area bicycling and pedestrian network and to improve the safety,
attractiveness, and the viability of cycling and walking as alternatives to vehicular transportation
modes. The study made recommendations for geometric standards for bicycle and pedestrian
facilities and made specific recommendations for enhancements within the A/GFTC
jurisdictional area.

The Town of Queensbury Population Projection & Build-out Study provides data on
demographic, housing and population projections in the Town as well as the resulting public
school enrollment trends. Although this study is not directly related to the scope of the corridor
Management Plan it does provide a detailed summary of the residential and commercial
development potentials in the Town.

A/GFTC’s Access Management Study was prepared to provide municipalities with a
guidebook on access management strategies. The study also provided four case studies of
existing corridors and future vision plans using access management. None of the four corridors
studied were within this project’s limits; however the US Route 9 corridor from the City of Glens
Falls to Round Pond Road was included. Potential access management strategies identified in
this corridor consisted of sharing/consolidating curb cuts, median treatments, and potential
future re-circulating traffic to alternate routes.

The Town of Queensbury Comprehensive Plan was adopted by the Town on August 6, 2007
and provides an implementation plan to shape future development of the Town. The
Comprehensive Plan includes planning objectives for neighborhoods, the natural environment,
neighborhood commercial centers, commercial corridors, industrial corridors, and historical and
cultural places. The Comprehensive Plan was an important tool in the development of the Exit
20 Corridor Management Plan.

In addition, numerous traffic studies were prepared for private development projects within and
adjacent to the project study area corridor. Many of these private developer studies were
conducted by CME and as a result have broadened CME’s knowledge of the future vision of the
study area.

Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan Page 5
Final Report September 2009

Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP GMB Engineers and Planners, Inc., P.C.

The Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan is another step in the efforts by A/GFTC with support
from the Town, County and NYSDOT to provide a plan that ensures that the US Route 9
corridor provides adequate service to residents, patrons, and visitors to the area.

Approach
In order to accomplish the study goals, the study involved several major tasks including:

• Development of an existing conditions inventory and needs assessment
• Review of other relevant studies and the zoning code
• Develop land use alternatives for development of future volume projections in the study
corridor
• Identify and analyze corridor improvement alternatives
• Evaluate Interchange options at Great Escape, NY Route 149 and Gurney Lane
• Develop recommendations
• Develop the Draft and Final Corridor Management plans
• Involve the public through a variety of outlets including three public meetings/workshops

Elected officials, local government, NYSDOT, the Advisory Committee, and community
residents and property owners have worked together to define the transportation plan and future
land use scenarios that represent the vision for the corridor. The Exit 20 Corridor Management
Plan has greatly benefited from the dedication and involvement by all of the Study Advisory
Committee at all of the committee meetings and public workshops. A list of the Advisory
Committee is included at the front of this document and a summary of the public workshops is
included in Appendix A.

Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan Page 6
Final Report September 2009

Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP GMB Engineers and Planners, Inc., P.C.
II. Existing Conditions
General Environment
1. Land Use and Zoning

A mix of land uses exist within the study area corridor. The majority of land use is commercial,
recreation commercial, and residential with dedicated open space interspersed through the
corridor. The southern end of the corridor is more recreational in nature while the middle to
northern end of the corridor is more a business setting with County office buildings and retail
centers.

Zoning district boundaries for the study area were obtained from the Warren County Planning
Department and are illustrated on Figure II.1. The study area includes residential zones
(Moderate Density Residential, and Rural Residential), mixed use zones (Mixed Use 9 North,
Mixed Use Bay Road and Mixed Use Intensive) which house the French Mountain Commons
outlet stores and the Adirondack Factory Outlet, a recreation commercial zone to the south
(Recreation Commercial) which houses The Six Flags Great Escape Fun Park, and a dedicated
land conservation zone (Land Conservation). Existing land uses are consistent with current
zoning as outlined in the Town of Queensbury Comprehensive Plan adopted August 6, 2007.

2. Environmental Features
Natural features such as wetlands and forest lands are present within the study area. As noted
in Figure II.2, there are a number of wetlands in the study area that are regulated by the New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). Just east of the Warren County
Municipal Building, the study area includes an area with land conservation zoning (LC-42A)
which limits development to one dwelling per 42 acres. According to the Town Zoning
Ordinance, these districts encompass areas where the land has limitations or unique
characteristics that warrant the restricted development densities.

3. Historic and Cultural Features
No historic or cultural features were found in the project corridor.

Transportation
1. Existing Roadway Conditions

US Route 9 provides north/south travel through the Town of Queensbury and is classified as a
Principal Arterial. In the key study corridor, US Route 9 overlaps with NY Route 149 and is part
of the National Highway System (NHS). The NHS roadways are identified as such due to their
importance to the nation’s economy, defense, and mobility. This section of US Route 9 and NY
Route 149 provide access between Interstate 87 and Vermont and is known as a route for
heavy vehicle traffic.

Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan Page 9
Final Report September 2009

Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP GMB Engineers and Planners, Inc., P.C.

In the key study corridor, US Route 9 consists of two 12-foot travel lanes with a center two-way
left turn lane (TWLTL), 5-foot wide sidewalks and maintenance strips along both sides of the
roadway. The right-of-way within the key study corridor varies between 66-78 feet. According
to the 2008 Highway Sufficiency Ratings published by the NYSDOT, the pavement is rated in
good condition along the study area corridor. The posted speed limit within the key corridor on
US Route 9 is 40 mph.

2. Primary Intersections
The traffic control and geometry of the seven primary study area intersections are as follows:
y US Route 9/NY Route 149 – This is a four-way intersection controlled with a traffic
signal. The northbound US Route 9 approach provides an exclusive right turn lane and
a shared through/left turn lane while the southbound US Route 9 approach provides an
exclusive left turn lane and a shared through/right turn lane. The NY Route 149
westbound approach provides an exclusive right turn lane and a shared through/left turn
lane. On the west side of US Route 9 at this intersection is a driveway entrance to a
retail business. This low volume driveway provides a single lane for shared travel
movements. Crosswalks and pedestrian accommodations are provided on the
northbound US Route 9 approach and on the westbound NY Route 149 approach.

y US Route 9/I-87 Exit 20 NB Ramp – This is a three-way intersection operating under
traffic signal control. The northbound approach of US Route 9 provides an exclusive left
turn lane and a through lane while the southbound approach provides a through travel
lane and an exclusive right turn separated by a raised island. The eastbound I-87 Exit
20 NB Ramp approach provides separate left and right turn lanes. Crosswalks and
pedestrian accommodations are provided on the southbound US Route 9 approach.

y I-87 Exit 20 Southbound Ramp/Gurney Lane (County Road 23) – This is a four-way
intersection operating under stop sign control on the I-87 Exit 20 Southbound (SB) Ramp
approach. The I-87 Exit 20 SB Ramp approach (north leg) provides a single lane for
shared left and right turn movements for southbound vehicles exiting I-87 while the south
leg provides a single, one-way travel lane for vehicles to access I-87 southbound. It is
noted that while the southbound approach only provides a single lane for shared travel
movements, field observations indicate that drivers currently use the existing large
shoulder to stack side-by-side thus providing a defacto right-turn lane. The eastbound
Gurney Lane approach provides a single lane for shared through and right-turn
movements while the westbound Gurney Lane approach provides a single lane for
shared left-turn and though movements. No crosswalks or pedestrian accommodations
are provided at this intersection. This intersection was not included in the initial scope of
services, but it was added to the project based on public comments.

y US Route 9/Gurney Lane (NY Route 149 & County Road 23) – This is a signalized
four-way intersection. US Route 9 provides exclusive left turn, through, and right turn
lanes northbound and southbound. Gurney Lane provides an exclusive right turn lane
and a shared through/left turn lane. Opposite Gurney Lane is the main entrance to the
Warren County Municipal Center, which provides a shared left-turn/through lane and an
exclusive right turn lane separated by a raised island.

Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan Page 10
Final Report September 2009

Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP GMB Engineers and Planners, Inc., P.C.
y US Route 9/Glen Lake Road/Six Flags Drive – This four-way intersection operates under
traffic signal control. The northbound US Route 9 approach provides an exclusive left
turn lane and a shared through/right turn lane while the southbound US Route 9
approach provides an exclusive left turn, a through lane and a free-flow right turn lane.
Six Flags Drive and Glen Lake Road both provide an exclusive right turn lane and a
shared left-turn/through lane.

y US Route 9/Round Pond Road (County Road 17) – This is a T-intersection operating
under stop-sign traffic control on the westbound Round Pond Road intersection
approach. The northbound approach of US Route 9 provides a single lane for shared
travel movements, while the southbound approach provides an exclusive left turn lane
and a separate through travel lane. Round Pond Road provides a single lane for shared
left and right turn travel movements.

Two of the busier offset driveways along US Route 9 at the outlet centers in the key corridor
were also included as a primary intersection in the study area. The driveways include the
French Mountain Commons Driveway on the west side of US Route 9 and the Adirondack
Factory Outlets Driveway on the east side of US Route 9. The French Mountain Commons
Driveway is approximately 50-feet south of the Adirondack Factory Outlets Driveway. US Route
9 provides a single lane in each direction with a center two-way left-turn lane. (TWLTL). Both
driveways provide a single lane for shared travel movements. A heavily used pedestrian
crosswalk is located approximately 40-feet to the north of the Adirondack Factory Outlets
Driveway.

3. Existing Traffic Characteristics
Typical peak season daily traffic volumes were determined based on July 2008 Automatic
Traffic Recorder (ATR) information recorded by CME. A total of four ATRs were placed in the
study area at the following locations:

• On US Route 9 between Gurney Lane and I-87 Exit 20 NB Ramp
• On US Route 9 in the vicinity of the French Mountain Commons Driveway
• On US Route 9 north of NY Route 149
• On NY Route 149 east of US Route 9

Figure II.3 summarizes the ATR data collected. The raw ATR data is included in Appendix B
and was used to determine the peak weekend travel period in the study area. Based on a
review of the data, it was determined that Saturday between 2:30 and 4:30 p.m. represented
peak conditions at the four corridor locations analyzed. Additionally, the following can be stated
based on a review of the data for peak weekend traffic in the study area:

• The daily traffic volumes in the key corridor are approximately 18,600 vehicles per day
(vpd).
• In the southern end of the study corridor, daily traffic volumes are between 20,500 and
22,000 vpd. The 22,000 vpd was determined based on previously conducted counts in
the study area.
• North of NY Route 149, traffic volumes on US Route 9 are approximately 13,400 vpd.
• NY Route 149 experiences approximately 11,200 vpd.
• In general, there are consistently high daily volumes in the key study area from 9:00 a.m.
to 9:00 p.m. with more than 1,000 vehicles per hour (vph).

Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan Page 11
Final Report September 2009

Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP GMB Engineers and Planners, Inc., P.C.
The data collected in the summer (July 2008) was compared to average daily traffic volume
information recorded by NYSDOT to confirm that the collected summer data represents peak
travel rates. For information, the NYSDOT data recorded in the 2007 Traffic Volume Report
indicates that the average daily traffic on US Route 9 in the study corridor is 17,680 vpd from
Aviation Road to the I-87 Exit 20 NB Ramps and 12,770 vpd from the I-87 Exit 20 NB Ramps to
NY Route 149. A comparison of the two data sets indicates that the July daily volumes are
between 25% and 45% higher than the average daily volumes recorded by NYSDOT.

In addition to ATR data, intersection turning movement counts were conducted at the six
primary study area intersections by CME during the Saturday peak hour from 2:30 to 4:30 p.m.
on Saturday, July 26, 2008 and August 2, 2008. Intersection turning movement counts at the I-
87 Exit 20 SB Ramp/Gurney Lane intersection were obtained from a PM peak hour count
conducted on August 1, 2007 from 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. A comparison of traffic volumes between
the 2007 PM peak hour count and 2008 Saturday peak hour counts on Gurney Lane indicate
that the 2007 traffic volumes are comparable to the 2008 counts and represent a worst case
operating condition. Figure II.4 summarized the 2008 Existing Saturday PM peak hour traffic
volumes at the study area intersections. The raw turning movement count data are included in
Appendix C. The following was apparent based on the turning movement count data:

• The Saturday afternoon peak hour typically occurred from 3:00 to 4:00 p.m.
• The two-way traffic volumes on the study area roadways are shown on Table II-1.
• Heavy vehicle traffic ranged between 1% and 10%. It is noted that the key corridor
experiences the highest volume of heavy vehicle traffic.

Table II-1 – Roadway Character Summary (Saturday Peak Hour)
Segment Two-Way Peak Hour Traffic Volume (vehicles per hour)
Round Pond Road (East of Route 9) 315
Glen Lake Road (East of Route 9)
210
Gurney Lane (West of Route 9)
975
I-87 Exit 20 NB Ramp (West of Route 9)
695
NY Route 149 (East of Route 9)
920
US Route 9 (North of Route 149)
1,180
US Route 9 (between Exit 20 NB Ramp and Route 149)
1,550
US Route 9 (between Gurney Lane and I-87 Exit 20 NB Ramp)
1,595
US Route 9 (between Glen Lake Road and Gurney Lane)
1,645
US Route 9 (between Round Pond Road and Glen Lake Road)
1,415
US Route 9 (South of Round Pond Road)
1,215

• The pedestrian volumes observed at the study area intersections during the Saturday
peak hour are shown on Table II-2. The total number of pedestrians shown in the table
includes the total number across all legs of the intersection with the exception of the
crosswalk location which only includes travel across US Route 9.

Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan Page 13
Final Report September 2009

Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP GMB Engineers and Planners, Inc., P.C.

Table II-2 – Pedestrians (Saturday Peak Hour)
Location Pedestrians per hour
US Route 9/NY Route 149 34 plus 2 bicyclists
Crosswalk on US Route 9 North of Adirondack Factory Outlet Drwy 353 plus 1 bicyclist
Route 9/French Mountain Commons Drwy/Adirondack Factory Outlets Drwy 345
US Route 9/I-87 Exit 20 NB Ramp 0
US Route 9/Gurney Lane 1
US Route 9/Glen Lake Road/Six Flags Drive 4 plus 3 bicyclists
US Route 9/Round Pond Road 53 plus 2 bicyclists
Note: Total pedestrians on all approaches to the intersection or mid-block crosswalk where applicable.

4. Traffic Operations

The study area intersection operations were evaluated using Synchro 6 Software, which
automates the procedures contained in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. Operations are
expressed in terms of “Level of Service” (LOS), which is a measure of delay ranging from LOS
A (indicating little or no delay) to LOS F (indicating long delays). It is noted that the
intersections of US Route 9 with the French Mountain Commons Driveway and the Adirondack
Factory Outlets Driveway were analyzed as a single, four-way intersection due to their close
spacing. Appendix D contains detailed descriptions of LOS criteria for unsignalized,
roundabout, and signalized intersections and the detailed HCS LOS reports. Table II-3
documents the result of the level of service evaluation for the existing conditions.

The following observations are evident from the existing conditions evaluation:

• US Route 9/NY Route 149
– The analysis indicates that this signalized intersection
currently operates at an overall LOS D during the Saturday peak hour, with the
eastbound left-turn/through approach and the westbound approach operating at a LOS E
with approximately 74 and 79 seconds of delay, respectively.

• US Route 9/French Mountain Commons Driveway/Adirondack Factory Outlets Driveway

– As an unsignalized intersection, the eastbound and westbound driveways operate at a
LOS F, with long vehicle delays. With the center TWLTL, left-turning traffic experiences
little delay and does not result in additional delays to through traffic.

It is noted that during the peak travel times, vehicles at this intersection and at other
driveways along the corridor rely on courtesy gaps to turn to and from US Route 9. In
general, the friction in the corridor with the number of driveways, the high volume of
traffic, and numerous pedestrian conflicts results in slow moving traffic from the I-87 Exit
20 NB ramps to NY Route 149. It is also not uncommon for the congestion to continue
north and south on US Route 9 in and outside of the study area corridor.

Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan Page 15
Final Report September 2009

Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP GMB Engineers and Planners, Inc., P.C.

Table II-3 – Existing Level of Service (Saturday Peak Hour)
Intersection
Control
Existing 2008
Route 9/Route 149 S
Driveway EB
Route 149 WB

Route 9 NB

Route 9 SB LTR
LT
R
LT
R
L
TR E (79.0)
E (73.9)
C (36.7)
D (47.1)
B (12.4)
D (49.0)
C (32.0)
Overall D (41.1)
Route 9/French Mountain Commons
Drwy/Adirondack Factory Outlets Drwy TW
French Mountain Drwy EB
Adirondack Factory Drwy WB
Route 9 NB
Route 9 SB LTR
LTR
L
L E (44.2)
F (57.1)
A (9.7)
B (10.3)
Route 9/I-87 Exit 20 NB Ramps S
I-87 Exit 20 NB Ramp EB

Route 9 NB

Route 9 SB L
R
L
T
T
R E (72.2)
D (43.1)
E (63.5)
B (15.6)
F (86.0)
A (0.1)
Overall E (57.0)
I-87 Exit 20 SB Ramp/Gurney Lane TW
Gurney Ln WB
I-87 Exit 20 SB Ramp SB
L
L
R A (7.7)
F (*)
B (10.5)
Route 9/Gurney Lane S
Gurney Ln EB

Municipal Center Dwy WB

Route 9 NB

Route 9 SB LT
R
LT
R
L
T
R
L
T
R C (31.0)
C (22.4)
C (21.8)
C (21.6)
B (10.7)
A (5.6)
A (3.0)
A (7.2)
B (11.3)
A (8.4)
Overall B (11.6)
Route 9/Glen Lake Rd/Six Flags Dr S
Six Flags Dr EB

Glen Lake Rd WB

Route 9 NB

Route 9 SB LT
R
LT
R
L
TR
L
T
R D (39.2)
C (27.5)
C (25.5)
C (26.5)
A (9.0)
B (17.6)
B (10.2)
B (15.4)
A (0.1)
Overall B (19.5)
Route 9/Round Pond Rd TW
Round Pond Rd WB
Route 9 SB LR
L C (21.0)
A (9.2)
Key: TW, AW, S, R = Two-way stop, All-way stop, Signal, or Roundabout controlled intersection
NB, SB, EB, WB = Northbound, Southbound, Eastbound, Westbound intersection approaches
L, T, R = Left-turn, through, and/or right-turn movements, — = Not applicable
L[T]R = LR represents the existing geometry, LTR represents the future geometry
X (Y.Y) = Level of Service (Average delay in seconds per vehicle), *= delay exceeds 1,000 seconds

Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan Page 16
Final Report September 2009

Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP GMB Engineers and Planners, Inc., P.C.
• US Route 9/I-87 Exit 20 NB Ramps – This intersection currently operates at an overall
LOS E, with long vehicle delays. The eastbound left-turn movement and northbound
left-turn movement operate at a LOS E with approximately 72 and 64 seconds of delay,
respectively. The southbound through movement on US Route 9 operates at poor levels
of service with delays in excess of 80 seconds.

• I-87 Exit 20 Southbound Ramp/Gurney Lane
– The unsignalized level of service analysis
indicates that the westbound Gurney Lane left-turn movement currently operates at a
LOS A. The analysis also indicates that the southbound left-turn movement fails during
the peak hour and experiences long delays while drivers look for adequate gaps in
traffic. The southbound right turn movement that utilizes the existing shoulder as a right-
turn lane operates at a LOS B with less than 11 seconds of delay. Right-turn vehicles
that do not utilize the shoulder experience long vehicle delays waiting behind left-turning
vehicles.

• US Route 9/Gurney Lane
– This signalized intersection currently operates at an overall
LOS B, with approximately 12 seconds of delay. All approaches operate at a LOS C or
better, with acceptable vehicle delays.

It is noted that the east leg of this intersection provides access to the Warren County
Municipal Center. During a Saturday, the municipal center experiences a very low
volume of traffic allowing the Gurney Lane approach to operate more efficiently. It is
expected that during a typical commuter peak period, this intersection would experience
more delay as the east leg would operate with higher volumes.

• US Route 9/Glen Lake Road
– The analysis indicates that this intersection operates at
an overall LOS B, with all approaches operating at a LOS D or better. The eastbound
approach operates at a LOS D with approximately 35 seconds of delay, while the
westbound Glen Lake Road approach operates at a LOS C with approximately 26
seconds of delay. The average delay for drivers traveling on US Route 9 is less than 18
seconds.

It is our understanding the NYSDOT is currently reviewing the signal phasing and
timings at this intersection. This review was a result of concerns expressed by the public
that the signal could better adjust to the changing flow of traffic. As currently operating,
the level of service on the intersection approaches range from A to D indicating that it
may be reasonable for timing adjustments to even out the intersection operation.
Improved timings will be reviewed and considered in the assessment of future conditions
at this intersection.

It was also noted in the public workshop meeting that the southbound right turn lane
from US Route 9 onto Six Flags Drive does not always operate as a free flow movement
as it is designed. Likely this is caused by the field conditions, since the free flow
movement is not separated by a raised median which is a more typical design. The lack
of a raised median likely causes confusion to drivers which results in less efficient
movements on this approach.

Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan Page 17
Final Report September 2009

Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP GMB Engineers and Planners, Inc., P.C.
• US Route 9/Round Pond Road – The analysis indicates that the unsignalized,
westbound Round Pond Road approach operates at a LOS C during the Saturday peak
hour with average vehicle delays of approximately 21 seconds or less. The southbound
left-turn movement from US Route 9 southbound operates at good levels of service with
little delay to vehicles.

Although the overall levels of service at this intersection are acceptable, it was observed
in the field and noted by the public that the single lane approach on Round Pond Road
can often create longer delays for right-turning vehicles that are held up by vehicles
waiting to turn left onto US Route 9 southbound. These delays can create longer
queues during peak travel times on Round Pond Road.

The results of the existing conditions assessment indicate that there is a need to identify
capacity and operational improvements within the corridor, specifically in the key corridor along
US Route 9 between the I-87 Exit 20 NB Ramps and NY Route 149. It is noted that the existing
Saturday peak hour traffic volumes are similar to Friday peak hour traffic volumes based on
ATR data collected by CME indicating that poor intersection operations exist during other
weekday and weekend periods.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Access
A substantial amount of pedestrians and cyclists were recorded in the key study area corridor
during field visits and while conducting the turning movement counts as shown in Table II-2.
Sidewalks are present on both sides of US Route 9 between the I-87 Exit 20 NB Ramps and NY
Route 149, where the majority of the pedestrians were recorded. The sidewalks are separated
from the roadway by small buffers (brick pavers or grass maintenance strips). Other amenities
such as lighting and street trees are also present creating an inviting and walkable environment
along US Route 9. It is noted that there are some inconsistencies within the corridor with
sidewalks and landscape design that take away from the attractiveness of the walkable corridor.
It is also noted that patrons of the retail and commercial businesses along the key study area
corridor typically do not travel out to the existing sidewalks along US Route 9 when walking
between storefronts on either side of the street. This is evident by the numerous worn dirt
walking paths located closer to the businesses. Improved pedestrian connectivity can be
provided between local businesses to ensure safe and efficient travel.

Marked crosswalks are located at the US Route 9/I-87 Exit 20 NB Ramps and US Route 9/NY
Route 149 intersections. In addition, two mid-block pedestrian crossings also exist within the
key study area; one located just north of the Adirondack Factory Outlets Driveway and the
second located approximately half-way between the Adirondack Factory Outlets Driveway and
NY Route 149. However, field observations indicate that not all pedestrians traverse US Route
9 at the marked crossings. Refer to Photographs 1 and 2 for existing pedestrian
accommodations in the key corridor.

Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan Page 18
Final Report September 2009

Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP GMB Engineers and Planners, Inc., P.C.
Photograph 1 – Crosswalks at the Route
9/I-87 Exit 20 NB Ramp Intersection Photograph 2–Pedestrians crossing
mid-block crossing on US Route 9

The Warren County Bikeway runs parallel to US Route 9 just east of the corridor. The trail
serves a variety of uses, including biking, walking, cross-country skiing, and in-line skating. It is
also wheelchair accessible. Figure II.5 shows the location of the Bikeway and other pedestrian
accommodations in the study area corridor.

South of the key study area corridor sidewalks continue along the east side of US Route 9
through the Glen Lake Road intersection. There are no pedestrian accommodations along US
Route 9 for approximately 1/3 mile south of Glen Lake Road. Sidewalks are again provided on
both sides of US Route 9 from the Great Escape Lodge south through the study area beyond
the Round Pond Road intersection.

There are no pedestrian accommodations on Gurney Lane in the study area.

Existing Public Transportation
The primary regional transit service provider that operates in the Exit 20 Corridor is the Greater
Glens Falls Transit (GGFT). The GGFT fixed bus route #19 provides year round service along
US Route 9. No service is provided on Sundays or on holidays. There are minor variations in
the northbound service limits depending on the time of year. Buses travel to Exit 21 on request
only between October and May. From May to June, the buses routinely travel to Exit 21. Buses
stop at the Warren County Municipal Center between June and Labor Day, with trolley service
continuing further north.

Seasonal trolleys are run in the corridor from the end of June through Labor Day. The seasonal
trolleys run every 30 minutes along US Route 9 from the City of Glens Falls to the Village of
Lake George with separate north and south routes. The trolleys run from 8:30 a.m. to 11:30
p.m. seven days a week. It was noted by the director of the GGFT that often times the runs are
delayed due to traffic congestion (typically Friday, Saturday, and Sunday). It was further noted
that in 2008, the occupancy of the trolleys was up by approximately 20%. This was likely
attributed to high gas prices and the overall economy. During busier times, extra trolleys are
sometimes added into the system to help accommodate the demand. The GGFT is also
considering the purchase of larger capacity trolleys to accommodate the increase in transit use.

Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan Page 19
Final Report September 2009

Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP GMB Engineers and Planners, Inc., P.C.

For those with disabilities, the Freedom and Mobility Express (F.A.M.E.) service is provided.
This service will pick-up eligible patrons and drop them off at destinations within ¾ of a mile
from a designated transit route.

The available transit routes are shown on Figure 11.6.

Crash History
Crash data was obtained to determine crash trends along the study area roadways. Crash
summaries and details were provided by the NYSDOT Safety and Information Management
System for the latest three years of available data from the period between January 1, 2005 and
December 31, 2007 for the road segment of US Route 9 in the study area. Table II-4
summarized the accident data at the study area intersections and roadway segments.

Table II-4 – Crash History – January 2005 to December 2007
Segment/Intersection Fatality Injury
Property
Damage
Only
Non
Reportable*
Total No.
of
Crashes
US Route 9/Round Pond Rd 0 0 2 1 3
US Route 9 from Round Pond Rd to
Glen Lake Rd 0 9 10 1 20
US Route 9/Glen Lake Rd/Six Flags Dr 0 4 1 0 5
US Route 9 from Glen Lake Rd
to Gurney La 0 3 1 0 4
US Route 9/Gurney La 0 4 6 4 14
US Route 9 from Gurney La to Exit 20
NB Ramps 0 1 0 1 2
US Route 9/I-87 Exit 20 NB Ramps 0 7 3 2 12
US Route 9 from I-87 Exit 20 NB
Ramps to NY Route 149 0 11 8 2 21
US Route 9/NY Route 149 0 0 0 2 2
*Non-Reportable Crashes are crashes that have property damage under $1,000

Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan Page 22
Final Report September 2009

Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP GMB Engineers and Planners, Inc., P.C.

The following observations are evident from a review of the latest three years of data:

• No fatalities were reported at any of the intersections/road segments.
• Five or less accidents occurred at the intersections of US Route 9/Round Pond Road,
US Route 9/Glen Lake Road/Six Flags Drive, and US Route 9/NY Route 149 over the
three year period.
• Less than 5 accidents occurred on the US Route 9 segments between Glen Lake Road
and Gurney Lane and between Gurney Lane and the Exit 20 NB Ramps during the three
year period.
• Of the 20 accidents on the segment of US Route 9 from Round Pond Road to Glen Lake
Road, 14 were rear end accidents caused by slowed or stopped traffic with the apparent
factor of following too closely. One of the recorded personal injury accidents involved
two vehicles and a pedestrian. The report did not detail the exact involvement of the
pedestrian in the incident. The crash rate on this segment of 1.26 accidents per million
vehicle miles (acc/mvm) is less than the statewide average of 1.39 acc/mvm.
• Of the 14 accidents at the US Route 9/Gurney Lane intersection, 6 were rear end
accidents while the remaining accidents were collisions at the intersection due to
vehicles failing to yield to the right-of-way (i.e., left-turn, right angle). The crash rate of
0.73 accidents per million entry vehicles (acc/mev) is higher than the statewide average
rate of 0.39 acc/mev.
• Seven of the 12 accidents at the US Route 9/I-87 Exit 20 NB Ramp intersection were
rear end accidents. The calculated accident rate of 0.71 acc/mev is significantly higher
than the statewide average rate of 0.22 acc/mev.
• A total of 21 accidents occurred on the segment of US Route 9 from the I-87 Exit 20 NB
Ramps to NY Route 149. Ten of the accidents were rear end accidents while another
six accidents were related to right or left turning vehicles. The calculated accident rate
of 3.0 acc/mvm is higher than the statewide average rate of 1.71 acc/mvm for a similar
type roadway. It is noted that the Corridor Management and Traffic Circulation Plan
conducted in 1997 recorded 100 accidents on this corridor for the years 1993 through
1995; more than four times the current number of accidents for the latest three year
period. Since completion of the 1997 study, the TWLTL has been installed in the
corridor. Based on a review of the accident history, it appears that the installation of the
center turn lane has substantially reduced the occurrence of accidents in the corridor.

Area Parking
A parking study was conducted in the key corridor at the off-site parking lots. The purpose of
the assessment was to determine if any of the congestion along US Route 9 in the key corridor
is due to capacity issues in the existing parking lots resulting in delays and back-ups on the
mainline. The parking study was conducted on Saturday, August 16, 2008 between 2:00 and
4:30 p.m. An inventory of the parking lots indicated that there are 1,600 available parking
spaces, 510 on the west side and 1,090 on the east side of US Route 9. Figure II.7 shows the
location and size of existing parking lots in the key study area corridor. At the time of the
parking study there were several vacant buildings along the west side of the corridor. These
buildings are detailed on Table II-5 and on Figure II-8 in the Driveway Inventory. The following
was noted based on the study:

• The highest occupancy on the west side of US Route 9 was at the French Mountain
Commons Lot with an average of 85% occupancy.

Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan Page 23
Final Report September 2009

Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP GMB Engineers and Planners, Inc., P.C.
• The highest occupancy on the east side of US Route 9 was at the Ralph Lauren outlets
with an average of 78% occupancy. Not including the rear parking area at this center,
the average occupancy was 99%.
• The Adirondack Factory Outlets Lot on the east side of US Route 9 average occupancy
was 58% in the front lot. If the additional 99 stalls in the rear of the building are added
into the calculation, the occupancy is reduced to approximately 41%.
• Numerous vacant buildings exist on the west side of US Route 9. A handful of vehicles
were parked at each of the vacant lots.
• During the study time, the overall demand ranged from 760 to 820 or 48% to 51%.
• The peak parking demand in the key corridor occurred between 2:00 and 3:00 p.m. with
820 occupied stalls.

The parking inventory indicated that the busiest parking locations are focused at the three larger
outlet centers in the corridor; French Mountain Commons, Adirondack Factory Outlets, and the
Ralph Lauren outlets. Further, the parking inventory indicated that there is some congestion in
the front parking lot of the Ralph Lauren outlets with it operating at full capacity during the study
period. In general, however, additional capacity for parking exists with the use of back parking
lots and further use of adjacent parking lots. Figure II.7 and Appendix E contains a detailed
breakdown of the parking lot inventory.

Driveway Inventory
A driveway inventory was conducted in the key corridor to assess the number of curb cuts along
US Route 9. There are currently 26 commercial driveways ranging in width from 23 to 63 feet.
Of the 26 driveways, approximately 40% provide shared access between parcels. Table II-5
and Figure II.8 summarize the driveway inventory for the key study area corridor.

Table II-5 – Key Study Area Corridor Driveway Inventory
West Side of US Route 9 East Side of US Route 9 Drwy # Width (feet) Business Served Other Connected Drwys
Drwy # Width (feet) Business Served Other Connected Drwys
1 37 Montcalm Restaurant 5,6 2 49 Mobil Gas 3 5 44 Montcalm Restaurant 1,6 3 45 Mobil Gas 2
6 46 Montcalm Restaurant 1,5 4 51 Lake George Plaza Outlet
Center 7
8 44 Sunoco 9 7 36 Lake George Plaza Outlet
Center 4
9 41 Sunoco 8 11 36 Adirondack Factory
Outlets 13,14,16,18
10 44 French Mountain
Commons 12 13 44 Adirondack Factory
Outlets 11,14,16,18
12 63 Roadway Inn 10 14 54 Olde Post Grill, Days Inn 11,13,16,18
15 32 VACANT BUILDING 17 16 39 Olde Post Grill, Days Inn,
Reebok, Rockport, The
Evergreens 11,13,14,18
17 53 VACANT BUILDING,
Scooters Rentals 15 18 42 Reebok, Rockport, The
Evergreens 11,13,14,16
19 40 VACANT BUILDING,
Scooters Rentals 20 25 Log Jam Outlet Center 23,24,25
21 34 VACANT BUILDING 23 23 Log Jam Outlet Center 20,24,25
22 36 Franks Pasta and Pizza
Restaurant 24 23 Log Jam Outlet Center 20,23,25
26 41 Super Shoes 25 23 Family Footwear,
Dominoes, Casual Male
XL, The Sox Market 20,23,24

Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan Page 26
Final Report September 2009

Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP GMB Engineers and Planners, Inc., P.C.
III. Land Use Scenarios
For this study, three future land use/traffic volume scenarios were analyzed for both short-term
and long term projections with the estimated time of completion (ETC) considered the existing
2008 condition. The following scenarios were analyzed:

• A short-term, ETC +5 year condition including growth expected from approved
development projects.
• A long-term, ETC +20 year condition including growth expected from approved
development projects (low-growth).
• A long-term, ETC +20 year condition expanded to include additional potential growth
from development projects in the corridor (high-growth).

Based on coordination with the Town of Queensbury Planning Department, the following
projects under consideration by the Town were included in all three development scenarios:

• Expansion of the Lake George Campground with an additional 46 RV sites.
• Expansion of Aviation Mall to include a movie theater, restaurant, mixed use building,
and a big box retail building.
• Redevelopment of the Monroe Muffler site to a Chili’s restaurant.
• Development of the Warren County Social Services Building on Glen Lake Road.
• Redevelopment of the Mobil Gas station on the corner of US Route 9/NY Route 254 to a
Jolley Store with gas pumps and a convenience store.
• Redevelopment of the Mobil Gas station on US Route 9 north of the I-87 Exit 20 NB
Ramps. (This station was under construction at the time of data collection)

The location and traffic volumes associated with the above projects under consideration by the
Town, are shown on Figure III.1 and Figure III.2, respectively. Since the development of the
future volumes, some of the plans at the noted parcels have been modified. Most of the
changes have reduced the size of the proposed developments which may result in lower trip
generation in the corridor; therefore, the projected volumes would still account for the expected
growth in the corridor. Although the volumes may be a little conservative based on recent site
plan modifications, the variation in traffic is not expected to alter the results of the study and
therefore the volumes were not recalculated.

Additional coordination with the Town of Queensbury was undertaken to identify more long-term
potential future development projects to include in the ETC +20 higher growth scenario. Five
additional sites were identified and are as follows:

• Development of the Schermerhorn parcel with an approximate 80,000 square foot (SF)
office building located south of Gurney Lane.
• Development of the two Warren County parcels currently for sale on US Route 9. Based
on the current zoning, one parcel was assumed to be developed with a 150-room hotel
and the second with 90,000 SF of mixed use with 50% office and 50% general retail.
• Development of the McCormack and Kenny parcels located on the eastern side of US
Route 9 at the northern end of the study corridor. Based on the current zoning, it was
assumed that 43 single family homes and a 150-room hotel could be constructed on the
McCormack and Kenny parcels, respectively.
• Re-development of the Montcalm restaurant property on US Route 9 with 75,000 SF of
general retail.

Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan Page 27
Final Report September 2009

Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP GMB Engineers and Planners, Inc., P.C.

The assumed land use and size of the potential future developments are consistent with the
zoning detailed in the recently completed Town Comprehensive Plan. The location and traffic
volumes associated with the future potential growth project sites are shown on Figure III.3 and
Figure III.4, respectively.

In addition to the specific development growth included in the three land development
scenarios, a general background growth rate was included in the development of future
volumes. Based on a review of historical traffic volume data published by the NYSDOT and a
review of other studies conducted in and adjacent to the project corridor, an annual growth rate
of 1% per year was applied to the study area intersection volumes. This general growth rate
accounts for general increases in traffic volumes and resulted in an increase of 1.05 between
2008 and 2013 (ETC +5) volumes and an increase of 1.22 between 2008 and 2028 (ETC +20)
volumes. This general growth rate also accounts for growth in traffic in the corridor as a result
of other development projects outside the immediate study corridor or in other municipalities.
Figures III.5 and III.6 summarize the projected traffic volumes in 2013 and 2028 with the general
background growth rate.

The land development growth scenarios were added to the traffic volumes with the projected
general background growth to develop the future traffic volume conditions assessed in the
study. The future volume conditions are summarized as follows:

• Figure III.7 – 2013 Future Traffic Volumes
• Figure III.8 – 2028 Future Traffic Volumes – Low Growth
• Figure III.9 – 2028 Future Traffic Volumes – High Growth

A review of the volumes indicate that when compared to the 2008 Existing traffic volumes, the
2013 Future traffic volumes show an increase in volumes of approximately 10%. In the 2028
Future traffic volume scenarios, the volumes increase by approximately 27% in the Low Growth
scenario and range from 33% to 48% in the High Growth scenario.

Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan Page 37
Final Report September 2009

Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP GMB Engineers and Planners, Inc., P.C.
IV. Improvement Alternatives
Improvement alternatives were identified to address the development pressures that are
anticipated with the three development scenarios listed in Chapter III. The following
development scenarios are discussed in detail in this chapter:

• A 2013 analysis illustrating the short-term impacts at the studied intersections in the
corridor associated with growth from known development projects.
• A 2028 analysis of the key corridor including several design alternative options and low
growth and high growth volume scenarios.
• A 2028 assessment of the southern corridor study area intersections limiting
improvements to the studied intersections.
• A discussion of low cost improvements for the corridor.
• A discussion of the interchange alternatives.

A table is included in Appendix F that summarized all of the alternatives that were considered.
A qualitative rating system was developed to evaluate various aspects of each alternative
including constructability, cost, affect on pedestrians, affect on traffic, and environmental
impacts.

Short-Term 2013 Level of Service Analysis
A level of service analysis was conducted at all of the study area intersections for the short-term
2013 Future traffic volume condition using the Synchro 6 Software which automates the
procedures contained in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. The relative impact of traffic
growth in the project corridor can be determined by comparing the 2008 Existing operations to
the 2013 Future traffic volume condition. Appendix G contains the detailed HCS LOS reports
for the 2013 Future volume condition. Table IV-1 shows the results of the level of service
analysis.

The analysis indicates the key study area corridor intersections and unsignalized driveways
currently operating at poor levels of service will continue to degrade as additional traffic is added
to the traffic network. Additional large increases in delay are expected on the US Route 9
southbound approach at the Exit 20 Northbound ramp intersections. Overall the increase in
traffic volumes is expected to continue to impact the flow of traffic through the key corridor and
impact traffic entering and exiting I-87.

The 2013 Future traffic volume condition indicates that the study area intersections located in
the Southern Corridor along US Route 9 will continue to operate adequately with the anticipated
growth in the project area through 2013. The intersection of Gurney Lane with the I-87 Exit 20
southbound ramps will continue to operate with long vehicle delays on the southbound
intersection approach.

The following sections address potential improvements that could be implemented at the study
area intersections that would maintain or improve intersection operations through the 2028
Future traffic volume conditions.

Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan Page 38
Final Report September 2009

Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP GMB Engineers and Planners, Inc., P.C.
Table IV-1 – Future 2013 Level of Service (Saturday Peak Hour)
Intersection
Control
Existing 2008 Future 2013
Route 9/Route 149 S
Driveway EB
Route 149 WB

Route 9 NB

Route 9 SB LTR
LT
R
LT
R
L
TR E (79.0)
E (73.9)
C (36.7)
D (47.1)
B (12.4)
D (49.0)
C (32.0) F (83.3)
F (80.5)
D (35.5)
E (70.8)
B (14.0)
E (59.5)
D (36.6)
Overall D (41.1) D (49.6)
Route 9/French Mountain Commons Drwy/
Adirondack Factory Outlets Drwy TW
French Mountain Drwy EB
Adirondack Factory Drwy WB
Route 9 NB
Route 9 SB LTR
LTR
L
L E (44.2)
F (57.1)
A (9.7)
B (10.3) F (76.1)
F (114.5)
B (10.1)
B (11.1)
Route 9/I-87 Exit 20 NB Ramps S
I-87 Exit 20 NB Ramp EB

Route 9 NB

Route 9 SB L
R
L
T
T
R E (72.2)
D (43.1)
E (63.5)
B (15.6)
F (86.0)
A (0.1) E (76.5)
D (42.9)
E (67.2)
B (18.1)
F (138.0)
A (0.1) Key Corridor Intersections
Overall E (57.0) E (77.7)
I-87 Exit 20 SB Ramp/Gurney Lane TW
Gurney Ln WB
I-87 Exit 20 SB Ramp SB
L
L
R A (7.7)
F (*)
B (10.5) A (8.4)
F (*)
B (10.7)
Route 9/Gurney La S
Gurney La EB

Municipal Center Dwy WB

Route 9 NB

Route 9 SB LT
R
LT
R
L
T
R
L
T
R C (31.0)
C (22.4)
C (21.8)
C (21.6)
B (10.7)
A (5.6)
A (3.0)
A (7.2)
B (11.3)
A (8.4) C (30.2)
C (23.9)
C (23.2)
C (22.9)
B (20.0)
A (7.9)
A (4.0)
B (11.0)
B (19.5)
B (12.2)
Overall B (11.6) B (16.1)
Route 9/Glen Lake Rd/Six Flags Dr S
Six Flags Dr EB

Glen Lake Rd WB

Route 9 NB

Route 9 SB LT
R
LT
R
L
TR
L
T
R D (39.2)
C (27.5)
C (25.5)
C (26.5)
A (9.0)
B (17.6)
B (10.2)
B (15.4)
A (0.1) D (39.8)
C (27.3)
C (25.5)
C (26.3)
B (10.9)
C (21.6)
B (12.7)
B (18.3)
A (0.1)
Overall B (19.5) C (21.8)
Route 9/Round Pond Rd TW
Southern Corridor Intersections
Round Pond Rd WB
Route 9 SB LR
L C (21.0)
A (9.2) D (26.9)
A (1.2)
Key: TW, AW, S, R = Two-way stop, All-way stop, Signal, or Roundabout controlled intersection
NB, SB, EB, WB = Northbound, Southbound, Eastbound, Westbound intersection approaches
L, T, R = Left-turn, through, and/or right-turn movements, — = Not applicable
L[T]R = LR represents the existing geometry, LTR represents the future geometry
X (Y.Y) = Level of Service (Average delay in seconds per vehicle)

Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan Page 39
Final Report September 2009

Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP GMB Engineers and Planners, Inc., P.C.
Key Study Area Corridor Alternatives
As described previously, the key study area corridor along US Route 9 extends from the NY
Route 149 intersection to the I-87 Exit 20 NB Ramp intersection. This area has been identified
as a critical component of the Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan due to current retail and
business demands of existing corridor traffic capacity on US Route 9 and the potential future
growth and/or economic opportunities that could be limited as a result of traffic congestion.
Therefore, a level of service analysis was conducted at each of the key study area corridor
intersections to determine impacts to the transportation network with future growth. The
analysis indicates that all of the studied intersections in the key corridor will require mitigation
once 2028 future conditions are met (both low growth and high growth). Table IV-2 outlines the
future operating conditions and potential mitigation options for each intersection. It is noted that
the intersection improvements can be implemented independent of one another; however,
individual intersection improvements to provide additional capacity is only one step in mitigating
congestion issues along the entire corridor.

In addition to Synchro 6 Software, SIDRA software was used to assess the roundabout
alternatives. Appendix H contains the detailed HCS LOS reports for the 2028 Build condition. A
level of service comparison of the proposed intersection improvements is shown on Table IV-2.

Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan Page 40
Final Report September 2009

Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP GMB Engineers and Planners, Inc., P.C.
Table IV-2 – Key Study Area Intersection Level of Service (Saturday Peak Hour)
Low Growth High Growth Intersection
Control Future 2028 Future 2028 w/Imp Future 2028 Future 2028 w/Imp
Route 9/Route 149 S
Driveway EB
Route 149 WB

Route 9 NB

Route 9 SB LTR
LT
R
[LL]
[TR]
[L]
[T]
LT
R
L
TR F (89.1)
F (92.5)
C (33.8)
—
—
—
—
F (394.4)
B (16.2)
E (79.8)
D (47.8) D (44.9)
—
—
D (44.3)
C (32.4)
B (17.7)
D (35.5)
—
B (10.6)
C (29.8)
B (18.0) F (89.1)
F (104.7)
C (34.0)
—
—
—
—
F (569.3)
B (16.3)
F (85.6)
D (52.3) D (44.9)
—
—
D (47.6)
C (32.4)
B (18.2)
D (40.6)
—
B (10.7)
C (31.7)
B (19.6)
Overall F (128.2) C (27.4) F (172.2) C (29.6)
Route 9 NB
Route 149 WB
Route 9 SB
Driveway EB LTR
LTR
LTR
LTR R —
—
—
— A (7.7)
B (18.8)
B (12.3)
B (13.1) —
—
—
— A (7.7)
C (20.7)
B (13.4)
B (13.8)
Overall — B (12.1) — B (13.0)
Route 9/French Mountain Commons Drwy/
Adirondack Factory Outlets Drwy TW
French Mountain Drwy EB
Adirondack Factory Drwy WB
Route 9 NB
Route 9 SB LTR
LTR
L
L F (479.6)
F (695.3)
B (10.8)
B (13.0) —
—
—
— F (*)
F (*)
B (11.2)
B (14.3) —
—
—
—
French Mountain Drwy EB

Adirondack Factory Drwy WB

Route 9 NB

Route 9 SB L
TR
L
TR
L
TR
L
TR S —
—
—
—
—
—
—
— E (68.3)
D (49.3)
F (99.5)
D (49.2)
C (34.3)
D (45.8)
B (17.5)
E (59.0) —
—
—
—
—
—
—
— E (68.3)
D (49.3)
F (99.5)
D (49.2)
E (65.0)
E (58.3)
B (17.5)
E (77.4)
Overall — D (52.1) — E (66.1) Route 9 NB
Adirondack Factory Drwy WB
Route 9 SB
French Mountain Drwy EB LTR
LTR
LTR
LTR R —
—
—
— C (24.3)
D (37.9)
C (28.0)
D (39.3) —
—
—
— C (34.5)
D (40.5)
D (39.9)
D (43.6)
Overall — C (27.6) — D (37.6)
Route 9/I-87 Exit 20 NB Ramps S I-87 Exit 20 NB Ramp EB

Route 9 NB

Route 9 SB [LL]
L
R
L
T
[TTR]
T
R —
F (98.9)
D (42.8)
E (77.3)
C (23.0)
—
F (230.1)
A (0.1) C (34.5)
—
B (16.3)
C (25.8)
A (9.8)
C (24.5)
—
— —
F (166.4)
D (44.8)
F (81.4)
C (27.8)
—
F (328.7)
A (0.1) D (41.0)
—
B (19.9)
D (42.0)
B (14.6)
C (33.7)
—
—
Overall F (117.7) C (22.0) F (167.1) C (29.7)
Route 9 NB
Back Access Rd WB
Route 9 SB
I-87 Exit 20 NB Ramp EB LT[R]
[LTR]
[L]TR
L[T]R R —
—
—
— B (17.4)
—
A (8.2)
C (33.9) —
—
—
— B (18.0)
—
A (9.8)
D (46.8)
Overall — B (17.6) — C (22.1)
Key: TW, AW, S, R = Two-way stop, All-way stop, Signal, or Roundabout controlled intersection
NB, SB, EB, WB = Northbound, Southbound, Eastbound, Westbound intersection approaches
L, T, R = Left-turn, through, and/or right-turn movements, — = Not applicable
L[T]R = LR represents the existing geometry, LTR represents the future geometry
X (Y.Y) = Level of Service (Average delay in seconds per vehicle)
* = Delay exceeds 1,000 seconds

Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan Page 41
Final Report September 2009

Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP GMB Engineers and Planners, Inc., P.C.
The following intersection observations are evident from the evaluation:

• US Route 9/NY Route 149
– The level of service analysis indicates that this signalized
intersection will operate at an overall LOS F during the Saturday peak hour with several
movements operating at a LOS F during the 2028 Future traffic volume condition for
both growth scenarios under existing geometric conditions. Two alternative traffic
control improvement options were evaluated at this location.

Signalized Control – The levels of service analysis indicates that this signalized
intersection can be improved if the existing hatched area located opposite the
southbound US Route 9 left-turn lane is restriped to provide an exclusive northbound
left-turn lane and if the westbound NY Route 149 approach is widened to accommodate
two exclusive left-turn lanes with a shared through/right-turn lane. The level of service
analysis indicates that this intersection will operate at an overall LOS C during the 2028
Future traffic volume condition for both growth scenarios with all movements operating at
a LOS D or better with these signalized improvements. It is noted that US Route 9
would have to be widened south of NY Route 149 to accommodate the two left-turn
lanes from NY Route 149. The following pros and cons are associated with this
improvement alternative:

Pros

• Increase capacity and improved levels of service.
• Red and green phases of a traffic signal result in vehicle platoon that maintain
gaps in traffic for pedestrians and business driveways along corridor.
Cons

• Increase pavement width for pedestrian crossings at signalized intersections.
• Vehicle queues at intersections remain long.
• Property impacts.
• Cost.

Roundabout Control – With the construction of a two lane roundabout at this
intersection, vehicle delays will be substantially reduced. A roundabout designed for
2028 Future traffic volumes for both growth scenarios will require a single lane on the
eastbound retail parking lot driveway approach and two lanes on the remaining
approaches as shown on the following page. The level of service analysis indicates that
this intersection will operate at an overall LOS B with all approaches operating at a LOS
C or better during the 2028 Future traffic volume condition for either growth scenario.
Route 9 southbound at Rt 9/Rt 149 as a
si
gnalized intersection
Route 149 westbound at Rt 9/Rt 149 as a
si
gnalized intersection

Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan Page 42
Final Report September 2009

Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP GMB Engineers and Planners, Inc., P.C.

The following pros and cons are associated with this improvement alternative:

Pros

• Increase capacity and improved levels of service.
• Decreased vehicular queues on the mainline.
• Safety benefits associated with less severe accidents and slower speeds.
• Reductions in speed as vehicles enter the key corridor.
• Staged pedestrian crossings on each intersection approach.
Cons

• Fewer gaps in mainline traffic flow at driveways and for pedestrian crossing due
to removal of traffic signal which creates vehicle platooning.
• Property impacts.
• Cost.

50
0
Route 9 – NB
300
Route 9 – SB
Roundabout geometry required at the Rt 9/Rt 149
intersection for the 2028 Future Traffic Volumes
Route 9 southbound at Rt 9/Rt 149 as a
roundabout controlled intersection Route 149 westbound at Rt 9/Rt 149 as a
roundabout controlled intersection

Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan Page 43
Final Report September 2009

Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP GMB Engineers and Planners, Inc., P.C.
• US Route 9/French Mountain Commons Driveway/Adirondack Factory Outlets Driveway
The level of service analysis indicates that the eastbound and westbound driveway
approaches to this offset unsignalized intersection will continue to operate poorly during
the 2028 Future traffic volume conditions for either growth scenario. The northbound
and southbound US Route 9 left-turn movements that use the TWLTL will continue to
operate at a LOS B during the Saturday peak hour. Vehicles that exit the driveways at
this intersection and at other driveways located along US Route 9 will continue to rely on
courtesy gaps. Two alternative traffic control improvement options were evaluated at
this location.

Signalized Control – The levels of service analysis indicates that delay on the minor
street approaches to this unsignalized intersection can be improved if they were widened
to accommodate exclusive left-turn lanes and a traffic signal was installed. Constraints
with the existing parking lots and building locations would make it difficult to create three
lane approaches at both driveways. The installation of a traffic signal would also result
in vehicle delays on the northbound and southbound US Route 9 approaches and long
vehicle queues extending into adjacent intersections. The level of service analysis
indicates that this intersection will operate at an overall LOS D/E during the 2028 Future
traffic volume condition for Low Growth and High Growth scenarios with some
movements operating at a LOS E/F after the installation of a traffic signal. The following
pros and cons are associated with this improvement alternative:

Pros

• Improved levels of service for the Outlet Driveways.
• Protected pedestrian accommodations would be provided for existing heavy
flows.
Cons

• Mainline US Route 9 delay will increase.
• Vehicles on US Route 9 will queue through adjacent intersections.
• Design constraints on driveway approaches creating impacts to businesses.
• Overall intersection operation still constrained with improvement.

It is noted that there were over 600 pedestrians observed crossing US Route 9 and the
side streets in and around this intersection during the Saturday peak hour data
collection. Therefore, the pedestrian warrant for the installation of a traffic signal is met
based on the criteria found in the Federal Manual of Traffic Control Devices (FMUTCD).
However, installation of a traffic signal with an exclusive pedestrian phase to
accommodate the heavy flow causes the mainline queues on US Route 9 to extend
through the adjacent intersections at NY Route 149 and the I-87 Exit 20 NB Ramp. A
review of the accident history on US Route 9 indicates that there were no pedestrian
accidents reported through the Key Study Area Corridor. A separate traffic signal
located mid-block on US Route 9 to facilitate pedestrian crossings or traffic exiting out of
the outlets would create long vehicular queues along US Route 9 extending back into
the adjacent intersections. It is noted that the pedestrian traffic should continually be
monitored in the key corridor. Some of the improvement options have the potential to
increase traffic flow and vehicle speed in the corridor that may result in more difficult
pedestrian movements.

Roundabout Control – The evaluation also indicates that the construction of single lane
roundabout as shown below will relieve congestion at this intersection. The level of

Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan Page 44
Final Report September 2009

Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP GMB Engineers and Planners, Inc., P.C.
service analysis indicates that a single lane roundabout at this intersection will operate at
an overall LOS C/D with all approaches operating at a LOS D or better during the 2028
Future traffic volume condition for the Low and High Growth scenario.

The following pros and cons are associated with this improvement alternative:

Pros

• Increase capacity and improved levels of service.
• Decreased vehicular queues on the Outlet Driveways.
• Safety benefits associated with less severe accidents and slower speeds.
• Improved pedestrian accommodations.
Cons

• Construction will require right-of-way and impact existing parking lots.
• Cost.

• US Route 9/I-87 Exit 20 NB Ramps
– The level of service analysis indicates that this
intersection will operate at an overall LOS F with several travel movements operating at
a LOS E/F during the 2028 Future traffic volume condition for either growth scenario
under existing geometric conditions. Two alternative traffic control improvement options
were evaluated at this location.

Signalized Control – The levels of service analysis indicates that this signalized
intersection can be improved if the existing southbound right-turn lane is converted to a
shared through/right-turn lane and if the eastbound I-87 Exit 20 NB Ramp approach is
widened to accommodate two exclusive left-turn lanes with a separate right-turn lane.
The level of service analysis indicates that this intersection will operate at an overall LOS
C during the 2028 Future traffic volume condition for both growth scenarios with all
Roundabout geometry required at the Rt 9/French Mountain
Commons/Factory Outlets intersection for the 2028 Future
Traffic Volumes

Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan Page 45
Final Report September 2009

Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP GMB Engineers and Planners, Inc., P.C.
movements operating at a LOS D or better with these signalized improvements. It is
noted that US Route 9 would have to be widened north of the ramp to accommodate two
exclusive left-turn lanes. The existing right turn lane from the US Route 9/Gurney Lane
intersection located to the south would also have to be extended back to the I-87 Exit 20
NB Ramp intersection to accommodate the two southbound through lanes. The
following pros and cons are associated with this improvement alternative:

Pros

• Increase capacity and improved levels of service.
• Maintains gaps in traffic for pedestrians and business driveways along corridor.
• Signalized control allows for the potential to control any back-ups onto I-87 with
signal detection.
Cons

• Increase pavement width for pedestrian crossings at signalized intersections.
• Vehicle queues at intersections remain long.
• Cost.

Signalized geometry required at the Rt 9/I-87 Exit 20 NB Ramp and Rt 9/Gurney Lane intersections
for the 2028 Future Traffic Volumes
See Inset 1
See Inset 2Inset 1
Inset 2

Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan Page 46
Final Report September 2009

Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP GMB Engineers and Planners, Inc., P.C.
Roundabout Control – The analysis indicates that a two-lane roundabout would be required to
accommodate future traffic volumes at this intersection. The geometry required at this
intersection is shown below and indicates slightly different geometry on the eastbound ramp
approach for the two growth scenarios. Future traffic volumes for both growth scenarios will
require two through lanes with a shared left-turn lane on the northbound US Route 9 approach.
It is noted that the two northbound through lanes should merge back into one lane before
entering the key study area corridor. The southbound US Route 9 approach will require two
through lanes with a shared right-turn lane. The two southbound through lanes should be
extended to the Gurney Lane intersection located to the south to create smooth flow of traffic
between these two closely spaced intersections. The level of service analysis indicates that this
intersection will operate at an overall LOS B with all approaches operating at a LOS B or better
in the Low Growth scenario and a LOS C with all approaches operating at a LOS D or better in
the High Growth scenario.

The following pros and cons are associated with this improvement alternative:

Pros

• Increase capacity and improved levels of service.
• Decreased vehicular queues on the mainline.
• Safety benefits associated with less severe accidents and slower speeds.
• Reductions in speed as vehicles enter the key corridor.
Cons

• Fewer gaps in mainline traffic flow at driveways and for pedestrian crossing.
• Unable to control back-ups onto I-87 without signal detection.
• Cost.

Roundabout geometry required at the Rt
9/I-87 Exit 20 intersection for the 2028
Future Traffic Volumes
–Low Growth
Roundabout geometry required at the Rt
9/I-87 Exit 20 intersection for the 2028
Future Traffic Volumes
– High Growth

Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan Page 47
Final Report September 2009

Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP GMB Engineers and Planners, Inc., P.C.
In addition to the specific intersection improvement alternatives, three corridor wide
improvement alternatives were evaluated. These alternatives are summarized below and
include a median alternative, a back access alternative, and an access management alternative.

1. US Route 9 Median Alternative
The US Route 9 Median Alternative includes the installation of a raised median along the entire
US Route 9 corridor from NY Route 149 to the I-87 Exit 20 NB ramp. The median would restrict
all left-turn movements in and out of the driveways located on US Route 9. This alternative
requires that roundabout control be provided at the NY Route 149 and I-87 Exit 20 NB ramp
intersections so that traffic can utilize the roundabouts to make U-turns at the end of the
corridor. In addition, the option includes a single lane roundabout at the US Route 9/French
Mountain Commons Driveway/ Adirondack Factory Outlets Driveway located at the midway
point of the corridor. The midway roundabout will improve the driveway access at two of the
larger outlet centers and will provide another point for vehicles to make U-turns. If the center
median is not included in the alternative, all vehicles in the corridor will utilize the NY Route 149
or Exit 20 NB ramp intersections for turning movements. This concept is shown on Figure IV.1.

The pros and cons associated with this alternative are similar to what is listed for the
roundabout alternatives for the individual intersections. Additional pros and cons include the
following:

Pros

• Center median provides a protected refuge for pedestrians.
• Reduction in left-turn conflicts with driveway restrictions.
Cons

• Change in access patterns to businesses along the corridor.

Route 9 northbound with a concrete median Route 9 northbound with a concrete median

Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan Page 49
Final Report September 2009

Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP GMB Engineers and Planners, Inc., P.C.
The accident history indicated that approximately 30% of the accidents were related to turning
vehicles. The access management recommended with this alternative will reduce the vehicle
conflicts from turning vehicles and has the potential to reduce accidents in the corridor. Overall,
this alternative provides the most affective means of access management by providing
consistent left-turn limitations to the driveways along the corridor. Since a center turn lane
currently exists through the key corridor, widening would not be required to construct a center
raised median. Providing additional internal connections between parcels will further reduce the
flow of traffic of US Route 9 in the corridor and further enhance the access management already
provided with this alternative.

2. Back Access Alternative
The Back Access Alternative assumes that a public road will be constructed on the east side of
US Route 9 that connects from the I-87 Exit 20 NB Ramp intersection and runs parallel to US
Route 9. In order to meet the FHWA break in access criteria at the I-87 northbound ramp
intersection, the back access connection would need to provide connectivity and therefore
would need to provide a connection either to NY Route 149 or to US Route 9 as shown on
Figure IV.2. In addition to connectivity through the corridor, the back access alternative will
provide secondary access to the backside of the existing outlet buildings.

The construction of the back access road would reduce the traffic through the Key Study Area
Corridor resulting from the diversion of vehicles. It was assumed that patrons accessing shops
on both the east and west side of US Route 9 will take advantage of the back access. It is
noted that the back access would be considered the primary access to the development of the
McCormack and Kenny properties included in the High Growth scenario. A back access
connection to NY Route 149 will result in the highest diversion of traffic through the US Route 9
key corridor. The revised 2028 Future traffic volumes for the Low and High Growth scenarios at
the three key affected intersections with a connection to NY Route 149 is shown below.

2028 Future Traffic Volumes–
Low Growth/Back Access
2028 Future Traffic Volumes–
High Growth/Back Access

Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan Page 51
Final Report September 2009

Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP GMB Engineers and Planners, Inc., P.C.
A level of service analysis was conducted for the Back Access Alternative at the Key Study Area
intersections on US Route 9 with a connection to NY Route 149. The alternative assumes
unsignalized traffic control at the French Mountain Commons Driveway/Adirondack Factory
Outlet Driveway intersection, roundabout control at the NY Route 149 intersection, and
assumes that a fourth leg will be added to the proposed roundabout at the I-87 Exit 20 NB
Ramp intersection. Appendix H contains the detailed HCS LOS reports for the 2028 Build
condition. The level of service analysis for the Back Access Alternative is shown on Table IV-3.

Table IV-3 – Back Access Alternative Level of Service (Saturday Peak Hour)
Future 2028 w/Imp Intersection
Control Low Growth High Growth
Route 9/Route 149 R Route 9 NB
Route 149 WB
Route 9 SB
Driveway EB LTR
LTR
LTR
LTR A (7.6)
B (15.5)
A (9.5)
B (11.2) A (7.6)
B (16.5)
A (9.5)
B (11.7)
Overall B (10.2) B (10.5)
Route 9/French Mountain Commons Drwy/
Adirondack Factory Outlets Drwy TW
French Mountain Drwy EB
Adirondack Factory Drwy WB
Route 9 NB
Route 9 SB LTR
LTR
L
L F (62.4)
D (33.7)
A (9.9)
B (10.5) F (71.9)
E (36.8)
B (10.1)
B (10.6)
Route 9/I-87 Exit 20 NB Ramps R Route 9 NB
Back Access WB
Route 9 SB
I-87 Exit 20 NB Ramp EB LTR
LTR
LTR
LTR B (16.5)
C (25.7)
B (11.5)
C (30.8) B (16.9)
D (42.5)
B (15.9)
D (45.3)
Overall B (19.0) C (26.1)
Key: TW, AW, S, R = Two-way stop, All-way stop, Signal, or Roundabout controlled intersection
NB, SB, EB, WB = Northbound, Southbound, Eastbound, Westbound intersection approaches
L, T, R = Left-turn, through, and/or right-turn movements, — = Not applicable
L[T]R = LR represents the existing geometry, LTR represents the future geometry
X (Y.Y) = Level of Service (Average delay in seconds per vehicle)
* = Delay exceeds 1,000 seconds
NA = Not Applicable

The following observations are evident from the Back Access Alternative evaluation:

• US Route 9/NY Route 149
– The level of service analysis indicates that this intersection
will operate at an overall LOS B during 2028 Future traffic conditions for the Low and
High Growth scenarios with all approaches operating at a LOS B or better. It is
recommended that the proposed roundabout be constructed similarly to the option
detailed earlier in this section.

• US Route 9/French Mountain Commons Driveway/Adirondack Factory Outlets Driveway

The level of service summary indicates that delay on the minor street approaches will
improve due to the construction of a back access road from the I-87 Exit 20 NB Ramp
intersection and diversion of traffic from the US Route 9 corridor. However, the
eastbound and westbound driveway approaches will continue to operate with poor levels
of service during the 2028 Future traffic volume conditions for both growth scenarios as
uncontrolled accesses.

• US Route 9/I-87 Exit 20 NB Ramps
– The level of service analysis indicates that this
intersection will operate at an overall LOS B/C during 2028 Future traffic conditions for
the Low and High Growth scenarios with all approaches operating at a LOS D or better.

Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan Page 52
Final Report September 2009

Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP GMB Engineers and Planners, Inc., P.C.
It is recommended that the proposed roundabout be constructed similarly to the option
detailed earlier in this section with the addition of a single lane on the westbound back
access road approach as shown below.

Back Access Rd – WB
30
0
I-87 Exit 20 NB Ramp – EB

Back Access Road – WB
30
0
I-87 Exit 20 NB Ramp – EB

The pros and cons associated with the study area intersection improvements are similar to the
discussions above. Additional pros and cons associated with the alternative include the
following:

Pros

• Reduction in traffic on US Route 9 with diversions.
• Increased capacity and improved operation at commercial driveways on US Route 9.
• Reduced flow of traffic on driveways with back access driveways.
• Better utilization of existing available parking lots at outlets.
Cons

• Design constraints associated with back access connector including offsets to the
Warren County Correctional Facility and offsets to the adjacent residential
neighborhoods.
• Improvements will be required to back of businesses.
• Potential environmental impacts, i.e., wetlands.
• FHWA break in access approval process.
• Potential property and ROW impacts.
• Potential impacts to the trail bridge with NY Route 149 connection.

As noted, a mid-block connection to US Route 9 from the back access is another option to this
alternative. This connection would not divert as much traffic off of US Route 9, however, would
still provide benefits to the corridor. It is also noted that the back access alternative allows for
the opportunity for changes to the vision of the US Route 9 corridor by allowing for access if
parking for the commercial developments in the corridor were shifted to the back of the buildings
2028 Future Traffic Volumes–
Low Growth/Back Access
2028 Future Traffic Volumes –
High Growth/Back Access

Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan Page 53
Final Report September 2009

Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP GMB Engineers and Planners, Inc., P.C.
and the building frontages were shifted closer to US Route 9. This type of corridor has been
implemented in Manchester, Vermont.

3. Access Management Alternative
The access management alternative will utilize key access management techniques to improve
the flow of traffic in the key corridor; including, elimination of driveways, consolidation of
driveways, providing consistent driveway cross-sections, and improving cross-connectivity
between parcels. A conceptual access management plan outlining potential modifications in the
corridor is provided on Figure IV-3. Access management provides an important means of
maintaining mobility by systematically controlling the location, spacing, design and operation of
driveways and street connections in a corridor. Access management balances mobility and
access in order to maximize the value of a land parcel while ensuring efficient traffic flow. Well
coordinated access management can reduce crash potential, preserve roadway capacity and
decrease congestion.

In addition to access management reducing vehicular conflict it also reduces conflicts with
pedestrian and bicycle traffic. The access management alternative would include the
implementation of improvements to the US Route 9 intersections with NY Route 149 and the
Exit 20 NB Ramps. Since implementation of access management in the corridor will not change
the traffic volumes in the corridor, the intersection analysis will be consistent with the analysis
presented earlier in this chapter. The intersection improvements could include the
implementation of either the roundabout or signalized improvements.

Regarding access management, it is noted that the current Town of Queensbury Codes include
guidelines on Access Management as included in Chapter 179, Article 19 of the Town of
Queensbury Code Book. A copy of Article 19 is included in Appendix I. These current
standards provide specifics on the layout, location, and design of driveways as well as the
number of driveways and spacing. These standards should be used during the implementation
of the access management alternative and in the future as growth continues in the corridor.
These guidelines should be strictly adhered to by the Town in the approval and development of
new sites and redevelopment sites in the project corridor. It is further recommended that the
Town of Queensbury adopt A/GFTC’s Access Management Study as an additional support
mechanism for the implementation of access management principles through the corridor.
Adhering to standards for consolidation of driveways or limiting the number of curb cuts will
result in a better defined access plan for the corridor as changes are made to individual parcels
beyond the implementation of the proposed alternative plan. In addition, a sample access
management checklist is included in Appendix I which could be used by the Town as an
additional reminder during the site plan review process. A table listing types of Access
Management Tools with typical advantages and disadvantages is also included in Appendix I.
Lastly, an article entitled Safe Access is Good for Business, published by the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), is provided in Appendix I. This article provides good information for the
Town to use and could be used as a tool to further educate the public.

Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan Page 55
Final Report September 2009

Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP GMB Engineers and Planners, Inc., P.C.
A challenge in the implementation of this alternative is to improve the existing conditions that do
not adhere to current access management principles. Focus in the key corridor should include
reducing the number of curb cuts, providing consistency in the driveway designs, and
enhancement of cross-connections. This plan aims to provide more consistent curb cut widths
which currently range between 23 and 63 feet and provide additional vehicular and pedestrian
cross-connections. The following implementation guidelines are presented to assist in the
success of this alternative.

Step 1 – Review the alternative concept and the current access management codes and
standards in place for the Town. This would include review of the codes contained in
Article 19 and the Town Comprehensive Plan. Adopting A/GFTC’s Access Management
Study should also be considered at this step in the process.

Step 2 – Hold Workshops with the Stakeholders to identify problem areas and present
ideas for solutions. In a process where the Stakeholders are not looking for changes to
their parcels, education and “buy in” is a critical step in the process especially for the
implementation of changes within the private property limits. Education could include
providing stakeholders with documentation on access management success stories
such as information contained in FHWA’s article entitled Safe Access is Good for
Business.

Step 3 – Form committees which include Agency representation (NYSDOT and the
Town) as well as stakeholders. During this step in the process details on the vision in
the corridor need to be identified. The development of this vision should include a rating
system on the positive and negative impacts that can be used in development of the final
plan for the corridor.

Step 4 – Summarize Step 3 into a detailed plan. Part of this step includes focusing on
the need for regulations and/or approvals in order to construct the improvements. This
step also includes definition of responsibility and the financial implications of the plan.

Southern Corridor Study Area Intersection Improvements
The southern corridor study area along US Route 9 extends from the Gurney Lane intersection
to the Round Pond Road intersection and includes the I-87 Exit 20 SB Ramp/Gurney Lane
intersection. The analysis and evolution of future traffic conditions at these intersections are not
impacted by the improvement alternatives discussed above for the key study area corridor. A
level of service analysis was conducted in the southern corridor to identify specific intersection
improvements necessary based on the increase in volumes expected with the growth in the Low
Growth and High Growth scenarios. Appendix H contains the detailed HCS LOS reports for the
2028 Build condition. Table IV-4 summarizes the level of service analysis.

The following observations are evident from the Southern Corridor evaluation:

• Gurney Lane/I-87 Exit 20 Southbound Ramps
– The level of service analysis indicates
that the southbound left-turn movement at this unsignalized intersection will operate at
an overall LOS F during the 2028 Future traffic volume condition for both growth
scenarios under existing geometric conditions. Three alternative traffic control
improvement options were evaluated at this location.

Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan Page 56
Final Report September 2009

Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP GMB Engineers and Planners, Inc., P.C.
All-Way Stop Control – The level of service analysis indicates that for the 2028 Future
traffic volume conditions, the eastbound Gurney Lane approach will operate at a LOS
E/F during the Low and High Growth scenarios while the westbound Gurney Lane
approach will operate at a LOS F during both growth scenarios. This alternative
intersection control will not provide adequate traffic operations at this intersection for
either future growth scenario.

Signalized Control – The level of service analysis indicates that this intersection will
operate adequately during the Future 2028 Low Growth traffic volume scenario if an
actuated traffic signal is installed and if the westbound Gurney Lane approach is
widened to provide a separate left-turn lane. However, it is noted that the existing bridge
structure over I-87 is not wide enough to accommodate an additional lane and would
need to be replaced to provide the recommended exclusive left-turn lane. If this traffic
control alternative is progressed, it is also recommended that actual separate left and
right turn lanes be constructed on the southbound I-87 Exit 20 SB Off Ramp so that
drivers do not utilize the existing shoulder as a travel lane. The level of service analysis
indicates that this intersection would operate at an overall LOS C with all movements
operating at a LOS D or better with this improvement.

The analysis indicates that this intersection will operate at adequate levels of service
during the Future 2028 High Growth traffic volume scenario if, in addition to the
improvements required for the low-growth scenario, left-turn movements westbound are
also allowed as a shared movement on the through lane. It is noted that the I-87 Exit 20
SB On Ramp would need to be widened to accommodate two left-turn movements from
the westbound approach. The level of service analysis indicates that this intersection
will operate at an overall LOS D with all movements operating at a LOS D or better with
these signalized improvements.

Signalized Right-In/Right-Out Control – The evaluation also indicates that this
intersection could be modified to provide only right-turn movements exiting the I-87 Exit
20 SB Off-Ramp and only right-turn movements entering the I-87 Exit 20 On-Ramp.
This intersection control would necessitate the construction of a roundabout at the
Gurney Lane/West Mountain Road intersection located approximately 450-feet to the
west so that drivers could use the roundabout to make u-turns and access US Route 9
or the SB On-Ramp. The level of service analysis indicates that this intersection will
operate at an overall LOS A/B during the 2028 Future traffic volume conditions for the
Low and High Growth scenarios. A separate eastbound right-turn lane should be
constructed on Gurney Lane to provide adequate capacity at the intersection.

A third alternative for this intersection includes reconstruction of the interchange. This
alternative is discussed in more detail later in this chapter.

Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan Page 57
Final Report September 2009

Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP GMB Engineers and Planners, Inc., P.C.
Table IV-4 – South Corridor Level of Service (Saturday Peak Hour)
Low Growth High Growth
Intersection
Control Build 2028 Build 2028 w/Imp Build 2028 Build 2028 w/Imp
I-87/Exit 20 SB Ramp/Gurney Lane TW Gurney Ln WB
I-87 Exit 20 SB Ramp SB L
L
R A (10.0)
F (*)
B (11.4) —
—
— C (17.0)
F (*)
B (12.9) —
—
—
Gurney Ln EB
Gurney Ln WB
I-87 Exit 20 SB Ramp SB
TR
LT
L
R AW —
—
—
— E (36.5)
F (266.2)
C (24.6)
B (11.8) —
—
—
— F (117.7)
F (486.6)
D (33.2)
B (12.3)
Overall — F (138.6) — F (272.9) Gurney Ln EB
Gurney Ln WB

I-87 Exit 20 SB Ramp SB
TR
L
T
(LT)
L
R S —
—
—
—
—
— C (27.6)
C (27.0)
A (4.7)
—
D (37.2)
C (22.3) —
—
—
—
—
— D (54.1)
D (49.5)
—
D (53.0)
D (50.2)
C (27.2)
Overall — C (24.7) — D (49.8) Gurney Ln EB

Gurney Ln WB
I-87 Exit 20 SB Ramp SB T
R
T
R S —
—
—
— A (02)
A (1.0)
B (16.1)
C (21.0) —
—
—
— A (0.1)
A (0.8)
C (29.1)
C (31.9)
Overall — A (8.6) — B (15.6)
Route 9/Gurney La (Route 149) S Gurney La EB

Municipal Center Dwy WB

Route 9 NB

Route 9 SB LT
R
LT
R
L
T
R
L
T
R
[TTR] D (41.7)
C (30.0)
C (29.1)
C (28.7)
C (31.8)
B (10.2)
A (4.4)
B (14.2)
C (28.3)
B (15.4)
— —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
— D (54.9)
C (29.9)
C (28.5)
C (28.1)
F (127.3)
B (16.6)
A (6.8)
B (19.7)
D (42.8)
C (20.2)
— D (53.9)
C (29.3)
C (27.9)
C (27.5)
D (54.8)
B (16.6)
A (6.8)
C (23.4)
—
—
D (53.6)
Overall C (22.3) — D (40.6) D (41.1)
Route 9/Glen Lake Rd/Six Flags Dr S Six Flags Dr EB

Glen Lake Rd WB

Route 9 NB

Route 9 SB LT
R
LT
R
L
TR
L
T
R D (42.0)
C (26.9)
C (25.0)
C (25.9)
B (16.3)
D (40.4)
B (20.0)
C (27.6)
A (0.1) D (50.7)
C (31.5)
C (29.5)
C (30.3)
B (16.1)
C (32.2)
C (20.9)
C (24.8)
A (0.1) D (43.8)
C (24.9)
C (23.2)
C (23.9)
C (21.7)
E (71.5)
C (24.2)
D (41.4)
A (0.2) D (54.6)
C (29.0)
C (27.3)
C (27.8)
C (21.5)
D (51.7)
C (26.3)
C (33.8)
A (0.2)
Overall C (31.3) C (29.6) D (44.7) D (38.5)
Route 9/Round Pond Rd TW Round Pond Rd WB

Route 9 SB LR
[L]
[R]
L E (45.3)
—
—
B (10.2) —
D (33.9)
C (20.7)
B (10.2) E (47.9)
—
—
B (10.3) —
D (34.6)
C (21.3)
B (10.3)
Round Pond Rd WB
Route 9 NB
Route 9 SB LR
TR
L
T S —
—
—
— B (19.0)
A (6.0)
A (4.5)
A (6.9) —
—
—
— B (19.2)
A (6.2)
A (4.6)
A (7.0)
Overall — A (7.8) — A (7.9) Key: TW, AW, S, R = Two-way stop, All-way stop, Signal, or Roundabout controlled intersection
NB, SB, EB, WB = Northbound, Southbound, Eastbound, Westbound intersection approaches
L, T, R = Left-turn, through, and/or right-turn movements
L[T]R = LR represents the existing geometry, LTR represents the future geometry
X (Y.Y) = Level of Service (Average delay in seconds per vehicle)
* = Delay exceeds 1,000 seconds
— = Not Applicable

Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan Page 58
Final Report September 2009

Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP GMB Engineers and Planners, Inc., P.C.

• US Route 9/Gurney Lane
– The level of service analysis indicates that this intersection
will operate adequately during the 2028 Future traffic volume low growth scenario.
However, the northbound US Route 9 left-turn movement will operate poorly during the
2028 future traffic volume high growth scenario. In order to improve the operating
conditions, the southbound US Route 9 separate right-turn lane should be converted into
a shared through/right-turn lane to provide two southbound through lanes at this
intersection. To provide consistency, the two southbound lanes should be extended to
the intersection of Glen Lake Road with the westerly lane becoming the free-flow right
turn lane at Six Flags Drive. The level of service analysis indicates that this intersection
will operate adequately for this condition with this improvement.

• US Route 9/Glen Lake Road/Six Flags Drive
– The level of service analysis indicates
that this intersection will operate adequate during the 2028 Future volume condition for
either growth scenario with minor signal timing adjustments. As noted previously in this
study, based on comments made at the first public workshop, NYSDOT is currently
reviewing the signal phasing and timings at this intersection. It is also noted that if the
Great Escape provides a southern access to their parking lots at the US Route 9/Round
Pond Road, traffic entering the Great Escape from the south will shift from this
intersection to the Round Pond Road intersection creating additional future capacity a
this intersection.

• US Route 9/Round Pond Road
– The level of service analysis indicates that the
westbound Round Pond Road approach will operate at a LOS E during the 2028 Future
volume condition for either growth scenario. The analysis also indicates that this
unsignalized intersection will operate adequately if separate left and right turn lanes are
provided on the westbound approach which was recommended during the public
meetings. In addition, this intersection will meet peak hour signal warrant criteria during
2028 Future traffic conditions for either growth scenario and that the intersection would
operate at very good levels of service after installation of a traffic signal. It is noted that
The Great Escape is responsible for the installation of a traffic signal at this intersection
based on a traffic evaluation and volume threshold analysis for expansion of the
amusement park site. In the event that Great Escape installs a traffic signal, this
intersection would become a 4-way intersection with a west leg providing access to the
Great Escape Parking lot from the south.

Low Cost Improvement Options
Numerous feasible lower cost improvements should be considered in the study corridor to meet
the goals of the project. These proposed improvements could be considered individually or in
combination with each other. It is noted that while these lower cost improvement options may
not necessarily result in a noticeable reduction in the congestion during peak traffic conditions
throughout the corridor, they will meet other project goals and help improve access during off-
peak traffic conditions. It is however noted that the combination of several lower cost
improvements could result in a large benefit to the study corridor.

1. Transit
In the short-term, it is recommended that visible trolley stops for the seasonal trolleys be
established in the key corridor. Currently, the trolleys stop at random locations within the key
corridor based on the demand and patron needs. This pattern can result in additional trolley

Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan Page 59
Final Report September 2009

Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP GMB Engineers and Planners, Inc., P.C.
stops and delays to motorists that could be avoided by consolidating the majority of the stops.
The trolley stops should be accommodated with benches and lighting that fit the character of the
area with designated “trolley stop” signing. The purpose of these stops is not to eliminate the
flexibility of the trolley stopping at specific locations, but to consolidate a percentage of the stops
to result in more efficient runs while visibly enhancing the pedestrian/transit friendliness of the
corridor. This option is an enhancement to the existing trolley system currently operated by the
Greater Glens Falls Transit.

An additional improvement option for transit in the corridor is to provide park-and-ride lots to the
north and south of the key corridor to capture passenger vehicles onto the transit system before
traveling into the key corridor. For this system to be most effective, parking lots on the north
and south ends of the corridor should be provided to capture vehicles traveling in both directions
along US Route 9. This option would require lot agreements to be undertaken with individual
property owners to provide the parking lots. It would be beneficial to use existing parking lots to
avoid the creation of additional parking areas. Potential options would be the Municipal Center
to the south and the Magic Forest to the north. This option could be implemented by numerous
different means; including the Greater Glens Falls Transit, Town of Queensbury, business
owners, or by a separate private party.

2. Signing Improvements
The use of additional signing in the corridor to provide clearer directions for vehicles accessing
areas/sites outside of the project corridor is a potential low cost alternative to assist in reducing
congestion in the corridor. Potential areas of signing include:

• Variable message boards for use during times of excessive congestion leading vehicles
destined to locations north of the site to use Exit 21.
• Permanent signs more clearly indicating to people not familiar to the area, that they do
not have to use Exit 20 to get to Lake George. It is believed that people tend to use the
first exit they see when unfamiliar with the area.
• Signing on NY Route 149 westbound encouraging people heading north to travel north
on US Route 9 to access I-87 at Exit 21.

A conceptual signing improvement plan is shown on Figure IV-4.

At the first public meeting, several area residents pointed out that additional way-finding signs
for the Great Escape would help direct vehicles onto Six Flags Drive. It was noted that some
patrons coming from the north on US Route 9 travel past Six Flags Drive and are forced to turn
around to properly access the parking lot.

3. Other Considerations
Numerous other improvement alternatives were considered as part of this study. During the first
public workshop, a suggestion was made to use police to control the signalized intersections of
US Route 9 with Gurney Lane and NY Route 149 during busy times. Although this low cost
alternative could improve flow through the intersections, it would be difficult to implement and
schedule to create a consistent condition and there are numerous safety concerns with this
improvement alternative; therefore, it was not considered further as part of this study.

Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan Page 61
Final Report September 2009

Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP GMB Engineers and Planners, Inc., P.C.
Concerns were also raised by the public regarding existing commercial parking lots that have
converted to “pay” parking lots for Great Escape patrons. These off-site parking lots create
additional conflicts on US Route 9 with a larger number of vehicles entering and exiting these
establishments than normal and also result in pedestrian traffic along US Route 9 that cross at-
grade instead of utilizing the pedestrian walkway. It is recommended that the Town reconsider
giving approvals to local commercial facilities along US Route 9 to utilize their parking lots in
such a manor. Elimination of the off-site parking lots will create better movement of traffic along
US Route 9 in the area surrounding the Great Escape. It is also noted that the Town consider
addressing the existing “VIP” parking lot located on the east side of US Route 9 creating
conflicting traffic movements along US Route 9. It may be beneficial to the corridor to limit this
parking to handicapped to reduce the volume and conflicting movements in the corridor.

Interchange Options
The evaluation of three interchange alternatives was included in this study. The interchange
options included a direct access into the Great Escape, an interchange at NY Route 149, and
reconstruction of the existing Exit 20 interchange as a Single Point Interchange (SPI). Below
are the findings of the evaluations.

1. Great Escape Interchange
Providing an interchange at the Great Escape is difficult since both the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) and the NYSDOT have policies that require interchanges to connect to
public roadways. Providing a direct access from I-87 into the Great Escape would violate this
policy and therefore would be very difficult to accomplish.

In general, the approval of an access modification to I-87 would require that the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process be followed. A full Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) would be required which would take a minimum of four years to complete. A cursory
review of the area indicated several environmental design constraints exist in the area including
Rush Pond and other wetland and streams. The connection from I-87 northbound to the Great
Escape would have minimal impacts; however, the remaining ramp connections would have
environmental impacts as well as impacts to commercial businesses and potential impacts to
school district property. The interchange at Great Escape would be located approximately 1
mile from the existing Exit 19 and less than one mile from the existing Exit 20 at Gurney Lane
and would not meet the Federal and State requirement for interchange spacing. Therefore, this
interchange would likely require changes to these existing access ramps.

A single off-ramp connection to the Great Escape would cost approximately 1 million dollars.
Providing other connections would increase the cost up to 10 to 15 million dollars. Based on the
premise for the ramp to provide access into a private property which would be difficult to obtain,
the seasonal nature of the Great Escape operations, the impact to other existing interchanges,
potential environmental impacts, and cost, this interchange was not considered a feasible
alternative for the corridor.

2. NY Route 149 Interchange
The most critical design consideration for this alternative is topography. I-87 in this area is
located along the side of a hill which rises approximately 50 feet from US Route 9 to the
northbound lanes and another 25 feet to the southbound lanes. West of I-87 the topography
continues to rise. An interchange at this location would require the southbound off/on ramps to
be constructed in deep cuts and would tie into the NY Route 149 at a non-standard 12% grade.
It is anticipated that substantial rock will be encountered that would require blasting creating

Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan Page 62
Final Report September 2009

Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP GMB Engineers and Planners, Inc., P.C.
additional design challenges and additional construction costs. Further, the interchange would
impact numerous businesses along US Route 9 adjacent to NY Route 149.

Providing a new interchange at NY Route 149 would violate the Federal and State interchange
spacing requirements with the existing Exit 20 Northbound ramps. Relocation of the
interchange to NY Route 149 would result in I-87 northbound traffic heading south (i.e., Great
Escape, Municipal Center) to travel south on US Route 9 through the key corridor. The National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process would need to be followed which would require a full
EIS and would take a minimum of 4 years to complete.

The extensive construction resulting from the topographical design constraints requiring
extensive cutting and the construction of structures for the ramp connections would result in a
cost greater than 25 million dollars. Due to the major topographical constraints for this design
alternative including the potential need to close the existing Exit 20 northbound ramp
interchange and excessive costs; this interchange alternative was not considered a feasible
alternative for the corridor.

3. Reconstruction of Exit 20 as a Single Point Interchange (SPI)
Reconstruction of the existing I-87 Exit 20 interchange as a SPI would require the removal of
the current Northbound and Southbound Ramp intersections located on US Route 9 and
Gurney Lane, respectively. A SPI interchange located on Gurney Lane would be beneficial to
users as it would bring all travel movements together at one location and eliminate the split
interchange currently provided at Exit 20. However, the proximity of the ramps to US Route 9
may be too close for the required weaving movements. In addition, the large ramp approaches
will significantly impact adjacent properties and will require right-of-way takings. It is also
anticipated that the new bridge structure on Gurney lane over I-87 would be extremely large to
accommodate traffic demand. The NEPA process would need to be followed which would
require a full EIS and would take a minimum of 4 years to complete.

The extensive right-of-way impacts necessary to develop the long ramps and the construction of
a new bridge structure over I-87 would result in a cost greater than 18 million dollars. However,
this interchange alternative may be considered a feasible alternative for the corridor in the future
as conditions deteriorate (20 years plus). A conceptual layout of this interchange alternative is
illustrated on Figure IV-5.

Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan Page 64
Final Report September 2009

Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP GMB Engineers and Planners, Inc., P.C.
V. Implementation
This planning study identified a number of short and long-term capacity and safety alternatives
for the 2-mile segment of US Route 9 in Warren County that extends from the intersection of NY
Route 149 to Round Pond Road.

Table V.1 summarizes the projects and recommendations described in Chapter IV of this report.
These recommendations were developed to preserve and improve the safety and capacity of
area roadways, through arterial management and context sensitive improvements. Final
improvements should be multi-modal and also support pedestrians, bicyclists and transit. The
table is intended to serve as a guide for potential future improvement projects in the corridor.

The implementation of the recommendations outlined in the study can occur in different stages
and will take commitment and the coordinated effort on the part of the various agencies and
land owners in the study area as outlined in Table V.1. The implementation of the larger scale
long term improvements will require solicitation for funding. There may be the potential for
NYSDOT to work with the Town and private land owners to identify funding sources for the
capacity improvements at the study area intersections through the corridor. Implementation in
this way would likely result from the advocacy of the Town or private land owners reaching out
to NYSDOT for assistance and guidance. The funding could be obtained through means such
as a Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) or a grant. This process will require
applications to be submitted by either the Town or A/GFTC. Funding through public/private
partnerships is also an option that could be pursued.

Other shorter-term recommendations could be implemented with a less defined process. For
example, capacity improvements recommended at the US Route 9/Round Pond Road
intersection may be the responsibility of the Great Escape as described in their EIS. The Great
Escape monitors the traffic conditions in the corridor annually to determine the need for this
improvement based on their site generated traffic. However, if volumes in the project corridor
increase due to other factors, this improvement may be initiated separately by the Town or
NYSDOT. Improvements to accommodate increased transit ridership on the trolleys should be
advanced directly by the Town of Queensbury in association with the Greater Glens Falls
Transit.

Table V.1- Summary of Intersection Related Improvements
Intersection/ Corridor
Summary of
Issues
Description of
Alternative/Improvement
Cost

Advocacy Responsibility

Timing/ Priority

Key Study Area Improvement Alternatives US Route 9 Median
Alternative Conflicts from
numerous driveways
along Route 9 impact
traffic flow through
the corridor. Install a raised median along the entire
Route 9 corridor from Route 149 to the I-87
Exit 20 NB Ramp. This improvement would
require that the roundabout option be
pursued for each of the Key Study Corridor
intersections. $5-6 Million State/Fed, Town,
Property Owners Long-term Back Access Alternative Congestion on Route
9 will increase during
peak conditions in the
Key Study Area
corridor due to
approved and
potential
developments. Construct a public road on the east side of
Route 9 that connects Route 149 to I-87 Exit
20 NB Ramp. This corridor alternative
assumes roundabout control at the two
signalized intersections and unsignalized
control at the Route 9/French Mountain
Commons Drwy/Adirondack Factory Outlets
Drwy intersection. $3.5-4 Million Town, Property
Owners,
State/Fed Long-term Access Management
Alternative

Conflicts from
numerous driveways,
lack of connectivity
between parcels Apply access management techniques in
key corridor to include closure of driveways,
consistent driveway layouts, cross-
connections for vehicles and pedestrians $1.5 – 2
Million Property Owners,
Town, State/Fed Short-term Individual Intersection Improvement Alternatives
Signalized Option – Construct additional WB
left-turn lane, widen SB Route 9 departure
to accommodate two left-turn movements,
and re-stripe Route 9 for a NB left-turn lane. $1.5-2
Million State/Federal,
Town Short-term
US Route 9/NY Route
149 Intersection has
existing capacity
concerns. Capacity
concerns continue
through the 20 year
condition. Roundabout Option – Construct a two lane
roundabout. $2-2.5
Million State/Federal,
Town Short-term
Unsignalized Option – Do not change
current intersection control and accept poor
levels of service on the minor street
approaches. $0 Property Owners,
State/Fed Short-term
US Route 9/French
Mountain Commons
Driveway/Adirondack
Factory Outlets
Driveway
Minor street approaches have short-term (2008) and long-term capacity concerns (2028). Heavy pedestrian crossing. Roundabout Option – Construct a single
lane roundabout. $1-1.5
Million Property Owners,
State/Fed Long-term
Signalized Option – Construct additional EB
left-turn lane, widen NB Route 9 departure
to accommodate two left-turn movements,
and convert the SB Route 9 right-turn lane
into a shared through/right-turn lane. $1.5-2
Million State/Federal,
Town Short-term
US Route 9/I-87 Exit 20
NB Ramp
Intersection has existing capacity concerns. Capacity concerns continue through the 20 year condition.
Roundabout Option – Construct a two lane
roundabout $2-2.5
Million State/Federal,
Town Short-term

Intersection/ Corridor
Summary of
Issues
Description of
Alternative/Improvement
Cost

Advocacy Responsibility

Timing/ Priority

Southern Study Area Improvement Alternatives
Signalized Option – (Low Growth) Provide
separate SB left and right turn lanes and
construct an exclusive WB left-turn lane on
Gurney Lane by widening the bridge
structure over I-87. (High Growth) Widen
the I-87 On Ramp to accommodate two left-
turn movements. $3.5-4 Million Town
(Development
Conditions),
State/Fed Long-term Signalized Right-In/Right-Out Option –
Modify intersection to provide only right-
turns exiting the I-87 Exit 20 SB Off-Ramp
and only right-turns movements onto the I-
87 Exit 20 SB On-Ramp. This would require
the construction of a roundabout at the
Gurney Lane/West Mountain Road
intersection. $2-2.5 Million Town
(Development
Conditions),
State/Fed Long-term All-Way Stop Option – Install stop signs on
all approaches. This intersection will
continue to fail. $7,500 State/Federal,
Town Short-term
Gurney Lane/I-87 Exit
20 SB Ramp Intersection has
existing capacity
concerns. Capacity
concerns continue
through the 20 year
condition.
Reconfigure SB Ramps with new SPUI
interchange
$40-50 Million State/Fed Long-term US Route 9/Gurney
Lane Intersection has long-
term capacity
concerns (beyond
2028). Convert the SB Route 9 right-turn lane into
a shared through/right-turn lane and extend
it to the Glen Lake Road intersection. $350,000-
400,000 Town, State/Fed Long-term US Route 9/Glen Lake
Rd/Six Flags Dr Intersection signal is
not optimized
Improve signal timing.
$0
State/Fed
Short-term
Unsignalized Option – Construct separate SB left and right turn lanes on Round Pond Rd
$75,000
Town
(Development Conditions), State/Fed
Long-Term
US Route 9/Round
Pond Road Intersection has long-
term capacity
concerns (2028).
Signalized Option – Install an actuated
traffic signal. $225,000-
300,000 Town
(Development
Conditions),
State/Fed Long-Term

Appendix A – Advisory Committee and Public
Workshop Summary

Exit 20 Corridor Management plan
Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York

Acknowledgements
Invited Advisory Committee

Town Supervisor Daniel Stec – Town of Queensbury
Stuart Baker – Town of Queensbury Planning
Anthony Metivier – Town of Queensbury Planning Board
John Strough – Town of Queensbury Planning Board
Scott Sopczyk – greater Glens Falls Transit System
Kathy Varney – Glens Falls Hospital
Jeff Tennyson – Warren County Department of Public Works
William Lamy – Warren County Department of Public Works
Kevin Hajos – Warren County Department of Public Works
Laura Moore – Warren County Planning Department
Mike Wyatt – New York State Department of Transportation
Rob Fitch – New York State Department of Transportation
Len Fosbrook – Economic Development Council of Warren County
Sharon Henderson – Representing State Senator Betty Little
David Kenny – Business/Property Owner
John McCormack – Business/Property Owner
Todd Shimkus – Adirondack Chamber of Commerce
Wayne LaMothe – Warren County Planning Department
Dave Wick – Warren County Soil and Water Conservation District
Rob Cherry – New York State Department of Transportation
Lisa Manzi – Representing US Congresswoman Kirsten Gillibrand
Ed Moore – Business/Property Owner

Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan

Public Workshop #1
September 4, 2009

PUBLIC MEETING SUMMARY

The first Public Meeting for the Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan was held on
September 4, 2009 at 6:00 pm at the Great Escape Lodge in Queensbury, NY. The
purpose of the meeting was to present existing conditions and to gather public
comments. The meeting was advertised online on the Project website, through
postcard mailings and flyers and through local news publications. The workshop was
attended by approximately 40 people, including several advisory committee members.

The meeting was facilitated by Aaron Frankenfeld from the Adirondack/Glens Falls
Transportation Council (A/GFTC) and Don Adams and Wendy Cimino of Creighton
Manning Engineering, LLP (CME). The meeting included a technical presentation
outlining the project goals and summarizing the existing conditions. The meeting
included group breakout sessions where input and comments from the public
participants were recorded. Below is a summary of the general themes, comments, and
concerns that were noted during the group breakout session.

General Themes, Comments, and Concerns

General

Participants discussed the existing traffic characteristics, noting that congestion, though
worse during the summer months (specifically between Memorial Day to Labor Day) is
not truly seasonal and occurs throughout the year. Other noted times of congestions
include holiday weekends, winter ski traffic, and special local events such as the balloon
festival and Great Escape events. General discussions of the corridor included truck
traffic, length of turn lanes, and informational signing concerns. Details on the
discussions for the northern, middle, and southern corridors are outlined below.

Northern Corridor

In the northern corridor between the Exit 20 Northbound ramps and Route 149,
participants noted the following comments and/or issues:
• Pedestrian bridge or tunnel needed at outlets
• Re-routing of trucks to/from Vermont
• Additional signage routing traffic to Lake George via Exit 21
• Signing to re-route trucks out of the corridor
• Bus turnouts needed
• Center median is used as a through lane during times of congestion
• More signs indicating need to yield to pedestrians (out of town visitors are
not familiar with laws)
• Retailers welcome pass-by traffic
• Need more cross connections in parking lots

• Use of back parking lots at outlets would allow more connections and
access management (example used was Manchester, Vermont)
• Add an additional lane north on Route 9 to encourage NB traffic to go
north from Route 149 to avoid congestion
• Extend turn lane northbound on Route 9 at Exit 20 NB Ramp intersection
• Use traffic cops at Route 149 intersection to control traffic during
congestion
• Potential roundabout at Route 149/Route 9
• Interchange at Route 149

Middle Corridor

In the middle corridor between Gurney Road and the NB Ramps, participants noted the
following comments and/or issues:
• An access to cut-through the municipal center would avoid congestion on
Glen Lake Road
• The Exit 20 Southbound ramps experience heavy queues year round
• The Exit 20 interchange should be moved to the north to connect to Route
149
• Improve bike and pedestrian accommodations from the bike trail across I-
87 on Gurney Lane bridge
• Install a roundabout at West Mountain Road and limit access at SB ramps
• Install a roundabout in front of the municipal center
• Lane delineation needed in Route 9 between Gurney Lane and the Exit 20
NB ramps
• Concern with accidents on the SB ramps
• What are traffic implications of Lake George campground development
• Pedestrians are not accommodated on Gurney Lane bridge
• Northbound left-turn lane at Gurney Lane is short, people drive in median

Southern Corridor

In the southern corridor between Glen Lake Road and Round Pond Road, the following
comments and/or issues are noted:
• Left-turns on Round Pond Road block right turning vehicles
• Direct access to Great Escape from I-87 should be constructed
• Congestion is caused by vehicles entering/exiting Great Escape it better
than it was, but additional signs are still needed since vehicles often pass
Six Flags Drive and then have to turn around
• Trolley drops off Great Escape employees on Route 9, then employees do
not use pedestrian bridge-dangerous
• Vehicles go around stopped trolleys
• Signal timing at Glen Lake Road intersection does not appear to address
summer peaks-in general timing at this intersection seems off
• Traffic is high around 3:00 during Great Escape season and around 4:30
Route 9 northbound toward Gurney Lane is backed up

• Left arrow needed at Municipal Center for southbound traffic
• Pedestrian accommodations needed at Round Pond Road
• Off-site parking areas for Great Escape causing congestion and
pedestrian issues

Written Comments
In addition to comments noted during the meeting there were a number of written
comments that were received. Below is a summary of the received comments:

1. There should be a pull off lane area for transit buses at pickup stops. Stop lights
should be traffic activated. Better signage related to parking for “Great Escape”,
including private parking lots should be installed.
2. An unpaved bicycle path behind the present Warren County Social Services Building
accesses the Gurney Lane. Recreation/Pool Area. Little to no signing exists to
direct cyclists to the recreation area, resulting in most cyclists using the dangerous,
lower, curved portion of Gurney Lane to the vehicle entrance to the Rec. Area.
Efforts should be addressed to improve a safer access by pedestrians and cyclists to
enter and exit the recreation area, in particular, better signing and paving of the
existing path.
3. Traffic rotaries could be helpful at the junction of Route9/Gurney Lane at the
entrance to Warren County Municipal Center. A second traffic circle could ease
traffic flow at Gurney Lane & the Exit 20 southbound entrance ramps. I would like to
see a full interchange for Exit 20 at the 149 & Rte 9 junction.
4. There is heavy traffic northbound on Route 9 from Round Pond due to exiting cars
from Great Escape. Illegal turns are common. Rerouting traffic from 149 to Oxbow
Hill Road to Glen Lake Road – too small a road. Use traffic cops at heaviest times.
Adjust lights for summer use. Maintain rural character west of 87. Better use of Exit
21 for Route 149 vehicles turning north. Better signage.
5. We know the traffic movement is slow to stop. I would believe some reduction of
traffic load should have been presented to suggest better movement. Not much said
about effect of taking away the Rt 149 load. Be interested in the % of truck to car
traffic.

6.
Please include traffic issues (vehicle counts, features of intersections, rights of way,
etc.) for West Mountain Road and Mountainview Lane in both the Exit 20 and
Aviation Rd. corridor studies. Residents of these roads are concerned that their
problems and area traffic impacts often fall through the cracks when, in fact, these 2
roads link 2 heavily traveled corridors.

Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan

Public Workshop #2
February 11, 2009

PUBLIC MEETING SUMMARY

The second Public Meeting for the Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan was held on
February 11, 2009 at 6:00 pm at the Ramada Inn – Exit 19. The purpose of the meeting
was to present and receive comments on the draft alternatives. The meeting was
advertised online on the Project website, through postcard mailings and flyers and
through local news publications. The workshop was attended by approximately 40
people including several members of the advisory committee.

The meeting was facilitated by Aaron
Frankenfeld of the Adirondack/Glens Falls
Transportation Council (A/GFTC) and Don
Adams and Wendy Cimino of Creighton
Manning Engineering, LLP (CME). The
meeting included a technical presentation and
question and answer session. Alternatives
for the corridor were also on display for
participants to review. CME staff and
A/GFTC representatives were present to
respond to any questions.

The presentation reviewed project goals and
gave details on the analysis conducted and
resulting design alternatives for the corridor.
In addition to intersection and corridor
alternatives, details on the three interchange
alternatives were presented. Additional
details on low-cost improvements including
access management, transit, and signing
were presented.

A question and answer period followed the
presentation. Below is a summary of the general themes and comments that were
noted during the meeting.

General Themes, Comments, and Concerns

Northern Section of the Corridor

Several design options were presented for the northern section of the corridor, referred
to as the “key corridor” of the study. After a review of the improvement alternatives,
participants questioned what would happen when the two lanes at the intersections
merge into one. There was concern that improvements to the two intersections would
not solve the current traffic issue. CME staff noted that adding lanes at the
intersections, even though they will merge down to single lanes in the key corridor,
would allow for increased capacity at the intersections increasing the flow of vehicles. It
was also noted that making Route 9 a four-lane section was not an option.

There was also discussion of truck traffic being a major issue for the corridor. Trucks
travel from I-87 to Route 9 and use Route 149 to go to Vermont. CME noted that heavy
vehicle traffic was accounted for in the traffic analysis.

Regarding the roundabout options, participants questioned the diameter of the
roundabouts and impacts to property owners. Specific concerns were raised regarding
the mid-block roundabout proposed near the outlets. CME noted that the size of the
each roundabout was taken into consideration and is based on specific design criteria.

Participants questioned how the proposed roundabout compared to the one in
Greenwich. There was also concern with constructing a roundabout in a tourist area.
There was concern that there would be increased safety issues due to drivers not
knowing where they are going. CME staff was not familiar with the roundabout at
Greenwich, but noted that roundabouts were noted to increase safety both for vehicles
and pedestrians.

Participants discussed the design work CME conducted in Glens Falls. There was
concern that there was more available space in Glen Falls and that the lack of space in
the corridor would be an issue. After reviewing the alternatives noting the two lane
roundabouts, there was discussion regarding the need and safety of constructing a two
lane roundabout. One participant noted that it is difficult for trucks (specifically 48 foot
tracker trailers) to get through a two lane roundabout. Cars try to pass the truck as it
needs to swing into both lanes to maneuver through the roundabout. CME staff noted
that two left lanes can cause the same type of issue. Another participant noted that
RVs (usually 45 feet in length with a 25 foot car attached) travel through the corridor
frequently and may experience similar issues when traveling through a roundabout.

A question was raised regarding the transport of wind turbines and the ability for trucks
caring the turbines to travel through the roundabouts. CME staff noted that trucks
carrying wind turbines travel on specific routes that are able to accommodate needed
turning radius. Movement of turbines is part of a construction plan and does not occur
randomly in any corridor.

Median Alternative
As noted, concerns with this alternative focused primarily around the mid-block
roundabout at the outlet driveways.

Back Access Road

The alternative detailing the construction of an access road east of the outlets
connecting Route 9 to 149 was discussed in detail. Many participants noted this access
road (which would create a four-leg intersection with the I-87 northbound exit
ramp/Route 9 intersection and would create a direct route for traffic specifically destined
for Route 149) as a viable option. Participants questioned if the road could be designed
in such a way to not affect private property and CME noted the potential for both
property and environmental impacts. There was some concern that a bypass would
hurt the local business by diverting pass-by traffic.

Access Management

There was detailed discussion regarding access management for the key corridor.
Participants noted their desire to reduce driveways and consolidate parking areas.
There was discussion regarding meeting with the current business owners to create an
understanding of the advantages of access management. CME noted that there has
been outreach to local business. One participant noted that business owners should
realize that gridlock is not good for business and that outreach should continue.

Pedestrian Activity

There was discussion of pedestrian activity; specifically at the outlet area and on the
Gurney Lane Bridge. It was suggested that a pedestrian tunnel mid-block at the outlets
be considered. The tunnel would be utilized during the peak outlet period (Memorial
Day to Labor Day) and could be closed during the winter months. CME noted that
making a pedestrian bridge or tunnel ADA compliant would likely result in substantial
impacts to properties. There was also discussion regarding the Gurney Lane bridge
and its need for repair. It was noted that pedestrian accommodations should be
considered when this bridge is repaired or replaced. A/GFTC representatives noted
that there are currently no funds dedicated to repairing/upgrading the Bridge.

Interchange Alternatives

Participants questioned the federal and state government involvement in the planning
and design of a new interchange. CME staff noted that there are strict federal/state
guidelines that must be followed when designing a new interchange and detailed some
of the guidelines.

Community members noted that an Interchange at Route 149 would alleviate traffic on
Route 9, but it might also hurt businesses by diverting traffic. Placing an interchange
half mile north of Route 149 was proposed.

Written Comments

In addition to comments noted during the meeting there were a number of written
comments that were received. Below is a summary of the received comments:

• The best bang for the buck is a right turn lane expansion for Route 149
westbound. It would also send a message to the business owners in the Corridor
that the matter needs their full cooperation.
• One thing that backs up traffic during the summer season is the Great Escape
parking lot entrance on the Park side. Traffic coming southbound on Route 9 is
backed up because the Great Escape parking attendance must collect fees and
direct cars to parking. While that process is going on the traffic on Route 9 is
waiting and backing up to the Route 9/Gureney Lane intersection. I do not think
this was anticipated in the original concept of their site plan. Traffic was
supposed to use the ring road at the Glen Lake traffic light.
• We like the option of the bypass on the eastside of the outlets.
• We would rather see signalized intersections. We do not like roundabouts, in
particular at the Route 9/Route 149 intersection.
• Push for interconnected driveways
• Absolutely no median.
• Avoid an anti-merchant feeling if you are looking for cooperation.
• Sidewalks are currently too close to the street and do not allow for proper snow
storage.

Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan

Public Workshop #3
July 1, 2009

PUBLIC MEETING SUMMARY

The third Public Meeting for the Exit 20 Corridor Management Plan was held on July 1,
2009 at 6:00 pm at the Ramada Inn – Exit 19. The purpose of the meeting was to
present and receive comments on the alternatives and share changes made in the
plans with the public. The meeting was advertised online on the Project website,
through postcard mailings and flyers and through local news publications. The
workshop was attended by approximately 25 people including several members of the
advisory committee.

The meeting was facilitated by Aaron Frankenfeld of the Adirondack/Glens Falls
Transportation Council (A/GFTC) and Don Adams and Wendy Cimino of Creighton
Manning Engineering, LLP (CME). The meeting included a technical presentation and
question and answer session. Alternatives for the corridor were also on display for
participants to review. CME staff and A/GFTC representatives were present to respond
to any questions.

The presentation reviewed the analysis conducted and resulting design alternatives for
the corridor and potential implementation strategies. In the key corridor, the “median
alternative” and “back access alternative” were reviewed. In addition, a third alternative
in the key corridor addressing access management was presented. This alternative
was focused on based on comments made at the 2
nd public workshop meeting.
Discussions of improvement alternatives on Gurney Lane were also presented. Details
on potential costs for each improvement option were presented. Additional discussions
regarding project implementation were included in the presentation.

A question and answer period followed the presentation. Below is a summary of the
general themes and comments that were noted during the meeting.

General Themes, Comments, and Concerns

A discussion took place regarding the economy, lack of funding, and how to proceed
with the document and concepts that will be a product of this study. This led to a
discussion on how the Town can prepare the corridor to plan for the future. It was noted
that whatever the Town can do now will prepare the corridor for future larger scale
improvements and will potentially put the corridor a “step ahead” of others. This
discussion noted the importance of having a champion for the project.

It was noted that this project will not provide a single recommendation for the corridor
and that the exact solution will be determined with additional studies. The additional

studies would include a more detailed look on the design and would include detailed
engineering and environmental studies.

Some attendees stressed that the corridor should not be changed too much. However,
it was agreed that improvement is needed.

Written Comments:

In addition to comments noted during the meeting there were a number of written
comments that were received. Below is a summary of the received comments:
• Would like to see a short-term solution for under $200,000
• Town needs to be pro-active with property owners
• Would like additional bike/pedestrian lanes
• Town needs to adopt the completed plan and use it to modify zoning to prepare
the corridor-potential overlay district
• Provide current zoning regulations and make recommendations to modify based
on improvements

Appendix B – Automatic Traffic Recorder Data

Exit 20 Corridor Management plan
Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York

Appendix C – Turning Movement Count Data

Exit 20 Corridor Management plan
Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York

Appendix D – Existing Level of Service Analysis

Exit 20 Corridor Management plan
Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York

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

Level of Service for Signalized Intersections

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Level of Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections

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

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

Exhibit 17-2/22: Level-of-Service Criteria for Stop Controlled Intersections

Level of Service
Control Delay (sec/veh)
A < 10.0 B >10.0 and < 15.0 C >15.0 and < 25.0 D >25.0 and < 35.0 E >35.0 and < 50.0 F >50.0

Appendix E – Parking Lot Inventory

Exit 20 Corridor Management plan
Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York

Existing Parking Lot Spaces for Exit 20 Key Corridor
West Side
Vendor/Store Business: Capacity # Occupied % Occupied
Montcalm Restaurant – 68 2:20 PM 13 19.1% 3:05 PM 9 13.2% 3:55 PM 4 5.9% Average 9 12.7% Tommy Hilfiger, Sunglasses Hut, Gap, Jockey, Nine West,
Banana Republic, Pfaltzgraff 211
2:12 PM 190 90.0% 3:00 PM 178 84.4% 3:50 PM 168 79.6% Average
179 84.7%
Sunoco 15 2:15 PM 4 26.7% 3:05 PM 10 66.7% 3:50 PM 15 100.0% Average 10 64.4% Rodeway Inn 25 2:05 PM 6 24.0% 3:05 PM 7 28.0% 3:45 PM 8 32.0% Average 7 28.0% VACANT BUILDING – Spirit Halloween Store Coming Soon 52 2:00 PM 3 5.8% 3:00 PM 2 3.8% 3:40 PM 2 3.8% Average 2 4.5% Scooters Rentals 2 2:00 PM 2 100.0% 2:55 PM 1 50.0% 3:40 PM 1 50.0% Average 1 66.7% VACANT BUILDING – Designer Warehouse Home & Garden 27 2:00 PM 2 7.4% 2:55 PM 3 11.1% 3:40 PM 4 14.8% Average 3 11.1% Franks Pasta and Pizza Restaurant 25 2:00 PM 10 40.0% 2:50 PM 13 52.0% 3:40 PM 11 44.0% Average 11 45.3% Super Shoes 85 2:00 PM 15 17.6% 2:50 PM 15 17.6% 3:40 PM 17 20.0% Average 16 18.4%
Total 510 238 46.7%

Existing Parking Lot Spaces for Exit 20 Key Corridor (Continued)
East Side
Vendor/Store Business: Capacity # Occupied % Occupied
Mobil Gas NA NA NA NA Ralph Lauren, Yankee Candle, KasperPerfumania, Jones
NY, Bass, IZOD, Timberland, Nautica, Lane Bryant, Harry
and David, Pacsun 102

2:20 PM 102 100.0% 3:10 PM 102 100.0% 4:00 PM 100 98.0% 101 99.3% Covered Parking Lot in Rear of Outlets 110
2:26 PM 66 60.0% 3:10 PM 72 65.5% 4:00 PM 55 50.0% Average 64 58.5% Eddie Bauer, Big Dogs, Factory Brand Shoes, Ck’s Eatery,
Dress Barn, Corning Ware 209

2:40PM 119 56.9%
3:20PM 130 62.2% 4:05 PM 115 55.0% Average 121 58.1% Lined Parking Lot in Rear of Outlets 99 2:30 PM 6 6.1% 3:20 PM 8 8.1% 4:05 PM 8 8.1% Average 7 7.4% Olde Pose Grill, Clarion Suites 198 2:35 PM 80 40.4% 3:20 PM 71 35.9% 4:05 PM 71 35.9% Average 74 37.4% Reebok Outlet 100 2:45 PM 35 35.0% 3:20 PM 26 26.0% 4:10 PM 26 26.0% Average 29 29.0% Brooks Brothers, Carter’s, Orvis, Olympia Sports, Log Jam
Restaurant 205

2:50 PM 115 56.1% 3:30 PM 101 49.3%
4:15 PM 116 56.6% Average 111 54.0% Family Footwear, Dominoes, Casual Male XL, The Sox
Market 67

2:51 PM 49 73.1% 3:30 PM 45 67.2% 4:20 PM 40 59.7% Average 45 66.7%
Total 1090 552 50.6%

East/West Side Parking Lot Summary 1600 790 49.3%

Appendix F – Alternative Evaluation Matrix

Exit 20 Corridor Management plan
Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York

Improvement
Improvement timeframe
Constructability
Cost
ROW
Effect on Pedestrian Access/ Accommodations
Effect on Traffic Flow
Anticipated Environmental Impacts
Meets Project Objectives
Key Study Area Corridor Alternatives: Alternative 1 Install roundabouts at Exit 20 NB Ramps and Route 149 Long-
term Complex staging
to maintain traffic $$$ Yes
At intersections
shorter crossing
distances More efficient
traffic flow through
intersections Will decrease
emissions connected
with idling vehicles Yes Alternative 2- Alternative 1 plus center median and mid-block
roundabout Long-
term Complex staging
to maintain traffic $$$ Yes Center median
refuge area for
pedestrians Less conflicts with
driveway traffic in
corridor Will decrease
emissions connected
with idling vehicles Yes Alternative 3- Alternative 1 plus a back connection at outlets Long-
term Minor Staging for
back connection $$ Yes Reduce vehicular
traffic on Route 9
will improve
pedestrian access Reduce vehicular
traffic/congestion on
Route 9
Potential wetland
impacts, increase
traffic/emissions
adjacent to
residential homes Yes Maintain signalized intersection at Route 9/Exit 20 Northbound Ramps Short-
term Minor Staging $$ Yes Longer crossing
distances with
additional vehicular
lanes. Additional lanes
required/limited
capacity available Limited capacity
would still exist,
additional through
lanes on Route 9
needed No Maintain signalized intersection at Route 9/NY Route 149 Short-
term Minor Staging $$ Yes Longer crossing
distances with
additional vehicular
lanes. Major geometric
improvements
would be needed
with limited
available capacity Limited capacity
would still exist,
additional through
lanes on Route 9
needed No Use police to control signal at Route 149 intersection with Route 9 Short-
term None $ No Could be improved
when police present Could be
improved/could
cause confusion and
inconsistency Safety concerns No Southern Corridor Study Area Intersection Improvements: Construct westbound left-turn lane on Round Pond Road at Route 9 Long-
Term Moderate staging
to maintain traffic $$ Yes Increase cross
distance on Round
Pond Road Improve queue on
Round Pond Road,
decrease delay for
right-turn vehicles Minimal No Install traffic signal at Round Pond Road Long-
Term Minor staging to
maintain traffic $$ No Improved pedestrian
accommodations at
signal Increased capacity at
intersection, better
accessibility for
Round Pond Road Additional queued
vehicles on mainline Partially

Improvement
Improvement timeframe
Constructability
Cost
ROW
Effect on Pedestrian Access/ Accommodations
Effect on Traffic Flow
Anticipated Environmental Impacts
Meets Project Objectives
Adjust signal timings at Glen Lake Road to better accommodate peak
hour flows Short-
Term None $ No Existing pedestrian
accommodations
maintained Improve flow
through intersection None Partially Use police to control signal at Gurney Lane intersection with Route 9 Short-
Term None $ No Could be improved
when police present Could be
improved/could
cause confusion and
inconsistency Safety concerns No Construct free flow right turn lane on Gurney Lane with exclusive lane
on Route 9 directly into Six Flags Drive Long-
term Moderate staging
to maintain traffic $$ Yes Existing pedestrian
accommodations
maintained Additional capacity
provided for
vehicles traveling to
private development None Partially Low Cost Improvement Options: Provide visible transit stops on Route 9 with amenities Short-
Term Minor $ Yes Better accommodate
pedestrians in
corridor Minimal Reduced emissions
with less stops for
transit between
designated stops Yes Provide shuttle bus loop exclusively for the outlets from the municipal
building lot to a lot north of Route 149 Short-
Term None $$ No Less conflict on
Route 9 with
reduced passenger
vehicle travel Decrease passenger
vehicle travel in
corridor Reduced emissions
with increased
transit use Yes Install additional pedestrian crossings on Route 9 (clearly marked
crosswalks) Short-
Term Minor $ No Improved access and
visibility Minimal effect None Partially Consolidate Outlet driveways Short-
Term Minor $ No Less conflicts with
driveway traffic Less conflicts with
turning vehicles None Partially Improve cross access between parking lots in outlet area Short-
Term Moderate $ No Less conflict on
Route 9/more
internal conflicts Reduces traffic
turning to/from
Route 9 None Partially Use VMS signs during peak travel times/seasons Short-
Term None $ No Reduced traffic will
reduce conflicts with
vehicles Reduce congestion
by redirecting traffic
out of corridor Maintenance
concerns Yes Additional signing in corridor to better direct traffic Short-
Term Minor $ No Minimal Reduce congestion
by better directing
traffic None Yes Increase pedestrian signing throughout corridor Short-
term Minor $ No Improved
knowledge and
visibility for Minimal effect None Partially

Improvement
Improvement timeframe
Constructability
Cost
ROW
Effect on Pedestrian Access/ Accommodations
Effect on Traffic Flow
Anticipated Environmental Impacts
Meets Project Objectives
pedestrians
Provide pedestrian bridge over Route 9 in the northern section of the
corridor adjacent to the outlets Long-
Term Complex staging
to maintain traffic $$$$ Yes Improved safety for
those who use
bridge. Character
of area makes
defined use difficult Improved flow with
less pedestrian
conflicts None Yes Install traffic signal at I-87 Exit 20 SB Ramps Long-
Term Moderate staging
to maintain traffic $$$ No Improved pedestrian
accommodations at
signal Increased capacity at
intersection Additional queued
vehicles on mainline Partially Restrict ‘outside’ private parking lots for the Great Escape Short-
Term None No No Better streamlines
pedestrian use the
pedestrian bridge Reduce turning
movements in/out of
adjacent business
lots None Partially Interchange Options: Construct additional interchange to allow direct access into Great
Escape from I-87 Long-
Term Complex staging
to maintain traffic $$$$ Yes Reduced vehicular
conflict in corridor Reduce congestion
by removing traffic
from Route 9
corridor Geometric issues
with grades Yes Construct additional interchange at Route 149 Long-
Term Complex staging
to maintain traffic $$$$ Yes Reduced vehicular
conflict in corridor Reduce congestion
by removing traffic
from Route 9
corridor Major impacts to
undeveloped land,
Geometric issues
with grades Yes

Appendix G – 2013 Future Level of Service
Analysis

Exit 20 Corridor Management plan
Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York

Appendix H – 2028 Future Level of Service
Analysis

Exit 20 Corridor Management plan
Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York

Key Study Area Intersection Level of Service

Back Access Alternative Level of Service

Southern Corridor Study Area Intersection Level of Service

Appendix I – Access Management

Exit 20 Corridor Management plan
Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York

ARTICLE 19, Access Management
179-19-010. Commercial driveway standards.
A. Purpose. The Town of Queensbury recognizes that one of the most important
objectives of access management is to reduce conflicts along the most heavily traveled
roadways to achieve safe and efficient movement of traffic. Conflict points can be
reduced through appropriate limitations on the number of driveways, driveway spacing,
and by establishing provisions for vehicles to move between parking areas to access
abutting properties.
B. General.
(1) The site layout, location and design of driveways, parking, and other access
management requirements should be based on full permissible development of a
property.

(2) Driveways should be limited to one per property. More than one driveway may be
permitted if:

(a) The additional driveway(s) does not degrade traffic operations and safety on
state or local roads; and

(b) The additional driveway(s) will improve the safe and efficient movement of
traffic between the property and the road.

(3) Driveways to properties with frontage on two or more roads shall be provided to the
road with the lowest functional classification serving the proposed use of the property.

(4) Properties with frontage on two or more roads do not have the right to driveways to all
roads.

(5) Driveways may be required to be located so as to provide shared driveways and/or
cross-access driveways with an abutting property or properties.

(a) Shared driveways and/or cross access driveways shall be of sufficient width
(minimum 20 feet, 6.0 meters) to accommodate two-way travel for automobiles
and service and loading vehicles. Wider driveways may be required to serve
traffic to major generators and/or large vehicles.

(b) Shared driveways, cross-access driveways, interconnected parking, and
private roads constructed to provide access to properties internal to a subdivision
shall be recorded as an easement and shall constitute a covenant running with the
land. Operating and maintenance agreements for these facilities shall be recorded
with the deed.
C. Driveway spacing standards.

(1) Driveway spacing standards shall apply to driveways located on the same side of a
road.
(2) Driveway spacing is to be measured along the road from the closest edge or curbline
of the driveway pavement to the closest edge or curbline of the next driveway.

(3) Driveways shall be located so as to meet or exceed the driveway spacing standards
shown in the chart below:

(a) PHT, peak hour trips, will be determined through the application of the most
current Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip generation methods and
statistics.

(b) PHT, peak hour trips, should be based on full build-out of the property.

(c) The larger of the minimum driveway spacing standards for the proposed
development or for existing developments at abutting properties will apply.
Driveways for infill development must meet the driveway spacing standards to
abutting properties on both sides.

(d) The Planning Board may waive the separation standards in the event the
applicant can demonstrate that no negative impact on the transportation system
will result in the relaxing of this standard and the applicant has provided for future
consolidation of curb cuts and cross-easements consistent with the intent of these
regulations.

D. Other guidance. The Planning Board shall utilize the NYSDOT Policy and Standards
for Entrances to State Highways (February 1998) or its most current version as a guide in
establishing other criteria for commercial development.

Development Size in Peak Hour Trips, PHT
Small Moderate Large
Road Classification 0 to 100
PHT 101 to 300
PHT Great than 300
PHT
Arterial 330 feet 440 feet 550 feet
Collector 220 feet 330 feet 440 feet
Access or
development 60% of the minimum frontage requirement

§ 179-19-020 Residential lots abutting collector or arterial roads.
A. Purpose. The Town of Queensbury realizes that unrestricted access onto arterial and
collector roads can hinder the safe and efficient movement of traffic. Subdivisions,
especially small subdivisions, have tended to provide direct access onto these roadways
from each single-family lot. Lots fronting on local roads rather than arterials or collector
roads shall be encouraged, while lots fronting on collector or arterial roads shall be
discouraged.

B. Designated roads. The following streets, roads and routes have been designated as
regional or local arterial roads or collector roads. Land fronting on these roads shall
comply with the requirements of this section.

(1) Regional arterial roads:
(a) Corinth Road.
(b) Main Street.
(c) Aviation Road from I-87 east to Route 9.
(d) Quaker Road.
(e) Dix Avenue.
(f) Ridge Road from Quaker Road north to Route 149.
(g) Route 149.
(h) Route 9.
(i) Bay Road.
(2) Local arterial roads:
(a) West Mountain Road.
(b) Mountain View Lane.
(c) Aviation Road from West Mountain Road east to I-87.
(d) Potter Road.
(e) East Shore Drive.
(f) Ridge Road from Route 149 north to East Shore Drive.
(g) Ridge Road from Glens Falls north to Quaker Road.
(h) Country Club Road.
(i) County Line Road.
(j) Highland Avenue.
(k) Lower Warren Street.
(l) River Street.
(m) Hicks Road.
(n) Glenwood Avenue.
(o) Round Pond Road/Blind Rock Road.
(p) Haviland Road.
(3) Collector roads:
(a) Pitcher Road.
(b) Luzerne Road.

(c) Sherman Avenue.
(d) Peggy Ann Road.
(e) Dixon Road.
(f) Park View Avenue.
(g) Cronin Road.
(h) Sweet Road.
(i) Glen Lake Road.
(j) Martindale Road.
(k) Moon Hill Road.
(l) Sunny Side Road.
(m) Sunny Side Road East.
(n) Pickle Hill Road.
(o) Van Dusen Road.
(p) Richardson Street.
(q) Meadowbrook Road.
(r) Rockwell Road.
(s) Gurney Lane Road.
(t) Jenkinsville Road.
(u) Pilot Knob Road.

C. Regulations. As of the effective date of this chapter, all residential lots fronting on a
collector or arterial road identified herein or any new collector or arterial roads shall have
two times the lot width permitted in the zone in which the lot is located, except that this
requirement shall not apply under circumstances where adjoining residential lots exist or
are proposed to be established and the width of each lot meets the required width of the
zone and ingress or egress is limited to and provided by a single common driveway,
which is documented on a plat and in a written legal document, which is recordable in the
Warren County Clerk’s office.

The  preparation  of  this  report  has  been  financed  in  part  through  a  grant  from  the  Federal
Highway  Administration,  U.S.  Department  of  Transportation,  under  the  State  Planning  and
Research  Program,  Section  505  of  Title  23,  U.S.  Code.   The  contents  of  this  report  do  not
necessarily reflect the official views or policy of the U.S. Department of Transportation.

Safety Assessment Guidelines
October 2008 iT A B L E  O F  C O N T E N T STABLE OF CONTENTS
COVER
TABLE OF CONTENTSi
LIST OF EXHIBITSii
LIST OF APPENDICESiii
PREFACEiv
1.0  INTRODUCTION1­1
1.1  Purpose of the Guidelines1­1
1.2  Definition of Safety Assessment1­3
1.3  Key Elements of Safety Assessments1­3
2.0  CONDUCTING SAFETY ASSESSMENTS2­1
2.1  Step 1: Identify Project or Location to be Assessed2­3
2.2  Step 2: Select SA Team2­3
2.3  Step 3: Conduct a Pre­assessment Meeting to Review Project
Information2­4
2.4  Step 4: Conduct Review of Project Data and Field Review2­7
2.5  Step 5: Conduct SA Analysis and Prepare SA Report2­11
2.6  Step 6: Present Safety Assessment Findings2­12
2.7  Step 7: Prepare Formal Response2­13
2.8  Step 8: Incorporate SA Suggestions2­15
3.0  SAFETY ASSESSMENT STAGES3­1
3.1  E Stage SA ­ SAs of Existing (In­Service) Facilities3­2
3.2  P Stage SA ­ Planning Stage SAs3­4
3.3  D Stage SA ­ Design Stage SAs3­5
3.4  L Stage SA ­ SAs Related to Land Use Developments3­7
3.5  C Stage SA ­ Pre­Opening SAs  (Construction Practically Complete)3­8
3.6  Other SAs at the Construction Stage3­9
4.0  SELECTION OF PROJECTS AND LOCATIONS FOR SAFETY
ASSESSMENTS4­1
5.0  ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES IN THE SAFETY ASSESSMENT
PROCESS5­1
6.0  REQUIREMENTS FOR A SAFETY ASSESSMENT TEAM6­1
6.1  Core Skill­Sets6­1
6.2  Supplemental Skills6­2

Safety Assessment Guidelines
October 2008 T A B L E  O F  C O N T E N T S iiLIST OF EXHIBITS 6.3  Minimum Team Size6­2
6.4  Independence of the Safety Assessment Team6­3
7.0  SELECTION OF A SAFETY ASSESSMENT TEAM7­1
8.0  FORMAT OF A SAFETY ASSESSMENT REPORT8­1
9.0  MONITORING AND PROMOTION OF THE SAFETY ASSESSMENT
PROCESS9­1
10.0  SAFETY ASSESSMENT TOOLS10­1
10.1  FHWA Road Safety Audit (RSA) Software10­1
10.2  Prompt Lists10­1
11.0  CHALLENGES TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A SAFETY
ASSESSMENT PROCESS11­1
11.1  Lack of Financial Resources to Conduct SAs and Implement SA
Recommendations11­1
11.2  Lack of Qualified Staff to Conduct SAs11­3
11.3  Lack of Time to Conduct SAs11­4
11.4  Lack of Trust to the SA Process11­4
11.5  Lack of High Quality Collision Data11­6
11.6  Defaulting to Excessive Design Standards11­6
11.7  Liability Concerns11­7
1.1  Key elements of the SA process1­4
2.1  Safety Assessment process step­by­step2­2
2.2  Data recommended for an SA (Typical for roadway assessments)2­4
2.3  High­level list of actions for the field visit2­10
2.4  Questions to be reviewed when preparing a formal response2­14
2.5  Principal layout of Form A ­ “Response to SA Findings and
Suggestions”2­15
2.6  Principal layout of Form B ­ “Implementation of SA Suggestions”2­16
5.1  Organizational structure for the SA process5­1
5.2  Major parties in the SA process and their roles and responsibilities5­2
8.1  Three basic options for the SA report8­2
8.2  Specific template for Format 3 of the SA report8­3
9.1  Follow­up SA team survey9­2 8.3  Illustration of safety risk under a partially disaggregated approach8­4

Safety Assessment Guidelines
October 2008 iiiT A B L E  O F  C O N T E N T SLIST OF APPENDICES
ASafety Assessment Case Studies
BGlossary of Terms
CFHWA Road Safety Audit (RSA) Software
DPrompt Lists

Safety Assessment Guidelines
October 2008 ivPREFACE
This  document  is  the  result  of  a  New  York  State  Metropolitan  Planning  Organization
(NYSMPO)  Safety  Working  Group  (SWG)  shared  cost  initiative  and  was  funded
through  the  New  York  State  Department  of  Transportation’s  State  Planning  and
Research  grant  program.  The  NYSMPO  association  is  a  coalition  of  the  thirteen
Metropolitan  Planning  Organizations  (MPO)  in  New  York  State.  Each  MPO  is
responsible  for  transportation  planning  and  project  programming  within  their  region.
The SA project was hosted by the Elmira­Chemung Transportation Council (ECTC).
The  NYSMPO  association  includes  several  working  groups  which  share  information
and  advance  statewide  initiatives.  The  SWG  meets  monthly  to  share  information  and
advance  safety  initiatives  through  collaboration  with  partners  including  the  Federal
Highway  Administration  (FHWA),  the  New  York  State  Department  of  Transportation
(NYSDOT),  the  Governor’s  Traffic  Safety  Committee  (GTSC),  the  Institute  for  Traffic
Safety  Management  and  Research  (ITSMR),  the  New  York  State  Police  (NYSP),  the
NYS  Department  of  Health  (NYSDOH)  and  the  NYS  Department  of  Motor  Vehicles
(NYSDMV). Additional information about the SWG may be found at
http://www.nysmpos.org/safety_working_group.htmlThis document was prepared for the NYSMPO Association by Bergmann Associates in
association  with  Synectics  Transportation  Consultants  and  Eng­Wong,  Taub  &
Associates.  Principal  authors  included  F.  Dolan,  M.  Croce,  B.  Malone,  G.  Junnor,  and
O. Tonkonjenkov.ELMIRA CHEMUNG
TRANSPORTATION
COUNCILP R E F A C E

Safety Assessment Guidelines
October 2008S E C T I O N   11 – 11.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose of the Guidelines
Road  Safety  Audits  (RSAs)  are  widely  recognized  as  a  proactive,  low­cost  tool  to
improve  safety  at  each  stage  in  the  lifecycle  of  a  transportation  facility.  To­date,
numerous  RSAs  conducted throughout the  United States have yielded  positive  results.
The experience of the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) with its
Safety Appurtenance Program (SAFETAP) is one of the best examples of incorporating
RSAs  into  a  pavement  overlay  program  resulting  in  the  identification  and  mitigation  of
safety concerns.
The  Safe,  Accountable,  Flexible,  Efficient,  Transportation  Equity  Act  ­  A  Legacy  for
Users  (SAFETEA­LU),  the  Federal  Funding  legislation  for  transportation  projects
throughout  the  United  States  from  2005  through  2009,  strengthened  a  government
program  known  as  the  Highway  Safety  Improvement  Program  (HSIP).  The  legislation
instituted a requirement for active, explicit consideration of safety on all public roads as
part  of  the  traditional  planning  process  and  required  each  state  to  prepare  a  Strategic
Highway  Safety  Plan  (SHSP).  Since  SAFETEA­LU,  increased  cooperation  between
safety program stakeholders has improved immensely. Unfortunately, the availability of
crash  location,  characteristic,  and  condition  data  is  still  limited,  especially  on  rural
roads.  This  continues  to  hinder  efforts  to  improve  safety  on  all  the  Nation’s  roadways
for  all  modes  of  travel.    With  more  than  75%  of  roads  in  the  United  States  under  local
jurisdiction,  the  application  of  RSA  procedures  to  local  transportation  projects  and
facilities has the potential to bring about substantive improvements in safety across the
country.
The release of the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA)  Road  Safety  Audit  (RSA)  Guidelines  and
Prompt  Lists  has  accelerated  the  implementation
of  RSA  processes,  however  work  remains  to
incorporate  RSA  concepts  into  the  routine
activities  of  many  transportation  agencies.  This  is
especially  true  where  local  transportation  systems
are  involved.  The  NYSMPOs  recognized  that
specific Guidelines, designed to be used both by MPOs and local agencies, are needed
to  support  the  integration  of    RSA  processes  into  all  types  of  local  transportation
projects and facilities statewide.
The  NYSMPOs  also  acknowledged  that  RSA  processes  can  identify  safety
improvements  extending  beyond  the  boundaries  of  pure  roadway  engineering
countermeasures.    Such  improvements  might  include  reducing  road  user  risk  through
the modal shifts from passenger vehicles to mass transit, through the implementation ofSafety
Assessments
are low cost
and result in
minimal
project delay.

Safety Assessment Guidelines
October 2008 S E C T I O N   11 – 2intelligent  transportation  systems,  road  user  safety  education,  and  selective
enforcement of traffic controls and rules of the road.
As the title suggests ­Safety  Assessment  (SA)  Guidelines­  these Guidelines place
considerable  emphasis  on  expanding  the  RSA  process  beyond  roadways.  The  SA
Guidelines  are  designed  for  use  on  the  local  transportation  system  of  New  York  State
both  by  MPOs  and  local  agencies.  The  Guidelines  are  based  on  conventional  RSA
principles  as  outlined  in  the  FHWA  RSA  Guidelines,  but  tailor  the  process  to  the
conditions  experienced  by  NYSMPOs  and  local  agencies  throughout  New  York  State.
They  emphasize  a  connection  between  the  transportation  planning  process,  multi­
modal  considerations,  enforcement  activities,  safety  education,  and  engineering
solutions.
Specific  objectives  of  the  SA  Guidelines  for  NYSMPOs  and  local  transportation
agencies are as follows:
·Define the subject of SAs and its key elements;
·Define a standardized step­by­step SA process to enable easy use by practitioners;
·Introduce SA stages;
·Define general roles and responsibilities for the conduct of SAs;
·Explain the SA approach to selected projects and locations;
·Define the SA Team selection process and general SA team requirements;
·Provide standardized SA report formats;
·Define procedures to promote and monitor the SA process;
·Introduce SA tools; and
·Explain how to overcome challenges to the implementation of the SA process.
The SA Guidelines are intended to assist practitioners in establishing and monitoring an
ongoing  SA  program  within  an  MPO  or  local  jurisdiction.  They  are  also  designed  to
guide  those  conducting  individual  SAs.  For  convenience,  the  Guidelines  are  formatted
such that the most important activities are detailed in a step­by­step format with concise
write­ups  presented  as  lists  of  activities  where  appropriate.  Further  information  on  the
RSA  process,  from  which  the  SA  process  is  derived,  is  available  in  the  published
FHWA RSA Guidelines and FHWA Pedestrian RSA Guidelines. The SA
guidelines
are tailored
for use in
New York
State.

Safety Assessment Guidelines
October 2008S E C T I O N   11 – 31.2 Definition of Safety Assessment
A Safety Assessment (SA) is defined as follows:
A  formal  safety  performance  examination  of  an  existing  or  planned  transportation
facility  (e.g.  road,  intersection,  sidewalk,  multi­use  path,  or  access  to  land  use
development)  by  an  independent,  qualified  SA  Team.  The  SA  Team  considers  the
safety  of  all  users,  qualitatively  estimates  and  reports  on  safety  issues,  and  suggests
opportunities for  safety  improvement. In the  assessment  of existing  facilities,  proposed
improvements  may  include  but  are  not  limited  to  short,  medium,  or  long  term
engineering  solutions,  multi­modal  considerations,  enforcement  activities,  and  safety
education.
The aim of an SA is to answer the following questions:
·What elements of the transportation system may
present a safety issue, to what extent, to which
users, and under what circumstances?
·What opportunities exist to reduce or mitigate
identified safety issues?
·Are there low cost solutions or countermeasures
that would improve safety?
SAs  may  be  used  not  only  as  a  safety  improvement  tool,  but  also  as  a  project  or
program  generation  tool.  The  variety  of  improvements  which  can  be  proposed  is
versatile and broad in nature.
1.3 Key Elements of Safety Assessments
Some  of  the  decisions  that  local  agencies  make  while  implementing  SAs  in  their
jurisdictions  include  determining  what  elements  to  include  in  the  SA  process,  what
elements are most important, and which may be omitted.
Past  practice  has  shown  that  omitting  key  elements  of  the  SA  process  renders  the
overall  process  much  less  effective  and  may  either  result  in  a  compromised  process
that  duplicates  other  processes  (i.e.  a  conformance­to­standards  check)  or  one  that
fails to add real value from a safety perspective.
Exhibit  1.1 outlines key elements of the SA process which must  be present for overall
effectiveness.  The  exhibit  may  be  used  as  a  quick  prompt  list  to  ensure  that  an  SA
program or individual SA is properly structured and conducted.Definition of
a Safety
AssessmentKey elements
of SAs

Safety Assessment Guidelines
October 2008 S E C T I O N   11 – 4Exhibit 1.1: Key Elements of the SA ProcessKey Element
of SACharacteristics of Key Elements
Formal
Examination·Scope and objectives of an SA are formally defined and known as
“Terms of Reference”.
·SA is properly documented in an SA report and officially submitted to the
Project Owner.
·Suggestions in the SA report are reviewed with the project owner and
officially documented and delivered to the SA Team and other
designated recipients.
·Actions necessary to implement the suggestions made are documented.
·Implementation actions taken are properly documented.
·SA documentation is kept in a permanent project file.
Team
Review·At least three members participate (usually not less than six members for
larger projects) with experts called in as necessary for specialist input.
·Larger teams are acceptable for SA training.
·Incorporate a variety of experience and expertise (e.g., transportation
safety, design, traffic, maintenance, construction, public safety, local
officials, enforcement personnel, first­responders, human factors)
specifically tailored to the project.
·Include a local representative.
Independent,
Non Biased
SA Team·SA of design: SA Team members should be independent of the design
team directly responsible for the development of the original plans.
·SA of existing facility: SA Team members are ideally independent of the
team directly responsible for operating and maintaining (O&M) the
facility. Especially in smaller jurisdictions, it may be necessary to draw
some team members from the local O&M staff. This is acceptable as
long as those individuals can approach the task with an open mind.
·The purpose of independence is to avoid any direct conflict of interest,
agenda, or pre­existing biases which may adversely affect the SA team’s
findings and suggestions.  For example, one can achieve independence
for an SA on an existing facility by identifying an SA Team Leader
independent of the facility owner but identifying SA Team members
related to the facility owner who are not directly responsible for the
design, operation or maintenance of the facility.  Engineering,
maintenance and other representatives from the agency may participate.

Safety Assessment Guidelines
October 2008S E C T I O N   11 – 5Key Element
of SACharacteristics of Key Elements
Safety Focus·SA is focused on identification of potential transportation safety
issues.
·SA is not a check of compliance with standards since compliance
alone does not assure optimal, or even adequate, safety.
·SA does not consider issues that are not safety­related.
Includes all
Users·SA considers all types of potential users (elderly drivers,
pedestrians of different age groups including children and the
physically­challenged, bicyclists, etc).
·SA considers all appropriate vehicle types/modes of travel
including but not limited to commercial, recreational, agricultural
traffic, and transit access.
Proactive
Nature·The team considers more than just those safety issues
demonstrated by a pattern of crash occurrence.
·The absence of high quality collision data can be a reason to
conduct an SA.
·Locations demonstrating a higher than average crash risk may be
selected for an SA, but sites may also be selected for other
reasons (e.g., sections scheduled for pavement overlay,
reconstruction or rehabilitation). In the latter case,  potential safety
issues are identified proactively.
Qualitative
Assessment·SA team uses qualitative techniques (visualization of the design
features, field visits, prompt lists, “seeing” the transportation
system through the eyes of different users, brainstorming, RSA
software, etc.) to identify safety issues.
·While crash data is reviewed (if available) it may not be a driving
force behind the SA.
Versatility of
Proposed
Safety
Improvements·The proposed improvements may include, but not be limited to:
Þshort, medium or long term engineering solutions.
Þmulti­modal considerations.
Þenforcement activities.
Þsafety education.

Safety Assessment Guidelines
October 2008S E C T I O N   22 – 12.0 CONDUCTING SAFETY ASSESSMENTS
An  MPO  or  a  local  agency  may  choose  to  establish  an  ongoing  SA  program  or  may
conduct individual SAs as needed.Exhibit  2.1 provides an overview of the SA process
as  a  whole.  Past  experience  suggests  that  the  effectiveness  of  the  process  improves
dramatically  when  it  is  well  organized  from  the  first  step  to  the  last,  no  important
activities are overlooked, and roles and responsibilities are clearly defined.
Sections  2.1  through  2.8 provide a concise guide to each step in the SA process and
can  also  be  used  as  a  prompt  list  of  activities.  Participants  are  referred  to  by  general
terms  including  “SA  Program  Liaison”,  “Project  Coordinator”,  “Project  Owner”,  “Design
Team”,  “Traffic  Engineering  and/or  Maintenance  Team”,  and  “SA  Team”.  The  role  of
each party is defined inSection  5.0. Additionally,  Appendix  Bcontains a Glossary of
Terms.  The  description  for  each  role  may  be  specified  in  greater  detail  by  each
jurisdiction to suit their own unique needs.
The following is an outline of the remaining Sections of these Guidelines:
·Section 3.0 discusses the different SA stages.
·Section 4.0 discusses the selection of projects and locations for an SA.
·Section 5.0 provides information on typical SA roles and responsibilities.
·Section 6.0 outlines requirements for an SA Team.
·Section 7.0 provides more detail on the selection of an SA Team.
·Section 8.0 discusses the format of SA reports.
·Section 9.0 discusses monitoring and promotion of the SA process.
·Section 10 overviews SA tools.
·Section 11 discusses challenges to the implementation of an SA process.
·Appendix  A provides three SA case studies, illustrating the processes, challenges,
and benefits of SAs.
·Appendix B provides a glossary of SA terms.
·Appendix C overviews the FHWA RSA software tool.
·Appendix  D  provides  high­level  and  detailed  Prompt  Lists  to  be  referred  to  when
conducting an SA.Organization
of the Safety
Assessment
Guide

Safety Assessment Guidelines
October 2008 S E C T I O N   22 – 2Exhibit 2.1: Safety Assessment Process step­by­step
Step 1: Identify project or existing facility to be assessed
As a result of this step, the project or existing facility to undergo an SA is determined
and the parameters for the SA are set.
Step 2: Select Safety Assessment Team
As a result of this step, an independent, qualified, and multidisciplinary team
suitable for the specific SA stage is selected.
Step 3: Conduct a Pre­assessment Meeting to Review Project Information
The meeting brings together the project owner, the design team (or traffic
engineering/maintenance representatives of the agency for the SAs of existing roads) and the
assessment team.
Step 4: Conduct Review of Project Data and Field Visit
The objective of project data review is to gain insight into the project or existing facility, to
prepare for the field visit, and to identify preliminary areas of safety concern.  The field visit is
used to gain further insight into the project or existing facility, and to further verify/identify safety
concerns.
Step 5: Conduct SA Analysis and Prepare Report of Findings
As a result of this step, the safety issues are identified and prioritized and suggestions are made
for improving safety. The SA results are then summarized in the formal SA report.
Step 6: Present SA Findings
In this step, the SA team orally reports the key SA findings to the project owner and design team
in order to facilitate the understanding of the SA findings.
Step 7: Prepare Formal Response
The formal response becomes an essential part of the project documentation.  It outlines what
actions the project owner and/or design team will take in response to each safety issue listed in
the SA report and why, if any, some of the SA suggestions could not be implemented.
Step 8: Incorporate SA Findings when Appropriate
This final step ensures that the corrective measures outlined in the response report are
completed as described and in the time frame proposed. Steps in the
SA Process

Safety Assessment Guidelines
October 2008S E C T I O N   22 – 32.1   Step 1: Identify Project or Location to be Assessed
·The  SA  Program  Coordinator  (refer  toSection  5.0)appointed  to  manage  the  SA
program  within  one  or  multiple  jurisdictions  should  develop  and  apply  an  approved
policy  for  selecting  projects  or  existing  locations  to  undergo  an  SA.  Considerations
in the development and application of a selection policy are outlined inSection  4.0.
Appendix Bcontains definitions for many of the terms used  below.
·For  an  individual  SA,  the  Project  Owner  (refer  toSection  5.0)  should  establish  a
specific  Terms  of  Reference  (ToR)  document.  ToRs  for  a  specific  SA  may  be
developed  based  on  a  standardized  template  developed  by  the  SA  Program
Coordinator and approved by the jurisdiction. The ToR should define:
àScope, goals, and objectives.
àSchedule for completion.
àTeam requirements (refer toSection 6.0).
àSA tasks (refer toSections 2.3­2.6).
àThe  Maintenance  Supervisor,  to  whom  all  immediate  maintenance  problems
(such  as  deficiencies  requiring  action  according  to  local  standards),  should  be
communicated directly.
àA formal SA report format, including forms to be completed (refer toSection  2.5
andSection  8.0),  should  be  prepared  and  approved  by  the  jurisdiction.  This
may  include  statements  pertaining  to  the  ToR  under  which  the  SA  was
conducted, statements ensuring confidentiality of the SA report, etc.
2.2   Step 2: Select an SA Team
The Project Owner, with the assistance of the SA
Program  Coordinator,  should  select  a  group  of
qualified  individuals  to  form  the  SA  team.  This
selection  may  be  done  by  committee  or  from  a
pre­established  approved  list  if  the  SA  team  will
be  a  Consultant  or  Subconsultant  to  another
professional firm. Typical requirements for an SA
team  are  presented  inSection  6.0.  Principles
involved  in  selection  of  an  SA  Team  are  outlined
inSection 7.0.

Safety Assessment Guidelines
October 2008 S E C T I O N   22 – 42.3   Step 3: Conduct a Pre­Assessment Meeting to Review Project Information
A  pre­assessment  meeting  is  the  most  effective  and  efficient  way  to  acquaint  an  SA
team with the project or existing facility and to discuss the scope, goals, and objectives
of the SA.
Preparing  for  and  conducting  the  pre­assessment  meeting  involves  the  following
activities:
·Design  team,  traffic  engineering,  and/or  maintenance  team  (as  appropriate)
prepares  the  background data  necessary for  the  SA  in  accordance  with  the  ToR  in
advance of the meeting. The type of data to be provided will vary, depending on the
SA type and stage.  The data may include, but not be limited to, the data outlined in
Exhibit 2.2.
Exhibit 2.2: Data Recommended for an SA (Typical for Roadway Assessments)
Note: it is understood that not all the data below may be available.DataSpecifics
Design Criteria·Functional classification, land uses, control of access.
·Design speeds, design vehicles (for road assessments).
·List of non­standard and/or non­conforming features.
·Justification for non­standard and/or non­conforming features.
Traffic Data·Vehicular  volume  and  composition  on  a  facility  being  assessed
as well as those on intersecting roads and within the surrounding
roadway network.
·Pedestrian/bicycle  volumes  and  mixes  (children,  elderly,
disabled  etc.)  on  the  facility  being  assessed,  on  intersecting
facilities, and within the surrounding transportation network.
·Operating speeds and points of congestion.
Environmental
Characteristics·Typical and unique weather conditions.
·Topography.The SA team
should hold a
Pre­
Assessment
Meeting.

Safety Assessment Guidelines
October 2008S E C T I O N   22 – 5DataSpecifics
Documents
Showing the
Existing or
Proposed
Facility·For SAs of existing facilities: As­built drawings at a suitable scale
(e.g. 1:40 US Customary, 1:500 Metric) and aerial photographs
which would be useful to have on hand during the field review.
·For planning stage SAs: Conceptual drawings at a suitable scale
(e.g. 1:1000 US Customary, 1:10000 Metric) showing all planning
alternatives, adjacent land uses, the surrounding transportation
network, connections to adjoining transportation facilities and
topography.
·For preliminary design stage SAs: Contract plans at a suitable
scale (e.g. 1:40 US Customary, 1:500 Metric) showing horizontal
and vertical alignment, typical section, connections to adjoining
transportation facilities, proposed traffic control devices, basic
ramp configurations and lane configurations for interchanges.
·For detailed design stage and pre­opening stage SAs: Contract
plans at a suitable scale (e.g. 1:20 US Customary, 1:250 Metric)
showing all signs, delineation, illumination, pavement markings,
lane configuration, landscaping, roadside appurtenances, traffic
signal placement, phasing and timing, and roadside barriers.
Crash Data·For SAs of existing facilities: Crash data detailing the location,
type, and severity of each crash over at least the most recent three
year period of data available. Crash diagrams and/or copies of
New York State Department of Motor Vehicles (NYSDMV) crash
reports (Form MV­104 or equivalent) should be included.
·For pre­construction stage SAs on resurfacing, rehabilitation, or
reconstruction projects: crash data help identify safety concerns
and guide the recommendation of countermeasures.
·For pre­construction stage SAs on new construction: Crash data
for the surrounding transportation network are not as important.
They do however, provide insights into prevailing crash patterns
and safety issues in the study area. If several alternatives are
under consideration at the planning stage SA, crash data may help
qualitatively estimate the safety implications of the planning
alternatives.

Safety Assessment Guidelines
October 2008 S E C T I O N   22 – 6·The  above  data  may  be  provided  to  the  SA  team  either  prior  to  the  meeting  or  at
the  meeting.  The  advantage  of  the  former  is  that  the  SA  team  will  have  an
opportunity to  review  the  documents  beforehand and  be  prepared to  ask questions
at  the meeting. The  disadvantage however,  is that an advance review might  not be
as  effective  as  it  would  otherwise  be  after  the  project  has  been  presented  to  the
team.  The  SA  team  may  wish  to  indicate  to  the  Project  Owner  which  option  is
preferred at the outset.
·The  SA  team  may  also  wish  to  prepare  a  visual  (e.g.  Microsoft  PowerPoint  or
equal)  presentation  outlining  the  scope,  goals  and  objectives,  schedule,  and
conduct  of  the  SA  to  assist  the  design,  traffic  engineering,  or  maintenance  team  in
better understanding the nature of the SA and how it relates to their efforts. This will
assist in establishing a spirit of cooperation between all parties.
Specifically, there should be a clear understanding amongst all parties that SAs are
a  tool  which  help  identify  opportunities  to  improve  transportation  safety
performance. SAs are NOT intended as a substitute for periodic reviews of policies,
standards,  or  practices  to  assure  that  desired  end­results  continue  to  be  achieved
(i.e. design quality, operational and maintenance objectives). They are not meant to
replace  existing  design  quality  assurance  checks  or  standards­compliance
processes.DataSpecifics
Other
Pertinent
Documents·Maintenance histories.
·Previous SA reports and formal responses, if available.
·Minutes of public meetings, hearings, and/or stakeholder group
meetings and any agreements with municipalities or individual
property owners for the accommodation of transportation needs
(e.g. access permits, etc.).
·Listing of all relevant design standards, guidelines, manuals, and/
or publications (e.g. New York State Highway Design Manual,
Municipal Standard Details, the National Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices with New York State Supplement, etc.).
·If applicable: Records of public complaints, law enforcement
observations of speeding/unsafe behavior, etc.
Presentation·Visual (e.g. Microsoft PowerPoint or equal) presentations on the
project by its design team and of the anticipated SA (goals,
objectives, scope, expectations, schedule, etc.) by the SA team
leader might be useful for the meeting.

Safety Assessment Guidelines
October 2008S E C T I O N   22 – 7In this regard, SAs areNOT:
àa means to evaluate, praise, or critique design, operations, or maintenance.
àa  check  of  compliance  with  applicable  minimum  or  desirable  design  standards,
since compliance alone does not assure optimal, or even adequate, safety.
àa means of ranking or justifying one project over another.
àa means of rating one design option over another (although the expected safety
performance  of  each  planning  or  design  alternative  may  be  individually
assessed).
àa  project  redesign  or  a  policy,  standards,  or  practices  review  (although  an  SA
may suggest changes in policy, standards, or practices as a means of improving
safety).
àa  crash  investigation  or  crash  data  analysis  (although  the  crash  history  of  an
existing road should be reviewed as a component of an SA).
àan  operational  safety  review  of  an  existing  facility  based  on  a  detailed,
quantitative  analysis  of  crash  data  and  thus  highly  dependent  on  the  quality  of
crash  data.  Low  quality  or  the  absence  of  crash  data  does  not  preclude
conducting a successful SA.
·Items to be reviewed and discussed at the Pre­Assessment meeting may include:
àIntroductions.
àScope and objectives of the SA.
àRoles and responsibilities.
àSchedule for the completion of the SA.
àLines  of  communication  between  the  SA  team  leader,  the  Project  Owner,  and
the design/operations/maintenance team.
àSA response.
·The  Pre­assessment  meeting  should  conclude  with  all  involved  parties  having  a
clear understanding of the SA to be undertaken and the roles and responsibilities of
each participant during each task.
2.4  Step 4: Conduct Review of Project Data and Field Review
A  project  data review  is  conducted  to gain  insight  into  the  project  or  existing  facility,  to
prepare for a field visit and to identify preliminary areas of safety concern. The field visit
is  necessary  to  gain  further  insight  into  the  project  or  existing  facility  and  to  further
verify  and/or  identify  safety  concerns.  Major  considerations  involving  the  review  of
project data and field visit are summarized below. Specific activities and considerations
relevant to different SA stages are provided inSection 3.0What SAs are
not intended
to be
Items to be
discussed at
the Pre­
Assessment
Meeting
Review
available in
the office
before going
to the field.

Safety Assessment Guidelines
October 2008 S E C T I O N   22 – 8·Plans,  drawings  and other  project  information should be reviewed by each member
of  the  SA  team  prior  to  and  again  after  the  field  visit.  The  review  of  contract  plans
and/or  as­built  drawings  is  crucial  to  understanding  the  interaction  between  a
transportation facility, its operating environment, and its users.
·For  pre­construction  stage  assessments,  the  SA  team  should  examine  the  design
drawings  in  detail,  imagining  how  the  future  facility  may  appear  from  the
perspective  of  different  users  (including  drivers  of  different  vehicle  types,  older
drivers),  cyclists  and  pedestrians  (including  those  of  different  age  groups  and
abilities)  as  applicable.  A  common
approach  involves  the  systematic  review  of
one direction at a time along segments of a
facility  and  each  individual  movement  at
freeway  interchanges  or  at­grade
intersections.  In  each  case  the  reviewer
should  imagine  themselves  driving  on  the
road or walking along the sidewalk.
·Reviews  of  the  project  data,  plans,  and  drawings  should  be  performed  both
individually (in­depth) and in a team setting (brainstorming).
·Team members may elect to use SA tools such as those introduced inSection  10.
Prompt  lists  may  serve  as  a  means  of  highlighting  relevant  aspects  of  the  SA.  It
may be beneficial for each SA team member to have an individual hard copy of the
prompt lists. The lists can be used to record any comments and concerns identified
both  during  the  project  data  review  and  the  field  visit.  Prompt  lists  may  be  sourced
and printed fromAppendix Dor the FHWA RSA software.
·If  missing  or  misleading  information  is  identified,  the  SA  team  should  contact  the
appropriate  Department  of  Public  Works,  design  team,  traffic  engineering  team,  or
maintenance  staff  to  obtain  clarification,  ideally  before  the  field  visit  is  conducted.
This  should  be  done  in  a  cooperative  manner  and  in  the  spirit  of  gaining  a  better
understanding of the proposed project.
·Field visits should be conducted as part of every SA, no matter the stage or type of
project. They are crucial to identifying safety issues on existing facilities and helping
participants  to  understand  how  the  proposed  construction  will  interact  with  the
adjacent transportation network and surrounding terrain.
·The SA team should conduct a nighttime field visit.There is no
substitute for
visiting the
site.

Safety Assessment Guidelines
October 2008S E C T I O N   22 – 9·Daytime  visits  to  existing  facilities  should  be  scheduled  to  coincide  with  the  most
critical  period  of  operation.  This  for  example  could  be  a  morning,  evening,  or  off­
peak  period  of  traffic  flow.  Other  factors  may  suggest  different  times  of  the  day  or
night  (e.g.  peaks  associated  with  local  traffic  generators  such  as  malls,  offices,
schools, arenas, etc.).
·Safety of the SA team and of all facility users is paramount  and should be carefully
planned  for  at  the  outset.  Appropriate  safety  equipment,  apparel,  and  necessary
traffic  controls  should  be  utilized.  Potentially  adverse  impacts  on  traffic  flow  (to  the
extent  that  they  could  skew  observations)  and  the  safety  of  the  SA  team  must  be
carefully balanced at all times.
·Approaches  to  a  field  review  may  vary  from  one  SA  to  another.  In  one  case  each
SA team member may visit the site independently noting anything they believe is of
importance.  An  alternative  would  be  to  have  the  entire  team  review  the  site
together, discussing various issues raised by the team as they go. A combination of
these  two  approaches  will  best  encourage  all  SA  team  members  to  participate  and
not  to  defer  to  an  individual  team  member  who  may  be  perceived  as  most
experienced. Yet another approach is for the SA team to move through the site as a
group but have each team member note issues individually as they encounter them.
Notes  would  then  be discussed  with  the group at  a  subsequent  meeting. Whatever
approach  is  chosen,  it  should  be  established  up  front  and  clear  to  all  participants
before venturing out to the site.
·Safety  issues  identified  during  the  review  of
project data should be verified in the field.
·Photographs  and  video  footage  should  be
taken of anything that may need to be reviewed
or  revisited  while  writing  the  SA  report.  High­
quality  digital  video  footage  permitting  still
pictures  to  be  excerpted  may  be  especially
effective,  both  as  a  review  tool  and  to  illustrate
safety concerns in the SA report.
·The SA team should consider all possible movements for all facility users and drive,
walk,  or  cycle  them  as  appropriate  during  the  field  visit.  Sample  general  and
detailed prompt lists for the SAs of existing facilities are provided inAppendix  D. A
general  list  of  action  items  for  a  field  visit  may  include,  but  not  be  limited  to,  the
items provided inExhibit 2.3.Team
members
should
experience
the site from
the
perspective of
all users.

Safety Assessment Guidelines
October 2008 S E C T I O N   22 – 10Exhibit 2.3: High­Level List of Actions for the Field Visit
·In  situations  where  an  SA  team  encounters  maintenance,  equipment,  or
appurtenance  problems  judged  to  be  significant,  such  as  deficiencies  requiring
action  according  to  locally  accepted  maintenance  standards,  these  should  be
communicated directly to the maintenance supervisor identified in the ToR or at the
Pre­Assessment meeting.SA PhaseActivities during the field visit
Existing
Facilities·Drive, cycle, and/or  walk through the site in all directions and on
all  approaches  (as  appropriate  and  practical)  to  experience
multiple perspectives.
·Investigate pedestrian and bicyclist facilities particularly at points
where potential conflicts with vehicular traffic exist.
·Observe  the  interaction  of  different  users  with  the  built
environment and with each other.
·Consider  limitations  and  specific  requirements  of  drivers  of
different vehicle types, older drivers, pedestrians of different age
groups, disabled persons, etc.
Pre­
Construction
Stage·Examine  how  the  planned  improvement  or  new  facility  ties  into
the existing transportation network.
·Examine  how  the  planned  improvement  or  new  facility  will
interact with adjacent communities.
·Examine  adjacent  facilities  to  identify  design  consistency  issues
for various users.
·Examine  compatibility  of  the  design  with  prevailing  climatic
conditions, surrounding vegetation, and topography.Pre­Opening
Stage·Drive,  cycle,  and/or  walk  through  the  site  (as  appropriate  and
practical)  in  all  directions  and  on  all  approaches  to  experience
multiple perspectives.
·Investigate pedestrian and bicyclist facilities particularly at points
where potential conflicts with vehicular traffic exist.
·Imagine  the  interaction  of  different  users  with  the  built
environment and with each other.
·Consider  limitations  and  specific  requirements  of  drivers  of
different vehicle types, older drivers, pedestrians of different age
groups, disabled persons, etc.
·Examine  the  built  environment  for  the  presence  of  temporary
traffic control devices, construction machinery, debris, etc.

Safety Assessment Guidelines
October 2008S E C T I O N   22 – 112.5  Step 5: Conduct SA Analysis and Prepare SA Report
The  objective  of  this  step  is  to  finalize  the  identification  of  safety  issues,  estimate  the
level of risk associated with each issue, prioritize the issues, suggest countermeasures,
and succinctly document findings.
The SA analysis:
·Should be restricted to issues having a bearing on the safety of road users.
·May  include  issues  relating  to  aesthetics,  amenities,  or  congestion,  but  only  if  they
may adversely affect safety.
·Should  not  include  safety  issues  identified  outside  of  the  project  limits  unless  the
issue  is  directly  or  indirectly  related  to  the  project.  An  example  would  be  the
potential for traffic to shortcut through an adjoining residential area.
·May use prompt lists and the  FHWA RSA software as guiding  and tracking tools  to
facilitate analysis and drafting of the SA report
The SA report:
·In some instances needs to be written immediately after completion of the field visit
(such  as  with  a  pre­opening  SA).  Other  SA  reports  should  typically  be  completed
within a relatively short timeframe (e.g. two weeks).
·Should be concise.
·Should include the date of the pre­SA meeting and the dates and times that the SA
was conducted.
·Should acknowledge data provided by the Project Owner and/or the design team.
·Should  include  SA  team  member  names  along  with  their  affiliation  and
qualifications.
·Should include background information and a description of the process followed.
·Should include pictures and diagrams to further illustrate points made as required.
·Should include a map indicating the location and clearly defined project limits.Prepare a
concise,
complete, and
accurate
summary
report.

Safety Assessment Guidelines
October 2008 S E C T I O N   22 – 12·Should  include  a  review  of  signs,  pavement  markings,  traffic  signals,  and  other
traffic control devices.
·May  contain  references  to  other  reports,  standards,  policies,  or  published  research
pertaining to safety.
·Should be relevant and realistic. A planning stage SA should not contain a review of
signs  and  pavement  markings  or  propose  those  as  a  countermeasure.  A  pre­
opening  stage  SA  should  not  contain  a  review  of  interchange  configuration  and
propose an alternative.
·For  SAs  of  existing  facilities  suggested  improvements  should  normally  include
short,  medium,  and  long  term  engineering  solutions  and  may  also  include  multi­
modal  considerations,  enforcement  activities,  and  safety  education.  The  ToR  may
require  restricting  suggestions  to  low­cost,  short­term  countermeasures  or
conversely, put an emphasis on expanding suggestions to either longer­term and/or
more broadly­based countermeasures (e.g. suggestions aimed at influencing modal
split or promoting improvements at a network­level).
·Should be specific, include a brief description of each safety issue, and explain how
and why each poses a risk to facility users. The estimated degree of safety risk may
be indicated as well.
·Should avoid negative terms such as “unsafe”, “sub­standard”, “unacceptable”,  and
“deficient”, focusing instead on “opportunities” for increased safety (“safer”).
Recommended  formats  of  SA  reports  and  approaches  to  estimate  road  user  risk  are
presented inSection 8.0.
2.6  Step 6: Present Safety Assessment Findings
Once  the  SA  Report  is  published,  the  SA  Team  Leader  (refer  toSection  5.0)  orally
presents  the  findings  to  the  Project  Owner  and  Department  of  Public  Works,  design
team.  traffic  engineering  team,  or  maintenance  team  as  appropriate.  The  presentation
should clarify SA findings and suggestions, ensure that findings are within  the scope of
the SA, and allow for informal feedback from the Project Owner and other parties. Present
findings to
the Owner.

Safety Assessment Guidelines
October 2008S E C T I O N   22 – 13The presentation:
·May be facilitated visually using a software such as Microsoft PowerPoint or equal.
·Should  be  prefaced  with  a  reminder  that  the  intent  of  an  SA  is  to  identify
opportunities  to  improve  safety  rather  than  critique  the  work  of  a  design  team,
traffic engineering team, or maintenance team.
·Should start by acknowledging assistance from the Project Owner and other parties
and by sharing some “positives”.
·Should briefly overview the SA scope, goals, and objectives.
·Should  describe  safety  issues  in  terms  of  where  they  are  located,  why  they
represent  a  safety  risk  (circumstances,  sequence  of  events),  and  what  degree  of
safety risk is associated with them.
·May use possible solutions to further illustrate the safety concern, but these should
not be cited as design recommendations or specific countermeasures.
·May show pictures or video footage to further illustrate an issue.
·May  discuss  approaches  usually  taken  in  reviewing  and  responding  to  an  SA
report.  This  includes  accepting  or  not  accepting  the  SA  suggestions  and
documenting the results of the review in a formal SA response.
The presentation meeting should be accompanied by a written record (minutes) to help
avoid  the  appearance  of  arbitrary  decision  making.  Minutes  will  provide  background
documentation if the subsequent SA report omits certain safety issues as a result of the
discussion at the meeting.  Minutes should be kept in the project file.
The  SA  report  may  be  submitted  to  the  Project  Owner  at  the  meeting  or  may  be
finalized  as  needed  and  submitted  shortly  after  the  presentation  (e.g.  within  two
weeks).
2.7  Step 7: Prepare Formal Response
The  concept  of  responding  to  an  SA  report,  followed  by  action  on  accepted  SA
suggestions,  is central to  the  process.  It  ensures that SA findings  are  reviewed  and,  if
accepted for implementation, acted upon.

Safety Assessment Guidelines
October 2008 S E C T I O N   22 – 14Specifications include the following:
·The  SA  report  is  reviewed  jointly  by  the  Project  Owner  and  design  team,
engineering team, or maintenance representatives.
·The review of  SA report findings and suggestions should be conducted within a set
time  of  receiving  the  SA  report  and  is  completed  upon  preparation  of  a  formal
response.  The  review  period  may  vary  depending  on  staff  availability  and  the
overall project schedule but should be commensurate with that specified in the ToR.
·Outcomes  of  the  review  and  response  phase  may  involve  acceptance  of  the
suggestions,  rejection  (with  explanation),  or  modification  (with  explanation).    For
example,  the  Project  Owner  and  project  team  may:  agree  with  an  SA  suggestion
and  act  upon  it;  agree  but  decide  not  to  act  based  on  project  constraints;  or
disagree  with  either  the  safety  issue  or  the  assessment  of  risk  and  respond
accordingly.  Possible  reasons  for  not  acting  on a  suggestion  may  include:  physical
project  constraints;  property  limitations;  SA  findings/suggestions  which  are  out­of­
scope;  trade­offs  between  safety  risks  and  mobility  benefits;  environmental
constraints;  and  budget  constraints.Exhibit  2.4  lists  questions  which  may  be
considered when arriving at outcomes and preparing a formal SA response.
·The  outcome  may  acknowledge  that  improvements  will  be  deferred  to  a  future
project to happen at an agreed upon time.
Exhibit 2.4: Questions to be Reviewed When Preparing a Formal Response
·Is the SA report finding within the scope of the project?
·Would  the  suggestion  made  in  the  SA  report  address  the  safety  issue,  reducing
the likelihood of occurrence and/or resultant severity?
·Will the suggestion made in the SA report lead to mobility, environmental, or other
non­safety related issues?
·What  would  be  the  cost  associated  with  implementing  the  suggestion  and  how
would  it  compare  to  the  anticipated  reduction  in  societal  collision  costs  (cost­
benefit analysis)?
·Are there more  cost­effective alternatives to achieving  the same or greater safety
benefits?Regardless of
the outcome,
preparing a
response will
help avoid
liability
concerns.

Safety Assessment Guidelines
October 2008S E C T I O N   22 – 15·The  decisions  made,  rationale  behind  each  decision,  and  the  actions  necessary  to
implement the decisions should be properly documented in the formal SA response.
·Form  A  (suggested  layout  provided  inExhibit  2.5)  should  be  filled  out  during  the
review  process.  This  will  ensure  that  nothing  of  importance  is  overlooked  in  the
review  and  those  decisions  and  the  rationales  behind  them  are  properly
documented.
·Form  A  should  be  kept  in  the  project  file  and  may  be  appended  to  the  concise
formal response.
·A  letter  report  format,  signed  by  the  Project  Owner,  is  an  equally  valid  method  of
responding to an SA report.
·The formal response is sent to the SA team and should be kept on file together with
the SA report.
Exhibit 2.5: Principal Layout of Form A ­ “Response on SA Findings and
Suggestions”
2.8  Step 8: Incorporate SA Suggestions
The  objective  of  the  final  step  in  the  SA  process  is  to  implement  the  list  of  accepted
actions  identified  in  the  formal  response  within  the  documented  time  frame.  After  SA
suggestions  are  implemented  per  the  formal  response,  their  implementation  should  be
documented using Form B (suggested layout provided inExhibit 2.6).Issue
identified by
Safety
AssessmentAgree?If disagree,
explain whySafety
Assessment
suggestion(s)To be
implemented?
(yes, no,
partial)If yes, or partial:
deadline for
implementation
and who is in
chargeIf no or
partial,
explain whyIf no or
partial,
describe an
alternative
action, if any
1
2
3
1
2
3FORM A
Safety Assessment: [location/project name] RESPONSE ON SAFETY ASSESSMENT FINDINGS AND SUGGESTIONS

Safety Assessment Guidelines
October 2008 S E C T I O N   22 – 16Exhibit 2.6: Principal Layout of Form B ­  “Implementation of SA Suggestions”Safety
Assessment
suggestionDisposition per
Form AImplemented?If no or partial,
explain whyIf no or partial, describe an alternative action taken, if
any FORM B
IMPLEMENTATION OF SAFETY ASSESSMENT SUGGESTIONS
Safety Assessment:
[location/project name]

Safety Assessment Guidelines
October 2008S E C T I O N   33 – 13.0 SAFETY ASSESSMENT STAGES
SAs  may  be  conducted  at  any  stage  in  the  lifecycle  of  a  transportation  facility.  This
includes  when  existing  facilities  are  in­service,  during  pre­construction  planning,
design, and during construction.
At present  SAs of existing facilities are conducted more frequently in the United States
than any other type of assessment. This is logical, as there are generally more existing
facilities than new facilities being planned, designed, or constructed. The sheer number
of  existing  facilities  also  exceeds  the  quantity  being  studied  for  rehabilitation  or
expansion at any given time.
SAs  conducted  during  the  pre­construction  phase  have  the  greatest  potential  to  cost­
effectively  improve  safety.  These  SAs  examine  a  proposed  facility  before  any  shovels
hit the ground. It is easier to change a line on a drawing than it is to rebuild an existing
facility.
That  said,  a  program  of  SAs  on  existing  (in­service)    facilities  is  relatively  easier  to
implement  and  does  not  involve  the  potential  complication  of  project  delays  that  often
comes  along  with  pre­construction  and  construction  phase  SAs.  This  makes  the  SA  of
existing  facilities  a  logical  starting  point  for  their  integration  into  the  standard  operating
procedure of any jurisdiction. SAs of existing facilities have other advantages, either for
an  initial  series  of  assessments  being  conduced  by  a  jurisdiction  just  embarking  on  its
program or as a component of an ongoing safety management effort.  These include:
1.  An  opportunity  to  generate  “early  wins.”    Early  success  stories  will  support  the
continuation  of  an  SA  program.  Identifying  “sites  of  promise”,  those  where  safety
improvements  are  both  identifiable  and  achievable,  is  critical  to  generating
momentum.  If  network­wide  traffic volume  and  collision  data  are  available,  network
safety  screening  techniques  may  be  used  to  identify  candidate  locations.  A
jurisdiction  might  develop  their  own  “top­down”  ranking  of  sites from  those  with  the
highest  frequency  of  crashes  to  the  lowest.  Unfortunately,  the  location  with  the
highest  crash  rate  is  not  always  the  same  as  that  with  the  highest  potential  for
safety improvement.
Alternatively, by identifying “sites of promise” where there is both a “critical mass” of
collision  of  data    and  a  clear  pattern  of  crashes  to  be  addressed,  a  jurisdiction  can
narrow  the  focus  of  its  SA  program  to  those  locations  where  the  collision
experience  is  susceptible  to  correction  by  proven  engineering,  enforcement,
educational, or ergonomic (human factors) measures.The
assessment
of in­service
facilities is a
logical place
to start an SA
program.

Safety Assessment Guidelines
October 2008 S E C T I O N   33 – 22.  Existing stage  SAs can be coupled with  other  “projects of opportunity” and may
be  conducted in  advance  of maintenance  or  operations activities  such  as traffic
signal  re­timing,  sign  replacement,  or  resurfacing.  In  this  way  a  jurisdiction  can
take  advantage  of  staff  and  resources  already  allocated  to  a  given  location  to
help improve safety.
3.  The  facility  is  built  and  operating.  Unlike  pre­construction  assessments,  the  SA
team  need  not  envision  how  the  facility  will  look  when  constructed,  how  it  will
integrate  with  its  surroundings,  or  how  users  will  interact  with  it  under  varying
conditions.  All    these  aspects  can  be  readily  observed  and  studied  with  a  field
visit .
4.  A  documented  history  of  identified  operational  concerns  may  already  exist.
Operational  deficiencies  may  generate  safety  concerns.  The  results  of  an  SA
and  a  traffic  operations  study  can  be  combined  to  develop  suitable  mitigation
measures.
5.  There  may  be  a  history  of  identified  safety  issues  documented  by  operations
staff  or  identified  as  concerns  by  users  and  elected  officials.  Addressing  these
issues will be perceived as “getting something done.”
6.  Existing facilities may have  a  documented  collision  record.  Analysis of collision
data,  if  available,  can  provide  important  insights  into  existing  and  potential,
future safety concerns.
7.  There  may  be  opportunities  to  conduct  other  studies  which  can  yield  insights
into  safety  issues  or  to  review  the  results  of  prior  studies.  These  may  include:
traffic  control  device  warrant  analyses,  speed  studies,  gap  acceptance  studies,
floating car studies, conflict studies, and positive guidance reviews.
8.  Assessment  suggestions  requiring  maintenance,  operations,  or  minor  capital
expenditures may be quickly implemented.
9.  Assessment  suggestions  requiring  major  capital  expenditures  can  be
programmed  and  funded  in  a  coherent  manner  in  line  with  other  projects being
driven by capacity, infrastructure management, or environmental stewardship.
A. EXISTING FACILITIES (IN­SERVICE) PHASE SAFETY ASSESSMENTS
3.1  E Stage SAs ­ SAs of Existing (In­Service) Facilities
In  contrast  with  traditional  safety  studies  where  the  review  of  crash  data  is  the  driving
force  behind  the  identification  of  safety  issues,  SAs  of  existing  facilities  use  qualitative
techniques  and  rely  mainly  on  site  visits,  as­built  drawings,  and  other  project  data  to
determine  what  safety  issues  may  exist  on  site.  For  this  reason,  an  E  stage  SA  isE
Existing

Safety Assessment Guidelines
October 2008S E C T I O N   33 – 3inherently proactive, identifies where crashes might occur, and considers their potential
severity. Crash data, if available, should be used to supplement any findings made as a
result  of  the  site  visit  and  project  data  review.  SAs  of  existing  facilities  can  be
conducted  at  sites  with  no  significant  crash  history  or  where  no  crash  records  have
been kept.  They may also be conducted at locations of planned projects. For  example,
a  roadway  owner  may  choose  to  perform  an  SA  at  the  site  of  a  proposed  pavement
overlay.
SAs of existing facilities can vary in scope. Six different but commonly conducted types
of SAs on existing facilities are as follows:
·SAs of specific locations;
·SAs of an entire arterial segment, freeway
segment, or roadway network;
·SAs of a specific intersection, location, feature
or design element within a transportation
corridor;
·SAs of a transit facility or on­road stop;
·SAs of a transit terminal; and
·SAs of a trail facility.
Each  of  the  above  SA  types  may  not  result  only  in  engineering  countermeasures,  but
involve other initiatives such as reducing exposure to risk through the development and
improved  use  of  other  modes  of  transportation,  mass  transit,  Intelligent  Transportation
Systems (ITS), safety education, and enforcement.
Major considerations for existing facility assessments are provided below.
·Field visits during both the day time and night time hours are a critical component of
an  E  stage  SA.  This  will  allow  the  SA  team  members  to  experience  the  facility  first
hand under different conditions, observe the interaction of all users and drive, walk,
or cycle it as appropriate.
·Photographs  or  high  quality  digital  video  footage  should  be  taken  of  anything  that
may  need  to  be  reviewed  or  revisited  while  writing  the  SA  report  or  presenting  the
SA  findings  to  the  Project  Owner.  Digital  video  footage  is  especially  useful  for  the
office reviews and analyses conducted after a field visit.Considerations
for SAs of
existing
facilities

Safety Assessment Guidelines
October 2008 S E C T I O N   33 – 4·Taking  into  account  that  an  assessment  of  an  existing  facility  may  be  conducted  a
considerable  time after the facility was put into operation, it is important to consider
whether  the  facility  under  review  still  has  the  same  function  and  classification  as  it
did  when  originally  designed  and  constructed.  For  example,  changes  in  traffic
volume, vehicle mix, the increased presence of non­motorized users, or changes in
adjoining  land  use  may  have  rendered  the  original  functional  classification  and
design of the facility obsolete.
·When  suggesting  safety  improvements  the  SA  team  should  consider  short  term,
medium  term,  and  long  term  countermeasures.  Development  of  alternative
countermeasures may be appropriate. SA team members should be sensitive to the
fact  than  a  facility  Owner  may  view    an  E  stage  SA  as  a  work  generating  exercise
and should be sensitive to the constraints, perhaps physical or budgetary, faced by
an  organization  or  municipality.  It  may  be  helpful  to  review  and  agree  upon  the
scope of potential improvements with the Owner prior to conducting an SA.
B. PRE­CONSTRUCTION PHASE SAFETY ASSESSMENTS
3.2  P Stage SA ­ Planning Stage SAs
Planning  stage  SAs  provide  the  opportunity  to  make  fundamental  changes  before
proceeding  to  design.  In  practice,  a  planning  stage  assessment  may  be  conducted  at
one of three sub stages:
·PL­1 – scoping stage;
·PL­2 – a set of preferred planning alternatives is ready; and
·PL­3  –a feasible  planning alternative (or a set of feasible  planning alternatives) has
been selected for forwarding to preliminary design.
Aspects of planning stage SAs include:
·A field visit should be conducted if at all practical.
·Locations where a proposed facility may tie to the existing transportation network or
pass through existing communities are of particular interest for a field visit.P
Planning

Safety Assessment Guidelines
October 2008S E C T I O N   33 – 5·The  SA  team  may  question  fundamental  decisions  regarding  route  choice,  overall
design criteria, alignment, grade separation options, and more.
·The SA team should review each of the alternatives.
·Collision diagrams should be provided if available.
·Large  scale  plans  showing  planning  alternatives  with  principal  safety  concerns
plotted may be a useful means of illustrating issues and can be appended to the SA
report
3.3  D Stage SA ­ Design Stage SAs
Design  stage  SAs  provide  the  opportunity  to  suggest  physical  changes  to  the  plans.
Caution  on  the  part  of  the  SA  team  is  necessary  to  make  sure  that  all  design
parameters  are  understood.  Recommendations  made  by  the  team  that  alter  these
parameters  should  be  thoroughly  discussed  with  the  designers  and  the  impacts
documented.
In practice, a design stage assessment may be conducted at one of two sub stages:
·D­1 – preliminary design stage with plans 30% to 40% complete; and
·D­2 – detailed design stage with plans 60% to 80% complete.
During preliminary design stage SAs:
·Non­standard  features  and  non­conforming  features  should  be  brought  to  the  SA
team’s attention and thoroughly reviewed.
·Where  significant  land  acquisition  is  involved  in  the  project,  the  SA  should  be
conducted before proposed highway boundaries are finalized.
·A field visit should be conducted in all cases.
·Locations where the proposed project will tie into the existing transportation network
or pass through communities are of particular interest for a field visit.
·The  SA  team  should  not  question  fundamental  decisions  regarding  route  choice,
overall  design  criteria,  or  layout  of  preliminary  alternatives  unless  a  significant,
definable error or omission is apparent.D
Design
A Design
Stage SA
should not
question
fundamental
decisions,
however it
may address
past errors or
omissions.

Safety Assessment Guidelines
October 2008 S E C T I O N   33 – 6·The  SA  team  may  suggest  significant  physical  changes  for  a  road  such  as
horizontal  and  vertical  alignment  shifts,  different  intersection  treatments,  lane  and
shoulder  width  adjustments,  provision  of  bicycle  lanes  and/or  sidewalks,
channelization, and access consolidation.
·When feasible  alternatives  remain  under  consideration,  the  SA team  should  review
each of those alternatives.
·If  phased  implementation  of  the  project  is  planned,  each  phase  should  be
considered as well as transitions between those phases.
·The  ability  of  the  design  to  accommodate  future  widening,  expansion,  or  extension
should be considered.
Detailed  design  stage  SAs  provide  the  last  opportunity  to  change  the  design  of  the
preferred  alternative  before  construction  begins.  Land  acquisition  may  be  finalized
during  this  stage  and  will  prevent  the  SA  team  from  making  any  recommendations
involving significant changes to alignment or typical section.
Major features of detailed design stage SAs include:
·Non­standard  and  non­conforming  features  should  be  brought  to  the  SA  team’s
attention and thoroughly reviewed.
·A field visit should be conducted in all cases.
·Locations  where  the  project  will  tie  into  the  existing  transportation  network  or  pass
through communities are of particular interest for a field visit.
·The  opportunities  for  the  SA  team  to  suggest  significant  physical  changes  are
limited, especially if land acquisitions have already been finalized.
·If  phased  implementation  of  the  project  is  planned,  each  phase  should  be
considered, as well as  transitions between those phases.
·If  work  zone  traffic  control  plans  have  been  developed,  their  review  should  be
included  in  the  scope  of  the  SA.  The  SA  team  may  also  conduct  an  SA  of  work
zone traffic control as a separate effort sometime before construction begins.

Safety Assessment Guidelines
October 2008S E C T I O N   33 – 73.4  L Stage SAs – SAs Related to Land­Use Developments
Land­use  developments  often  have  an  impact  on  the  safety  performance  of  adjacent
transportation facilities as a result of site generated traffic and points of direct or indirect
access.  Existing,  crossing,  or  parallel  vehicle,  pedestrian  and  bicycle  flows,  as  well  as
those  generated  by  the  land­use  development  are  important  factors  affecting  safety
performance.  Some  developments  may  create  visual  clutter,  affect  sight  lines,  or  even
change  the  character  of  the  environment  from  rural  to  suburban  or  urban.
Developments  themselves  may  involve  a  network  of  access  roads,  driveways,  parking
areas,  transit  interfaces,  cycling  facilities  and  sidewalks  which  could  undergo  the  SA
process.  This  may  be  especially  important  where  one  or  more  roads  within  a  land­use
development assume the function of or are to be dedicated as public facilities.
Not  all  developments  must  undergo  SAs.  International  experience  shows  the  greatest
safety benefits realized from assessments conducted on:
·Strategic (master) plans.
·Land  use­developments  of  significant  size  (e.g.,  major  shopping  centers,  parking
areas with over 50 stalls, residential subdivisions with over 20 lots, etc.).
·Land­use  applications  which  connect  directly  to  an  arterial  roadway  or  other
significant traffic route.
·Land­use  applications  generating  significant  numbers  of  pedestrians  and/or
bicyclists interacting with the adjacent transportation network.
·Applications  that  extend  the  limits  of  a  community  along  an  otherwise  rural  or
suburban  roadway,  or  to  both  sides  of  facilities  carrying  large  volumes  of  through
traffic.
Developments  that  fit  the  above  criteria  often  include  gas  stations,  office  buildings,
major  commercial  or  industrial  developments  and  recreational  developments  including
parks, etc.L
Land Use

Safety Assessment Guidelines
October 2008 S E C T I O N   33 – 8Major aspects of land­use development stage SAs include:
·Changes  in  facility  function,  classification,  environment,  traffic  volumes,  and
pedestrian/bicycle flows projected to occur as a result of the development should be
considered at the outset.
·Both  a day time  and night  time field visit are  critical to  a land­use development  SA.
These  experiences  will  assist  the  SA  team  members  in  examining  the  projected
impacts, design, and mitigation plans under a variety of applicable conditions.
·SA  team  members  should  be  mindful  that  concerns  uncovered  during  land­use
development  stage  SAs  may  suggest  mitigation  beyond  pure  engineering
countermeasures  that  improve  the  use  of  mass  transit.  Multi­modal  connections,
ITS, safety education, and enforcement may also be applicable.
B. CONSTRUCTION PHASE SAFETY ASSESSMENTS
3.5  C Stage SA ­ Pre­Opening SAs (Construction Practically Complete)
Pre­opening SAs are usually performed on newly­constructed or reconstructed facilities
immediately  prior  to  their  opening.  They  represent  the  last  opportunity  for  an  SA  team
to identify potential safety concerns before road users are exposed.
For pre­opening stage SAs:
·It is desirable for C stage assessments to be scheduled such that the SA report can
be presented and any issues addressed before the Contractor demobilizes. Making
changes to a facility or addressing issues after the Contractor leaves the project site
can be difficult.
·Field  visits  during  both  the  day  time
and  at  night  time  are  critical.  This
allows  SA  team  members  the
opportunity  to  see  first  hand  the  built
transportation  facility  and  drive,  walk,
or  cycle  it  as  appropriate.  At  that  time
they  can  imagine  the  interaction  of  all
users  under  differing  conditions.
These  field  visits  will  provide  an
opportunity  to  evaluate  the  safety  of
road  features  or  combinations  of
features  not  apparent  when  simply
reviewing the contract plans.C
Construction
Day and night
visits are
crucial to
Construction
Stage SAs

Safety Assessment Guidelines
October 2008S E C T I O N   33 – 9·Non­standard  and  non­conforming  features  should  be  brought  to  the  SA  team’s
attention and thoroughly reviewed.
·When  available,  markups  of  the  contact  plans  or  as­built  drawings  should  be
provided  to  the  SA  team  to  indicate  how  the  built  environment  departs  from  the
contract plans developed during detailed design.
·During  the  field  visit  for  a  road,  members  of  the  SA  team  should  verify  that  all
temporary  signage,  pavement  markings,  construction  equipment,  barriers,  fencing,
materials and debris have been removed from the facility.
·C  stage  assessments  must  be  conducted  relatively  quickly  given  the  costs
associated  with  any  delay  in  the  opening  of  a  new  transportation  facility.
Opportunities  to  review  video  footage  in  the  office  will  be  limited.  Larger  SA  teams
may be more effective.
·To  expedite  the  process,  the  SA  team  may  arrange  for  a  meeting  with  the  Project
Owner and  representatives  of  the design and  construction  teams  immediately after
the  field  visit,  while  on­site,  to  share firsthand any  safety concerns  identified  and to
suggest  improvements.  This  will  allow  the  Project  Owner  and  design  team  to
address  the  identified  safety  issues  appropriately  and  minimize  delays  in  the
opening of the facility. The SA team may then follow up with their SA report.
·Due  to  time  constraints,  the  Project  Owner  and  design  team  may  complete  their
formal  SA  response  after  countermeasures  discussed  on  site  have  been
implemented and the transportation facility has been opened to the public.
3.6  Other SAs at the Construction Stage
SAs  may  also  be  conducted  when  construction  field  changes  are  proposed.  Elements
of  a  design  that  would  be  modified  should  be  resubmitted  for  SA  prior  to  construction.
The  SA  team  should  be  on  standby  during  construction  and  review  changes  as  they
arise  when  this  type  of  SA  is  planned  in  advance.  There  may  be  a  benefit  to  retaining
the  same  SA  team  that  conducted  the  D  stage  assessment  as  its  members  would
already  be  familiar  with  the  project.  Specific  procedures  and  the  scope  for  such  SAs
may be defined on a case­by­case basis by the Project Owner.

Safety Assessment Guidelines
October 2008 S E C T I O N   33 – 10Similar SAs may be conducted when a value engineering study is conducted. There are
also  opportunities  to  conduct  SAs  of  work  zone  traffic  control  plans  or  construction
staging plans, although these types of SAs are uncommon.
The  procedures  involved  in  C  stage  SAs  are  essentially  the  same  as  for  all  other  SA
stages  outlined  inSection  2.0.,  however  these  SAs  may  be  less  intensive.  For
example,  a  pre­assessment  meeting  may  not  be  necessary  in  all  cases.  Specific
procedures  and  the  scope  should  be  defined  on  a  case­by­case  basis  by  the  Project
Owner.

Safety Assessment Guidelines
October 2008S E C T I O N   44 – 14.0 SELECTION OF PROJECTS AND LOCATIONS FOR SAFETY
ASSESSMENTS
SA programs may encompass projects of any size being undertaken at any point in the
lifecycle of a transportation facility. Policies on choosing projects for SAs throughout the
United  States  vary.  Selection  of  project  types  are  reflective  of  local  citizen  interest,
administrative  input,  and  project  costs,  etc.  Similarly,  policies  on  selecting  existing
facilities  for  SAs  vary  from  strictly  defined  quantitative  criteria  (e.g.,  certain  number  of
high­risk  intersections  and  segments  in  a  jurisdiction)  identified  through  a  process  of
network  safety  screening  to  area­wide  SAs.  The  latter  approach  often  requires  that  all
facilities  in  a  county,  town,  city,  village,  etc.  undergo  SAs  within  several  years  with  a
certain  proportion  undergoing  SAs  annually.  Some  policies  require  conducting  SAs  on
all facilities scheduled for pavement overlay, rehabilitation, or reconstruction projects.
A  word  of  caution  is  warranted  here.  Jurisdictions  should  not“over­reach”  with  their
SA  program  by  generating  more  assessments  and  suggestions  for  potential  safety
improvements  than  may  be  reasonably  responded  to  and  implemented.  It  is
recommended that  each  jurisdiction,  working  with  the  Safety  Assessment  Coordinator,
establish a program that they can manage comfortably within the resources available.
It is important for a jurisdiction to “pace” their SA program in a manner which allows the
broader  organization  to  digest  and  respond  to  reports  and  suggestions  as  they  are
completed.  Picture  an  SA  report  containing  suggestions  regarding  an  existing  road,
dated  two  years  ago,  and  lacking  either  a  response  report  or  an  action  plan.  Now
imagine its existence is identified subsequent to a recent incident within the study area.
Defending  why  the  jurisdiction  had  commissioned  the  report  and  received  information
on  how  to  improve  safety  in  the  study  area  yet  failed  to  take  any  action  within  a
reasonable period of time would likely prove difficult.
Selection  criteria  may  be  simple  in  initial  focus,
but  modified  in  response  to  emerging  needs,
issues, available funding, and resources. These
needs,  priorities  and  capacities  may  vary  over
time  and  programs  should  be  regularly
reviewed  and  adjusted  in  response.  Such
policies  may  evolve  from  relatively  loosely­
worded  statements  encouraging  the  conduct  of
SAs (such as those that are common when SAsJurisdictions
should work
with their
Safety
Assessment
Coordinators
to establish a
manageable
program level.

Safety Assessment Guidelines
October 2008 S E C T I O N   44 – 2are  initially  introduced  to  a  jurisdiction)  to  project  selection  matrices  that  attain  the
status of standard.
In  all  cases, it  is  beneficial to  have a  policy on selecting  projects  and locations for  SAs
which  reflects  the  specifics  of  the  jurisdiction.  Agencies  should  make  their  own
decisions about which projects should undergo SAs and when they should occur based
upon statewide, regional and/or local issues, priorities, and capacities.
Jurisdiction­specific policies should take into account and balance the following:
·The need to be proactive in managing safety on existing facilities as traffic volumes
increase, development progresses, and traffic patterns change;
·The  availability  of  adequate  crash  data,  quantitative  tools,  and  qualified  personnel
to  identify  high­risk  locations  in  a  jurisdiction  (to  screen  for  and  select  high­risk
locations on existing facilities);
·The  opportunities  presented  by  projects  being  driven  by  other  priorities,  such  as
infrastructure  preservation  (resurfacing  and  rehabilitation  projects,  transit  facility
upgrades, utility projects) or developments and redevelopments;
·The greater opportunities, at less cost, to identify and remedy safety issues early in
the  planning  and  design  process  for  new  facilities  and  for  facilities  undergoing
expansion, including the management of traffic while staging the work;
·The “last chance” opportunities presented during construction and before the public
is exposed to the facility;
·The potential need to conduct SAs of specific facility elements (e.g. the implications
on pedestrian safety of using channelized right turns at major urban intersections or
roadside  safety  treatments)  or  planning,  design,  operations  and/or  maintenance
practices  (e.g.  access  configurations,  leading/lagging  left  turn  phases,  roadway
marking replacement program);
·Available funding; and
·Availability of trained SA teams and other resources.
Once a jurisdiction defines its policy on project selection, it may wish to supplement that
with a matrix. The matrix would assist in identifying thetypes of projects to be assessed
and provide guidance on the desirability of SAs.
Types of projects identified as SA candidates may include the following:
·Major  Capital  Projects  (highways,  bridges,  interchanges,  road/rail  grade  separation
crossings, major intersections, transit facilities, pedestrian/bike trails); Guidance on
the
development
of
Jurisdiction­
Specific
Policies.

Safety Assessment Guidelines
October 2008S E C T I O N   44 – 3·Minor  Capital  Projects  (highways,  bridges,  interchanges,  road/rail  at­grade
crossings,  minor intersections, bus stops);
·Traffic control improvements, traffic circulation schemes, traffic calming schemes;
·Pedestrian  and  bicycle  facilities  (sidewalks,  multi­use  paths,  bicycle  routes  or
lanes);
·Major land use development projects; and
·Minor land use development projects.
Similarly,  once  a  jurisdiction  defines  its  policy  on  project  selection,  it  may  wish  to
supplement that with a matrix which guides thelocation of projects to be assessed and
provides guidance on the desirability of SAs.
Locations of projects identified as SA candidates may include the following:
·High­crash intersections;
·High­crash road segments;
·Locations of expressed concern to users,
elected officials, and/or partner
jurisdictions;
·High­volume facilities;
·Locations selected for rehabilitation,
resurfacing, or reconstruction projects;
and
·Locations identified from other sources.
The  degree of desirability for the  various stages of  SAs may be: “SA not required”, “To
be decided on a case by case basis”, or “Mandatory.”Candidate SA
Locations

Safety Assessment Guidelines
October 2008S E C T I O N   55 – 15.0 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES IN THE SAFETY
ASSESSMENT PROCESS
Guiding the SA process within a jurisdiction involves the following principal functions:
·The SA Program Liaison may assist in the development of a jurisdiction­specific SA
program,  tailor  a  standardized  SA  process  to  the  specifics  of  a  jurisdiction,  and
arrange  for  institutional  support,  funding,  training,  monitoring,  and  promotion  of
SAs.  In  New  York  State,  a  representative  of  the  MPO  may  act  as  the  SA  Program
Liaison  for their  given  area.  A representative  of  one  or multiple  jurisdictions  may fill
this role for areas not covered by an MPO (i.e. County Highway Department).
·The  SA  Coordinator  is  appointed  to  implement  and  manage  a  safety  assessment
program within a jurisdiction. The SA Coordinator shall be trained in the SA process
and provide support to the Project Owner.
·The  selection  and  conduct  of  individual  SAs,  at  any  stage  in  the  lifecycle  of  a
transportation  facility  and  according  to  established  SA  guidelines,  is  the
responsibility of the Project Owner within a local jurisdiction.
A suggested organizational chart for the SA process is presented inExhibit  5.1. Major
parties in the SA process and their roles and responsibilities are defined inExhibit 5.2.
Note  that  the  identified  roles  and  responsibilities  are  offered  as  a  general  guideline
only.  Each  jurisdiction  may  develop  its  own  roles  and  responsibilities  flowchart  tailored
to their specific organizational structure and in light of special local considerations.
Exhibit 5.1: Organizational Structure for the SA processSA Program Liaison
MPO Representative or
Jurisdictional RepresentativeSA Coordinator
Representative of one
or Multiple JurisdictionsProject
Owner
VillageProject
Owner
CityProject
Owner
CountyProject
Owner
TownRoles of the
SA Program
Liaison,
Coordinator,
and Owner.

Safety Assessment Guidelines
October 2008 S E C T I O N   55 – 2Exhibit 5.2: Major Parties in the SA process and their Roles and ResponsibilitiesPartyRoles and Responsibilities
Safety Assessment
Program Liaison
(MPO or Jurisdictional
Representative)·Approves SA Program
·Approves SA Program Funding
·Regularly Reviews results of the SA Program
·Supports efforts of SA program Coordinators
Safety Assessment
Program Coordinator
(Representative of one
or Multiple
Jurisdictions)·Undergoes SA training as needed and keeps abreast of the latest
procedures, developments and tools
·Develops policies on selecting projects and locations for SAs
·Tailors SA Guidelines to local specifics and needs
·Prepares the SA program on an annual basis
·Prepares proposals for funding the SA program
·Manages and monitors the SA program
·Develops templates for SA Terms of Reference (ToRs)
·Establishes selection criteria for SA teams.
·Conducts Quality Control of SAs and formal responses
·Collects and analyses SA evaluation forms (Form C)
·Prepares regular reports on the SA program for the Oversight Body
·Makes presentations to the Oversight Body as needed
Project Owner
(i.e. Village, Town, City
or County)·Tailors template ToRs for SAs
·Initiates SAs
·Selects SA teams
·Conducts Pre­SA meetings
·Reviews SA reports
·Prepares formal response with input from DPW / Planning / Design or
Traffic Engineering / Maintenance teams as appropriate (incl. Form A)
·Monitors the implementation of actions as per Form A and prepares
Form B with input from DPW / Planning / Design or Traffic
Engineering / Maintenance teams as appropriate
·Keeps all SA documentation on file
DPW, Design Team,
Traffic Engineering
Team, or Maintenance
Team·Prepares data for the SA team
·Participates in the Pre­SA meeting
·Provides additional data to the SA team as needed
·Reviews SA report
·Provides input to the Project Owner for the preparation of the formal
response
·Implements suggestions as per the formal response (Form A)
·Provides input to the Project Owner to complete Form B
SA Team·Reviews data received and requests more data / clarifications as
needed
·Participates in the Pre­SA meeting
·Conducts SA
·Presents SA findings orally
·Prepares SA report
·Completes SA evaluation Form C and submits it to the SA Program
Coordinator

Safety Assessment Guidelines
October 2008S E C T I O N   66 – 16.0 REQUIREMENTS FOR A SAFETY ASSESSMENT TEAM
6.1  Core Skill­Sets
Core skill­sets of an SA Team may include the following:
·Transportation  Safety  Practitioner  (capability  to:  understand  the  causal  factors
which  may  lead  to  crashes;  identify  and  assess  effective  treatments  which  may
address  the  frequency  of  occurrence  and/or  severity  outcomes  of  such  crashes;
and training in and/or experience with SAs).
·Department  of  Public Works/Traffic/Transit  Operations  Practitioner  (knowledge  and
experience  in the field of traffic  operations;  principles  of traffic flow;  the relationship
between  capacity  and  demand;  causes  of  congestion;  understanding  of  the  proper
placement  and  use  of  traffic  control  devices;  and  understanding  of  the  impacts  of
different treatments upon multimodal traffic operations).
·Designer  (knowledge  and  experience  in  transportation  facility  design;  experience
and  familiarity  with  Federal,  State,  and  local  statutory  requirements,  regulations,
policies,  standards  and  practices  in  design;  understanding  of  the  relationship
between  transportation  elements  that  contribute  to  the  relative  safety  of  all  users;
and  familiarity  with  the  Americans  with  Disabilities  Act  Accessibility  Guidelines
(ADAAG) for transportation facilities that will be used by pedestrians.)
·Local  Contact  Person  (familiar  with  the  area  under  review  and  the  transportation
safety issues experienced there; a law enforcement officer would ideally fill this role
for SAs of existing transportation facilities).Persons
selected for
an SA team
may have one
of more of the
Core Skills

Safety Assessment Guidelines
October 2008 S E C T I O N   66 – 26.2  Supplemental Skill­sets
The  core  skill  set  should  be  supplemented  by  persons  with  additional  skills  and
experience  as  needed  (such  as  a  practitioner  with  knowledge  and  experience  in  an
applicable  transportation  mode:  transit;  rail;  cycling;  etc.)  and  depending  on  the  SA
stage may also include the following:
·E  Stage:  The  core  qualifications  may  be  strengthened  with  an  expert  in  crash
investigation/reconstruction,  a  local  maintenance  representative,  first­responders,
etc.  Local  drivers  (e.g.  transit,  taxi)  could  be  approached  to  share  their  knowledge
of the existing facility and to relay their own personal safety concerns.
·P  Stage:  It  is  important  to  have  a  member  experienced  in  transportation  planning
with  an  understanding  of  the  safety  effects  of  planning  alternatives,  long­range
solutions, and how planning schemes fit into the existing transportation network.
·D­1  Stage: It  is  important that  the  SA Team  includes  a  design practitioner  capable
of  visualizing  the  facility  being  reviewed  in  three  dimensions  with  all  its
appurtenances.
·D­2  Stage:  The  SA  Team  should  include  those  with  skills  and  experience  in
roadside  protection,  traffic  control  device  application,  ITS,  pedestrian,  bicycle,  and
transit  facilities,  as  appropriate.  Depending  on  project  features,  these  skills  and
experience  may  be  supplemented  by  work  zone  traffic  control,  construction
(staging),  road  maintenance,  enforcement,  first  response,  school  transportation,
highway­rail grade crossing, or other specific skills and experience.
·C  Stage:  The  field  review  could  be  strengthened  by  human  factors,  positive
guidance, maintenance, and law enforcement expertise.
It  is  not  necessary  to  include  experts  in  all  of  these  fields  as  full­time,  formal  team
members. They may be called upon to advise the SA Team on matters relating to their
specialty on an as­needed basis.
6.3  Minimum Team Size
The SA team should include a minimum of three members for simple projects and up to
six  members  for  larger  projects.  Larger  teams  are  acceptable  for  very  complex  SAs  or
SA training. The SA
Teams should
typically
range in size
between 3
and 6
members.

Safety Assessment Guidelines
October 2008S E C T I O N   66 – 36.4  Independence of Safety Assessment Team
The freedom,  ability, and comfort  of SA team members to comment frankly and openly
on  potentially  controversial  safety  issues  are  crucial  to  the  success  of  an  SA.  The
purpose  of  independence  is  to  avoid  any  direct  conflict  of  interest,  agenda,  or  pre­
existing biases which may adversely affect the SA team’s findings and suggestions. It is
achieved by careful selection of the SA team members, as follows:
·P, D and C Stages: SA Team members should be independent of the design team
directly responsible for the development of the original plans. Sourcing an SA Team
Leader  from  outside  of  the  design  group  (e.g.,  from  Operations  or  Maintenance)
and  Team  members  from  within  the  design  group  but  from  those  without  direct
responsibility  for  the  design  being  assessed,  is  one  option  for  achieving
independence.  Engineering,  operations,  maintenance,  and  other  representatives  of
the agency may round out the Team, either as participants or as advisors.
·E  Stage:  SA  Team  members  should  be  independent  of  the  team  directly
responsible  for  operating  and  maintaining  the  existing  facility  if  possible.  If    team
members  do  come  from  within  the  operating  and  maintaining  organization  they
should  be  open  minded  about  the  facility.  Sourcing  an  SA  Team  Leader  from
outside of the operations and maintenance group (e.g., from Engineering or Design)
and  SA  Team  members  from  within  the  group  but  from  those  without  direct
responsibility  for the facility is  one  option for achieving  independence.  Engineering,
design, and other representatives of the agency may round out the SA Team, either
as participants or as advisors.
Other options for achieving independence may include sourcing SA Team Leaders and
members from  other agencies on a reciprocal basis, accessing  Federal programs such
as  the  FHWA  Peer­to­Peer  RSA  assistance  program,  or  engaging  a  road  safety
consultant  with  SA  knowledge  and  experience  to  either  lead  or  perform  the
assessment.SA Team
members
from within
their own
jurisdictions
should
approach the
SA with an
open mind.

Safety Assessment Guidelines
October 2008S E C T I O N   77 – 17.0 SELECTION OF A SAFETY ASSESSMENT TEAM
There  are  three  basic  options  for  selecting  SA  Teams.  Jurisdictions  may  choose  to
utilize  one  or  all  of  these,  especially  during  initial  implementation  of  the  SA  process.
Based  on  initial  results  and  as  experience  is  accumulated,  some  options  may  be
excluded or amended.
Team selection may be done as follows:
·from  within  their  own  agency,  another  public  agency  (usually  in  neighboring
jurisdictions), or from within different levels of the same agency.
·as a part of the consultant selection process for planning and design projects (P, D,
and  C  SAs).  In  this  case,  the  SA  Team  would  be  hired  as  a  sub­consultant  to  the
design team and compensated by the prime consultant.
·independent of the consultant selection process on planning and design projects (P,
D and C SAs). This could involve hiring only an SA Team Leader to lead an internal
SA Team or hiring an entire team through a designated selection process.
If the option of using an outside consultant team or team leader is chosen,the SA
Program Coordinator should define general parameters for selection by completing one
or more of the following tasks:
·Preparing template Terms of Reference (ToRs) for SAs.
·Establishing general selection criteria for SA Teams (e.g., 20% for project approach
and  understanding,  25%  for  qualifications  and  experience,  30%  for  previous
performance, 15% for responsiveness and 10% for firm’s credentials).
·Compiling  a  list  of  pre­qualified  SA  consultants  for  planning/design  projects  and
requiring  planning/design  teams  to  choose  an  SA  subconsultant  from  the  pre­
qualified list.The method
of team
selection may
vary greatly
from
jurisdiction to
jurisdiction
based on their
size.

Safety Assessment Guidelines
October 2008S E C T I O N   88 – 18.0 FORMAT OF A SAFETY ASSESSMENT REPORT
Standardization  of  the  SA  report  format  facilitates  preparation  and  review.  Three  basic
outlines for the SA report are shown inExhibit 8.1.
Part  A  of  the  SA  report  format  contains  background  data.  Part  B  of  the  SA  report  may
be formatted using three different sorting options, as follows:
·Format  1:  Identified  safety  issues  are  sorted  first  by  topic/subtopic,  then  by
location,  and  finally  by  likely  severity  outcomes.  Likely  severity  outcomes  may  be
determined  using  the  Safety  Risk  concept  where  the  severity  outcomes  of  the
issues  are  estimated  qualitatively  by  the  SA  team  members  in  terms  of  exposure,
probability,  and  consequence.  The  details  of  Safety  Risk  are  identified  in  Appendix
“B” Glossary of Terms.
·Format  2:  Identified  safety  issues  are  sorted  first  by  location,  then  by  severity
(Safety Risk); and
·Format 3: Identified safety issues are sorted by severity only (Safety Risk).
Exhibit  8.2 provides a specific template for Format 3 of the SA report. The format of an
SA  report  is  further  illustrated  by  three  case  studies  provided  inAppendix  A. Use of
the FHWA RSA software may be beneficial in ensuring standardization of SA reports. It
provides an interface for entering all data and findings and is capable of converting the
entered  information  into  a  draft  SA  report  formatted  to  any  of  the  templates  described
above.
Severity (Safety Risk) associated with each suggestion may be determined using either
of  three  basic  qualitative  approaches,  aggregated,  fully  disaggregated,  and  partially­
disaggregated, as follows:
Aggregated approach:
Members  of  the  SA  team  estimate  the  severity  of  each  identified  safety  issue  (Safety
Risk) directly, using gradations “very low”, “low”, “medium”, “high” and “very high”.
Fully disaggregated approach:
Members  of  the  SA  team  estimate  the  severity  (Safety  Risk)  of  each  identified  safety
issue  through  the  estimation  of  exposure  (E),  probability  (P),  and  consequence  (C)
associated with  each issue where Safety Risk is a function of E, P, and C. Exposure isThree
suggested
formats for an
SA Report

Safety Assessment Guidelines
October 2008 S E C T I O N   88 – 2Exhibit 8.1: Three Basic Options for the SA reportDRAFT Road Safety Assessment REPORT
SA Proje ct T itle
Part B RSA findings
[ Tit le and  logo  (opt ional) of  the projec t  owner]
Header

Project Title:Da te:
RSA Team a nd Participa nts:
Ba ckground:S A   P r o c e ss:SA Stage:
Foote r

Part A
Proje ct  Da ta
Forma t 1:  Firs t  Topic  / Subt opic s ,t hen loc at ion and  then  is s ues   for
eac   loc at ion  s ort ed  by   s everity .
Ex ample:
I NTERS ECTI ONSPe de stria nsInt ers ec tion X
is s ue  A (ris k =  5)is s ue  B (ris k =  3)is s ue  C (ris k =  1)
ntersection Yis s ue  D (ris k =  4)
is s ue  E (ris k =  2)is s ue  F  (ris k =  1)
LightingInt ers ec tion Xis s ue  G  (ris k =  3)
is s ue  H (ris k =  2)
Int ers ec tion Zissue I (risk= 4)
issue J(risk= 1)
RS A  FI NDI NGS
FORMAT 2:Firs t  loc at ions   and t henis s ues   for eac h  loc at ion  s orted  byseverity.
Ex ample:Int ers ec t ion  X
issue A (risk= 5)issue B (risk= 3)issue G (risk= 3)
issue H (risk= 2)issue C (risk= 1)
Int ers ec t ion  Yissue D (risk= 4)issue E (risk= 2)
issue F (risk= 1)
Int ers ec t ion  Z
issue I (risk= 4)issue J (risk= 1)
Format 3: Issues sortedby  s everit y ,  independent
of checklist topics andloc ation.
Ex ample:is s ue  A (ris k =  5)is s ue  D (ris k =  4)
issue I (risk= 4)is s ue  B (ris k =  3)is s ue  G  (ris k =  3)
is s ue  E (ris k =  2)is s ue  H (ris k =  2)is s ue  C (ris k =  1)is s ue  F (ris k =  1)
is s ue  J  (ris k =  1)

Standardization
of the SA report
format greatly
facilitates their
preparation and
review.SAeach location sorted by severity.Intersection YDRAFT

Safety Assessment Guidelines
October 2008S E C T I O N   88 – 3Exhibit 8.2: Specific Template for Format 3 of the SA reportSafety Assessment REPORT
[SA Projec t Title]Part A
P roj e ct  Da taPart B
SA findings  [Tit le  and logo (opt ional) of t he  projec t  owner]Header                                                           SA FINDINGS
Issue:[ b rief  is s ue t itle is  provided here]Location:[ b rief  loc ation desc ript ion is  provided here]
Description  of  Safety  Issue:
[Conc is e des c ription  of s afet y  is sue  is  provided here including why   it  is   perc eived to  be  a ris k ]
[Photos   or s c hemes   are provided to  illust rat e s afet y  is s ue]
Road Safety Risk (optional):
Expos ure:  [ use  s c ale 1­5:  very  low,  low,  medium,  high,  very high]
Prob ab ility:  [ use  s c ale 1­5:  very  low,  low,  medium,  high,  very high]
Cons equence:  [ us e  s c ale 1­5:  very  low,  low,  medium,  high,  very high]
Road  Safet y  Ris k :  [ use  s c ale 1­5:  very  low,  low,  medium,  high,  very high]
Suggestion:
[Conc is e des c ription  of s ugges tion to  mit igat e/eliminate  s afety   is s ue is   provided here]
[May   inc lude s hort ­t erm,  medium  term,  long  term road  engineering  count ermeas ures  and  mult i­modal
cons iderat ions ,  enforc ement ac t ivities ,  safety  educ ation  and engineering  s olutions   if  in  sc ope].Da te:  [ beginning and end dat e of  the S A]
RSA Te a m a nd Pa rticipa nts:
[SA team leader, members, affiliations]
Ba ckground:[Brief des cript ion of t he  projec t ,  inc luding  the SA  s c ope  and objec tives   and  any   s pec ial is sues   rais ed bythe  projec t  owner  or des ign  team,  SA  s tage,  reas ons  for projec t  init iat ion,  s elec tion  of projec t/ loc ation
for SA,  iss ues  already  k nown,  previous  SA  report  if  any ,  dat a rec eived for  SA et c .]
[Projec t  loc ation  c an be s hown on  the aerial  phot ograph,  drawing  etc .  provided in t he  appendix   to  the
SA  Report]
S A   P r o c e ss:
[How  the  projec t/ road  entit y  was  as s es s ed  t imeline,  major features   of t he pre­as s es s ment  meeting,
dates ,  times  and c ondit ions  of  the  field vis it ,  use  of  FHW A  RSA  s oftware if  any  etc ]
SA Stage: [ planning,  preliminary  des ign,  final  des ign,  land us e development,  ex is t ing road  etc ][Page … of …]Footer
[SA Date: … ]Refer to
Appendix A for
Case Study
examplesSAFacility Safety Risk (optional):

Safety Assessment Guidelines
October 2008 S E C T I O N   88 – 4assessed  through  the  number  of  facility  users  expected  to  be  exposed  to  the  risk  of
collision  associated  with  the  identified  safety  issue.  Probability  is  the  chance  that  an
individual  user  will  experience  a  collision  associated  with  the  identified  safety  issue.
Consequence is the likely severity outcomes of any such collision. Each element of the
function  is  estimated  using  gradations  “very  low”,  “low”,  “medium”,  “high”  and  “very
high”.  The  resultant  Safety  Risk  is  then  estimated  as  a  function  of  E,  P  and  C  using
gradations “very low”, “low”, “medium”, “high” and “very high”.
Partially disaggregated approach:
Members  of  the  SA  team  estimate  the  severity  (Safety  Risk)  of  each  identified  safety
issue  through  the  estimation  of  probability  (P),  and  consequence  (C)  associated  with
the  issue  where  Safety  Risk  is  a  function  of  P  and  C.  As  opposed  to  the  fully
disaggregated  approach,  Probability  is  defined  as  the  chance  for  all  road  users
exposed  to  the  safety  issue  to  be  involved  in  a  collision  associated  with  the  identified
safety  issue.  Consequence  is  the  severity  outcomes  of  any  such  collision.  As  with  the
fully  disaggregated  approach,  each  element  of  the  function  is  estimated  using
gradations “very low”, “low”, “medium”, “high” and “very high”. The resultant Safety Risk
is then estimated as a function of P and C using gradations “very low”, “low”, “medium”,
“high” and “very high”.
Exhibit 8.3: Illustration of Safety Risk Under a Partially Disaggregated Approach
The  notation  (optional)  printed  next  to  the  heading  “Facility  Safety  Risk”  on  page  8­3
under SA Findings in the SA Report refers to the use of a numerical scoring method of
assessment. The  Assessment Team  may  choose to  assess risk  on a qualitative basis.
Some  assessment  of  Facility  Safety  Risk  should  normally  be  provided  for  each  issue
identified.
The  Assessment  Team  may  also  choose  to  not  suggest  a  mitigating  measure,  leaving
this determination to the design or operations team.
The points below summarize major features of an SA report:
·SA Team member  names, their  affiliation  and qualifications,  identification of the  SA
Team  Leader,  as  well  as  the  start  and  end  dates  of  the  SA  should  be  provided  in
the introduction.Priority
of safety riskSeverity of crash
NegligibleLowModerateHigh
Probability
of crashes
occurringFrequentMediumMedium­highHighHigh
OccasionalMedium­lowMediumMedium­highHigh
InfrequentLowMedium­lowMediumMedium­high
RareLowLowMedium­lowMedium

Safety Assessment Guidelines
October 2008S E C T I O N   88 – 5·Background information may include a brief description of the project, including: the
scope  and  objectives  and  any  special  issues  raised  by  the  Project  Owner,  design
team,  operations  team,  or  maintenance  team  as  applicable;  reasons  for  project
initiation;  selection  of  the  project  and/or  location  for  the  SA;  issues  already  known;
previous SA report(s), if any; and data received for the SA.
·The  project  location  should  be  shown  using  an  aerial
photograph, map, or drawing. It may be  provided in an
appendix to the SA Report
·The  SA  process  may  be  described  including:  the
timeline;  summary  of  the  pre­SA  meeting;  findings  of
the  in­office  review;  dates  and  conditions  of  the  field
visit; use of FHWA RSA software; etc
·A  description  of  each  safety  issue,  including:  brief
issue  title;  brief  description  of  location;  concise  description  of  safety  issue  with  a
description of why it poses a risk and an estimation of severity (e.g., Safety Risk).
·SA  suggestions  are  provided  for  each  safety  issue  identified  and  usually  include
potential  short­,  medium­  and  long­term  engineering  countermeasures.  The
countermeasures may be limited to  only  those to  be  implemented  in the short­term
if required by the Terms of Reference (ToRs). In many cases the ToRs for SAs may
require  expanding  suggestions  to  multi­modal  considerations,  enforcement
activities,  safety  education,  and  engineering  solutions  if  those  items  are  within  the
scope of the project.
·The SA report may include statements ensuring confidentiality of the report or other
standardized statements as determined by that jurisdiction.
At the close of the report, the SA Team leader may wish to suggest that another SA be
conducted  at  a  later  time  in  the  project  lifecycle  or  upon  subsequent  changes  to  the
design if significant design alterations were suggested.

Safety Assessment Guidelines
October 2008S E C T I O N   99- 19.0 MONITORING AND PROMOTION OF THE SAFETY
ASSESSMENT PROCESS
It  is  important  that  the  SA  process  is  regularly  reviewed.  Such  reviews  offer  a  learning
opportunity  and  greatly aid  in  refining  future  SAs. The  SA  Program  Coordinator  should
not only conduct a review of each SA upon completion (e.g., through the quality control
process) but should also review the SA process in a jurisdiction as a whole on a regular
basis (e.g., annually).  Form  C (SA Team  Survey,Exhibit  9.1) should be completed by
an  SA  Team  Leader  upon  the  completion  of  each  SA  report  and  submitted  directly  to
the SA Program Coordinator. The SA Program Coordinator should do the following:
·Review and summarize information from completed SAs and lessons learned;
·Prepare an annual report on the SA program;
·Identify SA needs; and
·Propose changes to the locally developed SA guidelines and templates.
Each  of  these  items  should  be  covered  in  the  annual  SA  program  report  to  be
submitted  to  the  SA  oversight  body  for  that  jurisdiction.  The  SA  Program  Coordinator
should also make presentations to the oversight body (SA Program Liaison) on different
aspects of the SA program, as needed.Periodic
reviews help
to fine­tune
the SA
process.

Safety Assessment Guidelines
October 2008 S E C T I O N   99- 2Exhibit 9.1: Follow­up SA Team Survey
Project/location audited
Name of SA Team Leader
Title
Affiliations
Date
YesNoComment
W as the SA done at the correct stage?€€
W ould it have been more effective to conduct the SA at an earlier stage?€€
W as the ToR for SA adequate?€€
Did you receive sufficient data for SA?€€
W as enough time allocated for the SA?€€
W as the Pre­assessment meeting conducted in an efficient/timely manner?€€
Did you have sufficient support from the project owner?€€
€€
Did you use prompt lists?€€
Did you use FHW A RSA software?€€
W as the field visit effective?€€
If not, what were the issues and how could they have been addressed?€€
W as the SA team of a right size?€€
If not, what other areas of expertise should have been included on the team?€€
W hat information was most helpful  in conducting this type of assessment?”€€
How would you improve the SA process?€€ FORM C
SURVEY OF A SAFETY ASSESSMENT TEAM
Did you have sufficient support from the design team or traffic
engineering/maintenance representatives?

Safety Assessment Guidelines
October 2008S E C T I O N   1010 – 110.0 SAFETY ASSESSMENT TOOLS
10.1  FHWA Road Safety Audit (RSA) Software
The FHWA RSA software is available free of charge by downloading  it from the FHWA
RSA  websitehttp://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/rsa/index.htm.  After  review,  some  jurisdictions
may  wish  to  adopt  this  software  as  their  tool  of  choice  for  conducting  SAs  within  their
boundaries.  The  software  facilitates  an  optimum  balance  between  comprehensive  and
broad  prompt lists allowing  users to easily “switch” between different levels of detail for
each  prompt  list  topic.  The  software  automatically  generates  prompt  lists  suitable  for
each  SA  stage  and  also  serves  as  a  guide  and  process  tracking  tool.  It  offers  the
opportunity to input  explanatory text to accompany each  safety  issue raised  along  with
discussion  and  an  assessment  of  risk,  thereby  encouraging  the  SA  Team  to  “think
through”  and  justify  their  findings.  The  FHWA  RSA  software  automatically  generates
draft  SA  reports  in  different  formats  compatible  with  the  formats  described  inSection
8.0.Appendix  C  provides  a  brief  overview  of  the  FHWA  RSA  software,  provides  key
screenshots  to  illustrate  its  functionality,  and  provides  a  flowchart  illustrating  how  the
FHWA RSA software may be used in the SA process.
The  RSA  software  is  supported  by  the  FHWA  and  is  updated  with  the  development  of
new  SA  knowledge.  For  example,  a  past  update  involved  the  integration  of  FHWA
Pedestrian Prompt Lists.
10.2  Prompt Lists
SA  practice  has  resulted  in  the  development  of  a  variety  of  prompt  list  formats.  These
range  from  very  comprehensive  prompt  lists  that  attempt  to  cover  every  consideration
in  exceptional  detail  at  every  SA  stage  (planning,  preliminary  design,  detailed  design,
pre­opening,  work  zone  traffic  control,  existing  facilities,  land  use  development
proposals)  to  a  short  prompt  list  that  includes  only  high­level  topics  (geometric  design,
traffic  operations,  traffic  control  devices,  human  factors,  environment,  and  integration)
that are considered common to all SA stages.
The  main  challenge  in  using  comprehensive  SA  prompt  lists  is  the  risk  that  the  SA
becomes  a  mechanical  rather  than  a  thinking  exercise.  SAs  should  not  become  an
exercise  in “checking the  boxes”  in lieu  of  using the  lists  as  an  aid to  the application  of
knowledge and experience borne by the SA team members. On the other hand, the use
of  high­level,  broad  prompt  lists  may  result  in  SA  teams  overlooking  specific  issues.  In
this case, the advantage of prompt lists as “portable intelligence” is not realized.Team
members
should not
just “check
the boxes” on
a Prompt List.

Safety Assessment Guidelines
October 2008 S E C T I O N   1010 – 2Prompt lists fitting between the two extremes try to combine the advantages of different
formats.  Unfortunately,  they  also  combine  the  deficiencies.  Taking  into  account  the
variety  of  SA  project types  and  individual  preferences  of  assessors  it  is  very  difficult  to
find  an  optimum  solution  while  remaining  within  the  realm  of  traditional  hardcopy
checklists.
Given  the  potential  for  different  preferences  amongst  SA  team  members,  it  might  be
useful to leave the selection of prompt lists to be used for a specific SA to the discretion
of  each  SA  team.  Examples  of  high­level  and  detailed  prompt  lists  for  SAs  of  existing
facilities  as  used  in  the  FHWA  RSA  Software  are  provided  inAppendix  C.  Similarly,
formatted prompt lists for each SA stage may be derived from the FHWA RSA software
itself.  Each  jurisdiction  may  opt  to  decide  which  prompt  lists  (e.g.,  lists  within  this
document, FHWA RSA prompt lists, Pennsylvania DOT prompt lists, FHWA Pedestrian
prompt lists, Canadian RSA Guide prompt lists, combinations of the above, etc.) should
be  used.  If  making  a  selection,  it  should  be  kept  in  mind  that  the  purpose  of  a  prompt
list  is  to  prompt  SA  team members  to  think  about  possible  safety  issues  (not  to  “check
off”  the  items).  Therefore,  they  should  not  be  considered  a  replacement  for  the
qualifications and experience of the SA team members.
What follows is a list of “things to remember” when using SA prompt lists:
·The  purposes  of  SA  prompt  lists  are  to  help  the  SA  team  identify  potential  safety
issues and to ensure that they do not overlook important items.
·Prompt lists may be used by transportation designers to help them identify potential
safety issues proactively during plan development.
·SA  prompt  lists,  even  the  most  detailed  ones,  should  be  viewed  as  a  prompt  only.
They  are  not  a  substitute  for  knowledge  and  experience.  They  are  an  aid  in  the
application of knowledge and experience.
·No matter how comprehensive, the SA prompt lists are not all­inclusive, nor do they
intend to cover all potential issues and circumstances.
·Prompt  lists may be used when reviewing  project data, when conducting site  visits,
when conducting the SA analysis, and when writing the SA report.
·It  is  useful  for  each  member  of  an  SA  team  to  have  a  printed  copy  of  the  prompt
lists  selected  for  their  project  in  hand.  The  information  contained  in  the  comment
fields  of  the  prompt  lists  may  subsequently  be  used  to  facilitate  writing  the  SA
report.
·Prompt lists should not be appended to an SA report. SA prompt
lists help the
SA team not
to overlook
important
items,
however they
are not meant
to be all
inclusive.

Safety Assessment Guidelines
October 2008S E C T I O N   1111 – 111.0 CHALLENGES TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A SAFETY
ASSESSMENT PROCESS
There  are  many  challenges  to  the  implementation  of  the  SA  process,  but  experiences
across  North  America  as  well  as  internationally  show  that  there  are  effective  ways  to
turn  these  negatives  into  positives.  These  experiences  also  suggest  that
implementation  of  an SA program  does result in cost  effective safety  improvements for
the transportation network that are well worth the effort.  Practically all jurisdictions that
have  embraced  the  SA  process  report  positive  results  and  proudly  feature  the  SA
process  as  one  of  their  key  achievements  in  active  safety  management.  This  section
lists  common  challenges  which  may  arise  during  the  SA  implementation  process  and
summarizes ways those challenges can be overcome.
11.1  Lack of Financial Resources to Conduct SAs and Implement SA
Recommendations
Consider  allocating  dedicated  funding  for  an  SA pilot  program.  This  would  help  reduce
the initial cost of conducting SAs and help foster a realistic SA program from the outset.
Obtaining funding for SAs
There are different ways to obtain funding for SAs. The  State of Kentucky tailored their
Highway  Safety  Improvement  Program  (HSIP)  guidelines  to  permit  HSIP  funds  to  be
spent  on  conducting  SAs  of  existing  facilities  and  on  implementing  SA  suggestions.
Some  states  (e.g.,  Illinois)  have  indicated  that  the  SA  became  their  preferred  analysis
tool for identifying HSIP projects. The Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT)
has  institutionalized  the  use  of  SAs  and  the  guidance  from  their  SAs  is  used  to  direct
spending  in  the  state’s  HSIP  and  High  Risk  Rural  Roads  (HRRR)  programs.  The
Vermont  Agency  of  Transportation  is  looking  into  the  possibility  of  using  HRRR  funds
both  to  conduct  SAs and to fund  countermeasures  resulting from  SAs.  In Virginia,  SAs
are funded through the HSIP systematic funding mechanism (as the activity required to
“developing  the  project”).  This  funding  source  is  also  used  to  fund  road  safety
improvements resulting from SAs. Projects which  resulted from their SAs are  classified
as:  Stage  1  projects  (0­12  months,  signal  optimization/maintenance  fix);  Stage  II
projects  (12­36  months,  HSIP,  CMAQ  and  TE  projects  with  no  additional  ROW
required);  and  Stage  III  projects  (36+  months,  TIP  with  ROW  requirements).  In
Wisconsin,  the  AAA  Road  Improvement  Demonstration  Program  (RIDP)  dedicated
some funds  to assessments of high crash  locations, and has funded  SAs of more than
50  intersections  since  2004.  There  are  also  indications  that  some  portion  of  road
resurfacing  and  rehabilitation  funds  could  be  used  to  conduct  SAs  and  fund

Safety Assessment Guidelines
October 2008 S E C T I O N   1111 – 2countermeasures resulting from SAs.Measuring  and  tracking  the  achievements  of
SAs in improving safety and demonstrating their  benefits in  a local context  is an
important component of justifying the continued funding of SAs.
Reducing the cost of SAs
SAs  are  intended  to  be  a  relatively  quick  and  low­cost  exercise  (typically  3­5  days  of
work  for  a  team  of  3­6  individuals)  mainly  involving  qualitative  assessments  of  safety
risk.    This  contrasts  positively  with  “road  safety  reviews”  of  existing  facilities,  which
involve a  comprehensive  quantitative analysis of collision data, the preparation  of a full
report, site visits, traffic conflict analyses, the use of specialized software tools, etc. and
may take several weeks of dedicated work by a team of 2­6 individuals.
There  are  effective  ways  to  keep  the  costs  of  SAs  low.  As  demonstrated  at  the
AASHTO/FHWA  Peer  Exchange  Program,  it  is  possible  to  develop  less  “threatening”
and  resource­consuming  SA  programs  as many  States  and  local  agencies  have  done.
For  example,  instead  of  having  an  SA  team  made  up  of  outside  consultants,  it  is
possible to undertake the following:
·Select  an  experienced  Team  Leader  from  the  roster  of  external  consultants,  and
select other team members from within the organization. Of course, these members
should  not  have  any  direct  conflict  of  interests  and  have  appropriate  qualifications
and experience as discussed in Section 6.0.
·Use  a  “pairing”  (or  horizontal)  scheme  where  neighboring  jurisdictions  exchange
their  internal  SA  teams  under  a  “barter”  arrangement  to  avoid  any  direct  conflict  of
interest.
·To  use  a  “vertical”  scheme  where  agencies  at  different  levels  exchange  SA  teams
within a geographical area (e.g. State DOT and County SA teams).
The  options  above and others  may  be  combined  to  arrive at  the  most  suitable  solution
for any given jurisdiction. It should be noted that with the accumulation of experience in
conducting  SAs  there  will  be  more  opportunities  to  use  local  staff  and  smaller  teams.
This trend often helps to keep the costs of assessments manageable.
Overall,  the  cost  of  SAs  is  dependent  on:  an  agency’s  creativity  in  integrating  SA
activities  within  existing  project  tasks,  practices  and  resources;  and  on  the  decision­
making  methodology  used  to  set  up  SAs,  evaluate  and  implement  SA  suggestions.  In
the  words of the  Pennsylvania Department of Transportation,  the costs  of a  successful
SA program are “very little for the amount of success.” SAs are
intended to be
a quick and
low­cost
exercise.

Safety Assessment Guidelines
October 2008S E C T I O N   1111 – 3Planning an SA program realistically
SAs programs may encompass projects of any size and can be undertaken at any point
in the lifecycle of a transportation project.  Accordingly, there are a variety of policies on
the  selection  of  projects  and  existing  facilities  for  SAs.  Each  jurisdiction  should  plan
their  SA  program  realistically,  based  not  only  on  emerging  safety  needs,  but  also
considering available funding and resources (seeSection  5.0). These needs, priorities,
and capacities  may vary over time  and SA programs  should be regularly reviewed and
adjusted in response.
11.2  Lack of Qualified Staff to Conduct SAs
SAs  involve  qualitative  assessments  as  opposed  to  comprehensive,  quantitative
“safety reviews”.  The techniques of SAs are straightforward,  intuitive, and are aimed at
utilizing  the  experience  and  qualifications  already  present  within  a  jurisdiction.
Experience  shows  that  one  full  SA  training  session  conducted  on  a  real­world  site
where the trainees actively participate in the SA process brings participants to a level of
understanding  which  allows  them  to  become  effective  SA  team  members.  Participants
who have received SA training and have actively participated in several successful SAs
may  be  considered  for  the  role  of  SA  Team  Leader.  A  regular  and  systematic  SA
training  program  in  a  jurisdiction  may  quickly  bring  a  sufficient  number  of  local  staff  to
the  desired  level  of  understanding  and  qualification,  such  that  an  SA  program  may  be
conducted entirely with in­house resources.
Currently,  there  are  a  number  of  SA  training  courses  available.  The  FHWA  National
Highway  Institute  (NHI)  offers  an  RSA  training  course  (http://www.nhi.fhwa.dot.gov). In
addition,  FHWA  has  developed  a  training  course  on  RSAs  specifically  for  Local
Agencies  (http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/rsa).  Many  consulting  companies  are  offering  their
own  SA  training  courses  which  typically  combine  an  introduction  to  SA  concepts  and
tools  with  the  conduct  of  a  real­world,  first­in­jurisdiction  SA.  These  courses  usually
involve the full participation of agency staff.
The  American  Association  of  State  Highway  And  Transportation  Officials  (AASHTO)
and  the  FHWA jointly  offer  a  very  useful  RSA  Peer­to­Peer  Exchange  Program  (http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/rsa/rsa_p2p_brochure.htm)  which facilitates sharing  best practices,
allows  those  agencies  with  a  RSA  program  to  enhance  their  SA  skills  by  conducting
assessments  in  other  jurisdictions  as  peers,  and  provides  an  opportunity  for  agencies
who  do  not  have  an  SA  program  to  obtain  the  services  of  an  experienced  SA  Team
Leader  at  no  cost.    Information  exchange  under  the  program  allows  agencies  to  learn
how  other  jurisdictions  have  established  their  SA  programs,  which  issues  were
encountered, and how they were successfully dealt with.Competent
staff for SAs
may come
from many
different
sources.

Safety Assessment Guidelines
October 2008 S E C T I O N   1111 – 4Other approaches to SA training across the United States have included the following:
·One­on­one  pairing  between  States  that  currently  have  SA  programs  and  those
wishing  to  implement  one  with  cross­training  of  staff  through  participation  in  SAs
under the guidance of knowledgeable team leaders;
·Training by engineering faculties from colleges and universities;
·Participation by State safety staff in university outreach programs; and
·Participation in training  programs, on­line presentations (webinars), and information
exchanges.
11.3  Lack of Time to Conduct SAs
The  relatively  short  time­frame  required  to  conduct  SAs  may  still  become  an  issue  if
SAs  are  not  planned  and  accounted  for  well  in  advance.  If  a  project  schedule
incorporates  SAs  at  the  outset,  the  time  spent  on  SAs  will  not  be  perceived  as  a
“delay.”
It  is  important  that  owners  of  design  projects  understand  the  relationship  between  SA
tasks  and  other  project  activities  and  that  project  schedules  ensure  that  time  is  set
aside  not  only  to  conduct  the  SA,  but  also  to  evaluate  the  suggestions,  respond  to  the
SA  report,  and  implement  the  accepted  SA  suggestions.  In  design  projects,  the  earlier
an  SA  is  performed  in  the  project  lifecycle,  the  easier  it  is  to  implement  suggestions
without  disruption  to  the  project  schedule.  Lead  times  for  changes  in  project  scope,
right­of­way  acquisition,  design  revisions,  and  subsequent  reviews  are  more  easily
accommodated if they are identified early in the process.
11.4  Lack of Trust to the SA Process
In  some  jurisdictions  across  the  United  States  there  are  still  misconceptions  about  the
SA  process.  Some  believe  that  it  is  either  a  duplication  of  an  existing  process  or  a
replacement for an existing process or tool.
Confusion  of  SAs  with  the  quality  control  of  design  is  the  most  common
misinterpretation  of  the  role  and  nature  of  an  SA.  It  should  be  emphasized  that  one  of
the major principles of an SA is that compliance with design standards, while important,
does  not  necessarily  result  in  an optimally  safe  road  and conversely, failure  to  achieve
compliance  with  standards  does  not  necessarily  result  in  a facility  that  is  unacceptable
from  a  safety  perspective.  Therefore,  reviewing  compliance  with  design  standards  is

Safety Assessment Guidelines
October 2008S E C T I O N   1111 – 5not  a  part  of  an  SA  even  though  departures  from  design  standards  are  usually
assessed  for  their  safety  implications.  The  aim  of  an  SA  is  to  identify  elements  which
may  present  a  safety  concern  within  the  context  of  the  design  or  facility  in­service  and
to  highlight  opportunities  to  eliminate  or  mitigate  the  safety  concerns  identified.  As
such, SAs are neither a replacement for nor a duplication of the following:
·Design quality control or standard
compliance checks;
·Traffic impact or safety impact studies;
·Safety conscious planning;
·Road safety inventory programs; and
·Traffic safety modeling efforts.
Information  sharing  and  education  will  help  SAs  from  being  mistaken  for  any  of  the
following:
·A  means  to  evaluate,  praise,  or  critique  design  work,  traffic  engineering  practices,
or maintenance activities.
·A check of compliance with design standards.
·A means of ranking or justifying one project over another.
·A means of rating one design option over another.
·A project redesign.
·A crash investigation or crash data analysis.
·A  safety  review  of  existing  facilities  based  largely  on  the  quantitative  analysis  of
crash data.SAs are not a
check of
compliance to
standards.

Safety Assessment Guidelines
October 2008 S E C T I O N   1111 – 6Finally, there is sufficient proof both in the United States and internationally that the SA
process  is  highly  cost  effective,  with  major  benefits  being  achieved  in  the  following
areas:
·Societal  costs  of  collisions  are  reduced  by  safer  facilities  and  fewer,  less­severe
crashes. For example, the NYSDOT has reported a 20­40% reduction in crashes at
more than 300 high crash locations which received surface improvements and were
treated  with  other,  low­cost  safety  improvements  as  suggested  by  SAs.  Data  from
the  United  Kingdom  suggest  that  the  assessing  of  highway  design  projects  makes
them  almost  five  times  more  effective  in  reducing  fatal  and  injury  crashes  when
compared to design projects completed without the benefit of an SA.
·SAs  at  the  pre­construction  phase  largely  avoid  “throwaway”  reconstruction  costs
associated  with  the  correction  of  safety  deficiencies  that  would  otherwise  be
identified only after a facility has been put in­service.
·Lifecycle  costs  are  reduced  since  safer  designs  often  carry  lower  maintenance
costs  (e.g.  flattened  slope  versus  guardrail)  and  are  less  likely  to  require
subsequent modification to address safety concerns.
11.5  Lack of High Quality Collision Data
The  lack of high quality  collision data  is actually an excellent reason to  conduct an SA.
The  SA process relies  mainly on  a  qualitative examination of relative  safety by  a  multi­
disciplinary  team  (i.e.  visualization  of  the  design  features,  field  visits,  prompt  lists,
“seeing” the facility through the eyes of different users, brainstorming, SA software etc.)
to  identify  safety  issues. While  crash  data  are  reviewed  (if  they  are  available)  they  are
not  a  driving  force  behind  an  SA.Jurisdictions  lacking  high  quality  crash  data
should  be  excited  about  the  concept  of  SAs as they can support the identification of
safety  issues  without  the  need  for  lengthy  and  expensive  quantitative  data  processing
and analysis.
11.6  Defaulting to Excessive Design Standards
There is a concern that SAs may result in project designers unnecessarily defaulting to
more  generous  design  standards.    Such  concerns  result  from  confusing  SAs  with  the
process  of  checking  compliance  with  design  standards.  One  of  the  major  principles  of
an  SA  is  that  compliance  with  design  standards,  while  important,  does  not  necessarily
result  in  an  optimally  safe  design.  Therefore,  reviewing  compliance  with  design
standards is not part of an SA. Lack of high
quality
collision data
is not a
detriment to
performing
SAs.

Safety Assessment Guidelines
October 2008S E C T I O N   1111 – 7These concerns can be largely mitigated through SA education and training. Designers
should  be  encouraged  to  attend  SA  training  sessions,  both  for  educational  purposes
and  as  a  means  of  obtaining  a  new  perspective  on  safety  in  design.  They  may  also
consult  SA  prompt  lists  during  the  design  process  to  proactively  identify  safety  issues
that would be identified by an SA of their design and to avoid them in the first place.
11.7  Liability Concerns
Some  jurisdictions  are  reluctant  to  implement  an  SA  program  because  of  perceived
liability concerns. Most of these concerns are caused by the fact that each SA results in
a  formal  SA  report  containing  identified  safety  issues  and  suggestions  on  how  to
minimize  or  eliminate  them.  Agencies  must  manage  their  transportation network  within
a  competing  set  of  demands  and  constraints  including  mobility,  safety,  cost,  and
environmental  impact.    It  is  not  always  possible  to  accept  and  implement  all  SA
suggestions.  On  that  basis,  it  is  feared  that  the  SA  report  could  be  cited  as  proof  that
the  agency  was  aware  of  the  risk  and  chose  not  to  implement  measures  that  would
otherwise  have  improved  safety  of  a  design  or  an  existing  road.  The  sections  below
offer effective ways of dealing with these concerns.
General principles of defense against liability claims
SAs  are  conducted  to  identify  potential  opportunities  for  safety  improvement.
Determining  whether  the  investment  necessary  to  realize  the  identified  potential  is
justifiable,  whether  in  the  context  of  the  individual  project  or  of  the  jurisdiction  as  a
whole, is outside of the scope of an SA. The responsibility for establishing and applying
justification  criteria  is  more  properly  the  responsibility  of  the  Project  Owner  and  (in  the
case  of  a  proposed  design)  the  design  team  or  (in  the  case  of  a  facility  in­service)  the
operations and maintenance team.
Potential  opportunities  for  safety  improvement  may  be  deemed  impractical  based  on
project constraints and competing objectives or may be proven cost­ineffective through
an  explicit  assessment  of  anticipated  capital  and operating costs  weighed against their
anticipated  societal  benefits.  Both  of  these  justifications  provide  a  defensible  rationale
for  declining  to  implement  a  potential  safety  improvement  provided  due  diligence  is
exercised and the decision making process is properly documented.
This  rationale  may  be  further  strengthened  if  the  agency  has  a  comprehensive
framework  for  assessing  the  costs  and  benefits  of  infrastructure  investments.  If  the
agency  is  capable  of  showing  that  limited  project  funds  are  invested  on  a  prioritized
basis and where the greatest possible societal return­on­capital is achieved, then it is in
a much stronger position to defend its funding choices.Legal and
liability
information
provided in
this guideline
is not a
substitute for
legal advice.

Safety Assessment Guidelines
October 2008 S E C T I O N   1111 – 8There  are  three  critical  activities  that  each  agency  must  exercise  when
conducting  SAs to  be successful  in  defense against liability claims.  These are as
follows:
·Diligent  review  of  the  SA  report  and  the  preparation  of  a  formal  SA  response  as
outlined  in  detail  inSection  2.6.  Not  every  SA  suggestion  need  be  accepted  as
proposed,  or  at  all.    Valid  reasons  for  declining  to  implement  an  SA  suggestion
should be documented and supported by an explicit analysis when appropriate;
·Timely  implementation  of  SA  report  suggestions  that  were  accepted  in  the  formal
SA response; and
·Retention of all SA documentation on file.
A  general  list  of  actions  to  further  reduce  an  agency’s  potential  legal  vulnerability  may
include, but may not be limited to, the following:
·Ensure  that  each  SA  has  clear  Terms  of  Reference  (ToRs).    Clear  ToRs  limit  the
scope, study area, and the mandate of the SA Team.
·Include  in  the  ToRs  and the  SA  report  statements  which  could  reduce  an  agency’s
vulnerability  to  legal  claims  (e.g.,  confidentiality,  goal  and  objectives,  intended  use,
etc.)
·Ensure  that  SA  teams  and  staff  responding  to  SAs  are  aware  of  their  roles  and
responsibilities  in  an  SA  and  that  they  document  their  analyses,  decisions,  and
actions.
·Ensure that SAs are undertaken by competent SA teams.
·Ensure  that,  if  applicable,  safety  issues  raised  in  earlier  SAs,  which  have  not  been
addressed, are re­examined where and as appropriate.
Legal provisions reducing agency vulnerability
There  are  some  provisions  in  existing  legislation  that  may  be  used  in  defense  against
liability claims relating to the SA process.
The  Highway  Safety  Act  of  1973  was  enacted  to  improve  the  safety  of  the  nation’s
highways  by  encouraging  closer  Federal  and  State  cooperation  with  respect  to  road
safety  improvement  projects.  The  Act  included  several  categorical  programs  to  assist
States  in  identifying  highways  in  need  of  improvements  and  in  funding  those

Safety Assessment Guidelines
October 2008S E C T I O N   1111 – 9improvements  including  23  U.S.C.  §  152  (Hazard  Elimination  Program,  “Section  152”).
States  objected  to  the  absence  of  any  confidentiality  with  respect  to  their  compliance
measures  under  Section  152,  fearing  that  any  information  collected  could  be  used  as
an effortless tool in litigation against governments.
23  U.S.C.  §  409  (“Section  409”)  was  enacted  to  address  this  concern.  This  law
expressly  forbids  the  discovery  or  admission  into  evidence  of  reports,  data,  or  other
information  compiled  or  collected  for  activities  required  pursuant  to  several  Federal
highway  safety  programs  (Sections  130,  and  152  (now  148)),  or  for  the  purpose  of
developing  any  highway  safety  construction  improvement  project  which  may  be
implemented  utilizing  Federal  aid  highway  funds,  in  tort  litigation  arising  from
occurrences  at  the  locations  addressed  in  such  documents  or  data.  In  2003,  the  U.S.
Supreme Court upheld the Constitutionality of Section 409, indicating that it “protects all
reports,  surveys,  schedules,  lists,  or  data  actually  compiled  or  collected  for  §  152
purposes”. Some States consider information covered by Section 409 as an exemption
to its public disclosure laws, but courts may not agree with this interpretation.
Some  agencies  put  additional  emphasis  on  the  confidentiality  of  the  SA  reports.  For
example,  PennDOT  guidelines  stress  that  it  is  very  important  that  SAs  remain
confidential.  Although  Pennsylvania  does  not  have  Sovereign  Immunity,  PennDOT  is
protected  by  a  Statute  that  deems  safety  studies  non­admissible  in  Torts.  Their
document  recommends  the  inclusion  of  the  following  statement  in  Pennsylvania  SA
reports:
“In accordance with PA Consolidated Statutes Title 75­Vehicles (Vehicle Code) Section
3754  and  23  U.S.C.  Section  409,  this  safety  study  is  confidential  and  the  publication,
reproduction, release, or discussion of these materials is prohibited  without the specific
written  consent  of  the  Pennsylvania  Department  of  Transportation’s  Office  of  Chief
Counsel.  This  safety  study  is  only  provided  to  official  agencies  with  official  duties/
responsibilities in the project development”.
Similarly,  the  Kansas  Department  of  Transportation  (KDOT)  accepted  the  practice
where  SA  results  are  reported  for  internal  staff  use  only  and  are  not  available  to  the
public  or  to  lawyers  representing  claims  against  the  State.  There  have  been  instances
where  these  records  were  requested  by  outside  legal  counsel  and  to  date  the
information has remained at KDOT.
A  survey  of  State  Departments  of  Transportation  conducted  as  part  of  NCHRP
Synthesis  Project  #336  ”Road  Safety  Audits”  was  unable  to  establish  any  specific
correlation  in  the  application  of  RSAs  (to  new  projects  or  to  existing  facilities)  and
whether or not the State had sovereign immunity.

Safety Assessment Guidelines
October 2008 S E C T I O N   1111 – 10NYSDOT  is  afforded  liability  protection  by  the  doctrine  of  qualified  immunity  that  has
been established in various legal precedents, as follows:
Under  the  doctrine  of  qualified  immunity,  the  State  can  only  be  found  liable  for  injuries
“arising out of the operation of a duly executed highway safety plan when there is proof
that  the  plan  either  was  executed  without  adequate  study  or  lacked  a  reasonable
basis.” (Weiss v. Fote; Redcross v. State, 241 AD2d 787)
This  legal  precedent  appears to  indicate  that conducting  SAs with  proper review of  the
SA  suggestions  and  a formal  response  to  the  SA  report  could  qualify  as  an  “adequate
study”  and  “reasonable  basis”.  If  so,  the  SA  report  and  formal  SA  response  could  be
part of a qualification for immunity.
“Liability  will  not  be  imposed  on  a  public  corporation  for  failure  to  make  a  planning
decision  which,  if  made,  would  only  have  involved  giving  the  public  more  complete
protection.” (Schwartz v. NYSTA, 61 NY2d 955)
This  legal  precedent  appears  to  indicate  that  a  decision  not  to  implement  an  SA
suggestion,  with  a  proper  justification  in  a  formal  SA  response,  will  not  expose  an
agency  to liability,  as such a decision “would only have involved giving  the public more
complete protection”.
Turning SAs into a Strength
SA reports may be used in response to tort liability suits to demonstrate that the agency
is proactively trying to improve road safety. Many  litigants and their lawyers  will hire  an
expert  witness  to  conduct  their  own  safety  review  of  the  location  in  question.  The  SA
report may be used to refute or counter the expert witness’s report and to demonstrate
the public agency’s explicit efforts to improve safety at the location.
There  are  indications that  properly  structured  and conducted  SAs may  assist  agencies
in  defending  themselves  against  liability  claims.  A  survey  of  State  Departments  of
Transportation  conducted  as  part  of  NCHRP  Synthesis  Project  #336  “Road  Safety
Audits” received this response related to liability from one of responding agencies:
“Liability  is  one  of the  major  driving factors  in performing  a good  audit.  It  demonstrates
a  proactive  approach  to  identifying  and  mitigating  safety  concerns.  When  findings
cannot  be  implemented  an  exception  report  is  developed  to  address  liability  and
mitigating  measures.  Our  attorneys  say  that  once  safety  issues  are  identified  and  we
have financial limitations on how much and how fast we can correct the issues then the
audit will help us in defense of liability…” Proper
performance
of SAs results
in a reduction
in liability,,
not an
increase.

Safety Assessment Guidelines
October 2008 AA P P E N D I X A
SAFETY
ASSESSMENT
GUIDELINES
APPENDIX A
CASE STUDIES

Safety Assessment Guidelines
October 2008A P P E N D I X   AA- 1APPENDIX A: CASE STUIDIES
A  series  of  three  case  studies  were  completed  during  the  development  of  these
Guidelines.  The Guidelines  were  used to  complete  each SA  and prepare the  summary
reports  contained  within  this  appendix.  Each  example  illustrates  the  use  of  the
guidelines in a different part of New York State and in a different type of area.
Case Study 1: Suburban
County Road 64
Town of Big Flats
Chemung County
Conducted May 5th and 6th 2008
Case Study 2: Rural
Intersection of County Route 12 and Hatch Hill Road
Town of Granville
Washington County
Conducted May 12th and 13th 2008
Case Study 3: Urban
Intersection of 9th Avenue and West 57th Street
New York City
Conducted June 17th and 18th 2008

Road Safety ASSESSMENT (SA) Report
County Road 64 – Horseheads Big Flats Road
From Railway Overpass Easterly to County Road 35
Town of Big Flats, Chemung County, New York State
Sponsored by: New York State Metropolitan Planning Organizations
Conducted May 5th
and 6th
, 2008Report dated: May 30, 2008

Road Safety Assessment (SA) Report
County Road 64 – Horseheads Big Flats Road
Town of Big Flats, Chemung County, New York State
May 30, 2008
Page 2 of 37Table of Contents
1.0BACKGROUND3
1.1SA Team6
1.2SA Process7
1.3SA Report8
1.4Study Area Characteristics, Operations and Safety Performance (Office Review)8
2.0ASSESSMENT FINDINGS AND SUGGESTIONS14
2.1General Issues14
2.1.1Roadway classification and functional corridor considerations14
2.1.2Lack of  facilities for vuln erable road user s along CR 6416
2.1.3Side and overhead lane designation signs16
2.2.1Pavement markings and road edge delineation17
2.2.2Use of STOP signs and Stop Bars at driveways18
2.2West approach to CR 35 intersection19
2.3Driveways20
2.3.1Driveway A20
2.3.2Driveway B26
2.3.3Driveway C28
2.3.4Driveway D29
2.3.5Driveway E29
2.3.6Driveway F31
2.3.7Driveway G31
2.3.8Driveway H33
2.4Onsite Issues33
2.5Other Issues34
3.0CONCLUSION37

Road Safety Assessment (SA) Report
County Road 64 – Horseheads Big Flats Road
Town of Big Flats, Chemung County, New York State
May 30, 2008
Page 3 of 371.0   Background
County Road 64 (CR 64) in the Town of Big Flats, Chemung County (known
locally as Horseheads Big Flats Road), between the railway overpass in the west
and its connection with the Commerce Center Road in the east (Figure 1), is a
two­lane arterial roadway with a largely rural cross­section and a posted speed
limit of 45 miles per hour.  The roadway is under the jurisdiction of Chemung
County, with New York State DOT – NYSDOT responsible for segments located
within the functional areas of interchanges with the Southern Tier Expressway.
Figure 1 – Key MapThe subject portion of CR 64 has experienced and likely will continue to
experience significant development as adjacent lands continue to be taken up by
commercial retail uses.
This changing land use from industrial/agricultural to retail commercial has
resulted in the following:Southern Tier
Expressway/Commerce
Centre Road ConnectionRailway
Overpass

Road Safety Assessment (SA) Report
County Road 64 – Horseheads Big Flats Road
Town of Big Flats, Chemung County, New York State
May 30, 2008
Page 4 of 37·  Substantial increases in traffic volumes, particularly during the weekday
PM Peak period, and on weekends;
·  An increase in the presence of vulnerable road users (pedestrians and
cyclists);
·  An increased crash rate; and
·  A fundamental shift in the function of CR64 from a rural to a suburban
arterial.
These changes in road function and traffic characteristics are expected to
continue and to become more prevalent in the future, as development continues
along the corridor.
The decision was taken to conduct a road safety assessment (SA) of the western
portion of CR 64 (See Study Area Limits –Figure 2).
Figure 2 – Study Area LimitsSimmons
Rockwell Auto
SalesStaplesMichaels/Old
NavyCourser
MfgringConsumers
SquareFormer
Walmart
(vacant)West
Study
LimitEast
Study
Limit

Road Safety Assessment (SA) Report
County Road 64 – Horseheads Big Flats Road
Town of Big Flats, Chemung County, New York State
May 30, 2008
Page 5 of 37This decision was made in response to the following:
·  Scope and pace of adjacent land development, and changing roadway
function;
·  Observations regarding changing traffic volumes, characteristics, and
travel patterns;
·  Introduction of new points of access and associated roadway
improvements (i.e. turning lanes, traffic control signals);
·  Concerns expressed by the public and elected officials regarding their
perceptions of a safety problem (i.e. high crash potential);
·  Review of crash records;
·  Observations from the New York State Police regarding violations,
conflicts, and collisions; and
·  Recognition by the responsible road authorities of the potential to identify
and actualize opportunities for safety improvement in the course of
responding to increased traffic volumes, access, and capacity
requirements through needed roadway improvements.
The signalized intersection of CR 64 and CR 35 (locally known as Chambers
Road) was excluded from the study area, and forms the eastern limit of the SA.
Its operation and safety performance is the responsibility of the New York State
Department of Transportation (NYSDOT), based upon it being located within the
functional area of the Southern Tier Expressway/CR 35 interchange.
The railway overpass to the west marks a transition in the function of CR 64 from
rural arterial to the west, and suburban arterial to the east, and was thus chosen
as the western limit of the SA.
Encompassed within these study area limits are numerous driveways, serving
the adjacent land uses.  For ease of identification, these driveways have been
labeled alphabetically, from east to west, as shown inFigure 3.

Road Safety Assessment (SA) Report
County Road 64 – Horseheads Big Flats Road
Town of Big Flats, Chemung County, New York State
May 30, 2008
Page 6 of 37Figure 3 – Driveway Identification1.1  SA Team
This was the first SA conducted by Chemung County and the Town of Big Flats.
Accordingly, a brief introductory training session was provided on the afternoon
of the first day of the assessment.
The road safety assessment was sponsored by the New York State Metropolitan
Planning Organizations (NYSMPOs) and will serve as one of three case studies
to be included in guidelines for the conduct of SAs on the local road system
within the State of New York.
The SA Team was composed of State (traffic and enforcement), County, MPO,
and Local representatives, led by members of the consultant team.  The RSA
Team included the following individuals:

Road Safety Assessment (SA) Report
County Road 64 – Horseheads Big Flats Road
Town of Big Flats, Chemung County, New York State
May 30, 2008
Page 7 of 37·Jay Schissell, Elmira Chemung Transportation Council
jayschissell@stny.rr.com·Mike Perry, Elmira Chemung Transportation Council, attended training
onlymperry@stny.rr.com·Dan Connors, New York State DOT (Traffic)dgconnors@dot.state.ny.us·Vince Corona, New York State Policevcorona@troopers.state.ny.us·Larry Wagner, Town of Big Flatslwagner@bigflatsny.gov·Andy Avery, City of Elmira,aavery@cityofelmira.net·Shawn Crater, City of Elmiraccrater@cityofelmira.net·Rick Bennett, Bergmann Associates rbennett@bergmannpc.com
·Frank Dolan,Bergmann Associates fdolan@bergmannpc.com
·Greg Junnor, Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc
gjunnor@synectics­inc.net
1.2  SA Process
The SA was conducted in a manner consistent with the proposed road safety
assessment guidelines being prepared for the NYSMPOs.  The assessment took
place on May 5th
and 6th
, 2008
Information reviewed in the course of the assessment included the following:
·  Aerial photographs;
·  Traffic characteristics data;
·  Collision information;
·  Traffic signal phasing/timing data;
·  Adjacent land uses;
·  Anticipated/proposed development and redevelopment; and
·  Existing safety concerns.
Introductions and a brief assessment training session occurred in the afternoon
of the first day.  The assessment team reviewed the project related information
on the morning of the second day of the assessment.
The assessment team then went into the field to conduct a site visit in the late
morning, into the noon hour.  Site visit conditions were warm and sunny.

Road Safety Assessment (SA) Report
County Road 64 – Horseheads Big Flats Road
Town of Big Flats, Chemung County, New York State
May 30, 2008
Page 8 of 37The assessment team reconvened on the afternoon of the second day to
complete the assessment analysis.  Preliminary assessment findings were
discussed then recorded using the FHW A RSA Software tool.
The consulting team subsequently prepared this report, which was circulated to
and commented upon by the assessment team members, prior to being finalized.
1.3  SA Report
This report provides information on issues identified by the assessment team,
which they deemed relevant to the stated goal of an SA; identifying opportunities
to improve road safety within the study area.
Where appropriate, an assessment of road user safety risk, and suggestions for
improvement, are included.  These suggestions should not be viewed as design
or operational recommendations.  They are intended to be illustrative of potential
solutions to the safety issues identified, and are presented for consideration only.
Within this report, the findings and suggestions of the assessment team are
organized into three groups, as follows:
·General Issues – applicable to the study area as a whole;
·Development issues – pertaining to existing and proposed/anticipated
developments within the study area; and
·Driveway issues –pertaining to the individual private/commercial access
roadways, and their intersections with CR 64.
1.4  Study Area Characteristics, Operations and Safety
Performance (Office Review)
The study area is comprised of eight driveway intersections with CR 64,
referenced alphabetically as A through H, from east to west.  Given the close
proximity of the driveways to one­another, the relevant segments of CR 64 are
addressed as approaches to each intersection.
CR 64 as a corridor is addressed under the topic “General Issues”.
Traffic is characterized by non­local travel, as the area is a regional shopping
destination, and by non­standard peak periods, including Saturday noon­hour

Road Safety Assessment (SA) Report
County Road 64 – Horseheads Big Flats Road
Town of Big Flats, Chemung County, New York State
May 30, 2008
Page 9 of 37and weekday evenings.  Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) is approaching
20,000 – considered to be very high for a two­lane County roadway in this area.
Concerns have been identified with signs and pavement markings, including
inconsistencies and lack of night­time guidance and delineation.  The Simmons
Rockwell car dealership attracts non­locals, who are then testing unfamiliar
vehicles along CR 64.  Double left turns permitted at the CR64/CR 35
intersection, and at Driveway A are not common within the area, and may be
causing issues.
A transit shuttle service is provided between developments.  Despite this, there is
an increasing presence of vulnerable road users (pedestrians) along CR 64.
Pedestrian and cycling facilities are largely absent along CR 64, save one
signalized crossing of CR 64 at Driveway A, which has pedestrian crossing
indications.  A cycling trail is proposed from the village to the study area, but has
not been implemented.
Wal­Mart has recently abandoned its former location and moved to new facilities
to the east.  Traffic along the corridor and additional development has migrated in
response to this relocation.
There have been 100+ collisions within the corridor in the past 3 years, with 42
occurring at the CR 64/CR 35 intersection.  Two significant clusters of collisions
exist within the study area, at Driveway A and at Driveway B.
Driveway A serves the Michaels/Old Navy Plaza, the Applebee’s and the Taco
Bell to the north, and the Consumers Square/Former Wal­Mart development to
the south.  It is controlled by traffic control signals and lane use designation signs
(Figure 4).
A southbound double left turn is permitted on a permissive phase (northbound
and southbound traffic receive a green simultaneously).
Northbound through and left turn movements are permitted from the left lane
only, with the right lane reserved exclusively for right turns.
Driveway A is located on the outside of a horizontal curve in CR 64.  The
superelevation on the north side of CR 64 forms a crown along the north limits of
the roadway.  The north approach slopes up to meet this point, and northbound
and southbound vehicles may have difficulty seeing one­another as they
approach the intersection.

Road Safety Assessment (SA) Report
County Road 64 – Horseheads Big Flats Road
Town of Big Flats, Chemung County, New York State
May 30, 2008
Page 10 of 37Pedestrian pushbuttons and crosswalk markings are provided to cross the west
approach only.
The north approach has a short throat, and limited storage capacity for outbound
traffic, and inbound movements are constrained by movements to/from the
Applebee’s/Taco Bell access, and by operations at on­site Tee intersection
immediately to the north.
Figure 4 – Driveway ACollision experience at this location indicates a mix of collision types, with no
definitive pattern.
Driveway B serves both the Michaels/Old Navy Plaza and the Staples Plaza on
the north side of CR 64, and is controlled by a STOP sign (Figure 5).  The
driveway is located on the outside of a horizontal curve in CR 64, and is skewed
with respect to the CR 64 alignment.  Collision experience at this location (16 in
total) is dominated by angle collisions (12) involving westbound vehicles striking
vehicles turning left out of the driveway.

Road Safety Assessment (SA) Report
County Road 64 – Horseheads Big Flats Road
Town of Big Flats, Chemung County, New York State
May 30, 2008
Page 11 of 37Figure 5 – Driveway BDriveway C is identified as truck access only for servicing the Consumers
Square development, and outbound left turns are prohibited by a regulatory sign
and by pavement markings (Figure 6).  Despite these restrictions, inbound and
outbound movements by passenger vehicles, including outbound left turns
(prohibited) were observed to occur.  An inbound left turn lane is not provided.
Figure 6 – Driveway C

Road Safety Assessment (SA) Report
County Road 64 – Horseheads Big Flats Road
Town of Big Flats, Chemung County, New York State
May 30, 2008
Page 12 of 37Driveway D serves the Courser Manufacturing site.
Figure 7 – Driveway DDriveway E extends to the north, and provides a second access to the Staples
Plaza.Driveway F extends to the south and provides access to the Simmons
Rockwell Auto Sales (Figure 8).  The two driveways are offset from one­another
and no left or right turn lanes are provided.
Figure 8 – Driveways E and F

Road Safety Assessment (SA) Report
County Road 64 – Horseheads Big Flats Road
Town of Big Flats, Chemung County, New York State
May 30, 2008
Page 13 of 37Driveway G to the north and south serves as the main driveway to Simmons
Rockwell Auto Sales (Figure 9).  A significant amount of pedestrian activity was
noted as occurring between the north and south at this location.  A westbound
right turn arrow has been marked within the paved shoulder.  Left turn lanes are
not provided.
Figure 9 ­ Driveway GDriveway H, located opposite Wells Lane, serves a small­scale commercial retail
development to the south of CR 64 (Figure 10).  It is understood that this parcel
has been acquired by Simmons Rockwell to accommodate further expansion.
The main driveway is poorly­defined, and lacks left or right turn lanes.  Sight
distance to traffic approaching from the west is limited by the horizontal curve,
and the grade ascending to the overpass.  It appears that an “ad­hoc” driveway
further to the east (with better sightlines to the west) has developed over time.

Road Safety Assessment (SA) Report
County Road 64 – Horseheads Big Flats Road
Town of Big Flats, Chemung County, New York State
May 30, 2008
Page 14 of 37Figure 10 – Driveway H2.0   Assessment Findings and Suggestions
2.1  General Issues
2.1.1Roadway classification and functional corridor considerations
Safety Concern: Existing roadway classification (rural arterial) appears to no
longer reflect the current and likely future roadway function.  The application of
rural arterial standards (horizontal and vertical alignment, auxiliary lanes, facilities
for vulnerable road users, speed limit, access design, access density, etc) and
treatment of capacity and access needs driven by new developments on a case­
by­case basis does not appear to be adequately addressing emerging capacity
and safety needs.
Observations: CR 64 was, and likely still is, classified as a rural arterial
roadway.  The impacts of individual development proposals, including site­
generated traffic and access requirements, appear to have been addressed in
isolation from one­another, apparently without a coherent overall plan for the
future of the corridor.  This has led to capacity constraints, inconsistencies in
roadway cross­section and traffic controls, and a conflicted road “message”
which may be contributing to substantial variations in operating speeds, high
driver workload, erratic maneuvers, conflicts, and collisions.  An example is the

Road Safety Assessment (SA) Report
County Road 64 – Horseheads Big Flats Road
Town of Big Flats, Chemung County, New York State
May 30, 2008
Page 15 of 37current 45 MPH speed limit which, even under off­peak conditions, was judged
by the assessment team to be excessive, given the density of accesses and
potential for vehicle­vehicle and vehicle/vulnerable user conflicts within the
corridor.
Risk Analysis:  Development pressures and traffic demand (exposure) are likely
to increase congestion, conflicts, and the likelihood of collisions over time.
Continued endorsement of higher operating speeds (based upon the current,
posted speed limit) may contribute to future collision severity.  Elevated collision
risk has already been noted at existing driveways.  Site­specific improvements
may be possible in the short­term, but a systemic approach is required to
comprehensively address the sources of risk.
Suggestions:The following steps are suggested:
·Reconsider the classification of the roadway on a corridor­wide basis
(from railway bridge easterly to connection with Commerce Center Road
or even further to the east, if development expectations warrant), in light of
existing and likely, future development pressures and traffic demands;
·Develop a comprehensive and consistent set of design standards, access
management policies, and approaches to the provision of an environment
consistent with sub­urban commercial operations and suitable to use by
vulnerable road users.  A more urbanized cross­section in conjunction with
a lowered speed limit, for example, would include transit, pedestrian, and
cyclist facilities, and communicate a road message consistent with lower
operating speeds and the need for increased vigilance regarding
vulnerable road users and turning traffic;
·Consider the suitability of a three or five­lane cross­section with a center
two­way left turn lane to address access density and the need for left turn
lanes.  Alternatively, consider access consolidation and the provision of
dedicated left and right turn lanes in conjunction with raised islands,
physical channelization, and physical turn prohibition, as components of a
consistent corridor cross­section;
·Examine options to retrofit a consistent cross­section and impose access
management policies (access alignment/consolidation) within the portion
of the corridor currently developed/under development, and apply these
same principles to the consideration of all future developments within the
corridor; and
·Re­evaluate the appropriateness of the current 45 MPH speed limit.
Priority for Consideration:  High.

Road Safety Assessment (SA) Report
County Road 64 – Horseheads Big Flats Road
Town of Big Flats, Chemung County, New York State
May 30, 2008
Page 16 of 372.1.2Lack of facilities for vulnerable road users along CR 64
Safety Issue:  Lack of pedestrian facilities along CR 64, and at waiting areas to
cross at Driveway A.
Observations:  Rural cross­section provides no dedicated pedestrian or cycling
facilities along CR 64.  Pedestrian crossing area at Driveway A has a poorly­
located pedestrian pushbutton in the northwest quadrant and no waiting areas for
pedestrians.  Pedestrian and possibly cyclist demand in the study area is
evolving, and future planning for the corridor should take this into consideration.
Risk Analysis: Pedestrians and cyclists traveling along CR 64 must use
gravel/paved shoulder immediately adjacent to travel lanes and are exposed to
higher­speed traffic, including traffic using shoulder for evasive maneuvers,
overtaking turning traffic, or as an ad­hoc right turn lane.  Designated crossing
location at Driveway A lacks pedestrian pushbutton access, waiting area away
from turning traffic.
Suggestion:Consider vulnerable road user facility needs in future corridor
planning.  Consider upgrading Driveway A pedestrian facilities to meet ADA
requirements.
Priority for Consideration:  High.
2.1.3Side and overhead lane designation signs
Safety Concern –Inconsistent usage of lane designation signs; correlation with
pavement markings.
Observations:  Side and overhead lane designation signs appear to be
inconsistently applied at intersections and driveways within the corridor.
Combined with irregularities in lane arrangement, function, pavement marking
deficiencies and road edge delineation, these inconsistencies may be resulting in
driver confusion, improper lane use and erratic maneuvers, potentially leading to
conflicts and collisions.
Risk Analysis:Given the prevalence of “non­typical” lane designations and
functions (i.e. double left turns, through­left combined, etc.), combined with

Road Safety Assessment (SA) Report
County Road 64 – Horseheads Big Flats Road
Town of Big Flats, Chemung County, New York State
May 30, 2008
Page 17 of 37increasing traffic volumes (exposure) the potential for higher operating speeds
(severity outcomes), the risk associated with this apparent deficiency is
considered to be moderate.
Suggestions –The following steps are suggested:
·Consider the appropriateness of current lane designations from a capacity
and consistency perspective, particularly those associated with driveway
approaches and changes in main roadway cross­section;
·Provide lane designation on a consistent basis;
·Provide overhead designation where appropriate;
·Ensure pavement markings are consistent with lane designation signs;
·Ensure lane designation signs are aligned with the lane(s) to which they
pertain; and
·Refurbish/alter markings as required.
Priority for Consideration –High.
2.2.1Pavement markings and road edge delineation
Safety Issue:  Inconsistencies, conflicting markings.
Observations: Pavement markings indicating permitted lane usage appear to be
inconsistent and/or unsupported by lane designation signs in some instances.
Pavement markings in some areas require refurbishment.  Obliterated markings
are visible in some areas, providing an inconsistent message.  Inappropriate
(unauthorized?) pavement markings are present at Driveway G.  Inconsistencies
and conflicting information may be leading to driver confusion, inappropriate lane
usage, and elevated risk of conflicts/collisions.
Risk Analysis:  Inconsistent markings may be leading to inappropriate lane use
and conflicts between adjacent traffic streams, increasing the likelihood of
conflicts and collisions.
Suggestions:The following steps are suggested:
·Re­evaluate lane configuration throughout corridor;
·Consider micro­resurfacing as a prelude to remarking, as required;
·Refurbish appropriate markings to enhance their visibility;

Road Safety Assessment (SA) Report
County Road 64 – Horseheads Big Flats Road
Town of Big Flats, Chemung County, New York State
May 30, 2008
Page 18 of 37·Consider road edge delineation at lane drops.
Priority for Consideration:  High
2.2.2Use of STOP signs and Stop Bars at driveways
Safety Issue:  STOP signs appear to be inconsistently applied at driveways.
When used, some STOP signs are obscured by site signs and/or do not meet
MUTCD retroreflectivity standards.  Stop Bars also appear to be inconsistently
applied at driveway accesses.
Observations: STOP signs are provided at some driveways, but not others.
Some are:
·  Poorly placed;
·  Obscured by site signs or landscaping; and
·  Are constructed of non­retroreflective or engineering­grade materials (not
high­intensity as required under MUTCD).
Stop bars are used inconsistently at driveway accesses.
Risk Analysis:  While technically not required where a private roadway
intersects with a public road, STOP signs and Stop Bars reinforce the need to
stop and yield to traffic approaching on the public road.  Their inconsistent use;
lack of visibility, and improper retroreflectivity may detract from their effectiveness
in this role, encouraging drivers to enter the public roadway without stopping.
Suggestions:The following steps are suggested:
·Apply conforming STOP signs at all unsignalized driveway approaches;
·Position signs for optimal viewing;
·Relocate obstructions; and
·Apply Stop Bars consistently with STOP signs.
Priority for Consideration:  Low

Road Safety Assessment (SA) Report
County Road 64 – Horseheads Big Flats Road
Town of Big Flats, Chemung County, New York State
May 30, 2008
Page 19 of 372.2  West approach to CR 35 intersection
Safety Issue:  East of Driveway A, the eastbound passing lane becomes an
exclusive left turn lane, creating a “trap lane” situation.
Observations:  On CR 64, a second eastbound through lane develops
immediately west of Driveway A.  The curb lane remains an eastbound through
lane east of Driveway A, while the passing lane becomes designated as an
exclusive left turn lane.  Drivers receive limited advance notification of this
change in lane designation.
Risk Analysis:  “Trap lane” situations may result in last­minute lane changes
and conflicts between vehicles traveling at different speeds, increasing the
likelihood of a collision.
Suggestions:Consider restriping eastbound to provide one through lane
through the Driveway A intersection, then develop two exclusive left turn lanes
and a single through lane beyond.  This will have implications for the southbound
dual left at driveway A.
If eastbound traffic demand requires two lanes through Driveway A, consider
enhanced lane designation signs and pavement legends to clearly identify the
trap lane condition.
Consider requesting that NYSDOT conduct an operational safety review or safety
assessment of the Southern Tier Expressway/CR 35 interchange functional area,
and include the CR 64/CR 35 intersection in that review.  Findings of the
NYSDOT review should be considered and coordinated with future corridor
planning by the County and NYSDOT.
Priority for Consideration:  High (in conjunction with assessment of CR 64/CR
35 intersection and development of CR 64 corridor plan).

Road Safety Assessment (SA) Report
County Road 64 – Horseheads Big Flats Road
Town of Big Flats, Chemung County, New York State
May 30, 2008
Page 20 of 372.3  Driveways
2.3.1Driveway A
Safety Issue #1: Lack of pedestrian footpaths or waiting areas at intersection
Observations:  Pedestrians are permitted to cross the west approach only.  No
pedestrian waiting areas are provided in either the northwest or southwest
quadrants (Figure 11).
Figure 11 – Pedestrian Waiting Area – Southwest QuadrantRisk Analysis:  Waiting pedestrians are exposed to risk of collision involving
turning traffic.
Suggestion:Upgrade intersection to meet ADA requirements.
Priority for Consideration:  High.
Safety Issue #2: Placement of pedestrian pushbutton in northwest quadrant.
Observations: Pedestrian pushbutton in the northwest quadrant is on the main
span wire support pole, at the bottom of the ditch, and is accessible only over
rubble stone landscaping or by descending a grassy grade (Figure 11).

Road Safety Assessment (SA) Report
County Road 64 – Horseheads Big Flats Road
Town of Big Flats, Chemung County, New York State
May 30, 2008
Page 21 of 37Figure 11 – Pushbutton Location in Northwest QuadrantRisk Analysis:  Pedestrians may choose to cross without actuating pedestrian
timings, and be provided with insufficient green time to clear the intersection,
increasing their risk of collision.
Suggestion:Upgrade intersection to meet ADA requirements.
Priority for Consideration:  High
Safety Issue #3: Pedestrian crossing timings.
Observations:  Pedestrians are provided with a total of 21 seconds in which to
cross CR 64.  Given the width of the intersection, this appears to be insufficient.
Risk Analysis:  Pedestrians may be provided with insufficient green time to clear
the intersection, increasing their risk of collision.
Suggestion:Review timings and adjust as required.
Priority for Consideration:  High.
Safety Issue #4: Dual southbound left turn
Observations:  The dual southbound left turn movement is permitted to operate
concurrently with northbound movements.  The swept path of the outer
southbound left turning vehicle overlaps that of a northbound left turning vehicle,

Road Safety Assessment (SA) Report
County Road 64 – Horseheads Big Flats Road
Town of Big Flats, Chemung County, New York State
May 30, 2008
Page 22 of 37posing the risk of an opposing sideswipe collision (Figure 12).  The outer
southbound left turning vehicle is turning into the same away lane as a
northbound right turning vehicle.  Under permissive operation, the left turning
vehicle must yield.  However, given the unusual nature of the operation, this may
not be evident to all users.
Figure 12 – Swept Path of Opposing Left TurnsRisk Analysis:  Overlapping movements increases risk of conflicts and turning
movement collisions within intersection.
Suggestions:Re­examine operational need for dual left turns.  If required,
consider:
·Split phasing northbound/southbound to separate conflicting movements
in time; or
·Geometric revisions to southbound (two exclusive left turn lanes, one
through­right turn lane, and one inbound lane) and/or southbound (one
exclusive right turn lane, one through lane, one exclusive left turn lane,
and one inbound lane) to offset the conflicting movements, with or without
the introduction of exclusive left turn phasing.

Road Safety Assessment (SA) Report
County Road 64 – Horseheads Big Flats Road
Town of Big Flats, Chemung County, New York State
May 30, 2008
Page 23 of 37Figure 13 – Revised Entrance SchemeIn the interim, consider refurbishing “chicken track” markings to delineate and de­
conflict the opposing left turn movements.
Priority for Consideration:  High.
Safety Issue #5: Transit stopping location – northwest quadrant.
Observations: Heavy vehicles (shopper “Shuttles”? municipal transit??) appear
to be stopping on right shoulder immediately west of Driveway A.  There are no
pedestrian waiting facilities at this location.  The shoulder shows signs of
pavement distress, and vehicles appear to be encroaching onto the grassed area
beyond – perhaps in an effort to move completely out of the travel lane.

Road Safety Assessment (SA) Report
County Road 64 – Horseheads Big Flats Road
Town of Big Flats, Chemung County, New York State
May 30, 2008
Page 24 of 37Figure 14 – Shoulder DistressRisk Analysis:  Stopped vehicles may be encroaching into the travel lane,
elevating the risk of a vehicle­vehicle collision.  Lack of pedestrian waiting
facilities exposes pedestrians to traffic hazards.
Suggestion:Investigate shoulder usage by transit vehicles and, if warranted,
consider inclusion of transit facilities in future corridor cross­sectional plan.
Priority for Consideration: Low.
Safety Issue #6: Lack of inter­visibility between vehicles approaching on the
north and south approaches.
Observations:  Superelevation on north side of CR 64 restricts inter­visibility
between vehicles approaching intersection on north and south approaches.05/06/2008

Road Safety Assessment (SA) Report
County Road 64 – Horseheads Big Flats Road
Town of Big Flats, Chemung County, New York State
May 30, 2008
Page 25 of 37Figure 16 – Relative eye height of drivers approaching CR 64Risk Analysis:  Restricted inter­visibility makes judging an opposing driver’s
intentions under permissive green more difficult, increasing the risk of conflicts
and collisions.
Suggestion:Examine opportunities to reduce superelevation and/or “ramp”
driveways to improve inter­visibility as a component of a revised cross­sectional
design.
Priority for Consideration: Low.
Safety Issue #7:Taper, deceleration and storage length, eastbound left turn
lane.
Observation:  The total length of the eastbound left turn lane appears
insufficient for taper, deceleration, and storage for a 45 MPH posted speed limit.
Risk Analysis:  Short left turn lane risks rear­end collisions as drivers enter the
lane at speed, and conflicts and possible rear­end collisions within the through
lane as drivers decelerate in the through lane to enter the turn lane.
Suggestion:In the interim, re­evaluate left turn lane lengths as a component of
pavement markings revisions.  In the longer term, apply appropriate design
standards consistent with overall corridor standards.05/06/2008

Road Safety Assessment (SA) Report
County Road 64 – Horseheads Big Flats Road
Town of Big Flats, Chemung County, New York State
May 30, 2008
Page 26 of 37Priority for Consideration.  Moderate.
Safety Issue #8: Inconsistent pedestrian “WALK” and “DON’T W ALK” displays
Observations:  Pedestrian signals mix worded and symbolized WALK and
DON’T WALK messages.  Pedestrian instructions/information provided at
pushbutton locations refers only to symbolized messaging.
Risk Analysis:  Minor consistency issue.
Suggestion:Revise to consistent standard when intersection is upgraded to
meet ADA requirements.  Consider pedestrian countdown timer displays.
Priority for Consideration:  Low
2.3.2Driveway B
Safety Issue #1: Pattern of right­angle collisions (12 in 3 years, out of 16 total)
involving outbound (southbound) left turning vehicles and westbound through
vehicles.
Observations:  North approach is skewed to the east, relative to the alignment
of CR 64.  Stop Bar placement and lane arrangement does not appear to
encourage drivers to move up to optimal viewing point, or align their vehicle
perpendicular to CR 64.  Crash records indicate that southbound left turning
drivers generally stop, then fail to yield to westbound traffic.  Collisions appear
associated with periods of peak traffic demand, suggesting limited gaps for
entering traffic. Intersection skew, horizontal curvature of CR 64, presence of
vehicles in the westbound right turn lane, and possibly speed­of­approach of
westbound vehicles make gap detection and acceptance more difficult.
Risk Analysis:  Skewed intersections are associated with higher crash
frequency.  Operating speeds may be contributing to higher severity outcomes.
Suggestions:As an interim measure, revise Stop Bar and lane lines to
encourage drivers to move up to optimal viewing point and align their vehicle
perpendicular to CR 64.  In the longer term, consider relocating Driveway B
opposite Driveway C, and investigate possible warrant for traffic control signals.

Road Safety Assessment (SA) Report
County Road 64 – Horseheads Big Flats Road
Town of Big Flats, Chemung County, New York State
May 30, 2008
Page 27 of 37Priority for Consideration:  High
Safety Issue #3:  Non­compliant and obscured STOP sign.
Observations:  Site sign and landscaping obscure STOP sign.  Stop sign is not
constructed of High Intensity retroreflective materials per MUTCD.
Risk Analysis:  While technically not required where a private roadway
intersects with a public road, STOP signs and Stop Bars reinforce the need to
stop and yield to traffic approaching on the public road.  Their inconsistent use;
lack of visibility, and improper retroreflectivity may detract from their effectiveness
in this role, encouraging drivers to enter the public roadway without stopping.
Suggestions:The following steps are suggested:
·Install conforming STOP sign;
·Position sign for optimal viewing; and
·Relocate obstructions
Priority for Consideration:  High.
Safety Issue #4: Daylighting triangle sight line restrictions.
Observations:  Site sign and landscaping obscure sight lines to approaching
eastbound traffic from stopped position.
Risk Analysis:Outbound left turning movement associated with high workload
and collisions.  Improved sightlines may assist drivers in assessing gaps,
focusing more attention on westbound through traffic.
Suggestions:Relocate Stop Bar per Safety Issue #1.  Relocate obstructions.
Priority for Consideration:  High.
Safety Issue #5:Taper, deceleration and storage length, eastbound left turn
lane
Observation:  The total length of the eastbound left turn lane appears
insufficient for taper, deceleration, and storage for a 45 MPH posted speed limit.

Road Safety Assessment (SA) Report
County Road 64 – Horseheads Big Flats Road
Town of Big Flats, Chemung County, New York State
May 30, 2008
Page 28 of 37Risk Analysis:  Short left turn lane risks rear­end collisions as drivers enter the
lane at speed, and conflicts and possible rear­end collisions within the through
lane as drivers decelerate in the through lane to enter the turn lane.
Suggestion:In the interim, re­evaluate left turn lane lengths as a component of
pavement markings revisions.  In the longer term, apply appropriate design
standards consistent with overall corridor standards.
Priority for Consideration.  Moderate.
2.3.3Driveway C
Safety Issue #1: Usage by patrons despite usage being restricted to trucks.
Outbound left turn violations.
Observations:  Patrons of the Consumers Square commercial facility are using
this driveway for inbound and outbound movements despite:
·  Inbound movement being restricted to trucks by way of (poorly orientated)
regulatory sign;
·  Lack of westbound left turn lane; and
·  Prohibition of outbound left turns.
This activity is likely a response to internal site circulation issues, and congestion
and delay at other access points.
Risk Analysis:  Usage, while a violation, does not appear to be associated with
an elevated risk of collision.
Suggestions:Re­examine justification for usage restriction and left turn
prohibition.  If found to be justified, correct sign deficiencies as follows:
·Provide near­side right turn restriction sign; and
·Correct orientation of restricted to trucks only sign.
If found not to be justified, amend signs and markings as follows:
·Remove restricted to trucks only sign;
·Remove turn prohibition; and
·Mark westbound left turn lane.

Road Safety Assessment (SA) Report
County Road 64 – Horseheads Big Flats Road
Town of Big Flats, Chemung County, New York State
May 30, 2008
Page 29 of 37In the longer term, consider formalization as an all­users access in conjunction
with re­alignment of Driveway B opposite, and possible installation of traffic
control signals.
Priority for Implementation:Low.
2.3.4Driveway D
No issues Identified
2.3.5Driveway E
Safety Issue #1:  Non­compliant and obscured STOP sign.
Observations:  Site sign and landscaping obscure STOP sign.  Stop sign is not
constructed of High Intensity retroreflective materials per MUTCD.
Risk Analysis:  While technically not required where a private roadway
intersects with a public road, STOP signs and Stop Bars reinforce the need to
stop and yield to traffic approaching on the public road.  Their inconsistent use;
lack of visibility, and improper retroreflectivity may detract from their effectiveness
in this role, encouraging drivers to enter the public roadway without stopping.
Suggestions:The following steps are suggested:
·Install conforming STOP sign;
·Position sign for optimal viewing; and
·Relocate obstructions
Priority for Consideration:  High.
Safety Issue #2: Daylighting triangle sight line restrictions.
Observations:  Site sign and landscaping obscure sight lines to approaching
eastbound traffic from stopped position.

Road Safety Assessment (SA) Report
County Road 64 – Horseheads Big Flats Road
Town of Big Flats, Chemung County, New York State
May 30, 2008
Page 30 of 37Risk Analysis:Outbound left turning movement associated with high workload.
Improved sightlines may assist drivers in assessing gaps, focusing more
attention on westbound through traffic.
Suggestions:Relocate Stop Bar per Safety Issue #1.  Relocate obstructions.
Safety Issue #3:  Lack of eastbound left turn lane.
Observations:  Left turning traffic stops in through lane to await gaps in
westbound traffic.  Through traffic uses shoulder to overtake.
Risk Analysis:  Risk of rear­end collisions based on eastbound traffic operating
speeds.  Shoulder usage poses risk of run­off­the­road­type collisions, conflicts
with outbound left turning vehicles, and conflicts with vulnerable road users on
the shoulder.
Suggestions:Consider providing left turn lane as a component of future
corridor plan.  Explore opportunities to realign this Driveway and Driveway F with
left turn lanes for both driveways as a component of future corridor plan.
Priority for Consideration: Moderate.
Safety Issue #4:  Lack of westbound right turn lane.
Observations:  Right turning traffic slows in westbound through lane.
Westbound through traffic crosses centre line to overtake.
Risk Analysis:  Risk of rear­end collisions based on westbound traffic operating
speeds.  Risk of head­on collisions during overtaking
Suggestions:Consider providing right turn lane as a component of future
corridor plan.
Priority for Consideration: Moderate.

Road Safety Assessment (SA) Report
County Road 64 – Horseheads Big Flats Road
Town of Big Flats, Chemung County, New York State
May 30, 2008
Page 31 of 372.3.6Driveway F
Safety Issue #1:  Lack of eastbound left turn lane.
Observations:  Left turning traffic stops in through lane to await gaps in
westbound traffic.  Through traffic uses shoulder to overtake.
Risk Analysis:  Risk of rear­end collisions based on eastbound traffic operating
speeds.  Shoulder usage poses risk of run­off­the­road­type collisions, conflicts
with outbound left turning vehicles, and conflicts with vulnerable road users on
the shoulder.
Suggestions:Consider providing left turn lane as a component of future
corridor plan.  Explore opportunities to realign this Driveway and Driveway F with
left turn lanes for both driveways as a component of future corridor plan.
Priority for Consideration: Moderate.
Safety Issue #2:  Lack of eastbound right turn lane.
Observations:  Right turning traffic slows in eastbound through lane.
Westbound through traffic crosses centre line to overtake.
Risk Analysis:  Risk of rear­end collisions based on eastbound traffic operating
speeds.  Risk of head­on collisions during overtaking.
Suggestions:Consider providing right turn lane as a component of future
corridor plan.
Priority for Consideration: Moderate.
2.3.7Driveway G
Safety Issue #1:  Possible unauthorized roadway improvements.
Observations: Right turn arrows have been marked on paved shoulder.
Shoulder may not be structurally sufficient to serve as a right turn lane.
Pavement added to provide right turn “slips”.  Is this work authorized by the
County?

Road Safety Assessment (SA) Report
County Road 64 – Horseheads Big Flats Road
Town of Big Flats, Chemung County, New York State
May 30, 2008
Page 32 of 37Risk Analysis:  Minor, but there is a potential liability issue for the road authority
if unauthorized roadway “improvements” go unchallenged.
Suggestions:Clarify adjacent property owners’ authority and intentions.
Priority for Consideration:  Moderate.
Safety Issue #2: Pedestrian activity.
Observations:Pedestrians observed crossing between north and south side of
CR 64.
Risk Analysis:Road users, particularly those traveling eastbound, may not
expect to encounter pedestrians in the roadway.  Given the prevailing operating
speeds, this could result in a high­severity outcome.
Suggestion:Consider warning signs to advise eastbound (and possibly
westbound road users of pedestrian activity associated with this access.  Monitor
activity for potential warrant for traffic control to provide assured pedestrian
crossing opportunities (e.g. High­Visibility Crosswalk).
Priority for Consideration:High.
Safety Issue #3:  Lack of left turn lanes.
Observations:  Simmons Rockwell has expanded incrementally, and is currently
undergoing a further expansion.  This is likely to increase site­generated traffic.
Left turning traffic stops in through lane to await gaps in opposing traffic.
Through traffic uses shoulder to overtake.
Risk Analysis:  Risk of rear­end collisions based on operating speeds.
Shoulder usage poses risk of run­off­the­road­type collisions, conflicts with
outbound left turning vehicles, and conflicts with vulnerable road users on the
shoulder.
Suggestions:  Consider providing left turn lanes as a component of future
corridor plan.
Priority for Consideration: Moderate.

Road Safety Assessment (SA) Report
County Road 64 – Horseheads Big Flats Road
Town of Big Flats, Chemung County, New York State
May 30, 2008
Page 33 of 372.3.8Driveway H
Safety Issue:  Proximity to horizontal and vertical curve to the west.
Observations: Eastbound traffic is descending the grade from the railway
overpass at 45+ MPH.  Road users entering CR 64 have difficulty seeing traffic
approaching from the west.  An informal driveway further to the east has
apparently developed over time, possibly in response to this issue.
Risk Analysis:  Restricted sightlines pose an elevated risk of higher­severity
angle­type collisions, involving northbound to westbound left turning vehicles and
eastbound through vehicles.
Suggestion:  Consider closing westerly driveway and formalizing a consolidated
driveway further to the east, opposite Wells Lane and provide left (and possibly
right) turn lanes as a component of future corridor plan.
Priority for Consideration: Low.
2.4  Onsite Issues
During the safety assessment, a number of issues pertaining to road user safety
were identified pertaining to on­site traffic movements.  They are as follows:
Safety Issue #1:  Most, if not all of the developments within the study area lack
pedestrian facilities to provide access to stores from CR 64.
Observations:  Pedestrians are forced to walk amongst traffic and between rows
of parked vehicles to access store entrances.
Risk Analysis: Pedestrians are exposed to vehicular traffic along driveways, and
move along random desire lines from parking areas to store entrances,
increasing the likelihood of vehicle­pedestrian conflicts and collisions.
Suggestion:In consultation with developers/property owners, examine
opportunities to retrofit pedestrian facilities within adjacent developments, and
provide secure pedestrian corridors between parking areas and entrances.
Review and comment on pedestrian safety and on­site circulation issues as a
component of future development approvals.

Road Safety Assessment (SA) Report
County Road 64 – Horseheads Big Flats Road
Town of Big Flats, Chemung County, New York State
May 30, 2008
Page 34 of 37Priority for Consideration:  Existing Issue – Moderate, Future Issues ­ High.
Safety Issue #2: Michaels/Old Navy Plaza parking layout and entrance design.
Observations:  The parking layout has the first two rows of parked vehicles
oriented parallel to the front of the stores, along the main isle.  This results in
vehicles backing into the isle to exit stalls, conflicting with vehicles traveling along
the isle and pedestrians crossing to and from the parking area.  The columns
along the front of the covered entrances to the stores obscure approaching
drivers’ views of pedestrians exiting the stores and stepping into the main isle.
Risk Analysis: The orientation of the first two rows of parking, the placement of
the main access isle immediately in front of the stores, and the sight restriction
posed by the building’s architecture increase the likelihood of vehicle­vehicle and
vehicle­pedestrian conflicts and collisions.
Suggestion:In consultation with developers/property owners, consider revising
the parking layout to provide perpendicular parking stalls, and to direct the
majority of vehicle movements away from the isle immediately in front of the
stores.  Review and comment on pedestrian safety and on­site circulation issues
as a component of future development approvals.
Priority for Consideration: Existing Issues – Low, Future Issues – High.
2.5  Other Issues
During the safety assessment, other miscellaneous issues pertaining to road
user safety were identified.  They are as follows:
Safety Issue #1:  There is a school bus stop ahead sign, for eastbound traffic,
located immediately east of railway overpass.
Observation: This sign is present.  However, there does not appear to be any
residential uses in the vicinity.
Risk Analysis:  Minimal.
Suggestion:Review continuing requirement for sign, and remove if no longer
necessary.

Road Safety Assessment (SA) Report
County Road 64 – Horseheads Big Flats Road
Town of Big Flats, Chemung County, New York State
May 30, 2008
Page 35 of 37Priority for Consideration: Low.
Safety Issue #2:  Plant (Trucks) Entrance sign for westbound traffic upstream of
Driveways C and D.
Observations: Volume of heavy trucks using these accesses likely does not
warrant presence of this sign.
Risk Analysis:  Minimal.
Suggestion:Revisit warrant for sign, and remove if unwarranted.
Priority for Consideration:  Low.
Safety Issue #3: Utility pole in clear zone on north side of CR 64 between
Driveway B and Driveway E.
Observation:  This pole is located immediately behind the shoulder at a
significantly lesser offset that other poles in the corridor.
Risk Analysis:  Pole appears to represent a fixed object hazard within the
roadway clear zone, with increased likelihood of collision in the event of a vehicle
drifting to the outside of the curve or undertaking an evasive maneuver.  There is
an increased potential for a higher severity outcome if pole is struck, relative to
vehicle entering ditch.
Suggestion:Relocate pole outside of clear zone as a component of future
corridor plan.
Priority for Consideration: Low (may be considered along with other cross­
sectional improvements).

Road Safety Assessment (SA) Report
County Road 64 – Horseheads Big Flats Road
Town of Big Flats, Chemung County, New York State
May 30, 2008
Page 36 of 37Safety Issue #4:  Vertical culvert headwalls.
Observations:  Several ditch inlets under driveways were noted to employ
vertical culvert headwalls.  These headwalls may constitute a roadside hazard if
struck by an errant vehicle.
Risk Analysis:  Vertical headwalls may increase the severity outcomes of run­
off­the­road­type collisions.
Suggestion:Address these potential hazards in future corridor plan.
Priority for Consideration:  Low.
Safety Concern #5:  Peak period/night operations review.
Observations:  The assessment team was not able to conduct a PM or weekend
peak period review, or a night review, due to time constraints.
Suggestion:Observation of peak period operations may yield additional insights
into collision causal factors and safety issues.  A night review is suggested as
part of the assessment response process.  The night review should examine
illumination needs; sign, delineation and pavement marking retroreflectivity; and
light trespass/glare issues pertaining to the adjacent commercial developments.
Priority for Consideration:High.

Road Safety Assessment (SA) Report
County Road 64 – Horseheads Big Flats Road
Town of Big Flats, Chemung County, New York State
May 30, 2008
Page 37 of 373.0   Conclusion
This assessment has been prepared to assist the responsible road authorities in
the identification and actualization of opportunities to improve safety within the
study area.  The assessment is based on information available at the time of the
field review.  The suggestions it contains are for consideration only, and are in no
way intended to serve as design or operational recommendations.
This report does not preclude the identification of additional issues pertaining to
safety by the responsible road authorities, or the emergence of new issues over
time.
It is recommended that the responsible road authorities review this report;
document their responses to the issues identified in a formal response report;
and track their progress towards the implementation of safety improvements
prompted by this assessment.

Road Safety ASSESSMENT (SA) Report
Washington County Route 12 at Hatch Hill Road (South Junction)
Town of Granville
Washington County
New York State
Sponsored by: New York State Metropolitan Planning Organizations
Assessment Conducted May 12th
and 13th
, 2008
Final Report Date: July 22, 200805/13/0805/13/0805/13/08200 First Federal Plaza28 East Main Street
Rochester, NY 14614
585.232.5235www.bergmannpc.comPrepared By:In Association With:

Road Safety Assessment (SA) Report
Washington County Route 12 at Hatch Hill Road (South Junction)
Town of Granville, Washington County, New York State
Page 2 of 19Table of Contents
1.0BACKGROUND3
1.1SA Team4
1.2SA Process5
1.3SA Report5
1.4Study Area Characteristics, Operations, and Safety Performance (Office Review)6
2.0ASSESSMENT FINDINGS AND SUGGESTIONS7
2.1Approaching Roadway Issues7
2.1.1CR 12 North Approach7
2.1.2CR 12 South Approach11
2.1.3Hatch Hill Road13
2.2Intersection and Intersection­related Issues14
3.0CONCLUSION18

Road Safety Assessment (SA) Report
Washington County Route 12 at Hatch Hill Road (South Junction)
Town of Granville, Washington County, New York State
Page 3 of 191.0   Background
Washington County Route 12 (CR 12) extends northerly from New York State
(NYS) Route 22 in the south to the Town of Whitehall in the north.  CR 12 is an
asphalt surfaced, rural collector roadway with a two­lane rural cross­section and
a statutory speed limit of 55 miles per hour.  Adjacent land uses within the study
area are generally rural residential and agricultural.
Approximately 1.5 miles north of NYS Route 22, CR 12 intersects with Hatch Hill
Road (South Junction), an asphalt surfaced, rural local roadway with a two­lane
cross­section and posted speed limit of 45 miles per hour (Figure 1).  Adjacent
land uses within the study area are generally rural residential and agricultural.
Hatch Hill Road is under the jurisdiction of the Town of Granville.
Viewed from the south, the two roadways form a “Y” intersection with CR 12
bearing off to the northwest and Hatch Hill Road bearing off to the northeast.
The Hatch Hill Road approach to CR 12 is controlled by a STOP sign.
Figure 1 – Study Location MapStudy LocationNORTH

Road Safety Assessment (SA) Report
Washington County Route 12 at Hatch Hill Road (South Junction)
Town of Granville, Washington County, New York State
Page 4 of 19The CR 12/Hatch Hill Road (South Junction) intersection and its approaching
roadways were selected for a safety assessment (SA) based upon a network
safety screening of County and municipal roadways. The results of that
screening identified both the subject intersection and the adjacent roadway
segment of CR 12 to the north as having a higher­than­expected collision
frequency
1.1  SA Team
This was the first SA conducted by Washington County in association with the
Adirondack Glens Falls Transportation Council (AGFTC).  As such, a brief
introductory training session was provided on the afternoon of the first day of the
assessment.
This SA was sponsored by the New York State Metropolitan Planning
Organizations (NYSMPOs) and will serve as one of three case studies to be
included in guidelines for the conduct of SAs on locally owned and maintained
transportation facilities throughout New York State.
The SA Team was comprised of Washington County Department of Public Works
(DPW) and NYSMPO representatives along with two members from the
consultant team leading the development of the SA guide.
The SA Team included the following individuals:
·Aaron Frankenfeld, AGFTC,afrankenfeld@agftc.org·Kristina Hong, AGFTC,khong@agftc.org·Scott Tracy, Washington County DPW,stracy@co.washington.ny.us·Richard Doyle, Washington County DPW,ddoyle@co.washington.ny.us·Michael Breault, Washington County DPW,mbreault@co.washington.ny.us·Mike Croce,Bergmann Associatesmcroce@bergmannpc.com·Greg Junnor, Synectics Transportation Consultants,gjunnor@synectics­inc.net

Road Safety Assessment (SA) Report
Washington County Route 12 at Hatch Hill Road (South Junction)
Town of Granville, Washington County, New York State
Page 5 of 191.2  SA Process
The SA was conducted in a manner consistent with the proposed safety
assessment guidelines being prepared for the NYSMPOs.  The assessment took
place on May 12th
and 13th
, 2008.
Information reviewed during the course of the assessment included the following:
·  Aerial photographs;
·  Traffic volume data;
·  Collision information;
·  Adjacent land uses; and
·  Existing safety concerns.
This information was reviewed by the assessment team on the morning of the
second day of the assessment. The assessment team then went into the field to
conduct a site visit. This visit began in the late morning and extended into the
noon hour.  Site visit conditions were warm and sunny.
The assessment team reconvened on the afternoon of the second day to
complete the assessment analysis.  Preliminary assessment findings were
discussed then recorded using the FHW A Road Safety Audit (RSA) Software.
This report was subsequently prepared by the consultant team and circulated
among the assessment team members for review and comment prior to being
finalized.
1.3  SA Report
This report provides information on issues identified by the assessment team
which were deemed relevant to the stated goal of an SA; “identifying
opportunities to improve road safety within the study area.”
Where appropriate, an assessment of road user safety risk and suggestions for
improvement are included.  High, medium, and low priority designations are
provided as a means for the reader to gauge the Assessment Team’s opinion on
what improvements should be considered in the near term and which could be
held off until others have been completed or tried.

Road Safety Assessment (SA) Report
Washington County Route 12 at Hatch Hill Road (South Junction)
Town of Granville, Washington County, New York State
Page 6 of 19The suggestions provided in this document should not be viewed as design or
operational recommendations.  They are intended to be illustrative of potential
solutions to the safety issues identified and are presented for consideration only.
Within this report the findings and suggestions of the assessment team are
organized into two groups:
·Approaching Roadway Issues – pertaining to the approaching roadways
but not directly related to the intersection; and
·Intersection and Intersection­related Issues – pertaining to the
intersection of CR 12 and Hatch Hill Road.
1.4  Study Area Characteristics, Operations, and Safety
Performance (Office Review)
CR 12 within the study area carries an annual average daily traffic (AADT) of 919
vehicles south of Hatch Hill Road, and 606 vehicles north of Hatch Hill Road.
Hatch Hill Road carries an AADT of 313 vehicles.
Vehicle types include passenger vehicles, farm­related truck traffic, and farm
equipment.  An informal review of license plates indicates a substantial number
of out­of­state (Vermont) license plates, suggesting non­local users.  A maple
sugar house, located on Hatch Hill Road, draws tourists during the spring
“sugaring­off” season.  There is new development (rural acreages) being
constructed on Hatch Hill Road northeast of the study area intersection.
The Hatch Hill Road approach is STOP (R1­1) controlled.  There is anecdotal
evidence that this approach may have been controlled by a YIELD (R1­2) sign in
the past.
Collision data for the past 11 years indicates a total of 34 collisions on the CR 12
approaches. This figure includes those collisions that are within 0.3 miles north
and south of the intersection and those that occurred within intersection. Hatch
Hill Road experienced 11 collisions over the same time period within 0.3 miles of
the intersection, for a total of 45 collisions within the study area. At least 16
crashes resulted in one or more injuries.
An informal tally of collision attributes indicates the following:

Road Safety Assessment (SA) Report
Washington County Route 12 at Hatch Hill Road (South Junction)
Town of Granville, Washington County, New York State
Page 7 of 19·  12 vehicle versus animal (deer, raccoon) collisions. Deer incidents were
primarily located on the CR 12 north approach.
·  CR 12 north of the intersection has experienced a pattern of single vehicle
run­off­the­road collisions (total of 7). It is believed that they are occurring
on a reverse curve where roadbed stability and localized settlement has
been an ongoing maintenance concern.
·  Several intersection and intersection­related collisions make reference to
wet pavement and loose sand/gravel on the roadway surface.
·  Collisions on Hatch Hill Road make frequent reference to slush, snow or
ice on the road surface leading to single vehicle loss of control.
Washington County has ownership and maintenance jurisdiction over CR 12.
The roadway was resurfaced within the last 2 years.  Winter maintenance
activities including routine plowing and salting to a bare pavement surface.
Maintenance on Hatch Hill Road is carried out by Town of Granville forces.
Winter maintenance activities include plowing and the spreading of sand or grit. It
was suggested that packed snow is occasionally allowed to remain on the
roadway surface during the winter.
2.0   Assessment Findings and Suggestions
2.1  Approaching Roadway Issues
2.1.1CR 12 North Approach
Safety Concern #1: Deer collisions
Observations: The assessment team noted substantial evidence of deer activity
(fresh tracks in mud) approximately 300 to 600 yards north of the intersection,
between an open field to the west and a wooded ravine to the east. This is also
on the approach to the reverse curve.  This observation correlates with the
collision experience. Salt residue in roadside ditches from winter maintenance
activities may be attracting deer to the roadway.

Road Safety Assessment (SA) Report
Washington County Route 12 at Hatch Hill Road (South Junction)
Town of Granville, Washington County, New York State
Page 8 of 19Risk Analysis:  Crashes involving large animals and vehicles may result in
evasive maneuvers and loss of control.  The existing horizontal alignment makes
seeing and avoiding animals on or crossing the roadway difficult.  Crashes
involving deer have a higher potential for severe results as an animal may be
propelled through windshield and intrude into vehicle.
Suggestions:Examine warrants for deer crossing signs.  Consider reflectors,
appropriate plantings, or right­of­way fencing to deter crossing activity or channel
it to tangent areas with better sightlines.
Priority for Consideration:  ModerateSafety Concern #2:Roadway settlement.
Observations: Settlement of the roadbed and sliding of pavement toward the
east shoulder have been noted as ongoing maintenance concerns on the inside
of the northbound lane approximately 200 to 300 yards north of the intersection.
Field observations revealed a dip in this area. This coupled with anecdotal
evidence of frost heaving and subsidence in spring, suggests the problem was
not resolved when the roadway was last resurfaced.
Risk Analysis:  Undulations in the roadway at this location are superimposed on
a horizontal curve, thus increasing the potential for a loss of vehicular control.
Suggestions:In the short term, consider asphalt shimming to correct
settlement.  In the longer term, seek more a durable solution (i.e. embankment
stabilization, reconstruction with undercut and geotextile, etc).
Priority for Consideration:  Moderate.Safety Concern #3: Steep ditch cross­section with utility poles located in the
foreslope or invert.
Observations: The ditch along the west side of CR 12 (adjacent to the
southbound lane) has a near­vertical back slope approximately 200 to 300 yards
north of Hatch Hill Road (southern junction).  Utility poles are located within the
foreslope (Figure 2).

Road Safety Assessment (SA) Report
Washington County Route 12 at Hatch Hill Road (South Junction)
Town of Granville, Washington County, New York State
Page 9 of 19Risk Analysis:  A steep ditch back slope raises the potential for overturning an
errant vehicle, resulting in a higher collision severity outcome.  The collision data
set contained information on one vehicle rollover associated with this location.
This combination of ditch geometry and pole location risks errant vehicles being
directed into a roadside fixed object collision.
Figure 2 – Ditch Back Slope and Utility PoleSuggestions:Re­grade ditch and flatten back slope to 1:3 or flatter.  Explore
opportunities to relocate poles on the outside of a horizontal curve behind the
ditch and outside of the clear zone.
Priority for Consideration:  Moderate.Safety Concern #4: Edge drop­off opposite intersection with Hatch Hill Road.
Observations: Southbound vehicles appear to have been off­tracking to the
inside of the horizontal curve to the right, resulting in the formation of an edge
drop­off (Figure 3).
Risk Analysis:  Edge drop­offs may result in a vehicle “hooking” the pavement
edge resulting in a loss of control as the driver attempts to steer back onto the
traveled way.05/13/08

Road Safety Assessment (SA) Report
Washington County Route 12 at Hatch Hill Road (South Junction)
Town of Granville, Washington County, New York State
Page 10 of 19Figure 3 – Edge Drop­offSuggestion:  Consider re­grading the shoulder to eliminate drop­off.
Priority for Consideration:  Low.Safety Concern #5: Southbound sequence of reverse curve (left­then­right), T­
intersection, curve (to the right), and farm vehicle signs.
Observations:The Reverse curve (W1­4) sign appears appropriate and
properly­placed.  The T­intersection (W2­2) sign does not accurately depict the
intersection skew. The curve (W1­2) sign appears located too close to the curve
it references.  The farm vehicle (W11­5) sign is located at the intersection, in an
area of high driver workload, and may not be necessary at this location.
Risk Analysis:  Road user signs may impose additional driver workload in areas
where motorists must already be on the look­out for conflicting intersection
movements.  The information provided may be interpreted by drivers as
somewhat inaccurate or provide insufficient time to perceive and react.05/13/08

Road Safety Assessment (SA) Report
Washington County Route 12 at Hatch Hill Road (South Junction)
Town of Granville, Washington County, New York State
Page 11 of 19Suggestions:Combine the curve and intersection warning signs into one (W1­
10) which accurately depicts the roadway and intersection geometry and locate
that sign with an appropriate advance posting distance in accordance with the
National MUTCD, New York State Supplement, and prevailing field conditions.
Evaluate the need to retain the farm vehicle (W11­5) sign and the potential for its
relocation downstream of the intersection.
Priority for Consideration:  High.
2.1.2CR 12 South Approach
Safety Concern #1: Lack of curve sign or intersection warning sign.
Observations: Northbound road motorists approaching the Hatch Hill Road
intersection on CR 12 enter a horizontal curve to the left.  Although this curve is
visible in the daytime, it may be less obvious at night.  The wide intersection
throat and superelevation on the outside of the curve may induce drivers to “run
wide” potentially leading to run­off­the­road collisions on the outside of the curve
or loss of control through over­correction.
Risk Analysis:  Loss of control to the outside of the curve may result in a higher
severity outcome due to the presence of fixed objects (boulders) and a private
residence located between the two roads.
Suggestions:Consider adding a curve warning sign which also depicts the
intersection and its unusual geometry (W1­10).
Priority for Consideration:  HighSafety Concern #2: Utility pole and cable anchor on outside of horizontal curve
Observations: A utility pole exists with a guy wire extending toward the
northbound lane of CR 12 on the outside of the northbound horizontal curve to
the left (Figure 4).
Risk Analysis:  Utility poles and guy wires pose a fixed object roadside hazard
on the outside of a horizontal curve, potentially increasing the severity of a run­
off­the­roadway type collision.

Road Safety Assessment (SA) Report
Washington County Route 12 at Hatch Hill Road (South Junction)
Town of Granville, Washington County, New York State
Page 12 of 19Figure 4 – Utility Pole and Guy WireSuggestions:Explore options to relocate pole and guy wire outside of the clear
zone.
Priority for Consideration:  Low.Safety Concern #3:  Fixed objects adjacent to the intersection.
Observations:  The property owner immediately to the north of the intersection
(effective gore area formed by the two roads as seen by northbound traffic) has
placed boulders along the property line. This may have been an effort to reduce
the risk of errant vehicles encroaching upon the property and adjacent home
(Figure 5).05/13/08

Road Safety Assessment (SA) Report
Washington County Route 12 at Hatch Hill Road (South Junction)
Town of Granville, Washington County, New York State
Page 13 of 19Figure 5 – BouldersRisk Analysis:  These boulders constitute an unnecessary fixed object roadside
hazard and may increase crash severity outcome if struck by an errant vehicle.
Suggestion:After other intersection safety improvements have been
implemented, discuss the removal of these stones with the property owner.
Perhaps install low growth shrubs to snag vehicles that run off the road.
Priority for Consideration:  High.
2.1.3Hatch Hill Road
Safety Concern #1: Lack of warning regarding presence of intersection or STOP
control.
Observations: Road users approaching the intersection on Hatch Hill Road
have their view of the intersection and the STOP (R1­1) sign obscured by the
vertical alignment of the roadway (dip) and roadside foliage.  The existing stop
sign support does have a retroreflective strip  The two direction large arrow sign
(W1­7) and route marker assembly (M1­6) located opposite the Hatch Hill Road
approach appear appropriately positioned but lack conspicuity.  The two direction
large arrow sign support also has a retroreflective strip.05/13/08

Road Safety Assessment (SA) Report
Washington County Route 12 at Hatch Hill Road (South Junction)
Town of Granville, Washington County, New York State
Page 14 of 19Risk Analysis:  Drivers may recognize and react to the intersection and the
STOP control late, resulting in loss of control or entering the intersection without
stopping (violation).
Suggestions:Consider posting a STOP ahead (W3­1) sign on Hatch Hill Road.
Consider a bigger two direction large double arrow (W1­7) sign opposite the
Hatch Hill Road approach and slightly relocating the route marker assembly (M1­
6). Consider adding stop line on the Hatch Hill Road approach to CR 12.
Priority for Consideration:  High.Safety Concern #2: Speed limit sign and private advertising.
Observations: A 45 MPH speed limit (R2­1) sign is located on the east shoulder,
for northbound traffic at the point where Hatch Hill Road splits from CR 12.  It is
unclear from the northbound driver’s perspective whether this sign applies to CR
12 or Hatch Hill Road.  Appended to the Speed Limit sign is a private roadside
advertisement sign (Maple Sugar Shack).  This secondary sign does not appear
to be retroreflective.
Risk Analysis:  Minimal.
Suggestions:Confirm the regulatory speed limit on Hatch Hill Road and
relocate the speed limit (R2­1) sign accordingly to eliminate the potential for
misinterpretation.  Consider removal or relocation of the private commercial
directional sign per applicable local policy.
Priority for Consideration:  Moderate.
2.2  Intersection and Intersection­related Issues
Safety Concern #1: Intersection presentation to northbound drivers.
Observations:  Northbound drivers receive no warning of either the horizontal
curve to the left, the intersection, or information about which fork (left or right) is
the continuation of the through roadway.  The proper choice to continue their
route is not immediately obvious to the unfamiliar road user (Figure 6).

Road Safety Assessment (SA) Report
Washington County Route 12 at Hatch Hill Road (South Junction)
Town of Granville, Washington County, New York State
Page 15 of 19Pavement markings (center line and edge line) are discontinuous through the
intersection, faded, and occasionally obscured by gravel.  The wide intersection
throat makes it difficult for drivers to visually track the curve through the
intersection.
Figure 6 – Northbound Driver’s View of IntersectionRisk Analysis:  A lack of positive guidance showing which the through roadway
is may lead some drivers to run wide on the curve and risk collision with fixed
objects on the adjacent property.
Suggestions:Per earlier suggestion, consider providing a curve warning (W1­
10) sign which also depicts the intersection configuration.  Carry the northbound
right edge line and double yellow center stripe through the intersection using a
dotted line pattern per the New York State Department of Transportation
Standard Sheets.  Refurbish faded markings. Consider post­mounted delineation
in the “gore” area formed by the north and east legs of the intersection as viewed
by northbound drivers.
Priority for Consideration:  High.05/13/08

Road Safety Assessment (SA) Report
Washington County Route 12 at Hatch Hill Road (South Junction)
Town of Granville, Washington County, New York State
Page 16 of 19Safety Concern #2: Loss of superelevation in horizontal curve through the
intersection.
Observations: Superelevation to the outside of the northbound lane has been
warped to blend with the elevation of Hatch Hill Road.  This transition occurs
midway through the horizontal curve.  The resultant drainage pattern carries
water, sand, and gravel across the Hatch Hill Road approach into the staging
area for departing traffic. There is a ponding area for runoff adjacent to the
existing stop sign.
Risk Analysis:  Loss of superelevation at this location may lead northbound
drivers “running wide” or losing control at this location.  Fixed objects on the
property located immediately adjacent to the intersection increase the likelihood
of high severity outcomes.  Sand and gravel carried by the over the pavement
drainage pattern makes stopping at and accelerating from the stop position on
Hatch Hill Road more difficult.
Suggestions:Consider theaddition of a curve and intersection warning (W1­
10) sign. Continue pavement markings through intersection using a dotted line
pattern, and improve delineation of the “gore” area as previously noted in the
short­term.  In the longer­term, consider maintaining the superelevation of CR 12
northbound through the intersection and raising the profile of Hatch Hill Road to
match.  Provide positive drainage on Hatch Hill Road (possibly a crown line) to
address over­road drainage issues.
Priority for Consideration:  Moderate.Safety Concern #3:  Operating speeds northbound on the right turn from CR 12
on to Hatch Hill Road
Observations:  Traffic turning northbound onto Hatch Hill Road does so at
relatively high speed.  This is facilitated by the geometry of the intersection and
recently added asphalt along the shoulder. The shoulder pavement may have
been installed in response to a shoulder rutting issue and to reduce the pulling of
gravel off the shoulder and into the intersection. Northbound traffic was observed
to signal their turn in the majority of cases, but not all.  This inconsistent behavior
leaves drivers turning out from Hatch Hill Road unsure of an approaching driver’s
intentions.

Road Safety Assessment (SA) Report
Washington County Route 12 at Hatch Hill Road (South Junction)
Town of Granville, Washington County, New York State
Page 17 of 19Risk Assessment:High­speed right turns are undesirable for the following
reasons:
·  There is a potential for loss of control under adverse road surface
conditions.  Under wet, slush, snow or icy conditions, vehicles may lose
control;
·  There is an increased potential for opposing sideswipe collisions if the
right turning vehicle encroaches into the opposing lane on Hatch Hill
Road;
·  Given the differing winter maintenance standards applied to the two
roadways, drivers may encounter a change in road surface condition (i.e.
bare pavement to packed snow).  Loss of control could result; and
·  Vehicles “cutting the corner” pose a risk to pedestrians and other road
users (driveways on Hatch Hill Road immediately beyond intersection).
Suggestions:Consider physically tightening the radius of northbound to
northeast­bound travel with a mountable or modified traversable curb and apron
or the removal of asphalt to reduce operating speeds through the turn.
Appropriate truck turning radii for the design vehicle should however, be
maintained. This suggestion should be considered in conjunction with #4 below.
Priority for Consideration:  Moderate.Safety Concern #4:  Stopping position
Observations:  Vehicles turning left from Hatch Hill Road do not align
themselves perpendicular to CR 12. Instead they position themselves toward the
left side of the intersection, potentially “pinching” traffic making the northbound
(free flow) right turn movement.
Risk Analysis:  Poor positioning means drivers must look back over their right
shoulder to observe southbound traffic, potentially overlooking an approaching
vehicle.  This position may result in the vehicle’s “B” pillar obstructing the drivers’
view of southbound traffic. It also requires a neck movement which can be
difficult for older drivers.
Suggestions:Consider the following:

Road Safety Assessment (SA) Report
Washington County Route 12 at Hatch Hill Road (South Junction)
Town of Granville, Washington County, New York State
Page 18 of 19·Physically narrow the Hatch Hill Road intersection by reducing the radius
in the southeast quadrant;
·Paint a double yellow (full barrier) center line for an appropriate distance
up to the intersection on the Hatch Hill Road approach. Hook that line to
the north to encourage perpendicular positioning; and
·Paint a white stop line at the correct stopping position.
Priority for Consideration:  High.Safety Concern #5:  Street Name Sign – Hatch Hill Road.
Observations:  Hatch Hill Road is identified by a 6 inch street name sign (D3­1)
with 4­inch, all capital lettering. It is located in the northeast quadrant of the
intersection.  This sign appears to be too small to be read and responded to at
the prevailing speed limit on CR 12.  Given that Hatch Hill Road spurs off from
CR 12 and rejoins further to the north, a great deal of traffic using Hatch Hill
Road makes this northbound right turn movement.
Risk Analysis:  Lack of sign legibility poses the risk of drivers slowing on CR 12
and could potentially result in rear­end collisions. Last­minute maneuvers pose
the risk of loss of control.
Suggestion:Consider relocating the roadway identification sign to the
southeast quadrant of the intersection (upstream for northbound traffic) and
replacing it, increasing the letter size to 6­inch, mixed case with a white border.
Priority for Consideration:  Moderate.
3.0   Conclusion
This assessment was prepared to assist the responsible Highway
Superintendents in the identification and actualization of opportunities to improve
safety within the study area. The suggestions it contains are for consideration

Road Safety Assessment (SA) Report
Washington County Route 12 at Hatch Hill Road (South Junction)
Town of Granville, Washington County, New York State
Page 19 of 19only and are in no way intended to serve as design or operational
recommendations.
The assessment team believes it has been thorough and diligent in its work
based on the information available and the field review.  Due to time constraints
a night time assessment was not conducted. It is recommended that night time
observations be made at this location.
This report does not preclude the identification of additional issues pertaining to
safety by the responsible Highway Superintendents or the emergence of new
issues over time.
It is recommended that the responsible Highway Superintendents review this
report, document their responses to the issues identified in a formal response,
and track their progress toward the implementation of any safety improvements
prompted by this assessment.
Suggested actions in order of priority for consideration:
CR12 North Approach#5  Sequence of Southbound SignsHigh
#1  Deer CollisionsModerate
#2  Roadway SettlementModerate
#3  Steep Ditch Cross Section with Utility PolesModerate
#4  Edge Drop­Off Opposite IntersectionLow
CR 12 South Approach#1  Lack of Curve and Intersection Warning SignsHigh
#3  Fixed Objects at the IntersectionHigh
#2  Utility Pole and Guy Wire on CurveLow
Hatch Hill Road#1   Lack Advanced Stop WarningHigh
#2  Speed Limit Sign and Private AdvertisingModerate
Intersection#4  Stopping PositionHigh
#1  Presentation of Intersection to Northbound TrafficHigh
#2  Loss of Superelevation in Horizontal CurveModerate
#3  Operating Speeds on Northbound Right TurnModerate
#5  Street Name SignModerate

Safety ASSESSMENT (SA) Report
9th
Avenue @ West 57th
Street, New York County, New York State
Sponsored by: New York State Metropolitan Planning Organizations
Conducted June 17th
and 18th, 2008
Report dated: July 15, 2008

Road Safety Assessment (SA) Report
9th Avenue @ West 57th Street, New York County, New York State
July 15, 2008
Page 2 of 22Table of Contents
1.0BACKGROUND3
1.1SA Team7
1.2SA Process8
1.3SA Report9
1.4Study Area Characteristics, Operations and Safety Performance (Office Review)9
2.0ASSESSMENT FINDINGS AND SUGGESTIONS11
2.1Pedestrian Behavior11
2.2Driver Behavior13
2.3Cyclists14
2.4Intersection Geometry, Sightlines15
2.5Traffic Control Signals ­ Displays17
2.6Traffic Control Signals – Timing and Phasing17
2.7Parking, Stopping, Standing Controls18
2.8Other Traffic Control Devices19
2.9Other Issues/Features19
3.0CONCLUSION22

Road Safety Assessment (SA) Report
9th Avenue @ West 57th Street, New York County, New York State
July 15, 2008
Page 3 of 221.0   Background
An aerial view of the intersection of 9th
Avenue @ West 57th
Street, in Manhattan,
New York City, is shown inFigure 1.
Figure 1 – 9th Avenue @ West 57th Street9th
Avenue is a six lane, one­way arterial roadway oriented north­south.  Traffic
flows from north to south.  Sidewalks are provided on both sides of the roadway.
W est 57th
Street is a six­lane, two­way arterial roadway oriented in an east­west
direction.  Sidewalks are provided on both sides of the roadway.
9th
Avenue south of West 57th
Street, and the east and west approaches of West
57th
Street, are truck routes.  To the south, 9th
Avenue provides access to the
Lincoln Tunnel and New Jersey.  Both roadways are governed by a 30 mph
statutory speed limit.

Road Safety Assessment (SA) Report
9th Avenue @ West 57th Street, New York County, New York State
July 15, 2008
Page 4 of 22The intersection is controlled by traffic control signals with pedestrian displays on
all approaches.  A single, pre­timed and coordinated timing plan is in effect at all
times.Figure 2 summarizes the timing plan.
Figure 2 – Timing Plan
Type: Non­actuated
Accessed: May 2008
Signal Cycle Length: 90 s
Times of Operation: All Times
Note:
W = Walk
PC = pedestrian clearance (flashing dw + all­red.)
LPI = lead pedestrian interval
The traffic signal and timing plan are somewhat unique in the Manhattan context
as a westbound to southbound lead protective left turn phase is provided, to
facilitate turns from West 57th
Street onto 9th
Avenue southbound.
During the protected portion of the east­west phase, pedestrians are provided a
WALK indication across the north approach to the intersection only.  PedestriansPhase
(movement)GreenAmberAll­Red  SplitA ­ 9 Avenue31
(21 W +15 PC) – Crossing 57 St3236 B – WB 57 St
+ LT16
(21 W – Crossing 9 Ave North leg
only)3221B  ­ 57 St21
(10 W + 16 PC) – Crossing  9 Av3226B – LPI7
(7 W) Crossing 57 St7

Road Safety Assessment (SA) Report
9th Avenue @ West 57th Street, New York County, New York State
July 15, 2008
Page 5 of 22waiting to cross the south approach receive a WALK indication only when the
westbound protected left turn phase and its clearance times out, and are
reminded to “Wait for Walk Signal” by signs prominently displayed on both sides
of the south approach (Figure 3).
Figure 3 – Wait For Walk Signal signs on both sides of south approachFigure 3 also illustrates the lack of observance of the WALK signal on this
approach.
Another interesting feature of the signal timing plan is the provision of 7 seconds
of Leading Pedestrian Indication (LPI) for pedestrians waiting to cross the east
and west approaches to the intersection (West 57th
Street).  The LPI provides a
WALK indication during a 7 second all­red period, allowing waiting pedestrians to
advance into the crosswalk before southbound traffic on 9th
Avenue is released.
This LPI phase permits pedestrians to establish themselves in the crosswalk
before vehicles wishing to turn right or left onto West 57th
Street are permitted to
enter the intersection.
Both 9th
Avenue and West 57th
Street are heavily­traveled by vehicles and
vulnerable road users.  Figure 4 provides peak hour vehicle movement counts.
Although bicycle and pedestrian counts were not available, field observations

Road Safety Assessment (SA) Report
9th Avenue @ West 57th Street, New York County, New York State
July 15, 2008
Page 6 of 22over the noon­hour period indicate a significant number of cyclists and a large
number of pedestrians use all approaches to the intersection.
Figure 4 – Peak Hour Vehicular VolumesHourly ATR counts indicate that traffic volume is both heavy and sustained
during the daytime, when pedestrian volumes are highest (Figure 5).

Road Safety Assessment (SA) Report
9th Avenue @ West 57th Street, New York County, New York State
July 15, 2008
Page 7 of 22Figure 5 – ATR Counts1.1  SA Team
A brief introductory training session was provided on the afternoon of the first day
of the assessment.
The road safety assessment was sponsored by the New York State Metropolitan
Planning Organizations (NYSMPOs) and will serve as one of three case studies
to be included in guidelines for the conduct of SAs on the local road system
within the State of New York.

Road Safety Assessment (SA) Report
9th Avenue @ West 57th Street, New York County, New York State
July 15, 2008
Page 8 of 22The SA field team was composed of New York City Department of Transportation
(NYCDOT) representatives, led by members of the consultant team.  The RSA
Team included the following individuals:
·Sean Quinn, NYCDOT,squinn@dot.nyc.gov·Hillary Poole,NYCDOT,hpoole@dot.nyc.gov·Lawrence Malchie,NYCDOT,lmalchie@dot.nyc.gov·Ben Eliya,NYCDOT,beliya@dot.nyc.gov·Randy Wade, NYCDOT,rwade@dot.nyc.gov·Sam Barkho,NYCDOT,sbarkho@dot.nyc.gov
·Frank Dolan,Bergmann Associatesfdolan@bergmannpc.com·Matt Carmody, Eng­Wong, Taub & Associates,mcarmody@eng­wongtaub.com·Greg Junnor, Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc
gjunnor@synectics­inc.net1.2  SA Process
The SA was conducted in a manner consistent with the proposed road safety
assessment guidelines being prepared for the NYSMPOs.  The assessment took
place on June 17 and 18, 2008
Information reviewed in the course of the assessment included the following:
·  Aerial photographs;
·  Traffic characteristics data;
·  Collision information;
·  Traffic signal phasing/timing data;
·  Adjacent land uses;
·  Anticipated/proposed development and redevelopment; and
·  Existing safety concerns.
Introductions and a brief assessment training session occurred in the afternoon
of the first day.  The assessment team reviewed the project related information
on the morning of the second day of the assessment.
The assessment team then went into the field to conduct a site visit in the late
morning, into the noon hour.  Site visit conditions were warm and sunny.

Road Safety Assessment (SA) Report
9th Avenue @ West 57th Street, New York County, New York State
July 15, 2008
Page 9 of 22The assessment team reconvened on the afternoon of the second day to
complete the assessment analysis.  Preliminary assessment findings were
discussed then recorded using the FHW A RSA Software tool.
The consulting team subsequently prepared this report, which was circulated to
and commented upon by the assessment team members, prior to being finalized.
1.3  SA Report
This report provides information on issues identified by the assessment team,
which they deemed relevant to the stated goal of an SA; identifying opportunities
to improve road safety within the study area.
Where appropriate, an assessment of road user safety risk, and suggestions for
improvement, are included.  These suggestions should not be viewed as design
or operational recommendations.  They are intended to be illustrative of potential
solutions to the safety issues identified, and are presented for consideration only.
1.4  Study Area Characteristics, Operations and Safety
Performance (Office Review)
The intersection of 9th
Avenue and West 57th
Street was selected as an SA
candidate based upon the frequency of pedestrian­involved collisions which
occurred at the intersection between January 1, 2002 and December 31, 2006.
During that time period, 25 pedestrian­involved collisions, and 19 other collisions
occurred within the intersection.Figure 6 summarizes the collision experience at
the intersection.

Road Safety Assessment (SA) Report
9th Avenue @ West 57th Street, New York County, New York State
July 15, 2008
Page 10 of 22Figure 6 – Collision Summary

Road Safety Assessment (SA) Report
9th Avenue @ West 57th Street, New York County, New York State
July 15, 2008
Page 11 of 22The summary indicates that pedestrian­involved collisions generally occurred
under favorable road and weather conditions, during the daytime (particularly
over the noon­hour), over all months of the year, with Mondays seemly over­
represented.  Fault in the occurrences were almost evenly split between the
motorist and the pedestrian.  Resulting injuries were generally minor, indicative of
low­speed impacts.
No information was available on the age profile of the involved pedestrians, nor
was information available on which approach they were crossing when struck.
2.0   Assessment Findings and Suggestions
2.1  Pedestrian Behavior
Safety Concern: Pedestrians disregard/disobey pedestrian signal indications,
aggressively press their right­of­way during the WALK and clearance periods,
and cross the south leg of the intersection in sympathetic movement with
pedestrians crossing the north leg.
Observations:
1.  Pedestrians frequently cross roadway approaches against the pedestrian
signal indications, taking advantage of gaps in traffic created by the
coordination of upstream and downstream traffic control signals.
2.  Pedestrians are aggressive in imposing their right­of­way over turning
traffic during the WALK and clearance periods.
3.  Pedestrians either wait for a WALK indication while standing within the
roadway, or anticipate the provision of a WALK indication as soon as the
clearance interval on the conflicting roadway is displayed, by stepping into
the roadway.
4.  Pedestrians wishing to cross the south leg (9th
Avenue) of the intersection
often begin crossing when pedestrians on the north approach receive a
WALK indication and begin to cross, without regard to their own
pedestrian indications or the signs which warn them to “Wait for Walk
Signal”.
This appears to be a sympathetic movement – consistent with the
operation of most signals in Manhattan (which are generally two­phase,
and provide simultaneous WALK indications across parallel crosswalks).
At this location however, this sympathetic movement without regard to the

Road Safety Assessment (SA) Report
9th Avenue @ West 57th Street, New York County, New York State
July 15, 2008
Page 12 of 22pedestrian indications on the south leg places pedestrians in conflict with
westbound­to­southbound left turning traffic, which is moving on the
protected portion of the westbound protected/permissive left turn phase.
Risk Analysis:
Disobey pedestrian signals:  Disobeying pedestrian signals, and crossing during
gaps in traffic, appear be common at the subject intersection, as well as at many
other signalized intersections in Manhattan.
Motorists appear to anticipate this behavior by pedestrians, and make some
accommodations for it – slowing and honking to warn pedestrians of their
approach.  Despite this, significant traffic and pedestrian volumes equate to a
high exposure.  The aggressive attitude of many pedestrians, and the
accommodation of this behavior by driver, increases the likelihood of conflicts
and collisions.  Potential collision severity is judged to be high, as vehicle
approach speeds on the leading edge of traffic platoons tends to be higher.
Disobey pedestrian signals south leg:  Vehicular volumes making the westbound­
to­southbound left turning movement are significant, as is the volume of
pedestrians crossing the south leg of the intersection.  Field observations
indicate that one or more pedestrians move sympathetically with those on the
north approach on practically every cycle.  Once one pedestrian moves, others
tend to follow.
When conflicts occur, pedestrians are often startled, having no recognition of
their error.  Again, driver accommodation appears to minimize the severity of
conflicts, but the potential for collisions remains.  Fortunately, left turning
movements generally occur at low speeds, limiting the likely severity outcomes.
An exception to this however, relates to the fact that West 57th
Street and 9th
Avenue south of the intersection are both truck routes.  Westbound­to­
southbound left turns by tractor­trailer units involve significant off­tracking by the
trailer unit.  Off­tracking in left and right turns is associated with truck­pedestrian
and truck­cyclist collisions in urban areas.  These collisions are often either
severe or fatal.
Suggestions:
1.  Enforcement.  Selective enforcement of pedestrian rules of the road at this
intersection may serve to improve compliance.

Road Safety Assessment (SA) Report
9th Avenue @ West 57th Street, New York County, New York State
July 15, 2008
Page 13 of 222.  Education.  Community outreach on the importance of compliance and the
risks of disobeying pedestrian signals may serve to change attitudes and
behavior over time.
3.  Advanced pedestrian count­down timer displays.  These displays not only
count down the W ALK/clearance time remaining, but may also be used to
display the time remaining until the next W ALK indication, where a pre­
timed timing plan is in effect.  An active display may provide additional
conspicuity, reinforce the WALK/DON’T W ALK message, and the “Wait for
Walk Signal” static sign message.
4.  Audible pedestrian indications.
5.  Coordinate the start of the WALK displays on the north and south legs to
eliminate sympathetic movement.  By delaying the W ALK display on the
north leg until the end of the westbound­to­southbound protected left turn
movement, the risk of sympathetic movement could be eliminated.
However, given the current of level of compliance by pedestrians, and
their propensity to cross on gaps in traffic, this approach may prove
counterproductive.
6.  Change westbound­to­southbound protected left turn phasing from leading
to lagging.  This approach would allow the WALK displays on the north
and south legs to be coordinated, but would require an earlier clearance
on the south leg to provide for the lagging left turn movement.
Advantages would include elimination of the risks associated with
sympathetic movement.  Disadvantages may include timing/coordination
issues, and queuing/capacity impacts on the east approach.
7.  Enhance the conspicuity of the “Wait for Walk Signal” static sign message.
Adding a retroreflective/fluorescent border to the sign could enhance its
conspicuity for pedestrians.
8.  Enhance the conspicuity of the WALK/DON’T WALK display.  Use of LED
displays with day/night intensity control could enhance the conspicuity of
the displays.
Priority for Consideration:  High
2.2  Driver Behavior
Safety Concern: Red light running.
Observations: Both the collision record and field observations raise concerns
regarding motorists disobeying the red indication.  During the field review,
equipment at the intersection suggested that it was once a red light camera
enforcement location, but is no longer active.

Road Safety Assessment (SA) Report
9th Avenue @ West 57th Street, New York County, New York State
July 15, 2008
Page 14 of 22Risk Analysis:  Exposure of pedestrians to traffic at the intersection is high.
Likelihood is dependent on the frequency of violations, however nearly ½ of the
pedestrian collisions at the intersection involved a pedestrian crossing with the
signal (although it is not known if the collision involved a through vehicle or a
turning movement).
Red light running collisions involving pedestrians are generally of a higher
relative severity, due to their vulnerability, and the speed­of­approach of the
violating vehicle.
Suggestions:
1.  Consider conventional red light enforcement.
2.  Consider red light camera enforcement
Priority for Consideration:  Moderate.
Safety Concern: Southbound double right turns
Observations: Vehicles were observed making right turns from the second, and
sometimes the third lane out from the west curb, in the northwest quadrant of the
intersection.
Risk Analysis:  Double right turns increase the risk of vehicle­vehicle
(sideswipe) and vehicle pedestrian conflicts and collisions.
Suggestions:  Selective enforcement
Priority for Consideration:  Moderate.
2.3  Cyclists
Safety Concern: Many cyclists observed using West 57th
Street, mixing with
vehicular traffic.
Observations:  Cyclists observed traveling in second lane out from curb, at risk
from car doors, and being “crowded” by passing vehicles.

Road Safety Assessment (SA) Report
9th Avenue @ West 57th Street, New York County, New York State
July 15, 2008
Page 15 of 22Risk Analysis:  Vehicles attempting to share a standard­width lane with a cyclist
risk conflicts and or collisions.  Cyclists crowded to the right are at risk from car
doors and vehicles parking/un­parking.
Suggestions:  Consider allocation of cross­section in context of rush hour
regulations.  Examine implications of 8­9 foot parking lane adjacent to curb, and
wider shared­use lane as second lane out from curb.  Implications of lane use by
trucks and buses, and future Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) route planning for West
57th
Street may also have to be considered.
Priority for Consideration:  Moderate
Safety Concern: Delivery bikes chained to Muni­meters along east and west
sidewalks of 9th
Avenue, north of intersection
Observations:  Bikes locked to Muni­meters.
Risk Analysis:  Pedestrian tripping hazard, sidewalk congestion leading to
pedestrians stepping into roadway.
Suggestions:  Provide bike rack in front of business
Priority for Consideration:  Low.
2.4  Intersection Geometry, Sightlines
Safety Concern: Sightlines for left and right turns from the south approach (9th
Avenue) and for right turns on the east approach (West 57th
Street westbound)
are limited by parked vehicles and a truck loading zone, respectively.
Observations:  Vehicles parked or stopped for the purposes of loading and
unloading compromise sightlines on these approaches for turning traffic.
Risk Analysis:  Compromised sightlines increase the risk of conflicts and
collisions between turning traffic and pedestrians.
Suggestions:
1. 9th
Avenue – set stop bar back 10 feet from crosswalk.  Eliminate last
parking stall adjacent to east and west curbs.

Road Safety Assessment (SA) Report
9th Avenue @ West 57th Street, New York County, New York State
July 15, 2008
Page 16 of 222.  West 57th
Street – Set stop bar back 10 feet from crosswalk Reduce
length of loading zone to open up daylighting in the northeast quadrant of
the intersection.  Terminate loading zone 25 feet east of new stop bar
location.
Priority for Consideration:  Moderate.
Safety Concern: ADA curb cut not provided on north for crossing West 57th
Street  on the NW corner.
Observations: Granite curb stones do not include ADA curb cut.
Risk Analysis:  Poses difficulty for disabled pedestrians
Suggestions:  Install curb cut.
Priority for Consideration:  Low.
Safety Concern: Raised utility access (manhole) covers in crosswalks on north
and south legs.
Observations: Not flush with pavement
Risk Analysis:  Tripping hazard
Suggestions:  Make flush
Priority for Consideration:  Low
Safety Concern: Lane alignment through intersection (West 57th
Street east­
west across 9th
Avenue).
Observations: Intersection is very wide, and some vehicles wander/encroach
into paths of adjacent vehicles.
Risk Analysis:  Potential for opposing sideswipe collisions, evasive movements.
Suggestions:  Install pavement markings  to extend center line across
intersection.

Road Safety Assessment (SA) Report
9th Avenue @ West 57th Street, New York County, New York State
July 15, 2008
Page 17 of 22Priority for Consideration:  Low.
2.5  Traffic Control Signals ­ Displays
Safety Concern: Signal head displays not aligned over through lanes, and may
lack conspicuity.
Observations:  Primary (right­hand) heads tend to be aligned over parking
lanes.  Secondary (left­hand) heads tend to be aligned over receiving lanes.
Displays are incandescent, and some are 8­inch diameter.  Westbound left­turn
display is to the left­of­center, and not optimally placed within a left­turning
driver’s cone of vision
Risk Analysis:  Less­conspicuous head placement risks motorists failing to
see/respond to displays, increasing the risk of violations leading to conflicts
and/or collisions.
Suggestions:
1.  Install longer mast­arms to improve head placement.
2.  Install LED displays.
3.  Install larger (all 12­inch) displays.
Priority for Consideration:  Moderate.
2.6  Traffic Control Signals – Timing and Phasing
Safety Concern: Pedestrian crossing timings
Observations: Timings are only sufficient for 4 feet per second walking speed.
Risk Analysis:  Crosswalk users observed included school­aged children,
seniors and disabled.  Timings applicable to 3 feet per second recommended for
these groups under new MUTCD requirements.
Suggestions:  Examine opportunities to increase pedestrian WALK and
clearance timings.
Priority for Consideration:  Moderate.

Road Safety Assessment (SA) Report
9th Avenue @ West 57th Street, New York County, New York State
July 15, 2008
Page 18 of 222.7  Parking, Stopping, Standing Controls
Safety Concern: Marking of curb lanes on West 57th
Street
Observations: Curb lanes on West 57th
Street are marked as through lanes, yet
information indicates that rush hour regulations do not yet apply to this roadway.
Revisions to the rush hour regulations are reportedly pending.
Risk Analysis:  Potential exists for motorist in curb lane to encounter parked
vehicles, leading to abrupt lane changes, conflicts, and collisions.
Suggestions:  Amend regulations and enforce.
Priority for Consideration:  Low.
Safety Concern: Parking stall permits parking between corner and bus stop,
west receiving side  of West 57th
Street.
Observations: Vehicle legally parked between crosswalk and bus stop.
Risk Analysis:  Compromise of intersection sightlines.
Suggestions:  Eliminate parking, extend bus stopping zone to intersection.
Priority for Consideration:  Low.
Safety Concern: Trucks double parking to load/unload, east and west curb, 9th
Avenue.
Observations: Double­parking by trucks.
Risk Analysis:  Weaving, conflicts, collisions involving vehicles on this
approach.
Suggestions:  Consider need for loading zone.
Priority for Consideration:  Low

Road Safety Assessment (SA) Report
9th Avenue @ West 57th Street, New York County, New York State
July 15, 2008
Page 19 of 222.8  Other Traffic Control Devices
Safety Concern: High visibility crosswalks on all four legs in poor condition.
Observations: Markings worn, damaged by road cuts/resurfacing.
Risk Analysis:  Reduced crosswalk emphasis for motorists.
Suggestions:  Remark.
Priority for Consideration:  Moderate.
Safety Concern: “Wait for Walk Signal” signs mounted too low
Observations: Mounting height less than 7 feet.
Risk Analysis:  Could be impacted by head of pedestrian.
Suggestions:  Raise signs, place adjacent to pedestrian signal displays (see
suggestion regarding increased sign conspicuity).
Priority for Consideration:  Low.
2.9  Other Issues/Features
Safety Concern: Scaffold/hoarding around building on southwest corner.
Observations: Sidewalks on the southwest corner are covered by
scaffolding/hoarding.
Risk Analysis:  These elements may reduce the visibility of pedestrians crossing
the south and west approaches from this corner, particularly under night­time
conditions.
Suggestions:  Check illumination and visibility under dark conditions.
Priority for Consideration:  Low.

Road Safety Assessment (SA) Report
9th Avenue @ West 57th Street, New York County, New York State
July 15, 2008
Page 20 of 22Safety Concern: Lack of night review.
Observations: SA Team was not able to conduct a night review, due to
scheduling issues.
Risk Analysis:  A night­time review may reveal additional safety issues.
Suggestions:  NYCDOT staff should conduct a night­time review and record
observations as a supplement to this report.
Priority for Consideration:  Moderate.
Safety Concern: Trash barrels on corners interfere with access to ADA drop
curbs.
Observations: Barrels block access for mobility devices used by disabled
pedestrians.
Risk Analysis:  Low.
Suggestions:  Relocate.
Priority for Consideration:  Low.
Safety Concern: Bus stop west receiving side  of West 57th
Street does not have
a concrete bus pad.
Observations: Asphalt showing signs of shoving/rutting.
Risk Analysis:  Pedestrian trip hazard/water ponding hazard.
Suggestions:  Install concrete pad.
Priority for Consideration:  Low

Road Safety Assessment (SA) Report
9th Avenue @ West 57th Street, New York County, New York State
July 15, 2008
Page 21 of 22Safety Concern: Pavement deterioration in crosswalk, west approach of West
57th
Street
Observations: Broken pavement, truck rutting/shoving of pavement.
Risk Analysis:  Pedestrian tripping hazard.
Suggestions:  Repair.
Priority for Consideration:  Low.
Safety Concern: Water ponding in northwest quadrant of intersection.
Observations: Standing water
Risk Analysis:  Winter pedestrian slip/fall hazard.
Suggestions:  Arterial maintenance – mill and patch.
Priority for Consideration:  Low.

Road Safety Assessment (SA) Report
9th Avenue @ West 57th Street, New York County, New York State
July 15, 2008
Page 22 of 223.0   Conclusion
This assessment has been prepared to assist the responsible NYC.
Transportation Agencies in the identification and actualization of opportunities to
improve safety within the study area.  The assessment is based on information
available at the time of the field review.  The suggestions it contains are for
consideration only, and are in no way intended to serve as design or operational
recommendations.
This report does not preclude the identification of additional issues pertaining to
safety by the responsible road authorities, or the emergence of new issues over
time.
It is recommended that the responsible agencies review this report; document
their responses to the issues identified in a formal response report; and track
their progress towards the implementation of safety improvements prompted by
this assessment.

Safety Assessment Guidelines
October 2008 BA P P E N D I X B
SAFETY
ASSESSMENT
GUIDELINES
APPENDIX B
GLOSSARY OF TERMS

Safety Assessment Guidelines
October 2008A P P E N D I X   BB- 1APPENDIX B: GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Blackspot
An  existing  location,  experiencing  collisions  at  a  frequency  that  is  higher  than  would
otherwise  be  expected.  Methods  used  to  identify  blackspots  differ  by  jurisdiction  and
vary  from  qualitative  evaluations  (which  can  be  based  on  collision  diagrams)  to
statistically rigorous network safety screening techniques. The term “High Collision Risk
Location” is perceived by many as a more descriptive term.
Baseline Road Safety Conditions
These  include  updated  crash  frequencies,  average  crash  rates,  severity  listings,  and
records  of  common  collision  types  on  different  classes  of  facilities  within  a  jurisdiction.
As of late, frequencies are considered a better metric of safety as compared to collision
rates.  Baseline road safety conditions  are used in Safety Management Systems (SMS)
to  define  safety  targets.  They  can  be  also  used  to  select  locations  for  Safety
Assessments (SAs).
Collision (Crash)*
A  failed  interaction  between  one  or  more  road  users,  vehicles,  and  the  transportation
environment; leading to death, injury, or property damage. Members  of the engineering
profession have begun to use this term in lieu of “Accident” as the latter term implies an
event over which there is no control. The term “crash” is another acceptable alternative.
Collision (Crash)* Reconstruction
Study which attempts to explain in detail the events leading up to an individual collision
and  consequently  the  actions  and  behaviors  that  may  have  caused  or  contributed  to
that event. It is not a part of the SA process.
Collision (Crash)* Modification Factor
The collision modification factor (CMF) for any given road safety countermeasure is the
ratio  of  the  expected  collision  frequency  with  the  countermeasure  installed  to  the
expected  collision  frequency  without  the  countermeasure  in  place,  calculated  over  the
same period of time. The calculation is typically made over increments of one year.
Collision (Crash)* Prediction Model
A  mathematical  model  that  relates  an  entities’  expected  collision  frequency  (for
example  an  intersection  or  road  segment),  to  its  traffic  and  geometric  characteristics.
Collision  prediction  models  have  numerous  safety  engineering  applications  including
the identification of high collision risk locations and evaluating the effectiveness of road
safety improvement countermeasures.
* Though often used synonymously, crash is currently the preferred term within the fields of safety and traffic engineering.

Safety Assessment Guidelines
October 2008 A P P E N D I X   BB- 2Collision (Crash)* Reduction Factor
The  collision  reduction  factor  (CRF)  for  any  given  collision  countermeasure  is  the
percentage of reduction in collision frequency associated with that countermeasure.
Exposure
Number  of  vehicles  or  other  facility  users  exposed  to  a  particular  hazard  over  a  fixed
period of time. It  is used in the SA process for the qualitative evaluation of Safety Risk.
Average  annual  daily  traffic  (AADT)  as  well  as  pedestrian  and  bicycle  volumes  can  be
used for qualitative estimation of exposure for the purposes of estimating Safety Risk.
FHWA RSA Software
A  tool  developed  to  support  the  practical  implementation  of  the  Federal  Highway
Administration’s  Road  Safety  Audit  Guidelines.  A  beta  version  was  released  to  the
public  in  2006  followed  by  full  release  in  2008.  The  software  guides  the  process  and
includes a tracking tool enabling the use of RSA prompt lists at a desired level of detail.
It  requires  the  user  to  accompany  each  safety  issue  raised  with  a  discussion  and
assessment,  thereby  forcing  them  to  carefully  consider  and  justify  their  findings.  It
assists in drafting  RSA reports, enables one to record safety issues both by prompt list
topic  and location, helps verify issues and locations entered, and is an effective means
of RSA training.
High Collision (Crash)* Risk Location
An  existing  location,  experiencing  collisions  at  a  frequency  that  is  higher  than  would
otherwise  be  expected.  Methods  used  to  identify  high  collision  risk  locations  differ  by
jurisdiction  and  vary  from  qualitative  evaluations  (which  can  be  based  on  collision
diagrams)  to  statistically  rigorous  network  screening  techniques.  The  term  “High
Collision  Risk  Location”  is  perceived  by  many  as  a  more  descriptive  term  than
“blackspot.”
In­Service Safety Review
In­depth  engineering  study  of  an  existing  transportation  facility;  undertaken  for  the
purposes  of  identifying  cost­effective  collision  countermeasures  and  improving
operations and safety for all users. In­service safety reviews may be conducted on any
transportation  element  including  for  example:  roadway  segments,  intersections,  or
interchanges,  sidewalks,  bicycle  paths,  etc.  However,  in  order  to  optimize  the
usefulness of available resources, these reviews are most  effective when conducted at
locations  where  a  high  collision  risk  has  been  identified.  An  in­service  safety  review
typically  involves  a  structured  review  of  collision  history, geometric  characteristics,  and
traffic  operations.  It  may  also  include  traffic  conflict  observations  and  a  human  factors
assessment.  Safety  assessments  are  typically  more  dependent  on  the  experience  and
judgment  of  the  assessment  team  while  in­service  reviews  rely  more  on  quantitative
analysis of empirical data. This term and process is commonly used in Canada.
* Though often used synonymously, crash is currently the preferred term within the fields of safety and traffic engineering.

Safety Assessment Guidelines
October 2008A P P E N D I X   BB- 3Independence of the SA Team
This  is  a  fundamental  element  of  the  safety  assessment  process.  In  the  case  of  a
design  stage  safety  assessment,  team  members  should  ideally  be  separate  from  (that
is  not  affiliated  with)  the  design  team  charged  with  plan  development.  In  the  case  of
safety  assessments  for  an  existing  entity,  the  assessment  team  may  be  qualified  as
independent  if  its  members  do  not  have  any  conflict  of  interest  which  might  affect  the
findings  and  recommendations.  In  the  case  of  smaller  jurisdictions  throughout  New
York  State,  it  may  necessary  for  Owners  to  utilize  their  own  Department  of  Public
Works or other staff, supplemented with outside expertise as necessary, to accomplish
SAs.  This  practice  is  acceptable  as  long  as  those  individuals  charged  with  conducting
the assessment can approach the entity with an open mind.
Network Screening
A  process  by  which  the  safety  performance  of  a transportation  network  is  evaluated  at
the  macro  level;  to  identify  and  rank  sites  which  are  strong  candidates  for  safety
improvement. Such sites may then be subjected to safety assessments.
Project Owner
An  organizational  unit  or  individual  in  a  public  agency  which  is  responsible  for:
transportation  planning,  design,  and/or  construction  projects.  A  Project  Owner  would
typically  incorporate  a  desire  to  follow  the  safety  assessment  process  in  a  request  for
proposals (for planning and design  projects). They may be responsible for coordinating
with  the  design  team,  functioning  as  safety  assessment  program  coordinator,
coordinating  with  the  assessment  team,  participating  in  the  pre­assessment  meeting,
review safety assessment reports, approve and release response reports, and track the
implementation of recommendations made in those response reports.
Proactive Road Safety Approach
Safety  improvement  actions  are  often  identified  based  upon  anticipated  (expected)
safety  performance.  Identification  can  be  based  on  quantitative  techniques  (collision
prediction  models  etc.)  or  qualitative  techniques  such  as  safety  assessments.  Safety
assessments  completed  at  the  planning,  design,  construction,  and  pre­opening  stages
of  transportation  projects  are  considered  part  of  a  proactive  approach.  Safety
assessments  conducted  on  existing  transportation  facilities  may  be  proactive  (when
locations  are  not  selected  based  on  collision  history  or  no  collision  data  are  available)
or  a  combination  of  both  proactive  and  reactive  approaches  if  locations  are  selected
based  on  collision  history  and  collision  data  are  analyzed  by  the  safety  assessment
team.  In  safety  assessments  of  existing  facilities  the  analysis  of  collision  data  should
not  be  the  sole  driving  force  for  the  identification  of  road  safety  issues.  Safety
assessment team members should rely on human factors techniques, expert judgment,
field observations, and prompt lists to identify and evaluate road safety issues.

Safety Assessment Guidelines
October 2008 A P P E N D I X   BB- 4Reactive Approach to Safety
Under  this  approach,  safety  improvement  actions  are  identified  using  demonstrated
crash  histories  and  patterns  of  crash  occurrence.  Overall  the  most  effective  safety
management  systems  balance  proactive  and  reactive  approaches.    In­service  safety
reviews  and  remedial  safety  work  are  typical  examples  of  a  reactive  approach.  Safety
assessments  conducted  on  existing  transportation  facilities  may  be  based  on  a
combination  of  both  proactive  and  reactive  approaches  if  locations  are  selected  based
on  collision  history  and  collision  data  are  analyzed  as  part  of  the  safety  assessment
process.
Safety Assessment (SA) Response Report
This  is  a  mandatory  element  for  each  safety  assessment.  This  document  summarizes
the review of a safety assessment report including its findings and suggestions. It must
cover  decisions  on  how  to  address  identified  safety  concerns,  the  rationale  behind
those decisions, and actions planned to implement decisions. Decisions documented in
the  response  report  may  vary.  For  example,  a  reviewer  may  agree  with  the  safety
assessment  suggestions  and  specify  action,  disagree  while  providing  an  alternative,
agree  with  but  choose  not  to  act  upon  the  findings,  or  disagree  with  any  identified
safety issues.
Safety Assessment (SA) Policy
A set policy established by a jurisdiction stating the commitment of its top management
to the SA process and outlining what projects should undergo safety assessments. The
term  “policy”  may  also  refer  to  jurisdiction­specific  safety  assessment  guidelines.  The
policy may rely on a project selection matrix and/or narratives outlining what projects or
locations should undergo safety assessments.
Safety Assessment (SA) Stages
Safety assessments can be conducted at any stage in the project development process
(for  example  planning,  design,  and/or  construction)  or  to  address  an  existing
transportation  facility.  Safety  assessments  are  named  accordingly  including  planning
stage  safety  assessments,  preliminary  design  safety  assessments,  detailed  design
safety  assessments,  work  zone  safety  assessments,  pre­opening  safety assessments,
and  safety  assessments  of  existing  facilities.  Land  use  development  projects  can  also
undergo safety assessments.
Safety Assessment (SA)
This  is  a  term  used  by  some  jurisdictions  within  the  United  States  in  lieu  of  the  term
“Safety  Audit”  or  “Road  Safety  Audit”.  Its  use  avoids  the  negative  connotation
commonly  associated  with  the  word  “audit”  and  does  not  restrict  the  facility  type  to
roadways alone.

Safety Assessment Guidelines
October 2008A P P E N D I X   BB- 5The  practice  involves  the  formal  safety  performance  examination  of  an  existing  or
future  transportation  facility  by  an  independent  team.  The  safety  assessment  team
must  consider  the  safety  of  all  road  users,  qualitatively  estimate  and  reports  on  road
safety  issues,  and  investigate  opportunities  for  safety  improvement.  Other  established
guidelines  define  safety  assessments  as  a  process  which  considers  only  pre­
construction  and  construction  stage  projects  while  safety  assessments  of  existing
facilities are defined as safety assessment reviews or in­service safety reviews.
Safety Assessment (SA) Prompt Lists
A  list  of  questions  or  items,  intended  to  be  considered  by  the  members  of  the  safety
assessment team. They have also been traditionally known as “checklists”.  Promptlists
may  be  comprehensive  in  nature,  covering  as  many  considerations  as  possible,  or
broad with general instructions for what to consider. Promptlists should be considered a
tool for the assessment team and not a replacement for the knowledge and experience
of those individuals.
Safety Assessment (SA) Program Coordinator
This  individual  is  appointed  to  implement  and  manage  a  safety  assessment  program
within  a  jurisdiction.  They  usually  prepare  or  offer  advice  on  terms  of  reference  for
safety  assessments,  participate  on  a  technical  committee  to  select  safety  assessment
teams,  ensure  that  adequate  data  for  safety  assessments  are  prepared  by  the  design
team,  participate  in  the  pre­assessment  meetings,  conduct  quality  reviews  of  safety
assessment  reports,  and  review  safety  assessment  response  reports.  They  typically
also  archive,  review,  and  summarizes  information  from  past  safety  assessments
including  “lessons  learned”,  prepare  an  annual  report  on  their  safety  assessment
program,  identify  safety  assessment  needs  including  funding,  and  propose  changes  to
the safety assessment guidelines or policies.
Safety Assessment (SA) Report
A  mandatory  element  of  each  safety  assessment,  this  report  typically  identifies  safety
issues, their importance, and suggests improvements.
Safety Assessment (SA) Reviews
See In­Service Safety Review.
Safety Assessment Subconsultant to the Planning/Design Team
Subconsultant  hired  by  the  planning/design  team  to  examine  and  participate  in  all
transportation  safety­related  aspects  of  planning  and  design  projects.  The  safety
assessment  sub­consultant  differs  from  the  safety  assessment  team  in  that  it  interacts
with  the  planning/design  team throughout  the  planning/design  process  and  becomes  a
part of the design team.

Safety Assessment Guidelines
October 2008 A P P E N D I X   BB- 6Safety Review
A  process  established  by  most  state  departments  of  transportation  through  their  high
hazard identification and correction programs. Safety reviews often involve a small (1­2
persons)  team  with  design  expertise.  Those  persons  may  also  be  directly  involved  in
the  design  process.  A  safety  review  does  not  typically  involve  field  visits,  concentrates
on  the  evaluation  of  designs  based  on  compliance  with  standards,  and  does  not
normally  consider  human  factor  issues.  A  safety  review  is  always  reactive  as
hazardous locations are identified through the analysis of crash statistics.
Safety Risk
This  term  indicates  the  relative  safety  of  a  location.  Safety  risk  for  a  single
transportation facility user is determined by the probability of a collision and its severity.
Safety Risk for a transportation entity is determined by taking into account the exposure
of  all  road  users.    In  application  to  safety  assessments,  safety  risk  is  determined
qualitatively  in  terms  of  the  estimated  exposure,  probability,  and  consequence  as
follows:
Safety  risk  =  exposure  *  probability  of  the  event  *  consequence  of  the  event.  Each
element  of the  equation is  typically estimated  by safety  assessment team  members  as
very low, low, medium, high or very high.
Safety of the Entity
Safety is measured by the expected frequency of fatal, injury and property damage only
collisions  on  the  entity  over  a  certain  period  of  time,  typically  one  year.  In  the  safety
assessment  process,  it  is  understood  as  the  qualitative  estimate  of  the  above  by  the
safety assessment team members. Safety risk can be used to facilitate and support the
qualitative estimation of safety for a given entity.
Safe Field Visit Practices
Procedures for carrying out specific tasks, which when followed,  will ensure that safety
assessment team members reduce their exposure to hazards during a field visit.
Safety Management System (SMS)
Coordinated multidisciplinary  partnership process  which strives  to  achieve  safety goals
by  ensuring  that  opportunities  to  improve  safety  are  identified,  considered,
implemented,  and  evaluated  in  all  phases  of  planning,  design,  maintenance  and
operations. Safety assessments are considered to be an important element of a SMS

Safety Assessment Guidelines
October 2008A P P E N D I X   BB- 7Terms of Reference (TOR): A document that generally describes the purpose, scope,
objectives, stakeholder involvement, deliverables, available budget, and proposed
schedule of an activity, requirement, or service. SA Terms of Reference may be used
by a transportation agency to solicit external SA consulting services.
Traffic Conflict
A  near  miss  that  occurs  when  two  transportation  facility  users  approach  each  other  in
time and space and one of them takes evasive action to avoid a collision.

Safety Assessment Guidelines
October 2008 CA P P E N D I X C
SAFETY
ASSESSMENT
GUIDELINES
APPENDIX C
FHWA RSA SOFTWARE

Safety Assessment Guidelines
October 2008A P P E N D I X   CC- 1APPENDIX C: FHWA RSA SOFTWARE
C1. Concept
The  FHWA  RSA  Software  is  more  than  the  automation  of  SA  prompt  lists  –  it  is
intended  to  be  a guiding  and  process  tracking tool  enabling  the  use  of  SA  prompt  lists
at  a  variety  of  detail  levels,  while  providing  a  way  to  accompany  each  safety  issue
raised  with  a  discussion  and  an  assessment.    Using  the  software  helps  assessors  to
think  about  and  justify  their  findings.  The  software  assists  in  drafting  SA  reports,
enables  users  to  record  safety  issues  both  by  prompt  list  topic  and  by  location,  helps
verify issues and locations entered, and may be used in SA training.
C2. Project initiation
The initial step in working with the FHWA RSA software is to either create a new project
to  work  on  or  to  open  a  previously­created  project  to  continue  working  on  it.  Defining
SA  stage  in  the  Project  Characteristics  screen  will  enable  the  software  to  select
appropriate  prompt  lists  for  the  SA.  FHWA  RSA  software  also  provides  on  option  for
selecting  SA  Team  members  from  the  list  of  available  assessors,  or  adding  new
assessors to the list of those available.
C3. Generating Prompt lists
Once  the  project  has  been  initiated  and  initial  project  data  are  entered,  the  software
may be used to generate and print out prompt lists which may be distributed among the
SA team members.  The prompt lists generated are customized based on the SA stage
specified  within  the  Project  Characteristics.  The  software  offers  a  default  file  name,
date/time  capture,  and  default  location  for  the  generated  prompt  lists  on  the  computer.
For  the  convenience of the  users, the  generated prompt  lists  are  automatically  opened
in MS Word and minimized immediately after the generation.
C4. Conducting Safety Assessment
A  typical  series  of  steps  for  conducting  SAs  are  identified  inExhibit  D­1,  numbered
from 1 through 8.  Users can alter the order or sequence of steps, such as to add a new
location or to enhance the level of detail for an issue, as needed.
There are two main alternatives for conducting SA analysis. Mode 1 is by topic/subtopic
of  the  Prompt  list,  Mode  2  is  by  Location.  The  selection  of  the  SA  analysis  mode
depends on the project and preferences of the SA team members.

Safety Assessment Guidelines
October 2008 A P P E N D I X   CC- 2·Mode  1:The  process  begins  with  the  selection  of  the  prompt  list  topic/subtopic  which  may
be “drilled down” to a set of specific prompt list questions (Step 1). The selected prompt list
item  appears  in  the  topic  box  below  the  prompt  list  window.  The  SA  team  members  then
consider  possible  safety issues related  to the  prompt  list topic/subtopic considering the  SA
project in its entirety. Once a safety issue is identified, the  location of the issue is added to
the  list  of  the  locations  (Step  1a).    Location  details  are  at  the  discretion  of  the  SA  team.
The  selected  location  (Step  1b)  appears  in  the  location  box.  SA  team  members  then
proceed  to  the  description  and  evaluation  of  the  identified  safety  issue(s)  for  the  selected
topic/subtopic and location (steps 2­8).
·Mode  2:  As  an  alternative  approach,  the  SA team  may  begin  by identifying  locations  to  be
assessed  (Step  1a).    Selected  locations  (Step  1b)  are  then  assessed  by  the  SA  team
members  as  they  go  through  the  prompt  list,  select  topics/subtopics  and  identify  possible
safety  issues  related to the selected  location.  Once the  safety issue is identified,  SA team
members  proceed  to  the  documenting  and  analysis  of  the  identified  safety  issue  for  the
selected location and topic/subtopic (steps 2­8).

Safety Assessment Guidelines
October 2008A P P E N D I X   CC- 3Exhibit C­1: Typical series of steps for conducting SAs
The SA software provides several windows for recording identified safety issues, as follows:
“Issue”, “Issue description” and “Suggestions”.
·The “Issue” window (Step 2) serves for a concise definition of title of the safety issues
identified, e.g., “Driveway Exit – Visibility Obstruction”.
·The “Issue description” window serves for a detailed description of the safety issue
identified, e.g., “Existing foliage and an unused concrete span­wire pole are blocking
visibility for traffic exiting the service station lot.”
·Finally, the “Suggestion” window serves for recording suggestions on how to improve
safety of the identified issue, e.g., “Consider trimming the hedge back to improve visibility.”
·The descriptions provided in each of these windows are at the discretion of the SA team.
There is no limit to the amount of data which may be recorded.  All data entered will be
included in the draft SA Report generated by the software.

Safety Assessment Guidelines
October 2008 A P P E N D I X   CC- 4C5. Analyzing severity of safety issues
The FHWA RSA software provides an optional method for analyzing the importance or severity
of an identified road safety issue. A qualitative estimation of the Road Safety Risk, which is
measured in terms of its three components (exposure, probability, and consequences) may be
assigned to each issue. Each component may be assigned a rating from very low to very high.
Using a simple score of 1­5 the RSA Software will assign a numerical value to the safety
evaluation, if it is used. While this aspect of the software is optional, it may assist assessors in
making determinations of which identified issues are most critical in terms of improving safety.
An example of a completed SA screen is shown inExhibit D­2.
C6. Generating SA reports
Once the SA analysis is completed, the FHWA RSA software may generate draft SA reports.
Part A of the draft RSA report contains data input to the RSA software at the SA project setup
stage and has the same formatting, independent of selected sorting options implemented in
Part B of the RSA report. Part B of the RSA report implements three sorting options, as
follows:
·Format 1: Identified safety issues are sorted first by prompt list topic/subtopic, then by
location, and finally by severity (Road Safety Risk);
·Format 2: Identified safety issues are sorted first by location. and then by severity
(Road Safety Risk); and
·Format 3: Identified safety issues are sorted by severity (Road Safety Risk) only.
Examples illustrating Parts A and B of the draft RSA reports are provided inExhibits C­3 and
C­4.

Safety Assessment Guidelines
October 2008A P P E N D I X   CC- 5Exhibit C­2 Example of a completed SA screen
The possible incorporation of the FHWA RSA software into each individual SA is illustrated by
the flowchart provided inExhibit C­5.
·The  FHWA RSA  software  may  start  to  be  used  before  or  immediately  after  the  pre­SA
meeting.  At  this  point  all  project  data  have  been  obtained,  and  subjected  to  a
preliminary  review.  FHWA  RSA  software  may  be  used  to  enter  required  project  data,
and  to  generate  and  print  out  prompt  lists  at  the  required  level  of  detail  for  each  SA
team member. In the process of entering data it may be recognized that some data are
missing  or  unclear.  If  this  is  the  case,  the  design  team  or  traffic  engineering/
maintenance  staff  (if  ER  stage  SA  is  being  conducted)  may  be  contacted  to  obtain
additional data or clarifications.
·The  FHWA  RSA  software  may  subsequently  be  used  after  the  field  visit  is  conducted.
At  this  point  the  FHWA  RSA  software  may  be  used  as  a  tool  that  guides  the  SA
analysis  in  a  team  setting,  and  provides  the  opportunity  to  record  identified  safety
issues and severities (Safety Risks) associated with each issue.

Safety Assessment Guidelines
October 2008 A P P E N D I X   CC- 6·Once the SA analysis is completed, the FHWA RSA software generates draft SA report
in the desired format. This draft may be further used by the SA Team leader to develop
a final version of the SA report, complete with maps, photographs, schemes, etc.
Exhibit C­3: Example of Part A of the SA report
Exhibit C­4: Example of Part B of the SA report

Safety Assessment Guidelines
October 2008A P P E N D I X   CC- 7Exhibit C­5 Incorporation of the FHWA RSA Software into the SA.
StartProject NumberProject DetailsProject NameProject
BackgroundAdditional
InformationStart/End DateAudit TypeProject
CharacteristicsAdjacent LandUseDesign SpeedService
FunctionSurrounding
TerrainClimate
ConditionsSelection of RSA
TeamAvailable AuditorsTeam LeaderTeam membersPrinting generated
Prompt ListsField Review under
various conditions
with the use  of
generated Prompt
ListsRSA Analysis
with the use of
FHWA RSA
Software
(Team setting)Obtaining and
preliminary analysis
of background
informationPre­Audit meeting
with Project Owner
and Design Team
FHWA Road Safety Audit Software
Getting
additional
project
information
andclarificationsas neededPreliminary RSA
Analysis (optional)
RSA Steps
Electronic
ChecklistsRoad Safety RiskAnalysis InterfaceAuditing by Topic
and LocationVerification and
editing issues
and locationsGeneration of
Draft RSA ReportPresentation of the
findings to the Project
OwnerFinalization of RSA
Report and
submission to the
Project OwnerPreparation of RSA
Response Report by
Project Owner andDesign Team”Topic­subtopic­
location­risk”
sorting”Location­risk”
sorting”Safety Risk”
sortingFinish

Safety Assessment Guidelines
October 2008 DA P P E N D I X D
SAFETY
ASSESSMENT
GUIDELINES
APPENDIX D
PROMPT LISTS

Safety Assessment Guidelines
October 2008
Eng­Wong, Taub & Associates                  Bergmann Associates            Synectics Transportation Consultants IncAppendix D­Page#1HIGH­LEVEL PROMPT LISTSSAFETY ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING FACILITIES
D1: HIGH­LEVEL PROMPT LISTTopicComment6.1 ROAD FUNCTION, CLASSIFICATION, ENVIRONMENT
6.2 ROAD ALIGNMENT AND CROSS SECTION
1 Visibility, sight distance
2 Design speed
3 Speed limit/speed zoning
4 Passing
5 ‘Readability’ (perception) of the alignment by
drivers
6 Human factors
7 W idths
8 Shoulders
9 Cross slopes
10 Side slopes
11 Drains
12 Combinations of features

Safety Assessment Guidelines
October 2008
Eng­Wong, Taub & Associates                  Bergmann Associates            Synectics Transportation Consultants IncAppendix D­Page#2HIGH­LEVEL PROMPT LISTS6.3 AUXILIARY LANES
1 Tapers
2 Shoulders
3 Signs and markings
4 Turning traffic
6.4 INTERSECTIONS AND ROUNDABOUTS
1 Location
2 Visibility, sight distance
3 Signing and marking
4 Layout and ‘readability’ (perception) by drivers
5 Pedestrians, bicyclists
6 Lighting
6.5 INTERCHANGES
1 Visibility, sight distance
2 Lanes, shoulders
3 Signing, marking, delineation
4 Pedestrians, bicyclists
5 Lighting

Safety Assessment Guidelines
October 2008
Eng­Wong, Taub & Associates                  Bergmann Associates            Synectics Transportation Consultants IncAppendix D­Page#3HIGH­LEVEL PROMPT LISTS6.6 SIGNS AND LIGHTING
1 Lighting
2 General signs issues
3 Sign legibility
4 Sign supports
6.7 MARKING AND DELINEATION
1 General issues
2 Centerlines, edge lines, lane lines
3 Guideposts and reflectors
4 Curve warning and delineation
6.8 BARRIERS AND CLEAR ZONES
1 Clear zones
2 Barriers
3 End treatments / Crash cushions
4 Pedestrian Railing
5 Visibility of barriers and fences

Safety Assessment Guidelines
October 2008
Eng­Wong, Taub & Associates                  Bergmann Associates            Synectics Transportation Consultants IncAppendix D­Page#4HIGH­LEVEL PROMPT LISTS6.9 TRAFFIC SIGNALS
1 Operations
2 Visibility
3 Placement of signal heads
6.10 PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS
1 General issues
2 Pedestrians
3 Bicyclists
4 Public transport
6.11 OLDER DRIVERS
1 Turning operations (receiving lane widths, radii)
2 Channelization, opposing left turn lanes
3 Sight triangles
4 Signing, marking and delineation
5 Traffic signals

Safety Assessment Guidelines
October 2008
Eng­Wong, Taub & Associates                  Bergmann Associates            Synectics Transportation Consultants IncAppendix D­Page#5HIGH­LEVEL PROMPT LISTS6.12 BRIDGES AND CULVERTS
1 Design features
2 Barriers
3 Pedestrian and recreational facilities, delineation
6.13 PAVEMENT
1 Pavement defects
2 Skid resistance
3 Ponding/Icing/Snow Accumulation
4 Loose stones/material
5 Manholes
6.14 PARKING
6.15 PROVISIONS FOR HEAVY VEHICLES
1 Design issues
2 Pavement/shoulder quality
6.16 FLOODWAYS AND CAUSEWAYS
1 Ponding, flooding
2 Safety of devices

Safety Assessment Guidelines
October 2008
Eng­Wong, Taub & Associates                  Bergmann Associates            Synectics Transportation Consultants IncAppendix D­Page#6HIGH­LEVEL PROMPT LISTS6.17 OTHER SAFETY ISSUES
1 Landscaping
2 Temporary works
3 Headlight glare
4 Roadside activities
5 Signs of possible problems (pavement,
roadside)
6 Rest areas
7 Environment
8 Median curbing

Safety Assessment Guidelines for
October 2008
Eng­Wong, Taub & Associates                  Bergmann Associates            Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc.Appendix D­Page#7DETAILED PROMPT LISTSSAFETY ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING FACILITIES
D2: DETAILED PROMPT LIST6.1 ROAD FUNCTION, CLASSIFICATION,ENVIRONMENTYes / NoCommentIs the road function and classification the same as
it was when the road was designed and
constructed?Is the road environment the same as it was when
the road was designed and constructed (no new
developments, no new pedestrian/bicyclists
activities, special events, scenic vistas etc)6.2 ROAD ALIGNMENT AND CROSS SECTIONYes / NoComment1 Visibility, sight distance
Is sight distance adequate for the speed of traffic
using the route?Is adequate sight distance provided for
intersections and crossings? (e.g., pedestrian,
bicyclist, cattle, rail crossings)Is adequate sight distance provided at all private
driveways and property entrances?2 Design speed
Is the horizontal and vertical alignment suitable for
the (85th percentile) traffic speed?If not: are warning signs installed?Are advisory speed signs installed?

Safety Assessment Guidelines for
October 2008
Eng­Wong, Taub & Associates                  Bergmann Associates            Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc.Appendix D­Page#8DETAILED PROMPT LISTSAre the posted advisory speeds appropriate?3 Speed limit/speed zoning
Is the speed limit compatible with the road
function, road geometry, land use and sight
distance?4 Passing
Are safe passing opportunities provided?5 ‘Readability’ (perception) of the alignment by drivers
Is the form and function of the road and its traffic
management easily recognized under likely
operating conditions? (e.g., under heavy traffic;
minimal traffic or poor visibility conditions.)Is the road free of elements that may cause
confusion? E.g., is alignment of the roadway
clearly defined? Has disused pavement (if any)
been removed or treated? Have old pavement
markings been removed properly? Do tree lines
follow the road alignment? Does the line of street
lights or the poles follow the road alignment?Is the road free of misleading curves or
combinations of curves?6 Human factors
Does the road comply with the driver expectancy?Is driver workload not too high at any section?Are principles of positive guidance observed?

Safety Assessment Guidelines for
October 2008
Eng­Wong, Taub & Associates                  Bergmann Associates            Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc.Appendix D­Page#9DETAILED PROMPT LISTS7 Widths
Are medians and islands of adequate width for the
likely users?Are traffic lanes, shoulders, and clear zone widths
adequate for the speed, traffic volume and mix?Are bridge widths adequate?8 Shoulders
Are shoulders wide enough to allow drivers to
regain control of errant vehicles?Are shoulders wide enough for broken down or
emergency vehicles to stop safely?Are shoulders paved?Are there shoulder or edge rumble strips?Is there adequate space for bicyclists if rumble
strips used?Are shoulders suitable for all vehicles and road
users? (i.e., are shoulders in good condition?)Is the transition from road to shoulder safe? (no
drop­offs.)Is the cross slope difference between the
pavement and shoulder particularly in curves,
safe?

Safety Assessment Guidelines for
October 2008
Eng­Wong, Taub & Associates                  Bergmann Associates            Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc.Appendix D­Page#10DETAILED PROMPT LISTS9 Cross slopes
Is appropriate superelevation provided on curves?Are cross slope transitions safe (for cars, trucks,
etc.)?Do cross slopes (roadway and shoulder) provide
adequate drainage? Also consider possible effect
of rutting in the wheel tracks.10 Side slopes
Are side slopes traversable by cars and trucks that
run off the road?Is the side slope treatment adequate to prevent or
limit debris falling on to the road?11 Drains
Are roadside drains and culvert end walls
traversable?12 Combinations of features
Is the road free of unsafe combinations of design
features? (e.g., short radius horizontal curve at
end of long tangent; curve within long steep
downgrade; bridge or intersection on curve, etc.)

Safety Assessment Guidelines for
October 2008
Eng­Wong, Taub & Associates                  Bergmann Associates            Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc.Appendix D­Page#11DETAILED PROMPT LISTS6.3 AUXILIARY LANESYes / NoComment1 Tapers
Are starting and finishing tapers located and
aligned correctly?Is there sufficient sight distance to the end of the
auxiliary lane?2 Shoulders
Are appropriate shoulder widths provided at
merges?Have shoulder widths been maintained beside the
auxiliary lane?3 Signs and markings
Have all signs been installed in accordance with
the appropriate guidelines?Are all signs conspicuous and clear?Do all markings conform to these guidelines?Is there advance warning of approaching auxiliary
lanes?4 Turning traffic
Have left turns from the through lane been
avoided?Is there advance warning of turn lanes?

Safety Assessment Guidelines for
October 2008
Eng­Wong, Taub & Associates                  Bergmann Associates            Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc.Appendix D­Page#12DETAILED PROMPT LISTS6.4 INTERSECTIONS(INCLUDING ROUNDABOUTS)Yes / NoComment1 Location
Are all intersections located safely with respect to
the horizontal and vertical alignment?Where intersections occur at the end of high­
speed environments (e.g., at approaches to
towns); are there traffic control devices to alert
drivers?2 Visibility, sight distance
Is the presence of each intersection obvious to all
road users? Consider different driver eye heights:
cars; trucks; bicycles; motorcycles; vehicles with
restricted visibility.Is the sight distance appropriate for all movements
and all users? Consider sight triangles appropriate
for the intersection control used. Also consider
different driver eye heights: cars; trucks; bicycles;
motorcycles; vehicles with restricted visibility.Will sight lines remain adequate and not be
obstructed by permanent or temporary features
such as parked vehicles or queued traffic? Also
consider seasonal changes such as foliage, grass,
snow storage etc.Is there stopping sight distance to the rear of any
queue or slow­moving turning vehicles?Is the pavement friction adequate for safe
stopping?

Safety Assessment Guidelines for
October 2008
Eng­Wong, Taub & Associates                  Bergmann Associates            Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc.Appendix D­Page#13DETAILED PROMPT LISTS3 Signing and marking
Are pavement markings and intersection control
signs satisfactory?Are vehicle paths through intersections delineated
satisfactorily?Are all lanes properly marked (including any
arrows)?Where the right turn on red is permitted: is safety
maintained? (e.g., consider need for additional
signage warning of presence of
pedestrians/bicyclists etc.)Are street name signs conspicuous and readable,
particularly for older drivers?Are Yield signs, Stop signs and Stop lines visible
in time?4 Layout and ‘readability’ (perception) by drivers
Is the form and function of the intersection clear to
drivers on all approaches? (Check by driving.)Are all conflict points between vehicles safely
managed?Is the intersection layout obvious to all road users?Is the alignment of curbs obvious and appropriate?Is the alignment of traffic islands obvious and
appropriate?

Safety Assessment Guidelines for
October 2008
Eng­Wong, Taub & Associates                  Bergmann Associates            Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc.Appendix D­Page#14DETAILED PROMPT LISTSIs the alignment of medians obvious and
appropriate?Can all likely vehicle types be accommodated?Are merge tapers long enough?Is the intersection free of capacity problems that
may produce safety problems?Are there sufficient visual cues to prevent
overshooting into the conflicting traffic?5 Pedestrians, bicyclists
Are the sight lines adequate for the safety of all
pedestrian groups?Is the movement of vulnerable road users safely
accommodated at all intersections?6 Lighting
Is the lighting correctly in place and adequate?

Safety Assessment Guidelines for
October 2008
Eng­Wong, Taub & Associates                  Bergmann Associates            Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc.Appendix D­Page#15DETAILED PROMPT LISTS6.5 INTERCHANGESYes / NoComment1 Visibility, sight distance
Is visibility adequate at approaches: to the
interchange, on and off ramps, terminal
intersections etc.?Has the minimum sight triangle been provided at:
entry and exit ramps? gore areas? other conflict
points? Consider different driver eye heights: cars;
trucks; bicycles; motorcycles; vehicles with
restricted visibilityWill sight lines remain adequate and not be
obstructed by permanent or temporary features
such as parked vehicles or queued traffic? Also
consider seasonal changes such as foliage, grass,
snow storage etc.2 Lanes, shoulders
Are acceleration and deceleration lane lengths
adequate?Are weaving section lengths adequate?Is the layout of the interchange clear to drivers on
all approaches? (Check by driving.)Is lane continuity maintained?Are appropriate shoulder widths provided at
merges?Have shoulder widths been maintained beside the
auxiliary lane?3 Signing, marking, delineation

Safety Assessment Guidelines for
October 2008
Eng­Wong, Taub & Associates                  Bergmann Associates            Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc.Appendix D­Page#16DETAILED PROMPT LISTSAre advisory speed signs adequate (check by
driving)?Are all signs, markings, delineation correctly in
place?Are Yield signs, Stop signs and Stop lines visible
in time?4 Pedestrians, bicyclists
Are pedestrian crossings on ramp terminals
conspicuous?Are safety provisions for pedestrian and bicycle
movements adequate?If bikeways are provided, are they safe?5 Lighting
Is the lighting correctly in place and adequate?

Safety Assessment Guidelines for
October 2008
Eng­Wong, Taub & Associates                  Bergmann Associates            Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc.Appendix D­Page#17DETAILED PROMPT LISTS6.6 SIGNS AND LIGHTINGYes / NoComment1 Lighting
Is lighting required and, if so, has it been
adequately provided?Is the road free of features that interrupt
illumination (e.g., trees or overpasses)?Is the roadside free of lighting poles that are a
fixed roadside hazard?Is lighting adequate to compensate for rapid
changes in light conditions (e.g., at tunnel
entrances)?Are breakaway or slip­base poles provided?Ambient lighting: if it creates special lighting
needs, have these been satisfied?Is the lighting scheme free of confusing or
misleading effects on signals or signs?Is the lighting scheme free of any lighting black
spots?2 General signs issues
Are all necessary regulatory, warning and
direction signs in place?Are they conspicuous and clear?Are the correct signs used for each situation and
is each sign necessary?

Safety Assessment Guidelines for
October 2008
Eng­Wong, Taub & Associates                  Bergmann Associates            Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc.Appendix D­Page#18DETAILED PROMPT LISTSIs the number, placement and spacing of signs
such that driver information overload is avoided?Are all signs effective for all likely conditions (e.g.,
day; night; rain; fog; rising or setting sun;
oncoming headlights; poor lighting)?If restrictions apply for any class of vehicle: are
drivers adequately advised?If restrictions apply for any class of vehicle: are
drivers advised of alternative routes?Is the signing and marking adequate for the older
driver?3 Sign legibility
In daylight and darkness; are signs satisfactory
regarding visibility? clarity of message?
readability/legibility at the required distance?Is sign retroreflectivity or illumination satisfactory?Are signs able to be seen without being hidden by
their background or adjacent distractions?Is driver confusion due to too many signs
avoided?4 Sign supports
Are sign supports out of the clear zone?If not, are they: breakaway? on slip bases?
shielded by barriers? shielded by crash cushions?

Safety Assessment Guidelines for
October 2008
Eng­Wong, Taub & Associates                  Bergmann Associates            Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc.Appendix D­Page#19DETAILED PROMPT LISTS6.7 MARKING AND DELINEATIONYes / NoComment1 General issues
Is the line marking and delineation: appropriate for
the function of the road? consistent along the
route? likely to be effective under all expected
conditions? (day; night; wet; dry; fog; rising and
setting sun position; oncoming headlights; etc.)Is the pavement free of excessive markings? (e.g.,
unnecessary turn arrows; unnecessary barrier
lines; etc.)2 Centerlines, edge lines, lane lines
Are centerlines, edge lines, lane lines provided?If not: do drivers have adequate guidance?Are Raised Retroreflective Pavement Markers
(RRPMs) provided where necessary?If RRPMs are installed: are they correctly placed;
correct colors; in good condition?Are centerline, shoulder, and/or edge rumble strips
provided where required?Is the marking in good condition?Is there sufficient contrast between marking and
pavement color?3 Guideposts and reflectors
Are guideposts appropriately installed?Are delineators clearly visible?

Safety Assessment Guidelines for
October 2008
Eng­Wong, Taub & Associates                  Bergmann Associates            Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc.Appendix D­Page#20DETAILED PROMPT LISTSAre the correct colors used for the delineators?Are the delineators on barriers and bridge railings
consistent with those on guideposts?4 Curve warning and delineation
Are curve warning signs, markings, and advisory
speed signs installed where needed?Are advisory speeds adequate and consistent
along the route?Are the signs correctly located in relation to the
curve? (i.e., not too far in advance.)Are the signs large enough? (e.g., consider
appropriateness of oversize signs)Are chevron alignment markers installed where
required?Is the positioning of chevron alignment markers
satisfactory to provide guidance around the curve?Are chevron alignment markers the correct size?Are chevron alignment markers confined to curves
(not used to delineate islands etc)?

Safety Assessment Guidelines for
October 2008
Eng­Wong, Taub & Associates                  Bergmann Associates            Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc.Appendix D­Page#21DETAILED PROMPT LISTS6.8 BARRIERS AND CLEAR ZONESYes / NoComment1 Clear zones
Is the clear zone width adequate for existing traffic
pattern?Is the clear zone width traversable (i.e. drivable)?Is the clear zone width free of rigid fixtures? (if not:
can all of these rigid fixtures be removed or
shielded?)Are all utility poles, trees, etc. at a safe distance
from the traffic paths?Is the appropriate treatment or protection provided
for any objects within the clear zone?2 BarriersAre barriers installed where necessary?Are barriers installed at all necessary locations in
accordance with the relevant guidelines?Are the barrier systems suitable for the purpose?Are the barriers installed correctly?Is the length of crash barrier at each installation
adequate?Is the guard rail attached correctly to bridge
railings?

Safety Assessment Guidelines for
October 2008
Eng­Wong, Taub & Associates                  Bergmann Associates            Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc.Appendix D­Page#22DETAILED PROMPT LISTSIs there sufficient width between the guard rail and
the pavement edge line to contain a broken down
vehicle?Are barrier systems free of any
damage/deteriorating that may cause their
improper performance? Consider rotated blocks,
downed poles, cracked barriers, damaged rails,
extensive cable sags etc.)3 End treatments / Crash cushions
Are end treatments constructed correctly?Is there a safe run­off area behind gating end
treatments?Are end treatments/crash cushions free of any
damage/deteriorating that may cause their
improper performance?Are end treatments for median barriers non­
gating?4 Pedestrian Railing
Are pedestrian fences of breakaway design?Are vehicles safe from being ‘speared’ by
horizontal fence railings located within the clear
zone?Are drivers able to see pedestrians approaching
crossings (and vice versa) through the railing?5 Visibility of barriers and fences
Is there adequate delineation and visibility of
barriers and pedestrian railing at night?

Safety Assessment Guidelines for
October 2008
Eng­Wong, Taub & Associates                  Bergmann Associates            Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc.Appendix D­Page#23DETAILED PROMPT LISTS6.9 TRAFFIC SIGNALSYes / NoComment1 Operations
Are traffic signals operating correctly?Is the signal phasing and timing safe?Is adequate time provided for traffic movements,
pedestrian and bicyclist movements? Consider the
duration of green, yellow, all­red, walk/clearance
indications for all movements. Check whether the
crossing time is sufficient for all pedestrian groups,
i.e., with rate of travel less than 3.5 feet per
second.Are turn phases coordinated with walk/don’t walk
signals?Is protected left turn signal phase (if provided)
leading, not lagging?Are the number, location and type of signal
displays appropriate for the traffic mix and traffic
environment?Are there provisions for visually impaired
pedestrians (e.g., audio­tactile push buttons;
tactile markings)?Is the controller located in a safe position? (i.e.,where it is unlikely to be hit and maintenance
access is safe.)Is the condition (especially skid resistance) of the
road surface on the approaches satisfactory?Are signalized intersections coordinated?

Safety Assessment Guidelines for
October 2008
Eng­Wong, Taub & Associates                  Bergmann Associates            Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc.Appendix D­Page#24DETAILED PROMPT LISTS2 Visibility
Are traffic signals clearly visible to approaching
motorists?Are the signal heads free from obstructions? (e.g.,
trees; light poles; signs; bus stops; etc.)Is there adequate stopping sight distance to the
ends of possible vehicle queues?Are there any visibility problems that could be
caused by the rising or setting sun?Are signal displays shielded so that they can be
seen only by the motorists for whom they are
intended?If optically programmed signals are used:  is their
operation safe? (e.g., for left turn signals: visibility
for the left turning traffic, possible deteriorating of
aiming/masking in the operation, physical
separation of left turning and through traffic in the
vicinity of intersection, etc)Where signal displays are not visible from an
adequate distance: are signal warning signs
and/or flashing lights installed?Where signals are mounted high for visibility over
crests: is there adequate stopping sight distance
to the ends of traffic queues?

Safety Assessment Guidelines for
October 2008
Eng­Wong, Taub & Associates                  Bergmann Associates            Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc.Appendix D­Page#25DETAILED PROMPT LISTS3 Placement of signal heads
Are signal heads located as required by
guidelines? (e.g., primary left turn signal head iswithin projections of separated left­turn lane etc.)Are signal posts located where they are not an
undue hazard?

Safety Assessment Guidelines for
October 2008
Eng­Wong, Taub & Associates                  Bergmann Associates            Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc.Appendix D­Page#26DETAILED PROMPT LISTS6.10 PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTSYes / NoComment1 General issues
Are there appropriate travel paths and crossing
points for pedestrians and bicyclists?Is a safety railing installed where necessary to
guide pedestrians and bicyclists to crossings or
overpasses?Is a safety barrier installed where necessary to
separate vehicle, pedestrian and bicyclist flows?Are pedestrian and bicycle facilities suitable for
night use?Is traffic calming used where appropriate to
improve safety? Is the application safe? (e.g.,
unsafe narrowing, unforgiving fixed objects are
avoided)(Users may wish to refer to the FHWA Pedestrian Road Safety Audit Prompt Lists for additional prompts)

Safety Assessment Guidelines for
October 2008
Eng­Wong, Taub & Associates                  Bergmann Associates            Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc.Appendix D­Page#27DETAILED PROMPT LISTS2 Pedestrians
Is there adequate separation distance between
vehicular traffic and pedestrians on footways?Are pedestrian footpaths or sidewalks providedwhere appropriate?Is there an adequate number of pedestrian
crossings along the route?At crossing points is railing oriented so
pedestrians face oncoming traffic?Is there adequate provision for the elderly; the
disabled; children; wheelchairs and baby carriages
(e.g., holding rails; curb and median crossings;
ramps; sidewalk width, grades, cross slope,
surface; detectable warnings)?Are adequate hand rails provided where
necessary (e.g., on bridges; ramps)?Is signing about pedestrians near schools
adequate and effective?Is signing about pedestrians near any hospital
adequate and effective?Is the distance from the stop line to a cross walk
sufficient for truck drivers to see pedestrians?Are the information needs of blind and low­vision
pedestrians met? (e.g., where pedestrian signals
are provided, is crossing and timing information
available to blind/low vision pedestrians?)(Users may wish to refer to the FHWA Pedestrian Road Safety Audit Prompt Lists for additional prompts)

Safety Assessment Guidelines for
October 2008
Eng­Wong, Taub & Associates                  Bergmann Associates            Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc.Appendix D­Page#28DETAILED PROMPT LISTS3 Bicyclists
Is the pavement width adequate for the number of
bicyclists using the route?Are bike lanes or separate bikeways to
accommodate bicycle traffic provided where
appropriate?Is the bicycle route continuous (i.e., free of
squeeze points or gaps)?Where bikeways terminate at intersections or
adjacent to the roadway, has the transition
treatment been handled safely?Are drainage inlets ‘bicycle safe’?Are rumble strips (type and placement) safe for
bicyclists?Are bicycle/pedestrian conflicts avoided?Is there enough space for bicyclists to safely pass
the parking cars (consider provision of buffer
zones; angle vs. parallel parking etc.)Are driveway aprons avoided on the bike routes?Are manholes flush with roadway surface?Is 10 feet of vertical clearance from signs and
structures provided on the bike routes?Is there adequate signing to provide safety of
bicyclists? (e.g., “Share the Road”; “Wrong Way”;
“No Parking”; bike lane designation signs etc.)

Safety Assessment Guidelines for
October 2008
Eng­Wong, Taub & Associates                  Bergmann Associates            Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc.Appendix D­Page#29DETAILED PROMPT LISTSWhere bicyclists are required to dismount (e.g., in
front of shared pedestrian crossings), is there
adequate warning (signage, marking, pavement
surface, etc)?4 Public transport
Are bus stops safely located with adequate
visibility and clearance to the traffic lane?Are bus stops positioned accounting for pedestrian
flows generators?Are bus stops in rural areas signposted in
advance?Are shelters and seats located safely to ensure
that sight lines are not impeded?Is clearance to the road adequate?Is the height and shape of the curb at bus stops
suitable for pedestrians and bus drivers?

Safety Assessment Guidelines for
October 2008
Eng­Wong, Taub & Associates                  Bergmann Associates            Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc.Appendix D­Page#30DETAILED PROMPT LISTS6.11 OLDER DRIVERSYes / NoComment1 Turning operations (receiving lane widths, radii)
Is receiving lane (throat) width for turning
operations wide enough to ensure safety for older
drivers? It is desired to provide 12 ft minimum
accompanied, wherever practical, by 4ft shoulder.Are curb radii adequate for older drivers? (30 ft is
desired )2 Channelization, opposing left turn lanes
Is raised channelization (sloping curbed medians)
provided for left­lane treatments at intersections?At intersections with high volume of pedestrians: If
right­turn channelization is present, is an
acceleration lane adequate for passenger car
characteristics provided?At intersections with high volume of pedestrians: If
right­turn channelization is present, is an adjacent
pedestrian refuge island provided?Are the opposing left turn lanes designed to
provide unrestricted sight distances? Also, at
intersections where there are larger percentages
of left turning trucks, is sight distance unrestrictedwhen opposing left­turn vehicles are trucks?If the channelized offset left turn lanes are used,
are they properly signed and delineated to preventwrong way entrance to the lane (e.g., left turntraffic from an intersecting road)?

Safety Assessment Guidelines for
October 2008
Eng­Wong, Taub & Associates                  Bergmann Associates            Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc.Appendix D­Page#31DETAILED PROMPT LISTS3 Sight triangles
Are the intersection sight distances (sight
triangles) adequate for reaction time of older
drivers (minimum 2.5 s)4 Signing, marking and delineation
Are island curb sides and curb surfaces treatedwith reflectorized paint? Is a luminance contrastlevel adequate for older drivers (3.0 or higher
under low beam headlight of a passenger car)Is edge treatment/delineation of curbs, medians
and obstacles adequate for older drivers? (i.e.,
minimum in­service contrast of painted roadway
edge level of 2.0 for intersections with overhead
lighting and 3.0 without it)Where RTOR is permitted and a pedestrian
crosswalk is delineated, is there a sign requiring
turning traffic to yield to pedestrians?  If the
intersection is skewed (less than 75 degrees or
greater than 105 degrees), is RTOR prohibited?Is the letter size, type and placement of street­
name signs adequate for older drivers? (e.g.,
minimum letter height 6 inches, use of overhead­
mounted signs with minimum letter size 8 inches
at major intersections, using directional arrows if
street names are different in different directions
etc)Is one­way/wrong way signage (number and
placement) on approaches to divided highways
adequate to ensure clear perception for older
drivers? Is the Divided Highway Crossing sign
used?

Safety Assessment Guidelines for
October 2008
Eng­Wong, Taub & Associates                  Bergmann Associates            Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc.Appendix D­Page#32DETAILED PROMPT LISTSIs Cross Traffic Does Not Stop warning sign panel
mounted below the Stop sign used for two­way
stop control intersections where appropriate? E.g.,where sight triangle is restricted, wherever aconversion from four­lane control is implemented
etc.Are lane­use control signs placed overhead at
intersections, as a supplement to pavement
markings and shoulder­ and/or median mounted
signage?5 Traffic signals
Is protected­only left turn signal operation
implemented where capacity allows? Is it
controlled by a separate signal?  If it is
protected/permitted operation, is protected phase
leading, not lagging?Are signal displays adequate for the reduced
ocular transmittance of the older driver’s eye? Are
backplates used?Is all­red clearance interval implemented and is its
duration adequate for older drivers?

Safety Assessment Guidelines for
October 2008
Eng­Wong, Taub & Associates                  Bergmann Associates            Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc.Appendix D­Page#33DETAILED PROMPT LISTS6.12 BRIDGES AND CULVERTSYes / NoComment1 Design features
Are bridges and culverts the full formation width?Are bridge and culvert roadway widths consistentwith approach conditions?Is the approach alignment compatible with the
85th percentile travel speed?Have warning signs been erected if either of the
above two conditions (i.e. width and speed) are
not met?2 Barriers
Are there suitable barriers on bridges and their
approaches to protect errant vehicles?Is the connection between barrier and bridge
railing safe?Is the bridge free of curbing that would reduce the
effectiveness of barriers or rails?3 Pedestrian and recreational facilities, delineation
Are pedestrian facilities on the bridge appropriate
and safe?Is fishing from the bridge prohibited?Is fishing from the bridge is not prohibited, has
provision been made for ‘safe’ fishing?Does delineation continue over the bridge?

Safety Assessment Guidelines for
October 2008
Eng­Wong, Taub & Associates                  Bergmann Associates            Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc.Appendix D­Page#34DETAILED PROMPT LISTS6.13 PAVEMENTYes / NoComment1 Pavement defects
Is the pavement free of defects (e.g., excessive
roughness or rutting; potholes; loose material;
etc.) that could result in safety problems (e.g., loss
of steering control)?Is the condition of the pavement edges
satisfactory?Is the transition from pavement to shoulder free of
dangerous edge drop offs?2 Skid resistance
Does the pavement appear to have adequate skid
resistance, particularly on curves, steep grades
and approaches to intersections?Is the crack sealing not too extensive to cause the
unsafe differential in skid resistance?Has skid resistance testing been conducted where
necessary?Has the location of manholes on curves been
avoided? (difference in skid resistance ­ issue for
motorcyclists)3 Ponding/Icing/Snow Accumulation
Is the pavement free of areas where ponding,
sheet flow of water, icing and snow accumulations
may cause safety problems?

Safety Assessment Guidelines for
October 2008
Eng­Wong, Taub & Associates                  Bergmann Associates            Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc.Appendix D­Page#35DETAILED PROMPT LISTSIs the road surface free of significant rutting in thewheel paths that can accumulate water or snow?4 Loose stones/material
Is the pavement free of loose stones and other
material?4 Manholes
Are manholes flush with roadway surface?

Safety Assessment Guidelines for
October 2008
Eng­Wong, Taub & Associates                  Bergmann Associates            Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc.Appendix D­Page#36DETAILED PROMPT LISTS6.14 PARKINGYes / NoCommentAre the provisions for, or restrictions on parking
satisfactory in relation to traffic safety?Is the frequency of parking turnover compatiblewith the safetyof the route?Is there sufficient parking for delivery vehicles so
that safety problems due to double parking do not
occur?Are parking maneuvering along the route possiblewithout causing safety problems? (e.g., angleparking without a buffer zone)Is the sight distance at intersections and along the
route unaffected by parked vehicles?6.15 PROVISIONS FOR HEAVY VEHICLESYes / NoComment1 Design issues
Are passing opportunities available for heavy
vehicles where volumes are high?Does the route accommodate the size of vehicle
likely to use it?Is there adequate maneuvering room for large
vehicles along the route, at intersections,
roundabouts; etc.?Is access to rest areas and truck parking areas
adequate for the size of vehicle expected?
Consider acceleration; deceleration; shoulderwidths; etc.

Safety Assessment Guidelines for
October 2008
Eng­Wong, Taub & Associates                  Bergmann Associates            Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc.Appendix D­Page#37DETAILED PROMPT LISTS2 Pavement/shoulder quality
Are shoulders sealed at bends to provide
additional pavement for long vehicles?Is the pavement width adequate for heavy
vehicles?In general: is the pavement quality sufficient for
the safe travel of heavy and oversized vehicles?On truck routes: are reflective devices appropriate
for truck drivers’ eye heights?6.16 FLOODWAYS AND CAUSEWAYSYes / NoComment1 Ponding, flooding
Are all sections of the route free from ponding or
flow across the road during wet weather?If there is ponding or flow across the road duringwet weather: is there appropriatesignposting?Are floodways and causeways correctly
signposted?2 Safety of devices
Are all culverts or drainage structures located
outside the clear roadside recovery area?If not, are they shielded from the possibility of
vehicle collision?

Safety Assessment Guidelines for
October 2008
Eng­Wong, Taub & Associates                  Bergmann Associates            Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc.Appendix D­Page#38DETAILED PROMPT LISTS6.17 OTHER SAFETY ISSUESYes / NoComment1 Landscaping
Is landscaping in accordance with guidelines (e.g.,
clearances, sight distance)?Will existing clearances and sight distances be
maintained following future plant growth?Does the landscaping at roundabouts avoid
visibility problems?2 Temporary works
Are all locations free of construction or
maintenance equipment that is no longer
required?Are all locations free of signs, markings or
temporary traffic control devices that are no longer
required?3 Headlight glare
Have any problems that could be caused by
headlight glare been addressed (e.g., a two­way
service road close to main traffic lanes; the use of
glare fencing or screening)?4 Roadside activities
Are the road boundaries free of any activities that
are likely to distract drivers?Are all advertising signs installed so that they do
not constitute a hazard?

Safety Assessment Guidelines for
October 2008
Eng­Wong, Taub & Associates                  Bergmann Associates            Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc. Appendix D ­ Page # 39
DETAILED PROMPT LISTS
5 Signs of possible problems (pav ement, roadside)
Is the road pav ement free of brake/skid tire marks
that could indicate a possible problem, hazard or
conflict at the site?
Is the roadside hardware, trees, and poles free of
damage from errant vehicles that could indicate a
possible problem, hazard or conflict at the site?
6 Rest areas
Is the location of rest areas and truck parking
areas along the route appropriate?
7 Environment
Is the route free from large numbers of animals
(e.g., cattle; sheep; moose; bears etc.)? If not: is it
protected by animal­proof fencing? are the
underpasses for animals provided?
Is there any negative safety effects of wind, sun
angles at sunrise and sunset?
Will the road perform safely when there is  a rain,
mist, ice, fog, snowfall, blowing snow?
Is there adequate provisions for snow
accumulations (e.g., obstruction of sight lines,
barrier performance etc).
Will snow storage not disrupt pedestrian access or
visibility?
Are  visual distractions (e.g., scenic vistas)
adequately addressed (e.g., by providing areas to
stop safely)?

Safety Assessment Guidelines for
October 2008
Eng­Wong, Taub & Associates                  Bergmann Associates            Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc.Appendix D­Page#40DETAILED PROMPT LISTSIs the route free of unsafe overhanging branches?8 Median curbing
If back­to­back median curbing is used is it:
adequately delineated? obvious where it starts?
obvious at intersections? unlikely to be a hazard to
pedestrians?