Publication Type: Transportation Plans

Final Report

Route 4 Corridor Study

Prepared for the Adirondack / Glens
Falls Transportation Council

July 2005

Prepared by Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.

In Association with:
Vollmer Associates LLP
Mathews Nielsen Landscape Architects, PC

Final Report

Route 4 Corridor Study

Prepared for the Adirondack / Glens Falls Transportation Council

July 2005

Prepared by:
Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.
115 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10003

www.bfjplanning.com

In Association with:
Vollmer Associates LLP
Mathews Nielsen Landscape Architects, PC

Route 4 Corridor Study Buckhurst Fish Jacquemart Inc./ May 2005
1

Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION …………………………………………………………………………… 4
1.1 Purpose, Goals and Objectives…………………………………………………………………………… 4
1.2 Public Participation Process……………………………………………………………………………….. 4
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS …………………………………………………………………. 6
2.1 Roadway Conditions…………………………………………………………………………………………. 6
2.2 Daily Traffic Volumes (AADT) …………………………………………………………………………….. 6
2.3 Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes………………………………………………………………………………… 6
2.4 Existing Levels of Service……………………………………………………………………………………. 8
2.5 Vehicular Speeds…………………………………………………………………………………………….. 12
2.6 Accident History…………………………………………………………………………………………….. 12
2.7 Existing Land Uses …………………………………………………………………………………………… 13
2.8 Bus Transit…………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 13
2.9 Sidewalk Conditions ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 13
2.10 Bicycle Conditions………………………………………………………………………………………….. 18
3.0 ACCIDENT ANALYSIS …………………………………………………………………… 18
3.1 High Accident Non-Intersection Locations………………………………………………………….. 18
3.2 High Accident Intersections……………………………………………………………………………… 24
4.0 FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES ………………………………………………………….. 24
4.1 Traffic Forecasts……………………………………………………………………………………………… 24
5.0 ROUTE 4 IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM ……………………………………………. 28
5.1 Traffic and Safety Improvements – Major Intersections ………………………………………….. 28
5.2 Traffic and Safety Improvements – Unsignalized Intersections ……………………………….. 35
5.3 Traffic Improvements – Non-Intersection Locations ………………………………………………. 40
5.4 Bicycle & Pedestrian Safety Improvements ………………………………………………………….. 42
5.5 Buses and Public Transit………………………………………………………………………………….. 43
5.6 Landscaping Plan……………………………………………………………………………………………. 44
6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MUNICIPALITIES ………………………………….. 51
6.1 Future Land Use Plans……………………………………………………………………………………… 51
6.2 Access Management……………………………………………………………………………………….. 53
7.0 IMPLEMENTATION OF CORRIDOR PLAN ……………………………………….. 55
7.1 Summary of Route 4 Corridor Improvements ………………………………………………………. 55
7.2 Priorities and Funding……………………………………………………………………………………… 55
7.3 Right-of-way Restrictions ………………………………………………………………………………….. 56
APPENDIX…………………………………………………………………………………………….. 61

Route 4 Corridor Study Buckhurst Fish Jacquemart Inc./ May 2005
2

Tables and Figures

Figure 1.1 – Study Area Map for Route 4………………………………………………………………………….. 5
Figure 2.1 –Daily Peak Hour Traffic Volumes …………………………………………………………………… 7
Table 2.1 – Study Intersections……………………………………………………………………………………….. 8
Table 2.2 – Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections ………………………………………….. 9
Table 2.3 – Level of Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections ………………………………………. 9
Figure 2.2 – Existing AM Peak Hour Levels of Service………………………………………………………. 10
Figure 2.3 – Existing PM Peak Hour Levels of Service………………………………………………………. 11
Table 2.4 – Speed Statistics………………………………………………………………………………………….. 12
Figure 2.4 – Accident Summary ……………………………………………………………………………………. 14
Figure 2.5 – Existing Land Uses – Fort Ann ……………………………………………………………………… 15
Figure 2.6 – Existing Land Uses – Whitehall ……………………………………………………………………. 16
Figure 2.7 – Sidewalk Inventory……………………………………………………………………………………. 17
Figure 2.8 – Existing Bicycle Conditions …………………………………………………………………………. 19
Table 3.1 – Analysis of Accident Rates…………………………………………………………………………… 20
Figure 3.1 – Above Average Accident Segments ………………………………………………………………. 21
Figure 3.2 – High Non-Intersection Accident Locations ……………………………………………………. 22
Figure 4.1 – Historical Traffic Volumes and Expected Growth along Route 4 ……………………….. 25
Figure 4.2 – Traffic Forecasts for 2014 along Route 4……………………………………………………….. 26
Figure 4.3 – Traffic Forecasts for 2024 along Route 4……………………………………………………….. 27
Table 5.1 – Future Traffic Conditions with Improvements …………………………………………………. 28
Table 4.1 – Future Traffic Forecasts ……………………………………………………………………………….. 29
Figure 5.1 – Proposed Intersection Improvements along Route 4 ……………………………………….. 30
Figure 5.2 – Proposed Roundabout at Route 4 & 32 Intersection………………………………………… 32
Figure 5.3 – Proposed Upgrade at Route 4 & 149 Intersection…………………………………………… 33
Figure 5.4 – Proposed Roundabout at Route 4 & 149 Intersection – Fort Ann ………………………. 34
Figure 5.5 – Proposed Roundabout at Route 4/ Route 22 / Broadway – Whitehall………………… 36
Figure 5.6 – Intersection of Route 4 & Kingsbury Street …………………………………………………….. 37
Figure 5.7 –Route 4 & 149S Intersection Improvement …………………………………………………….. 38
Figure 5.8 – T Owens Lane Improvement……………………………………………………………………….. 39
Figure 5.9 – Proposed Non-intersection Improvements …………………………………………………….. 41
Figure 5.10 – Landscaping Plan…………………………………………………………………………………….. 45
Figure 5.11 – Gateway Design – Fort Ann Entry from South ………………………………………………. 46
Figure 5.12 – Gateway Design – Fort Ann Entry from North………………………………………………. 47
Figure 5.13 – Gateway Design –Fort Ann Entry from West………………………………………………… 48
Figure 5.14 – Gateway Design –Whitehall Entry from South ……………………………………………… 49
Figure 5.15 – Gateway Design –Whitehall Entry from East………………………………………………… 50
Figure 5.16 – Design of Information Kiosk and Turn Lanes at New York State Border ……………. 52
Table 7.1 – Summary of Route 4 Corridor Improvements………………………………………………….. 57
Figure 7.1 – Potential Right-of-Way Issues in Whitehall ……………………………………………………. 60

Route 4 Corridor Study Buckhurst Fish Jacquemart Inc./ May 2005
3

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Purpose, Goals and Objectives
The purpose of this study is to develop a corridor management plan for U.S. Route 4
through the Washington County communities of the Town and Village of Fort Ann, the
Town and Village of Whitehall, the Town of Kingsbury and the Town of Hampton. This
report is a planning study, and is designed to stimulate ideas, rather than offer concrete
solutions for any issue identified. All recommendations in this study will require further
study by the engineers at the New York State’s Department of Transportation before they
can be implemented. The corridor is over 25 miles in length and runs from the Route 4/32
intersection in Kingsbury to the New York/Vermont State border (Figure 1.1). Buckhurst
Fish & Jacquemart, Inc., together with Vollmer Associates and Mathews Nielsen as
subconsultants were retained by the Ad irondack-Glens Falls Transportation Council
(A/GFTC) to provide a long-term vision of the corridor, improve safety and suggest
improvements that may be needed to best ser ve its role within the surrounding community.
A/GFTC is the metropolitan planning organization for the region.

This section of U.S. Route 4 is a two-lane principal arterial and is part of the National
Highway System (NHS). The southernmost 1.8 miles lie within the Glens Falls Urban Area.
The remaining 23.8 miles are classified as rural. Route 4 is the primary means of north-
south travel in western Washington County an d connects the northern areas of the county
to the Glens Falls / Hudson Falls / Fort Edward area. It serves as the main street through a
number of communities and crosses through the villages of Fort Ann and Whitehall. It is a
vital component of the local transportation system, and serves as the primary connection
between New England and Interstate 87. Route 4 carries a high volume of heavy trucks in
addition to year-round recreational traffic.

BFJ analyzed existing conditions, traffic flows as well as accident rates and locations along
Route 4. This report provides planning recommendations to manage the corridor with a
focus on accident reduction. It is important to evaluate current and future conditions to
both identify problems and offer solutions. By analyzing traffic patterns and data, problem
areas can be brought to light and solutions put forward.

1.2 Public Participation Process
A Technical Advisory Committee was established to offer guidance to BFJ. The committee
included representatives from Washington County and from the municipalities along the
corridor as well as A/GFTC and the New York State Department of Transportation. BFJ met
three times with the committee during different phases of the study.

A core element of the study was a wide public participation effort. Four public workshops
were held at different stages of the study. The purpose of the workshops was to bring
committee members and residents together and benefit from their combined local
knowledge. At the Planning Workshops, held in Fort Ann on June 23
rd, 2004 and in
Whitehall on June 24th, 2004, BFJ presented the existing conditions along the corridor and
then the workshop participants were asked to share their own visions for Route 4.

Route 4 Corridor Study Buckhurst Fish Jacquemart Inc./ May 2005
4

Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.
0 2 miles
April 2004
F FI
IG
GU
UR
RE
E1
1.
.1
1
S
ST
TU
UD
DY
YA
AR
RE
EA
AF
FO
OR
RR
RO
OU
UT
TE
E4
4
ROUTE4 CORRIDORSTUDYsource: Census TIGER® 2000 Data from Geography Network
4
4
4
4
4
4W
ait
e
G
eer
BurgoyneD
ix
Ro
ck City
Stone Schoolhouse
Co
unty Route 36
Kingsbur
y
S tate Highway 149
Bald
win Corn
ers
T OwensNee
d
hamvil
le
Char
le s
Flat Ro
ck
State Highway 149
C
la
y Hill
Kelsey Pond
State Route 22
Deweys Bridg eOld Ro
ute 4
Ol
d Route 4
R
yd
er
Lo
ck II
Old
Stat
e Ro
ad
1s tM
a
ple
Mounta inWi
llia m
Br
oadw
ay
Coun
ty
Road
9ABuckleyCounty Ro
ad
18County Ro
ad
9B
Ol
d
Fair
Have
nDoug
las
Ch
apman
Golf Course
5th
Potter
3rd
Eliz
abeth
Fort AnnFort Ann
Kingsbury
KingsburyWhitehall
WhitehallHampton
Hampton
WhitehallWhitehall
Gran
vGranv
H udson F a lls F ort Ann
F ort Ann
S St
tu
ud
dy
y
A
Ar
re
ea
a
B
Be
eg
gi
in
ns
s
a
at
t
t
th
he
e
I In
nt
te
er
rs
se
ec
ct
ti
io
on
n
o
of
f
R
Ro
ou
ut
te
es
s
4
4
&
&
3
32
2
S
St
tu
ud
dy
y
A
Ar
re
ea
a
E
En
nd
ds
s
a
at
t
t
th
he
e
I In
nt
te
er
rs
se
ec
ct
ti
io
on
n
o
of
f
R
Ro
ou
ut
te
es
s
4
4
&
&
t th
he
e
N
NY
Y/
/V
Ve
er
rm
mo
on
nt
t
B
Bo
or
rd
de
er
r

Route 4 Corridor Study Buckhurst Fish Jacquemart Inc./ January 2005
6

Comments made at the workshop helped BFJ to further identify the core issues and
opportunities along the corridor. At the Design Workshops on September 21st, 2004 in Fort
Ann and September 22nd in Whitehall BFJ presented short, intermediate and long-term
recommendations based on existing and future conditions. Workshop participants had the
opportunity to respond to proposed improvem ent concepts and suggest other ideas and
priorities.

2.0 Existing Conditions

2.1 Roadway Conditions
The Route 4 study corridor is a major north-south principal arterial approximately 25 miles
in length that runs from the Town of Kingsbury to the New York/Vermont State border. The
roadway generally consists of one travel lane in each direction (approximately 12’ width)
with shoulders (varying widths) provided on each side. Pavement conditions are generally
perceived to be good. The study corridor passes through several communities in
Washington County, including: the Town of King sbury, the Town and Village of Fort Ann,
the Town and Village of Whitehall and the Town of Hampton. This is shown in Figure 1.1.

2.2 Daily Traffic Volumes (AADT)
A traffic report was obtained from New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT)
for the different segments of Route 4. The hourly report shows traffic volumes taken at a
certain location for a 24-hour period during one year, which are then multiplied by different
factors (seasonal, local conditions) to get the estimated Average Annual Daily Traffic
(AADT). Figure 2.1 shows the AADT volumes (with corresponding year taken) for the
various locations along the Route 4 corridor. As can be seen, the average daily traffic along
Route 4 from the intersection of Route 32 to Route 149 (north) in the
Town of Fort Ann is
from 5,880 to 6,876 vehicles. The section along Route 4 north of the intersection of Route
149 (north) to the New York/Vermont State line has an AADT of 8,726 to 9,873.

BFJ also installed Automatic Traffic Recorders (ATR) along the different sections of Route 4
to obtain the number of heavy vehicles that are passing through the various segments of
Route 4. The survey shows that along Route 4, approximately 13% to 15% of the total
vehicles are heavy vehicles. The average for this type of roadway is generally below 10%.

2.3 Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes
BFJ conducted manual turning movement counts at several critical intersections along the
study corridor. The morning and afternoon traffic counts were conducted from 7:00 AM to
9:00 AM and from 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM in May of 2004 (See Appendix A for details). Table
2.1 summarizes the different intersections that were counted. Of the five study intersections
that were counted, four are signalized and one is unsignalized.

4
4
4
4
4
4W
aite
G
eer
BurgoyneD
ix
Ro
ck City
Stone Schoolhouse
Co
unty R oute 36
Kingsbur
y
S tate Highway 149
Bald
win Corn
ers
T OwensNee
d
hamvil
le
Char
le s
Flat Ro
ck
State Highway 149
C
la
y Hill
Kelsey Pond
State Route 22
Deweys Bridg eOld Ro
ute 4
Ol
d Route 4
R
yd
er
Lo
ck II
Old
Stat
e Ro
ad
1s tM
a
ple
Mounta inWi
llia m
Br
oadw
ay
Coun
ty
Road
9ABuckleyCounty Ro
ad
18County Ro
ad
9B
Ol
d
Fair
Have
nDoug
las
Ch
apman
Golf Course
5th
Potte r
3rd
Eliz
abeth
Fort AnnFort Ann
Kingsbury
KingsburyWhitehall
WhitehallHampto
nHampton
WhitehallWhitehall
Gra
Gra
H udson F a lls F ort Ann
F ort Ann
F FI
IG
GU
UR
RE
E2
2.
.1
1
D
DA
AI
IL
LY
Y&
&
P
PE
EA
AK
K-
-H
HO
OU
UR
RT
TR
RA
AF
FF
FI
IC
CV
VO
OL
LU
UM
ME
ES
S
Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.
ROUTE4 CORRIDORSTUDYsource: NYS DOT, BFJ Field Study
0 2 miles
April 2004
53(91)
239(300)
73(177)
219(298)119(179)
58(56)
27(17)
132(126)
183(271)
172(90)231(261)
53(18)
39(44)
6(5)
155(238)5(4)
233(185)37(62)
63(166)
12(15)
93(190)
140(371)
153(101)
142(112)
59(74)61(77)351(234)
15(10)
22(22)
19(18)
182(227)
29(35)
144(214)
7(23)
180(210)
215(166)
0(4)4(6)
15(15)
27(17)
26(35)
13(21)
L LE
EG
GE
EN
ND
D
X
XX
X(
(X
XX
X)
):
:
A
AM
M(
(P
PM
M)
)
P
Pe
ea
ak
k
H
Ho
ou
ur
r
T
Tu
ur
rn
ni
in
ng
g
M Mo
ov
ve
em
me
en
nt
ts
s,
,
(
(2
20
00
04
4)
)
3
32
29
90
0
( (2
20
00
01
1)
)
AADT by direction
(year of count)
3 32
29
90
0(
(2
20
00
01
1)
)
A
AA
AD
DT
T
6
68
87
76
6
3
35
58
86
6(
(2
20
00
01
1)
)

2
28
89
95
5(
(2
20
00
02
2)
)
A
AA
AD
DT
T
5
58
88
80
0
2
29
98
85
5(
(2
20
00
02
2)
)

4
49
90
06
6(
(2
20
00
03
3)
)
A
AA
AD
DT
T
9
98
87
73
3
4
49
97
76
6(
(2
20
00
03
3)
)

4
43
30
06
6(
(2
20
00
00
0)
)
A
AA
AD
DT
T
8
87
72
26
6
4
44
42
20
0(
(2
20
00
00
0)
)

4
47
71
14
4(
(2
20
00
00
0)
)

A
AA
AD
DT
T
9
90
00
08
8
4
42
29
94
4(
(2
20
00
02
2)
)

R
Ro
ou
ut
te
es
s
4
4
&
&
2
22
2
N
No
or
rt
th
h
R
Ro
ou
ut
te
es
s
4
4
&
&
2
22
2
S
So
ou
ut
th
h
R
Ro
ou
ut
te
es
s
4
4
&
&
1
14
49
9
N
No
or
rt
th
h
R
Ro
ou
ut
te
es
s
4
4
&
&
1
14
49
9
S
So
ou
ut
th
h
R
Ro
ou
ut
te
es
s
4
4
&
&
3
32
2

Route 4 Corridor Study Buckhurst Fish Jacquemart Inc./ January 2005
8
Table 2.1 – Study Intersections

Intersection Type
Route 4 and Route 32 Signalized
Route 4 and Route 149 (south) Unsignalized
Route 4 and Route 149 (north) Signalized
Route 4 and Route 22 (south) Signalized
Route 4 and Route 22 / Broadway /
Poultney Signalized

Figure 2.1 shows the traffic volumes at the different study intersections for the weekday
morning and afternoon peak hours. Peak hours typically occurred from 7:15 AM to 8:15
AM in the morning, and 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM in the afternoon.

A comparison between the turning counts at Routes 4 & 32 between 19991 and 2004
showed an annual increase of 4% in traffic during the AM peak hour and an increase of 1%
during the PM peak hour.

2.4 Existing Levels of Service
Based on the peak-hour traffic volumes and on geometric m easurements made during the
site evaluation, all intersections were anal yzed using the Highway Capacity Manual method
(Transportation Research Board Special Report 209, Fourth Edition, 2000 Update). Traffic
conditions are described in terms of level of service (LOS) with the levels ranging from LOS
A, the best, to LOS F, the worst. Level of service C is generally considered the design l
evel
of service, while LOS D is generally consid ered as the acceptable limit during peak hours.
Level of service E is typically at or near th e capacity of the roadway or intersection and
generally involves unacceptable delays.

Levels of service for signalized intersections are defined in terms of a
verage control delay
per vehicle. Delay is dependent on a number of variables including the quality of signal
progression, cycle length, green ratio and the volume/capacity ratio for the lane group or
approach in question. For signalized inters ections, levels of service can be calculated and
expressed for each movement or approach and for the total intersection as a weighted
average of all movements. Specifically, level of service criteria are stated in terms of the
average control delay per vehicle for the wors t 15-minute period within the peak hour, as
shown in Table 2.2. Control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time,
stopped delay, and final acceleration delay.

1 Dix Avenue Corridor Study by the Sea r-Brown Group, June 2000, pg. 35-36

Route 4 Corridor Study Buckhurst Fish Jacquemart Inc./ January 2005
9

Table 2.2 – Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections
Level of Service Average Control Delay (seconds/vehicle)

A 10.0 or less
B 10.1 to 20.0
C 20.1 to 35.0
D 35.1 to 55.0
E 55.1 to 80.0
F more than 80.0
Source: Highway Capacity Manu al, TRB Special Report 209, Fourth Edition, 2000 Update.

Level of service analyses for an unsignalized intersection are based on average control
delay, defined as the total elapsed time from when a vehicle stops at the end of the queue
until the vehicle departs from the stop line. This includes the time required for the vehicle
to travel from the last-in-queue position to th e first-in-queue position. The total delay for a
particular minor movement is a function of the service rate or capacity of the approach and
the degree of saturation. The level of service criteria for unsignalized intersections are
shown in Table 2.3.

Table 2.3 – Level of Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections
Level of
Service Average Control Delay (seconds/vehicle)

A 10.0 or less
B 10.1 to 15.0
C 15.1 to 25.0
D 25.1 to 35.0
E 35.1 to 50.0
F more than 50.0
Source: Highway Capacity Manu al, TRB Special Report 209, Fourth Edition, 2000 Update.

Using the capacity analysis methodology desc ribed above, peak-hour traffic volumes were
analyzed to determine the existing levels of se rvice for the five study intersections for the
weekday morning and afternoon peak hours. Fi gures 2.2 and 2.3 show the existing levels
of service for each intersection approach as we ll as the overall level for the signalized
intersections.

As can be seen, most of the intersections with in the study area operate with good levels of
service for the peak hours analyzed, except for the intersection of Route 4 and Route 32.
This intersection operates with overall LOS E and LOS D during the morning and afternoon
peak hours, respectively. The westbound approach operates with a LOS F with delays of
about 2 minutes during the morning peak hour a nd a LOS E with delays of approximately 1
minute during the afternoon peak hour.

F FI
IG
GU
UR
RE
E2
2.
.2
2
E
EX
XI
IS
ST
TI
IN
NG
GA
AM
M
P
PE
EA
AK
KH
HO
OU
UR
RL
LE
EV
VE
EL
LS
SO
OF
FS
SE
ER
RV
VI
IC
CE
E
Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.
ROUTE4 CORRIDORSTUDY
0 2 miles
April 2004
4
4
4
4
4
4W
ait
e
G
eer
BurgoyneD
ix
Ro
ck City
Stone Schoolhouse
Co
unty R out
e 36
Kingsbur
y
S tate Highway 149
Bald
win Corn
ers
T OwensNee
d
hamvil
le
Char
le s
Flat Ro
ck
S tate Highway 149
C
la
y Hill
Kelsey Pond
State Route 22
Deweys Bridg eOld Ro
ute 4
Ol
d Route 4
R
yd
er
Lo
ck II
Old
St
at
e Ro
ad
1s tM
a
ple
Mounta inWi
llia m
Br
oadw
ay
Coun
ty
Road
9ABuckleyCounty Ro
ad
18County Ro
ad
9B
Ol
d
Fair
Have
nDoug
las
Ch
ap
man
Golf Course
5th
Potter
3rd
Eliz
abeth
Fort AnnFort Ann
Kingsbury
KingsburyWhitehall
WhitehallHampton
Hampton
WhitehallWhitehall
Gran
vGranv
H udson F a lls F ort Ann
F ort Ann
R Ro
ou
ut
te
es
s
4
4
&
&
2
22
2
N
No
or
rt
th
h
R
Ro
ou
ut
te
es
s
4
4
&
&
2
22
2
S
So
ou
ut
th
h
R
Ro
ou
ut
te
es
s
4
4
&
&
1
14
49
9
S
So
ou
ut
th
h
C(28.3)
B(15.7)
D(36.4)
F(150.5)*E(76.6)
R
Ro
ou
ut
te
es
s
4
4
&
&
3
32
2
A(9.7)
B(10.7)
A(7.8)
L
LE
EG
GE
EN
ND
D
B (0.0) : Level of Service for Movement
(Estimated Delay, Seconds/Vehicle)
*A (0.0) : Overall Intersection Level of Service
(Estimated Delay, Seconds/Vehicle)
B(19.5)
R Ro
ou
ut
te
es
s
4
4
&
&
1
14
49
9
N
No
or
rt
th
h
B(13.3)
B(14.4)
B(16.1)*
*B
B(
(1
17
7.
.3
3)
)Note:
These levels do not
reflect geometric
restraints of intersection.
A(8.3)
A(7.5)C(21.4)
A(8.1)
A(0.0)
*A(9.1)
B(17.2)
B(15.7)
B(13.1)
B(16.7)
A(0.0)
*B(12.4)

Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.
ROUTE4 CORRIDORSTUDY
0 2 miles
April 2004
F FI
IG
GU
UR
RE
E2
2.
.3
3
E
EX
XI
IS
ST
TI
IN
NG
GP
PM
M
P
PE
EA
AK
KH
HO
OU
UR
RL
LE
EV
VE
EL
LS
SO
OF
FS
SE
ER
RV
VI
IC
CE
E
4
4
4
4
4
4W
ait
e
G
eer
BurgoyneD
ix
Ro
ck City
Stone Schoolhouse
Co
unty R out
e 36
Kingsbur
y
S tate Highway 149
Bald
win Corn
ers
T OwensNee
d
hamvil
le
Char
le s
Flat Ro
ck
S tate Highway 149
C
la
y Hill
Kelsey Pond
State Route 22
Deweys Bridg eOld Ro
ute 4
Ol
d Route 4
R
yd
er
Lo
ck II
Old
St
at
e Ro
ad
1s tM
a
ple
Mounta inWi
llia m
Br
oadw
ay
Coun
ty
Road
9ABuckleyCounty Ro
ad
18County Ro
ad
9B
Ol
d
Fair
Have
nDoug
las
Ch
ap
man
Golf Course
5th
Potter
3rd
Eliz
abeth
Fort AnnFort Ann
Kingsbury
KingsburyWhitehall
WhitehallHampton
Hampton
WhitehallWhitehall
Gran
vGranv
H udson F a lls F ort Ann
F ort Ann
R Ro
ou
ut
te
es
s
4
4
&
&
2
22
2
N
No
or
rt
th
h
R
Ro
ou
ut
te
es
s
4
4
&
&
2
22
2
S
So
ou
ut
th
h
R
Ro
ou
ut
te
es
s
4
4
&
&
1
14
49
9
S
So
ou
ut
th
h
C(30.6)
C(31.4)
D(35.3)
E(62.4)*D(39.4)
R
Ro
ou
ut
te
es
s
4
4
&
&
3
32
2
A(10.0)
B(14.0)
A(8.0)
L
LE
EG
GE
EN
ND
D
B (0.0) : Level of Service for Movement
(Estimated Delay, Seconds/Vehicle)
*A (0.0) : Overall Intersection Level of Service
(Estimated Delay, Seconds/Vehicle)
B(17.5)
R Ro
ou
ut
te
es
s
4
4
&
&
1
14
49
9
N
No
or
rt
th
h
B(13.3)
B(15.7)
B(18.5)*
*B
B(
(1
17
7.
.1
1)
)Note:
These levels do not
reflect geometric
restraints of intersection.
A(9.1)
A(7.3)C(22.1)
A(8.6)
A(0.0)
*B(10.9)
B(18.9)
B(15.3)
B(13.5)
B(17.8)
A(0.0)
*B(15.5)

Route 4 Corridor Study Buckhurst Fish Jacquemart Inc./ January 2005
12
The intersection of Route 4 and Route 149 in Fo rt Ann is listed as operating at LOS B,
based on the peak-hour traffic volumes. The traffic model indicates it operates with a 17.3
second delay in the AM peak and 17.1 seconds in the PM peak. However, this level of
service calculation does not reflect the restricted geometry of the intersection and the fact
that the large trucks have a hard time making their turns. BFJ performed a field survey at
this intersection and found delays of 44 seconds in the PM peak, which corresponds to
LOS D. The increased delay of about 25 seconds appears to be caused by a combination
of the tight turning angles, the high percentage of heavy vehicles present and driver error.
The tight turning radius at this intersection requires tractor-trailers to make a very sharp
turn. In order to permit large trucks traveling southbound on Route 4 to turn westbound,
the stop bar is set back from the intersection for traffic traveling eastbound. Occasionally
drivers ignore or fail to notice the road markings and stop close to the pedestrian crossing,
impeding traffic. The physical constraints ar e affecting the capacity of this intersection.

2.5 Vehicular Speeds
BFJ collected speed data along the study corridor. Automatic Speed Data recorders were
installed at the following locations: 0.60 miles north of Route 4 and Charles Street; 1.10
miles north of Route 4 and Route 22; and 0.60 miles north of Route 4 and County Route
18, for a period of approximately one week to determine actual vehicle speeds along these
sections of the roadway. Table 2.4 below shows the result of the speed survey.
Table 2.4 – Speed Statistics
Location

Speed
Limit
Percent of
Vehicles Over
the Speed Limit
85%
Speed
0.6 miles north of Route 4 & Charles Street 55 mph31.2% 58 mph
1.1 miles north of Route 4 & Route 22(south) 55 mph52.3% 62 mph
0.6 miles north of Route 4 & Route 18 55 mph43.6% 61 mph

As shown in Table 2.4, vehicle speed data collected during this period indicated that the
85th percentile speeds along different sections of Route 4 range from 58 mph to 62 mph.
This means that 85 percent of the drivers were driving at those speeds or lower, or that
15% of the vehicles drove faster than those speeds. It is also interesting to note that the
vehicle speed data collected indicated that approximately 31% (0.60 miles north of Route
4 and Charles Street) to approximately 52% (1.1 miles north of Route 4 and Route 22
South) were traveling over the posted speed limit of 55 mph.

2.6 Accident History
An accident analysis was conducted along the Route 4 study corridor. Accident
information obtained from NYSDOT for a three year period from June 1999 to May 2002
indicated that there were a total of 388 accidents during this time period. There were 6
vehicular accidents that involved a fatality, 132 vehicular accidents that involved injuries,
159 vehicular accidents that involved property damage only, 91 non-reportable accidents
and no vehicular accidents that involved a pedest rian or a bicycle (Figure 2.4). The overall

Route 4 Corridor Study Buckhurst Fish Jacquemart Inc./ January 2005
13

accident rate for the entire corridor was 1.67 accidents / MVM (accidents per million
vehicle miles). This is lower than the New York State average or expected accident rate for
accidents on free access, rural, undivided two-lane roads, which is 2.81
2. However, there
are sections along Route 4 that have high accident frequencies. These high-accident
segments are analyzed in Section 3.

2.7 Existing Land Uses
Along the entire corridor, there is a diverse mix of commercial, residential, and industrial
uses, as well as some vacant, forest or agric ultural land. The character of the corridor
changes significantly. Figures 2.5 and 2.6 show the various land uses along Route 4 in the
Village of Fort Ann and Whitehall. As shown in both figures, land uses in the Village of Fort
Ann and Whitehall mostly consist of residentia l and commercial uses (i.e. retail, offices, and
restaurant). Outside of the villages the adj acent land uses are largely agricultural, forests
and some residential uses.

One of the major constraints along the corridor is the growth of suburban style development
along Route 4. The proliferation of driveways along the corridor hampers Route 4 from
functioning as an arterial. Every additional curb cut along the roadway has a direct effect of
both lowering traveling speeds and increasing the expected accident rate.

2.8 Bus Transit
At the current time there is no regularly scheduled public transit service in the study area.
The Greater Glens Falls Transit (GGFT) route #4 travels up to the intersection of Route 4 &
32, but does not travel within the Route 4 corridor. The only transit that exists in the
corridor is run by the schools systems and social service organizations.

2.9 Sidewalk Conditions

The sidewalk system serving the residential a nd commercial areas in the Village sections of
the study corridor are not continuous (Figure 2.7). In the Village of Fort Ann, sidewalks are
provided on both sides of Route 4 for most of the village. A gap in the sidewalk network
exists on the east side of Route 4 near th e intersection of Route 149/Clay Hill Road.
Pavement conditions are fair, and the sidewalk wi dth is between four and five feet. In the
Village of Whitehall, most of the west side of Route 4 has a continuous sidewalk starting
from south of 7th Street to north of Park Avenue. On the east side of Route 4, the sidewalk
is virtually non-existent, and is present only between the intersection of 1st Street and
Adams Street and between the intersection of Skene Street and Park Avenue. Pavement
conditions are fair to poor, with sidewalk widths between four and five feet and a lack of
continuity.
2 NYSDOT Traffic Engineering and Highway Safety Divis ion – Information Files, average accident rates for state
highways (http://dotwe b2.dot.state.ny.us/traffic/files/tableii8.pdf)

F FI
IG
GU
UR
RE
E2
2.
.4
4
A
AC
CC
CI
ID
DE
EN
NT
TS
SU
UM
MM
MA
AR
RY
Y
(June 1999 to May 2002)
Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.
ROUTE4 CORRIDORSTUDYsource:NYSDOT
0 2 miles
April 2004
4
4
4
4
4
4W
aite
G
eer
BurgoyneD
ix
Ro
ck City
Stone Schoolhouse
Co
unty R oute 36
Kingsbur
y
S tate Highway 149
Bald
win Corn
ers
T OwensNee
d
hamvil
le
Char
le s
Flat Ro
ck
S tate Highway 149
C
la
y Hill
Kelsey Pond
State Route 22
Deweys Bridg eOld Ro
ute 4
Ol
d Route 4
R
yd
er
Lo
ck II
Old
Stat
e Ro
ad
1s tM
a
ple
Mounta inWi
llia m
Br
oadw
ay
Coun
ty
Roa d
9ABuckleyCounty Ro
ad
18County Ro
ad
9B
Ol
d
Fair
Have
nDoug
las
Ch
apman
Golf Course
5th
Potter
3rd
Eliz
abeth
Fort AnnFort Ann
Kingsbury
KingsburyWhitehall
WhitehallHampto
nHampton
WhitehallWhitehall
Gra
nGran
H udson F a lls F ort Ann
F ort Ann
L LE
EG
GE
EN
ND
D
Total Accidents / Injuries / PDO crashes
INTERSECTION ACCIDENTS
Total Accidents / Injuries / PDO crashes
NON-INTERSECTION ACCIDENTS (6/99 to 5/02)
1
12
2/
/
4
4
/
/
7
7
1
13
3
/
/
2
2
/
/
8
8
1
10
0
/
/
3
3
/
/
4
4
1
16
6
/
/
1
1
/
/
8
8
1
10
0
/
/
4
4
/
/
6
6
2
24
4
/
/
1
10
0
/
/
8
8
1
12
2
/
/
3
3
/
/
8
8
5
5
/
/
2
2
/
/
2
2
1
13
3
/
/
2
2
/
/
9
9
1
13
3
/
/
5
5
/
/
4
4
1
12
2
/
/
8
8
/
/
2
2
8
8
/
/
3
3
/
/
1
1
5
5
/
/
2
2
/
/
1
1
7
7
/
/
1
1
/
/
3
3
5
5
/
/
1
1
/
/
2
2
9
9
/
/
1
1
/
/
3
3
6
6
/
/
3
3
/
/
2
2
5
5
/
/
2
2
/
/
2
2
6
6
/
/
2
2
/
/
3
3
7
7
/
/
6
6
/
/
1
1
3
3
/
/
2
2
/
/
1
1
(Old Fair Haven Road &
Route 4)
3 3
/
/
2
2
/
/
1
1

(Buckley & Route 4)
5 5
/
/
3
3
/
/
1
1

(Norton & Route 4)
1 15
5
/
/
2
2
/
/
9
9

(Williams & Route 4)
7 7
/
/
3
3
/
/
1
1

(Broadway / Poultney & Route 4)
3 3
/
/
1
1
/
/
2
2

(Kirtland St & Route 4)
1 10
0
/
/
2
2
/
/
4
4

(Route 22 & Route 4)
7 7
/
/
3
3
/
/
3
3

(Charles St & Route 4)
1 12
2
/
/
4
4
/
/
5
5

(Route 149 & Route 4)
3 3
/
/
1
1
/
/
0
0

(Victoria St & Route 4)
5 5
/
/
2
2
/
/
3
3

(Route 149 & Route 4)
5 5
/
/
1
1
/
/
3
3

(Geer Road & Route 4)
1 18
8
/
/
6
6
/
/
6
6

(Route 32 & Route 4)
V Vi
il
ll
la
ag
ge
e
o
of
f
F Fo
or
rt
t
A
An
nn
nV Vi
il
ll
la
ag
ge
e
o
of
f
W Wh
hi
it
te
eh
ha
al
ll
l
Fatality

F FI
IG
GU
UR
RE
E2
2.
.5
5
E
EX
XI
IS
ST
TI
IN
NG
GL
LA
AN
ND
DU
US
SE
ES
S-
–
F
FO
OR
RT
TA
AN
NN
N
Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.
ROUTE4 CORRIDORSTUDY
0 0.25 mile
April 2004
T
Ow
e
ns
N
ee
dh
amvi
lle
Char
le
s
Fort Ann
School
Village of
Fort Ann
Retail
Agri/forestVacant
Residential
Institutional
Commercial
Office
Park
0 0.25 0.50.125
Miles
t
u4
t
u4
Sta
t
eHi
gh
wa
y14
9
Legend
La
nd Use
Park
Vacant
Agri/forest
Uses not indicated
Commercial
Industrial
Institutional
Office
Residential
Retail/Restaurant

F FI
IG
GU
UR
RE
E2
2.
.6
6
E
EX
XI
IS
ST
TI
IN
NG
GL
LA
AN
ND
DU
US
SE
ES
S-
–
W
WH
HI
IT
TE
EH
HA
AL
LL
L
Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.
ROUTE4 CORRIDORSTUDY
0 0.25 mile
April 2004
t
u4
1st
Ma
p
le
M
ou
n
ta
in
W
il
lia
m
B
roa
dw
ay
Co
un
t
yR
5t
h
Po
t
te
r
3
rd
t
u4
S
k
e
ne
Village of Village of
Whitehall Whitehall
Agri/forest
Vacant
Industrial
Retail
Residential
Commercial
Institutional
Office
002 0012
Legend
Land Use
Park
Vacant
Water Bodies
Agri/forest
Uses not indicated
Commercial
Industrial
Institutional
Office
Residential
Retail

4
4
4
4
4
4W
aite
G
eer
BurgoyneD
ix
Ro
ck City
Stone Schoolhouse
Co
unty R oute 36
Kingsbur
y
S tate Highway 149
Bald
win Corn
ers
T OwensNee
d
hamvil
le
Char
le s
Flat Ro
ck
State Highway 149
C
la
y Hill
Kelsey Pond
State Route 22
Deweys Bridg eOld Ro
ute 4
Ol
d Route 4
R
yd
er
Lo
ck II
Old
Stat
e Ro
ad
1s tM
a
ple
Mounta inWi
llia m
Br
oadw
ay
Coun
ty
Roa d
9ABuckleyCounty Ro
ad
18County Ro
ad
9B
Ol
d
Fair
Have
nDoug
las
Ch
apman
Golf Course
5th
Potter
3rd
Eliz
abeth
Fort AnnFort Ann
Kingsbury
KingsburyWhitehall
WhitehallHampton
Hampton
WhitehallWhitehall
Gra
nGran
H udson F a lls F ort Ann
F ort Ann
F FI
IG
GU
UR
RE
E2
2.
.7
7
S
SI
ID
DE
EW
WA
AL
LK
KI
IN
NV
VE
EN
NT
TO
OR
RY
Y
Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.
ROUTE4 CORRIDORSTUDY
0 2 miles
April 2004
V Vi
il
ll
la
ag
ge
eo
of
fF
Fo
or
rt
tA
An
nn
n V Vi
il
ll
la
ag
ge
eo
of
fW
Wh
hi
it
te
eh
ha
al
ll
l
L
LE
EG
GE
EN
ND
D
W
Wi
it
th
h
S
Si
id
de
ew
wa
al
lk
ks
s
Without Sidewalks
Maple Street
W
illia
m
s Stre
etMountain StreetSkene StreetPotter Street
Davies Street
Pauline Street
Park Street
E
liza
b
eth
S
tre
etKirtland Street
Adams Street
1st Ave
2nd Ave
3rd Ave
4th Ave
7th Ave
5th Ave
Elizabeth Street
Victoria Street
Clay H
ill Road
Catherine Street
Charles Street
Queen Anne Dr.

2.10 Bicycle Conditions
Route 4 is a component of New York State’s Bike Route 9 from the Saratoga County
boundary north to the divergence of Routes 22 and 4 in Whitehall. As there are no separate
bike lanes provided along Route 4, cyclists are expected to use the shoulder. Most of the
shoulders along Route 4 have widths greater than four feet, but there are several sections
along Route 4 where the shoulders are too narro w or absent impeding convenient and safe
cycling (See Figure 2.8). There were no reported bicycle or pedestrian accidents between
June 1999 and May 2002, but areas within the corridor exist where the shoulders are too
narrow for safe cycling or absent (Figure 2.8).

3.0 Accident Analysis

3.1 High Accident Non-Intersection Locations
As stated in Section 2.6, there were 388 accidents along the corridor from June 1999 to
May 2002. The accident rate for the entire corridor was 1.67 accidents / MVM (accidents
per million vehicle miles) which is lower than the statewide average on free access, rural,
undivided two lane roads, which is 2.81. When the roadway is viewed in smaller
segments (Table 3.1), there are two areas which stand out as being more than 30% above
the expected accident rate of 2.81 accidents/MVM. As shown in Figure 3.1, starting from
the south, segment one is from mile marker 1144 to 1159, which represents a 1.5 mile
stretch of Route 4 from the intersection with Route 32 to just south of Geer Road. This
segment has the highest accident rate in the corridor at 4.07 ACC/MVM. The segment with
the second highest accident rate is the sout hern portion of the Village of Whitehall, south
of the intersection of Route 22 (N) and Route 4. This 1.8 mile segment has a 3.66
ACC/MVM rate.

In addition, there are four segments which are more than 35% above the expected
accident rate in New York State (0.743) for fatalities + injuries. The two previously
mentioned segments are also above the expected fatal + injury rate at 1.77 and 1.34
respectively. In addition, the 1.6 mile segment from mile marker 1159 to 1175, which
begins just south of Geer Road and is contiguous with the other high accident location on
the southern portion of the corridor, has a rate of 1.00 fatalities + injuries/MVM. The
fourth location is the 1.9 mile segment north of the intersection of Route 4 with Route 149
(south) with a rate of 1.06 fatal + injury/MVM.

Route 4 was investigated in greater depth to analyze the non-intersection locations along
the corridor in 0.3 mile segments. As shown in Figure 3.2 there are seven locations which
contained more than nine non-intersection accidents over a three year period.

A site visit was made to these seven locations in an effort to determine the causes of the
accidents. Ultimately, a more detailed look at the accidents that have occurred along the
corridor will be needed to see if any recurring accident type or patterns exist that could
benefit from specific improvements. Practically all segments are in transitional sections
3 NYSDOT Traffic Engineering and Highway Safety Divis ion – Information Files, average accident rates for state
highways (http://dotwe b2.dot.state.ny.us/traffic/files/tableii8.pdf)

Route 4 Corridor Study Buckhurst Fish Jacquemart Inc./ January 2005
18

F FI
IG
GU
UR
RE
E2
2.
.8
8
E
EX
XI
IS
ST
TI
IN
NG
GB
BI
IC
CY
YC
CL
LI
IN
NG
GC
CO
ON
ND
DI
IT
TI
IO
ON
NS
S
Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.
ROUTE4 CORRIDORSTUDY
0 2 miles
April 2004
4
4
4
4
4
4W
ait
e
G
eer
BurgoyneD
ix
Ro
ck City
Stone Schoolhouse
Co
unty R oute 36
Kingsbur
y
S tate Highway 149
Bald
win Corn
ers
T OwensNee
d
hamvil
le
Char
le s
Flat Ro
ck
S tate Highway 149
C
la
y Hill
Kelsey Pond
State Route 22
Deweys Bridg eOld Ro
ute 4
Ol
d Route 4
Ryd
er
Lo
ck II
Old
Stat
e Ro
ad
1s tM
a
ple
Mounta inWi
llia m
Br
oadw
ay
Coun
ty
Road
9ABuckleyCounty Ro
ad
18County Ro
ad
9B
Ol
d
Fair
Have
nDoug
las
Ch
ap
man
Golf Course
5th
Potter
3rd
Eliz
abeth
Fort AnnFort Ann
Kingsbury
KingsburyWhitehall
WhitehallHampton
Hampton
WhitehallWhitehall
Gran
Gran
H udson F a lls F ort Ann
F ort Ann
V Vi
il
ll
la
ag
ge
eo
of
fF
Fo
or
rt
tA
An
nn
n V Vi
il
ll
la
ag
ge
eo
of
fW
Wh
hi
it
te
eh
ha
al
ll
l
L
LE
EG
GE
EN
ND
D
S
Sh
ho
ou
ul
ld
de
er
r
G
Gr
re
ea
at
te
er
r
t
th
ha
an
n
4
4
F
Fe
ee
et
t
Shoulder Less than 4 Feet
Maple Street
W
illia
m
s S
tre
e
tMountain StreetSkene StreetPotter Street
Davies Street
Pauline Street
Park Street
E
liza
b
e
th
S
tre
e
tKirtland Street
Adams Street
1st Ave
2nd Ave
3rd Ave
4th Ave
7th Ave
5th Ave
Elizabeth Street
Victoria Street
Clay H
ill Road
Catherine Street
Charles Street
Queen Anne Dr.
No Shoulder

Intersection
with
Route 4Startin
g
Reference
MarkerFinishin
g
Reference
MarkerDist.
(miles) Accidents Fatal Injury PDO N/R AADTAccidents/
Year MVMAccidents/
MVMFatal +
Injuries /
MVMPDO+N/R
/ MVM
Rt. 32
1144 1159
1.5 46 0 20 11 15 6876 15.33 3.764.07 1.772.30
1159 1175
1.6 21 0 12 6 3 6876 7.00 4.02 1.741.000.75
1175 1190
1.5 18 0 6 12 0 6876 6.00 3.76 1.59 0.53 1.06
1190 1207
1.7 25 1 5 14 5 6876 8.33 4.27 1.95 0.47 1.48
Rt. 149 S.
1207 1226
1.9 34 0 13 14 7 5880 11.33 4.08 2.781.061.72
1226 1245
1.9 35 0 9 16 10 9873 11.67 6.85 1.70 0.44 1.27
1245 1265
2 30 2 4 14 10 9873 10.00 7.21 1.39 0.28 1.11
Rt 149 N
1265 1282
1.7 11 0 1 5 5 8726 3.67 5.41 0.68 0.06 0.62
1282 1299
1.7 13 1 6 6 0 8726 4.33 5.41 0.80 0.43 0.37
1299 1316
1.7 10 0 5 1 4 8726 3.33 5.41 0.62 0.31 0.31
1316 1334
1.8 63 0 23 24 16 8726 21.00 5.733.66 1.342.33
Rt 22 N.
1334 1350
1.6 35 0 13 14 8 9008 11.67 5.26 2.22 0.82 1.39
1350 1366
1.6 5 0 0 3 2 9008 1.67 5.26 0.32 0.00 0.32
1366 1382
1.6 17 0 4 11 2 9008 5.67 5.26 1.08 0.25 0.82
1382 1400
1.8 25 2 11 8 4 9008 8.33 5.92 1.41 0.73 0.68
Totals 25.6 388 6 132 159 91 129.33 77.62 1.67 0.59 1.07
NYS Average / Expected Accident Rate 2.81 0.74 2.07
Fatal = Crash which resulted in a fatality
Injury = Crash which resulted in an injury
PDO = Crash which resulted in Property Damage Only
Source: NYSDOT Safety Information Management System
N/R = Non-Reportable Accident (less than $2,500 in damage)
Dates: June 1, 1999 to May 31, 2002
AADT= Annual Average Daily Traffic
MVM = Million Vehicle Miles
Route 4 Corridor Study
BFJ Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart, Inc. /Jan, 2005
Table 3.1 – Analysis of Accident Rates Along Route 4 in Washington County
Shaded Areas are 30% above the New York Statewide
Average also know as the expected accident rate

F FI
IG
GU
UR
RE
E3
3.
.1
1
A
AB
BO
OV
VE
EA
AV
VE
ER
RA
AG
GE
EA
AC
CC
CI
ID
DE
EN
NT
TS
SE
EG
GM
ME
EN
NT
TS
S
Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.
ROUTE4 CORRIDORSTUDYsource: NYS DOT
0 2 miles
April 2004
4
4
4
4
4
4W
ait
e
G
eer
BurgoyneD
ix
Ro
ck City
Stone Schoolhouse
Co
unty R out
e 36
Kingsbur
y
S tate Highway 149
Bald
win Corn
ers
T OwensNee
d
hamvil
le
Char
le s
Flat Ro
ck
S tate Highway 149
C
la
y Hill
Kelsey Pond
State Route 22
Deweys Bridg eOld Ro
ute 4
Ol
d Route 4
R
yd
er
Lo
ck II
Old
St
at
e Ro
ad
1s tM
a
ple
Mounta inWi
llia m
Br
oadw
ay
Coun
ty
Road
9ABuckleyCounty Ro
ad
18County Ro
ad
9B
Ol
d
Fair
Have
nDoug
las
Ch
ap
man
Golf Course
5th
Potter
3rd
Eliz
abeth
Fort AnnFort Ann
Kingsbury
KingsburyWhitehall
WhitehallHampton
Hampton
WhitehallWhitehall
Gran
vGranv
H udson F a lls F ort Ann
F ort Ann
3.66 – Accidents/ MVM
1.34 – Fatal + Injury/ MVM
2.33 – PDO + N/R/ MVM
Reference Marker 1316 to 1334
L LE
EG
GE
EN
ND
D
Areas more than 30% above expected rate
for Accident/MVM & Fatal + Injuries/ MVM
Areas more than 30% above the expected
rate for Fatal + Injuries/ MVM
NYS Averages
2.81 Accidents/ MVM
0.74 – Fatal + Injury/ MVM
2.07 – PDO + N/R/ MVM
2.78 – Accidents/ MVM
1.06 – Fatal + Injury/ MVM
1.72 – PDO + N/R/ MVM
Reference Marker 1207 to 1226
1.74 – Accidents/ MVM
1.00 – Fatal + Injury/ MVM
0.75 – PDO + N/R/ MVM
Reference Marker 1159 to 1175
4.07 – Accidents/ MVM
1.77 – Fatal + Injury/ MVM
2.30 – PDO + N/R/ MVM
Reference Marker 1144 to 1159

F FI
IG
GU
UR
RE
E3
3.
.2
2
H
HI
IG
GH
HN
NO
ON
N-
-I
IN
NT
TE
ER
RS
SE
EC
CT
TI
IO
ON
NA
AC
CC
CI
ID
DE
EN
NT
TL
LO
OC
CA
AT
TI
IO
ON
NS
S
Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.
ROUTE4 CORRIDORSTUDYsource: NYS DOT
0 2 miles
April 2004
4
4
4
4
4
4W
aite
G
eer
BurgoyneD
ix
Ro
ck City
Stone Schoolhouse
Co
unty Route 36
Kingsbur
y
S tate Highway 149
Bald
win Corn
ers
T OwensNee
d
hamvil
le
Char
le s
Flat Ro
ck
S tate Highway 149
C
la
y Hill
Kelsey Pond
State Route 22
Deweys Bridg eOld Ro
ute 4
Ol
d Route 4
R
yd
er
Lo
ck II
Old
Stat
e Ro
ad
1s tM
a
ple
Mounta inWi
llia m
Br
oadw
ay
County
Road
9ABuckleyCounty Ro
ad
18County Ro
ad
9B
Ol
d
Fair
Have
nDoug
las
Ch
apman
Golf Course
5th
Potter
3rd
Eliz
abeth
Fort AnnFort Ann
Kingsbury
KingsburyWhitehall
WhitehallHampto
nHampton
WhitehallWhitehall
Gr
aGra
H udson F a lls F ort Ann
F ort Ann
1 12
2
A
Ac
cc
ci
id
de
en
nt
ts
s
0 Fatal
2 Injuries
7 Property Damage Only
3 Non-Reportable
Reference Marker 1337 to 1342
2 24
4
A
Ac
cc
ci
id
de
en
nt
ts
s
0 Fatal
10 Injuries
8 Property Damage Only
6 Non-Reportable
Reference Marker 1324 to 1330
9 9
A
Ac
cc
ci
id
de
en
nt
ts
s
1 Fatal
0 Injuries
6 Property Damage Only
2 Non-Reportable
Reference Marker 1263 to 1266
1 10
0
A
Ac
cc
ci
id
de
en
nt
ts
s
1 Fatal
3 Injuries
2 Property Damage Only
4 Non-Reportable
Reference Marker 1395 to 1398
9 9
A
Ac
cc
ci
id
de
en
nt
ts
s
0 Fatal
2 Injuries
4 Property Damage Only
3 Non-Reportable
Reference Marker 1226 to 1229
1 10
0
A
Ac
cc
ci
id
de
en
nt
ts
s
0 Fatal
8 Injuries
0 Property Damage Only
2 Non-Reportable
Reference Marker 1151 to 1154
9 9
A
Ac
cc
ci
id
de
en
nt
ts
s
0 Fatal
4 Injuries
1 Property Damage Only
4 Non-Reportable
Reference Marker 1144 to 1147
L LE
EG
GE
EN
ND
D
0.3 Mile Segments
Fatality

where vehicles have to change speeds because they enter into a village or they approach a
traffic light. These are also segments of Route 4 where there is a relatively high density of
driveways. In addition, the majority of the locations are preceded by an extended straight
stretch of roadway, where vehicles can attain high speeds.

The southernmost high accident location is where Route 4 intersects with Route 32, mile
marker 1144 to 1147, which contained nine accidents. This area of the roadway is flat
and straight with good sight lines. The number of curb cuts may be a reason for the high
number of accidents.

The second high accident location moving from south to north (mile marker 1151 to 1154)
is not directly adjacent to an intersection. For drivers headed southbound, this stretch of
roadway contains a driveway located on the left hand side at a leftward turn of the
roadway just after a dip in the road. This stretch of the roadway has an 80% injury rate,
which is the highest of any location in the corridor.

The third location (mile marker 1226 to 1229) occurs in the Village of
Fort Ann north of
the intersection with State Highway 149. At this location a total of 9 crashes took place.
The accidents in this area may be caused by southbound traffic traveling at high speeds
which fail to reduce speed sufficiently as they enter the Village of Fort Ann. Just to the
north of the intersection are a number of commercial establishments and their respective
driveways which may also lead to the high number of crashes.

The next location (reference marker 1263 to 1226) straddles the intersection of Route 4
with Route 22 South. This intersection contains one of the six fatal cr
ashes that occurred
in the study area between June 1999 to May 2002. The intersection of Route 4 and Route
22 South is also one of the high accident locations in the corridor. As this location has
very good sight lines, an excellent shoulder and is flat and straight, the crashes may be
caused by excessive speeds combined with the presence of the signalized intersection.

The next location (reference marker 1324 to 1330) contains the greatest number and
concentration of accidents in the study area. The area is in the Village of Whitehall just
south of the intersection with Route 22, and is the location of 24 accidents in the distance of
6/10
th of a mile. It is believed the high accident rate is caused by the large number of access
points connecting to Route 4. This small area contains curb cuts for private residences,
restaurants and businesses including Family Dollar, McDonalds, and a pet store. A factor
which exacerbates the problem is the rolling nature of the terrain which both reduces sight
lines and makes it more difficult for neighboring lots to interconnect.

The next location (reference marker 1337 to 1342) is located at the intersection of Route 4
and Williams Street, where 11 accidents took place at mile marker 1139. It is believed
that vehicles traveling westbound may be traveling at excessive speeds when entering the
Village.

The northernmost high accident location in the study area occurs near the Vermont border
(reference marker 1359 to 1398) where 10 accidents took place, including one fatality.
This segment is relatively straight, contains go od sight lines and is relatively flat. The
accidents at this location are probably related to the transitional character of this section of

Route 4 Corridor Study Buckhurst Fish Jacquemart Inc./ January 2005
23

Route 4. The 4-lane expressway character on the Vermont side may encourage excessive
speeds on the 2-lane section.

The northernmost portion of Route 4 has significant variations in the width of the roadway.
Route 4 is wider on the flat, straight portions which accommodate and allow greater
speeds. When the roadway contains hills and or turns, the width of the road narrows. This
causes accident spots as drivers accelerate durin g the straight roadway sections, but are not
always able to reduce speed sufficiently to avoid an incident along the narrower portion of
the roadway. Due to the high proportion of heavy vehicles on this roadway, greater
emphasis should be placed on maintaining consistent cross-sections.

3.2 High Accident Intersections
Starting from the south of the corridor, the in tersection of Route 4 and Route 32 (Dix Ave /
Burgoyne Ave) had 18 accidents and is the highest accident location in the corridor. This
section is also adjacent to one of the high-accident non-intersection locations and is
generally flat and straight with good sight lines. The combination of a high number of curb
cuts with excessive speeds may explain the high number of crashes. The traffic calming
effects of a roundabout should lead to a significant reduction in accidents.

The intersection of Routes 149 & 4 in the Village of Fort Ann is the site of 12 accidents
between June 1999 and May 2002. Geometric constraints force the westbound stop bar to
be placed to about 75 feet west of the intersection. This causes confusion among drivers
and leads some drivers to stop abruptly and other to stop in the center of the intersection.
The tight turning radius combined with the limited right-of-way and the drivers’ tendency
to accelerate through a traffic signal may influence a majority of the accidents.

At Route 4 and Route 22 South, 10 accidents occurred during the study period. This
intersection is preceded by a long straight way when traveling northbound. An excellent
shoulder is present. The area just to the north and south of the intersection is listed as a
non-intersection high accident location. The presence of the long northbound straight
section may lead to excessive speeds.

4.0 Future Traffic Volumes

4.1 Traffic Forecasts
Figure 4.1 summarizes the past growth trends in terms of traffic volumes along Route 4. It
can be seen that traffic volumes along Route have increased in generally by 1% to 3% per
year. Over the past 20 years traffic has grown mo re along the northern sections of Route 4.
This is probably due to the fact that regional (through) traffic has increased more than local
trips. Based on the past trends along Route 4 and general population forecasts, BFJ
developed traffic forecasts for Route 4 for the years 2014 and 2024, which are shown in
Figures 4.2 & 4.3. It can be seen that future AADTs are expected to rea
ch flows as high as
13,900 in 2024 along the section where Route 4 overlaps with Route 22.

Route 4 Corridor Study Buckhurst Fish Jacquemart Inc./ January 2005
24

ROUTE4 CORRIDORSTUDYsource: Census TIGER® 2000 Data from Geography Network
4
4
4
4
4
4W
aite
G
eer
BurgoyneD
ix
Ro
ck City
Stone Schoolhouse
Co
unty R oute 36
Kingsbur
y
S tate Highway 149
Bald
win Corn
ers
T OwensNee
d
hamvil
le
Char
le s
Flat Ro
ck
State Highway 149
C
la
y Hill
Kelsey Pond
State Route 22
Deweys Bridg eOld Ro
ute 4
Ol
d Route 4
R
yd
er
Lo
ck II
Old
Stat
e Ro
ad
1s tM
a
ple
Mounta inWi
llia m
Br
oadw
ay
Coun
ty
Road
9ABuckleyCounty Ro
ad
18County Ro
ad
9B
Ol
d
Fair
Have
nDoug
las
Ch
apman
Golf Course
5th
Potte r
3rd
Eliz
abeth
Fort AnnFort Ann
Kingsbury
KingsburyWhitehall
WhitehallHampto
nHampton
WhitehallWhitehall
Gra
Gra
H udson F a lls F ort Ann
F ort Ann
F FI
IG
GU
UR
RE
E4
4.
.1
1
–
–
H
HI
IS
ST
TO
OR
RI
IC
CA
AL
LT
TR
RA
AF
FF
FI
IC
CV
VO
OL
LU
UM
ME
ES
SA
AN
ND
DE
EX
XP
PE
EC
CT
TE
ED
DG
GR
RO
OW
WT
TH
HA
AL
LO
ON
NG
GR
RO
OU
UT
TE
E4
4
Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.
ROUTE4 CORRIDORSTUDY
0 2 miles
April 2004
L LE
EG
GE
EN
ND
D
AADT (year of count)
A
AA
AD
DT
T
5
56
65
50
0

(
(1
19
98
80
0)
)
A
AA
AD
DT
T
4
47
75
50
0(1982)
A
AA
AD
DT
T
6
67
75
50
0(
(1
19
97
79
9)
)
A
AA
AD
DT
T
4
47
70
00
0(
(1
19
97
79
9)
)
A
AA
AD
DT
T
5
50
05
50
0(
(1
19
98
82
2)
)
A
AA
AD
DT
T
5
59
95
50
0

(
(1
19
99
90
0)
)
A
AA
AD
DT
T
5
57
70
00
0(1989)
A
AA
AD
DT
T
1
10
01
10
00
0(
(1
19
99
91
1)
)
A
AA
AD
DT
T
8
86
65
50
0(
(1
19
99
91
1)
)
A
AA
AD
DT
T
7
79
95
50
0(
(1
19
98
89
9)
)
1
1.
.0
0%
%

E
Es
st
ti
im
ma
at
te
ed
d
G
Gr
ro
ow
wt
th
h
1
1.
.5
5%
%E
Es
st
ti
im
ma
at
te
ed
d
G Gr
ro
ow
wt
th
h
1
1.
.5
5%
%E
Es
st
ti
im
ma
at
te
ed
d
G Gr
ro
ow
wt
th
h
2
2.
.0
0%
%E
Es
st
ti
im
ma
at
te
ed
d
G Gr
ro
ow
wt
th
h
2
2.
.0
0%
%
E
Es
st
ti
im
ma
at
te
ed
d
G Gr
ro
ow
wt
th
h

Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.
ROUTE4 CORRIDORSTUDYsource: Census TIGER® 2000 Data from Geography Network
0 2 miles
April 2004
4
4
4
4
4
4W
aite
G
eer
BurgoyneD
ix
Ro
ck City
Stone Schoolhouse
Co
unty R oute 36
Kingsbur
y
S tate Highway 149
Bald
win Corn
ers
T OwensNee
d
hamvil
le
Char
le s
Flat Ro
ck
State Highway 149
C
la
y Hill
Kelsey Pond
State Route 22
Deweys Bridg eOld Ro
ute 4
Ol
d Route 4
R
yd
er
Lo
ck II
Old
Stat
e Ro
ad
1s tM
a
ple
Mounta inWi
llia m
Br
oadw
ay
Coun
ty
Road
9ABuckleyCounty Ro
ad
18County Ro
ad
9B
Ol
d
Fair
Have
nDoug
las
Ch
apman
Golf Course
5th
Potte r
3rd
Eliz
abeth
Fort AnnFort Ann
Kingsbury
KingsburyWhitehall
WhitehallHampto
nHampton
WhitehallWhitehall
Gra
Gra
H udson F a lls F ort Ann
F ort Ann
F FI
IG
GU
UR
RE
E4
4.
.2
2
–
–
T
TR
RA
AF
FF
FI
IC
CF
FO
OR
RE
EC
CA
AS
ST
TS
SF
FO
OR
R2
20
01
14
4
A
AL
LO
ON
NG
GR
RO
OU
UT
TE
E4
4
65(111)
291(366)
89(216)
267(363)145(218)
71(68)
33(21)
161(154)
223(330)
210(110)282(318)
65(22)
45(51)
7(6)
180(276)6(5)
270(215)43(72)
70(183)
13(17)
103(210)
155(410)
169(112)
157(124)
65(82)67(85)388(258)
17(11)
24(24)
21(20)
211(263)
34(41)
167(248)
8(27)
209(244)
250(193)
0(5)5(7)
17(17)
31(20)
30(41)
15(24)
A AA
AD
DT
T
7
79
94
44
4
A
AA
AD
DT
T
7
70
04
49
9
A
AA
AD
DT
T
1
11
16
63
30
0
A
AA
AD
DT
T
1
11
14
42
27
7
A
AA
AD
DT
T
1
11
13
39
99
9
R
Ro
ou
ut
te
es
s
4
4
&
&
2
22
2
N
No
or
rt
th
h
R
Ro
ou
ut
te
es
s
4
4
&
&
2
22
2
S
So
ou
ut
th
h
R
Ro
ou
ut
te
es
s
4
4
&
&
1
14
49
9
N
No
or
rt
th
h
R
Ro
ou
ut
te
es
s
4
4
&
&
1
14
49
9
S
So
ou
ut
th
h
R
Ro
ou
ut
te
es
s
4
4
&
&
3
32
2
L
LE
EG
GE
EN
ND
D
X
XX
X(
(X
XX
X)
):
:
A
AM
M(
(P
PM
M)
)
P
Pe
ea
ak
k
H
Ho
ou
ur
r
T
Tu
ur
rn
ni
in
ng
g
M Mo
ov
ve
em
me
en
nt
ts
s,
,
(
(2
20
01
14
4)
) AADT (2014)

Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.
ROUTE4 CORRIDORSTUDYsource: Census TIGER® 2000 Data from Geography Network
0 2 miles
April 2004
4
4
4
4
4
4W
aite
G
eer
BurgoyneD
ix
Ro
ck City
Stone Schoolhouse
Co
unty R oute 36
Kingsbur
y
S tate Highway 149
Bald
win Corn
ers
T OwensNee
d
hamvil
le
Char
le s
Flat Ro
ck
State Highway 149
C
la
y Hill
Kelsey Pond
State Route 22
Deweys Bridg eOld Ro
ute 4
Ol
d Route 4
R
yd
er
Lo
ck II
Old
Stat
e Ro
ad
1s tM
a
ple
Mounta inWi
llia m
Br
oadw
ay
Coun
ty
Road
9ABuckleyCounty Ro
ad
18County Ro
ad
9B
Ol
d
Fair
Have
nDoug
las
Ch
apman
Golf Course
5th
Potte r
3rd
Eliz
abeth
Fort AnnFort Ann
Kingsbury
KingsburyWhitehall
WhitehallHampto
nHampton
WhitehallWhitehall
Gra
Gra
H udson F a lls F ort Ann
F ort Ann
F FI
IG
GU
UR
RE
E4
4.
.3
3
–
–
T
TR
RA
AF
FF
FI
IC
CF
FO
OR
RE
EC
CA
AS
ST
TS
SF
FO
OR
R2
20
02
24
4
A
AL
LO
ON
NG
GR
RO
OU
UT
TE
E4
4
79(135)
355(446)
108(263)
325(443)177(266)
86(83)
40(25)
196(187)
272(403)
256(134)343(388)
79(27)
53(59)
8(7)
209(321)7(5)
314(249)50(84)
77(203)
15(18)
113(232)
171(453)
187(123)
173(137)
72(90)74(94)428(286)
18(12)
27(27)
23(22)
245(306)
39(47)
194(288)
9(31)
242(283)
290(224)
0(5)5(8)
20(20)
36(23)
35(470
18(28)
A AA
AD
DT
T
8
87
77
75
5
A
AA
AD
DT
T
8
81
18
80
0
A
AA
AD
DT
T
1
13
34
49
97
7
A
AA
AD
DT
T
1
13
39
92
29
9
A
AA
AD
DT
T
1
13
38
89
96
6
R
Ro
ou
ut
te
es
s
4
4
&
&
2
22
2
N
No
or
rt
th
h
R
Ro
ou
ut
te
es
s
4
4
&
&
2
22
2
S
So
ou
ut
th
h
R
Ro
ou
ut
te
es
s
4
4
&
&
1
14
49
9
N
No
or
rt
th
h
R
Ro
ou
ut
te
es
s
4
4
&
&
1
14
49
9
S
So
ou
ut
th
h
R
Ro
ou
ut
te
es
s
4
4
&
&
3
32
2
L
LE
EG
GE
EN
ND
D
X
XX
X(
(X
XX
X)
):
:
A
AM
M(
(P
PM
M)
)
P
Pe
ea
ak
k
H
Ho
ou
ur
r
T
Tu
ur
rn
ni
in
ng
g
M Mo
ov
ve
em
me
en
nt
ts
s,
,
(
(2
20
02
24
4)
) AADT (2024)

Traffic volumes along Route 4 do not warrant widening from its current two-lane
configuration into a four-lane roadway. The high volumes projected for 2024 are still
within the capacity limits of a two-lane highway. The congestion that does exist along the
corridor is primarily due to intersection issues and flow restrictions in the developed areas.
Improving conditions along these key locations is the best way to improve traffic flow in the
corridor. Table 4.1 shows the traffic forecasts for the major intersections along the corridor.

5.0 Route 4 Improvements Program

5.1 Traffic and Safety Improv ements – Major Intersections
There were no unsignalized intersections in the study area which have sufficient traffic
volumes and delays to warrant the installation of a traffic signal. BFJ proposes to modify
two signalized intersections with roundabouts and alter the signal timings of other
signalized intersections. The location of the intersection improvements can be found in
Figure 5.1.

Table 5.1 summarizes the year 2024 traffic condi tions (levels of service and delays) for the
major corridor intersections without improvements and with improvements.
Table 5.1 – Future Traffic Conditions with Improvements

2024 Traffic Conditions without Improvements 2024 Traffic Conditions with Improvements
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Intersection Approach Delay
Level of
Service
Delay
Level of Service
Delay
Level of Service
Delay
Level of Service
With Roundabout
Route 32 & Route 4 Eastbound 15.7 B 31.4 C 4.2 A 9.0 A
Westbound 150.5F 62.4 D 6.6 A 6.6 A
Northbound 28.3 C 30.6 C 4.8 A 10.2 B
Southbound 36.4 D 35.3 D 9.0 A 6.0 A
overall76.6 E 39.4 D 6.7 A 8.1 A
Shorter Cycle Length
Route 149 (N) & Route 4 Eastbound 16.1 B 18.5 B 26.5 C 27.9 C
Westbound 13.3 B 13.3 B 13.4 B 10.4 B
Northbound 14.4 B 15.7 B 8.7 A 13.9 B
Southbound 19.5 B 17. 5 B 15.9 B 20.4 C
overall17.3 B 17.1 B 17.0 B 20.4 C
Exclusive Left Turn Phase
Route 22 (S) & Route 4 Westbound 21.4 C 23.1 C 23.5 C 26.6 C
Northbound 4.2 A 6.5 A 12.2 B 19.6 B
Southbound 8.2 A 9.0 A 9.2 A 10.8 B
overall9.1 A 10.9 B 13.5 B 17.6 B
With Roundabout
Route 22 (N)& Route 4 westbound 14.4 B 16.2 B 4.2 A 5.4 A
northbound 3.9 A 6.2 A 5.4 A 9.6 A
southbound 15.8 B 17.0 B 4.2 A 6.0 A
overall10.5 B 12.7 B 4.7 A 7.3 A

Route 4 Corridor Study Buckhurst Fish Jacquemart Inc./ January 2005
28

Weekda
y AM Weekda
y PM Weekda
y AM Weekda
y PM Weekda
y AM Weekda
y PM
Background Growth Rate2.0% left 239 300 291 366 355 446
Build Years:2014 2024ri
ght 53 91 65 111 79 135
10 20 thru 73 177 89 216 108 263
Com
pounded Growth Rate1.22 1.49 ri
ght 219 298 267 363 325 443
left 58 56 71 68 86 83
thru 119 179 145 218 177 266
Back
ground Growth Rate2.0% left 132 126 161 154 196 187
Build Years:2014 2024ri
ght 27 17 33 21 40 25
10 20 thru 183 271 223 330 272 403
Com
pounded Growth Rate1.22 1.49 ri
ght 172 90 210 110 256 134
left 53 18 65 22 79 27
thru 231 261 282 318 343 388
Back
ground Growth Rate1.5% left 182 227 211 263 245 306
Build Years:2014 2024thru 7 23 8 27 9 31
10 20 ri
ght 29 35 34 41 39 47
Com
pounded Growth Rate1.16 1.35 left 27 17 31 20 36 23
thru 15 15 17 17 20 20
ri
ght 4 6 5 7 5 8
left 26 35 30 41 35 47
thru 144 214 167 248 194 288
right 13 21 15 24 18 28
left 4 5 5
thru 215 166 250 193 290 224
right 180 210 209 244 242 283
Background Growth Rate1.5% left 6 5 7 6 8 7
Build Years:2014 2024right 39 44 45 51 53 59
10 20 thru 155 238 180 276 209 321
Compounded Growth Rate1.16 1.35 right 5 4 6 5 7 5
left 37 62 43 72 50 84
thru 233 185 270 215 314 249
Back
ground Growth Rate1.0% left 63 166 70 183 77 203
Build Years:2014 2024thru 140 371 155 410 171 453
10 20 ri
ght 12 15 13 17 15 18
Com
pounded Growth Rate1.10 1.22 left 15 10 17 11 18 12
thru 351 234 388 258 428 286
ri
ght 61 77 67 85 74 94
left 22 22 24 24 27 27
thru 93 190 103 210 113 232
right 19 18 21 20 23 22
left 59 74 65 82 72 90
thru 142 112 157 124 173 137
right 153 101 169 112 187 123
Table 4.1 – Rt 4 Traffic Foreasts
2014 Volumes
westbound
northbound
southbound
Route 4 & Route
32
eastbound
westbound
northbound
southboundwestboundExisting Volumes 2004 2024 Volumes
Route 4 &
Broadway /
Poultney
northbound
southbound
Route 4 & Route 22
(south)
southbound
Route 4 & Route
149 (south)
northboundwestbound
southboundwestbound
northbound
Route 4 & Route
149 (north)
eastbound
Route 4 Corridor StudyBuckhurst Fish and Jacquemart Inc. January 2005

F FI
IG
GU
UR
RE
E5
5.
.1
1
P
PR
RO
OP
PO
OS
SE
ED
DI
IN
NT
TE
ER
RS
SE
EC
CT
TI
IO
ON
NI
IM
MP
PR
RO
OV
VE
EM
ME
EN
NT
TS
S
Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.
ROUTE4 CORRIDORSTUDY
0 2 miles
April 2004
4
4
4
4
4
4W
aite
G
eer
BurgoyneD
ix
Ro
ck City
Stone Schoolhouse
Co
unty Route 36
Kingsbur
y
S tate Highway 149
Bald
win Corn
ers
T OwensNee
d
hamvil
le
Char
le s
Flat Ro
ck
S tate Highway 149
C
la
y Hill
Kelsey Pond
State Route 22
Deweys Bridg eOld Ro
ute 4
Ol
d Route 4
R
yd
er
Lo
ck II
Old
Stat
e Ro
ad
1s tM
a
ple
Mounta inWi
llia m
Br
oadw
ay
County
Road
9ABuckleyCounty Ro
ad
18County Ro
ad
9B
Ol
d
Fair
Have
nDoug
las
Ch
apman
Golf Course
5th
Potter
3rd
Eliz
abeth
Fort AnnFort Ann
Kingsbury
KingsburyWhitehall
WhitehallHampto
nHampton
WhitehallWhitehall
Gr
aGra
H udson F a lls F ort Ann
F ort Ann
I In
ns
st
ta
al
ll
l
T
Tu
ur
rn
n
L
La
an
ne
es
s
a
at
t
I In
nt
te
er
rs
se
ec
ct
ti
io
on
n
w
wi
it
th
h
G
Go
ol
lf
f
C
Co
ou
ur
rs
se
e
R
Rd
d.
.
B
Bu
ui
il
ld
d
R
Ro
ou
un
nd
da
ab
bo
ou
ut
t
a
at
t
t
th
he
e
I In
nt
te
er
rs
se
ec
ct
ti
io
on
n
o
of
f
R Ro
ou
ut
te
es
s
4
4
&
&
2
22
2
(
(N
No
or
rt
th
h)
)
A
Ad
dd
d
E
Ex
xc
cl
lu
us
si
iv
ve
e
L
Le
ef
ft
t
T
Tu
ur
rn
n
P
Ph
ha
as
se
e
a
at
t
I In
nt
te
er
rs
se
ec
ct
ti
io
on
n
w
wi
it
th
h
R
Ro
ou
ut
te
e
2
22
2
(
(S
So
ou
ut
th
h)
)
P
Pr
ro
oh
hi
ib
bi
it
t
L
Le
ef
ft
t
T
Tu
ur
rn
ns
s
f fr
ro
om
m
N
Ne
ee
ed
dh
ha
am
mv
vi
il
ll
le
e
L
La
an
ne
e
R
Ro
ou
ut
te
es
s
4
4
&
&
1
14
49
9
(
(N
No
or
rt
th
h)
)
S Sh
ho
or
rt
t
T
Te
er
rm
m:
:
S
Sh
ho
or
rt
te
en
n
C
Cy
yc
cl
le
e
L Le
en
ng
gt
th
h
L Lo
on
ng
g
T
Te
er
rm
m:
:
A
Ad
dd
d
T
Tu
ur
rn
n
L
La
an
ne
es
s

o or
r
i
in
ns
st
ta
al
ll
l
R
Ro
ou
un
nd
da
ab
bo
ou
ut
tS
Sh
hi
if
ft
t
I
In
nt
te
er
rs
se
ec
ct
ti
io
on
n
S
So
ou
ut
th
hb
bo
ou
un
nd
d
t to
o
I
Im
mp
pr
ro
ov
ve
e
S
Si
ig
gh
ht
t
L
Li
in
ne
es
s
a at
t
T
T
O
Ow
we
en
ns
s
L
La
an
ne
e
I
In
ns
st
ta
al
ll
l
R
Ro
ou
un
nd
da
ab
bo
ou
ut
t
a at
t
t
th
he
e
I
In
nt
te
er
rs
se
ec
ct
ti
io
on
n
o
of
f
R Ro
ou
ut
te
es
s
4
4
&
&
3
32
2
A
At
t
R
Ro
ou
ut
te
e
4
4
&
&
K
Ki
in
ng
gs
sb
bu
ur
ry
y
S
St
t.
.
&
&
C
Co
ou
un
nt
ty
y
R
Rt
te
e
3
36
6
C Ch
ha
an
ng
ge
e
N
No
or
rt
th
h
F
Fo
or
rk
k
t
to
o
O
On
ne
e
W
Wa
ay
y
W
We
es
st
tb
bo
ou
un
nd
d
C Ch
ha
an
ng
ge
e
S
So
ou
ut
th
h
F
Fo
or
rk
k
t
to
o
O
On
ne
e
W
Wa
ay
y
E
Ea
as
st
tb
bo
ou
un
nd
d
W
Wi
id
de
en
n
S
Sh
ho
ou
ul
ld
de
er
r
o or
r
I
In
ns
st
ta
al
ll
l
T
Tu
ur
rn
n
L
La
an
ne
e
a at
t
I
In
nt
te
er
rs
se
ec
ct
ti
io
on
n
w
wi
it
th
h
C CR
R
9
9
/
/
C
CR
R
2
21
1
A
At
t
R
Ro
ou
ut
te
es
s
4
4
&
&
1
14
49
9
(
(S
So
ou
ut
th
h)
)
R Re
ed
du
uc
ce
e
A
An
ng
gl
le
e
o
of
f
N
No
or
rt
th
hb
bo
ou
un
nd
d
A Ap
pp
pr
ro
oa
ac
ch
h
t
to
o
6
60
0
D
De
eg
gr
re
ee
es
s

Routes 4 & 32
Starting from the southern portion of the corridor, BFJ recommends a roundabout to be
installed at the intersection of Routes 4 & Route 32. A preliminary schematic for the
proposed roundabout can be seen in Figure 5.2. Roundabouts are the safest form of at
grade intersections and are expected to reduce the total number of crashes by about 37%
and reduce the injury crashes by 75%
4. This intersection is currently operating at LOS E
with significant delays for westbound traffic at both the AM and PM peak periods. With the
roundabout installed, the intersection will operate at LOS A, with greatest delay being 10.1
seconds for northbound traffic during the PM peak period. As shown in Figure 5.2, some
minor right-of-way acquisitions are needed for the roundabout, which are discussed in
Section 6.

Routes 4 & 149 in Fort Ann
The next signalized intersection is located at th e corner of Routes 4 / 149 in Fort Ann. In
the short term BFJ recommends shortening the cycle length of the traffic signal from an 80
second cycle to a 55 second cycle. Our models show this will reduce the existing level of
delays at this intersection in the AM peak fr om 17.3 seconds to 12.1 seconds and in the PM
peak from 17.1 seconds to 13.6 seconds. Shorter phases may reduce the theoretical
capacity of the intersection, but it will also allow automobiles which are stopped in the
incorrect place to get out of the intersection fa ster. This should reduce the actual delays as
the shorter cycles will not lead to the extent of delays that occur under the current cycle
lengths.

As the property on the north-west corner of the intersection of Route 4/149 currently has a
willing seller, it could be acquired by NYSDOT. If the additional right-of-way at the
intersection is acquired, the intersection could be reconfigured to increase the turning
radius for tractor trailers and allow the addition of turning lanes (Figure 5.3). Alternatively,
the right-of-way would permit the installation of a roundabout. A possible configuration
for the proposed roundabout can be seen in Figure 5.4. In order to build a roundabout
with the optimal design, acquisition of another property on either the northeast or the
southwest corner may be required. This would have to be determined in the next design
phase of the roundabout. Both options would be less expensive and faster to implement
than a bypass around Fort Ann, but would have a negative impact on the village character
when compared with the bypass.

The implementation of either option (roundabout or added turn lanes in conjunction with
the purchase of the property on the north-west corner) would alleviate the congestion and
delays this intersection, but it would not reduce the overall traffic nuisances and related
impacts on the Village. Increasing amounts of traffic and trucks will drive through the
Village and will affect this community negativel y. Even if NYSDOT purchases the property
on the north-west corner, the Town of Fort Ann should map a bypass alignment on the
Town Plan bypassing the Village in the north-wes t quadrant to preserve this alternative for
future generations. See Appendix C for the discussion of the bypass.
4 Tollbox on Intersectoin Safety and De sign, Institute of Transportaion Engineers, FHWA, Page 134, Table 8.1

Route 4 Corridor Study Buckhurst Fish Jacquemart Inc./ January 2005
31

F FI
IG
GU
UR
RE
E5
5.
.2
2
P
PR
RO
OP
PO
OS
SE
ED
DR
RO
OU
UN
ND
DA
AB
BO
OU
UT
TR
RO
OU
UT
TE
E4
4
&
&
3
32
2
I
IN
NT
TE
ER
RS
SE
EC
CT
TI
IO
ON
N
Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.
ROUTE4 CORRIDORSTUDYsource: NYS GIS Clearinghouse
0 1100 ft
April 2004

F FI
IG
GU
UR
RE
E5
5.
.3
3
P
PR
RO
OP
PO
OS
SE
ED
DU
UP
PG
GR
RA
AD
DE
EA
AT
TR
RO
OU
UT
TE
E4
4
&
&
1
14
49
9
I
IN
NT
TE
ER
RS
SE
EC
CT
TI
IO
ON
N-
–
F
FO
OR
RT
TA
AN
NN
N
Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.
ROUTE4 CORRIDORSTUDY
0 40 ft
April 2004
R RO
OU
UT
TE
E
R
RO
OU
UT
TE
E
4
4
R
RO
OU
UT
TE
E
4
4

F FI
IG
GU
UR
RE
E5
5.
.4
4

P
PR
RO
OP
PO
OS
SE
ED
DR
RO
OU
UN
ND
DA
AB
BO
OU
UT
TA
AT
TR
RO
OU
UT
TE
E4
4
&
&
1
14
49
9
I
IN
NT
TE
ER
RS
SE
EC
CT
TI
IO
ON
N-
–
F
FO
OR
RT
TA
AN
NN
N
Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.
ROUTE4 CORRIDORSTUDY
0 40 ft
April 2004
R RO
OU
UT
TE
E
1
14
49
9
R
RO
OU
UT
TE
E
4
4

Route 4 & 22 South
At the intersection of Route 4 and Route 22 South, BFJ advises the introduction of an
exclusive southbound left-turn phase primarily to reduce accidents. With the exclusive
phase, the intersection operates at LOS B in both the AM and PM peak periods. The
introduction of an exclusive left-turn phase wi ll reduce the capacity of this intersection
slightly, but will improve safety. As this inte rsection is operating at LOS A, the improved
safety outweighs the increased delays.

Route 4 & 22 North
Traveling northbound, into the Village of Whiteha ll, BFJ recommends the installation of a
roundabout at the intersection of Route 4 and Route 22 North (Figure 5.5). This intersection
is currently operating at LOS B, and seven acc idents occurred at this intersection. A
roundabout is recommended due to the configura tion of the intersection and because it is in
the middle of a high accident corridor where 26 accidents occurred in a half-mile distance.
The presence of the roundabout will serve to calm traffic and lower the number of accidents
in this section of the corridor. With the r oundabout the level of service is expected to
improve to LOS A. The roundabout will also improve access to the center of Whitehall.
Preliminary engineering studies will have to de termine whether this roundabout is feasible
from the point of view of ava ilable right-of-way and grades.

5.2 Traffic and Safety Improvements – Unsignalized Intersections
There are several additional locations along the corridor where BFJ reco
mmends a
reconfiguration of the existing intersection. The intersections were brought to our attention
during the public workshops and contain non-standard configurations. With slight
modifications these intersections can operate more efficiently. Moving from south to north,
the first location is the intersection where Route 4 intersects with Kingsbury St. / County
Route 36. At the current time, the intersection on the west of Route 4 is a three-way fork
connecting to Route 4 with all three forks permitting two-way traffic (Figure 5.6). In order to
simplify this intersection, we advise that the northern fork (Kingsbury Street/ Route 36) be
converted to one-way operation westbound. The southern fork (Church Road) should be
modified to be one-way eastbound/southbound. The center fork (Kingsbury Road) should
continue to permit two-way traffic. Eventually this central intersection could be signalized
or could become a roundabout. The left turns would be made at this center fork. Both
Kingsbury Street and Church Road legs should be narrowed, with the former right-of-way
used to enlarge the park located in the triangular intersection. In addition, the trees located
north of Kingsbury Street along Route 4 should be cut back, to permit greater visibility to the
intersection.

The next intersection modification occurs at the intersection of 149 S and Route 4. (Figure
5.7) At this location the northbound approach connects with Route 4 at an angle which
requires the driver to turn his head sharply to the left to check for the presence of
northbound traffic on Route 4. The angle should be reduced to 60 degrees, which would
provide easier viewing of northbound traffic.

The next mitigation occurs where Route 4 intersects with T Owens Lane (Figure 5.8), which
is located just south of the Village of Fort Ann. At the current time, T Owens Lane has very

Route 4 Corridor Study Buckhurst Fish Jacquemart Inc./ January 2005
35

F FI
IG
GU
UR
RE
E5
5.
.5
5
P
PR
RO
OP
PO
OS
SE
ED
DR
RO
OU
UN
ND
DA
AB
BO
OU
UT
TA
AT
TR
RO
OU
UT
TE
E4
4/
/
R
RO
OU
UT
TE
E2
22
2/
/
B
BR
RO
OA
AD
DW
WA
AY
Y-
–
W
WH
HI
IT
TE
EH
HA
AL
LL
L
Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.
ROUTE4 CORRIDORSTUDY
0 30 ft
April 2004

F FI
IG
GU
UR
RE
E5
5.
.6
6
I
IN
NT
TE
ER
RS
SE
EC
CT
TI
IO
ON
NO
OF
FR
RO
OU
UT
TE
E4
4
&
&
K
KI
IN
NG
GS
SB
BU
UR
RY
YS
ST
TR
RE
EE
ET
T
Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.
ROUTE4 CORRIDORSTUDY
0 200 ft
April 2004

F FI
IG
GU
UR
RE
E5
5.
.7
7
R
RO
OU
UT
TE
E4
4
&
&
1
14
49
9S
S
I
IN
NT
TE
ER
RS
SE
EC
CT
TI
IO
ON
NI
IM
MP
PR
RO
OV
VE
EM
ME
EN
NT
T
Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.
ROUTE4 CORRIDORSTUDYsource:VollmerApril 2004

F FI
IG
GU
UR
RE
E5
5.
.8
8
T
T
O
OW
WE
EN
NS
SL
LA
AN
NE
EI
IM
MP
PR
RO
OV
VE
EM
ME
EN
NT
T
Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.
ROUTE4 CORRIDORSTUDY
0 160 ft
April 2004

short sight distance owing to both the topography and angle of intersection with Route 4.
BFJ recommends shifting the intersection southward approximately 100 yards along the
current existing dirt road, which would improve the sight lines and reduce the potential for
accidents at this location.

Another suggested modification is the installation of speed humps along Catherine Street in
the Village of Fort Ann. As Catherine Street runs parallel with Route 4, some drivers take
this residential street as a shortcut to avoid the intersection of Route 4 with Route 149. One
speed hump should be installed along Catherine Street south of Route 149 in front of 44
Catherine Street and one north of Route 149 at 84 Catherine Street. The installation of
speed humps will calm traffic along this street, encouraging drivers to stay on Route 4.

The next location is the intersection of Route 4 and CR 9 / CR 21 about 2 miles east of the
Vermont Border. This four-way intersection is in a valley in the roadway. Trucks travel at
high speeds down the hill to enable them to maintain speed on the uphill after the
intersection. As the roadway dips down there is a narrow shoulder with insufficient room
for a truck to pass. Widening of the road, either by putting in a dedicated left turn lane or
by expanding the size of the shoulder would tend to improve safety at this intersection.
Traveling southbound, the signage alerts drivers of the presence of a four-way intersection,
but if the vehicle does not slow down, it is impossible to stop as the sight lines are too short
for stopping.

The northernmost mitigation measure along the corridor is recommended at the intersection
of Route 4 & Golf Course Road. This location may see an increase in truck traffic as an
intermodal yard is planned just north of Route 4. BFJ recommends the installation of an
eastbound left-turn lane on Route 4 at Golf Course Road. This should be accompanied by a
right-turn lane/deceleration lane for traffic traveling westbound along Route 4. Lan
dscape
improvements are also proposed for this location (see section 5.6 for more information).

5.3 Traffic Improvements – Non-Intersection Locations
This section is a list of recommended improvements that are not located at a major
intersection. The main focus of these impro vements is to lower the number of crashes in
the corridor. Secondary importance is to impr ove traffic flow and improve the quality of
life along the corridor. The following suggestions are generally in order of location,
traveling from the southern to the northern portion of the study area and are listed
graphically in Figure 5.9. Any suggestion to flatten or straighten Route 4 needs to be
balanced, as the unintended effect of these actions could be to increase speeds along the
corridor.

• At mile marker 1151 & 1152 in Kingsbury, just north of the intersection with Wait
Road, there exists a high accident location. At a minimum we advise that a blind
driveway sign be erected to alert traffic prior to the sharp turn. Other mitigation
measures include widening the shoulder in the curve to provide more room for
vehicle avoidance for through vehicles to pass turning vehicles.

• Just to the south of the intersection of Route 4 with Geer Road we advise that the
roadway be flattened. At this location the presence of rolling terrain makes for
difficult visibility. By flattening the roadway, the sightlines can be improved. In

Route 4 Corridor Study Buckhurst Fish Jacquemart Inc./ January 2005
40

F FI
IG
GU
UR
RE
E5
5.
.9
9
P
PR
RO
OP
PO
OS
SE
ED
DN
NO
ON
N-
-I
IN
NT
TE
ER
RS
SE
EC
CT
TI
IO
ON
NI
IM
MP
PR
RO
OV
VE
EM
ME
EN
NT
TS
S
Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.
ROUTE4 CORRIDORSTUDY
0 2 miles
April 2004
t
u4
t
u4
t
u4
t
u4
t
u4
Wai
te
G
e
e
r
Burg
oyn
eDi
x
Ro
c
kCi
t
y
Sto
ne
Sch
oo
l
ho
use
C
ou
nty
R
ou
te3
6
Ki
n
gs
b
u
r
y
State Highway 149
B
aldw
i
n Cor
ners
T
O
we
n
sN
e
e
d
h
a
mvi
ll
e
C
ha
r
l es
Fl
at
Ro
ck
Sta
teH
i
gh
w
a
y14
9
C
lay
H
il
l
Ke
l
sey
Po
nd
St
ate
R
out
e22
D
ew
ey
sB
ri
dgeO
l
dRo
ut
e4
O
l
dR
o
u
te
4
R
y
der
Lo
c
kII
O
ld
S
ta
te
R
oad
1
stM
ap
le
Mo
un
ta
inWil
liam
Br
oa
d
wa
y
C
ou
n
t
yR
oa
d
9
ABu
ck
le
yCo
un
t
yRo
ad
1
8County
Ro
ad 9B
O
ld
Fa
i
r H
a
ve
nDo
ugl
as
Chapm
an
G
ol
fCou
rs
e
5
th
P
ott
e
r
3rd
El
iz
a
b e
t
h
Fort Ann
Kingsbury
Whitehall
Hampton
t
u4
Near Mile Marker 1152
Install Blind Driveway Sign
and/or Widen Shoulder and/or
Shift Driveway
Just South of Geer Road
Flatten Roadway and/or
Install Blind Driveway Sign
South of Needhamville Lane
Regrade and Widen Shoulder
Needhamville Lane
Install No Left Turn Signs
Add Parking Spaces
Adjacent to Town Hall
North of Post Office
Permit Two Hour Parking
Along Curbside
Catherine Street
Install Two Speed Humps
Fort Ann Post Office
Permit Shared Parking in Lot
Village of Fort Ann
Lower Speed Limit to
30 MPH
North of the Village of
Fort Ann
Widen Shoulder
Approx 1.2 Miles
Flatten and Straighten Route 4
Approx. mile marker 1291
200 yards
Village of Whitehall
Lower Speed Limit to
30 MPH
East of Skene St.
Upgrade Shoulder
Approx. 700 Yards

the short run, we recommend the installation of a “Blind Driveway – Reduce Speed”
sign.

• Just north of the intersection of Route 4 with Kingsbury Street, the trees overhanging
the roadway on the west side of the street need to be cut back to improve sight
lines.

• In Ft. Ann, near the Walker’s Home, Farm & Tack – 5565 Route 4 (south of
Needhamville Rd.), the shoulder on the east side of the road is graded at a 20
degree angle. This makes it difficult to use by heavy vehicles and cyclists. We
recommend that it be re-graded and made level.

• At the current time left turns are permitted from Needhamville Road onto Route 4.
Due to the difficult sight lines, BFJ recommends that only right turns be permitted
from Needhamville Road onto Route 4.

• The speed of traffic on the roadway directly affects the severity of any accident in a
vehicular/pedestrian conflict. BFJ recommends the speed limit within the Village of
Fort Ann to be lowered to 30 MPH to improve the pedestrian environment.

• Public parking spaces should be added in front of Fort Ann Town Hall.

• There appears to be capacity to open the United States Postal Service pa
rking lot to
use by the general public. In addition, to the north of the USPS Office some spaces
only permit ten minute parking, we recommend that these spaces be changed to
two-hour parking.

• North of Fort Ann, Route 4 has shoulders that are either non-existent or less than 6′
in width. BFJ recommends that consistent 6′ shoulders be provided for a length of
about 2 KM.

• North of Fort Ann, from mile marker 1291- 1803, the curve of the road and the
topography lead to short sight lines. This section of Route 4 (about 200 Meters)
should be flattened. However, the estimated cost ($520,000) may make the
improvement cost prohibitive.

• In the Village of Whitehall, we also advise that the speed limit should be reduced
to 30 MPH.

5.4 Bicycle & Pedestrian Safety Improvements
In the Village of Fort Ann, sidewalks line bot h sides of the road except for minor gaps. We
advise that the sidewalks be upgraded to be continuous within the Village. We also advise
that the sidewalk be extended south of the Village line on the east side of the street to
Needhamville Lane (approximately 500 meters ) to accommodate existing foot traffic.
Within the Village of Fort Ann, an additiona l crosswalk should be placed on Route 4 to
facilitate access to Fort Ann Central School located at 1 Catherine Street.

Route 4 Corridor Study Buckhurst Fish Jacquemart Inc./ January 2005
42

Within the Village of Whitehall, sidewalks are generally only available on the west side of
the street (Figure 2.7). We recommend that the sidewalk network be upgraded to be
contiguous on both sides of the street throughout the entire village. In addition, the
sidewalks should be extended on the west side of the street, south of the Village line to
extend to McDonalds, to accommoda te existing pedestrian traffic.

Regarding cycling, in order to improve the safety of cyclists along this corridor, we
recommend that the shoulders be extended to a minimum of six feet along the entire
corridor. Another improvement for cyclists would be the creation of off-street routes,
especially along the canal network. We recommend the initiative to develop bike routes
parallel to the existing canal corridor on land owned by the NYS Canal Corporation. The
addition of off-street routes that connect to neighboring communities will create a valuable
asset and lead to an increase in cycling. Fi nally, the villages should install bicycle racks at
strategic locations to attract and serve recreational bicyclists along the corridor.

5.5 Buses and Public Transit
Operating transit in this corridor is difficult due to the low population density, coupled with
long distances to neighboring destinations. The location within the corridor with the
greatest population density is the Village of Whitehall. Unfortunately, the nearest
destinations from Whitehall are Glens Falls, New York which is approximately 25 miles
south and Rutland, Vermont, approximately 25 miles to the northwest. The travel time by
transit is approximately one hour for each destination. The low density and dispersed
nature of these automobile based communities le ad to trip demand which is scattered over
a wide area.

Only two regularly operating transit networks provide services to segments of the
population. Social service networks operate services to transport the elderly and disabled,
while the school bus network provides transportation for students. In order to provide
transit to a greater number of residents, BFJ advises leveraging the current school bus
network to provide services to the general public. The idea of using the existing school
busses to carry non-students has been investigated by the GGFT, but they have not been
able to overcome the regulatory hurdles. At the current time, there are no school districts in
New York State which are integrating public transit with the school bus network.

Though there are both regulatory and logistical issues involved, pooling the resources of the
school bus network with public transit can accommodate greater access for all residents.
This would allow the area to leverage the limited funds that are dedicated for public transit
and make better use of the assets owned by the community. Although use integration of
school bus and public transit services is not widespread, there are several success stories in
the United States.

The following areas have experimented with integrating school bus services5:

Cheraw, South Carolina
Idlewild, Michigan
5 Integrating School Bus and Public Transportation Services in Non-Urban Communities, Transit Cooperative
Research Program Report # 56, Washington DC, 1999

Route 4 Corridor Study Buckhurst Fish Jacquemart Inc./ January 2005
43

Trumbull County, Ohio
Glendale, Oregon
Bonifay, Florida
Nampa, Idaho
Selkirk, Washington
Gillette, Wyoming

Some cases are as simple as allowing non-profit organizations to rent busses for nominal
fees during off hours (Gillette, Wyoming), while a Dial-A-Ride service (Idlewild Michigan)
allows the general public to ride with students along routes that are geared toward students.
A third method is being employed in Cheraw, South Carolina where parents, school
volunteers and school employees may request to ride on regular school bus routes. They
are looking to open this up to the general public, to fully utilize all capacity.

Another area to explore is ridesharing. As this is a low cost alternative, requiring only the
organizational ability to couple drivers and passengers, it is feasible from a budgetary
perspective. The main drawback of ridesharing is that it is difficult to recruit drivers to
participate in ridesharing programs, as they limit their options once they have a passenger
relying on them to be shuttled to their destination. By sharing a ride, the driver can reduce
the cost of their commute by half, but at the cost of reduced flexibility. Much of the
coordination between riders and passengers can be accomplished through the use of a
website.

5.6 Landscaping Plan
Route 4 serves dual functions as both a Main St reet or commercial strip within the Villages
of Fort Ann and Whitehall, as well as in Kingsbury and a rural highway between the
villages. This dual purpose leads to conflicts within the villages as drivers using the
roadway as a rural highway may drive at sp eeds which are excessive for the villages. In
order to slow traffic and extend a welcome to drivers passing through the villages, BFJ
recommends the development of a set of lands cape and traffic calming features along Route
4 which serve to reduce speeds and thereby lower accidents, beautify the roadway and
enhance civic pride and a sense of place.

BFJ recommends the installation of a series of median gateways which serve to mark the
entrance to the villages. Though these proposed median islands are not endorsed by the
NYSDOT Highway Design Manual, we believe th ey would serve a valuable purpose for this
corridor by acting as traffic calming devices which may reduce both vehicular speeds and
crashes. The gateway median islands would have to be built on a demonstration basis.
Three gateways are proposed for Fort Ann and two are proposed for Whitehall. The
gateways will generally be located at the vill age entrance where traffic has to slow down
(see Figure 5.10). In addition, an information kiosk is proposed along Route 4 in Hampton
for drivers entering NYS from Vermont.

The proposed locations for the Village of Fort Ann gateways are on Route 4 (at southern
portion of Green Thumb Nursery & near Village border in the north) and one on Route 149
(just east of Mountain View Road). Gateways are also recommended along Route 4 in the
south of Whitehall (south of 7th Avenue, North of McDonalds) and east of Whitehall along

Route 4 Corridor Study Buckhurst Fish Jacquemart Inc./ January 2005
44

F FI
IG
GU
UR
RE
E5
5.
.1
10
0
L
LA
AN
ND
DS
SC
CA
AP
PI
IN
NG
GP
PL
LA
AN
N
Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.
ROUTE4 CORRIDORSTUDY
0 2 miles
April 2004
t
u4
t
u4
t
u4
t
u4
t
u4
R
ockC
ihol
h
ou
se
Co
un
t
yRo
ut
e
36
Ki
n
g
sb
ur
y
State Highway 149
B
aldw
i
n Cor
n
ers
T
O
we
n
sNee
d
h
a
m
vi
ll
e
Ch
a
rle
s
F
la
tR
oc
k
S
ta
teHig
h
way
14
9
Cl
ay
Hi
l
l
Ke
lsey
P
ond
St
at
eR
out
e22
D
ewe
ysBri
dgeO
ld
R
ou
te
4
O
ldR
o
u
te
4
R
y
der
Lo
c
kII
O
ld
S
t
at
eRoa
d
1
stM
a
ple
Mo
un
ta
i
nWil
liam
B
r
oa
d
wa
y
C
ou
n
t
yR
oa
d
9
ABu
ck
le
y
Co
un
t
yRoad
1
8
Cou
ntyRoa
d9B
Ol
dFa
i
rHa
ve
n
D
oug
la
s
C
hapman
Go
lfC
ou
rs
e
5
th
P
ott
e
r
3
rd
El
i z
a
be
t
h
Fort Ann
Whitehall
Hampton
Site 1
Install Gateway
Site 2
Install Gateway
Site 4
Install Gateway
Site 3
Install Gateway
Site 6
Install
Information
Kiosk
Site 5
Install Gateway

F FI
IG
GU
UR
RE
E5
5.
.1
11
1
G
GA
AT
TE
EW
WA
AY
YD
DE
ES
SI
IG
GN
N-
–
F
FO
OR
RT
TA
AN
NN
NE
EN
NT
TR
RY
YF
FR
RO
OM
MS
SO
OU
UT
TH
H
Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.
ROUTE4 CORRIDORSTUDYsource: Mathews Neilsen Landscape architects, P.C.
NTS
April 2004

F FI
IG
GU
UR
RE
E5
5.
.1
12
2
G
GA
AT
TE
EW
WA
AY
YD
DE
ES
SI
IG
GN
N-
–
F
FO
OR
RT
TA
AN
NN
NE
EN
NT
TR
RY
YF
FR
RO
OM
MN
NO
OR
RT
TH
H
Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.
ROUTE4 CORRIDORSTUDYsource: Mathews Neilsen Landscape Architects, P.C.
0 45 ft
April 2004

F FI
IG
GU
UR
RE
E5
5.
.1
13
3
G
GA
AT
TE
EW
WA
AY
YD
DE
ES
SI
IG
GN
N-
–
F
FO
OR
RT
TA
AN
NN
NE
EN
NT
TR
RY
YF
FR
RO
OM
MW
WE
ES
ST
T
Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.
ROUTE4 CORRIDORSTUDYsource: Mathews Neilsen Landscape Architects, P.C.
NTS
April 2004

F FI
IG
GU
UR
RE
E5
5.
.1
14
4
G
GA
AT
TE
EW
WA
AY
YD
DE
ES
SI
IG
GN
N-
–
W
WH
HI
IT
TE
EH
HA
AL
LL
LE
EN
NT
TR
RY
YF
FR
RO
OM
MS
SO
OU
UT
TH
H
Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.
ROUTE4 CORRIDORSTUDYsource: Mathews Neilsen Landscape Architects, P.C.
0 45 ft
April 2004

F FI
IG
GU
UR
RE
E5
5.
.1
15
5
G
GA
AT
TE
EW
WA
AY
YD
DE
ES
SI
IG
GN
N-
–
W
WH
HI
IT
TE
EH
HA
AL
LL
LE
EN
NT
TR
RY
YF
FR
RO
OM
ME
EA
AS
ST
T
Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.
ROUTE4 CORRIDORSTUDYsource: Mathews Neilsen Landscape Architects, P.C.
0 45 ft
April 2004

Route 4 (west of Country Club Drive). Designs for the proposed median gateways are
displayed in Figures 5.11to 5.15. The primary purpose of these gateways will be to alert
drivers that they are entering a village and are re quired to reduce their speed to 30 MPH. In
addition, the gateways will be located in the center of the roadway, providing a slight
deflection to the roadway, and forcing drivers to reduce their speed as they approach. The
median gateway islands will act in a similar fa shion as roundabouts placed in a very visible
manner in the middle of the roadway and forcing drivers to slow down. The landscaping
will also provide an attractive welcome into the village and serve notice that the driver is
entering a different and important area within the corridor.

Figure 5.16 shows the proposed information kiosk to be located just to the west of Golf
Course Road on the north side of Route 4. The purpose of this information kiosk is to alert
drivers that they are entering the State of New York and to encourage them to visit locations
of interest in Washington County as well as to patronize local restaurants and hotels/motels.
The information kiosk is expected to be sheltered and open without any attendant. There
would be shelves and features that can hold brochures and maps.

6.0 Recommendations for Municipalities

6.1 Future Land Use Plans
It is expected that the Route 4 corridor will be under development press
ures and may face a
loss of open space in the future. Efforts should be made to concentrate growth and
development within the village settings. According to the Urban Land Institute, a home 10
miles from a village center on a lot that is a third of an acre costs taxpayers $69,000, while
if it is located near the village on a compact lot, it costs taxpayers $34,500
6. These one
time costs are based on the need to extend the infrastructure as well as provide services to
the location. Low-density growth patterns also produce traffic congestion and pollution, as
drivers are required to travel by car and travel further to meet their daily needs. We
recommend that smart-growth policies be adopted in an effort to maintain the historical
character of the villages. Neighborhoods which are of a walkable scale and provide smaller
stores in a village setting are a valuable resource for the area. By retaining and enhancing
the villages, residents can leave their cars an d perform multiple tasks on foot, which can
lead to a reduction in auto trips. These types of villages are also more attractive to tourists
and through travelers and will encour age them to stop and eat or shop.

Methods which can help strengthen the villages include the development of off-street
municipal parking, coupled with reducing or removing the parking requirements. Programs
such as these reduce the cost of development within the villages, as the cost associated with
land acquisition, construction and maintenance of the parking facility is shifted to the
municipality. Tax policies should favor busines ses and homes situated in the village to
encourage inward, rather than sprawling development.
6 SMART GROWTH is Smart Business- Boosting the Bottom Line & Community Prosperity, NALGEP and Smart
Growth Leadership Ins titute • 2004, pg. 5

Route 4 Corridor Study Buckhurst Fish Jacquemart Inc./ January 2005
51

F FI
IG
GU
UR
RE
ES
S5
5.
.1
16
6
D
DE
ES
SI
IG
GN
NO
OF
FI
IN
NF
FO
OR
RM
MA
AT
TI
IO
ON
NK
KI
IO
OS
SK
KA
AN
ND
DT
TU
UR
RN
NL
LA
AN
NE
ES
SA
AT
TN
NE
EW
WY
YO
OR
RK
KS
ST
TA
AT
TE
EB
BO
OR
RD
DE
ER
R
Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.
ROUTE4 CORRIDORSTUDYsource: Mathews Neilsen Landscape Architects, P.C.
0 45 ft
April 2004

Zoning should be structured such that developments are encouraged in the villages and
discouraged outside the villages. Maximum densities should be decreased significantly
outside the villages, and setback and frontage requirements should be increased
substantially. Such a development pattern will not only strengthen the character of the
villages, but will also maintain the rural character along Route 4 and, more importantly, will
maintain the function of through traffic of Route 4.

Smart-growth polices also encourage the development of mixed-use zoning in the villages,
which allow multiple uses to be collocated in a small geographical area. Villages need to
contain destination locations in order to remain relevant. Sidewalks need to be maintained
in a good state of repair to encourage walking. At the current time there are gaps in the
sidewalk network within the Village of Fort Ann and Whitehall. Crosswalks are another
necessary feature to ensure the safety of pedestrians. Dense mixed-use zoning will also
encourage cycling. To ensure safety for cyclists , a 6′ continuous shoulder on both sides of
the street should be maintained. In addition, installing bike racks at key destinations is an
inexpensive way to promote cycling. Finally, o ff-street bicycle paths, especially along the
canals are advised.

As discussed in the public workshops held for this study, a bypass on the northwest side of
Fort Ann may one day become the solution to resolving the traffic issues in the village. The
proposed route for the Fort Ann bypass road (see Figure in the Appendix) needs to be
included into the Town’s master plan to preserve this option for future generations.

6.2 Access Management
One way of improving the traffic flow and safety along the corridor is through the
implementation of an access management plan. Access management strategies aim to
alleviate the inherent conflicts between the function of through traffic of an arterial and the
local function of access to abutting properties. As traffic volumes inc
rease along these types
of roads, these conflicts become more and more problematic in terms of congestion and
accidents, and will eventually hamper the economic well being, as well as the quality of life
along the corridor. Eventually it will become d ifficult to make left turns onto and off Route
4, which may lead to an increase in accidents. Access management attempts to group the
turning movements in and out of properties, or shift them to side streets or service roads or
to minimize the more problematic turns, i.e. the left turns. The basic goal is to improve
traffic flow and safety along the arterial without reducing access. The elimination or
discouragement of certain turns in and out dr iveways is often seen as a reduction in
accessibility. However, this potential reduction is generally offset by increased accessibility
to the property from side streets or from adjacent properties. By facilitating traffic flow
along Route 4 these actions will make it easier fo r the volume of vehicles to grow in this
corridor, which will be beneficial in the long term and will increase property values.
Accident rates along arterials such as Rout e 4 are related to the density of driveways.

Studies have shown that an effective access management program can reduce crashes by as
much as 50%, increase roadway capacity by 25% to 45%, and reduce travel time and delay

Route 4 Corridor Study Buckhurst Fish Jacquemart Inc./ January 2005
53

as much as 40% to 60%7. The towns and villages along Route 4 share the responsibility for
the traffic flow along Route 4 even though it is a State Highway. Though property owners
need to get a permit from NYSDOT, the State has limited authority to control and manage
access along Route 4. The land use authority of the municipality offers the best regulatory
means to manage access along an arterial. By developing an access management program,
the towns and villages can work to minimize and possibly eliminate the most hazardous
movements (left turns in and out) along the corridor.

Among the many benefits of a managed roadway are increased public safety, reduction of
congestion, extended life of the roadway and improved appearance of the built
environment. Access management also serves to both preserve the transportation functions
of roadways as well as the long-term property values and the economic viability of abutting
development
8. A further benefit is the ability to concentrate commercial activity in a
smaller area, which is less damaging to landscapes and the environment.

Access management strategies have beneficial im pacts on pedestrian circulation in the
sense that the actions encourage more walkin g between adjacent properties (by providing
connections) and by making walking more pleasant along any sidewalk that may exist in
the area, due to reduced numbers of driveways and vehicular turns. Aesthetics are
generally also improved by access management plans.

The municipalities should consider the following actions for all properties along Route 4
and 149:

• Any subdivision plan must include side streets connecting to the State highway, and
no driveways are allowed onto the State highw ays. The side streets (collectors) must
connect as much as possible to other local st reets to form a road network that allows
flexibility and distributes the traffic loads over several roads. If no connection can
be achieved in the short term, the applicant must provide easements for future
connections.

• All commercial properties along Route 4 must provide a vehicular connection to
adjacent properties to allow vehicles to drive from one to the other without driving
onto the State highway. If no connection can be provided in the short term, the
applicant must provide an easement for a future connection. When the neighboring
property owner comes to the Town for a site plan approval or building approval, the
Town can then require the connection. These interconnections may eventually lead
to the equivalent of a service road between the commercial properties.

• Property owners along Route 4 are encouraged to combine and share their
driveways.

7 S&K Transportation Consultants, Inc. Access Managem ent, Location and Design. Participant notebook for NHI
Course 133078. National Highway Institute, Federal Highway Administration, April 1998, revised April 2000.
8 Committee on Access Management – Access Managemen t Manual. Transportation Research Board,
Washington, D.C. 2003

Route 4 Corridor Study Buckhurst Fish Jacquemart Inc./ January 2005
54

• All driveways along Route 4 require a special permit and are allowed on a
temporary basis only. If and when an alternate access can be found in the future the
driveway would then be discontinued.

The above actions seem restrictive, however, they are required in the long term to maintain
a safe and efficient highway. The access limitation off Route 4 will be more than offset by
the access improvements from side streets and from adjacent properties. Businesses will
benefit from the connections to adjacent properties, since a person in the adjacent property
is more likely to patronize the business than the drivers on Route 4. Property owners along
similar state highways with higher traffic volumes have learned that there is no other
alternative to managing traffic along these arterials, and that eventually the left turns
become very difficult anyway.

The access management plan along Route 4 does not require any municipal intervention in
the short term, other than adopting the above policies and regulations. It is a long-term
action plan requiring diligence and attention on the part of the Planning Boards. Access
management gets implemented gradually as new development applications come in front
of the Planning Boards.

7.0 Implementation of Corridor Plan

7.1 Summary of Route 4 Corridor Improvements

Table 7.1 lists all recommended improvements in the Route 4 corridor as discussed in
previous chapters. The improvements are listed in geographical order starting at the
southern end of the corridor. For each project we show the current condition/problem and
the proposed improvement.

7.2 Priorities and Funding
Table 7.1 also lists the cost estimates for each project (see Appendix C for more details).
The estimated cost is expressed in current 2004/2005 dollars. This table also indicates the
level of priority for each improvement, wh ether they should be undertaken in the short
term (less than 5 years), mid-term (5 to 8 years) or long term (more than 8 years). For
example, the median island gateways in Fort Ann are listed as a short-term priority,
whereas those in Whitehall are medium term. Since the median island gateways proposed
at the entrances of Fort Ann and Whitehall may not be allowed under current State
Highway Design Guidelines, it is recommended that they be installed on a demonstration
basis. It is felt that Fort Ann is a better testing ground for these traffic calming features.
Once these gateways have been tested successfully in Fort Ann, they can then be installed
in Whitehall.

For the median island gateways to be implemented it is also necessary that the respective
municipality agree to maintain the landscaped medians. This could either be done by the
Town/Village or by a private civic organization or corporation. The Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) will also need to approve the median gateways, as Route 4 is on
the National Highway System.

Route 4 Corridor Study Buckhurst Fish Jacquemart Inc./ January 2005
55

In the last column the table also lists the agency(ies) responsible for the implementation of
the projects. A great majority of the proposed improvements would be the responsibility of
NYSDOT and would have to become part of the regional improvement program. Some of
the projects along Route 4 such as a minor shoulder widening or correction may be
undertaken as part of major maintenance projec ts along the highway. Other projects fall
under the jurisdiction of the municipalities, the County or in some cases the private
property owners. It should be noted that currently there are no capital projects
programmed for this corridor and that funding and resource limitations require that any
future projects will need to be balanced agains t other regional and local priorities. It is up
to the municipalities to advance and implement capital projects based upon their own
assessments and that those assessments may or may not coincide with the findings of this
report.

7.3 Right-of-way Restrictions
Some of the improvement recommendations contained in this document (such as the
installation of roundabouts and wider shoulders) would require widening the existing
roadway and may require additional right-of -way. For example, a roundabout is proposed
for the intersection of Route 4 and 32 at the southern end of the corridor (see Figure 5.2).
The existing right-of-way width would not permit the installation of a modern roundabout.
Cooperation between municipalities and priv ate landowners would be necessary to
advance this concept.

Another example is in the Village of Fort Ann, where BFJ suggests that he Town adopts an
official map showing a bypass of the Village (see Figure in Appendix).
If the property is
acquired for the bypass, BFJ recommends that access not be granted to adjacent property
owners, but that the bypass be developed as a limited access roadway. It is important to
prevent this stretch of road from becoming a commercial strip, and compete with Village.

Another right-of-way constraint is in the Village of Whitehall, where it is advised that the
shoulder of Route 4 be widened. By an alyzing aerial photographs, we have identified
potential locations where the existing structures are located too close to the roadway and
may require right-of-way acquisitions if the ro ad is widened. Detailed engineering and
surveys are required to determine if the widened roadway would impact the existing
structures (see Figure 7.1).

Route 4 Corridor Study Buckhurst Fish Jacquemart Inc./ January 2005
56

Figure Location Project LengthEstimated
CostEstimated
Cost /Linear
FootPriorityJurisdiction /
Municipality
1 5.2Intersection of Route 4 and
Route 32 (Dix Ave /
Bur
goyne Ave)Installation of a
Roundabout$250,000 Short-Term NYSDOT
2Mile marker 1151 to 1154Accident Mitigation /
Widen Shoulder or shift
drivewa
y
Mid-Term NYSDOT
3Glen Falls – South of
Intersection of Geer Rd /
Route 4Flatten RoadwayRoughly 50
Meters$160,000 $970 Mid-Term NYSDOT
4Just South of Intersection of
Geer Rd / Route 4Install SignApprox 10
MetersShort-Term NYSDOT
5 5.6Kingsbury -Intersection of
Kingsbury St. / County Route
36 / Route 4Redesign traffic flow at
intersectionMid-TermWashington
County
6 5.7Kin
gsbur
y -Intersection 149 S
and Route 4Reconfigure Westbound
a
pp
roach$110,000 $550 Short-Term NYSDOT
7Ft. Ann – Near Walker’s
(south of Needhamville La.)Regrade and widen
shoulderApprox 200
Meters$150,000 $224 Mid-Term NYSDOT
8Needhamville LaneProhibit left turns from
Needhamville onto
Route 3Mid-Term Town of Fort Ann
9 5.8Ft. Ann
T Owens LaneAlter IntersectionApprox 100
MetersMid-TermTown of Fort Ann
/ Private Property
Owner
10 5.11South of Village of Fort Ann
at
5699 Route 4Install median island
“gateway”Approx 30
Meters$155,000 $646 Short-Term NYSDOT
11 2.7South of Ft. Ann Village Line Extend SidewalkApprox 500
meters$90,000 $55 Mid-TermNYSDOT / Town
of Fort Ann
Table 7.1- Route 4 Corridor – Upgrades and Improvements
Route 4 Corridor StudyBuckhurst Fish Jacquemart Inc. / May 2005

Figure Location Project LengthEstimated
CostEstimated
Cost /Linear
FootPriorityJurisdiction /
Municipality
Table 7.1- Route 4 Corridor – Upgrades and Improvements
12Village of Ft. AnnLower Speed Limit in
Villa
ge to 30 MPHShort-Term NYSDOT
13 2.7Village of Ft. AnnImprove / Upgrade
sidewalksApprox 800
meters$200,000 $76 Mid-TermNYSDOT / Town
of Fort Ann
14Near Intersection of Route 4
and Catherine St (south) Install Crosswalk Short-Term NYSDOT
15Fort Ann Town HallAdd Parking Spaces
Adjacent to Town HallMid-Term Village of Ft. Ann
16Fort Ann Post OfficePotential Public Parking
at Back of Post OfficeShort-TermVilla
ge of Ft. Ann /
USPS
17North of Post OfficeChange Ten Minute
Parking Rule to Two
Hour Parkin
g
Short-Term Village of Ft. Ann
18 AppendRoute 149 to Route 4 -West
and North of Ft. AnnBypass of Fort AnnApprox 1.6
Miles$11,300,000$ 7.06 Million /
MileLong-Term Town of Fort Ann
19 5.13West of Village of Ft. Ann –
Route 149Install – median island
”
gatewa
y”Approx 30
meters$155,000 Short-Term NYSDOT
20Catherine St – Fort Ann Install 2- Speed Humps Short-TermVillage of Fort
Ann
21 5.12North of Village of Fort AnnInstall – median island
”
gatewa
y”Approx. 30
Meters $155,000 Short-Term NYSDOT
22North of Fort Ann Widen ShoulderApprox 2
KM$445,000 $67 Short-Term NYSDOT
23North of Fort Ann – Mile
Marker 1291 – 1803Flatten and Straighten
Roadway
Approx 200
meters$520,000 $793 Long-Term NYSDOT
24 5.14Villa
ge of Whitehall southern
boundar
y
Install – median island
“gatewa
y”Mid-Term NYSDOT
25Village of WhitehallLower Speed Limit in
Villa
ge to 30 MPHShort-Term NYSDOT
Route 4 Corridor StudyBuckhurst Fish Jacquemart Inc. / May 2005

Figure Location Project LengthEstimated
CostEstimated
Cost /Linear
FootPriorityJurisdiction /
Municipality
Table 7.1- Route 4 Corridor – Upgrades and Improvements
26 2.7Village of Whitehall, West
side of Route 4Extend SidewalkApprox 1.0
KM$170,000 $52 Mid-TermNYSDOT / Villa
ge
of Whitehall
27 2.7Village of Whitehall, East
side of Route 4Extend SidewalkApprox 1.0
KM$170,000 $52 Mid-TermNYSDOT /
Pro
pert
y Owner
28 5.5Village of Whitehall,
Intersection of Route 4 and
Route 22 (Bwa
y)Install Roundabout $300,000 Mid-Term NYSDOT
29 2.7Village of Whitehall, East of
Route 22 (Bway)Extend SidewalkApprox 1.4
KM$235,000 $52 Mid-TermNYSDOT / Villa
ge
of Whitehall
32Village of Whitehall – East of
SkeneUpgrade ShoulderApprox 700
meters$170,000 $74 Mid-Term NYSDOT
33 5.15East of Village of WhitehallInstall median island
”
gatewa
y”Approx 30
Meters$155,000 $646 Mid-Term NYSDOT
34Intersection of Route 4 and
CR 9 / CR 21Widen Shoulder or
Install Turn LaneShort-Term NYSDOT
35 5.16Hampton – Just west of Golf
Course RoadInformation BoothApprox 200
Meters$75,000 $500 Mid-Term NYSDOT
36 5.16Hampton @ Golf Course
RoadTurn Lanes $155,000 $775 Short-TermNYSDOT /
Washin
gton Co.
$14,870,000
Route 4 Corridor StudyBuckhurst Fish Jacquemart Inc. / May 2005

F FI
IG
GU
UR
RE
E7
7.
.1
1
P
PO
OT
TE
EN
NT
TI
IA
AL
LR
RI
IG
GH
HT
T-
-O
OF
FW
WA
AY
Y-
-I
IS
SS
SU
UE
ES
SI
IN
NW
WH
HI
IT
TE
EH
HA
AL
LL
L
Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.
ROUTE4 CORRIDORSTUDYsource: NYS GIS Clearinghouse
0 200 ft
April 2004

F FI
IG
GU
UR
RE
EA
A1
1
P
PR
RO
OP
PO
OS
SE
ED
DF
FO
OR
RT
TA
AN
NN
NB
BY
YP
PA
AS
SS
SR
RO
OU
UT
TE
E
Buckhurst Fish & Jacquemart Inc.
ROUTE4 CORRIDORSTUDY
0 0.5 mile
April 2004
t
u4
t
u4
149
Proposed Bypass Follows
Alignment of Kelsey Pond Road
Proposed Bypass Follows
Alignment of Powerline
Right of Way
Roundabout Proposed
At Interesection with
Route 149
Roundabout Proposed
At Interesection with
Route 4

Glens Falls Downtown
Transportation Center/Parking
Ramp Feasibility Study

Final Report

July 2004

Prepared for

Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation Council
City of Glens Falls, New York
Greater Glens Falls Transit

Prepared by

Wilbur Smith Associates

in association with

KKO and Associates, LLC
The Chazen Companies
Wallace Floyd Design Group

Albany NY, Anaheim CA, Atlanta GA, Baltimore MD, Bangkok Thailand, Burlington VT, Charleston SC, Charleston WV, Chicago IL, Cincinnati OH, Cleveland OH
Columbia SC, Columbus OH, Dallas TX, Dubai UAE, Edmonton Canada, Falls Church VA, Greenville SC, Hong Kong, Houston TX, Iselin NJ, Kansas City MO, Knoxville
TN, Lansing MI, Lexington KY, London UK, Milwaukee WI, Mumbai India, Myrtle Beach SC, New Haven CT, Orlando FL, Philadelphia PA, Pittsburgh PA, Portland ME
Poughkeepsie NY, Raleigh NC, Richmond VA, Salt Lake City UT, San Francisco CA, Tallahassee FL, Tampa FL, Tempe AZ, Toronto Canada, Trenton NJ, Washington DC
Employee-Owned Company
Shelburne Commons
4076 Shelburne Road, Suite 7
Shelburne, Vermont 05482
(802) 985-2530
(802) 985-8175 fax
www.wilbursmith.com
July 30, 2004

Mr. Aaron Frankenfeld, Director
Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation Council
Washington County Municipal Center, A-204
383 Upper Broadway
Ft. Edward, NY 12828

RE: Glens Falls, NY Downtown Transportation Center/Parking Ramp
Feasibility Study

Dear Mr. Frankenfeld:

We are pleased to present our Final Report of the “Glens Falls Downtown Transportation
Center/Parking Ramp Feasibility Study.” We trust that the Site Selection, Preferred Site Design
Concepts Financial/Funding Evaluations and Renderings assist the Transportation Council, Greater
Glens Falls Transit and City of Glens Falls in advancing a multi-modal Transportation Center and
Parking Ramp for downtown Glens Falls.

We appreciate the opportunity to work with you and the entire Advisory Committee on this project.
Please do not hesitate to call if we can be of continued service in the next steps toward implementation
of this Transportation Center.

Respectfully submitted,

WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES

Robert P. Jurasin, P.E. Peter Plumeau
Senior Vice President Project Manager

Attachment

Wilbur Smith Associates Page i
April 2004
Table of Contents

Executive Summary 1
1. Introduction & Purpose 2
2. Refinement of Design Parameters for Elm Street Site 5
3. Transit Operations Associated with Facility 11
4. Traffic Operations Analysis 14
5. Facility Financial Assessment 22
6. CBD Parking Management Strategies 36
7. Funding Options 38
8. Architectural Renderings of Conceptual Facility Design 39

List of Tables
4.1 Anticipated Site Generated Traffic Volumes 16
4.2 LOS Criteria for Signalized Intersection 19
4.3 Anticipated LOS – Future (2004) Peak Hour Conditions 20
5.1 Project Order of Magnitude Capital Costs 23
5.2 Recommended Downtown Parking Fees 25
5.3 Projected Annual Operating Expenses 26
5.4 Projected Annual Net Revenues
5.4.1 Transportation Center/Parking Ramp Revenue Assumptions and
Projections
5.4.2 Other Off-Street and On-Street Parking Revenue Assumptions and
Projections 28
29

30
5.5 Impacts of Elm Street Location on GGFT Running Times 33
5.6 Changes in GGFT Vehicle Service Miles 33
7.1 Funding Options Summary 39-40

List of Figures
1.1 Alternative Sites Evaluated for Glens Falls Transportation Center/Parking
Ramp 4
2.1 Preferred Alternative Garage Functional Concept 6
2.2 Preferred Alternative Garage Functional Concept – Cross-section 7
2.3 Preferred Alternatives Functional Layout – Access/Egress 9
3.1 GGFT Bus Circulation 12
4.1 Future (2004) A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 15
4.2 Routing Distribution of Site Generated Traffic – A.M. and P.M. Peak
Hour Volumes 17
4.3 Future (2004) A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour Combined Traffic Volumes 18
4.4 Suggested Traffic Improvements – Vicinity of Elm Street Site 21

Appendices
Appendix A: Phase 1 Report
Appendix B: Candidate Site Evaluation Matrix & Site Evaluation Results
Appendix C: Alternative Designs for Elm Street Site

Glens Falls Downtown Transportation
Center/Parking Ramp Feasibility Study

Wilbur Smith Associates Page 1
April 2004
Executive Summary

The Adirondack/Glens Falls
Transportation Council (A/GFTC), in
coordination with the City of Glens Falls
and Greater Glens Falls Transit (GGFT)
system, retained a consultant team to
conduct a location analysis and feasibility
study for the proposed downtown Glens
Falls Transportation Center/Parking
Ramp Facility. Working with these three
entities and a steering committee
appointed jointly by them, the
consultants:

• Developed conceptual design
parameters and order of
magnitude cost estimates for the
facility;
• Reviewed and evaluated five
alternative facility sites in
downtown Glens Falls identified
by the steering committee;
• Recommended a site for the
facility on the existing Elm Street
public parking lot;
• Developed a refined conceptual
design for the facility based on
the selected site;
• Developed refined capital and
operating cost and revenue
estimates;
• Recommended a new downtown
Glens Falls parking system
strategy; and • Identified potential sources of
capital financing for the facility.

Two widely-announced public meetings
and events were also held as part of the
study process.

The consultants evaluated five sites within
downtown Glens Falls and recommended
the existing publicly-owned Elm Street
parking lot for the new facility. This site
was selected based primarily on its ease of
access to downtown amenities, its minimal
impact on private properties and its
relative advantageous location for public
transit operations.

The proposed facility would provide 514
parking spaces on five levels as well as a
downtown transportation center serving
both local transit and intercity or tour
buses. Retail space of 1,500 square feet
would also be part of the facility. The
facility would provide a net gain of
approximately 420 parking spaces at the
Elm Street location. Automobile access
and egress would be from Elm Street.
Parking fees would be levied using a meter
system.

The facility’s estimated order of
magnitude capital construction cost is $8.3
million, not including any funding or
financing costs.

Glens Falls Downtown Transportation
Center/Parking Ramp Feasibility Study

Wilbur Smith Associates Page 2
April 2004
1. Purpose and Background

Purpose

In October 2002, the A/GFTC and City of Glens Falls contracted with a consultant team
led by Wilbur Smith Associates (WSA) to conduct a feasibility study and siting analysis for
the Downtown Glens Falls Transportation Center and Parking Ramp. The proposed transit
center-parking ramp facility is intended to both be a hub for the Greater Glens Falls Transit
(GGFT) system and intercity buses (Greyhound and Trailways) and provide about 500
parking spaces for daily and special events use. In addition, the City intends for the facility
to include transit-supportive space, such as indoor transit patron waiting areas, and rental
retail space with street-level storefronts.

Background

This study was conducted to two phases: In Phase 1, the consultant developed a conceptual
design for the proposed transportation center/parking ramp. In Phase 2, alternative sites
were evaluated, a preferred site was selected and the conceptual design was refined to fit that
site. Phase 2 also included estimation of facility capital and operating costs, identification of
impacts on and options for traffic operations related to the facility and outlines proposed
parking strategies for downtown Glens Falls.

Phase 1 Results – Conceptual Facility Design

In Phase 1 of the study, a conceptual design was developed without regard to a specific site.
Based on the parking demand and transit operational parameters provided by the City and
the Greater Glens Falls Transit System, the WSA team developed a conceptual design
footprint for the proposed facility. It should be noted that WSA did not conduct any
independent parking demand analysis for this project; demand estimates are based on
information provided by the City of Glens Falls.

The characteristics of the conceptual design characteristics are summarized as follows:

• 250’ x 180’ footprint (45,000 square feet, or slightly more than 1 acre);
• 4 levels (about 40’ total height);
• 514 parking spaces (including disabled spaces on 2 levels);
• Exterior local transit and intercity bus parking (5-7 vehicles) under a
canopied roof;
• 2,500 sq. ft. Transportation Center, including:
ƒ Welcome Center & Waiting Area
ƒ Restrooms
ƒ Vending/Newstand
ƒ Ticketing Counter

Glens Falls Downtown Transportation
Center/Parking Ramp Feasibility Study

Wilbur Smith Associates Page 3
April 2004 ƒ Manager’s Office & Crew Rest Room
ƒ Utility Space;
• 1,500 sq. ft. Retail Space on street level (assume subdividing into three
vendor spaces).

Appendix A contains the text of the Phase 1 Report.

Phase 2 Results – Alternative Site Evaluation

After identifying the conceptual design parameters for the facility, the consultant team and
steering committee worked together to identify candidate sites within downtown Glens Falls.
As shown in Figure 1.1, the steering committee identified five sites for consideration. These
were evaluated by the consultant team based on the ability of the site to satisfy the specified
conceptual design parameters. This evaluation resulted in the steering committee selecting
the Elm Street site as the most desirable location for further planning and design work.
(Appendix B displays the site evaluation matrix.)

The remainder of this report focuses on the refined conceptual designs for the Elm Street
site, operational analyses (traffic and transit) of that site, and programmatic, policy and
funding strategies.

Figure 1.1: Alternative Sites Evaluated for Glens Falls Transportation
Center/Parking Ramp
Washington
St./Evergreen
Bank Lot
Elm Street
Lot
School
Street Lot
Hudson Ave
@ Glen St.
Site
Civic Center
Plaza Lot
Current Transit Hub
(NOT EVALUATED)

Glens Falls Downtown Transportation
Center/Parking Ramp Feasibility Study

Wilbur Smith Associates Page 5
April 2004
2. Preferred Design Parameters for Elm Street Site

The conceptual design of the proposed Transportation Center is a single structure consisting
of a parking garage, a 2,500 square foot transportation center and space for 1,500 square feet
of retail space. The Transportation Center would include space for a manager’s office,
restrooms, vending machines, and a bus information area. The retail component could
consist of up to three different vendors.

In a letter dated September 4, 2003, the client noted the following additional design
parameters as key considerations:

• Context sensitivity with the surrounding downtown environment (to be addressed
further via development of architectural renderings prior to study completion);
• On-street bus berths for GGFT services on Elm Street with a possible separate
means of access for intercity buses; and
• Preservation of existing delivery access to the rear facades of Glen Street businesses.

Figures 2.1 and 2.2 depict the preferred functional concept for the Transportation Center.
This concept which encompasses the elements identified through the Phase 1 work together
with the following technical design criteria in its development;

• 10 foot floor to floor dimension;
• 90 degree parking bays in most areas;
• 60 degree parking adjacent to the transportation / retail areas;
• 9 foot stall width; and,
• 12 foot handicapped parking stall width.

An elevator and stair tower have been proposed adjacent to the transportation center for
pedestrian access to the upper levels. Two other stair towers would also be provided. These
access points are located with 110 feet of any parking space.

Preferred Site Functional Layout

The consultant team worked with the steering committee to refine a set of alternate facility
layouts for the Elm Street site. From a total five alternates, a preferred functional layout was
developed. This layout incorporates a combination of features drawn from two of the five
original layouts.
1 The conceptual layout of the proposed facility on the preferred Elm Street
location is depicted in Figure 2.3.

The layout includes queuing space for five GGFT buses on Elm Street in their own lane, out
of the active traffic lane. In addition, the layout provides space for up to two intercity buses
(e.g., Greyhound or tour buses) to queue along a driveway on the northwest end of the

1 See Appendix C for illustrations of the five alternate functional layouts considered for the Elm Street site.

EL
20 Spaces in 180 Feet
9 Spaces in 81 feet
19 Spaces in 171 feet
RETAIL SPACE
(25’x60’) 1,500 so/ft9 Spaces in 81 feet
STAIRS180 feet
214 feet
FIRST LEVEL 71 Spaces7 Spaces
UP / DOWN RAMP 6.0% SLOPE
One Way
TRANSPORTATION CENTER
(25’x100’) 2,500 sq/ft
See Insert “A” for details
In
SidewalkOne Way
THIRD LEVEL (Typical) 118 SpacesROOF LEVEL 107 Spaces
7 Spaces in 63 feet
SECOND LEVEL 94 SpacesSTAIRSELEV.
STAIRS
Out
SECTION VIEW ‘A’ – “A”
“A”
“A”
7 Spaces in 63 feet
60’’
24’
24’
17’
EL
20 Spaces in 180 Feet19 Spaces in 171 feet
RETAIL SPACE
(25’x60’) 1,500 so/ft7 Spaces 19 Spaces in 171 feet
STAIRS180 feet
214 feet
UP / DOWN RAMP 6.0% SLOPE
5 Handicap
Spaces in 60 feet
One Way
TRANSPORTATION CENTER
(25’x100’) 2,500 sq/ft
See Insert “A” for details
10 Spaces in 90 feet
One Way
STAIRSELEV.
STAIRS
60’’
24’
24’
17’
3 Spaces
in 27 feet
19 Spaces in 171 feet
60’’
19 Spaces in 171 feet
EL
20 Spaces in 189 Feet19 Spaces in 171 feet
19 Spaces in 171 feet
180 feet
214 feet
UP / DOWN RAMP 6.0% SLOPE
S
T
A
IRS
60’’
24’
24’
19 Spaces in 171 feet
60’’
19 Spaces in 171 feet
21 Spaces in 189feet19 Spaces in 171 feet
60’’
EL
20 Spaces in 180 Feet19 Spaces in 171 feet
10 Spaces in 90 feet
STAIRS180 feet
214 feet
UP / DOWN RAMP 6.0% SLOPE
S
T
A
IRS
60’’
24’
24’
19 Spaces in 171 feet
10 Spaces in 90 feet
21 Spaces in 189 feet
19 Spaces in 171 feet
60’’
This Concept is based on the following:•Mapping provided to WSA
•10’ floor to floor dimension
•6 percent grade on ramps with parking
•60’ parking bay with parking on both sides
•35’ parking bay with 60 angle parking on one side
•9’ stall width, and
•12’ handicap stall width
o
And
FOURTH LEVEL (Typical) 118 Spaces
ELM STREET
ELEV.
STAIRS
ELEV.
STAIRS
ELEV.
STAIRS
ELEV.
STAIRS
ELEV.
STAIRS
7 Spaces
5 Handicap
Spaces in 60 feet
10 Spaces in 90 feet
ELEV.
STAIRS
FIGURE 2.1
PREFERRED PLAN
ELM STREET
TRANSPORTATION CENTER
Garage Functional Concept
Glens Falls, New York
Wilbur Smith AssociatesOctober 15, 2003 Scale 1 in = 30 feet
Sheet 1 of 2

Fifth Roof Level ………. 106 Spaces
Fourth level (Typical)… 117 Spaces
Third Level (Typical)….. 117 Spaces
Second Level………… 95 Spaces
First Level…………… 79 Spaces
GARAGE TOTAL …… 514 Total Spaces
GARAGE EFFICIENCY 349 sq/ft per space
Total Garage Spaces … 514
Displaced Spaces ……… 94
Net Gain ………………. 420 Spaces
Insert “A”
TRANSPORTATION CENTER
Conceptual Layout to Show Function and Scale
Scale: 1 inch = 10 feetTotal Area 2,500 Sq/Ft.
Legend:
A- Bus Info. Area (12.5’ x 8.0’) = 105.0 Sq/Ft.
B- Ticketing Counter (17.7’ x 7.0’) = 119.0 Sq/Ft.
C- Mgr. Office (12.5’ x 20.0’) = 250.0 Sq/Ft.
C-1 Restroom (12.5’ x 8.0’) = 100.0 Sq/Ft.
D-M Men’s Restroom (15.0’ x 12.5’) = 187.5 Sq/Ft.
D-W Women’s Restroom (15.0’ x 12.5’) = 187.5 Sq/Ft.
E- Waiting Area / Welcome Center = (1,283.5 Sq/Ft. and
F- Vending Areas and News Stand (15.0’ x 7.0’) = 105.0 Sq/Ft.
G-Misc./ Utility Space (12.5’ x 13.0’) = 162.5 Sq/Ft.
A
B
FD-W D-M
E
C-1
C
Men’s
Rest Room
Women’s
Rest Room Mgr. Office
Vending Areas and
News Stand
Ticketing Counter
Rest
Room
25 feet
Waiting Area
Welcome Center
100 feetBus Info. Area
GMisc./
Utility
Space
SECTION VIEW “A-A”Horizontal Scale: 1 inch = 30 feet
Vertical Scale: 1 inch = 14 feet
Third Level (Typical)
Second Level
First Level Fourth Level (Typical)
ELEV.
STAIRS
RETAI
L2
1
3
RETAIL
RETAIL
Transportati
on Center
50’±
ELEV.
STAIRS ELEV.
STAIRS
FIGURE 2.2
PREFERRED PLAN
ELM STREET
TRANSPORTATION CENTER
Garage Functional Concept
Glens Falls, New York
Wilbur Smith AssociatesOctober 15, 2003
2
14
’
ELEV.
STAIRS
Roof Level
ELEV.
STAIRSELEV.
STAIRS ELEV.
STAIRS ELEV.
STAIRS
Sheet 2 of 2
ELEV.
STAIRS ELEV.
STAIRS
Canopy Over Sidewalk
Over Elm Street and Over
Sidewalk Along Alleyway
At Building Line

Figure 2.3: Preferred Alternate Functional Layout

Glens Falls Downtown Transportation
Center/Parking Ramp Feasibility Study

Wilbur Smith Associates Page 6
April 2004 facility. It should be noted that several businesses on South Street currently require rear
entrance access, which is achieved via the current Elm Street parking lot. If this access is to
be maintained, the final design of the transportation center/garage structure will need to
account for the type and frequency of vehicles that typically access those establishments.
Options for accommodating access needs also include establishing delivery time “windows”
during the day that are coordinated with the hours during which buses are scheduled to be
parked on the northwest end of the facility.

It should also be noted that the City of Glens Falls has stated that it may consider closing
Clinton Street and using that space for parking and/or bus operations related to the
transportation center. If this were to occur, there would be additional flexibility for bus
queuing arrangements on Elm Street.

Facility Access for Automobiles

Access to the garage would be provided to and from Elm Street. A single entrance and exit
would be provided along with a dual use entrance/exit lane for use during peak periods.
Access to the different levels would be provided via a sloped parking ramp. The ramp
gradient would be limited to 6 percent. Ninety-degree parking would be provided along the
parking ramp and the outer bays.

Net Parking Capacity Change

The current parking lot is capable of parking approximately 94 vehicles. The preferred
alternative design is planned to handle 514 vehicles. This would result in a net increase in
parking capacity on the Elm Street site of approximately 420 vehicles.

Parking Garage Efficiency

“Parking garage efficiency” is a rating of the usefulness of the parking structure. An ideal
rating for a parking structure is approximately 325 square feet per usable parking space. Due
to site constraints, however, full build out of the ends of the parking structure are
prohibited. In addition the transportation and retail components of the structure further
reduce the number of available space such that the garage efficiency is lessened. The garage
efficiency for the preferred alternative is 349 square feet of structure per space.

Glens Falls Downtown Transportation
Center/Parking Ramp Feasibility Study

Wilbur Smith Associates Page 10
April 2004
3. Transit Operations Associated with Facility

Current Operations

GGFT currently operates nine year-round bus routes and one summer-only trolley route.
Five buses are used to operate the year-round service, and two trolleys are used to operate
the trolley route. Most of the year-round routes operate every 60 minutes throughout most
of the day, and have round trip running times of slightly less than 30 minutes. With these
times, most service is interlined, meaning that buses make a trip on one route and then a trip
on a second route before returning to make a second trip on the first route (or another
route). GGFT does not assign buses to specific combinations of routes; instead the
interlining is among multiple routes.

This interlining strategy means that many buses, rather than turning around at the Glens
Falls hub to return in the same direction from which they came, continue straight past hub
as a new trip on a different route. The optimal design for bus circulation in a new facility,
therefore, would be to allow buses to both turn around and continue past the facility in the
same direction.

Assessment of Preferred Elm Street Functional Layout

The preferred alternative is arranged with local transit services located on the north side of
Elm Street, parallel berths along the south side of the new transportation center/parking
ramp. Inter-city buses would also use a parallel berths arrangement, pulling off of Elm
Street and parking adjacent to the west side of the transportation center. This arrangement
would be convenient for passengers, as the bus berths would be located directly adjacent to
the passenger waiting area. It would also be relatively easy to re-route all bus service via bus
stops on the north side of Elm Street. As shown in Figure 3.1, Elm Street, South Street,
Glen Street, and Hudson Avenue could be used as a clockwise loop, which would allow
buses from all routes to easily access the bus berths.

The maximum number of GGFT buses that are currently scheduled to be at the hub at any
one time is five (including one trolley). As mentioned, space for up to two intercity buses
(e.g., Greyhound) is provided on the north end of the facility.

The current design, which is conceptual only, provides a somewhat restrictive turning radius
for a typical 45-foot intercity coach bus at the northwest corner of the facility. Refinements
and finalization of this conceptual design may therefore need to provide slightly more
turning radius than currently shown. Typical options in this regard include cutting off a
non-functional small corner of the structure to ensure a turning radius “cushion” for buses
making that movement.

Ability to Accommodate Future Expansion

Figure 3.1: GGFT Bus Circulation with
Elm Street Transportation Center/Parking Ramp as Transit Hub

Glens Falls Downtown Transportation
Center/Parking Ramp Feasibility Study

Wilbur Smith Associates Page 11
April 2004 An additional consideration is that the new facility should be able to accommodate both
changes to and potential increases in existing services. While future levels of GGFT and
intercity service are speculative, relatively large increases in service could be accommodated
by adding additional bus berths on the south side of Elm Street. At this stage of
development, it is reasonable to assume that the facility could accommodate large increases
in GGFT service through the conversion of on-street parking spaces into additional bus
berths on either side of Elm Street.

Glens Falls Downtown Transportation
Center/Parking Ramp Feasibility Study

Wilbur Smith Associates Page 13
April 2004
4. Traffic Operations Analysis

In considering the siting and operations of the transportation center/parking ramp in the
center of a busy downtown, it is important to understand and accommodate potential
impacts on the street system and associated traffic operations. This section assesses the
potential traffic operations impacts of the facility on the street system immediately adjacent
to the Elm Street site.

Existing Roadways

Elm Street is a two-way dual-lane roadway between South Street and Hudson Avenue. The
roadway width varies between 31 feet 10 inches at its southern intersection with Hudson
Avenue to 37 feet at its northern intersection with South Street. In the immediate vicinity of
the existing parking lot, the width of Elm Street is approximately 32 feet. There is limited
on-street parking on Elm Street near to the Elm Street parking lot with only 3 parking spaces
located in front of the Boston Candy Kitchen, each limited to a ten minute maximum.
Parking is also provided along Elm Street west of the South Street intersection.

Hudson Avenue is a two-way four-lane roadway oriented in a north-south direction in the
vicinity of the Transportation Center. The Hudson Avenue/Elm Street intersection is
signalized. Left turn lanes are provided on Elm Street and Hudson Avenue at the
intersection. Currently, parking is allowed in the area near to the intersection.

South Street is a two-way dual-lane roadway oriented in a north-south direction in the
vicinity of the Transportation Center. West of the South Street/Elm Street intersection,
South Street is approximately 47 feet wide with travel lanes approximately 11 feet-10 inches
wide. East of the South Street/Elm Street intersection, South Street is approximately 40 feet
wide with travel lanes approximately 9 feet-8 inches wide. A parking lane is provided along
South Street on both sides east and west of the intersection.

Existing and Future Traffic Volumes

Existing (2000) A.M. and P.M. peak hour traffic volume were obtained for this study from
the Adirondack-Glens Falls Transportation Council at the Elm Street/Hudson Avenue and
Elm Street/South Street intersections. A 2 percent per year growth factor was applied to the
existing (2000) peak hour traffic volumes to project future (2004) peak hour traffic
conditions. Figure 4.1 shows future (2004) A.M. and P.M. peak hour traffic volumes at the
two study area intersections in the vicinity of the Glens Falls Transportation Center.

Anticipated Site Generated Traffic Volumes

Glens Falls Downtown Transportation
Center/Parking Ramp Feasibility Study

Wilbur Smith Associates Page 14
April 2004 The proposed parking garage will consist of 508 parking spaces. For purposes of this
analysis, it was assumed that approximately 50 percent of the parking spaces will be utilized
by the monthly parkers and the remaining 50 percent by hourly/daily parkers.

Table 4.1 shows anticipated site generated traffic volumes by the proposed parking garage
during the A.M. and P.M. peak hour periods.

Table 4.1
Anticipated Site Generated Traffic Volumes

A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
Description In Out Total In Out Total

Parking Garage (508 parking spaces) 250 50 300 100 250 350

Source: Wilbur Smith Associates based on ITE’s Trip Generation Manual, Sixth Edition.

Figure 4.2 shows the routing distribution of the site generated traffic and distribution of this
traffic at the two intersections during the A.M. and P.M. peak hour volumes.

Figure 4.3 shows the future (2004) A.M. and P.M. combined peak hour traffic volumes at
the two study area intersections.

Level of Service Analysis

A study of capacity is important in determining the ability of a specific roadway, intersection
or freeway to accommodate traffic under various levels of service. Level of service (LOS) is a
qualitative measure describing driver satisfaction with a number of factors that influence the
degree of traffic congestion. These factors include speed and travel time, traffic interruption,
freedom of maneuverability, safety, driving comfort and convenience, and delay.

In general there are six levels of service describing flow conditions. The highest, LOS A,
describes a condition of free flow, with low volumes and high speeds. LOS B represents a
stable traffic flow with operating speeds beginning to be restricted somewhat by traffic
conditions. LOS C, which is normally utilized for design purposes, describes a stable
condition of traffic operation. It entails moderately restricted movements due to higher
traffic volumes, but traffic conditions which are not objectionable to motorists. LOS D
reflects a condition of more restrictive movements for motorists and the influence of
congestion becomes more noticeable. LOS E is representative of the actual capacity of the
roadway or intersection and involves delays to all motorists due to congestion. The lowest
level of service, LOS F, is described as force flow and is characterized by volumes greater
than the theoretical roadway capacity. Complete congestion occurs, and in extreme cases, the
volume passing a given point drops to zero. This is considered an unacceptable traffic
operating condition.

FIGURE 4.1
FUTURE (2004) TRAFFIC VOLUMES
GLENS FALLS TRANSPORTATION CENTER
Glens Falls, New York
30
65
1535
245
40
15
95
30
5
320
55140
320
110
380
Hudson Ave.20
40
515
205
15
15
165
10
55
135
20190
235
65
210
South St.
Glens Falls
Transportation
Center
Elm St.
A.M. Peak
20
110
5550
315
20
40
115
555
335
50210
385
390
Hudson Ave
.
25
90
4040
290
10
20
100
55
60
185
20175
340
155
265
South St.
Glens Falls
Transportation
Center
Elm St.
P.M. Peak
N
Not to Scale
Note:
1. Existing (2000) A.M. and P.M. peak hour traffic volumes were obtained from the
Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation Council.
2. A 2 percent per year growth factor was used to project existing (2000) traffic volumes to future
(2004) traffic condition.
185
185190
110
190
365170
395230
105
290220
425385
200
130
165

FIGURE 4.2
SITE TRAFFIC ROUTING DISTRIBUTION
GLENS FALLS TRANSPORTATION CENTER
Glens Falls, New York
30%(15)
15%(10)
20%(10)30%(75)
15%(40)
(50) 20%
40
75
35
50
Hudson Ave.
10%(25)
10%(25)
10%(5)
10%(5)
15%(5)
(35) 15%
15
25
25
35South St.
Glens Falls
Transportation
Center
Elm St.
A.M. Peak
Glens Falls
Transportation
Center
Elm St.
P.M. Peak
N
Not to Scale
Note:
1. 508 Parking Spaces
2. 50 percent Monthly Parkers
3. No diversion of traffic
4. All New Traffic
5. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Conservatively
High
85
165
300 50 250Total Out In
350 250 100Total Out In
25%(65)
10%(25)
20%(50)25%(25)
10%(10)
(20) 20%
10
25
20
Hudson Ave.
55140
10%(10)
15%(15)
15%(35)
10%(25)
20%(50)
(20) 20%
110
15
10
20South St.
45

FIGURE 4.3
FUTURE (2004) COMBINED TRAFFIC VOLUMES
GLENS FALLS TRANSPORTATION CENTER
Glens Falls, New York
45
75
2535
245
115
15
135
30
5
320
105180
395
145
430
Hudson Ave.20
65
540
205
15
20
170
15
90
135
20205
260
90
245
South St.
Glens Falls
Transportation
Center
Elm St.
A.M. Peak
85
135
10550
315
45
40
125
555
335
70220
410
410
Hudson Ave
.
25
100
4055
290
10
55
125
105
80
185
20285
355
165
285
South St.
Glens Falls
Transportation
Center
Elm St.
P.M. Peak
N
Not to Scale
240
325235
195
355
380175
460265
115
300225
475435
205
190
155

Glens Falls Downtown Transportation
Center/Parking Ramp Feasibility Study

Wilbur Smith Associates Page 15
April 2004
Traffic analysis for this study was based on the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual and
conducted using the Highway Capacity Software (HCS).

Table 4.2 highlights the level of service criteria for signalized intersections. The level of
service criteria for signalized intersections is based on control delay per vehicle measured in
seconds.

Table 4.2
LOS Criteria for Signalized Intersections

Level of Service Control Delay Per Vehicle
(seconds)
A
≤10
B
>10 and ≤20
C
>20 and ≤35
D
>35 and ≤55
E
>55 and ≤80
F > 80
Source: 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board

Level of service was determined for the two study area intersections under future 2004
conditions with and without the new Parking Garage under the A.M. and P.M. peak hour
conditions. The results are presented in Table 4.3.

Glens Falls Downtown Transportation
Center/Parking Ramp Feasibility Study

Wilbur Smith Associates Page 16
April 2004 Table 4.3
Anticipated LOS – Future (2004) Peak Hour Conditions

Without Garage With Garage
Intersection A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M.
Signalized
Elm Street/Hudson Avenue B(12.7) B(12.9) B(13.0) B(13.1)
South Street/Hudson Avenue B(13.4) B(14.1) B(13.8) B(14.7)

Source: Wilbur Smith Associates

As shown in Table 4.3, the level of service at the two study area intersections remain at LOS
B with the proposed parking garage in place under both A.M. and P.M. peak hour
conditions.

Traffic Analysis Summary Assessment

The results of the traffic analysis associated with the proposed Parking Garage indicate that
the Elm Street/Hudson Avenue and Elm Street/South Street located in the immediate
vicinity of the proposed Parking Garage are anticipated to operate at acceptable levels of
service (LOS B) under all future (2004) traffic conditions.
2

Suggested Traffic Improvement Strategies

Figure 4.4 depicts suggested traffic improvement strategies in the vicinity of the Elm Street
site based on the traffic operations analysis and other characteristics of the site. The
suggestions include a new striping plan, additional crosswalks and other improvements.

2 At the time this report was published, the City of Glens Falls was considering closing Hudson Avenue at
Glen Street. If this were to occur, traffic operations on Elm Street and in the intersections analyzed in this
report could be significantly affected and additional study would be required to ensure transportation center
operations and traffic improvement strategies were harmonized with new traffic patterns.

Figure 4.4: Suggested Traffic Improvements in Vicinity of Elm Street
Facility Site

Glens Falls Downtown Transportation
Center/Parking Ramp Feasibility Study

Wilbur Smith Associates Page 20
April 2004
5. Facility Financial Assessment

This section describes the financial aspects of the proposed transportation center/parking
ramp – capital construction cost and operating costs and revenues, including transit cost
implications. A strategy to manage parking resources and levy appropriate parking fees for
the whole of the Glens Falls CBD is also proposed.

Estimated Capital Construction Cost

Table 5.1 provides estimated order of magnitude construction costs for the facility. The
estimated cost of approximately $8.3 million is based on the following assumptions:

1. Parking Garage Capacity – 514 spaces
2. Capital Cost (per space) (includes construction cost per space plus land cost (if
applicable), construction manager, contingencies, design, general liability) – $13,500
3. Capital Cost of $500 per each metered parking space
4. Cost of Issuance (Bond Counsel, Solicitor, Underwriter’s Counsel, Trustee, Bond
Printing, Official Statement Printing, Rating, Insurance, Discount) is not included in
Capital Cost
5. Bond Term – 30 years; interest rate – 5%
6. Amount to be financed does not
include:
a. Capitalized interest – first year’s debt service payment(s)
b. Debt Service Reserve – maximum annual one-year debt service

Operating Costs and Revenues

It is assumed the new transportation center/parking ramp would (a) charge a fee, through
either permits or hourly rates, for parking and (b) be an element of an overall downtown
Glens Falls parking system that includes a parking fee structure. This section also presents a
proposal for a downtown Glens Falls parking fee and system management structure. The
structure consists of estimates of parking system operating costs and revenues, including
those associated with the proposed transportation center/parking ramp. It is important to
note that estimated operating costs and revenues presented in this report do not assume any
offset from operating funds of the Greater Glens Falls Transit (GGFT) system.

Downtown Parking Fees

Parameters
Site Location – Elm St. Parking Lot
Parking Structure – 5-level, 514 Parking Spaces (404 new)
Parking Garage Efficiency – 1 space per 364 square feet
Transportation Center – 2,500 square feet
Commercial/Retail – 1,500 square feet
Order of Magnitude
Construction Cost Estimates
$13,500
$170
$90
10% of construction costs
Order of Magnitude Implementation Cost Estimates
$6,939,000
$425,000
$135,000
$7,499,000
Survey/Design Fees at 10% of Implementation Cost $749,900
TOTAL $8,248,900
NOTES:
(1) Elm Street Roadway Improvements, including Traffic Signal
Upgrades at Hudson and South Street, may have an
implementation cost of $150,000.
(2) Alternative E with 389 spaces (5 levels), an efficiency of 414
square feet per space, and constructoin cost estimate of
$15,500 per space – $7,248,450 Implementation Cost.
(3) Does not include Funding/Financial Costs of the
Transportation Center. Retail/Commercial at 1,500 square feet (shell only)
Subtotal Parking structure at 514 spaces
Table 5.1
Glens Falls Transportation Center/Parking Ramp
Capital Construction Cost Estimate
Transportation Center at 2,500 square feet (full build out) Construction Cost per Parking Space (Including site preparation.
Special architectural façade treatments may need to be added.)
Construction Cost for Transportation Center per square foot
(includes shell and full build out)
Construction Cost for Retail/Commercial per square foot (includes
shell/excludes full build out)
Surveys/Engineering/Architectural Design Fees

Glens Falls Downtown Transportation
Center/Parking Ramp Feasibility Study

Wilbur Smith Associates Page 21
April 2004 Establishing parking fees in Glens Falls must address two issues, namely the amount and
appropriateness of fees to be charged, and the fact that all municipal parking is currently
free. The latter will likely be the more difficult issue to confront considering that objections
to paying for parking may have the greatest consequences.

In order for the City to realize the revitalization of the Central Business District envisioned
by the Glens Falls Parking Committee in 1997, additional parking is required. Residents
must accept that construction of a multi-level parking structure is the only way to satisfy that
requirement. The burden of providing the parking structure, therefore, will fall on the city
government. Development of this structure together with implementation of parking fees
will be one segment of a comprehensive parking management strategy.

An additional factor in the development of parking fees is the understanding that the
decision to charge for parking must include all municipal off-street facilities as well as all on-
street parking spaces in the CBD, all of which are currently free.

Finally, because parking will be managed so that it serves all users of the CBD,
implementation of parking fees will not be a deterrent to parking in the CBD, nor will it be
an inhibitor to future development/revitalization. Experience with parking controls and fees
in other similar locations provide supporting evidence. Therefore, recognizing that the need
for a fee for parking is a reality, the question becomes what fees will be appropriate and
acceptable to the citizenry who currently park in the area and are expected to park there in
the future. The relatively compact size of the Glens Falls CBD and its focal
points/destinations are such that only a single scale of parking fees is necessary.

To develop a suggested parking fee structure, the consultant reviewed parking fee structures
in various “peer” cities in New York State, New Jersey, Vermont and Pennsylvania of
comparable size and similar activity profiles. While, it is acknowledged that no two
communities are precisely comparable, other similar communities have successfully
implemented parking controls and fee structures. These examples include Albany and Lake
George in New York, Rutland, Vermont and Williamsport, Pennsylvania.

Based on the consultant’s assessment of the different factors affecting parking fee options
and in consideration of the fact that parking is currently free and construction of a parking
garage in downtown Glens Falls will require a substantial financial investment by the City, it
is recommended that a parking fee system be implemented in the CBD using the rates
shown in Table 5.2 below.

Transient/hourly/daily fee: $0.50 per hour
Monthly parking fees: $40.00 per month
Event parking $3.00
Table 5.2:
R ecom m en ded D ow n t ow n Par kin g Fees

Glens Falls Downtown Transportation
Center/Parking Ramp Feasibility Study

Wilbur Smith Associates Page 22
April 2004

Estimated Annual Operating Expenses

Table 5.3 summarizes the estimated annual operating expenses for overall parking system
operations in the Glens Falls CBD, including the conceptual Elm Street Facility. The
estimated first-year operating expense of $275,000 is based on the assumption that an overall
fee-based parking system, using a combination of meters on streets and the parking ramp
together with the sale of monthly permits, would be implemented by the City. Additional
operating expense assumptions include the following:

1. Annual operating and maintenance expenses for the parking garage – $300 per space
includes Maintenance Reserve and pro rata share of personnel costs
2. Annual operating and maintenance expenses escalate at 3% per year; no operating
revenue increase during the initial five-year period of operation
3. Maintenance Reserve of $50,000 per year, held constant throughout
4. Personnel/Staffing required to service all on-street metered parking and all off-street
facilities, metered or permitted, are:
a. Administration/overhead of parking operations (e.g., accounting, issue of
permits, etc.) will continue to be handled by the City without additional
personnel
b. Enforcement personnel will increase from one (1) full-time employee to a
minimum of one (1) full-time (Monday-Friday) and one (1) part-time
(Wednesday through Saturday)
c. Meter collection personnel – one (1) part-time employee (24 hours per week, six
(6) hours each on Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, Friday)
d. Meter repair personnel – three (3) hours per day by part-time person, five (5)
days per week
e. Custodial – two (2) part-time employees; total four (4) hours per day, seven days
per week
f. Coin Counting – One (1) part-time employee; three (3) hours on Monday and
Thursday, two (2) hours on Tuesday and Friday

The annual operating expense includes estimated costs of operating the Elm Street facility,
other parking facilities and meters throughout the CBD and associated staffing requirements.
Projected expenses, however, do not include any possible debt financing payments, which
could substantially increase the annual cost of the facility to the City by as much as $500,000,
based on similar facilities elsewhere. However, only a detailed financial analysis, which is
beyond the scope of this study, can accurately determine potential financing costs.
Additional detail and notes related to this study’s cost estimate are shown in Table 5.3.

Elm Street Transportation Center/Parking Ramp
Utilities $30,000.00
Insurance $3,000.00
Repairs, maintenance and supply $21,000.00
Operating Supplies $10,000.00
Maintenance Res. $50,000.00
Subtotal Elm Street Operating Expenses $114,000.00
Other Parking
Utilities $5,000.00
Insurance $3,000.00
Repairs, Maintenance and Supplies $6,000.00
Subtotal Other Parking Expenses $14,000.00
Staffing Requirements (2)
Salaries (3) $120,000.00
Benefits (4) $36,000.00
Subtotal Staffing $156,000.00
TOTAL Estimated Annual Operating Expenses $284,000.00
NOTES:
(1) Assumes all spaces on-street will have parking meters and all
spaces off-street will either have parking meters or be
controlled by permits.
(2) Personnel requirements are calculated on the basis of 1196 total
parking spaces (732 off-street and 464 on-street) with all on-street
spaces metered and all off-street spaces either metered or permits.
(3) Staffing estimated at 10,000 hours per year at an average salary of
$12.00 per hour (includes security personnel)
(4) Benefits estimated at 30% of salary(All figures rounded to nearest $1,000)
Table 5.3
Estimated Annual Operating Expenses
CBD Parking Operations (1)
City of Glens Falls, New York

Glens Falls Downtown Transportation
Center/Parking Ramp Feasibility Study

Wilbur Smith Associates Page 23
April 2004 Projected Annual Revenues

Table 5.4 highlights revenues estimated for the proposed downtown Glens Falls fee-based
parking system for operating years 1 through 5, including revenues from on-street and off-
street parking as well as the Elm Street facility. In years 1 through 5 of operations, it is
estimated that total parking revenues would be $623,000. Annual projected revenues include
on-street and off-street meters, permit sales and fees collected at the Elm Street facility.
Revenue estimates are based on the occupancy and turnover rates assumed in the traffic
impact analysis. These rates are held constant over the five-year period. The estimate also
includes $165,000 in projected revenues from special event parking associated with the Civic
Center and Charles Wood (Woolworth) Theater.
3 In addition, it has been conservatively
assumed that downtown parking fees are not changed for the first five years of operations.
Tables 5.4.1 and 5.4.2 provide additional detail on the assumptions underlying the revenue
projections.

Projected Net Revenues

In year 1, projected net revenues are approximately $339,000. Using the assumption that
parking fees will remain unchanged for the first five years, net revenue declines to
approximately $320,000 by year 5 (change of -5.6%) due to slight increases in operating costs
over time. After five years of operating experience, the City may choose to revise parking
fees for all or certain specific facilities, thereby affecting the net revenue figure as well.

It should be noted that the estimated revenue figures are based on the conceptual
facility design and location and existing parking demand information from past
studies and plans. These figures are therefore subject to revision based on additional
parking demand analysis, refined facility design and the ultimate structure of the
City’s downtown parking system.

3 Based on actual and estimated event frequency information provided by the City of Glens Falls and the Glens
Falls Civic Center.

Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Pro
jected Annual Revenues
(1)
On-Street $174,000 $174,000 $174,000 $174,000 $174,000
Off-Street (exclusive of Elm Street Garage) $93,000 $93,000 $93,000 $93,000 $93,000
Elm Street Garage $356,000 $356,000 $356,000 $356,000 $356,000
Total Projected Annual Revenue $623,000 $623,000 $623,000 $623,000 $623,000
Pro
jected Operatin
g Expenses
(2)
Elm Street Garage (3) $114,000 $117,000 $121,000 $125,000 $128,000
Other Parking $14,000 $14,000 $15,000 $15,000 $16,000
Personnel Staffing $156,000 $161,000 $166,000 $171,000 $176,000
Total Projected Annual Operating Expenses (4) $284,000 $292,000 $302,000 $311,000 $320,000
Net Revenues over Operating Expenses $339,000 $331,000 $321,000 $312,000 $303,000NOTES:(1) Assumes no change in parking fees for first 5 years
(2) Assumes operating expenses increase at the rate of
3% per year, except Maintenance Reserve which remains
constant at $50,000 per year
(3) Includes $50,000 per year Maintenance Reserve
(4) Does not include any costs associated with financing the project and paying debt service.
These costs could exceed $500,000 per year. A detailed financial analysis should be undertaken.
(5) A detailed parking needs study should be undertaken to determine long-term (monthly) and
short-term/transient (hourly) parking demands at this facility and in the entire downtown study area.
City of Glens Falls, New York(All figures rounded to nearest 1,000)
Table 5.4
Projected Annual Net Revenues
Proposed Downtown Parking System

Transportation Center/Parking Ramp
Total parking spaces = 514
Revenue Source
Total
Monthly Permits $123,360
(257 spaces x $40/space x 12 months)
Transient Parking $67,463
(257 spaces x $0.50/hour x 2 hours x 35% occupancy x 2.5
turnover/day x 300 days)
Subtotal Daily Garage Parking
$190,823
Event Parking (1)
Civic Center: 45 events @ 6000 people/year ~ 450 cars x $3$60,750
Civic Center: 45 events @ 3000 people/year ~ 225 cars x $3$30,375
Heritage Hall: 135 events x 100 cars/year x $3$40,500
Woolworth Theater: 150 events x 75 cars/year x $3$33,750
Subtotal Event Parking $165,375
Grand Total – Transportation Center/Parking Ramp Revenue $356,198
NOTES:
(1) Estimates of number of events provided by officials of GF Civic Center,
Woolworth Theater and City of Glens Falls
Glens Falls Transportation Center/Parking Ramp
Revenue Assumptions and ProjectionsTable 5.4.1

Other Off-Street Parking
Net of 218 Spaces (Total 312 minus 94 @ Elm Street lot)
Revenue Source
Total
Monthly Permits $52,320
(109 spaces x $40/space x 12 months)
Transient Parking $40,875
(109 spaces x $0.50/hour x 2 hours x 50% occupancy x 2.5
turnover/day x 300 days)
Total – Other Off-street Parking Revenue
$93,195
On-Street Parking
Total 464 Spaces
(464 spaces x $0.50/hour x 2 hours x 50% occupancy x 2.5 turnover
x 300 days)
$174,000
Total – On-Street Parking Revenue $174,000
Other Off-Street and On-Street Parking
Revenue Assumptions and ProjectionsTable 5.4.2

Glens Falls Downtown Transportation
Center/Parking Ramp Feasibility Study

Wilbur Smith Associates Page 27
July 2004 Transit Operations – Cost Implications

The proposed downtown transportation center/parking ramp is projected to result in minor
increases in GGFT vehicle operating costs. A proportion of utility, maintenance, and
cleaning costs may also be attributable to transit operations and facilities for transit
passengers. Very few of these facility-related costs, however, would be transit specific. It is
suggested that once total facility operating costs have been estimated, a share of the total
costs attributable to transit can be identified by the City of Glens Falls and GGFT.

Transit Operating Cost Components

Transit operating cost components of the proposed parking ramp/transit center would
primarily consist of:

ƒ Changes to vehicle operating costs
ƒ Changes to costs for ticket sales
ƒ Personnel (if any)
ƒ Utilities (heat, electricity, and water)
ƒ Snowplowing
ƒ Cleaning/routine maintenance
ƒ Security

Changes to Vehicle Operating Costs

The Elm Street location would impact GGFT vehicle operating costs to the extent that
service mile, hours, or vehicle requirements are altered significantly. Since the proposed Elm
Street location is less than 0.4 miles from the current Ridge Street hub, however, impacts on
vehicle operations, and thus operating costs, would be low:

ƒ Changes to round trip running times would range from –1.2 minutes to +1.3
minutes (see Table 5.5). Some minor service changes may be required, but it should
be possible to accommodate these changes without increasing vehicle hours or
vehicle requirements.

Glens Falls Downtown Transportation
Center/Parking Ramp Feasibility Study

Wilbur Smith Associates Page 28
July 2004 Table 5.5: Impacts of Elm Street Location on GGFT Running Times
Current Round
Trip Run Time Run Time Impact
(Minutes) Round Trip Run
Time at Elm
Street
2 Bay – College 27 0.6 27.6
3 Ridge-East Loop 20 1.3 21.3
4 Hudson Falls-Fort Edward 48 1.1 49.1
5 Moreau – South Glens Falls 29 0.1 29.1
6 West Loop 20 -1.2 18.8
7 West Glens Falls 25 -1.1 23.9
11/12 Glen-Robert Garden/Aviation Mall 28 0.6 28.6
19 Route 9 County Center 55 0.6 55.6

There would be an increase in vehicle service miles operated of 20,100, or approximately 7%
(see Table 5.6). This would increase mileage based costs (primarily vehicle maintenance) by
approximately 7%, or about $7,000 per year using the actual costs for vehicle maintenance in
2000 of $95,700.

Table 5.6: Changes in GGFT Vehicle Service Miles
Change in
Round Trip
Mileage Weekday
Round TripsSaturday
Round Trips Change in
Annual Vehicle
Service Miles
(VSMs)
2 Bay – College 0.14 6 2 2,257
3 Ridge-East Loop 0.32 11 8 9,527
4 Hudson Falls-Fort Edward 0.28 11.5 5 8,642
5 Moreau – South Glens Falls 0.03 9 5 610
6 West Loop -0.29 12 8 -9,425
7 West Glens Falls -0.27 6 2 -4,408
11/12 Glen-Robert Garden/Aviation Mall 0.14 12 10 4,559
19 Route 9 County Center 0.14 22 20 8,370
Total 20,130

Ticket Sales

The Glens Falls City Clerk’s office, at City Hall on Ridge Street, currently sells GGFT
tickets. With the shift of GGFT service to the transit center from the current Ridge Street
hub, this location would no longer be convenient, and provision would need to be made for
ticket sales at the new facility.

Relocating ticket sales could be accomplished via ticket vending machines or by a
concessionaire. If tickets are to be sold via a concessionaire, this arrangement would require
locating a complementary business as close as possible to the transit center, (i.e., a newsstand
or convenience store).

Glens Falls Downtown Transportation
Center/Parking Ramp Feasibility Study

Wilbur Smith Associates Page 29
July 2004
Currently, the City Clerk’s office sells approximately $500 worth of tickets per month.
Assuming a 10% commission fee, the commission cost would be $50 per month.

Personnel

There should be no need to assign additional personnel to the parking garage/transit center
for transit operations purposes. If a staffed information kiosk is located in the facility,
however, it may be appropriate to attribute a proportion of those costs to the transit
component.

Utilities

There would be heating, cooling, electricity, and water costs associated with the facility.
Costs that would specifically apply to transit include a share of heating, cooling, and lighting
of the passenger waiting room, and lighting costs for the bus berths and outside waiting
areas. Overall utility costs for the entire facility could attribute a proportion to transit based
on the size of the waiting area, which would be largely used by transit patrons.

Snowplowing

There would be snowplowing costs for the facility, which would be attributable to the
parking garage (the top level) and the bus access roads, bus berths, and outside waiting areas.
The proportion attributable to transit could reasonably be based on the area of bus access
roads, platforms, and outside waiting areas as a percentage of the total area that would need
to be cleared of snow.

Snowplowing at GGFT’s current hub on Ridge Street is performed by the city as part of its
normal plowing activities. Since GGFT’s bus berths at the new facility would be on the
street, and outside waiting facilities on the sidewalk, it is assumed that this practice would
continue, and that there would be no new direct GGFT costs.

Cleaning/Routine Maintenance

A proportion of cleaning and maintenance costs for the entire facility which would also be
attributable to the transit use. Transit’s share of these costs may be calculated according to
the area dedicated to transit operations as a percentage of the total area of the facility.

Security

Glens Falls Downtown Transportation
Center/Parking Ramp Feasibility Study

Wilbur Smith Associates Page 30
July 2004 It is assumed that security in the passenger waiting room would be provided by the same
personnel as for the entire garage. Therefore, there would be no direct cost for the transit
component, but some cost sharing of overall security cost would likely be appropriate.
4

Transit Revenue Generation

The new facility would not generate any significant new transit revenue.

4 Options for cost-effectively enhancing overall facility security include products such as “Code Blue,” which is
one of a number of available products that produces a variety of emergency and assistance voice
communications products designed for parking lots and garages. Units are available in a variety of styles,
power options and communication options, and are ADA compliant. The systems are visible and pro-active,
immediately activate a blue strobe light and provide 2-way hands free communication between the customer
and the police or other security personnel.

Glens Falls Downtown Transportation
Center/Parking Ramp Feasibility Study

Wilbur Smith Associates Page 31
July 2004
6. CBD Parking Management Strategies

The development of a Parking Management Program is a key factor in the success (or
failure) of the City’s efforts to revitalize the Central Business District and to construct and
finance a multilevel parking structure. A comprehensive program to manage parking
resources in the CBD, therefore, is recommended. A list of recommended strategies that
would support a parking management program includes:

a. Set parking in the CBD at a level which generates parking revenues required to finance
the parking garage and to cover annual operating and maintenance expenses associated
with the City Parking program.
b. Conduct a parking study to collect parking accumulation data and turnover/duration of
parking data as a means to identify the specific requirements for, and desired location of,
transient and monthly permit parking. This information will also help the City determine
appropriate times to charge for parking at both on-street and off-street facilities.
c. Eliminate or tightly control access to all free parking in the CBD. Access to private lots,
for example, should be limited to employees and patrons. Anyone wishing to park in the
CBD who does not have access to a private lot, therefore, would be forced to use City
provided public parking.
d. Review parking enforcement opportunities available to the City.
i. Ensure enforcement is consistent and fair;
ii. Employ the appropriate number of enforcement personnel required; and
iii. Review the price structure for parking violations to insure that they are
adequate to force compliance with parking rules and fees. As a
minimum, prices must be sufficient to defer parkers from taking a
chance of not paying the parking fee and the willingness to pay a small
fine.

e. Evaluate the potential of parking taxes in the event that private off-street parking
becomes fee-based. This form of taxation has become a common tool used by urban
communities to generate additional revenues to assist in the financing of parking
programs. Parking taxes typically start at about 10% and in a number of larger
metropolitan areas are in excess of 30%.
f. Review existing zoning requirements for parking to determine the adequacy of parking
requirements. In particular, the potential for a payment in lieu of parking scheme
specifically for redevelopment projects should be considered and evaluated. This is a
useful option in cases where it is not practical to provide parking required by City
ordinance.
g. Implement a parking strategy directed at employees and business owners to discourage
their use of on-street parking. The objective would be to free up prime parking for
visitors to the business and commercial establishments in the CBD. Tools to carry out
this strategy may include reduced off-street parking fees for people who work
downtown.

Glens Falls Downtown Transportation
Center/Parking Ramp Feasibility Study

Wilbur Smith Associates Page 32
July 2004 h. Consider a flat fee parking rate for evening and special event parking in off-street
facilities as well as charging for parking at meters during evening hours if there is
sufficient activity to warrant and enforcement personnel would be available.
i. Evaluate existing parking to determine if efficient improvements can be realized (e.g.,
efficiency of off-street facilities, angle parking versus parallel parking for on-street
parking, location and utilization of loading zones).
j. Review the effectiveness of wayfinding signage to identify parking locations and key
destinations. Signage may also be used to encourage park and walk opportunities for
tourists and shoppers.
k. Single out an office or individual within city government responsible for all parking
related matters, from parking meter collection, sale of monthly permits to enforcement.
In this regard, it may be appropriate to consider the creation of a parking authority to
better implement and manage the City parking management strategies.
l. Identify and assess parking needs of CBD residents, including daytime and overnight
parking requirements. Assess the potential for using special permits at off-street facilities
to satisfy requirements for residents of the CBD. This can be done, for example, by
selling (or issuing) reduced fee permits that restrict usage of the parking facility to off-
peak hours.

Glens Falls Downtown Transportation
Center/Parking Ramp Feasibility Study

Wilbur Smith Associates Page 33
July 2004
7. Funding Options

Opportunities for use of external funding sources to pay for major portions of the capital
construction and operating costs of the proposed transportation center/parking ramp have
been identified and evaluated. These sources represent important tools to help the City
leverage its limited revenue. A variety of public, private and public-private funding sources
exist, some of which potentially could be used by Glens Falls. Public funding includes
federal, state, regional and local sources.

The information below, and summarized in Table 7.1, is intended to provide guidance to
the City and its planning partners, but should not be considered exhaustive, as funding
source eligibility, restrictions, amounts and requirements change from year to year. This is
particularly relevant at this time because the federal government is involved with on-going
efforts to craft the follow-on legislation to TEA-21, the six-year federal surface
transportation legislation, which may substantially affect options and opportunities for using
federal transportation funds to build and/or operate similar types of projects.

1. Capital Costs

a. Tax increment Financing Districts

One means of generating revenue for public improvements is through the creation of a
special taxing district where increasing increments of property taxes are dedicated to
finance or pay the debt service of a specified project. Positive points: easy to formulate a
district; growth potential in a developing area; simple to collect; and, has proven itself
throughout the United States. Negative aspects: difficulty in gaining support from other
affected parties (e.g. school districts).

b. Business Improvement Districts

Business Improvement Districts are special assessment districts formed to levy and
collect funds from property owners in order to finance public improvements such as
parking garages. These types of districts generally collects funds based on an assessment
per square foot of property within the district. Positive points: direct benefit to those
who are paying; proven and tested; and the annual amount is known and secure.
Negative aspects: time required to establish and priority of funding if there are multiple
projects.

c. General Obligation (GO) Bonds

GO bonds are the traditional type of bonds issued by government bodies which have
authority to generate funds for capital investments. They are backed by the full faith and
credit of the government body. Positive points: generally lower interest rates; easily
marketed due to high security; understood and respected as a method of financing.
Negative aspects: credit analysis can be complex and expensive; delays may increase
construction costs; and impacts the government body’s borrowing limits.

Table 7.1
Funding Options Summary
Type of Primary Project Key Considerations
Funding Option Typically Used For Funding Application & Limitations
Tax Increment Financing (TIF) DistrictsDeveloping areas, especially areas targeted for
economic developmentLocal Taxes Capital Must balance with other tax districts
Business Improvement DistrictsDeveloping areas, especially areas targeted for
economic developmentLocal Taxes Capital & Operating Has lead time, requires prioritizing fund distribution
General Obligation Bonds Large capital projects Local Taxes Capital Requires credit analysis; impact on gov’t credit
Revenue Bonds Large capital projects User Fees CapitalRequires credit analysis & sufficient facility revenue
flow
Air Rights Development Urban area with tight development market Private / Developer Fees Capital Requires developer interest
Condominiumization Urban area with tight development market Selling of Assets Capital Requires developer interest
Transportation and Community and
System Preservation Pilot Program
(TCSP)Community-based, multi-modal projects Federal Grant CapitalCompetitive funds; historically 100% Congressional
earmarks
Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) Urban area with tight development market Combined Sources Capital Lead time; requires private sector partner
Payment-in-Lieu of Development Fund Urban area with tight development market Private / Developer Fees Capital Requires developer interest
Member Items High profile projects State Resources Capital Requires “champion” in State Legislature
Fines/Permits/Parking TaxNew parking facilities; locations with existing fees &
permit systemsUser Fees Operating Costs of enforcement; Possible public resistance
Parking RevenuesNew parking facilities; locations with existing fees &
permit systemsUser Fees Operating Possible public resistance
FTA Section 5309 “New Starts” Program Transit supportive facilities Federal Grant CapitalCompetitive funds; requires local match; primarily
Congressional earmarks

Table 7.1 (continued)
Funding Options Summary
Funding Option
Capital OperatingLocal Taxes User Fees
Private State / Federal
Funds*Private Sector
ParticipationSpecial Tax / Assessment
Districts Competitive
Tax Increment Financing (TIF)
Districts
999
Business Improvement Districts
9999 9
General Obligation Bonds
99
Revenue Bonds
999
Air Rights Development
9999
Condominiumization
999 9
Transportation and Community and
System Preservation Pilot Program
(TCSP)*
999
Public Private Partnerships (PPPs)
9999 9
Payment-in-Lieu of Development
Fund
999
Member Items*
999
Fines/Permits/Parking Tax
99
Parking Revenues
99
FTA Section 5309 “New Starts”
Program*
999
*May require local and/or state matching funds up to 50%.Funding Source Typical UseKey Considerations

Glens Falls Downtown Transportation
Center/Parking Ramp Feasibility Study

Wilbur Smith Associates Page 34
July 2004
d. Revenue Bonds

This is the most common source of funding for financing public parking because the
bonds are secured by revenues (i.e., parking fees). This is generally considered riskier
than property taxes, however, and may have a higher interest rate if not secured by a
government body with taxing authority. Positive points: credit analysis is straight
forward; users pay for the facility; default only burdens local tax payers if the
government body guarantees the financing; usually no referendum; may not be subject to
debt ceiling; promotes good fiscal management; and tax exempt if used for public
parking.

e. Air Rights Development

This technique involves transferring or selling the rights to construct within the air space
above a property or structure in order to develop or finance the cost of construction.
The right to build on top of a parking structure, for example, may be sold to a developer
seeking to build office space. While not widely used, this strategy has merit within an
urban center and is an excellent means of reducing land cost for development. Positive
points: creates value for under-utilized space; little downside risk; and parking garage
owner usually gains ownership at some point. Negative aspects: limited experience; and
willingness of developer and to accept.

f. Condominiumization

It may be possible to sell individual parking spaces to individuals or companies and, in a
way similar to condominium, establish an owners’ association to collect fees to finance
management operations, maintenance, security, etc. This option may be particularly
attractive to business owners since spaces represent an investment and improvements
can be depreciated, offering a tax shelter for businesses. On the other hand, it also
requires that the costs associated with building and maintaining parking spaces are
perceived by would-be buyers as real and substantial. Positive points: appreciation;
private sector pays; and conventional financing if spaces are pre-sold. Negative aspects:
front-end expense at risk if project unsuccessful; lack of experience of public sector; and
lack of private sector acceptance of concept.

g. Federal Funds/Transportation and Community and System Preservation Pilot
Program (TCSP)

Federal funds have been used in the past to finance parking structures and TEA-21
established a pilot program that enables grantees to implement or plan activities that
investigate and address the relationship between transportation and community and
system preservation. FHWA administers the program through a working group which
includes FTA and TCSP activities are coordinated with the MPO and/or state
transportation planning processes. Positive points: known source of funding, relative
ease of administration; and past track record. Negative aspects: limited or restricted use
based on federal guidelines; competition for funding; and limited amount of funds.

Glens Falls Downtown Transportation
Center/Parking Ramp Feasibility Study

Wilbur Smith Associates Page 35
July 2004
h. Public/Private Partnerships (PPPs)

PPPs are a successful method of financing used throughout the U.S. whereby the private
and public sectors form a partnership or some type of arrangement which shares the
responsibility and profits associated with ownership and operation of a facility. PPPs
were initially popularized through UDAG programs of HUD. Positive points: financing
by public sector and overall support by the private sector. Negative aspects: funding if
private partner becomes insolvent; time required to structure a deal; and potential citizen
opposition.

i. Payment-in-Lieu of Development Fund

In this case, the City would establish a development or parking fund. Developers could
contribute to this fund in-lieu of providing parking or other requirements associated with
another project within the same jurisdiction. This development fund, in turn, could be
used to finance the public parking facility. Positive points: private sector pays; citizen
support high; and funding program is relatively simple to plan and administer. Negative
aspects: restricts development in a soft market; existing building owners may not
support; and relatively few have been implemented.

j. Member Items

Each year, members of the New York State Legislature obtain funding for various
special projects in their districts through “member items,” which are special
appropriations earmarked in budget bills. Typically, those seeking state funding for
projects through member items communicate and work directly with their
representative(s) to develop justifications and related information to support the
member’s request for the special appropriation. The availability and amount of funds
available through member items varies from year to year and from member to member.

2. Operating Costs

a. Fines/Permits/Parking Tax

These three techniques represent potential sources to fund operating expenses
associated with parking structures and management programs. Fines for parking
violations are collected in most cities. It is also common for cities to sell parking
permits to both regulate on-street parking and generate revenue. Lastly, parking taxes
have become an increasingly popular tool in urban communities with a high number of
transient patrons. Positive points: follows user-pay principal; instituted nationally;
administration usually in place; and sources of revenue can be increased easily and
quickly. Negative aspects: public resistance to fines and taxes; high cost of
enforcement and administration; and can discourage use of commercial areas.

b. Parking Revenues

Glens Falls Downtown Transportation
Center/Parking Ramp Feasibility Study

Wilbur Smith Associates Page 36
July 2004
Parking fees are the single most important source of revenue to cover operating and
administrative costs associated with parking facilities. Positive points: general public
acceptance; rates can be adjusted as necessary; and voter approval not required.
Negative aspects: often insufficient in early years to cover all costs; and, public
resistance to rate increases.

c. Other Sources

Some sources such as Business Improvement Districts (BID) and Condominiumization
can be sources of funds for both Capital Costs and Operating Costs.

3. Funding Specific to Transit Aspects of Facility

Certain public transit and transit-supportive facilities may be eligible for capital funding
through the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) Section 5309 “New Starts”
Program. New Starts funds are usually allocated on an 80% federal/20% non-federal
matching basis; however, there are currently Federal efforts to change the allocation to
50%/50%.

Federal law requires that proposed New Starts projects be justified based on several criteria,
including the following:

• Mobility Improvements;
• Environmental Benefits;
• Operating Efficiencies;
• Cost Effectiveness;
• Transit Supportive Land Use and Future Patterns; and
• Other Factors, including, among other things, the technical capability of the project
sponsor to implement and operate the proposed investment.
In addition, federal law requires that New Starts project sponsors demonstrate adequate local
support for the proposed project, as measured by:
• The proposed share of total project costs from sources other than from the Section
5309 New Starts program, including Federal formula and flexible funds, the local
match required by Federal law, and any additional capital funding (“overmatch”);
• The strength of the proposed project’s capital financing plan; and
• The ability of the sponsoring agency to fund operation and maintenance of the
entire transit system as planned once the guideway project is built.
In recent years, competition for New Starts funding has grown increasingly fierce, with
almost all program funding allocated to Congressional earmarks. Thus, any efforts to obtain
New Starts funding for the new facility will not only need to address the criteria listed above,

Glens Falls Downtown Transportation
Center/Parking Ramp Feasibility Study

Wilbur Smith Associates Page 37
July 2004 but also have the strong sponsorship and advocacy of members of the region’s
Congressional delegation.

Glens Falls Downtown Transportation
Center/Parking Ramp Feasibility Study

Wilbur Smith Associates Page 38
July 2004
8. Architectural Renderings of Conceptual Facility
Design

Based on the conceptual facility design described in Chapter 2 of this report, the consultant
prepared a set of architectural renderings that depict a fully-constructed Glens Falls
Transportation Center/Parking Ramp, as shown in the following pages. Assumptions were
made regarding design elements such as façade treatments, window placement and other
aesthetic features based on the steering committee’s stated desire to develop a facility that fit
into downtown Glens Falls’ architectural and historic character. A total of nine (9)
renderings are provided, depicting the conceptual facility from a variety of perspectives and
elevations.

In addition, to illustrate how the conceptual facility might “fit” into the Elm Street
streetscape, a photosimulation was also prepared (see last image in following pages). This
image depicts the conceptual facility as if it were fully constructed on the preferred site and
allows decision-makers, stakeholders and residents to understand and appreciate the
potential visual and aesthetic impacts of the facility on the existing streetscape.

It should be noted that the architectural renderings and photosimulation are conceptual only
and do not necessarily depict a final design for the proposed facility. Rather, these images
are intended to inform discussions and decision-making regarding next steps in the process
for developing the Glens Falls Transportation Center/Parking Ramp.

Glens Falls Downtown Transportation
Center/Parking Ramp Feasibility Study

Wilbur Smith Associates
April 2004
Appendix A

Phase 1 Report

Albany NY, Anaheim CA, Atlanta GA, Baltimore MD, Bangkok Thailand, Burlington VT, Charleston SC, Charleston WV, Chicago IL, Cincinnati OH,
Cleveland OH Columbia SC, Columbus OH, Dallas TX, Dubai UAE, Edmonton Canada, Falls Church VA, Greenville SC, Hong Kong, Houston TX,
Iselin NJ, Kansas City MO, Knoxville TN, Lansing MI, Lexington KY, London UK, Milwaukee WI, Mumbai India, Myrtle Beach SC, New Haven CT,
Orlando FL, Philadelphia PA, Pittsburgh PA, Portland ME Poughkeepsie NY, Raleigh NC, Richmond VA, Salt Lake City UT, San Francisco CA,
Tallahassee FL, Tampa FL, Tempe AZ, Toronto Canada, Trenton NJ, Washington DC

Employee-Owned Company
Shelburne Commons
4076 Shelburne Road, Suite 7
Shelburne, Vermont 05482
(802) 985-2530
(802) 985-8175 fax
www.wilbursmith.com
March 3, 2003

Mr. Aaron Frankenfeld, Acting Director
Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation Council
Washington County Municipal Center, A-204
383 Upper Broadway
Ft. Edward, NY 12828

Mr. James Martin, Director
Economic Development Office
City of Glens Falls
City Hall
Glens Falls, NY 12801

RE: Downtown Glens Falls Transportation Center Feasibility Study – Phase 1 Report

Dear Messrs. Frankenfeld and Martin:

On behalf of Wilbur Smith Associates (WSA), I am pleased to present you with the Phase 1 Report
on the Downtown Glens Falls Transportation Center Feasibility Study. The purpose of this report is
to provide the A/GFTC and City of Glens Falls with preliminary information on facility design
concepts and pro forma facility financial information, which will be used by those entities to
determine whether to proceed with more detailed and refined facility planning and design.

Background

In October 2002, the A/GFTC and City of Glens Falls contracted with a consultant team led by
Wilbur Smith Associates (WSA) to conduct a feasibility study and siting analysis for a Downtown
Glens Falls Transportation Center and Parking Ramp. The proposed transit center-parking ramp
facility is intended to both be a hub for the Greater Glens Falls Transit (GGFT) system and intercity
buses (Greyhound and Trailways) and provide about 500 parking spaces for daily and special events
use. In addition, the City desires that the facility include transit-supportive space, such as indoor
transit patron waiting areas, and rental retail space with street-level storefronts. It should be noted
that WSA did not conduct any independent parking demand analysis for this project; demand
estimates are based on information provided by the City of Glens Falls.

For Phase 1, the conceptual design footprint was to be developed without regard to a specific site.
Potential facility sites are to be identified and evaluated in Phase 2.

Downtown Glens Falls Transportation Center
Feasibility Study – Phase 1 Report
Wilbur Smith Associates Page 2 March 3, 2003
Conceptual Design Footprint

Based on the parking demand and transit operational parameters provided by the City and the
Greater Glens Falls Transit System, the WSA team developed a conceptual design footprint for the
proposed facility. These are displayed in Figures 1-3. The characteristics of the conceptual design
characteristics are summarized as follows:

• 250’ x 180’ footprint (45,000 square feet, or slightly more than 1 acre);

• 4 levels (about 40’ total height);

• 525 parking spaces (including disabled spaces on 2 levels);

• Exterior local transit and intercity bus parking (5-7 vehicles) under a canopied roof;

• 2,500 sq. ft. Transportation Center, including:
ƒ Welcome Center & Waiting Area
ƒ Restrooms
ƒ Vending/Newstand
ƒ Ticketing Counter
ƒ Manager’s Office & Crew Rest Room
ƒ Utility Space;

• 1,500 sq. ft. Retail Space on street level (assume subdividing into three vendor
spaces).

Facility Construction Cost Estimate

Based on national averages and typical costs for facilities similar to that presented in the conceptual
design footprint, the estimated capital construction cost for the structure only
is about $7.4 million
(see Table 1). This estimate is based on unit costs of $13,000 per parking space for the parking ramp
element and $140 per square foot for the transportation center and retail space elements. The $7.4
million estimated cost should be considered a planning figure only. It does not
include the
costs of any land acquisition, infrastructure modifications, debt financing charges or other
legal/development costs. It is also subject to significant revision based on site-specific
considerations.

Five-Year Facility Operating Costs and Revenues

Table 2 displays the five-year estimated operating costs and revenues associated with the
parking element of the conceptual facility. In Year 1, the estimated operating revenue is
about $578,000, with estimated operating costs of about $210,000. It is assumed these costs
will rise by an average of 2 percent annually. Table 3 displays the breakout of estimated
revenue streams from monthly and daily parking uses. These
are planning estimates only,
and do not include key cost items that could significantly affect the facility’s operating
budget, including financing costs and debt service. In addition, these estimates do not account
for major changes to downtown parking demand or transit usage that might occur during the five-
year timeframe used for this estimate.

Downtown Glens Falls Transportation Center
Feasibility Study – Phase 1 Report
Wilbur Smith Associates Page 3 March 3, 2003

Table 2 does not
include any operating costs or revenues associated with the transportation center
element of the facility. However, it is reasonable to assume that transportation center operating costs
would be relatively minimal. Items that would most significantly affect operating costs would include
staffing, janitorial and security services. These costs could vary greatly depending on hours of
staffing and intensity of facility usage. Regarding the retail spaces, it is reasonable to assume that rent
would cover the costs of maintenance and upkeep of those spaces.

– – – – – – –

As you know, the information in this report will be discussed in detail during our March 4 steering
committee meeting in Glens Falls. Assuming the A/GFTC and City wish to proceed with Phase 2 of
this study, WSA is prepared to proceed with the site analysis and design and financial refinement
steps needed to develop a buildable facility. Thank you for the opportunity to support the City of
Glens Falls and the Greater Glens Falls Region.

Sincerely,
WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES

Peter E. Plumeau
Associate-in-Charge

EL
23 Spaces
9 Spaces
19 Spaces
RETAIL SPACE
1,500 so/ft7 Spaces 9 Spaces
15 Spaces 15 Spaces
STAIRS
180 feet
250 feet
FIRST LEVEL 110 Spaces7 Spaces
UP / DOWN RAMP 5.5% SLOPE
Bus 1Bus 2 Bus 3Bus 4Bus 5
5 Handicap
Spaces
One Way Ped.
Walk
TRANSPORTATION CENTER
2,500 sq/ft
See Insert “A” for details
In
Sidewalk6 Spaces2 SpacesOne Way
195 feet
EL
STAIRS
23 Spaces19 Spaces
RETAIL SPACE
1,500 so/ft7 Spaces 19 Spaces
15 Spaces 15 Spaces
STAIRS
180 feet
250 feet
SECOND LEVEL 126 Spaces
UP / DOWN RAMP 5.5% SLOPE5 Handicap
Spaces
One Way Ped.
Walk
TRANSPORTATION CENTER
2,500 sq/ft
See Insert “A” for details
6 Spaces
5 Spaces One Way
EL
23 Spaces
19 Spaces 19 Spaces
23 Spaces 19 Spaces
15 Spaces 15 Spaces
STAIRS
THIRD LEVEL (Typical) 150 Spaces
UP / DOWN RAMP 5.5% SLOPE
17 Spaces
EL
ELEV.
STAIRS
23 Spaces10 Spaces
23 Spaces
15 Spaces 15 Spaces
STAIRS
180 feet
250 feet
ROOF LEVEL 139 Spaces
10 Spaces
7 Spaces
19 Spaces
17 Spaces
UP / DOWN RAMP 5.5% SLOPE
STAIRS
ELEV.
STAIRS
ELEV.
STAIRS
19 Spaces
STAIRS
STAIRS
ELEV.
STAIRS
ELEV.
STAIRS
STAIRS
STAIRS
ELEV.
STAIRS
ELEV.
STAIRS STAIRS
STAIRS
ELEV.
STAIRS
ELEV.
STAIRS
Out
SECTION VIEW ‘A’ – “A”
“A”
“A”
180 feet
250 feet
Note:
Length, width, number of spaces,
number of floors and efficiency is
dependent upon specific site
opportunities.
Potential Functional Concept
TRANSPORTATION CENTER
Glens Falls, New York
Wilbur Smith AssociatesJanuary 16, 2003
Revised: February 7, 2003 Sheet 1 of 3
Sidewalk
Canopy

Potential Functional Concept
TRANSPORTATION CENTER
Glens Falls, New York
Wilbur Smith AssociatesJanuary 16, 2003
Revised: February 7, 2003 Sheet 2 of 3
ELEV.
STAIRS
TRANSPORTATION CENTER
24’
Backout
Space4
5’
1
2
’
3
5’ B
us
1 B
us
2 B
us
3 B
us
4 B
us
5 B
us
6 B
us
7
8’ SIDEWALK
RETAIL SPACE
ALTERNATE BUS PARKING LAYOUT
(45 Degrees)
145 feet
40’
Insert “A”
TRANSPORTATION CENTER
Conceptual Layout to Show Function and Scale
Scale: 1 inch = 10 feet Total Area 2,500 Sq/Ft.
Legend:
A- Bus Info. Area (12.5’ x 8.0’) = 105.0 Sq/Ft.
B- Ticketing Counter (17.7’ x 7.0’) = 119.0 Sq/Ft.
C- Mgr. Office (12.5’ x 20.0’) = 250.0 Sq/Ft.
C-1 Restroom (12.5’ x 8.0’) = 100.0 Sq/Ft.
D-M Men’s Restroom (15.0’ x 12.5’) = 187.5 Sq/Ft.
D-W Women’s Restroom (15.0’ x 12.5’) = 187.5 Sq/Ft.
E- Waiting Area / Welcome Center = (1,283.5 Sq/Ft. and
F- Vending Areas and News Stand (15.0’ x 7.0’) = 105.0 Sq/Ft.
G-Misc./ Utility Space (12.5’ x 13.0’) = 162.5 Sq/Ft.
ELEV.
STAIRSA
B
FD-W D-M
E
C-1
C
Men’s
Rest Room
Women’s
Rest Room Mgr. Office
Vending Areas and
News Stand
Ticketing Counter
Rest
Room
25 feet
Waiting Area
Welcome Center
Ped.
Walk
100 feetBus Info. Area
GMisc./
Utility
Space
SECOND VIEW FIRST VIEW
SECTION VIEW “A-A”
Fourth Level …………. 139 Spaces
Third Level (Typical)….. 150 Spaces
Second Level………… 126 Spaces
First Level…………… 1 1 0 Spaces
GARAGE TOTAL …… 525 Spaces
GARAGE EFFICIENCY 330 sq/ft per space
Horizontal Scale: 1 inch = 30 feet
Vertical Scale: 1 inch = 14 feet
ALTERNATE BUS PARKING LAYOUT
Parallel Parking
Scale: 1 inch = 30 feet
ELEV.
STAIRS
TRANSPORTATION CENTER
8’ SIDEWALK
RETAIL SPACE
195 feet
100’
Bus 5 Bus 4 Bus 3 Bus 2 Bus 1
Bus 6
Bus 7
35’
45’
Third Level (Typical)
Second Level
First Level Fourth Level
Scale: 1 inch = 30 feet
Note:
Other bus berth layouts are possible
and are dependent upon specific site
opportunities.
EL STAIR
S
ELEV.
STAIRS
ELEV.
STAIRS ELEV.
STAIRS ELEV.
STAIRS
RETA
IL2
1
3
RETAIL
RETAIL
Transportati
on Center
40’±
ELEV.
STAIRS
STAIRS STAIRS STAIRS
ELEV.
STAIRS ELEV.
STAIRS
In
Out
EL STAIR
S
ELEV.
STAIRS
ELEV.
STAIRS ELEV.
STAIRS ELEV.
STAIRSELEV.
STAIRS
STAIRS STAIRS STAIRS
ELEV.
STAIRS ELEV.
STAIRS
TRANSPORTATION CENTER
2,500 sq/ft
See Insert “A” for detailsRETAIL SPACE
1,500 so/ft
U
P
/

D
OW
N

R
A
MP

5.
5
%
S
LOP
E

TRANSPORTATION CENTER IN
CONTEXT WITH OTHER BUILDINGS
Glens Falls, New York
Wilbur Smith AssociatesScale: 1” = 20’February 7, 2003 Sheet 3 of 3
EL
23
4J
R
23
4J
R
12’
Alley
40’
250’
Transportation Center
30’
40’
50’

Parking Element Cost Estimate
Spaces Cost per Space* Estimated Total
525 $13,000 $6,825,000
Square Footage Cost per Sq. Foot* Estimated Total
4,000 $140 $560,000
Estimated Total Capital Cost – Structure Only
Parking Spaces$6,825,000
Transportation Center$560,000
Estimated Total$7,385,000
Notes:*Includes contingency factor
Does not
include land acquisition, infrastructure modifications, debt financing charges or other legal/development costs.
Not site-specificTABLE 1
Transportation Center Element Cost Estimate (including retail space)
FOR DISCUSSION ONLY TRANSPORTATION CENTER
GLENS FALLS, NY
CONCEPTUAL FACILITY DESIGN
ESTIMATED CAPITAL COSTS – STRUCTURE ONLY
3/1/03

Facility Element Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Five
-year

Total
Operating RevenueParking $578,340 $589,907 $601,705 $613,739 $626,014$3,009,705
Operating CostParking $210,000 $214,200 $218,484 $222,854 $227,311$1,092,848
Net Revenue/Cost $368,340 $375,707 $383,221 $390,885 $398,703 $1,916,856
Notes
:
Not site-specific
Does not include any financing or debt service costs
Based on information provided by City of Glens Falls – no independent needs or economic analysis conducted
Assumes 90% average parking occupancy
All figures in current (2003) dollars
Assumed 2% annual growth in operating revenues and costs
FOR DISCUSSION ONLYTABLE 2
GLENS FALLS TRANSPORTATION CENTER FEASIBILITY STUDY – PHASE 1
CONCEPTUAL FACILITY DESIGN
PRO FORMA OPERATING REVENUE & COST ESTIMATE
3/1/03

% of spacesTotal # of
spacesAverage
occupancy
rateRevenue per
spaceRevenue basis Annual revenue Notes
70% 368 90% $60 monthly $238,140 Monthly permit holders
30% 158 90% $8 daily $340,200 Equivalent of 300 days/year
100% 525 90% $578,340
Assumptions:Not site-specific
Monthly/daily parking ratio based on typicals of similar facilities in other jurisdictions – subject to adjustment
Per unit revenue figures based on typicals of similar facilities in other jurisdictions – subject to adjustment
TABLE 3
FOR DISCUSSION ONLYTRANSPORTATION CENTER
GLENS FALLS, NY
CONCEPTUAL FACILITY DESIGN
PRO FORMA OPERATING REVENUE ESTIMATE

Glens Falls Downtown Transportation
Center/Parking Ramp Feasibility Study

Wilbur Smith Associates
April 2004
Appendix B

Candidate Site Evaluation Matrix and Site Evaluation
Results

GLENS FALLS DOWNTOWN TRANSPORTATION CENTER/PARKING RAMP
CANDIDATE SITE EVALUATION MATRIX – REVISED 7/11/03
Priority
Level
Elm St. Lot
Individual
Rating1
Prioritized
Rating2
Hudson Ave. & Glen St.
Individual
Rating
Prioritized
Rating
Civic Center Plaza
Individual
Rating
Prioritized
Rating
Clinton/School Streets Lot
Individual
Rating
Prioritized
Rating
Evergreen Bank/Washington St.
Individual
Rating
Prioritized
Rating
1
OwnershipPublic – City
11
Public Roadway abutted by private property
11
Public/private mix; Need to provide commercial space
and parkign to displaced businesses
33
Public with private rights-of-way
33
Private; need to provide parking to owner if land is sold.
55
1
Parking & Bus Passenger Proximity to Central
Downtown AreaGood access to downtown. 1,000’± walk to Library,
City Hall, and Senior housing. 2,000’± walk to Civic
Center
11
Good access to downtown. 2,000’± walk to Library, Cit
y
Hall, Senior housing and Civic Center.
11
Fair access to downtown. Short walk to City Hall,
Senior housing and Civic Center. 2,000’± walk to
Library. Must cross Hudson/Glen intersection to
access most amenities
33
3,000’± walk to Library and Downtown.
55
2,000’±
walk
to Library. 3,000’± walk to Downtown, City Hall
and senior housing. 4,500’± walk to Civic Center.
33
1
Pedestrian AccessAcceptable. Could be better from Glen and
Exchange Streets.
33
Acceptable. Access would need to be in the location of
existing sidewalks.
33
Good from both Glen St. and Hudson Ave. Good
pedestrian connections to Ridge via Linear park, if
cross walk is added on Hudson. Long delays at
crosswalks around five corners would need to be
corrected.
11
Acceptable from Clinton and Elm.
33
Good from Washington and Maple, with good connections
to Glen St.
11
1
Facility Access and Egress for VehiclesEasy auto access from Elm and Glen St. Bus access
convenient from west only; Tight access for buses
due to narrow lanes on Elm St.
33
Easy access from five corners and Hudson Ave for
auto and bus.
55
Easy access for right turn movement for bus and auto
from Glen St. and Warren Ave. Left turns difficult
across Glen (3 lanes) and Warren (2 lanes).
55
Acceptable access for autos; tight access for buses
due to narrow lanes on Elm & Clinton Sts.
33
Easy access for auto and bus from Washington St. and
from Maple St. for autos.
11
1
Context SensitivityProximity to rear of buildings on Glen St. and
Exchange St. is an important issue. Potential for
more pedestrian space in the alley. Can fit into
facades on Elm St.
11
Bridging building over road could create a discordant
façade
55
Proper design could add interesting mass to five
corners area. May be possible to use the slope and
portions of lower site to expand capacity. Potential to
add small shops near heart of downtown.
11
Building mass could work well with adjacent
buildings.
11
Structure would work well with buildings on Maple St.
Parking structure may be out of scale for smaller residential
(existing or former) structures on north side of Washington
St. Use may not be compatible with residences on
Washington
55
1
Transit Center/Bus Operations InterfaceAcceptable – location of transit center potential
conflicts between north side toward on-site drop-off,
or south side to face street.
33
Transit center on adjacent property
33
Acceptable – buses adjacent off-street.
33
Acceptable – buses adjacent on-street.
33
Good – buses adjacent off street.
11
2
Facility Traffic Impacts on DowntownPotential for some traffic impacts due to access on
Elm Street.
36
Some disruption due to covering of Hudson Avenue
36
Potential for traffic impacts with left turns and access
on primary roadways.
510
Potential for some traffic impacts on Downtown due
to use.
36
Minimal traffic impacts on Downtown traffic.
12
2
Environmental ConsiderationsGood shade trees on site. Potential hazardous
waste
36
Potential hazardous waste
12
Potential hazardous waste
12
Potential hazardous waste
12
Potential hazardous waste.
12
2
Private Property Impacts/NeedsMinimal
12
Could affect circulation on adjacent properties
36
Requires relocation of existing business and
associated parking.
510
Could disrupt rights-of-way
36
Requires replacing private parking spaces; Some
modification to bank drive-in. Compensation to landowner
needed.
36
2
Bus Operations at FacilityPotential for good bus circulation on-site
12
No turn around one way circulation.
510
Potential for acceptable bus circulation on-site.
36
Acceptable – circulation offsite
36
Potential for good bus circulation around parking garage on-
site.
12
2
Site Preparation/Utilities ConsiderationsDrainage.
12
Utilities in street must work with foundations. Overhead
wires
510
Drainage; potential retaining walls; foundation issues;
demolition of other buildings
510
Overhead wires; demolition of other buildings
36
Overhead wires
36
2
Bus Routing ConsiderationsCentral location in downtown; proximate to Glen St.
&
library
12
Central location in downtown
36
Central location in downtown; proximate to Civic
Center
12
Fringe of central downtown area
510
Fringe of central downtown area; long walks to Civic
Center.
36
TOTAL:
32 58 56 54 40
1Individual Ratings:
1 – Good
3 – Acceptable
5 – Poor
The lower the overall score, the
more suitable the site.2Prioritized rating = Individual Rating x Priority Level
SITE EVALUATION CRITERIA
PRINTED 7/14/2003
Page 1

GLENS FALLS DOWNTOWN TRANSPORTATION CENTER/PARKING RAMP
CANDIDATE SITE EVALUATION MATRIX – REVISED 7/11/03
Priority
Criteria
Elm St. Lot
Individual
Rating
Prioritized
Rating
Hudson Ave. & Glen St.
Individual
Rating
Prioritized
Rating
Civic Center Plaza
Individual
Rating
Prioritized
Rating
Clinton/School Streets Lot
Individual
Rating
Prioritized
Rating
Evergreen Bank/Washington St.
Individual
Rating
Prioritized
Rating
Displaced Public Parking Spaces94 0 50 38 75
Proposed Spaces488 364 436 379 490
Net New Spaces399 364 386 341 415
Proposed Parking Levels57 45 5
Typical Spaces per level113 58 131 92 115
Proposed Building Height50 78 40 50 50
Garage Efficiency ( s.f./space)368 440 351 330 366
Transportation Center SpaceYes Yes (on existing Greyhound site) Yes Yes Yes
Commercial SpaceYes No Yes No Yes
Number of Bus Berths (5 local & 2 intercity desired)7 – Off Street 4 – On Street 5- Off Street 5-On Street 7-Off Street
Construction CostTo Be Determined To Be Determined To Be Determined To Be Determined To Be Determined
SITE CHARACTERISTICS
PRINTED 7/14/2003
Page 1

Glens Falls Downtown Transportation
Center/Parking Ramp Feasibility Study

Wilbur Smith Associates
April 2004
Appendix C

Alternative Designs for Elm Street Site