Albany Shaker Road Corridor Study · 2017. 11. 16. · •Traffic volumes in the corridor would increase by average of 5% based on Build-out conditions •Similar growth pattern:

Albany Shaker Road Corridor Study

Public Meeting # 2

Scope / Meeting Purpose

• Initiation and Data Gathering• Existing Conditions• Public Meeting # 1 Recap• Build 2030 Analysis• Draft Transportation Mitigation Measures• Evaluation of Alternatives• Public Meeting # 2• Report• Integrate with Comprehensive Plan

This project is a CDTC Linkage Study. The Linkage Program is designedto implement the adopted planning and investment principles inCDTC’s regional transportation plan, New Visions 2040.

Study Area

Study Purpose

• Identify transportation and land-use recommendations that Mitigate the traffic concerns Enhance the character of the corridor Address safety and quality of life concerns Integrate with Town’s Comprehensive Plan

update• Public outreach approach that develops a

mutual understanding of issues and builds consensus

Livable Streets

• Provides transportation choices• Safer streets for all modes• Value communities and

neighborhoods• Promotes Community Interaction• Enhance economic growth• Quality of life

Complete Streets are streets for everyone, no matter who they are or how they travel.

Existing Conditions Public Meeting # 1 Recap

Vacant Parcels in the Corridor

Land-use/Zoning• Known development projects

under construction or in planning • Vacant parcels with probable

development density based on zoning or discussions with property owners

• Exception: one parcel for density greater than underlying zoning based on landowner discussions and site’s unique location

• Was conservative in that not all parcels would be expected to be developed within planning period

Public Meeting # 1 Recap

Existing Public Build 2030 Mitigation Public

Concerns / Issues raised

• Traffic Congestion• Safety: Speed• Side street traffic• The Crossings – Town Park• Pedestrian/Bicycle friendly• Safety : Critical Locations• Access to side streets/driveways

Consistent with Comprehensive Plan

Issues that impact quality of life in the Town of Colonie

Quality of Life

Safety and security

Traffic Congestion

Strongly support following programs/initiatives

Pedestrian accommodations

Slower speeds

Improvements in Town Parks



Traffic from New Development

• Traffic volumes in the corridor would increase by average of 5% based on Build-out conditions

• Similar growth pattern: from Albany Shaker Road to Old Niskayuna Road via Maxwell Road/Osborne Road

• Exit 4 connector, west of Wolf Road and increased capacity on I-87, will not increase traffic on Maxwell Road and the corridor east of Maxwell Road

Corridor Traffic

Mostly limited to Osborne Road

intersection

Along the entire Corridor

Traffic from New Development

• Likely increase in traffic due to development will progress slowly over time and will not have immediate impact

• Based on the CDTC STEP Model 40% of the traffic is cut-through

Hourly Traffic Variations

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

12:0

0 AM

1:00

AM

2:00

AM

3:00

AM

4:00

AM

5:00

AM

6:00

AM

7:00

AM

8:00

AM

9:00

AM

10:0

0 AM

11:0

0 AM

12:0

0 PM

1:00

PM

2:00

PM

3:00

PM

4:00

PM

5:00

PM

6:00

PM

7:00

PM

8:00

PM

9:00

PM

10:0

0 PM

11:0

0 PM

Vehi

cles

per

Hou

r (VP

H)

Albany Shaker RoadOsborne Rd to Wolf Rd

WB EB

Legend

Traffic

Existing 2016

(Typical Weekday)Practical Capacity Threshold

Impact from New Development

• Traffic will increase but will not have significant impact on traffic conditions

• Traffic will not alter the recommendations in the study



Safety: Speed

• Posted speed limit is 40 mph• Average speed is 35 mph• 85th percentile speed is 45 mph• Peak hour speeds: Near Shaker El 36/34 mph (AM/PM) Near Twilight Terrace 40/30 mph (AM/PM)

• High residential use-traffic conflict index (CDTC) leading to noise level, driveway movement, unsafe environment

Safety: Speed

Mitigation• Reduce speed limit to 30

or 35 mph • Increased speed

enforcement• Driver feedback signs

Safety: Speed

• Higher the speed, reduction in cone of visibility• Risk of serious injury increases dramatically

above 30 mph

30 MPH 40 MPH

NACTO Street Design Guidance

Recommend speed reduction to 30-35 mph

Safety: SpeedData shows that driver feedback signs are effective• In Shelburne, Vermont, radar speed feedback signs

showed a reduction in speed by 6 to 8 mph• On US Route 9 in the Town of Malta, CDTC found that

the driver feedback signs resulted in a 5 mph reduction in average speed

Recommend installation of driver feedback signs



Side Street Traffic

• Consider traffic calming measures on alternate routes to discourage regional traffic from using local/neighborhood streets Street design Education Enforcement

Locations to Consider: Campagna Drive/Marie

Parkway Emerick Ln/Briarwood Road Danielwood Drive Loudon Parkway

Side Street Traffic

• Tighten street geometry to reduce travel speed, making is less desirable

• Increased enforcement on side streets like Marie Parkway

• Feasibility of additional traffic control signs/devices



The Crossings

• Access to The Crossingspark Single access point Busier in good

weather Exclusive pedestrian

phase during peak hours add to delays Limited parking in the

park

The CrossingsM

etro

Par

k Rd

Alba

ny S

hake

r Rd

Mitigation• Access via Metro Park

Road Improve and attract by

better wayfinding Encourage and

advertise this access Increase parking

Secondary access and increased parking recommended

The Crossings Intersection

• Add leading left turn phase to signal only*

• Add crosswalk and pedestrian facilities to EB approach

• Add left turn lane• Consider mini

roundabout

Emer

ick

LnTh

e Cr

ossi

ngs

The Crossings

• Lead left-turn for WB approach• EB delay increases by 3 seconds• Reduced queues westbound• Observed increased queues

eastbound • Exclusive pedestrian phase

Signal Timing Changes August 2017

* Based on average of 5 pedestrian calls per hour

Emer

ick

LnTh

e Cr

ossi

ngs

The Crossings

Mini Roundabout• Pros Traffic calming Improved traffic flow Pedestrian facilities

• Cons Roundabout will reduce

vehicle gaps for those to turn left on side streets in the corridor

ROW impacts Costs $ 500,000 – 1

million

Mini Roundabout not a viable option

Emer

ick

LnTh

e Cr

ossi

ngs

The Crossings

Left Turn Lanes• Pros Improved traffic flow

• Cons If done within existing ROW,

lose shoulders If widening, ROW impacts Pedestrian safety Costs $ 500,000

Emer

ick

LnTh

e Cr

ossi

ngs

Widening for turn lanes to be considered in the future based on traffic conditions



Pedestrian/Bicycle

• Provide sidewalks on both sides of the road between The Crossings and Everett Road intersections

Cons Tight ROW Acquire ROW at some

locations Cost $1-2 million

Pros Improved pedestrian

connections Pedestrian safety Character of the street

Existing Pedestrian & Crosswalk Facility

Recommended option

Pedestrian/Bicycle

• Provide a dedicated path on one side of Albany Shaker that could accommodate bicycles

Cons Acquire ROW on adjacent

properties Cost implications ($ 3-5

million)

Pros Dedicated bike lane/path Bicycle safety Character of the street Complete streets

Dedicated bike path not a viable option

Pedestrian/Bicycle

• Provide/improve intersection crossing improvements at these locations: The Crossings/Emerick Lane Marie Parkway Shaker El Everett Road Osborne Road

• Provide “Share the Road” signs in locations with narrow shoulders Recommended option

Marie Parkway

• Add pedestrian accommodations

• Tighten radii and remove median

Marie Parkway

• Pros Improved pedestrian

connection Reduced walking

distance Improved circulation

for emergency vehicles

• Cons Current signal does

not support pedestrian accommodations.

Cost $ 500,000

Upgrade signal to provide pedestrian accommodations is recommended

Shaker El

• Add crosswalk to side street

• Improve pedestrian accommodations like “Yield to Pedestrian” sign

• Consider roundabout or signalization

Dani

elw

ood

Shak

er E

l

Shaker El

Mini Roundabout• Heavy east-west traffic• Low volumes on side-

street• Side street access will get

difficult• Limited Right-of-way• School bus turning• Cost $ 500,000 – 1 million

Shak

er E

l

Dani

elw

ood

Mini Roundabout not a viable option

Shaker El

• Pros Improved pedestrian

connection Easier to turn left out

of Shaker El Signalization will also

slow down traffic –more other modes friendly

• Cons Another signalized

intersection will slow traffic in peak hour

Cost $ 300,000Sh

aker

El

Dani

elw

ood

Signalization is recommended



Safety: Critical Locations

• Based on concentration of crashes and types the following priorities should be considered: Everett Road Intersection Osborne Road Intersection, particularly the westbound

approach between Osborne and Tipton Maxwell Road Roundabout

Everett Road

Road Diet Option• Eliminate second WB

thru lane• Add EB left lane• Pedestrian

accommodations

Everett Road

Everett Road

• Pros Reduce crashes due to

the merge Easier turning into

driveways/side streets Pedestrian

accommodations

• Cons Cost $ 200,000 ROW impacts

Intersection Improvements recommended option

Osborne Road

• Signal timing changes• Consider a roundabout• Other geometric

improvements to improve peak hour flow

• Consider reduction of turn radii to improve walkability

Osb

orne

Rd

Osb

orne

Rd

Osborne Road

Signal Timing And WB through lane

Osb

orne

Rd

Osb

orne

Rd

IntersectionExisting

LOS Build LOSWB thruturn lane

LOS

Albany Shaker Rd EB L D (40.8) D (40.7) C (35.5)

TR C (27.9) C (33.2) C (27.7)

Albany Shaker Rd WB L D (35.1) D (37.1) C (24.7)

T F (211.6) F (254.7) E (72.9)

R (TR) B (10.9) B (10.7) D (47.9)

Osborne Rd NB L D (42.2) D (54.9) D (59.7)

TR D (41.8) D (48.7) D (50.0)

Osborne Rd SB L C (31.5) C (33.5) C (35.2)

TR E (70.9) F (96.0) E (79.3)

Overall F (87.8) F (106.5) D (51.8)

Osborne Road

Signal Timing And SB right turn lane

Osb

orne

Rd

Osb

orne

Rd

Intersection ExistingLOS Build LOS Right turn

lane LOS

Albany Shaker Rd EB L D (40.8) D (40.7) C (32.0)

TR C (27.9) C (33.2) C (26.5)

Albany Shaker Rd WB L D (35.1) D (37.1) C (29.6)

T F (211.6) F (254.7) F (181.6)

R B (10.9) B (10.7) A (9.4)

Osborne Rd NB L D (42.2) D (54.9) D (58.9)

TR D (41.8) D (48.7) D (51.3)

Osborne Rd SB L C (31.5) C (33.5) C (32.2)

TR(T) E (70.9) F (96.0) D (52.8)

(R) C (24.9)

Overall F (87.8) F (106.5) E (76.1)

Osborne Road

Signal Timing And WB or SB lane improvements• Pros Reduce vehicle crashes Pedestrian

accommodations Reduce in delays

• Cons ROW acquisition Pedestrian safety Improves traffic flow Cost $ 500,000

Osb

orne

Rd

Osb

orne

Rd

Additional lanes- not a feasible option

Osborne Road

Roundabout• Pros

Improved traffic flow Vehicle crash reduction Speed reduction Pedestrian safety

• Cons Bottleneck effect Private property acquisition Cost $2.5 million

approximately

Osb

orne

Rd

Osb

orne

Rd

Roundabout possibly a long term option

Intersection LOS

Albany Shaker Rd EB LTR B (12.8)

Albany Shaker Rd WB L,TR D (44.5)

Osborne Rd NB LTR C (24.4)

Osborne Rd SB L,TR B (12.2)

Overall C (26.1)

Access Management

• Better access management between Maxwell Rd and Wolf Rd, including consideration of a raised median in conjunction with roundabout improvements

Access Management

Example of raised median island

Raised median recommended

Maxwell Rd Roundabout

• Improved signage• Evaluate EB thru lane

capacity to eliminate merge• Lane assignments• Reevaluate design with

current and emerging criteria

• Confirm potential impacts associated with Aviation Rd extension


• Pros Improved traffic flow Reduce crashes with

proper signage

• Cons Cost Impact due to future

development


Con

cept

ual

Con

cept

ual



Access to Side Streets/Driveways

• Center turn lane throughout the corridor (except the signalized intersections)


Shoulder ShoulderWB Lane EB Lane

5’ 5’11’ 11’

WB Lane EB Lane

11’ 11’

Center Turn Lane

10’

Using shoulders for center-turn-lane

Existing condition with shoulders on either sideCONS• No shoulders• Eliminates space for

bicycles• Increased speed and traffic• No buffer between vehicles

and pedestrian• Cost $$$

PROS• Facilitate access• Reduce turn conflicts• Decrease delays


CONS• No shoulders• Eliminates space

for bicyclesCenter turn lane is not recommended at

this time

• Not Complete Street• Less pleasant and safe to walk• Not consistent with Study

goals



Coordination with other Studies

• The Town is in the middle of update to the Comprehensive Plan and an update to the Airport Area GEIS

• Expected to be completed before completion of the Comprehensive Plan and the Airport Area GEIS

• It is expected that the Comprehensive Plan will either keep projected development densities at current levels or lower them through the Comp plan and future land use law changes. These changes should not influence the results of the ASR Study.

Schedule• Summer: Develop and evaluate

recommendations• Fall: Confirm recommendations with Team• November: Public Meeting # 2• January: Draft Report

Next Steps

• Consensus on transportation mitigation measures

• Compile public input and summarize information• Present final recommendations to the Town and

County• Draft report- January 2018

Poll Everywhere: Live Audience Participation

1. Polling screen

2. Text ALBANYSHAKERRDto join; then text youranswer(s) to 22333

3. Real time results!

Poll Everywhere Questions

THANK YOU for your feedback!

Questions

Your Opinion

Let us know what your like or concerns are :

Email: [email protected]

Fill out a comment form

mailto:[email protected]

Thank Youwww.AlbanyShakerColonie.com

Email: [email protected]

Documents

Albany Shaker Road Corridor Study · 2017. 11. 16. · •Traffic volumes in the corridor would increase by average of 5% based on Build-out conditions •Similar growth pattern: