TRUCK TRAFFIC IN

SARATOGA SPRINGS, NY
A Brief History of Problems, Possibilities, and Progress

APRIL ** 2024
 Introduction

The ‘local’ roads that run through the center of Saratoga Springs are in fact part of the state and
federal highway system that serve heavy commercial and Special Dimension Vehicles (SDVs).

These vehicles/vehicle combinations were initially authorized by the 1982 Federal Surface
Transportation Assistance Act and subsequent state legislation. Further, the 1990 NYS
Omnibus Truck Safety Bill authorized the use of 53-foot trailer combinations.

The merger of several state and interstate segments of the National Highway Network (NHN)
including 9, 9N, 9P. 29, 50, I-87, also resulted in a number of city owned and maintained street
segments to be designated “Qualifying Access Highways.” Streets designated as “Qualifying
Access Highways” serve to link the NHN and allow authorized Special Dimension Vehicles to
access the intrastate and interstate system.

Much commercial traffic and Special Dimension Vehicles (SDVs) are allowed, under federal and
state law and regulation, to run on such “Qualifying Access Highway” segments; accordingly,
their local regulation is constrained. The city cannot simply act to ban or limit heavy commercial
traffic and SDVs from its “access highways.” This was recently reaffirmed by the NYS
Department of Transportation following the previous city council’s failed attempt to apply a
weight limit restriction to Van Dam Street traffic.

It is not federal and state regulation alone that impact on a street system largely designed and
originally built to nineteenth century needs and standards. Local land use policies, competing
and conflicting state, city and intermunicipal development plans and shifting economic
conditions also contribute.

Yet, some of the very attributes and attractions that have made today’s Saratoga Springs
among the most sought out destinations and desirable places to live in the entire nation also
place political and environmental constraints on improvements that might otherwise reduce
through heavy truck traffic.

The Saratoga Spa State Park, the ‘Crown Jewel” of the state park system, other state lands,
major jurisdictional wetlands and a collection of cultural, recreational and historic properties
challenge easy, uncomplicated solutions. Moreover, conflicting public agency policies,
parochialism and inter-municipal competition and politics have played a substantial role in
frustrating problem remediation.

Large manufacturing and terminal facilities that increase the movements of SDVs through the
city have been built in Saratoga Springs (Ball Manufacturing, Logistics One, Saratoga Eagle)
and Wilton (Target and ACE Hardware) over the last thirty plus years. Ironically, many of these
facilities have been induced and heavily subsidized by government issued Industrial Revenue
Bonds (IRBs), sales tax waivers, property and school tax abatements. and zoning changes.

The inter-municipal competition for commercial and industrial tax base has frequently failed to
objectively access how major traffic generating land uses impact on both host communities and
their neighbors. and often present as competing and conflicting public policies. While NYS
General Municipal Law encourages intermunicipal coordination to consider the “… traffic
generating characteristics of various land uses in relation to the effect of such traffic … on the
adequacy of existing and proposed thoroughfare facilities …” (GML, Sec. 239 m & n), its
practical application is frequently lacking.

i
Paradoxically, the city’s vast collection of natural and cultural resources, performing and fine
arts venues and, of course, the oldest continuously operating thoroughbred racing meet in the
nation, the very assets that define Saratoga Springs and help sustain its economic strength and
diversity also stress its road system.

All of this and more have frustrated past efforts to re-route heavy and SDV traffic away from the
city’s central environment. To date, nearly every proposed “improvement” and alternative
routing plan has been resisted, occasionally by the community itself.

Still, heavy commercial truck traffic continues to rumble along city streets and through
residential areas, compromising National Historic Register properties and designated State
Urban Cultural Park neighborhoods, retarding air quality, increasing noise pollution and
pounding away at subsurface infrastructure.

Recently, two members of the City Planning Board, Bill McTygue (the former director of Public
Works, former Deputy Commissioner of Public Works), and Mark Pingel (semi-retired VP of
Marketing at OBoard, LLC, a company specializing in Computer Software Development and
Applications for business/industry), prepared and submitted to the City Council the Traffic/Truck
Traffic Draft Report of Current Conditions (hereinafter the Report).

The Report, dated September 1, 2023, is intended to “… shed light on significant traffic issues
facing our city today and, more specifically, the major traffic and safety issues related to
Broadway and congested street corridors on the city’s west-side,” and “… serve as the catalyst
for generating and unifying public support and encouraging answers from all levels of
government in developing solutions.”

The Report references past failed attempts to advance a bypass linking heavy through
commercial and SDV traffic directly to the state and federal highway network. It issues a new,
long delayed, call for action and enlists the support of city leaders and the public to finally “ …
tackle these longstanding issues …”

To provide a jumping off point and give context to the McTygue/Pingel Report, this History is
offered. It presents under one cover a summary of the previous attempts to identify bypass
routes, establish alternate truck routes, promote safety through targeted and disciplined truck
inspections and, finally, how designated “Qualifying Highways” influence policy.

It assumes that newer members of the community, some civic activists, appointed and elected
officials new to office, may not be fully familiar with past efforts to “tackle” the city’s traffic issues.
And so it is offered as a primer.

It spans a sixty-year period beginning in 1964. Much of the resource materials

were taken from a collection (archived in the Saratoga Room of the Saratoga Springs Public
Library (aka the Benton Papers). This collection was compiled over a forty-year period of
service with the Saratoga County Planning Board as well as membership of the City Council
and City Planning Board, and likely form the single most complete and comprehensive
collection of documents on the subject.

Many of these materials can also be found in city archives, records of the city and county
planning departments, the offices of the Capital District Transportation Committee, NYS DOT

ii
Region 1 and the Skidmore College Library. Those who wish to take a deeper dive into the
subject matter would be well served to begin with a visit to the Saratoga Room.

I hope this History will benefit any discussion of the current issues raised in the McTygue/Pingel
Report and allow an understanding of the scope and breath of previous work. Any factual errors
or unintended omissions are mine alone.

Lew Benton
Lew Benton

April 2024

iii
 Table of Contents

Overview.......................................................................................................................................1

Much Study, Modest Progress…………………………………………............................................4

The Saratoga Traffic Alternative Routing Study, 1998 – 2000 ............................................4

The Earlier Alternate Routing Initiatives: 1984 – 1996………………............................................7

Alternate Routing Proposals.......................................................................................................12

“Qualified Access Highways” and How They Impact the City ..........................................13

Enforcement History....................................................................................................................18

Tables and Appendices...............................................................................................................25

Table 1: Ten Qualifying Street and Highway Segments..………….............................................25

Appendix 1: Letters, Analyses, Other……………………………….………………………26

A.1983 Park Management Analysis Plan

B.1988 Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Letter

Opposing Southern Bypass through Park Land

C.1988 Letter to OPRHP Commissioner Orin Lehman

D. 1995 - 96 Dake Study Problem Identification

E.1995 Preliminary Analysis Spa State Park of East-West Bypass Alternatives

prepared by the Capital District Transportation Committee

F.1988 Letter from NYS DOT Re: Proposed Weibel Avenue Truck Route

G.1990 Letter to Town of Wilton Re: Weibel Avenue Meeting Summary

H.1988 DOT Approval of Closing Lake Avenue, Union Avenue, Spring Street,
Lower Circular & Fenlon Street to Trucks Over 5 Tons. Authorizing Finley &
Adelphi as Alternate Truck Route

Appendix 2: Acronyms...............................................................................................................27

iv
I. Overview

How to manage and improve the city’s transportation network has garnered community
interested, debate and a perplexing array of challenges for years. How to reduce heavy truck
traffic and the seemingly endless movement of Special Dimension Vehicles along city streets
has been a topic of every biennial election cycle in memory and the subject of one study and
analysis after another.

Talking about the very real environmental and life quality degradation heavy through truck traffic
impacts on the city has brought little relief or change. This History chronicles attempts since
1984 to identify a politically and environmentally acceptable “solution” to the truck “problem,” a
task made more difficult by parochialism, interagency intransigence and bureaucratic inertia.

Ten years ago the Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation hosted a lecture by Tom Lewis.
The lecture was titled “Saratoga Springs: Streets, Highways, and Preservation”. Tom, a city
resident and Skidmore College professor, has authored several books including “Divided
Highways: The Interstate Highway System and the Transformation of American Life,” which was
made into an award-winning PBS documentary. He discussed the ways that our city’s road
system contributed to its cultural and economic resurgence and the factors that threaten it.

The Preservation Foundation’s Newsletter prefaced Professor Lewis’s comments thus:

“In 1956, when President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the Federal Aid Highway Act into law,
the transportation of goods and the American landscape would be forever changed. This act
resulted in the construction of 41,000 miles of roads. While railroads had previously served as
the primary way to move goods across the United States, semi-trucks now transport 70% of
goods on our highways.

“The development of Saratoga Springs was clearly impacted by these national trends.
For example, Interstate 87, which was part of the original Interstate Highway System,
allowed for easier travel to Saratoga Springs from New York City. Built in stages
between 1957 and 1967, the Yaddo property was forever changed when a portion of
estate was taken by eminent domain to construct the Northway and Exit 14.

“Tom Lewis will also discuss how roads can either enhance or detract from the
experience of living in or visiting Saratoga Springs; how semi-truck traffic is impacting
our community, specifically our historic building fabric. He will also suggest how we
“should think about altering our traffic patterns through changes in how we park, traffic
calming devices, roundabouts, and walking and biking lanes.”

The Lewis lecture was also evocative of the many challenges and headwinds that previous
attempts to address transportation problems had faced, particularly how best to remove heavy
commercial and limit Special Dimension Vehicle moments through the city.

At the time of the Tom Lewis presentation, there was already a significant collection of
transportation studies, truck bypass proposals, alternate truck routing concepts and initiatives,
and a plethora of parking analyses dating back to at least 1964, fifty years earlier.

IIn light of renewed interest in disruptive city truck traffic, the time is ripe to remind the
community why those centered on identifying entirely new bypass alignments were largely
unsuccessful, alternative routes that were examined and those that were established, what

1
pieces of a truck routing strategy were authorized but never implemented and, finally, what
practical, incremental, low-cost actions can be taken even now.

In Tom Lewis’s telling, “improvements” to the city’s transportation system can solve one set of
needs while creating others. Additionally, improvements to the transportation system can
trigger a proportionate opposite reaction.

An early example of this dates to the 1964 when the NYS Department of Public Works (now
NYS DOT) proposed to bypass Broadway and environs by extending the planned Route 50
arterial from the Saratoga Performing Arts Center (SPAC) to North Broadway and the vicinity of
Rock Street. The proposal envisioned a new alignment following the abandoned D & H ROW on
the westside of Broadway and prominently featured a large interchange (partial cloverleaf)
centered at Ballston Avenue and Finely Street.

That same Route 50 arterial conceptual plan, principally designed to promote easy vehicular
access to SPAC, included a four-lane divided highway through several westside neighborhoods
including Franklin Square.

The tentative plan was presented to the community at public hearing on February 24, 1965.
The sheer scope of the plan and the alienation of entire residential communities its
implementation would have wrought are evident from Map 1: 1964 Proposed Saratoga Springs
Arterial Route (following page) published in “The Saratogian” on the eve of the hearing.

Today such a such a proposal would be unimaginable. At this time, it serves to remind that
transportation planning has often been blind to unintended consequences, including the
alienation of essential social, cultural and economic structures that define the community. The
1964 bypass proposal was thought by city leaders to be the death knell of already struggling
downtown commerce, corresponding deterioration of community character and the alienation of
entire neighborhoods. Of course the 1964 arterial route around Broadway was strenuously
resisted and ultimately abandoned.

2
Map 1: 1964 Proposed Saratoga Springs Arterial Route

3
II. Much Study, Modest Progress

Since 1984 there have been several reports and studies designed to move to a better, safer,
less intrusive, multi-modal transportation system here in Saratoga Springs. Many have been
supported by and funded by the Capital District Transportation Committee (CDTC), the
metropolitan transportation planning agency. Other key players have included NYSDOT Region
1, the Saratoga County Planning Board, the Capital District Regional Planning Commission
(CDRPC) and, of course, the city. In some cases members of the development community
have also financially helped underwrite study costs.

The findings of some studies have resulted in improvements to the transportation network while
others (for example, the 2006 Saratoga Springs Downtown Transportation Plan) fell victim to
political hostility or community resistance.

A significant share of the work since 1984 has centered on identifying potential bypass routes to
carry heavy commercial, SDV and other through traffic away from the Broadway corridor and
residential neighborhoods. For ease of presentation these past Bypass Initiatives are divided
into five (5) distinct parts beginning with the most recent, the Saratoga Traffic Alternative
Routing Study.

III. The Saratoga Traffic Alternative Routing Study, 1998 - 2000

The Saratoga Traffic Alternative Routing Study (STARS) was perhaps the most comprehensive
and technically competent examination of alternate long term bypass corridors and even now,
twenty-four years later, is the best starting place for any new initiative.

The STARS was shepherded by a multi-agency member task force working with the traffic
engineering firm Edwards and Kelcey. and included a detailed analysis of three (3) alternative
long term bypass corridors. It was underwritten by a $500,000 state aid.

The costs, environmental constraints and truck trip reduction characteristics of potential
alternative alignments in each study corridor were identified and presented, and a quantitative
evaluation of daily local and through tractor trailer truck traffic along each alignment was
conducted to determine which route would offer the greatest benefit.

The STARS three corridors (Northern, Central and Southern) and the alternative routes in each
are shown on Map 2, Saratoga Springs Alternative Routing Study Long Range Alternatives
(following page). The study also included projections of tractor trailer trips along the corridors
based on a cordon point analysis. Ultimately one alignment was selected from each of the three
study corridors based on the objective of minimizing truck traffic on residential streets.

4
Map 2: Saratoga Springs Alternative Routing Study
Long Range Alternatives

5
The STARS report ultimately concluded that the Alternative Route G in the Central Corridor
(see Map 2: Saratoga Springs Alternative Routing Study Long Range Alternatives) offered the
greatest “disallowance” of trucks, and was among the most cost effective and least
environmentally intrusive.

“The Central Long Term Alternative is the only one that assumes total disallowance of
through tractor trailers on Church, Van Dam and Adelphi Streets. Due to the funneling
of virtually all through tractor trailers onto to the Central Alternative route, this alternative
is anticipated to carry the most tractor trailers. Therefore, the Central Alternative route
would provide the most relief to other roadways within the Saratoga Springs network.”

The May 18, 2000, edition of “The Saratogian” reported on the Task Force’s completed study
and recommendation under the banner “Truck bypass committee OKs route.”

“SARATOGA SPRINGS — And then there was one. The city’s truck traffic. Alternative
Routing Study committee’s recommendation would divert truck traffic traveling between
Route 29 and the Northway.

“Instead of using Route 50, Van Dam and Church streets, trucks above 5 tons would use
the following bypass: Traveling east from Route 29, trucks would turn right onto West
Avenue and head south, through a portion of the Saratoga Spa State Park and onto
Route 9. The bypass would continue south to Crescent Avenue, where trucks would
turn left and head east to the Northway. New ramps would be added to the Northway at
the Crescent Avenue intersection.

“Currently, only a southbound ramp exists. Cost estimates for the project are $1.25
million for construction in the park and $6.9 million for the Northway ramp construction.
Klotz said he opposed another option which would have included West Fenlon and
Adelphi streets because that bypass would have affected too many residences.
According to Brian McMahon of Edwards and Kelcey, the civil engineering firm assisting
the committee, approximately 384 trucks would use the bypass daily. Of those trucks,
262 would be tractor-trailers, he said. Prior to voting on the plan, committee members
agreed to alter the meeting agenda and allow public comment in advance. About 75
people attended the meeting. The agenda change was prompted by at least two
spectators who said they felt slighted because the committee was voting without any
public input. Eli Del-Sette, a Saratoga Springs resident, asked the audience to give the
committee a chance.

“We aren’t all going to be happy no matter what the plan is,” he said. “But this has been
going on for years, and it’s time to get something done. I beg you.”“Klotz assured the
audience that the committee’s vote is merely a recommendation. There is much more
work and research to be done, he said. The committee also is recommending harsher
enforcement to ensure truck safety Klotz added. The committee has scheduled another
meeting May 31. At that time, Klotz said the committee will review its recommendation
and determine whether to send the proposal to the City Council. Another vote may be
taken, Klotz said.

“In addition to council approval, the plan also must be reviewed by the state Department
of Transportation. Klotz said the council would give the public plenty of opportunities to
voice their concerns during public hearings.”

6
The STARS Task Force report’s final bypass recommendations were resisted by ad hoc
neighborhood groups, failed to garner City Council support and ultimately never pursued

The STARS Task Force report, however, did not exclusively focus on potential new bypass
alignments. It also focused on the need for and the benefit of enhanced and disciplined truck
safety and weight enforcement as well as the identification and implementation of interim truck
routing along appropriate existing designated “Qualified Access Highways.” Both of these
topics are discussed in detail below.

IV. Earlier Alternate Routing Initiatives: 1984 - 1996

Prior to the 2000 Saratoga Traffic Alternative Routing Study there had been four discernible
attempts to identify an east-west bypass route primarily designed to remove heavy commercial
and SDV traffic from local streets, residential neighborhoods and away from sensitive areas and
landmarks. They are summarized following in chronological order

1. 1984 - 1985: Saratoga County Planning Board Bypass Initiative

1984 The County Planning Board proposed a two-lane, limited access, east west corridor or
bypass south of the developed portion of the Saratoga Spa State Park, The Planning Board
staff noted in a December 13, 1994, memorandum from to Board Chair William Dake, that: “The
corridor existed in part as the old Leonard Crossing Road which was displaced with the 1959
relocation of the D & H Railroad and the 1960 improvements to the Saratoga Spa State Park.”
The same memo noted that t such a route would serve truck traffic with a southern origin and/or
destination.

1985 January 3 meeting of County Planning Board Chair Dake with Ivan Vamos, Deputy
Director of the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP), and Deputy
Director Julie Stokes, suggest a“ … review a preliminary concept proposal for a southern
highway bypass around the State Park which would connect US Route 9 and NYS Route 50.”
Various correspondence is described:

In a January 4 letter to the County Planning Board, Herbert Chesbrough, President and
Executive Director of SPAC, endorsed the proposal as an “ … answer to one of the most
serious problems we have, that of getting people from the Northway to our parking lot and back
to the Northway following a performance without disrupting the entire Park and City of Saratoga
Springs.”

In a January 11 letter from Donald Geoffroy, Regional Director of NYS DOT, to Deputy OPRHP
Deputy Commissioner Ivan Vamos, stated “Larry Gordon, Saratoga County Planning Director,
may just have the right idea (about bypass route) if we can tackle this as a cooperative project.”

On January 14 Deputy Commissioner Vamos wrote to several OPRHP officials stating, in part,
“The bypass proposal is still in the conceptual stage. There are some obvious advantages in
relieving traffic along the Avenue of the Pines and in obtaining access to Kayaderoassers Creek
that would have to be considered with the proposal. There are also some obvious problems,
however. These include the potential for park land alienation and impacts on park and adjoining
wetlands.”

January 15 memo from Julia Stokes, Deputy OPRHP Commissioner, to William Dake, County

7
Planning Board chair, “We are working on our end.” The Geoffroy, Vamos and Stokes early on
reactions to the County Planning Board’s concept were interpreted, at a minimum, as
recognition of a shared traffic problem and the potential for shared problem resolution.

On February 5 the Town of Malta Town Board adopted a resolution supporting the proposed
bypass.

In a February 7 memo to County Planning Board chair William Dake, Larry Gordon, County
Planning Director, detailed the scope of the proposed route and outlined the role and function of
the several agencies involved in its review and approval.

By letter of February 15 to William Dake, the Greater Saratoga Chamber of Commerce advised
that it had endorsed the proposal.

By August 8 and November 22 memoranda to then City Attorney Richard Mullaney, Larry
Gordon presented options for land acquisition and identified the properties to be taken.

Throughout this early advocacy, the County Planning Board and its staff did not act
independently but actively sought to enlist NYS DOT, OPRHP, the city, adjacent communities,
SPAC leadership and others in developing a bypass strategy. Some of those efforts are
referenced above.

The Board was also well aware of the many traffic flow and parking problems then
compromising Park integrity. The scope of those ‘problems’ were recognized by OPRHP in its
1983 Park Management Analysis Plan and the County Planning Board sought a bypass
alignment that would also address Park transportation needs.

The analysis of the Spa State Park traffic flow and parking “problems” and made a part of the
referenced 1983 Park Management Analysis Plan (see Appendix A). Chief among the “major
problems” identified by OPRHP were:

✓ Use of the Avenue of the Pines a connector between Rt. 50 and Rt. 9
✓ SPAC generated traffic using the Avenue of the Pines as an east - west link to Rt. 50
SPAC parking
✓ Lack of road capacity to meet the demands major SPAC events
✓ Traffic congestion & its impact on the natural & built Park environment

2. 1986 - 1988: The Saratoga Springs Transportation Study

1986 - 1988 As a result of the County Planning Board efforts discussed in 1. 1984 - 1985:
Saratoga County Planning Board Bypass Initiative above and with the support of NYS DOT,
OPRHP and the Capital District Transportation Committee (now the Capital District
Transportation Council), a comprehensive study (the Saratoga Springs Transportation Study,
PIN 1802-27) was commissioned. The study work program was not limited to the southern
bypass but included “many others” to be considered by the study group and its consultant,
Roger Creighton Associates.

The Final Draft of the Saratoga Springs Transportation Study was completed in early 1988 and
included a detailed analysis of several potential east-west bypass routes, many of which would
impact lands within the Saratoga Spa State Park.

8
The Final Draft prompted an immediate reaction from the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and
Historic Preservation (OPRHP). On April 20, 1988, Ivan Vamos, OPRHP’s Deputy
Commissioner for Planning and Operations wrote to John Taylor, P. E., Regional Director , NYS
DOT, Region 1. In significant part Vamos informed DOT that “OPRHP is unalterably opposed to
any traffic bypass alternative which would require a severance of Saratoga Spa State Park west
of Route 9”.

It was difficult to comprehend why OPRHP - which had been continuously informed of the
evolving bypass proposals and was represented on the Saratoga Springs Transportation Study
group - waited until 1988 to scuttle the concept.

The Vamos letter (see Appendix B) also suggested that OPRHP would cast a skeptical eye on
any rerouting proposals even adjacent to eligible and listed city historic districts. While this
letter allowed that OPRHP recognized “ … the serious traffic problem which the city experiences
and is expected to face in the future’ and pledged “.… to work with DOT and the city to develop
solutions …”, OPRHP never recognized the seriousness of the city’s traffic problem.

The position taken by OPRHP failed to recognized that one of the objectives of an east/west
bypass was to remove heavy commercial and SDV traffic from sensitive built areas of the city
including those on the National Register of Historic Places and those designated National
Historic Landmarks. An appropriately sited bypass route would also unburden those portions of
the community in the Urban Cultural Park system.

Then, on July 13, OPRHP Regional Director William J. Kelly wrote to the County Planning
Board chair:

“Please be advised that while we wish to cooperate fully with the Saratoga County
Planning Board, any such proposals (i.e., bypass through Park) would have to be
approved or disapproved by the Acquisition Committee at the Albany Office of OPRHP.
Appropriate members of Commissioner Lehman’s staff comprise the majority of such a
committee, and it would be both prudent and appropriate for me to discuss your request
with them prior to forwarding any such plans to your office.”

3. 1987 - 1988: Public Safety Initiative

In anticipation of the Final Draft of the Saratoga Springs Transportation Study, the city’s
commissioner of public safety elect began to lobby NYS DOT and OPRHP officials to support
an east/west bypass that would not only remove significant volumes of SDVs but be an
advantage to the Spa State Park.

In a November 25, 1987, letter to NYS DOT Region 1 Director of Planning and Development
Clarence Fosdick, this commissioner-elect wrote:

“The potential advantages of a new alignment through State lands in the southern end of
the Saratoga Spa State Park seems to me significant. First, the political constraints of
an intermunicipal route are eliminated. Second, while the such a route would technically
result in the municipal alienation of public park lands, this area of the ‘park’ is
characterized by an existing land fill operating without benefit of permit, as well as an
abandoned sewage treatment facility. Third, not only does such a route seem not to

9
 violate the Saratoga Spa State Park Management Analysis Plan, completed in July of
1983 by OPRHP , but offers the opportunity to resolve many of the traffic flow and
parking concerns presented in the Plan.”

As previously referenced, the early 1988 release of the Saratoga Springs Transportation Study
was greeted by a highly reactionary response from OPRHP Deputy Commissioner Vamos (see
Appendix). In an attempt to temper its opposition, the now commissioner of public safety
reminded OPRHP that one of the stated purposes of the Study was “ … a starting point and a
focus for community and intermunicipal efforts to develop strategy.”

The public safety commissioner asked for an opportunity to argue the potential benefits of a
south Park alignment directly to OPRHP Commissioner Lehman. On May 19, 1988, the public
safety commissioner and Commissioner Lehman and senior OPRHP staff met to discuss the
range of traffic issues impacting on the Park and the city, and to identify mutually beneficial
opportunities to benefit both. As a result of the May 19 meeting. Commissioner Lehman agreed
to advocate on behalf on the city for a to be determined bypass alignment while the city
representative sought to encourage OPRHP to set aside its previous ‘unalterable opposition’ to
a southern bypass until all options were fully and objectively considered.

In a June 6 letter to Lehman the commissioner of public safety stated in part:

“While our discussion of the so-called ‘southern bypass’ was indecisive, I continue to
urge you and your agency to consider the many benefits such a route would offer the
Spa State Park and the Saratoga Performing Ares Center. The undeniable fact remains
that the ever-increasing SPAC traffic and overflow parking compromise the integrity of
the Park and its facilities” (see Appendix C for entire text).

On June 27, 1988, Commissioner Lehman advised the public safety commissioner that OPRHP
would support, and was so notifying DOT, a “southern bypass” in the vicinity of Grey’s Crossing
Road in Malta or “ … along the northern, Fenlon Street alternative.”

This alternative alignment in the far northern reach of the Spa State Park was among the
bypass routes considered in the Saratoga Springs Transportation Study, and would have
resulted in the alienation of the entire residential neighborhood centered on Fenlon Street. It
was rejected by city officials and area residents.

From the 1988 completion of the Saratoga Springs Transportation Study until 1995, the now
flagging attempts to finally identify and advance an acceptable bypass alignment that would also
effectively remove a large share of heavy commercial and SDV through traffic from city streets
fell to the wayside.

4. The 1995 - 1996 Study Committee Push

In 1995 William Dake, from his vantage point as chair of the County Planning Board, moved to
jump start the bypass discussion with now OPRHP Commissioner Bernadette Castro. This
“new” initiative once again focused on a “southern bypass” alignment north of the
Kayoderosseras in the area between Driscoll Road at Route 9 and Leonards Crossing at Route
50.

10
 Map 3: 1995 Proposed Saratoga Springs Southern Bypass

The “Southern Bypass” alignment shown on Map 3 was essentially the same as suggested by
the Saratoga County Planning Board beginning in 1984 - 1985 and was not, at least initially,
dismissed out of hand by Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation. OPRHP
opposition would come later as the proposal gained support in other quarters.

Indeed, as was previously referenced, no less than state officials Donald Geoffroy, Regional
Director of NYS DOT, Deputy OPRHP Director Ivan Vamos and Deputy Commissioner for
Planning and Operations and Deputy Commissioner Julie Stokes seemed lukewarm at best.

The Dake Study Committee’s report was accompanied by a Problem Identification narrative
(see Appendix D) and was followed by a Preliminary Analysis of East/West Bypass Alternatives,
Saratoga Spa State Park, Saratoga Springs prepared by the Capital District Transportation
Committee (see Appendix E).

11
The CDTC analysis included a description, expected traffic volumes, traffic impacts and
potential benefits of a bypass along the southern end of the Park holdings and a northern end
alternative between Fenlon Street and National Museum of Dance. It was this latter alignment
that had gained the “support” by then OPRHP Commissioner Lehman in 1988.

But, as the McTygue/Pingel Report noted, “The work of the 1995 - 96 Study Group was left
unresolved for the lack of resources as well as any determination by the city to follow through
and advance the committee’s recommendations.”

The efforts of the Dake committee did, however, open the door for the most exhaustive and
costly examination of the city’s complex and seemingly insolvable problem: the Saratoga Traffic
Alternative Routing Study summarized earlier in this History.

The STARS Task Force report’s final bypass recommendations were resisted by ad hoc
neighborhood groups, failed to garner City Council support and, as did all earlier studies and
proposals, went by the wayside. There is little record available to believe city officials ever
pursued the non-bypass recommendations of the STARS Task Force.

V. Alternate Routing Proposals

1. Failures

Beginning in 1988 the city’s then commissioner of public safety - concurrent with the ongoing
efforts to identify and build support for new bypass alignment - began lobbying NYS DOT and
the Town of Wilton to permit Weibel Avenue to function as the Rt. 29 bypass east of Broadway.
Weibel Avenue is a city street between Lake Avenue and its intersection with Louden Road.
From that point north to its intersection with Rt. 50 (approximately 1,100 feet) it spills into Wilton
and becomes a town highway. It has been DOT’s position that“alternate” routing proposals
crossing municipal boundaries - even those along designated access highways - require the
tacit approval of any minor civil division effected

The proposal presented to DOT and the Wilton supervisor noted that Weibel Avenue was, as it
is today, a Qualified Access Highway and was rebuilt using federal aid during the construction of
the Northway. The commissioner reminded DOT and the town that the primary function of
Weibel Avenue was to link Rt. 29 with Rt. 50 and the Northway exchange at Exit 15 and allow
commercial traffic easy access to the National Highway Network.

Accordingly, in September 1988 the public safety commissioner wrote Wilton Supervisor Roy
McDonald asking his town to join the city in designating the Weibel Avenue corridor a truck
route. In significant part the commissioner wrote:

“My proposal would allow for the diversion of through truck traffic from Lake
Avenue by using Weibel and the Route 50 Arterial to bring east and west bound
truck traffic through the city. The proposal requests the use of approximately
1100 feet of Weibel Avenue that lies in the Town of Wilton and only uses Route 50
south of its intersection with Weibel. The land use along the route includes a shopping
mall parking lot, two banks, an auto dealership and three fast food restaurants. The
intersection is signalized and its geometry appears adequate to permit turning moments.
The route is already a truck route by nature of its ‘access’ highways status.

12
 “Conversely, the proposal will reduce through truck moments on Lake Avenue, a major
residential area with such additional land uses as two elementary schools. a major
recreation facility and a number of churches. All of these facilities are used by Wilton
residents and are blind to political boundaries.”

Numerous subsequent meetings and discussions with town and city officials, then
Assemblyman Robert D’Andrea and John Taylor, the Regional Director of NYS DOT followed
any final resolution. By letter of October 19, 1988, to the city commissioner of public safety,
John Taylor outlined the next steps to be taken to progress the alternate routing proposal and
the role DOT would play (see Appendix F).

The Town of Wilton, however, resisted the proposal and in March of 1990 the commissioner of
public safety asked Wilton to reconsider and was invited to make a public presentation to the full
town board. The result of that meeting was memorialized in the commissioner’s March 22,
1990, letter to the town supervisor (see Appendix G). Because of Wilton’s intransigence there
has been no subsequent attempt to formally designate Weibel as the alternate Route 29 west
bound route. However, the city has been presented with two opportunities to negotiate a quid
pro quo with the town.

The first, in 1998, resulted from Wilton’s request to the city for a permit to push a large sewer
line under Excelsior Avenue, a city street. The larger line was needed to serve the town’s
burgeoning residential and commercial growth. The city administration was encouraged to use
Wilton’s request to finally leverage Weibel Avenue truck route designation. The city failed to
pursue a negotiation.

More recently, a request by the Town of Wilton Water District to expand the service area
supplied by the city’s water treatment works was approved by the city administration without
gaining any benefit.

A similar ill-fated attempt was made to designate Gray’s Crossing Road in the Town of Malta as
an alternate route to carry SDVs to Route 9 south and the Exit 13 Northway Interchange.

2. Successes

In 1988 the public safety commissioner gained NYS DOT approval to close Lake Avenue
between Broadway and Henning Road to SDVs and trucks over 5 tons. At the same time DOT
approved the city’s request to close Spring Street, Lower Circular Street and Union Avenue
(each then part of the NYS Route 9P touring route) to through truck traffic. Trucks over 5 tons
were also banned from West Fenlon, a residential street, and Finley and Adelphi Streets were
designated the alternate truck route. The authorization for these changes and other pertinent
information is in an August 29, 1988, letter from DOT to the city (see Appendix G).

VI. “Qualified Access Highways” and How They Impact the City

On December 5, 2023, the City Council unanimously acted to amend the City Code to exclude
trucks over certain limits (5 tons) from running east/west and west/east on Van Dam Street; the
prohibited vehicles were forced to seek alternate routes.

As shown in the Photograph 1 below, lower Church Street at Broadway had previously been
signed as the Rt. 29 W detour as a result of the west bound closing of Washington Street.

13
Thus, a majority of the now weight limited trucks previously using VanDam to access Rt. 29 W
and Rt. 9N began running on lower Church Street.

It was remarkable and disquieting that the City Council’s December 5 action lacked the
prerequisite steps necessary to legally exclude trucks in excess of 5 tons from VanDam. It was
equally disturbing that apparently no city staff knew that VanDam Street was a “Qualified
Access Highway”, a designation that cannot be changed by a local legislative body acting
independently.

Photograph 1: Broadway at Church Street Signage

A Qualifying Highway is a roadway designated as part of the Surface Transportation Assistance

Act (STAA) of 1982. It allows Special Dimension Vehicles (tractor trailers combinations greater
than 65-feet, tractor with 28-foot tandem trailers, maxi-cubes, triple saddle mounts, stinger-
steered auto carriers and boat transporters) and 53-foot trailers to use that highway and any
other highway within one linear mile.

Unless otherwise specified, Qualifying Access Highways may be used by all Special Dimension
Vehicles. In addition, Special Dimension Vehicles may also operate on all highways within one
road mile of Qualifying Highways (National Network) using the most reasonable and practicable
route available, except for specific safety reasons on individual routes (23 CFR 658.19). The
National Network consist of all Interstates plus specifically designated other highways, including

14
most state highways. These vehicles, or vehicle combinations, were initially authorized by the
1982 Federal Surface Transportation Assistance Act and subsequent state legislation.

Under the 1990 Omnibus Truck Safety Bill (effective November 1990), New York authorized the
use of 53-foot trailer combinations. Per § 385(3)(e) of the Vehicle & Traffic Law, the 53-foot
trailer combinations are restricted to the Qualifying and Access Highway system.

The confluence in Saratoga Springs of several state and interstate components (9, 9N, 29, 50, I
87) of the National Highway Network resulted in several city owned and maintained street
segments designated as an “Access Highway.” Van Dam Street is so designated.

Local government has diminished authority to regulate these local access roads and streets.
Imposing a weight limitation on a local access road first requires the designation of an
appropriate alternative route and approval by the NYS Department of Transportation Regional
Office.

Perhaps the entire community, City Council members and appropriate staff would benefit from a
review of all currently designated access roads in the city, as well as the way some have been
altered over time, and the process necessary to amend the system and other pertinent matters.

A visit to the Planning Department offices last December found no map or descriptions of the
city’s roads and streets designated as qualifying or access highways. To avoid further conflict
with adjacent land uses and allow for potential improvements, the role and function of these
streets must be recognized in the planning and development review process. Failure to do so
will only make the ultimate development of a comprehensive truck traffic diversion strategy more
difficult and further limit already severely limited alternate routing opportunities.

It was difficult to comprehend why OPRHP - which had been continuously informed of the
evolving bypass proposals and was represented on the Saratoga Springs Transportation Study
group - waited until 1988 to scuttle the concept.

The Vamos letter (see Appendix B) also suggested that OPRHP would cast a skeptical eye on
any rerouting proposals even adjacent to eligible and listed city historic districts. While this
letter allowed that OPRHP recognized “ … the serious traffic problem which the city experiences
and is expected to face in the future’ and pledged “.… to work with DOT and the city to develop
solutions …”, OPRHP never recognized the seriousness of the city’s traffic problem.

The position taken by OPRHP failed to recognized that one of the objectives of an east/west
bypass was to remove heavy commercial and SDV traffic from sensitive built areas of the city
including those on the National Register of Historic Places and those designated National
Historic Landmarks. An appropriately sited bypass route would also unburden those portions of
the community in the Urban Cultural Park system.

Then, on July 13, OPRHP Regional Director William J. Kelly wrote to the County Planning
Board chair:

“Please be advised that while we wish to cooperate fully with the Saratoga County
Planning Board, any such proposals (i.e., bypass through Park) would have to be
approved or disapproved by the Acquisition Committee at the Albany Office of OPRHP.
Appropriate members of Commissioner Lehman’s staff comprise the majority of such a

15
 committee, and it would be both prudent and appropriate for me to discuss your request
with them prior to forwarding any such plans to your office.”

3. 1987 - 1988: Public Safety Initiative

In anticipation of the Final Draft of the Saratoga Springs Transportation Study, the city’s
commissioner of public safety elect began to lobby NYS DOT and OPRHP officials to support
an east/west bypass that would not only remove significant volumes of SDVs but be an
advantage to the Spa State Park.

In a November 25, 1987, letter to NYS DOT Region 1 Director of Planning and Development
Clarence Fosdick, this commissioner-elect wrote:

“The potential advantages of a new alignment through State lands in the southern end of
the Saratoga Spa State Park seems to me significant. First, the political constraints of
an intermunicipal route are eliminated. Second, while the such a route would technically
result in the municipal alienation of public park lands, this area of the ‘park’ is
characterized by an existing land fill operating without benefit of permit, as well as an
abandoned sewage treatment facility. Third, not only does such a route seem not to
violate the Saratoga Spa State Park Management Analysis Plan, completed in July of
1983 by OPRHP , but offers the opportunity to resolve many of the traffic flow and
parking concerns presented in the Plan.”

As previously referenced, the early 1988 release of the Saratoga Springs Transportation Study
was greeted by a highly reactionary response from OPRHP Deputy Commissioner Vamos (see
Appendix). In an attempt to temper its opposition, the now commissioner of public safety
reminded OPRHP that one of the stated purposes of the Study was “ … a starting point and a
focus for community and intermunicipal efforts to develop strategy.”

The public safety commissioner asked for an opportunity to argue the potential benefits of a
south Park alignment directly to OPRHP Commissioner Lehman. On May 19, 1988, the public
safety commissioner and Commissioner Lehman and senior OPRHP staff met to discuss the
range of traffic issues impacting on the Park and the city, and to identify mutually beneficial
opportunities to benefit both. As a result of the May 19 meeting. Commissioner Lehman agreed
to advocate on behalf on the city for a to be determined bypass alignment while the city
representative sought to encourage OPRHP to set aside its previous ‘unalterable opposition’ to
a southern bypass until all options were fully and objectively considered.

In a June 6 letter to Lehman the commissioner of public safety stated in part:

“While our discussion of the so-called ‘southern bypass’ was indecisive, I continue to
urge you and your agency to consider the many benefits such a route would offer the
Spa State Park and the Saratoga Performing Ares Center. The undeniable fact remains
that the ever-increasing SPAC traffic and overflow parking compromise the integrity of
the Park and its facilities” (see Appendix C for entire text).

On June 27, 1988, Commissioner Lehman advised the public safety commissioner that OPRHP
would support, and was so notifying DOT, a “southern bypass” in the vicinity of Grey’s Crossing
Road in Malta or “ … along the northern, Fenlon Street alternative.”

16
This alternative alignment in the far northern reach of the Spa State Park was among the
bypass routes considered in the Saratoga Springs Transportation Study, and would have
resulted in the alienation of the entire residential neighborhood centered on Fenlon Street. It
was rejected by city officials and area residents.

From the 1988 completion of the Saratoga Springs Transportation Study until 1995, the now
flagging attempts to finally identify and advance an acceptable bypass alignment that would also
effectively remove a large share of heavy commercial and SDV through traffic from city streets
fell to the wayside.

4. The 1995 - 1996 Study Committee Push

In 1995 William Dake, from his vantage point as chair of the County Planning Board, moved to
jump start the bypass discussion with now OPRHP Commissioner Bernadette Castro. This
“new” initiative once again focused on a “southern bypass” alignment north of the
Kayoderosseras in the area between Driscoll Road at Route 9 and Leonards Crossing at Route
50.

Map 3: 1995 Proposed Saratoga Springs Southern Bypass

17
The “Southern Bypass” alignment shown on Map 3 was essentially the same as suggested by
the Saratoga County Planning Board beginning in 1984 - 1985 and was not, at least initially,
dismissed out of hand by Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation. OPRHP
opposition would come later as the proposal gained support in other quarters.

Indeed, as was previously referenced, no less than state officials Donald Geoffroy, Regional
Director of NYS DOT, Deputy OPRHP Director Ivan Vamos and Deputy Commissioner for
Planning and Operations and Deputy Commissioner Julie Stokes seemed lukewarm at best.

The Dake Study Committee’s report was accompanied by a Problem Identification narrative
(see Appendix D) and was followed by a Preliminary Analysis of East/West Bypass Alternatives,
Saratoga Spa State Park, Saratoga Springs prepared by the Capital District Transportation
Committee (see Appendix E).

The CDTC analysis included a description, expected traffic volumes, traffic impacts and
potential benefits of a bypass along the southern end of the Park holdings and a northern end
alternative between Fenlon Street and National Museum of Dance. It was this latter alignment
that had gained the “support” by then OPRHP Commissioner Lehman in 1988.

But, as the McTygue/Pingel Report noted, “The work of the 1995 - 96 Study Group was left
unresolved for the lack of resources as well as any determination by the city to follow through
and advance the committee’s recommendations.”

The efforts of the Dake committee did, however, open the door for the most exhaustive and
costly examination of the city’s complex and seemingly insolvable problem: the Saratoga Traffic
Alternative Routing Study summarized earlier in this History.

The STARS Task Force report’s final bypass recommendations were resisted by ad hoc
neighborhood groups, failed to garner City Council support and, as did all earlier studies and
proposals, went by the wayside. There is little record available to believe city officials ever
pursued the non-bypass recommendations of the STARS Task Force.

VII. Enforcement and Lack Thereof: Then and Now

1. Traffic Safety Division: Developing a Traffic Safety Ethic

In 1988, the Department of Public Safety, with City Council support, moved to establish a Traffic
Safety Division within the Police Department.

This action followed the community’s demand for a dedicated, disciplined approach to the
perceived limited enforcement of Vehicle and Traffic Law, including the prohibition of
overweight/unsafe trucks, and speeding/reckless driving. A matrix was put in place to measure
outcomes, including the enforcement program’s impact on motor vehicle accident rates and fine
revenue.

The city budget was amended to include a separate “Truck Fine” line that allowed a simple but
meaningful review of program revenues v. expenditures. The Public Safety administration
presented periodic statistical reports to the City Council and the public detailing the type and
number of Vehicle and Traffic Law citations issued as well as analyses of commercial vehicle
inspection outcomes and type and number of “truck tickets” issued.

18
The department trained and equipped a three-member team commanded by a lieutenant and
augmented by the Patrol Division. The team, frequently working with the NYS DOT and the NYS
Police, and employing acquired portable truck scales, became fully functional in 1990 - 1991.

The rigorous commercial vehicle inspection program was begun with the goal of removing from
service overweight and unsafe trucks traveling city streets. Anecdotal knowledge also
suggested that the truck enforcement efforts of the Traffic Safety Division served to encourage
potential offenders to seek routes outside the city.

Such reports also served to remind the public to drive responsibly, obey all traffic control
devices and posted speed limits.

2. Significant Results: Safer Street, Fewer Accidents and Injuries

The immediate results of this new initiative were measurable and remarkable. During the five-
year period prior to the establishment of the Traffic Safety Division (1993 – 1997) the average
annual number of Uniform Traffic tickets issued was 2,145 (see Chart 1). During the early years
following establishment the average annual issued tickets jumped to 3,276, a 52.7% increase.
In 1993 the Traffic Safety and Patrol Divisions issued 4,603 V & T citations, more than double
the average annual output during the 1983 - 1987 period. (see charts 1, 2 and 3)

And with this increase in Vehicle and Traffic Law enforcement the number of reported vehicular
accidents and accident-related injuries in the city decreased dramatically, from 1,619 and 561
respectively in 1989 to 1,192 and 315 in 1992. (see charts 1, 2 and 3 on the next pages)

19
 Chart 1: Vehicle and Traffic Tickets Issued in Five Year Period,
1983 - 1987, Prior to Creation of Traffic Safety Division
6250

During the five year period,1993 - 1997, prior to the establishment of

5000 the Traffic Safety Division the average annual number of Uniform
Traffic tickets issued was 2145.

3750

2,232 2,340 2,234

2500 2,154
1,765

1250

0
1983 1984 1985 1986 1987

Chart 2: Vehicle and Traffic Law Tickets Issued in First Six Years,
1988 - 1993, After Creation of Traffic safety Division
5,000 4,603

Following establishment the average annual issued tickets jumped

3,687
3,750 to 3276, a 52.7% increase. In 1993 the Traffic Safety and Patrol
Divisions issued 4603 V & T citations, more than double the average
2,986 annual 2,867
output during the 1983 - 1987 period.
2,613 2,613
2,500

Average Annual Output 3276

1,250 Annual High 4603 in 1993

0
1989 1990 1991 1992 1992 1993

20
 3. Commercial Vehicle and Special Dimension Vehicle (SDV) Enforcement

With the launch of city’s commercial and SDV enforcement program in 1991, the Department of
Public Safety began gauging its effectiveness by, in part, monitoring the number and type of
issued “truck tickets.”

These data were presented by specific Vehicle and Traffic Law violation: for example, log book
violation, unsecured load, overweight, over length, over width and out of service violation.
Annual tabular summaries included number and type of citation by month.

Safe commercial truck inspections are weather sensitive and most were conducted in late
spring, summer and early fall.

Chart 3: Truck Tickets Issued by Traffic Safety Division and Vehicles Removed from
Service, 1991 – 1994
The End of the Traffic Safety Division and Aftermath

625 Out of Service Total Citations

500

142

150
375

340
106
286
250

214
66
125
119

0
1991 1992 1993 1994
As early as 2000, and during the drafting of the Saratoga Traffic Alternative Routing Study,
there were signs that Traffic and Vehicle Law enforcement was waning and the truck inspection
program was in decline.

21
The robust enforcement initiative begun with the establishment of the Traffic Safety Division in
1988 - 1989 and the truck inspection program that followed had lapsed by 2011.

By 2012 only 1,214 traffic tickets were issued and annual reports for the years 2013 through
2019 did not even report V & T Law citation. Since 2020 average annual ticket production has
dropped below pre-Traffic Safety Division output and there have been no truck inspection and
citation data reported since 2016, when a total of only 11 trucks were removed from service.
The precipitous decrease is shown graphically in Chart 4.

The Traffic Safety Division ceased to exist as a separate entity and a “Traffic Division” was
folded into the department’s Administrative Services Unit. What remains is a “traffic sergeant”
overseeing the Animal Control/Parking Enforcement officers.

Chart 4: Vehicle and Traffic Law Citations (Exluding Truck

Tickets), Ten Year Increments, 1983 - 2023
5000

4,603

3750

2500
2,602

2,232

1,683
1250
1,214

0
1983 1993 2003 2013 2023

While the rapid decline in traffic safety programming and T & T Law enforcement was
undoubtedly partially attributable to the layoffs in fiscal year 2010. Even as it became evident

22
that such staff reductions were driven by a poorly crafted budget that underestimated revenue
there was, apparently, no move to restore the function.

The city failed to recognize the negative impact on revenue driven by police department layoffs.
Of course the significant increase in Vehicle and Traffic Law enforcement and the initiation of
commercial vehicle inspections also resulted in increases in revenue. From its earliest inception
until 2014, the program routinely generated well over $200,000 annually.

In 1997 alone the program contributed over $258,000 ($499,000 in 2024 dollars) to the city
revenue budget But by 2014 total revenue had decreased to under $200,000 and truck ticket
fines produced only $4,574.

By 2015 there was no longer ANY truck enforcement generated revenue and there has been
none since. In 2019 non-truck Vehicle and Traffic Law fines were down to $93,000 and in 2022
an insignificant $37,116 was collected.

Chart 5 on the following page traces program revenue over the years and evidences its steep
decline.

23
 Chart 5: Vehicle & Traffic Law Ticket Revenue (Including Truck Ticket Revenue)
1995 - 2022
375000

300000 $287,859.00

$258,389.00 $259,921.00
$252,279.00 $247,772.00
$244,245.00
$243,042.00
$237,837.00
$234,129.00
$232,916.00
$224,961.00
$220,776.00
225000 $214,808.00
$198,505.00 $202,404.00
$187,061.00
$184,963.00
$176,691.00
$166,581.00 $167,542.00
$162,164.00
$143,877.00 $140,271.00
150000

$118,989.00

$93,078.00

75000

$37,116.00
$32,963.00
$26,015.00

0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021

24
 TABLES AND APPENDICES

TABLE 1
Lists and defines the limits of the ten qualifying street and highway segments in
Saratoga Springs

No. Description Location/Information

1. Highways designated as qualifying or access 17 NYCRR PART 8000 17 NYCRR
highways for larger dimension vehicles sources PART 8100 ACCESS HIGHWAYS
2. Adelphi Street Finley Street to US 9 (Broadway) in City of Saratoga Springs
the City of Saratoga Springs. (SARATOGA)
3. Excelsior Avenue Veterans Way to Maple Avenue City of Saratoga Springs
South in the City of Saratoga Springs. (SARATOGA)
4. Finley Street NY 50 (Ballston Avenue) to Adelphi City of Saratoga Springs
Street (SARATOGA)
5. Geyser Road see CR 43
City of Saratoga Springs
(SARATOGA)
6. Maple Avenue South Excelsior Avenue to Putnam City of Saratoga Springs
Street (SARATOGA)
7. Marion Avenue NY 50 to Excelsior Avenue City of Saratoga Springs
(SARATOGA)
8. Putnam Street Maple Avenue South to Spring Street City of Saratoga Springs
(SARATOGA)
9. Weibel Avenue NY 29 to NY 50 (1.2 miles) City of Saratoga Springs
(SARATOGA)
Town of wilton
(WILTON)
10. West Avenue NY 29 to NY 9N (Church Street) City of Saratoga Springs
(SARATOGA)
[SEE RESTRICTION # 10]
11. Van Dam Street NY 50 to Church Street City of Saratoga Springs
(SARATOGA)

25
 APPENDIX 1: Letters, Analyses, Other

Date Description
1983 Park Management Analysis Plan
1988 Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Letter Opposing Southern
Bypass through Park Land
1988 Letter to OPRHP Commissioner Orin Lehman
1995-96 Dake Study Problem Identification
1995 Preliminary Analysis Spa State Park of East/West Bypass Alternatives prepared
by the Capital District Transportation Committee
1988 Letter from NYS DOT Re: Proposed Weibel Avenue Truck Route
1990 Letter to Town of Wilton Re: Weibel Avenue Meeting Summary
1988 DOT Approval of Closing Lake Avenue, Union Avenue, Spring Street, Lower
Circular & Fenlon Street to Trucks Over 5 Tons. Authorizing Finley & Adelphi as
Alternate Truck Route

26
 APPENDIX 2: Acronyms

Description Acronym
Special Dimension Vehicles SDVs
Saratoga Performing Arts Center SPAC
Special Dimension Vehicles SDVs
Saratoga Performing Arts Center SPAC
Capital District Transportation Committee CDTC
Saratoga Traffic Alternative Routing Study STARS
NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic OPRHP
Preservation
Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 STAA
Qualified Access Highways are a part of STAA ** **

27