Town of Ithaca Transportation Plan Executive Summary

Town of Ithaca Town Board April 25, 2007

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION................................................................ ................................................................................................ ........................................................................................ ........................................................ 1 OUTREACH & PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ................................................................ ........................................................................................... ........................................................... 1 GOALS OALS & OBJECTIVES ................................................................ ................................................................................................ .............................................................................. .............................................. 1 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS ................................................................ ................................................................................................ ....................................................................... ....................................... 3
THE TOWN OF ITHACA ...............................................................................................................................3 POLICY, PLANNING, & FUNDING ................................................................................................................3 DEMOGRAPHIC & TRANSPORTATION PROFILE ..............................................................................................4

INVENTORY & ANALYSIS ................................................................ ................................................................................................ ........................................................................... ........................................... 4

STATE HIGHWAYS & COUNTY & TOWN ROADWAYS .......................................................................................4 The Official Highway Map & Road Network Design .............................................................4 Roadway Function & Right-of-Way Design ...........................................................................5 Traffic Data: Volumes, Speeds, & Crashes.........................................................................6 Pavement Maintenance.........................................................................................................8 AUTO ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................................................................9 Bus Transit & Paratransit .....................................................................................................9 Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities ............................................................................................11 ADDITIONAL TRANSPORTATION MODES .....................................................................................................12 OTHER TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM ISSUES ................................................................................................13 The Natural Environment.....................................................................................................13 Regional Development.........................................................................................................14 Public Health.........................................................................................................................15

ALTERNATIVES ................................................................ ................................................................................................ ...................................................................................... ...................................................... 16 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................ ................................................................................................ .............................................................................. .............................................. 16
ROADWAY & ROAD NETWORK ISSUES ......................................................................................................16 BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN ISSUES ..............................................................................................................17 TRANSIT ISSUES ....................................................................................................................................18 REGIONAL COOPERATION ........................................................................................................................19 CAPITAL BUDGET PROJECTS ....................................................................................................................19 ZONING, SUBDIVISION, & SITE PLAN REVIEW ............................................................................................20

CREDITS & WORKS CITED ................................................................ ................................................................................................ ...................................................................... ...................................... 21

INTRODUCTION
This Transportation Plan grew out of the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan of 1993, which recognized a need for a close look at the transportation system to identify needs and to guide decision-making. The Town Transportation Committee, a committee of Town Board, Planning Board, and Cornell representatives, began working on the Transportation Plan in 2003. The writing of the Plan was performed by Planning Department staff, with technical assistance from the Town Engineering and Public Works Departments. The Transportation Plan is a long-range plan (with a general horizon of 20 years) that defines a community vision of how the transportation system should develop and what it should become. The Transportation Plan has three volumes, plus this Executive Summary. In Volume I: The Plan, the Inventory Chapter examines every aspect of the transportation system, from the anatomy of a typical right-of-way to the relationship between transportation and the natural environment. The Alternatives Chapter outlines alternative solutions to meet each need, gives the advantages and disadvantages of each, and provides the rationale for the direction of the Plans recommendations. The Recommendations outline actions that will meet the needs identified in the Inventory, based on the vision set forth at the beginning of the Plan. Volume II: The Appendices includes maps, tables, and other supplemental information. Volume III: The Design Guidelines outlines the best practices for designing a transportation network, including right-of-way design, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and traffic calming.

Over the course of the development of the Plan, the Transportation Committee hosted a series of three public informational meetings. The purpose of the meetings was to keep the public informed on the progress of the Plan and to obtain feedback on specific sections of the Plan as they were completed. In addition to these three meetings, three formal public hearings were held as part of the environmental review of the Plan. Finally, a form on the Transportation Plans website (http://www.town.ithaca.ny.us/trans) allowed stakeholders to submit their comments directly to the Planning Department.

GOALS & OBJECTIVES

The overall mission of the Transportation Plan is to foster a transportation system that enhances the quality of life in the Town. The Plan envisions a multimodal transportation system that is compatible with the Towns growth objectives as expressed in the Comprehensive Plan, sensitive to the built and natural environments, and accessible to all. The Plan has seven main goals. Each of the goals has a set of objectives, which describe what must happen to achieve the goal. The Goals & Objectives are: Access and Mobility Goal: Develop and maintain a multi-modal transportation system that provides for the effective movement of people and goods. Accessibility for all is a Objectives: theme of this Plan. Develop a transportation system that serves the mobility interests of Town residents and businesses, while recognizing the interests of through traffic. Develop a multi-modal transportation system that includes appropriate public transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. Livability Goal: Develop and maintain a transportation system that promotes safe, healthy, and attractive neighborhoods. Objectives: 1

OUTREACH & PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Public participation has been an important part of the creation of this Transportation Plan. In the fall of 2003, the Town Transportation Committee initiated a survey to gauge Town residents travel habits and attitudes. The survey focused on residents opinions concerning the current transportation system and hopes for a future system. The data obtained from the survey guided the creation of the Goals and Objectives and, hence, the Plan as a whole.

Employ road design guidelines that encourage compliance with posted speed limits and protect neighborhoods from undue traffic burdens, such as noise and air pollution. When modifying or rebuilding roads in residential areas, work to beautify streetscapes, restore roadways to a human scale, and improve the character and livability of the neighborhoods through which they pass.

Safety Goal: Strive to provide a safe transportation system and prioritize safety and security in the implementation of every goal for both motorized and non-motorized modes of transportation. Objectives: Monitor the transportation system using crash, speed, sight distance, and other types of data to identify and mitigate safety problems. Work to lower 85th percentile speeds on certain roads through design changes, and continue to request NYSDOT to lower speed limits on certain roads. Implement a transportation safety program, including elements of education, enforcement, and engineering. Transportation System Management Goal: Preserve and maintain the transportation system. Objectives: Work to ensure that sufficient capital resources are available to maintain the transportation system. Preserve current and planned rights-of-way for the transportation system. Periodically update the Town Transportation Plan to reflect changes within the transportation system and the consequent evolution of transportation-related problems, needs, and solutions. Coordination Goal: Work with other local and regional organizations to ensure a regionally coordinated transportation system. Objectives:

Continue to explore opportunities for increased inter-municipal sharing of facilities, equipment, labor, knowledge, and expertise. Support the establishment of community and regional pedestrian and bicycle facilities throughout the County. Land Use Planning Goal: Ensure that future development minimizes adverse impacts on the current and future transportation Transportation issues are often multisystem by promoting jurisdictional, requiring cooperation. development patterns that reduce the need for and use of automobiles and encourage the use of alternate modes of transportation. Objectives: Consider transportation impacts when making land use decisions, and consider land use impacts (in terms of land use patterns, densities, and designated uses) when making transportation-related decisions. Relate the scale and concentration of development to what can be supported by the transportation system, according to the Town Comprehensive Plan. Environment Goal: Protect the environment, including the significant natural, agricultural, scenic, and historic resources of the Town of Ithaca. Objectives: Consider the environmental consequences of transportation decisions and minimize negative impacts on the natural environment whenever reasonable and to the greatest possible degree. Work to reduce the negative effects of motor vehicle over-dependence, including detriments to open space and air quality, by reducing the number of vehicles on the road and the average distance and duration of trips.

BACKGROUND CONDITIONS
Many non-transportation related factors affect the transportation system, including the history, geography, and demographics of an area and policies at the national, state, regional, and local level. The Background Conditions Chapter of the Plan discusses these factors, among others, to understand the context within which the local and regional transportation system operates. A transportation system includes physical infrastructurelike roads and walkwaysas well as the governments policies and the publics personal choices relating to transportation. A transportation network refers to physical infrastructure, like roadways and sidewalks.

POLICY, PLANNING, & FUNDING

Policies and programs at the federal, state, regional, and local level affect the Towns transportation system. The current federal transportation bill, renewed during the summer of 2005, is called SAFETEA (Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act). This legislation focuses on the safety and security of the nations highway system, but it also offers opportunities for bicycle and pedestrian programs, including Safe Routes to School programs, funding for the Congestion Mitigation Air Quality program, including the conversion of diesel buses to cleaner fuels, and funding to improve transit in small cities (with populations of fewer than 200,000 people). New York State allocates federal transportation funds via programs such as the Transportation Enhancement Programs (TEP), the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), and the Consolidated Local Street and Highway Improvement Program (CHIP). In addition to these programs, the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), which established a process to examine the environmental impact of certain actions, affects transportation-related decisions. Regional and local transportation policies generally originate with the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the area, the Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council (ITCTC). The ITCTC is responsible for three main activities: the Unified 3

THE TOWN OF ITHACA

The Town of Ithaca encircles the City of Ithaca in Tompkins County in the Finger Lakes region of Upstate New York. The regions glacial topography is marked by long, narrow lakes, which were formed when the glaciers retreated, and deep gorges, which were cut by the creeks that flow to the lakes, often forming spectacular waterfalls. The steep slopes throughout the Town influenced historical settlement patterns, which in turn affected the location of transportation routes that are still in use today. The Town of Ithaca was established in 1821. Historically, the Town was a rural, agricultural place. Between World War II and today, the Towns population grew dramatically, and suburban development increasingly took the place of farms. Low-density residential development contributes to the prominence of the privately-owned motor vehicle, as in many suburban areas throughout the country. The academic, research, commercial, and real estate activities of the institutions of higher education in the area (Cornell University and Ithaca College) Ithaca is famous for its natural beauty. contribute to the areas vibrant, yet small town feel, its economy, and the diversity of its residents.

Planning Work Program (UPWP), the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), and the Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). Town policies that affect transportation include the Comprehensive Plan of 1993, the Subdivision and Zoning Chapters of the General Code, and the Interim Sidewalk Policy of 2003. Please see the complete Plan for more information on transportation policies and other related regional transportation plans.

social or recreational business, and work, in that order. Residents traveled the greatest number of miles for weekend social or recreational trips, followed by weekday or weekend family or personal business and weekday trips to earn a living. Finally, the average length of a vehicle trip is longest for earning a living (during the week) or social and recreational trips (on the weekend). The privately-owned motor vehicle is the most popular mode choice for area residents, followed by walking. Between 1995 and 2001, however, the percentage of trips made in a private vehicle dropped from nearly 90% to 86.5%, while the percentage of trips made on foot increased from 5.6% to 8.6%. For more information about the demographic and transportation profile of Town residents, please see the complete Transportation Plan, as well as Volume II: The Appendices, Appendix II, Supplementary Tables.

DEMOGRAPHIC & TRANSPORTATION PROFILE

Demographics, such as population distribution, household size, and age distribution, affect the transportation system. According to the 2000 Census, the Town of Ithaca is home to around 18,710 residents. The majority of residents live on East Hill, but population growth on South Hill has accelerated while the population on East Hill has actually declined over the past ten years. As of 2000, about 43% of Town residents lived on East Hill, 42% lived on South Hill, and 16% lived on West Hill. Also, many workers in the City and Town of Ithaca and Tompkins County do not live in the area. Many of the commuters travel through the Town to reach their jobs in the City, affecting traffic patterns, transit demand, and so on. Household sizes in the Town decreased from 2.40 to 2.25 persons between 1990 and 2000, according to Census data. Trip generation rates are related to the number of persons per household, because small households tend to generate more trips per person than larger households. This translates to more vehicle trips with lower vehicle occupancy. The 2000 Census shows that residents between the ages of 18 and 24 account for nearly 40% of the Towns populationnot surprising, given the presence of Ithaca College and Cornell University. According to statistics from the Census Bureau, students are more likely to walk and less likely to drive to work or to school. According to the National Personal Transportation Survey (1995) and the National Household Travel Survey (2001), the highest percentage of trips made by area residents are for family or personal business, 4

INVENTORY & ANALYSIS

The purpose of the Inventory & Analysis Chapter is to examine the Town of Ithacas transportation system to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the current system. Once an inventory of the system is complete, it is necessary to analyze the inventory to identify ways in which the system could be improved to meet the previously outlined goals.

STATE HIGHWAYS & COUNTY & TOWN ROADWAYS The Official Highway Map & Road Network Design
The Town of Ithaca is uniquely shaped like a square with a hole in it. The City of Ithaca is in the center, and the remainder of the County surrounds the perimeter. This means that much of the traffic in the Town is traveling into or out of the City. Furthermore, the Town is segmented like a pie cut into slices by the creeks and gorges that converge in the Inlet of Cayuga Lake. This unique geography and hydrology means that many roads in the Town radiate outward from the City of Ithaca, while circulation in the Town is restricted because of the gorges.

The current road network of the Town of Ithaca is shown in the Towns draft Official Highway Map, included in Volume II, Appendix I of the Transportation Plan. The purpose of an Official Highway Map is to state in the public record the specific locations of existing and proposed streets, highways, parks, and sometimes drainage systems. By fixing the location of both existing and proposed infrastructure, the Map intends to prevent development within the right-ofway. Roads owned and maintained by the Town are mostly low to moderate-speed, two-lane roads serving residential land uses. The driveways on Town roads generally do not have access controls, and existing Town roadways do not have bike lanes, and most do not have walkways adjacent to the roadway. The Town does not anticipate major new roads outside subdivisions within the Town, with the exception of three new roads. Roads that have been approved but not yet built include the extension of Conifer Drive from Mecklenburg Road through the remaining lands of Conifer LLC through the Perry property up to Bundy Road and the future road shown on the Overlook at West Hill Subdivision map, which loops from Trumansburg Road to Hayts Road. On the Towns Official Highway Map, these roads are shown with a dashed line. The Official Highway Map indicate the location of a potential future roadway corridor that connects the extension of Conifer Drive to Overlook using a cross-hatched strip. This right-of-way has not been formally proposed or approved. Another potential roadway that has received attention in recent years is a Northeast bypass road, which could help to keep traffic out of residential areas on East Hill in the Towns of Ithaca, Dryden, and Lansing.

The 1999 Northeast Subarea Transportation Study (NESTS) called for a design and feasibility analysis for this potential connector. Finally, Recommendation Seven of NESTS called for a connector road between Pleasant Grove Rd. and the Thurston Ave. bridge that would act as a gateway to the Cornell campus and would help to divert unnecessary through-traffic out of the residential Forest Home neighborhood. The Town is currently exploring this option with Cornell University, but it is not shown on the draft Official Highway Map. This section of the Plan identified the following needs: Adoption of an updated Official Highway Map; Design guidelines to ensure that adequate rightof-way is reserved; Continued cooperation with Tompkins County Highway Department and NYSDOT; A Planned Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Map to serve as a non-motorized Official Map.

Roadway Function & RightRight-ofof-Way Design

Functional classification is the system that attempts to classify each road according to its role in the road network. The functional classification system is made up of arterial roads, collector roads, and local roads. Ideally, an arterial road carries relatively intense traffic, and land access to arterials is subordinate to the traffic flow on the arterial itself. Conversely, local roads are intended to carry lower traffic volumes with lower speeds and should provide the highest level of access within land uses and access to higher levels of the functional classification system. Collectors fall somewhere in between. Roads and highways are eligible for federal funding based on their functional classification. Classifying roads is a necessary part of the funding process. A roads functional classification typically influences its design, or its geometrics. Design parameters, such as the design speed, the maximum curvature of the road, and lane widths, are associated with each functional classification. In order to acquire funding for a roadway project, in general the design must comply with the standards associated with the roadways functional classification.

This diagram shows a sample right-of-way.

right-of-way reserved by the Town at the time of the subdivision approval is inadequate for the provision of facilities beyond a two-lane road. As the number of subdivisions and commercial centers across the Town increases, it will be difficult to link nodes of activity with facilities for non-motorized travel if the basic physical and policy infrastructure for non-motorized transportation is not in place. For more detail, please see the Bicycle and Pedestrian Section in this summary and in the complete Plan. This section of the Plan identified the following needs: Design guidelines that match the physical design of the road to its function in the roadway network, and vice versa; are compatible with adjacent land uses; are flexible enough to reflect changing needs and to provide for anticipated future needs; and that elicit safe driver behavior; Consideration of bicycle and pedestrian facilities as normal, expected aspects of a roadway; Continued cooperation with the ITCTC and NYSDOT to ensure that roads are classified correctly; Identification of opportunities where it may make sense for the Town and the County to swap responsibility for certain roads (the Town giving higher classified roads to the County, and the County giving lower classified roads to the Town).

The functional classification system is not perfect. It assumes that longer trips will be concentrated on a few major roads, while minor roads collect traffic at the beginning of trips and disperse it at the end of trips. This is not the onlyor even the besttype of road network; the grid of urban streets disperses traffic, so the burden is not concentrated on any one neighborhood. Furthermore, existing roads often do not fit into the predefined hierarchy. Conflict between the designated functional classification, the actual use of the roadway, the design of the roadway, and the adjacent land uses often results in the facilitation of through movements at the expense of neighborhood livability. Compounding the negative effects on neighborhood livability is the practice of over-designing roads, meaning that roads are sometimes wider, flatter, and straighter than they need to be. Designs based solely on the design vehicle, design speed, design driver, design year, and design volume focus on people who are going somewhere, instead of the people who already are somewhere. In the Town of Ithaca, the lack of sidewalks, bicycle lanes or adequate shoulders, and other infrastructure for non-motorized travel sets a dangerous precedent for the long-term development of the Towns transportation system. Many existing neighborhoods have no bike or pedestrian infrastructure (not even for circulation within a subdivision). Often the size of the 6

Traffic Data: Volumes, Speeds, Speeds, & Crashes

This section of the Plan examines volume, speed, and crash data to identify roads with quantifiable traffic problems. This Plan uses several types of data from several sources. Most of the data is collected using automatic traffic recorders (ATRs), which record the number, speed, classification (type), and time of vehicles passing a point on a roadway.

Volume & Congestion

Traffic volume and congestion are measured in several ways. Transportation engineers collect volume data by determining the number of vehicles that pass the date collection site in one day (the Average Daily Traffic, or ADT). Seasonal, climactic, and other variables can be factored into volume counts to determine the average daily traffic passing a data collection site over the course of a year, or the Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT).

It is impossible to use ADT or AADT to compare congestion on different roads, though, because they are absolute measures of volume. Vehicle Capacity Ratio The prominence of single(VOC), on the other hand, occupant vehicles is one of the considers both the major causes of congestion. volume of traffic and the capacity of the road. It is a relative measure of congestion that can be used for different types of roads with different volumes. Intersection capacity is measured via Level of Service (LOS), which is defined in terms of delay (a measure of driver discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption, and lost travel time). There are six defined levels of service, A to F; A describes little to no delay, and F describes long, unacceptable delays. In general, a LOS of D or below is considered failing. Please see the Plan for a listing of available ADT, VOC, and LOS data. This section of the Plan identified the following needs: Greater number and variety of multi-modal options in the area to keep cars off the road, specifically in sensitive residential areas; Working together with City, County, and other municipal planners to address both the origin and destination of traffic (both of which are often outside the Town); Design criteria that connect the design of roads and their desired function within the road network, balancing the needs of through-traffic and neighborhoods, without unfairly favoring through-traffic; Continued collection of volume data to monitor changes and develop mitigation measures for problems.

speed). To compare speeding problems between two roads, calculate the ratio of the 85th percentile speed to the speed limit, a value that is comparable across different speed limits and indicates the distribution and extent of speeding. A ratio higher than one means that there is both a relatively high proportion of speeders to non-speeders and that the speeders are exceeding the limit by a relatively large margin. The Plan makes a distinction between the extent and severity of speeding. The extent of speeding refers to the number of Speeding is common in some residential areas of the Town. motorists exceeding the speed limit. The severity of speeding is based on the number of motorists exceeding the speed limit, but it also considers the characteristics of the adjacent land uses. Therefore, prioritizing locations for speed mitigation needs is not as simple as determining the location with the highest ratio of the 85th percentile speed to the speed limit. Based on the data collected for the Plan, some areas that may need speed mitigation include the Northeast, the southern part of Pine Tree Road, Forest Home, and Coddington Road near Ithaca College. All of these areas are in neighborhoods of mediumdensity with significant pedestrian activity. Please see the Plan itself for more information. Many motorists speed without realizing how fast they are traveling, because the road on which they are driving is flatter, straighter, and wider than it needs to be. This can be caused by the overly generous geometric characteristics associated with each design speed (see the Roadway Function & Right-of-Way Design section, above). Alerting motorists that they need to slow down and drive carefully via design cues (such as a narrow roadway, pedestrian walkways, or traffic calming) improves safety, speed limit compliance, and protects the livability of neighborhoods through which the road passes. This section of the Plan identified the following as needs: Speed mitigation program that would identify locations with a great severity of speeding, 7

Speeding
Like traffic volume and congestion, speeding is measured in several ways. First, the percentage of motorists speeding is an absolute measure, like ADT or AADT. Second, the 85th percentile speed is the speed that 15% of drivers exceed (stated another way, 85% of drivers go slower than the 85th percentile

determine the cause of the speeding, and devise a mitigation strategy; Continued, and perhaps increased, enforcement to catch intentional speeders; Exploration of traffic calming to discourage excessive speed in residential areas; Continued collection of speed data at the same and new locations at regular intervals.

crashes each. Environmental factors (such as slippery pavement or glare) and following too closely account for 9% of crashes each. Locations of crash clusters in the Town are fairly predictable; the vast majority occur on State routes where volumes and speed limits are highest. Small clusters of crashes on County roads occur on Coddington Road, East King Road, Pine Tree Road, Warren Road, and Hanshaw Road. Very few crashes occur on roads owned by the Town; most were onevehicle crashes involving an animal or a road object. In the fall of 2005, the Transportation Committee worked with Fisher Associates, a consulting firm from Rochester, to analyze safety at several intersections and along several road segments in the Town. Building on Fisher Associates work, Town Planning staff evaluated the crashes at the locations to determine if there was a pattern. Please see Volume II: The Appendices, Appendix IV for Fisher Associates final report and the Towns Crash Screening Report. This section of the Plan identified the following needs: Partnership with other municipalities, organizations, and agencies in order to improve transportation safety in and beyond the Town; Exploration of ways to keep deer off rural roads or to make motorists more aware of their presence; Roadway design that is as safe as possible for all roadway users, including bicyclists, pedestrian, and the disabled, and that promotes safe driver behavior; Expanded traffic law enforcement and education as part of a safety strategy; Continuation of data collection and analysis.

Crashes
In 2003, the Town Planning Department created a database of crash information. The information was extracted from NYSDOT crash reports from 1999 to 2001 and was restricted to serious crashes, that is, those causing injury or more than $1,000 in property damage. Based on the information in this database, forty-eight percent of crashes involved another vehicle, while thirty-four percent involved an animal (probably a deer). The remainder involved roadway elements such as guardrails or utility posts. Fortunately, only five crashes over three years involved bicyclists or pedestrians (less than 1%). Still, bicyclists and pedestrians involved in motor vehicle accidents are easily injured or even killed. Fully one third of the crashes in the database were caused by animal actions. The second most common causes of crashes are failure to yield and driver error (including inattention, inexperience, distraction, falling asleep, or losing consciousness), causing 11% of

Pavement Maintenance
During the summer of 2004, the Town of Ithaca Highway Department conducted an inventory of the condition of every Town-owned road. Each road or road segment received a pavement condition index (PCI), which 8

Preventative maintenance saves a lot of money in the long term.

is a measure of several signs of pavement deterioration, including several types of cracking, patching/potholes, drainage, and roughness. The goal of the project was to prioritize Town roads in direst need of maintenance, to create a regular maintenance schedule, and to assist the budgeting of Town resources. The information in the PCI shows that most of the Town-owned roads are in good to excellent condition. It is fortunate that the Towns roads are in mostly good condition, because the most cost-effective pavement management plan is a system of preventative maintenance. According to a Road Condition Study conducted by the Town of Petersborough in New Hampshire, pavement quality drops only 40% over the first 75% of the pavement lifespan (i.e. after 10-12 years, the pavement is still in acceptable or good quality). Over the next four years, however, pavement quality drops another 40% from fair to very poor. More importantly, allowing pavement to degrade from fair to very poor increases repair costs at least five-fold.1 Thus, a reasonable amount of short-term cost produces a great degree of long-term benefit. This section of the Plan identified the following needs: Prioritization of preventative maintenance while continuing to plan for larger repaving and reconstruction projects; Regular formal or informal data collection; Flexibility in funding and scheduling for the Town Public Works Department to address future needs.

Alternatives provide choice, protect safety and health, and reduce congestion. Alternatives can be available for everyone (including the young, old, disabled, and low income), and alternatives protect the natural environment (keeping air clean, conserving fossil fuels, reducing wear-and-tear on the roads which can negatively affect water quality due to increased runoff, preserving open space by avoiding the need to build new roads, and so on).

Bus Transit & Paratransit

TCAT is the primary supplier of public transit in the Town of Ithaca and Tompkins County as a whole. In TCAT is the local transit provider. 1996, the New York State legislature authorized the formation of Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit from the three existing independent but cooperative agencies, Ithaca Transit (founded in 1962 by the City of Ithaca), TomTran (founded in 1981 by Tompkins County), and CU Transit (founded in 1966 by Cornell University). By 1998, these agencies reorganized into Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit, or TCAT. In 2004, TCAT reorganized again into a not-for-profit 501(c)3 service provider. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 requires public transit operators to offer equal services for those with disabilities. Paratransit is more flexible than conventional fixed-route transit but more structured than the use of private automobiles [the term paratransit] most often refers to wheelchair-accessible, demand-response van service.2 Gadabout, a not-for-profit private service, is the primary paratransit provider for the Town of Ithaca and Tompkins County. Gadabout provides vans specially equipped for wheelchairs and volunteer drivers who are sensitive to the needs of the disabled. Gadabout also serves the senior population of Tompkins County (aged sixty and over) by providing on-demand service in a comfortable atmosphere. This indispensable service provides opportunities for education, employment, personal and health care, and social interaction for vulnerable populations.
2

AUTO ALTERNATIVES
The State Highway and County and Town Roadways Chapter introduced the need to reduce the number of low-occupancy motor vehicles on the road. In order to promote mobility and access, however, alternatives to low-occupancy vehicles should be encouraged. The Auto Alternatives Chapter focuses on the two most common alternatives to the low-occupancy motor vehicle: public transit and non-motorized transportation (bicycling and walking).

Sterling, 2003, p. 6-7

CTAA, Public and Community Transportation

TCAT integrates different modes of transport with public transit through the BobCat program, Park & Ride lots, and service to local bus stations and airports. In 1996, TCAT purchased 64 bike racks for installation on the front of buses, a project known as BobCat (Bob stands for bikes on buses). The bike racks hold two bicycles each and are easy to operate. Because of Ithacas hilly terrain, the racks capture rides from bikers who otherwise wouldnt consider the bus. The racks are very popularthey now sit on the front of every TCAT busand the program has become the most successful intermodal effort in the county. Park & Ride lots across the County capture commuters to Ithaca from outlying rural areas. TCAT has routes running past fourteen formal Park & Ride lots. Finally, TCAT offers routes that serve the airport (Route 31) and the bus station in the City of Ithaca (Routes 14, 19, 20, and 21). In addition to local service by TCAT and Gadabout, three private companies, Shortline, Greyhound, and Trailways, provide bus service between the Ithaca metropolitan area and other metropolitan areas. The greatest concentration and frequency of public transit service is in the City of Ithaca. Many Town residents expressed a desire for greater transit coverage in the Town in the aforementioned Town transportation survey. Transit provision for many parts of the Townespecially West and South Hillsis difficult; because of low residential densities, buses must travel long distances to pick up few persons at each stop. This can make routes prohibitively long for riders and prohibitively costly for the transit provider. Also, routes through West Hill and South Hill only run on major state and county roads. This puts bus stops too far away from many residential homes to be convenient. Unfortunately, of the fourteen Park & Rides in the County, none are located within the Town of Ithaca. Many residents who would like to travel to the City of Ithaca must drive because no route stops close enough to their home. Service to outlying communities in Tompkins County runs infrequently every few hoursand service stops early in the evening. In short, since residents in outlaying areas must travel through the Town of Ithaca to get to the City of Ithaca, the lack of Park & Rides may be creating more traffic than necessary in the Town. 10

From top: forty cars; forty drivers; forty transit passengers.

Transit is also missing out on increased ridership, which could help to make expanded coverage on West Hill more economically viable for TCAT. Expansion of transit opportunities can play a part in congestion reduction. In the demonstration to the right, forty drivers parked their automobiles in the street (photograph 1). Next, they traded their automobiles for chairs (photograph 2). Finally, they moved their chairs to simulate sitting on a bus together (photograph 3). This demonstration shows the dramatic impact that a transition to transit can have on congestion levels.3 This section of the Plan identified the following needs: Continuation of transit as a vital part of the regions multi-modal transportation system;

Beamguard, 1999.

Working together with TCAT to ensure that the locations and residents most in need of transit are well-served; Improvements in service for certain population segments, like young people, the elderly, bicyclists & pedestrians, commuters, rural residents, etc; Regional land-use patterns that do not preclude future transportation options, such as transit; Recommendations that meet the above needs while allowing TCAT to remain economically solvent.

The option of using a non-motorized mode provides a real choice for residents and visitors. The four main types of non-motorized transportation infrastructure are: dedicated pedestrian facilities such as sidewalks, walkways, pedestrian bridges and paths; dedicated bicycle facilities such as bike lanes; and multi-use trails and paths for pedestrians, bicyclists, inline skaters, parents with children in strollers, and so on. In many rural areas, it is impractical to provide dedicated bicycle or pedestrian facilities. Paved roadway shoulders take the place of sidewalks and bike lanes, although multi-use recreation trails are often found in rural areas. The Town of Ithaca has approximately 9.33 miles of walkways within its jurisdiction. These walkways are owned and maintained by the Town. There are also a limited number of newer residential areas with sidewalks, such as Linderman Creek, in which property owners own sidewalks and are responsible for their upkeep and maintenance. There are no bicycle-only facilities in the Town, although some roadways have sufficient shoulder area to permit comfortable bicycling. Two of the most popular multiuse trails owned and maintained by the Town are the East Ithaca and South Hill Recreation Ways. The 2003 Park, Recreation, and Open Space Plan calls for the creation of a multi-use trail system. The Town is already in the process of implementing that Plan. In fact, off-road multi-use trails in the Town are more extensive than walkways or sidewalks that run next to roadways. Non-Town owned walkways and paths include the Plantations Path, a seven mile network of self-guided walkways, roads, and paths through Cornell Plantations; the Circle Greenway or Walk Ithaca path which passes through both the Town and City; the trail systems in Buttermilk Falls and Robert H. Treman State Parks; and the 500 mile long Finger Lakes Trail hiking path which passes through the southern portion of the Town.5 These paths generally serve recreational, and not transportation, needs. Non-motorized modes of transportation play a significant role in the transportation system of the Town of Ithaca. For example, the 2000 Census

Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities

Before there were cars, before there were carriages, and even before horses were domesticated, mankind used the simplest means of travelwalking. Even during an age where personal helicopters are a possibility, many still choose to walk to close destinations, instead of driving, or to walk

The Northeast Ithaca Recreation Way in the Town of Ithaca

as a recreational activity. Besides serving as a mode of transportation, biking and walking offer personal and societal benefits. Biking and walking improve personal physical fitness and well-being. Promoting walking and biking will play an important role in protecting public health (in fact, exercise is a component of the FDAs revised food pyramid).4 Walking or biking instead of driving for short trips conserves fossil fuels, saves money (its free!), alleviates traffic burdens, promotes the health of the natural environment (thereby protecting human health), and protects the integrity of neighborhoods. Walking and biking foster healthy communities by encouraging social interactions on the street and by getting motorists out of their cars and onto the sidewalks, next to shopping and social opportunities.

44

USDA, undated

Town of Ithaca, 1997

11

calculates that more than one in five Town residents get to work by walking (many of these residents are students, professors, and staff traveling to one of the institutions of higher education in the area). Walking and bicycling are popular in the Town despite limited supporting infrastructure, and these nonmotorized modes would perhaps be even more popular if sidewalks, walkways, and bicycle infrastructure were more available. Many roadways with significant pedestrian traffic do not even have sufficient shoulder space for a single pedestrian (see picture at right). Pedestrians attempt to navigate Pine Furthermore, a Tree Road in the Town of Ithaca. 2002 study examined 4.75 miles of Town-owned walkways and found that sixty percent do not meet ADA standards.6 As previously mentioned, shoulders are available to bicyclists on some state and county roads. Unfortunately, the roads with shoulders are generally roads with high volumes and speeds, which can lead to an uncomfortable and unsafe bicycling environment. On all other roadways, bicyclists share lanes with motorists, which is generally the least desirable arrangement for both bicyclists and motorists, especially when motor vehicle speeds are higher than bicycling speeds. The Plan clearly indicates that infrastructure for nonmotorized travel in the Town of Ithaca is not adequate for the current extent of development in the Town. As development continues, the lack will worsen from an annoyance to a very serious problem; residents will either be captive to the automobile or be put into an unsafe situation as a pedestrian or bicyclist. For more information, please see the full version of the Plan. This section of the Plan identified the following needs: A revised Sidewalk Policy, perhaps expanded to include bicycle issues, to guide the development of an appropriate, cost-effective non-motorized travel network that meets all standards;
6

A strategy to provide bicycle and pedestrian facilities, such as selection criteria or a map showing prioritized locations; A set of design guidelines to ensure that facilities are designed appropriately for their context and are ADA compliant; Continued participation in the efforts to expand the multi-use trail network in the Town.

ADDITIONAL TRANSPORTATION MODES

There are no airports within the municipal boundaries of the Town of Ithaca or airports managed at the Town level. The closest airport to the Town of Ithaca is the Ithaca-Tompkins Regional Airport, located in the Village of Lansing, which provides regional passenger air travel. One hour by car from Ithaca are the Syracuse Hancock International Airport, the Elmira/Corning Regional Airport, and the Greater Binghamton Airport. The Greater Rochester International Airport is two hours away by car. This section of the Plan realistically concludes that there is little the Town can do to affect the air travel options in the area. The Town will continue to support regional efforts to make the Ithaca-Tompkins Regional Airport a safe, attractive, efficient, and useful mode of travel for residents and visitors. Beyond the movement of people, the Town and regional transportation system supports the movement of freight via rail, air, and trucks. The Norfolk Southern Railroad provides rail freight transport in Tompkins County. Rail freight can carry much larger quantities of freight than a truck. For example, one freight car can carry 100 tons, while a truck can only carry 20-25; thus one train of 20 cars carries the freight of 80-100 trucks. Besides carrying more freight, rail uses less fuel than trucks to carry any given amount. That is, one gallon of fuel will carry one ton of freight 59 miles via truck and 202 miles via rail (and 514 miles by barge!).7 Even though rail freight is more efficient than shipping by truck, rail transport is prohibitively expensive for most shipping, except for things shipped in extremely large quantities of bulk. Thus, the rail freight in Tompkins County primarily transports coal to the Milliken Point Power Plant in Lansing or salt from the Cargill Corporation.
7

Varricchione, 2003, p. 12

Rock Island District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2004

12

Airfreight comes into and out of the county via the Ithaca Tompkins Regional Airport. In 2001, the airport handled over 45,000 pounds of freight and mail. Trucks carry the majority of freight in the County, often to or from destinations within the City of Ithaca. Thus, much of the truck freight traffic is merely passing through the Town, and most of it is limited to State highways. Yet there are many trucks that travel on non-truck routes and local roads to take shortcuts, avoid traffic, or make local deliveries. This negatively affects livability and safety in residential areas. This section of the Plan identified the following needs: Support for continued efforts by County officials to ensure that the airport remains a viable option for long-distance transportation for Town and County residents; Continued protection of residential areas from excessive truck traffic burdens via design elements or prevention of designation as a truck route.

OTHER TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM ISSUES

This section explores other transportation system components or issues that transcend the various modes examined in previous sections, including the relationships between transportation and the natural environment, transportation and land uses, and transportation and public health.

The transportation system affects water resources in a variety of ways, including increased run-off and increased contamination. Vegetated, uncovered areas produce less runoff than paved, covered areas. Widening a lane Ithaca is Gorges: a scenic example two feet (from 12 from Buttermilk Falls State Park. to 14) increases the impervious cover by 15%; just one mile of a 32 road (5 shoulders, 11 travel lanes) is the equivalent of four acres of pavement.8 Roads alone contribute 54% to the total amount of runoff in residential areas; in commercial areas, roads and parking combined account for 80% of runoff.9 In addition, streets generate the highest levels of pollutants in runoff, nearly all of which drains directly into the nearest water body. In the Santa Clara Valley in California, vehicles are estimated to produce 67% of zinc, 50% of copper, and 50% of cadmium found in runoff. 10 Transportation consumes 65% of the total energy used in America. Of this, road transportation uses approximately 85%.11 Road travel consumes so much fuel because of the amount that Americans drive and also the inefficiency of the average internal combustion engine. Only 12% of the fuel used by a car actually provides propulsion.12

The Natural Environment

Transportation, in particular motor vehicle transportation, affects air, water, energy, and scenic resources, as well as creates noise, light, and heat. Some of the most beautiful landscapes are inaccessible except by road, but the presence of an obtrusive roadway can degrade the beauty of a landscape. Yet in other cases, the development of a transportation network in a scenic area can attract tourists and generate revenue for protecting the environment. Since many residents of the Town of Ithaca choose to live in the Town because of the natural beauty of the region, it is important that the development of the transportation system minimizes its impact on the splendor of the area. 13

Center for GIS, Natural Resources Milwaukee River Basin Partnership, 2003 10 Data in this paragraph is from: U.S. EPA, 1996 11 EERE, 2005 12 Rodrigue, 2005
8 9

Emissions from internal fuel combustion vehicles are a major contributor to the degradation of air quality. Transportation-related sources are the greatest contributor to air pollution in Tompkins County.13 Four of the major components in combustion exhaust are carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxide, and fine particulate matter. Vehicle emissions are the main source of carbon monoxide in the air (up to 95% in some cities); toxic carbon monoxide reduces the oxygen available for the bodys organs. On-road mobile sources account for 29% of hydrocarbon emissions, which are a precursor to ground-level ozone, a major contributor to the formation of smog. A third of nitrogen oxides come from road emissions. Nitrogen emissions are precursors to smog and ozone, which both degrade air quality. Fine particulate matterespecially from diesel-burning truckscan reach the deepest areas of the lung. It contributes to the developmen t of lung cancer, bronchitis, and asthma.14
Transportation sources are a major contributor to air pollution in Tompkins County.

Urban heat islands are caused by dark surfaces that absorb the suns energy and a lack of vegetation to provide shade, absorb sunlight, and cool the air. Parking lots and roads contribute significantly to the heat island effect, and the heat island effect seems to have a negative effect on the durability of pavement. Light colored and porous pavements can reduce the heat island effect by reflecting light, instead of absorbing it, and by allowing rainfall to percolate through the pavement, thereby cooling it. This section of the Plan identified the following needs: Provision of attractive, feasible, and cost-effective alternatives to the low-occupancy, privatelyoperated motor vehicle; Roadway and transportation system design that minimizes negative environmental impacts.

Regional Development
Land uses and travel patterns affect each other. Roadways permit the development of land, which generates trips. Land use and This is one example of poor connectivity. modal choice also are related. Segregated land usesfor example, separating residential and commercial areaslead residents to drive because everyday goods and services are far away. It is important to provide many connections within the transportation network, in order to provide a greater number of route options and more direct routes. A common type of connectivity is the grid system of streets found in urban areas. Connectivity is important for non-motorized travel, because bicyclists and pedestrians are unlikely to travel far out of the way to get to their destination. The transportation system in the Town does not operate independently of the regional system. Transportation trends in the Finger Lakes, Tompkins County, and the City of Ithaca affect transportation in the Town. In the City, developments around the 14

Noise levels due to transportation systems are not always considered as a significant environmental impact, although the noise from high traffic volumes, truck traffic, rail, and airplane can have a significant negative impact on the livability of a neighborhood. Excessive noise disrupts sleep, distracts from activities, impedes learning, and can contribute to stress. The Federal Highway Administration notes that transportation noise is the most pervasive and difficult to avoid source of unwanted noise.15 Light pollution is common in parking lots, because there are many light poles that are taller than necessary with unshielded bulbs that are brighter than necessary. The Town of Ithaca recently passed a lighting ordinance that would reduce the amount of light spillage, trespass, and glare in the Town.

Filiberto, 2004 Office of Transportation and Air Quality, 2005 15 FHWA, April 2006
13 14

Commons at Cayuga Green and Seneca Place will attract more employees, visitors, and shoppers to downtown. If those people come from outside the City, they will have to travel through the Town at some point. This is one example of how development patterns in one municipality can indirectly affect traffic in another. The Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council (ITCTC) has developed a model of the Tompkins County road network, which is useful when considering the effects of various development plans and projects on the road traffic network. The ITCTC used the model to compare a trend-based development scenario, which continues the current development trends across the County, to a planbased development scenario, which channels development into nodes of housing and employment across the County. The model predicts a greater overall increase in traffic patterns in the trend scenario than in the plan scenario. Furthermore, focusing development into nodes facilitates transit provision; this type of development is more conducive to accommodating changes in the transportation system due to fluctuations in fuel prices, increased congestion, and so on. This section of the Plan identified the following need: Review and potential revision of the Towns subdivision and zoning ordinance to determine whether there are ways to use the regulations to encourage land use patterns that are friendly to alternative modes.

count, daily ozone concentrations dropped 27.9% and asthma emergency events dropped 41.6%.16 Physical inactivity is linked to 250,000 deaths per year in America;17 physical inactivity is a large component of the obesity crisis. Un-walkable and un-bikable neighborhoods are directly linked to low rates of physical activity. People who live in neighborhoods with a mix of shops and businesses within easy walking distance have a 35% lower risk of obesity.18 Even the simple act of bicycling to work without any more vigorous form of exerciseis associated with a lower weight and less weight gain over time.19 Injuries and fatalities due to traffic crashes are also a public health issue. Thirteen percent of traffic-related fatalities occur Biking without a helmet is very unsafe. among pedestrians (10,696 deaths over two years20)even though pedestrian trips account for only six percent of all trips. A disproportionate share of the deaths was among the elderly. Part of an accessible transportation system, as outlined in the Goals and Objectives section of this plan, is that the system is accessible for everyone, regardless of age or ability. Youthful, low-income, elderly, and disabled populations are particularly vulnerable in a car-centered transportation system. Why care about the connection between transportation and public health? Besides the issue of basic human rights, deteriorating public health is costly for those who remain healthy. The estimated direct health care cost of obesity in America was $70 billion (1995), and the estimated direct health care costs of physical inactivity was $24 billion.21 The cost to the fabric of society when disadvantaged populations continue to be systematically
Jackson and Kochtitzky, Creating a Healthy Environment Booth et. al, 2000 18 Frank et. al, 2004 19 Ducimetiere, et al, 2001 20 Jackson and Kochtitzky, Creating a Healthy Environment 21 Colditz, 1999
16 17

Public Health
The Plan focuses on four public health-related issues: respiratory health, health problems related to inactivity, physical harm due to crashes, and decreased social well-being among disadvantaged populations. Although motor vehicles individually pollute less than thirty years ago, collectively they are pumping more toxins and particulate matter into the atmosphere as a result of increases in vehicle miles and time behind the wheel. In a telling example, when city authorities limited vehicle volumes in Atlanta during the 1996 Olympic Games to 77.5% of the normal peak morning

15

marginalized is not calculable in a region that values livability and community. This section of the Plan identified the following need: Programs and policies that reduce motor vehicle dependence; Bikeable, walkable, and transit-friendly neighborhood designs; Transportation facility design that minimizes safety hazards for all system users; Town support for transit and paratransit.

ALTERNATIVES
The Alternatives Chapter of the Plan summarizes the problems identified throughout the Inventory and Analysis, along with the specific locations that these problems are particularly prevalent. For each problem, several alternative strategies are identified, along with the pros and cons of each. Some of the specific problems identified in the Plan (in no particular order) are speeding (especially in residential areas), a lack of bicycle and pedestrian facilities, the negative impacts of vehicular roadway traffic on adjacent land uses (especially residential areas), large volumes of traffic (especially in residential areas), large volumes of truck traffic (especially in residential areas), crashes in some locations, and poor pavement condition or sight distances in some areas. Please see the full Plan for more information.

Town. This document is a living document that will be updated to reflect changes in best practices, acquisition of new information or data, or other changes to the transportation system in the Town. In addition, these recommendations address solutions that will occur over various time frames, including the five-year (short term), ten-year (mid term), and twentyyear (long term) visions. Thus, some recommendations that would take twenty-five years to generations to implement have not been included. Finally, there is not an appropriate resolution for every transportation problem. Some resolutions may be too expensive, too disruptive, or otherwise infeasible, and therefore are not included here. The full version of the Plans Recommendations Chapter highlights the recommendations that involve non-Town entities (see Attachment A in the full version). It also indicates the Goals that each recommendation fulfills (see Attachment B). In addition, it summarizes the Recommendations by the time-frame and priority (see Attachment C). Finally, it explains how the Recommendations fulfill the charge set forth in the Comprehensive Plan (see Attachment D). Please see the full version of the Plan for more information. The following is a summary of the Plans recommendations: 1.

THE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

RECOMMENDATIONS
The previous chapters of this Plan have established a vision of transportation in the Town and have identified categories of problems in the town, the locations where they occur, and potential solutions for each category. This Chapter recommends specific actions to address the problems. Since the transportation system involves many jurisdictions and agencies, some recommendations cannot be implemented by the Town of Ithaca alone. Many programs require collaboration with several different entitiessome public, some private. It is important to remember that this plan cannot examine everything related to transportation in the 16

1.A. The Town Board should adopt the Transportation Plan as a long-term vision and policy guide and should amend the 1993 Comprehensive Plan to include the Transportation Plan as an element 2.

ROADWAY & ROAD NETWORK ISSUES

2.A. Official Highway Map: Map: The Town Board should adopt the Official Highway Map and should update it as needed. 2.B. Engineering & Design: Design 2.B.1. The Town should use Volume III: The Design Guidelines to guide the development of the physical transportation network.

2.B.2. The Town should continue to evaluate intersections with poor sight distances. distances Vegetation removal to improve sight distances should be the last option. 2.B.3. The Town should regularly request crash information from the DMV to update the crash database, identify hazardous locations, locations and take steps to mitigate the problems (including notification to the owner of the road, if not the Town). 2.B.4. The Town should explore design responses to excessive speeds and cutcutthrough traffic in residential areas, as well as continue to petition the County & State for speed limit reductions in certain locations. 2.B.5. The Town should explore ways to reduce the frequency and severity of deerdeer-related crashes. crashes 2.B.6. The Town should encourage developers to limit the number of individual driveway access points onto major roads. 2.C. Maintenance: Maintenance 2.C.1. The Public Works Department should continue to have the flexibility to set their own schedule of roadway improvements. 2.C.2. The Town should continue to practice preventative maintenance wherever possible in order to save money over the long term. 2.C.3. The Town should address the minor improvements recommended in the Crash Screenings (see full version of the Recommendations and the Capital Budget section). 2.C.4. The Public Works Department should continue to operate in an environmentally sensitive manner (see full version of the Plan for more information). 2.C.5. The Town should continue to work with the County Highway Department and NYSDOT for maintenance and should consider swapping responsibility for certain roads.

Above is an excerpt from the Design Guidelines in Appendix VII of the Plan.

2.D. Traffic Calming: Calming The Town should explore traffic calming measures as one strategy to protect neighborhoods from excessive negative effects of motor vehicle traffic. 2.E. Enforcement: Enforcement The Town should support law enforcement agencies and campaigns that aim to reduce motor vehicle infractions and discourage reckless, careless, or inattentive behavior. Please see the full version of the Plan for more information.

Chicanes, a type of traffic calming device, force motorists to slow down and to pay attention to their surroundings.

3.

BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN ISSUES

3.A. Revised Revised Interim Sidewalk Policy: Policy The Town Board should revise the Interim Town Sidewalk Policy of 2003, using the Bicycle and Pedestrian Corridor Maps in Volume II: The Appendices as the general development strategy (i.e. locations and priorities) for facilities in the Town. 3.B. Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities: Facilities 3.B.1. The Town should use the Volume III: The Design Guidelines and the aforementioned Maps to guide the 17

development of bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the Town. 3.B.2. The Town should assume the cost of construction construction and maintenance of bicycle and pedestrian facilities that serve a broader population beyond the adjacent neighborhoods. 3.B.3. The Town should implementation the findings of the Northeast Walkability Study by the County Planning Department, where appropriate. 3.B.4. The Town should implement pedestrian improvements in the Forest Home neighborhood, as appropriate. 3.C. Bicycle & Pedestrian Design: Design 3.C.1. The Town should use Volume III: The Design Guidelines and the principles of Context Sensitive Design when designing bicycle and pedestrian facilities. 3.C.2. Facilities should be ADA compliant, compliant wherever possible. 3.C.3. The Town should encourage bicycle and pedestrian accommodations as normal aspects of a rightright-ofof-way. way For most roads that have moderate to high traffic volumes and speeds, walkways walkways are the most appropriate facility for pedestrians and paved shoulders are the most appropriate facility for bicyclists. 3.D. Bicycle, Pedestrian, & Transit Connections: Connections The Town should work with TCAT, Cornell, and other stakeholders to enhance the connections between walking, biking, and taking transit. Potential projects include: implementing a Bike & Ride, cross-promoting transit and walking or biking, improving bike parking, and using non-motorized links where it is infeasible to expand a transit route (see also 3.D.1-3.D.4 in the full Plan). 3.E. MultiMulti-Use Trails: Trails The Town should continue to expand and improve the multi-use trail network in the Town and should help the County and the ITCTC to expand the countywide network (see also 3.E.1-3.E.4 in the full Plan). 3.F. Safety Education & Evaluation: Evaluation The Town should work with other stakeholders to 18

devise a bicycle and pedestrian safety education strategy for motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians. See Attachment E in the full Plan for more information. 3.G. Encouragement Encouragement: ragement The Town should work with other municipalities and advocacy groups to devise a bicycle and pedestrian encouragement strategy; see Attachment F in the full Plan for more information. 3.H. Bicycle Equipment: Equipment The Town should explore how bicycle equipment needs relate to safety, enforcement, and encouragement issues.

A crossing guard escorts students across the street.

4.

TRANSIT ISSUES
4.A. Park & Ride: Ride The Town should work with TCAT, the ITCTC, and major employers, such as Cornell, to develop a Park & Ride system, using the findings of the recent origindestination and Park & Ride studies by Cornell and the ITCTC. 4.B. Ease of Use: Use The Town should encourage and work with TCAT to make transit service easy to understand and use. Please see the full Plan for more information. 4.C. Funding: Funding The Town Board should consider funding for TCAT to ensure adequate levels of service in the Town. The Town Board should continue to provide funding for Gadabout to ensure continued service for senior citizens and the disabled in the Town. 4.D. Transit in Existing Existing & New Development: Development The Town Planning Department should continue to work with TCAT to ensure that new development in the Town is served by transit, in terms of the site plan and route extensions (or other enhancements). Areas that may need expansion include Ithaca College and

West Hill (including the Linderman Creek and Overlook developments). 4.E. Other High Occupancy Vehicle Strategies: Strategies The Town should support carpool, vanpool, and carshare initiatives from the public and private sector (including educational institutions, such as Cornell and Ithaca College). 5.

A TCAT rider checks the schedule.

REGIONAL COOPERATION
5.A. ITCTC: ITCTC The Town should continue to participate in the Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council (ITCTC). 5.B. t-GEIS & TIMS: TIMS The t-GEIS is a Transportation-Focused Generic Environmental Impact Statement prepared by Cornell University that examines Cornells transportation impacts on the surrounding community. TIMS, or Transportation Impact Mitigation Strategies, outlines ways for Cornell to alleviate the transportation impacts. The Town should support the findings of the t-GEIS and TIMS, where appropriate. The recommendations of this Plan should inform the development of the TIMS, and updates to this Plan should be receptive to the progress made by TIMS. 5.C. Town Transportation Transportation Committee: Committee The Town Transportation Committee should continue to invite representatives from Cornell and the ITCTC to their meetings and should consider inviting representatives from Dryden, Lansing, the City of Ithaca, and the County, when relevant topics arise. 5.D. County Trails: Trails The Town should work with other agencies & stakeholders to implement a county-wide system of trails, including the Black Diamond Trail.

5.E. Park & Ride: Ride The Town should work with TCAT, the ITCTC, and major employers, such as Cornell, to develop a Park & Ride system. 5.F. Design Issues: Issues The Town should work with the City, Cornell, and the County to ensure that transportation design is consistent and predictable throughout the area. 5.G. Traffic Demand Management: The Town should work with other organizations and agencies in the public and private sectors to devise traffic demand management strategies to reduce peak-hour demand on roadway capacity and to provide incentives, such as greater flexibility or reduced-cost bus passes for employees. 5.H. Shared Services and Expertise: Expertise The Town should continue to identify opportunities to share responsibility for services, facilities, equipment, labor, and expertise with other owners or maintainers of the transportation network. 5.I. Truck Traffic: The Town should work with the County, the City of Ithaca, ITCTC, Cornell University, companies that ship or receive shipments, shipping firms, and other regional players in order to address truck traffic patterns that route through residential areas. 6.

CAPITAL BUDGET PROJECTS

A Capital Budget is a tool for governments to strategically plan for major projects, including acquisition of long-term assets and construction of facilities. The goal of capital budgeting is to maximize the benefits of the expenditure of public resources while minimizing negative effects on the municipalitys finances. 6.A. Capital Budget & Horizon: Horizon The Town should continue to budget for capital needs related to transportation projects, and the Town may want to consider budgeting for ten years in advance (instead of five). 6.B. Budget Appropriations: The Town should consider annual appropriations as part of the yearly operating budget for less costly transportation projects, such as segments of walkways or crosswalks. 6.C. Other Funding Sources: Sources The Town should apply for additional funds for transportation

19

projects and should explore funds not strictly associated with transportation. 6.D. Specific Projects: Projects Suggestions for potential projects to include in updates to the Capital Budget include: 6.D.1. Bicycle and pedestrian improvements, as indicated on the Bicycle & Pedestrian Corridor Needs Maps. 6.D.2. Implementation of Forest Home Traffic Calming Plan 6.D.3. Traffic calming in other locations 6.D.4. The Gateway Trail 6.D.5. Snyderhill Road Walkway (already included in 2006 Capital Budget) 7.

7.B.1. Cluster Subdivisions & Nodal Development 7.B.2. Connectivity 7.B.3. Cul-de-Sacs 7.C. Site Plan Regulations & Review: Review The full version of the Plans Recommendations includes details on topics such as: 7.C.1. Transit 7.C.2. Pedestrian Enhancements 7.C.3. Bicycle & Pedestrian Circulation 7.C.4. Impact Evaluation 7.C.5. Shared Access 7.C.6. Auto & Bicycle Parking

ZONING, SUBDIVISION, & SITE PLAN REVIEW

The cumulative negative effects of development on the transportation network should be minimized. The Town should consider altering subdivision and zoning regulations to lessen dependence on low occupancy motor vehicles and to lessen the strain on the motorized transportation network. Furthermore, the Town should support the findings of ITCTCs Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) and the Countys Comprehensive Plan by encouraging node-based development. 7.A. Zoning Recommendations Recommendations: mmendations The full version of the Plans Recommendations includes details on topics such as: 7.A.1. Mixed-Use Development 7.A.2. Neighborhood Commercial Zones 7.A.3. Residential Setbacks 7.A.4. Commercial Setbacks 7.A.5. Garages 7.A.6. Parking Requirements

Bicycle parking should be considered wherever automobile parking is.

Above is the parking lot at East Hill Plaza in the Town of Ithaca.

7.B. Subdivision Regulations & Review: Review The full version of the Plans Recommendations includes details on topics such as: 20

CREDITS & WORKS CITED

Works Cited: Beamguard, Jim. Images published July 18, 1999. Tampa Tribune. Cited by Points, Rich and Evan Ravitz. Bike for Peace. <http://bikeforpeace.org/packing_pavement.html>. Booth, Gordon, Carlson, and Hamilton. Waging war on modern chronic diseases: primary prevention through exercise biology. Journal of Applied Physiology 88: 774-787. 2000. Center for GIS. Natural Resources: Comprehensive Water Resources Planning. Towson University. Undated. <http://chesapeake.towson.edu/landscape/impervious/all_compwate r.asp>. September 15, 2005. Colditz, G.A. Economic costs of obesity and inactivity. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise 31(11), Supplement. pp. S663-S3667. November 1999. Community Transportation Association of America (CTAA). Public and Community Transportation Glossary. Undated. <http://www.ctaa.org/ntrc/glossary.asp?printview=yes>. September 13, 2005. Ducimetiere, Simon, Wagner et al. Leisure-time physical activity and regular walking or cycling to work are associated with adiposity and 5y weight gain in middle-aged men: The PRIME Study. International Journal of Obesity and Related Metabolic Disorders, 2, (2001): 940948. Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), United States Department of Energy. Transportation Topics. September 13, 2005. <http://www.eere.energy.gov/EE/transportation.html>. Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of Energy, September 15, 2005. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), United States Department of Transportation. Highway Traffic Noise in the United States: Problem & Response. United States Department of Transportation. April 2006. <http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/probresp.htm> June 19, 2006. Filiberto, Heather. Local Governments and Climate Change. Tompkins County Planning Department. June 12, 2004. <http://www.co.tompkins.ny.us/emc/docs/3_climate_change_and_cc p_presentation.pdf>. August 30, 2006 Frank, Andresen, and Schmid. (2004). Obesity relationships with community design, physical activity, and time spent in cars. American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 18 (2004): 47-57. Jackson and Kochtitzky. Creating a Healthy Environment: The Impact of the Built Environment on Public Health. Sprawl Watch Clearinghouse Monograph Series, Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Undated. Milwaukee River Basin Partnership. Protecting Our Waters: Streets and Roads. September 11, 2003. <http://cleanwater.uwex.edu/plan/streetsroads.htm>. September 15, 2005.

Office of Transportation and Air Quality. Mobile Source Emissions Past, Present, and Future. Washington, D.C: United States Environmental Protection Agency, March 11, 2005. <http://www.epa.gov/otaq/invntory/overview/pollutants/index.htm>. September 15, 2005. Rock Island District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Inland Waterway Navigation Value to the Nation. 2004. Rock Island, Illinois: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. <www.mvr.usace.army.mil/Brochures/ InlandWaterwayNavigation.asp>. September 15, 2004. Rodriguez, Dr. Jean-Paul. Chapter 8: Transport and Environment. The Geography of Transportation Systems. Hempstead, New York: Hofstra University, Department of Economics & Geography, 2005. Sterling, George, Planning Board Chairman. Chapter 6: Traffic & Transportation. Master Plan Update. Town of Peterborough, New Hampshire: Office of Community Development, November 2003. Town of Ithaca. Park, Recreation, and Open Space Plan. Executive Summary. Ithaca, N.Y: Town of Ithaca, December, 1997. Transportation Choices Coalition. The Environmental Threat: Sprawl, Air and Water Pollution, Global Warming. Washington, D.C: Transportation Choices Coalition, 2003. <http://www.transportationchoices.org/facts-environmental.asp>. September 15, 2005. United States Department of Agriculture. Steps to a Healthier You. Mypyramid.gov. Undated. <http://www.mypyramid.gov/> June 28, 2006. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation: Highway, Rail, Aviation, and Maritime Transport. Washington, D.C: Policy, Planning, and Evaluation (2126), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Publication 230-R-96-009, Government Printing Office, October 1996. Varricchione, Brian J. Enhancing Pedestrian Access in Tompkins County: A Guidebook on Sidewalk Improvements. A Professional Report Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Cornell University. May 2003.

Photo Credits: Photos on pages 1, 2, 17, 18 by Dan Burden @ www.pedbikeimages.org Photos on cover, pages 3, 7 (speedometer), 8, 9, 11, 12, 13 (waterfall), 15, 19, & 20 by Nicole Tedesco. Photo on page 7 (cars) by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Trafficjam.jpg Photo on page 14 (car) by http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/ 20000902/a3681_1977.jpg Photo on page 14 by Google Earth http://www.earth.google.com

21

The Town of Ithaca Transportation Plan Volume I: The Plan

Version: April 25, 2007 Town of Ithaca Town Board Contact: jkanter@town.ithaca.ny.us

I N T R O D U C T I O N ................................................................ ................................................................................................ .................................................................. .................................. 1 G O A L S A N D O B J E C T I V E S ................................................................ ............................................................................... ............................................... 5

ACCESS AND MOBILITY .................................................................................................................... 5 LIVABILITY ..................................................................................................................................... 5 SAFETY ......................................................................................................................................... 6 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT ......................................................................................... 6 COORDINATION .............................................................................................................................. 6 LAND USE PLANNING ...................................................................................................................... 6 ENVIRONMENT ............................................................................................................................... 7

B A C K G R O U N D C O N D I T I O N S ................................................................ .......................................................................... .......................................... 8

THE TOWN OF ITHACA...................................................................................................................... 8 POLICY, PLANNING, AND FUNDING FRAMEWORK ................................................................................. 9
Federal Policy: ISTEA, TEA-21, & SAFETEA-LU .......................................................................................9 New York State Transportation Policy .................................................................................................. 11 Regional and Local Policy Framework.................................................................................................. 12 Other Related Regional Transportation Plans & Policies.................................................................... 13

DEMOGRAPHIC & TRANSPORTATION PROFILE ...................................................................................14

Census Data........................................................................................................................................... 14 Demographic and Housing Data...................................................................................................... 14 Transportation-Related Data ........................................................................................................... 16 National Travel Surveys......................................................................................................................... 17 Trip Purpose...................................................................................................................................... 18 Trip Mode .......................................................................................................................................... 19 Trip Purpose and Mode.................................................................................................................... 19 Town of Ithaca Transportation Survey.................................................................................................. 20 Work Here, Live There: Commuters..................................................................................................... 23

INVENTORY

AND

A N A L Y S I S ................................................................ ......................................................................... .........................................25 ......... 25

STATE , COUNTY, AND TOWN ROADWAYS .........................................................................................25

The Official Highway Map and Road Network Design ......................................................................... 25 Inventory ........................................................................................................................................... 26 Analysis ............................................................................................................................................. 27 Identification of Needs ..................................................................................................................... 28 Roadway Function and Right-of-Way Design ....................................................................................... 29 Inventory ........................................................................................................................................... 29 Analysis ............................................................................................................................................. 33 Identification of Needs ..................................................................................................................... 34 Traffic Data: Volumes, Speeds, & Crashes ......................................................................................... 35 Volume & Capacity Data .................................................................................................................. 36 Speed Data ....................................................................................................................................... 40 Road Safety: Crash Information & Location Analyses................................................................... 45 Roadway Maintenance.......................................................................................................................... 51

Inventory ........................................................................................................................................... 51 Analysis ............................................................................................................................................. 51 Identification of Needs ..................................................................................................................... 52 A Summary of the Road Network in the Town of Ithaca ..................................................................... 53 Radial Roads..................................................................................................................................... 56 Feeder Roads.................................................................................................................................... 60 Circumferential Roads...................................................................................................................... 65 Subdivision Access Roads ............................................................................................................... 70 Internal Subdivision Roads .............................................................................................................. 70

AUTO ALTERNATIVES .....................................................................................................................71

Bus Transit and Paratransit .................................................................................................................. 71 Inventory ........................................................................................................................................... 71 Analysis ............................................................................................................................................. 74 Identification of Needs ..................................................................................................................... 75 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities .......................................................................................................... 76 Inventory ........................................................................................................................................... 77 Analysis ............................................................................................................................................. 78 Identification of Needs ..................................................................................................................... 79

ADDITIONAL TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS ..........................................................................................80

Passenger Air and Rail Travel ............................................................................................................... 80 Inventory and Analysis...................................................................................................................... 80 Identification of Needs/ Recognition of Limitations....................................................................... 81 Freight Via Truck, Rail, and Air.............................................................................................................. 81 Inventory ........................................................................................................................................... 81 Analysis ............................................................................................................................................. 83 Identification of Needs ..................................................................................................................... 84

OTHER TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM ISSUES .......................................................................................85

The Natural Environment and the Transportation System ................................................................. 85 Sensitivity in Scenic Areas ............................................................................................................... 85 Air Quality, Water Quality, and Energy Efficiency ............................................................................ 85 Other Environmental Issues............................................................................................................. 88 Identification of Needs ..................................................................................................................... 89 Regional Development and the Transportation System ..................................................................... 89 A Regional System............................................................................................................................ 90 Using a Model to Compare Development Patterns ........................................................................ 90 Identification of Needs ..................................................................................................................... 93 Transportation, the Built Environment, and Public Health ................................................................. 93 Respiratory Disorders and Diseases ............................................................................................... 93 Consequences of Physical Inactivity: Obesity and Related Disorders.......................................... 94 Bicyclist and Pedestrian Vulnerability in Traffic Crashes ............................................................... 94 Equity and Social Well-Being ........................................................................................................... 95 Identification of Needs ..................................................................................................................... 96

A L T E R N A T I V E S................................................................ ................................................................................................ ................................................................. ................................. 97 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S ................................................................ .................................................................................... ....................................................107 ....................107

The Town Transportation Plan ............................................................................................................108 Roadway and Road Network Issues ...................................................................................................108 Bicycle & Pedestrian Issues ................................................................................................................112 Transit Issues .......................................................................................................................................115 Regional Cooperation ..........................................................................................................................116 Capital Budget Projects .......................................................................................................................117 Zoning, Subdivision Regulations, and Site Plan Review ...................................................................118 Attachments.........................................................................................................................................122 Attachment A: Recommendations Involving Non-Town Entities .................................................122 Attachment B: Recommendations Per Goal ................................................................................124 Attachment C: Time-Frames and Priorities for New Initiatives ...................................................126 Attachment D: The Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan & The Transportation Plan ...............128 Attachment E: Ideas for Bicyclist and Pedestrian Safety Education and Evaluation ................131 Attachment F: Ideas for a Biking and Walking Encouragement Strategy ..................................133 Attachment G: Site Plan Review Checklist...................................................................................135

LIST

OF

FIGURES

Figure A: Figure B: Figure C: Figure D: Figure E: Figure F:

Vehicle Availability by Household, Various Sources ....................................................................... 20 Percentage of Households by Mode, Various Sources .................................................................. 21 Transportation Problems in the Town, Survey................................................................................ 22 Transportation Solutions for the Town, Survey .............................................................................. 23 Workers & Residents in Tompkins County...................................................................................... 23 Emission Sources in Tompkins County, 1998................................................................................ 87

LIST

OF

TABLES

Table 1: Population Distribution Changes, Town of Ithaca, 1990-2000...................................................... 15 Table 2: Carpooling by Municipality, 2000 Census ....................................................................................... 17 Table 3: Person Trips per Day by Trip Purpose: 1995 and 2001 ................................................................ 18 Table 4: Daily Person Trips by Mode: 1995 and 2001.................................................................................. 19 Table 5: Mileage in the Town of Each Functional Classification With Examples ......................................... 32 Table 6: Traffic Data in the Plan ..................................................................................................................... 35 Table 7: VOC for Various Segments of Routes 96 & 79................................................................................ 37 Table 8: NYSDOT Target Design Speeds ........................................................................................................ 41 Table 9: Roads with Speeding Problems........................................................................................................ 41 Table 10: Locations of Crashes Involving Another Vehicle (1999-2001) .................................................... 45 Table 11: Locations and Crashes Involving Animals (1999-2001) .............................................................. 46 Table 12: Crashes on Town-owned Roads or Intersections by First Event, 1999-2001............................. 47 Table 13: Hazardous Roads Survey Question and Responses..................................................................... 49 Table 14: TCAT Routes Serving the Town of Ithaca ....................................................................................... 72 Table 15: Truck Volumes on Roads within the Town..................................................................................... 82 Table 16: Projected 30-year Increases due to Development........................................................................ 91 Table 17: VOC on Routes 96 & 79 Under Various Scenarios ....................................................................... 92 Table 18: Issues, Locations, & Strategies...................................................................................................... 98

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Town of Ithaca Transportation Committee Current and Former Town Board Representatives: Will Burbank, Town Board member, Chair Cathy Valentino, Town Supervisor, Former Chair William Lesser, Former Town Board member, Former Chair Pat Leary, Town Board member Tom Niederkorn, Former Town Board member Planning Board Representative: George Conneman, Planning Board member Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council Representative: Fernando de Aragon, Director of the Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council Cornell University Representatives: Bill Wendt, Director of Transportation and Mail Services John Gutenberger, Director of Government and Community Relations Andrew Eastlick, Transportation Planner Staff Representatives: Fred Noteboom, Highway Superintendent Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning Dan Walker, Director of Engineering Susan Ritter, Assistant Director of Planning Nicole Tedesco, Planner Esther Blodau-Konick, Planner

The Town of Ithaca Transportation Committee would like to thank the following individuals and groups for their invaluable input into the development of the Plan: The Town of Ithaca Town Board The Town of Ithaca Planning Board The Town of Ithaca Conservation Board Lois Chaplin, Bicycle & Pedestrian Program Manager, Cornell Local Roads Program Bruce Brittain and Doug Brittain, Forest Home residents All of the other individuals and groups who provided their valuable time and input into the Plan Finally, the Town of Ithaca Transportation Committee would like to especially thank Nicole Tedesco, principal author and coordinator of the Transportation Plan, for the extraordinary effort that she provided in the preparation of the Plan and for the excellent document that has resulted.

INTRODUCTION

The Purpose of This Transportation Plan From gas prices to the bus ride to school, air pollution to neighborhood livability, transportation touches nearly every aspect of our world. Because of the importance of transportation planning, the Town of Ithacas Comprehensive Plan (1993) recommended the creation of a Transportation Plan. This Transportation Plan was created by the Town Transportation Committee, with technical assistance from the Town Planning Department. This Transportation Plan is divided into three volumes. This first volume, The Plan, contains the planning document itself. The second volume, The Appendices, contains supplemental information about the Towns transportation system. The third volume, The Design Guidelines, contains design guidelines related to streetscapes, bicycling and walking facilities, and traffic calming. This Transportation Plan is a long-range plan (with a general horizon of 20 years) that defines a community vision of how the transportation system should develop and what it should become. The aim of this Transportation Plan is to foster a transportation system that enhances the quality of life in the Town. This Plan outlines seven goals around the themes of Access & Mobility, Livability, Safety, Transportation System Management, Coordination, Land Use Planning, and the Environment. Background Conditions The Background Conditions Chapter of this volume, The Plan, explores the effect that history, geography, demographics, and policies have on the transportation system in the area. This chapter reveals the multilayered governance of the transportation system, the impact of students and commuters on the area transportation system, and the prevalence of the privately-owned motor vehicle in the transportation system. Historically, the Town of Ithaca was a rural municipality with residential development on East Hill. Post-World War II development has been mostly diffuse and low-density (suburban); this is one reason why the privately-owned motor vehicle is the most popular mode in the Town. The Town is shaped like a doughnut with the City of Ithaca, the countys employment and cultural center, located in the middle. Roads and creeks that run through the Town like spokes leading to the hub of the City affect travel patterns, especially the impact of commuter traffic. Students at the two major institutions of higher learningIthaca College and Cornell Universityare more likely to walk to work or class than their nonstudent counterparts. Finally, there are policies and plans at all levels of government that affect the way that the transportation system is developed and funded. Inventory and Analysis The Inventory & Analysis of this volume, The Plan, covers roadways, including volume, speed, and crash data, public transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, other modes like air travel and freight, and other related topics, such as the built and natural environments, regional development, and public health. 1

Each section begins with an exploration of available data before an analysis of the situation and a conclusion about problems or needs. Overall, the roadway system in the Town is functioning well, although there are negative impacts to neighborhood livability in some areas. In many cases, roads are classified for one function, designed for another purpose, and employed for yet another use. In many areas, traffic volumes and speeds are so high that they impact the quality of life for residents and roadway users. Fortunately, roads owned by the Town have good safety records; clusters of crashes are on County- or State-owned roads. This points to a reoccurring theme throughout the Plan: many problems occur outside the Towns jurisdiction. Therefore, it is very important for the Town to work with other municipalities, organizations, and agencies to implement the Recommendations of the Plan. TCAT (Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit) is the transit provider for the Town of Ithaca. Most of TCATs routes are concentrated in the City and Cornells campus, but routes extend out to the Town and beyond. Development on South and West Hills in the Town will lead to increased need for transit in those areas. Currently, pedestrian facilities in the Town are mostly multi-use trails and walkways, which are owned and maintained by the Town. There are sidewalks (owned and maintained by property owners) in a few developments, but dedicated pedestrian infrastructure is rare and disconnected. Facilities for bicyclists are primarily road lanes and shoulders, although bicyclists are permitted to ride on multi-use trails. There is not sufficient non-motorized infrastructure for the current level of development in the Town, and the lack will worsen with further development. The Plan discusses air travel and freight very briefly. It concludes that there is little the Town can do actively to improve air travel, but the Town can work to protect neighborhoods from excessive truck traffic. Negative environmental effects from over-dependency on low occupancy motor vehicles are felt on scenic, air, water, and energy resources, as well as via light, heat, and noise impacts. Land use patterns and transportation affect each other, where dispersed development requires motor vehicles, and roadways and parking for motor vehicles can lead to additional dispersed development. A transportation system that is overly dependent on privately-owned motor vehicles leaves behind groups such as the young, old, poor and disabled, groups that are marginalized in other ways, as well. Needs and Alternatives The Inventory and Analysis points to a fundamental imbalance in the current transportation system: it favors low-occupancy, privately owned motor vehicles at the expense of other modes. Therefore, the Recommendations of the Plan focus on maintaining the existing roadway network while protecting neighborhoods from excessive traffic burdens and expanding a system of alternatives to the low occupancy motor vehicles. The main needs identified in the Inventory are as follows: Adoption of an updated Official Highway Map; A set of design guidelines to protect livability, improve safety, and enhance mobility; Mitigation for high traffic volumes and speeds in some areas;

Funding and flexibility to construct and maintain appropriate physical infrastructure; Improved bicycling, walking, and transit opportunities; A reduction of the transportation impacts on the natural environment; Examination of how transportation affects land use, and vice versa.

The Alternatives Chapter identifies potential solutions for all of the needs identified in the Inventory and lists the potential advantages and disadvantages for each. This Chapter emphasizes the need to strike a balance between the advantages and disadvantages of the various approaches to addressing transportation issues. Recommendations The Recommendations Chapter of this volume, The Plan, is organized around seven topics: the Transportation Plan itself, Roadways and Rights-of-Way, Bicycle and Pedestrian Issues, Public Transit, Regional Cooperation, Capital Budget Projects, and Zoning, Subdivision, and Site Plan Review. The Transportation Plan Recommendation advises the Town Board to adopt the Plan as an element of the Comprehensive Plan and to update the Transportation Plan as necessary. The Roadways Recommendations cover issues such as the Official Highway Map, engineering and design, maintenance, traffic calming, enforcement, environmental sensitivity, inter-jurisdictional coordination, potential new roadway corridors and other issues. Part of this Recommendation is a set of best practices Design Guidelines for streetscape design, traffic calming, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Recommendation topics include a revised Sidewalk Policy, expansion of facilities across the Town, design recommendations, connections between transit and non-motorized modes, multi-use trails, safety education and evaluation, enforcement of bicycle and pedestrian laws, an encouragement strategy, and bicycle equipment. The Transit Recommendations recognize that transit will play an important role in the reduction of congestion and improvement of access and mobility for all in the Town. They focus on Park-and-Ride, ease of use, funding, transit in existing and new development, and other high-occupancy vehicle strategies. The Regional Cooperation Recommendations emphasize that working together and sharing resources will help to create a transportation system that is seamless across municipal boundaries. The Recommendations discuss the ITCTC, Cornells t-GEIS and TIMS, the Town Transportation Committee, multi-use trails in the County, Park-and-Ride, design issues, and traffic demand management. The Capital Budget Projects Recommendations outline the role of a Capital Budget in a local governments long-term planning. They concern the role of capital budgeting and the capital budget horizon, budget appropriations, other funding sources, and specific projects. Finally, the Zoning, Subdivision, and Site Plan Review Recommendations examine the relationship between land use and transportation and suggest that the Town should examine the Zoning Code and

Subdivision Regulations to determine if and how they can better support a balanced transportation system. These Recommendations offer guidelines on topics ranging from mixing land uses to density, setbacks to parking requirements, and pedestrian circulation to transit access. Public Participation Public participation was an important factor in drafting this Plan. In the fall of 2003, the Transportation Committee authored a survey that asked about transportation habits and opinions, which was sent to all property owners in the Town. The purpose was to gauge the publics attitude about transportation issues. In addition, the Transportation Committee has sponsored three public information meetings throughout the course of the development of the Plan, in addition to the three public hearings held as part of the environmental review of the Plan. Using Volume I, The Plan Throughout this volume, boxes highlight important concepts and terms. See the example boxes at right for more information.
The Plan uses this arrow symbol to emphasize important points or conclusions. This symbol highlights important terms and definitions.

Figures are labeled with a letter and, in some situations, with a number. Figures labeled with only a letter are found in the body of the text. Figures labeled with A and then a number are found in The Appendices, Appendix II, Supplementary Tables. Tables are labeled with a number, and they are only found in the body of the text.

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

The overall mission of this Transportation Plan is to foster a transportation system that enhances the quality of life in the Town of Ithaca. This Plan envisions a multi-modal transportation system that is compatible with the Towns objectives as expressed in the Comprehensive Plan, sensitive to the built and natural environments, and accessible to all. This transportation system will restore a balance between the privately owned motor vehicle and alternative modes, such as walking, biking, taking transit, and so on. This Plan seeks to build on the strengths of the current transportation system while mitigating its weaknesses. It aims to preserve and maintain the current road system while improving safety. The Plan also endeavors to improve access, mobility, and livability in the Town by expanding multi-modal options. This Plan recognizes that there are factors over which the Town policy-makers have little control, but many of those factors can be influenced with creative planning. For example, many non-residents use the Towns transportation network as they travel into and out of the City of Ithaca; this Plan seeks to accommodate their movements while protecting the quality of life for Town residents. This Plan also calls for the development of new criteria and procedures to guide decision-making and allocation of resources within the Towns jurisdiction as the transportation system develops according to the goals identified in this section. This section outlines the Plans vision, as illustrated through goals and objectives. Goals identify key topics, while objectives list various components of the topic. The themes of this Transportation Plan are Access & Mobility, Livability, Safety, Transportation System Management, Coordination, Land Use Planning, and the Environment.

ACCESS AND MOBILITY

Goal: Develop and maintain a multi-modal transportation system that provides for the effective movement of people and goods. Objectives: Develop a transportation system that serves the mobility interests of Town residents and businesses, while recognizing the interests of through traffic. Develop a multi-modal transportation system that includes appropriate public transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.

LIVABILITY
Goal: Develop and maintain a transportation system that promotes safe, healthy, and attractive neighborhoods. Objectives: Employ road design guidelines that encourage compliance with posted speed limits and protect neighborhoods from undue traffic burdens, such as noise and air pollution.

When modifying or rebuilding roads in residential areas, work to beautify streetscapes, restore roadways to a human scale, and improve the character and livability of the neighborhoods through which they pass.

SAFETY
Goal: Strive to provide a safe transportation system, and prioritize safety and security in the implementation of every goal for both motorized and non-motorized modes of transportation. Objectives: Monitor the transportation system using crash, speed, sight distance data, etc. to identify and mitigate safety problems. Work to lower 85th percentile speeds on certain roads through design changes, and continue to request NYSDOT to lower speed limits on certain roads. Implement a transportation safety program, including elements of education, enforcement, and engineering.

TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT

Goal: Preserve and maintain the transportation system. Objectives: Work to ensure that sufficient capital resources are available to maintain the transportation system. Preserve current and planned rights-of-way for the transportation system. Periodically update the Town Transportation Plan to reflect changes within the transportation system and the consequent evolution of transportation-related problems, needs, and solutions.

COORDINATION
Goal: Work with other local and regional organizations to ensure a regionally coordinated transportation system. Objectives: Continue to explore opportunities for increased inter-municipal sharing of facilities, equipment, labor, knowledge, and expertise. Support the establishment of community and regional pedestrian and bicycle facilities throughout the County.

LAND USE PLANNING

Goal: Ensure that future development minimizes adverse impacts on the current and future transportation system by promoting development patterns that reduce the need for and

use of automobiles and encourage the use of alternate modes of transportation. Objectives: Consider transportation impacts when making land use decisions, and consider land use impacts (in terms of land use patterns, densities, and designated uses) when making transportationrelated decisions. Relate the scale and concentration of development to what can be supported by the transportation system, according to the Town Comprehensive Plan.

ENVIRONMENT
Goal: Protect the environment, including the significant natural, agricultural, scenic, and historic resources of the Town of Ithaca. Objectives: Consider the environmental consequences of transportation decisions and minimize negative impacts on the natural environment whenever reasonable and to the greatest possible degree. Work to reduce the negative effects of motor vehicle over-dependence, including detriments to open space and air quality, by reducing the number of vehicles on the road and the average distance and duration of trips.

BACKGROUND CONDITIONS

Many non-transportation related factors affect the transportation system. It is necessary to understand the context within which the local and regional transportation system operates. This Chapter presents a brief history of the Town of Ithaca. It also outlines the policies at the national, state, regional, and local level that guide Town Boards and private decision-makers. The Chapter concludes by using demographics to profile the characteristics of Town residents, as well as their transportation choices and habits. Census and survey data describe the travel patterns, habits, and choices of residents; this profile is influenced by the current transportation situation and influences the development of our future transportation system. This section provides information about the mode choices, travel purposes, vehicle availability, and other transportation characteristics of Town residents.

THE TOWN OF ITHACA

This section presents a brief history of the Town of Ithaca, from its geological history through its development as part of the regional center commonly known as Ithaca. It is within this context that the transportation system was established and has grown into its present form.
Gorges, hills, and waterfalls are products of the regions glacial history. Educational institutions have a great influence on the culture of the region.

The Town of Ithaca is located on the hills and along the Inlet Valley at the southern end of Cayuga Lake in the eastern Finger Lakes region of central New York State. Map 1 and Map 2 in Appendix 1 of Volume II, The Appendices, show Ithaca and the surrounding region. The Town of Ithaca, established in 1821, includes the Village of Cayuga Heights, which was incorporated in 1915. Currently, the Village of Cayuga Heights maintains its own board of trustees and planning board, police force, and zoning board of appeals and code enforcement officer; thus, the focus of this Transportation Plan is the rest of the Town outside the Village. The Town surrounds the City of Ithaca; the eight other towns of Tompkins County surround the Town of Ithaca. Prominent features of the regions natural environmentits lakes, gorges, hills, and soilsare mainly the result of Ice Age glaciations. Natural features such as these affected the development of the transportation system by creating natural corridors and barriers to movement (see Map 3, Volume II, Appendix IITopography of the Town of Ithaca). This region was originally populated by the Iroquois Confederation, who were driven away by European settlers. Settlers introduced different ways to use the land by clearing forests to establish farms and by mining to extract coal to feed the growing industrial cities of Upstate New York. The land that now is the Town of Ithaca remained largely rural and agricultural in character until the end of the nineteenth century. The Towns population (outside of the Village of Cayuga Heights) has grown significantly since the turn of the last century (in 1900, only 1,500 people lived in the Town). At the close of World War II, the Towns population stood at 4,000; by 2000, the population grew to nearly 15,000. The Towns development has

been largely residential and institutional in character, with some commercial development. For more demographic information about the Town, please see the Census subsection under the Transportation Profile section in this chapter. In recent decades, the local economy and changes in the physical environmentincluding the transportation networkhave been driven by the educational institutions in Ithaca: Cornell University and, to a lesser degree, Ithaca College. Founded in 1865, Cornell combines endowed, private colleges with state public land-grant colleges. The University has now grown to nearly 20,000 students and 10,000 staff members, and it is the largest employer in Tompkins County. Ithaca College, founded in 1892, enrolls approximately 6,300 students and employs 1,600 teaching staff. The academic, research, commercial, and real estate activities of these institutions contribute to the areas vibrant, yet small-town feel, its economy, and the diversity of its residents.

POLICY, PLANNING, AND FUNDING FRAMEWORK

This section provides a brief discussion of the policies, programs, and plans that guide transportation planning and development in the United States of America, New York State, Tompkins County, and the Town of Ithaca. Policy is the main governmental tool for improving the access and mobility, livability, and safety of the transportation system. This Plan provides examples of the important role of non-profit organizations and the necessary cooperation between municipalities, other governmental agencies, and non-profit organizations. Funding for the implementation of the recommendations of the Planthat is, programs and policiesis imperative if its vision is to become a reality.

FEDERAL POLICY: ISTEA, TEATEA-21, & SAFETEASAFETEA-LU

The history of federal transportation policy reflects a slow transition from auto-centric interstate highway funding to an emphasis on connectivity, intermodality, and public participation. Before World War II, the federal government had little to do with the planning or funding of transportation activities. Private industries supplied rail, trolley, and road projects. The efficiency of Germanys autobahns during World War II inspired President Eisenhower to sign the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, which provided federal funds for 90% of the construction or upgrade of the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways. The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1962 shifted some of the responsibility for creating the Interstate system to the states themselves by requiring that state highway departments be part of a comprehensive, continuing, coordinated planning process. The 1976 Federal-Aid Highway Act made it possible for a portion of federal highway funds to be used for other transportation projects, such as mass transit.1 The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) helps fund transit programs by giving funds to a State Department of Transportation (DOT), which, in turn, allocates the funds to Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) within the state. A metropolitan planning organization (MPO) is responsible for transportation planning at the regional level for urbanized areas with populations greater than 50,000. The MPO for the greater Ithaca area is called the Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council (ITCTC).
Reeves, 2002

There are many FTA programs that affect public transit in Tompkins County, including Sections 5307, 5309, 5310, 5311, 5316, and 5317 (all federal funds), as well as STP Flex (federal funds) and STOA (state funds). Section 5307 provides the bulk of federal funds to public transit in Tompkins County; the funding can be used for capital projects or operating assistance. Section 5309 provides funding for buses and bus facilities, Section 5310 provides funds for transportation for the elderly and disabled, and Section 5311 provides funds for rural services. Section 5316, also known as "Job Access and Reverse Commute" (JARC) funds, are used to connect low-income persons to job opportunities, and Section 5317 funds ("New Freedom" funds) are used for services for persons with disabilities. STP Flex (Surface Transportation Program Flexible Funding) are federal highway funds that can be transferred to Section 5307 for capital projects. Finally, STOA (State Transit Operating Assistance) is funding from the state, which provides $0.405 per passenger and $0.69 per vehicle mile. Three pieces of recent legislation have directed the course of transportation planning into the 21st century. The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991 changed the direction of federal transportation policy toward a vision of an interconnected national intermodal transportation system that is economically efficient and environmentally sound, provides the foundation for the nation to compete in the global economy, and will move people and goods in an energy efficient manner.2 The act expanded the ability to spend federal highway funds on transportation projects other than highways, including bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and emphasized the need to manage the existing transportation system more efficiently rather than increasing supply (i.e. building more roads).3 In contrast to previous decades of centralized, bureaucratic transportation engineering, the ISTEA gave more planning oversight to regional organizations and encouraged public participation in transportation planning.
Transportation affects nearly every aspect of our lives, from our quality of life to our jobs to the price of bread. Our government is responsible for negotiating a balance between various needs to protect the safety and welfare of its citizens.

The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) of 1998 confirmed the direction set by the ISTEA of 1991. The largest public works bill in U.S. history, TEA-21 changed the federal budget structure by guaranteeing a minimum level of funding ($194 billion total over six years) while providing for the possible allocation of more ($217 billion).4 Overall, TEA-21 increased funding for surface transportation projects; for example, it authorized $42 billion and guaranteed $36 billion for transit projects, an increase of 50% over the funding provided through ISTEA.5 In July of 2005, Congress passed SAFETEA-LU (Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users), a $286.4 billion five-year reauthorization bill. This legislation focuses on the safety and security of the nations highway system, but it also offers opportunities for bicycle and pedestrian programs (including Safe Routes to School programs), funding for the Congestion Mitigation Air Quality program (including the conversion of diesel buses to cleaner fuels), and funding to improve transit in small cities (population <200,000).

2Reeves,

2002, and Congress, 1991 1995, p. 22 4NYSDOT, What Is 5American Planning Association, Legislative Priority
3Hanson,

10

NEW YORK STATE TRANSPORTATION POLICY

Transportation policy at the state level takes the form of environmental Too much alphabet guidelines, such as the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) soup? See Appendix X and storm water regulations, and funding mechanisms for transportation for a Glossary of Terms. programs. The process laid out in SEQRA examines the impact that certain actionssuch as the construction of a freeway or bus depotcould have on the natural and built environments. SEQRA allows the lead agency, or the group reviewing the action, to require the applicant to mitigate any negative environmental consequences that the action may cause. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation recently updated the states storm water regulations, which indirectly affect surface transportation. As water from rain or melted snow filters back into the watershed, it picks up pollutants and sediments. Impervious surfaces, such as paved parking lots and roads, increase the rate of runoff and often are sites of contamination. The system of culverts and ditches constructed or maintained next to a road must comply with storm water regulations. Policies such as SEQRA and the storm water regulations are indirectly a part of the policies governing the state transportation system. The state is also responsible for much of the allocation of funds from state and federal budgets. These funds are distributed through programs such as the Transportation Enhancement Program (TEP), the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), and the Consolidated Local Street and Highway Improvement Program (CHIPS). The federal ISTEA established TEP to provide federal reimbursement for non-traditional projects that add value to the transportation system by relating to the needs of people.6 Eligible projects include facilities for bicycles and pedestrians, safety and educational activities for bicyclists and pedestrians, acquisition of scenic easements and scenic or historic sites, landscaping and other scenic beautification, other context sensitive planning activities, historic preservation, rehabilitation and operation of historic transportation buildings or facilities, preservation of abandoned railway corridors, control and removal of outdoor advertising, archaeological planning and research, environmental mitigation to address water pollution due to highway runoff, and establishment of transportation museums.7 The New York State Department of Transportation, in conjunction with a local Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), evaluates proposals for TEP funding. STIP coordinates the projects qualifying for and receiving federal funding to develop the statewide surface transportation network.8 CHIPS is a funding program whose purpose is to assist localities in financing the construction, reconstruction, or improvement of local highways, bridges, highway-railroad crossings, and/or other local facilities.9 In August of 2005, New York State voters approved the $2.9 billion Rebuild and Renew New York Transportation Bond Act of 2005 as part of the States Transportation Plan. This money will be used for

NYSDOT, 2002 Ibid. 8 NYSDOT, Statewide Transportation 9 NYSDOT, CHIPS

6 7

11

infrastructure improvements and will be split between highways/ bridges and other transportation modes, such as public transit, biking, and walking. One of the projects to be funded through this bond in the Southern Tier is the conversion of Route 17 into Interstate 86.

REGIONAL AND AND LOCAL POLICY FRAMEWORK

As previously mentioned, a metropolitan planning organization (MPO) is responsible for transportation planning at the regional level for urbanized areas with populations greater than 50,000. The MPO for the greater Ithaca area is called the Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council (ITCTC). Voting members of the Policy Committee include Tompkins County, the City of Ithaca, Town of Ithaca, Village of Lansing, Village of Cayuga Heights, Town of Dryden, and NYSDOT. Non-voting members include TCAT, Cornell University, the Towns of Danby, Groton, Ulysses, Newfield, Enfield, Caroline, and Lansing, and FHWA (Federal Highway Administration), and FTA (Federal Transit Administration). The Planning Committee includes representatives from the Town of Ithaca, City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, Village of Cayuga Heights, Town of Dryden, Village of Lansing, Town of Enfield, Town of Ulysses, TCAT, NYSDOT, Cornell University, FHWA, and FTA (all are voting members except FHWA and FTA). The ITCTC is responsible for three main activities: the Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP), the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), and the Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). The Unified Planning Work Program is an annual work program detailing activities of the ITCTC.10 The Transportation Improvement Program is a list of specific, short-term (five-year), tangible projects that are the practical translation of the priorities of the ITCTCs LRTP and UPWP.11 The LRTP is the fulfillment of the Federal Highway Act of 1962, which required a continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive approach to transportation planning at the regional level. The LRTP takes the longest time frame20 yearsto plan both short-term and long-range transportation strategies and goals. The ITCTC has helped with the development of the Towns Transportation Plan by providing technical support, including data analysis and transportation models, and advisory assistance. Within the Town of Ithaca, the Comprehensive Plan of 1993, subdivision regulations, and the zoning ordinance have helped to guide the development of this Transportation Plan. In fact, one of the highest priority actions identified in the Comprehensive Plan was to initiate the preparation of a Transportation Plan. Attachment D at the end of the Recommendations Chapter of this volume, includes a discussion on how this Plan has fulfilled the charge of the Comprehensive Plan. The institutions of higher education in the county are often responsible for the roads on their campuses. For example, Cornell University owns and maintains Tower Road, Campus Road, and Plantations Road, although both university- and non-university related traffic drive on them. The institutions set their own policies concerning road construction and maintenance, parking regulation, the construction of sidewalks, walkways, and bike lanes, and so on. Even though the university transportation system is on university-owned property and the university controls its programs and policies related to transportation,

10 11

ITCTC, 2003-2006 TIP Ibid.

12

the university must still seek the appropriate permits and approvals from the Town before beginning construction or rehabilitation efforts.

OTHER RELATED REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS & POLICIES

Several recent regional and local transportation plans and policies inform the development of this plan, including: Town of Ithaca Interim Sidewalk Policy (2003); Tompkins County Freight Transportation Study; Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan; North Campus Circulation Study; Northeast Subarea Transportation Study (NESTS) & the follow-up NESTS Transit Study; Northeast Walkability Study; Forest Home Traffic Calming Plan; Cornell Transportation-focused Generic Environmental Impact Statement (t-GEIS). The Town of Ithaca Interim Sidewalk Policy was adopted in 2003 in order to establish criteria by which the Town could determine what locations need pedestrian facilities. There are two sets of criteria (one for new development, one for existing development). As a result of the Policy, the Town distinguishes between sidewalks, which are owned and maintained by property owners for the benefit of the immediate vicinity, and walkways, which are owned and maintained by the Town for the benefit of the general public beyond the immediate neighborhood. The Freight Study recommended changes to certain routes and areas in the County to protect the livability of neighborhoods while enhancing the efficiency of freight delivery. The main recommendation of the Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan is to direct development into nodes. This preserves undeveloped and agricultural land and presents the opportunity for development of sufficient density to allow realistic alternatives to the low occupancy motor vehicle. The Plan also recommended the development of a bicycle suitability map, the development of a Route 13 Corridor Management Plan, a traffic signal evaluation and upgrade project, a crash reporting project, an infrastructure needs assessment project, implementation of the Freight Study recommendations, and the development of a comprehensive Park-and-Ride system for the County. The North Campus Circulation Study examined the traffic patterns around Cornells north campus, with a focus on the Thurston Avenue Bridge area, and recommended projects to improve pedestrian conditions. Work on the bridge began in the summer of 2006 and its anticipated completion date is October 2007. The original Northeast Subarea Transportation Study (NESTS) study was an area-wide transportation study for the Northeast area of Ithaca. The follow-up NESTS Transit Study examined the feasibility of encouraging commuters in the northeast part of the Town who now use a privately operated motor vehicle to switch to transit. The Study discovered that the main determining factor was coverage of transit, including frequency of service.

13

The Northeast Walkability Study is a pilot project by the County Planning Department that is funded through a federal grant. The goal of the project is to come up with a set of specific, concrete, and practical recommendations to improve the walkability of a neighborhood. The study begins with the creation of a walkability checklist, tailored to the conditions in the Northeast neighborhood, including a section of the Town of Ithaca and a small part of the Village of Cayuga Heights. Then, residents will rate their neighborhood on the walkability criteria, and recommendations will be made based on the information collected during the project. If the project is successful, it may be expanded to other locations and municipalities in the future. Residents of Forest Home hired a consultant to create the Forest Home Traffic Calming Plan, which recommends gateway treatments to the six entrances to the Forest Home neighborhood, as well as other traffic calming features and pedestrian amenities to be located throughout the neighborhood. The draft Plan was completed in early 2007. According to the Scope of Cornells t-GEIS, the purpose of the t-GEIS is to identify, examine, and evaluate transportation-related impacts of hypothetical Cornell University population growth scenarios over the next decade on transportation systems and neighborhoods. The t-GEIS will address these impacts by evaluating and proposing mitigation measures to encourage alternatives to single-occupancy vehicle use by those traveling to and from Cornell. A major objective of the t-GEIS is to develop ways to reduce the number of trips by motor vehicles traveling through residential neighborhoods to and from Cornell. It will identify ways to get people, not vehicles, to campus.12 TIMS, or Transportation Impact Mitigation Strategies, will follow from the findings of the t-GEIS.

DEMOGRAPHIC & TRANSPORTATION PROFILE

This section answers the following questions: Who lives in the Town (and region)? How do different groups of residents get around? What do they think about transportation in the Town? To answer these questions, this section examines data from the national Census, the National Personal Transportation Survey and the National Household Travel Survey, and a survey of Town residents conducted by the Town Transportation Committee. This chapter presents a brief demographic profile of the Town for background reference, and then provides a more detailed analysis of data pertaining to the travel choices and habits of residents in the Town and region.

CENSUS DATA Demographic and Housing Data

12

t-GEIS Project Team, February 2006

14

Changes in population lead to changes in the transportation system, such as new roads to accommodate new subdivisions, or a decrease in the number of pedestrians due to increased use of motorized vehicles. Thus, demographic data is essential to understanding changing transportation needs. Between the 1990 and 2000 Census, the total population of the Town of Ithaca (outside of the Village of Cayuga Heights) increased 4.4%, growing from 14,340 to 14,972 persons (an average annual growth rate of 0.4%). This growth rate is twice that of Tompkins County as a whole, similar to that of the Towns of Danby and Newfield, and approximately half of the growth rate of the Towns of Lansing and Enfield. Table 1 summarizes the population distribution changes in the Town of Ithaca between 1990 and 2000. In 1990, much of the Towns population was concentrated on East Hill; by 2000, however, East and South Hills were home to equal proportions of the Towns residents. East Hills population decreased slightly, West Hills population grew at a moderate rate, and South Hills population increased at twice the rate of West Hill.
Table 1: Population Distribution Changes, Town of Ithaca, 1990-2000

Population: 1990 Population: 2000 % change: 1990-2000 % of Town pop. 1990 % of Town pop. 2000

East Hill 6,412 6,389 -0.4 % 44.7 % 42.7 %

South Hill 5,654 6,210 9.8 % 39.4 % 41.5 %

West Hill 2,274 2,373 4.4 % 15.9 % 15.8 %

Total 14,340 14,972 4.41% ---

The average household size in the Town of Ithaca decreased from 2.40 to 2.25 persons between 1990 and 2000. (The figures for Tompkins County in its entirety are 2.46 and 2.32). Compared to other municipalities in the County, the Town of Ithaca has the smallest average household size. Trip rates are related to the number of persons per household, because small households tend to generate more trips per person than larger households. This translates to a greater number of vehicle trips with a lower average vehicle occupancy. As noted above, different types of housing and the diverse characteristics of its occupants have varying effects on the transportation system. Single-family homes are the most common housing in the Town; the number of single-family homes increased approximately 18% between 1990 and 2000 (an addition of 318 units). The number of dormitory units in apartment-style buildings of three or more units (like student housing buildings or nursing homes) and the number of apartment buildings (three or more units) also increased approximately 18% between 1990 and 2000. Age demographics affect mode choices and travel patterns, and thus they are an important part of understanding the transportation system. Persons between the ages of 18 and 24 make up the largest age group in the Townnot surprising, given the proximity to Ithaca College and Cornell University (in fact, college students account for 40% of the Towns population). The second largest age group is between 25 and 44 years old, followed by retirees and senior citizens (ages 65+). The age group that grew the fastest was the elderly population (ages 75+), which increased 59% between 1990 and 2000. In Tompkins County, the largest rate of growth overall was in the 44 to 65 age group (the baby boomers), a group that didnt have a large rate of growth in the Town.

15

Median household income also affects travel patterns and choices. Wealthier households or families find it easier to own two or more vehicles, while poorer households or families are more likely to use transit out of necessity, instead of choice. Household: All the people The median household income for Town residents in 1999 was who occupy a housing unit as $45,281, which is 21.5% more than the $37,272 median income of their usual place of residence. Tompkins County households as a whole. Similarly, the median family Family: A group of two or more income in the Town was $68,346, 28.9% higher than the countys people who reside together and who are related by birth, median family income of $53, 041.
marriage, or adoption.

TransportationTransportation-Related Data
Figure A-1 in Volume II (The Appendices) Appendix II (Supplementary Tables) shows the modes by which workers get to work and students get to school for all workers and students age sixteen and older. According to the 2000 Census, residents in the Town of Ithaca drive less than their counterparts in other places in Tompkins County or in the nation, but they drive more than their neighbors in the City of Ithaca. This can be explained in part by the differences between the Town (which has lower-density residential zones separate from commercial zones and less pedestrian infrastructure) and the City (which is characterized by higher density, mixed land uses and extensive pedestrian infrastructure). Moreover, the City is home to a large population of Cornell University students, who tend to live on or near campus and who walk as a primary means of transportation. Finally, the Town has higher density development than other areas of the County, but it is less dense than the City. The data also show that nearly one quarter of the residents of the Mode: A method for Town of Ithaca report that walking is their primary means of transporting people or materials. Ex: getting to and from work. While the modal split of walking is half walking, biking, driving, transit. that of the City of Ithaca, nearly 30% more residents walk to work Multi-modal: Consisting of two or in the Town of Ithaca than in Tompkins County as a whole. more modes. Ex: walking to a bus Approximately three and one half times as many walk in the Town stop and then taking a bus to work is a multi-modal trip. as the State, and over seven times as many Town residents walk to work compared to the national average. Again, the presence of two major institutions of higher learning and their thousands of students may explain some of the popularity of walking. Census data show interesting but not entirely surprising results when disaggregated to examine the differences between the transportation habits of college students and non-students (see Figure A-2 in Volume II, Appendix II). A far greater proportion of students walk, while the proportion of non-students who drive alone to work is more than twice as great as the proportion of students who drive alone. Students tend to live on or a short distance from their campuses. Even though walking speeds are generally slower than driving speeds, the mean
Aggregate: To aggregate is to present as a sum. Disaggregate: To disaggregate is to break down into parts.

16

commute duration for a student in the Town of Ithaca is 11.6 minutes, versus 17.4 minutes for nonstudents. Figure A-3 in Volume II (The Appendices) Appendix II (Supplementary Tables) shows the travel time to work or school for all workers and students ages sixteen and older. The vast majority (87.8%) of workers residing in the Town of Ithaca travel less than 25 minutes to arrive at their place of employment. Tompkins County has a higher proportion of workers commuting at least twenty-five minutes to work because many workers commute from outlying rural areas to the Town of Ithaca or through the Town to the City. Overall, Figure A-3 shows that Town of Ithaca workers enjoy a shorter commute compared to national averages. Figure A-4 in Volume II (The Appendices) Appendix II (Supplementary Tables) shows the number of vehicles per household, disaggregated by student status. As previously noted, households include all the people who occupy a housing unit as their usual place of residence, and a student household is one in which all of the persons living within a given housing unit report their occupation as student. In terms of absolute numbers, there are more non-student households in each category because the total number of non-student households is greater than student households (4890 v. 1545). Student households are most likely to have one car, while non-student households are almost equally likely to have one or two cars. Figure A-5 in Volume II (The Appendices) Appendix II (Supplementary Tables) shows the rate of transit use as a function of commute time to work. Of all workers over the age of sixteen in the Town of Ithaca who do not work at home, those who commute thirty to forty-five minutes have the highest rate of transit use. In this demographic, nearly one in four (23.4%) uses public transit. This rate is misleading, however, because there are fewer than 500 workers in the entire Town that spend thirty to forty-five minutes on their commute. In fact, those who commute less than one half hour to work has the highest number of transit patrons (389), although only 5.2% of this demographic uses public transit to get to work. Of the Town of Ithaca workers age sixteen and older who take a car to work, the 2000 Census shows that 17.1% carpool. A slightly higher percentage carpool in the City of Ithaca, a slightly lower percentage carpool in Tompkins County, and a still lower percentage carpool across New York State and the nation.
Table 2: Carpooling by Municipality, 2000 Census

City of Ithaca Carpool Drive alone 18.4% 81.6%

Town of Ithaca 17.1% 82.9%

Tompkins County 16.9% 83.1%

New York State 14.0% 86.0%

United States 13.9% 86.1%

NATIONAL TRAVEL SURVEYS

The Census data above are mostly aggregate data that focus on journey-to-work travel; that is, they describe regions or zones without defining exactly who is within a zone or what they are doing during their personal travel. The U.S. Department of Transportation initiated an effort to collect data concerning personal travel in 1969. The most recent surveys, the National Personal Transportation Survey (NPTS) of 1995 and the National Household Travel Survey (NHTS) of 2001, disaggregate the data to describe who

17

is traveling, from where and to where they are traveling, for how long they travel, how often they travel, why they are traveling, and how they travel. According to the 2001 NHTS, Data on personal travel trends are needed to examine the reliability, efficiency, capacity, and flexibility of the Nations transportation system to meet current demands and accommodate future demands.13 These surveys are aggregated for the entire urbanized area of Tompkins County (the City of Ithaca, most of the Town of Ithaca, and some of the Town of Lansing). Thus, these surveys cannot provide information about the Town specifically, but they do provide useful information regarding regional personal travel habits. A sample of national survey data is provided below.

Trip Purpose
There are several ways to examine answers to the question, What is the purpose of the personal trips made in Tompkins County? These include the average daily person trips for each purpose, the average daily person miles of travel for each purpose, and the average daily vehicle trip length for each purpose.
Person trips: The number of trips per person. Person Miles: The total number of miles traveled per person.

As shown in Table 3 below, residents of the urbanized area take the highest percentage of trips for family/ personal business, social/ recreational business, and work, in that order. Compared to New York State and the nation, trips for educational or religious purposes comprise a higher percentage of trips for residents, likely reflecting the prominence of the institutions of higher learning in the area. From 1995 to 2001, the percentage of trips for social or recreational purposes increased, while the percentage of trips for work, family and personal purposes decreased (see Table 3 below).
Table 3: Person Trips per Day by Trip Purpose; 1995 and 200114

Trip Purpose Work Family/ Personal Educational/ Religious Social/ Recreational Miscellaneous

Tompkins County 1995 2001 19.63% 17.80% 44.52% 11.42% 24.20% 0.23% 42.86% 11.47% 26.70% 1.17%

New York State 1995 2001 19.85% 18.80% 45.88% 9.28% 25.00% 0.00% 43.96% 9.89% 26.65% 1.10%

National 1995 20.26% 45.86% 8.80% 24.91% 0.16%

2001 17.70% 44.60% 9.80% 27.10% 0.80%

The graphs in Figure A-8 in Volume II (The Appendices) Appendix II (Supplementary Tables) examine the distance and time residents travel for each purpose. In general, residents travel the greatest number of miles for weekend social or recreational trips, followed by weekday or weekend family or personal business and weekday trips to earn a living. The average length of a vehicle trip is longest for earning a living during the week or social and recreational trips on the weekend (note that for unknown reasons

13 14

Hu and Reuscher, 2004, p. 1 ITCTC, 2004, section I, p. 13

18

there was a large jump from 1995 to 2001 in average trip length for weekend trips with a civic, educational, or religious purpose).

Trip Mode
During the past fifty years, the role of automobiles in American society has grown tremendously. As the emphasis of development shifts from cities to suburbs and exurban areas, Americans drive farther to work, to shop, and to play. From 1960 to 1990, the percentage of workers living within the county in which they work declined, while the percentage commuting to places outside their county of residence increased 200%. As Americans drive more, roads become more congested, and Americans spend more time behind the wheel. Shockingly, the average American driver spends a total of 443 hours per year drivingthe equivalent of eleven workweeks. From 1992 through 1996, the increase in the number of annual person-hours of delay spent in an automobile in Los Angeles was 9%; in Orlando 62%; and in Kansas City 81%.15 Overall, Tompkins County residents drive far less than their national counterparts, and the percentage of trips made in a private vehicle for the Ithaca Urbanized Area dropped during the 1995-2001 period. The percentage of walking trips made increased at the local and state level between 1995 and 2001, and at all levels walking accounts for the largest proportion of trips not taken with a private vehicle. See Table 4 below for more detail. Unfortunately, the NHTS did not capture the recent changes in public transit expansion and improvement in the Ithaca area, which were not implemented by the time of the survey. See the section Bus Transit and Paratransit for more information.
Table 4: Daily Person Trips by Mode; 1995 and 200116

Trip Mode Private vehicle Public Transit Walk Bicycle Other

Tompkins County 1995 2001 83.3% 70.3% 1.5% 9.7% 10.7% 15.4% 1.5% 0.8% 3.2% 3.8%

New York State 1995 2001 89.3% 86.5% 1.8% 1.5% 5.6% 8.6% 0.9% n/a 2.4% 3.4%

National 1995 65.6% 10.0% 20.1% 0.7% 3.4%

2001 80.3% 1.2% 15.0% 0.9% 2.6%

The role of various modes of transportation in the Town of Ithaca can be examined using the same measures as purposes of travel (see Figure A-9 in Appendix II): the total miles traveled via each mode for each person, and the average length of a trip made via each mode. These measures confirm that the privately operated vehicle is the most common mode of transportation, based on the numbers of trips persons make and the daily person miles traveled. The length of a trip, however, shows that many trips via transit in 2001 are just about as long as trips made via privately owned motor vehicle.

Trip Purpose and Mode

Figure A-9 in Volume II (The Appendices) Appendix II (Supplementary Tables) shows the popularity of the private vehicle for all purposes. Figure A-6 shows that if a resident in the Town drove for a trip, it was
15 16

Jackson and Kochtitzky, undated Ibid.

19

most likely that the trip was for family or personal business. Figure A-7 examines other modes of transportation besides the private vehicle. As noted above, walking accounts for the greatest number of trips for all purposes out of the alternate modes. Most walking is for social or recreational purposes. Not surprisingly, most trips made by a school bus were for civic, educational, or religious reasons. Transit users were equally likely to make trips for any reason, while bicyclists were most likely riding a bike for purposes related to making a living.

TOWN OF ITHACA TRANSPORTATION SURVEY

In the fall of 2003, the Town Transportation Committee initiated a survey to gauge Town residents travel habits and attitudes (see Volume II, The Appendices, Appendix III). The survey focused on residents opinions concerning the current transportation system and hopes for a future systemdata that the national surveys and Census were unable to measure. The survey was mailed to all property owners in the Town. This means that the survey probably did not reach many of the students living in the Town. While the response rate of 13.76% is respectable for a general survey, the voluntary nature of the survey means its conclusions may not be generalized to represent the Town as a whole. Typically, voluntary surveys elicit answers from many respondents with strong opinions on the surveys topic. In conclusion, the surveys results cannot be taken as representative of the entire Town, but as characteristics of a subset of the Towns population. A copy of the survey and a detailed analysis of the surveys results is included in Volume II, The Appendices, Appendix III. Respondents to the survey had, on average, 1.81 vehicles available for their personal use. Figure A below compares the number of vehicles available for personal use as reported by the Towns survey to the values reported by the NHTS and the NPTS.17 As previously noted, the NHTS and the NPTS included residents of the entire urbanized area, including the City of Ithaca, most of the Town of Ithaca, and some of the Town of Lansing. The Towns survey, which included only residents of the Town, shows a higher percentage of households reporting two vehicles and far fewer reporting no vehicles than either the 1995 NPTS or the 2001 NHTS, perhaps reflecting the suburban, single family household characteristics of the Town. Figure A: Vehicle Availability by Household, Various Sources

17

Hu and Reuscher, 2004 & Hu and Young, 1998

20

Vehicle Availability by Household, Various Sources

60
42 .0

50 % Households 40 30

37 .2 35 .7

35 .0 37 .0

47 .9

1995 NPTS 2001 NHTS

14 .0 16 .4 15 .4

20
1. 0

2003 Town Survey

10 0

9. 0

None

9. 4

One

Two

Three+

Number of Vehicles Per Household

Figure B: Percentage of Households by Mode, Various Sources

Percentage of Households by Mode, Various Sources

86 .7

100

Percentage of Households

90 70 60 50 40
71 .9 66 .9

1995 NPTS

2001 NHTS

2003 Town Survey

80

3. 4

2. 3

0. 0

0. 7

0. 0

0. 2

0 Private vehicle Public transit Bike Walk Other Unknown

**2003 Town Survey had no households report "unknown" mode

Primary Mode of Transportation

According to all three sources, the primary mode of transportation for residents in the Town of Ithaca is overwhelmingly the private motor vehicle. The Towns survey showed a greater percentage of households relying on the privately owned vehicle and fewer relying on transit or walking than the surveys that considered the entire Ithaca Urbanized Area, reflecting the demographics of the Town and potentially indicating a small number of student respondents (see Figure B). Two in three respondents to the Towns survey said there was a TCAT route reasonably close to their home, but when asked, Would you use a TCAT bus if there were a route reasonably close to your residence? only 16% answered regularly. Thirty-seven percent responded occasionally, 17% replied seldom, and 30% said highly unlikely. Respondents cited an increase in the frequency of service and routes that get to destinations sooner as incentives to ride TCAT. Of the 1,198 members of responding households, nearly nine percent currently use a bicycle for transportation and over thirty percent use one

21

3. 4

1. 9

10

3. 2

9. 0

10 .2

20

11 .3 9. 6

19 .4

30

for pleasure. Fifteen percent of responding households use the Town trail system regularly and 37% use it occasionally. The survey listed a series of common transportation problems and asked respondents to indicate which they thought were the most obvious. Respondents were allowed to choose more than one or to write in their own response. Figure C lists the percentage of respondents choosing each problem. Forty-six percent of all respondents cited the generally high volume of traffic as the most obvious transportation problem in the Town. Respondents also voiced their concern by citing inadequate space for bicycle and pedestrian traffic. Speed limits not enforced and Roads inadequately maintained were cited third and fourth most frequently.

Figure C: Transportation Problems in the Town, Survey

Transportation Problems in the Town of Ithaca: Town of Ithaca Transportation Survey

0% 5%

Percentage of Respondents Citing Issue

10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 46.0% 36.3% 35.4% 32.5% 24.3% 21.6% 14.0% 10.6%

High volumes of traffic generally Inadequate space for bicycle/ pedestrian traffic Speed limits not enforced Roads inadequately maintained Inadequate bus service Too much traffic in residential areas Too many trucks Other

Figure D contains respondents solutions to transportation issues. Forty-four percent of respondents thought that bike lanes or paths should be provided and nearly as many (42%) wanted more enforcement of speed limits. Thirty-five percent of respondents believed that building sidewalks in developed areas would help alleviate some of the problems identified above.

22

Figure D: Transportation Solutions for the Town, Survey

Solutions to Transportation Problems: Town of Ithaca Transportation Survey 0% Provide bike lanes/ paths Enforce speed limits Build sidewalks in congested/ built-up areas Expand bus service Improve certain intersections Widen major roads Other 8.0% 19.0% 30.0% 29.1% 35.5% 5% Percentage of Respondents Citing Solution 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

44.1% 42.0%

The final section of the Towns survey asked respondents about the transportation situation in their own neighborhood. Fifty-two percent of respondents said that the traffic passing their home was usually low to moderate, eighteen percent replied there was occasionally heavy volume, and twenty-five percent responded that there was often heavy volume (another six percent responded other). Of the thirty percent of respondents who were unsatisfied with the speed limit in their neighborhood, ninety-five percent indicated that the speed limit was too high. One in three respondents said that there was a need for sidewalks or walkways in their neighborhood, and around sixty percent of that one third said they would be willing to contribute to their construction and upkeep. Again, the survey and data analysis are included in Volume II, The Appendices, Appendix III.

WORK HERE, LIVE THERE: COMMUTERS

Figure E: Workers & Residents in Tompkins County

The total number of workers in Tompkins County is greater than the number of resident workers (employees who both live and work in Tompkins County). The 2000 Census shows that the total number of employees in Tompkins County was 57,032. Yet the number of people who lived in Tompkins County and also worked (somewhere) was 47,394, and the number of workers both residing and working in Tompkins County is only 43,319! Of the people who are living in Tompkins County and working somewhere, 4,075 (or 8.6%)

Workers and Residents in Tompkins County: 2000 Census *Not to Scale*

Outer Red Section: Live in Tompkins County; Work elsewhere

Outer Blue Section: Work in Tompkins County; Live elsewhere

43,319

Red Circle: Total Living in Tompkins County Total: 47,394

Blue Circle: Total Working in Tompkins County Total: 57,032

23

13,713

4,075

Inner Red & Blue Section: Live and Work in Tompkins County

are working outside Tompkins County. Furthermore, nearly one in four of the persons employed in Tompkins County live outside the county (13,713 workers, or 24% of the county workforce). See Figure E for more detail. This means that Tompkins County imports workers (in-commuters) and exports income (as workers spend their income in their county of residence). The City of Ithaca is home to many major employers, such as Cornell University (the largest employer in the County). In order to get to work, or to move from one side of Cayuga Lake to the other, commuters must pass through the Town and City of Ithaca. The Towns unique circumstancesas a doughnut with the City in the centermean that planners have little control over much of the development that creates traffic on roads in the Town.

24

INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS

This chapter will answer the questions: What is the Towns transportation system? What aspects of the system are working well? What aspects of the system could be improved? The purpose of this chapter is to examine the Town of Ithacas transportation system by taking a thorough inventory of the system as it exists today. A transportation system includes physical infrastructurelike roads and the buses that travel on themas well as the governments policies and the publics personal choices relating to transportation. Once an inventory of the system is complete, it is necessary to analyze the inventory to identify ways in which the system could be improved to meet the previously outlined goals. The first three sections of this chapter examine the physical infrastructure of our transportation system: the highway network; public transit and bicycle and pedestrian facilities; and passenger air travel and freight networks in and around the Town. In each of these three subsections, the Plan outlines the existing condition of each network before analyzing the data to identify weaknesses, limitations, or suboptimal performance in each network. In the fourth section, the Plan explores non-modal related issues that affect and are affected by the system, including the natural environment, land-use and regional development, and public health aspects. The next Chapter, Alternatives, synthesizes the weaknesses identified throughout the analyses and sets the stage for the Recommendations Chapter.

STATE , COUNTY, AND TOWN ROADWAYS

This section explores the highway network that runs through the Town. Roads are useless unless they connect to another road or lead to a Road network: a web destinationhence, the term road network. The Town occupies a unique of roads that lead from destination to destination. position in the regional highway network. Geographically, the Town encircles the City of Ithaca, which is a regional destination for traffic. Thus, much of the traffic in the Town is merely passing through, and Town planners and policy-makers have little control over the generation of this traffic. Also, the Town does not own every road within its municipal boundary. The State of New York, Village of Cayuga Heights, Tompkins County, and private entities (such as Ithaca College and Cornell University) own roads that are in and pass through the Town (see The Official Highway Map & Road Network Design below). Thus, this section focuses on the road system as a network: roads owned by the Town and roads owned by others in the Town, interconnections between roads in the Town, and connecting roads in other jurisdictions.

THE OFFICIAL HIGHWAY MAP AND ROAD NETWORK DESIGN

This section examines the current road network, that is, how the roads in the Town form a web that allows one to drive to most destinations in the Town. It presents the limited options for building new roads and 25

discusses the need for right-of-way standards that reflect the Towns long-term vision. Finally, it concludes that the existing non-motorized network is inadequate for the extent of development in the Town.

Inventory
As has been described previously, the Town of Ithaca is in the unique shape of a doughnut, with the City of Ithaca in the center and the remainder of the County surrounding the perimeter (refer to Volume II, Appendix I, Map 2). This means that much of the traffic in the Town is traveling into or out of the City. Furthermore, the Town is segmented like a pie cut into slices by the creeks and gorges that converge near the Inlet of Cayuga Lake. This unique geography and hydrology means that many roads in the Town radiate outward from the City of Ithaca, while travel around the City in the Town is restricted because of the waterways.
Right-of-way: the entire width of the road corridor, including shoulders, sidewalks, utility easements, and so on. In the Town of Ithaca the right of way is usually 60 wide.

The current road network in the Town of Ithaca is shown on the Towns Official Highway Map (Volume II, Appendix I, Map 4). The purpose of an Official Highway Map is to state in the public record the specific locations of existing and proposed streets, highways, parks, and sometimes drainage systems. By fixing the location of both existing and proposed infrastructure, the Map intends to prevent development within the right-of-way of existing or future highways. Creation of an Official Highway Map begins with a survey of the existing road system infrastructure (on the Towns Official Highway Map (Map 4, Appendix II) this is shown with unbroken lines. The survey is combined with an examination of approved subdivision plats that have not yet been constructed; whenever a subdivision plat is approved and filed, the infrastructure shown therein automatically becomes part of the Official Highway Map. Roads that have been approved but not yet built in the Town include the extension of Conifer Drive from Mecklenburg Road through the remaining lands of Conifer LLC and the Perry property up to Bundy Road, and the future road shown on the Overlook at West Hill Subdivision map, which loops from Trumansburg Road to Hayts Road. On the Towns Official Highway Map, these roads are shown with a dashed line. Finally, planners and policy-makers indicate the locations of future corridors that may, in the future, offer potential connecting roads (this corridor on West Hill, shown with cross-hatching, is discussed further in the Analysis). This Official Highway Map classifies roads by the jurisdiction that controls them, since many of the roads that pass through the Town of Ithaca are neither owned nor maintained by the Town. New York State, Tompkins County, and private owners (for example, Cornell University) control roadways within the Towns municipal boundaries. There are approximately 20 miles of State highways in the Town, which provide major east-west and north-south corridors. These roads provide both regional linkages (south to Elmira and Owego, west to Watkins Glen, north to Seneca and Cayuga Counties, and east to Cortland) and local access to residential, commercial, and agricultural land uses. Tompkins County owns and maintains around 25 miles of road, and the Town of Ithaca controls approximately 50 miles of road within the Towns municipal boundaries. (A complete list of the roads owned and/ or maintained by the Town of Ithaca is included in Table A-10, Appendix II, Volume II.) Private owners of roadways in the Town of Ithaca

26

include Cornell University, which controls about 15 miles of roadway, and Ithaca College, which controls about 11 miles.

Analysis
Development often involves the construction of new roads. Official It is unlikely that the Town Highway Maps guide the development of the road network by will construct many new roads. indicating the intended approximate location of right of way (ROW) New roads will likely be internal acquisition needs. As mentioned previously, the Town already has subdivision roads. approved a connector road from the Linderman Creek development on Route 79 to Bundy Road and another road within the future Overlook development to connect Route 96 and Hayts Road. A corridor that may be useful for a connector road is between Bundy Road and Route 96. This corridor is shown in a wide section of crosshatch because it is not part of any formal subdivision or plan. This corridor could provide connections for the rapidly expanding development on West Hill; for example, it may be possible to create an east-west link between this corridor and Route 96. Besides these three potential roadstwo of which are fairly certain to occur, and another that may never happen the Town lacks reasonable options for the construction of new major through-roads within its municipal boundaries. Road construction is expensive in terms of monetary and environmental costs, as well as the impact on neighborhoods near the new road. One potential connector corridor that has received attention in recent years is a Northeast bypass. In the 1999 Northeast Subarea Transportation Study (NESTS) of 1999, three connector segments were studied.18 The first ran from Slaterville Road (Rt. 79) in the Town of Dryden north to Dryden Road (Rt. 366). The second segment would travel from Route 366 to Route 13 in the vicinity of the eastern portion of Hanshaw Road. The third connector segment would run from Route 13 west of North Triphammer Road to Route 34 and Route 34B in the Town of Lansing. The intended purpose of these connector roads would be to provide a corridor for multi-modal throughtraffic in order to keep motor vehicle traffic out of residential areas on East Hill in the Towns of Ithaca, Dryden, and Lansing. To this end, the study proposed that no new curb cuts would be allowed onto these connector segments, besides those that would connect to existing roads. The suggested speed limit on the segments would be 45-55 mph, and separate multi-use paths would be adjacent to the roadway (bicyclists would also have the option of riding on the shoulder). Traffic calming would be implemented on neighborhood roads in order to slow traffic speeds and to encourage through-traffic to stay on the connector road. The main benefit of the connector roads would be to reduce traffic in residential areas while enhancing motor vehicle mobility. While several neighborhoods in the Town of Ithaca could potentially benefit from the construction of the connector roads, most of the connector roads would run through adjacent municipalities. Potential negative impacts from the construction of the road corridors include negative impacts on important natural areas and significant monetary cost for design, right-of-way acquisition, and construction. In the end, NESTS recommended a design and feasibility analysis for the potential connectors. Importantly, this analysis would occur within the context of a greatly enhanced transit system
18

NESTS Working Group, 1999

27

coupled with targeted traffic calming efforts and enhanced bicycle and pedestrian facilities. To date, this study has not occurred. Recommendation Seven of NESTS included creation of a connector between Pleasant Grove Road and the Thurston Ave. bridge that would act as a gateway to the Cornell campus. The North Campus Gateway Committee, which included representatives from the City of Ithaca, Town of Ithaca, Village of Cayuga Heights, Tompkins County, Cornell University, and the ITCTC, convened to develop concept alternatives. The goals of the project were to better manage existing traffic (by creating no change or a reduction in traffic in nearby neighborhoods), to intercept campus traffic where parking is provided, to improve multimodal access to the University, to create a sense of arrival to campus, to coordinate committee work with other transportation management plans (i.e. NESTS) and agencies (i.e. TCAT, ITCTC, etc), to develop project concepts for a North Campus Gateway connector road, and to reduce vehicle/ pedestrian/ bicycle conflicts. The final concept developed by the Committee was a new road that connected to Pleasant Grove Road north of A-lot, ran along the north and west sides of the parking lot, and connected to the western end of Jessup Road to the south. Routing traffic around the north side of North Campus, instead of through it, would reduce vehicular/ pedestrian/ bicycle conflicts. The proposed new gateway connector road would potentially decrease traffic in the Forest Home residential area by capturing traffic destined for Cornell well to the north of the neighborhood; traffic volumes in other residential areas, such as Cayuga Heights and Cornell Heights, would not be affected. Besides the construction of new roads, development also increases need for pedestrian and bicyclist accommodations. Eventually, the Town may want to include bicycle and pedestrian facilities as part of its Official Highway Map. In 1997, the Town Board adopted the Park, Recreation, and Open Space Plan, which included plans for developing recreation parks and trails in the Town. Neither the Park, Recreation, and Open Space Plan nor the Official Highway Map indicate potential locations of sidewalks and walkways for a network geared toward non-motorized transportation needs. The section entitled Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities includes more information about non-motorized transportation needs.

Identification of Needs
First, the Town needs to adopt an updated Official Official Highway Map in order to reserve future rights-of-way. Furthermore, the current right-of-way reservation standards may be inadequate to meet future changing needs. For example, developers may need to set aside larger rights of way to provide for bicycle lanes and sidewalks on appropriate future roads. Furthermore, the Town does not have a formal policy specifying the desired nature of the road network in future subdivisions. The Town needs a set of design guidelines to direct the future development of of the transportation network in order to ensure that development does not preclude future transportation options. These criteria would deal with the design of the road itself, that is, the location and size of travel lanes, sidewalks, and so on. It would also describe the ideal design of the road network, or how the roads connect together to form a seamless network.

28

In some cases, the extent of current development may make it impossible for the Town to reserve adequate right-of-way for future connector roads within the Towns municipal boundaries. If the opportunity arises, the Town of Ithaca needs to support regional transportation planning and interinterthrough-roads in other municipalities if the roadway would municipal efforts toward the creation of new through relieve traffic burdens within neighborhoods in the Town. Since so many of the roads in the Town are not controlled by the Town, the Town needs to continue to cooperate with the County and NYSDOT on decisiondecision-making for roads in the Town. Town This theme is repeated throughout the entire Inventory. As noted in the above Analysis, the Official Highway Map does not include the locations of existing or potential future pedestrian or bicycle corridors. Similar to the way an Official Highway Map identifies future right-of-way needs, the Town needs a Planned Bike and Pedestrian Facilities Map to help guide the development of an efficient, useful nonnon-motorized network. network

ROADWAY FUNCTION AND RIGHT-OF-WAY DESIGN

This section examines the relationship between the design of a roadway, its functional classification, and its actual use, as well as its relationship to adjacent lands. This section concludes that problems arise when functional classification, design, and adjacent land use are not compatible.

Inventory
The first section of this inventory describes the functional classification system, including its origins, its meaning, and its applications. Then, it explains the connection between functional classification and roadway design. The second section of the inventory describes how the concepts of the functional classification system and roadway design standards are applied in the Town of Ithaca.

The Functional Classification System and Roadway Geometrics

As noted in the discussion of federal transportation policy, the 1956 Federal-Aid Highway Act established the federal-aid highway system. In order to update and modify the federal-aid highway system, the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973 formally implemented the concept of functional classification. The United States Department of Transportations Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) describes the functional classification system as
Functional Classification: a system that attempts to classify each road according to its role in the road network. The functional classification system is made up of arterial roads, collector roads, and local roads.

the process by which streets and highways are grouped into classes, or systems, according to the character of service they are intended to provide. Basic to this process is the recognition that individual roads and streets do not serve travel independently in any major way. Rather, most travel involves movement through a network of roads. It becomes necessary then to determine how this travel can be channelized within the network in a logical and efficient manner. Functional classification defines the nature of this channelization process by defining the part

29

that any particular road or street should play in serving the flow of trips through a highway network.19 The Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council (the regional MPO) is responsible for recommending changes in the functional classification system within the Ithaca-Tompkins County Urbanized Area to the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT). NYSDOT approves the changes before passing them on to the FHWA. While the Town does not directly control any aspect of the classification process, it does have input into it. Ideally, an arterial road carries relatively high traffic volumes traveling at relatively high speeds; land access to arterials is subordinate to the traffic flow on the arterial itself. In rural areas, principal arterials include the Interstate Highway System, as well as those routes that serve statewide or interstate corridor movements. Minor arterials complement principal arterials by linking developed areas to form an intercounty network. In urban areas, the system of principal arterials consists of Interstates, freeways and expressways, other routes that carry a high volume of traffic on a minimum of mileage, and routes carrying the majority of trips entering, exiting, or bypassing the urban area. Urban minor arterials serve trips of moderate length, offering lower mobility in exchange for Figure F: Mobility, Land Access, greater land access. Ideally, minor arterials do not penetrate and Functional Classification neighborhoods and are spaced no more than one mile apart in fully developed areas. Collector roads are envisioned as providing access between neighborhoods and other land uses. They collect local traffic and channel it onto arterials (and vice versa). Rural major collectors generally serve intracounty trips of shorter length and slower speed than those on an arterial; they serve major traffic generators such as a county seat, larger towns, consolidated schools, or shopping malls. Minor collector routes are spaced at intervals to collect traffic from local roads and provide service from major collectors to smaller rural communities. In urban areas, collectors provide both land access and circulation functions. They may penetrate residential neighborhoods to collect and channel local traffic into the urban arterial system. In the central business district, the street grid, which circulates traffic while providing local access, includes some urban collectors. According to the functional classification system, local roads should provide mobility within neighborhoods or within other land uses. Both rural and urban local roads are designed for traffic with a local origin or destination. Ideally, they carry lower traffic volumes, speeds are slower, and trips are shorter. Local roads are designed to provide the highest level of access within land uses, as well as access to higher levels of the functional classification system. See Figure F for a schematic of the relationship between mobility, land access, and functional classification.20

19 20

USDOT, FHWA, 1974 FHWA, 1989

30

In rural areas, determining the functional classification of a road network generally begins with identifying traffic generators (population centers) and ranking them based on population. Then, the traffic generators are connected in such a manner as to logically channelize the trips on the road networks. The functional classification of each connection is based on the (population) size of the travel generators that it serves, the predominant distances served, and the size of the travel shed it serves (that is, from how far it channels trips). For urban areas, the functional classification of a road in the network is determined by several factors, including service to urban activity centers (based on measures of size and intensity of use), system continuity, land use considerations, spacing between routes, average trip length, traffic volume, control of access, and vehicle-miles of travel. 21
Functional classification is important because it determines eligibility for federal funding and influences design. Intersection Control: stop signs, traffic lights, and so on, which control how traffic on two intersecting roads interacts.

Roads and highways are eligible for federal funding based on their functional classification, either as part of the National Highway System (NHS) or the Surface Transportation Program (STP). Federalaid eligible roads include all arterials (principal and minor), all urban collectors (major and minor), and rural major collectors. Rural minor collectors have limited eligibility for federal funds, while local roads are not eligible.22 Therefore, classifying roads is a necessary part of the funding process. A roads functional classification typically influences its design, or geometrics. Geometric factors include grade (steepness of slopes), sight distances (how far one can see up and down the road), width (number and size of lanes), curvature, speed limit, turning lanes, number and alignment of residential and commercial driveways, control and alignment of intersections, presence and condition of shoulder and/or sidewalk for non-motorized travel, lighting, signage, and striping. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) publishes A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (2001),23 which outlines geometric standards for roads based on functional classification.

Geometrics: the physical characteristics of a road, like width, curvature and number of lanes, sight distances, and intersection controls, if applicable.

Context-Sensitive Design: design guidelines that are flexible and sensitive to community needs. Also known as Context Sensitive Solutions.

In order to acquire funding for a roadway project, in general the design must comply with the standards associated with the roadways functional classification. Recently, a trend has emerged that recommends flexibility in design standards and sensitivity to adjacent lands. Context-Sensitive Design (CSD) incorporates roadway standards and development practices that are flexible and sensitive to community values. CSD allows roadway design decisions to balance economic, social and environmental objectives.

Ibid. Michigan Department of Transportation, 2002 23 AASHTO, 2001

21 22

31

Ithaca aca Functional Classification and Design in the Town of Ith

Table 5 below shows the total roadway mileage for each functional classification in the Town and gives a few examples for each functional classification.24 Map 5 (Functional Classifications of Roads in the Town of Ithaca) in Appendix I, Volume II shows roads in the Town by their functional classification.

Table 5: Mileage in the Town of Each Functional Classification With Examples

Classification Urban Principle Arterial Urban Minor Arterial Urban Collector Urban Local Rural Minor Arterial Rural Major Collector Rural Minor Collector Rural Local Unknown/ Not Available Total

Mileage 4.51 16.38 19.10 48.60 3.46 2.55 2.76 14.01 11.93 123.3

Examples Elmira Road (Rt. 13) Slaterville Road (Rt. 79), Trumansburg Road (Rt. 96) Ellis Hollow Road, Coddington Road (Burns Rd. to City) Honness Lane, Indian Creek Road, Winthrop Drive Mecklenburg Road (Rt. 79) Enfield Falls Road (municipal line to entrance of Treman Park) Bostwick Road, Sheffield Road West King Road (west of Buttermilk Falls Park), Culver Road Approved but not yet built roads, some small subdivision roads

Many of roads that the Town owns are classified as local roads. While these roads are ineligible for federal aid for maintenance or improvement projects, the Town has more flexibility in the design of the roadway. The Towns current design standards are limited to road construction specifications, which relate to the actual construction of roads, including substrate needs, pavement thickness, and so on. The Town currently does not have a set of criteria to guide the design of the cross-section of the right-of-way, nor does it have guidelines for how to provide for multi-modal travel, including non-motorized travel. Roads owned by the Town are mostly low-volume, two-lane roads serving residential land uses. Driveways entering Town roads generally do not have intersection controls, and most existing Town roadways generally do not have sidewalks or bike lanes. Unless otherwise posted, the default speed limit for Town of Ithaca roads is the 55 mph speed limit established by the State of New York. The Town has successfully appealed to NYSDOT to lower the limit to 25-45 mph in most areas. Map 8 in Appendix I, Volume II shows the speed limits throughout the Town.

24

Data were generated by the Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council (ITCTC), distributed by the Tompkins County Information Technology Services, GIS Division, and compiled by the Town of Ithaca Planning Department.

32

ANALYSIS
The functional classification hierarchy assumes that longer trips will Connectivity: the degree of be concentrated on a few major roads, while minor roads collect connectedness in a road network, traffic at the beginning of trips and disperse it at the end of trips. where connections spread out the This is not the only way for a road network to function. The grid of traffic burden across neighborhoods. Urban street grids generally have streets common in urban areas disperses traffic, so the burden of good connectivity, while the functional traffic is not concentrated in the neighborhoods along major roads. classifications hierarchy of roads Because the street grid has many connections, roadway users have generally has poorer connectivity. many possible routes to their destination, which can result in more direct trips when the user doesnt have to travel out of the way to get to a collector or arterial. Improving connectivity means increasing the number of connections within the roadway network to spread the traffic burden over a greater area and to provide more direct routes (in number and degree of directness). Another common criticism of the functional classification system is that existing roads often do not fit into the predefined hierarchy, and misclassifications sometimes result. Conflict between the designated functional classification, the actual use of the roadway, the design of the roadway, and the adjacent land uses often results in the facilitation of through movements at the expense of neighborhood livability. For example, a road that carries high volumes of through-traffic may run through the middle of a residential area. The road does not fit the definition of an ideal arterial, where land access is subordinate to through-traffic, nor does it fit the definition of an ideal local road, where the movement of throughtraffic is subordinate to land access. Roads that are not classifiable based on the mobility versus land access concept are often classified based on other factors, such as traffic volumes. Compounding the negative effects on neighborhood livability is the Design Speed: a selected speed practice of over-designing roads, meaning that roads are used to determine the various geometric design features of the sometimes wider, flatter, and straighter than they need to be. If the roadway. Please see the Analysis of functional classification of a road is used as the basis for roadway the Speed Data section for more design, then the range of corresponding design speeds is information. determined (for more information about design speed, please see the Analysis of the Speed Data section). The FHWA states that once this occurs, the degree of flexibility available to the designer is significantly limited,25 because chosen design speed will limit geometric factors such as vertical and horizontal alignments, lane width, shoulder width, and other major design features.26 Road design, as directed by AASHTOs A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, is based on the worst case scenario anticipated for the future. This type of road design is based on: A design vehicle: the largest vehicle that would typically be expected to use the road (this also accounts for the performance of the design vehicle);

25 26

FHWA, 1989 FHWA, 1997

33

A design speed: a selected speed used to determine the various geometric design features of the roadway;27 often set at the 85th percentile speed for a roadway (the speed at which 85% of drivers are traveling at or below, regardless of the posted speed limit); A design driver: the 95-99th percentile worst driver on the road; A design year: at least 20 years in the future; A design volume: the peak traffic volume in the design year.28 Designs based on the above factors alone focus on the roadway and do not take into account loss of neighborhood integrity and character, decreased bicyclist and pedestrian safety, or increased traffic speeds and noise. In the end, this means that the roadway is designed to serve through traffic at the expense of livability in neighborhoods adjacent to the road. In other words, these designs focus on people who are going somewhere, instead of the people who already are somewhere.29 Many transportation problems have their roots in out-dated or poor designs that do not adequately address the trade-offs inherent in each transportation decision. For example, a wide, smooth, and flat road can encourage speeding and tailgating, but a narrow, twisting road can be a safety hazard as well. Large numbers of access points on a major road can pose intersection safety hazards and can reduce the carrying capacity of the road, but too few access points make it difficult for residents to get to their homes or for shoppers to access businesses. The proper lighting of intersections illuminates pedestrians, but insufficiently shaded streetlights can cause glare on windshields, making it difficult for drivers to see. The goal of transportation planning is to balance the trade-offs associated with each decision. As previously noted, the Town does not have its own design guidelines to direct the design of a roadway corridor, even though many Town roads are classified as local roads that are not directly subject to AASHTO standards.
Poor design, or inappropriate design, can cause problems for everyonepedestrians, motorists, bicyclists, residents, school-children, dog-walkers, truck drivers

Furthermore, in the Town of Ithaca, the current lack of sidewalks, bicycle lanes or adequate shoulders and other infrastructure for non-motorized travel presents a problem for the long-term development of the Towns transportation system. Many existing neighborhoods have no bike or pedestrian infrastructure on busy roads. As the number of subdivisions and commercial centers across the Town increases, it will be difficult to link nodes of activity with facilities for non-motorized travel if the basic physical and policy infrastructure for non-motorized transportation is not in place. For example, a walkway is useless to a pedestrian who must cross a high-volume, high-speed road with no traffic controls to help him cross. For more detail, please see the Bicycle and Pedestrian Section.

Identification of Needs
While it may be difficult to change the designated functional classification of a road, it is far more difficult and costly (in monetary, social, and environmental costs) to alter adjacent residential land uses to suit the needs of through-traffic. Therefore, roadway modifications need to reflect the permanent needs of residential areas, instead of the excessive over-design standards associated with potentially inappropriate functional classifications. Instead of improving network capacity by adding lanes, widening
AASHTO, 2001 FHWA, 1989; Rural Roads Design Standards Advisory Committee, 2000; Hale, et. al, 1999 29 Rural Roads Design Standards Advisory Committee, 2000
27 28

34

existing lanes, or increasing the design speed, the Town needs to advocate for roadway designs that are compatible with adjacent land uses and that that elicit safe driver behavior, behavior while recognizing current traffic loads. To this end, the Town needs to establish design guidelines to guide the physical design and construction, or redesign and reconstruction, of roads and intersections. intersections The guidelines should be flexible enough to adapt to local needs, to reflect changing needs, and to provide for anticipated future needs. The design guidelines should include best practices for the layout of right-of-way elements and the layout of the roadway network (including intersection alignment standards, etc.). The guidelines should stress that the physical design of the roadway should relate to its intended purpose and the road should be in scale with its surroundings. Some elements of a roadway deserve particular design consideration. For example, bicycle and pedestrian facilities need to be considered as part of the geometrics of a roadway. roadway Because they historically have not been included as part of roadways in the Town, they need to be outlined in greater detail in a separate design toolbox. As previously explained, generally the State owns the roads used for mobility, the Town owns roads used for access, and the County falls somewhere between the two. In some cases, the Town owns collector and arterial roads that serve a higher function in the roadway network than the Towns other local roads. Conversely, the County owns several roads that serve a primary purpose of local access. The Town and County need to explore opportunities where it may make sense sense for the Town and the County to swap responsibility for certain roads. roads Specifically, the Town and County may want to trade responsibility of a Town-owned collector or arterial for a County-owned local road. One example of this is Town-owned Burns Road and County-owned Bundy and Hayts Roads.

TRAFFIC DATA: VOLUMES, SPEEDS, & CRASHES

This section examines volume, speed, and crash data to identify roads with quantifiable traffic problems. This Plan uses several types of data from several sources. Most of the data is collected using automatic traffic recorders (ATRs), which record the number, speed, classification (type), and time of vehicles passing a point on a roadway. These sources are briefly explained in Table 6.
Table 6: Traffic Data in the Plan

Type Volume , Capacity, & Level of Service Data

Source Town of Ithaca Public Works Department; NYS Department of Transportation; select development studies Town of Ithaca Public Works Department

Purpose

Potential Uses Measure changes in ADT over time. Evaluate the level of traffic burden on residential areas. Measure the delay at an intersection Manage law enforcement more effectively. Evaluate locations for speed mitigation.

To create baseline volume and turning counts

Speed Data

To identify locations where an unacceptable percentage of drivers exceed the speed limit.

35

Crash Data

NYS Department of Transportation & Dept. of Motor Vehicles

To understand where and why crashes occur in the Town.

Mitigate hazardous design flaws. Target patrols, signage, and so on to raise safety awareness.

Volume & Capacity Data

As noted above, volume, capacity, and level of service data are used for monitoring changes in traffic volume, evaluating the traffic burden in residential areas, evaluating the functioning of intersections, and so on. The purpose of these activities is to maintain or improve access and mobility and to protect livability in ADT: average number of vehicles per day, neighborhoods. which varies by day of week and month of year.

Inventory

AADT: average number of vehicles per day, adjusted for seasonal factors to be an average over the whole year.

There are several traffic volume and capacity measures, including ADT (average daily traffic), VOC (vehicle to capacity ratio), and LOS (level of service). The Inventory in this section explains the definition of each and provides and overview of volume and capacity data related to the Town.

Motor Vehicle Volumes

Transportation engineers collect volume data by determining the number of vehicles that pass the data collection site in one day (the Average Daily Traffic (ADT)). Seasonal, climatic, and other variables can be factored into volume counts to determine the average daily traffic passing a data collection site over the course of a year, or the Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT). A full, chronological listing of recent volume data for roads in the Town of Ithaca is included in Table A-11 in Appendix II. Map 6, Volume Data: Counter Locations & Counts in Appendix I shows data collection locations labeled with the average daily traffic volume and the date of data collection.

Roadway Capacity
One way to measure congestion is the vehicle over capacity ratio (VOC), which is a relative measure of traffic congestion that can be used for different types of roads with different volumes. The VOC is the ratio of the volume of vehicles using a road segment to the theoretical carrying capacity of the road. As the VOC approaches 1.00, the congestion worsens and vehicle speeds are reduced. Any number greater than 1.00 means that, theoretically, the road is carrying more traffic than it was designed to handle. In 2004, the ITCTC adopted the 2025 Long Range Transportation Plan, which will guide the development of the regional transportation system for the next twenty years. As part of the LRTP (see also the sections Regional and Local Policy Framework and Regional Development and the Transportation

Vehicle over Capacity Ratio (VOC): considers both the volume of traffic and the capacity of the road. It is the relative measure of congestion that can be used for different types of roads with different volumes.

36

System), the ITCTC calculated the VOCs of roads throughout the county. According to their model, Route 96 in the Town of Ithaca from the City of Ithaca to Iradell Road is already operating at or near capacity. The outbound segment from the City of Ithaca to Harris B. Dates Drive (the hospital driveway) is operating at a VOC of 1.08, while the segment from the hospital to the Town of Ulysses is operating at a VOC of 0.86-0.87. For comparison, the outbound segment of Route 79 (Mecklenburg Road) is operating at 0.37 near the city, 0.33 past Rachel Carson Way, and 0.25 nearing the Town of Enfield.
Table 7: VOC for Various Segments of Routes 96 & 79

Road Segment (outbound) Route 96 City Hospital Hospital Dubois Rd. Dubois Rd. Ulysses Route 79 City West Haven West Haven halfway to Enfield Halfway to Enfield Enfield

Current 1.08 0.87 0.86 0.37 0.33 0.25

According to the LRTP, roads in the Town that carry more than their theoretical capacity are: 1. Trumansburg Road (Route 96): City to Town line 2. Elmira Road (Route 13/34/96): City to 13 (Enfield Falls Road) and 34/96 (West Danby Road) intersection 3. Slaterville Road (Route 79): Pine Tree Road to Park Lane 4. Pine Tree Road: Honness Lane to Snyder Hill Road Roads where volumes are approaching the maximum that they were designed to accommodate include: 1. Danby Road (Route 96B): Ithaca College to King Road 2. Slaterville Road (Route 79): Park Lane to Burns Road 3. Pine Tree Road: Slaterville Road to Honness Lane; Snyder Hill Road to Maple Ave 4. Dryden Road (Route 366): Caldwell Road to Town of Dryden 5. Route 13: segment in the Town between the City and the Village of Cayuga Heights

Intersection Capacity
The 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) defines Level of Service (LOS) as "a qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a traffic stream, based on service measures such as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort, and convenience."30 For intersections, LOS is defined in terms of delay, which is a measure of driver discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption, and lost travel time.
Level of service (LOS) is defined in terms of delay. It is a measure of driver discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption, and lost travel time. There are six defined levels of service, A to F; A describes little to no delay, and F describes long, unacceptable delays. In general, a LOS of D or below is considered failing.

30

Transportation Research Board, 2000

37

For intersections, the HCM defines six levels of service, which are assigned letter designations from A to F. A describes little to no delay, and F describes long, unacceptable delays. In general, a LOS of D or below is considered failing. The Level of Service concept also can be used to evaluate bicycle and pedestrian flow. For example, an LOS analysis would describe the crowded sidewalks of Manhattan as having a lower LOS than the wellused but less crowded sidewalks in Ithaca. A low LOS rating can help to justify an expansion of bicycle and pedestrian facilities, where appropriate. One problem with motor vehicle LOS measurements for intersections is that they do not account for bicycle and pedestrian safety. For example, turning lanes for motorists at an intersection may improve LOS for motorists but may make the intersection more hazardous for bicyclists and pedestrians. Roadway and intersection changes to improve LOS must not sacrifice bicycle and pedestrian access and safety. According to data drawn from recent development review studies, the eastbound and westbound approaches to the intersection of Dryden Road (Route 366) & Pine Tree Road are operating at LOS F. According to the Traffic Impact Analysis performed in 2005 for the Rite Aid development at East Hill Plaza, the eastbound left turn movement at Slaterville Road (Route 79) and Pine Tree Road is operating as LOS D. (A study in 1998 measured the LOS of that turning movement as A). In the Village of Cayuga Heights, some turning movements at the intersections of Triphammer Road and Hanshaw Road, North Triphammer Road and Hanshaw Road, and Hanshaw Road and Pleasant Grove Road have a LOS of E or F. A full listing of available intersection LOS data is included in Table A-12 of Volume II, Appendix II.

Analysis
Map 7 in Volume II, Appendix I shows residential population densities, traffic volumes, and functional classifications of roads for the Town of Ithaca. This information illustrates demographic and development trends in the Town of Ithaca. First, there is a relationship between classification and volume. In the federal functional classification scheme, local roads channel a small amount of traffic into a collector, which then deposits a moderate amount of traffic onto a high capacity arterial. Traffic volumes on local streets are currently higher on South and East Hills than on West Hill. With the exception of some Cornell-owned land on East Hill, most of South and East Hills have higher population densities than on West Hill. State routes and arterials on West Hill, however, carry as much traffic as their counterparts on East and South Hills because they serve as through-roads that carry traffic from outlying parts of Tompkins County and beyond into the Town and City of Ithaca (Trumansburg Road, for example, carries well over 8,000 vehicles per day). In the residents survey discussed earlier, forty-six percent of Town survey respondents cited high volumes of traffic generally and 22% cited too much traffic in residential neighborhoods as the most serious transportation problems in the Town. Several urban minor arterials and collectors with relatively high traffic volumes run through areas with relatively high population densities that are zoned for

38

residential development. Thus, given our cultural preference for quiet neighborhoods, it is clear why many Town residents believe traffic volumes are too high. Adding capacity to the existing road network via additional travel lanes or new roads may offer only temporary relief from high volumes of traffic on local roads and congestion on through roads. Recent research has shown that congestion will increase until it reaches an equilibrium, at which point there is no more capacity in the road network to absorb new trips.31 If the roadway capacity is increased, generated traffic, or traffic that results from the added capacity, often will fill a significant portion of the added capacity. Generated traffic includes diverted travel (trips shifted in time, route, or destination) and induced travel (shifts from other modes, longer trips, and new trips). If the Town is to control high volumes of traffic on local roads and congestion on through roads now and in the future, it should seek to reduce the number of cars on the road, instead of adding capacity to the road network for the sole purpose of attempting to alleviate congestion. Reducing the number of vehicles on the road can be accomplished with increased use of public transit, carpooling, other high occupancy vehicle strategies, and the provision of facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians. Even a small reduction in the number of vehicles on the road can lead to a significant decrease in the congestion level. Traffic congestion follows the pattern of a non-linear function, which means that a small decrease in traffic volume can have a very large effect on congestion. For example, reducing a peak volume from 2,000 to 1,900 vehicles per hour (a 5% reduction) can reduce delays 10 to 30 percent,32 in some circumstances.

Identification of Needs
High traffic volumes on local roads and congestion on through-roads are problems that are not unique to the Town of Ithaca. In order to address traffic moving through the Town, Town planners and policy makers need to work together with City, County, and other municipal officials. officials. An increase in traffic affects not only the Town of Ithaca, but the City as well, which is either a destination for much of the commuting traffic or a pass-through area to reach major employment centers (such as Cornell University). Working together can address both sides of the equationtraffic origins and destinations. For more information on land-use planning and transportation see the Regional Development and the Transportation System section in the Other Transportation System Issues chapter. This Plan recognizes that it is impossible to completely eliminate through-traffic on local roads within the Town. In order to mitigate the negative effects of traffic on neighborhoods, the Town needs a set of design criteria to guide the construction construction and reconstruction of roads. roads The design criteria must connect the design of roads, the characteristics of the land uses through which they pass, and the role that they should serve in the larger road network. The design of collectors serving neighborhoods must balance the needs of existing through-traffic with the needs of the neighborhood, without unfairly favoring throughtraffic. Finally, the design criteria must allow flexibility to consider the unique circumstances of each road segment.

31 32

Litman, 2001 Litman, 2005; also cited in ITCTC, 2025 Long Range, 2004, p 1.14

39

This Plan includes different types of traffic volume and congestion data for many locations in the Town. The Town needs to continue to collect and monitor volume and congestion data. By collecting data at the same locations every few years, planners and engineers can quantify the changes in volume and congestion. The Town should also continue to collect data at new locations in order to expand the variety of baseline counts. The Town should continue to use the valuable information in NYSDOT counts and data from development reviews. Finally, the Town should work to expand the options for transportation via modes other than the private motor vehicle. The Town should promote walking, biking, and transit, transit as well as development patterns that are transittransit-friendly and bring goods and services within walking and biking distance of residents homes.

Speed Data
Speeding is hazardous not only for the driver, but also for other people (motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists) using the road and the neighborhoods through which the drivers pass. As noted above, the Town of Ithaca Public Works Department regularly collects speed and volume data for Town and County roads within the Town of Ithaca. The speed data are used to identify areas where an unacceptable number of motorists exceed the speed limit. Roads across the Town show a wide range of speeding severity. A larger selection of data, including speed distribution tables, is available at Town Hall.

Inventory
Design speed, posted speed limit, and operating speed are not the same thing. According to NYSDOTs Highway Design Manual, The design speed shall be either the maximum speed for the terrain or a speed based on the anticipated 85th percentile speed (within the range of speeds for the terrain).33 Posted speed limits are regulatory limits enforceable by law. 34 In practice, speed limits are often set at the 85th percentile speed, or the speed that 15% of motorists exceed (in effect, this means that transportation engineers anticipate that approximately 15% of motorists will exceed the posted speed limit). Operating speed is the average running speed, or the actual average speed of vehicles.35 In fact, the design speed must be higher than the posted speed and should also be above the operating speed on a facility, regardless of the posted speed [limit].36 Therefore, a road may be designed to permit 85% of motorists to drive 53 mph where the speed limit is posted as 45 mph, but, in fact, the average operating speed may be 55 mph. As discussed in the Roadway Function and Right-of-Way Design section, design speed is tied to functional classification.

NYSDOT Highway Design Manual, p. 2-14. Emphasis added. FHWA, 1997 35 AASHTO, 2001 36 FHWA, 1997
33 34

40

Table 8 shows the target design speeds (minimum and maximum) for roads of various functional classifications and terrains.

Table 8: NYSDOT Target Design Speeds Minimum Design Speeds for Urban and Rural Arterials and Collectors and Urban Local Roads (in mph) Functional Class. Arterial Urban Terrain Suburban/ Developing Areas Central Business District Level Rolling Mountainous N/A Level Rolling Mountainous N/A Design Speed Range 37-62 31-62 37-68 37-62 37-56 31-62 ADT=0-400 37-62 31-62 19-62 31

Rural

Collector

Urban Rural

400-2000 50-62 37-62 31-62

2000+ 62 50-62 37-62

Local

Urban

Minimum Design Speeds for Rural Local Roads (in mph) ADT: Rural Level Rolling Mountainous <50 31 19 19 50-250 31 31 19 250-400 37 31 19 400-1500 50 37 31 1500-4000 50 37 31 >4000 50 37 31

The ratio of the 85th percentile speed to the speed limit is a value that is comparable across different speed limits and indicates the distribution and extent of speeding. The 85th percentile speed is the speed that 15% of drivers exceed (stated another way, 85% of drivers go the 85th percentile speed or slower). A ratio greater than 1.00 means that there is both a relatively high proportion of speeders to non-speeders and that the speeders are exceeding the limit by a relatively large margin. This is an indication that the speed limit is too low for the design speed of the road, which can be remedied by either raising the speed limit or by redesigning the road in order to decrease the design speed. Table A-13 (Appendix II) gives the aforementioned data for two-dozen major roads that run though the Town of Ithaca. Examples of roads in the Town with speeding problems are listed in Table 9 below. For the purposes of this discussion, a road with a speeding problem is defined as any road with a ratio of 85th percentile speed to posted speed limit that has a value of 1.25 or greater. In other words, on these roads, at least 15% of vehicles are traveling at least 25% faster than the speed limit. For example, on a road with a speed limit of 30 mph, at least 15% of motorists are traveling at least 37.5 mph (125% of the speed limit).
Table 9: Roads with Speeding Problems

Roadway

Location (House # or Otherwise Indicated)

Ratio of 85th Percentile Speed to Speed Limit

41

West King Road Mitchell Street Stone Quarry Road Winthrop Muriel Street Bundy Road Judd Falls Road Stone Quarry Road Hanshaw Road Warren Road Forest Home Drive Culver Road Sandbank Road Poole Road King Road Stone Quarry Road Bostwick Road Forest Home Drive Caldwell Road Stone Quarry Road Coddington Road Forest Home Drive

344 921 355 311 128 1000' east of Hopkins Road north of Plantations Road top 1034 500' North of Fairway Dr. east of the 25 mph zone 287 S curve 124 school zone 220 358 between Plantation and McIntyre across from water plant bottom Juniper Rd 326

1.25 1.26 1.26 1.27 1.27 1.27 1.27 1.29 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.37 1.37 1.38 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.44 1.44 1.47 1.56

Not every section of every road in the Town has been surveyed, and the data included in Appendix II and Table 9 above are not an exhaustive study of the Town. By drawing attention to certain neighborhoods in the Town, these data do not deny the need for change in others. The Town Public Works Department collects volume and speed data every year to increase the number of studied roads. The Public Works Department also returns to previously studied roads in order to determine trends or changes over time.

Analysis
While the concept of design speed works well in theory, several Extent: refers to the percentage problems can arise in its application. First, design speed doesnt of motorists exceeding the speed limit. automatically account for the needs of adjacent neighborhoods. Severity of Speeding: considers the Also, design speed is based on outdated data, and does not characteristics of the adjacent land necessarily reflect current conditions; because of this, modern uses. drivers often exceed the design speed. The next time the road is redesigned, the higher 85th percentile speed may lead the road to be flattened, widened, and straightened. As previously noted, posted speed limits do not necessarily reflect the character of adjacent land uses. In order to account for neighborhood needs, this Plan distinguishes between the extent and the severity of speeding. In this Plan, the extent of speeding refers to the ratio of the 85th percentile speed to the speed limit. It is an objective measure that can be used to compare different locations. The severity of speeding, on the other hand, accounts for the characteristics of the road and describes the impacts on

42

the adjacent land uses. Many factors affect the severity of speeding. For example, Bostwick and Poole Roads have higher speed limits and run through low-density residential and agricultural land uses. There is little pedestrian activity and few residents live there. Thus, the severity of speeding in these areas is relatively less than that in other areas, in spite of the fact that these two roads each have an 85th percentile to speed limit ratio of approximately 1.40. In contrast, the data collection sites on Hanshaw, Coddington, King Roads, and Forest Home Drive are in areas with a great potential to impact residents. The sites on Hanshaw, Coddington Roads, and Forest Home Drives are in medium density residential areas with high concentrations of pedestrians (Hanshaw Road runs from Community Corners through the Northeast neighborhood, and Coddington Road runs through medium density residential development past Ithaca College and into the City). The data collection site on King Road is within the school speed zone, indicating the presence of pedestrians and children. The list below outlines characteristics that increase the severity of speeding on a road. Adjacent land use: high or medium density residential land uses; Adjacent land use design: smaller front yard setbacks; Special areas: school zones, community centers, places of worship, parks, shopping centers, and other centers of pedestrian and bicycle activity have a low tolerance for speeding; Posted speed limit: the effects of speeding will feel more severe on a road with a low speed limit. Based on the considerations above, and the data presented in Table A-13 in Volume II, Appendix II, some areas that may need speed mitigation include the Northeast, the southern part of Pine Tree Road, Forest Home, and Coddington Road near Ithaca College. All of these areas are in neighborhoods of mediumdensity with significant pedestrian activity. The geometric characteristics associated with each design speed are overly generous, because they were calculated years ago, when automotive technology wasnt as good. In practice, the recommended geometric characteristics for each design speed are often used as a minimum, in order to avert liability charges in the event of an accident. The result of the application of the current design speed concept is often a road that is wider, flatter, and straighter than it needs to be, especially if it is in an area that is sensitive to speeding (see above). Once the road is designed to be wider, flatter, and straighter than it was before, traffic speeds naturally increase, pushing up the 85th percentile speed. This increases the design speed for the road the next time it is redesigned for reconstruction. Because roads are often wider, flatter, and straighter than they need to be, many motorists speed without realizing how fast they are traveling. The wide, straight streets in some suburban residential areas mirror the design of rural roads with higher posted speed limits and few pedestrians or bicyclists to cue motorists to slow down. These motorists will naturally slow down if their surroundings indicate that they should do so. Alerting motorists to their surroundings through design changes improves safety, speed limit compliance, and protects the livability of neighborhoods through which the road passes. Unfortunately, some motorists irresponsibly speed on purpose, and they will attempt to speed regardless of the design of the road. Reasons they speed include being late for an appointment, fooling around and

43

feeling invincible, or driving while intoxicated. The best solution for these speeders is one that forcefully reminds them that abiding by the speed limit is not optional, regardless of the circumstances.

Identification of Needs
The Analysis above concluded that speeding is a problem on many roads in the Town. Thus, this Plan identifies a need for speed mitigation, mitigation focusing on (but not limited to) residential, medium-density areas, school zones, roads with lower speed limits, and areas of high pedestrian or bicycle traffic. Guidelines could set forth criteria by which the extent and severity of speeding would be assessed and would offer mitigation measures based on the characteristics of the road and the adjacent land uses. As noted above, speed mitigation efforts need to focus on areas where the severity of speeding is worst. worst The Analysis above identified the Northeast, the southern part of Pine Tree Road, the Forest Home neighborhood, and Coddington Road near Ithaca College as areas where speeding is severe. These locations may form the first round of speed mitigation projects. A more complete listing of locations with speeding problems is included in the Alternatives section. In order to adequately and appropriately address the causes and effects of speeding, each situation must be examined individually, and the Town must address both intentional and unintentional speeders. To this end, the Town needs to continue, and perhaps increase, enforcement opportunities to catch intentional speeders. The enforcement of speed limits sends a clear message to speeders that their carelessness is unacceptable. The presence of law enforcement in problem areas can be especially effective because it demonstrates to residents that law enforcement considers protection of their quality of life to be an important goal. Over time, it may teach motorists to be aware of their surroundings, including the presence of the officer. In order to target unintentional speeders, the Town needs to Traffic Calming: Combinations of adopt a set of design guidelines that tie the design of the road to mostly physical measures that reduce the the desired motor vehicle speed. Furthermore, the Town needs to negative effects of motor vehicle use, alter explore alternate design strategies that have worked well for driver behavior, and improve conditions for other municipalities, such as traffic calming measures, to target non-motorized street users. One example is a raised crosswalk, which alerts speeding in certain areas to protect the livability of motorists to the presence of pedestrians neighborhoods. neighborhoods Traffic calming techniques cue motorists that and cues them to slow down. they are in an area where speeding is inappropriate. As noted at the end of the Analysis, traffic calming saves time for law enforcement, preserves the quality of life for residents, and encourages motorists to follow the law. Traffic calming is a valuable design tool when applied correctly in appropriate situations. The Town needs to continue to collect speed data at regular intervals at the same and new locations. locations This allows planners and engineers to track changes in the level of speeding and will be very valuable in evaluating the effectiveness of speed mitigation measures. By expanding the locations where speed data is collected, the Town will get a better understanding of speeding problems across the area and will help to ensure that neighborhoods are not overlooked.

44

Road Safety: Crash Information & Location Analyses

Safety for all users of the transportation system, including motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians, children, and others, is one of the overarching Goals of this Plan. In this section, information about crashes is presented and analyzed to recognize particularly hazardous locations and to identify needs related to transportation safety.

Inventory
This inventory contains two types of road safety information. The first section presents a tabulation of crash locations using Department of Motor Vehicles crash data. The second section describes the safety analysis performed by a consultant and Town Planning staff.

Crash Information Database

In 2003, the Town Planning Department created a database of crash information. The information was extracted from NYSDOT crash reports from 1999 to Transportation planners refer to accidents as 2001 and was restricted to reportable crashes, that crashes. Accident implies an unforeseen and is, those causing injury or more than $1,000 in unpreventable event, like a deer stepping into the property damage (the more serious crashes). The road. Most (but not all) automobile crashes stem from preventable causes, like fatigue leading to increased database includes drivers profiles, the weather reaction time leading to a collision with a deer. For conditions at the time of the crash, the cause of the simplicitys sake, this Plan uses crashes instead of crash (weather conditions, driver error, etc), and the accidents to describe all incidents. object involved in the crash (deer, utility pole, other vehicle). The locations of these crashes are shown in Map 9 (Locations of Serious Crashes: 19992001) in Volume II, Appendix I.

Figure A-15 in Volume II, Appendix II shows the first event, or the object initially involved in the collision, for crashes included in the study. Of the 548 crashes citing a first event, 48% involved another vehicle. Table 10 below shows the roads or intersections with the highest frequency of serious crashes involving another vehicle
Table 10: Locations of Crashes Involving Another Vehicle; 1999-2000

Location The northern part of Route 89 (Taughannock Blvd), just before Ulysses Hayts Road and Route 96 (Trumansburg Road) Harris B. Dates Drive (Hospital driveway) and Route 96 (Trumansburg Road) Route 13 (Elmira Road) and Sand Bank Road Route 13 (Elmira Road) and Five Mile Drive Route 13 (Elmira Road) between Seven Mile Drive and Calkins Road Route 34/96 (West Danby Road between the Town of Ithaca-Town of Newfield line and the intersection with Route 13 (Shady Corners) Route 96B (Danby Road) and entrance to Ithaca College

Number of Crashes 12 5 5 4 8 10 7 4

45

Route 96B (Danby Road) and Emerson Power Transmission Route 96B (Danby Road) between Ithaca College and Emerson Power Transmission Route 96B (Danby Road) and King Road Route 79 (Slaterville Road) and Honness Lane Route 79 (Slaterville Road) and Pine Tree Road Pine Tree Road between Snyder Hill Road and Mitchell Street Route 366 (Dryden Road) between Caldwell Road and Town of Ithaca Town of Dryden line

5 6 5 4 10 9 13

Locations with higher traffic volumes are expected to have a higher number of vehicular crashes. Since the Town does not have traffic volume data specific to each location, the number of accidents at these locations have not been normalized based on traffic volume. Another 34.3% of the crashes citing a first event involved an animal (probably a deer). Map 10 in Appendix I shows the locations of serious crashes involving an animal. Table 11 below shows the roads or intersections with the highest frequency of this type of crash.
Table 11: Locations of Crashes Involving Animal; 1999-2001

Location Route 79 (Mecklenburg Road): EcoVillage to the City The northern part of Route 89 (Taughannock Blvd), just before Ulysses Route 13/34/96 (Elmira Road): between Calkins Road and Seven Mile Drive Route 13/34/96 (Elmira Road): near the intersection with Route 13 A (Five Mile Drive) Intersection of Coddington and Troy Roads Intersection of Route 79 (Slaterville Road) and Burns Road Intersection of Ellis Hollow and Game Farm Roads Route 96B (Danby Road): around Sesame Street Route 96B (Danby Road): around entrance to Ithaca College Route 96B (Danby Road): around the entrance to Emerson Power Transmission Length of Route 96 (Trumansburg Road) Intersection of Hayts and Hopkins Roads

Number of Crashes 24 11 8 4 4 5 5 6 4 4 44 4

The remaining 17.7% of the crashes listing a first event are comprised mostly of physical roadway elements, such as guardrails or utility poles, although five crashes involved bicyclists and two involved pedestrians (1.3% total over the course of three years). These incidents are of particular concern because of the high rate of injury or fatality of bicyclists and pedestrians involved in crashes with motor vehicles. The locations of crashes involving a vehicle and a bicyclist or pedestrian include: Pedestrian: 1. Route 96B (Danby Road) and Ithaca College entrance: 1 2. Route 366 (Dryden Road) at City/Town line: 1 Bicyclist: 1. Route 79 (Mecklenburg Road) between Ecovillage and Conifer Lane: 1 2. Route 96B (Danby Road) & Sesame Street: 1 3. Route 79 (Slaterville Road) & Burns Road: 1 4. Route 366 (Dryden Road): one to the west and one to the east of Caldwell Road

46

Figure A-16 in Volume II, Appendix II categorizes the causes of motor vehicle crashes included in the Town of Ithacas database. Fully one third of crashes were caused by an animal action. The second most common causes of crashes were failure to yield and driver error (including inattention, inexperience, distraction, falling asleep, or losing consciousness), causing 11% of crashes each. External factors (such as slippery pavement, glare, or a tire blowout) and following too closely account for 9% of crashes each. Locations of crash clusters in the Town are fairly predictable; the vast majority occur on State routes where volumes and speed limits are highest. Small clusters of crashes on County roads occur on Coddington Road, East King Road, Pine Tree Road, Warren Road, and Hanshaw Road. The few crashes that occur on roads or at intersections completely controlled by the Town of Ithaca are listed below. Most of these areas had between one and three crashes over a three-year period, and many were one-car crashes involving an animal or road object, such as a ditch or sign post.
Table 12: Crashes on Town-owned Roads or Intersections by First Event, 1999-2001

Road/ Intersection Elm Street & Culver Rd. Elm Street & West Haven Rd. Stone Quarry Rd.

Number of Crashes - First Event 1- tree 3- animal 1- earth/ rock cut/ ditch; 2- vehicle 2- signpost 2- other 2- animal 1- vehicle 1- earth/ rock cut/ ditch 2- animal 1- earth/ rock cut/ ditch 2- vehicle 1- animal 1- animal 1- fixed object 1- animal 1- fixed object 1- vehicle 1- other 1- vehicle

Stone Quarry Rd. & W. King Rd. W. King Rd. Kendall Ave Snyder Hill Rd. Judd Falls Rd. Caldwell Rd. Winston Ct.

Intersection Analyses and Crash Screenings

During the fall of 2005, the Towns Transportation Committee hired Fisher Associates, a consulting firm, to analyze several intersections and road segments in the Town. The analysis consisted of taking traffic counts at intersections and using a checklist to consider the safe and unsafe aspects of the location. Fisher Associates examined the following locations:

47

Intersections: Route 79 & Honness Lane; Pine Tree Road & Honness Lane; Seven Mile Drive & Route 13; Troy Road & East King Road; Route 96 & Bundy Road; Route 96 & Hayts Road; Route 96B & King Road; Pine Tree Road & Maple Avenue; Warren and Hanshaw Roads. Segments: Sandbank Road; Stone Quarry Road; Pine Tree Road; Pleasant Grove Road; Mecklenburg Road; Trumansburg Road/ Route 96 (segment near City); Route 13/ Elmira Road (Route 13A/ Five Mile Drive, southwards). At many locations, Fisher Associates recommended a crash screening. Crash screenings look at the actual accident reports in order to determine if there is a pattern among the crashes at a location. The Transportation Committee chose to focus the crash screenings on locations perceived to have the most serious safety problems and locations involving Town roads. The crash screenings, along with Fisher Associates location summaries, are found in Volume II, Appendix IV. The crash screenings showed no obvious, immediate safety hazards. In most cases, possible mitigation measures are as simple as improving signage to alert drivers to unexpected intersections or road curves. In other cases, the crash screening showed that mitigation measures may be needed in the future, such as improved traffic controls (such as a traffic light).

Sight Distances
The Town Engineering Department is in the process of surveying every intersection in the Town to measure sight distances. Sight distance at an intersection is dependent on the configuration of the intersection, the topography of the intersecting roadway, and any obstacles (like fences or bushes) that obstruct the motorists view of the road. By factoring in the speed limit of the intersecting roadway, one can determine the sight distance necessary for safe entry into the intersecting roadway. Sight distance is measured from the typical location of a driver (three feet up from the ground) stopped at the correct location behind a stop sign (four feet back). The Engineering Department is also measuring how much the sight distance improves if a motorist begins to creep into the intersection. Once the inventory is complete, the Engineering and Public Works Departments will prioritize the list and will begin to systematically address the problems. Addressing sight distance problems does not necessarily mean removal of roadside vegetation and other features. In fact, increasing sight distances at an intersection by completely clearing an intersection and widening the curb radius (decreasing the sharpness of the curve) can make it more difficult for motorists to judge the distance and speed of approaching traffic. It also encourages motorists to roll through stop signs and to speed. Instead, the speed limit on the through-road could be lowered or traffic calming could be installed, increasing the amount of time available for vehicles to turn onto the throughroad. Alternately, the stop line could be moved closer to the through road, thereby improving visibility up and down the street.

Analysis
The Town Transportation Survey highlighted areas that residents believed to be hazardous. To facilitate tabulation, most were categorized by cluster of intersections within a small area. As noted above, the

48

Town does not control most of these intersections or roads. Below is the survey question along with the tabulated location responses.
Table 13: Hazardous Roads Survey Question and Responses

Are there any roads or intersections in the Town of Ithaca you consider to be particularly hazardous? If yes, please identify location and problem(s).
Area or Intersection Community Corners, including Warren and Hanshaw Area of intersections between Honness, Pine Tree, & Rt. 79 Area of Coddington, Burns, Coddington, & Troy; Troy , & E. King Rd. Route 13 in general, plus intersections with Seven Mile/ Five Mile Dr. & Kmart Area of Burleigh, Winthrop, Simsbury, Christopher Area of Forest Home Route 96B in general, including near Ithaca College Intersection at Sheffield and Mecklenburg Area of Winston, Salem, Muriel Rt 79 (Slaterville Road) in general Number of Times Cited 99 52 43 29 19 17 14 14 9 9

The most commonly cited area of concern (Community Corners) lies mostly outside the Towns municipal boundaries. Although many residents consider these areas to be hazardous (likely because they live in these neighborhoods), only two crashes occurred in these areas over the course of three years. According to the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), there has been a decline in the fatality rate for motor vehicle crashes in Tompkins County. In 1996, there were 16 fatalities on roads within the County (1.08% fatality rate in crashes); by 2000, the rate had dropped to 0.23%, or 6 fatalities.37 The crash fatality rate is declining across the country, even though the number of vehicles, number of licensed drivers, and the number of vehicle miles traveled has increased. The Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) lists many reasons for the decline, including seat belt promotion, child safety seat awareness, increases in motorcycle helmet usage, campaigns against drunken driving, improvements in highway and vehicle design (including greater separation of traffic), and better and prompter medical attention to crash victims.38 In short, the Town of Ithaca is fortunate to have relatively safe roads, which may be due in part to the modest scale of many Town roads. This does not permit complacency, however, as even one preventable crash or injury is one too many. Unfortunately, there is little that the Town can do on its own to improve road safety. It is unlikely that the Town can do much to mitigate the most common cause of crashes (animals, especially deer, in the roads). Much of the Town is agricultural, conserved, or developed to a low density to preserve a rural feel; deer in the woods and on the roads are a part of that feel. The Town Public Works Department already addresses design flaws on Town-owned roads that could compromise driver safety, but the Town is
37 38

ITCTC, 2025 Long Range, page 1.16 Ibid.

49

unable to control the actions of these drivers on the roads. Furthermore, the Town does not control most of the roads with high crash rates. Most of the roads with many crashes are owned by the State of New York, while others belong to the County. While the Town cannot dictate changes to the designs or policies governing these roads without cooperation from the relevant jurisdiction, the Town can continue to advocate for designs and policies that protect safety and livability.

Identification of Problems and Needs

One theme of this Plan is the need to coordinate and cooperate to achieve common goals. Most of the roads with high crashes are controlled by entities other than the Town. In addition, the Town does not have its own law enforcement agency. Thus, teamwork is a necessary component of any safety strategy. The Town needs to coordinate with with other municipalities, organizations, and agencies in order to improve transportation safety in the Town, such as Tompkins County, NYSDOT, the Tompkins County Sheriffs Department, City of Ithaca and Village of Cayuga Heights Police, Cornell University and Ithaca College Police, the Ithaca City School District, and so on. Since fully one third of serious crashes in the Town are caused by animal actions, the Town needs to aware e of the potential explore ways to keep deer off roads in the Town or ways to make motorists more awar presence of deer on the roadway. roadway For example, the Town could work to reduce vehicle speeds at known deer crossings. Also, the Town of Ithaca Conservation Board has studied the deer population in the Town, and the Town Board has indicated interest in looking at ways to restrict the deer population. This Plan fully supports their efforts, while recognizing that there is little that it can do to directly prevent deerrelated crashes. Locations with high numbers of animal-related crashes are listed in the Alternatives section. Some crashes are caused by roadway design problems. The Town needs to make sure that roadway design is as safe as possible and promotes safe driver behavior. behavior For example, conditions that decrease the safety of roads in the Town include: improper intersection alignment or control, road characteristics that encourage unsafe driver behavior (such as wide, flat roads that encourage speeding), unexpected, abrupt changes in design speed, and poorly maintained pavement (especially hazardous for bicyclists). The Town follow the best practices of roadway and network design to reduce the number of preventable crashes. Locations with high numbers of vehicle-vehicle crashes are listed in the Alternatives section. The Town needs to include enforcement of traffic laws as a part of a safety strategy. strategy Some motorists engage in unsafe behavior regardless of the condition of the roadway by speeding or driving while intoxicated. Furthermore, many bicyclists and pedestrians are not aware of the traffic laws that apply to them. Enforcement can be an educational tool as well as a deterrent to future law-breaking behavior. As previously noted, many motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians do not understand the safest ways to use the roadway. The Town needs to include safety education as a crash reduction measure. measure Educated roadway users are more likely to practice safe behavior, even when they are in sub-optimal conditions. Finally, the Town needs to collect and analyze recent crash data in order to monitor changes in accident patterns. By monitoring changes, the Town will be able to determine the locations that need mitigation most and will be able to tailor the mitigation strategies to fit the problems at that specific location.

50

ROADWAY MAINTENANCE
This section examines the role of the Town of Ithaca Public Works Department in the construction and maintenance of Town roadways and the Town road network.

Inventory
The Town of Ithaca Public Works Department employs a staff of approximately twenty-eight full-time employees, with several seasonal employees. It is responsible for most of the maintenance and improvement of Town-owned roads, as well as the maintenance and some of the construction work of Town recreation, water, and sewer facilities. The Town, County, and State, however, do share maintenance of some roads. For example, the Town plows and salts certain roads that are owned by Tompkins County, while the County plows and salts all of the State roads in the Town. Currently, the Town uses sodium chloride (NaCl, also known as regular table salt) with a special additive to de-ice roadways. The additive is a natural byproduct of the beer brewing process. It lowers the freezing temperature of ice slush, which means that less of the salt mix needs to be used and the salt mix doesnt need to be applied as frequently. It also lowers the overall corrosiveness of the salt mix. During the summer of 2004, the Town of Ithaca Public Works Department conducted an inventory of the condition of every Town-owned road. Each road or road segment received a pavement condition index (PCI), which is a measure of several signs of pavement deterioration, including several types of cracking, patching/potholes, drainage, and roughness. The inventory will be updated to reflect deterioration and maintenance and improvement projects. The goal of this project is to prioritize Town roads in greatest need for maintenance, to create a regular maintenance schedule, and to assist the budgeting of Town resources. The information in the PCI shows that most of the Town-owned roads are in good to excellent condition.

Analysis
The best way to save The most cost-effective pavement management plan is a system of money in a highway construction preventative maintenance. According to a Road Condition Study budget is to make sure that the conducted by the Town of Peterborough in New Hampshire, pavement roads dont deteriorate in the quality drops only 40% over the first 75% of the pavement lifespan (i.e. first place! after 10-12 years, the pavement is still in acceptable or good condition). Over the next four years, however, pavement quality drops another 40% from fair to very poor. More importantly, allowing pavement to degrade from fair to very poor increases repair costs at least five-fold.39 Thus, a reasonable amount of short-term cost produces a great degree of long-term benefit. The Cornell Local Roads Program writes:

39

Sterling, 2003, p. 6-7

51

It is generally most cost effective to spend your money keeping the good roads good than it is to put all your funds into fixing the worst roads. This idea may be exactly the opposite of what personal tendencies would be, but it is basically correct. Keep the good roads good and plan ahead for the extra money you will need to gradually rebuild the poor roads.40 Currently, the Town is on a 33-year reconstruction schedule. Every year, the Public Works Department repaves about 1.5 miles of road and performs preventative maintenance on 5-7 miles. This schedule is sufficient to maintain high quality roads, but there is little room for putting off necessary maintenance. Because of the variation in regional weather patterns and the constant evolution of the road network, it is more important to create a framework for maintenance decision-making than to dictate a maintenance schedule. This also offers greater budgetary flexibility. Roads that should be prioritized are higher traffic roads requiring preventative maintenance and local roads in such poor condition that they negatively affect the livability, access, or safety of the neighborhoods through which they run. Also, the impacts of road maintenance on the natural environment must be mitigated, including roadway drainage, winter maintenance, and trimming of roadside vegetation.

Identification of Needs
This section has outlined the importance of determining the condition of each roadway, practicing preventative maintenance, and planning for future projects. Preventative maintenance costs pennies in the short-term but saves dollars in the long term. The Town needs to prioritize preventative maintenance while continuing to plan for larger repaving and reconstruction projects. In order to identify roadways that will need preventative maintenance in the future, the Town needs to continue to collect data on the pavement conditions on Town roadways, whether through a formal survey to calculate PCI information, or an informal survey to assess the general condition of the pavement. Finally, the Town own Public Works Department needs flexibility in funding and scheduling in order to address future needs.

40

Henderson Associates, 2003

52

A SUMMARY OF THE ROAD NETWORK IN THE TOWN OF ITHACA

Introduction
The State Highways and County and Town Roadways section has outlined the current condition of the roadway network in the Town of Ithaca. It identified locations with high traffic volumes, speeding problems, and crash clusters. In addition, it pointed to the potential conflict between the designated function (functional classification), the actual or intended use, and the design of a roadway, all of which may conflict with the needs of sensitive residential areas. While the Town cannot ignore the functional classification system or established design standards due to funding and liability reasons, the Town can use its own system to understand the role of a road for internal decision-making. This understanding, in turn, may affect the Towns position on decisions regarding non-Town owned roads. The categorization outlined below accounts for factors such as the location, type, and character of land uses served by the roadway, how and by whom the roadway is used, including by what type of vehicle, traffic speeds and volumes, the extent to which the road is used by bicyclists and pedestrians, the degree of conflict between adjacent land uses and roadway traffic, and the geometrics of the roadway. The description of each roadway also includes problems and issues identified in the Inventory and Analysis of this Volume (Volume I: The Plan); Identifying and Prioritizing Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements in Appendix VI, Volume II: The Appendices; and Intersection and Road Segment Analyses in Appendix IV, Volume II: The Appendices. The Identified Problems section of each roadway description is not exhaustive, as data are not available for every location. Like the federal functional classification system, there is some overlap between categories, and not every road in the Town fits neatly into one category. Furthermore, many roads change character along their length. Thus, this brief analysis is meant only as a starting point for a new understanding of the road network in the Town of Ithaca. The following outline includes abbreviations used in this section. For the Bike/ Ped Destinations & Facilities and the Geometrics sections, the outline explains the meaning of the line numbers. Adjacent Land Uses: o LIR: Lower-intensity residential (i.e. Low-Density Residential Zones, Medium-Density Residential Zones in rural areas) o HIR: Higher-intensity residential (i.e. Medium-Density Residential Zones in suburban areas, High-Density Residential Zones, Mobile Home Park Zones, and Multiple Residence Zone) o Com: Commercial o Ind: Industrial o Agr: Agricultural o Edu: Educational o OpS: Open Space or Conservation Zone Bike/ Ped Destinations & Facilities: o (Line #1) Bicyclist and pedestrian generators served by this road segment o (Line #2) Bicyclist and pedestrian facilities in the right-of-way 53

Volume: o vpd: vehicles per day Geometrics: o (Line #1) Horizontal and vertical displacement: hills and curves o (Line #2) Number and width of lanes o (Line #3) Presence and condition of shoulder o (Line #4) Intersection control(s)

Road Categorization
This Plan proposes that there are five main categories of roads in the Town: Radial roads: Radial roads carry traffic to the employment centers of the County (the City of Ithaca and Cornell University). They are high volume and often high speed roads. This category includes: Coddington Rd. Danby Rd. (Rt. 96B) Dryden Rd. (Rt. 366) East Shore Dr. (Rt. 34) Ellis Hollow Rd. Elmira Rd. (Rt. 13) Mecklenburg Rd. (Rt. 79) Slaterville Rd. (Rt. 79) Taughannock Blvd. (Rt. 89) Trumansburg Rd. (Rt. 96) Feeder roads: Feeder roads collect traffic from residential areas and outlying areas of the County and deposit it on radial roads. Feeder roads that extend to the main employment centers deposit traffic onto radial roads. In both instances, feeder roads do not directly connect employment centers to outlying residential areas. This category includes: Bostwick Rd. Bundy Rd. Elm St/ Elm St. Ext/ Poole Rd. Enfield Falls Rd. (Rt. 327) Five Mile Dr. (Rt. 13A) Forest Home Dr. Hanshaw Rd. Hayts Rd. Maple Ave. Ridgecrest Rd. Sandbank Rd. Snyder Hill Rd. Stone Quarry Rd. Troy Rd. West Danby Rd. (Rt. 34/96) W. King Rd. Circumferential roads: Circumferential roads roughly form a ring around the City of Ithaca, connecting radial and feeder roads. This category includes: 54

Burns Rd. Caldwell Rd. Coy Glen Rd. Culver Rd. E. King Rd. Honness La. Hopkins Rd. Judd Falls Rd. Pleasant Grove Rd. Pine Tree Rd. Seven Mile Dr. Warren Rd. Westhaven Rd.

Subdivision access roads: Subdivision access roads channel traffic generated within a subdivision and deposit it on a radial feeder, or circumferential road. Internal subdivision roads: Internal subdivision roads provide direct access to homes and circulate traffic within a subdivision. This category also includes small cul-de-sacs and loop roads, even though they connect to radial feeder, or circumferential roads, because their characteristics are more like internal subdivision roads than subdivision access roads.

55

Radial Roads
Coddington Rd.
Adjacent Land Uses: Uses LIR, HIR Bike/ Ped Destinations & Facilities: 1) I.C, undergrad housing, trail, elementary school, park 2) Shoulder width and condition varies. *Coddington Rd. is being rebuilt, and sidewalks are part of the design. Purpose Served: Served Connect City and Ithaca College to Caroline. Local access to residences. Relative Degree of Conflict: Conflict Moderate to high. On the northern end of the road, residences are set close to the road and there are many driveways. Approximate Volume: Volume 2,181-2,621 vpd Speed Limit: Limit 30 mph from City to Juniper Dr. 40 mph from Juniper Dr. to Troy Rd. 45 mph south of Troy Rd. Identified Problems: Problems Speeding near Juniper Dr; need for bike & pedestrian improvements Jurisdiction: County Geometrics: Geometrics 1) Generally straight with a few hills 2) 2 lanes 3) Shoulder width and condition varies 4) Intersecting roads controlled with stop sign.

Danby Rd. (Rt. 96B)

Adjacent Land Uses: Uses LIR, HIR, Com, Ind, Edu Bike/ Ped Destinations & Facilities: 1) Ithaca College students traveling between college and City 2) Wide, paved shoulder in Town; may be insufficient due to motor vehicle volumes and speeds Purpose Served: Served Connect I.C. to City. Commuter route from Danby to City. Some local access. Relative Degree of Conflict: Conflict Low to moderate. Residences set back from road or on cul-de-sacs, two major intersections are signalized and create no problems. Approximate Volume: Volume 9000 vpd Speed Limit: Limit 40 mph near City, 50 mph S. of King Rd. Identified Problems: Problems Congestion (I.C. to King Rd.); crashes at various locations, including 2 bike/ pedestrian crashes; need for bike & pedestrian improvements Jurisdiction: State Geometrics: Geometrics 1) Long hill near City. Fairly straight. 2) 2 lanes; 4 from I.C. to City 3) Wide, paved shoulder. At Town/ City line, sidewalk stops before shoulder begins. 4) Light at I.C. entrance and King Rd. int. Some uncontrolled res. & com. driveways.

Dryden Rd. (Rt. 366)

Adjacent Land Uses: Uses Edu, Ind, Ag (orchards) Bike/ Ped Destinations & Facilities: 1) C.U, Varna 2) Wide, paved shoulder. Signage indicating bicyclists and pedestrians. Purpose Served: Served Connect Varna & Dryden to City and Cornell University. Relative Degree of Conflict: Conflict Low to moderate. Very few driveways, no residential development. Approximate Volume: Volume 9,200 vpd Speed Limit: Limit 30 mph west of Tower Rd. 45 mph east of Tower Rd. Identified Problems: Problems Congestion (Caldwell Rd. to Town of Dryden); crashes at various locations, including 2 bike/ pedestrian crashes Jurisdiction: State Geometrics: Geometrics 1) Gentle slope. Fairly straight. 2) 2 lanes; turning lane westbound at Pine Tree Rd. & eastbound at Judd Falls Rd. 3) Wide, paved shoulder. 4) Four-way stop at Pine Tree Rd, traffic signal at Caldwell Rd.

56

East Shore Dr. (Rt. 34)

Adjacent Land Uses: Uses HIR, Com Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Facilities: 1) Town Park, Lansing, Middle and High Schools 2) Narrow to very narrow paved shoulder. Purpose Served: Served Connect Lansing to City. Local access to seasonal residences. Relative Degree of Conflict: Conflict Moderate to high. Although many residences front a parallel access road and there are few curb cuts, there is little space for bicycle or pedestrian traffic. Approximate Volume: Volume 8,450 vpd Speed Limit: Limit 45 mph. Identified Problems: Problems Need for bike/pedestrian improvements somewhere along the corridor . Jurisdiction: State Geometrics: Geometrics 1) Few hills and curves. 2) 2 lanes. 3) Narrow to very narrow paved shoulder. 4) No major intersections. There are a few uncontrolled driveways.

Ellis Hollow Rd./ Mitchell St.

Approximate Volume: Volume 4,228-4,966 vpd Speed Limit: Limit 35 mph from City to Ellis Hollow Apts. (east of East Hill Plaza), then 45 mph Identified Problems: Problems Speeding (near # 921); congestion at intersection with Pine Tree Rd; need for bike improvements along Mitchell St. Jurisdiction: County Geometrics: Geometrics 1) Moderate hill leading into Dryden and no curves. 2) 2 lanes, except for turning lanes at int. with Pine Tree Rd. 3) Moderately wide paved shoulder 4) Only major intersection at Pine Tree Rd. controlled with traffic light.

Adjacent Land Uses: Uses LIR, HIR, Com, OpS Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations Destinations & Facilities: 1) Residential area, East Hill Plaza, grad student housing 2) Moderately wide paved shoulder

Purpose Served: Served Connect Dryden to the City and Cornell University. Relative Degree of Conflict: Conflict Low to moderate. In the Town, there are few residences that actually front on the road.

57

Elmira Rd. (Rt. 13)

Adjacent Land Uses: Uses LIR, Ind, Com, OpS Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Facilities: 1) City, Buttermilk Falls and Treman State Parks 2) Wide, paved shoulder. *Motor vehicle traffic volumes and speeds present significant safety hazards. Purpose Served: Served Major commuter route from southwestern portion of the County and beyond to the City. Local access for a few residences and businesses. Relative Degree of Conflict: Conflict Low to moderate. Most commercial development is in City. Little residential development. Approximate Volume: Volume 15,646-18,900 vpd Speed Limit: Limit 50 mph from City to Rt. 327. 55 mph south of Rt. 327. Identified Problems: Problems Congestion (City to intersection of 13 & 34/96, and also Rt. 13 near the Village of Cayuga Heights); crashes (Seven Mile Dr. to Calkins Rd. & at Five Mile Dr.) Jurisdiction: State Geometrics: Geometrics 1) Few hills and curves. 2) 4 lanes between City and Five Mile Dr; two lanes south of Five Mile Dr. 3) Wide, paved shoulder. 4) Traffic signal at Five Mile Dr. Other roads have stop sign at Elmira Rd. Intersection with Seven Mile Dr. a potential safety hazard (see Crash Screenings, Appendix IV in Volume II: The Appendices).

Mecklenburg Rd. (Rt. 79)

Adjacent Land Land Uses: Uses LIR, Agr Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Facilities: 1) EcoVillage, Linderman Creek, Citys West Hill neighborhood 2) Moderately wide, paved shoulder Purpose Served: Served Connect City to western portion of Tompkins County and Schuyler County. Local access to residences. Relative Degree of Conflict: Conflict Low to moderate. Residences are set back from road. Few intersections. Approximate Volume: Volume 6,450 vpd (within City) Speed Limit: Limit 55 mph, except east of Linderman Creek (30 mph) Identified Problems: Problems Crashes (due to animal action, plus one bike/pedestrian crash); need for bike/pedestrian improvements near City Jurisdiction: State Geometrics: Geometrics 1) Rolling hills, no curves. 2) 2 lanes 3) Wide, paved shoulder 4) Two intersections: Westhaven Rd. and Sheffield Rd. Intersection roads have stop signs.

58

Slaterville Rd. (Rt. 79)

Adjacent Land Uses: Uses LIR, HIR Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Facilities: 1) City, residential development, churches, parks 2) Wide, paved shoulder Purpose Served: Served Connect City to Caroline and beyond (Tioga County). Local access to residences. Relative Degree of Conflict: Conflict Moderate to high. Many residences, some of which are close to road (near City). Approximate Volume: Volume 6,600-10,100 vpd Speed Limit: Limit 45 mph Identified Problems: Problems Congestion (Pine Tree Rd. to Burns Rd.); crashes at Pine Tree Rd & Burns Rd; need for bike/ pedestrian improvements, especially near City Jurisdiction: State Geometrics: Geometrics 1) Few hills, no curves. 2) 2 lanes 3) Wide, paved shoulder 4) Intersecting roads controlled with stop sign. Through traffic at Pine Tree Rd. has flashing yellow light (entering traffic has flashing red light).

Taughannock Blvd. (Rt. 89)

Approximate Volume: Volume N/A. Speed Limit: Limit 45 mph, except for northernmost 1/3 mile in the Town (55 mph) Identified Problems: Problems Crashes (vehicular and due to animal action); potential need for some bike improvements (for example, a multi-use trail along the corridor)

Adjacent Land Uses: Uses LIR, HIR, OpS Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Facilities: 1) Scenic points, Taughannock Falls, State Park, City. 2) Paved shoulder. Taughannock Blvd. is signed as bike route.

Purpose Served: Served Connect City to Trumansburg and Ulysses. Local access to residences. Relative Degree of Conflict: Conflict Moderate to high. Many driveway curb cuts, but residences are set back from road. No intersections.

Jurisdiction: State Geometrics: Geometrics 1) Some hills, no curves. 2) 2 lanes 3) Paved shoulder. 4) No intersections.

Trumansburg Rd. (Rt. 96)

Adjacent Land Uses: Uses LIR, HIR, Agr, OpS Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Facilities: 1) Residential development (inc. Overlook development), hospital, medical offices, City 2) Wide, paved shoulder Purpose Served: Served Connects City to Hospital, Ulysses, Trumansburg, etc. Local access to residences and businesses. Relative Degree of Conflict: Conflict Moderate to high. There are numerous residential and commercial driveways, as well as a hospital, several nursing homes, multiple residence developments, etc. Approximate Volume: Volume 8,399-8,650 vpd Speed Limit: Limit 45 mph from City to Hayts Rd. and 55 mph north of Hayts Rd. Identified Problems: Problems Congestion along corridor; crashes along corridor; need for bike/pedestrian improvements Jurisdiction: State Geometrics: Geometrics 1) Slight hill from City to approximately Bundy Rd. No curves. 2) 2 lanes 3) Wide, paved shoulder 4) Intersecting roads controlled with stop sign, except for traffic light at Harris B. Dates Dr.

59

Feeder Roads
Bostwick Rd. Rd
Adjacent Land Uses: Uses LIR, Agr, OpS Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Facilities: 1) Tutelo Park, residential development 2) Paved shoulders, varying in width Purpose Served: Served Feed traffic from Enfield (Rt. 327) onto Five Mile Dr. (Rt. 13A) Relative Degree of Conflict: Conflict Low to moderate. There are very few residences on Bostwick Rd. in the Town, and they are set back from the road and often buffered by trees. Approximate Volume: Volume 1,801 vpd Speed Limit: Limit 45 mph Identified Problems: Problems Speeding (near #358) Jurisdiction: County Geometrics: Geometrics 1) Long hill into Enfield. Some curves. 2) 2 lanes 3) Paved shoulder, varying in width 4) Intersecting roads (Seven Mile Dr, Culver Rd, Sheffield Rd.) controlled with stop sign. Bostwick has a stop sign at Five Mile Dr.

Bundy Rd.
Adjacent Land Uses: Uses LIR, Agr, OpS Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Facilities: 1) Development on Rt. 96 2) Road shoulder Purpose Served: Served Feed traffic from Sheffield Rd. onto Trumansburg Rd (Rt. 96). Local access to residences. Relative Degree of Conflict: Conflict Low to moderate. Residences are set back from road in rural setting. Very low traffic volumes. Approximate Volume: Volume 376 vpd Speed Limit: Limit 45 mph from Rt. 96 to Hopkins Rd; 55 mph from Hopkins Rd. to Sheffield Rd. Identified Problems: Problems Speeding (1000 e. of Hopkins Rd.) Jurisdiction: County Geometrics: Geometrics 1) Rolling hills, no curves. 2) 2 lanes. 3) Generally narrow shoulder in varying condition 4) Bundy Rd. has stop signs at Trumansburg Rd. and Sheffield Rd. Hopkins Rd. has stop sign at Bundy Rd.

Elm St./ Elm St. Ext./ Poole Rd.

Adjacent Land Uses: Uses LIR, Agr, OpS Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Facilities: 1) Residential development 2) Narrow gravel shoulder Purpose Served: Served Feed traffic from Sheffield Rd. to City. Local access to residences. Relative Degree of Conflict: Conflict Low to moderate. Residences are set back from the road in a rural setting. Low traffic volumes. Approximate Volume: Volume 476-969 vpd Speed Limit: Limit 40 mph Identified Problems: Problems Speeding (near #124 Poole Rd.) Jurisdiction: Town Geometrics: Geometrics 1) Steep hills with some curves. 2) 2 lanes. 3) Narrow gravel shoulder 4) Intersecting roads are controlled with stop signs.

60

Enfield Falls Rd. (Rt. 327)

Adjacent Land Uses: Uses LIR, Agr, OpS Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Facilities: 1) Treman State Park 2) Wide, paved shoulder Purpose Served: Served Feed traffic from Enfield onto Elmira Rd. (Rt. 13) Relative Degree of Conflict Conflict: flict Low to moderate. There are few residences and few curb cuts. Residences are set back from the road in a rural setting. Approximate Volume: Volume N/A Speed Limit: Limit 50 mph Identified Problems: Problems Currently none. Jurisdiction: State Geometrics: Geometrics 1) Long hill leading down to Elmira Rd. (Rt. 13), one moderate S curve 2) 2 lanes 3) Wide, paved shoulder 4) Int. with Elmira Rd. controlled with stop sign. Entrance to Treman State Park has a stop sign at Enfield Falls Rd. (Rt. 327)

Five Mile Dr. (Rt. 13A)

Adjacent Adjacent Land Uses: Uses LIR, HIR, OpS Bike/ Ped Destinations & Facilities: 1) Residential development 2) Paved shoulder Purpose Served: Served Feed traffic from Elmira Rd. (Rt. 13) into the West End of the City Relative Degree of Conflict: Conflict Low to moderate. Homes are not very close to the road and driveways are adequately spaced. Approximate Volume: Volume 4,350-6,441 vpd Speed Limit: Limit 45 mph Identified Problems: Problems Crashes (at Elmira Rd.); need for bike improvements Jurisdiction: State Geometrics: Geometrics 1) Generally flat with very few curves 2) 2 lanes. Left turn lane at intersection with Elmira Rd. (Rt. 13) 3) Generally wide shoulder 4) Traffic signal at Elmira Rd (Rt. 13). Intersecting roads have stop signs.

Forest Home Dr.

Adjacent Land Uses: Uses LIR, HIR Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Facilities: 1) Cornell University, residential development, student housing, Cornell Plantations 2) Walkway on the western portion. Generally narrow shoulder varies in width and condition Purpose Served: Served Feed traffic from Dryden Rd. (Rt. 366) into Forest Home and Cornells North Campus. Local access for residents. Relative Degree of Conflict: Conflict Moderate to high. Forest Home is a historical district with a high density of development where residences are very close to the road. Traffic volumes in particular conflict with the residential and historical nature of the area. Approximate Volume: Volume 874 vpd (this is east of Caldwell Rd; west of Caldwell Rd, the volumes are likely much higher) Speed Limit: Limit 25 mph, rising to 45 mph after residential development ends on the eastern portion of the road Identified Problems: Speeding (various locations); need for bike/ pedestrian improvements Jurisdiction: Town Geometrics: Geometrics 1) Flat but many curves, one of which is nearly 90o with a very short radius. 2) 2 lanes, except for two one-lane bridges. 3) Generally narrow shoulder that varies in width and condition 4) All way stop signs at Caldwell Rd, Warren Rd, and Pleasant Grove Rd. Other intersecting roads have stop signs.

61

Hanshaw Rd.
Adjacent Land Uses: Uses HIR Bike/ Pedestrian Pedestrian Destinations & Facilities: 1) Residential development 2) Shoulders, varying in width, condition, and materials. Sidewalks and shoulders are included in the 2007 reconstruction plan. Purpose Served: Served Feed traffic from Route 13 in the Town of Dryden to Northeast Ithaca, the Village of Cayuga Heights, and to Cornell via Triphammer Rd., local pedestrian access Relative Degree of Conflict: Conflict Moderate to high. The scale and density of residential development conflicts with traffic volumes and speeds, especially west of Warren Rd. Approximate Volume: Volume 3,519-5,714, depending on location Speed Limit: Limit 30 mph west of Warren Rd; 40 mph east of Warren Rd. Identified Problems: Problems Speeding (especially near #1034); congestion (near Village of Cayuga Heights); need for bike/pedestrian improvements Jurisdiction: County Geometrics: Geometrics 1) Relatively flat, except for short hill leading down to the Village of Cayuga Heights. Straight. 2) 2 lanes 3) Shoulder, varying in width, condition, and material. 4) Intersection with Warren Rd. controlled with four-way stop. Intersecting roads have stop signs.

Hayts Rd.
Adjacent Land Uses: Uses LIR, Agr, OpS Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Facilities: 1) Development on Rt. 96 2) Road shoulder Purpose Served: Served Feed traffic from Enfield onto Trumansburg Rd. (Rt. 96). Local access to residences. Relative Degree of Conflict: Conflict Low to moderate. Residences are set back from road in rural setting. Approximate Volume: Volume 1,273 vpd Speed Limit: Limit 55 mph Identified Problems: Problems Currently none. Jurisdiction: County Geometrics: Geometrics 1) Hill leading down to Trumansburg Rd. No curves. 2) 2 lanes 3) Shoulder 4) Stop signs at Rt. 96 & Sheffield Rd. Hopkins Rd. has stop sign at Hayts Rd.

Maple Ave.
Adjacent Land Uses: Uses OpS, Edu Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Facilities: 1) Cornell University, East Hill Plaza 2) Paved shoulder, walkway Purpose Served: Served Feeds traffic from Dryden Rd. (Rt. 366) & Belle Sherman residential neighborhood to Pine Tree Road Relative Degree of Conflict: Conflict Low to moderate. There is little residential development on the road within the Town. Approximate Volume: Volume 2,805 vpd Speed Limit: Limit 30 mph Identified Problems: Problems Currently none. Jurisdiction: Town Geometrics: Geometrics 1) Relatively flat with a few gentle curves 2) 2 lanes. Right and left turning lanes at Pine Tree Rd. 3) Paved shoulder 4) Traffic signal at Dryden Rd. (Rt. 366). Stop sign at Pine Tree Rd.

62

Ridgecrest Rd.
Adjacent Land Uses: Uses LIR Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Facilities: 1) Residential development 2) Narrow gravel shoulder Purpose Served: Served Feed traffic from residential area in Danby onto E. King Rd. Local access to residences. Relative Degree of Conflict: Conflict Low to moderate. The residences on Ridgecrest Rd. are set back from the road, and many are buffered by trees. Approximate Volume: Volume N/A Speed Limit: Limit 55 mph Identified Problems: Problems Currently none. Jurisdiction: Town Geometrics: Geometrics 1) Hill leading down to E. King Rd. No curves. 2) 2 lanes 3) Narrow gravel shoulder 4) Ridgecrest Rd. has a stop sign at E. King Rd.

Sandbank Rd.
Adjacent Land Uses: Uses OpS, Agr Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Facilities: 1) Very little 2) Narrow gravel shoulder Purpose Served: Served Feed traffic from Danby or South Hill in the Town of Ithaca down the hill onto Elmira Rd. (Rt. 13). Some local access. Relative Degree of Conflict Conflict: ict Low to moderate. There are very few residences and few curb cuts. Approximate Volume: Volume 975-1138 vpd Speed Limit: Limit 55 mph Identified Problems: Problems Speeding (especially near S curve) Jurisdiction: Town Geometrics: Geometrics 1) Steep hills, some moderate curves, and one very sharp S curve. 2) 2 lanes 3) Narrow gravel shoulder 4) Stop sign at Elmira Rd. (Rt. 13). Townline Rd. has stop sign at Sandbank Rd.

Snyder Hill Rd.

Adjacent Land Uses: Uses LIR, HIR Bike/ Ped Destinations & Facilities: 1) Residential development in Eastern Heights, parks, trail 2) Shoulder, varying in condition and width *Snyder Hill Rd. is being reconstructed, and a walkway may be included as part of the project. Purpose Served: Served Feed traffic from Dryden onto Pine Tree Rd. Local access to residences. Relative Degree of Conflict: Conflict Moderate to high. The residences are moderately close to the road, and all residences have their own driveways. Approximate Volume: Volume 872-1,989 vpd Speed Limit: Limit 40 mph Identified Problems: Problems Need for pedestrian improvements Jurisdiction: Town Geometrics: Geometrics 1) Hill down to Pine Tree Rd. Slight curve in one location. 2) 2 lanes 3) Shoulder, varying in condition and width 4) Intersecting roads have stop signs. Stop sign on Snyder Hill Rd. at Pine Tree Rd.

63

Stone Quarry Rd.

Adjacent Land Uses: Uses LIR, OpS Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Facilities: 1) Some residential development 2) Narrow shoulders in some locations. Purpose Served: Served Feeds traffic from southside neighborhood of the City onto Danby Rd. (Rt. 96B) Relative Degree Degree of Conflict: Conflict Low to moderate. There is little residential development on the road. Approximate Volume: Volume 2,730-3,883 vpd Speed Limit: Limit Northern end is 25 mph. Southern end is 35 mph. Identified Problems: Problems Speeding along length of corridor Jurisdiction: Town Geometrics: Geometrics 1) Entire length is a hill leading down into the City. A few gentle curves. 2) 2 lanes 3) Narrow shoulder in varying condition 4) Stop sign at W. King Rd. Roundabout at intersection with Albany St, South Cayuga St.., etc. in the City of Ithaca.

Troy Rd.
Purpose Served: Served Feed traffic from Danby and Caroline onto E. King Rd. or Coddington Rd. Local access to residences. Relative Degree of Conflict: Conflict Low to moderate. Traffic volumes are low and residences are set back in a rural setting. Approximate Volume: Volume 750 vpd Speed Limit: Limit 45 mph from Coddington Rd. to E. King Rd. 55 mph south of E. King Rd. Identified Problems: Problems Potential long-term need for pedestrian improvements to complete the South Hill loop from Coddington Rd. to E. King Rd. and Danby Rd.

Adjacent Land Uses: Uses LIR, OpS Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Facilities: 1) Residential development in subdivisions off E. King Rd. 2) Shoulder

Jurisdiction: County Geometrics: Geometrics 1) Rolling hills, no curves. 2) 2 lanes 3) Generally narrow gravel shoulder 4) E. King Rd. has stop sign at Troy Rd. Troy Rd. has stop sign at Coddington Rd.

West Danby Rd. (Rt. 34/96)

Adjacent Land Uses: Uses OpS, Ind Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Facilities: 1) None 2) Wide, paved shoulder. *Motor vehicle traffic volumes and speeds present significant safety hazards. Purpose Served: Served Feeds traffic from Danby and Spencer into Elmira Rd. Relative Degree of Conflict: Conflict Low to moderate. There is no residential development and only one curb cut in the Town. Approximate Volume: Volume 8,600 vpd Speed Limit: Limit 55 mph Identified Problems: Problems Crashes (between IthacaNewfield line & intersection with Rt. 13) Jurisdiction: State Geometrics: Geometrics 1) Slight hill, no curves. 2) 2 lanes 3) Wide, paved shoulder. 4) No intersections.

64

W. King Rd.
Purpose Served: Served Feed traffic from Danby onto Stone Quarry Rd. or Danby Rd. (Rt. 96B) Relative Degree of Conflict: Conflict Low to moderate. The few residences are set back from the road, and there are few curb cuts. Traffic volumes are low. Jurisdiction: Town Geometrics: Geometrics 1) Hills and curves near the entrance to Buttermilk Falls State Park. Moderate hills on the rest of the road. 2) 2 lanes 3) Generally narrow shoulder, except near Rt. 96B where it is four feet wide & paved 4) Stone Quarry Rd. has a stop sign at W. King Rd. Intersection at Danby Rd. (Rt. 96B) is controlled with a traffic signal.

Adjacent Land Uses: Uses OpS, LIR, Agr Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Facilities: 1) Buttermilk Falls State Park 2) Shoulder

Approximate Volume: Volume 845-977 vpd Speed Limit: Limit 40 mph Identified Problems: Problems Speeding (near #344)

Circumferential Roads
Burns Rd.
Adjacent Land Uses: Uses OpS, LIR Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Facilities: 1) Community Center, residential development 2) Generally narrow shoulder Purpose Served: Served Connect South Hill (Coddington Rd.) to East Hill (Slaterville Rd.) across Six Mile Creek. Only Six Mile Creek crossing in Town. Relative Degree of Conflict: Conflict Low to moderate. There is little residential development on Burns Road, except at the ends. Approximate Volume: Volume 1,920-2299 vpd Speed Limit: Limit 55 mph Identified Problems: Problems Need for some type of bike/ pedestrian improvements Jurisdiction: Town Geometrics: Geometrics 1) Rolling hills and many curves 2) 2 lanes 3) Generally narrow shoulder 4) Stop signs at both ends (Coddington Rd. and Slaterville Rd.) Intersection at Coddington Rd. will be reconstructed as part of Countys project on Coddington.

Caldwell Rd.
Adjacent Land Uses: Uses Edu Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Facilities: 1) Cornell (North Campus to Vet School), residential development 2) Narrow, paved shoulder Purpose Served: Served Connect Dryden Rd. (Rt. 366) to Forest Home Drive. North-south circulation between East Ithaca and Northeast Ithaca via Warren Rd and Pleasant Grove Rd. Relative Degree of Conflict: Conflict Moderate to high. Although there are no residences on Caldwell Rd, the roadway is narrow and carries relatively high volumes of traffic Approximate Volume: Volume 3,518 vpd Speed Limit: Limit 30 mph Identified Problems: Problems Speeding (near water plant); need for some bike/ pedestrian improvements Jurisdiction: Town Geometrics: Geometrics 1) Hill leading down into Forest Home, some curves 2) 2 lanes 3) Small, paved shoulder 4) Traffic signal at Dryden Rd. (Rt. 366), stop sign at Forest Home Dr.

65

Coy Glen Rd.

Adjacent Land Uses: Uses OpS, LIR, HIR Bike/ Pedestrian Pedestrian Destinations & Facilities: 1) Residential development 2) Unpaved shoulder Purpose Served: Served Connect Five Mile Dr. (Inlet Valley) to Elm St. (West Hill) Relative Degree of Conflict: Conflict Low to moderate. The highest intensity residential development is located on Glenside Rd, off Coy Glen Rd. Approximate Volume: Volume N/A Speed Limit: Limit 30 mph Identified Problems: Problems Long-term need for pedestrian improvements Jurisdiction: Town Geometrics: Geometrics 1) Hill leading down to Five Mile Dr, only one significant curve 2) 2 lanes 3) Unpaved shoulder 4) Stop signs at Five Mile Dr. and Elm St.

Culver Rd.
Adjacent Land Uses: Uses LIR, OpS Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Facilities: 1) Residential development 2) Generally narrow unpaved shoulder Purpose Served: Served Connect Bostwick Rd. (Inlet Valley) to Elm St. Ext./ Poole Rd. (West Hill), plus local access for residents. Relative Degree of Conflict: Conflict Low to moderate. Traffic volumes are very low, but road goes through the proposed Coy Glen Conservation Zone. Approximate Volume: Volume 189-266 vpd Speed Limit: Limit 35 mph Identified Problems: Problems Speeding (near #287) Jurisdiction: Town Geometrics: Geometrics 1) Hill leading down to Bostwick Rd, some gentle curves 2) 2 lanes 3) Generally narrow unpaved shoulder 4) Stop sign at Poole Rd/ Elm St. Ext and Bostwick Rd.

E. King Rd.
Adjacent Land Uses: Uses LIR, HIR, OpS Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Facilities: 1) Residential development, Montessori school, commercial development at Danby Rd. and E. King Rd. 2) Shoulder, varying condition and width Purpose Served: Served East-west circulation on South Hill from Coddington Rd. to Danby Rd. Relative Degree of Conflict: Conflict Low to moderate. Most of the higher-intensity residential development is located off E. King Rd, for example, Deer Run and Chase Lane developments. Approximate Volume: Volume 1,552-2,622 vpd Speed Limit: Limit 45 mph (school zone = 30 mph) Identified Problems: Problems Speeding in school zone; need for bike/ pedestrian improvements Jurisdiction: County Geometrics: Geometrics 1) Hill leading up to Danby Rd, hill leading down to Troy Rd. and Coddington Rd. Few curves. 2) 2 lanes. 3) Shoulder, varying condition and width 4) Traffic signal at Danby Rd, stop sign at Troy Rd.

66

Honness La.
Adjacent Land Uses: Uses HIR Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Facilities: 1) Residential development, church, trail, commercial development at East Hill Plaza 2) Shoulder. Eastern portion has a walkway. Purpose Served: Served Connection between Slaterville Rd. (Rt. 79) and Pine Tree Rd, plus local access on the road and access to subdivisions off the road. Relative Degree of of Conflict: Conflict Moderate to high. While homes are set back from the road and driveways are spaced out, there is a significant amount of non-local traffic. Approximate Volume: Volume 1,724 vpd Speed Limit: Limit 35 mph Identified Problems: Problems Need for bike/ pedestrian improvements from Recreation Way to Rt. 79 Jurisdiction: Town Geometrics: Geometrics 1) Short hill leading down to Slaterville Rd. (Rt. 79). Straight. 2) 2 lanes 3) Shoulder, mostly paved, generally wide, varying in condition. 4) Stop signs at Slaterville Rd. (Rt. 79) and Pine Tree Rd. Intersection roads have stop signs.

Hopkins Rd.
Adjacent Land Uses: Uses Ops, LIR Bike/ Ped Destinations & Facilities: 1) Overlook residential development, Hospital 2) Unpaved, generally narrow shoulder Purpose Served: Served Alternate connection (besides Trumansburg Rd) between Hayts and Bundy Roads. Relative Degree of Conflict: Conflict Low to moderate. Little development, likely low volumes. Approximate Volume: Volume N/A Speed Limit: Limit 55 mph Identified Problems: Problems Currently none Jurisdiction: Town Geometrics: Geometrics 1) Relatively flat, no curves 2) 2 lanes 3) Unpaved, generally narrow shoulder 4) Stop signs at Bundy and Hayts Roads

Judd Falls Rd.

Purpose Served: Served Connect Dryden Rd. (Rt. 366) to Forest Home Drive. North-south circulation between East Ithaca and Northeast Ithaca via Warren Rd and Pleasant Grove Rd. Residential access. Relative Degree of Conflict: Conflict Moderate to high. Residences have small setbacks, there is a high density of driveways, and traffic volumes are relatively high. Jurisdiction: Town Geometrics: Geometrics 1) Hills down to Dryden Rd. (Rt. 366), & Forest Home Dr. Very few curves 2) 2 lanes 3) Paved shoulder with curbing at northern end 4) Stop sign with flashing red light at Dryden Rd. (Rt. 366), all-way stop (with sign) at Forest Home Dr.

Adjacent Land Uses: Uses Edu, HIR Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Facilities: 1) Cornell, residential development 2) Paved shoulder

Approximate Volume: Volume 6,057-6,247 vpd Speed Limit: Limit 30 mph Identified Problems: Problems Speeding (north of Plantations Rd.)

67

Pleasant Grove Rd.

Adjacent Adjacent Land Uses: Uses HIR, LIR, OpS Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Facilities: 1) Cornell University, residential development, Community Corners 2) Walkway, shoulders varying in width and condition Purpose Served: Served Connect Forest Home Dr. and Hanshaw Rd. (both feeder roads) Relative Degree of Conflict: Conflict Moderate to high. Within the Town of Ithaca, there is not that much residential development, but in the Village of Cayuga Heights, residential development may be affected by traffic volumes. Approximate Volume: Volume 6,162 vpd Speed Limit: Limit 30 mph Identified Problems: Problems Speeding (especially downhill); congestion at intersection with Hanshaw Rd. (Village of Cayuga Heights) Jurisdiction: County Geometrics: Geometrics 1) Steep hill & moderate curve leading down into Forest Home at southern end; otherwise, straight with a few rolling hills. 2) 2 lanes 3) Walkway and shoulders except on southern end 4) All way stop (with stop signs) at Forest Home Dr. Stop sign at Hanshaw Rd. Intersecting roads have stop signs.

Pine Tree Rd.

Adjacent Land Land Uses: Uses HIR, LIR, Com, OpS Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Facilities: 1) Residential and commercial development (including grocery store, restaurants), Reis Tennis Center 2) Paved shoulder, varying in width. Walkway from Snyder Hill Rd. to Ellis Hollow Rd. Purpose Served: Served Connect Slaterville Rd. (Southeast Ithaca) to Rt. 366/ Dryden Rd. (East Ithaca). North-south circulation on East Hill. Residential access. Relative Degree of Conflict: Conflict Moderate to high. While most residences are concentrated at the southern end of the road and are set back from the road, traffic volumes are high, pedestrians must walk in the road, & there are many driveways. Approximate Volume: Volume 4,686-6,862 vpd Speed Limit: Limit 35 mph Identified Problems: Problems Congestion (most of corridor); poor LOS at intersections with Dryden Rd. (Rt. 366) & Slaterville Rd. (Rt. 79); crashes (especially between Snyder Hill Rd. & Mitchell St.); need for bike/pedestrian improvements Jurisdiction: County Geometrics: Geometrics 1) Hills down to Slaterville Rd. (Rt. 79), & Dryden Rd. (Rt. 366), few curves 2) 2 lanes 3) Shoulder, some sections are paved, some are a combination of paved & gravel, generally wide with some narrow sections 4) Stop sign with flashing red light at Slaterville Rd. (Rt. 79). Same, plus all-way stop, at Pine Tree Rd. Traffic signal at Ellis Hollow Rd. Other intersecting roads have stop signs.

68

Seven Mile Dr.

Adjacent Land Uses: Uses LIR, HIR, OpS Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Facilities: 1) Some residential development 2) Moderately wide paved shoulder Purpose Served: Served Connect Bostwick Rd. to Elmira Rd. (Rt. 13). Parallel route to Five Mile Dr. (Rt. 13A). Relative Degree of Conflict: Conflict Low to moderate. Low intensity residential development is set back off road or on small subdivision roads off Seven Mile Dr. Approximate Volume: Volume 719 vpd Speed Limit: Limit 45 mph Identified Problems: Problems Sight distance at Rt. 13 intersection Jurisdiction: Town Geometrics: Geometrics 1) Relatively flat, few curves 2) 2 lanes 3) Moderately wide paved shoulder 4) Stop signs at Elmira Rd. (Rt. 13) and Bostwick Rd. Intersecting roads have stop signs.

Warren Rd.
Adjacent Land Uses: Uses LIR, OpS (south of Hanshaw Rd.). Edu, HIR (north of Hanshaw Rd.) Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Facilities: 1) Cornell University, residential development 2) Paved shoulders with bicycle and pedestrian signs north of Hanshaw Rd. South of Hanshaw Rd, relatively narrow paved shoulders. Purpose Served: Served Connects Forest Home Dr. to Hanshaw Rd. (both feeder roads). Local access to residences. Northsouth circulation on East Hill. Residential access. Relative Degree of Conflict: Conflict Moderate to high. South of Hanshaw Rd, there is little residential development fronting on the road until near the hill into Forest Home. North of Hanshaw Rd, residences front on the road and there is a school zone. Jurisdiction: County Geometrics: Geometrics 1) Hill leading down to Forest Home neighborhood. Otherwise, flat and straight. 2) 2 lanes, except for turn lanes at Rt. 13 in the Village of Lansing. 3) South of Hanshaw Rd, shoulder is relatively narrow paved strip plus gravel on the outside. North of Hanshaw, there are wide, paved shoulders. 4) Traffic signal at Rt. 13 in the Village of Lansing. All-way stop at intersections with Hanshaw Rd. and Forest Home Dr.

Approximate Volume: Volume 4.163 vpd Speed Limit: Limit 30 mph, except for school zone Identified Problems: Problems Speeding (500 north of Fairway Dr.); need for pedestrian improvements

West Haven Rd.

Adjacent Land Uses: Uses LIR, OpS Bike/ Pedestrian Destinations & Facilities: 1) Residential development 2) Gravel shoulder Purpose Served: Served Connect Elm St/ Elm St. Ext. to Mecklenburg Rd. North-south circulation on West Hill. Relative Degree of Conflict: Conflict Low to moderate. Residences are set back and traffic volumes are very low. Approximate Volume: Volume 347-405 vpd Speed Limit: Limit 40 mph Identified Problems: Problems Currently none Jurisdiction: Town Geometrics: Geometrics 1) Hill leading down to Elm St/ Elm St. Ext. Straight. 2) 2 lanes 3) Gravel shoulder 4) Stop signs at Elm St/ Elm St. Ext. and Mecklenburg Rd. (Rt. 79)

69

Subdivision Subdivision Access Roads

The primary purposes of subdivision access roads are to provide direct access to homes fronting on the road and to provide indirect access to homes located on other roads within the development that connect to the subdivision access road. Subdivision access roads are two lane roads with low design speeds. When a speed limit is posted, it is generally 30 mph or less. In general, they have low traffic volumes, although some roads that connect large residential developments to high volume through-roads may have higher traffic volumes. Subdivision access roads must be designed to protect quality of life for residents of the road, while allowing residents who live inside the residential development to reach their homes. Sidewalks or walkways are appropriate on subdivision access roads, especially in suburban areas. Examples of this type of road, the residential roads for which they provide access, and the development name (where relevant) include, but are not limited to: Woodgate La & Drew Rd: Vera Circle, Maxs Dr. Chase La: Lagrand Ct. Whitetail Dr: Saranac Way, Teton Ct, Marcy Ct. (Deer Run development) Southwoods Dr: Eldridge Cir, Old Gorge Rd. (Southwoods development) Park La: John St, Tudor Rd, Eastern Heights Dr, Joanne Dr, Landmark Dr, Sharlene Rd, Regency La. (Eastern Heights development) Wildflower Dr. & Harwick Rd: Strawberry Hill Cir. Terraceview Dr. & Towerview Dr: Sunnyview La, Westview La. Muriel St & Salem Dr: Rose Hill Rd, Tareyton Dr, Winston Dr, Winston Cir, Deerfield Pl, Salem Dr, Birchwood Dr, Sycamore Dr, Maplewood Dr, Pinewood Pl, Briarwood Dr. (Northeast development, east of Warren Rd.) Sapsucker Woods Rd: Sanctuary Dr. Winthrop Dr, Christopher La, & Blackstone Ave: Sandra Pl, Simsbury Dr, Brandywine Dr, Christopher La, Christopher Cir, Sienna Dr, Blackstone Ave, St. Catherine Cir, Burleigh Dr, Lexington Dr, Concord Pl (Northeast development, west of Warren Rd.)

Internal Subdivision Roads

The primary purpose of an internal subdivision road is to provide local access directly to homes, generally without connecting to major through-roads. The exceptions to this generalization are cul-de-sacs and loop roads, which, for the purposes of this discussion, have been included in this category because they generally do not provide access to other residential roads. Internal subdivision roads generally have lower traffic volumes than subdivision access roads. Like subdivision access roads, they are two lane roads designed for speeds of 30 mph or less. Internal subdivision roads should be designed to protect the quality of life in the neighborhood by calming traffic to slow speeds and designing the road to be as minimally intrusive as possible. Examples of this type of road in the Town include, but are not limited to, the following: Grove Rd, Helens Way, Glenside Rd, Peachtree La, Sesame St, Northview Rd, Strawberry Hill Cir, Dove Dr, Fairway Dr, Tareyton Dr, Christopher Cir.

70

AUTO ALTERNATIVES
The State Highways and County and Town Roadways Chapter emphasized the need to expand options for alternates to the privately-owned, low-occupancy motor vehicle. Use of alternate modes protects public health, reduces congestion, increases the quality of life in residential areas, protects the natural environment (by keeping air clean, conserving fossil fuels, reducing wear-and-tear on the roads, decreasing the amount of run-off by reducing impervious cover associated with roads and parking lots, preserving open space by avoiding the need to build new roads, and so on), and provides reasonable transportation options for the young, old, disabled, and low income. This Chapter considers the two main alternatives to privately-owned, low-occupancy motor vehicles: public transit and non-motorized transportation (bicycling and walking).

BUS TRANSIT AND PARATRANSIT

Public transit and paratransit serve travel needs within the Town of Ithaca and between the Town and other municipalities. Public transit modes can include bus, van, or light rail. Light rail passenger service does not exist within Tompkins County; bus service is the main form of public transit in the area (provided by Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit, or TCAT). The Community Transportation Association defines paratransit as types of passenger transportation that are more flexible than conventional fixed-route transit but more structured than the use of private automobiles. Paratransit includes demand-response transportation services, subscription bus services, shared-ride taxis, car pooling and vanpooling, jitney services and so on. Most often refers to wheelchair-accessible, demand-response van service.41 In the Town of Ithaca and Tompkins County, the ADA service provided through the Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit and Gadabout (a private not-for-profit organization) serve the elderly and disabled with doorto-door, demand-responsive service.

Inventory
This inventory describes the services of TCAT and Gadabout, bus travel between Ithaca and other municipalities, and multi-modal options that involve transit.

41

CTAA, Public and Community Transportation

71

TCAT: TCAT: Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit

TCAT is the primary supplier of public transit in the Town of Ithaca and Tompkins County as a whole. In 1996, the New York State legislature authorized the formation of Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit from the three independent but cooperative agencies, the City of Ithaca (Ithaca Transit, founded 1962), Tompkins County (TomTran, founded 1981), and Cornell University (CU Transit, founded 1966). By 1998, these agencies reorganized into Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit, or TCAT. In 2004, TCAT reorganized again into a not-for-profit 501(c)3 service provider. In 2006, TCAT served over three million riders (via TCATs and Gadabouts routes; see Paratransit: Transportation for Special Needs below for information about Gadabout). TCAT and Gadabout buses and vans traveled nearly two million miles per year. TCAT currently owns 48 buses and contracts 10 buses through a subcontrator to operate routes in outlying rural areas. These 58 buses operate TCATs 40 fixed routes throughout the county. Routes change regularly based on need. Currently, TCATs fares are $1.50 for adults, $1.25 for youth, and $0.75 for seniors.42 TCAT offers monthly and yearly passes; for frequent riders, these passes can provide substantial savings. TCAT also contracts with Cornell University and Ithaca College to craft special offers for students, faculty, and staff to encourage them to use transit. In Volume II: The Appendices, Map 11 in Appendix I shows transit stops in the Town and the routes that serve them. Table 14 below summarizes select destinations within the Town of Ithaca and the TCAT routes that serve them, current as of late 2006.
Table 14: TCAT Routes Serving the Town of Ithaca

Route 11 14 15 19 & 21 20 31 36 37 40 & 41 44 50 51 52 53 60 65 67

42

Origin/ Destination/ Corridor Ithaca College Linderman Creek Buttermilk Falls State Park Cayuga Medical Center, Route 96 corridor EcoVillage, Route 79 corridor Northeast neighborhood, Sapsucker Woods East Shore Drive (Rt. 34) corridor DeWitt Middle and Northeast Elementary Schools, BOCES, Forest Home neighborhood Hanshaw Road Northeast neighborhood, Hanshaw Road Eastern Heights neighborhood, East Hill Plaza, Honness Lane, Maplewood Apartments Mitchell Street, East Hill Plaza Slaterville Road East Hill Plaza, Ellis Hollow Road Coddington Road Danby Road (Rt. 96B) Elmira Road (Rt. 13)

TCAT, Frequently Asked Questions

72

Paratransit: Transportation for Special Needs

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 requires public transit operators to offer equal services for those with disabilities. All of TCATs buses are kneeling buses that sink to the curb to allow easy access for those with limited mobility. For patrons using wheelchairs, some TCAT buses are also equipped with wheelchair lifts and reserved seats in the front of the bus that fold up to make space for a wheelchair. TCAT offers hailing cards and large-print schedules for the visually impaired. For persons unable to get to a bus stop, Gadabout offers door-to-door paratransit for the same areas and hours of regular TCAT service. Gadabout, a not-for-profit private service, is the primary paratransit provider for the Town of Ithaca and Tompkins County. Gadabout serves this population by providing vans specially equipped for wheelchairs and with volunteer drivers who are sensitive to the needs of the disabled. Gadabout also serves the senior population of Tompkins County (aged sixty and over) by providing on-demand service in a comfortable atmosphere. This indispensable service provides opportunities for education, employment, personal and health care, and social interaction for vulnerable populations. Founded in 1976 with just one bus, the Gadabout service has grown to 26 small buses, which provide an average of 60,000 rides per year, traveling over 330,000 miles.43 To request a ride, patrons call a local number (607-277-1878) the morning before the day of the trip. In 2005, the Town provided $11,600 in funding to Gadabout for services to Town residents.

Bus Travel Travel Between Ithaca and Other Municipalities

Three private companiesShortline, Greyhound, and Trailwaysprovide bus service between the Ithaca metropolitan area and other metropolitan areas. Every day, between 27 and 30 intercity buses serve the Ithaca area.44 According to a 2001 study by Dwight Mengel and Sara Rakaczky, The intercity operators have estimated that 179,000 people per year use the Ithaca bus station. Of those, 133,000 were arriving or departing passengers. 46,000 passengers transferred to another bus.45 This indicates that buses carry a significant amount of travel between the Ithaca metropolitan area and other municipalities. In addition, Cornell University operates Campus-to-Campus, a bus service that connects the Cornell campus in Ithaca to Cornell Weill Medical Center and the Cornell Club in New York City. During the academic year, one or two buses per day leave in each direction. The buses are outfitted with wireless internet, hot and cold taps in the lavatory, a kitchenette, and comfortable seats. Although restricted to those with a Cornell connection (employee, student, or family member), the service is very popular, and it serves an important role in connecting Cornells Ithaca and New York City campuses.

Szudzik, Christine, Gadabout Gets Mengel & Rakaczky, The Inter-City 45 Ibid.
43 44

73

MultiMulti-Modal Opportunities Opportunities

TCAT integrates different modes of transport with public transit Multi-modal transportation: through the BobCat program, Park-and-Ride lots, and service to using two or more modes to get to local bus stations and airports. TCAT began outfitting its buses your destination. For example, with bike racks in 1996 as part of the BobCat program (the Bob walking to a bus stop and then taking the bus is a simple multi-modal trip. portion stands for bikes on buses). The bike racks hold two bicycles each and are easy to operate. They capture transit rides from people who otherwise wouldnt consider biking because of Ithacas hilly terrain. The racks are very popularthey now sit on the front of every TCAT busand the program has become the most successful multi-modal effort in the county. Park-and-Ride lots across the County capture commuters to Ithaca from outlying rural areas. As of summer 2004, TCAT has routes running past fourteen Park-and-Ride lots. Finally, TCAT offers routes that serve the airport (Route 31) and the bus station in the City of Ithaca (Routes 14, 19, 20, and 21).

Analysis
The greatest concentration and frequency of public transit service is in the City of Ithaca and on the Cornell campus. Many Town residents expressed a desire for greater transit coverage in the Town transportation survey. Transit provision for many parts of the Townespecially West and South Hillsis difficult; because of low residential densities, buses must travel long distances to pick up few persons at each stop. This can make routes prohibitively long for riders and prohibitively costly for the transit provider. Currently, routes through West Hill and South Hill only run on major state and county roads. This puts bus stops too far away from many homes for many residents to use. As development on West Hill continues, the current level of transit provision will probably become inadequate. For example, the senior and subsidized apartments in Linderman Creek have tenants who are more likely to need transit services. As of August 2006, Linderman Creek was served by Route 14, which runs to the Commons every half hour on weekdays and every hour on weekends. Linderman Creek residents also have the option of walking to the entrance of EcoVillage at Rt. 79 to take the Rt. 20 to the Commons. When the development is fully built out, the current level of service provision will probably be inadequate. Of the fourteen Park-and-Ride lots in the County, none are located within the Town of Ithaca. Many Town residents who would like to travel to the City of Ithaca drive because no transit route stops close enough to their home. Once the individual is in their car, they are more likely to drive all the way in to the City than to drive to the nearest bus stop, park in an undesignated area, and ride the bus to the City. The lack of designated, well-publicized, multi-modal transportation Park-and-Ride hubs may also discourage residents from bicycling to the nearest Park-and-Ride lot, where they would have the option of safely storing their bicycles in a covered, secure area or taking their bicycle with them on BobCat buses. Thus, residents often drive into the City due to the lack of better transportation choices. TCAT connects neighboring municipalities within Tompkins County. Routes run to Trumansburg, Lansing, Dryden, Groton, Caroline, Newfield, and Danby. Most of the routes run to the Ithaca Commons, which acts as a transportation hub where patrons can change buses. Service to outlying communities in 74

Tompkins County runs infrequentlyevery few hoursand service stops early in the evening. (Ride Tioga, the public transit provider of neighboring Tioga County, provides twice daily service between Cornell and Owego, and Cornell and Waverly.) Also, the number of Park-and-Ride lots in municipalities outside of the Town of Ithaca is inadequate to be a viable choice of transportation for most County residents. In short, since residents in outlying areas must travel through the Town of Ithaca to get to the City of Ithaca and Cornell University, the lack of County Park-and-Ride lots may be creating more traffic than necessary in the Town. Transit is also missing out on increased ridership, which could help to make expanded coverage on West Hill more economically viable for TCAT. The Volume Data section noted that a moderate reduction in the number of vehicles on a road could lead to a big reduction in congestion. In the demonstration below, forty drivers parked their automobiles in the street (photograph 1). Next, they traded their automobiles for chairs (photograph 2). Finally, they moved their chairs to simulate sitting on a bus together (photograph 3). This demonstration shows the dramatic impact that a transition to transit could have on congestion levels.46

Identification of Needs
This section has outlined the importance of transit in the regions transportation system. The discussion of traffic volumes and congestion explained that transit likely will become more and more important controlling traffic volumes and congestion in the Town. Therefore, transit needs to remain a vital part of the regions multimulti-modal system. system

46

Beamguard, 1999.

75

To this end, the Town needs to work with TCAT to ensure that locations and residents most in need of transit are well served. served Transit service to areas of West and South Hills is not extensive, and as development on South and West Hills increases, the demand and need for transit will increase dramatically. Transit needs to serve many types of customers, and the Town and TCAT need to work on improvements for all customer segments. segments For example, youth and students often do not have licenses or cars. Many elderly residents depend on Gadabout. Bicyclists & pedestrians benefit from bus shelters and bike racks. Park-and-Ride is a good opportunity for commuters living in rural areas to take advantage of TCATs services. The lack of Park-and-Ride facilities located in high-density outlying areas leads rural residents to drive the whole way into the City, increasing the amount of traffic in the Town. As noted in the first paragraph of the Analysis, transit provision is difficult in some areas of the Town due to widespread, low-density development. The Town Town needs to encourage land use patterns and development designs that do not preclude future transportation options. For example, the Town could consider amending the Zoning Code or Subdivision Regulations to encourage alternative land use patterns and zoning, such as development that channels residents into hamlets, or centers of population, separated by open space. This will help the Town to preserve its rural feel, while also permitting residents on the outskirts to live in a place that is serviceable by transit. Finally, the recommendations to meet these needs must allow TCAT to remain economically solvent. solvent To this end, the Town may need to provide funding to TCAT in order to maintain or enhance vital services.

BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES

This section examines the current non-motorized transportation system, analyzes the role of bicycling and walking in the travel of residents, and identifies weaknesses in the non-motorized transportation system. Before there were cars, before there were carriages, and even before horses were domesticated, mankind used the simplest means of travelwalking. Walking is a natural human activity that toddlers learn before their second birthday. Even during an age when personal helicopters are a possibility, the able-bodied use their feet for short trips, like to the fridge to get milk or to the copy room to grab a printout. Many still choose to walk to close destinations, instead of driving, or to walk as a recreational activity. The disabled or mobility-impaired (for example, an elderly man who must use a cane) can enjoy the benefits of walking where pedestrian facilities are constructed according to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Besides serving as a mode of transportation, biking and walking offer personal and societal benefits. Biking and walking improve personal physical fitness and well-being. Promoting walking and biking will play an important role in protecting public health (in fact, exercise is a component of the FDAs revised

76

food pyramid).47 Walking or biking instead of driving for short trips conserves fossil fuels, saves money, alleviates traffic burdens, promotes the health of the natural environment (thereby protecting human health), and protects the integrity of neighborhoods. Walking and biking foster healthy communities by encouraging social interactions on the street and by getting motorists out of their cars and onto the sidewalks, next to shopping and social opportunities. The option of using a non-motorized mode provides a real choice for residents and visitors.

Inventory
The four main types of non-motorized transportation infrastructure are: dedicated pedestrian facilities such as sidewalks, walkways, paths, and pedestrian bridges; dedicated bicycle facilities such as bike lanes; multi-use trails and paths for pedestrians, bicyclists, inline skaters, parents with children in strollers, and so on; and paved roadway shoulders, which are multi-use spaces that can be used for walking, biking, motor vehicle parking, emergency stops by motor vehicles, and so on. In many rural areas, it is impractical to provide dedicated bicycle or pedestrian facilities in the road corridor; instead, paved roadway shoulders take the place of sidewalks and bike lanes. Multi-use trails are another option for rural areas. As of 2006, the Town of Ithaca has approximately 11 miles of walkways According to the existing Interim Sidewalk Policy, the within its jurisdiction, including the William and Hannah Pew Trail on Town owns and maintains East Hill, which is expected to be completed in 2007. These walkways walkways. Private property are owned and maintained by the Town. There are also a limited owners own and maintain number of newer residential areas with sidewalks, such as Linderman sidewalks. Creek, in which property owners own sidewalks and are responsible for their upkeep and maintenance. Currently, the Town does not have an accurate inventory of crosswalks or bridges with pedestrian or bicyclist accommodations in the Town of Ithaca. Besides the bike lanes on some of the roads on the Cornell campus, there are no dedicated bicycle-only facilities in the Town. Most State and County roads have sufficient shoulder width to encourage bicycle use. As noted in the Bus Transit and Paratransit section, TCAT offers bicyclists the option of carrying their bicycles on a rack in front of the bus while they ride. This service helps to overcome problems associated with Ithacas hilly terrain, which discourages all but the hardiest from cycling in many areas. Two of the longest multi-use trails (for pedestrians, bicyclists, and horse riders) owned and maintained by the Town are the East Ithaca and South Hill Recreation Ways. The East Ithaca Recreation Way connects the neighborhoods near Pine Tree Rd and Honness Lane with the City of Ithaca. The trail also extends from the City of Ithaca north of East Hill Plaza to Game Farm Road. The South Hill Recreation Way runs from Burns Road to the City of Ithaca, parallel to Coddington Road. The East Ithaca Recreation Way is plowed during the winter months to allow year-round access. The South Hill Recreation Way is not plowed and is popular with cross-country skiers. These trails serve multiple functions: they allow people to exercise and enjoy Ithacas natural beauty, while also providing important pedestrian linkages between destinations. Map 12 in Volume II, Appendix I shows existing trails and parks in the Town of Ithaca.

47

USDA, undated

77

Non-Town-owned walkways and paths include the Plantations Path, a seven mile network of self-guided walkways, roads, and paths through Cornell Plantations; the Circle Greenway or Walk Ithaca path which passes through both the Town and City; the trail systems in Buttermilk Falls and Robert H. Treman State Parks; and the 500 mile long Finger Lakes Trail hiking path which passes through the southern portion of the Town.48 These paths generally serve recreational, and not transportation, needs. The ITCTC has examined a series of seventeen trail corridors that could potentially become part of a countywide trail system by linking together existing trails or centers of development.49 This network of interconnected trails would provide the opportunity for non-motorized travel (walking, biking, and hiking) between centers of population through scenic natural areas. The Councils report concluded that a trail system in the northeast portion of the County would serve the greatest number of county residents while connecting existing trails.

Analysis
Non-motorized modes of transportation play a significant role in the transportation system of the Town of Ithaca. As discussed previously, the 2000 Census indicates that more than one in five Town residents get to work by walking (many of these residents are students, professors, and staff traveling to Ithaca College or Cornell University). The 2003 Town Transportation Survey summarized in the Transportation Profile section found that 9% of individuals in responding households use a bicycle for transportation purposes not necessarily to commute to workwhile nearly one in three cycle for recreation. Walking and bicycling are popular in the Town despite limited supporting infrastructure, and these nonmotorized modes would perhaps be even more popular if sidewalks, walkways, and bicycle infrastructure were available. A 2002 study examined 4.75 miles of Town-owned walkways and found that sixty percent do not meet ADA standards.50 The Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities (ADAAG) resulting from the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 is the official guide of the NYSDOT for the design of pedestrian facilities. For pedestrians, the ADAAG recommends five-foot wide sidewalks, driveways that are not difficult to cross, no missing sections or obstacles, and sufficient vertical clearance, among other characteristics. Town-owned, non-motorized facilities such as the South Hill Recreation Way and the East Ithaca Recreation Way are multi-use trails, which introduces the potential for conflict between faster moving bicycles and slower moving pedestrians. As previously mentioned, shoulders are available for bicyclists on some State and County roads. Unfortunately, the roads with shoulders are generally roads with high volumes and speeds of vehicular traffic; this creates the potential for conflict between bicyclists and motorists. On all other roadways, bicyclists share lanes with motorists. While this is appropriate for experienced bicyclists, shared lanes are less desirable for young or inexperienced bicyclists, especially on high volume, high speed roadways.

Town of Ithaca, 1997 Planning/ Environmental Research Consultants and Kennedy-Yager Associates, 1996 50 Varricchione, 2003, p. 12
48 49

78

Many area residents walk and bike for recreational purposes. In many cases, recreation facilities can also serve transportation purposes, if the trail connects two destinations and follows a more direct route than other available paths. The natural beauty of the Finger Lakes region creates very special and enjoyable opportunities for non-motorized travel. As noted above, the ITCTC has identified corridors in the northeast part of the County that would serve a sizeable population for both transportation and recreation. Two corridors considered in the report run through the Town of Ithaca (the East Shore Corridor, along the east shore of Cayuga Lake, and the Snyder Hill Corridor, in the southeastern area of the Town). The Town and the City are currently in the process of applying for a grant to connect the Black Diamond Trail, on the western side of the City of Ithaca, to the South Hill Recreation Way, south of the City, via the pedestrian bridge across Route 13. There are several existing policies and plans relating to bicycle and pedestrian issues in the area. The Town of Ithaca has an interim policy concerning the design, maintenance, and conditions under which new sidewalks can be constructed (adopted October 23, 2003, see Appendix V). The Transportation/ Trail Corridor Study of 1996, the NESTS (Northeast Subarea Transportation Study) of 1999, the City of Ithacas Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan of 1997, and Tompkins Countys Comprehensive Plan of 2004 all deal with bicycle and pedestrian transportation issues.

Identification of Needs
It is clear that infrastructure for non-motorized travel in the Town of Ithaca is not adequate for the current extent of development in the Town. As development continues, this lack will grow from an annoyance to a very serious problem; residents will either be captive to the automobile or be put into an unsafe situation as a pedestrian or bicyclist. The existing Sidewalk Policy was adopted in 2003 with the understanding that it would be revisited and revised as needed. There is no policy that guides the provision of bicycle facilities. The Town of of Ithaca needs to revise the Sidewalk Policy, perhaps expanding it to include bicycle issues, to guide the development of an appropriate, costcost-effective nonnon-motorized travel network that meets all standards. standards As in the existing policy, the revised policy should encourage or require developers to provide sidewalks as an integral aspect of a new developmentas important to the safety, livability, and mobility of residents as roads designed for motor vehicles. Similarly, the policy should include provisions for retrofitting sidewalks and/or bike infrastructure into existing road ROWs. Besides the need for policy changes, the Town needs a work plan that shows where facilities are needed and which locations are priorities for provision. provision Appendix VI proposes criteria for identifying and prioritizing locations in need of bicycle and pedestrian improvements. For pedestrians, the highest priority needs are located in areas of medium-density residential development, areas with pedestrian traffic generators, and areas with high traffic volumes. In addition to identifying and prioritizing locations that need bicycle or pedestrian infrastructure, the Town needs to establish guidelines that outline appropriate types of bicycle or pedestrian facilities for various situations. Thus, the Town needs a set of bicycle and pedestrian facility design guidelines. guidelines As previously noted, many existing Town-owned walkways are not ADA compliant. The Town should strive to make its pedestrian facilities ADA compliant wherever possible in order to be accessible to everyone.

79

In order to serve long distance non-motorized travel, the area needs a regional multi-use trail system. The implementation of a countywide trail system would allow hikers and bicyclists to enjoy a trip through some of the most beautiful areas of the United States, and would serve as a long-distance non-motorized transportation corridor leading to the cultural and social capital of the County. The Town needs to continue to participate in the efforts to expand the trail network in the Town, Town including the Gateway Trail and the Black Diamond Trail. As previously discussed, the City and County are also working to improve bicycling and walking conditions in the region. In the interest of crafting a seamless, consistent network, the Town needs to build upon and complement the Citys and Countys works. In particular, the Town of Ithaca Transportation Committee has identified the need in the growing West Hill area for a new east-west bicycle and pedestrian corridor that would connect to the City of Ithaca. It is not yet known exactly where such a corridor would be located but with anticipated growth on West Hill and increasing traffic volumes on roads, such a bicycle/pedestrian path will be an important part of the Towns transportation system. The Transportation Committee has identified this as a high priority for further evaluation. This will involve close coordination with the City of Ithaca. Maps 13 and 14 in Volume II include references to the need for a future east-west bicycle connection.

ADDITIONAL TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS

PASSENGER AIR AND RAIL TRAVEL
Long distance passenger transportation is important to the economic vitality of the Tompkins County area. Currently, long distance trips originating in or destined for the Tompkins County area are made via private motor vehicle, bus (described in the Bus Transit and Paratransit Section of this Volume), and airplane. Currently, there is no passenger rail travel in Tompkins County. The closest Amtrak station is in Syracuse. This subsection describes the air travel options available in the region and realistically concludes that there is little the Town can do to directly affect the long distance travel options in the area.

Inventory and Analysis

There are no airports within the municipal boundaries of the Town of Ithaca, or airports managed at the Town level. The closest airport to the Town of Ithaca is the Ithaca-Tompkins Regional Airport, located in the Village of Lansing, which provides regional passenger air travel. Approximately one hour from Ithaca by car are the Syracuse Hancock International Airport, the Elmira/Corning Regional Airport, and the Greater Binghamton Airport. The Greater Rochester International Airport is approximately two hours away by car.

80

A division of the Department of Public Works of Tompkins County has operated the Ithaca-Tompkins Regional Airport since 1956, when it purchased the East Hill Airport from Cornell University.51 It has the longest paved public runway in the county (6601 feet) and boasts a 33,000 square foot terminal. The number of passengers served by the Ithaca-Tompkins Regional Airport increased 25% in the fifteen years between 1985 and 2000, but dropped in 2001 due to the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington. In 2005, the airport served over 158,000 passengers, with over 56,000 total takeoffs and landings.52 As of early September 2006, there were 12 daily commercial flights departing from the Ithaca-Tompkins Regional Airport.53 USAirways runs daily flights to Philadelphia and La Guardia International Airport, New York City. Northwest Air operates daily flights from Ithaca to Detroit, which provides travelers to the Midwest and West a convenient layover point. The Ithaca Airport has weathered service and cost woes over the past few years. For several years, USAirways was the only constant service provider. USAirways has been in financial jeopardy for a number of years, so its continued operation cannot be assured. Continental Airlines provided service between Ithaca and John F. Kennedy International Airport for just seven months in 2000-2001.54 USAirways used to provide flights to Pittsburgh, but due to low yield, the flights were discontinued.

Identification of Needs/ Recognition of Limitations

The problems facing air travel in Tompkins County are those one would expect any small, regional airport to face: high costs and low revenue. The Town of Ithaca recognizes that providing this public good is important. Because there is very little that the Town can do to directly affect the development of air travel in the County, the Town will continue to support regional efforts to make air travel from the IthacaIthacaTompkins Regional Airport a safe, attractive, efficient, and useful mode of travel for regional residents residents and visitors. visitors The Town also supports efforts to connect the Ithaca area to other regional urban centers, such as Syracuse, Binghamton, Rochester, Albany, and New York City, via other modes, such as bus or passenger train.

FREIGHT VIA TRUCK, RAIL, AND AIR

Beyond the movement of people, the regional transportation system supports the movement of freight. Freight lines bring food to supermarkets, mail to post offices, and coal to power plants. In addition, freight lines take local produce from farmers to regional distribution centers and salt from the Cargill Corporation to buyers in other areas. This section examines freight in the Town and region, all of which moves by rail, air, or trucks.

Inventory
Freight is delivered via rail, air, and truck. The Norfolk Southern Railroad provides rail freight transport in Tompkins County. The railroad primarily delivers coal to AES/ Milliken Station and Cornell University and
Ithaca Tompkins Regional Airport, Airport Facts. Rudy, 2006 53 Ibid. 54 Bishop, 2001
51 52

81

ships salt out of Cargill Inc. Air freight comes into and out of the county via the Ithaca Tompkins Regional Airport. In 2001, the airport handled over 45,000 pounds of mail and freight, including fresh seafood.55 It is important to note that while the airport and the rail freight stations are not actually located within the Town of Ithaca, they still impact the transportation system and economic base of the Town. Railroad trains run through the Town; where they run near residential areas, such as on East Shore Drive, they impact the quality of life for residents. No freight is carried by barge in Tompkins County. The Cayuga-Seneca Canal, which connects the Erie Canal to Cayuga Lake, is too narrow to permit the large barges that would be necessary to make barge freight economically feasible. Rail freight can carry much larger quantities of freight than a truck. For example, one freight car can carry 100 tons, while a truck can only carry 20-25; thus one train of 20 cars carries the freight of 80-100 trucks. Besides being capable of carrying more freight, rail uses less fuel than trucks to carry any given amount. Specifically, one gallon of fuel will carry one ton of freight 59 miles via truck and 202 miles via rail (and 514 miles by barge!).56 In order to be economically feasible, however, very large quantities must be shipped. Since few shipments are large enough to make rail shipping economically feasible, truck freight becomes the preferred or default option for businesses and shippers. Trucks carry the majority of freight in the County, often to or from destinations within the City of Ithaca. This means that much of the truck freight traffic is merely passing through the Town. Table 15 lists truck volumes for roads within the Town. Volumes marked with an asterisk (*) are from Sear-Browns Tompkins County Freight Transportation Study of 2002.57 All other data were collected by the Town of Ithaca Public Works Department during the period 2003-2004.
Table 15: Truck Volumes on Roads within the Town

Road *Rt. 96B (Danby Rd.) *Ellis Hollow Rd. *Rt. 79 (Slaterville Rd, east of Town) *Rt. 13 (Elmira Rd, City of Ithaca) *Rt. 96 (Trumansburg Rd, north of Town) *Pine Tree Rd. (between Maple Ave. & Mitchell St.) Stone Quarry Rd King Rd Burns Rd Bundy Rd Bostwick Rd Culver Rd Hayts Rd Seven Mile Drive Troy Rd
Ithaca Tompkins Regional Airport, Airport Facts. Rock Island District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2004 57 Sear-Brown, 2002
55 56

Truck Volume/ Day 242 184 412 309 385 315 40 94 41 82 82 6 20 35 13

82

Poole Rd Hanshaw Rd (near Warren Rd) Pine Tree Rd Snyder Hill Rd Elm St Caldwell Rd Coddington Rd

9 125 173 25 24 92 62

Truck traffic is permitted on all State routes, unless there are posted height, weight, or other restrictions. In general, most State routes are classified and designed to handle truck traffic.58 While State routes are generally classified and designed for truck traffic, many State routes pass through residential areas. The aforementioned 2002 study noted six State routes that are particularly unsuited for truck travel. They are: Route 89, Route 34 (East Shore Drive), Route 96B/ Clinton St. (in the City of Ithaca), Route 366/ Ithaca Road (in the City of Ithaca), Route 327, and Route 13A. In addition, not all trucks remain on the State routes. The study noted that Pine Tree Road, Ellis Hollow Road/ Mitchell Street, North Triphammer Road, and Fall Creek Roadnone of which are State routesare heavily used by trucks. Interestingly, the 2002 study estimated that only 6% of daytime truck traffic in the County is merely passing through.59 That is, 94% of the truck traffic has either an origin or a destination within the County. Still, since many of the locations are within the City of Ithaca, it is reasonable to conclude that at least some of the truck traffic must pass through the Town on the way into or out of the City. Section 385 of the New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law requires special hauling permits for vehicles that exceed permitted dimensions or weights. The 2002 study compiled the hauling permits issued by NYSDOT in 2001 to determine which routes in Tompkins County are used by oversize or overweight trucks. Routes in the Town of Ithaca include Route 96 (Trumansburg Road), Route 79 (Mecklenburg Road), Route 13 (Elmira Road), Route 96B (Danby Road), Route 79 (Slaterville Road), Route 366 (Dryden Road), Route 13 (north of the City of Ithaca), and Route 34 (East Shore Drive).

Analysis
The study surveyed 390 Tompkins County residents in order to determine the publics perception of where trucks travel and what impacts and concerns residents may have with trucks in the area.60 The survey found that residents concerns focused on six areas: noise, pollution, hours of operation, vibrations, too many trucks, and the speed of trucks. Locations commonly cited by residents as areas of concern included Route 366 (Dryden Road), Route 13, State Street, Route 34B, Route 96 (Trumansburg Road), Route 34 (East Shore Drive), Ellis Hollow Road, and Mitchell Street.

Ibid. Ibid. 60 Ibid.

58 59

83

As part of the noise concerns, residents identified the sounds of jake braking as a problem. Jake brake uses the engine to slow a vehicle, reducing wear and tear on the mechanical brake system and providing extra control when descending a hill with a heavy load. According to New York State Traffic Law (Section 386), vehicles over 10,000 pounds must not exceed 86 decibels while traveling at 35 mph or less. Vehicles over 10,000 pounds must not exceed 90 decibels while traveling over 35 mph. According to the 2002 study, While these levels may not be acceptable to some residents, it is State law, and trucks are within their rights [under the law] to generate this amount of noise.61 Thus, the impacts of truck traffic deemed acceptable by New York State Motor Vehicle Law may be unacceptable for residents (such as trucks on residential State routes or the level of noise generated by jake brakes).

Identification of Needs
Truck traffic in residential areas negatively affects the safety and livability of those neighborhoods. The Town needs to work with other municipalities, agencies, and organizations (including companies that send and receive shipments shipments and shipping firms) to address the impacts that truck traffic has on residential areas. Furthermore, discouraging development that fronts on a collector road or truck route and creating internal service access roads instead can insulate future development against truck traffic impacts. The Town needs to adopt streetscape design principles that protect neighborhoods from truck traffic and should encourage regional development patterns that keep truck traffic away from residential areas. areas

61

Ibid.

84

OTHER TRANSPORTATION RANSPORTATION SYSTEM ISSUES

This section explores issues that transcend individual modes. The transportation system interacts with both the built and natural environments. The continued development of areas within Tompkins County raises important challenges to managing growth. Inter-municipal cooperation can help to preserve and enhance the regional transportation system while the region gains jobs and protects its natural beauty. Transportation has effects on public health that often arent considered in transportation planning, including respiratory diseases and disorders, obesity and related disorders, bicyclist and pedestrian vulnerability in crashes, and equity and social well-being for disadvantaged groups.

THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT AND THE TRANSPORTATION RANSPORTATION SYSTEM

The Finger Lakes region is one of the most distinctive and naturally beautiful regions in New York State and probably in the Northeast, if not the country. The regions natural environment offers many opportunities for hiking, boating, camping, and other activities that take advantage of the great outdoors. This section very briefly summarizes the impacts of the transportation system on the natural environment, including on scenic, water, energy, and air resources, as well as on noise and light pollution and effects on the urban and suburban climate.

Sensitivity in Scenic Areas

The regional transportation system interacts with the natural environment in positive and negative ways. Some of the most beautiful landscapes are so far away from population centers that they are particularly inaccessible except by road. On the other hand, the presence of an obtrusive roadway can degrade the beauty of a landscape. Yet in other cases, the development of a transportation network in a scenic area can attract tourists and generate revenue for protecting the environment. Effective transportation planning involves balancing trade-offs such as these. The New York State Scenic Byways Program, which includes the Cayuga Lake Scenic Byway encircling Cayuga Lake, protects and promotes the scenic, historic, recreational, cultural, and natural resources of the region. The recognition was due to the cooperation between three countiesTompkins, Cayuga, and Senecato promote Cayuga Lake as a state resource. In the Town of Ithaca, Route 89 on the west side of the lake and Route 34 on the east side of the lake make up part of the Byway. Since many residents of the Town of Ithaca choose to live in the Town because of the natural beauty of the region, it is important that the development of the transportation system minimizes its impact on the splendor of the area.

Air Quality, Water Quality, and Energy Efficiency

Nearly all forms of transportation affect water and energy resources and air quality, although some have a greater effect than others. Motorized vehicles on paved roadways, including trucks and buses, have the greatest impact on the natural environment, but even walking and bicycling can affect water quality if 85

paved bike lanes or walkways increase impervious surface cover (and hence runoff and non-point source pollution). One Goal of this Plan is to protect the environment and the significant natural, agricultural, scenic, and historic resources in the Town of Ithaca. In order to achieve this goal, this Transportation Plan recognizes the impacts of excessive motor vehicle use on water quality, air quality, and energy consumption.

Water
Vegetated areas produce less runoff than paved or covered areas. According to the EPA, when a site is covered with natural vegetation, less than 10% of storm water runs off into lakes and streams. When the impervious cover increases to 10-30%, the percentage of runoff doubles.62 (Theoretically, every zone in the Town permits up to 70% of impervious cover on a parcel.) Widening a lane two feet (from 12 to 14) increases the impervious cover by approximately 15%; just one mile of a 32 wide road (3 shoulders, 13 travel lanes) is the equivalent of approximately four acres of pavement.63 In one study, streets were found to contribute 54% of all runoff volume in residential areas and 31% in commercial areas. Streets and parking lots in commercial areas contribute 80% of the total runoff.64 In addition, streets contribute the highest levels of pollutants in runoff. Many people do not realize that this runoff goes directly into the nearest water bodynot a water treatment plant. Consequently, wildlife and their habitats suffer just as much from tainted water as do humansperhaps more, as humans drink treated water. In the Santa Clara Valley in California, vehicles are estimated to produce 67% of zinc, 50% of copper, and 50% of cadmium found in runoff. Pollutants in runoff disrupt the natural ecosystem of a water body and can lead to oxygen deprivation, causing fish kills, or nutrient saturation, causing algae blooms. Also, the pollutants can be ingested via drinking water and have negative effects on human health. 65
Paved, covered areas produce more runoff than vegetated, unpaved areas. Contaminants from streets contribute the most pollution in runoff.

Road salt has a negative effect on roadside vegetation, soil quality, and drinking water quality. The EPA notes that, Five to ten percent of trees along heavily traveled roads are affected by road salt application. Road salt can have effects far from the site of applicationin Buffalo, ninety percent of road salt goes through the City storm sewers and into Lake Ontario.66

Energy
Transportation consumes 65% of the total energy used in America.67 Of this, road transportation uses approximately 85%. Road travel consumes so much fuel because of the amount that Americans drive and also because the efficiency of the average internal combustion engine is low. Only 12% of the fuel used by a typical car actually provides propulsion.68 Every one mile-per-hour increase in speed over 55 mph
Center for GIS, Natural Resources Ibid. 64 Bannerman, et. al, 1993 65 Data in this paragraph is from: U.S. EPA, 1996 66 Ibid. 67 EERE, 2005 68 Rodrigue, 2005
62 63

86

decreases fuel efficiency by approximately one percent (for most vehicles and conditions). In other words, a vehicle that averages 30.0 mpg at 55 mph will only get 25.5 mpg at 70 mph.69 The amount of emissions produced from a gallon of gasoline is constant, regardless of whether the vehicle travels ten miles or fifty miles burning that gallon of gas. Gas prices have risen sharply over the past few years, and high gas prices are an incentive to drive less. TCAT, Ithacas transit provider, saw a temporary ridership increase of 60% in the fall of 2005 after Hurricane Katrina and instability in the Middle East caused residents to take transit instead of driving. If gas prices remain high, there will likely be increased market pressure for fuel-efficient vehicles and a growing number of commuters taking transit and bicycling to work. In fact, annual bicycle sales of $19 million are nearing the $20 million sold annually during the 1970s oil embargo. From October 2004 to October 2005, more bicycles than cars were sold in the U.S.70

Air
Emissions from internal fuel combustion vehicles are a major contributor to the degradation of air quality. Figure F below shows the main sources of air pollution in Tompkins County in 1998; transportationrelated sources are the largest contributor.71
Figure F: Emission Sources in Tompkins County, 1998

Four of the major pollutants in combustion Tompkins County Emission Sources: 1998 exhaust are carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxide, and fine particulate matter. 17% Residential Vehicle emissions are the main source of 2% carbon monoxide in the air (up to 95% in some Agriculture cities); carbon monoxide reduces the oxygen Commercial available for the bodys organs. On-road 53% Industrial 22% mobile sources account for 29% of Transport hydrocarbon emissions, which are a precursor to ground-level ozone, a major contributor to 6% the formation of smog. A third of nitrogen oxides come from mobile (motor vehicle) sources. Nitrogen emissions are precursors to smog and ozone, which both degrade air quality. Fine particulate matterespecially from diesel-burning truckscan reach the deepest areas of the lung. It contributes to the development of lung cancer, bronchitis, and asthma.72

Maryland Energy Administration, 2005 AFP, 2005 71 Filiberto, 2004 72 Office of Transportation and Air Quality, 2005
69 70

87

Other Environmental Issues

Noise
Noise levels due to transportation systems are not always considered a significant environmental impact, although the noise from high traffic volumes, truck, bus, and motorcycle traffic, trains, and airplanes can have a significant negative impact on the livability of a neighborhood. Excessive noise disrupts sleep, distracts from activities, impedes learning, and can contribute to stress. The Federal Highway Administration notes that transportation noise is the most pervasive and difficult to avoid source of unwanted noise.73 Motor vehicle traffic is a significant contributor to noise pollution in Tompkins County. Motor vehicle traffic noise is primarily created by the engine, the interaction between the tires and pavement, or faulty equipment (such as a broken muffler). Besides traffic volumes, the weight of vehicles and the number of large trucks also affects ambient transportation-related noise. One truck moving at approximately 55 mph makes as much noise as 28 cars.74 Noise levels are also dependent on the speed of traffic. For example, a typical car traveling at approximately 12 mph creates 55 dBa of rolling noise. At approximately 25 mph, the typical car creates 65 dBa of noise, at approximately 50 mph it creates 75 dBa of noise, and at approximately 62 mph it creates 80 dBa.75 For comparison, normal conversation is around 60 db, and a shouted conversation is around 90 db.76 Living in an environment where someone is constantly talking or shouting would negatively impact the livability of the environment, but because the public is generally accustomed to ambient transportation noise, it remains unaddressed.

Light
Light pollution includes spillage, trespass, and glare. Spillage occurs when light from a source illuminates objects other than the target. Trespass is spillage over a property boundary, for example, when a neighbors garage light shines into a bedroom. Finally, glare is the blinding shine of a light pointed directly at your eyes or bouncing off a highly reflective surface. Light pollution is common in parking lots, because there are many light poles that are taller than necessary with lights that are brighter than necessary and bulbs that are unshielded. The Town of Ithaca recently passed a lighting ordinance that aims to reduce the amount of light spillage, trespass, and glare in the Town.

Heat
Urban heat islands are caused by dark surfaces that absorb the suns energy and a lack of vegetation to provide shade, absorb solar energy, and cool the air. In some urban areas, the temperatures are 2-10o F

FHWA, April 2006 Rodrigue, et. al, Chapter 8 75 Ibid. 76 Noise Center, undated
73 74

88

hotter than the surrounding countryside.77 Heat islands increase the need for air conditioning and its associated energy needs, thereby aggravating air pollution. The increased heat radiating from the ground and buildings coupled with a lack of street trees creates an unwelcoming and potentially hazardous pedestrian environment. Parking lots and roads contribute significantly to the heat island effect, and the heat island effect seems to have a negative effect on the durability of pavement. Light-colored and porous pavements can reduce the heat island effect by reflecting light, instead of absorbing it, and by allowing rainfall to percolate through the pavement, thereby cooling it.

Identification of Needs
Automobiles play a key role in the transportation system, and it is both impossible and unwise to dictate the modal choices that residents and visitors should make. Still, excessive driving is harmful to human and ecological health. An automobile-based transportation system produces negative effects on air and water quality. It wastes energy, and the byproducts of internal combustion degrade air and water quality. Minimizing the negative environmental impacts of transportation requires reducing the number of trips made by single- or low-occupancy motor vehicles and by reducing the dominance of motor vehicles in our transportation system. Thus, there there is a great need for the provision of attractive, feasible, costcost-effective alternatives to the lowlowoccupancy, privately operated motor vehicle for the reasons outlined in the introductions to the Auto Alternatives Chapter and in the Natural Environment and Transportation section above. The provision of real alternatives to driving allows residents and visitors to choose an appropriate mode of travel for themselves. Even if alternate modes become more popular, however, some will continue to drive. Therefore, Therefore, roads need to be designed to minimize negative environmental impacts. For example, narrower travel lanes on a roadway or pervious pavement on a parking lot can reduce the amount of stormwater run-off.

REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM YSTEM

Goal Six states, Ensure that future development minimizes adverse impacts on the current and future transportation system by promoting development patterns which reduce the need for and use of automobiles and encourage the use of alternate modes of transportation. Land uses and travel patterns affect each other. Roadways permit the development of land, which generates trips. Highways provide access to land, which enables the development of that land. Land uses generate vehicle, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit trips.78 Arterials are more likely to attract large commercial or industrial operation, because the road capacity allows for the unrestricted flow of goods. Conversely, if a successful commercial or industrial center is built in the midst of minor collector and local roads, the amount of congestion soon results in road expansion. Effective planning requires attention to both sides of the equation.
Land use patterns affect travel patterns and modal choices, and vice versa. They operate in a feedback loop.
77 78

EPA, June 2006 Humstone & Campoli, 1998

89

Land use and modal choice are also related. Residents of an area dominated by low-density development typically drive if their area is not serviced by transit and the distances are too great to walk or bike. Segregated land usesfor example, separating residential and commercial areasencourage driving, because everyday goods and services are far away. It is more cost-effective to provide necessary pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure in areas of higher development density, where distances are reasonable enough to allow walking or bicycling for transportation.

Cluster Development: development that increases density in one area to allow another area to remain undeveloped.

Nodal Development: Channeling development into distinct centers of population separated from each other by open space.

There are many ways that development patterns and designs can reduce negative effects on the transportation system. Zoning that supports mixed-uses and clustered development offers a mix of complementary land uses that encourage residents to combine trips, to reduce the length of motor vehicle trips, and to make trips via bicycle or foot. Designs that emphasize human scalewith details that consider people, instead of carsprovide even more incentive for choosing a non-auto mode, thereby creating a more balanced transportation system. See Volume III, Design Guidelines, for more information.

A Regional System
The transportation system in the Town does not operate independently of the regional system. Transportation trends in the Finger Lakes, Tompkins County, and the City of Ithaca affect transportation in the Town. In the City, developments around the Commons at Cayuga Green and Seneca Place will attract more employees, visitors, and shoppers to downtown. If those people come from outside the City, they will have to travel through the Town at some point. This is one example of how development patterns in one municipality can affect traffic in another.

Using a Model to Compare Development Patterns

The Model79
The Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council (ITCTC) has Model: a series of developed a model of the Tompkins County road network, which is mathematical equations that are useful when considering the effects of various development plans and used to represent how choices projects on traffic using the road network. The model is a regional are made when people travel.65 model meant to illustrate broad trends. This model combines demographic and geographic information with peak-hour counts for most roads to approximate travel patterns across the County. After calibration, the model network is available to compare future development scenarios. The ITCTC used the model to compare a trend-based development scenario, which continues the current development trends across the County, to a plan-based development

79

Beimborn, 1995

90

scenario, which channels development into nodes of housing and employment across the County. The model predicts a greater overall increase in traffic in the trend scenario than in the plan scenario.80

The Regional Results

The model indicates several conclusions about the future of the road network in Tompkins County. It is clear that even with sound planning, our roads are likely to be more congested in thirty years than they are now. While the plan-based nodal development scenario would theoretically result in less traffic and congestion than a trend-based, hands off approach to development, both scenarios show an increase in traffic and congestion. Table 16 and the corresponding map below compare the transportation conditions under the plan-based and trend-based scenarios.81
Table 16: Projected 30-year Increases due to Development

Mode Automotive Total miles traveled (evening commute) Transit New households near bus stop (1/4 mile) New jobs near bus stop (1/4 mile) Pedestrian New households near community facilities (1/2 mile)

Trend-Based 263,714 1,798 5,524 3,207

Plan-Based 258,942 3,095 7,317 4,657

80 81

ITCTC, December 2004 Ibid.

91

In the Plan-based scenario, 45% more new housing units would be built near community facilities under the Plan-based scenario as opposed to the Trend-based scenario (93% versus 64%). Living within a development node would bring the most commonly used goods and services within walking or biking distance. In addition, 72% more households would be located near a bus stop under the Plan-based scenario as opposed to the Trend-based scenario (62% versus 36%). Focusing development into nodes facilitates transit provision, because buses need to stop less frequently and more people live or work near a bus stop. Thus, the Plan-based scenario is more conducive to accommodating changes in the transportation system due to fluctuations in fuel price, increased congestion, changing development patterns, etc. It also gives communities the opportunity to a shift away from low-occupancy motor vehicles.

The Local Results

Although the model is a regional model meant to illustrate broad trends, it is possible to examine the effects of various development scenarios on a regional corridor. The Town Transportation Committee asked the ITCTC to study the Route 96 corridor leading from the City of Ithaca through the northwest portion of the Town, past Cayuga Medical Center, and into the Town of Ulysses. The Town Transportation Committee presented several development scenarios for the Route 96 corridor for study. Two of them were as follows: Scenario 1, which is based on current traffic volume data: The addition of 128 rental units associated with the proposed Overlook Apartment Complex, the addition of 50,000 square feet of neighborhood shopping center in front of the Overlook Apartment Complex, and the build out of the new Office Park Commercial Zone at Cayuga Medical Center and on additional vacant and/or residential land along Route 96; Scenario 2, which is based on projected traffic volume increases according to thirty-year new housing unit and new job projections from the Countys Comprehensive Plan: All of the elements from scenario 1 above, plus the addition of 100 single-family homes on a 34-acre lot owned by Cornell University. As noted in the volume data section, the ITCTC used the vehicle over capacity ratio, or VOC, to project changes in traffic based on potential land use changes. Table 17 shows the changes in VOC on Route 96 based on the various scenarios. For comparison, the changes in VOC for Route 79 (Slaterville Road) are also included.
Table 17: VOC on Routes 96 & 79 Under Various Scenarios

Road Segment (outbound) Route 96 (Trumansburg Road) City Hospital Hospital Dubois Rd. Dubois Rd. Ulysses Route 79 (Mecklenburg Road) City West Haven West Haven halfway to Enfield Halfway to Enfield Enfield

Current 1.08 0.87 0.86 0.37 0.33 0.25

Scenario 1 1.29 0.96 0.93 0.42 0.36 0.27

Scenario 2 1.22 0.98 0.96 0.43 0.37 0.29

92

Based on projections, traffic volumes in Tompkins County and the Town of Ithaca will increase if development continues. The Route 96 corridor is one example in the Town of Ithaca where development will affect the transportation network. If the Town is to avoid the construction of major new roads outside of new subdivisions, the plan-based scenario offers a greater opportunity to shift some of the traffic to alternate modes of transportation, because it channels growth into high-density, mixed-use existing areas, instead of a low-density, diffuse pattern of development.

Identification of Needs
This section explained how mode choices and travel patterns alter land use patterns, which in turn alter mode choices and travel patterns. Trend based land use patterns reinforce the current transportation system, including the prominence of and dependeney on the privately operated vehicle. Combinations of higher densities and mixed-use zoning that connect residential and commercial land uses are important for promoting walking or bicycling as a reasonable alternative to driving. The Town needs to revisit the subdivision and zoning ordinances to determine whether there are ways to use them to encourage transportationtransportation-friendly land use patterns. patterns There is a great need to reduce dependence dependence on low occupancy motor vehicles. vehicles This may take the form of encouraging the use of carpooling and ridesharing, establishing Park-and-Ride lots, transit use, and nonmotorized transportation, and by promoting mixed-use, moderate density development over low-density development of segregated land uses. In order to be successful, this effort must be undertaken at every level of local government because of the interconnected nature of the regional transportation system.

TRANSPORTATION, THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT NVIRONMENT, AND PUBLIC HEALTH

This section focuses on the impact of transportation on four public health-related issues: respiratory health, health problems related to inactivity, physical harm due to crashes, and decreased social wellbeing among disadvantaged populations. Why care about the connection between transportation and public health? Besides the issue of basic human rights, deteriorating public health is costly for those who remain healthy. In 1999, researchers estimated the economic burden of the health impacts from air pollution in Austria, France, and Switzerland at EUR 27 billion per year. The estimated direct health care cost of obesity in America was $70 billion in 1995, and the estimated direct health care costs of physical inactivity was $24 billion.82 The cost to the fabric of society when disadvantaged populations continue to be systematically marginalized is not calculable in a region that values livability and community.

Respiratory Disorders and Diseases

Although new motor vehicles individually pollute less than they did thirty years ago, collectively they are pumping more toxins and particulate matter into the atmosphere as a result of increases in vehicle miles

82

Colditz, 1999

93

driven and time behind the wheel. This has important consequences for respiratory health. The rate of asthma in children more than doubled between 1980 and 1995 (2.3 million to 5.5 million new cases, far outstripping the pace of population growth). The number of seasonal asthma attacks directly attributed to ozone pollution are approximately 86,000 in Baltimore, 27,000 in Richmond, and 130,000 in Washington D.C. In a telling example, when city authorities limited vehicle volumes in Atlanta during the 1996 Olympic Games to 77.5% of the normal peak morning count, daily ozone concentrations dropped 27.9% and asthma emergency events dropped 41.6%.83

Consequences of Physical Inactivity: Obesity and Related Disorders

Physical inactivity is linked to 250,000 deaths per year in America; physical inactivity is a large component of the obesity crisis.84 Obesity is linked to conditions such as type 2 diabetes (increasing risk 34 fold), high blood pressure, heart disease, stroke, gallbladder diseases, osteoarthritis, some cancers, and sleep apnea and other respiratory problems.85 One of the most important factors influencing physical activity is the immediate environmentones neighborhood. Un-walkable and unbikable neighborhoods are directly linked to low rates of physical activity. Factors that discourage outdoor physical activity include negative perceptions about safety and a lack of facilities like sidewalks. Pleasant scenery and nearby destinations encourage people to walk and bike. People who live in neighborhoods with a mix of shops and businesses within easy walking distance have a 35% lower risk of obesity.86 Even the simple act of bicycling to workwithout any more vigorous form of exerciseis associated with a lower weight and less weight gain over time.87

Bicyclist and Pedestrian Vulnerability in Traffic Crashes

Injuries and fatalities due to traffic crashes are also a public health issue. Motor vehicle crashes are discussed in the Inventory; this section focuses on bicycle and pedestrian crashes. Thirteen percent of traffic-related fatalities occur among pedestrians (10,696 deaths nation-wide over two years)even though pedestrian trips account for only six percent of all trips.88 A disproportionate share of the deaths was among the elderly. A report by the Surface Transportation Policy Project determined that the most dangerous metropolitan areas for walkers were new, sprawling, southern and western communities where transportation systems are more focused on the automobile at the expense of other transportation options.89 According to national statistics from 2003,90 eighty-five percent of cyclists killed in crashes were not wearing helmets. Twenty-four percent had blood alcohol contents (BACs) of 0.08 or higher, the legal limit for intoxicated motor vehicle operation in many states. Fortunately, the number of deaths among young bicyclists have dropped dramatically over the last thirty years. In 1975, 675 bicyclists under the age of
Jackson and Kochtitzky, Creating a Healthy Environment Booth et. al, 2000 85 Jackson and Kochtitzky, Creating a Healthy Environment 86 Frank et. al, 2004 87 Ducimetiere, et al, 2001 88 Jackson and Kochtitzky, Creating a Healthy Environment 89 McCann and DeLille, 2000 90 IIHS, 2003
83 84

94

16 were killed; the number dropped to 148 in 2004, a reduction of 78.1%. Males are involved in fatal accidents eight times as often as females; twelve year old males are the highest risk group. Thirty-five percent of cyclist deaths occurred at intersections, which are probably the most dangerous locations for bicyclists. The causes of bicycle crashes nationally are as follows:91 Bicyclist failing to yield to motorist: Motorist failing to yield to bicyclist: Motorist turning or merging into bicyclists path: Motorist overtaking a cyclist: Bicyclist turning into motorists path: Other:

28% 22% 12% 9% 7% 22%

Equity and Social WellWell-Being

Part of an accessible transportation system, as outlined in the Goals and Objectives section of this plan, is that the system is accessible for everyone, regardless of age or ability. Youthful, low-income, elderly, and disabled populations are traditionally underserved in a car-centered transportation system. Youth are a segment of the population often overlooked by transportation planners. In suburban areas where the primary mode of transportation is the private motor vehicle, public transit is not available, and pedestrian walkways are insufficient, youth without cars or drivers licenses must rely on their parents, friends, or older siblings with cars for transportation. During a life stage when the assertion of independence is important, an auto-centered transportation system effectively strands youth and adolescents without a way to experience and explore their community. Low-income individuals and families are easily disenfranchised by an auto-centered transportation system. The total cost of an automobile, including insurance, maintenance, and gas, can be prohibitively high. A lack of transportation can prevent an individual from taking a job with better pay or benefits, negatively affecting the individuals already precarious situation. A transportation system becomes accessible for these populations through the provision of infrastructure for non-motorized and public transportation. The provision of infrastructure such as sidewalks and bike lanes encourages walking and biking by providing a safe, pleasant atmosphere. Also, encouraging multiuse development integrated with affordable housing, instead of development with segregated land uses and affordable housing separated from market-rate units, brings jobs and recreational activities within walking or biking proximity. This can also foster a sense of inclusion for segments of the population often excluded from the greater community. The elderly have special transportation needs. Physical and mental deterioration can rule out the private automobile as the primary mode of transportation. Also, the costs of maintaining an automobile can put a financial strain on seniors, especially those on fixed incomes. While the automobile may not be the mode of transport best suited for the elderly, many seniors continue to drive because the keys to the car
91

Knoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization, 2002; PBIC, undated.

95

represent a way to remain independent in the sunset of life. In many areas of the country, the most commonly used alternatives seem to be isolation or dependence on the assistance of friends and family. Senior citizens in Tompkins County can use Gadabout, but trips must be planned a day in advance.

Like the elderly, many with disabilities do not have the option to drive. Physical disabilities, such as the need for a wheelchair, can make driving impractical or impossible. The developmentally handicapped may not be able to obtain a drivers license or, if they do, their living or employment situations may make it impractical to obtain and maintain a car. Without a viable transportation alternative, the disabled may become even more marginalized. The Ithaca area is fortunate to have Gadabout, which serves senior citizens and the disabled. The elderly and disabled need different solutions than youth and the low-income. Often, walking and biking, except for the shortest of trips, are not viable alternatives. Although TCAT buses and Gadabout vans are designed to accommodate a wide range of needs, public transit can be physically and mentally challenging to navigate for some people. The reliance on private, for-profit paratransit (such as taxi services) can quickly become prohibitively expensive.

Identification of Needs
This section has shown the public health consequences of over-dependence on private motor vehicles. In order to protect air quality, the Town should support programs and policies that reduce motor vehicle dependence. dependence This may occur by decreasing the number of vehicles on the road, the total vehicle miles traveled, or both. Furthermore, the Town should encourage walkable and bikeable neighborhood designs that give residents the choice to use non-motorized modes for transportation and recreation, so that residents can integrate activity into their daily routines and so those who cannot afford a car have the opportunity to walk or bike for transportation, if they choose. In order to protect bicyclists and pedestrians, the Town should promote roadway and offoff-road nonnon-motorized facilities designs that minimize safety safety hazards for motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians, residents, and other roadway users. users Finally, the Town should support transit and paratransit provision, provision especially to those who are unable to walk, bike, or drive by themselves (such as the elderly and the disabled).

96

ALTERNATIVES

This brief section is the bridge between the Inventory and Analysis Chapter and the Recommendations Chapter. To review, the Inventory and Analysis Chapter asked and answered questions such as: What are the governments policies governing the growth and development of transportation? Who uses the transportation system in the Town, and how do they use it? What is the Towns transportation system like, and how is it not serving its residents as well as it could? The Alternatives Chapter will ask and answer: What are ways to help the transportation system better serve users, and what are some of the pros and cons of these options? The Recommendations Chapter following this Chapter will explore: What projects, programs, or policies can build on the strengths and correct the weaknesses of the transportation system? The Inventory and Analysis Chapter demonstrated some of the strengths and weaknesses of the current transportation system in the Town of Ithaca. Fortunately, most of the roads in the Town have a relatively safe crash record and most roads and intersections are operating at a good level of service. Public transit service is good for Town residents living near institutions of higher learning, or in other areas of high population density, and paratransit is available across the Town. With a few notable exceptions, truck traffic is limited to major arterials. One of the most notable deficiencies in the Town is the lack of sufficient bicycle and pedestrian facilities. As the Town continues to grow and develop, the problems associated with a lack of basic infrastructure and costs associated with retrofitting will increase. Motor vehicle traffic volumes and speeds are inappropriate for the residential character of some neighborhoods. Unless positive steps are taken, continued development in the Town and the County will aggravate the negative effects of volumes and speeds on safety and livability. Likewise, deficiencies in transit servicealready an issue for several parts of the Townnegatively impact residents access to employment, goods, and services. As noted in the Roadway Maintenance section, transportation corrections cost less when taken as part of a preventative maintenance program and not as an after the fact project. Table 18 on the following pages summarizes the problems identified throughout the Inventory and Analysis, along with specific locations where these problems are particularly prevalent. For each problem, several alternative strategies are identified, along with the pros and cons of each. There are several key constraints that affect the ability of the Town to implement certain alternatives, including: the Town does not control many roads within its municipal boundaries; limited resources do not allow funding of each and every project; there are very few reasonable options for the construction of major through-roads in the Town; and currently, there are insufficient guidelines steering the development of physical infrastructures.

97

Table 18: Alternatives: Issues, Locations, & Strategies

Issue SPEEDING

Locations Roads that are known to have particularly high levels of speeding include:92 Bostwick Rd. (near #358) Bundy Rd. (1000' east of Hopkins Rd.) Caldwell Rd. (across from water plant) Coddington Rd. (near Juniper Dr) Culver Road (near #287) Forest Home Dr. (east of 25 mph zone) Forest Home Dr. (between Plantations & McIntyre) Forest Home Dr. (near #326) Hanshaw Rd. (near #1034) Judd Falls Rd. (north of Plantations Rd.) King Rd. (school zone) Mitchell St. (near #921) Muriel St. (near #128) Pleasant Grove Rd. (on hill between observatory & stop sign) Poole Rd. (near #124) Sandbank Rd. (S curve) Stone Quarry Rd. (near #355) Stone Quarry Rd.(top of hill) Stone Quarry Rd. (near #220) Stone Quarry Rd. (bottom of hill) Warren Rd. (500' North of Fairway Dr) West King Rd. (near #344) Winthrop Dr. (near #311)

Strategy Install traffic calming measures

Pro Some measures are very inexpensive If designed correctly, extremely effective Can protect or strengthen neighborhood character

Increase enforcement

Can be moved from neighborhood to neighborhood, unlike permanent measures

Education & raising awareness Reconstruct roads so that design speed matches speed limit

Can be relatively inexpensive Alters driver behavior directly Excellent long-term solution Can integrate into on-going reconstruction program

Con Some measures are very expensive Can be a safety hazard to rescue vehicles if designed poorly Potential maintenance issues Not appropriate for many collector or arterial road Requires constant police presence (manpower) Expensive Not a long-term solution, unless there is a long-term commitment Requires on-going effort Cannot work by itself Town does not control design of County and State roads Will take years to implement

92

Roads that the Town has surveyed, on which the ratio of the 85th percentile speed to the posted speed limit is greater than 1.25. Source: Town of Ithaca Department of Public Works

98

Issue LACK OF BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES

Locations Throughout the Town, but especially a problem in medium density development, near schools, commercial areas, or other areas of population and pedestrian/ bicycle movement. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Corridor Maps show locations identified as needing bicycle or pedestrian improvements. See Maps 13 & 14 in Volume II, Appendix I, as well as Appendix VI.

Strategy Do nothing

Pro Least expensive option

Retrofit sidewalks only around high risk areas; require sidewalks in most new development Retrofit sidewalks into all development; require sidewalks in all new development Retrofit all roads with bike lanes

Retrofit all roads of high volume or speed with bike lanes

Ensure that road shoulders are adequately designed & maintained for bicyclists Establish clear policy for enhancing bicycle & pedestrian facilities

Con Based on trends, the situation for bicyclists and pedestrian will worsen. Ignores an opportunity to develop an alternate system, which may be needed in the future Less expensive than an Connectivity is impaired extensive sidewalk network Sidewalk District costs may be Targets sidewalks to those unacceptable to property most in need of them owners Not feasible everywhere Provides optimal connectivity Expensive for Town and property owners Neither feasible nor necessary everywhere Targets beginner riders Extremely expensive Benefits intermediate and Not feasible everywhere advanced riders Poorly designed wide roads can encourage speeding & driver inattentiveness Targets intermediate riders who Expensive may already be comfortable on Not feasible everywhere neighborhood streets Poorly designed wide roads can Benefits advanced riders encourage speeding & driver inattentiveness Targets advanced riders who For roads with moderate are comfortable riding with speeds or volumes, not traffic appropriate for beginner cyclists Least expensive Difficult to strike balance Would provide basis to between flexibility and implement a long term effectiveness improvement program Needs funding commitment

99

Issue

Locations

Strategy Implement planned system of off-road multiuse trails

IMPACTS OF VEHICULAR ROADWAY TRAFFIC ON ADJACENT LANDS, especially in residential areas Information in this section is taken from A Summary of the Road Network in the Town of Ithaca section of this Volume of the Plan. There are many ways to reduce the impacts of vehicular traffic on residential areas, depending on how the traffic is impacting the neighborhood. The list of ideas at right is not exhaustive.

Reduce volumes and slow traffic on residential streets to improve bicyclist safety in travel lanes and allow pedestrians to walk in the road Do nothing Moderate to High Impact: Caldwell Rd. Coddington Rd. East Shore Dr. (Rt. 34) Forest Home Dr. Hanshaw Rd. Honness La. Judd Falls Rd. Pleasant Grove Rd. Pine Tree Rd. Slaterville Rd. (Rt. 79) Snyder Hill Rd. Taughannock Blvd. (Rt. 89) Trumansburg Rd. (Rt. 96) Warren Rd. Low to Moderate Impact: Bostwick Rd. Bundy Rd. Burns Rd. Coy Glen Rd. Culver Rd. Danby Rd. (Rt. 96B) Dryden Rd. (Rt. 366)

Pro Serves both recreation and transportation purposes Not limited to corridors with available right-of-way Potential to link existing facilities Serves multiple modes Improves neighborhood livability, as well as benefiting bicyclists and pedestrians Reduces right-of-way needs and total roadway footprint

Con Will take years to implement fully Will likely require non-Town funding

Will take years to decades to implement fully Only addresses neighborhood roads May not be feasible everywhere Unacceptable effects on livability and safety for Town residents Some measures are very expensive Can be a safety hazard to rescue vehicles if designed poorly Potential maintenance issues Not appropriate for many collector or arterial roads Town does not control design of County and State roads Will take years to implement Will take years to implement fully Not feasible everywhere Does not address traffic volume problems Does not challenge fundamental imbalance in transportation system (dominance of low-occupancy motor vehicles) Potentially costly and likely disruptive

Least expensive option Easiest option Some measures are very inexpensive If designed correctly, extremely effective Can protect or strengthen neighborhood character

Install traffic calming measures

Reconstruct roads so that design speed matches speed limit Improve bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure

Route traffic out of residential areas and onto roads with few residences

Excellent long-term solution Can integrate into on-going reconstruction program Can help improve neighborhood livability Can help to calm traffic Serves both recreation and transportation purposes Protects and enhances neighborhood livability

100

Issue

IMPACTS OF VEHICULAR ROADWAY (CONTINUED)

Locations East King Rd. Ellis Hollow Rd/ Mitchell St. Elm St. Ext/ Poole Rd. Elmira Rd. (Rt. 13) Enfield Falls Rd. (Rt. 327) Five Mile Dr. (Rt. 13A) Hayts Rd. Hopkins Rd. Maple Ave. Mecklenburg Rd. (Rt. 79) Ridgecrest Rd. Sandbank Rd. Seven Mile Dr. Stone Quarry Rd. Troy Rd. West Danby Rd. (Rt. 34/96) Westhaven Rd. West King Rd. Very high:93 Route 96: City to Hospital Route 13/34/96: City to 13 and 34/96 intersection Slaterville Rd.: Pine Tree Road to Park La. Pine Tree Rd.: Honness La. to Snyder Hill Rd. High:94 Trumansburg Rd. (Rt. 96): Hospital to Town of Ulysses

Strategy Promote alternative land use patterns and designs (buffers between residences & roadways, parallel access roads, etc) To address truck traffic problems, implement a County-wide truck route system. (Note: See other options to address truck traffic below.)

Pro Helps to address underlying issuesmotor vehicle dependence, poor design, etc.

Coordinates efforts by various municipalities

Con May not address already developed areas In already developed areas, expensive to retrofit Requires a long time to implement Difficult for public to acceptno one wants their road designated as a truck route Needs signage and enforcement to be effective

Do nothing LARGE AMOUNTS OF TRAFFIC IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS AND TRAFFIC CONGESTION Build more roads

Least expensive option Takes advantage of institutions and expertise already in place

Route traffic out of residential areas and onto roads with few residences

Protects and enhances neighborhood livability

Based on trends, the situation will worsen. By itself, not a long term solution Environmentally, monetarily, and socially expensive Perpetuates auto-dependence Does not challenge fundamental imbalance in transportation system (dominance of motor vehicles) Potentially costly and likely disruptive

Vehicle Capacity Ratio (VOC) > 1.0 See page 21. Source: ITCTC, 2025 Long Range, 2005 VOC > 0.8 See page 21. Source: Ibid. 95 Based on Level of Service data from Traffic Impact Studies for various development reviews. See Table A-13 in Appendix II.
93 94

101

Issue

Locations Danby Rd.: IC to King Road Slaterville Rd.: Park Lane to Burns Rd. Pine Tree Rd.: Slaterville Road to Honness La., and again from Snyder Hill Rd. to Maple Ave Dryden Rd.: Caldwell Road to Town of Dryden Route 13: segment in Town between City and Cayuga Heights Intersections:95 Pine Tree Rd. & Rt. 79 Pine Tree Rd. & Rt. 366 Pine Tree Rd. & Ellis Hollow Rd. Hanshaw Rd. & Pleasant Grove Rd. (Cayuga Heights) Hanshaw Rd. & Triphammer Rd. (Cayuga Heights) **Note: Many of the roads identified above are collector or arterial roads, which are expected to carry higher traffic volumes.

LARGE AMOUNTS OF TRAFFIC IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS AND TRAFFIC CONGESTION (CONTINUED)

Strategy For intersections, improve alignment, add turning lanes, add traffic signals, etc.

Pro May improve safety May improve vehicle flow and LOS May improve capacity

Promote walking

Inexpensive Promotes public health Very little environmental harm Less expensive for municipalities than road building

Promote bicycling

Promote transit and Park & Ride Promote car pooling, or other forms of ride sharing Promote car sharing

Inexpensive Promotes public health Very little environmental harm Less expensive for municipalities than road building Infrastructure (roads) already established Moderate expense for riders Accessible to the elderly, young, and disabled Infrastructure already established Can increase transit ridership

Inexpensive Removes peak hour vehicles Flexible For infrequent drivers, far less expensive than owning a car

Con Expensive Potential negative impacts for neighborhoods May only work for certain intersections Does not reduce traffic volumes Not feasible during some parts of the year due to weather and some parts of town due to topography Not feasible for the elderly/ disabled Infrastructure not available in many locations Not feasible for long trips or shopping Not feasible during some parts of the year due to weather and some parts of town due to topography Not feasible for the elderly or disabled Infrastructure not available Difficult for shopping Expensive for municipalities requires buses Less flexible than walking, biking, or driving Bus size and noise can produce negative environmental impacts. More difficult to implement during off-peak hours Less flexible than personal transportation Very large initial investment May take time to catch on with the public

102

Issue LARGE AMOUNTS OF TRAFFIC IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS AND TRAFFIC CONGESTION (CONTINUED) Large volumes of TRUCK TRAFFIC, especially in residential areas

Locations

Truck traffic is present throughout the Town, although it is concentrated on State and County roads. It has the greatest impact in residential areas.

Strategy Promote alternative land use patterns (higher densities, mixed development, etc) Promote other TDM strategies: flex-time, reverse commute, parking cash-out, etc. Do nothing Develop a County-wide truck route system

Pro A solution that truly addresses underlying issues, instead of a band-aid fix Provides more flexibility Allows motorists to drive, but rewards those who do not Least expensive Easiest Coordinates efforts by various municipalities Comprehensive and coordinated Protects neighborhoods to some extent

Con Requires a very long time to see results Many areas are already built out Requires organization and cooperation to implement

Post signs indicating preferred truck routes or stating, No through trucks Switch freight mode from trucks to rail or barge

Does not address livability and safety issues Difficult for public to acceptno one wants their road designated as a truck route Needs signage and enforcement to be effective Does not guarantee that trucks will stick to preferred routes Difficult to enforce Not within the Towns control Cost-prohibitive for many sectors of the economy Infrastructure may not be in place Many firms send and receive deliveries Some companies are outside of the Town or County Ongoing effort required Law enforcement resources are limited Not within the Towns control Not all necessary goods are locally produced New distribution centers may have environmental impacts

Saves fossil fuels May reduce truck volumes

Coordinate with shipping firms to route traffic away from residential areas Enforce existing restrictions and regulations Buy locally produced goods or relocate distribution centers to more convenient locations

Protects neighborhoods to some extent

Does not require new policies or procedures Reduces the need to ship goods long distances

103

Issue ROADWAY MAINTENANCE & RECONSTRUCTION

Locations Preventative Maintenance: 5-7 miles per year Reconstruction: 1.5 miles per year; 33 year cycle

Strategy Postpone maintenance until roads need serious reconstruction Conduct preventative maintenance in a longterm maintenance program Promote the use of deer whistles for cars or roadside reflectors Deer population control measures

Pro Saves a moderate amount of money in the short term Avoids inconvenience Saves a very large amount of money in the long term Prevents roads from deteriorating too much Relatively inexpensive, as compared to other measures If successful, removes need for difficult task of altering driver behavior Facilitates safe wildlife circulation Facilitates safe wildlife circulation Benefits neighborhoods, bicyclists, and pedestrians Some measures are very inexpensive If designed correctly, extremely effective Can protect or strengthen neighborhood character Helps residents to protect themselves

Con Monetary costs are exponentially increased Requires moderate funding in the short term, which may not be readily available Must have flexibility for emergency repairs Questionable effectiveness

CRASHES: For all of these types of actions, the alternative Do Nothing was not considered due to safety considerations.

Animal action:96 Mecklenburg Rd.: Eco Village to the City Northern section of Route 89 All along Route 96 Bicycle or Pedestrian:97 Route 96B and IC entrance Route 366 at City/Town line Mecklenburg Rd. between Ecovillage and Conifer La. Route 96B & Sesame St. Slaterville Rd. & Burns Rd. Route 366: one to the west and one to the east of Caldwell Rd. Vehicle Collisions:98 Northern section of Route 89 Elmira Rd. between Seven Mile Dr. and Calkins Rd. West Danby Rd. between the Town line and where Route 13 splits off

Wildlife corridor underpass/overpass Reduce speed at deer crossings

Can be expensive Questionable effectiveness May incur public opposition Can be difficult to administer Expensive Potentially difficult to determine best location Town does not control design of State routes, where most deer accidents occur

Traffic calming, including road narrowing, adding visual interest, adding street trees, etc.

Driver & bicyclist/ pedestrian education (defensive driving, etc.)

Some measures are very expensive Can be a problem for rescue vehicles if designed poorly Potential maintenance issues Not all roads under Town control Long-term solution Questionable effectiveness

96 More than ten serious crashes (defined as crashes creating at least $1,000 of property damage or injuries) listing animal action as the first event over a three-year period, 19992001. Data acquired from NYSDOT & NYSDMV. 97 Any serious crash (defined as crashes creating at least $1,000 of property damage or injuries) listing a bicyclist or pedestrian as the first event over a three-year period, 19992001. Source: Data acquired from NYSDOT & NYSDMV. 98 Five or more serious crashes (defined as crashes creating at least $1,000 of property damage or injuries) listing vehicle as the first event over a three-year period, 1999-2001. Source: Data acquired from NYSDOT & NYSDMV.

104

Issue CRASHES (CONTINUED)

Locations Elmira Rd. and Five Mile Dr. Route 79 and Pine Tree Rd. Pine Tree Rd. between Snyder Hill Rd. and Mitchell St. Route 366 between Caldwell Rd. and Town of Dryden Route 96B between IC and Emerson Power Transmission

Strategy Construct bike lanes, sidewalks, and multiuse trails

Pro Removes bicyclists and pedestrians from the travel lane May encourage walking and biking Catches reckless motorists who may drive unsafely regardless of surroundings Popular with the public Ideal remedy for crashes caused by road system deficiencies

Police presence/ enforcement

Design solutions: intersection realignment, shoulder rumble strips, etc. The Town Engineering Department is in the process of surveying all intersections that involve Town roads. Do not make any extra effort to address inadequacies Address inadequacies only when opportunities arise Prioritize inadequacies and systematically address them Remove all roadside vegetation for greatest possible sight distances

SIGHT DISTANCES

Least expensive option Least controversial option Frees resources for other projects Most fair and safest Reduces liability Easier to implementjust cut down everything

Con Dangerous if the facility has many conflict points with motor vehicle traffic (i.e. crossings) Potentially costly May not be feasible in all locations Not a long term solution Expensive (labor costs) May not actually result in safer motorist behavior Can be difficult to diagnose Can be expensive or otherwise not feasible Not all roads under Town control Potential liability problems Potentially dangerous Does not necessarily address the most hazardous locations first May be expensive May be difficult due to obstructions outside ROW Less environmentally friendly May be more dangerous (motorists judge speed via road edge features) Unpopular with public Expensive Can increase complexity of maintenance tasks

Remove only whats necessary to preserve vegetation benefits while maintaining safety

Faster to implementremove only whats necessary Generally more aesthetically pleasing Preserve environment & livability

105

Based on this analysis, the preferred alternative is a balanced approach that provides for both the maintenance of the current system and the expansion of an alternative system while prioritizing livability. Continuing the current system entails preventative pavement maintenance on all existing roads and construction of new through-roads only when vital to the preservation or maintenance of neighborhood livability or the maintenance of the current transportation system. The expansion of an alternative system will entail expansion of transit, bicycling, pedestrian, and other alternatives. This mixed approach will allow the community to reap the maximum benefit while avoiding as many costs as possible. The correction of existing safety or alignment problems should be addressed in a planned program, as well.

106

RECOMMENDATIONS

The previous chapters of this Plan have established a vision of transportation in the Town and have identified problems, locations where problems occur, and potential solutions. This Chapter recommends specific actions to address the problems. It is important to remember that this plan cannot examine everything related to transportation in the Town. This document is a living document that will be updated to reflect changes in best practices, acquisition of new information or data, or other changes to the transportation system in the Town. In addition, there is not an appropriate resolution for every transportation problem. Some resolutions may be too expensive, too disruptive, or otherwise infeasible, and therefore are not included here. Furthermore, these recommendations address solutions that will occur over various time frames, including the five-year (short term), ten-year (mid term), and twenty-year or longer (long term) horizons. Since the transportation system involves many jurisdictions and agencies, some recommendations cannot be implemented by the Town of Ithaca alone. Many programs require collaboration with several different entitiessome public, some private. Attachment A lists the Recommendations that will require coordination with other groups. The Roman numerals within each Recommendation refer to the Goal that is fulfilled via the Recommendation. To review, the seven themes that summarize the Plans seven goals are: I. Access & Mobility V. Coordination II. Livability VI. Land Use Planning III. Safety VII. Environment IV. Transportation System Management At the end of this chapter, Attachment B lists the Recommendations organized by the Goal that they address. Some of the Recommendations are new initiatives, while others are ongoing policies or projects that have already begun or will begin in the near future. The note at the end of each Recommendation lists the time-frame and priority of new initiatives. The time-frames are: short-term, intermediate-term, long-term, and as feasible. The priority categories are: low priority, medium priority, and high priority. Ongoing policies and projects are labeled as ongoing and are not prioritized because they are already or will soon be implemented. The time-frames and priorities of new initiatives are listed in Attachment C at the end of this chapter. The Town initiated this Transportation Plan as a result of the findings of the Comprehensive Plan of 1993. One of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan is to provide a transportation system that is safe, efficient, convenient, and environmentally responsible.99 Attachment D at the end of this chapter summarizes the Goals & Objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and shows how this Transportation Plan fulfills them.

99

Town of Ithaca, 1993

107

1.

THE TOWN TRANSPORTATION PLAN

1.A. Adoption and Implementation: Implementation The Town Board should adopt and implement this Transportation Plan as a long-term vision and policy guide. (All Goals; short-term; high priority) 1.B. The Comprehensive Plan: Plan The Town Board should amend the 1993 Comprehensive Plan by incorporating this Transportation Plan. Furthermore, the Town Board could revisit and potentially revise the Comprehensive Plan, based in part on the findings of this Plan. (All Goals; short-term; high priority) 1.C. Review and Updates: Updates This Transportation Plan should be reviewed and updated on a regular basis (five or ten years, perhaps). (All Goals; intermediate- and long-term; high priority) 2.

ROADWAY AND ROAD NETWORK ISSUES

2.A. Official Highway Map: Map 2.A.1. Adoption: The Town Board should adopt a revised Official Highway Map to establish the names and locations of public and private roadways and to preserve corridors for future right-of-way needs (see Map 4 in Appendix I). (Goals I, III, IV, VI; short-term; high-priority) 2.A.2. Updates: The Town should update the Official Highway Map as needed to reflect new right-of-way acquisitions, changes in right-of-way location, updates to anticipated right-ofway needs, or roadway ownership changes. Roadways approved as part of a subdivision are de facto additions to the Official Highway Map. (Goals I, III, IV, VI; ongoing) 2.B. Engineering and Design: Design Livability should be the goal of all transportation design in the Town of Ithaca. To this end, the design of a right-of-way should reflect the intended use of the roadway and the character of the adjacent lands. Roads should be designed to elicit desirable driver behavior (such as attentiveness, compliance with speed limits, etc). (Goals I, II, III, VI, VII; ongoing) 2.B.1. Design Toolboxes: This Plan has established the importance of the design of a roadway and its elements. In order to enhance the livability of Town neighborhoods and provide multi-modal options, the Town should use Volume III of this Transportation Plan (The Design Guidelines) as a general guide (not mandatory standards) for the construction and reconstruction of transportation facilities. See Volume III: The Design Guidelines for more information. (Goals I, II, III, IV, VI, VII; as feasible; high priority) 2.B.2. Sight Distances: The Town Engineering Department should continue to evaluate sight distances at intersections and to identify intersections with sub-standard sight distances. The Engineering Department should work with the Public Works Department to create and implement a prioritization system for improvements. The Town should explore ways to mitigate sight distance issues beyond the clearing of vegetation, such as recommending lowering the speed limit on the through-road, creating all-way stops (where appropriate), installing mirrors, etc. (Goals II, III, IV; ongoing) 2.B.3. Hazardous Locations: The Town should request crash data from the DMV in order to identify crash clusters and dangerous intersections/road segments, and when under the Towns jurisdiction, take measures to alleviate the hazards. If the Town does not have responsibility for the intersection or segment, the Town should alert the responsible jurisdiction and work with them to mitigate the hazards. (Goals II, III, IV, V; ongoing) 2.B.4. Speeding & Cut-Through Traffic: 108

2.B.4.1. The Town should implement design responses to excessive speeds and cutthrough traffic in neighborhoods, such as traffic calming (see below). (Goal II, III, IV, V, VII; as feasible; high-priority) 2.B.4.2. The Town should continue to petition the County and State for speed limit reductions on appropriate roads in the Town. One potential location for speed limit reduction is Pine Tree Road. (Goal II, III, V, VII; ongoing) 2.B.5. Animal-related Crashes: The Town should explore ways to reduce the frequency and severity of deer-related crashes, such as roadside reflectors or deer whistles for cars. (Goal III, VII; as feasible; low priority) 2.B.6. Access Management: Via the site plan or subdivision approval process, the Town should encourage or, in some situations, require the developer to limit the number of individual access driveways, roads, and other curb cuts onto arterial and collector roads in order to maintain traffic safety and roadway capacity and to encourage more compatible use of adjacent lands. The Town should require the use of shared driveways where appropriate. See Volume III: The Design Guidelines for more information. (Goals I, II, III, IV, VI, & VII; ongoing) 2.C. Maintenance: Maintenance 2.C.1. Flexibility: The Public Works Department should have the flexibility to set its own schedule for roadway improvements within the context of the overall Budget. (Goal IV; ongoing) 2.C.2. Pavement Maintenance: The Town should continue to practice preventative maintenance wherever possible in order to save money over the long term. (Goal IV; ongoing) 2.C.3. Other Safety Improvements: According to the Crash Screenings, Town and County rights-of-way in need of minor improvements (i.e. projects that wouldnt appear on a Capital Budget) include: (Goals II, III, IV, V; short-term; medium priority) 2.C.3.1. Intersections: Honness Lane & Pine Tree Road (trim bushes) 2.C.3.2. Road Segments: Stone Quarry Road (signage improvements); Sandbank Road (speed limit signs, additional warning signs, reflectors, or flashing beacons to aid navigation); Burns Road (striping the road shoulders). 2.C.4. Environmental Sensitivity 2.C.4.1. The Public Works Department should limit trimming of roadside vegetation to that which fulfills safety & drainage objectives. The Town should consider roadside vegetation an asset, not a liability. (Goals II, IV, VII; ongoing) 2.C.4.2. The Town should carefully assess any transportation project in an agricultural, scenic, or historic area to ensure that potential impact to these resources does not exceed the expected benefits from the proposed project. (Goal II, IV, VII; ongoing) 2.C.4.3. The Town should continue to explore alternatives to traditional rock salt for deicing roads. (Goals II, IV, VII; ongoing) 2.C.4.4. The Town should encourage other jurisdictions with roads in the Town of Ithaca to adhere to similar standards of environmental consideration. (Goals II, IV, V, VII; ongoing) 2.C.4.5. Projects involving transportation, such as new road construction, road reconstruction, or the installation of bicycle or pedestrian facilities, should

109

comply with State and Town stormwater regulations, when possible. Stormwater management, including the treatment of run-off and flood control, should be considered as part of projects involving transportation, when possible. (Goals I, IV, V, VII; ongoing) 2.C.4.6. The Town of Ithaca Transportation Committee and the Town of Ithaca Scenic Resources Committee should work together to identify and designate road corridors of visual, cultural, or historic significance as Official Town Scenic Routes. (Goals II, IV, V, VII; as feasible; low priority) 2.C.4.7. Whenever possible, new roadways should avoid environmentally sensitive areas, such as wetlands and steep slopes. New roadways should follow the natural contours of the land, whenever possible. (Goals II, IV, V, VII; ongoing) 2.C.5. Inter-jurisdictional Coordination: 2.C.5.1. The Town Public Works Department should continue to cooperate with the County Highway Department and NYSDOT on maintenance responsibilities for roads in the Town. (Goals IV, V; ongoing) 2.C.5.2. The Town Public Works Department and Town Board should work with the County Highway Department and the County Legislature to determine if there are County roads that should be Town roads (and vice versa) because of their function in the highway network, such as: Burns Road (currently a Town road); Bundy Road & Hayts Road (currently County roads). (Goals IV, V; short-term; medium priority) 2.C.5.3. The Town should support regional transportation planning and inter-municipal efforts toward the construction of new through-roads in other municipalities that would relieve traffic burdens in Town of Ithaca neighborhoods. (All Goals; ongoing) 2.D. Traffic Calming: Calming As explained throughout the Traffic Calming Chapter of Volume III: The Design Guidelines, the Town should explore traffic calming measures as one strategy to protect residential areas from excessive negative effects of motor vehicle traffic. Unlike enforcement strategies (see below), the goal of traffic calming is to cause motorists to unconsciously slow down in response to their surroundings. Since traffic calming measures are more permanent than temporary enforcement measures, traffic calming should be used as a long-term strategy to reduce speeds and improve livability in neighborhoods. Traffic calming and other livabilityoriented design features, such as street trees, sidewalks, or pedestrian-scale lighting, should be considered as part of roadway construction or reconstructions. (Goals II, III, VI, VII; as feasible; high priority) 2.E. Enforcement: Enforcement The Town should support law enforcement agencies and campaigns that aim to reduce motor vehicle infractions and discourage reckless, careless, or inattentive behavior. (Goals I, II, III, V; ongoing) 2.E.1. Personnel: The Town should encourage the County to continue and increase traffic law enforcement by the Tompkins County Sheriffs Department. The Town Board should use a cost/benefit analysis to evaluate the possibility of hiring a Town constable, providing funding to the County Sheriffs office, or contracting with other existing police forces to continue and increase enforcement campaigns in the Town. (Goals I, II, III, V; ongoing)

110

2.E.2. Funding: The Town should provide funding to law enforcement agencies to conduct targeted enforcement activities within the Town, such as a DUI campaign on New Years Eve or a speed enforcement campaign. (Goals I, II, III, V; as feasible; low priority) 2.E.3. Prosecution: The Town should work with the District Attorney and the Town Court system to vigorously prosecute traffic violations in school zones when children are present outside. The Town should also encourage the Court to adopt a low-tolerance policy and consistently apply it. Finally, the Town should encourage the Court to impose mandatory safety education in lieu of fines and penalties for minor traffic violations. (Goals I, II, III, V; as feasible; low priority) 2.E.4. Non-Enforcement Speed Control: With the understanding that law enforcement officers cannot be present at the time of every traffic violation, the Town should encourage the use of methods whereby motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians police themselves by consciously changing their behavior in response to feedback from their environment. Ideas include (but are not limited to) radar signs that display motorists speeds and pedestrian walk/ do not walk signals that include countdown timers. (Goals I, II, III, V; as feasible; medium priority) (Note: The Town should also use design elements, such as traffic calming and lower roadway design speeds that cause motorists to unconsciously slow down and to obey the speed limit.) 2.E.5. Traffic Noise and Truck Size: The Town should encourage enforcement of existing motor vehicle laws and noise ordinances that regulate factors that affect traffic noise, such as speeding. The Town should encourage enforcement of truck size and weight limits in order to protect livability in neighborhoods. (Goals I, II, III, IV, V, VII; ongoing) 2.F. Potential New Roadway Corridors: Corridors This Plan and other plans preceding it have identified several possible roadway corridors that would provide access to developing areas or potentially could help to reduce traffic volumes in existing neighborhoods. These corridors include a connector road on West Hill (shown in cross-hatching on the Official Highway Map in Volume II Appendix I), a connector road from Pleasant Grove Road to Triphammer Road (identified in the North Campus Gateway Study), and a possible Northeast connector road outside of the Town of Ithaca (discussed in the NESTS Study; see the Official Highway Map and Road Network Design section in the Inventory and Analysis Chapter for more information). 2.F.1. West Hill Connector Road: This potential new road would connect Mecklenburg Road (Rt. 79) to the Overlook Development (located at the corner of Hayts Road and Trumansburg Road/ Rt. 96). The location of the section from Mecklenburg Road to Bundy Road has already been approved by the Planning Board, so it is shown with a dashed line on the Official Highway Map. The section that connects Bundy Road to the Overlook development has not been determined yet, so the Official Highway Map shows a crosshatched corridor in the potential general location of the road. The purpose of this new connector would be to improve access to developing areas on West Hill by providing a north-south corridor. Developers will construct the road as the area develops. (Intermediate-term; high priority) 2.F.2. North Campus Gateway Connector Road: The North Campus gateway connector road would connect Pleasant Grove north of A-lot, the main North Campus parking lot, to the western end of Jessup Road. Two main purposes of the road would be to reduce vehicular/ pedestrian/ bicyclist conflicts and to reduce traffic in neighborhoods around North Campus. Cornell University would be responsible for the construction and

111

maintenance of the road, but the planning and design would involve the Village of Cayuga Heights, the Town of Ithaca, the City of Ithaca, and Tompkins County. (Intermediate-term; medium priority) 2.F.3. Northeast Connector Road: The connector segments studied in the Northeast Subarea Transportation Study (NESTS) would run from Slaterville Road (Rt. 79) in the Town of Dryden to Dryden Road (Rt. 366), then to Route 13 (in the vicinity of the intersection with Hanshaw Road), and finally to Route 34 and Route 34B in the Town of Lansing. Construction of a connector road in this corridor will need additional study to mitigate any negative environmental impacts and a coordinated, inter-municipal regional effort, and it should be coupled with enhanced mass transit, traffic calming, and improved bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the Northeast (per the NESTS Study). (Long-term, low priority) 3.

BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN ISSUES

3.A. Revised Interim Sidewalk Policy: By adopting this Plan, the Town Board would revise the Interim Town Sidewalk Policy of 2003 into a Non-Motorized Transportation Policy that addresses both bicycle facilities and sidewalks or walkways. By adopting this Plan and the Non-Motorized Transportation Policy, the Town Board would adopt the Bicycle and Pedestrian Corridor Maps (Mapsin Volume II, Appendix I) as the general development strategy (i.e. locations and priorities) for bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the Town. (All Goals; short-term; high priority) 3.B. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities: Facilities 3.B.1. New and Existing Development: The Town Planning Board should use the Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure Design: Best Practices Toolbox in Volume III: The Design Guidelines to determine which type of bicycle and/or pedestrian facility, if any, is appropriate for new developments or redevelopment. The Planning Board should require bicycle and pedestrian facilities in new developments when appropriate, as it is more costly and inconvenient to retrofit facilities later. Bicycle and pedestrian facilities should be included in road reconstructions, again where appropriate. Appropriately designed and located crosswalks are also important, in order to provide safe connections. Finally, the Town should use the Bicycle and Pedestrian Corridor Maps to retrofit facilities into existing developments. Paved roadway shoulders can be appropriate for bicyclists and pedestrians in some rural areas of low-density development. For a listing of bicycle and pedestrian improvement projects, please see Appendix VI, the Prioritized Bicycle and Pedestrian Needs Maps in Appendix I, and 6.D.1 below. (Goals I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII; as feasible; high priority) 3.B.2. Costs: The Town should assume the cost of construction and maintenance of bicycle and pedestrian facilities that serve a broader population beyond the adjacent neighborhoods. Where the benefit is primarily for residents in the immediate vicinity (for example, on a long cul-de-sac), property owners should be responsible for the maintenance and repair of sidewalks and walkways. (Goal I, II, IV, V; ongoing) 3.B.3. Northeast Walkability Issues: The Town should work with the County Planning Department on the Northeast Walkability Study. The Town Board and the Town Public Works Department should help to implement the recommendations of the study, as appropriate. (Goal I, II, IV, V; intermediate-term; medium priority)

112

3.B.4. Forest Home Pedestrian Issues: The Town should implement appropriate pedestrian improvements in the Forest Home neighborhood, as determined by the Public Works Committee and Town Board. (Goal I, II, III, IV, V; intermediate-term; medium priority) 3.B.5. Ithaca College Downtown Ithaca Connection: Currently, the walking and biking connections between Ithaca College and the City of Ithacas downtown business district are very poor. The Town should work with Ithaca College, the City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, NYSDOT, and other stakeholders to improve the safety, aesthetics, and convenience of this link. (Goal I, II, III, V; intermediate-term; medium priority) 3.C. Bicycle & Pedestrian Design: Design 3.C.1. The Town should use the guidelines in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure Design: Best Practices Toolbox in Volume III: The Design Guidelines as a starting point when designing bicycle and pedestrian facilities. As the guidelines do not prescribe mandatory specifications, the Town should apply the principles of context sensitive design to tailor the design of facilities to the unique situation of every corridor. (Goals I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII; as feasible; high priority) 3.C.2. All bicycle and pedestrian facilities should be ADA compliant, unless there are factors that cannot be mitigated with reasonable cost and effort. (Goals I, III, IV; ongoing) 3.C.3. The Town should encourage bicycle and pedestrian facilities as normal, default aspects of a right-of-way and, when designing or accepting designs for a right-of-way, should put the burden of proof on why bicycle and pedestrians should not be included. For most roads that have moderate to high traffic volumes and speeds, walkways are the most appropriate facility for pedestrians and paved shoulders are the most appropriate facility for bicyclists (see Volume III: The Design Guidelines for more information). (Goals I, II, III, V, VI; ongoing) 3.D. Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Transit Connections: Connections The Town should work with TCAT, Cornell, and other stakeholders to enhance the connections and transitions between walking, biking, and transit. (Goals I, II, III, V, VI; long-term; low priority) For example: 3.D.1. Bike-and-Ride: The Town should promote Bike-and-Ride as part of a Park-and-Ride strategy. (Goals I, II, V; intermediate-term; low priority) 3.D.2. Promotion: The Town and TCAT should use transit stops and shelters as locations for biking information and promotion, especially information regarding bicycle, pedestrian, and transit connections. (Goals I, V; intermediate-term; low priority) 3.D.3. Bike Parking: The Town should encourage TCAT to locate bike racks at major bus stops within the Town. (Goals I, II, V, VI; ongoing) 3.D.4. Connecting Developments: In some areas, it may not be feasible to create or extend new or existing transit routes to a residential development. In these cases, the Town should encourage non-motorized links (like a multi-use trail) between that development and other areas served by transit. For example, the Town could consider how to connect EcoVillage and Linderman Creek to allow residents of the developments to get from one development to the other without having to use a car. (Goals I, II, III, V; as feasible; medium priority) 3.E. MultiMulti-Use Trails: Trails The Town should continue to expand and improve the multi-use trail network in the Town and should help the County and the ITCTC to expand the county-wide network (see 5.D below). (Goals I, II, V, VI, VII; ongoing)

113

3.E.1. The Town should consider multi-use trails as both transportation and recreation facilities by designing them to accommodate both types of users. For example, multi-use trails should connect destinations; they also could provide recreational amenities such as informative signs, benches, and so on. (Goals I, II, VI, VII; ongoing) 3.E.2. The Town should consider maintaining part or all of the South Hill Recreation Way for use as a commuter transportation route year-round. This may require modifications in the design and maintenance program for the trail. (The East Hill Recreation Way is already maintained year-round as a pedestrian commuter route.) (Goals I, VI, VII; short-term; low priority) 3.E.3. The Town should consider improving access to the South Hill Recreation Way by providing access points along the length of the trail, in addition to the existing access points at the ends. (Goals I, VI, VII; intermediate-term; low priority) 3.E.4. The Town should explore ways to improve the aesthetics and security of the walkways in Northeast neighborhoods that are used by students to access the elementary and middle schools. (Goals I, III; short-term; low priority) 3.F. Safety Education & Evaluation: Evaluation 3.F.1. The Town should work with the Ithaca City Police Department, the County Sheriffs Department, the Ithaca City School District, and Cornell to devise a bicyclist and pedestrian safety education strategy for motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians. Cornell has a bicyclist safety education staff member. See Attachment E for potential components of such a strategy. (Goals II, III, V; as feasible; medium priority) 3.F.2. The Safe Routes to School (SR2S) movement is working to ensure that every child has the opportunity to enjoy active transportation to and from school. SR2S can include programs to encourage children to walk or bike to and from school or a school bus stop. Other programs organize a "walking school bus," where parents lead groups of children on a walk to school. SR2S programs can also include building and maintaining a network of sidewalks and crosswalks. Significant amounts of funding are available through the federal and state governments to design and implement SR2S programs. The Town should work with school officials, parents associations, and other stakeholders to explore how the SR2S concept could work for Town of Ithaca elementary and middle schools. (Goals II, III, V; as feasible; medium priority) 3.G. Encouragement Strategy: Strategy The Town should work with other municipalities and advocacy groups to devise a bicycling and walking encouragement strategy that highlights the benefits of biking and walking and encourages residents to take advantage of the Towns bicycling and walking opportunities. See Attachment F for potential components of such a strategy. (Goals I, II, V, VII; as feasible; medium priority) 3.H. Bicycle Equipment: Equipment The Town should explore how adequate, safe bicycle equipment relates to safety, enforcement, and encouragement issues. For example, the Town should consider ways to help residents keep their bicycles and helmets in good working condition. Some safety problems arise from lack of knowledge about safe equipment, such as a lack of lights at night or properly fitted helmets. Education and enforcement (warnings, perhaps) can help to teach the public how to keep their equipment in good working condition. Free or reduced-price equipment may be part of an encouragement strategy. (Goals I, III, V; as feasible; low priority) 4.

114

TRANSIT ISSUES
The expansion of public transit will play an important role in the control of traffic and congestion in the Town. Ithacas terrain and cold and snowy winters present challenges for walking and biking as year-round, widespread transportation options, and some trips are too long to make on foot or on a bike. The expansion of public transit also fulfills the objective of maintaining a system that is accessible to all, including those unable to drive, such as the young, old, low-income, and disabled. The Town should continue to work with TCAT, major employers, and other stakeholders to improve transit opportunities in the Town. (All Goals; ongoing) 4.A. ParkPark-andand-Ride: The Town should work with TCAT, the ITCTC, and major employers, such as Cornell, to develop a Park-and-Ride system, using the findings of the recent origin-destination and Park-and-Ride studies by Cornell and the ITCTC. In this system, Park-and-Ride lots located outside the Town, or on the outskirts of the Town, would catch motorists as they begin their commute into the urbanized area, and transfer them to public transportation or shared rides (for example, a car pool). As West and South Hills in the Town and outlying areas of Tompkins County continue to develop, the impacts of increasing traffic volumes on existing and new neighborhoods need to be addressed. Employers could offer incentives for employees to utilize alternatives to the privately operated, single occupancy motor vehicle, in order to reduce their need for parking facilities. For example, Cornell University currently offers incentives such as Guaranteed Ride Home to encourage its employees to take transit. (Goals I, II, IV, V, VII; ongoing) 4.B. Ease of Use: A common comment is that it is too difficult to use TCAT. The Town should encourage and work with TCAT to make transit service easy to understand and use. (Goals I, V; ongoing) TCAT is already pursuing ideas such as: 4.B.1. Posting bus numbers and schedules at stops, like in the City; 4.B.2. Electronic signs that tell riders the time until the next bus; 4.B.3. Naming bus routes by common names, instead of numbers; 4.B.4. Maintaining and improving consistency in pick-up times and locations throughout the day and throughout the year; 4.B.5. Some riders avoid the bike racks because they are concerned they may use them incorrectly or may embarrass themselves. Demonstration projects can show the public how to use the racks, thereby building confidence. 4.B.6. An automated telephone system that would tell riders how long until the next bus arrives at their stop. 4.B.7. Simplified transit route maps. 4.C. Funding: The Town Board should consider funding for TCAT to ensure adequate levels of transit service in the Town. The Town Board should continue to fund Gadabout to ensure continued service for senior citizens and the disabled in the Town. (Goals I, IV, V; ongoing) 4.D. Transit in Existing & New Development: Development The Town Planning Board and Planning Department should continue to work with TCAT to ensure that new development in the Town is served by transit, where feasible, in terms of the site plan and route extensions (or other enhancements). Ithaca College is an area of existing development that may benefit from expanded transit service, especially as part of a program to reduce car use on campus. West Hill will need increased transit coverage as the area develops. (Goals I, II, IV, V, VI, VII; ongoing)

115

4.E. Other High Occupancy Vehicle Strategies: Strategies The Town should encourage carpool and carshare initiatives from the public and private sector (including educational institutions, such as Cornell and Ithaca College). (Goals I, II, IV, V; as feasible; low priority) 5.

REGIONAL COOPERATION
While it is not a tangible issue, the topic of inter-municipal cooperation must be addressed because transportation decisions in one municipality affects the transportation system in neighboring municipalities. Inter-municipal cooperation will improve the physical and operational characteristics of the transportation network. By sharing resources and working with other municipalities, the Town can ensure a seamless network of infrastructure (including a network of trails, walkways, and paths designed for non-motorized modes) and can improve the condition and safety of roads that run through the Town (including roads not actually owned by the Town). Sharing resources improves the operation of the system, leading to more efficient use of resources for patrols; coordination on construction, maintenance, and reconstruction; expansion of public transit service; and management of truck traffic. Due to the areas unique natural and political boundaries, cooperation could effectively channel growth into appropriate areas, reserve adequate rights-of-way to serve the long-term needs of the area transportation system, and enhance communication among municipal governments, which will lead to effective decision-making. (All Goals; ongoing) 5.A. ITCTC: ITCTC The Town should continue to participate in the Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council (ITCTC). (Goal V; ongoing) 5.B. t-GEIS (Transportation(Transportation-focused Generic Environmental Impact Statement) & TIMS TIMS (Transportation Impact Mitigation Strategies): Strategies) The Town should support the goals and resulting TIMS of Cornells transportation-focused Environmental Impact Statement of 2006 upon its completion, where appropriate. The recommendations of this Plan should inform the development of the TIMS, and updates to this Plan should be receptive to the progress made by TIMS. The t-GEIS and TIMS may result in additional transportation projects or strategies that can be considered by the Town Board as a supplement to those identified in this Transportation Plan. (Goals II, V, VII; ongoing) 5.C. Town Transportation Committee: Committee The Town Transportation Committee should continue to invite representatives from Cornell and the ITCTC to their meetings and should consider inviting representatives from Dryden, Lansing, the City of Ithaca, the County, and other agencies, when relevant topics arise. The Transportation Committee should continue to address current problems and issues and monitor the implementation of the Transportation Plan. (Goal V; shortterm; low priority) 5.D. County Trails: Trails The Town should work with the ITCTC, the County Public Works Department and Planning Departments, NYSDOT, and NYS Parks & Recreation Department to implement a county-wide system of trails, including the Black Diamond Trail, based on the precedent established by the Gateway Trail. (Goals I, V; ongoing) 5.E. ParkPark-andand-Ride: Ride The Town should work with TCAT, the ITCTC, and major employers, such as Cornell, to develop a Park-and-Ride system, using the findings of the recent origin-destination studies by Cornell and the ITCTC. (Goals I, II, IV, V, VII; ongoing) 5.F. Design Issues: Issues The Town is the geographic transition between the urbanized City and the rural parts of the County, Therefore, it is very important for the Town to work with the City, Cornell,

116

and the County to ensure that transportation design is consistent and predictable throughout the area, in the sense that there should not be an abrupt change in design at municipal boundaries. For example, any future joint traffic calming projects should aim to maintain consistency across municipal boundaries, and speed limits should not unexpectedly change at municipal boundaries when the land use remains substantially the same. Regardless of municipality, the design of the roadway should reflect adjacent land uses, gradually becoming more urban as adjacent land uses become more intense. The t-GEIS provides an excellent opportunity to coordinate such issues. (All Goals; ongoing) 5.G. Traffic Demand Management: The Town should work with other organizations and agencies in the public and private sectors to devise traffic demand management strategies to reduce peakhour demand on roadway capacity and to provide incentives, such as greater flexibility or reduced-cost bus passes, to employees. This is a primary focus of the t-GEIS and TIMS. (All Goals; as feasible; medium priority) 5.H. Shared Services and Expertise: Expertise The Town should continue to identify opportunities to share responsibility for services, facilities, equipment, labor, and expertise with the City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York State Department of Transportation, Cornell University, law enforcement agencies, and other entities responsible for the ownership and maintenance of the transportation network. (Goals I, III, IV, V; ongoing) 5.I. Truck Traffic: Traffic The Town should work with the County, the City of Ithaca, the ITCTC, Cornell University, companies that ship or receive shipments, shipping firms, and other regional players in order to address truck traffic patterns that route through residential areas. (Goals I, II, III, IV, V; ongoing) 6.

CAPITAL BUDGET PROJECTS

A Capital Budget is a tool used by governments to strategically plan for major projects, including acquisition of long-term assets and construction of facilities. For example, one project in the Town of Ithaca Capital Budget as of 2005 is the reconstruction of Snyder Hill Road. The Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), part of a Capital Budget, covers five years and is updated annually. As projects are completed, the costs for their operation and maintenance become on-going in the Operating Budget. The goal of capital budgeting is to maximize the benefits of the expenditure of public resources while minimizing negative effects on the municipalitys finances. 6.A. Capital Budget & Horizon: Horizon The Town should continue to budget for capital needs related to transportation projects. The Town may want to consider capital planning for ten years in advance in order to consider the bigger picture and to help make decisions within the context of the Towns expected development. (Goal IV; ongoing) 6.B. Budget Appropriations: The Town should consider annual appropriations for less costly transportation projects, such as segments of walkways, shoulder improvements, or crosswalks, as part of the yearly operating budget. (Goal IV; as feasible; medium priority) 6.C. Other Funding Sources: The Town should apply for additional funds for transportation projects, using programs such as the Transportation Enhancement Program, TIP, funding sources through SAFETEA, and so on. Furthermore, the Town should explore funding sources that are not associated strictly with transportation, such as Quality Communities grants, the NYS Department of Healths Healthy Neighborhoods Program and Healthy Heart Program, the Land and Water

117

Conservation Fund/ Municipal Parks Matching Grant Program, and so on. (Goal IV, V; as feasible; medium priority) 6.D. Specific Projects: Projects The following is a list of projects that could become part of the Capital Budget in the future: 6.D.1. Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements: For a listing of bicycle and pedestrian improvement projects with descriptions, please see Appendix VI and the Prioritized Pedestrian and Bicycle Corridor Needs Maps (Maps 13 and 14). The list below includes all of the corridors identified as high priorities. (Goals I, II, III, IV, V; as feasible; high priority) 6.D.1.1. Danby Road, City line to Ithaca College 6.D.1.2. Hanshaw Road 6.D.1.3. Coddington Road, Ithaca College to City line 6.D.1.4. Pine Tree Road 6.D.1.5. Honness Lane, Slaterville Road to Town walkway 6.D.1.6. Forest Home neighborhood 6.D.1.7. Trumansburg Road, City to Hospital 6.D.1.8. Maple Ave, connection between the City sidewalk and Town walkway 6.D.2. Forest Home Traffic Calming Plan: Implement elements of the Forest Home Traffic Calming Plan (FHTCP), when and where appropriate, upon the completion of the FHTCP and submission to the Town Board. (Goals I, II, III, IV, V; intermediate-term; medium priority) 6.D.3. Other Traffic Calming Locations: The Town could begin to assess suitability and need for traffic calming on other roads. (Goals I, II, III, IV, V; intermediate-term; low priority) 6.D.4. The Gateway Trail: The Gateway Trail is a trail that runs along the boundary between the City and Town that will eventually connect the Black Diamond Trail to the South Hill Recreation Way. (Goals I, II, III, IV, V; ongoing) 6.D.5. Snyder Hill Road Walkway: A road improvement project for Snyder Hill Road is included in the current Capital Budget. The project involves drainage improvements, general layout modifications, shoulder improvements, and possibly a walkway. (Goals I, II, III, IV; ongoing) 7.

ZONING, SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS, AND SITE PLAN REVIEW

This Plan has drawn the connection between land use, zoning, and the design of the road network and the transportation system. Historically, transit and non-motorized transportation have been an afterthought in the development process. The study of the transportation effects of single proposals is often considered in isolation of the greater transportation network. This Plan calls for changes to ensure that the cumulative negative effects of development on the transportation network, as well as on adjacent land uses, are minimized. This Plan recommends that bicycle, pedestrian, and transit opportunities are considered in relation to every development proposal. Also, the Town should work to ensure that the transportation system is able to accommodate proposed development, and that appropriate mitigating measures are addressed during the development review process. The Town should alter subdivision and zoning regulations to lessen dependence on the privately owned and operated motor vehicle and to lessen the strain on the motorized transportation network. Furthermore, the Town

118

should support the findings of the ITCTCs LRTP and the Countys Comprehensive Plan, that is, to encourage node-based and transit-oriented development. (All Goals; ongoing) Attachment G at the end of these Recommendations contains checklists that summarize bicycle and pedestrian issues that should be considered during the site plan review and subdivision approval processes. The checklists are meant to be used by the Planning Department and Planning Board as a supplement to the existing Site Plan and Subdivision Checklists. In addition to the checklists in Attachment G, the Town Planning and Engineering Departments and the Town Planning Board should use the information in this Transportation Plan, and particularly in Volume III: The Design Guidelines when evaluating development proposals. (All Goals; ongoing) The following Recommendations address both positive and negative aspects of existing development trends in the Town of Ithaca. 7.A. Recommendations for Zoning Regulations: 7.A.1. Mixed-Uses: Zoning regulations should encourage appropriate mixed-use zones, such as neighborhood commercial and mixed density residential land uses, that bring the most commonly needed goods and services within easy walking distance of residents and provide a wide range of housing opportunities. The Town should encourage mixed-use development and multi-family dwellings, where appropriate. The Planned Development Zone in the Towns Zoning Code can provide such opportunities. (Goal I, II, VI; as feasible; high priority) 7.A.2. Neighborhood Commercial Zones: The Town should consider adding Neighborhood Commercial Zones to developing areas as recommended in the Comprehensive Plan. In residential zones, the Town should continue to allow home businesses and, in large residential developments, should allow for neighborhood commercial zones and other mixed-use zones. (Goal I, II, VI; ongoing) 7.A.3. Residential Setbacks: In appropriate neighborhood settings, the Town should consider reducing setback requirements to make homes easily accessible from the sidewalk and to create a feeling of pedestrian safety and enclosure. Concerns about proximity to the roadway can be addressed via street trees and other road edge barriers and by limiting the speed and volume of traffic on residential streets. (Goals I, II, VI, VII; intermediateterm; low priority) 7.A.4. Commercial Setbacks: In commercial zones, the Town should consider reducing commercial buildings setback requirements and should locate parking at the rear of the building to encourage transit, biking, and walking. The faade facing the street should be as attractive or more attractive than the face toward the parking lot. (Goals I, II, VI; intermediate-term; low priority) 7.A.5. Garages: In residential zones with narrow lots, the garage door can become a significant part of the houses front faade. The Town should allow garages to be accessed via an alley at the back of the lot. (Goals II, VI; intermediate-term; low priority) 7.A.6. Parking Requirements: Massive parking lots are unattractive, increase polluted stormwater run-off, and are difficult for pedestrians and bicyclists to navigate; therefore, parking lot area should be minimized. The Town should encourage retail parking lots that are designed to accommodate typical peak hour volumes, not the extraordinary volumes that occur only once or twice per year. Therefore, the Town should review the parking standards in the Towns Zoning Code and revise them, where appropriate. The Town should allow reductions in parking requirements for commercial developments that

119

actively encourage alternate modes of transportation. The Town should require generous parking lot landscaping, including trees, and should encourage the use of porous pavement materials for driveways and parking lots. The Town should require bicycle parking in appropriate developments per Volume III: The Design Guidelines. (Goals I, II, III, VI, VII; as feasible; medium priority) 7.B. Recommendations for Subdivision Regulations & Review: 7.B.1. Cluster Subdivisions: The Town Planning Board should encourage the use of cluster-type subdivisions, which discourage land-consumptive patterns and preserve open space. The Subdivision Regulations include provisions for mandating clustering under appropriate circumstances. (Goals I, II, III, VI, VII; ongoing) 7.B.2. Connectivity: Through the subdivision (and site plan) approval process, the Town should promote the greatest possible connectivity between local streets and between nonmotorized facilities to increase the number of linkages, thereby making it easier to get from point A to point B, reducing trip lengths, decreasing out-of-direction travel, increasing the safety of an area by providing alternate emergency access routes, allowing for the possibility of walking and biking as viable forms of transportation, and spreading out the traffic burden across many streets. (Goals I, II, III, VI, VII; ongoing) 7.B.3. Cul-de-sacs: While cul-de-sacs are effective in restricting motor vehicle through-traffic, they are also effective in restricting bicycle and pedestrian transportation. The Town should discourage the use of cul-de-sacs as a development pattern. Developers should be encouraged to examine alternative residential designs that promote connectivity. Where cul-de-sacs are allowed, development proposals should provide bicycle and pedestrian connections to adjacent roadways wherever possible. (Goals I, II, III, VI, VII; ongoing) 7.C. Recommendations for Site Plan Regulations & Review: 7.C.1. Transit: The Town Planning Board should continue to consider transit access and adequacy as part of subdivision and site plan reviews for major new developments. (Goals I, V, VI; ongoing) 7.C.2. Pedestrian Enhancements: The Town should consider sidewalks or walkways, street trees, and pedestrian-scale lighting as part of every residential, commercial, or mixed-use development. (Goals I, II, III, VI, VII; ongoing) 7.C.3. Bicycle & Pedestrian Circulation: The Town should work toward ensuring that commercial sites have clearly delineated crosswalks and adequate sidewalks or walkways that take the shortest and most direct route to connect pedestrian destinations. The walkways or sidewalks should lead from parking areas to building entrances, between various buildings on a site, and to buildings on adjacent sites. (Goals I, III, VI, VII; ongoing) 7.C.4. Impact Evaluation: The Planning Board should ensure that developers proposing an action that requires a traffic impact evaluation identify and mitigate potential negative effects on residential areas and non-motorized aspects of the transportation system, including bicycle, pedestrian, and transit elements. (All Goals; ongoing) 7.C.5. Shared Access: Especially in commercial zones, the Town should require shared access drives between businesses, where appropriate, to allow site circulation that keeps unnecessary vehicle trips off the main roadway. (Goals I, III, IV, VI; ongoing) 7.C.6. Parking: The Town Planning Board should consider requiring developers to locate compact parking spaces closer to the entrance of a building to reward drivers who

120

choose compact cars, to protect pedestrians by moving large vehicles away from the building entrance, and to enhance safety by improving visibility for drivers of compact cars who otherwise would park next to or between large vehicles. The Town should encourage developers to explore porous and light-colored pavements to reduce stormwater runoff and the heat island effect. Where appropriate, the Town should require short, numerous parking lot light poles that are well shielded, to minimize light pollution. Furthermore, as part of the site plan or special permit review process, the Town should discourage business owners from lighting their parking lots beyond what is necessary for security after business hours. (Goals I, II, III, IV, VI, VII; ongoing)

121

ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Recommendations Involving NonNon-Town Entities

Other Involved Municipalities, Organizations & Agencies County Highway Department & NYSDOT County Highway Department & NYSDOT County Legislature & County Highway Department City of Ithaca Police Department, County Sheriff, & NYS Troopers District Attorney & Town Court County Planning Department Forest Home Neighborhood Association City, County, NYSDOT, Ithaca College TCAT County Planning Department & ITCTC City of Ithaca Police Department, County Sheriff, Ithaca City School District, advocacy groups School officials, parents associations, other stakeholders City of Ithaca Police Department & County Sheriff TCAT, ITCTC, Cornell, major employers TCAT ITCTC Cornell University NYSDOT, NYS Parks & Recreation, City of Ithaca Other municipalities, organizations, agencies Recommendation Lower speed limits on certain roads Continue to cooperate on maintenance responsibilities Work together to determine if there are any sensible "road swaps" Town provides funding for enforcement Vigorously prosecute violations in school zones; mandatory safety education in lieu of fines; etc Town cooperates with Northeast Walkability Study Town guides implementation of appropriate parts of the Forest Home Traffic Calming Plan Improve the bicycling/ walking connection between Ithaca College and the downtown of the City of Ithaca Promote connections between bicycling, walking, & transit Expand County-wide multi-use trail system Record Number 2 2 2 2 B C C E 4 5.1 5.2 1&2

2 3 3 3 3 3

E B B B D E

3 3 4 5 1-4 (Also 5.D)

Bicycle & pedestrian safety education strategy 3

Explore opportunities to implement Safe Routes to School programs Enforce bicycle & pedestrian laws Create a Park-and-Ride system

3 3 4

F G A B A B D F

(Also 5.E) 1-5 (Also 4.D)

Recommendations for improvement & 4 expansion of transit. Town continues to participate in the ITCTC 5 Work with Town & other stakeholders on the t5 GEIS & TIMS Implement plans for Black Diamond Trail Implement consistent design standards & Transportation Demand Management (TDM) 5 5

(Also 5.G)

122

Other municipalities and agencies County, City, ITCTC, companies City of Ithaca, private land owners, NYS Parks & Recreation, & Emerson Power Transmission

strategies Explore opportunities to share services, facilities, equipment, labor, and expertise Address truck traffic currently routed through residential areas Create Gateway Trail

5 5

H I

123

Attachment B: Recommendations Per Goal

Goal RecomRecommendation 1. The Trans. Plan Goal I: Access & Mobility Applicable 2.A.1 2.B 2.B.1 2.B.6 2.D 2.E Goal II: Livability Applicable 2.B.1 2.B.2 2.B.3 2.B.4 2.C.3 2.C.4 2.D 2.E Goal III: Safety Applicable 2.A.1 2.B 2.B.1 2.B.2 2.B.3 2.B.4 2.B.5 2.B.6 2.C.3 2.D 2.E 3.A 3.B.1 3.B.5 3.C.1 3.C.2 3.C.3 3.D 3.D.4 3.E.4 3.F.1 3.F.2 3.G 3.I Goal IV: System Management Applicable 2.A.1 2.B.1 2.B.2 2.B.3 2.B.6 2.C.1 2.C.2 2.C.3 2.C.4 2.C.5 3.A 3.B.1 3.B.2 3.B.3 3.B.4 3.C.1 3.C.2 Goal V: Coordination Coordination Applicable 2.C.4 2.C.6 2.E Goal VI: Land Use Planning Applicable 2.A.1 2.B 2.B.1 2.B.6 2.D Goal VII: Environment Applicable 2.B 2.B.1 2.B.4 2.D

2. Roadways

3. Bike & Walking Issues

3.A 3.B.1 3.B.2 3.B.3 3.B.4 3.B.5 3.C.1 3.C.2 3.C.3 3.D 3.D.1

3.D.2 3.D.3 3.D.4 3.E 3.E.1 3.E.2 3.E.3 3.E.4 3.H 3.I

3.A 3.B.1 3.B.2 3.B.3 3.B.4 3.B.5 3.C.1 3.C.3 3.D

3.D.1 3.D.3 3.D.4 3.E 3.E.1 3.F.1 3.F.2 3.G 3.H

3.A 3.B.1 3.B.2 3.B.3 3.B.4 3.C.3 3.D 3.D.1

3.D.2 3.D.3 3.D.4 3.E 3.F.1 3.F.2 3.G 3.H 3.I

3.A 3.C.1 3.C.3 3.D 3.D.3 3.E 3.E.1 3.E.2 3.E.3

3.A 3.B.1 3.C.1 3.E 3.E.1 3.E.2 3.E.3 3.H

4. Transit

5. Cooperation

4.A 4.B 4.C 4.D 4.E 5.B 5.D 5.E 5.F 5.G 5.H 5.I

4.A 4.D 4.E

4.A 4.C 4.D 4.E 5.F 5.G 5.H 5.I 5.E 5.F 5.G 5.H 5.I

4.A 4.B 4.C 4.E 5.A 5.B 5.C 5.D 5.E 5.F 5.G 5.H 5.I

4.D

4.A 4.D

5.E 5.F 5.G 5.I

5.F 5.G

5.B 5.E 5.F 5.G

124

Goal RecomRecommendation 6. Budgeting

Goal I: Access & Mobility

Goal II: Livability Livability

Goal III: Safety

7. Land Use Planning

7.A.1 7.A.2 7.A.3 7.A.4 7.A.6 7.B.1 7.B.2

7.B.3 7.C.1 7.C.2 7.C.3 7.C.4 7.C.5 7.C.6

7.A.1 7.A.2 7.A.3 7.A.4 7.A.5 7.A.6 7.B.1

7.B.2 7.B.3 7.C.2 7.C.4 7.C.6

7.A.6 7.B.1 7.B.2 7.B.3 7.C.2 7.C.3 7.C.4 7.C.5 7.C.6

Goal IV: System Management 6.A 6.B 6.C 7.A.1 7.A.2 7.A.3 7.C.4 7.C.5 7.C.6

Goal V: Coordination 6.C

Goal VI: Land Use Planning

Goal VII: Environment

7.C.1 7.C.4 7.C.5

7.A.4 7.A.5 7.A.6 7.B.1 7.B.2 7.B.3

7.C.1 7.C.2 7.C.3 7.C.4 7.C.5 7.C.6

7.A.3 7.A.6 7.B.1 7.B.2 7.B.3 7.C.2 7.C.3 7.C.4 7.C.6

125

Attachment C: TimeTime-Frames and Priorities for New Initiatives

This table shows the anticipated time frames and priorities for new initiatives in the Recommendations. The table does not include ongoing or preexisting actions. The Recommendations in this table are paraphrased; please see the Recommendations Chapter for more information about each item.
Priority Low Priority Time-Frame Consider maintaining all or part of the South Hill Recreation Way as a yearround commuter route (3.E.2) Explore ways to improve safety and aesthetics of walkways around the schools in the Northeast neighborhoods (3.E.4) Continue to invite other agencies to Transportation Committee meetings (5.C) Promote Bike-and-Ride (3.D.1) Promote bicycling at transit stops (3.D.2) Improve access to the South Hill Recreation Way (3.E.3) Assess suitability and need for traffic calming in neighborhoods across the Town (6.D.3)
Reduce residential and commercial setbacks to improve walkability (7.A.3, 7.A.4)

Medium Priority Perform minor improvements as noted by the Crash Screenings (2.C.3) Explore the possibility of trading responsibility for certain roads with the County (2.C.5.2)

High Priority Adopt this Transportation Plan (1.A) Amend or update the Comprehensive Plan (1.B) Adopt the Official Highway Map (2.A) By adopting this Transportation Plan, revise the interim Town Sidewalk Policy of 2003 (3.A)

Short-term

Intermediate-term

Allow garages to be accessed via a rear alley (7.A.5) Long-term Improve the connections and transitions between walking, biking, & transit (3.D) Perform feasibility analysis for Northeast connector road recommended by NESTS

Study benefits and costs of a North Campus Gateway connector road (2.F.2) Work with the County on the Northeast Walkability Study and its implementation to improve walkability in the Northeast (3.B.3) Implement the Forest Home Traffic Calming Plan, as appropriate (3.B.4, 6.D.2) Improve the connection between Ithaca College and downtown Ithaca (3.B.5)

Review and update the Transportation Plan after five or ten yearsalso long-term (1.C) Implement plans for a West Hill connector road (2.F.1)

Review and update the Transportation Plan after five or ten yearsalso intermediateterm (1.C)

126

Priority Low Priority Time-Frame (2.F.3) Explore ways to reduce deer-related crashes (2.B.5) Designate roads of visual, cultural, or historical significance as Official Town Scenic Routes (2.C.4.6) Provide funding for targeted traffic law enforcement campaigns (2.E.2) Prosecute traffic violations in school zones when children are present. Consider safety education instead of fines for traffic law infractions (2.E.3) Explore how adequate, safe bicycle equipment relates to safety, enforcement, and encouragement issues (3.H) Explore high occupancy vehicle strategies, such as car sharing (4.E) Explore ways to reduce vehicular speeds in neighborhoods besides traffic law enforcement (2.E.4) Connect developments with multi-use trails to allow residents to get around via biking and walking and to access transit stops in other developments (3.D.4) Work with other stakeholders to implement a bicycle and pedestrian safety education strategy (3.F.1) Determine how the Safe Routes to School concept could work for schools in the Town (3.F.2) Work with other stakeholders to implement a bicycling and walking encouragement strategy (3.G) Work with other stakeholders to devise traffic demand management strategies (5.G) Consider budget appropriations for transportation projects that are too small to appear in the Capital Budget (6.B) Apply for additional funds for transportation projects, and explore funds not strictly associated with transportation (6.C) Minimize parking lot area, explore the use of pervious pavements, and implement other changes to make parking lots more environmentally friendly and less intrusive (7.A.6) Use the information in the Design Guidelines to guide the development of the transportation network (2.B.1, 3.C.1) Implement design responses to mitigate excessive speeds and cut-through traffic in neighborhoods (2.B.4.1) Explore traffic calming as a way to improve neighborhood livability and safety (2.D) Require bicycle and pedestrian facilities in appropriate new developments, and retrofit bicycle and pedestrian facilities into appropriate existing development (3.B.1) Implement bicycle and pedestrian improvements, as described in Appendix VI and the Prioritized Pedestrian & Bicycle Needs Maps (6.D.1) Encourage appropriate mixed-use development (7.A.1) Medium Priority High Priority

As feasible

127

Attachment Attachment D: The Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan & The Transportation Plan
One of the goals of the Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan (1993) is to provide a transportation system that is safe, efficient, convenient, and environmentally sustainable. To this end, the Comprehensive Plan recommended the creation of a separate Transportation Plan. This attachment states the objectives of the Comprehensive Plans transportation goal, paraphrases the recommended actions for each objective, and outlines the ways in which this Transportation Plan fulfills the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Objective 1: A reduced need for cars in the greater Ithaca area through development of a diversified transportation system which emphasizes more fuel-efficient forms of transportation such as public transit, bicycling, and walking. a) Develop Park & Ride; encourage carpools and vanpools, bicycle and pedestrian travel, and public transit: transit This Plan references and supports the recent efforts by the ITCTC to create a Park & Ride system for Tompkins County. Recommendation 4.A discusses Park-and-Ride, 4.E covers carpools and other high-occupancy vehicle strategies, Recommendation 3 describes ways the Town could encourage bicycle and pedestrian travel, and Recommendation 4 outlines ways the Town could encourage transit use. b) Pedestrian Circulation Plan: Plan Map 13, Prioritized Pedestrian Corridors Needs in Volume II: The Appendices will serve as the Towns Pedestrian Circulation Plan. c) Bicycle Circulation Plan: Plan Map 14, Prioritized Bicycle Corridors Needs in Volume II: The Appendices will serve as the Towns Bicycle Circulation Plan. d) Improve and expand public transit: transit Recommendation 4 addresses transit issues. e) Integrate elements of the transportation network that se serve rve to reduce automobile use: use This is one of the main themes of this Transportation Plan. In particular, Recommendations 3, 4, & 7 address this issue. Objective 2: An appropriate transportation network. a) Create Transportation Plan: Plan Adoption of this Transportation Plan fulfills this recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan. b) Classify roads according to existing and desired functions: functions After adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in 1993, an MPO (metropolitan planning organization), the Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council, was established for the Ithaca urbanized area. The ITCTC worked with the Town to apply the federal functional classification system to Ithaca-area roadways. The federal functional classification therefore serves as the de facto classification system recommended by of the Comprehensive Plan. For more information about functional classification, see the Roadway Function and Right-of-Way Design section of Volume I: The Plan. c) Update the Official Highway Map and protect planned planned transportation corridors: corridors This Plan includes an updated Draft Official Highway Map. The Official Highway Map will be one tool for the Town to use when planning a new transportation corridor. d) Participate in the MPO: MPO The Town is a part of the local MPO, the Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council (ITCTC). e) Create buffers between land uses & arterials: arterials This is addressed in Volume III: The Design Guidelines in The Road Edge section of Streetscape Design: Best Practices Toolbox.

128

f) Partic Participate ipate in Federal Aid System Mapping: Mapping This was completed previous to this Plan. g) Prepare and implement a Streetscape Plan: Plan Volume III: The Design Guidelines includes the Streetscape Design: Best Practices Toolbox, which outlines specific elements that contribute to safe, aesthetically pleasing roadways that serve all users, including motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians, and residents. Volume III also includes toolboxes of options for bicycle and pedestrian design and for traffic calming. h) Require transportation provisions in new development: development The Town already requires various transportation improvements, including walkways and crosswalks, as part of the subdivision and site plan review processes. The Plan explicitly addresses this issue in Recommendations 3, 4, & 7, as well as throughout Volume III: The Design Guidelines. i) Equitable development impact fees: fees This is beyond the scope of this Plan. j) Barge Canal System: System This is also beyond the scope of this Plan. Objective 3: Appropriate accident prevention strategies. a) (Re)design and (re)construct roadways to be safe, efficient, and to encourage compliance with posted speed limits: limits Roadway design and its effects on motorist behavior, bicyclist and pedestrian safety, and neighborhood livability is addressed at length in Volume I: The Plan in the Roadway Function and Right-of-Way Design section and throughout the entirety of Volume III: The Design Guidelines. b) Employ appropriate signage & traffic controls: controls Volume III: The Design Guidelines recommends that signage should relate to a human scale, in order to promote aesthetically pleasing streetscapes. The Town currently uses the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) to guide selection and implementation of traffic controls, although traffic controls with regards to bicyclists and pedestrians is covered in the Volume III: The Design Guidelines section of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure Design: Best Practices Toolbox entitled, Traffic Signals and Crosswalks. c) Ensure Ensure that large volumes of traffic are not routed through residential areas or awkward intersections: intersections This objective is difficult to accomplish, because there is very limited right-of-way available for new roadways in the Town and because many existing roadways are owned by the County or State. Still, the Plan emphasizes the need for inter-municipal cooperation, particularly in Recommendation 5, the need to reduce motor vehicle volumes, and the need to reduce the negative impacts of motor vehicle traffic on residential areas. d) Assign priorities based on data in Comprehensive Plan: Plan The Comprehensive Plan was completed approximately 13 years ago. This Plan includes updated data on traffic volumes, speeds, and crashes to ensure that priorities are assigned based on need. e) Provide safe pedestrian crossings: crossings Safe pedestrian crossings are addressed in Volume III: The Design Guidelines under the section of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure Design: Best Practices Toolbox entitled, Traffic Signals and Crosswalks. f) Physical separation of pedestrian paths and bikeways from roads carrying large volumes of traffic: traffic In some cases, physical separation of motorized and non-motorized facilities is neither practical nor desirable, and physical separation may not be the best way to prevent bicycle- or pedestrian-related crashes. Volume III: The Design Guidelines addresses this issue by explaining the various options for non-motorized transportation infrastructure, the costs and benefits of each type, and the various situations in which each may be appropriate.

129

Objective 4: Minimal negative impacts on people and the environment from traffic, road maintenance, road construction, noise, exhaust, and the like. a) Protect residential areas from adverse effects traffic traffic: raffic Volume III: The Design Guidelines, in particular the Streetscape Design: Best Practices Toolbox section addresses this via limiting roadway widths, calming traffic, promoting road edge buffers between roadways and residences (such as roadside vegetation, also addressed in Recommendation 2.C.4.1), and so on. b) Plan routine road maintenance activities for safety & environmental sensitivity: sensitivity This is addressed in Recommendation 2.C. c) Design arterial and collector roads to be adequately adequately landscaped, landscaped, visually pleasing, buffered from residential areas, and respectful of natural land contour: contour Roadway design that fulfills this objective is outlined in detail in Volume III: The Design Guidelines and in the Recommendations (in particular, Recommendation 2.C.4). d) Avoid environmentally sensitive areas when designing or approving new roads: roads This is addressed in Recommendation 2.C.4.7. Objective 5: Future development designed so as to minimize adverse impacts on present roadway efficiency and safety, as well as future road corridor locations. a) Limit development to what system can support: support Currently, the Town can require developers working with significant proposals to provide trip generation estimates. The Town can require developers to include bicycle and pedestrian accommodations in their proposals or to provide other mitigation strategies to lessen the impact that their development would produce on the transportation system. It is beyond the scope of this Plan to recommend how development can be limited to what the system can support. b) Limit the number of individual access points onto arterials and collectors and consider shared driveways: driveways Recommendation 2.B.6 addresses access management. c) Reduce impacts from development outside the Town: Town It is difficult for the Town to reduce impacts from development outside the Town, but the Town is committed to working with other municipalities and major traffic generators, as suggested in the Comprehensive Plan. This willingness to cooperate with other municipalities, agencies, and organizations is addressed throughout the Transportation Plan, in the ITCTCs Long Range Transportation Plan, and the efforts to create a Park & Ride system. d) Require trip trip generation information from developers: developers Currently, the Town can require developers working with significant proposals to provide trip generation estimates. e) Identify & protect future roadway corridors: corridors This is the purpose of the Official Highway Map. Objective 6: Promotion, protection, and enhancement of agricultural and scenic resources along rural roads in the Town. a) Consider designation of scenic roads: roads Attachment F in Volume I: The Plan notes that roads of visual, cultural, or historical significance can be designated as official scenic byways as part of a tourism strategy. Recommendation 2.C.4.6 also addresses this issue. b) Limit Town road projects in sensitive areas: areas Recommendation 2.C addresses this issue.

130

Attachment E: Ideas for Bicyclist and Pedestrian Safety Education and Evaluation
Safety Safety Education: Education Children: Investigate ways to support local Safe Routes to Schools initiatives. Encourage elementary schools to include bicycle and pedestrian safety units in their physical education classes. Bike Safety for Kids should be actively promoted in elementary and middle schools. The Town could provide funding to ICSD to certify P.E. teachers in a recognized biking and walking safety program. Alternatively, the funding could be used to provide a biking and walking safety education seminar through the Town Recreation Department. Bicyclists: Issue a press release that clarifies bicycle-related laws, and include the press release on the City, Town, or County website. Locate Walk your bike on the sidewalk signs next to bicycle parking. Coordinate a county-wide Share the Road program, incorporating sharrows into appropriate roadways (see photo from San Francisco above)100. College Students: Target college students for safety education. Supplement existing Ithaca College and Cornell University programs. Freshman orientation is a perfect time for an educational campaign. Motorists: Print small stickers that sit on the car door mirror to remind motorists to look before opening their car doors in a Watch for Bikes campaign. General Public: Public Prepare a Large Truck Campaign that allows bicyclists and pedestrians to sit in the drivers seats of large vehicles, so they can understand the blind spots of the vehicles and how to remain safe around them. At the same time, truck operators are educated on proper road safety procedures regarding bicyclists and pedestrians. Include all stakeholders in bicycle and pedestrian safety in programs, including insurance companies, health care professionals, police, etc. Print and distribute wallet-sized What to do in the event of a crash cards, including important phone numbers, information to report, etc. Support the educational efforts of the Cornell Local Roads Program. Local driving education courses should teach motor vehicle safety regarding bicyclists and pedestrians. Educational information must stress that bicycles are considered motor vehicles, and thus are subject to the same rules of the road as motor vehicles. Educational literature should include specific information about our non-motorized transportation systemfor example, locations of trailsas well as universal safety rules for bicyclists and pedestrians.

100

BPAC, 2006

131

Safety Evaluation Every other year, the Town Planning Department should use the Freedom of Information Act to acquire crash reports from the DMV, create a database of the information contained in the reports, and incorporate the database into a GIS. The Planning Department should analyze the information for crash clusters, and determine if there is a pattern to crashes in each cluster. The Planning Department should encourage bicyclists and pedestrians involved in non-reportable crashes (i.e. crashes resulting in no personal injury and less than $1,000 property damage) to report the crashes to the Safety Program for analysis by submitting the information via a form on the Towns website. Finally, the Planning Department should work with local law enforcement agencies to expand the database for the entire County.

132

Attachment F: Ideas for a Biking and Walking Encouragement Strategy

This attachment outlines components that could become part of an effective walking and bicycling encouragement strategy. The purpose of this attachment is to provide a starting point for the creation of a biking and walking encouragement strategy. Public Awareness Awareness Campaigns: Campaigns: Initiate bike- or walk-to-work days, weeks, or months. Consider other creative encouragement programs: bike repair classes, mountain bike or hike promotions, provision of free or subsidized bicycles to qualifying low-income residents, free helmet-fittings, helmet discount coupons or sales, helmets as contest prizes, and incentives like parking cash-out for employees who walk, bike, or take transit instead of driving. Use public service announcements (PSAs) to distribute bicycle safety information and encourage bicycle use. Include a Bicycle and Pedestrian corner in the biannual newsletter. Provide literature on the bicyclist and pedestrian facilities in the area, including Town Recreation Ways, the Plantations Path, and other multi-use trails. Targeted Campaigns: Campaigns: Cyclists: Cyclists can be reached through cycling clubs, such as the Finger Lakes Cycling Club, local bike shops, RIBS (Recycle Ithacas Bicycles), and other existing organizations. Sport and Recreation users: Promote walking and bicycling through the Towns existing Parks and Recreation programs. For example, provide maps and promotional literature at Town parks. In addition, triathlon and cycling athletes at Cornell, Ithaca College, and in the community are a potential audience. College students: College students are an ideal target audience because the modal share of bicycling and walking is very high in this group. Many college students in the area do not bring cars to campus, and many live in neighborhoods where parking is scarce. College promotional campaigns should focus on safety education and encouraging students to not bring cars to campus. School-aged children: Children are also more likely to walk or bike than average (as they are unable to drive). Potential promotional events for children include: Safe Routes 2 School programs; Bike or Walk to School or Work Day; the Walking School Bus (i.e. a parent is the bus driver who walks their child to school and picks up other kids to ride the walking school bus on the way). Tourists: Consider how bicycle & pedestrian facilities can work as a tourist amenity. Consider designating roads of visual, cultural, or historical significance as official scenic byways under the New York Scenic Roads Program (Article 49, New York State Environmental Conservation Law). Work with the Chamber of Commerce and other tourism promotion agencies to promote Ithaca as a destination for walkers, cyclists, hikers, and others. Individual Campaigns: Campaigns: Persons issued traffic tickets or summons by law enforcement as part of a Town program should be encouraged or required to attend educational seminars or to review educational information as part of or in lieu of their fine or to reduce or eliminate the number of points on the drivers license. This program could easily be expanded to all municipalities in Tompkins County.

133

Doctors and public health officials could distribute information on safe walking and biking to their patients and clients. Means of Distribution: Distribution: Recognizing that there is little the Town can do on its own, establish relationships with other public, private, and not-for-profit organizations for the promotion of safe and enjoyable bicycle and pedestrian opportunities. Educational literature could be made available in the Town Hall lobby. The audience is people coming in to pay their taxes, to see the Clerk, to attend the Town Court, Town Board, Planning Board, or Zoning Board, and so on. People often wait in the lobby before and after their appointments; this is a good opportunity to offer interesting and informative material to help pass their time. Promotional materials should be made available along with copies of this Transportation Plan.

134

Attachment G: Site Plan Review Checklist

SITE PLAN REVIEW TRANSPORTATION CHECKLIST CHECKLIST

The purpose of this checklist is to provide planners, Planning Board members, developers, and other stakeholders in the development process with a summary of the most important bicycle- and pedestrianrelated issues that should be addressed during the site plan review process. Since it would be possible to answer all of the following questions affirmatively, yet still have an environment that is unpleasant or unsafe for bicyclists or pedestrians, stakeholders should also consider the following broad questions: Does this development promoting walking and biking? Will this development result in an environment that is pleasant for people on foot or bicycle?

(Note: page numbers within this checklist refer to Volume III: The Design Guidelines of The Town of Ithaca Transportation Plan of 2007.)

Site Layout (see pages 99-11) (Y) (N) As far as possible and where appropriate, are buildings oriented toward the street? Are access points (driveways) to the site consolidated and minimized? Are buildings on the site clustered, to encourage people to walk between buildings, instead of moving their cars?

Motor Vehicle Parking (see pages 1010-11) (Y) (N) Is motor vehicle parking at the side or rear of the site? Is the parking lot size minimized as far as possible? Is there ample landscaping, especially shade trees, throughout the parking lot? Are parking lot lights numerous, set close to the ground, and adequately shielded to prevent glare and light trespass? Is it possible to use a surface more pervious than asphalt?

135

Bicycle Parking (see pages 3030-31) (Y) (N) Are there a sufficient number of bicycle parking spaces Is the proposed type of rack adequate? Will the racks be located as close as possible to the entrance of the building that they will serve? Does the site plan show that the racks will be installed correctly?

Pedestrian Circulation & Accessibility (see pages 99-11, 2424-26) (Y) (N) (Y) (N) Are the pedestrian paths continuous, delineated, and clearly visible to motorists and pedestrians? Does the site plan meet ADA guidelines, where possible? Do paths lead directly from parking lots, building entrances, and other locations on adjacent sites? Are walkways, sidewalks, or on-site paths designed correctly? Problems to avoid include: Does the walkway have five feet of clear space, without utility poles, signs, mailboxes, etc in the middle of it? Are the walkways free of barriers, such as fences or landscaping)? If there is underground drainage, are the inlets flush against the curb, instead of a grate in the bicyclists path? Is the bicyclists path free of manholes?

Site Amenities (see pages 11-4, 99-11) (Y) (N) Is the site constructed at a human scale (are signs small, are light poles low to the ground, is the building faade visually interesting without long, blank, windowless stretches of wall)? Where possible and appropriate, does the site plan create outdoor rooms or memorable public spaces, with benches, fountains, landscaping, tree canopies, public art, and other enhancements?

136

The Town of Ithaca Transportation Plan Volume II: The Appendices

Version: April 25, 2007 Town of Ithaca Town Board Contact: jkanter@town.ithaca.ny.us

.. ..1 Appendix I: Maps... ..1 Map 1: Regional Map of the Finger Lakes..1 Map 2: New York State, Tompkins County, and the Town of Ithaca...2 Map 3: Topography of the Town of Ithaca...3 Map 4: Official Highway Map of the Town of Ithaca..4 Map 5: Functional Classification of Roads in the Town of Ithaca.5 Map 6: Traffic Volume Data: Counter Locations and Counts.6 Map 7: Population Density, Functional Classification ....7 Map 8: Speed Limits in the Town of Ithaca.....8 Map 9: Locations of Serious Crashes: 1999-2001.9 Map 10: Locations of Serious Animal Crashes: 1999-2001..10 Map 11: TCAT Stops and Routes in the Town of Ithaca (February 2005)...11 Map 12: Existing and Planned Trails and Parks in the Town...12 Map 13: Prioritized Pedestrian Corridor Needs ..13 Map 14: Prioritized Bicycle Corridor Needs.14 Appendix II: Supplementary Tables. Tables.... .... ...15 Demographic Data.15 Road Jurisdictions of the Town of Ithaca.23 Volume Data for Select Roads25 Capacity (LOS) Data for Select Intersections.27 Speed Data.29 Crash Data..31 Appendix III: Town of Ithaca Transportation Survey.... Survey......32 .....32 Appendix IV: Intersection and Road Segment Analysis.. Analysis...47 ..47 Intersections..48 Segments.56 Crash Screening..64 Appendix V: Sidewalk Ordinances and Polices. Polices.78 78 Appendix VI: Identifying & Prioritizing Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements.. Improvements..86 Pedestrian Corridors: Selection and Prioritization....86 Bicycle Corridors: Selection and Prioritization..90 Appendix VII VII: II: Public Participation. Participation.,, .,,.95 ,,.95 First Public Information Meeting..95 Second Public Information Meeting96 Third Public Information Meetings..98 Comments from Formal Public Hearings..101 Appendix VIII VIII: III: Works Cited and Further Information Information. .......... ........... ....... .......... ........123 .....123 Appendix IX: IX: Acronyms. Acronyms. . .. .129 129

APPENDIX II: SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES

DEMOGRAPHIC DATA
Figure A - 1.: Modal Split of Journey to Work by Municipality, 2000 Census Universe: Workers age 16 years and over a. Raw Data (reported by numbers) Primary Mode City of Ithaca Town of Ithaca Tompkins County New York Car, truck, or van: 5,841 5,741 34,118 5,377,096 Drive alone 4,767 4,757 28,339 4,620,178 Carpool 1,074 984 5,779 756,918 Public transportation: 1,050 532 2,286 2,006,194 Bus or trolley bus 1,043 512 2,245 475,389 Streetcar or trolley car 0 0 0 6,058 Subway or elevated 0 16 16 1,217,009 Railroad 0 0 0 228,215 Ferryboat 0 0 0 11,626 Taxicab 7 4 25 67,897 Motorcycle 12 4 80 3,625 Bicycle 236 116 407 25,036 Walk 5,493 1,892 7,951 511,721 Other means 45 56 127 40,375 Work at home 658 427 2,425 247,869 TOTAL: 13,335 8,768 47,394 8,211,916 b. . Compiled Data (reported as a percentage of universe)
Modal Split of Journey to Work by Municipality, 2000 Census
1 00% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 1 0% 0% Car, truck, o r van Public transit Walked B icycle Wo rked at ho me
8%6% 5% 4% 24% 22% 17% 6% 3% 2%1% 1%0%0% 5%5%5%3%3% 44% 41% 88% 72% 66% 66%

United States 112,736,101 97,102,050 15,634,051 6,067,703 3,206,682 72,713 1,885,961 658,097 44,106 200,144 142,424 488,497 3,758,982 901,298 4,184,223 128,279,228

City of Ithaca

Town of Ithaca

Percent

Tompkins County

New York State

United States

Prim ary Mode

c. Modal Split of Journey to Work by Municipality, 2000 Census (Continued) Primary Mode City of Ithaca Town of Tompkins New York State Ithaca County Car, truck, or van 43.8% 65.5% 72.0% 65.5% Public transit 7.9% 6.1% 4.8% 24.4% Bicycle 1.8% 1.3% 0.9% 0.3% Walk 41.4% 21.6% 16.8% 6.2% Motorcycle 0.09% 0.05% 0.17% 0.04% Other means 0.3% 0.6% 0.3% 0.5% Work at home 4.9% 4.9% 5.1% 3.0% 15

United States 87.9% 4.4% 0.4% 2.9% 0.11% 0.7% 3.3%

Figure A - 2: Students v. Non-Students, Modal Split, 2000 Census

Modal Split of Journey to Work, 2000 Census Student v. Non-Student Population

Attending College
68 %

Not Attending College

80% 70% 60% 50%

31 %

40% 30%

7%

9%

20% 10% 0% Drive alone

14 %

49 %

5%

6%

1%

2%

1%

Car-pool

Transit

P rim a ry M o de

Walk

Bike

Other Means

1%

Work at Home

Figure A - 3: Travel Time to Work by Municipality, 2000 Census Universe: Workers aged 16 years and older a. Raw Data (reported as numbers) Travel Time Did not work at home: Less than 5 minutes 5 to 9 minutes 10 to 14 minutes 15 to 19 minutes 20 to 24 minutes 25 to 29 minutes 30 to 34 minutes 35 to 39 minutes 40 to 44 minutes 45 to 59 minutes 60 to 89 minutes 90 or more minutes Worked at home Total: City of Ithaca 12,677 683 2,755 3,474 2,936 1,350 452 531 43 164 122 115 52 658 13,335 Town of Ithaca 8,341 494 2,346 2,115 1,516 802 180 356 44 88 157 170 73 427 8,768 Tompkins County 44,969 2,084 7,349 9,717 9,395 7,531 2,160 3,268 373 657 1,092 935 408 2,425 47,394 New York 7,964,047 219,036 680,270 956,590 1,020,084 1,013,757 399,384 1,058,688 203,722 340,311 806,556 848,185 417,464 247,869 8,211,916 United States 124,095,005 4,180,407 13,687,604 18,618,305 19,634,328 17,981,756 7,190,540 16,369,097 3,212,387 4,122,419 9,200,414 6,461,905 3,435,843 4,184,223 128,279,228

16

3%

6%

b. Compiled Data (reported as percentage of universe) Travel Time City of Ithaca Town of Ithaca Tompkins County < 5 min. 5.1% 5.6% 4.4% 5-9 min. 20.7% 26.8% 15.5% 10-14 min. 26.1% 24.1% 20.5% 15-19 min. 22.0% 17.3% 19.8% 20-24 min. 10.1% 9.1% 15.9% 25 min. + 11.1% 12.2% 18.8% 90 min. + 1.3% 0.8% 2.8% Work at home 4.9% 4.9% 5.1% c. Graphed Data

New York State 2.7% 8.3% 11.6% 12.4% 12.3% 49.6% 15.4% 3.0%

United States 3.3% 10.7% 14.5% 15.3% 14.0% 36.1% 2.7% 3.3%

Travel Time to Work by Municipality, 2000 Census

36% 27% 24% 21% 17% 20% 15%

40% 35% 30% Percentage 25%

16%

16% 14%

20% 15% 10%

6% 4% 3%

19%

Tow n of Ithaca Tompkins County United States

15%

11%

9%

12%

5% 0%

< 5 min.

5-9 min.

1 0-1 4 min.

1 5-1 9 min.

20-24 min.

25 min. +

1% 3% 3%
90 min. +

Travel Time to Work

17

5% 5% 3%
Work at home

Figure A - 4: Vehicles per Household, Student v. Non-Student Households, 2000 Census

Number of Vehicles per Household, Student v. Non-Student Households, 2000 Census
Attending College
70% 60% 58.3% 43.9%

Not Attending College

Percentage of Households

50% 40.6% 40% 30% 20% 1 0% 0% none one 9.1 % 8.4% 1 8.8%

1 3.9% 7.2%

two

three or more

Num ber of Vehicles

Figure A - 5: Public Transportation Use by Travel Time to Work, 2000 Census a. Table Travel Time to Work <30 min. Transit Use 30-44 min. Transit Use 45-59 min. Transit Use >60 min. Transit Use b. Graph
Mode by Travel Time to Work, Town of Ithaca, 2000 Census
Transit Other Modes

City of Ithaca 91.9% 7.5% 5.8% 20.1% 1.0% 16.4% 1.3% 3.0%

Town of Ithaca 89.4% 5.2% 5.9% 23.4% 1.9% 18.5% 2.9% 0%

Tompkins County 85.0% 4.3% 9.6% 11.4% 2.4% 9.7% 3.0% 3.4%

New York State 53.8% 8.2% 20.1% 31.7% 10.1% 47.8% 15.9% 60.1%

United States 65.5% 1.7% 19.1% 6.7% 7.4% 11.4% 8.0% 20.6%

>60 min. Travel Time to Work

2.9% 0.0% 1.9% 18.5% 5.9% 23.4% 89.4% 5.2%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

45-59 min.

30-44 min.

<30 min.

Percentage of Commuters

18

Figure A - 6: Private Vehicle Person Trips by Trip Purpose (Ithaca Urbanized Area), 2001 NHTS
Average Number of Person Trips per Purpose per Day in a Private Vehicle, 2001 NHTS 1.8

Number of Trips per Person

1.61

1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 Earn a Living Family/ Personal Civic, Edu, Religious Social/ Rec Other 0.28 0.03 0.66 0.84

Trip Purpose

Figure A - 7: Alternate Mode Person Trips by Trip Purpose (Ithaca Urbanized Area), 2001 NHTS
Average Number of Person Trips per Purpose per Day via an Alternate Mode, 2001 NHTS
0.3
0. 25

Average Number of Trips per Person per Day

0.25
0. 19

0.2 0.15

Earn a Living Family/ Personal

0. 13

0. 07

0.1 0.05

0. 08

Civic, Edu, Religious Social/ Rec

0. 02 0. 01

0. 01

0. 01 0. 01 0. 01 0. 01 0. 01

0. 01

0. 01

Other

Walk

Public Transit Alternate Mode

Bike

School Bus

19

Figure A - 8: Trip Purpose, NPTS & NHTS (Note: In 2001, the values for bicycle travel were calculated by taking the values from the other category and subtracting from it walk and school bus.)

Average Daily Trips by Purpose

1995 NPTS (Weekdays) 2.5 2001 NHTS (Weekdays) 1995 NPTS (Weekends) 2001 NHTS (Weekends)

1. 7

2 Trip Purpose

1. 88 2

94 1.

1.5
0. 95
99 0.

0. 3

0. 3

0.5

0. 56

59 0.

76 0.

0. 99

1. 5

0 Earn a Living Family/ Personal Civic, Edu, Religious Number of Trips Made Social/ Rec

01 0.

Average Daily Miles Travelled per Person by Purpose

1995 NPTS (Weekdays) 25
.6 19

2001 NHTS (Weekdays)

1995 NPTS (Weekends)

2001 NHTS (Weekends)

20 Number of Miles

9. 9

11 .5

13 .2

15

.9 13

13 .7

8. 4

10

9. 3

3. 6

2. 2

2. 0

2. 5

0. 4

0 Earn a Living Family/ Personal Civic, Edu, Religious Purpose Social/ Rec

0. 0

1 1.

0 0.

Other

20

3. 1

2 4.

6. 6

14 .9

0. 06 0 0. 0

Other

Average Daily Trip Length by Purpose

1995 NPTS (Weekdays) 12
10 .3 10 .5 10 .7

2001 NHTS (Weekdays)

1995 NPTS (Weekends)

10 .9

2001 NHTS (Weekends)

10 8 Trip Length
7. 6 8. 1

7. 3

10 .2

7. 2

7. 2

7. 0

6 4

5. 5

4. 5

4. 1

4. 3

6. 7

2 0 Earn a Living Family/ Personal Civic, Edu, Religious Trip Purpose Social/ Rec

1. 8

7. 3 0. 4

Other

Figure A - 1: Trip Mode, NPTS & NHTS (Note: In 2001, the values for bicycle travel were calculated by taking the values from the other category and subtracting from it walk and school bus.)
Average Daily Person Trips by Mode
1995 NPTS 2001 NHTS

1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.02 0.02 0 Private Vehicle Public Transit Bike Walk Other/ Unknown 0.03 0.02 0.12 0.07 0.08 1.16 0.96

Average Trips per Person

0.02

Mode

0. 0

Average Daily Miles Traveled per Person by Mode

1 995 NP TS 2001NHTS

14 12 Average Miles Traveled per Person per Day 10

12.45

7.96 8 6 4 2 0.08 0 Private Vehicle Public Transit Bike Mode Walk Other/ Unknow n 0.16 0.1 0.07 0.11 0.06 0.23 0.12

Average Daily Trip Length by Mode

1995 NPTS 2001 NHTS

12 10.77 10 8.32 Trip Length (Miles) 8 6 4.27 4 2 0 Private Vehicle Public Transit Bike Walk 3.09 2.79 0.91 0.8 7.84

Mode

22

ROAD JURISDICTIONS IN THE TOWN OF ITHACA

Table A - 10: Road Jurisdictions BURNS WAY BUTTERMILK FALLS RD E BUTTERMILK FALLS RD W CALDWELL RD CALKINS RD CHASE LA CHRISTOPHER CIR CHRISTOPHER LA CLOVER LA COMPTON RD CONCORD PL COY GLEN RD CREST LA CULVER RD DEERFIELD PL DOVE DR DREW RD EASTERN HEIGHTS DR ELM ST EVERGREEN LA FAIRWAY DR FIDLER RD FOREST HOME DR GAME FARM RD** GLENSIDE RD GRAY RD GROVE PL GROVE RD HACKBERRY LA HALCYON HILL RD HAPPY LA HARRIS B DATES DR HARWICK RD HELENS WAY HICKORY PL HOMESTEAD CIR HONNESS LA HOPKINS RD INDIAN CREEK RD JOANNE DR JOHN ST JUDD FALLS RD JUNIPER DR KAY ST KENDALL AVE KING RD W

State Roads: DANBY ROAD (ROUTE 96B) DRYDEN ROAD (ROUTE 366) EAST SHORE DRIVE (ROUTE 34) ELMIRA ROAD (ROUTE 13) ENFIELD FALLS ROAD (ROUTE 327) FIVE MILE DRIVE (STATE ROUTE 13A) MECKLENBURG ROAD (ROUTE 79) SLATERVILLE ROAD (ROUTE 79) TAUGHANNOCK BOULEVARD (ROUTE 89) TRUMANSBURG ROAD (ROUTE 96) WEST DANBY ROAD (ROUTE 34/96) County Roads: BOSTWICK RD BUNDY RD CODDINGTON RD DUBOIS RD EAST KING RD ELLIS HOLLOW RD HANSHAW RD HAYTS RD IRADELL RD PINE TREE RD PLEASANT GROVE RD SHEFFIELD RD TROY RD WARREN RD Town Roads: BIRCHWOOD DR BLACKSTONE AVE BRANDYWINE DR BRIARWOOD DR BURLEIGH RD BURNS RD

23

Town Roads, Contd KINGS WAY LAGRAND CT LANDMARK DR LEXINGTON DR LISA LA LOIS LA MAPLE AVE MARCY CT MAX'S DR McINTYRE PL MURIEL ST N CAYUGA ST NORTHVIEW RD ORCHARD HILL RD ORCHARD ST PARK LA PEACHTREE LA PEARSALL PL PENNSYLVANIA AVE PENNY LA PERRY LA PHEASANT LA PINEVIEW TERR PINEWOOD PL POOLE RD REGENCY LA RENWICK DR RENWICK HTS RD RENWICK PL RICH RD RIDGECREST RD ROAT ST ROSE HILL RD SAINT CATHERINE CIR SALEM DR SANCTUARY DR SAND BANK RD SANDRA PL SAPSUCKER WOODS RD** SARANAC WAY SAUNDERS RD SCHICKEL RD SESAME ST SEVEN MILE DR SHARLENE RD SIENNA DR SIMSBURY DR SKY VUE RD SNYDER HILL RD

Town Roads, Contd SPRUCE WAY STONE QUARRY ROAD STRAWBERRY HILL RD SUGARBUSH LA SUMMERHILL LA SUNNYHILL LA SUNNYVIEW LA SYCAMORE DR TAREYTON DR TERRACEVIEW DR TETON CT TEXAS LA TOWERVIEW DR TOWN LINE RD TUDOR RD UPDIKE RD VALLEY VIEW RD VERA CIR VISTA LA W NORTHVIEW RD WEST HAVEN RD WESTVIEW LA WHITETAIL DR WILDFLOWER DR WILLIAMS GLEN RD WINNERS CIR WINSTON CT WINSTON DR WOODGATE LA WOOLF LA

**Roads partially in the Town of Ithacas jurisdiction

24

VOLUME DATA FOR SELECT ROADS

Table A - 11: Volume Data (ADT) + Town of Ithaca Public Works Department ROAD (LOCATION) *CALDWELL RD (600 N. of Rt. 366)
+ SNYDER

*New York State Dept. of Transportation DATE ADT 2003 April 2003 July 2003 July 2003 July 2003 Sept. 2003 Sept. 2003 Sept. 2003 Sept. 2003 Sept. 2003 Sept. 2003 Sept. 2003 Sept. 2003 Sept. 2003 Sept. 2003 April 2004 April 2004 April 2004 April 2004 April 2004 April 2004 April 2004 April 2004 April 2004 April 2004 April 2004 April 2004 April 2004 April 2004 June 2004 June 2004 June 2004 June 2004 June 2004 June 2004 3518 872 1138 1102 975 2496 2181 455 969 2350 1552 4686 6862 1989 347 1801 376 1920 2299 2621 266 2622 1273 476 719 2778 2730 2713 750 5630 5714 3620 3519 871 1654 15646

HILL RD

+ SAND + SAND

BANK RD (bottom) BANK RD (middle) + SAND BANK RD (top)

+ CODDINGTON + CODDINGTON

RD (near #301) RD (near #403) + COY GLEN RD (at Floral Ave.) + ELM ST (at City Line) + KING RD E (near #177) + KING RD E (near #370) + PINE TREE RD (near #127) + PINE TREE RD (between Snyder Hill and Ellis Hollow Rds) + SNYDER HILL RD + WEST HAVEN RD (at Route 79)
+ BOSTWICK + BUNDY

RD (near #358) RD (1000 east of Hopkins Rd.) + BURNS RD (NE of Town Trail) + BURNS RD (SW of Shooting Range) + CODDINGTON RD (near #259) + CULVER RD (near #287) + E. KING RD (near #172) + HAYTS RD (near #230) + POOLE RD (near #124) + SEVEN MILE DR (near #176) + STONE QUARRY RD (bottom) + STONE QUARRY RD (middle) + STONE QUARRY RD (top) + TROY RD (near #127)
+ HANSHAW + HANSHAW

RD (near #1034) RD (near #1310) + HANSHAW RD (near #1430) + HANSHAW RD (East of Sapsucker Woods Rd.) + MURIEL ST (near #128) + SALEM DR (near #106)

*STATE ROUTE 13 (between Five Mile Dr. & Seven Mile Drive) Aug. 2004 25

*HANSHAW RD (0.1 mi east of Salem Dr.) + JUDD FALLS RD (N. of Plantations Rd.) + JUDD FALLS RD (S. of Plantations Rd.) *BURNS RD (Rt. 79 to Burns Way) *EAST SHORE DR (from City line to entry ramp to Rt. 13) *FIVE MILE DR (Near Coy Glen Rd.)
+ ELLIS

Sept. 2004 Sept. 2004 Sept. 2004 Oct. 2004 Oct. 2004 Oct. 2004 April 2005 April 2005 April 2005 April 2005 April 2005 April 2005 May 2005 Aug. 2005 Aug. 2005 Aug. 2005 Aug. 2005 Aug. 2005 Sept. 2005 Sept. 2005 Sept. 2005 Sept. 2005 Sept. 2005 Sept. 2005 Sept. 2005 Sept. 2005 Sept. 2005 Oct. 2005 Oct. 2005 Oct. 2005 Oct. 2005 Oct. 2005 May 2006 April 2006 April 2006 May 2006 May 2006 May 2006 May 2006 26

3716 6247 6057 2023 5231 6441 4228 874 1724 4966 6162 4163 2805 219 843 191 267 16346 433 2023 5231 5536 168 6441 850 524 509 161 189 17398 5300 8399 1123 3883 3818 405 4944 977 845

HOLLOW RD (near #1027) HOME DR (326) + HONNESS LA (near #137) + MITCHELL ST (near #921) + PLEASANT GROVE RD (N. of Hasbrouck Apts.) + WARREN RD (500 N. of Fairway)
+ FOREST

*MAPLE AVE (Between Pine Tree & City line)

+ LOIS + LOIS

LA (S. of Penny Lane) LA (N. of Penny Lane) + PENNY LA (east of trail) + PENNY LA (east of Lois Lane) + STATE ROUTE 13 (between Five Mile Dr. & Seven Mile Drive)
+ BRANDYWINE

DR (near #108) *BURNS RD (between Rt. 79 & Burns Way) *EAST SHORE DR (from City line to entry ramp to Rt. 13) *HANSHAW RD (0.1 mi east of Salem Dr.) + SIMSBURY DR (near #120) *STATE ROUTE 13A (Near Coy Glen Rd.) + WINTHROP DR (near #311) + WINTHROP DR (East of elementary school) + WINTHROP DR (near # 408) *CALKINS RD *CULVER RD (Bostwick Rd. to Poole Rd.) *STATE ROUTE 13 (Rt. 34/96 to Rt. 327) *STATE ROUTE 13A (near City/ Town line) *STATE ROUTE 96 (0.15 mi. north of Duboise Rd.)
+ SANDBANK + STONE

RD (150 yards south of S-curve) QUARRY RD (near #326) + STONE QUARRY RD (near #355) + WESTHAVEN RD (near #130) + W KING RD (near #123) + W KING RD (near #215) + W KING RD (near #344)

CAPACITY (LOS) DATA FOR SELECT INTERSECTIONS

Table A - 12: Capacity (LOS) Data for Select Intersections The data in this table were compiled from traffic impact analyses performed for various development proposal reviews in the Town and other projects. Many of the studies did not include data for every turning movement at an intersection. The data below are conditions current for the year listed in date. Abbreviations: WB = westbound EB = eastbound NB = northbound SB = southbound AM = morning peak PM = evening peak L = left R = right T = through TR = shared through & right turn lane O = overall LOS for the intersection

Town Intersections Danby Rd (Rt 96B) & King Rd Danby Rd (Rt 96B) & College Circle Apts. Entrance Danby Rd (Rt 96B) & Ithaca College entrance

Danby Rd (Rt 96B) & King Rd Dryden Rd (SR 366) & Game Farm Rd Dryden Rd (SR 366) & Pine Tree Rd

LOS - PM peak (NB = A); (SB = A); (EB = C); (WB = B) (WB L = C); (WB R = B); (SB L = A) (EB = C); (WB = C); (NB = B); (SB = A) (EB = A); (WB = A); (NB = A); (SB = A) (WB = A); (NB L = C); (NB R = B) (EB = F); (WB = F); (NB L = C); (NB R = B) (EB = A); (SB L = C); (SB R = A) (SB L = F) (NB L = E); 27

Sources "Site Impact Traffic Evaluation for College Circle Apartments." Apartments SRF Associates, February 2002 "Site Impact Traffic Evaluation for College Circle Apartments." Apartments SRF Associates, February 2002 "Site Impact Traffic Evaluation for College Circle Apartments." Apartments SRF Associates, February 2002 "Capacity Analysis Results: Country Inn and Suites Hotel." Hotel SRF. Assoc. "Traffic Impact Study: Proposed Rite Aid Pharmacy." FRA Engineering, P.C. "Traffic Impact Study: Proposed Rite Aid Pharmacy." FRA Engineering, P.C. / "Site Impact Traffic Evaluation for the Proposed Pine Tree Rd Cornell Office Dev." Dev. SRF & Assoc. "Traffic Impact Study: Proposed Rite Aid Pharmacy." FRA Engineering, P.C. / "Site Impact Traffic Evaluation for the Proposed Pine Tree Rd Cornell Office Dev." Dev. SRF & Assoc. "NESTS NESTS: NESTS North East Subarea Transportation Study." NESTS Working Group, July 1999 "NESTS NESTS: NESTS North East Subarea

Date 2002

2002

2002

Feb. 2005 Sept. 2005 Sept. 2005 / Oct. 2005 Sept. 2005 / Oct. 2005 1997 1997

Ellis Hollow Rd & Game Farm Rd Hanshaw Rd & North Triphammer Rd (Cayuga Heights) Hanshaw Rd & Pleasant

Grove Rd (Cayuga Heights) Hanshaw Rd & Triphammer Rd (Cayuga Heights) Pine Tree Rd & Ellis Hollow Rd

(NB R = E) (NB L = F); (NB R = E) (EB L = C); (EB TR = C); (WB L = C);(WB TR = C); (NB L = A); (NB TR = A); (SB L = A); (SB T = B); (SB R = A); (O = B) (EB L = B); (EB R = B); (NB = A) (WB L = C); (WB R = A); (SB = B) (WB L = C); (WB R = A); (SB L = A) (EB L = D); (EB R = B); (NB = A) (SB L = C); (SB R = C); (EB L = A) (NB L = A); (EB L = C) (NB = B); (SB = A); (WB = C); (O = B) (WB = C); (NB = A); (SB = A) (SB L = A); (WB L = C) (EB AM = B); (EB PM = D); (WB AM=D); (WB PM=C); (NB AM = B); (NB PM = D); (SB AM = D); (SB PM = D)

Pine Tree Rd & Honness La

Pine Tree Rd & Snyderhill Rd

Pine Tree Rd & Snyderhill Rd Slaterville Rd (Rt 79) & Pine Tree Rd Slaterville Rd (Rt 79) & Pine Tree Rd Trumansburg Rd (Rt 96) & Bundy Rd Trumansburg Rd (Rt 96) & Dates Dr (Cayuga Medical Center) Trumansburg Rd (Rt 96) & Dates Dr (Cayuga Medical Center) Trumansburg Rd (Rt 96) & the Paleontological Research Center (PRI) Warren Rd & Hanshaw Rd

Transportation Study." NESTS Working Group, July 1999 "NESTS NESTS: NESTS North East Subarea Transportation Study." NESTS Working Group, July 1999 "Traffic Impact Study: Proposed Rite Aid Pharmacy." FRA Engineering, P.C. / "Site Impact Traffic Evaluation for the Proposed Pine Tree Rd Cornell Office Dev." Dev. SRF & Assoc. "Traffic Impact Study: Proposed Rite Aid Pharmacy." FRA Engineering, P.C. / "Site Impact Traffic Evaluation for the Proposed Pine Tree Rd Cornell Office Dev." Dev. SRF & Assoc. "Traffic Impact Study: Proposed Rite Aid Pharmacy." FRA Engineering, P.C. / "Site Impact Traffic Evaluation for the Proposed Pine Tree Rd Cornell Office Dev." Dev. SRF & Assoc. "Traffic Impact Study for Burger King." King Traffic Solutions, February 1999. "Traffic Impact Study: Proposed Rite Aid Pharmacy." FRA Engineering, P.C. / "Site Impact Traffic Evaluation for the Proposed Pine Tree Rd Cornell Office Office Dev." Dev. SRF & Assoc. "Traffic Impact Study for Burger King." King Traffic Solutions, February 1999. "Site Impact Traffic Evaluation for the Proposed Museum of the Earth." Earth SRF Associates, February 17, 2000 "Site Impact Traffic Evaluation for the Proposed Museum of the Earth." Earth SRF Associates, February 17, 2000 "Site Impact Traffic Evaluation for the Proposed Overlook at West Hill." Hill SRF & Assoc. for Holt Architects, P.C. "Site Impact Traffic Evaluation for the Proposed Museum of the Earth." Earth SRF Associates, February 17, 2000 Project Data for Hanshaw Road Reconstruction project, project Fisher Associates

1997 Sept. 2005 / Oct. 2005 Sept. 2005 / Oct. 2005 Sept. 2005 / Oct. 2005 1998 Sept. 2005 / Oct. 2005 1998 2000

2000 Sept. 2003 2000

2006

28

SPEED DATA
Table A - 13: Speed Data (as of June 2006) Road Troy Road Seven Mile Drive Hanshaw Road Brandywine Drive Winthrop Drive Westhaven Road Hayts Road Ellis Hollow Road Coddington Road Elm Street Simsbury Drive Pleasant Grove Winthrop Drive W. King Road Hanshaw Road Hanshaw Road Honness Lane Snyder Hill Road Judd Falls Road W. King Road Pine Tree Road Pleasant Grove Coddington Road Pine Tree Road W. King Road Mitchell Street Stone Quarry Road Bundy Road Judd Falls Road Location 127 176 1310 108 East of school 130 230 1027 Rich Rd City Line 120 Southern end 408 123 E. Sapsucker 1430 137 e. Sugarbrush S. Plantation 215 Jurisdiction Date April 2004 April 2004 June 2004 Sept. 2005 Sept. 2005 April 2006 April 2004 April 2005 April 2004 Aug-Sept 03 Sept. 2005 April 2005 Sept. 2005 April 2006 June 2004 June 2004 April 2005 Sept-Oct 03 Aug. 2004 April 2006 April 2003 April 2005 Sept-Oct 03 Sept-Oct 03 April 2006 April 2005 April 2006 April 2004 Aug. 2004 Speed Limit 55 45 40 30 30 40 55 45 40 40 30 30 30 40 40 40 35 40 30 40 35 30 40 35 40 35 35 45 30 % Speeding 8.4% 9.9% 8.2% 12.2% 13.5% 14.5% 12.3% 28.3% 31.7% 23.3% 26.2% 26.6% 29.2% 37.8% 34.1% 35.3% 33.2% 49.2% 44.2% 57.2% 67.3% 57.7% 64.5% 68.5% 66.6% 75.7% 74.2% 64.2% 58.2% 85th Perct. 53 44 39 30 30 40 55 49 44 43 33 33 33 44 45 45 40 46 35 47 43 37 49 43 50 44 44 57 38 85th/limi Avg % of Lim+10 Notes t Speed 0.96 0.9% 45 0.98 0.5% 37 0.98 0.2% 33 1.00 0.0% 25 1.00 0.0% 26 1.00 0.8% 32 1.00 8.9% 46 1.09 3.4% 42 1.10 2.2% N/A 1.10 1.9% 35 1.10 1.2% 26 1.10 0.23% 26 Data quality = poor 1.10 1.3% 27 1.10 1.2% 39 1.13 2.8% 34 1.13 1.7% 38 1.14 4.5% 30 1.15 3.5% 40 1.17 10.1% 28 1.18 5.3% 41 1.23 4.6% 38 1.23 3.5% 28 1.23 3.2% 42 1.23 4.4% 38 1.25 12.2% 43 1.26 4.9% 38 1.26 6.5% 37 1.27 17.1% 48 1.27 22.1% 30

County Town County Town Town Town County County County Town Town County Town Town County County Town Town Town Town County N. Hasbrouck Apts. County Rich Rd County Sny-Ellis County 344 Town 921 County 355 Town 1000' E Hopkins County N. Plantation Town

Road Muriel Street Judd Falls Road Winthrop Drive Stone Quarry Road Warren Road Forest Home Drive Hanshaw Road Culver Road Sandbank Road Poole Road Bostwick Road Forest Home Drive King Road Stone Quarry Road Caldwell Road Stone Quarry Road Coddington Road Forest Home Drive

Location 128 north of Plantation 311 top 500' N. of Fairway Dr. E. of 25 mph zone 1034 287 "S" curve 124 358 between Plantation & McIntyre school zone 220 across from water plant bottom Juniper Rd 326

Jurisdiction Date Town Town Town Town County Town County Town Town Town County Town Town Town Town Town County Town

Speed Limit June 2004 30 Sept. 2004 30 Sept. 2005 30 April 2004 35 April 2005 April 2005 June 2004 April 2004 April 2006 April 2004 April 2004 30 30 30 35 30 40 35 25 30 25 25 25 30 25

% Speeding 58.3% 58.2% 66.2% 78.2% 82.7% 70.4% 78.5% 59.0% 79.4% 79.6% 88.0% 83.4% 82.9% 82.8% 81.8% 92.7% 86.5% 87.9%

85th Perct. 38 38 38 45 40 40 40 48 41 55 49 35 42 35 36 36 44 39

85th/limi Avg % of Lim+10 Notes t Speed 1.27 5.7% 31 1.27 5.6% 30 1.27 8.4% 33 1.29 10.0% 39 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.37 1.37 1.38 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.44 1.44 1.47 1.56 10.5% 12.0% 14.1% 14.0% 16.9% 26.0% 28.0% 8.8% 19.1% 9.9% 17.6% 15.9% 37.0% 29.5% 34 33 33 37 34 46 42 29 36 29 29 31 37 32 Note: this is by a stop sign

No posted limit

April 2005 May 2003 April 2006 April 2005 April 2004 Sept-Oct 03 April 2005

Data quality = poor

Note: N/A = not available

30

CRASH DATA
Figure A - 14: First Event of Crashes
First Event* of Crashes** 1999-2001, Town of Ithaca
Other Bicyclist Fixed object Pedestrian Guard rail Tree Earth/ rock cut/ditch Signpost Utility Pole Head Wall/ Culvert Animal Vehicle 0 50 100 150 200 250 1 3 188 263 300 7 8 35 2 13 5 8 15

Number of Crashes
*First event refers to the object initially involved in the collision **Crashes causing injury or >$1,000 property damage

Figure A - 15: Causes of Crashes

Causes of Crashes: Town of Ithaca, 1999-2001
551 crashes total; some crashes cite multiple causes
bicyclist/ pedestrian error unsafe/ improper lane use/ changing turning improperly, unsafely traffic control disregard overtaking backing unsafely sideswipe other following too closely driver error** pavement slippery, glare, tire failure rear end unsafe speed improper passing failure to yield animal alcohol

6 12 24 7 21 11 4 36 51 61 51 7 36 33 62 184 11 0 20 40 60
*Crashes injury or >$1,000160 property damage 180 80 Number100 of Crashes 120 resulting in 140

**includes inattention, inexperience, distraction, fell asleep, lost consciousness

200

31

APPENDIX III: TOWN OF ITHACA TRANSPORTATION SURVEY

In the fall of 2003, the Town of Ithaca Transportation Committee authored a survey to solicit public comment for a Town Transportation Plan. The goal of the survey was to understand the current transportation habits, attitudes, and opinions of Town residents. . Sample Survey The Town of Ithaca Transportation Committee will be establishing a Town Transportation Plan and Policies and is seeking the opinions of Town residents on current transportation issues, practices and desired changes. Please complete this survey and mail it to Town Hall by folding it in half with the selfself-return stamp on the outside and stapling or taping the corners shut. Thank you for your assistance in this important matter. Section I. Household Data 1. Please describe your status in the household, circling all that apply. a. Parent b. Child c. Grandparent d. Roommate e. Spouse f. Other:____________________________ 2. Describe your residence. a. Single family home c. Apartment 3. 4. b. Mobile home d. Other

How many people live at your address? ________ How long have you lived in the Town of Ithaca? ___________________

5. Please identify the intersection closest to your home. __________________________________________________________________ 6. How many motor vehicles are available for use by people living at this address? __________________________________________________________________ Section II. Person Data 7. Complete one line for each person residing at this address. Age Sex Licensed to Drive? Employment Status Full Time Part Time Retired Student Not Employed Other

Person 01 02 03 04 05 06

32

07 Section III: Current Transportation Use Patterns

8. What is the primary mode of transportation for your family to destinations in and around the Town of Ithaca? (Check only one) ____ private motor vehicle ____TCAT bus ____ private motor vehicle and TCAT bus ____ bicycle ____walking ____other (please describe below) __________________________________________________________________________________ 9. Is there a TCAT bus route close enough to your house for you to use if you wanted to? (Check one) ____ yes ____no ____dont know 10. Would you use a TCAT bus if there was a route reasonably close to your residence? (Check one) ____ regularly ____occasionally ____seldom ____highly unlikely Would weather be a factor in your choice? ____ definitely ____maybe ____no 11. What changes in TCAT services would make the bus service more appealing? (Check only the most important) ____ more frequent service ____ more comfortable shelters ____ lower fares ____ routes that get me to my destination sooner ____other (please describe below) _________________________________________________________________________________ 12. Approximately how many round tripsto a destination and back home in a motor vehicleare generated by the occupants of your residence in a typical weekweek-day? day (Check one) ____ 1 or fewer ____ 2 or 3 ____ 4 or more ____ varies greatly ____ dont know 13. About how many of those weekday trips are: (Indicate approximate number) ____ to work ____ for shopping ____ to school/related activities ____entertainment related ____other 14. For the typical week-day identified in #12, how many are to destinations: (Indicate approximate number) ____ inside Ithaca (Town and City) ____outside Ithaca but inside Tompkins County ____ outside Tompkins County 15. How many members of your household use bicycles for each of these purposes? (Indicate approximate number) ____ transportation (to work, shopping, etc.) ____ pleasure ____not at all 16. Have you used the Towns trail system in the past? (Check one) ____ regularly ____occasionally ____never ____ didnt know about the trail system

33

Section IV. Satisfaction With Transportation Services

17. What do you think are the most obvious transportation problems in and around the Town of Ithaca? (Check all that apply) ____ high volumes of traffic generally ____inadequate bus service ____ too much traffic in residential neighborhoods ____too many trucks ____ inadequate space for bicycle/pedestrian traffic ____speed limits not enforced ____ roads inadequately maintained ____other (describe below) _________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ 18. What could be done to correct the problem(s) identified above? (Check all that apply) ____build sidewalks in congested or built-up areas ____widen major roads ____improve certain intersections ____provide bicycle lanes/ paths ____enforce speed limits ____expand bus service ____other (please describe below) _________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ 19. How would you describe the typical traffic volume in your neighborhood or that passes your residence? (Check as many as apply) residence ____usually low to moderate volume ____occasionally heavy volume ____often heavy volume ____other (describe) ________________________________________________________________ 20. Are there any roads or intersections in the Town of Ithaca you consider to be particularly hazardous? If yes, please identify location and problem(s) _________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ 21. Are there any new roads that you would like to see constructed in the Town? If so, where would they be? ____ no ____ yes (describe location(s) below) __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ 22. Are you satisfied with the speed limits in your neighborhood? ____ yes _____ no 22(a). If not, please describe why and how the speed limits should be changed. ____ speed too low ____speed too high 22(b). The speed limit in my neighborhood should be changed from the present ______ mph limit to ______ mph. 23. Is there a need for sidewalks or walkways in your neighborhood? __yes __no __ no opinion 23(a). If yes, would you be willing to contribute to their construction and upkeep? ____yes ____no _____ no opinion or dont know 24. Please identify any other transportation issues in the Town of Ithaca of importance to you. Thank you for your assistance. _________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________

34

Residents Survey Data and Analysis The following pages contain an analysis of the data collected from the returned Town Transportation Surveys. Four thousand four hundred forty (4,440) surveys were mailed with the annual Town newsletter. The newsletter is sent to all addresses within the Town, in addition to the addresses of property owners who do not live in the Town. Some (but not all) students who live in the Town did not receive a survey. Six hundred eleven (611) surveys were returned; this translates to a 13.76% return rate. rate The survey has yielded important conclusions about the transportation profile of the typical respondent. He or she is likely to be a parent or a spouse, live in a single family home, and has lived in the Town for nearly twenty years. The typical responding household relies on the private motor vehicle for transportation. More than half of respondents said that they would regularly or occasionally use the TCAT bus services if a route were close enough to home. The typical respondent is concerned about the high levels of traffic around the Town, the lack of space for bicycle and pedestrian traffic, and the lack of enforcement of speed limits. The provision of bike lanes or sidewalks and the enforcement of speed limits could help alleviate transportation problems in the Town, in the opinion of the typical respondent. The following pages includes all raw data tabulated from each answer to questions on the returned surveys, as well as descriptive and interpretive statistics drawn from the data.

35

Section One: Household and Person Data 1. Please describe your status in the household, circling all that apply. Number of Percentage of responses respondents A. Parent 269 45.3% B. Child 9 1.5% C. Grandparent 53 8.9% D. Roommate 7 1.2% E. Spouse 344 57.9% F. Other 125 21.0% Surveys left blank 17 Surveys with response (population for question): 594 Response
Household Status
Percentage Identifying 100.0% 80.0% 60.0% 40.0% 20.0% 0.0%
en t ld e t Pa re n us e m m at C hi Sp o O th ar er

57.9% 45.3% 21.0% 8.9% 1.5% 1.2%

dp

Respondents checked as m any as applied

2. Describe your residence. Response Number of times circled 553 Percentage of respondents 92%
0%

A. Single family home B. Mobile 0 0 home C. 14 2.3% Apartment D. Other 34 5.7% Surveys left blank: 10 Surveys with response (population for question): 601

2% 6%

G ra n

Type of Residence

92%

36

R oo
Single Family Home Mobile Home Apartment Other

3. How many people live at your address? Total number of persons in all responding households: 1494
# of Households Reporting

Persons per Household

300 250 200 150 100 50 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 # of Persons per Household 103 100 92 25 4 0 2 279

Surveys left blank: 6 Surveys with response (population for question): 605 Mean number of persons per household: 2.47 Median number of persons per household: 2 Mode of number of persons per household: 2

4. How long have you lived in the Town of Ithaca? Total number of years spent in Town of Ithaca by all responding households: 11,746.87 yrs Surveys left blank: 14 Surveys with response (population for question): 597 Mean length of residency in Town: 19.7 years Median length of residency in Town: 15 years Mode of number of years residency in Town: 5 years
# of Respondents 100 80 60 40 20 0 0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 Tim e Interval (Years) 60+ 89

Length of Residence in Town of Ithaca

95 80 63 42 42 23 12 79

37

5. Please identify the intersection closest to your home. In order to tabulate the responses to this question, the Town was divided into the following sections:

Neighborhood

Number of responses

A. Northeast 103 B. Forest Home 33 C. Southeast 99 D. South Hill 123 E. Inlet Valley 22 F. West Hill 56 G. Northwest 37 H. Cayuga 122 Heights I. City of Ithaca 6 1.0% Surveys left blank: 10 Surveys with response (population for question): 601

Percentage of respondents 17.1% 5.5% 16.5% 20.5% 3.7% 9.3% 6.2% 20.3%

Location of respondents
Cayuga Heights 20.3% City of Ithaca 1.0%

Northeast 17.1% Forest Home 5.5%

Northwest 6.2% West Hill 9.3% Inlet Valley 3.7%

Southeast 16.5%

South Hill 20.5%

38

6. How many motor vehicles are available for use by people living at this address? Total number of cars in all responding households: 1073 Surveys left blank: 20 Surveys with response (population for question): 591 Mean number of motor vehicles per household: 1.81 (median = 2 ; mode = 2) Number of Cars 0 1 2 3 4 5 Number Responding 6 211 283 70 19 2 Percentage of Respondents 1.0% 35.7% 47.9% 11.8% 3.2% 0.3%
Tw o 283 47.9% Three 70 11.8%

Number of Motor Vehicles Available for Use

Four 19 3.2% Five 2 0.3% None 6 1.0%

One 211 35.7%

7. Person Data (Collected at Household Level) Aggregated by Age: Age Group 0-17 18-30 31-45 46-65 66+ Total persons in responding households Aggregated by Occupation: Occupation Students (greater than or equal to 18 yrs of age) Workers (full & part time) Retired Not employed/ Other Total persons in responding households greater than or equal to 18 yrs of age Number of Persons in Households 61 636 358 101 1156 Percentage of Persons in Households 5.3% 55.0% 31.0% 8.7% 100% Number of Persons in Households 268 133 225 462 336 1424 Percentage of Persons in Households 18.8% 9.3% 15.8% 32.4% 23.6% 100%

39

Section Two: Current Transportation Patterns 8. What is the primary mode of transportation for your family to destinations in and around the Town of Ithaca? Mode Number of Percentage of Responses Respondents Private motor vehicle 528 86.7% TCAT bus 4 0.7% Bicycle 1 0.2% Walking 21 3.4% Private motor vehicle & TCAT bus 34 5.6% Other (combinations of above, especially bike & 21 3.4% car, plus rides from friends/ relatives & Gadabout) Surveys left blank: 2 Surveys with responses (population for question): 609 9. Is there a TCAT bus route close enough to your house for you to use if you wanted to? Response Number of Responses Percentage of Respondents Yes 379 62.7% No 179 29.6% Dont Know 46 7.6% Surveys left blank: 7 Surveys with responses (population for question): 604 10. Would you use a TCAT bus if there were a route reasonably close to your residence? Response Number of Responses Percentage of Respondents Regularly 89 16.3% Occasionally 204 37.4% Seldom 92 16.8% Highly Unlikely 161 29.5% Surveys left blank: 65 Surveys with responses (population for question): 546 11. What changes in TCAT services would make the bus service more appealing? Response Number of Responses Percentage of Respondents More frequent service 134 36.1% More comfortable shelters 41 11.1% Lower fares 53 14.3% Routes that get me to my 146 39.4% destination sooner Other 90 24.3% Route/ stop closer to home 36 Nothing 9 In absence of private car 7 Other 38 Surveys left blank: 240 Surveys with responses (population for question): 371

40

15. How many members of your household use bicycles for each of these purposes? Purpose Transportation Pleasure Not at all Number of Persons 106 364 728

Bicycle Use in Responding Households

800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0

728

364 106

on on ati ati t e r r c po Re ns a r T
16. Have you used the Towns trail system in the past? Response Number of Responses Regularly 90 Occasionally 224 Never 172 Didnt know about it 117 Surveys left blank: 8 Surveys with responses (population for question): 603

No

ll ta a t

Percentage of Respondents 14.9% 37.1% 28.5% 19.4%

Use of Trail System

Didn't know about it 19% Regularly 15%

Never 29%

Occasionally 37%

41

Section Three: Satisfaction with Transportation Services 17. What do you think are the most obvious transportation problems in and around the Town of Ithaca? Response High volumes of traffic generally Too much traffic in residential neighborhoods Inadequate space for bicycle/ pedestrian traffic Roads inadequately maintained Inadequate bus service Too many trucks Speed limits not enforced Other Stop light synchronization/ better engineering Residential speed limits too high/ not posted Need walking paths in selected areas Other Surveys left blank: 27 Surveys with responses (population for question): 584 Number of Responses 269 126 212 190 142 82 207 62 6 5 5 46 Percentage of Respondents 46.0% 21.6% 36.3% 32.5% 24.3% 14.0% 35.4% 10.6%

Identified Transportation Problems

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 269 212 207 190 142 126 82 62 # of Times Cited

High volumes of traffic generally Inadequate space for bike/ pedestrain traffic Speed limits not enforced
Problem

Roads inadequately maintained Inadequate bus service Too much traffic in residential areas Too many trucks Other

42

18. What could be done to correct the problem(s) identified above? Response Build sidewalks in congested or built-up areas Improve certain intersections Enforce speed limits Widen major roads Provide bicycle lanes/ paths Expand bus service Other Surveys left blank: 64 Surveys with responses (population for question): 547 Number of Responses 194 159 230 104 241 164 44 Percentage of Respondents 35.5% 29.1% 42.0% 19.0% 44.1% 30.0% 8.0%

19. How would you describe the typical traffic volume in your neighborhood or that passes your residence? Response Number of Responses Usually low to moderate 305 Occasionally heavy volume 104 Often heavy volume 146 Other 36 Surveys left blank: 20 Surveys with responses (population for question): 591 Percentage of Respondents 51.6% 17.6% 24.7% 6.1%

20. Are there any roads or intersections in the Town of Ithaca you consider to be particularly hazardous? If yes, please identify location and problem(s). The table below summarizes the most commonly cited hazardous intersections, aggregated by general area. Many of the suggested intersections fall outside of the jurisdiction of the Town of Ithaca and are not included here. Area or Intersection Community Corners, including Warren and Hanshaw Area of intersections between Honness Pine Tree Rt. 79 Area of Coddington Burns; Coddington Troy; Troy E. King Route 13 in general, plus intersections with Seven Mile/ Five Mile Dr. & Kmart Area of Burleigh, Winthrop, Simsbury, Christopher Area of Forest Home Route 96 in general, including near Ithaca College Intersection of Sheffield and Mecklenburg Area of Winston, Salem, Muriel Rt 79 (Slaterville Road) in general Number of Times Cited 99 52 43 29 19 17 14 14 9 9

43

22. Are you satisfied with the speed limits in your neighborhood? Response Number of Responses Yes 409 No 180 Surveys left blank: 22 Surveys with responses (population for question): 589 If not, not please describe why Response Number of Responses Speed too low 7 Speed too high 151 Surveys left blank: 22 Surveys with responses (population for question): 180 and how the speed limits should be changed.

Percentage of Respondents 69.4% 30.6%

Percentage of Respondents 4.4% 95.6%

Desired Change in Residential Speed Limit

450 400 350

409

# of Responses

300 250 200 150 100 50 0

56 1 6 28

37 2 3

47

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

Satisfied

10

No t satisfied; did no t quantify desired change

Desired Change in Speed Limit

Relationship to Residential Location: Speed limit too high by location The table below presents the locations of respondents who think their residential speed limit is too high compared to the Town-wide average. The first column lists the total number of responses from each neighborhood. The second column shows the number of respondents from each neighborhood who thought the speed limit in their neighborhood was too high, and the third column shows the percentage of respondents in each neighborhood who thought the speed limit in their neighborhood was too high. The fourth column presents the ratio of the percentage of respondents who thought the speed limit was too high to the Town-wide percentage of respondents who thought the speed limit was too high (24.7%). A ratio greater than 1.00 means that a higher percentage of residents in a given neighborhood thought that the speed limit was too high as compared to the Town-wide percentage, while a ratio of less than 1.00 means that a lower percentage of people in a given neighborhood thought that the speed limit was too high compared to the Town-wide average. T-tests to determine confidence interval should be performed to determine significance of difference in proportions before policy recommendations are made.

44

Location A. Northeast B. Forest Home C. Southeast D. South Hill E. Inlet Valley F. West Hill G. Northwest H. Cayuga Heights I. City of Ithaca Unknown TOTAL

Total Responses 103 33 99 123 22 56 37 122 6 10 611

Number of Respondents speed limit too high 20 14 25 38 9 16 13 14 1 1 151

Percentage Respondents speed limit too high 19.4% 42.4% 25.3% 30.9% 40.9% 28.6% 35.1% 11.5% 16.7% 10.0% 24.7%

Ratio of Percentage respondents to Townwide Percentage 0.79 1.72 1.02 1.25 1.66 1.16 1.42 0.47 --1.00

23. Is there a need for sidewalks or walkways in your neighborhood? Response Number of Responses Yes 196 No 332 Dont know 53 Surveys left blank: 30 Surveys with responses (population for question): 581 If yes, yes would you be willing to contribute to their construction and upkeep? Response Number of Responses Yes 89 No 30 Dont know 30 Surveys left blank: 47 Surveys with responses (population for question): 149 Percentage of Respondents 59.7% 20.1% 20.1% Percentage of Respondents 33.7% 57.1% 9.1%

45

Relationship to residential location: Yes response to need for sidewalk in neighborhood This table presents the location of respondents in favor of sidewalks or walkways compared to the Town-wide average. Respondents from Forest Home show a greater interest in sidewalks compared to the Town-wide average. T-tests to determine confidence interval should be performed to determine significance of difference in proportions before policy recommendations are made. Number of Total Responses 103 33 99 123 22 56 37 122 6 10 611

Location A. Northeast B. Forest Home C. Southeast D. South Hill E. Route 13 F. West Hill G. Northwest H. Cayuga Heights I. City of Ithaca Unknown TOTAL

Number of Responses 42 22 33 37 6 14 5 30 4 3 196

Percentage of Responses 40.8% 66.7% 33.3% 30.1% 27.3% 25.0% 13.5% 24.6% 66.7% 30.0% 32.1%

Ratio 1.27 2.08 1.04 0.94 0.85 0.78 0.42 0.77 --1.00

46

APPENDIX IV. INTERSECTION AND ROAD SEGMENT ANALYSES

The following pages contain the intersection and road segment analyses conducted for the Town of Ithaca by Fisher Associates.

MEMO

To: Company: Address: From: Subject:

Nicole Tedesco Town of Ithaca Planning Dept. 215 N. Tioga St. Ithaca, NY 14850 Chris Smith Intersection & Segment Analyses

Date: Phone #:

December 29, 2005 607-273-1747

CC:

Lorenzo Rotoli, Susan Ritter

The following is a summary of the findings for the field observations conducted for the Town of Ithaca Transportation Plan. Each page includes a brief discussion of each intersection / segment with observations broken down into capacity/volume and safety categories. Please review and let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. INTERSECTIONS Route 79 / Honness Lane Pine Tree Road / Honness Lane Seven Mile Drive / Route 13 (Elmira Road) Troy Road / East King Road Warren Road / Hanshaw Road Route 96 (Trumansburg Road) / Bundy Road & Route 96 / Hayts Road Route 96B / King Road Pine Tree Road / Maple Avenue SEGMENTS Sandbank Road Stone Quarry Road Pine Tree Road Pleasant Grove Road Mecklenburg Road Trumansburg Road Route 96B (nearing City) Elmira Road (Rt. 13A southwards)

47

INTERSECTIONS
Route 79 / Honness Lane Intersection: Volume/Capacity: Field observations indicate sufficient gaps in traffic for vehicles to enter Route 79 from Honness Lane and minimal delay during the peak travel periods, indicating acceptable Level of Service (LOS). The following is a general summary of traffic at this intersection during the peak periods: SEGMENT Mainline Route 79: Side Street Honness Lane: Safety: Field observations verify a skewed alignment at this intersection. Honness Lane intersects Route 79 at approximately a 45 degree angle. This alignment limits the sight distance for vehicles exiting Honness Lane, making it difficult to see the vehicles traveling northwest on Route 79. The Town of Ithaca Transportation Plan (TITP) indicates there have been 4 serious crashes at this location. Recommendations: A three-year crash screening was completed for this intersection including data from 1999 2001 (attached). During that time period seven crashes occurred at the intersection. No discernable crash patterns were evident in the data. The intersection should be monitored for increased crashes or development of crash patterns due to the skewed roadway alignment limiting sight distance for vehicles exiting Honness Lane. AM PEAK 487 35 PM PEAK 659 46

48

Pine Tree Road / Honness Lane Lane Intersection: Volume/Capacity: Field observations indicate limited gaps in traffic on Pine Tree Road and high delay for vehicles exiting Honness Lane during the peak travel periods, indicating unacceptable LOS. The following is a general summary of traffic at this intersection during the peak periods: SEGMENT Mainline Pine Tree Road: Side Street Honness Lane: Safety: Field observations indicate that the lanes on Pine Tree Road at this intersection are 10 feet wide, which is not in character with the volume and speed traveling along the roadway. Further, the turning radii at the intersection may not be sufficient to accommodate TCAT buses as a bus was observed turning right onto Honness Lane requiring a vehicle waiting on Honness Lane to back up to make room for the bus. Finally, there is a shrub row along the south side of Honness Lane that makes it difficult for northbound traffic on Pine Tree Road to see vehicles exiting from Honness Lane. Recommendations: The Town of Ithaca is currently in the planning and design stages for the Pew Trail that will run between the Pine Tree Road / Honness Lane intersection and the Eastern Heights neighborhood, thereby increasing pedestrian traffic across Pine Tree Road. It is recommended that the Pine Tree Road / Honness Lane intersection be evaluated for traffic capacity and pedestrian enhancement measures in conjunction with the Pew Trail planning and design to determine if there are measures that can reduce the delay for the side-street vehicles and provide safe efficient access for pedestrians and bicycles. Enhanced pedestrian features may include stamped or colored concrete, a raised crosswalk or raised intersection, specialty signage signifying the Pew Trail, and advance warning flashing beacons may raise driver awareness of the Pew Trail and new pedestrian traffic. The turning radii at the intersection could also be reviewed to determine if larger radii and/or flaring the width of Honness Lane at the intersection will provide safer, more efficient traffic operations for TCAT buses and automobiles in general.* In addition, the shrub row along Honness Lane could be trimmed to improve the sight distance and awareness for drivers traveling through the intersection. Finally, it is also recommended that this intersection be monitored for crashes as poor traffic operations, increased pedestrian activity and the shrub row along Honness Lane may lead to an increased number of crashes. *Note from the Town of Ithaca: increasing the curb radii at this intersection will encourage motorists to roll through the stop sign and will increase the crossing distance for pedestrians. AM PEAK 500 61 PM PEAK 579 64

49

Seven Mile Drive / Route 13 (Elmira Road) Intersection: Volume/Capacity: Field observations indicate limited gaps in traffic on Route 13 and high delay for vehicles exiting Seven Mile Drive during the peak travel periods; indicating unacceptable LOS. This unacceptable LOS is common for low volume, stop controlled intersections during peak travel periods along primary commuter corridors. The following is a general summary of traffic at this intersection during the peak periods: SEGMENT Mainline Route 13: Side Street Seven Mile Drive: Safety: Field observations and a follow-up detailed sight distance analysis found that there are high speeds on Route 13 and limited sight distance for vehicles turning left from Seven Mile Drive onto Route 13. Vehicles on Seven Mile Drive have only 256-feet of sight distance to the right, less than the required 500-feet. The limited sight distance is due to a vertical curve on Route 13 west of the intersection, as well as an embankment and bushes on the east side of Seven Mile Drive. Vehicles are required to slowly move forward at the intersection until they are able to see vehicles on Route 13. Due to the high volume and speeds mentioned above, vehicles on Seven Mile Drive were aggressive and accepted small gaps in traffic as they entered Elmira Road creating near collision conditions. AM PEAK 1577 21 PM PEAK 1867 28

Recommendations: A crash screening was completed to determine if any identifiable crash patterns existing at the intersection (attached). The crash analysis found nine crashes in a three-year period between 1999 2001. There were no discernable crash patterns found in the data. Due to the potential seriousness of crashes at this intersection it is recommended that the intersection be monitored for increased crashes or an identifiable crash pattern. Obstacles should be lessened or removed to improve the sight distance to the recommended 500 feet.

50

Troy Road / East King Road Intersection: Volume/Capacity: Collected data and field observations indicate that all approaches experience low volumes. However, the mainline has lower volumes than the side street. Field observations indicate sufficient gaps in traffic for vehicles to enter Troy Road from East King Road and minimal delay during the peak travel periods, indicating acceptable LOS. The following is a general summary of traffic at this intersection during the peak periods: SEGMENT Mainline Troy Road: Side Street E. King Road: Safety: Field observations indicate that vehicles on Troy Road are traveling at high speeds and that no signage exists warning drivers of the intersection. The eastbound approach has a steep downhill slope upon which the speed limit reduces from 45 mph to 35 mph but there are no warning signs for the stop ahead. Recommendations: Advanced intersection warning signage could be evaluated to determine if signs or flashing beacons would provide drivers with advanced knowledge of the intersection. In addition, four-way stop warrants could be investigated to determine if a four-way stop is warranted at this location. Due to the potential seriousness of crashes at this intersection it is recommended that this intersection be monitored for a higher number or severity of crashes. AM PEAK 88 175 PM PEAK 44 243

51

Warren Road / Hanshaw Road Intersection: Volume/Capacity: Collected data and field observations indicate that all approaches experience similar volumes and are approaching capacity during the peak travel periods. Field observations indicate queues on the southbound approach during both the AM and PM peaks and on the EB approach during the PM peak. These factors indicate borderline LOS. The following is a general summary of traffic at this intersection during the peak periods: SEGMENT Mainline Warren Road: Side Street Hanshaw Road: Safety: Field observations indicate that the main safety issue at this intersection is the congestion. Additionally, vegetation surrounding the STOP and STOP AHEAD signs on the westbound approach is obstructing the view of those signs from the motorists. Recommendations: This intersection is currently being analyzed as part of Tompkins Countys Hanshaw Road reconstruction project, which will analyze and attempt to address deficiencies at the intersection. AM PEAK 548 506 PM PEAK 644 545

52

Route 96 (Trumansburg Road)/Bundy Road Road & Route 96/Hayts Road Intersection: Volume/Capacity: Field observations noted that Route 96 experiences high volumes and high speeds. Observations also indicate sufficient gaps in traffic on Route 96 which allow traffic from side streets to enter at Route 96 (indicating acceptable LOS). The following is a general summary of traffic at these intersections during the peak periods: SEGMENT Mainline Route 96: Side Street Hayts Road: Side Street Bundy Road: AM PEAK 800 92 35 PM PEAK 979 33 21

The Traffic Impact Study (TIS) for the Overlook at West Hill development, conducted in 2003, showed acceptable LOS at these intersections during both existing conditions and after the implementation of the new development in 2007. Safety: Hayts Road & Route 96: Field observations verify a slightly skewed alignment on Hayts Road at Route 96. Hayts Road widens out and angles slightly to the right. Right turning vehicles use this flare to travel around vehicles waiting to make a left turn. This alignment does not limit the sight distance at this intersection. The TITP lists 5 serious crashes involving another vehicle at the Route 96 / Hayts Road intersection. Bundy Road & Route 96: There does not appear to be any unusual geometry at the Bundy Road / Route 96 intersection. During field observations a TCAT bus was flagged down at the southwest corner of the intersection by a pedestrian waiting for the bus. This created a brief interruption in traffic, however, this appears to be random in nature as there is no formal bus stop at this location. A Highway Safety Investigation (HSI) was completed by NYSDOT in March, 2002 at this location. A HSI is a detailed crashes analysis completed at intersections or along segments of roadway that have been identified to have existing safety deficiencies, high crash rates, and/or identifiable crash patterns. Crash reports are obtained for the location and reviewed in detail by a professional traffic & safety engineer to determine the causes of the crashes. Finally, recommendations are made to mitigate the number or pattern of crashes. The 2002 HSI at this location recommended the following measures to improve safety at the intersection: Deer zone extended with appropriate warning signs in Fall 2001, Upgrade signs at Bundy Road, Hayts Road, and DuBois Road intersections, Clear brush near Hayts Road, and Upgrade weathered signs in corridor with new 36-inch signs. These measures appear to have been completed. Recommendations: It is recommended that this intersection be monitored for crashes to determine if the HSI improvements have reduced the number and rate of crashes through this corridor.

53

Route 96B / King Road Intersection: Volume/Capacity: Field observations indicate that there are no excessive queues or delay created by the signal at this intersection, indicating acceptable LOS. The following is a general summary of traffic at this intersection during the peak periods: SEGMENT Mainline Route 96B: Side Street King Road: Safety: Field observations indicate that there are excessive speeds at this intersection, particularly on Route 96B in the northbound direction where there is a down slope. The TITP indicates that the 85th percentile speed is at least 25% greater than the posted speed limit on King Road. Additionally, there is no protected left turn phasing for the northbound and southbound left turning vehicles. In addition, northbound and southbound vehicles are using the shoulders for right-turn-on-red and to pass vehicles waiting to turn left. There appears to be limited sight distance for vehicles traveling eastbound approaching the intersection due to a horizontal curve on West King Road. This curve also restricts the sight distance for right turns on red on the northbound approach and left turns on the westbound approach. It was noted that there were advanced warning signs for the signal at the northbound, southbound, and eastbound approaches, none on the westbound approach. The TITP lists 5 serious crashes at this intersection, indicating that there may be a high crash rate. Recommendations: It is recommended that a capacity analysis be completed and left turn warrants be investigated to determine if protected left turns are warranted at this intersection. A detailed safety analysis should be conducted at this intersection to determine the crash rate, severity of crashes and crash patterns. AM PEAK 800 124 PM PEAK 718 402

54

Pine Tree Road / Maple Avenue Intersection: Volume/Capacity: Field observations indicate that Pine Tree Road experiences high traffic volumes. Observations also indicate limited gaps in traffic on Pine Tree Road and high delay for vehicles exiting Maple Avenue during the peak travel periods, indicating unacceptable LOS. The following is a general summary of traffic at this intersection during the peak periods: SEGMENT Mainline Pine Tree Road: Side Street Maple Avenue: Safety: Field observations indicate that the sight distance for vehicles turning from Maple Avenue onto Pine Tree Road is limited due to a horizontal curve on Pine Tree Road, brush to the north of the intersection, and a vertical curve on Pine Tree Road to the south of the intersection. It was noted that there were advanced warning signs for all approaches to this intersection. Recommendations: It is recommended that a capacity analysis be completed to determine if any mitigation measures can be implemented to reduce the Maple Avenue delay.* In addition, a crash screening was completed for the intersection and found that no crashes occurred at the intersection between 1999 2001 (attached). AM PEAK 587 74 PM PEAK 598 146

*Note from the Town of Ithaca: There does not appear to be a capacity problem at this intersection. The sight distance to the north forces drivers to come to a full stop and look before entering the traffic stream on Pine Tree Road. This is a relatively safe arrangement, as evidenced by the intersections good safety record.

55

SEGMENTS
Sandbank Road Segment: Segment: Volume/Capacity: Sandbank Road is a local low volume road that connects W. King Road in the Town of Danby to Route 13 in the Town of Ithaca. The AADT on Sandbank Road is approximately 1,100 vehicles. Observations verified low traffic volume traveling on Sandbank Road, indicating acceptable LOS. Safety: Observations indicate multiple topographic concerns such as sharp curves and hills throughout the entire length of the roadway. The segment was very well marked with curve warning signs, except where indicated in field observation notes. Approximately 1.7 miles west of W. King Road, there is a significant downgrade making it difficult to travel less than 40 MPH without constant braking. Near W. King Road the character of the roadway changes from a straight roadway with wide shoulders to curving, rolling terrain. Recommendations: A crash screening was completed for Sandbank Road that indicated no crashes occurred along the segment of roadway between 1999 2001. Nine crashes occurred at the intersection of Sandbank Road and Route 13. See the attached crash screening for further information regarding this intersection. The corridor could also be evaluated for the installation of speed limit signs and additional warning signs / reflectors / flashing beacons to aid drivers navigating the corridor.

56

Stone Quarry Road Segment: Volume/Capacity: Stone Quarry Road is an urban collector with an AADT of approximately 2,740 vehicles. Observations verified low traffic volume traveling on Stone Quarry Road indicating acceptable LOS. Safety: Observations indicate multiple topographic concerns, such as sharp curves and hills, throughout the entire length of the roadway. In addition, the Weight Limit sign number has worn completely off. In addition to the physical concerns presented in the Safety Audit, excessive speeds were also witnessed on Stone Quarry Road. The TITP lists the northernmost and southernmost sections of this roadway to have 85th percentile speeds at least 25% greater than the posted speed limit. The TITP does not include Stone Quarry Road in its summary of locations with the highest frequency of serious crashes, indicating there may not be a high crash rate for this segment of roadway. Recommendations: It is recommended that a crash screening, to determine the crash rate and severity of crashes, be conducted for this segment of roadway. Sign upgrades and replacements could also be completed to improve the signage concerns along the corridor. Finally, the City of Ithaca should be notified that the Spencer Street intersection could be evaluated for possible radius improvements to eliminate vehicles crossing the centerline when turning onto Stone Quarry Road.*

*Note from the Town of Ithaca: This intersection has been reconstructed as the areas first roundabout. Field observations indicate that there is very little queuing at the entrances to the roundabout. In addition, the intersection is now less confusing for motorists to navigate. Pedestrian crossings are clearly indicated, so pedestrians know where to cross and motorists know where to expect pedestrians.

57

Pine Tree Road Segment: Volume/Capacity: Pine Tree Road is an urban minor arterial. The following is a summary of the AADTs for the various sections of Pine Tree Road cited in the TITP: SEGMENT Slaterville Road to Snyder Hill Road Snyder Hill Road to Ellis Hollow Road Ellis Hollow Road to Dryden Road AADT 4,686 6,862 1,219

Observations verified steady high traffic volumes traveling on Pine Tree Road. The TITP indicates the following sections of Pine Tree Road with high volume to capacity ratios (V/C): SEGMENT Slaterville Road to Honness Lane Honness Lane to Snyder Hill Road Snyder Hill Road to Maple Avenue V/C 0.8-1.0 >1.0 0.8-1.0

Safety: Observations indicated excessive speeds for the existing roadway character. There also appeared to be a worn walking path along the shoulder prior to the start of the sidewalk. The TITP lists 9 serious crashes involving another vehicle on Pine Tree Road between Snyder Hill Road and Mitchell Street. Recommendations: A crash screening was completed for the segment of Pine Tree Road indicating 14 crashes occurred between 1999 2001 (attached). A crash screening at the intersection of Pine Tree Road and Route 79 indicated 14 crashes occurred at the intersection as well. It is recommended that a detailed safety analysis, including collision diagrams, be conducted for the segment of Pine Tree Road and the intersection of Pine Tree Road and Route 79 to further investigate the exact location and cause of the crashes. If identifiable crash patterns are apparent, mitigation measures can be recommended to improve the safety of the corridor. New sidewalks should be considered in the location of the worn walking paths to accommodate the pedestrians using the corridor.

58

Pleasant Grove Road Segment: Volume/Capacity: Pleasant Grove Road is an urban minor arterial with an AADT of 6,162 vehicles. Observations indicate that the traffic volumes traveling on Pleasant Grove Road were heavy for the character and conditions of the roadway. Many bicycles were also observed on this roadway due to the close proximity to the college. Safety: Observations indicate curves and hills throughout the entire length of the roadway. Excessive speeds for the existing roadway character were also witnessed on Pleasant Grove Road. The TITP lists the section of this roadway located on the hill between the observatory and stop sign to have an 85th percentile speed of at least 25% greater than the posted speed limit. There appeared to be a narrow shoulder on Pleasant Grove Road making it difficult for bicycles and vehicles to comfortably co-exist. Recommendations: It is recommended that this segment be monitored for crashes. Should a higher number of crashes begin to occur, the segment should be analyzed to determine the crash rate and severity of crashes along the roadway. Dedicated bicycle lanes should be considered for future construction projects along the segment.

59

Mecklenburg Road Segment: Volume/Capacity: Mecklenburg Road is a rural minor arterial with an AADT of 6,450 vehicles. Observations verified moderate traffic volumes traveling on Mecklenburg Road. Safety: In the westbound direction, the segment has a City feel as there is a sidewalk, the houses are close to the roadway, and vehicles are traveling uphill at slower speeds. In the eastbound direction the houses are set back further from the roadway with no shoulder or curbing. In addition, vehicles are traveling downhill at a higher rate of speed. This, combined with high traffic volumes, likely causes problems for vehicles attempting to exit driveways along the segment. There is a short section of road before entering the city upon which the speed limit drops but vehicles do not slow down. However, observations indicate that this is only a short stretch and that upon entering the city vehicles are forced to slow down due to the physical characteristics of the roadway. A crash screening indicates 26 crashes occurred on Mecklenburg Road between Westhaven Road and the city line. One crash involved a bicyclist that was killed on the section of Mecklenburg Road between Eco Village and Conifer Lane. Recommendations: It is recommended that a detailed safety analysis be conducted for the segment of Mecklenburg Road between Eco Village and the city line to determine the crash rate, severity of crashes and crash patterns. Mitigation measures should be developed to improve the safety of the corridor.

60

Route 96 / Trumansburg Road Segment: Volume/Capacity: Trumansburg Road is an urban minor arterial with an AADT of 8,650 vehicles. Observations verified moderate to high traffic volumes traveling on Trumansburg Road. The TITP indicates that Trumansburg Road from the Town Line to the City Line has a V/C that is greater than one. This was not observed in the field; observations indicated that congestion on this roadway begins in and stays within the city limits. Safety: Observations indicate high speeds and many access points along Trumansburg Road. The roadway grade down into the City causes drivers to constantly brake to maintain a reasonable speed. This is likely a cause for concern, especially in the winter months. The TITP lists 44 crashes involving an animal on Trumansburg Road along with 5 serious crashes involving another vehicle at the intersections of Trumansburg Road with Hayts Road and with Hospital Drive. No bicyclist or pedestrian crashes were noted. As stated under the Route 96 / Bundy Road & Route 96 / Hayts Road section, a HSI was completed at this location. According to the HSI this location had accident rates above the statewide averages at multiple intersections. The HSI also identified deficiencies and made the following recommendations for the area: Deer zone extended with appropriate warning signs in Fall 2001, Upgrade signs at Bundy Road, Hyats Road, and DuBois Road intersections, Clear brush near Hyats Road, and Upgrade weathered signs in corridor with new 36-inch signs. Field observations also indicated the center striping appeared faded through this segment. Recommendations: It is recommended that this segment be monitored for crashes to determine if the HSI improvements have reduced the number and rate of crashes through this corridor.

61

Route 96B (nearing City) Segment: Volume/Capacity: Route 96B is an urban minor arterial with an AADT of 9,000 vehicles. Observations verified steady moderate to high traffic volumes traveling on Route 96B. Safety: Upon entering the City Route 96B drops from four lanes to two lanes with no taper. Observations indicate that the northbound vehicles do not slow down as they are approaching the City and there are many near conflicts as the vehicles merge into one lane. The Right Lane Must Turn Right sign, approximately 1.2 miles north of the Ithaca College signal, was hidden by trees and graffiti. The TITP lists 13 crashes involving another vehicle located in the area of Ithaca College with the exception of one crash at the Nelson Road intersection. Ten of these crashes were due to driver error/failure to yield. The remaining crashes were due to alcohol involvement and slippery pavement. No bicyclist or pedestrian crashes were noted. Recommendations: It is recommended that the tress and brush covering the warning signals and signs along the segment be trimmed to increase visibility. Due to the high number of Ithaca College students walking into the city, safer pedestrian crossings should be considered.

62

Elmira Road (From 13A to EnfieldEnfield-Town of Ithaca line) Segment: Volume/Capacity: Elmira Road is a rural major arterial with an AADT of approximately 17,615 vehicles on the segment between the Route 13 / Route 34-96 intersection and Five Mile Drive. Observations verified steady high traffic volumes traveling on Elmira Road. The TITP indicates that this section of Elmira Road has a V/C that is greater than one, which is consistent with field observations. Safety: Observations indicate high speeds along the segment. There were also multiple access points along the entire length of the roadway. Due to the high volume and speeds there were minimal gaps in traffic for the vehicles entering Elmira Road. Vehicles at these points were aggressive and accepted small gaps to exit the access points, creating many near collisions. The TITP lists multiple locations with serious crashes involving another vehicle on this section of Elmira Road. The following is a summary of these locations: SEGMENT/INTERSECTION Elmira Road - Sandbank Road to Route 13A Elmira Road - Route 13A to Newfield Townline CRASHES 9 18

Additionally, other crashes involving an animal and a sign post occurred at the following locations on Elmira Road: SEGMENT/INTERSECTION Elmira Road - Calkins Road (sign post) Elmira Road Seven Mile Drive (animal) CRASHES 1 1

No bicyclist or pedestrian crashes were noted. Recommendations: It is recommended that a detailed safety analysis should be conducted for this section of Elmira Road to determine the crash rate, severity of crashes and crash patterns. Access management principles should be considered to consolidate the access points along the roadway.

63

CRASH SCREENING:
Intersections and Road Segments in the Town of Ithaca November 28, 2005

Town of Ithaca Planning Department 215 N. Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Contact: ntedesco@town.ithaca.ny.us

Table of Contents Intersections: Slaterville Road (Route 79) and Honness Lane Slaterville Road (Route 79) and Pine Tree Road Pine Tree Road and Maple Ave Pine Tree Road and Honness Lane Seven Mile Drive and Elmira Road (Route 13) Road Segments: Sandbank Road Pine Tree Road Mecklenburg Road (Route 79)

64

Data Analysis and Results In 2002, the Town of Ithaca Planning Department compiled a database of information about vehicular crashes that occurred in the Town from 1999-2001. This screening uses the information in that database to study the circumstances of crashes at select locations, to determine if there is a pattern to the crashes, and to suggest mitigation measures (if any) to improve the safety of the location. Several limitations to the data upon which the crash screening is based exist. They are: The short duration of data collection (three years); The age of the data (five to seven years); The completeness of the data (non-reportable crashes, i.e. crashes resulting in no injuries and less than $1,000 property damage are not included); The correctness of the data (the database was compiled by hand); The accuracy of the data in the reports. The crash screening shows that there are very few crashes at several intersections and road segments identified as hazardous by the Town Transportation Committee. This indicates a disjunction between the perceived and actual safety of the location. A location with few crash reports in the database is not necessarily safe, due to the limitations of the database described above. Such a location, however, is safer than a location with a demonstrated record of reported, serious crashes. Furthermore, the accident reports may not have accurately identified the location of the accident. Some accident reports list a main road and a side road for the location. The accident may have occurred close to the intersection, not necessarily at the intersection. One example of this is on Pine Tree Road, where reports list the majority of accidents as occurring at Ellis Hollow Road/ Snyder Hill Road. From this information, it is impossible to tell the exact location of the accident. One shortcoming of the analyses in this crash screening is that traffic volumes are not considered with regard to the number of accidents. If all other factors are similar, a location with a higher traffic volume will have a greater number of accidents than a location with a lower traffic volume. The Town of Ithaca does not have complete traffic volume data for all locations in the Town, so this normalization step has been omitted. In future studies or traffic safety programs, traffic volumes should be considered when prioritizing locations for mitigation; locations with higher accident to volume ratios should have higher priority.

65

INTERSECTIONS
ROUTE 79 (SLATERVILLE ROAD) and HONNESS LANE Description: Honness Lane intersects Route 79 at approximately a forty-five degree angle. Honness Lane travels down a hill to the intersection with Slaterville Road. This intersection is controlled by a stop sign on Honness Lane (though on Slaterville Road). The speed limit on Honness Lane is 30 mph; the speed limit on Slaterville Road is 45 mph. Weather is unlikely to be a factor in any of the collisions listed below. Crashes on Slaterville Rd between Honness La. & Pine Tree Rd.: Rd. Two of the crashes on Slaterville Road were the result of an animal action; one occurred at five in the morning and the other occurred at nine in the morning. The other crash on Route 79 was due to the driver falling asleep at four in the morning. Crashes at intersection intersection of Honness Rd. & Slaterville Rd: Rd All of the crashes at the intersection of Honness and Route 79 involved a vehicle crashing into another vehicle. o In one case, a crash was caused by failure to yield while traveling on Honness Lane in a westbound direction. This could have been caused by a vehicle on Honness Lane turning onto Route 79 by trying to beat the traffic and pulling into a break in traffic that was too small during morning rush hour. This resulted both in injury and property damage. o Another accident was caused by backing unsafely at three in the afternoon. This could have been caused by someone backing out of a driveway on Route 79 near Honness Lane and striking a car traveling east on Route 79 or Honness Lane. This accident resulted in no injuries, but did cause property damage. o Two crashes at this intersection were rear-end crashes. One involved an eastbound vehicle, and another involved west-bound vehicles. Conclusion: Conclusion There is no strong pattern to the crashes involving human error. Some of the crashes may have been prevented with closer driver attention. Improved signage to alert approaching drivers to the intersection of Route 79 and Honness Lane may improve safety.

Crashes at or near the Intersection of Slaterville Road (Route 79) and Honness Lane Intersecting Road
HONNESS LA HONNESS LA

Date
2/4/1999 3/17/2001

Time Weather
14:00 CLEAR

Traffic Control

First event

Manner of collision
Rear end

# Travel # Occu- Driver(s) Property Sex(es) Injury Vehicles Direction pants Age(s) Damage
2 2 2 2 1 1 1 East West East West South North East 3carA, 1carB 3carA, 1carB 1carA, 1carB 2carA, 3carB 1 1 1 16A, 43B 36A, 57B 64A,64B 29A, 51B 19 42 52 M/M M/M F/M M/M M M F Y Y N N N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

NOTES
Violations charged violation car B- 1140-A violation-1211-A

NONE Collision w/vehicle

9:00 CLOUDY NONE Collision w/vehicle Failure to yield NONE Collision w/vehicle Backing unsafely Rear end/ driver NONE Collision w/vehicle unawareness Collision w/head NONE wall/culvert Fell asleep

HONNESS LA 12/31/1999 15:00 CLEAR HONNESS LA 1/28/2001 PINE TREE RD & HONNESS LA 1/1/2000 PINE TREE RD & HONNESS LA 11/19/1999 PINE TREE RD & HONNESS LA 3/15/2000 20:00 CLEAR 4:00 CLEAR

Violations-1192-3, 1192-2, 1120-A

5:00 CLOUDY NONE Collision w/ animal Animal action 9:00 CLOUDY NONE Collision w/ animal Animal action

**diver inattention, inexperience, distraction, fell asleep, lost consciousness

66

ROUTE 79 (SLATERVILLE ROAD) and PINE TREE ROAD

Description: Description Pine Tree Road intersects Route 79 at a forty-five degree angle. Pine Tree Road travels down a hill to the intersection with Slaterville Road. Traffic volumes on both Pine Tree Road and Slaterville Road are high at peak hours. The intersection is controlled by a flashing light (red on the Pine Tree Road approach, yellow on the Route 79 approach). The speed limit on Pine Tree Road is 35 mph; the speed limit on Route 79 is 45 mph. Animal Action: Action There were two crashes involving animals; both involved vehicles traveling toward the City. They occurred at six and seven in the morning, during peak hours of deer activity. Elderly, lost consciousness: Another crash involved an eighty-four year old female who lost consciousness while traveling east on Route 79 at one in the afternoon. She struck what the accident report calls earth/ rock cut/ ditch, resulting in injury. Weather: Weather One accident occurred when a seventy-six year old male lost control of the vehicle due to slippery pavement in snowy weather and struck a utility pole while traveling south on the hill leading toward the intersection with Route 79. Another took place in snowy weather when a vehicle was traveling northbound onto Pine Tree Road. It is possible that the person was turning north onto Pine Tree Road and was sideswiped by a vehicle traveling through eastbound on Route 79. Yet another accident, a rear end crash, occurred when a vehicle was traveling south on Pine Tree Road in snowy weather; slippery pavement was noted in the accident report. Vehicle Crashes: Crashes A total of eleven crashes involved two or more vehicles. The crashes were spread out evenly on all approaches (north, south, east, and west). o Northbound (turning onto Pine Tree from Route 79 east or west): One accident was caused by a vehicle turning improperly. o Southbound (exiting Pine Tree Road onto Route 79): An accident occurred southbound on Pine Tree Road; the cited cause was backing unsafely. Although the exact cause cannot be determined, this may have been due to a vehicle exiting a driveway on Pine Tree Road without carefully checking for oncoming vehicles. Another accident was due to failure to yield. In this case, it is likely that a southbound vehicle turned onto Route 79 and was struck by a vehicle moving through the intersection (on Route 79). o Eastbound, away from the City (on Route 79): One accident was caused by failure to yield, which likely involved a vehicle unsafely turning onto Pine Tree Road. There were two rear end crashes on this approach, caused when an eastbound vehicle slowed to make a left turn onto Pine Tree Road and was struck from behind by an inattentive driver. o Westbound, toward the City (on Route 79): Three accidents occurred on this approach. One was a rear end crash, caused by failure to yield, another was due to unsafe speed, and a third was caused by a failure to yield. The crash due to unsafe speed took place during snowy weather, which compounds the effects of unsafe speed (weather was not cited in the report as a cause). Conclusions: Conclusions At this location, there is no apparent pattern to the accidents. A variety of reasons cause crashes, which happen fairly evenly on all approaches. Because this is a location with a significant number of accidents, and many accidents are caused by unsafe driver behavior, improved signage on all approaches may better alert drivers to the hazardous intersection and warn against typical hazardous behavior at the intersection. Other factors may include the high speed of motor vehicles and the relatively small gaps between vehicles on Slaterville Road (Rt. 79), especially during rush hour. According to level of service data (see Appendix II in this volume), there is a significant delay for the left turn onto Slaterville Road. Thus, some drivers may try to beat the oncoming traffic when turning onto Slaterville Road. At some point, this intersection may need traffic control upgrades, such as a traffic light, for capacity and safety reasons.

67

Crashes at or near the Intersection of Pine Tree Road and Slaterville Road/ Route 79
Date 10/4/2000 1/27/2001 11/3/1999 7/12/2000 8/16/1999 1/12/1999 1/29/2001 12/21/2000 11/21/2000 4/27/2001 7/18/2000 1/27/2001 3/6/1999 6/24/1999 3/27/1999 Time 7:00 9:00 6:00 13:00 15:00 16:00 7:00 Weather Traffic Control First event Manner of collision Other Sideswipe Animal action Lost consciousness Rear end/failure to yield Rear end Failure to yield Backing unsafely Turning improperly Failure to yield Rear end/ following too closely Slippery pavement Unsafe speed Failure to yield Rear end/driver unawareness** # Travel Vehicles Direction 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 West North West East West South East South North South East South West West Southeast # Occupants 4 2carA, 1carB 1 1 4carA, 1carB 1carA, 1carB 2carA, 1carB 1carA, 1carB 1carA, 2carB 2carA, 2carB 2carA, 1carB 1 2carA, 2carB 1carA, 1carB 3carA,2carB Driver(s) Age(s) 22 49A, 63B 50 84 32A, 31B 59A, 22B 37A, 26B 19A, 66B 20A, 51B 76A, 16B 44A, 19B 76 24A, 28B 19A, 23B 22A, XB Sex(es) Injury F M/M F F M/M F/M M/F F/M M/M M/M F/F M M/F M/F F/F N N N Y Y Y N N Y N N Y N N N Property Damage Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y violation carB- 1142-A Slippery pavement violation carA- 111-D2 slippery pavement Violation carA-1140-A violation carA-1121-A NOTES

CLOUDY No passing zone collision w/ animal SNOW CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR SNOW CLEAR Stop Sign NONE NONE NONE Flashing light Traffic signal Flashing light Flashing light Traffic signal Flashing light NONE Stop Sign Stop Sign Flashing light collision w/vehicle collision w/ animal collision w/ earth/rock cut/ditch collision w/vehicle collision w/vehicle collision w/vehicle collision w/vehicle collision w/vehicle collision w/vehicle collision w/vehicle Utility pole collision w/vehicle collision w/vehicle collision w/vehicle

14:00 CLOUDY 20:00 14:00 CLEAR CLEAR

17:00 CLOUDY 10:00 13:00 7:00 15:00 SNOW SNOW CLEAR CLEAR

**diver inattention, inexperience, distraction, fell asleep, lost consciousness

68

MAPLE AVE and PINE TREE ROAD

Description: Maple Ave intersects Pine Tree Road at an angle of nearly ninety degrees. To the north, Pine Tree Road slopes downhill and curves to the left, and it is very difficult to see vehicles approaching. Fortunately, vehicle speeds on this section of Pine Tree Road are somewhat lower than on other sections, due to the hill (the speed limit is 35 mph on Pine Tree Road, and 30 on Maple Ave). Even so, there is a strong perception of hazard when exiting Maple Ave. There do not appear to be any reportable crashes at this intersection between 19991999-2001. 2001

PINE TREE ROAD and HONNESS LANE

Fisher Associates is reviewing this intersection and considering the effect of the transit and pedestrian amenities as part of the Pew Trail project on Pine Tree Road. There do not appear to be any reportable crashes at this intersection between 19991999-2001. 2001

Above: Pine Tree Road and Maple Ave

Above: Pine Tree Road and Honness Lane

69

SEVEN MILE DRIVE and ELMIRA ROAD (ROUTE 13)

Description: Description Seven Mile Drive, a Town-owned local road, intersects Elmira Road (State Route 13) at a nearly forty-five degree angle. When at the intersection on Seven Mile Drive, a combination of a hill and bushes block sight distances to the right. Although sight distances of 500 feet are ideal, motorists and bicyclists can see only 256 feet down the road. This causes them to creep into the intersection to see, creating a hazard for through and turning vehicles on Elmira Road. The speed limit on Elmira Road is 55 mph. Collisions due to Weather: Weather One crash was caused at two in the morning during snowy weather. This crash was attributed to slippery pavement. Collisions due to Animal Action: Action The three crashes involving an animal happened around dawn, a time of peak deer activity. All three vehicles were traveling north (presumably on Elmira Road). The official manner of collision for one accident was recorded as a result of slippery pavement or some type of tire failure. Collisions Involving Another Vehicle Vehicle: hicle Two crashes occurred due to driver error, such as inattention, falling asleep, or inexperience. Following too closely compounded one of these crashes. Both crashes occurred in the northbound direction, presumably on Elmira Road. One of these crashes resulted in injuries. Another crash was caused by bicycle or pedestrian error, although the report doesnt elaborate on the circumstances. A final car crash was caused by a southbound vehicle on Seven Mile Drive turning onto Elmira Road. The vehicle failed to yield to a through vehicle on Elmira Road, causing a crash. This crash fits the pattern of crashes compounded by short sight distances, as mentioned above. Other Crashes: Crashes A final crash occurred at one in the morning involving a westbound vehicle on Elmira Road. The report unfortunately does not list the objects circumstances of the collision. Conclusions: Conclusions There is no strong pattern to crashes at this location. Measurements by the Town Engineering Department and field observations in the intersection and road segment analyses by Fisher Associates indicate poor sight distances at this intersection. Trimming brush that blocks sight distance on Seven Mile Drive, taking other actions to improve sight distance, or reducing speeds on the through road could improve safety. Field observations have noted that there may be insufficient breaks in the traffic on Route 13 to permit safe turns from Seven Mile Drive, leading turning drivers to try to beat the oncoming traffic.

Crashes at or near the Intersection of Seven Mile Drive and Elmira Road/ Route 13
Date Time Weather CLEAR Traffic Control No passing zone First event Collision w/ vehicle Collision w/ vehicle Collision w/ vehicle Collision w/ vehicle Collision w/ animal Collision w/ animal Collision w/ animal Earth/ rock cut/ ditch Other Manner of collision Inattention/ fell asleep/ inexperience & following too closely Driver unawareness** Failure to yield Bicycle/ pedestrian error Animal action Slippery pavement/ tire failure Animal action Slippery pavement Other # Vehicles 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 Travel Direction North North Southeast South Northeast north North South West # Occupants 1carA, B &C 1carA, 2carB 1carA, 1carB 1carA, 1carB 2 1 1 1 2 Driver(s) Age(s) 44A, 29B, 29C 42A, 41B 88A,26B 46A, 65B 69 37 44 19 26 Sex(es) M/F/M M/F M/F M/F F F M M F Injury N Y N Y N N N N Y Property Damage Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

8/17/2001 14:00

4/5/1999 16:00 CLEAR NONE 3/14/2001 15:00 CLOUDY Stop sign 2/16/1999 13:00 CLEAR No passing zone 5/28/1999 5:00 CLEAR NONE 1/4/2001 1/1/2001 6:00 2:00 CLOUDY CLEAR SNOW CLEAR NONE NONE NONE NONE 10/24/2000 6:00 10/26/1999 1:00

**diver inattention, inexperience, distraction, fell asleep, lost consciousness

70

ROAD SEGMENTS
SANDBANK ROAD (and Elmira Road/ Route 13) Description: Description Sandbank Road, a Town-owned local road, runs from Route 13 to the Town of Danby. The road runs through a rural area, climbs a significant hill, and has a section of sharp curves where the road skirts a steep hill. The speed limit on Sandbank Road is 30 mph from Route 13 to Town Line Road, and 45 mph from Town Line Road to the Ithaca Danby municipal boundary. There do not appear to be any reportable crashes along the length of Sand Bank Road between 19991999-2001. Although the intersection of Sandbank Road and Route 13 was not identified by the Transportation Committee or studied by Fisher Associates, it was the site of nine accidents during 1999-2001. Three of the accidents were caused by an animal action. Three more were caused by a vehicle following another too closely. One was caused by an environmental factor (slippery pavement, glare, or tire failure). Another was caused by unsafe speed. The final crash was caused by improper or unsafe turning. Conclusions: Conclusions Although the Town can recommend changes, the Town does not have control over Elmira Road (Rt. 13) because it is a State route. It appears that the crashes involved vehicles traveling on Route 13, not Sandbank Road. Sight distances at the Sandbank Road/ Route 13 intersection are adequate (according to data collected by the Town of Ithaca Engineering Department). Thus, there is little that the Town can do on its own to improve safety at this location.

Crashes at the Intersection of Route 13 and Sandbank Road:

Date 7/21/2000 3/12/2000 2/28/2000 8/28/2001 11/8/1999 4/3/1999 11/19/1999 6/29/2001 Time Weather Traffic Control NONE NONE NONE NONE First event collision w/vehicle collision w/vehicle collision w/vehicle collision w/vehicle Manner of collision Overtaking/ following too closely Following too closely Turning improperly, unsafely Following too closely Environmental factor* Unsafe speed Animal action Animal action Animal action # Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 Travel Direction # Occupants Driver(s) Age(s) 72A,19B Sex(es) Injury M,M M,F F/M M/M M/F F/M M M M N N N N Y Y N N N Property Damage Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y violation car A-1129-A Slippery pavement/ glare/ tire failure violation car-B-1180-E NOTES violation car-A 1129-A violation car-B-1180-A, 1129-A

16:00 CLOUDY 11:00 SNOW

Northeast 1carA, 1carB South

1carA, 1carB 25A, 17B

17:00 CLOUDY 17:00 CLOUDY

Southeast 2carA, 1carB 35A, 28B South South South South South South 1carA, 2carB 18A, 25B 1carA, 2carB 69A, 46B 1carA, 1carB 46A, 82B 1 1 1 67 81 23

16:00 CLOUDY Traffic signal collision w/vehicle 11:00 5:00 N/A CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR NONE NONE NONE NONE collision w/vehicle collision w/ animal collision w/ animal collision w/ animal

11/13/2000 18:00 CLOUDY

* pavement slippery, glare, tire failure.

71

STONE QUARRY ROAD:

Description: Description Stone Quarry Road is a Town-owned urban collector that runs from Spencer Street in the City of Ithaca uphill to West King Road in the Town. At the bottom of the hill, the speed limit on Stone Quarry Road is 25 mph; from mile outside the City to West King Road, the speed limit is 35 mph. Collisions due to animal actions: actions Three accidents on Stone Quarry Road involved animals. One occurred during snowy weather on the northern portion of the road, near the City, while the other two occurred at the southern end of the road, at or near the intersection with West King Road. As expected, most occurred at dawn or dusk. Collisions potentially compounded by weather: weather Four accidents occurred during inclement weather. One of these crashes was blamed on an animal action, while three others were attributed to environmental factors, such as slippery pavement, glare, or tire failure. Collisions due to driver error: error The remaining six accidents were attributed to driver error, such as speeding, passing improperly, or driver unawareness. Two of the accidents near Spencer Road were attributed to driver unawareness (one of these involved a 79 year old driver); another was for unsafe speed. Of the accidents near the intersection with West King Road, two were attributed to unsafe speed (one by a 17 year old driver) and another was attributed to improper passing. Conclusions: Conclusions There is no apparent pattern to the crashes on this road. Crashes were due to several different factors. The appearance of clusters may be due to the DMV reporting system, which uses intersections to locate crashes. As with other locations, improved signage may alert drivers to common causes of crashes at this location.

Intersecting Road SPENCER RD/RRXING SPENCER RD/RRXING

Date

Time Weather Traffic Control NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE N/A no passing zone NONE NONE

First event Other Signpost Vehicle Tree Other Earth/ rock cut/ditch Signpost Animal Animal Vehicle Vehicle Earth rock cut/ditch

Manner of collision Driver unawareness** Environmental factor* other Environmental factor* animal Driver unawareness** unsafe speed animal animal improper passing unsafe speed Environmental factor*

# Travel Driver(s) Property # Occupants Sex(es) Injury Vehicles Direction Age(s) Damage 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 South North South North South West North East N/A North/ South East West 1 1 N/A 1 2 1 1 1 1 79 21 N/A 21 57 23 36 59 53 F F N/A M M M M M F M/F M F N N N N N Y Y N N Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

NOTES

12/7/1999 14:00 CLEAR 10/5/2000 14:00 RAIN N/A SNOW SNOW

SPENCER RD/RRXING 12/10/2000 11:00 SPENCER RD/RRXING SPENCER RD/RRXING SPENCER RD/RRXING SPENCER RD/RRXING W KING RD W KING RD W KING RD W KING RD W KING RD 1/31/2000 12:00 1/5/2000 1:00

7/26/2001 10:00 CLOUDY 5/13/2000 8:00 CLOUDY

slippery pavement

6/28/2001 21:00 CLEAR 4/16/2001 17:00 N/A

11/3/2000 18:00 CLOUDY 7/10/2001 18:00 CLEAR 2/28/2001 0:00 SNOW

1carA, 1carB 63A, 76B 2car A, 0car B 1 17 22

violation car-B-1126-A

* pavement slippery, glare, tire failure.

**diver inattention, inexperience, distraction, fell asleep, lost consciousness

72

PINE TREE ROAD (Slaterville Road/ Route 79 to Snyder Hill Road)

Road Description: Description Pine Tree Road, an urban minor arterial, runs from Slaterville Road (Route 79) in the south to Dryden Road (Route 366) in the north. It is a major north-south corridor on Ithacas east side. Heading north from Slaterville Road, there ample shoulder along the hill. The shoulder is often inadequate for bicycle traffic, however, because the pavement has deteriorated and is often laden with debris. At the top of the hill the shoulder narrows considerably, and in some places the pavement transitions completely to gravel. At the terminus of Pine Tree Road at Route 366 there is insufficient shoulder width where Pine Tree Road passes under an old bridge, especially because there is no emergency escape to the outside of the shoulder for bicyclists or pedestrians. The only dedicated pedestrian facilities on Pine Tree Road are the Town walkway between Snyder Hill Road and East Hill Plaza and a short section of sidewalk near East Hill Plaza. The speed limit on Pine Tree Road is 35 mph. Crash Database Notes: Notes The crashes listed in this section do not include those in the section that discusses the intersection of Route 79 & Pine Tree Road. Most of the crashes occur on Pine Tree Road between Snyder Hill Road and Ellis Hollow Road. The location identification system for accident reporting may produce a clustering effectPine Tree Road is not very long, so the DMV may locate accidents approximately via intersections with cross streets. Weather crashes: crashes One accident occurred when a seventy-six year old male lost control of the vehicle due to slippery pavement in snowy weather and struck a utility pole while traveling south on the hill leading toward the intersection with Route 79. Animal action crashes: crashes Unlike other areas of the Town, there are very few crashes triggered by animal action on Pine Tree Road, most likely due to the denser development. One crash occurred while the vehicle was traveling south. Collision with fixed object: object A vehicle traveling south on Pine Tree Road was involved in a collision with a fixed object due to bicycle or pedestrian error. The report does not elaborate on the circumstances of this accident. Vehicle collisions: collisions o In three instances, crashes were caused by a failure to yield while traveling south between Ellis Hollow Road and Snyder Hill Road (weather does not seem to be a factor in any of these). Another crash was caused by the same reason by a vehicle traveling north. o In two instances, slippery pavement caused rear end crashes between Ellis Hollow Road and Snyder Hill Road. Vehicles were traveling northbound during the winter in both cases. o Two crashes were caused by unsafe speed; it appears that both were traveling south on Pine Tree Road (perhaps down the hill, toward Slaterville Road). o The remaining three crashes were caused by improper passing, unsafe turning, and a hit-and-run sideswipe. Conclusions: Conclusions There does not seem to be an obvious pattern of accidents on Pine Tree Road. Accident seem to cluster between Snyder Hill Road and Ellis Hollow Road, but this may be due to the DMVs accident reporting system.

73

Crashes on Pine Tree Road

Date 3/7/2001 2/24/2001 7/5/2000 2/17/2000 3/7/2001 3/13/1999 2/28/2001 2/5/2000 5/29/2000 1/27/2001 6/26/2001 4/20/2000 2/2/2001 11/22/2000 Time 19:00 12:00 22:00 8:00 8:00 18:00 12:00 17:00 11:00 10:00 N/A 9:00 17:00 16:00 Weather CLOUDY CLEAR CLEAR RAIN CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR CLOUDY CLOUDY SNOW N/A Traffic Control NONE Stop sign NONE First event Collision w/ vehicle Collision w/ vehicle Collision w/ vehicle Manner of collision Failure to yield Failure to yield Improper passing Rear end Rear end Sideswipe Improper/ unsafe turning Unsafe speed Bicyclist/ pedestrian error Environmental factor* Other Unsafe speed Failure to yield Failure to yield # Vehicles Travel Direction # Occupants 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 Southeast South Northwest North North Northwest South South Southeast South South East Southwest North 1carA, 1carB 1carA, 2carB N/A 2carA, 3carB 1carA, 2carB 1carA 1carA, 1carB 3carA,1carB 2 1 1 1carA,2carB 3carA,1carB 1carA, 2carB Driver(s) Age(s) 51A,31B 20A, 20B N/A 59A, 39B 53A, 56B 21 47A, 37B 36A, 26B 21 76 32 36A, 48B 21A, 31B 37A, 28B Sex(es) Injury F/M M/M M M/F F/M F F/M M/F M M M M/F M/F F/M N N N Y N N N N N Y N N N Y Property Damage Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Violation-1141 & 0511-1A Violation-1141 slippery pavement slippery pavement slippery pavement Hit and run NOTES violation car-B-1141

no passing zone Collision w/ vehicle NONE NONE Stop sign NONE NONE NONE N/A Collision w/ vehicle Collision w/ vehicle Collision w/ vehicle Collision w/ vehicle Collision w/ fixed object Collision w/ utility pole Collision w/ animal

CLOUDY No Passing Zone Collision w/ vehicle CLOUDY CLOUDY NONE NONE Collision w/ vehicle Collision w/ vehicle

* pavement slippery, glare, tire failure.

74

MECKLENBURG ROAD (ROUTE 79), City/ Town line to West Haven Road:
Description: Mecklenburg Road, a rural principal arterial, begins in the City of Ithaca and runs through the Town of Ithaca to the Town of Enfield. This crash screening observes the section from the municipal boundary between the Town and the City to West Haven Road. In the City, Route 79 (called Hector Street in the City) runs north as it climbs a large hill. The road is fairly narrow and steep, with a speed limit of 30 mph. While on the hill, it makes a wide 180 degree arc, heads south for a stretch, and then turns to the west (at the Town of Ithaca City of Ithaca boundary). At the boundary, the road widens and the speed limit increases to 55 mph. In the eastbound direction, the hill and lack of visual or conceptual cues encourage drivers to maintain a high speed when entering the City. There are no pedestrian facilities. In the Town, the shoulder is adequate for bicycle traffic, although beginning cyclists may feel uncomfortable due to the high vehicular speeds. Weather: Weather As mentioned below, one collision caused by an animal action occurred during snowy weather; the remaining twelve crashes occurred during clear or cloudy weather. Four accidents attributed to slippery pavement occurred during snowy weather; in two of those, unsafe speed was a contributing factor. Also, an accident attributed to unsafe speed occurred during snowy conditions, although weather is not cited as a factor in the crash. Animal Action: Action There are thirteen crashes where animal action is cited as the primary manner of the collision. Seven occurred as the driver was traveling east, and six occurred when the driver was traveling west. This indicates that there is no sight distance problem blocking one approach. Of the animal-caused crashes, one occurred during snowy weather and one occurred in fog; the rest seem to have no relationship to inclement weather. Most collisions occurred at dawn and dusk (or early evening) when deer are most active. (Note: another nine crashes due to animal action occurred approximately between Rachel Carson Way and Westhaven Road.) Alcohol: Alcohol Mecklenburg Road had two accidents involving alcohol intoxication, while other studied intersections and road segments had very few to none. This may either be because the study sample is very small, because the volume on Mecklenburg Road is higher than other studied segments, or because other roads are better patrolled, so intoxicated drivers are pulled off the road before they can cause an accident. In one case involving alcohol, a 23 year old female was traveling toward the City in the rain with one passenger when her vehicle hit a tree. Unsafe speed was cited as a contributing factor. In another crash, a 34 year old male, driving two passengers, hit a guard rail. Again, unsafe speed was cited as a contributing factor. Crashes involving bicyclists: bicyclists Mecklenburg Road is also unique for having two crashes involving a bicyclist. In one instance, bicyclist/ pedestrian error is cited as the manner of a 2 p.m. collision in which a 19 year old male struck a ditch, but no information regarding the role of the bicyclist/ pedestrian can be gleaned from the report. At 4 p.m. on April 7, 1999, a 56 year old female driver struck a 44 year old male bicyclist. The cause of the accident is listed as driver inattention. The crash resulted in the death of the bicyclist. bicyclist. Other unsafe driver behaviors: behaviors The three remaining collisions were caused by unsafe driver behaviors, including unsafe speed, inattention, backing unsafely, and improper passing. Conclusions: Conclusions Many of the collisions along this stretch of highway are initiated by factors over which the Town has no control, such as the weather and individual actions (driving while intoxicated). The Town may want to consider other mitigation strategies, however, such as increased signage that warns about specific hazards (i.e. deer crossing, deer population signs or signs warning of the upcoming change in speed limit and land use as motorists approach the City). The Town should also investigate other means to protect motorists from deer (and vice versa). If bicyclists are using Mecklenburg Road as a commuter or recreation route, the Town and City should consider pressuring the State to designate bike lanes and/ or sign appropriately. Finally, incorporating roadway elements that force drivers to pay attention to their surroundings and decreasing the design speed of the roadway could increase driver attentiveness and increase the amount of time drivers have to react to animals in the road.

75

Crashes on Mecklenburg Road, from West Haven Road to Warren Place (in the City)
Intersecting Road WARREN PL WARREN PL WARREN PL WARREN PL WARREN PL WARREN PL WARREN PL WARREN PL WARREN PL WARREN PL Date Time Weather Traffic Control N/A NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE First event other tree vehicle animal animal tree animal animal signpost animal guard rail guard rail animal earth/ rock cut/ ditch animal vehicle animal animal earth/ rock cut/ ditch earth/ rock cut/ ditch animal bicyclist animal animal animal animal Manner of collision Unsafe speed, driver unawareness** Alcohol, unsafe speed unsafe speed animal action animal action slippery pavement animal action animal action unsafe speed, slippery pavement animal action Alcohol, unsafe speed slippery pavement other bicyclist/ pedestrian error animal action backing unsafely, improper passing animal action animal action improper passing & lane use unsafe speed, slippery pavement animal action driver unawareness** animal action animal action animal action animal action # Travel Occu- Driver(s) Sex Injury Vehicles Direction pants Age(s) 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 North Unknown East East East East West East East East East East West East West West West East Southeast East East West West East West West 1 2 1carA, 1carB 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 3 2 1 1 4 6carA, 1carB 1 1 1 2 2 22 23 34A, 24B 59 19 36 40 55 32 41 34 18 25 19 46 38A, 23B 21 39 59 24 16 M F M/F F F M M M M F M M M M F F/F F M F F M Y Y N N Y N N N N N Y Y N N N Y N N N N N Y N N N N Property Damage Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y violation-319-1,511-3A,404A,1212,1180-E,1192-3 violation -1192-3, 1180-A, 1227-1 NOTES

6/20/1999 19:00 CLEAR 11/11/2000 17:00 3/12/1999 11:00 12/5/2000 7:00 RAIN SNOW CLEAR

9/30/2000 21:00 CLEAR 12/18/1999 11:00 2/16/2000 18:00 SNOW SNOW

10/6/2000 20:00 CLEAR 3/16/2000 21:00 6/16/2001 SNOW

6:00 CLOUDY

WARREN PL/ 6/15/2000 15:00 CLOUDY NONE OAKWOOD LN WARREN PL/ 1/12/1999 16:00 SNOW NONE OAKWOOD LN WARREN PL/ 10/24/2000 6:00 FOG N/A OAKWOOD LN WARREN PL/ No passing 5/1/2000 14:00 CLOUDY WEST HAVEN RD zone WARREN PL/ 4/23/2000 20:00 CLOUDY NONE WEST HAVEN RD WARREN PL/ 6/27/2001 20:00 CLEAR NONE WEST HAVEN RD WARREN PL/ 9/25/1999 20:00 CLEAR NONE WEST HAVEN RD WARREN PL/ No passing 5/9/1999 8:00 CLOUDY zone WEST HAVEN RD WARREN PL/ 12/22/2000 14:00 CLOUDY Stop sign WEST HAVEN RD WARREN PL/ 3/17/2001 1:00 SNOW NONE WEST HAVEN RD WARREN PL/ 12/9/1999 18:00 CLEAR NONE WEST HAVEN RD WARREN PL/ 4/7/1999 16:00 CLOUDY NONE WEST HAVEN RD WEST HAVEN RD WEST HAVEN RD WEST HAVEN RD 9/5/1999 16:00 CLOUDY NONE NONE NONE NONE 1/23/2001 18:00 CLEAR 10/2/1999 19:00 CLEAR

1carA, 56A, F/M 1Bike 44bike 1 2 2 2 23 50 35 37 F F F M

WEST HAVEN RD 12/16/1999 21:00 CLOUDY

76

**diver inattention, inexperience, distraction, fell asleep, lost consciousness

77

APPENDIX V: SIDEWALK ORDINANCES AND POLICIES

Sidewalk Ordinance Chapter 230 STREETS AND SIDEWALKS [History: Adopted by the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca as indicated in article histories. Amendments noted where applicable.] GENERAL REFERENCES Notification of defectsSee Ch. 188 Numbering of buildingsSee Ch. 192 Property maintenanceSee Ch. 205 TrafficSee Ch. 250 ARTICLE I Excavations [Adopted 7-12-1965 by L.L. No. 2-1965] 230-1. Permit required. No person, firm or corporation, hereinafter referred to as the permittee, shall make an excavation within the limits of any Town street or highway or other public place or under any sidewalks, all hereinafter referred to as street or highway, in the Town of Ithaca without obtaining a written permit therefore issued by the Town Board or such employee, officer, person, or agency as shall be designated by the Board. The application for this permit shall include such drawings, sketches, and other information as the issuing agent may require including, among other things, the date or dates within which work is to be performed. 230-2. Deposit or security required. No such permit shall be issued unless and until the person applying for the same: A. Has filed with the Town Clerk satisfactory proof of adequate insurance indemnifying or holding harmless the Town of Ithaca, as the insured, from all claims for injuries to persons or property that the Town may be liable for by reason of such excavation, B. Has furnished satisfactory proof that the work shall be done by a person, firm or corporation competent to perform the same, C. Has executed an instrument, in form satisfactory to the Board that he assumes all responsibility for any damage to persons or property which may result or arise from any work performed pursuant to the permit, and further agrees that all work shall be performed in accordance with the conditions of the permit and all applicable laws, rules and regulations and further agrees that the Town is to be saved harmless from any loss, injury or damage arising out of the granting of the permit or as a result of any negligence, fault or act of the permittee, his contractors, servants or agents in connection with the work to be performed. D. Has deposited a sum of at least $300 in cash or certified check payable to the Town as security for the proper performance of the work and the replacement, repair and restorations of the street or highway in such condition and manner as may be reasonably required by the Town Superintendent. If the proposed construction at any time exceeds the sum of $500, by applicants estimate, to the satisfaction of the Town Highway Superintendent, a performance bond of a type and in an amount specified by the Town 78

Board may be required. Upon the filing with the Town Clerk of a certificate of the Town Highway Superintendent that the work has been performed in a satisfactory manner and the street or highway has been replaced or repaired as required by him, and all charges, expenses and damages have been paid by the applicant, any deposit shall be refunded to the permittee, provided that the permittee has otherwise complied with this article, and all rules, orders and regulations issued thereunder; otherwise the said deposit, or so much thereof as shall be necessary, may be applied by the Town to the cost of repairing or replacing such other expenses and liabilities as the Town may have incurred or be liable for. [Amended 12-31-1986 by L.L. No. 7-1986] 230-3. Performance of work A. All such excavations and all other work in connection therewith shall be completed with all possible dispatch and within such time and in such manner as the Town Highway Superintendent shall require. B. travel. C. The permittee shall erect such safeguards and barriers, and shall cause the same to be adequately marked by such lights and other warning devices from sundown to sunrise as the Town Highway Superintendent shall require. D. Any permit may be revoked by the Town Superintendent or such other person designated by the Town Board upon two days notice in writing should the permittee fail to comply with any of the terms, agreements or conditions thereof unless otherwise designated. E. Any expenses incurred by the Town in connection with the work to be done and the enforcement of the provisions hereof shall be paid by the permittee within 10 days after the Town Clerk shall have sent the permittee a statement of such expenses certified by the Town Highway Superintendent, or such other person as may be designated by the Town Board, and any sum deposited by the permittee pursuant to 230-2 may be applied toward the payment thereof. F. The Town Board may adopt further regulations regarding the issue of the permit and bearing on the conduct of the work, and establishing standards of construction and quality of materials, which regulations shall be filed with the Town Clerk and the Town Highway Superintendent. 230-4. Penalties for offenses Any violation of the provisions of this article shall constitute a misdemeanor. In addition, the penalty for each violation of this article shall be a sum not to exceed $200. ARTICLE II Construction and Repair of Sidewalks [Adopted 8-24-1992] 230-5. Title; statutory authority This article may be cited as the Town of Ithaca Sidewalk Regulation Ordinance and is adopted pursuant to the authority granted by New York State Town Law 130 et seq. and 200-a. 230-6. Construction of Sidewalks Sidewalks constructed within the Town of Ithaca, when constructed by parties other than the Town of Ithaca where ordered by the Town Board as set forth below, shall be constructed in accordance with the 79 During the performance of the work, at least of the street or highway shall be kept open for

grades and specifications annexed hereto as Exhibit A89 unless a specification is waived by the Town Board in a particular instance because of unique circumstances or if the Town Board specifically accepts a substitute specification as being equal or superior to the specifications attached. No construction, reconstruction or repair of sidewalks shall be permitted, in those areas where the Town Board has ordered the construction or maintenance of sidewalks, that does not comply with the attached specifications unless waived or modified by the Town Board as set forth above. 230-7. Maintenance of sidewalks The owner and occupant of premises abutting on any street where a sidewalk has been laid shall keep the sidewalk in front of such premises free and clear from snow, ice, dirt, and other obstructions. All snow and ice shall be removed from such sidewalk within 24 hours of the time of its deposit, such time to be determined by the Town Engineer. Upon default in maintaining sidewalks free and clear from snow, ice, dirt, and other obstructions, the Town may remove such obstructions at the expense of the property owner. The charge to the owner for the cleaning of any such walk will be the actual cost, plus 50% for overhead and administration for such charges and shall be due 30 days from the date invoiced to the owner. Bills remaining unpaid after 30 days shall accrue a late charge at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the bill or $3 per month, whichever is greater, and may be added to the taxes due with relation to, and shall become a lien upon, the premises benefited thereby, until paid. 230-8. Duty to construct and maintain sidewalks The Town Board may adopt orders from time to time, directing the owners of respective lots and parcels of land abutting on any Town street or highway, or, with the consent of the County Superintendent of Highways or the State Commissioner of Transportation, as the case may be, abutting on a county or state highway within the Town of Ithaca, along which it is desired that sidewalks be built, re-laid or repaired, to construct the same to conform to the terms of this article, and specifying the time within which the same shall be done. The procedures related to such orders shall be as follows: A. The Town Clerk shall give notice thereof by certified mail addressed to each such owner at the owners address as it appears on the assessment roll of the Town or, in the alternative, by publication of a notice thereof in the official paper at least twice, the first publication of which shall be at least 15 days before the time specified for the completion of the work. B. If, within the time prescribed in the order and notice, the sidewalks required to be built, relaid or repaired, shall not have been so built, re-laid or repaired, then the Town Board may cause the same to be done and audit and pay the expense of doing the same and assess the expense thereof against the property benefit as a whole. C. Such assessment shall be in five or fewer annual installments and shall be levied and collected from the several lots and parcels in the same manner and at the same time as other Town charges. D. The assessment against the property owners shall be in the same manner as street improvements constructed pursuant to 200 of the Town Law. E. If such expenses be assessed in installments, there shall be assessed as part of each installment, except the first, as interest, an amount not exceeding 6% of such installment, such rate to be fixed by the Town Board in the order providing for the assessment. F. The provisions of law applicable to the sale of tax liens shall apply to any unpaid assessed installment with the interest thereon in the same manner as though such installment and interest had been assessed as an assessment payable as a whole. Unassessed installments shall be payable at any time with interest computed thereon at the aforesaid rate from the date of assessment of the first installment to the date of payment of the particular installment. 80

G. If such expense be assessed as a whole and the Town Board resolution assessing such expenses against a particular piece of property shall so provide, the assessment against such property may be paid in five or fewer annual installments on the dates fixed by such resolution with interest, not exceeding 6% of each such installment, fixed by such resolution. H. Notwithstanding the forgoing, the Town Board may adopt a local law apportioning the expense of building, relaying or repairing any sidewalk within such Town between the Town and owners of the respective lots and parcels of land abutting any street or county or state highway within the Town along which it is desired that sidewalks be built, re-laid or repaired. 230-9. Applicability This article shall apply to all property in the Town of Ithaca outside the limits of the incorporated Village of Cayuga Heights. 230-10. When effective This article shall take effect 10 days after its publication as required by law, except that the same shall take effect from the date of its service (if earlier than 10 days after its publication) as against any person served personally with a copy hereof certified by the Town Clerk under the Corporate Seal of the Town and showing the date of its passage and entry in the minutes of the Town Board. Exhibit A Sidewalk Specifications for the Town of Ithaca Asphalt Concrete Sidewalks Materials and composition shall consist of Type 7 Top Course as listed under section 401.2.02 Table 401-1, Composition of Bituminous Plant Mixtures, of the NYSDOT Standard Specifications. Sidewalks shall be constructed with a six-foot width and two-inch thickness of Hot Mix Asphalt Concrete Pavement, placed on a compacted base. The asphalt concrete shall be placed and compacted according to the requirements of Section 403 of the NYSDOT Standard Specifications. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the Town Board designated a particular street or road as a residential street for sidewalk purposes, the width of the sidewalk may be reduced from six feet to four feet. Sidewalk Base shall consist of a six-inch-thick compacted fine crusher run limestone, or with the special approval of the Town Engineer the base may be constructed of crushed bank run gravel. Sidewalks shall be constructed so that the finished surface is flush with the adjacent grades. Maximum cross slope shall be 1/8 inch per foot. Maximum sidewalk grade shall be 8%.

81

Sidewalk Policy for the Town of Ithaca Adopted 10/23/03 [Note: Upon adoption of the Transportation Plan, this Interim Sidewalk Policy would be superseded by Appendix VI: Identifying and Prioritizing Bike and Pedestrian Improvements.] NEWLY DEVELOPED AREAS Subdivisions with internal roads Considerations: Children walk to school Current or likely future presence of numerous children in an environment where, in the absence of a sidewalk, many children can be expected to be present on the road shoulder Bus stop within convenient walking distance Connected to other sidewalks Provide access to trail system or public park Safety for pedestrians If any item applies, then the Planning Board at its discretion may require the developer to include sidewalks with the development. Maintenance will be the responsibility of the homeowners, or the resident association unless other arrangements are made. On existing roads If a new sidewalk would result in a connection to existing sidewalks or sidewalk system planned by the Town of Ithaca, the Planning Board may require sidewalks as part of the development. Maintenance will be the responsibility of the homeowners fronting on the sidewalks unless other arrangements are made. PREVIOUSLY DEVELOPED AREAS Petition for establishment of a sidewalk benefit district On a positive vote of the owners of at least one half of the assessed valuation of all the taxable real property in the proposed benefit district. Maintenance will be the responsibility of the homeowners fronting on the sidewalks unless other arrangements are made. At Town expense On recommendation of the Planning Board and approval of the Town Board if at least three of the following conditions apply: Within convenient walking distance to school, church or other place of regular public use, Links existing or probable future sidewalks, Existing or planned road shoulders inadequate for bicycles and pedestrians, Proximate access to public transportation, Right of way is sufficient for existing/planned roadway plus sidewalk, or an easement can be reasonably obtained from adjacent landowner(s). Planned sidewalk does not dead end without reasonable expectation of extension/connection in foreseeable future, Peak hour traffic volume is at least moderate, defined as 350- 500 vehicles per hour, and Shown as part of a town wide pedestrian circulation system in Town of Ithaca Transportation Plan.

82

Maintenance will be the responsibility of the homeowners fronting on the sidewalks, unless other arrangements are made. Examples of Town and County roads with that volume of peak hour traffic include Five Mile Drive, Ellis Hollow Rd., Coddington Rd. (west of Juniper), Judd Falls Rd., Pine Tree Rd., and Forest Home Drive. CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS Unless other arrangements are approved by the Planning Department, standard sidewalk construction shall consist of concrete four (4) feet wide. Where conditions apply, and if supported by owners of at least half the assessed value of real property in the benefit district, a walkway may be substituted for a sidewalk. Compared with a sidewalk, a walkway will typically be set further from the road edge and will be more curvy, often being constructed of asphalt.

83

Sidewalk Policy for the Town of Ithaca Adopted 10/23/03 [Note: Upon adoption of the Transportation Plan, this Interim Sidewalk Policy would be superseded by Appendix VI: Identifying and Prioritizing Bike and Pedestrian Improvements.] NEWLY DEVELOPED AREAS Subdivisions with internal roads Considerations: Children walk to school Current or likely future presence of numerous children in an environment where, in the absence of a sidewalk, many children can be expected to be present on the road shoulder Bus stop within convenient walking distance Connected to other sidewalks Provide access to trail system or public park Safety for pedestrians If any item applies, then the Planning Board at its discretion may require the developer to include sidewalks with the development. Maintenance will be the responsibility of the homeowners, or the resident association unless other arrangements are made. On existing roads If a new sidewalk would result in a connection to existing sidewalks or sidewalk system planned by the Town of Ithaca, the Planning Board may require sidewalks as part of the development. Maintenance will be the responsibility of the homeowners fronting on the sidewalks unless other arrangements are made. PREVIOUSLY DEVELOPED AREAS Petition for establishment of a sidewalk benefit district On a positive vote of the owners of at least one half of the assessed valuation of all the taxable real property in the proposed benefit district. Maintenance will be the responsibility of the homeowners fronting on the sidewalks unless other arrangements are made. At Town expense On recommendation of the Planning Board and approval of the Town Board if at least three of the following conditions apply: Within convenient walking distance to school, church or other place of regular public use, Links existing or probable future sidewalks, Existing or planned road shoulders inadequate for bicycles and pedestrians, Proximate access to public transportation, Right of way is sufficient for existing/planned roadway plus sidewalk, or an easement can be reasonably obtained from adjacent landowner(s). Planned sidewalk does not dead end without reasonable expectation of extension/connection in foreseeable future, Peak hour traffic volume is at least moderate, defined as 350- 500 vehicles per hour, and Shown as part of a town wide pedestrian circulation system in Town of Ithaca Transportation Plan. Maintenance will be the responsibility of the homeowners fronting on the sidewalks, unless other arrangements are made. 84

Examples of Town and County roads with that volume of peak hour traffic include Five Mile Drive, Ellis Hollow Rd., Coddington Rd. (west of Juniper), Judd Falls Rd., Pine Tree Rd., and Forest Home Drive. CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS Unless other arrangements are approved by the Planning Department, standard sidewalk construction shall consist of concrete four (4) feet wide. Where conditions apply, and if supported by owners of at least half the assessed value of real property in the benefit district, a walkway may be substituted for a sidewalk. Compared with a sidewalk, a walkway will typically be set further from the road edge and will be more curvy, often being constructed of asphalt.

85

APPENDIX VI: IDENTIFYING & PRIORITIZING BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS

PEDESTRIAN CORRIDORS: SELECTION AND PRIORITIZATION
The Interim Town of Ithaca Sidewalk Policy of 2003 distinguishes between existing development and newly developed areas when outlining criteria that indicate the need for a sidewalk or walkway. A sidewalk is owned and maintained by property owners or neighborhood association, while a walkway is owned and maintained by the Town. The considerations that determine whether new development warrants sidewalks or walkways are as follows: children walk to school; current or likely future presence of numerous children in an environment where, in the absence of a sidewalk or walkway, many children can be expected to be present on the road shoulder; bus stop within convenient walking distance; connected to other sidewalks or walkways; provide access to trail system or public park; and safety for pedestrians. The Planning Board can recommend that a walkway be constructed at Town expense on an existing road corridor if at least three of the following criteria are met: an existing road must: be within convenient walking distance to school, church or other place of regular public use; link existing or probable future sidewalks or walkways; have existing or planned road shoulders which are inadequate for bicycles and pedestrians; have proximate access to public transportation; have sufficient right of way for existing/planned roadway and sidewalk or walkway, or an easement can be reasonably obtained from adjacent landowner(s). In addition the planned sidewalk or walkway will not dead end without reasonable expectation of extension/connection in foreseeable future; the peak hour traffic volume on the existing roadway is at least moderate, defined as 350500 vehicles per hour; and that the area is shown as part of a town wide pedestrian circulation system in Town of Ithaca Transportation Plan. The Town of Ithaca Transportation Committee identified additional criteria that indicate whether a location may need a sidewalk or walkway. They are: Higher density/ intensity of land use (medium and high density residential, neighborhood/ office park commercial, etc) Located along the route of a bus1 Within mile of an elementary school, assisted living facility, or employment/ activity center for the disabled Within mile of other pedestrian generators (like middle schools, high schools or universities, commercial centers, employment centers, major transit stops, parks or other recreational facilities (like playgrounds), places of worship, post offices, municipal buildings or community centers, restaurants, or other locations that would generate pedestrian traffic) High 85th percentile speed; speed limit greater than 25 mph Roadway of high volume and classification (arterials or collectors; > 4,000 vpd) Outside funding is available; hence, cost to Town is low OR roadway is currently being or soon to be reconstructed (include sidewalks or walkways as part of project) Links into existing or planned pedestrian network (as shown in the Park, Recreation, and Open Space Plan) Current infrastructure is insufficient: a paved shoulder less than four feet wide, or a deteriorated pavement or gravel shoulder less than five feet wide Considerations that counter-indicate sidewalk or walkway provision include: With reasonable effort, the design, construction, and maintenance of the sidewalk or walkway cannot mitigate detrimental effects on environmental resources, including natural, historic, and scenic resources Outside funding is not available; high cost burden for the Town Adjacent land use is rural; improved shoulders are a better investment An existing or planned off-road, multi-use path offers a more direct or safer route than a sidewalk or walkway adjacent to a road

"Location along a bus route" is more accurate than "location within mile of a bus stop" because TCAT allows riders to "flag" the bus for pickup at locations other than a stop. Thus, pedestrians/ commuters can potentially wait along the length of the bus route. "Location along a bus route" is more logical than "within mile of a bus route" because the latter is an unreasonably large buffer that includes all of the roads within mile of the bus route.

86

The main benefit is for a small, localized area, and the sidewalk is unlikely to attract a broader segment of pedestrians. In this case, the sidewalk should be provided by the developer (in a new development) or the residents When the benefits outweigh the costs, a sidewalk or walkway is warranted. The magnitude of the balance between benefits and costs determines the relative priority of identified segments. The Prioritized Pedestrian Corridor Needs Map shows the locations and priorities of segments in the Town. The list below describes each segment and how it fulfills the Towns Interim Sidewalk Policy guidelines and the other considerations outlined above. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure Design: Best Practices Toolbox of the Design Guidelines outlines what type of facilities are appropriate for different types of locations. High Priority, Essential Corridors: Ten year horizon Danby Road (Rt. 96B) City line to Ithaca College: This segment is a student commuter route between Downtown and Ithaca College. It could potentially extend south along Route 96B, toward Danby, and connect to a walkway on East King Road. The portion in the Town will link into the Citys sidewalk network. Given the vehicular traffic volume and speed profile of the road, the existing road shoulders are inadequate and unsafe for pedestrian traffic. Evidence of pedestrian volume is shown in the informal off-road path beaten into the ground. This corridor is served by transit. Hanshaw Road: This walkway will serve the parks, trails, and medium density residential development in the area. Hanshaw Road is a student commuter route for both university and primary school students. This walkway will link to the sidewalks in Cayuga Heights and Community Corners in the west and to the potential trail into Dryden (Monkey Run trail) in the east. The existing shoulders on Hanshaw Road are inadequate and unsafe for pedestrian traffic, given the peak hour volume of ~550 vph. This corridor is served by transit. Finally, the right-of-way is in the process of redesign; pedestrian infrastructure is anticipated. Coddington Road, Ithaca College to City line: This corridor is also a student commuter route that connects Ithaca College to the sidewalk system in the City of Ithaca. This walkway will connect to recreational amenities and medium density residential development when extended south on Coddington Road in the future. In this area, Coddington Road has a peak hour volume of ~400 vph. Like Hanshaw Road, the right-ofway is in the process of redesign, and preliminary designs show pedestrian infrastructure from the City to Juniper Drive. Pine Tree Road: Pine Tree Road is unsafe for pedestrian traffic. The peak hour volumes range from ~800 to ~1000 vph and the 85th percentile speeds significantly exceed the speed limit. While the road shoulders are generally sufficiently wide, especially at the northern and southern ends of the road, some sections consist of a narrow strip of pavement plus gravel on the outside; other sections are nearly completely gravel. Other paved sections are clogged with gravel and debris. This corridor is served by public transit. The Pine Tree Road walkway will serve pedestrians associated with medium density residential development, various trails (East Ithaca Recreation Way and existing walkways on Pine Tree Road and Honness Lane), parks, churches in the area, and East Hill Plaza (a major pedestrian generator). This walkway will connect into other existing and planned walkways. Honness Lane, Slaterville Road to existing Town walkway: Churches, existing and planned walkways, medium density development, and trails are in the vicinity of this link. One end of the corridor connects to Slaterville Road; the other connects to the existing Honness Lane walkway and the East Ithaca Recreation Way, and beyond that, Pine Tree Road. This corridor is served by transit, and it has been noted that children wait for the school bus. This walkway is listed in the high-priority tier because residents have petitioned for an extension of the Town walkway and the provision of such a walkway is not expected to be costly or difficult. Forest Home neighborhood, as shown in the Forest Home Traffic Calming Plan: The historic Forest Home neighborhood is comprised of medium-density residential development. A chapel, which also serves as the 87

neighborhoods community center, is located in the neighborhood. The residential development, chapel, community center, bus stops, and proximity to Cornell generate significant pedestrian traffic. Pedestrian facilities in this historical, medium-density residential neighborhood range from four foot wide walkways to narrow, unpaved beaten paths. In some locations, there are no facilities at all. The Town of Ithacas Forest Home Walkway connects Warren Road to Forest Home Drive. Peak hour vehicular volumes range from ~500 vph on Judd Falls Road to ~600 vph on Forest Home Drive. Forest Home is surrounded by university-related development, including the Cornell campus to the south, Plantations to the east, and the North Campus residential development and the Cornel golf course to the north. Sidewalks through this neighborhood will link to sidewalks in the City, Cornells campus and the trails through the Cornell Plantations, as well as to a planned trail leading to the Northeast (shown in the Towns Park, Recreation, and Open Space Plan). Trumansburg Road (Rt. 96), City to Hospital: Trumansburg Road, is a high-volume, high speed State commuter route. Peak hour traffic volumes are among the highest in the Town of Ithaca (>1100 vph). Route 96 also has the highest development potential in the Town. A pedestrian corridor will connect the hospital, senior housing/ nursing care, medium density residential development, and the Overlook development to City of Ithaca sidewalks. This corridor is served by transit. This corridor is also included in the upper tier on the recommendation of the Town Board because of the existing development (such as the Overlook residential development) and the potential for further development on Trumansburg Road. Maple Ave. Connection: The existing Maple Ave. walkway begins at Pine Tree Road and terminates just inside the City of Ithaca city limit, where it connects to the East Ithaca Recreation Way. At this connection, pedestrians must cross the entrance drive to a parking lot and traverse a bus pull-off. This location would benefit from improvements to the connection, including a cross walk. Since the location is in the City, improvements would require cooperation with the City and Cornell. Recommended Recommended Corridors: Twenty year horizon Slaterville Road (Rt. 79), Pine Tree Road to City: Slaterville Road (a State route) has shoulders that may be adequate in width to accommodate pedestrians, but a separate pedestrian walkway is needed for safety reasons due to high motor vehicle speeds and volumes (peak hour traffic is ~400-600 vph) and to close a gap in the pedestrian system. This corridor will serve community parks, medium density residential development, churches, Collegetown, and Cornell. On one end, it will connect to the City (although there is a section of Rt. 79 in the City that does not have sidewalks); on the other end, it will connect to the Pine Tree Road walkway. This corridor is served by transit. Coddington Road, Ithaca College to Troy Road: From Ithaca Colleges entrance to Troy Road, Coddington Road travels through an area of medium density residential development. There are several small subdivisions off the road, as well as a few neighborhood parks. To the north, this segment connects into the high priority northern Coddington walkway section; to the south, it connects to recommended corridors on Troy and East King Roads. Although the South Hill Recreation Way runs nearly parallel to this corridor, there are no access points to the trail, making it difficult for residents living along Coddington Road to utilize it for transportation purposes. This corridor is served by transit. The peak hour traffic volume is ~400 vph. The right-of-way is currently in the process of redesign, although there may be insufficient funding for sidewalks from Juniper Drive to Troy Road. This plan encourages the County to design the roadway so as not to preclude the provision of sidewalks in the future, and to provide adequate shoulder width where sidewalks are not provided. Danby Road (Route 96B), Ithaca College to East/ West King Road: This segment will link the walkway ending at Ithaca College to the proposed walkway on East King Road. Although the existing road shoulders are fairly wide and smooth, the speeds and high traffic volumes (exact peak hour data are unavailable; ADT is 7,00010,000) present a safety hazard for pedestrians. Because this segment has a lower pedestrian volume than the northern section from the City to Ithaca College, it is listed in the lower tier (similar to the Coddington Road segment described above). This corridor is served by transit.

88

Muriel Street: Muriel Street runs through an area of medium density residential development located in the Northeast of the Town. On one end, Muriel Street links to Hanshaw Road (east of Warren Road); the other links to the trail leading to DeWitt Middle School and Northeast Elementary School. Muriel Street is also within walking distance to parks, trails, and to Community Corners and the Monkey Run Trail via Hanshaw Road. Currently, there are no any striped shoulders. The Muriel Street segment is listed as a Recommended Corridor tier because a few residents have indicated an interest in sidewalks and because it can serve as an alternative route to Warren Road, a road of far higher traffic volumes on which pedestrians travel on the shoulder with bicyclists. If this corridor is shown to serve the Town as a whole, and not only Muriel Street residents, the Town could potentially construct and maintain the corridor. Warren Road, south of Hanshaw Road: This segment connects the Forest Home sidewalks with Hanshaw Road and the northern section of Warren Road. This corridor is served by transit. It has a peak hour vehicular volume of ~400-500 vph. The road is relatively flat and smooth. The shoulder width appears to be sufficient, but the shoulder consists of a relatively narrow strip of pavement with gravel to the outside of the pavement. Troy Road: The Troy Road segment is within walking distance to two neighborhood parks and a trail system. It completes the South Hill Loop from Coddington Road to East King Road. Troy Roads shoulders are inadequate for a road with a 45 mph speed limit. East King Road, east and west of trail proposed in the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan: This is the middle section of the South Hill Loop, between Coddington and Troy Roads and Route 96B. It is the only direct east-west corridor on the Towns South Hill. This corridor serves the Montessori School, Chase Lane, Deer Run, and Southwoods subdivisions (which are all medium density residential development). The existing shoulders vary from narrow to wide and consist of deteriorated pavement or gravel. Overlook Development: This development fits the criteria for new development in the Interim Town of Ithaca Sidewalk Policy of 2003. First, this is an environment in which children are likely to be present on road shoulders. Also, there is a bus stop within convenient walking distance. The sidewalks in Overlook will connect into the Towns planned pedestrian network, and they will provide a link to the Towns trail system and public parks. Miscellaneous: Various West Hill connectors: These connectors are on Mecklenburg Road (Rt. 79) and Elm Street, Coy Glen Road with two trail spurs, the Inlet Valley Trail to Black Diamond spur, and the two Rt. 96 to Black Diamond Trail spurs. The purpose of these miscellaneous segments is to close gaps in the existing and planned pedestrian network. Especially on sections of Coy Glen and Elm Street, the road shoulders are inadequate for safe pedestrian travel. Some of these corridors, particularly the ones that do not follow the road right-of-way, could be multi-use trails instead of walkways. These corridors should be constructed piece by piece, as opportunities arise. Southwoods Connection: This is a very small connection that links the entrance of the Southwoods development to the trail system on South Hill. This segment is a low priority that should be pursued when the opportunity arises. Snyder Hill Road to Dove Drive: Snyder Hill Road is within convenient walking distance of East Hill Plaza, parks, churches, and trails. Snyder Hill Road runs parallel to the Pew Trail, which connects Pine Tree Road to the southwestern portion of the Eastern Heights neighborhood. There are no Pew Trail access points on Snyder Hill Road. A walkway or sidewalk along this corridor would link into Dryden, bypassing the detour into the neighborhood. Like the Southwoods connection above, this is a low priority that should be pursued when an opportunity is presented.

89

BICYCLE CORRIDORS: SELECTION AND PRIORITIZATION

The Prioritized Bicycle Corridor Needs Map (map 14 in Appendix I) shows locations and priorities developed in a manner similar to the sidewalk/ walkway procedure outlined above: criteria were developed, locations identified, and priorities ranked. Like the sidewalk/ walkway location identification criteria, the bicycle location considerations are neither absolute nor directly quantifiable. The Bicycle Compatibility Index (BCI) is an emerging standard that judges bicyclists comfort level when riding on a road corridor. The following are basic considerations when calculating the BCI of a road: Geometric and roadside data: number of through lanes in one direction; curb lane width; bicycle lane or paved shoulder width; type of roadside development (residential or non-residential); Traffic operations data: posted speed limit; 85th percentile speed; ADT (average daily traffic); percentage of vehicle stream that can be defined as large vehicles (i.e. trucks, buses, etc); percentage of vehicle stream turning right onto driveways or other road corridors. Parking data (if applicable): presence or absence of a parking lane; percentage of spaces usually occupied; parking time limit. (All of the parking factors describe the likely potential of bicyclist/ car door conflict.) There are several other factors that affect the need for bike infrastructure. They include:2 Existing bicycle patterns (How many bicyclists currently use the road, and how do they use the road? For what purposes?); Anticipated bicycle demand (Is there new residential or commercial development that could potentially increase the number of bicyclists? Are there any recent demographic changes in the area that could alter bicycle demand?); Constraints affecting bicycling (Are there steep grades? Are there existing bottlenecks in traffic? Are there other constraints?); Safety concerns (Have safety issues been identified along the corridor? Does crash data indicate a problem? Is the corridor in a school zone?); Existing opportunities (Are there plans to rebuild or repave the road? Has funding for bike lanes or other bike infrastructure become available?); Origin/ route/ destination information (Does the route connect bike traffic generators or existing bike infrastructure? How many destinations does it serve, especially residential areas, schools, parks, employment centers, and transit stops? How direct are the routes?). There are several other unquantifiable factors that affect the optimal location of bike infrastructure. Bike infrastructure should be directly accessible from the traffic generator or attractor. Formal or informal bike routes should take a direct path between destinations, balanced with the need to choose a safe, attractive route. A safe route limits the conflict between bicyclists, pedestrians, and motorists (for example, at intersections). Continuity in the system is very important. If gaps in the system exist, they should not force a bicyclist to traverse an unsafe or unpleasant environment. Finally, cost and the ease of implementation are always factors. Balancing these considerations against each other in each specific situation involves tradeoffs, but it ensures that each situation receives the best possible treatment. The Prioritized Bicycle Corridor Needs Map shows locations in the Town that need improved bicycle accommodations sooner than their scheduled repair or reconstruction. It is based upon the criteria identified above and is intended to complement the draft ITCTC bicycle suitability map. (In 2006, the Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council (ITCTC) completed a bicycle suitability survey for Tompkins County, evaluating roads based on criteria similar to the above.) The following is a list of priority locations that show a need for bicycle infrastructure. The priorities are classified as high, medium, and low. Recurring themes throughout the list are the presence of high volume, high speed State routes and uphill climbs. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure Design: Best Practices Toolbox of the Design Guidelines outlines what type of facilities are appropriate for various types of locations. Unless otherwise noted, these segments
2

These factors are based on those found in the Knoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organizations 2002 Knoxville Regional Bicycle Plan. 90

will likely benefit most from improved road shoulders, which would be shared with pedestrians and motor vehicles. Road shoulder improvements are appropriate for most rural roads (arterial, collector, or local) and some urban roads (collectors and local roads). Road shoulder improvements could include shoulder widening, paving or repaving, striping or re-striping, signage (such as Share the Road signs), or improved, regular maintenance (such as sweeping or plowing). High Priority Segments: Five - ten year horizon Mecklenburg Road (Route 79), City Town municipal line to West Haven Road: The section of Mecklenburg Road (Route 79) in the City travels up a steep, curving hill with insufficient shoulder. The speed of the bicyclist traveling uphill is far lower than the speed of passing motorists. The roadway and shoulders widen in the Town, but motorists traveling downhill into the City regularly exceed the speed limit. Route 79 in the City, or Hector Street, is shown on the ITCTCs draft bicycle suitability map as poor, the lowest rating. This is an excellent opportunity for the Town to work with the City to improve non-motorized transportation conditions at a Town City municipal boundary. Danby Road (Route 96B), City Town line to Ithaca College Entrance: Danby Road is a high volume, high speed road along its entire length. On the northbound side of Route 96B near the City, there is no shoulder at all. The shoulder on the southbound side appears to be adequate, although it should be evaluated for an uphill climbing lane or uphill off-road path. The pedestrian and bicyclist volumes on Route 96B are relatively high compared to other State routes running through similar development intensities because of bicycle and pedestrian traffic associated with Ithaca College. Pedestrian and bicyclist volumes appear to drop off south of Ithaca College. For this reason, the segment from Ithaca College to the City is rated as a high priority and the southern segment is rated as a low, long term priority. Coddington Road, City Town line to Troy Road: The shoulders on Coddington Road in the Town are all gravel or deteriorated pavement, and none are wide enough for bicycle travel. Traveling toward Danby, the speed limit rises from 30 mph to 40 mph at Juniper Drive. Speeding on Coddington Road, especially near the City, is a problem. At Juniper Drive, the 85th percentile speed is 147% of the speed limit, or approximately 45 mph. The segment from Troy Road to the City runs through medium density residential development. This segment has the potential for a formally designated bicycle route or bicycle lane. The ITCTCs bicycle suitability map rates Coddington Road from the City Town line to the entrance to Ithaca College as poor, the lowest rating. Pine Tree Road: Pine Tree Road is an important north-south corridor on Ithacas East Hill. The southern-most section of Pine Tree Road has a wide uphill climbing lane, but the pavement is deteriorated and usually clogged with gravel and debris. The central section of Pine Tree Road just south of Honness Lane has sufficient shoulder room, but the space is either a small strip of pavement plus gravel on the outside or only gravel. This is where the Honness Lane Walkway will extend across Pine Tree Road to join the Pew Trail; these trails will attract bicyclists. The northern portion of Pine Tree Road (near Route 366) has paved shoulders that vary in width. The uphill climbing lane in this section may be inadequate due to insufficient width for maneuvering. Volumes on Pine Tree Road are consistently high. Both the northern and southern segments (as shown on the Prioritized Bicycle Corridor map) will benefit from road shoulder improvements, and formal bicycle lanes may be appropriate for most of the road. Hanshaw Road: Hanshaw Road is an important east-west corridor in the Northeast that carries moderately high volumes of commuter and local traffic from Dryden to Cayuga Heights and Cornell. The shoulders along the road are approximately four to five feet wide, ranging in material from deteriorated pavement to gravel. In some areas, the gravel or pavement has deteriorated at the edges (effectively narrowing the shoulder). Hanshaw Road will be reconstructed by the County in 2007. As of late 2006, the design includes four foot wide paved shoulders. Medium Priority Segments: Ten fifteen year horizon

91

Trumansburg Road (Route 96), Town City line to Hospital: There is a sidewalk on the steep uphill side of Route 96 in the City. The sidewalk removes pedestrians from the travel lane, but bicyclists remain in the road. There are inadequate shoulders on Route 96 in the City. The ITCTCs bicycle suitability map rates this section as poor, the lowest rating. At the municipal line, the sidewalk ends and opens into a wide, paved shoulder, typical of the State Routes within the Town. Speed limits on Route 96 in the Town range from 45 to 55 mph; motorists regularly exceed these speeds. Vehicular traffic volumes on Route 96 are high. This corridor is a major commuter route with an existing major residential development (the Overlook development) and anticipated residential and commercial development in the future. This route has the potential to capture bicyclist commuters, especially on the downhill side (in conjunction with the opportunity to ride TCAT up the hill). The segment from the City to Cayuga Medical Center is rated as a higher priority than the segment north of the Medical Center because of development density and the location of destinations (such as the Museum of the Earth, the Paleontological Research Center (PRI), the Finger Lakes School of Massage, the medical center, the Overlook residential development, and so on). Five Mile Drive (Route 13A): Five Mile Drive in the City, or Floral Ave, has a speed limit of 30 mph. It has curbs, but no shoulders, leaving no escape room for a bicyclist when a motorist passes too closely. The ITCTCs bicycle suitability map rates Floral Ave as fair, the second from lowest rating. Five Mile Drive in the Town has a speed limit of 45 mph and has gravel or deteriorated pavement shoulders. Five Mile Drive runs approximately parallel to Route 13, and makes a good alternate route to it. Route 13 is a very high volume road with a very large number of curb cuts, two conditions that make it unsafe for bicycle travel. Five Mile Drive connects the areas north and south of the City, bypassing the development on the east side of the inlet. Pleasant Grove Road: Like Hanshaw Road, Pleasant Grove Road has fairly wide shoulders, but the pavement is deteriorating in some places. Volumes and speeds are both moderate. There are vertical curves that moderately decrease sight distances. Bicycle traffic on this road is higher than other sections of the Town due to the proximity to Cornell, including the residential North Campus and the commuter A parking lot; for this reason, Pleasant Grove Road is rated as a medium priority. Because of its proximity to Cornells North Campus, Pleasant Grove Road may benefit from a bicycle facility that is somewhat more formal than a road shoulder. Mecklenburg Road (Route 79), Westhaven Road to Ecovillage: The road shoulder of this section of roadway is wide and paved. This section is rated as a lower priority than the segment to the east and a higher priority than the segment to the west. The segment to the east likely will carry more bicycle traffic than this segment because of bicycle traffic generated by Ecovillage and the Conifer development. Mitchell Street, City Town line to Pine Tree Road: This section of roadway has a speed limit of 35 mph, with moderate to high traffic volumes. There is adequate shoulder width, but the shoulder condition in some locations is poor. This segment is rated overall as poor, or the lowest rating, on the ITCTCs bicycle suitability map. This segment could use bicycle improvements because it is the primary corridor from the west to East Hill Plaza, a major destination on East Hill. In addition, a graduate housing development is off Mitchell Street on Veterans Place. Honness Lane, end of walkway to Slaterville Road (Rt. 79): Honness Lane is in an area of medium-density residential development, within biking distance of trails, a church, shopping center, and other destinations. This short connection, from the end of the walkway on Honness Lane to Slaterville Road (Rt. 79), could be addressed by extending the walkway down to Slaterville Road. Coddington Road, Troy Road to Town of Ithaca Town of Danby line: This segment travels through low density residential development. The speed limit on this section is 45 mph. The shoulders are gravel or deteriorated pavement, and they are not wide enough for safe bicycle or pedestrian travel. The ITCTCs bicycle suitability map rates Coddington Road from Ithaca College to the Town of Ithaca Town of Danby line as fair, the second lowest rating. With improvements, Coddington Road could offer a more attractive route for bicyclists than Danby Road (Rt. 96B).

92

Low Priority Segments: Fifteen twenty year horizon Warren Road: North of Hanshaw Road, Warren Road has wide, paved shoulders that are striped and signed as a shared bicycle-pedestrian lane. South of Hanshaw Road, the paved part of the shoulders is narrower, but there is gravel to the outside of the shoulders. Hanshaw Road will have bicycle accommodations after its reconstruction, and Pleasant Grove Road is recommended for improved bicycle infrastructure in this plan element. Besides its role as a connection in the Towns emerging bicycle network, Warren Road is close to many traffic generators, including Cornells North Campus and A-lot, the middle and elementary schools north of Hanshaw Road, a golf course, the Convenient Care Center and medical offices in the Village of Lansing, and Community Corners in the Village of Cayuga Heights. For these reasons, Warren Road, like East King Road, is listed at the top of the low priority list. It is not on the medium priority list because the shoulder condition is acceptable and there are no sight distance problems. This section of Warren Road could potentially have either improved road shoulders or a more formal bicycle facility designation, like a bike lane. Trumansburg Road (Route 96), Hospital to Town of Ithaca Town of Ulysses line: On this section of roadway, there is a wide, paved shoulder, typical of the State Routes within the Town. Speed limits on Route 96 in the Town range from 45 to 55 mph; motorists regularly exceed these speeds. Vehicular traffic volumes on Route 96 are high. This corridor is a major commuter route with an existing major residential development (the Overlook development) and anticipated residential and commercial development in the future. This route has the potential to capture bicyclist commuters, especially on the downhill side (in conjunction with the opportunity to ride TCAT up the hill). This segment is rated as a lower priority than the segment to the south because the segment to the south has a greater development density and many destinations (such as the Museum of the Earth, the Paleontological Research Center (PRI), the Finger Lakes School of Massage, the medical center, the Overlook residential development, and so on). Danby Road (Route 96B), Ithaca College Entrance to Town of Ithaca Town of Danby line: This section of Danby Road has high traffic volumes and speed limits ranging from 40-55 mph. Danby Road is a major commuter road that has the potential to carry bicycle traffic to Ithaca College and the City of Ithaca on its wide, paved shoulders. This section of Danby Road is less likely to carry as much bicycle and pedestrian traffic as the northern section; for this reason, the segment from Ithaca College to the City is rated as a high priority and this segment is rated as a low, long term priority. Taughannock Boulevard (Route 89): Taughannock Boulevard, or Route 89, has paved shoulders of moderate width. Because of steep grades to either side of the road with guardrails in some places, bicyclists may feel squeezed between the guardrail or steep grade and passing motor vehicles. Nevertheless, Taughannock Boulevard is signed as a bicycle route. Because of limited right of way and challenging topography, this segment is rated as a low priority. East King Road: The speed limit for East King Road is 45 mph, except in the Montessori School zone, where it drops to 30 mph. Speed data show the extent and severity of speeding to be similar to Bostwick Road (the 85th percentile speed is 140% of the limit, or 63 mph). There is a slope at the eastern portion of the road, although it is not as steep as other areas of the Town. The gravel or deteriorated pavement shoulders of East King Road alternate between narrow and wide. The ITCTCs bicycle suitability map rates East King Road as fair, the second from lowest rating. East King Road is a low priority, although it is a higher than Bostwick or Sandbank Roads because it serves a more important function (connecting Coddington Road and Rt. 96B) and is likely to carry more bicycle traffic. Mecklenburg Road (Route 79), west of Ecovillage: This section of road has adequate shoulders to accommodate bicycle traffic. Horizontal sight distances are adequate, although the rolling hills present some vertical sight distance issues. With a few improvements, Mecklenburg Road could serve as an adequate bicycle corridor between Enfield and Ithaca. Bostwick Road: Nearly all of Bostwick Road is on a long hill. Bostwick Roads speed limit is 45 mph, although speed data show that the 85th percentile speed is 140% of the limit (or 63 mph). The shoulders are narrow and gravel, and due to the lateral and vertical curves of the road, sight distances are limited in many areas. 93

The safety issues are more significant here than on other roads, but because Bostwick Road is likely to see less bicycle traffic than other areas, it currently is rated as a low priority. Sandbank Road: Sandbank Road is a Town-owned road that has approximately four foot wide shoulders. Sandbank Road climbs steeply uphill to exit Inlet Valley into Danby; the uphill climbing lane shoulder for bicyclists is inadequate. The speed limit on Sandbank Road is 30 mph, although the Speed Issues section of this Transportation Plan notes that the 85th percentile speed for the road is closer to 40 mph. The ITCTCs bicycle suitability map rates Sandbank Road as fair, the second from lowest rating. Sandbank Road is rated as a low priority instead of a medium priority for the same reasons as Bostwick Road. Park Lane, Slaterville Road, and Burns Road: This corridor is an important link in a county-wide network; it connects Eastern Heights to South Hill. The end of the Pew Trail will connect to Park Lane, which leads to Slaterville Road and then to Burns Road. Because Park Lane is a low-volume residential street, bike lanes and improved shoulders may be unsuitable; a multi-use trail in the Park Lane area may be more appropriate. Slaterville Road is a high volume State road with a speed limit of 45 mph. The wide shoulders are paved, but there is often debris (such as sticks or gravel) on the shoulder. Burns Road is the best way for bicyclists and pedestrians to cross Six Mile Creek outside the City. Burns Road has no striped shoulders and no posted speed limit. The ITCTCs bicycle suitability map rates Burns Road as fair, the second from lowest rating. There appears to be adequate pavement available to stripe paved shoulders, requiring little investment. Caldwell Road: Caldwell Road is a low-speed, moderate volume Town Road. The shoulders are adequately paved, although they are too narrow to safely support bicycle traffic. The road has both horizontal and vertical curves. Because of its proximity to the Cornell Vet School, Plantations, and other traffic generators, it is included on the low priority list. NOTE: Route 13 south of the City (Elmira Road) is not a limited access highway like the section north of the City, but it is just as unfriendly to bicycle traffic. The volumes are the highest traffic volumes in the Town (~18,000 vpd), and the speed limits are 50 and 55 mph. The presence of two State Parks indicate the potential need for recreational bicycle facilities. The eventual completion of the Black Diamond Trail may serve the recreational and transportation needs of this corridor, as long as there are adequate access points to the trail. In summary, the segments listed above are prioritized based on need, as evaluated by measures such as the Bicycle Compatibility Index. Much of the need may be fulfilled by improving road shoulders, although certain locations may need additional facilities, such as bike lanes, designation as a bike route, or an off-road, multiuse trail. These locations include, but are not limited to: Coddington Road (Troy Road to City); sections of Pine Tree Road; Hanshaw Road (planned); Pleasant Grove Road; and sections of Warren Road (Forest Home Drive to Hanshaw Road).

94

APPENDIX VII: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

FIRST PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING
The first public information meeting took place on Thursday, June 10, 2004. In addition to staff, eleven people attended the meeting. Comments at the Meeting Comments based on Draft One Goals and Objectives: Access and Mobility Include the Town Sidewalk Policy on the Town website Livability The introduction to this section states, Balance the need for an accessible and efficient transportation system with the desire to maintain healthy and safe neighborhoods. In a balancing act between needs and desires, needs always win. Strengthen the wording of maintain healthy and safe neighborhoods. Coordination The Town must coordinate with the NYSDOT to create a limited access beltway circling the City to funnel away traffic not intended for Ithaca. This will help with congestion, neighborhood livability, and mobility issues. The need to preserve right-of-ways is never realized until development has already occurred. A bypass within the Town limits would go through peoples homes and neighborhoods (a bypass outside the Town limits would likely do the same). We are cooperating with DOTperhaps we should get DOT cooperate with us? Safety Instead of providing safe access, change wording to ensure safe access. Thus, the Towns role goes from active provision to passive assurance. System Preservation/ Maintenance See abovecoordination with NYSDOT to create a bypass requires the preservation of right-of-ways. Comments for inclusion in Future Drafts of Goals and Objectives: General Comments on Goals What is the purpose of the plan? To take whats going on anyway and solidify it, to make it the status quo? Or is this an instrument for shaping change? The plan is pragmatic: it recognizes that things are the way they are, that is, that the automobile is the primary mode of transportation in the Town of Ithaca. The plan asks what can reasonably be done, given the current situation, to improve the transportation system and the quality of life in the Town. It also recognizes that there are areas of the Town where increasing motorized vehicle access is not a possibility; alternatives must be explored and implemented in these areas to continue to facilitate access and mobility. Urban design: The House Analogy. If you must go through a bedroom to get to another bedroom, then the house is designed poorly. The same holds true of citiesif you must travel through someone elses neighborhood to get to your own, then the city is poorly designed. In a well designed city, it is possible to remove traffic from a residential area without pushing it into another residential area. Thus, we should step back and realize that we are living in a poorly designed house. The purpose of the transportation plan is to assist the Town in making the best of the current situation (there is no way to turn back the clock fifty years). The missing piece of this discussion is the need to build a relationship with other agencies, specifically the county. Response: The door is beginning to open to greater Town/ County cooperation. The Town now has representatives on many County boards. Some recognition is already been happening indirectly, as agencies outside the Town recognize its resources. Specific Comments on Objectives 95

Car-pooling: If there are already 1.81 cars per household, perhaps they could be put to better use. The Town should facilitate ride share boards, phone numbers to call to find a ride, etc. Park-and-Ride: Cornell provides incentives for people to car share, could there be a same incentive (provided by the Town or employers) for commuters to Park-and-Ride to keep the cars out all together? Response: For Park-and-Ride lots to be successful, they must be close enough to commuters homes that the commuter will not think, Well, Ive driven ten miles to the Park-and-Ride lot, its only another two to work, I might as well just drive the whole way. Thus, a system of smaller, more localized lots would work best. Perhaps there is a way to utilize existing underused parking lots during daytime hours. Is there a way to control the size of the trucks that enter the Town? Road use/ employment coordination: there is enough road capacity, the problem is that road use is not spread evenly throughout the day. Road use should be coordinated to avoid rush hour peaks and midday emptiness. Could school buses be used for others besides school children? Inversely, could TCAT buses be used to get older school children to school (they would, of course, ride for free)? This is how to build long-term change teach younger generations the right habits while they are young. TCAT waste The buses are huge and underused. Its a waste of tax money. Is there a way to build on the Gadabout system, in which a patron can request a ride for a certain time and place? Its actually the driver thats the most expensive part of the TCAT systemnot the large, empty buses. Because the fixed costs of operating a route are so high, TCAT cant open new routes unless they know that the number of riders will justify the expense. The buses are not always underusedduring peak travel hours, the buses are often standing room only. Perhaps a car-sharing organization could provide the type of on demand service that patrons seem to want. Is car-sharing feasible for Ithaca? TCAT should look at the feasibility of the new stops it creates. On the West Hill, it is difficult if not impossible to walk up a very steep hill to the stop, especially as the hill has no sidewalks. Seven-person van: people like transit and would use it more if the vehicles were smaller and quieter, like a van. what are the legal/ licensing requirements? Will it undermine current TCAT salaries? Would it really be a possibility? Comments Submitted After the Meeting One comment was submitted after the meeting: Planners should walk the roads commuters have to walk when dumped from buses. Maps are flat, roads have hills.

SECOND PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING

The second public information meeting took place on June 9, 2005. Approximately 20-25 people attended (including Committee members and staff). Comments at the Meeting Volumes in neighborhoods v. congestion in neighborhoods Environmental degradation and pollution due to reliance on automobiles Speeding in the City and Town (need to lower acceptable speed limits) Need for safe shoulders for bikes Speed enforcement Traffic on Route 96 (existing problems near hospital). Hayts Road should be reevaluated as exit for Overlook project; the Hayts Road and Rt 96 intersection is poorly designed. Need to look at financial resources TCAT: Youth and after-school transit (collaboration between the Town and TCAT) Inventory should also include taxi service, airport limo, and other forms of paratransit not geared exclusively toward the disabled. Park-and-Ride lots should be far enough out to capture traffic before entering Town. Glad to see focus on pedestrian and bicycle facilities. 96

Changes to Gadabout: may need to put money into in order to run the system. Currently the system functions with volunteer drivers, which may not be adequate to meet growing demand. Park-and-Ride: Make sure that Park-and-Ride lots are far out enough that they dont turn into Cornells outer parking lots. Honness Road: A resident notes that Honness Lane isnt just a neighborhood road, as motorists use it as a shortcut between Pine Tree Road and Slaterville Road (Rt. 79). Mailboxes only on one side of the street in rural areas force residents to cross high-speed roads to get their mail. This is a safety issue. Could we ask the post office to allow people to put them on both sides? (Cathy: have already asked, and the answer is no.) What are our solutions? It seems like we dont really have control over much. Is there political will to do something? What relationships do we have? What relationships do we wish that we had? Fred: the plan is a collaborative effort because were all doing it together. Its a vehicle for communication. Nicole: The MPO is the agency that deals with transportation issues in the Town of Ithaca and surrounding municipalities. Cathy: were very active with the MPO, the association of towns, and we lobby Albany to give us more authority to manage our own destinies like to set our own speed limits. The Town is also part of the intermunicipal sharing group, which is a forum for coordination. A good way to get cooperation is to do something really well, and lead by example. The obvious example in the Town is the Forest Home neighborhood. One resident was dismayed by the large emphasis on the status quo in the draft Inventory and Analysis. The Town really needs to do something different. Is it a coincidence that all the accidents are on roads that are designed via AASHTO? If we just continue to follow AASHTOs guidelines, then were just reinforcing the status quo. Speaking to speeding problems: If you need enforcement, its a sign that youre doing something wrong. In other words, drivers will obey the speed limit/ design speed of a well-designed road. Comments Submitted After the Meeting A resident of EcoVillage called on Tuesday, June 21 and left a message stating that he would like to see a sidewalk or multi-use trail on Mecklenburg from West Haven Road into the City. A former resident of the Town of Ithaca who is a member of several transportation-related organizations in the area submitted the following. As a former landowner/resident and landlord in the Town of Ithaca and a current member of the Cornell Local Roads program staff, as their specialist in bicycle and pedestrian facilities, I take great interest in your transportation plan. As I work with other municipalities throughout the state, it's my hopes that Ithaca's words will serve as a model for other communities to follow. It's refreshing to see so many references to the necessity of planning for a more walkable and bikeable community. Your goal to reduce the need for and use automobiles and encourage the use of alternate modes of transportation is commendable. Please note that there is a fourth main type of non-motorized transportation infrastructure not listed in the inventory of bicycle and pedestrian facilities. It is that of the public roadways; they are, in fact, the most costeffective means of providing for bicycle transportation. You are to be commended for acknowledging and supporting the needs of the child and beginner bicyclists; however, many bicyclists who are experienced will seek out and prefer to ride on the roadways. The Town's commitment to providing adequate roadway and shoulder (where deemed appropriate) will go a long way to supporting and encouraging bicycle traffic. As noted in the inventory section, mention of some "state routes having sufficient shoulder to permit bicycle use" implies that other roads are not legal for bicyclists to ride. Perhaps replacing the word "permit" with "encourage" would be more appropriate. NYS law allows bicyclists on all roadways in the Town of Ithaca. Onroad accommodations for bicyclists are not limited to bike lanes. In fact, many times a bike lane is not warranted or possible and the good road surfaces and shoulders (aka space) will serve the need.

97

In the paragraph just after the NYSDOT criteria for the installation of sidewalks - there is inaccurate information regarding the potential for conflict between bicyclists and motorists. In fact, shoulders and high speed are NOT a cause for potential conflict. Conflicts are more likely the result of poor design that result in poor sight distances and bad intersections. Let me also point out that bicyclists sharing the lanes with motorists is NOT necessarily an undesirable arrangement for bicyclists and motorists. In fact, there are times when sharing the road is the safest arrangement. For it is when the bicyclist is visible and following the traffic law that he/she is the safest. The greatest risk is when there is not adequate space (whether it be shoulders or adequate lane width). The objective in Goal #3 should not strive to physically separate bikes from roads where ever possible. If you're talking about a section of bicycle path that runs parallel to the roadway, you are likely creating more hazards than you are preventing. The AASHTO addresses this concern and recommends against parallel paths. Such paths create additional, unnecessary and unexpected points of conflict when they inevitably cross the roadway. Pertaining to pedestrians, one word was conspicuous by its absence - "Crosswalks." Is there any place where crossing the roadway is addressed? This is one of the biggest safety issues to be addressed regarding pedestrians and motorists. Isn't there something that should be noted? How about policy that would address commercial development? Every time I go to the East Hill Plaza, I am horrified at the lack of facility for pedestrians who live in the residential area who walk to the plaza. The current configuration is shameful. On the other extreme, the grocery store has done an excellent job in marking a pedestrian crosswalk. What about a requirement for installation of bike racks at commercial locations? How can policy bring good practices into play? Regarding the proposed sidewalk policies, I have more questions and am curious as to what you will arrive at that will genuinely support a more walkable community. Is owner maintenance the most cost effective and fairest way to approach the goal of developing more facilities for walking? If it's a community-wide benefit, should it be financed by the town or individuals? Are there ways to address exceptions? What if someone lives on a corner and is faced with the responsibility of sidewalks on both road fronts? The Town of Whitestown has recently bonded for the development of sidewalks. The Town Councilman who spearheaded the project has been thrilled with the response from the public. Many naysayers came forth to acknowledge that the town sponsored sidewalk system that's being installed is a community benefit. Residents are walking and real estate values are on the increase. In the section called "newly developed areas" mention was made about children walking. Is there any value in noting the senior citizen population as a consideration? And lastly, those of us in the injury prevention business prefer to use the word "crash" and not "accident." As most "accidents" are predictable and preventable, "crash" is a more accurate term. Making it easy to do the right thing results in a healthier community for all involved. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I am available as a resource.

THIRD PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING

May 18, 2006 Summary of Comments: The third public information meeting took place on May 18, 2006. Approximately 25 people, including staff, attended. Comments at the Meeting and Submitted After the Meeting 98

The Traffic Calming Toolbox calls for the use of temporary traffic calming measures before the installation of permanent measures. Temporary installations are often ugly and abrupt, and may give residents the wrong impression of traffic calming and making it likely that they will want the traffic calming removed. [Bruce Brittain] Response: Response There are two reasons that the Toolbox recommends temporary measures. First, temporary measures are less expensive than permanent measures, and second, some temporary measures can be moved to various parts of the Town (decreasing their per location cost). The Toolbox will frame the discussion in terms of reversible and permanent measures, instead of temporary and permanent measures. Noise pollution from trucks, especially trucks traveling downhill, should be included as an environmental effect. The emphasis on sight distances may be misplaced. Improvements to sight distance often involve removing obstacles, such as trees and vegetation, from the roadway. Instead, the speed along the roadway should be addressed. Slower traffic on the through road allows more time for a vehicle to turn onto the through road with the same sight distance. [Bruce Brittain] It appears that the goals of traffic calming and good pavement maintenance are in conflict. [Peter Stein] Response: Well-designed traffic calming uses well-maintained pavement as a livability bonus. Also, see comments 5 & 6 below. It is important to remember, however, that transportation planning almost always requires balancing trade-offs. While potholes make great traffic calming, they are hazardous for bicyclists. [Lois Chaplin] Traffic calming only affects those who are going too fast, whereas poor pavement maintenance affects everyone. [Doug Brittain] Including dedicated bike and pedestrian facilities where they are not warranted is another form of over designing the roadway. [Bruce Brittain] Light pollution from parking lots should be included as a negative environmental effect. In order to make parking lots more environmentally-sound, the Plan should suggest the use of porous surfaces to deal with run-off and frost heaves. Bicycle parking is also important. Underground parking is also a possibility. Add trees & landscaping. [Kent Johnson & Doug Brittain] Response: Duly noted for sentences one, two, and three. Underground parking is not cost effective, except where land values are so high as to discourage surface parking (city centers). The money would be better spent making the parking lot aesthetically acceptable and safe for bicyclists and pedestrians. Bike corridors should be prioritized by traffic volumes. Traffic volumes indicate where people are traveling. Response: Traffic volumes are one of the criteria used to identify corridors in need of improvements. Childrens travel patterns should influence the selection and prioritization of bike and pedestrian corridors. Response: Response: Proximity to school, residential development, and commercial development are already addressed. It is unclear if there are any other ways to identify child locations. The Plan should address tourism as a rationale for bike and pedestrian developments and as an economic development strategy. One example of transportation tourism is the Scenic Byway that circles Cayuga Lake. TCAT should extend service from Linderman Creek to EcoVillage or the Town should work with EcoVillage, Linderman Creek, and NYSDOT to create a path from EcoVillage to Linderman Creek in order to serve more patrons. Residents at Overlook are already taking cars and taxis to get into downtown. It is so important to provide a connection (bike, pedestrian, or transit) down Route 96. Route 79 in the City really needs bicycle improvements, including a wide, striped uphill climbing lane. Cliff Street isnt that steep, while the eventual connection down to the Black Diamond Trail is very steep. Therefore, along Rt. 96 may be a better bicycle and pedestrian corridor. In addition to Park & Ride that brings transit riders into the Town, transit needs to serve circulation needs within the Town. There needs to be a better, safer connection between EcoVillage and Linderman Creek, so EcoVillagers will have access to more transit routes. Additionally, TCAT should extend the Linderman Creek routes to Eco Village. Finally, TCAT should increase the number of times during the day that buses travel between EcoVillage and downtown. [Petra Hepburn, EcoVillage, written submission] The Town should prioritize better bike and ped accommodations on Hanshaw Road. [Emmy Koponen, written submission] 99

The Town should use concrete instead of asphalt, and shade is very important for pedestrian comfort. [Emmy Koponen, written submission] The Plan should recommend extending the South Hill Recreation Way, providing bike lanes, and pedestrian comfort (in shade, out of exhaust). [Emmy Koponen, written submission] A great pie in the sky idea is a trolley, and to design Ithaca like a Finnish town with beautiful, comfortable facilities for exercise, biking, baby carriages, etc. [Emmy Koponen, written submission] The Town should prioritize traffic calming and off-road path facilities. [Doug Brittain] Recommendations the Town should add to the Plan include: narrowing roads that are wider than necessary (essentially a modest form of traffic calming); new developments should be assessed on their impacts to existing neighborhoods (with regards to increased traffic), not merely the impacts on other traffic; non-asphalt parking lots. [Doug Brittain] In terms of outside the box ideas, the Town should spend money on new modest-sized roads to carry traffic around residential areas (use tunnels where appropriate); traffic calming in residential areas. [Doug Brittain] Cell-phone driving laws need to be enforced. [Fay Gougakis] Speed limits in the City should be lowered. In addition, as soon as cars go past speed bumps in the City, they speed up. [Fay Gougakis] There are health implications from a lack of sidewalks. Sidewalks can encourage sedentary people to walk around their neighborhoods. [The speaker] grew up with sidewalks. Its shocking to see a subdivision in the Town of Ithaca without sidewalks. They are important. Seven Mile Drive is an example of a growing residential area that may need sidewalks. The Town of Whitestown (outside Utica) wanted to put in sidewalks, and there was much opposition from residents. Now, residents love the sidewalks. [Lois Chaplin] With transportation planning, the devil is in the details. The connections between things can make or break a system. [Lois Chaplin]

100

COMMENTS FROM FORMAL PUBLIC HEARINGS

The points are summarized from the public hearings on November 21, 2006 and January 8, 2007. The Forest Home Improvement Association strongly endorses the Town of Ithacas Transportation [Plans] emphasis on preserving and enhancing the livability of neighborhoods and encouraging biking, walking, and public transportation. We also very much appreciate that the Plan addresses our communitys need for traffic calming and pedestrian improvements Map 12 should show the Finger Lakes Trail in the southwestern corner of the Town of Ithaca. Though the FLT is surely a recreational trail rather than a transportation corridor, it does connect two State Parks in our Town, and is part of the North Country National Scenic Trail It can be seen as an important connection from our Town of Ithaca to not just the rest of the FLT in NY, but to the NCT in North Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Since the Town Plan recognizes the importance of healthy walking for Ithacans getting around, incorporating this beautiful little section of the FLT in Plan maps is really important. While the full Plan emphasizes the need for improved road shoulders, this point does not come across in the Executive Summary. The Executive Summary should state the need for wider and safer shoulders for bicyclists and pedestrians. [While adequate space and well wellll-maintained pavement for bicycle traffic is important on many roadways, unnecessarily increasing pavement width can contribute to speeding, increased stormwater runrun-off, and other negative effects. The following sentence was added to 3.C.3: For most roads roads that have moderate to high traffic volumes and speeds, walkways are the most appropriate facility for pedestrians and paved shoulders are the most appropriate facility for bicyclists.]. In response to a comment made at the first Public Hearing by a member of the public, it should be noted that the 45% increase in terms of households near community facilities (93% of all new units under the Plan Scenario vs. 64% [in]the Trend Scenario) and 72% improvement in terms of households near bus stops (62% of all new units under the Plan Scenario vs. 36% [in] the Trend Scenario) show the potential significance of the Plan Scenario in allowing communities to adapt to alternative transportation modes. [This concept has been emphasized in the Regional Development and the Transportation System section]. section] In the section on Equity and Social Well-Being, the Plan states that the Town should ensure that all roadway and off-road non-motorized facilities are designed to minimize safety hazards. It should be recognized that this may at times conflict with some of the neighborhood goals. To be safe, shoulders and lanes need to be of sufficient, though not excessive, width. Designing a road that allows sight distances that improve safety for all users may involve trade-offs with other design elements. Also, it should be further recognized that the cost of retrofitting roads is not insignificant and often increases as designs are altered to be more context-sensitive. [Duly noted. The sentence now states, In order to protect bicyclist and pedestrian users of the transportation system, the Town should promote roadway and offoff-road nonnon-motorized facilities designs that minimize safety hazards for motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians, residents, and other roadway users. users. The tradetrade-offs associated with pavement width and retrofitting costs are discussed in the Alternatives Chapter.] In Table 18, traffic Calming is identified as a strategy for dealing with speeding. However, many traffic calming methods are not appropriate (not allowed by NYSDOT) on collector or arterial roads with speed limits above 35 mph. [Duly noted. This has been added to Table 18]. 18] Table 18 should acknowledge that most roads listed with large amounts of traffic are arterial or major collector roads that are expected to carry heavier traffic volumes. Also, land use solutions should be identified as an option to mitigate traffic issues. [Duly noted for the first point. Alternative land use patterns are already identified as a potential mitigation mitigation strategy for high traffic volumes and congestion]. congestion] New deer mitigation techniques are being developed such as roadside reflectors. The NYSDOT should be consulted as to the effectiveness of trails of these methods. [This concept has been added to the the Alternatives and Recommendations Chapters]. Chapters] In the Recommendations Chapter, Recommendation 2.B.6 should use the phrase should require in all cases instead of encourage. [It is unclear to which sentence this comment refers.] In the Recommendations Chapter, Recommendation 2.C.4.1 should acknowledge that occasionally vegetation might need to be cleared to enhance scenic views. [The Recommendation currently states, The Public Works Department should limit clearing of roadside vegetation to that which fulfills safety & drainage 101

objectives. The Town should consider roadside vegetation an asset, not a liability. This acknowledges the fact that, on occasion, roadside vegetation must be cleared for legitimate purposes.] In the Recommendations Chapter, Recommendation 2.D should recognize the limitations of traffic calming, especially for rural/ suburban collector or arterial roads. [The broad concept of traffic calming can also include design elements such as street trees or pedestrian enhancements. Thus, Thus, while traffic calming options are limited, some are still feasible.] In Recommendation 7.A, multi-family housing should be added to the zoning recommendation to increase density to support transit and other infrastructure for transportation. Volume III: The Design Guidelines show a prototypical design for rural/suburban collectors with 10 foot travel lanes and 4-5 foot shoulders. Based on recent project design experience, 30 feet of pavement is the minimum that is acceptable on most collectors and this should be reflected in the plan. In commercial areas at least 32-36 feet is likely to be required. This is reflected in the designs on pages 28 and 29 for collector or minor arterial roads with a bicycle lane. [There are some collector roads in the Town in sensitive residential areas, such as Forest Home Drive, where pavement width should be balanced against neighborhood livability. Volume III is meant to serve as a guide for development; the Town would like to emphasize the need for narrower roads where possible.] The Transportation Plan doesnt really address the vision of the Comprehensive Plan. Attachment D deals with how the Transportation Plan supposedly fulfills the Comprehensive Plans recommendations. The sections to which Attachment D refers, however, often dont actually address issues raised by the Comprehensive Plan. The vision of the Comprehensive Plan shouldnt be lost due to the desire to wrap up the Transportation Plan and be done with it. [Attachment D was written before other sections sections of the Plan were finished. Consequently, in earlier drafts of the Plan, the references in Attachment D were incorrect. In more recent versions, the sections to which Attachment D refers are complete and referenced correctly.] Truck traffic, especially for residents of Rt. 89 (Taughannock Blvd.), is a serious problem. There is a conflict between parking, bicyclists, and trucks, and visibility when exiting driveways is very poor. The jake brakes on the trucks are loud and very disruptive. In addition to having many people live along it, Rt. 89 is a scenic byway, a bike route, a residential area, and home to many wineries. Furthermore, the truck issue is driven by the landfill in Waterloo, which can accommodate up to 500 trucks per day. Dump trucks use Rt. 89 to avoid the weight stations and safety checks on Interstate 81 and the tolls on the New York Thruway. [In response to this issue, about which two members of the public spoke, the section on freight and truck traffic has been greatly expanded. expanded. Unfortunately, the trucks using Rt. 89 are acting within the law, as all State routes permit truck traffic. In addition, this Plan emphasizes the point that transportation problems do not stop at municipal boundaries. It is highly unlikely that the Town can do much to affect truck traffic on its own, but the Town is committed to working with the City, County, ITCTC, and other regional entities in order to protect quality of life in the Town.] It seems that cars are stopped all the time for speeding, but its rare to see a truck stopped for speeding. Route 89, for example, already has a 45 mph speed limit. If the speed limit was strictly enforced, speeding would decrease. [This Plan strongly supports enforcement of traffic laws.] Transportation affects quality of life, and quality of life is what attracts people to the area. South Hill, especially around College Crossings, is becoming a destination. The Town should think about pedestrian traffic on East King Road, as the existing shoulders arent very good. On East King Road, however, there arent many residences, and the walkways would be used by people beyond the immediate neighborhoods (like college students). The Town should look into ways to fairly distribute the costs of walkway or sidewalk improvements. [East King Road is shown on the Prioritized Pedestrian Corridor Needs Map as needing pedestrian improvements. The Towns current policy is to own and maintain sidewalks that serve a broad circulation role, i.e. by serving pedestrians beyond beyond those who live in the immediate vicinity.] It is possible to meet all of the criteria on the Bicycle and Pedestrian Site Plan Checklist and still have an unbikeable and unwalkable development if the bigger picture is not examined. Therefore, we suggest that an introductory paragraph be added that explains that the goal of the checklist is to promote walking and biking, and that the items in the checklist exemplify how this can be accomplished Also, we think that adding references to specific sections of Volume III: The Design Guidelines to items within the checklist will make it easier to use. One area for intermunicipal and inter-agency cooperation is to improve the connection for biking and walking between Ithaca College and downtown. Currently, Ithaca College students must walk or bike on unsafe roads, take an inconvenient bus, or drive. We support the Countys efforts to consider bicyclists and pedestrians on 102

their Coddington Road project. [Duly noted. Recommendation 3.B.5 was added to Volume Volume I: The Plan. The Recommendation states, Currently, the walking and biking connections between Ithaca College and the City of Ithacas downtown business district are very poor. The Town should work with Ithaca College, the City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, County, NYSDOT, and other stakeholders to improve the safety, aesthetics, and convenience of this link.] link. The residents of Eco-Village would love to see a sidewalk (not an off-road path) down Route 79. They would also love to see more frequent transit service. There is a certain architecture of streets and roads that let people know they are in an urbanized area and that provide cues that they should slow down and be careful, like curbs, street trees, and sidewalks on both sides of the road. When drivers reach a street with that type of architecture, they know that theyre in an urbanized area, and that they should slow down and be careful. It is my opinion that there are areas in the Town of Ithaca that have become sufficiently urbanized where that is the appropriate street architecture, like the area of Coddington Road closest to the City as well as Mecklenburg Road from Eco-Village and Linderman Creek down to the City. [Volume III: The Design Guidelines addresses exactly this issue.] Speeding on East Shore Drive is very dangerous. The Town should work with the City and the State to address that. Its great to do lots of trails, but its also important for the regular roads to be safe, not only for motorists but also for pedestrians and bicyclists. The section that talks about scenic areas says, effective transportation planning involves balancing tradeoffs and then later says that we should minimize the impact of roads on scenic area. I dont want to settle for balancing trade-offs or minimizing impacts. I think we can go beyond that. We can build beautiful roads. We can build roads that look like parks that enhance the beauty. Instead of just saying well roads are ugly and therefore we have to balance, I think we can go beyond that. Design speed is based on driver comfort and the original calculations were performed back in the 1930s. Thus, violating the roadway specifications in AASHTO does not necessarily result in an unsafe road. All of the development in the Southwest area of the City is causing a lot of traffic on roads like Stone Quarry Road and Sandbank Road. This has safety implications, as people are speeding down the hill, and this makes it difficult for people to even get their mail. In addition to the comments made to the Planning Board and Town Board at the public hearings and the numerous informal calls placed to the Planning Department during the general public comment period, many stakeholders submitted formal written comments, which are included at the end of this Appendix.

103

APPENDIX VIII: WORKS CITED AND FURTHER INFORMATION

The following are sources cited in the Transportation Plan, Volume I. AFP (Agence France-Presse). Bicycle Sales Boom in U.S. Amid Rising Gas Prices. October 1, 2005. <http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=20051002084651339> June 28, 2006. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. Second printing, fourth edition. Washington, D.C: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 2001. American Planning Association. Legislative Priority: TEA-21. Undated. <http://www.planning.org/priorities/TEA-21.htm>. September 1, 2004. Bannerman, Roger; Owens, D.W.; Dodds, R. B.; Hornewer, N.J. Sources of Pollutants in Wisconsin Stormwater Water Science Technology. Vol. 28 No.3-5 Pages 241-259. 1993 Beimborn, Edward A. A Transportation Modeling Primer. Inside the Black Box: Making Transportation Models Work for Livable Communities. Milwaukee, Wisconsin: Center for Urban Transportation Studies at the University of Wisconsin Milwaukee, May 1995. Beamguard, Jim. Images published July 18, 1999. Tampa Tribune. Cited by Points, Rich and Evan Ravitz. Bike for Peace. <http://bikeforpeace.org/packing_pavement.html>. Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Council. Shared Lane Pavement Markers. Undated. <http://bpac.rockwren.us/wiki/index.php?title=Shared_lane_pavement_markings> June 26, 2006 Bishop, Lauren. Continental Cancels Tompkins Service: After August 12, Air Travelers Down to One Option. Ithaca Journal. Wednesday, July 11, 2001. Booth, Gordon, Carlson, and Hamilton. Waging war on modern chronic diseases: primary prevention through exercise biology. Journal of Applied Physiology 88: 774-787. 2000. Center for GIS. Natural Resources: Comprehensive Water Resources Planning. Towson University. Undated. <http://chesapeake.towson.edu/landscape/impervious/all_compwater.asp>. September 15, 2005. Colditz, G.A. Economic costs of obesity and inactivity. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise 31(11), Supplement. pp. S663-S3667. November 1999. Community Transportation Association of America (CTAA). Public and Community Transportation Glossary. Undated. <http://www.ctaa.org/ntrc/glossary.asp?printview=yes>. September 13, 2005. Daley, J. Caroline Pushes for Increased Patrols. The Ithaca Journal. Local News: Wednesday, 26 January 2005. De Aragon, Fernando. About ITCTC. Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council. Undated. <http://owasco.co.tompkins.ny.us/itctc/about.html>. September 13, 2005. Ducimetiere, Simon, Wagner et al. Leisure-time physical activity and regular walking or cycling to work are associated with adiposity and 5y weight gain in middle-aged men: The PRIME Study. International Journal of Obesity and Related Metabolic Disorders, 2, (2001): 940-948. Dupuis, Robert II. Three-way Split a Problem for TCAT. The Ithaca Journal. April 8, 2004. Also at <http://www.theithacajournal.com/news/stories/20040408/localnews/191564.html>. 123

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), United States Department of Energy. Transportation Topics. September 13, 2005. <http://www.eere.energy.gov/EE/transportation.html>. Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of Energy, September 15, 2005. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), United States Department of Transportation. Context Sensitive Solutions/ Thinking Beyond Pavement. January 24, 2005. <http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/csd/>. September 12, 2005. ---. Course on Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation. Fall 2005. <http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/univcourse/swtoc.htm> March 2006. ---. Flexibility in Highway Design. 1997. <http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/flex/index.htm> September 5, 2006. ---. FHWA Functional Classification Guidelines. United States Department of Transportation. 1989. <http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/fctoc.htm> September 6, 2006. ---. Highway Traffic Noise in the United States: Problem & Response. United States Department of Transportation. April 2006. <http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/probresp.htm> June 19, 2006. ---. PEDSAFE: Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System. Publication FHWA-SA-04003. September 2004. PEDSAFEs countermeasure selection system is also available as a web-based application at <http://www.walkinginfo.org/pedsafe/>. Filiberto, Heather. Local Governments and Climate Change. Tompkins County Planning Department. June 12, 2004. <http://www.co.tompkins.ny.us/emc/docs/3_climate_change_and_ccp_presentation.pdf>. August 30, 2006 Frank, Andresen, and Schmid. (2004). Obesity relationships with community design, physical activity, and time spent in cars. American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 18 (2004): 47-57. Hale, Terry, Hal Rogers, & Norm Schips. Highway Design Manual. Albany, N.Y: New York State Department of Transportation, February 1999. Hanson, Susan ed. The Geography of Urban Transportation. New York, New York: The Guilford Press, 1995. Henderson Associates. Road Surface Management System (RSMS 2003). Silver Spring, Maryland: USDOT, FHWA, May 2003. Distributed by Cornell Local Roads Program, Ithaca, N.Y. Hu, Patricia and Tim Reuscher. 2001 National Household Travel Survey: Ithaca MPO. Oakridge, Tennessee: Oak Ridge National Laboratory, May 2004. Hu, Patricia and Jennifer Young. 1995 National Personal Transportation Survey, New York Add-On. Oakridge, Tennessee: Oak Ridge National Laboratory, February 1998. Humstone and Campoli. Access Management: An Overview & Guide for Roadway Corridors. Planning Commissioners Journal, #29 Winter 1998. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS). Fatality Facts 2003: Bicycles. Available online at <http://www.iihs.org/research/fatality_facts/pdf/bicycles.pdf> Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council (ITCTC). 2003-2006 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Undated. <http://owasco.co.tompkins.ny.us/itctc/tip/index.html>. September 1, 2004.

124

---. 2025 Long Range Transportation Plan (Updated). Ithaca, N.Y: Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council, December 2004. Ithaca-Tompkins Regional Airport. Airport Facts. Undated. <http://www.ithaca-airport.com/facts/>. September 1, 2004. Knoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization. 2002 Knoxville Regional Bicycle Plan. <http://www.knoxtrans.org/plans/bikeplan/index.htm>. March 19, 2006 Jackson and Kochtitzky. Creating a Healthy Environment: The Impact of the Built Environment on Public Health. Sprawl Watch Clearinghouse Monograph Series, Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Undated. Litman, Todd. Congestion Reduction Strategies: Identifying and Evaluating Strategies To Reduce Traffic Congestion. Traffic Demand Management Encyclopedia. Victoria, British Colombia: Victoria Transport Policy Institute, May 2005. <http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm96.htm>. September 15, 2005. ---. Context Sensitive Design: Roadway Design that is Responsive to Local Community Values. Traffic Demand Management Encyclopedia. Victoria, British Colombia: Victoria Transport Policy Institute, May 2005. <http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm57.htm> June 23, 2006. ---. Victoria Transport Policy Institute. Generated Traffic and Induced Travel: Implications for Transport Planning. ITE Journal, Vol. 71, No. 4, pp. 38-47. Institute of Transportation Engineers. April 2001. <http://www.vtpi.org/gentraf.pdf>. September 6, 2006. Maryland Energy Administration. Energy Efficiency for Transportation. 2005. <http://www.energy.state.md.us/energysources/energyefficiency/transportation/>. September 15, 2005. Mengel, Dwight and Sara Rakaczky. The Ithaca Intercity Bus Schedule. Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit, Ithaca Downtown Transportation Center Working Paper #1. <http://www.co.tompkins.ny.us/transit/Intercitybusschedule8-2-2001dem.htm>. September 1, 2004. Michigan Department of Transportation. National Functional Classification: How Its Used in Michigan. April 3, 2002. <http://www.michigan.gov/documents/MDOT__MDOT_National_Functional_Classification_18759_7.pdf>. September 1, 2004. Milwaukee River Basin Partnership. Protecting Our Waters: Streets and Roads. September 11, 2003. <http://clean-water.uwex.edu/plan/streetsroads.htm>. September 15, 2005. NESTS Working Group. North East Subarea Transportation Study: Transportation Plan. Prepared for the Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council by Creighton Manning Engineering, LLP, facilitated by the Community Dispute Resolution Center. July 19, 1999. New York State Department of Transportation. What is TEA-21? May 14, 1999. <http://www.dot.state.ny.us/progs/tea21/whattea.html>. September 1, 2004. ---. CHIPS: Consolidated Local Street and Highway Improvement Program. Undated. <http://www.dot.state.ny.us/chips/index.html>. September 1, 2004. ---. Statewide Transportation Improvement Program. January 6, 2004. <http://www.dot.state.ny.us/progs/stip.html>. September 13, 2004. ---. Transportation Enhancement Program (TEP): General Information. November 2002. <http://www.dot.state.ny.us/progs/tepgen.html>. September 1, 2004.

125

Noise Center of the League for the Hard of Hearing. Noise Levels in Our Environment Fact Sheet. Undated. <http://www.lhh.org/noise/decibel.htm> August 30, 2006. Office of Transportation and Air Quality. Mobile Source Emissions Past, Present, and Future. Washington, D.C: United States Environmental Protection Agency, March 11, 2005. <http://www.epa.gov/otaq/invntory/overview/pollutants/index.htm>. September 15, 2005. Pedestrian and Bicycling Information Center (PBIC). Bicycling Crashes: Crash Types. Undated. <http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/bc/types.htm>. August 29, 2006. Planning/ Environmental Research Consultants and Kennedy-Yager Associates. Transportation Trail/ Corridor Study. Ithaca, N.Y. and Vergennes, Vermont: ITCTC, March 1996. Reeves, Thomas G. Timeline. Converge: Where Transportation and the Environment Meet. 2002. <http://www.converge.ncsu.edu/>. September 13, 2005. Rock Island District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Inland Waterway Navigation Value to the Nation. 2004. Rock Island, Illinois: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. <www.mvr.usace.army.mil/Brochures/ InlandWaterwayNavigation.asp>. September 15, 2004 Rodriguez, Dr. Jean-Paul. Chapter 8: Transport and Environment. The Geography of Transportation Systems. Hempstead, New York: Hofstra University, Department of Economics & Geography, 2005. Rudy, Tony, AAE. Ithaca-Tompkins Regional Airport. Telephone interview by Nicole Tedesco. Ithaca, New York. September 5, 2006. Rural Roads Design Standards Advisory Committee. Design Standards: Review and Recommendations for Rural Road Design. Road Work, December 2000. Clallam County, Washington. <http://www.saferuralroads.com/road_work-design_standards.pdf> September 6, 2006 Sear-Brown. Final Report: Tompkins County Freight Transportation Study. Rochester, N.Y: ITCTC, April 2002. Sterling, George, Planning Board Chairman. Chapter 6: Traffic & Transportation. Master Plan Update. Town of Peterborough, New Hampshire: Office of Community Development, November 2003. McCann, Barbara and Bianca DeLille. Mean Streets 2000: A Transportation and Quality of Life Campaign Report. Surface Transportation Policy Project. 2000. <http://www.transact.org/PDFs/ms2000/ms2000.pdf> August 30, 2006. Szudzik, Christine. Gadabout Gets Seniors Out and About. The Front Page. Undated. Ithaca College Student Journalism Publication. t-GEIS Project Team. Final Scope, t-GEIS. February 7, 2006. <http://www.transportation.cornell.edu/TGEIS/TGEIS_Home-1.htm> Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit. Frequently Asked Questions. Undated. <http://www.tcatbus.com/faq.shtml>. September 15, 2005. Tompkins County Planning Department. Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan: Planning for Our Future. December 2004. <http://www.tompkins-co.org/planning/compplan/index.html> August 30, 2006. Town of Ithaca. Park, Recreation, and Open Space Plan. Executive Summary. Ithaca, N.Y: Town of Ithaca, December, 1997.

126

---. Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan. Town of Ithaca Planning Board, Ithaca, NY. September 1993. Transportation Choices Coalition. The Environmental Threat: Sprawl, Air and Water Pollution, Global Warming. Washington, D.C: Transportation Choices Coalition, 2003. <http://www.transportationchoices.org/facts-environmental.asp>. September 15, 2005. Transportation Research Board. Highway Capacity Manual. Washington D.C: National Research Council, 2000. United States Congress. Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). H.R. 2950/ Public Law 102-240. Available from the Library of Congress at <http://thomas.loc.gov/cgibin/bdquery/z?d102:HR02950>. August 28, 2006. United States Department of Agriculture. Steps to a Healthier You. Mypyramid.gov. Undated. <http://www.mypyramid.gov/> June 28, 2006. United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Highway Functional Classification: Concepts, Criteria, and Procedures. Transmittal 155, Volume 20, Appendix 12. July 1974. (Also: <http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/fcsec1_1.htm>. September 13, 2005.) United States Environmental Protection Agency. Heat Island Effect Information Center. June 9, 2006 <http://www.epa.gov/heatisland/> June 19, 2006. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation: Highway, Rail, Aviation, and Maritime Transport. Washington, D.C: Policy, Planning, and Evaluation (2126), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Publication 230-R-96-009, Government Printing Office, October 1996. Varricchione, Brian J. Enhancing Pedestrian Access in Tompkins County: A Guidebook on Sidewalk Improvements. A Professional Report Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Cornell University. May 2003. The following are resources consulted in the development of the Design Guidelines, Volume III. Right-of-Way Design Chellman, C. Rick. The Design of New Urbanist Streets. Urban Land Institute. Orlando, F.L: April 2000. City of Ottawa. Regional Road Corridor Design Guidelines. Ottawa, Canada: date unknown. Institute of Transportation Engineers. Improving the Pedestrian Environment Through Innovative Design. Washington, D.C: 2005. Transportation Department, City of Bellevue. Design Manual. Bellevue, W.A: date unknown. Bicycle and Pedestrian Issues Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals. Bicycle Parking Guidelines. Undated. Available online at <http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/pdf/bikepark.pdf>. October 13, 2006. Bicycle Advisory Committee, Charlotte-Mecklenburg area. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bicycle Transportation Plan. Charlotte-Mecklenburg, N.C: July 1999. Bicycle and Pedestrian Program, Oregon Department of Transportation. Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan: An Element of the Oregon Transportation Plan. Salem, O.R: June 14, 1995.

127

Brunswick Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee. Brunswick Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvement Plan. Brunswick, M.E: October 13, 1998, updated September 15, 2004. Federal Highway Administration, United States Department of Transportation. FHWA Course on Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation. Georgetown Pike, McLean, V.A: date unknown. Federal Highway Administration, United States Department of Transportation. Implementing Pedestrian Improvements at the Local Level. Publication No. FHWA-98-138. Georgetown Pike, McLean, V.A: 1999. Federal Highway Administration, United States Department of Transportation. Safety Effects of Marked vs. Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations: Executive Summary and Recommended Guidelines. Publication No. FHWA-RD-01-075. Georgetown Pike, McLean, V.A: February 2002. Knoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization. 2002 Knoxville Regional Bicycle Plan. Knoxville, K.Y: 2002. Local Government Commission, Center for Livable Communities. Why People Dont Walk and What City Planners Can Do About It. Sacramento, C.A: date unknown. Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center and Federal Highway Administration, United States Department of Transportation. How to Develop a Pedestrian Safety Action Plan. Publication No. FHWA-SA-05-12, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina: February 2006. Pedestrian Transportation Program, Office of Engineering and Development, City of Portland. Portland Pedestrian Design Guide. Element of the Pedestrian Master Plan for the City of Portland, Oregon. Portland, O.R: 1998. Traffic Calming Burden, Dan. Twenty-Two Benefits of Urban Street Trees. Glatting Jackson and Walkable Communities, Inc: May 2006. City of Sarasota Engineering Department. Traffic Calming Manual. Sarasota, F.L: September 2003. DOWL Engineers. Traffic Calming Protocol Manual. Prepared for the Municipality of Anchorage. Anchorage, A.K: March 2001. Ewing, Reid. Traffic Calming: State of the Practice. Institute for Transportation Engineers and Federal Highway Administration. 1999. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. Program Development and Pilot Project for the City of Ithaca Citywide Traffic Calming Program. Working Paper #1, prepared for the City of Ithaca. Ithaca, N.Y: April 14, 2000. Victoria Transport Policy Institute. Traffic Calming: Roadway Design to Reduce Traffic Speeds and Volumes. TDM Encyclopedia. June 4, 2004. <http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm4.htm> The following are sources that were consulted as general references throughout the development of The Transportation Plan. Duany, Plater-Zyberk, and Speck. Suburban Nation: The Rise of Sprawl and the Decline of the American Dream. North Point Press, New York, New York. 2000. Hanson, Susan, Ed. The Geography of Urban Transportation. Second Edition. The Guilford Press, New York, New York. 1995.

128

APPENDIX IX: ACRONYMS

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act Requires transit operators to offer the same services to the disabled as to the able-bodied; also resulted in recommendations to make the pedestrian system (such as sidewalks, crosswalks, and so on) accessible to the disabled. Average number of vehicles per day, which varies by day of week and month of year/ average number of vehicles per day, adjusted for seasonal factors to be an average over the whole year. The device that takes traffic counts. It usually consists of two tubes that are placed perpendicular to the road, plus a counter machine. Funding program whose purpose is to assist localities in financing the construction, reconstruction, or improvement of local highways, bridges, highway-railroad crossings, and/or other local facilities.1 A transportation planning approach that considers the total context within which a transportation improvement project will exist.2 Department of Transportation for various jurisdictions: USDOT is United States Department of Transportation; NYSDOT is New York State Department of Transportation A major division of USDOT that is in charge of Americas roads and highways. Two main programs are Federal-Aid Highway Program and Federal-Land Highway Program. Helps fund transit programs by giving funds to a State Department of Transportation (DOT), which, in turn, allocates the funds to MPOs within the state. A manual of standards that predict the typical or expected carrying capacity of various types of road and intersections. Renewal of federal legislation that placed more emphasis on intermodal facilities, context sensitive design, and regional planning oversight than in the past. The MPO for the Ithaca-Tompkins County urbanized area.

ADT/ AADT

Average Daily Traffic/ Average Annual Daily Traffic

ATR

Automatic Traffic Recorder

CHIPS

Consolidated (Local Street) Highway Improvement Program

CSD

Context Sensitive Design

DOT

Department of Transportation

FHWA

Federal Highway Administration

FTA

Federal Transit Administration

HCM

Highway Capacity Manual Intermodal Surface Tranportation Equity Act (1991) Ithaca Tompkins County Transportation Council

ISTEA

ITCTC

LOS

Level of Service

A measure of how well a road or intersection is carrying traffic. LOS A indicates a free flow of traffic or a minimal wait at an intersection. LOS F indicates very bad congestion or very long waits at an intersection.

1 2

NYSDOT, Chips FHWA, 2005

129

LRTP

Long Range Transportation Plan

A plan, with a 20-year planning horizon, which takes a continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive approach to transportation planning at the regional level. Roadways eligible for federal funding. Arterials, urban collectors, and principal rural collectors. Surveys administered by USDOT to gauge the who, what, when, where, why, and how of Americans travel habits. Available for all urbanized areas.

NHS

National Highway System National Personal Transportation Survey/ National Household Travel Survey

NPTS/ NHTS

MPO

Metropolitan Planning Organization

Governmental agency charged with transportation planning (and sometimes land-use planning) for an urbanized area of greater than 50,000 residents. The ITCTC is MPO for Ithaca and Tompkins County. Most recent renewal of legislation governing the distribution of federal transportation funds; signed into law on August 20, 2005.

SAFETEA

Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act (2003)

SEQR

State Environmental Quality Review

Legislation that established a process to examines the impact that certain actions could have on the natural and built environments; permits municipalities to require mitigation of negative environmental consequences. Coordinates the projects receiving federal funding to develop the statewide surface transportation network Established with ISTEA; allocates funding for road projects AND pedestrian, bicycle, and transportation enhancement projects. The public transit not-for-profit providing service to Tompkins County. Renewal of federal legislation that guaranteed a minimum level of transportation funding. Federal funding authorized by ISTEA that applies to scenic byways, beautification, pedestrian walks, recreation opportunities, and other transportation-related issues. The annual report/ program that details the MPOs activities.

STIP

Statewide Transportation Improvement Program Surface Transportation Program Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (1998) Transportation Enhancement Programs Unified Planning Work Program Vehicle Over Capacity (ratio) Vehicles per hour/ vehicles per day

STP

TCAT

TEA-21

TEP

UPWP

VOC VPH/ VPD

The ratio of traffic volume (or flow rate) to capacity for a traffic facility. Vehicles per hour is often used to describe peak hour volumes/ vehicles per day. This unit is also used for describing AADT.

130

The Town of Ithaca Transportation Plan Volume III: The Design Guidelines

Version: April 25, 2007 Town of Ithaca Town Board Contact: jkanter@town.ithaca.ny.us

Introduction................................ Introduction................................................................ ................................................................................................ ........................................................................... ........................................... 1

The Guiding Vision................................ Vision ................................................................ ................................................................................................ ............................................................................... ............................................... 1
Multiple Modes ...............................................................................................................................2 Adjacent Land Uses........................................................................................................................2 Human-Scale Design ......................................................................................................................2 Outdoor Rooms ...............................................................................................................................3 Context Sensitive Design................................................................................................................3 The Importance of Design ..............................................................................................................4

Streetscape Design................................ Design................................................................ ............................................................................................... ............................................................... 5

Introduction ................................................................ ................................................................................................ ......................................................................................... ......................................................... 6 The Transportation Network and Adjacent Land Uses ....................................................... ....................................................... 6
Connectivity.....................................................................................................................................6 Connectivity and Walkability ...........................................................................................................7 Intersections and Curb Radii..........................................................................................................8 Suburban Forms .............................................................................................................................8 Adjacent Sites and Structures ........................................................................................................8 Neighborhood Commercial Development................................................................................... 10 Parking .......................................................................................................................................... 10 Gateway Treatments .................................................................................................................... 11 Access Management ................................................................................................................... 11

The Road Edge ................................................................ ................................................................................................ .................................................................................. .................................................. 13

Furniture and Amenities.............................................................................................................. 13 Transit........................................................................................................................................... 13 Pedestrian Facilities .................................................................................................................... 14 Road Edge Natural Landscape ................................................................................................... 14

The Roadway and Shoulder ................................................................ .............................................................................................. .............................................................. 15

Roadway Width ............................................................................................................................ 15 On-Street Parking......................................................................................................................... 15

Other Design Issues ................................................................ ................................................................................................ .......................................................................... .......................................... 16

Drainage and Stormwater Runoff............................................................................................... 16 Operational Issues ....................................................................................................................... 16

Sample Streetscapes ................................................................ ................................................................................................ ........................................................................ ........................................ 18

(A) (B) (C) (D) Urban/ Suburban, Intense Traffic ........................................................................................ 19 Urban/ Suburban, Non-Intense Traffic................................................................................ 19 Rural, Intense Traffic............................................................................................................. 20 Rural, Non-Intense Traffic .................................................................................................... 20

Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure Design................................ Design.................................................... ....................................................21 .................... 21

Introduction ................................................................ ................................................................................................ ....................................................................................... ....................................................... 22 Pedestrian Infrastructure ................................................................ ................................................................................................ .................................................................. .................................. 23
Types of Pedestrian Infrastructure ............................................................................................. 23 Sidewalks and Walkways ............................................................................................................. 23 Multi-use Paths............................................................................................................................. 23 Paved Shoulders........................................................................................................................... 24 ADA Access................................................................................................................................... 24 Intersections, Crosswalks, and Traffic Signals .......................................................................... 25 Other Pedestrian Environment Enhancements ......................................................................... 25

Bicycle Infrastructure ................................................................ ................................................................................................ ........................................................................ ........................................ 26

Types of Bicycle Infrastructure ................................................................................................... 26 Shared Lane ................................................................................................................................. 26 Wide Curb Lane ............................................................................................................................ 27 Paved Shoulder ............................................................................................................................ 27 Bicycle Lane.................................................................................................................................. 28 Multi-Use Path .............................................................................................................................. 29 Bicycle Parking............................................................................................................................. 29 Suggested Number of Bicycle Parking Spaces per Land Use.................................................... 30 Bicycle Facility Best Practices..................................................................................................... 31

How to Select a Bicycle or Pedestrian Facility ................................................................ .................................................................. .................................. 32 Site Plan Review Checklist ................................................................ ................................................................................................ ................................................................ 35

Traffic Calming Design................................ Design ................................................................ ........................................................................................ ........................................................37 ........................ 37

Introduction Introduction ................................................................ ................................................................................................ ....................................................................................... ....................................................... 38 Volume Control Measures................................ Measures ................................................................ ................................................................................................ ................................................................. ................................. 39
Partial Road/ Half-Street Closure ............................................................................................... 40 Bus, Bike, and Pedestrian-Only Access...................................................................................... 40 Cul-de-sac or Dead End (Full Road Closure) .............................................................................. 41 Diagonal Diverter ......................................................................................................................... 41 Channelization/ Forced-Turn Lane/ Turn Diverter .................................................................... 42 Median Barrier ............................................................................................................................. 42

Vertical Vertical Speed Control Measures................................ Measures................................................................ ...................................................................................... ...................................................... 43

Speed Hump................................................................................................................................. 43 Speed Table ................................................................................................................................. 43 Raised Crosswalk......................................................................................................................... 44 Raised Intersection...................................................................................................................... 44

Horizontal Speed Control Measures ................................................................ ................................................................................. ................................................. 45

Neighborhood Traffic Circle/ Intersection Island ...................................................................... 45

Modern Roundabout ................................................................................................................... 45 Chicane/ Serpentine Roadway ................................................................................................... 46 Neckout/ Bulbout/ Curb Extension ............................................................................................ 46 Choker .......................................................................................................................................... 47 Center Island/ Median ................................................................................................................ 47

Other Measures................................ Measures ................................................................ ................................................................................................ ................................................................................. ................................................. 48

Bike Lane...................................................................................................................................... 48 Pavement Treatments ................................................................................................................. 48 Other Strategies........................................................................................................................... 49 Other Issues ................................................................................................................................. 50 Traffic Calming and Emergency Response ................................................................................ 50 Design Issues ............................................................................................................................... 51 Maintenance & Longevity............................................................................................................ 51

Sources and Credits ................................................................ ........................................................................................... ...........................................................52 ........................... 52

Photograph, Drawing, and Diagram Credits .............................................................................. 52 General Resources ...................................................................................................................... 54

Introduction
The purpose of this document is to guide Town of Ithaca decision-makers when designing Town roads or providing input into the design of non-Town roads. These guidelines are based on the Goals and Objectives of the Town of Ithaca Transportation Plan. The guidelines emphasize multi-modal streets that respect and protect the livability of residences adjacent to the street. Specifically, these guidelines seek to establish roadways that are: safe; secure, comfortable, and convenient for all users, including residents; universally accessible; environmentally-friendly; and engaging to the eye. This document deals with design guidelines, not design standards. Design standards specify precise design attributes. Design guidelines, on the other hand, are general considerations that guide, not dictate, the physical design of the streetscape. No document can prescribe enforceable standards for every development or redevelopment scenario, as each has different needs and priorities. Thus, the recommendations herein are strongly suggested, but not mandatory. These design guidelines are toolboxes of best practices that provide options for decision-makers.

The Guiding Vision

Traditionally, roadways have been designed from a motorists point of view, and roadway design has sought to maximize motorists comfort, safety, convenience, and speed with little concern for other roadway users, residents of adjacent neighborhoods, or businesses. In order to accommodate traffic, roads have been designed for the largest vehicle expected to use the road (even if this design vehicle only appears a few times a month) accommodating peak hour traffic volumes at a point many years in the future. A roadway thus over-designed becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, and the next time the roadway is redesigned, roadway designers would use the increased volumes and speeds to justify further widening, straightening, and flattening of the road. In contrast to this outdated design paradigm, the principles guiding this design manual are based on the Goals and Objectives of the Town of Ithaca Transportation Plan. The Goals and Objectives emphasize the need to support access and mobility for all roadway users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, the young and old, the disabled, and others, while protecting livability in areas adjacent to roadways. The Goals and Objectives also establish safety and protection of the natural environment as important guiding principles. Overall, these design guidelines take a holistic approach to streetscape design. Specific principles guiding this document include encouraging the use of multiple modes, protection of neighborhoods and respect for business districts, human-scale design, outdoor rooms, and context sensitive design.

Multiple Modes
Pedestrians and bicyclists are a vital component of the streetscape. Instead of designing a road network primarily for motor vehicles and then accommodating pedestrians, planners and decision-makers must consider non-motorized travel as an expected and integral use of the transportation network. Safety, particularly for non-motorized modes, must be an important consideration when designing transportation facilities. Crashes are more likely to injure or kill a bicyclist or pedestrian than a motorist. Non-motorized modes of transportation should use separate facilities from motorized modes for safety reasons when possible, although shared facilities may be appropriate in cases of low vehicular volumes or speeds, or extremely limited right-of-way. Proper design is only one piece of the bicyclist and pedestrian safety issue. Education (for motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians) and enforcement of applicable rules and laws are equally important components of keeping streets safe for everyone. This is known as the Three E approach to transportation, which includes elements of engineering, education, and enforcement.

Adjacent Land Uses

As previously noted, traditional roadway design has accommodated motorists at the expense of others. Unfortunately, some high volume and high-speed roadways travel through residential areas, which has a negative effect on livability. A lack of facilities for non-motorized modes discourages residents from walking or biking, which further erodes a sense of community and has negative effects on public health. Poorly designed business districts can force shoppers to drive, rather than walk, between stores. Businesses lose out on the interest and revenue created through foot traffic. Vast parking lots have negative environmental effects. In short, roadway design should promote safe, livable, and healthy communities by respecting neighborhood needs and community character.

HumanHuman-Scale Design
On a major highway, road signs are enormous, lane widths are very wide and straight, and vehicles travel by quickly. This type of road is intimidating for bicyclists and pedestrians, while the corridor itself is boring to motorists. In contrast, traditional Main Street, USA design is at more of a pedestrian scale. Signs in the shops are the right size to be read by pedestrians and motorists, as the building setbacks are shorter. Vehicles travel slowly, allowing safe street crossings. Thus, it is important to design and build road corridors from a human perspective (which includes pedestrians, bicyclists, and residents) as well as motorists, instead of only from a vehiclular perspective.

Outdoor Rooms
Street trees, attention to pedestrian-scale detail, benches, and other aspects of streetscape design add to the positive atmosphere for residents and travelers. The feel of an outdoor room, delineated by the road and adjacent structures, encourages pedestrians and bicyclists to use the space. The feeling of enclosure can slow motor vehicle traffic by providing motorists with a way to gauge their speedthe speed of the passing trees, lamp posts, or other streetscape features. The street trees in the photograph to the right meet in a canopy over the walkway, creating a beautiful green outdoor room.

Context Sensitive Design

Context Sensitive Design (CSD) refers to flexible design patterns that are sensitive to safety, mobility, access, community, and environmental goals. Context sensitive design addresses all modes of travel not only vehicular trafficand asserts that aesthetics are an integral part of good design. CSD incorporates local experience into the design of new roads by using designs and dimensions that are consistent with area roads that are safe and fit their surroundings. For example, when reconstructing a roadway, context sensitive designs reflect local conditions to serve all roadway users (including bicyclists and pedestrians), instead of blindly applying standards without regard for the unique situation of the roadway. Instead of limiting reconstruction work to the travel lanes, context sensitive design considers ways to beautify the streetscape, to restore the roadway to a human scale, and to improve the character and livability of the neighborhoods through which the road passes. Finally, context sensitive design incorporates local experience into roadway design to address safety concerns by mirroring other local roads that have good safety records and that foster vibrant communities.

The Importance of Design

Above: In this example, the street trees and curvilinear design are visually interesting and will help calm traffic. Direct off-road pedestrian and bicyclist paths may be necessary because the road takes a meandering course.

Above: This subdivision road is wide, flat, straight, bare, and boring. Pedestrians have to walk in the road where motorists are speeding.

Below: Get out your rulers believe it or not, the road footprint of both diagrams is the same. The bottom diagrams road appears narrower because the colored pavement and striping of the bike lanes visually narrow the road. In addition, the street trees frame the road to create a pleasant outdoor room. The presence of pedestrians signals to motorists that the area is inhabited and caution is due.

Streetscape Design Best Practices Toolbox

Introduction

This section of the design guidelines explores streetscape design. Streetscape refers to the elements of a road corridor. A road corridor includes everything between the faades of buildings facing the street (if any), including front yards, sidewalks or walkways, planting strips and furniture zones, road shoulders, and travel lanes. This section describes how elements of a streetscape are arranged and how they interact with each other. It is organized into five topics: the transportation network and adjacent land uses, the road edge, the roadway and shoulder, other design issues, and sample streetscapes.

The Transportation Network and and Adjacent Land Uses

This section describes patterns formed by the transportation network and its interactions with adjacent land uses. The transportation network includes roads, sidewalks, bikeways, off-road paths, and so on. Adjacent lands influence and are influenced by the transportation network via the type of land use and the layout of adjacent sites.

Connectivity
Good connectivity between streets provides a greater number of routes between destinations, diffusing the traffic burden across the area. Connectivity between streets also provides more direct routes (in number and magnitude) for non-motorized travel, reduces trip lengths, and limits out-of-direction travel. This encourages residents to bike or walk and improves emergency access. Ways to promote connectivity include: Avoid cul-de-sacs. Cul-de-sacs are the epitome of anti-connectivity, as there is only one way in and one way out. A close (pronounced cloze) or a loop road provides the private feel of a culde-sac without sacrificing connectivity. A close is a U-shaped street; the center of the U is natural or landscaped open space. A larger close is known as a loop road. In both of these designs, emergency vehicles can enter from either end, unlike a cul-de-sac. Encourage short blocks to disperse traffic. Parallel local streets, frequent intersections, and short blocks help to limit out-of-direction travel, thus reducing walking distances between destinations. Two-hundred fifty to six hundred feet is a good length for a block. Consider curvilinear roads where straight roads have created speeding problems. Where a curvilinear road would greatly increase the out-of-direction travel for bicyclists or pedestrians, use off-road paths to link destinations. Do not allow curvilinear paths to substantially increase the travel time for non-motorized modes (see below).

Creatively promote non-motorized connectivity where motorized connectivity is not practical. Where there must be a dead-end because of environmental or other concerns, a trail or pathway through the dead-end provides connectivity for non-motorized travel. The chances of a person walking or bicycling to their destination if they must take a circuitous route are less than if they have a direct route. In particular, pedestrians are known to stray from established walkways and crosswalks to take a more direct route, even if the direct route is unsafe or unpleasant.

Connectivity and Walkability This example shows the effect that land use patterns have on connectivity. Choose a residence approximately mile from the commercial center in each diagram. In which diagram would it be easier to walk from the residence to the commercial building? The diagram of interconnecting streets on the left is more walkable, i.e. it is easier to walk to a commercial area from a residence mile away. In the diagram on the right, the apartment-dwellers must walk out to a collector road to reach the entrance of the commercial building. Off-road trails can provide non-motorized connectivity where motorized connectivity is impossible or impractical. In the left diagram, an old access road converted to a trail limits out-of-direction travel. In the right diagram, a path through a meadow greatly reduces the trip.

CC

MR MDR

CC MR

MDR

~1/2 mile

Zoning Codes CC=community commercial MDR=medium-density residential MR=multiple residence

CC

MR MDR

MR

CC

MDR Zoning Codes CC=community commercial MDR=medium-density residential MR=multiple residence

~1/2 mile

CC

MR

MDR

CC MR

MDR Zoning Codes CC=community commercial MDR=medium-density residential MR=multiple residence

~1/2 mile

Intersections and Curb Radii

In general, curb radii should be as small as possible to shorten pedestrian crossing distances, to slow vehicles, and to prevent vehicles from rolling through stop controls. Five to fifteen feet in a subdivision is appropriate. Emergency vehicle access should be considered when choosing the curb radii at an intersection. If few large vehicles use an intersection, it may be acceptable to allow them to swing across the centerline when they make a right turn. On Cornell Universitys campus, TCAT buses turning right often allow vehicles to the right to pass through the intersection, which then provides space for the bus to clear the curb. A design feature that allows large vehicles to make right turns without crossing the centerline is a low, mountable curb, which allows the vehicle to hop the curb to make the turn. This may cause conflicts with pedestrian safety if the sidewalk or walkway is directly adjacent to the curb. Traffic calming measures, such as curb extensions, raised crosswalks, raised intersections, or gateway treatments, can improve pedestrian safety at intersections and reduce vehicle speeds. The third section of these Design Guidelines discusses traffic calming.

Suburban Suburban Forms

Planners and developers can integrate aspects of urban design into a suburban transportation system. Street patterns and intersection spacing, pedestrian and bicyclist linkages, building heights and setbacks, building density, and land use mixes all influence the transportation system. The elements of the transportation network should be planned around one quarter to one third mile segments. This is the commonly accepted distance that the average person will walk for transportation without considering driving as an alternative. Cluster subdivisions and development nodes are two transportation-friendly design concepts that increase density. Cluster subdivisions are subdivisions in which large areas of the tract are set aside as open space and development is concentrated in other areas. It is easier to provide transit to clustered developments, because fewer stops are needed to serve the development. Development nodes should have a higher-density mix of land uses, including neighborhood commercial uses or service providers. This helps to make neighborhoods walkable by reducing the distances between destinations. Other transportation-friendly design concepts include neo-traditional design, transit-oriented development, and New Urbanism.

Adjacent Sites and Structures Adjacent buildings are a part of the streetscape. Reducing setbacks to fifteen to twenty-five feet and improving direct pedestrian access creates a human scale and makes walking or biking more pleasant.

To promote walkability in both residential and commercial development, buildings and their entrances should be oriented toward the street, pedestrian facilities, and transit stops, instead of motor vehicle parking lots. The goal should be to encourage people to walk between locations, instead of getting into their cars to drive from store to store or apartment to office. Buildings should be arranged on the site so as to minimize walking distances between building entrances. Where possible, there should be direct access from transit stops to building entrances. The faade of the building should be visually interesting and pleasing; in other words, do not permit long, blank, windowless stretches of wall to face the street or the pedestrian walkway. Barrier-free, continuous, clearly delineated walkways or sidewalks should connect parking areas to building entrances, building entrances to other building entrances on the site, and building entrances to other building entrances on adjacent sites. If possible, the walkways between buildings should be covered with an awning, building overhang, portico, or other covering. Conflict points between sidewalks or walkways and the motor vehicle stream should be minimized and should be marked, where appropriate, with signage or crosswalks.

In the diagram below, the ratio of the height of the adjacent buildings to the total road corridor is 1:10. Covering the long distance from the front door of the home to the sidewalk is inconvenient and intimidating. The pedestrian is lost in the vast distance between the houses.
155 feet 50 feet 155 feet

36 feet

1:10 Building Height to Corridor Width 36 ft tall home; 155 ft setback (sidewalk edge to home) 9 ft lane; 4 ft shoulder; 7 ft planting strip; 5 ft sidewalk 26 feet total pavement 50 ft total r-o-w

Approximate Measures Passenger car Person, 5.5 ft tall 5 ft 10 ft 20 ft 40 ft

The diagram below approximates the dimensions for medium density residential development stipulated in the Town of Ithaca zoning code. In this diagram, the ratio of the height of the homes to the total road corridor is 1:4. While this is acceptable, a ratio of 1:3 or even 1:2 is recommended to preserve human scale and to make walking between distances easier.

In the diagram below, this New Urbanist-style development has a building height to road corridor width ratio of 1:2.5. Note how the scale fits the pedestrian while still accommodating motor vehicles. Walking between destinations is very convenient. Neighborhood commercial land uses are integrated into the residential development. The high density of development may be inappropriate for certain locations, such as environmentally sensitive areas. This type of development may be similar to the Towns high density residential development, except the Town zoning code requires a front yard depth of at least 25 feet and does not permit commercial uses by right. 1 :2.5 Building Height to Corridor Width (similar to NewNew-Urbanist development)
36 ft tall home; 22 ft setback (edge of ROW to home) 9 ft lane; 2 ft shoulder; 7 ft planting strip; 5 ft sidewalk 22 feet total pavement

22 feet

46 feet

22 feet

36 feet

Approximate Measures 5 ft 10 ft 20 ft 40 ft

Neighborhood Commercial Development Neighborhood commercial zoning decreases travel distances between homes, stores, and services and encourages walking and bicycling via human-scale development. In the Ithaca area, the majority of vehicular trips per person per day are five miles or less (2.12 trips per person per day are less than five miles; 1.25 trips per person per day are greater than 5 miles). Short trips are more likely to transition to an alternate mode than long trips. For example, the average person is more likely to walk the half mile to a neighbors home than to walk five miles to a friends home on the other side of town. When designing a neighborhood commercial development, it is important to consider motor vehicle and bicycle parking (see below and the section on bicycle parking in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure Design: Best Practices Toolbox) and the considerations discussed above in the Adjacent Sites and Structures section.

Parking The sea of pavement parking lot must be avoided. Massive parking lots are unattractive, increase polluted stormwater run-off, and are difficult for pedestrians and bicyclists to navigate. Parking lots should be sized to accommodate typical peak hour volumes, not the extraordinary volumes that occur a few times per year during the busiest shopping seasons. Commercial development with designs that actively encourage the use of alternate modes of transportation should be allowed to have fewer than the required number of parking spaces. Parking should be located to the side or rear of buildings. Buildings should be located close to the road to
Landscaped pedestrian refuges

Building fronts sidewalk, not parking lot

10

mitigate the visual impact on the streetscape and to improve access for bicyclists and pedestrians. Shared parking lots between businesses should be encouraged, where appropriate, to reduce the overall need for parking. Large parking lots (greater than fifty spaces) should be broken up into distinct but connected lots, separated with landscaped medians with walkways. It is important to minimize the environmental and visual intrusion of motor vehicle parking. The use of porous and/ or light-colored pavement materials and the inclusion of generous green spaces reduces stormwater run-off. As many trees as possible should be included in the parking area (guidelines from other municipalities range from one tree per ten parking spaces to one tree per three parking spaces). Parking lot lights should be numerous, set close to the ground, and adequately shielded to prevent glare and light trespass. There should be clearly delineated pedestrian pathways, preferably on the aforementioned landscaped medians, that lead through parking areas to building entrances. Bicycle parking should be considered for every location that has motor vehicle parking (see the Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure Design: Best Practices Toolbox in these Design Guidelines). Compact vehicle parking spaces could be located closer to the entrance of a building to reward drivers who choose compact cars, to protect pedestrians by moving large vehicles away from the building entrance, and to enhance safety by improving visibility for drivers of compact cars who otherwise would park next to or between large vehicles.

Gateway Treatments One way to announce to drivers that they are entering a residential area is to use a gateway treatment. These entrance features are often combinations of traffic calming, landscaping, sign, and architectural or art design features. Transition treatments can also mark the boundaries of significant changes in land use (such as a transition from agricultural to residential land uses).

Access Management
Access management controls the number of curb cuts onto collector and arterial roads by using shared driveways between residences or businesses or by using local access roads or alleys to collect traffic and deposit it onto the main road at one point. Reducing the number of driveways reduces the potential for vehicular-pedestrian or vehicular-bicyclist conflict, as well as vehicle-vehicle conflict. For example, instead of permitting the development of ten lots with driveways on a State route, a parallel rear access road could collect traffic and deposit it onto the State route at one location. Access roads can be used for residential garages and parking, utilities, trash and recycling storage, and other utilitarian purposes, freeing space in the front of buildings for sidewalks, trees, and street furniture. By avoiding the need to use frontage for driveways, lots can be narrower, and the roadway will have fewer curb cuts.

11

Access management and connectivity are not mutually exclusive concepts. Limiting the number of curb cuts onto the main arterial increases the importance of having many multiple, direct paths to the access point. Multi-use trails and walkways can provide direct bicycle and pedestrian connectivity to access points.

12

The Road Edge

Road edge refers to the space between the edge of the roadway (the curb or the outside of the shoulder) and the right-of-way limit. In suburban contexts, a road edge of 13 feet generously accommodates a zone 7 feet wide for trees, lights, benches, and so on and a zone of 6 feet for pedestrian needs. The road edge plays an important role in buffering residential areas from the effects of traffic. Where possible, the Town should encourage visual and sound barriers, such as street trees or hedgerows, between major through-roads and residences. Buffers are particularly important in locations where residential development abuts a collector or arterial roadway.

Furniture and Amenities

The use of street furniture should be encouraged. Examples of street furniture are: benches, lights, bicycle racks, newspaper boxes and mail boxes, human-scale signs, bus shelters and bus stop signs, public art, and so on. These objects are usually placed between the curb and sidewalk. It is important that they do not block sight distances or interfere with a clear pedestrian passage, according to ADA guidelines. Streetlights should be considered in the design of roads used by pedestrians in order to permit walking in the evening and to improve pedestrian visibility. More and shorter lights (8-15 high) are preferable to fewer, taller, high-intensity lights. Practically, a larger number of streetlights means a smaller gap in the lighting system if a light burns out. Aesthetically, a larger number of gentler street lights remains within the pedestrian scale while allowing one to see the night sky. Full-spectrum lighting preserves realistic colors at night. Streetlights should be shielded, according to the Towns lighting law, to minimize light pollution, trespass, and glare. Finally, streetlights are not appropriate in rural settings, except for certain intersections. Signage is an important part of the streetscape. Signs are most common in commercial areas. Where possible, signs should be grouped together to prevent a cluttered, confusing right-of-way. Signs should be in scale with surroundings and should comply with the Towns sign law.

Transit
Pedestrians should have a suitable area to await the bus. At heavily used bus stops, bus shelters or benches should be provided, along with schedules for routes that serve the stop. The stop should be easily visible to provide a sense of security and to ensure that the bus does not pass by people waiting for the bus. ADA guidelines suggest a flat, stable area of five feet wide by eight feet deep at the point of entry onto a bus. Finally, a safe, convenient path that connects a pedestrian generator to the bus stop should be provided. 13

Pedestrian Facilities
Sidewalks or walkways are an important part of the road edge. In general, sidewalks or walkways should be: Barrier-free and ADA compliant, where possible; Protected from vehicular traffic by trees, landscaping, lighting, utility poles, parking meters, signage, transit shelters, curbing, or other features; Usually five feet wide, and 9-10 feet wide or greater in locations with very high pedestrian volumes, such as commercial areas or school zones. If the sidewalk is directly adjacent to the curb, it should be 6 feet wide. In areas where right-of-way is limited or there are other environmental constraints, four feet is allowable, but less desirable; In developed areas, usually on both sides of the road, where feasible. Please see the second section of these Design Guidelines for more detail, such as where to include sidewalks or walkways and other ways to enhance the pedestrian environment.

Road Edge Natural Landscape

Road edge landscaping provides an attractive atmosphere for pedestrians and motorists. It encourages motorists to slow down by providing visual indications of speed (the rate the trees pass). Trees along the street shade pedestrians and provide an attractive, pedestrian-scaled design element by creating outdoor rooms. Furthermore, street trees can prevent snow from drifting onto the roads, simplifying winter maintenance. In residential areas, trees are usually spaced 30-40 feet apart and are placed in planting strips six feet wide or more. In commercial areas, tree wells in the sidewalk may keep trees healthier. Where trees arent appropriate, consider shrubs, tall grasses, wildflowers, or other vegetation. Plantings should not interfere with sight distances or otherwise present a safety hazard. Furthermore, street trees should not interfere with sidewalks. The sidewalk should be kept clear, and there should be at least seven feet of vertical clearance. Planting two trees for every tree removed fosters a living, green road corridor environment. Issues to consider when selecting plantings include: Native species over exotic species; Tolerance to road salt, subsoil limitations, heat, drought, strong winds, shade, and general disruptions; Deciduous trees that provide shade in summer and sun in winter; Ease of maintenance; Mature height of tree (especially for trees planted near overhead utilities).

14

The Roadway and Shoulder

Roadway Width
In general, the total curb-to-curb width of the roadway should be minimized, while taking into account safety and livability needs. A narrower street width reduces vehicle travel speeds, the amount of impervious road surface area, and the distance that pedestrians must cross. Lanes should be no wider than required to serve their role in the streetscape. Travel lanes on low-volume residential streets, such as those internal to a subdivision, can be 9-10 feet wide, depending on circumstances. Travel lanes on other roads can be 9.5-12 feet wide, again depending on circumstances (including presence and width of shoulder). Roadway design should not impede emergency access. Roads are often unnecessarily wide because planners or developers aggregate the space allocated for travel lanes, bike lanes, and parking lanes into one wide road without realizing that these uses seldom occur simultaneously. Use by oversized vehicles, such as delivery trucks, moving vans, school buses and fire trucks, is generally infrequent. To keep lane width as narrow as feasible, roads should be designed for typical use, not extraordinary circumstances, as long as safety is not compromised. On relatively lowvolume residential streets, a narrow street with intermittent on-street parking may occasionally require one driver to slow or pull to the side to allow another to pass; this is known as a queuing street. When inside a subdivision, this occasional queuing does not result in a noticeable reduction in the level of service.

OnOn-Street Parking Parking

On-street parking provides a buffer between pedestrians and moving vehicles, slows traffic, encourages motorists to stay aware of their surroundings, and reduces the need for impervious surface cover for parking if on-street parking is used instead of parking lots. In residential areas, it acts as convenient visitor parking, in turn allowing driveways to stay small, reducing impervious surface cover, and preserving space for yards. In commercial development, it decreases the need for massive parking seas of pavement, increases the visibility of storefronts, permits increased development density, and provides convenient passenger and freight loading and unloading space in tight spaces. Parallel parking results in a smaller curb-to-curb roadway width, but diagonal parking gets a greater number of spaces per unit of roadway length. There is a potential for conflict between bicyclists and vehicles using on-street parking. On roadways with high motor vehicle traffic volumes and speeds, and on roadways and where cyclists cannot share the travel lane with motor vehicles, bicyclists will remain close to the parked vehicles, and opening doors into the bicyclists path may be a hazard. In such cases, provide a parking space width of thirteen to fifteen feet (about four to four-and-a-half meters). Where cyclists can share the travel lane with motor vehicles, parking lanes can be eight to nine feet wide.

15

The need for through-traffic movement and the need for local access must be balanced with the positive attributes of on-street parking when deciding its location. It may be necessary to perform a parking supply and demand study to determine the desirability and feasibility of on-street parking.

Other Design Issues

Drainage and Stormwater Runoff

Runoff from residential streets includes: sediments, oil, gasoline, phosphorous, copper, zinc, and fecal coliform bacteria. Sources of this pollution include: pavement deterioration; vehicle emissions; tire and brake pad wear; atmospheric deposition; pet waste; lawn runoff. For more information about the effects of the transportation system on water resources, see The Natural Environment and the Transportation System section of the full Transportation Plan. There are two main types of stormwater collection systems: underground storm sewers with curbs and gutters and open, vegetated ditches, culverts, and channels. Curb and gutter systems channel the runoff quickly into the sewer system, without any treatment. In addition, underground sewer systems are expensive to build. On the other hand, underground systems free up space for sidewalks, street trees, and other improvements in areas of limited right-of-way. Curbface inlets and bevelled curb faces are superior to grates and flat faces, for bicyclists safety and ease of maintenance by plows. Open vegetated channels filter the runoff, remove pollutants, and slow the flow to the sewer system. They can also reduce the total amount of runoff entering the system. Two types of open vegetated channels are dry swales and grass channels. Open ditches are less expensive to build, but are more expensive to maintain than underground systems. They also use up more right-of-way width than underground systems. If poorly designed or maintained, vegetated channels can turn into muddy messes, and standing water can breed mosquitoes and other unwanted insects. When designing either type of stormwater treatment, it is important retain as much natural roadside vegetation as possible.

Operational Issues
Roadway design raises issues of emergency vehicle access, utility placement, and snow management. Because many different agencies and organizations use the roadway for purposes such as those, it is extremely important that roadway design is coordinated with input from all stakeholders. In traditional or New Urbanist roadway network designs, there is always more than one route between any two locations. This increases the overall safety of the network, by allowing emergency vehicles to bypass 16

any areas of congestion (of which there are typically fewer). All roadway design projects must realistically assess emergency service needs, and be sure to strike an appropriate balance between the everyday needs of the neighborhood with the extraordinary and immediate needs during emergency situations. Where possible, utility infrastructure should be consolidated to preserve valuable space, which can be used for green space (such as gardens in the planting strip), sidewalks, and so on. Utilities and street lights can be co-located. In order to preserve the aesthetics of the pedestrian environment, utility cables should be located at the back of buildings where possible to avoid the impression of an ugly, industrialized area. If possible, service lines and utilities can be buried. It is essential that travel lanes for motor vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians are kept clear of snow and ice. The planting strip between the bike lane/ shoulder and the sidewalk provides a convenient snow storage space, which allows the continued use of bike lanes and sidewalks through the winter months.

17

Sample Streetscapes
The topics covered in this section of The Design Guidelines outline the various aspects of streetscape design, including the relationship between the transportation network and adjacent land uses, the road edge, the roadway and shoulder, and other design issues, such as drainage and storm water treatment needs and emergency access. Sometimes, the best practice associated with one aspect will conflict with the best practice associated with another aspect. For example, on high volume, high speed roadways, it is important to provide adequate space for bicyclists. Yet overly wide roads can encourage excessive speeding, which has negative impacts on livability. When designing a streetscape, therefore, it is important to balance the trade-offs associated with assigning relative priorities to the various aspects, as well as to remain flexible to alternatives (such as an off-road bike path, in the previously cited example). In addition to being flexible and balanced, streetscape design should always be site-specific and context sensitive. The Town, including the Town Board, Town Planning Board, and Town professional staff, should consider factors such as topography, drainage issues and stormwater treatments, other infrastructure, neighborhood character, and livability needs when selecting the width of a road right-of-way, the width of the lanes and shoulders, the type, design, the location of bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and other aspects of right-of-way design. The following streetscapes exemplify how design can be tailored to specific situations, and how the various aspects of streetscape design interact with each other. They are intended to be guidelines, not standards. The measurements shown in the diagrams are for illustrative purposes only; as previously noted, the design of the roadway and the width of the right-of-way should be tailored to its intended purpose and its context. The samples are based on two variations: urban/ suburban or rural land use intensity and intense traffic (high vehicular volume and/ or speed) or non-intense traffic (low vehicular volume and/or speed). In reality, as previously noted, there are many more considerations that factor into the design of a roadway. Urban/ Suburban Land Use Intensity Diagram A Diagram B Rural Land Use Intensity Diagram C Diagram D

Intense Traffic NonNon-Intense Traffic

18

(A) Urban/ Suburban, Intense Traffic

(Illustrative Only)
**Not to scale

This example road travels through urban or suburban land uses. It carries moderate to high volumes of both local and through vehicular traffic. Lane width is wide enough to accommodate school buses, garbage trucks, delivery trucks, and other large vehicles that use the roadway on a regular basis. Based on topographic and soil considerations, the character of the neighborhood, and right-of-way constraints, storm water may be piped into underground storm sewers (right) or it may collect in swales adjacent to the roadway (left). In an urban or suburban context, a roadway with moderate to high vehicular traffic volumes and speeds should have bicycle and pedestrian accommodations (in this case, walkways for pedestrians and road shoulders for bicycles), especially if the roadway connects traffic generators such as schools, shopping centers, recreational areas, and so on. Street trees are an aspect of this streetscape design.

(B) Urban/ Suburban, NonNon-Intense Traffic

(Illustrative Only)
i
*not to scale*

9 60 feet

This example road carries primarily local traffic in urban or suburban land uses. Because traffic volumes and speeds are low, the lanes are narrower than Example (A) above, and the roadway does not have a shoulder. Bicyclists ride in the travel lane with motorists. This example shows sidewalks, which are an important characteristic of the streetscape in most residential areas, but some small subdivision roads may not need sidewalks. In this example, storm water is carried in concrete gutters, which visually narrow the roadway corridor. In other situations, underground pipes or above ground swales could carry storm water. Street trees are an aspect of this streetscape design.

19

(C) Rural, Intense Traffic

(Illustrative Only)
*not to scale*

14

11

11 60 feet

14

This example road in a rural setting carries both local and through traffic, similar to many State routes in rural areas of the Town. For example, it might provide access to low-density residential development and a few farms, but it might also act as a commuter route. Thus, traffic volumes are high, especially during peak hours. The posted speed limit on this type of roadway in the Town of Ithaca typically would be 45-55 mph. Because of the long distances between destinations, bicycle and pedestrian traffic is sparse and sporadic on the paved shoulders, and there are no separate bicycle and/or pedestrian facilities, such as a sidewalk or trail. Storm water is carried in swales.

(D) Rural, NonNon-Intense Traffic

(Illustrative Only)
*not to scale*

18

10

10 60 feet

18

This example road carries primarily local traffic to rural residences. Traffic volumes are low and the speed limit is high. There is little bicycle or pedestrian traffic, and since there is plenty of escape room to the sides of the roadway, the shoulders are intentionally kept narrow and are not paved to reduce the effective width of the roadway and to reduce the amount of storm water run-off from the road. Storm water is carried in swales.

20

Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure Design Best Practices Practices Toolbox

21

Introduction

Bicycling and walking play an important role in the transportation network. Using these modes are often faster than driving, especially for short trips or trips in an urban area. Bicycling or walking costs much less than owning and maintaining a car, and so they play an important role in providing mobility for the young and low-income. In addition, these modes can move a greater number of people per segment of roadway than a vehicle can, as bicyclists and walkers can travel more closely to each other. Besides serving as a mode of transportation, biking and walking offer personal and societal benefits. Biking and walking improve personal physical fitness and well-being. Promoting walking and biking can play an important role in protecting public health (in fact, exercise is a component of the FDAs revised food pyramid).1 Walking or biking instead of driving for short trips conserves fossil fuels, saves money, alleviates traffic burdens, promotes the health of the natural environment (thereby protecting human health), and protects the integrity of neighborhoods. Walking and biking foster healthy communities by encouraging social interactions on the street and by getting motorists out of their cars and onto the sidewalks, next to shopping and social opportunities. The Town of Ithaca envisions a transportation system that supports bicycling and walking that is safe, pleasurable, and convenient to destinations. Streets would be well-designed to accommodate both motorized and non-motorized modes of transportation, and off-road paths for non-motorized transportation would complete the network. The Town of Ithaca Transportation Plan offers guidance on the development of a bicycle and pedestrian system for the Town. First, the Plan shows the locations that are in need of improvements for bicyclists and/ or pedestrians. Appendix VI, Identifying and Prioritizing Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements, outlines criteria for determining whether a location needs bicycle or pedestrian improvements, as well as identifying corridors within the Town that meet the criteria. Maps 13 and 14 (Prioritized Pedestrian Corridor Needs and Prioritized Bicycle Corridor Needs) in Appendix I show the identified and prioritized locations in need of pedestrian and bicycle improvements. The criteria and maps do not recommend any particular type of improvement for each location, nor do they explain the best practices associated with bicycle- and pedestrian-oriented design. This toolbox, Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure Design: Best Practices Toolbox, is a complement to the maps in Appendix I and the information in Appendix VI. It explores the various types of bicycle and pedestrian facilities, the major design considerations for each, and the types of situations when each is appropriate. This toolbox of ideas is not meant to dictate the design of each and every future bicycle and pedestrian facility. Instead, it is meant to be a starting point for planners, engineers, and decisionmakers when they consider the trade-offs associated with each design.

USDA, undated

22

Pedestrian Infrastructure

Types of Pedestrian Infrastructure

There are four main types of pedestrian infrastructure: sidewalks, walkways, multi-use paths, and road shoulders. In these Design Guidelines, sidewalks and walkways are discussed together because functionally they are the same: a strip of concrete or asphalt that runs roughly parallel to a roadway. In the Town of Ithaca, walkways are owned and maintained by the Town. Sidewalks are owned and maintained by property owners. Walkways play a broader role in the transportation network by serving pedestrians through traffic. Sidewalks, on the other hand, are mainly for the benefit of residences directly adjacent to it. Sidewalks and walkways are supposed to be for the exclusive use of pedestrians. Multi-use paths are paths of various materials used by multiple modes, such as walking and bicycling. They are often used for recreation purposes, as well as serving transportation needs. Multi-use paths may or may not run parallel to a roadway. Finally, the road shoulder is the paved or unpaved strip outside the travel lane. Road shoulders are used by pedestrians, as well as bicyclists and motorists. In rural areas, road shoulders most commonly serve pedestrian travel.

Sidewalks and Walkways In the Town of Ithaca, sidewalks and walkways in a residential area should have five feet of clear space. This means that a five foot wide walkway with a one foot wide utility pole in the middle of the walkway would be considered only two feet wide. The walkway or sidewalk should be separated from the road by a planting strip (where trees should be planted). Where a planting strip would be impossible and the sidewalk or walkway must be adjacent to the roadway, the sidewalk or walkway should be six feet wide and preferably separated from the roadway by curbing. Sidewalks or walkways in commercial, educational, or other institutional land uses where a relatively high volume of pedestrian traffic is anticipated should be at least six feet wide, but may be as wide as eight or nine feet, depending on need. Finally, sidewalks or walkways in areas with limited rightof-way or other environmental constraints may be four feet wide.

Multi-use Paths Multi-use paths, also known as off-street paths or off-street trails, provide a non-motorized facility that is completely separate from motor vehicle traffic but shared among pedestrians, bicyclists, joggers, inline

23

skaters, skateboarders, and others. Multi-use paths often serve both recreation and transportation purposes. Multi-use paths that connect bicycle and pedestrian generators, such as residential areas, commercial areas, schools, and so on, should be paved to improve accessibility. Multi-use paths that serve primarily a recreation function may be gravel or wood chips. A well-designed multi-use path begins and ends at easily accessible, secure points, has many access points along its length, and is built to a high standard to allow maintenance equipment to use the path. A multi-use path must be of a sufficient width to accommodate multiple uses and safe passing. In some low-density residential areas, the multiuse path may be as narrow as five feet wide. In other higher-traffic areas, the multi-use path may be up to ten feet wide, plus some shoulder room. Importantly, conflict points where the multi-use path crosses a roadway must be carefully designed to protect pedestrian, bicyclist, and motorist safety. Examples of multi-use trails in the Town include the South Hill Recreation Way and the East Ithaca Recreation Way. The planned trail system of the Towns Park, Recreation, and Open Space Plan will likely consist of multi-use paths.

Paved Shoulders A paved shoulder is a multi-use space, used for bicycle and pedestrian travel, motor vehicle emergencies, or on-street parking. In rural areas where there are fewer pedestrians, road shoulders are an acceptable pedestrian facility. The typical paved shoulder is striped two to four feet from the outside of the pavement. In a case where there is a relatively high number of bicyclists or pedestrians, a high volume of vehicles, or a road with a high posted speed limit or a steep grade, shoulders of four to six feet in width allow pedestrians to stay farther away from the traffic stream. Signage can alert motorists to the presence of pedestrians and bicyclists. It is important to consider that wider roads, including roads with wide shoulders, encourage motorists to drive at a high speed. Therefore, a separate facility, such as a sidewalk, walkway, or multi-use path, may offer greater pedestrian safety than a road shoulder.

ADA Access
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) includes guidelines for the design of facilities that are accessible to the disabled. Where possible, it calls for a clear, open path at least three feet wide, but preferably five feet wide, constructed of a stable, firm material that is not slippery under usual conditions. Grade should be limited to a maximum of 5% (in general), and cross-slopes should be limited to 2%. Finally, it recommends auditory or textural cues to guide the visually impaired, such as textured pavement at the entrance to a curb ramp from the sidewalk into a crosswalk. ADA guidelines say that objects, such as utility poles or planters, should not be in the pedestrian path, and objects placed outside the pedestrian path should not protrude into it, such as a sign posted outside the sidewalk that hangs over the sidewalk. Pedestrian facilities should be well maintained, including

24

during the winter. What is adequate for the able-bodied may be completely unacceptable for a wheelchair user. Also, it emphasizes the importance of curb cuts at crosswalks (see below). For more information about ADA accessible design, see ADA Standards for Accessible Design, online at the Department of Justices website (<http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/stdspdf.htm>, current as of September 27, 2006).

Intersections, Crosswalks, and Traffic Signals

Crosswalks should be 6 10 wide (depending on the width of the approaching sidewalk) and generally should be located at intersections. The preferred form of crosswalk for painted crosswalks is ladder striping or zebra striping, shown at right, because it is generally more visible . ADA-compliant curb ramps should always be provided at each crosswalk. Midblock crossings are justified for safety or convenience purposes, including areas of frequent child or elderly pedestrians, high pedestrian traffic, or where crosswalks would otherwise be more than 400-600 feet apart. Midblock crossings should be marked with ladder-style striping; combined with other pedestrian improvements or traffic calming features, such as bulb-outs; illuminated; and indicated with advance notice to motorists in the form of highly visible signage. Traffic calming concepts, such as raised medians, bulbouts, textured pavers, or raised crosswalks, can enhance the safety of a pedestrian crossing. Illumination and signage are two other safety tools. Pedestrian activated signals can be incorporated into crossing designs to provide a safe passage across a busy road and to discourage pedestrians from darting into traffic to beat the approaching vehicles. Some signals have a digital countdown, displaying the seconds remaining until the traffic resumes, such as the signal shown at right.

Other Pedestrian Environment Enhancements

There are many ways to enhance the pedestrian environment in order to encourage walking and to promote beautiful neighborhoods. For example: Landscaping and other improvements created at the pedestrian scale for aesthetic enjoyment and to buffer pedestrians from motor vehicle traffic, where appropriate; Adequate lighting at a pedestrian scale and/or emergency call boxes for safety; Awnings, street trees, or other shelters for shade. In addition to the above ideas, the following can enhance commercial or recreational areas: Benches for rest; Water fountains for refreshment;

25

Public restrooms; Local maps; Informative or interpretive signs.

Bicycle Infrastructure

Types of Bicycle Infrastructure

There are five main types of bicycle infrastructure: a shared lane, a wide curb lane, a paved shoulder, a bicycle lane, and a multi-use path. The shared lane is the simplest type of infrastructure; the bicyclist shares a paved travel lane with motor vehicles. A wide curb lane is an outside lane widened to provide room for the bicyclist to maneuver and for motorists to safely pass the bicyclist. Wide curb lanes are especially helpful on uphill climbs. A paved shoulder is a striped, multi-use travel way adjacent to the outside travel lane that is used by bicyclists, pedestrians, and motorists. A bicycle lane is a paved area generally to the outside of the curb lane that is striped and signed for the exclusive use of bicyclists. As previously noted, multi-use paths are completely separate from motor vehicle traffic but shared between pedestrians, bicyclists, and others.

Shared Lane Shared lane bicycle treatments are basically a road, as is. This is the most common bikeway design. In a shared lane, bicyclists ride in the same lane with motor vehicles traveling in the same direction. The design specifications of the road itself vary greatly, and signage is used to alert motorists to the presence of bicyclists. Because there is no specific treatment for bicyclists besides the signage, shared lanes are the most cost effective bicycle facility, although they are not suitable for all bicyclists or all roadways. Shared lanes are generally used for low-volume, low-speed residential streets, for minor collector roads, and in rural areas. Outside of low-volume, low-speed roads, shared lanes are best for experienced bicyclists.
Example Cross-Section: Shared Lane Local/ Minor Collector Roads, Rural Areas

2 gutter/ shoulder | 2 gutter/ shoulder 10-12 shared travel lane

26

Wide Curb Lane Wide curb lanes are lanes that are widened to allow motorists to pass bicyclists. On uphill climbs, they give the bicyclist room to maneuver. A wide curb lane is between fourteen and sixteen feet wide (wide enough to allow motorists to pass bicyclists, but not so wide as to permit passing on the right). In order to discourage speeding due to overly wide roads, in the Town of Ithaca wide curb lanes should be limited to uphill climbing lanes where a separate, paved shoulder is not feasible.
Example Cross-Section: Wide Outside (Curb) Lane Uphill climbing lanes

5 sidewalk planting strip 2 shoulder 15 uphill lane

| | | |

5 sidewalk planting strip 2 shoulder 10 downhill lane

Paved Shoulder A paved shoulder is a multi-use space, used for bicycle and pedestrian travel, motor vehicle emergencies, or on-street parking. The typical paved shoulder is striped four feet from the outside of the pavement. In many cases, such as a high volume of bicyclists, a high volume of vehicles, or a road with a high posted speed limit or a steep grade, shoulders of four to six feet in width are possible. Signage alerts motorists to the presence of bicyclists.

Example Cross-Section: Paved Shoulder Collector or Arterial Road

5 sidewalk | planting strip | 5 paved, striped shoulder | 11 travel lane |

5 sidewalk planting strip 5 paved, striped shoulder 11 travel lane

27

Bicycle Lane A bicycle lane is similar to a paved shoulder except that it is for the exclusive use of bicyclists. Bike lanes are one-way facilities on each side of the road that carry bicycle traffic traveling in the same direction as motor vehicle traffic. Bicycle lanes are considered to be the safest on-street option for high volume, high speed roads where there is significant bicycle traffic because they provide a clearly delineated bicycle space of sufficient width. Bicycle lanes are rarely appropriate in rural areas. A bicycle lane is at least four feet wide and usually has two feet of curbside gutter space, where curbs and gutters are present. This space allows bicyclists to ride separate from motor vehicle traffic while still avoiding grates and debris in the gutter. Adjacent to guardrails or curbs, bike lanes should be five feet wide. In areas of very high vehicular speeds or volumes, steep grades, or many obstacles (grates, onstreet parking), bike lanes can be six feet wide. The use of colored pavement visually narrows the roadway and clearly delineates the space available for motorists, which helps to mitigate potentially increased motor vehicle speeds due to an increased roadway width.

Example Cross-Section: Bicycle Lane Collector or Arterial Road

6 sidewalk planting strip 2 gutter space 5 bike lane 11 travel lane

| | | | |

6 sidewalk planting strip 2 gutter space 5 bike lane 11 travel lane

28

Multi-Use Path As previously noted, multi-use paths, also known as off-street paths or off-street trails, provide a nonmotorized facility that is completely separate from vehicle traffic but shared among pedestrians, bicyclists, joggers, inline skaters, skateboarders, and others. Multi-use paths often serve both recreation and transportation purposes. Multi-use paths that connect bicycle and pedestrian generators, such as residential areas, commercial areas, schools, and so on, should be paved to improve accessibility. Multiuse paths that serve primarily a recreation function may be gravel or wood chips. A well-designed multiuse path begins and ends at easily accessible, secure points, has many access points along its length, and is built to a high standard to allow maintenance equipment to use the path. An off-street path must be of a sufficient width to accommodate multiple uses and safe passing. In some low-density residential areas, the multi-use path may be as narrow as five feet wide. In other higher-traffic areas, the multi-use path may be up to ten or twelve feet wide, plus some shoulder room. Importantly, conflict points where the multi-use path crosses a roadway must be carefully designed to protect pedestrian, bicyclist, and motorist safety. Examples of multi-use trails in the Town include the South Hill Recreation Way and the East Ithaca Recreation Way. The planned trail system of the Towns Park, Recreation, and Open Space Plan will likely consist of multi-use paths.

5-12 wide +/- 2 graded shoulder

Bicycle Parking Parking

Bicycle parking should be considered just as important as automobile parking when designing a site plan. According to the Bicycle Parking Guidelines published by the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals, bicycle racks must accomplish all of the following: Support the bicycle upright by its frame in two places; Prevent the wheel of the bicycle from tipping over; Enable the frame and one or both wheels to be secure; Support bicycles that dont have a diamond shaped frame with a horizontal top tube; Allow both front-in and back-in parking; Allow the use of U-locks, chain locks, or both.

29

Three types of designs that accomplish all of the above are the inverted-U rack, the A rack, and the postand-loop rack. Each of these types of rack can support two bicycles.

Furthermore, the bicycle racks must be installed properly to maximize the number of available spaces. Racks should be parallel to each other, and there should be sufficient room between the racks, bicycles, and adjacent objects. The Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals recommends the minimum spacing shown in the diagram at right. Bicycle parking facilities must be secure, protecting bikes from theft and vandalism. Bicycle parking should be in a highly visible or otherwise secure location (in a well-lit, covered outdoor area or indoors) and removed from motor vehicle/ pedestrian conflict areas. Bicycle parking should be as close as possible to the building that it serves without interfering with pedestrian traffic, and not more than 50 feet away from the building entrance. Bicycle parking areas near apartments, transit stops, schools, etc. should protect bicycles from inclement weather, preferably covered by an awning, building overhang, or other cover. Suggested Number of Bicycle Parking Spaces per Land Use Residential: Multi-Family Dwelling: 2, or 1 per auto space (whichever is greater) Group Living: 1 per 20 auto spaces All Others: none Commercial: Commercial: Retail sales, services, or offices: 2, or 1 per 20 auto spaces (whichever is greater) Commercial parking, major event destinations: 4, or 1 per 20 auto spaces (whichever is greater) Drive-up vehicle servicing, repair, or self storage: None Industrial Industrial: trial 2, or 1 per 40 auto spaces, whichever is greater Services: Services Community services, essential providers: 2, or 1 per 20 auto spaces (whichever is greater) Outdoor recreation, parks: 4, or 1 per 20 auto spaces (whichever is greater) High Schools: 4 per classroom Middle Schools: 2 per classroom Elementary Schools: 2 per 4th & 5th grade classroom Colleges, medical centers, religious institutions, daycare: 2, or 1 per 20 auto spaces (whichever is greater)

30

Bicycle Facility Best Practices

When designing a roadway, the use of open drainage grates should be avoided, as they can catch the bicycle wheel and cause a crash. Thus, inlets set into the curb are preferable. Bicycle facilities, such as bike lanes, should intersect with railroad beds at a 90o angle for the same reason (the rail may catch the bicycle wheel and cause a crash). Because bicyclists cannot escape from the motor vehicle stream in the event of an emergency, bicycle access on adjacent sidewalks should be considered over bridges (perhaps via a dismount zone). Signal triggers are very useful for bicyclists at intersections. Finally, the pavement should be well-maintained and as smooth as possible, and all debris in the bicyclists path should be cleared as soon as possible. Mixing bicyclists and pedestrians on a sidewalk should be avoided whenever possible. Rumble strips, extruding curbs, reflectors, manholes, catch basins, and other objects should not be placed in the bicyclists path. Finally, two-way bike lanes (where both lanes are on one side of the road) should never be permitted.

31

How to Select a Bicycle or Pedestrian Facility

The Prioritized Pedestrian Corridor Needs Map (Map 13) and the Prioritized Bicycle Corridor Needs Map (Map 14) in Appendix I show locations identified as needing pedestrian and/or bicycle improvements. The following outline lists situations where each type of pedestrian or bicycle facility may be appropriate. Shared Lanes Lanes shared among pedestrians, bicyclists, and motor vehicles are appropriate in the following cases: Low volume, low speed roads in residential areas; Other low volume, low speed roadways, when provision of a sidewalk or walkway would not improve pedestrian safety or improve the pedestrian environment. Shoulders Considerations that indicate a potential need for paved shoulders include: Higher density or intensity of non-residential land use (in particular, neighborhood commercial, community commercial, or office park commercial zones); Within mile of a school or university, commercial center, employment center, major transit stop, parks or other recreational facilities (like playgrounds), places of worship, post offices, municipal buildings or community centers, restaurants or other locations that would generate pedestrian or bicycle traffic; Moderate to high vehicle volumes (greater than approximately 1,000 ADT); High 85th percentile vehicle speeds OR moderate 85th percentile vehicle speed coupled with high vehicle volumes. Considerations that counter-indicate the provision of paved road shoulders include: With reasonable effort, the design, construction, and maintenance of the shoulder cannot mitigate detrimental effects on environmental resources, including natural, historic, and scenic resources; An existing or planned off-road, multi-use path offers a more direct or safer route than a shoulder; In general, residential streets in suburban areas do not need shoulders (paved or otherwise). In particular, low-volume residential streets with low posted speed limits do not need paved shoulders. In addition, the unnecessary increased roadway width increases pedestrian crossing time and can potentially lead to increased motor vehicle speeds. Sidewalks/ Walkways Considerations that indicate a potential need for a sidewalk or walkway include: Higher density or intensity of land use (medium and high density residential, neighborhood/ office park commercial, etc);

32

Located along the route of a bus2; Within mile of an elementary school, assisted living facility, or employment/ activity center for the disabled; Within mile of other pedestrian generators (like middle schools, high schools or universities, commercial centers, employment centers, major transit stops, parks or other recreational facilities (like playgrounds), places of worship, post offices, municipal buildings or community centers, restaurants, or other locations that would generate pedestrian traffic); High 85th percentile speed; speed limit greater than 25 mph; Roadway of high volume and classification (arterials or collectors; > 4,000 vpd); Links into existing or planned pedestrian network (as shown in the Park, Recreation, and Open Space Plan); Current infrastructure is insufficient: a paved shoulder less than four feet wide, or a deteriorated pavement or gravel shoulder less than five feet wide.

Considerations that counter-indicate sidewalk or walkway provision include: With reasonable effort, the design, construction, and maintenance of the sidewalk or walkway cannot mitigate detrimental effects on environmental resources, including natural, historic, and scenic resources; Adjacent land use is rural; improved shoulders are a better investment; An existing or planned off-road, multi-use path offers a more direct or safer route than a sidewalk or walkway adjacent to a road. Bicycle Lanes Bicycle lanes on a roadway are appropriate if all of the following conditions apply: There are high motor vehicle traffic volumes and speeds; The roadway is in a densely developed suburban or urban area; There is or will be sufficient bicycle traffic. MultiMulti-Use Path The following are considerations that indicate a potential need for an off-road trail or multi-use path: Connectivity along the roadway is not possible (for example, to connect the end of a cul-de-sac with a neighboring roadway); An off-road, multi-use trail would offer a more direct or safer route than a facility along the roadway corridor; An expansion of the roadway corridor itself would harm the natural, historic, or cultural significance of an area;

2 "Location along a bus route" is more accurate than "location within mile of a bus stop" because TCAT allows riders to "flag" the bus for pick-up at locations other than a stop. Thus, pedestrians/ commuters can potentially wait along the length of the bus route. "Location along a bus route" is more logical than "within mile of a bus route" because the latter is an unreasonably large buffer that includes all of the roads within mile of the bus route.

33

The trail is likely to capture recreational, as well as transportation, users.

34

Site Plan Review Checklist

The purpose of this checklist is to provide planners, Planning Board members, developers, and other stakeholders in the development process with a summary of the most important bicycle- and pedestrianrelated issues that should be addressed during the site plan review process. Since it would be possible to answer all of the following questions affirmatively, yet still have an environment that is unpleasant or unsafe for bicyclists or pedestrians, stakeholders should also consider the following broad questions: Does this development promoting walking and biking? Will this development result in an environment that is pleasant for people on foot or bicycle?

Site Layout Layout (see pages 99-11 of Volume III: The Design Guidelines) (Y) (N) As far as possible and where appropriate, are buildings oriented toward the street? Are access points (driveways) to the site consolidated and minimized? Are buildings on the site clustered, to encourage people to walk between buildings, instead of moving their cars?

Motor Vehicle Parking (see pages 1010-11 of Volume III: The Design Guidelines) (Y) (N) Is motor vehicle parking at the side or rear of the site? Is the parking lot size minimized as far as possible? Is there ample landscaping, especially shade trees, throughout the parking lot? Are parking lot lights numerous, set close to the ground, and adequately shielded to prevent glare and light trespass? Is it possible to use a surface more pervious than asphalt?

Bicycle Parking (see pages 3030-31 of Volume III: The Design Guidelines) (Y) (N) Are there a sufficient number of bicycle parking spaces Is the proposed type of rack adequate? Will the racks be located as close as possible to the entrance of the building that they will serve? Does the site plan show that the racks will be installed correctly?

35

Pedestrian Circulation & Accessibility (see pages 99-11, 2424-26 of Volume III: The Design Design Guidelines) (Y) (N) (Y) (N) Are the pedestrian paths continuous, delineated, and clearly visible to motorists and pedestrians? Does the site plan meet ADA guidelines, where possible? Do paths lead directly from parking lots, building entrances, and other locations on adjacent sites? Are walkways, sidewalks, or on-site paths designed correctly? Problems to avoid include: Does the walkway have five feet of clear space, without utility poles, signs, mailboxes, etc in the middle of it? Are the walkways free of barriers, such as fences or landscaping? If there is underground drainage, are the inlets flush against the curb, instead of a grate in the bicyclists path? Is the bicyclists path free of manholes?

Site Amenities Amenities (see pages 11-4, 99-11 of Volume III: The Design Guidelines) (Y) (N) Is the site constructed at a human scale (are signs small, are light poles low to the ground, is the building faade visually interesting without long, blank, windowless stretches of wall)? Where possible and appropriate, does the site plan create outdoor rooms or memorable public spaces, with benches, fountains, landscaping, tree canopies, public art, and other enhancements?

36

Traffic Calming Design Best Practices Toolbox

37

Introduction
The purpose of this section of Volume III: The Design Guidelines is to present the most common traffic calming treatments and to identify the treatments most likely to be useful in the Town of Ithaca. This manual is not an exhaustive study of all traffic calming installations. Detailed, well-written, authoritative sources of further information are listed in the Works Cited Appendix of Volume II: The Appendices. Traffic calming programs must be tailored to specific situations; thus, the details herein are not explicit policies of the Town. According to the Institute for Traffic Engineers (ITE), Traffic calming is the combination of mainly physical measures that reduce the negative effects of motor vehicle use, alter driver behavior and improve conditions for non-motorized street users.3 Traffic calming aims to change the design and the role of the street to reduce the negative social and environmental effects of motor vehicles on individuals (e.g., speed, intrusion, etc.). Specifically, traffic calming can help to lower driving speeds, reduce aggressive driving, increase motorists respect for non-motorized street users, promote walking and cycling by making the streetscape environment safe and pleasant, discourage the use of residential streets by non-resident cut through vehicular traffic, increase safety and decrease the severity of accidents that do occur, improve streetscape aesthetics and livability, etc.4 Traffic calming potentially can have negative impacts, as well. Projects involving traffic calming can incur additional design, construction, and maintenance costs, and poorly implemented traffic calming projects can introduce liability issues. Delay increases for motorists (including residents) can be frustrating, and traffic can spill over from traffic calmed streets to non-traffic calmed streets, as motorists seek alternate routes. Poorly designed traffic calming measures can impede the mobility of bicyclists and pedestrians and increase the amount of noise and pollution emitted from vehicles speeding up and slowing down. Finally, traffic calming can pose a problem for roadway drainage and for emergency and service vehicle accessibility. The following is a list of measures that are most likely to be relevant to the Town of Ithaca: Speed humps Speed tables Raised crosswalks Lateral shifts/ chicanes/ serpentine roadways Neckouts/ bulbouts/ curb extensions

Lockwood, Ian. "ITE Traffic Calming Definition." ITE Journal. July 1997. New York State Highway Design Manual, Chapter 25, Section 2.3 and General Objectives of Traffic Calming; Traffic Calming Measures. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. <http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/tcalm>
3 4

38

Chokers Bike lanes Partial road closures Gateway treatments Street narrowing, via a road diet or a visual narrowing Other streetscape features, such as pavement treatments and street trees

Volume Control Measures

Volume control measures are appropriate on residential streets in areas of large volumes of throughtraffic or intersections where unsafe turns are common. In all cases, volume control measures must only be used where the goal is to restore primacy to the residential character of the neighborhood or to the non-motorized users of the street. Volume control measures are quite effective in reducing the number of vehicles using a street while maintaining or increasing non-motorized access. Negative aspects of diversions include the inconvenience of local residents, who must take an indirect route to their home, and the lack of speed reduction for the remaining motorists. Emergency access is a very important issue that must be addressed. All volume control measures must be evaluated carefully within the context of the greater transportation network. Used inappropriately, volume control measures can potentially shift traffic burdens to other neighborhoods. Before installation of volume control measures, input from residents along alternate routes that will see an increase of traffic must be considered. Fortunately, volume control measures can be installed temporarily to gauge their effectiveness and acceptance.

39

Partial Road/ HalfHalf-Street Closure

Description: Motor vehicle traffic is restricted to the outbound direction at the intersection. Bicyclists & pedestrians are allowed in both directions, as signage indicates. The roadway remains two-way within the neighborhood. Most effective when used as a series. Advantages: Controls the pattern of traffic diffusion Prevents cut-through traffic from major throughways. Functions as a curb extension if brought well into the travel lane. Disadvantages: Inconvenience to residents. Potentially confusing to emergency responders Little effect on speed Potential for violations, especially late at night. Approximate Cost: ~$10,000-25,000, less if there are few drainage issues5

Bus, Bike, and PedestrianPedestrian-Only Access

Description: Variation on the partial closure. Only buses, bicyclists, and pedestrians are permitted to enter a roadway. Motor vehicle traffic is restricted to the outbound direction at the intersection. Advantages: Prevents cut-through traffic from major throughways Controls the pattern of traffic diffusion Does not impede emergency responders Permits roadway to remain two-way within the neighborhood Disadvantages: Inconvenient for residents, but less inconvenient than other treatments No effect on speeds Greater potential for violations than with partial road closure Approximate Cost: ~$10,000-30,000

The cost estimates in this section are from the Victoria Transport Policy Institutes Online Transportation Demand Management Encyclopedia, available at <http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm4.htm>

40

CulCul-dede-sac or Dead End (Full Road Closure)

Description: Traffic is completely prevented from utilizing an intersection. Bicycle traffic should be permitted and signed as such. Removable bollards or gates can augment emergency access. Most effective used in series. Advantages: Effective at restricting volumes Disadvantages: Not recommended if restricting to emergency vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians. Very little effect on speed Inconvenient to local residents Can shift traffic burdens to other roads/ neighborhoods Approximate Cost: ~$30,000-100,000

Diagonal Diverter
Description: A physical barrier that forces traffic at a fourway intersection to turn from the path of travel and to make a ninety-degree turn. Advantages: Discourages non-local traffic Through-traffic is eliminated Conflicts involving pedestrians reduced while not affecting their access Less impact on residents than a full closure Disadvantages: Still inconvenient to residents Potential confusion for emergency vehicles (if roads are not renamed) Can shift problems elsewhere Approximate Cost: ~$15,000-45,000

41

Channelization/ ForcedForced-Turn Lane/ Turn Diverter Diverter

Description: Very similar to a diagonal diverter, but provides more turning options for traffic and can be used at triangular intersections. Advantages: Reduces through-traffic Forces right turns Reduces left turn and rear end accidents Does not directly impede emergency vehicles Disadvantages: Inconvenience to residents in reaching their homes Potential confusion for emergency vehicles (if roads are not renamed) Requires regular maintenance of signing, striping, and landscaping Approximate Cost: ~$15,000-45,000

Median Barrier
Description: Median or center island located in the path of an intersecting road. Advantages: Reduces cut-through traffic by preventing motor vehicle traffic from traveling directly through the intersection Controls traffic patterns by forcing traffic from an intersecting roadway into a right turn onto the main roadway Safer intersection by reducing conflicting turning movements Avoids need for expensive traffic signals Disadvantages: Inconvenience to residents Potentially confusing to emergency responders Can shift traffic to other intersections with existing left turn opportunities Approximate Cost: ~$10,000-20,000

42

Vertical Speed Control Measures

Speed Hump
Description: Speed humps are rounded, raised pavement sections. They are generally used in a midblock series 300-600 ft apart. (Note: The piles of asphalt, e.g. speed bumps, that commercial property owners place in their parking lots are not proper speed humps.) Advantages: Encourages motorists to drive slowly and steadily When constructed correctlylong enough to accommodate the entire wheelbase of a vehicle should not affect chronic pain sufferers Disadvantages: Potential for increased noise due to braking and accelerating vehicles, if humps are spaced too far apart If constructed incorrectly, can be jarring for people with spinal cord injuries Potential delays for emergency vehicles Can shift traffic to other roads Can interfere with street drainage, unless sufficient clear space is left adjacent to the curbs. Approximate Cost: ~$1,000

Speed Table
Description: Speed tables are elevated, flat-topped, pavement or textured surface sections long enough for the entire wheel-base of a vehicle to rest on top. Advantages: Speed tables have advantages similar to those of speed humps, plus they are better for emergency response routes than humps (tables cause less delay) Disadvantages: Speed tables have disadvantages similar to those of speed humps. Approximate Cost: ~$2,000-15,000

43

Raised Crosswalk
Description: A variation on the speed table that is striped and signed as a crosswalk; often utilizes textured pavements. Advantages: Increases prominence of walkway and motorists awareness of the crossing Elevates pedestrians as they cross; increased visibility decreases pedestrian/ motorist crashes Disadvantages: Pedestrians may become overconfident & may act unsafely More maintenance than striped sidewalk Can interfere with streets surface drainage Approximate Cost: ~$2,000-15,000

Raised Raised Intersection

Description: ramps lead to the intersection that is a raised, flat area. Often, all or part of the intersection is textured. Advantages: Useful in densely developed areas where mid-block traffic calming devices result in an unacceptable loss of parking or through movement Best utilized as part of a larger traffic calming scheme Make pedestrians more visible to motorists and more confident about using the street Does not affect access Can also be used on high volume streets, unlike many other measures Disadvantages: Reduction in speed at the intersection, but mid-block speed reductions are generally 10% or less when no other traffic calming measure is present Expensive Emergency vehicles delay Can interfere with streets surface drainage Approximate Cost: ~$25,000-75,000

44

Horizontal Speed Control Measures

Neighborhood Traffic Circle/ Intersection Island
Description: raised islands situated in the middle of an intersection, around which traffic must navigate in a counter-clockwise direction. Advantages: Accommodates emergency vehicles and school buses with large turning radii through a lowered, mountable curb of rubber or concrete Reduces accident potential once drivers are accustomed to the design, especially at complex intersections Good alternative to stop signs Disadvantages: Landscaped circles are aesthetically superior, but require maintenance. Illumination at night and pedestrian visibility can be a problem Untraditional bike and pedestrian crossings patterns Can be awkward for snow plowing Approximate Cost: ~$6,000

Modern Roundabout
Description: circular intersections with a large, raised island around which traffic circulates. Larger than neighborhood traffic circles with a raised splitter island to channel traffic to the right. Advantages: Can accommodate emergency vehicles, school buses, and other large vehicles Use at accident-prone intersections can reduce collisions by as much as 70% Disadvantages: Large volumes of large vehicles turning left can be problematic Illumination at night and pedestrian visibility can be a problem Motorists can be confused in multi-lane circles Approximate Cost: ~$45,000-150,000. Up to $250,000 for roundabouts on major arterials.

45

Chicane/ Serpentine Roadway

Description: chicanes are curb extensions used to create a lateral shift. Serpentine is a way to describe a roadway with lateral shifts. Advantages: Force motorists to slow down to navigate the bends and to pay attention to surroundings. Useful for long, otherwise straight roads Residential areas can tolerate greater curves; chicanes on collectors should be smoother Disadvantages: Motorists can potentially squeeze bicyclists by disregarding lane striping. Bike through-paths eliminate this issue. Motorists can potentially cut through the center by crossing into the opposing lane Increased maintenance costs Effects on driveway access Approximate Cost: ~$10,000 for three chicanes. ~$60,000-90,000 to retrofit serpentine roadway; $0 if included as part of original design.

Neckout/ Bulbout/ Curb Extension

Description: neckouts, bulbouts, and curb extensions are extensions of the road edge placed directly opposite each other at an intersection. Advantages: Increase the visibility of pedestrians to motorists Shortens crossing distances Allows emergency vehicles a straight route when opposing vehicles yield to the sirens Highly aesthetically pleasing when appropriately landscaped Disadvantages: Isolated curb extensions have little effect on speed (they are most effective as a pedestrian treatment) Increased landscaping maintenance Potential sight distance issues or impacts on drainage Approximate Cost: ~$2,000-20,000 per corner

46

Choker
Description: Mid-block narrowings directly opposite each other that extend into the travel lane that force motorists to slow, or even stop and yield to opposing traffic. Advantages: Shortens pedestrian crossings Does not affect bicycle access when bike lane is left open More effective during times of peak traffic or when only one travel lane is open; does not affect local access during off-peak hours Greater speed reduction than a centerline island when used in series Can discourage truck cut-through traffic Adds streetscape area for signage, landscaping, etc. Disadvantages: Emergency response delay if motorists clog the choker or do not yield to emergency vehicles. Potential obstacle for inattentive motorists Sometimes requires changes to drainage patterns. Approximate Cost: ~$5,000-20,000

Center Island/ Median

Description: island of raised pavers/ pavement or landscaping at the centerline of roadway; different from median barriers because they do not necessarily restrict turning movements. Advantages: When combined with a mid-block pedestrian crossing, increases crossing opportunities by allowing pedestrians to cross one lane at a time Improves safety for pedestrians by making crossing areas more visible to motorists and by providing a refuge for pedestrians at the centerline. Calms traffic by acting as a reverse choker: motorists must slow to navigate the narrowing Disadvantages: Not as effective at speed reduction as curb-side designs Not as easily navigable for emergency vehicles as curb-side designs On-street parking removal in the vicinity is necessary Bicyclists are at risk of being squeezed by motor vehicles Approximate Cost: ~$15,000-30,000 / 100 feet

47

Other Measures
Bike Lane
Description: portions of a roadway that are striped or signed for the exclusive use of bicyclists. Bike lanes are not traffic calming devices in themselves, but if some or all of their width is taken out of existing travel lanes, then the decreased road width can have the effect of calming traffic. Advantages: Calms traffic by effectively narrowing the roadway and forcing motorists to remain aware of the surroundings Use on routes where there is a large volume of bicyclists or where there is a clear risk to bicyclists Disadvantages: Poorly maintained bike lanes are a safety hazard to bicyclists; municipalities must commit to their upkeep Difficulty in finding necessary right-of-way to dedicate to bicyclists Approximate Cost: ~$5,000-50,000 / mile. Most efficient as part of street reconstruction, resurfacing, or original design.

Pavement Treatments
Description: Pavement treatments include cobblestones or bricks, textured pavement, colored concrete, and so on. Pavement treatments are not traffic calming tools by themselves. Advantages: Always combined with other measures, such as raised intersections, speed tables, and sometimes bike lanes Use to delineate spaces, such as pedestrian space (in a raised crosswalk) or a central business district Some textured treatments cause low rumbles and vibrations in the car, thereby reducing vehicle speeds Other treatments work by perceptual tricks: motorists slow for bands at decreasing intervals, as it feels like they are driving faster than they are. Disadvantages: Can be expensive Some treatments can create unacceptable noise pollution if poorly designed or maintained Approximate Cost: varies, depending on labor and material costs.

48

Other Strategies
Rumble Strips: Low bumps across the road that make noise when driven over. Can produce unacceptable noise pollution for neighbors. Potentially bothersome or dangerous for bicyclists. Intersection Re-Alignment: Converting a T-intersection with straight approaches to one where the roads curve to eliminate straight-through vehicle movements. Road Diets: Reducing the number or width of traffic lanes and road shoulders. Neotraditional Street Design: Streets with narrower lanes, shorter blocks, T-intersections, and other design features to control traffic speed and volume. Woonerven: Streets with mixed vehicle and pedestrian traffic, where motorists are required to drive at very low speeds. Perceptual Design Features: Design features that encourage motorists to remain conscious of their driving and to be aware of their surroundings (thereby discouraging zoned out driving). Some perceptual design features serve specific purposes, such as: o Patterns painted onto road surfaces, such as bands at decreasing intervals approaching an intersection, can unconsciously cue a motorist to slow down; o Locating objects, such as street trees or bushes, near the roadway visually narrows the perceived width of the roadway, thereby cueing drivers to decrease speed and increase attentiveness. Street Trees: Planting trees along a street to create a sense of enclosure and to improve the pedestrian environment. Education and Enforcement: Educational outreach, perhaps similar to the successful anti-DUI campaign, and increased enforcement of traffic laws, including speed limits. Gateway Treatments: Features that indicate to motorists that they are entering a special area that requires caution, such as a residential area. Gateway treatments can include planters, street trees, landscaping, transit shelters, signs, decorative fences and gates, and so on

49

Other Issues Traffic Calming and Emergency Response

Emergency responders are often concerned about increases in response time due to traffic calming. The ITE notes that many of the streets most in need of traffic calming make ideal emergency response routes for the same reasons they need to be calmed: higher operating speed and shortcut potential.6 Studies have shown that the delay per slow point is almost always under ten seconds, but many slow points in succession create longer delays. In general, traffic circles create longer delays than speed humps, and shorter speed humps create longer delays than longer speed humps. It is possible to reconcile emergency response and traffic calming goals. Avoid emergency response routes and emergency facilities, where possible; Gradually build a traffic calming program and begin with less intrusive measures to give emergency responders time to adjust their operations; Establish open, honest communication with emergency responders and citizen groups; Use measures that can accommodate emergency vehicles, such as a median that doesnt extend into the travel lane. Alter the design of measures that would affect emergency response, such as using offset humps or speed cushions instead of a traditional speed hump. Offset humps, shown in the top two images at right, are staggered so an emergency vehicle can weave between them. Speed cushions are dome-shaped humps that are narrow enough to be straddled by fire trucks but wide enough that cars must drive over them. Fire trucks with inner and outer wheels on the rear axle must ride up one of the humps. Still, fire-rescue units in Austin, Texas prefer speed cushions to either speed humps or speed tables.

50

Design Issues
The following is a list of design issues common to most traffic calming measures described in this manual. This list is not exhaustive, so all design issues relevant to a specific project should be evaluated. Visibility: Traffic calming measures must be clearly visible and understandable to motorists. Signage (see below), reflectors and reflective paint, and illumination enhance visibility. Another component of visibility is adequate (but not excessive) sight distances. Signage: Advance signs should warn motorists of upcoming measures, and signs should indicate proper motorist behavior. Streetscape Aesthetics: Aesthetically pleasing measures are far more acceptable to residents and users of the street by easily blending into the streetscape. Design for Large Vehicles: Traffic calming should be able to accommodate the occasional large vehicle, or other emergency plans (signing alternate routes, etc) must be implemented concurrently. Maintenance: Long-term maintenance needs must be anticipated within the traffic calming project and should be minimized to the greatest possible degree without sacrificing quality. Parking: Many traffic calming projects eliminate on-street parking. This design consideration is more significant in urbanized areas, such as the City of Ithaca. Purpose: A clear purpose and set of objectives must guide the selection, design, and implementation of traffic calming measures.7

Maintenance & Longevity

Traffic calming devices, like other roadway features, require maintenance. Because of the wide variation of possible conditions on a site, it is nearly impossible to give specific maintenance costs or longevity estimates. The following are the main considerations regarding maintenance and longevity of traffic calming features. Material: In general, asphalt is cheaper than concrete. Concrete generally lasts longer, though. Use of different materials in the same location (asphalt for the roadway, pavers for the raised crosswalk, for example) can increase maintenance costs. Weather: Severe freeze-thaw cycles and frequent of snow plowing decrease the longevity of installations. Poorly designed and marked traffic calming features are a hazard for snow plows. Landscaping: Some plants are more expensive and difficult to maintain. Drainage: The drainage needs of a site have a great influence on the cost of a project. Poor drainage reduces the lifespan of a traffic calming installation. Miscellaneous: repainting bike lanes, replacing stolen signs, etc. Some traffic calming projects have been successful because local residents have adopted the installation, providing landscaping and general maintenance. In the end, the goal is to strike a balance between aesthetics, functionality, and practicality.

66 7

Ewing, 1999 A Guidebook for Residential Traffic Management. Washington State DOT. December 1994

51

Sources and Credits

Photograph, Drawing, and Diagram Credits
Streetscape Design: Best Practices Toolbox Page Photo(s)/ Drawing(s) Source 3 Campus Community Campaign Outdoor room www.tamu.edu/campaign/trees.html 4 Center for Livable Communities Tree-lined street Why People Dont Walk and What Planners Can Do About It. Wide, open street http://www.lgc.org/freepub/PDF/Land_Use/focus/plan_to_walk.pdf 4 Oregon Department of Transportation Road footprint http://www.odot.state.or.us/techserv/bikewalk/planimag/trafcalm.htm comparison 7 Walkability and land Center for Livable Communities Why People Dont Walk and What Planners Can Do About It. use examples http://www.lgc.org/freepub/PDF/Land_Use/focus/plan_to_walk.pdf 8 Walk Arlington Curb radii and http://www.walkarlington.com/gfx/walkable/Picture8.gif intersection width 9 Town of Ithaca Planning Department Building height to Previously unpublished road corridor width 10 City of Ottawa, Regional Road Corridor Design Guidelines Commercial site http://www.ottawa.ca/city_services/planningzoning/design_guide/ regional_roads/e_ref_roads.pdf 12 Land Use and Transportation Department, Washington County, Oregon Tree clearance http://www.co.washington.or.us/deptmts/lut/updates/graphics/tree.gif 16Town of Ithaca Planning Department Sample right-of-way 19 Previously unpublished designs Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure Design: Best Practices Toolbox Page Photo(s)/ Drawing(s) Source 23 Streetscape drawing Oregon Department of Transportation, Facility Design Standards http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/BIKEPED/docs/bp_plan_2_ii.pdf (Figure 47) 25 Federal Highway Administration (Planning, Environment, and Realty) Mid-block crossing http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/sidewalks/figure-4-45.jpg 25 Eisen - Letunic: Transportation, Environmental, and Urban Planning Count-down timer http://eisenletunic.com/el_i/image_countdown.jpg 26 Sample bicycle 29 designs 29 Oregon Department of Transportation, Facility Design Standards Bicycle parking http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/BIKEPED/docs/bp_plan_2_ii.pdf diagram (Figure 42) 30 Transportation Alternatives Two-way bike lane http://www.transalt.org/blueprint/images/bloop39d.gif 30 Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals Bike rack designs; http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/pdf/bikepark.pdf bike rack spacing diagram Traffic Calming Design: Best Practices Toolbox Page Photo(s)/ Drawing(s) Source 33 Personal webpage, Mehras Traffic Calming 52

Ahead sign 3745 3745 41 42 All drawings and diagrams, diagrams unless otherwise noted All photographs, photographs unless otherwise noted Raised crosswalk photo Neighborhood traffic circle/ intersection island Modern roundabout Chicanes Neckouts/ bulbouts/ curb extensions Center islands/ medians Bicycle lane Pavement treatment (above) Pavement treatment (below)

42 43 43 44 45 45 45

http://www.mehras.net/usa_pages/06_29_yosemite-tahoereno/07_03_03_renoe/f_07_03_03_traffic_calming_ahead_sign.JPG Delaware State Department of Transportation, Traffic Calming Manual http://www.state.de.us/research/register/september2000/DelDOT %20cover%20page%20(1).htm Office of Transportation, City of Portland, Oregon. Online traffic calming photo album http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?c=35929 Tech Transfer Program, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California at Berkeley http://www.techtransfer.berkeley.edu/newsletter/03-2/pix/6.jpg Institute for Transportation Engineers (ITE). Online Traffic Calming Dictionary. http://www.ite.org/traffic/chicane.htm Western Carolina University http://admfin.wcu.edu/capconstruction/Bonds/Infrastructure/Images/ Updates/circle.jpg City of Austin, Texas http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/roadworks/images/chicanes.jpg Active Living Resources http://www.activelivingresources.org/images/bulbout.jpg Linden Area Traffic Management http://linden.morpc.org/images/refugeisland5.jpg Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition http://www.svbcbikes.org/crank/july-aug-04/image/san-jose-bikelane.jpg Wired New York http://www.wirednewyork.com/manhattan/images/cobblestone_130th _14sept03.jpg San Francisco Bicycle Coalition http://www.sfbike.org/images/actions/bikeplan/design/29colored.jpg

53

General Resources
The following are resources that were consulted in the development of these design guidelines. RightRight-ofof-Way Design Chellman, C. Rick. The Design of New Urbanist Streets. Urban Land Institute. Orlando, F.L: April 2000. City of Ottawa. Regional Road Corridor Design Guidelines. Ottawa, Canada: date unknown. Institute of Transportation Engineers. Improving the Pedestrian Environment Through Innovative Design. Washington, D.C: 2005. Transportation Department, City of Bellevue. Design Manual. Bellevue, W.A: date unknown. Bicycle and Pedestrian Issues: Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals. Bicycle Parking Guidelines. Undated. Available online at <http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/pdf/bikepark.pdf>. October 13, 2006. Bicycle Advisory Committee, Charlotte-Mecklenburg area. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bicycle Transportation Plan. Charlotte-Mecklenburg, N.C: July 1999. Bicycle and Pedestrian Program, Oregon Department of Transportation. Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan: An Element of the Oregon Transportation Plan. Salem, O.R: June 14, 1995. Brunswick Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee. Brunswick Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvement Plan. Brunswick, M.E: October 13, 1998, updated September 15, 2004. Federal Highway Administration, United States Department of Transportation. FHWA Course on Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation. Georgetown Pike, McLean, V.A: date unknown. Federal Highway Administration, United States Department of Transportation. Implementing Pedestrian Improvements at the Local Level. Publication No. FHWA-98-138. Georgetown Pike, McLean, V.A: 1999. Federal Highway Administration, United States Department of Transportation. Safety Effects of Marked vs. Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations: Executive Summary and Recommended Guidelines. Publication No. FHWA-RD-01-075. Georgetown Pike, McLean, V.A: February 2002. Knoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization. 2002 Knoxville Regional Bicycle Plan. Knoxville, K.Y: 2002. Local Government Commission, Center for Livable Communities. Why People Dont Walk and What City Planners Can Do About It. Sacramento, C.A: date unknown.

54

Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center and Federal Highway Administration, United States Department of Transportation. How to Develop a Pedestrian Safety Action Plan. Publication No. FHWASA-05-12, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina: February 2006. Pedestrian Transportation Program, Office of Engineering and Development, City of Portland. Portland Pedestrian Design Guide. Element of the Pedestrian Master Plan for the City of Portland, Oregon. Portland, O.R: 1998. Traffic Calming: Burden, Dan. Twenty-Two Benefits of Urban Street Trees. Glatting Jackson and Walkable Communities, Inc: May 2006. City of Sarasota Engineering Department. Traffic Calming Manual. Sarasota, F.L: September 2003. DOWL Engineers. Traffic Calming Protocol Manual. Prepared for the Municipality of Anchorage. Anchorage, A.K: March 2001. Ewing, Reid. Traffic Calming: State of the Practice. Institute for Transportation Engineers and Federal Highway Administration. 1999. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. Program Development and Pilot Project for the City of Ithaca Citywide Traffic Calming Program. Working Paper #1, prepared for the City of Ithaca. Ithaca, N.Y: April 14, 2000. Victoria Transport Policy Institute. Traffic Calming: Roadway Design to Reduce Traffic Speeds and Volumes. TDM Encyclopedia. June 4, 2004. <http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm4.htm>

55

Regional Map of the Finger Lakes

Lake Erie

Map 1
Tompkins County and the Town of Ithaca lie within the picturesque Finger Lakes region of New York State. The Finger Lakes region is characterized by long, narrow lakes (left in the footprint of glaciers from the last Ice Age) and creeks cutting steep gorges as they flow to the lake.

Rochester

Syracuse

Conesus Lake

Honeoye Lake

SkaneatelesOtisco Lake Owasco Lake

Canandaigua Lake

Hemlock Lake

Canadice Lake

Seneca Lake

Cayuga Lake

Cortland

Map produced by: Town of Ithaca Planning Department 215 N. Tioga St. Ithaca, NY 14850

Keuka Lake

Ithaca
Legend
Hydrology

Elmira
The State of New York The State of Pennsylvania

Binghamton

Urbanized Areas Finger Lakes Counties

0
0

3.75

3.5

7.5

15 Miles 14

Data Sources: Tompkins County Information Technology Services, GIS Division.

Locations of Serious Crashes Involving Animals: 1999-2001

! ! ! ! ! ! !

Map 9
This map shows the locations of serious crashes involving animals in the Town and City of Ithaca in 1999, 2000, and 2001. Serious crashes are defined as accidents incurring $1,000 in property damage or those resulting in injuries. While the data do not specify the type of animal involved in the crash, it is likely that most or all of the animals were deer. In the rural and suburban areas of the Town, deer are plentiful. While they add to the character of the Town, they also present a safety hazard on the roadways.

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! 96 ! ! ! !

S T

! ! !

Cayuga Lake
! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !! !

S T
89
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Village of Cayuga Heights

! ! !

Town of Ithaca

! ! !

S T
79

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

S T
366

Most crashes involving animals occur on the South and West Hills, which are generally less developed that East Hill. State routes generally have more animal crashes than local roads, perhaps because of the higher traffic volumes and speeds.

City of Ithaca

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Map produced by: Town of Ithaca Planning Department 215 N. Tioga St. Ithaca, NY 14850

S T
79 !
! ! !! !

! ! ! !

13/34/96
! ! ! ! ! !

S T

S T
96B
! ! !

Data Sources: Tompkins County Information Technology Services, GIS Division; New York State Department of Transportation; New York State Department of Motor Vehicles.

Legend
First Event

!
0

Acidents Involving Animals

0.25

0.5

1 Miles

Locations of Serious Crashes: 1999-2001

Village of Cayuga Heights

Map 8
This map shows the locations of all serious crashes in the Town and City of Ithaca in 1999, 2000, and 2001. Crashes are colored based on the "first event" in the crash, that is, the object with which the motor vehicle collided to result in damage or injuries. Serious crashes are defined as accidents incurring $1,000 in property damage or those resulting in injuries. Most crashes occur on State routes, where traffic volumes and speeds are higher. Clusters of crashes occur in other areas, especially at intersections. Crash prevention requires cooperation with law enforcement and other municipalities, as many crashes occur on roads or at intersections not controlled by the Town.

96 89

Cayuga Lake

Town of Ithaca
79 366

City of Ithaca

Map produced by: Town of Ithaca Planning Department 215 N. Tioga St. Ithaca, NY 14850

79

Legend

First Event

Vehicle Animal Head Wall/ Culvert Utility Pole Signpost

Tree

Guard Rail

13/34/96

Pedestrian Bicyclist Other

Fixed Object

Earth/ rock cut/ ditch

96B

0.25

0.5

Data Sources: Tompkins County Information Technology Services, GIS Division; New York State Department of Transportation; New York State Department of Motor Vehicles.

1 Miles

Population Density, Functional Classification, and Traffic Volumes in the Town of Ithaca
96

Map 7

89

Cayuga Lake

Village of Cayuga Heights

This map superimposes population densities across the Town, the classifications of roads, and traffic volumes. The map clearly shows the relationship between the three: Roads with higher classification carry more traffic. In general, East and South Hills are more developed than West Hill. Roads in these areas also carry more traffic.
Cornell: non-residential

Town of Ithaca
79

This concept is simple, but very important to remember. As development continues, the Town willl likely experience increases in traffic unless measures are taken to interrupt this trend. High traffic burdens can negatively impact the quality of life for residents of the Town. Census tracts which show an unexpectedly high or low population density have been labeled with their landuses.

City of Ithaca

366
Cornell: non-residential

EcoVillage

Map produced by: Town of Ithaca Planning Department 215 N. Tioga St. Ithaca, NY 14850

Ithaca College

Legend

Traffic Volumes Cars/ Day

266 - 1300 1301 - 2500 2501 - 5100 5101 - 8000 8001 - 10500

Roads Classification

College View Mobile Home Park

79 13/34/96

Private/ Unclassified Urb. Principal Arterial Urb. Minor Arterial Urb. Collector Rur. Principal Arterial Rur. Minor Arterial Rur. Major Collector Rur. Minor Collector Local Roads

Population Density Persons/Acre

0-1 1-5

5 - 10

10 - 15 15 - 20 20 - 25 25 - 30 30 - 2210

Med. Density Res. Zone 10501 - 36000

96B

0.25

0.5

Data Sources: Tompkins County Information Technology Services, GIS Division; Town of Ithaca Highway Department; New Your State Department of Transportation; U.S. Census Bureau

1 Miles

Traffic Volume Data: Counter Locations & Counts

89 96

Map 6
850 509 433 524 5714

8650

34 13

30800 8450

8399

1273

Village of Cayuga Heights

5231

168

5630

871 1654 3716

This map shows the location of data collection sites across the Town, and the traffic volumes collected at each site. These data were collected between 2003 and 2006.
3519 5536

3620

376

Town of Ithaca
6450
79

5231 35400 5400

6162

4163 874

347

City of Ithaca

6247 6057 2805 9200

3518

The counts are not directly comparable to each other. Some of the data were collected by the Town of Ithaca Highway Department, while others were collected by the New York State Department of Transportation. Some of the counts represent an ADT (average daily volume), which is the average number of vehicles passing a point on the road over the course of the study. AADT, or average annual daily traffic, is an average that uses a seasonal weighting factor to extrapolate the average number of vehicles per day over the course of a year.

366

405 476 969 266 189 5300 2621 2496

4966

1219

6862 6600 1724

4228

Map produced by: Town of Ithaca Planning Department 215 N. Tioga St. Ithaca, NY 14850

455

1801 719

4350 6441 3700 6441

2778

191

219 843 267

872 1989 4686 10100

79

Legend
AADTv2

Data Collection Sites

168 - 1300 1301 - 2500 2501 - 5100 5101 - 8000

18900 161
13/34/96

16346 15646

1138

3883 2730

9000

2181

18300 17398 8600 975

1123 1102

845

977

3818 2713 4944

96B

750 2622 2350 1920

2023 2299

8001 - 10500

10501 - 36000 Cayuga_Lake_and_Inlet_Dissolve

1552

0.25

0.5

Data Sources: Tompkins County Information Technology Services, GIS Division; Town of Ithaca Highway Department; New York State Department of Transportation.

1 Miles

Functional Classification of Roads in the Town of Ithaca

IRADELL RD
RD GR OV E

Map 5
Functional Classification describes the way roads act together as a network.
SAPSUCKER WOODS RD

A FL OL WO

INDIAN CREEK RD
DR B DATES HARRIS

DR
MURIEL ST

TAREYTON DR

WINSTON DR SALEM DR

KAY ST

HAYTS RD
HOPKINS RD

t u
89
H UG TA

LISA LA

BUNDY RD

PERRY LA

AN SB UR G

RD

SHEFFIELD RD

FAIRWAY DR
CREST LA

WARREN

STA TE

TR UM

RENWICK DR

96

RO UT E

T FU

t u

13

RD

DUB E OIS

WINSTON CT

DR IGH RLE BU WINTHROP

HAPPY LA

RD

SIMSBURY DR CHRISTOPHER LA

In the functional classification scheme, local roads flow into collector roads, which flow into arterial roads. The functional classification of a road is determined by the state, with input from the local level. The classification of a road is one factor in determining its eligibility for federal funding.

S ST EA RE HO DR

SIENNA DR

MAPLEWOOD DR BIRCHWOOD DR

HANSHAW RD

UR

OW ER

ROAT ST

NO AN VD BL CK

E ROV NT G ASA PLE RD

BLUEGRASS LA

FOREST HOME

DR

FUTURE ROW

JUDD FA LLS RD

M TU RE BO AR

RD

W LD CA L EL

T POS

MAX 'S

EL H AC R

N SO AR C

WEST HAVEN RD

t u
79
DR

MECKLENBURG RD

TOWER RD

AY W

RD US RD MP EN CA YD DR

t u
366
GAME FARM RD

RD

CIR

MAPLE AVE

WOODGATE LA

VINE ST

VERA CIR
ELM ST EXT
POOLE RD

SUM M

ELM ST

E RH ILL

DREW RD

MITCHELL ST

LA

CU

LV E

ELLIS HO

LLOW

RD

RD
DR IVE WA Y RA ST

UR O

CO Y

Map produced by: Town of Ithaca Planning Department 215 N. Tioga St. Ithaca, NY 14850

RD PINE TREE

RD HUNGERFORD HILL

AIN

HONNESS LA
KEN DAL L AV E
SL AT ER VI LL E PE RD NN Y

SA

CH

LE N

R D

SN YD ER

M FAR

MO RS

JOANNE DR

INLET RD

H IL

R D

RD

DOVE DR

BOSTWICK RD
PIT
AM B ER

RD

AN TM

CA MP

LA

US

RD

JUNIPE

R DR

LA

EAS T

R ST EA

E RN

HEIG

STONE QUARRY RD

VIE W

LE DR

NORTH

M GY

RD

FIVE MI

WA Y

SEVEN MILE DR

BA NK R

LA

MIR EL

96B
DANBY RD

RI CH

PE AC HT RE E

LA

D AR

CALKINS RD

SA ND

BU

t u
SESAME ST
CH AS EL A
DAN

RD

t u
79
O GT IN DD CO N RD
TROY RD

TUDOR RD JOHN ST

MA IN

HT S

DR

Legend
No Information Urban Principle Arterial Urban Minor Arterial Urban Collector Urban Local Road

13/34/96

GR AY R

t u

RN S

IN NC MA ID R

W KING RD

TE TO N
R MA C CY

CT

ENF IELD FAL LS R D

E KING RD

N UR B

D R

RD

OL D

ING

GO RG

ER

D
UPDIKE RD

LARISA LA

RD

PARK LA

Rural Minor Arterial Rural Major Collector Rural Minor Collector Rural Local Road

T RD RES GEC RID

BY RD

WK

0.1 0.2

0.4 Miles

DAN

R BY D
ON RD COMPT

LI NE

Data Sources: Tompkins County Information Technology Services, GIS Division.

TO W N

Topography of the Town of Ithaca

Map 3
The Town's topography affects transportation by providing natural corridors, such as valleys, which assist movement. Natural boundaries, such as steep hills, present boundaries to transportation and movement. For this reason many of the patterns of movement that exist today, especially the flow of traffic through the Town and into the City, were established long ago. Today, the City of Ithaca is the economic, cultural, political, social, and educational capital of Tompkins County.

Map produced by: Town of Ithaca Planning Department 215 N. Tioga St. Ithaca, NY 14850

Legend
Town of Ithaca State Routes Lakes Creeks

Data Sources: Tompkins County Information Technology Services, GIS Division.

390
0 0.25

800 feet above sea level

0.5 1 Miles

1480

New York State, Tompkins County, and the Town of Ithaca

Map 2

VILLAGE OF GROTON TOWN OF LANSING

TOWN OF GROTON

VILLAGE OF TRUMANSBURG

Cayuga Lake

TOWN OF ULYSSES VILLAGE OF LANSING VILLAGE OF CAYUGA HEIGHTS

VILLAGE OF FREEVILLE VILLAGE OF DRYDEN

This map shows the location of Tompkins County within New York State, and the Town of Ithaca within Tompkins County. The Town is centrally located in the County with the City of Ithaca in its center. Much of the traffic in the Town is pass-through traffic on the way into or out of the City.

TOWN OF DRYDEN

TOWN OF ENFIELD

CITY OF ITHACA

TOWN OF ITHACA

Map produced by: Town of Ithaca Planning Department 215 N. Tioga St. Ithaca, NY 14850

Legend
TOWN OF CAROLINE TOWN OF NEWFIELD

Municipalities

Town of Ithaca City of Ithaca

Village of Trumansburg Town of Dryden Village of Dryden Town of Caroline Town of Danby Town of Enfield

Village of Cayuga Heights

TOWN OF DANBY

Town of Lansing Town of Groton

Village of Freeville

Village of Lansing Village of Groton Town of Ulysses

0 1 2

Town of Newfield
4 Miles

Data Sources: Tompkins County Information Technology Services, GIS Division.

X X XX

Existing and Planned Trails and Parks in the Town

XX
### ## ### ## # # ## ## # ##### ##
###

XX X

XX

Map 10
Northeast Ithaca Recreation Way Tareyton Park
WINTHROP DR

Cayuga Lake

X XX XX

##

Walkway (Undev.) Park (Undev.)

#################### ####

XX X

XX X X XX XXX

Town of Ithaca
79 U V

West Hill Park (Undev.)

Cass Park (City)

### ##

BUNDY RD

MECKLENBURG RD

WEST HAVEN RD

XX XX X XX XXX

######## #

Mitchell Street Walkway

# ###

## #

Westhaven Preserve (Undev.)

City of Ithaca

POOLE RD

## ## ## ## ##

CU LV E

RD

XX X

Dress Wood Preserve

Y CO

######

N LE

###

Glenside Preserve (Undev.)

RD G

##

XX

EN FI

ELD

FALL

S RD

AN KR D

E KING RD

XX

DB

SA N

W KIN

G RD

ELM IRA RD

# ## # ## Vincenzo Iacovelli Park # # # ## Tutelo Park # # Northview Park # ## # # ## # 1 3A V U V 96B U Buttermilk Falls ## State Park ### # Saponi Park (Undev.) Troy Park #### # ## 13/34/96 V U # #### X Chase Lane Walkway Park (Undev.) Robert ' Treman State Park Compton Park (Undev.) Finger Lakes Trail
FIVE M

RD

PINE TREE RD

BOSTWICK RD

ILE D R

RD

## #

DAN BY

SEVEN MILE DR

##### #

## ####

X XX

E KIN G

RD

TROY RD

BU R

NS

RD

## # #

## #### # ##

## #

## ## # # #### ####

X XX

## ## # #

XX

# ## ##

## # # ## ## ## #

TR UM

AN

Stewart Park (City)

Sunset Park (Village)

## #### ####Grove Walkway Pleasant

WARREN

RD

XX

13

RD

SB U

RG

## #

X XX

###

XX XX X

## ##

HAYTS RD

XX

# ## ##

##

96 V U

#####

Alan Treman State Marine Park (State)

34 U V

Cayuga Heights Park (Village) (Undev.)

# ###########

## ## # #

East Shore Park

E SI A NN

CHRISTOPHER LA

XX

# ##

Simsbury/ Texas Lane Walkway Lisa Lane Walkway

##

Sanctuary Drive Walkway ###### Salem Park

####

Woolf Park (Undev.) 89 Woolf/ Evergreen Trail (Undev.)

## ###
ISE RD O DU B

X ###X ### X ## X X X # # X ## ## XX #### ## X

V U

Dewitt Exercise Trail Sandra Place Walkway Winthrop Drive Walkway

This map shows the existing and proposed parks and trails in and around the Town of Ithaca. The "proposed trails" shown on this map are originally shown in Map 5-1, "Proposed Future Parks and Bicycle/ Pedestrian Paths in the Town of Ithaca," in the Town of Ithaca Park, Recreation, and Open Space Plan of 1997. Some of the trails serve dual purposes: recreation and transportation. Most of the trails serving transportation purposes are short trails that provide circulation for nonmotorized modes in developed areas.

## #

# ##

T EAS

R REN WAR

SHO

D RE

AN GH TAU

MURIEL ST

NO

B CK LVD

HANSHAW RD

## ## ##

V U

Village of Cayuga Heights

PL EA

DR

## ## ## ## ##

# ### ###
OV E RD

Maple Ave Walkway

SAN T GR

Forest Home Walkway

R FO ES TH OM ED R

CA L
JUDD FALLS RD

DW

EL LR D

E YD DR

NR

Cornell Plantations

Cornell Orchards

Summerhill/ East Hill Plaza Walkway
EL LIS H OLL OW R D

East Ithaca Recreation Way

Pine Tree Walkway Honness Lane Walkway

DE R HI LL RD

## ##

Winner Circle Trail

HONNESS LA
SL AT ER

## S# NY
##

Grandview Park

Hungerford Heights Park Pew Trail

Map produced by: Town of Ithaca Planning Department 215 N. Tioga St. Ithaca, NY 14850

?
#
## ####

## ## # # # ## ##########

# # ## ## ## ##

XXX XX

VIL

LE

## ### #

X XX X X X

## ## ## #### ###

a re lA ra atu kN ee ay Cr n W ile tio xM rea Si ec lR Hi l RD N

Tudor Park

uth So

79 Eastern U V Heights Park

## ## # #####

Q NE ST O

Coddington Road Community Center

RY U AR

Legend

Recreation Trails XXXFuture Black Diamond Trail

State Parks Town Parks City/ Cayuga Heights Roads

Cayuga Lake

XX X

D CO

RD

D IN

O GT

## #

### ##

# #

Town Roads Existing Town Walkways ####Proposed Trails Public Small Watercraft Launch

Non-Town Owned Natural Areas

E RID G

XX

C RE

Finger Lakes Trail

0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles

D ST R

Data Sources: Tompkins County Information Technology Services, GIS Division; Town of Ithaca Public Works Department

This corridor, identified as part of the County's Trail Corridor Study of 1996, is an important corridor into Lansing. Location of infrastructure doesn't have to be along East Shore Drive.

Warren Road has a shoulder that is marked for shared use by bicycles and pedestrians. If the opportunity arises, separate bike and pedestrian facilities are warranted.

Map 11

96 E F

O IS DU B D ER

Village of Cayuga Heights

89 E F
HAYTS RD
HANSHAW RD

Prioritized Pedestrian Corridor Needs

Town of Ithaca Tompkins County, New York

T SA N PL EA

TR

UM

AN S

BU R

Major residential developments on West Hill, BUND Y RD such as Overlook off Route 96 and Linderman Creek off Route 79, increase the need for pedestrian improvements to provide a safe, pleasant environment to walk and to connect the developments to shopping and job opportunities in the City of Ithaca.

WAR RE

N RD

RD

The Hanshaw Road corridor will lead to the future Monkey Run Trail, as shown in the County's Trail Corridor Study of 1996.

D VE R GR O

ELM ST EXT

GAME FARM RD

STO NE QUA RRY RD

FIVE MIL E DR

SEVEN MILE DR

DANBY RD

TROY RD

BU

GR AY R

BA NK

RD

ENFIELD FALLS RD

SA N

WK IN G

RD

WE

ST DA N BY

PAR K LA

RD

SHEF FIELD RD
D

Legend
Transportation Infrastructure Planned Infrastructure
CA RL

Existing Conditions
Trails & Recreation Ways Existing Bike and Ped. Facilities Finger Lakes Trail Roads Creeks Existing Town Parks Lakes

79 E F

MECKLENBURG RD

Future east-west bicycle/pedestrian corridor may be located in this vicinity, connecting the Town to the City of Ithaca. The West Hill connections show conceptual corridors; locations have not been identified.

The pedestrian facility locations in Forest Home were identified in the draft Forest Home Traffic Calming Plan of 2006, except for the southern portion of Caldwell Road. Facilities here may or may not be the Town's responsibility.

SW AY

E F
366
DE NR D

E F

Y 366 DR

City of Ithaca

Improvements (such as a crosswalk) are needed at the connection between the East Ithaca Recreation Way and City sidewalks.

Essential corridors identified with restrictive interpretation of criteria; immediate need Recommended corridors identified with broader interpretation of criteria; long-term need Approximate corridors; no time frame ! ! ! ! ! Planned Corridors (Recreation Plan) Black Diamond Trail

JU DD FA LL S RD
CA LD W L EL RD

S OS GR

ST

This segment is planned as part of Cornell's office project.

Town of Ithaca Interim Sidewalk Policy Selection Conditions: Paraphrased

For New Development> ...if any of the items listed below apply... then Planning Board may also require sidewalks on existing roads to connect into existing sidewalks: - Children walk to school; - Current or likely future presence of numerous children in an environment where, in the absence of a sidewalk, many children can be expected to be present on the road shoulder; - Bus stop within convenient walking distance; - If development is Connected to other sidewalks; - Provides access to trail system or public parks; - Safety for pedestrians .

Factors Favoring Pedestrian Infrastructure

- Higher density/ intensity of land use (Medium and high density residential, neighborhood/ office park commercial) - Located along the route of a bus - Within mile of an elementary school, assisted living facility, employment/ activity center for disabled. - Within mile of other pedestrian generators - High 85th percentile speed; limit > 25 mph - High volume/ classification (arterials, collectors, > 4,000 vpd) - Outside funding is available; hence, cost to Town is low - Links into existing or planned pedestrian network - Sufficiency of existing infrastructure

CU

LV ER

EL LIS

H OL

RD
CO YG N LE RD
SN

LO W

RD

This segment is planned as part of the Pew Trail project.

YD

EE PINE TR RD

ER

IL L

About This Map

BO ST W

I CK

This map was created by amalgamating criteria from the Interim Sidewalk Policy with factors dentified by the Town Transportation Committee affecting affecting sidewalk needs. These factors are listed in the columns on the right hand side of this map. Planning staff used their knowledge of transportation conditions in the Town to identify corridors that fit these factors. The pedestrian corridors are broken into two categories: high and low priority. Segments that easily meet the criteria and are needed for safety reasons are high priority segments; segments that meet the criteria and will play important roles in the transportation network, but are not needed immediately are low priority.

RD

For safety reasons, the Town encourages I.C. to route student foot traffic through campus, not down Rt. 96B.

79 E F
SL AT E

E F
96B
CO DD ON GT IN RD

RV

IL LE

RD

M EL

A IR

RD

For Existing Development ...if at least three of the following apply: a recommendation from the Planning Board and approval from the Town Board is also required - Convenient walking distance to place of regular public use -Link existing or planned sidewalks/walkways - Existing/ planned shoulders inadequate - Proximate access to public transit - ROW sufficient, or easement reasonably obtained - No dead-ends w/o forseeable connection - Moderate peak hour traffic (Shown as part of Ped. Circulation Plan)

Factors Against Pedestrian Infrastructure

- Detrimental to environmental resources including natural, historic, scenic, agricultural, etc. - Negative neighborhood concensus

34 E F 96 E F 13 E F

The most logical location for a connection between Eastern Heights and South Hill is along Burns Road.

Who Pays? When the benefit of a sidewalk or walkway primarily belongs to local property owners, the responsibility for the cost of construction and/ or maintenance belongs to the property owner. When the benefit extends beyong the vicinity to a broader public benefit, then the responsibility for the cost of construction and maintenance belongs to the Town.

While other South Hill developments will be able to connect into the trail system as planned, Southwoods will need a connection.

Data Sources: Tompkins County Information Technology Services, GIS Division; Town of Ithaca Public Works Department; Town of Ithaca Town Code; Town of Ithaca Transportation Committee. NAD 1983, State Plane Central. June 20, 2006

Miles 1

0.125

0.25

0.5

0.75

Short and Long Term: Short term accomplishes goals in approximately ten years. Long term accomplishes goals over twenty years. Long term projects become priorities based on changes in need or opportunity (funding, with another project, etc).

RD
A PL E

WAR RE

N RD

WEST HAVEN RD

LA VE

RA

POOLE RD

CU

ELM ST EXT

F LO

FIVE MIL E DR

DA N

BY R

SEVEN MILE DR

First, corridors in need of some type of bicycle-focused improvements were identified. Then, the corridors were ranked based on relative degree of need (safety issues, current level of bicycle traffic, etc). Improvements to high priority corridors are short-term goals, while improvements to low-priority corridors are long-term goals. This map does not recommend a specific type of treatment. Based on the characteristics of most roads in the Town, it is likely that a majority of the bicycle-focused infrastructure improvements will be improved road shoulders.

BU

NS

This map complements a map produced by the Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council (ITCTC) as part of its bicycle suitibility index project.

BA NK

RD

SA N

DIA

MO N

DT

RA IL

BL AC K

UMS CORS RD

To Town of Ulysses & Trumansburg

The sections of Rts. 89 & 34 in the Town are parts of the designated Cayuga Lake Scenic Byway. Rt. 89 is marked with "bike route" signs and currently has relatively high bike volumes.
N AN
OC

Map 12
To Village of Lansing - west
E OR SH ST EA

To Village of Lansing - east

This corridor is shown on the County's Trail Corridor Study of 1996. It leads to the western portion of the Village of Lansing. If a recreation or pedestrian way is planned, bicycles should be accomodated as part of the project. To Dryden
HANSHAW RD

Prioritized Bicycle Corridor Needs

Town of Ithaca Tompkins County, New York

TAU

GH

K AC BL

DR

KB
LV D

DIA N MO

DT IL RA

TR

UM

Route 96 is a major commuter corridor that has a low BCI. If an adequate number of access points are provided, the planned Black Diamond Trail may meet the corridor's needs (thus, the Rt. 96 corridor is only a medium priority from the City to the hospital, and a low priority from the hospital to the Town of Ulysses).

AN S

BU R

Extension to planned Monkey Run Trail

G

T SA N D VE R GR O

0.2

0.4

0.8 Miles

1.2

1.6

R
ST

Priority Horizons: High Priority: five years. Medium priority: ten years. Low priority: twenty years. Note: corridor priorities shift based on changes in need (development, demographic changes) or opportunity (funding, concurrance with another project).

CL IFF ST
CT HE

CA

LD W

To Enfield

MECKLENBURG RD

DR

YD

D NR

EL L RD

Legend
Needed Infrastructure
High Priority Medium Priority

Future east-west bicycle/pedestrian corridor may be located in this vicinity, connecting the Town of Ithaca to the City of Ithaca.

This area shows C.U. campus bike lanes.

MA P L E

Other Corridors
Existing Multi-Use Corridors * Planned Multi-Use Corridors * +

AV

Extension to Dryden Trail

DODG E RD
MITC HELL ST

Low Priority Recommended - not in Town

Background Conditions
Roads Creeks Lakes
* Intended for multiple non-motorized modes, including pedestrians & bicyclists. + Exact locations unknown.

#
EL LIS H OL LO W

Existing Infrastructure
Existing Bike Lane Existing Shoulder is Sufficient

LV ER

RD

RD

To Dryden

PIN E TR

CO

Y
E GL

City Bike Plan

Planned Bike Corridors
SN YD ER

EE RD

N
D

HONN ESS LA

IL L

BOSTW ICK RD

There is a significant existing need for a connection between I.C. & downtown

Factors that Affect Bicycle Compatibility Index (BCI)

SL AT E RV IL LE

Factors That Affect Bike Infrastructure Priorities

Existing bicycle patterns: - How many bicyclists use the road now? - How do they use the road? Recreation, transportation, both? Anticipated bicycle demand: - New res. or commercial development; - Demographic changes. Topography; Existing bottlenecks, or other constraints; Safety concerns: - Crash data; - School zones; - Other hazards. Existing opportunities - Plans to rebuild or repave the road? - Availability of funding for bike lanes or other bike programs/ infrastructure. Origin/ route/ destination information: - Connect bike traffic generators or existing bike infrastructure? - How many destinations does it serve? Residential areas, schools, parks, employment centers, or transit stops? - How direct are the routes?

RD

The facility on this segment could potentially be a multi-use trail.

About This Map

This Plan uses a holistic assessment of the Bicycle Compatibility Index (BCI) of a roadway to determine if the roadway needs bicycle-focused improvements. BCI is measured by evaluating various factors (shown below) that describe the level of comfort a bicyclist with average skills feels when using the road. Geometric and roadside data: - Number of through-lanes in one direction; - Curb lane width; - Bicycle lane or paved shoulder width; - Type of roadside development (residential?). Traffic operations data: - Posted speed limit; - 85th percentile speed; - ADT (average daily traffic); - Percentage of vehicle stream that can be defined as large vehicles (i.e. trucks, buses, etc); - Percentage of vehicle stream turning right onto driveways or other road corridors. Parking data (if applicable) (describes potential for bicyclist/ car door conflict): - Presence or absence of a parking lane; - Percentage of spaces usually occupied; - Parking time limit.

PARK L A

CO DD ON GT IN RD
RD

Route 13 carries the highest traffic volumes in the Town and is unsuitable for all but the most advanced bicyclists. The Black Diamond Trail must have a sufficient number of bicycle access points to serve this corridor.

E KING RD

The Route 96B corridor (south of King Road) is a very long term goal. Its purpose is to connect Danby to the City of Ithaca.

To Danby

To Danby & Caroline

N OSTRAND RD

Data Sources: Tompkins County Information Technology Services, GIS Division; Town of Ithaca Public Works Department; Town of Ithaca Town Code; Town of Ithaca Transportation Committee. NAD 1983, State Plane Central. March 15, 2006